Discussion Materials Prepared for City of Williamsburg, Virginia August 9, 2010 Refunding Opportunities Prepared By Davenport & Company LLC Member NYSE ● FINRA ● SIPC

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA 2 Potential Refunding Opportunities  Davenport Continuously Monitors the City’s Debt Portfolio for Refunding Opportunities.  We Strategically Structured the 2009 Bond to Allow the City to Prepay the Debt, Anytime Without Penalty. In Addition, the 2002 Bond is Currently Callable Without Penalty.  Based on Current Interest Rates, the City has the Opportunity to Refund the 2002 Bond and the 2009 Bond for Interest Cost Savings, Exchanging Higher Interest Rates for Lower Interest Rates.

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA 3 Amount Outstanding Interest Rate Bond Issues Final Maturity 2009 General Obligation Bond$9,508, %May 1, General Obligation Bond $1,375, %January 15, 2017 Total Debt Outstanding with Refunding Potential$10,883,700 Potential Refunding Opportunities – con’t

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA 4 Potential Savings for Refunding Potential Savings Annual Gross Savings for Refunding Scenarios

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA Interest Rates 5  Interest Rates have Decreased Significantly in the Public Markets since the Beginning of 2009.

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA 6 Bond Ratings  Davenport Suggests the City Pursue Credit Ratings from at least Two National Credit Rating Agencies.  Davenport will Prepare, with the Assistance of Staff, a Comprehensive Credit Rating Package for Discussion with the Rating Agencies.  Credit Ratings will Provide the City with:  Access to the Public Credit Markets for Future Borrowing Needs,  An Expanded Universe of Potential Buyers of City Bonds and Lower Cost of Funds, and  Greater Control Over Terms and Conditions.

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA Bond Ratings – con’t 7  Bond Ratings Provide an Indication of the Probability of the Timely Repayment of Principal and Interest on an Issuer’s Bond – Credit Assessment.  There are Three Major Credit Rating Agencies. o Moody’s Investors Service. o Standard & Poor’s. o Fitch Ratings.  Rating Agencies – Consistency and Similarities. o Independent and objective Evaluation of the Issuer. o General Rating Criteria. o Credit Assessment Only – Ratings are not a recommendation to Buy or an Audit of the Issuer.

D AVENPORT & C OMPANY LLC City of Williamsburg, VA Preliminary Schedule 8  August 12City Council Meeting to Discuss Refunding Opportunities.  Balance ofDavenport Prepares Credit Rating Presentation for Discussion AugustWith Credit Rating Agencies.  Early-MidCalls/Meetings with Credit Rating Agencies. September  September 9City Council Approves Bond Resolution and Substantially Final Forms of Bond Documents.  Late Davenport Contacts All Potential Buyers of City Bonds and SeptemberSells to Those Providing Lowest Cost to the City. Interest Rates are Locked In at this Point.  Early-MidClosing on Bonds; 2002 Bond and 2009 Bond are Paid Off and OctoberNew Interest Rates are Effective.

Williamsburg National Citizen Survey 2010 Results August 9, 2010

National Citizen Survey  Collaboration between National Research Center, Inc. and International City/County Management Association  Statistically valid survey of resident opinions about their community and their services  Approximately 500 communities across country participate

Survey Background Assessment Goals Assessment Methods Survey Objectives Multi-contact mailed survey Representative sample of 1,200 households 483 surveys returned; 44% response rate 5% margin of error Data statistically weighted to reflect population Immediate Provide useful information for: Planning Resource allocation Performance measurement Program and policy evaluation Identify community strengths and weaknesses Identify service strengths and weaknesses Long-term Improved services More civic engagement Better community quality of life Stronger public trust

NCS Focus Areas Community Quality Quality of life Quality of neighborhood Place to live Community Design Transportation Ease of travel, transit services, street maintenance Housing Housing options, cost, affordability Land Use and Zoning New development, growth, code enforcement Economic Sustainability Employment, shopping and retail, City as a place to work Public Safety Safety in neighborhood and downtown Crime victimization Police, fire, EMS services Emergency preparedness Environmental Sustainability Cleanliness Air quality Preservation of natural areas Garbage and recycling services Recreation and Wellness Parks and Recreation Recreation opportunities, use of parks and facilities, programs and classes Culture, Arts and Education Cultural and educational opportunities, libraries, schools Health and Wellness Availability of food, health services, social services Community Inclusiveness Sense of community Racial and cultural acceptance Senior, youth and low- income services Civic Engagement Civic Activity Volunteerism Civic attentiveness Voting behavior Social Engagement Neighborliness, social and religious events Information and Awareness Public information, publications, Web site Public Trust Cooperation in community Value of services Direction of community Citizen involvement Employees

