HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 140-08City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:
ATTN:
CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
FEBRUARY 5, 2008
RESPONSE TO
DIRECTION ON
BUILDING
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR: 140:08
FINANCE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND
FINANCING OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee review the responses to the questions and
direction received during the January 15, 2008 FC meeting on financing options for the Public
Safety Building and recommend a financing strategy to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2007, the City Council directed staff to investigate the use of Certificates of
Participation (COPs) to finance the purchase of a 1.27 acre parcel and construction of a Public
Safety Building (PSB). This required staff to identify internal and new revenue resources, "self-
financing" the PSB without relying on general obligation bonds.
On January 15, 2008, the Committee reviewed staff’s report on financing options for the Public
Safety Building (CMR: 114:08) "Financing Options for Public Safety Building" and Attachment
A). In general, the Committee raised questions about funding the Public Safety Building using
COPs exclusively. A goal of issuing a combination of general obligation bonds and COPs for
both the PSB and Library facilities was expressed. This goal was cited, in part, because of
concerns about the financial pressures that would be brought to bear on the General Fund by
issuing COPs. In using COPs, the estimated armual debt service cost of $5.2 million was cited in
the staff report. Some of the concerns centered on the possibility that if expected revenue
sources did not materialize as anticipated, additional operating expense reductions would be
necessary to meet debt service obligations. In addition, the Committee indicated that relying on
new development revenues, such as those from the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center,
in meeting annual debt service obligations was inappropriate since the expansion has not been
formally approved by Council.
Council Member Yeh indicated that General Obligation Bonds would not only provide a
guaranteed tax strea~n to pay debt service, but would also result in lower debt service costs. He
asked about the cost tradeoff between maintaining a debt service reserve (as proposed in the
COPs financing) or purchasing bond insurance to assure investors of their bond payments.
Council Member Burt requested more refined information on the revenue generated by the recent
2 percent increase in the transient occupancy tax and on potential rent from leasing the Civic
Center’s police wing. A question about creating a 911 response service fee to raise additional
resources to pay COPs debt service was also raised.
crnr 114:08 Page 1 of 6
Finally, several Council Members raised the policy and funding issue that there are numerous
City priorities competing for limited resources. They recommend that any available resources
identified by staff to pay for COPs be used as "matching funds" to supplement GO bonds
approved by the voters for the PSB and library facility projects, and perhaps for other needs.
The issue of General Fund priorities and resource challenges has been discussed in recent reports
to the Council on a sustainable budget (CMR:387:07) and in the 2008-2018 Long Range
Financial Forecast (CMR:462:07).
DISCUSSION
The question of whether to mix and match COPs and GO bonds to finance the PSB and Library
improvements is strictly a policy decision. To address the technical information request about
using a combination of GO bonds and COPs, staff researched a 50 percent funding mix for the
PSB. As previously stated, by the time of building construction, it is expected this project will
cost $69 million. The following table compa’es all-COPs financing to the equal combination of
COPs and GO bonds.
TABLE I: Corn ~arative Debt Structures for PSB
Terms COPs 50 Percent 50 Percent Total of
ExclusiveS,COPs GO GO and COPs
Project Cost $69 million *$34.5 million $34.5 million $69 million
Principal of $81.2 m.$40.8 m.$34.5 m.$75.3 m.
Issue
Bonowing 30 years 30 years 30 ?,ears 30 years
Tern~ (3’ears)
Fixed Interest 4.94%4.94%4.84%
Rate
Average $5.2 million $2.6 million $2.2 million $4.8 million
Annual Debt
Sen, ice
* This figure includes property acquisition costs, building construction (adjusted for inflation), project
development costs, and contingencies ~’pically used in cost estimating of this magnitude. Note that this
figure also included fixtures, furniture and equipment (FF&E). FF&E can be financed through COPS, but
not through GO bond proceeds.
