The school district has got legitimate reason to worry whether county commissioners could scuttle the Forest Ridge High project by not approving any money to pay for road improvements.
School administrators have estimated that it could take another $5.7 million from the commissioners to fund state-mandated road improvements around Forest Ridge High, which is scheduled to open in 2012.
But at today's meeting, a majority of the commissioners complained about the rising cost of the road work. In particular, complaints came from Lindy Brown and Joe Bryan, who had both flipped their votes last year to approve purchasing the site.
The commissioners might just turn down providing the additional $5.7 million. It's not like the old days where the school board could more easily find the money from somewhere else to pay for the road work.
The state budget cuts have cut into the district's fund balance. The recession has limited the amount of money that could be borrowed for construction work.
The school system is looking at ways to cut costs from elsewhere in the project, such as delaying the football stadium. But some infusion of new money from commissioners will likely be needed.
Earlier at today's meeting, school board candidate Debbie Vair was among a number of people who spoke out against Forest Ridge High. The increased road costs have given critics more ammo for fighting construction of the school on that site.
Also speaking out today against the project was Chris Malone, one of Vair's District 1 school board opponents.
School administrators have said they won't need to make the formal request to commissioners for more money until January. You can expect lobbying from the school system between now and then.
Forest Ridge is likely to be one of the topics at Wednesday's joint meeting of the school board and commissioners.
UPDATE
Click here for the article from Gabe Starosta.
Comments
I say shut down all spending
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 16:17 — MorrisVMorrisI say shut down all spending down and make people go to the schools we have already built of which many are under enrolled … we should not guarantee convenience … once the buildings are busting at the seams and filled with trailers people will be a lot me accommodating.
Ah yes
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 16:20 — RichardAndersonThe old fear technique. Do it our way or you'll be sorry.
Wake Public Schools. Time for an Audit
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 07:20 — AngelaWhttp://venitapeyton.com/2009/08/wake-public-schools-time-for-audit.html
The biggest issue facing the Wake County School Board isn’t the diversity policy. That's a smoke screen. To taxpayers, the biggest issue should be the constant rewarding, and ignoring, of incompetence.
And another reason why giving this board taxing authority is beyond stupid
Well...
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 07:54 — Bob_SconceI've always favored either giving the board taxing authority or abolishing the school board entirely and having the entire thing run by the county commissioners. I agree that the district does a lousy job of spending money, but I think that's largely due to the fact that they're unaccountable to the taxpayers.
The root problem is one of incentives: the school board gets praise when schools do well, but not when they do so at low costs. So, the school board has an incentive to throw money at problems. The commissioners, on the other hand, are praised when taxes are low, but not for good schools. So, they have a constant incentive to short-change the schools.
In the end, a school board with taxing authority will feel both the public pressure to keep taxes low and to have good schools, and it will be responsible for finding the correct balance. Today, nobody is responsible for finding that balance.
Now, I agree that some changes need to be made before this taxing authority is granted. Mainly, every school director should be up for re-election. Only members who were voted in with the voters understanding that they would receive taxing authority should get that authority. Second, responsibility for paying back school bonds should be transferred to the school board -- that's a hidden cost which needs to be un-hid.
If the school board had taxing authority, I suggest that it would have asked a lot more questions of the administration, and might have chosen another location. Instead, it fell into its practice of presenting a unified front so it could ask the commissioners for the money. How many times have we seen that ploy?
No way!
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 09:30 — g88ky07Sorry, but I can't foresee the public supporting the 2 evil words, "taxing authority" for many, many years. The wrongs have to be undone and how in the world would they be "accountable"???? They aren't accountable for squat now!
As for your other idea, I think the public would jump to support "abolishing the boe entirely" in it's current form!
Where do we sign up for that one!
Yup...
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 10:31 — Bob_SconceSo, the school board certainly hasn't helped itself on that count -- before anybody's willing to give it taxing authority, it needs to show that it's responsible enough to handle it. Fiascos like Forestville Road don't help that situation. It also doesn't help that the district repeatedly went to the commissioners with "We've negotiated the best deal on property X, please let us buy it" then the commissioners turn them down, and then the district returns a month later with a lower price.
