HomeMy WebLinkAbout0458.000\
.'
0·,
~ stafJe. G t ___ _
August 2', 1990
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto~ California
.Members of the Counc i 1 :
. ; .
This is an informational report regarding the
~rred to the city's 19B5 utility Revenue Bonds
rating agency presentations. It also includes
prelillinary p'ricinq for the refunding b<::>nd sale.
upgrade which
as a result of
information on
As was reported to the Council in early July {CKR: 401: 0) It staff bas
been vorkitl9 since January 199'0 on refunding the 1985 utility
Revenue Bonds, Series A Adjust~ble Convertible Extendable Securi
ties (ACES).. The purpose of the refunding 15 to lock in a lov
long-tera rate to protect the city from interest rate exposure ..
Staff was directed by the Council to proceed .. ith t'be plan to
refund the bonds, providing the issue could be marketed at a rate
not to exceed 7.1 percent.
Bond ~ating_ Upgrade
In conjunction 'With the refunding, the City Manager. utilities
Oircctor l and Finance Director made presentations to Koody·s and
Standard and Poors in New York on July 11. 199~~ Presentations to
the rating aqencies were considered especially important for this
debt issuance fo~ two reasons. First l Moody's had downgraded the
city's ratinq frOG Aa tQ an A rating in 1985, due to concerns about
the financial viability of the Calaveras elect.rical gene-ration
p,roject and the City's substantial interest in that project. That
project is nov complete and in commercIal operation, and Moody'S
had upgraded both NCPA and the City of Santa Clara (an~ther Eaj0r
participant in the pr~ject) within the last 12 months. Second, the
original 1985 trust indenture defined the ·utility· as including
the City·s electric 1 gas l 'Water. and wastewater enterprise funds.
The indenture fer the refunding included ~ change in the definition
of the ·utility· to inc1ude the ne"iot sto·rm Drain Utility. This will
CMR:4SS:0
•
'--_____________ ----;_._ . _____ .....1
, -
L
-
;
)
•
I
1
t
•
•
. ,
\
\ . , , ,
' .
..
-.1.'
o o
allow the City to issue debt to fund the capital needs of the storm
drain systeJl. at ext.remely attractive rates, which -would not be
attainabl. it th. Storm Drain util ity, II new concept to the
lIunicipal bond lIarket with very little fi.nancial track record., were
to qo to tbe market on its own.
Attacbed is a copy of the outline prepared for each session., and
the material presented. The presentation content and order were
varied to meet the particular interests and informational needs of
each ratinq aqency. Each presentation was followed by a lengthy
question and answer session. The rating agencies both followed up
with additional questions in the week that followed~
On July 31, the city was notified that both rating agencies had
upqrad~ the City's ratinqs: Moody's had restored the Aa rating
for the 1985 ACES bonds, and upgraded the A~ rating on ~reviously
issued 1983 utility revenue bonds to Aaa. standard and Poors
upgraded tbe 1985 ACES from AA to AA-plus .. and the 1983 bonds from
AA-plus to AAA. Palo Alto's Standard and Poors rating is higher
than any other utility in California .. and our underwriters believe
that only one other utility in the nation has a higher rating. The
ratings re.flect the management and financial strength of the,
Utilities, as well as the legal structure and covenants ~ade in the
bond issue~
At the same time, both the MBIA and AMBAC Indemnity Corporation
(bond insurance companies) have approved Palo Alto's credit for a
surety bond in lieu of a bond reserve. While staff will evaluate
the cost benefit of tbis option, what this Zleans is that tour
separate analysts have agreed that Palo Alto deserves the hiqoest
marks for financial ~apability and manaqement.
Bondi Pricing
Staff will be working .. ith the underwriters during' the week of
August 6 to complete the sale of the refunded bonds. The market at
the current time is very favorable, and staff hopes to lock in an
interest rate in the ranqe of 6.7 to 6.9 percent.
Respectfully subaitted~
~ 1la{H~O :ltd'! HARRISON
Director of Finance
~~~
Cit.y Manager
Earlier Staft Reports!
CMR:4SS: 0
·.,:···.·.L-. '. -
CKR:401:0
2
Aw...-.-r -< -~
RICHARD L. YO"-'G ""
Director of Utilities
....,,-, ,,'
..
~'-
, -
,
: ~ ...
,
l>J
-
,'--.
o o
OUTLINE OF RATING AGL~C~ FRESENTATIONS JULY 17, 1990
Bill Zaner
E1Iily Harrison
Richard Young
Ed Schilling
Sohail Bengali
I. Introduction
Members
to 1990 Series A Financing and Finance Team
Ed Schilling
A. Introduction of team members and roles in
presentation
B. Pur~e of refunding the 1985 utility Bonds
II. City Policies Regarding Debt Financing and Management of
the utilities
Bill Zaner
III. Legal stru~ture of the utility Revenue Refunding Bonds,
1990 Series A
SOhall Bengali or Ed Schilling
A~ Definition of the Enterprise
Addition of Storm Drainage Utility
B. Pledge of Net Revenues
c. Flow of fun.~s
D. Reserve Account and/or surety bond -in lieu·
E. Rate coverage C>:Ivenant
F. Additional bonds
1) The senior 1983 utility Revenue bonds
2) Par i ty bonds
J} Non-parity bonds
IV. The Utility De.partment
Description of Department organization. nurnter of
employees, general ~an3gement policies
Richard Young
A. Electric Utility
1) History
2) Sources of electric supply
a) MajoL projects
b} Contracts
-1 -
•
i
~~
i , ,
< ,
" ~
; , ,
f-
f
•
".".
,.
I
•
...
/
M0n, July 9. 1990~ OUTLINE OF RATING AGEN~SENTATIONS 3ULY
3) Rate.s
a) Historical and projected
b) Comparison to other area retailers
.) Capital Improvement program
5j General discussion of operations
B. Gas Utility
1) History
2} Sources of natural .gas supply
a) Major facilities
b) Contracts
3} Rates
a) Historic~l and projected
b) Comparison to other area retailers
4) Capital I~provement Program
5) Gsnera1 discussion of operations
Cr Water Utility
l} History
2) Sourr'hs o:f 'Water supply
a} Xajor facilities
b) Cont~acts
3} Rates
a) Historical and projected
b) Comparison to other area retailers
c) Connection fees
4) Capital Improvement Program
5) General discussion of operations
b, c'-~{!o!:{. T/~ J-'
v. The Pu~lic Works Uepaxtment
·~rf~'1
~. Wastevater Utility
1) History
2) The Regional water QUality Control Plant
al Contracts with Partners and Subpartners
- 2 -
•
/ Kon~ 3uly 9. 1~9<:> OUTLINE OF FATn';G )..r;E.Q PEE.SENT1o.TIONS JULY
b) Current usage and capacity
c) Treatment standards
J) Rates
a) Historical 3nd projected
b] ComparisDn to other area citi~s
c) Connection fees
4) Capital Improvement Program including status of
improvements financed with 1985 ACES
5) General discussion of operations
",£,
B. Storm Drainage Utilit~
1) Histor}-
2} Authority
3) Rates
4) capital IJr.provement Program.
