HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 2 SPORTS COMPLEX FUNDINGDATE. DECEMBER 21, 1992
TO' HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE
FROM: WILLIAM A HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT SPORTS COMPLEX FUNDING
Pleasure of the City Council
BACKGROUND.
•OLD BUSINESS NO 2
12-21-92 30
q Inter -Com GSC1�?
CITY COUNCIL
The City Council directed that this item be placed on the agenda for a
discussion about what options are available to accelerate completion of
the Tustin Ranch Sports Complex To date, City Council policy direction
has been that the project would be constructed in two phases due to
funding limitations Design of the project has proceeded on the basis
that it would be completed in two phases The total projected cost is
four million dollars, with each phase costing approximately two million
dollars
The development agreement between the City and The Irvine Company for
Tustin Ranch provides for dedication of land for parks The City
Council had decided during its consideration of the Tustin Ranch
Specific Plan that land should be dedicated rather than cash in lieu of
land or a combination of cash and land Allowance was also made for
private parks It was known at that time that City parks in Tustin
Ranch would have to be improved on a cash basis (as the City accumulated
funds) and/or some form of debt financing The City Council considered
a report in February 1991 concerning options for funding park
improvements and decided against debt financing (a copy of the report is
attached)
The two neighborhood parks in Tustin Ranch have been improved using
development fees from Tustin Ranch residential projects A combination
of development fees and General Fund revenue has been accumulated for
Tustin Ranch community parks Most of the income in the Park
Development Fund reserved for future community parks has been
transferred from the General Fund
•
Sports Complex Funding
December 21, 1992
Page two
DISCUSSION.
•
Below are options available to the City Council for accelerating
completion of phase II of the sports complex project
1 The Park Development Fund has a projected June 30, 1993
balance of $2,285,245 Of this amount, 1 6 million dollars is
appropriated in the 1992-93 budget for the sports complex Of
the remaining balance, approximately $84,000 can only be
expended for park projects in proximity to the development
project that generated fees allocated to the Park Development
Fund These are non -Tustin Ranch residential projects and
State law precludes use of the $84,000 for the sports complex
Of the remaining $601,245 balance ($2,285,245 less $1,600,000
and $84,000), approximately $400,000 is needed for the phase
I sports complex improvements (leaving an available balance of
$201,245)
Current City Council policy requires that the New Development
Tax (levied on residential projects) be allocated to the Park
Development Fund In 1992-93, it is estimated that $175,600
in New Development Tax will be collected With the slow -down
in development activity, it is not expected that the amount of
New Development Tax collected in each of the next few fiscal
years will exceed the 1992-93 amount To date, New
Development Tax proceeds have been used to construct the two
neighborhood parks in Tustin Ranch
At best, it is projected that by the time the sports complex
is under construction, an additional $376,845 ($201,245
balance after allowing an additional $400,000 for
phase I improvements and including the 1993-94 estimated New
Development Tax) will be available in the Park Development
Fund There is also the possibility of an additional $200,000
from the Lyon Development project recently approved by the
City Council Receipt of these funds will depend upon the
start and phasing of the project
2 The General Fund has a projected June 30, 1993 fund balance of
$2,972,503 This amount is reserved by City Council policy
for cash flow requirements, interest earning and
contingencies/emergencies To reduce the General Fund balance
below this amount, especially given the economy and real
possibility that the State will take additional funds from the
City next year, would create potentially serious financial
problems for the City
C
Sports Complex Funding
December 21, 1992
Page three
C�
3 As indicated above, the City Council considered a report in
1991 which evaluated debt financing options as a means of
raising capital to complete parks identified in the City's
park master plan The City Council rejected any sort of a
bond issue Whether to pursue this approach is a policy
matter
4 The City's Capital Projects Fund has a projected June 30, 1993
balance of $2,934,309 Over the years, the City Council has
allocated General Fund operating revenue and/or balances not
required for operating expenses to the Capital Projects Fund
These monies are reserved for current and future projects
contained in the City's five year capital improvement plan
Historically, projects which cannot be funded from other
sources of revenue (water, redevelopment, gas tax, etc ) due
to legal or funding limitations, are budgeted in the Capital
Projects Fund This fund is important because it
restricts the use of funds for necessary future projects and
it helps give focus to the fact that capital improvement needs
exceed sources of available funding
The City Council could appropriate these funds for the sports
complex, however, it is important to keep in mind the
implications of this option
■ The City's ability to allocate and reserve funds for
capital improvement projects has been severely
affected by the loss of $1,065,000 per year in
operating income to the State There is every
reason to believe that additional General Fund
revenue will be lost to the State in 1993-94 and
perhaps beyond If Capital Projects Fund monies are
allocated for the sports complex, it will limit the
City's ability to complete needed future storm
drain, signal and street improvement projects
■ The City receives approximately $600,000 per year in
Proposition 111 and Measure M funds for street
construction and maintenance projects By law, the
City is obligated to meet a Maintenance of Effort
(MOE) test in order to receive these funds each
year The MOE is based on a formula which measures
how much money the City allocated from its General
Fund each year for street construction and
•
Sports Complex Funding
December 21, 1992
Page four
•
maintenance during a base year period Failure to
expend General Fund monies in an amount equal to the
MOE base year's calculation results in the loss of
Proposition 111 and/or Measure M funds
The City's flexibility in meeting future years
Proposition 111 and Measure M MOE requirements can
be greatly enhanced by maintaining the Capital
Projects Fund balance at as high a level as is
feasible This financial strategy is important
because of the possibility of losing additional
General Fund revenue to the State in 1993-94 and
beyond As revenue is lost to the State, the City's
ability to meet its MOE is strained because of the
trade-offs that must be made between dollars for
operations (police, fire, recreation, etc ) and
dollars for street -related capital improvement
projects It is possible that over the next few
years, Capital Projects Fund monies will be needed
to supplement General Fund revenue in order to meet
the Proposition 111 and Measure M MOE requirements
As indicated above, failure to do so would result in
the loss of up to $600,000 in annual revenue
Another consideration is that Capital Projects Fund
monies are a primary source available to the City
for matching Measure M and federal grant programs
Measure M funds beyond the City's annual entitlement
(subject to the MOE) will be available on a
competitive basis and with a matching requirement
It appears that federal funds will become available
for street projects with a matching requirement
For the City to take advantage of these programs, it
must have funds set aside to meet the matching
requirement
5 The Tustin Ranch Specific Plan and Development Agreement
provide the mechanisms for dedication of park sites in
Tustin Ranch As the plan and agreement were finalized
in 1986, the City and The Irvine Company agreed upon the
type, size and location of Tustin Ranch parks based upon
assumptions made in the 1980's When those decisions
were made, no one expected that a major recession would
•
Sports Complex Funding
December 21, 1992
Page five
WAH
Attachm nt
sprtscm.uah
•
occur in the 1990's and that City revenue would be taken
from the City by the State for the sole reason of
balancing the State budget These situations have
hampered the City's ability to fund the construction and
maintenance of new parks
The City has completed two neighborhood parks in Tustin
Ranch A third 3 0 -acre neighborhood park is designated
on Pioneer Way This park could potentially be 5 7 acres
if additional parkland must be dedicated to meet the
parkland/housing units ratio provided for in the Tustin
Ranch Specific Plan Whether the additional 2 7 acres
must be dedicated will depend upon how many housing units
are constructed in the remaining areas to be developed
At this point, it does not appear that the additional 2 7
acres will have to be dedicated because the actual number
of housing units constructed most likely will be less
than permitted by the Specific Plan In addition to the
sports complex, two other community level parks are
planned for Tustin Ranch; a 17 -acre park at Jamboree Road
and Portola Parkway and a 9 -acre park on Pioneer Way A
map showing these sites is attached
As a matter of policy, the City Council could decide to
forego the third neighborhood park or a portion of one of
two remaining community level parks The proceeds from
the sale of surplus park land could be allocated for
phase II of the sports complex and any remaining proceeds
could be designated for other future Tustin Ranch parks
If the City Council were interested in considering this
option, staff could prepare a report which describes the
approaches to this option There are procedural and
legal issues to resolve, but the concept of utilizing one
City asset to improve another higher priority asset is
feasible
The list of options are not mutually exclusive The City
Council could decide to use a combination of those
options which it decides are viable
U
9 ACRE
PICNIC/
NATURE
CENTER
3 ACRE
EL CAMINO
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
•
3 Acre - Future
2 7 Acre -
Reservation site
(will only be
dedicated to City
if needed per the
ETSP)
17 ACRE
CULTURAL
ARTS CENTER
EAST TUSTIN
PARK SITES
Q PROPOSED
NEIGHBORHOOD
® COMPLETED
NEIGHBORHOOD
® PROPOSED
COMMUNITY
20 ACRE SPORTS PARK
3 ACRE - LAUREL GLEN
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
•
CITY OF TUSTIN
PARK PROJECTS
FINANCING REPORT
Prepared by•
•
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NOBRIGA, INC.
