HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20050426APPROVED 6/7/2005
MINUTES
WORK SESSION
Orange County Commissioners
Orange County Board Of Education
Chapel Hill-Carrbaro Board of Education
April 26, 2005
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Board of Education and the Orange County Board of Education on Tuesday, April 26,
2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and Sean Barhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Manager Rod Visser, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be
identified appropriately below}
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Libbie
Hough, Vice-Chair Brenda Stephens, and Board Members Randy Copeland, Elizabeth Brown,
AI Hartkopf, Dennis Whitling. Superintendent Shirley Carraway was also present.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: Delores Simpson
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS
PRESENT: Chair Lisa Stuckey, Vice-Chair Elizabeth Carter, and Board Members Jamezetta
Bedford and Pam Hemminger. Superintendent Neil Pedersen was also present.
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS
ABSENT: Nicholas M. Didow, Mike Kelley, and Edward Sechrest
The meeting began at 7:45 p.m.
Chair Carey said that both school board chairs are running late and will join as soon as
possible. He said that this agenda started out with one topic and morphed into more because
the County Commissioners felt that it would be in everyone's interest to address at least some
of these topics. He said that the OCS board just had a report from Dr. Grumet last night at their
meeting and both school boards may not have had a chance to delve into the Educational
Excellence report yet.
Rod Visser distributed some information with appendices. He made reference to
appendix 11 and the historical context of the County and school capital funding policy.
1. CountylOCSICHCCS DiscussionlPolicy IssueslReports
a. Consideration of the 60140 Capital Funding Policy
Budget Director Donna Dean gave the presentation, which was also presented to the
County Commissioners last week.
Donna Dean explained the mathematical equations. She made reference to the Current
Policy, which is in the sheet entitled, Fiscal Year 2005-06 Capital Funding Options. This is the
baseline, where the County would get about $3.8 million, which is the least of any of the
Options 5A, 5B, and 5C are the options requested by the County Commissioners. The
major difference is, instead of including half of Cedar Ridge debt with OCS, this would remove
half of the responsibility. The difference between 5A, 5B, and 5C is that 5A allows for all of the
peak debt service to stay with the OCS, while the County would remove one half of the
responsibility of their share of Cedar Ridge debt. Option 5B is a 50/50 split - OCS is
responsible for one half of their share of Cedar Ridge debt and would receive one half of the
peak debt service. In option 5C, OCS would be responsible for one half of their share of Cedar
Ridge debt and would receive no peak debt service. There is no impact to CHCCS or the
County on these three options.
Lisa Stuckey arrived at ?: SS.
Commissioner Jacobs asked for an explanation of peak debt service and Rod Visser
said that this was a concept that was raised in 1996, when the County staff was developing
options related to how to pursue a $40 million band referendum, primarily for new schools and
renovations as well as for County projects. As the staff presented the options, the first batch
raised concerns, because in providing funding far a $40 million bond referendum with no tax
increase required that the pay-as-you-go monies had to be used to retire the debt service. The
concern among both school systems at the time was that they would lose substantial amounts
of money under pay-as-you-ga money over the next ten years compared to what they would
have gotten in pay-as-you-go money under the then existing capital investment plan. The
County Commissioners asked the staff to come up with other options. The revisions of the
options put the CHCCS in a "hold harmless" situation, but still left the OCS somewhat short
because they were paying about half of the debt service far Cedar Ridge High School. This is
where the issue of peak debt service came up. This means that, in the years fallowing the
issuance of the last batch of bonds, instead of reducing the amount that would go to capital
projects, the amount would stay the same, and then the difference between that and the amount
that was needed to retire the debt would be earmarked to the OCS to help make up some of the
shortfall.
Dennis Whitling said that he was told that the peak debt service does not come into play
as fast as the County thought it would. Rad Visser said yes, and that the last batch of bonds
was just sold for the Efland sewer.
Dennis Whitling said that under each proposal he sees about $29.5 million being applied
to total capital. He asked if each proposal would be the same total, but a different way of
allocating. Donna Dean said no. There are different amounts because options 1, 3, and parts
of 5 include the peak debt service. Other options do not include the peak debt service. Dennis
Whitling asked where the peak debt service money comes from.
Libbie Hough arrived at 8:15 p.m.
