HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 06/18/2001 (04) ■
City of Petaluma, California
June 18, 2001
Responses to
PCDC FY 2001-02 Budget Issues
1. "Could a Map of CBD Street and Sidewalk Rehabilitation be Provided?"
In response to a Commissioner request, Attachment 1 shows the streets where the
proposed street and sidewalk rehabilitation could occur in FY 2001-02 and in FY
2002-03.
2. "Have Findings.Been;Determined for Expending PCDC Funds on the Polly
Klaas Center?"
For the last several years, the PCDC has budgeted $50,000 toward the partial
restoration of the Polly Klaas Center. The question arose as to whether any
findings had ever been made;concerning the expenditure of PCD Project Area
funds for the Center which is located outside the project area. There is no record
of any findings having been made. The City Attorneyhas advised that the PCDC
• may pay all or part of the construction costs for a..publicly owned facility located
within or without the project area, provided that it makes the following findings:
A. The improvements are of benefit to the project area or immediate
neighborhood in which the project is located;
B. No other reasonable means of financing the improvement is available to
the community;and
C. The payment of fundsfor the cost of the improvement will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project area and
is consistent with the implementation plan.
In reviewing the project and the required findings, it may not be advisable to
appropriate PCDC funding for this purpose since this is an uncertain question for .
use Of redevelopment funds.
3. "Can Funds for the Washington Creek Pedestrian Bridge Be Included in the
PCDC Multi-Year Budget?"
Yes, but this is a PCDC decision. The Bicycle Committee advised James Ryan,
Transportation Coordinator,that they were recommending $100,000 in TDA
Article 3 funds be allocated toward the construction of the pathway along the
• Petaluma River. The PCD Project Area multi-year financial forecast therefore
assumed that these funds would-be allocated toward the Washington Creek
Bridge. Subsequent to the preparation of the budget, the Bicycle Committee
amended its recommendation, preferring to allocate the funds toward maintenance
projects. As CSW Stuber-Stroeh prepares more current and accurate construction
cost estimates for the river pathways, the PCDC can later determine to what
extent project financing should be adjusted, taking the needed bridge into account.
4. "Can Interest Be Forgiven on the PCDC Project Area Fund Loan to CBD
Project Area Fund?"
Yes, but this is"a policy matter for the PCDC. Agency legal counsel advises that
the PCDC may waive the interest at its discretion.
5. "What are the Assumptions Used for the Five-Year Revenue Forecast?"
A concern was expressed that the PCDC revenue forecast may be too aggressive.
Attachment 2 shows the historical trend of tax increment growth with regard to
the PCD and CBD Project Areas.
• PCD Project Area Revenue Forecast: With-regard to the PCD Project
Area, the average percentage change in property tax increment since 1991
is 14.7%. By contrast, the 5-Year financial forecast conservatively
assumes only an 8% annual increase in property tax increment.
• • CBD Project Area Revenue Forecast: With regard to the CBD Project
Area, the average percentage change in property tax increment since 1989
is 3.0%. However, with the expansion of the CBD Project Area, Seifel
Consulting projected substantial increases over the next five years. The
assumptions for theincreases were taken from the "Report to Council"
adopted on April 16, 2001. In the document, table A-4 Seifel projects
property tax increases over the life of the project. Attachment,3 is table
A-4.
6. "What are the Assumptions for the Keller Street Parking Garage Revenue
Assumptions?"
Revenue of.$100,000 has been included in the Proposed Budget. The feasibility
of reaching this figure was questioned. The PDA contacted the representatives of
the City of Santa Rosa and learned that a 335-space structure like the Keller St.
garage should generate between $10,000 and $15,000 per month. Rather than
budget $180,000, the Proposed Budget assumes.a more moderate figure. As there
are no studies of downtown.parking utilization; the PDA and.City staffs are
developing an approach to optimize parking revenue. A key objective for the first
year of pay-parking is to maintain the net cost at below $28,000 for security
and maintenance as follows:
•.
•
• Appropriation for Security & Maintenance: $.128,000
• Pay-Parking Revenue: ($100,000)
Net Cost: $ 28;000
Rate setting is complicated because of the variables and unknowns. For example,
answers to the following questions are unknown,and yet have a critical impact on
revenue generation:
• What is the impact on parking demand:in-a parking structure when
improved lighting, sanitation and security are provided?