Bond Management Services
for
Public Agencies
February 4, 1991
9
N
9
CITY OF TUSTIN
PARK PROJECTS
FINANCING REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
3
A. Summary of Project Costs
3
B. Description of Projects
3
C. Summary of Project Maintenance Costs
3
4 REVENUE SOURCES
7
A. New Construction Tax
7
B. Redevelopment
7
5 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
8
A. General Obligation Bonds
8
B. Excise Tax (Certificates of Participation)
8
C. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
9
D Mello -Roos
9
E. Comparison of Financing Alternatives
11
6. SUMMARY OF TAX IMPACTS
12
APPENDIX I - Park Projects and Maintenance Cash Flow Worksheets
13
APPENDIX 2 - General Obligation Bond Worksheet
16
APPENDIX 3 - Certificates of Participation (Excise Tax) Worksheet
20
APPENDIX 4 - Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Assessment Worksheet
25
APPENDIX 5 - Mello -Roos Special Tax Worksheet
27
APPENDIX 6 - Phasing Opportunities
29
I INTRODUCTION
The City of Tustin faces the challenge of providing expanded recreation services and park
facilities to a growing number of residents Through the adoption of the Recreation Element in
1984 and the East Tustin Specific Plan in 1986, the Council approved the design concepts for
each of the major community parks in Tustin Ranch and adopted goals and priorities for the
remainder of the City.
Although some of the major community park projects previously identified have been
completed a significant portion remain unfunded as a result of the limited financial resources
available
As a result the purpose of this plan is to assist the City of Tustin in identifying potential
methods of financing these facilities and to develop a financial strategy This plan includes
identification of potential revenue sources, description of proposed methods to finance the
facilities, and schedule of anticipated expenditures, for both construction and acquisition costs
The plan focuses on the following, specific objectives
r
Developing a financing strategy,
- Recommending a financing plan that is both financially feasible and politically
acceptable,
- Developing a plan that is equitable to the current and future residents of Tustin
To develop the financing plan for the park improvements and to assess their financial
impact, Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc ("KNN") performed the following tasks
1 Interviewed City staff to determine available data, policy guidelines, revenue
sources, anticipated expenditures and desired project schedules
2 Review City documentation such as the annual budget, financial statements and
previous staff reports related to the park projects
i
3 Developed computer model projections of capital and operating costs and
associated revenues, projected revenues and related fiscal impacts
During the preparation of this study, City personnel worked closely with KNN in
obtaining the necessary background information, financial data, and providing materials required
in the preparation of this report Special acknowledgements go to Royleen White, Susan Jones
and Ron Nault
F
} 1
•
II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
The City of Tustin, in its goal of providing a responsive recreational services program,
has identified eight specific capital improvement projects to be completed by the year 2000 at
a projected cost of approximately $26.5 million. Although the City has identified a limited
amount of revenue sources to partially fund these improvements, the majority of the
improvements cannot be funded with existing financing resources.
The purpose of this study is to assist the City in determining a financing solution which
ensures timely completion of the projects in a manner which protects the financial stability of
the City
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
A. Findings
1 The estimated costs of the parks improvements, assuming completion of
such improvements over the 10 year period ending 2000, is estimated to
be $26.5 million, including inflationary increases assumed at 5 % annually
The total of estimated revenues available from identified sources, is $5.5
million.
2. The estimated costs for maintenance of all completed projects is estimated
to be $33 million, including inflationary increases assumed at 5%
j annually
( 3. To fund the capital costs of the projects on a pay-as-you-go method would
require an annual appropriation from the General Fund of approximately
$2.4 million annually for the next 9 years. Additionally, the annual
maintenance expenses would require a General fund appropriation, on
average, of $1 million annually
4 To finance the project through the issuance of Certificates of Participation
and appropriating for annual debt service payments would require an
estimated, annual General Fund appropriation of $1 6 million through
2023.
The City can fund the improvements, net of cash resources available, by
utilizing either General Obligation Bonds, Excise Tax, or Mello -Roos
Bonds, all of which require voter approval, or Landscaping and Lighting
District Bonds which we recommend have voter approval. However in
each case, a new revenue source is developed and dedicated for project
financing, therebyprotecting the City's General Fund.
6. Issuing securities supported by the tax revenues created by the Excise Tax
would provide a vehicle for funding the maintenance expenses as well.
2
B. Recommendations
1 The City pursue placing a tax measure before the voters.
2. Preliminary to the election we strongly recommend that the City
commission a voter opinion survey to determine taxpayer support for the
projects and levels of taxation for which a majority vote could be attained.
The voter opinion survey represents an effective method of obtaining the
level of voter support for both the types of projects being recommended
and tax threshold which would provide for a successful election.
Typically the cost for such a survey is $15,000 and the entire process
takes approximately 60 days. The process includes developing a list of
questions relating to each project contemplated, estimated costs and
providing a range of tax thresholds. A telephone survey of a statistical
sampling of registered voters would then be conducted and survey results
would be provided within 4 weeks. The survey results would indicate
those projects which would likely receive the required level of voter
support and the amount of tax which would be supported.
This data would then be used in developing the contents of the actual
ballot measure and campaign strategy
3 Based upon the results of the voter survey, KNN and the City to
implement a financing plan, which is responsive to the results of the
survey
4 The City encourage the establishment of citizens' committees and a public
relations campaign to assist in passing a tax measure.
5 The City adopt a policy to commit future revenues from the New
Construction Tax and receive a commitment from the Redevelopment
Agency for funding of the Columbus -Tustin Gymnasium project.
6. The other financing alternatives evaluated are not being recommended
because of either (1) the requirement for a two-thirds voter approval
and/or (2) the significant financial impact upon the City's General Fund.
These issues are more fully reviewed in Section V, Financing
Alternatives.
7 Although assumptions used with respect to project costs, interest rates and
residential construction activity, all of which are factors contributing to the
ultimate tax rate impacts contained in this report, were developed on a
conservative basis, please recognize that a prolonged economic downturn,
along with possible pressure for higher State and Federal taxes, will
certainly have a negative impact upon both the estimated amount of taxes
reflected in this report and voter attitudes toward approving tax measures
in general.
