|
CAPITAL
AREA REGIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
STEERING
COMMITTEE
NEWS RELEASE
September 13, 2004
SUBJECTS:
1.
New estimated long term bond amount
2.
Next Phase of Review – Sept.-Nov. 30:
local jurisdictions consider project sponsorship
3.
Steering Committee Meetings postponed during this phase – until Dec.
13, 2004
The
Capital Area Public Facilities District Steering Committee has issued revised
estimates for the amount of long term bonds that could be issued from PFD
revenues for a second project.
The
amount of PFD money received during the period of June, 2003 to July, 2004 is approximately $700,000.
Based on this current revenue, it is estimated that a long term bond
could be issued in an amount ranging from $9.6 million to $10.7 million, or
$12 million to $13 million. The
lower estimate ($9.6 million - $10.7 million) utilizes current revenue (i.e.
$700,000) to estimate bonding capacity, and anticipates an interest rate
ranging between 4% and 5%. The
higher estimate (i.e. $12 million - $13 million) makes the assumption there
will be annual growth in sales tax receipts, all of which would be applied
toward a bond with a structured debt retirement.
The lower estimate does not make this assumption, but rather
anticipates that any growth in sales tax receipts will be used for repair and
replacement over the life of the project.
The
Steering Committee has been advised that projects using PFD funds need a
government sponsor. Therefore,
the next work on project selection will be done by the governing bodies of the
jurisdictions in which the projects are located.
Between
now and the end of November,
the participating governments agreed to determine the answers to the following
three questions:
1.
Which
project(s) will you sponsor?
2.
How do
the projects relate to each criterion for reviewing projects?
3.
Is
there a clear financial plan, including:
a.
A
commitment of the legally required one-third match to the PFD money,
b.
Whether
the revenue projections are reasonable and
“do-able” , and
c.
How
continued operations and maintenance will be handled, and whether this seems
reasonable and “do-able?”
Once
each jurisdiction makes its sponsorship decision, the process will resume to
select a final project that all can agree to.
Meanwhile, the Steering Committee meetings are postponed, probably
until December 13, 2004.
The
review criteria that will be used during the sponsorship review are enclosed.
CONTACT:
Marie Cameron, Staff to the Steering Committee, Phone:
413-7486
Public Facilities District
Steering Committee
Criteria for Reviewing Project
Proposals
July 1, 2004
Meets Statutory Requirements - Project
eligibility for Public Facility District support is contingent upon meeting
the following statutory requirements:
1)
Qualifies as a “Regional Center”
2)
Costs
at least $10 million inclusive of debt
3)
Requires
a 1/3 local financing match. (Ensure that other jurisdictions are not
responsible for capital costs and ongoing operations, management, and
financial and legal risks.)
REVIEW CRITERIA
Viability of Proposal,
such as:
·
Evidence
and strength of market support. (Feasibility Study)
·
Functionality
and suitability of the proposed facility.
·
Realistic
cost, revenue, and use projections.
·
Realistic
management and operation plan.
·
Financial
capacity of the proposer. (Proven track record in construction and
management.)
·
Relevant
development experience of the proposer.
·
Relevant
experience and success of the proposed management team.
·
The
extent to which the project demonstrates self-sufficiency.
(Again, no additional financial support from the other jurisdictions is
required or requested.)
Economic Impact of the Project Proposal, such
as:
·
Initial
anticipated private and public investment amount. (Leveraged)
·
Anticipated
amount of future private and public investment. (Leveraged)
·
Projected
increase in visitor activity and tourism.
·
Projected
increase in visitor spending.
·
Anticipated
increases in hotel bed nights.
·
Increase
in revenues (e.g. property, B&O, lodging and sales tax).
·
Amount
of increased commercial and retail sales.
·
The
extent to which the project generates increased jobs and payroll.
·
Source
of local 1/3 match (private/public).
·
Potential
for revenue sharing.
·
Amount
of future public investment and risk.
·
The
extent to which the project stimulates economic and business development.
Responses of Proposal to Community
needs, such as:
·
The
extent to which the project benefits a broad range of residents and regional
user groups.
·
The
extent to which the project is available for use by residents and user groups
such as service clubs, athletic organizations, visitors, businesses, and the
like.
·
The
project supports a broad range of community needs/goals (e.g. historic,
educational, recreational, trade show, visual arts, and special events).
·
The
extent to which multiple community needs/goals are combined into one facility.
·
Could
the project be funded from other public or private sources?
Would it likely not happen without PFD funds?
Environmental Considerations
such as traffic, habitat, parking, noise, storm water and the like.
| 