Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-20-2022; 8-a - Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2022
>
Agenda - 09-20-2022 Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 09-20-2022; 8-a - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/15/2022 2:24:03 PM
Creation date
9/15/2022 2:13:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/20/2022
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8-a
Document Relationships
Agenda for September 20, 2022 BOCC Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\BOCC Archives\Agendas\Agendas\2022\Agenda - 09-20-2022 Business Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
8 <br /> 1 thinks there are some items being funded with Article 46 proceeds that the Board could provide <br /> 2 direction on, but views it more as the job of the County Manager. She said if the Board does <br /> 3 strategic planning, then the use of the proceeds and the budget can be tied to it. <br /> 4 Lydian Altman said from the comments, she's heard two things; first, does the Board <br /> 5 want to revisit this, and if so, what might a process be for doing that. She invited others to <br /> 6 comment. <br /> 7 Commissioner McKee said he believes the Board knows his opinion on Article 46. He <br /> 8 said he heard a question about what the county did for economic development before Article 46, <br /> 9 and the answer is the county did nothing and got nothing, to the point that the state did not refer <br /> 10 companies to Orange County because it was considered a waste of time. He said he believes <br /> 11 the vote on Article 46 went before the voters with the understanding that 50% would be spent on <br /> 12 economic development, though this Board or a future Board can change that. He said since this <br /> 13 money has become available, the economic development picture in Orange County has <br /> 14 radically changed, and he credited a lot of the change to Morinaga taking a leap of faith and <br /> 15 developing here. He said a goal should be to continue attracting businesses that fit, which <br /> 16 includes having money to do it, and the only way to do that is to use Article 46 proceeds, or <br /> 17 raise taxes. <br /> 18 Commissioner Richards said her buzzword as a new commissioner is responsible <br /> 19 development to encourage and support a strong safety net. She said there cannot be a strong <br /> 20 safety net without economic development. She said it's because of all the county needs that she <br /> 21 would like even more funding to go to economic development. She said there is a lot of bang for <br /> 22 the buck with money going toward economic development. For example, she said $2 million for <br /> 23 economic development can go a lot further than $2 million going to schools compared to the <br /> 24 much larger amount of money the schools actually need. <br /> 25 Chair Price said she thinks they funding for both economic development and education <br /> 26 is important. She said she has seen a lot of growth since the county dedicated money to <br /> 27 economic development. She said this special sales and use tax has helped take some of the <br /> 28 burden off of the property tax base. Chair Price said having more economic development can <br /> 29 provide a foundation for other things to happen like community development and more funding <br /> 30 to schools. With that said, she also acknowledged that the schools need more funding. She <br /> 31 asked if the Board would like to update the Resolution passed in 2011 to determine what to do <br /> 32 for the next 5-10 years. <br /> 33 Commissioner Hamilton said it is okay to hear disagreement because this is a good <br /> 34 example of money the Board uses automatically but doesn't stop to look at even though the <br /> 35 resolution said it would be reviewed in 10 years. She said it demonstrates how there aren't <br /> 36 processes in place to review and follow up on past decisions. She said she hears the point <br /> 37 about the benefits of investing in economic development, but schools are also an economic <br /> 38 development issue because they are one of the things that draws businesses and people into <br /> 39 the community. She said schools are at a tipping point where Orange County may not be as <br /> 40 attractive as surrounding communities due to the schools, which will have an impact on <br /> 41 economic development. She thanked staff for the detailed breakdown of revenues from <br /> 42 different economic development projects. She said she was surprised to see how little return <br /> 43 some projects are providing now, but understands there will be greater return in the long run. <br /> 44 She said it's important to think about this when determining what to invest in now vs. later, and <br /> 45 with schools and children there is an impact that cannot be quantified in the data provided. She <br /> 46 said there is no information on the return on investment in schools, no information on the <br /> 47 benefits to the community from the county's investment in schools. Further, she said the <br /> 48 information does not include the cost of economic development to the community like increased <br /> 49 traffic or costs to schools. She said the Board isn't seeing the full cost benefits and to keep that <br /> 50 in mind. She clarified that she is not saying the investments in economic development are not <br /> 51 needed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.