HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-19-2008-6bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 19, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. ?-
SUBJECT: Local Revenue Options Referendum Decisions
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
2/14/08 Report from Local Revenue Laura Blackmon or Rod Visser,
Options Education Advisory Committee 919-245-2300
2/14/08 Report from Hertzog Research
Resolution Regarding Advisory
Referendum (Versions A, B, and C)
Draft Statement of Intent Regarding
Uses of New Revenue Source Proceeds
PURPOSE: To make decisions regarding what local revenue option(s) to include in a
referendum to be placed on the May 6, 2008 ballot.
BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive and complicated "swap" of county and state
revenue sources approved by the North Carolina General Assembly during its 2007 Session,
the legislature authorized county Boards of Commissioners to enact one of two new local
revenue sources, subject to voter approval in each county considering implementation of the
new revenue source. Commissioners may conduct a referendum on a land transfer tax (of up to
four-tenths percent, in one-tenth increments), a one-quarter cent additional sales and use tax, or
both. Commissioners may implement only one of the two taxes if voters approve both.
Decision Points: In Fall 2007, the Orange County Commissioners indicated their intention to
place one or both revenue options on the May 2008 ballot for voter approval. The established
timeline for the Board to make a decision on what to include as the subject of a May 6, 2008
referendum is at this February 19, 2008 regular meeting. The BOCC must communicate its
decision to the Orange County Board of Elections before the end of February in order to meet
practical and statutory requirements regarding the calling of elections and the availability of
ballots for absentee voting.
Citizen Advisory Committee: In October 2007, the Board created the Local Revenue Options
Education Advisory Committee. In keeping with the charge from the BOCC, this fourteen-
member Committee has focused during the first phase of its work on the following tasks:
o Becoming familiar with the history that led to the 2007 General Assembly granting
counties the authority to enact new local revenue options - either a .4% land transfer
tax or an additional'/4-cent sales tax
o Becoming familiar with the impacts that each of the new revenues would have on
Orange County residents and Orange County's revenue stream
After the BOCC makes its decision regarding what to include on the May 6 ballot, the
Committee will move to the second phase of its work and carry out the following elements of its
charge:
o Develop appropriate informational materials for the local revenue options
o Design and implement an educational component to distribute relevant factual
information about the local revenue options to Orange County voters in the most effective
and efficient manner possible
o Design and implement a process for informational meetings with civic groups, business
organizations, non-profit agencies, neighborhood associations, and other interested
parties in the community
o Ensure that equal access to factual information is provided to all individuals and groups,
regardless of their position for or against the referendum
o Encourage all eligible voters to participate in the May 6, 2008 election
The established timeline for the BOCC decision process contemplated an initial report from the
Advisory Committee in early to mid-February 2008. At the organizational meeting of the
Advisory Committee in December 2007, the Chair of the BOCC made it clear to the Committee
that although the Board was neither seeking nor expecting a recommendation from the group
regarding what question(s) to place on the ballot, the Commissioners would welcome individual
or collective comments and observations from the Committee. The accompanying initial report
from the Committee responds to that invitation.
Gauping Public Attitudes Towards Revenue Options: On February 5, 2008, the Board of
Commissioners held a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the two possible
revenue mechanisms. The Board also approved that evening an agreement with Hertzog
Research, LLC to conduct and present findings from a telephonic survey of approximately 400
registered Orange County voters likely to participate in the May 2008 elections. The survey was
designed to gather information regarding citizen attitudes towards the available local revenue
options and regarding what sources the public tends to use to.get news and other information.
In light of time constraints inherent in obtaining survey results that would be useful to the BOCC
in time for a February 19 decision on what to place on the May 6 ballot, staff had consulted with
Durham County staff regarding their successful experience in August 2007 with using the
services of the Carrboro-based Hertzog Research firm. Staff had then solicited a proposal from
Dr. Mark Hertzog, principal of'the firm, and reviewed it with the Manager, Chair, and Vice Chair.
The Manager and staff then reviewed the proposed survey questionnaire and worked with Dr.
Hertzog to finalize it. Telephone surveying began the evening of February 6 and was completed
on February 13.
A summary of the top-line telephone survey findings accompanies this abstract as a draft report.
After performing additional statistical and demographic analysis, Dr. Hertzog will make a more
detailed presentation to the Commissioners regarding his findings at this February 19 meeting.
3
Establishing a Referendum: Pursuant to provisions of Session Law 2007-0323, "the board of
county commissioners may direct the county board of elections to conduct an advisory
referendum on the question of whether to levy a local land transfer tax in the county..." Similar
language authorizes a referendum on the one-quarter cent local sales and use tax.
The statutes provide specifically for the ballot language for both of these questions:
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Real property transfer tax at the rate of up to [x] percent [x%] of value or consideration.
(NOTE: The x in the brackets above would be replaced on the ballot by .1, .2, .3, or .4,
depending on the decision of the Board of County Commissioners).
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Local sales and use tax at the rate of one-quarter percent (0.25%) in addition to all other State
and local sales and use taxes.
Accompanying this abstract are proposed resolutions that, upon adoption by the Board of
Commissioners, would call upon the Orange County Board of Elections to schedule a May 6,
2008 election on either the local land transfer tax (Version A), the local option sales and use tax
(Version B), or both the land transfer tax and sales and use tax (Version C)
Use of Proceeds: There is no provision in the law for earmarking potential proceeds of these
revenue sources through the referendum itself, as the ballot language is explicitly provided for
by statute as noted above. However, experience from other county jurisdictions that held similar
referenda in November 2007 suggests that it is extremely important to voters that they have
some understanding of the governing board's intentions regarding the likely uses of additional
tax revenue.
The Orange County Commissioners discussed the potential use of proceeds at their February
12, 2008 work session and agreed that clarity and simplicity are essential to effectively
communicating to the public the Board's plans for using any revenue from one of the available
new sources. The Board expressed the view that significant unfunded capital needs for both
schools and parks would be appropriate objects of expenditure for any new revenues. The
Board directed the Manager to draft a statement of the proposed uses of the proceeds that
would reflect the Board's February 12 discussion. That draft statement accompanies this
abstract as a starting point for further Board deliberation on the intended uses of local revenue
option proceeds.
The Manager recommends that the Board consider adopting a formal resolution at its March 6,
2008 meeting that will explicitly communicate the Board's intended uses of the funds, pursuant
to decisions that the Board reaches at this February 19 meeting. That document would become
part of the foundation for educational materials to be developed and disseminated this spring
with assistance from the Local Revenue Options Education Advisory Committee.
4
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with this agenda item. The
cost of conducting the May referendum on local revenue options will essentially be limited to the
cost of printing and handling one additional ballot type, as all other May 2008 election expenses
would be incurred anyway and are addressed in the 2007-08 approved budget for the Board of
Elections.
Preliminary estimates provided by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
suggest that based on historical patterns, Orange County could expect additional annual sales
tax revenue of roughly $3.0 million, or annual proceeds of approximately $4.0 million from a .4
percent land transfer tax, if approved by voters and implemented by the Board of
Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Receive and consider the report from the Local Revenue Options Education Advisory
Committee;
2. Receive the report from Dr. Hertzog regarding surveyed voter attitudes towards the local
revenue options;
3. Approve a resolution calling upon the Orange County Board of Elections to conduct a
May 6, 2008 advisory referendum on the question of whether to levy one revenue option
or the other as the subject of the referendum; and
4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for formal adoption by the Board at the March 6, 2008
meeting that reflects the Board's decisions at this February 19 meeting regarding the
intended uses of the proceeds from the prospective new revenue source.
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Mark Peters, Chair, Local Revenue Options Education Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Initial Report from Local Revenue Options Education Advisory Committee
DATE: February 14, 2008
Last fall, the Board of Commissioners indicated its intentions to hold a referendum in May
2008 that would offer Orange County voters the opportunity to approve the levying of an
additional one-quarter cent local sales and use tax, a local land transfer tax of up to .4% on
real property transactions, or both. You decided to appoint our group to assist Orange
County government during the run up to the referendum in explaining to voters the
rationale and the ramifications of whichever local revenue option you ultimately selected.
Counting our organizational meeting on December 11, 2007, the Local Revenue Options
Education Advisory Committee has thus far held six meetings. During the first phase of
our work, we have focused on educating ourselves about the need for additional revenue
in Orange County, the mechanics of the available revenue options, and the reasons that
one or the other may be a preferable instrument to individuals and groups with differing
perspectives.
