HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.0302.TCOM.PacketNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
Mayor Wally Nichols
Vice Mayor Rick Melendez Councilwoman Kathy Nicola
Councilwoman Leesa Stevens Councilman John Kavanagh
Councilman Mike Archambault Councilwoman Susan Ralphe
WHEN: TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004
TIME: 6:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.
WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COMMUNITY CENTER (Ballrooms 1,2 & 3)
13001 N. LA MONTANA DR., FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL
Anyone wishing to speak before the Council must fill out a speaker's card and submit it to the Town Clerk
prior to Council discussion of that Agenda item. Speaker Cards are located in the Council Chamber
Lobby and near the Clerk's position on the dais.
Speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards were received either by the Clerk or the
Mayor. At that time, speakers should stand and approach the podium. Speakers are asked to state their
name prior to commenting and to direct their comments to the Presiding Officer and not to individual
Council Members. Speakers' statements should not be repetitive. If a speaker chooses not to speak
when called, the speaker will be deemed to have waived his or her opportunity to speak on the matter.
Speakers may not (i) reserve a portion of their time for a later time or (ii) transfer any portion of their
time to another speaker.
Individual speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Council. Time limits may be
waived by (i) discretion of the Town Manager upon request by the speaker not less than 24 hours prior
to a Meeting, (ii) consensus of the Council at Meeting or (iii) the Mayor either prior to or during a
Meeting. Please be respectful when making your comments. If you do not comply with these rules,
you will be asked to leave.
E:\Clerk\AGENDAS\REGULAR\2004\Public Hearing Civic Center Phase II Funding 3-2-04.doe 3/1/2004
0 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL — Mayor Nichols
0 PLEDGE TO THE FLAG — Mayor Nichols
AGENDA ITEMS
1.) PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on what funding source should be used for the Civic
Center Phase II project.
2.)
DATED this 1" day of March, 2004
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons
with disabilities. Please call 837-2003 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to
the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting or to
obtain agenda information in large print format.
Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's
office.
E:\Clerk\AGENDAS\REGULAR\2004\Public Hearing Civic Center Phase II Funding 3-2-04.doc 3/1/2004
Fountain Hills Town Hall Funding Alternatives
John McNeill, March 2, 2004
1. What is the cost?
• June, 2003 - $1.5 million planned for fiscal 2004 (June `04 to June
'05) and fiscal 2005 - $3.0 million total
• January, 2004 retreat - $3.5 million
• February 19, 2004 Council meeting - $4.5 million used when pay as
you go looked at, somehow grows to $5.3 million if bonds used
• WHAT IS IT?
2. Staff Proposal — Pay as You Go — Is it in accordance with Council policy?
• Council adopted a "Debt Policy" on May 1, 2003, amended on August
21, 2003 to pay for some capital project on an "as you go" basis
• Minutes reflect that the town should still have "Bonding alternatives
for `Big Ticket' items", and should be "building up and maintaining
fund balances"
3. Moody's
• Moody's primary concern, as cited in the town's most recent quarterly
report and Staff's 2-19-04 report is that the town's cash fund balances
be increased
• Pay -as -You -Go DECREASES the cash available to the town,
compared to borrowing a substantial portion of the cost — would likely
cause more concern to Moody's than borrowing
• Moody's rating of the town's credit doesn't actually reflect the rating
of the bonds issued by the town in recent years, ALL of which are
rated Aaa/AAA because they are insured.
4. Why borrow and how much?
• Long term borrowing for a town hall spreads the cost to future users —
not just people who pay sales taxes over the next 2 years — It is FAIR.
• If a property tax is used, it would help diversify the town's tax base
• Even a sales tax based bond would spread the cost and reduce cash
flows
• The town SHOULD use all available cash from development fees
(now $400,0000, because if they aren't used after 6 years they must be
returned
(over)
Mayor Nichols and Council members:
I would like to give you some further thoughts on the financing of the new town
hall/senior center.
