Strafford County delegation approves second round of tax anticipation borrowing to cover 2025 cash shortfall

3365451 · May 16, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Strafford County delegation approved a second round of tax anticipation notes up to about $17.98 million to cover cashflow through the second half of 2025, after questions about interest costs and calls to study whether earlier municipal collections could reduce borrowing.

Strafford County legislators voted to authorize a second round of tax anticipation borrowing for 2025 to cover county cashflow needs through the second half of the year.

The delegation moved to "approve the second round of anticipation notes borrowing up to $17,980,000 for 2025," a motion moved by Representative Paul and seconded by Representative Howard. The motion passed by a voice/roll-call process; the chair announced, "Motion passes 10 to 4."

Why it matters: The notes let the county bridge operations until property tax revenue is collected in mid-December. Delegates said the borrowing is a cash-management step tied to the budget the delegation already adopted and is not a new spending program.

Treasury staff told the delegation it could not fully fund remaining obligations from cash on hand. Diane, the county deputy treasurer, told members the interest cost is not fixed until bids are received but that staff “estimated based on the first round,” and that past borrowing produced an interest cost of roughly 3 percent. A majority of members pressed for better detail on likely interest expense and the mechanics of the sale before the county goes to market.

Several members raised broader questions about whether the current statutory schedule — which requires municipalities to remit their tax collections to the county on Dec. 17 — forces the county to borrow on behalf of towns. Administrator Bauer (county administrator) said a statutory change would be required to move to an earlier or twice‑a‑year remittance schedule, and offered to convene the revenue committee to study options. Representative Southworth and others supported forming a small bipartisan group to explore whether municipal collection schedules, intergovernmental borrowing arrangements, or legislative changes could reduce future borrowing costs.

Details and context: Delegates were reminded the delegation previously approved a first‑half borrowing not to exceed $24,000,000; the second round brings the total tax anticipation borrowing in 2025 toward a tax levy total described in the meeting materials of roughly $41.09 million. County officials also noted that tax receipts are not scheduled to arrive until late in the year (December 17), which creates the mid‑year cashflow need.

Members asked for a follow‑up packet that shows (1) the likely interest cost range once bids are received, (2) the first‑round borrowing terms for comparison, and (3) the county’s current undesignated fund balance (officials said the current undesignated fund balance is in deficit). Representative Potenza recorded several technical questions about estimated interest and how the borrowing would be allocated within the $41.09 million budget total.

What’s next: The borrowing authorization allows county staff to solicit bids and complete a public sale. Delegates also instructed staff and legislators to convene the suggested revenue subcommittee to study the statutory constraints and alternatives for municipal remit timing and whether municipalities have sufficient fund balances to remit earlier.

Ending: County staff said they will return with the bid results and a clearer statement of expected interest costs and the fund‑balance position in the next budget update.