Minutes - 19890530 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

30 c Hill special tax is lowered. The Manager's proposal would call for a 10% increase in county funds each year over the next 5 or 6 years. Mr. Link indicated this was his recommendation and did not necessarily reflect the agreement of the two school superintendents. Ms. Liston provided a more detailed explanation of the Manager's proposal. She also discussed the financial model. The assumptions that were used in this model constantly change and need to be discussed here. One is that the County funding increases at 10% each year and State funding increases at 13% each year. Chapel Hill district tax dollars have been projected to remain constant at 4.2 million dollars for this year and as the tax base increases the tax rate will decrease. It was assumed that Chapel Hill students will increase at a rate of 4% each year and Orange County students will increase at a rate of 2% each year. The assumption also included County and State funds being adjusted by these numbers. Countywide tax increases will be necessary for increases in school funding above and beyond 6%. We have estimated a countywide increase of 10%. This model will need to be constantly revised. The percent increases in school funding per student was discussed. Orange county will receive a greater increase in order to make progress toward equity. By 1995 Orange County would see an increase of 7.2 cents and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro school district would see a 2.1 cent increase on the tax rate. The presentation of the budget was concluded at this time. Link stated that this has been a significant year of achievement. The adoption of a 30 million dollar bond referendum, a five year capital improvement plan, the Economic Development Strategic Plan, a Water and Sewer Policy, and a successful Teen Symposium have been accomplished. He indicated that he was confident that Orange County would meet its new challenges in 1989-90 by working together. He recommended this budget to the Commissioners. Chairman Carey thanked the Manager and his staff. He stated the document is clear and concise. He invited the public to study it. He asked a spokesperson for the EMS to address the Board of Commissioners. Eugenia Smith, a member of the Orange County Rescue Squad since 1981, stated that her personal objection to the fee for service is philosophic. However, since the focus of the meeting is the budget she will focus on the financial aspects. She stated that the volunteer rescue squads have been delivering emergency care, at no charge, to the citizens of Orange County since 1968. The efforts of the volunteer squads have made possible the advanced system which serves the county today. The South Orange Rescue Squad, Inc. and the Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. feels strongly that the imposition of a fee for their services will lower morale significantly and will damage their fundraising capabilities. The increased stipend mentioned in the proposed county budget will not begin to offset the losses the volunteer squads will suffer through a drop in donations. The citizens of Orange County are fortunate to receive the level of care which is made possible by the joint efforts of the volunteers, NCMH, and Orange County Emergency Medical Services. It is remarkable that the volunteers have been willing to undergo the extensive training involved in order to achieve and maintain certification. The David M. Griffith and Assoc. study is flawed. It is acknowledged on page 13 of the study that the analysis system used by them is only as valid as the information it processes. The analysis fails to consider the human, capital and financial assets which the volunteer squads provide for the county. This flaw is a result of a critical lack of input from the volunteer rescue squads. These assets total 2.68 million dollars. The rescue squads recognize the county's contribution to their budgets, but hastens to add that this