pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 17 | Councilmember Tam stated that she is focusing more on the comment that there was a business partnership with Mr. Holmstedt and the Interim City Manager. The Interim City Manager stated the companies are separate; that she did consulting work for approximately ten to twelve months; she did not do banking work. Councilmember Tam stated the City is dealing with appearances; clearly, one member of the team secured the position because of a relationship with the Interim City Manager. The Interim City Manager stated that there was no relationship because she worked for a subsidiary in 1993 and 1994 which was fifteen years ago; she knew Mr. Holmstedt before when he was working for other firms; some firms will suggest debt issues that are risky and she does not believe WCH would. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the partnership between the Interim City Manager and Mr. Holmstedt still exists. The Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated that she is not a partner and does not know if the firm exists anymore; she does not receive any annuities; stock options, and is not making any money on the transaction. Mayor Johnson stated the City is under time constraints; property owners would get a significant savings. Councilmember Tam stated that she does not understand the savings. Mayor Johnson stated Exhibit 2 shows the estimated savings. Mr. Reynolds stated the savings is assumed at 5%; 7% would be is used if the 5% does not provide present value savings. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Reynolds stated the annual estimated savings would be based upon the property size. Mayor Johnson stated the annual estimated savings for AD 89-1 would be $863,218. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the estimated savings is based on 5%. Mr. Holmstedt responded the issue is more complicated; stated the bond interest rate average is about 5%; underlying assessment bonds that create revenue to pay the bonds would need to be set at a little higher rate to create the proper debt coverage that investors are looking for; said rate is approximately 6%; the typical standard for refinancing the transaction or not is to have present value savings of 3% minimum; the present value savings is well in excess of 3% for Harbor Bay and Marina Village; the present value savings is projected at 14% for Harbor Bay and 10% for Marina Village; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |