Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Budget Carryover topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Prince George school board weighs $2.08 million in carryover funds; considers Beasley reroofing and security upgrades

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

School officials discussed a proposed plan to spend roughly $2.082 million in county carryover capital funds on roofing at Beasley, security equipment, vehicle and facility needs, and technology; no final allocation was adopted and the board asked staff for two recommendations to present to the county.

Prince George County Public Schools board members spent the meeting debating how to spend roughly $2,082,000 in county carryover capital funds, including a proposal to add roofing work at Beasley Elementary and to reallocate equipment and security purchases.

The discussion centered on a staff plan presented by Mr. Barnes showing an updated spreadsheet for the carryover budget and a proposal to include Beasley roofing sections G and B in the list of projects. “In front of you, you have an updated spreadsheet for the, little over $2,082,000 budget that are the carryover funds that the county has indicated they will be approving to put in their capital fund for our use,” Barnes told the board.

Barnes said the package was adjusted to fit Beasley’s reroofing by reducing or reassigning several planned purchases. He recommended buying a single set of object detectors to rotate among the five elementary schools, funded from an existing security grant rather than from the carryover funds, and preserving awnings tied to detector use. “One set will be purchased out of security grant funds that we have in house that we have not committed anything yet until we get this sorted out,” Barnes said.

Barnes described other reallocations: reducing a placeholder amount for North High’s cafeteria and stage lighting after a final quote came in at roughly $54,043; removing one student transport van from the carryover request (leaving three buses); increasing funds for stadium and pedestrian lighting at the softball fields after contractors recommended replacing underground conduit; and shifting about $20,670 of savings into secondary classroom smart boards (one line was set to $39,670 in the spreadsheet).

Barnes said combining the county rollover amount of $2,082,067 with an existing $107,569 already in the county capital fund would fully fund the Beasley roofing project at about $374,300. “So if you add the $266,731 that’s on the $2,000,000 rollover and add the $107,569 that’s already ours, it funds the entire project,” he said.

Board members pressed for detail on scope and timing. Barnes described the proposed Beasley security work as “a three-sided fence” with four gates and clarified it would include gates for maintenance access but no fencing along Courthouse Road. He said roofing consultant April McKelvey of Monarch Roofing Consultants remained engaged and provided updated pricing.

Financial staff and board members repeatedly warned of categorical constraints and timing. Mr. Sorensen, who demonstrated a budgeting spreadsheet for board scenarios, cautioned that the division must remain within appropriated categories and that revenue and spending trends can change before fiscal year-end. “We can project, but it’s the unknowns that I can’t answer,” he said, noting state amendments and enrollment (ADM) changes could affect final totals.

The board did not vote to adopt the plan. Instead members directed staff to return with two recommended versions of the carryover spending plan for consideration: one that assumes the division can move roughly $266,731 from its regular budget to finance the Beasley work and related projects, and a second that would send the revised package to the county as a full $2,082,067 request. The board asked Mr. Sorensen to provide updated financials and the working spreadsheet at the next board meeting on March 17 and to be ready to present final requests to the Board of Supervisors on April 8.

Board members and staff also discussed practical timing for projects: purchases that are state-contract vehicles could be obtained quickly if the units are on a dealer’s lot, buses may take up to 15 months, and large roofing work or athletic-lighting projects are likely to occur in the fall. Barnes noted that county capital fund approvals would allow unused amounts to roll into the next year if needed, and that some grant-funded purchases (security detectors) must be on site and invoiced by June 30 to meet grant requirements.

The work session included additional division priorities mentioned by staff: replacing two high-school electronic scoreboards, buying zero-turn mowers from a preferred Exmark dealer, front-door replacement work (Caraway), and a tractor for grounds work. Barnes said many of the quoted prices are from state contracts, dealer quotes, or updated contractor bids and that the team had prioritized Beasley roof sections because they generate frequent repair costs.

Votes at a glance

- Allow remote participation for Mr. Johnson: motion by Ms. Chris, second by Ms. Andrews; roll call vote passed (all present voted yes). - Approve meeting agenda as presented: motion by Ms. Taylor, second by Ms. Andrews; roll call vote passed (all present voted yes). - Approve lease execution with Southside Virginia Education Center (adult education classroom): motion by Ms. Andrews, second by Ms. Taylor; roll call vote passed (all present voted yes). The lease is for $2,250 and is in the adult education budget; the school division acts as fiscal agent. - Adjourn: motion by Ms. Andrews, second by Ms. Chris; roll call vote passed (all present voted yes).

What’s next

Staff will return with the two recommended carryover spending scenarios and updated February financials at the March 17 board meeting. The board intends to present its finalized request to the Board of Supervisors at the supervisors’ April 8 meeting if it proceeds with a county request.

No formal appropriation or binding allocation of the carryover funds was approved at this work session; the meeting produced direction to staff and scheduling for further review.