Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-28-1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1982 12:00 P.M. NOON COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA The Orange County Board of Education has requested a joint meeting with the Board of Commissioners to discuss the 1982-83 capital appropriation to that school system. /1--.4744447 liA6401/1/ /Pr RICHARD E. WHITTED, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS � . . J���� �� v�� 4 r � MINUTES JUNE 28, 1082 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on Monday June 28, 1982, at MOO Noon, in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Court- house, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners 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 Cnmpton, 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. Compton commended the Commissioners on their funding of schools' currt saying the Commissioners had done well in that item and the School . ..urd 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 Sohool Board through thisop' l 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 capital outlay appropriation to that school system. Mr. Schwartz acknowledged that "these are hard times for everyone" but "especially for the Orange County �� � ���L � - __4 School System." He said the increase in current expense, less than 3%, was 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 saying that although the $476^000 was a jump up over the average of $300,000 appropriated for capital each year since I977, "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 /iTihen 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 law 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 sohools,^Mr. 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. �7� . ~ 8����^ �-` 13' 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 staf 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 Nillhoit also pointed out that the sales tax projection figure was provided by the State and he felt the County should not project higher. ~ — `��n��'� i ' 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 J 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 deades 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 00,000 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 youY It's the School Board's position that you do not have adequate funding to support a system of free educat'nn 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 ���� m«�3 �~ / 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 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 Nr. May,the conxultant,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 1982-83 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'nurned Richard E. Whitte", Chcir Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk . / INDEX JUNE 28, 1982 TOPIC ACTION PAGE 5p. Mtg. w/ Oj. Cty. Bd. of Ed. Chair to arrange mtg. to discuss capital needs 5 FINANCIAL INFORMATION STATISTICAL PROFILE CURRENT EXPENSE Statewide State Federal - Local Total 1974-75 666.25 131 .03 189.70 986.98 1975-76 692.06 136.30 206.92 1 ,035.28 1976-77 747.18 149.12 230.22 1 ,126.52 1977-78 834.95 160.68 317.46 1 ,313.09 1978-79 935.44 192.68 349.13 1 ,477.25 1979-80 1 ,050.40 216.48 , 403.67 1,670.55 % increase 57.7 65.2 112.8 69.3 Orange County, State Federal Local Total 1974-75 728.06 128.28 210.52 1 ,066.86 1975-76 744.22 106.29 268.10 1 ,118.61 1976-77 828.76 121 .67 296.62 1 ,247.05 1977-78 856.87 129.53 417.81 1 ,404.21 1978-79 940.15 181 .32 438.74 1 ,560.21 --, 1979-80 -.-- 1 ,080.58 199.95 554.91 1 ,835.44 % increase 48.4 55.9 163.6 72.0 Chapel Hill-Carrboro State Federal Local Total 1974-75 676.08 118.40 393.33 1 ,187.81 1975-76 692.47. 