THE SURPLUS: Falls Church City’s High-Class Problem
By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff
August 13, 2012
There are problems, and then there are high-class problems. While many cities, and even states, around the country are flirting with, or filing for, bankruptcy, Falls Church City has a surplus for this year. Deciding how, or if, to spend it is a high-class problem.
It’s not just a bed of roses here, of course — the City has laid off 17 full-time employees, outsourced garbage collection, and raised tax rates by 25 percent over the last four years. And the debate hasn’t always been pretty.
But with housing values here recovering smartly from their 2009 lows, money has been flowing into City Hall at a faster rate than anticipated. What to do with the money already has been the subject of debate, and will be a feature of tonight’s City Council meeting, where newcomer Dave Tarter has proposed giving some money to the school system for what officials there say is needed technology upgrades and returning a portion of it to the city’s taxpayers.
Mr. Tarter said last week that he expects the amount that would be refunded under his plan to be about three cents on the tax rate, reducing the effective rate from the current $1.27 per $100 of assessed value to $1.24. For the average homeowner of a $700,000 home in the City, that would amount to a refund of $210.
It’s not clear how many on the Council are in favor of Mr. Tarter’s proposal. Last week, a divided council voted 3-2 (with two absences) in favor of a plan by Ira Kaylin to decline the school system’s request to spend $500,000 on technology upgrades and instead restrict the money to capital investments, which presumably would be large expenditures on buildings and the like.
Mayor Nader Baroukh and Johannah Barry joined Mr. Kaylin, while Mr. Tarter and fellow newcomer Phil Duncan were opposed. It’s not known how Dave Snyder and Ron Peppe will vote, although Mr. Peppe, a former school board chair, seemed to indicate he opposed the Kaylin proposal.
The issues here are two-fold: Should the schools be given extra money, and should they get to decide how it’s spent? Or should the City Council decide that?
School Board Chairwoman Susan Kearney said in an interview that the schools need to upgrade aging computer equipment, but also saw their request as one of fairness; she pointed out that school officials returned $672,000 to city coffers four years ago, in a cooperative gesture, as the economy and city revenues began to suffer — and they view it as fair to get something back now.
“We made a specific request” in the budget process this year, Ms. Kearney said. “If there’s a surplus this year, the board would like to share in that because we shared in the bad times.”
Mr. Kaylin has no objection to allocating extra money to the schools. In an interview, he said after taking out between $600,000 and $800,000 for a variety of one-time expenditures, including additional legal fees, his proposal would provide the school system with 50 percent of what’s left, or about $1.4 million. But he wants that restricted to capital expenditures, which he said would save substantial money for the city and its taxpayers over a period of years by avoiding borrowing costs for projects like the expansion of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School.
“At some point, delegation of authority is abandonment of responsibility,” he said.
He also warned that the surplus is a one-time pot of gold that isn’t going to be repeated next year, for which a shortfall in money already is emerging. He warned that any tax rebate, like Mr. Tarter’s proposal, will just have to be reversed next year, where there’s a strong possibility that the tax rate may have to rise five cents to $1.32 per $100 of assessed value.
“We’re not in good shape,” Mr. Kaylin said.
Update, Aug. 14: The City Council deadlocked 3-3 Monday night, with Vice Mayor Dave Snyder absent. That means no decision has been made about what to do with the surplus.
By Stephen Siegel
August 13, 2012
“We are not in good shape.”
Mr. Kaylin has been a voice of gloom while on Council, but he has also been pretty consistently right. Perhaps the failed votes last night will prove ultimately to be a blessing for the City’s finances.
I applaud Mr. Kaylin for the tough questions he is asking…..everyone should. He obviously has spent a lot of time analyzing the numbers and has on several occasions challenged anyone to correct him where he thinks his numbers are wrong. A lot of people in the City don’t know how to react or deal with someone like Mr. Kaylin. Most simply go along with the “program.” I personally find what he is doing very refreshing….so hope you keep it up, Mr. Kaylin. He also seems to grasp that this City (where I have lived a long time) is about everyone’s interests…..such as those who have had to shell out $5 to $10 thousand because of stormwater deficiences. The last time I checked I think this City is supposed to serve everyone’s interest in a balanced fashion and with a set of established priorities. The school system is important but not the only thing of importance.
Forgot to say this idea of sending back a check rebate has to be one of the dumbest and short-sided proposals I have ever heard. Some folks must want to pat themselves on the back for sending money back now only to take it back (and more) next year or in succeeding years. Plus figuring out who gets what back, different types of taxpayers, the administrative cost of issuing checks and then tracking down checks that get lost or mis-directed. If anything is done, just net it against next year…..but don’t given the taxpayers a rebate only to raise the tax rate to continue to make up the future deficit.
@Mel….don’t forget we would have to set up a mechanism for folks that want to appeal/challenge the amount of refund…another admin cost.
What has been right about Mr. Kaylin’s economic “doom and gloom” predictions and the impact on the City?
The City could have chosen to use surplus funds toward storm water management. Instead, they chose not to.
Cecily, I think both the Mayor and Ira Kaylin talked about stormwater projects as potential uses for a portion of the surplus. No specific project but they did mention the need.
They mentioned the need but never did anything about it. They used the storm water management need as a reason why the schools should not get the tech money. As I told the mayor, the 2 needs are not mutually exclusive. If the City Council sees the need for storm water management, has money to spend on it and does not, who is to blame? The schools? No.
I am still kind of confused. I understand the merits of the tech needs, I know schools have this on the radar and noted it last budget cycle as an unmet need. What I don’t understand is: does the SB have enough money to buy the tech equipment *now*? Is that why the urgency, because they need this but do not have money for it and can’t wait until next budget? If they have the money, why the pitched battle?
I know the issue is complicated but I am trying to get a handle on the main issue.
I welcome any info.
This week government in Falls Church has produced some remarkable comments and actions that are probably best forgotten–at least that may be the hope of those involved.
The statement by Councilman Ron Peppe that he can choose which meetings of the Council to attend by his own determination of their importance is an indication of personal arrogance. It is also demeaning to his colleagues who do show up, several at almost every meeting, which seems to suggest are they too lacking in intellectual ability to distinguish important and unimportant meetings. And most of all a level of contempt for the citizens of Falls Church whom he believes are sufficiently prescient to determine when he will be in attendance so that they should cool their heels until he is around.
Additionally Mr. Peppe dissembles when he contends that he misses some meetings.
In fact, since being sworn in 2010, Mr. Peppe has missed 25% of the scheduled meetings and an unknown number of Council Work Sessions.
His attendance record, relying on the excuse of work, is the worst of any Member of the City Council.
Not content to shoulder the responsibility for his own actions, he gratuitously tosses Mr. Snyder under the bus because of his attendance at Council sessions.
“I also agree that I miss some meetings for work travel, as does Mr. Snyder. Some folks value attendance for attendance sake, other value results, so that is up to each voter to think about at election time.” Councilman Ron Peppe
When election day in November of 2013 comes around, we will take Mr. Peppe at his word.
Then there are the unfathomable actions of Councilman Dave Tarter. For many of us, the election of Dave was was the highlight of the campaign–many of us worked our tails off for him. But now he has shown his legislative hand of disjoined and contradictory initiatives.
