Agenda - 02-12-2004-6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

fafs in June, then we'll have something concrete that we can move forward with. But if the public decides that merger is the best option and the most efficient and economical option for us to move forward with, then we may still use some of the suggestions that come out of the collaboration task force or collaboration discussion, but we will be able to move immediately to the ultimate collaboration of merging the systems of July 1, 2007. So I'm asking the Board to consider this whether we decide to put this forward to the public tonight or at a subsequent meeting. I think that we'd have to make the decision in January in order to get the issue clarified and on the ballot by May, So, I'm asking the Board to consider this tonight, because I think this responds to what we've been hearing from the public in all of the public hearings, and I might add that, in the three public hearings, while some people may perceive it to be overwhelmingly anti - merger, 30% of the people in the first public hearing spoke in favor of merger, 40% in the second, and 35% in the third. That's significant in my opinion, And I think that moving in this direction and giving the public the option to make the decision would at least give a vision of when the acrimony and the divisiveness might end on this issue, I'm finished. Commissioner Gordon: Obviously, part of my proposal would agree with that. It will take a little while for me to absorb what Moses' proposal contains. But certainly, I think that something that would address the funding disparity between the two school systems as soon as possible has to be seriously considered. As I say in my rationale leading up to the same proposal that I made November 11`h, is that I didn't support merger, because I couldn't see arguments for merger beyond the quality of funding, or the equity in funding or correcting the funding disparity. To me, arguments are compelling to correct the funding disparity as soon as possible, and that's July 1, 2004.. 1 feel that it's crucial, and one of the things that Moses' idea would do would be to address the funding disparity as soon as possible. Also, it has the aspect of a vote, which I think is very good. I don't know when the Board wants to decide about the supplemental tax. I detected at the other discussion that we had, the preliminary discussion that the Board wanted to mull things over a little bit more. But I do feel that something to address the funding disparity has to be done as soon as possible. I don't think we can let that continue. I just don't see that merger is necessary, I just see that collaboration and especially correcting the funding disparity is absolutely necessary. So let me think about your proposal, because it has a lot of elements that I would support in terms of how you stated it, Commissioner Brown: The clarification on this, I think both of your proposals, would be important about district tax or supplemental tax. It is the same thing, if I'm not wrong. And what you've both proposed is just a slight variation of beginning that process of reducing the Chapel Hill district tax and implementing a countywide tax for schools. But I do want to clarify one issue, and I think Moses, you mention it at the bottom here that putting in Commissioner Gordon's proposal does not truly tell us the details of how much money would be raised for the Orange County system and also the Chapel Hill system. This would have to be done in a per pupil way. And so we talk about immediate monies to alleviate the Orange County system's budget issues, but we also I think need to very much know how much money then the Orange County system would get. And I have not seen any figures that represent that. But proportionally, John, maybe you could just comment on a four -cent increase for Orange County, what would be the equivalent amount increase for Chapel Hill? John Link: Well, I think Rod, who helped develop these charts that we presented during our report of September 15ffi, may recall what the mathematical a1