|
pupil basis, and that would also give Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools an extra $2.5 million that they have
<br />not expressed any need for. I think that needs to be really clearly always shown in both ways.
<br />Commissioner Carey: Can I comment on that just for a point of clarification?
<br />Commissioner Brown: You talk about maintaining and increasing funds for the Chapel Hill-
<br />Carrboro system.
<br />Commissioner Carey: Well, I think that as a point of fact, this Board has not held either one of
<br />the school systems' budget stable in any year that I've been on this Baard in the last 19 years, and I
<br />think that regardless of what we do, whether we merge them or whether we implement a countywide
<br />district tax, the funding far bath systems, whether it's one or two systems, is going to continue to go up
<br />because that's our culture; that's what we do. We've got two excellent school systems, so it's going to
<br />continue to go up. And I expect that it will. We still have the authority to decide how much it goes up.
<br />In either one of the scenarios that I put forward with respect to a countywide supplemental tax, my vision
<br />is that if we implement a countywide supplemental tax, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schaol district tax would
<br />start to go down. It's our decision on how fast we phase it out. But I know that there are some people
<br />who think that it should never be phased out, even if we adopt a countywide supplemental tax. But we'll
<br />have to deal with that. If we merge the systems, we won't have to worry about these different taxes,
<br />we'll only have one tax; one tax to levy. I would prefer that because that means that we would levy one
<br />tax and phase out the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district tax over the term of years. I n this scenario, it
<br />would be between now and 2007. So I think that we're going to give the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schaol
<br />system more money regardless of what we do, and I think we ought to just recognize that fact.
<br />Commissioner Halkiotis: Well, a couple of observations. Qn the surface, I think once again
<br />Commissioner Carey has brought forth an interesting proposal. You seem to do this in increments of 10
<br />months. On the surface, I think it's really intriguing. But I think we need to have the staff, the Manager,
<br />and the Attorney look at this thing in every possible way, to do the kind of analysis, Geof, that you did
<br />this evening. This is the first time in all the years I've been on the Board that we've had explained to us
<br />what the statutes say we could do if we wanted to strictly manage school expenditures. And I don't
<br />want to get into the micromanagement of school budgets. That's the last thing I'm interested in doing.
<br />However, if it's a legal option we have, I think we need to knave all the legal options we have. I think
<br />Commissioner Carey has captured very carefully the sentiment of people on both sides of the issue
<br />through all of these hours and hours of public hearings that we've had. You've captured that spirit. But
<br />I've also learned over the years that our Attorney has an amazing ability, tonight was the first time I've
<br />ever heard him say that it was his opinion on something, that you really couldn't base it in legalese. I
<br />found that intriguing, you're starting to worry me when you say things like that. But I think,
<br />Commissioners, this leads very interestingly into the next two units we're looking at, the school
<br />efficiency study. It says very clearly, "The Board of Commissioners has discussed the desirability of
<br />providing assurance to the public and the Commissioners that County appropriations far public
<br />education are being well and efficiently expended, particularly before any commitments are made to
<br />providing additional financial resources to the schools for a potential merger, supplemental district tax,
<br />or the like." I think if we're going to give some credence, and I'm willing to give this my initial, "I like
<br />this." But I want it coupled very closely to the school efficiency study to guarantee the public that we're
<br />optimizing opportunities for expenditures to the maximum, and also have a common terminology. I don't
<br />want to spend six months having a debate over, "Is this a district tax? Is this a supplemental tax? What
<br />kind of tax is this?" We're the ones who have the opportunity to define exactly what this creature is that
<br />we're helping give birth to here. So, an the surface, I want to say to Commissioner Carey that I like what
<br />you've got here, but I think we need to have all the analysis we can get from our own staff on what's
<br />involved here. Assuming there's a primary in May, which is a big assumption right now based on
<br />whichever superior court judge is going to rule on the latest redistricting proposal from the legislature.
<br />There may not be a primary in May. There may be one in June, July, August, or, as we know what
<br />happened a year and a half ago, some other month.
<br />Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to clarify what I was trying to articulate before. It is
<br />written down here in the proposal that what you do is that you set the countywide supplemental tax
<br />that's been approved by the voters. Then you look at 2b an the Steps Toward Funding Equity in my
<br />proposal. Then you adjust the city tax rate downward to compensate for the increase in the countywide
<br />
|