Loading ...
Supervisors urged to approve $12.1 million budget as teachers, students, school boosters dominate public hearing
By James P. Gannon
The expected battle of the school budget turned out to be a lopsided affair Friday evening as school supporters packed a public hearing of the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors to urge them to approve a 5.7% increase in county funding of public schools.
A procession of School Board members, teachers, former teachers, coaches, officials of the Headwaters public education foundation and other school-boosters took to the microphone to appeal for full funding of the School Board’s proposed $12.1 million budget for the coming school year.
Those with a contrary view either didn’t show up at the Rappahannock County Elementary School gym or chose not to speak at the public hearing, except for two leaders of the Concerned Taxpayers of Rappahannock who asked the supervisors not to raise the county’s real estate tax rate.
It was a show of force by the school boosters as 29 of the 31 persons who spoke to the board praised the schools, teachers, and students and urged full funding–or even more funding–of the budget.
Even the Junior Panther girl’s softball team–decked out in uniforms fresh from the ball field–got into the act, standing up as silent witnesses as their coach, Stephanie Shaw of Sperryville, asked the supervisors to pass the budget “for these girls and the other 900 students” at the schools. “I ask you to pass this budget; we need more, a lot more.”
School Superintendent Robert Chappell opened the proceedings by briefly outlining the budget. Though the proposed total of $12,063,799 is actually $33,135 less than the current year’s budget, the School Board is seeing a $470,709 increase in county funding–to $8,759,098–to fully offset a decline in state and federal school aid. The budget includes a 3.5% pay increase for teachers and all school employees.
All five members of the School Board addressed the supervisors before the public testimony began. “We are still hobbled by a broken funding model” that relies on property taxes alone to finance public education and uses a state-funding formula that penalizes Rappahannock as a “rich” county, said Wakefield member Rosa Crocker. “The schools try to limp along cheerfully” on inadequate revenue, she said.
Before the public comment began Chairman Robert Anderson imposed a three-minute speaking limit and told the audience: “Everyone on this board has nothing but the children’s welfare in mind. I don’t like to hear that we do not have the children at heart.”
Margaret Ann Wayland, who spent 37 years as a teacher’s aide at the elementary school, spoke first, praising the schools and expressing her love for the children. That set the tone for the evening as speaker after speaker echoed those sentiments and asked for full funding of the budget.
Doug Baumgardner of Washington told the supervisors the School Board budget meets the two litmus tests of any budget: “It is fiscally responsible and it makes common sense.” Rappahannock County, he said, is “holding the worst hand in Virginia” on school funding at a time when state and federal funding are being cut. “Fiscal responsibility does not mean you cut to the bone,” he said.
Helen Williams, a former school superintendent and now president of Headwaters, said, “Our problem is that we are a small rural school system funding the schools with an inadequate taxation system….we are not inefficient, we are not wasting your resources.”
Margaret Lee, a teacher at the elementary school, said that Fauquier County supervisors raised the county’s property tax rate by 12 cents per $100 of valuation, and Culpeper County is considering a 7-cent increase in its tax rate. “Do the citizens of those counties care more for the schools than ours do?” she asked. “Some of our citizens are protesting any kind of a tax increase.” She said a 3-cent tax increase to fund the school budget would be reasonable.
Sharon Kilpatrick of Stonewall-Hawthorn District said, “I think this budget has been hacked up enough before it got to you–please fund the whole thing.”
Peter Kramer of Wakefield District said good performance by the schools “needs to be rewarded….Fund the budget! You guys should be looking for ways to give them more,” he admonished the supervisors.
Karen Sanborn, an elementary school teacher, got a big rise out of the audience by suggesting, with humor and sarcasm, that the schools weren’t asking for much and the taxpayers should quit complaining.
“It sounds like we are all beggars here,” Sanborn said. A 3-cent increase in the property tax rate would cost $150 in additional taxes on a home valued at $500,000, she pointed out. “You’ve got to be kidding me–I spend that much on coffee” each year, she said to laughter. “Give me a check book and I will pay my part right now! You are getting down to pennies here….you are squabbling over $150 a year! ….What I find shocking is that you are talking about $150….give up a cup of coffee! Really, $150, guys–come off it!”
Judith Hope of Wakefield District picked up that theme. “I think we should all give up coffee for a year and put the money in a jar and when taxes go up, we will have the money to pay for it,” she said.
Katherine Treanor of Amissville told the board that “annual salary increases are necessary to keep good teachers.” She praised the School Board for deciding to decrease the tuition paid by out-of-county students, in an effort to attract more paying students. “It’s a wonderful idea….you don’t market something by raising the price. It is important for us to market this good product.”
The School Board set next year’s tuition for out-of-county students at $6,440, down from $8,300 this year, in an effort to try to attract students to fill classrooms hit by declining enrollment. The budget projects enrollment next year at 902 students, a loss of about 100 in two years. Based on that figure, the proposed budget costs $13,375 per student.
The chorus of praise and support for the school budget was broken only briefly. Tom Junk of Sperryville complained of what he called discrepancies in the budget and asked the supervisors, “Please keep the tax rate for the county the same as last year. These are tough economic times we are in.”
Roger Cordani of Flint Hill said, “I am not against the teachers or the schools. I am against a tax increase.” He presented the board with about 75 letters from residents also opposed to a tax increase. “I asked a lot of people to come to these meetings, but they say they don’t want to get involved,” Cordani said, adding, “They say that (you) have already made up your minds.”