The cost to the General Fund, based on 50 percent COPs, would equal $2.6 million annually
compared to the $5.2 million in an all-COP alternative. This combination would save the GF
$2.6 million. Residential and commercial properties would pay taxes for the remaining $2.2
million in GO bond debt sen,ice should voters approve the appropriate measure. It should be
noted that furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) cannot be funded via GO bonds, so these
costs would be folded into the COP issue. By issuing a 50 percent mix of COP and GO bond
debt, the mmual debt service the City would have to cover would be $4.8 million versus the $5.2
million for COPs alone, a difference of $400,000 annually. This difference is primari.ly due to
the high issuance costs associated with a COP. \Vhereas COPs require capitalized interest and a
debt service reserve, which is currently estimated to be approximately $11 million based on
COPs exclusively, a GO bond issue does not require them. The COPs debt service reserve,
cmr 1 !4:08 Page 2 of 6
however, will earn interest to offset debt service and will be used for the final debt service
payment.
Two artaclm~ents are provided to inform the Finance Committee about the potential resources
and the timing of those resources with respect to covering anticipated COPs debt ser’,,ice. Each
of these attacbanents can be used to determine resources available to cover an all COPs scenario
and a 50 percent COPs/GO bond scenario. Attachment B depicts possible resources, with Option
1 showing staffs original recommendation and Option 2 excluding development resources (e.g.,
Stanford Shopping Center expansion sales taxes). Option 2 shows total resources of $6.3
million, which would be sufficient to cover annual debt service at some point in time. This
option, however, has several items that need additional research and are subject to negotiation.
This includes, for example, the rental of the police wing and the leasing of the City’s Cubberley
site to Foothill College.
Attaclvnent C shows the expected timing of receipt of the resources identified in Option 2.
Several do not coincide with the onset of PSB debt service payments in 2010-11. In the year
2010-11, resources are sho~ which come close to covering the expected $3.2 million in
principal that must be paid under an all-COPs scenario. In the year 2011-12, when full principa!
and interest of $5.2 million is due, there appear to be sufficient resources based on cm’rent
projections. Should resources fall short of ammal debt service in a COPs scenario, either a new
revenue source or expense reductions would be required to meet the City’s commitment. Staff
has identified some options that could provide a steady stream of resources over time: retired
Civic Center debt savings of $0.4 million; a target of $1.0 million in expense reductions; and
$0.5 million by pre-paying retirement and retiree medical payments to PERS. A new Genera!
Fund revenue som’ce, such as a business license tax, of $400,000 to $2,500,000 would be useful
in meeting the City’s financial needs. A target of $1.5 million is cited in the attachments.
During the meeting, additional information and clarification on a number of items was requested.
The following responds to those requests.
Except for GO bonds, which require no debt service reserve, a debt issue requires a net present
value analysis to determine whether a debt sera, ice reserve or insurance is the optimal means for
guaranteeing continuing bond payments. The decision to use a reserve or insurance is strictly
based on which is less costly in cmTent dollar terrns. In the current market and with concerns
about the financial condition of insurers such as AMBAC and MBIA, obtaining insurance is
problematic and extremely expensive at best. Bond investors will expect a debt reserve fund or
insurance policy regardless of the credit rating of the issuer.
Staff has refined numbers and gathered additional information on several potential revenue
sources to pay for COPs debt. Space available for a lease of the cun’ent Police wing equals about
19,081 square feet. Based on a recent tour of the wing by two loca! developers, it is estimated
that a lease rate of between $3.50 and $4.00 could be expected. Using the midpoint, this could
yield $860,000 annually. Further research into how much net space can be made available,
cmTent market rate, potential tenant uses, as well as the cost of improvements necessary to
occupy that space may well result in changes to the preliminary lease revenue estimate. If the
Development Center (DC) were moved to the Police wing, the General Fund could recoup some
of its building expenses through development fees but probably would not be able to recoup the
full fair market value. The allowable expenses include utility, phone service, maintenance, and
cmr 114:08 Page 3 of 6
an annual depreciation cost. Should capital improvements be made to the wing, then these costs
will be amortized and passed on to DC customers. Additional analysis would have to be
conducted to determine total cost for occupancy. A comparison of a commercial or market rate
rental to occupancy with a cost recovery approach could then be made.
