HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 114-08C ty
City of Palo Alto
Manager’ Report
TO:
ATTN:
CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:
DATE:
CITY MANAGER
JANUARY 15, 2008
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR: 114:08
SUB~CT: FINANCING OPTIONS FORPUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recolmnends the Finance Committee review the funding alternatives for a new public safety
building presented in this report and provide recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
In December 2005, the City Council directed the Mayor to appoint a community-based Blue
Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost, and site for a new public safety
building (PSB). The BRTF presented its recommendations to Council in June 2006 and the
Council approved the following recommendations:
¯To build a new Public Safety Building totaling 49,600 square feet
¯Pursue purchase of a two parcel site located on Park Boulevard.
During September 2006, Council approved a fourth amendment to the City’s contract with
RossDrulisCusenberry (RDC) Inc. to prepare preliminary architectural design concepts and an
Enviromnental Impact report (EIR) for the new public safety building. Specifically, the building
was to accommodate the City’s Police Department, an Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and
a 9-1-1 Communications Center.
On February 8, 2007 an EIR scoping meeting was held to obtain community comments and input
on the potential environmental impacts that would require discussion in the draft EIR. In July
2007, the draft EIR was released, beginning a 45 day comment period. On August 22, a public
hearing with the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) was held to obtain comments
on the adequacy of the Draft EIR for two project options:
cmr 114:08 Page 1 of 13 ,,
Option A - a two-story building design concept using a two parcel, 1.59-acre site, and
Option B - a design concept similar to Option A, but using only one parcel, the larger
1.27-acre site
Both option A and B required a City owned .04-acre parcel on the northeast comer of the sire.
Given a variety of factors which included environmental impacts and the increased costs
associated with the second, smaller parcel in Option A, the preferred and recommended option
was Option B, the larger, single parcel. In November 2007, the Council adopted a resolution
certifying the Final Enviromnental Impact Repo~ (FEIR) for the Palo Alto Public Safety
Building project and approved a 30 month purchase option agreement with Essex Park
Boulevard, LLC to acquire the 1.27-acre site (Option B) located at 2785 Park Boulevard. The
agreement calls for option payments at $436,000 for the first year and $36,333 per month
thereafter with a total purchase price of $10.9 million. The option to purchase may be exercised
at any time within the 30 month period and all option payments will be credited toward the
purchase price.
Simultaneous with the design and environmental work, staff has been considering different
financing options for the public safety building, including placement of a General Obligation
bond measure on the bal!ot. In December 2006, the Council directed staff to proceed with
community polling prior to malting any final decisions about facility enhancements for both
libraries and public safety. The initial voter pol!~ was conducted in February 2007 and the polling
consultant presented the results to Council on March 1. That poll demonstrated that solid
majorities of Palo Alto voters supported potential bond measures to improve public safety and
library facilities but that support for a library bond was somewhat stronger than support for a
public safety building bond.
The consultant recommended that the City consider a November 2008 election date, instead of
June 2008, to allow an opportunity to inform local residents about the need for library and public
safety facility improvements and the work that has been done to develop proposals to address
those needs. The polling strongly suggested that the City should not place both a library and a
public safety measure on the same bal!ot. If the City wished to place a measure on the June 2008
ballot, the Council would need to adopt a resolution in early March that would finalize all
decisions regarding the size, scope, and cost of the project. For a November 2008 election, these
decisions would need to be made by early August 2008.
DISCUSSION
On November 19, the Cits, Council directed staff to investigate the use of Certificates of
Participation (COPs) to finance the purchase of the 1.27 acre parcel and construct the Public PSB
(for a brief summary of the variety of a !ocal jurisdiction’s debt financing options see
Attachment A). COPs allow a public agency to undertake a capital project by entering into a tax-
exempt lease with a non-profit corporation. Such a corporation already has been formed by the
City, the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC). This body consists of all Council members,
but meets as a separate entity after the adjournment of regular Council meetings. The PIC raised
funds for Civic Center and golf course improvements by selling "certificates" to investors and
then constructing facility improvements. The City, in turn, pays "rent" or "lease payments" to
cmr 114:08 Page 2 of 13
the PIC who then, tlzrough a Trustee, pays holders of the certificates principal and interest. The
City also used COPs to construct the retail building adjacent to the S/L pat’king garage on L?~on
and Bryant streets. Currently, the City has outstanding COP debt of $11.8 million with
associated annual debt service of $1.2 million.
