HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-13 e-packet@701Wednesday, December 13, 2017
7:01 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency
Special Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2017Special Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency
Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday,
December 13, 2017, at 7:01 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo
Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Report regarding a resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment
Agency of the City of South San Francisco, reviewing and approving the submittal to
the Successor Agency Oversight Board of a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS) for the period July 2018 through June 2019. (Karen Miller, Financial Services
Manager)
1.
Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City
of South San Francisco reviewing and approving submittal to the Successor Agency
Oversight Board of a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period July
2018 through June 2019, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(1).
1a.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/23/2018
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-884 Agenda Date:12/13/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding a resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco,reviewing and approving the submittal to the Successor Agency Oversight Board of a
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS)for the period July 2018 through June 2019.(Karen Miller,
Financial Services Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Successor Agency Board adopt a resolution reviewing a draft Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 18-19)for the period July 2018 through June 2019 and approving
submittal to the Oversight Board to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Oversight Board).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Attached for the Successor Agency Board’s review is the proposed ROPS for Fiscal Year 2018-19.This ROPS
will form the basis for the County’s distribution of Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund dollars (RPTTF,or
former RDA property taxes)to the Successor Agency to pay enforceable obligations for the period July 2018
through June 2019.ROPS 18-19 must be submitted to the State and County no later than February 1,2018.The
ROPS will be reviewed by the Oversight Board on December 19,2017.Although ROPS 18-19 covers the entire
fiscal year,the Successor Agency will be allowed to submit an amended ROPS for the period January to June
2019 by October 1, 2018, if needed.
The ROPS 18-19 reflects three new line items.Lines 70-72 were added to the bottom of the ROPS,as directed
by the Department of Finance,allowing the City to recoup $70,442 in expenses on lines 14 and 8 of ROPS
2015-16 and 2016-17 which exceeded the line item amounts authorized as indicated in the notes.
In addition,ROPS 18-19 reflects a new request for $18,890,000.The Oyster Point project,approved by the
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency,City of South San Francisco,and San Mateo County Harbor
District in 2011,identifies $29.5M of Redevelopment funds for Phase IC and Phase IIC.The portion of the
project funded by the Redevelopment Agency in Phases IC and IIC include public infrastructure,parking and
public amenities,as detailed in the accompanying Power Point presentation.The cost estimates contained in the
approved 2011 Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA),were based upon engineers estimates based
on conceptual plans.
Following approval of the agreements in 2011,the project remained dormant for five years until Oyster Point
Development (hereinafter referred to as Developer)acquired the project in 2016.The required land transactions
between the City and the Developer have been completed and all related conditions met as identified in the
DDA approved in 2011,which allowed for construction groundbreaking on November 11,2017,for Phase IC
and Phase IIC (cap repair only.)City staff,with approval from the City Manager and City Attorney,has and
will be withdrawing funds from the established escrow accounts,which hold the $29.5M to pay for the
Successor Agency share of the project cost.
Construction drawings are now 100%complete for most areas of construction and actual bids from contractors
have been received.Expectedly,the cost of the development has increased since the 2011 cost estimate.The
DDA anticipated cost escalations for Phase IC and Phase IIC.It states that the “…assigned party (or parties)is
City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/7/2017Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-884 Agenda Date:12/13/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
DDA anticipated cost escalations for Phase IC and Phase IIC.It states that the “…assigned party (or parties)is
responsible for cost overruns/savings for any reason (including but not limited to escalation,change in scope,
value engineering,etc)above/below the fixed monetary contribution.”The SA and the Developer are the
assigned parties and their obligations are specifically assigned by project scope.
Accordingly,included in the FY 2018-19 ROPS is an additional need of $18.0M for Phase IC and $890K for
Phase IIC Cap Repair.These totals include construction costs as well as associated soft costs.The additional
funding need covers cost increases associated with project cost escalation of 38.37 percent since 2011 and
construction drawings which reflect regulatory requirements/standards and best practices related to grading,
underground utility,geofoam technology minimizing settlement,bio retention for storm water draining,clay
cap repair and intersection improvements.
Note,the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency is not paying all of the costs associated with the
public infrastructure.The Developer is also contributing $25.8 million towards the cost of Phase IC.This
obligation by the developer is separate from the buildings and additional improvements they will be
constructing on their property related to Phases ID - IVD and obligation to Phase IIC.
The request for additional funds to the Successor Agency conforms with the obligations of the Redevelopment
Agency identified in the DDA.All cost information was prepared by the OPD construction management team,
informed by preliminary bids from potential contractors,and peer reviewed by City staff/consultants.Attached
is the power point presentation that will be provided by staff and the developer at the Successor Agency
meeting.
As with previous ROPS submissions,line items highlighted in red reflect items that were requested by the
Successor Agency,approved by the Oversight Board,but ultimately denied by the Department of Finance.The
highlighted format of the report is locked by the Department of Finance to allow them to easily track previously
denied items.
The Department of Finance did not include any prior period adjustment (PPA)reports in the FY 2018-19
ROPS.Submission of a prior period adjustment for FY 2015-16 to the County Controller-Auditor (CC-A)was
voluntary.Beginning in October 2018,submission of a prior period adjustment will once again be mandatory.
While the PPA was not required,the ROPS 2018-19 reflects cash balances from FY 2015-16,a gap of three
years.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City’s fiscal budget.
CONCLUSION
Adoption of this resolution will enable the Successor Agency to forward the proposed ROPS to the Oversight
Board on December 19,2017 in order to fulfill the obligation under Health and Safety Code Section 34177(o)
(1) regarding adoption of a ROPS 18-19 for the period July 2018 through June 2019.
