Minutes - 19820628 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

School.System." He said the increase in current expense, less than 3%,.- was i sufficient although not as much as they would have liked and given inflation dollars it was even less than received previously but "we're gonna live with that." However, on the capital appropriation, while funded at a level higher than that of the previous year, the needs were greater and had built up over the years. Mr. Schwartz said this was a "catch up budget." He continued i saying that although the $476,000 was a jump up over the average of $300,000 appropriated for capital each year since 1977; "but it's not sufficient to cover what are the absolute minimum essential needs in the school budget." Mr. Schwartz said that prior to the School Budget Fiscal Act in 1965 it was the responsibility of the local government to maintain the school plants while the Federal and State governments took care of programs. Mr. Schwartz read sections of the "old law" to emphasize his point; he said it was the duty of the County Commissioners, "to.;supplement these funds /when funds are not appropriated in sufficient amounts to maintain the physical plants of the schools] by the tax levy," according to this old Statute which was updated. in 1975 to "recognize more duties and more responsibilities" for local funding. Mr. Schwartz emphasized that "first and foremost the local priority is to maintain the physical plant and that investment." Mr. Schwartz continued that the question here was not so much of whether . the needs existed but where the money would be found to meet those needs. He said "the old Taw says 'You shall supplement funds' with a supplemental tax levy if necessary to maintain those buildings. And we.'re not necessarily here to ask you for a tax levy that's your responsibility and your duty and your perogative. ...We're here to ask you for more money." Mr. Schwartz said the roofing consultant for the County schools,;kMr. Bill May, was present today. Mr. Schwartz said he had been on the Stanford roof this morning and he passed around a piece of gypsum which he said was moist and had been removed this morning. He passed the gypsum around to substantiate his assertion that reshingling "would be a waste of money" because it doesn't "address what's going on underneath that roof." Mr. Schwartz referred to the Orange County General Fund Expenditures by Category and cited the percentage of the County revenues collected for each year since 1974-75 to 1982-83 which was allocated to the schools'. He asserted that over the past seven years there was a 19% decrease of County funds allocated to the County schools.