Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPFC - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed August 11, 2015 PFC - Written Comments Aug. 11, 2015, Public Facilities Corp. Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach Public Facilities Corporation's agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher a(�vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item D.1. Approval of Minutes for the July 22, 2014, Meeting Page 1, Item B, paragraph 1, sentence 2: "He expressed the opinion that cash could have been used to fund the new City Hall as had been done previously with the old City Hall on Newport Boulevard and park with two new parks." [note: I misspoke, saying "Newport Avenue," but it is probably best to identify the correct location in the minutes] Page 1, Item B, paragraph 2, last sentence: "He asked what the penalty would be if the debt was paid early and what would happen to the $44 million debt federal subsidy if it were paid early." Page 2, Item E.2, paragraph 1: "Chief Financial Officer Matusiewicz reported that the staff report that discussed the nature and purpose of the Newport Beach Public Facilities Corporation." Item E.2. Review of Annual Financial Statements 1. The table in the staff report showing the slow pay down of the City's debt and its continuing cost to taxpayers, which was not provided last year, is useful. 2. It would have been even more useful if it had included the earlier years to show what, according to the City's "Official Statement" about the Certificates of Participation, I believe will be an ultimate cost of $281,929,177 to pay off what in 2010 was an initial principal of $126,660,000, without even including the City staff and outside administrative costs to service the debt over its 30 years — even the latter of which are not very clearly disclosed. 3. The City's undated webpage on which the "Official Statement" and a table similar to the one in the staff report appear, says of the federal subsidy connected with the "Build America Bonds" portion of the offering, that "the City expected to receive periodic payments from the United States Treasury equal to 35% of the interest payable on the 2010B Certificates. However, due to sequestration that began on March 1, 2013, the City now expects to receive refundable credits from the United States Treasury equal to about 32% of the interest payable on the 20108 Certificates." It would seem the PFC officers might want to know what the current status of that is. 4. With regard to the table in the staff report, page 2 of the "Official Statement' suggests that the indicated payments of principal through July 1, 2020 are to redeem Certificates as they mature. However, after 2020 there are only two items remaining: one issue of $17,800,000 payable on July 1, 2030, and one of $70,000,000 payable on July 1, 2040. Are the principal payments shown in the table actually paid out as indicated? Or do they accumulate in an account to be paid out in a lump sum on the due date? August 11, 2015, Public Facilities Corp. Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 5. With regard to the latter possibility, the Financial Statements in Attachment A to the staff report would, at least at first blush, suggest the PFC keeps a running balance of about $8 million in its payment reserve on which it earned an "investment income' of just $168 this last year — an interest rate of 0.002 %. Should the balance in the principal payment reserve accumulate to $70 million, one hopes the City will enjoy a better investment return on it. 6. There previously was a largely non - agendized exchange (see Item 22 on March 24, 2015) between Council Members Peotter and Curry regarding the possibility of restructuring the City's debt to reduce the burden on City taxpayers — as was done with the refunding of the 1992 Certificates of Participation in 2010. Since reducing the burden on taxpayers should be a primary focus of the PFC, this meeting of the PFC Board would seem like the appropriate forum to publicly discuss the possibility or impossibility of doing that. Item E.3. Amendment to the Newport Beach Public Facilities Corporation Bylaws 1. The Bylaws refer in at least two places to the "Articles of Incorporation" of the "Newport Beach Public Facilities Corporation." Is there a copy of the "Articles of Incorporation' available for public inspection? I am unable to find them on the City website. 2. Section 3.12 would seem to suggest that the City Manager, who is the "President" of the PFC, if present, is supposed to preside over the meetings of the Board. That does not seem to be the actual practice. 3. In Section 4.01. since the PFC has no Treasurer. should "Assistant Treasurers" be "Assistant Financial Officers "? 4. Section 4.05 appears to make at least one Vice President position mandatory, in contradiction to Section 4.01 which puts their creation at the discretion of the Board. 5. At the start of line 2 of Section 4.07, the word "City' seems redundant and should probably be deleted. 6. The last line of the proposed redline says the modified bylaws were adopted "by resolution' on August 11`" even though Section 6.01 says a majority vote is sufficient. Does there need to be a resolution? 7. Whether or not a PFC Board resolution is used, it would seem useful to retain the original date of adoption and add to it the dates of any subsequent amendments.