HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - October 2, 2001 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2001
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
October 2, 2001 commencing at 7:05 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Hitchcock, Howard, Land, Pennino, and Mayor Nakanishi
Absent: Council Members — None
Also Present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, and Deputy City Clerk Taylor
B. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR UPDATE
Deputy City Clerk Taylor reviewed the weekly calendar (filed).
C. TOPIC(S)
C-1 "Discussion regarding financing City projects and refinancing certain existing
City debt (FIN)"
NOTE: Due to a potential conflict of interest, Mayor Pro Tempore Pennino abstained from
discussion regarding the electric utility portion of the presentation.
City Manager Flynn stated that recent financial opportunities have occurred which the City
may wish to consider, most notably that interest rates are nearly the lowest they have
been in 40 years. He stated it would be important to look at opportunities relating to
current financial status and future projects. While the City is looking toward partnering
with the state on a power plant, we should also consider addressing refinancing Electric
Utility's current debt; the public safety project (which includes the new building, the new
parking structure, and refurbishing the old building), and various other projects, including
refinancing current general fund debt. The City is still developing plans and does not
have specific operation costs or proposed revenues for some projects; however, staff is
working diligently to prepare this information for Council review and direction.
Finance Director McAthie introduced George Wolf, a representative of Solomon Smith
Barney, and Alex Burnett, Managing Director of Public Financial Management, and noted
Mr. Burnett's presentation would follow the overheads and the written information
provided to Council (filed).
Mr. Burnett stated that rates are lower than they have been in recent years due to
recessionary pressure, and that in reviewing rates over the last 20 years, we are well
under the average of 7.73%. He anticipated an incremental lowering again in December
and January, and suggested that Council review existing debt and the funding of future
projects should the City desire to take advantage of this opportunity. In looking at the
1999 electric bonds, refinancing at this point would be a savings of approximately $4.5
million, and the aggregate debt service could be reduced from $112 million to $101
million.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Burnett reported that the savings shown in
the sample scenarios are net; funding numbers, bond reserve requirements, and debt
service reserve have been included. He stated that while variable rates appear attractive,
they present a high risk as they most assuredly will rise, and therefore recommended
fixed rates for projects funded by the general fund. He stated just the opposite is true of
electric utility, as these projects are good variable rate candidates due to the utility's
growth potential.
Continued October 2, 2001
At the request of Mayor Nakanishi, Mr. Burnett explained that the specifics of the
incremental cash flow with regard to a new power plant, spread evenly or spread out over
the back end of the funding, would be based on preferences and objectives, and would
therefore be at the discretion of Council.
Electric Utility Director Vallow interjected that several scenarios exist that are varied and
appealing, and are being presented to Council today for example purposes only. He
stated that should the City be successful in negotiating a state project, the state would pay
for it, leaving the purposes of discussion to refunding the amount borrowed last year.
Mr. Burnett reported that the general fund presents corresponding issues and
considerations, including the effect of rates and events that have occurred since Council's
last discussion regarding project funding, specifically the new public safety building. At
that time, assumptions were to cost $18.4 million at a borrow rate above 6%, generating
annual costs of $1.58 million. Reviews and updates of actuals have shown cost changes,
rate drops, and an infusion of equity. That combination creates more capacity and a good
opportunity for the City to consider additional project financing, such as the upgrade of
Fire Station #2, the Indoor Sports Facility, the Aquatics Center, the Animal Shelter, and
DeBenedetti Park. Further, he stated a refinance of the Certificates of Participation for
Hutchins Street Square would yield an annual savings of approximately $50,000.
In response to Council Member Pennino, Public Works Director Prima reported that
estimates for the police building final plans would be available within a month, parking
structure cost estimates will be tight due to a price increase to upgrade the currently
estimated steel back facility, and the old safety building remodel cost estimate is uncertain
with no detailed work completed at this time. He further shared that the annual cost of
leasing the Annex building to house the Finance Department is $65,000.