Rad Visser said that the staff would recommend that the peak debt service notion ga
away, because it is part of the problem with the current policy. There are a lot of different facets
and it is very complicated. The concept is about nine years old and the estimated revenues
associated with it have not been tracked.
Donna Dean said that in 1996-97, no one knew that interest rates would be as low as
they have been over the past several years. The County has had the opportunity to refinance
mast of the band indebtedness. This was never factored into the equation.
Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners asked the staff to simplify so that they
da not have to keep track of all of the different facets of the policy.
John Link said that if a 60140 split were pursued, the County would receive more
revenue than under the current policy. If the option is pursued for the OCS, either not
participating as much, or not participating at all and paying for Cedar Ridge, they will get more
funding and CHCCS will get less funding. He said that the overall funding is the same, but the
configurations and appropriations between the three entities are different.
Lisa Stuckey said that in options 5A-C, the total is significantly lower than the other
options. Donna Dean said that these options came about last week and she has not put as
much time in thinking those out as she has options 1-4.
Libbie Hough asked if these figures incorporate Elementary #10 and Middle School #5
that may be needed at CHCCS. Donna Dean said that these figures include the currently
programmed debt, which does not include Elementary #10, but does include the $12.8 million
that will be redirected from Elementary #10 to other projects as the Board sees fit. It also
includes the selling of $4.2 million in 213 net debt.
Libbie Hough said that when they refinance Elementary #10 and any unforeseen
projects, the pie would be cut again. She wants to keep the long-term focus.
John Link said that when they address debt service for Elementary School #10, it will be
with the additional ability to borrow funding and the County can then incur greater debt.
Elizabeth Brown asked about McDougle Middle School and the amount that CHCCS had
to use of their pay-as-you-go money and far how many years. Ken Chavious said that they
borrowed $9.6 million. OCS had $13.6 million for Cedar Ridge in 2000, and it goes away in
2010.
Commissioner Gordon said that the Board of County Commissioners asked for
information on the number of buildings for all of the schools and the County. She thought this
might be relevant when trying to figure out the three cents and one-cent allocation. She asked
the school boards to provide the dollar figures for the list of capital projects.
Lisa Stuckey said that they were asked not to provide the dollar figures. Commissioner
Gordan said that the staff might have said not to provide it, but the County Commissioners
would like to see it.
Chair Carey said that they know the school boards are waiting far a decision from the
Board of County Commissioners on which option will be pursued. He said that they would make
that decision at the May 3`d Board of County Commissioners' meeting. They still have to
discuss the questions that include the options and assumptions that staff put together.
b. School Funding Equity
Jahn Link said that this item was discussed at the Board of County Commissioners' work
session last week. He went through the major points as shown on the PowerPoint presentation
below:
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
Fall 2003 presentations, work sessions, public hearings on potential school merger
impacts and funding equity
September 15, 2003 staff report -appendices reflect hypothetical financial and
taxation impacts under various funding equity scenarios
Equity/merger actions reserved pending results of three education initiatives
o Educational Excellence Work Group - UNC School of Education study of
resources
o School Collaboration Work Group -regular facilitated meetings of Chair, Vice
Chair, Superintendents, Manager
o County/School Efficiency Study -Robert Segal, CPA
Recommendations for Increasing OCS Resources
Pre Kindergarten -12t"Grade
1. Increased Provision of Social Workers
2. Increased Resources for Exceptional Children {EC) Specialists in OCS
3. Improved Transportation for After-School Programs for OCS
4. District Resources for Grants and Data
5. Subject Area Specialists (Curriculum Alignment, Development, Implementation)
6. Increased Resources for Pre-School Services
Chair Carey said that the Board of County Commissioners has not adapted any one of
these tiers yet. The County Commissioners just gat it last week and they wanted the school
board's initial reactions to this funding concept.
AI Hartkopf said that last night someone asked Dr. Grumet about the recommendations
and if they were in priority order, and Dr. Grumet indicated that they were not. He wanted to
point this out. He made reference to the second to the last slide, and the third bullet. He asked
for elaboration on this (As an alternative, NC Statutes permit school appropriations by purpose,
function, or project). John Link said that is the process decided by State statute. He was
describing something that would involve all three parties in the agreement.
AI Hartkopf asked if it still has to be a per pupil allocation and that you cannot block one
system and not the other. Jahn Link said that the per pupil has to be the same. AI Hartkopf
said that this does not do very much for equity.
