Agenda - 03-31-2005-6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

will explain the layout of the tables. Far example, Rows 10-13 of the 2005-06 Capital Funding Options Table identify the four major components of the capital funding policy (debt service; school debt and peak debt service for OGS; net pay-as-you-go funds; and recurring capital) and summarize how each is treated under the different options presented,. The presentation will also allow staff to summarize the key elements and implications of each option. For example, should the BOCC determine that it wishes to implement the 60-40 policy so that the County would receive comparatively more capital funding over the ten year period while eliminating the responsibility of the Orange County Schools to pay a portion of the debt service for Cedar Ridge High School, Option 4 would likely be the approach to choose, In options 2 and 4, where the OCS responsibility for Cedar Ridge debt is eliminated, OCS would receive higher net funding during the first several years, but lower funding in later years because of the concomitant elimination of "peak debt service" funding for OCS that is a component of the existing capital funding policy. As part of the presentation, staff will respond to Commissioner questions about the calculations and/or implications (such as those noted above) of any particular option. As the BOCC compares the differences between the various options, it should be noted that there should be a base funding level established each year from pay-as-you-go revenue below which the amount designated for County projects will not fall, Within that amount, there should be an annual baseline designated for County recurring capital that will begin to address identified County facility and maintenance needs. Staff were mindful of a number of questions in developing options for the Board's consideration, and the Board may wish to reflect on these as well as it contemplates its guidance to the Manager and staff: • What funding sources should be included in the calculation of the 60-40 target (e.g. dedicated sales tax, general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, private placement, other alternative financing approaches)? • What funding sources should not be included in the calculation of the 60-40 target (e.g, school impact fees, Public School Building Capital Funds)? • Should the 60-40 target focus only on long-range capital funding, or should it also incorporate recurring capital funding (e.g, for capital projects of smaller scope or of a routine maintenance nature)? • Does the 60-40 target apply only to the period 2005-15, ar should it be applied on a rolling basis to each subsequent ten-year CIP period until the BOCC makes a formal decision to change the policy? • If the Board of Commissioners makes decisions that increase or decrease the amount of total capital funding expected to be available during the ten year period (e.g, future bond referenda), is the 60-40 target to be recalculated to reflect the new total? • If such a recalculation is to be made, when should that take effect (e,g, with the development of the next ten year CIP update, immediately)? • Should the provision in the current capital funding policy, requiring the Orange County Schools to fund from its pay-as-you-go capital funding allocation that portion of debt service payments for Cedar Ridge High School that exceed the $12,5 million in voter-approved bond funding for the project, be removed from a revised capital funding policy? If the BOCC determines at this work session that one of the presented scenarios adequately reflects the Board's intent of how to "operationalize" the proposed 60-40 capital funding split,