Minutes - 20050122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CountylSchool Capital Funding Bond IssuelProcess Goal for 2005/2006 Chair Carey said that he plans to respond to the letter from CHCCS. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board should discuss the issues raised in the CHCCS letter. She is wondering how the target would play out in projects placed in the CIP. She made reference to the charts on page 12 with student projections and asked that the figures be updated to include the K-3 class size reductions. She said that no one seems to have a rationale far the 60/40 target and that there needs to be aproject-by-project analysis. Chair Carey said that the Board would answer the questions. He said that the adoption of the target was an important message that should be clarified with the public. He said that there are many County capital projects that have been delayed over the years and now they need to be addressed. Chair Carey would like to look at other figures an school projections, such as a combined set of projections, showing the same information if there was one school system in the County. Commissioner Halkiotis said, with all due respect to Commissioner Gordon, that the Board did vote 4-1 on this target. He made reference to the letter from CHCCS and the first paint. He said that Ms. Stuckey is speaking as Chair of the school board and they spoke as County Commissioners. These are two separate functions and two separate perspectives. He said that if the County Commissioners ever failed to meet the needs of either school system, he would quit. He does not want to get bogged down on the issues and he can agree to disagree. He said that if there is a sudden jump in enrollment, the County Commissioners have always jumped in and helped out. He thinks there should be an ultimate response to the letter. Chair Carey said that he said about the same thing to the school board members at the collaboration meeting that Commissioner Halkiotis just said. He said that the County Commissioners have never failed to respond to the needs of students when they occur and they will not do it now. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Halkiotis that it is a target and not a cap. He clarified with John Link that the Board asked for a full analysis to come back at an early work session in March or April. The Board solicited comment and suggestions from the two school systems, and this is their response. He suggested asking the two school boards to give the Board some priority order to their CIPs. Commissioner Foushee acknowledged all of the comments, but she thinks it is incumbent upon this Board to at least inform the public in a way that they understand what the County Commissioners' priorities are in terms of capital expenditures. She thinks, in the absence of an approved CIP for the entire County, that no one is certain of what the Board's priorities are. Commissioner Gordon clarified the projections that she had asked for. In addition to the elementary school projections already produced, she would like elementary school projections that show K-3 class size reductions. She said that Chair Carey asked for the projections showing that the two school systems were combined. She said that this raises the whole question of should the schools be located where the students live, or if there would be some sort of bussing. She said that if the County is going to build schools where the students live, then all of the new schools within the next ten years are in the CHCCS system. She thinks the Board needs to have a conversation about its philosophy on building schools. Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners would have those discussions when they get the projections. He said that it is the Board's responsibility to use the taxpayer's dollars efficiently. Discussion ensued about the timing of talking about a proposed future bond issue. Ken Chavious distributed information about the last bond process and the procedural steps required by the Local Government Commission.