Education Facilities

Recommendations

Local governments should minimize the amount of debt incurred for school capital expenses. A short-term need for additional classroom space or building repair must be weighed against the fiscal implications of assuming long-term capital debt. Planning for these obligations should include a thorough examination of current and projected revenue streams, student enrollment, population, and the county's financial obligations. Local government officials can then determine whether the county's tax base will support years of debt service payments. It will also provide an opportunity to consider deferring the project(s) under consideration or building up a reserve fund.

Local governments should encourage school districts to use proven, cost-efficient solutions that do not burden county taxpayers and that enhance educational opportunities for students. Last year, local government debt service for school facilities exceeded $780 million — debt financed to maintain costly school-construction programs. Public/private partnerships, adaptive-reuse buildings, ninth-grade centers, satellite campuses, and virtual schools allow school districts to increase building capacity faster and more cheaply than conventional school construction and renovation methods. Public charter schools are another cost savings tool, as they do not receive local or state funding for capital expenses.

Local government officials should consider alternative ways of managing school facilities programs.For example, House Bill 726, proposed during the 2013 legislative session, would have given Wake County commissioners the option of managing the Wake County Schools' facilities program. While this bill failed to pass, there remains interest in giving county commissions the option to oversee the construction, renovation, and maintenance of school buildings as a way to realize fiscal and managerial efficiencies.

Appoint members of the community to serve on facilities oversight boards. City councils, county commissions, and school boards should work together to establish facilities advisory boards consisting of citizens who have expertise in finance, construction, education, and public administration. Ideally, these boards would spearhead fundraising campaigns, volunteer activities, and public forums designed to improve public school facilities. In addition, these boards would serve as independent advisors and evaluators of school facilities programs.

Background

According to state law, local governments have two primary responsibilities related to the public school districts within their jurisdictions — budget appropriations and school facilities. A third, seldom used, function is the approval of school district consolidations and mergers.

As part of this responsibility, local government officials collaborate with boards of education to oversee the funding, construction, renovation, and maintenance of public school facilities. In addition, local governments are the primary sources of funding for related expenses, including furniture, equipment, library books, supplies, property insurance, and fire inspections.

Given the importance of school facilities and the considerable expense involved in building and maintaining them, it is critical that county commissions and school boards spend capital dollars wisely, utilize efficient building practices, and adopt innovative solutions to ensure that all children have adequate learning environments.

Analysis

Since 1995, North Carolina's local governments have spent an average of $716 million per year and a total of $12 billion on school facilities. Locally funded capital expenditures represented 85 percent of all public school capital spending in the state.

The state legislature occasionally provides an infusion of state funds for school facilities. Since 1949, the N.C. General Assembly has passed one facilities appropriation bill and five state school bonds. The legislature approved the last statewide facilities bond in 1996. Today, a portion of corporate income tax revenue and the state lottery are the two primary sources of state funds for school facilities. As part of the reform of the state tax code in 2013, the General Assembly lowered the corporate income tax rate, which may affect revenues available to school districts in subsequent years.

County commissions can acquire property on behalf of boards of education, as well as construct, equip, expand, improve, or renovate property for use by a local school system. They may also allow local boards of education to build schools on county-owned property.

In most cases, county commissions and local boards of education accept discrete responsibilities for school facilities. School districts manage the school facilities program. County commissioners approve debt funding in the form of certificates of participation and installment purchase contracts (neither of which require voter approval) or general obligation bonds (which require voter approval). The state also permits local governments to impose local option sales taxes and other supplementary taxes to pay for school facilities.



Analyst: Dr. Terry Stoops
Director of Education Studies
919-828-3876 • tstoops@johnlocke.org


The entire 2014 City & County Issue Guide, is available for download as a 3.6MB Adobe Acrobat file.
The free Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view or print this document.


Who Is John Locke

JLF Network Websites & Blogs