Attachment: Oyster Point Development Cost Update Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/7/2017Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Oyster Point Development
ROPS 2018-2019
Successor Agency
December 13, 2017
2011 Oyster Point Development
Note: Phase IIC also includes clay cap repair and new sewer pump station to support hotel. 2
Development Milestones
2011 Development Approvals
-South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
-City of South San Francisco
-San Mateo County Harbor District
2016 OPV to OPD
2017 Milestones
-Residential application submitted for Phase IIID – IVD
-Groundbreaking for Phase IC, Phase ID, Phase IIC Cap Repair
3
Developer and SA Obligations (2011)
Developer $76.7M
-Phase ID Land Improvements
-Phase IC Streets and Utilities at Hub and Landscaping at Bay Trail
and Palm Promenade
-Phase IIC Sewer Pump
-Phase IID-IVD Land Improvements
-Other Transaction Costs
Successor Agency $29.5M
-Phase IC Infrastructure Improvements
-Phase IIC Infrastructure Improvements
4
5
Estimated Property Taxes Phase I – IV
(Annual)
Agency Pre-2016 Current 2011 Project
(Phase I – IV)
2017 Application
(Phase I – IV)
City $18,800 $251,300 $2.4M $2.8M
SSFUSD $49,500 $659,800 $6.4M $7.3M
Other Taxing
Entities*
$44,300 $590,800 $5.8M $6.6M
Total $112,600 $1.5M $14.6M $16.7M
*Other taxing agencies: County General and Education, SM JR College, Colma Creek Flood Control Zones,
Willow Garden Management; Bay Area Air Quality Management, County Harbor District, Resource
Conservation District
2011 Conceptual Plan
2011 Conceptual Plan
Phase IC 2011 Cost Obligation ($35.6M)
8
Phase IC 2011
Cost Obligation
Cost Overrun
/Saving
Streets and Utilities at Hub $7.7M Developer
1.9M SA
80% Developer
20% SA
Streets and Utilities to Point
Clay Cap Repair
Parking at Marina
Grading/Construction Recreation Area
Demo/Grading Hotel Site
Landscaping Beach/Park
$16.5M SA
100% SA
Landscaping Bay Trail and Palm
Promenade*
$9.53M Developer
100% SA
* The $9.53M is capped per the DA/DDA. Cost overrun/savings associated with this line item is SA
obligation.
Phase IIC 2011 Cap Repair Cost Obligation
($570K)
9
Phase IIC (Cap Repair Only) 2011
Cost Obligation
Cost Overrun
/Saving
Clay Cap Repair $570K SA 100% SA
2017 Construction Plans
2017 Plans
Phase IC Improvements
Phase IC Improvements, cont.
Cost Update Highlights
38% of cost increase due to 8 year escalation of construction
cost
62% of cost increase due to conceptual plan to construction
plans
-Grading
-Cap Repair
-Underground Utility
-Geofoam Minimize Settling
-Bio Retention for Storm Drainage
-Signalized Intersection Improvement
Other potential cost: Off-site disposal of hazardous material
Phase IC 2017 Cost
15
•2011 project conceptual plan cost: $35.6M
-Developer obligation: $17.2M
-SA Obligation: $18.4M
2017 project construction plan cost: $62.2
-Additional funding need: $26.6M
-Developer additional obligation: $8.6M
-SA additional obligation: $18.0M
ROPS additional need: $18.0M
-65% of the cost GMP (Jan. 2018)
Phase IC SA Cost Obligation Breakdown
16
Cost Categories SA 2011 Obligation SA Cost Overrun/Savings
Obligation
Streets Utilities Hub 1.9M 2.1M
Streets Utilities Point 5.4M 5.6M
Clay Cap Repair 540K Savings 100K
Parking at Marina 4.2M 4.0M
Recreation Area 2.0M 800K
Hotel Site 800K 400K
Beach Park* 3.5M 1.3M
Bay Trail Promenade * 0 3.7M
TOTAL 18.4M 18.0M
* Developer contribution capped at $9.53M for Bay Tail Promenade. SA cost overrun obligation for
Beach Park and Bay Trail Promenade capped at cost escalation.
Phase IIC Cap Repair 2017 Cost
17
•100% SA obligation
•2011 project conceptual cost: $570K
•2017 project 100% final plan cost: $1.4M
•Additional funding need: $830K
•ROPS additional need: $830K
-80% of the cost GMP (Jan. 2018)
Cost Basis / Due Diligence
OPD managing construction
-Cummings/SKS provide PM/CM services to OPD
-City team and OPD provide joint oversight
4 Construction packages (with limited allowances)
-Temporary Road 100% Design
-Grading 100% Design
-Streets and Utilities 100% Design
-Landscape 100% Design
Cost update
-Prepared by Cummings
-Informed by 3 contractor BIDs
-Peer reviewed by City staff/consultant
Grant Efforts
Actively pursing grant opportunities to fund cost
escalation
Waiting to Hear
-San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority ($300K)
Not Successful
-State Natural Resources Urban Greening Grant ($5M)
-State Coastal Conservancy Proposition 1($1.25M)
13 December 2017
Page 2 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
Further, with this labor shortage construction, companies are being selective on which projects they are bidding on. This
is being experienced on the Oyster Point Phase IC infrastructure project. These issues are driving escalation in the Bay
Area construction market above the US National Average.
Other Increases:
In addition to the escalation increases during the development of the design, several cost drivers have resulted in an
increase to the budget. Other increases are:
Cost Driver - Detail Total
Phase IC
Excavation, Grading & Fill $2.50M
Bio-retention Treatments $2.46M
Underground Utility Corridor $4.78M
Traffic Intersection Signaling $0.78M
Geofoam Fill & Gabion Retaining Walls $2.36M
Total $12.88M
Cost Driver - Detail Total
Phase IIC Cap Repair Clay Cap Repair $0.67M
Total $0.67M
The Project Team are procuring the scopes of work for Phases IC & Phase IIC Cap Repair as four individual Work
Packages as follows:
Package 1 – Temporary roads & demolition (based on
100% CD’s) Awarded
Package 2 & 3 – Refuse relocation, grading, clay cap
repair; streets and utilities (based on 100% CD’s) Bidding process
Package 4 – Landscaping (based on 50% CD’s &
Subcontractor input) Budget & 3rd Party Verification
The information generated through the procurement process has been used to develop the Phase IC Project Budget of
$62.2M thereby increasing the accuracy and certainty of the budgeted costs as they have been produced by the
construction market. The budget comprises the following market derived and estimated values:
13 December 2017
Page 3 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
Note *: The Phase IC contingency amount of $ $2.57M is to address any unforeseen costs that may arise from the major
risks that the project is facing. The contingency has been calculated as a blend of varying percentages from 3-20% based
on the risk profile of the associated scope of work. In the 2011 concept estimate, a global percentage of 7% was applied
for contingencies. At concept stage, we historically see a percentage higher than 7% due to the undefined scope of work.
