Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Page 2 <br /> the issuance of the State's Triple A rated bonds. Each of us must judge <br /> whether relieving local government of all financial responsibility for <br /> public schools is in the best interest of public education. It is our belief <br /> that local responsibility, local authority, and local decision making, while <br /> carrying some disadvantage inherent in the unequal distribution of resources <br /> across the state, nevertheless yield greater strength and character to our <br /> system of public education. <br /> Fifth, the issuance of state bonds to provide grants to counties and <br /> thus supplement county spending for school construction has been routinely <br /> practiced by the General Assembly in 1949, 1953, 1963 and 1973. This method <br /> of financing was designed to help counties to catch-up with building needs <br /> not met by the county alone. The General Assembly, in 1983 and again in <br /> 1986, decided against continuing this method of financing and, in lieu <br /> thereof, created a local revenue stream by earmarking proceeds of newly <br /> authorized local-option sales taxes for school construction and debt <br /> service. <br /> Sixth, the State could adopt a pay-as-you-go method by direct <br /> appropriation to supplement county pay-as-you-go programs. This method of <br /> financing would give rise to the same problems described for local <br /> pay-as-you-go in the second method above. In addition, public school <br /> construction would be in direct competition with the infrastructure needs of <br /> state agencies and local government entities, including water and sewer, <br /> jails, prisons, mental hospitals, streets, solid and low-level wastes, parks <br /> and other capital needs; hardly appropriate for public education, the <br /> State's first priority. <br /> A review of the foregoing alternatives reveals that lowest costs are <br /> incurred by issuing State bonds and that local authority and local decision <br /> making are best assured by assigning local responsibility. We have not <br /> heretofore had a method of achieving these desirable dual objectives. Now, <br /> this is exactly what the proposed plan will do. County commissioners, <br /> legislators, and other officials involved in the funding of public school <br /> construction costs will be well served by this newest version of our <br /> traditional policy of participation between the General Assembly and the 100 <br /> boards of county commissioners. <br /> Harlan E. Boyles <br /> State Treasurer <br /> HEB/pro <br />