Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-03-2015 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 03-03-2015 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 03-03-2015 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2016 7:56:31 AM
Creation date
2/27/2015 12:02:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/3/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6-a
Document Relationships
Minutes 03-03-2015
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10 <br /> 1 Commissioner Pelissier said she understands this a little differently in terms of revenues <br /> 2 and expenses. She said if a certain amount of revenue comes in, but spending is more than <br /> 3 that revenue, then there would be a loss, and taxes would have to be increased or the money <br /> 4 would have to be found elsewhere. <br /> 5 Commissioner Pelissier said the conversation has focused on school generation rates <br /> 6 and residential, but the County's interest is in the commercial portion. She wants to see the <br /> 7 commercial development data and how this would generate sales tax and property tax <br /> 8 revenues. <br /> 9 Commissioner Dorosin said there are some important questions to answer. He is <br /> 10 reluctant to start thinking about development and revenue generation if this is going to price out <br /> 11 affordable housing and low wealth options. He said it is important to be cautious in putting <br /> 12 everything on this market based analysis. <br /> 13 Commissioner Jacobs said Chapel Hill has assured them that Orange County can jump <br /> 14 into this project at any point, so this does not have to be articulated to everyone's satisfaction at <br /> 15 this time. He said this should be viewed as a potential partnership with pros and cons. <br /> 16 Paul Laughton said the second scenario takes out the attempt to attach a percentage for <br /> 17 County services. He presented the following information on scenario 2: <br /> 18 <br /> Ephesus-Fordham Financial Analysis(Scenario 2) <br /> Based on Phases 284.00 <br /> With Education 175.00 19.00 90.00 <br /> Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 <br /> Percentage <br /> Percentage of County <br /> Fy14-15 of Services Revenues Revenues Revenues <br /> FY14-15 Allocated to <br /> Budget Budget Project $ 1,424,704.00 $ 154,721.00 $ 726,694.00 <br /> Governing and $ <br /> Management 17,550,772 8.99% 0.00% <br /> General Services 9,451,951 4.84% 0.00% <br /> Community and <br /> environment 7,548,601 3.87% 0.00% <br /> Human services 32,242,706 16.51% 0.00% <br /> Public safety 22,382,107 11.46% 0.00% <br /> Cultural and <br /> recreation 2,696,035 1.38% 0.00% <br /> Education 76,847,414 39.36% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 142,270.00 670,930.00 <br /> Debt service 26,529,306 13.59% 0.00% <br /> Total S 195,248,892 100.00% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 142,270.00 670,930.00 <br /> Net 114,496.00 12,451.00 55,764.00 <br /> Request 400,840.00 400,840.00 400,840.00 <br /> Net increase <br /> (deficit) (286.344) (388.389) (345.076) <br /> Number of Years in <br /> phases 4 years 6 years 10 years <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.