First, there was a call for a homeowners tax rebate, using the surplus revenues that were generated this year. But he aimed the rebates at only the homeowners, leaving out the businesses in the community which own real property. This was a particularly ham-handed initiative by Dave Tarter upon whom we were suppose to rely for knowledgeable dealings with the business community to enhance economic development.
In addition, he offered his rebate proposal with no understanding of what the administrative cost would be to generate the rebate. And, since there is the likelihood of a tax rate increase next year, your rebate and tax payment would likely pass each other in the mail. Fortunately his colleagues nixed his initiative.
That was the week that was: We deserve better.
TFC, I am also a bit confused. It sounds like Mr. Kaylin thinks the schools already have the money and the School Board says they do not. I’m sure there’s some complexity to all of it and timing is an issue – but it seems strange that there could be two very different takes on the money situation.
I am writing to address some confusion regarding the budget surplus amendment I offered at Monday night’s City Council meeting.
My amendment proposed to generally divide the surplus three ways: 1/3 for the City to convert capital improvement programs from debt funded projects to pay as you go (as opposed to 1/2 in the alternative proposal), 1/3 as a tax rebate/reduction, and 1/3 for the schools (with $500,000 for the technology expenditures and the rest for capital improvements).
It has been suggested that the tax refund was only to be given to homeowners. This is not accurate. The rebate would have applied to all property taxpayers, both homeowners and commercial property owners alike. In fact, the tax reduction would have benefited large commercial property owners with the highest tax bills particularly, since it was intended to be a pro-rata rebate. In addition, because most commercial leases pass tax charges directly through to commercial tenants, the tax reduction would have benefited non-property owning businesses in the City as well.
It has also been suggested that the tax rebate was too expensive to affect. The amendment specifically provided that the mechanism for its implementation would have been determined at a later point. I was told by the City Manager’s Office that one method, a reduction in the rate used for December’s tax bills, would have cost between $5,000 and $20,000.
For those of you that are interested, the actual text of the amendment can be found at: http://fallschurch-va.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=391&meta_id=26666
While it does not have much do to with the substance of this funding debate, I will weigh on on the process questions that Mr. Mabry has articulated.
I thought I was pretty clear in my statement, but I will repeat myself: I miss some meetings for work travel, as do other members. As I said, the voters can certainly decide if they want to elect someone from the private sector who has travel commitments for work.
The council does needs to make better use of technology to make it easy to see who voted on what, without having to manually comb through minutes. More transparency is always better. The same goes for public comments- there must be ways to use technology to make is easy for the public to see each others comments, so we can all have a better sense of community sentiment.
I do regret that I was out of town on business when the agenda and the posted funding ordinance was changed at the last minute before the meeting. Last minute changes, even if not intended to be sneaky and underhanded, create an appearance that something is not right. The council can do better than that, and the public has a right to be upset with all of us when that happens.
The substantive issue here today is the council’s inability to muster a majority to deal with the funding issue. Deciding by not being able to decide is usually not a good formula for governance (just look a few miles down the road).
The council can still fix this problem. Three of us at the meeting offered to continue to talk and find some common ground. That offer still stands.
Ron
At this point I would not support Mr. Peppe for re-election (if he choses to see relection which would be understandable if he didn’t)….besides too many abences which I guess is understandable…and he along with others should certainly be applauded by their desire to serve the public…but too much of an insider to the schools…he is the school’s go to guy no doubt…..and he probably has some difficulty standing up to their strong lobbying While the schools are important, I am not sure I firmly believe that he is for “balance” in the City when push comes to shove. Sorry, Ron.
In the case of Mr. Tarter’s rebate amendment rejoinder, he commits himself to strategy of advancing the precision of circumstance in order to trump the accuracy of substance.
The video tape of the work session clearly shows that Mr. Tarter did not mention businesses in the context of his rebate scheme thereby from his own words–or lack thereof–establishing for his proposal clear legislative history and intent: It was to be a homeowners deal only.
Moreover, even all the while pointing out that the business and residential real estate tax rate structures are disproportionately high in Falls Church compared to surrounding jurisdictions, neither his rebate scheme nor his comments make specific mention of the business tax revenues that made up a hefty portion of the surplus.
We know some homeowners are financially stretched and need relief, and Mr. Tarter was suppose to be the go to guy to broaden and deepen our commercial revenue base to relieve the pressure on the homeowner. But you don’t encourage commercial development by ignoring the business community especially if you are legislating specific tax rebates.
Picking individual classes of winners and losers in a rebate scheme is bad policy. That’s why cities have places to put windfalls that benefit the entire community, such as funds for capital improvements.
So this morning I see a notice of a special Council meeting that took place last night to discuss community issues on the City website….did anyone go?
I really wish the notices would go up a little earlier. I had seen a reference to a Republican committe sponsored event but it was not presented as an actual Council special meeting…..grrrrrrrrrrr
I think they had to classify it as a city council meeting because there were more that two councilpersons there. By rule, city issues cannot be discussed without official notice by more than two council members, and those must be open to the public unless the special “closed meeting” requirements are met.
So if two councilpersons were having dinner together at a restaurant and a third member joins them, they cannot discuss city issues without a public notice and allowing everyone in the restaurant to listen in.
Thanks…anyone know about the substance?
Sam Mabry – “That’s why cities have places to put windfalls that benefit the entire community, such as funds for capital improvements.”
Jane Wayland – “…and schools.”
TFC, it looks like Patch has a post about the meeting: http://fallschurch.patch.com/articles/falls-church-council-school-board-agree-on-technology-need and I think the FCNP was there so I assume they’ll have a write-up at some point.
As for the impact of Mr. Tarter’s proposal on economic development in the City – I think it’s a non-issue. I wasn’t a fan of the rebate – although if the idea was to implement it as a reduction in the next tax collection it doesn’t sound as bad. I am a business owner in the City and even if there were an efficient way to figure out how to issue a refund across all revenue sources it would end up being a fairly tiny amount – especially the part tied to BPOL or sales tax. I think there are much more important issues that will impact economic development and I’m still confident Mr. Tarter will be an asset in those areas.
Thanks Andy. How about an idea? Schools get the tech money, 600G for water wars, the rest for CIP PAYGO for for schools and government , skip the rebate/refund.
so the city does have money? so.. where did it go?
is it going to things that are needed or more or less the same stupidity as always?
we don’t need any more new buildings.. we don’t need anymore extensions.. what we need are the faculties that were promised 20 yrs ago! where’s those lights? how about those pedestrian bridges? hum?
well? ???
i’m waiting and don’t get me started on the fact that this city is turning into another ‘franchise hell’ and there’s nothing unique about FC any more.
and why aren’t we doing anything to keep our citizens safe? how about that trouble with traffic? how about the trouble with pedestrians getting hit by cars? how about red light runners?
how about jobs that mean something inside the city? there’s nothing like that in FC.
so there’s a surplus, doesn’t mean anything.. it’s not going to the people for any programs, it’s going to be spend by the politicos who are only here to serve their terms and then move to “fill in the blank”.
this is useless information.
$$$ convenience to whom? not the ‘freeloading’ taxpayer.
this town is over priced and under siege. shameful!
and oh yes, about late june into july when that derecho dropped by and took our faculites away.
well i see the city’s money went into that. ha!
it’s all poppy cock, just fill in the blank with your concern then ask “did the money go to this? will the money go toward this”
and you’ll “SEE” your answer, through experience.
this city is full of it.
they also chased away alot of good business to the surrounding counties.
