The Carroll County Board of Supervisors are taking the steps to consider an estimated $7 to $8 million dollar bond issuance. But, for those who are staunch opponents against the raising of taxes in Carroll County, they put their minds at ease -- it will not raise millage or property taxes.
Board President Jim Neill said the bond is a multipurpose bond that will allow each supervisor to do work on roads and to purchase equipment. He said the bond the board is considering issuing would be repaid with internet sales tax money.
The bond money – which if the Supervisors pull the trigger and move forward – will give all five supervisors an estimated $1.4 million each to re-pave road properly, purchase equipment, and make repairs.
Carroll County is expected to receive $800,000 in internet sales tax funds. Supervisors plan, as of right now, is to divert $650,000 of that toward the proposed bond. But, that’s only if they proceed forward.
Jamie Holloway with Government Consultants, Inc. and Elizabeth Clark with Butler Snow went before the board at the meeting Monday to discuss moving forward with an engagement resolution and an intent resolution.
Holloway said the county is expected to receive $800,000 in internet sales tax money. He said he estimated if the Supervisors were to take $650,000 of the $800,000 for the bond repayment, the bond issued would be $8 million.
“I went to the Department of Revenue website and I saw how much you all would get back, which is way more than what was originally anticipated and I did the numbers. I said if they use $650,000 of that, how much could they get?”
Clark said the engagement resolution states that the bond will not exceed $10 million. She said Carroll County only had a borrowing capacity of $12.75 million they could issue, but they couldn’t go over that.
“We sat it at $10 million because you can issue up to $10 million or go under, but you can’t go over,” she said. Holloway and Clark told the board members they didn’t have to issue the bonds all at one time. He said they could issue $5 million and then wait and issue the other $5 million.
Clark said the county would have two years to issue the bonds. Holloway said the county should have a buffer in their bond issuance just in case something happens, they have the money for it. Holloway said construction costs are rising and it’s something to take into account.
Neill said he knew what he wanted to do with the money and each supervisor had an idea of what they wanted to do.
“It’s not everything that we want to do,” Neill said. He said that he believes that the county will be able to do some good work with the bond.
Clark said once the county approved the engagement resolution and the intent resolution, each will then be published in The Conservative. She said the county will then have a date of March 7 – referred to as a “no protest” date. Meaning, residents will have until March 7 to voice their opinions on whether the county should or shouldn’t move forward.
She said if the board decides they don’t want to move forward, they won’t have to pay for legal counsel. They only have to pay if the bonds are issued.
The bond can only be used for roads, bridges and equipment and it can’t be used for any other projects.
Supervisor Claude Fluker asked Clark and Holloway to look at setting repayment at 10, 12, or 15 years.
“The less years we spend paying it, the better,” he said.
“Yeah, we don’t want to issue a bond for 20 years and you’re still patching and working on roads you’re still paying for,” Holloway said. “We want it to make sense.”
