Cary's old Adequate Public Schools Facilities Ordinance (APFSO) took another legal beating today.
The state Court of Appeals upheld that Cary illegally required developers and home builders to set aside money for schools in exchange for municipal approval of projects.
From 1999 to 2004, Cary required developers to get certificates from the Wake County school system that there were enough seats in town schools to handle the proposed projects. In lieu of the school district's approval, builders and developers could pay fees to the town.
"The Town of Cary had no statutory authority to adopt the APSFO or accept fees under it ... and the APSFO illegally shifted the burden of paying for public education to the subdivision builder-plaintiffs in this case," the appellate panel wrote.
The ordinance had been one of the signature programs of then-Mayor Glen Lang.
Click here to read the ruling.
Comments
Wow
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 07:39 — danofncIt's amazing to read all the comments from people who favor impact fees.....now that they've already bought their new house prior to the impact fees being charged.
These impact fees are too little, too late. If it was going to happen, it would have needed to have been in place 10 years ago....ahead of the big housing boom here in Wake County.
Anyone here in favor of making it retroactive?
I already paid it
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:42 — CaryCurmudgeonI already paid it retroactively, through my last 18 years of property taxes which helped fund the cost of building schools. Builders already pay impact fees for roads and utilities, what's the beef with paying them for schools?
Assuming Median Property Value
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 18:03 — fiveblindmiceand median number of chidren your 18 years of property taxes don't even cover the operating expenses of educating your own children K-12. If you have kids in the system (and I do, too) you essentially haven't covered your own costs - much less paid anything at all net towards new construction.
So why are property taxes
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 14:22 — danofncSo why are property taxes enough to cover your contribution to the school building fund, but not for people who buy a house now?
Again: Builders already
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 16:55 — CaryCurmudgeonAgain: Builders already pay impact fees for roads and utilities, what's the beef with paying them for schools?
Again: I'm pretty sure in
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 17:18 — danofncAgain: I'm pretty sure in this very thread people supporting the impact fee have said that property taxes alone don't cover the cost of a new home to the school system, so I'm asking you why you are saying that your property taxes have covered your share of the building.
If longevity (18 years) is the argument, then only houses built that aren't going to last 18 years should have impact fees for schools.
If you have a house, you are going to use the roads to get to it, you are going to flush the toilet and expect it to get to the sewer, you are going to flip a light switch and expect the lights to come on. The schools are not definite needs.
So...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 17:36 — Bob_SconceHis property taxes have increased several times to pay for not only the schools that his kids attend, but also the schools attended by people who've come here since he did. The point here is that they shouldn't go up again.
Look at the extreme: let's say that, tomorrow, a developer bought Umstead State Park and the airport and put in a 100,000 unit development that needed 18 new schools, for a total cost of around $1B and to pay for the bonds on those schools, everybody's property taxes had to go up by 15%. The developer makes, say, $50,000 per house, for a total of $5B. Wouldn't people rightly be PO'd: "Wait a minute here. You made all this money and my property taxes went up?"
Why is it any different when it's dozens of developers, not just one, and it's not in Umstead, but on land spread all over the county? Why is it any different when it happens over 5 years and not just overnight?
and the county would get
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 17:57 — Duhhuh666and the county would get 100,000 new sources of revenue for the next 55-65 years if the property taxes are 2k per year that would be 20 billion per year in tax revenue and if the tax rate never changes, 13 trillion over the expected life of the home
Do the math.
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 19:55 — Bob_SconceDoesn't the number $13T just seem a bit high to you? Somehow over the next 55 years, these 100,000 homes are going to generate about as much property tax as the entire current GDP of the US?
$2K * 100K is $200M, not $20B. Secondly, assuming a $250,000 average house price and current Wake County property tax rates, it's $1,335 per home, not $2k. Discounting that to prevent value over 55 years (at 5%) is only about $2.5B, NOT $13T. Further, 55 years is too long to amortize because schools don't have 55-year lifespans without at least one significant renovation -- 25 years is more appropriate, which leads to a present value of about $1.9B.
