HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820628 117 i
MINUTES
I
JUNE 28, 1982
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on Monday
June 28, 1982, at 12:00 Noon, in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Court-
house, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissionmrs present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Norm
Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
Chairman Whitted announced the purpose of the meeting which was called
at the request of the Orange County Board of Education as provided for under
North Carolina Statutes when there is a difference between the Board of Education
and the Board of Commissioners on the amount of money appropriated for a system
of free public education. Chairman Whitted added that he understood that the
disagreement was .on the amount appropriated for schools' capital.according to
the Orange County Board of Education Chair Oscar Compton.
Orange County Board of Education members present: Oscar Compton, Chair,
and Lindsay Efland, Walter Faribault, Jr., James Rae Freeland, Norman Haithcock
Max Kennedy, and John Thomas Walker.
Mr. Campton commended the Commissioners on their funding of schools' currc_;: ,
expense, saying the Commissioners had done well in that item and the School
had been able to meet most of the current expense needs. The Orange County
Board of Education feels that the Commissioners appropriated "inadequate funds
for capital outlay." Mr. Compton referred to Mr. Kennedy's comments at the
public hearing on the budget, saying that.according to figures from the State
2% of the replacement value of the facilities ($24 million dollars) is to be
used for repairs only; therefore, the $476,250 funded by the County for the
Schools' capital needs is "totally inadequate" apd the full $1.2 million for
capital outlay is hereby requested by the School Board-through tki<s-appeal process.
Mr. Compton said the School Board- Attorney Rich Schwartz would "do most-of-our
talking and make the presentation."
Mr. Schwartz read part of the Resolution adopted by the Orange County Board
of Education on June 24, 1982, which calls for a "good faith attempt" on the
part of both Boards to resolve the difference which exists in the matter of the
I
capital outlay appropriation to that school system. Mr. Schwartz acknowledged
that "these are hard times for everyone" but "especially for the Orange County
I
School.System." He said the increase in current expense, less than 3%,.- was
i
sufficient although not as much as they would have liked and given inflation
dollars it was even less than received previously but "we're gonna live with
that." However, on the capital appropriation, while funded at a level higher
than that of the previous year, the needs were greater and had built up over
the years. Mr. Schwartz said this was a "catch up budget." He continued
i saying that although the $476,000 was a jump up over the average of $300,000
appropriated for capital each year since 1977; "but it's not sufficient to
cover what are the absolute minimum essential needs in the school budget."
Mr. Schwartz said that prior to the School Budget Fiscal Act in 1965 it was
the responsibility of the local government to maintain the school plants while
the Federal and State governments took care of programs. Mr. Schwartz read
sections of the "old law" to emphasize his point; he said it was the duty
of the County Commissioners, "to.;supplement these funds /when funds are not
appropriated in sufficient amounts to maintain the physical plants of the
schools] by the tax levy," according to this old Statute which was updated.
in 1975 to "recognize more duties and more responsibilities" for local funding.
Mr. Schwartz emphasized that "first and foremost the local priority is to
maintain the physical plant and that investment."
Mr. Schwartz continued that the question here was not so much of whether .
the needs existed but where the money would be found to meet those needs. He
said "the old Taw says 'You shall supplement funds' with a supplemental tax levy
if necessary to maintain those buildings. And we.'re not necessarily here to ask
you for a tax levy that's your responsibility and your duty and your perogative.
...We're here to ask you for more money." Mr. Schwartz said the roofing consultant
for the County schools,;kMr. Bill May, was present today. Mr. Schwartz said he
had been on the Stanford roof this morning and he passed around a piece of gypsum
which he said was moist and had been removed this morning. He passed the gypsum
around to substantiate his assertion that reshingling "would be a waste of money"
because it doesn't "address what's going on underneath that roof." Mr. Schwartz
referred to the Orange County General Fund Expenditures by Category and cited
the percentage of the County revenues collected for each year since 1974-75 to
1982-83 which was allocated to the schools'. He asserted that over the past
seven years there was a 19% decrease of County funds allocated to the County
schools.
U6
Commissioners took exception to Mr.. Schwartz's percentages, noting that
there were accounting changes and debt service' from the school bond issue
which were not 'strictly comparable through those years.
Mr. Schwartz responded that it was not his intent to misrepresent any
figures. He noted that the schools funding request had increased by $600,000
over the previous year (1981-82). Mr..Schwartz said that the Orange County
Board of Education wanted more capital funds appropriated, it needed more and
the needs were well -documented. Mr. Schwartz said the School staff had examined
the County budget picture and had found that revenue projections were.under---
estimated by'"at least $190,000"; he suggested that amount be "given' to the Orange
County Schools!' for capital.needs.
