Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-23-2000 - 4
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Agenda - 03-23-2000
>
Agenda - 03-23-2000 - 4
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2013 2:35:26 PM
Creation date
4/19/2010 9:56:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/23/2000
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
4
Document Relationships
Minutes - 03-23-2000
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br />SCHOOL FUNDING OPTIONS TASK FORCE <br />MEETING SUMMARY <br />February 28, 2000 <br />■ County explanation that BOCC interest in school funding parameters does not stem <br />from interest in APFO, and recognition that a considerable amount of public <br />education will be required if an APFO is to succeed — nothing the County proposes <br />would preclude using "sound reasoning and good judgement" <br />• Concerns expressed as to whether CHCCS would have been able to meet mandates <br />without increases in the district tax. Discussion about potential lawsuits, different <br />interpretations of what is a mandate, and that there may be ways to spend less on <br />some mandates and still meet them, leaving more money for other choices. <br />• Comments that other jurisdictions could learn from the good relationships in Orange <br />County between school boards and County Commissioners, which have facilitated <br />schools achieving some striking results. <br />• County view that we're not moving away from sound reasoning and not relying just <br />on history, or we wouldn't have had three bond issues. Schools need to be part of the <br />equation and everything must be on table in evaluating needs. <br />• OCS provided a review of 5 -year history of mandates or "non- negotiables ". OCS <br />has same concerns as CHCCS that when required expenditures for capital and debt go <br />up, that would reduce the amount of funding for operating, perhaps when its most <br />needed. <br />■ Differing perceptions between school and County representatives as to whether <br />increased school funding in recent years reflects stagnancy and allows schools to <br />merely maintain, rather than to grow. <br />■ CHCCS pointed out anticipated budget pressures for next year with 600 more <br />students than were projected for this year (that would cost $1.5 million more without <br />covering mandates) and expectation that the final year implementation of the <br />Excellent Schools Act will require $1.5 mil just for salary increases. <br />■ Discussion about how other school systems fund mandates, and differing definitions <br />schools and County think of in considering what a mandate is. For the County, we <br />tend to view it as something that will cause the County to get sued by the federal or <br />state government, or where if we don't fund a certain program, they take our money <br />away. <br />■ County circulated a list of points /questions that BOCC constituents might be expected <br />to ask or be interested in (attached). Discussion about school responses to some of <br />those points. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.