School E-mail March 11, 1997

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: New Schools, Budget & Taxes
Date: 97-03-11 16:19:29 EST
From: James.C.Klagge@bev.net (James C. Klagge)
To: schools list@vt.edu

Dear Friends,

Since this message will mostly be dense, I thought I'd start off with something light-hearted:

I was invited to talk (for about 20 minutes) to a cub scout den (of 4th graders) about what the school board does, and what it's like being on the board. I talked to them briefly about the kinds of decisions we make. But mostly I decided to give them the experience instead.

I told them to imagine they went to an old school, in a class with 25 kids in it, containing 2 old computers, and a teacher who is OK. Then I gave them a budget of $100 to work with, to decide what improvements to make. Here were the costs of the improvements: New School ($100), Great Teacher ($75), Only 20 in the class ($25), Only 16 in the class ($50), Only 12 in the class ($100), Lots of Field Trips ($25), and New Computers ($10 apiece). First they had to allocate the $100 according to what improvements they would like to see as individuals. Then they had to decide as a group how to spend the money! (If any of you want to send me your preferences, I'll circulate the results--It's a good learning exercise.)

Half the boys used their money to buy a great teacher and lots of field trips. The other half chose 20 in a class, lots of field trips, and 5 computers. That was the easy part. Then I encouraged them to explain and defend their preferences to try to convince the others. A couple tried to do this, and even seemed to be convincing one of the others, but then another one of them suggested flipping a coin! Only one of the boys was uncomfortable with this suggestion since it wouldn't be based on the strengths of the case, but the others loved the idea. When I told them how long our meetings are, often because of extended debates, they wondered why we don't just flip a coin. (Then I started wondering myself!) In further discussion it came out that none of them wanted a class smaller than 20 because there would be less opportunities to find friends in the class. (I had never thought of that perspective.)

If any of you would like me to do this exercise with a class or a community group I would be happy to try to arrange a time. It may not work too well with kids younger than 4th grade, unless it's perhaps a gifted group of 3rd graders; and I think it can be fun even for adults. (Or you are welcome to use the scenario I created without me.)

NEW SCHOOLS: Two meetings ago we passed a resolution encouraging the Board of Supervisors to move forward with the remaining 3 parts of Phase I of the FUSS, and supporting whatever funding mechanism they chose. (I already reported this to you and encouraged you to express your views about funding to your supervisor.) At our last meeting, a week ago, Roy Vickers moved that we specifically advocate to the Supervisors that a new high school in Shawsville/Elliston be next, and that it be funded by VPSA bonds, without a referendum. Roy said that as a Blacksburg representative he would personally prefer that BMS go first, but since the land is already purchased in Shawsville/Elliston, and since no definite decision has yet been made about where to put the football field in Blacksburg, we should advocate splitting off Shawsville and moving ahead with it, and then leave BMS and CMS for future deliberation and perhaps a bond referendum.

At least some of us on the board were surprised by this motion, since it would represent a substantial deviation from our present course of trying to get all three schools approved together (even if we can't necessarily build them all at the same time). It was also a surprise since issues of this magnitude are usually announced in advance so that we have more time to think about them and talk with constituents. The debate was lengthy and heated.

Those in favor of the motion argued that we should get what we can as soon as we can, and then rely on the citizens of Blacksburg and Christiansburg to put pressure on the supervisors to move ahead with those 2 projects as well. The assumption was being made that enough people live in those two areas to approve a bond referendum even if the citizens in the Shawsville and Auburn areas already have their schools. Also the assumption was being made that a bond referendum would have a better chance of passing if it did not have to include money for a new HS in Shawsville/Elliston (if that were already funded through some other mechanism).

Those who opposed the motion argued that having already split off the new Auburn Elementary school, leaving the other 3 hanging, we shouldn't repeat the mistake and leave 2 hanging. We should stand by the principle of getting approval for all 3 remaining projects, before making decisions about order. Those who opposed the motion also felt that the supervisors have given no indication that BMS or CMS are bogging down (even if all the details haven't yet been worked out). Why not let the process go forward that seems on the verge of arranging all 3, instead of acting like we need to do something quick to salvage one of them now? (It was not always clear to me exactly what all the issues were that were making this such a heated discussion, but if I have misrepresented or incompletely represented the views of either side and school board members want to more clearly state their positions, I will forward their statements verbatim to those on this list. Anyway, that's how I saw the debate.)

