HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORKSHOP 05-20-91T, WORKSHOP
Ifir 5-20-91
a
U �..IJA as i
1
DATE: Inter -COm
MAY 16 , 19 91
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PARRS FINANCING WORKSHOP
The City Council has scheduled a workshop for May 20, 1991 at 5:30 p.m.
to review the Parks Financing Report prepared by the City's consultant;
Kelling, Northcross and Nobriga, Inc.
The consultant will make a presentation on the report previously
distributed to the City Council. The report identifies potential
methods of financing parks and recreational facilities identified in the
Recreation Element of the City's General Plan and the Tustin Ranch
Specific Plan. Because of the City's obvious limitation on financial
resources available for major capital projects, the consultant's task
was to identify funding methods permitted by current State law.
The report does not address fund raising as a potential source of
revenue for park projects. As a frame of reference, the Senior Citizen
Center cost $2.6 million dollars, of which approximately $415,000 was
raised through private donations. It cost $128,627 in direct cost to
raise the donations. It is not uncommon to cost thirty to forty cents
for each dollar contributed in a fund raising effort.
It is my recommendation that the City Council review the report and
defer any further action until the 1991-92 budget process.
WAH
i
pk0 inw /.wah
• 0
CITY OF TUSTIN
PARK PROJECTS
FINANCING REPORT
Prepared by
KELLING, NORTHCROSS & NOBRIGA, INC.
Bond Management Services
for
Public Agencies
March 18, 1991
A
CITY OF TUSTIN
PARK PROJECTS
FINANCING REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 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 ESTIMATED TAX IMPACTS
12
APPENDIX 1 - 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 - Project Phasing Opportunities
29
A
I. INTRODUCTION
•
1 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
1 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:
- 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.
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.
I
F
I
l H. EXECUTIVE SUMU"Y
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 $26.9 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 fmancing 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 $26.9 million, including inflationary increases assumed at 5 % annually
The total of estimated revenues available from identified sources, is $5.9
million.
2. The estimated costs for maintenance of all completed projects is estimated
to be $33 million, including inflationary increases assumed at 5%
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 $16 million through
2023.
5 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, thereby protecting 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.
I
E
I
0
0
P
I
1
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.
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.
3
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
softbalUsoccer 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 Center The Community Center Complex, IT 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 Tustin
Plan, will be preserved.
Picnic Area/Nature Center 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
E
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.
Project Project Period
Future Cast (1)
Gymnasium & Athletic Complex 1989- 1996
$ 6,751,686
Community Center 1994- 1998
5,602,746
Picnic Area/Nature Center 1992-1995
884,889
Youth Facility 1998 -2000
3,785,979
Columbus -Tustin Gymnasium 1993- 1995
3,227,020
1
Neighborhood Park #12763 1990/91
400,000
J
Neighborhood Park #13627 1994/95
790,658
Site Acquisition -Tustin S.D 2000
5.429.649
Total Costs
$26,872,627
(1) Assumes 5% annual inflation.
B. Description of Projects
Community Parks
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
softbalUsoccer 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 Center The Community Center Complex, IT 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 Tustin
Plan, will be preserved.
Picnic Area/Nature Center 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
E
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 may be completed by Summer 1991 in Phase 2A of the development.
1
Neighborhood 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 /112763 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 il13627 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 Building
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
.1 Tustin Area Senior Center The School District has been notified of the City's interest in
acquiring the property
T
5
(1)Current dollars.
V
E]
I
I
1 6
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
11
nearby Clifton C. Miller Community Center.
C. Project Maintenance Costs
EMiec1 Maintenance
Projected Annual
Costs(1)
Unit of
Measurement
Annual
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
Columbus/Tustin Gymnasium
9,060
55,000
6,000 sq. ft.
15,000 sq. ft.
1.51/sq.ft.
3.67/sq.ft.
Neighborhood Park #12763
24,000
3 acres
8,000/acre
Park #13627
25,600
5 7 acres
8,000/acre
_Neighborhood
Site Acquisition -
i
1
Tustin School District
28,690
19,000 sq.ft
1.51/sq.ft.
(1)Current dollars.
V
E]
I
I
1 6
1 • •
I
E
1
7
Ll
V
H.
r1
E
I
I
C
12
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 3,227.02
Total $5,95&238
l • •
V FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
I
I
N
Fa
M
I
s
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
Ou 'gation Bonds in 4 series to fund the protect 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 $100,000
would be approximately $22 per year, for 30 years.
The major 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.
Issuance of the COPS 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.
19
I
r
I
I
I
F_
I
I
1
Based upon our assumptions the estimated tax impact upon residents and businesses
within the City are, conservatively stated, as follows:
Single -Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential
Businesses
Hotel/Motel
Funding of
$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
Ca ital Cost Only
$72/year
$72/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 protest 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 1.
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.
-1 0 0
1 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.
1 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.
fl
rII
I
1 10
1 • •
I E. A Comparison of Financing Alternatives
VOTER
REQUIREMENT
ISECURITY
ELIGIBLE
FACILITIES
E
1
1 DISADVANTAGES
J
J
GENERAL
OBLIGATION
BONDS
2/3 of votes cast
Ad valorem property
tax
Acquisition or
improvements to land
or facilities; acquisition
of permanent
furnishings
25 years
Lowest cost
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
operating/maintenance
expense
30 years
LANDSCAPING
& LIGATING
ACT OF 1972
None -- Council
conducts protest
hearing of property
movers
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
Simple, inexpensive, Flexible - can be
familiar to voters tailored to voters,
requires majority vote
only ability to fund
maintenance/operating
expense
City-wide tax burden,
district -wide vote,
limited eligible
facilities; cannot 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
Flexible
MAXEgUM
tailored
BOND TERM
variety
of eligible
facilities
COST
COMPARISON
ADVANTAGES
1
1 DISADVANTAGES
J
J
GENERAL
OBLIGATION
BONDS
2/3 of votes cast
Ad valorem property
tax
Acquisition or
improvements to land
or facilities; acquisition
of permanent
furnishings
25 years
Lowest cost
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
operating/maintenance
expense
30 years
LANDSCAPING
& LIGATING
ACT OF 1972
None -- Council
conducts protest
hearing of property
movers
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
Simple, inexpensive, Flexible - can be
familiar to voters tailored to voters,
requires majority vote
only ability to fund
maintenance/operating
expense
City-wide tax burden,
district -wide vote,
limited eligible
facilities; cannot 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
Flexible
- can be
tailored
to voters,
variety
of eligible
facilities
Expense; long lead Long lead time
time required required, expensive,
unfamiliar to voters
and additional costs of
formation and
administration
K
\
R
\
§
Q��
a
%
■
§
\
- t
/
:f\
9
)\
%�cqR �
k
Q
a
§
a
R
(
®
®
j
§
A
\
\ w
6s
64
ƒ
ƒt
k
E
)
/0
§
%C14
«<
j
5N
j
22
_
z +
a
/
�d
6
7
a
jk
\
I
7j�
B
§
2
)
x
c
%Gbo
2
k\\
jILI
\\
}
\\
<
12
1 0 0
[�
§
|
13
;■°
§
+!#7r■#
�
■
|
/
!
!§
!
(
!§2!!!§
\
|
O,,.O „
&
k
#
■
■
,.,,,F'
#
(
|
0l..0.,
■
| F
§
+!�°°
�
2!
■! !
r
!
�
»
! # !
»
ctItit #
e
#
$
�
/ ;;
&
§«& ■
7
\
/
. 0�
« !
;
■
■
E
$
0 0 0 0 0 0,
,
I
�
r ■
!
k
�
#o°¥,.
■
#
E
:
E
■ ■
a
(
«
� B
|
;
|
|
§�§
§
§(§((
|
2§§
§
| §||■
(
§e
/
\
�
13
I
o e
6 A R
FF'
885
= e e a e e z -
-
ao o_ o a R
a
iF"ak'E'_�x a
e?RR=ER B
�x2,a^aa "a
521A2 15 0
�e�'szs�g
14
2
0
6
In
E
I
I
I
I
I
K
9
I
I
1
.1
e
E; z
iile E�I u'_em ie z
$ o o c
f
15
x
I R E I I I q
a R= 8 S S air F
R-^ 6 e d
y <
-
o
�$°"'naeOno
0
&
X.
