HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 25, 2004 Work Session
I
366
A Worksession ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Frederick County School
Board was held on Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in the First Floor Conference
Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chairman Barbara E. Van Osten; Gary W. Dove; Bill
M. Ewing, Gina A. Forrester; W. Harrington Smith, Jr., and Lynda J. Tyler.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Hottle and Gary Lofton.
ST AFF PRESENT
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director; Jennifer
Place, Budget Analyst; C. William Orndoff, Treasurer.
OTHERS PRESENT
William C. Dean, School Superintendent; Lisa Frye, Frederick County School Board Director
of Finance; Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration; School Board
Chairman Patricia Stiles; School Board Vice-Chairman John Lamanna; and School Board Members
Richard Howett; David Zeru]]; Lawrence VanHoose; Don Butler; and Stuart Wolk.
Chairman Shickle convened the work session and advised that it was his goal to get a
consensus on a preliminary budget scenario so Administrator Riley could prepare a final budget for
publication and presentation.
Administrator Riley distributed copies of proposed scenarios, which the Board previously
reviewed at its February 18, 2004 work session with the Finance Committee. Administrator Riley
advised that the Board discounted scenarios A and B at that time. Administrator Riley reviewed all
of the previously proposed scenarios along with a new scenario E. The scenarios are as follows:
Scenario A: All requests are fully funded.
- $10,010,507 increase in non-school General Fund.
- $14,515,208 increase in School Operating / $8,870,243(local only)
- $1,700,000 in School Debt.
Funding Options:
1. $0.50 (68%) Real Estate tax increase would generate approximately $20,000,000.
2. Fund Balance Funding of$4,721,629 with a$0.39 (52%) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
Scenario B: General Fund (non-school) requests have been reduced by approximately 60% (from
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Worksession with School Board 02/25/04
367
$10 million to $4 million). School funding requests are fully funded.
- $4,010,507 increase in non-school General Fund.
- $14,515,208 increase in School Operating / $8,870,243(local only).
- $1,700,000 in School Debt.
Funding Options:
1 $0.35 (48%) Real Estate tax increase would generate approximately $14,000,000.
2. Fund Balance Funding of$5, 121 ,669 with a $0.22 (30%) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
Scenario C: Recognizes additional school revenue from federal and local sources towards total
percentage of expenditure increases. Maintains an average 11 % increase in expenditures. School
operating and debt are both school expenditures when calculating percentage.
- $4,010,507 increase in non-school General Fund.
- $8,309,395 increase in School Operating / $2,664,432(local only).
- $1,700,000 in School Debt.
Funding Options:
1 Fund Balance Funding of$2,115,858 with a $0.14 (19%) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
2. Fund Balance Funding of$4,915,858 with a $0.07 (10%) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
3. Full Fund Balance Funding of$7,715,858. This option will result in financial challenges
when balancing the FY 06 budget and opening a new middle school. Probability of a full
rate roll back during assessment is limited.
Scenario D: After approximately 11 % increase had been allocated to school and non-school
categories, the allocation is reduced by 25%, with the exception of debt service.
- $3,007,880 increase in non-school General Fund.
- $6,232,047 increase in School Operating / $587,084(local only).
- $1,700,000 in School Debt.
Funding Options:
1. Fund Balance Funding of$I,247,123 with a $0.12 (16%) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
2. Full Fund Balance Funding of$6,047,123
Scenario E: Recognizes additional school revenue from federal and state sources toward the total
increase in funds. This is scenario C with 4% increases for salary adjustments replacing the 7 and
6% salary adjustments proposed in scenario C. The costs ofthose adjustments have been decreased
in scenario C to arrive at scenario E levels.
- $3,660,507 increase in non-school General Fund.
- $6,443,189 increase in School Operating / $1,264,432 (local only)
- $1,700,000 in School Debt.
Funding Options:
1. Fund Balance Funding of$2,765,858 with a $0.08 (II %) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
2. Fund Balance Funding of$5, 165,858 with a $0.02 (2.7%) Real Estate Tax Rate Increase.
3. Full Fund Balance Funding $5,965,858. This option will result in financial challenges
when balancing the FY 06 budget and opening a new middle school. Probability of a full
rate roll back during assessment is limited.
