MORE SCHOOL BUDGET discussion

FOLKS - It is time to do several things in Bath County for the good of our children:

1. STOP the animosity between the members of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board.
2. Begin planning for next year's budget NOW! We must be proactive instead of reactive.
3. Understand that Supervisors don't always know how much money is available for the county until after the schools submit a budget..... that is why prior planning is so important.

I would truly like to see $200,000 added to the school budget for instructional purposes. It is needed and, in my opinion, is necessary.

Please read the correction below to my blog of last week - I goofed - and Dr. Smith pointed out the error to me. I did send (Wednesday) a correction to add to this week's Recorder, but it was too late. The school board requested roughly $600,000 above this year's funding, not the $1.8 million I stated (don't know where that figure came from).

ANYWAY - I believe that it is essential for the schools to have the extra $200,000 added to the budget. If we have to work with them to further trim things for next year, then let's start the process now so there won't be such a big shock.

I am also sad to know that the school board adopted a 1.7% raise for its employees. The only people who will benefit to any great extent from that will be the administrative personnel, or those making over $50,000 per year. The people who need it the most will not benefit very much, in my opinion. THAT SAID, given increased insurance/medical costs for employees, every little bit helps.

CORRECTION to Blog Post on School Budget Debate

The posting below contains a serious error that I wish to correct; I also want to apologize if this error has caused any upset, confusion, and/or misunderstanding between the school administration/board and Bath County residents.

The amount that the Bath County School Board requested this year was about $600,000 over what it received last year, not $1.8 million as I had stated. There was a great deal of work put into the budget development process by the school board, in recognition of economic conditions within the county, to come up with a budget request that was less than previous years' amounts.

Few people, including members of the Board of Supervisors, could have anticipated that the amount approved by the supervisors would be nearly that amount BELOW level funding from this year. This is why I am requesting and supporting the addition of $200,000 back to the school budget.

The Bath County School Budget Debate

I have received many phone calls, visits, and also comments as I have seen people out and about the county that have been focused on the recent Bath County Schools budget. Parents want to focus on what is best for their children, understandably. Many do not understand why decisions are being made that are reducing next year's budget amount from what the school division received this year. Parents are upset that programs and instructional staff may be cut or reduced to levels that will decrease staff size, increase student-to-teacher ratio, and leave some children without certain specific athletic opportunities.

It is my understanding that the School Board has requested increases of about $1 million in each of the past 10 years or so. The average increase that has been awarded during this time by the Board of Supervisors has been about $300,000. This year, the School Board requested an increase of $1.8 million over the budget adopted for the 2007-08 school year. Given the state of affairs in the nation, state, and county -- added to the failed assessment in Bath County -- it was and is unrealistic for even the most critical advocate of the local public schools to expect that the requested increase could be awarded. At best, given early communications between school and county administrators, level funding could perhaps have been expected. I personally spoke with a school administrator prior to submission of the school budget to the Board of Supervisors and stated that drastic cuts were necessary; this same administrator indicated similar conversations with the County Administrator had also occurred.

Several factors have resulted in proposed funding for 2008-09 that is actually less than this year's. First and foremost, the failed assessment has resulted in much less anticipated revenues from traditional sources. Second, but also related to the failed assessment, the Board of Supervisors must consider very carefully all tax payers in the county when raising the tax rate in one year. Most likely, graduated tax rate increases will be discussed and, hopefully, adopted.

Third, there are continuing and exacerbated animosities between the school administration and the Board of Supervisors that have been lessened somewhat, but not enough. The issue of the $330,000 that was spent last year at the close of the school year (by the school administrators) is a huge problem when it comes to building any type of trust between the two groups. I was not on the Board of Supervisors when this spending occurred so have limited knowledge of what actually transpired -- although I have heard both "sides of the same story" and they are quite different from one another in interpretation.

Fourth, the state conducted an efficiency review of Bath County Schools which has been addressed, in my opinion, on a much more superficial level than it could have been. I have had a fair amount of exposure to the three schools in the county over the past three years and, from personal observation and my education/experience levels, I believe much could be done to reduce costs of operation. First and foremost, the assignment and utilization of staff is a key to cost reduction.

Reality must dictate what we do this year and in the future. Reality is that our numbers are dropping -- to a projected 685 next year -- and our funds are less than anticipated. Both of these factors are not likely to change in the near future without raising taxes substantially and increasing economic development initiatives which would increase the numbers of families with school-age children who live in our county. We also need to look at issues surrounding workforce housing on both sides of the mountain, building utilization, and transportation.

