Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
appropriation comes to the school systems monthly, in 12 monthly increments, to help them in their fund <br />balance work and in their need for the same amount of money, generally speaking, each month. <br />Commissioner Gordon: The last thing is that it would have to be appropriated per pupil, per <br />average daily membership and so forth, collected countywide and then distributed per pupil. <br />Geof Gledhill: That is exactly right. If the County Commissioners are interested in me providing <br />you more information on how finely you can draw the ballot question, then I would be glad to look at <br />that, but I have not spent time with that in this work. <br />There is one other important nuance between a County Commissioner initiated supplemental tax <br />and one that results from an initiative from the Boards of Education, and that is the North Carolina law <br />provides that where the countywide supplemental tax is initiated by the Boards of Education, a <br />successful election results in any other district supplemental tax going away as a result of the election. <br />And in fact the ballot must say that. There is no similar provision in a county initiated countywide <br />supplemental tax election, for example. So that if the election for a supplemental tax countywide was <br />initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district tax could <br />remain in place. I guessed at why that might be in a letter that I wrote to you, but I really do not know <br />why that is the case. <br />Chair Jacobs: How would the Board like to proceed? As far as I know, no member of the <br />public has signed up to speak, but that does not mean that people will not want to be recognized to <br />speak. Would you like to discuss the items on the agenda and then solicit public comment, or have <br />public comment now? <br />Commissioner Carey: Let's discuss the items on the agenda first. <br />Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to mention that I had faxed to the Commissioners last <br />night an augmented proposal. As you remember, four Commissioners presented proposals, and the <br />details of the proposal that I presented remain the same. I did fax this to the Commissioners and then I <br />passed it out tonight, and it is almost the same as the proposal that I faxed last night, except that I <br />corrected a couple of typing mistakes. It gives the rationale behind the proposal and also it discusses <br />how my proposal fits in with the issue of possible merger. The main thing I wanted to mention was that <br />there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the funding equity part of my proposal included. <br />And what I wanted to stress was that the Commissioners are going to have to decide the ultimate <br />maximum level to tax, and the voters would have to approve it. But if that happened, the tax would be <br />available as soon as possible, and that means July 1, 2004. And when I studied these issues, I thought <br />it was very important that the money should be available to the Orange County system as soon as <br />possible. My proposal seemed to be misunderstood in the sense of what kind of effect it would <br />eventually have. My thought would be that if we could all agree that the County supplemental tax would <br />be put to a vote, and there is work to be done on that, that we would have a permanent targeted tax, <br />and it would specifically provide money to the Orange County school system as soon as possible, again, <br />July 1, 2004. The other thing I wanted to mention was if the Commissioners and the voters agreed, the <br />amount of tax levied could increase in subsequent years until the funding disparity was reduced or even <br />eliminated. I think the proposal was misunderstood in thinking that there would be a certain cap. My <br />proposal had to do with getting money to the Orange County school system in July 1, 2004, and then <br />the voters and the Commissioners could agree. But the funding disparity could be reduced or even <br />eliminated using this approach, and that was something that people in the public hearing did not seem <br />understand. I just wanted to clarify that issue. <br />Chair Jacobs: Let me suggest that in the interest of having some order to the conversation, we <br />have the agenda abstract set out with specific topics in an order that the Chair and Vice-Chair worked <br />out with staff. If it pleases the Board, I would suggest we go in that order. The first has to do with <br />collaboration. As staff notes, it was part of virtually every proposal. <br />Commissioner Carey: With one exception. I don't see my proposal on here. I see the three. <br />John Link: It is referred to as next steps on page four of the abstract. <br />Chair Jacobs: When I said virtually, I consider merger the ultimate collaboration. So if you <br />want to speak to collaboration in terms of merger, you are certainly welcome. <br />Commissioner Carey: Well, you are right, it is the ultimate collaboration. And I think it would <br />be one that I think has the only chance of working. I can wait until the other discussions about <br />collaborations are held tonight. The amendment I would like to make in my proposal is not necessarily <br />