DATE: May 14, 2007 PRESENT: Barbara Owens, Chair Mary Grace BrightJill CamnitzA. Michael DixonBetsy LeechBarbara Owens

TIME: 6:00 P.M./7:00 P.M. Billy PeadenRoy PeadenSidney ScottDick TolmieDelano Wilson

PLACE:Hope Middle School ABSENT: Ralph Love, Sr.Marcy Romary

The Pitt County Board of Education and Pitt County Board of Commissioners met in joint session on Monday, May 14, 2007, at Hope Middle School at 6:00 p.m. for tours and a light meal and at 7:00 p.m. for the program. In addition to the Pitt County Board of Education members present, Commissioners present included the Chairperson – Beth Ward, Vice Chair – Mark Owens, and Commissioners Jimmy Garris, Tom Coulson, Eugene James, David Hammond, Melvin McLawhorn, Tom Johnson, and Kenneth Ross.

Staff members in attendance for the Pitt County Board of Education were Superintendent Dr. Beverly Reep, Associate Superintendents Aaron Beaulieu and Mary Williamson, Personnel Executive Director Delilah Jackson and Finance Officer Michael Cowin. Other staff in attendance included School Attorney Rob Sonnenberg, Public Information Officer Heather Mayo, Special Assistant Jesse Hinton, Administrative Assistant Brenda Strickland and Superintendent Secretary Melissa Grimes.

Staff members in attendance for the Pitt County Board of Commissioners were County Manager Scott Elliott, Deputy County Manager/Financial Services Melonie Bryan, County Attorney Jo Anne Burgdorff, Assistant County Attorney Janis Gallagher, Chief Information Officer Michael Taylor, Director of Human Resources Florida Hardy, Public Information Officer Thomas Lynch, Clerk to the Board Trish Staton, and Planning Director James Rhodes.

Chairmans Owens and Ward called the two Boards to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner David Hammond provided the Invocation.

Commissioner Mark Owens led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Superintendent Beverly Reep welcomed everyone to Hope Middle School for the traditional spring Joint Meeting and expressed appreciation to Principal Pat Clark and students of Hope Middle School for the tours provided earlier in the evening. Thanks were also expressed to the Child Nutrition Department for the refreshments provided in the cafeteria. Dr. Reep congratulated the members of both Boards for building such an outstanding facility for students of Pitt County.

Board member Sidney Scott, Chair of the Board of Education Finance Committee, introduced Mr. Michael Cowin, Finance Officer to present the 2007-08 Pitt County Schools’ Proposed Local Budget. Mr. Cowin expressed appreciation to the Commissioners and to the Board of Education for the commitment to public education and to the students of Pitt County Schools. Referencing the Board of Education’s commitment to public education, he reviewed the Board of Education’s Mission Statement, and he discussed the Commissioner’s commitment to “strive to sustain and exceed the top one third in the State for ADM funding to Pitt County Schools.”

With concerns to the current Budget proposal, he said the two Boards were at a crossroads and would have to decide which way to go. He reviewed County appropriations to the schools, along with other revenues and he discussed fixed costs increases, new money requests, and the total proposed Budget of $4,432,111.73.

Mr. Cowin made reference to the discussions the previous week by the County Commissioners that suggested funding for the schools would be at $926,971.00. This, he said, would not even be 50% of the fixed costs the Board of Education was facing for the next school year, would fund no new initiatives such as an Alternative School Program, and would result in a shortfall of $1,271,390.73. He advised that a shortfall of this amount would have a severe and damaging impact on the school system and would require a reduction in 37 local positions (list shared). Additionally, he provided several graphs to illustrate how Pitt County Schools had been funded over the past eight years compared to other counties in the State and top third of the State. He pointed out that Pitt County continues to lag behind the average of the top one third. Furthermore, he noted that Pitt County’s local ADM funding did not even meet the overall State average. Looking at the trend, he said, the difference between local funding for Pitt County and the average of other counties in the State, particularly the top one third, continued to widen. He suggested that since the time of the Education Compact the level of funding had been moving in the wrong direction and was in danger of falling out of the top one third category in 2007 altogether.