Assuming that the reform candidates win this fall, one of their first jobs should be to clean house and build credibility with the public. If they do that, then they may be able to convince the public that they'd be good stewards of tax money.
Money is the trump card
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 10:43 — RichardAndersonIf they do that, then they may be able to convince the public that they'd be good stewards of tax money.
While they may be able to do that, I still don't believe it would be a good thing. Monetary concerns generally trump all else. The Board would spend more time on the taxation issues than education because that is what voters will focus on. We elect County Commissioners to be the stewards of our local tax money. Why not let them do their job? Yes, even Stan Norwalk. We elect Board of Education members to be the leadership of the school system. Why not make that their only job? Yes, even Patty "we just don't believe that his study is valid" Head.
I realize that this is probably idealistic, but I just want to be able to elect someone who is my voice in public education and not have them pulled in a million other directions. Taxing authority would do that far beyond what we see now, in my opinion. Can't we make education a priority that it warrants a dedicated elected official?
Don't think so...
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 12:04 — Bob_SconceBoards of education all across the country have taxing authority and don't seem to be focused mainly on taxation issues. Heck, the Wake County Commissioners don't even seem to spend that much time on it. In general, the tax rate stays pretty constant and the only time they worry about it is if they need to change the tax rate or float a new bond. If they raise taxes too high, then people will get ticked off and vote them out.
The problem with the current system is that the Commissioners aren't stewards of tax money, at least not the portion that gets sent over to WCPSS. If you want the Commissioners to do that, then they need to have the ability to control the WCPSS budget. But, that would effectively be exercising control over education.
I agree with you about being pulled in a million different directions. Part of that is the board's own fault -- it seems hell-bent on inserting itself into unimportant decisions (How long do they argue over what a school should be namd?). And, part of that is just due to the size of the district. Better to break it up into a number of smaller districts.
Not so sure
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 12:19 — RichardAndersonBoards of education all across the country have taxing authority and don't seem to be focused mainly on taxation issues.
With this I disagree. There are cases where a school board with taxing authority has been dominated by people elected solely on a low tax platform. This is particularly true in areas where empty-nesters make up a large portion of the population. Given the demographic trends of the nation, this is potentiality I would prefer to avoid.
The problem with the current system is that the Commissioners aren't
stewards of tax money, at least not the portion that gets sent over to
WCPSS. If you want the Commissioners to do that, then they need to
have the ability to control the WCPSS budget. But, that would
effectively be exercising control over education.
I think the Commissioners should have more oversight, but I don't think that they should be responsible for formulating the budget. I do think that they should have complete responsibility for auxiliary services such as food, building and transportation.
If we simplified the WCPSS portion of the budget, it would be much easier for the Commission to exercise oversight. They also need to have better visibility to how money is actually spent, not just a a budget proposal. When we see millions of dollars accumulating in the WCPSS reserve fund, there is obviously some significant deviation between actual and budgeted expenses.
While I do see problems with the current system, I still believe that a system of checks and balances will yield a superior result in the long term. I think that Constitution got it right, and there is no reason to assume that the separation of taxing authority and executive authority isn't a wise model to follow at the local level as well.
And, part of that is just due to the size of the district. Better to break it up into a number of smaller districts.
I couldn't agree with you more. I would be much more agreeable to a Board of Education with taxing authority if they had responsibility for a managable area. I have maintained for a long time that WCPSS is being asked to do an impossible job. Nothing that large is ever going to be efficient and responsive.
Moderation
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 09:45 — RichardAndersonAs for your other idea, I think the public would jump to support "abolishing the boe entirely" in it's current form!
Where do we sign up for that one!
While our current Board may have provided none, I don't think the school system would be better served by having no leadership. We should not judge the office by the officer. The schools system needs leadership. The mess we have now is a result of a lack of leadership, so I fail to see how eliminating the potential for future leadership is the answer.