III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Summary
The estimated cost of each improvement is shown below These costs and project
schedules represent the inflated costs at the time of the expected expenditure
Protect Proiect Period Future Cost (1)
Gymnasium & Athletic Complex
Community Center
Picnic Area/Nature Center
Youth Facility
Columbus -Tustin Gymnasium
Neighborhood Park 1/12763
Neighborhood Park #13627
Site Acquisition -Tustin S D
(1) Assumes 5% annual inflation
B Description of Projects
Community Parks
1989- 1996
$ 6,752,686
1994 - 1998
5,602,746
1992 - 1995
884,889
1998- 2000
3,785,979
1993 - 1995
2,373,131
1990/91
400,000
1994/95
790,658
2000
5.429.649
Total Costs $26.018.731
Three community parks are planned for all Tustin residents The focus for each of these
parks has been identified in the Recreation Element which was adopted by the Tustin City
Council in November 1984 When completed, these parks will provide the community with a
high intensity sports complex, a community arts complex, and a picnic/nature facility
To provide parks consistent with the community's needs, a Citizen s Task Force will be
assembled to provide design input for each park Possible park features include
Gymnasium and Athletic Complex The 20 acre Gymnasium and Athletic Complex is to
be located on Jamboree Road and Robinson Drive Proposed features may include lighted
softball/soccer fields, tennis courts, a gymnasium, multipurpose court, or racquetball courts
The design of this park has been funded in the 1990/91 Capital Improvement Budget, but is
temporarily on hold pending the funding for the construction
Community Cerner The Community Center Complex, 17 acres located at Jamboree and
Portola Parkway, may feature a 20,000 square foot multipurpose/cultural arts facility and open
space This park site features a knoll with citrus groves which, consistent with the East Tusun
Plan, will be preserved
Picnic Area/Nature Cerner A 9 acre, Picnic Area/Nature Facility is to be located on
Pioneer Way in the northern area of the Tustin Ranch The proposed amenities may include
large group picnic facilities and a 5,000 square foot nature/community center This park
features an unusually large stand of redwood and cedar trees. This unique stand of 500 trees
has been preserved and is also protected by the Fast Tustin Specific Plan.
Each park will contain adequate parking and restroom facilities for the large number of
participants expected to use them.
Columbus Tustin Gymnasium
According to the adopted Master Plan, Columbus Tustin's final phase of development
will be the construction of a gymnasium. The planned building includes a 10,000 square foot
activity gymnasium, 2 team locker facility, a large storage space (about 600 square feet), a 200
square foot mat room, restroom facilities for participants and spectators and a small office with
some space for storing equipment.
All other support facilities such as expanded parking facilities and a landscaped
picnic/play areas will be completed by Summer 1991 in Phase2A of the development.
NeiEhborhood Parks
Two additional neighborhood parks are planned for the enjoyment of Tustin Ranch
residents. The Tustin City Council has committed to fund these parks with the New
Construction Tax generated by development in the Tustin Ranch.
Neighborhood Park #12763. A three acre passive park located on Heritage and Myford
is funded in the 1990/91 Capital Improvement Budget. This park was designed with input from
a Neighborhood Task Force and is currently in working drawings. Construction should be
completed by March 1992.
Neighborhood Park #13627 The final neighborhood park is located on Pioneer Way in
the northern area of the Tustin Ranch. This 5 7 acre passive park, although funded, has not
been scheduled for design. Development of this park will be integrated with the completion of
roads and occupied housing. Tentatively, that could be 1994
Youth Facility
Currently the City leases 6,000 square feet of class room space at Lambert School from
Tustin Unified School District for youth programs, such as day camp, child care, and other
children's programs. Since the lease is renewed annually, the possibility exists that the City
could forfeit the use of the space due to increased enrollment at this school.
Should the opportunity arise, the City may want to purchase a surplus school site as a
permanent home for youth programs. This funding would be used for the acquisition and
renovation of the site.
Acquisition and Renovation of Tustin Unified School Buildine
In 1987, the Tustin Unified School District declared the Administrative Office Building
surplus. The building is located at 200 South "C" Street, adjoining Peppertree Park and the
Tustin Area Senior Center The School District has been notified of the City's interest in
acquiring the property
E
Cost estimates for use of the site as a recreation and community facility include
acquisition and renovation of the 2 acre site including 19,000 square feet of building space The
building would provide an ideal complement to the adjacent Tustin Area Senior Center and the
nearby Clifton C Miller Community Center
C Project Maintenance Costs
Projected Annual
Unit of
Annual
Proiect Maintenance
Costs())
Measurement
Cost P/Unit
Gymnasium/
Athletic Complex
$155,000
17 acres
$9,118/acre
Community Center
80,000
5 acres
3,900/acre
Picnic Area/Nature Center
72,000
9 acres
8,000/acre
Youth Facility
9,060
6,000 sq ft
1 51/sq ft
Columbus/Tustin Gymnasium
55,000
15,000 sq ft
367/sq ft
Neighborhood Park /112763
24,000
3 acres
8,000/acre
Neighborhood Park #13627
25,600
5 7 acres
8,000/acre
Site Acquisition -
Tustin School District
28,690
19,000 sq ft
1 51/sq ft
(1)Current dollars
N
IV REVENUE SOURCES
General Fund revenue is committed to provide recurring maintenance and operational
costs for current parks and is unable to fund the park projects which have been identified.
Special funds and other revenue sources are either inadequate or appropriated for other purposes.
To provide revenues to pay for the parks improvements, the City has the following
revenue streams which will provide funding:
A. New Construction Tax
The City currently levies a construction tax within the Tustin Ranch development area
which is due and payable prior to the issuances of building permits for the construction of any
residential, commercial, or industrial unit. Pursuant to the agreement with The Irvine Company,
the revenues collected must be expended on projects within the Tustin Ranch area. Currently,
the City commits a portion of the revenues to fund vehicle and equipment related to the services
being provided in this area and has funded the construction of a neighborhood park.
A projection of the amount of revenues from this tax, based upon assumed construction
activity, indicates that approximately $2.7 million of additional, net revenue allocated for park
projects.
B. Redevelopment
The City established a redevelopment agency in 1976. The original project area was
identified as the Town Center Project Area. The original plan was amended in 1983 to include
another project area, South Central.
Under Redevelopment Law expenditures of tax increment are restricted to either public
projects within the redevelopment plan area or projects which, if not within the plan area, must
have a demonstrable benefit to such plan area.
As a result, the only park project which conforms to these requirements is the Columbus -
Tustin Gymnasium. Given the various projects which will be funded by the Redevelopment
Agency it is assumed that 100% of the total project cost be funded from this source.
Revenue Summary
Source Projected Revenues 1990 - 2000
New Construction Tax $2,731,218
Share of Tax Increment 2.823.000
Total 5 554.218
V. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Prior to implementing any of the following alternatives, the City should commission a
voter survey to determine taxpayer support for the projects and levels of taxation for which the
required threshold of voter approval could be obtained This data would ultimately be used as
the basis for determining the financing plan and strategy to be undertaken
A General Obligation Bonds
This alternative would require the City to place before the voters a ballot measure and,
subject to a 2/3rd approval of the voters, issuing approximately $21 million of General
Obligation Bonds in 4 series to fund the project cash deficit
Based upon our assumptions of future growth in assessed valuation and projected interest
rates, the average, additional annual tax increase to the owner of a property assessed at $ I00,000
would be approximately $22 per year, for 30 years
The mayor disadvantages of this alternative are
Requirement for 2/3rds affirmative votes
Proceeds of the bonds can only be spent for acquisition of real property and
improvements to real property
Therefore any expenses for furniture and equipment and for ongoing maintenance and
operations would place an additional burden on the General Fund
B Excise Tax (Certificates of Participation)
This alternative would require the City to place before the voters a ballot measure and,
subject to a majority approval of the voters, would provide the City a revenue stream sufficient
to issue and amortize a series of Certificates of Participation sufficient to fund the projected
deficit and to fund the associated maintenance and operations expenses
4
Issuance of the CON requires the City to form either a non-profit corporation or a
financing authority, each created by the City Council with councilmembers serving as members
of the entity The City and the entity enter into a lease agreement whereby the City agrees to
lease purchase the park improvements for a period of 20 - 25 years Funding for the
improvements is provided through the issuance of Certificates of Participation, which are
structured and marketed in the same manner as a municipal bond, and are secured by the semi-
annual lease payments made by the City to the leasing entity, pursuant to the lease agreement
The City's lease obligation represents a requirement for the City to annually appropriate
for its lease payments from any source of funds legally available (i e , excise tax) to pay its
obligations
91
Based upon our assumptions the estimated tax impact upon residents and businesses
within the City are as follows:
Single -Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential
Businesses
Hotel/Motel
Funding of
Capital Cost & M&O
$115/year
$115/year
20% surcharge of
annual Bus. License tax
2% surcharge of the
annual transient
occupancy tax
C. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
Funding of
Capital Cost Only.
$75/year
$75/year
20% surcharge of
annual Bus. License tax
2% surcharge of the
annual transient
occupancy tax
This act provides ample authority for the City to establish a city-wide special assessment
district to acquire, improve and maintain the park projects. While the formation process does
not legally require an election, rather a protect hearing conducted by the City Council for all
affected property owners, we would recommend that the Council place an advisory measure at
a future election date as a method of evaluating community support for the improvements.
Should the advisory measure receive majority voter approval we would then recommend
that a formal public hearing be conducted to confirm and levy the assessments.
By virtue of the success of the advisory measure the Council would be in a stronger
political position to conduct the hearing.
The very preliminary average estimated amounts of annual assessments are shown in
Appendix 5 of this Financing Report. The amounts shown in Column 4 (Total Debt Service Per
Parcel) top out at $175 per year starting in 2001, and the amounts shown in Column 7 (Total
Debt Service plus Maintenance and Operation) top out at $310 in 2018.
The assumptions which underlie these figures are shown in the footnotes to Table i
Among them are the numbers of parcels in the City which are projected out only through 1995
To the extent that more parcels are created after the 1995 the average annual assessments will
decrease.
It must be noted that these parcel amounts are averages only Actual per parcel amounts
will be determined only after a more sophisticated evaluation is made by an assessment engineer
and will be levied on the basis of relative benefits of the proposed improvements to the assessed
parcels.
D Mello -Roos Bonds
This alternative would require the City to place before the voters a ballot measure and,
subject to a two-thirds approval of the voters, would provide the City the opportunity to fund
both the improvements and the related operations and maintenance expenses.
E
Again, these figures are averages only Actual amounts will be dependent upon a tax
formula (Rate and Method of Apportionment) to be devised which will probably take into
account the development status, actual and potential, of all parcels to be specially taxed
Tax Collection Process
The County would provide tax collection services for General Obligation Bonds, the
residential portion of the Excise Tax, the annual assessments for the Landscaping and Lighting
District and for the Mello -Roos alternatives
The Excise Tax for commercial and hotel/motel establishments would be collected
through the City's current license fee collection system
10
E.
VOTER
REQUIREMENT
SECURITY
ELIGIBLE
FACILITIES
MAXWUM
BOND TERM
COST
COMPARISON
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
u
A Comparison of Financing Alternatives
GENERAL
OBLIGATION
BONDS
2/3 of votes tact
Ad valorem property
tax
Acquisition or
improvements to land
or facilities; acquisition
of permanent
furnishings
25 years
Lowest cost
Simple, inexpensive,
familiar to voters
City-wide tax burden,
district -wide vote,
limited eligible
facilities; cannot fund
maintenance/operating
expense
EXCISE TAX
(COP)
Majority vote
Tax based on any
reasonable method
except assessed value
Proceeds can be spent
for any community-
wide capital
improvement or
opera t i ng/maintenance
expense
30 years
•
LANDSCAPING
& LIGHTING
ACT OF 1972
None Council
conducts protest
hearing of property
owners
First lien on all taxable
property within district
Acquisition of park
land, improvements
and maintenance and
operations expense
30 years
MELLO-ROOS
ACT BONDS
2/3 of votes cast within
the proposed district
Tax (from property
lien) based on any
reasonable method
except assessed value
Acquisition of land,
construction of
facilities and
acquisition of
equipment which must
have a minimum useful
life of 5 years;
operation and
maintenance of related
park improvements
40 years
10% higher cost, less 15% higher cost than 10% higher cost, less
efficient GO efficient
Flexible can be
tailored to voters,
requires majority vote
only ability to fund
maintenance/operating
expense
Projects must be of
community -wide use
and benefit
11
Assessment must relate
to benefit received by
property owners;
ability to fund M & O
Expense; long lead
time required
Flexible can be
tailored to voters,
variety of eligible
facilities
Long lead time
required, expensive,
unfamiliar to voters
and additional costs of
formation and
administration
N
n
W) v-� vi
v .a
N N N
NVi NN
•
rrr
M C4 c1
� N N �
rrr
��CN
� N �
='cng
�^ o
zzz on
O
.!� U O
R
��
=
�E`?
a�
m
CU=
G
=U=
o
<F
U
U
Z
12
•
13
F
R
R
25
-
-
'
-
-
a
_
-
+ o
-
—
G ^
A
^
Q^
GG
U Z
W
O Z
W
F• C�
<
z
u� � u = < ' =
Z
5
Z
T W
%
yt<1 Jp
13
6
"
E22.■=� \
_■�!=!� [
■;lE�!! §
!
ATA ! !
C:
"
E22.■=� \
!
ATA ! !
C:
14
8
�1
a
15
axe«� Rll_
R
8�_S.R gIS
�
RX�«`R Flo
S 885R?��^
e
8
R
BRRSRSryI-
e
AF.
grXS FIS
A
«�_S a�9
'
a18
8
8
e
Q
FRS..
"s
soe'
�
�-
15
1 • •
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Background
A City may submit to the voters a ballot measure authorizing the sale of general
obligation bonds secured by an increase in the ad valorem property tax The ballot measure
must be approved by a two-thirds vote Proposition 46, which was approved in the June 1986
election, amended Article XIIIA of the California Constitution so that general obligation bonds
could again he authorized
Use of Funds
The proceeds of general obligation bonds may be used to
il) Purchase real property,
2) Build or purchase public facilities,
3) Permanently improve real property,
4) Make alterations or additions to buildings other than for maintenance or
repairs,
5) Repair, restore or rebuild buildings damaged or destroyed by fire or other
} public calamity,
j 6) Acquire furniture, equipment or necessary apparatus of a permanent
nature,
7) Construct sewers and drains
t
1
16
\
�
0
11
g
�!»+
\
;-
%�
\
}
\
g
�!»+
f$ \
;-
%�
g
V
MQg
M M`
R
!„✓
O
n
o
M M R
r
e
gg gg
1w”
o
oO
d
O O
O O O O
O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O O
O O O O O
O O
`
F
M R
M M M
Y M±
M M
R
M R
R P
O a
d w
^
_
O
O O
b
o
o
O
O
O
O O O
O O
O O O
O O
O O O
O O O O O
O
N
e i
3"s,`s"cc
s
s
Y
~
n
n
_
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
O
o c o
c o o c e
!O
o
0 0
G
>
a o
?
o
< a
c
u
y
N
O
a
W
F
W
t
p„
-�
ti
F
fiT
n n n
., n
.....
n .,
n
q
F
V
o
_
R_
5t
<
-
C
C�
•
e
W
W
p
P
W
p C
Q
d
O
U
'z
~ ~
- g
8
•
e s
6
o
a o
0
o e o
.
o. o.