I am in favor of adding $200,000 to the proposed school budget as adopted by the Board of Supervisors as long as it is added to the Instruction category and would not be used for raises. I am not opposed to raises, per se, as our teachers certainly deserve them, but it is more important to me that we maintain proper numbers of teaching staff and adequate programs to meet our students' needs. I also recognize that I, as a Supervisor, cannot dictate to the School Board what it does with monies allocated to specific categories.

We must continue to work on "mending the fences" because future planning will depend on excellent relationships between the two boards.

Old Millboro School Group - Thoughts on the Democratic Process

This morning a comment was posted regarding the verification of the signatures on the petition. Please see the note below that I sent to the Recorder, which may be published in today's issue. There are definitely two sides to this debate.

I felt that, since I had introduced the motion to approve the Spectrum proposal at the April 8th supervisor’s meeting I should not attend the meeting held on April 13th at the Millboro Ruritan Building. I did not want people to assume that I was “spying” or trying to interfere with what they wanted or wanted to discuss. However, I did send an e-mail to one of the organizers last Friday indicating that I had some comments and questions posted on my blog site that she may wish to see. I also noted in that e-mail that I was not in opposition to the group and would help them in any way that I could, if asked.

I did not receive a response to that e-mail and I did not receive an invitation to attend the meeting from the organizers. Today (Thursday) is the scheduled public hearing on the school budget, which I must attend, so I will not be in attendance at that meeting either. I have spoken with an organizer to give her this information and to let her know of my support for their efforts.

Following is text I sent to the Recorder in response to a request for my comments on the situation:

The decision of what to do about the old Millboro School is certainly a difficult one, and one of those decisions that has led to the formation of two groups of people: 1) those who want to keep the school in the county’s hands and 2) those that are in favor of the Spectrum proposal, or any proposal that would lead to immediate disposal of the property. As hard as it is for persons opposing Spectrum to believe, I have had as many—if not more—people speak to me who support Spectrum and moving forward with their project. This is also one of those decisions that must involve not only consideration of the Millboro district, but the welfare of the county as a whole. The taxpayers in the other four districts of the county will be paying for whatever option is chosen along with those in Millboro.

I also realize that the 500+ signatures on the petition to keep the school are impressive, but as any researcher knows, many of the signatures MAY not be valid and should be verified before any definitive conclusions could be drawn. From just a brief scan of the petition I noted several signatures of residents from Clifton Forge and Goshen, and at least one duplicate signature. Since the petition’s circulation, I have also communicated with several persons who regretted signing it because they did not have all the facts about the Spectrum proposal and the cost to the county should the property be kept. I must say, though, that I am very much desirous of listening to such a large group of individuals and only wish they could have mobilized in the past when proposals were being sought in response to the County’s RFP. For anyone who is interested, my full comments on the Spectrum proposal, provided at the April 8th supervisors’ meeting, are available online at http://cahardbarger.blogspot.com.

All of that said, I am in favor of moving a project forward, regardless of what that project might be. It is time for the county to act on disposing of a property that is an eyesore and a safety hazard. There is the potential to restore the building to its former beauty and elegance and use it in a productive way. We do have a good opportunity with Spectrum to address our problem and I will not be disappointed if we vote to move forward with them in 90 days. However, I am committed to helping my constituents and will do all that they ask and that is possible for me to do in this next 90 days.

Thoughts on Old Millboro School

NOTE: This post was written prior to the regular 4/8/08 supervisors' meeting. During the meeting, we voted to delay action on the Spectrum proposal for 90 days to give a group of citizens an opportunity to come up with a plan, including concrete financing, that would not cost the county any more money than our current proposed plan with Spectrum.

Dear Fellow Citizens:
The decision of what to do with the old Millboro School complex has at time been plagued with misinformation, always with divergent opinions, and a great deal of emotion. If I could ethically abstain from voting I would do so because I will inevitably make a group of people angry regardless of my choice in the matter. Since I was not involved in the early discussions and planning, I have taken it upon myself to learn as much as I can about the situation:

There have been numerous and varied conversations over the past nearly 20 years regarding what to do about the school. Groups have formed, funding sought, plans presented, and options for use discussed, but nothing concrete has ever resulted. The most progress that I am aware of was the proposal for a park and discussions about seeking grants, but, to my knowledge, the previous Board of Supervisors did not entertain that proposal as it surfaced after the RFP had been advertised and action on the Spectrum proposal was legally required.

