Orange County NC Website
�k inter 1991 School La%ti Bulletin <br /> Figure 4 Figure 5 <br /> State Aid, 1986-93, as a Percentage of Schools' Spending for Capital Needs, 1986-93,as a Percentage <br /> 1984 Reported Needs, by County of Schools' i 984 Reported 'Needs, by County <br /> 200 or more 3 <br /> 300 or more <br /> 150-199 �l y 200-249 <br /> Z �f <br /> 100-149 13 L 150-199 13 <br /> 2 <br /> Lz <br /> 80-99- 19 o y 100-149 23 <br /> t: <br /> A n 80-99 14 <br /> a" 50-79 39 " <br /> �a <br /> _ v•v <br /> 50-79 19 <br /> Q 30-39 117 30-49 ll <br /> Less than 30 5 Less than 30 6 <br /> Number of Counties Number of Counties <br /> in needs between 1984 and 1988 and the wide variation 3. How Much State Aid Did Counties Spend? <br /> in reported needs. Between 1984 and 1993, the 100 counties together <br /> 2. How Well Have Counties Met Reported spent a total of $3.0 billion on school capital needs, <br /> Needs? During the eight-year period from 1986 to twice the amount of earmarked state aid they received. <br /> . 1993, capital spending in 64 counties exceeded 80 per- However, only 68 counties spent as much on school <br /> cent of the needs they had reported in 1984. In those 64 capital needs as they received in state aid. <br /> counties spending exceeded needs in 50 counties; Of the 68 counties that spent at least as much as <br /> spending exceeded needs by 150 percent in 27 coun- the amount of state aid they received, 49 spent an <br /> ties; and was at least twice as much as needs in 14 of amount equal to more than 150 percent of the aid, 30 <br /> those counties. On the other hand, 17 counties spent an counties spent an amount at least double their state aid. <br /> amount equal to less than half of reported 1984 needs. and 8 counties spent an amount at least triple their state <br /> (See Figure 5.) aid. (See Figure 7, page 8.) <br /> Some counties failed to meet their needs because Of the 32 counties that failed to spend as much as <br /> during the period they did not spend all the state aid they received in state aid, 12 spent less than 75 percent <br /> they received. Consider, for example, those counties and 5 spent less than 50 percent. These 32 counties <br /> whose spending from 1986 to 1993 failed to equal at tended to be low-income counties with smaller enroll- <br /> least 80 percent of 1984 reported needs. Of those 36 ments—they include 24 of the 50 counties with below- <br /> counties, 29 spent an amount less than the state aid median per capita incomes, and 21 had enrollment <br /> they received. If those 29 counties had spent an amount below the median size. Of the 12 counties that spent an <br /> equal to the state aid they received, 25 would have met amount less than 75 percent of state aid, 11 had belox- <br /> at least 50 percent of their needs, 9 would have met at median incomes and 8 had below-median enrollment. <br /> least 80 percent of their needs, and 3 would have ex- There are several reasons that a county might <br /> ceeded their needs. spend less than it receives in state aid. First, by its na- <br /> During the five-year period from 1989 to 1993, in ture, construction involves lags in spending because <br /> 51 counties spending equaled 50 percent or more of the planning, contracting for, and constructing buildings <br /> ten-year needs reported in 1988. In 25 counties spend- takes time. Second, a county may put its earmarked <br /> ing exceeded 75 percent of 1988 reported needs, and in sales tax receipts into a capital reserve fund and spend <br /> 11 counties spending equaled or exceeded ten-year them only after enough money has accumulated for a <br /> needs reported in 1988. On the other hand, 22 counties needed project. Third, it may let funds accumulate in <br /> met less than 25 percent of their needs, and 6 counties the Public School Building Capital Fund. Fourth, a <br /> met less than 15 percent of their needs. (See Figure 6, county also may take advantage of state aid to pay off <br /> page 8.) existing indebtedness, subject to certain restrictions. <br />