Lisa Stuckey made reference to tier III and asked if this is suggesting that ad valorem
property taxes be raised and that the CHCCS district tax be lowered to provide additional funds
to OCS. She asked if funding for CHCCS would remain the same, assuming there are no other
changes to tier I and tier II. John Link said yes and that in order for that to happen, there would
have to be actual agreement in writing.
Lisa Stuckey said that it seems to her that if there were an additional infusion of funds to
the OCS, she does not think the CHCCS Board would be interested in directing how the funds
would be spent. John Link said that they could be two separate agreements or just one
agreement between Orange County and the OCS.
John Link said that this tracks back to the discussion of the definition of equity.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that this is one of the reasons why he asked staff to go
somewhere and develop these ideas to achieve equity and to have the attorney to get all legal
questions answered. He does not understand why these questions cannot be answered once
and for all. The second issue is that OCS will not need anything for 1 Q years out with respect to
large buildings. He said that they need to start looking at the real needs because County
government has been giving its needs away. He thinks that a culture should be developed of
who really needs what.
Commissioner Jacobs passed around the County Facility Needs notebook far the school
boards to review.
Chair Carey said that the County would provide the school boards with a copy of this
notebook because everyone needs to understand that Orange County has a lot of pent up
needs that have to be addressed.
Chair Carey said that there are a lot of different scenarios and the County
Commissioners would like to hear from others.
Elizabeth Brown said that it seems that when they had merger discussions, the main
oppositions were against busing in the CHCCS and the desire for local control in the northern
district. She understands equity to mean fairness and equality. If the major issues are busing
and local control, then she thinks that equity would mean equal funding and not programmatic
equity.
Libbie Hough said that Dr. Grumet and Amy Anderson came to their board last night and
there was a really good turn out. The board has not had a chance to discuss this, but they will
this Monday. She thinks it is accurate to say that they were not surprised by the report and that
it affirmed things that they have been saying all along in their strategic plan and things that have
been coming to light in various task forces.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to reaffirm that she would like to proceed
toward equity and would like to see it defined. She would like to hear if the OCS board has
discussed any suggestions on how the Board of County Commissioners should proceed. She
said that there is only one way that she can think of that would work - to start with the principle
of holding CHCCS harmless -and then to raise taxes in the OCS. No matter how you cut it, the
$13 million is due to higher taxes in CHCCS. She asked the OCS board to have this
conversation of how to achieve funding equity.
d. New School Construction Updates - OCS Middle School #3 and CHCCS High
School #3
Chair Carey made reference to High School #3 and asked what the architect contributes
the 25% overage to. Lisa Stuckey said that fundamentally, it is the same situation that is faced
by anyone that is building right now. The costs have gone up significantly in terms of raw
materials across the board. Competition is also a factor, because there were only two bidders.
There is so much construction going on in this area and companies are not bidding unless they
feel that the project is worth it.
Chair Carey said that the last projection that the Board of County Commissioners saw
was that the school would be $4 million over the agreed upon budget and now it is $8 million.
He asked when it changed. Lisa Stuckey said that they put it out to bid and those were the
bids.
Elizabeth Carter said that the anticipation was that they would have more bidders.
Chair Carey said that normally the architects give estimates just before bids go out. Lisa
Stuckey said that the school board did not receive a report from the architects prior to putting it
out to bid.
Superintendent Neil Pedersen said that they did not receive a new figure before it went
out to bid, but for the last few months, the architects have updated the estimates.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the construction schedule seemed very optimistic. Lisa
Stuckey said that Carrboro is having a public hearing on the CUP tonight and they agreed that it
would be prudent to go forward with the bidding before the CUP was issued, so that when it is,
they will be ready to start immediately. She said that they are still on target to open in August
2007.
Commissioner Gordon said that she noticed in the estimate that there is money for the
upgrades to Smith Level Road. Carrboro has been discussing what to do with Smith Level
Road and which pot of money is to be used. She said that it looks like CHCCS might have to
foot the bill far some road improvements that it would not have had to pay for previously,
because now the NCDOT will not be making the road improvements until later.
Lisa Stuckey said that the road upgrades are estimated to be about $350,000.