Council Member Hitchcock stated that the City currently has saved or accumulated $7.5
million with an additional $1.5 million set aside for the Public Safety Building. Thanks in
great part to the state and the work of Assemblyman Pescetti, there is a balance of $11.5
million. She further requested a breakdown of the new debt service, similar to Scenario
B, but without the backloading.
Mr. Burnett responded that he would prepare the scenario, called B1 for comparison
purposes, stating it would reduce borrowing cost but increase short term cash flow for
greater flow on the back end.
Mr. Flynn reminded Council that the numbers presented do not reflect impact fees,
possible grant funds, and other sources, which would further assist with the financing of
recreational facilities, the Animal Shelter, and the DeBenedetti Park catch basin.
Council Member Howard stated that while the City appears to be prepared to move
forward with the public safety building project, many projects being discussed are only in
the design stage, making it difficult to make a decision without specific cost information.
Mr. Burnett stated that under the tax code, the representation is that you expect to spend
85% of your proceeds within three years, which is what you would be required to find to
finance these projects. He shared that the criteria for consideration would be that the City
is comfortable with the status of the projects and their cost estimates, that there is
reasonable expectation to spend the money, and that each project can be presented in
detail, but not necessarily with a design in place. If these criteria can be met, he would
encourage the City to consider moving forward to take advantage of the available fixed
rates. He reminded Council that financial lenders are interested in looking at real
projects, upon which their expectations would be delivered and their comfort level met.
Council Member Land expressed concern in funding so many projects, increasing the
City's operation and maintenance costs for facilities, especially in light of our being in the
midst of a recession, and asked when staff would provide Council with a solid proposal to
include revenue sources.
2
Continued October 2, 2001
Mr. Flynn stated Council would receive proposed operating expenses and revenues and
proposed additional development recommendations in the next four to six weeks, sharing
that the City has demonstrated it can take on this debt and complete the projects in three
years. He further stated that with a business plan reflecting the City can absorb additional
operating costs, there would still be a need to prioritize projects should estimated costs
run higher on one project, thereby causing a delay in the completion of another.
Mayor Pro Tempore Pennino stated he was not in favor of the City financing 100 percent
of the projects, as there are several groups lobbying for these facilities that could help
raise construction funds. He commended John Johnson for the work he has done with
the Lodi Sports Foundation and stated he believes there is a large portion of the
community that can assist with raising dollars for funding recreation projects and the
animal shelter. He noted that money should be raised before and during the projects,
reminding Council that even with the now expired two-for-one payback opportunity made
to the Hutchins Street Square Site Foundation, the City is still ultimately responsible for a
great deal of debt, and the Foundation has appeared to have lost its enthusiasm.
Mr. Burnett stated that general fund balances remain reasonable and sufficient and it is
recommended that, regardless of projects and the public safety building, the City should
take advantage of current rates to refinance and reduce debt service costs. Should
Council move forward in prioritizing projects, there is flexibility in how many projects can
be funded until Council approves the documentation for financing, making it an easy
process to increase/decrease figures. He stated he would return to Council in mid-
November with a target of pricing and to receive feedback on what additional projects are
being considered, and again in December to discuss financing of these projects. He
explained that the structure would be similar to the COP structure (lease finance) at
Hutchins Street Square, leasing essential City assets such as City Hall and other
structures, suggesting an appraisal of City assets be put in action.
