7/7/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The committee, however, was conducted in Indian Rive According to that survey, support a $32 million bond 20 years. While that poll referendum, these figure provided with the results of a survey r County by the Nature Conservancy. 43 percent of the population would issue to be paid by a 1/2 mill tax for indicated that 40 percent opposed the s may underestimate support and overestimate opposition for two reasons. First, the referendum question tested was poorly worded; second, no effort had been made to inform county residents of the need for and the benefits of environmentally significant land acquisition. Finance Advisory Committee Recommendation In the process of developing a bond referendum recommendation, LAAC requested advice from the County Finance Advisory Committee. Meeting twice, once in a joint meeting with LAAC and the other time separately, the Finance Advisory Committee considered LAAC's objectives and need for funds, as well as the probability -of the referendum passing under various scenarios of amount, rate, and duration. Based upon these criteria, the Finance Advisory Committee made a recommendation to LAAC. On a 4 to 3 vote at its meeting of June 10, 1992, the Finance Advisory Committee recommended that LAAC approve a bond referendum of $15 million to be paid by a 1/2 mill levy for _a period of approximately ten years. The three dissenting votes represented a preference for a lower bond amount and a shorter duration. To support the minority position, Finance Advisory Committee member John Morrison drafted a separate statement and presented it to LAAC. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: At its meeting of June 24, 1992, LAAC considered various bond referendum options. These included the Finance Committee recommendation option; a "full funding" ($26 million) option; and various other alternatives. Attached to this item is a set of bond size projections, given various millage amounts, interest rates, and time frames. These options were considered by the committee. In general terms, the committee considered two options for the bond referendum amount. One option was an amount adequate to meet needs. While the advantage of such an option is full funding (with respect to the present target list of ten sites), the disadvantage is a lower probability of voter approval (in comparison to a lesser referendum amount). The other major option considered was a referendum amount of substantially less than $26 million. Variations of this option included a 1/2 mill for five years option, equalling approximately $9.5 million (with the prospect of extending the bond authority for another five year term); a 1/2 mill option for ten years (+$14 million) ; and a 1/4 mill option for thirty years (+$19 million). Advocates for these alternatives felt that a lower amount, shorter duration, or lower millage rate would enhance the prospects of the referendum passing. 37 JUL ®71992 L_