Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br /> 1 Commissioner Burroughs referred to item number 7 in the memorandum that instructs <br /> 2 the County to "Make Legislative Committee 45-day filing". She asked if the specific legislative <br /> 3 body could be identified. <br /> 4 Bob Jessup said a few years ago legislation was put in place that required local <br /> 5 governments, which sought to borrow more than $1 million for anything other than schools or <br /> 6 courthouses, to make a filing with the joint legislative committee on local government. He said <br /> 7 this is just a notice filing, and nothing substantive. <br /> 8 Commissioner Pelissier referred to item number 5 on page 2, which states "Adopt <br /> 9 Findings Resolution". She asked if there are any guidelines for demonstrating "why the <br /> 10 proposed projects are necessary and desirable". <br /> 11 Bob Jessup said the Local Government Commission (LGC) wants to hear the County's <br /> 12 specifics, and what the local governing board has already approved. He said it is not the intent <br /> 13 of the LGC to question the reasoning. <br /> 14 Chair McKee referred to page 6 and the resolution mentioned in point number 5. He <br /> 15 asked if this is the resolution that sets the bond in hard concrete, and if the listed April 2016 date <br /> 16 is a hard date, or a projected one. <br /> 17 Bob Jessup said the school board can make requests at any level, but nothing is in <br /> 18 concrete until the Board of County Commissioners has acted. He said he has the meeting in <br /> 19 April 2016, in order to have time to file and print. He said April is a tentative date, but May 2016 <br /> 20 is not. <br /> 21 Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 7, where it says, "there is never any obligation <br /> 22 for the County to issue any or all of the bonds approved in the referendum". She asked if the <br /> 23 schools could take any action, if the Board does not assign all of the funding from a bond to <br /> 24 them. <br /> 25 Bob Jessup said the schools could say that all their capital needs are not being met, but <br /> 26 it is the Board's bond, not the schools. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Attachment B- <br /> 29 Paul Laughton said Ted Cole would be the presenting Attachment 1-B for Davenport. <br /> 30 He referred to page 2 of the abstract, which shows the areas that will be covered in the <br /> 31 presentation: <br /> 32 • Peer comparatives and Key Debt Ratios <br /> 33 • Review of the County's existing Debt Profile <br /> 34 • Evaluate the impact of the County's current FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) <br /> 35 debt issuances <br /> 36 • Evaluate the impact of a $125 million General Obligation Bond Referendum, as well as <br /> 37 the impact of$130 million and $135 million case scenarios <br /> 38 Ted Cole reviewed the Discussion Materials found in Attachment 1-B <br /> 39 • Review the County's existing Debt Profile. <br /> 40 • Evaluate the impact of the County's proposed CIP Debt Issuances and potential General <br /> 41 Obligation Bond Referendum: <br /> 42 —Analyze a series of Key Financial Ratios to evaluate the County's Debt Capacity. <br /> 43 —Measure the Debt Affordability of the proposed projects. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Paul Laughton said the Board has the annually reviewed CIP, and tonight they will <br /> 46 consider the addition of three potential bond amounts: $125 million, $130 million and $135 <br /> 47 million. He said the two main concepts that will be considered are: 1.) debt capacity and 2.) <br /> 48 debt affordability. <br /> 49 Ted Cole referred to page 3, which reviewed the Peer Comparatives and the County's <br /> 50 bond rating. He said Orange County has the highest rating possible from all three rating <br />