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