fy 2009 proposed budget budget work session follow-up · fy 2009 proposed budget budget work...

FY 2009 Proposed Budget Budget Work Session Follow-up

March 11, 2008

The attached information is provided to the County Board in response to questions raised by a board member and the Civic Federation regarding vacant positions in the County. This vacancy report was created to determine how many vacancies existed in the County at a point in time and how long the positions were vacant. This analysis was done in December 2007 as part of the preparation of the County Manager’s Proposed budget. For the positions vacant more than one year, a review was done to determine why these positions remained unfilled.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up position vacancy report.doc

Vacant Positions (FTEs) as of December 8, 2007NOTE: Excludes temps, overstrengths, limited term, grant funded, non-General Fund

Dept

Became Vacant in FY 2005 or earlier

BecameVacant in FY 2006

BecameVacant

July - SepFY 2007

BecameVacant

Oct - DecFY 2007

BecameVacant

Jan - MarFY 2007

BecameVacant

Apr - JunFY 2007

BecameVacant FY

2008

TOTAL

CBO 0.00CCT 1.00 1.00CMO 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00COR 1.00 1.00 2.00CPHD 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 10.00Civil Svc Comm 0.40 0.40CWA 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.50DES 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 29.00 40.00DHS 1.00 1.50 1.00 4.50 22.05 30.05DMF 0.50 2.00 2.50DTS 0.75 5.40 6.15FIR 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 14.00GDC 0.30 0.30HRD 1.00 4.00 5.00JDR 0.50 0.50LIB 1.00 1.00 1.50 3.25 6.75OEM 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.50 12.50POL 1.10 1.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.15 21.63PRCR 2.50 7.20 5.00 2.00 3.00 14.00 33.70SRF 9.00 9.00TRS 1.00 1.00

TOTAL 9.05 14.58 13.00 11.50 10.00 22.50 125.35 205.98

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up - position vacancy report

FY 2009 Proposed Budget Budget Work Session Follow-Up

April 7, 2008

In a March 11, 2008, Budget Work Session follow-up, information was provided on vacant positions as of December 8, 2007. This information showed that almost 81 positions had been vacant prior to July 1, 2007. Attached to this is an update on vacant positions as of March 28, 2008. The March 28, 2008, information includes 71 positions that have been vacant since September 30, 2007, or earlier. Of the 71 positions described on the attachment, 8 positions are proposed for elimination. These are in addition to the 10.55 positions already offered for elimination in the February 26, 2008, Proposed Budget. The 71 positions are as follows:

• 9 positions have been held vacant for planned restructuring in the Departments of Human Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (Category 1)

• 6 positions are vacant for which recruitment has not yet begun, but for which there is an important need (Category 2)

• 34 positions are currently encumbered on an acting, developmental, or temporary basis, are being held for an existing employee, or are in active recruitment (Category 3). 7 of these 38 positions have been filled since the March 28 report date.

• 14 positions are considered part of a larger pool of positions where departments (DES, Police, OEM) are continuously hiring and which are difficult to fill and savings, if any, would be managed through credit for turnover in department budgets. (Category 4).

• 8 positions that can be eliminated. (Category 5). The 8 positions offered for elimination total 6.8 FTEs and will yield $389,000 in savings in FY 2009. NOTE: The information on positions included in Category 4 shows some positions vacant from as early as 2001 and 2004. This does not mean that the particular positions itself has been vacant since then, it means that as new crossing guards and technicians are hired, Departments will often fill the most recently vacant position and do not adjust position control to show the longest vacant position being filled. The inability to keep these positions fully staffed does not diminish the need for these positions given that the work is performed on an overtime basis by the current complement of FTEs.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\vacancy report as of 4-6 cover memo.doc

VACANCY REPORT AS OF MARCH 28

Sort category Dept Organization Job

Position Category Pos # Grade Date Vacated

1 positions held vacant for restructuring

2

3

45 positions which can be eliminated

1 DHS DHS BHC Mental Health Services Administrative Assistant IV PFTC 2621 4 19-Jun-07

1 DHS DHS Economic Independence Division Office Supervisor II PFTC 2194 8 3-Sep-061 DHS DHS EID Crisis Assistance Management Specialist II PFTC 2202 9 21-Aug-071 DHS DHS EID Customer Service Center Management Specialist III PFTC 5304 10 2-Sep-07

1 DHS DHS ADS Nursing Case Management Human Services Aide V PFTC 2600 5 1-May-071 PRCR PRCR Community Services PRCR Programmer I PFTC 4087 8 6-Aug-061 PRCR PRCR County-Wide Services Recreation Assistant II PPTC 4239 4 15-May-001 PRCR PRCR Community Services PRCR Program Manager PFTC 4084 12 27-Jun-061 PRCR PRCR Area Services Team 2 Recreation Assistant III PPTC 3844 5 2-Jul-05

2 CMO CMO County Manager's Office Deputy County Manager PFTC 25 EMAP 1-Nov-062 CMO CMO County Manager's Office Assistant County Manager PFTC 26 EMAP 7-Jan-062 CMO CMO County Manager's Office Investigator (CA&I) PFTC 37 8 7-Feb-052 DHS DHS Information System Information Systems Analyst III PFTC 2299 MAR15_11 17-Nov-062 LIB LIB Bibliographic Services Library Assistant II PPTC 3079 5 19-Aug-072 PRCR PRCR Area Services Team 4 PRCR Programmer I PFTC 3820 8 17-Apr-06

3 COR COR Business Tax Business Tax Insp I PFTC 345 7 13-Feb-073 CWA CWA Administration Information Systems Analyst II PFTC 572 MAR10_10 13-Apr-073 DES DES Transportation Management Specialist II PFTC 2009 9 29-Apr-07

3 DES DES Facilities Design and Construction Facilities Program Supervisor PFTC 2060 XMAP1 22-Sep-07

3 DES DES Real Estate Real Estate Specialist PFTC 2067 10 15-May-063 DES DES Transportation Planning Engineering Tech IV PFTC 1855 9 22-Jul-07

3 DHS DHS EID Arlington Employment Center Employment Development Specialist PFTC 2862 9 15-Apr-06

3 DHS DHS CFS Client Service Entry Administrative Technician I PFTC 2705 5 22-Jul-073 DHS DHS ADS Adult Day Programs Management Specialist III PFTC 2571 10 2-Sep-073 DHS DHS Financial Management Accounting Technician I PFTC 2326 5 24-Aug-073 DHS DHS ADS MR/DD Services Client Services Specialist PFTC 2949 9 15-Sep-073 DHS DHS BHC Mental Health Services Mental Health Therapist II PPTC 5272 10 24-Jun-073 DHS DHS BHC Outpatient Services Mental Health Therapist II PPTC 2837 10 9-Jul-073 DHS DHS EID Crisis Assistance Social Worker II PFTC 2217 10 9-Jun-073 DHS DHS EID Public Assistance Eligibility Worker I PPTC 2228 7 19-Aug-073 DHS DHS EID Crisis Assistance Mental Health Worker II PPTC 2275 8 3-Sep-063 FIR FIR Logistics Supply Assistant IV PFTC 1790 4 10-Mar-053 GDC GDC General District Court Office Aide I PPTC 485 1 3-Jun-053 HRD HRD Compensation Human Resources/OD Specialist PFTC 256 70 29-Oct-063 LIB LIB Columbia Pike Library Librarian Supervisor III PFTC 3027 13 30-Sep-07

3 OEM OEM Office of Emergency Management Fire/EMS Captain I PFTC 1466 MAR15_12 15-Oct-06

3 POL POL Operations Division Police Corporal PFTC 1155 MAR5_10 2-Jul-073 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard II PPTC 1234 4 19-Apr-043 PRCR PRCR Sports Sports Division Chief PFTC 3634 SMAP 12-Jan-06

3 PRCR PRCR Parks and Natural Resources Management Specialist I PFTC 3505 8 16-Sep-073 PRCR PRCR Park Management Trades Worker III PFTC 3513 3 31-Aug-073 PRCR PRCR Facilities and Construction Trades Program Supervisor III PFTC 3587 12 15-Jul-063 PRCR PRCR County-Wide Services PRCR Programmer II PFTC 4225 9 2-Sep-063 PRCR PRCR Area Services Team 4 PRCR Programmer II PFTC 3815 9 3-Jun-073 PRCR PRCR Community Services PRCR Programmer II PFTC 4075 9 22-Sep-073 PRCR PRCR County-Wide Services PRCR Programmer I PPTC 4227 8 12-Aug-073 PRCR PRCR Area Services Team 4 Recreation Services Supervisor PFTC 3827 13 26-Aug-063 PRCR PRCR Facilities and Construction Trades Worker IV PFTC 3539 4 11-Jul-053 SRF SRF Administration Administrative Assistant IV PFTC 624 4 30-Sep-07

4 DES DES Transportation Engineering and Operations Trades Worker IV PFTC 2016 4 4-Aug-07

positions considered part of a larger pool of positions where departments and continuously hiring and which are difficult to fill; savings should be managed through credit for turnover

positions that, if eliminated, will require future Board action or funding to fill, and will perform important activities that must be completedvacancies currently encumbered on an acting, developmental or temporary basis, or being held for an existing employee, or in active recruitment

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Vacancy Report Working File as of 4-6-08

VACANCY REPORT AS OF MARCH 28

Sort category Dept Organization Job

Position Category Pos # Grade Date Vacated

1 positions held vacant for restructuring

2

3

45 positions which can be eliminated

positions considered part of a larger pool of positions where departments and continuously hiring and which are difficult to fill; savings should be managed through credit for turnover

positions that, if eliminated, will require future Board action or funding to fill, and will perform important activities that must be completedvacancies currently encumbered on an acting, developmental or temporary basis, or being held for an existing employee, or in active recruitment

4 DES DES Water Sewer and Streets WSS Technician II PFTC 1949 72 31-Jul-074 DES DES Water Sewer and Streets WSS Technician IV PFTC 1960 74 7-Aug-074 DES DES Water Sewer and Streets WSS Technician V PFTC 1985 75 13-Dec-044 DES DES Facilities Management Stationary Watch Engineer PFTC 131 MAR15_6 26-Sep-074 OEM OEM Emergency Communications Emergency Communications Technician III PPTC 1457 8 20-Jul-054 OEM OEM Emergency Communications Emergency Communications Technician III PPTC 1458 8 20-Jul-054 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1233 2 8-May-014 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1232 2 4-Apr-054 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1214 2 8-Oct-054 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1217 2 2-Jun-074 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1221 2 29-Jun-074 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1216 2 28-Aug-074 POL POL Special Operations School Crossing Guard I PPTC 1231 2 5-Sep-07

5 CMO CMO Human Rights Investigator HR/EEO PFTC 5015 10 4-Nov-06

5 CPHD CPHD Planning SectionPlanning Program Coordinator [NOTE: only 0.4 of the 1.0 FTE will be eliminated] PFTC 3364 13 20-Aug-06

5 CSC CSC Civil Service CommissionAdministrative Assistant IV [0.4 FTE position] PPTC 239 4 19-Mar-04

5 CWA CWA Commonwealth's Attorney Management Specialist IV PFTC 576 11 4-Nov-02

5 DTS DTS Department of Technology Services Administrative Assistant III PPTC 237 3 19-Jun-00

5 PRCR PRCR Area Services Team 2 PRCR Programmer I PFTC 3816 8 22-Jul-075 PRCR PRCR Area Services Team 1 Recreation Assistant III PFTC 3834 5 19-Apr-045 PRCR PRCR Sports Programming PRCR Programmer II PFTC 3655 9 20-Nov-05

NOTE: Does not include temporaries, overstrengths, or vacancies which occurred after 9/30/07

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Vacancy Report Working File as of 4-6-08


March 10, 2008

The attached information is provided in response to a request by Mary Hynes for information on the number of permanent, temporary, part-time and grant funded FTEs, permanent and temporary salary funds budgeted, and consultant funds budgeted in the FY 2009 proposed budget, as well as the number of employees in the DROP program. In reviewing this information, please note the following:

• Permanent and temporary base salaries includes salary funding only – it excludes fringe benefits, premium pays and overtime.

• Consultant funds are used differently by different departments – some of these funds may be used to pay for consultants to do one-time studies on various issues, while in other cases they may be used for individuals who provide ongoing or intermittent services to clients or the staff.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up - FTE and salary information for MH 3-3-08.doc

s

f

FY 2009 Proposed Budget - Budgeted FTEs and Salaries; Employees in DROP

(NOTE: All are General Fund unless otherwise noted)

Permanent FTEs

Temporary FTEs

TOTAL FTE's

Permanent Base Salarie

Temporary Base

SalariesConsultant

Funds

Number of Budgeted

PermanentPart-time

FTEs

Number oBudgeted

PermanentGrant

FundedFTEs

Number of Employees

in the DROP

Program by Dept.

County Board 8.00 8.00 $481,036 $3,000County Manager 35.50 35.50 3,067,407 149,054 1.50 4.00Management & Finance 55.00 55.00 3,919,204 221,492 1.00 2Technology Services 68.75 68.75 6,186,568 4,088,702 1.75Human Resources 51.50 51.50 3,945,846 198,569 4.50 4Civil Service Commission 0.40 0.40 11,107 0.40County Attorney 12.00 12.00 1,332,047 418,000Circuit Court 34.05 0.30 34.35 1,984,966 23,268 4,000 2.05 2General District Court 1.50 1.50 63,628 100 0.70Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court 53.00 4.50 57.50 3,190,433 194,911 13,774 4.00 3.00 2Commonwealth's Attorney 39.50 0.50 40.00 2,938,711 14,545 4,000 0.50 7.00Sheriff 270.00 4.80 274.80 16,921,917 166,395 200,717 5.00 1Sheriff - Jail Industries Fund 3.00 3.00 173,308Commissioner of Revenue 56.00 56.00 3,453,263 1,000 1Treasurer 62.75 0.40 63.15 3,920,405 13,579 20,000 0.75 1Electoral Board 6.60 1.80 8.40 344,374 105,110 161,010 0.60 1Office of Emergency Management 72.50 72.50 4,160,537 2.50 7.00 1Police 469.00 7.00 476.00 31,038,273 132,039 108,741 12.00 3.00 13Fire 321.00 0.30 321.30 23,750,074 47,818 726,934 13.00 10Environmental Services 383.00 8.00 391.00 24,012,109 312,984 865,099 3.00 17DES - Utilities Fund 220.50 2.20 222.70 11,798,664 40,820 252,000 0.50DES - Auto Fund 61.00 61.00 3,493,755DES - Printing Fund 10.00 10.00 525,689Human Services 689.84 3.00 692.84 43,089,803 118,200 2,443,939 62.24 91.97 16DHS - Section 8 Fund 17.40 17.40 966,194 21,809 17.00Libraries 135.61 22.19 157.80 7,424,988 706,941 87,280 30.61 3Economic Development 21.00 21.00 1,721,982 100,000AED - Travel & Tourism Promotion Fund 10.00 0.80 10.80 733,503 39,102 24,000Community Planning, Housing & Dev. 90.00 90.00 6,381,807 197,582 1.50 0.50 3CPHD - Community Development Fund 6.50 6.50 467,334 250 5.50CPHD Development Fund 85.00 85.00 5,514,207 276,356Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources 278.20 123.50 401.70 15,221,116 4,293,771 1,079,589 20.30 11Non-Departmental 596,500

COUNTY TOTAL 3,628.10 179.29 3,807.39 $232,234,255 $6,209,483 $12,263,497 150.4 156.97 88

NOTE: Permanent Base Salaries include salaries only; excludes fringe benefits, overtime and other premium pays

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up - FTE and salary information for MH 3-3-08


March 24, 2008

The attached information was provided to the Civic Federation in response to questions raised as they review the FY 2009 proposed budget. Information is included on the following topics:

• County application, referral and hire data • Data on County employee turnover by year, employment group and

reason • Arlington’s pay scale minimum and maximum salaries by grade compared

to other jurisdictions • Arlington’s salary midpoint compared to other jurisdictions by position

class • Health care premiums across jurisdictions

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\A.11 follow-up - compensation material sent to Civic Federation.doc

Applications / Referrals / Hires

2004* 2005 2006** 2007

# applications 20,579.00 20,806.00 18,334.00 23,696.00

# referrals 5,320.00 6,804.00 6,234.00 8,181.00

# hires 305.00 554.00 555.00 551.00

Average time to startgeneral 77.60 78.80 69.70 74.50 public safety 180.20 253.20 218.80 290.40

*Conversion year to Neogov** freeze for last months of year

Data from Neogov

TURNOVERGENERAL POPULATION

FY Total EE Total Terms Death Dismiss Layoff Resign Ret1997 3144 314 6 16 5 226 61

9.99% 1.91% 5.10% 1.59% 71.97% 19.43%

1998 3142 332 3 8 5 243 7110.57% 0.90% 2.41% 1.51% 73.19% 21.39%

1999 3067 316 6 12 4 235 5910.30% 1.90% 3.80% 1.27% 74.37% 18.67%

2000 3048 334 1 12 5 242 7410.96% 0.30% 3.59% 1.50% 72.46% 22.16%

2001 3168 350 6 12 4 255 7411.05% 1.71% 3.43% 1.14% 72.86% 21.14%

2002 3194 304 5 16 4 217 629.52% 1.64% 5.26% 1.32% 71.38% 20.39%

2003 3287 296 3 15 10 198 709.01% 1.01% 5.07% 3.38% 66.89% 23.65%

2004 3336 324 5 20 11 208 809.71% 1.54% 6.17% 3.40% 64.20% 24.69%

2005 3386 405 4 24 9 264 10411.96% 0.99% 5.93% 2.22% 65.19% 25.68%

2006 3444 394 3 13 15 263 10011.44% 0.76% 3.30% 3.81% 66.75% 25.38%

2007 3454 369 3 17 11 255 8310.68% 0.81% 4.61% 2.98% 69.11% 22.49%

TRADESTotal Terms Death Dismissal Layoff Resign Retire

1997 415 35 0 4 2 20 98.43% 0.00% 11.43% 5.71% 57.14% 25.71%

1998 406 36 1 3 1 24 78.87% 2.78% 8.33% 2.78% 66.67% 19.44%

1999 389 23 0 0 0 19 45.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 82.61% 17.39%

2000 388 29 0 1 2 16 107.47% 0.00% 3.45% 6.90% 55.17% 34.48%

2001 380 25 2 1 1 11 106.58% 8.00% 4.00% 4.00% 44.00% 40.00%

2002 388 40 3 0 1 28 810.31% 7.50% 0.00% 2.50% 70.00% 20.00%

2003 381 40 0 3 1 22 1410.50% 0.00% 7.50% 2.50% 55.00% 35.00%

2004 385 37 1 2 0 24 109.61% 2.70% 5.41% 0.00% 64.86% 27.03%

2005 385 48 0 3 0 31 1412.47% 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% 64.58% 29.17%

2006 380 44 0 2 2 30 1011.58% 0.00% 4.55% 4.55% 68.18% 22.73%

2007 417 31 1 1 0 22 77.43% 3.23% 3.23% 0.00% 70.97% 22.58%

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

Total Terms Death Dismissal Layoff Resign Retire

1997 1928 208 5 6 3 168 2610.79% 2.40% 2.88% 1.44% 80.77% 12.50%

1998 1926 207 1 3 4 167 3810.75% 0.48% 1.45% 1.93% 80.68% 18.36%

1999 1893 184 2 6 3 148 249.72% 1.09% 3.26% 1.63% 80.43% 13.04%

2000 1865 226 1 8 3 175 3912.12% 0.44% 3.54% 1.33% 77.43% 17.26%

2001 1984 226 4 2 3 180 3711.39% 1.77% 0.88% 1.33% 79.65% 16.37%

2002 1992 208 2 5 3 148 5010.44% 0.96% 2.40% 1.44% 71.15% 24.04%

2003 2089 212 4 11 10 138 4910.15% 1.89% 5.19% 4.72% 65.09% 23.11%

2004 2106 215 4 12 10 139 5010.21% 1.86% 5.58% 4.65% 64.65% 23.26%

2005 2148 270 4 13 9 183 6112.57% 1.48% 4.81% 3.33% 67.78% 22.59%

2006 2234 268 3 7 10 168 8012.00% 1.12% 2.61% 3.73% 62.69% 29.85%

2007 2183 272 2 10 11 192 5712.46% 0.74% 3.68% 4.04% 70.59% 20.96%

UNIFORMED SHERIFFTotal Terms Death Dismissal Layoff Resign Retire

1997 211 22 0 3 0 16 310.43% 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 72.73% 13.64%

1998 212 40 0 1 0 37 218.87% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 92.50% 5.00%

1999 189 34 0 6 1 24 317.99% 0.00% 17.65% 2.94% 70.59% 8.82%

2000 192 28 0 3 0 22 314.58% 0.00% 10.71% 0.00% 78.57% 10.71%

2001 201 41 0 8 0 31 220.40% 0.00% 19.51% 0.00% 75.61% 4.88%

2002 199 26 0 5 0 21 013.07% 0.00% 19.23% 0.00% 80.77% 0.00%

2003 196 23 0 3 2 16 211.73% 0.00% 13.04% 8.70% 69.57% 8.70%

2004 208 22 0 6 0 16 010.58% 0.00% 27.27% 0.00% 72.73% 0.00%

2005 208 31 0 6 0 18 714.90% 0.00% 19.35% 0.00% 58.06% 22.58%

2006 205 28 0 3 2 22 113.66% 0.00% 10.71% 7.14% 78.57% 3.57%

2007 202 21 0 4 0 15 210.40% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 71.43% 9.52%

UNIFORMED POLICETotal Terms Death Dismissal Layoff Resign Retire

1997 337 31 1 0 0 17 139.20% 3.23% 0.00% 0.00% 54.84% 41.94%

1998 338 27 1 0 0 13 137.99% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 48.15% 48.15%

1999 348 27 0 0 0 17 107.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 62.96% 37.04%

2000 354 28 0 0 0 15 137.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 53.57% 46.43%

2001 340 38 0 1 0 24 1311.18% 0.00% 2.63% 0.00% 63.16% 34.21%

2002 341 21 0 1 0 15 56.16% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 71.43% 23.81%

2003 340 29 0 0 0 21 88.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 72.41% 27.59%

2004 346 27 0 0 1 16 107.80% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% 59.26% 37.04%

2005 350 32 0 0 0 26 69.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 81.25% 18.75%

2006 342 34 0 0 0 30 49.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 88.24% 11.76%

2007 349 28 0 2 0 17 98.02% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 60.71% 32.14%

UNIFORMED FIRETotal Terms Death Dismissal Layoff Resign Retire

1997 253 18 0 3 0 5 107.11% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 27.78% 55.56%

1998 260 14 0 1 0 2 115.38% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 14.29% 78.57%

1999 248 15 0 0 0 6 96.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%

2000 255 23 0 0 0 14 99.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.87% 39.13%

2001 263 20 0 0 0 8 127.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%

2002 263 9 0 0 0 5 43.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 55.56% 44.44%

2003 281 16 0 1 0 6 95.69% 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% 37.50% 56.25%

2004 291 23 0 0 0 13 107.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 56.52% 43.48%

2005 295 24 0 2 0 6 168.14% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 25.00% 66.67%

2006 283 20 0 1 1 13 57.07% 0.00% 5.00% 5.00% 65.00% 25.00%

207 302 17 0 0 0 9 85.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 47.06%

Employee Turnover - FY 2007

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

All Emplo

yees

Trad

es

Gen

eral

She

riff

Police

Fire

County Government Turnover1994 - 2000

8.64%9.45%

8.22%

9.99%10.57% 10.30%

10.96%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fiscal Year

Turnover DataGeneral Population

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Empl

oyee

s

Retire 66 69 61 61 71 59 74Resign 180 199 179 226 243 235 242Layoff 5 3 2 5 5 4 5Dismissal 9 13 15 16 8 12 12Death 7 10 4 6 3 6 1

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1

EXIT INTERVIEW DATA

Second Half of FY07 (January 2007 through June 2007)

# OF SEPARATIONS #OF RETURNS RETURNED BY P.O. % OF RETURNS 261 41 10 % of responses by type of position held: Trades: 4 General: 21 Management: 7 Clerical: 4 Public Safety: 4 Unknown: 1 Type of gaining organization: City/County: 3 State Gov’t: 4 Federal Gov’t: 1 Not for Profit: 4 Private Ind.: 5 Retired: 7 Univ/Public School: 2 Self-Employed: 4 Stay @ Home Mom: 2 Not Employed 4 No Comment: 5 Would you recommend Arlington County as a place to work? Yes: 30 No: 3 Unk 8 Would you work for Arlington County again? Yes: 34 No: 5 Unk: 2 Do you feel you understood what the job involved before you began working? Yes: 32 No: 5 Unknown: 4

2

Top Three Reasons for Leaving:

Reason 1st

Actual Number 2nd

Actual Number 3rd

Actual Number TOTALS

Benefits 2

Career Advancement 1 3 1

Commuting 2

Cty’s Retirement Prog. 1 1

Family Circumstances 2 2

I am Retiring (Dis Ret) 13

Job Duties/Respons. 1

Lack of Flextime 1 2

Lack of Telecommuting

Leave Accrual 1

Limited Term Appt 9 1

Parking 1

Relocated to diff Area 2

Salary 1 2 1

School (full time) 3 3

Self-employment

Supervision 5 2 2

Trainee Period-Incomp. 1

Training

Working Conditions 2 1

Working Hours 2 2

Workload 2

Top Three Reasons for Leaving Summary: REASON TOTALS

1. I am Retiring -- Relocated to Diff Area & Supervision (15)

(% each)

2. Salary (2) % 3. Career Adv -- Family Circumstances (24)

% (% each)

Constructed Minimum and Maximum Payscales by Jurisdictional Group

grade min max 75th%ile min max 75th%ile min max 75th%ile min max 75th%ile min max1 20,467.20$ 33,800.00$ 28,236.00$ 21,289.94$ 35,182.06$ 29,136.50$ 21,968.92$ 36,304.08$ 29,315.40$ 22,103.81$ 36,526.99$ 27,770.70$ 20,939.11$ 34,602.29$ 2 22,193.60$ 36,670.40$ 32,196.00$ 24,275.78$ 40,116.22$ 33,135.00$ 24,983.79$ 41,286.21$ 33,361.80$ 25,154.80$ 41,568.80$ 31,807.40$ 23,982.78$ 39,632.02$ 3 24,918.40$ 41,184.00$ 36,156.00$ 27,261.62$ 45,050.38$ 37,133.50$ 27,998.66$ 46,268.34$ 37,408.20$ 28,205.78$ 46,610.62$ 35,844.10$ 27,026.45$ 44,661.75$ 4 27,664.00$ 45,676.80$ 40,116.00$ 30,247.46$ 49,984.54$ 41,132.00$ 31,013.53$ 51,250.47$ 41,454.60$ 31,256.77$ 51,652.43$ 39,880.80$ 30,070.12$ 49,691.48$ 5 30,867.20$ 51,001.60$ 44,076.00$ 33,233.30$ 54,918.70$ 45,130.50$ 34,028.40$ 56,232.60$ 45,501.00$ 34,307.75$ 56,694.25$ 43,917.50$ 33,113.80$ 54,721.21$ 6 33,966.40$ 56,139.20$ 48,036.00$ 36,219.14$ 59,852.86$ 49,129.00$ 37,043.27$ 61,214.73$ 49,547.40$ 37,358.74$ 61,736.06$ 47,954.20$ 36,157.47$ 59,750.93$ 7 37,190.40$ 61,464.00$ 51,996.00$ 39,204.98$ 64,787.02$ 53,127.50$ 40,058.14$ 66,196.87$ 53,593.80$ 40,409.73$ 66,777.87$ 51,990.90$ 39,201.14$ 64,780.66$ 8 40,268.80$ 66,580.80$ 55,956.00$ 42,190.82$ 69,721.18$ 57,126.00$ 43,073.00$ 71,179.00$ 57,640.20$ 43,460.71$ 71,819.69$ 56,027.60$ 42,244.81$ 69,810.39$ 9 43,368.00$ 71,718.40$ 59,916.00$ 45,176.66$ 74,655.34$ 61,124.50$ 46,087.87$ 76,161.13$ 61,686.60$ 46,511.70$ 76,861.50$ 60,064.30$ 45,288.48$ 74,840.12$ 10 46,592.00$ 77,043.20$ 63,876.00$ 48,162.50$ 79,589.50$ 65,123.00$ 49,102.74$ 81,143.26$ 65,733.00$ 49,562.68$ 81,903.32$ 64,101.00$ 48,332.15$ 79,869.85$ 11 49,816.00$ 82,388.80$ 67,836.00$ 51,148.34$ 84,523.66$ 69,121.50$ 52,117.61$ 86,125.39$ 69,779.40$ 52,613.67$ 86,945.13$ 68,137.70$ 51,375.83$ 84,899.57$ 12 53,040.00$ 87,672.00$ 71,796.00$ 54,134.18$ 89,457.82$ 73,120.00$ 55,132.48$ 91,107.52$ 73,825.80$ 55,664.65$ 91,986.95$ 72,174.40$ 54,419.50$ 89,929.30$ 13 56,139.20$ 92,809.60$ 75,756.00$ 57,120.02$ 94,391.98$ 77,118.50$ 58,147.35$ 96,089.65$ 77,872.20$ 58,715.64$ 97,028.76$ 76,211.10$ 57,463.17$ 94,959.03$ 14 59,113.60$ 97,718.40$ 79,716.00$ 60,105.86$ 99,326.14$ 81,117.00$ 61,162.22$ 101,071.78$ 81,918.60$ 61,766.62$ 102,070.58$ 80,247.80$ 60,506.84$ 99,988.76$ 15 61,963.20$ 102,440.00$ 83,676.00$ 63,091.70$ 104,260.30$ 85,115.50$ 64,177.09$ 106,053.91$ 85,965.00$ 64,817.61$ 107,112.39$ 84,284.50$ 63,550.51$ 105,018.49$ 16 64,688.00$ 106,932.80$ 87,636.00$ 66,077.54$ 109,194.46$ 89,114.00$ 67,191.96$ 111,036.04$ 90,011.40$ 67,868.60$ 112,154.20$ 88,321.20$ 66,594.18$ 110,048.22$ 17 67,267.20$ 111,238.40$ 91,596.00$ 69,063.38$ 114,128.62$ 93,112.50$ 70,206.83$ 116,018.18$ 94,057.80$ 70,919.58$ 117,196.02$ 92,357.90$ 69,637.86$ 115,077.94$ 18 69,888.00$ 115,544.00$ 95,556.00$ 72,049.22$ 119,062.78$ 97,111.00$ 73,221.69$ 121,000.31$ 98,104.20$ 73,970.57$ 122,237.83$ 96,394.60$ 72,681.53$ 120,107.67$ 19 72,612.80$ 120,057.60$ 99,516.00$ 75,035.06$ 123,996.94$ 101,109.50$ 76,236.56$ 125,982.44$ 102,150.60$ 77,021.55$ 127,279.65$ 100,431.30$ 75,725.20$ 125,137.40$ 20 75,462.40$ 124,758.40$ 103,476.00$ 78,020.90$ 128,931.10$ 105,108.00$ 79,251.43$ 130,964.57$ 106,197.00$ 80,072.54$ 132,321.46$ 104,468.00$ 78,768.87$ 130,167.13$ 21 78,436.80$ 129,667.20$ 107,436.00$ 81,006.74$ 133,865.26$ 109,106.50$ 82,266.30$ 135,946.70$ 110,243.40$ 83,123.52$ 137,363.28$ 108,504.70$ 81,812.54$ 135,196.86$ 22 81,536.00$ 134,784.00$ 111,396.00$ 83,992.58$ 138,799.42$ 113,105.00$ 85,281.17$ 140,928.83$ 114,289.80$ 86,174.51$ 142,405.09$ 112,541.40$ 84,856.22$ 140,226.58$ 23 85,259.20$ 140,816.00$ 115,356.00$ 86,978.42$ 143,733.58$ 117,103.50$ 88,296.04$ 145,910.96$ 118,336.20$ 89,225.49$ 147,446.91$ 116,578.10$ 87,899.89$ 145,256.31$ 24 91,436.80$ 151,195.20$ 119,316.00$ 89,964.26$ 148,667.74$ 121,102.00$ 91,310.91$ 150,893.09$ 122,382.60$ 92,276.48$ 152,488.72$ 120,614.80$ 90,943.56$ 150,286.04$