In other words, you're allocating more than HALF of the future property tax from these homes to constructing their schools. And, you haven't yet touched teachers, books, teachers assistants, principals, janitors, air conditioning or any other operating expenses of a school. Nor have you touched the sheriff's office, county parks, county libraries, county health department, etc.... The only way to pay for it all is to have a sizeable tax increase.
Homes have an expected life
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 21:04 — Duhhuh666Homes have an expected life of 55-65 years so the taxes are collected on the property for the expected life of the home. The developer has changed the long term revenues collected from not only real estate taxes. Each of those homes will have at least one car if not two (property tax/sales tax when you buy them) they will shop locally (county sales tax) and pay state income tax (were alot of school funding comes from). This is why cities and towns promote growth, they get income from a variety of taxes. Each of use in some way has impacted the school system and have not paid an impact fee. The people who will benefit the most are current home owners. The impact fee will increase the price of a new home, which will increase the value of existing homes. Which in turn will increase the appraised value for tax purposes and BOOM you are still paying more taxes.(maybe not a higher rate but from a high appraised value). Either way everyone is paying more.
So...
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 06:15 — Bob_SconceIf you want to use 55-65 years, then you also have to add in the capital costs of renovating the schools every 25-30 years, which can be nearly the cost of a new school.
As to other tax revenue, real property taxes dwarf all the other tax revenue picked up by the county -- this year, sales tax revenue is $122M, compared to $626M for property taxes. The county budget doesn't separate real and personal property on its budget, but it's clear that real property taxes are significantly higher than personal property taxes (the county estimates that there's about 6% as much taxable personal property as real property).
State income tax isn't used to pay for new schools -- all that falls on the counties.
The effect on collected taxes from an impact fee is minimal -- first of all, not all of that fee makes it into the price. And, secondly, the fee is likely only around 1% of the home value.
The point of all this is that taxes go up for EVERYBODY when new schools are needed for growth, because that new property doesn't generate enough tax revenue to offset the cost of the schools being constrtucted. I'd love to see actual figures that proved me wrong, but you haven't come close to that mark and, in fact, have shown that your understanding of the numbers is way off ($13T?).
We all impact the schools,
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 06:59 — Duhhuh666We all impact the schools, the act of birth or relocation, both impact the need for new schools.
Well
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 07:27 — Bob_SconceBirth only impacts it to the extent that there's an increase in the birth rate. Otherwise, a new Kindergartener just uses the same classroom used by one who just moved to 1st grade.
I agree that impact fees do not affect every act that could require new schools. (Heck, the GA made a huge impact a few years ago when it mandated maximum class sizes.) But, so what? That's true of taxes generally.
That is fine with me. If
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 21:07 — CaryCurmudgeonThat is fine with me. If my taxes go up a bit in order for development to pay more of it's own share, so be it. But, then again, if those new revenues are coming in from impact fees then it would be reasonable to expect that the tax rate which has been used to subsidize growth should decrease.
There must be something here
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 21:38 — Duhhuh666There must be something here that makes so many people what to move here. Is the lovely developments? No its the job opportunities. If you want to place the blame on someone for the growth, look at the local employers they are to blame. Maybe they should "pay more of it's own share". (yes this is sarcasm)
I have been here for a long time, and have never thought we should place a toll booth up and charge people as they moved to the area. I attended a school in Wake county that my grandfather, mom and dad were also students there before me. While I was a student they demolished this building and a new school was built in on the same site. That school is still being used today, the land the school is on has been used for a school site for over 85 years. I imagine the same will be done with the new schools and real estate they sit on. I doubt back in the 20's the people who paid for the school I attended thought that 50 years later it would still be in use, or that 85 years later a school would still be on that site with no plans for it not to exist another 15-20 years. These are long term investments paid for and used by many generations. We all get the benefit of having public schools, we should all share in the cost of these schools. It is rather selfish to say "I am here now, let the new guy pay for it" especially when you did not pay extra for the same privilege.
