Staff Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Date: June 11, 1990
SUBJECT:
The ~on. or
Depart n H ds
Donal . B wn,
Citizen survey
and Members of the City council; All
MEMO TO:
FROM:
city Manager
Attached is the preliminary survey put together by GodbejFries
communications for your review. This survey will be used to
determine public sentiment about a bond measure in November.
Please look over the questions and provide input to either myself or
Donna Krey prior to Wednesday morning, if possible.
We are working on a tight timeline for this project and I would
appreciate any feedback by this time.
Thank you.
DDB: Ian
Attachment
CIT'i OF OJ<,J:;KJ:INO
Date: July 13, 1990
SUBJEcr:
Donald D. BrcMn, City Manager
~
MEMO 'ro:
FROM:
Tax Al ternati ves
I. Define The Need
Blackberry Fams
Fremont Older School
School playing fields upgrade
$ 18 million
10.9 million
4.6 million
'IOI'AL
$ 33.5 million
Alternative: Allor a portion of the above.
II. Debt service Requirement
Net proceeds
20 year bond
25 year bond
$ 33.5 million
3.5 million per year
3.2 million per year
$ 30 million
3. 1 million per year
2 .8 million per year
Net proceeds
20 year bond
25 year bond
Net proceeds
20 year bond
25 year bond
$ 25 million
2.6 million per year
2. 3 million per year
III. Tax Alternatives
A. Utility Tax
--Assume:
3% rate
annual inflation of 4%
FG&E and telephone
debt service adequate for $30 million bond
debt service adequate for $35 million bond
--20 year =
--25 year =
B. Excise Tax
--Alternative Tax Rates
Residential (15,046 - 1990)
$ 60/unit x 15,046 = $ 902, 760/year
$ 80/unit x 15,046 = l,203,680jyear
$100/unit x 15,046 = l,504,600jyear
Page 2
Office/commercial
$ 40 per employee
$ 60 per employee
$ 80 per employee
(21,000 employees)
= $ 840, OOOlYear
= 1,260,OOO/year
= 1,680,OOOjyear
IV . Survey Results
1. Excise tax has best chance of success. Utility tax probably
wouldn't receive 50% support needed.
2 . Coordinated and broad based support would be required for the
excise tax to succeed. (E.g. Education, youth sports, large
and small business, voter registration, etc.)
3. To pass, an excise tax should be in the $60-70 per unit per year
range.
4. A sunset clause should be included.
. 5. A senior citizen (65+) exemption should be included.
6. A high turnout election gives the best chance of success.
--November 1990 is first chance.
v. Analvsis and Options
The City Council is faced with a dilemma: The tax that would provide the
necessary revenue and that has the most advantages, the Utility Tax,
appears to suffer a fatal flaw; the voters don't like it.
The tax that appears to receive the needed voter support necessary for
adoption does not generate enough revenue to do all we want to do.
The follow:!n;¡- appear to be the primary options available to the city
council. (Some combination may also be considered.)
1. Utilitv Tax - In spite of the negative polling, the council
could ask the voters to approve a Utility Tax. The hope would
be that voters could be educated to the "rightness" of a Utility
Tax in order to achieve a 50% approval rate.
2. Excise Tax - ihe council could ask the voters to approve an
excise tax. There appears to be support at an appropriate tax
rate.
a) Set Tax to Fulfill 'Ibtal Need - ($33.5 million)
The tax rate required would be:
--Residential $100 per unit/year ($1. 5 million)
--Business -- $ 80 per employee/year ($1. 68 million)
'Ibtal $3 .18 million
Comment: Probably not supportable by either residents or
business.
Page 3
b) Set Tax at SuPpOrtable Rate
--Maximum Residential $70/unit ($1. 05 million)
--Business $60/employee ($1.26 million)
Total $2.31 million
Comment: 'Ihis option would require a scal:!n;¡- back of the
need as defined in I. above. If $2.3 million in
debt savice, then the need would have to be
reduced by $8.5 million.
3. Earmark Other Revenues: If the Council opts to scale back the
need to support the probable revenues, then other revenues may
be considered for the balance:
a) Park CeveloPment Tax - The park development tax will
generate roughly $20 million through buildout of the current
General Plan. A significant portion of this will go to
reimburse the city's General Fund for expenditures advanced
for parks and recreation purchases (Wilson Park, Sports
Center, etc. ) . 'Ihis reimbursement would relieve the debt
service drain on the operating budget and provide a
maintenance fund that is supported by interest earnings.
b) Revenues from Blackberry Farm - Net operating revenues from
the combined operations of Blackberry Farm have not been
determined precisely, nor have they been allocated to any
share of the cost of the property.
