Contacts Edward D. Stull, Jr. Managing Director 450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 460 Orlando, Florida 32801 407.426.9611 Tel Ed.Stull@hilltopsecurities.com February 27, 2017 Taxable Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA
Table of Contents Brief Introduction to Financing A Primer on Refunding Transactions Market Conditions and Outlook Summary of Taxable Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Tab A Tab B Tab C Tab D Appendices Summary of Completed Refinancings in 2016 Appendix 1 Summary of Completed Refinancings Prior to 2016 Appendix 2
Brief Introduction to Financing Tab A
Professionals Involved in the Debt Issuance Process Bond Counsel Provides legal opinion that the Issuer is authorized to issue the proposed securities and that the interest on the debt is tax-exempt. The City s current Bond Counsel is Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson o Steve Miller and Bishoy Habib o Selected in 2016 after a RFP process Financial Advisor Consultant who advises on the structure, timing marketing and pricing of the bond issue. The City s current Financial Advisor is FirstSouthwest, a Division of Hilltop Securities, Inc. o Ed Stull and Joel Tindal o Served as Financial Advisor on 10 financings since November 2012 totaling $563,245,000 in par amount o Assisted in the City realizing $86.5 million in present value savings on 7 refinancing transactions as outlined in the appendices 3
Professionals Involved in the Debt Issuance Process Disclosure Counsel Provides advice on issuer disclosure obligations and prepares the Official Statement and Continuing Disclosure Agreements in connection with bond issues The City s current Disclosure Counsel is Bryant Miller Olive o Jolinda Herring and Jalecia Coley o Selected in 2016 after a RFP process o BMO served as Disclosure Counsel on 5 debt issues in 2016 totaling $440 million in par amount Underwriter A dealer which purchases a new issue of municipal securities for resale to investors. The City selected a pool of four (4) underwriters through a RFQ process in 2016 o Bank of America Merrill Lynch o Citi o RBC Capital Markets o Wells Fargo 4
Professionals Involved in the Debt Issuance Process Credit Rating Agencies Evaluates the credit quality of the issuer and provides the market with an independent financial analysis report and credit rating. Standard & Poor's Sole rating on the City s most recent bond issues FitchRatings Rates the City s Utility System Bonds Moody s Investor Services Rated a number of the City s previous bond Issues Credit Enhancement Companies Organizations such as banks and insurance companies that lend their higher credit quality for a fee. Paying Agent A financial institution which coordinates the process of bond payments to the bondholders. Trustee A financial institution with trust powers which acts in a fiduciary capacity to facilitate the collection, escrow and distribution of funds for the benefit of the bondholder. 5
Types of Debt Financings Competitive Sales The bid that results in the lowest effective cost for the issuer is chosen. o Highly rated, well known, frequent issuers o General Obligation or Strong System Revenues o Traditional bond structures o Stable, predictable market conditions with light issuance Negotiated Sales Interest rates and underwriting spread are determined through negotiation with the underwriter, who has been previously selected to market the bonds. o Project supported revenues o Special purpose, independent authorities o Volatile market conditions o Desire to direct business to local/regional/minority firms Private Placements Interest rates are determined through negotiation with one or several investors. 6
Types of Revenue Pledges General Obligation Non-Ad Valorem Revenues Sales Taxes Gas Taxes Special Assessment Tax Increment Grant Proceeds Other Revenues 7
Revenue Bonds Require no voter authorization Secured solely by revenues of the operating system Issued for revenue producing operating systems/projects Water System Sewer System Sanitation Electric Utility Toll Roads Airports Sports Complex Hotel/Convention Center Sales Tax Corporation 8
Differences Between Revenue & Tax-Supported Debt Revenue Bonds are only supported by a revenue stream from an enterprise fund or revenue producing project Revenue Bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer Revenue Bonds typically require a debt service reserve fund, unless debt service coverage is strong. Revenue Bonds typically sell at interest rates up to 1/10 of 1% higher than comparably rated General Obligation Bonds 9
