Agenda - 10-20-2015 - 6a - Minutes

Browse Search

6 1 Paul Laughton said yes. 2 Commissioner Burroughs referred to item number 7 in the memorandum that instructs 3 the County to "Make Legislative Committee 45-day filing". She asked if the specific legislative 4 body could be identified. 5 Bob Jessup said a few years ago legislation was put in place that required local 6 governments, which sought to borrow more than $1 million for anything other than schools or 7 courthouses, to make a filing with the joint legislative committee on local government. He said 8 this is just a notice filing, and nothing substantive. 9 Commissioner Pelissier referred to item number 5 on page 2, which states "Adopt 10 Findings Resolution". She asked if there are any guidelines for demonstrating "why the 11 proposed projects are necessary and desirable". 12 Bob Jessup said the Local Government Commission (LGC) wants to hear the County's 13 specifics, and what the local governing board has already approved. He said it is not the intent 14 of the LGC to question the reasoning. 15 Chair McKee referred to page 6 and the resolution mentioned in point number 5. He 16 asked if this is the resolution that sets the bond in hard concrete, and if the listed April 2016 date 17 is a hard date, or a projected one. 18 Bob Jessup said the school board can make requests at any level, but nothing is in 19 concrete until the Board of County Commissioners has acted. He said he has the meeting in 20 April 2016, in order to have time to file and print. He said April is a tentative date, but May 2016 21 is not. 22 Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 7, where it says, "there is never any obligation 23 for the County to issue any or all of the bonds approved in the referendum". She asked if the 24 schools could take any action, if the Board does not assign all of the funding from a bond to 25 them. 26 Bob Jessup said the schools could say that all their capital needs are not being met, but 27 it is the Board's bond, not the schools. 28 29 Attachment B- 30 Paul Laughton said Ted Cole would be the presenting Attachment 1-B for Davenport. 31 He referred to page 2 of the abstract, which shows the areas that will be covered in the 32 presentation: 33 • Peer comparatives and Key Debt Ratios 34 • Review of the County's existing Debt Profile 35 • Evaluate the impact of the County's current FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) 36 debt issuances 37 • Evaluate the impact of a $125 million General Obligation Bond Referendum, as well as 38 the impact of$130 million and $135 million case scenarios 39 Ted Cole reviewed the Discussion Materials found in Attachment 1-B 40 • Review the County's existing Debt Profile. 41 • Evaluate the impact of the County's proposed CIP Debt Issuances and potential General 42 Obligation Bond Referendum: 43 —Analyze a series of Key Financial Ratios to evaluate the County's Debt Capacity. 44 —Measure the Debt Affordability of the proposed projects. 45 46 Paul Laughton said the Board has the annually reviewed CIP, and tonight they will 47 consider the addition of three potential bond amounts: $125 million, $130 million and $135 48 million. He said the two main concepts that will be considered are: 1.) debt capacity and 2.) 49 debt affordability.