4 . Phase-In Plavincr Fields' Improvements: If the Excise Tax at the
$70/$60 rate is selected, then revenues to support the original
need would be $8.5 million short. When looking at the
individual items of need, the two land acquisitions (Blackben:y
Farm and Fremont Older School) would appear to be the most time
sensitive (Le. if we don't act nCM, we may lose the
opportunity) .
'Ihe iInprovements to the play:!n;¡- fields could be budgeted as part
of our annual capital budget over a 3-5 year pericxi.
VI . Adoption Schedule
To qualify a general tax measure for the November, 1990 ballot, the
council will need to meet and introduce the ordinance at a special
meeting on August 1. 'Ihe Ordinance must then be approved (with four
positive votes) on August 6 or an adjourned regular meeting, no
later than August 9, to qualify for the ballot.2
OTHER ISSUFS
COLLECTION PROCESS FOR EXCISE TAX:
Initial contact has been made with water canq;¡anies sav:!n;¡- the city. Both
companies have voiced a will:!n;¡-ness to collect and forward the tax. '!hey
would not be responsible to collect unpaid a=unts.
Page 4
Having water corrpanies provide the bill:!n;¡-s would cover approxœtely 2/3
of residential units. The remai.nin:J units that are mainly apartments
would require an internal bill:!n;¡- process.
A major problem of bill:!n;¡- rental units is keep:!n;¡- track of cu=ent
renters. Apartments could be treated as a business and billed with the
business community.
Billing the business community would be in conjunction with the annual
business license collection process.
COULCrION PROCESS FOR A UI'ILITY TAX:
If a utility tax were ilt1posed, the tax would be collected by the specific
utility upon which the tax was imposed.
IMPAcr OF SENIOR HOUSEHOLD:
There is an estilnated 828 senior households in the city. Us:!n;¡- an
estilnated 15,046 households in CUpertino and provid:!n;¡- for senior
exemption, that would provide 14,672 taxable households. The net cost of
this exemption would be $49,680 per year.
10300 TOIf. A......
Cvp."ifto. Calilornta 95014
SUMMARY
14081252-4505
AGENDA ITEM
3e<.-/
AGENJ?A DATE AUQUSt 1 1990
SUBJEC1' AND ISSUE
RE<X:t>1MENDED REVISION 'ID PROPOSED urILITY USER TAX ORDINANCE 1534.
BACKGROUND
Upon the recommendation of the Bond Attorney and input received from
P.G.& E. and the telephone conpany, the follow:!n;¡- changes are recommended:
The recommended changes have 'been underlined.
1) Section 3.34.020 Exemption. (page 3)
SUb paragraph (a) has been deleted and replaced with simpler
language.
2) Section 3.34.30 (a) Telphone User Tax (page 3)
The words "other than a Telephone Corporation" have been added.
3) Section 3.34.040 (a) Electricity User Tax (page 4)
The words "other than an Electrical Corporation" have been added.
4) Section 3.34.070 (b) Penalties (page 8)
The words "determined by the tax administrator" have been added.
SUbmitted by:
1 b^
I J .
IC;~ ~ j¿.~
Blaine Snyder /.
Director of Finance
Approved for SUbmission:
Donald D. Brown
City Manager
"
CITY OF aJPERrINo
Date: July 27, 1990
MEM:) 'IO:
FRCM:
'!he Honorable Mayor and
Donald D. Brown, City Manager
Alternative Tax Ordinances
Çcuncil
SUBJ'ECI' :
I am attach:!n;¡- for yaJr backgroun:I Irr:I initial memoran:lum that was reviewed
at the prior city council meeting regardin; the potential fuIxiing of open
space and school play:!n;¡- fields in the City of CUpertino. At that last
meet:!n;¡- the city council directed the staff to develop two alternative tax
ordinances that could be p.tt on the November 1990 ballot.
ihe two draft ordinances are attached for yaJr review and consideration.
ihe alternative ordinances are:
1. UI'ILITY USERS EXCISE TAX: 'Ibis ordinance provides for a ballot
measure ask:!n;¡- for a majority awroval of a 2.4 percent utility user
tax on gas, electric and telepx,ne. ihe tax would be levied for a
period of not to exceed 25 years in order to service an estimated cost
of $25 million. 'Ihe ordinance provides an exenption for senior
citizens. 'Ihe collection of the tax would be done by the utility
catq:)anies mentioned.
