HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-20 e-packet SPECIAL MEETING
S
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
no
C') SUCCESSOR AGENCY
tip YL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P,O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
CI'I'Y IJAIJ, CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2014
6:30 P.M,
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order.
2, Roll Call.
3. Public Comments— comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda.
4, Agenda Review
5, Administrative Business:
A Resolution awarding the construction contract to City Mechanical, Inc, of
Hercules, California for the Energy Savings Upgrade Project at Magnolia Senior
Center, Main Library and Orange Memorial Park Pool in an amount not to exceed
$271,062,07. (Brian McMinn, Public Works Director)
6. Public Uses and other Property Disposition issues at the former Public Utilities
Commission sites at El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. (Armando Sanchez,
Housing Consultant & Jim Steele, Finance Director)
7, Adjournment.
Deputy City Clerk
S
oR
�staff__Re-Dort
DATE: August 20, 2014
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
CITY MECHANICAL, INC. OF HERCULES, CALIFORNIA FOR THE
ENERGY SAVINGS UPGRADE PROJECT AT MAGNOLIA SENIOR
CENTER,MAIN LIBRARY,AND ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK POOL IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $271,062.07
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction
contract to City Mechanical, Inc. of Hercules, California for the Energy Savings Upgrade
Project at Magnolia Senior Center,Main Library,and Orange Memorial Park Pool(Project
No. pf1408) in an amount not to exceed $271,062.07.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On October 23,2013,the City Council adopted a resolution amending the FY 2013-2014 Capital
Improvement Program by appropriating an additional $550,000 from the PG&E On-Bill
Financing Program and$346,000 from the General Fund Reserves for the HVAC Replacement at
Various City Buildings Project. In addition,it authorized the City Manager to execute agreements
with PG&E for the participation in the 0% Interest On-Bill Financing Program.
On July 9,2014,the City Council adopted three(3)resolutions related to Project No.pfl 408.One
resolution awarded a Construction Contract to Thermal Mechanical, Inc, to replace 21 HVAC
units and 4 fans at the MSB. Another resolution awarded a Consulting Services Agreement to
Syserco, Inc. to design and install an Energy Monitoring System (EMS) at the MSB to monitor
the new HVAC units and fans. The third resolution awarded a purchase agreement to California
Hydronics Corporation to fabricate boiler and cooling tower equipment mounted.on a skid for the
Magnolia Senior Center.
This phase of the project will install the new skid mounted boiler,&cooling tower equipment and
install five (5) new heat pumps that were scheduled for replacement in 2,009 and will not be
accessible once the equipment skid is in place. The skid and skylight areas of the Magnolia Senior
Center roof will also be weather sealed. The existing 1965 vintage boiler will be replaced at the
Main Library and a Variable Frequency drive(VFD) for main air handler inotor will be installed.
ILA VFD for the main pump motor will also be ins I talled at Orange Memorial Park Pool,
Staff Report
Subject: A RESOLUTION AWARDrNG THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
CITY MECHANICAL, INC. OF HERCULES, CALIFORNIA FOR THE
ENERGY SAVINGS UPGRADE PROJECT AT MAGNOLIA SENIOR
CENTER,MAIN LIBRARY,AND ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK POOL IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $271,062.07
Page 2 of 3
Staff advertised a Notice Inviting Bids for the project on July 11, 2014 and July 18, 2014. The
project was also advertised on the c-Bidboard website. On July 23, 2014, a mandatory site visit
was held and seven(7)mechanical contractors were present.Only four(4)mechanical contractors
purchased the bid package. On August 13,201.4, staff received three(3)valid bids in response and
one(1)nonresponsive bid. Staff has verified the low bidder's current contractor's license with the
California Licensing Board.
