Minutes - 20060914 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The difference between the two charts is that they took what they thought was direction from the August 31St meeting, and put the numbers into the spreadsheet to take up the borrowing capacity, and programmed in all of the debt from the discussions on the 31St Column H in Chart 2-A is any remaining debt capacity after all of the projects have been programmed. Rod Visser said that they could take what is in column H and attach to that an estimation of how much additional face value of debt could be issued beyond these particular projects. Chair Jacobs asked about a ballpark equivalent and Donna Coffey said that for every $10 million, you can count on about $1 million in debt service payments. Commissioner Gordon verified that with the projects programmed now, the County would use all of its debt capacity for the next four years. They asked for verification of the accuracy of the charts (example, Chart 2-A) because there is duplication of figures in some of the later years. Donna Coffey will check the numbers. Chair Jacobs asked Donrra Coffey about how sure she was of the numbers in the nearest years and she said extremely sure. Commissioner Carey said that the information from the staff is very good. He asked about the projections of the operational impacts from each of the projects. Rod Visser said that there are some projects that they would not anticipate operational impacts, such as greenways. There are some projects that they have no information for but they put a placeholder in (saying that costs were being developed} because they knew that there would be impacts. Commissioner Carey said that, considering the fact that there is no information on the operational impact, and considering the fact that the debt is projected at a conservative level, it tells him that if they back off of the growth rate a little bit (maybe to 7%}, and factor in the actual rate at which they experience debt (probably less than 6°~), there is some room so that they do not have to be concerned. He does not want to change the 15% threshold, but there is same room to take care of contingencies. Commissioner Carey asked for an explanation of "Yes, Pending Refinement" on the purple sheet. Rod Visser made reference to line #5 on the purple sheet, which is CHCCS Elementary #10. He said that the Board has clearly stated its commitment to build Elementary #10. The staff is proceeding under the assumption that they are doing everything that they reasonably canto get it open in 2008. The question that remains is how much the total budget will be that the County Commissioners will approve for this project. He has heard that the County Commissioners want the staff to fine-tune this number. He would like to bring this back on October 3rd as a comprehensive agenda item. He said that "Yes, Pending Refinement" means that the staff recommends issuing the debt, but the exact amount is pending refinement. Chair Jacobs pointed out that #3 (Central Orange Senior Center) and #1 on the Enterprise Fund Debt Issuances (SportsPlex Addition} should both be "Yes, Pending Refinement". Commissioner Halkiotis said that he was not sure they came to full agreement on the numbers for these projects such as #18, the soccer complex. He said that they may be able to free up some money. Commissioner Gordon asked what difference it makes if something is on the list far "Yes" versus "Yes, Pending Refinement." Rad Visser said that it does not make a great difference since they are months away from taking actions resulting in the issuance of this debt. Commissioner Gordon requested that these charts from the August 31St meeting be kept for future reference. said that several weeks ago they were sent information about a potential partner in the community that may help them develop this project. Today they heard from this