2. EXCISE TAX: 'Ibis tax also requires a majority vote to pass. It
provides a $65 per year tax per residential lmit and a $65 per
employee per year tax on bus~ses, or in the case of apartment
houses, a $65 per dweJ.l:!n;¡- lmit tax. Again, senior citizens of 65
years or older would be exempt. 'Ihe time limit would be 25 years for
an estimated cost of $25 million. Collection of the tax would be
through the water <XIIq)anÌes serv:!n;¡- CUpertino for residential lmits,
through the business license tax for bus~ses, and in sane cases, a
direct bill:!n;¡- for these not COVered by the above bill:!n;¡- methods.
As reviewed at the last city council meet:!n;¡-, our goal is to raise ena.Jgh
annual tax to service a debt of $25 million. A $25 million acquisition
program would, we believe, allow us to acquire both Blackberry Farm and
the F'le¡,......L Older Elementary School site. 'Ibis ëI!IICA.U1t would not provide
the ~saeu:y fuIxiing fran the tax for the upgrading of the sports fields
attached to CUpertino Union School District's school sites. Hc7.1ever,
through the levy of this tax, it is possible to earmark future park
developnent tax nnney for a special fund that would be dedicated for youth
sports facilities. Therefore, we are also propos:!n;¡- a SUR'1ementa!
resolution to the city council for the pJZ}X)Se of establishing a Youth
Sports Reserve Fun:l that would be funded initially in the ëI!IICA.U1t of $1.1
million. 'Ibis fund would be established if am when one of the above tax
measures is approved by the voters.
.3 -(
CITY OF a,,,,,,,,,c.dNO
Date: July 13, 1990
F'RCX>! :
'Ihe Honorable Mayor and Members
Donald D. Brt:Mn, City Manager
Tax Alternatives
. ty council
MEN:) 10:
~
SUBJECl':
I. Define ihe Need
Blackben:y Farms
Frenont Older School
School play:!n;¡- fields upgrade
'roI'AL
$ 18 million
10.9 million '
4.6 million
$ 33.5 million
Alternative: Allor a portion of the above.
II. Debt seJ:Vice Reauirement
Net~'"
20 year bon:1
25 year bon:1
Net p~"
20 year bon:1
25 year bon:1
$ 33.5 million
3.5 million per year
3.2 million per year
$ 30 million
3.1 million per year
2.8 million per year
$ 25 million
2.6 million per year
2.3 million per year
Net pt"V"eed.;:
20 year bon:1
25 year bon:1
III. Tax Alternatives
A. utilitv ~
-Assume: 3% rate
annual inflation of 4%
ro&E and telephone
debt service adequate for $30 million born
debt service adequate for $35 million bon:1
-20 year =
--25 year =
B. Excise Tax
-Alternative Tax Rates
Residential (15,046 - 1990)
$ 60/unit x 15,046 = $ 902,760/year
$ 80/unit x 15,046 = l,203,680/year
$100junit x 15,046 = l,504,600/year
]-3
Page 2
Office/Ccmmercial
$ 40 per employee
$ 60 per employee
$ 80 per employee
IV. SUrvev Results
1. Excise tax has best chance of success. utility tax probably
WOlÙdn't receive 50% support l"~ed.
(21,000 employees)
= $ 840,OOO/year
= l,260,OOO/year
= l,680,OOO/year
2. Coordinated and broad based support would be required for the
excise tax to s1.1cceed. (E.g. Education, youth sports, large
and small business, voter registration, etc.)
3. 'Ib pass, an excise tax should be in the $60-70 per unit per year
range.
4. A sunset clause should be included.
5. A senior citizen (65+) exenq:>tion should be included.
6. A high turnout election gives the best chance of success.
-November 1990 is first chance.
v. Analvsis and Options
'!he City council is faced with a dilemma: ihe tax that would provide the
necessary revenue and that has the most advantages, the Utility Tax,
appears to suffer a fatal flaw; the voters don't like it,.
'!he tax that appears to receive the l"<>eded voter support necessary for
adoption does not generate enough revenue to do all we want to do.
'!he follow:!n;¡- appear to be the primary options available to the city
counciL (Some combination may also be considered.)
1. utilitv ~ - In spite of the negative poll:!n;¡-, the council
could ask the voters to approve a utility Tax. ihe hope WOlÙd
be that voters could be educated to the "rightness" of a utility
Tax in order to achieve a 50% approval rate.
2. Excise Tax
excise tax.
rate.
- 'Ihe council could ask the voters to approve an
'Ihere appears to be support at an appropriate tax
a) Set Tax to Fulfill 'Ibtal Need - ($33.5 million)
'!he tax rate required would be:
--Residential - $100 per unit/year ($1.5 million)
--aJsiness - $ 80 per employee/year ($1. 68 million)
'Ibtal $3.18 million
Canunent: Probably not supportable by either residents or
business.
::3-'-1
Page 3
b) set Tax at SUPcortable Rate
-MaJdJmIm Residential $70/l.U'Iit ($1. 05 million)
-Business $60/employee ($1.26 million)
'Ibtal $2.31 million
Comment: '!his option 'NOOld require a scal:!n;¡- back of the
need as defined in 1. above. If $2.3 million in
debt service, then the need 'NOOld have to be
ram'rM by $8.5 million.
3. Earmark Other Revenues: If the Council opts to scale back the
need to support the probable revenues, then other revenues may
be considered for the balance:
a) Park Develoaœnt Tax - ihe park developœnt tax will
generate roughly $20 million through buildcut of the current
General Plan. A significant portion of this will go to
reimburse the city's General Fund for expen:1itures advanced
for parks and recreation purchases (Wilson Park, Sports
center, etc. ) . '!his reimbursement 'NOOld relieve the debt
service drain on the operat:!n;¡- budget and provide a
maintenance f'l11'ñ that is supported by interest eanrin;Js.
b) Revenues .frn!¡ Blackberrv Fann - Net operatin;¡- revenues from
the canbined operations of Blackben:y Farm have not been
determined precisely, nor have they been allocated to any
share of the cost of the property.
4. R1ase- In Plavincr Fields I :r:mrovements: If the Excise Tax at the
$70/$60 rate is selected, then revenues to Support the original
need 'NOOld be $8.5 million short. When lcokin;¡- at the
individual items of need, the two land acquisitions (Blackben:y
Farm and F'le¡LlOI!t Older School) 'NOOld appear to be the IOOSt time
sensitive (Le. if we don't act nf:M, we may lose the
opportunity) .
'Ihe ilrprovements to the play:!n;¡- fields could be budgeted as part
of our annual capital budget over a 3-5 year period.
VI. Adootion Schedule
'Ib qualify a general tax measure for the November, 1990 ballot, the
Council will need to meet and introduce the ordinance at a special
meet:!n;¡- on 1\JJqUst 1. ihe Ordinance must then be approved (with four
positive votes) on 1\JJqUst 6 or an adjCJUn'1eCl regular meet:!n;¡-, no
later than 1\JJqUst 9, to qualify for the ballot. 2
OIHER ISSUES
COLLECI'ION ~~s FOR EXCISE TAX:
Initial contact has been made with water c::œpanies serv:!n;¡- the city.
c::œpanies have voiced a will:!n;¡-ness to collect and fozward the tax.
'NOOld not be responsible to collect unpaid acco.mts.
Both
'Ihey
3 ---
, ~.>
Page 4
flav:!n;¡- water =Pmies provide the billings would cover approximately 2/3
of residential units. ihe remainin;¡ units that are mainly apartments
would require an internal bill:!n;¡- process.
A major problem of bill:!n;¡- rental units is keep:!n;¡- track of current
renters. Apartments could be treated as a business and billed with the
business COII1IIU.U1Ìty.
Bill:!n;¡- the business COII1IIU.U1Ìty would be in conjunction with the annual
business license collection process.
COILEcrrON PROCESS FOR A tJI'ILITY TAX:
If a utility tax were imposed, the tax would be collected by the specific
utility upon which the tax was imposed.
IMPAcr OF SENIOR HOOSEHO!D:
'!here is an estilnated 828 senior households in the city. Us:!n;¡- an
estilnated 15,046 households in CUpertino and providing for senior
exenq:>tion, that WOlÙd provide 14,672 taxable households. ihe net cost of
this exemption WOlÙd be $49,680 per year.