The following is a summary of all base bids received:
City Mechanical, Inc. of Hercules, CA $271,062.07
Heathorn & Associates Contractors Inc., dba American Air $323,835.00
Conditioning, Plumbing & Heating Co., of San Leandro, CA
O'Keeffe Mechanical Co., Inc., of San Francisco, CA $457,500.00
Thermal Mechanical, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA Nonresponsive
Engineering Estimate $430,000.00
Shown below is the proposed project construction cost:
City Mechanical, Inc., Base Construction Contract $271,062.07
Construction Contingency(20%) $ 54,212.41
Construction Inspection(Law&Associates,Skyline Engrg). $ 9,000.00
Construction Administration (5%) $ 13J53,00
Total Proposed Project Construction Budget $347,827.48
Since the project is City funded, there are no Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
requirements for this project.
FUNDING
Funding for this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's FY 2014-2015 Capital
Improvement Program (Prof ectNo.pf1408)and sufficient funds are available to cover the project
costs.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the resolution will allow the installation of the new energy savings equipment in
place of older equipment that is overdue for replacement. The completed project will provide the
Magnolia Senior Center with new boiler and cooling tower equipment,along with new roof areas.
The Main Library will have a new boiler and a VFD on the air handler motor. Lastly,the Orange
Park Pool will have a new VFD installed on the pool's main pump motor.
Staff Report
Subject: A RESOLUT10N AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
CITY MECHANICAL, INC. OF HERCULES, CALIFORNIA FOR THE
ENERGY SAVINGS UPGRADE PROJECT AT MAGNOLIA SENIOR
CENTER,MAIN LIBRARY,AND ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK POOL IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $271,062.07
Page 3 of 3
A
By Approved:
Brian McMinn Mike Futrell
Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT TO CITY MECHANICAL, INC. OF
HERCULES, CALIFORNIA FOR THE ENERGY SAVINGS
UPGRADE PROJECT AT MAGNOLIA SENIOR CENTER,
MAIN LIBRARY, AND ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK
POOLIN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $271,062.07
WHEREAS, City of South San Francisco ("City") staff issued a Notice Inviting
Bids for the Energy Savings Upgrade Project ("Project") and on August 13, 2014,
received three (3) valid bids in response; and
WHEREAS, City Mechanical, Inc. ("CMI") of Hercules, California, was the
lowest responsible bidder-, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the construction contract to City
Mechanical, Inc, of Hercules, California in an amount not to exceed $271,062.07; and
WHEREAS, funding for the Project is included in the City of South Sail
Francisco's 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program ("CIP") and sufficient funds have
been allocated to cover the project cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the
Energy Savings Upgrade Project to CMI of Hercules, California in an amount not to
exceed $271,062.07 conditioned on CMI's timely execution of the Project contract and
submission of all required documents, including but not limited to, certificates of
insurance and endorsements, in accordance with the Project documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco authorizes the Finance Department to establish the Project Budget consistent
with the information contained in the staff report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute the documents on behalf of the City upon timely submission by CMI's signed
contract and all other documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting
held on the day of 2014 by the following vote-,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN,
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
e
",
H �
o
Report
Staff
DATE: August 20, 2014
TO: Members of the City Council and Successor Agency Board
FROM: Jim Steele, Finance Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC USES AND OTHER PROPERTY DISPOSITION ISSUES AT THE
FORMER PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SITES AT EL CAMINO REAL
AND CHESTNUT AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council and Successor Agency Board review the information in
this staff report and provide direction to staff on next steps for considering public uses at the
former Public Utilities Commission (PUC) sites adjacent to El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Introduction:
In January 2008,the former Redevelopment Agency(RDA)purchased vacant land parcels owned by
the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) adjacent to El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue. The PUC sites are shown in an aerial photograph in Attachment 1. Those sites had been
intended to be used by the RDA, prior to its dissolution by the State, for financing public
infrastructure and/or public facilities as part of a mixed use, transit oriented development. Public
amenities that could have been considered included a new main library, an expanded Municipal
Services Building and/or recreational facilities.With the dissolution of redevelopment in California
by the State, however,the available financial tools to the City to include public facilities have been
severely reduced.
