Minutes 01-27-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Price asked about the localized stormwater municipal service district. She asked if Chapel Hill would be levying a fee over the area, and she said her concern is the cost of living. Craig Benedict said it is important that the district is established now to find out what improvements would be subject to long term maintenance and what that cost will be. He said this is a dense, high intensity development, and there will likely be heightened sensitivity to the best management practices that are put in here. He said the district will be analyzed to determine what type of increment would be associated with all of the property owners. He said there is no current estimate for how much a district tax would be per household. Commissioner Rich said the County is not in the business of roads, but the County is in the business of putting in infrastructure for economic development, and she thinks that this includes the roads in the towns. She said these roads can be instrumental to attract companies. She said roads are infrastructure, and it is important to think about this. Commissioner Rich suggested putting the discussion of the 48.1 percent target for schools on the agenda for a future work session. Commissioner Price referred to page 14 on attachment c and asked when the Board should expect an estimate on these numbers. Paul Laughton said he does not have a time frame at this point. Chair McKee said the key point is that this is the first of many discussions on this proposed project and the level and timing with which the County wants to participate. He said another point is that this project is a component of economic development, and it will bring in additional property taxes and sales tax. Chair McKee said the Board has talked about the fact that about 85 percent of the County's revenue is from residential property tax, and there has been discussion about how to push this number down by increasing commercial development. He said Steve Brantley has said it takes about $160 million of investment to push this percentage down by one point. He said it is important to push this number down so that homeowners in the middle to low income levels can stay in their homes. Chair McKee said this may involve some policy discussion or decisions. Chair McKee said many of these numbers are hypothetical at this point, and it is important to keep this in mind. 2. Proposed Draft Applications, Guidelines & Scorinq Sheets for Article 46's Business Investment Grant &Aqriculture Economic Development Grant Steve Brantley presented this item and introduced the following four members of the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board who were instrumental in creating these guidelines: Jim Kitchen, Delores Bailey, Karen McAdams, and DR Bryan. Steve Brantley reviewed the purpose and background from the abstract as follows: BACKGROUND: In November 2011, Orange County voters approved a referendum to levy a one-quarter (1/4) cent sales tax that provides additional annual funding for education and economic development purposes. This "Article 46"funding program generates approximately $2.5 million annually in new local sales tax proceeds which are split equally between education (shared between the Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro school systems) and economic development. The 50/50 share of Article 46 funds for economic development, averaging $1.25 million per year, is initially set for 10 years. The BOCC adopted a Resolution in December 2011 authorizing the new one-quarter cent sales tax. Key Sectors for Use % of Total $ Annually • Debt service on water, sewer & associated 60% $750,000 Infrastructure made in Orange County's 3