Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~. <br />. 10 <br />C. EQUITY FUNDING IN THE RECURRING CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE <br />TWO SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN ORANGE COUNTY <br />John Link presented for consideration two methods for revising <br />the method by which recurring capital funds are allocated in the two school <br />systems. Method 1 is to allocate recurring capital on a per pupil basis. <br />Method 2 would allocate on a per pupil basis and continue the funding for <br />the Orange County Schools at the rate of $750,000 per year thereby holding <br />harmless the Orange County system. <br />John Link indicated that the two school systems have not seen <br />this proposal. The Board agreed that it would be appropriate to receive <br />feedback from the two systems before they take action on this item. <br />Commissioner Willhoit said that while it is appropriate that the <br />Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system receive additional funds because of <br />increased space, the question of whether or not $750,000 would be adequate <br />for the Orange County system is an issue. He feels there should be some <br />mechanism for growth either on a per pupil basis or increased <br />proportionally based on growth in the sales tax. <br />John Link said that once the Chapel Hill system reaches that <br />percentage basis, then both systems could elevate based on additional <br />revenue. One of the problems is that there are only limited funds <br />available. The burden is on the property tax because 45$ of property tax <br />is going for education. <br />In answer to a question from Chair Carey, John Link said that the <br />Orange County system has 822,000 square feet and Chapel Hill has 953,000 <br />square feet in school buildings. However, the square footage per pupil is <br />almost the same. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that when the recurring capital formula <br />was first implemented, the two school systems each had approximately the <br />same number of students. However, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system has <br />since grown at a much more rapid rate and is now significantly larger than <br />the Orange County system and therefore has more needs. Elsewhere in the <br />school budgets funds are allocated on a per pupil basis. She noted that <br />the Board had indicated they would talk about this issue outside of budget <br />deliberations and she feels this is an equity issue that needs to be <br />addressed. <br />Commissioner Crowther emphasized that the two school systems need <br />to have an opportunity to respond to this proposal. <br />Commissioner Willhoit said that he would like to tentatively qo <br />with method 2 as recommended with the growth financed through sales tax and <br />once the formula is reached that the increases be in proportion to the <br />enrollment. <br />Chair Carey suggested communicating this to the two school boards <br />and receive their comments. He feels that the square footage per pupil <br />issue is the same for each school system because of the way space is <br />allocated. <br />John Link suggested that they include this information in a <br />letter being written to the two school systems on siting of schools and <br />that the matter could be handled as part of the CIP process. <br />The commissioners agreed that recurring capital funds should be <br />allocated on a per pupil basis using method 2 and that no formal action <br />would be taken on this item until the two school boards have had an <br />opportunity to review and respond. The commissioners and school boards <br />already have a meeting scheduled in January and this issue could be an <br />agenda item. <br />