Council Member Hitchcock stated the City should move forward with the electric utility
refinancing and the public safety building to take advantage of reduced rates, but shared
that the City paying $2.7 million a year in debt for the past two years is far different from
doing it for 30 years, especially with our past history and current recession. She quoted a
recent Kiplinger Letter, which stated that with an already fragile economy, and the
September 11 event, recession will come. Ms. Hitchcock stated she supported set-aside
funds to supplement existing debts, but does not see the new projects as revenue
makers. Public support of these projects should not be discounted, nor the possibility of a
general obligation of low interest rates to fund them, and reminded Council that through
their patience the City was able to secure $4 million in state funding for the public safety
building. Ms. Hitchcock invited Council to join her in attending a conference on November
8-9, 2001 in southern California. Sponsored by the California Debt Investment Advisory
Commission, the conference is directed toward City and elected officials and will cover
debt structure, financial objectives, and issues of risk.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock's concern regarding revenue reports from the
new aquatics center in Galt, Parks and Recreation Director Baltz stated that with an
approximate annual debt of $300,000, the City of Galt is recovering approximately
$200,000, and that their facility is actually closed approximately three months each year.
At the request of Council Member Hitchcock, City Manager Flynn reported that while a
bond could be put on the November 2002 ballot when three Council seats are being
decided, the voters might reject the bill, making Council unlikely to consider alternative
financing for some time. Mr. Flynn stated that in reviewing the tax law and the current low
interest rates, several important projects for the community can be brought before Council
for consideration, and that staff is working hard to show this is possible. Further, Mr.
Flynn thanked the members of the audience for attending the early meeting and invited
them to return to future meetings to share in the discussion and show their support on
these important projects.
Continued October 2, 2001
Mayor Nakanishi stated he believes the City can afford to move forward with the
anticipated public safety building project, but that as Council considers additional projects,
priority should be given to the indoor sports complex, which has been on the City's future
projects list since 1995.
Council Member Hitchcock expressed concern in financing projects with general fund
dollars, asking if the City could use a rate structure similar to electric utility, tying the debt
to development impact fees as a security. She further asked if the City's impact fee
revenue stream had sufficient dollars for such financing.
Mr. Burnett responded that this particular strategy is unfamiliar to him, and he is unsure
how credit -worthy investors would view it. At issue would be who takes the risk and
whether to shift it to bondholders or to the City's general fund.
Finance Director McAthie stated that impact fees do not come in every year at a set rate,
and should the finances not be available when the payments come due, it would be
difficult to convince the bond lenders they would be paid in a consistent, timely manner.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC:
• Randy Snider asked that Mr. Burnett clarify what the City's options would be should
Council choose to request a specific dollar amount in financing, and then wished to
drop a project and reduce the funding amount.
Mr. Burnett responded that the City would have flexibility in the description and project
names to defer unused proceeds toward another project, or to defer debt service.
• Eunice Frederick pointed out that the Animal Shelter project falls under the auspices
of the police department and public safety, and should therefore be included in the
public safety building project rather than listed as "other'. She asked that the Council
give the overcrowded and dilapidated building the priority it needs and the attention
the animals deserve. Mr. Flynn assured Ms. Frederick that the projects listed were
done so randomly, not by priority, and that the animal shelter is a high priority project.
D. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
E. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jacqueline L. Taylor
Deputy City Clerk
4
f
City of Lodi
Financing Opportunities
October 2, 2001
presented by
Public Financial Management
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 982-5544
415 982-4513 fax
City of Lodi
City of Lodi
Since we last met ...
Interest Rates have changed significantly and created opportunities
for the Electric Utility and the General Fund.
le is 25 by
Ien20bp
less 15 by
less 10bp
less 5 by
Current Rate
plusSbp
plus 10 by
plies 13 by
plas206p
pfus256p
Percentage of Time RBI has been lower than Current Levels Since 1980
0,00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% BAD%
10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.OQ)
�p�,a I2
Revenue Bond Index (RBI) Since 1980
____•______..--
160)
--�
.—______._�.__...—.
.�--
-__.