Q
:se$Rae7 3
-
g
&
=eeReezl� R �
�
SRF§a��13 3
R
a o o^ o e R a
R R 7b ffi Crt 8_ a -•
.1
e
E; z
iile E�I u'_em ie z
$ o o c
f
15
I
-I
I
U
I
I
I
i
t
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 }IIIIA of the California Constitution so that general obligation bonds
could again be authorized.
UcP of ern c
The proceeds of general obligation bonds may be used to:
1) 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;
6) Acquire furniture, equipment or necessary apparatus of a pfrmanent
nature;
7) Construct sewers and drains.
16
�
]
!
�
0 0
/
|
;
§
)
�(2E
)
<i
|
-
#§■#
■
�)7
!
%/
)
-
�`
)
\�<-
§!/
\{
}
/
\
}
§
, .
}�/
\
k
Z),
�!«!
_
9
E�:■
&
&
/
)§||{
2
a=
!)>
2|«!;
$
w
u
\
(
®
e
w
17
I
11
I
K
V
E
1
E
18
s�s
o�sesoSaa"a
^sooss
soso"s
ss=oo
'ss
oeo
C; c;
000ao
00000
00000
oe000
oo"s
oe000
se
sssos
aa'aao
asose
soon"
o§s"s"s
000 0
0 0 00 0
0000
sCssae
0000
00000
00 00
-
o
see
eases
r„ ^
rrr r
r�rrr
r
r
u
S
s
d e r e
ti n n e
e e n n
d e
e o
W W
�F
S
�FrE
^
d
F�prP:
d
r£hF�
n ti a
<
epi
�o
33331
1131=
11111
11331
eases
M1
333ie
Nr
^ ^^
^^^ ^
^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^
VC
-
N M
8 8
M M N Y. M
8 8 8 8 8
• N M. N
5 8 8 8
M N N N N
M N M F N
M N N M M
N M N N M
w
8
8 S 8 S 8
8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8
i
0
18
1
p W gM g M M M Ye m n M K M V. o M M P M Y M M M N M M • Y' M 1R M n a s n n
FS 880 nvo? oo oa e?o- a-oR- -sso"s
w o
o 0 ... voo e>000 ooe6 os000 e
19
d -
r5 e
o
x r- a
7 g 6
�
a
--
'
A
p�p55
J
8
ems-
F
W
�
Z Xo F
-=g
8
U
i
p W gM g M M M Ye m n M K M V. o M M P M Y M M M N M M • Y' M 1R M n a s n n
FS 880 nvo? oo oa e?o- a-oR- -sso"s
w o
o 0 ... voo e>000 ooe6 os000 e
19
1 � �
EXCISE TAX
j Background
jA 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 will be integrated with the County's
Property Tax collection system and commercial businesses through the City's business license
fee billing system.
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) Libraries;
3) Streets;
4) City Hall; and
5) Recreational facilities.
1
I
4
20
I
tl ZZ�
Z 8 �
E 25 25 i5 tl i5 6 S S E if E !S CSS 25 2f S 25 75 75 S i5 2f S ES ZS E D E 6 tl
m
< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 O o
Z
x <
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
i o o e e e o o e e o e e e e o e o e e o o e e o e e e o 0 o e e o
°o z
4
e o 0 o e e o 0 o e 2 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 o e o 0 0
zp a 6 e o e e e e e o e e e e e o o e e o e o e o e e e o o e e
O �
o e o 0 0 o e e o 0 o e e o 0 0 o e o o e o 0 o e e o e o 0
C
21
R
11
I
1
I
p
J
1
I'IN
I
OFK ICASH FLOW
REVENUES
PARK FINANCING
•
EXCLUDES M&O COSTS
SURPLUS
(DES7CM
!379109
ENDING
REVENUES
DIM
SERVILE (1)
M1D (2)
D/VET531ENT
&VININGS D)
SURPLUS
(DES7CM
CUM3EA77VE
CONTIGENCY
YE END
CUMULATIVE
WNTMlE
3019 2
