Agenda - 05-29-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OFFICIAL COPY MINUTES APPROVED 9/03/85 MINUTES MAME COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL METING BUDGET MAY 29, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on May 29, 1985 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina for the purpose of hearing a presentation by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools on operating and capital requirements for 1985-86 and a presentation from County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson on the major cost elements of a 10% personnel increase proposed by the state. COMMTSRIONERS PRESENT: Chair Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. HEMMEMEL County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Director of Finance Gordon Baker, Assistant County Manager Albert Rittrell, Financial Analyst Donna Clayton and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. Dr. Parrish, Chair of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools, noted the budget is nonexpansionary and the recommendation from the County Manager is greatly inadequate to fully fund the budget. Sue Baker, School Board Member, stressed that full funding of the budget in just a continuation of their present programs and services with no increase in staff. She requested that this,continuation be funded. She gave a brief summary of the achievements by Chapel Hill-Cariboro students. Dr. Mayer, Superintendent of Schools, trade the following comments: 1. Student population continues to climb with an expected enroll- ment for 1985-86 of 5,334 students. 2. The 1984-85 budget was supplemented with approximately $800,000 from the fund balance which is a nonrecurring source of revenu- e. 3. The budget request represents a status quo budget for program expenditures with a 5% inflationary factor built into non- program expenditures with exceptions in several areas. Dr. Mayer gave an overview of the preliminary budget and summarized certain key items: 1. Revenue projections are based on a per pupil allocation of $782 for 5,334 projected students which equals $946,439. 2. A district tax increase of 3.7 cents to 19.3 cents will yield $602,494. 3. The appropriation from the County represents 87.4% of all local funds. 4. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the request will go for employees. Harvey Gay, Finance Officer, described the process by which the budget was put together and detailed information about changes in the actual amounts of money being spent: 1. Ten percent (10%) salary increase is in the budget for all employees. 2. Five percent (5%) inflation increase for all nonsalaried cost except for utility cost, telephone cost, insurance cost, etc. 3. Referring to Category 1, current capital is a reflection of the five-year, long-range capital plan. He noted that all other items listed were presented in the budget last year but were cut. The only additional request is for storage space. He summarized the new items in Category 2 and listed the replacement items in category 3. Chair Willhoit asked that at a future budget session a discussion be held to determine the discrepancies in the deficit from last year and whether the