Virginia (Alex, Ffx, Loud & PWm) Alex, Ffx, Mont, PG Alex, Ffx, Loud, PG & PWmArlington Alex, Ffx, Mont, PG, Loud, PWm

Arlington Midpoint and LGPA 75th Percentile by Class

Class Title Gr Arlington Midpoint

Alex, Ffx, Loud, PW

75th % % ahead % behind

Alex, Ffx, Mont, PG, Ldn, PWm 75th %

% ahead % behind

Alex, Ffx, Mont, PG

75th % % ahead % behind

Alex, Ffx, Loud, PG, PWm 75th

% % ahead % behind

2222 Custodian 2 29,432$ 32,428$ -9.2% 33,059$ -11.0% 32,286$ -8.8% 32,113$ -8.3%1260 General Clerk 2 29,432$ 33,244$ -11.5% 33,049$ -10.9% 33,109$ -11.1% 33,146$ -11.2%2151 Laborer, Heavy 2 29,432$ 34,404$ -14.5% 34,492$ -14.7% 34,672$ -15.1% 34,360$ -14.3%2151 Trades Helper 2 29,432$ 34,492$ -14.7% 34,853$ -15.6% 34,853$ -15.6% 33,982$ -13.4%1263 Office Support Spec 3 33,051$ 37,558$ -12.0% 39,642$ -16.6% 40,217$ -17.8% 36,516$ -9.5%5025 Public Services Aide 3 33,051$ 38,262$ -13.6% 38,262$ -13.6% 38,262$ -13.6% 38,262$ -13.6%8355 Survey Aide 3 33,051$ 36,101$ -8.4% 37,615$ -12.1% 37,615$ -12.1% 36,029$ -8.3%2822 Truck Driver 3 33,051$ 39,193$ -15.7% 41,525$ -20.4% 42,105$ -21.5% 38,027$ -13.1%1324 Warehouse Worker 3 33,051$ 36,173$ -8.6% 37,579$ -12.0% 37,579$ -12.0% 38,282$ -13.7%4135 Account Clerk 4 36,670$ 40,590$ -9.7% 41,367$ -11.4% 40,217$ -8.8% 39,642$ -7.5%1045 Data Entry Oper 4 36,670$ 37,558$ -2.4% 38,908$ -5.7% 39,091$ -6.2% 39,091$ -6.2%7021 Library Asst 4 36,670$ 38,847$ -5.6% 39,642$ -7.5% 40,792$ -10.1% 38,847$ -5.6%2516 Maintenance Tech 4 36,670$ 39,815$ -7.9% 42,281$ -13.3% 44,094$ -16.8% 38,582$ -5.0%2413 Painter 4 36,670$ 45,491$ -19.4% 43,477$ -15.7% 43,477$ -15.7% 43,477$ -15.7%5041 Security Guard 5 36,670$ 33,997$ 7.9% 37,469$ -2.1% 40,257$ -8.9% 34,497$ 6.3%2411 Carpenter 5 40,934$ 45,332$ -9.7% 45,491$ -10.0% 46,665$ -12.3% 45,252$ -9.5%2824 Equip Operator Heavy 5 40,934$ 45,135$ -9.3% 46,833$ -12.6% 47,948$ -14.6% 44,286$ -7.6%1121 Personnel Tech I 5 40,934$ 43,870$ -6.7% 43,870$ -6.7% 42,179$ -3.0% 43,870$ -6.7%2521 Plumber 5 40,934$ 45,413$ -9.9% 46,666$ -12.3% 47,839$ -14.4% 45,333$ -9.7%1265 Secretary 5 40,934$ 41,681$ -1.8% 42,202$ -3.0% 42,522$ -3.7% 42,289$ -3.2%2923 Tree Trimmer 5 40,934$ 43,125$ -5.1% 44,673$ -8.4% 44,673$ -8.4% 41,964$ -2.5%2426 Electrician 6 45,068$ 47,153$ -4.4% 48,998$ -8.0% 50,183$ -10.2% 46,493$ -3.1%8312 Engineering Tech 6 45,068$ 46,345$ -2.8% 49,893$ -9.7% 50,566$ -10.9% 49,862$ -9.6%6683 Nutritionist 6 45,068$ 53,231$ -15.3% 60,177$ -25.1% 60,177$ -25.1% 57,020$ -21.0%9412 Paralegal I 6 45,068$ 55,907$ -19.4% 57,403$ -21.5% 61,900$ -27.2% 55,158$ -18.3%3153 Planning Technician 6 45,068$ 48,042$ -6.2% 52,415$ -14.0% 54,969$ -18.0% 46,421$ -2.9%2572 Printer 6 45,068$ 45,773$ -1.5% 45,833$ -1.7% 45,968$ -2.0% 45,473$ -0.9%2723 Traffic Sign Fabricator 6 45,068$ 38,100$ 18.3% 40,872$ 10.3% 41,229$ 9.3% 39,892$ 13.0%1181 Admin Technician 7 49,327$ 50,155$ -1.7% 49,682$ -0.7% 50,377$ -2.1% 49,756$ -0.9%1003 Computer Specialist 7 49,327$ 54,649$ -9.7% 55,482$ -11.1% 55,482$ -11.1% 54,649$ -9.7%8313 Drafter 7 49,327$ 47,054$ 4.8% 47,534$ 3.8% 47,608$ 3.6% 47,534$ 3.8%6662 Eligibility Worker I 7 49,327$ 49,578$ -0.5% 52,516$ -6.1% 55,170$ -10.6% 52,516$ -6.1%7233 Rec Assistant IV 7 49,327$ 50,768$ -2.8% 50,031$ -1.4% 48,450$ 1.8% 50,768$ -2.8%2722 Traffic Signal Repairer 7 49,327$ 51,018$ -3.3% 49,158$ 0.3% 49,158$ 0.3% 51,018$ -3.3%1310 Warehouse Coord 7 49,327$ 54,716$ -9.8% 57,597$ -14.4% 57,597$ -14.4% 59,038$ -16.4%5303 Community Inspector III 8 53,425$ 55,800$ -4.3% 57,968$ -7.8% 59,309$ -9.9% 54,716$ -2.4%6663 Eligibility Worker II 8 53,425$ 54,440$ -1.9% 57,331$ -6.8% 60,501$ -11.7% 59,982$ -10.9%5034 Emer Serv Disp 8 53,425$ 53,873$ -0.8% 54,980$ -2.8% 55,761$ -4.2% 54,746$ -2.4%1015 Info Systems Analyst I 8 53,425$ 63,180$ -15.4% 59,329$ -10.0% 59,329$ -10.0% 61,255$ -12.8%2671 Machinist 8 53,425$ 52,241$ 2.3% 50,513$ 5.8% 50,513$ 5.8% 50,513$ 5.8%1278 Office Supervisor II 8 53,425$ 53,944$ -1.0% 64,254$ -16.9% 66,994$ -20.3% 59,053$ -9.5%7511 Park Naturalist 8 53,425$ 55,647$ -4.0% 55,647$ -4.0% 57,350$ -6.8% 55,647$ -4.0%6555 Pub Health Lab Tech 8 53,425$ 57,350$ -6.8% 60,889$ -12.3% 60,889$ -12.3% 55,647$ -4.0%

Recreation Specialist 8 53,425$ 55,961$ -4.5% 58,354$ -8.4% 59,052$ -9.5% 57,529$ -7.1%5060 School Cross Guard Supv 8 53,425$ 54,073$ -1.2% 55,748$ -4.2% 52,735$ 1.3% 55,748$ -4.2%8357 Survey Party Chief I 8 53,425$ 55,244$ -3.3% 55,101$ -3.0% 55,101$ -3.0% 54,302$ -1.6%5313 Bldg Const Insp 9 57,543$ 60,110$ -4.3% 62,345$ -7.7% 62,679$ -8.2% 58,210$ -1.1%5304 Building Inspector 9 57,543$ 56,025$ 2.7% 58,643$ -1.9% 57,639$ -0.2% 54,716$ 5.2%1083 Employment Svcs Spec 9 57,543$ 57,201$ 0.6% 57,201$ 0.6% 57,201$ 0.6% 57,201$ 0.6%6511 Environm Health Spec 9 57,543$ 63,493$ -9.4% 64,568$ -10.9% 65,428$ -12.1% 62,956$ -8.6%5403 Highway Const. Insp 9 57,543$ 56,824$ 1.3% 57,403$ 0.2% 58,889$ -2.3% 56,534$ 1.8%8352 Land Surveyor I 9 57,543$ 57,201$ 0.6% 64,124$ -10.3% 64,124$ -10.3% 61,791$ -6.9%7012 Librarian 9 57,543$ 56,025$ 2.7% 59,952$ -4.0% 57,583$ -0.1% 56,025$ 2.7%6113 Public Health Nurse 9 57,543$ 65,405$ -12.0% 66,004$ -12.8% 65,428$ -12.1% 65,106$ -11.6%4107 Accountant 10 61,818$ 65,361$ -5.4% 65,873$ -6.2% 66,196$ -6.6% 65,106$ -5.1%

Budget Analyst 10 61,818$ 67,026$ -7.8% 68,470$ -9.7% 67,720$ -8.7% 66,304$ -6.8%8214 Civil Engineer 10 61,818$ 67,296$ -8.1% 71,797$ -13.9% 74,005$ -16.5% 68,357$ -9.6%

HR/EEO Specialist 10 61,818$ 67,026$ -7.8% 68,470$ -9.7% 68,045$ -9.2% 66,304$ -6.8%6322 Mental Health Ther 10 61,818$ 60,703$ 1.8% 65,690$ -5.9% 67,348$ -8.2% 62,956$ -1.8%3114 Planner 10 61,818$ 66,173$ -6.6% 66,260$ -6.7% 66,196$ -6.6% 66,129$ -6.5%4611 Real Estate Appraiser 10 61,818$ 60,078$ 2.9% 60,473$ 2.2% 63,595$ -2.8% 60,456$ 2.3%6614 Social Worker 10 61,818$ 62,148$ -0.5% 64,204$ -3.7% 66,273$ -6.7% 60,079$ 2.9%6120 Sr Public Health Nurse 10 61,818$ 67,330$ -8.2% 66,817$ -7.5% 67,243$ -8.1% 67,330$ -8.2%1300 Buyer 11 66,102$ 63,040$ 4.9% 63,348$ 4.3% 64,738$ 2.1% 63,040$ 4.9%8321 Cartographer II 11 66,102$ 67,516$ -2.1% 67,516$ -2.1% 67,516$ -2.1% 67,516$ -2.1%3620 Development Spec II 11 66,102$ 68,290$ -3.2% 70,923$ -6.8% 70,923$ -6.8% 68,290$ -3.2%8215 Engineer IV 11 66,102$ 77,880$ -15.1% 82,351$ -19.7% 83,585$ -20.9% 83,081$ -20.4%4415 Financial Analyst I 11 66,102$ 65,361$ 1.1% 66,094$ 0.0% 71,935$ -8.1% 66,129$ 0.0%2560 Printing Section Supv 11 66,102$ 70,364$ -6.1% 78,460$ -15.7% 78,460$ -15.7% 85,144$ -22.4%6510 Environ Health Supv 12 70,356$ 73,413$ -4.2% 77,609$ -9.3% 80,963$ -13.1% 81,524$ -13.7%4101 Accounting Supv 13 74,474$ 74,307$ 0.2% 83,383$ -10.7% 88,974$ -16.3% 76,147$ -2.2%3119 Planning Program Coord 13 74,474$ 80,633$ -7.6% 82,265$ -9.5% 84,649$ -12.0% 83,081$ -10.4%7120 Rec Services Supv 13 74,474$ 68,290$ 9.1% 67,670$ 10.1% 67,670$ 10.1% 68,290$ 9.1%6140 Nursing Bureau Chief 15 82,202$ 86,914$ -5.4% 89,354$ -8.0% 89,913$ -8.6% 89,913$ -8.6%

Updated 11/1/07

Updated 11/1/07

Updated 11/1/07

Kaiser - HMO

Signature

CIGNA HMO

CIGNA POS

Kaiser - HMO Select

CIGNA POS

CIGNA PPO

HMO (Kaiser

& Optimu

m Choice)

POS (Kaiser

& Optimu

m Choice)

PPO (MAMSI)

HMO (Kaiser

& CIGNA)

PPO (CareFir

st)

POS (CareFir

st)

HMO (Anthem

HMO-20)

PPO (Anthem PPO 20

&15)

POS HDHP w/HSA

Kaiser HMO

COVA HMO

COVA POS

COVA HDHP

Total Monthly Costs (Premium)

Single $371 $363 $411 $412 $444 $475

Kaiser - $377 OC - $397

Kaiser - $436 OC - $459

$487 $390/$375 $529 $452 $342 $362/$3

98 $533 $499 $434 $437 $447 $350

2-party $742 $727 $822 $824 $887 $950 n/a n/a n/a $760/$732 $1,039 $889 $712

$610

$759/$834

$651/$715

$1,067 $997 $803 $809 $823 $648

Family $1,076 $1,045 $1,182 $1,195 $1,441 $1,542

Kaiser - $889 OC - $936

Kaiser - $1020 OC -

$1073

$1,139 $1093/$1130 $1,529 $1,307 $1,017 $1085/$

1192 $1,334 $1,246 $1,172 $1,182 $1,201 $947

Employer's Subsidy for Active Employees

75% for single,

73% for two-

party or family

95% for single;

75% for 2

party/family

90% for single;

70% for 2

party/family

90% for single, 83% for two party and family (average)

96% for single; 89% for two-party and family (average); in addition County contributes to HSA accounts - $800- single; $1600 - all others

88% for Single; 86% for 2-party & family

100% of premium for all levels of coverage.

$ 297 $ 290 $ 308 $ 317 $ 342 $ 366 $340-357

$392-413 $ 438 $332-

319 $ 450 $ 384 $ 326 $326-358 $ 480 $ 480 $ 391 $ 393 $ 393 $ 350

$ 579 $ 568 $ 600 $ 601 $ 647 $ 693 n/a n/a n/a $570-549 $ 779 $ 667 $ 496 $456-

584 $ 907 $ 907 $ 699 $ 704 $ 708 $ 648

$ 840 $ 816 $ 862 $ 813 $ 980 $ 1,048 $800-842

$918-966 $ 1,025 $820-

961 $ 1,147 $ 980 $ 759 $760-834 $ 1,034 $ 1,033 $ 1,020 $ 1,028 $ 1,033 $ 947

Employee Monthly Contribution

Single $74 $73 $103 $95 $102 $109

Kaiser - $ 38 OC - $40

Kaiser - $97 OC - $102

$130 $57 $79 $68 $16 $36/$72 $53 $18 $42 $42 $52 $0

2-party $163 $159 $222 $223 $240 $257 n/a n/a n/a $186 $260 $222 $180 $155

$228/$303

$195/$259

$160 $90 $102 $103 $117 $0

Family $236 $229 $320 $383 $461 $494

Kaiser - $89 OC - $94

Kaiser - $219

OC - $ 231

$297 $278 $382 $327 $258 $326/$433 $300 $213 $146 $147 $166 $0

Employer's Subsidy for Retirees w/ 25 YOS, pre-medicare, single

$297 $290 $308 $ 317 $342 $366 $479

Not availabl

e to retirees

Not availabl

e to retirees

1. Red = Worse than Arlington, Green = Better than Arlington

Arlington Government Arlington Schools Alexandria

Updated 11/1/07

Prince William Loudoun VRSFairfax (1/1/08 Rates)

Single: 77%, 2 Party: 73%, Family: 68%

90%

Updated 11/1/07 Updated 11/1/07 Updated 11/1/07

85% for single, 75% for two-party or family

90% for Single; 87% for 2-party &

family

Employer Monthly Contribution Amounts - Active

80% for single, 78% for two-party

or family

Single

2-party

Family

$260 $220 $210 $100

Overall Notes:


April 4, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised regarding compensation based on the March 20th work session presentation. QUESTION: How are current Chapter 21 retirees and current Chapter 21 active employees affected by the proposal? What is the “crossover” principle and how does it work? ANSWER: There are no changes proposed for any active or retired Chapter 21 members. “Crossover” is the point in retirement in which a Chapter 21 retiree’s benefit, when calculated using the Chapter 46 formula, is greater under Chapter 46 than it is under Chapter 21. At this point in time, we “crossover” the retiree to the higher benefit. (The crossover occurs mainly because the COLA on Chapter 46 is larger, so eventually, the greater benefit of Chapter 21 erodes because the Chapter 21 COLA is lower.) QUESTION: How do COLA’s work for current retirees under Chapter 21 and Chapter 46? Does the COLA affect overall liability in the pension fund? ANSWER: The Chapter 21 Ordinance provides retirees a 1.5% COLA every July 1 following one full year after retirement. The Chapter 46 Ordinance provides retirees a COLA tied to the US Average CPI-Urban and is equal to the first 3% of the increase plus half of each percentage increase from 3% to 12% up to a maximum increase of 7.5%. The COLA does affect the overall liability in the plan. QUESTION: What steps are being taken to form a trust fund for OPEB benefits? ANSWER: In 2007 the County worked with surrounding jurisdictions to draft and advocate adoption of legislation guiding the adoption of an OPEB trust by localities. Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-1544, et seq. The Manager is currently reviewing options under this legislation and will have a recommendation to the Board on formation of a Trust Fund. The Manager is also consulting with the Superintendent of Schools and plans discussions with the Virginia Municipal League and the Arlington County Employee Retirement Board on possible approaches. QUESTION: If the Manager’s proposal is adopted, how will the County’s overall OPEB liability appear on the next CAFR? What will be the Schools’ liability? ANSWER: The County’s OPEB liability will be described, with updated numbers, similarly to Note 17 in the current CAFR. The total unfunded actuarial liability, the net

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\A.18 follow-up - Board Q&A on compensation part 1, 4-4-08.doc

OPEB obligation and the estimate of pay as you go benefits will be updated consistent with the actuarial assumptions provided to the County Board in handout A.12. QUESTION: How does the combination of changes in the Manager’s proposal impact take home pay of public safety employees, general employees at grade 10 and general employees at grade 5? ANSWER:

CURRENT PROPOSED

Title Grade

Base Gross

Earnings FLSA

OT CIGNA Delta

Dental Net

Base Gross

Earnings FLSA

OT

CIGNA and

Delta Dental Net difference

Plant Operator II 5 $1,961.60 $111.00 $6.20 $1,844.40 $1,961.60 $234.00 $1,727.60 $ (116.80)

2 Party POS

2 party POS

Firefighter/ EMT II MAR15_8 $2,544.09 $144.10 $36.29 $3.00 $2,648.90 $2,602.30 $147.30 $39.00 $2,710.60 $ 61.70

Single HMO

Single HMO

Management Specialist III 10 $2,101.60 $114.94 $8.70 $1,977.96 $2,169.60 $139.00 $2,030.60 $ 52.64

Family HMO

Family HMO

Police Corporal MAR_10 $2,840.00 $79.94 $6.20 $2,753.96 $2,905.60 $99.00 $2,806.60 $ 52.74

2 Party HMO

2 Party HMO

QUESTION: What information is available regarding proposals to expand deductibles in order to help save CIGNA POS spending? What efforts have been made to expand the availability of HMO’s? ANSWER: The County Manager has convened a cross-departmental group of employees to look at options for reducing the overall cost of the POS plan. Options such as adding in-network deductibles and increasing co-payments will be explored for reducing the cost of the plan. Doubling of the existing deductibles, $300-single/$600-family, would save $14,000 annually. Regarding the expansion of HMO availability, we are collecting names of physicians from employees and retirees for CIGNA. So far we’ve collected about 50 physician names for CIGNA to contact for possible network participation. Cigna added over 1,000 providers in Virginia during 2007. QUESTION: What is the volume of overtime for all employees (not just public safety)? ANSWER:

Total Base Pay in FY2007 $210,831,066 Total Base Pay in FY2007 for employees reporting OT $105,348,729 Total Overtime $14,375,076Total Employees Reporting some OT 2,102Total Employees Paid 4,979



QUESTION: How will people in the DROP program be treated under the Manager’s proposal? ANSWER: There are various ways that those in DROP could be handled. Nothing has been proposed to date, but we have looked at allowing those in DROP to receive the higher accrual rate upon termination from the County. QUESTION: What are the distinctions that make Arlington an attractive employer, besides pay? ANSWER:

Flexible work arrangements (part-time, alternative schedules, job sharing and telecommuting)

Health Smart Wellness Program (including free use of state-of-the-art gym, multi-purpose exercise studios, Weight Watchers at Work)

Live Where You Work program (incentive to employee to purchase/rent home in Arlington)

Training & Development program consisting of numerous classroom courses, long-term certificate programs, leadership development programs and on-site computer training. (Creating a Corporate University structure in FY09)

Partnership with local universities for MPA Cohort (County funds 75% of in-state tuition); County-funded advanced Microsoft Office course at NVCC

County-funded GED and ESL programs Tuition reimbursement of $1600/year Living wage program that guarantees a minimum salary of $12.75 Transportation program that subsidizes up to 75% of alternative transportation costs Walk/bike to work incentive Dependent care assistance program Credit Union College Savings Plan Retirement investment consultants on-site Flexible spending account (healthcare costs not covered by insurance and

dependent care cost on pre-tax basis) Long-term care and life insurance Leave for vacation, sick, parental and newborn, military, civil and jury duty, disability

and 12 paid holidays Employee discounts for cell phones, Dell computers, Enterprise Rent-a-Car,

discounted movie tickets and services, discounts at County gyms, pools and PRCR programs

Health and dental insurance Retirement plans including a defined benefit component, a 401(a) plan, a 457

deferred compensation plan (with employer match component) and DROP Employee Assistance Program offering support for a wide range of personal and

work-related issues Language premium pay.


March 21, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the March 20th budget work session regarding the changes from the FY 2008 adopted budget to the FY 2008 revised budget used in the County Manager’s FY 2009 proposed budget. The following shows the revisions included in the FY 2008 revised budget. As mentioned in the discussion at the work session, these are structural fixes to the budget, approved by the County Board as supplemental appropriations, which have an ongoing impact beyond the current fiscal year. Department Description Amount Date of County

Board Approval CPHD DEDUCT FROM GENERAL

FUND: Budget transferring to Enterprise Fund (CPHD Development Fund)

$6,442,786 Sept. 8, 2007, agenda item 48

County Atty ADD: Additional County Attorney position

$151,994 1.0 FTE

Nov. 27, 2007 – FY 2007 closeout report, Att. 2, item I

Fire ADD: Funding for personal protective clothing, Westnet maintenance, supplies

$298,700 Nov. 27, 2007 – FY 2007 closeout report, Att. 2D

DES ADD: Facilities maintenance funding

$200,000 Nov. 27, 2007 – FY 2007 closeout report, Att. 2D

PRCR and HR

Move Healthsmart Program from Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources to the Human Resources Dept.

$199,336 2.0 FTEs

Nov. 27, 2007 – FY 2007 closeout report, Att. 2, item L

Non-Dept. and Fire

Move Fire contingent out of Non-Departmental to the Fire Department

$590,929 Nov. 27, 2007 – FY 2007 closeout report, Att. 2, item G

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\A.9. follow-up - changes to get to FY 2008 revised budget.doc


March 13, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised by a Board member requesting the percent and number of employees currently using the various health plan options.