We appreciated, and clearly benefited from, the opportunity on January 15 to hear
presentations and to pose questions to Dr. Roland Stephen of NCSU and Dr. Karl Smith
from the UNC School of Government. The information we obtained that evening, the
numerous handouts provided by staff, and the additional research that individual
Committee members have performed have by no means made us experts, but have left us
much better informed on the subject than we were a few months ago.
The Chair of the BOCC made it clear to us at our organizational meeting that the
Commissioners did not expect our group to reach consensus viewpoints. That is probably
fortunate, as our group reflects divergent opinions from a variety of different perspectives.
We have had spirited discussions in our meetings, and have benefited from informal input
we have received throughout the process from interested parties in attendance at our
meetings who have not been appointed by the BOCC to serve on.the Committee. I am
pleased that our meetings have reflected a spirit of civil and respectful discourse, despite
differences of opinion.
We understand that the BOCC is scheduled to make a decision at your February 19
meeting regarding which local revenue option - or both - you will place on the ballot.
Once the BOCC has made its decision, our Committee will move to the second phase of
its work, as outlined in your initial charge to our group. In our next steps, we will:
? Develop appropriate informational materials for the local revenue option(s)
? Design and implement an educational component to distribute relevant factual
information about the local revenue option(s) to Orange County voters in the most
effective and efficient manner possible
61
? Design and implement a process for informational meetings with civic groups,
business organizations, non-profit agencies, neighborhood associations, and other
interested parties in the community
? Ensure that equal access to factual information is provided to all individuals and
groups, regardless of their position for or against the referendum
? Encourage all eligible voters to participate in the May 6, 2008 election
At our organizational meeting, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners stated that the
BOCC was neither requesting nor expecting a recommendation from this Committee.
However, we were invited to provide the Board with our comments related to the perceived
pros and cons (and other observations) about the local revenue options question. The
accompanying document is a compilation of comments from members of the group that
have been reviewed, edited or synthesized where appropriate, and voted upon by the
group for inclusion in our initial report to the Board of Commissioners.
We appreciate your taking the time to review our comments as you prepare to make this
important choice regarding Orange County's future revenue structure. Whatever you
decide, our Committee stands ready to communicate the implications of that decision to
Orange County voters during the next several months.
Attachment - Pros/Cons/Observations on Local Revenue Options
cc: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
Donna Coffey, Budget Director
Rod Visser, Project Manager
ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL REVENUE OPTIONS
EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Pros/Cons/Observations on Local Revenue Options
February 14, 2008
Either option, if implemented, would relieve the pressure on Orange County ad valorem
property taxes. Without either of these alternate forms of taxation, the likely alternative is
higher ad valorem property taxes for everyone given the county's expected revenue needs
and the loss of revenue the county will experience as a result of the state's assumption of
the article 44 sales tax (as part of its assumption of Medicaid responsibilities).
Citizens need to realize that any possible tax option on the ballot is choosing how they
wish to be taxed, not how much they wish to be taxed.
Pros FOR Transfer Tax
• Predicted to produce more revenue over the long run than the sales tax option
(though Donna is going to re-run the numbers at our request)
• Diversifies Orange County's possible revenue streams (as opposed to increasing
one of the existing two); creating more stable base for investment in essential
infrastructure
• Transfer taxes allow fixed income residents to defer their taxation
• The majority of the group believes that because the transfer tax will be a known cost
at closing, in reality it will be factored into the sale price. Technically the tax is paid
by the seller, however the party that bears the cost in the economic sense may
vary.
• Unlike ad valorem property taxes (the likely alternative if Orange County needs
more revenue), it is only paid at the time of sale, not every year
• It is capped by statute at %0.4 of the sale value of the home.
• The transfer tax is levied based on the sale price and not the assessed value (as
compared to ad valorem property tax)
• The majority of the group believes that the transfer tax is more progressive than
sales tax.
• The transfer tax revenue will track the real estate market.
• One Time Tax assessed when property is sold.
• Gifts of real estate & inherited transfers are exempt by statute
Cons AGAINST Transfer Tax
• In the course of new development, a transfer tax may be paid multiple times before
a new house gets sold. For example, in 2007, this would have applied to 14% of
the sales in Orange County, that were new construction (Source: 2007 TMLS). This
may make new construction more expensive. For example, a farmer may sell land
19
to a developer, the developer to a builder, and the builder to a homeowner. In each
of these steps, a land transfer tax would have been paid.
• A transfer tax would affect only those people who sell property in the county, a
relatively small number in any given year; though, this is eventually levied on every
property when it is sold.
• Transfer Tax is levied on all types of property, even that which is owned by non-
profits, churches, and affordable housing groups.
• It would be levied on all transactions even if the property seller is selling at a loss.
• According to economists from UNC and NCSU, a transfer tax is more volatile and
therefore less predictable and dependable than a sales tax.
• The current real estate market slowdown may lower projected revenues for a
transfer tax for the foreseeable future.
• A transfer tax is not deductible from Federal income taxes.
Pros FOR Sales Tax
• Sales Tax spreads the tax burden most broadly of all taxes.
• Is paid partially by nonresidents, which lessens the burden on property owners
• Because this sales tax exempts food and medicine, it places a less regressive
burden on less privileged citizens versus the existing local options sales and use
tax.
• According to economists from UNC and NCSU, a sales tax is predictable with less
variability.
• Sales Tax revenue will grow with new retail development.
Cons AGAINST Sales Tax
• Sales tax is the most regressive tax option. Higher Impact on Lower Income
Residents/Owners.
• Combined state and local sales tax is already a component of local revenue stream;
would not diversify Orange County tax base
• Orange County does not have sufficient retail base to make a reliable income
stream. This sales tax is going to be predominantly based on the actual point of
sale. Orange County has significant retail/sales tax leakage to adjacent counties.
• This is a increase in an existing tax and not in and of itself a new tax
• Sales taxes are not imposed on services, which are a faster growing part of the
overall NC economy
• Sales tax revenues are lost on internet sales to retailers with no physical stores in
NC (point of nexus) of the state (Roughly $600M in NC)
9
Election considerations
• The transfer tax has failed in other jurisdictions, due to large expenditures by
special interests to defeat the tax
• The sales tax has passed in some jurisdictions
• Very steep learning curve to educate residents about a transfer tax in Orange
County as compared to sales tax
• Neither tax will succeed without strong support by commissioners individually
• Fall General Election and January Special Election results: The transfer tax failed in
all 16 counties (average 79% opposed), Sales Tax approved in 6 counties (and one
county failed to rescind its current sales tax), all 6 counties placing both measures
on the ballot saw both fail. May Primary (to date): 14 sales tax, 2 transfer tax, 2
undecided, none with both measures.
General Comments
• The committee and the public who attended the committee meetings believed very
strongly that Orange County needs to make real progress on economic
development, including solutions to our retail leakage to adjacent counties.
• The transfer tax option and the sales tax option are not based on ability to pay,
regardless of economic status. This is also true of the existing ad valorem property
tax.
• Slowing of Economic Growth may reduce revenue from either tax option. Property
tax is most stable over time.
• One of these options would allow the county commissioners to diversify how they
collect taxes and not rely completely on a property tax.
• There was interest by some of the group that the state legislature should amend the
enabling legislation to permit a transfer tax on value added (rather than entire sales
price).
• There was interest by the group that the commissioners could mitigate a transfer tax
similar to the school impact fee reimbursement
Questions that remain:
• What portion of resold homes were resold at a loss in Orange County in the last
one, two, and five years?
• What was the average gain on homes in Orange County over the last x years?
• What would a transfer tax in Orange County have raised in 2007 if it were in place?
2006?
0 Ditto for sales tax.
HERTZOG RESEARCH, LLC
PROJECT NO. 8005
ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT .
CITIZEN SURVEY ON TAX MEASURES
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY TOPLINE RESULTS
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Introduction
This report contains the preliminary final results of the survey conducted for Orange County
from 6 to 13 February 2008,. A total of 397 telephone interviews were completed with
registered voters in Orange County who are likely to vote in the 6 May primary election. The
overall sampling error is +/- 4.0%. This report shows the results in questionnaire order, with the
question wording first, followed by the number and percentage of persons giving each response.
Percentages are based on 397 responses unless otherwise stated.
These data are preliminary, as verbatim responses have yet to be numerically coded for analysis,
and data-quality checks may (or may not) shift the totals herein by one or two responses per
question in the final report to be presented to the County on 19 February. However, these results
are substantially correct.
Screening Questions
S l. First, do you currently live in Orange County?
1. Yes ........................................................................ ....... ........................... 397(100%)
S2. What is your home zip code?