The Debt Issuance Process PHASE 1 Develop Financing Program PHASE 7 Ongoing Services PHASE 6 Conduct Marketing and Sale of Debt Financial Advisory Process PHASE 2 Set Financing Terms PHASE 3 Coordinate Related Service Providers PHASE 5 Prepare Documentation PHASE 4 Coordinate Rating & Credit Enhancement Process 10
The Debt Issuance Process 11
A Primer on Refunding Transactions Tab B
Structuring Considerations for Refunding Transactions Look for ways to take advantage of the current low interest rate environment and mitigate potential financing risks to the City Create a financing program that will result in the lowest cost of capital available to the City Provide future financing flexibility to the City Provide opportunity to maintain or upgrade credit ratings 13
What is a Refunding Bonds? What is a Refunding Bond? A procedure whereby an issuer refinances outstanding bonds by issuing new bonds. Issuers refund bonds generally for the following reasons: o To reduce the issuer s interest costs with lower interest rates o To remove burdensome or restrictive covenants imposed by the terms of the bonds being refinanced. o To restructure the stream of debt service payments to avoid default or an unacceptable tax or rate increase. The proceeds of the new bonds are either deposited in escrow to pay the debt service on the outstanding bonds when due or used to promptly (typically within 90 days) retire the outstanding bonds. Generally, refunded bonds are not considered a part of the issuer s debt because the lien of the holders of the refunded bonds is on the escrowed funds, not on the originally pledged source of revenues. 14
Common Types of Refunding Bonds Current Refunding A financing structure under which old bonds are called or mature within 90 days of the issuance of the new refunding bonds. Advanced Refunding A financing structure under which old bonds are called or mature more than 90 days from the issuance of the new refunding bonds. The proceeds are then invested and placed into an escrow to pay debt service when due. When the older bonds become callable, they are paid off with the invested proceeds. Under IRS rules, bonds issued after 1985 can only be advance refunded once. Forward Refunding An agreement, usually between an issuer and the underwriter, whereby the issuer agrees to issue bonds on a specified future date and an underwriter agrees to purchase such bonds on such date. Typically, a forward refunding is used where the bonds to be refunded are not permitted to be advance refunded on a tax-exempt basis under the Internal Revenue Code. In such a case, the issuer agrees to issue, and the underwriter agrees to purchase, the new issue of bonds on a future date (usually the first date in which the bonds could be currently refunded). Due to the delay in the issuance of the bonds, there is a normally an adjustment to the interest rate charged on these bonds which is based upon the market s future interest rate expectations and the amount of time between the sale and the closing. The advantage of a forward refunding is that an issuer can take advantage of favorable market conditions and lock in refunding savings before the bonds are eligible to be currently refunded. 15
Government Finance Officer s Association ( GFOA ) Recommended Practices Is It Time to Refund the Bonds? One test often used by issuers to assess the appropriateness of a refunding is the requirement specifying the achievement of a minimum net present value (NPV) savings. o Net of all issuance costs and any cash contribution to the refunding, does the refunding provide at least a 3% to 5% present value savings as a percentage of the refunded bonds? o Does the refunding provide a minimum net present value savings in terms of dollars (e.g. $100,000 or $1 million NPV savings). In certain circumstances, lower savings thresholds may be justified. o Refundings done for reasons other than economic savings Restructurings for covenants Cash flow relief o Interest rates are at historically low levels o Future opportunities to achieve greater savings are not likely to occur. 16
When Should an Issuer Refinance Their Bonds? Establish Formal Policy Guidelines First offer a systematic approach for determining if a refunding is cost-effective promote consistency with other financial goals and objectives, provide the justification for decisions on when to undertake a refunding, ensure that staff time is not consumed unnecessarily in evaluating refunding proposals, ensure that some minimum level of cost savings is achieved, and reduce the possibility that further savings could have been achieved by deferring the sale of refunding bonds to a later date. Follow the Formal Policy Guidelines Unless there is a strong conviction that interest rates will be lower in the future or that savings will be greater in the future, the guidelines are there for a reason. 17