What we need is an education focused Board of EDUCATION. You'd think that would be obvious, but apparently it isn't.
Get rid of the responsibility for all the extras. Building new schools. Transportation. Food service. All that kind of stuff. Put that on the county administration so that we can get an accurate picture of what our educational spending really is, not the current, jumbled picture that leads many to believe that the school system is nothing more than a wood chipper for public funds.
Just my 2¢. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why the Board should do anything other than be the public voice for actual educational programs. Isn't that an important enough job to make it their only responsibility?
I see your point
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 08:15 — RichardAndersonI see your point, but I disagree. I think that we need to have an elected body that is focused solely on the educational achievement of the students in the schools. While the conflict between the Commission and the Board is indeed frustrating, I see it as a net positive. Kind of like the checks and balances we have at the federal level.
I think that giving the school board taxing authority would lead to even less focus on education and more abrogation of responsibility for such to the unelected bureaucracy. I think that any positive that may come from giving the Board taxing authority would be far outweighed by that negative.
Got water?
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 20:00 — DaveSSomeone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the part of Wake County that hardly has enough water to make it through the summer unless a hurricane hits? They pipe their water in from Kerr Lake, right? Who is going to pay to get water from the Roanoke River to that school?
No.
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 07:18 — Bob_SconceThere's no water piped in from Kerr Lake. The City of Raleigh has considered that as a long-term solution to its water problems, but that's not happening now.
Municipalities in the area are connected to Raleigh's water system, which is fed mainly by Falls Lake. Some of this area is unincorporated, so they're presumably on well water.
what about Brier Creek?
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 19:39 — loriacHere's a chance to drop this project and build a school in Brier Creek, one of Raleigh's future growth centers.
School construction costs upset Wake commissioners
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 19:40 — AngelaWhttp://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5812588/ "Is this the result of incompetence, or was there a willful intent to mislead us?" a seething Commissioner Paul Coble asked
again argue that the school should be built at another location.
"I think now is the time to stand up and tell the Wake County schools, 'This is enough. We're going to find another site,'" Rolesville Mayor Frank Eagles said. "If Wake County public schools continues to insist on the site, taxpayers should get a permit to picket Wake public schools, and I think we ought to carry a bucket of tar, some feathers and a rail."
Ldt's be fair. The "rest of the story"
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 21:32 — shank56From WRAL as quoted from the link above :
No one from the school board or school district administration attended the commissioners' meeting, and Commissioners Stan Norwalk and Lindy Brown said they wanted to hear a detailed explanation from school district officials before skewering them.
Norwalk said he was curious if details about the project had changed over time.
County Manager David Cooke noted the state Department of Transportation initially said few road improvements would be needed and that Raleigh officials said Canyon Drive, a proposed road that also will connect to a middle school planned for the area, wouldn't need to meet the requirements of a city street. Now, he said, the DOT wants more road improvements, and Raleigh wants Canyon Drive to be a city street.
Wonder why the sudden change from the inital plans that County Mananger David Cooke was aware of?
P
Say what?
Tue, 08/18/2009 - 07:32 — RichardAndersonCounty Manager David Cooke noted the state Department of
Transportation initially said few road improvements would be needed and
that Raleigh officials said Canyon Drive, a proposed road that also
will connect to a middle school planned for the area, wouldn't need to
meet the requirements of a city street. Now, he said, the DOT wants
more road improvements, and Raleigh wants Canyon Drive to be a city
street.
OK, if Raleigh wants it to be a city street, let RALEIGH pay for it, not the entire county which funds the WCPSS. What am I missing here? Is WCPSS just getting bullied around by the city here?
I told you so," Rolesville Mayor Frank Eagles said.
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 19:13 — AngelaWhttp://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6969556
(oh I so wanted to say "told you so" about Leesville Middles' underenrollment too!!)
Lobbying
Mon, 08/17/2009 - 18:59 — RichardAndersonSchool administrators have said they won't need to make the formal request to commissioners for more money until January.
AKA, after the election. Cowards.