11-14-16 Utilities - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

been following the markets after our election last week —it is a roller coaster. We'll keep a watch of things here. In the last three (3) days, the interest rates have moved, so we have probably lost about $2,000 a year in savings. If it moves significantly above that, you're not committed to sell. So, we'll watch that and advise the Administration in terms of making sure we don't drop below the point that it makes it worthwhile to complete the refund. As things stand now, we're expecting the results that we're showing here. Committeemember Davis asked if Mr. Julien thought that that would stabilize by the Spring of 2017. Mr. Julien responded, that he thought so, before the election. The expectation was that any changes that were going to happen in 2017 were going to be gradual and probably spread throughout the year. He explained that they had seen more action in the last three (3) trading days than they had in the last two (2) years of market activity. He explained that every election has a short term impact on the market, so this is not entirely unexpected, nor does it erode savings too much. History will tell if the impact will be more long -term or not. Committeemember Davis asked, So, typically after an election we're looking at four (4) to six (6) months, right? Mr. Julien responded that he expected things to stabilize more quickly than that. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand suggested that since the petitioner went from a mandatory use to a discretionary use for the funds proposed in the substitute bill, the matter should be clarified for the Council. Mr. Faccenda stated, The Water Works utility had a common reserve fund, and has had a common reserve fund for several years. Meaning that, with regard to various bond issues, to have it in that sort of reserve you can make it common to all the bonds. It actually saves a little bit of money, in terms of the amount of dollars you have to reserve. Because the bonds have been placed with different purchasers, including the State, the State revolving fund required its own independent reserve. So, we went that route years ago. Subsequent to that, there were some private placements of the bonds, or other sales that also took advantage of an individual sub - account. Instead of eliminating our common reserve, we simply went the route of creating sub - accounts that were themselves securing just with one series of bonds. So, actually, with this refunding of the 2000 and the 2006, there would be no common reserve —any bonds that would be secured by the common reserve. What we wanted to do was make sure that, if we bought into it —and it looks like we very well may want to, for this bond and future bonds —go back to taking advantage of the common reserve. So, that language was modified a little bit to just allow for us to use the common reserve versus a sub - account. And that's the only change. Committee Chair Dr. David Varner stated, I see that we applied two (2) separate debt service reserve funds —one $550,000, one $120,000 —when we bond the three- point- eight- seven -two (3.872), we create another debt reserve service fund. Apparently specific to this bond? Mr. Faccenda responded, Right. It will be for this bond, but it will allow us to also do it with future bonds in the common reserve. So, the clearing out of those dollars that are tied to the prior bond issue allows you to reduce the principal amount of bonds that you actually have to issue, because you're reducing cash on -hand. Also, tax -wise, that's what the federal government wants