575,360
0
0
17,500
393,360
03,360
393,360
3 J.9]
589.1"
0
0
36.572
623,719
1,219.039
31-Dmi3
319.1"
0
0
35.926
645.071
1,664,1]0
1,666,130
30-105-%
691.369
0
0
79,051
710,699
2,625.0]0
31-Dw-U
69IM9
143,5%
0
91,432
646,707
3,261,737
3,261,737
30-10515
691,367
211.3%
0
116,135
369,626
3.1171.16S
31-1 v 5
691,117
141,119
0
136,752
6117,219
6,556,364
6.536.394
30-105-9
691,926
221,619
0
153,533
626,060
1,136,639
31 -DW-%
01,926
366,0"
0
IO,tm
675,636
5,660,106
3.6",105
30-105-97
01.96/
601,066
0
175.167
2",719
5.936.897
31 -Ds -97
691.9"
719.6"
0
193.026
509.310
6,136,207
6,436.207
30-Jw96
694011
606,636
0
201.07
2"9,026
6,79,212
31-D9r36
692,011
/59,250
0
215,136
"7.895
7,171,127
7,171,127
30-J05
697,056
7",250
0
2M.173
167.979
7,339,105
31-D69-0
692,656
150,530
0
264,463
673.979
7.915.064
7./15.9"
30405-2050
69;102
745,330
0
20,051
19.626
1,001,708
3141 2005
021m
789,190
0
2",651
146,"3
1,1",371
1,14,371
30405-20D1
692,150
1.264,1%
0
93,679
(359,060)
7,719,310
31-16 ml
692.130
716,693
0
236.3M
155,111
7,965.19
7,965,19
30-105-2002
692201
1,299,693
0
96,937
(320.355)
7,34,367
31-1 c2002
692,201
751,265
0
91,912
165,9"
7,730,615
7,730,615
XWm-2005
69293
1,319,265
0
219.716
(606.236)
7.3U. 127
31-Do2=
69293
7",600
0
29,030
176,453
7,301,010
7,301.010
M JI 2()05
692.307
1,360,605
0
211.966
("6.167)
7,064,163
31-D6v2($m
692,307
720,%0
0
217,613
136.962
7,93,19
7,253."9
3()-105-2005
692,364
1,360,960
0
203,"7
(666.929)
6.736,896
31-Dr2005
692.364
699,910
0
209,732
M2196
6,991.093
6,991.053
30-/2005
692,69
1.376,910
0
195,111
("7,376)
6.303,707
31-Dr2005
692,69
67/,165
0
201,611
216,"9
6,720.376
6,720,376
M -Ji =7
692"6
1,397,365
0
19,0"
(516,935)
6,201.561
31-1)> =
692.636
632140
0
193.09
92.567
6,6",057
6.634,087
30405 -Mm
692.349
1.627.960
0
176.2"
(559.165)
5,176,99
31-Dsr2005
692,9"
626.333
0
10.767
269.962
6,126,366
6,126.366
30-105-2()09
692,616
1.6".333
0
166,119
(M.6m)
3.737.294
31-D,2 0
692.614
397,793
0
176,119
269,010
S,t06,296
51106,296
3 )F MIO
692613
1.482.993
0
155.160
(634.970)
5,171,326
]I -D 2[IJO
692.66]
566,715
0
163,136
319,101
3.461,126
5,"1,126
30-105-2011
692,736
1.511.713
0
163,372
(675,389)
6,715,737
31-D6vMl1
692.756
533,1%
0
152,947
312,505
3.058.245
5,095,265
]0-)6x2012
692129
1,112.19
0
131.532
1713.433)
613%,612
31-D 2012
692"29
697,339
0
161,666
97,137
6,711,569
6,721.549
) J.-3613
692905
1,38,139
0
111,519
(7M,913)
3.950.635
31-Do2013
692.906
631.260
0
129."2
366,m6
1,316,79
6,316,79
30-1-2016
692967
1611,260
O
Im,t9
(726"3)
3,696,271
31-13r2D16
69297
616,360
0
116.69
393,92
3.367.511
3,367,311
NNm-M15
693.00
1,"1.310
0
96215
(676.021)
3.005,636
31-D,2DI5
693.070
371,111
0
103.036
626,936
3.636.676
3,6",676
30405-2016
693.157
1,711,111
0
76,735
(943,92)
2.691.92
31-d M16
693,157
322.603
0
45,516
439.!1
2930.39