5) General discussion of op€rations
VI. Enterprise Financp-s
Emily Hat'rison
A. Summary presentation of revenues r expenses~ coverage
ratios on historical and projected basis
8. OUtstanding debt and contractual obligations
VII. Area Economics
Bill. Zaner
A. Top custol:',ers of the Entet"prise
B. Population gro~th/customer growth
c. Building permits
D. ErnploYIDent trends
E. Income trends
-3 -
•
"-7-0" •• ---
o
STATEMENT FOR BOND PRESENTATION
I would like to give you a thumbnail sketch of the four utilities
in my department~ Mr. Zaner will speak to the fifth utility, the
storm drainage systen. (First overhead-up) First, I would like
.to qive you a perspective on the relative si~e and the importance
each utility represents to the CitYa As you can see the electric
utility is the larger of the qroup, being over four times as
large as the gas utility which is the ne~t largest a Electric
revenue is a little over $72 million of the total $116 million
projected for the year. (2nd overhead) Due to the relatiVe size
of each utility and the group's size relative to other larger and
smaller munici~l utilities and the fact that the City provides
all utility services, we are not orqani~ed on a utilities line,
basis with separate divisions for each service4 Rather~ ~e are
organized on a matrix basis with divisions for administrative
services~ resource planning, engineering, and operations with
elements within each divisicn serving a general~ utilities wide
fur~tion or a specialited function for the specific utility -
water, qas 4 electric or wastewater. Hence without a program to
tell the players6 we will just say there are 185 people in the
Utilities Department and 56 more at the water Quality Control
Plant where waste~ater treatment takes place.
The EI~.tctric utility qo-t its start at the turn of the century
when the City bought out the facilities of th~ Penjnsula Lighting
Company. As the City's load grew it was necessary to shut down
the original steam plant and enter into a contract with Pacific
Gas and Electric for power supply in 1923. With the development
of the Central Valley project, the City contracted for its needs
through the Federal Government in 196L 'I'hat contract runs
through 2~C and provides 175 MW of p7wer, ~bich was sufficient
until 1985 when the load first exceeded the contract limit.
Today's peak loads hit around 186MW. The supplemental amount
above this contract with the Western Area Power Administration is
provided througb our membership in the Northern california Fower
Agency. or NCPA, and an Interconnection Agreement with PG&E4
This provides resources from geothermal and combustion turbines
to Hydro and purchased power4 Internally, we work with load
manage~ent and demand side programs.
The city has participated in NePA, geothermal project and
Calaveras Hydro-Electric Project on the North Fork of the
stanislaus River. We are also a participant in the California
ore90n Transmission Project being d~e by the Transmission Agency
of Northern California. The City hals laid off its share of the
1
•
,
\ -\ . "
.,
-., ..
\
\. -
.
...........••.
~
i
'I
l
-
"
2
geothermal project to the TUrlock Irrigation Oist~ict since that
project Is best run at this time as a base load generator and toe
Cityls need is principally for peaking generation riqht no~.
The Calaveras Project was started in 1985 with Palo Alto as a
22.92\ participant. The ~tract committee proposed and the
Commission directed use of a turn-key concept that placed a great
deal of the risk on the contractor. This proved adv~ntaqeous as
the ~tractor was well motivated. conflict on contract terms was
liaited l and the contractor used many innovative ideas during the
construction. The result was a 2)0 MW project (originally
designed at 205 MW) done on time and well under budget.
Construction 'WillS completed and operation commenced in February of
this year. The ulti.ate financing cost was $657 million after a
number of re-financings designed to take out variable rate issues
and red~~e interest costs. The City established a Calaveras
B_~~ designed to help with the anticipated financial burden.
Three .111s per non-life line KWH sold ~ere designated and added
to· the rates M whIch has ceveloped a fund e~ected to exceed $27
aillion in 1990-91 when the first payments are due. The reserve
will be used over a period of years to mitigate the impact on the
rates of absorbing approximately $12 million in annual debt
service. Tbe projection or use most recently developed showed
fund depletion in ~en years but this vill have to be
r~structed in about two weeks after final action by the
commission of NCPA to authorize redemption of approxImately $85
.illion worth of outstanding bonds with unexpended project funds.
We think that will be worth the effort!
The TARe Project (OOTP) is a 500 XV transmission line that ~ill
open up the Northwest Power Market to a n~r ~f Northern
California utilities and several in Southern California. The
concept 9ained early political support and bas moved fro:;]l concept
to design and on to early construction ~ith little conflict~ The
private utility participants are still engaged in trying to
Obtain tbeir certificates of Public convenience and necessity
fro. the California PUblic utilities Commission. The public
agencies are comuitted to the project and are prepared to
complete it ~itbout the private utilities' participation if
necessary. Or-May lr 1990 TARe issued $283,634,036 of revenue
bonds to finance construction of their share of the line. TANe
will soon issue commercial taxable notes to fund the balance of
the project. These will be replaced by the appropriate financing
documents when the PUC acts with regard to the private utilities'
participation. TANC has 42' of the project and Palo Alto has
4.254' of TAMe's share. OUr share of the anticipated debt
service is approximately $970,O~~ annually starting in 1994.
Total project costs are expected to be $338.9 million. ~ith TANe
responsible for $152.9 .illion and Palo Alto pricking up $6.5
.illian of the dabt.
This year vas the first retail electric rate increase since the
10.1' increase in July of 1986 and the 4.S' decrease in July of
•
,
•
, , , ,
\
.. --: . -
~J
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I.
, .. --
-
. .
...
o o
3
1988. The level ~as 7\ and still leaves the residential rate
approximately 50' lower than PG'E ~nd commercial and industrial
rates 2C to 34\ lover.
Th~ Electric Capital Improvement program ranges from $3.8
.illion per year for a five year total of $27.7 million.
amount various distribution system improvements total $1)
and underqroundinq projects total $5.8 million.
to $6.4
Of this
million
The utility sells approximately one billion ~'H per ~~ear, with a
low qrowth rate forecast at less than 1.5\ per year. contained
within the revenue requirement is the transfer to the qeneral
fund based on an li' rate of return applied to the rate base.