• By contrast with Santa Rosa, what happens to the demand for pay-parking in
a garage when adjacent on-street parking is not metered?
• What parking rates•should be used to encourage business owners and
employees to parkin the garage? Should-the rate be artificially low to
encourage moretavailability of on-street parking or should it be kept at the
current rate of$100/quarter for reserved all-day parking?
• Should the.first 30 minutes or 1 hour of parking in the garage be free?
• Should parking pp the top floor be free and/or available at a reduced fee to
residential permit holders, such as Petaluma Hotel residents?
•
• What impact will pigeon-proofing the structure have on parking demand?
The PDA and City staff will be meeting in order to discuss these questions and
prepare a recommended approach for the PCDC to the optimize parking revenue.
Please see Attaclunent4.
7. "What Was The Basis for the Budget for Economic Development Funding?"
$100,000 was allocated in the Proposed Budget for economic development,
including business" attraction and retention. In view of the City Council's recent
interestiin revising the General Plan, including an economic element, it is
recommended'that $95,000 be reallocated to Account 902-9990 (General Plan
Update)'for Fa='total of$1 22,000, thereby reducing the financial impact of the Plan
on the GeneralFund.by $95,000. It is suggested that the remaining balance of
$5,000 beused;to acquire business/demographic data and develop printed
materials.
8. "Can the City Proceed with an Armory Replacement Master Plan?"
A suggestion was made to undertake a master plan for the armory replacement.
A master plan is currently in formulation and should be available within 90-120
•i days.
•
9. •"Why is'the Widening of Three Bridges Included in the Five-Year
Implementation Plan?"
Prepared as a requirement for the CBD Project Area Plan Amendment, the
Implementation Plan includes partial funding for the widening of three overpasses
for a total of$10,000,000, beginning in FY 2004-05. The overpasses are:
Corona, East Washington,;and Old Redwood Highway. As there was concern
expressed over specifying the projects without first having public input, it is
proposed that funding be allocated to a more general line item, such as
"Circulation Improvements," until such time that specific projects can be
formally established.as PCDC priorities.
10. "Why Was No Revenue Shown for Underground Storage Tank
Monitoring?"
A question arose as to why no-revenue was shown in-the;Low & Moderate
Income Housing Fund for reimbursement for Underground Storage Tank
Monitoring. Housing staff cannot anticipate when the State might reimburse the
City for these costs. Cash flow from the State has been erratic. Therefore, rather
than overstate revenues staff felt it was more prudent to leave it understated.
When the funds arrive, they will be treated as unanticipated revenue.
11. "Can the Housing In-Lieu-Fund Balance Also Be Shown in the PCDC Low &
Moderate Income,Honsing,Budget?"
Yes. It was requested that the projected ending fund balance for the Housing In-
Lieu Fund be shown in the Low& Moderate Income Housing Fund budget.
Henceforth, this addition will be shown in the budget.
12. "Could the PCDC Receive a Status Report on the URM Program, Identifying
the Exact Square Footage of the Buildings Eligible.for Retrofitting?"
Yes. A report will be provided to the PCDC within 60 days.
13. "Would the PCDC Consider Changing the URM Program,From a.Grant
Program to,a Loan Program, Thereby Preserving Funding for Other
Purposes?"
This'is•.a policy matter for PCDC consideration.
OE
14. "Could the;Process for Soliciting Design Firms for the,Improvements to Both
the Gateways and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Area be
• Comprehensive and Include Architectural Firms as Part of the RFP Process,
Not Just Engineering Firms?"
Yes. The RFP process will be comprehensive and include architectural firms.
15. "With Regard to the Polly Klaas Center Improvements, Could a Timeline Be
Provided to the City. Council,IdentifyingThe Resources Necessary to
Complete the Project?"
Yes. A report identifying the necessary resources and a revised timeline will be
provided to the City Council within 30 days.
16. "With Regard to Low and Moderate Income,Housing, Could Future PCDC
Supported Housing.Development Include Three:Story, High-Density
Housing?"
Yes, Housing staff will take this direction into account in future housing projects.
17. "With Regard to the Funding of the Petaluma Visitor's Bureau (PVB) with
Redevelopment Funding Instead of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), Why is
This Necessary and Will This Set a Precedent?"
