03-27-1992 Minutes1992
Mr. Arthur $. Warren, Vice Chrm.
Fur. Whaley ~. Colbert
County Administrator
~chool Boax'dM,~,*mhers in
Att~d~e;
~. Timothy C. 5town,
~s. Ellzabeth ~. Davis
~r. ~rshall W. Tra~all, J~.
~ool $uperin=endent
Staff ~Attenda~c~:
Asst. =0 CO. Admin./Dir.,
Office on Youth
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Mr. William H. Howell,
County Attorney
~rs. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir,, New~ & Public
Dir., Budget & ~anagement
~i~. DEnial called =he mooting to order at 4:00 p.m. (EST).
~r. ~t~gmaier pre0ented an overview on various options for thc
completion of the school projects approved in the 1988 Bond
Referendum; the current Bond i~uuance schedule; and
recommendations for the p~eject~. He reviewed the
intermediate option including the issuance of Bond
A~ticipation Notes which would allow the completion Of the
energy conservation/air oonditioning prsjecta in the Fall of
=him year~ th~ Alberta Smith ~lementary School in the Fall of
1993; the Betty Weaver Elementary School in the Fall of lg94;
und the James River ~igb School ~n the Fall of 1~99. He
stated this 0p=ion would allow the earliest possible openings
for th~ two elementary sc/aooI~, would accelerate completion of
=he energy conservation/air conditioning projects although it
would delay construction O£ th~ James River High School. He
f~thmr stated the intermediate Option would permit the same
Bond issuance schedule es ~lannnd hut would require the
issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes in Suns of 1992 and June
of 19~3 and would have no impact on the 1993-94 budget. He
further presented ~taff~ rsco~h~ended option for completion oS
the school projects an4 stated the recommended option would
allow completion of the energy con~orv~tion/~ir conditioning
pMojecSs in the Fall of this year; tho Alberta Smith
El~n~entary Sshool and the Betty Weaver Elementary School in
the Fall of 1993; and the Je~e~ River High School in the Fall
of 1994. He further stated the reoo~endation would a!low the
earliest possible opening of all the new facilities and,
therefore, minimizes ~tudent housing problems and in order to
implement the ~ec0~mendsd option, staff was recommending the
issuance of $15 million in ~ond Anticipation No%es tn be
~cheduled in either May or ~une of this year and the
of th~ bala~o~ of the outstanding 1988 Eon~m in November cf
this year. Me noted the outmtanding b0~d~ for school projects
was approximately $40 million; that the additional $2 million
3/27/92
w~ioh had been identified in the county's Reserve for caRital
Projects fO~ the Jmes River High School would net be used but
there would a ma~ a~ditional coot in FY94 O~ $1.4 million
debt service and, therefore, staff was recommending that the
$1.4 million be funded from the $2 milllon currently reserved
for future capital projects for possible additional cost to
the James River High School.
with the recommendation as Dropooed and concurred the
million reserve for the J~mes River High School would not be
available.
~. Daniel mrs=ed concerns had been expressed by citizens
regarding the anticipated cost of the James River High School
and inquired i£ the School System had enough £unds in the
project to cover all road construction costs.
Mr. Fulgh%rm stated when the review of the Riverton site had
in the cost analysls that fund~ available in tho 19~S Bond
Rmferendum would not cover the preliminary estimated cost, and
therefore, the $2 million had b~e~ offered a~ an option but
after further research and completion of the des/gms, the
estimates were r~vi$~d within the budge= and they would not
require use of the 52 million.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the road had been properly designed to
address the traffic which would be generated by the school
site a~d w~ethe~ all pe~it5 wove i~tact. He ~eqU=sted the
school Superintendent to send copies of the permits to the
County Administrator,
Mr. Fulghum stuted th= design of the road had been made part
of ~h~ requir~ments; T/la~ all p~rmits had ~een addressed prior
to the project being bid and noted compliance with the
Chesapeake Say Act had been impo=ed by =he ~lanning Commission
when the site had been determined to be in substantial accord.
Mr. Daniel ~tated the School Board n~eded to ensure all
building issues relating to the Riverton site including, but
not limited to, design cost~, utility costs and ~ire
pretection~ had been properly identified and
~r. Fulghum stated the engineering costs had been included in
the plan of approval.
After brlmf discus=ion, F~. Daniel stated the school Board
would bm held accountable fro~ thi~ point fo~ the issues ~hich
had been addressed regarding the Ri~erton site and
instructed staff to p~epa~e an ite~ setting a dute for u
public hearing to oonmid~r the appropriation of Bmnd
Anticipation Note Proceeds.
FYP3
~r. Daniel ~teted the proposed $700 ~upplement for teachers
~ontinu~d to he an ar~a of oonc~rn and in,trotted the school
Board to ~eek alternative methods to provide thc funding
Discusuio~, comments and questions snmu~d r~lative to the
p~OpOSed $700 supplement; ~he current national salary ncmte
for teachers; the proposed supplement and how it equated to
~he scale; and %h~ methodology u~e~ for recommending the
92-241 3/27/92
Mr. Brown stated the School Board would be reluctant to change
the funds as allocated in the budget a~ they felt the proposed
budget would ensure the quality cf education.
Mr. Daniel inquired if =he school Board had conducted an
organizational analysis on varloum job functions within the
school System and whether the flxmd work output Gould be
reallocated or cut if necessary.
Mr. Fulghum stated the School System continually strived to
meek methods of operating more efficiently and wag committed
to doing se in the future.