0 0 0 0.
0 o e e o
a o8' 08
J �
0
Background
EXCISE TAX
E
A City may submit to the voters a ballot measure proposing the imposition of an excise
tax for the availability and privilege of use of certain public facilities which are available for the
use and enjoyment of the entire community
The tax can be levied on any reasonable basis except on an ad valorem basis and requires
a simple majority vote for approval Collection of the tax is typically integrated with a utility
billing system and the business license fee billing system
0
Funding the projects from this revenue source involves the issuance of Certificates of
Participation Annual repayment of the Certificates of Participation is made from the revenues
derived from the collection of the Excise Tax
Uses of Funds
Excise Tax proceeds can be used to finance, operate and/or maintain any public facility
or improvement available for community -wide use, such as
1)
Parks,
2)
Libranes,
3)
Streets,
4)
City Hall, and
5)
Recreational facilities
20
21
m
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
des:-
tsaa ^s�A - :r
�mn�nnnnnnnnm
-f
e<
<
i
F
e
u
W
�
'
y"y
Qp QQ QQ QQ QQ Qp yy Q pQ p QQ pQ Q p Q p Q p Qp QQ Q QQ 55�� QQ QQ QQ Qq pp QQ QQ pp�
J
i
�
w w w w w µ w w w w
w O O O
O O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
T
6
Q
�
W o
m A n. m m m 1
J
M
z
o e o o e o o e o 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 o e 0 0
"^
P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 R
o�
�:' a F i
G e
y.
........._ ....,..._.............._...
e o ... o e o e o 0. o e o ... 0 0 0000 o
C Y o
F
-m-----m
rrrrrrrrrr
��rrrrnrnr
L66
w
^r.r�
rrr---r ��
_'
rr r- r���mr�r
6� cc
Y_k
o 0000 0000. o e o e o. 0 0 0 0 0 0.. .. o e o o
s §
m_
e - ^ - - - - - " - -
L
U.
n n n n n n n n n n
21
(I I Arrw fm rs at COP ... 1rm 1% 191111 1411.11 SISJ milL-
(21 1x..1- Oawr rru..l.l pr rK C r 1� �6`•'^16••1• a .++1+1
(71 b i - werWlu- wrpl W
22
!
CT OF TUSRN CASH MOW
!
PARI(
FINANCING
E%CLOOCS
M&O COSTS
1FAR END
PERIOD
DEBT
INVESTMENT
SURPLUS
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE
ENDING
REVENUES
suyl L (II
"AD (21
EARNINGS OI
IDEFICIT)
CONTIGENC),
CONTIGENCY
30-Dr92
596,900
0
0
14,520
611.320
611,220
611.320
30-103-9)
612,973
D
0
311.050
631025
1269,30
31 2Lm-93
612,913
0
0
34 IU
671 160
1 939,305
1 9)9,503
30-1- 94
719,09
0
0
92.16.
902.041
2 141 $16
31 069-"
719,1"
17,396
0
102..1)
611.15)
3970.49
3.420.439
304- 95
719.172
211.396
0
171 NO
62'.566
6,00.009
31 D,95
119,972
161 419
0
14.9)2
721 3115
4 7".193
4 766.393
30-Iw-96
719913
221919
0
162770
661262
31623,613
310.x96
719912
316,0+6
0
II, I10
511993
5.937630
59)7.630
30-1- 97
719 953
"1 0"
0
117.316
106,223
6,293.173
31 D 7
719.933
379,656
0
20),61)
U3 403
6 717 116
6197776
30-I.-911
719.996
606.6116
0
211,694
31..110
7 116.316
31 D191
719 996
439,230
0
273 163
691,911
7,603.991
7,605.997
301. 99
770,011
144,210
0
236 473
210.264
7,613 761
31 D:99
720.091
930.130
0
230.060
119,371
1.133.332
9,333.332
30-1. 2000
720,091
745.130
0
237,DD7
UI S"
1.366.996
)1 a-2000
"0,097
719990
0
262191
192.996
1159.190
9759,290
30-1- 2001
720,113
1 284.190
0
733 01
(3II 797)
6.91).393
31 17,7001
720 135
716.693
0
239,609
205,032
9.633.6"
1,653,646
30 -IW )007
720 126
1 299,693
0
249 716
(729 7911
1.323.851
31 012002
"0.196
751.265
0
236,261
219 112
9.542.036
9,542,03d
30-3- 2003
"0114
1.311.263
0
20.691
(112.3361
9 INV 701
31 Dc2003
720,219
760.600
0
232.666
232.301
11,421201
1,622,203
30-1- 209
720,292
1.340,900
0
261 307
1315.1061
1.043,399
31 Da -2001
720.'92
720.960
0
24N 7"
245,077
1,291,176
1,291 416
30-1--2001
720.369
1.360.960
0
736,623
(40].916)
7,191 490
31 Dc -]003
720,349
699 910
0
2.,173
265,014
1132,304
9 152.309
34-1. 2006
"4402
1.374,910
0
231 497
(422,6031
7729,1199
31 1) 2006
720.403
677,365
0
790,900
20,.)
1.013,34
1.013,342
301. 7007
T)D,69
1,397,365
0
22d 900
("9,990
7-363,3.
31 Dw-.147
710.469
412.960
0
236,006
303,313
7,966,161
7.866,161
30.1--2001
720.333
1.427.960
0
221 476
..56,0011
7,110,560
31 a-2009
720,333
626.333
0
271 137
325,119
7 106,247
7704.247
30.3- I0D9
770.399
1 9",333
0
213.007
(31511,11411
7 1".405
)1 Dm 2009
"Q $99
397193
0
126.167
N9 174
7.A5,590
T,AS.J40
30-1- 7010
720,661
1 117 791
0
ION 79,
(552.3271
6,993.232
31 Dc -2010
?24444
566 715
0
221.01)
313.000
7,36X,233
7,)61,233
J J. 2011
720 739
1,311 713
0
203,471
..117,5531
6 710.6911
31 Deo -3011
720.739
13]194
0
213.31)
403,059
71137"
1191756
)0-). 7(112
720,414
1.539 194
0
196.3911
(620,"2)
6,361,273
31 0. 7017
770.114
497,])9
0
209,,9V
03,319
6 996.649
6,996.649
30-1- 2013
720.991
1 392,))9
0
119 744
(671 699)
6,374.95O
31 0.9-7013
120.991
.311,260
0
203 740
166,171
6 "1 321
6 "1.321
34-1- 2014
720.9"
1 619.260
0
112.290
1714,999)
6,010.322
31 Da9.2014
720,9"
416,310
0
191.3A,
501 910
6,311,267
6.519.262
30-1- 7013
721.033
11641,380
0
174,369
(763 935)
3.912.306
31 Or7015
711.035
371 114
0
10,395
340,521
6.332.129
6,352,229
30-1- 2016
721 10
1 711 lit
0
163,961
(824 11)1
3,328 716
31 D 2016
72110
]22.40]
0
19).32)
1111063
6110"9
61(0,770
30-1- 2017
721 133
1 732.403
0
UT 101
(1179,0691
3.236 711
31 0-2017
721 233
110.136
0
173 912
621.003
3,663 720
3,63 720
30-16 2019
721 127
1 793,330
0
15 129
(920.094)
4 937.626
31 Dc -2011
721,327
213,174
0
1611 364
674.519
3.157.1"
3.612 1.
