Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990331APPROVED 6121199 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT MEETING ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOL BOARD MARCH 31, 1999 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session with members of the Orange County Board of Education and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education on March 31, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., and Stephen H. Halkiotis. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, Planning Director Craig Benedict and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other staff will be identified as necessary below. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Delores Simpson, and members Robert Bateman, Keith Cook, Susan Dovenbarger, Rick Kennedy, David Kolbinsky and Brenda Stephens, CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Harvey Goldstein and members Elizabeth Carter, Nick Didow, Valerie Foushee, Roger Waldon, and Ken Touw NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR FIVE YEARS. COUNTY/ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS/CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS DISCUSSION/POLICY ISSUES CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Superintendent Neil Pedersen stated that the monthly meetings between the County Manager and the Superintendents have brought about a much greater understanding of the issues facing each unit of government. The issues currently driving the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System with regard to the budget are the opening of Scroggs Elementary School in Southern Village and the expansion at East Chapel Hill High School. He pointed out that, as usual, the start up costs for these new schools have increased the budget for this fiscal year. Also, according to the State projections, enrollment is expected to increase by 316 students for the next school year. Another issue which continues to affect the budget are mandates from both state and federal governments. These mandates have increased in recent years because of the Excellent Schools Act. This Act includes a four year plan to upgrade the salaries of teachers and principals as well as the salaries of other non-certified employees. They have also been notified to expect a 35% increase in the cost of health insurance. Other issues driving this years budget are: 1) proficiency standards - This will be the first year that the proficiency standards take effect which means that both 5th and 8th graders will be tested prior to being passed into the next grade. Those who are not proficient will not be promoted to the next grade. There will be both preventative strategies and intervention actions implemented this year. Summer school will be required for all non-proficient students and Prep Academies will be offered for all 5th and 8th graders who are not promoted. Many of the schools have requested additional reading and math specialists. The School Board has also included a modest proposal to reduce class sizes. 2) compensation designed to maintain a competitive work force - There will be an across the board salary increase funded statewide. On a local level the school system needs to look at ways to remain competitive within the state and across the nation. There is a growing teacher shortage. They have implemented measures in this year's budget request which are intended to attract new teachers and administrators while retaining current ones. 3) technology. They are investing between one-half million and one million dollars a year for hardware purchases. The school system is currently understaffed in terms of supporting technology and suffering from excessive turn- over in this field. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS Superintendent Randy Bridges stated that the Orange County School System is facing all of the same issues. They are also facing the challenge of how to recruit and retain quality staff and are committed to increasing the local supplement. They are addressing a need for early intervention with the pre-K population. At the present time the Orange County School system does not have either a Head Start or a Pre-K program. They are interested in including both of these programs in the curriculum. A survey was distributed to parents last year in which they indicated a strong desire for a foreign language in the K-5 program. After the opening of this next school the School Board will begin to look at decreasing the number of students per class. DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ON ORANGE COUNTY AND CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SUPERINTENDENT'S PRESENTATIONS: Neil Pedersen pointed out that they have a very ambitious ten-year program. This past February they reviewed that plan again and are considering further reduction in their projected class size. It is difficult to make progress in class size reduction while at the same time the school district continues to grow and new schools are opened. They will revisit this issue again with the School Board this year. Chair Gordon asked the Superintendents to create a chart by grade showing the state standards for enrollment, what enrollment is for each grade and what the target is for each grade. Also, a breakdown of teacher supplements based on years of experience would be helpful. Commissioner Carey referred to the Low English Proficiency (LEP) report which indicated that there were 8 teachers in that program several years ago. He asked how many there are now? Superintendent Pedersen stated that there are eight now. The LEP Task Force recommended adding an additional 4 teachers to that program. They are not sure that they will be able to fulfill this request but they are committed to making progress. Roger Waldon mentioned that the LEP report stated that a good student/teacher ratio for English as a Second Language (ESL) is 20/1 and the ratio for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro System is currently at 40/1. Also, the number of