Issuing COPs does not require voter approval as do the other financing vehicles described in
Attacl~ment A. Unlike General Obligation (GO) or Assessment District bonds, COPs do not
raise new revenues tbnough a new property tax or assessment. COPs must be paid from existing
or newly created General Fund revenue streams or resources. Issuing COPs requires a pledge of
a physical asset as credit backing for investors, but COP holders look to the City’s good faith and
its General Fund to make annual payments. The City’s high credit rating is evidence that
bondholders think highly of Palo Alto debt and expect the City to meet its financial
commitments. It is important to note that COP proceeds can be used to purchase moveable
equipment and furnishings, which is not allowable with GO bonds.
The primary purpose of this report is to exatnine various COP debt structures and potential
resources that will allow the City to meet its annual debt obligations for a public safety building.
Several options or alternatives for resources are explored below and they can be categorized as
one-time to reduce the amount of a borrowing, and revenue enhancements, and/or expenditure
reductions to pay debt service. Some options may include a measure of risk to the City while
others may involve policy or progratn choices. In addition, the timing of resource availability to
pay debt service vat’ies among the options. Staff has listed all options in Attachment B with its
recommendations. Some options and their associated resources will require additional analysis.
COP Debt and Debt Structure for Public Safety Building
Since the City is still in the process of finalizing total costs for the public safety building and
total costs will be affected by the length of the City’s approval process, staff has assumed an
estimated construction, furnishing, and land acquisition (cost known) cost of $69 million. To
these project expenditures must be added: capitalized interest costs for an assumed 18 month
construction period ($5.8 million); a Debt Service Reserve Fund ($5.2 million); an unde~,Titers
discount fee ($0.8 million); and attorney, financial advisor, and other fees ($0.3 million). Hence,
it is assumed for this report that a total of $81.2 million will be needed to fund this project. This
principal amount will change as cost estimates are refined and as one-time options for buying
down the principal amount are identified (see ~;Resource Options to Reduce Borrowing and Pay
Almual Debt Service" section below).
The City has several options in structuring its COP debt. These can result in lower or higher
annual debt payments, or payments that can rise over time as additional or new resources are
realized. These options include:
fixed rate debt where the debt is amortized evenly over time
¯variable debt where the interest rate will vary according to a specified index
mixture of fixed and variable debt e.g., 50 percent fixed and 50 percent variable
¯fixed rate but rising debt service over amortization period
cmr 114:08 Page 3 of 13
The following table displays these options with underlying assumptions and estimated average
annual debt service levels. Interest rates are not finalized until sale of the COPs which would
occur just prior to construction. The current interest rate environment has been volatile as a
consequence of the dislocations in the mortgage and credit markets. If these events persist into
2008, the City could experience unusual situations in issuing COPs. Obtaining, bond insurance,
for example, could prove expensive or difficult to obtain. Hence, the interest rates and costs for a
COP issue that are cited below are estimates and subject to change.
TABLE I: COP Debt Structures
Terms
Principal of
Issue
Borrowing
Terln
(years)
True
Interest Rate
Average
Annual
Debt
Service
Column 1
$69 Million Cost
Fixed Rate
$81.2 million
30 ?,-ears
4.94%
$5.19 million
Column 2
$69 Million Cost
Variable Rate
$80.5 million
30 years
4.56%
$4.94 million
Column 3
$69 Million Cost
50%Fixed and 50%
Variable
$81.1 million
30 years
4.75%
$5.08 million
Column 4
$69 Million Fixed
Rising Over Time
$83.5 million
30 years
5.00%
$4.1 million rising by
approximately $100,000
each year to $7.6 million in
year 30
The City of Palo Alto’s practice has been to issue fixed rate debt with equal payments over time.
This is a traditional and conservative approach which assures the City of stable, unchanging debt
service payments until the bonds are retired. The interest rates for fixed rate debt are typically
higher than for variable rate debt; hence annual payments are somewhat more expensive.
cmr 114:08 Page 4 of 13
Based on a 30 year amortization period and a fixed interest rate of 4.94 percent, annual debt
service for this scenario is $5.2 million (see Column 1 in Table I above). At cm-rent variable rate
levels, which are cm-rently 0.4 percent below the expected fixed rate, annual debt service is
estimated at $4.9 million (see Colunm 2). Use of variable rates results in lower annual debt costs
by approximately $250,000. This positive result should be balanced against the potential risk of
spikes in variable rates which would result in higher annual payments. Variable rates have
remained relatively stable and low over the past 25 years, however, and municipalities such as
San Mateo and Redwood City have used this debt structure in financing capital projects. There
are ways to mitigate variable rate volatility and staff can pursue these should Council want more
information on this option.