75.67 424,90 1 ,193.04 1976-77 789.12 83.55 522.04 1 ,394.71 1977-78 859.11 116.17 647.22 1 ,622.50 1978-79 941.73 155.54 724,65 1 ,821 .92 1979-80 1 ,032.64 131 .43 782.35 1 ,946.42 % increase 52.7 10.9 98.9 63.9 4,,.. .4-.,_ - .. ORANGE COUNTY CAPITAL OUTLAY - ACTUAL - PER AUDIT REPORTS 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 Actual Actual Actual Actual $389,890.34 $201,657.57 $132,238.00 $197,609.00 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Actual Actual Actual Actual $213,604.00 $854,318.00 $1,310,223.00 $2,164,376.00 1980-81 1981-82 Actual Actual $591,578.00 $1,682,332.97 Total Actual 10 Years $7,737,826,88 10 $773,782.69 Prepared by County Finance ,,. . .. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS CAPITAL OUTLAY - ACTUAL - PER AUDIT REPORTS 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual $271 ,497.11 $420,111 .99 $1 ,620,961 .00 $931 ,727.00 $397,080.00 ($113,080.00) 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual $1 ,640,314.00 $1 ,462,025.00 $548,174.00 $348,751.00 $300,000.00 ($1 ,420,314.00) ($1 ,178,825.00) ($245,150.00) ($42,631.00) Total Actual 10 Years $7,898,641.10 i 10 = $789,864.11 Per Year Average —- Bond issue 1977 - $6,000,000 $3,000,000 ea. $3,000,000 ea. Principal & Interest total payback - $10,261 ,675 5,130,837.50 ea. Prepared by County Finance CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOLS CAPITAL OUTLAY - ACTUAL - PER AUDIT REPORTS 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 - 'Actual - -Actual ---- - Actual - Actual- -- Actual $654,160.00 $708,800.00 $982,155.00 $632,000.00 $928,182.00 ($537,182.00) 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual $1,758,391.00 $1,363,627.00 $253,559.00 $269,760.00 $300,000.00 ($1,438,391.00) ($1,024,427.00) Total ActOal 10 Years $7,850,634.00 + 10 = $785,063.00 Per Year Average Bond issue 1977 - $6,000,000 $3,000,000 ea. $3,000,000 ea. Principal & Interest total payback - $10,261,675 $ 5,130,837.50 ea. a,e4/4/4 Ao INFORMATION REQUESTED BY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • 6-26-1 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS Disposition of school buildings and property School Building Date Sale Price Purchaser Efland Elementary 2/15/82 $47,905.00 Efland Ruritan Cl Cedar Grove Elem. 8/2/76 10.00 Orange Co. Comm. Old G.A. Brown Elem. 10/20/75 10.00 Orange Co. Comm. Caldwell School 2/4/74 5,143. 520 L.D. Kirkland Aycock School 7/30/73 37,000.00 Cedar Grove Ruril West Hillsborough 11/1/71 23,750.00 E. Kennedy Realt3 St'. Marys School 4/9/69 -0- CD Episcopal DiocesE White Cross School 7/17/67 14,900.00 Edmiston Realty Murphy School 8/5/63 11,000.00 T.L. Underwood 1. This amount was granted to the school system out of a net selling price of $15,448.89. This was the result of a stipulation in the original deed from the Miller family, in which two heirs had a claim on the property. Those two heirs were granted two-thirds of the net selling price. 2. The Episcopal Diocese deeded this property to the Board of Education, with the requirement that if it were to cease to be used as a school the property would revert to the Diocese. • Qa0H4 range OCnnntg ,ActiaoIs COUNTY ; ZOO EAST KING STREET ff440aou6+ HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 oPFICE or THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-8126 MEMO TO: R. Mike Simmons • FROM: Kathy Battern,ej DATE: June 25, 1982 SUBJECT: Analysis of Capital Outlay The,N.C. State Board of Education defines appropriations for the Capital Outlay Fund to include: (a) The acquisition of real property for school purposes: (b) Renovation, reconstruction of buildings and other structures; (c) Acquisition or replacement of furniture and furnishings, insturctional apparatus, data processing equipment, business machines, etc. ; (d) Acquisition of school buses as additions to the fleet; (e) Acquisition of activity buses and other motor vehicles; (f) Other expense as assigned by the uniform budget format. It is significant to note that unlike the schools, the Orange County budget as presented by the Manager, maintains vehicles, furniture and furnishings, data processing equipment and business machines within the General Fund and not within Capital Projects. First, a summary review of actual cost of the major categories is as follows: Year Land & Buildings Equipment Vehicles June 30, 1977 $266,973 67% $119,197 30% $10,965 3% June 30, 1978 92,706 35% 130,809 49% 44,529 16% June 30, 1979 100,622 33% 158,279 51% 48,593 16% June 30, 1980 135,413 33% 196,889 49% 73,595 18% June 30, 1981 166,569 48% 168,123 48% 14,447 4% It is apparent in summary review, that equipment is a major portion of the Capital Outlay fund and is considered necessary to the instruction of the students. The $3,000,000 Capital Bond Issue was available, and applied to the schools from 1978 through 1980. In response to Chairman Whitted's request for a 10 year analysis by project, we have five years' data available as cited in the Retention of Records requirement. We are in the process of analysing records regarding major repairs, improvements to buildings, designated building repairs and site improvements and will forward that upon completion. However, a detail as indicated in the audit reports is as follows: - N. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Grady Brown: Land & Buildings $391 12,654 Instructional Equip 3,746 4,691 Media Equipment 1,522 2,008 Special Equipment 2,425 Playground Equipment 399 Subtotal 790 7,693 19,353 27,831 Cameron Park: Land & Buildings 4,975 9,451 1,794 Instruction Equip 2,121 5,278 Media Equipment 3,340 2,644 Special Equipment 10,190 8,350 *Bond Issue 184,417 200 Subtotal 4,975 184,417 25,302 18,066 232,76C Central Elementary Land & Buildings 1,195 2,697 2,134 Instructional Equip 3,144 4,183 Media Equip 1,586 2,188 Piano 500 Subtotal 1,195 3,197 4,730 8,505 17,62 Efland-Cheeks Land & Buildings 2,866 Instructional Equip 4,264 4,341 Media Equipment 1,279 1,661 Special Equipment 5,656 5,749 *Bond Issue 174,717 104,677 Subtotal 174,717 115,876 14,617 Orange High Land & Buildings 6,636 31,405 46,632 14,958 Instructional Equip 13,264 21,166 Media Equipment 2,098 1,848 Special Equipment 8,975 *Bond Issue 491,141 2,044 Subtotal 6,636 522,546 64,038 46,947 640,11 A.L. Stanback Land & Buildings 823 2,410 2,376 5,451 Instructional Equip 6,458 4,879 6,911 Media Equipment 1,358 2,016 Special Equipment 2,555 Subtotal 7,281 2,410 11,168 14,378 35,2: Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 C.W. Stanford: Land & Buildings $4,281 $7,894 $30,035 Instructional Equip 12,234 6,977 Media Equipment 756 1,426 *Bond Issue 230,533 26,030 Subtotal 234,814' 46,914 38,438 $320,: General Site Development 16,1.18 18,430 34,! Major Repairs: Land & Buildings 9,691 6,783 9,343 4,690 30,! Improvements to Buildings Land & Buildings 144,483 1,789 2,996 44,710 Heating. Systems 12,517 Electrical " 5,406 *Bond Issue 3,066 5,768 Subtotal 162,406 1,789 11,830 44,710 220,; Designated Building Improvements: Land & Buildings 18,533 18, Maintenance Shop: Land & Buildings 964 10,314 Other Equipment 18,656 44,406 39,897 Vehicles 10,638 13,641 Tractors 15,131 806 *Bond Issue 46,396 Subtotal 66,016 70,175 64,658 200, Undesignated-improvements to Sites: Land & Buildings 16,646 25,578 40,603 Playgrounds 10,790 *Bond Issue 86,260 Subtotal 16,646 36,369$ 126,863 179,; Central Office: Instructional Equip 607 656 Media Equipment 139 593 Other Equipment 11,567 9,806 4,814 5,069 228 Data Processing 38,180 3,260 Vehicles 5,807 . Subtotal 11,567 9,806 4,814 49,802 4,737 80,' Business Affairs: Equipment 6,018 1,944 590 8,! Instructional: Equipment Schools 56,124 53,658 Equipment Music 5,010 1,130 Equipment Division _______ 7,532 Subtotal - - J4-,/t3d "5777 /7532 129,2 ---.......1. 