If there are always two kids
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 20:18 — user12345If there are always two kids in the house at 2x$8k=$16k/year in taxes and the occupants are always paying $2000/year in property tax isn't that a $14k/year loss on that investment for every?
If
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 18:31 — Solon77If property tax rates were allowed to go up 2-3% per year (rate of inflation) then the property taxes brought in by new development could go towards the infrastruture costs. Instead the county has used the growth to fund the base in lieu of raising the rate. At some point this all catches up to you.
What is it with the desire
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 08:27 — woodstockWhat is it with the desire for increased taxes? Do you really think we are not paying enough already? With a trend of constant increases, in the not too distant future we will reach a point where the government will collect more of our hard-earned income than we are "allowed" to keep. What about the idea of reevaluating how we spend tax revenue and prioitizing.
As for property taxes, in many places - Wake certainly -- the trend over time has been for property values to increase; so, even if property tax rates stay the same, we are still paying more. We only need to look at the recent assessments to see that. (BTW, who can sell their house today for the Wake County assessed value?)
I'd like to see our government officials give education more than lip service. They like to talk about how they value education, but then when it comes time to fund schools, other priorities seem to take over.I am fed up with government funding redundant services, programs of questionable value, and things they have no business being involved in. Before another single extra dime of tax is collected, the entire system needs to undergo an audit and reevluation to identify waste and realign funding to match real priorities.
I view the impact fee
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 09:26 — CaryCurmudgeonI view the impact fee discussion to be a different one from taxes in general. To me, it is a matter of growth paying for itself.
You raise some very good points. In recent years, the NC state legislature has sold out our students. It started with the "Education Lottery" being passed by the "Education Governor" by pulling a legislative shenanigan which allowed Bev Perdue to cast the deciding vote. That money now flows into the general fund. And for the last two years, our legislators have killed funding and raised class size limits, while plenty of other pork projects remained funded.
Our new board is tearing through the budget now, but they are limited by time and information flow as to what costs they can inspect. I agree that an outside audit should be done, my question is why it hasn't been done already. Why conduct an audit of legal services which comprise a fraction of a percentage of our budget instead of auditing the big bucks. Rhetorical question, I don't expect you to know the answer.
That was what someone told
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:31 — user12345That was what someone told me 10 years and 30 new schools ago, that growth was tapped out and impact fees would be useless.
Counties are either gaining
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 12:00 — Duhhuh666Counties are either gaining or losing population. The problem with an impact fee is you find out you needed one after you should have had one.
I agree with dan...WOW I
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:14 — Duhhuh666I agree with dan...WOW I never thought that would happen.
Maybe We Could Get Some
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 22:50 — fiveblindmicebipartisan support from supporters of both sides of the school board in pushing the NC legislature to address this?!!? Surely neither side believes developers should get a free lunch, not pay their share and get profits subsidized by the rest of us? Surely no one sitting on the school board would fiht against the interests of the school system in having growth paid for up front? Right?
Oh crap. I just woke up from that pleasant dream.
New Contruction Impact Fees
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 23:06 — Duhhuh666There are obvious flaws with new construction impact fees. If you currently live in Wake County and buy a new home, you haven't impacted the school system but, you pay an impact fee. If someone moves to Wake County and buys and existing home, they have impacted the system but, pay nothing. Everyone impacts the school system not just the people who move here. (In case you are wondering, I am a lifelong Wake County resident)
No...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 06:15 — Bob_SconceI disagree.
The new schools are generally needed in areas where there's new development. If we put a moratorium on new development, we wouldn't need the new schools. Secondly, the fact that your moving may have opened up a seat in, say, Cary, doesn't mean that the district doesn't still need a new seat around your new home in, say, Wake Forest. Thirdly, think of the chain: you move from one location in Wake County to another, and your old home is sold to somebody moving in -- now the district has a new student to educate. Finally, recognize that impact fees will raise home prices across the board for both new and old homes (since the competition to old homes is now more expensive, those old homes will fetch a higher price) -- you may have to pay one on your new home, but you'll make a chunk of it up by getting a higher price for your old home.
