Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 Sportsplex <br /> 2 This was on page 76. There are three major projects in years 2-4— pool mezzanine, <br /> 3 building addition of turf field, and phase 3 of an indoor court. There are revenues that would be <br /> 4 generated to pay for debt service of these items. <br /> 5 Commissioner McKee said he would question the users of the turf field since Orange <br /> 6 County already has a soccer complex. He would like to flag this. <br /> 7 Chair Jacobs asked Paul Laughton to refresh the Board about the finances for the <br /> 8 Triangle Sportsplex. <br /> 9 Paul Laughton said the income generated should cover the costs. It is a separate <br /> 10 enterprise fund. John Stock's company contracts with Orange County for him to manage this <br /> 11 facility. It is outside of the General Fund. <br /> 12 Commissioner Gordon asked how much the County has to pay on the debt for building <br /> 13 this facility. <br /> 14 Clarence Grier said all of the debt service would be paid by 2027. The County pays <br /> 15 $350,000/year and it owes $5.1 million. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Paul Laughton said this completes the CIP, but he can go over any of the attachments or <br /> 19 revisions if the Board would like. Attachments A-C have any changes highlighted in yellow. <br /> 20 Chair Jacobs said the County has been asked to help with improvements with the <br /> 21 courtroom. Paul Laughton said staff would get this information to the Board soon. The cost is <br /> 22 about $100,000. It is in the IT budget and it would be in year 1. <br /> 23 Commissioner Gordon asked where this money would come from and Clarence Grier <br /> 24 said it would be part of the debt financing for that year. <br /> 25 Paul Laughton made reference to Attachments D and E and said this is an attempt to <br /> 26 look at debt financing over a ten-year period instead of a five-year period. Attachment D-1 was <br /> 27 looking at all projects that are currently in the CIP, including the out years. The park projects <br /> 28 are heavy on the out years and the County projects look at the inner years. Attachment D-1 <br /> 29 gives the impact and the debt service and where the debt capacity is on all of the projects, <br /> 30 County and schools. In year six, the County would be over the debt capacity and it grows from <br /> 31 there. <br /> 32 Commissioner Gordon made reference to her handouts. She said they should be <br /> 33 pleased that the changes in the CIP projects have been moving the debt capacity in a positive <br /> 34 direction. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Her handout is below: <br /> 37 <br /> 38 County Debt Service and Debt Capacity <br /> 39 <br /> 40 The two charts below compare the debt service and debt capacity numbers presented in <br /> 41 (1) the Manager's recommended FY 2013-2018 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and <br /> 42 (2) Attachment D1 for the May 23 BOCC work session. The charts show years 1 through 6, <br /> 43 since those are the years for which numbers are available for both scenarios. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 In the Manager's recommended CIP, presented in March, the debt capacity figures for the first <br /> 46 five years of the CIP were provided. A subsequent inquiry revealed that in year 6, the debt <br /> 47 service was almost 17.5% and the excess spending was $4.8 million. For the May 23 work <br /> 48 session, the Board was given revised debt capacity figures in Attachment D1. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 A comparison of the two charts below reveals that the debt capacity scenarios calculated in May <br /> 51 are in every case better than the ones calculated in March. For example, in year 5 for the <br />