Reviewing the proposed Operating Budget for Pitt County Schools, Mr. Cowin presented and discussed the following:

He discussed that 41.7% of the total Operating Budget was going to instructional programs and he shared that in comparing that percentage to the top one third counties and the State, Pitt County Schools was no different from the top one-third. The same, he said, was true in looking at the number of positions being funded locally in support of instructional programs.

He emphasized that the Board of Education heard the concerns of the County Commissioners the year before in regard to local positions and had worked to reduce those and had reduced those by 35 positions. This, he said, was in fact necessary to balance the Budget this current year. Also this year, he said, the State provided additional revenues in the form of “Disadvantaged Students Fund” and the State Low Wealth dollars, which had to be used just to balance the local Operating Budget. He reiterated that this meant no new initiatives had been implemented.

Mr. Cowin reviewed the slide below to illustrate that in looking at how Pitt County Schools utilizes its locally funded positions, that it again compared favorably to the benchmark

group.

In regard to the proposed new money requests totaling $2,233.750, he shared the list of programs and incentives included in that package.

In reviewing this year’s new money requests, he emphasized that Pitt County Schools was committed to making the Alternative School Program a reality and felt that doing so would be in the best interest of the County and its investment in students. Without funding from the County to support this program, Mr. Cowin advised that the $417,000 estimated for program implementation would have to come at the expense of CTE, regular classroom and/or Exception Children teaching positions and he estimated that $417,000 would represent about 10 teaching positions.

Looking at the Capital revenues and expenditures, Mr. Cowin provided and reviewed the following:

Mr. Cowin provided a quick summary of all the information he had covered and emphasized again that we were at a crossroads at which the two Boards needed to work together to determine where we go from here. In closing, he shared information to reflect additional comparisons of Pitt County to the top one-third counties including:

Pitt County Ranking Among Top 1/3rdCounty Population 143,207 10th Highest out of 33County Employees 876 11th out of 332004 Per Capita Income $26,777 17th out of 33Tax Levy per Capita $442 32nd out of 33

Mr. Cowin referenced the County Manager’s discussion with the Board of Commissioners the previous week regarding the possibility of a 1.5 cent increase in the Ad Valorem Tax. He shared that for a house costing $200,000, this would represent an annual tax increase of $30 per year. He shared examples of some items costing $30 and suggested for the investment in children, it would seem worthwhile for taxpayers to be willing to made that sacrifice.

Questions and Comments from Commissioners and Board members included (paraphrased):

(Commissioner Eugene James) The number one problem is dropouts; dropouts don’t pay taxes. When I started teaching we had a lot more trades courses than we have now and you are talking about decreasing them, so it shows me what your priorities are and I don’t like it. We find money for what our priorities are. When you say $30 is not much money, but it is to senior citizens who live day by day. We have a lot of choices. I’m for education. I appreciate the Board of Education and I know you have needs. The County has so many

needs and I am hopeful we will find some new source of revenues that will help do those things we are talking about.

I read in the paper you are purchasing something and making a down payment of $400,000. If your needs are so great, why are you purchasing that property. I taught Agriculture for a long time and for an Ag teacher that does his job properly, he would visit every student at their home. And we hope these students go on to Pitt Community College.

(Response: The $400,000 that was put in the one-time balance of capital funds that we had already in hand from the sales tax was to make a down payment purchase on The Zone (as it is currently called) in Winterville. That is one of the sights we are currently looking at to possibly house the alternative school that you have heard mention of tonight. We are also working with the new and existing Boys and Girls Club on possible plans to house this program. We are thankful and appreciative of the Community Schools and Recreation facility but right now that building is used or rented on an 87% basis. The Zone property would be another facility on that side of the County that has grown rapidly where we would like to use and expand Community Schools’ space. It is attached to the Pitt County Girls’ Softball Association complex. We would hope that this building would be a revenue-generating facility. The batting cages alone, we understand, would bring in $50,000-$60,000.) Again, these funds are Sales Tax balance dollars that are existing from previous years that have accumulated and is not a new money request.)