I urge you to reconsider the idea of spending down our cash reserves to build a
project that will be used by generations of residents. Just as many people have
refinanced their home mortgages to improve cash flow due to the current record
low lending rates, the town should use this opportunity to finance a large portion
of this large expense with long-term bonds (whether based on sales taxes or a
property tax). All concerns regarding the town's Aa3 rating (with negative watch)
from Moody's could easily be resolved by obtaining insurance for the bond, which
at relatively low cost would boost the bond rating to the highest AAA rating. (By
the way, I have found that another major ratings service, Fitch, rates FH Aa3,
with NO watch warning)
My bonding/financial experience
During my over 25 years in public utility law, I have been a key member of the
negotiating teams for several municipal bond issues ( for pollution control
revenue bonds) that totaled in excess of $150 million, a leveraged lease of
generating facilities (which included a municipal bond component) for over $500
million, as well as numerous other financial transactions including long term
mortgage loans of several hundreds of millions, a commercial paper program for
over $50 million, long-term and short-term credit facilities, etc. I've spent plenty of
time in meetings with Smith Barney, Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street
investment bankers — and have also dealt with both S&P and Moody's on behalf
of my client.
Policy issues
There was no way I could cover in my 3 minutes at your last meeting all of the
issues raised by the proposed immediate construction of a town hall and
payment with current cash; however, foremost is what I believe is an immense
credibility issue with the town's citizenry — by proceeding with little public input,
without adequate examination of the alternatives and by spending current cash
just months after laying off a large number of town staff, declaring fiscal
emergency, refusing to buy even the 30 acres of trust land that our Parks staff
says would be needed because "we can't afford it", etc., etc., etc. — and even
flying in the face of the foremost point of Moody's criticism — that FH should,
above all, build its fund balances. The cash funding proposal would deplete our
reserves and leave less cash to address future needs or any emergency.
I don't dispute that even there are issues with the existing facility, though the
lease rate is one of the lowest rates/square foot available in FH, and that a town -
owned facility would make long-term economic sense. As millions of
homeowners know, it is better, if you intend to be in the same place for a long
time, to own than to rent. In fact, when I met with Mr. Pickering a couple of weeks
ago, I volunteered to work for the passage of a property tax based bond if council
chose to seek such funding.
I am glad that you have put off the funding decision for a short period of time to
allow additional facts to be presented and for the public to comment. I hope that
you will do that in at least 2 steps — first a session where information on ALL the
potential methods of funding are explained to the public — and second a session
where the public can have input on the choices that are available. At the first
information session, it would be useful to have the town's bond counsel, from the
Gust Rosenfeld firm, and perhaps a financing expert from the Arizona League of
Cities and Towns, available to answer questions from council and the public.
It would certainly be unreasonable to expect significant public input if options
and facts are not made available to the public beforehand. For example, no one
should be surprised that only about 5 persons spoke to the town hall issues last
week when the first notice most citizens had of it was in the Times article one day
before the meeting. I would hope you would have meetings/hearings spaced so
that the Times, Republic and Tribune can report the information on the choices,
allow reasonable time for the public to digest it, then have a hearing for public
input on the financing method.
Debt costs are at all-time lows
We currently have the lowest rates available for municipal borrowing in my
memory. Why you would choose not to borrow 2, 3 and 4 percent money for
town hall instead of spending down your reserves, raiding dedicated funds, and
further delaying skate park construction and other worthy projects that could
proceed sooner if the cash flow needs for the town hall were reduced by
financing at such low rates is absolutely beyond me. These rates may not be
available in a few years if the town needs a bond to pay for road reconstruction
or other projects. The cash you save now could be better used then.
The Town's Pay as You Go policy doesn't apply to Big Ticket items
I come from a public policy perspective that says that long term capital projects,
like the mountains, the community center, the library and the "picture postcard"
land should be paid for over a long time because they will be used by several
generations of citizens. I had THOUGHT that the Council and Town Manager
came from that same perspective because even while adopting a financial policy
that endorsed the accumulation of reserves so that certain projects could be paid
for on an "as -you -go" basis, the policy also recognized the need to examine
bonding alternatives for "big ticket" items.
The resolution that was before you last week referred to a "pay-as-you-go"
philosophy promoted in the "Debt Policy" adopted by Council on August 21,
2003. However, that item was a consent item and was not the subject of any
council policy discussion. The August Policy amended the much more extensive
"Debt Policy" adopted on May 1, 2003 after extensive discussion by Council and
staff. The minutes of that meeting reflect that "the most important element of the
financial policies" and the "area... most criticized by Moody's" was "the fund
balance". The minutes go on to reflect discussion of "the importance of
developing a "pay as you go" system, bonding alternatives for "Big Ticket"
items, and the benefits of building up and maintaining fund balances"
(emphasis added). Councilman Kavanagh commented that "Moody's was saying
that the town should consider funding vital services through the implementation
of a property tax".
