Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process Is Effective and Economical, but Litigation Could Be Eliminated

Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution
Process Is Effective and Economical, but Litigation
Could Be Eliminated
Final Report to the Joint Legislative
Program Evaluation Oversight Committee
Report Number 2017-05
May 1, 2017

Program Evaluation Division
North Carolina General Assembly
Legislative Office Building, Suite 100
300 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
919-301-1404
www.ncleg.net/PED
75 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $44.25 or $0.59 per copy.
A limited number of copies are available for distribution through the Legislative Library:
Rooms 2126, 2226 Room 500
State Legislative Building Legislative Office Building
Raleigh, NC 27601 Raleigh, NC 27603
919-733-7778 919-733-9390
The report is also available online at www.ncleg.net/PED.

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Legislative Services Office
Paul Coble, Legislative Services Officer
300 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 100
Tel. 919-301-1404 Fax 919-301-1406
John W. Turcotte
Director
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
May 1, 2017
Members of the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee
Legislative Building
16 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Honorable Members:
Session Law 2016-116 directed the Program Evaluation Division to evaluate the process for
resolving education funding disputes between local boards of education and boards of county
commissioners.
I am pleased to report that local boards of education and boards of county commissioners
cooperated with us fully and were at all times courteous to our evaluators during the
evaluation.
Sincerely,
John W. Turcotte
Director

PROGRAM EVALUATION DIVISION
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
May 2017 Report No. 2017-05
Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process Is Effective
and Economical, but Litigation Could Be Eliminated
Summary
In North Carolina, local education agencies and local boards of education
are fiscally dependent on county commissioners for local appropriations
to support capital and operations for public K-12 education. This fiscal
dependence plays out each year through a budgeting process wherein local
education budgets are presented to county commissioners for appropriations
determinations. If in any given year local boards of education and boards
of county commissioners cannot reach a budget resolution, state law sets out
a procedure for resolving local education funding disputes that is structured
into two phases: pre-litigation and litigation.
Concerns have been raised regarding the use and cost of the dispute
resolution process. Session Law 2016-116 directed the Program Evaluation
Division to evaluate the process for resolving education funding disputes
between local boards of education and boards of county commissioners.
North Carolina’s dispute resolution process is effective and economical,
but the litigation phase could be eliminated. The dispute resolution process
is used infrequently and seldom reaches the litigation phase; when the
process has been used the outcomes have not historically favored either
party and may serve to improve future budgeting efforts. The cost of the
process represents a fraction of total county funding for local boards of
education, but litigation is costly and time-consuming. North Carolina and
Tennessee are the only states with elected school boards that are fiscally
dependent on county commissioners; whereas North Carolina has a dispute
resolution process that can involve litigation, Tennessee uses a default
funding mechanism to avoid litigation.
In addition, local boards of education maintain unencumbered fund balances
that are relatively large and unnecessary because their operational needs
are different from county government and because the majority of their
operational funding comes from state appropriations.
As a result, the General Assembly should consider:
If it wants to eliminate litigation from the local education funding dispute
process, the General Assembly should revise state law for settling local
education funding disputes to preserve the benefits of the pre-litigation
phase while replacing the litigation process with a default funding
mechanism.
The General Assembly should direct the Local Government Commission and
School of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to
convene a working group to develop and recommend statutory parameters
for fund balances maintained by local boards of education.

Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Report No. 2017-05
Page 2 of 31
Purpose and Scope
Session Law 2016-116 directed the Program Evaluation Division to
evaluate the process for resolving education funding disputes between local
boards of education and boards of county commissioners. This evaluation
addressed three research questions:
1. Is the current dispute resolution process efficient and effective?
2. How do finance practices affect local education funding disputes?
3. What alternatives exist to improve the dispute resolution process?
The Program Evaluation Division collected and analyzed data from several
sources, including
costs, duration, and outcomes for instances in which the dispute
resolution process was used between 1997 and 2015;
survey data from members of local boards of education, boards of
county commissioners, and other local staff that have participated in
the dispute resolution process;
historic budget and appropriation data for counties and local
boards of education;
audited fund balance data for counties and local boards of
education;
interviews and queries with key stakeholders; and
data from other states on their local education funding processes to
identify alternatives to North Carolina’s current dispute resolution
process.
Background
Various laws and judicial opinions provide a framework for North
Carolina’s system of public education. The State Constitution establishes
the requirement that the State provide free public education.1 Statute
specifies the State must provide a general and uniform system of free
public schools, wherein equal opportunities are provided for all students.2
In 1997 in the Leandro v. State case, the North Carolina Supreme Court
held that every person of the State less than 21 years old who has not
completed a standard high school course of study must be provided an
opportunity for a sound and basic education, which the court defined (see
the Appendix for more detail on the Leandro case).
Most states use a Basic Education Program (BEP) to establish the standards
for a basic education, determine the amount of resources required to fund
it, and specify the corresponding sources of those funds. Thus, the BEP
drives education funding in those states. North Carolina has a BEP, but the
State uses a series of allotments to distribute state and federal funds to
local school administrative units, which are commonly and hereafter in this
report referred to as local education agencies (LEAs).3 The Department of
Public Instruction is responsible for distributing these funds. A previous
1 Article IX of the Constitution of North Carolina.
2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-1.
3 North Carolina’s BEP has not been updated since 1994.

Page 3 of 31
Program Evaluation Division report provides an in-depth examination of K-
12 funding allotments.4
State law assigns specific responsibilities for K-12 funding to different
levels of government, but in practice, funding responsibility is shared.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-408 states it is “the policy of the State of North
Carolina to provide from State revenue sources the instructional expenses
for current operations of the public school system as defined in the
standard course of study. It is the policy of the State that the facilities
requirements for a public education system will be met by county
governments.” Although statute appears to delineate operational funding
as a responsibility of the State and capital funding as a responsibility of
county governments, in reality, funding for operations and capital is shared
between the State and local governments.
The majority of operational funding for North Carolina’s K-12 public
education system comes from the State, but local governments provide
a portion of operational funding. Operational expenses include salaries
and benefits for school system staff such as teachers, principals, counselors,
and central office employees. Exhibit 1 shows the distribution of funding
for school operations from state, local, and federal sources in Fiscal Year
2014–15. The majority (70%) of operational funding for public education
comes from state appropriations. Local governments account for the second
largest source (23%) of funding for operations.
Exhibit 1
Fiscal Year 2014–15
Sources of Public
Education Funding for
Operations
Note: The exhibit does not include resources for child nutrition or other federal funds
passed directly to LEAs.
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data provided by the Department of Public
Instruction.
4 Program Evaluation Division. (2016, November). Allotment-Specific and System-Level Issues Adversely Affect North Carolina’s
Distribution of K-12 Resources. Report to the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee. Raleigh, NC: General
Assembly.
Total Distributed
FY 2014–15
$12 Billion
State
$8.4 billion
(70%)
Local
$2.7 billion
(23%)
Federal
$844 million
(7%)

Page 4 of 31
The majority of capital funding comes from local governments, but the
State provides a portion of capital funding. Capital expenses include new
school construction, renovation, maintenance, and repairs. Exhibit 2 shows
the distribution of funding for school capital from state and local sources.
Local appropriations for capital in Fiscal Year 2014–15 amounted to $1.2
billion, or 92% of total funding for capital. Local appropriations are made
up of appropriations for debt service, capital reserves, and capital outlay.
State appropriations for capital in Fiscal Year 2014–15 amounted to
$101 million, or 8% of total funding for capital.
Exhibit 2: Fiscal Year 2014–15 Sources of Public Education Funding for Capital
Capital Outlay
$154 million
(13%)
Capital Reserve
$209 million
(18%)
Debt Service
$810 million
(69%)
Local
$1.2 billion
(92%)
State
$101 million
(8%)
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data provided by the Local Government Commission and North Carolina Association of
County Commissioners.
County commissioners are responsible for determining the amount of
capital funding and any additional local operating funds to be allocated
to local boards of education. Ideally, boards of county commissioners and
local boards of education work together to determine local education
funding, but actual appropriations are made at the discretion of county
commissioners. State law requires that local boards of education maintain
funds in a standardized budget format that includes three funds: a Public
School Fund, a local current expense fund (for operating expenses), and a
capital outlay fund. When appropriating funds to local boards of
education, state law requires boards of county commissioners to make
appropriations for operations that, when combined with appropriations
from the State, are sufficient to allow schools to meet the mandate to
provide a sound and basic education. Appropriations for capital are
intended to cover the cost of
acquiring real property for school sites, playgrounds, athletic fields,
administrative headquarters, and garages;
acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, renovating, or
replacing buildings and other structures, including buildings for
classrooms, laboratories, physical and vocational educational
purposes, libraries, auditoriums, gymnasiums, administrative offices,
storage, and vehicle maintenance;
acquiring or replacing furniture, instructional apparatus, data-
processing equipment, business machines, and similar items of
furnishings and equipment; and