29639
30-105-3617
693,2"
1.752601
0
31,6%
(1,000,651)
1.949,166
31-DcM17693,1"
270,136
0
731391
6%.506
2"6,]70
2"6,370
30-105-M12
693,M2
IMS. 'm
0
61,571
(1.060.6")
1,]13,735
31-13er2DM
692342
215,176
0
57.647
315,117
1,921,552
1.921,552
3 )� Wl9
692/m
1,505.176
0
x,305
(M.M,I)
1,1",615
31-O M19
0220]
167.911
0
31.399
376,6%
1,719.912
1.719.922
3(1-)05-2020
692363
1.320./05
0
9,576
(7069")
919,135
31-Do2m0
69238
119,69
0
",139
612."79
1,537,%2
1.331.%2
]0-105-2051
692055
976.6%
0
36.124
(X1,116)
1.394.1"
31-Dc2021
68,055
36,277
0
31,699
68,42
1.956.6M
1,956.630
304 209
691,"00
999,026
0
51,013
(256,206)
1,700,624
31-D,20T1
MADE)
55,92
0
722T1
705,601
2609,9.5
2,409,29
30-105-2023
01.600
80.28
0
70.532
(x.1621
2351.013
31 -Do=
691.600
27,161
0
93,264
757,7 04
3.109,771
3.105,787
30405-2024
311.9%
111,]69
0
11,539
090.122)
2717,%S
31-D,2M
343,991
0
0
%,762
"0,711
3,13/,736
3.136.7M
6201.369
69,716,50
0
1,911,953
3.156,736
(111x by" p fis i dd /nm 102-1892 9u60m2 t9.t mVim.
(31 116666 m Esw>° �� 61Y Is6m�6gm2 6C)Ofm6).
(3> 6f m a9mJul...n91u6.
22
I
I
•
«H«
$�a��RaSna'aF$oH�£&'s."s.d:^=§k:aax"as3ris
O _eiHNHNH.tNNNnnn n n n n. � � � � i nnn �.iHH� � S
Z <
8 �
�asssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssn
� g
e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
RQ n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n --
.
e o o e e e o 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 o e e e e 0 0 o e e e e 0 0 0 0 o e
�cna�as=s�=eeeeseees`ss's�=s�'ssse�ggs R
--------------
.
-------_-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
pO i
:Eesteaerststs$ee£s"sxttesteemt"ts3
.................... O O ........
23
n
lr '
I
3
A
I
1
M
�ITY
OF TUSTIN CASH FLOW
•
MAO (2)
PARK FINANCING
3URV US
MEn=)
CUMULATIVE
CONnGENCY
INCLUDFS M&O COSTS
30 Dm 2
99ll10D
ENDINO
REVENUES
DEBT
SER"CE (1)
MAO (2)
DIVESTMENT
EARNINGS (3)
3URV US
MEn=)
CUMULATIVE
CONnGENCY
YEAR END
CUMULATIVE
CON3IGENCY
30 Dm 2
908,9"
0
19,308
27,669
932.301
971,301
922,301
304:a-93
930,675
0
77,179
36,968
959,971
IM2.271
31-M 3
930.675
0
21,172
16,139
989.661
2,871,932
2,871.932
30-100-54
1,092.%9
0
71,336
120.197
1,136.660
1,006,571
31 -Ds-"
1,093,%9
143,596
79.SM
130,W
1,021,697
5.09.270
5,038,270
30-1.45
1,093,007
211.5%
169,791
177,306
811.921
5.910,1%
31-D.-05
1.093.007
111.619
169,791
306,969
911,766
6.191,966
6."8,966
30-1.77-%
I."3,067
221,619
2M,609
23219U
166,173
7,765,1M
31-Ds46
I."3.%7
386,066
211,609
254,651
7".243
1.638,379
/,41,379
304.47
I,"3.008
601.066
270,431
269.351
6 ."2
8,979,371
31 -Dm
1,093.0(2
379,616
270,41
391,613
7M,3U
9,713,757
9,713,757
> J.-91
103,131
606,6"
219,511
306,376
50.5,"2
10.219,199
31 -Doo-"
1,093,131
459,250
99,581
326,706
671.0%
W.M.205
10,"0.205
3 1.-99
1.093.176
7",230
309,607
326,05
379,616
11.269.119
31-D.
