2017-03-12-AC-STM-rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

of $117,750 in funds under Article 16(e): Public Facilities Bid Documents of the 2017 Annual Town Meeting. A minority of the Committee recommends deferring approval of this article because they would prefer to have more extended discussions of comparisons of the proposed plan with a range of alternative plans taking into account LPS needs at the elementary and high school levels. They argue that the LCP pro- gram at present has a student enrollment equivalent to 127 "slots" but has a total capacity of 157 slots. They further argue that obtaining more capacity for the LCP and freeing up 2 -4 general education class- rooms at the Harrington School do not together justify a price tag of roughly $26 million for the purchase of the property and the building renovations for the LCP. They also would prioritize the expansion of the LexCC below those of other upcoming school and public safety facility capital projects, and therefore do not want to proceed towards spending approximately $6 million on the renovations for the cafeteria and gym portion of the building for the LexCC at this time. Finally, the minority position is that, with the renovation cost estimates so high for both the LCP and LexCC portions of the building, it would make sense to evaluate the option to build a brand new facility for the LCP and compare the pros and cons with the current plan to renovate. The Committee recommends approval of this article (7 -2) Article 2017 -1.5: Appropriate Bonds and Notes Premiums to Pay Project Costs Funds Requested Funding Source Committee Recommendation See Below Premiums Approval (9 -0) This article provides for the appropriation of premiums received by the Town in connection with a bond and note sale made on February 16, 2017, to lower the amount of the associated borrowing. The article is included in the warrant in response to the Municipal Modernization Act (MMA), which was enacted in the summer of 2016 and became effective on November 1, 2016. Background It is common, in connection with the issuance of both corporate and public bonds, for underwriters to specify that the bonds will be issued at a stated interest rate based on the bond's "par" value, but effec- tively to adjust the interest costs paid by the borrower upwards or downwards, depending on market con- ditions, by selling those bonds at a premium or a discount. When a bond is sold at a premium, the effec- tive interest rate or "True Interest Cost" (TIC) paid by the borrower is lower than the stated interest rate on the bonds because some of the interest cost to be paid in the future is, in effect, returned to the borrow- er up front. The same practice is followed for Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs), which are short -term, interest -only loans made in anticipation of a future bond issuance and fully retired when the bonds are issued. This market practice raises the question of how municipalities should account for such bond and note premiums (collectively referred to as "bond premiums ") when received. Before the MMA was enacted, bond premiums for debt within the levy went into the General Fund and could be appropriated for any purpose; bond premiums for debt issued under a debt exclusion and exempt from the limits of Proposition 2'/2, on the other hand, had to either be reserved and applied against future interest costs of the particular borrowing for which they were received, or appropriated up front to lower the amount of the borrowing. Under the MMA, the rules have been changed for both exempt and non - exempt bond debt authorized and sold after that date. In the case of exempt debt, any bond premium, net of issuance costs, must be appro- priated up front to lower the amount of the borrowing. In the case of within -levy debt, the municipality 8