Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
link" between the two districts' budget requests. I have no problem with people choosing <br />to tax themselves, she said, but for me the problem is the size of the district tax relative to <br />the overall shaze of local funding. "If we don't have the option of raising the ad valorem <br />tax and reducing the district tax then I don't know what other solution exists." <br />Mr. Kelly said that the district tax has "no effect" on the County's debt ceiling. He said <br />that if the district tax were eliminated, "two thirds of the County's population would <br />come screaming to the Board" demanding that the ad valorem tax be raised to replace <br />those funds for education. As a result, the People living outside of the city school district <br />would "have no say in what that tax level is: ' In my opinion, he said, it would be wrong <br />to eliminate the right of the people living outside of the city district to determine their <br />own tax level. Instead, he said, the approach to fair funding should be to connect both of <br />the school boazds more tightly with their respective constituents: either tighten the <br />connection officially, by giving each of the school boards taxation authority, or tighten <br />the connection unofficially, through a commitment by the BOCC for "pass through <br />budgeting." <br />Ms. Bedford said that she would like to see per pupil funding in both distracts increased <br />consistent with how the respective school boards have defined their own needs, and to do <br />this through a rise in the ad valorem tax. If the ad valorem tax rises sufficient to enable <br />reduction of the district tax, she said, then it would appropriate to reduce the district tax. <br />"Perhaps it is time for the [4$%] target for education to be increased," she added. This <br />county values education -along with other things -- and the target is holding both of the <br />school districts back. She suggested that the BOCC investigate the impact of adding two <br />cents to the ad valorem tax, dedicated for schools. <br />Ms. Bedford also said that she is concerned about higher taxes causing displacement of <br />long-term residents from both districts. She wondered whether senior, disabled, or <br />limited-income residents of over twenty years or so could be assessed lower property tax <br />rates, and suggested that the BOCC investigate this fiu~fher. <br />Dr. Hamilton said she would like each school district to get what it needs, and <br />distinguished "fulfillment of needs" from two other ways of defining fairness: equality <br />and equity ("you get what you pay for"). She acknowledged that equity also plays an <br />appropriate role within each district, for example, she said, it is fair [i.e., equitable] for <br />the constituents of a school district to get the sort of public education for which they aze <br />willing to tax themselves. In order to be fair to both districts [i.e., fulfill the needs of both <br />districts], she said, there must be more funding for both. If ad valorem taxes are not <br />raised enough to fulfill the needs of both districts, then it is fair [i.e., need fulfilling] for <br />the city school district to supplement the County allocation with funds from its district <br />tax, especially since this would not constrain OCS from getting what it needs. On the <br />other hand, she said, if ad valorem taxes were raised to levels that would provide the city <br />district with more operational funds than it needs, then it would be appropriate to lower <br />the district tax. <br />7 <br />