Commissioner Halkiatis asked if there were things that were dropped off the list for the
high school. He asked about the costs of LEED categorization and Lisa Stuckey said that it
does not cost anything. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this information needs to be brought
forward to the County Commissioners. He said that two years after East Chapel Hill High
School was opened, the County Commissioners finally found out that the Town of Chapel Hill
had put $1.5 million worth of mandates on the school system. He asked the CHCCS board to
write down everything that is a cast of this building and everything that was tossed out.
options. Beginning with the sales tax, which is projected to be $9.6 million for next year, the
property tax dedicated to retire debt service is added to the sales tax, which is $13.1 million.
The Skills Development Center rental and the Inmate Jail Fees are added to this amount. This
brings the total revenue to pay debt and pay-as-you-go capital for schools and County to $22.9
million for next year under the current policy. From that $22.9 million, the existing projected
debt is subtracted, which is about $18.3 million. The net available pay-as-you-go revenue for
school and County projects would be $4.6 million for next year. The way the current policy is
written, once it gets down to the $4.6 million, the amount is split 50°lo to the schools and 50°!o to
the County. The schools and the County would each get $2.3 million. There is also $802,000
from the Public School Building Fund that the schools would receive. The Board of County
Commissioners has also committed 3 cents on the property tax rate for recurring capital far
schools. Next year, this is projected to be about $3.5 million. These three pieces would total
$6.6 million going to schools' pay-as-you-go far next year. This amount is split again to the
schools based on the average daily membership. OCS would get $2.5 million, plus $970,000
for impact fees, plus $275,581 for peak debt service, less $1.7 for their portion of Cedar Ridge
debt. The net amount for OCS, based on the current policy, is $2.1 million.
Of the $6.6 million, CHCCS would receive $4.1 million, plus $1.6 million in impact fees,
which totals $5.7 million for pay-as-you-go.
On the County's side, of the $4.6 million, the County would receive $2.3 million. Based
on the current policy, there is one cent on the property tax going to County projects, which is
$1.1 million. There are also smaller restricted revenues that would go into County projects -
$50,000 for Human Services automation projects; $50,000 for Utilities Extension; and $100,000
for Lands Legacy. The total for the County, based on the current policy, is $3.7 million.
The next sheet outlines options 1 and 2. This is where the 60/40 split is on the pay-as-
you-go revenues for the schools and the County, which is on line 42. The major differences
between option 1 and option 2 are the Cedar Ridge debt. These options are different from the
baseline option. In these options, the Public School Building Funds as well as school
construction impact fees are taken off the top to pay debt service. The three cents dedicated for
recurring capital for the schools would remain with the schools in bath options. The one-cent
dedicated for County capital projects would remain with the County. The existing school debt in
option 1, without Cedar Ridge being in the funding equation, is $13.2 million. If the Cedar Ridge
debt is commingled with the other debt and is no longer the responsibility of the OCS, the debt
service goes up to $14.9 million. Once it is allocated out, the net school debt is $9.8 million.
The current policy has bits and pieces of property tax paying for certain debt issuances.
This leaves $368,055 to be added to sales tax. The projected sales tax of $9.5 million is added.
This leaves the net amount available for school and County capital projects at $9.2 million far
option 1 and $7.5 million for option 2. The difference between option 1 and option 2 is the
Cedar Ridge debt.
The three cents property tax dedicated to schools recurring capital remains with the
schools for options 1 and 2. The total amount for OCS is $2 million for option 1 and $3 million
for option 2. The total amount for CHCCS is $5.5 million for option 1 and $4.9 million far option
2. The total amount for the County would be $4.8 million for option 1 and $4.1 million for option
2.
Donna Dean then explained options 3 and 4. These options are similar to options 1 and
2, with the only difference being the dedication of the 3 cents and the 1-cent. In options 1 and
2, these were separate and distinct (3 cents for schools and 1 cent for the County}. Options 3
and 4 offer an alternative to commingle the total 4 cents and put it in the 60/40 split, where the
schools would get 60°~ and the County would get 40°~.
Donna Dean explained each equation for options 3 and 4. This is on page 3 of the
handout, Fiscal Year 2005-06 Capital Funding Options.
Randy Copeland said that, from what he is hearing, the OCS would be a net loser either
way regarding the Cedar Ridge debt. Donna Dean said that before the 1996 policy was
adapted, the CHCCS was in a very similar position with McDougle Elementary.
Randy Copeland asked, if the County assumed to take over that debt from CHCCS, why
it would be imposed on the OCS. John Link said that there was an agreement in 1996 in which
the OCS requested that, in order to get Cedar Ridge High School built, they would pay about
half of the debt service using their pay-as -you-go funds.
