Agenda - 06-02-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 16 Commissioner Pelissier said she too has talked to other elected officials and community members and most said to make the bond simple by focusing only on schools. She said the public can be informed about the needs and why taxes would need to be increased. Commissioner Price said there still needs to be an action plan regarding affordable housing and the details of such a plan are uncertain at this time. Chair McKee said he also originally advocated for both schools and affordable housing being on the bond. He said until a comprehensive plan regarding how to address affordable housing is created with the Towns that the issue should not be put on a bond referendum. He said he now supports having one issue on the bond and that being schools. Commissioner Jacobs said the decision to have only one issue on the bond short changes the residents of Orange County. He said there should be no reason to be afraid to hear the opinions of the voters. He said he found the voters discriminating enough to determine their own priorities and to tell their elected officials these priorities. He said a monochromatic bond is not a good idea. He said the CI P does not bind future Boards. He said a bond is an agreement of what the voters want and the provision of those wants. He said a CIP is changeable, and none of the other things like senior needs, affordable housing needs, park needs, or improvements in sidewalks or bike lane will be guaranteed in this bond if the only item on it is schools. He said he has always supported schools but every year at public budget hearings the Board points out to citizens that it is the responsibility of the Board to care for more than just the schools and the education systems. He said it is his opinion that this decision flies in the face of those comments. Commissioner Rich said the lack of an affordable housing plan should not preclude asking the voters to vote for funding for affordable housing. She said with such a vote at least there will be a funding mechanism in place. She said the Board should pay attention to the Chapel Hill bond as it is a competing issue. She said the Chapel Hill bond may include solid waste, despite their lack of a solid waste plan. She said she is supportive of schools, and just because she wants to put affordable housing on a bond does not mean she does not support schools. Chair McKee said the Board is clearly not unified. He said having one issue on this bond does not preclude a future bond for other needs. He said it his opinion that the current overarching need in Orange County is schools. Commissioner Burroughs said putting schools on the bond as a single issue will help save money down the road. She said such stewardship of funds is a good decision. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier that this bond will be for the capital needs of the schools. VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Burroughs); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Rich) MOTION PASSES 4 -2 Chair McKee said just because this is a divided vote does not mean this is a divided Board on their commitment to schools or other needs throughout the County. If there is a bond referendum, what process will be followed? And does the number of "needs" on the referendum affect the process? Not applicable