Page 5 of 31
acquiring school buses, activity buses, and other motor vehicles.
Because boards of county commissioners determine the amount of local
revenue to appropriate to local boards of education, county
commissioners must engage each year in a detailed budgeting process
to estimate revenues and identify funding requirements for the
forthcoming year. State law specifies the process that local boards of
education and boards of county commissioners must follow to develop a
budget for schools within a county. Exhibit 3 shows the general budgeting
and local funding process conducted between boards of county
commissioners and local boards of education. By May 1 of each year, an
LEA’s public school superintendent must submit a budget to his or her
respective local board of education. Although not required, local boards of
education may hold a public hearing on the budget, and they are free to
make adjustments to the superintendent’s budget. The county’s budget
officer then presents the local board of education’s proposed budget to
the board of county commissioners.
The board of county commissioners then determines how much to
appropriate to its respective LEA’s local current expense fund (for
operating expenses) and capital outlay fund. In making these
determinations, the board of county commissioners must consider a variety
of factors, including but not limited to
the needs of other county departments such as public health, social
services, law enforcement, and elections;
revenue from other sources;
local school fund balances; and
the need for an interim budget.
Exhibit 3: General Process of Local Education Budgeting
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on review of state law.
If, after appropriations have been made through the county commissioners’
adopted budget ordinance, the local board of education determines the
amount of money appropriated is insufficient to support a system of free
public schools, the local board of education may initiate a formal
education funding dispute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-431specifies the four
stages of the dispute resolution process. As Exhibit 4 shows, the first two
stages make up a pre-litigation phase, whereas the latter two stages
involve the State’s judicial system and constitute the litigation phase.

Page 6 of 31
Exhibit 4: North Carolina’s Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process Consists of Pre-
Litigation and Litigation Phases
Notes: BOCC stands for local boards of county commissioners, and BOE stands for local boards of education.
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-431.
To formally initiate the dispute resolution process in North Carolina, a local
board of education must notify the board of county commissioners of this
intention within seven days of adoption of the county budget ordinance.
State law specifies that the dispute resolution process consists of four
stages.
Stage 1 (Joint Meeting). During this stage, the two boards
participate in a joint public meeting with a mediator in an attempt
to resolve funding differences within seven days of the initiation of
the process. If this meeting is successful, the local board of
education will adopt a budget resolution based on the county
commissioners’ revised budget ordinance if it has been revised.
Stage 2 (Formal Mediation). If the joint meeting in Stage 1 is not
successful, the boards must enter into formal private mediation,
which must conclude by August 1 of that year or at a mutually
agreed upon date. During this stage, the boards select a mediator
to preside over formal mediation between them, and each board
shares equally in the costs that mediation incurs. If mediation is
successful, the local board of education will adopt a budget
resolution based on the county commissioners’ revised budget
ordinance if it has been revised.
Stage 3 (Superior Court Trial). If mediation is not successful, the
local board of education may file action in Superior Court and
enter the litigation phase of the process. State law specifies that the
court is to take the matter up as soon as possible, though it does not
set a deadline for completing this stage. The judge or jury must
consider the facts of the case in the following order: the amount
legally necessary from all sources and then the amount legally
necessary from the board of county commissioners in order to

Page 7 of 31
maintain a system of free public schools. In making this
determination, the judge or jury must consider the budgetary
request, educational goals and policies of the State and local
board of education, and financial resources and fiscal policies of
both local boards. If the judge or jury determines additional funds
are needed to maintain a free public school system and the local
government does not have the current capacity to meet those
needs, the judge or jury can specify where additional funding
should come from, such as a tax increase on local property.
Stage 4 (Appellate Court Review). Either the board of county
commissioners or the local board of education has the opportunity
to appeal the Superior Court’s ruling within 10 days of a decision.
Unlike the requirement in Stage 3 for Superior Court to take up the
action as soon as possible, state law does not establish a similar
requirement for the timing of an appellate review in Stage 4. It is
not uncommon for the appellate review process to take more than a
year to complete.
The local education funding dispute resolution process has received
attention in recent years. Exhibit 5 shows a summary of significant
legislative and judicial actions relating to the dispute resolution process
since 1975. In 2009 in Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort
County Board of Commissioners, the North Carolina Supreme Court held
local governments are not only responsible for capital expenditures as
specified in statute but are also required to provide operating funds to
local boards of education in order to fulfil its obligation to provide equal
opportunity for a sound and basic education for students (see the
Appendix for more detail on the Beaufort case). In 2015 in Union County
Board of Education v. Union County Board of Commissioners, the North
Carolina Court of Appeals held that a judge or jury cannot consider
cumulative funding deficiencies but only the request and appropriation in
the year of the dispute (see the Appendix for more detail on the Union
case).
examine the use and cost of the process to resolve local education funding
disputes between boards of county commissioners and local boards of
education. Although state law specifies the process the two boards must
follow, it does not assign any entity responsibility to maintain data on the
procedure. As a result, the Program Evaluation Division collected and
reconciled lists on the use of the process between 1997 and 2015 from
various sources.5 Data requests to boards of county commissioners and
local boards of education were made for each instance in which the
process was initiated. These requests sought to determine the stage at
which each dispute was resolved, how long the dispute lasted, the cost of
settling the dispute, and the outcome of the dispute. Much of the data
requested was available and provided; however, gaps in data exist
because information was either missing or destroyed when record retention
requirements expired. As a result, many of the statistics presented in this
report are estimated summaries based on available data.
5 The Program Evaluation Division selected 1997 because it was the year that statute changed the dispute resolution process to include
mediation.

Exhibit 5: Legislative and Judicial Action Related to Local Education Funding Disputes
1975
1981
1989
1995
1997
2007
2009
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
S.L. 1975-437, School Budget and Fiscal Control Act, requires boards
of county commissioners and local boards of education to meet
regarding funding disputes; if no resolution is reached, either board can
refer dispute to clerk of superior court for arbitration within three days
of joint meeting; either board can appeal clerk’s decision to Superior
Court within 10 days.
Legislative Action Judicial Action
S.L. 1981-423 recodifies Chapter 115.
S.L. 1989-493 adds provision stating that if within 10 days of referral
the clerk of court determines the dispute cannot be arbitrated, the
dispute is then referred to Superior Court.
S.L. 1995-666 removes clerk of court as arbitrator; directs clerk to
request the appointment of a mediator by superior court within 5 days
of dispute referral to clerk’s office; and changes the time by which
either board must file court action following the mediator’s
recommendation from 10 days to 5 days.
S.L. 1997-222 stipulates the following: the mediator presides at joint
meeting of the boards; the two boards may select the mediator rather
than using a court-appointed mediator; the mediator does not make
recommendations to the clerk of Superior Court for resolution of the
dispute; and the mediation process must be concluded by August 1
unless both parties agree to an extension.
S.L. 2007-92 enacts a new provision ensuring that any appeal of
a funding dispute is not affected if the fiscal or school year in contention
ends before the issue is resolved.
S.L. 2013-141 clarifies that the issue submitted to the jury must be what
amount of money is necessary from all sources to maintain a system of
free public schools and what amount of money is needed from the
county to make up this total.
S.L. 2016-116 directs the Program Evaluation Division to study the
dispute resolution process. S.L. 2016-14 and S.L. 2016-18 exempt
Nash and Union counties from the dispute resolution process.
In Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort
County Board of Commissioners, the North
Carolina Supreme Court issues opinion upholding
lower court determination, finding the dispute
resolution process does not delegate to the
courts the legislature’s constitutional duty to
provide a general and uniform system of free
public schools. The case held a court cannot
require a county to fund more than the minimum
level of educational funding that is required by
state law and a county’s funding responsibility
for its LEA is not limited to capital outlay.
In Union County Board of Education v. Union
County Board of Commissioners, North Carolina
Court of Appeals issues opinion ordering new
trial because trial court allowed improper legal
standing and ordered the jury to hear
inadmissible evidence of the cumulative effective
of underfunding on the school district. The case
specified the judge or jury must consider only a
single year of funding as the basis for the
dispute, and evidence of cumulative funding
deficiencies is not permissible.
S.L. 2014-8 directs Union County Commissioners to appropriate specific
sums, to establish a working group including the Union County Board of
Education to determine capital needs, and bans this board of education
from engaging in the dispute resolution process until the county’s 2016–
17 budget is adopted. The session law also bans boards of education in
Nash and Gaston counties from engaging in the dispute resolution
process.
H.B. 305/S.B. 531 (School Boards Can’t Sue Counties) filed to revise
dispute resolution process.
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on review of session laws, statutes, and judicial opinions.