Plan # Employees % Total EnrolledCIGNA HMO 1,653 (72%)CIGNA POS 663 (28%)Total CIGNA 2,316 80%Kaiser Permanente 581 20%Total 2,897 100%

Plan Coverage #Employees % Total Enrolled Individual 1,202 42%Individual + 1 1,079 37%Family 616 21%Total 2,897 100%

Plan Coverage #Retirees % Total EnrolledIndividual 221 16%Individual + 1 227 17%Family 119 9%1 on Medicare 399 30%2 on Medicare 241 18%1 Non Med + 1 Med 129 10%Other(Non-standard) 6 -Total 1,342 100%

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksession materials for the web\A.10_follow-up_-_HR_response_to_MH_3-10_e-mail_-_#6_only.doc

Mid-Year Third QuarterFY 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009

REVENUEReal Estate-Appreciation $2,795,160 $1,206,120 $2,460,486 BPOL $1,800,000 $688,500 Personal Property ($850,000) $500,000 Sales Tax $470,030 $0 Recordation Tax (net of incremental to housing) $300,120 0 ($300,120)Cigarette Tax ($400,000) $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $596,439 $300,000 Meals Tax $0 ($250,000)Commercial Utility Tax (net of incremental to PAYG) $192,308 $153,846 Communications Tax $753,779 $200,000 Total Local Tax Revenue $3,857,836 $3,909,967 $2,848,866

Interest Income $750,000 ($2,000,000)Other / Misc. ($1,529,658) $1,828,709 Parking Meters ($250,000)Wireless E-911 $364,000 Photo Red Light $200,000 State $55,807 ($1,159,661)Highway Aid $900,000 ($848,188)Federal $717,648 $250,000 Total Non-Tax Revenue ($6,203) $2,728,709 ($3,443,849)

Total Revenue Adjustments $3,851,633 $6,638,676 ($594,983)

EXPENDITURESExpense Adjustments $171,222 Set-Aside GF Operating Reserve ($1,053,319)Total Expenditure Adjustments ($1,053,319) $0 $171,222

School Share of Tax Revenue (net of G.F. Reserve) ($980,253) ($1,773,364) ($1,370,304)Net Revenue Available to County $1,818,061 $4,865,312 ($1,794,066)

Available One-Time Funds for FY 2008

FY 2008 FY 2009Adjustment to AHIF (recordation tax) $199,880 ($199,880)Adjustment to PAYG (commercial utility tax) $103,846

Additional Real Estate Revenue if Board Adopts $.02 Rate Increase $5,738,746 $11,706,365

Notes:1) Revised real estate assessment base growth in 04/2008 increased FY 2008 & FY 2009 projections

3) Rapid decline in interest rates negatively affect FY 2009 revenue projections (-$2.0 million)4) State cuts as of 04-05-2008 negatively affect Arlington by $2.0 million in FY 20095) Lower projected debt issuance in May 2008 saves $0.2 million in FY 2009

MID-YEAR & THIRD-QUARTER REVIEW

$6,683,373

2) Other Tax Adjustments - Higher BPOL receipts received in Mar/Apr. '08; continued strength in transient occupancy, commercial utility and communications tax.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.10.Third Quarter Review - FY 2008To Board


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 1, 2008 regarding Housing Development expenditures. On page 26 of the Proposed Budget Executive Summary, there is a line for Housing Development expenditures (AHC, APAH, etc.) – is this comparable to the development fees that profit-making developers usually claim? What groups are eligible for this? (Favola) The funding shown on the Housing Development expenditures line and developer fee matters are separate issues. The Housing Development budget line shows Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds provided to three nonprofit housing development corporations -- AHC, Robert Pierre Johnson (RPJ), and Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing (APAH). These funds are in addition to developer fees that the nonprofits, who act as developers, incorporate into a project’s cost. These fees are commonly charged by nonprofit and for-profit developers to sustain the overall operation of the developer. Because developer fees vary by project, the fees cannot be counted on to sustain a nonprofit organization between projects. CDBG funds in the Housing Development expenditures line cover a small portion of the nonprofits’ administrative and program delivery costs to develop affordable housing. Although the CDBG funds don’t sustain the nonprofits, the funding level has been fairly constant and is awarded in two year cycles. It is unlikely this support would be provided to any additional nonprofit developers in the near future, as CDBG funds continue to decline. Developer fees on tax credit deals are typically in the 9% to 10% of total cost range. Projects such as AHC’s Fairview Manor and APAH’s Courthouse Crossings projects had fees of $2.5 million and $2.7 million respectively with 50% of those fees deferred and paid out as cash flow over a 10 year period. Buckingham Village I had a fee of $3.6 million but Paradigm’s entire fee is deferred over 12 years as part of their cash flow. These fees also stand as a completion guarantee for the project. In contrast, RPJ recently asked for no fee on a simple acquisition/minor rehab of a 9 unit building which was financed almost entirely with subsidized monies and no tax credits. They will rely on a larger share of cash flow to support their operations.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\A.20._follow-up housing development.doc


March 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the February 26 board meeting regarding how our proposed fees compare to fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions for comparable services. Also included is additional information regarding swimming pool fees. For several of the fee increases proposed for FY 2009—including water service connection fees and fire inspection fees—neighboring jurisdictions have such different ways of imposing fees, that it is impossible to make meaningful comparisons across jurisdictions. In addition, the afore-mentioned fees, like many fees in Arlington, are intended to fully recover the cost of the service being provided. However, several fees, including taxicab license fees, ambulance service fees, pool rental fees and fitness membership fees, can be more readily benchmarked against those in neighboring jurisdictions, as shown below. Note that all these fees except pool rental fees are proposed to increase in FY 2009. Also included is a response to the inquiry regarding the fees collected for swimming that is retained by the County even though the Schools maintain the pools. Taxicab license fees Arlington County’s taxicab licensing fees have not been increased since 1996. However, the expense of licensing supplies and equipment has increased over the past several years. The proposed fee increases are an attempt to recover more of the costs associated with providing taxicab licensing services while maintaining an overall fee structure that is competitive with neighboring jurisdictions.

FY09 Taxicab Licensing Fees

Arlington County

Proposed Rates

FY2009

Arlington County Current Rates

FY 2008

City of Alexandria

Rates Adopted in

CY 2007

Montgomery County Rates

Adopted in CY 2007

Fairfax County

Proposed Rates

FY 2009

Fairfax County Rates

Adopted in CY 2007

TESTING FEES Application Fee $25.00 $0.001st Test $50.00 $30.00 $100.00 $20.00 $40.00 $20.00Retest $25.00 $15.00 $25.00 $20.00 $0.00 $0.00 LICENSING FEES

New Licenses * * $150.00 $50.00 * *Renewal (1 yr.) $40.00 $20.00 $150.00 $75.00 $40.00 $30.00Renewal (2 yr.) $40.00** $20.00** $150.00** $150.00 $40.00** $30.00**Duplicate Licenses

$20.00 $10.00 $25.00 $25.00 $15.00 $15.00

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.1. follow-up all fee comparisons.doc

INSPECTION FEES

Arlington County

Proposed Rates

FY2009

Arlington County Current Rates

FY 2008

City of Alexandria

Rates Adopted in

CY 2007

Montgomery County Rates

Adopted in CY 2007

Fairfax County

Proposed Rates

FY 2009

Fairfax County Rates

Adopted in CY 2007

New Car $50.00 $10.00 $100.00 No Charge $20.00 ***Existing Car $50.00 $10.00 $150.00 No Charge $20.00 ***Change of Vehicle

$50.00 $10.00 $100.00 No Charge $25.00 $25.00

First No Charge No Charge No Charge No Charge No Charge No ChargeFail 2nd No Charge No Charge No Charge $25.00 No Charge No ChargeFail 3rd No Charge No Charge No Charge $75.00 No Charge No ChargeFail 4th No Charge No Charge No Charge $150.00 No Charge No ChargeANNUAL CERTIFICATION FEES

No Charge No Charge No Charge No Charge $150.00 $150.00Combined Insp./Cert.

Fee * - Fee is included in cost of taking 1st Test ** - In several jurisdictions, including Arlington County, a 2 year license renewal is provided at the cost of a 1 year license renewal for taxicab drivers who have not received any tickets during the previous license period. *** - Inspection Fee is combined with Annual Certification Fee.

Ambulance Service Fees The table below summarizes how Arlington’s proposed increases to ambulance service fees for basic life support emergency (BLS), advanced life support-1 emergency (ALS-1), advanced life support-2 emergency (ALS-2), and charge per mile compare with those of Fairfax County and the cities of Alexandria and Fairfax. The fees that Arlington charges were last increased as part of the FY 2006 budget.

Comparison of Local Emergency Medical Service Transport Fees

Jurisdiction BLS ALS-1 ALS – 2 Charge Per Mile Comments Arlington County $400 $500 $675 $10.00 FY 09 Proposed Fairfax County $400 $500 $675 $10.00 FY 09 Proposed City of Alexandria $400 $500 $675 $10.00 FY 09 Proposed City of Fairfax $400 $500 $675 $8.50 effective February 1, 2008


Fitness membership The table below summarizes how Arlington’s current and proposed annual fitness membership fees compare with those in Fairfax County, the City of Alexandria, and selected private gyms.

CurrentArlington Fees

Proposed FY 2009Arlington Fees

CurrentFairfax Fees

CurrentAlexandria Fees Private Clubs*

Residents$95 Senior Adult$145 Adult

Residents$110 Senior Adult$170 Adult

Residents$494 Senior Adults$576 Adults

Residents$260 Senior Adults$434 Adults(includes pool use)

GOLD’S GYM (Arl): $49/month ($588 annually), enrollment fee $199. SPORT and HEALTH CLUB (various locations in Metro area): $67.50-$79.95/month (approx $840 annually), enrollment fee $199.

Non-Residents$225 Senior Adult$420 Adult

Non-Residents $260 Senior Adults$485 Adults

Non-Residents$823

Non-Residents$520 Senior Adult$868 Adult

ENERGY CLUB (Shirlington): $69/month ($828 annually) with $199 sign up fee, $79/month for month to month, $49/month between hours of 11am-4 pm.BALLEY's TOTAL FITNESS (various locations in Metro area): $60/month ($720 annually), enrollment fee $205.

Senior adult starts at 55 years

Senior adult starts at 55 years

Large facilities include pools. Senior adult starts at 60 years

CURVES (Arl): $50/month ($600 annually), enrollment fee $30.

*None of the clubs charge a fee for drop-in group exercise classes, but all of the jurisdictions listed above do.


Pool & pool lane rental The table below summarizes how Arlington’s current and proposed pool rental and pool lane rental compare with those in Fairfax and Montgomery counties, the City of Alexandria, and Washington, DC. Note that Arlington is not proposing an increase in pool or pool lane rental fees this year.

ProgramCurrentArlington Fees

CurrentFairfax Fees

CurrentAlexandria Fees

CurrentDC Fees

Current Montgomery Fees

Pool Lane Rental

Lanes: 50 meter pool $21 per hour

Lanes: 25 meter pool $19 per hour;50 meter pool $47.50 per hour

Lanes: 25 meter pool $18 per hour.

Lanes: Resident $12 per hour;Non-resident $20 per hour

Does not rent lanes

Pool Rental Entire pool $112 per hour(requires minimum of two lifeguards @ $24 per hour)

Entire pool $380 per hour

Entire pool Resident $75;Non-resident $100;Staff fees: Mon-Fri $35 per hour, Sat/Sun/ Hols $45 per hour

Does not rent an entire pool

County groups and MCPS $90 per hour;Non-profit groups $100 per hour;Private groups $110 per hour.

County staff did not increase fees related to swimming because they did not believe the current condition and circumstance of the various pools warranted an increase. Specifically, the pool at Washington-Lee is under construction, Yorktown’s pool is in poor condition (a new pool is in the design stage), and Wakefield’s pool needs rehabilitation as well. Regarding the issue of whether the County incurs any costs associated with the swimming pools or if all the costs are borne by the Schools, the County through the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (PRCR) administers the community’s use of the pools. PRCR provides operation management and lifeguards during community swim and aquatics instruction hours, while the Schools pay the facility related costs (such as utilities and maintenance). In FY 2007, PRCR spent $1.046 million on operating and administering the community’s pool use. It collected $613,000 in swimming related fees.



March 18, 2008

The information on the following page is a regional budget and tax tracking comparison for the Northern Virginia jurisdictions. This information was not requested by the Board but has been provided in past years to help the Board understand what other local jurisdictions are considering for their real estate tax rate. This information is current as of Tuesday, March 18, 2008.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.3. follow-up regional assessment & tax comparison.doc

Regional Residential Assessment & Tax Tracking – Calendar

Average Residential Assessment CY 2007a

CY 2007 Tax Rate

AssessmentsMailed

Average Residential Assessment CY 2008a

Residential Assessment

Change

Date of Budget

Presentation

CY 2008 Proposed Tax Rate

Tax Rate Change

Proposed Commercial

Transportation Tax Rate

Date of Tax Rate Adoption

Arlington County

$537,500

$0.818

January 16

$530,800

-1.2%

February 26

$0.838/$.852b

$0.034b

$.125

April 19 Alexandria City $509,593 $0.830

mid February $498,670 -2.1% February 12 $.83 / $.86c $0 / $.02

$.02 May 5

Fairfax City $495,313 $0.72 mid March $462,622 -6.6% March 11 $0.835 $0.115

- April 8

Fairfax County $542,744 $0.89

mid February $524,076 -3.4% February 25 $0.92 $0.03

$.12 April 28 Falls Church

$703,800 e $1.01

late February $674,300 d -4.2% March 10 $1.04 $0.03

- April 21

Loudoun County $487,187 $0.96

early February $447,605 -8.1% February 11 $1.216 $0.256

- April 1

Prince William County $409,428 $0.8379f early March $344,000 -16.0% February 26 $1.0767e $0.2388

- April 29

Footnotes: a Except as otherwise noted, average residential assessments include detached homes, condominiums and townhouses. b Arlington’s advertised real estate tax rate for CY 2008 is $.838 ($.02 increase). There is an additional ad valorem tax rate proposed of $.014 to fund a sanitary district. c The higher rate in Alexandria was proposed for an “alternative budget” with a 1% MPA for city and schools employees, plus an additional $3.1 million for operating expenses. d Falls Church’s average home values are for detached homes only. e Prince William’s real estate rate includes proposed add-ons for gypsy moth suppression and fire and rescue. In CY 2008, these add-ons are $.0025 for gypsy moths and $.0622 for fire and rescue.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.3. follow-up regional assessment & tax comparison.doc

Talking Points Sanitary Tax District vs. Stormwater Utility March 2008 Why is a Sanitary District tax preferable to a Stormwater Utility to fund stormwater initiatives? A Sanitary District tax will be faster and more cost-effective to implement than a Stormwater Utility. • County’s Sanitary District taxing authority has been available since 1930’s and provides

dedicated funding for stormwater projects more quickly than a stormwater utility. • A Stormwater Utility:

o could take over a year to implement; o would require major modifications to the County’s Water & Sewer billing

system; and, o needs additional staff to administer credit or exemption policies and review disputes

over the amount of impervious area on a property. A Sanitary District tax is less complex, easier to understand. • Sanitary District tax, based on real property value, is straightforward and perceived as a

logical basis of taxation for broad public purposes like stormwater management. • Stormwater utility rates based on the amount of impervious surfaces must be

carefully crafted to avoid arbitrariness and inequitable cost burdens, and are more complex and difficult to explain.

• Major public education and outreach effort would be needed to inform property owners about how fees are calculated, and to educate the community about the impacts of impervious surfaces on the stormwater management system.

• Stormwater Utility based on impervious surfaces may impose a greater burden on garden apartments and other affordable housing structures, and small businesses.

A Sanitary District tax does not preclude incentive programs and future Stormwater Utility • Although differential tax rates to encourage reductions in impervious area cannot be

directly incorporated into the proposed Sanitary District tax due to limitations in the state tax code, it will still be possible to create programs to encourage beneficial stormwater management practices.

• Examples include education and outreach programs (e.g., rain barrel workshops), or partnering with non-governmental organizations to provide recognition or financial incentives by offering rebates.

• Adoption of a Sanitary District tax at this time does not preclude adoption of a Stormwater Utility if regulatory requirements change in the future.


March 20, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the March 20 budget work session regarding anticipated revenue from the new $100 tax on vehicles registered in Arlington, but bearing out of state license plates. The County Board appropriated $5,000 in revenue and expenses for implementation of the $100 license tax in FY 2008. No revenue or expenses are proposed for FY 2009. It is difficult to project revenue from this tax with any degree of accuracy. Residents whose vehicles have out of state plate will have the option of paying the $100 tax to the County or $79.50 to the state. Thus, compliance may not result in significant additional revenue for the County. We know that Chesterfield County, with a population of slightly over 300,000, used to impose a similar tax, which raised roughly $10,000 per year.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.5_follow-up license tax.doc


April 1, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 20th work session regarding the projection of the future funding streams from the cable franchise agreements. The County currently has cable franchise agreements with Comcast, RCN Communications, and Verizon—the latter being added in the FY2007. The County receives general fund revenue from the State communication tax as part of the franchise agreements, and those dollars are based on 5% of the gross revenue of each cable provider. In the last few months of reporting, Comcast’s subscribers and revenues have stayed steady despite the emergence of Verizon as a competitor in the Arlington market. Comcast expect subscribers to grow 1-2% per year. Verizon anticipates growth of nearly 20% per year over the next couple of years, therefore growing the total base number of subscribers in Arlington County, leading to increased revenue. PEG Funding In addition to the revenue mentioned above that is deposited to the General Fund, cable franchisees provide the County a grant to support the County’s institutional network (I-Net) and the public, educational, and government (PEG) channels. These funds are capital funds and are appropriated at the end of the year in the closeout process. Dollars reflected for FY 2009 and FY 2010 are estimates. COMCAST PEG REVENUE As part of the Comcast franchise agreement, specific PEG beneficiaries were identified. The amounts established for those beneficiaries were set in 2000, and increase each year by the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U) as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The beneficiaries in the Comcast agreement are Arlington Independent Media (AIM), Arlington Public Schools (APS) and Arlington County’s AVN and Department of Technology Services. Below is the PEG dollar amount per beneficiary and the 3 year history of each:

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.7_follow up - PEG.doc

PEG Recipient

Purpose Growth FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Estimates

FY 2010 Estimates

AIM Capital

For needed capital purchases to ensure the operability of the AIM channel (Capital, pass through to AIM)

CPI over previous year

$120,327 $125,140 $129,529 $134,053

Government Capital (AVN and DTS)

For needed capital purchases to ensure the operability of the County’s government channels (Capital)


$120,327 $125,140 $129,520 $134,053

Education Capital (APS)

For needed capital purchases to ensure the operability of the APS channel (Schools Capital)


$120,327 $125,140 $129,520 $134,053

I-Net Capital Grant-Schools (APS)

Funds for capital purchase of I-Net (Institutional Network) related purchases (Schools Capital)


$67,856 $70,570 $73,040 $75,597

I-Net Capital Grant-DTS (AVN and DTS)

Funds for capital purchase of I-Net (Institutional Network) related purchases (Capital)


$67,856 $70,570 $73,040 $75,597

Total $496,692 $516,560 $534,639 $553,352 VERIZON PEG REVENUE As part of the Verizon PEG agreement, Verizon agreed to pay the County $1.38 per subscriber per month. In analyzing Verizon’s penetration into this market, it was estimated that Verizon’s annual subscription would grow 20%, but the low number of subscribers would not provide the County with significant PEG contributions until midway through FY 2009. As a result, Verizon agreed to pay the County a $200,000 credit up front in lieu of monthly subscriber payment. That credit is expected to be exhausted halfway through FY 2009, when subscribers reach an estimate of 12,000 per month. PEG Recipient

Purpose Growth FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Estimates

FY 2010 Estimates

County Capital

$1.38 per subscriber per month

$200,000 $0 $72,000 $240,000

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.7_follow up - PEG.doc


March 31, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question from Mr. Fisette regarding why the proposed tax relief for low-emissions vehicles is based on designation as a “clean special fuel” vehicle and not based on gas mileage. The benefits of applying the additional tax relief to “clean special fuel” vehicles as designated by the state Department of Motor Vehicles rather than another criteria, such as fuel efficiency, are two-fold. First, using a third party like the DMV to determine which vehicles are eligible for additional relief allows the County to more easily administer the benefit. And second, this structure allows the County to offer tax relief across different classes of vehicles. First, the administrative burden of determining miles per gallon figures for the many various years, models, and engine types among vehicles registered would be onerous. The Clean Fuels distinction is readily available and is already in use in other jurisdictions that have a similar tax break. Our consistency provides a consistent signal to a larger market. Second, the clean special fuel designation applies to most, but not all hybrids. The only hybrid vehicles not designated as clean special fuel vehicles are very large SUVs, such as the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid. This de facto hybrid exemption provides an incentive across many vehicle sizes and styles. From the Civic, Prius and Camry to the Escape, Highlander, and Lexus SUVs, there are more fuel-efficient options across a variety of price points and vehicle capabilities. If a vehicle is going to travel 10,000 miles a year, moving from an 18 mpg vehicle (base Highlander) to a 27 mpg vehicle (hybrid Highlander) is arguably better (saving 185 gallons of fuel) than going from a 30 mpg vehicle to a 40 mpg vehicle (saving 83 gallons of fuel). Moreover, given public tastes in vehicles, particularly among families with small children or individuals with other specific needs for whom a very small vehicle like a Prius may not be a viable option, improving mileage within vehicle classes is arguably a more effective strategy for encouraging wise consumer decisions. Finally, to clarify a potential misunderstanding in Mr. Cottle’s original email, last year, the County Board approved an identical proposal to provide additional tax relief to owners of clean fuel vehicles. The Manager is only proposing that the Board reauthorize this previously enacted tax incentive for FY 2009.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.6_follow-up Jay Fisette Clean Fuel '09.doc


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 27th work session regarding the Fire Department. How many staff does the Fire Department have who speak other languages? Ten uniformed personnel receive language pay. All ten speak Spanish. The proposed increase in revenue does not seem like very much. Are we covering our contract costs for the ambulance billing contract? The new rates take effect July 1, 2008. On the average, it takes approximately four months from the time the billing company sends out bills until the payments are received. The $380,457 proposed increase in revenue from the new rates is based on four months at the old rates and eight months at the new rates. Full year revenue at the new rates is projected to be higher. The ambulance billing company receives $0.075 for every dollar collected; the contract cost is directly tied to revenue received. The $380,457 increase in revenue requires a $28,534 increase in the ambulance billing contract. What is the collection rate on ambulance fees? The FY 2007 collection rate for ambulance transports was 65%.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\E.1._follow-up - Fire Ambulance Fees and contract.doc


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 1, 2008 regarding the proposed evening and weekend parking fees at the DHS garage. Regarding the proposed parking charge for 3033, provide a comparison of the $3 charge with the charges for parking in the surrounding area. Provide the rationale for charging for parking. (All County Board Members) Rationale: Cost Recovery Charging a modest fee for public use of the DHS parking garage after hours would help recover costs of leasing garage space. DHS pays for renting the garage and for parking attendant coverage ($441,448 annually). Currently, the public pays to park only during the workday if they are not coming to DHS for business and a few businesses pay for use of several parking spaces during the workday ($33,539 annually). Subtracting these payments, the DHS net cost of operating the garage is $407,909. By charging the public a flat fee of $3, which is still less than or comparable to the market rate for after work hours and weekend use of surrounding area garages, DHS can recoup net fee revenue of approximately $122,000 annually (total fees $191,100 less $38,814 annually in parking attendant charges and a $30,000 one-time cost for changing signage). Background data follows below: Current DHS Cost and Fees: Annual Costs Annual

Revenue Net Cost to DHS

Garage Lease, as of May 1, 2008

$304,596 Public use during workday (not on DHS business) (FY07)

$9,046

Parking Attendant Contract (FY08)

$136,852 Retail establishments paid parking during workday (FY07)

$24,493

Totals $441,448 $33,539

$407,909

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.10._follow-up - 3033 Parking.doc

Proposed evening and weekend paid parking expense: With Parking Attendant

Hours of Operation

Attendant Cost One-time Signage Cost

Monday-Friday 6pm-12am Saturday 10am-12am Sunday 1pm-8pm

$38,814

$30,000

Note: The garage will continue to be open Monday to Friday 6am to 3am and Saturday and Sunday 8am to 3am. When there is not an attendant in the garage, cars will park for free. Anticipated revenue from charging for evening and weekend parking: Hour of

Operation Estimated # of cars per day

Fee per car ($3)

Total Annual fees

Monday-Friday

6pm-midnight 125 $1,875

Saturday 10am-midnight 350 $1,050 Sunday 1pm-8pm 250 $750

Weekly totals 1,225 $3,675

$191,100

Survey of area public parking garage fees (March, 2007): Altman's

Parking: 1525 Wilson Blvd

Market Common at Clarendon/Inter Park: 2700 Wilson Blvd

Colonial: 1515 N. Courthouse Rd

Colonial: 2300 Wilson Blvd

Hours Rates Rates Rates up to 1 hr $2 $2 $5 $5 1 $3 $3 $5 $5 2 $4 $4 $8 $6 3 $5 $5 $9 $7 4 $6 $6 $9 $8 5 $7 $7 $9 $9 6 $8 $8 $9 $10 7 $9 $9 $9 $10 8 $10 $10 $9 $10 Max $10 $10 $10 $10 **Evenings $2

6pm- 2am Same rates apply for evenings, Saturdays and Sundays

** Evenings after 6 pm and Weekends 1 hour $3, Max $6

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.10._follow-up - 3033 Parking.doc


March 31, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised by Mr. Fisette at the March 20th work session requesting options for funding County Attorney staffing and consultant needs. The County Manager’s proposed budget provides $243,000 in additional funds for consultants ($418,000 total). There are however, two other options that could provide funding for both consultants and additional staff; these are outlined below. Option #1: Authorize the full year funding of 1.0 additional FTE for a County Attorney III ($152,822) and reduce the total consultant budget from $418,000 to $265,178. This option would not require any additional funds above those requested in the Manager’s proposed budget. Option #2: Authorize 2.0 additional FTE’s for County Attorney III positions. One County Attorney III position would be for full year funding ($152,822) while the additional FTE would be added in the last quarter of FY 2009 at a cost of $38,206. By adding these two positions the consultant budget for the department would be reduced from $418,000 to $226,972. The County Attorney’s Office projects that the hiring of the second Attorney III position could be delayed until later in the fiscal year to reduce the fiscal impact to the FY 2009 budget. However, if the County Board chose to fund the position for the entire fiscal year the incremental cost over the Manager’s Proposed Budget is $114,616, as no additional funding could be reallocated from the consultant budget. It should be noted that under option #2 there will be an increase in FY 2010 when the second FTE requires full year funding. The position cost would be included in the base budget submitted by the County Manager in FY 2010.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\C.1._follow-up - CAO options for 2 CA FTEs -2.doc


March 7, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the March 6, 2008 budget work session regarding iPark devices. According to Nathan Norton, Deputy Treasurer, 46 of the first 1,200 iPark devices that have been distributed were shown to be inoperable. The Treasurer’s Office acknowledges that this failure rate is somewhat high and attributes the high rate to iParks being “first generation” technology. The next generation of iPark devices will be released later this year, and existing customers will be given a free upgrade. We are aware of one customer that received a faulty device having difficulty getting a replacement device. The Treasurer’s office apologized to this customer for any aggravation caused by this episode, and customer service staff was subsequently trained to provide owners of inoperable iParks devices with replacement devices at no cost.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\D.1. follow-up iPark.doc


March 31, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised by Ms. Favola regarding cuts to HB 599 law enforcement aid. Specifically, Ms. Favola asked:

• How much Arlington received from HB 599 in FY 2008? • What dollar reduction equated with the 5 percent cut the County took in the fall of

2007? • How does Arlington spends HB 599 funds?

The County budgeted $7,696,280 for HB 599 aid in the FY 2008 Adopted Budget. However, because of the 5 percent across-the-board cut to HB 599 announced in October, 2007, the County only expects to receive $7,311,466 in FY 2008, a difference of $384,784 or 5 percent less than the adopted budget. This 5% cut was continued in the Governor’s biennial budget, as well as in the version of HB 30 that passed the House and the Senate. Accordingly, the County Manager’s FY 2009 Proposed Budget anticipates $7,311,466 in HB 599 revenue next fiscal year as well. HB 599 law enforcement aid is budgeted as General Fund revenue. By practice, the County has not directly tied public safety funding to the amount of state revenue received for law enforcement aid. This revenue source has fluctuated over the years and the County has decided to fully fund the Police department and use the HB 599 law enforcement aid to offset the County’s tax support of Police. To illustrate, the table below shows the budget and revenue for the Police department. Included is the net tax support excluding and including HB599 revenue. FY 2006

Actual FY 2007 Actual

FY 2008 Adopted

FY 2008 Revised

FY 2009 Projected

Expense 44,892,324 51,022,015 52,864,619 52,864,619 54,286,988

Revenue 1,734,219 1,717,772 393,384 393,384 639,789Tax Support 43,158,105 49,304,243 52,471,235 52,471,235 53,647,199% Tax Support 96% 97% 99% 99% 99% HB 599 Funding 7,696,280 7,696,280 7,696,280 7,311,466 7,311,466

% Net Tax Support w/HB 599 Funding

79% 82% 85% 85% 85%

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.8._follow-up - barbara Favola HB 599.doc


March 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 6th budget work session regarding savings achieved from Fresh AIRE, as well as a request for more information about Fresh AIRE outreach and the AIRE champions. AIRE funds are invested in energy efficiency upgrades at various County facilities. The following projects are completed or underway. Annual savings figures are full-year estimates (we have not yet had full-year results on these projects). Building

Improvement

Estimated Annual Avoided Energy Cost

Estimated Percent Energy Reduction

Drewry Center

Lighting, Building Automation

$ 6,400

15%

Fenwick Center Building Automation

$15,000 17%

Equipment Bureau

Building Automation and Lighting

$ 9,100

8%

Fire Station 4

Building Automation and Lighting

$ 5,000

11%

Fire Station 1

Apparatus Bay Heating

$ 2,800

6%

Water/Sewer Admin

Lighting Retrofit $ 5,000 20%

Solid Waste/Traffic Windows & Lighting

$ 2,500 6%

Central & branch libraries

Lighting Retrofits

$16,000

12%

These improvements will prevent over 450 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, representing 6% of our 2012 goal.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\F.1. follow-up Fresh AIRE savings, outreach & champions.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\F.1. follow-up Fresh AIRE savings, outreach & champions.doc

Next week (March 17) the County will launch its AIRE Partners campaign, engaging all sectors of community life in pursuit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions through energy savings, recycling, transit services, and more. Any business or institution can become an AIRE Partner – an expression of interest and commitment to make positive change are the only requirements. AIRE Champions, on the other hand, are a special group of partners that have demonstrated leadership and accomplishment in their efforts to go green. AIRE Champions are recognized for achieving certain milestones, including:

(1) an Energy Star-labeled building, (2) a LEED-certified building, (3) outstanding achievement in recycling, (4) outstanding achievement in transit services for employees, (5) “Dine Green” certification for restaurants, (6) purchase of green power equal to 100% of the business’ electricity use, or (7) a comprehensive package of outstanding practices across energy,

recycling, and transit, but not qualifying at one of the above milestones for a particular area. (special cases)

The County continues to provide workshops and seminars to the public; this Spring our series is titled, “Green It, Arlington.” AIRE staff is working with Arlington Cooperative Extension Service on a residential outreach effort in the Buckingham neighborhood, featuring whole-house compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) retrofits. This activity will be summarized in bilingual materials for distribution elsewhere. AIRE is also resuming the free residential energy audit program, as well as continuing to encourage small businesses to apply for free building audits. AIRE will be displaying at many events in the spring and summer, including the Arlington Home Show and Expo, Taste of Arlington, and others.


