Minutes - 20080819 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

T.) Chair Jacobs asked about the advantages and disadvantages of doing revaluations every two years versus every four years. John Smith said that as long you are doing it in- house, it is less expensive, but he would recommend doing them annually if he had the staff. Chair Jacobs asked clarifying questions, which were answered by John Smith. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Issuance of Remaining 2001 Voter Approved Bonds The Board considered a request for authority to issue the remaining unissued $1.4 million Affordable Housing 2001 voter approved bonds and $5.5 million Parks and Open Space unissued bonds as Alternative Financing. nn.Reimbursement Resolution for Affordable Housinq Bonds The Board considered approving a resolution providing for reimbursement of capital expenses for Affordable Housing from the proceeds of a future financing. oo.Reimbursement Resolution for Parks and Open Space The Board considered approving a resolution providing for reimbursement of capital expenses for Parks and Open Space. Gary Humphreys said that there is some connection with this item and items nn and oo. The two resolutions for parks and affordable housing are such that money will be spent before the financing occurs. In the case of parks, the bond money is down to a few hundred thousand. The purpose of these resolutions is to preserve the ability of the County to reimburse itself for the next round of financing of parks and affordable housing. Item 6-a is about seeking permission to have some flexibility in terms of how to issue the remaining $5.5 million for parks and open space and the additional $1.4 million for affordable housing. There are some economies of sale for issuing direct placement financing. In the case of affordable housing, in order to maintain it as a non-taxable debt, it has to be less than 10% of the total debt issuance. Commissioner Nelson asked about Eno Haven that the Board voted on last June and if it was going to be taxable. Bob Jessup said that at the time that proposal was made to Orange County, he did not understand how the County's contribution to Eno Haven related to the other financing aspects of this project. It was not known at the time, that to provide the benefit Eno Haven was looking for from the County contribution, that the County contribution could not be derived from the proceeds of tax-exempt debt. The Board voted on the proposal that was made to it, which was to provide $1 million to support the project. He thinks that there was even a lack of understanding from the developers that this money would be coming from tax-exempt debt. In connection with item 6-c, if the Board wants to provide this funding to Eno Haven, it will have to come from taxable debt or cash. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Board approved 6-a, 4-00, and 4-nn, does this constrain the Board when it goes on to 6-c and it was answered no.