Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Gordon said that she wrote two memos that she wants to <br />enter into the record. She said that she talked with Laura Blackmon about the <br />possible motion that has to do with a substitution of alternative financing for <br />certain projects. Because of that discussion, she changed the second bullet of <br />the motion. The two memos are included below. The first memo is shown as <br />submitted by Commissioner Gordon. The second memo shows what <br />Commissioner Gordon wrote in regular type, with comments given by Gary <br />Humphreys in italics. <br />MEMORANDUM <br />To: BOCC and Manager <br />From: Alice Gordon <br />Subject: 2001 Bonds and Item 6-2e <br />Date: June 16, 2009 <br />Copies to Frank Clifton, Greg Wilder, Donna Baker, Gary Humphreys, Donna <br />Coffey, David Stancil, John Roberts <br />I have two points to make about the 2001 bonds in this memorandum. They are <br />related to item 6-2e, Capital Project Ordinance Amendments, on tonight's <br />agenda. <br />(1) To follow up on a question asked by Commissioner Yuhasz, I believe that the <br />BOCC should make a formal statement acknowledging the substitution of <br />alternative financing for approved 2001 bond financing. Perhaps something like <br />the following would be appropriate: <br />The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has authorized the substitution of <br />alternative financing for certain projects approved by the voters in the 2001 bond <br />referendum. However, if in the future it is more advantageous to issue the <br />remaining $2.7 million debt as general obligation bonds, the County will have the <br />ability to do that if the action is first approved by the BOCC. <br />(2) I believe that if the voters approved a certain dollar amount for a project, we <br />should keep our commitment to them and appropriate that amount to that project <br />rather than some other project. <br />In at least one capital project ordinance under 6-2e that does not seem to be the <br />case. <br />For Attachment 2j - Efland Cheeks Park: <br />Sec. 3 -The amendment shows an additional $111,636 from the 2001 bonds, <br />over and above the $250,000 already shown for 2001 bonds. However, the 2001 <br />bond amount for this project was $250,000 (according to the original bond <br />brochure). Therefore why are we allocating more 2001 bond funds, and which <br />2001 bond project may be therefore losing funds? <br />For your information, I have attached the 2001 Bond brochure, which gives the <br />amount and purpose for each of the projects. The SUMMARY of all the projects <br />