I am serious about the dropouts, because for everyone we lose, we are losing a taxpayer for Pitt County. I request that you look at the trade classes, because there are so many students that are not able to go to a four-year institution. North of the River needs the best teachers that the schools have to offer because we have the lowest caliber (of students). They need help more than anyone in Pitt County. And if you think you don’t have a higher drop out rate than 40%, you are dreaming. You’re counting from the 9th to the 12th grades. They need more teachers training them, not less. All you have to do is go to the jail or community and see the people out there who are not making any money, not paying any taxes. We have to find some other sources of revenue. We might make some people mad, but I am willing to do that.

(Response from Dr. Reep) The conflict for us is that we feel that we need to be trying to decrease locally paid positions and we have ten in CTE. In addition to all the other positions we fund with those State months of employment allotted to us, we have ten additional locally paid positions. Last year, we had sixteen. When we looked at that last year, we determined that most districts are able to deliver their program with the State allocation and our goal has been to try to get that number back under the State allotment and that means we are offering less courses, not more. We agree that we have students who sign up for courses that many times we cannot offer because we do not have the staff to do that, but that is one area where we can decrease the locally paid teacher positions.

(Mr. James) The block (schedule) cuts out trade courses. Which is more expensive? The block system or the regular class? Can you answer that. When I taught, children could take 7 courses at the time.

(Dr. Reep) What I can tell you is that the 4 x 4 schedule offers students the ability to take more courses. I can also tell you that during the five years of the Education Compact there were more teachers added at the high school level and I am certain part of that was due to expanded course offerings, and that cost more money. I do not have an exact dollar figure tonight. Students can take 8 courses a year in the Block schedule.

(Commissioner Tom Johnson) There are responsibilities of the County Commissioners and others of the Board of Education, and I try to honor those all the time. I think it best for

County Commissioners to honor the decision making of the Board of Education, and I would hope the Board of Education will honor the decision that the County Commissioners have to make. I would hope that what we could talk about tonight would be the proposed operating budget because the use of the sales tax money designated for capital expense belongs to the Board of Education and the Commissioners should not think that they have any authority whatsoever over that money,

(Board of Education Member Dick Tolmie) Michael Cowin did a great job going through the comparisons for the top third counties, but the bottom line is that for three years now and a possible fourth year, the schools have been underfunded the amount that they needed to just hold even with inflation and keep up with State decisions such as increases in teacher salaries, etc. I agree that we should do all we can for Career and Technical students but we also need to do all we can for AP students. I was, at the time, in favor of implementing the high school equity plan, but if we have been funded $2.1 million less than what we needed the last three years and we are looking at possibly another $2.1 million under now, I would say that we are doing pretty well that if we have to cut 37 positions, that we only cut 5 trade positions. If the County Commissioners are only able to fund us at $2.1 million less than what we need, then I think that is about the best we can do.

(Board of Education Member Mary Grace Bright) I appreciate Mr. James’ concern about dropouts and the Board of Education shares that concern. But that concern supports our proposed new money requests. On page 14 of the handout under proposed new money requests, you will see an Alternative School Program listed which will help decrease our dropout rate. You see Reading Coaches for students not meeting AYP, which helps to decrease our dropout rate just as Middle School science equipment will help to decrease our dropout rate. The same is true for the Early College Program and increasing our teacher supplements, providing signing bonuses for new employees, incentive packages for hard to fill positions, and improving print collections. Every year when we have these meetings, we talk about hoping to find a revenue source. It is time for us to come up with a plan to provide the additional funding and do it. Whatever sacrifice it takes to raise taxes, we need to move forward and we need to approve this Budget as it stands.

(Commissioner Melvin McLawhorn) Thank you for that excellent presentation, I think it was very thorough. I want to make a couple of points and the first is related to the Alternative School. I think it is critical that we try to save our children and we educate those children that fell through the cracks. The education of these children will hopefully make them productive and able to move on to trade schools or others. The other thing that I want to point out is that I represent a lot of people but the bulk of those I represent are low income and are barely eating as we speak now. Some are making choices between medicine and food on the table. Some wish they had the ability to do some of these things (that are listed as sacrifices to meet the proposed tax increase.) They say that to have an additional burden would hurt. We have to do something constructive and positive for our system and the education of our children, but I am hoping that as Mr. Elliott makes his presentation, that we are able to find someway to support the Alternative School.

