My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/15/2021
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2020's
>
2021
>
06/15/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2021 2:01:46 PM
Creation date
8/26/2021 1:57:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
06/15/2021
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
258
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FUNDING <br />If approved, a general obligation bond issue(s), would be supported by a separate millage rate that <br />would be levied on property within the County. For discussion purposes, a $50 million bond issue <br />financed over a 15 -year period as was done in the two prior issuances, could be supported with a <br />millage rate of approximately 1/3 of a mill. Another matter to consider would be the timing of <br />bond issuance. Generally, municipal bond issuers such as the County must reasonably expect to <br />spend the proceeds on qualified purposes within 3 years. It may be necessary to split any <br />authorization into multiple bond issues (which was done with the 1992 referendum) in order to <br />meet these requirements. If that was done, the initial millage rate would be lower until the final <br />set of bonds is issued. Staff would recommend the consideration of unlimited General Obligation <br />(G.O.) Bonds, as was approved in 1992 as compared to limited G.O. Bonds as approved in -2004. <br />This typically results in a slightly reduced borrowing cost. <br />As detailed, there are numerous projects that could be funded with a potential bond issue. Bond <br />proceeds would be appropriate for funding all or a portion of the capital cost of such improvements. <br />It should be noted that there are tax-exempt bond restrictions regrading the useful life of projects <br />financed versus the average maturity of the bonds. Assuming a 15 -year period would require that <br />the projects financed have a relative longer useful life. Capital projects typically carry ongoing <br />maintenance and operating costs. These would need to be funded from other sources as bond <br />proceeds would not be an appropriate source for such expenses. <br />The County typically uses several sources of funding for major projects. This would likely be true <br />for projects supported by these bonds. Numerous grants are available from State and Federal <br />sources for projects like those presented. This would serve to leverage the bond issue to provide <br />total funding in excess of the bond amount. The Board also discussed the possibility of utilizing <br />Public Private Partnerships (PPP's) for these funds/projects. This is another potential tool <br />available to leverage the bond funds. Staff could explore PPP's as appropriate for any projects <br />supported by a bond issue. However, it is important to note that we will need to review any funding <br />and ownership structure with bond counsel to ensure it would comply with tax-exempt bond issue <br />requirements in these instances. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that the Board consider the various types of improvements detailed above and <br />provide direction on the types of projects to be funded in the event that the Board approves placing <br />a general obligation bond issue referendum on the ballot. Based upon this direction, staff could <br />further develop a proposed spending plan for such funds. <br />ATTACHMENTS <br />139 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.