These major risks are:
•Certain unknown soil quality and contamination thereof, relating to contaminated soil off haul, odor control and
management, leachate control and management, cleanup requirements
•Pending PG&E utility design and sign-off
•Pending CalWater sign-off of proposed double containment water line solution
•Portions of the landscaping bid that require significant design development, i.e., public restroom structures
•Construction means & methods and sequencing of work in compliance with regulatory agency specifics
•Design advancement of the dock access ramps and stairs design
To address the risks the project is facing the Project Team have developed the following management protocols:
•Development of Risk Register to log all potential project risks
•Analysis of potential risks for likelihood
•Analysis of severity of potential risks in terms of financial and schedule impacts to project
•Development of Risk Mitigation plans to manage the impact of the risks to the project
•Regular monitoring of risks against contingency values within budget
As an example of the management processes we will be utilizing, Cumming will agree a unit rate for the removal
of soil from the site which can then be applied to the quantity of material to be removed thereby limiting our
financial exposure to the volume of confirmed material removed off site.
This report outlines the major changes to the initial approved Oyster Point Phase IC project budget from February 2011,
to the current project budget. Scope changes described in this report outline updates between the 2009 Conceptual Design
and the current design, where the underlying intent has been to adjust the approved design to current codes, standards
and site conditions. As detailed in the report that follows, changes to the original budget (as established in October 2010),
reflect:
13 December 2017
Page 4 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
SECTIONS
1.0 Escalation .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Excavation, Grading & Fill Updates ................................................................................................... 11
3.0 FEMA Mapping Update: Sea Level Geofoam Fill & Retaining Walls ................................................. 11
4.0 Bioretention Treatment & Code Requirements .................................................................................. 12
5.0 Underground Utility Corridor Updates ............................................................................................... 13
6.0 Streets and Traffic Signalization ........................................................................................................ 13
7.0 Project Certainties & Unknowns / Uncertainties ................................................................................ 13
8.0 Attachments and Exhibits .................................................................................................................. 15
13 December 2017
Page 5 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
1.0 Escalation
In determining the impact to budget of material and labor cost increases over the period, the Cumming Team first turned
to its own data. We analyzed the Northern California Bay Area region to forecast construction conditions that may impact
our clients' project delivery efforts. The forecast starts with global issues affecting construction costs, ultimately focusing
on local market conditions.
A. Volume Trends 2009 - 2017
The Bay Area has been one of the strongest markets in the country, and is forecasted to peak in 2017 after six
strong years of growth, averaging 10.7% increase annually. After a 5.6% increase in 2016, this year's construction
volume growth year-over year is forecasted finish with a 7.1% surge. The market is expected to reach the high-
volume mark set in 2005 and reach of $33.4b (2009$) by the end of 2017. The market bottomed out in 2010 with
$16.7b (09$), 50% below the $33.4b 2005 peak.
A.1 Annual Construction Volume Forecast Summary - Oakland-San Francisco-San Jose Bay Area, CA
(nominalized 2009$)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (p)
Volume (x$1m) $18,205 $16,510 $16,959 $19,593 $22,842 $25,360 $29,300 $31,156 $33,380
Annual Inc/Dec Y-O-Y % -9.3% 2.7% 15.5% 16.6% 11.0% 15.5% 6.3% 7.1%
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
Total Volume (x $1m)
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Total % Y-O-Y Increase/Decrease
13 December 2017
Page 6 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
B. Labor Impacts:
With such a large ramp-up in volume, labor has been unable to keep up with the demand. While volume has been
increasing at a rate of 10.7% per year, labor has only been able to increase at a rate of 6.0% per year (Reference
Exhibit B.3).
The resulting shortage of labor has not only driven up wages (Reference Table B.4), it has affected productivity
as well as impeded the ability for subs and general contractors to bid work.
The surge in residential projects along with the new tech headquarters also acts to strain available labor
resources. Steel erectors, welders, plumbers, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, and electricians are in tight supply.
During the recession, some of the skilled labor force left the area or went to work in other industries, resulting in
shortages of skilled labor. After the last recession contractors are much more hesitant to grow as fast as the
current market increases. Labor capacity is just now reaching pre-recession levels, totaling 168,700 workers
(Reference Exhibit B.1).
B.1 Total Construction Workers - January 2006 To June 2017
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
13 December 2017
Page 7 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
B.2 Unemployment Rate - January 2006 To May 2017
B.3 Comparison Year-Over-Year Increases - Construction Labor Vs. Volume 2010-2017
As illustrated by Table B.4 Labor Rates, fully burdened labor rates in the Bay Area have increased an average of
52.1% from 2009 to 2017. Not only have base rates increased, worker's compensation rates and contractor mark-
ups have increased as well.
Shortages of iron workers have plagued projects the last twelve months. Skilled workers such as plumbers,
pipefitters, glaziers, sheet metal workers, welders, and electricians are in high demand and tight supply.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
YE
A
R
-OV
E
R
-YE
A
R
IN
C
R
E
A
S
E
/
D
E
C
R
E
A
S
E
Construction Volume
13 December 2017
Page 8 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
13 December 2017
Page 9 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
C. Impacts to Material Pricing and Availability:
National material prices have increased as well. We track 21 key material prices on a monthly basis. Price
increases nationally from 2009 to 2017 are tracked on Table C.1 (Reference Table C.1 above). In addition, we
track diesel gasoline prices in California, which has unique trends incongruent with the national prices as a result
of blends and taxes. These tables do not necessarily capture unique conditions to California, or increased
subcontractor mark-ups since 2009. In the West, there are currently twelve to eighteen-month lead times for
elevator and curtainwall orders due to the unprecedented volume. In addition, metal stud framing is subject to
allocation and longer-than-normal lead times currently. Material increases of specific note for 2009-2017 for large
horizontal and infrastructure projects are: Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 48" (+24%), Corrugated Steel Pipe - 36"
(+30%), Ductile Iron Pipe - 12" (+47%), Copper Pipe - 1-1/2" (+29%), Asphalt Paving - PG 58 (+22%), Concrete
Ready-Mix, 4000 psi (+33%), Reinforcing Bar, Grade 60, #4 (+35%), and Gasoline – Diesel (+32%). Locally, we
are seeing additional premiums for metal stud framing, curtainwall and concrete. Ready-mix concrete is in short
supply as a result of demand from key tech, sport, transportation and institutional projects ($140/cy to $180/cy).
D. Impacts to Codes:
California updated their 2,521-page energy code, Title 24, which was phased in July 1st 2014. T-24 Revisions
are responding to AB32 legislation for a path to net zero energy usage for residential construction by 2020 and
non-residential by 2030. Typical standard updates increase stringency by 15%, but the 2013 standards exceed
this amount by a wide margin, up to 33%! The overall cost impact has varied greatly (much like LEED), depending
on: type of project, location, size of project, and owner's previous sustainability requirements. This not only
increased construction costs, it added costs to inspection, design, commissioning and documentation as well.
