Laserfiche WebLink
Financing <br />Costs <br />Interest <br />Earned <br />Project <br />Construction <br />Costs <br />FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION <br />COMMUNITY FACILITIES LOAN PROGRAM <br />INTERIM CONSTRUCTION FINANCING DIAGRAM <br />Issuer <br />Notes <br />V1 <br />$ Investment <br />Banker <br />Net <br />Proceeds <br />V1 <br />Escrowed Con- <br />struction Funds <br />Account. (Held <br />by Trustee) <br />Permanent Bonds Issued <br />Investor <br />Note Holder <br />Capitalized <br />β€”$β€” Interest Acct. β€”$ <br />(Interest During <br />Construction) <br />Principal Paid at Maturity <br />Farmers Home <br />Administration <br />Permanent Loan. <br />Funded Upon Sub- <br />stantial comple- <br />tion <br />MR. LYONS EXPLAINED THAT VERY SIMPLY WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED <br />TO DO IS TO REISSUE BANS UP FRONT AND INVEST THE PROCEEDS IN <br />GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT COLLATERALIZED SECURITIES IN SYNCHRONIZATION <br />WITH THE COUNTY'S CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, RATHER THAN TAKING THE CONβ€” <br />VENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN APPROACH, HE CONTINUED THAT --THE NET <br />INTEREST COST, BASED ON WHAT THE COST WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ISSUE THE <br />BANS VERSUS THE PROCEEDS ON THE INVESTED CAPITAL FOR THE VARYING <br />PERIOD OF TIME IT WAS INVESTED, WOULD RESULT IN A NET CONSTRUCTION <br />INTEREST EXPENSE OF $4,618 VERSUS IN TODAY'S MARKET $247,286 FOR THE <br />INTERIM FINANCING. MR. LYONS COMMENTED THAT THERE IS NO MAGIC IN <br />THIS; IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE. -FIXED INCOME MARKET AS THAT EXISTS <br />TODAY, AND AT ANOTHER POINT IN TIME, IT WOULD BE MORE LOGICAL TO <br />TAKE THE CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION FINANCING APPROACH. <br />MR. LYONS CONTINUED TO REVIEW THEIR PROPOSAL, EMPHASIZING <br />THAT, AS STATED ON THEIR COVER LETTER, THE FIGURES INCLUDED THEREIN <br />ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT A FIRM OFFER. THIS <br />ALSO APPLIES TO THE FIGURES THEY ARE EMPLOYING TODAY. MR.' LYONS <br />61 <br />460K:`c <br />PAVE <br />kJ3 <br />