Constituent Resources

Supervisor Delgaudio's Reductions for an Alternative Budget March 9, 2011

March 13, 2011

KEEP THE SAVINGS IN THE BUDGET

I move to that the Board automatically table any amendment to the budget that increases the use of Local Tax Funding.

PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES

Animal Services

  1. 1. I move to eliminate two (2) FTEs (of 32.35 FTEs) from the Dept. of Animal Services (one each from the Animal Shelter and Animal Control respectively) for a savings of $120,000 to go to the balance. Page 2-6 FY 12 Budget

Clerk of The Court

  1. 2. The FY 12 Plan asks for increase of $629,447 in local tax funding therefore, I move to eliminate four (4) (of 43.00 FTEs) from the Clerk of the Circuit Court, at the discretion of the Clerk in coordination with the county administrator, for a savings of $310,000 to go to the balance.

Community Corrections

  1. 3. I move to eliminate all FTEs (of 21.86 FTEs) from community corrections assigned to the "non-violent" Drug Court for a savings of $ 60,000 to add to the balance. Page 2-24 FY 12 Budget

Courts

  1. 4. I move to eliminate Drug Court from the Courts Expenditures for a savings of $85,000. Various Pages P-24, Page 2-34, etc.
  2. 5. I move to eliminate the proposed enhancement for Courts for a Staff Attorney for Circuit Court for savings of $85,900 to go to the balance. Page 2-33 FY 12 Budget

Fire-Rescue & Emergency Management

  1. 6. I move to eliminate 1 FTE (of 5.33) from Fire Rescue and Emergency Management office of Emergency Management for savings of $68,000 to go to the balance. Page 2-64 FY 12 Budget
  2. 7. Number of Fire Incidents are projected to be flat (from 7417 in 2011 to 7710 in 2012), number of calls Dispatched is projected to be down (from 17,800 in 2011 to 17,700 in 2012) and efficiency in C A D is up (percent of calls answered in 60 seconds or less). Therefore, I move to eliminate two FTEs (of 41.27) from Fire, Rescue and Emergency Management, Communications and Support Services for a savings of $120,000 .Page 2-53 and Page 2-54, FY 12 Budget


Juvenile Court Service Unit

  1. 8. All performance measures are either flat or down. I move to remove one FTE from non-gang related program (of 33.26 FTEs) for savings of $75,000 to go to the balance. Page 2-77

Sheriff's Office

  1. 9. I move to reduce the expenditure of tax dollars for Drug Court from the Sheriff's budget by $95,790. (See page 2-88 & 2-91 of FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan.)
  2. 10. I move to reduce the expenditure of tax dollars and return to the balance $822,970 to eliminate the DARE program from the Sheriff's budget. (See page 2-88 & 2-91 from the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan.)
  3. 11. I move to eliminate the Dulles Town Center Deputy patrol and return to the balance $506,587. (see page 2-88 & 2-91 from the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan.)
  4. 12. I move to eliminate all SROs at 11 Middle Schools for savings of $1,223,489 to go to the balance. This includes the contribution to the Town of Leesburg for Middle School SROs.

Or, if that fails

  1. 13. I move to eliminate enhancement for SRO for J. Michael Lunsford Middle School for savings of $182,002 to go to the balance.
  2. 14. I move to eliminate one Administrative Assistant and one Receptionist from the Western Loudoun Station for savings of 70,000 to go to the balance.
  3. 15. I move to eliminate one FTE (of 47.04) from the Sheriff's office Emergency Communications for savings of $65,000 to go to the balance. Page 2-97
  4. 16. I move to eliminate 2 FTEs (of 46.80 FTEs proposed) from function of civil process from Sheriff's office Court Service for savings of $150,000 to go to the balance. Page 2-101
  5. 17. I move to eliminate 4 FTEs (of 36.84 FTEs) from Administrative and Technical Services Division Sheriff's Office for savings of $180,000 to go to the balance. Page 2-104

HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES

Extension Services

  1. 18. I move to reduce expenditures by $558,457 by eliminating Extension Services. Reference page 3-5 in the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan

Or, if that fails

  1. 19. I move to reduce expenditures by $38,500 to eliminate the Master Gardener program. (See page 3-8 in the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan.)

Family Services

  1. 20. I move to eliminate Multi-lingual program and return to the balance $128,750 (see page 3-78 from the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan).

Regional Organizations

  1. 21. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for a savings of $228,426
  2. 22. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Northern Virginia Community College for a savings of $473,015
  3. 23. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Northern Virginia regional Park Authority for a savings of $1,291,555.
  4. 24. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Northern Virginia Regional Commission for a savings of $138,269
  5. 25. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Loudoun Small Business Development Center for a savings of $150,000
  6. 26. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Legal Services of Northern Virginia for a savings of $80,031
  7. 27. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Bluemont Concert Series for a savings of $25,000
  8. 28. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Loudoun Museum for a savings of $70,000
  9. 29. I move to eliminate the County contribution to Round Hill Arts Center for a savings of $6,000

PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

Library Services

  1. 30. I move to double the Libraries Overdue Fines from $0.10 per item per day to $0.20 per item per day and increase the maximum per overdue fines occurrence per item from $5 to $10. This will increase Libraries' Overdue Fines revenue by 100% for the FY 12 budget from $244,000 to $488,000.

Parks, Recreation and Community Services

  1. 31. I move to eliminate the enhancement for Parks, Recreation and Community Services To Open Eastern Loudoun Adult Day Center for expenditure of $408.462 and 9.00 FTEs
  1. 32. I move to eliminate the enhancement for Parks, Recreation and Community Services for completion of Brambleton District Park for expenditure of $168,109 and 2.72 FTEs.
  2. 33. I move to direct the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services' to find fee increases of $500,000 for the FY 12 Budget. This represents an increase of 2.8%.
  3. 34. I move to reduce all expenditures for the Franklin Performing Arts reducing Local Tax Funding by $129,933 and eliminating 5.34 FTEs.
  4. 35. I move to reduce all expenditures for the Heritage Farm Museum reducing Local Tax Funding $137,178.
  5. 36. I move to reduce local tax funding by $1,832,298 using one day per week closings of all Parks, community centers, and senior centers to achieve this in an equitable manner.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

Building and Development

  1. 37. I move to direct the Department of Building and Development to find fee increases of $500,000 for the FY 12 Budget.
  2. 38. I move to reduce one additional FTE from Building and Development to achieve a saving of $61,000. Reference page 5-6 in the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan

Economic Development

  1. 39. I move to reduce by $2,064,001 the budget for the Economic Development office Reference page 5-18 in the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan

Transportation

  1. 40. I move to increase the amount of revenue projected through advertisement revenue and other non-fare methods that provide service or vending opportunity and from signs on buses and properties owned by Loudoun County used for commuter lots for the Loudoun commuter bus with a goal to reduce the subsidy by $1,000,000. Reference page 5-53 in the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Boards and Commissions

  1. 41. I move to completely reduce by $1,281,359 from the Board of Supervisors to eliminate all Supervisor staff from the total budget to leave the balance for supervisor payroll and audit costs. Reference: page 1-8 in the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan

Or, if that fails

  1. 42. I move to reduce the Supervisors District budgets by another five per cent for a total of a ten per cent reduction or $12,506 from the chairman and $10,785 from the 8 respective Supervisor District budgets for $98,786 to add to the balance.

Or, if that fails

  1. 43. I move to reject the enhancement of the District Budgets of $293,544.

Construction and Solid Waste

  1. 44. I move to eliminate Recycling Drop off Centers and return to the balance $284,000. (see page 1-22 from the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan)
  2. 45. I move to eliminate two non-fee offset FTEs from Construction and Waste Management (of 31.00 FTEs) for savings of $180,000 to go to the balance.

County Assessor

  1. 46. I move to eliminate one FTE (of 20 FTEs) from the County Assessor office for a savings of $65,000 to go to the balance. Page 1-42 FY 2012 Budget

County Attorney

  1. 47. I move to eliminate one FTE from the County Attorney's office for a savings of 80,000 to go to the balance. Page 1-46 FY 2012 Budget

General Services

  1. 48. I move to eliminate the enhancement for General Services to Fund Operating & Maintenance Costs for New Facilities for expenditure of $490,000 and to distribute additional necessary costs over the entire system.
  2. 49. I move to eliminate four FTEs from the office of General Services, Facilities Support ( of 39 FTEs) at the discretion of the county administrator to decide, for a savings of $206,000 to go to the balance. Page 1-55 FY 2012 Budget
  3. 50. I move to reduce Expenditures of Operations and Maintenance by $500,000 ($20,739,924) proportionally over each department within General Services (Public Works, Facilities Support, Field Management) Page 1-55 FY 2012 Budget

