Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
September 25, 2024, Finance Committee Meeting - In-Person Meeting - Salah Meeting Room. Minutes
Saved text from 17 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original. Retrieved 2026-10-15.
Source page 1
Canton Finance Committee Minutes Voted on:
801 Washington Street Vote:
Canton, MA 02021
Joint Meeting of the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee
Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2024
Salah Meeting Room – Town Hall
Finance Committee Members Present: Dan Cole, John Leonetti, Emilio Mauro, Kristin Mirliani and Cindy Thomas.
Finance Committee Members absent: Dave Clough, Anne Lang, Maureen Menconi and Reuki Schutt.
Guests Present:
John Connolly, Select Board member
Dave Emhardt, Chair, Capital Planning Committee
Derek Folan, Superintendent, Canton Public Schools
Jason Green Capital Planning Committee
Ellen Jones, Recording Secretary
Lisa Lopez, Capital Planning Committee
Greg Murphy, Capital Planning Committee
Randy Scollins III, Finance Director
See below minutes for list of guests.
Call Meeting to Order: Mr. Mauro called the joint meeting of the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee
to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Mauro introduced himself as the Chair of the Finance Committee and asked that attendees
introduce themselves.
New Business - Mr. Mauro announced that the Finance Committee would be discussing the Galvin Middle School
Project and the funding for the project. Mr. Mauro turned the meeting over to the Finance Director, Randy Scollins.
William H. Galvin Middle School Building Project Funding Presentation – William Scollins, III
Mr. Scollins thanked Mr. Mauro. This is the second meeting discussing the Galvin Middle School Project.
Mr. Scollins gave an overview of the slides that would be presented as follows:
Slide 1 – Total Project Cost Estimate.
Slide 2 – During Construction: Timing of Construction Cost and Financing Estimates.
Slide 3 – Permanent Financing.
Slide 4 – Estimated Norfolk Count Retirement System (NCRS) Pension Assessment Savings.
Slide 5 – GMS Excluded Debt Impact on Single Family and Condominium Property Value Ranges If
Unused Levy Capacity & Pension Savings are Funding Sources
Slide 6 Debt Limit Calculation and Estimated Debt Limit Projections
Slide 7 – Tax Impact of $166.7 Million Debt Exclusion Project.
Mr. Scollins gave a detailed presentation of the funding for the Galvin Middle School Project as follows:
Slide 1 – Total Project Cost Estimate
• The total project cost estimate is $241.76 million which includes $11.7 million for contingencies. The project
would include GMS new construction and Grades 5 to 8 configurations. The project would also include an 800
seat auditorium, turf fields with lighting and partial geothermal (for public spaces).
• $1.5 million for feasibility costs has already been funded from Free Cash with a reimbursement rate of 52.88%
on the $1.5 million. (At the time of application for the project the reimbursement rate for the feasibility costs
was 47.31% but because of the evaluation of the project the MSBA awarded points for various reasons.)
FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 1 of 8 10/6/24Source page 2
• Construction costs of $240.26 million with a 30.618% reimbursement rate to be permanently funded with a
30-year bond at project completion in Fiscal 2030.
Mr. Mauro inquired about the effect on the Town’s debt capacity. Mr. Scollins explained that once the full amount of
the $241 million is borrowed for, that would count against the Town’s debt capacity. In slide 6, Mr. Scollins would
explain how the $241 million is not counted against the Town’s debt capacity.
Slide 2 – During Construction: Timing of Construction Cost and Financing Estimates
• Mr. Scollins spoke about three different components of financing and the various construction phases during
the financing.
• Table 1: During Construction – Construction Costs: for 4 ½ years there would be construction costs. MSBA
reimbursement rate of 29.53% due to $2.6 million in holdbacks. Estimated Funding: $240,264, 835; MSBA
Initial Reimbursements: $70,960,578 and Net Town Funding: $169,304,257
• Table 2: During Construction – Financing Costs – Five phases during the construction phase. Funding would
be through BANs (short-term borrowing through Bond Anticipation Notes) over 4 ½ years with a total estimated
Net Town Cumulative Funding of $169.3 million. Interest costs: Estimated $13.65 million over the construction
project timeline depending upon interest rates.
• Table 3 : During Construction – Funding of Financing Costs – Various Funding Sources for the $13.65 million:
$8 million from Capital Stabilization Fund, $793,200 from MSBA Feasibility Reimbursement, Interest Earnings
$979,000 and Unused Tax Levy Capacity with the Levy Limit of approximately $3.9 million. All of these totaled
would cover the interest costs of $13.65 million. The recommendation is that Unused Levy Capacity of $1.91
million for FY28 and $1.97 million for FY29 be used towards funding. The Town has been below the Levy Limit
in anticipation of this project to minimize the impact on the taxpayer. The Town has not been hitting the full
levy limit for the past four years and will continue to do that through FY27 thus saving the taxpayers
approximately $10 million by being below the levy limit. There would be no need for excluded debt to be
added to taxes during this timeframe. The intent is to fund the carrying costs for this project with funding
sources and cash that the Town has that are within the levy limit as opposed to increasing taxes beyond the
levy limit. There would be no excluded debt increase to the taxpayer for two years but then it would be up to
the Select Board and others involved in the budget process whether the Town goes back to under the levy
limit.
Slide 3 – Permanent Financing
• The intent/recommendation is to leverage currently unused levy capacity to be a permanent funding source
for the permanent debt in order to reduce how much excluded debt would need to be borrowed.
• With regard to the Bond Anticipation Notes, Mr. Leonetti inquired if there was any concern in receiving those
BANS. Mr. Scollins said no. The Town issues the bonds when it goes to market annually to fund its debt.
The Town has a AAA bond rating which helps the Town receive the most competitive rate for its borrowing. It
is a controlled bid process with all the bond buyers having the chance to participate in the bond offering. The
Town usually receives 6-12 bids and are sought after because of the Town’s rating. The intent is to issue
permanent bonds in 2030 once the final BAN is paid off. The amount of the last BAN less the amount of the
MSBA holdback will be the amount that the Town will borrow permanently for a 30-year bond.
