Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />had reviewed all of the material submitted, and listened to the <br />presentations and feels that all of the firms are excellent. He <br />stated, however, that the staff and Commission had made an <br />extensive review of the qualifications prior to today's <br />presentations and made their recommendation to the Agency. He <br />stated that he feels the staff's and Commission's recommendation <br />was well thought out and could see no reason to change that <br />recommendation. He further stated that it was in the best interest <br />of the Agency and City to see that this project is completed in a <br />timely fashion and at the lowest possible interest rate with a <br />reasonable profit to the underwriter. <br /> <br />Mr. Saffran stated that the agreement contained in the agenda <br />packet would be satisfactory, with the understanding that a <br />definitive agreement would be entered into with the underwriter <br />after negotiations with Agency staff and Stone & Youngberg. <br /> <br />The Executive Director stated that there have been some major <br />changes in the bond market since the agreement was made up. <br />Therefore, at this point, certain portions of the agreement will <br />require modification. <br /> <br />Lengthy discussion continued. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Mr. Bricken and seconded by Mr. Griset to <br />adopt Resolution 79-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY <br />REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND <br />AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR INVESTMENT <br />BANKER 5ERVICES BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND MILLER & SCHROEDER <br />MUNICIPALS, INC., and that the Executive Director be instructed to <br />include within that agreement the negotiated terms and conditions <br />as stipulated by the Agency's financial consultant (Stone & <br />Youngberg) relative to completion dates, underwriter fees, and <br />interest rates. After lengthy discussion, the motion carried by <br />the following roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Ward <br />Markel, Serrato, Yamamoto <br />None <br /> <br />Before the question was called for, Mr. Luxembourger asked if the <br />Agency could back out of the SB 99 sale if the figures came in too <br />high. Mr. Saffran stated that a typical underwriting agreement <br />provides that the Agency or City Council has the right to refuse <br />the final proposal and/or postpone the sale up until the moment the <br />bonds are sold. <br /> <br />Also before the question was called for, the Executive Director <br />reported that staff is investigating the possibility of bond <br />anticipation notes as an alternative. If it is anticipated that <br />the bond market will go down, the Agency may be better off to make <br />a recommendation that we sell a short term note, say for one year, <br />and at the end of the one year, roll it over to a regular bond. <br />This alternative will be investigated in greater detail with the <br />assistance of the underwriter and financial consultant. <br /> <br />Also before the question was called for, Mr. Yamamoto proposed a <br />substitute motion to accept the four firms that have been <br />recommended to the Agency on the pretext that each one of the firms <br />will accept one-fourth of the bond issue, and if there are any that <br />do not accept it, then it would be for three or two or whatever the <br />amount of firms that do accept the Redevelopment bond issue. The <br />Chairman informed Mr. Yamamoto that a motion was presently on the <br />floor that must first be acted upon. The City Attorney concurred. <br /> <br />-4- <br />