Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> Kirk Vaughn said the next option would reduce the four-year combined debt and pay-go tax <br /> equivalent to 9.17 cents. He added that even though the same list of projects would still be completed, <br /> the delay in their timing reduced total debt issuance over 10 years, keeping the county below the 10-cent <br /> debt threshold and maintaining the debt-to-general-fund-revenue ratio below 19% throughout the <br /> planning horizon. <br /> Slide#9 <br /> Capital Investment Plan <br /> All Current Amendments and Option 2 to delay <br /> projects throughout the Plan Year DS to GF Debt Tax Rate Pay-Go Tax <br /> Revenues Equivalent Rate Equivalent <br /> — Includes larger reduction proposal,as well as 2027 12.39% 2.014 1.784 <br /> Bedford and Fowler amendments. 2028 13.11% 0.994 1.024 <br /> 2029 15.57% 3.134 <br /> — Results in Total Debt plus Pay-Go Tax 2030 15.78% 0.154 <br /> Increases of 9.08 cents through FY2029-30 2031 16.53% 0.914 <br /> 2032 15.80% - <br /> 2033 16.86% - <br /> 2034 18.42% 2.274 <br /> 2035 18.55% 0.424 <br /> 2036 17.71% - <br /> Totallmpact 9.884 2.804 <br /> ORANGE COUNTY <br /> 9 NORTH CAROLINA <br /> Kirk Vaughn also noted that if the two previously submitted commissioner amendments (from <br /> Commissioner Bedford and Commissioner Fowler) were layered onto Option B, the combined four-year <br /> tax equivalent would fall slightly further to 9.08 cents. <br /> Kirk Vaughn flagged one additional topic he had been asked to address before moving to the next <br /> part of the presentation,which was about deferring or delaying school Pay-Go. If school Pay-Go is reduced <br /> significantly over the next seven years, the county would likely need to ask the school districts to scale <br /> back their plans. If a commissioner proposed reducing Pay-Go as a one-time measure to fund an ongoing <br /> operational expense,that would create a structural deficit the following year unless the Pay-Go reduction <br /> was made permanent. He said permanent reduction from the$10 million target could accommodate some <br /> operating budget increases without a tax increase but would require a return to school districts to <br /> renegotiate the bond plan. He also flagged the risk posed by a potential state constitutional amendment <br /> that could cap the percentage by which local governments could increase taxes year over year. If the <br /> county were far below its Pay-Go target at the end of the current year and such an amendment passed, it <br /> might be very difficult to incrementally increase Pay-Go to reach that target under a new statutory <br /> constraint. <br />