Moody's wants higher reserves
The importance of building reserve fund balances was repeatedly emphasized in
the staff reports at your last meeting (see page 4, "Quarterly Report" and slide
on "Fund Balance trend" (which said the balance "should show a five year
upward trend")).
Yet the use of cash reserves in lieu of borrowing for the funds needed for a
town hall will actually DECREASE available cash reserves by nearly the full
amount of cash expended (less only borrowing costs) over the next 2 years, as
opposed to building it back to or above the nearly $7 million level we had in 1999
before the lake liner, the dam heightening, the unfunded fire obligation, etc.
Factual issues
In addition to the policy issues posed by the staff recommendation, there are
factual discrepancies regarding the town hall. The public deserves to have them
addressed.
Cost
First, what is the actual cost of the project?
In June, 2003, you approved a budget that included $1.5 million in fiscal 2004-
2005 and another $1.5 million in fiscal 2005-2006 — for a total of $3.0 million and
an end date extending beyond the June, 2005 date staff is now recommending
that town hall be completed.
At your retreat in January, 2004, a figure of $3.5 million was discussed. A
month later, the figure has mushroomed to either $4.5 million (see slides 3 and
5) or $5.3 million (see fiscal impact and slidel5).
What happened? Where is the extra money going? Is it really necessary to buy
$500,000 of new furniture and equipment? What happened to the idea of using
temporary buildings if needed?
Short term alternatives
Mr. Pickering may be correct that there is no building with 30,000 square feet to
rent (unless, of course, the town extends its current "Non -lease" for another year
or so) in a single location. However, portions of the Community Center, modular
buildings, and a relatively small amount of leased space (in more than one
location) could surely be made to work for a number of months if necessary. I
spoke to a contractor friend yesterday who said that used double -wide modular
buildings are available to buy for around $11-12,000 and new ones were around
$20,000 (for 1,200 or more feet). Leasing for a year or so would cost far less.
The town hall parcel could easily accommodate temporary buildings of well over
10,000 square feet, which could be resold when they are no longer needed.
Leased modular buildings are also readily available. I have spoken to a
representative of one firm which currently has a nearly 9,000 foot building
available, as well as standard 24X60 or other sizes, and hope to have rental
quotes from him soon.
Property tax funding is one alternative
Mr. Pickering and members of Council have mentioned the need to diversify the
town's revenue sources and tax base on many occasions.
In my view the best way to do that in connection with the town hall would be
through a property tax. If the town cannot stay in its present offices past June,
2005, why not take a serious look at temporary buildings and leased space for
the relatively brief time it would take to take such bonds to a vote of the people. I
would hope that Mr. McGuire could find a way to get the issue to a vote earlier
than May 2005. State law permits many types of town elections 2 months before
the November general election, at the November election, etc., in addition to the
May date.
Other factual questions
The presentation made by staff raised a number of other questions.
Amount of leased space and utilities and other costs
First, although the premise is that the town is currently leasing far more space
(42,000 feet) than it needs, all cost comparisons showing the cost of continuing
to lease appear to show costs based on the same 42,000 feet over 10 years or
longer. If the town only needs 30,000 feet, it should only rent 30,000 and the
projections should be based on that — not 42,000. In fact, I believe that the town
has already notified Dr. Luykenda that it intends to vacate one building. It is
inappropriate to use cost projections for leasing that assume a higher footage
than we need or want. Why not show projections based on 30,000 feet, and if a
property tax is sought, the alternative of using leased or purchased modular
space for a time?
Second, slide 3, showing comparison of costs over 15 years not only includes
the lease costs at the amount for a 42,000 ft. lease, it also adds in all costs for
utilities and maintenance, while comparing it to only the straight construction cost
(here using only $4.5 — but later showing $5.3 mil) for a new building. Please get
it guaranteed in writing from your architect and contractors, because the cost
"comparison" assumes that only leased buildings have utility bills, maintenance
costs and landscaping needs — apparently our new town hall is assumed to be an
entirely self-sustaining building requiring no heating, cooling, water, lights or
repairs! Councilperson Nicola attempted to get an answer from Mr. Pickering on
this discrepancy. What I heard in response did not address the error.