For 1990-91 this is anticipated to be appro~imately $6,100,000.
The -Gas Utility started in 1917 with a $40,00'0 bond issue that
was used to fund the purchase of the Palo Alto Gas Company. By
1929 the City ~egan purchasing natural gas from PG&E which yas
piped in from the lo~er San Joaquin oil Iields. This was high
quality gas and demand rose significantly over the e~rly years.
In today's Rl3rket and under rapidly changing rules and
regulations, Palo Alto remains principally a ~bolesale customer
of PG&E, but does purchase on the spot market and place gas in
storage to shave the winter peax. This saved the utility over
$10~,OOO last year and is expected to s~ve an additional $so,OOQ
this year. The local distribution system has four receiving
points and regulation stations for pressure control~ There are
nearly 2ca miles of mains in the system and it has an excellent
record and reputation for service. A planned infrastructure
project to replace mains at a faster pace will be discussed later
on in the presentation.
There was no -gas rate increase this fis:cal year and Palo Alto's
residential rates remain 27' under those for PG&E~ Natural gas
prices bave declined in recent years but are projected to
increase in the near future. The California Public Utilities
Commission continues to investigate various transportation and
rate concepts designed to restructure the California Gas Market
into a more competitive scenario. Palo Alto is preparing to deal
with supply concept changes by developing a gas supplemental
supply reserve that can be Qsed for purch~ses of in-ground
reserves, drillinqr Qc entering into broke~ing arrangem~ts~ We
work with knowledgeable consultants to protect our interests
before the PVC as they restructure the industry~ The utility
plans to spend $9.8 million in Capital Improvements over the next
five years, the ~ajority of which is going into regulator station
work, metering, and main replacements. The growth rate has been
under l' on the average for the last five years. with
conservation and customer a~~its accc~~ting for the stable load
in a city that has a moderate building construction rate.
The Water utility developed over a number of years as the many
•
•
~t t ~ ,-'j.
; I
-
,-
o o
small water companies selYing the area vere bought ~t commencing
two years after the 1894 Incorporation of the City. Ground water
from deep wells served the City until 1938 when ~ro·~h was not by
purchases from SFWD. By 1962 loot of the City's ~ater came from
this sou~ce6 providing high mountain vater to the city as a
wbole~ Xn 1~a4 the City signed a contract with SFWD for 2S years
of water supply under specific terms and conditions. The City
maintains six veIls in operabl~ condition ~nd can use the source
for supplemental supply. We are also participating in the
~rou.ndwater survey beinq conducted throuqh. the USGS encompassing
tbe entire south Bay Area. This information could lead to
additional were sites. storage is liDited and will oe considered
as part of our long term water management program. The present
drouqht situation has brought a requirement for a roughly 25'
~eduction under 1987 consumption levels. The City adopted a
rate sbape that causes an increase approaching six times the
no~al per unit cbarge after expected conservation usage levels
are exceeded. To date the local conservation ethic along with
tbe drought rate bas been effective and as of last week we were
28' below 1987 or 3t below our allocation level. ordinances are
in place prohibiting certain uses and ~astinq of vater and the
departaent is cor.d·ueting an. aggressive outreach campaign. Many
of our puhlicat.ion& and concept.s are being used by our
neighboring water agencies.
After the city reduced t.he expected t.ransfer level ... rates were
constructed to return approximately 11' more on the average from
tbe conserving customer. The non-conserving customer can
experience a 35' increase for 20 units used and geometrically
more for hiqher use~ The target vas set at reduction to 90% o~
indoor use and sot of outdoor use. This should bring the 25'
red·act ion des ired.
The water Capital Improvement prograa is framed around
accelerated main replacements amounting to over $5.8 milli<h~ out
of the anticipated $1 million to be spent over the five year
period.
Growth rates have become meaningless in the face of four years of
drought. Normally qrawth is less than 1\ per year.
The wastewater utili_u is split between the Utilit.ies Department
(collect.ion system) and the Public Works Department (treatment).
The collection systea was the City's first ~tility in 1896 ... and
has grown trom a service population of 3000 to 57,0'00. Th~ City
manages and operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
serving si~ communities, from Palo Alto and Mountain View, to Los
Altos. Los Altos Hills. Stanford and the East Palo Alto sanitary
district. The latter three are sub-contractors participatIng by
contract. with Palo Alto, one of the three main participants. The
1985 bond issue of $12.2 million ~as used to rehabilitate
existtng sewer t.runks and laterals ($3.5 million) and to add over
--.'
• \
\ ,
\
\ .
• > \',
•
.'.
. ,
.-,..,.-----
~-....
•
o
5
7 JD.illion gallons/day of capacit.y t':> the lrtater Quality Cr.'trol
Plant ($8~5 aillion). The plant 'Work was completed in A.ugust of
1989 and tested at 39 :r;gd in September in excess of the 3B mqd
design with present dry irleather f10 ..... ·s at 22 to 23 lr.gd. This new
capacity is expectPd to be adequat~ until 2010. ~~ile the
construction 'Was u.nderway ill number of addition3.1 h-,provements
were aade such as addition of a fine bubble diffuser system 'Which
el i.inated several large horse po .. 'er motors,. increased efficiency
of operati~s and reduced electrical demand. Th~ result of all
of the york .... as award -winning (EPA) plant operations and
increased safety from a chlorine building designed to control any
accidentally released gas. All treatment standards pre-treatment
requirements and waste minimization rules are met consistently
with the worst ·violation-being a few hours of foaming at the
effluent outlet on rare occasion.
Palo Al to's share rf the WQCP costs is paid through the
Wastewater collect~on rate as a line item charge to the
collection system. Residential rates are equal to one
neighboring city. lower than another, and higher than one other.
The commercial/industrial rates are ~onsistently higher than our
neighbor but this is accounted for in the need to increase rates
in these classifications due to reduced water consumption ~hich
is the basis for rate calculations. On the average, Palo Alto
cU5to~ers received a 16% rate increase this year.
Rehabilitation -work was completed at a rate of 14,000 linear feet
on the average tor the last three }'ears and funding has
transitioned trom the original bond funds to revenue funding of
the annual programs as the bond funds ... ·ere fully utilized by
1989.
The collection system proposes to spend over $9 million in the
next five years for Capital Improvements. The vast majority of
these funds will go into the na~ rehabilitation/augmentation
program discussed in the infrast~cture presentation.
