Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br /> <br />the issuance of the State's Triple A rated bonds. Each of us must judge <br />whether relieving local government of all financial responsibility for <br />public schools is in the best interest of public education. It is our belief <br />that local responsibility, local authority, and local decision making, while <br />carrying some disadvantage inherent in the unequal distribution of resources <br />across the state, nevertheless yield greater strength and character to our <br />system of public education. <br /> <br /> Fifth, the issuance of state bonds to provide grants to counties and <br />thus supplement county spending for school construction has been routinely <br />practiced by the General Assembly in 1949, 1953, 1963 and 1973. lhis method <br />of financing was designed to help counties to catch-up with building needs <br />not met by the county alone, ll~e General Assembly, in 1983 and again in <br />1986, decided against continuing this method of financing and, in lieu <br />thereof, created a local revenue stream by earmarking proceeds of newly <br />authorized local-option sales taxes for school construction and debt <br />service. <br /> <br /> Sixth, the State could adopt a pay-as-you-go method by direct <br />appropriation to supplement county pay-as-you-go programs. This method of <br />financing would give rise to the same problems described for local <br />pay-as-you-go in the second method above. In addition, public school <br />construction ~uld be in direct competition with the infrastructure needs of <br />state agencies and local government entities, including water and sewer, <br />jails, p)'i$ons, mental hospitals, streets, solid and low-level wastes, parks <br />and other capital needs; hardly appropriate for public education, the <br />State's first priority. <br /> <br /> A review of the foregoing alternatives reveals that lowest costs are <br />incurred ~y issuing State bonds and that local authority and local decision <br />making are best assured by assigning local responsibility. We have not <br />heretofore had a method of achieving these desirable dual objectives. Now, <br />this is exactly what the proposed plan will do. County commissioners, <br />legislators, and other officials involved in the fonding of public school <br />construction costs ~611 be w~ll served by this newest version of our <br />traditional policy of participation between the General Assembly and the 100 <br />boards of county commissioners. <br /> <br /> Harlan E. Boyles <br /> State Treasurer <br /> <br />HEB/pro <br /> <br /> <br />