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised regarding the status and timeline of the energy saving performance contract proposed for the Justice Center. The Department of Environmental Services has been working with Custom Energy, an energy auditor, in reviewing the energy consumption and potential savings for the Justice Center. Custom Energy has just presented the County with an Investment Grade Audit, which details the energy consumption, savings, and challenges presented with retrofitting the Justice Center and the potential costs associated with it. Staff is currently reviewing the audit to validate or dispute the assumptions made by Custom Energy, and will then work with the vendor to determine whether the investment in the new equipment will yield guaranteed savings commensurate with the outlay of funds required over the life of the project.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\F.2._follow-up - Energy Performance Contract.doc


April 7, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on March 25 at the Budget Public Hearing regarding speed humps, and the Citizen Feedback Survey associated with them. Last spring, staff mailed a post card-return survey to approximately 1100 households in the affected areas of 12 completed traffic calming projects. The purpose was to determine resident satisfaction with the procedure, process and measures installed as part of the traffic calming project. Residents were asked seven questions, one of which was related to speed humps. The question was: “Looking back to the time prior to the installation of traffic calming measures, given that the street had a chronic speeding problem, would you consider speed humps as a solution to the speeding problem?” The choices provide were: “Yes”, “Yes, only under certain circumstances” and “No”. The results of the survey for this question were as follows:

• 38% voted yes • 19% voted yes, under certain circumstances • 36% voted no. • 7% did not answer.

It is important to keep in mind that the survey was distributed to residents in the area of impact, including those not living on the street which received the traffic calming measures. These residents tend to be less supportive than the residents living on the street where measures were installed. Other significant findings of the survey included:

• 74% of respondents thought that traffic, speeding and pedestrian safety were a problem, or somewhat of a problem prior to the project

• 67% of respondents felt the installed measures reduced speeds and improved pedestrian safety, or somewhat reduced speeds and improved pedestrian safety

• 62% of respondents were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the traffic calming measures installed as part of the project.

The full NTC Customer Feedback Survey is attached.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.3._follow-up - Traffic Calming.doc

Attachment 1

By: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Team Department of Environmental Services

September 2007

Resident Feedback Survey A customer feedback survey was conducted by staff in spring 2007 to establish residents’ perception and satisfaction with the traffic calming measures implemented on the street adjacent or near their home. Twelve project streets were selected for this survey. The survey was sent to all households within the affected area of the project: the same households that had initially had the option to sign the petition in support of the traffic calming plan. Figure 1 shows the survey form. The survey results reflect the resident responses to seven questions that made up the customer feedback survey. The total field consisted of 1173 households surveyed with 42 surveys returned by the U.S. Post Office. Of the 1131 households receiving the survey, there was a return rate of 32.5% (368) responses. The return rate of residents living on the project street was slightly higher than from residents not living on the street. These residents were also generally more positive about the process and effectiveness of this project than those not residing on the project street. Table 1 provides a detailed tabulation of the returned surveys based on project street, those residents living on the street, and those residents not living on the street. Traffic, Speeding and Pedestrian Safety The survey found that 74% of the respondents thought that traffic, speeding and pedestrian safety were a problem or somewhat of a problem on the street. Although 49% of the respondents said they recognized traffic, speeding and pedestrian safety as a problem and 25% thought these

issues were somewhat of a problem, 21% of the respondents said there was no problem. Four percent of the respondents stated they did not live in the affected area, prior to project implementation.

Somewhat of a

Problem(91) 25%No

Answer(5) 1%

No(77) 21%

Did Not Live Here(15) 4%

Yes(180) 49%

Traffic, Speeding & Pedestrian Safety were Neighborhood Problems

Plan Participation Twenty-four percent of the respondents stated they participated in the planning process, while 70% did not participate in the planning process (attended working group meetings or the open house).

Yes(90) 24%

No Answer(21) 6% No

(257) 70%

Participated in Traffic Calming Planning Process

Planning Process Open When asked if they found the planning process to be open and the decisions reached effectively reflect the views of most residents in the area of impact, 47% answered they believed the planning process to be effective or somewhat effective. Twenty percent did not believe the planning process was effective and 33% of the respondents did not answer this question. Staff Courteous and Helpful When asked if they found County Staff and NTCC Members to be helpful and courteous during the development and construction of the traffic calming plan, 26% felt County Staff and NTCC Members were helpful and courteous. Seventy percent stated they did not have contact with County Staff and NTCC Members, or did not opt to answer this question

County Staff & NTCC Members Helpful & Courteous

No Answer(52) 14%

Yes Staff/NTCC

Helpful(94) 26%

No Staff/NTCC

Not Courteous

(2) 1%

No Staff/NTCC Not Helpful

(12) 3%

No Contact(208) 56%

Somewhat Effective(64) 17%

Yes(111) 30%

No(74) 20%

No Answer(119) 33%

Planning Process Open & Decisions Reached Effectively Reflect Views of

Residents Traffic Calming Measures Reduce Speeds and Improve Pedestrian Safety Since the installation of the traffic calming measures, sixty-seven percent of the respondents felt the traffic calming measures reduced speed and improved pedestrian safety. Twenty-eight percent said the neighborhood livability has not improved.

No Answer(18) 5%

Somewhat(149) 41%

Yes(97) 26%

No(104) 28%

Traffic Calming Reduced Speed and Improve Pedestrian

Residents’ Satisfaction With regard to resident overall satisfaction, 62% of the respondents were very

satisfied, or somewhat satisfied with the traffic calming measures installed. Thirty-two percent of the respondents were dissatisfied with the traffic calming measures. These percentages were consistent with the residents living on the project street and those not living on the project street. Speed Humps as a Solution Where speeding was considered a chronic problem on the neighborhood street, residents were asked if they would consider speed humps as a solution. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents stated they would consider speed humps, or would consider speed humps under certain circumstances, as a solution to the speeding problem. Some of the comments from these respondents stated that motorists accelerate between the speed humps, additional speed humps should be installed, or motorists travel over the center of speed cushions to avoid the hump. Comments from some of the 36% of the respondents saying they did not think speed humps should be used as traffic calming measure stated that there were too many in the County, all-way stop

signs should be used instead, traffic did not slow down or installing speed humps was a waste of money. Consider Speed Humps as a Solution to

the Speeding Problem

Somewhat Satisfied

(129) 36%

No Answer(23) 6%

Dissatisfied(119) 32%

Very Satisfied(97) 26%

Satisfied with Traffic Calming Treatments Installed

Yes(141) 38%

No Answer(26) 7%

No(131) 36%

Yes Under Certain

Circumstances(70) 19%

Figure 1

TABLE 1 Jul-07

NTC CUSTOMER FEEDBACK SURVEY

Project Street On Street Returned Percent Off Street Returned Percent Total Returned Percent 8th Street South 67 27 40.30 61 17 27.87 128 44 34.3810th Street North 27 14 51.85 56 19 33.93 83 33 39.7627th Street North 26 8 30.77 39 14 35.90 65 22 33.85North Albemarle Street 9 0 0.00 60 20 33.33 69 20 28.99North Florida Street 27 11 40.74 59 5 8.47 86 16 18.60North Jefferson Street 48 13 27.08 116 38 32.76 164 51 31.10North Lexington Street 54 23 42.59 113 48 42.48 167 71 42.51North Livingston Street 22 11 50.00 61 22 36.07 83 33 39.76North Manchester Street 10 2 20.00 57 22 38.60 67 24 35.82North Powhatan Street 11 8 72.73 24 10 41.67 35 18 51.43South Kenmore Street 48 6 12.50 10 1 10.00 58 7 12.07South Quincy Street 51 16 31.37 75 13 17.33 126 29 23.02 Total from All Projects 400 139 34.75 731 229 31.33 1131 368 32.54


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised during the March 25th Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) work session regarding energy efficiency projects. Below are the projects budgeted for energy efficiency. Now that the Fresh AIRE team is staffed at the appropriate level, it is anticipated that all the General Fund projects for FY 2008 and FY 2009 will be completed by the end of FY 2009. The budgeted amounts listed for the General Fund include just the funding for the energy efficiency projects; additional funding is in the budget for personnel and other operating expenses. Total annual Fresh AIRE funding in the General Fund is approximately $1.5 million. Due to the rising rates charged for energy use, the County may not be able to see a reduction in our overall energy budgets. However, as a result of these projects we will see a decline in energy consumption so the costs to the County will not rise as much as they otherwise would have had we done nothing to increase our energy efficiency. FY 2008 General Fund – Fresh AIRE projects Project BudgetP.O. Custom Energy for investment grade audit $105,000 Solar PV on Westover Library (add-on to FD&C project) $200,000 Fenwick Center energy improvements (controls, HVAC) $100,000 Two fleet vehicles for AIRE program staff $49,000 Infrared camera & training for diagnostics $31,000 Submetering Signature Theater/Shirlington Library $18,300 Fire Station 1 replace bay space heaters w/infrared $25,000 Central Library whole building lighting retrofit $135,000 100 additional home audits per Ferguson/Roper direction $45,000 Investigation of energy opportunities (basic audit) at 3033 Wilson $20,000 Building automation survey of County facilities $20,000 Capital contingency for financing Performance Contract 1st yr $100,000 Updated bldg automation telecom/software at Arlington Arts $7,000 Gulf Branch - envelope retrofit per audit recommendations $5,000

Total $860,300 FY 2008 PAYGO – Energy Efficiency Project BudgetCourt Square West Lighting retrofit - all offices $50,000Gulf Branch Nature Center Lighting retrofit – entire building $12,000Madison Center Lighting retrofit – multipurpose, offices $25,000Dawson Terrace Lighting retrofit – entire building $12,000Drewry Health Center Install Automatic building controls $30,000Fire Station 4 Lighting retrofit – entire building $40,000

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\F.3._follow-up - Energy Efficiency.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\F.3._follow-up - Energy Efficiency.doc

Project BudgetFire Station 4 & Offices Install Automatic building controls $35,000Fire Station 8 Lighting retrofit – all except bays $18,000Various Buildings Upgrade Tracer-Summit controls to networked (I-net)

access $60,000

Various Buildings Upgrade Siemens controls to network (I-net) access $60,000Madison Center Install Automatic building controls $58,000

Total $400,000 FY 2009 General Fund – Fresh AIRE Project BudgetContracted assistance with comprehensive energy plan development $65,000 Integrating building automation in addt'l buildings $60,000 Cherrydale Library Ground-Source Heat pumps $50,000 Assess solar potential in Arlington (public & private) $75,000 Investment-grade audits of county facilities $75,000 Automated Meter Reading pilot $25,000 Incentives for private sector retrofits $100,000 Parks Operations Building Solar photovoltaic installation $275,000 Solid Waste/Traffic Engineering Solar water heating installation $20,000 Equipment Bureau Solar water heating installation $25,000

Innovative vehicles Purchase of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles $30,000

Total $800,000 FY 2009 PAYGO - Energy Efficiency Project BudgetEquipment Division Lighting retrofit - entire building $30,000Solid Waste/Traffic Engineering Lighting retrofit - entire building $27,000Cherrydale Library Lighting retrofit-entire building $22,000Gulf Branch Nature Center New boiler, controls $22,000Glencarlyn Library Lighting retrofit - entire building $20,000Fire Training Academy Lighting retrofit - entire building $15,000Long Branch Nature Center Lighting retrofit - entire building $15,000General diagnostics Electric motor inventory and plan systematic upgrade $75,000Solid Waste/Traffic Engineering Install Automatic building controls, retrocommission $55,000Woodmont Center Lighting retrofit - whole building $48,000Central Library Retrocommission energy mgmt system $36,000Fire Station 8 HVAC controls and retrocommissioning $35,000

Total $400,000


March 21, 2008

The attached information was provided in a meeting with representatives from Our Lady Queen of Peace church regarding service reductions in the Department of Human Services budget and background information on LPACAP cuts in FY 2007.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.2. follow-up - DHS background information.doc

FY 09 PROPOSED BUDGET

Background on Budget The County Manager has submitted his proposed fiscal year 2009 budget to the County Board. The purpose of this is to give you an overview of the proposed budget, and to highlight the portions of the budget that will likely impact the persons we serve. This year, the County has produced an executive summary that provides highlights of the budget material. The executive summary as well as full budget documents are available online at www.arlingtonva.us/dmf. Faced with flattening real estate assessments, the increasing pressure of debt service on capital investments, the escalating cost of health care, and meeting new accounting standards for retiree health insurance, the County Manager has proposed, for the first time, an increase in the tax rate. Additionally, the proposed budget constrains expenditures by recommending significant service reductions across departments, a restructuring of employee health care and increases in a variety of fees. Nor does this year’s budget recommend an overall market pay adjustment for county employees. A total of almost $1 million in service reductions are proposed, including the elimination of 10.55 general fund positions. A detailed list of proposed budget reductions can be found in the Proposed Expense Changes section of the executive summary and the Base Budget Reductions section of the full budget document. DHS Budget Reductions It is always difficult to make budget reductions. After careful analysis, reductions totaling $448,416 were included in the proposed DHS budget. The budget reductions were made in programs with declining client demand or programs that under spent funds. We do not anticipate any staff layoffs due to the proposed budget reductions because of upcoming retirements and vacancies. Following is more information on the proposed reductions:

• Eliminate one of seven social workers from Adult Social Services (1.0 FTE, $82,952) Workers provide case management services to frail elderly and disabled adults. Caseloads consist of a combination of clients requiring a continuum of low-to-high intensity services. Current average caseloads are 51, with an average of 35 requiring intensive case management. The elimination of this position would increase the average caseloads to 59. There has been a 28 percent reduction in the number of clients served from 637 in FY04 to 458 in FY07. Additionally, the division is making changes in improving client entry services to this population and only


http://www.arlingtonva.us/dmf

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/ManagementAndFinance/budget/fy09proposed/ES_4_Proposed%20Expense%20Changes.pdf

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/ManagementAndFinance/budget/fy09proposed/A_Base%20Budget%20Reductions.pdf

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/ManagementAndFinance/budget/fy09proposed/A_Base%20Budget%20Reductions.pdf

transferring to Adult Services those clients who require longer term case management services.

• Eliminate one of 12.5 outpatient substance abuse therapist (1.0 FTE, $83,817) This is currently a vacant position that provides treatment and education services to 75 clients annually. The total clients served by Substance Abuse Outpatient has decreased by 13 percent from 869 in FY00 to a current projection of 750 clients in FY08. Clients would be redistributed among the remaining 11.5 therapists.

• Eliminate contracted specialized substance abuse psychological

assessments ($30,000) This is specialized psychological assessment/testing for 120 clients annually.

• Reduce the public assistance program funding for prescription

medication program ($93,893) This program provides generic prescription medications to low-income residents who are 55 years or older or who are disabled and have no prescription insurance. $6,500 remains to fund the current caseload of 38 clients. This program is no longer needed because individuals previously eligible now qualify for assistance under Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage). Additionally, other new programs are available to provide access to affordable prescription coverage through private companies such as Target which provides generic drugs for a $4.00 co-payment. The County also allocates funds to AMEN to provide emergency prescription coverage and DHS operates the Pharmacy Connect Program which helps elders access brand name medications through pharmaceutical companies.

• Eliminate hospital liaison nurse (1.0 FTE, $97,986) This position was created in 1990's to coordinate the care of clients (HIV, TB, maternity) between DHS and Virginia Hospital Center. This function can be absorbed by existing Public Health staff.

• Eliminate contingent funding for the West Nile Virus spraying

($59,768) This is for an annual contract to provide large-scale truck spraying in the event of human outbreak of West Nile Virus. Other funds are available for the larvaciding preventive treatment that DHS routinely conducts.

Good News for Human Services The good news is that in spite of the fiscal constraints, the budget includes increases for personnel and operating costs for nonprofit human service



providers totaling $472,402. Additionally, $50,000 in funding has been reallocated for expanded scholarship slots for English as a Second Language (ESL) training. The budget provides $265,000 for pre-operation of the Arlington Assisted Living Residence (AALR). AALR will serve 52 older, low-income residents with mental illness, mental retardation, and/or physical disabilities that need affordable housing and assistance with daily living. When fully operational in the year 2010, the local cost of this program is projected to be about $1.5 to $2.0 million annually. Finally, the budget also recommends increasing the maximum assets for the housing grants program from $35,000 to $340,000 and an extension of the maximum allowable rent for large households to elderly and disabled households. The DHS fiscal year 2009 proposed budget and a description of significant budget changes can be found online in Section G of the Manager’s proposed budget: www.arlingtonva.us/dmf. Background on LPACAP Elimination of Ongoing LPACAP Funds:

• $5.5 million reduction was made in FY2007 in the ongoing DHS budget due to the loss of federal revenue under Local Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (LPACAP).

• $1.15 million of the $5.5 million LPACAP cuts made in FY2007were restored by the County Board for FY 08.

Elimination of One-time LPACAP Pool:

• Eliminated $6.9 million of one-time LPACAP pool which was to be used for future supportive housing and other human service needs. However, the County has made the commitment to proceed with the establishment of the Arlington Assisted Living Residence, a supportive housing project, which will cost approximately $1.5 − $2 million in local funds starting in FY 2010.

http://www.arlingtonva.us/dmf


March 17, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised by a Board member regarding whether or not the Prescription Medication Program is being reduced in the proposed budget. Together, the Prescription Medication Program (PMP) reduction ($93,893) and the General Relief (GR) reduction ($133,843) equal approximately $228,000 in base budget reductions to public assistance programs. The Prescription Medication Program provides generic prescription medications to low-income residents who are 55 years or older or who are disabled and have no prescription insurance. The FY 2009 budget proposes to reduce the PMP by $93,893 from its current base budget ($100,393). The remaining $6,500 will fund the current caseload of 38 clients. This program is no longer needed because individuals previously eligible now qualify for assistance under Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage). Additionally, other new programs are available to provide access to affordable prescription coverage through private companies such as Target which provides generic drugs for a $4.00 co-payment. The County also allocates funds to AMEN to provide emergency prescription coverage and the Department of Human Services operates the Pharmacy Connect Program which helps elders access brand name medications through pharmaceutical companies. The General Relief Program provides short-term emergency and financial relief. The proposed reduction to the GR budget ($133,843) is based on a reduction in the state allocation from $567,000 to $433,157. The funding ratio is generally 62.5% state and 37.5% County and yields a net savings of $50,191 in local match funding and a loss of $83,652 in revenue. The net savings of $50,000 in funding has been reallocated to add 250 new scholarship slots for English as a Second Language (ESL) training.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.1. follow-up - MH question PMP & GR.doc


March 19, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised via e-mail on March 11, 2008 about how Arlington compares with other jurisdictions regarding the increase in demand for emergency food assistance. Like Arlington, other jurisdictions in Northern Virginia have also reported increases in requests for emergency food. Requests for food assistance have increased approximately 13 percent in Alexandria and 27 percent in Fairfax County over the past year. Requests for food assistance have increased approximately 26 percent in Arlington since July.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.3. follow-up - demand for emergency food assistance.doc


April 8, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised on April 4, 2008 regarding a Department of Human Services case manager position request. Assess the request to reinstate or create an additional case manager position in DHS that would generate significant Medicaid reimbursement dollars from year two and beyond. (Fisette) Currently we have one case manager dedicated to serving children and young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who generates $50,000 in Medicaid revenue. Those clients eligible for Medicaid are between the ages of 18 and 22 and those under age 18 that have Medicaid waivers. The total cost of the case manager position is estimated at $65,475. It is anticipated that the proposed second case manager would generate about $35,000 to $40,000 in Medicaid revenue. This is dependent upon the eligibility of the population served. On average, there are ten to 15 youth that turn age 18 and become eligible for Medicaid and eight that transition to adult services annually. Net tax support for the position would be $25,475. The current case manager serves 52 children, ages three to 22 with varying needs, as well as their families. This case manager also determines Medicaid eligibility for others; she has received 65 new referrals and has forwarded applications to parents. DHS prioritizes eligibility determination for Medicaid services so that families will have access to lifelong services and the support they require. At present, nine applications have been completed; eligibility for services is pending until additional information from Arlington Public Schools staff is received. It is anticipated that nine other youth currently receiving foster care services will become active cases within the next few years prior to aging out of the foster care system. New children are diagnosed and identified regularly. The Arlington Public Schools identified 80 new children this year requiring supportive services due to intellectual or developmental disabilities. Many of the 80 children will require case management services. The proposed additional case manager would enhance our responsiveness in processing applications and increase our capacity to provide case management services to families. Given the high caseload of the current case manager and the additional children in the Schools that will be requiring servides there is clearly a need for more resources for this population. While there is no waitlist for services this time, our capacity only allows us to serve those in great need and those who have become Medicaid recipients.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.9._follow-up - Childrens MRDD Case Manager.doc


April 8 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 1, 2008 and April 4, 2008 regarding Doorways for Women and Families. Why are transitional housing grant funds for FY08 included in Doorways’ base budget (Favola)? The funding for the Transitional Housing Program was moved into the base budgets for Doorways, AACH, and Borromeo because the administration of the program was shifted from the Public Assistance Bureau to Homeless Services. Before FY 2008, the program was administered by the Public Assistance Bureau that also administers Housing Grants. However, the nonprofit organizations requested that they be allowed to administer the program, including determining client eligibility and rent amounts. This change was made to assist the non-profits in designing more flexible programs to meet their needs. Therefore, the budget was moved into the base budgets of the non-profits within the Homeless Services Unit managing homeless contracts. Please explain why transitional housing grant funds to Doorways’ families averages approximately $200 per household and the same grant money to families at Sullivan House averages $1100 per household? Is this because federal money is included in the amount to Sullivan House – if so, should the county shift more dollars to transitional housing grants that are not covered by federal funds? Respond to the points raised in Doorways letter of March 24th. (Favola) The letter from Doorways requests an increase of rental subsidies for low-income working families through the Transitional Housing Program and Housing Grants Program. Staff agree that increased rental subsidies are key toward moving persons out of shelters and ending homelessness. Staff support this initiative, depending on the availability of additional funds. The Transitional Housing Program was started in FY 2006, and has a proposed budget of $121,680 for FY 09. The Housing Grants Program admits clients coming out of the shelters on a priority basis; however, the benefit level of Housing Grants, which averages about $448, is much lower than Transitional Housing. Clients on Housing Grants usually have increased earnings from employment than those in transitional housing. In reviewing the analysis provided by Doorways about the grant amounts ($200 vs. $1100) there appears to be some confusion in the numbers used. Originally, the program was designed to assist 23 households per year with a rent subsidy of $441 per unit per month. However, the non-profits requested more flexibility based on each organization’s need and their capacity to leverage additional funds. Therefore, we allowed each non-profit to determine their own rental subsidy program within their overall budgeted amount.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.11._follow-up Doorways.doc

Regarding the question of shifting more County dollars to those agencies that don’t have a federal grant, we are already providing more funding to Doorways than Arlington-Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless (AACH) because of their Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant. In the proposed FY 2009 budget, Doorways is allocated 55 percent of the total budget, AACH 38 percent, and Borromeo 7 percent. The following shows more detailed information.

FY 2008 Budget

FY 2009 Proposed

FY 2009 Nonprofit Proportion of Budget

FY 2008 Avg*

Families Assisted

FY 2008 Avg* County Grant

Per Family Per Month

Borromeo $8,000 $8,320 7 percent 4 $173 AACH $44,760 $46,550 38 percent 11 $233 Doorways $64,240 $66,810 55 percent 7 $770 Total $117,000 $121,680 23

*Averages calculated based on number of families per month AACH receives a HUD Adopt-a-Family grant ($217,245) and a portion of that grant ($126,986) is combined with the County’s Transitional Housing ($44,760) allowing $1,022 average contribution to the rent. Doorways has Freddie Mac funds for their HomeStart transitional housing program to serves families not served by the County’s Transitional Housing Program. Please assess the proposal for increases in funds dedicated to the Transitional Housing Program. Provide feedback on the proposed criteria for the housing grant program. (Fisette) Staff agree that increasing rental subsidies are key toward moving persons out of shelters and ending homelessness and support increasing the capacity of the Transitional Housing Program, depending on funding availability. Please see information above for more details on the program. Doorways also recommends increasing the income limits and the rental subsidy for the Housing Grants Program which currently provides an average subsidy of about $448 per month and is much lower than the Transitional Housing Program subsidy. Families on Housing Grants usually have higher incomes from employment; however, many families are still paying a significant amount toward their rent.



Increasing the income limits and the subsidies for the Housing Grants Program would require significant new resources since there has been an unusually high increase in caseloads over the last year. In July 2007 we served 690 households in the program and by March 2008 we served 756 households. We have reallocated an additional $129,583 to Housing Grants for FY 2008 because of the increased caseloads. Staff is monitoring the program closely and is considering instituting prioritized admissions of additional clients to targeted populations. Based on previous discussions with the County Board and the Manager the prioritized targeted populations would be: homeless, those leaving shelters or transitional housing programs, those displaced and relocated as a result of County funded affordable housing renovations, and clients of the Department of Human Services and its contractors. The targeted admission policy allows the program to meet critical needs of targeted populations while avoiding an across the board freeze.


April 2, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the March 25th budget work session regarding whether or not the client based financial system for DHS will allow the board and managers to look at how clients accessing services – the # and intensity. The client based financial system (CBFS) will replace the DHS systems that were custom-built more than ten years ago and currently run on the County mainframe. County mainframe system support is scheduled to end in 2009. The current DHS mainframe systems are past due for replacement. DHS has stopped investing in these sytems due to age and potential for failure. The CBFS will replace current mainframe functionality which includes issuance of benefit payment to clients eligible for Auxiliary Grants, General Relief, Refugee Assistance, Homeowner Grant, and Housing Grants programs. The CBFS will also issue payments for services purchased on behalf of clients in social services programs such as Adult Services, Child Care, Foster Care, Adoptions, and Child Protective Services programs. The CBFS will include basic client demographic information for approximately 3,500-4,000 DHS clients, calculate payment for benefit programs, maintain vendor services listing, issue vendor purchase orders, calculate payment for approved purchase of services programs, track client services and payments as well as some budget tracking functionality. More than $20M/year in County and state funds will be managed in the system. This system will not give data on all DHS clients, however, for DHS programs included in CBFS, client/program statistical information will be available through data query/reports. Client assessment, service planning, service outcome and case management functionality is not included in the CBFS. Program expenditure reports, based on payment transactions in the system, will be completed and sent to state agencies for reimbursement.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.2._follow-up - CBFS for DHS.doc

FY 2009 Homeowner Grant Program Expenditure Reduction Recommendations

The options detailed below are to reflect changing priorities and further target Homeowner Grant benefits to needier households. Funds freed up by these measures could be reallocated to support the increased demand in the Housing Grant and Transitional Housing Grant programs.

Option Explanation Savings**

RECOMMENDATION: 1. No Change Expenditures are anticipated to be

below the budgeted request without further action. Grant amounts remain $600, plus $75 per dependent.

$294,212

2. Decrease base grant to $500, admit no new applicants.

The program will be closed to new applicants (with exceptions*) and the base grant will be reduced to $500, with no change to the dependent supplement of $75.

$544,990

SAVINGS TOTAL $839,202 OTHER OPTIONS: 3. No new admissions Eligibility will remain the same. No

new applicants will be admitted, except those meeting the exception criteria*. Experience has shown that approximately 80% of prior year applicants reapply.

$331,490

4. Lower grants for households with income greater than 80% of area median income (AMI).

Households with income less than 80% of AMI would not be affected. Those exceeding 80% of AMI would receive a reduced base grant of $300, the dependent supplement remains at $75.

$378,600

5. Limit eligibility to households with less than $100,000 in assets.

Households with more than $100,000 in assets will no longer be eligible. Asset exclusions (retirement instruments) not impacted.

$316,710

* Recommended exceptions for options 2&3: • Households facing foreclosure • Households having experienced job loss and are unemployed at the

time of application, or have experienced a major loss in income (50%) from the prior year.

• Households whose countable assets are less than $10,000. ** Note: Saving in options 2-5 are in addition to option 1.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\B.9._follow up - HOG Expenditure Reduction Analysis.doc

Homeowner Grant Program Expenditure Reduction Options

Below are tables with estimates of savings from varying levels of reductions in income, assets, or a combination of both. Savings are in addition to the planned under expenditure for FY 2009 of $294,212.