1,093,176
650530
307,607
3M,919
6%,159
11,%3,977
11,%3,977
30-1.-2000
1.093,271
715,530
14,543
M9,9%
369.141
12333.119
31 1).
1,093,332
7","0
3",345
M.0m
3M,"6
12."7,W
12,667,9"
30-1.-2001
I.M3.270
1,394,"0
MS,971
379,547
(113.0")
13.46.9.
31-DIMI
1,093,270
776,693
365.972
394."5
137,271
13,122,171
12"2171
3 J.-2002
1.093.321
1.99.693
3%,270
379,395
(21234)
12,6".124
31-D,2002
1,093,321
758,M5
396,270
3",671
"9,258
12,%9,001
12,%9,081
30-1.-903
1.093,373
1.318.265
603,616
383,053
(397,3")
12,701,758
31-D9o-2003
103.373
74,600
603,6"
391,276
360,763
13.042,523
12062,3"
304.-906
1,093,937
I,M0,9m
623,659
UL M
(217,995)
12.754.59
31 -Dar
1.093.627
710,960
623,651
392.387
541.696
13,0%,226
13,096,96
30-1.-2005
I.M.
I,M0960
6".941
3",007
(29,310)
12,7",919
31-Do20m
1,093,46
6",910
6",41
393,"7
342.000
13.101,915
13.101,913
3 J.-906
1.093.543
1,376,910
"7,033
383.92
(266,1")
12.762.767
31 -Dm -2006
1."3,543
67'7,MS
"7.%3
392,531
M1.6M
13,0%,373
13,066,171
30-0.-3.7
1,093.606
1.397,365
6%,437
380.1N
(434,090)
12.670.93
31-Do2007
1,092606
652960
690,637
9039
360,531
13,010,816
13,010,116
30-1.-3.8
1.093."1
1.69,%0
516.959
376,131
(673,121)
12537,693
31-D 2001
1.093,6"
6M,333
516.959
386,91
338,"7
12.176.360
12,"6,360
304.-9(19
1,093,7"
1."6,333
$60,707
370.610
(532696)
12,353,666
31-D9o-2009
1.093.734
597,793
560,707
380,628
333.922
126",586
12.689,336
304.-910
103.803
1,42,793
567,793
M2,873
(593,861)
12"5.725
31 -De 2010
1,093,803
56,715
567,763
372,837
332,192
12,627,%0
12.627,98
LY -3011
1."3,176
1.511.715
396.130
353,.8
("0.962)
11.766,9"
31-D,911
1,03,176
533,1%
396,330
362.130
337,341
12099,326
12096,326
30-].-912
1,093,949
1.538,1%
69.936
526,953
(719,29)
11,365.098
31-Ao-912
1,093,949
697,339
625,936
350,391
321,265
11,6%,M3
11,"6,363
30-J.-913
1.0%,026
1.52339
657.233
326,005
(119.541)
10,166,823
31 -Deo -913
1.0%,026
65,260
637,233
333,6"
313.957
11,180,779
11.180,779
30J.-911
I.0%,107
1.619.260
690095
3%,91
(906,005)
10,276,776
31-D,2016
1.0%.107
616,380
6%,03
317,3%
305.09
10.579.100
10,579,6.