students being served in this program is growing at a rate of 10% to 20% each year. Neil Pedersen indicated that they continue to locate students who are not being served who could benefit from this program and for that reason they do not expect to make significant progress in decreasing the student/teacher ratio. SCHOOLS & LAND USE COUNCILS MEETING: John Link reported that these Councils have been meeting for approximately two years. Three specific products have arisen from the work of these Councils. The first is a process by which the Managers and Superintendents inform each other when a certain threshold of new housing units has been reached. When 30 units have been approved a memo is drafted from the appropriate Manager to the Superintendent. When 60 units have been approved, a written information message to the School Board is drafted. Finally, when 100 units have been approved, a meeting is called of the members of the Councils to discuss the impact. The Councils recently received verbal reports from each jurisdictions about current development and its impact. The Councils have produced a Memorandum of Agreement which provides coordinated site and facility planning. Members of the Councils are currently engaged in a final review of this document. When they are finished with their review, the Memorandum of Agreement will be forwarded to each jurisdiction for review and adoption. The Memorandum of Agreement is designed to facilitate collocation and efficiency. The joint Councils have been considering the issue of a coordinated, managed development process for the entire County. Council member McClintock's summary of the March 10th meeting presents a review of the report given by County Attorney Gledhill and County Planning Director Benedict. A copy of this memorandum is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Geof Gledhill stated that agreement among the local elected bodies is the first step toward creating a concurrency plan. This includes the towns, county and the school boards. The Agreement would contain an adequate public facilities plan for each school system which would be reviewed and agreed upon by the County. This would require an interlocal agreement. After the facilities plan is approved, a funding plan would be developed. The planning jurisdictions could then enact an ordinance which would say that when residential development is proposed it would not be approved if it would cause the schools in that jurisdiction to be over capacity. Part of the process would involve the developer going to the school system so that they could advise them about the potential impact of their development. They would then talk about the projected enrollment and a decision would be made by the schools on whether the facilities plan that is in place would meet the demand created by the proposed development. If the demand could be met, then the school system would issue a certificate that would be taken by Q:\19990331 a.doc I 3 the developer to the planning jurisdiction and the plan could go forward. If the school system determines they cannot absorb the additional enrollment, then the developer would have to wait until the schools are available. An issue for further discussion concerns what to do if the developer wanted to move forward with the development in spite of the lack of facilities. What options would the developer have? One possible option is for the developer to take some responsibility for how fast the needed school would be available. He said that the attorneys are currently working on preliminary documents. Mike Brough has done some work with this model in the City of Cary. That model will be brought to the governments as soon as possible. Craig Benedict stated that the first step in this process is an analysis of existing conditions. This includes reviewing data on the existing student population as well as approved developments which are not completed. Also, student generation rates need to be created. They could be based on the type of housing, number of bedrooms, townhouses, etc. Mitigation measures need to be looked at by the schools. For example, mobile classrooms, changing school boundaries, etc. It would also be important to look at interim solutions. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the Town of Hillsborough received the letter from Council member McClintock. He feels that they need to be included in this discussion process and that a meeting be scheduled with them to discuss these issues. John Link indicated that he plans to meet with the Hillsborough Town Manager next week. Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that Harvey Goldstein suggested that the County take over student enrollment projections because the State Department of Instruction's figures have not shown an accurate projection of student enrollment in recent years.. The data necessary for tracking student projections is available locally and it would be extremely helpful for the County to take responsibility for generating these projections. Chair Gordon mentioned that there is a tremendous amount of growth being planned for northern Orange County and at the March meeting of the Schools and Land Use Councils they discussed adequate public facilities. There is an emerging consensus that something needs to be done to get school facilities online in a timely manner. There is also a need to be proactive about locating potential school sites. Commissioner Carey suggested sending Council member McClintock's letter to both Durham and Mebane because they are both encroaching into Orange County. Bob Bateman suggested to the Board of Commissioners that they consider the problem of over-development. One characteristic of the new developments being proposed is the trend toward rezoning to the R-3 designation. He stated that there are steps that can be taken to restrict growth and one of those steps would be to deny requests to zone to higher densities. Roger Waldon stated that a lot is already known about the growth and development patterns. There is a set urban area and Chapel Hill and Carrboro both have Land Use Plans in place which makes it possible to make projections. They have recently commissioned a survey of potential sites and now know what sites are available. Nick Didow encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to provide funds to both of the school districts to build school facilities at the time the projections indicate they are needed. This will avoid a repeat of the situation which developed ten years ago when the need existed well before the schools were built. Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned the newspaper article he read recently in which the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force was quoted as saying that Orange County would need to build 20 schools in the next thirty years. This would mean many bond referendums unless growth management is kept in the forefront as a priority. With respect to the Orange County School Board, it is the Town of Hillsborough that is driving growth. Also, Durham is growing to the east and Mebane is growing to the West. He would not be surprised to find growth on Highway 70 East coming from Durham. Elizabeth Carter agreed that it is important to stay updated on this issue. She also stated that it is extremely important the builders take responsibility for some of this growth. Rick Kennedy mentioned that one important part of this planning process is collocation. He feels that it definitely needs to be incorporated into every project if at all possible. SCHOOL/COUNTY COLLABORATION ON CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Value Engineering): County John Link stated that over the last ten to twelve years the County, in cooperation with the school systems, has spent in excess of one hundred twenty million dollars to address the needs of both school systems. The County Q:\19990331 a.doc 7 4 has also expended ten to twenty million dollars for County projects during the same period of time. The Board of County Commissioners has expressed concern recently about how to improve our collective ability to make sure that we are getting the best value for the money spent. He recently attended a conference at which cities and counties shared their successes using value engineering. Most cities have their own engineers but when they use value engineering, in each case significant cost savings occurred. He referred to a March 20, 1999 memo on this subject in which he recommended that the County pursue value engineering for projects in excess of $5 million. He mentioned that the consensus of the managers who have used this system is that outside engineers should be hired because they can speak more freely than staff engineers. The engineers need to question every aspect of the project with a critical eye. The greatest benefit occurs when the process is implemented as early as possible. He has recommended that County projects use the value engineering approach and that the school systems also implement this process. In fact, he encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to urge the School Boards to consider the value engineering approach for all current projects. Susan Dovenbarger agreed that this is an excellent idea. She said that Mr. Ray DeBruhl has been consulting with the Orange County school system on both of their projects. She feels this is a growing field of expertise and one which will save many dollars for each project. Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that he gave information on this subject to the County Manger last year. In the Orange County Schools they have taken a slightly different approach and have someone on their staff who works for them in an engineering capacity. He has saved significant amounts of money on each project in which he has been involved. Over a period of years, one elementary school was paid for out of the savings. He mentioned that he would like to get more information on this process and find out exactly what these firms charge. The construction management companies charge an exorbitant amount of money to manage the construction of the projects. However, he did think that this was a good idea and he might suggest lowering the threshold below $5 million for projects receiving value engineering. He mentioned the Skills Development Center and the suggestions made by Commissioner Brown to keep the original metal structure in place. The building came in on time and within budget. An interlocal memorandum of agreement could be signed by all jurisdictions to facilitate the value engineering process. In response to a question, John Link stated that it would be more effective to work together and he would welcome collaborating with the school systems. The first step would be to identify which projects would be reviewed by the value engineer. Commissioner Brown stated that this person could also facilitate communication between the County and the two school systems about school development projects. She noted that the University has hired someone for all of their projects. She asked if John Link intended to bring forward a proposal. John Link said that if there was a consensus reached this evening, he and the superintendents would work on a process by which a value engineer could be selected. If there was not a consensus, he would pursue this on behalf of the County. Commissioner Carey indicated that the School Boards need to be formally asked for their feedback on this idea. Neil Pedersen stated that they have used a scheduler to keep projects on schedule. He is not opposed to value engineering, but he pointed out that it is not free. He emphasized that there are real costs associated with this service which must be paid up front. Commissioner Carey stated that the value engineer would not replace the construction manager. It would be important to clarify what part of the project would be managed jointly. We are not talking about substituting value engineering for the management process that each system needs to conduct. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that this item be on the agenda for the second meeting in April so that it could be discussed and formal request letters for value engineering consultants be drafted. Commissioner Gordon suggested that each Board discuss it thoroughly. The Board of County Commissioners will be forwarding a letter to the school boards after their discussion, however, she suggested that the school boards begin their discussion as soon as possible. CtA19990331 a.do[ 5 Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the Board of County Commissioners discuss and vote on this first and then send a formal request to the School Boards. He stated his willingness to work with the County Manager on creating several models so that they could be presented to the Commissioners at their April 20th meeting. Susan Dovenbarger asked if the value engineering process was in addition to the work that Mr. DeBruhl is doing. If so, she was concerned about funding sources for both services. John Link stated that the Board of Commissioners could discuss this process and define their expectations. Then he could work with Superintendent Bridges and identify which of those expectations are being fulfilled by Mr. DeBruhl. There was a consensus on this approach. PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING SCHOOL FUNDING TARGETS TO GUIDE FUTURE ANNUAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT: John Link said that the Board of County Commissioners requested that he work with the school superintendents to develop a process on how to best fund both school systems through short and long range planning. He noted that the County is doing an excellent job of funding the school systems and are number one in per pupil appropriations in the entire state. He gave a brief history of Orange County's track record in this area and stated that he questioned the sustainability of the process currently being pursued. Forty-eight percent of the general fund is being appropriated for the schools. The increase in the County budget last year was approximately $7 million dollars. Sixty percent of this increase went to the schools. He has been asked by the Board of County Commissioners to come up with a workable methodology which could be a threshold, percentage, gross amount of funds, or some other methodology. He has also been charged with making a recommendation about what should be funded by the general fund. State mandated expenditures must be addressed first. When each of the school systems have new initiatives, and those initiatives are not comparable, should the general fund pay for those enhancements when they do not gravitate toward programmatic equity? He has been asked by the Board of County Commissioners to present recommendations on this issue at the joint Board of County Commissioners and School Board meeting scheduled for September 15th. He will be collaborating with the school superintendents in preparing this report. Keith Cook stated that the Board of County Commissioners need to know what goals and mandates are driving the School Board's requests. He feel that the Commissioners should ask the two School Boards how they could help them get each and every child to grade level. How the gap could be closed between minority children and other children. How could the class size be reduced? He commented that without the Board of County Commissioners support those goals could not be reached. The Governor has said that he wants North Carolina to be the best school system in the country in 2010. The School Board always asks for less then they really need and there are many students whose needs are not being met. More Resource teachers are needed now in order to have all students reading on grade level. Its important that the citizens and the Board of County Commissioners know what actually is needed so that responsible choices can be made. John Link repeated that the question that needs to be refined further is "what should the County's general fund address?" For example, should it address the per pupil allocation and teacher salaries? Perhaps it should also fund improvements that both school systems are pursuing at the same time which would have the same impact on all of the children in the county. There is also the possibility of asking the Board of County Commissioners to increase the district tax. He indicated that it might be possible to establish another source of revenue beyond the general fund that could fund specific items that the Orange County system wants to implement. Susan Dovenbarger said that in the long term both schools are addressing the same issues. Orange County Schools are very grateful for the funding that they have received in the past. She feels that the timing of initiatives may vary, but not the overall initiative. She agreed with Mr. Cook that they are mandated to serve many special populations of children with limited amounts of money. She mentioned that they have funded many of those mandates, including ELS and the exceptional children with almost $1 million dollars of local money. In response to a question, John Link stated that one scenario could be that whatever amount the Board of County Commissioners approve, there would be an overarching constraint. It could be a combination of setting a percentage cap for funding education from the general fund with the additional factor of the increase in the tax base. The details would need to be worked out. Before the budget process everyone would have a general idea of CtA19990331 a.doc is 6 the amount of money that would be available to fund schools. He stated that budgeting is a very different process when you start with the overarching constraint. Elizabeth Carter stated that they have long lists of needs from each school . As members of the School Board they are speaking for the needs of the children. They have a responsibility to educate each student in the system. She asked where would they get the money if not from the Board of County Commissioners? Rick Kennedy stated that we need to look at the national cost per student. Per pupil allocations in Illinois are $9,000 for each student. Those are the students Orange County students will be competing against in the job market. He mentioned how critical it is for these students to have computers and other technical advantages in order to compete in the job market. He feels that Orange County residents are already paying as much as they can afford to pay and a district tax is not a workable solution for the Orange County system. There are many mandates that the school system must address. Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that earlier in the week the Board of County Commissioners met with the Orange County Legislative Delegation and were in the position that the School Boards find themselves this evening. The Legislators spent some time telling the County Commissioners about financial constraints at the State level. Over the years Orange County government has consistently increased funding for the two school systems. In 1986 the per pupil allocation was $773 and in 1999 that same allocation has increased to $2,040. Orange County has the highest allocation in the State. He stressed that they are trying to do the right thing by the children and have shown that they are committed to the schools. Orange County is experiencing a new migration of citizens. He asked the County Manager to distribute to the members of the two school boards a chart showing the per pupil allocations for each county in the State. Bob Bateman commented that the district tax is brought up at every joint Board of County Commissioners and School Board discussion. He stated that this type of tax should not and would not pass in Orange County. The Board of County Commissioners have done well funding the schools for the entire time that he has been involved with the schools. However, he mentioned that along with the high funding comes high taxes. Orange County is probably one of the top five taxed school systems in the state. He repeated that a district tax was not a solution to funding for the Orange County systems. Chair Gordon stated that the Board of County Commissioners have not decided on a particular course of action. Rather this is a time for discussion of the various situations and possible options for future funding which is a problem which must be solved jointly. The question is how to get a handle on the problem of growth not paying for itself. An adequate public facilities ordinance is one possible solution. She stated that the Board of County Commissioners share the School Board's commitment to education. Keith Cook commented that even if there was no more growth there would still be a need for funding increases to support the current needs of the students. He mentioned that diversifying the tax base in the Hillsborough area is very important. Commissioner Brown commented that she identifies with the struggle that the School Board members face in fulfilling their mandate to provide an education to each and every student. There is a commitment on the part of the Board of County Commissioners as well to provide a quality education. This needs to be a joint effort. Orange County wants to pursue an AAA bond rating to assure that the schools will be financed in the best possible way. She reiterated Commissioners Halkiotis' comments regarding advocating with the Legislators and their comments that they would not be in a position to help with funding requests this year. Ken Touw indicated that the only way to solve the difference that are presented to the Board of County Commissioners for funding is to merge the school systems. The Board of County Commissioners have the power to do that. He also pointed out that the only way to relieve the pressure on the County budget would be to give the School Board's taxing authority. The proposal that John Link has presented of setting a fixed amount or percentage will not relieve the political pressure that is on the County Commissioners. There will continue to be grass roots support to meet the needs that have been identified by the individual schools. The two School Systems will present a budget within the limits set by the Board of County Commissioners but they will also identify the other needs that are not being met which means that the pressure to fund those needs will continue to be felt. Residential development does not pay for itself and it seems that the towns are approving residential development but not business development. This puts increased pressure on homeowners because of the lack of business development. CtA19990331 a.doc n 7 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS: Delores Simpson opened the discussion. She asked Bob Bateman to present the first item. Perception of County Tax Increases Being Blamed Primarily on the Schools: Bob Bateman referred to the fact that taxes have increased each of the last 12 years either through property taxes or through reevaluations. He feels that the school systems are being unfairly blamed for the tax growth in Orange County. Not only have all of the agencies that the County funds grown and received more funding, there are also more of those agencies. He feels it is unfair to blame the school systems when there are so many other reasons for the tax increases. Impact Fees or Impact Tax: Susan Dovenbarger mentioned that the Orange County School Board drafted a letter to the Legislators supporting Orange County's efforts to secure an Impact Tax. They also discussed this with their Legislators at a recent joint meeting. She requested an update with regard to the future of this request. Geof Gledhill reported that his understanding at this point was that an Impact Tax request would be presented by the Legislators. Keith Cook agreed with a comment made by Commissioner Halkiotis that Local Legislation for an Impact Tax would be introduced but would not pass. He stated that for this reason he feels that it is time to raise the current Impact Fee of $750. Although some of the new homes are for retirees and local residents purchasing new homes, most of them are for new residents who will be raising families here and