Market Conditions and Outlook Tab C
Market Conditions Week of February 6 February 10, 2017 Looking back, given the heavy issuance calendar, municipal bonds posted positive returns for the week but underperformed Treasuries. Uncertainty over President Trump s administration s promise for big league tax reform helped stocks to reach new highs. Economic data released was light for the week. Looking ahead, total volume of municipal bonds is estimated at $5.60 billion, down from the previous week s revised $7.7 billion. The upcoming calendar consists of $4.09 billion in negotiated deals and $1.5 billion in competitive sales. The largest transaction on this week s calendar is the $552 million San Francisco Bay Area Toll Authority toll bridge revenue bonds (comprised of four series A-D ). Notable figures for the upcoming week: U.S. Retail Sales figures, Consumer Price data, and industrial production numbers will be released on Wednesday, February 15. U.S. Housing data will be released on Thursday, February 16. 19
Historical Long Term Interest Rates Historical Long Term Interest Rates Weekly Data Points 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4.03 3.88 3% 2% 3.01 2.40 1% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: Thomson Reuters and the Bond Buyer 2/9/2017 *These graphs depict historical interest rates and their respective relationships. Future interest rates are dependent upon many factors such as, but not limited to, interest rate trends, tax rates, supply, changes in laws, rules and regulations, as well as changes in credit quality and rating agency considerations. The effect of such changes in such assumptions may be material and could affect the projected results. These results should be viewed with these potential changes in mind as well as the understanding that there may be interruptions in the short term market or no market may exist at all. 20
Municipal Interest Rates MMD 'AAA' GO Yield Curves 5.0% Current vs 6-Month Prior 6-Months Prior Current 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% Municipal benchmark yields have risen by up to 0.88% over the previous 6- months 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% (0.42) (0.50) (0.57) (0.59) (0.65) (0.64) (0.70) (0.78) (0.83) (0.83) *These graphs depict historical interest rates and their respective relationships. Future interest rates are dependent upon many factors such as, but not limited to, interest rate trends, tax rates, supply, changes in laws, rules and regulations, as well as changes in credit quality and rating agency considerations. The effect of such changes in such assumptions may be material and could affect the projected results. These results should be viewed with these potential changes in mind as well as the understanding that there may be interruptions in the short term market or no market may exist at all. (0.83) (0.83) (0.85) (0.88) (0.91) (0.92) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Maturity (0.93) (0.93) (0.92) (0.91) (0.89) (0.88) (0.88) (0.88) (0.88) (0.88) (0.88) (0.88) (0.88) Source: Thomson Reuters 2/9/2017 (0.88) 21
Municipal Interest Rates Are At Historically Low Levels *These graphs depict historical interest rates and their respective relationships. Future interest rates are dependent upon many factors such as, but not limited to, interest rate trends, tax rates, supply, changes in laws, rules and regulations, as well as changes in credit quality and rating agency considerations. The effect of such changes in such assumptions may be material and could affect the projected results. These results should be viewed with these potential changes in mind as well as the understanding that there may be interruptions in the short term market or no market may exist at all. 22
Market Commentary Week of February 6 February 10, 2017 Bond yields jumped around a bit, but ended the week pretty close to where they began. Stocks surged with all three major U.S. indexes reaching record highs Thursday and then again on Friday. This was attributed to a statement by President Trump that a major tax announcement would come in a few weeks. Fed members, uncharacteristically quiet for the past month, weighed in with some important comments last week. Philly Fed President Patrick Harker, a new FOMC voter in 2017, told reporters on Monday that the March FOMC meeting would be live. The headline caused a bit of a stir, but the reality was that Harker simply wanted to emphasize that all meetings should be considered open for discussion. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said on Thursday that interest rates could remain low throughout 2017 as there is no clear sense that Trump policies will stoke inflationary pressures. Bullard, currently a non-voting member of the FOMC who is considered an inflation hawk, pointed to fiscal uncertainty and indicated that the Fed will likely hike rates just once this year. Bullard believes the March meeting will not result in any change as fiscal policy discussions are unlikely to be resolved before March 15. As mentioned earlier, there really wasn t much data released last week. One piece worth mentioning is initial jobless claims, which are first-time filings for unemployment benefits. Claims fell 12k to 234k for the week ending February 4, bringing the four-week moving average to 244k, the lowest since June of 1973. This indicates U.S. employers are not laying employees off, suggesting a tight labor market. 23
Market Forecasts From February 3 February 8, 2017, Bloomberg News surveyed approximately 75 of the nation s top economists for their most recent opinions on the U.S. economy and interest rates. The current 10-year Treasury-Note yield is at 2.49% and the forecast for the next 6 quarters is below: Forecast Period February 2017 Difference From Current Yield 1 st Quarter 2017 2.47% -0.02% 2 nd Quarter 2017 2.57% +0.08% 3 rd Quarter 2017 2.67% +0.18% 4 th Quarter 2017 2.76% +0.27% 1 st Quarter 2018 2.84% +0.35% 2 st Quarter 2018 3.00% +0.51% 24
Summary of Taxable Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Tab D
Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 (City Center Special Assessment District) Estimated par amount of $29,775,000 Refunds on a taxable basis all of the following bond issue: $31,360,000 City of Port St. Lucie Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A (City Center Special Assessment District) o Current outstanding par amount of $27,290,000 o Final maturity of July 1, 2035 Security: Covenant to budget and appropriate revenue pledge from the City Underwriters (Selected through a mini-rfp process) Senior Manager: Citi Co-Manager: Bank of America Merrill Lynch Projected Sale Date: March 23, 2017 Rating: A+ by Standard and Poor s on August 18, 2016. We will be updating this rating as part of this refunding 26
Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Sources and Uses of Funds 27
Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Estimated Savings Summary 28
Summary Refunding of Series 2008A City Center Bonds Existing Bonds Proposed 2017 Taxable Bonds Difference Par Amount $27,290,000 $29,775,000 $2,485,000 Dated Date 4/6/2017 - Final Maturity 7/1/2035 7/1/2035 - Average Coupon 6.41% 4.25% -2.16% All-Inclusive Cost N / A 4.33% - Total Debt Service $47,114,338 $42,834,653 $4,279,685 Total Savings (1) N / A $4,279,685 - Average Annual Savings N / A $162,138 - Present Value Savings N / A $2,959,026 - Present Value Savings % N / A 10.84% - Results are preliminary and subject to change. Uninsured "A2/A+" taxable market rates as of EOD 2/15/2017 Uninsured bonds assume "A+" underlying rating from S&P. Bond Issuance costs estimated at $158,031, and U/W discount estimated at $4.00/1,000. Assumes no DSRF or Surety Bond will be needed for the Series 2017 Bonds 29
Summary of the Refunding Results Series 2008A City Center Refunding 30
What is Negative Arbitrage? What is Negative Arbitrage in the Escrow Account and How Does It Impact the Refunding Savings? The Series 2008A Bonds are not callable until July 1, 2018. In an Advanced Refunding, the proceeds of the new bonds are deposited into the Escrow Account to pay the debt service on the outstanding Series 2008A bonds when due. The following represents the principal and interest that will need to be provided in the Escrow Account should the Series 2008A Bonds be refunded and closed prior to July 1, 2018: The interest on the refunded bonds is higher than the interest rate that can be obtained on the proceeds that are deposited into the escrow account, which is currently 0.91%. The interest paid on the refunded bonds (6.41% to the July 1, 2018 call date) minus the interest earned on the escrowed funds provided by the refunding bond issue (approximately 0.91%%) equals Negative Arbitrage 31
Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Cost of Issuance 32
How Does Negative Arbitrage Impact the Savings? Based upon preliminary numbers as of February 15, 2017 the present value savings for the refunding of the Series 2008A Bonds was calculated as follows: Present Value Savings due to lower interest rates $4,333,481 Minus Negative Arbitrage in Escrow $1,097,324 Minus Closing Costs $277,131 Equals Net Present Value Savings ($) $2,959,026 Net Present Value Savings (% of Refunded Par) 10.84% 33
