Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Mr. Whitling added. that he did not mean for this to be a major point of discussion for this <br />group, but he did want to raise it because it had come up during OCS Board discussions. <br />It was on the budget work sheet that the County had provided, and since neither OCS nor <br />CHCCS had charter school enrollment increases over the past several years, "we never <br />had to deal with it before." <br />Dr. Caraway added. that this unprecedented and disproportionate charter school <br />enrollment is significant at least because it increases the amount of the funding increase <br />that OCS is requesting. It is important that everyone understand why OCS is requesting <br />that much more money, she said. It is money that OCS is asking for but would not be <br />able to use for OCS programs. <br />Dr. Kelley suggested that instead of focusing attention on the district's increase in charter <br />school enrollment, OCS emphasize that its students have needs that are not going to be <br />met if the County does not meet the district's full budget request. <br />lVir. Whitling, calling attention to the handout titled, "County's Annual Debt Service <br />Projections," noted the gap between the County's debt ceiling and the projected debt <br />service for 2009-10. He asked if the projected gap would be as large if the County had <br />made a different decision.in 1996 on the Cedaz Ridge High School construction debt. <br />Mr: Visser said that he could not answer Mr. Whitling's question without a lot more <br />research, and that the policy adopted by the Commissioners. a yeaz ago takes <br />reconsideration of that decision "out of play." He explained to the group that the County <br />and school boards in 1996 had structured an arrangement to use OCS "pay as you go" <br />funds for half of the original construction costs for Cedar ~dague ugh S was in pazt t than <br />fund those costs through debt service. The purpose of th g <br />facilitate the passage of the 1997 bond referendum. In return, OCS was to receive future <br />funding for capital needs. However, Mr. Whitling added, interest rates declined <br />unexpectedly, the savings that the County had anticipated from the arrangement did not <br />materialize, and -- although OCS appreciates the decision in the. short term -the county <br />district did not received the anticipated. longer term benefit. <br />Ms. Hough said that the "County's Annual Debt Service Projections" handout raises a <br />question about the relationship between the County's capital debt ceiling and the ability <br />of the County to meet the schools' operating budget requests.. We aze now so close to the <br />County's debt ceiling, she noted, and we're using taxes to pay off debt more <br />aggressively. Is this the reason why the County would not raise both the ad valorem anal <br />district taxes in order to meet the schools' needs for operating funds, she asked? Dr. <br />Kelley said that this was "an excellent question," and restated it for Mr. Visser: is there <br />any financial reason why the ad valorem tax cannot be raised? <br />Mr. Visser said the County is not allowed to have a tax rate that exceeds $1.50, but "at <br />the funding levels we're talking about here, we're not approaching that statutory limit " <br />Mr. Link added that only one county in the state (Scotland County) has a tax rate above <br />4 <br />