The PCDC Proposed.Budget provides $300,000 in funding,for a project
administered by the PVB to'attract and "manage"tourism for'Petaluma. This is a
legitimate use of redevelopment funds. The funds will be transferred out to the
TOT Fund where the expenditure will actually occur. Each year, the City Council
has discretion to•allocate'funding to the PVB and is not bound.bythe actions of
former City Councils. The City Council may also establish policies and criteria
for the use of TOT funding for other projects, such as the.Quilt Show, perhaps
including cost/revenue impacts and broad community benefit.
18. "As Part of the Keller Street Garage Improvements and Security Program,
Could the Changes be Designed to Encourage Downtown Employees and
Residential Tenants to Parkin the Garage, Thereby Relieving the Use of
Limited On-Street Residential and Commercial Parking? Also, Could
Signage be Improved, Directing Motorists to the Garage?"
Yes. As part of establishing the parking rates for the Keller Street Garage, the
PDA and City staff will take into account the need to encourage employees and
tenants to parkin the structure. Improved signage will be included in the project.
•
199., "Should the PCDC Consider Cost Sharing,'With Developers for the
Development of New Parking Structures?"
The"Five Year Implementation Plan" assumes that the PCDC will share the cost
of developing parking structures with developers,,`allocating $2 million for that
purpose. Prior to appropriating funds for this purpose, the PCDC would
undertake a parking analysis to determine need,economic feasibility, and impact.
20. "Could Percentages of Funding Be Established in the PCDC Budget for Each
Classification/Type of Project?"
Yes. The PCDC may allocate funding or establish criteria for funding at its
discretion.
21. "As an Alternative to Relying Upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
Keep the Petaluma River Channel Open, Should`the City Council Consider
Forming an Assessment District to Finance and'Perform the Work?
Alternatively, Should.Additional Funding for Emergency Dredging be Added
in the PCDC Budget?"
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has historicallyperforined this work at federal
expense. Before considering the formation,of an assessment district, the City
Council,should exhaust all legal and legislative remedies with the Federal
Government. For example,funds are currently being requested as part of the
2002 Federal Budget. With regard to adding PCDC funding for emergency
dredging, the same principle applies.
22. "What is the Impact of the Eden Housing Project and the New Children on
Schools?"
The Housing Division will request a response as to the potential impact of the
project from the school district and prepare a report to the PCDC within 30 days.
23. "With Regard to the Payran Flood.Management Project, Should Funds be
Reserved for Construction+in Case Federal Funds.are not Received so That
Incremental Improvements Can Continue?"
The City has been very effective in obtaining.$3.1million in reprogrammed funds
in order to continue the project during the current year. The City Council has an
established policy not to add any more City funds to the project. This policy has
been instrumental in obtaining reprogrammed funding and in obtaining support
from federal legislators. A change in policy is not recommended at this time.
24. "Should the PCDC Allocate $13 Million Toward a Cross Town Connector?"
This is a policy matter for the PCDC.
•
• Attachment 1
•
•
•
-
��S LAN C
0
t.
0
SteD /L i-V,
No i �
2 c000 c
F
SREEZ
ft 5
23p9 5„ SNS\GjO \\ 60 SC
Ft,.
P 1.0
c \ \ ft
SQ'
\ w . 2-.Q'46 03
I
0 l 9 icy `G3
\\
C k' \ 9
SQ' ✓/
• 1 � ;U
,940
``<n ��
t• �r \ 5 5q"
05 SC\ f \ `�'�' \. Ac�O
13 �E \
SQ F t \\\�
\ N
"�/ � � DT
D
//e
IL \\4 sa•
22 54 3 1g6
h
,c;
X669
S9 i
/ 54•
q5°�
• Attachment 2
PI
•
'aS, a +w S
8'
pay }O 0 N
A_i3fi (� €&.€-S C'. F' Ali LL
a{ r 3 S u eli ,*r-4 �i , ° J _,vet€1`%x �,.. -A�a'`°� gfs a 0 ,,t LL O
CD
, x( l �1Mry 1" #. Y cyxi 1 co
Y
A ,. i i. 6 a
/`1 vvii .i '
V S { t �, 3 f 'ate;
ork `a ,y�a N
3 O N
a " f iti k �� a'SZ y
♦ , U- 7 n z g '-h 3 s. at to fif
a� _ o
o f ., a ' " .— i '4 4 . �,
�,i, r mob. v
.0 el
iota? rn
� � .. Cam . ' 4 ,� _ ON Ns-
ca
G f
T- 'y p
O)u� R YA q,'r t a.' T �H L 3 f W5' , i 0 ft'
p ., f M T O �9P f co Yi R r Q)rIt t CR 9: T L cn
1.0%'• „,4.75Ftek ,..°
\ k 5 _ 1� 4- 4 P Q
8 t. O Sc 14 °CA .' �
..e.„„)
M
v LL' �x t y xan
qA
Tj 1
;
In Al v t i. �A +nine I
, i
,Z q;eke "k: t .k 4 { w._
M A
:. 67 r
ra
��41 r °o °o °o °o °o °o °o o° °o 0
rsfia#�j � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ot +» 1 0 0 0 0 0 o O O
gg of CO V N 0°_ 0 CO 0 N
C a` +K3 f. r r r r 043.°
e 64 EA
s ' k EA ER EA EA EA
•
-- yx:: :';i i+ ! h; )';`::•';.: p ,.... . :i.z .•:a�y`..'�'r.:') O
!t I>« Q' ,rl i ,-°.n -S r.r, * .F,ry {kf �, ,
:.ate4 ''t: Y Bdt♦ ij t *'` , "•'^' S.If af•,° CO
K. {r H
14.J1I; :v
✓�-^ `�.Y-{�, i���: "•.Y.. �:a�::;^ La :@!l;i•i: .KE9�::::"f';N'�:.an'?ll: � �
T: ,� • : *. �. .9,°`f/'' sv:_S.SY„S, • yi ry.♦ t " ,x.i,: O
1. _t{ -Y:1-'- '3•T r.:,y:-i'.i�' s:✓.,,a �•ti:p' •"part i• �.r.5q
trr s• ,d'rc.4�i„<Ici;*i y'¢, ^7x x .y• y O
# '�•. c�yr ,�� t.....y: ItGt:'I�••_ f `lip LL
''ty Irp5 'rt'.' '?:1'd+ 1 „Ji:::'(ga.$i'i:. . . 'f.
,..), • .::r., 'f.~:F`•: � . x:..;5...>....:ti-,3,„iiyv':':1�' `;%:''. �� .�`.J y::e.,'Y$
'._.,..:r#i,.. ;yi;')tir,n...X..•
A.i..
O z• i
" M i1:. i '' -P , ff l~?'(er! '�' s 1 -- . � '' ' '' MOf.i' 1::„r: •' +M;� { =r ;:ii; ' �::: �, Y:' ^:i.:x.PA: 54. :'r : 'iJ.f•:`r~il f7:-•v :xr. .
o
o
'•. "• ':'JI'js:' ' .!"ads:`•
w:J, 'lr P':'.M.': •f .bSYt 'i;'i
t.
-.;.rl-.. ......i a4;� ��:�k.L',:: •Ctm :SK'.:yLN.:.:,e''!n:; •_a _
.y 7 yrS'•S(i y` :..Y '` r df %.2i?:x `i+t]s. .q:a'.:5:` '!' W
1 : 1jt ..-' 'CU v eye Y .4.,r R, t ^ ,:t = ,,. 'r I j :;,"
• R e w LL
`+I _ C °,a_ 1•.r k\ 1 I.M1 + " i> H [P
F_,"�,. A Rf ' :x' :f�EIyr�: ><y:•`-';i: .k I N
_ i`� -.7., � 1 �.� . L: ,..f: 0:;-:'.10.::::,4•°•i.''R..h"-� "',:ik::' ._. t•,A:v,.<:._., O
s�y:d�-` `• 7 ,..>'aS si: '.'d<: a+,.� ; ° :,,:.,4P.-..,•:..).c , "s«i • N M
d, ,j.t: r. 07 cc
- T (Q 'fix' iA3°.K' :':2jY.. Y - ' :t i!M• 'P 4 (D (t�'
cr)j�.' ti- w L'?'L.t1s �' f t y i4 rya;: :•i� .S•�A -•.:^.
cn
CD
'.: ::11 ”" L
(. "4 r.ti '!� :•'%'rte ..,. "�rr�ri y:•.:J y'jn,:a::..".Sii.i• t!')