The RDA Oversight Board("the Board")has approved an RDA Long Range Properties Management
Plan (LRPMP), and that Plan is being reviewed by the State Department of Finance (DOF). The
LRPMP contains a component that authorizes the Successor Agency to retain the former PUC parcels
for a period of time in order to obtain a master developer in order to redevelop the sites.In presenting
the LRPMP,Successor Agency staff made the argument to the Oversight Board that the parcels would
be worth far more to the taxing entities if they were redeveloped in a consistent fashion by one
property owner/one master developer. Such a unified development would provide for a more uniform
Staff Report
Subject: Public Uses and other Property Disposition Issues
at the former PUC Sites
Page 2 of 5
and cohesive redevelopment,potentially encouraging developers to bid more in order to build a more
intensive mixed use, transit oriented development. Given that the real estate market has heated up
dramatically in the last year,the timing is good for a mixed use development to begin to take shape.
In the LRPMP filed with the State, several renderings/drawings of the potential development at the
PUC parcels include a City library (see Attachment 2). Another view of that location is shown on
Attachment 3. Those drawings were conceptual in nature; staff believes, however, that due to the
narrow shape and elevation of the parcel near El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, a developer
cannot economically build on that particular parcel, and therefore a developer would prefer to not
utilize that parcel as part of a mixed use development. Due to the proximity to parking,new public
community facilities might very well be feasibly built at this parcel that would not be optimal for
private investment in residential or commercial development. See Attachment 4 for a conceptual
drawing of what a potential mixed use project at the PUC site might look like,including a library as
an example of a possible public amenity. Staff believes that a public facility at this site,like a library,
could increase the market value of the overall development,as it would take a parcel that is of limited
value to a developer and convert it to a desirable use to complement private development.
Under any scenario presented below for public uses at the PUC site, it is assumed that a master
developer can be persuaded through the negotiation process to reserve or deed or transfer title of the
less desirable site to the City for public use.Because those parcels are believed not to be desirable by
a developer from an economic standpoint, staff believes there would be little or no opposition from
taxing entities and/or the Oversight Board to the City's retaining those parcels. By potentially
receiving the title to the parcels in question,the City could control future development of public use
on those specific parcels.
There are financing and other challenges that the City will face in utilizing the parcels for public use.
The purpose of this staff report,therefore,is to generate Successor Agency and Council discussion on
next steps,given the competing priorities for public dollars that the Council will likelybe considering.
Discussion:
Initial New Infrastructure Investment Required
Any private redevelopment of the former PUC site would increase traffic and would require extending
Oak Avenue ("the extension") through the PUC property to El Camino Real across from Arroyo
Drive. (See Attachment 2). Traffic at the El Camino-Chestnut intersection is already heavy, and
adding a major new development there would further strain the intersection. For this reason, the
General Plan specifically identifies the need for the extension.The extension will require two bridges;
one over Colma Creek and one over the BART right of way. Therefore, the extension will be
expensive,with a very preliminary estimate from several years ago of between $12 million and$15
million.
There are several ways that the City can negotiate the costs of financing the extension with a future
PUC property developer.One mechanism that cities have used extensively in California in the past is
Staff Report
Subject: Public Uses and other Property Disposition Issues
at the former PUC Sites
Page 3 of 5
called a Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts (CFD). i.Under a CFD, the City can attach the
cost of public infrastructure needed for that development onto the property through a special tax.That
tax would ultimately get passed along to tenants in the form of higher rent. While a recent court case
in Southern California related to CFDs needs further review, staff believes that the CFD mechanism
should be considered as a way of having the road extension financed with non-General Fund
revenues. (See footnote 1). No decision or further discussion on this mechanism is required at this
time; staff points this mechanism out only to assure the Council that staff is aware of the need for
funding the extension and will incorporate options into any future discussions with potential
developers.
