Commissioners target funding equity

Tensions continued to build among local leaders Tuesday about what many call the tightest budget process in recent memory.

The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with both the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County boards of education to discuss issues that will affect each of their 2005-06 fiscal year budgets.

County Budget Director Donna Dean first reviewed with officials seven options to revise the process by which the commissioners allot funding for capital projects.

Commissioners Chairman Moses Carey Jr. said the current method for approving capital funding is confusing.

“The current policy is a hodgepodge of very complex and difficult-to-track decisions,” he said.

The policy now sells itself as an even split in the amount of net funding available for capital projects between county and schools needs, though schools have received upward of 77 percent of those funds in recent years.

Under all the proposed policies for next fiscal year, the available funds will be split with 60 percent going to school needs and 40 percent earmarked for county projects — an advantage for the county.

“If you pursue (the 60/40 split), the Orange County government will receive more revenue than it would under the base amount,” said County Manager John Link.

The issue of capital funding has received increased attention recently, as both districts begin the process of building new schools.

Commissioner Alice Gordon asked school leaders to provide the board with the costs associated with the districts’ other capital projects.

But city school board Chairwoman Lisa Stuckey said the boards were not asked to provide those estimates to county staff.

“The staff might have asked not to include it, but the commissioners are now saying include it,” Gordon responded.

And capital funding was not the only issue discussed Tuesday to cause tempers to flare.

Leaders also discussed a study completed by UNC School of Education professor Madeleine Grumet — one that shows a significant funding disparity between city and county schools.

The study showed that city schools have almost $13 million more in available funding, mostly due to a special district tax that is specifically earmarked for education.

Several commissioners said they should focus on defining exactly what equity means before pursuing policies to close any gap between the districts.

“We do need a working definition for equity,” said Valerie Foushee, commissioner and former city school board member.

County school board member Elizabeth Brown said her definition of the term translates to equal funding for both districts.

“We’re all in the same county,” she said. “The students should be getting the same amount of money, and the teachers should be paid the same.”

But two of Brown’s colleagues denied that a funding gap exists.

Al Hartkopf and Randy Copeland both said there is no funding problem between the districts.

“(County schools) are well-funded compared to other counties in the state,” Copeland said.

Libbie Hough, county school board chairwoman, said outside of the equity question are real concerns that her district is facing.

“We aren’t crying wolf about some of the challenges we’re facing in this county,” she said.

Several politicians were quick to point out the difficulty commissioners will face in weighing the needs of their constituents.

“The demands are going to keep on coming,” Copeland said.

 

Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu.