Minutes - 20050505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 under Debt Service, in the last bullet, "If Cedar Ridge debt is removed from the equation, there will be no reference to it or peak debt service in this new policy." Rod Visser said that when they are talking about earmarking impact fee money to pay debt service upfront, they are not talking about using it for anything, but that it would be-used for new school space. Commissioner Gordon said that allocating impact fees for debt service up front in the calculations affects the amount of money available to schools. She wants to know how this affects High School #3. In conjunction with the interlocal agreement there was some pay-as- you-go impact fee money planned to finance the high school. That included $1.6 million per year in future impact fees, and the new policy would take this away because the money would be going to debt service. John Link verified this. Rod Visser said that Appendix 25 is a comparison of capital funding options. John Link said that the staff did look at Superintendent Carraway's proposal and they appreciated the effort, but they still believe that option 2 or 4 would be the best course of action. Chair Carey agreed with John Link. Commissioner Halkiotis asked staff how they are tracking and predicting future impact fees. Rod Visser said that they are budgeting conservatively and they are not budgeting any extra than they normally would receive. They want to make sure to continue to not allocate impact fees until the money is in the bank. Chair Carey asked if the Board agreed with the Manager's recommendations for questions 6 and 7 and Appendix 22. Everyone but Commissioner Gordon said that they felt comfortable with these recommendations. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the recommendations for questions 6 and 7 on Appendix 22 as follows: The 60/40 approach will be used in all subsequent ten-year CIPs until the Board decides differently. And that no new revenue will be added into the 60/40 calculations, and the 60/40 will be used as it applies to pay-as-you-go money, and any other new debt financing will stand on its own to deal with emerging needs. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Carey said that any action taken needs to be incorporated into the final draft of the written capital funding policy and brought back to the Board. He said that the two options that the Board asked to be brought back were options 2 and 4. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that since they recognized that they have $18 million in pent up maintenance money and that for approximately three years, the County has not had any recurring capital for its needs, that the first three years of the ten-year period be spent on option 4, and then switch to option 2. This would be a compromise for what he might prefer. otherwise. Commissioner Gordon said that she would prefer option 2. Commissioner Halkiotis asked staff to give additional numbers for Commissioner Jacobs' preferred plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that it would be a $700,000 a year difference to give up front to the County. Commissioner Foushee said that she feels obligated to support a straight option 2 because of her uncertainty of what would happen with High School #3. She feels that a hybrid of options 2 and 4 brings uncertainty. Chair Carey said that their primary purpose of looking at options is to provide more funds for County projects and to simplify the capital funding policy. He said that this is a work session and the public has not had a chance to comment on the hybrid that Commissioner Jacobs suggested. He is inclined to support option 2.