Minutes 10-08-2024 - Business Meeting

Browse Search

17 Kirk Vaughn said that over a 10-year period it will vary. Chair Bedford asked that that language be specifically included in the policy that it will vary. She said she thought the bond is fixed at the rates so when she saw the other numbers, she drew the picture to show where the funds are coming from. Kirk Vaughn asked if they wanted him to show the bond percentages for each district. He said that it is collective of the bond, the pay-go, debt financing, and the lottery proceeds. Commissioner Fowler asked the totals. Kirk Vaughn said $300 bond, $100 pay-go, plus annual debt financing, and lottery that fund the two categories of spending. Commissioner Fowler asked if they go to the 59.86% and the 40.14%. Chair Bedford said yes. Commissioner Fowler said that she thought the picture that Chair Bedford had drawn to illustrate the funds had something different. Chair Bedford said that the left-hand corner of her flow chart is just the bond. Travis Myren said they set the not-to-exceed amounts based on the projects that were recommended in the Woolpert Plan. Chair Bedford said they need to be faithful to that since it is on the bond education. Commissioner Hamilton said the breakdown should be included. Commissioner Richards said what makes it tricky is that Chair Bedford's flow chart covers all capital projects, not just those related to the bond. Chair Bedford she thinks that the verbiage as document A is too strict and that one of the reasons for pay-go amount is to have flexibility. She said that a plan should be flexible and not in the policy especially with the enrollment changes that are being experienced by both districts. She said that she wants to make sure that it is more flexible. She said that supplemental pay-go for design services is not dependent upon enrollment. She said they might need more for the design and professional costs, and she wants it to be flexible. She said capital is not dependent on it. She said it needs to be project based. She said that it should not be in a policy, because it would bind a future Board. Commissioner McKee said that regardless of the policy, they cannot bind a future Board. He said future Boards can change policy at any time. He said that he was a bit confused with a goal versus a policy. He said that a policy is what he thought they were discussing. He said that too much flexibility creates a policy that is not very much a policy at all. He said that his goal in doing this is to get schools built and to maintain the same split that has been used in the past, the 60/40. He said that he thought that they were going to adhere as closely as possible to the overall spending as the same formula. Chair Bedford said that it does maintain the 60/40 and she agrees with that. She said that Commissioner McKee likes the consistency, but she is trying to keep strict spending that is based upon current enrollment in policy. She said that the numbers will keep changing and giving a district more funds when the enrollments may be closer to even, does not seem fair. Commissioner McKee said that regardless of the policy, a future board could make changes to that as they see fit. He said when reading the policy, he thought they were trying to adhere to the overall split of around 60%/40%. Chair Bedford said that she does not want to lock it in. Commissioner Richards asked if they could say for the 10-year planning period,the county will allocate per current ADM. Chair Bedford said the paragraph that Commissioner Richards was reading from pertains only to the Article 46 proceeds and is completely different. Commissioner Richards questioned if they could use similar wording for the bond since it was based on ADM as well. Chair Bedford said that it was based on today's ADM and not future ADM with no changes over 10 years.