LE,.. -, • d 'ai.i;.:. ;'rY"•• IR'e�:":'' ::f'1..: :� Y s'', ,e'.
"..''"" 0 '.:_.1 tl>`A :i'"�1. .V.•,5' RIrn•�h]• ,:Z. LL
.air ..
o
M. d -•')it . f: 'A'sn Gµ.•` ,:FS'r.' is '�.ie",.r ia?"',ti•;'""_
~V'•�•^ I.- h �^II`:•u]%'•t{f "eT.�.e x.'` y � rta 5_ O
n, .
x i:.:':Lr: .y
). ,S'..vfI 1I.t •4'?44�,r U. .:':9-.f:i(.�.i: u''nw; +.
s S
x-r_r:Yx j..}sN;:'•;r::',:c,
}LL''''''1 • xi �. '.le"'^ {. .r'.::+y isS• :I) � cp N,kS w •:5:`:•'':-...... .i:..':'. i(.., :i y a i � l: :.' : - U:4; a r�i I t}
L,:_-,,-.....,: �: �
- _ '.k;'e/;< ;'.vY.`±'-::i xr.:4.rN t�9f t!= s.` :r,i}i.p. :i , b d ,' M N O T•'+ f:i•,; ' ''t ' x.. .. LY. p°:!''" -r � . r ,1x:p:. • 'P`: ._ e--i .:'- e O•C.. - ', 0):V:! . d� O LO• O LL O�
J. 0 0 co 0 0 O - O 0 0
O O O 0 O O O O O O O O ci1 _ y. A F 0
f�'- A I co,\, L
•<' .
A.A.:, d`vri' '
oo
{
%n° hr1� p a r er5 •01 [b°
` �yY a 3 IY °a c+t I R ` .V d •re..t J�°
A-044%* t
tiP i{ G.I - ,�
s ' yJ� F ,7,b ['y t" ` :',1C.:}!•. r,,,.. *_ , a 5{ CO 9e ke z� F a 1 }. ,,_ 0,..•t• U i � L, • ta V`
- a xa '
� k
.tW A Xif rx{ 6 dF r" I,' ..` 0.a 11'45
'
� 5,_,,,,,l'0' .Irk \ �"f'
Z p yam.
� 1
a�q,d/ r r=v � am n - t arI .1' a0
a'as La—i r.r�• d iv.' t .,S i b �'" ,V.� �; Cr
11c;fi ` ' O � .,y` t �' � p µ t 4 „ , ,N} o
• CD
r
s9'.Si. �. a 'wo 'y f .._ d F ., I 1 s > Or}i,z• t .a x. 1 3 - _ a W. Cr
{ Td�9 k(P�11;, � d O s, ' a : ` J �1 r>ss bs0 i p• - ' -. L ..g Ct
L$d'6 '' d 1 4e 1 _1 1 u CO 1
Fy 4 1' \ w C ■v I x i ?; O
rP
a .. f f1 Ti ': C r tL cv' 1 Y . I w . +3 O):�,.4-1 2
e.
i '11``x�.+, F 1 4 f A C F 0 iSE t' 1^ ' }'L.
N �f. ^- 1n b a c
Y 7i3)
♦.q4 Ar 10j6.6411:' 1 i �I a � r 0 :. p ,:1-"1
gip' : M y ' F I g}t cn
LL
tiA w I�.ttx.9�! - ; � f a �1 lg • ^ _L1, -y .,a.
