Laserfiche WebLink
RAMIRL4 <br />Additional Structuring Alternatives, options and Benefits of Proposed Structure <br />Water System CalPERS UAL. 62% of the proposed UAL payoff amount ($391.5 million) is attributable to <br />the City's Safety plan. This is beneficial because the City's water enterprise is responsible for a portion of <br />the miscellaneous plan and the City is considering utilizing a "tax-exempt exchange" to payoff a potion for <br />the Miscellaneous UAL attributable to the water system's employees. In this option, the City uses (PAYG) <br />cash on hand to payoff a portion of a UAL base and, subsequently, funds capital improvements with lower <br />cost tax-exempt bonds. <br />Additional Upfront Cash Flow Relief. The proposed structure optimizes the base case Hybrid structure <br />discussed above. I lowever, various adjustments can be made to deliver even greater cash flow savings. If <br />budget needs require immediate relief, the City may consider structuring ascending debt service in the <br />earlier maturities, thereby moving principal to later maturities. Depending on the amount of deferred <br />principal, this option could marginally increase the borrowing cost of the overall transaction. <br />Smaller Transaction — Dynamic UAL Selection Model. Our proposal is designed to deliver the highest cash <br />flow savings possible and lowest interest rare under the 50% - 90% UAL payoff amounts, however, we <br />understand the City may consider a smaller par amount. The model we designed for the City can be <br />optimized in real time to evaluate alternative options and our team is committed to working with the City <br />and its financing (earn throughout the engagement to assess alternative options that arrount for Changes <br />in interest rates and/or budget needs. <br />Bond Insurance Could Reduce Borrowing Cost and Reduce Risk. Given our activity in the California City <br />POB space, our team has conducted extensive discussions with Build America Mutual (BAM) and Assured <br />Guarantee (AGM) and we are confident In our ability to secure bond Insurance for at least a portion of the <br />City's POBs. The value of bond insurance today is approximately 10 bps in tighter spreads. However, each <br />insurer has a unique view and appetite for POBs. BAM will be our primary focus based on their willingness <br />to insure 'unsecured' POBs for the cities of Chula Vista (AA) and Orange (AA). However, BAM will only <br />insure cities which they believe have zero risk of default and have a minimum rating of 'AA,' based on <br />their internal credit metrics (note: RAM's rating assessment does not always agree with S&P's). Two very <br />important factors in BAM's decision to insure POBs are 1) the size of the City (i.e. general fund size, <br />pnpulatinn, AV, etr.) and ➢) strength of the issuer's pension funding/management pnliries. Thry hclirvc <br />credits for larger cities, such as Santa Ana, are more favorable to insure because of the broader tax base <br />and access to resources/liquidity. BAM is also very focused on the nuances of each issuer's pension <br />policies. Willi the help of UFI, the Cily lids developed a thoughtful pension rnandgemenl policy Owl. <br />includes additional discretionary payments to CalPFRS from excess reserves and a 'tax-exempt exchange' <br />for additional savings. We will reach out to AGM as well, however, they have not insured an unsecured <br />POB since 2017 haled on a commitment from their CEO to not insure "unsecured" municipal bonds. All <br />California POBs insured by AGM have included a pledged of pension lax revenues. <br />Private Placements recommended for smaller financings with a short final maturity where the All -in - <br />TIC is lower than a Public Offering. Ramirez & Co. would recommend a private placement for a financing <br />with a par amount under $5 million and a final maturity under 15 years. The pros to utilizing a private <br />placement are lower issuance cost and lower due diligence requirements. The cons are restrictive credit <br />and structuring requirements (note: very few banks provide loans for POBs). <br />Scale. Below is our indicative scale forthe City's upcoming POBs as of March 5, 2021, based on comparable <br />transactions including recent POBs issued by the cities of Orange, Chula Vista and Downey. <br />City Council <br />12 23 — 250 <br />5/18/2021 <br />