Cruise Terminal Financing Options A Presentation and Discussion April 19, 2007
2 Capital costs Vary widely by location Pier costs are $137.5M; debt service would be over $9.7M annually for 30 years Pier 27 costs are $34.7M; debt service would be $2.3M annually for 30 years Pier 35 costs are $44.9M; debt service would be over $3.2M annually for 30 years
3 Possible Project Revenues Rental payments Other user payments Tax increment from project Will these be adequate to support operating costs? Will there be funds remaining after operations to support capital?
4 Port Balance Sheet The Port is currently burdened by an excess of capital needs as compared to its revenues The Port’s strategy to meet its capital needs depends on the ability of individual projects to support themselves Over time, this approach will spin off additional debt capacity In the near term, Port must use debt capacity for projects that create additional revenues
5 City Financing Options Hotel tax revenue bonds Asset-backed bonds General obligation bonds These can be used on a stand-alone basis, or with other alternatives
6 Hotel Tax Bonds Analogous to convention center debt Economic benefits are similar to those of a convention center Would engage range of political interests currently benefiting from hotel tax
7 Asset-Backed Bonds City is very cautious in their use due to self- imposed legal restrictions May need to locate asset of comparable value that is unencumbered City has substantial capacity Benefits accruing from facility enhance city tax revenues that would repay the debt Supported by general fund
8 General Obligation bonds Necessary level of support (two-thirds majority) appears unlikely Least expensive form of debt; no impact on general fund May affect other city capital investment decisions
9 State and Federal Sources No existing grant programs Require special earmarks No U.S. ports have received federal or state funds If available, these sources would be helpful but are likely to be inadequate on their own
10 Putting the Pieces Together Some combination of these alternatives is likely to be the optimal solution Given the port’s financial capacity and limitations of project based revenues, city support will be necessary Core city support can be supplemented with available project revenues