The same error is repeated on slide 16, which shows rent for more space than is
needed and utilities of $2.33 million for rented space, while showing no utility cost
at all for an owned building.
These errors result in substantial misstatements of "comparisons". I think they
help demonstrate the need to SLOW DOWN and make a decision based on
correct information, which is shared with the public in time for them to have
meaningful input.
Cost of financing
At the council meeting I passed out a sheet showing the cost to borrow the entire
amount shown in staff's report, $5.460 million, which assumes a cost of
construction of $5.3 million (again, how did that number get so high) and
issuance costs of $160,000, in part to refute the data that projected financing
costs would increase the total cost to $8.3 million — a number that appears to be
unrealistically high.
However, if bonds were issued, whether sales tax based or property tax based,
agree it would not be appropriate to finance 100% of the cost. In fact it
would be irresponsible to not spend at least most of the development fees
of $393,000 shown by staff. That number could be quite higher if additional
development fees are collected between now and project completion, or if the
development fees are increased (and/or new ones — such as for fire protection,
including administration — are adopted). If the town doesn't spend the money
earmarked for administration capital needs the town would have to refund the
money after 6 years.
Staff's numbers also show a windfall to the town of $602,000 in the form of
projected sales tax rebates which are no longer expected to be paid and 401 K
contributions by the town to former employees who were not yet vested. In my
opinion it would be better to spend most of such a windfall on the long delayed
skate park or other amenities that the people have been told they must wait for
due to our supposedly "dire" financial condition, when we can borrow for town
hall at 2, 3 and 4 percent. However, I don't think it would be unreasonable to
spend some of it on a new town hall.
I am guessing that increases and additional development fees might bring in
another $200,000 or so before July 2005 There is also a small amount from the
sale of police cars.
All told, I think it would be reasonable to pay for around $1 million from these
sources. That's about the same as the 20 percent down payment I recently made
on my own new home.
What then must be financed through bonds?
I would work backwards to get at that number. The staff projections for a
financed building show a construction cost of $4 million, with Architect fees of 0.4
mil. That, plus the cost of issuance COI), and LESS the $1 million from the cash
sources discussed above is what I would suggest that you finance, using a
variety of maturities of bonds. Since part of the COI is based on the value of the
bonds being issued the cost should be less than the $160,000 projected —
perhaps $125,000.
I did not include any contingency or FF&E in the financed cost. The contingency
is not needed (especially a $900,000 or 20 percent contingency!) if cost
projections are well done. It seems questionable whether the town should spend
half a million on new furniture, etc. instead of reusing as much as possible from
its existing offices (I understand that some of the money is for fixtures and is
unavoidable although perhaps some could be deferred).
Conclusion
To summarize:
Cash: $1 million
Financed: $3.525 million
If you only used the development fees to pay the cash portion and spent the
windfall on other things, the amount financed would go up to around $4 million.
This would take the maximum advantage of today's low lending rates while using
all of the money that can ONLY be spent on administration projects.
If you happened to save the sheet I distributed that shows the costs for a) 10
year, b) 20 year or c) a mixture of 2 to 20 year bonds ( the best scenario — in my
opinion - because some of the money is borrowed at only 1 % and 2%), you can
simply apply percentages of 64.6% (for $3.525 mil, or 73.3% (for $4 million) to
adjust the annual and total numbers to reflect the reduced amount of borrowing.
If anyone would like that sheet again, with the numbers changed to reflect partial
cash payment, I would be pleased to provide it.
For the mixed 2 to 20 year bonds, the cost of $3.525 million over the entire 20
years would be about $4.525 mllion, with annual (fully amortized) costs of
$533,000 in years 1 and 2, $370,000 in years 3 through 5, $233,000 in years 6-
10, and only $119,000 in years 11-20. Please keep in mind that those costs were
calculated at a lower credit rating than the town has. If insured bonds were
issues the effective interest rate could be lower — interest rates have also come
down further just since last week. The cash flows (and bond reserves) could be
reduced even more if a 30 year set of bonds was included, although total interest
cost would increase slightly.
