|
33
<br /> 1 Slide#7
<br /> Major Projects — Pay-Go Phase-in
<br /> To spread out tax burden, the Manager's Recommended CIP splits Pay-Go introduction into three steps, so
<br /> no increase is larger than 1 cent on the tax rate.
<br /> Last year's CIP had incremental increases to offset recommended phase-in, so total increases by$240k
<br /> years 5-9. Not increased in year 10 pending discussion
<br /> Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year6 Year7 YearEl Yearg 1 Ten
<br /> Use of Pay-Go By Project I I I 2029-30 2030-31 1 I I t2035-36 Year
<br /> Total
<br /> CS Major Projects 2,500,OOC 500,000 4,000,OOC 5,468,70C 2,331,30C 14,800,00
<br /> .L.Stanback-HVAC Replacement 2,180,937 2,180,93
<br /> CS-Remaining Bond and Pay-Go 2,378,816 2,000,OOC 569,515 3,028,78 3,007,947 6,080,00C 17,065,06
<br /> ojects
<br /> HCCS Major Projects 3.319,06 3,771,30C 4,280,937 900,00C 12,271,30
<br /> HCCS-Remaining Bond and Pay-Go 6,121,184 5,000,00 867,76 8,250,48 6,931,21 7,192,05 41120,00 38,482,69
<br /> ,rejects
<br /> ajor School Construction Project 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 1,000,00 10,000,00
<br /> anagement
<br /> Total 3,500,000 6,500,00d 10,000,000 10,000,00 10,240,00 10,480,00 10,720,00 10,960,00 11.,200;00 11,200,00 94,800,00
<br /> ORANGE COUNTY
<br /> 7 NORTH CAROLINA
<br /> 2
<br /> 3 Kirk Vaughn presented the pay-go allocation schedule,showing increases from$3.S million to$6.S
<br /> 4 million to$10 million and then annual increments of approximately$240,000 per year through year nine,
<br /> 5 before leveling off. He noted this structure had been designed to reach a target of$100 million over ten
<br /> 6 years in a prior plan but acknowledged the county is not at that level.
<br /> 7 Commissioner Bedford noted that the pay-go assumptions had not yet accounted for the fact that
<br /> 8 two to three fewer schools would need renovation or pay-go support after the major replacements are
<br /> 9 completed,though she acknowledged there might be deconstruction costs for older buildings.
<br /> 10 Kirk Vaughn suggested that one use of pay-go in the outer years could be a new facility condition
<br /> 11 assessment to refresh the data and drive investment decisions. He noted that both school districts typically
<br /> 12 conduct their own assessments, but that a county-funded coordinated assessment would provide equal
<br /> 13 insight into both systems.
<br /> 14 Vice-Chair Fowler suggested aligning any county-sponsored assessment with each district's
<br /> 15 independent assessment schedule to avoid duplication.
<br /> 16 Kirk Vaughn agreed that if the county covered the cost and communicated that,the districts would
<br /> 17 not need to conduct their own separately.
<br /> 18
<br /> 19
<br />
|