ctK't > 1 ,
i1 _ "W Na �5 ; ` F
1' a .r+ - N F P 7 t*1
atte` &I. 0�. f•: _ n. .. lad hP ;a M� •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a't
•-- t t O O, O O 'O Q: O O O O O
rr'' t O O' O O O co, O O O co, O
i�} g t • r` O oo r` co in V ch -N
R s erg r
�(< ,-
' . o or 1
• Attachment 3
•
• 1
Table A-4
Taxlncrement Projections
CBD Amended Project Area
•, (I •Future Value or.Nominal Dollars)
Tax Increment to'Agency, Agency Obligations Net Tax Increment Net Tax Increment
(I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) - Available for • Available for
Basic County Tax Pass- Bond Agency Housing Programs Non-Housing Projects
Year Fiscal Tax Admin Increment Through Debt Admin (7) (8) (9) (10)
(N) Year. Revenues' Fee to Agency Payments .Service Expenses . •Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative
.0 2000/01
1 2001/02 507,566 5,076 502,490 0 132,059 80,000 100,498 100,998 189,933 189,933
2 2002/03 806,519 8;065 .798,454 25,669 129,625 87500 159,691 260,189 395,969 585,902
3 2003/04 1,076,654 .10,767 1,065,887 87,321 ' 135,970 95,759 213,177 473,366 533,659 1,119,562
4 2004/.05 1,277,702 12,777 1,264,925 137,032 136,790 102,705 252,985 726,351 635,413 1,754,975
5 2005/06 1,465,437 14,654 1,450,782 179,103 132,390 110,195 290,156 1,0161508 738,938 2,493,912
6 2006/07 1,701,413 17,014 1,684,399 212,182 132,390 116382 336,880 1,353,388 886,066 3,379,978
7 2007/08 1,804:363 18,044 1,786,320 259,994 133,060 122,847 357,264 1,710,652 913,154 4,293,132
8 2008/09 1,914,259 19,143 1,895,116 281,669 132:890 129,571 379,023 2,089,675 971,963 5,265,095
9 2009/ 10 2,008,961 20,090 8988.871 300,334 0 135,398 397,774 2,487,449 1,155,365 6,420,461
10 2010/ I1 2,157,821 21,578 2,136,242 319,740 '0 141,457 427,248 2,914,697 1,247,797 7,668,258
II 2011/ 12 2,312,206 23,122 2,289,084 349,817 0 147,731 • 457,817 3,372,514 1,333,719 9,001,976
12 2012/ 13 2,501,838 25,018 2,476,819 - 903,087 0 153;479 495,364 3,867,878 1,424,889 10,426,866
13 2013/ 14 2,773,033 27,730 2,745,303 468,286 0 159,428 549,061 4,416,939 1,568,528 11,995,394
14 2014/ 15 3,0331503 30335 '3,003,168 556,727 0 164,236 600;634 5,017,572 1,681572 13,676,966
15 2015/16 3,285,782 32,858 3,252,929 646,428 . 0 169,520 650,585 5,668,157 1,786,391 15,463,357
16 2016/ 17 3,399,621 33,996 3,365,625 733,311 0 174,961 613,125 6,341,282 1,784,228 17,247,585
17 2017/18 3,519,759 35,198 3,484,562 773,486 0 180,565 696,912 7,038,194 1,833,598 19,081,183
18 2018/19 3,643,459 36,435 3,607,024 814,852 0 186,337 721,405 7,759,599 1,884,430 20,965,613
19 2019/20 3,770,826 37;708 3,733;117 857444 0 192,280 746,623 8,506,223 1,936,769 22;902,382
20 2020/21 3,901,969 39,020 3,862,949 901,300 0 '198,402 772,590 9,278,813 1,990,658 24,893,040
21 2021/22 4,037,001 40,370 3,996,631 946,455 0 204.705 799;326 10,078,139 2,046,144 26,939,185
22 2022/23 4,176,038 41,760 4,134:278 992,950 0 211,197 826,856 10,904,994 2,103,275 29,042,460
• 13 2023/24 4,319,199 43,192 4,22 76,007 1,040823 0 217,883 855,201 11,760,196 2,162,099 31204,559
24 2024/25 4,466,606 44,666 4,421,940 1,090,117 0 224,769 884,388 12,644,584 2,222,667 33,427,225
25 2025/26 4,618,386 46,184 4,572;203 1,140,872 0 .231,860 914,441 13,559,024 2,285,030 35,712,255
26 2026/27 4,774,670 47,747 4,726,923 1,193,134 0 239,163 945,385 14,504,409 2,349,242 38,061,497
27 2027/28 1,427,057 14,271 1,412',786 388,666 0 74;156 282,557 14,786,966 667,407 38,728,904
28 2028/29 1,483,370 14;834 1,468,536 407,569 0 76,726 293,707 15,080,673 690,535 39,419,439
