Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County financial adviser outlines five‑week timetable for proposed $6 million library bond
Summary
Budget staff presented a recommended timeline to the Budget Committee for issuing up to $6 million in bonds to fund library projects, including a super‑parameters resolution on April 29 and a June 3 close; staff outlined pros and cons of using the Municipal Building Authority versus sales tax revenue bonds.
The Davis County Budget Committee on April 14 heard a proposed timeline from the county’s finance staff and adviser for issuing up to $6 million in bonds to support library projects.
The finance staff recommended adopting a super‑parameters resolution at the commission meeting on Tuesday, April 29; requesting bids on May 2; opening bids and making an award on May 15; holding a public hearing on May 20; and closing the bond issuance on June 3. Staff said they favored a direct‑purchase approach with local lenders rather than marketing a small issuance to the national market.
Finance staff outlined two issuance options: sales tax revenue bonds (more flexible, roughly less expensive in annual cost) versus lease‑revenue bonds issued through the county’s Municipal Building Authority (MBA). Staff said using the MBA would cost an estimated roughly $9,000 more per year and about $20,000 more in total than the sales tax approach, but that the MBA option preserves sales tax bond “headroom” for other future projects such as flood control or recreation, which cannot use an MBA lease‑back structure.
Staff also noted that approximately $4 million of non‑bond funding would come from reserves established with proceeds from a prior tax increase approved in 2016 and that the county’s library department and financial advisers have prior experience with multiple branch projects.
Committee members asked for individual follow‑up and said they wanted to understand headroom implications for future projects before selecting an issuance structure; staff offered to meet individually with commissioners to discuss details.
Why it matters: The choice of bond structure affects annual debt service costs, flexibility for future capital projects and the county’s borrowing capacity.
Next steps: Staff asked the commission to consider the super‑parameters resolution on April 29 and to direct finance staff and the treasurer to proceed with the bid and award timeline if approved.