Exterior closure Costs have increased as much as 2% to 6%, HVAC costs by 3% to 10%, and electrical costs will
increase as much as 10% to 25%, depending on the project type, size and location. We have found construction
cost impacts can range from 2% to 6%, depending on the type of project.
E. Summary
Volume is forecasted to peak at frothy levels in 2017, then plateau in 2018-2019. Labor capacity and key materials
are experiencing strong demand, and the more complex and difficult projects are struggling to get trade bid
coverage. After a projected volume spike of 7.1% in 2017, volume should plateau slightly over the following two
years. Labor capacity is currently struggling to meet demand. Drywall, precast erectors, steel erectors, plumbing
and pipefitting, HVAC, and electrical subcontractors will struggle to staff larger and more complex projects.
General contractors and subcontractors have increased their margins in conjunction with the subsequent volume
growth. Subcontractor's mark-up ranges from 16.5% for base trades to 25%-30% for HVAC, Plumbing, and
Electrical. Back at the market trough in 2010-2011, subcontractors were using mark-ups in the 10% to 15% range.
Many contractors are turning away work, so the pool of bidders is smaller. As a result, we are seeing elevated
escalation rates from 2009 to 2017. The graph below shows the history of escalation in this market since 2002,
and these rates are nowhere near the market peak of 2005. We expect the rates to get back to the 4.5% to 5.5%
range in 2018-2019.
13 December 2017
Page 10 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
E.1 Key Market Statistics:
1.San Francisco and Bay Area construction bottomed out in 2010 at $16.7b (2009$), 50% below the
2005 peak
2.Construction volume is expected to increase robustly through 2017, exceeding the 2005 peak of
$33.4b (2009$)
3.The volume increase over the last 3 years is being driven by a projected 102% increase in residential
construction since 2010.
4.Current lead times for elevator and curtainwall orders remains twelve to eighteen months.
5.Shortages in concrete are driving quarterly price increases ranging from 3.0%-5.0% through 2017.
6.Current labor shortages are occurring in steel erectors, welders, plumbers, pipefitters, glaziers,
sheet metal workers, and electricians
7.Unemployment rate in the San-Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Area is currently 2.6%.
E.2 Annual Escalation Rate - 2009 to 2017
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (p)
Escalation Rate 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 3.8% 4.2% 8.0% 10.0% 7.0% 6.0%
3.
9
%
4.
8
%
20
.
0
%
18
.
7
%
8.
5
%
7.
0
%
-10
.
0
%
0.
0
%
0.
0
%
2.
5
%
3.
8
%
4.
2
%
8.
0
%
10
.
0
%
7.
0
%
6.
0
%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
Escalation Rate (2002-2017)
13 December 2017
Page 11 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
2.0 Excavation, Grading & Fill Updates
The Oyster Point Development project supports the redevelopment and repurposing of portions of the former
Oyster Point Landfill. The landfill is located east of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway) and south and east of
the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive and underlies portions of the Phase IC and IIC
development areas. The current anticipated total volumes included in the budget are as follows:
Cap Grading
Dirt and Clay Excavated to top of Refuse: 292,280 bcy cut
Refuse Relocated: 152,600 bcy cut, 175,200 bcy fill (anticipated 15% swell)
Foundation Layer: 75,720 bcy fill
Clay Cap Layer: 54,085 bcy fill
Erosion Protection/Rough Grading Layer: 24,400 bcy cut, 173,830 bcy fill
Phase IC
Lightweight Fill: 21,000 bcy fill
Rough Grading Earthwork: 24,710 bcy cut, 51,860 bcy fill
When looking at solely the dirt, clay and refuse volume to be excavated as part of the Cap Grading, this amounts
to the volume of two Transamerica Buildings or 150 Olympic swimming pools.
Design refinement that occurred as a result of further investigations, which fulfilled the requirements outlined in
the Final Closure Plan for Former Oyster Point Landfill: Oyster Point Properties – Phase I and II Development
during the design development phase of the project include:
•Increase in Volume of Refuse Grading and Cap Repair Area: A significant increase in volume of refuse
grading and cap repair area
•As-Built Conditions of Landfill Gas Cut-Off Barrier: Increased uncertainty of the location and as-built
construction details for the landfill gas cut-off barrier on the west side of the site.
•Additional Soil-Cement Cut-off Wall: Soil cement slurry cut off wall at teardrop area in SW corner of site
added due to revised grading plans
3.0 FEMA Mapping Update1: Sea Level Geofoam Fill & Retaining Walls
The Oyster Point Development and adjacent City owned properties contain several thousand feet of shoreline
which will be subject to the effects of sea level rise over time. In the interest of avoiding the decrease of usable
area within the project due to the rising water levels, the engineering team had to raise the elevations of the bay
trails and many portions of Oyster Point Phase IC Infrastructure project.
To address the elevation requirements that resulted from the FEMA Mapping update, the Phase IC civil and
landscaping design necessitated the introduction of Geofoam fill and Gabion Retaining Walls.
1 “Sea Level Rise Investigative study into future sea level rise for the development of Oyster Point” Prepared by Wilsey Ham 7/19/2017
13 December 2017
Page 12 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
At this time, there are no uniform regulatory design standards for addressing sea level rise along the shoreline of
the Bay. We understand there are regulatory recommendations that private property owners and public agencies
design improvements along the Bay to provide resiliency to sea level rise for the year 2050, with the adaptability
to protect against sea level rise for the year 2100.
However, not all improvements are equally adaptable to future modification, and the financial impacts of flood
damage can vary significantly. For example, grading improvements can often be raised in elevation at a later date
whereas it is generally not feasible to raise the ground floor of a building. A draft report was prepared to summarize
sea level rise estimates developed by the scientific community, and to provide options for design criteria to address
the FEMA Mapping update.