impacting the schools. He feels that Impact Fees need to be raised. Susan Dovenbarger asked if it would be possible to waive the impact fee for those who already live here and are either buying or building a new home? Geof Gledhill stated that there was not a legal way in which to waive the fee. It can be reimbursed to those with low income. That is accomplished by having the fee paid into the School Capital Trust Fund. This money is then replaced by the County out of the General Fund. If we had approval to use an Impact Tax there would be other options. Keith Cook suggested applying the same reimbursement criteria to those individuals who are making 60% to 80% of the medium income in the County. Geof Gledhill stated that this fee could be made more progressive if the County had more accurate student generation data. He stated that he hopes that the census and our Geographic Information System would provide the kind of data necessary to pinpoint this information more accurately. It may be possible in the future to base the cost of the impact on the number of bathrooms or bedrooms. Chair Gordon stated that with the cooperation of the Legislature, it would be possible to implement other options, such as a real estate transfer tax which would be directly related to the sale of property. Commissioner Brown explained that the impact fee is only charged on new housing. In order to alleviate the impact on low income housing, the County has paid over $300,000 out of the general fund to reimburse Impact Fees for affordable housing. In response to a question, Geof Gledhill replied that it would be possible to exempt long term residents if a tax was being used but not with an impact fee. If a lifelong resident sells their home to move into a retirement home someone else is moving into the old home and they may have an impact on the schools. He also mentioned that the retirement home will also have another family in residence at some time in the future and they would probably have an impact on the schools. Need for a New Middle School: Susan Dovenbarger mentioned that the impact of the new subdivisions which are not yet built will cause both the new elementary school and high school to be at capacity before they are built. The capacity at the middle school level will need to be addressed in the near future. She referred to the Orange County School Capacity Information report which was included in the packet. This report shows figures for both enrollment and membership. Enrollment is the number of students who are on the books. The membership number is the data that is sent into the Department of Instruction on a monthly basis. That figure is calculated on the number of students in the building at the time of the count. She feels that capacity is a misleading number because it does not take into account the classrooms that must be taken out of regular use to accommodate the exceptional students. At Stanback Middle School that is a loss of two classrooms which are being used by one CtA19990331 a.doc student and two adults. Another three or four classrooms are lost to the year-round class schedule. With this loss of space, even the schools that seem to be below capacity are, in fact, at or above capacity. A. L. Stanback is requesting three mobile units to accommodate their projected enrollment. Delores Simpson mentioned that at C. W. Stanford they have also had to divide one classroom into two and provide other mobile classrooms. Kt=t'U C i 5: ionn UnK Drierny presemea informanon on eacn or me roiiowing reporrs wnicn are iocaiea, in meir entirety, in the permanent agenda file in the clerk's office. a) Adopt 1998-99 School budgets (attachment 3a-1 & 2) John Link indicated that the majority of changes between what the Board of County Commissioners approved compared to what the School Boards approved had to do with expansion items. b) School Board Policies on Use of School Property (attachment 3b) This report presents information on the school's policy on the use of school property. c) Schools Use of Sales Tax Reimbursements (3d-1) This report asks the schools if they have an estimate as to what kind of sales tax reimbursement they hope to receive based on the General Assembly finally giving them the reimbursement opportunity that other local governments have had from sales tax. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if his understanding was correct that the Alcohol Beverage Control concept was designed to produce a revenue stream for the public schools. John Link indicated that was one concept. The other reason was so that the State could regulate the control of alcohol. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that the ABC Board only generated $300,000 which went to the County general fund. He feels that all opportunities for revenue sources should be maximized. The ABC Board should look at streamlining their operations so as to increase their funding to the schools. John Link commented that the ABC Board was concerned with generating the amount of revenue that was anticipated even though sales have gone down. One area that needs to be addressed is what are their long range plans as far as distribution and where the stores will be located. Commissioner Halkiotis and John Link will study these issues and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. d) School Related Elements of 1999 County Legislative Agenda No comments were made. e) Timetables/Progress Reports for Major OCS/CHCCS Capital Projects No comments were made f) CurrentlAnticipated Budgetary Impacts of Charter Schools No comments were made. g) Summary of Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group (Attachment 3 g) Commissioner Brown stated that this group is meeting and reviewing key issues countywide and working toward effective recommendations. John Link referred to Item IV of this report which lists the proposed objectives which will be listed in the final report. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on April 6, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk Q 419990331 adoc