• The intention of the funds that have been set aside into the Capital Stabilization Fund at Annual Town Meetings
(approximately $1 million per year) has been for this project however, Capital Stabilization Funds can be voted
for any legal purpose. The Town invests these funds seeking the most competitive interest rates.
• Mr. Scollins reviewed the key variables of the permanent financing for the project. The Town’s share for the
project would be a 30-year bond of $166,700,359 (project is a 50 year asset). Legislation is currently proposed
this year to allow 40-year borrowing for projects of this size. Mr. Scollins would discourage borrowing for a
bond greater than 30 years because of the added interests costs of approximately $33.34 million. The interest
rate for a 40-year bond would be expected to be higher than the rate for a 30-year bond. A 4% interest rate
is being assumed for this project. The Town’s last borrowing was at a 3.6% interest rate. A 1% interest rate
in either direction may cost or save the Town $25.80 million.
• Mr. Scollins stated that the Town did recently refinance many of its borrowings and can refinance any of the
bonds but not before 10 years. However, municipalities can consider refinancing in the 9th year to consider
refinancing in the 10th year. If the Town changed its mind because interest rates were low and perhaps a 25-
year bond instead of a 30-year bond was considered, Mr. Scollins stated that a 30-year bond was a reasonable
FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 2 of 8 10/6/24Source page 3
assumption at this time. If the rates were half of what they are now, a 20 or 25 year bond could be considered
but then you would have to balance this with taxpayer impact.
• Mr. Leonetti inquired that if the interest rates were dropping, would the Town be able to consider issuing a
permanent bond prior to 2030 instead of the Bond Anticipation Notes. This could be done but then the Town
would be paying carrying costs and financing costs which could result in more costs. Mr. Scollins will be
evaluating the interests rates each year. If the borrowing were to occur earlier in the process this could impact
the excluded debt and thus could have an impact on the taxpayer. This would most likely be a policy decision.
• In response to Ms. Lopez’ inquiry as to what could go wrong with the borrowing, Mr. Scollins replied that
anything is possible and anything could go wrong. There could be another economic meltdown, another
situation such as COVID, another savings and loan like scandal or the markets could go crazy and thus impact
the Town’s borrowing costs. The 4% interest rate that Mr. Scollins is assuming for the project is a relatively
conservative number based on today’s economic environment.
• Mr. Scollins provided four different scenarios that could affect the impact on the average residential tax bill:
1) Impact of existing excluded debt payoffs,
2) if No other funding sources besides excluded debt,
3) If Use Unused Levy Capacity or
4) if Use Unused Levy Capacity and Pension Assessment Savings.
Scenario 4 is estimated to impact the average residential tax bill by $499 in the 1st year 2030 or by $198 for the 30-
year average.
Slide 4 – Estimated Norfolk County Retirement System (NCRS) Pension Assessment Savings
• It is estimated that the NCRS Pension Fund will be fully funded by FY29.
• Based on the NCRS Actuarial Report, Canton will save approximately $7 million in FY30.
• These funds are the funds that the Town is paying to NCRS and is a General Fund expense and is one of the
largest expenses in the fixed costs budget. The reason that it is so high is because the Town is paying down
the unfunded pension liability. The current goal of NCRS is to have this unfunded pension liability fully funded
in 2030.
• By 2029 the Town of Canton will be paying its highest estimated pension assessment of $8.6 million. In 2030
the pension assessment paid to NCRS will be approximately $933,717 which is an approximate savings of
$7.7 million.
• The Town could use $3.3 million or 44% of the $7 million in savings for the first 10 years of the bond with it
tapered down to 0% in 25 years.
• There are other capital needs (1860 Washington Street, possibly a third Fire Station, renovations for the Town
Hall etc.) for the use of these funds. The pension savings could be used for many capital purposes but it
would be most likely up to the policy makers.
• In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about a portion of the pension savings going towards the Town’s OPEB
(Other Post Employee Benefits) liability, Mr. Scollins stated that there are 28 communities in Norfolk County
that are also deciding on what to do with their NCRS pension savings. Mr. Scollins’ counterpart in Foxboro is
recommending part of their NCRS pension savings be used for one of their elementary school renovation or
expansion projects. Prior to Mr. Scollins becoming aware of the Galvin Middle School project it has always
been his idea to use the NCRS pension savings towards the unfunded OPEB liability. To minimize the impact
to the taxpayer for the Galvin Middle School project, the pension savings would be a near term opportunity to
provide the tax relief. Mr. Scollins is not suggesting that 100% of the pension savings be used towards the
Galvin Middle School project but that could be a policy decision.
• Mr. Murphy of the Capital Planning Committee inquired if there were other sources of funding available and if
so, why were these not considered for the Galvin project? Mr. Scollins is unaware of any other funding sources
of “scale” that would make a “dent” in this debt service. Mr. Scollins does not recommend that the Town draw
down its reserves. The Town has maintained its AAA bond rating by having reserves of at least 15%. The
primary purpose of having these reserves is if the Town were to have financial difficulties, the bond buyers
want to know that the Town is going to be able to pay its debt service.
FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 3 of 8 10/6/24Source page 4
Slide 5 – GMS Excluded Debt Impact on Single Family and Condominium Property Value Ranges if Unused
Levy Capacity & Pension Assessment Savings Are Funding Sources
• The figures in Slide 5 are based on the average assessed value of $725,700 for all residential properties
(single family homes and condominiums that are in the residential class).
• The tax burden split is 60.5% residential and 39.5% commercial. Assessed values, tax rate and tax split will
vary every year.
• Mr. Leonetti inquired if any study has been done on the impact on the net value of a home price value of
having a new school built in the Town and what would be the net benefit to the homeowner of having an
increase in taxes. Mr. Scollins does not have any study or statistics regarding this but his assumption is that
a new school such as the one being proposed would mostly likely have a positive impact on the home values.
• Slide 5 assumes using a mix of excluded debt, unused levy capacity and a portion of the pension assessment
savings, the result being that only 40%, or $108 million, of the total Galvin Middle School Debt Service ($270
million) is estimated to be funded from excluded debt.