30-1.-915
I,0%,1%
1,"1,380
724,399
97,259
(1,.6,531)
9,575.270
31-Ds915
1,094,190
371,118
716,599
2%.M5
96,59
9.869,"8
9,969,138
Md. -916
1.0%.2n
1,711.118
M .19
92.9"
(1,115,023)
8,7".819
31-D9o-916
1.0%.378
322,603
7",89
91,109
93.155
9,OM,961
9,0",9"
30-1.-917
1.6%.261
1.752,CD
7%.871
234.435
D,232.910)
7.116.6%
31-D,=17
I."1M8
170.126
798."1
"2970
M7.131
1.08239
t.M2.39
30-1.-911
I.M."2
1,795.10
138.816
202.343
(1.337,539)
6.7",n0
31 -De Ml$
1,0%,442
215.176
IMAM
2".953
250,327
6.995.091
6."5.091
wj12019
1."3.9"
/.5.,176
(20.755
176.395
(1.112621)
S.979,977
31 -Ds 2019
1.093,9"
167,911
380,755
133,339
29,47
6.107,973
6,107,973
30].-99
1.03.303
I.S9."9
tu.793
147.019
(1.205.008)
6.902965
31-Dc2020
17993,503
119.6%
9",793
153,1M
202167
5.105.132
5.105,132
wj- m3
1,093,175
976,6%
971,032
131.5"
(711.m2)
6.3%.101
31-D9o-2ml
1,093,175
9.2"
971,033
136.634
170,50.5
6,554,606
6,554.606
"-1.-209
1,.299
"9,024
1,019,594
112,233
(113.433)
3,761.132
31-D9o-20n
1.092,99
55,92
1,019,34
116,266
IM.319
3.875,671
3,971,671
30J.20"
1.09279
19,282
1.070,53
95.176
(7.,969)
3,172522
31-D9o-20"
1,092,710
27,1"
1.070,363
97.%S
92,954
3,263,676
3,265,676
30-).-924
566,55
111,"9
11124,091
57,"2
(1,338,0")
1,937,396
31 -Dr 2M
566,351
0
1.124,091
61.769
(335,794)
1,391,612
1,391,612
69,676,133
69,7M,543
36,0",995
17.769,013
1.391.612
(1) 79 fav vis d CON d f. 1"2-1"1 w0m1USA
0076..
(2) I6d m fit. p:wi666 by 0a Cf7' 1600 9®R99YIN rLe6uk).
p) 6f m am6�tlw svylu.
24
I
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
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
1 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.
iUse of Funds
Assessments can be used to finance:
1) Installation of landscaping, public lighting, parks and recreational
improvements;
2) Maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the above; and
3) Acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open -space purposes.
25
I
1
C
LI
fq
FLNM: TUSTMRCF CITY OF TUSTIN 19 -Mar -91
PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FIN ANCINO
ASSESSMENT/MR BONDS PARCEL TAX SCENARIO
FISCAL
YEAR
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE (1)
NO. OF
PARCELS (2)
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
PER PARCEL
M&O COSTS (3)
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
PLUS M&O
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
PLUSM&O
PER PARCEL
1991
0
11,088
0
527,254
$27,254
$246
1992
0
11,398
0
28.617
28,617
2.31
1993
0
11,908
0
34,3"
54,344
4.56
1994
0
12,318
0
157.051
157,051
12.75
1995
S373.00D
12.444
$30.14
339.582
714,582
57.42
1996
375,000
12,444
30.14
476.819
651.819
68.43
1997
1,030,000
12.444
82.77
340,863
1,570,863
126.23
1998
1,030,000
12,444
82.77
579,163
1,609,163
129.31
19"
1,260,000
12,444
101.25
614,814
1.874,814
150.66
2000
1,260.000
12.441
101.25
697,089
1,951,089
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
12,4"
175.18
806,968
2,986,968
240.03
2004
2,180,000
12.444
175.18
817,316
3.027,316
243.28
2W5
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
12,4"
175.18
980,875
3,160,875
234.01
2008
2,180.000
12,444
175.18
1,029,918
3.209,918
257.93
2009
2.190.ODO
12,444
175.18
1,081,414
3,261,414
262.09
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
2,181.000
12.444
175.18
1,251,872
3,131,872
275.79
2013
2,180,000
12,444
175.18
1.314,166
3,494,466
280.82
2014
2,180,000
12,444
175.18
1.380,189
3,560,189
286.10
2015
2,180,OD0
12,4"
175.18
1.449,199
3,629,199
291.64
2016
2, 180,00D
12,444
175.18
1,521,659
3,701.659
297.47
2017
2.180,000
12,4"
175.18
1,597,742
3,777.742
303.58
2018
2,180,000
12,4"
175.18
1.677,629
3,857,629
310.00
4419
1,805,000
12,444
145.05
1,761,510
3,566.510
286.60
2020
1.805,000
12.444
145.05
1.849.586
3,654.586
293.68
2021
1,150.000
12.4"
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) Include, deb acrvice on four mrie, of bond. sold every two years beginning
In 1992. Each ,erica of bond, would be structured to fund two year, of interest
paymvda and • seaerve fond. The bonds would provide . total of . pp,oxienmely
521 million in net proceed, and would each be amortized over. 25 year period.