The City could minimize potential variable rate risk by issuing part of the debt under fixed rates
and part under variable rates. For example, by using 50 percent fixed and 50 percent variable
rates (Column 3 of Table I), the City reduces any exposure to rate volatility and can save an
estimated $110,000 in annual debt service compared to the full fixed rate scenario in Colunm 1.
Likewise, by including a fixed rate component, annual debt service is more expensive than the
all variable rate scenario.
Finally, the City has the option of ramping up its debt service payments over time (Column 4 of
Table 1. Note that this scenario assumes a fixed rate). The main benefit of this structure is to
keep debt service payments low in the near-term as the City identifies the resources to meet its
annual obligations. This allows the City more flexibility as new revenues sources, such as those
from the Stanford Shopping Center expansion become established. The drawbacks to this
structure are that a marginally higher interest rate can be expected compared to an even
amortization; and, more importantly, that significantly higher debt service payments will result
over time. In the scenario presented, annual payments would rise from $4.1 million to $7.6
million from year 1 to year 30. This will have the effect of reducing resource flexibility in future
budgets and, in the event of a cyclical economic downturn that affects revenues, place
considerable pressure on the General Fund. In such an event, the City could be forced to reduce
operating expenses.
In general, Columns 1-3 in Table I show an annual commitment of around $5 million for the
envisioned PSB. In the scenario shown in Column 4, an initial payment of $4 million would be
required and it will grow by approximately $100,000 each year until the debt is retired in 30
?,’ears with a final payment of $7.6 million.
One-time resources are identified below to offset the principal amount of $69 million. Based on a
30 year borrowing and an interest rate of 4.94 percent, for every $1.0 million of principal that is
not borrowed, annual debt service would decrease by approximately $78,000. For example, if
the City were able to raise $10 million of principal and borrow- $59 million, then annual debt
service would drop fi’om $5.2 million to $4.4 million.
Resource Options to Reduce Borrowin~o and Pay Annual Debt Service
Since the City’s long-term ability to service COP debt is in part dependent on future economic
trends outside the City’s control, it is prudent to minimize the initial principal amount. There are
several one-time options to achieve this.
cmr 114:08 Page 5 of 13
One-Time Options
¯Reducing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve
To reduce the bonowing of principal and related interest expense, the City has a few one-time
options. The City’s General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Policy calls for
maintaining a reserve in the range of 15 to 20 percent of the operating budget. The current BSR
guideline is to hold the reserve near to 18.5 percent of operating expenses. By reducing the
guideline to 15 percent, the City could make available $3.6 million toward the PSB. By reducing
the BSR further to 12.5 percent, an additional $3.6 million would be freed. These withdrawals
would leave $21.8 and $18.1 million, respectively, in the BSR. By reducing reserve levels there
will be an impact on the City’s operating budget resources as less interest income will be earned.
An estimated loss of $162,000 for each $3.6 million withdrawal should be anticipated.
The general practice of the City has been to keep its reserves at relatively high mad healthy
levels. In economic downturns, for example, the prevailing practice has been to reduce
expenditures rather than to rely on reserves to solve deficits. Healthy reserves in all City funds
have been an important factor in credit agency evaluations of all General and Enterprise Fund
debt. Reserve levels do differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and, in general, Palo Alto’s can be
described as on the high side. Still, it is important to note that the specific purpose and use of
reserves is for emergencies and major one-time expenditures.
¯2006-07 Year End Surplus
As stated to the Finance Committee on December 11, 2007 (CMR:437:2007), the General Fund
had an $11 million surplus at the end of 2006-07. Much of this surplus resulted from one-time
events and revenue gains that cannot be certain from year to year. For example, documentary
transfer taxes (subject to volume and mix of real estate sales) and construction permit fees
(sensitive to state of local economy), which were $1 million above projections, can vary
significantly each year. Staff reconmaended a variety of uses for the surplus and these included
allocating funds for infrastructure, the retiree medical fund reserve, payments for the Los Altos
Treatment plant site, option payments for public safety building land, and for a loan to the Storm
Drain Fund. The $3.0 million in surplus funds recommended for the Infrastructure Reserve (IR)
was done in accordance with Council’s overall direction to enhance the IR given escalating
construction costs and a backlog of infrastructure projects. Council has the option of redirecting
this resource toward the costs of the PSB and this option is reflected in Attachment B.