Slide 6 – Debt Limit Calculation and Estimated Debt Limit Projections
• The total assessed valuation of all properties is over $7 billion. Mr. Scollins is estimating that the values could
be pushing towards $9.8 over time which should reduce the burden of not only individual taxpayers but all
taxpayers.
• Canton’s current debt limit (5% of property valuation) is $380.4 million ($7,608,654,220 x 5% = $380,432,711).
• Total debt outstanding today is approximately $69 million.
• After all the outstanding debt outside the debt limit plus authorized but not yet issue debt outside the limit is
subtracted from the debt limit of $380,432,711 the remaining borrowing capacity under the debt limit is
$348,969,098. The MSBA’s authorization for the project, which the Town would have to approve at Special
Town Meeting is $241,764,835.
• The remaining borrowing capacity under the debt limit is $107,204,263 which has been a static number
because of the amortization of debt.
• In FY31 $75,064,263 of unused Galvin Middle School authorization would be rescinded, bringing the Town’s
remaining borrowing capacity under the debt limit back up to $182,268,739.
• Postscript Update: It has since been learned from the Town’s Financial Advisor that the anticipated borrowing
for the GMS project is not subject to the debt limit and therefore will not count against it.
Slide 7 – Tax Impact of $166.7 Million Debt Exclusion Project
• Mr. Scollins stated that the table on Slide 7 takes all of the considerations of the permanent borrowing and
places them on one page. These are his reasonable assumptions. All 30 years of the borrowing are on one
page and how the $166.7 million is amortized. Principal payments of $5.5 million each year. Bond interest
costs are assumed at a 4% interest rate.
• Total annual debt service in the first year is estimated at $12.2 million. Overall total debt service is estimated
at $270,054,582.
• Unused levy capacity increases 3% every year. The total represents 36% of the total annual debt service.
Pension assessment savings tapers down by year 25 (or 2054) and represents 24% of the total annual debt
service. Funding from excluded debt represents $107.5 million or 40% of the total annual debt service.
• The estimated impact on the average residential tax bill in the first year is $539, but this is before the excluded
debt is rolled off which decreases the impact on the average residential tax bill to $499 for the first year.
Ms. Mirliani suggested that when the information is provided at Town Meeting that the additional $142 to be rolled out
to the taxpayers and not just the $499.
FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 4 of 8 10/6/24Source page 5
Ms. Thomas suggested presenting the information in a clear, transparent manner for the average taxpayer. She also mentioned that the Assessors have many abatement programs for the senior and veteran population that should be mentioned to taxpayers. Select Board member Mr. Connolly also spoke about the Senior Rebate program and that the Assessor’s office has an open door policy that is confidential to help guide seniors and veterans with their tax bills. Mr. Leonetti asked as to what is involved in order to get the significant reduction that gets to the home cost for the unused levy capacity and pension saving. He also asked as to what is required to get those funding amounts approved so that the model Mr. Scollins presented is out. Is there anything required. Mr. Scollins replied that because there are two components there are two requirements. One is when the budget is prepared for the year with the excluded debt that all funding sources have been identified to pay the excluded debt. He will also be looking at the excluded debt tax. By using the unused levy capacity, he will look at that and identify that as a funding source for the debt service. With regard to the tax rate setting process with the Select Board it is required that the Town will commit to taxing to the levy limit. With regard to the pension assessment savings, Mr. Scollins’ assumption and recommendation will be that a certain portion will go to the debt service, which is a budgetary decision in the budgetary process as the budget is recommended by the Finance Committee and ultimately voted by the voters. Mr. Murphy inquired if any capital or operating expenses had been forecasted for the Galvin Middle School Project. Mr. Folan stated that it was part of the MSBA process for the School to cost out these expenses within the plan, such as transportation, educator staff, custodial staff etc. The MSBA crafted the article, the motion and the ballot vote. It will be basically a “Yes” or “No” decision for the voter. There is no alternative option that will be allowed on the floor of Town Meeting for any of the unreimbursables in the Scope of the project. The School Committee/District committed on the Form 3011 budget to the MSBA to include the Grade 5-8 configuration and the auditorium. Mr. Jim Rogers of LeftField stated that as they try to get geothermal in schools there are two programs they seek out: one is MassSave and the other is the Infraction Reduction Act which can pay up to 30% of the cost of geothermal. The auditorium being proposed for the Galvin Project is 800 seats as compared to the Morse Auditorium which is 834 seats. Mr. Mauro asked Mr. Folan to go through the bidding process. Mr. Folan stated that once a district is entered into the MSBA process, MSBA goes through everything with quality checks along the way. Upon entering into the program and a liaison is assigned, an OPM is established and an RFP is established, a committee with the rubrics. This is submitted to the MSBA which they approve all the language that goes out for the bid, companies bid, a School Building Committee is established, a sub-committee is established to be the Selection Committee. LeftField was selected and a contract was negotiated with them which is reviewed by the attorneys at MSBA. All rubrics and minutes must be submitted and once approved the OPM is established. The selection of the Design Team is set up as part of an MSBA meeting, which has 16 votes on the Design Selection Committee, with the district having three votes (Mr. Folan, Mr. Connolly and the School Committee Chair) on the committee. Rankings were submitted to MSBA, Ai3 emerged, a contract was established and vetted and voted by MSBA. A decision is made to go with either a Bid-Build or Construction Manager at Risk (CMR). Consigli emerged as the top candidate. Ms. Linda Liporto of LeftField clarified that the terminology “bidding “ is wrong. Per Massachusetts state bidding laws all of these selections are qualifications-based. There is no cost involved. There is a ranking system based on the School Committee that selects the OPM and vetted by the MSBA and approved by the MSBA. It is based on categories such as workload, what other projects the firm is working on and if the company has the qualifications for this project. MSBA is heavily involved in the process from the very beginning. The designer services are RFSs or Requests For Services which go out for qualification-based services and a design firm is selected, with MSBA very involved in