(County Commissioner Mark Owens) I thank the School Board and staff for the presentation. You have given me the sufficient evidence to use as we now go back as County Commissioners to evaluate and appropriate whatever funds the Board sees fit to do, and we thank you for this presentation.

(County Commissioner David Hammond) Can somebody tell me where The Zone is physically located? (Directions supplied.) Here we go again. Whenever your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall. I learned at W. H. Robinson School that the sum is equal to all of its parts. Recently on Fox News, I heard them say, we report, you decide. From I-95 to the coast is eastern North Carolina, and we here in Pitt County, are still

a low-wealth area and a low-wealth County. We are the tenth largest. But the indicators are not justifying the evidence: suspensions are up, dropouts are up; all the indicators are going the wrong way. There was a time when tobacco provided work for the community that we don’t see any longer. Over in the north side, it is worse than it was fifty years ago. People all over the country are sacrificing their hard earned tax dollars to help companies get rich. When the companies get rich, they don’t allow the people who have put their sweat, blood, and tears for years into that company to enjoy anything from it. The CEO’s head out for retirement with all the bucks and then they ship the business to China because they can do business there cheaper than they can here. So, what are we doing? Education starts with the age-old process of child bearing, when they come in the world with parents that sacrifice and care.

Chairperson Ward recognized the County Manager for comments. Mr. Scott Elliott indicated that he had remarks he wished to make regarding the County’s Operating Budget for the next year. On a positive note, he said that Pitt County is growing at the rate of about 2,400 people per year with the tax base going from about $9.2 billion to $9.6 billion, which will result in approximately $2 million dollars in additional revenues not counting any tax increase. When growth comes, he said, there are services to be provided such as safety, sheriff’s department, detention center, as well as general departments of County Government. Within the schools, he said, there are Current Expense school needs and additionally, there are brick and mortar needs for the schools and other County facilities. The 2,400 people who are moving in the County on an annual basis, they are fueling the growth, but the growth is not substantial enough to meet the needs for the services of the Board of Education and government in general, he said. Mr. Elliott provided an example of a family household to illustrate this. He explained that what is needed in the County is industrial and commercial growth balanced with the residential growth.

Mr. Elliott stated that workshops were held the previous week in which the basic picture of the County’s Budget needs were painted. The numbers he would be sharing, he said, were predicated on the basis of a 1.5 cents Ad Valorem tax increase. He reviewed the following:

Budget Change – Net of Medicaid“All Funds” $197,836,192Medicaid ( 2,012,479) Revised $195,823,713

or -5.27%

“General Fund” $107,850,028Medicaid ( 2,012,479)Revised $105,837,549

or 3.30%

He stated that it was hoped counties would be held harmless by the General Assembly for the increased Medicaid expense and this $2M for Pitt County would not have to be included. If so, he said, it would be covered by fund balance. (A tax increase just to cover this expense, if necessary he said, would represent a 2.25 cents increase in the Ad Valorem tax.) The General Fund, he explained, is the area in which the County Commissioners have the most control.

Mr. Elliott reviewed the counties budgeting priorities as follows:

BOCC Priorities To ensure quality education; To ensure community safety through enhanced emergency service programs;

To enrich the quality of life for Pitt County citizens through opportunities for improved health and welfare; To advance economic development opportunities for Pitt County; To address the facility and space needs of all County government programs—general government, public schools and community college; To champion infrastructure improvements throughout the County; and To support the provision of and access to recreational activities for County citizens.

Discussing the Education Funding or Current Expense portion for the school system, Mr. Elliott shared these points:

Education Funding - Pitt County Schools Education Funding for “current expense” remains one of the top funding priorities of PittEducation Funding for “current expense” remains one of the top funding priorities of Pitt

County Government.County Government.

The FY 07-08 budget as originally presented recommended $1,614,811 in new funding.The FY 07-08 budget as originally presented recommended $1,614,811 in new funding. This amount represented ~80% of all net This amount represented ~80% of all net newnew revenue in the General Fund. revenue in the General Fund.