Page 9 of 31
Findings
Finding 1. The dispute resolution process is used infrequently and rarely
results in litigation between boards of county commissioners and local
boards of education.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-431 establishes the procedure to resolve local
education funding disputes between boards of county commissioners and
local boards of education. The statute describes a four-stage process that
is separated into two distinct phases: pre-litigation and litigation. The
Program Evaluation Division conducted analysis based on the frequency
with which the process was used and the phase and stage of dispute
resolution.
Between 1997 and 2015, the local education funding dispute resolution
process was used 40 times, or in 1.9% of local K-12 education budget
resolutions. Between 1997 and 2015, the 115 Local Education Agencies
(LEAs) passed a total of 2,070 local budget resolutions. In that timeframe,
the local funding dispute resolution process was initiated 40 times, or for
1.9% of budget resolutions. Exhibit 6 shows a count of each instance in
which the dispute resolution process was used between 1997 and 2015.
The process was mostly used once or twice a year during this period.
Exhibit 6: Procedure to Resolve Local Education Funding Disputes Has Been Used Infrequently
NumberofTimesDispute
ResolutionProcessWasUsed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data provided by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, North Carolina
School Board Association, and University of North Carolina School of Government Board Association.
During this span, the process was used by 25 different local boards of
education. Because the process is typically viewed as being contentious,
most local boards of education have only used it once. However, nine local
boards of education have used the process more than once; the Burke,
Halifax, Northampton, and Union local boards of education have each
used it three or more times.
Of the 40 instances in which the dispute resolution process has been
used, resolution was reached prior to litigation in approximately 90%
of cases. The pre-litigation phase for handling local education funding
disputes serves as a useful step to avoid litigation. Pre-litigation forces
both parties to engage in the budgeting process, establishing open
dialogue in an environment that promotes transparency. The Program
Evaluation Division’s analysis revealed that in approximately 90% of cases

Page 10 of 31
in which the dispute resolution process was used between 1997 and 2015,
resolution was reached in either Stage 1 or Stage 2 of the pre-litigation
phase. These results suggest that Stages 1 and 2 are successful at helping
boards of county commissioners and local boards of education reach
budget agreements and avoid litigation.
Of the 40 instances in which the dispute resolution process has been
used, litigation has been necessary on only 4 occasions. Exhibit 7 shows
the frequency of litigation in the context of all local education budget
resolutions passed between 1997 and 2015. Litigation served as the
means to reach local education budget resolution only 4 times during this
period, which represents 0.19% of the 2,070 total local budgeting
ordinances passed between 1997 and 2015. In summary, the dispute
resolution process is used infrequently and rarely results in litigation
between boards of county commissioners and local boards of education.
Exhibit 7: Between 1997 and 2015, Litigation Was Only Necessary for a Fraction of Local Education
Funding Resolutions
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $
$$
$
Between 1997 and 2015, 2,070 education budget ordinances were passed between local
boards of education and boards of county commissioners.
Of the 2,070 education budget
ordinances, the funding dispute resolution
process was used 40 times, or for 1.9%
of the total number of ordinances.
Of the 2,070 education budget ordinances, litigation
was necessary 4 times, or for 0.19% of the total
number of ordinances.
$
10 annual education budget
ordinances passed by local
boards of education and boards
of county commissioners
=
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data provided by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, North Carolina
School Board Association, and University of North Carolina School of Government Board Association.

Page 11 of 31
Finding 2. Only 4 of the 40 local education funding disputes proceeded
to the litigation phase between 1997 and 2015, but these cases proved
disproportionately time-consuming and costly compared to disputes
resolved in the pre-litigation phase.
estimate the cost of the dispute resolution process. The costs incurred during
the process are a function of the time spent by both parties as well as the
fees paid for mediation and legal consultation. By law, mediation costs are
split between the board of county commissioners and local board of
education. Both boards secure legal services as needed to navigate the
stages of the dispute resolution process. As a result, the longer the dispute
resolution process takes, the greater the cost.
State law regarding the process imposes deadlines that strive to ensure
timely resolution, but funding disputes that require litigation are
typically resolved long after the year of the dispute. As discussed in the
Background, state law specifies a four-stage dispute resolution process that
is separated into two phases: pre-litigation and litigation. Boards of county
commissioners and local boards of education must complete the two stages
of the pre-litigation phase according to statutory deadlines. However, the
two stages of the litigation phase have no deadlines. As a result, funding
disputes that require litigation take far more time to complete than disputes
that are resolved during pre-litigation. Exhibit 8 summarizes the deadlines
imposed by statute for each stage and the average number of days
needed to reach resolution by phase.
Exhibit 8: Disputes Resolved During Pre-Litigation Take Far Less Time Than Disputes That Reach
Litigation
Dispute Resolution Stage Statutory Deadline Estimated Days to Resolution
Pre-Litigation
Joint Meeting
115c–431(a) requires chairs of the board of county
commissioners and local board of education to hold a joint
meeting within 7 days of the decision of appropriations. Average = 57 days
Maximum = 154 days
Formal Mediation
115c–431(b) states mediation shall end no later than August 1
unless both parties agree otherwise.
Litigation
Superior Court Trial
115c–431(c) states that trial must be set for the first succeeding
term of the Superior Court, but state law does not set a
deadline for completing this stage. Average = 638 days
Maximum = 1,184 days
Appellate Court Review
115c–431(d) states that notice of appeals must be filed within
10 days of judgment, but state law does not set a deadline for
completing this stage.
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-431.
On average, funding disputes that end in the pre-litigation phase are
resolved within 60 days, with the lengthiest dispute taking 154 days. Such
an outlier can occur because the mediation stage provides an opportunity
to extend the deadline if both board chairs agree to do so. Nevertheless,
given the average length of time it takes to resolve disputes in the pre-
litigation phase, it can be inferred that in most cases the process adheres to
statutory deadline of August 1. In contrast, when the disputing parties

Page 12 of 31
resort to litigation, on average, funding disputes take 638 days to resolve.
In one instance, the process took 1,184 days.
The amount of time it takes to resolve funding disputes when the parties
enter into litigation is especially problematic because the additional funds
that were the premise of the funding dispute in the first place are not
appropriated until after the budgeted year has ended. Consider the 2013
funding dispute between the Union County board of county commissioners
and its local board of education. The dispute resolution process was
initiated in August 2013. This particular dispute went through the appeal
stage before resolution was reached in June 2015—two full school years
after the dispute began.
Between 1997 and 2005, the estimated total cost of the dispute
resolution process represents a fraction of what was eventually
appropriated to local boards of education in the year of dispute.
Concerns have been voiced regarding the cost of settling local education
funding disputes. To estimate the cost of funding the process, the Program
Evaluation Division collected mediation and legal fee cost data in instances
in which the process was used between 1997 and 2015. Analysis of the
data show the total estimated cost of the dispute resolution process was
$4.5 million over these 18 years.6 These costs were borne entirely by
counties. Though this amount is substantial, it represents only 0.5% of the
total funds eventually appropriated to local boards of education in the
year in which they had a dispute ($834 million).
The litigation phase incurred a disproportionately high share of the
costs of the dispute resolution process as compared to the pre-litigation
phase. Exhibit 9 shows that although litigation was necessary in only four
funding disputes (10% of cases), their combined costs represent 73% of the
estimated total cost of the dispute resolution process for the time period
reviewed. In summary, a fraction of local education funding disputes
proceed to the litigation phase, but these cases prove disproportionately
time-consuming and costly compared to disputes resolved in the pre-
litigation phase.
6 The estimated cost of the dispute resolution process was calculated based on the average cost to resolve funding disputes at each
stage. The cost is a function of the fees paid by boards of county commissioners and local boards of education for mediation and legal
representation. The estimate does not include an apportionment of time spent by staff.

Page 13 of 31
Exhibit 9: Only 10% of Funding Disputes Require Litigation, but Litigated Disputes are
Responsible for 73% of Estimated Costs
Pre-Litigation
90%
Total Estimated Cost
$4,505,979
$3,303,640
(73%)
$1,202,339
(27%)
Litigation
10%
of Disputes Ending in
Pre-Litigation
of Disputes Ending in
Litigation
Percentage of Local Funding
Dispute Resolutions by Phase
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data provided by boards of county commissioners and local boards of education that
engaged in the dispute resolution process between 1997 and 2015.
Finding 3. The funding-related outcomes of the dispute resolution
process do not favor one party over another, and non-funding-related
outcomes of the first two stages may improve future local education
budgeting efforts.
Assessing the effectiveness of a formal dispute resolution process between
two or more entities requires an examination of the process’s outcomes; this
evaluation focused on financial and nonfinancial outcomes.
Overall, financial outcomes of the dispute resolution process have not
favored either party involved. The dispute resolution process starts with
local boards of education seeking more funding from their boards of
county commissioners than was awarded in the initial budget ordinance.
Boards of county commissioners then have a second opportunity to examine
local board of education requests to determine if they want to award more
funding. Whereas local boards of education are seeking an outcome
wherein they are awarded additional funds, boards of county
commissioners are likely seeking a financial outcome that aligns with their
original budget ordinance.
Some stakeholders believe that once a local board of education engages
in the dispute resolution process, it will always receive additional funding,
but the data do not support this perception. Exhibit 10 maps the
procedure’s financial outcomes between 1997 and 2015.

Page 14 of 31
Exhibit 10: Financial Outcomes of Dispute Resolution Process Do Not Consistently Favor Local
Boards of Education or Boards of County Commissioners
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data collected from cases in which the dispute resolution process was used between 1997 and
2015.
As Exhibit 10 shows, the process yielded additional funding in a little more
than half of all instances. Both boards of county commissioners and local
boards of education experienced near equal funding outcomes; 48% of
cases resulted in no additional funding to local boards of education,
whereas 52% of cases resulted in additional funding for local boards of
education. However, in the 52% of instances in which local boards of
education received additional funds, only 18% received the amount
requested, whereas the other 82% received less than the amount
requested. Engaging in the dispute resolution process does not guarantee
that local boards of education will receive additional funds, and even if
more funds are awarded, they are likely to be lower than the amount
requested.
Regardless of the financial outcome in a given dispute, the dispute
resolution process can establish practices or agreements that improve
future budgeting interactions between boards of county commissioners
and local boards of education. The goal of the dispute resolution process
is not only to resolve a particular funding dispute between the board of
county commissioners and local board of education but also to positively
shape future interactions between the two entities. Whereas the dispute
resolution process produces a clear financial outcome (local board of

Page 15 of 31
education receives all, some, or none of the requested amount of funding),
non-financial outcomes are less tangible but can have substantial and long-
term effects by influencing future budgeting interactions.
In some instances, non-financial outcomes materialize as formal budgeting
processes or practices. For example, past dispute resolution processes have
resulted in the introduction of bond referendums, implementation of
student-based formulas, and approval of multiyear funding agreements.
These approaches aid the budgeting process by building in more stability.
Ultimately, these approaches may help avoid future conflicts.
Non-financial outcomes of the process that serve to improve future
budgeting efforts emerge from the pre-litigation phase. The pre-litigation
phase of the dispute resolution process involves structured communications
between boards of county commissioners and local boards of education. A
mediator serves as a facilitator to begin discussions in Stage 1 of the
process and then serves as a formal mediator in Stage 2. These facilitated
discussions, along with any additional public and private meetings, help
establish lines of communication. Subsequently, transparency is increased,
which may help establish understanding and foster trust. As discussed in
Finding 1, in 90% of cases in which the dispute resolution process was
initiated between 1997 and 2015, the dispute was resolved prior to
litigation. These outcomes indicate that many of the non-financial benefits
of the process are attributable to the pre-litigation work that is forced
upon both parties.
Finding 4. North Carolina and Tennessee are the only states with
elected school boards that are fiscally dependent on county
commissioners; whereas North Carolina has a dispute resolution
process that can involve litigation, Tennessee uses a default funding
mechanism to avoid litigation.
North Carolina and Tennessee are the only two states with fiscally
dependent and elected school boards. The Program Evaluation Division
was directed to examine the dispute resolution processes of other states
similar to North Carolina.7 In considering which states to compare with
North Carolina, the Program Evaluation Division examined two criteria: (1)
the fiscal dependency of local school boards on local governments and (2)
the method of selecting members of local school boards. Exhibit 11 shows
North Carolina and Tennessee are the only two states with fiscally
dependent and elected school boards.
States vary in the extent to which their school boards can levy taxes
sufficient to fund their educational requirements.
States with fiscally independent school boards. School boards
that are fiscally independent have the ability to raise revenue
through their taxing authority (such as levying property taxes or
sales taxes). Thus, these school boards do not rely on another local
government for local education funding. School boards in 40 states
have taxing authority and are therefore fiscally independent from
other local governments.
7 Session Law 2016-116.

Page 16 of 31
States with fiscally dependent school boards. School boards that
are fiscally dependent have little or no taxing authority and must
instead rely on other local governments (such as boards of county
commissioners or city councils) for local funds for education. School
boards in nine states, including North Carolina, are fiscally
dependent.8
Exhibit 11: North Carolina is One of Two States with Elected and Fiscally Dependent School
Boards
Method of Selecting Local
School Board Members
Number of States with Fiscally
Dependent Local School Boards
Number of States with Fiscally
Independent Local School Boards
Total
Appointed Boards
1
(ME)
0 1
Elected Boards
2
(NC, TN)
37
(AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA,
IA, ID, IL, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO,
MT, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OH,
OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT,
WA, WI, WV, WY)
39
Hybrid Model
6
(AL, CT, MA, MD, RI, VA)
3
(IN, MS, NJ)
9
Total 9 40 49
Notes: Although most school boards are elected in North Carolina, a small number are appointed school in city LEAs. In
Massachusetts, state law provides for elected school boards and local acts of the legislature allow for cities to have appointed
school boards. In New York, all but two school boards (New York City and Yonkers) are elected, and all but five school districts
(New York City, Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse) have taxing authority. In Pennsylvania, only one school board
(Philadelphia) is not elected and all other school boards have taxing authority. In South Carolina, 78 of 85 school boards are
elected, and 23 school boards have taxing authority. Because Hawaii’s system of public schools is a state-only system with no
local school boards and no local funding, it was not included.
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on review of other states and Johnson’s (2009) doctoral dissertation for Virginia
Commonwealth University entitled School Board Taxing Authority in Virginia.
The Program Evaluation Division also identified states that are similar to
North Carolina in terms of how their school board members are selected.
Whereas the policy positions of school board members who are elected
tend to represent the will of the electorate, the policy positions of school
board members who are appointed tend to align with the individual or
entity making the appointment. Therefore, it is more likely that elected
school boards can maintain independence from other units of government
when making education funding decisions.
8 States with fiscally dependent school boards, such as North Carolina, may have the option to enact a local supplementary tax to fund
education. However, in North Carolina, this tax is collected by the State and remitted to local governments and few local school boards
receive revenue from such taxes.

Page 17 of 31
States with elected school boards. Most states (n = 39), including
North Carolina, have school board members that are elected by
citizens in the district.9
States with appointed school boards. Only one state (Maine) has
appointed members of local school boards.
States with hybrid school boards. Nine states have a hybrid
model of electing and appointing members of local boards of
education. In these states, some boards are appointed, some
boards are elected, and some boards are determined by other
defined arrangements.
North Carolina appears to be the only state with a statutory process for
reconciling local education funding disputes. As discussed in the
Background, most states have a Basic Education Program (BEP) that
establishes the standards for a basic education, determines the amount of
resources required to fund it, and specifies the corresponding sources of
those funds. Education funding in North Carolina is not driven by a BEP but
rather a series of allotments. Without a BEP specifying the costs and
funding sources for maintaining a system of basic education, North
Carolina’s local governments have discretion in fulfilling their role in this
system. Boards of county commissioners appropriate local education funds
at a level they determine to be adequate, and no minimum amount is
required. When a local board of education believes the amount
appropriated by its board of county commissioners is not adequate, the
local board of education can engage in the dispute resolution process
specified in statute. As discussed in the Background, after Stage 2 the
dispute resolution process enters a litigation phase.
Unlike North Carolina, Tennessee statute does not provide for a dispute
resolution process but instead specifies a default funding mechanism to
address any disagreements over local educating funding. Exhibit 12
shows similarities and dissimilarities between North Carolina and Tennessee
regarding their local education funding processes. Although Tennessee law
does not provide for a formal dispute resolution process, it contains
mechanisms that encourage negotiations between local governing boards
and school boards and guarantees a certain amount of funding for local
school boards.
Exhibit 12
Unlike North Carolina,
Tennessee Requires Local
Governments to
Appropriate Specific
Amounts to Local Boards
of Education

Aspect of Local Education Funding Processes North Carolina Tennessee
Formal dispute resolution process
Statutory timeframe for local education budget
development
Required minimum funding amount to local school
boards from state through BEP
Required minimum funding amount to local school
boards from local governments through BEP
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on review of North Carolina and Tennessee
statutes.
9 North Carolina has a small number of appointed school boards in city LEAs.