30-1. 2019
720 799
1 503.174
0
19 312
(633.073)
9,973,010
31 D9 1019
720 7119
167,911
0
171 024
715,907
S 700.9"
3 700,9"
30.1- 2020
720,361
1,520.,08
0
151 563
(649.1161
3.032 101
31 Dr7020
720,011
119.699
0
174,124
"59911
3,227.599
3.177. 599
30-1-2021
720,030
974.699
0
172,359
(92,2991
370,301
31 Dec 2021
"0,N0
28,277
0
197 22V
121.00)
6.374.296
6.374,294
50-1- 2022
719 791
M.024
0
194.692
(14,34)
6..9 741
31 Ds 2022
719 793
33,292
0
721 265
191 769
7,173.115
7,311.515
30-1- ID73
719.125
920.792
D
274 994
179.29,
7909,133
31 Om -2013
719,513
71 164
D
253.36,
945 715
1 .3.393
1 145.399
30-1116 2074
359,991
211.369
0
241.077
(211 331)
9.23..24
31 Dec 2024
319991
0
0
163.501
625 702
9.660.039
1.860.039
4 769,337
49 726.91
0
12.177 223
1.1160.030
(I I Arrw fm rs at COP ... 1rm 1% 191111 1411.11 SISJ milL-
(21 1x..1- Oawr rru..l.l pr rK C r 1� �6`•'^16••1• a .++1+1
(71 b i - werWlu- wrpl W
22
z i k • « « « - « - - « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « =
- w -
tl
��IeS_ �=��g�RSSR& R€88888,0'08^ -
�= ry r n r n n ry n n n n n ry ,. ry n n n n n ry n ry n r ry n n r ry n_
a_ ry n ry n ry n n r ry ry n n n n n n ♦. n .. n n n rv__
K2 (uJ/ ` 8•
F O }O Z
tl
u
2 h Qp QQ pp yQ QQ Q QQ pp pQ Q QQ QQ Q pQ pQ pp gq pp Qq QQ Q pQ gq qs Qq pQ Q QY pQ QQ pp
F Z� ry ry n n n n ry n n r n n r n ry n n ry n n n r ry n ry ry n n ry n ry n
L W
J tl
m
0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o O o
iC Z
Y O
Z W � ✓� _ � P & g & & g & & �` P g g P P � a � P � s o � & P s� I
F�O
� {_y < n �n n .+ +� n n v� n n n w •� +� n n n �+ n n n n n n n n n �+ ++ w �n n
6
n J _
n _ _ _
:. .'i �-n :� w n r :� :� :. .. n n n .. n n
w z 2 J
Zn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
D < . e
�= easseeassssss:m>aa " aaaa>oaaasa
8 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 A. 8 8 8 B 8 8
n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J o o e e e o e e.. o e e. e o e e e e e e e e o.. e o
O Z
j o 0t o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s ... z..... e. e.
z
���rnnn�n.-.-nnnnnnrnrrr�rnnr,-�rnnnn
.. a 0000 e o o e e o o e o.. 0 0 0 0 0 0
G n -
> < J r
u
nrrrrvn�annnrnnn
c
23
i
i
R
S
S ,
. 1
(1) A6..s I~ 6e.. of COP. .916 (Lae 1992 1995 9WIaS S'3A m ll -
(2) B.a6 . RSw. 149^6e6 by W Ga) (.x 6a nr 16cnd Ws)
(3) 6 S . a.ul64ve evrpl.
24
•
CRY OF TUSRN CASH 910%
•
PARK FINANCING
INCLUDES M60 COSR
Y&Ut END
PERIOD
DEBT
INVESTMCNT
SURPLUS
CUMUI.STIVE
CUMUTAT
ENDING
REVENUES
SF3t VICE (1)
MAO (11
EARNINGS (31
(DEFICIFJ
COATIGENCY
CONTIGENCY
30-Do92
901.960
0
14,100
27,669
922.301
922,301
922,301
301). 93
930,675
0
21 172
56 668
939.971
1 812,272
31 Dc93
930.673
0
27 ITS
16 159
989 661
I.171 932
1.171 932
30-1.-94
1.092.969
0
71.536
120 197
1 IX"O
6.006,372
31 D194
1.092,969
163.396
71.526
150,861
1,071 691
5.028,370
3.028.270
30-1. 95
1 093,007
311.596
169 791
177 306
881 928
5.910,198
31 Do95
1 093.007
161 619
169 791
206 969
998 766
6.898 966
6.898 966
30-1. 96
1 33.047
231 619
231.609
232 956
166 173
7 763 116
31 Dec -96
1,093.047
386.04
238.609
366,631
721263
5.688.379
1,688.379
)o-1. 97
1093.011
601066
210.631
169,381
690.992
1.919,371
31 0x-97
1 093.018
379.64
270 631
291 613
734.346
9 713 757
9 713 757
30-1. 95
1,093.131
606,686
289,581
306.576
505.662
10.319 199
31 0x-91
1 093 131
659.250
229,331
326 706
611.006
10,890.205
10.190.105
30-1. 99
1 093 176
7.,230
107 607
336.55
319 616
11 169.819
31 De "
1,093 176
650,530
)07,601
351 919
696 159
11 963.977
11 963.977
30-1. 3000
1 093.222
765.330
34.365
369 996
369 161
13.333 119
31 D 7000
1 093,223
719.890
W.545
320.038
316.826
13.667 9.
12.6619.
30-1.2001
1093.370
1184,40
365.972
376,547
(183.0.1
12.46900
31 0x-2001
1 093.270
716.693
365,912
384.665
337 271
12.822 171
12.822.171
30-1. 2002
1093.331
1 299.693
384,770
371,295
(217.311)
12.609,/26
31 Dc2002
1,093.321
752.265
381210
398.413
339,258
12.969 081
12.969.081
30-1. 3003
1 093,373
1 318,765
63.496
381 053
1247 3731
12 701 758
31 D 203
1093.373
]60100
603.686
391276
360765
13.062,523
13.012.523
)o-1. 2006
1 093 627
1.340 600
423.659
312,636
(227 995)
13 756.322
31 Dec 2004
1,093,47
710.960
423,658
392.827
311 696
13.096.224
13.096.234
30 J. 7003
1 093.41
1 360.960
3.841
383,007
(329 310)
12 766 914
M Dm 1005
1,093.44
699,910
.,161
393.267
34,000
13 13.915
13 1011.915
30-1. 2006
1.093,343
1.374.910
467,33
312,282
(366 161)
12 712 747
31 0x-203
1093.543
67.365
47.0113
392.531
341626
13.966,373
13.04.373
30-1. 1007
1 093.604
1.397,365
490.417
310 108
(614.090)
11,670,783
31 Dm 2007
1.093.601
652.960
690.47
390,326
340.331
13.010.214
13.010.114
30-1. 2008
1.093,661
1,427 960
516.959
376 131
(173 121)
13.137.693
31 0x1203
1 093.65
636.333
314.959
316,291
331.667
13.876.360
12.116,360
30-1. 2009
1.093 736
1.446.333
3,0701
370,610
(5m.696)
13.353.6.