After initial presentation, discrepancies related to NCACC data were reviewed by staff toAfter initial presentation, discrepancies related to NCACC data were reviewed by staff to determine Pitt County’s true position in State funding rank. Analysis showed County indetermine Pitt County’s true position in State funding rank. Analysis showed County in 3232ndnd position. position.

Therefore, the funding recommendation was revised to $926,971 which keeps theTherefore, the funding recommendation was revised to $926,971 which keeps the County in Top 1/3County in Top 1/3rdrd and also represents ~50% of all net and also represents ~50% of all net newnew revenue in the General revenue in the General FundFund..

Education Funding – Pitt County Schools

Maintains funding goal of Top 1/3rd based on NCACC data set

Provides funding for 22,928 students (430 new) @ $1,362/per pupil

He emphasized that not fully funding the Board of Education’s request did not mean the County Commissioners’ were cutting the schools’ Budget from the previous year, as sometimes misunderstood.

In addition to the Current Expense funding of $31,567,936, Mr. Elliott advised that Category I, II, and III Capital Outlay would continue to be funded at the level of $750,000, which

brought the total funding for the schools, as proposed with an increase of $926,971 to $32,317,936. Even at the reduced level, he stated, this would represent a 3.03% increase, reflective of the level of growth in the County’s general fund of 3.30%

In closing Mr. Elliott reviewed a funding history including pre-Compact, during Compact, and post-Compact years and discussed options to address additional funding. In response to a question, he affirmed that his recommendation of $1.6M would require the Commissioners to vote for a tax increase of 1.5 cents. Any additional funding towards the $4.4M requested by the Board of Education would require a new funding source, further cuts in other programs and services, or a greater tax increase, he said. The floor was then opened for questions.

(Board of Education member Betsy Leech) How will the increase be applied? With the understanding that there will be from 500-600 new students in growth per year and with each student getting $1,362 times 500 that would be $681,000 which would mean $245,971 would be actual amount of the real increase per student, which amounts to about $10 per student.

(Response) The school system provided us with a growth figure of 430 students. We used that times the $1,362 which equates to the $31M number that we had earlier. The $926,000 in that model would be above and beyond the amount appropriated last year and does include the growth in students.

(Board of Education member Roy Peaden) In a lot of events when you come in 32nd place, you are out of the money, and I feel like that is where we are headed right now. Being 32nd in the State is really not acceptable. The other thing is we all go by gas stations every day. Milk is going up, bread is going up, and that must all be bought in order to go to work and survive in order to make the other money to buy clothes and shoes. Families are having to reduce to make up for higher prices. All we are asking, I thought, was enough money to pay the gas bill for next year. Our request tonight is really just to stay even, in order to buy gas and bread.

(Response) Just to maintain the 70 cent tax rate, there are no new positions being approved within our budget; there are about a half million dollars in vehicle replacements which are needed which would be deferred if the taxing is not changed; there are roofing replacements that need to occur that would be deferred a year; and, a number of needs in Pitt County’s overall funding plan that would not be funded. Additionally, there are no expansion of programs or services in our Budget, and again we are a growing and progressive County. Number 32 is still within the top 33rd that the Commissioners have consistently said they wanted to strive to maintain.

(Board of Education Member Dick Tolmie) You said $1362 per student would be 33rd ranked for the fiscal year 06-07.

(Response) No, 32nd.

(Board of Education Member Dick Tolmie) My real question was with the increase up to $1362 dollars per student, if all the other counties in the top third stay the same, we would be 32nd or 33rd, so if they get an increase from their County Commissioners, we may only be 34th or 35th.

(Response) The difference between the $926,000 and the $1.6 million should maintain the Pitt County School System in that top one third. You are right that if the funding level stayed at $926,000, then a year from now we would be playing catch up.

