Minutes - 19950209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

i a part of the project costs is an appropriate one. However, the budget implication is that there is not enough money to implement that policy. The issue is how to channel sufficient money to cover all of these costs. The policy needs to be for the total start-up costs to be part of the initial project cost. John Link agreed that all start-up costs should be included in either the Bond or Sales Tax revenue on the Capital side of the budget. There are still new operating costs that have to be picked up through current expense. The issue is to be clear about which expenses fit each catagory. The definition of start-up costs in terms of equipment and supplies is fairly liberal. Textbooks, media center, and computers could be included in start-up costs. Neil Pedersen indicated that support staff does not transfer from the old school to the new school. These add up to very significant expenses. The new High School was too far along in the process for start-up costs to have been included in the project costs. However, the project costs for the elementary school did include the start-up costs. The only unbudgeted start-up costs for the elementary school relate to staff development and administrative staff hired in advance of opening. Chairman Carey indicated that he felt there was consensus in the group that start-up cost need to be included in the project cost, wherever possible. He noted that the Board of Commissioners' policy on how to allocate the 1/2 cent sales tax could again be readdressed. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the 1/2 cent sales tax money is committed to the Court project for the short term. John Link concurred that the 1/2 cent sales tax money was already committed for the next several years. He suggested that one element of this discussion could be whether or not to continue to fund recurring Capital out of property tax or to consider some other means, such as the District Tax. Robert Batemen indicated that the County Commissioners are charged with financing the schools and he felt that it was inappropriate for the school Boards to tell the Commissioners how to do that. He opposes a District Tax in Orange County. Ken Touw pointed out that because the growth is occurring in southern Orange it places an undue burden on the northern orange residents who will be asked to help pay for schools being built in southern Orange. Using the District Tax would resolve that inequity. Commissioner Willhoit mentioned that several years ago the tax rate was increased for a two year period at which time the tax was eliminated. That method could be used for school costs. Commissioner Halkiotis asked that both systems consider reusing floor plans for new schools in order to achieve a savings. John Link mentioned that the County will begin to pay less on its indebtedness starting in the 1996-1997 fiscal year. The Board of Commissioners could decide to use that savings for start-up costs or recurring capital, etc. Larry Kolbinsky indicated that the Orange County School Board will make a commitment this year to reexamine all expenditures and hold down costs. Susan Dovenbarger suggested that both School Boards lobby State Legislators to commission and pay for architectural drawings for new elementary and high schools to be used by local systems. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that he felt the Manager could look at the school capital projections and report back to the Board. He suggested that the report encompass the entire County rather than by districts. He mentioned that a citizen contacted him recently and requested that the impact fee be raised to $3,000. Commissioner Gordon agreed that there were reasons to create county wide projections. However, in the short term Chapel Hill/Carrboro anticipates a much larger growth than the Orange County system. She mentioned that issues of funding equity standards for both operating and capital needs to be discussed.