pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf, 20
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 20 | pressure in the General Fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council sent the bond back at least three times and then reluctantly agreed to move forward; Council would not have gone forward if the provisions were know. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated refunding the bond over the time period left in the initial bond would result in higher debt service payments; payments would spike by not extending the debt service term beyond what was initially done on the debt. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated policies need to be development to avoid mistakes that have happened in the past. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the City has very low debt ratio; debt is in the future; standards and policies need to be in place before debt is issued. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the policy approach is the same approach that is being taken with asset management; balancing the budget is necessary; revenue needs to be generated to fill the budget gap and long term affect; a long-term approach should be included as policies are developed. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she will come back before the holidays with a financial policy similar to the asset management policy. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director stated refinancing cannot be done and that the General Fund would be needed; inquired how long the bleeding would last. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded there is no long-term funding out of the Library; General Fund dollars would be used on a recurring basis until 2014, unless another way is found. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $12.1 million [General Fund balance] would drop. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $1.7 million transfer to the Library would go up to $2.1 million and $2.2 million; stated staff will work very hard to find a solution; another part of the policy would be what would be financed with a thirty year debt; that her first reaction would be to see if some of the bonds could be called to reduce debt service and lower the balance; however, she has not looked far enough in the indenture; right now, her feeling is not to refund something unless money could be saved because the cost of issuance would be too high. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 20 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |