My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Res12 15199
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
City Council
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
Res12 15199
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2019 1:05:57 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 4:31:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Resolution
Meeting Type
Special
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/18/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FINANCING OPTIONS <br />Background <br />06/18/2012 <br />Attachment 2 <br />May 30, 2012 <br />At the Commission's March 14 meeting the Port's financial advisor, William Euphrat <br />Municipal Finance (WEMF), updated the Commission on the status of the various <br />financing options being considered by staff. <br />These options are summarized below: <br />1. Commercial banks contacted by the Port are not willing to extend credit to the <br />Port. <br />2. A public offering of the Port's bonds is a viable option. <br />3. The State's I -Bank was a pending option, but the I -Bank has since declined to <br />lend to the Port, citing it's mission as a lender of last resort and staff's <br />determination that the Port has adequate alternative access to the market. <br />4. GE Capital submitted a loan proposal that staff had not yet had time to evaluate. <br />GE proposed both an adjustable rate and a fixed rate loan, each fully amortized <br />over 20 years. <br />Commissioner Claire requested that staff evaluate the cost savings that might accrue if <br />the City "wrapped" its credit around the Port's bonds (City guaranteed bonds). This <br />could be accomplished through the City's public financing authority with the City <br />offering investors a lease revenue bond secured by its general fund and the Port selling <br />to the authority a revenue bond, the payments on which would reimburse the City for <br />its lease payments. <br />Analysis <br />WEMF compared five financing alternatives: <br />• The 20 -year GE loan proposal received by the Port, <br />• A 20 -year BBB -rated Port revenue bond, <br />• A 20 -year AA -rated City lease revenue bond, <br />• A 30 -year AA -rated City lease revenue bond, and <br />• A 30 -year BBB -rated Port revenue bond. <br />WEMF evaluated these options comparing among them the all -in True Interest Cost <br />(TIC) a present value measure of interest cost that reflects the time -value of money and <br />treats the underwriter's discount and other costs of issuance as prepaid interest, the <br />amount of annual debt service and total debt service, and the ability of the Port to <br />1 RESO. # 15199 <br />MUFF # 505 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.