1. 27231: 10 (3%) 9. 27517: 28 (7%)
2. 27243: 20 (5%) 10. 27541: 8 (2%)
3. 27278: 88(22%) 11. 27572: 5 (1%)
4. 27302: 20 (5%) 12. 27583: 3 (1%)
5. 27340: 0 13. 27599: 0
6. 27510: 32 (8%) 14. 27705: 1.5 (4%)
7. 27514: 68(17%) 15. 27707: 2 (1%)
8. 27516: 95(24%) 16. 27712: 3 (1%)
S3. And are you at least 18 years of age?
1. Yes ........................................................................ ....... ........................... 397 (100%)
S4. Are you currently registered to vote in Orange County?
1. Yes .......................................................... .............. ....... ........................... 397 (100%)
Orange County Tax Survey, 2008
Preliminary Topline Report
14 February 2008
S5. As you may know, there is a primary election scheduled for Tuesday, May 6th. How
likely are you to vote in the May 6th'primary? Would you say that you... (READ LIST;
SELECT ONE. DO NOT READ SKIP INSTRUCTIONS.)
1. Definitely will vote ...................................................................................... 268(68%)
2. Probably will vote .......................................................................................... 84(21%)
3. Might or might not vote .................................................................................45 (11%)
4. Probably will not vote, or [GO TO TERMINATE SCRIPT]
5. Definitely will not vote [GO TO TERMINATE SCRIPT]
Tax Proposals
Q1 INTRO. I'd like to ask you about a couple of tax proposals that may be placed on the May
6th primary election ballot. Neither would take effect unless they are approved by Orange
County voters at the May primary.
Q1. One proposal is to increase the sales tax on NON-food items by one-quarter of 1%. That is,
you would pay an extra 25 cents on a $100 purchase of NON-food items. There would be NO
sales tax increase on food. It's estimated that this tax would raise $3 million in the first full year,
and COULD keep property taxes below what they would be otherwise. If this were placed on
the ballot, how would you vote on a one-quarter of 1% increase in the sales tax on NON-food
items? (PROMPT IF NEEDED:) Would you vote "yes" or "no"?
[FOLLOW-UP FOR "NOT SURE"]: Q1A. Would you say you lean more toward voting
"yes," or toward voting "no," on the sales tax, or are you really not sure?
COMBINED RESPONSES:
1. Yes ................:. .............................................................................................182 (46%)
2. Lean Yes ......... ...............................................................................................17 (4%)
3. Really not sure ............................................................................................... 68(17%)
4. Lean No ........... ...............................................................................................17 (4%)
5. No ................... .............................................................................................110 (28%)
6. NA/Refused .... .................................................................................................3 (1%)
Q2. What would your reasons be for voting "no" on the sales tax? (DO NOT READ LIST;
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) [Percentages are of 127 "No" and "Leaning No" responses]
1. Cost to taxpayers / Taxes are too high already ............................................... 51(40%)
2. Sales tax is regressive / Hits poorer families hardest .....................................19 (15%)
3. Don't believe the funds will be spent wisely ..................................................16 (13%)
4. General uncertainty of the economy/recession ................................................. 7 (6%)
5. Other verbatim responses to be coded and counted ................................. 44(35%)
[Note: More concerns about lower-income impact are set forth in the verbatims, to be counted.]
Prepared by Hertzog Research, LLC -2-
Orange County Tax Survey, 2008
Preliminary Topline Report
14 February 2008
1?
Q3. Another proposal is for a land transfer tax, where sellers would pay four-tenths of 1% on the
price of real estate, at the time of sale. For instance, when selling a $200,000 home, the
SELLER would pay a tax of $800 at the time of sale. It's estimated that this tax would raise $4
million in the first full year, and COULD keep property taxes below what they would be
otherwise. If this were placed on the ballot, how would you vote on a four-tenths of 1% land
transfer tax, paid by the seller? (PROMPT IF NEEDED:) Would you vote "yes" or "no"?
[FOLLOW-UP FOR "NOT SURE"]: Q3A. Would you say you lean more toward voting
"yes," or toward voting "no," on the land transfer tax proposal, or are you really not sure?
