BC 2008 05 22 Recessed - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 22, 2008 (Recessed Meeting) Page 839 One goal of this planning effort is an agreement between the cities and the county that defines the limits of utility extensions and future annexations - in effect, a municipal or urban growth boundary. Another goal is to establish zoning for residential densities in the unincorporated areas slated for possible annexation that will not change after annexations occur. These important growth management measures are an essential part of the effort to ensure orderly, predictable, and desirable development, as well as an affordable tax burden. Additionally, this eff can be replicated in districts, leading to sorts. The success dependent upon the participate. ort is intended to serve as a model that each of the other four county planning a county-wide growth management plan of of this effort, however, is entirely willingness of the municipalities to Finally, the Board of Commissioners' adoption of a new adequate public facilities ordinance last August provides, in effect, a floating cap on residential development that is tied to current and planned school capacity. A step yet to be addressed from last year's list is the identification and reservation of additional land for future employment uses. This, along with successfully fostering the creation of jobs in private enterprise, is a critical issue for us since nearly half of our workforce leavesthe county each day to go to their jobs. This situation is detrimental to both our environment and economy. If all these measures are successfully achieved, then population growth, the need for new schools, and the trend of continually increasing taxes should be moderated in the future. Now for the bad news: As predicted in the current five-year financial plan, the FY 2009 annual budget of $213.2 million is balanced by maintaining the tax rate at 63 cents. Since property values have been revised to reflect current market conditions, a tax rate of 63 cents is the equivalent of an 11 cents tax increase for an average property owner (a thorough explanation of property revaluation is found in the Budget Summary on page 28). There are several new items in the budget that account for the expenses necessitating the 63 cents tax rate, but of those items, the increases in school operating costs, debt service for new school construction and new jail construction (totaling $17.26 million) consume more than three-quarters of the $22.7 million in additional revenue attributed to the revaluation. In preparing the budget, much consideration was given to the impact of rapidly escalating taxes on those least able to afford them, leading to the creation of three alternative five-year financial plans before one was chosen to include in the budget. The first plan, which was rejected, includes funding for all the Cabarrus County Schools facility projects recommended by the Blue Ribbon Committee and the facilities proposed by Kannapolis City Schools. These projects total about $939 million and would result in tax increases equaling the equivalent of 39 cents over the next four years. I'm not suggesting the school facility projects are not beneficial or needed, but I am certain that there are many residents who cannot afford such a tremendous tax increase. The second plan reduces the amount of the school construction projects to about $390 million, resulting in the equivalent of a 24.5 cents tax increase over the next four years. The .tax increases are in increments of 11, 9, 3 and 1.5 cents, respectively. This plan was rejected because of the magnitude of the tax increases in the first two years. The third plan also reduces the amount of the school construction projects to $390 million, but also delays construction for some of the projects by two years. This plan results in a similar tax increase over the next four years (24 cents), but in increments of 11, 9, 4 and 5 cents, respectively. This plan was accepted because the tax increases are more evenly distributed.