Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-12-2004-6
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 02-12-2004
>
Agenda - 02-12-2004-6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2013 12:21:17 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:38:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/12/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20040212
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
rWINITEM <br />tax rate in a manner which accommodated the unmet needs of the Chapel Hill <br />schools, but they wouldn't get the whole $2.5 million. I think Moses said and I have <br />said this is that it's not this huge windfall for the Chapel Hill schools, what it is is a lot <br />of money for the Orange County schools. Remember, that's a huge tax increase for <br />the Orange County schools, which is one reason I'd like to have a vote. If we did <br />that in July 1, 2003, it would be 20.8 cents. The reason this doesn't cost Chapel Hill <br />a lot of extra money is because you've decreased the district tax in Chapel Hill as <br />you've increased the tax in Orange County. But I would add the caveat that you <br />make sure you meet Chapel Hill's unmet needs as you adjust these two taxes. I <br />don't know how to explain it more clearly, but Chapel Hill would, through this <br />mechanism, it's not a mechanism to give Chapel Hill more money, it's a mechanism <br />to correct the funding disparity so that Orange County school system would get more <br />money soon. <br />Chair Jacobs: First, I will not support having this on the ballot in May. I <br />would consider having it on the ballot in November. I don't think we're going to have <br />a primary in May, and as I've said before, and I think I just heard Commissioner <br />Halkiotis say, there's more information that I need before I'm going to go to the <br />voters, including myself, and say, "Raise taxes on yourself." I want to know that the <br />$44.7 million in operating funds are being spent in an efficient and effective manner.. <br />I think that's only reasonable, And I think that we have outlined here some other <br />ways to proceed that will give us information. We've had a lot of members of the <br />public come to us and say, "I have these questions.. I have these concerns." And <br />with all due respect, your original proposal was to merge the schools and then work <br />out the details. I still think that's what this is. This is, "Let's act without necessarily <br />knowing all the details." Maybe I'm just more conservative or more cautious. But I <br />think it's important to be able to have the school systems have these conversations <br />about collaboration, have a group of independent educational experts look at what <br />we have, and have an independent expert look at how money is being spent before <br />we go to voters and say, "These are your two options." I tend to support the idea of <br />these two options going to the voters, and as I had said previously, I think the <br />countywide supplemental tax should go to the voters. Whether these are the two <br />options, the only two options we should take to voters, perhaps they are.. With the <br />uncertainty about a primary and with the lack of information, I would not support this <br />even though whatever we do may be ultimately divisive among some people, the <br />more information we provide people, I have faith that people in the community are <br />willing to listen, willing to evaluate, willing to digest, and then reach a conclusion if <br />you treat them with the respect that we like to be treated. The way I would like to be <br />treated as a taxpayer is to get this information before somebody asks me to make a <br />decision. So that's my reaction. Qualified endorsement, but I still think that we have <br />a process that I would like to see us pursue. <br />Commissioner Brown: I'm going to just totally agree with you. I think <br />everyone has brought up here pieces of everything we need to do. It's kind of the <br />time that we need to do them.. However, Moses, I don't disagree with your stand on <br />merger at all, but I really need to put out for our citizens some vision of what a <br />merged system would look like. That kind of falls into what Barry was saying. That <br />to me is something that everyone needs to see. They need to have a basis for <br />supporting it. And without the data and the information both on the tax issue and on <br />trying to look at the collaboration and trying to develop creative information on what a <br />new system could look like, I just can't move ahead until we have that. And that to <br />me is just the bottom line of it. I just don't want to run over the voters. They need to <br />3u <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.