(County Commissioner Jimmy Garris) I would like to thank Michael (Cowin) and Scott (Elliott) for doing an excellent presentation. Michael presented a very compelling case, and I appreciated all the information he gave us. I think it is also important for everyone to understand that we are not talking about a decrease in last year’s allocation. We are talking about how big the increase should be this year. Your original request was $4.4M and I don’t see how we can possibly do that and we are trying to determine how large that increase could be. I would also like to point out that our Ad Valorem taxes next year are projected to be about $65M at the 70 cents rate. At that rate, we are still going to be allocating 50% of those Ad Valorem taxes to education, consistent with our number one goal. That means we use 50% to fund everything else in the County and there are a lot of other needs and requests. Two things that concern me: $30 a year for everyone in this room is no problem, but it is a problem for some of our citizens; the other thing is that last May, the Sales Tax Advocacy committee asked the ECU Center for Research to do a survey, which they conducted with a select group of people, chosen at random. One question was whether or not they would support a sales tax increase for school construction and 58 % of the responders said yes. Another question on that same survey asked would you support a property tax increase for school construction and 70% said they would not support that. So, we as Commissioners have a major dilemma to try to do what is right and to also not overburden our citizens with taxes. The other thing that concerns me about our Manager’s recommendation for a cent and a half is that one of our objectives that we have set for the last three years was to try to persuade the General Assembly to give us permission to ask our citizens if they would support a one cent sales tax increase and we have been working on that and I am going to remain optimistic until the end, but my concern is that if we now enact a cent and a half tax increase in property taxes and we do get a sales tax referendum, how are our citizens going to respond to that.

(Board Member Jill Camnitz) In regard to the question as to whether or not the tax payers would support a one cent sales tax increase along with a property tax increase, I think it would be up to the people around this table to use the leadership skills that we all have to make the case and convince the people of the need. I think that will take all of us working together to make that happen.

Dr. Beverly Reep expressed her personal gratitude to the Commissioners for the way in which they had served the community. She said that sometimes we all get so caught up in this and feel so strongly that we don’t stop to think about the positives. Between these two bodies this year, she said, the schools have been able to be out to bid and float bonds for $30M of new construction, all of which came in under bid. She added that if you drive around in your community you can see bricks and mortar going up. She said she thought the two Boards should be commended for that commitment as well as for the leadership from Commissioners Garris and Ward and Scott Elliott who had worked relentlessly along with Suzanne Sartelle from the Chamber to lobby the General Assembly in the Sales Tax Advocacy effort. She said all remained hopeful at this point.

Additionally, Dr. Reep said, that in years past – particularly during the Compact years – there had been a large commitment to the issue of supporting students and dropouts with a large portion of that coming from the local budget. Many things have happened in this district over the last five to six years that do address those priorities talked about earlier this evening such as the Freshman Academies, the AVID Program, the Health Sciences Academy, the Business and Technology Academy; all begun with local support that are making a difference for our young people.

She emphasized that phenomenal growth was occurring in this school district that was not being properly reflected by the AYP standards. She gave the example of Bethel School where last year’s 8th graders were 97% proficient on their Reading. When those children

were in third grade, she said, they entered 3rd grade testing with less than 50% proficient in Reading. If you track those children from third through eighth grade, there is phenomenal growth and that, she said, was due to the loyal, dedicated efforts of staff members who really are making a difference.

Further, she explained that a program was begun this year in our middle schools for sixth graders that had been held back. They have been in self contained classrooms this year, she said, where they have tackled sixth grade and seventh grade reading and math, with most of them excelling and with the potential to skip 7th grade and go directly to 8th grade next year based on their academic achievement. They are called Fast-Trackers. She emphasized that there are things in place to address the dropout rate and a large portion of that was due to the support of the County Commissioners. She emphasized that the district really needed the fixed costs and had asked additionally for programming dollars. To obtain goals of excellence, she said, the school system needed flexibility and resources to provide appropriate interventions.

Dr. Reep said she understood the sensitivity to talking about one and a half penny tax increase but that she also wanted the Commissioners to know that in sixty days, with a pledge from Grady White boats, a quarter of a million dollars had been raised to launch a middle school collaborative this summer. She explained that this program would address fifth graders and provide ten weeks of back to back care, enrichment and academic support with transportation provided at no costs to their families. She emphasized that she felt the will was in the County to do what was right.

