Agenda - 03-23-2000 - 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT escalation of required expenditures for capital and debt would reduce the amount of funding for operating expenses, perhaps when it is most needed. 14. CHCCS representatives pointed out anticipated budget pressures for next year with 600 more students than were projected for this year (costing $1.5 million more, without covering mandates) and an expectation that the final year implementation of the Excellent Schools Act will require $1.5 million just for salary increases. 15. There was discussion of what kind of rigorous, non -staff review of operating budgets is done, both for County and schools. CHCCS mentioned the 1995 Pannesi report, 80% of which has been implemented, with the balance waiting on the State to upgrade SIMS. 16. There was a suggestion to shoot for the 5 -year historical average of just over 48% of the County's General Fund allocated to education as a target. Recommendations to the Board of Commissioners There was universal agreement that the task force process was enlightening and helpful to all parties in gaining a better appreciation of the perspectives and pressures experienced by the others. However, there was no consensus among task force members that any funding model identified either by the County or the schools should be recommended to the Board of Commissioners for implementation. There was mutual recognition that the County is not seeking to impose a hard cap on school funding, and reaffirmation that it is the responsibility of each school board to determine how best to allocate the operational funds appropriated to each system annually by the Board of Commissioners. The task force discussion focused more on targets for school funding, and in the end there was acceptance of the concept that the County Manager should consider various "benchmarks" in developing school current expense funding levels in his recommended annual operating budget. Schools would continue to base their requests on identified needs, and would submit their requests for funding over the previous year's appropriation with annotation of the school boards' priorities. There would continue to be an opportunity for each school board to present to the Board of Commissioners any concerns left unaddressed, in their view, by the Manager's school funding recommendations. In reviewing and approving the overall County budget, the Board of Commissioners would likewise consider benchmarks related to school funding. These benchmarks could include: ■ 10 year historical figures of school funding on a per pupil basis; ■ 10 year historical figures on average annual increase in total school funding; • 10 year historical figures of total school funding as a percentage of the County's General Fund; ■ 10 year historical figures of school funding by major component (current expense, long -term capital, recurring capital, and debt service); ■ 10 year historical figures on average annual increase in current expense funding; ■ relative position of Orange County in school funding per pupil compared to other North Carolina jurisdictions • total effort (actual dollars per pupil — for 1999 -2000, this is $3,755 in Orange County vs. $2,747 in the 2 "d ranked county, Mecklenburg);