Following some discussion on oversight procedures for school projects-,
Commissioner Whitted returned to Mr. Schwartz's revenue projections. He
said the property tax collection rate would not necessarily increase this
year, as the collection rate was very high for the previous year; for the sales
tax figure he said with.the recession we are currently in, it is not "prudent"
to project an increase in .revenues from that sources; for the. software fees,
Commissioner Whitted said that money had been committed during the budget session
and thus is not available for other expenditures. Commissioner Whitted said
the County was aware of some decisions which had been made that the school staff
may not have known when examining the County budget; he thanked the school
for their comments on the County.budget and added that County staff had done a
very good job of estimating revenues. He said the Board of Commissioners would
"be very reluctant to go in and second guess a lot of projections and detail
work" on the part of County staff in order to allocate $190,000 for a one time
expenditure.and he felt that such an action would be fiscally unsound.
Mr. Schwartz said that this was not a one time need; "you can pay us now
or you can pay us later:' he said to emphasize his point.
Commissioner Whitted said he appreciated Mr. Schwartz's comment but that
it was fiscally unsound management to increase projections just to fund a one
time expenditure. Commissioner Whitted said the revenue projections were care-
fully examined by both the County fiscal staff and the Board in order to fund
an entire budget "not just one item."
Commissioner Willhoit also pointed out that the sales tax projection figure
was provided by the State and he felt the County should not project higher..
416
Commissioner Whitted told the School. Board that the Commissioners have
a number of mandated services to provide, not just education; that schools
are only one of the County's many responsibilities and that the Countys abilities
to meet increasing needs was "going to decrease as time goes on." Commissioner
Whitted continued:
The point that I'm trying to make here is that we did
very carefully consider and we had a good deal of discussion
with members of the Orange County. school .unit to try to under-
stand what the needs were; to try to look at our resources and
to try to provide reasonable appropriations to address those
needs. Now admittedly we did not fund completely your request.
I think that given the size of that request, given .the kinds of
restraints that we have on our revenue, I don't think that there
were very many people who felt that that was a real possibility
from day one that we would be able to meet'.the total needs.
We do, on an on-going basis, try to understand the needs
of all the agencies and departments that we fund. We do not
just do it on a one time basis.
There were two very major projects that were presented to
us by the Orange County Schools. We dealt with- at considerable
length to try to understand. The one was renovation of A.L.
Stanback School and I believe, that there is, as we discussed
it, we give you a lump sum figure and you, your Board decades
which facilities get funded. But as we tried to understand it
we considered very carefully the request from A.L. Stanback
and tried to provide adequate funding to do those things that
were requested this year. As far as the roof is concerned, I
don't think there's any question in anybody's mind on this Board
that there is a real need to go in and do something to that
facility. Now, whether you do it all in one year or whether you
do it, in stages, again is going to be up to your Board. Again,
in trying to understand, in trying to allocate the resources that
we had available to us, I feel that we did a good faith effort,
and a reasonable effort in trying to address that need. You
presented us with a total figure of $300,000 to do the complete
job of building up that roof and replacement. The one building
that, as I understand it, as I remember it from our discussions,
that is in considerable distress, is the gymnasium.or the 200
building. You had an estimate of $165;000, is that correct, to
do that building. Now, I believe that out of the $476,250 that
this, that if your Board chooses to do that 200 building, as was
recommended by your consultant, of $165,000, that there is adequate
funding to do that. Now, admittedly, I thing, it would be difficult
to go in and do the whole $300,000 job; but again, we've provided
the funding that we felt we could from our resources, to begin
that project.
Now, as I understand what the provisions of the Statute
that we are meeting today is, if there has been adequate money
provided to support a system of free education. Now, are you?
It's the School Board's position that you do not have adequate
funding to support a system of free education in Orange County?
Mr. Compton: "No, we do not." He' continued by saying the need for
capital funding had increased over the years and were accumulating each
year that the Commissioners underfunded capital appropriations. Mr. Compton
cited the example of the Orange County Baseball team which won its conference .
I
championship and said that "we had by far the worst field in the conference."'
Mr. Compton said a request for repairs to the baseball field had been submitted
for four years.
The Boards discussed the need for roof repair at Stanford School; the
Commissioners reiterated that there was no question of the need and that
i
sufficient funds had been provided to begin that project. The Board of Ed-
ucation indicated that the cost may be more than $300,000 for the project,
saying there may be hidden damage that Mr. May,the consultant,didn't include
in his estimate of $300,000.
Chairman Whitted thanked the Board of Education for their concerns and
said again, that this Board had provided adequate funding for capital in
the Fiscal 198283 budget. The•Commissioners suggested a special meeting
for the two School Boards and themselves to discuss long term capital needs
for the school systems and the County. There was a consensus that the Chair
of the Commissioners should contact the Chairs of the Boards of Education
and arrange an early fall meeting to discuss long term capital planning and
needs for all three entities.
Chairman Whitted declared the meeting ad'ourned.
Richard E. Whitte C it
Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
t
I