She spoke to the importance of attracting high quality teachers and offering competitive supplements to keep those teachers. She discussed the high number of suspensions in Pitt County and explained that Pitt County’s average was in the top ten in the State over the last four years. She said that was not a top ten the district wanted to be in and she shared that the reason for this was that other counties have multiple options to address the needs of at-risk learners. The first and critical step for Pitt County, she said, was to find a way to give students other educational options when it becomes necessary to remove them from the regular classroom.

Dr. Reep spoke regarding the gap between Pitt County and the top one third of the counties in the State in relationship to the average dollars spent per student. At this day in time, she said, the deficit is $792.00 per student from that average. Furthermore, she said, the average of all the counties in the State of North Carolina in local commitment is $222.00 higher than what we have to spend here in Pitt County.

She said that the Commissioners have huge decisions to make and that it would take courage to step out to break this cycle. She acknowledged conversations held by the Commissioners regarding the new 800-student school that would open next fall and that it would require $350,000 in operational and start up costs. In those same conversations, she said, she observed the Commissioners talking about opening a new detention center with 192 beds and millions of dollars in operational costs. At some point in time, she said, it was going to be necessary to make the investments to appropriately address the reason that we are having to open detention centers.

Dr. Reep thanked Scott Elliott for his courage to recommend a tax increase in the face of many who might not be supportive of that. She expressed her appreciation of his willingness to step out and do the right thing.

Board of Education Chair Barbara Owens encouraged the group to consider the Who, Why, What and the Accomplishment. The Who, she said, was the 22,609 students in Pitt County Schools, 2900 Pitt County Schools’ employees and 856 County of Pitt employees, and

143,212 Pitt County residents. The Why she said was the Budget – a complete financial look at programs, expenses and the blueprint for education for 2007-2008. The How, she said, was the second floor and the third floor of the Pitt County Office Building – 12 elected officials and a Superintendent, the County Manager, staff and the 9 County Commissioners. Let us lead, she said, not linger and not lag. She offered as examples of reachable, teachable opportunities the 22,609 students in the classroom, library, computer lab, science lab, band, and chorus. And finally, she said, the Accomplishment will be for each student to have the educational opportunity to be a life-long learner and that we, as teachers and learners, lead the way.

County Commissioner Chair Beth Ward offered several responses to comments made earlier in the evening. She said that in regard to the prediction that with the proposed level of funding that Pitt County would fall out of the top one-third, that what they (the Commissioners) were hearing was that other counties in the State are hurting a great deal. She said that there are 19 counties in eastern North Carolina that are paying to the State more than 25% of their Ad Valorem taxes for their part of Medicaid. Some of those counties, she said, are the poorest in the State and many of them are looking for total Medical relief (as was Pitt County) and also for additional resources such as a sales tax, impact fees, transfer fees. The House has put forth its Budget bill, she said, with the first one having $50M for Medicaid, which would not come close to meeting the counties’ needs. She emphasized that this County had worked hard for the sales tax, but that complete Medicaid relief would make a significant difference in available resources.

Although no decision would be made this evening, Commissioner Ward emphasized that the Commissioners would ultimately be making decisions about what would be appropriate for all of the departments of the County. She talked about the Education Compact and its impact in recent years, indicating that in 1999, when discussions first began about the Compact, the County was in the bottom one-third of all counties in the State with an ADM funding of $876 per student. She said that folks worked hard during that time to get the idea of the Compact moving and the goal to move this County into the top one-third in the State. What has been achieved since that time, she said, has been great.

She stated that she appreciated the two Boards meeting together and the information that had been shared this evening. She said the Commissioners had been meeting with all departments and listening to the requirements of each and that now it would be the job of the Commissioners to come back together on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. and look at all of those requests. She emphasized that no final decision had yet been made.

She thanked everyone for their attention and attendance. Upon motion by Commissioner Eugene James and second by Commissioner Melvin McLawhorn, the Board of County Commissioners’ session was adjourned.

Upon motion by Board of Education member Mary Grace Bright and second by Board of Education member Roy Peaden, the Board of Education session was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________Ms. Barbara D. Owens, Chair

________________________________Beverly B. Reep, Superintendent