The two-hour public hearing ended with Chairman Anderson saying that the Board of Supervisors will decide on the issue at its Monday, May 5 meeting.
Besides the School Board budget, the supervisors will consider an alternative funding level proposed by County Adminstrator John McCarthy, who proposed an increase in county funding of $220,709, or $250,000 less than the School Board requested.
-- James P. GannonComments
Comment from JohnDiley
Time: April 28, 2008, 5:11 pm
The April 26th RappVoice account of the Board of Supervisors meeting quotes Tom Junk, “These are tough economic times we are in.” How tough are they in Rappahannock?
For insight to this question, I turned to a recent poll in RappVoice that asked, “The goverment plans to send tax-rebate checks to most Americans this spring. How will you use your tax rebate?”
Eighty-one percent responded that they would either tuck it away in their investment portfolio, take a trip, splurge on something special [perhaps dinner at the Inn?], or don’t expect to get anything [Payments are reduced by 5% of the AGI over $150,000 for married couples who file a joint return with AGI over $150,000].
Eleven percent look forward to reducing their debt while only percent will use their payments to help with every day expenses like food and gas.
In a cleverly worded poll a couple weeks later RappVoice asked, “Should the Board of Supervisors raise property taxes to provide the $472, 541 increase proposed by the School Board?” By about the same margins, eighty-three percent responded. “No, with enrollment dropping, school funding should be held level to avoid any increase in the property tax rate.”
Note: This disingenuously worded response ignores the fact that the proposed budget is slightly less than last year’s and reduces the schools’ portion of the county budget by about 5%.
The overwhelming majority will either squander their stimulus payments, add them to their investment portfolios or make too much money to get the payments but for them, the sacrifice to fund a school budget at slightly below last year’s level is just too great.
Just how great is the sacrifice?
Karen Sanborn is quoted as saying that the owner of a $500,000 house could pay a three-cent increase in the tax rate, $150 per year, by drinking a little less coffee per year. What a sacrifice!
What sort of draconian sacrifice would be required of a real estate developer who bought 15.6691 acres a couple years ago for $285,000? In 2007, the “land use” value of this wooded lot was calculated at $5,900. A one cent increase on the tax rate equates to a $0.59 2-pack of “Grandma’s Chocolate Chip” cookies at Hillsdale Store. Increase the rate by two cents and the owner would have to give up a Diet Sunkist soda, currently on sale at Hillsdale for $1.19. Increase the rate by three cents as suggested by some and the owner of this land would have to give up cookies AND the soda.
The students at the school did not vote for the zoning that has reduced our school funding from the state to the lowest possible amount. Neither did these children vote for an administration that has doubled the national debt and tripled the price of a barrel of oil since coming to power.
Yet, these children and their offspring will have to bear the burden of this debt for the rest of their lives. The least we can do is to step up and do what it takes to fund the school budget be it giving up a 2-pack of cookies and soda or even a case of decent wine.
John Diley
Amissville
Comment from Richard Payne
Time: April 30, 2008, 12:04 am
I think Tom Junk’s statement is valid for some, but not for all of the residents of Rappahannock. This county has a tremendous amount of wealth, and you don’t have to look too far to see it. But, we also have our not so wealthy (poor), or middle class, and these are the people who will be affected the most by a real estate tax increase (no matter how large or small).
The proposed increase of $0.03/$100.00 of assessed real estate value is a 5.17% increase over the current rate of $0.58/$100.00 of assessed real estate value. This proposed increase would, or should, cover all of the county’s increase in expenditures, including completely funding the proposed school budget.
Well here’s my problem. If the new proposed 3 cent increase is adopted, then my real estate taxes will have gone from $2582.40 in 2005 to $4460.40 in 2008, an 80% increase. This is for property that has had no new assessed improvements done to it from 2005 to 2008. No additions, no remodeling job, no new buildings (assessed), nothing. My spare coffee, grandma’s cookie and sale priced soda budget was wiped out by my 2006 tax bill increase. (Karen Sanborn is quoted as saying that the owner of a $500,000 house
could pay a three-cent increase in the tax rate, $150 per year, by
drinking a little less coffee per year. What a sacrifice!) (A
one cent increase on the tax rate equates to a $0.59 2-pack of
“Grandma’s Chocolate Chip” cookies at Hillsdale Store. Increase the rate
by two cents and he would have to give up a Diet Sunkist soda, currently
on sale at Hillsdale for $1.19. Increase the rate by three cents as
suggested by some and the owner of this land would have to give up 2 of
“Grandma’s” cookies AND a bottle of sale-priced soda.)
Now with the continual cost increases in food, gas/fuel, health care and life in general, what else do you want me to give up? I get a 3.3% raise at work and everything goes up 5,10,25% +. Heck, I’m going backwards and I’m doing fairly well by most standards.
Let’s face it, just about everyone and everything is affected by the rising cost of living. It’s costing us all a lot more just to get by. If everyone’s real estate taxes have gone up at the same rate as mine, then the county should be swimming in money. If everyone’s real estate taxes didn’t go up at (close to) the same rate as mine, then we have a BIG problem. We either have a county budget (spending) problem or a county taxing problem. I think we have a county taxing problem! We don’t tax everyone fairly……
By the way. I love your idea of using the economic tax stimulus checks to pay the increase in our Rappahannock real estate taxes. Use the rebate from one government tax to pay the increase in another government tax. Only in America!
Sincerely
Richard Payne
Write a comment