14.00
Historic RBI
1200
Maximum
14.32
e
Minimum
5.09
10.011
– r —
-
—
Average
7.73
a
Current
5.37
A.OII
6.00
40)
,
S
S
Current RBI (5.376/6)
le is 25 by
Ien20bp
less 15 by
less 10bp
less 5 by
Current Rate
plusSbp
plus 10 by
plies 13 by
plas206p
pfus256p
Percentage of Time RBI has been lower than Current Levels Since 1980
0,00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% BAD%
10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.OQ)
�p�,a I2
Outline of Projects - Electric Utility
Refunding of Outstanding 1999 Electric Revenue Bonds
M,
City of Lodi Current market rates provide the opportunity to refund all of the outstanding
bonds to generate reduced debt service cost for the Utility.
— Par Amount: $47,525,000
— Average Outstanding Interest Rate: 5.73%
— Borrowing Rate (30 -year term): 4.58%
— Net Present Value Savings: approx. $4,510,000
New Power Plant
• State will make fixed cost payments related to the project for Lodi which will
increase the underlying reliability and long-term resources of the Utility.
— Project Cost: $451000,000
— Annual Debt Service depending upon term (15 or 20 years):
approx. $3.8 - $4.7 million
Prepaid Power (Taxable)
• Taxable financing to increase short-term reserves to enhance liquidity.
— Par Amount:
— Borrowing Rate (5 -year term):
— Annual Debt Service:
$10,000,000
4.98%
approx. $2,300,000
OPT
13
.�x
City of Lodi
Summary of Electric Utility Alternatives
Fiscal Year
Ending
Outstanding
Electric Utility Net
Debt Service
Refunding of
Outstanding Prepaid Power
Bonds (Taxable)
Total Loc
Electric Utilit
Debt Service'
6/30/2002
$1,391,435
$573,891
$138,956
$712,846
6/30/2003
1,391,435
1,986,545
2,296,000
4,282,545
6/30/2004
1,391,435
1,986,545
2,298,699
4,285,244
6/30/2005
1,391,435
1,986,545
2,297,068
4,283,613
6/30/2006
1,391,435
1,986,545
2,296,109
4,282,654
6/30/2007
1,391,435
1,986,545
2,300,580
4,287,125
6/30/2008
1,391,435
1,986,545
1,986,545
6/30/2009
1,391,435
1,986,545
1,986,545
6/30/2010
1,391,435
1,986,545
1,986,545
6/30/2011
4,941,435
3,341,545
3,341,545
6/30/2012
4,945,185
3,349,906
3,349,906
6/30/2013
4,941,360
3,345,550
3,345,550
6/30/2014
4,945,135
3,348,895
3,348,895
6/30/2015
4,941,810
3,344,523
3,344,523
6/30/2016
4,942,315
3,342,643
3,342,643
6/30/2017
4,942,533
3,343,046
3,343,046
6/30/2018
4,939,454
3,340,523
3,340,523
6/30/2019
4,941,313
3,345,074
3,345,074
6/30/2020
4,946,716
3,346,281
3,346,281
6/30/2021
4,946,081
3,349,144
3,349,144
6/30/2022
4,944,212
3,348,454
3,348,454
6/30/2023
4,947,457
3,349,211
3,349,211
6/30/2024
4,940,638
3,341,206
3,341,206
6/30/2025
4,943,338
3,344,648
3,344,648
6/30/2026
4,944,334
3,343,910
3,343,910
6/30/2027
4,943,382
3,343,992
3,343,992
6/30/2028
4,945,139
3,344,685
3,344,685
6/30/2029
4,944,400
3,345,780
3,345,780
6/30/2030
4,946,386
3,347,068
3,347,068
6130/2031
4,944,514
3,348,340
3,348,340
6/30/2032
4,945,325
3,349,387
3.349,387
(1) Excludes NCPA and TANC debt service
a -
=PFM
14
Summary of General Fund Past Events
01�111 0
City of Lodi PFM has met with the City Council several times over the past two
years to review the General Fund and the potential to finance a new
Public Safety Building.
• Met with City Council on March 30, 2000 to evaluate the financing of
the public safety complex.