TFC – that is my preferred use of the surplus.
I agree with TFC’s suggestion, but I suspect we are still one vote short on the council to make that happen.
The funny part on the school funding debate is I also get criticized for cutting the school budget, and I am accused of helping chop the budget, so it is all relative and I guess shows the reality is someplace in the middle.
The city appropriation to the schools is about the same for FY 13 as it was five years ago- it went down, and it now back to flat. During that time, the student population went up by almost 300 students, so the per pupil cost fell dramatically. I know many people think the schools get too much, or that the cuts were not enough, but the reality is there was belt tightening and reallocation of existing money.
The downside to the belt tightening was things like technology and maintenance got chopped especially hard, since a decision was made to try to maintain class sizes and not cut teaching positions.
I know some folks do not agree on the need for the technology, but I see this $500K as necessary and an efficient use of the money. I also think that the role of the council is to decide how much we can afford, and the school board decides the priorities. We elect the school board to set those priorities, though they have to live with the money the council decides we can afford to allocate.
Good debate, either way.
Ron
Ron, as I recall, even though the City transfer to the schools was flat (asked no more nor less) there were other sources of funds to help contribute to the school budget. This would mean, to this layperson, that the school budget increased but the actual transfer to them from the City was flat.
Any info about whether the schools can afford to buy the tech equipment now without the surplus funds? The topic is spinning around so many issues right now.
TFC: The schools are funded primarily by federal, state, and local funds, with the vast majority coming from local funds provided by our taxpayers. All 3 of these sources are about the same today as they were 5 years ago. Our overall budget this year is slightly higher than 5 years ago. The additional inflows to accomodate that are in part from our own community services budget; we pulled almost $300,000 from that budget to pay for new furniture needed for the additional classrooms at TJ rather than ask the City for those funds. The community services budget is where fees from rentals of our buildings go. Also we have more funds from the fund balance, which represents resaponsible spending in previous years (If you want to know more about the school division’s fund balance, please go to fccps.org and there is an FAQ).
Can the schools afford the tech equipment without the surplus funds? If we thought we could we would not be asking for that money. During the budget process we called out the need for far more than $500K for tech. We have a three year plan for getting up to par in this area that calls for about $700K this year. The entire school division’s tech budget for this year is only $200K, nowhere near that amount. We have a contingency of $150K, but that is reserved for expenses related to unexpected student growth or other surprises; and it wouldn’t cover the need anyway. Based on early indicators, we may need to use most of that $150K for growth at GM alone. So no, we do not have the money in our operating budget this year to fund this need.
So why did we not ask for the money in our operating budget this year? We were trying to budget responsibly based on City Council’s guidance and forecasts for City revenues. We did at the time call out that if there were surplus revenues (as there were the year before), we would request a portion of them to be used for technology.
Some folks say we have a slush fund of millions of dollars in our fund balance and should use that. They are wrong. If you’d like to learn more about the fund balance, please go to fccps.com.
Thanks for the answer…sounds like the short story is: you can’t afford the tech equipment with present funding. That will pretty much stick a fork in it for me. Done. I vote to get the tech funding to you folks from the surplus so you can start.
TFC
Please don’t put the fork in just yet.
No one is questioning Ms. Kearney’s belief system. I am sure it is true that if she believed the resources were available the Board would cover the $500,000 expense. However, it is not a matter of belief, it is matter of facts. It can be factually shown that the Schools Fund Balance at the beginning of 2012 was almost $2.9 million.
The discussion of previous school budget transfers is not relevant. The level of School transfer amounts is no flatter than the level of the City’s budgets (the School transfer amount in 2013 does not include $3.4 million is debt service costs for School Division capital projects). Everyone has had to manage their budgets. I am not sure why it is believed that the Schools merit special thanks. Specifically:
In 2010 the City reduced its staffing by 17 full time equivalents, including City staff that was placed on part time status, a number of whom left shortly there after. The City’s Capital Improvement Program has been routinely cut to prevent Budget deficits.
The true cost of the City’s budget cuts has been less transparent, just ask those residents who have water and sewage in their basements. On the surface the City appears to be functioning well, less visible are the costs of deferred maintenance of City infrastructure, especially storm water management, roads and sidewalks. These costs are growing at an increasing rate. It is only a matter of time before the magnitude of these costs become apparent.
All taxpayers will incur these future costs thus affecting the City’s ability to adequately fund all City services including the School Division. We should all be concerned about the City’s ability to fund the education of the youngsters about to enter the school system and those who have just started.
The issue I have raised is one of funding, not need. No Council member has questioned the need for upgrades. At Thursday’s Community/City Council meeting, organized and hosted by the City’s Republican Party, School Board member Greg Rasnake, in his opening comments, stated that the conversation is about funding, not need. No Council member has ever said that the School Division’s Fund Balance is a “slush fund”.
As has been noted, I have challenged anyone who believes my calculations to be incorrect to please come forward and present the calculations they believe to be correct. I now challenge the School Board to indicate, numerically and factually, why they conclude their Fund Balance is insufficient to cover the $500,000 in tech upgrades.
Oh boy, just when I thought I had some clarity. Argh.
Ira, you have laid it out pretty clearly. It sounds like you’re not questioning the school’s need for this technology upgrade – but you feel like the schools don’t need additional funds to pay for it. Fair enough. At this point this issue is totally baffling to me.
Who gets the bank statements for the schools operating accounts? Is the money in there? Is it already allocated for other uses? Everyone seems to point out that this carry forward / fund balance issue is confusing… but why is it confusing? It seems like it should be straightforward!
If Ira’s math and numbers are right (I assume they are – but I wouldn’t know how to find out if they’re not) then either the money is there or what… someone has been stealing it over the years?
There are a lot of aspects to this debate but for me the main thing I’m concerned about right now is the schools doing the technology upgrade that they want to do. If the money is there, let’s do it. If the money isn’t there, let’s allocate it from the surplus. Who is able to sort this out?
I am so confused it’s making my head hurt….and it’s such a nice day out there.
As I have said many times, there is a concept in this town that since we are all smart people, we just need to find the “facts” . Alas, real life never works that way. There are lots of ways to slice and dice said “facts.” and anyone can probably prove any point picking and choosing facts.
The bottom line here is what are the community priorities about how the council should spend (or not spend) our money. The government has no money- it is our money, which is why we have these debates.
My sense is the community (not everyone, but generally) agrees that the technology is needed, and that we can afford it. I know some people disagree, and disagree strongly.
All of the council members say they are “for the schools,” and they even have voted to provide money now for school needs. The problem thus far is 3 council members have refused to let the schools spend the money for what the elected school board has determined is best for the schools and our kids, even when the other 3 of us put some compromises on the table. One council member has not weighed in, so there has been no majority decision on what to do.
Yes, we still need to be careful, and yes there are other needs, but the council needs to meet in public, talk through this, and find a way forward. I am told some council members are out there working on “deals” . Maybe I am naive, but I truly dislike these side discussions- I would much prefer we handle the public business in public as a team and work this out. Whatever an actual majority decides, we live with and move on, and it will be up to the voters to decide who actually supports the schools.
I don’t doubt anyone’s sincerity, but sometimes it feels like our elected officials get so wedded to their own versions of “facts’ that this becomes about “winning” and “being right” rather than what is best for our community, our schools, and our citizens.
Ron
Ron, I support getting the schools what they requested from the surplus because ultimately I want the technology stuff funded. It still seems strange to me that Ira can make a claim that the school has money that the schools don’t think they have. I agree that facts can often be harder to pin down than one would like – but it seems like if Ira’s version of the facts are way off base it would be good for someone to explain where he has gone wrong (at least I would appreciate it).
I think Ira says he supports the schools spending money on the technology stuff – so if the schools could show that they don’t have the money available now I guess Ira would support spending some of the suplus on it (or maybe I’m misunderstanding Ira’s position on this).
Mr. Mabry, As I can recall, you choose which Council meetings, -in your two separate tenures-to attend, to sleep at the dias or not attend. Since you have full grasp of Councilman Ron Peppes attendance (25%) .Why not forward your attendance. The only thing I remember what you did for the city is to put up a median strip close to your home and then the City taxpayers had to dismantle it. Costly. It hurts when people remember. Show us your numbers
Ron, I am distressed by your perception that “facts” are malleable and ultimately so subjective as to be irrelevant to any informed debate. Questions have been asked of our colleagues from the School Division regarding available revenue and those questions are awaiting answers. Three members of Council and I am one of them voted to share excess revenue with the School Division within parameters, to which the City side was also subject, which would reduce long-term debt obligations. This was never a statement regarding the merit of the School request, and that rhetoric is getting tiresome. Financial stability is right for all of our citizens, and prudent, thoughtful, long-term budgeting to ensure that critical programs move forward is in our collective best interest.
Ok, i have watched the water wars discussions over the last couple of years and technology wars debates over the last couple of months. Can anyone on the Council tell us the public how much money we have spent (or wasted) on the water litigation costs during this period? I bet that puts the amount being discussed now in the School technology costs in some perspective. It sure would be nice if we could also account for staff time on this one.
Boy, we can sure argue about $500,000, but who is accounting for the costs and benefits on the desire to take on Fairfax Water. Would love to know. Any info folks?
Thanks!
Two things strike me here. First, why are council people choosing blog posts as their way of discussing with each other. My gosh you all see each other weekly. Do Ira Kalin and Nader badger you so much that you can’t work these out in sessions instead of airing it out here.
Sam Mabry why does Ron peppe get questioned for attendance when if Dave snyder showed up at the meeting we wouldn’t have such a deadlock of gridlock. You seem to pick on Ron purposely without putting Dave under the same scrutiny. Seems he’s a bit like Clark Kent when the commotion occurs. Unfortunately super man never appears. He now can say he never voted against the schools because technically he didn’t. Of course Sam you have a long history of bullying people. That’s why many of us will never list with you.
Johannah, I understand that your preference is to split the surplus between the City and the Schools and have both groups use it to reduce long-term debt. I know that that position doesn’t speak to the merit of the school’s request – and I guess that issue is tiresome – but if there was no surplus and/or the School Board made a request for an additional $500k for technology would you support funding that request? I guess that’s what I’m trying to figure out. It seems like everyone wants to say, “I support the school’s need for this technology funding” but we’re having trouble making it happen.
Ira says the schools already have the money… which is confusing but I guess if it’s true it’s a good stance. If it turns out the schools don’t have the money can we give them some now? Otherwise, I assume they’re going to put this into their next budget and get it then (since most people seem to accept the need for it). So, why not just fund it now?
The “facts” issue is not about someone using incorrect data, it is more about how the data is used to provide an argument. I stand by my claim that you can spin the facts 20 ways to Sunday and prove what you want.
Dr. Jones did post a FAQ that explains the fund balance concept and how much is available. I am not sure whether I can post a link here, but it does explain the issue in detail.
As I said, everyone emphasizes different “facts” and prioritizes them differently, but here is some of the info from FCCPS:
-Each year their may be a “fund balance” left over at the end of the year. This can happen when things cost less than planned (think things like budgeting for snow removal in a year when it does not snow, or people leave and are replaced by lower paid staff), or if revenue is higher than planned.
-By law, any fund balance left over is carried forward an applied as “revenue” to subsequent years. It does not sit around unused, or just build up in a “slush fund,” as some have called it.
- For FY13, the school board carried over $1.45 million of fund balance, and every dime was budgeted to be spent in the operating budget.
-This $1.45 was an estimate made at the time the budget was developed. Once the year is over and funds are audited, there should be additional surplus available, and that amount would be put into the FY14 budget.
-The current estimate, now that we are in September and have a better handle on the actual amount left, is that there is $700,00 in additional surplus.
This is where it gets tricky. It may be possible for the school system to use some of that $700,000, though there are two problems. First, the amount is not certain until the audit. Second, that amount is programmed to be used in the FY14 operating budget. Spending $500,000 of it now creates a need for an additional $500,000 in city appropriation to the schools just to maintain the same level of funding, even before counting for enrollment increases, inflation, and salary increases, if any.
As always, the spend now/spend later is a matter of priorities, so I am sure there are a variety of opinions on that topic, but, at the end of the day, it all comes out of the same city bucket of money, which means it comes out of our pockets, so it is a matter of what the community wants to pay for.
Hope that helps explain it better.
Ron
Ron, I think that’s starting to help me understand. The timeframe of the bullets and the fiscal year (and when the audit happens) are still a bit murky – but it doesn’t really matter. It sounds like the summary is that at any given time the schools might have “extra” money (hard to know exactly how much at a specific moment in time) but the law requires that that extra money is factored into the next year’s plans.
So, if the school develops a $38M budget and has $1M left over from the previous year it comes of the top and the schools request $37M (simplified explanation of what happens).
I think as long as the schools aren’t worried about running out of money they should just spend it on the technology needs now and point out to City Council that that’s why the transfer needed is more in the next budget cycle. It seems like the majority of the City Council would be cool with this (based on what they seem to have been saying about this issue).
Ron, I agree with your comment about it all coming out of the same bucket of money – which is why I’m confused about this whole debate in the first place. My first choice would be to deploy part of the surplus for these technology needs – but if that’s not going to happen and it’s possible to do the technology now and ask for more money later then I’m up for that.
Andy
“I think as long as the schools aren’t worried about running out of money they should just spend it on the technology needs now and point out to City Council that that’s why the transfer needed is more in the next budget cycle. It seems like the majority of the City Council would be cool with this (based on what they seem to have been saying about this issue).”
I brought this up as a hypothetical to one of the council members. That member said that the council could not guarantee to “replace” the $500,000 during the next budget cycle. The schools would have to determine what their priorities were at that time.
