HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07231985 - 2.3 23
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS }
FROM:
Al Lomeli, Treasurer-Tax Collect Contra
Don Bouchet, Auditor-Controller Costa
Phil Batchelor, County Administra o
DATE: July 17 , 1985 County
SUBJECT:
Short-Term Borrowing Program
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Accept report of County Administrator, Auditor-Controller and
Treasurer-Tax Collector on the County' s short-term borrowing
program for 1985-1986.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the County borrows a substantial sum of money on a
relatively short-term basis to cover the dry period in the
County Budget until property taxes and other major revenue
sources are received later in the fiscal year. The interest
the County must pay to borrow this money is a critical factor
in preparing the County Budget each year. The nigher a
County' s credit rating, the lower the interest rate the County
must pay to borrow this money in relation to other
jurisdictions which have a lower rating.
In the 1985-86 fiscal year, the County is borrowing $70
million. Therefore, each 1/2 of 1% increase in interest rate
the County would have to pay because of lowered credit rating
translates into $350, 000 in additional interest payments. The
difference between the highest ratings; i.e. , Moody' s MIG 1
(Municipal Investment Grade 1) , Standard and Poors SP-1+ and
those agencies ' next lower ratings can result in an interest
rate differential of from one-half to more than 2%, depending
on market conditions. Last year, for example, another county' s
credit rating slipped to MIG 2 and their interest rate for the
year was 2. 3% higher than ours. A 2% difference in interest
rates could cost the County $1. 4 million in additional interest
over the fiscal year based on a borrowing program of $70
million.
At the beginning of the 1984-1985 fiscal year, the County was
just coming out of a major fiscal crisis. The County' s credit
rating was threatened because of concerns on the part of the
major rating agencies as to the fiscal stability of the County.
In adopting the 1984-1985 fiscal year County Budget, the Board
of Supervisors adopted a series of fiscal guidelines which
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE X OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 23, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT :22r ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
„ AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED /9,8S
/9,8 S
County Auditor-Controller PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
11-
County Treasurer-Tax Collector SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
h
M882/7-88 BY �� DEPUTY
4, •
Page 2
provided for a budget which included a realistic budgeting of
revenue; a 3% reserve, along with a commitment to move toward a
5% reserve; careful tracking of expenditures and revenues
during the year, and a commitment to use the reserves only for
emergency situations.
In spite of a financially difficult time experienced by the
County in 1983-1984, the rating agencies agreed to allow the
County to have a rating that would not be significantly
detrimental to our sale of the issues. However, they indicated
that they would carefully monitor what happened in the County
to make sure the County complied with these policies. They
also asked the County to obtain a backup line of credit, which
cost the County $72 ,000 and which resulted in a delay of
issuance, resulting in a $240 ,000 loss of interest revenue.
During the 1984-1985 fiscal year, the Board honored their
commitment and did not touch the Reserves.
The objectives for the 1985-1986 borrowing program were to
demonstrate the excellent job done by the Board of Supervisors
in helping to put the County on a firm financial footing, and
to show that the Board had complied with the fiscal policies
they had adopted in June, 1984. We wanted to obtain the
highest rating available from Standard and Poors and Moody' s;
eliminate the line of credit, and reduce issuance costs. We
assured the rating agencies that in 1985-1986 the County would
follow the same pattern of realistically budgeting revenues and
expenditures , carefully monitoring expenditures during the
year, and not touching the reserves except for an emergency.
While there were many probing questions about the fiscal
condition of the County, the Board' s record eventually
persuaded the rating agencies that the County would again be a
premium investment.
This has resulted in our achieving our three objectives:
1. We received the highest rating available;
2 . No line of credit is being required for the 1985-1986
borrowing;
3 . There was no delay in the issuance and, therefore, no
loss of interest revenue.
We have been able to negotiate a fixed interest rate of 4 . 7% on
one-half of the $70 , 000 ,000, with the balance at a variable
interest rate of 4 . 1% which can move higher or lower after the
first 30 days.
The Proposed Budget currently before the Board provides for a
Reserve of $10 . 2 million, only slightly more -than in 1984-1985.
This translates into a Reserve of only 2 . 890 of our budget.
The rating agencies see 3% as the minimum we should maintain.
They have recommended that we move toward a Reserve of more
like 5%.
Because this Reserve is only minimally adequate, it is
essential that the Board maintain the same resolve it showed in
1984-1985 and insure that the adopted budget provides this full
$10. 2 million Reserve, and that it is not eroded during the
fiscal year. If the Reserves are tapped for other than
emergencies, it will impair our borrowing program in the future
and will reduce the interest revenue the County receives from
investing the borrowed money until it is needed.
Page 3
We believe, as we told the rating agencies, that the Board is
solving the County' s fiscal problems. The Board' s continued
commitment to fiscal stability will, in the long run, save the
taxpayers of the County substantial sums of money and will help
to preserve valuable programs which would otherwise have to be
reduced or eliminated to pay higher interest rates on the
County' s borrowing program.