¯Sale and Use of General Fund Land
The General Fund (GF) owns land that it rents to the Electric and Water Funds such as substation
sites. The City could realize a one-time gain from such a sale. The most likely site for a sale is
the Colorado substation site rented by the Electric Fund. An analysis shows that amount of the
lowered annual debt service from the sale of this site is less than the annual rental income
received by the General Fund. The ongoing revenue stream and appreciation of the land value
over time are additional benefits. Also noteworthy is that a sale of land to the Electric Fund,
already facing higher supply costs due to the recent drought and higher transmission costs due to
regulatory changes, will exert additional pressure on its rate structure.
cmr 114:08 Page 6 of 13
¯Cubberley
The City has learned that Foothill College is interested in either purchasing or leasing long-term
the City’s half of the Cubberley site. The College is proposing to construct new buildings and
has indicated that it can make some space available for City programs and community activities.
A move to the City site would also free space in the building Foothill currently rents (Cubberley
site not owned by City). Obviously, there are numerous, complicated, and important factors to
consider in evaluating this proposa!. The City has the option of selling its land or leasing it long-
term to Foothill College. Initial indications are that the land is worth around $35 million. Staff
is roughly estimating that a significant, almual net revenue stream in the range of $1.8 million
could be realized from a lease to Foothill College. As stated, the discussion with Foothill is in its
early stages and there are many issues to consider before determining what resources this option
can provide to the General Fund.
Revenue Enhancements/Resources
Ideally, to pay increased and new debt service expense, the City would identify new revenue
sources to cover its obligations. The City hopes to realize new revenues from a variety of
future projects.
¯Stanford Shopping Center
Stanford recently indicated, in a conservative timeframe, that the Shopping Center mad partial
build out of the hospitals may not be completed until 2014-15. They are hopeful that
construction will be completed earlier. In order to use part of this future and new General Fund
revenue stream to cover General Fund expenses, the Stanford Shopping Center and a new hotel
would have to occur within 4 years. The new and estimated revenues are displayed in the table
below:
cmr 114:08 Page 7 of 13
Table II: Estimated Revenue Sources for COP Debt Service
Stanford SC
(Sales Tax)
Stanford
(TOT)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Expansion $1.6 million
SC Hotel
Anderson Honda on 101
(Sales tax and rent)
Total Revenues
Estimated Amaual Debt
Service (Fixed)
$1.1 million
$1.0 million
$3.8 million
$_~._ million $5.9 million
According to the timeline (see below) for the PSB project, if the approval process moves
expeditiously, the PSB would be open for occupancy in April 2011.
Automobile Dealership Space Expansion and New Site
In addition to the Stanford projects, the City’s commitment to maintain its automobile
dealerships and to expand their space can yield sizeable, incremental sales tax revenues. Very
preliminary estimates for placement of an automobile dealership along the 101 corridor indicate
the City could realize an additional $1.0 million in sales tax and rental income.
Business Tax Program
As Council considers its financing options, the implementation of a business tax program (BTP)
also could contribute resources to the General Fund. The City of Palo Alto currently does not
have a business tax program and is one of the few cities in California not to have one.
Implementation of a business tax will require a vote of the electorate and extensive discussions
with the business community. The business tax program and the level of a tax can be structured
to meet a specified level of the City’s financial needs. Various models were tested when Council
studied a Business Registry Fee. In one model, low, medium and high revenue targets that
ranged from $400,000 to $2,500,000 annually were developed. In this example, the tax was
based on a charge per employee. In essence, the City can identify an amount to raise and
develop a tax structure to meet it. Naturally, implementation of a business tax program will
require support from the Chamber of Commerce, the business community, and the public. As
one of the options in this report, staff recommends a targeted revenue level of $1.5 million.
crnr 114:08 Page 8 of 13
¯Rental of Police Wing
Once the Police wing of the Civic Center becomes vacant and assuming it would not be used for
other City space needs, it may be possible to rent it to a private sector tenant. One local
developer indicated that this is prime dowaatown space that has available parking and would be
attractive office space. Moreover, mad subject to negotiations with a long-term tenant; it is
possible the City could forego much of the renovation costs necessary to house internal staff.