Staff believes the cost of $12-$15 million for the Oak Avenue extension, if passed onto to the
developer and not funded by a CFD, will substantially limit the number of additional financial
obligations the City might otherwise consider adding through the negotiation process to the
development. Additional development requirements (such as substantial financial support for
constructing a community facility) could make the project economically infeasible for developers.
Therefore,if the City were to contemplate more extensive community facilities,the City would likely
have to finance most of those using City dollars. For the Council/Board's information, the current
budget includes $100,000 in consultant services for use in redeveloping the PUC site; those funds
could be used to acquire a real estate financial consultant to help analyze the potential extra funding
for community facilities that could economically be provided by the developer.
MinimumiBase Level of Public Uses of the PUC Site
After funding the Oak Avenue extension,staff suggests that any development of the PUC site should
necessarily incorporate walking trails/connections from El Camino Real to Centennial Way,including
pedestrian/landscaping/public open space amenities. Staff believes this is a priority because such
improvements would be relatively modest in cost, and would build on the community amenities
already in place at Centennial Way.If the Oak Avenue extension is constructed,it will be necessary to
re-route the segment of Centennial Way that currently runs through the PUC site to ensure that the
linear park remains a continuous pathway without a gap.While cost estimates are not available,staff
believes that the cost for these walking/open space amenities would be relatively modest compared to
uses that require facility construction, and could likely be achieved exclusively with City
funds/reserves and potential grants. Staff believes some consideration should also be given to the
provision of some type of active parks and recreation amenity, such as a playground, to serve new
residents in the area, particularly since the adjacent neighborhood, Sunshine Gardens, is already
deficient in public playgrounds.Park-in-lieu fees generated by housing development on the site could
be a source of funding for these improvements.
More extensive and expensive Public Uses of the PUC Site and Funding Context/Other Council
1 Under a CFD,the City could negotiate with the developer that a condition of the development of the sites be that the
developer,after purchasing the property,consent to establishing a CFD for the properties.Because a CFD has to be
approved by a majority of property owners in that District,in this case,one property owner,a CFD could feasibly be
adopted. CFD's can issue bonds to fund the infrastructure, in this case the extension,to be paid back on the property
owner's property tax bills over a number of years.Note that the cost is borne by the property owner over time,and
likely passed along to tenants through higher rents.
Staff Report
Subject: Public Uses and other Property Disposition Issues
at the former PUC Sites
Page 4of5
Facility Priorities
Additional public improvements beyond those mentioned above would likely require both the
construction of City building facilities and associated public parking,perhaps a parking garage, and
would therefore be expensive. The discussion below is an attempt to generate Board/Council
discussion on two areas: the extent of public improvements desired at the PUC site,and the type of
financing the Council would want to pay for those improvements. In order to fully weigh financing
options for the PUC site,a discussion of other important public facility needs throughout the City is
warranted as well as use of financing mechanisms such as taxes, that are limited, and it would be
important for the Council to consider all citywide new facility needs.
The following are the major new facility needs and approximate costs that staff has gleaned as
priorities from the City Council in recent years, and are shown on the map on Attachment 8:
• A new Main Library$50-60 million;
• The relocation and upgrades to the Caltrain station $50 million;
• An expansion to the Conference Center$100 million plus;
• A Performing Arts or other public cultural facility$10-30 million.
Financial/budget context/Voter approval for tax increases
As recent five year projections show, rising Ca1PERS retirement rates over the next five years will
exceed revenue growth over that time period, even with new development on the horizon. In a
summary graph shown to Council at a May 21,2014 study session 2,staffprojects an ongoing General
Fund deficit of over$1.0 million by 2018-19,even after new development scenarios are built in,and
without restoring funding for needed infrastructure maintenance and without restoring positions and
services cut in the last decade (Attachment 5).