Only in a liberal fantasyland city like Falls Church would someone cite administrative costs as a reason not to give tax surpluses right back to the taxpayer. What about the administrative costs of assessing and collecting the taxes in the first place?
Ron:
I appreciate your acknowledging that there is–unaudited–about $700,000 in surplus school operating funds, a portion of which might well be used for the purchase of computers for the children. I understand that if the school board uses some of these funds for the computers that it would like to incorporate those revenues in the next budget cycle. That is understood. The issue should be on the table when we take up next year’s budget and am, for my part, confident that the issue will receive fair and understanding consideration by the Council.
If we can now make this work, the computers will be purchased for the children and the surplus funds will be preserved for long term capital needs, including those of the schools as well as critical needs of the city as a whole.
Such a solution, which will preserve the distinction between operating and capital funds and the consequent impact on future budgets, is the hallmark of prudent financial management.
We are near a win-win on all issues. Let’s make it work. Ira
…ahem, is that some kind of agreement I sense?
Okay, now I think I see where this is going… the schools are hesitant to use cash on hand for this thing they need (technology) because they’ll need to try to make it up later. At that time we won’t be debating a surplus, we’ll be debating the new tax rate and other budget issues. So, it’s easy to support the need now, and even support spending money on the need now, but what will the response be later – when the money needs to be made up? Ira says he’ll give future requests a fair and understanding consideration, which is nice (hopefully that is always true!) – but that’s different than agreeing that the schools need to make this technology investment.
If the schools decide to make the technology purchase with cash on hand I will support their request to make up the funds in the next budget cycle – I trust the superintendant and School Board, when they make a request like this it is really important for the schools.
FC resident – one flaw in your point is that the government already has a mechanism in place for collecting taxes. It might seem easy, but if they’re not geared up for issuing refunds I would assume it would be pretty inefficient to do it. That said, Mr. Tarter’s clarification that it would be less of a refund and more of a discount on the next collection of taxes makes it seem a lot more reasonable.
Andy, I think you hot the nail on the head. Schools might spring for it now if they are sure they will get it back at budget time. As an aside, all the demonstration of need for the tech stuff has kinda pinned the schools into a corner…since they have made such a case…they almost *can’t* delay implementation…somehow.
Spellcheck is great…I should get in the habit of using it
…although said nail is pretty hot.
So, let me make sure I understand this, or maybe I am wrong, or maybe I am partially correct…..in the end the schools have been able to find the amount of money that will satisfied the immediate, pressing need…..without taking it away from something else?
Just to clarify my earlier post, while there is potentially $700,000 there, every dollar of it that is spent now uses up money that would otherwise automatically be used for the FY14 operating budget.
It is actually a little worse than just the $700,000. Because FY13 has $1.45 million of carryover as revenue, then any total surplus in FY13 has to be $1.45 million just to maintain the same revenue level and thus the city appropriation (assuming no other new revenue source) The total FY13 surplus = the $700,000 – any expenses paid now that are not in the current budget + any surplus that accrues in FY13 in addition to the $700,000.
I agree we need to work on “win win” but that concept would need to include 1) funding the technology one way or another now and 2) some sort of assurance that the city will make up the difference if the FY13 surplus (if any) is not sufficient to make up for the above calculated shortfall.
Of course, spending the technology money out of the city surplus, as initially proposed in the very first draft of the ordinance would be a cleaner way to do this to get to essentially the same result, but it is possible the council could make this work either way if they want to.
Ron
Mel, I’m not sure that’s totally right. It sounds like they might technically have the money (or some of the money) but if they use it on something that wasn’t budgeted for (this technology need) then they’ll be in a tight spot starting out next year’s budget (unless City Council is willing to help them out then)… and it’s hard to know for sure how much money they have right now so if they guess wrong and spend too much they could be in a real bind before the end of this budget cycle – basically unable to pay all of their obligations without more money from the City.
Andy
“Okay, now I think I see where this is going… the schools are hesitant to use cash on hand for this thing they need (technology) because they’ll need to try to make it up later. At that time we won’t be debating a surplus, we’ll be debating the new tax rate and other budget issues. So, it’s easy to support the need now, and even support spending money on the need now, but what will the response be later – when the money needs to be made up?”
As I stated earlier, when I presented this as a hypothetical a couple of weeks ago, the council member with whom I was speaking said that there could be no guarantees to making up the $500,000 in the schools’ budget next spring.
mel
“So, let me make sure I understand this, or maybe I am wrong, or maybe I am partially correct…..in the end the schools have been able to find the amount of money that will satisfied the immediate, pressing need…..without taking it away from something else?”
No.
As Andy said, “if they use it on something that wasn’t budgeted for (this technology need) then they’ll be in a tight spot starting out next year’s budget (unless City Council is willing to help them out then)”
The schools have used a budgeting system for years wherein the carryover from Year 1 would be used as the starting revenue for Year 3, Year 2 for Year 4 and so on Since Year 1 isn’t audited until well into Year 2, those funds aren’t used until Year 3, etc.
The carry over balance from FY12 which will be a revenue source for FY14 is anticipated to be around $700,000. The Schools have already planned for this amount to be available for operational expenses for FY14. If $500,000 of this is used, the schools start with only $200,000 as carryover revenue for FY14. The additional $500,000 would need to made up by increasing the City transfer for which the council member mentioned above gave no guarantees to happening.
Ron has given a good description of the specific impact to FY14.
The easiest and cleanest thing to do is to allow the Schools to use $500,000 towards technology from the more than $3M surplus.
Ira has brought the fundamental issue to the surface for all to see what must be settled through discussions / debates among council members. The all “facts” are not convoluted when presented in simple manner.
I now must ask, If the school board new there were technology upgrades that so urgently needed to be address during FY12, then why was this not a line item in proposed school budget.
Also, why would the school board not spend the funds they have projected to be surplus at the end of FY12 and if they believe they will fall short at the years end or begin FY14 under budgeted asked for the funds at that time. It seems to be responsible budgeting.
I hope this doesn’t come off as making the issue of finding $700,000 for much needed technology upgrade for our children’s education, but this seems like back to basics budgeting – “you don’t ask your dad for gas money when you have $20 in your back pocket. You invest your $20 in gas and if you need more then plead your case.”
Garrett, the folks on the School Board have said that they knew about the technology needs during the last budget cycle but also knew the City was still in a rough spot in terms of revenues so they held the technology out of the budget request – and apparently even conveyed the idea that if a surplus did arise they would ask for the technology money then. I wasn’t in that conversation so I don’t know how it went down – but I assume if Ira was in on the conversation he would have been hesitant to support such a plan due to the one-time nature of the surplus vs. the ongoing costs of the technology.
I do think there is still a lot of confusion about how the school’s informal fund balance works (and apparently the size of the fund balance). To the extent that it is basically a fund balance it’s somewhat inefficient to maintain it (unless the balance got factored into the City’s overall fund balance which is specifically set by Council) – so a case could be made for spending it before allocating more money (i.e. from the surplus).
However, it seems like the tradition has been that each budget cycle the schools start out with some money left over from last year and that impacts the transfer they need for the coming year. The concern seems to be if the schools spend all of that this year on technology then how will City Council respond during the next budget cycle when the schools show up without a fund balance?
