Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> 1 • Key Debt Ratio Growth Assumptions: <br /> 2 — Assessed Value — Natural Growth: 2018 & Beyond: 1.70% <br /> 3 — General Fund Revenues — Natural Growth: 2018 & Beyond: 2.00% plus <br /> 4 revenue derived from projected tax increases identified in the capital funding <br /> 5 plan (note: revenues include sales tax). <br /> 6 <br /> 7 2017 CIP Alternative#1 — Future Debt Financings- graph- page 21 <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Summary of Results —2017 CIP Alternative #1- page 22 <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Debt Affordability Analysis <br /> 12 <br /> 13 2017 CIP Alternative#1 Debt— No Tax Adjustment- page 23 <br /> 14 • FY 2018 Value of a Penny: $1,781,692 <br /> 15 • Assumed FY 2019 & Beyond Growth Rate: 1.70% <br /> 16 • Note: Without a tax increase, the County is forecasted to have shortfalls from FY 2019 <br /> 17 to 2027 totaling $74,426,098. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Commissioner Jacobs said another bond, of comparable size, will be needed in the <br /> 20 future, and asked if there is a timeline on this. <br /> 21 Ted Cole said there are needs going forward, and the current CIP is being worked with. <br /> 22 He said it is not demonstrated well on this page, but if the County moved forward with an <br /> 23 upfront adjustment of 5.5 pennies, the County would have new dollars available for debt service <br /> 24 in FY 2025. He said this particular CIP goes to FY 2022, and dollars are available beyond what <br /> 25 is needed for this CIP beginning in FY 2025. He said the County could do a borrowing in 2024, <br /> 26 and the new debt service would start in 2025. He said there is a little bit of a gap between 2022 <br /> 27 and 2024, but that is likely the next CIP horizon, and there will be some debt affordability. He <br /> 28 said this debt affordability has yet to be measured, but it is a continuation of this whole process. <br /> 29 He said he could measure "x" million in 2024, 2025, 2026, etc. He said a GO bond <br /> 30 authorization is good for a 7-year period, and it is fairly straightforward to get it extended to 10 <br /> 31 years. He said this debt should be fully issued by FY 2022, which is on a somewhat aggressive <br /> 32 schedule, and there may be a couple of years that they could stretch GO authorization out to <br /> 33 2024. <br /> 34 Commissioner Jacobs said when the Board passed a bond in 2016, he doubted that the <br /> 35 public realized that other comparable projects would not be able to be accomplished until 2029. <br /> 36 He said he does not think projects were prioritized with this in mind. <br /> 37 Commissioner McKee asked if the possibility of pushing out anything would depend on <br /> 38 when the projects were built. <br /> 39 Ted Cole said it would be striking a balance between wanting projects sooner and the <br /> 40 projects being too costly until a later date. He said the luxury of pushing out the debt issuance <br /> 41 may not be possible. <br /> 42 Commissioner McKee said a lot of these projects are very big and would eat up most of <br /> 43 the issuance debt. He said the County will be obligated to go at a faster rate, rather than <br /> 44 further out. <br /> 45 Ted Cole said for this very reason, the County may find that general fund revenues are <br /> 46 growing more quickly, and the future policy issue may work itself out because the revenue <br /> 47 component is higher than projected. <br /> 48 Commissioner Jacobs said this has conceptual implications on how the County deals <br /> 49 with large CIP projects going forward. He said even two bonds will not cover all the many <br /> 50 issues in the schools: health, safety, capacity, modernization, etc. He said this presentation <br />