Orange County NC Website
11 <br /> 1 Commissioner Price asked how this responsibility could be assigned to staff, if the <br /> 2 County is not eligible for the grant. <br /> 3 Bob Jessup said the grant would be awarded to the district. He said who writes it is <br /> 4 irrelevant. He said County staff or another assigned group can administer the grant, while the <br /> 5 district is considered the recipient. <br /> 6 Bonnie Hammersley said the Board could assign County staff towards the district. <br /> 7 Commissioner Dorosin said the three advantages are 1.) charging differential rates, 2.) <br /> 8 potential developers can help subsidize the cost of the infrastructure, and 3.) eligibility to apply <br /> 9 for other funding resources. He asked if Bob Jessup could identify any disadvantages. He said <br /> 10 it seems that the setting up of a new administrative structure carries some administrative <br /> 11 burdens. <br /> 12 Bob Jessup said in practice the Board could include district items on its agendas, or <br /> 13 gavel in and out as the district board. He said the burdens are insignificant. He said rather <br /> 14 than considering disadvantages, one could consider the alternatives. He said the alternatives <br /> 15 would be to do nothing, pay OWASA to do it all, cooperate with Carrboro and create a new <br /> 16 water authority, or do it all as a County, but not have access to alternate financing. <br /> 17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board can amend the district. <br /> 18 Bob Jessup said parcels could be added as long as noticed and hearings are held. He <br /> 19 said the parcels do not have to be contiguous. <br /> 20 Commissioner Rich asked if water would still be bought from OWASA, and if so, where <br /> 21 would the money come from to cover the difference for the reduced rates. <br /> 22 Bob Jessup said that would be a general fund obligation. <br /> 23 Commissioner Rich asked if, with this information, it would be possible to split costs with <br /> 24 Carrboro to make up the difference. <br /> 25 Bonnie Hammersley said if that was the intention, this district could enter into some type <br /> 26 of agreement with municipalities about the costs. <br /> 27 Bob Jessup said a separate tax rate could be charged in the district, and after a period <br /> 28 of development it may be more beneficial to levy a tax. <br /> 29 Bonnie Hammersley said this has been looked at as a financial tool, not to be funded by <br /> 30 the general fund, but to look at alternate resources for financing to cover the subsidies. <br /> 31 Commissioner Rich asked if the Managers' initial discussions only involved the 86 <br /> 32 current properties, or if there was an expansion. <br /> 33 Bonnie Hammersley said the district has not yet been defined, but it will not change <br /> 34 anything for these 86 properties. <br /> 35 Commissioner Rich said there was a suggestion in SWAB to do districts, and it was not <br /> 36 well received. She said a strong educational element will be important if this process moves <br /> 37 forward. <br /> 38 Commissioner Price said if the district does move forward, would the Board be able to <br /> 39 apply grants to pay for the hook ups for the water and sewer. <br /> 40 Bob Jessup said yes, grants can be used to do this if there are such grants available. <br /> 41 Bonnie Hammersley said any kind of grants available for this purpose are being <br /> 42 pursued, and there would be more access to these funding resources as a "district' as opposed <br /> 43 to a "county". <br /> 44 Commissioner Jacobs said he has an incomplete recollection of asking OWASA to <br /> 45 change its policies on government extending utilities and then the government not being able to <br /> 46 recoup the cost of installation from developers. He said OWASA was not interested in <br /> 47 changing its policy. <br /> 48 Commissioner Jacobs said the County could structure the district so that entities that <br /> 49 came in after the district was created would have to reimburse the body politic, not only pay an <br /> 50 assessment fee. <br />