that selection process. The same qualifications are looked at as the architectural firm. Once the firm is selected, based on the ranking system, then they enter into contract negotiations, at which point numbers and contract costs are discussed. Once all of these firms are selected, MSBA has guidelines as to how much these firms should be paid for these services. There is very little bidding involved. MSBA has average costs on their website as to how much the OPMs are paid. The School Building Committee decides to proceed with a CMR on board early with the project. The subcommittee has rankings. It is not necessarily the highest-ranked CM that has the lowest pricing. Ms. Liporto referenced a Harvard study that was done on the correlation of the values of homes increasing by 6% due to the completion of a major project within a town. Mr. Mauro gave the members of the firms in attendance the opportunity to provide comments. Mr. Justin Thibeault, Principal of Ai3 Architects, stated that there has been a lot of involvement and community engagement with the project. Bill O’Rourke, Project Executive of Consigli Construction, stated that it has been a tremendous process so far working with all those involved and is looking forward to moving on to the next steps with the project. Tim Ericson of Consigli, a resident of Canton, is also looking forward to the project. He will be doing all FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 5 of 8 10/6/24
Source page 6
the estimating on the project and will be working on keeping to the maximum guaranteed price. Mr. Brian Lynch, the Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, previously worked at MSBA and has seen many of the projects go through the life cycle. He stated that this is a great team that has been put together and is looking forward to the process. Mr. Connolly spoke passionately about the project. He stated that he went to the Kennedy School and they had double sessions. He was the first class at the Hansen School. He was the first class to graduate in 1973 at the Galvin Middle School. His parents did things for the Town and for the children. He stated that it is now our turn to do it for the kids of the Town today. In his opinion it is the best thing in the Town for the children. Neighborhoods turnover and the Elderly go to different places. His old neighborhood on Old Coach Road is made up of all young families that come to Canton for quality education. He said that he is asked by many people, “why should we do this”? He said “because it is the right thing to do for the whole town”. “We have to do this.” Mr. Green, of the Capital Planning Committee, suggested on keeping a focus on how the students will be impacted by the construction going on around them. These are the same group of students that were affected by COVID. Mr. Mauro stated that there is a plan in place to help mitigate things while construction is going on. Mr. Folan is hoping that this will be a learning experience and educational engagement for the students. Mr. Mauro thanked all of the members of the Team that were present and thanked Mr. Scollins for the Funding Presentation. Special Town Meeting Articles – Preview of Warrant Articles Mr. Scollins stated that in addition to the Special Town Meeting with the Galvin School project, there is a Special Town Meeting within the Special Town Meeting. These are all draft articles that are still being reviewed by Town Counsel. Appropriation for Neponset Water Treatment Facility Replacement Filtration System Set Salaries for Elected Officials which will correct the Town Clerk’s salary for FY25. There was one figure in the budget article and a different figure in the warrant article. Town Counsel suggested an article for the STM to correct the figure in the previous ATM article in order to be transparent. Adjust Fiscal ’25 Accounts – This article will appropriate the additional state aid of $224,224 that the Town has received. Appropriation to Increase Special Education Reserve Account. Five Planning Board articles which are all Zoning housekeeping articles. Minutes A motion made by Ms. Mirliani to approve the July 10, 2024, meeting minutes was seconded by Mr. Cole. Vote: 3-0-2. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Leonetti reviewed the minutes but abstained because they were not in attendance at the meeting. Next Meeting Date Mr. Scollins stated that the work of the Finance Committee must be completed by October 16, 2024 in order to send the document to Town Counsel for his review. Mr. Scollins suggested the Capital Planning Committee meet on their own over the next week to review the Galvin Middle School Project and the Neponset Filtration Project. He also suggested a joint meeting of the Capital Planning Committee and the Finance Committee on October 7, 2024 to discuss the Galvin Middle School Project, the Appropriation for the Neponset Water Treatment Facility Replacement Filtration System and to review and vote the non-zoning articles. The Planning Board may be ready to meet with the Finance Committee on October 15. The Finance Committee has been challenged with meeting a quorum for meetings. October 7th and October 9th may be possible Zoom meeting dates. October 2nd and October 3rd are not options for meetings due to the Rosha Shana holiday. Ms. Thomas stated that there had been feedback on the last Town Meeting about discussions and whether or not a minority discussion should be included. There had been comments that a minority discussion representing only one vote against an article sometimes carried more weight than the majority discussion. She stated that it has been past practice that a minority discussion was only included if there were a number of members that voted against an article, otherwise, the minority discussion would be integrated within the main discussion. She suggested that it might be something the Committee should take a vote on. Mr. Emhardt stated that the CPC would, even if it was one vote, allow a minority opinion to be included in their CPC discussion. Mr. Emhardt was not attempting to tell the Finance Committee FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 6 of 8 10/6/24
Source page 7
what to do with regard to minority discussions. In response to Ms. Mirliani’s question as to who crafts the minority language to be included in the discussion, Ms. Thomas stated that it was the writer of the majority discussion that included the language and that there would be a review of the discussions by the Committee. Adjournment A motion made by Ms. Thomas to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:35 p.m. was seconded by Ms. Mirliani. Vote: 5-0-0. Minutes reviewed by: Ms. Kristin Mirliani Respectfully submitted, Emilio E. Mauro, Jr. , Chair, Canton Finance Committee FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 7 of 8 10/6/24
Source page 8
Finance Committee
Meeting Documents
September 25, 2024
Please note: Some meeting documents may be found on the Town’s website under the Posted Minutes
section (Laser Fiche).
Agenda – September 25, 2024.
William H. Galvin Middle School Funding Recommendations – Funding Recommendations – September 24, 2024,
William Scollins, III (9 pages).
