My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SA_FULL PACKET_2016-07-05
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Successor Agency (Formerly the Community Redevelopment Agency) (1974-Present)
>
SUCCESOR AGENCY (2012 - PRESENT)
>
2016
>
07/05/2016
>
SA_FULL PACKET_2016-07-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/30/2016 5:41:03 PM
Creation date
6/30/2016 5:40:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Community Development
Item #
3
Date
7/5/2016
Destruction Year
2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
222
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).
View images
View plain text
A. Fee Proposal <br />lnehtde your not -ta- exceed aranagetnent fee, average takedown and detaded oat- of- pockei expenses far fronds at the following tar exempt <br />levels: a)$25- 30million. <br />Cost of underwriting. Ensuring the lowest cost of borrowing is a shared <br />goal of Stifel and the Agency. We believe that Stifel's track record in the <br />tax allocation space, consistent attention to the Agency and the City as well <br />as our ability to provide superior execution in today's marketplace <br />represents a much greater factor in lowering borrowing cost than the <br />underwriting fee. As shown to the right, on a typical financing, the <br />underwriter's tee makes up less than I % of the total interest cost. <br />The borrowing cost is a function of the market, issuer credit and the <br />execution delivered by the Underwriter. An aggressive and appropriate <br />marketing approach, coupled with comprehensive coverage of tax <br />increment investors that Stifel stands ready to mobilize, will have a larger <br />impact on the final borrowing cost than the underwriting fee. To <br />demonstrate this, the table to the right illustrates the incremental impact of <br />the underwriting fee on a generic "AA" general obligation credit. in this <br />case, the borrowing cost increases less than 0.01 %, or a basis point, for <br />every additional dollar included in the underwriter's fee on a per bond <br />basis. We highlight this relationship to make the point that a few dollars <br />more in sales compensation adds minimally to cost and can more than <br />cover that cost if it provides better sales execution. Essentially, if the <br />Agency can achieve even two basis points of better pricing with a dollar <br />higher sales compensation, then that approach would make economic sense <br />to fallow. <br />Stifel's Proposed Fee. The tables on the following page provide our <br />proposed underwriter's discount, assuming a sole managed financing <br />totaling $25.6 million completed by the middle of 2015. Our proposed fee <br />would represent an average takedown of $2.50 /$1,000 on the bonds, plus <br />expenses and an allowance for management. <br />$1 <br />3.79% <br />$2 <br />3.79% <br />$3 <br />3.50% <br />$4 <br />3.81% <br />$5 <br />3.81% <br />$6 <br />3.82% <br />$7 <br />3.83% <br />$8 <br />3.93% <br />$9 <br />3.84% <br />Please note- -the proposed management fee is currently $12,500. This $10 385% <br />acknowledges the time required to direct an aggressive pre - marketing <br />program to our sales staff, conduct proper due diligence on a complex credit and meet the regulatory needs of our <br />current market environment. Depending on the issues encountered in the Financing program, we may want to talk <br />with the Agency and the Financial Advisor about this fee. Our estimate for underwriter's counsel assumes that <br />this party reviews transaction documents but does not prepare the official statement. If that work is included, our <br />sense is that underwriter's counsel costs would range from $25,000 to $35,000 depending on the issues uncovered <br />in the due diligence process. As to the takedown, we have assumed an aggressive institutionally oriented pricing. <br />As we approach Clio underwriting, if we believe that the participation of retail or professional retail buyers could <br />enhance the marketing process and drive down the interest rate, then we may want to revisit the takedowns where <br />those parties could be most active, probably in the first ten years of the amortization schedule. Clearly, any <br />changes will be subject to review and approval of the Financial Advisor and the Agency. Finally, the identified <br />fees do not include the costs associated with a continuing disclosure review. As for the recent Water Enterprise <br />financing, we plan on working with the Financial Advisor and the Agency to ensure appropriate disclosure, noting <br />that we will likely need to add the 2013/14 flings to the work performed last summer. <br />While we believe these fees are competitive for the work involved, we do not want fees to become the <br />determinant of the selection process and are willing to discuss fees further, as necessary. <br />CITY OF SANTA ANA 3-180 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.