BC 2004 06 23 SPECIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 23, 2004 Page 525 Further, Mr. Henriques said there are other important capital needs that were not addressed in the County Manager's recommended budget, such as activity buses, a service truck, replacement of intercom systems at four elementary schools, etc. Also, he stated the County Manager's recommended budget provided only $260,000 instead of the requested $1,495,000 for the purchase of 23 buses. In addition, Mr. Henriques reported the School Board asked for an increase of $1,748,000 for direct current expenses; however, Mr. Day's recommended budget only appropriated an increase of $1.2 million. This left a deficit of $548,000 and a number of unfunded items such as staff development (partial funding), work force development, technology maintenance, etc. Mr. Day presented the County's response to the presentation by Mr. Henriques. He reviewed the County's budget process and reported the County's General Fund budget decreased spending by one-half percent while educational funding increased by nine percent. Mr. Day pointed out that school construction funds were not part of the annual operating budget. He stated the recommended school funding was below what was requested due to current economic conditions. However, he said it had appeared every one was in support of the recommended budget for the Schools. Mr. Day read the following statements of support made on June 7 and June 15 by Dr. Winkler and School Board Member Cindy Fertenbaugh, respectively: Dr. Winkler: "While the budget that Mr. Day is recommending is certainly not what we would like, we also realize that may not be possible given the economic times, but we would encourage you to give every consideration to Mr. Day's budget and to approving that budget and hopefully we will be able to move forward with some better economic times." Ms. Fertenbaugh: "We strongly urge you to support County Manager Day's budget as presented and discussed on June 7-8 and we urge you to immediately address the continuing facility needs." Mr. Day reported on the Board's appointment of the Community Committee on Education Capital Planning and Financing to look at capital construction needs. Under the direction of that Committee, staffs from the County and two school systems had developed a set of guiding principles for the construction of future schools. The Committee had also looked at a detailed listing of capital construction needs and financing options for the next ten years. Mr. Day stated the County had received the Committee's report on June 15=n and had scheduled a meeting on June 24=n to make a decision regarding capital requests from the School Board. Further, he explained that land purchases could be included in the bond referendum and that an option could be placed on the property to prevent a delay in the construction process. Finally, Mr. Day said the County was trying to understand why this meeting was called since the recommended budget was approved as requested by the Schools. Several School Board members offered comments during the meeting. Ms. Mynatt stated the School Board had met with the Board of Commissioners in November 2003, January and February 2004, regarding school construction needs; however, the Commissioners had failed to take action in seven months. She also stated the School Board members lacked confidence, based on historical evidence, that the Commissioners will address those needs. Mr. Williams expressed concern that the change in the design of schools to create two-story buildings and smaller schools would increase the cost of school construction. Other issues addressed by School Board members included funds for the purchase of land for new schools, the School system's 15-year building plan and the requested bond referendum. Mr. Henriques addressed the issue of capital outlay and funding for land acquisition and school construction. He referenced NCGS 115C-426 which stated the capital outlay fund shall include appropriations for the acquisition of real property for school purposes including school sites and the construction of school buildings. Ms. Porter reported that NCGS 115C-426 also states that appropriations in the capital outlay fund shall be funded by revenues made available for capital outlay purposes by the- State .Board of Education and the Board of County Commissioners. She said the burden for providing capital outlay funding does not lie solely with the County Commissioners and that it is a joint responsibility with the State. She said the same statute {NCGS 115- 426(e)} also states the expense fund for the School Board shall be within the