31 De 2009
1 093 736
597 793
$60 707
320.681
335,921
13.689.586
12.689,516
30-1. 3010
1 093.803
1 42 793
567 763
362,877
(593.161)
13.093 725
31 0x-2010
1 093.803
566 715
56774
372.137
332,191
13127,908
12.411,908
30-1.2011
1.093.876
1.511715
596.130
333,008
(660.962)
11166.94
31 D-201)
1 093.976
333194
596130
362.530
331.381
13.91336
12.094.376
30-1. 2012
1.093 949
1 532.196
615.936
340.953
(729 228)
11.363.091
31 Dx 2012
1.093.919
697,339
625 936
330.391
321 163
11 696.363
11 626.363
30-1. 3013
1 094.036
1 58'.339
657 131
126.005
1519.5611
10,866,822
31 Dx 2013
1 09 ,026
652.260
657 233
333 423
313,957
11 Ito 779
11 ISO 779
30-1. 3016
1 094 107
1 618.160
690,093
33.243
1906.003)
10.214 776
31 0x-2014
1 094 101
416.390
690.095
317 391
305.026
10,579,500
10.579 500
30 J. 3015
1,096 190
1 661 390
724.599
257 258
(1 004.531)
9.575.270
31 D: 1015
1 094.190
371 I13
T24.599
296,09S
791369
9.169.831
9,969,331
30-1. 2016
1.094.271
1 711 lit
760.529
362,644
(1 115.035)
9 754.114
31 0x 2016
1.091279
322.43
160,829
271 109
213 113
9.036.966
9,036,95
30-1.1017
1,094.361
1752.603
791./71
234,435
(1 227,470)
7.111491
31 Dc7017
1091.35
270.136
798.871
2.2.470
267,331
3,082.329
8.32,329
30.1. 2011
1 34.662
1 795.330
935.916
302.343
11 337,5591
6 7. 770
31 23x-2011
1.34,43
113 174
335.216
23.533
250327
6 995,096
6.993 095
30.1. 3019
1093,924
1 505 174
00755
176.334
(1 115,6.1)
5,879677
31 Dx-2019
1093.926
167,911
180155
183,239
225,697
6 107 973
6.107973
3o -J. 2020
133.303
1530.53
926793
147,019
(1203,03)
4,902961
31 D. 2020
1 093.303
119,693
926 793
153 151
20' 167
5 105 132
5 105 133
3OJ. 2021
1,093 175
974,691
971 032
131 523
02) 032)
4.356.101
31 D 2021
1 093175
98,317
971,03'
I36.0b
170,503
6,554.606
4,551606
M ). 2022
1 092.920
999 36
1 019,556
112,333
(113,453)
3 741 152
31 Dx 2023
1092.920
55,182
1 019 586
116.266
134.319
1.273.471
3,515.611
30-1. 3023
1 09' 730
120,792
1 070,563
95 114
(702 969)
3 172.573
31 Dc2023
109 720
77 168
1,070.563
97 965
92 954
3,363 476
3.165,176
30-1. 2016
54,559
811,369
1 124.091
57.127
(1 33 0801
1 937 396
31 D. 3074
34.335
0
1 12/091
41 749
(535 7861
1 391.613
1.39).6)2
6906133
49756,53
36,04b,995
17769,018
1391612
(1) A6..s I~ 6e.. of COP. .916 (Lae 1992 1995 9WIaS S'3A m ll -
(2) B.a6 . RSw. 149^6e6 by W Ga) (.x 6a nr 16cnd Ws)
(3) 6 S . a.ul64ve evrpl.
24
•
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
Background
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code 22500 -22679)
provides ample authority for the City to set up special assessment districts to acquire, improve
and maintain community parks The process is very similar to setting up an improvement
district for new development No election is required, but the process is subject to a majority
protest by property owners within the district If a majority of property owners protest at the
district formation hearing, a 4/5th vote of the City Council is required to implement the district
It is unlikely, of course, that the Council would go ahead with implementation after a majority
protest
If annual maintenance expenses are to be funded from the assessment, then there needs
to be an annual public hearing Furthermore, the annual maintenance expenses must be spread
according to an assessment engineer's report prepared annually as well The expenses for
preparing the annual maintenance assessment engineer's report can be passed on to the property
owners in the assessment
The assessment, in addition to maintenance expenses, may include (a) the costs of
acquisition of land for parks, recreation and open space purposes and (b) the costs of installation
of park and recreational improvements
The City Council may determine that the costs of such acquisitions and improvements
are greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment and order that the
costs (not including maintenance and servicing expenses) be financed by the issuance of special
assessment bonds under either the 1911 or 1915 Act (term not to exceed 30 years) or by the
issuance of notes (term not to exceed 10 years) The resolution ordering the issuance of bonds
or notes shall set forth the estimated costs of the acquisitions and improvements, specify the
number of annual installments of assessments and the fiscal years during which they are to be
collected, and fix the maximum amount of each annual installment necessary to retire the bonds
or notes
Thereafter the annual assessment installments are "automatically" included in the annual
engineer's report along with the annual maintenance assessments
A district also may be formed just for the purpose of covering annual maintenance costs
for improvements paid for or financed by any other means
The assessments, whether they be annual or in annual installments, may be apportioned
by any formula or method which fairly distributes the costs in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by each parcel from the improvements
11f4'ld HRUI[l
Assessments can be used to finance
1) Installation of landscaping, public lighting parks and recreational
improvements, J
2) Maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the above, and
3) Acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open -space purposes
25
fLNM TUSTMRCF
FISCAL TOTAL DEBT
YEAR SERVICE (1)
CITY or TUSTIN 24 Jan 91
PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECIS FINANCING
ASSESSMENT/MR BONDS PARCEL TAX SCENARIO
TOTAL DEBT
NO OT SERVICE
PARCELS (2) PER PARCEL
TOTAL DEBT
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
SFRVICE PLUS MSO
MLO COSIS (3) PLUS M80 PER PARCEL
1991
0
11 088
0
127 254
S27 254
%Z
46
1992
0
11,398
0
28 617
28 617
2
51
1993
0
11,908
0
54,344
54,344
4
56
1994
0
12 318
0
157,051
157 051
12
75
1995
1375,000
12 444
130
14
339 582
714,582
57
42
1996
375 000
12 444
30
14
476,819
851 819
68
45
1997
1 030 000
12,444
82
77
540 863
1 570 063
126
23
1998
1,030,000
12 444
82
77
579,163
1,609,163
129
31
1999
1 260 000
12 441
101
25
614 814
1 874 814
150
bb
2000
1 260,000
12,444
101
Z5
697 089
1 957,089
157
27
2001
2,180,000
12 444
175
18
731,944
2 911 944
234
00
2002
2 180 000
12,444
175
18
768 541
2,948 541
236
94
2003
2 180,000
12,444
175
18
806 968
2,986,968
240
03
2004
2,180,000
12 444
175
18
847,316
3 027 316
243
28
2005
2 180 000
12 444
175
18
889 682
3 069 682
246
68
2006
2 180,000
12,444
175
18
934 166
3,114,166
250
25
2007
2,180,000
12 444
175
18
980,875
3 160 075
254
01
2008
2 180 000
12,444
175
18
1 029 918
3,209 918
257
95
2009
2 180,000
12 444
175
18
1 081,414
3 261 414
262
09
2010
2 180 000
12 444
175
18
1 135 4B5
3,315,485
266
43
2011
2 180,000
12,444
175
18
1 192,259
3 372,259
270
99
2012
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
1,251 872
3 431 872
275
79
2013
2 180 000
12,444
175
18
1 314 466
3,494,466
280
82
2014
2 180,000
12 444
175
18
1,380,189
3 560,189
286
10
2015
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
1 449 199
3 629 199
291
64
2016
2 180 000
12,444
175
18
1 521 659
3,701,659
297
47
2017
2 180 000
12 444
175
18
1 597,742
3 777 742
303
58
2018
2 180 000
12 444
175
18
1 677,629
3 857 629
310
00
2019
1,805,000
12 444
145
05
1,761,510
3 566 510
286
6C
2020
1 805 000
12,444
145
05
1,849 $86