Page 18 of 31
Prior to 2016 in Tennessee, local school boards believing they would
receive inadequate funding from local governing boards sought relief
through the state’s court system. In 2016, the Tennessee General Assembly
revised the method by which education funding disputes are handled.
Under this new process, if a county legislative body and school board fail
to agree upon a budget for the department of education by August 31,
the county’s education budget defaults to the minimum budget required to
comply with the local match and maintenance of effort provisions of
Tennessee’s BEP.10 Although this minimum effort is similar to North
Carolina’s requirement that boards not reaching an agreement by a
specified date receive a minimum funding amount, North Carolina’s statute
only guarantees that a local board of education will receive the same
amount as the year prior to the dispute.11
Under Tennessee’s new process, if the local governing board and school
board do not agree on a budget for three consecutive years, the minimum
amount appropriated to the school board increases by 3% of the required
funding amount from local sources.12 As a result, this process penalizes both
local governing boards and school boards that refuse to negotiate, but it
does not feature a litigation phase. North Carolina statute does not include
a mandatory increase for consecutive budget disagreements and instead
reverts to an annual process beginning with a formal joint meeting that can
end in litigation. The outcomes of Tennessee’s statutory modifications are
unknown at this time because the changes were put in place in 2016.
Tennessee offers a framework for replacing litigation with a default
funding mechanism; however, it is yet to be determined how much the
threat of litigation serves as incentive to reach a budget resolution. As a
result, the consequences of using a similar default funding mechanism
approach in North Carolina are unknown.
Like North Carolina, Tennessee provides a specific timeframe for local
governments and local school boards to reach budget agreements.
Tennessee law specifies the processes and timeframes local governments
and school boards must follow during the budgeting process, which consists
of three steps:13
First, if a county commission committee rejects a school board’s
budget request, the school board is allowed 10 days to revise and
resubmit its proposed budget.
Second, if the school board’s budget is rejected by a county
commission committee again, the school board again has 10 days
to revise and resubmit a budget proposal.
10 Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-21-111. The local minimum budget required to comply with the BEP is typically the prior year’s amount and any
additional amount determined by a formula. Local governments not agreeing on a budget resolution must fund their respective school
boards at full maintenance of effort and do not have the ability to reduce this amount if needed for circumstances such as reduced
revenues.
11 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-431(b).
12 Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-21-111. The 3% mandatory increase in spending only occurs if school boards submit their budget proposals in
accordance with the statutory timeframe and if they received the minimum required funding amount for that fiscal year.
13 Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-21-110(e). Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-21-110(f), this timeline and process may be waived or altered if
both boards agree to do so.

Page 19 of 31
Third, if the school board’s budget proposal is rejected more than
twice by a county commission committee, the third proposed budget
of the school board moves directly to the full county commission,
after which the school board again has 10 days to revise and
resubmit its proposal.
Unlike North Carolina, Tennessee clearly delineates the minimum
amounts both the state and local governments must contribute annually
to education. Tennessee funds its primary school system through the state’s
BEP, a weighted formula that specifies the amounts the state and each
respective local government must contribute for education.14 In determining
the amount local governments must allocate to school boards, the BEP
considers economic differences and the ability of local communities to
generate revenue.15 As such, the BEP attempts to address inadequacies
and inequities in Tennessee’s school funding by determining the funding
level required for each school system to provide a common, basic level of
service for all students. However, it is permissible for local governments to
contribute more than the minimum amount the BEP requires.
Exhibit 13 shows the four components within Tennessee’s BEP that determine
the required state and local portions of education funding.16 Local
governments in Tennessee are statutorily responsible for 25% of the costs
of classroom components (such as textbooks and supplies), 50% of costs of
non-classroom components (such as transportation and capital outlay), 30%
of the costs for instructional wages and salaries, and 30% of costs for
instructional benefits.17
14 Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-3-351. Tennessee funds other initiatives at the local level in addition to the BEP; however, this program
accounts for the majority of K-12 education funding in the state.
15 Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-3-307(10)(A) specifies that a local jurisdiction’s ability to raise revenue is measured by its ability to generate
property tax and local option sales taxes. The calculation is based on applying the statewide average property tax rate for education
and the statewide average local option sales tax rate for education to the respective tax bases of each local jurisdiction. Statute
specifies that no reduction can be made in any calculation of a local jurisdiction’s ability to raise local revenues from property taxes for
agreements entered into by the jurisdiction that result in payments rather than taxes being made to the local jurisdiction. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 49-3-307(10)(B) weighs these factors through a multiple regression analysis model.
16 Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-3-307.
17 Tennessee’s BEP further specifies the amounts the state must appropriate for certain populations of students.

Page 20 of 31
Exhibit 13
Tennessee
Law Specifies
the Amount of
Educational
Funding
Required from
the State and
Local
Governments

75%
50%
70% 70%
25%
50%
30% 30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Classroom Components Non-Classroom
Components
Instructional Salaries and
Wages
Instructional Benefits
PercentageofTotalTNBEPFunding
Component of TN's BEP
Required Local Portion Required State Portion
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on Tennessee statutes.
In summary, North Carolina and Tennessee are the only states with elected
school boards that are fiscally dependent on local governments for local
education funding. North Carolina is unique in that it has a statutory
process to resolve disputes between local governing boards and school
boards, and this process can culminate in litigation. Unlike North Carolina,
Tennessee statute also specifies that if local governing boards and school
boards fail to reach a budget agreement by August 31 of any year, the
local government must fund the school system at a minimum pre-defined
level established by the state’s BEP. Tennessee law requires local
governments to fund the minimum level and an additional 3% if the two
boards do not reach a budget agreement for three consecutive years.
Tennessee’s default funding mechanism prevents litigation from being a
part of its dispute resolution process.
Findings 1 through 3 demonstrate the dispute resolution process is used
infrequently and seldom results in litigation. When used, the process’s
design seeks to mitigate the amount of time and resources spent. In the
aggregate, the financial outcomes of the process have not favored either
party, and the non-financial benefits that typically arise during pre-
litigation stages can improve future local education budgeting efforts. On
the other hand, the litigation stages are costly and time-consuming, leaving
both boards of county commissioners and local boards of education short
on needed resources. This Finding discussed an alternative method for
settling local education funding disputes based on a Tennessee model that
does not include litigation. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that
an alternative to the litigation phase of the dispute resolution process can
be accomplished that still preserves many of the benefits of the pre-
litigation phase of the current process.

Page 21 of 31
The next finding addresses a specific study provision that directed the
Program Evaluation Division to examine fund balances, an important local
education budgeting factor that can lead to local education funding
disagreements.
Finding 5. Local boards of education maintain relatively large
unencumbered fund balances, which can contribute to funding
disagreements and result in local resources being withheld from K-12
public schools.
A common accounting practice when reporting on government operations
and finances is to provide information regarding a government entity’s
fund balance. A fund balance is the difference between the assets and
liabilities in a government fund and generally represents a reserve of
unspent resources. The fund balances of local boards of education are
reported as part of their annual audits.
Not all fund balances can be considered spendable reserves; as a
result, this report focuses on unassigned fund balances of local boards
of education. Fund balances can be encumbered or unencumbered.
Encumbered funds represent expenditures that have been planned,
obliged, or restricted for a specific purpose.
Unencumbered funds represent resources that do not have prior
obligations, and as a result only unencumbered funds represent
reserves of unspent resources.
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) Statement No. 54
classifies fund balances based on the extent to which a government is
bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the funds.18 Exhibit
14 shows which fund balance classifications are available for spending.
Because only unassigned fund balances represent a reserve of
unencumbered resources, this report focuses on unassigned fund balances
of local boards of education.
18 GASB was established in 1984 as an independent, private-sector organization that establishes accounting and financial reporting
standards for U.S. state and local governments that follow generally accepted accounting principles.

Page 22 of 31
Exhibit 14
Only Unassigned Fund
Balances are
Unencumbered
Fund Balance
Classification
Description
Expenditure
Obligation Status
Non-spendable
Fund balance that is not spendable by its
nature; created by long-term receivables,
inventory, or the non-spendable corpus of a trust
Encumbered
Restricted
Funds on which constraints are placed externally
by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws of
other governments or are imposed by law
through enabling legislation or constitutional
provisions
Encumbered
Committed
Funds to be used for specific purposes as
dictated by formal action of the unit’s governing
body
Encumbered
Assigned
Amounts that are constrained by the
government’s intent but are neither restricted nor
committed
Encumbered
Unassigned
Funds that do not fall into any of the other
spendable categories
Unencumbered
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on GASB Statement No. 54.
A local board of education having a large fund balance can be
problematic during the local budgeting process because it may lead to
funding disagreements. There is no prohibition against a local board of
education maintaining a fund balance, and boards of county commissioners
may not force a local board of education to expend its fund balance for
operations or capital. Furthermore, a local board of education is not
required to return a portion or all of its fund balance to the county.
However, a board of county commissioners may consider the fund balance
available to the Local Education Agency (LEA) when making annual budget
determinations. Large fund balances can be problematic during the
budgeting process because they may make boards of county commissioners
reluctant to meet local board of education funding requests in the face of
other financial demands.
The Program Evaluation Division sought to determine the extent to which the
fund balances of local boards of education affected the likelihood of local
education funding disputes. However, due to policies regarding record
retention, information on past local board of education fund balances was
incomplete and insufficient to systematically determine their effect on
funding disputes. Nevertheless, a survey of county commissioners and staff
who have been through the dispute resolution process revealed that the
majority (71%) believe the size of their local board of education’s fund
balance was a factor contributing to their funding dispute. Furthermore,
interviews with subject matter experts confirmed that the existence of local
board of education fund balances influences boards of county
commissioners’ appropriations decisions.
Between Fiscal Years 2013–14 and 2015–16, local boards of education
collectively maintained, on average, in excess of $250 million in
unencumbered fund balances; this amount represents resources that
were not invested in public K-12 education. Data on unencumbered fund
balances of local boards of education are not centrally aggregated. As a
result, the Program Evaluation Division obtained three years of audited