In the mean time, several million dollars would be available in the short term to
implement Moody's advice to build reserves, to save money for the major road
work that is needed, and to pay for needed smaller projects and services
I would be pleased to respond to any questions or provide any further
information.
John McNeill
14508 N Creosote Ct
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
837-1306
Civic Center Phase II Financing
— A cost saving project
Julie Ghetti, MPA, CPA, Accounting Supervisor
Don Thumith, Facilities Supervisor
Tim Pickering, CM, CEcD, Town Manager
March 2, 2004
DRAFT
Lease vs build — 15 year estimate
Lease, utilities, maintenance $13.11YI
($656,520 per year - 42,000 sq ft)
(adjusted for inflation)
Estimated cost of new building 4.5M
(without financing)
Savings first fifteen years $ 8.6M
1
�7 Building now versus later
Costs for rent, taxes and maintenance will continue
to increase, estimated 4% annually
Town is paying for 40% more space than needed
Town is on a month -to -month basis with unsigned
lease
Original term of unsigned lease is scheduled to
expire June 30, 2005
Seniors have inadequate space, ADA compliance
issues
A town -owned building would guarantee long term
savings as well as provide another asset for the
town
DRAFT Fil
Financing options
■ Grants
■ Sell assets
■ Bond issue
■ Internal borrowing EY
■ Pay-as-you-go
DRAFT
2
ch
=7=0==
Town FRlolicy
■ "Pay-as-you-go" given highest priority
■ Town debt service costs shall not exceed 20% of
Town's operating revenue
■ Debt repayment schedule no more than fifteen
(15) years
■ Town will seek to maintain and, if possible, �,
improve the current bond rating (Aa3) in order to
w,
minimize borrowing costs E,
■ Municipal Property Corporation and contractual
debt, which is non-voter approved, will be utilized
only when a dedicated revenue source can be
identified to pay debt service expenses
DRAFT El
Option 1: 100% Cash
Project was included in 5 year Capital
Improvement Plan for construction in
FY2005 utilizing pay-as-you-go
Fund balance reserved for capital projects has
$1M
5 year projection shows operating surplus of
$1+M annually for capital projects;.
Development fees and enacted revenue
enhancements will provide an additional $1M
The savings gained from making a sacrifice now
will provide resources for future capital
projects
DRAFT El
3
Cash resources
Proposed cash resources through 6/30/05:
Current fiscal year savings $ 552,400
Development Fees $ 392,700
Enacted revenue enhancements $ 601,700
Fund Balance reserved for capital $1,093,000
FY04-05 General Fund available $1,071,500
Proceeds from sale of assets $ 21,700
Total Cash Available $3,733,000
Internal Cash Borrowing $1,696,000
Total $5,429,000
DRAFT
Option 2: Cash and Borrowing
Financial policies require analysis of:
■ Debt outstanding as percent of legal debt limit
■ Bonded debt per capita
■ Debt service as percent of assessed value
■ Fund balance trend
■ Expenditure trend
■ Debt ratio (debt service/total revenues)
DRAFT
91
Debt outstanding to legal limit
1.
z00%
100%
FY98-99 FY99-00 FY00-01 FY01-02 FY02-03
Bonded debt per capita
_.._— ._ .... 2.
600
50 --
100
FY98-99 FY99-00 FY00-01 FY01-02 FY02-03
Debt service as percent of assessed value
4.5%
FY98-99 FY99-M FY00-01 FY01-02 FY02-03
All charts should show a 5 year
downward trend
DRAFT
Fund balance trend
Expenditure trend
5
slz,000,000
$9,500,OOD
$7,ON,000
FY98-99 FY99-00 FY00-01 FYUI-02 FY02-03
Debt service to total revenues 0
200% __ __- .. ....... __-.__..__
lo.o%
FY98-99 FY99-00 FY00-01 FY01-02 FY02-03
a.