FINCOM 20240925 DRAFT Minutes KM WRS.docx Page 8 of 8 10/6/24Source page 9
WILLIAM H. GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION
Town of Canton
For Discussion Purposes Only
Updated October 2, 2024Source page 10
WILLIAM H. GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION
Table of Contents
Page
1 TOTAL PROJECT COST
2 DURING CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
3 PERMANENT FINANCING & TAX PAYER IMPACT
4 N.C.R.S. PENSION ASSESSMENT SAVINGS
5 SINGLE FAMILY VALUE RANGES & TAX PAYER IMPACT
6 DEBT LIMIT
7 ANNUAL BOND PAYMENT, FUNDING COMPONENTS, & TAX PAYER IMPACTSSource page 11
10/2/2024
WILLIAM H. GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Option #9: New Construction and 5 to 8 Grade Configuration
800 Seat Auditorium, Turf Fields w/Lighting, and Partial Geothermal (Public Spaces)
Town of Canton
TOTAL PROJECT COST
MSBA
PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT TOWN SHARE
COMPONENTS TOTAL PROJECT COST RATE MSBA SHARE TOWN SHARE HOW FUNDED
FEASIBILITY STUDY 1,500,000 52.880% 793,200 706,800 FREE CASH
CONSTRUCTION COST 240,264,835 30.618% 73,564,476 166,700,359 30 YEAR BOND
TOTAL PROJECT COST 241,764,835 30.756% 74,357,676 167,407,159
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE for GMS NEW CONSTRUCTION and 5 to 8 GRADE CONFIGURATION,
INCLUDING AN 800 SEAT AUDITORIUM, TURF FIELDS with LIGHTING, and PARTIAL GEOTHERMAL (for Public Spaces)
IS $241.76MM INCLUDING $11.7MM of CONTINGENCY.
$1.5MM in FEASABILITY COSTS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY FUNDED FROM FREE CASH - 52.88% REIMBURSEMENT RATE.
$240.26MM in CONSTRUCTION COST with a 30.618% REIMBURSEMENT RATE
to be PERMANENTLY FUNDED with a 30 YEAR BOND at PROJECT COMPLETION in FISCAL 2030
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx TOTAL PROJECT COST PAGE 1Source page 12
10/2/2024
WILLIAM H. GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT
DURING CONSTRUCTION: TIMING of CONSTRUCTION COST and FINANCING ESTIMATES
Town of Canton
DURING CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ESTIMATED MSBA INITIAL MSBA INITIAL NET TOWN
CUMULATIVE REIMBURSE- REIMBURSE- NET TOWN CUMULATIVE
TIME FRAME CONSTRUCTION PHASE EST'D FUNDING FUNDING MENT %* MENT $* FUNDING FUNDING
1/25 - 6/25 Detailed Design & Bidding Specs 8,490,244 8,490,244 29.534% 2,507,536 5,982,708 5,982,708
Complete Design, Bidding Specs
7/25 - 6/26 35,467,084 43,957,328 29.534% 10,474,961 24,992,123 30,974,831
& Construction enabling work
7/26 - 6/27 1st Year Construction 71,108,612 115,065,940 29.534% 21,001,443 50,107,169 81,082,000
7/27 - 6/28 2nd Year Construction 71,303,778 186,369,718 29.534% 21,059,084 50,244,694 131,326,695
7/28 - 6/29 Building Demo & Closeout 53,895,117 240,264,835 29.534% 15,917,555 37,977,562 169,304,257
TOTAL 240,264,835 70,960,578 169,304,257
* Reimbursement Rate of 29.534'% is net of est'd MSBA holdback of $2.6MM.
PROJECT TIMELINE 4 1/2 YEARS: ~1 YEAR DESIGN & BID SPEC DEVELOPMENT, ~2 1/2 YEARS CONSTRUCTION, ~1 YEAR DEMO & CLOSEOUT
MSBA REIMBURSEMENT RATE (29.53%) DURING the PROJECT WILL BE LOWER THAN the STATED RATE (30.18%) DUE to a $2.6MM HOLDBACK
DURING CONSTRUCTION - FINANCING COSTS
NET TOWN ESTIMATED
CUMULATIVE INTEREST ESTIMATED
TIME FRAME CONSTRUCTION PHASE FUNDING TYPE of FINANCING RATE INTEREST COST ISSUE DATE PAYOFF DATE
1/25 - 6/25 Detailed Design & Bidding Specs 5,982,708 BAN 6 Months 4.00% 119,654 1 / 2025 7 / 2025
Complete Design, Bidding Specs
7/25 - 6/26 30,974,831 BAN 1 Year 3.75% 1,161,556 7 / 2025 7 / 2026
& Construction enabling work
7/26 - 6/27 1st Year Construction 81,082,000 BAN 1 Year 3.50% 2,837,870 7 / 2026 7 / 2027
7/27 - 6/28 2nd Year Construction 131,326,695 BAN 1 Year 3.17% 4,163,570 7 / 2027 7 / 2028
7/28 - 6/29 Building Demo & Closeout 169,304,257 BAN 1 Year 3.17% 5,367,607 7 / 2028 7 / 2029
TOTAL 13,650,257
FINANCING DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE VIA SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS of 6 MONTH & 1 YEAR B.A.N.s, GROWING to the TOTAL TOWN COMMITMENT
B.A.N. ESTIMATED INTEREST (CARRYING) COSTS ARE ~$13.65MM OVER the CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TIMELINE
DURING CONSTRUCTION - FUNDING of FINANCING COSTS
Cumulative
Capital Stabilization Funding MSBA Feasibility Unused Levy Combined Interest Remaining
Fiscal Year Plus Interest Reimbursement +I Capacity Funding Payments Cash Funding
FY 23 1,025,877 - - 1,025,877 - 1,025,877
FY 24 1,092,879 - - 2,118,756 - 2,118,756
FY 25 1,140,000 793,200 - 4,051,956 - 4,051,956
FY 26 1,141,818 31,728 - 5,225,502 119,654 5,105,848
FY 27 1,204,234 - - 6,429,736 1,161,556 5,148,526
FY 28 1,180,198 - 1,910,484 9,520,418 2,837,870 5,401,338
FY 29 1,162,040 - 1,967,798 12,650,257 4,163,570 4,367,607
FY 30 1,000,000 - - 13,650,257 5,367,607 -
8,947,047 824,928 3,878,282 - 13,650,257
ASSUMED INTEREST COST FUNDING SOURCES ARE CAPITAL STABLIZATION $8MM, MSBA FEASIBILITY REIMBURSEMENT ($793K),
INTEREST EARNINGS ON THESE AMOUNTS (~$979K), AND UNUSED TAX LEVY CAPACITY WITHIN THE LEVY LIMIT ($~3.9MM)
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx DURING CONSTRUCTION FINANCING PAGE 2Source page 13
WILLIAM H. GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT
PERMANENT FINANCING 10/2/2024
Town of Canton
KEY VARIABLES
PROJECT COST MSBA SHARE % MSBA SHARE $ TOWN SHARE $
240,264,835 30.618% 73,564,476 166,700,359
BOND AMOUNT TERM IN YEARS* INTEREST RATE^ FY ISSUED
166,700,359 30 4.00% 2030
^$25.84 Million = Impact of 1% Change in the Interest Rate
*$33.34 Million = Increased Interest Cost if Bond Over 40 Years
EXCLUDED DEBT ESTIMATED IMPACT on AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL TAX BILL (ARTB)
TOTAL EXCLUDED
OTHER FUNDING DEBT SERVICE (P&I) EXCLUDED DEBT ESTIMATED IMPACT
SCENARIO NOTES
($'s Millions) REQUIRED on AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL TAX BILL*
($'s Millions)
1st YEAR: 2030 LAST YEAR: 2059 30 YEAR Avg.
