Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
27 <br /> PE-4: Restore local control of school calendar. <br /> Support legislation to restore control of the local school calendar to local boards of education. <br /> The General Assembly enacted H1464 in 2004, which restricted a local board of education's <br /> ability to open schools prior to Aug. 25 or to close schools prior to June 10. It is believed that the <br /> Legislature was reacting to concerns by resort communities regarding earlier school openings, <br /> which in turn shortened the summer vacation season and reduced the teen labor force for the <br /> service industries. The State Board of Education was authorized to grant waivers based on the <br /> number of weather-related closures historically experienced or for good cause based on <br /> educational purposes. In 2012, the General Assembly further restricted LEA school calendar <br /> control, by eliminating start/end date waivers based on educational purposes. <br /> PE:S:Authorize the option for counties to acquire, own and construct traditional public school <br /> sites and facilities. (added at Legislative Goals Conference). <br /> Support legislation to authorize counties the option to acquire, own and construct traditional <br /> public school sites and facilities. N.C. counties are statutorily responsible for funding the <br /> construction, renovation, and maintenance of all school facilities, but schools retain title and <br /> ownership of school facilities. This divergence of funding versus ownership requires <br /> administrative work-arounds to obtain sales tax refunds on school construction materials and <br /> results in an imbalance of liabilities to assets, as county-issued school debt shows as a liability on <br /> the county's financial statement, while the building increases the LEA's assets. <br /> Tax & Finance Legislative Goals <br /> TF-1: Preserve the existing local revenue base. <br /> Support legislation that recognizes the importance of county revenues and ensures that the <br /> existing tax base is maintained and preserved. During the current recession, one of the means <br /> used by the General Assembly to balance the state budget has been to shift some local funds to <br /> state use and make cuts in some county programs. For example, in 2009-10, the General <br /> Assembly diverted to the state's general fund the portion of the Corporate Income Tax that was <br /> dedicated to school construction, costing counties approximately $200 million for the biennium. <br /> For 2010-11, the General Assembly reduced the county share of lottery proceeds by $63 million. <br /> Counties also saw numerous state cuts to county programs approaching $75 million in 2009-10 <br /> alone. Counties face similar revenue declines as that experienced by the state and cannot afford <br /> to sacrifice any additional revenues to the state. <br /> TF-2: Oppose unfunded mandates and shifts of state responsibilities to counties. <br /> Oppose legislation that establishes new or expanded state mandates without a commensurate <br /> increase in state resources to support service provision. A continuing difficult state financial <br /> status may increase the likelihood of attempts to balance the state budget by shifting more <br /> responsibilities to counties without corresponding funds. <br /> TF-3:Authorize local revenue options. <br /> Seek legislation to allow all counties to enact by resolution or, at the option of the Board of <br /> Commissioners, by voter referendum, any or all revenue options from among those that have <br /> been authorized for any other county. Several counties have access to certain revenues, such as <br /> prepared meals taxes, occupancy taxes, and land transfer taxes, that are not available to other <br />