COMBINED RESPONSES:
I . Yes ................. ..............................................................................................125(31%)
2. Lean Yes ........ .................................................................................................. 6 (2%)
3. Really not sure ...............................................................................................55 (14%)
4. Lean No .......... ................................................................................................10 (3%)
5. No .................. ..............................................................................................199 (50%)
6. NA/Refused ... ..................................................................................................2 (1%)
Q4. What would your reasons be for voting "no" on the land transfer tax? (DO NOT READ
LIST; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) [Percentages are of 209 "No" and "Leaning No"
responses]
1. Cost to taxpayers / Taxes are too high already ............................................... 58(28%)
2. Housing prices are already too high ............................................................... 28(13%)
3. Housing market is bad ....................................................................................10 (5%)
4. Don't want to pay that much when I sell a home ...........................................26 (12%)
5. Don't believe the funds will be spent wisely ....................................................7 (3%)
6. General uncertainty of the economy/recession ................................................. 6 (3%)
7. Other verbatim responses to be coded and counted ................................. 92(44%)
[Note: Several verbatim respondents say they believe a land-transfer tax should be paid by the
buyer, rather than the seller. The number saying so will be set forth in the final report.]
Q5. Under North Carolina law, even if the voters pass both of these tax proposals, the County
could levy only one: EITHER the sales tax increase, OR the land transfer tax, BUT NOT BOTH.
Regardless of how you would vote on these proposals, if you HAD to choose between them,
which one would you rather see enacted-the one-quarter of 1 % sales tax increase on non-food
items, OR the four-tenths of I% land transfer tax paid by sellers of real estate?
1. Sales tax ........................................................................................................188 (47%)
2. Land transfer tax ............:..............................................................................168 (42%)
3. No real preference/DK/Not Sure .................................................................... 33 (8%)
4. Refused to select either/NA .............................................................................. 8 (2%)
Prepared by Hertzog Research, LLC -3-
Orange County Tax Survey, 2008
Preliminary Topline Report
14 February 2008
Local Media Usage
13
Q6. OTHER THAN talking with your friends and family, can you tell me any sources of
LOCAL news and information you use REGULARLY? That includes newspapers, local TV or
radio news, and web sites that cover local affairs. (RECORD VERBATIM. PROBE FOR
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:) Anything else?
MOST FREQUENT MENTIONS
HARD-COPY PRINT SOURCES
The News and Observer ......................................................................................126 ( 32%)
The Chapel Hill News ...........................................................................................97 ( 24%)
The Herald-Sun .....................................................................................................76 ( 19%)
The News of Orange County ................................................................................39 ( 10%)
The Independent Weekly ......................................................................................17 (4%)
The Carrboro Citizen ............................................................................................12 (3%)
The Daily Tar Heel .................................................................................................8 (2%)
TELEVISION
WRAL-TV News ....................................................................:...........................102 (26%)
ABC-11 Eyewitness News ....................................................................................70 (18%)
NBC-17 News ........................................................................................................50 (13%)
News 14 Carolina ..................................................................................................26 (7%)
North Carolina Now on UNC-TV ...........................................................................7 (2%)
RADIO
North Carolina Public Radio WUNC ...................................................................22 (6%)
1360 WCHL ..........................................................................................................15 (4%)
680 WPTF ...............................................................................................................8 (2%)
INTERNET
WRAL.com ...........................................................................................................29 (7%)
The News and Observer online ........................................................................... 9 (2 /o)
The Herald-Sun online ............................................................................................7 (2%)
Demographics
D1 INTRO. Now I have a few final questions just for statistical purposes. Again, your answers
will be kept strictly confidential
Prepared by Hertzog Research, LLC -4-
Orange County Tax Survey, 2008
Preliminary Topline Report
14 February 2008
Dl. First, do you own or rent your home?
1. Own ...............................................................................................................333 (84%)
2. Rent ................................................................................................................. 49(12%)
3. DK/NA/Refused ..............................................................................................15 (4%)
D2. In what year were you born?
