City staff told the council on Nov. 25 that responses to an RFP for short‑term financing arrived from multiple firms, and that the proposals included bond anticipation notes and other structures with competitive rates and varying terms.

Speaker 4 said he received a PFM summary shortly before the meeting and will meet with PFM and bond counsel (Bass, Berry & Sims) to analyze which option best fits the city’s needs; staff cautioned that some proposals include ongoing disclosure or covenant terms that might be onerous. Speaker 4 said, "the interest rates were, all of them were competitive. Some of them, the terms were, more or less onerous." (Speaker 4)

Why it matters: choosing a financing vehicle affects the city’s borrowing costs and disclosure obligations and may influence the timing of planned capital projects. Staff indicated they will parse submissions into an apples‑to‑apples comparison and present a recommendation at a future meeting or a called session if warranted.

Next steps: staff will review proposals with PFM and counsel, prepare a digestible summary for council, and schedule a follow‑up meeting to decide which financing option to pursue.