The Palo Alto Utilities are in a very active phase right now~ We
are bringing major projects to their conclusion l reorganizing
others. and starting some new. Capital ~ork on th~
infrastnx:ture has bEen revie'Wed l analyzed and a program
developed to deal vith recognized needs. The pro3ra~ has been
presented to the City Council and }-.as been incorporated into the
City's five-year Capital Improvement program.
The overhead (nert ove-::-head} sho.'s the staged manner planned for
getting all of the pipeline programs undervay. We are startinq
with the gas system this year -recruiting engineerinq and
technical staff and doing engineering design for a 1992-93
project that viII represent (next. overheadJ gas .r-educed
replacement cycle and nearly a tripling of armual linear feet
replaced. As we gain e~~eri€nce ~ith the new industry standard
_1 ".-1-
). .' ,
•
\
"
<
I
l
r
!
l ,
i , • , , ,
~,~ :
.•
"'
•
. "
--
~~~:
t :f!:j~ri __ ~ __ -_-__ -_-___ -__ -~ ______ ~ __ ~ _
o
6
aaterial (polyethyle~e or PaE.) and the existinq materials are
phased out~ these replacement cycles will be adjusted to
accommodate the life span proven to be acceptable for the newer
materials.
(.ext overbeadJ Following the start of the qas project, we will
move sequentially into the vater system~ After staffing up and
down advance design work l 1993-94 wi1l see three times the
present level of water main replacement as we drive the
replacement cycle down from near 2~ to approximately 70 years,
wbich is expecte~ to be more than a~equate for our area,
materials and soil conditions. We will be replacing just under
three .lIes of mains per year under the new program.
(lfert overhead) wasteyat.er -As we did the initial work on
rehabilitating the wastewater Collection System, ~e found that we
needed to address ~he adequacy of ~apacity in the system at the
same time we ~ere planning for extensive rehabilitation work~ A
master plan was done by a ~onsultant (Kamp-Oresser , MCKee) in
1988-89 that identified present and future capacity problems,
developed a computer model of the system and made recommendations
for a 20 year program of improvements~ Staff combined that
information with the previously developed rehabilitation program
to present a joint rehabl1itationla~entation program again a
approximately three times today's expenditure and pace of
replacement.
The field operations division bas identified a number of
operations and maintenance programs that will have to be
strengthened in support of the capital Programs. The Electric
utility identified a number of oPerations and maintenance
programs in need of further development. An increased emphasis
is being placed on systems control and data acquisition,
~el~iog a more extensive underground mairltenance program." and
expandinq preventive maintenance programs for substations#
traffic signals, colJUllunications s.1·stems, system protection and
metering these needs have been "incorporated into the proposed
program.
An evaluation of tu'nding alternatives sho'Weel that these increased
levels of expenditure were just that and not amenable to bond
funding. A schedule was developed (next overhead) and rate
adjustments planned to i~te9rate the infrastructure costs 'With
inflation, commodity cost increases, new debt service
requirements from Calaveras and COTP., and anticipated sale,
growth and interest income expected. The result was a series of
rate increases., rarely impacted by the infrastructure project
along more than 2' on the overall utilities bill over the next 10
year period~
The City's utilities are prepared to de~l 'With the future with
qood power supply, minimal internal debt and a well planned
.,-,. ~. -&!f!!"""L--,,-. -'" '-"'~-""""
"';':':.
• ,
\
\
\ ,
-I
,
o
7
capital and infrastructure proqram~ Support from the City
Council is strong and mana9€:tnp-nt is .·orking to accomplish all of
our programs in a ti~ely manner and ~ithin the econo~ic
constraints cOfltained in our plans. In short, Palo Alto's
utilities ere in eKcellen~ condition, more than competitive, and
ready lor the future.
Bill -stora Drains
•
,
~ .
i
I
, ,
..
o
1
"" C')
i
<C-
O>
[
CD c
~:
ill t
L
0 11<
E 0> ""
t
L L
C'J t
0 ~
.
L
oJ S f Cl
~ g L
" ~
•
t J,
\ . , .. -~ , , ,
,-
" ' .
\
.' . / -",' ,.
E~RPRISE FINANCIAL SUMr;~y
RElI£HUU AHO OPEllATlHG EXPENSES BY unJ1Y
n:u .1HZ n:H n:u JI:I!I .i!!:t1
REVENUES
Waler 5,nl 6,813 6,256 1,050 9.887 '0,135
EIecIric 55,009 62,331 64.'49 62,m &1,912 72,292
Gas 19,996 '$,ng 18,32' '6,~1 18.82$ 17,323
wasrewat ... 9.220 a.sao B,3S8 10,326-11,309 13,380
Storm Drainage ~ 0 0 38 450 ~,999
TOTAL REVENUES ~ ~ ~ 97828 w.JZi ~
OPERATING EXPENSES
n:u .1HZ JZ:H .H:U -.i!!:t1
Waler ,,4n 4,349 4,080 <,030 5,032 6,247
EIecIrfe 39,325 40,056 44.~ 37,833 44,225 57.058
Gas 16,782 11 .. 721 8,806 '2._ 13,927 \3,286
Wastewater 7,203 7,868 7,155-7,564 9,527 >0.900
Storm Dr2Ilnage C 0 18 47 13 790
TOTAL OPERATING EXl'ENSES !lZ.Z§Z ~ ~ ~ _ 72 724 ~
INCOME SEFOR£ DEPRECIATION 22,209 26.809 32.323 35,892 35,655 27,848
DEPRECIATION 3,030 (.700 <,872 5,037 5,241 5,553
NET INCOME 19,179 22,109 27~451 30,855 30,414 22,295
-2-(!>
.1
/
I
!
I
I
i ,
,
I ..
i f
~
•
t
{\ ,
t ", I
El.ctt'lc
W.t.r
Go. (Wlnc •• )
1J"U"Il~." CoU.ctio,",
SUBTOTAL
X Il'1c' ....
Refut.
Storm Drain
SUBTOTAL
i X Ino,. ....
G~~ND TOTAL
I X .nero ...
Cu,.,.ent
Bnl
90/91
Bftl
91/92
Bill
p.lo Alto A081dontlal UtllltlO, Dill
1990'ZOOO (proj.otoo)
92193
anI
(In OollOl'a)
9,,94
Bill
94/95
Bnl
95/96
niU
96/97
Bill
9?/9/J
nill
98/99
Olll
99/00
Bill
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
22.52
2Q.56
36.91
8:60
24.55
20.56
36.91
9.89
24.55
22.41
42.44
10.78
2{ •• 76
22.41
46.27
12.40
26.76
24.43
53.21
13.51
29.16
24.4:1
50.00
15.54
29.16
26.62
50.00
16.94
31.79
29.02
66.70
16.94
33.70
29.02
66.70
19.48
33.70
31.63
7~.70
19.48
36.05
31.63
n.70
ZZ.40 ............................ ~ .......•.................••...•.•.•.....•.•••.........•..••.......•..•
88.59
12.10
3.25
91.91
3.n.
