Agenda - 03-03-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 1 After the presentation the Commissioners had a detailed discussion of the options key points of 2 their discussion included the following: 3 With the Bond Referendum option, there will be: 4 1. Voter buy-in for those who vote—there are a significant number of voters who don't vote so the 5 Board doesn't know those voter's position. 6 2. An explicit commitment to targeted bond priorities — even though the existing Commissioners 7 can't obligate future Commissioners to honor those priorities. 8 3. A tax increase 9 4. A better interest rate—though it is projected to be negligible 10 11 With the Existing Tax Rate option, there will be: 12 1. Competition of CIP/School needs with current county services and programs 13 2. A tax increase 14 15 Decisions and Considerations: 16 1. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to continue 17 discussion under the assumption they will have a Bond. A proposal to have a Bond will be 18 placed on a future BOCC meeting agenda to get public input and have a formal BOCC vote. If 19 there is an affirmative vote, it was suggested that the bond issues be placed on the ballot by 20 separate general categories since many of the potential bond topics i.e. schools, affordable 21 housing, are likely to be a part of a broad mix of priorities. 22 2. There needs to be ongoing discussion and coordination with Chapel Hill to clarify overlap on 23 Bond issues. 24 3. There needs to be better coordination and communication with the Orange County School 25 Board. The schools need the most money and there was a suggestion that there needs to be a 26 maintenance plan to address the needs of old schools in addition to funding to build new 27 schools. Bringing old schools up to the level of newer schools should be prioritized. 28 4. The BOCC received information about the timeline for formal and informal actions that will have 29 to be performed based on whether the Bond Referendum is on the May or November 2016 30 ballot. 31 5. They agreed to use the 2001 Bond Process and Structure if there is an affirmative vote on 32 doing a Bond Referendum at the BOCC meeting where this issue is discussed. 33 6. The issue of a May versus a November date for the bond was discussed. November was 34 viewed as a priority date because it would involve more voters since it would be a Presidential 35 election year. The primary concern for waiting until November would be the delay in getting 36 schools funding for the projected $750,000 needed in the first year. 37 7. When questioned whether the CIP Projects in years 6-10 would tie up the county's capital 38 capacity, the Commissioners were reminded that the CIP Project Schedule is a planning tool. 39 CIP Projects are re-evaluated annually so they can change priority based on several variables. 40 41 The Bond issue will be brought back to the BOCC's as an agenda item as soon as possible. 42 43 Process for BOCC Actions 44 The two items to be discussed during this time frame were issues related to Petitions by the 45 BOCC, Petitions by the Public and several topics related to Board and Commissions. Although 46 time was limited, we began the discussion related to Petitions by the BOCC. The remaining topics 47 were deferred to the February 1 0th BOCC Work Session.