Administrator Riley concluded his presentation by advising the Board that he would prefer not to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Worksession with School Board 02/25/04
368
exceed the $5,965,858 fund balance, if they choose to utilize the fund balance full funding option.
Supervisor Tyler asked how the $5,965,858 was derived.
Administrator Riley responded that stafflooked at the amount they anticipated putting back
into fund balance and then they would try to safeguard that figure from supplemental appropriations,
etc.
The School Board presented a one page summary oftheir proposed budget, which showed
an increase in local funding of $6,424,754. School Board Chairman Stiles reviewed the summary:
The following items are mandated expenditures over which the School Board has no control:
- VRS retirement contribution mandated increase of $2,063,405.
- Group Health Insurance premiums - self-funded - 15% increase = $758,410.
- Northwestern Regional Educational Program (NREP special education) - FCPS share =
$355,948 increase over last year.
The following items are requested for additional funding from the Board of Supervisors:
- Special Ed: instructional staffing - teachers and aides = $306,334
- 7% salary increase for all staff (adjustments to survey group average including COLA)
= $4,853,716.
- Phase-in of middle school team planning period - Grade 6 = $290,886
- Class Sizes: instructional staffing - regular, vocational, resource (14 HS, 7 ES, 5.3 MS)
= $484,610.
- Infrastructure staffing (transportation, maintenance, clerical, and administrative support)
= $75,322.
- Instructional staffing requirements for federal and state standards = $290,886.
- Bus replacements (4 more) and new routes (5 new) = $325,00.
The total increase requested from the Board of Supervisors is $6,626,754.
Supervisor Ewing asked the School Board if they were standing firm on the 7% salary
mcrease.
School Board Chairman Stiles responded yes.
Supervisor Ewing asked the School Board if they would still need additional bus drivers if
the buses were not approved.
School Board Chairman Stiles responded yes.
Chairman Shickle encouraged the Board of Supervisors to pick a budget scenario.
Supervisor Dove selected the no tax increase option in scenario E, which utilized full fund
balance funding of$5.9 million.
Supervisor Ewing preferred scenario E because it provided more funding and did not include
a tax increase.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Worksessiou with School Board 02/25/04
369
Supervisor Smith preferred scenario C option 2.
Vice-Chairman Van Osten preferred scenario C option 2. She stated that she did not see how
scenario E could be considered because it does nothing to fund the items that should be funded.
Supervisor Tyler stated that she did not think that quality of life equated with keeping taxes
as low as possible. She opted for scenario C option 2. Supervisor Tyler went on to say that she was
not comfortable raising taxes in light of last year. She concluded by saying that she did not think
that scenario C option 2 "gets us there".
Vice-Chairman Van Osten stated that she was not pleased to have to raise taxes, but the
public needs to understand that a lot ofthis is out of the Board's hands. She went on to say that both
the County and the School are in this position because of reduced state funding and increases in
mandated services and expenditures, such as VRS.
Supervisor Forrester selected scenario C option 2. She stated that she did not feel
comfortable utilizing full fund balance and she would like to take a serious look at salary increases.
Chairman Shickle advised that the two scenarios being put forth are scenario C option 2 and
scenario E option 3.
School Board Chairman Stiles advised that some ofthe members of the School Board would
like to make some comments.
Board Member Zerull addressed the proposed 7% salary increase. He stated that there were
a number of teachers who were behind where they should be with regard to salary and the schools
were losing a lot of good, competent teachers because ofthat; therefore, he felt the salary increase
was reasonable. Board Member Zerull also discussed pupil funding which is currently $4,200 per
pupil. He stated that when multiplied by the recent growth experienced by the County, this equates
to approximately $1.3 million above last year's budget.
School Board Member Butler briefly addressed the VRS contributions. He also addressed
the protocol of how the School Board and Board of Supervisors meet. He hoped in the future that
both bodies could meet without potential budget scenarios being in the paper before hand.
School Board Vice-Chairman Lamanna stated that concern rests with the mandates that face
the school board. He went on to say that a majority of the budget was personnel and if personnel
had to be cut then the schools would not be able to meet state standards.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Worksession with School Board 02/25/04
370
School Board Member VanHoose stated that 85% of this budget was personnel related and
he felt the School Board would probably be back before the Board for supplement requests for staff,
etc. in order to meet standards.
School Board Member Howett stated that the proposed budget is not out ofline.