Impact fees make economic sense because they force builders to make their decisions in light of the true cost of their activities -- some of them, for example, may shift to building retirement village which, presumably, don't impact the schools.
The "true cost of their
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:05 — woodstockThe "true cost of their activities?" I am not sure what that means. Don't builder "activities" contribute to a local economy by creating jobs, increasing tax revenue (by converting relatively low-value land to high-value home -- or commercial -- sites), attracting workers, taxpayers and consumers into a community, etc.?
I mean
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 09:52 — Bob_SconceNew construction imposes externalities -- costs that other people have to bear, either in full or in part. There are tons of these: wider roads, increased capacity of water plants (new reservoirs, etc), new schools, increased pollution, etc.... If the increased tax revenue generated by that new construction fully paid for those costs, then everything is fine. But, in general, it doesn't.
An elementary school costs around $25M, and seats around 1,000 kids -- that's $25K per kid. A $250,000 new home with two kids, then, imposes about a $50,000 burden on the school system -- amortized over 25 years at 4%, that's $3,200 per year. However, that home only generates $1357.50 in Wake County property taxes. Further, the county needs to pay its portion of the schools' opeating expenses operating expenses (already over $2K for those two students) out of that $1357.50, in addition to all the other county services.
The county also collects commercial property taxes, but those only account for about 25% of the county's revenue, and those commercial properties also consume county services.
If someone is moving to Wake
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 12:48 — danofncIf someone is moving to Wake County from somewhere else, the impact of their kids on the school system is the exact same whether they buy a new house or a house built in 1930.
If someone moves from a house built in 1930 to a new house, but lived in Wake County the whole time, the net effect of their move on the school system is zero.
Disagree...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:04 — Bob_SconceThere's going to be a new family moving into the home that family is vacating. In any case, unless they move into a home next door to their original home, they'll be needing a new seat in a different part of the county.
At what point do we draw the
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 14:48 — Duhhuh666At what point do we draw the line and say "if you are here you don't pay extra, move here or buy a new home you pay extra for the new schools" I could be living in a 20 year old house producing a new child every year for the next 30 years and not have to pay an impact fee. But my actions are having a greater impact on the schools than a childless couple who moves here and buys a new home. I pay nothing, they pay extra. (please excuse the over simplification)
The county is like a business, when business is booming and your facilities are not capable of handling the new customers. You can't decide to charge new customers the cost of your new facilities.. You borrow the money to expand and use the additional income from the new customers to offset this cost.
Eh...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:29 — Bob_SconceYour first paragraph, of course, is correct -- that could, indeed happen. But, we know *for a fact* that new development is the predominant reason that the district has to build new schools. We also know that the marginal property tax paid by those new developments is insufficient to cover the construction of the new schools (see my previous post where I did the math.) So, absent some way of making sure that the new development pays for the costruction of those new schools, everybody else's property taxes will go up.
Here's an alternative way to think about it -- don't think about individual homes; think about entire developments. In a development of, say 2,000 homes, we have a good idea how many new schools will have to be built to cover the students living in those homes. We don't know for sure exactly which homes those students will live in, but across that development, the district has a very good idea that it will need, say 1 elementary, 1 middle and 1/3 of a high school. (the other 2/3ds coming from other nearby developments.) And, the total cost of those buildings is, say $60M. But, the county wants to be conservative -- don't want to charge too much -- and so applies a $40M impact fee to the development: "We will approve your subdivision plan if you pay us $40M. We understand your cash flow situation, so you can pay over time as the homes are sold."
Sure, that doesn't take care of the few families spewing out a new set of babies every 9 months. There is no perfect system where everybody pays for exactly the costs they impute. But, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" -- we can do better at getting people to pay for those costs than we do now. And, impact fees is one of those ways.
