HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-15 Budget Work SessionGood Afternoon Mr. Martin, Members of the Board of Supervisors, Fellow
Members of the School Board, and Citizens of Albemarle County,
Today I formally submit the School Board's Request for Funding for
FY 2000-2001. This request totals $99,803,452, including $91,010,199 in
the School Fund Budget and $8,793,253 in the Self-Sustaining Budget.
This request requires approximately $1.9 million beyond what we believe is
a reasonable estimate of revenue that will be available in April. (I would
note that it now appears that State funding will meet the additional
$400,000 that we had anticipated and upon which the $1.9 million figure is
predicated.)
Although the formal process for the School Board to .develop next
year's budget begins in January when the Superintendent presents his
Proposed Budget, the School Board, through reports and other information
it receives, considers and discusses budget issues throughout the year.
The issues are tempered by testing them against our School Division
established priorities that are updated yearly and referenced to the
Commonwealth's mandated Standards of Quality. in November, the Board
directed the Superintendent to present a ."needs-based" budget. In his
Proposed Budget, the Superintendent delineated the Division's needs
based on Board, staff, and community input through a three-tiered
structure, with the first tier including what he believes to be the most
immediate and critical priorities. In addition, he identified the areas that he
would recommend deleting from the budget if there was not an increase in
reasonably projected revenue. ThroUgh this approach, the Superintendent
attempted to respond to the Board's direction for a "needs-based" budget,
while still planning for the fiscal realities inherent in any budget process.
On January 18 the School Board received the SUperintendent's
Proposed Budget. Subsequently, the School Board held four Work
sessions encompassing approximately 30 hours of public meeting time
(over and above the non-public time spent by Board members, which I
know you fully understand) and a formal public hearing, where 31
individuals spoke. As you will .recall, the School Board and the Board of
Supervisors also had a preliminary discussion concerning budget issues on
February 2. Based on this process, the Board decided to submit a
"Request for Funding" versus a "Budget" based on the fact that until
revenue is finalized, any request is fluid. The School Board, however, fully
Understands its legal responsibility to adopt a budget balanced to projected
revenue in April.
In developing its Funding Request, the School Board wrestled with a
variety of issues, including growth, competitive compensation, state and
federal mandates, and most importantly, instructional needs related to
meeting the challenges presented by the Standards of Accreditation and
the Standards of Learning, which present the' most .stringent accountability
structure for our students in the history of the Commonwealth. The School
Board validated and added to the Superintendent's initial proposal.
Therefore, this entire Funding Request represents the School Board's
strategy to accomplish the pressing needs as represented in our
established School Division priorities in educating our students.
The School Board's Funding Request is somewhat different than
previous requests to the Board of Supervisors in the following ways:
- The Funding Request separates growth-related needs, which total
$978,230, into a separate category. In doing so, the School Board wants to
make a strong statement to the Board of Supervisors that these costs
should be the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors since the School
Board has absolutely no control over the population growth that directly
causes the enrollment growth .that we have been experiencing and will
continue to experience into the foreseeable future. Essentially, the School
Board believes that the cost of growth should be funded separately from
the normal allocation of new revenue. The costs of growth are making it
increasingly difficult, and in the longer term, will make it impossible for us to
maintain the quality of our services to students and our competitiveness in
terms of our ability to attract and retain high quality staff.
- The Funding Request does not include Unfunded Priorities. Rather, the
Funding Request includes all those areas that the School Board believes to
be essential to meet the needs of the school division at a time of unparalled
demands upon it.
Several items in this Funding Request warrant elaboration. In the last
decade, our county has undergone significant changes. Most obvious is
the change towards our county becoming much more urban in nature,
compared to being a predominately suburban and rural area.
Lets go back only five years, where our School Board became
acutely aware of this change with a major redistricting to accommodate our
new Monticello High School. We saw that our high population density
areas near the City were mOving further out into the countY. The town of
Crozet, the Earlysville area, and areas out on US250 East and West were
also building at a significant rate. We saw then the impact of county growth
by the number of vehicles that traveled each day on our incre, asing
crowded main roads to and from our businesses.
Here we are in the year 2000, five years and 1,300 students later. The
growth has continued for five years and is projected to continue. We see
on the horizon planning for two new elementary schools and expansion of
Monticello High School. Compounding this is our wonderful good fortune to
have a very Iow unemployment rate and a very strong conomy.
In these last five years, the School Board has taken seriously our
obligations to be responsible stewards of the funds provided by the Board
of Supervisors and our obligation to meet and exceed the Commonwealth's
mandated Standards of Quality.
Beyond measures such as the level funding of schools and departments
over five out of the past seven years and the absorption of required, yet
unfunded costs of state and federal mandates, I would like to highlight
some of the significant efficiencies and cost controls, we have implemented
and challenges we need to resolve.
