|
subject of legal action and may need to be returned to the companies that paid the taxes. There is
<br /> a good likelihood that those funds will become available, however. If the lawsuits are ultimately
<br /> resolved unfavorably from the City's standpoint, staff will need to return to Council with a back-
<br /> up plan for funding the project. In the interim, design can begin, but the City will not sign a con-
<br /> struction contract until the funds are free to be used for this purpose.
<br />
<br /> Staff recommends going forward with Option B. Because the Option A building plan is likely to
<br /> be able to be paid entirely from City funds without bond funds, the City can proceed with this
<br /> facility at a minimum. If the council and the voters are interested in improving the project by
<br /> building a facility with more amenities and that meets more of the policy goals, then they can
<br /> participate by approving G.O. Bonds.
<br />
<br /> The following chart summarizes the proposed financing plan for each of the options.
<br />
<br /> Community Safety Building Financing Plan Options
<br /> Option A Option B Option C1 Option C2 Option D
<br />General Obligation Bonds -- $12,620,000 $22,050,000 $47,775,000 $70,820,000
<br />Limited Tax Bonds ........ 10,000,000
<br />Facility Reserve $11,223,000 11,395,000 11,394,000 2,109,000 11,394,000
<br />Telecommunications Funds
<br /> 1X$ from Settlements 10,200,000 10,200,000 10,200,000 0 10,200,000
<br />On-Going Telecom Funds 763,000 788,000 856,000 856,000 1,281,000
<br />ROW Revenues in General Fund 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 0 5,200,000
<br />Sale of Assets ........ 2,000,000
<br />Urban Renewal Agency Funds 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 --
<br />Interest Earnings on Cash Balances 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 500,000
<br />Other Miscellaneous Sources 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 75,000
<br />Totals $28,186,000 $41,753,000 $51,250,000 $51,490,000 $111,470,000
<br />
<br /> The specific items suggested for inclusion in the financing plan are described below.
<br />
<br /> General Obligation Bonds: Based on the City's adopted financial management goals and poli-
<br /> cies, voter-approved G.O. bonds would be an appropriate funding source for the projects. The
<br /> policies state that G.O. bonds are to be used for major capital construction or improvements in
<br /> support of general municipal services.
<br />
<br /> G.O. bonds must be approved by voters, and approval is subject to the double-majority provi-
<br /> sions of Measure 50. G.O. bonds are repaid with a property tax levy that is outside of Measure
<br /> 5's tax rate limits. The uses ofG. O. bonds are limited to construction expenses and may not be
<br /> used for certain other kinds of expenses, such as freestanding equipment, temporary relocation,
<br /> or moving costs.
<br />
<br /> The next election that is not subject to the double-majority is in November 2004. The City could
<br /> ask voters for approval to issue G.O. Bonds to fund a portion of the Civic Center Vision in order
<br /> to develop facilities that have more community amenities than what the City could afford solely
<br /> with internal funds.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|