Bob, you are so smart about
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:27 — woodstockBob, you are so smart about most things, so I don't understand your attraction to impact fees/taxes. They don't make sense. You are trying to make an argument that they are fair, but they are in reality as unfair as it gets. Not everyone who buys a house participates in schools (i.e., has kids in the system), but everyone who lives in the county benefits from them. Also, why are you just talking about the impact new residents have on schools ...why are schools singled out? The more people who come to our county, the more of everything we need including police officers, firefighters, roads, hospitals, social services, garbage pick up, etc. Some people can go their whole lives without having to engage a police officer, a firefighter, or an EMT, yet we know we need them and are willing to provide funding for their services.
Well..
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:42 — Bob_SconceBob, you are so smart about most things,
Thank you. I'm good-looking and fun at parties, too.
I'm picking out schools because they are such an enormous part of the county budget. As CC points out, impact fees are often used for those other things you mentioned. And, impact fees are more economically efficient than straight property taxes.
Here's a report by Brookings on the subject: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2003/06metropolitanpolicy_nelson.aspx
My one concern with impact fees is the same issue I have with rental car taxes: they can grow government bureaucracy without any meaningful check, since the people who vote for the government don't pay the fees. So, if the GA is going to make impact fees legal, I'd also want them to limit when and how they can be used.
All government service need
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:34 — user12345All government service need to be paid for by someone ... getting it from property taxes, sales tax, or fees are all means of trying to assign the cost to the consumer. So, if you don't buy a lot, you don't pay much sales tax and if you don't own a big home, you don't owe much property tax. It seems like a modest fee for new housing is appropriate because the new house adds new "potential" children to the the system ..... moving from one old house to another old house does not introduce any new capacity. Personally, I have never wanted to make this place so cheap that everyone wants to come here and I end up with more roads traffic, and bonds to pay for ... moderate growth is fine but the recent unplanned hyper growth which has been shouldered by long time residents has be overwhelming to the schools, roads, etc.
You make a strong argument
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:47 — CaryCurmudgeonYou make a strong argument for schools impact fees. Today, builders already pay impact fees for utilities and infrastructure. This helps offset the cost of police stations, fire stations, roads and waste management facilities. You are right, everyone may not use all of these services, but everyone does benefit from them. Same goes for schools.
Aren't schools considered
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 16:57 — woodstockAren't schools considered infrastructure? It sounds like you are proposing another fee on top of existing fees ...which already take schools into account. Impact fees are just an added tax on new home buyers ...some of whom have been living and paying taxes in Wake County for years.
With increased impact fees and Meekers aversion to folks not from around here having a say, I can see it leading to a new promotional compaign - Welcome to Wake County: Pay Up and Shut Up!
Today's impact fees are
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 17:06 — CaryCurmudgeonToday's impact fees are collected by the municipalities, not the county. NC law actually makes it illegal for the municipalities to flow that money to the county government. And, in most cases, the municipal impact fees do not even come close to recovering 100% of the true infrastructure cost. And they recover 0% of the cost of building schools.
Remember the "Friends of Wake County?" They spent a fortune to make sure that we passed a huge education bond, so that the cost of building new schools would be spread among all taxpayers. Most of the FOWCers were tied to the development sector. Major supporters included Jim Goodmon, Harvey Schmidt, WEP and the N&O. These are the same people who would fight an APFO tooth and nail.
In the end this doesn't really matter because I don't think we will ever have a county commission with the guts to pass an APFO.
Huh?
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 18:16 — fiveblindmice<i> Major supporters included Jim Goodmon, Harvey Schmidt, WEP and the N&O. These are the same people who would fight an APFO tooth and nail. </i>
Cary already had this fight. And my memory is that those are precisely the types of people who SUPPORTED Glen Lang's position in favor of the AFPO. The most vocal, outspoken current proponent of APFO's in Wake County, for example, has to be Stan Norwalk. While the most vociferous local opposition has come from the local GOP cabal.
Good points. As disgusted
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 21:18 — CaryCurmudgeonGood points. As disgusted as I am with Stan Norwalk for continuing to stick his nose in WCPSS busines, I'm at least as disgusted that he has done nothing to honor his campaign promise of moving forward with an APFO.
And you're right, the building and development community heavily funds local GOP candidates, thus guaranteeing that any municipal or county body which is Republican-led will never support an APFO.