Income Based Scenarios

Income Level Number Households

Expenditure Total

Savings

No Change 2,669 $1,657,449 - 100% AMI 2,253 $1,398,286 $259,16380% AMI 1,407 $873,476 $1,043,13665% AMI 851 $528,726 $1,128,72350% AMI 475 $295,026 $1,362,423

Asset Based Scenarios

Assets

Number Households

Expenditure

Total

Savings

0-$50,000 1,810 $1,123,750 $533,699$50,001-$100,000 2,159 $1,340,876 $316,573

$100,001-$150,000 2,341 $1,455,240 $202,209$150,001-$200,000 2,466 $1,531,483 $125,966$200,001-$250,000 2,570 $1,596,123 $61,326$250,001-$300,000 2,637 $1,637,560 $19,889$300,001-$340,000 2,669 $1,657,449 -

Asset/Income Scenarios

Assets < $50,000, Income<

Number

Households

Expenditure

Total

Savings

No Change 1,810 $1,123,750 $533,699100% AMI 1,537 $954,690 $702,75980% AMI 974 $604,969 $1,052,480

Assets < $100,000 Income<

Number

Households

Expenditure

Total

Savings

No Change 2,138 $1,340,876 $316,573100% AMI 1,823 $1,132,038 $525,41180% AMI 1,145 $711,046 $946,403



Client Data Sorts:

Recipient Distribution by Income:

Income Range

Number

Households

Total

Average Income

Average Assets

0 to $10,000 76 - $4,840 $49,435$10,001 to $20,000 114 190 $15,677 $78,428$20,001 to $30,000 164 354 $25,384 $51,257$30,001 to $40,000 291 645 $35,306 $48,080$40,001 to $50,000 458 1,103 $45,360 $47,014$50,001 to $60,000 594 1,697 $55,239 $56,097$60,001 to $70,000 595 2,292 $64,947 $59,141$70,001 to $77,517 342 2,634 $73,610 $58,695

Recipient Distribution by Assets:

Asset Range Number

Households

Total Average Assets Average Income

0 to $25,000 1,388 - $8,277 $49,779$25,001 to $50,000 399 1,787 $36,513 $53,289$50,001 to $75,000 193 1,980 $60,877 $52,992

$75,001 to $100,000 151 2,130 $87,093 $52,523$100,001 to $125,000 100 2,230 $111,908 $50,740$125,001 to $150,000 79 2,309 $135,774 $52,593$150,001 to $175,000 67 2,376 $163,444 $53,475$175,001 to $200,000 58 2,434 $185,881 $47,949$200,001 to $225,000 52 2,486 $212,818 $49,854$225,001 to $250,000 49 2,535 $235,235 $54,257$250,001 to $275,000 44 2,579 $260,657 $48,689$275,001 to $300,000 23 2,602 $284,435 $52,183$300,001 to $325,000 21 2,623 $313,082 $39,961$325,001 to $340,000 11 2,634 $332,717 $51,835

Base Assumptions: Households: 2,669 Anticipated Expenditures: $1,657,449 AMI: $68,900; 80%, $55,120; 65%, 44,785 Recipient: Average Income: $50,869 Median Income: $53,987 Average Assets: $55,012


April 10, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 4, 2008 regarding client increase for human service programs. What human service programs have experienced an increase in clients? Are there or will there be any waiting lists for these programs? We have seen some increases in programs specifically focused on providing assistance to low income persons, such as financial benefits, employment, and social services. Except for Section 8, we do not currently have waiting lists for any of these programs. Following are some statistics on client demand for services:

• 17% increase (1,671 to 1,958) in the number of clients seen by the social workers in the Crisis Assistance Bureau (not seniors) in the first half of FY 2008 over the same period in FY 2007.

• 27% increase in client visits (from 614 to 780) and 14% (153 to 174) increase in

new client walk-ins in the Arlington Employment Center during FY 2008.

• 26% increase (567 to 716) from calendar year 2006 to 2007 in new applications in Family and Children Food Stamps, Medicaid, Refugee Assistance and General Relief programs.

• 18% increase (345 to 406) from January 2007 to January 2008 in the number of

face-to-face screenings conducted by the EID Customer Service Center for clients seeking public assistance.

• 11% increase (690 to 766) in the Housing Grant caseload for FY 2008.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.12_follow-up - human service program increases.doc


April 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 10, 2008 regarding the definition of retirement accounts and what qualifies as countable assets under various housing programs.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.13._follow-up - Housing Programs_Asset Limit Comparison.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.13._follow-up - Housing Programs_Asset Limit Comparison.doc

ASSET LIMIT

COUNTABLE ASSETS EXEMPT ASSETS

Housing Grants $35,000 Cash on hand

Checking and savings accounts Certificate of Deposit (CD) Retirement accounts * Stocks and bonds Deeds of Trust Fair market value of more than one vehicle Equity value of any real property Burial trust or fund

Value of one motor vehicle Personal effects- jewelry, clothing, household furnishings, etc. Life insurance

Homeowner Grants $340,000 Cash on hand

Checking and savings accounts Certificate of Deposit (CD) Stocks and bonds Deeds of Trust Fair market value of more than one vehicle Equity value of any real property Burial trust or fund Annuities (Tax-deferred, fixed, variable)

Value of residence Personal effects- jewelry, clothing, household furnishings, etc. Value of one motor vehicle Retirement accounts * (This could be changed to countable assets)

Real Estate Tax Relief $540,000 Cash on hand

Checking and savings accounts Retirement accounts * Certificate of Deposit (CD) Stocks and bonds Deeds of Trust Fair market value each vehicle Equity value of any real property Burial trust or fund Annuities (Tax-deferred, fixed, variable)

Value of residence Personal effects- jewelry, clothing, household furnishings, etc.

* Retirement Accounts include the following: IRAs/ ROTH IRAs, 401Ks, 403Bs, 457s, Thrift Savings Plans, Self-Employed Retirement Plans, and any other employer-sponsored defined-benefit and/or defined-contribution plans.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.14._followup - Housing Programs_homelessness.doc


April 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 3, 2008 regarding funds for transitional housing and housing programs. Provide information about the amount of funding that might be necessary to assist families who are coming out of shelter housing and need to find rental housing. At least one provider has pointed out that our capacity to help these folks doesn’t match the number of families we could reasonably expect to move to a more stable environment in any given year. (Hynes) The proposed FY 2009 budget of $121,680 for transitional housing will serve about 23 families. Based on the number of people leaving the shelters we could assist an additional 12 families for about $60,840. Please see the response to issues raised by Doorways for Women and Families (work session handout G.11) for more details on the Transitional Housing Programs for persons leaving shelters. What proposals in the budget support progress on the plan outlined in the 10 year plan to end homelessness. (Hynes) Following is a listing of housing programs that support the progress of the 10 year plan to end homelessness. This does not include the significant resources devoted to providing social services, mental health and substance abuse services, employment programs, and eligibility determination for benefit programs. Programs that provide rental and shelter services in the proposed FY 2009 budget:

Rental Assistance Programs Amount Section 8 Housing Assistance $14,101,149 Housing Grants $3,778,515 Permanent Supportive Housing $472,000 Transitional Housing $121,680 Total $18,473,344

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.14._followup - Housing Programs_homelessness.doc

Homeless Services – County Funded Amount Residential Program Center (Shelter-portion only) $789,379 Family Shelter/Domestic Violence Center $500,058 Sullivan House – Shelter for women and families $410,983 Emergency Winter Shelter (including bagged meal program)

$109,825

Total $1,810,245

Homeless Services – Grant Funded Amount Adopt-A-Family Grant – Transitional housing program $217,245 Inroads Grant – Permanent supportive housing program

$100,112

Milestones Grant – Permanent supportive housing $180,312 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS – Housing assistance payments

$149,000

Federal and state funding for Emergency Winter Shelter

$25,065

Total $671,734


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 4, 2008 regarding requests for assistance from the Arlington Street People’s Assistance Network (A-SPAN) and the Arlington Food Assistance Center (AFAC). A-SPAN: The $50,000 request for the “In-roads Program” – What is staff’s professional assessment about the value of this program? The FY 2009 proposed budget fully funds A-SPAN’s request. The budget includes $50,000 in AHIF Housing Services funds to support a Director of Housing Services for Arlington Street People’s Assistance Network (A-SPAN), who will administer the In-roads program. In-Roads/Housing First provides rental subsidies and aftercare services for chronically homeless adults placed in permanent scattered-site housing in Arlington County. Although A-SPAN has case workers for the In-Roads/Housing First program, the Director of Housing would oversee all components of the program. The Director would develop relationships with owners and landlords in order to identify those who are willing to rent apartments to A-SPAN clients. Department of Human Services (DHS) and Department of Community, Planning Housing and Development (DCPHD) staff believe this program has a lot of value. This position could augment work currently done by DHS staff to place clients in the community with adequate support and services. A-SPAN also receives $100,111 through the Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-funded Arlington County Continuum of Care to pay for rental subsidies, case management, and some administrative fees for these five supportive housing units. The $50,000 funding recommendation was reviewed and supported by the Housing Commission at its meeting on December 7, 2007. The Community Development Citizens Advisory Committee also reviewed the proposal and supports the recommendation. The program supports the goals of the County’s Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. AFAC: Please provide an assessment of AFAC’s request to double the County’s contribution. DHS supports AFAC’s request for increased funding. DHS partners with AFAC to provide emergency and supplemental food to needy Arlingtonians. Supplemental food allows very low income families as well as elderly and disabled individuals on fixed incomes to pay increasing costs of rent and utilities.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.15._follow-up - AFAC_ASPAN.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\G.15._follow-up - AFAC_ASPAN.doc

AFAC’s current budget is $800,000. The County’s contribution in the FY 2009 proposed budget is $124,530. During the period between March 2007 and March 2008, clients seeking food assistance from AFAC increased by 30% from 644 to 837. AFAC served an average of 837 families per week. This increased demand is supported by data from DHS’s Crisis Assistance Bureau (CAB), which experienced a 17% increase in clients in the first half of FY 2008. CAB clients account for a significant number of the referrals made to AFAC. AFAC reports that donations from grocery stores are down, making it necessary to buy more food which drives up costs. AFAC believes they cannot continue to provide the current level of nutrition without increased funding. The cost of food is constantly increasing. Nutrition will be compromised (hot dogs instead of chicken, fewer protein items) without increased funding. Meat, milk, eggs, produce, etc. are very rarely donated and must be purchased. Most donations are non-perishables. Like Arlington, other jurisdictions in Northern Virginia have also reported increases in requests for emergency food. Requests for food assistance have increased approximately 13% in Alexandria over the past year. For the same period in February 2007 and February 2008, emergency food requests increased 27% in Fairfax County. Possible causes of increased demand for food assistance include:

• increasing cost of rent, gas, utilities and other basic necessities making it hard to afford food;

• people receiving social security income, whether elderly or disabled, get a small increase in income every year, which results in a loss of food stamps since the food stamp income rate does not increase; and

• unemployment for very low wage workers is up in the winter, particularly with seasonal gardening workers.

The County Manager is recommending the appropriation of $39,216 in FY 2008 Virginia Community Service Block Grant funds to AFAC to help offset their current year deficit. This recommendation will come before the Board at the April 19, 2008 meeting.


April 11, 2009

The following information is provided in response to a request raised on March 20, 2008 for a list of all the nonprofits the County supports and the level of support received. Please see the attached spreadsheet.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\A.21._follow-up-County nonprofits.doc

Nonprofit Services Provided by Nonprofit

Department where nonprofit is budgeted FY 07 Actual FY 08 Revised FY 09 Proposed

AHC Inc

Nonprofit developer of affordable housing. Includes services to assist with rental and ownership of affordable units, as well as single-family and multi-family rehab. CD Fund $285,048 $394,500 $393,000

AHC Inc

Nonprofit developer of affordable housing. Includes services to assist with rental and ownership of affordable units, as well as single-family and multi-family rehab. DCPHD $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Alexandria Narcotics TreatmentMethadone detox and linkage to continuing services for Arlington residents. DHS/BHCD $99,956 $99,947 $99,947

Animal Welfare League Animal control, sheltering and adoption services. Regionals $1,077,335 $1,189,643 $1,229,326Arlington Food Assistance Center Food to low income Arlington residents. CD Fund $15,000 $22,500 $22,500Arlington Food Assistance Center Food to low income Arlington residents. DHS/EID $119,522 $120,092 $124,530

Arlington Free Clinic Health care services to low income, uninsured residents. DHS/PHD $2,261 $2,261 $2,981Arlington Home Ownership Made Easier Home ownership counseling and workshops. CD Fund $40,500 $40,500 $40,500

Arlington Independent MediaNon-government affiliated public access channel, providing content to residents. Regionals $446,884 $546,561 $586,555

Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing Multi-family affordable housing development. DCPHD $72,600 $72,600 $72,600

Arlington Pediatric Center Case management services for Medicaid eligible children. DHS/PHD $53,965 $57,084 $58,935

Arlington Red Cross

Transportation for elderly persons for groceries and medical appointments. Red Cross also purchases Specialized Transit Arlington Residents (STAR) vouchers to provide a voucher assistance program for users needing medical trips who cannot afford the round trip cost. DHS/ADSD $50,484 $70,730 $71,728

Arlington Street People's Assistance Network (A-SPAN)

Operation of Emergency Winter Shelter. Until February 2008, A-SPAN operated the Emergency Winter Shelter for homeless individuals; Volunteers of America took over from February 2008 through March 2008. DHS/EID $83,249 $86,461 $92,338

Arlington Street People's Assistance Network

Bagged meal program - provides food to homeless individuals. DHS/EID $35,000 $35,400 $39,499

Arlington-Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless Shelter and life skills for homeless families. CD Fund $28,400 $28,400 $28,400Arlington-Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless

Transitional housing for eligible households that are considered homeless. DHS/EID $574,866 $409,114 $422,253

Arlingtonians Meeting Emergency Needs, Inc.

Financial assistance to Arlington County residents who need emergency rent, utility, clothing, medical or transportation help and who have been referred by Arlington agencies. CD Fund $15,000 $0 $0

Arlingtonians Meeting Emergency Needs, Inc.

Financial assistance to Arlington County residents who need emergency rent, utility, clothing, medical or transportation help and who have been referred by Arlington agencies. DHS/EID $210,715 $214,147 $215,365

Aurora House Girls' Group HomeLong term residential treatment center for court-referred girls. JDR $421,114 $442,259 $508,692

Ballston Partnership Business support for Ballston urban village. AED $65,000 $65,000 $65,000

Ballston Science & Technology AllianceSupport for efforts to brand Ballston as scientific center for Arlington County. AED $0 $45,000 $45,000

Bonder and Amanda Johnson Community Development Center

Start-up funds to establish and manage a community service center in the Nauck Community. DCPHD $70,579 $0 $0

Bonder and Amanda Johnson Community Development Center

Overall management of programs and services of Nauck Community Services Center. DHS/EID $0 $80,000 $80,000

Borromeo Housing Inc. Housing and training for homeless teenage mothers. DCPHD $0 $40,000 $20,000

Borromeo Housing Inc. Housing and training for homeless teenage mothers. CD Fund $0 $300,000 $0

Borromeo Housing Inc.Transitional housing for eligible households that are considered homeless. DHS/EID $6,666 $8,000 $8,320

Brain Injury Services

Long-term case management, employment assistance, independent living skills, training, transportation, respite care, and recreational/socialization programs for persons with brain injury. Regionals $21,166 $22,073 $22,735

Business Development Assistance Group

Technical assistance to low and moderate income persons wanting to start a business. CD Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

Buyers and Renters Arlington Voice Tenant advocacy services. DCPHD $50,000 $85,000 $85,000

Capital Hospice

Care for terminally ill patients and their families with a comprehensive program of medical and psychosocial care. Programs include home care, inpatient care and bereavement counseling. Regionals $12,027 $12,838 $12,821

CARE Programs for Nauck youth and teens. CD Fund $24,000 $23,000 $22,000

Central Fairfax Services, Inc.Day support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $161,740 $137,096 $137,096

Note: Key to Department and Division acronyms is located at the end of this document.



Child and Family Network Pre-school readiness program. DCPHD $25,000 $0 $85,000Child and Family Network Pre-school readiness program. CD Fund $0 $65,000 $0Clarendon Alliance Business support for Clarendon. AED $65,000 $65,000 $65,000

Columbia Lighthouse for the BlindInformation, orientation, mobility training, referral, and peercounseling for visually impaired persons. Regionals $6,409 $6,601 $28,600

Columbia Pike Revitalization Business Support for Columbia Pike. AED $80,000 $80,000 $80,000

Community Living Alternatives

Supervised apartment services and in-home residential services for individuals with intellectual and developmentaldisabilities. DHS/ADSD $320,999 $321,488 $329,630

Community Residences

MH Group Home: Housing and support services for up to 29 Arlington clients with serious mental Illness. Transitional living: Short-term housing and support services for homeless and transitional clients with mental illness. DHS/BHCD $1,247,600 $1,615,678 $1,665,596

Community Residences

Congregate residential services, supervised apartment services and in-home residential services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $1,339,826 $1,400,232 $1,465,523

Crisislink Staffs a 24/7 confidential listening and referral hotline. Regionals $103,461 $106,761 $110,337

CSICongregate residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $142,404 $197,250 $247,289

Culpepper Garden Assisted living care to low income seniors. DHS/ADSD $370,835 $362,124 $384,282

Didlake, Inc.Day support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $20,574 $46,073 $46,073

Doorways for Women and FamiliesOperates two shelters for victims of domestic violence and homeless individuals and their families. CD Fund $453,049 $200,366 $0

Doorways for Women and FamiliesOperates two shelters for victims of domestic violence and homeless individuals and their families. DCPHD $0 $25,000 $12,500

Doorways for Women and FamiliesOperates two shelters for victims of domestic violence and homeless individuals and their families. DHS/EID $461,842 $471,358 $497,810

Doorways for Women and FamiliesTransitional housing for eligible households that are considered homeless. DHS/EID $38,485 $64,240 $66,810

Easter Seals of the Greater Washington-Baltimore-NOVA Region

Adult day care services to frail seniors and adults with disabilities in need of a safe and protected environment. DHS/ADSD $0 $358,000 $369,814

EchoDay support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $24,867 $27,355 $27,355

Endependence CenterPromotes and provides training on independent living and equal access for all persons with disabilities. Regionals $89,880 $89,880 $92,576

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Information and referral, employment, housing, translation/interpretation, social and support services to the African refugee and immigrant community. Regionals $129,785 $132,415 $140,587

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Information and referral, employment, housing, translation/interpretation, social and support services to the African refugee and immigrant community. CD Fund $39,922 $55,448 $55,500

E-Torn Systems, Inc.Day support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $84,530 $27,672 $27,672

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc

Fellowship: Intensive residential treatment and support services for clients with serious mental illness; Fellowship Access: Highly intensive residential treatment to those Arlington clients with serious mental illness in acute crisis. DHS/BHCD $1,575,972 $1,700,753 $1,744,275

Fellowship Health Resources, IncCongregate residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $138,872 $0 $0

Food For Others (FFO)Supplemental and bulk food distribution to Arlington County residents and special groups in need. DHS/EID $19,911 $21,324 $21,551

Friends of Guest HouseHousing, employment, and counseling services to female parolees. Regionals $43,553 $45,393 $46,619

Gates of Arlington Tenants Association Youth programs for Buckingham Neighborhood Strategy Area. DCPHD $0 $40,000 $20,000

Gates of Arlington Tenants AssociationYouth programs for Buckingham Neighborhood Strategy Area. CD Fund $3,000 $1,500 $0

GMU Small Business Development Assistance Group /Small Business Development Council Assistance for George Mason Small Business Center. AED $0 $22,000 $0

Greater Washington InitiativeOperating support for Greater Washington Initiative, a regional economic development marketing organization. AED $20,000 $25,000 $25,000

Greenbrier Learning Center Youth programs in Columbia Heights West. DCPHD $10,409 $1,000 $0

Greenbrier Learning Center

Phoenix bike program - opportunity for youth to learn how to repair and maintain bicycles. They also provide youth social events, bike rides, cook outs, fund raising, etc. PRCR $27,000 $8,000 $8,000



Hartwood Foundation

Congregate residential services on a respite/emergency basis to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $72,056 $70,900 $73,027

Health Systems Agency of Northern Virginia

Plans for the healthcare needs of the area and works with other regional groups as it relates to healthcare issues. Regionals $19,200 $19,800 $19,800

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (formerly known as the Ibero American Chamber of Commerce) Spanish business outreach services. AED $45,000 $65,000 $65,000

Hispanic Committee of VirginiaReferral and information services for Spanish-speaking residents. Regionals $283,797 $292,745 $292,745

Hispanic Committee of VirginiaLimited financial assistance not otherwise met by federal, state, or local programs for Arlington County residents. DHS/EID $8,428 $8,428 $8,428

Home Care Partners

In-home services to seniors and homebound adults with disabilities. Services include personal care, nutritional support, environmental maintenance, laundry, grocery shopping and running errands. Services provided are not medical in nature, and therefore, are not reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance. DHS/ADSD $1,094,660 $1,145,137 $1,171,827

Hospice of Northern Virginia Care to terminally ill patients and their families. DHS $12,027 $12,382 $12,821

Icon Community ServicesDay support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $91,367 $70,935 $70,935

Job Discovery, Inc. Residential ServicesCongregate residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $47,800 $59,750 $76,231

Job Discovery, Inc. Vocational ServicesDay support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $84,380 $92,084 $92,084

Just Neighbors Ministry Legal services to low and moderate income immigrants. CD Fund $10,000 $20,000 $20,000

Just Neighbors MinistryCongregate residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $30,984 $32,876 $38,230

L'Arche Group home for disabled persons. CD Fund $0 $28,868 $0

L'ArcheProvides congregate residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $30,984 $32,876 $38,230

Legal Services of Northern Virginia Legal services to low-income and elderly residents. Regionals $484,336 $407,605 $419,139

Literacy Council of No. VirginiaTutoring in reading and writing for functionally illiterate adults including English as Second Language students Regionals $22,500 $22,700 $23,460

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Provides a forum for consensus building and policy-making; implementing intergovernmental policies, plans, and programs; and serving as an information resource. Regionals $201,662 $203,477 $210,983

Mount Vernon Lee Enterprises

Custodial services and automobile cleaning/detailing services provided to the County with Department of Human Services clients with a primary diagnosis of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Also provides day support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $140,982 $185,375 $185,375

National Rehabilitation and Rediscovery Foundation

Dance and movement workshops for residents with mobility and sensory-based disabilities. Regionals $10,137 $10,441 $10,754

Northern Virginia Sheltercare Program Temporary placement for children in need of supervision. JDR $160,177 $176,459 $188,932

Northern Virginia AIDS MinistryHIV/AIDS education programs in schools and other community settings. Regionals $27,591 $30,265 $30,244

Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC)

Ongoing capital contribution to NVCC, which provides education and training opportunities to residents. PAYG $193,000 $196,000 $195,000

Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC) Education and training opportunities to residents. Regionals $18,065 $17,938 $17,938

Northern Virginia Conservation Trust (NVCT)

Protect and expand the natural, cultural, and historic resources of Arlington Country. As part of its mission, NVCT acquires interests in property through the use of conservation easements, options to purchase, fee simple purchases and other methods of acquisition. PRCR $138,000 $150,000 $150,000

Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy Law enforcement training to police and sheriff recruits. Regionals $491,596 $504,160 $533,326

Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy

Supports capital program of the Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy, which provides law enforcement trainingto police and sheriff recruits. PAYG $147,000 $156,000 $234,000

Northern Virginia Economic Development Partnership

Regional coalition of which Arlington Economic Development is a member. AED $500 $500

Northern Virginia Family Service Social services and counseling to families. CD Fund $38,200 $71,200 $71,200

Northern Virginia Family Service

Assistance with tracking and paying bills for seniors no longer able to do so for themselves due to disabling illnesses. DHS/ADSD $10,882 $35,345 $36,282




Healthy Families Arlington program - Promotes health, early stimulation, and nurturing of children ages 0-5 in families at risk of poor outcomes through home visitation as an effort to prevent child abuse and neglect. DHS/CFSD $241,087 $247,919 $254,760


Early Head Start program - Promotes healthy prenatal outcomes, enhances the development of very young children, and promotes healthy family functioning for children ages 4 weeks to 3 years old. Assists children living with families whose income is at or below the poverty level and who are working, in school, or in training 30 or more hours per week. DHS/CFSD $25,000 $25,914 $27,028

Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Home

Detention and rehabilitative services for adolescents held before juvenile courts Regionals $2,335,194 $2,255,551 $2,384,911

Northern Virginia Life Sciences Coalition

Promotes business growth in the biotechnology community. AED $0 $15,000 $15,000

Northern Virginia Regional Commission

Information, professional and technical services for its members, and serves as a mechanism for regional coordination on a wide range of issues. Regionals $95,989 $97,800 $97,179

Northern Virginia Regional Identification System

Fingerprint identification system used by area law enforcement as combined resource to identify criminal offenders. PAYG $27,000 $0 $0

Northern Virginia Regional Identification System

Fingerprint identification system used by area law enforcement as combined resource to identify criminal offenders. POL $32,406 $41,282 $41,282

Northern Virginia Regional CommissionMaintain the environmental sustainability of Four Mile Run. Non-Departmental $48,945 $50,949 $54,630

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority

Recreational activities to residents and conservation efforts. Regionals $377,651 $404,160 $412,058

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority

Ongoing capital contribution to Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, which provides recreational activities to residents and conservation efforts. PAYG $480,000 $503,000 $514,000

Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Information and referral, case management, advocacy andeducation services to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Regionals $45,647 $47,016 $48,426

Northern Virginia Transportation Commission

Facilitate planning, development and maintenance of Northern Virginia's transportation system. Regionals $66,091 $63,653 $60,728

Northern Virginia Community College Mary Marshall Scholarship

Scholarship provides tuition assistance to part-time students. DHS $11,025 $11,025 $11,025

Offender Aid and Restoration

Correction and rehabilitation services to adult offenders and service placement and supervision to juveniles and adults. Regionals $390,807 $402,697 $416,187

Offender Aid and Restoration Social services and job training to ex-offenders. CD Fund $0 $20,000 $20,000

Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Authority

Ongoing capital support to Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Authority, which provides detention services to persons arrested in Arlington County and Reagan NationalAirport. PAYG $204,000 $204,000 $176,000

Peumansend Regional JailDetention services to persons arrested in Arlington Countyand Reagan National Airport. Regionals $656,097 $688,305 $688,246

PRS, Inc

Provides contract labor to assist Job Avenue in providing supported employment services for Arlington clients with mental illness. DHS/BHCD $0 $72,357 $72,357

Rehabilitative Services Incentive FundMatch to state funds available for local projects that assist persons with disabilities. Regionals $1,668 $1,718 $1,668

Resources for Independence VA (RIVA)In-home residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $10,344 $9,984 $9,984

Robert Pierre JohnsonVolunteer home repair and multi-family housing development. DCPHD $506,000 $91,000 $91,000

Rosslyn Renaissance Business support for Rosslyn AED $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

Second Genesis

Residential substance abuse treatment program lasting between 6 and 8 months for clients with substance abuse issues or with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health issues. DHS/BHCD $218,454 $271,221 $280,171

Senior Services of Alexandria

Assistance with tracking and paying bills for seniors no longer able to do so for themselves due to disabling illnesses. Contract cancelled December 2006. Awarded to Northern Virginia Family Services beginning January 2007. DHS/ADSD $11,797 $0 $0

Service Source NetworkProvides day support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $901,797 $787,961 $787,961

Services for the Visually Impaired

Information, orientation, mobility training, referral, and peercounseling for visually impaired persons In FY 2008, the agency ceased to exist and all services are now provided by Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind. Regionals $18,278 $21,999 $0

Shirlington Education and Employment Center Employment services to day laborers. CD Fund $0 $52,000 $52,000



Shirlington Education and Employment Center Employment services to day laborers. DCPHD $140,000 $140,000 $140,000

SOC Enterprises

Vocational/habilitation services for clients with mental illness providing employment opportunities in group and supported environments. DHS/BHCD $52,112 $68,289 $70,543

SOC EnterprisesDay support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $334,091 $314,951 $314,951

St Coletta's of Greater WashingtonEmployment and daytime developmental services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $109,788 $307,423 $307,423

St. John's Community Services

Day support and employment services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Also provides congregate residential services and in-home residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $56,605 $116,459 $116,459

The Arlington Education & Employment Program

English as a Second Language classes for Arlington County residents. DHS/EID $725,215 $746,971 $767,665

The Women's Home, Inc.

Residential substance abuse treatment program providing a safe, structured, and stable living environment for recovering women alcoholics and addicts. DHS/BHCD $876 $3,563 $3,688

Virginia Adult Probation and ParoleControlling and supervising persons on probation and/or parole. Regionals $55,650 $50,658 $50,658

Vanguard Services Unlimited Substance abuse counseling. CD Fund $25,000 $0 $0

Vanguard Services Unlimited

Phoenix House: Residential substance abuse treatment program focusing on male clients with chronic addictions and a host of related server problems. Demeter House: Residential substance abuse treatment program focusing on women, including those who are pregnant, have custody of their children or the ability to regain custody following successful treatment. Independence House: Transitional/residential substance abuse services program which helps prepare clients to re-enter the world. For men and women in the early stages of recovery who have just completed a primary residential treatment program. Nuevo Dia: Residential and transitional substance abuse treatment program for monolingual Spanish-speaking adults. DHS/BHCD $1,076,705 $1,060,559 $862,168

Virginia Hospital CenterMedical detox services for Arlington County residents with substance abuse issues. DHS/BHCD $6,761 $3,256 $3,363

Virginia Justice CenterLegal services to low and moderate income workers regarding employment. CD Fund $10,000 $20,000 $20,000

Virginia TechVirginia Tech provides assistance to non-profits through workshops at Central Library. AED $0 $50,000 $50,000

Volunteers of America (VOA)

Operates the County-owned Residential Program Center (RPC) designed to address personal, employment and housing problems for homeless individuals. In addition, VOA operates the RPC Detox and Early Recovery Programs. RPC Detox provides social model detox services for clients with substance abuse issues. Early Recovery provides residential substance abuse treatment to clients with chemical dependencies. DHS/EID/BHCD $1,509,926 $1,501,022 $1,531,743

Volunteers of America (VOA)Congregate residential services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DHS/ADSD $127,010 $147,468 $151,086

Wesley Housing Development Corp.Multi-family housing development and social services to low income tenants. CD Fund $4,062 $0 $0

Whitman Walker Clinic Case management services for HIV clients. DHS/PHD/BHCD $99,994 $127,372 $86,778

TOTALS $25,995,145 $27,511,865 $27,565,137

AED=Arlington Economic Development

ADSD=Aging and Disability Services Division

CFSD=Child and Family Services Division

BHCD=Behavioral Healthcare Division

EID=Economic Independence Division

JDR=Juvenile Domestic Relations

PAYG=Pay-As-You-Go Capital

PHD=Public Health Division

CD=Community Development

DCPHD=Department of Community Planning Housing and Development

DHS=Department of Human Services

Key to Department and Division Acronyms



PRCR=Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

POL=Police


April 1, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on March 20 at the County Board work session regarding Library services and budget. Provide hours that libraries are open.