($40) ($87) ($74) Impact of Existing Excluded Debt Payoffs
$0 $270 $886 $350 $608 If NO Other Funding Sources Besides Excluded Debt
$96 $174 $732 ($11) $365 If Use UNUSED Levy Capacity
$66 $108 $499 ($11) $198 If Use Unused Levy Capacity & Pension Assessment Savings
* All amounts are net of existing excluded debt payoffs.
IMPACT of EXCLUDED DEBT PAYOFFS on the "ARTB" IS a $40 REDUX FROM TODAY & WILL BE AN $87 REDUX in the LAST YEAR of the BOND (2059).
IF NO OTHER FUNDING SOURCES BESIDES EXCLUDED DEBT, GMS EXCLUDED DEBT IMPACT on the ARTB IS $886 IN YR 1, & $608 ON AVG. OVER 30 YEARS.
IF UNUSED LEVY CAPACITY IS USED, GMS EXCLUDED DEBT IMPACT on the ARTB IS $732 IN YR 1, & $365 ON AVG. OVER 30 YEARS.
IF UNUSED LEVY CAPACITY & PENSION ASSESSMENT SAVINGS IS USED, GMS EXCLUDED DEBT IMPACT on the ARTB IS $499 IN YR 1, & $198 ON AVG. OVER 30 YEARS.
TOWN'S PENSION LIABILITY IS SCHEDULED to be FULLY FUNDED BY FYE 2029. APPROXIMATELY $7MM IN SAVINGS IS EXPECTED STARTING IN FY 2030.
THIS RESULT IS ACHIEVED BY USING ~44%, OR ~$3.1MM, of THIS SAVINGS for the 1ST 10 YEARS and TAPERING DOWN USE of this SAVINGS to 0% IN 25 YEARS.
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx PERMANENT FINANCING PAGE 3Source page 14
10/2/2024
ESTIMATED N.C.R.S. PENSION ASSESSMENT SAVINGS
ACTUAL &
ESTIMATED ANNUAL ANNUAL
FISCAL PENSION % INCREASE $ INCREASE
YEAR YEAR ASSESSMENT (DECREASE) (DECREASE)
-10 2019 5,245,794 9.4% 449,547
-9 2020 5,635,051 7.4% 389,257
-8 2021 6,031,916 7.0% 396,865
-7 2022 6,445,520 6.9% 413,604
-6 2023 6,929,184 7.5% 483,664
-5 2024 7,303,647 5.4% 374,463
-4 2025 7,565,945 3.6% 262,298
-3 2026 7,832,228 3.5% 266,283
-2 2027 8,107,884 3.5% 275,655
-1 2028 8,393,240 3.5% 285,357
0 2029 8,688,640 3.5% 295,400
1 2030 933,717 -89.3% (7,754,923)
2 2031 945,800 1.3% 12,083
3 2032 957,081 1.2% 11,280
4 2033 967,460 1.1% 10,380
5 2034 981,972 1.5% 14,512
6 2035 996,702 1.5% 14,730
7 2036 1,011,652 1.5% 14,951
8 2037 1,026,827 1.5% 15,175
9 2038 1,042,230 1.5% 15,402
10 2039 1,057,863 1.5% 15,633
N.C.R.S. PENSION ASSESSMENT CONTINUES to GROW THRU 2029 to ~$8.7MM.
UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITY ON TRACK & SCHEDULED TO BE FULLY FUNDED BY FYE 2029.
PENSION ASSESSMENT SAVINGS EXPECTED TO BE AT LEAST $7MM IN FY 2030.
FY 2030 WILL BE THE 1ST YEAR of the GMS PERMANENT FINANCING DEBT SERVICE.
A PORTION OF THESE SAVINGS IS RECOMMENDED TO BE USED TO FUND GMS DEBT SERVICE.
PAGE 4
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx PENSION ASSESSMENT SAVINGSSource page 15
10/2/2024
GMS EXCLUDED DEBT IMPACT ON SINGLE FAMILY & CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY VALUE RANGES*
IF UNUSED LEVY CAPACITY & PENSION ASSESSMENT SAVINGS ARE FUNDING SOURCES
$0.69
SINGLE FAMILY 1ST YEAR GMS
PROPERTY EXCLUDED DEBT
ASSESSED IMPACT ON AVG. # of CUMULATIVE
VALUE RANGE AVG.VALUE TAX BILL PROPERTIES % of TOTAL % of TOTAL
$150K - $250K $214,465 $147 151 2.1% 2.1%
$250K - $350K $292,006 $201 392 5.4% 7.5%
$350K - $450K $413,595 $284 592 8.2% 15.7%
$450K - $550K $500,786 $344 1252 17.3% 33.0%
$550K - $650K $600,901 $413 1111 15.4% 48.4%
$650K - $750K $697,510 $480 994 13.8% 62.1%
$750K - $850K $798,275 $549 851 11.8% 73.9%
$850K - $950K $899,433 $618 521 7.2% 81.1%
$950K - $1,050K $999,350 $687 375 5.2% 86.3%
$1,050K - $1,150K $1,095,695 $753 318 4.4% 90.7%
$1,150K - $1,250K $1,197,090 $823 186 2.6% 93.3%
$1,250K - $4,250K $1,515,302 $1,042 486 6.7% 100.0%
* Single Family & Condo properties represent 90% of all residential classes of property. 7229 100.0%
ASSESSED VALUES and TAX RATE ARE BASED on FY 2024.
