Suffolk City presents plan of finance for FY27 borrowing and utility refunding options
June 03, 2026 | Suffolk City, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Suffolk City’s finance director and external advisors presented a plan of finance at a council work session outlining the schedule and conditions for summer 2026 borrowing and a potential utility refunding.
Stephanie Wells, the city’s director of finance and budget, introduced Davenport & Company advisors who said the city completed its capital-improvement plan and FY27 budget and is now positioned to issue the next tranche of capital borrowing. David Rose of Davenport said the city has a multi‑year CIP totaling roughly $175 million and the near-term plan contemplates approximately $35 million of general-obligation borrowing to fund FY27 projects.
Davenport representatives emphasized the city’s strong credit profile and conservative planning assumptions. They noted Suffolk City currently holds three AAA ratings and that the presentation used conservative assumptions (2% growth in expenditures and assessed value) to model debt ratios. Kyle, the Davenport presenter, showed debt-service and debt-to-assessed-value ratios indicating the city remains well within its own policy limits after the proposed borrowing.
On refunding, advisors identified about $37.5 million of 2015–2016 utility bonds as candidates for partial refunding through the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) pool. They said the city’s policy is to proceed only when net-present-value savings meet or exceed a 3% threshold, calculated net of all fees and costs. Davenport estimated a minimum savings of roughly $1.1 million if the 3% threshold is met and said the refinancing would not extend the bonds’ final maturities.
Advisors outlined a calendar for council action and market steps: a parameters resolution drafted by bond counsel was described as likely on the consent agenda for an upcoming meeting; rating-agency outreach and reaffirmation would follow; new-money borrowing could be priced in late August or early September; and the VRA pool had a market/pricing window in late July with an estimated early August closing for the refunding if parameters are met.
Council members asked technical questions about the 3% savings test (it is inclusive of fees), conservative growth assumptions, and interest-only early years used in new debt structuring. Advisors said market rates in mid-2026 are favorable compared with recent history and that refinancing authority would only be exercised if the savings threshold and other parameters are met.
No binding council vote on issuance or refunding occurred during the work session; staff presented the plan and said a parameters resolution and later public hearing(s) would be the next formal steps.
Stephanie Wells, the city’s director of finance and budget, introduced Davenport & Company advisors who said the city completed its capital-improvement plan and FY27 budget and is now positioned to issue the next tranche of capital borrowing. David Rose of Davenport said the city has a multi‑year CIP totaling roughly $175 million and the near-term plan contemplates approximately $35 million of general-obligation borrowing to fund FY27 projects.
Davenport representatives emphasized the city’s strong credit profile and conservative planning assumptions. They noted Suffolk City currently holds three AAA ratings and that the presentation used conservative assumptions (2% growth in expenditures and assessed value) to model debt ratios. Kyle, the Davenport presenter, showed debt-service and debt-to-assessed-value ratios indicating the city remains well within its own policy limits after the proposed borrowing.
On refunding, advisors identified about $37.5 million of 2015–2016 utility bonds as candidates for partial refunding through the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) pool. They said the city’s policy is to proceed only when net-present-value savings meet or exceed a 3% threshold, calculated net of all fees and costs. Davenport estimated a minimum savings of roughly $1.1 million if the 3% threshold is met and said the refinancing would not extend the bonds’ final maturities.
Advisors outlined a calendar for council action and market steps: a parameters resolution drafted by bond counsel was described as likely on the consent agenda for an upcoming meeting; rating-agency outreach and reaffirmation would follow; new-money borrowing could be priced in late August or early September; and the VRA pool had a market/pricing window in late July with an estimated early August closing for the refunding if parameters are met.
Council members asked technical questions about the 3% savings test (it is inclusive of fees), conservative growth assumptions, and interest-only early years used in new debt structuring. Advisors said market rates in mid-2026 are favorable compared with recent history and that refinancing authority would only be exercised if the savings threshold and other parameters are met.
No binding council vote on issuance or refunding occurred during the work session; staff presented the plan and said a parameters resolution and later public hearing(s) would be the next formal steps.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
