6/13/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Scurlock had several questions. He noted that it has been indicated that the earliest opportunity for a referendum would be in October, which isn't until our next budget year, and that the referendum would cost $27,000. If the referendum were successful, borrowing probably would have to take place, and this would necessitate adding on the interest cost for more than 12 months, and he would like some figures on the difference between holding a referendum and going ahead with the purchase. Administrator Chandler figured that on an acquisition costing 2.5 million, there would be issuance costs of about $98,000 and interest expense of about $280,000, or a difference of almost $400,000. Commissioner Scurlock noted that apparently when you talk about going to referendum, you are talking about something less. than 1/2 a million in additional costs that will go to something other than improvements or the purchase of the land. As he understands it, based on past voting experience, we have about 46,000 voters and generally special elections have low voter turnout; so, with a 10% turnout, you would have about 4,600 people voting on this issue. He, therefore, felt by going to referendum we are taking about $400,000 that will be spent on nothing by the election and on interest, and for that we get the expression of about 4.,600 people. Another question he had is why have we not had -any discussion in terms of a combination of funding, i.e., a split between a Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) and a general fund expenditure. Administrator Chandler explained that since we do not have any uncommitted cash reserves available, we were looking at having to go with a note and interest, but Commissioner Scurlock noted that would be unless the Board voted the millage in. The Administrator commented that if the Commission for next year's budget wished to levy a tax equivalent to the 2.5 million 47 47 QUN 110 N8 BoaI F 1