$7,000,000
$5,000,000
$3,000,000
FY98-99 FY99-00 FY00-01 F'Y01-02 FY02-03
Above chart should show a five year
upward trend
Moody's Investors Services based their negative
outlook on Town's drawdown of reserves and lack of
adopted debt policies
DRAFT
5
- Summary of 37I/2004
teleconference with Moody's
Investors Service
If bonding will be considered a dedicated
source of payments must be identified
Moody's is looking for fund balance to be
restored to historic levels ($6M)
Moody's bond rating committee will be
reviewing Town of Fountain Hills
negative outlook rating by end of this
week
DRAFT
Debt Payment and local tax rate
for retirement
Amount Annual Debt Local Tax
Financed Payment Rate Required
$3.1 M $320,000 0.100/0
$1.6M $165,000 0.050/0
Bond financing requires a dedicated revenue source,
maximum borrowing capacity using excess
mountain sales tax is $3.1M (excess collected each
year is approximately $350,000)
DRAFT Efl
a
Cost Comparison (15 Years)
100% Pay as you go Borrow $3.1 Million Borrow $1.6 Million
Construction' $4.00M
Architect $0.40M
FF&E $0.50M
Contingency $0.40M
Total $5.30M
Construction
$4.00M
Architect
$0.40M
Contingency
$0.90M
COI*
$0.13M
Interest
$1.50M
Total $6.93M
' Includes expansion and Senior Center
*Costs of issuance
DRAFT
Construction
$4.00M
Architect
$0.40M
Contingency
$0.90M
COI*
$0.12M
Interest
$0.80M
Total $6.22M
-I I IW N OF FOUNTAQJ HILLS
t 11 c,eneral Fund (Revised 2/2/04)
{'
11X ALYBP.RS 2Odt-2009
{
_.
..
......
! ..... _ j
1 C. F a.....
Fiscal
Year
200}2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
20062007
2007-2008
2008-2009 t
._....._.._.. __
IL ou ee6
€
Reven
$2,046.281
S2,707,067
$3.653.048
$3,529,132
$3.372.495
$3.680.887
('on[tib t- n Io Fund Balance
($514.983)`
(E3m AX%1)
1E165 )MI !
)
o y
($�27,(MXI
$201,01X1
t ).
($271.0(q)' E
l lndesiennlud Iiesc ryes
.......... ._
$1.092.951
($300.000)
($300,000)
($300,000)
t$192,951)
1'3cR ('.p 1F Financing
E676,630
$1,016.460?
E1,241,360
(S63 tH0)
�._. ..c...
f672,000
.......
$1,000.000?
Tra nsl— lu/I n. moth e r ClPfun ds
.. ..... -
$1.696,695
(EI,G9G.G9$
$1,6M. 104);
1$1,M0,980)€
E7,531298 ':
E6.208,173 #
$2,732,713
E2,939092
$],941,391
j -52j75,956
['a ��il al F uncmg 1'utential
..... ............ _... __.
Min Censer Phase II
E320.UM)
$1.5IX1.(1W 5100,000.
Iodate Fire Station
acted Tot Lot and Playg 'Donal Fin Puck
$320.1MM1
)nh Sidewalk -Fountain Park
$I97AMMI
F
n��n�nncc P.Id- Fountain Punk
$IH_i.(MMI
�E901MM1
t
lilt,/Itch Ib Vchicle(Fur rep)._
I,
'nic '_.
ti III Remedas mtl Aseoaaled
_
....._. I _______.........
I -In Pak i
gay) 670
inlul.0 np A—pak
1.�y Fountain Pak
112,(1N1
.............
Wk)ng Path Ph— 111 F untvn Pzuk
8214,OW
-
y/des gn f 1 hll hry 1 I :a. F.uk
`
F2111-)�
lase IIC n in,n 1 1, .J, P.vk
_ - -1�
$1511,-1)
st Pki gLd F—n t Pvk .....-..i..1....._
nldren Mist Feet— GFP
--. .......
use H Design fees - D VNP
aseIIConstruction DVNP
rinkler System Reconstruct - Fin Perk
BMX Track
__. _..
n yu:it lc I i.c I—lity
It�1)eiuilile t'upilal P,nI,, 1. I1,11.1nce
DRAFT
1 $1.929AMMI. $2,381,000
se xl
......_.
.._...... .....-
saes �xx)
c�x,ulm
$30.txx>
I N)IHNI
.. ........ _ ._._..._
$2j97400D``-$672000.
$1i—IMMI
.......... E _..__........
i562.092
El 269_391 $ I 515 95e
7
SUMMARY
If Moody's removes the negative outlook
rating on Town's General Obligation
bonds the staff is comfortable making a
recommendation for funding civic center
phase II with a combination of cash and
up to approximately $3M in bonds.
DRAFT
1