Page 23 of 31
annual financial statements on each of the 115 local boards of education
and manually extracted fund balance data. Exhibit 15 shows the total
annual unencumbered fund balance for local boards of education for Fiscal
Years 2013–14 to 2015–16. Although unencumbered fund balances are
shrinking, the three-year average statewide unencumbered fund balance
for local boards of education exceeds $250 million.
Exhibit 15
Three-Year Average
Statewide Unencumbered
Fund Balance For Local
Boards of Education
Exceeds $250 Million
Note: The total for 2016 reflects unencumbered fund balances for 102 local boards of
education because not all audited financial statements were available at the time of
analysis.
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data from 115 local boards of education’s
audited annual financial statements, which were obtained from the Local Government
Commission.
To further illustrate the magnitude of fund balances, the Program
Evaluation Division analyzed local board of education fund balances in
terms of the amount per student across LEAs for Fiscal Year 2015–16. On
average, local boards of education maintained $319 per student in
unencumbered fund balances. A total of 24 local boards of education
maintained $500 or more per student in unencumbered fund balances. The
amount of unencumbered fund balance in one LEA was $1,244 per student.
Individual local board of education unencumbered fund balances vary
widely across LEAs. To compare the magnitude of unencumbered fund
balances across local boards of education, it is necessary to examine the
unencumbered fund balance as a percentage of general fund
expenditures, which is referred to as the unencumbered fund balance ratio.
Exhibit 16 shows the variation across local boards of education in
unencumbered fund balances as a percentage of general fund
expenditures. Although the three-year average ratio is 20%, some local
boards of education far exceed the average, with one LEA’s
unencumbered fund balance reaching 82% of general fund expenditures
in Fiscal Year 2014–15.
$266 $261
$245
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
2014 2015 2016
Millions
Three-year average
statewide unencumbered
fund balance for local
boards of education is
$257 million

Page 24 of 31
Exhibit 16
Unencumbered Fund
Balance Ratios Vary
Widely Across Local
Boards of Education
Fiscal Year
Local Boards of Education’s
Unencumbered Fund Balance Ratios
Minimum Mean Maximum
2013–14 0% 20% 77%
2014–15 0% 21% 82%
2015–16 0% 19% 70%
Three-year
average
0% 20% 76%
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data from 115 local board of education audited
annual financial statements, which were obtained from the Local Government Commission.
Although local boards of education are units of local government, they
do not have the same operational needs as counties to justify carrying
large unencumbered fund balances. Units of government with taxation
authority need to maintain fund balances for several operational reasons
that include
meeting cash flow needs,
avoiding challenges of the tax collection cycle,
maintaining reserves for emergencies and other unforeseen events,
increasing investment income, and
protecting credit ratings.
The Local Government Commission (LGC) is charged with monitoring the
fiscal health of local governments and offering guidance in financial
administration. The LGC provides guidance on fund balances for local
governments with taxation authority. The purpose of this guidance is to
protect a local government’s credit rating and maintain its long-term
solvency. The LGC recommends that a tax-levying unit of government
maintain a sufficient unencumbered fund balance, which they define as
being at least 8% of a local government’s general fund expenditures.
Because local boards of education do not have taxing authority, the LGC
has not issued guidance on their fund balance levels. In interviews with the
Program Evaluation Division, LGC staff stated that local boards of
education may not need large unencumbered fund balances because LEAs
do not have the same operational needs as counties.
To further explore fund balance levels, the Program Evaluation Division
compared fund balances across counties and local boards of education.
Exhibit 17 shows the three-year average unencumbered fund balance ratio
for counties (23%) is similar to that of local boards of education (20%),
even though counties are responsible for far more governmental functions
than local boards of education. Furthermore, the three-year average
maximum unencumbered fund balance ratio is actually lower for counties
(62%) than for local boards of education (76%). In each fiscal year
analyzed, there were at least 30 local boards of education with
unencumbered fund balance ratios that exceeded their county’s ratios.

Page 25 of 31
Exhibit 17
Several Local Board of
Education Unencumbered
Fund Balance Ratios
Exceed Their County’s
Ratio
Fiscal Year
County Mean
Unencumbered
Fund Balance
Ratio
County
Maximum
Unencumbered
Fund Balance
Ratio
Number of Local Boards of
Education with an
Unencumbered Fund
Balance Ratio that Exceeds
Their County’s Ratio
2013–14 24% 63% 43
2014–15 24% 67% 43
2015–16 21% 56% 30
Three-year
average
23% 62% N/A
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on data from 115 local boards of education’s
audited annual financial statements, which were obtained from the Local Government
Commission.
Exhibit 18 shows how the operational needs of units of local government
with taxation authority to maintain large unencumbered fund balances do
not apply to local boards of education. During interviews, LGC staff stated
that local boards of education could need as little as one month’s worth of
general fund expenditures in unencumbered fund balances. In Fiscal Year
2015–16, more than half of local boards of education (64%) maintained
more than one month of general fund expenditures in unencumbered fund
balances.19 Establishing guidance that sets a maximum unencumbered fund
balance for local boards of education could help ensure these boards are
maximizing investment of local resources in public K-12 education and
could minimize the use of the dispute resolution process when ample
reserves exist.
In summary, local boards of education having large unencumbered fund
balances can be problematic during the local education budgeting process
because it may lead to funding disagreements. The majority of respondents
to a survey of county commissioners and staff who have been through the
dispute resolution process believe the size of their local board of
education’s fund balance was a factor contributing to their funding dispute.
The Program Evaluation Division determined that, between Fiscal Years
2013–14 and 2015–16, local boards of education collectively maintained,
on average, in excess of $250 million in unencumbered fund balances
annually. Not only do local boards of education not have the operational
needs to justify carrying large unencumbered fund balances, but these
balances represent local resources that are not being invested in public K-
12 education.
19 These figures assume a 10-month operating cycle for local boards of education.

Page 26 of 31
Exhibit 18: Local Boards of Education Do Not Have the Operational Needs that Would Require
Maintaining Large Unencumbered Fund Balances
Operational Need for
Maintaining Large
Unencumbered Fund Balance
Local Board of
Education Has
Operational Need
Rationale Regarding Existence of Operational Need or Not
Meeting cash flow needs
The majority of operational funding comes from state allotments, and
resources become available as expended. Furthermore, because N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 159-27(a) dictates that school revenue that comes from the collection of
local taxes is distributed on at least a monthly basis, cash flow needs are
limited.
Avoiding challenges of the tax
collection cycle O
Local boards of education are non-tax collection units of government.
Furthermore, school revenue that comes from the collection of local taxes by
counties is distributed monthly per N.C. Gen. Stat. § 159-27(a) and is not
subject to the challenges of the tax collection cycle.
Maintaining reserves for
emergencies and other
unforeseen events
LEAs are subject to emergencies and other unforeseen events. Fund balances
are useful in offsetting cuts in state funding. However, given that counties are
charged with the statutory authority for appropriating local resources for K-
12 public education, it is reasonable to assume counties serve as the source of
reserves for LEA emergencies. Nevertheless, a local board of education’s
reliance on its county for reserves to address emergencies and other
unforeseen events could be challenged by poor working relationships.
Increasing investment income O
Local board of education investment authority is limited to the instruments
described in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-443 and capital.
Protecting credit ratings O
Local boards of education do not have the authority to issue debt and, as a
result, do not need reserves to preserve credit ratings.
No Operational Need Exists = O Some Operational Need Exists = Operational Need Exists =
Source: Program Evaluation Division based on review of statute, literature, and interviews with Local Government Commission staff.