At this time, staff does not believe that there would be material savings from currently used City
or rental space used for storage that could be transferred to the Police wing. Moreover,
occupancy of the wing by a tenant may raise accessibility issues. Staff will continue, however,
to investigate this option.
Council Member Burt requested that staff revisit the revenue estimate provided for the recent 2
percent TOT increase. Based on 2006-07 actual revenues of $6.7 million, and holding all other
factors constant, an additional $1.3 million could be raised by the rate change. To be somewhat
conservative in light of a softening economy, staff believes at least $1.2 million can be expected.
It is important to note, however, that staff’s earlier recommendation was to use this revenue
grox~h to cover rising health care, infrastructure, and other General Fund expenses. This revenue
was incorporated into the City’s Long Range Financial Forecast. In addition, since the TOT is a
general tax (rather than a special tax) it cannot be dedicated to any particular use.
It was requested that staff investigate implementing a 911 service fee to help pay for the PSB.
Santa Clara’s Board of Supervisors has recently passed such a fee while San Jose and San
Francisco have one in place. There is currently litigation over whether this fee can be adopted by
Council or whether it is a tax subject to voter approval. Potential revenue estimates for this tax
are in the process of being developed.
There will be additional operating expenses for the PSB, libraries and Mitchell Park community
center. It is currently estimated that utility, custodial, and maintenance expenses for any new"
building will cost approximately $8.00 per square foot. Since the facilities are still in the design
process, additional operating costs have yet to be determined. For example, landscaping costs
have not been calculated to date. Although furniture, fixtures and equipment could be included
in a COP issue, there may be additional unidentified needs that would not be eligible for COP or
GO bond financing. As the projects are further defined, staff will be able to refine the operating
and maintenance cost estimates and identify potential funding sources.
In addition to the $62 million in costs cited in this report for the PSB, an estimated $1.7 million
has been expended for this project. These expenses are potentially reimbm’sable from the
proceeds of COPs or General Obligation bonds and can be included in a debt issue. This would
increase the amount of principal to be borrowed by $1.7 million as well as interest costs. Staff
requests Council’s direction on whether to include these expenditures in a future debt issue.
In conclusion, this repor~ addresses the FC’s direction to examine using a combination of COPs
and GO bonds for the PSB. Staff requests that the FC direct staff to send the Committee’s
recommendations on this report to the Council for consideration at the February 11 meeting.
RESOURCE IMPACT
By the time construction begins, and based on current construction index inflation rates, the
estimated final cost to build a new public safety building is $69 million (including FF&E). It is
critical to note that for each month the PSB project is delayed beyond the scheduled construction
crnr 114:08 Page 4 of 6
date cited below, it is expected that project costs will increase by an estimated $500,000 to
$600,000 per month.
Attactmaent D shows the PSB costs that would be covered under a GO bond and under a COPs
issue. This information is provided to show- the components of the project and to facilitate the
strategic decision on how to mix and match these financing vehicles.
Am~ual debt service costs vary according to the debt instrument selected. As is sho~a in Table I,
a total COP issue is expected to result in annual payments of $5.2 million. The mix of a 50
percent GO and COP combination is expected to result in amual citywide debt service of $4.8
million, of which the City must find resources to cover $2.6 million in debt. The remainder
would be paid through property taxes. Resource options are presented in Attactvnent A and are
subject to further analysis and research.
In order to proceed along the project timeline outlined below, a $4 million appropriation 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.
This additional funding will be requested through a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the
coming months. These costs are pat of the $69 million project and will be reimbursed through
COPs or bond proceeds.
