Agenda - 03-30-1995 - II - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

`k inter 1 yy� School La%k Buile.in Figure 2 Spending for School Capital Needs in North Carolina, 1980-93 600 400 i 200 i 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Fiscal Year Ending i Note: Capital needs include spending not only for school construction but also for furnishings,equipment, and other capital needs,which are all counted as"capital outlay."Not all purchases of furnishings and equipment are associated with construc- tion and renovation. the 1982 level of spending. After adjusting for inflation measures that made funds available far in excess of in construction costs, 1991 capital outlay was still three $600 million. times the level of that in 1982.8 In 1983 the General Assembly approved a new These comparisons show that the escalation in half-cent local retail sales tax for counties and cities needs was not due to a failure to meet previously re- and earmarked 40 percent of county proceeds for the ported needs but rather occurred despite success in first five years, and 30 percent for the second five years, meeting previously reported needs. (See Figure 3, page for school construction or school bond indebtedness.' 4.) For example, between 1988 and 1993, reported (In 1993 the General Assembly required counties to needs increased by half, from$3.74 billion to$5.58 bil- earmark 30 percent for school construction for an addi- lion. However, during the five years from 1989 to tional five years.) The original one-cent local retail 1993, counties spent $2.226 billion meeting the needs sales tax enacted in 1971 was not restricted in any way the schools reported in 1988. This sum plus the needs to school use. reported in 1993 of$5.578 billion equals$7.804 billion. In 1986 the General Assembly authorized another Therefore, needs adjusted for that spending actually local retail sales tax with the same half-cent rate."' doubled between 1988 and 1993, increasing by more Counties were again required to earmark a portion of than $4 billion. their receipts for school construction or to pay school bond indebtedness on selected bond issues.That portion State Aid for School Construction began at 60 percent in the first two years and declined to nothing in the twelfth year.This provision was changed The General Assembly did not approve the 1981 in 1987 to require that 60 percent of proceeds be used request for a $600 million state school bond referen- for school construction for the first eleven years. (In dum, but during the next six years it approved several 199; this period was extended for an additional lire year,,.) Unspent funds earmarked for construction or sch(wl htmd indebtedness had to be placed in a county 8. That construction spending peaked in 1991 and then fell back capital re,erve fund for schools until spent. somewhat in 1992 and 1993 is perhaps explained by the 5120 million in critical needs funds awarded in fiscal year 1988.Those funds would have been spent over the next two or three fiscal years. Also. during the late 1980s many units where enrollments had been failing were beginning to M5480-487.prepare for increased enrollment during the 1990s. V (i 10.5-495-504.