— Project Cost: $18,350,000
— Annual Debt Service: approximately $1,580,000
— Borrowing Rate: 6.13%
• Met with City Council on June 27, 2001, to review budget results.
• The City has begun to make an annual set-aside for the Public
Safety Building.
FY 2000-2001 $1,500,000
FY 2001-2002
$11500,000
FY 2002-2003 $1,500,000
Total
$4,500,000
=gv I5
X
Outline of Projects - General Fund
7 The City has several potential projects it is considering; including the
city of Lodi Public Safety Building and Parks and Recreation.
Public Safety: $ million
New Public Safety Building 12.00
Parking Structure 5.00
Old Public Safety Buildinq Remodel 3.00
Subtotal Public Safety $20.00
Parks and Recreation:
Indoor Sports Facility 7.50
Aquatics Center 3.50
DeBenedetti Park 7.30
Subtotal Parks and Recreation $18.30
Other:
New Animal Shelter
3.00
Fire Station 2 Remodel 0.75
Subtotal Other $3.75
Total: $42.05 It
G
C
General Fund Market Opportunities
rlv" I Refunding of Outstanding 1995 and 1996 COPs
City of Lodi • Current market rates also provide the opportunity to refund all of the
outstanding COPs to generate reduced debt service costs for the General
Fund.
— Par Amount:
— Borrowing Rate (16 -year term):
— Annual Debt Service Savings:
— Net Present Value Savings:
1.000
6.000
5.000
H
4.000
3
8
� 3.000
a
9
M
3
2.000
1.000
0.000
$14,900,000
4.08%
approx. $50,000
approx. $680,000
1995 CON 2015 Term Bond 1996 COPS 2016 Term Bond
Public Safety Building TIC (4.871/(
Refunding TIC (4.08%)
-a-
-PFM -PFM
Cl)
City of Lodi
Summary of General Fund Alternatives
(1) Debt Service net of Capitalized Interest and Debt Service Reserve Fund Receipts
(2) Refunded Prior Debt Service in 2002 equals $353,489
O
PFM I8
C
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Refunding Only
Level with PSB
Level with PSB
+ $16.3 M Add. Proceeds
Outstanding
Fiscal Year ,
General Fund
Aggregate Net
Net Cost of
Aggregate Net
Net Cost of
Aggregate Net
Net Cost o
Ending
Net Debt Service
Debt Service"'
Financing()
Debt Service"'
Financing("
Debt Service"'
_Financing"
6/30/2002
$1,275,208
$244,522
($108,967)
$286,620
($66,870)
$234,846
($118,644)
6/30/2003
1,267,891
1,214,930
(52,961)
1,531,211
263,320
1,185,702
(82,190)
6/30/2004
1,268,679
1,216,379
(52,300)
1,533,186
264,507
1,912,235
643,556
6/30/2005
1,267,361
1,216,479
(50,883)
1,531,055
263,694
2,701,688
1,434,327
6/30/2006
1,268,691
1,214,489
(54,203)
1,532,958
264,266
2,703,365
1,434,674
6/30/2007
1,267,411
1,215,497
(51,914)
1,533,622
266,211
2,697,965
1,430,554
6/30/2008
1,268,239
1,214,344
(53,895)
1,532,993
264,754
2,700,318
1,432,079
6/30/2009
1,261,154
1,205,777
(55,377)
1,530,868
269,714
2,694,995
1,433,841
6/30/2010
1,265,914
1,214,428
(51,486)
1,532,096
266,182
2,701,699
1,435,785
6/30/2011
1,262,151
1,210,192
(51,959)
1,531,628
269,477
2,695,417
1,433,266
6/30/2012
1,254,479
1,203,610
(50,870)
1,529,678
275,199
2,686,717
1,432,238
6/30/2013
1,252,487
1,199,692
(52,795)
1,531,208
278,721
2,685,521
1,433,034
6/30/2014
1,256,394