PROPERTY TAXES ARE CURRENTLY BASED ON A 60.5% RESIDENTIAL / 39.5% COMMERCIALTAX SPLIT.
ASSESSED VALUES, TAX RATE and TAX SPLIT WILL VARY EVERY YEAR.
AVERAGE ASSESSED VALUE of ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IS CURRENTLY $725.7K
ASSUMING A MIX of EXCLUDED DEBT, UNUSED LEVY CAPACITY, and A PORTION of EST'D PENSION ASSESMENT SAVINGS,
ONLY 40%, or $108MM, of the TOTAL GMS DEBT SERVICE ($270MM) IS EST'D to be FUNDED FROM EXCLUDED DEBT.
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx SINGLE FAM & CONDO VALUE RANGES PAGE 5Source page 16
10/2/2024
DEBT LIMIT CALCULATION
A) CANTON'S TOTAL TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUATION 7,608,654,220
B) DEBT LIMIT - 5% of PROPERTY VALUATION (A x 5%) 380,432,711
Total Outstanding Debt 59,748,533
Total Debt Authorized But Not Yet Issued 9,255,139
C) GROSS DEBT 69,003,672
D) AMOUNT of OUTSTANDING DEBT WHICH IS OUTSIDE the DEBT LIMIT 34,325,058
E) AMOUNT of AUTHORIZED BUT NOT YET ISSUED WHICH IS OUTSIDE the DEBT LIMIT 3,215,000
OUTSTANDING DEBT OUTSIDE the DEBT LIMIT PLUS
F)
AUTHORIZED BUT NOT YET ISSUED DEBT OUTSIDE the LIMIT (D + E) 37,540,058
G) NET DEBT SUBJECT to the DEBT LIMIT (C - F) 31,463,614
H) REMAINING BORROWING CAPACITY UNDER the DEBT LIMIT (B - G) 348,969,098
DECEMBER 2024 GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL - AUTHORIZATION IS OUTSIDE the LIMIT 241,764,835
MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPALITIES' DEBT IS LIMITED TO 5% of ASSESSED TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUE.
CANTON'S DEBT LIMIT IS CURRENTLY $380.4MM, VERSUS GROSS DEBT OF $69MM.
GROSS DEBT INCLUDES OUTSIDE the LIMIT DEBT OUTSTANDING ($34.3MM) & AUTHORIZED & UNISSUED ($3.2MM).
WATER & SEWER DEBT IS OUTSIDE the LIMIT and TOTALS $37.5MM.
CANTON DEBT SUBJECT to the DEBT LIMIT IS $31.5MM.
CURRENT BORROWING CAPACITY UNDER the DEBT LIMIT IS $349MM
and IS UNAFFECTED BY the GALVIN AUTHORIZATION
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx DEBT LIMIT PAGE 6Source page 17
TAX IMPACT of $166.7 MILLION DEBT EXCLUSION PROJECT 10/2/2024
1 44.02% FY 2024 Values
Borrowed Term in Years Interest Rate OTHER POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES FY 2024 Levy Split 5,793,895,560 1,814,758,660 725,688 EXISTING EXCLUDED DEBT PAY DOWN IMPACT IMPACT ON AVG. IMPACT ON AVG. COMBINED IMPACT
$166,700,359 30 4.00% ANNUAL Pension FUNDED FROM 60.4774% 39.5226% IMPACT ON IMPACT ON IMPACT ON AVG. Existing (FY24) Residential Impact On Impact On Avg. RESIDENTIAL TAX BILL RESIDENTIAL TAX BILL OF EXCLUDED DEBT
FISCAL BONDS PRINCIPAL BOND DEBT Unused Levy Assessment EXCLUDED Residential Commercial RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Excluded Debt Levy Tax Residential Residential NET OF EXCLUDED OF USING EXCESS & USING EXCESS
YEAR YEAR OUTSTANDING PAYMENT INTEREST SERVICE Capacity Savings DEBT Levy Levy TAX RATE TAX RATE TAX BILL Tax Paid Down Reduction Tax Rate Tax Bill DEBT PAY DOWN LEVY CAPACITY LEVY CAPACITY
1 2030 $166,700,359 $5,556,679 $6,668,014 $12,224,693 $2,026,832 $3,081,365 $7,116,496 $4,303,872 $2,812,624 $0.74 $1.55 $539 $528,885 $319,856 ($0.06) ($40) $499 $254 $753
2 2031 $161,143,680 $5,556,679 $6,445,747 $12,002,426 $2,087,637 $3,081,365 $6,833,424 $4,132,677 $2,700,747 $0.71 $1.49 $518 $553,665 $334,842 ($0.06) ($42) $476 $261 $737
3 2032 $155,587,002 $5,556,679 $6,223,480 $11,780,159 $2,150,266 $3,081,365 $6,548,527 $3,960,379 $2,588,148 $0.68 $1.43 $496 $573,195 $346,653 ($0.06) ($43) $453 $269 $722
4 2033 $150,030,323 $5,556,679 $6,001,213 $11,557,892 $2,214,774 $3,081,365 $6,261,752 $3,786,945 $2,474,807 $0.65 $1.36 $474 $592,725 $358,464 ($0.06) ($45) $429 $277 $707
5 2034 $144,473,644 $5,556,679 $5,778,946 $11,335,624 $2,281,217 $3,081,365 $5,973,042 $3,612,340 $2,360,701 $0.62 $1.30 $452 $606,995 $367,095 ($0.06) ($46) $406 $286 $692
6 2035 $138,916,966 $5,556,679 $5,556,679 $11,113,357 $2,349,654 $3,081,365 $5,682,338 $3,436,530 $2,245,808 $0.59 $1.24 $430 $621,190 $375,679 ($0.06) ($47) $383 $294 $678
7 2036 $133,360,287 $5,556,679 $5,334,411 $10,891,090 $2,420,144 $3,081,365 $5,389,582 $3,259,479 $2,130,103 $0.56 $1.17 $408 $635,723 $384,469 ($0.07) ($48) $360 $303 $663
8 2037 $127,803,609 $5,556,679 $5,112,144 $10,668,823 $2,492,748 $3,081,365 $5,094,710 $3,081,148 $2,013,562 $0.53 $1.11 $386 $650,783 $393,577 ($0.07) ($49) $337 $312 $649