Page 27 of 31
Recommendations
Recommendation 1. If the General Assembly wants to eliminate
litigation from the local education funding dispute process, then the
General Assembly should revise state law for settling local education
funding disputes to preserve the benefits of the pre-litigation phase
while replacing the litigation process with a default funding
mechanism.
As discussed in Findings 1 through 3, the local education dispute resolution
process is used infrequently and seldom results in litigation. The pre-
litigation stages of the process (joint meeting and formal mediation) can
produce non-financial outcomes that improve the local education budgeting
and finance environment. However, the litigation stages are costly and
time-consuming, and leave both boards of county commissioners and local
boards of education short of needed resources.
In Finding 4, the Program Evaluation Division found that Tennessee, which
like North Carolina has elected school boards that are fiscally dependent
on county commissioners, offers an alternative method for settling local
education funding disputes. In lieu of litigation, local education funding
disputes in Tennessee are settled using a statutorily prescribed default
funding mechanism.
Building on the Tennessee concept of a default funding mechanism, the
Program Evaluation Division has created one tailored to North Carolina.
This default funding mechanism would allow the General Assembly to
eliminate the litigation phase of the dispute resolution process while
preserving the benefits of the joint meeting and formal mediation stages.
The default funding mechanism is not meant to determine the appropriate
level of local funding for operations and capital, but rather should act as a
deterrent discouraging failure to come to a resolution through the annual
budget process. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that capital
appropriations to local boards of education may vary from year to year
and have advocated for exempting capital appropriations from the
default funding mechanism. However, exempting capital appropriations
would negate the purpose of the default funding mechanism serving as a
deterrent for failure to come to a resolution when capital appropriations
are at issue.
This proposal preserves state law directing the joint meeting and formal
mediation stages of the dispute resolution process before triggering a
default funding mechanism. As currently prescribed by state law, the
board of county commissioners and local board of education would still be
required to arrange a joint meeting to negotiate an agreement. If no
agreement is reached during the joint meeting, both boards would engage
in formal mediation, sharing the costs equally, to resolve the funding
dispute. If the board of county commissioners and local board of education
cannot resolve their funding dispute during the joint meeting or through
formal mediation, the default funding mechanism would be triggered.
The default funding mechanism establishes a consecutive three-year
framework for settling recurring local education funding disputes. The
board of county commissioners would appropriate local education funds as
determined by the default funding mechanism once it has been triggered.
Under the default funding mechanism, local appropriations for the first

Page 28 of 31
disputed budget year would be the previous year’s expenditures for
operating and capital expenses adjusted by changes in the projected
average daily membership (ADM) for the Local Education Agency (LEA)
and changes in an employment cost index of salaries and wages for
elementary and secondary school personnel.20 If a funding dispute cannot
be resolved during the second consecutive budget year, the default
funding mechanism described previously would again determine the local
appropriation for education. If a funding dispute cannot be resolved
during a third consecutive budget year, the default funding mechanism
adds an additional 3% growth rate to the mechanism used during the
previous two years.
Exhibit 19 provides a diagram and a hypothetical example illustrating
how the default funding mechanism works if funding disputes occur during
three consecutive budget years. If funding disputes occur during non-
consecutive budget years, the default funding mechanism would restart
each time. If funding disputes between the two boards continue to occur
after the initial three-year time period, the default funding mechanism
process would restart and cycle through the three-year time period until
such time that the boards can settle their funding disputes without resorting
to the default funding mechanism.
20 This cost index was chosen because the majority of public education expenditures are for personnel salary and benefits. The cost
index (Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index Series Id: CIU302610000000I) is reported quarterly for a calendar year,
and second quarter data would be the most recent data available during the local education funding dispute resolution process.

Exhibit 19: Revised Dispute Resolution Process Replaces Litigation with a Default Funding
Mechanism
Hypothetical Example
Base Year Dispute Year 1 Dispute Year 2 Dispute Year 3
Fiscal Year
2013–14
Fiscal Year
2013–14
Fiscal Year
2013–14
Fiscal Year
2013–14
Projected Average Daily Membership (ADM) 1,000 1,013 1,042 1,071
Cost Index Percentage Change N/A 0.95% 1.89% 1.52% + 3.0%
Local Operational Expenditures per ADM $ 100 $ 100.95 $ 102.86 $ 107.51
Total Local Expenditures $ 100,000 $ 102,266 $ 107,180 $ 115,138
Notes: BOCC stands for board of county commissioners. BOE stands for local board of education. For the hypothetical example, the
Program Evaluation Division used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index for elementary and secondary school workers
for calendar years 2012 through 2016 (Series Id: CIU302610000000I). This cost index is reported quarterly for a calendar year, and
second quarter data would be the most recent data available during the local education funding dispute resolution process. To
calculate the Cost Index Percentage Change for each disputed budget year, the second quarter cost index data from the previous
calendar year was compared it to the second quarter data for the current year.
Source: Program Evaluation Division.

Page 30 of 31
Recommendation 2. The General Assembly should direct the Local
Government Commission and School of Government at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to convene a working group to develop
and recommend statutory parameters for fund balances maintained by
local boards of education.
As discussed in Finding 5, many local boards of education are retaining
large unencumbered fund balances. Fund balances can be an issue in
disagreements between local boards of education and boards of county
commissioners but also represent resources being withheld from K-12 public
education. Local boards of education do not need to maintain large
unencumbered fund balances because their operational needs are
different from county governments and the majority of their operational
funding comes from state appropriations. The Local Government
Commission (LGC) does not currently provide guidance for local boards of
education because these boards are not authorized to levy taxes.
To address unencumbered fund balances maintained by local boards of
education, the General Assembly should direct the LGC and the School of
Government (SOG) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to
develop and recommend statutory parameters for fund balances
maintained by local boards of education. The working group should include
representatives from the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners, North Carolina School Board Association, and North
Carolina Association of School Business Officers. The parameters should
provide direction for local boards of education on
minimum and maximum fund balances with a focus on
unencumbered funds,
appropriate uses of fund balances,
annual reporting requirements of fund balances,
how fund balances should be factored into annual local budgets for
education, and
the role of boards of county commissioners in determining the use of
fund balances maintained by local boards of education.
The working group should recommend statutory parameters for local board
of education fund balances to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight
Committee no later than March 30, 2018.
Appendix
Appendix: Judicial Decisions Relating to the Local Education Funding Dispute
Resolution Process
Agency Response
A draft of this report was submitted to the North Carolina School Boards
Association and the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.
Their responses are provided following the appendix.

Page 31 of 31
Program
Evaluation Division
Contact and
Acknowledgments
For more information on this report, please contact the lead evaluator,
Sean Hamel, at sean.hamel@ncleg.net.
Staff members who made key contributions to this report include Brent
Lucas. John W. Turcotte is the director of the Program Evaluation Division.

Appendix: Judicial Decisions Relating to the Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process
This appendix describes several judicial cases relevant to the local education funding dispute resolution process.
Leandro v. State1
In the 1997 Leandro v. State case, the court addressed the definition of a sound and basic education. The North
Carolina Supreme Court defined a sound and basic education as one that ensures each student the opportunity
to obtain the following: ability to read, write, and speak the English language and fundamental knowledge of
mathematics and physical sciences; fundamental knowledge of geography, history, and basic economic and
political systems to enable the student to make informed decisions with regard to issues that affect the student
and his or her community, state, and nation; academic and vocational skills to successfully engage in post-
secondary education and training; and academic and vocational skills to compete with others in further formal
education or gainful employment in a contemporary society.
The Leandro decision guarantees each and every child the right to an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic
education, which requires that each child be afforded the opportunity to attend a school that has, at a minimum,
the following educational resources.
Every classroom must be staffed with a competent, certified, well-trained teacher able to teach the
standard course of study by implementing effective education methods that provide differentiated,
individualized instruction, assessment, and remediation to the students in a classroom.
Every school must be led by a well-trained, competent principal with the leadership skills and ability to
hire and retain competent, certified, and well-trained teachers who can implement an effective and cost-
effective instructional program that meets the needs of at-risk children so that they can have an equal
opportunity to obtain a sound basic education by achieving grade level or above academic
performance.
Every school must be provided, in the most cost-effective manner, the resources necessary to support an
effective instructional program within that school so that all children, including at-risk children, have an
equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.
Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners2
In Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners, the court addressed a funding
dispute between these two boards that arose during Fiscal Year 2006–07. The board of education requested
$12.1 million, and the board of county commissioners allocated $9.4 million. After complying with the joint
meeting and mediation stages of the dispute resolution process, the board of education engaged in Stage 3
(Superior Court Trial). A jury found the board of education needed $10.2 million for Fiscal Year 2006–07 for
school operations and required the board of county commissioners to appropriate that amount.
The board of county commissioners then engaged in Stage 4 (Appellate Review). Ultimately, the North Carolina
Supreme Court found no error in the initial judgment amount. The court’s rationale was based on its interpretation
of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426, holding that statute clearly envisions that some funding for operations come from
local governments because it establishes the local current expense fund. The court affirmed three important
holdings:
the statute establishing the dispute resolution process does not delegate to the courts the Legislature’s
constitutional duty to provide for a “general and uniform system of free public schools”;
a court cannot require a county to provide more than the minimum level of educational funding required
by state law, which is interpreted as the amount necessary for a system of public schools that provides
students the opportunity for a sound basic education; and
a county’s funding responsibility for its local board of education is not limited to capital outlay.

1 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997).
2 681 S.E.2d 279 (2009).