The draft report was presented at a joint meeting between the City of South San Francisco/SA staff and the
Oyster Point Development team on February 16, 2017. The purpose of the meeting was to reach agreement
on the design criteria to be used for the Oyster Point Development and the adjacent City properties to protect
against future sea level rise. Subsequent to the joint meeting, the City retained a third party marine consultant
(Moffatt & Nichol) to review and comment on the report. Moffatt and Nichol have recent experience coordinating
sea level rise criteria for other projects around San Francisco Bay. Based on the parameters described above as
well as the committee and reviewer comments, the sea level rise criteria recommendations for the Oyster Point
Development Phases IC and ID are as follows:
a.Buildings - All buildings are recommended to be resilient to the maximum expected sea level rise
at the year 2100. The National Research Council of the National Academies published a range of
the anticipated sea level rise for the California coast, and we understand that agencies
recommend using the upper end of the range (66”) for designing buildings to accommodate
the expected sea level rise for the year 2100. This would require the ground floors to be at, or
above elevation 13.7’ NGVD ’29.
b.Parking Lots and the Bay Trail – Parking lots and the Bay trail are recommended to be resilient to
sea level rise at the year 2050, and adaptable to sea level rise for the year 2100. Consistent with the
approach for buildings, agencies recommend using the upper end of the range (24”) for designing
improvements to accommodate the expected
The selection of the Geofoam fill and Gabion Retaining Walls resulted from option studies undertaken by Wilsey
Ham and Langan in 2017, which determined that they were the most cost effective. Alternative systems
considered were engineered fill, cell-crete with waterproofing membrane, shot-crete retaining walls and precast
panel retaining walls.
4.0 Bioretention Treatment & Code Requirements
Between the February 2011 budget and the current project civil design, there were updates to the (CBC/Cal Green)
Codes specifying stricter requirements for treatment of storm water on-site. The design team has incorporated
bioretention filters within the landscaping planters in the original design of both Streets and Utilities (OPB) - Hub
and Streets and Utilities (OPB) - Point, to minimize impact.
13 December 2017
Page 13 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
5.0 Underground Utility Corridor Updates
CalWater & Division of Drinking Water
Division of Drinking Water State water main code previously prohibited this utility “near refuse”, which is
subjective, and not an issue in 2009, was revised to state prohibited “within 100 feet of refuse”. This change in
code causes an increase in the utility design, permitting and construction costs.
Our current anticipated quantities involved in building up the site to meet road elevations and redistributing the
refuse whilst maintaining the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board are listed below. The
overall elevation of the landfill cover will be higher under post-construction conditions with fill material extending
to what is shown at the high tide line on Sheet L-6.03, Site Sections – Gateway, Figure 2A. Cross Sections of the
Clay Cap Cover Deficiency Area (James Corner Field Operations, September 20, 2017), and Sheet 2, Exhibit,
Top of Clay Cap, Figure 2B. Cross Sections of the Clay Cap Repair Area (Wilsey & Ham, September 1, 2017).
Target depths will vary at the edges to provide a slope transition between different areas of cover requirement,
and there may be up to one foot of fill below the high tide line, but above mean high water. We understand this is
to return the site back to its previous elevation.
6.0 Streets and Traffic Signalization
Over the course of the period, project engineering teams have built upon concept drawings developed in 2009 to
settle at the design for streets today. Most notably, Oyster Point Boulevard needed to be reconfigured to allow
for a maximum 4.5% grade, an additional 2’ public sidewalk was added per City planning, and bioretention
curbs, walls, planter boxes, drainage and plants are now required across the site (Reference 4.0 above).
Further, the significant requirement for traffic signalization, poles, equipment and programming has been defined
for the development. Additionally, a traffic-pedestrian island has been detailed in the design so as to prevent a
back-up occurring on an already stressed Gull Drive and to ease any right-turn off Gull Drive onto the slope of
Oyster Point Boulevard for buses.
7.0 Project Certainties & Unknowns / Uncertainties
Phase IC – Budget Certainties:
•Approximately 65% GMP package certainty relates back to 100% construction documentation &
contractor bids received for the following packages:
- Temporary road & buildings demolition – Contract Package 1 (currently awarded to DeSilva
Gates).
- Refuse relocation, grading & clay cap repair to Phase IC – Contract Package 2.
- Streets & Utilities to Phase IC – Contract Package 3.
•Additional contributors to this ~65% GMP certainty are the following:
- Provisional bids received from 3 landscaping contactors based on 50% construction
documentation.
13 December 2017
Page 14 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
Phase IC – Budget Unknowns / Uncertainties:
•Approximately 35% GMP package unknown / uncertainty relates to the following critical items within the
project scope:
- Certain unknown soil quality and contamination thereof, relating to contaminated soil off haul,
odor control and management, leachate control and management, sump cleanup
requirements;
- Pending PG&E joint trenching utility design and sign-off;
- Pending CalWater sign-off on current proposed design and containment water line solution;
- Portions of the landscaping bid that require significant design development, i.e., public
restroom structures;
- Design advancement of the dock access ramps and stairs;
- Project sequencing, including means & methodology in compliance with regulatory agency
specifics;
These certainties and reservations relate back to various contingencies on the following trades / package areas:
Trade / Package: Contingency %
Site Demolition & Temporary Works 5%
Grading / Refuse Relocation / Cap Repair 10%
Streets & Hardscape 3%
Landscaping 3%
CalWater / Domestic Water 20%
SD / SS / Fire & Irrigation 5%
PG&E Joint Trenching 20%
Site Lighting 5%
Traffic Signalization 3%
Site Structures (Restrooms & Dock Access Ramps & Stairs) 15%
Phase IIC Cap Repair – Budget Certainties:
•80% GMP package certainty relates back to 100% construction documentation & contractor bids
received for the full Phase IIC Cap Repair scope package.
Phase IIC Cap Repair – Budget Unknowns / Uncertainties:
•20% GMP package unknowns / uncertainty relates to the following critical items within the project
scope:
- Sequencing of the Phase IIC Cap Repair scope of work in relation to the concurrent
undertaking of Phase IC.
13 December 2017
Page 15 OPD City 2011 2018 Budget Difference_Ver08
8.0 Attachments and Exhibits
Attachment 1 Phase IC Infrastructure Cost Allocation Matrix
Attachment 2 Cumming Quarterly Construction Market Report: 2nd Quarter 2017. San Francisco &
Northern California Bay Area
Attachment 3 Drawings:
Exhibit 1 Storm Drain Key Plan, Wilsey Ham 10/31/2017
Exhibit 2 Bioretention Details, Wilsey Ham
Exhibit 3a-d Joint Trench Composite Plan, Phase IC, Wilsey Ham 10/27/2017
Exhibit 3e-j Public Street Lighting, Phase IC, Wilsey Ham 10/27/2017
Exhibit 4 Traffic Signal Plan, Phase IC, Wilsey Ham 10/27/2017
Exhibit 5 Civil Details, Phase IC, Wilsey Ham 10/31/2017
Exhibit 6a-b Utility Corridor Trenching Plan and Sections
Exhibit 7 Oyster Point Blvd Cut and Fill
Exhibit 8 Lightweight Fill Plan, Section and Photo, Wilsey Ham 11/22/2017
Exhibit 9 Retaining Wall Plan, Section and Photo, Phase IC, Wilsey Ham 10/27/2017
Exhibit 10 Phase IC Site Features Plan
Exhibit 11a Site Boring Locations and Top of Bedrock Locations, Langan
End of Report
F:\Oyster Point\Successor Agency Meetings\12-13-17\Swinerton Stuff\Memo 17_1208 OP IC IIC Market Labor Impacts Construction Cost Draft 2.docPage 2 of 4
Development Management Services (dated 1/18/17) between City /Agency (acting on behalf of the
Agency) and Developer for design, project, and construction management services for construction
of Phase IC infrastructure and IIC Cap Repair.