(7) 1991 figure provided by the City. The annual growth in parcels reflects the
i devc ent of urldcvel
lopm oped Property Mto sesidentisl parcel.. Based upon
residential development statistics provided by the Planning Department.
(3) From accompanying schedule.
I
I
26
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 kind 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 converted
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;
I 3) Recreation program services, library services and the operation and
1 maintenance of parks, parkways and open space; and
4) Flood and storm protection services including the operation and
maintenance of storm drainage systems.
27
I
I
I
1
1
F
r�
PLNM: TUSTMRCP CITY OF TUSTIN M-MAr-91
PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FINANCING
ASSESSMENT/MR BONDS PARCEL TAX SCENARIO
FISCAL
YEAR
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE (1)
NO. OF
PARCEIS (2)
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
PER PARCEL
M&O COSTS (3)
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
PLUS M&O
TOTAL DEBT
SERVICE
PLUS M&O
PER PARCEL
1991
0
I3,058
0
527,294
$27,254
$2.46
1992
0
11,398
0
25,617
28,617
2.51
1993
0
11.908
0
34,344
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
&51,819
68.45
1997
1.030,000
12,441
82.77
540.863
1.570,663
126.23
1998
1.030.01)(3
12,4"
52.77
579,163
1,609,163
129.31
1999
1,260.000
12,4"
101.25
614.814
1.874.914
150.66
20M
1.260.OW
12,4"
101.25
697.089
1,957,089
157.27
2001
2,180,000
12,4"
175.18
731,944
2,911,944
234.00
2002
2,180,000
12.4"
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
2[106
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
2.1 50,000
12,4"
175.18
1,029,918
3,2(5,918
257.95
2009
2,180,000
12,444
175.18
1,081,414
3,261.414
262.09
2010
2,180,000
12.4"
175.18
1.135,485
3,315,485
266.43
2111
2,180,000
12,4"
175.18
1.192,259
3,372,259
270.99
2012
2,180,000
12,4"
175.18
1,2511571
3,431,872
275.79
2013
2,150,000
12,4"
175.18
1,314,466
3,494,466
250.82
2014
2,180,000
12,444
175.18
1.380,159
3,560,189
286.10
2015
2,150,000
12,444
175.18
11449,199
3,629,199
291.64
2016
2,180,000
12,4"
175.18
1,521,659
3,701,659
297.47
2017
2.150.000
12,4"
175.18
1,397,742
3,77),742
303.58
2018
2,180,000
12,444
175.18
1,677,629
3,857,629
310.00
2D19
1,805,000
12,444
145.05
1.761.510
3,566,510
286.60
2120
1,805,000
12,4"
145.05
1.649,586
3,654,556
293.68
2121
1,150,000
12,444
92.41
1,942,065
3,092,065
248.48
2122
1,150,000
12,4"
92.41
2,039,168
3.189,165
256.28
2173
920.000
12.4"
73.93
2,141,126
3.061.126
245.99
2024
920.000
12,4"
73.93
2,248,183
3,168,183
254.60
(1) hnludu debt service on four aeriu of band, mid every two years begieniag
in 1992. Pesch aerie of boodr would be d uuod to tuod two years of interest
paymrata and a teaerve fund. The boada would provide a tail of approximately
$21 million in net procee& and would uch be amonimd over a 25 year period.
R) 1991 fisme provided by the City. The wool growth it, paroeh mneeta the
duT!°9meat of undeveloped property into reaidemial parcel.. Based upon
reddonlW developmeal Wtidiea provided by the Plaoniog Dep�ml
(3) From mcompaunq w1c4ule.
W
1' 0 0
PROJECT PHASING OPPORTUNITIES
1 Basic Improvements
Community Parks (3) 46 acres $5,750,000
Architecture and Engineering 575.000
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 Basic 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.
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
($3.2 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.
J
29