Alternatively, the City could consider consolidating off-site operations and/or leasing the space
to an Enterprise Fund. Preliminary estimates of $500,000 in a~mual rental revenue appear
reasonable.
° Rental of Los Altos Treatment Plant Site by Refuse Fund for Zero Waste Facility
With the recent acquisition of the Los Altos Treatment Plant site by the General Fund (GF),
whose use is yet to be determined, there is the option of leasing part of this site to the Refuse
Fund for zero waste activities. Staff estimates that the GF could realize $60,000 annually
tl~’ough such a lease. Another possibility is to lease part of this site to an outside party to yield
an income stream.
¯Recent Two Percent TOT Increase
Estimated revenues from the recent 2 percent TOT increase have been included in the City’s
update to the Long Range Financial Forecast (See Attachrnent C). As discussed in the forecast
(CMR:425:07), these revenues plus the $5.1 million sin-plus realized at the end of 2006-07 will
be absorbed by the purchase of the Los Altos Treatment Site, purchase option payments for the
PSB Park Boulevard site, and for a short-term inter-fund loan to the Storm Drain Fund for capital
improvement projects. Given these commitments, a potentially slowing economy, and the use of
TOT revenue for higher General Fund infrastructure and other operating costs, staff does not
recormnend using this source for the PSB.
Expenditure Reductions
\~,qaen issuing COP debt, it is necessary to have an ongoing stream of resources to match annual
debt service obligations. \Vhile the annual amount will vary depending on loan structure and
principal amount, staff has assumed an approximate $5 million annual debt service. Since this
project will not have a stream of revenues associated with the improvements, it is essential to
identify and maintain the means to pay investors. Although a variety of significant revenue
sources are anticipated in a 4 to 5 year time frame, the cyclical nature of these revenues
(principally sales and transient occupancy taxes) argues for a solid foundation to meet debt
se~wice payments. Moreover, while the development projects are taking shape, there always
remains the possibility they may not materialize or yield expected results. Therefore, staff
believes that a $1 million reduction in operating expenses is prudent and strategic. This
recommendation will be difficult to achieve in light of the recent reduction of $20 million and 70
positions in the General Fund. This challenging reduction is consistent, however, with the
guidelines outlined in a recent report (CMR:387:07) on developing a sustainable City budget, a
Council Top 4 Priority.
cmr 114:08 Page 9 of 13
Pre-Payrnent of PERS Retiree and Medical Payments
In an effort to minimize staffing and service reductions, a number of options not involving
service cuts have been identified. One potential expense reduction would be to "prepay" PERS
obligations for both pension and retiree medical liabilities. The City has the option of paying the
full amount of its aimual PERS obligations at the beginning of a fiscal year rather than in
monthly or periodic installments tt~oughout the year. This is commonly known as pre-payment.
By prepaying, the City can take advantage of the higher rates earned by the PERS investment
portfolio relative to the City’s portfolio yield. On average, PERS earns 7.75 percent (PERS uses
this expected return in calculating the City’s annual contributions) while the City, on average,
earns in the range of 4.0 to 5.0 percent. Basically, by making a pre-paymem, the City is
effectively reducing the payment it must make to PERS. Based on information from PERS and
City actuaries, it appears the General Fund can realize an estimated $500,000 in annual savings.
Since the City has adequate cash flow, prepayment of these liabilities is a reasonable option.
This strategy is based on the understanding that, on average and over an extended period of time,
the PERS portfolio will earn at least 7.75 percent. It is most likely that in particular years PERS
will earn less or more than 7.75 percent, but PERS’ historical earnings, as well as those of the
stock market, suggest that this yield expectation is realistic. This interest rate earnings
assumption has been used in discussions with Council in determining the City’s annual required
contribution for its retiree medical liability.
¯Pension Obligation Bonds
A second option for expenditure reductions would be for the City to issue Pension Obligation
Bonds (POBs). This strategy also rests on the theory or expectation that PERS will realize, on
average, a higher rate of return than the City’s portfolio. In this case, the City would issue bonds
in the amount of its total liability, currently estimated at $80.5 million. The City would then
deposit these proceeds with PERS for investment. Instead of the City making annual payments
to PERS, which includes a charge equivalent to its expected investment rate (7.5 percent), it will
now pay debt service at taxable rate currently estimated at 6.5 percent. Given the complexity
and size of this transaction, staff needs to analyze it further and is not recommending it at this
time. Preliminary indications are that there could be reasonable savings from issuing POBs.