[ANSWERS TO BE CODED. DATA BELOW ARE FROM VOTER REGISTRATION
SAMPLE:]
Age 18 to 25 ..........................................................................................................28 (7%)
Age 26 to 40 ..........................................................................................................79 (20%)
Age 41-65 ............................................................................................................218 (55%)
Age 66 or above .................................................................................................... 72(18%)
D3. So that we can make sure all races are represented fairly in our interviews, would you
describe yourself as...? (READ LIST; SELECT ONE)
1. White ............................................................................................................. 334 ( 84%)
2. Black or African-American ........................................................................... .. 36 (9%)
3. Hispanic or Latino ........................................................................................ .... 3 (1%)
4. Asian or Pacific Islander ............................................................................... .... 8 (2%)
5. American Indian or Native American ........................................................... .... 3 (1%)
6. Multiracial ..................................................................................................... .... 4 (1%)
7. Or some other category? ............................................................................... .... 2 (1%)
8. [DO NOT READ] DK/NA/Refused ............................................................. .... 7 (2%)
D4. Finally, do you live within the town limits of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, or
Mebane (PRONOUNCE "MEB-in"), or do you live outside the limits of any town?
[FOLLOW-UP IF LIVE WITHIN A TOWN] D4A. Which town is that: the Town of
Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Hillsborough, or the Town of Mebane
(PRONOUNCE "MEB-in")?
COMBINED RESPONSES:
1. Town of Chapel Hill ..................................................................................... 123(31%)
2. Town of Carrboro ........................................................................................... 51(13%)
3. Town of Hillsborough .....................................................................................41 (10%)
4. Town of Mebane ..................................................................:............................ 4 (1%)
5. None / Outside any town's limits ................................................................. 175 (44%)
6. DK/NA/Refused ................................................................................................3 (1%)
D5. GENDER (RECORD - DO NOT ASK)
1. Male :.............................:...............................................................................188 (47%)
2. Female ...........................................................................................................209 (53%)
Prepared by Hertzog Research, LLC -5-
DRAFT CS)
VERSION A
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A Resolution Regarding the Conduct of an Advisory Referendum on the Question of
Whether to Levy a Local Sales and Use Tax
WHEREAS, local governments in North Carolina have historically relied heavily on the ad valorem
property tax as their major source of revenue; and
WHEREAS, Orange County's reliance on the ad valorem property tax has increased steadily
during this decade to the point that more than 69 percent of the County's revenue as anticipated in
the adopted 2007-08 Orange County Budget Ordinance derives from this source; and
WHEREAS, for a number of years, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners and many other Boards across the state have
lobbied the North Carolina General Assembly for legislative authority to expand counties' revenue
options and thereby to lessen counties' reliance on ad valorem property taxes; and
WHEREAS, during the 2007 legislative session, the General Assembly granted counties the
authority to enact new local revenue options - either a land transfer tax of up to .4% or an
additional'/4-cent sales and use tax, but not both - subject to voter approval; and
WHEREAS, without an alternative revenue source, various unfunded school and County capital
needs will likely have to be delayed or funded through increases in ad valorem property tax rates;
and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2007 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners decided
to seek voter approval of one or both local revenue options on the May 2008 ballot; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008 the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a public
hearing to seek community input regarding the revenue options prospectively to be placed on the
May 2008• ballot;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-537, the Board directs
the following advisory referendum to be held and, with the concurrence of the Orange County
Board of Elections, to be held on May 6, 2008.-
[ I FOR [ j AGAINST
Local sales and use tax at the rate of one-quarter percent (0.25%) in addition to all other
State and local sales and use taxes.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2008.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on as relates in any way to the adoption of the
foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book of the Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2008.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
DRAFT 106
VERSION B
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A Resolution Regarding the Conduct of an Advisory Referendum on the Question of
Whether to Levy a Local Land Transfer Tax
WHEREAS, local governments in North Carolina have historically relied heavily on the ad valorem
property tax as their major source of revenue; and
WHEREAS, Orange County's reliance on the ad valorem property tax has increased steadily
during this decade to the point that more than 69 percent of the County's revenue as. anticipated in
the adopted 2007-08 Orange County Budget Ordinance derives from this source; and
WHEREAS, for a number of years, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners and many other Boards across the state have
lobbied the North Carolina General Assembly for legislative authority to expand counties' revenue
options and thereby to lessen counties' reliance on ad valorem property taxes; and
WHEREAS, during the 2007 legislative session, the General Assembly granted counties the
authority to enact new local revenue options - either a land transfer tax of up to .4% or an
additional'/4-cent sales and use tax, but not both - subject to voter approval; and
WHEREAS, without an alternative revenue source, various unfunded school and County capital
needs will likely have to be delayed or funded through increases in ad valorem property tax rates;
and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2007 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners decided
to seek voter approval of one or both local revenue options on the May 2008 ballot; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008 the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a public
hearing to seek community input regarding the revenue options prospectively to be placed on the
May 2008 ballot;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-601, the Board directs
the following advisory referendum to be held and, with the concurrence of the Orange County
Board of Elections, to be held on May 6, 2008:
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Real property transfer tax at the rate of up to [x] percent [x%] of value or consideration.