School Board Chairman Stiles advised that the only place the School Board has to cut is
salaries and full time employees. She went on to say that if the Board would ask them to go back
and consider scenarios with less than a 7% salary increase they would do so.
Chairman Shickle recognized members ofthe Finance Committee and asked i fthey have any
comments.
Treasurer Orndoff asked how many employees would be receiving salary increases of more
than 7%.
Superintendent Dean responded that he did not know that number.
Supervisor Smith asked Superintendent Dean what the highest and lowest percentages of
increase would be.
Superintendent Dean responded that he could nottell based on last year's numbers; however,
the year before some people received 7% and others 3%, when the School Board did a 5% increase.
Treasurer Orndoff asked ifthe teachers understand that 7% average increase does not mean
that all of them will receive 7%.
School Board Chairman Stiles stated that teachers understand that 7% does not mean that all
of them will receive the same amount.
Finance Director Frye advised that currently teachers with 20 years experience are 7% behind
the test group average salary.
Patty Taylor spoke regarding potential consequences if full funding is not received. They
included loss of accreditation and the loss of appropriately endorsed teachers. She went on to say
that the proposed increase in positions was not frivolous, but required.
Assistant Superintendent Cleaver advised that middle schools have a recommended staffing
of 24 students to one teacher; however, some middle schools in Frederick County are currently at
34 to 1 ratios.
Vice Chairman Van Osten asked staff to consider another scenario, in which the proposed
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Worksession with School Board 02/25/04
371
salary increases for the County and Schools would be 4%.
Superintendent Dean stated that public schools were unique because they could not increase
rates and fees, but are expectcd to increase services; therefore, they are "hamstrung" when the
potential revenue sources dry up. He advised that they have crafted a product that gets the results
people want and meets and exceeds what the state expects. Superintendent Dean went on to say that
the school system is the second largest employer in Frederick County. He explained that the schools
expenses are $400,000 per day and that the $2.6 million proposed by the County is roughly six days
of spending. "Is it sufficient? No. Will it keep us out of difficulties with the State and Federal
governments? No. Will it help attract staff? No. Will we have to revisit the Board in the fall for a
supplemental appropriation? Yes." He concluded by saying that whatever the Board and the School
Board required they would do, but $2.6 million would not be helpful in the long run.
Administrator Riley addressed some of the county budget challenges:
- No increase in State or federal funding.
14 new firefighters and medics.
Seven law enforcement officers.
Increase in VRS contributions.
State reduction in per diem for jail inmates.
He advised that the County's options were not great other than cutting services and reducing the
work force in order to make it work. He concluded by saying that the State has not done its duty to
local governments and someone other than the local governments needs to step up to the plate.
Chairman Shickle stated it was unfortunate that the Board had to wage war against their
constituents and other appointed and elected boards in order to resolve these issues. He went on to
say that we are all on the same wavelength and need to guard against being pitted against one
another.
Supervisor Forrester advised the School Board that the Board would be adopting a resolution
urging the state to fund local governments and urged the School Board to do the same.
Chairman Shickle advised that he was looking for four supervisors to agree on a budget
scenario in order that staff could develop a budget for advertisement and a public hearing.
After some discussion, Vice-Chairman Van Osten, and Supervisors Forrester, Smith, and
Tyler agreed to option C-2.
Supervisor Tyler advised that she was most comfortable with this scenario in order that the
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Workscssion with School Board 02/25/04
Board and School Board could get done what needed to get done. She went on to say that if the
citizens were not comfortable then they need to tell the Board what services they would like to see
cut.
Vice-Chairman Van Osten advised that she considered C-2 an option at the last work session,
but she did not see how it would meet the needs ofthe County and the School Board. She went on
to say that in looking at option C-2, the Board needs to realize that supplemental requests are going
to be a given; however, she would support this scenario since there is a need to advertise something
for the budget public hearing.
Chairman Shickle advised that once the tax rate was advertised, it could not be increased.
He concluded by thanking everyone for attending and offering their input.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
(7:10 P.M.)
\) 0 Q ~----CL'-..)
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
1J(-rK +
Joh . .Iey, Jr.
Cler ,Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By: CA~J< f.., '--i '0) })
Jay . TU}bs
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Budget Worksessiou with School Board 02/25/04