In the area of Transportation, we have
- Reduced the bus fleet, even as enrollment grew and a new high
school was opened, by changing school operating schedules
- Eliminated bus routes through consolidation and other efficiencies
- Expanded the useful life of the buses through rotation and an
aggressive maintenance program second to none
In spite of these measures, we still have:
- A serious bus driver shortage
- Th'e cost of buses continues to rise, especially with increased safety
features mandated on the buses
- We are now approaching the time to replace a unusually large
number of abOut 120 buses from the 1989-1993 era.
Radically increased fuel prices
In the area of Building Services, we have:
Starting 2 years ago, reduced the building improvements budget bY
$1oo,ooo
Reduced CIP for 2 years to fund operational budgets
Installed a computerized energy management system with central
Controls
However, unlike five years ago, we are also facing:
- An increase need for costly safety and security improvements to
protect the people and property, such as increased lighting, rekeying,
etc.
- We have a shortage of custodians and maintenance workers that has
not been offset by overtime.
Five years ago, we did have the Federal law on providing Special
Education services to identified students. However, we now have a revised
complex Federal Law that is requiring additional services that have taken
the state two years to interpret for use in our local school divisions. In the
meantime, we have had to prOvide an increasing number of special
education services with an increasing limited Comprehensive Services Act
that has not adequately reflected the new Federal mandates. Further
complicating this is the increased training needed by special education
teachers and staff to keep up with the plethora of state and federal laws,
not guidelines. And finally, with the increased need for special education
services, we have continued to pool our resources with the city and other
counties. This includes our successful joint venture to build the Ivy Creek
School. Again, the Ivy Creek School would not be possible without your
support and sharing in the vision for this essential school. I would also
note that Albemarle County has experienced a steadily increasing amount
of litigation related to Special Education, which is consistent with a national
trend. This has been a significant resource drain.
Of most significance in the last five years are the striking changes seen in
the instructional area. Five years ago, the Literacy Passport Test was used,
representing a minimum standard without mandatory remediation. Now,
with the new Standards of Learning, or SOUs, we have a much higher
standard by specific area, with mandatory remediation, and with
accreditation of school divisions, individual schools, and verified credits for
students to graduate with a diploma. The costs of the SOL's, .although
offset by the state, have not fully reimbursed the efforts needed by our
county. These have included;.
Providing workshops to teachers and staff on the changes required in
adjusting our curriculum to be congruent with the state SOL testing
plan.
Implementing the various curricula, to include the much studied and
debated social studi~s curriculum.
Providing for time in the classroom to administer 37 tests compared
to the 11 previously given
Providing workshops to teachers and staff on the change over from
the Iowa Basic Test Series to the Stanford 9 series of national
normalized tests.
Providing the need for increased accountability of how we are
meeting the SOUs though the analysis and reporting to the public of
all test results.
Providing necessary feedback to improve the quality of the SOL tests.
My final point in noting significant changes from five years ago are the
salaries paid to our teachers and classified emploYees. In the last five
years, the School Board has generally concentrated our resources on
curriculum development and implementation. However, during this time our
salary structure has gradually not kept up with the economy. We now see
signs of a coming teacher shortage, as evidence by:
Many of the baby-boomers are starting or will be taking an early
retirement.
Competition with other school divisions offering higher salaries.
Competition with other Central Virginia school divisions due to
growth.
Competition from other fields not previously competitive with teaching
(due to the strong economy).
The competition for the shrinking pool of teachers was well illustrated
locally a couple of weeks ago when uva held a recruitment event for
around 130 students grad~Jating in the spring to enter the field of education.
107 school divisions from states as far away as California were here vying
to hire these young people. Though some in the public will argue, the
situation is real and will only worsen.
I have.highlighted just a few of the reasons for how and why our School
Board has developed this Funding Request for you to consider. Through
our joint meetings and the information provided, we have endeavored to
provide a clear and logical picture of how we constructed this Request.
The School Board is appreciative of the significant support for education
that the Board of Supervisors has provided in the past. We look forward to
working with you to continue to provide an exemplary education for the
young people in Albemarle County.
Thank you!
Background
SOQ #1: Basic skills, selected programs, and instructional personnel
2: Support Svcs
3. Accreditation, other standards & evaluation
4. Literacy Passports, diplomas and certificates
5. Training and professional development
6: Planning and Public Involvement
To: School Board & Board of Supervisors
From: Steve Koleszar g/Q,
RE: Historical trend data on teacher salaries and retention
This is additional information that may shed some light on our competitiveness for
teacher recruitment and retention in the furore.
Attached is 1 page showing teacher retention over the last 5 years. During the Board of
Supervisor's public hearing there was testimony that this showed there was no cause for
alarm. Looking at the trend our teacher tufiaover is becoming a source of concern. The
data came from our recruitment, selection, and retention reports.