Union County Board of Education v. Union County Board of Commissioners3
In Union County Board of Education v. Union County Board of Commissioners, the courts addressed a funding
dispute between these two boards during Fiscal Year 2013–14. During this time, the board of education had
requested $86.2 million for operating expenses and $8.4 million for capital outlay from the board of county
commissioners. The board of county commissioners appropriated $82.3 million for operating expenses and $3
million for capital outlay, $9.2 million less than board of education’s request. The board of education believed
this amount to be inadequate and entered into the dispute resolution process. The initial joint meeting and
mediation phases passed without resolution, and in August 2013, the board of education engaged in Stage 3
(Superior Court Trial).
A Superior Court jury found the board of education had established evidence of the cumulative effect of funding
shortfalls over several years, and the judge ordered the jury to determine the amount of funding from all
sources, specifying the local government’s share, that is necessary to “maintain a system of free public schools as
defined by State law and State Board of Education policy.” The jury awarded an additional $5 million for
operating expenses and $86 million for capital outlay beyond the amounts already appropriated by the board
of county commissioners.4 The court ordered the board of county commissioners to pay this amount to the board
of education and authorized the levy of additional taxes if needed to sufficiently cover the costs.
The board of county commissioners appealed the Superior Court’s decision because it believed that 1) the trial
court erred in allowing an argument of improper legal standing in the opening statement, and 2) the trial court
allowed evidence regarding the cumulative effect of underfunding. In granting a new trial, the North Carolina
Court of Appeals affirmed that
the dispute resolution process concerned a single year’s funding needs, and as a result the introduction of
evidence establishing cumulative deficiencies was not permissible; and
a county’s funding responsibility for operating expenses and capital outlay only applies to what is
legally “necessary” for the school district to meet its constitutional obligation of providing students the
opportunity to receive a sound basic education.

3 No. COA14-633 (2015).
4 The amount awarded by the jury represented nearly $82 million more than the board of education had requested for the 2012–13
fiscal year.

Leanne E. Winner
Director of Governmental Relations
OFFICERS
Carr Ipock, Craven
President
Minnie Forte-Brown, Durham
President-Elect
Billy Griffin, Jones
Vice President
Brenda Stephens, Orange
Treasurer
Roberta Scott, Warren
Immediate Past President
DIRECTORS
Coleman Barbour
Whiteville
Amy Churchill
Buncombe
Lisa Davis
Anson
Ed Dennison
Moore
Lucy Edwards
Northampton
Glorious Elliott
Edenton-Chowan
Bruce Hill
Lenoir
Sharron Huffman
Wilkes
Ron Kiviniemi
Transylvania
Christian Overton
Camden
Darrell Pennell
Caldwell
Brian Piercy
McDowell
Earl Taylor
Onslow
Geoffrey Tennant
Polk
Sherry Vaughn
Stanly
Carol Worley
Clinton
Barbara Yates-Lockamy
Columbus
PAST PRESIDENTS
Paige Sayles, Franklin
Shearra Miller, Cleveland
Evelyn Bulluck, Nash-Rocky Mt
Chuck Francis, Haywood
Wendell Hall, Hertford
Kenneth Lanier, Pender
Linda Cranford, Asheboro
Leonard Peace, Granville
Dr. Christine Fitch, Wilson
P.O. Box 97877
Raleigh, NC 27624
Office: 919.747.6686
Fax: 919.841.4020
lwinner@ncsba.org
May 16, 2017
John W. Turcotte, Director
300 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 100
Dear Mr. Turcotte:
Thank you for providing the North Carolina School Boards Association
(NCSBA) the opportunity to respond to the Program Evaluation
Division’s report on Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution
Process is Effective and Economical, but Litigation Could be Eliminated.
The local education funding dispute resolution process has been a
contentious issue in the General Assembly. NCSBA hopes that this
report will provide a clear path for the General Assembly to provide
resolution to this issue that is agreeable to school boards and county
commissioners.
Recommendation 1, to eliminate the potential of a lawsuit after
mediation and replace it with a funding formula, would still provide
relief for school boards, and the students they serve, without spending
large sums of taxpayer dollars on attorneys’ fees or tying up the judicial
system. The funding formula presented in the report is one that we
believe adequately provides enough impetus for county commissioners
to negotiate during the mediation step in good faith and would in most
circumstances provide adequate relief if the mediation was not
successful. One instance that we do not believe the funding formula
adequately addresses is when capital improvements are needed to
address non-compliance with federal or state regulations like ADA. The
cost of these could very well exceed the formula because many times
these issues have developed after a large number of years of inadequate
capital funding.
As cited in the report, we do believe it is important for the mediation
stage to stay intact. In many instances the resolution of the immediate
funding issue may open a new line of communication and understanding
between the two bodies.

Leanne E. Winner
Recommendation 2 suggests that a recommendation be made on statutory parameters for fund
balances maintained by local boards of education. NCSBA believes that this recommendation is
excessive. We believe the working group should examine whether there should be statutory
parameters placed on LEA fund balances. While the data is available in audits, NCSBA was not
able to examine the data in the timeframe that was given to respond to this report. If we had been
able to examine the data, we would have likely reached out to some of the districts that maintained
high fund balances to find out why they were being maintained at that level and if the county
commissioners knew and were supportive of them being maintained at the level.
Also, the report states that because school boards do not have taxing authority, like 90 percent of
their counterparts across the county, fund balances should not be held at such a high level. In our
opinion the opposite it is true. When a governmental entity has no ability to generate its own funds,
it is imperative that they have a robust rainy day fund. This would allow the entity to address
emergencies or revenue declines due to economic downturns. Since personnel costs account for
approximately 90% of a school system budget, without a strong reserve for economic downturns,
school systems would be forced to reduce staff. As one of if not the largest employer in the county,
this could have substantial impact on the local economy.
Additionally, many years the state budget is not approved until right before school starts and in some
instances the state budget is not approved until the school year has begun. Almost always, there are
surprise budget implications for the school district budget that had not been anticipated. A strong
fund balance allows districts to be able to mitigate these unanticipated budget changes.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the report.
Sincerely,
Leanne E. Winner
North Carolina School Boards Association

ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER 215 NORTH DAWSON STREET, RALEIGH, NC 27603 PHONE 919.715.2893 FAX 919.733.1065
RISK MANAGEMENT POOLS PHONE 919.719.1100 FAX 919.719.1101
WWW.NCACC.ORG
May 15, 2017
Mr. John W. Turcotte, Director
300 North Salisbury Street, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Dear Mr. Turcotte,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the “Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process
is Effective and Economical, but Litigation could be Eliminated” Program Evaluation Division report.
The evaluation is thorough, and we appreciate the comprehensive examination of data and context
included in the process, as well as the consistent communication and open discussion with PED staff.
The report highlights many of the concerns about the lawsuit mechanism portion of the dispute
resolution process raised by the membership of the N.C. Association of County Commissioners over
the years. While the mediation process creates potential opportunities for relationship-building and
dialogue, these same opportunities do not exist through permitting local boards of education to sue
with the resulting expenses for litigation diverted from education and other county needs. However,
Finding 1 that litigation has been necessary on only four occasions does not acknowledge the
situations when counties have chosen to end the process at mediation simply to avoid costly and time-
consuming litigation, not because they feel the parties have reached a successful outcome.
The association supports the recommendation to develop parameters around recommended fund
balance levels for boards of education, as guidelines could provide both boards a starting point and
framework during budget discussions.
The recommended default funding mechanism in cases of disagreement will also provide a tangible
reference point for boards of education and county commissions during school funding discussions,
and we support the approach in principle and practice. Our counties on the whole are currently
providing more in local current expense (operating) funding each year, so the recommended
calculation comports well with that actuality. Capital funding, however, is appropriated in different
ways and through various formulas by our members, based on the number of school districts in a
county, the number of capital projects that are needed in a given year, and other budgeting practices
specific to a county. As a result, the same default calculation that applies suitably to operating funding

ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER 215 NORTH DAWSON STREET, RALEIGH, NC 27603 PHONE 919.715.2893 FAX 919.733.1065
RISK MANAGEMENT POOLS PHONE 919.719.1100 FAX 919.719.1101
WWW.NCACC.ORG
may not provide the same fit for capital appropriations. If a default funding mechanism is adopted, we
would recommend applying the mechanism only to operating expenses, allowing some flexibility for
capital funding based on particular annual needs in a district, or both.
Thank you again for this comprehensive evaluation. We know the membership of our local boards of
education and county commissions are aligned in their goal to support students, teachers, and a strong
public education system.
Sincerely,
Johanna H. Reese
Director of Government Relations

Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process Is Effective and Economical, but Litigation Could Be Eliminated

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process Is Effective and Economical, but Litigation Could Be Eliminated

More from EducationNC

Recently uploaded

Local Education Funding Dispute Resolution Process Is Effective and Economical, but Litigation Could Be Eliminated