1,202,804
(53,590)
1,530,912
274,518
2,691,071
1,434,678
6/30/2015
1,251,506
1,197,851
(53,655)
1,533,685
282,179
2,688,269
1,436,762
6130/2016
1,247,824
1,194,996
(52,829)
1,529,627
281,803
2,682,389
1,434,565
6/30/2017
828,748
775,153
(53,595)
1,533,532
704,784
2,690,700
1,861,952
6/30/2018
1,530,191
1,530,191
2,698,821
2,698,821
6/30/2019
1,529,531
1,529,531
2,695,865
2,695,865
6/30/2020
1,531,490
1,531,490
2,698,761
2,698,761
6/30/2021
1,531,136
1,531,136
2,697,605
2,697,605
6/30/2022
1,533,309
1,533,309
2,697,205
2,697,205
6/30/2023
1,532,796
1,532,796
2,697,161
2,697,161
6/30/2024
1,529,701
1,529,701
2,697,409
2,697,409
6/30/2025
1,529,063
1,529,063
2,697,991
2,697,991
6/30/2026
1,530,672
1,530,672
2,698,720
2,698,720
6/30/2027
1,529,442
1,529,442
2,699,417
2,699,417
6/30/2028
1,530,299
1,530,299
2,695,047
2,695,047
6/30/2029
1,533,049
1,533,049
2,695,459
2,695,459
6/30/2030
1,532,502
1,532,502
2,695,160
2,695,160
6/30/2031
1,533,529
1,533,529
2,698,773
2,698,773
6/30/2032
1,529,058
1,529,058 1
2,695,301
2,695,301
Total
$19,764,137
$17,941,142
($901,277)
$46,230,649
$27,388,230 1
$78,811,590
$59,969,171
(1) Debt Service net of Capitalized Interest and Debt Service Reserve Fund Receipts
(2) Refunded Prior Debt Service in 2002 equals $353,489
O
PFM I8
C
El
Comparison of Existing Debt Service with
Annual Set -Aside to General Fund Scenario
Under current market conditions, Lodi could finance $20 million of Public
Citi of Lodi Safety Projects plus $16.3 million of other projects with annual payments
equal to -the outstanding COP debt service plus the $1.5 million annual set-
aside, which has been budgeted from FY 2001 through FY 2003.
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
c $2,000,000
0
E
ea
a $1,500,000
c
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
O O N W O N tCo oO0 O N O co co OO O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N
� � 6
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
co M M M M M co co M M M M M M co M
CSO CSOCSL) CSO t�D B -a CSD CD (0 C_D CSD tip CSO f�D
=Annual Set -Aside ($1.5 M/year)
f• Outstanding Net Debt Service
—Scenario C: Level Public Safety Building Financing with $16.3 M Additional Proceed:
C
ri*�
City of Lodi
Sensitivity to Interest Rates
Assumption:
- Interest rates rise by 100 basis points
Results:
- Increased Debt Service of approximately
$9.5 million
- Alternatively, $2.7 million of annual debt
service would generate $5.2 million less in
additional proceeds
(1) Debt Service net of Capitalized Interest and Debt Service Reserve Fund Receipts
Ci
Level with PSB
+ $16.3 M_ Additional Proceeds
Current Rates
+ 100 b
Fiscal Year
Aggregate Net
Aggregate Net
Net Cost o
Ending
Debt Service'"
Debt Service"'
Increase
6/30/2002
$234,846
$302,670
$67,824
6/30/2003
1,185,702
1,263,682
77,980
6/30/2004
1,912,235
2,158,113
245,879
6/30/2005
2,701,688
3,050,883
349,195
6/30/2006
2,703,365
3,052,938
349,573
6/30/2007
2,697,965
3,047,658
349,693
6/30/2008
2,700,318
3,049,831