As stated above, there will be operating costs associated with the new PSB. For maintenance,
custodial and utility costs, a cost of $8.00 per square foot is estimated at this time. As this
project is further defined, staff will have better cost estimates and identify potential funding
sources. Operating costs are not included in the COP or GO bond amounts above.
Also stated above is that in addition to the $62 million in costs cited in this report an estimated
$1.7 million has been expended for this project. These expenses can be treated as reimbursable
expenses from the proceeds of COPs or General Obligation bonds, or as prior capital
expenditures that the General Fund has absorbed. Naturally, by including the $1.7 million, the
amount of principal to be borrowed will increase as will interest costs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Council’s establishment of securing funding for the
Library/Community Center and Public Safety projects as a Top 4 priority for 2008.
TIMELINE
The following timeline below is based on Council providing direction to proceed with the project
by February, 2008 using COP debt financing only.
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 Bid project including addendums and bid opening (three
months)
cmr 1!4:08 Page 5 of 6
April 2009 Council awards construction contract
April 2011 PSB construction (2 years) and occupancy of facility
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Enviromnental Impact Report was certified by the Council on November 18, 2007 pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act.
~ " ~" "PREPARED BY:
JO S,E,PH SA~CIO
Dep~yDir " ’ ~ ""eS
~irector, Adm~e Services¯( )
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:( / ~ ~ [ O~.. gJ dA iSO
Assist~t City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attactnnent A:
Attachment B:
Attaclm~ent C:
Attacl~nent D:
CMR: 114:08 ~Financing Options for Public Safety Building"
Table of Financial Resom’ces Available to Pay Certificates of Participation
Timing of Project, Debt Service Payments (All COP), and Resources
Available to Pay Debt Service
Comparison of GO Bond & COPs Cost Coverage
cmr 114:08 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
TO:CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:
DATE:JANUARY 15, 2008
SUBJECT: FINANCING OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
RECOMMENDATION
S~aff recommends the Finance Committee review the funding alternatives for a new public safety
building presented in this repor~ and provide recommendmions to file Cib~ Council.
BACKGROUND
In December 2005, the City Council directed the Mayor to appoint a communky-based Blue
Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost, and site for a new public safety
building (PSB). The BRTF presemed its recommendations ~o 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
Environmental Impact report (EIR) for the new public safety building. Specifically, the building
was to agcommodate 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 Plarming 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 i of i3 ~
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 corner of the site.
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 Environmental Impact Report (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 ballot. In December 2006, the Council directed staff to proceed with
community, polling prior to making any final decisions about facility, enhancements for both
libraries and public safety,. The initial voter poll 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, improvelnents 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 ballot. 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 City, 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 local 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, through 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 parking 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
Attachment A. Unlike General Obligation (GO) or Assessment District bonds, COPs do not
raise new revenues through 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 examine 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 program choices. In addition, the timing of resource availability to
pay debt service varies 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 Safet’,, Buildin~
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 underwriters
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
Annual 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
¯a 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 Pa=e ~ 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.
Telms
Principal of
Issue
Borrowing
Term
(years)
True
Interest Rate
Average
Annual
Debt
Service
Column 1
$69 Million Cost
Fixed Rate
$81.2 million
30 years
4.94%
$5.19 million
TABLE I:
Column 2
$69 Million Cost
Variable Rate
$80.5 million
30 .’,,ears
4.56%
$4.94 million
COP Debt Structures
Colmnn 3
$69 Million Cost
50%Fixed and 50%
Variable
$81.1 million
30 ‘‘‘,ears
4.75%
$5.08 million
Column 4
$69 Million Fixed
Rising Over Time
$83.5 million
30 ‘‘‘’ears
5.00%
$4.1 million rising by
approximately $100,000
each year to $7.6 million in
year 30
The City ofPalo 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 current variable rate
levels, which are currently 0.4 percent below the expected fixed rate, annual debt service is
estimated at $4.9 million (see Column 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 Column 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
amo~’tization; 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 fiom 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
years 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 from $5.2 million to $4.4 million.
