Agenda - 04-19-2007-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SCHOOL FUNDING OPTIONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Representatives of the Orange County Board of Conimissioners and o[the Carrbmn Board of Education and the Orange County-Board of Education met twice, on February 15, 2000 and February 2Q` 2000' to dioonoo school funding options. These topics were further examined atu joint meeting ofthe fall boards oo March 27,20OO. A previous report, dated March 23, 2000, outlined the nature and scope of the task force dim000aiooa` which were frank and constructive. All agreed the County has historically employed "sound reasoning and good judgment" in funding public education, resulting in quality schools of high achievement. Reflective of that support by the Board of Commissioners, public education in Orange County is uouoully funded at levels that ruzdc at or oeuz the biobuat in North Carolina. Of approximately %'400positions io the two oobonl ayetuzoe` one-quarter are locally funded. The Board of Commissioners remains strongly connnitted to public education. However it must balance 8cuvviog and competing needs for the county funds, all within a relatively narrow range ofdisruption. Ilooeot trends in spending provided average ununul increases of about six percent for county functions, compared to nearly double that rate for schools, posing certain tieoul and operational difficulties over time. That rate of increase allowed for strong growth iu the budgets of both school systems over and above what they define aemandates. The representatives of the Board ofCoonziioaiooero tiod that schools are v/ell'±bodud in C)reugo County; that growth in property and sales turoo allows for expansion of funding ovoo within a framework of benchmarks and a targeted percentage of expenditures; and that there is lack of clarity in what the school eyetezoo regard as mandates as opposed to imperatives, and in the level u[ spending by which each responds to the same perceived mandates. To begin u process p/bcruby the Board achieves some predictability in addressing its multiple tieoal responsibilities, the representatives recommend the County adopt o series of benchmarks to guide spending decisions. Wo also recommend the Board endorse aaa target for the 2001 fiscal year 48.1 percent of the overall County budget for annual spending on both school systems, the most recent five-year average. 9/u recognize needs vary from year to year, and anticipate the County Manager may respond to school system requests by proposing increases that exceed the target percentage. Further, we regard these steps as beginning a process of elaboration and collaboration on fiscal matters. 7o that end, we encourage the continuation of joint work group to address unresolved iomuoa and concerns regarding co-mingling of capital expenses and operational needs in creating o target percentage; dozounde of technology improvement; oxouioutinu of u countywide approach to older school facilities; more clearly defining federal and state mandates as compared to hoard initiatives and imperatives; and more ugoitnhlu and flexible rueeuo for funding actual versus projected atudnotoozoDr000to. Moses Carey and Barry Jacobs; May 3, 2000