Treasurer briefs commissioners on $11.7 million PFD project and proposed bond financing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
County Treasurer Deborah Gardner and Public Facilities District staff updated the board on Phase 1 financing for a Public Facilities District project, presenting an $11.7 million design‑build budget, Department of Commerce feasibility review results, and a proposed bond issuance supported by a sales‑tax rebate; bond documents are expected to come to the board soon for approval.
County Treasurer Deborah Gardner presented a workshop update on Phase 1 financing for the Public Facilities District (PFD). She told the board a third amendment to the interlocal agreement and a resolution authorizing the county to issue bonds will be presented for the chair’s signature and board approval in upcoming agenda materials.
Treasurer Gardner said the county would act as the issuer and that the PFD remains responsible for project debt service, which is expected to be repaid from a state sales‑tax rebate tied to the project. Department/PFD staff (Bob Gregory and a county/PFD staff member who identified as Dave) described an independent feasibility review overseen by the Washington State Department of Commerce. That review included multiple stress tests — including scenarios with no increases in sales or lodging tax over 20 years and higher expenses — and concluded the sales‑tax rebate and reserves provide adequate capacity to cover projected debt service.
PFD staff explained the project is using a progressive design‑build delivery and has a prescribed project budget of $11,700,000 that must cover permits, design, and construction; staff said the schematic design process will culminate in a guaranteed maximum price negotiated with the selected design‑build team. Seating and spectator accommodations for a sports facility were discussed as a priority for generating revenue through tournaments, and staff said phase‑2 components are on pause pending an updated market study.
Treasurer Gardner said the schedule is somewhat flexible: documents are expected to be routed to the board the week of Feb. 17 and a bond closing originally targeted for March may move toward May 1 depending on final schedule coordination. County staff asked that the board review forthcoming documents and be prepared to act when the bond resolution and interlocal amendment appear on a future agenda.
Next steps: the county will present bond and interlocal amendment documents to the board for approval; the PFD and county will continue schematic design work and negotiate a guaranteed maximum price with the selected design‑build team.