Resource Options to Reduce Borrowing 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 t14:08 Page 5 of 13
One-Time Options
¯Reducing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve
To reduce the borrowing 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 Cit), 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 fi’eed. These withdrawals
would leave $21.8 and $18.1 million, respectively, in the B SR. 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 and 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 canbe
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 recommended 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 proposal. 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, annual 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.
Ideally, to pay increased and new debt service expense, the City, would identifT new revenue
sources to cover its obligations. The City hopes to realize new revenues from a varieD~ of
future projects.
Stanford Shopping Center
Stanford recently indicated, in a conservative timeframe, that the Shopping Center and partial
build out of the hospitals may not be completed until 20!4-15. 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:
Stanford SC Expansion
(Sales Tax)
Stanford SC Hotel
(TOT)
Estimated Revenue Sources for COP Debt Service
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Anderson Honda on 101
(Sales tax and rent)
Total Revenues
Estimated Annual Debt
Service (Fixed)
$3.2 million
2011-12
$1.6 million
$1.1 million
$1.0 million
$3.8 million
$5.2 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.
o 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 fiom $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.
cmr 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 downtown space that has available parking and would be
attractive office space. Moreover, and 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 annual 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-
through 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 Attachment C). As discussed in the forecast
(CMR:425:07), these revenues plus the $5.1 million surplus 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 comlnitments, a potentially slowing economy, and the use of
TOT revenue for higher General Fund infrastructure and other operating costs, staff does not
recommend using this source for the PSB.
Expenditure Reductions
When issuing COP debt, it is necessary to have an ongoing stream of resources to match annual
debt service obligations. While 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
service 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-Payment 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 annual PERS obligations at the beginning of a fiscal year rather thanin
monthly or periodic installments throughout 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-payment, the City is
effectively reducing the payment it must make to PERS. Based on information from PERS and
Cit), 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
environment, 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 !14:08 Page 10 of 13
the Long Range Financial Forecast. It will represent a major resource hole to fill and revenues
expected fi’om 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 technology
changes such as the Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) or through legal and regulatory
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 CitT in the event it faced difficulties in meeting debt
service or in identi~Iing 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
. Internet sales siphoning sales tax fi’om 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 City 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 infiastructure 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. Man5, of the options are dependent on a varieD; 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
SafeU’ 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) and 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:
J~)SEPH SACCIO
Deputy Director, Administrative Services
cmr 114:08 Page 12 of 13
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
L.AL0 PEREZ
Director, Administrative Services
CITY h4A%:AGER APPROVAL:
¯/
........ f ." ’. n ~/1 X,
E~.,~IL ¥ HARRISON
Assistant CiD’ Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attac!vaent B:
Attachment 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
crm: 4.,o°r’age
ATTACI-I~ENT C
Timing of Project, COP Debt Service Payments, and Resource Availability **
(Excludes New Development Resources - Option 2 on Attachment A)
Resource 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Project Construction Construction
Timeline begins ends (April
(April 2009)20! 1)
Debt
Service
begins
Debt Cost $3,200 $5,200 $5,200 $5,200
400 400 400,
500 500 500 500 500 500
CC debt
retired
PERS and
Retiree
Medical
Prepayment
Operating
Expense
Reductions
Business
License Tax
Cubberley
rental
Police Wing
Rent
Totals
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
1,800 1,800 1,800
860 860
500 1,500 3,000 5,200 6,060 6,060
**Note that the above timelines and dollar amounts are estimates and will change
Attachment D
Comparison of GO Bond & COPs Cost Coverage
Terms GO COPs
Construction 2008 dollars $36 million $36 million
Project Development $6 million $6 million
Land $11 million $11 million
Design & Construction $7 million $7 million
Contingencies (20%)
Inflation (8%/year)$6 million $6 million
GO & COPs Subtotal $66 million $66 million
FF&E including moving costs $0 million $3 million
GO & COP’s Total $66 million $69 million