Timetable Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Special Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 Packages sent to Standard & Poor s 02/17/2017 1 st Reading of Ordinance for Approval by City Council 02/27/2017 Call with Standard & Poor s 03/09/2017 2nd Reading of Ordinance and Resolution for Approval by City Council 03/13/2017 Print and Mail Preliminary Official Statement 03/14/2017 Receive Rating from Standard & Poor s 03/21/2017 Pricing and Award of Bonds 03/23/2017 Pre-Closing 04/05/2017 Closing 04/06/2017 34
Summary of Completed Refinancings in 2016 Appendix 1
Summary of Results on Completed Refinancings in 2016 Gross Debt Service Savings of almost $106.4 million since July 2016 Net Present Value Savings of almost $81.9 million since July 2016 Lowered outstanding par amount on refunded bonds from $473,786,559 to $440,075,000, a reduction of $33,711,559 Financing Prior Debt Service Prior Interest Rate New Debt Service New All-In True Interest Cost Gross Savings Present Value Savings in 2016 $ $38,260,000 CRA Redevelopment Trust Fund Ref & Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Sale Date: July 7, 2016 $55,434,200 4.94% $49,254,878 1.84% $6,179,322 $5,663,728 $206,970,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Sale Date: August 10, 2016 $126,895,000 Special Assessment Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Sale Date: September 8, 2016 $30,875,000 Public Service Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Sale Date: October 18, 2016 $37,075,000 General Obligation Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Sale Date: December 13, 2016 $393,313,488 4.02% $334,555,700 2.99% $58,757,788 $43,528,370 $226,118,734 5.00% $195,460,587 3.12% $30,658,147 $24,133,181 $45,189,600 4.97% $40,464,208 2.27% $4,725,392 $4,163,207 $63,875,050 4.81% $57,795,879 3.71% $6,079,171 $4,392,084 Total $783,931,072 $677,531,252 $106,399,820 $81,880,570 36
Summary of Completed Refinancings in 2016 Financing Description Par Amount Closing Date Present Value Savings Underwriter(s) CRA Redevelopment Trust Fund Refunding & Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Refunding of Series 2004 and Series 2006 Bonds $38,260,000 July 21, 2016 $5.66 million (12.92%) Senior -Wells Fargo Co-Mgr - BAML Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Refunding of Series 2004A, Series 2006, Series 2006A and Series 2009 Bonds $206,970,000 Aug 30, 2016 $43.53 million (18.83%) Senior - Citi Co-Mgrs - BAML, RBC, Wells Fargo Special Assessment Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Refunding of Series 2007B SE Annexation Bonds $126,895,000 Sept 22, 2016 $24.13 million (18.64%) Senior- RBC Co-Mgrs - BAML, Citi, Wells Fargo Public Service Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Refunding of Series 2008 COPs $30,875,000 Nov 1, 2016 $4.16 million (12.87%) Senior - BAML Co-Mgrs - RBC General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Refunding of Series 2005 and 2006 General Obligation Bonds $37,075,000 Dec 22, 2016* $4.39 million (11.65%) Competitive Sale Bought by Jefferies LLC Total $440,075,000 $81.88 million * Scheduled Closing Date 37
CRA Redevelopment Trust Fund Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Sold on July 7, 2016 - Par amount of $38,260,000 Refunded all of the following City of Port St. Lucie CRA bond issues: $11,870,000 Redevelopment Trust Fund Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 o Current outstanding par amount of $5,670,000 o Final maturity of January 1, 2023 $46,450,000 Redevelopment Trust Fund Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 o Current outstanding par amount of $38,155,000 o Final maturity of January 1, 2026 o Financed City Center project All-In True Interest Cost of 1.84% (reduced from an average coupon of 4.94%) Present value savings: $5.66 million (12.92%) Original present value savings estimate of $4.7 million on June 1, 2016 Cash flow savings of $6,179,322 over the life of the bonds Average Annual Debt Service savings in excess of $617,000 per year Underwriters Senior Manager: Wells Fargo Co-Manager: Bank of America Merrill Lynch Closing Date: July 21, 2016 Rating: A+ affirmed by Standard and Poor s on June 24, 2016. 38
Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Par amount of $206,970,000 Sale Date: August 10, 2016 Refunded all or a portion of the following Utility System bond issues totaling $231,187,919: $54,345,000 Series 2004A: Outstanding par amount of $51,645,000 $78,435,000 Series 2006: Outstanding par amount of $52,270,000 $35,197,230 Series 2006A: Redemption amount of $39,197,986.80 $110,200,000 Series 2009: Outstanding par amount of $88,075,000 Security: Utility System Revenues All-In True Interest Cost of 2.99% (reduced from an average coupon of 4.99%) Present value savings of $43.53 million (18.83% of the refunded par amount) Original present value savings estimate of $38.43 million on June 8, 2016 Cash flow savings of $58,757,788 over the life of the bonds Maximum Aggregate Annual Debt Service: Lowered from $33.9 million to $28.15 million Substantial reduction in debt service had a positive impact on the credit rating Underwriters Senior Manager: Citi Co-Managers: Bank of America Merrill Lynch, RBC Capital Markets and Wells Fargo Ratings: Upgrade in rating from S&P from A- to A+ on July 21, 2016. Fitch reaffirmed its A+ rating on July 25, 2016 39
Special Assessment Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 (Southwest Annexation Special Assessment District No. 1) Par amount of $126,895,000 Refunds of all of the following bond issue: $155,840,000 City of Port St. Lucie Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007B o Current outstanding par amount of $129,440,000 o Final maturity of July 1, 2040 Security: Special assessments and a back-up covenant to budget and appropriate revenue pledge from the City Refunding Bonds sold on September 8, 2016 extended final maturity to July 1, 2045 Present Value Savings: $24.13 million (18.64%) Original Present Value Savings estimate of $15.45 million on August 12, 2016 Cash flow savings of $30.69 million over the life of the bonds Maximum Annual Debt Service: Lowered from $10.22 million to $6.80 million Underwriters Senior Manager: RBC Capital Markets Co-Managers: Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi and Wells Fargo Rating: A+ by Standard and Poor s on August 18, 2016 40
Public Service Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 Par amount of $30,875,000 Refunded all of the following Certificates of Participation ( COPs ): $45,600,000 City of Port St. Lucie Florida Master Lease Project, Series 2008 o Outstanding par amount of $32,360,000 as of November 1, 2016 o Final maturity of September 1, 2027 Security: Public Service Tax revenues All-In True Interest Cost of 2.27% (reduced from an average coupon of 4.97%) Present value savings: $4.16 million or 12.87% of the refunded par amount of $32,360,000 Gross debt service savings of $4,725,392 Estimated annual debt service savings of $433,000+ per year from 2018-2027 Underwriters Senior Manager: Bank of America Merrill Lynch Co-Manager: RBC Capital Markets Sale Date: Octber 18, 2016 Closing Date: onovember 1, 2016 Rating: AA- by Standard and Poor s on September 30, 2016. 41
General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Sold to Jeffries LLC via Competitive Sale on December 13, 2016 Par Amount of $37,075,000 All-In True Interest Cost of 3.71% Nine (9) bidders total on the City s first competitive bid in over 25 years Range from winning bid (Jefferies LLC) to 9th bid (UBS Financial Services) was 0.35% Refunded all of the following General Obligation Bonds totaling $37,700,000: $49,285,000 City of Port St. Lucie General Obligation Bonds, Series 2005 and $44,545,000 City of Port St. Lucie General Obligation Bonds, Series 2006 o Final maturity of July 1, 2035 on both issues o Average Coupon Rate of 4.81% for the combined issues Gross debt service savings of $6,079,171 (range of $132,296 to $358,906 annually) Present value savings: $4,392,084 or 11.65% of the refunded par amount Estimated savings was $3.83 million or 10.17% of the refunded par on November 28, 2016 Rating: Rating of AA- by Standard and Poor s was affirmed on November 30, 2016. 42
Summary of Completed Refinancings Prior to 2016 Appendix 2
Summary of Completed or Sold Financings Prior to 2016 Financing Description Par Amount Closing Date Present Value Savings Underwriter(s) Tesoro Special Assessment District, Special Assessment Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 Refunding of Series 2003B Bonds $15,130,000 Nov 15, 2012 $2.26 million (15.53%) RBC Capital Markets GO Bonds, Series 2014 New Money for Crosstown $32,900,000 April 3, 2014 New Money RBC Capital Markets General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2014 Public Service Tax Rev Bonds, Series 2014 (Taxable) Public Service Tax Rev Bonds, Series 2014 (RZF) Refunding of Series 2005 and Series 2006 Bonds Refunding of Series 2010A Digital Domain Lease Bonds Refunding of Series 2010B Digital Domain Lease Bonds $41,840,000 April 3, 2014 $2.39 million (5.69%) RBC Capital Markets $13,525,000 Sep 30, 2014 N/A RBC Capital Markets $19,775,000 Sep 30, 2014 N/A RBC Capital Markets Total $123,170,000 $4.65 million 44