HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-17-2000-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2000
Action Agenda
Item No. .~ ~
SUBJECT: School Funding Options Task Force Report
DEPARTMENT: Commissioners/Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Task Force Report
(previously distributed)
4/7/00 Letter with CHCCS Comments
4/13/00 Memo with OCS Comments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Commissioners Carey & Jacobs, ext 2125
John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To discuss the draft report from the School Funding Options Task Force.
BACKGROUND: As one element of their adopted goals for FY 1999-2000, the County
Commissioners charged the Manager and staff to prepare a report outlining options for
establishing parameters for funding the public schools in fiscal year 2000-2001 and beyond.
Staff presented this report in August 1.999, and the options therein outlined were discussed in
December 1999 in a joint meeting between the BOCC and the two school boards. School
board members suggested that a work group composed of school board members and
Commissioners be convened to review those options and to make recommendations to the
BOCC.
In January 2000, the Board appointed a short duration School Funding Options Task Force,
consisting of two members each of the Board of Commissioners, the Orange County Board of
Education, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. The County Manager, the two
Superintendents, and appropriate staff have provided support to the Task Force. The Task
Force met twice in February. A draft report from the Task Force was prepared and discussed at
the joint work session between the BOCC and the two school boards on March 27, 2000. At
that time, both school boards indicated the intention to discuss the report at their respective
next meetings. CHCCS reviewed the report at their April 6 meeting, and provided comments in
the attached April 7 letter. OCS discussed the report at their April 10 meeting and provided
comments in the attached April 13 memorandum.
The BOCC may wish to review the feedback from the two school boards and consider either at
this meeting, or at the April 24 budget work session, giving direction to the Manager regarding
2
parameters that should be observed in determining the level of school funding to be included in
the Manager's Recommended 2000-2001 budget.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of the
Task Force report. However, the Board's decisions on school funding parameters will have a
significant impact on future school funding. Those decisions will particularly affect current
expense appropriations, which for FY 1999-2000 exceed $34 million in the County's ,General
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the draft report
and school board comments pertaining to the report, and provide appropriate direction to the
Manager and staff, either at this meeting, the April 24 budget work session, or both.
~.,
~}
~ ~_
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools '~'~ W~-~'~~
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road ' ~~' ~ ~ ~~;n~ .`
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2881 `
' ~ ' 1~ .~.. -..•~-.i ~'
The Board of Education Telephone: 919/967-8211 Ext. 226
FAX: (919) 933-4560
Neil G. Pedersen Elizabeth Mason Carter, Chair
Superintendent Board of Education
Apri17, 2000
Mr. Moses Carey, Chair
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Deaz Moses:
At its regulazly scheduled meeting last evening, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Board of Education asked that the following feedback be shared with the Boazd of County
Commissioners regazding the School Funding Options Task Force Report. I have again
attached a copy of the February 27, 2000 memo concerning school funding formulas.
I believe that consensus was reached by the school board task force members from
both districts on the following matters and that these points of consensus have not been
adequately recognized publicly:
1. It is not possible to answer the question as to how much of the county budget should be
earmazked for education. Facfors that impact this issue such as the tax base, anticipated
revenues, and the economic objectives for the county as well as an array of needs
throughout the county are not -known to school board members.
2. It would be more reasonable to sepazate capital funds from operating funds when
determining funding allocations because the capital fund decisions are known and
predictable. This would lead to a funding approach as proposed by our district in
Mode16.
3. School Boazd task force members strongly supported aneeds-based approach to
educational funding, as captured in our proposed Model 7.
4. The school boazd members of the task force voiced appreciation for the Board of
County Commissioners' consistent struggle and efforts to meet the needs of education
in Orange County and acknowledged that the Boazd of County Commissioners' sound
reasoning and good judgment have served education well in the past and will continue
to do so in the future.
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education encourages a continuing open
dialogue with the Board of County Commissioners regazding its budget issues as well as
other issues of common interest between the Board of Education and the County
Commissioners. It is believed that discussions need to occur to determine an acceptable
definition of "a mandate" and the approaches each board pursues to meet its mandates. In
addition, discussions are needed regarding the struggles the Boazd of Education faces in
meeting the demands of continual growth within its school svstem.
4
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education wants to emphasize that it has heard
the voice of the County Commissioners regarding the need for fiscal restraint and it will
keep that in mind as it pursues its 2000-2001 budget requests.
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education wishes to express its .appreciation
for the Board of County Commissioners' consistent support for the education of the
student citizens of this county.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Didow, Vice Chair
Board of Education
ND/asb
c: Board of Education
Neil G. Pedersen
F
~S
"k
®range ~Lourttp ~oarb of ~butatio~t
RANDY BRIDGES, SUPERINTENDENT
~irrgboroug~j, .~~ 27278
BOARD MEMBERS
SUSAN HALKIOTIS, CHAIR
KEITH COOK, VICE CHAIR
ROBERT H. GATEMAN
RICHARD KENNEDY
DAVID KOLBINSKY
DELORES SIMPSON
BRENDA STEPHENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Link, Coun~~ t55y Manager
FROM: Susan A. Halkio~is~Chair
Orange County Boazd of Education
RE: School Funding Sessions
DATE: April 13, 2000
5
200 EAST KING STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
TELEPHONE: 919-732-8126
FAX: 819-732-9120
During the April 10, 2000 meeting of the Orange County Boazd of Education, we discussed the proposed
funding of schools information that was provided to our Board during the joint meeting with the
Commissioners. The Boazd would like for the Commissioners to consider the following concerns as they
move towazd reaching a final decision on these matters:
First, the figures that we've used to illustrate the funding percentage that Orange County designates to
education continues to lump together local operating costs, capital funding and debt retirement. Certainly
the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners have generously provided consistent funding increases over
the last ten years, but it is impdrtant to recognize that capital needs and funding for new schools represented
a lazge portion of those increases. Further, given the rate of growth that Orange County anticipates, it is
likely that capital and building needs will continue to demand at least a financial allocation for the long
term. This means that any tazget or cap. on the percentage of the general fund allocated to education would
necessarily put operating costs funding in competition with capital or building funding as facilities are
upgraded or built to meet the demands of growth. Our school system has no district tax that could be
accessed for the shortage in operating funds that are likely to occur in this event -and it is unlikely that our
district would approve adding a district'tax if put to a referendum.
Although there has been much discussion about the consistency and definition of mandates by the two
school systems, there aze high cost items like state salary increases, utility cost increases and a growing
ESL population that we clearly do not control and that continue to represent a substantial portion of our
annual funding requests to you. For example, the above items alone will require a 7% increase in our
budget for the 2000-2001 school year.
Finally, while we know that Orange County school funding ranks neaz the top as compazed with other
districts across the state, we also know that North Carolina doesn't compare so favorably with the average
per pupil allocation for the US as a whole. Our students will be competing for colleges and jobs with
students from all over the country, not just students from North Carolina, and we need to be aware of how
we compaze on a national basis as well.
Our Board unanimously agreed that until the above concerns can be addressed or resolved that we keep the
current budget process in place. We are committed to keeping all of you informed about new initiatives
and programs and to making certain that we provide sound reasoning for any requests for additional funds.
/ha
c: Orange County Board of Education
Randy Bridges, Superintendent