Branch Monday – Thursday Friday - Sunday

Central Monday-Thursday: 9 AM to 10 PM (Children's Room Closes at 9 PM)

Friday & Saturday: 9 AM to 5 PM Sunday: 1 PM to 9 PM

Cherrydale Aurora Hills Glencarlyn Westover

Monday: 10 AM to 9 PM Tuesday & Wednesday: 1 PM to 9 PM Thursday: 10 AM to 6 PM

Friday & Saturday: 10 AM to 5 PM Sunday: Closed

Columbia Pike Shirlington

Monday: 10 AM to 9 PM Tuesday & Wednesday: 1 PM to 9 PM Thursday: 10 AM to 6 PM

Friday & Saturday: 10 AM to 5 PM Sunday: 1 PM to 5 PM

Plaza Monday - Thursday: 8 AM to 5 PM Friday: 8 AM to 5 PM Saturday & Sunday: Closed

Provide the rationale for closing Central Library 1 hour earlier Monday through Thursday. As we worked through our FY 2009 planning process it became clear that we needed to re-visit the notion of reducing hours in order to meet our overall operating expense ceiling. We identified several potential ways to reduce our staffing expenses while minimizing the impact to our patrons, and ultimately we determined that closing Central Library at 9 PM Monday through Thursday instead of 10 PM represented the best of our choices for the following reasons:

Has the least impact on the time of day when demand for library staff assistance is highest (9 AM to 10 AM). Late evening users tend to be more self sufficient.

Maintains our current position at or above parity with Central Library service offerings in other jurisdictions when measured by total number of hours open.

Makes closing times consistent across library branches Monday through Saturday;

Allows for multiple morning youth services programs on mornings when branches are closed.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\H.2._follow-up- Library responses.doc

After careful evaluation and consideration, we decided that reducing the hours at Central Library was the best way to deliver cost savings while minimizing the impact on both our patrons, and our system-wide ability to achieve effectively and efficiently our mission of providing access to information, creating connections among people and promoting reading and culture--for every Arlingtonian and other patrons. How much would it cost to extend the service hours at a branch by 4 extra hours a week to compensate for the reduction at Central? The FY 2009 budget includes a reduction of $10,566 which we proposed to achieve by reducing the hours we are open to the public at the Central Library by one hour each evening, Monday through Thursday, for a net reduction of 4 hours a week. During the County Board work session, we were asked about the possibility of extending hours at one or more branches to offset the planned reduction at Central. It is critical to bear in mind that this is not a one for one comparison. Because of the size of Central and hours of operation, staffing is comprised of a number of full-time, part-time and substitute staff assigned to at least 2 shifts each day. This makes it easier to re-assign staff adding incremental hours as needed. This also makes cutting one hour very straight forward from a staffing perspective. In contrast, increasing service hours in branches is much more complicated because there are fewer numbers of people to move around; thus an increase of one hour (for example from 8 service hours to 9 service hours) requires putting in place a second work shift or paying overtime. It is not realistic to assume that employees will agree to work a one-hour shift, resulting in a cost estimate based upon a four-hour shift. Consequently, while the estimate may seem high, it reflects the conservatively estimated cost of a second shift each day for which branch hours are extended. The estimated cost of extending public hours at a branch by four extra hours a week, one hour each of four days, is $34,008 per year. This reflects an additional expense of $654 per week. If the Library Department had an extra $10,000, then how would Libraries choose to spend it? We would allocate the entire amount to additional materials for the following reasons:

Materials are the focal point of our mission. It is the variety, desirability and availability of materials that bring the public to the library.

The FY 2009 materials budget was reduced by $35,000 (approximately 3%) in order to meet budget goals. Restoring $10,000 would bring the reduction to 2%.


While our materials budget has remained fairly flat over the past 10 years, demand has been steadily increasing, creating an ever widening gap.

Our buying power has steadily decreased due to inflation; the cost of electronic resources alone has been rising by an average of 6% a year.

We estimate that demand outstripped our materials budget's ability to meet that demand by approximately 35-40% in 2007. This is evidenced by the dramatically increasing volume of materials on hold – books, cd's, dvd's etc.., and the number of people in the hold queue for these materials. (* See examples below).

There is a significant increase in demand for a variety of material formats: o Cassettes, CD's and downloads for music. o Videotapes and DVD's for video, with a growing demand for blue ray

versions. o Cassettes, CD's and downloads for audio books.

Many of these formats do not hold up well and need frequent replacement (e.g. DVD's).

We expect that new formats of materials will continue to emerge for which there will be demand and an associated cost.

* Hold Examples A DVD on hold will circulate 2 times a month. A book on hold will circulate 1 time a month.

DVD – "Ratatouille" (a children's movie) – 126 holds and 20 copies. DVD – "Waitress" (not a recent release) – 108 holds and 14 copies. Book – "Eat, Love, Pray" – 132 holds and 33 copies Book – "Pillars of Earth" – 99 holds and 23 copies

What is viewership of AVN, the School’s cable channel, and AIM? How can we track viewership? Information concerning AVN viewership is limited by the very nature of the medium. Presently our sole source of information regarding viewership of AVN offerings is the most recent county community satisfaction survey dating back to 2004 which indicated the following:

71% of respondents of the survey mentioned above have cable television. 24% watch more than 30 minutes per month. 17% of respondents indicated that they use the cable channel to obtain

information about Arlington County. 11% of respondents indicated that the cable channel was one of their top 3

choices for getting information about the county. 47% indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the information on the

County's government channel.



Ideally, we would like to have more detailed information about the number of people who watch AVN, which programs, times of day, demographic niches served, next generation opportunities and special requests (e.g. more Spanish or Asian language offerings). We are presently working on a plan to achieve this and we also expect to be included in the next Arlington County community satisfaction survey. Information is not currently available from the Schools or AIM regarding their tracking of viewership. It is likely that both channels are in similar situations to AVN, in that they rely on customer survey data.


April 3, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session regarding the Pay As You Go (PAYG) capital budget for the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources (PRCR). Some of the costs for the PRCR projects seem quite high. Is there any way to pull them down without sacrificing our goals? The cost estimate for each project covers the full cost to renovate or replace the existing park amenity and bring it up to current standards. Depending on the project this can include: demolition; surveying; equipment; installation; compliance with Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, storm water requirements, and ADA requirements; permitting fees; third party materials testing; architectural and engineering services; project administration; and construction management. PRCR keeps a running list of projects, which will be modified in fall 2008 based on the outcome of the current phase of the Life Cycle Assessment; any remaining project funds “roll” to the next project on the list. What else is in the queue for the Lyon Village/Clarendon area given the amount of work already concentrated in that area? The only other improvements planned for the Lyon Village Park are a picnic shelter replacement and capital restoration of the basketball and tennis courts. These two projects are shown in the proposed PAYG budget (page 14), there are no other anticipated improvements planned for Lyon Village Park. What does the note on p. 14 of the PAYG section of the budget mean – does the County Board approve all projects at some point or does the adoption of the PAYG budget in the overall adopted budget give our assent to these particular projects? The County Board approves maintenance capital funding as a total amount as part of the PAYG budget. The list of projects presented in the budget represents the project priorities and preliminary cost estimates at the time the PAYG budget is developed. Currently the County Manager and the Departments have the discretion to make adjustments in priorities and project funding allocation with in the program if necessary. Major adjustments are seldom required.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.7._follow up - PAYG Parks.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.7._follow up - PAYG Parks.doc

What’s the overall big picture for the TJ field? What’s the right surface to put in? The upper field is currently unplayable. The immediate solution is to install irrigation and sod on the field this summer, which will allow it to be put back into play for the fall 2008. TJ is identified as a potential site for synthetic turf in the Public Spaces Master Plan. However, before PRCR could move forward with the installation there would need to be at least some modified level of community planning for the TJ athletic complex. This is necessary to ensure that the synthetic turf field was properly sited before making the more substantial investment in synthetic turf, field lighting, and associated support amenities. How do we prioritize tennis courts for refurbishment? How do we decide when a playground will be a candidate for replacement? Do we have an evaluation process? What are the criteria? Most of the tennis courts were constructed in the late 1950’s to early 1970’s and exceed the industry standards for estimated useful life, which is 25 years. Playgrounds have typically been replaced on a 15 year life cycle. When there is funding available to replace a tennis court or playground, staff assesses the oldest of these facilities to determine which one is the best candidate for major renovation/replacement. Current practice is to do a visual assessment and look at recent maintenance work orders. As part of the life cycle assessment, PRCR will be looking at best practices of similar jurisdictions and developing criteria for the County that will prioritize projects and guide the decision making process.


Friday, April 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised in an email from Ms. Hynes dated April 9th regarding farmers market fees. Mary Hynes Question: I was wondering if you had done any work on looking at Arlington’s farmer’s market fees compared to surrounding jurisdictions. I was surprised that we charge the same amount no matter the size of the market or the day of the week. But perhaps that is common? Farmers Market Fees Benchmark Arlington County -- $9 per market Fairfax County -- $8.33 per market Alexandria -- $2.88 per market Ballston -- $14 per market Clarendon -- $20 per market Columbia Pike -- $13 per market City of Fairfax -- $9-$20 per market (per market price reduction if vendor signs up for full season or half season) The County government only has one market at 14th Street North and North Courthouse Road area. It occurs every Saturday morning except the last Saturday in December. Each farmer gets the same amount of space at our market. The farmers markets in Ballston, Clarendon, and Columbia Pike are run by the respective business alliance/partnerships, and they set their own rates.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\H.3._follow-up PRCR farmers market_Hynes.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\H.4._follow-up PRCR.doc 1

50%

Arlington Virginia

Pricing Policy

100%+

0%

100%

75%


April 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 1, at the County Board work session regarding Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (PRCR) fees, fee reductions, and arts marketing. Provide more information on

how fees work, how the subsidy works, how we allocate the costs that get built into the fees how we define costs

In 2005, DPRCR worked with a consulting company, GreenPlay, to establish a philosophical foundation for a comprehensive pricing and cost recovery policy. We began using this policy as a basis for developing fees in FY 2007 and beyond. The principles of the policy are: • Recreation and leisure programs offered by the County provide varying levels of

benefit; ranging from benefits to community to highly individual benefit (see pyramid below).

• Many recreation and leisure programs offered by the County are not essential life services or do not provide benefit to the community as a whole. Therefore, these particular programs do not justify a 100% tax dollar subsidy. This necessitates user fees.

How we define costs: Program costs, as related to determining fees, are most commonly defined as direct staff costs, direct operating supplies (examples: art supplies, balls, paper, clay and glazes, and kiln firing), direct equipment purchases (examples: yoga mats, blocks, bouncy balls, low free weights), and direct equipment replacements (examples: specialized flooring for dance and gymnastics). How fees work—in theory: User fees are determined by estimating the number of users for any particular program, then estimating the direct costs needed to serve these users; and finally dividing the total cost divided by the number of users. This dollar

amount is then juxtaposed to the pyramid, and the percent of cost recovery is determined. The percent of cost recovery is applied

to the dollar amount, and the user fee is established (this would be the target user fee).

Now, reality is considered: We must compare the target

user fee with the current user fee. Would increasing to the target user fee from the current user fee negatively

impact participation rates? Is the percent increase

unreasonable for an annual fee increase? If necessary, PRCR will propose to set the actual user fee below the target user fee. The subsidy, therefore, consists of direct costs and all indirect costs not recovered by the actual user fee. Supplemental Fees programs are recreation, sports, and art classes and activities that provide a highly individual benefit to the users. These program expenses and revenues are accounted for separately from other programs in the department’s budget. The Supplemental Fees program has been allowed to grow financially in order to support entrepreneurial types of programs for residents, as long as they recover direct costs. Classes are only held if enrollment/participation levels are sufficient for revenues to meet or exceed expenditures. In most years, revenues significantly exceeded expenditures.

Programs included are personal training, group exercise, wellness and fitness, swimming, gymnastics, fencing, martial arts, tennis, sports for tots, movement, dance, arts and crafts, pottery, drawing and painting, jewelry, photography, guitar, sailing, rock climbing and spelunking, dog obedience, CF Smith rental and programs, visual arts, and theatre use support.

The calculation of fees is based on direct costs. Direct costs are costs that would not exist without the program including other fixed costs that are in direct support of providing the program. These costs include: Salaries and benefits for instructors, program coordinators, monitors and/or

contractors costs. Registration cost for staff and supporting systems-RecTrac, WebTrac. Consumable equipment and supplies both purchased and leased like balls,

paper, clay and glazes, kiln firing, art supplies provided by instructor or agency, chalk, etc.

Non-consumable equipment purchased only for the program that require periodic, continual replacement or are necessary for the start of the program that are averaged or allocated like yoga mats, blocks, bouncy balls, low free weights, etc.

Equipment replacements – specialized flooring for dance, gymnastics. Brochure/Credit Card Fees.

Other fee programs that are supported by the General Fund (except Supplemental Fees Program) are adult sports teams, preschool, camps, swim tickets/membership, pool rental, recreation fitness center membership, picnic shelter rental, exclusive use rentals, senior adult registration, and farmers market site. Programs are conducted if base minimums are met, and there is a subsidy of costs. The calculation of fees is based on direct costs and other fixed costs that are in direct support of providing the program.

Salaries and benefits for program coordinators, monitors, field supervisors, officials, coaches and/or contractors costs.


Hourly or part time temporary salaries for instructors, leaders, aides, and some temporary help for vacancies or absences.

Contractual services for coaches, officials, instructors, etc. Consumable equipment and supplies — purchased and leased — like balls,

paper, clay and glazes, kiln firing, and art supplies provided by instructor or agency.

Uniforms, tee shirts, for participants and staff. Training specifically for the program or service like CPR and First Aid, on-

going or reimbursed training and certifications. Transportation costs like van driver and mileage, parking, tolls, detailing, or

rental of busses, taxis, metro, etc. Entry fees, tickets, admissions for participants and leaders/instructors. Rental fees for facilities, spaces, janitors, charge backs, etc.

Wants to see what the forms and materials are that a person would get and fill out when applying for a membership at TJ (for instance). How would people find out when coming into a program that the fee reduction is available? A “Thomas Jefferson Community Center information package” is provided when a person applies for a membership. The package includes:

TJCC operation information: hours, general information, membership rates, reduced membership rates availability, membership criteria, and a list of other County Fitness Facilities.

Registration form for membership including the Senior Adult Programs Membership.

Information on wellness classes. Information on Art Studios.

The reduced membership is mentioned in the information package. When the customer asks about the reduced membership, we provide the fee reduction information. We are posting flyers that fee reductions are available at all community centers. The fee reduction package is enclosed. Provide a breakdown by program or type of program on the number of people getting a fee reduction or senior discount and the total number of participants Fee reductions for PRCR programs are available on a sliding scale based on household income and size. The scale is based on Federal Section 8 housing guidelines. In calendar year 2007, PRCR provided 518 fee reductions to qualified participants for summer camps, preschool, recreation fitness memberships, and sports programs.


Total Total Fee Percent Fee Programs Participants Reductions Reductions Preschool 207 20 10% Camps 2,222 220 10% Rec&Leisure Classes 7,492 86 1% Membership 2,991 61 2% Sports 3,456 131 4% TOTAL 16,368 518 3% In addition to the above fee reductions based on need, PRCR also provided a total of 1,159 senior discounts for classes and memberships (fitness and pools). Arlington Senior Adults, ages 55 and over, receive a 30% discount for classes and reduced-price memberships. Furthermore, PRCR also provides a 10% Family Discount Program for families enrolling more than one child in our summer camp and preschool programs. Finally, summer fun camps are offered at six locations at very modest flat rates. These camps serve about 400 participants each summer. Why is a discount being given to people at age 55 regardless of income and need? Is the same age used for the Senior discount in all PRCR programs? How does Arlington's age for the senior discount compare to other jurisdictions? The senior discount being offered to residents age 55 and older, regardless of income and need, is a historical policy. In the past, the County Board has not chosen to raise the age requirement or set an income requirement. Usage levels of the discount vary by program. For example, in CY 2007, 17.5% of fitness passes were purchased using a senior discount; for recreation and leisure classes, only 8.4% of participant individuals claimed the senior discount. Currently, Arlington senior adults age 55 and over receive a 30% discount on PRCR classes and memberships (fitness and pools). Senior discounts comparison with other neighboring jurisdictions:

City of Alexandria – no senior discount City of Fairfax – age 55 City of Falls Church, Leisure Classes - age 65 receive 50% discount Fairfax County Community Centers - age 55 Fairfax County Park Authority – age 62 receive 40% discount Loudoun County – age 55 Montgomery County – no senior discount

Provide more information on what's being recovered by the fees for the different programs.


For instance, for a soccer league, what costs are being recovered by the fee?

Provide some examples - soccer, other sports. The target cost recovery for Adult Team Sports is 100% of direct costs, based on the previously discussed policy and the pyramid. Soccer Leagues: The team fee is $296/team/season (average $18/player/season) for soccer leagues is based on direct costs, which are salaries and benefits for a portion of the program liaison, facility monitors, and athletic field maintenance. The soccer leagues pay directly for other expenses such as umpires, tournament fees, trophies, etc. FY 2009 cost recovery rate based on the proposed fee is 81%. Football Leagues: The team fee is $350/team/season to cover direct costs, including salaries and benefits for a portion of the program staff, facility monitors, and athletic field maintenance. FY 2009 cost recovery rate based on the proposed fee is 74%. In addition, there is a pass-through of $320 to cover expenses for umpires, tournament fees, trophies, and individual awards. Including both costs, the total average fee per player/season is $66 with an average of 14 players per team. Basketball Leagues: Actual team payment to PRCR is $376/team/season to cover direct costs, including salaries and benefits for a portion of the program staff, facility monitors, and Arlington Public Schools custodial overtime. FY 2009 cost recovery rate based on the proposed fee is 69%. In addition, there is a pass-through of $389 to cover expenses for officials and awards/trophies. Including both costs, the total average fee per player/season is $91 with an average of 9 players per team. Softball Leagues: Actual Team payment to PRCR is $359/team/season to cover direct costs, including salaries and benefits for a portion of the program staff, facility monitors, and, and athletic field maintenance. FY 2009 cost recovery rate based on the proposed fee is 98%. In addition, there is a pass-through of $311 to cover expenses for umpires, tournament fees, trophies, individual awards, and association registration fees. Including both costs, the total average fee per player/season is $50 with an average of 14 players per team. Arlington County does not recover any costs for the youth affiliate groups (Arlington Soccer Association, Arlington Travel Soccer Club, Arlington Football League, Arlington Girls Softball Association, Arlington Little League, Arlington Babe Ruth, Arlington Senior Babe Ruth and Arlington Youth Lacrosse). The direct costs for these groups (salaries and benefits of county staff liaisons, facility monitors and athletic field maintenance staff) are not recovered. The Arts Commission would like questions added to the community survey - they want to know why some art venues are chosen over others, and why some art forms are chosen over others (i.e., dance vs. theatre). Can this be done within existing resources or are additional resources needed?


The Leisure Vision survey, developed to determine the community’s leisure interests as well as their perception of Arlington County programs and facilities, has already been completed and is in the process of being tabulated. It will next be repeated in approximately five years. It will not provide data for marketing research, and thus will not help the Arts Commission or staff learn why people choose various art venues. The commission would like to do a follow up survey specifically targeted to learn about community arts interests and marketing information. Additional funding would be required to implement this survey. Has the Economic Development staff weighed in on the value and proposal for marketing dollars for the arts (see Arts Commission letter)? Is a higher level of marketing appropriate? Can we market the arts in a way that makes it a part of a whole Arlington experience? People need to know that other things, like restaurants, are near the theatres. Can we do an analysis to see if there's been an impact on Crystal City restaurants from the presence of Arena Stage? The Arts Commission’s Marketing Committee worked with staff from Cultural Affairs and Economic Development on the formation of the plan that they are requesting County support to implement. The request for $20,000 will allow for an advertising program in City Paper. The investment in marketing will build audience attendance. According to the latest economic impact study of the Arts in Arlington, arts audiences from outside spend $34 per person and Arlington residents spend $18 per person in addition to the cost of admission. Information from Crystal City BID indicates that its restaurants report a 10% boost since Arena Stage opened. If PRCR had the additional funds being requested by the Arts Commission, are the uses proposed by the Commission the way staff would spend them? (In other words, what does staff think is the highest priority for additional funds?) What's the projected offsetting revenue to the County (i.e. from a cut on ticket sales) if the Commission's requests were funded? The Arts Commission requests were developed in consultation with Cultural Affairs Staff. Additional funds for marketing have been requested by the Arts Commission for the past five years and increases for the grants program mitigate the impact of funding cuts to all of our arts organizations due to the requests for support for two new organizations. Additional grant funding will allow the Commission to develop a matching program to encourage more arts groups to develop new sources of funding



from the private sector, an important component of supporting the ongoing growth of the arts community in the future. Additional ticket surcharge money should be realized with additional ticket sales. The current surcharge of 10% generates revenue of $60,000 per year.


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on what is being done on Wayfinding if we do not get the funding through the Pay-As-You-Go capital budget (where it is a Tier 2 priority), as well as what is being funded and planned for Wayfinding by the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). The County has pulled together a multi-departmental working group for Wayfinding to review the plans for design, fabrication and implementation of signage. In May, this group will present a technical board report that will request an advertisement to amend a zoning ordinance in order to allow parking Wayfinding signs to be placed on buildings. If the advertisement is approved, the plan will be presented in a June board report. At the April 8th work session, the County Manager indicated that he would hold a work session or individual briefings with Board members, if desired, to review the current plans for Wayfinding. Below are the details on the project and the funding. FY 2008 In FY 2008, the County has $225,000 appropriated for Wayfinding, focusing on reviewing the Wayfinding system and developing and implementing signage. To date, $125,000 has been spent to hire a consultant to review the Wayfinding system, and that work will be completed in FY 2008. In regards to signage, $100,000 is allocated for the engineering studies relating to the construction and material required for signage; engineering studies for the correct placement of the signs; fabrication of new signs; removal of old signs; and finally the installation of the signs. This first phase includes roughly 70 signs, and to date, those signs have not been developed, as the County is waiting for the completion of the engineering studies prior to development. FY 2009 Proposed The Tier II PAYG funding for Wayfinding, $500,000 allows for the removal of several existing, outdated, and/or damaged signs and to fabrication and installation of the first phase of the Wayfinding system. The first phase includes vehicular signs, pedestrian signs with maps, trail signage on off-road bike trails, and parking directional signs.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.5._Follow-up Wayfinding.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.5._Follow-up Wayfinding.doc

Wayfinding Efforts by the BIDs The Crystal City BID and the Rosslyn BID have set money aside for Wayfinding efforts in their corridor. Below are the write-ups from both the Rosslyn BID and the Crystal City BID on their wayfinding plans: Rosslyn BID Wayfinding Signage - There is not currently a clear parking garage or building locator program in Rosslyn. This deficiency materially hampers evening and weekend activities by non-residents, and makes the area less attractive to preferred retail and entertainment uses. The largest undertaking by the Rosslyn Business Improvement Corporation (RBIC) in this program service area, therefore, is the creation of a uniform Wayfinding system for downtown Rosslyn. The plans include working with the County to create a special signage district for Rosslyn, installing uniform parking signage, and creating a parking and Wayfinding program for pedestrians. A study was begun in FY 2006 with the contractor, Gensler, to make recommendations for:

• increasing visibility of and access to off-street parking resources for retail patrons;

• improving pedestrian circulation and safety; and • creating awareness of current parking and transportation resources in

Rosslyn. Gensler’s recommendations have been under County review for several months. The RBIC’s FY 2007 budget had $350,000 earmarked for installation of the signage and its FY 2008 budget had an additional $400,000 set aside. At this point, we anticipate that the installation funds will be authorized for expenditure before the end of this fiscal year and the cost of this project will not impact our FY 2009 budget. Crystal CIty BID: Way-finding - Undoubtedly one of the most complex processes from a County perspective in terms of implementation, this is also one of the most critical aspects of the physical texture of any neighborhood. Workers, Residents, and Visitors need to be able to know what is in the area and how to find it. Crystal City’s core way-finding program was developed by Vornado, It is a modern design standard which works well where it exists in the core. However, it needs desperately to be expanded to include the ends and edges of Crystal City. The BID is working closely with AED, who has engaged Gensler to develop a county standard. Once this standard is complete, the BID will work to get it implemented throughout the BID footprint.


April 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised on April 8, 2008 during the work session regarding how many General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendments have been advertised this year. Four GLUP amendments have been advertised in FY 2008. Staff anticipates four additional GLUP amendments will be advertised before the end of FY 2008.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\I.3._follow-up - GLUP amendments.doc


April 11, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised on April 9, 2008 regarding the allocation of housing development dollars. On page 78 of the budget summary, explain why we allocate the housing development dollars to our nonprofit partners in the way we do. I assume that these dollars are the ones that behave most like general operating support as compared to other funding that supports direct services to clients. (Hynes) The assumption is correct that the housing development funds provided through the Community Development Fund are used to fund a pro-rata portion of the general operating budgets of the nonprofit partners. The housing development funding was designed to help sustain the nonprofits between major projects when developer fees are not adequate to cover staffing and support costs. In contrast, other Community Development funds are provided to these organizations for purposes such as Moderate Income Purchase Assistance Program loans for down-payment and closing costs for individual home purchasers. The housing development funds are also distinctly different from the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) loans used to assist with acquisition, rehabilitation or development of “bricks and mortar” projects providing affordable housing units. Usually bricks and mortar projects include a developer fee as part of the total development budget that pays for nonprofit development staff. This developer fee is primarily covered by mortgage loan proceeds and tax credit equity.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\I.2._follow-up - allocation of housing development funds.doc


March 10, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the March 6th budget work session regarding the disposal of surplus vehicles. The Arlington County Purchasing Resolution (Resolution) establishes the authority for the management of the disposal of surplus supplies and equipment with the County Purchasing Agent. §5-101 states, in part: “The Purchasing Agent shall sell, transfer, trade or otherwise dispose of personal property belonging to the County which has become obsolete, unusable or surplus or which is being transferred in order to be leased back by the County under a lease purchase agreement. Any such sales, trades or exchanges shall be based on competitive bidding requirements wherever practicable.” No County agency is permitted to dispose of surplus property except as directed by the Purchasing Agent, and County employees are prohibited from buying such surplus property. The Resolution also permits the Purchasing Agent to “specifically authorize, in writing, the Department of Environmental Services to sell, transfer, trade or otherwise dispose of specified surplus County motor vehicles, trailers and related equipment…”, and such authorization has been given to the DES Equipment Bureau Chief. The process for such disposal is as follows: 1) Section supervisors submit to the Equipment Bureau Chief (the designated Auction Manager) a “Vehicle Disposal Condition Report” identifying the surplus vehicles; 2) The Auction Manager pulls titles for the Bureau Chief to approve and sign, prepares a letter to the County’s contract auction company that lists vehicles by equipment #, year, make/model, and serial #; 3) Upon approval, the Auction Manager forwards the letter with equipment details to the auction company, and schedules a date and time for the pickup; 4) On the day of the pickup, the auction company signs the original letter in the presence of the Auction Manager, and is given a copy along with signed titles. 5) On the day of the auction, the Auction Manager is present at the auction to monitor the sale. At the conclusion of the sale, the Auction Manager meets with the auction company to confirm prices of property sold and signs a letter of consent.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up - disposal of surplus property.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up - disposal of surplus property.doc

6) Within 2-3 weeks, the auction company sends a check via mail for the amount of all property sold, less auction fees (2.5% of Gross Sale Price). The Auction Manager verifies the auction transaction report and check amount. Occasionally vehicles are sold through an online auction service (successful bidder’s pays an 8% premium to the online auction company), transferred to other local governments, or advertised for competitive sealed bids (for large equipment) – all such transactions are specifically approved by the Purchasing Agent. Purchasing staff periodically inspects Equipment Bureau records to ensure they are in compliance with established procedures. Additionally, the County’s Purchasing Manual establishes the specific processes for disposal of surplus property other than vehicles.

