Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-31-2005-6
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2005
>
Agenda - 03-31-2005
>
Agenda - 03-31-2005-6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 5:02:57 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:13:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/31/2005
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20050331
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools <br />Lincoln Center, 750 S. Merritf Mill Road <br />Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 -2881 <br />The Board of Education <br />Nell C.. Pedersen <br />Superintendent <br />Moses Carey <br />County Commissioner <br />901 L,ystra Lane <br />Chapel Hill, NC 27514 <br />Deaz Commissioner Carey: <br />Telephone: (9191967.8211 Ext. 226 <br />FAX: (9191933-4560 <br />Llsa Stuckey <br />Chair, Board of Education <br />Ianaury 4, 2005 <br />The Orange County Board of County Commissioners requested feedback from our school <br />district concerning the recently adopted 60 - 40 split of capital funds between the schools <br />and the county. The Chapel Hill -Carrboro City School Board discussed the resolution at <br />its December 2, 2004 meeting. At the School Board's direction, I shared our questions <br />with the Collaboration Committee at its December 13, 2004 meeting. At your request, I <br />am writing this letter so that my Board's concerns can be shared with the other members <br />of the BOCC. <br />The Schooi Board understands that there are county facility needs that, if met, would <br />provide value to the community. Funds are insufficient to meet all of these needs as well <br />as the anticipated needs of the school districts. However, we have several concerns about <br />the rationale and implications for the 60 - 40 split. <br />1. We do not see the need to adopt a target for allocating capital spending. Of specific <br />concern is how future conditions which are not present or anticipated today will be <br />addressed using ttre target. We would recoinmend that instead of identifying a formula, <br />the BOCC work in conjunction with a community task force and prioritize capital needs <br />in light of conditions present when the decisions aze made. Some flexibility seems <br />inevitable since the future cannot be predicted. If the goal is to address unmet county <br />needs and to make citizens aware that priorities have shifted, that can be done without the <br />limitations and inflexibility of apre-determined target.. <br />2, No basis for the 60 - 40 ratio is apparent. We are not aware that an assessment of <br />capital needs has been made which compares the county needs versus the school needs <br />that exist now or are anticipated to exist in the future, <br />3 The Board of Education is concerned about how a 60 - 40 split would be implemented <br />For example, would the split apply to bond money, alternative funding and / or sales tax <br />funds? In addition to needing a new elementary school within the next decade, our district <br />is very concerned about maintaining and upgrading our older facilities, Frequently, <br />upkeep of older buildings revolves around health and safety issues. Should a bond be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.