I very much appreciated that Olivia Haney and others brought their concerns with the previous Spectrum draft contract to my attention. Upon a thorough read of the draft contract, I agreed that there were some problems and immediately contacted Mr. John Garland of Spectrum, myself, to raise the concerns. The results of those conversations will be presented as part of the following discussions, but I will say that all concerns have been addressed.

Recently, there was a figure of $1.2 million presented as the cost to the county of entering into a contract with Spectrum Design. That figure is an overestimate:

• The county is signing over the property to Spectrum; however, there will be no tax incentives given to them as is customary in a rehabilitation project of this type. Within the past week I heard about a project in Roanoke in which a developer is being given $850,000 in cash and other forms of incentives to take on the restoration of a downtown property. Spectrum will be paying property taxes immediately upon taking ownership of the property.
  
• The actual property plat shows just under 3 acres of property involved. The most recent reassessment also lowered the value of the buildings, a clear sign of their ongoing deterioration.
• The most recent draft of the Spectrum contract caps the amount for asbestos removal and demolition at under $500,000. We will be able to withdraw from the contract and pay Spectrum for their engineering work to draw up the abatement plan.
• Communications with the PSA and water authority reveal that utility hookups will cost the county less than $20,000, not the over $100,000 as reported. We have requested that a new contract contain specific information about the hookups to be required that will preclude any further misunderstandings.
• The County does not “own tax credits” and cannot give them to anyone. Further, the County, as a municipality, cannot use the historical tax credits without forming a Limited Liability Corporation – in fact, should the county do this it would be able to sell the tax credits but only at a reduced percentage. The County would also have to assume responsibilities for construction and other activities associated with the rehabilitation. The tax credits can only be used by a contractor or developer as reimbursement for eligible expenses upon submitting receipts and after a rehabilitation plan has been approved.

NOTE: Eligible expenses are NOT expenses to stabilize the building, but rather to bring the building back to its historical condition.

• Spectrum has agreed to turn over one-half of the basement in the older school building for use by the Bath County and Millboro communities as a community center, recreation building, or club house.
• We have also resolved the issue of the resale of the property in that the County may have the option to take back the property if Spectrum receives a viable purchase offer from another source within the first five years.

Spectrum Design has been in contact with a major employer in Bath County that is interested in renting a significant amount of space in the renovated buildings. There are some very real concerns that this employer may have to leave the County if space is not made available, although that is not a definite. I recently met with a company that had already identified buildings in another county to move to, but fortunately we were able to keep this industry in Bath..... we can’t afford the few businesses that we have leaving because they need to grow and we can’t accommodate their needs.

The bottom line is this – if Bath County keeps the old Millboro School property, we still have to pay the costs of abatement and for someone to develop the engineering plan. In addition, we will incur several other immediate expenses, most notably:
a. Roof replacement.
b. Repair of the outer shell, especially the wood areas, of the buildings to prevent any further weather damage to the inside.

The figures to complete these activities have been estimated at between $750,000 and $1 million.

Costs to demolish the structures and add a park area would run in excess of $2 million. We would also have to add the costs of regular maintenance to our budgeted expenses.
Both of these options would not provide tax revenues coming into the County, while the projected tax revenues from Spectrum will reduce the cash outlay of the county to just over $200,000 for the project.

Keep in mind that, in addition to some pretty severe budget cuts in all departments of the County and in the schools, as well as a tax increase, we must find additional revenue sources. Adding a $2 million project to our yearly expenses, even in loans, would drive the tax rate up an additional 6 to 7 cents.

Again, this has been one of the most difficult situations with which I have had to deal. I thank those of you whom have called and written.

April 7th Budget Work Session

Well, it hasn't been an easy two weeks! Once the Bath County re-assessment was thrown out (actually, the assessor's contract was nullified), we (the supervisors) knew that we had to do three things:

1. Make drastic budget cuts (from the departmental requests),
2. Raise taxes,
3. Devise new sources of revenue.

I came up with the idea of cutting departmental budgets by 2.5% across the board, as well as cutting $200 K from the school budget that had already seen one round of cuts. The other supervisors and I worked and worked to come up with reasonable cuts, but we also know that we can't cut departmental budgets across the board because most of them have few expenses except salaries.

We have a budget meeting tonight (April 7th) and I hope we can get the school budget in some semblance of order to submit to the school board. I think the school superintendent will be at the meeting tonight and, hopefully we can rely on him to answer some questions.

Where, oh where, has the money gone? I am talking about the county reserves!