Orange County NC Website
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />15 <br />• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Myren said there is no requirement for <br />the County to continue funding the Other Post - Employment Benefits (OPEB) account. In <br />fact, last year the County did not make an OPEB contribution, he said. OPEB contributions <br />could increase as the County's Full -Time Equivalent number increases. We know the <br />potential liability and are including it on our balance sheet. Commissioner McKee said he <br />feels the Board is obligated to fund OPEB. Ms. Hammersley said that everyone who is <br />eligible is receiving their benefits. The OPEB account is a savings tool we have to ensure, if <br />there are not enough "pay as you go" funds, then our retired employees would still be able <br />to receive their benefits. We are one of only two counties in the state that maintain an OPEB <br />account, she said. In states with greater economic challenges such as California and <br />Michigan it is needed more. I'm not opposed to the idea of the account, she said, but there <br />is a challenge to us when we're trying to figure out whether to serve residents or fund this <br />savings account. Last year when we faced that challenge, we chose not to put additional <br />money into the account. Commissioner McKee said he supported last year's decision, and <br />that there is no guarantee that we will not be faced with the same economic challenges as <br />the places where OPEB accounts are required. We have an ethical obligation to provide for <br />the former employees we have made promises to, he said. Ms. Hammersley said that the <br />County is indeed providing for them. <br />• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Myren said that "the break" anticipated <br />in new technology projects means the County will complete innovations that already have <br />been budgeted. This will enable the administration to continue with improvements that will <br />pose no burden on the budget. <br />• In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Myren said that a one -time increase <br />in the property tax rate of 4.56 cents would be combined with increased revenues from other <br />sources and /or reductions in expenditures. <br />• In reply to a question from Commissioner McKee, Mr. Myren said that Sportsplex operations <br />are indeed generating a surplus. The surplus is plowed back into operations to help the <br />organization absorb operational cost increases and stabilize its user fees. <br />• In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Myren said the County's current <br />practice is to recapture through fees a little better than 80% of the costs of issuing building <br />and inspections permits. <br />• In reply to question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Myren said the long term debt <br />capacity model he presented — in which as much as $200M of additional borrowing over six <br />years begins to be available in FY2024 -25 if the County chooses to maintain $35M in debt <br />capacity — also assumes one of the two tax increase scenarios he presented earlier. <br />• Commissioner McKee said that the state of local school facilities, the increasing age of <br />County facilities, and population increases will require continued or increased capital <br />investment by the County over time. He asked the County staff to provide information on <br />what the expected demand will be for school and County facilities into the future, and how <br />that will impact borrowing and the tax rate. Ms. Hammersley said the chart on Capital <br />Budget Planning — Long Term Debt Capacity Model illustrates when (i.e., FY2024 -25) the <br />County could afford to do another bond referendum if the Board so chooses. <br />• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Myren explained that while both of the <br />tax - increase scenarios are designed to pay for peak debt service ($39M) in FY2021 -22, the <br />one -time tax increase generates more than is needed in the year it's collected. The <br />additional revenue from the one -time increase would be placed in a capital reserve account <br />to pay for the debt service when it peaks. The incremental model collects revenue to cover <br />expenses "as you go" each year they are in effect. <br />Travis Myren's presentation ended and the group continued its discussion: <br />