Focus Area Example National comparison University communities comparison City parksMuch above Recreation programs or classesMuch above Recreation centers or facilitiesMuch above Parks & Recreation Services

Survey Overview  Report includes 2008 & 2010 results  Statistically significant if greater than 7% points difference  National and University communities comparisons are included  Term “much” has been used for scores that are considerably higher or lower than benchmark

2010 Survey Demographics  50% have lived in the city for 5 years or less  37% 18 to 34 years olds; 34% 55 & older  54% rent home; 46% own home  55% female; 45% male  85% registered to vote  91% have cell phones

Overall Community Quality

Governments Ratings

Public Trust Findings

City Employee Findings

City Employee Findings cont. National comparison University communities comparison KnowledgeMuch above ResponsivenessMuch above CourteousnessMuch above Overall impressionMuch above

City’s Vision  Overall the City is fulfilling its vision *78%  Williamsburg is safe, beautiful, livable city*97%  City government is cohesively led, *74% financially strong, always improving  Williamsburg operates in full partnership *65% with the people who live, work and visit here (*Strongly Agree/Somewhat Agree)

Williamsburg Key Drivers

Next Steps  “2011/2012 Goals, Initiatives, and Outcomes” development  Performance metrics included in city’s performance management system  Benchmarking in ICMA’s VA Performance Consortium program

2011/2012 Biennial Goals, Initiatives, and Outcomes Aug. 5: Final 2009/2010 report issued Aug. 9: Council reviews 2010 NCS results Aug. 21: City Council retreat Sept. 9: Council/EDA work session Sept. 15: Public Workshop; launch online “Open Forum” Sept. 16: Council/PC work session Oct.11 : Review draft 2011/2012 goals document at work session Nov. 12: Adopt 2011/2012 Biennial Goals, Initiatives & Outcomes Nov. 18: “State of the City” event

Final Assessment 2009/2010 GIOs

GIOs Quick Look

Awards and Recognitions

Initiatives Updates

Outcomes

2011/2012 Biennial Goals, Initiatives, and Outcomes Aug. 5: Final 2009/2010 report issued Aug. 9: Council reviews 2010 NCS results Aug. 21: City Council retreat Sept. 9: Council/EDA work session Sept. 15: Public Workshop; launch online “Open Forum” Sept. 16: Council/PC work session Oct.11 : Review draft 2011/2012 goals document at work session Nov. 12: Adopt 2011/2012 Biennial Goals, Initiatives & Outcomes Nov. 18: “State of the City” event

COMMUNICATING WITH CITIZENS THROUGH TEXT MESSAGING City411

Background Information Evolving into a primary means of communication, particularly with young people. 91% of respondents to recent citizen survey indicated that they had a cell phone. Program modeled after “Text to Tell” program in Kettering, England. Purpose of the program is to allow for not only outbound text messaging, but inbound from citizens as well, and to do it cost-effectively.

Reporting a Problem User sends a text message to with City411, followed by a space and then their message.  For example: “City411 My trash was not picked up today. I live at 401 Lafayette St.” System receives the message, and sends a notification to the end user that their message was received. Problem or issue gets resolved by the City and the user then gets a text message back from the City telling them that the issue has been resolved.

View from Phone

Outbound Text Messaging Allows for yet another way to communicate with citizens. The system also allows citizens to register their cell phone with this service, either by text message or through the City website. All cell phones registered with the service are automatically put into a database. Periodically, City staff will send out informational messages to this list about upcoming events or current issues.

How to Use the Service

Procedures and Costs Details of the program, including instructions to report a problem or register your cell phone for informational alerts, can be found on the City website at: Cost for the service to the City is $79/month, but could increase slightly if usage becomes high. Can upgrade or downgrade the service “on the fly”. No contracts. We can cancel the service at any time.