The DDA is based on conceptual plans prepared in October 2010 including a detailed Phase I Precise
Plan created in February 2011. A Conceptual Cost Budget was prepared in February 2011 and
updated in March 2011 for inclusion in the DDA.
The 2011 Conceptual Cost Budget Exhibits (3.2.1 A-H Phase IC and 3.3.2 B Phase IIC Cap Repair)
each carry a clause that: “A depiction of these improvements as well as quantities and cost
estimates are included in the following pages. The quantities, scope of work, and cost estimates
were prepared based on conceptual plans and will be modified when construction drawings are
prepared.”
Since January 2017, Swinerton has acted as the Agency program management consultant to
coordinate with former SSF Director of Public Works (Mr. Ray Towne) and City consultants to
monitor the selection of design professionals; and the progressive design development of civil,
grading, landscape, street, and utility construction documents plus supporting reports.
Construction Documents were progressively developed in 3 or 4 steps, typically Schematic Design,
Design Development, 50% Construction Document (CD), and 95/100% CD. At each step City staff
and its peer review consultants checked the plans and specifications to validate compliance with
DDA and design standards, ordinances, codes, and consistency with City maintenance and
operation practices.
Similarly, as Developer-managed preparation of regulatory agency plans, e.g., County of San Mateo
Environmental and Regional Water Quality Control Board permit (for Final Landfill Closure and
Post-Maintenance and Monitoring Plan), BCDC permits, and US Corp. of Engineer permit, were
issued; staff and City consultants, most familiar with landfill programs, provided peer review of the
regulatory permit documents.
City staff monitored compliance with existing regulations, i.e., RWQCB Order 13267 (issued
12/10/15) for Oyster Point Landfill. City submitted Short Term Flood Protection Plan (2/26/16) and
Long Term Flood Protection Plan (5/25/16) to address inundation of the landfill from King Tides and
future sea level rise. DDA Recital “G” affirms: “Implementation of the redevelopment project will
raise the level of certain portions of the closed landfill and the surrounding property, and protect
the environment from potential release of the contents of the landfill into the Bay.”
Developer and its designers worked with the project budgets to adhere to the development
program as detailed in the DDA. Project budget was updated and monitored at each step in the CD
production and monitored for consistency with the DDA. Plan review comments are documented
F:\Oyster Point\Successor Agency Meetings\12-13-17\Swinerton Stuff\Memo 17_1208 OP IC IIC Market Labor Impacts Construction Cost Draft 2.docPage 3 of 4
and signed off by the appropriate City/Successor Agency Department Head then submitted to
Developer’s design team for correction and follow-up in subsequent CD submittal. This process
continues through each step until final CDs are submitted for permits and construction.
In October/ November 2017, Construction Documents for Temporary Road/ Utility Relocation,
Street and Utilities, Cap Grading and Refuse Relocation, and 50% CD Landscape Improvements were
sent out for bids and pricing. The Developer’s schedule has targeted execution of GMP contract by
January 2018 and planned for a 24-month construction schedule with project completion
December 2019.
Escalation, Market Forces, and Cost Drivers
Cumming Technical Memo tabulated the annual escalation since 2011, provided information
regarding the booming San Francisco Bay Area Economy, and the impact of industry-wide shortage
of skilled construction labor. These findings are no surprise to City/Successor Agency staff as it has
seen bids in recent history come well above Engineer’s Estimates for many of the same scopes of
work that Oyster Point is now bidding. Similarly, the tabulation of escalation considered multiple
industry indices which have differing weight for subcontractor, labor, and material costs. The final
escalation rate was calculated from a blend of the indices. City /Successor Agency staff and
Swinerton reviewed this with Cumming and is in full agreement that the 38.37% is accurate for the
scope of work.
Cumming Technical Memo identified the following cost drivers and cost impacts:
Phase IC
• Excavation, Fill, and Grading on Landfill $2.5 MM
• Bio-retention treatment structures $2.46 MM
• Underground Street Utility Corridor $4.79 MM
• Traffic Signal Systems $0.78 MM
• Geofoam Fill and Gabion Retaining Wall $2.36 MM
• Total Phase IC $12.89 MM
Phase IIC
• Clay Cap Repair $0.67 MM
The six identified cost drivers were recognized early in the design development stages of the
respective construction documents for the infrastructure work. With each stage of drawing
development, City /Successor Agency staff and peer review consultants were involved with the plan
review. Review comments included engineering solutions, engineering requirements, regulatory
requirements, and consideration of possible implementation means and methods. Developer was
F:\Oyster Point\Successor Agency Meetings\12-13-17\Swinerton Stuff\Memo 17_1208 OP IC IIC Market Labor Impacts Construction Cost Draft 2.docPage 4 of 4
tasked with quantifying and estimating the cost impacts and engineering definition became more
definite.
Four of the cost drivers are specific requirements relating to landfill sites: Excavation, Fill, and
Grading, Utility Corridor, Clay Cap Repair, and Geofoam & Gabion Retaining Wall. Landfill sites
settle and engineering solutions require engineered fills that minimize total and differential
settlements that may damage long retaining walls. Grading of landfill requires specially trained
workers with personal protection to work in a hazardous environment. All these items add
complexity to the work and premium to costs.
Bio-retention treatment structures are a state-imposed regulatory water quality requirement (C3)
which was not contemplated in 2011. Traffic Signal Systems have become more expensive since
2011 as recent public bid results have demonstrated.
In conclusion, City/Successor Agency staff and Swinerton agrees with Cumming findings regarding
escalation, market forces, contingency, and cost drivers that impacted the Oyster Point Project
Budget.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-892 Agenda Date:12/13/2017
Version:1 Item #:1a.
Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
reviewing and approving submittal to the Successor Agency Oversight Board of a Recognized Obligation
Payment Schedule for the period July 2018 through June 2019, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
34177(1).
WHEREAS,pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(l),before each fiscal period,the Successor
Agency to a dissolved Redevelopment Agency is required to prepare a draft Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule (“ROPS”)that lists all of the obligations that are “enforceable obligations”within the meaning of
Health and Safety Code Section 34177,and which identifies a source of payment for each such obligation from
among (i)bond proceeds,(ii)reserve balances,(iii)the administrative cost allowance,(iv)revenues from rents,
concessions,interest earnings,loan repayments,or asset sales,or (v)the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust
Fund established by the County Auditor-Controller to the extent no other source of funding is available or
payment from property tax is contractually or statutorily required; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(j),the Successor Agency also must prepare a
proposed administrative budget and submit it to the Oversight Board for approval,including the estimated
amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the upcoming fiscal period and proposed sources of
payment for those costs; and
WHEREAS,once the ROPS is approved by the Oversight Board,the ROPS must be posted on the Successor
Agency’s website and transmitted to the County Auditor-Controller,the State Controller and the State
Department of Finance.
NOW,THEREFORE,the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco,
does hereby resolve as follows:
1.The Recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference;
2.The draft ROPS attached hereto as Exhibit A was prepared by the Successor Agency,reviewed and
approved by the Successor Agency Board, and will be submitted to the Oversight Board;
3.The City Finance Director is authorized to modify the draft ROPS to correct errors,to update the ROPS
if necessary as a result of the subsequent review by the Oversight Board,and provide clarifications
consistent with requirements of the State Department of Finance and the intent of this Resolution;
4.The Executive Director of the Successor Agency or designee is authorized and directed to take all
actions necessary to implement this Resolution,including without limitation,the submittal of the draft
ROPS to the Oversight Board,the County Auditor-Controller,the County Administrative Officer,the
State Department of Finance,and the State Controller,and the posting of this Resolution and the draft
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/23/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-892 Agenda Date:12/13/2017
Version:1 Item #:1a.
ROPS on the Successor Agency’s website;
5.The Finance Director is authorized to incorporate the items on the ROPS into the 2018-19 operating
budget once the ROPS is approved;
6.The Executive Director and the Finance Director,and their designees,are authorized and directed to
take such actions as necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the intent of this Resolution,
including without limitation,the establishment of separate accounts and funds as necessary to
appropriately document the receipts and expenditures of the Successor Agency.
7.The Executive Director of the Successor Agency and/or his designee are authorized to execute contracts
and agreements for the items listed on the July 2018 through June 2019 ROPS,as approved by the
Oversight Board,up to the amounts specified on the approved ROPS for such items,unless specifically
directed otherwise by the Oversight Board.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/23/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Successor Agency:South San Francisco
County:San Mateo
Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable Obligations (ROPS Detail)
18-19A Total
(July - December)
18-19B Total
(January - June) ROPS 18-19 Total
A 468,485$ 50,000$ 518,485$
B - - -
C - - -
D 468,485 50,000 518,485
E 9,594,762$ 9,524,320$ 19,119,082$
F 9,469,762 9,399,320 18,869,082
G 125,000 125,000 250,000
H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E):10,063,247$ 9,574,320$ 19,637,567$
Name Title
/s/
Signature Date
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 18-19) - Summary
Filed for the July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 Period
Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D):
RPTTF
Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G):
Bond Proceeds
Reserve Balance
Other Funds
Administrative RPTTF
Certification of Oversight Board Chairman:
Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety code, I
hereby certify that the above is a true and accurate Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule for the above named successor
agency.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF
$ 46,510,073 $ 19,637,567 $ - $ - $ 468,485 $ 9,469,762 $ 125,000 $ 10,063,247 $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ 9,399,320 $ 125,000 $ 9,574,320
7 Debt Serv Principal Hsg Rev Bonds Bonds Issued On or Before 1/1/1999 9/1/2018 Bank of New York 1999 Housing Revenue Bonds 285,000 N $ 285,000 285,000 $ 285,000 $ -
8 Debt Serv Interest Hsg Rev Bonds Bonds Issued On or Before
12/31/10
1/1/1999 9/1/2018 Bank of New York 1999 Housing Revenue Bonds 7,125 N $ 7,125 7,125 $ 7,125 $ -
11 Bond Admin/Disc Costs Hsg Bonds Fees 1/1/1999 9/1/2018 Bank of New York/Willdan Costs to administer the housing bonds 15,000 N $ 15,000 15,000 $ 15,000 $ -
12 Oyster Point Ventures DDA OPA/DDA/Construction 3/23/2011 11/11/2026 Oyster Pt Ventures, LLC Section 3.4.1 of DDA-infrastr. required 17,900,000 N $ 18,890,000 111,360 9,389,320 $ 9,500,680 9,389,320 $ 9,389,320
13 Oyster Point Ventures DDA OPA/DDA/Construction 3/23/2011 11/11/2026 Various contractors/staff Secs. 4.5 closg/escrow; 5.2 environ
indemnification; 5.3 methane
monitoring
20,000,000 N $ - $ - $ -
14 Oyster Point Ventures DDA Project Management Costs 3/23/2011 11/11/2026 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs 1,263,144 N $ 100,000 50,000 $ 50,000 50,000 $ 50,000
16 Harbor District Agreement Improvement/Infrastructure 3/25/2011 11/11/2026 Harbor District Secs. 5.0 lease rev; 7.0 temp. office 1,793,248 N $ - $ - $ -
17 Harbor District Agreement Project Management Costs 3/25/2011 11/11/2026 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs 818,341 N $ 20,000 10,000 $ 10,000 10,000 $ 10,000
21 Train Station Imprvmnts Ph
1(pf1002)
Remediation 3/11/2009 12/31/2014 TechAccutite/Wisley Ham Contracted work-site remediation 87,494 N $ - $ - $ -