Also attached are 2 pages showing how our teaching salaries compare with
Charlottesville and Fluvana County over the last five years. This indicates a deteriorating
position against our 2 closest neighbors. This data came from John Baldino of Blue
Ridge Uniserve.
If you have any questions about this information, please call me at 293-7262 or email.me
at skoleszaf~_ albemarle, org.
BOARD OF SL PERWSORS
Teachers Leaving the System
94-95 96 97 98 99*
Reason
Retirement 3 5 14 11 15
To Teach Elsewhere 11 12 9 11 11
Moved 8 16 17 10 14
Other 13 17 17 18 44
Total 35 50 57 50 84
Teachers Leaving Albemarle by year
~ 90
· 8o
~, 70
· ~ 60
50
~ 3O
· , 20 , ,
94-95 96 97 98 99*
Year(s)
* We discontinued exit interviews in 99 so some in 'other' may belong in category
98 & 99 are for 10 months (Jan-Oct) only.
Teacher Salary Comparison
Between Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna
Step 5
33,000
31,0O0 ~ · Albemarle
29,000 --a--Charlottesville
27,000 --e- Fluvanna
95-96 96-97 97-98 98-89 99430 00431
Schoel Years
Step 15
40,000
38,000 ~ +Albemade
36,000
~ Charlottesville
34,000
' ~'~"~~ ~ Fluvanna
32,00O
30,000 .....
95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01
School Years
Step 25
45.000
43.000 ~ · Albemarle
41.000
~ Charlottesville
39.O00
~ ~ Fluvanna
37'000 ~
35,000
95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01
School Years
. Teacher Salary comParison
Betwwen Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvana
Scale Step 5 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01
Albemarle 28,000 27,717 28,271 28,602 29,277 30,521
Charlottesville 26,134 26,238 26,943 28,271 29,460 31,298
Fluvanna 26,525 27,216 28,006 28,847 29,712 31,495
Scale Step 15 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01
Albemarle 35.600 32,913 33,572 33,965 34,767 36,816
Charlottesville 30,950 31,364 32,205 33,572 34,984 36,322
Fluvanna 33.511 34,382 35,380 36,442 37,535 39.787
Scale Step 25 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01
Albemarle 35,600 38,110 38,872 39,327 40,255 41,966
Charlottesville 36,990 37,488 38,495 39,265 40,507 42,153
Fluvanna 36,505 37,455 38,542 39,699 40,890 43,343
Strategic Directions & Issues for
Albemarle County
FY 2000/01 Operating Budget
Work Session
Capital Improvements Program
March 15, 2000
FY 2000/01 CIP
Total FY 2000/01
$6,964,140
CIP Projects
Schools
46%
Stormwater
6% Tourism_/ Utility Imp ACE
1% 1% 14%
Admin
11%
Public Safety
5%
Hwys & Trans
8%
Human Dev
2%
Libraries
1%
Parks
5%
FY 2000/01 CIP
[] School Projects
[] General Govt. Projects
[] Tourism Projects
· , Stormwater Projects
,, $3.202
[] $3.265
[] $0.075
,, $0,423
[] Total Projects
[] $6.964
(In $ Millions)
2
FY 2000/01 CIP
[] General Govt. Projects - County Computer Upgrade
- Court Renovation
- County Facilities M&R
- Court Square M&R
- J&D Court M&R
- Fire/Rescue Bldg. & Equip.
- Airport Road Sidewalk
- Revenue Sharing
- CALAS Facility (New)
- Region Ten Facilities (New)
- $170,000
- $150,000
- $400,000
- $50,000
- $15,000
-'$360,000
- $127,000
- $400,000
- $55,000
- $50,000
FY 2000/01 CIP
[] General Govt. (Cont.) - New Library Facilities Study
- Library Computer Upgrade
- Library M&R
- Crozet Park Athletic Field Dev.
- PVCC Facility Renovation
- Scottsville Comm. Ctr. Imp.
- So. Albemarle Park Dev.
- Walnut Creek Park Imp.
- Parks M&R
- $20,000
- $47,500
- $15,000
- $148,000
- $18,618
- $67,88O
- $25,000
- $26,525
- $39,000
FY 2000/01 CIP
[] General Govt. (Cont.)
