Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br />DRAFT <br />SCHOOL FUNDING OPTIONS TASK FORCE <br />MEETING SUMMARY <br />February 28, 2000 <br />ATTENDING: Randy Bridges, Moses Carey, Elizabeth Carter, Ken Chavious, Keith <br />Cook, Donna Dean, Nick Didow, Susan Halkiotis, Barry Jacobs, John Link, Neil <br />Pedersen, Sandra Tinsley, Rod Visser <br />■ The meeting summary for the February 15 meeting was approved, following a few <br />changes to the draft. <br />■ Discussion, without consensus, about whether the strong economy creates more or <br />less demand for school funding vis -a -vis other County services. <br />CHCCS presented a memorandum and articulated the following major points of <br />concern: <br />■ how are formulas working in other jurisdictions that have established them? <br />■ belief that operating budgets should be separated from capital and debt budgeting, <br />which have discrete revenue streams associated with them; <br />■ about 85% of funding increases in recent years have gone to meet legal, moral, or <br />ethical mandates; <br />■ formulaic approach to budgeting as a percentage of the County budget could lead <br />to underfunding or overfunding of education in any given year; <br />■ how would CHCCS district tax fit into any formula <br />■ what reasonable forecasts might be available for long -term growth in sales tax <br />revenue and property tax base <br />CHCCS memorandum addresses 3 alternative models: <br />■ Model 6 — per pupil County appropriation would increase 11 % annually <br />■ Model 7 — notes that County models and Model #6 are based on historical <br />patterns, but that it would be desirable to focus on where we need to be in the <br />future, especially in light of Governor Hunt's call for North Carolina to become <br />41 in education by 2010 — this model would provide for a 20% annual increase in <br />per pupil funding for current expense <br />■ Model 8 — forego any formulaic approach and "simply use sound reasoning and <br />good judgement" - that is what we've done in the past , and this model suggests <br />we not abandon this approach that has worked in the past <br />■ Discussion that under CHCCS proposals, there would be a "hold harmless" provision <br />for addressing growth in student enrollment <br />■ County view that there is value in viewing school funding in toto in the separate but <br />related context of the proposed adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO). <br />Schools' view that it might be too early to establish that link now because of the <br />lengthy process that would be required to develop and implement an APFO. <br />