Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
28 <br />The "Financial b~zpact" of the Schools APFO was estimated by the "Charts "noted above. <br />Hotivever, as disczssed at the October Z BOCC tivork session and October 10 BOCC <br />nzeetirzg, the fiscal inrpact as it relates to the variety of competing commissioners goals <br />will need to be fzrrther analyzed. The developing list of capital needs is attached as tivell <br />as the tentative bond development schedarle. <br />B. We should add language to the Memorandum of Understanding that more clearly spells <br />out the financial obligations that the County, Towns, and School Boards expect the <br />County to undertake. h'or example, we should have clear answers to the following <br />questions: <br />1. (a) Is the County expected to fund school construction at an unlimited rate to <br />keep up with whatever development is approved? <br />OR (b) Is the County allowed to set limits on the amount of money that is to be <br />~. allocated for school construction (based on reasonable considerations <br />- ~ such as debt service limits, competing needs, reasonable .tax rate <br />increases, and: so forth). <br />Please refer, to Issue #1 noted in Genf Gledhidl's letter dated 9/29/00 to BOCC. <br />Also see Responsibility Chart. <br />2. Is the County expected to fund school construction if a school bond referendum <br />fails? <br />Tf a school bond referer7dzrnz fails, the BOCC ~ have to develop other firnding <br />mechar7isnzs that wozrld affect the balance and order of fiscal goals and capital needs. <br />C. The Schools APFO documents assume that we have "caught up" with current <br />development, and now must just "keep up." Is that true? What are the percentages at <br />each level (elementary, middle, high school) for each school district? <br />The idea that the school districts have "caught zrp" is a very dynamic concept. Besides . <br />the variables in determining school bzilding capacity, ongoing enrollment increases and <br />accelerating development proposals, what can be stated is that it is better to proceed with <br />dire speed to adopt a Schools APFO becazrse over-capacity situations shozrld be <br />manageable at this time. Many other jzrrisdictions that attempt Schools APFO have <br />extreme.di~culty meeting adequirte level of service standards because they have lapsed <br />in their effort to address capacity problems sooner than later where major capacity <br />increases are fiscal improbabilities. <br />Orange Cozrnty. has addressed school capacity on a planned and prudent basis with the <br />bond programs in 1988; 1992.and 1997. The Schools APFD will assist in creating <br />structzrre and process and ident~ing capital needs through stzrdent projections and <br />enhanced intergovernmental and school district coordination. <br />D. As stated on September 25, we must address the definition of "building capacity." What <br />would you suggest? . <br />See revision in Menzarandzrm of Understanding and Ordinance. <br />E. I will bring to the work session my other comments and suggestions concerning the <br />Schools APFO (not SAPFO). <br />As discussed and incorporated in the tLiOU. <br />