Agenda - 06-21-2011 - 8f - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 2 May 18 2©11 school funding be tied to specific county revenue sources such as property taxes? Needless to say, the Workgroup has not been able to find an alternative that anembers„colleetively, felt would work better for all partners. Given all of the present and future uncertainties surrounding federal and state funding for K-12 education, it seems premature to make changes to a -Iocal guiduig principle that all parties understand and -one that has served all parties well over the last decade. Along with the dire negative irnpact of federal and state funding reductions eve anticipate, our Board is also deeply concerned about shrinking local capital revenues and the effect ofinereased debt ser-vice an our District's already limited Iacal resources. Our concern deepened as the heard the County Manager's message of caution during the Apri126, 2011 joint rneetuig with Commissioners. A scheduled redttctiott itt delft service for schools in FY 2011-12 (refilurttcittg gains and paying off some deGt) actually rerhrces the County Futtdittg percentage, fol• FY2011-12 from 4&. 0%-itt FY 2010- 11 to atr estimated 47.4%. A NOTL-.OT Cpl UTION.• Tlris is a_ tetnpora-y redaction franc the 4&.1 goal. Netiv anticipated debt service for the Chapel Hi1T-CalrGoro Elenteltlary #11 project (expected Ztfitlttlt a fells yeal'S) N~1ll stlT7Staltttally ittCYG'aSe the COll17ty Ftlitd111g allOCatlOH t0 edt[CQti01t. Tltat il~crease in deGt sen~ice cottlcl-negatii~ely ntzpact availablo ftnzding•for cttrrettt ~rpense altd o~eratiorts once the debt is incurred With his statement in mind, our Board would encourage the Workgroup to look at funding ~forrnulas that would offer stability as ~vellas flexibility. Examples of questions and observations our Board would ask the Workgroup to explore include: 1. Would the funding formula/target (48.1%) be.a floor or a ceiling (i.e. the minimum or the maximum)? 2. What specific elements would be included i-n the fiuiding formula? For ~xa~nple, the existuig 48. I~%o target includes current expense monies, recurring and long-range capital, debt service and fair funding. Would a new formula incorporate other elements? 3. Would itbe possible-for the forrnula to decouple capital funding from day-to-day operations expenses (such as eunent expense). 4. As currently wr-itten, the County's current capital funding policy allows the three en#ities to share, equally, in-the repayment of debt, regardless of which entity receives the borrowed monies. Our Board-has analyzed an alternative formula whereby each entity would be responsible for its own debt. Would this be an alternative- formula to explore? 5. Would it be possible for CHCCS to dedicatee portion of its district tax to fund debt service related to new school construction thereby lessening some of the burden on the County's General Fund? FY 2011-12 County Managet• Recommended Fuudint= for K-I2 >Cducation ~'he Orange County Commissioners' long-standing dedication to K-12 education funding is a legacy across the state. Because of your commitment, our schools are among the hest in the State_ We have implemented programs that keep our students ni school and learning. Our district has one of the lowest dropout rates in the state, and we are proud of the fact that our graduates are prepared to either enter the global workforce or further their education at post-secondary schools.