Orange County NC Website
is given on the LAST PAGE of the attachment, on the stand alone information <br />sheet. <br />Attachment: 2001 Bond Brochure and a stand alone Information Sheet. <br />The brochure was 11 x 17. The inside, which was one large page, has been cut <br />in half to print. <br />MEMORANDUM <br />To: BOCC and Manager <br />From: Alice Gordon <br />Re: Questions and Comments from Alice Gordon Concerning <br />Agenda Item 6-2e -Capital Project Ordinance Amendments <br />Date: June 16, 2009 <br />Here are the questions and comments I will be making with respect to item 6-2e. <br />CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS <br />A. Section 1 -School Capital Project Fund Projects Over Budget <br />Att. 2b - Playground Protective Surfaces <br />Sec. 1 states the revenue is from Schools PAYG, but Sec. 3 shows transfers <br />from the General Fund. Please explain. <br />Att. 2d -Chapel Hill Carrboro High School System Capital Project Ordinance <br />Sec. 4 -There is no dollar amount entered for FY 2008-09 for Construction. <br />Attachment 2d fixes this. <br />B. Section 2 -County Capital Project Fund Projects Over Budget <br />Att. 2g -Durham Technical Community College <br />Sec. 1 -Were the grant funds that were not available CMAQ funds? If so, we <br />need to make sure that they will not be available in the future. <br />Even if the funds come to Orange County, it is too late, because it cannot be <br />reimbursed. <br />Sec. 6 =Until we are clear about which grant funds were not available, and <br />whether they will still be forthcoming, we should NOT CLOSE the project. <br />Att. 2j - Efland Cheeks Park (Already noted by me previously) <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 />bonds for this project were $250,000 (according to the original bond brochure). <br />Therefore why are we allocating more 2001 bond funds, and which 2001 bond <br />project is therefore losing funds? <br />Gary Humphreys' answer was no and that this was interest money. <br />