Item A - Nov.2004 Bond Issue - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ment into additional park blocks space. Tax increment funds from the Riverfront District would be considered as a funding source for an additional parking structure across High Street from the Community Safety Building, to be developed at a later date. Diagrams of the Downtown and Riverfront Urban Renewal Districts are attached as Exhibit A. Asset Sales: In the case of full consolidation of City Hall, 858 Pearl Street and the Atrium would be available for sale. If a non-City owned site is chosen for any facility, the existing City Hall and/or the parking lot across the street might be available for sale. It should be pointed out, however, that asset sales typically take several years to accomplish, and they frequently do not generate the level of proceeds that have been estimated; therefore, it is difficult to guarantee this funding source for projects unless the sale has occurred and proceeds are already in the City's coffers. If the asset sale proceeds fall short, another funding source may need to be used to sup- plement the financing plan. Interest Earnings on City Cash Balances: As cash sits in City coffers until it is needed for design or construction cost, interest will accrue. For bond-funded projects, interest earnings are not included as a funding source for a project, but for City cash funded projects, it is appropriate to include a conservative amount for estimated interest earnings. Other Miscellaneous Funds: A number of other miscellaneous funding sources could be applied to this project. For instance, it might be possible to sell energy tax credits, to receive EWEB energy rebates, or to receive grants from other levels of government for the project. A small placeholder is shown in the financing plan for these kinds of items. Impact on Debt Burden and Debt Policies It is also essential to examine the impact of the bonding proposals on the City's debt burden. The chart below sets out the impact of each of the proposals against the City's debt policy limit of 1.0% of debt to real market value, assuming that the debt is issued immediately. As can be seen, all of the proposals would result in a debt burden that is within the policy limits. It should be noted, however, that Option D results in a net direct debt burden of 0.98% in the year the G.O. Bonds are issued, which would mean that there is insufficient room under the policy limit to issue any other debt until some of the existing debt is retired. Net Direct Net Direct Debt to Real Debt Debt to Real Debt Market GO Bonds Limited Tax Outstanding in Market Value Outstanding in Value in Issued Bonds Issued FY05 in FY05 FY10 FY10 Option B $12.6 million -- $57.5 million 0.49% $40.4 million 0.27% Option C1 $22.1 million -- $66.8 million 0.57% $47.4 million 0.32% Option C2 $47.8 million -- $92.7 million 0.79% $66.8 million 0.45% Option D $70.8 million $10.0 million $115.7 million 0.98% $93.5 million 0.63%