Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />Gordon -May 23 <br />Page Z . <br />III. Concerns with the policy for allocation of funds for Darks and <br />o ens ace <br />In retrospect, this appears to be a flawed policy, for several reasons, <br />although the nxotivation to ensure equitable distribution of resources <br />over a period of time is still valid. <br />,A. The_ooliw is not comprehensive. The policy fails to consider <br />equitable distribution of resources in all categories of bond projects. <br />In 1997 and again in 2001, there are many categories besides <br />schools either funded or being considered, including: <br />Affordable housing <br />Community college <br />County projects <br />Parks and recreation, open space, Lands Legacy <br />Senior centers <br />Water, sewer, wastewater (Efland Sewer project) <br />Are we only going to practice equitable aliocatioxt of funds lun the <br />area of parks and open space? <br />B. Thepoli~ is .retroactive. We should revisit the question of <br />whether and/or ,how our policy should be retroactive (i.e, before the <br />2001 bond referendum) and if so, whether IX should include more <br />than lust band funds. We use multiple funding sources for many <br />projects, including bond referendum funds, other kinds of debt <br />instruments, grant funds, pay-as-you-go funds, and so forth. <br />C. The olio does not ret7eet the corn lexi of the issu involved. <br />Before the policy was adopted, the County Commissioners had a long- <br />standing unwritten policy of shriving to ailocate resources, whethez• <br />bond funds or other funds, so as to serve cftizens all over the County. <br />In the. formulation of the recent written policy, there were many <br />Issues not addressed. These unaddressed issues include the ones <br />mentioned above, and several others. <br />