349,513
6/30/2009
2,694,995
3,044,011
349,016
6/30/2010
2,701,699
3,049,831
348,132
6/30/2011
2,695,417
3,042,219
346,802
6/30/2012
2,686,717
3,036,619
349,902
6/30/2013
2,685,521
3,032,874
347,353
6/30/2014
2,691,071
3,040,118
349,046
6/30/2015
2,688,269
3,033,207
344,939
6/30/2016
2,682,389
3,032,278
349,889
6/30/2017
2,690,700
3,004,520
313,821
6/30/2018
2,698,821
3,003,674
304,853
6/30/2019
2,695,865
3,004,563
308,698
6/30/2020
2,698,761
3,004,976
306,215
6/30/2021
2,697,605
3,004,928
307,323
6/30/2022
2,697,205
3,004,047
306,842
6/30/2023
2,697,161
3,001,866
304,705
6/30/2024
2,697,409
3,003,112
305,703
6/30/2025
2,697,991
3,002,623
304,632
6/30/2026
2,698,720
3,005,009
306,289
6/30/2027
2,699,417
3,004,890
305,472
6/30/2028
2,695,047
3,002,057
307,010
6/30/2029
2,695,459
3,006,016
310,557
6/30/2030
2,695,160
3,006,040
310,879
6/30/2031
2,698,773
3,001,822
303,049
6/30/2032
2,695,301
3,003,948
308,647
Total 1
$78,811,590
$88,301,022
$9,489,432
Assumption:
- Interest rates rise by 100 basis points
Results:
- Increased Debt Service of approximately
$9.5 million
- Alternatively, $2.7 million of annual debt
service would generate $5.2 million less in
additional proceeds
(1) Debt Service net of Capitalized Interest and Debt Service Reserve Fund Receipts
Ci
Page 11 was
intentionally left blank
Cin of Lodi
Next Steps
In regard to next steps, the City should consider;
• Taking advantage of current rates
• Prioritizing projects
• Beginning an appraisal on major City assets
• Timeline
- Council Approval of Financing Plan
- Pricing
- Funding
Week of November 12
Week of November 26
Week of December 10
PF14i j 12
I
CO
City of Lodi
Preliminary Results:
General Fund Balance with Debt Structures
O 9 000
O
O
8,000
W 7,000
6,000
5,000
K -OW, I IiI'
v � N M d' to O 1` 00 M O
O O O O O O O O O V-
N N N N N N N CD CD N N N
Fiscal Year
Base Case: Do Nothing
- - Scenario B: Level PSB with Refunding
- - Scenario C: Level PSB with Refunding and $16.3 M Add. Proceeds
Fiscal Years 2001 1 2002 1 2003 1 2004 1 2005 1- 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2000 2010
ase Case: Do Nothing 3,948,398 13,984,543 14,102,275 j 4,133,516 j 4,276,926 14,502,829 4,933,2215,591,889 6,504,540 7,698,93:
cenario 13: Leel PSB with Refunding 3,948,398 13,984,543 14,102,275 14,133,516 14,276,926 14,502,829 14,933,221 15,591,889 16,504,540 7,698,93:
3,000
LL
2,000
LM
1,000
0
v � N M d' to O 1` 00 M O
O O O O O O O O O V-
N N N N N N N CD CD N N N
Fiscal Year
Base Case: Do Nothing
- - Scenario B: Level PSB with Refunding
- - Scenario C: Level PSB with Refunding and $16.3 M Add. Proceeds
Fiscal Years 2001 1 2002 1 2003 1 2004 1 2005 1- 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2000 2010
ase Case: Do Nothing 3,948,398 13,984,543 14,102,275 j 4,133,516 j 4,276,926 14,502,829 4,933,2215,591,889 6,504,540 7,698,93:
cenario 13: Leel PSB with Refunding 3,948,398 13,984,543 14,102,275 14,133,516 14,276,926 14,502,829 14,933,221 15,591,889 16,504,540 7,698,93: