Commissioners, school board agree to '5 on 5' committee
After hearing a presentation about a '5 on 5' committee from Dare County's county manager on Wednesday night, the Lee County commissioners and school board both voted to pursue such an arrangement.
Bobby Outten spoke to the joint meeting of both groups for about 30 minutes. Afterward, some commissioners and board members asked questions.
Outten said he's been county manager on North Carolina's Outer Banks for 17 years.
There was a lot of acrimony between Dare's county commissioners and the school board before they adopted a '5 on 5' committee approach in 2015, he said, adding that the per pupil funding model for schools didn't work.
'Ninety% of the costs of operating schools are fixed,' he said.
In addition to fixed costs, there are variable costs, plus the consumer price index, and salary costs to consider.
Dare County matches percentage increases that the state implements, he said.
North Carolina pays for teachers' salaries, but Outten noted that Dare County pays for school resource officers, school nurses, social workers and any supplements for teachers.
Things have been a lot smoother ever since Dare implemented 5 on 5, he said.
The committee consists of the finance director and an administrator from the county and the school system (four total), along with three board members from each body (six total). In Dare County, the administrators are the county manager and school superintendent.
'Here's a way we can avoid having a fight,' Outten recalled saying 10 years ago, noting the two boards had fought about funding every year for 15 years previously.
Since implementing 5 on 5, 'the school has gotten an increase in money' from the county every year, he said. 'It has worked well. We haven't had a fight or argument except for some capital things. It has significantly improved relations between the boards.'
Outten said the committee meets at least once every three months, but more often if necessary.
A benefit of the 5 on 5 committee is that 'you know what you're going to get' in terms of funding each year. 'There are no last-minute surprises,' he said. 'You can plan.'
Capital funding requests for Dare County Schools are paid for first through state lottery funds, and the school system selects which projects are paid for with those funds.
He cited an example of a new early college. Some people wanted it and others didn't, but the school system made the decision to pay for it through lottery funds, so county taxpayers didn't fund the $25 million project.
'You make it sound easy,' commissioner Cameron Sharpe said. 'The key to solving problems is communicating,' Outten replied.
'It sounded hopeful and easy,' commissioner Samantha Martin added. 'We certainly need something along that line.'
'This may not be the way for everybody,' Outten said, 'but the need to compromise and give and take is gone.'
Someone asked what the politics are in Dare County. Outten said his board began as all Democrats and now is all Republican. (In Lee County, the Republicans have a 4-3 majority on the commission and 7-0 on the school board.)
He said the two boards operate with a five-year capital plan for schools.
'Getting the [school] superintendent and finance director on board was the biggest challenge,' Outten said.
Lee County School Board chair Sherry Lynn Womack, who had touted the 5 on 5 committee before her board previously, said she wants to get three board members from each side who are truly passionate about education.
Outten suggested having the county and school finance staff run numbers from previous years. 'If they believe it can work, getting your boards on board probably wouldn't be difficult,' he said.
Lee County Commission Chair Kirk Smith asked if his board had consensus to proceed. Taylor Vorbeck made a motion to have the county's budget manager and finance director meet with LCS officials, which was seconded by Mark Lovick. It passed 5-0, with Andre Knecht and Robert Reives absent.
Womack directed LCS staff to research and implement certain aspects of 5 on 5.
School board member Chris Gaster then made a motion to see if a 5 on 5 committee is feasible for capital projects and other important criteria. His motioned was seconded and passed unanimously.
There was a separate agenda item regarding what the county commissioners expect from the school board.
Sharpe asked that some school board members 'stop the Facebook posts' and provide information in a timely manner. 'I think the Legislature is our problem,' he added.
Martin said that one of the big questions she faces is with the requested auditorium at Southern Lee High School. 'Do we really need to spend all the taxpayer money on that?' she asked.
Smith said he recently learned that, if such an auditorium is built, LCS plans to use two large rooms, that music students currently use, as classrooms for other subjects.
LCS Superintendent Chris Dossenbach confirmed this, and noted that music and band students would use the auditorium for classes. He added that this would give the schools more flexibility.
'I look forward to the fact we are going to work together,' Womack said.
During the first part of the meeting, commissioners and board members heard a one-hour presentation from UNC School of Government professor Kara Millonzi about school funding in the state.
'Counties are used to budgeting 'apples,' and schools budget 'oranges,' ' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
31 minutes ago
- Axios
Congress' "doc fix" spurs value-based care concerns
Physicians are divided over how the massive Republican budget bill moving through Congress would insulate doctors from future Medicare cuts without continuing financial incentives to provide better care through alternative payment models. Why it matters: The "doc fix" championed by the American Medical Association, among other groups, would solve a long-standing complaint about the way Medicare pays physicians. But some physician groups worry it would maintain a system long criticized for tying pay to the volume of procedures delivered and the number of patients seen. State of play: Physician practices that agree to be paid based on patient outcomes get bigger payouts in exchange for taking on the extra financial risk are in line, under current law, for a pay boost through a key adjustment called the conversion factor, starting next year. But the version of the GOP budget bill that passed the House of Representatives would instead create a single conversion factor for all physicians that's updated based on Medicare's measure of inflation. That would leave providers in the performance-based payment models getting higher payments than currently prescribed from 2026 through 2028, but lower payments than outlined in current law after that through 2035, according to an analysis from Berkeley Research Group viewed by Axios. Primary care physicians and providers embracing value-based care worry that removing an incentive for participating in the models will set back efforts to move Medicare toward a more holistic payment system that's meant to improve patient care. "Signals matter in health care," said Shawn Martin, CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "I think it's a signal [to physicians] of an entrenchment back in fee-for-service." The American College of Physicians, the trade group for internal medicine doctors, told lawmakers last month that it's concerned the policy as structured will disincentivize doctors' participation in value-based care. "It's being marketed as a long-term fix," said Mara McDermott, CEO of value-based care advocacy group Accountable for Health. "I don't read it that way. I read it as creating a new cliff." Zoom out: Many provider groups are also concerned that the legislation doesn't fix the 2.83% cut to physicians' Medicare payment that took effect in January. The American College of Surgeons in a May statement praised lawmakers for recognizing that Medicare physician payments have to be adjusted for inflation, but that the legislation's provision "is not sufficient to make up for the 2025 cut, and more work is needed." The other side: The AMA wrote to House leadership last month that it "strongly supports" the provision to consolidate into one conversion factor and tie updates to inflation starting in 2026. Reductions made to the conversion factor over the past half-decade to keep the physician fee schedule budget neutral have made private practice financially impossible for many doctors, the AMA said. "It is absolutely vital that this issue be addressed," the letter to House leaders said. The AMA disagrees that the provision would discourage participation in alternative payment models, it told Axios in an email. Although payment updates to alternative payment model physicians starting in 2029 would be lower than current law provides, those doctors will still get positive payment updates overall, it said. Between the lines: The policy would go into effect as the Trump administration seeks to leverage Medicare alternative payment models to drive HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s priorities of prevention and personal choice in health care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Axios it does not comment on proposed legislation, but said it's continuing to prioritize policies that encourage providers to join payment models that reward high-value and coordinated care. Reality check: Just about all physicians and physician trade organizations agree that stable Medicare payment updates with some link to inflation is necessary to ensure continuous access for Medicare patients, AAFP's Martin said. It's "extraordinarily healthy" for physician advocacy groups to have different opinions on exactly how to reach that conclusion, he added. The Senate is currently debating what to include in its own version of the reconciliation bill.
Miami Herald
36 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Senate Republicans want to trim some of Trump's populist tax cuts
WASHINGTON -- Even before the House passed the sweeping bill carrying President Donald Trump's domestic policy agenda, Senate Republicans made it clear that they hoped to make major changes to the legislation before the GOP was done muscling it through Congress. Several have wanted to pare back the cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, that House Republicans envisioned in the version of the legislation that they approved late last month. A handful have sought to salvage tax credits incentivizing clean energy projects that the House measure would repeal. Many have pushed to grant companies prized tax breaks for the long run, not just for a few years, as their colleagues across the Capitol opted to do. The problem senators face is that each of these changes would be expensive. At $2.4 trillion, the cost of the legislation that barely passed the House is already huge. So Senate Republicans are now hunting for ways to save money, a hazardous task that could involve shaving the ambitions of their colleagues in the House or the White House. On the chopping block are some of Trump's favorite parts of the bill, like not taxing overtime. Republican lawmakers have long been skeptical of some of the president's tax ideas, with the view that the populist policies will not spur the economy like traditional supply-side conservatism can. 'I think it all comes down to what we've got to pay for,' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to pay for pro-growth policies.' The debate is in some ways a classic one on Capitol Hill, where throughout history and without regard to political party, senators have been reluctant to defer to their colleagues in the House, and vice versa. 