¯Refinancing of Existing City Debt
Staff reviewed the General Fund’s debt obligations for potential refinancing opportunities, but
unfortunately, due to the requirements of the debt obligations and the current interest rate
enviromnent, there was little potential for savings. In the year 2011-12, however, the City’s
Civic Center COP debt obligation will be near retirement. In this year, debt service will be
reduced by $352,000 and in the following year by $423,000. These funds can be used toward the
payment of other General Fund debt and needs.
Financial Challenges to Consider
As the Finance Committee considers the options presented, it is critical to remember a variety of
financial challenges that face the City in the near and long-term. Chief among these is that the
General Fund will lose $2.2 million in landfill rent in 2012-13. This event has been included in
cmr 114:08 Page 10 of 13
the Long Range Financial Forecast. It will represent a major resource hole to fill and revenues
expected from the Stanford expansion could be quickly absorbed. Another major, potential
threat is the loss of telephone utility users tax in the amount of $2.0 million. Through tectmology
changes such as the Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) or through legal and regulato~)~
challenges, the City could either lose all or part of this key revenue source.
The PSB and Library facilities will require additional operating and maintenance expenses which
have yet to be determined. One of the suggestions in the Sustainable Budget report was to
proactively prioritize City programs as the City moves forward with new programs and facilities.
This step would provide a path for the City in the event it faced difficulties in meeting debt
service or in identifying resources for library and police building operations.
In addition to those challenges cited above, the City will continue to face a number of ongoing
cost and revenue concerns. These are discussed in the Long Range Financial Forecast and
include, for example:
Rising health care costs
Salary pressures due to competition for key personnel e.g., police staff
o Internet sales siphoning sales tax from brick and mortar retail outlets
Potential loss of key vendors such as automobile dealerships and electronic firms
Potential State of California revenue takeaways based on an expected $14 billion deficit
in 2008-09
Another important point is that the Cib, relies on its revenue growth to cover rising costs for
existing programs. It is expected that the recent TOT increase will assist with this as well as
provide additional funding for infrastructure work. As the City receives future revenue streams
from the Stanford developments, it is necessary to remember that part of those revenues may be
needed for general operational purposes.
CONCLUSION
In summary, options to use General Fund resources for a PSB are provided for Council
consideration. It should be noted that some options require further research and that dollar
amounts associated with each are estimates. Many of the options are dependent on a variety of
development processes that will require considerable attention and can be delayed; hence, the
timing of revenue streams may not be timed precisely time with the onset of debt service.
Nevertheless, the options presented here are an important step in identifying resources that could
be used for building a new facility.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The estimated cost to build a new public safety building is $69 million and the estimated debt
service to support this and the associated financing costs is projected at $5 million annually.
cmr 114:08 Page 11 of 13
Should the City identify $10 million in funds to offset the principal needed, annual debt service
would be reduced to around $4.4 million.
To proceed along the project timeline outlined below, an additional $4 million in funding will be
required for the public safety building project. This amount will cover $3 million in architectural
fees (design work) as well as $1 million in construction management and other expenditures.
These costs are part of the $69 million project and will be reimbursed through COP proceeds.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report is consistent with Council’s 2007-08 Top 4 priority on the Library Plan and Public
Safety Building.
TIMELINE
The following timeline below is based on Council providing direction to proceed with the
project by February, 2008.
March to November 2008 Complete design and prepare construction documents for
bidding (nine months). This timeline is based on one-time
reviews by City Boards and Commissions. Additional
reviews will push the entire timeline into the future
December 2008 to February 2009
April 2009
April 2011
Bid project including addendums and bid opening (three
months)
Council Awards construction contract
PSB construction (2 years) mad occupancy of facilib’
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions requested in this report do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
PREPARED BY:
JOSEPH SA~CIO
Deputy.,D~rector, Admlmstrat~ve Services
cmr 114:08 Page 12 of 13
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
LALO PEREZ
Director, Administrative Services
/
EI~IILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attaclm~ent A:
Attaclm~ent B:
Attacl~ment C:
Table of General Financing Vehicles Available for City, Use
Table of Financial Resources Available to Pay Certificates of Participation
2008-2018 Long Range Financial Forecast
cmr 114:08 Page 13 of 13
~ P
o o S" S"
ATTACHMENT C
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-1t 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Act~Jal Projected
Revenues
Sales Taxes
Properb, Taxes
UiJ!i~, User Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Other Taxes, Fines & Penal~es
Su btotal: Taxes
Service Fees & Permits
Joint Serv ice Agreements
(S~nford U nk, ersity)
Interest Earnings
Other revenues
22,195 22,/.--00 23,072 23,649 23,294 22,712 24,245 26,003 27,563 28,665 29,668 30,410
21.487 22.685 23.487 24.203 24,341 24,482 26,098 27,823 29,735 31,782 33,815 38,066
9.356 9.793 10.522 11.i23 11,742 12,37!13,169 14,029 14,832 15,688 16,586 17,568
6,708 7,500 8,424 8,748 8.625 8.418 8.846 9,430 10,193 10,917 11.473 12,058
8,757 8,260 8,531 8,813 8,927 8,912 9.466 10.080 10,703 11,281 11,819 12.346
68,483 70,638 74,036 76,536 76,929 76,895 81,824 87,365 93,026 98,333 103,361 108,448
17,916 19,091 19,756 20,692 21,234 21,717 22,117 22,757 23,649 24,577 25,543 26,545
6.822.7.260.7.690.7 ,~ aM8,402 8,765 9,162 9,558 ~,~ a a~a10,464 10,953 11.468
2.365 2.29!2.383 2.471 2,557 2,653 2,759 2,883 3.033 3,181 3,333 3,474
16.371 14.633 14.943 15.181 15,428 15,707 13.918 14.270 14.632 15.~35 15.389 15,785
~.043 86.920 91.542 94.831 99,250 102,391 105,595 109,399 114, ill 119,044 124,207 129,613
2,900 2,940 3,028 3,119 3,213 3,309 3,408 3,511 3,616 3,724 3,836 3,951
9,135 10,409 10,747 1i,123 11,374 11,5/.’-44.11,717 11,893 12,226 12,618 12,996 i3,386
2.656 3.569 3.685 3.814 3,900 3.958 4,018 4,078 4,192 4,326 4,456 4,590
8.734 9,802 10.088 10.392 10.678 10.934 11.205 11.503 1!.828 12.106 12,390 12,681
985 1,166 1,204 1,246 1,274 1,293 1,312 1,332 1.369 1,413 1,456 1,499
14,101 13,566 14,007 14,497 14,823 15,046 15,271 15,653 16,123 16,606 17,105 17.618
122,554 128,372 134,301 139,023 144,512 148,475 152,527 157,370 163,466 169,837 176,446 183,338
6.987 7.600 7.880 8. i80 8.501 8.844 9.211 a 60~i0,024 10.474 10.955 11.470
1.749 2,077 1,682 1.579 1.626 1.675 1.725 1.776 !.828 1.882 1.936 1.993
1,092 1,162 1,171 1,177 1,173 929 752 749 649 763 763 763i
19 948 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 !51
Reimbursements from Other Funds 9,896 10.680 11,053 11,428 11.874 12.187 12.514 12.917 13.410 13.942 14,487 15.055
Total Revenues 121,853 124,593 129,861 134,242 136,424 137,924 142,294 149,750 157,749 165,502 173,066 180,775
Transfers from Other Funds 15.644 i7.207 i7.807 18.930 19,648 19,635 20,162 20,8il 21,605 22,463 23,34¢0 24,25~
TOTAL SOURCEOFFUNDS 137,497 141.800 147.668 153,172 156,072 157,559 162,456 170,561 179,354 187,965 196,406 205,031
Expenditures
Salaries & Benefits
Re~ree Medical Uabitit1,:’
Contact Serv ices
Supplies & Materials
General Expense
Rents, Leases, & Equipment
AIIoca~d Expenses
Total Expenditures
Transfers to Other Funds
GF ~ans~r for Infrastruc~Jre ClP
I GF t~ansfer for other capilal projects
i Debt Serv ice
Other
TOTAL USEOFFUNDS 132,401 140,159 145,047 149,971 155,825 159,937 164,229 169,513 175,982 182,970 190,115 197,579
Net Operating Surplus!(Deficit) 5,096 1,641 2,621 3,201 247 (2,378)(1,773)1,048 3,372 4,995 6,291 7,452
To/(From) Reserves 5,096 (2,092)54 1,285 765 (2,378)(1,773)1,048 3,372 4,995 6,291 7,45;