(NOTE: Replace the x in the brackets with .1, .2,.3, or.4).
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2008.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of
said Board at a meeting held on as relates in any way to the adoption of
the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book of the Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2008.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
DRAFT (ID7
VERSION C
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A Resolution Regarding the Conduct of Advisory Referenda on the Questions of
Whether to Levy a Local Land Transfer Tax
or a Local Sales and Use Tax
WHEREAS, local governments in North Carolina have historically relied heavily on the ad valorem
property tax as their major source of revenue; and
WHEREAS, Orange County's reliance on the ad valorem property tax has increased steadily
during this decade to the point that more than 69 percent of the County's revenue as anticipated in
the adopted 2007-08 Orange County Budget Ordinance derives from this source; and
WHEREAS, for a number of years, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners and many other Boards across the state have
lobbied the North Carolina General Assembly for legislative authority to expand counties' revenue
options and thereby to lessen counties' reliance on ad valorem property taxes; and
WHEREAS, during the 2007 legislative session, the General Assembly granted counties the
authority to enact new local revenue options - either a land transfer tax of up to .4% or an
additional'/4-cent sales and use tax, but not both - subject to voter approval; and
WHEREAS, without an alternative revenue source, various unfunded school and County capital
needs will likely have to be delayed or funded through increases in ad valorem property tax rates;
and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2007 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners decided
to seek voter approval of one or both local revenue options on the May 2008 ballot; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008 the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a public
hearing to seek community input regarding the revenue options prospectively to be placed on the
May 2008 ballot;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 105-537 and 105-601, the
Board directs the following advisory referenda to be held and, with the concurrence of the Orange
County Board of Elections, to be held on May 6, 2008:
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Real property transfer tax at the rate of up to [x] percent [x%] of value or consideration.
(NOTE: Replace the x in the brackets with .1, .2,.3, or.4).
AND
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Local sales and use tax at the rate of one-quarter percent (0.25%) in addition to all other
State and local sales and use taxes.
DRAFT
VERSION C
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2008.
1, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on as relates in any way to the adoption of the
foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book of the Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2008.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
DRAFT tq
PREPARED 2/14/08
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Statement of Intent Regarding Uses of New Revenue Source Proceeds
Based on discussion at the February 12, 2008 work session, the following represents a
starting point for establishing the formal position of the Orange County Board of
Commissioners regarding the prospective uses of the proceeds from an alternative revenue
source, if approved by Orange County voters:
The Orange County Board of Commissioners believe:
• there are significant pressing school, park, and other County capital needs that are
currently unfunded or underfunded in the County's 10 Year Capital Investment Plan
• it is important to provide Orange County taxpayers with some relief from the pressure
to raise property taxes to address those, and other, County needs
• revenue from one of the alternative sources made available to counties by the General
Assembly during the 2007 Session provides an opportunity to gain some measure of
that relief
• if the County Commissioners do not have voter approval to levy an alternative revenue
source, that inevitably will lead to property tax increases to meet capital needs that
MUST be funded
• while the Board of Commissioners cannot say that property taxes will never be raised,
the availability of an alternative revenue source does mean that property tax rates
would be lower than they otherwise would be without the new revenue source
• capital funding from an alternative revenue source must be allocated in an equitable
manner between projects in the County's two school systems and other County capital
projects
• funding from an alternative revenue source should be allocated to already identified
projects the County MUST accomplish, not to new projects that haven't been
previously contemplated
• funding from an alternative revenue source could be allocated to renovation projects
as well as to new facilities
• if additional funding does not come from an alternative revenue source, it will
inevitably come from the property tax for projects that MUST be done, and non-
mandated projects will either be deferred or not completed
2. Therefore, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby states its intention to
use the proceeds from the new alternative revenue source for the following currently
unfunded or underfunded school and park projects:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Proceeds from this new revenue source in later years will be used to address County
Commissioner priorities as established in the County's 10 Year Capital Investment Plan.
DRAFT