22 Train Station Imprvmnts Phase 1 Project Management Costs 3/11/2009 12/31/2014 Staff Costs Soft project management costs 9,309 N $ - $ - $ -
23 Train Station Imprvmnts Phase 2 Remediation 12/9/2009 12/31/2014 Various contractors Site remediation per Cal Trans Agrmt. 620,000 N $ - $ - $ -
24 Train Station Imprvmnts Phase 2 Project Management Costs 12/9/2009 12/31/2014 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs 148,115 N $ - $ - $ -
45 Maintenance of Non-Hsg Properties Property Maintenance 2/1/2012 12/31/2014 Various contractors Rehab, repair, maintenance, & utilities N
46 Maintenance of Non-Hsg Properties Property Maintenance 2/1/2012 12/31/2014 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs N
47 Administration Costs Admin Costs 2/1/2012 12/31/2014 Various contractors/misc Costs to administer Successor Agency 1,272,576 N $ 125,000 110,000 $ 110,000 15,000 $ 15,000
48 Administration Costs Admin Costs 2/1/2012 12/31/2014 Legal/Staff costs Costs to administer Successor Agency 949,132 N $ 125,000 15,000 $ 15,000 110,000 $ 110,000
49 Property Disposition Costs Property Dispositions 2/1/2012 12/31/2014 Various contractors Initial envir. testing, noticing, listing
costs
N
50 Property Disposition Costs Property Dispositions 2/1/2012 12/31/2014 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs N
51 Accrued PERS Pension Obligations Unfunded Liabilities 1/1/1980 6/30/2016 CalPERS Costs incurred through 02/01/2012 168,800 N $ - $ - $ -
52 Accrued Retiree Health Obligations Unfunded Liabilities 1/1/1980 6/30/2016 CalPERS Retiree Benefit
Trust (CERBT)
Costs incurred through 02/01/2012 197,600 N $ - $ - $ -
57 1999 Housing Bond Proceeds Bonds Issued On or Before
12/31/10
10/23/2013 12/31/2014 Future Developer To be used on low/mod housing dev 904,747 N $ - $ - $ -
69 630-634 El Camino Real Tenant
Improvement
Project Management Costs 3/1/2011 2/28/2086 TBD Tenant improvements for tenant space
3
N
70 Line 14 FY 15-16 Additional Expense RPTTF Shortfall 3/23/2011 11/11/2026 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs 13,586 N $ 13,586 13,586 $ 13,586 $ -
71 Line 14 FY 16-17 Additional Expense RPTTF Shortfall 3/23/2011 11/11/2026 Legal/Staff costs Soft project management costs 42,856 N $ 42,856 42,856 $ 42,856 $ -
72 Line 8 Interest Payment made but
not reported on FY 16-17
RPTTF Shortfall 1/1/1999 9/1/2018 Bank of New York 1999 Housing Revenue Bonds 14,000 N $ 14,000 14,000 $ 14,000 $ -
73 N $ - $ - $ -
74 N $ - $ - $ -
75 N $ - $ - $ -
Contract/Agreement
Termination Date
ROPS 18-19
Total
18-19B (January - June)
18-19A
Total
South San Francisco Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 18-19) - ROPS Detail
July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Item #Payee Description/Project Scope Project Area
Total Outstanding
Debt or Obligation Retired
18-19A (July - December)
18-19B
Total Project Name/Debt Obligation Obligation Type
Contract/Agreement
Execution Date
Fund Sources Fund Sources
A B C D E F G H I
Other RPTTF
Bonds issued on
or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued on
or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
period balances
and
DDR RPTTF
balances
retained
Prior ROPS
RPTTF
distributed as
reserve for future
period(s)
Rent,
grants,
interest, etc.
Non-Admin
and
Admin
1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/15)
54,987,340 29,172,608 1,080,881 2,001,528
Column C is funding for the housing bond debt.
This debt was paid in Sept 2016.
Column E $4,620,999 (BNY reserve Acct) were
used along with bond retirement funds to call the
2006 bonds on the call date of 9/1/2016 and
Housing bond reserves in the amount of
$333,836 retained per bond covenants to be paid
out 9/1/2018. Additionally $24,217,773 of prior
periods RPTTF reserved for Development (OPD)
in BNY reserve account.
Column G is excess cash balance of $118,144
reported to DOF in October 2014, $119,945 and
$842,792 of excess other revenues from ROPS
14-15A & B respectively.
Column H is $1,176,996 and $824,532 excess
RPTTF from FY 14-15A & B PPA used to fund
ROPS 15-16 A & B respectively.
2 Revenue/Income (Actual 06/30/16)
RPTTF amounts should tie to the ROPS 15-16 total distribution from the
County Auditor-Controller during January 2016 and June 2016.
216,427 258,413 1,160,479 8,028,256
Column G is actual rent/interest received
7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016.
Column H is $5,619,513 and $2,408,743 RPTTF
received in ROPS 15-16 A& B respectively.
3 Expenditures for ROPS 15-16 Enforceable Obligations (Actual
06/30/16)
1,555,700 9,553,108
Column G: Other funds expended FY 15-16 PPA
Column H: RPTTF funds expended (actual) FY
15-16 PPA includes line item overspend
4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 06/30/16)
RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts distributed as
reserve for future period(s)
55,203,767 29,431,021
Column C: Funds to used to pay off bond in FY
2016/17
Column E: Funds to pay off bond debt 9/2016 &
9/2018 as detailed in line 1 comment and to fund
development project from BNY Account per DDA
Column H: includes line 14 overspend now line
70 plus line 71&72 overspend from FY 16/17
ROPs
5 ROPS 15-16 RPTTF Balances Remaining
No entry required
490,262
Column H: Total remaining RPTTF reported on
FY15-16 PPA
6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance (06/30/16)
C to G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), H = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4 - 5)
-$ -$ -$ -$ 685,660$ (13,586)$
South San Francisco Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 18-19) - Report of Cash Balances
July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or
when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation. For tips on how to complete the Report of Cash Balances Form, see Cash Balance Tips Sheet
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance
Cash Balance Information for ROPS 15-16 Actuals
(07/01/15 - 06/30/16)
Item #Notes/Comments
7,8 Last interest and principal payments on bond
12 Represents additional funding required to meet terms of original DDA due to escalation in construction cost. Original funding is reflected on cash balances E1
70 Line 14 project management costs related to this obligation which exceeded the amount authorized on FY 15/16 ROPS
71 Line 14 project management costs related to this obligation which exceeded the amount authorized on FY 16/17 ROPS
72 Line 8 costs from FY 16/17 related to interest payments that were not requested in FY 16/17 in error
22,23,24
Funding was requested in prior years which should continue to reduce this obligation as they are expended. No additional funding is requested as the RPTTF is
currently retained until FY 16/17 and FY 17/18 PPAs
South San Francisco Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 18-19) - Notes July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019