12.10
3.25
100.18
9.0~
14.52
:S.25
107.04
7.6X
17.42
3.2:i
117.91
9.3%
20.90
. 3.'"'
127.13
7.0X
20.90
3.51.1
130.72
2.8X
25.09
3.16
144.45
10.5X
25.09
~.95
148.90
'3.1X
27.60
t,.15
157.51
5.8X
27.60
I •• l:.;
162.78
3.3X
30.36
Jj.~7 •••••...•••••.....••••......••••...•••••....•••••.....•••... ·· ••...•..•.••......•..•..••.......• a.~
'~.35 \5.35 17.77 20.67 24.31 24.40 2B.a$ 29.04 31.75 ~, .95 34.93
." . """ 15.8X 16.3X 17.6% O.n. 17.9X O.n. 9.3X 0.6X 9.3%
103.94 107.26 117.95 126.51 '42.2~ 151.61 159.57 173.49 100.65 1D9.46 '197.71 .. " 3.2% 10.0X 9.0X 10.7% 6.6% 5.3X D.n. 4.1X 4.9X 4.4X
o , , ,
I
i
I
,0
I
I
! ,
)
-----~./ L_. ~~ I ---------... --.•• ~.~---.... ~,-. .,.,...;_ .... r""'~".: ·-~~.~?'~~~-","~.~t~~~~.10pp;-.... ~~".,!"!!t1'·' ·· ..... 7 .. *P': •... ~'""""'..,..'~.",~t.~"~tlM ~ ~
" . , "'-
,
, " -"'. '
" ).
-'--< ,
•
"
•
•
""\
t.:
•
1 \,'i;' , ''3,51:::(
,_ 'r-::_Y':''---'i,
·,,·.·~c"', .. ~'1'·
"
,
,
"
r
I
I
i I I i , I
/ I
/
,I
I'
,
~
j.,
-I'
*'
o 1\ S M II INS
, ,
I W1\,TJ:R M 1. INS ,
,
W 1. S T E W 1\ T E R
lU!M8/I.U'CM!NT
.. ______ ._._._--Ll/H.-.
CliP I r 1\ L
I'O'NOlNC
PRO G RAM S
SU'MMARY
90/91 9)./92 92/93 93/94
670,000 7~5,000 12 ,100,00°1 12 ,200,0001
662,000 800,000 850,000 11 ,700,0001
900,000 1,000,000 ' i 1,250,000 ).,~30;000
,
! ------I DENOTES IICCELIlRAT~O CONS'l'RU'CTION
II I 9'/~~
,~
12 ,)00,0001 o i
f\
11 ,800,0001
•
'"
14 ,400,000\ .,',
o
~,~/
,~ -(of •
:"
"'.
-; 'e,. '1;1 1 1.. ··;;· ... ·;{L>,
:;it'i~~i,1::'0';;~;~~i::'::i·' .1
,.
(
" ~J.i
j
I ,.
•
I ,
t
)
"
_____________ .... __ ·~·_~, ....... .,&· .. "'.:L·· -,; ... -
90_..,1 9\ .'l~ 9~'~3 'ill.'jl" y ... y~ '0 .... 0
r 'I'. E.1'I9\!\Hr \. 1"".Hlr
j M91nt.~ hp.jllrllr I DIII,n rlcl!.
IMUl.lllr-'I
Rep_ire, i
I
\ l"'loteHer " .... Iht ..
I, I/iI tur.tAr,
TI~'I
'11 , .... \.,.,
I: I:
! l
i j , , ,
i! -=-t~P±c'
. 1/l. , .. ,..tl"" n
tfJIII'1
tl) Inthlt.,
hptir.r
TI"',
Z -tna\IHI" bpIM ...
(1/ll ".r.tl"V
ClMlr.,t ',..p.
TlJIIIPI
('> Inu"HII'
~~\r.r
, fnllfIHI'
, o •• hn hel'l
lIZ '"III'.I.,y
CDrlt".,~ 1f'l1~"
i
J
, 1;1"4111'111"
1 DI.IV" Tio"
Cont,..,t I/'llp.
~TIII""TU IIIMAI
TI;""I ,,1 , .. ,.n""
, NY)' E~I" OptI"'OI' I
U""I
1 )Ntltt ... 1I1PI1,..r
2' InueHII' ,,".,11'11'
lE"',
(ill) In_ull_,.
11 .. 11""
I
'I,.. ~
('/2) IH"n.ry
I lf11'I10\\..-
I I •• ,.lr.1'
I, , I.. Elln lDI • .,.t......., l'U !
1 !tnt 1 UHt 1 ll .. t
, tllO~'h,.t." to IIHI i' l ~pe&
\ DlljWIuPt.r TI"'.
TIM'. , L,CI II."
t;...,t.~ 1"1'1
• •
,
'frJlP ] 1/'l 1 'tl I
I
I
I
TOtAlli 9 l/i!' a '(2 t
I , I
L-___ ~ __ J
2 UIII
•
( '/1')
!i lIZ
tIP'" n) lI,., , Lpn TUljIIl (\) LPCS I
I -q
i , • • 41n
'" ,1, (' Vi!')
I!
l' ! I ____ Ii
\l> ____ ~_~_
~~---,,-.--.......-" '-.-'~"'<1-ry<,~T'""'~'r.-'!"\:.~~~~,':""~-'"""'"-:--:~:m-..-.,.,.'-
. '.
'</" ',' :,,'.~~iJli:,',(.,"~c " ,'"
,
,-, ~ .• ':.,.' ,"r,\~;
",,~,. ':;":;i';: ,.,-1-,.
:"i,i;:~\i:~;_Ir,~~4~~:li;~~ .. o;'!','-,.:-.
. '<:,',/'-' :-:', -,:, • ,-,-' .. ,:rlli.~jt.ia,;¥r'l,'~.}~ h,
'\
_~r
•
________ -_________________ ~ ... _ ....... _ _t' ","", '1.'lIIUI',"
-,,-------_. I
,,-., • 'I
l " l-..-·
,:'
" '" r
{'
;!i,
::.'
'f, ~,
!
( I
GAS MAINS .
