At their June 23rd meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to deposit the first CARES Act funding installment, totaling $11.8 million into a holding account. At the July 28th Board meeting, County staff presented spending recommendations for the $11.8 million. The Board voted 6-0 to approve the plan and use the $11.8 million toward public safety employee salaries. As a result, the Board freed up $11.8 million of local money that has greater spending flexibility to go toward other projects. During this process, the School Board requested a $2.5 million reimbursement for previous technology expenses related to COVID-19 and their strategic goals.
At the August 11, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting, School Board members Baron Braswell (Battlefield District) and Dawn Shelley (Chancellor District), and other school officials presented a summary that described how the School Board planned to spend the $2.5 million. The Board of Supervisors delayed a decision on the School Board’s request, deciding additional information was needed.
At their next meeting on August 25th, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 (Jett, McLaughlin, Ross) to approve County staff’s recommended spending plan for the freed $11.8 million of local money. Salem Supervisor Debrorah Frazier made a motion to immediately provide the School Board with $2.5 million reimbursement for purchasing items to address COVID-19 driven initiatives, but the motion failed 3-4 (Jett, Marshall, McLaughlin, Ross). The plan that was ultimately approved does reserve $2.5 million for the School Board until their FY20 budget carryover amount is known. In the spirit of equity, the Board of Supervisors reduced the County’s expenditures for technology improvements by $2 million until the County’s FY20 budget carryover is known (estimated to be in October or November).
Commentary:
The June-August CARES Act discussion highlights the Board of Supervisors and School Board’s fractured relationship and the Board of Supervisors inconsistent scrutiny of budget appropriations. This divide likely stems from the two bodies disconnected priorities and political considerations.
On one side, the School Board crafts their budget – and to their credit almost without exception does a thorough job explaining the increased costs of running County schools. However, the School Board does not have to consider any other competing County priorities or what County residents find to be a reasonable tax rate for core services.
On the other side, the Board of Supervisors lack any direct responsibility for whether the schools are successful. If they decide to short the School Board’s funding request they can quickly redirect blame to Federal and State governments not meeting mandates. Additionally they can argue County residents can’t afford any additional tax rate increases and because the Schools always present their budget last in the process - they receieve a disproportionate amount of blame for such increases. More importantly, the Board of Supervisors can easily separate themselves from any negative consequences if the School Division struggles to meet education benchmarks because they have no authority over how their appropriations are spent.
If the Board of Supervisors fully funded the School Board’s budget each year - it would likely not take long before one-by-one they are replaced with candidates that pledged to halt the tax rate increases. On the other hand, the School Board members would secure more longevity due to the additional funding that was secured - skirting any direct responsibility of any tax increases - by claiming it was the Board of Supervisors that raised the taxes. Any Board of Supervisor should have been aware of this dynamic and should not have run for office if they felt it was unfair. The only way to fix this conflict is for both sides to more publicly acknowledge these political considerations and work together to find compromise - that ensures both bodies accept some sense of political risk.
If the Board of Supervisors this past year provided the School Board with its full funding request, it would have caused the tax rate to increase by over six pennies. To be fair, the Board of Supervisors allocated five new pennies to the tax rate - during a pandemic - to support a previous decision made to fund public safety employee pay increases (so a tax increase could not have been attributed to solely the School Board’s budget). The Board of Supervisors dealings with the School Board present only two clear options: tell the School Board we believe you are doing great and the additionally money is not needed or cut other County spending initiatives or raise taxes to move closer their funding request.
The Board of Supervisors are collectively playing a middle game of not directly stating that the School Board’s funding request is unnecessary, but not taking any action to move toward meeting the request. There is a lot of political talk of support that can be used during campaign times, but little tangible actions have occurred. Instead each School Board funding request is typically met by intense line item scrutiny, whereas if you reviewed the Board of Supervisors deliberations over the recent public safety pay raises (some of which took place in executive session), it’s noticeable how little scrutiny was involved as the County committed to $11 million of additional spending outside of the formal budget process. Also to consider is how little scrutiny was directed to County staff’s $3 million technology upgrade requests.
Most County residents would support intense budget scrutiny for all local spending. However, if Board of Supervisors wish to make a point to scrutiny line items in one Department, they must be willing to dedicate that same type of rigor to all County spending. That has not always been the case and it is the true reason that some supervisors continue to find themselves at odds with many in the community.
Link to July 28, 2020 Board of Supervisors CARES Act presentation
Link to August 10, 2020 School Board presentation to the Board of Supervisors
Link to August 25, 2020 Board of Supervisors CARES Act presentation
Below are several Scot Shenk Free Lance-Star articles with more details.
August 26, 2020 Spotsylvania supervisors divided over schools request to cover laptop costs
August 12, 2020 Spotsylvania supervisors debate funding for school laptops
July 29, 2020 Spotsylvania allocates $11.8 million in federal stimulus funds for first responders
June 27, 2020 Spotsylvania officials ponder how to use federal COVID-19 funds