|
tax increase. The only thing I said, and this gets at Commissioner Corey's point that perhaps there
<br />would be an increase in funding to the Chapel Hill schools, is that the schools would be held harmless,
<br />not just in the narrow sense, but the total funding to the district would increase as appropriate to address
<br />demonstrated unmet needs. So if you set a countywide supplemental tax at the four cents, you would
<br />be giving $1.5 million more to the Orange County schools. You would lower the district tax. Maybe not
<br />so much that you would wipe out the entire amount that might accrue. But you would basically not be
<br />giving much, if any, increase to the Chapel Hill schools through this mechanism. So that the 62-38 split
<br />that John Link was talking about does raise (with the four cents, if we levy that the first year) $1.5 million
<br />that goes to the Orange County schools. We'd have to figure out what would go to the Chapel Hill
<br />schools, but they certainly wouldn't get $2.5 million out of this, because we would lower the district tax
<br />rate in a manner which accommodated the unmet needs of the Chapel Hill schools, but they wouldn't
<br />get the whole $2.5 million. I think Commissioner Carey has said, and I have said, that it's not this huge
<br />windfall for the Chapel Hill schools; what it is, is a lot of money for the Orange County schools.
<br />Remember, that's a huge tax increase for the Orange County schools, which is one reason I would like
<br />to have a vote. If we did that in July 1, 2Q03, it would be 20.8 cents. The reason this doesn't cost
<br />Chapel Hill a lot of extra money is because you've decreased the district tax in Chapel Hill as you've
<br />increased the tax in Orange County. But I would add the caveat that you make sure you meet Chapel
<br />Hill's unmet needs as you adjust these two taxes. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly, but
<br />it's not a mechanism to give Chapel Hill more money, it's a mechanism to correct the funding disparity
<br />so that Orange County school system would get more money soon.
<br />Chair Jacobs: First, I will not support having this on the ballot in May. I would consider having
<br />it on the ballot in November. I don't think we're going to have a primary in May, and as I've said before,
<br />and I think I just heard Commissioner Halkiotis say, there's more information that I need before I'm
<br />going to go to the voters, including myself, and say, "Raise taxes on yourself," I want to know that the
<br />$44.7 million in operating funds are being spent in an efficient and effective manner. I think that's only
<br />reasonable. And I think that we have outlined here some other ways to proceed that will give us
<br />information. We've had a lot of members of the public come to us and say, "I have these questions. I
<br />have these concerns." And with all due respect, your original proposal was to merge the schools and
<br />then work out the details. I still think that's what this is. This is, "Let's act without necessarily knowing
<br />all the details." Maybe I'm just more conservative or mare cautious. But I think it's important to be able
<br />to have the school systems have these conversations about collaboration, have a group of independent
<br />educational experts look at what we have, and have an independent expert look at how money is being
<br />spent before we go to voters and say, "These are your two options." I tend to support the idea of these
<br />two options going to the voters, and as I had said previously, I think that a countywide supplemental tax
<br />should go to the voters. Whether these are the two options, the only two options we should take to
<br />voters, perhaps they are. With the uncertainty about a primary and with the lack of information, I would
<br />not support this even though whatever we do may be ultimately divisive among same people, the more
<br />information we provide people, I have faith that people in the community are willing to listen, willing to
<br />evaluate, willing to digest, and then reach a conclusion if you treat them with the respect that we like to
<br />be treated. The way I would like to be treated as a taxpayer is to get this information before somebody
<br />asks me to make a decision. So that's my reaction. C2ualified endorsement, but I still think that we have
<br />a process that I would like to see us pursue.
<br />Commissioner Brown: I'm going to just totally agree with you. I think everyone has brought up
<br />here pieces of everything we need to do. It's time that we need to do them. However, Commissioner
<br />Carey, I don't disagree with your stand on merger at all, but I really need to put out there for our citizens
<br />some vision of what a merged system would look like. That kind of falls into what Chair Jacobs was
<br />saying. That to me is just something that everyone needs to see. They need to have a basis for
<br />supporting it. And without the data and the information both on the tax issue, and on trying to look at the
<br />collaboration, and trying to develop creative information on what a new system could look like, I just
<br />can't move ahead until we have that. And that to me is just the bottom line of it. I just don't want to run
<br />over the voters. They need to have same confidence in what is going to take place in the future if we go
<br />towards merger.
<br />Commissioner Carey: Let me be clear here, because you're bath characterizing me as being
<br />precipitous and wanting to rush to a decision on merger, when that's not necessarily the case. But
<br />
|