The current Dem commissioner majority has shown they don't have the stomach to push an APFO, and we certainly won't see one if the Republicans win majority control this Fall.
And none of the groups or individuals I mentioned played any role whatsoever in Cary's decision to enact the school APFO. Harvey Schmidt is less likely to support an APFO than William Barbur is to invite Ron Margiotta over for drinks.
You seem to be suggesting
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 12:35 — woodstockYou seem to be suggesting that our county would benefit by putting a moratorium on new construction as there is actually a negative financial impact from new people coming to the area? I find that very hard to believe.
Also, some new home buyers have lived and paid taxes in the county for decades, don't have kids, and don't impact the school system at all. Or maybe they send their kids to private schools. Why should they pay an impact fee? In fact, using your logic and to be fair, perhaps these folks should have their property taxes reduced.
No...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:15 — Bob_SconceI am only suggesting that property taxes would not go up (or, at least, would go up slower) if such a moratorium would be imposed. On the whole, I think growth is a net positive thing.
I'm not going to get into the whole "well, I don't have kids, so I shouldn't pay to educate them" debate (not that I can't; I just don't have time right now.) But, consider this: you buy a brand new home and have no children, then you move out, and sell to somebody who does. The school district has to put those kids someplace, and wouldn't have had to if the new home wasn't built in the first place.
I can't claim that impact fees would do a 100% perfect job of allocating cost only to those who impose construction costs on the schools. But, welcome to government finance -- I pay taxes for all sorts of services I don't use.
Nicely done
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 10:35 — user12345Nicely done
If they contribute to
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:32 — user12345If they contribute to defraying the costs of water, sewer and roads, why not schools?
You mean the water, sewer
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:48 — woodstockYou mean the water, sewer and roads that directly serve the new homes? This is a little different than taxing folks for a service they may never use (maybe they do not have kids) or have been using and paying for for a decade or more (long-term Wake residents who move into a new home).
Plus, we do not need new taxes. Most of us already pay far too many taxes ...while far too many people pay too little.
Property taxes apply to
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 09:13 — danofncProperty taxes apply to everyone equally.
Even if you rent, your landlord is using your rent money to pay his or her property taxes.
And....? I am not debating
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 11:22 — woodstockAnd....? I am not debating property taxes, I am talking about impact fees.
BTW I am AGAINST property taxes. In this country we are supposed to be able to own property ...it is more than a little disengenuous that our government "allows" it up until the time we don't pay them taxes ...then it is no longer our property, but THEIRS.
..and when you build a
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 07:24 — Duhhuh666..and when you build a retirement village you still pay an impact fee even though there is no impact. This is why we have bonds, the new construction increases future tax revenue to offset the impact of the new construction.
Why
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 07:37 — Bob_SconceWhy would anyone design an impact fee to require a retirement village to pay a school impact fee? I agree that it's possible to do a horrible job of implementing impact fees, but that's true of just about anything.
The problem with the bond argument is that it requires everybody -- newcomers and oldcomers alike to pay for the cost of new schools. In practice, property taxes on new construction do not make up for the externalities imposed by that new construction -- as a result, property taxes go up on everybody.
"In practice, property taxes
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:14 — woodstock"In practice, property taxes on new construction do not make up for the externalities imposed by that new construction -- as a result, property taxes go up on everybody."
------------------------------------------------
I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that when famlies move into a home they become a source of tax revenue that goes far beyond just property taxes. They are part of the local workforce and they are consumers, and they pay all the requisite taxes and fees associated with that.
Impact "fees" are just another tax heaped upon a mountain of other taxes we already pay. We DO NOT need to be burdened with more taxes.
An impact fee would be for
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:12 — Duhhuh666An impact fee would be for all new construction so retirement centers would be affected, if not a retiree could argue that his new home does not impact the schools and people without children ect ect..
..property taxes go up because everyone benefits from the new school.
New construction has negative impact in the early years but over the life of the building the County gains more than enough revenue to offset this. The bond the County get today is paid with those future taxes.