Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
entire facility. The General Manager would also be responsible for the hiring of Sportsplex staff. <br />The individual would interact routinely with a member of County management, the contracting <br />company being ultimately responsible to the Board of County Commissioners. The contract <br />would include frequent reports from the General Manager to the County on financial activity and <br />programming. Consideration should be given to the formation of an advisory group of some <br />nature to the Board of County Commissioners to interact with the General Manager on a regular <br />basis. <br />Regarding debt, there is a loan guarantee program of up to 90°~ for participating <br />financial lending institutions through the U. S. Department of Agriculture -Rural Development <br />Guaranteed Community Facility Laan Program. This loan is available if a lender will make <br />certain that, absent the USDA guarantee, that the loan would not be defaulted on. Given <br />Orange County's outstanding credit rating and its excellent financial management, the staff <br />thinks it is inconceivable that Orange County would ever default on Orange County debt. If the <br />Board of County Commissioners decides that it wants to pursue direct County ownership, the <br />loan guarantee aspect may not be useful or appropriate. Any debt would require Local <br />Government Commission approval. LGC and County staff concur that accounting for the <br />Sportsplex operation would be appropriate in an enterprise fund, which is similar to how Orange <br />County accounts for the solid waste and recycling operations. <br />Regarding the timeline, it is expected that the two firms will finish their assessments by <br />the end of February or early March. County staff are targeting the March 15t" County <br />Commissioners' meeting to report back on the financial and infrastructure assessments, and for <br />the Board of County Commissioners to decide to pursue or not the acquisition of the Sportsplex <br />property. During the next month, there will be discussions with Eaton Vance about whether a <br />new or interim agreement should take effect after March 2005. If the Board determines to <br />acquire the property, extensive additional work will be needed in the coming months. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked Rod Visser to write all of what he said down and to give <br />the Board the pros and cons of the ownership structure. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that it is important that the Board be given the earnings <br />potential. She would also like to see an audit. The value of the building is partly affected by the <br />earnings potential. She would have to see some solid evidence to be convinced that the County <br />should pay $6 million for this property. She would like to know what Eaton Vance paid for this <br />when it was originally purchased. She would also like to have a concrete statement about what <br />the subsidy is expected to be with the senior center and the Sportsplex. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked about the Linked Economic Development and Affordable <br />Housing Foundation and why they are doing the overall project management for the due <br />diligence. Rod Visser said that it is because of Executive Director Jeff Thompson's terrific skills <br />in doing this. They da not have a direct financial interest in doing this. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that back when the County originally got the Sportsplex, she <br />thought it was a wonderful idea to have a recreational facility. However, she did not think the <br />deal was structured very well financially. She does not want this to happen again. She wants to <br />make sure that the deal is done right this time. She knows that Eaton Vance will want top dollar <br />for this, and she suggests that the County be a really tough negotiator. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would like to include the historical narrative far the <br />$400,000 and what it purchased, i.e., the public purpose component of accessibility to citizens <br />in central and northern Orange to have the same quality of life issues as enjoyed by citizens in <br />southern Orange County. Regarding the subsidy issue, he asked Rod Visser to include the <br />current subsidies from the Chapel Hill Town Council to subsidize swim opportunities at the Elliot <br />Road pool, anticipated subsidies for the new pool that is going to be built, and any information <br />from adjoining counties with respect to what they are subsidizing far water opportunities. He <br />would expect that the subsidy for Elliot Road alone would be at least $400,000. Rod Visser said <br />