Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, June 12, 1990 TAG: 9006140463
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: M.J. DOUGHERTY CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: FLOYD LENGTH: Medium
This contrasted sharply with last year when the Board of Supervisors and the School Board battled throughout the spring on school funding. Joint meetings between members of the two boards failed to resolve the impasse. Finally the supervisors cut the school request by approximately $700,000 to $7.7 million.
No clear reason seems apparent for the smooth sailing this year.
"I really don't know," said School Superintendent Omar Ross. "We just decided to keep it as low-key as possible. The School Board gave attention to it. The Board of Supervisors gave attention to it. I don't think anyone wanted to continue the same type of controversy that was so prevalent last year."
The most commonly cited explanation by county officials was the reduction in the school system's request for additional local funding. The schools asked for - and received - an increase of $90,000 this year. In 1989-90, the schools had sought $667,126 more from the county.
"That was way beyond the county's ability to pay," said Supervisor Lowell Boothe, who was a member of the joint budget committee. "I don't know why they did that."
The reduction in the local increase school officials sought this year meant less work for the supervisors when it came time to scrutinize their budget request.
"There was one category that maybe was a little higher than the others," said Board of Supervisors Chairman William Whitlock, referring to administration costs. "But there was not much we could do about it" because of new state mandates. School Board Chairman Dale Profitt said the schools sought a smaller increase in local funding this year because the system had to request added local money from the supervisors last September to keep its hospitalization insurance coverage.
"The way it went was I told them, `You give us $30,000, and we can keep our employees insured,' " said Profitt. " `Then next year, when it comes time for the budget, all we will ask for is 100 percent of the standard-of-quality request.' That's exactly what happened."
The other explanation suggested was that a new issue dominated the county's budget process: solid-waste disposal and treatment.
"The landfill is not a controversial issue because [the increases] are necessary to meet state regulations," said County Administrator Randy Arno. "But it's going to get bigger and bigger."
Costs for refuse collection and disposal total nearly $500,000 in the budget, approximately 40 percent more than last year. This increase accounted for about one-fourth of the increase in the overall county budget.
by CNB