Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• Orange County's debt management policy as currently written does not permit the <br />use of debt for the types of activities contemplated under the proposed <br />constitutional amendment. <br />• In order to receive Local Government Commission approval for a project, <br />commitments from the business partners will need to be firm. In other words, you <br />can't build it and hope they come. <br />• The debt obligation resulting from these bonds is a direct obligation of the issuing <br />unit and therefore counts against the unit's debt ratios and in Orange's case, the <br />County's own debt management policy parameters. <br />• In most cases, the property taxes generated from these projects would be <br />insufficient to cover the entire amount of debt service. This would mean that the <br />issuer could be required to pledge other revenues toward the project (property <br />taxes could not be pledged). The issuer may also be required to obtain bond <br />insurance. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that he was the one that asked for this report because <br />there is a lot of propaganda about it. He thinks there is some false advertising and he cannot <br />understand why the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners endorses this <br />amendment. He said that there is no guarantee that revenues will be sufficient to pay for the <br />debt. The ads on television are showing that new schools will be built as a result of this, and <br />he said that this is not true. He did not vote for this. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on this. Rod Visser said that if you have a <br />district with a tax base of $10 million, and certain improvements are made and a few years <br />later, the tax value goes up to $20 million, the county tax rate that would be applied against the <br />original $10 million would still come to the general county coffers. However, the tax revenue <br />that would come from the increased value of $10 million would be sequestered and would be <br />used to pay the debt service on the bonds. <br />Chair Jacobs pointed out that in the News and Observer today there were three pieces <br />on this. One was very critical in saying that there is not necessarily any guaranteed payback. <br />Commissioner Carey said that he recognizes that if this passes, the language has only <br />changed slightly from the past two failings and this does not require local governments to take <br />action, but only enables them to. He thinks Orange County would never use it because there <br />are other options. He recognizes that smaller counties may need this option. He said that the <br />NCACC has to represent all entities in the state and they typically support things that give <br />counties options. <br />c. Library Services Task Force Final Report <br />The Board received the Final Report from the Library Services Task Force and <br />provided feedback and direction to the Task Force and/or County Staff. <br />Chair Jacobs served on this task force. He asked the members present to stand. He <br />introduced the Chair of the task force, Evelyn Daniel. He said that the last time the Board <br />specifically visited this issue was in 2000. There were issues of access at that time, as well as <br />finance, and they were brought up short with the Governor's sequestering of funds. It was only <br />this year that the branch library in Cedar Grove and the Cybrary in Carrboro were opened. <br />These were outgrowths of the 2000 report. He pointed out page 15 and the statement, <br />"Orange County's current central library facility was opened in 1981; since that time the <br />population exclusive of the Town of Chapel Hill has grown 59% from 45,017 to 71,429 in 2000, <br />