Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee and staff outline bond path, financing tradeoffs and timing constraints
Summary
Presenters said a general obligation bond is the realistic financing route; the committee and staff discussed assessed‑value impacts, required 66.7% voter threshold, estimated tax effects, and an aggressive schematic timeline to meet ballot deadlines.
Committee members and staff told the council that a general obligation (GO) bond is the most feasible financing mechanism for brick‑and‑mortar costs; it requires a 0.667 supermajority and is based on parcel assessed value rather than a flat parcel tax.
Staff and a bond adviser cited example math: a $10 million GO at 4% over 30 years would require roughly $580,000 annually in payments; in Ross that translates to about $20 per $100,000 of assessed value (the committee noted a median assessed home value example). The staff emphasized that bond counsel, an underwriter, and rating agency processes would be needed if council proceeds.
The committee urged quick progress on schematic design and cost estimating so the council could decide whether to adopt an amended master plan before the county initiative withdrawal deadline (staff identified the county deadline as August 7). Committee members proposed hiring an owner’s representative, moving to RFP/RFQ for architects in May, completing schematic design in about three months, and aiming for a fall or special election if the council approves the plan and ballot language.