Discussion, eomment~ and questions ensued relative ~o State
requirements and the methodology used in developing the
budget; the School System's budget being driven by enrollment
figures; the projected enrollment figures for the
year; ~he number ol projected new employees for the School
System; ~he m~tkodology used is assessing the number of new
o~ployees Der enrollment figures and whethe~ the numbers were
balanced; and whether there wa~ an increase in pesitien~ for
teachers es opposed to administration.
Mr. War~en inquired a~ to the ~erall ratio of the budget in
itt ~ntirety ver~es th~ increase in positions and whether the
Dimcu~sion, co~mont~ and question~ en~ued relative to last
y~ar's budge% as compared to this year's budget; budget
comparisons over the past five years regarding
total number of residents versus the number of employss~;
whether the pupil/t&ach~r ~atie had been historically
increasing; who=her the pupil/teaeh~ ratio was based more on
State ~andates rather than the needs of parents; how t/lo ratio
a~plisd to certain services such as spsclal education; the
cost to reduce the pupil/teacher ratio; the number of funded
jobs Set =he 199Z budget am compared to =he 1992 budget;
methods in which to reduce the number of funded jobs such as
consideration of consolidation opportunities and freezing the
funding for vacant administrative positions; amd the current
calculations of total employees to students for this yeax and
projection~ for ~ext year,
Mr. Brown stated they would like to review tren~ analy~es
conducted by the School Board with the Board of Supervisors at
the appropriate ti~s and noted there would be no growth in
elementery, middle and hig~ se~ool levels for next year and
tl%e ~ethodology used in a~igning the number of teachers; the
school system's computer technology initiative program and
whether the school level~ could best deoide their individual
needs.
Mr. Barber stated although the concept of the technology
initiative program was supported, he felt the perception in
~he Schools was there were currently too many computers which
had not been integrated into the System in a timely fashion.
Mr. Warren stated he ~a~ a~vieed of a school where computers
had bee~ ordered back in the Fall Of 1991 and to this data hud
not been integrated into the system but re=her were still in
=noir boxes at the
Discussion, co--eats and questions ensued relativ~ to the
re,possibility o~ the school System in addressing thla issue
and the computer technology initiative program currently in
place~ wh~ther computers were being implemented faster than
the sc~ool~ could keep up with; whether the $1 million
allocated to this program should bm frozen until ma~t year;
92-242 3/27/92
ensuring that ~he technology p~ograms in place would benefib
the students in tha future; and the implementation ef
individual schools.
Mr. Brovn stated the School Board was oo~mi~ted to allocating
the funds available tc meet the best interests of the
oitimens.
~. Bar~r re~tat~d he felt th~ momput~r technology initiative
pr~ram was being ~pl~ented faster than the individual
schools could integrate into the System.
~. Bro~ stated the School Board should be making poli~
deoi~ion~; ~at ~ oompu=er =echnol~ initiative Drogr~
would improve the ~rriculum; and ~at he felt ~e ~jorlty of
the s~ools Wore requesting more computers.
Mr. Daniel stated the Board of Supervisors ware acceptable to
the citizens of the County and %he citizen~ wer~ ~ntitl=4
S~ool System to the S~hool ~oard and the two Boards were
responsible in addressing the~e concerns.
teGhnolo~ ini~iativ~ progr~ and had been info.ed there were
computers in schools not being integrated into ~e System and
that those concerns were still being expressed and needed to
be addressed.
Di~ou~ion~ co~ent~ and qu~stion~ en~ged relative to which
schools ha~ computers which had not been integrate~ ~n%o the
System; whether the $1 million allocated for this pro~mm
closely together on all issues.
~. ~c~ale ~tated he felt the ~=hoo5 ~y~t~m a~ well as the
County should ad.ess a total ~ality management approa~ when
addressed all overhead costs and, specifically, administrative
Dr. cardea stated they would provide ~e Board of
with a list of ~e overall view of each administration
different categories.
Mr. Ramsay stated hs would bs reporting to the Board at its
~eting on April l, 199~, proposed areas of uonsolidation and
noted the list had been given to m~mbers of the School Board
Liaison Co~mittee and the School Superintendent.
Mr. Daniel inquired a= to when the Sahool ~oard would have the
opportunity to address the information.
listed which could be considered for consolidation as well as
to consolidate services; the school soard providing
justification fo~ those items they fmlt could not be
~r. Warren ~ta~d h~ f~lt there was u real need to a~es~
this issne in a timely fashion.
~r, Brown stated the School Board would provide their report
~m~a~din~ ~n~01idation e~portunltles to tho Boa~d of
Supervisors by May l, 1~2.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the
School Board bein~ co~t~itted to contributing a certain
percentage each year into the Capital Reserve; the definition
of a full-ti~e employee; and the criteria for bus drivers
joining the retirement system.
Mr. Barber requested the SupErintendent send him a list
regarding the criteria for bus drivers fitting into the
propssed salary categories.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to
oonsideratien of a ~eals tax in which ~e funds would be
allocated for ~ohool projects; th~ rationale for developing
~e conoept; und the timeframe in which to consider a memls
timing of the proposal and it wa~ the qe~eral cun~nsu~ of th~
school Board that the proposal fo~ developing a meal~ ta~
~ere was brief di~cumsion relative to the appropriate proce~
to follow when developing the proposal for a meals tax.
It was generally agreed to adjonrn at 6~15 p.m. until April
199~ at ~:00 p.m.
Lane B. Ramsey ~
County A~minietmator~
92-244 3/27/92