29 2029/30 1,541,350 15,413 1,525,936 427,031 0 79,372 305,187 15,385,861 714,347 40,133,786
30 2030/31 1,601,046 16,010 1,585,035 447,069 0 82,096 317,007 15,702,868 738,864 40,872,649
31 2031/32 1,662,509 16,625 1,645,884 467,700 0 84,901 329,177 16,032,045 764,107 41,636,756
32 .2032/33 1,725,792 17,258 1,708,534 494,750 0 87;208 341,707 16,373,751 784,870 42,421,626
33 2033/34 1,790,949 17,909 1,773,039 522,601 0 89;583 354,608 16,728,359 806,248 43,227,873
34 2034/35 1,858,035 18,580 1,839,455 • 551,276 0 92,029 367,891 17,096,250 828,259 44,056,132
35 2035/36 1,927,108 19,271 1,907,837 580,801 0 94547 • 381,567 17,477,818 850,922 44,907,054
36 2036/37 1,998,227 19,982 1,978,245 611,201 0 97:140 395,649 17,873,467 874,256 45,781,310
37 2037/38 2,071,454 20,715 2,050,739 642,500 0 99,809 410,148 18.283,614 898,282 •46,679,591
38 2038/39 2,146;849 21,468 2,125,381 674.728 0. 102,553 425,076 18,708,691 923,019 47,602,611
39 2039/40 2,224,479 22,245 2202,234 707,910 0 105,388 440,447 19,149,137 948,490 48,551,101
40 2040/41 2,304,409 23,044 2,281,365 742,075 0 108,302 456,273 19,605,411 974,716 49,525;816
41 2041/42 2,386,709 23,867 2,362,842 777,253 0 111,302 472;568 20,077,979 1,001,718 50,527,535
42 2042/43 2,471,448 • 24,714 2,446,733 • 813,474 0 114;391 489,347 20,567,326 1,029,522 51,557,057
43 2043/44 2,558,699 25,587 2,533,112 850,768 0 117,572 506,622 21,073,948 1,058,149 52,615,206
44 2044/45 2,648,537 26:485 2,622,051 889,168 0 120,847 524,410 21,598,358 1,087,626 53,702,832
45 2045/.46 2,741,038 27,410 2.713.628 928.706 . .6 124;220 542,726 22,141,084 1,117,977 54,820,809
TOTAL 111,823,656 17118,237 110,705,419 26,637,376 1',065,674 6,040,477 22,141,084 ' • 54,820,809
Cumulative
To: 2010/ I1 14,720,694 147,207 14,573,487 1,803,044 1,065,674 1,121,815 2,914,697 7,668,258 -
To: 2020/21 46,862,690 468,627 46,394,063 8,307,781 1,065,674 2,848,754 9,278,813 • 24,893,040 _ .
To: 2030/31 79,307,413 793.074 78,519,339 16,382,466 1,065674 4,490,682 15,702,868 40,872,649 • .
To: 2045/46 111,823,656 1,113,237 110,705,419 26,637,376 1,065674 6,040,477_ 22,141,084 • 54,820,809
• Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment(1.0%),exclusive of bond overrides.
40,
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_Tl_Summ CBD 4-2001: •I A 4/3/01
•
•, Attachment 4
•
•
Draft: For Preliminary Discussion Only
Keller Street Garage Security Project
Annual Recurring Costs
1. A. Contract Security Services @ $20/hour
• Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. 36 hours
• Fridays 0 a.m. to 12 p.m. 14 hours
• Saturdays 8 a.m. 12 p.m. 16 hours
• Sundays 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. 9 hours
Total Weekly Hours 75 hours
Annual Cost of Security Services: $78,000
$20/hour'x 75hours/week
x 52 weeks
$78,000
B. Annual.Maintenance Costs: $50,000
Total Annual Cost: $128,000
• Annual Revenue Scenarios
2. Option I: Assume 100 cars/day x 6,days x 52 weeks: 31,200 cars
Cost Per Car ($100,000/31,200 cars): $3.20 per car
Option II: Assume 200 cars/day.x 6 days x 52 weeks: 62,400 cars
Cost Per Car ($100,000/62,400 cars): $1.60 per car
Option III: Assume 300 cars/day x 6 days x 52 weeks: 93,600 cars
Cost Per Car ($100,000/93,600 cars): $1.06 per car
Net Annual Operating Cost
3. Annual Net Cost for Security & Maintenance:
Revenue: ($100,000)
Expenditures: $128,000
Net Cost: $ 28,000
Future Revenue Growth
• 4. Depending on optimal rate structure, revenue could increase to $160,000
by FY 200647 as per the "Five-Year Implementation Plan."
City of Petaluma,California
6/7/01