1. Agency completes a “surplus property form” identifying property, and indicating its condition, age, model #, etc. 2. Purchasing Agent determines how best to dispose of the item (transfer to another agency, auction, re-cycle, disposal as trash, etc.) 3. Purchasing informs the employee in writing of the disposal method and contacts the auction company to pick up the item(s) if needed. 4. Auction company submits reports of auction sales with a check less auction fees (35% of Gross Sale Price) to the Purchasing Agent. Under a separate County Board policy, DTS is authorized to dispose of surplus or obsolete County computers by donating them to non-profit organizations for use by their clients without access to technology.


March 10, 2008

The following information is provided in response to a question raised at the February 26, 2008 budget work session regarding the workplans for the Rosslyn Business Improvement District and the Crystal City Business Improvement District. NOTE: The Rosslyn BID workplan on the second page references an FY 2009 proposed budget of $2.7 million; this was adjusted to $3.0 million based on actual assessment data prior to publication of the County Manager’s Proposed Budget.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up -BID workplans_file#1.doc

Rosslyn Business Improvement District

2007-2009 Work Program Activities & Plan

On July 1, 2003, the Rosslyn Business Improvement District (BID), the first business improvement district in Northern Virginia, started operations. It had been established by the County Board in December 2002, which set a five-year term for the new organization. In September 2007, the County Board acknowledged the success of the BID and extended the BID’s term indefinitely. BID services are carried out by the Rosslyn Business Improvement Corporation (RBIC), a not-for-profit corporation governed by a Board of Directors made up of property owners, residents, commercial and retail tenants, and County representatives. Established to promote a clean, safe and vibrant downtown commercial setting for workers, residents and visitors, the Rosslyn BID provides physical and cultural improvements for a 17-block commercial office core area in order to create an attractive location for business, dining, entertainment, tourism and residences. The BID’s boundaries are roughly Route 66 on the east, Key Bridge on the north, Pierce Street on the west, and 16th Street on the south. Property tax assessments devoted to the BID are designated to supplement, but not replace, the County’s basic public services and property owner responsibilities within the District. The services agreement between Arlington County and RBIC provides for the following supplemental, program service categories to be carried out by the Corporation:

• Marketing & Promotion • Social Services Coordination • Beautification, Cleaning & Maintenance

- Beautification & Streetscape Enhancement - Cleaning & Ambassador Services

• Community Activities & Events • Parking, Transportation, Pedestrian & Safety Programs • Any other appropriate activities approved in the work program and budget

according to law and the services agreement with the County.

History of the Rosslyn BID During the 1990’s, the concept of a BID along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor had been an on-going topic of discussion among Arlington County economic development officials and commercial property owners. In 2000, members of the board of directors of Rosslyn Renaissance, which had been formed in 1991,

1

worked together to organize the Rosslyn property owners and develop the boundaries for a Rosslyn-only BID. They submitted a $1 million work program, including the programs noted above, and reached an agreement with the County to contract back with County staff for beautification and cleaning services, as well as cultural activities programming. The RBIC board determined that, given the long history of Rosslyn Renaissance in the community, RBIC would share administrative staff and offices with Rosslyn Renaissance. For FY 2006, County officials agreed that with the success of the BID’s two start-up years, a broader budget would enable the organization to more fully provide the range of services necessary to give Rosslyn the “punch” it needed to be a world-class destination. The budget was expanded to almost $2 million. Landscaping and clean-up services were contracted to outside firms, and new community events and physical enhancements to Rosslyn were launched. Our current year budget was approved for $2,400,000 as a result of a tax rate of .087 per $100 of assessed property value. With new construction coming on-line in 2009 within the BID, we are assuming an increase of about 12% in commercial real estate assessment revenues for 2009 - generating a preliminary estimate of $2,700,000 based on the current tax rate. The RBIC will adjust its budget to conform with the .087 tax rate revenues for FY 2009 once actual assessments are known.

A Changing Rosslyn – Issues for Program Service Delivery One of the major trends affecting Rosslyn is the wave of construction that has just now begun, as new buildings are replacing the old. The result of this construction: a significant population increase and changing population mix for Rosslyn as a result of an influx of new workers and residents having different expectations for the community. Over 2,000 employees in the Corporate Executive Board (with an average age of 27 years old) will soon be relocating to Rosslyn as well as new residents in over 600 condominium units at Waterview, Turnberry, Wooster and Mercer Lofts, and 1800 Wilson. Another 460 new rental apartments, including over 100 affordable units, are under construction at Rosslyn Towers and Rosslyn Ridge just outside the BID boundaries. They will be followed by new residents in another 350 units at Central Place and thousands of more workers in the Central Place office tower and other new commercial buildings as well as additional residential buildings just beyond the BID’s borders. However, during this period of intensified development, care must be taken to address the issues raised by the construction phase. The Waterview complex is approaching completion, and the Turnberry luxury condominium tower has started. Much more is in the works within a relatively short period of time. If the

2

County and the BID do not act, negative impacts could occur within the next five years related to traffic congestion, blocked pedestrian thoroughfares, accidents, noise pollution, dirt and dust issues, disrupted surface public transportation and a host of other concerns for workers, residents and visitors in Rosslyn. The RBIC recognizes the need to anticipate and respond to major new trends in Rosslyn in its FY 2009 budget proposal. Its new population will want additional, nearby community amenities, such as fine restaurants, daytime and evening entertainment, destination retail stores, easy access to shopping and mass transit, pleasant open spaces and improved pedestrian thoroughfares as well as addressing the interim issues of construction. Marketing & Promotion One of the Rosslyn BID’s goals is to promote and market Rosslyn as a world-class destination. In addition to promoting specific community events sponsored by the Rosslyn Business Improvement Corporation, marketing funds are used each year to promote Rosslyn’s businesses and restaurants. Website - The major vehicle for promotion of all events and information is the www.rosslynva.org website. As RBIC-sponsored events are announced through advertisements, magazine articles or flyers, the audience is always directed to the website for more information. As a result, the number of web page views for the site jumped more than ten-fold from 20,500 in FY 2005 to over 210,000 in FY 2007. The website, however, is difficult to keep updated and could be easier to navigate. We expect to create a new website in FY 2008 to improve the functionality and content offered to Rosslyn workers and residents. Magazine - A major initiative in marketing Rosslyn took place in the second half of FY 2006 with the launching of the first issue of “ROSSLYN” magazine. It is an upgraded and expanded version of the newsletter “Rosslyn Renaissance News.” The magazine, which has been highly applauded, is distributed throughout the BID and mailed to all Rosslyn residences in the 22209 zip code. The magazine is published three times a year and highlights major businesses, development updates, restaurants and cultural activities in the area. Customer Feedback - To gauge awareness of and satisfaction with the BID’s activities, during FY 2006 and FY 2007 the BID conducted customer satisfaction surveys of Rosslyn property owners, property managers, businesses and residents. Over sixty percent of respondents said they were more than satisfied, and another 34 percent indicated they were satisfied with the BID’s programs and services. The BID will continue to conduct customer satisfaction surveys and community focus groups so it can assess Rosslyn stakeholders’ expectations.

3

http://www.rosslynva.org/

2009 Initiatives - In order to meet the growing demands for marketing events in the Rosslyn area, the FY 2009 budget proposes funds for:

• additional branding of the Rosslyn business sector; • contracting for webmaster/graphic artist expertise to maintain an

expanded website and assist in the branding campaign; • beginning the installation of solar-powered kiosks on Rosslyn sidewalks to

provide information on events and directions; • conducting a retail study on the types of stores that would best fit

Rosslyn’s changing population and helping to provide marketing assistance for existing small retailers; and

• hiring a Marketing Manager to plan and organize BID events, seek business sponsorships for events, and work with advertisers for publications; the cost would be shared with Rosslyn Renaissance.

Social Services Coordination Like other BIDs in the country, the Rosslyn BID works to address the issue of chronic homelessness in the urban core. RBIC provides funds to the Arlington Street People’s Assistance Network (ASPAN) for intensive services to homeless people in the BID area. This funding is used to employ a full-time, ASPAN outreach worker for Rosslyn and to help cover the shared costs for other program staff, meals and administrative support. For FY 2007, ASPAN has provided the following statistics showing the Rosslyn BID’s homeless population compared to all of Arlington County: Services County Rosslyn BID Total Served 809 226 Mental Health Issues 291 85 Substance Abuse Issues 364 101 Veterans 72 11 Chronic Homeless 404 135 The above numbers show that while Rosslyn occupies a small portion of Arlington County’s geography, it has 28% of the County’s homeless population. Clients first identified in Rosslyn are more likely to be chronically homeless than the Arlington homeless population at large. A person is considered chronically homeless if they have been homeless for more than a year, or in and out of homelessness for multiple years. About 10,900 meals were provided to Rosslyn homeless individuals during the year. Ninety percent of all Rosslyn clients identified as homeless had basic needs met. Due to the overall chronic nature of the homeless persons served in Rosslyn, most participants remain less “engaged” in receiving services than in Arlington

4

overall. ASPAN attempts to measure a continuum of progress for their clients. The most advanced services provided include assistance transitioning into permanent housing, case management or employment assistance. In FY 2007, five individuals first engaged in Rosslyn transitioned into permanent housing while 45 individuals received case management and/or employment assistance. In addition to ASPAN’s direct services, RBIC’s uniformed, street ambassadors and off-duty police patrols engage with the homeless and help them connect with A-SPAN for needed assistance. The RBIC links its “LIGHT UP Rosslyn” holiday project with an ASPAN donation collection drive for the homeless. The “LIGHT UP Rosslyn” collection boxes were placed in Rosslyn’s office lobbies and about 700 hygiene and clothing items were donated. In addition, another 700 pieces of clothing were collected after the Marine Corps Marathon Race, cleaned and then donated to ASPAN for the homeless. 2009 Initiatives - The FY 2009 budget continues to fund a full-time, homeless outreach worker for the Rosslyn BID area, as well as a portion of the salaries for a case manager and program supervisor, and some administrative and direct client services. During the year, the RBIC intends to review its strategy over the last 5 years for best leveraging homeless assistance dollars in terms of effectively addressing homeless issues. For 2009, the goal is to provide 45 Rosslyn homeless clients with case management services such as:

• income assistance for persons with disabilities; • mental health assessments and/or treatment; • substance abuse assessments and/or treatment; • medical services; and • employment assistance services.

Of the 45 clients who engage in case management, 15 will participate in ASPAN’s employment assistance program. And of those 15, 5 will increase their income levels through gained employment. ASPAN is also setting a goal for 5 Rosslyn clients to benefit from ASPAN’s housing assistance services by either being placed in housing (transitional or permanent) or by having a pending eviction prevented. Beautification & Streetscape Enhancement Landscaping/Plantings – In 2006, the RBIC took on the redesign and implementation of the Lee Highway traffic islands. These three traffic islands represent 8,500 square feet that the RBIC assumed responsibility for its maintenance. The RBIC purchased 70 large terra cotta container pots, placed

5

them throughout Rosslyn and planted annuals and perennials twice a year in the containers. In 2007 the RBIC expanded its traffic island landscaping with the redesign and implementation of the Lynn Street and Nash Street islands. These islands total almost 2,400 square feet. The RBIC also expanded its efforts at Cupid’s Garden from the annual beds to the entire island by replanting and replacing shrubs for a total of over 1,800 square feet. In 2008 the RBIC is planning to expand its landscaping efforts to include the Highway 110 and Wilson Boulevard islands as well as the newly constructed traffic island on Kent Street. This enhancement will add more than 4,000 square feet to the BID’s traffic island beautification program. In three years the RBIC will have added to its beautification efforts approximately 17,000 square feet in Rosslyn. Sidewalks/Streetscapes - To keep the streets of Rosslyn clean and trash-free, RBIC installed an additional 21 trash containers in FY 2007. RBIC now maintains a total of 35 trash containers in the Rosslyn core. With the help of a contractor, RBIC sponsors a sidewalk gum removal program for the BID area. Funds have also been set aside this year and next for sidewalk furniture that will complement the approved designs coming out of the Rosslyn Esplanade and Central Place projects. 2009 Initiatives – We anticipate extra costs in FY 2009 as large BID sidewalk planters will have to be relocated and replanted due to the demolition of the extended block of buildings for the construction of Central Place. Further funds will also be set aside next year for other beautification enhancements, both where construction is not present and where we can improve the appearance of redevelopment sites. Cleaning & Ambassador Services Cleaning - The RBIC works with a contractor to provide for cleaning and ambassador services. The contracted staff provides cleaning of sidewalks, curbs and skywalks, supplementing the cleaning services provided by the County’s Smartscape staff. The uniformed staff also distributes promotional material to local businesses on Rosslyn events, and act as goodwill “ambassadors” by providing information and directions to visitors, workers and residents. In FY 2008 the ambassador services were extended to Saturdays. This service is especially important given that there will be new residential housing within the BID starting this fiscal year. The additional cleaning helps convey an image of order and safety within the community, which in turn promotes pedestrian traffic. An increase in pedestrian traffic will not only result in increased quality of life for residents, but will also increase revenues for retail

6

shops, restaurants, property owners and others offering services within the District. 2009 Initiatives – Additional funds have been added for the ambassador contract in FY 2009 in anticipation of needing more cleaning staff due to the impact of the construction projects. Community Activities & Events To help enliven the Rosslyn downtown area, the RBIC works through the County’s Cultural Affairs Division to provide for music, art and other cultural events. Major Concerts - Last year the RBIC sponsored the 16th Rosslyn Jazz Festival, drawing a record crowd of 8,000 people to Gateway Park. The Festival drew another large audience this year, most of who were from outside Rosslyn. The Jazz Festival is now recognized as an important regional jazz event. In FY 2007, the RBIC joined the County in sponsoring Planet Arlington’s World Music Festival, held on Labor Day weekend. This year’s concert had 10,000-12,000 participants. As an extension of the Planet Arlington theme this year, the RBIC also sponsored a series of smaller world music concerts at the Spectrum Theatre. The concerts attracted enthusiastic audiences for a wide variety of performing artists. Concerts & Markets - The RBIC also sponsored over 70 weekday concerts during the summer months. Our Rosslyn Farmers Market was expanded this year with additional vendors and was a rousing success. A separate Artists Market was also initiated this year, but was not as successful. Both markets were complemented with live music. Next year, because of construction plans within the BID, we will have to move and probably combine the weekly markets. The Rosslyn restaurant music series was expanded this year, with some concerts at lunchtime and others after work. Marine Corps Marathon - Since FY 2006, the Marine Corps Marathon begins and ends in Rosslyn and as a result the RBIC has become a proud sponsor of the race. The RBIC promotes Rosslyn in the race’s official program, provides music along the route, installs banners on Rosslyn’s main streets, participates in the race’s exposition, and coordinates with the County’s Convention and Visitors Service to welcome the race to Arlington. RBIC staff distribute thousands of Rosslyn retail guides to Marathon participants and assist onlookers the day of the race with directions and referrals to local restaurants and stores. This year the Marathon’s Finish Festival with music and food after the race was expanded onto Rosslyn’s streets, which lessened pedestrian congestion and proved to be successful.

7

Film Festival - A popular summer film festival at Gateway Park was initiated by the RBIC this year. The free outdoor film showing drew a loyal following and continued to grow in attendance with more than 200 people per showing over the course of 13 weeks. Holiday Events - LIGHT UP Rosslyn continues to be a signature event during the winter months, highlighting Rosslyn’s skyline. It is jointly sponsored by the RBIC and Rosslyn Renaissance. The lighting up of the building rooftops during the December/January holiday season is done in cooperation with building property managers. 2009 Initiatives - For next year, the RBIC will explore:

• rental of a Jumbo Tron and purchase of shade tents for the Jazz Festival, given the large audiences now attending it;

• expansion of the BID’s sponsorship level for the World Music Festival with greater promotion of Rosslyn restaurants;

• sponsorship of an additional venue for our restaurant concert program, increasing the number of performances from 27 this year to 36 in FY 2009;

• the commissioning of artists for street performances, bicycle sculpture and art work along Rosslyn sidewalks/skywalks and temporary art at construction sites;

• a longer film series at Gateway Park; and • a monthly “Happy Hour” outdoor event, possibly with dancing.

Parking, Transportation, Pedestrian & Safety Programs What happens at the street level in Rosslyn is an important priority for the RBIC. Two new safety and transportation programs were begun for the BID area in FY 2007: an afternoon, police patrol program within the business district and marketing of a new bicycle rental kiosk installed by the County. Rosslyn/Georgetown Shuttle Service - Since its creation, the RBIC has partnered with the Georgetown BID in sponsoring the “Blue Bus” shuttle running between Rosslyn, Georgetown and Dupont Circle. The shuttle’s riders have numbered 400,000-500,000 annually. With the future of the Blue Bus in question, the RBIC is committed to helping market an alternative form of public transportation across Key Bridge for workers and residents. Illuminated Street Signage - Another new initiative in FY 2006/2007 was the purchase and installation of illuminated street signage for the BID area so that traffic in the evening would have an easier time traveling through Rosslyn. Initially, 16 backlit street signs were purchased and installed at major intersections early in 2006. The community reaction was so positive that at the end of FY 2006 the RBIC purchased over 30 more illuminated signs.

8

Wayfinding Signage - There is not currently a clear parking garage or building locator program in Rosslyn. This deficiency materially hampers evening and weekend activities by non-residents, and makes the area less attractive to preferred retail and entertainment uses. The largest undertaking by the RBIC in this program service area, therefore, is the creation of a uniform wayfinding system for downtown Rosslyn. The plans include working with the County to create a special signage district for Rosslyn, installing uniform parking signage, and creating a parking and wayfinding program for pedestrians. A study was begun in FY 2006 with Gensler, a RBIC contractor, to make recommendations for:

• increasing visibility of and access to off-street parking resources for retail patrons;

• improving pedestrian circulation and safety; and • creating awareness of current parking and transportation resources in

Rosslyn. Gensler’s recommendations have been under County review for several months. The RBIC’s FY 2007 budget had $350,000 earmarked for installation of the signage and its FY 2008 budget had an additional $400,000 set aside. At this point, we anticipate that the installation funds will be authorized for expenditure before the end of this fiscal year and the cost of this project will not impact our FY 2009 budget. 2009 Initiatives – The RBIC’s ambassador contract was re-competed this year and the RBIC may decide for FY 2009 to split the ambassador staff into two groups: a cleaning staff and a “meet and greet”/safety patrol staff. The safety ambassadors may also be used to help direct traffic and curb pedestrian jay-walking at major intersections affected by construction projects during rush hours. In addition, the RBIC is proposing to contract for a part-time Logistics & Safety Manager to work on the streets of Rosslyn with County staff and developers to quickly identify and resolve problem issues associated with the multiple construction sites over the next several years. We envision this individual as having a recognized authority from the County to intercede on traffic congestion, pedestrian safety and site appearance issues with developer representatives. This type of coordinating position does not exist within the County staff, but will be needed to quickly address day-to-day issues as they arise due to the concentrated nature of the Rosslyn construction projects so closely located to one another in a small, heavily traveled area. The incumbent may also supervise the contract safety ambassadors and deal with any and all physical issues related to construction, including relocation of BID trash and plant containers and setting up a new site for the Artists and Farmers Market and outdoor concerts.

9

10

Personnel, Management and Administration The FY 2009 budget assumes the hiring of a Marketing Manager, given that the RBIC is now involved in over 100 events annually and the number is expected to grow next year. An approximate 2 percent internal contingency fund is provided in order to meet unexpected program or administrative expenses during the year.

CRYSTAL CITYBUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTFY2009 WORK PLAN DRAFT

OVERVIEW

Long considered a “concrete canyon” that no one would visit without an appointment,Crystal City has quickly begun to shed the negative image for one more worthy ofArlington County’s largest downtown.

The Crystal City Business Improvement District (BID) was created to make a measurabledifference in the way that Crystal City is seen, perceived, and experienced. Though onlyin full-scale operation for one year, it is clear that the BID has made significant progresstoward this end and the momentum for more is there.

The BID is committed to build on this early success by seeking creative partners, projectsand opportunities that maintain its leadership role and build the area’s competitiveadvantage. The BID works tirelessly to build on the area’s key assets – location, access,transportation, and to minimize and transform the gaps.

HISTORY AND BUDGET

The BID was approved by the Arlington County Board on April 22, 2006 and officiallybegan operations at the beginning of the 2007 Fiscal Year. The organization, which has afive-year term that runs through FY2011, hired its first Executive in 2006 in order tocarry out the key mission of the organization, leading in the creation and execution ofeffective programs.

Property tax assessments devoted to the BID are designated to supplement, but notreplace, the County’s basic public services and property owner responsibilities within theDistrict. The services agreement between Arlington County and the BID provides for thefollowing supplemental, program service categories to be carried out by the Corporation:

• Marketing and Events• Physical Enhancements• Transportation

Projects and plans are built based on a short history of operation, benchmarking withsimilar organizations, and an estimated assessment level for the FY2009 year.

Fiscal Year* Budget Tax Rate* 2007 $1,701,000 .045 2008 $1,786,050 .045 2008R $2,090,055 .045 2009** $2,173,657 .045

* the Fiscal Year is from July 1 through June 30 and the tax rate is per $100 of assessed property value** the budget is based on a flat assessment rate and a 4% expected increase in property tax levels.

2

GOALS

The Crystal City BID is a public-private partnership between commercial businesseslocated within the BID district and Arlington County. Funded solely by and for thebusinesses within the BID boundary, the CCBID is tasked to provide a higher level ofservice to visitors, workers and residents in Crystal City, making it a world-classdestination in both Arlington and the greater DC region. The goals for the CCBID, asoutlined in the Business Plan govern these activities and plans.

Create measurable value for the stakeholders through higher occupancy levels forapartment and office owners, more “quality of life” appeal for office tenants, residentsand hotel guests, and higher sales for retail and restaurants by virtue of being in apopular, high-demand neighborhood.

Ensure a regional image through creative marketing and image-building, special eventsand busy sidewalks, Crystal City will be known as a first-class, friendly and lively placefor residents, workers, and visitors.

Establish unique benefits for residents, office-workers, and visitors with specialservices and amenities that help attract and retain users.

Present an attractive and user-friendly face whether from I-395, Route 1, Metro or itssidewalks, we will work to make the physical gateways and spaces inside Crystal Cityeasy to navigate, appealing and memorable.

Stay connected, convenient and accessible for all properties within the district throughenhanced transportation systems and pedestrian routes.

Provide sufficient parking for the varied needs and different groups in Crystal City plusattractive, clear signs to parking facilities, starting at its gateways.

Expand shopping and dining options by attracting more diverse range of restaurantsand both convenience and destination shops.

Ensure effective management and governance from the Board of Directors and staffthat is in continual touch with the stakeholders and with opportunities for growth. Wewill work with our County partners and we will provide abundant opportunities for allstakeholders to help shape and monitor BID programs.

OUTLINE

The BID uses Marketing/Events, Physical Enhancements, and Transportation to achievethese goals. The following is a list of planned programs for the 2009 fiscal year. This isa working document that provides a basis for execution of activities and measurement ofresults. Listed are past successes, which in turn lead to future plans and coursedevelopment and or corrections. The BID is excited to maintain and build on itsmomentum and continue to ensure the economic success for its stakeholders and theCounty at large.

3

PROGRAM SUMMARY – MARKETING AND EVENTS

Key Accomplishments - FY2007Topic/Action Accomplishment/Action/StatusMarketing Wrote marketing/communications (intra/inter) (institutional/programmatic)Research Completed/Evaluated/Incorporated Marketing research key findingsCalendar Created/Launched 2007 marketing/events planMedia Established media list/press release format/press calendar – got 30+ Editorials/mentionsAdvertising Developed plan/priorities/options – Launched mini-branding campaign (MDB)Branding Issued RFP/Reviewed Responses/Hired Cundari/Completed work/LaunchedWebsite Maintained initial site b4 launching new site/bought new domain/added-updated newsE-notes Completed templateBrochure Designed distributed 4000 Door Hangers for Crystal ScreenVideo Recut/launched “New Crystal City” VideoArtomatic Found space/created plan/launched/huge PR-econ success (32K visitors)Arena Stage Created idea/built relationship/continue to facilitate (keeping all at the table)Crystal Rocks Held Gin Blossoms Concert (top notch event/3K visitors)Crystal FIT Launched campaign (took advantage of CC asset to create macro-program)Crystal Screen Launched/Hosted Outdoor Movie Series/Signed for 2008 (Bond)Pro-Am Bike Race Createed Sustainable Event/USAF partnership/Conceptualized-held celebrity Trike RaceCrystal Rolls Created concept/established initial partnership w/Capitals23W Block Party Created/sold/approved planVintage Crystal Set-up event/Signed Duke Ellington Jazz/laid out program (goblets)MC Marathon Grew Crystal Run (MCM Post Party)

MARKETING – Branding, Channels, Research, Measurement

The BID’s primary mission is to transform the way people perceive and experienceCrystal City. Though Crystal City has tremendous amenities, the reality, workability, andawareness of these amenities is not consistent. While much has been done to change theactual experience of the constituent base, the perceptions and general view is that of a“concrete jungle,” “office canyon,” or a place without a soul.”

To lay an effective and clear basis to change these perceptions, the BID engaged a brandstrategy vendor. This vendor’s work in FY2007 is guiding messaging, promotion,design, look and feel for marketing activities in 2008 and beyond. These current andfuture marketing efforts are focused on the overall message of what Crystal City offers tovisitors, potential tenants, and the many other external stakeholders that can enjoy andsupport economic development and growth in the Crystal City BID area.

Specific plans and activities include continuation of monthly e-newsletters w/interspersedspecial events announcements, an updated BID map (including an interactive web-basedmap), specialty brochures and promotional postcards, a continually expanded website(electronic media, blogging, community), creative press events and notifications/releases,and a series of targeted community events and partnerships that have and will continue toadd value to Crystal City constituents. The BID will also continue with strategicadvertising partnerships and plans.

In addition to these existing channels, the BID will expand its work with hotel partners,MWAA, Metro, and the onsite property managers and concierges. The BID seeks toexpand awareness of Crystal City within Crystal City – further reaching the people wholive, work, and stay in the hotels when visiting here.

4

In terms of research, the BID Marketing Committee supports comprehensive study andmeasurement on a bi-annual basis. The next big round is slated for the beginning of2009. The BID will conduct this series of perception studies through surveys – online, onthe street, and on the phone – focus groups, and by-event rating cards. These studies willreview changes in image, physical make-up, and event success.

EVENTS - An Active Place

Planned events support and expand the Crystal FIT series, officially part of the FITArlington program. To change the way people perceive Crystal City, the BID focused onthe area’s key potential assets - one being the limited traffic on weekends. This factorenabled the BID to create an “active lifestyle” program, letting people run, ride, and rollthrough the area with minimal safety issues and long stretches for training and fitnessvariety. Specific programs include:

1 - Crystal Run (October 2008). The October Marine Corps Marathon family/spectatorevent will be held for the fifth year in a row in Crystal City. Bringing more than 15Kvisitors, not counting the 33K runners, into Crystal City in FY08, the result is happyfamilies and a momentum boost for those runners who need support at the tough miles21-22 marks. The day ties in music and moon bounces, food and fun. This is a familyday – and the BID will continue to grow the options and fun-factor with kids. Active andeffective partnerships include the Arlington Arts Center, National Children’s Museum,the Arlington Jaycees, and more.

2 - Crystal Ride (May 2009). This event, launched in May of 2007, is a Pro-Am Bikerace inclusive of a celebrity “trike race,” kids races, amateur races, and a signature Pro-cycling Circuit race. Fast becoming the USAF equivalent of the MCM, Crystal Cityhelped launch this event and will continue to be the home of the straight-aways and thespectators at large.

3 – Crystal Rolls (Summer 2009). Though originally intended to establish a niceweather/weekend series where Crystal Drive was closed to create a place where peoplecan rollerblade and relax without fear of traffic (modeled after Beach Drive in the RockCreek Park with the added benefits of restaurants and simplified parking), the cost ofdoing this every weekend was prohibitive. The event has been retooled in partnershipwith the Capitals Hockey Team and is a Crystal City-wide in-line hockey tournament.The recognition of the Capitals – as the area’s hockey team that is housed in Arlington –along with the great spaces on Crystal Drive can help further Crystal City’s active/funreputation and attract other such partnership opportunities.

EVENTS - An Artful Place

1 – Arena Stage. To ensure success, the BID will continue to support Arena Stage’smarketing efforts and appeal to their 150K annual performance attendees. Cross-marketing with restaurants and other Crystal City businesses is key, and the BID willcontinue to make these connections and ensure that these visitors have a wonderfulexperience in Crystal City.

5

2 – Crystal Flight (Summer 2008). Launched in April of 2008, this program willcontinue into the 2009 Fiscal Year. With 50 planes decorated by local artists dotting theCrystal City footprint, this celebration of the area’s connection to flight and air willcontinue to carry the message of fun and whimsy while attracting visitors and theirdollars to the streets and restaurants of Crystal City.