Absent a much higher pace of new development in South San Francisco than anticipated in the five
year projection,the ability to fund the CalPERS costs will require some level of budget/service level
reductions, fee increases, or some combination of budget cuts and revenue increases. Further action
would be needed on top of those efforts to fund ongoing infrastructure needs at a sustainable level,
and/or to add back positions or public services(park maintenance,facility maintenance)cut over the
last decade. It is within this financial context that any new taxes to fund new public facilities would
need to be considered by the City Council.
Types of tax funding to consider
The following are the types of tax measures the Council could consider for funding the public
improvements listed above, and are shown on Attachment 6 with approximations of the level of tax
increases needed to fund various levels of bond financing of public facilities the Council may
consider. Attachment 7 also shows the rough costs for the facilities above.
2 Staff presented the Council with a realistic development build out option for the next five years which assumes the completion
of Centennial Plaza,the Ford properties redevelopment,completion of Brittania Cove in 2017-18,a new business hotel near the
Conference Center at West Harris,and completion of a new parking structure by Simms Development.On attachment 5,the line
in red has all of these growth assumptions,and still shows an operating deficit of over$1.0 million in 2018-19.
Staff Report
Subject: Public Uses and other Property Disposition Issues
at the former PUC Sites
Page 5 of 5
General Obligation Bonds
Parcel Tax
'/ cent Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase
Parking Tax increase
Tax Increment Financing District for the PUC Development
Business License Tax increase
CONCLUSION
The Board/Council has the opportunity to facilitate a major development at the former PUC sites,and
also has the opportunity to fold in public uses. The funding of those public uses would need to
compete for new tax revenues with other City Council priorities. Additional Council discussion and
direction is needed on priorities for new facilities and the types of taxes that may be considered. The
Mayor may also want to appoint a subcommittee to work with staff to discuss these issues further.
By: � ApproveYeFutrell
Jim Steel
Finance irector ager
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Aerial photograph of PUC sites and surrounding area.
Attachment 2: Aerial photograph of PUC site development shown in LRPMP with Library site
highlighted.
Attachment 3: Alternative view of aerial photograph of PUC sites with Schematic Overlay.
Attachment 4: Conceptual drawing of mixed use at PUC site.
Attachment 5: Five Year General Fund Forecast for deficits due to CalPERS rate increases.
Attachment 6: Various Tax Scenarios/Costs
Attachment 7: Priority of Potential New Facilities
Attachment 8: Map Location of New Potential Facilities
Attachment 9: Presentation
JS.NF;ed
n
f
i
r{
y' r
r
r'
V�
r
I�
r
l r �lf L
e
r
r r
n �
r
j
v ,
,
s-
I�'
rt
r ,r
y � ,
�(IS,i
�� � � p i � ,
,. � � � �,
.� �i/i, n�, �
dui
,� v / ,.,,,:.,' � f
r�
r„,,
r ��
i � � r�
9< r �� �� �
I �/ �
r
r� � � � �� �y�� � � � �
,, y � r �f i--+
t. � �.y
rl r �% ,��, � ��,( 6� IVG� �!
� 6 � I �;
; �,, �� ,�
��
r� > r �;? ; ,,:
� e�
,�, �
�r � ,'� �
r
�� ��r l/. � �� �f ri//r
� �f�, rrr ���� � ,,,�,� r;
;,,�
,
„� 1
y , �, �� r � � ��
f �
r � � �r r �� � � u �
r�r
1%
��
r. � �; ,< � ��� ,.