Chair Carey said that this is a classic example of the difficulty with the old policy, which
lends itself to this kind of misunderstanding.
Commissioner Gordon said that it occurred to her that one difference has to do with
where the impact fees are counted. In the older version, the impact fees were counted at the
school district level, and in this new policy it is counted at the top of the debt service level. She
asked about this. Donna Dean said that it makes the formula simpler by dedicating those fees
to repay debt service. If the Public School Building Funds are dedicated to debt service, it
should alleviate them being pulled away by the State.
Rod Visser said that impact fees that are collected by the County or the towns are
accounted far in an impact fee trust fund for the school systems and Finance Director Ken
Chavious makes a transfer out of those trust funds to make sure that it covers the debt service.
Commissioner Gordon said that she recalls for CHCCS High School #3 that a lot of the
impact fee revenue between now and when the school comes online is earmarked. She thinks
there was around $17.5 million of debt service and the rest was to be paid for by pay-as-you-go
funds including impact fees. She asked if this was correct. Donna Dean said that she does not
have that spreadsheet with her but that $6 million was dedicated from previously collected
impact fees to go towards the high school. She believes they were dedicating for at least two
years, $1.6 million each year. She could not remember if it is any longer than that.
Commissioner Jacobs asked that Rod Visser explain appendix 11 for the school boards.
Rod Visser said that one of the things that was clear as he reviewed the documents from
1995-1997 was that the need for additional high school space in OCS was emerging at that
time. In April 1996, both school systems made presentations at the Board of County
Commissioners' work session about their needs. In early 1997, it was clear that there would be
a need for a new high school. The Capital Needs Task Force considered two options -full
funding of the new high school or for funding half of it {$12.5 million) through bonds and the
other half through pay-as-you-go funding through the OCS.
Lisa Stuckey said that she was on that task force and they took a tour of facilities across
the County. She was appalled at the ways that Orange High was trying to fit everything into a
cramped space. There was a lot of discussion about the funding scenarios. There was a
strong feeling that there should not be a tax increase to fund the high school.
Rod Visser said that the task force's specific recommendation to the County
Commissioners was $12.5 million from general obligation bonds and the remaining from pay-as-
you-go funding from OCS. This was the option that OCS had requested.
Libbie Haugh said that the paying back and the tying up have become more than
cumbersome for OCS. She said that, just like with CHCCS, when the County figured out how to
make it easier for the CHCCS with McDougle to run the school system and also deal with the
debt, they are asking far the same courtesy. She anticipates that this will happen. She thinks
the mast important thing is to see if there is a different alternative to what is in place currently.
Lisa Stuckey asked about the 10th year impacts and it was answered that this was on the
cumulative sheet.
Lisa Stuckey asked Donna Dean why options 5A, 5B, and 5C were $20 million less
annually. John Link said that one major concept is that the OCS is getting less revenue
because they are still paying off Cedar Ridge, and the County is receiving more revenue
because they do not have as much debt.
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
CONSIDERATIONS
• Main factor affecting funding equity is approximate annual proceeds of $13 million
from CHCCS special district tax
• At same point in the future, BOCC must define "equity" so that ultimate target will be
clear
o Absolute funding equity (e.g. local ar total annual per pupil funding identical
between school systems}?
o Programmatic equity (e.g. all OCS &CHCCS students with access to all of
each systems programs}?
o Or -somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum, and/or
some combination of funding and programmatic equity?
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
• If effort is to be made to narrow the local per pupil funding gap, there are three main
approaches prescribed in NC statutes available to BOCC:
1. Levy countywide supplemental tax
2. Levy Orange County Schools supplemental district tax
3. Increase countywide property tax rate
• First two approaches require majority approval in referendum of voters to establish
authority to levy tax; due to time constraints, cannot be implemented before 2006-07
• Third approach could be used for 2005-06
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
2005-06 CURRENT EXPENSE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
FY2004-05 per pupil appropriation of $2,623 as foundation
Potential increases in Countywide property tax rate for:
o Tier I -funding to address mandateslobligations (e.g. local match far State
teacher pay & benefit increases}
o Tier I I -funding (if any} to restore certain State education budget cuts
o Tier III -funding to address some portion of OCS staffing and programming
constraints identified in Educational Excellence report (all or some of
resulting per pupil increase for CHCCS could be offset by reductions to
CHCCS district tax)
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
2005-06 CURRENT EXPENSE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
• Memoranda of understanding to establish mutual expectations of how Tier III funds
would be used
• If major needs might go unfunded, consider mechanisms outside of current expense
appropriation, such as:
o Contracts for nursing and social worker support
o Contract with Durham Tech, schools for middle college program
• As an alternative, NC Statutes permit school appropriations by purpose, function ar
project
SCHOOL FUNDING EQUITY
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE REPORT
Commissioner Foushee said that she is grateful to the Manager for bringing the tier
options, because she thinks it begins to address the question of equity. She is wondering if this
is appropriate for the chairs to begin addressing bringing forth a definition for equity that will
meet the requirements to move forward. She thinks that equity means equal access at the bare
minimum. She thinks the tiered approach is a good starting point.
Lisa Stuckey said that she agrees with additional funding far OCS and that OCS should
define the needs and how to meet them. She said that tier III offers some interesting
possibilities, particularly with the collaboration efforts.
Jamezetta Bedford said that her only concern with tier I II is that the CHCCS not
stagnate. There are citizens who want to pay additional taxes for additional programming.
There is a very significant increase in the CHCCS budget. She thinks tier III could be tricky, but
she has nothing against fully funding the needs of OCS.
Lisa Stuckey said that Jamezetta Bedford speaks far their whole board on this issue.
Randy Copeland said that he disagrees that they are not equally funded. He thinks the
County Commissioners do an excellent job of funding the schools. Orange County is well
funded compared to a lot of the counties in the State. He said that CHCCS does choose to pay
a district tax and the citizens of rural Orange County have never chosen that tax. He thinks this
should go to a vote. He made reference to their budget hearing last night, and said that he
came to the conclusion that no matter how much taxes are raised, there will never be enough to
meet the needs and wants of the school systems. He does not think it can be equal in the
County unless the people in rural Orange County vote to have a district tax equal to that of
CHCCS.
AI Hartkopf said that he is exceptionally grateful for the money that the Board of County
Commissioners has allocated to the school systems. He said that there is equity right now and
there is also democracy. He said that CHCCS has elected to exercise their democratic rights
and impose additional taxes on themselves. However, a $13 million difference is considerable.
He knows there is equity in the per pupil numbers.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the Building Blocks presentation was included in the
information to the school boards and it was answered na. He said that everything the County
Commissioners have received in the last two weeks related to schools should be included in
this information. He thinks there needs to be another meeting with the school boards before the
final budget decisions are made.
c. Initial Reactions of School Boards to the Educational Excellence Report
Elizabeth Carter said that they recognize that the children that they serve in schools
today are much different than they were 20 years ago. She thinks that there will always be the
subject of funding. She thought that tier III was the way to address some of the things in the
Educational Excellence Report. She does not want to feel that they are begrudged the special
district tax. She truly wants the OCS to be fully funded at the rate that they deserve and she
also wants CHCCS to be funded at a rate that they have become accustomed to. She hopes
that CHCCS is not held stagnant because something different has to be done in OCS.
Elizabeth Brawn said that it seems that the issue is that the district tax in CHCCS
impacts the per pupil funding available to OCS. The only way to increase funding for OCS is to
decrease the district tax in CHCCS because the State law says that the County has to fund
equally per pupil. She said that the OCS board has not discussed having a tax of its own.
Jamezetta Bedford made reference to Dr. Grumet's report and said that her conclusions
were accurate. She said that she has a daughter with autism and severe retardation and while
Dr. Grumet concludes that social workers are essential for improving exceptional children's
services, it is not how it works in CHCCS. She said that Dr. Grumet's underlying reasoning was
wrong.
e. Process for Developing Policy Recommendations on School Construction
Standards and Building Capacity
Chair Carey said that the collaboration group should start discussing these issues and
making recommendations to the three governing bodies. All boards agreed.
Commissioner Gordon said that the first priority should be to define equity.
Chair Carey said that the Board of County Commissioners has not discussed this yet, so
he hesitates to include it.
Commissioner Gordon said that building capacity is very important to be addressed.
Chair Carey said that he would rather not set the priorities for the group tonight.
With no further items to address, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50.
Moses Carey, Jr.
Chair
Donna 5. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board