Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
- Total County revenue would be $174.3 million <br /> - Shortfall from FY 2008-09 budget would be $8.7 million. <br /> Donna Coffey explained each scenario in detail. <br /> Discussion ensued about the public utilities considerations about revaluation. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs asked about the biggest decrease in per pupil allocation for the <br /> schools and Donna Coffey said that it decreased by about$1 in 1991. <br /> Laura Blackmon said that there are some issues that need consensus. They are listed <br /> as recommendations for the Board to consider. The Manager recommends that: <br /> - The Board not rescind the 2009 Revaluation <br /> - The Board agree to implement a revenue neutral tax rate for FY 2009-10 for all <br /> taxpayers <br /> - The Board apply the same principles for all taxing districts including the County wide <br /> ad valorem tax, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district tax, and fire district taxes <br /> - The Board agree the funding target for schools for FY 2009-10 is 48.1% of County <br /> revenues <br /> Commissioner Hemminger said that there is statement about a "revenue neutral tax for <br /> all taxpayers" and she suggested taking off"all taxpayers" because it is confusing. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does agree that the County should look at a funding <br /> target for the schools of 48.1%. He suggested looking at the potential for deeper cuts to bring <br /> the tax rate below revenue neutral. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz about the 48.1% for the <br /> school funding and most of the principles for all taxing districts, except if the legislature dictates <br /> that it is only going to pay for one school system. This will be another problem that will have to <br /> be addressed with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro District Tax. He would like to flag this, that under <br /> those circumstances, the County is not lying but that it may have to be adjusted based on an act <br /> of the State legislature. He tends to agree that the County should try and get close to "tax <br /> neutral" and not revenue neutral. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the advisory letter to Alamance County and <br /> asked if this changed the County Attorney's opinion on the four-year schedule for revaluations <br /> and Geof Gledhill said no. Geof Gledhill said that Alamance County is on an eight-year <br /> revaluation schedule. He said that there is nothing in the law that allows the Alamance County <br /> to postpone a revaluation in the eighth year. Orange County's situation is different. He said <br /> that Orange County has made its own timeline, and it has to comply with this. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs asked Geof Gledhill why the County Commissioners should listen <br /> to him because other attorneys are giving different advice on this. <br /> Geof Gledhill said that he researched the problem and outlined his opinion. He reviewed <br /> this outline with the lawyer of the School of Government whose specialty is property tax, who <br /> agreed with his analysis in every respect but one. He also spoke to another lawyer that is <br /> respected with regard to property tax law in North Carolina who also concurred. He said that he <br /> heard anecdotally that the North Carolina Department of Revenue also concurs with this <br /> opinion. <br /> Commissioner Hemminger said that there seems to be no relief if the revaluation were <br /> rescinded. She would like to see another scenario of going lower, somewhere between 80-86 <br /> cents. She suggested doing an 83-cent scenario. She agreed with most of the <br />