ORD-2003-103 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance

Browse Search

BOCC, the. BOE would be responsible for making up the difference without incurring additional debt for the County. The proposed interlocal agreement, basically, captures these issues, but does contain some problematic language and lingering issues. On page 5, the BOCC indicates that it does not endorse the site selected for high school no. 3 or the use of eminent domain to acquire the necessary parcels. This language is both confusing and disturbing. Under N.C.G.S. § 115C-426(f),.County Commissioners are given authority to approve the acquisition of property for a school site in that they must appropriate the funds necessary for the purchase of sites proposed by Boards of Education. It would seem that a BOCC would not appropriate funding for a site that it does not endorse. The BOE does not have unilateral statutory power to acquire school sites because of its dependence upon the BOCC to appropriate the funding. We recognize and respect that some County Commissioners have concerns about this site, but we thought that the appropriation of $2,535,700 for the site signaled an endorsement of the site. Furthermore, in that the BOE had been clear that the use of eminent domain would likely be necessary to acquire one or more parcels composing this site, this interlocal agreement represented a willingness on the part of the BOCC to use eminent domain if necessary. Regarding Paragraph 3 (page 8), there is reference to "the Standards for CHCCS high school #3." The BOCC has suggested that the BOE consider alterations to the standards that had been used in planning for high school no. 3, including the phasing in of components and the reduction of initial capacity. Due to a limited budget, this high school may not have all of the features included in the County's high school standards fora 1000 student high school. This paragraph would be clearer if it was rewritten as follows: "The Board of commissioners agrees to appropriate a total of $27,800,000 for the total of all of the elements contained in the initial phase of high school no. 3..." The purpose for including Paragraph 5 (page 8) is unclear and advice from the School Board attorney should be sought. Particularly troublesome is the last clause, which stipulates that the BOE would give up all rights to resolving disputes regarding the "total appropriations now and in the future from the Board of Commissioners to the Board of Education's school capital expense fund." The interlocal agreement should be limited to issues associated with the funding of high school no. 3. Especially in light of the potential for litigation associated with the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and, perhaps, merger, it would be unwise, and quite likely illegal, for this Board of Education to rule out the possibility of statutory or judicial 7