NON-DEPARTMENTAL

  1. 51. I move to require all county employees to pay the employee share of their VRS (retirement) pay for a savings of $8,400,000 and add this amount to the budget
  2. 52. I move to further reduce Contingency for litigation by $500,000 (see page 6-3 from the FY 2012 Proposed Fiscal Plan)
  3. 53. I move to eliminate Tax Exemptions for all non profit organizations to add revenue exempted by Board of Supervisor action in the amount of $4,964,050 to the balance
  1. 54. I motion to sell access county land that is not planned for any fire, safety or education use in the current CIP for the amount of $2,000,000 to go to the balance. Reference: county sold a small parcel of land in Sterling to use for transportation improvements as an example. And there is a county report on land parcels that fit this category.
  2. 55. I move to further reduce the amount to the county by $6,600,000 by providing no pay increase of 3 per cent for employees of the county.

SCHOOLS

  1. 56. I move to reduce the transfer to the school board by $58,739,694 and endorse the recommendations of the School administrator in his FY 2012 Superintendents Proposed Operating Budget
  2. 57. I move to further reduce the transfer to the county school board by $15,000,000 with the request from the Board of Supervisors that there be no pay increase of 3 per cent for employees of the school board.

DARE Reduction Rationale follows: 2 pages

Why Eliminate DARE?

DARE PROGRAM CITED IN DOZENS OF STUDIES AS WASTEFUL

For years, in study after study, the DARE program does not prove out its effectiveness, although it is popular with some adults who want some official reaction from the law enforcement community to the drug epidemic. There are better programs, such as intervention and dedicated counseling.

Here's what a major study says (see full abstract from study from the University of Illinois at Chicago at end of this ) "The results indicate that D.A.R.E. had no long-term effects on a wide range of drug use measures"

The latest commentary by Reason magazine Jacob Sullum states bluntly: One study after another has found that students who complete DARE (a.k.a. Drug Abuse Resistance Education) are just as likely to use drugs as students who don't.

HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL SAYS "DARE IS WASTE"

A study in the latest issue of the journal Health Education Research concludes that many schools use "heavily marketed curricula that have not been evaluated, have been evaluated inadequately or have been shown to be ineffective in reducing substance abuse." The lead researcher, Denise Hallfors of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, does not mince words in her evaluation of DARE. "There's no scientific rationale whatsoever for maintaining DARE in the schools," she says.

For entire article and other studies, visit http://reason.com/links/links080602.shtml

(abstract source of study summarizing wastefulness of DARE)

ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL-BASED DRUG EDUCATION: A SIX-YEAR MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF PROJECT D.A.R.E.

by Dennis P. Rosenbaum, Ph.D. Professor and Head and Gordon S. Hanson, Ph.D.

Research Associate Department of Criminal Justice and Center for Research in Law and Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago April 6, 1998

ABSTRACT Summary on DARE

A randomized longitudinal field experiment was conducted to estimate the short- and long-term effects of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (D.A.R.E.) on students' attitudes, beliefs, social skills, and drug use

behaviors. Students from urban, suburban, and rural schools (N=1798) were followed for more than six years, with surveys administered each year from 6th through 12th grades. Teachers were also surveyed annually to measure students' cumulative exposure to supplemental (post-D.A.R.E.) drug education. Multi-level analyses (random-effects ordinal regression) were conducted on seven waves of post-treatment data.

The results indicate that D.A.R.E. had no long-term effects on a wide range of drug use measures, nor did it show a lasting impact on hypothesized mediating variables, with one exception.

Previously documented short-terms effects had dissipated by the conclusion of the study.

D.A.R.E., although ineffective by itself over the long haul, appears to inoculate students against the apparent negative aspects of supplemental drug education. Some D.A.R.E.-by-Community interactions were observed: urban and rural communities showed some benefits, while suburban areas experienced small adverse effects from participation.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is the nation's most popular school-based drug education program it is administered in approximately 70% of the nation's school districts, reaching 25 million students in 1996, and has been adopted in 44 foreign countries (Law Enforcement News 1996). Its effectiveness in combating drug usage, however, has been a matter of bitter controversy, and this debate is taking place in the context of rising drug use among our nation's youth. After experiencing large declines in drug use in the 1980s, the national trend began to reverse in the early 1990s: the percentage of high school seniors who reported using illegal drugs "during

the past year" increased from 22 percent in 1992 to 35 percent in 1995 ­ a 59 percent increase (Johnston et al. 1996). Marijuana is one drug where dramatic increases were observed. The number of eighth graders who reported using marijuana during their lifetime jumped from 10.2 percent in 1991 to 19.9 percent in 1995 ­ a 92 percent increase.