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
CURRENT PROGRAM:
Annual Replacement -7.000 linear feet
Replacement Cycle -149 Years
Replacement of Steel & ABS -101 Years
Annual Expenditures -$870.000 (1990 $)
PROPOSED PROGRAM:,
Annual Replacement -20,000 linear feet
Replacement Cycle -52 Years
Replacement of Steel & ABS -38 Years
I I Annual Expenditures -$2.100.000 (1992 $)
~---
.. :.
O r,
~ t. , I I,' " ~' " , " . ti .. ,' i' ~ t,
" i' ~. \' " :-\ I, "\.-
". t -\: J
O! , , , ,
l
~
i
~
f;'
. -~-~-.'. ~. "-'--,
.,.,. "p".~U,",
" . "k';;' "', .i,. " :~":':",,, •• • 8
,'-.'/ "
"
i" ;it ,.,.,-, .
'L'· ,'",.,.""". --' '-....... -",.~ ..
<' l."
.
.,j
.
"
..
•
_ ,~r
, {.
',"
" '.
1 /,.--
'~'.
" "
,~'
ril
I , I
I
~ , i / ,..
/ ~I ,
! ,
t,
" ,
, ~
,
------------~~ "_.~"".'''''''''''''''"'~·'''''''''''~_dJ.o._~.1., _I,~.J .";i";;:':-;'.JA;;:~-';"",,,\.~ ...... ___ ..., __ ..... .,. ... _
bUbU'"-\"1
II WATER MAINS I , !
I
I
, ' I
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ;
o
CURRENT PROGRAM: '
{ Annual Replacement -5,500 linear feet
Replacement Cycle -200 Years
Replacement of Cast Iron -90 Years
Annual Expenditures -$630,000 (1989 $)
, ""'( i ~ I ,~~ ~
~ ~ ''\ ~t f'
'PROPOSED PROGRAM:· I q !
Annual Replacement -15,800 linear feet i J: !
Replacement Cycle -70 Years i ! '
/1. Repl,acement of Cast Iron -26 Years f: ,
'·1'( ". ~ ','
',.
'-
, '
,. .
."
i Annual Expenditures -$1,700,000 (1993 $) i , ::
\1 ) ! n'/
'-./ (.
•
~' , . "''''''-"' ..... ~,.--,."" ""',-,,,,'''.,-'-"f'~:~,~;:,~'~".·-'_"""'::~~~?~;~':"I' "",_, --"!f<"::"''''''''','I' ... I .. ,<, ;.. ",
'-i " ':'" 'j"',.' " __ ' I.~._,h! f""'~"'1 ,,..-,,' '. -"'" ',' i: • .'
-.. ~----.-------. ..,.. .•.
I
'.
.l,
·L· .... : \"
• '<1'
~
""I.' . r l
/
/
."'.\: .•...• ¥II'
L
'-'~"""'-"'''''''''.'-' --, .. ~-' ~,,,#,, ,'.' ,,"~'1;;:,!t:.'l(f;;" . .: -~
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
REHABILITATION/ AUGMENTATION PROGRAM
LAST THREE YEARS (ANNUAL AVERAGE):
Main Rehabilitation -14,000 linear feet
Service Replacementa -200
Expenditure -$1.400.000 (1990 $)
Program Cycle -60 Yeara
CURRENT PROGRAM (ANNUAL AVERAGE):
Main Rehabl Augment -1,800 linear feet
Service Replacements -200
Expenditure -$900,000 (1990 $)
Program Cycle -100 Yeara
PROPOSED PROGRAM (ANNUAL AVERAGE):
Main Rehabl Augment -7.600 linear feet
Service Replacementa -200
Expenditure -'4,400,000 (1at year)
"'---.~S' .---,---
: ~ ~ ':f\.f"''-.~ ·.''I:.'(\l~:.' . ..... . J
, ......... ' "'iJ,;llI)l;'ft' ., " '
: . ~ ;::'?'t'" , ... '
r '-t! I..; .' ... ..., .... ' '" . ,; / :.
I
· " I' ,' •. ~ ,..'
I ~, !. .. "
r : \i ~
/.
i .
I, '0'1. I : . I
.."
t i ,'{ -.,
, <
t '_'" .... ..['
( ~
l:
I
~ .
.. ~\ I ", -" ~
'" "i i.. d . I~
jb (
I
t
'I
,',
f : ..
,
l! Program c,do -24 Year.
)
. ~ ~
____ /i \ ~
,",
-~/ .
Q au •
',i, '
'. ·c
"}_;,'t~ '"
,", •
"
"
~ ..... -;
\'
:t '
f ~.
•
•
, ....-,..-.'
-~.....-... ---,...-....... -,
J
''-,1\'0,.
,
1
·L···'···" ,'-' . .. ,-~
" ,"
-
'.'
r /!
, I
I , ,
i , i
{
f .' r.
I J:
}
I
\
"-"
Enterprise Revenue Available
Ten Year History IFive Year Forecast
60;:
~M~II~II~o~n8~ ________________________________________ ~~
40
30
20
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
-3-
....... ". ' .. ',)"~'. :!"[",,,., ,'-:'!"~"~~':"'~,' I, "-"":_'":'~',¥'MI!t'~;,""L-r-' ·""n-i''''''·'
, .
j ;./, '/iii.., w' i/ ", . ~lrfl .
,)
~ ,;.""
.'1.'
.I • .L.;.,:~:
-""-.,'
'.
'.'
o
"
, •.
o
,~..-/.
•
o. "'1"!~~' .> ......
. I.' ,.:~ . ',:
"
•
'";', .,.
i
!.' ,,;Zl;~;;;:;;;,:~~
""1',,',, "cr ... ! '"-i'
,
I
/ , ,
)
. ,,~
{'.': 'r;
f¥.
,111\,
i ::~ ,I,
CITV Of PAl.O Al.TO
Tot..l £nhrpl"fillf 0.-" S.Mn COWN.911
1.n Veal" Hht. .... ,. with 5 'r •• r rD"a •• t.
$ (110.)
DraWl r,... Ot"eet T.tal ,t. ...
c,.1 ..... ,. .. o,. ... ttng Cal ........ ...... .,u. Rnn" Debt Sitl'Yle • T.\tIl ria ... Owop.
rheal GN .. ........ E.,..._. .. .. .aWll'll.,. o.bt. $a""'all c.v. ... ge, 0.. .... Con_
v .... . -(3) (I) (NO'A) A".t 1allol. •• "uthd (') (') (6)
" .. J8,631i 211,791 9,365 ,20 18.01 OZ. 18.01
1981 ~1.11J 30,736 10.925 5<18 19,94 ... 19.9.