Andy, I attended budget sessions (council, work sessions, THM)…the schools did have a PP they showed at the community center meeting showing a list of unmet needs…tech was on there. They also referenced the desire to share in any surplus. There had been animated discussion between some Council members present and a couple of school representatives about the conservative figures being used for city revenue predictions.
Mr. Peppe’s comment stands out: “The “facts” issue is not about someone using incorrect data, it is more about how the data is used to provide an argument. I stand by my claim that you can spin the facts 20 ways to Sunday and prove what you want.” August 19th, 9:52 PM.
In support of the claim that he is standing by, I respectfully request that Mr. Peppe explain how he has spun the facts to prove what he wants.
Mr Estabrook:
Sorry if I were not clear, I tried to explain it above.
not clear.
1. If you just look at “money in the bank”, the schools think they will have approximately $700,000 surplus from FY12. If you just look at that, one could argue “they have the money.”
2. On the other hand, as Ms, Shea points out, the conservative budget practice has been to use any surplus, which is not audited till mid year after the close of the budget year, in the following year’s operational budget. This way it is usually all rolled over, but not till the amount is known for sure. Theoretically the schools could spend it all, and then ask for more at budget time, but the practice has been to make sure it all rolls over and is used for operations, so that everything is transparent.
3. This year the FYI13 budget includes $1.45 million of surplus.
4. The $700,000 is programmed to be used in full in the FY14 operational budget.
5. If the schools spend the money now, each dollar spent means a bigger gap even to maintain level revenues and spending in FY14.
Ms. Shea can correct me if I missed something there!
The point is you have to look at the whole picture, and not one piece of data.
Sorry if that was not clear before. I hope that explains it.
I do think in general many folks get very selective in the facts, rather than look at the big picture, pro and con. I also know not everyone thinks money should be spent on technology, although all of the council members have publicly stated (most recently at a meeting last week) that they are not questioning the need, just the city’s ability to afford it.
Ron,
It may useful for Mr. Estabrook to better understand your clarification if you could further explain how the $700,000 surplus mentioned in point 1 is related to the $1,450,000 surplus in point 3 and then appears again as a $700,000 surplus in point 4. I believe I understand how you arrived at the $700,000 in 2014. I also believe, however, that there is additional information pertaining to the School Division Fund Balance that would be helpful in explaining how the surplus progression from 2012 to 2014 works.
If you could provide that explanation it will become clearer as how the School Division’s budget could be “held harmless” for the tech purchase. Again I think we are close to a win-win. Let’s make it work
Ira
Hi Ira.
I thought Cecily and I already covered that, but here goes again:
- the usual method is to carry over the full surplus in the 2nd fiscal year (because of the timing issues of the audit.
- the $1.45 million carry over was from the surplus prior, so it was rolled over
- the $700 was from FY12, it is an estimate
- Any surplus rolled over goes into the budget as “revenue”. This year, for example. the city appropriation was around 29 million, and the carry over was $1.45 million. Other revenue includes a small amount of federal and state money. The expense side reflects the actual planned expenses and spends all of the $29 million plus the $1.45 plus the state and federal money. The reality is there is usually some surplus due to things like people leaving and being replaced by lower costs people, fuel costs, snowfall, whether there are unexpected population increases, etc.
- “Holding harmless” it would seem would require at a minimum that the schools receive an extra $500,000 to make up for using up the $500,000 if it is spent now from the FY12 surplus, unless the schools had some sort of windfall and much larger than expected surplus.
- Even without considering the $500,000, the school operating budget revenue is down by $750,000, if the carry over this year is $700,000 versus $1.45 million the year before. To just keep even funding (and there is population growth which means more teachers have to be added if the community wants to maintain the same class sizes) would require finding $750,000 in new revenue, so every dollar spend of the $700,000 requires additional revenue on top of that gap.
That would be the only way to “hold harmless,” though we will have to hear what the schools have to say about it after they meet Monday. Hopefuly all this explanation will stimulate more discussion and comment from the community on all sides.
Ron
Mr. Peppe:
I understand that, in the budget, surplus in year 1 is booked as revenue in year 2. In the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY ended 6/30/11 [http://www.fallschurchva.gov/content/government/departments/finance/finance/2011docs/fy11cafr.pdf ], there are four line items for School Board’s Revenues (Schedule 7, page 94): Revenue from use of money and property, Charges for Services, Miscellaneous, and Intergovernmental (Federal, Commonwealth, Primary Government). What line item contains the surplus?
In the CAFR David linked, the fund balance includes the carryover from FY10 and FY11. Only FY10′s carryover is available for FY 12 and FY 11′s for FY13.
Year 1 and Year 2 carryovers comprise the fund balance in the CAFR for Year 2. The carryover from Year 1 becomes revenue for Year 3 NOT Year 2.
Ms. Shea:
I can’t find a line item for fund balance. Assuming from the context that fund balance is the same as surplus, is the fund balance from a prior FY included in the line item for Revenue from use of money and property, Charges for Services, Miscellaneous, or Intergovernmental (Federal, Commonwealth, Primary Government)?
To hopefully clarify the location of the Fund Balance “line item”: It is not part of the CAFR – rather, but rather the Budget proper.
http://www.fccps.org/board/budget/fy13/FY13SupProposedBudget.pdf
On page 15 of the current budget you will find:
Other Financing Sources
…and beneath that the “line item” you seek: Use of Fund Balance.
Revenue reflected in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) are funds that were taken in (received) DURING the Fiscal Year. Because the Fund Balance is literally cash that remains in the fund at the END of the previous Fiscal Year, it is not reflected in the CAFR as revenue because it represents revenue that was received in PREVIOUS Fiscal Years.
On the schedule referenced above, if expenditures exceed revenue, then the difference is made up through the use of the Fund Balance.
Hope this helps.
Now we are getting lost in the weeds. If we make the budgets so difficult that no one can understand them, we can use them to our advantage. This is beginning to sound like the U.S. Tax Code.
Mr. Jones, we are lost in the weeds, financially speaking, when the budget doesn’t tie in with the audit. Mr. Brett, I understand your explanation that Revenue in CAFR are funds received during the FY, and that the fund balance is the cash balance remaining at the end of the previous FY and is not reflected in the CAFR as revenue. How is the fund balance of previous years shown in the CAFR? I can’t reconcile your explanation that the fund balance is not revenue in the subsequent year and is not part of the CAFR with Ms. Shea’s explanation that Year 1 and Year 2 carryovers comprise the fund balance in the CAFR for Year 2, and that the carryover from Year 1 becomes revenue for Year 3. Does the fund balance show up at some point in subsequent years as revenue, or not?
Well, I’m certainly lost.
One thing that does seem clear is that when the schools published their most recent long term technology plan (http://www.fccps.org/board/reports/TechPlan_FY2012-16.pdf ) there was nothing in it about this alleged, pressing, emergency need for laptops. It seems clear, therefore, that this “need” was invented, or more charitably, discovered, only when the possibility of new funding was noted. That’s not the way to budget.
