Last Monday evening, the Chapel Hill Town Council took three actions that have sparked controversy. Some additional information and background may be warranted on: 1) approval of a budget that includes a property tax increase; 2) approval of publicly financed local municipal elections; and 3) approval of continuation health care coverage for council members.

With regard to the budget, citizens should know that the council has been a good steward of tax dollars. This is not just my opinion. The town has received a Triple-A bond rating — the highest available — from independent national agencies, something unique for a town our size in North Carolina.

Another indication of fiscal responsibility is that even though energy costs have risen dramatically, as they have for everyone in America, and demand for town services has grown, town taxes have not increased for the past two years. This year, however, the council confronted debt obligations for the new Aquatics Center (the debt funding for which was approved by voters three times) and the Southern Community Park (the debt funding for which was also approved by voters). In addition, the council is paying debt on the Town Operations Center, which houses Public Works and Chapel Hill Transit. These payments are similar to mortgage payments, and help spread the cost over future users. But they are beginning now. Still, the owner of a $200,000 home in Chapel Hill will pay less than $1,200 annually for all town services, including police protection, the fire department, signal and road maintenance, the public library, the parks, recreation programs, garbage collection, a fare-free transit system, planning and inspections, and public housing.

As to publicly financed local municipal elections, Chapel Hill embarked on a novel experiment in North Carolina. The experiment envisions two primary goals: first, to increase the number of people who have an opportunity to serve in public office, and second, to remove money as a consideration in local elections. Some people have questioned whether public financing is really designed just to protect incumbents. But that has not been the case in other jurisdictions. For example, in Arizona the incumbent reelection rate fell from 98 percent to 75 percent after public financing was instituted. Maine, Hawaii and Minnesota also saw incumbent reelection rates drop. In addition, a Connecticut study found that public financing increased the number of women and minorities running for office. So if this experiment is successful, it should result in a more robust local democracy.

The third item is continuation health care coverage for council members. This matter grew out of the changing nature of the health care industry. The particular issue is that council members who develop a serious health problem during service in office, such as cancer or heart disease, could be unable to obtain health care coverage after they leave office, because of their “pre-existing condition.” Continuation coverage is provided to other local elected people, including the Orange County commissioners.

I hope that this helps provide some background on the rationale for the council’s recent decisions.

Kevin Foy is the mayor of Chapel Hill.