3,654,586
293
68
2021
1 150 000
12 444
9Z
41
1 942 065
3 092 06S
248
48
2022
1,150,000
12 444
92
41
2,039 168
3 189,168
256
28
2023
920 000
12,444
73
93
2 141 126
3,061 126
245
99
2024
920 000
12 444
73
93
2 248 183
3 168 183
254
60
(1) Includes debt service on four series of bonds sold every two years beginning
in 1992 Each series of bonds would be structured to fund two years of interest
payments and a reserve fund The bonds would provide a total of approximately
521 million in net proceeds and would each be amortized over a 25 year period
(2) 1991 figure provided by the City The annual growth in parcels reflects the
development of undeveloped property into residential parcels (Based on the
City s housing projections, this schedule assumes each additional Sr housing
unit and 10 additional MF housing units would odd on additional parcel )
(3) From accompanying schedule
26
Backeround
MELLO-ROOS BONDS
The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code 53311 53365)
provides an alternative method for financing a broad range of public facilities A community
facilities district is strictly a financing vehicle, not a separate political entity Mello -Roos
financing can be used to provide any land of facilities with a useful life of five years or more,
which the City is authorized to construct, own, or operate
The measure to authorize a special tax or bonds must be approved by a favorable two-
thirds vote in the community facilities districts The measure must specify a maximum tax rate
and the method in which the tax will be apportioned Different classes of property may be taxed
at different rates, e g , one rate for undeveloped land, one for residential, one for commercial,
and so forth In such a case, the tax paid by a given parcel can vary as its land use is convened
from undeveloped to a more intensive use
Use of Funds
Mello -Roos bonds can be used to finance
Facilities
1) Roads, water and sewer lines, flood control channels,
2) Local park, recreation, parkway and open -space facilities,
3) School sites and structures,
4) Libraries,
5) Childcare facilities, and
6) Any other governmental facilities which the City is authorized by law to
contribute revenue to, construct, own or operate
Services
1) Police protection services- including criminal justice services,
2) Fire protection and suppression services and ambulance and paramedic
services,
3) Recreation program services, library services and the operation and
maintenance of parks, park -ways and open space, and
4) Flood and storm protection services including the operation and
maintenance of storm drainage systems
27
FLNM TUSTMRCF
FISCAL TOTAL DEBT
YEAR SERVICE (1)
CITY OF TUSTIN 24 Jan 91
PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FINANCING
ASSESSMENT/MR BONDS PARCEL TAX SCENARIO
TOTAL DEBT
NO OF SERVICE
PARCELS (2) PER PARCEL
TOTAL DEBT
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
SERVICE PLUS M80
MIO COSTS (3) PLUS MBD PER PARCEL
1991
0
11,088
0
$27,254
$27,254
$2
46
1992
0
11,398
0
28 617
28,617
2
51
1993
0
11 908
0
54,344
54,344
4
56
1994
0
12,318
0
157,051
157 051
12
75
1995
$375,000
12 444
$30
14
339,582
714,582
57
42
1996
375 000
12,444
30
14
476,819
851 819
68
45
1997
1,030,000
12 444
82
77
540,863
1,570,663
126
23
1998
1 030 000
12 444
82
77
579,163
1 609 163
129
31
1999
1,260,000
12,444
101
25
614 814
1,874,814
150
66
2000
1 260 000
12 444
101
25
697,089
1,957,089
157
27
2001
2 180,000
12,444
175
18
731 944
2 911,944
234
DO
2002
2,180,000
12,444
175
18
768 541
2,948,541
236
94
2003
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
806,968
2,986,968
Z40
03
2004
2 180 000
12,444
175
18
847,316
3 027 316
243
28
2005
2,180,000
12,444
175
18
889 682
3 069,682
246
68
2006
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
934,166
3,114,166
250
25
2007
2,180,000
12,444
175
18
980,875
3 160 875
254
01
2008
2,180,000
12,444
175
18
1,029,918
3,209,918
257
95
2o09
2 180 000
12,444
175
18
1,081 414
3 261 414
26Z
09
2010
2,180,000
12,444
175
18
1 135 485
3 315,485
266
43
2011
2,180,000
12 444
175
18
1,192,259
3,372,259
270
99
2012
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
1,251,872
3 431 872
275
79
2013
2 180 000
12 444
175
18
1,314 466
3 494 466
280
82
2014
2 180,000
12,444
17S
18
1 380 189
3 560,189
286
10
2015
2,180,000
12,444
175
18
1 449,199
3,629,199
291
64
2016
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
1,521,659
3,701 659
297
47
2017
2,180 000
12 444
175
18
1,597 742
3 777 742
303
58
2018
2 180 000
12 444
175
18
1 677 629
3 857,629
310
00
2019
1,805,000
12,444
145
05
1 761,510
3,566,510
266
60
2020
1,805 000
12 444
145
05
1,849,586
3 654 $86
293
68
2021
1 150 000
12,444
92
41
1 942 065
3,092,065
248
48
2022
1,150,000
12,444
92
41
2,039,168
3,189,168
256
28
2023
920 000
12 444
73
93
2,141 126
3 061 126
245
99
2024
920,000
12,444
73
93
2 248 183
3,168,183
254
60
(1) Includes debt service on four series of bonds sold every two years beginviing
in 1992 Each series of bonds would be structured to fund two years of interest
payments and a reserve fund The bonds would provide a total of approximately
S21 million in net proceeds and would each be amort iced over a 25 year period,
(2) 1991 figure provided by the City The annual growth in parcels reflects the
development of undeveloped property into residential parcels (Based on the
City's housing projections, this schedule assn s each additional SF housing
unit and 10 additional MF housing units would add an additional parcel )
(3) From accmpanying schedule
i • �
PHASING OPPOR7 UNI I IES
Basic Improvements
Community Parks (3) 46 acres $5 750 000
1 Architecture and Engineering 575.000
c
Total Basic Improvements $ 6,325,000
Secondary Level Improvements
Gymnasium and Athletic Field Complex
- Tustin Ranch $2,780,000
20,000 sq ft Community Arts Center 3,072,000
5,000 sq ft Nature Center and
Group Picnic Facilities 550,000
Architecture and Engineering 640.200
Total Secondary Improvements 7,042,200
Total Banc and Secondary Improvements $13.367.200
Basic improvements include rest rooms, play and picnic areas, hard surface courts, fine
grading, irrigation systems, turf, landscape materials, concrete walkways, and security lighting
r Secondary level improvements include lighted sports fields, community and cultural centers,
gymnasiums, and athletic field complexes and are usually found on community parks
This phasing plan assumes another funding source for the Columbus Tustin Gymnasium
($2 1 million) and does not provide for the opportunities to purchase the Tustin Unified School
District Administration site or a surplus school site for the replacement of the leased Lambert
School ($6 million) The plan also takes into consideration that the two neighborhood parks are
funded by the New Construction Tax
The most cost effective way to develop would be to construct the basic and secondary
improvements simultaneously Construction costs such as mobilization, grading, and surveying
would have to be paid only once for each site instead of twice The City could save as much
as $3 million by developing the parks completely
All figures are in today's costs and are not adjusted for inflation
29