'It's the Senate, so the Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do, and that's a good process,' Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said at a Punchbowl News event Wednesday, where he warned that his chamber would pass a bill 'markedly different' from the House measure, pushing enactment of the package well past his party's July 4 deadline. To top Senate Republicans, the most economically powerful tax cuts incentivize companies to make new investments and conduct research. Accelerated depreciation schedules, though, do not grab political attention the way Trump's promises for 'no tax on tips' did, so the House version of the bill only included the business tax breaks through 2029. Senate Republicans want to make the business write-offs a permanent feature of the tax code, a change that they and some economists believe would help encourage more companies to expand. As one way to cover that cost, Senate Republicans are looking at ways to further curb eligibility for a tax cut for overtime pay, including by setting a lower income ceiling for the break and by more strictly defining what counts as overtime, lawmakers said. 'Obviously, there's a lot of dials, whether you're talking about no tax on tips, overtime, any of those,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. 'How many years did they go? At what level do they stop?' Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, a former car dealer, wants to tighten the House plan for allowing Americans to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on car loans, which would apply to vehicles made in the United States, including used and new cars, as well as all-terrain vehicles and recreational vehicles. Moreno is proposing to limit the tax break, one of Trump's campaign promises, just to loans for new cars. 'We save a lot of money. An RV? Motorcycles? ATVs?' he said. 'That's not the idea; the idea is to help working Americans be able to afford a car.' Senate Republicans are searching for cuts because of growing concern among some conservatives, as well as on Wall Street, about the bill's impact on the country's fiscal situation. While paring back some of Trump's campaign promises could help keep the cost of the legislation near what it was in the House, some lawmakers are calling for much deeper spending cuts. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has been loudly calling for the legislation, which already includes roughly $1.8 trillion in spending reductions, to slash trillions more. His complaints won him a meeting with top White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance, at the Capitol this week. Johnson's pitch is to remove all of Trump's new tax priorities from the bill and instead focus the legislation exclusively on extending expiring tax cuts from 2017, cutting spending and raising the debt ceiling. Republicans could then tackle White House priorities, and further spending cuts, in a second piece of legislation, Johnson argues. 'You can't do it in one fell swoop. I don't want to criticize what has been done; I want to support what's been done,' he said. 'But I absolutely -- I can't accept that this is the new norm. We need another bite of the apple in this Congress.' Of course, jettisoning much of the president's agenda from the legislation is a tall order, and White House officials have been making the case for the House measures to cut taxes on tips and overtime and for older Americans. 'No Tax on Overtime and No Tax on Tips are presidential priorities that 80 million Americans voted for in November,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. 'They will remain in this historic piece of legislation in order to deliver the largest tax cut in history.' There are other sources of money tempting Senate Republicans. Some are considering cuts to Medicare, though changes to the health care program for older Americans comes with substantial political risks. Then there is the state and local tax deduction, often called SALT. In the House, a small group of Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California demanded that the legislation include an increase to the $10,000 cap on the deduction. They ultimately won an agreement to set the new limit at $40,000, an expensive change that would largely benefit homeowners in areas with high taxes. While the change was necessary to win the support of blue-state Republicans in the House, senators are less committed to the policy. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the majority leader, recently remarked at the White House that 'there really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue.' At the same time, House Republicans committed to more SALT relief have warned that changing the House agreement could scuttle the entire package. But some Republican senators cannot help but think that money earmarked for a higher SALT cap could have a better use. 'There's a lot of things we could do with that,' said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Elizabeth Warren: Trump Is Right About This One Thing
It is possible that hell has frozen over. President Trump and I agree on something very important: Abolish the debt limit. The debt limit is a political tool that allows the minority party to threaten economic collapse, forcing Congress to negotiate its demands. It serves no other function. None. It has no impact on spending, and it doesn't restrain the growth of the national debt. I've pushed publicly and privately, whether Democrats or Republicans have been in charge, to scrap the debt ceiling permanently. Now, with Mr. Trump's support, our country could finally get rid of this form of brinkmanship that has, for decades, threatened the stability of our economy. The debt limit caps the amount of money the U.S. government can borrow. If the government hits the limit before Congress authorizes an increase, the U.S. would default on its debt. That means not making interest payments on U.S. bonds, not paying our military or halting Social Security checks. Chaos in the financial markets could cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs, while the cost of home mortgages and car loans would skyrocket. In short, we would create a self-inflicted financial crisis. Republicans claim they want to reduce the national debt, but their actions tell a different story. For decades, they have used their time in power to slash the taxes paid by wealthy Americans and corporations, forgoing trillions needed to fund our government. President George W. Bush's and Mr. Trump's past tax cuts alone drove up the national debt by an estimated $10 trillion. Then, whenever a Democrat made it into the White House, Republicans threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to whatever political demands the Republicans were focused on. Consider the last few times either party regained control of the White House. In 2011, when President Barack Obama was in office, Republicans refused to lift the debt limit until Democrats agreed to $2 trillion in cuts, which cost the economy up to seven million jobs and substantially delayed our recovery from the Great Recession. When Mr. Trump won the election in 2016, Republicans promptly increased the national debt by passing a $1.9 trillion giveaway, largely to rich people and giant corporations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
