Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Page 19- Future Debt Capacity— He said this shows the County's additional debt <br /> capacity beyond the 2018 fiscal year, for years 2019-2023. This page looks at the available <br /> debt capacity if the County were to fund the CIP. He said that there will be an additional $120 <br /> million debt capacity that could be issued while still maintaining compliance with policies and <br /> debt affordability. <br /> Page 20 — Future Debt Affordability—This shows that the cash flow is there. <br /> Page 21 - Potential Impacts on Future Debt Capacity— He said credit is a large factor, <br /> and maintaining good credit insures the lowest cost of capital. <br /> Page 23 - Observations— He said the County has managed its finances well and has <br /> excellent policies. He said the question is where the additional resources will come from to help <br /> pay for new debt service. <br /> Clarence Grier said staff goes through this exercise each time a credit package is <br /> created and debt is issued. He noted projects in the current capital plan include the Culbreth <br /> Middle School science wing addition, as well as a couple of other school projects. <br /> Chair Jacobs introduced Michael Talbert as the Interim County Manager. <br /> Robert High noted that the debt affordability chart does not include operational increases <br /> in the plan. This is noted throughout the book and will be a drain on growth increases. <br /> Commissioner Price asked what happens in years 2026-28 where the numbers appear <br /> to fluctuate. She reference page 11 and noted that the total in column f goes up. <br /> Ted Cole said this is tied to the existing debt. He said the annual payments are going <br /> down from one year to the next. He said there is a year in 2027 where the debt structure <br /> causes the number to go up. He said all of the debt matures at different years, and that is why <br /> this number dips and wanes. <br /> Chair Jacobs referred to page 13, and he noted that this includes 4 out of 5 years not <br /> approved by the County Commissioners. <br /> Clarence Grier said the County approves the structure every year, but as the current CIP <br /> stands the County has $76 million over the next 5 years. <br /> Chair Jacobs said the Board had talked about aligning the three CIPs so each would use <br /> the same language and the same projections. He said this has been identified as a source of <br /> confusion in the last budget year. <br /> Chair Brownstein said this is especially true with the unfunded categories. She said <br /> there needs to be a consensus as to where to put large ticket items that are not funded. She <br /> said each entity has a different definition for these. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked how this is reflected on page 13. <br /> Clarence Grier said the unfunded projects are not listed in this document. He said there <br /> needs to be discussion in the future about what is unfunded and how these items will be funded. <br /> He said he provided a sheet that gives the funding over the last 25 years and included <br /> the long term capital. He said the average of this for both school districts over the last 5 years <br /> has been roughly $5 million. He said that any project unfunded over that amount would be <br /> considered unfunded. He said the Board and school boards need to find a happy medium. <br /> Chair Coffey said that OCS considers any item that cannot be paid for with pay as you <br /> go funds to be an unfunded item. She said pay as you go money is maintenance money, and <br /> all big ticket items are unfunded. <br /> Clarence Grier said that is the benchmark that would most likely be used. He said these <br /> items would have to be financed, with consideration of the debt capacity. <br />