9 2038 $122,246,930 $5,556,679 $4,889,877 $10,446,556 $2,567,530 $3,081,365 $4,797,660 $2,901,500 $1,896,160 $0.50 $1.04 $363 $846,182 $511,749 ($0.09) ($64) $299 $322 $621
10 2039 $116,690,251 $5,556,679 $4,667,610 $10,224,289 $2,644,556 $3,081,365 $4,498,367 $2,720,496 $1,777,872 $0.47 $0.98 $341 $856,368 $517,909 ($0.09) ($65) $276 $331 $607
11 2040 $111,133,573 $5,556,679 $4,445,343 $10,002,022 $2,723,893 $2,896,483 $4,381,646 $2,649,905 $1,731,740 $0.46 $0.95 $332 $867,268 $524,501 ($0.09) ($66) $266 $341 $607
12 2041 $105,576,894 $5,556,679 $4,223,076 $9,779,754 $2,805,610 $2,896,483 $4,077,662 $2,466,064 $1,611,598 $0.43 $0.89 $309 $1,149,168 $694,987 ($0.12) ($87) $222 $351 $573
13 2042 $100,020,215 $5,556,679 $4,000,809 $9,557,487 $2,889,778 $2,896,483 $3,771,226 $2,280,740 $1,490,487 $0.39 $0.82 $286 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $198 $362 $560
14 2043 $94,463,537 $5,556,679 $3,778,541 $9,335,220 $2,976,471 $2,896,483 $3,462,266 $2,093,888 $1,368,377 $0.36 $0.75 $262 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $175 $373 $548
15 2044 $88,906,858 $5,556,679 $3,556,274 $9,112,953 $3,065,765 $2,896,483 $3,150,704 $1,905,464 $1,245,240 $0.33 $0.69 $239 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $151 $384 $535
16 2045 $83,350,180 $5,556,679 $3,334,007 $8,890,686 $3,157,738 $2,773,229 $2,959,719 $1,789,961 $1,169,758 $0.31 $0.64 $224 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $137 $396 $532
17 2046 $77,793,501 $5,556,679 $3,111,740 $8,668,419 $3,252,471 $2,711,601 $2,704,347 $1,635,519 $1,068,828 $0.28 $0.59 $205 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $117 $407 $525
18 2047 $72,236,822 $5,556,679 $2,889,473 $8,446,152 $3,350,045 $2,619,160 $2,476,947 $1,497,993 $978,954 $0.26 $0.54 $188 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $100 $420 $520
19 2048 $66,680,144 $5,556,679 $2,667,206 $8,223,884 $3,450,546 $2,465,092 $2,308,246 $1,395,967 $912,279 $0.24 $0.50 $175 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $87 $432 $520
20 2049 $61,123,465 $5,556,679 $2,444,939 $8,001,617 $3,554,062 $2,277,129 $2,170,426 $1,312,617 $857,809 $0.23 $0.47 $164 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $77 $445 $522
21 2050 $55,566,786 $5,556,679 $2,222,671 $7,779,350 $3,660,684 $2,049,108 $2,069,558 $1,251,615 $817,943 $0.22 $0.45 $157 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $69 $459 $528
22 2051 $50,010,108 $5,556,679 $2,000,404 $7,557,083 $3,770,505 $1,818,005 $1,968,573 $1,190,542 $778,031 $0.21 $0.43 $149 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $62 $472 $534
23 2052 $44,453,429 $5,556,679 $1,778,137 $7,334,816 $3,883,620 $1,583,020 $1,868,175 $1,129,824 $738,351 $0.20 $0.41 $142 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $54 $486 $541
24 2053 $38,896,750 $5,556,679 $1,555,870 $7,112,549 $4,000,129 $1,349,638 $1,762,782 $1,066,085 $696,697 $0.18 $0.38 $134 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $46 $501 $547
25 2054 $33,340,072 $5,556,679 $1,333,603 $6,890,282 $4,120,132 $1,115,454 $1,654,695 $1,000,716 $653,978 $0.17 $0.36 $125 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $38 $516 $554
26 2055 $27,783,393 $5,556,679 $1,111,336 $6,668,014 $4,243,736 $2,424,278 $1,466,140 $958,138 $0.25 $0.53 $184 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $96 $532 $628
27 2056 $22,226,715 $5,556,679 $889,069 $6,445,747 $4,371,048 $2,074,699 $1,254,724 $819,975 $0.22 $0.45 $157 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $70 $547 $617
28 2057 $16,670,036 $5,556,679 $666,801 $6,223,480 $4,502,180 $1,721,300 $1,040,998 $680,303 $0.18 $0.37 $130 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $43 $564 $607
29 2058 $11,113,357 $5,556,679 $444,534 $6,001,213 $4,637,245 $1,363,968 $824,892 $539,075 $0.14 $0.30 $103 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) $16 $581 $597
30 2059 $5,556,679 $5,556,679 $222,267 $5,778,946 $4,776,363 $1,002,583 $606,336 $396,247 $0.10 $0.22 $76 $1,153,368 $697,527 ($0.12) ($87) ($11) $598 $587
$166,700,359 $103,354,223 $270,054,582 $96,427,381 $66,057,503 $107,569,698 $65,055,356 $42,514,341 $11.23 $23.43 $8,148 29,242,776 17,685,271 ($3.05) ($2,215) $5,933 $12,078 $18,011
Percent Share of Annual Debt Service 100% 36% 24% 40% 11%
Average Cost Per $1,000 / Year to Taxpayer $0.37 $0.78 $272 ($0.10) ($73.84) $198 $403 $600
Galvin MS Funding Requirement Estimates V.10.xlsx Opt. 9 $240.26MM GMS PROJECT PAGE 7