Rosenbaum questions bus needs, obligation

 

Wilson District supervisor will visit school bus garage

By Amy Boucher

INDEPENDENCE -- The newest member of the Grayson County Board of Supervisors is not convinced that the county needs new school buses and does not believe the supervisors should be bound by the commitments of prior boards. The other four supervisors appeared to differ on both points from Wilson District Supervisor Glen “Eddie” Rosenbaum, but supervisors John Brewer and David Sexton, at the suggestion of County Administrator Jonathan Sweet, encouraged him to visit the county school bus garage and evaluate the bus fleet for himself.

The action came Tuesday night at a budget work session. The supervisors voted unanimously to approve a yet-to-be-completely-determined school budget, approving spending the minimum amount required by law to get the most state dollars, plus an additional $75,000 for a new school bus, provided the school system also purchases a bus through its regularly budgeted funds.

The school system had asked for $250,000 over the minimum funding.

Sweet, who stressed that the county and school budget numbers are not close to final, told the supervisors that he was able to take $75,000 that already was budgeted for a school bus in the “transfers” section of the county budget and simply move it into the school budget.

The sequestering of that money came about as the result of action by the board at a budget work session on May 18, 2011. The board voted 4-1 on a motion by Joe Vaughan to set aside 25 percent of the county’s car decal tax money, up to $75,000, to buy school buses. The money was not to be spent until April of 2013and the school system was to match the spending “with 20 purchases of similar buses.”

In a separate motion that carried 5-0, the board voted to create a School Bus Replacement Fund to “be populated each and every Fiscal Year from this point forward by way of dedicating and allocating up to $75,000 or 25 percent of the annual revenues generated from the sale of county decals, whichever is less.”

The original purpose of the county decal was to pay for school buses, but at some point in history the money was funneled into the county’s general fund. Grayson generally brings in around $285,000 a year from the sale of decals.

At Tuesday’s workshop, Sweet told the supervisors that the approximately $18 million, 2014-15 county budget is still about $66,000 short. And because the state hasn’t approved a budget, the county doesn’t have exact figures on what the school system will require to meet the minimum local effort.

“Is all our buses diesel-engine powered?” asked Rosenbaum “250,000 miles on a diesel’s nothing. That’s a fact.”

The other supervisors said they believe the school system has a mix of gasoline and diesel buses. Schools’ Superintendent Kevin Chalfant has said that 19 buses have over 150,000 miles. A new school bus costs around $90,000. The school system intends to buy a $110,000 bus next year for activities, providing the supervisors pony up the extra funds for one regular bus.

“I really don’t have a position on the level of need,” Sweet told Rosenbaum.

“But at least for this year, this is something that has already been promised to them by the Board of Supervisors,” said Brewer, the board’s chairman.

“I don’t feel like we’ve got enough information on this bus thing,” said Rosenbaum.

Sexton said students travel a lot. “We’re putting them on buses that are really aged.”

Brewer said the board had given its word. “It’s in writing.”

“Maintenance is a lot cheaper than buying a bus,” said Rosenbaum.

Sweet said students in a nearby locality were injured in an accident involving the failure of an aged chassis. “The school board is requesting that the board make good on a policy that’s already in place.”

Brewer suggested the supervisors could ask for information on the age of the buses in addition to mileage.

“I think we should keep our promise,” said Oldtown Supervisor Kenneth Belton.

“I can see the need for a bus study going into next year, but once you’ve made a promise, you’ve made a promise,” said Brewer.

“Well did we say we ‘may’ do it or we would do it?” asked Rosenbaum.

Sweet read the motion approved by the earlier board. Elk Creek Supervisor Brenda Sutherland is the only member who voted on the motion still serving on the board.

Rosenbaum said this board should not be limited by such prior action. “I do think we need the freedom to make choices and not be bound by contract after contract after contract.”

Sweet said that if the supervisors decide to reverse the action on the bus replacement fund, they should wait until after the funds already collected are spent on buses. And he said he would arrange for Rosenbaum to visit the school bus garage, which also repairs county vehicles.

Rosenbaum said the supervisors should do something “about this commitment we’ve got wrote in stone for next year.”

“We might need to do a little more research and definitely have it on the agenda a week ahead of time so the school board can defend,” said Brewer.

Sweet did not go through the budget by department and did not distribute copies to the public of the draft budget, but showed some of it on a projection screen.

The Board of Supervisors’ budget of about $63,606 is up 8.5 percent from this year. That includes the addition of $5,000 for a coyote bounty suggested by Rosenbaum.

He is also responsible for adding $8,300 to the Community Support section of the budget to buy materials for re-roofing the Flat Ridge Community Center, the former Flat Ridge School. Sweet said the community will provide the labor, making these “leveraged dollars.”

The remainder of the community support budget “we cut in half.” Sweet said. “We tried not to honor new requests” but to keep other funding level.

The budget shows a saving of $200,000 on care of prisoners because of the county’s successful day report program, which keeps more convicts out of jail. The regional jail charges $24 a day per prisoner.

About the school budget, Brewer said, “We’ve done all we can do.” He said paying for five resource officers – deputies who staff schools – is costly, “but we had to do it.”

Before the supervisors approved the school budget, Sweet set the financial stage, saying the approved amount is:

“Based on the notion that the county has not yet received an approved state budget, the fact that the composite index has required the county to provide an estimated increase in local funding above last year in the amount of approximately $206,000; the understanding that the School Board will be receiving an increase in their overall budget despite a decrease in their average daily membership of approximately $1,120,000 from all sources; with the further understanding that the county has provided the school system with an additional appropriation in this current fiscal year in the amount of $100,000 as well as an additional $207,000 for facility improvements that should yield residual cost savings to the school system going forward; the consideration that the county incurred the expense of providing an additional two new school resource officers this fiscal year and intend to continue the expense through next fiscal year for a total of approximately $287,000 annually appropriated and expended on school safety; and lastly with the confirmed annual refinanced debt payment increasing by more than $500,000 annually for a total of more than $1.18 million.”

The school board had hoped to get county funds beyond the required minimum to spend $90,000 on a bus; $100,000 on a “digital conversion” to upgrade technology in the schools and begin to provide each student in grades four through 12 with a laptop computer; and $60,000 to maintain facilities, including making classroom doors lock from the inside.