- ACE Program
- Keene Landfill Closure
- Subtotal
- $1,000,000
- $80,000
- $3,264,523
[] Tourism Fund Projects
- Paramount Theater
- Rivanna Greenway
- Subtotal
- $5O,OOO
- $25,000
- $75,000
FY 2000/01 CIP
· , Stormwater Projects
- Stormwater COntrol
- $422,977
[] School Projects
- Requested Projects
- Recommended Projects
- Unfunded Projects
- $4,911,640
- $3,201,640
- ($1,710,000)
4
Reflects The Following Changes to
Technical Committee CIP:
[] Adds $1,00,000 per year for ACE Program in FY01
and FY02
[] Adds Following New Projects:
- $55,000 (FY01) from General Fund Balance to fully-fund
CALAS ca pital request
- $250,000 over five years ($50,000/year) from General
Fund Balance to fully-fund Region Ten's capital request
- $50,000/year from Tourism Fund, for a total of $330,000,
to Paramount Theater. ($500,000 requested.) City
funding $500,000 of $750,000 request. County
recommendation is to fund a similar percentage (66%.)
Reflects The Following Changes to
Technical Committee CIP'
E-911 Capital Projects
- Removes the $1.7 Million transfer from the General Fund
for E-911-related capital projects. (These funds have been
re-allocated within the FY01 Operating Budget to fund
operational costs of new CAD system.)
Reflects The Following Changes to
Technical Committee CIP ·
[] Northern Elementary School
- Reduces Overall Project Cost by $750,000.
- Defers $9.5 Million in construction cost from FY01 to
FY02, due to delays in land acquisition. Additional
$1.5 Million retained in FY01 for site work and land
cost.
- Proposes to fund the $980,000 in project expenses
requested over and above approved bond revenues
of $10.04 million 'with additional VPSA bonds. The
increased debt service would be funded with
savings realized from deferring construction to
FY02.
Reflects The Following Changes to
Technical Committee CIP ·
,, Burley Addition/Renovation
- Defers $1.4 Million requested for Construction in FY01 to
FY02, due to delays in initiating project.
![] School Maintenance/Replacement Projects
- Pushes $597,000 forward to FY01:
· $572,000 from FY02 to complete chiller replacements at
County Schools (Greer & AHS) as well as the installation of
telephones in the classrooms in the elementary schools.
· $25,000 from FY03 for telephone system installation.
d
FY 2000/01- 2004/05 CIP
Requested Projects: FY 00/0'1 FY 02-05
General Government Projects $3.26 $31.45
Tourism Fund Projects $0.08 $0.81
Stormwater Projects $0.42 $0.40
School Projects $3.20 $46.34
Total Projects $6.96 $79.00
Available Revenues:
Local Local $3.54 $14.23
Tourism Revenue $0.43 $1.16
State Construction Funding $0.40 $1.60
Borrowed Funds -Gen. Govt. $0.00 $18.08
VPSA Bonds - Schools $2.60 $43.94
Total Revenues $6,96 $79,00
Unfunded School Projects
($1.71) ($11.43)
Total01-05
$34.72
$0.89
$0.82
$49.54
$85.97
$17.76
$1.59
$2.0O
$18.08
$46.54
$85.97
($13.t4)
Additional CIP Projects to Be
Included At Later Date' CAD
Multi-jurisdictional Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system for dispatching 911 and non-emergency
calls for Police, Fire & Rescue Services.
Total Cost
- County Share (43.29%)
- City Share (47.92%)
- UVA Share (8.79%)
$1.95 Million
$0.88 Million
$0.91 Million
$0.17 Million
[] County Share of $0.88 Million Funded with CIP/
E-911 Fund Balance Reserves
[] $137,230 in ongoing operating costs (County
Share)
7
Additional Projects to Be
Included At Later Date: 800Mhz
[] Multi-jurisdictional, 20-channel Analog/Digital
Simulcast Trunked Radio System linking Public
Safety Agencies in City, County, UVA & Airport.
[] Total Cost - County Share (50.71%)
- City Share (31.25%)
- UVA Share (15.03%)
- Airport Share (3.01%)
$13.37 Million
$6.80 Million
$4.14 Million
$2.02 Million
$0.42 Million
[] Sources of Funding for $6.8 Million County Share
- Borrowed Funds (Infrastructure) $4.71 Million
- E-911 Fund Balance (Radios & Other) $2.09 Million
m County Share of Annnual Maintenance $0.25 Million
To Be Addressed With Financial
Adviser:
· , Funding for Unfunded General Government and
School Projects, including:
- $10.6 Million in Unfunded Gen. Govt & Stormwater Projects
- $4.9 Million Differentiated Staffing/Capacity Formula
Change & Impact of Capacity Change on School Facility
Needs over Next Ten Years
- $3.1 Million in School Growth-Related Capital Costs
- $5.3 Million in Other Unfunded School Projects
- Additional Resources Needed for Land Banking
,,, Stormwater Program
[] County Debt Capacity & Affordable Capital Budgets
· , Appropriate and Feasible Financing Mechanisms for
Lon_.Qfl-Term Ca,._-ital Needs .
8
m
0~' w~v-