Minutes - 20050505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 06/23/2005 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION May 5, 2005 (re-convened from May 3, 2005) 6:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners reconvened the May 3, 2005 Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 5, 2005 at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Steve Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey and Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Dinner - 6:00 p.m. Meeting - 6:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m. 9-d. Implementation of 60-40 Capital Funding Policy Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners indicated at the last meeting that they would proceed with considering the policy options 2 and 4, and the option provided by Superintendent Carraway. The County Commissioners asked the staff to make recommendations on each option as they are presented. Rod Visser made reference to the new appendices. There were four new items - appendices 22-25. Appendix 22 is a list of the staff considerations for the capital funding options. With regard to question #6, "Does the 60/40 target apply only to the period 2005-15, or 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?" The staff recommendation is that the 60/40 approach will be used in all subsequent ten-year CIPs until the Board decides differently. He made reference to question #7, "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?" The staff recommendation is not to add any new revenue into the 60/40 calculations, and to use the 60/40 as it applies to pay-as-you-go money, and have any other new debt-financing stand on its own to deal with emerging needs. Appendix 23 is a one-page table on the CHCCS High School #3 possible revised funding stream. Appendix 24 is an outline of some of the elements that would need to go into a capital funding policy. John Link pointed out that they do speak specifically to Cedar Ridge