Minutes - 19760210 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.~??~ the two school systems to the bare bones and, adding the cost of a new jail, would mean a $2,2D0,000 per year. She asked whether the feeling is that this can be accommodated through increased tax rate without a bond election. r;r. Hanes said that this would amount to an increase of about 15~ in the tax rate. I~ir. Riddle said that he would not be content, and that he feels citizens would not be either, if no other capital improvements besides the Cultural Arts building were funded over the next two years. He said that, as a basic minimum, the miltipurpase rooms at F. P. Graham and Phillips, renovation at Glenwood, traffic improvement at Seawell and F. P. Graham, and conversion of cafeterias to dishwasher use should .be funded in addi- tion to the Cultural Arts building, at another 10~ increase in the tax rate. Mx. Gattis said that the current county tax rate is 65~, and 25~ increase comes close to a 50% tax bill increase for county residents. Dirs. Scroggs said that other needed increases in the county program have not yet been consider.~d. She said that it is necessary to have informa- tian available an all the funding necessary, and the various alternatives by which funds can be obtained. She said that there will be other in- creases in the school budget over which there is no control, such as mat- thing state salary increases for local teachers. Mr. Gustaveson said that this point he sees no way of funding even the minimum of capital outlay without a bond issue. He said that the deci- sion needs to be made very soon whether the bond issue is the way to go, since delaying a decision may make it impossible to have a band issue in November, 1976. He suggested that it be decided what is the prudent size of a band issue, and that a smaller committee be apAOinted to work out the actual package to be included. FIe suggested. that the bonds be limited to School Bonds, ar_d that the County capital expenses be budgeted on a pay-as-you-go basis. i.r. Gattis said that there is plenty of time for a November bond issue from the legal point of view, but that decisions will need to be made on the type of bond issue, the kind of election, and the type and amount of publicity, sometime during the budget planning process. Mrs. Garrett said that .either only school bonds can be issued, ox that the jail also can be included in the bond issue. She said that people should be given all the facts on the necessity of the projects, so that they can decide whether these should be funded through bonds or by taxes. DIr. Gustaveson asked whether strong support can be expected from both the School Boards, if the County Commissioners decided to issue bonds. D;r. Compton said that at this point he is not in favor of a bond issue. He said that the County residents should be shown why the increase in funds is needed, and that the jail should be in the bond issue. D;rs. Garrett sugested that the two School Boards meet again separately before another joint meeting, and discuss the more specific ideas to be included in a band issue, and the more specific listing of priorities for the first five years. D;rs. Scroggs suggested that each system also consider what it could do in the next five years with a set amount of money. Dir. tiJilliams said that, if a bond issue were to be held, the projects to be included have to reflect the fact that a bound issue will need to be carried in the Chapel Hill area to pass. Mr. Caldwell agreed that this aspect needs to be considered, but said that the items included have have to be of such a nature that both the southern and northern parts of the county will be willing to support the bond issue. r:rs. Garrett said that hlr. Gattis will supply information to the Boards at least five days before their D=arch 1, 1976, meetings on the revenues that can be raised from various tax rates over specific periods of time, and the increase in tax rate needed to pay off specific amounts of bonds . D:r. Howard suggested that a committee be formed with one member from each Board to discuss specific items such as sequence of major projects and bond issue specifics, to report back to each Board meeting on D;arch 1, 1976, at which time each Board can discuss the proposal presented, and that a meeting be set later than D:arch 1, 1976. He said that this method would work better than trying to meet as a committee of twenty-two members. He said that the Committee could decide the timing of the