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