Ross council hears stark financing outlook as consultants map options for $26M–$30M facilities plan

Town of Ross — Fieldman consultants and town staff on Thursday gave the Town Council a detailed briefing on the town’s capacity to pay for the facilities master plan and a competing Friends of the Ross Firehouse (FORF) proposal, concluding that the town would need new revenue streams before taking on meaningful long‑term debt.

Onie Veren of Fieldman Rele Associates and Dan Shaw, also with Fieldman, reviewed the town’s revenue profile, noting property tax receipts account for the lion’s share of general fund revenue. David Kelly, the town’s project manager for the master plan, said updated cost estimates for the council’s concept B range from $26 million to $30 million. Fieldman’s modeling showed annual debt service for that range would be roughly $1.7 million to $1.9 million. The FORF proposal presented earlier to council was shown as roughly $17.6 million with an estimated $1.1 million in annual debt service and an additional $3.4 million to $5 million in annual operating costs, depending on the scenario presented to the council.

“The town has limited financial capacity to fund the projects you’re considering,” David Kelly told the council, summarizing staff and consultant findings about constrained general‑fund resources and projected expense growth that outpace revenue. Fieldman emphasized Standard & Poor’s guidelines that municipal debt service generally should not exceed about 6–8% of annual revenues; several consultant scenarios put the combined annual burden for capital and operations well above that threshold — examples in the presentation ranged from roughly 24–30% up to 64–85% of current annual revenues, depending on which components are funded.

Dan Shaw reviewed potential revenue options and the voter thresholds required: a general obligation (GO) bond (2/3 voter approval) can fund capital only; a parcel tax (also typically 2/3) can fund operations or capital; a community facilities district (CFD, also called a Mello‑Roos special tax) can be structured in various ways but is administratively complex and typically costlier; and a real property transfer tax requires only a simple majority but is volatile and therefore less suitable as a stable revenue pledge for long‑term bonds.

Shaw summarized voter impacts with illustrative examples: a $10 million GO bond could require a levy on the order of $20 per $100,000 of assessed value (about $400 in year one on a $2 million assessed home in the consultants’ example); a $20 million or $30 million issuance would increase those levies proportionally. For lease‑style financings that do not require a ballot measure, Fieldman noted the town’s general fund would be on the hook for payments unless paired with a newly approved revenue measure (for example, a parcel tax).

During public comment resident Michael Rosenbomb asked whether senior or low‑income exemptions would reduce the parcel base and therefore raise per‑parcel levies; consultants replied that exemptions would increase per‑parcel costs in the hypothetical scenarios presented. Council members asked clarifying questions about assumptions, cost escalation and next steps.

Why it matters: consultants and staff framed the presentation as an early step to inform the council and residents before any ballot measure is developed. The analysis shows the town can undertake only limited debt using existing revenues and that any larger package would require voter approval of a dedicated revenue source and careful structuring of capital versus operating obligations.

Next steps: staff said RFQs and technical work are already underway (architecture/engineering, affordable housing studies, and municipal advisory services) and that further, more granular scenario planning will be needed once the council and advisory committees identify which specific master‑plan elements to prioritize.