3 – Crystal Screen (Summer 2008). Beginning with a 13-week Clint Eastwood series inSpring of 2007, the BID was able to build marketing partnerships with Crystal Citybusinesses while making use of a great, but relatively hidden and seldom used “openspace,” at 18th/Bell – about a block from the Metro. The result was more than 1300visitors and a lot of fun. With the success of this project, the BID asked the film partnerto customize another series specifically for Crystal City. The result was 20-weeks ofBond films. The BID has already begun to build the marketing plans and partnershipsthat will express the uniqueness of the Crystal City proposition. Though the series willlaunch in Spring of 2008, it will continue into the summer and FY2009.

4 – Vintage Crystal (Sep 2008). For those who love wine and cheese but do not want totravel to The Plains for a festival experience, Crystal City is the perfect alternative –public transit, ease of access, and minimal traffic. This is one-day wine festival supportedby Crystal City retail and other local wine vendors kicked off in September 2007. Theresponse to the inaugural event was overwhelming. More than 5000 tasters and friendscame to sip and listen to great jazz in one of Crystal City’s most mis-marketed assets – afabulously green and beautiful courtyard. Vintage 2009 will only be better. Two of ourareas major assets – Iron Chefs Jose Andre and Roberto Donno will face off in a friendly“pasta vs paella” challenge while the Duke Ellington Jazz Festival plays fabulous musicin the background. “A Taste of Wine and Jazz,” this event is expected to almost doublein size, attracting Embassies who want to show off their vineyards (Bulgaria), top notchrestaurants, international wine distributors and anyone with a propensity for a great daywith great wine and food.

5 - Diverse Markets (www.diversemarkets.net). Modeled after the Downtown BID“Holiday Market,” this group offers a means of facilitating creative retail and streetactivity. The BID is reviewing a contract proposal from them that involves a fall artmarket that would kickoff at Vintage Crystal (9/21/08) and close at Crystal Run(10/27/08).

6 – Crystal Art – (a) Artomatic (www.artomatic.org). (Apr 2009) This 6-week artistic“Mecca” experience, which was held in Crystal City in spring of 2007, brought more than32,000 people to Crystal City. While people enjoyed the art and the energy, therestaurants also experienced their busiest 6-weeks since PTO left Crystal City. The BIDis now exploring options for another Artomatic launch in the spring of 2009. Both VNOand Gould Property Company have potential locations and have expressed interest in anencore partnership. The BID will explore feasibility and work to finalize, launch, andmarketing the project. (b) Crosswalk Striping. In addition to Artomatic, the BID hopesto carry out a pilot-project where its crosswalks will be color-striped, as inspired by theWashington Color School, and implemented as part of the 2007 MCM festivities. Thisproject was extremely well received and would bring vibrant color to Crystal City streets.

6

7 – FreshfarmFARM Markets (www.freshfarmmarkets.org). These weekly open-airfarmers markets are already in existence throughout the Washington Metro Area. CrystalCity seeks to be their South Arlington partner. The BID has been engaged in discussionswith this group, who boasts more than 100K customers at their Dupont Circle location.The EPA headquarters has been circulating a petition in support of such a market, and theBID is committed to making this work.

To transform the perceptions of Crystal City, the BID will consistently deliver top-notch programs that embody the message that transformation is happening here.

PROGRAM SUMMARY – PHYSICAL ENHANCEMENTS/TRANSPORTATION

Key Accomplishments - FY2007Topic/Action Accomplishment/Action/StatusPhysical Enhancements Issued Physical Conditions/Survey RFP, Hired Gensler, Reviewed/Incorporated ResultsEasements Determine droles/responsibilities of AC w/easements on privately owned roadsPublic Art Options Met w/AC group, Selected key sites (PAMP), Contracted first installation (CO2LED)Street Characters Planned/Designed/Contract Signed (Airplanes Spring 2008)PBS Park/Signage Created Concept/Submitted to PBS for commentFlyover Designed notable Gateway Experience/Developed Design Principles/Created Plan18th Underpass Work Created AAC Marathon Partnership/Powerwashed/Lighting-Mosaic PlannedSignage/Permits Learned process/playersBanners Planned/Created/Cycled (by event)/Contracted Cundari for next phasePole Lighting Vetted first round conceptLandscaping Contracted Ruppert/Plantworks/Tolbert – pruned/irrigated/planted/maintained mediansOutdoor Markets Met with Bike the Sites/FreshFarm/Diverse markets – Continue to explore plans23rd Street Quick Hits Created/Implemented Plan (trashcans, plantings, tree pits)Transportation Issued RFP/Contracted Gorove-Slade/Completed-Reviewed Baseline studyCleaning Powerwashed areas/eliminated graffitiTransportation Plan Implemented rolling “Top 3” StrategyRoute 1 Restriped road/Reviewed signal timing/Reviewed tunnel options (Metro Connection)Potholes Developed process for fixesTrails Vetted concept/Reviewing for implementationParking Pulled team together/Added to websiteCC Mini-Bus Conducted study of hotel shuttles/Established group shuttle viabilityBTWD Hosted (150 people)/Supported options for alternative transport

PHYSICAL ENHANCEMENTS – TEXTURE/URBAN DESIGNStandards/Banners/Public Art/Wayfinding/Landscaping

These beautification and utility (form and function) programs create a better sense ofplace, improving way-finding, directional signage, and movement for a more positiveCrystal City experience. Much has been done in the Crystal City core. In 2004, Vornadospent more than $40M remaking the retail, streetscape, way-finding, and streetfunctionality.

The BID seeks to extend this investment to the ends (South of 23rd Street and North of15th Street) and the edges (23rd Street WEST – Restaurant Row) of Crystal City. Theseareas have many challenges – remaining one-way streets, dark and dirty underpasses,poorly maintained sidewalks, and minimal signage. The intent is not to make all ofCrystal City a “Disney-esque” office park, but rather to expand the increasedfunctionality and urbanity to all areas within the BID.

7

The BID recognizes that these are complex and complicated projects that involvemultiple owners and stakeholders. The success of these projects relates to the BID’sability to work patiently to create, nurture, facilitate manage, and complete these projectsthrough to fruition.

1 – Standards. In 2007, the BID engaged Gensler to document the baseline physicalconditions in Crystal City and then make a plan to address the gateways, wayfinding,landscaping, and overall physical experience in Crystal City. As defined previously,most of this work in 2009 will continue to focus on the “ends and edges” of Crystal City– areas not clearly maintained by a single owner.

The BID has reviewed trashcan types, landscaping standards, benches, and other physicalelements to determine which components are best shared throughout the area. Again, notevery physical piece will be the same, but the BID area will have a positive sense ofdesign and an overall branded experience. The BID has already begun to replacetrashcans, plantings, where owners are receptive and excited to partner. These effortswill continue, and the BID will continue to share guidelines for items and materials forowners to consider in their own upgrades and changes.

2 – Gateways. The entryways into Crystal City, which are also major entries intoArlington County, as well as Virginia, have long been considered unwelcoming,confusing, or unfriendly. The initial plans for enhancement of these entries includeeffective use of iconic signage, decorative lighting, landscaping, and minimization ofemotional and physical barriers.

In 2007, the BID launched a satellite site of the CO2LED project that was unveiledinitially in Rosslyn. The piece, which is still in place at the southern tip of Crystal City,is a place-marker for a sophisticated gateway structure clearly welcoming the 48K carsthat traverse the Rt 1 corridor on a daily basis.

The BID is also particularly on the 18th Street Metro gateway experience as a model forsetting the tone for entry into the BID area. One component includes addressing the 18th

Street Underpass. It is currently a dark, dirty, and unwelcoming expanse ofapproximately 30 yards. In addition to multiple pressure-washing and pigeon abatementactivities, the BID has engaged a mosaic artist to design and decorate this expanse inpartnership with the Arlington County Public Art Master Planning (PAMP) process aschampioned by Arlington Cultural Affairs. This entry point is directly in line with theobjectives of the PAMP but was not initially included. The BID also seeks to usedecorative lighting to transform this experience. The BID also plans to use embeddedtrails to assist Metro passengers in finding points of interest in Crystal City. The BIDplans to partner with the Arlington County Public Art Team, Bike Arlington, and WalkArlington, to maximize the effectiveness and use of these trails.

3 - Landscaping/Open Spaces. The BID has a landscape company that is working toenhance natural features on 23W Restaurant Row and expand it to an appropriate scale.In addition, the BID extended its banner and other beautification programs/way-findingacross Route 1 and into this Crystal City gateway zone.

8

The CCBID partnered with Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) totransform the pedestrian experience under the DCA Flyover. The design team consideredall elements (landscape, public art, lighting, creative fencing) and implemented a planeliminated this stretch as an emotional and physical barrier to constituents on either sideof the Flyover. The BID hopes to continue its partnership with MWAA to find otherways to better connect DCA to Crystal City, and expand the walkability between the twoareas.

The CCBID plans to maximize the utilization of existing public spaces. For example, inthe area in front of the PBS Kids building, the BID hopes to support a signage programthat will showcase the PBS Kids Characters and potentially become a play park for kidsand their parents to visit and congregate. This is also an area where Marketing andEvents will crossover. With smaller concerts, a farmers market, and other street activity,the BID wants to increase awareness and usability of its extensive green spaces.

The BID Physical Enhancements Committee will continue transferring the marketing andbranding messages and images into actual physical elements which uphold the promise ofthat brand. The positioning, as developed by the BID’s expert branding and design firms,is all about bringing light as a sophisticated architectural and experiential element intoCrystal City. The BID has earmarked monies to carry into this arena – which includeeverything from public art to street lighting and migrating from incandescent or halogenlighting to LED and other environmentally conscious lighting elements.

The BID is also discussing the possibility of becoming a wi-fi area, in conjunction withpartners at AED, and furthering the competitive-advantage of its open spaces.

4 – Way-finding. Undoubtedly one of the most complex processes from a Countyperspective in terms of implementation, this is also one of the most critical aspects of thephysical texture of any neighborhood. Workers, Residents, and Visitors need to be ableto know what is in the area and how to find it. Crystal City’s core way-finding programwas developed by VNO, It is a modern design standard which works well where it existsin the core. However, it needs desperately to be expanded to include the ends and edgesof Crystal City. The BID is working closely with AED, who has engaged Gensler todevelop a county standard. Once this standard is complete, the BID will work to get itimplemented throughout the BID footprint.

5 - Crystal Green (Environmental Programs). The BID is committed to developingand supporting programs that are friendly to the environment. From recycling, to low-water landscaping, tree-plantings, METRO, alternate transportation and beyond, the BIDwill create an active approach to ensuring that Crystal City maintains and grows its statusas Arlington’s GREEN neighborhood, as applied for by AED.

TRANSPORTATION

In terms of transportation, like location, Crystal City has it all – Metro, Virginia RailExpress (VRE), National Airport, direct access to the George Washington ParkwayMount Vernon Bike Trail, Route 1, and I-395. However, the means by which thesesystems work together is often cumbersome and awkward. There are also issues with

9

signage, unsafe intersections, and odd one-way streets. The aim of the BIDTransportation Committee is to understand and enhance the utility of these systems whileinfluencing public policy and other entities that are tasked with transportation projectsthat impact Crystal City.

In FY2007/8, the BID Transportation committee focused understanding the baselinetransportation aspects of Crystal City - what is here and how it works and doesn’t worktogether. Focusing on ways to monitor and influence public transportation policy andplans that are critical to the BID constituents. The BID is not building roads, layingtracks, or budgeting huge amounts of dollars toward these efforts. The BID is partneredwith the groups that do and expects to be a resource and leader in how these projects areimplemented in the BID area.

The BID will continue to monitor monitor the areas of concentrated concern (i.e. Route1/23rd Street Intersection) and enhance their mobility for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, andindividual automobiles. The BID also works with the Arlington Department ofEnvironmental Services to ensure that downed light poles and bad light bulbs arereplaced, that signals work well, and that issues are put into the proper County queue foraddressing and repair. The BID has a similar relationship with VDOT that will also beenhanced to maximize communication and effectiveness of fixes. The BID serves as the“feet on the street” for these groups, and communication is critical.

In addition to daily monitoring, the BID Transportation committee is focused on impactand has taken on three key projects in 2009:

1 – Parking Issues. The BID consumers experience various parking rates, structures,and signage when visiting Crystal City. The BID is working with the various propertyowners to communicate and sign the parking options more consistently – both on thewebsite and on the ground. The BID will continue to build awareness of consumerparking issues and concerns in Crystal City and work to have them addressed and closed.

2 – DCA Shuttle Service. There are 33 hotel shuttles per hour that travel between the 13area hotels and DCA. The BID is working with the hotel shuttle operators to find a wayto pool the investment, create a common-branded shuttle with enough routes to maintainservice expectation levels while cutting costs and emissions.

3 – “2 Way, All the Way.” In 2004, Crystal City’s road system took a giant stepforward when Crystal Drive became a two way street. More than $8M was invested tochange several streets throughout the area, and the results have been fantastic. The BIDnow wishes to support Arlington County’s Master Transportation Plans to further extendthe two-way aspects of Crystal Drive on both ends of the street.

Finally, the BID will also explore creative ways to assist pedestrians with way-finding –from Metro to points of interest throughout Crystal City. The BID is interested increative street art, trailblazing, the use of light, and other options that line up with thePhysical Enhancements committee and other transportation groups (Bike Arlington, WalkArlington) to create tasteful and fun (non-vehicular) ways to get people around the area.

10

The BID seeks to maintain and grow the competitive advantage that it has in terms oftransportation infrastructure – and to make these systems work better together.

PROGRAM SUMMARY - ADMINISTRATION

Key Accomplishments - FY2007Topic/Action Accomplishment/Action/Status501(c)6 Filed/Achieved Non-profit status2008 Tax Assessments Reviewed/property ownershipDatabase Built tenant/member baseline database2008 Budget Filed/Completed/Approved (on time according to contract)2008 Work Plan Filed/Completed/ApprovedDetailed Budget Completed detail-level FY07 – used as basis for 2008Disbursements Reviewd/Filed 2Q07/2H07/1H08Bookkeeper/Admin Transitioned/Hired part-time consultant/Setup Quickbooks/TrackingFinancial Reporting Track/create standard reportsReimbursables Reviewed/Closed w/VNO and LoweBenchmark BIDs Reviewed other BID practices (DTWN/Gtown/Rosslyn/BUP/Golden Triangle/NOMA)County Connections Met key organizations/Studied processes (AED/Board/DOT/CVB)Legal Counsel Contracted legal counsel for organizationContracts Reviewed VNO Standards/Transitioned to BIDInsurance Got appropriate coverage levels (per county contract) – events/D&O/businessPayroll Established/ManagedHandbook/NDA Wrote/Reviewed/Signed/FiledProgram Staffing Hired key M/PE DirectorsBenefits Researched/Established 401kMemberships DCBIA/GWBOT/Chamber/Econ Club/LGW/ULI/AMA/ICSCOffice Space Lease signed/Moved InEmail Set up new domain/addressesInternet/Phone/Fax Created/Administered NetworkOffice Equipment Ordered/Received/set-up (computers/desks/chairs)Annual Meeting Held/Board Elected/Met all legal requirementsBoard New members recruited/elected; Board meetings moved to quarterlyBy-Laws/Articles Reviewed/Compared/BenchmarkedCommittees Established framework/plans/goals – Held regular meetings (agenda/notes/progress)Baseline Identified baseline for measurement of progressProgram Evaluation Measured impact/built path forwardAdmin Staffing Created/Approved Office Manager Position

The FY2009 budget plans for normal inflationary increases for administrative supportcosts. An approximate two percent internal contingency fund is provided in order tomeet unexpected program or administrative expenses during the year. Administrativeexpenses include salaries and personnel costs (with no expected headcount increase in2009), legal, accounting, office/rent, parking, travel, training, conference, membershipand other basic office support expenses.

The BID will continue to meet all of its contract obligations – financial audit, annualreport, work plans, disbursement requests, annual meeting, etc – on time and early,operating with the highest standards of work integrity, accountability, professionalismand leadership.


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised on April 4, 2008 regarding the Community Development Citizens Advisory Committee (CDCAC) position on funding for a “Daily Money Manager” program for seniors.

There is no funding for the Northern Virginia Family Services “Daily Money Manager” program (request of $33,000) in the FY 2009 proposed budget. This decision was made due to budget and eligibility constraints within the Community Development Fund. The CDCAC suggested that an alternative to funding the Daily Money Manager would be to help low income seniors file tax returns so they can obtain the Federal Economic Stimulus check. Staff supports this initiative. The County Manager is requesting the appropriation of $10,000 in FY 2008 Virginia Community Service Block Grant funds to the Department of Human Services (DHS) for tax filing and outreach to help low income elder residents. This funding request will come before the Board at the April 19, 2008 meeting. A motion by CDCAC to support this recommended funding to DHS passed unanimously on April 2, 2008.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\L.4._follow-up - CDCAC senior money management.doc


April 8, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session regarding the Pay As You Go (PAYG) Budget for Neighborhood Traffic Calming program. For Neighborhood Traffic Calming, how much can we reasonably expect to spend in FY 2009? Three projects recently selected will likely be funded in FY 2009. Until staff begins working with the residents in the neighborhood to determine the project scope, it is unknown what may be spent on these three projects. Staff expects the NTCC funding meeting will take place in October/November 2008 with County Board approval in December. Additional projects may be selected in January 2009 depending on availability of funds, with the possibility of County Board approval in July 2009. How much did we spend/do we project to spend in FY 2007, 2008, and 2009 for speed humps vs. various other traffic calming tools? FY 2008 (July 2007 – June 2008) – 3 Projects, 1 Funding Round Speed humps, Speed cushions and Raised crosswalks $ 0 Coated Crosswalks (15) $ 32,900 Traffic Circle (1) $ 25,000 Nubs (5) $ 34,000 Pavement Markings $ 7,700 Landscaping $ 12,000 Drainage $ 13,000 Pavement $ 26,000 Textured Gateway (2) $ 35,000 Street Closure $ 52,000 Total $237,600 FY 2007 (July 2006 – June 2007) – 4 Projects, 1 Funding Round Speed humps, Speed cushions and Raised crosswalks $117,000

Speed Cushions (11) Raised Crosswalks (2)

Coated Crosswalks (7) $ 11,000 Textured Crosswalks (3) $ 24,000 Textured Gateway (3) $ 80,000 Traffic Circle (1) $ 25,000 Nubs (13) $276,000 Pavement Markings $ 18,000 Total $551,000

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.4._follow-up - PAYG - NTC.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.4._follow-up - PAYG - NTC.doc

FY 2006 (July 2005 – June 2006) – 10 Projects, 2 Funding Rounds Speed humps, Speed cushions and Raised crosswalks $225,000

Speed Humps (12) Speed Cushions (12) Raised Crosswalk (1)

Marked Crosswalks (5) $ 5,000 Textured Crosswalks (10) $121,800 Textured Gateway (2) $ 51,200 Traffic Island (2) $ 28,000 Nubs (24) $233,600 Pavement Markings $ 9,000 Crosswalk w/ ADA Ramps $ 16,000 Signs $ 750 Total $690,350


April 7, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session on the Pay-As-You-Go capital budget (PAYG) regarding the cost to complete the inventories of capital needs that are referenced in several places in the PAYG section of the proposed budget. A concern was also expressed that the inventories need to result in an index and means of evaluating the assets. The total cost to complete the inventories of capital needs is approximately $775,000. Facilities Maintenance Capital: In the FY 2009 budget, in Tier I, $175,000 is proposed to fund the assessment of the 80 buildings that the Department of Environmental Services maintains. If funded, the study can start in July and results can be available for the FY 2010 budget. Property condition assessments done by professional contractors like EMG do have indexes for prioritizing needs. The County has had a prioritized list of the facilities’ needs for the next 20 years since 2005. The inspections are visual and there is no invasive testing. The trained inspector inspects a building’s interior and exterior and all associated equipment. The assessment team will survey 100% of the facility’s interior. In addition the exterior of the property is surveyed including the building exterior, roofs and sidewalk/pavement. The team will interview the maintenance staff to get a history of repairs and replacements and the local costs, level of preventative maintenance exercised, pending repairs and improvements, and frequency of repairs and replacements. The team will develop opinions based on their site assessment, interviews with relevant maintenance contractors, municipal authorities and experience gained on similar properties previously evaluated. The team may also question others who are knowledgeable about similar items at other customer sites for comparison and evaluation. The team will also review any documents that the County has pertaining to the buildings. The industry has standards for all items associated with a building that are quantified as Estimated Useful Life (EUL). Their condition is then prioritized into categories, Priority 1 = immediate replacement, P2 = 1-2 years, P3 = 3-5 years, P4 = 6-10 years, P5 = 11-20 years and P5 = 21 years and beyond. The physical condition of the item is described as Good, Fair, Poor and Not Applicable. An itemized deficiency cost table is part of the process and identifies all items and their projected costs for the next 20 years. Their report

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.6._follow up - PAYG inventories on MC.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.6._follow up - PAYG inventories on MC.doc

provides the cost to address immediate needs to catch up the deferred maintenance items and the annual cost per year as described above. Parks Maintenance Capital: The Life Cycle Assessment contract (PRCR Outdoor Facilities ONLY) for the first one-third of the Parks is underway and PRCR staff is reviewing the first six draft assessments reports. The cost for this is $250,000. Based on the current contract price to complete the first one-third of the parks and the PRCR staff time associated with the six parks in the pilot, staff estimates it would require $600,000 and 1,200 PRCR staff hours to complete the remaining 98 parks or 643 acres. A project timeline for the second phase of the project would be based on the availability of the contractor’s resources and staff availability.


April 8, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session on the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) capital budget. Is there a quality control process in place in the Department of Environmental Services (DES) to monitor the quality of work done by developers and County contractors regarding street paving? Quality control for major paving operations done annually by the County is performed by a construction manager in DES managing the overall contract and working with the contractor daily. Pavement quality at and around construction sites and major developments is managed through construction managers working with the developers and their general contractors. DES has been working to improve monitoring the effects of construction projects, but still lacks tools for enforcement short of shutting down major redevelopments entirely.

What is the underlying justification for the street paving funding level (i.e., why a 29 year paving cycle vs. a 24 year cycle vs. a 15 year cycle) (how do we determine what the "right" life cycle is)? A funding level equivalent to paving 1/15th of the County’s streets annually is neither arbitrary, nor is it based on any textbook or national standard. It is based on the expertise and experience of the Construction Managers, Engineers, Division Chiefs and Department Directors involved in Arlington’s Paving Program over the last 40+ years. This experience is informed by the condition of Arlington’s streets, Arlington’s traffic volumes, and Arlington’s citizens’ standards and expectations.

What is the criteria used to evaluate whether a street needs to be repaved or not, which street gets fixed first? Our Pavement Management System dates back some 40 years. It started as index cards and has evolved to modern databases and GIS mapping software. This system, which is called ICON, has a full inventory of every block in Arlington showing history of major pavement maintenance as well as a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for every block.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.8._follow up - PAYG - Streets and Paving.doc

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.8._follow up - PAYG - Streets and Paving.doc

Since we’ve had the inventory of PCIs for all streets in the County, we no longer base our paving decisions on how long it’s been since a street was paved. The PCI is an objective scoring of each block and it is primarily this scoring that determines whether a block gets paved or not. This scoring system is on a 0-100 point basis, with 100 representing a block just re-surfaced with hot mix asphalt. The range of numbers (100 to 0) indicates good, fair and poor pavement conditions.

In recent years when the cycle for repaving streets was extended, were there any consequences or experiences seen in terms of more emergency repairs, other impacts? We have experienced increased maintenance in the form of pothole repairs and patches. In many places we have done full depth patches and skin patches where we would normally have re-paved a street one or two years earlier. With no increase in operating budget or personnel to do this work, we've experienced increased overtime and callback to address potholes.


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session regarding the Pay As You Go (PAYG) Budget regarding the rationale for continuing PAYG funding for the Neighborhood Conservation program when we are looking at so many more expensive projects and using bond funding. The PAYG budget for Neighborhood Conservation funds the personnel costs that support the neighborhood public improvement projects. This funding supplements the bond funding which supports strictly project costs.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.9._follow-up - PAYG - NCAC.doc


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session regarding the Pay As You Go (PAYG) Budget related to ADA standards and how they change over time. How ADA Standards are established and why they may change

The United States Access Board is responsible for issuing guidelines to assist the departments of Justice and Transportation in establishing accessibility standards for newly constructed and altered facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 1991, the Access Board issued the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191), which is commonly referred to as ADAAG. Sections 1 through 10 of ADAAG have been adopted as the Standards for Accessible Design by the departments of Justice (28 CFR part 36) and Transportation (49 CFR part 37) for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Access Board is an independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities with the key mission of developing and maintaining accessibility guidelines and standards under several different laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA requirements may change as regulations are modified to improve access or to make it easier for entities to comply with the ADA. When new requirements are proposed, a formal procedure is used which calls for public comment and agency review before the requirement is finalized. Changes in existing requirements or new requirements are first issued as a proposed rule and published in the Federal Register. The Department reviews public comments, in the form of written comments received by mail and over the Internet, before a proposed Final Rule is published. Following a second set of public comments, a Final Rule is published. When the Final Rule is published, new requirements are established as detailed in the Final Rule. The Department of Justice adopted the current ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADAAG) on July 1, 1994. The US Access Board submitted a revised version of the Standards to the Department of Justice in September 2004, but to date the DOJ has not adopted them. This process may take several years to conclude. How does the County respond to changes in the Standards The County responds to changes to the Standard by including them in new construction projects, ensuring that our consultants and architects are aware of the new changes, and educating County staff. The Department of Environmental Services Facilities

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.10._follow up - PAYG - ADA changes.doc

Design and Construction (DES/FDC) is committed to providing accessible designs and construction to the Arlington community. Staff in DES/FDC is presently developing standards which take both the present ANSI 2003 and 28 CFR Part 36 into account to ensure compliance with Federal and State regulations, since there are differences between the two standards. Examples of changes in the Standards The Standard has not changed since July 1, 1994, although a revised ADAAG is undergoing review by the Department of Justice. The only notable change in the Standards between the 1990 and 1994 Standard is that the 1994 version is less restrictive with the approach and reach requirements in regard to Automated Teller Machines (4.34). The 1990 Standard requires provisions for a forward approach and a parallel approach and both a forward and side reach where the 1994 Standards provides an option to either provide a forward approach or parallel approach but then defines the proper reach ranges for each. Common problems facing cities and counties in the USA Under the Project Civic Access initiative, the Department of Justice Compliance review sites are chosen based upon the Department’s desire to visit every state, the population of the site, and, in some cases, its proximity to a university or tourist attraction. The majority of the compliance reviews occurred in small cities and towns, because they represent the most common form of local government. The US Department of Justice has surveyed over 100 communities throughout the United States and has found the following typical problems in virtually every locality: • Architects and contractors often follow only local building standards, which may not

provide the same degree of accessibility to persons with disabilities. Compliance with local building standards does not ensure compliance with the ADA.

• lack of or inadequate accessible parking • lack of or inadequate accessible routes into and through the facilities • lack of accessible rest rooms, drinking fountains, and telephones • lack of accessible service counters or the provision of services at alternate,

accessible locations • accessible bathing facilities at public pools • need for physical modifications to polling places and/or the provision of curbside or

absentee balloting; • lack of permanent and conspicuous notice to the community of their ADA rights and

the government’s ADA obligations; • lack of an ADA grievance procedure in communities employing more than 50

persons; • no delivery systems or time frames for providing auxiliary aids (qualified sign

language interpreters and alternate formats (Braille, large print, cassette tapes, etc.);



• lack of assistive listening systems in assembly areas (e.g., legislative chambers, court rooms, municipal auditoriums);

• TTY access to 9-1-1 emergency; • inadequate telephone communication between the government and citizens with

hearing or speech impairments TTY’s and/or utilization of the state relay service, official publication of TTY/relay numbers, and training of employees;

• lack of procedures for relocating inaccessible activities to accessible locations upon request (e.g., City and Town Council meetings, municipal and county court proceedings).


April 9, 2008

The following information is provided in response to questions raised at the March 25th work session regarding the Pay As You Go (PAYG) Budget. What is the status of County work to get to ADA compliance? The Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated a voluntary Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliance review on March 30, 2006 to sample various public facilities in Arlington. A list of compliance items was developed and prioritized into three categories based on how soon they could be corrected. The first category included items such as door opening pressures that did not comply with ADA standards, building access routes that did not comply, inadequate signage, and incorrect support rail dimensions in rest rooms. A large number of the higher priority items required engineering and site planning to correct. Some examples are providing accessible emergency communication for elevators, correcting non-accessible routes, parking spaces and ramps and redesigning access to many of the County parks. Staff has completed 367 of the 391 citations and anticipates that the remaining 24 items will be completed by March 30, 2009. It should be noted that the DOJ audit covered only a portion of all County facilities. Therefore, although the ADA citations from the March 2006 review were fully funded in the FY 2008 budget, additional funds are needed in the FY 2009 budget and beyond to continue accessibility improvements.

L:\DMFBUD\Bud09\Worksessions\Follow-up\follow-up already distributed to the Board\M.11._follow-up - PAYG - ADA compliance.doc

fy 2009 proposed budget budget work session follow-up · fy 2009 proposed budget budget work...

Documents