Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Harry Takahashi <br /> <br /> Page Two <br /> 5. What would be the breakdown of the County's net funded debt with the <br /> addition of the $40 million bond? <br /> G. Project out for at least four years, if possible, the ratio of net bonded debt to <br /> assessed value and net bonded debt per capita. Please base these projections <br /> on trends derived from the best county data available. <br /> 7. Project out for at least four years, if possible, the ratio of annual debt service <br /> expenditures for general obligation bonded debt to total general governmental <br /> expenditures. Please base these projections on trends derived from the best <br /> county data available. <br /> 8. If the Cowrty issues the $40 million G.O. bond, please discuss what the <br /> budget implications, if any, may be of reductions in real property tax revenues <br /> and in the county's share of the Transient Accommodations Tax. How might <br /> declines in revenue be offset, i.e. through operational savings, etc.? <br /> B. Need <br /> l . Your letter of January 7, 1998 (Communication No. 636.03), provided a <br /> tentative list of projects that the proposed bond authorization is needed to <br /> fund. <br /> a. With respect to these projects, what would be the imp]ications of the <br /> $40 million G.O. bond authorization request not being approved? <br /> b. What would be the implications of delaying approval of this bond <br /> authorization? <br /> c. if these projects cannot be delayed, please explain why and include <br /> relevant documentation such as court orders, etc. Please also include a <br /> schedule for implementation. <br /> 2. Has the availability of other funding mechanisms for these projects been <br /> explored? <br /> 3. Explain the positive impacts of authorizing this $40 million dollar bond <br /> request at this time. <br /> <br />