Exhibit CC 11-17-15 Item #1 Civic Center Master Plan Emails to Council J
CC Il /I7 )) S
Grace Schmidt
From: Lisa Maletis-Massey
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:50 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center- put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact
fees as funding
Agenda-Study Session E X I-I I B I T
From: Liang C [mailto:lfchao@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Civic Center- put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact fees as funding
•
Dear Mayor Sink, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,
The agenda description of the Study Session of Civic Center once again did not mention the estimated cost of
the project$70 million, even when funding analysis is being discussed.
•
Thank you for considering the Civic Center on the ballot.
Please do put the Civic Center project on ballot for the residents to decide. However it is financed, all the tax
payers and our children will be paying for the project for the next 30 years. We should get to decide. You are .
spending our money. Please be open about the price tag of the project and mention it clearly in meeting agenda
and any news report from the city or in the Courier. And please give the residents a clear written explanation on
why the$70 million dollar is necessary.
If the Civic Center project will be implemented, please put the$70 million project out for other architecture
firms to bid with their best designs. Many other cities have done this for their projects. With $20,000 stipend
each for 5 firms, we can get innovative designs for City Hall and the library expansion. Some top architecture
firms are even willing to submit their designs for free just to get a chance of bidding on the project. If we have
to build a new City Hall, that's do it right and open it out for bids.
Architecture firm Perkins+Will should not be permitted to work on the Civic Center project due to conflict of
interest. They have been instrumental in presenting options to the Council and they provided testimonies that
led the Council towards the decision of tearing down the City Hall to re-build. It is in their best interest to make
the project as big as possible, whether they did it intentionally or not. Perkins+Will should not participate in
Civic Center project anymore just to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Hamptons donated $7 million dollar for Civic Center project. Sand Hill might want to pay for the underground
garage. Maybe other developers might donate more. However, $7 million spent on the Civic Center project, if
not necessary, is still $7 million dollars that could have been spent elsewhere on improving civic services that
directly impact residents' quality of life and even save lives.
Also, any donation from a developer earmarked for a controversial project, like Civic Center, that many
residents oppose to should be avoided. This can be seen as a way to please any one of the Councilmembers who
approve of the Civic Center project and trying to gain approval from the opposing residents. The Council should
ask Hamptons and other developers to not earmark their donation to Civic Center to avoid any such undesirable
implication.
r
The Funding Analysis report only explored one type of financing options, getting funding from the bank, which
always involves added interest. No other funding sources have been looked at.
The Council should look into other financing options like Development Impact Fee for Infrastructure, like city
hall, libraries, police stations, etc. that many other cities have implemented for years already. Of course,
Development Impact Fee can only cover a small amount that's justifiable for the new projects. But that will
reduce the amount we need to borrow from the bank.
Palo Alto has a Finance Committee, appointed by their City Council, to look at various funding options, like
sales tax increase, hotel transient tax increase or bond measures to enhance their infrastructure. These options,
like an increase in sales:tax, may not be prefetable,,but they should at least be explored. Palo Alto has just
raised their hotel transient tax again in order to cover the cost of facilities for infrastructure. And they have
twice our annual revenue,but the same amount of population.
Palo Also also charges Transportation Impact Fee for development projects to cover aggregated impact on
traffic citywide. Any mitigation from EIR usually covers only impact close to a project. But the impact of traffic
congestion usually spread to other parts of the city. Transportation Impact Fee could recover that cost from new
developments.
On the one hand, the City says we need more money for infrastructure and you approved the new GPA
procedure to allow developers to pay "community benefits" in exchange for more height and more office and
more density. On the other hand, you are going to spend $70 million dollar on a project without fulling
exploring the different options. And you also are unwilling to look at other financing options for the City.
Please be consistent in your decision making. Be open and clear in your intention and consequence of the
decisions you make. Your decisions will impact all of our lives for years to come.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
•
2
•
Grace Schmidt
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:29 PM
To: City Council; David Brandt;Timm Borden
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center Master Plan -Affordability Analysis
Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,
I realize this is just a few hours from the study session but ! have read through the material for tonight's study
session and have a few concerns that I hope you can address or clarify to the public before any decision is
made:
1. The material is supposed to address "affordability". It does a thorough job of showing the City's
finances now which is a "best case scenario". It does not cover how the City would be able to afford
this debt during a "worst case scenario" such as during 2008/2009 time frame.
a. REQUEST: Please provide a worst case scenario showing how the debt would be covered if the
economy takes a significant dip. 30 years is a long time and dips happen!
2. LEASE FINANCING/ASSET TRANSFER—can you please, during the study session, explain what this is —
slowly and clearly.
a. "Lease" to me, means the City will not own the buildings anymore! Right now, land and
property are very valuable. It is a way for businesses and residents to control their costs by
avoiding rents.
i. Q: Is the City selling the buildings?
ii. Q: Are they selling the land?
Hi. Q: Who will end up owning the land? •
iv. 0: Who will end up owning the buildings?
b. "Asset transfer" to me, means transferring ownership of property.
i. Q: What is being sold/transferred?
3. COP vs BONDS—I understand COP doesn't require a 2/3rds vote and BONDS do but...
a. 0: what about financing differences? Is one cheaper? What about ownership?
4. NEXT STEPS— It seems to be to be a BIG conflict of interest to have the same company that does this
overall plan, also do the job!
a. BIDS Q: Why not go out to bid for other architects?
i. At home, we get at least 3 bids before doing ANY big job! Each time
we get a bid, we learn a lot and get very different perspectives.
H. It also forces us to decide exactly what we need and what frills we
can do away with.
iii. It also helps with costs. If the planner does the job and knows
there's no competition, why bother giving a competitive bid?
b. I do not think resurrecting the old August 18, 2015 CC request should occur. I believe there
should be a bidding process.
The original request that triggered this study session was the failed approval of a request for
$5,500,000 for design consultant services and the ability for the City Manager to approve up to
an additional $2M. This "design consultant services" was REALLY VAGUE! Nobody could tell
1
what exactly was being done for$5.5M. If it is brought up again, (which I do not think it should)
it needs to be detailed.
i. Q: What in the world are we getting for$5.SM?
H. 0: What are the deliverables and the timelines?
iii. Q: Where and how does this fit into the overall project and costs?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
griffin@compuserve.com
Thank you,
•
Peggy Griffin
griffin@compuserve.com
•
•
2
Grace Schmidt
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent Tuesday, November 17, 2015 5:05 PM
To: City Council; David Brandt;Timm Borden
Cc: City Clerk; Liang C
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center master Plan -Affordability Analysis
Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,
This email is being sent on behalf of Liang-Fang Chao.
In regard to the Lease-Financing plan mentioned in the Study Session material:
1. In the event that the City cannot afford to pay the annual fee anymore, what happens?
a. Does the bank then own City Hall?
b. What would the City do to make up the difference to make the payment?
2. We have been told that our City relies on Apple and its success for our city's financing. If for some unknown
reason, Apple is no longer successful, how would this impact the City's ability to make these payments?
a. What would the City do to make up the difference to make the payment?
b. What would happen if they don't make the payment?
3. The analysis discusses revenue and the expenses are mentioned in terms of the surplus amounts(more than
$llmillion/year of the next 5 years).
a. What are the actual recurring expenses—the amounts?
b. How much are they projected to increase over the next 30 years?
c. What about other projects other than City Hall? Are they factored into this projection? If not,what are
the upcoming projects over the next 30 years that our City needs to address? Will we have money for
them? If so, where will that money come from?
4. Surplus of$90 million—I believe this includes the $30 million from the sale of Pruneridge Avenue, which is a
one-time income.
a. Can you provide a 10-year chart of our revenue and expenses and the net surplus?
Sincerely,
Liang-Fang Chao
1