�� � /
' � 111
� � i
d
��
11 `� a
'��,� �
r � �)�” r �'� ��,�
Y 1 ,� o ri
�, , A ��, �� ��
l % ��H
� '� " �" ,�
r � i ��
�. � � /y/ f� � �,: �
�l ��
`� � � !a � ��� �, )
'�f��; � �Nr�,
rv� � � l
riii �;� iw r 0��� i % r �tl
fld� �
� A` ' y �f � F � �,� r rrirr
i u �i � o
0 1 ��" -,„ �/l lr�l�� ���
� �r� � r ////� � � � ��
�r �j�� f
pG/� ;°, r� � ' ,�'l�fps� �i%/r,��`1 ��%', ,... ,. �� ��
�,� i�
U�b!b of �� / "m��Alw� � mN'N��i Ii�l ,,,w fir, � l r rim/ ��� f//��-,T �."� Mr „ I°��
� �.. �( J � � Al �� l�li���U� ild` �`/� �r r�, ;,W f! � l
1 �r� r � %� ���� �j
� l� //ri �%%� �I fr i� ��
li ffJrr 4 %� l�
1� 'i/�//r r J
r � /�� „ �(
�� /r,
,� / � / ire'
z
d � 1 ,�
� � r / �
r � r i
u�,
1 j �1 � � „�i, �, �� / �.
r,�
Ili I .i y Y�
r %�/� �'Y
�, / / ��-�� �1i
v ,I� ,'l ����
����h�+�� I �� , �
r >�j
p, "�����" �� y,, �� 'r '���rr
J 5Y�i f ,� �i i
1 �ja,,; � �,;-
�, „�� y � em JI ) � � /
m
r , I
r
r ..
1 Jr
1
I,
f
i
N I �
1
Ji
/
rl r
r
J f
:u.
N
J r 1 �1 ry9 r r.
Ii
I
f
`p
r
II
I
O
/
N
cm
yr,
7
M(
Attachment 4
r
,�; /rr 1 rw/ii✓ / �,�r� rrlhf�n<�h //i/ � ,///fI /ll�iir�/�i�% ,i��/�// r �y
rV'i��� 6' � /J%�/�%/r✓aoG«/r«/ �/��.0 iiiai/i/%�l%�,„ „, r�%/�// l��J�� i"
lr
rrr l f�Q
Ol
/`� �111 j Nil/ilk
��.. .r._ .^'.."^_.."""'.''�'}'-•. --..-.... �� r�� �l �, � �''-1'� ��,i/�"k �,a .r�a%ri/dr rJ�/r �,,, ��////r,,;'f f1 r
P � I
�pi�N�r y % I rrQ il✓'�'rc ,iol���f «i�°��f�/��/i' ' `'
5
r
J
r iii �( i Ipl�lll IIIII�I i� ,, �l
��� Yl✓,w "'' � �', � rfl "' 7 oi? � � "@ � N1 r' GI �; I �''
� i �1i, �d'YI r is �tld� . �✓wf. "p t" V. '�+ns�/ � �` i// �il� �� �wwJ, �' f / r, 1'�- „ � �!
A,�� lip ,. �
�tl�, i � (, cr;,�r ,���..���
d J n',w w A�R E"A
..
00
1 M
Il I .TB q r'4
go r
a
o
O. �y
6
d
cb
W
cso XD O
N.,
Q Ce'w
u
a
® U
L
rr n u L
C u
t �
3 1
V LL 1 c
In
in
Oi c ' i
� a
u c +
O u
'" �� I� N cu
iixu
0�1 Imo ' E
'n�y, �II a^wY 6k O E
LA 2 0 I u
1I a" i n Lo
in c 64
w E 40
0 FU
Y 'd9y �n H H 1-4 a L
4�B O
Q
=
d CL
E u o m
� a
CA
L° t
L
I P %D � Y
Itli (co0 �kn
ri. r4
ad co
d
C O
�aPS C C
W a o 0 0 0 U c
°o °o °0 °a °0 0 0 0 0 0 „�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C CL 0 ,i
�0n g ° 0o N g o g n LIM O
m E
.2 I O H
h
C � I fO f9
C
evw cai o
Ln
� C a
(1131;aa)snidmS ION pun j lejauag i .n
Ln
m a
ul 0
ij z
Attachment 6
Bond Capacity Supported By Various Tax
Scenarios
TOT Increase Parking Tax
from 10% to 11% Increase from
million
10 million
Annual Parcel Tax Pledge Taxes from
of $50 1 Parcel New Airport
million
million
Business i
Tax Increase of 1®
............................................................................................................................................................................................ million
million
Obligation Pledge Property General
Taxes from ,
/ year Developed PUC Tax on a $500,000
Site house: $120
$10 million million
Attachment 7
million What Facility has the Highest
City Council Priority for Funding?
