Cost of Competing for Stafford         Seeking State Funding             Sound Financial Management

Villacres Works to Secure Cost of Competing for Stafford County

Tom Villacres has been working with the Board of Supervisors to bring $9 million in additional state funding to Stafford County, specifically for employee salaries.  Tom has met with School and County staff, Supervisors, Speaker of the House Bill Howell and Senator John Chichester to lobby for the inclusion in the state budget of the “Cost of Competing” allowance for Stafford County. 

Median and average home prices in Stafford County are very close to Prince William County. Yet, the salaries for teachers in Prince William County are much higher because they receive the “Cost of Competing” money from the state.  Villacres believes that Stafford County should receive this money, too. 

With the unanimous consent of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors - and more importantly, the assistance of Senator Chichester and Speaker Howell - Stafford has asked Governor Warner to include the “Cost of Competing” for Stafford County in the upcoming state budget.  Villacres will continue to lobby for this much needed state money because it is fair and because it will benefit the taxpayers of Stafford County. 

Efficiency and Increased State Money Help to Keep Stafford’s Real Estate Tax Down

In addition to championing a highly efficient school system, Tom Villacres has led the Stafford County School Board in advocating for increased state funding.  Tom lobbied state legislators in Stafford and during trips to Richmond for several years.  Tom got involved in state-level organizations like the Virginia School Boards Association and the Virgina Consortium for Adequate Resources in Education. He even spoke at a public press conference with other local officials to demand that the state fund its fair share of the education costs in Stafford County.  As a result of the efforts of Tom and others, the State legislature last year passed the largest increase in state education spending in years.  This state money has helped to keep Stafford’s School System running at high quality with less local money required from real estate taxes.

Read the Free Lance-Star article on the Press Conference held on March 24th, 2004.

Stafford Chides Assembly, Free Lance-Star March 25, 2004.

Read the Free Lance-Star article on the additional state money - over $7 million - provided to Stafford by the state in May, 2004.

State Money Eases Schools’ Concerns, Free Lance-Star May 19, 2004.

Sound Financial Management Allows Schools to Carry Forward Funds

The School Board’s end-of-year balance was only one percent more than expected this year.  Carrying a balance forward from one year to another keeps us from trying to spend money in a hurry at the end of the year and ensures that we maintain a positive fund balance, no matter what happens to the economy.  It is a sound financial practice, not an indication of excess funds. 

The end of year available balance for the schools is $5.8 million, or about 2.5 percent of our budget. By law, the school board must finish the year with a positive balance. We also strive to manage our money to conserve funds and to avoid “surprise” crisis requests to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) when unexpected things, such as rising fuel costs, impact our budget. A 2.5 percent balance at the end of the year is very respectable and compares favorably to the County’s end of year balance and other school systems. 

The $5.8 million available does not count the $2.2 million that is designated as contingency. This is 1 percent of our annual budget. Again, this is a prudent financial practice that enables us to manage funds when unexpected changes occur during a budget year. The $5.8 million also does not include the $870K of incomplete projects that we will ask be carried over to complete specific projects that could not be contracted during the planned fiscal year. By allowing this, the BOS prevents us from having to rush to spend money and possibly not spending it so wisely.

When I appeared before the Board of Supervisors in April, I asked for a compromise to provide only $5 million of our $7 million shortfall. I did this because at the time, I was expecting a $2-3 million available balance due to expected salary lapse. We did not anticipate that, in addition to $3 million in salary lapse, we would end up with $1.5 million in utility savings and a little over $1 million in other savings.

The $5.8 million in end of year money was unexpected. You may hear people say that we should have used that money. In a district as lean and tight as ours, that would be malfeasance. Had salaries or utilities gone the other way, we could have found ourselves unable to continue all programs or asking the BOS for more money at the end of the budget year.

I think you should be proud that your school district performed as thriftily as it did and that we forthrightly presented the savings at the end of the year. We would never try to hide funds or allow money to be wasted by rushing to spend it at the end of the year.

I hope this helps to put the end of year available balance into perspective. The School Board will consider this year whether to account for some of the expected salary lapse in the actual budget. This would not increase the amount of money available to the schools or reduce our financial needs, but it would make it easier for us to plan the use of funds as they are appropriated and could reduce the amount of carryover at the end of the year.