1962 49,913 36,111 14,29Q ". 27.60 ". 2.7.80
198) !i6.657 40,678 16,360 381 oiiIZ.94 381 IIZ,9 ..
1984 69,1160 SO.791 19,07'1 208 (2) 91,72 208 91.72
1985 82,607 !l9,2" 23,917 '21 45,91 '" oiIS.91
1ge6 89.996 67,187 23.076 e.) 26,62 86) 26.62
1967 96,80) 69,994 27,885 1,076 25,92 1.076 25,92
"M 97,064 64,161 )3,701 , ,378 2:4,46 1,378 2.,46
1989 91,628 61,936 31,431 1,54S 211.23 1,545 24.2)
1990 108,379 72,724 ]7 .357 1,702 21.95 1.702 21.95
199' 11S.529 •• 0 81,681 6,600 /9.135 1,287 27.,M ).887 4,53
1992 122,499 5,71'10 85,591 9,700 34 ,.:129 1,6~7 22,55 11,22:7 3.93
1991 137, :\21 2,600 89,683 11,900 40,066 ',526 26,22 1;1,420 3.81
1994 1411,632 4.600 94,890 12,500 43,368 1,526 28,41': 14.026 3.9i1
1995 156',2 16 2,400 100,199 12,500 41,440 1.523 31,1!1. 14,023 4.27
(1) [_..:Iud .. d.praclat.IDn .nd ,t,1!IDr't.lutiDn "penu.,
(2) Nil blind prlncipa' ... 1 p.id In fheal 1983_84 dUll til d"fe ... nCII of 1979 IIond, wlt~ 1963 rlfundltlg b.,nd proCIIld.,
i3) runditl9 fol" Calayaral Pl'oJllnt will ba d,.awn f""111 '"lInil,' ".,,"VIII 'lit. up for' tM. pU"POIi.
(II) R ..... tlu. A .... n.bh dhlded by k ..... nu. flond Debt S • .-.,Ine k,lqui".d,
{51 Re"lItluli Bond Oabt. Ser ... lce RIIqui"ed plu. Ca'a.,arat Dllbt,
(6) hVllnu. /I, .... l1.b1e plu\ C.l."III"" Ollbt dl ... lded by To~.l rIMed Ch."gll,
_1/-
.1:}~, ',:{.' ': ,:.~ 't'
"
;.~~~'{::'.' '
. ,iN.',"'i:); '"
.'
E-'--"-'~~''"'''''~
e
, '\<
','
"
o
~ ___ r
" ,
.,
'~ ,.:.1/, "l"t
.. '4 •• ,
',. ':!·'tr
"1', . '/
, ~-.
I
.... ,"C"
1
T r-,
L·······"
" rLI
I
I
I I
Ie ,
~
t
!
;.
~---.
-~~-----------------~---"-"""'--'-'. =-'. ~
Percent Debt to Assessed Value
Five Year History IFive Year Forecast
6ri--------------------------------------------------~
15
4
, 1
815 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 915
-5-
• ,~ ,. k" _, "n,v"V';,""'", -~_-:"r-...... .,.-'f· --~-~ .. "' .. .,'I-c·,-."-" ... ,-,.,,,
\;~' .. ' '.
-.j-,:~~'.~ "
;
'11'; ••
0
0
, ! .. 'j -,
",.1',-',' tJ.lr' .'~ ,,6;i,I\~::,i:t~t '
\~,:.y~'."s",' "~',J .• ;"y:':' ~
I ,. ' ' ,..
,
\ '-,I
'1:""
! I, ,
~"
~ .
~ , ,
~
~ '" ~
:' j
it
)
" • \
~
" !~
i p
Ii
)
• \
I
I
./
\ --;'
, .,
I
•
.. , ".
<.
• ...... ,.,. .... ,... ..... ~ .. ::d .. ~'
r
I 4 ."
, ,'] ;'//~~':"; J':io"~"'!c'~'1,':
,'j!;ri: ''',',
'._'. ,;,2 ,:~;-~':/_" ,-' ~:-·r: .,
i
.1/
.. ~.
'I
},
:if
:'~" ','.
--I
______________________________ .. _. ______ "-.','.c .. -&0" ..•.• \.-_'~' .... , ~~~~7~
flle.l " .. " ... d
Yf'a" PIIPlJhtlo" Value
1980 55,225 $2,1)04.372 (4'
1981 51l,nOO 2,402.487
1982 !i5,300 2,76),i':61
1983 5S,900 J,l66,ne
1984 56,100 3,457.251
1965 56,200 3,855,871
1986 ~6 .eoo 4,515,649
1987 56,600 4.644.14~
1908 56,900 ~. 16Z ,6Z5
1989 56.9M 5,339,561
1990 87,000 5,550,000
'99' 57,000 5,800,000
1992 !i7,000 6,050,000
1993 57,000 6,;\00,000
199.11 51 ;000 6,550,000
1995 51,000 6,1'100,000
CITY or PId.O "'LTO
To\.1 Debt to As ••••• d V.lue
Toul Debt PilI' C.pn.
l ... f •• r "'-ttlII',. Plus "tYa V .... I'GNU."
(1)
GIIII'III .... ' ~.Ii.nu. (I)
Obligation Bond Contlngllnt Tot.al
IJlIl\d'd Oebt Debt D.bt I).bt
$6,863 $2.320 I 9,18l
6,01? ',890 7,967
14,036 ',011\70 ll),506
19,09/\ 4,7M 23,859
17,160 11.165 (J) 21,925
n,O?9 4,479 '152,300 178,651:1
21,n) 16,414 190,968 229,l~S
21,869 16,206 209,6511 l41,129
20,611 15,681\ 209.288 245,843
19.616 15,1\30 206,4fiZ 241,508
10.l09 14,'170 205.000 239,979·
16,921 14,170 203,000 236,091
17,170 13.~M 20, ,000 232,320
16,676 12,805 199,000 228,461
l!i,551 12,03~ 191,000 ZZll,5tl6
14,0161 11,235 195,000 220.116
" O.bt to
Allnled Total D.bt
V.lull P.r '.plt.