Taxes are simply out of control. Let’s get the effective tax burden down to what it was a couple of years ago (population- and inflation-adjusted) and then we can discuss new spending. if the City Fathers and Mothers wouldn’t have made the case for a spending item earlier on, don’t take advantage of this unexpected revenue to spend for that same item now.
Is it easy to find out what the total City (including schools) budget was in dollars each year over time? What I’m wondering is, how much more is the City spending per year now than 5 years ago or 10 or 20 years ago?
Andy, I am sure the budget docs are available up at City Hall. City Manager’s office might be a place to start? The City website is down for me but there is a link up there for budget information….don’t know if past budget docs are there but I *think* the current one is up there as a gigantic .pdf
Thanks TFC… I think I should have emphasized the “easy” part of my question. It’s a bummer that in this day and age the data’s not drop dead simple to access over the web.
I did find PDFs of the budget going back to 2008: http://www.fallschurchva.gov/content/government/departments/finance/finance/adoptedbudgets/budgetarchive.aspx
I might poke around some more but it’s interesting to see that back in 2008 the tax real estate tax rate was $1.01 and the City’s budget was $70,890,648. Last year the rate was $1.24 but the budget was down to $64,00,348. I understand that the economy has tanked but in terms of raw numbers the City is spending less than it used to.
Some of the influences over the past few years that I recall include: Staff cuts, increases in our pension contribution, reduction in budgets amts for maintenance items, restoring the fund balance, elimination/reductions of many capital projects, influx of stimulus money early on and…elimination of it now, changes in grant funding opportunities. The weeds are interesting but get over my head pretty fast. I am quite sure others can chime in with a more accurate description of the changes over the last several years.
What I’m particularly interested in is whether or not the average household is actually paying more tax (in dollars) now than they were 2, 3, or 5 years ago. The tax rate is a lot higher but I think for the most part that is to deal with the fact that property values have decreased.
I know it’s more complicated than that – it makes sense for the City to spend less (and so have to collect less) when the economy declines because everyone is spending less on other things too – so they’re probably hoping to spend less on taxes as well.
I still think the real solution to having citizens pay less tax is to greatly increase the performance of our commercial areas.
What would be really interesting is what percentage of income is needed to pay the tax bill and how has it changed since 2008/9.
Getting lost in the beauteous mysteries of the FCCPS budget, while certainly an enlightening excercise (sort of), does not answer a couple of fundamental policy questions.
First, most of the students in our wealthy city of FC already have laptops and, I shouldn’t wonder, iPads, iphones, and whatnot. Why is the FCCPS proposing to purchase 1200 electronic devices, rather than simply buying devices to make available to the relatively few students who may not be able to afford them. How many IT-less students are in the system?
Second, and relatedly, why isn’t the FCCPS concentrating funds and effort on developing a standard IT policy for students and staff, alike, that will support BYOD — bring your own device — so that students to use their own devices in school as, for example, Fairfax County is doing. Why should the overburdened taxpayers buy these devices – isn’t it the responsibility of parents to outfit their kids for school?
I also note reports that the superintendent has “signed a contract” for the devices, yet no appropriate funding source has yet been identified. Can someone clarify?
I’m neither anti-FCCPS nor anti-technology, just a taxpayer wondering whether there is not another way to go about this issue in a way that would preserve more funding for desperately needed infrastructure improvement and upgrading.
Linda, do you know the actual answer to the question of how many students don’t have a laptop and/or iPad? It’s probably a lot but I’ve heard people mention this several times and it strikes me that we probably don’t know the actual answer.
I do think it is overly simple to suggest a BYOD solution is better or all that much cheaper than other options. There are a host of issues associated with a BYOD approach (making sure the systems are secure and free of viruses, getting everyone on the same operating system so they can run the same programs, etc.) which I’m sure are solvable – but they’re not necessarily simple or cheap.
Certainly an argument can be made that families should outfit their kids with technology for school – but maybe people should bring their own science lab supplies as well? What about textbooks? Other supplies? Personally, I think it’s great that our schools are looking to provide this technology. I think it will give all of our kids a really great advantage as they head off to post school endeavors.
@Linda, as I recall during all the discussion the idea of BYOD was raised. A school rep said that could not be used for the testing because the students are required to use school computers. This may be for security reasons? If some other school system uses BYOD, and the students can take the state tests on them, then I am in my usual state of confusion.
Andy, I don’t know the answer. It’s not available, as far as I can see, on the FCCPS website. But it is a critical piece of information, and I’m surprised if the FCCPS wouldn’t have obtained the answer.
As for overly simple, I know that nothing is simple when it comes to technology. I’ve been reading up on BYOD at the suggestion of another FC resident who has more IT expertise than I. However un-simple BYOD is, the fact is it is valued, value-added for schools and students alike, and being done in other local systems like Fairfax Cnty. So it is not impossible, or even too onerous to implement.
Therein is the policy issue. Personal IT devices are operating expense items. They are, by there nature, obsolete within a few years from purchase and need constant replacement. So buying new devices is an operating expense that comes up repeatedly every few years.
FCCPS is increasingly expensive to maintain, and taking the position that the taxpayers should purchase a whole round of devices every few years, wheich is essentially the path we are headed down, is taking on a huge financial burden. With thoughful and prudent strategic planning, it may be an avoidable burden given what I believe anecdotally to be the prevalence of computers in our family and student households. It seems irresponsible not to look into BYOD as a long-term, cost-saving strategy for providing for student IT needs.
As for your slippery-slope argument, it is a bit farfetched, I think. These days most households have IT devices; they don’t have in-home science labs. There is a common-sense difference that ought to be recognized. Our kids and grandkids have paid reasonable, affordable lab fees to science supplies, e.g.. Textbooks are a function of curriculum and, for the most part, are supplied by schools. But it has always been the case, particularly in upper grades, that supplemental books like novels for English classes have been purchased by students. Gym clothes, ditto, e.g.. There exists a traditional, common-sense balance between what schools provide and what families provide. Adding expensive, obsolescence-prone IT devices to the “schools-provide” list is a very big leap, and particularly so when most students own their own.
Linda, I guess my question should have been – how can we even figure out how many kids in the City already have computers/iPads and/or could afford them? I guess we have a process for figuring out who qualifies for discounted school lunches so maybe something along those lines could be used for technology? Again, I’m not sure it’s simple to figure out – so when people say, “most kids in the City already have a computer” I’m just not sure we have any idea if that’s true or not.
I certainly agree with you that BYOD situations are in use in some places and so they can work. I have no idea if they’re more or less expensive or effective than the alternatives – and I agree that the schools should be doing their homework and figuring that out. Personally, if the results of that research are that BYOD is somewhat less expensive but not as effective then I’d support the non-BYOD option.
I know people are debating the policy issue, expense vs. capital… or whatever – and maybe that’s important as far as which money is used for this – but as far as I’m concerned if the schools conclude we should have this for our kids then we should pay for it – regardless of how it’s classified.
I wouldn’t call my final point a slippery-slope argument (at least as I understand the term) since I’m not suggesting one thing is leading to a bigger thing. I’m sure there’s an appropriate term for it but my point was just that some things are covered and other things aren’t – so when you say, “isn’t it the responsibility of parents to outfit their kids for school” my answer is, “sometimes.”