111111111111■1111111111 Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Transporation Division: Other-Equipment 8,245 4,385 2,521 4,196 Land & Buildings 4,628 3,673 8,611 School Buses 6,357 32,119 Vehicles 44,529 48,593 Subtotal 10,965 56,447 61,589 W.,-6415 471976- 167,8: Vocational Education: Other-Equipment 27,968 7,919 7,956 6,449 7,207 Regular Program 12,671 5,705 Handicapped Program 1,388 Subtotal 42,027 'TOW 7,956 6,449 7,207 77,26 School Furniture Replacement: 46,986 11,489 58,47 Personnel Division: 738 73; School Food Services: Land & Buildings 4,426 6,711 Equipment 2,518 3,947 2,225 Subtotal 4,426 2,518 10,658 2,225 19,82; New Buildings & Facilities: New Site 38,853 Equipment 20,939 38,963 15,380 114,135 Handicapped Van: 9,900 9,900 Media Centers: Library 34,926 Equipment 10,869 172853 Subtotal 34,926 10,869 17,853 63,648 1tr INFORMATION COMPILED FOR OUR USE ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS 1982-83 CAPITAL FUNDING Potential Priority Uses $476,250.00 Minor Capital Improvements (7 Schools) $215,610 Micro-Computer Acquisition 33,000 Van - Handicapped Students Transportation 19,000 Replacement - Activity Bus 21,000 C. W. Stanford - Roof Repair (Partial) 100,000 Orange High - Roof Repair 55,000 Energy Retrofit (Stanford, Cameron Park) 5,000 Instructional Equipment (only part of need) 27,640 $476,250 CAPITAL NEEDS NOT INCLUDED 1. Balance of Roofing Needs & Retrofit $215,500 2. Boiler Room Gas Detectors 3,500 3. Balance of Instructional Equipment 34,460 4. Media Equipment Replacement 8,542 5. Land Acquisition 134,000 6. Architectural Fees 125,000 7. Equipment - Business Affairs & Personnel 780 8. Equipment - Instructional Services 14,500 9. Equipment - Central Services 22,400 10. Equipment - Maintenance 36,000 11. Equipment - Transportation 5,350 12. Equipment - Vocational Education 8,000 13. Classroom Furniture Replacement 28,000 14. Food Service Equipment Replacement 9,900 15. Special Equipment Needs (Stanback, Orange High) 8,450 16. Site Improvement; i.e. , Erosion Control 62,175 17. Contingency 10,000 18. Undesignated Repairs & Improvements 15,000 Subtotal $741,557 Less Other Sources 26,000 Total Unmet Needs $715,557 6/28/82 - Revised • CAPITAL FUNDING HISTORY YEAR: 1982-83 1. Amount of request submitted to Superintendent $ 2,576,698 2. Amount Board of Education approved for submittal to Commissioners 1,217,807 3. Other sources of revenue 26,000 4. Amount allocated by Commissioners to Board of Education 476,250 5. Shortfall of approved amount (#2 less #3 and #4) 715,557 YEAR: 1981-82 1. Amount of request submitted to Superintendent $ 1,951,788 2. Amount Board of Education approved for submittal to Commissioners 869,640 3. Other sources of revenue. 20,000 4. Amount allocated by Commissioners to Board of Education 300,000 5. Shortfall of approved amount (#2 less #3 and #4). . .. . 549,640 YEAR: 1980-81 1. Amount of request submitted to Superintendent $ 1,646,377 2. Amount Board of Education approved for submittal to Commissioners 487,253 3. Other sources of revenue 17,000 4. Amount allocated by Commissioners to Board of Education 306,120 5. Shortfall of approved amount (#2 less #3 and #4) 164,133 YEAR: 1979-80 1. Amount of request submitted to Superintendent $ Currently 2. Amount Board of Education approved for submittal to unavailable Commissioners 448,437 3. Other sources of revenue 33,500 4. Amount allocated by Commissioners to Board of Education 303,024 5. Shortfall of approved amount (#2 less #3 and #4) 111,913 YEAR: 1978-79 1. Amount of request submitted to Superintendent $ Currently 2. Amount Board of Education approved far submittal to unavailable Commissioners 505,863 3. Other sources of revenue 11,000 4. Amount allocated by Commissioners to Board of Education 283,000 5. Shortfall of approved amount (#2 less #3 and #4) 211,863 CAPITAL FUNDING HISTORY Page 2 YEAR: 1977-78 1. Amount of request submitted to Superintendent $ Current 2. Amount Board of Education approved for submittal to unavail; Commissioners 555,27 3. Other sources of revenue 155,19: 4. Amount allocated by Commissioners to Board of Education 220,00( 5. Shortfall of approved amount (#2 less #3 and #4) 180,08: ��yy ^ 1l1 �-r C`7 o a .`�► L.' _� tv r-� •� co © .p G N 1 a G ^ ^ Rf C: SI 1.7 M N ppb J^�. 3 1 • • Ch Ma Ill in up f0 YI n W ....a N 10 _7 a al 4-I 4T an w.. ..= ' V •r1 ti .7 Py Q 2 o •• V C1' •-. n CO 10 C .. I r.' N p 1 4 l w w NMI N 117 N C C in .•1 r+ 10 1) 4 ap7 W in {M X!0 ti N in CO 0.1 r C11 N7 in no cp. no^yy 1'/ t 1 1 1 Q N1'l 1{�� Cu! ■C'1115 n Q ICi Ni Ml 10 CO I6 ") N .,.._1.1.) .f v to an ' .z7 Nei 4/I..1 v 1 4. re 0 a .. in 0 4 0 0 i P. CO �� • A ^ on a Na o' h N • 0I�l •'1 N7 M CO N7 1 a 1 / • MS N V in OS N O a N'! 0 Mt IM 10 10 Ci ![• CO ICI CT IG p n 14 ma nil orn CV sis t C V . ar t" N1 co d In o CM e, N ' a r~ b in 4 in o Ioo in O a A •0 an Q N 0 ..: 0; 1 1 I W a /•1 r N. N7 4.44 U C3 a P. 74 w w C9 c if)01 CO tl• lV `_ 4i A CI N Q ID N 10 Q 1.0 ID N a N in C O 0 x go `b an in N. W© Lo. 2 b. In 0 N 0 i � --.=:.--C A a in � Ql I p a fe a Ro, 3 cr 'r i W 10 q 4.•• in a v. w C am .r N ^• • .M N N r' N. S IC/ IO NI N ^ P. ... O 1� i.? �!I in ID m ^ CO N) in CO;704 M N CD n l0 N IL) v n�•@@C N) iii Cl A P.0 CO .4. a 5 .4 1 • ..a M 0 l.7 OI Ii7 W. O? N N in CM A r 0 .OG 101 • . Id in u CM••• in N 3 N OU p C a © .•. 141 O M N .4 N7 a v 1' a 110 k 1 111 N. ID N CA lA C11 .•. W N ow �' A ID 1X01 an w �C 1 • . . . to•llpp N is C\l ONi P. 47 N N 5 I30 1 .0.7 CO p&� �.1 ! N 30 101.7 V •• ... re �C} . r1•.1 10 N1 i7 coI la w 1 ti 01 la 44.1 0 S 717 •N++ Cwo ! G " 41 wb O y C CD `{ p L 411 4 •y0 Cn to _ II7 VI .0 07 1. .._ C: 1 11:44 4 I'.1%O Ea. Eig y •C ICI 1: Tel •O r� DI S/ CK L , C: O .r r Y N b C y 47,m O r CI C:r N 0 C ) O A S Y 0 .0 C1 ... w 0 1. y .4 CM .: N 0. 0. 10 CO S V i- W • - x i 7'4 ORANGE COUNTY HILL813 ORO 1.7 GII No Raul CAROLINA gaicatfixd 1752 MEMORANDUM TO: The Board FROM: The Cle47' RE: NACo Conference DATE: 6/28/82 • If any of you need e:Check_advanced to cover expenses at the NACo Conference . _ please let me know aSSOon as possible so that I may comply with the Finance Department's deadlipe,fbr such requests. _ . Thank you. . y/^ 46 ------- 6-26 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS Disposition of school buildings and property School Building Date Sale Price Purchaser Efland Elementary 2/15/82 $47,905.00 Efland Ruritan ( -- --- Cedar Grove -Elem-.- 8/2/76- - - - - 10.00 - - Orange Co-,-CommH Old G. A. Brown Elem. 10/20/75 10.00 Orange Co. Comm. Caldwell School 2/4/74 5,143.520 L.D. Kirkland Aycock School 7/30/73 37,000.00 Cedar Grove Ruri West Hillsborough 11/1/71 23,750.00 E. Kennedy Realt St. Marys School 4/9/69 -0- Episcopal Dioces White Cross School 7/17/67 14,900.00 Edmiston Realty Murphy School 8/5/63 11,000.00 T.L. Underwood L. This amount was granted to the school system out of a net selling : price of $15,448.89. This was the result of a stipulation in the original deed from the Miller family, in which two heirs had a claim on the property. Those two heirs were granted two-thirds of the net selling price. 2. The Episcopal Diocese deeded this property to the Board of Education, with the requirement that if it were to cease to be used as a school the property would revert to the Diocese. .1 . • `J,4•.• % •• 6 " INDEX JUNE 28, 1982 TOPIC ACTION - PAGE 5p. Mtg. w/ Oj. Cty. Bd. of Ed. Chair to arrange mtg. to discuss capital needs 5