I felt the issues were somewhat misrepresented in the newspaper on Thursday, where it was made to look as though the debate was over which funding mechanism was preferable (bond referendum or BoS vote). That came into it in a way, but I thought the real issue was the pragmatic one of how best to get all of the schools built as soon as possible: try to get one immediately at the possible cost of putting the other 2 on hold, or try to get all three at the possible cost of it taking awhile to get all 3 nailed down.

I voted against the motion, which was defeated 5-4. (Favoring: Vickers, Worth, Dunkerburger, and Moore; Opposing: Klagge, Hopkins, Smith, Jortner, and Perkins.) The school board may eventually need to decide which school should go next, if the supervisors stick to their $10 million debt limit, and that will be a hard decision. But I don't see that we need to make it now, at the risk of leaving the other schools hanging. However, this is obviously an important issue about which reasonable people can disagree. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. Those who supported the motion seemed to think it should be considered again at the next meeting (though that would require someone from the winning side to ask for reconsideration).

BUDGET: The supervisors met on Thursday to hear the presentation of the school budget and to set a maximum possible tax increase for further discussion. No doubt some SB members had other obligations, but whatever the reasons, Annette and I were the only ones there. I'm afraid some SB members aren't enthusiastic about our budget because it is too large, others because it is too small.

The presentation showed that if we had used the same method for constructing a budget as we did last year (based on Focus 2006 recommendations), we would having been asking this year for a budget of $57 million (a 14.83% increase over the current year). But that what we were in fact requesting was much pared down from that: $53.3 million (a 7.37% increase over the current year). That represents a $3.6 million increase over the current year. Of that we expect $1.4 million increase to come from outside the county. (Unfortunately that is much less than the $2.1 million increase we received from the state last year. This imbalance always occurs in the second year of the state biennium.) That would require $2.2 million increase from county taxes. Of this amount $1.92 million would be for 26 new teachers and an average 3% salary increase for all personnel; while $280,000 would be for debt service on the new elementary school in the Auburn area that is under way. The county is projecting $2.3 million in new tax revenues just from economic growth. Property tax increases bring in about $220,000 per penny increase. If you combine the school's proposed budget with the increases that are being considered for other county agencies, apparently all of it could be funded if the county raised taxes 7 cents. (If your house is worth $100,000, you now pay county taxes of $700/year, and that would have to increase to $770/year. The Town of Blacksburg just decided that it would not raise town taxes next year, which stand at 20 cents per $100 valuation.) It is important to see that a 7 cent increase is not necessitiated by the school budget, but by the school budget along with a number of other new increases that the county is considering. A number of things can be funded just from economic growth alone.

On Thursday the Supervisors voted to advertise a maximum 7 cent tax increase for further discussion. Historically they have not adopted all that they advertised, but this provides the opportunity for citizens to express their views. As I said in my last message, the public hearing on the county budget and tax rate will be Thursday, March 20th at 7pm at Shawsville HS. Historically this event brings out the most fiscally conservative citizens. Please speak on that occasion, or contact your supervisor personally.

TAX INCREASES: In my mailing of 5/22 last spring I wrote the following, which continues to be relevant at tax time and should be widely known: Some of the supervisors have indicated a reluctance to raise property taxes because they are regressive--i.e., their burden is felt more heavily by those with lower incomes. In fact those on fixed incomes may find themselves with higher taxes without any more money to pay them with. Because of this problem there is a provision in state law that counties can offer tax relief to retired or disabled homeowners. In our county the homeowner may not make more than $14,000, however. As you can imagine, there are not very many homeowners with so little income. In the last year 280 homeowners qualified for tax relief totally over $100,000. The surprising thing is that this income limit was set by the supervisors in 1972, and has never been raised by them since then. In fact the state allows the income limit to be as high as $30,000! So some of the supervisors use the regressive nature of the property tax as an excuse for not raising property taxes and yet they have it in their power to make it a less regressive tax--in other words they refuse to use the ability they have to help fix the problem they complain about. It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that some supervisors don't want to lose low-income retired people as outspoken opponents of tax increases.

-Jim Klagge
School Board Representative
District F

email: admin@gisone.com