Overall, I’d love to see this debate be about the specifics of what the schools would like to do. We touch on it some (trying to figure out the real cost and effectiveness difference between a BYOD and a non-BYOD approach) but then spend a lot of time debating expense classifications, how money is being spent in other places, etc. Those are all fine debates, but the interesting thing to me is seeing people think about, ask questions, and weigh in on how the schools are operating.
If this schools are able to acquire this technology it seems like we’ll have a couple of years to keep learning to see if we should switch to a BYOD solution when the lifespan of these devices runs out – or maybe we’ll conclude that BYOD solutions are lame and also expensive and stick with this approach.
Andy, I join you to the extent of wanting our schools to continue to be excellent and have the resources they need, but I guess I come at this issue from a different perspective. I would like to see a great deal more transparency, broader accountability, and most importantly, thoughtful long-term strategic planning from FCCPS. These terms aren’t just government-ese jargon; they are the concepts that will insure the long-term viability and excellence of FCCPS and the city as a whole.
My perspective is also that of a homeowner who suffers repeated flooding and sewage backups in my home and yard. I’m not in the only area of the city that has this problem, and it’s a problem that the city has not rectified, largely because of a lack of sufficient capital funds. If the city cannot afford everything the FCCPS wants AND everything else the city at large needs, then hard choices have to be made.
It just seems so obvious to me, given the rapid development of IT and its tendency toward obsolescence, as well as the increasing dependence of the population at large on electronic devices, that
FCCPS should be on top of this trend and harnessing it to make students’ personal devices usable in the schools. I don’t know what the cost of instituting BYOD would be, but cost cannot be looked at short term.
There has to be serious doubt that FC taxpayers can afford to make similar IT purchases over and over again every few years, what with all the crying infrastructure needs in the city. Maybe in a some future time when we are flush with revenue, but not for the foreseeable future. Nor has FCCPS shown any particularly persuasive, rational argument for doing so, rather than adapting to the speed of IT technological development. Fairfax Cnty. has lots of experience with this – maybe the city should consult with our friends in the county (if we have any left) to see how BYOD could be accomplished and what the time frame and cost of implementation might be.
Funding of operating expenses, as opposed to capital expenses, is not a policy issue, really. They are two different types of funding with different parameters governing their appropriation and expenditure. The policy angle comes in when the Council determines – prioritizes – how, and on what, city revenues must be spent. In doing so, the Council must also factor in the cost of bonding expenses that cannot be covered by revenue, a cost that continues on for years after the revenue raised by bonds has been spent. These are important factors for both schools and city-side. A sad fact, these days, but a fact nonetheless.
I’m a fan of transparency, accountability, and long-term planning (who isn’t!) – so hopefully this issue is encouraging that.
I think the City can afford to mitigate the flooding problems and provide the funds the schools request – but I’m just one person and maybe the majority of folks disagree.
I’m still not sure I agree that it’s obvious that a BYOD solution is the best (which I think is what you’re saying) – just because Fairfax County is doing it doesn’t mean it’s the best way to go. I’d love to do things better than Fairfax County.
I hope our school administrators have done research on the issue and are making an informed decision when it comes to this request. If you’re skeptical then I think it’s great that you and others are pushing the schools to justify their requests.
Personally, I trust the superintendent and the school board and regardless of how it is classified or managed I think the City should provide the funding requested. I’d probably support a request for funding to fix stormwater management too – let’s get something specific out there so people can get behind it.
Re flood mitigation, would that it were so that the city can afford to fix it. From your mouth to the Infrastructure Gods’ ears! It will cost way more money than the city has available – very expensive to upgrade and update antiquated, inadequate systems.
Here’s how bad it is – in response to yet MORE recent flooding in the Hillwood area, where there is one inadequate sewer intake to handle all the immediate runoff from 7 Corners into the area, the city’s solution was to pile rocks around the sewer intake. It is said that this will prevent silt and brush from blocking water flow into this sad, lonely sewer, and it might – but REALLY, that’s a solution?? There was talk at the recent community forum about the Council starting to put together a fund for this kind of infrastructure work but that it would not happen overnight. The most urgent work could be bonded, although that raises the long-term cost factor.
Re the techno/schools issue, for me it isn’t a matter of trusting the superintendent and school board or not (although I am a proponent of “Trust But Verify”). They are the education experts, and I have no doubt they are totally committed to FCCPS and the students.
What concerns me – and I’m not alone in this – is this historial tendency to treat the schools as something apart from, and superior in rank to, the other aspects of city government, as an entity whose business practices can’t legitimately be questioned or asked to evolve and grow and become more efficient as conditions and finances demand. For all that our high-quality, small school system adds to property values, our unsustainable and near-confiscatory tax rates act as a counterweight.
I can’t say definitively that BYOD is THE answer for school technology, but it certainly must be considered A potential answer until demonstrated not to be. Fairfax – and for that matter – Arlington – also have excellent, high-quality schools. We could do worse than to do as well as they do in come respects, never mind better than.
I am fortunate to not be directly impacted by the stormwater problems so I haven’t followed that issue too closely (although I know it is a real problem for quite a few people). It’s a bummer to hear there isn’t a solution, or even a path to a solution. I’m not sure what to think about that.
I consider myself a big supporter of the schools (it’s the reason I live in Falls Church) but I think it’s totally fine for citizens to ask the schools to be transparent about what they’re spending money on and why. I’m not sure how they’ve responded to the question of BYOD vs. their proposed approach but I think it’s a fair question to ask and people should keep asking it.
Always interesting to read your thoughts, Andy. They are constructive, reflect careful consideration of the issues and invite further thinking and exploration of the issues. Consider your efforts a public service!
There are two issues that I haven’t seen addressed in these comments. The first is how the curriculum might need to be revised to incorporate the technology. What will that entail, and what costs will be incurred? Currently we are living overseas, and the school our children attend has fully integrated many aspects of the curriculum into the laptops the students are issued. But this did not happen overnight. (The cost for the laptops is included in the tuition we pay, just like we paid for gym uniforms, athletic equipment, and so forth in FCC.)
The second issue is with that the integration of the laptops comes a new line item in the school budget (or, some might say, another entitlement). What are the strategies being proposed to maintain the equipment and all requisite technologies once they become obsolete?
Gadgets are great, no doubt. However, even as a personal consumer I conduct a little life cycle analysis before I invest big monies, and as a taxpayer I urge the school and city to do the same.
The issue of stormwater management is also very important as our city moves forward. We are watching very closely a proposed development on the 2 acre property across the street from TJ as it could significantly impact watershed management in our neighborhood.
In conclusion, we hope the city doesn’t create more problems than it can handle.
The City website has 4 iterations of surplus plans posted for discussion at the work session tomorrow. 4a, b, c, d.
Victoria, Linda, and others – I think you’ve got it right. The taxpayers paid a lot of money, presumably (how much?), for the technology plan referred to in my comment posted on 8/29, which I believe does not prescribe too much in the way of laptops, ipads, and the like.
It is certainly wasteful to rush into a purchase of technology without a thought about how it will, you know, BE USED! Clearly, the Board is putting the cart before the horse.