Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 9, 1994 TAG: 9403090184
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: New River Valley bureau
DATELINE: PULASKI LENGTH: Medium
School officials in Pulaski County and other localities taking the state up on the incentive knew they would have to pay the retirement funds to the state, but they did not know the state would charge 8 percent interest.
``I think it's safe to say that the School Boards Association, the Superintendents' Association, county administrators and boards of supervisors are all upset about it,'' Superintendent Bill Asbury said at a joint meeting of the county supervisors and School Board on Monday night. ``We ought to fight tooth and nail to get that reduced.''
When the state described localities that would profit most by using the early retirement option, ``we fit that profile almost to a T,'' Asbury said.
``There was some question as to whether we'd have to pay it back at all,'' he said. But localities that had not taken the option argued that they should not have to help pay for the retirement programs of those who did.
An accounting firm recommended last week that the supervisors consider paying off the state in two years and refinancing the debt at a lower interest rate. But County Administrator Joe Morgan, at the joint meeting, said the county should study its options first. ``I wouldn't recommend refinancing immediately,'' he said.
Actually, Asbury said, even with the interest problem, ``we think it was a good deal.''
The county did not replace 13 of the educators who retired, saving an annual $650,000 in salaries and benefits. The younger teachers hired to replace the other 20 drew $236,696 less in annual salaries.
Asbury said all this has allowed the school system to launch some education initiatives and give two pay raises it could not otherwise have afforded with the state reducing its education money.
``If you work out the savings over 20 years,'' he said, ``we come out ahead.''
The state is expected to provide localities with more education money in the 1994-95 year, but it appears that it will not be as much as Pulaski County school officials had anticipated.
That means the 3 percent salary increase, school bus replacement program and supplements for coaches and teachers in charge of extracurricular activities could be in jeopardy. All those items were proposed in the superintendent's budget, which has not yet been adopted by the School Board.
Other initiatives in the proposed budget include lowering the pupil-teacher ratio in kindergarten through second grade as a start toward improving the educational foundation of children in the lower grades; expanding science facilities starting with a link between Pulaski County High School and the state-of-the-art computer programs at the Southwest Virginia Governor's School; and providing a planning period for elementary teachers who have been spending the entire school day with their pupils without a break. ``It's hard for them to even find time to go to the bathroom,'' Asbury said.
One reason Pulaski County has lost state revenue is because that money is based on the student population, and the county's has been dropping.
It is projected to drop from 5,200 this year to 5,080 next year, and not level off until it hits about 4,500 students at the end of the century.
by CNB