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

Browse Search

FA We appreciate the work that the County staff has expended on the analysis of education funding in Orange County. We, however, have several, fundamental concerns about the approach used in all of the models. These may be summarized as follows: • No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this approach to funding school districts has brought school spending under control or fostered a healthier working relationship between County Commissioners and School Boards in other counties. We would specifically suggest that you contact county commissioners, school board members, and the managers from the counties that you contacted to determine how well this approach is working, whether they would recommend it to a county and district like ours, and the extent to which they deviate from the formulas. • We strongly object to identifying a budget "target" that lumps together operating costs, capital costs, and debt service. This makes little sense. For example, next year debt service costs will increase as a result of bonds that the voters approved in 1997 being sold this spring. At the same time, the state is projecting an increase of more than 600 students in the CHCCS district alone. It makes little sense to ask the school district to absorb the cost of debt service on new facilities already approved by the voters at a time when there will be increased pressure on the operating budget to accommodate such a large increase in enrollment. There are already guidelines and restraints placed on the recurring, long- range, and reserve capital budget. It should be removed from consideration when we are developing a target for the operating budget. • School districts face many factors that are beyond their control as they develop their budgets. In particular, local school district spending is heavily influenced by decisions made in the General Assembly and by the State Board of Education. For example, teachers have received salary increases of approximately 8 percent for the past three years in accordance with new salary schedules adopted by the General Assembly. Our district, which has a large number of locally funded teachers, must pass on these same increases to these teachers. In addition, since our local supplement is a percentage of a teacher's base salary, we must increase our support for state - funded teachers as well. Other mandates from the state often relate to serving special populations such as exceptional education students, Limited English Proficient students, and non - proficient students. The other major factor beyond our control is the increasing number of students. We legally must provide an education to these students, which means building, staffing, and operating new schools and hiring additional personnel. Neither the mandates nor the enrollment increases are predictable. The budget process should be flexible enough to adapt to annual fluctuations in these factors that are beyond our control. More than 85% of our operating budget increases in the past five years can be attributed to these "mandates." Much of our discussion has focused on the percentage of the County's budget that school spending represents. The school board representatives have been asked how large this percentage should be. This is an impossible question to answer. We can, to some degree, project our needs and, consequently, our spending patterns. However, a percentage is based on the size of the County's budget, which is related to the tax rate and the growth in the County's tax base. For example, if the schools agreed that school spending should comprise 48 percent of the County budget and then the County did not increase the tax rate over the next five years and the tax base continued to grow at 3 percent, it is likely that the schools' 48 percent share would be insufficient. On the other hand, if enrollment flattened out and the County's needs in other areas escalated dramatically, it's conceivable that the 48 percent would be unduly generous or unaffordable.