1.5" $ 166.28
0,)3 '.0lil.85
o.s6 Z60.40
0.75 426,82
0.63 390.82
4.64 3162.5)
5.07 4034,42
1),11 4376,fJ4
4,16 4]20.62
4,~2 1\240,70
4,32 1\210,16
4,01 4141.9~
3.1'14 4075.19
3,63 4008.41\
3,"3 39010,11
3 .... 5 3872.21
(1) G'~'r.l Ob~10 .. tllI" 8l1nd.d D.bt Includ.'1 G,n,l".l Obllg.tlon bor'ldl. Sp,el.' "lIeUIII,nt Dllbt,
C.rtl/lute" II' P8rtlciplllon, .,,11 C"pH., L.III Obl1g.llttonl,
Ii.') (ontingl.lnt Debt I" 1'.'0 AHo'\ po~tlon of NC",,'\ dltbt 'or tah.¥ltr'n Hydro Pawer P~ojllct O.bt,
(3) No Bond prlnclpdl wa\ paid in flut 1983 .. 84 to dafuunee 01 1979 Rond' with 190~ Jhlfundlng Bond
Proc •• d, ,
UI) Adju,ted (I"om "5~ of "Pair ". ... k.t Valu.II lf to lOOt Df ·.,.i .. l1ar~.t. \/alu&" for I'D"llIh"cy of
"r&.,ntat1on,
-6·
0
0
--//'
,~
~,
"
"
"
"
() o
em IF PAll JIlTD .n~"'En 1
UTlLIHE5 D€PllliTnUT
C.IllMfiAS In:BRDELECTB[C PROJECt
It IH11.1o:H)
'0-'1 91-'2 92-n 93-'4 'i-C-'S '''''c '11-'7 U-'i'B 98-" "-GO
W1l~V£Rr.S ~BT SEliVl CE I.' 1.1 U .• 11.' 11.5 11.' 12.6 12.1 12.5 12.6
fr~. Cdiwtf"14ii 11I!'§.!rVi' ... 5.1 2 .• ... 2.' '.2 1.5 .., , .S '.1
frill ilR In' • .I1M '.1 ... 1.1 ... 1/1.1 1.3 1l.1 1.' I!.I I.'
[ .. liIv~r~ t.~ne l .. tlnCIII! 1<.1 11.' 21.1 n.l 1'1.6 12.t 11.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
.,
J , , ,
!
I
i ,
!
I .
U
1.5
L4
Ll
1.2
U
-; 09
c
! 0.1
i CJ
DS
CI
OJ
0.2
I"
0
:.<~.\~~~~1 j
.. ~~. -
. '
Population Growth Comparison
19&1
Year
1%0
1910
1980
H'39
1960 b:l 1~9
1970 IS!\(J
Soorce: SC 0,. Moanced P'atrilq Off"K:t
m:! Polo Alto ~ »/0 _ Co
Santa Clara Co.
641,m
1,065,493
1,295,fl'11
l,44D,915
"-"'9
Palo)'Jro I
.11,2t7
Sl,04O
55)25
5'.000
'---_______ . ________ -.J
-7-
•
",
" " ......... , .. ,,
,
f'
./ .. , , '" . "~"
, /,1
"'r,'ii.',
,
I
,
I
I
'I
I· I.
/ i
i
~ •
f
,
I
County
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Sonoma
Region
Job Growth Trends by County
1972 .. 1989
1972-1980
73.200
59,000
25,100
10,700
106.600
65,900
282,700
20,500
39,400
683,100
Rank
3
5
7
9
2
4
1
8
6
1981-1989
90,500
87,400
18,100
10,700
12.300
40,500
143,900
22,800
35.100
461,300
50vr06: ADAG. Cell/omla Emp!oym&nt O<>Y6"'pme"! Ooronm"ol.
·8-
Rank
2 o
3
7
9
8
4
1
6 o
5
" I '_...-....,...,.~.,.....~,.'O> . "T~ ~""""""'l'~',",<,..,,~ •. ,,~ ..... ·--"II;'"\.. ~"" ',' -?,~,.)!-.,,~)ot '"'Y~'.''''''''''':''''",",![II''''.tU'''~~'~'P'I'_'!fi'''.~.'l''''''''' ''''''''''~''''''>''''"","'')}A;-'''''f'-''f'7f' . .f''~''''fI~~''''''.-:<~''''''''~~''''',_,>Ik,
i "', ," ~ ~ ... ,,:.',' \'. • __ . \ '"~_ • \,.''''~ " , '. <> ..•
"t'J';'t
" .
•
• -
',.'
"
",
"' ... ,
"
" ,
. ... ~'
•
:. -..
"
,.",','
'!,'-,
.. , ~, "-~,'i\~
~ .. ' .
rij
, I
,I'
J
(
, , ,
I
Decentralization of Employment
In the Bay Area Economy
1972-1989
Employment Share
County 1972 1981 1989
Alameda 23.1% 19.7% 19.7%
Contra Costa 7.8"/" 8.0% 9.7%
Marin 2.7% 3.0% 3.1%
Napa 1.3% , .4°/" 1.5%
" San Francisco 25.1% 22.6% 19.4'%
San Mateo 10.7% 10.3°/" 10.0%
Santa Clara 22.9% 28.0% 28.5%
Solano 2.9%. 2.9% 3.5%
Sonoma 3.4% 4.1% 4.6%
so-uree: WaG" and Sa/aT)' Employmsnl Dnlftl CoUlo-rotA t:Mploymnn! OQve-IQpmo,,! OOpRtlmont,
i."""".,.
"Ie ," , "l:',">
,', ," ,:.);:1' ,\
-9-
, ,
:f
o
o
\
.'/ •
t\ """"":_"'I:,",,~~"~ ,
..
I:
100%
I
76%
/ " • ,~
50%
2~""
0%
t
"
L
,
L ',' \,
~,~-~ "... . ....... r~-~
T
PALO ALTO
HOUSEHOLD EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME
1981 1982 1983 1984 198~ 1986 1987 1988
-% Under $20,000
CJ % $36,000-540,000
-~------..--~,--~--. 'VI -- -. '-;.
-10.
".',f
tru % $20,000-$34,000
_ % $60,000 & Over
"" . 'I ,.~.
"
, i'~ . 'If'.
."
C-. ,
?~r
,
"
" 1/ ,
•
--1, , ,
'(>'
. ~-~():,
./
...; --... ,,---
"'~i!·,\,'$\,':;' ,',~",
,',_ ,n·_ .
c, • " ..... ~ , :.', _ '! ,',. _« ... __ <.<Ii<>
•
J
"
L
"
rii
j
, ,
I
I:' :fJ .
• if
j, ~I:';
.. , . . ,
/
----------------"--,.,,~,~"-'-,-...... ' -~".
VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
ReSidential and Commercial
~f;1~"~{:i;'~'
, " >, . ,
.": ,,. , ,
MM~II~lIo~n~8~ ____________________________________ ~
2001-
1150
100
50
o
1978 '979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 19815 1986 1987 1988 1989
~ll .. •
4 Jt t ~"",,":'"'(""',,,.,,,
• .' ',' , ;"JiA; '"'