Eustis workshop firms up phased downtown capital plan and asks advisors to craft financing

The Eustis City Commission, in a workshop presentation, reviewed a phased capital program for downtown and asked financial advisers to craft a recommended financing approach before the next workshop. Dr. Richard Leavy outlined Phase One (near-term) and Phase Two (longer-term) project groupings and emphasized execution capacity and project management needs.

Phase One projects highlighted in the presentation include nearly 8 miles of city trails (estimated at about $5.8 million), a bandshell stage expansion ($450,000), doubling boat slips (roughly $2.0 million) and about 800 linear feet of seawall ($4.8 million). Staff also included a property-acquisition reserve of approximately $12 million. Leavy said the community center retrofit or replacement is not funded in Phase One and remains a Phase Two consideration.

Brent Wilder of PFM, the city’s municipal-finance adviser, briefed commissioners on financing choices. He explained pay-as-you-go versus borrowing, the difference between general-obligation bonds (which would require a Florida referendum) and revenue bonds, and the trade-offs between bank loans and public bond offerings. Using a $20 million, 20-year example, the team showed an estimated all-in true-interest cost near 4.5% for a bond offering versus a roughly 4.8% bank-loan estimate; staff cautioned these are market-dependent and subject to assumptions.

PFM also described interim financing tools—lines of credit or commercial paper—to bridge uncertainties as projects advance, and stressed the importance of credit ratings and investor appetite. The firm said Eustis’s water and sewer revenue bonds from 2016 were initially rated A1 and later upgraded (Moody’s notation given in the briefing as Aa3), which positions the city favorably for borrowing compared with lower-rated peers.

Commissioners pressed staff on economic-impact estimates; staff said REMI modeling can be run to estimate impacts but noted models depend heavily on input assumptions. Leavy emphasized focusing investments on assets the city controls (waterfront amenities, trails, entertainment venues) to attract private redevelopment on adjacent parcels rather than trying to directly build private projects.

The workshop concluded with three staff recommendations: accept the capital plan as a working framework, direct staff and PFM to prepare a preliminary financing strategy for the next workshop, and direct the city manager to place a memorandum-of-understanding (MOU) with a hotel applicant on the commission agenda for consideration. Commissioners expressed broad support for the first two recommendations and mixed views on whether to grant an exclusive MOU period to the current applicant; no formal roll-call vote was recorded.

Next steps: staff will refine project scopes and cost estimates, PFM will develop financing options and timing, and the commission will consider the MOU placement at a forthcoming meeting.