Caltrain New Ma in
Station Library
$50 million $50 - $60
Conference Performing
Center Arts Facility*
Expanslioll
$100 + million
million
Votential PUC Public Facilities
U 1
Aj
Cd
Al
CA N
" " i-7"r-L.L_J
OR
�U+
n y h fit '�L £ 1�'�� 'f _ ! , {!�I_• I r � � o tl
�r ,-�
•1,,�' 4 /,r. ti:. a .uJ7'� .'3 � f°�1 ..e 'N
tk
ca
0
'
tYt
ti
'� � a;�•• !{fir z`4 F �y �� �''� r/✓�� � ; °
"F
-
�r. u
� ,� � ._ �?.r• �I se r i � �t x;�r r..hr
uu,r .� •gib \'
8/15/2014
If1�G/ iii'
S
/
t
8/15/2014
immm-CIUSTNUT AREA
u
Gh �
I
f i j
✓
i
h f� fn
u `n�N✓a� »» � �� � v 'r�(CJ� I�»111�� xl�l/ ,/ �r�✓
2
8/15/2014
lr9 g / i
i
f i�N
r �
I ���1/��j✓� a �%/i
i,,
,
/,� Ir
�;N�u ol'a°1 l IM wN Y!
mmu W"A
a
U`+
f !
aGU�
3
°
LL .y3
NN
.._
r
m �
a�
e
o
� �ti•- �� his z
LA
u
�1JJ I///OIIJ �IIIIIIII/�ll� �� / �I�
4
8/15/2014
niu� ui
i v.��ui Bpi
5
8/15/2014
1
9 W
r
i
a,
LL
r m
I
r
�i
8/15/2014
ai uumUl� uw R!!Y
MI I f
r
�ypY liiii
N�III
p I It
IIII
VIII
q uuuuu uuuuu `�
_ �m I loon of iti f�
r
r
In
u 4w
wY
"7
7
8/15/2014
,r
uu
J,ulululu» " ,
I
u' I II�IIIIIIIII r ,ti��p4lyd�d
�Illlld��
i' II
d
it
(1
8/15/2014
u� III i I'
I'
«iii%
IN
ioa rl
Dui
;r r
9
8/15/2014
r
r.
i
u,iw � i�uip.Po i VVVUUi
IIf
r
1!I
I
a
11011001 E
mmuuuu � 8
.,,•.6� X83; �"�, B+'
. 110 0
� � C
C
fA m g a
rl r 9
;7
100, V-1 [c
to
o
Y H
cI
10 e 't0 ri
'0010 w4
% , E
® 2 m 8
a _
u $ . I
_
111 6 m
a
Vl ut f � 7
4 UL
Lo
,4 N
da
o
snldjims ON PLMI 11OUGM9
c
m a
I�
z
I
11
I
Y
NNUpw..i +r��
wyu "
ww
u
a 01
s
i
1.
1
a
IIIIIIIIII�I Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli��,I��i��uuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuu
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIJIJIJIuuuiluiiiulll�Iluu16i���i�uuuuui ��IIIIIIIIIII
12
fl
k r
f
�VD1
r�
w70ogv �N
w wi
ow
I ,"f
1 k? M1
r
I � w
,
r
r mu��a
l 11
I
i
mar
� � p,��q�llllllllllllllllllllllllll II
i "�"""'' � ulllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII I � „�, � L °"�
l
j
J
PI
is
iv
o `
�r
n a� � Ui4i
lltliii iiihufffffl�ii
iiiuul���� lllll lllllllVIII � � 'R',f