3-'
"
cityofOJpertino
10300 'Ibrre Avenue, OJpertino, California 95014
(408) 252-4505
'Ib: All city :&Iployees
Fran:
Dorothy CoJ:T1elius, city Clerk
Date: April 18, 1990
SUbject: EMPIDYEES' PARl'ICIPATICN m B1ILLOl'ME1ISURE CAMPAIGNS
'Ihe League of California cities has prepared guidelines for the
employees of a public agerr:y to follow when su¡:.pol. ting or CJPIX&:!n;¡- a
ballot measure. As an employee of a public agerr:y you do not give up
your basic CXI'IStitutianal rights to participate in political
activities. Hcwever, there are sane specific restrictions and
prohibitions regamin;J political activities at city time, at city
prc:perty, 1IIIear:!n;¡- of city uniform, etc.
Please take a !I&.uo::IjL and read the attad1ed guidelines c:x:rx:mnin;J
enployee activities in ballot measure t"""P'igns.
6. .M there any other restrictions in the foliliall &f0lm Act thiIl might restrict a local
eJeae.d ofjicilll's ]1Q11icipation in ba/Jot meosure campai¡pu?
The FPPC notes that a local elected official who also serves as an
appointed, voting member- of another agency (~ a Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), special district board, joint powers authority or regional
planning agency) may, under certain circumstances, be prohibited from accepting,
soliciting or directing contributions on behalf of a ballot measure commntee.22
EMPLOYEE ACfIVITIES
1. May a public employee support or oppose baJlot meQSUIf!S?
Like an elected official, a public employee does not give up his or her
constitutional rights upon joining a public agency.23 This fact is reflected in
Government Code section 3201, which says that, with certain exceptions, no
restrictions may be placed on the political activities of public employees.24 Public
employees should not, of course, use public resources (including their time on the
job) to advocate a particular position on a ballot measure.2S As a result, state
law allows cities to prohibit or restrict 1) political activities on city property and
2) officers and employees engaged in political activities during working hours.26
2. May a public employee ask his or her feIJow public employees for contributions to a
ba/Jot meosure campaign?
Under Government Code sections 320S:l7 and 3209,28 local public
employees may not solicit contributions from their fellow employees unless:
a. The solicitation is made to a significant segment of the public in which the
fellow employees are included; or
b. The funds are solicited to promote or defeat a ballot measure affecting the
rate of pay, working hours, retirement, civil service or other working
conditions.
Although the code sections do not specify, such solicitation should not occur on
city time or use city resources.29
3. May a /ocal public employee wear his or her uniform when engaging in political
activities after hours?
No, this is specifically prohibited by Government Code section 3206.30
4
4. May a public employee respond to a request 101' inlDmllllion on a public agMC)l~
DnIllysis 0101' position on a bal/ol metl.SIU'e?
Yes, a public employee may respond to such a request as long as the
employee provides a "fair representation of the facts."JI This response may
include speaking to public or private organizations interested in the public
agency's position.32
PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
1. What are the potenIial consequences 01 improperly win¡¡ public 1esoutce1 to promote
01' oppose a ba/Jot measure?
An individual who improperly uses public resources to support or oppose a
ballot measure may have to reimburse the agency for the value of the resources
used.JJ In addition, the individual may face criminal sanctions for theft, misuse of
public funds and fraud.J4
CONCLUSION
Public officials and employees have many ways to exercise their right to promote
or oppose ballot measures. The key is not to use the public's time, money or other
resources to do so. Public resources may, however, be used to provide objective analysis
of and information concerning proposed ballot measure.
Charges that an agency or individual has misused and misappropriated public
resources are extremely serious. Consequently, when an activity is the least bit
questionable, it is best, in the League's view, to err on the side of caution.
1. Government Code section 50023 provides:
The legislative body of a local agency, directly or through a
representative, may attend the Legislature and Congress, and any
committees thereof, and present information to aid the passage of
legislation which the legislative body deems beneficial to the local
agency or to prevent the passage of legislation which the legislative
body deems detrimental to the local agency. The legislative body of
a local agency, directly or through a representative, may meet with
representatives of executive or administrative agencies of state,
federal, or local government to present information requesting
action which the legislative body deems beneficial to, or opposing
action deemed detrimental to, such local agency. The cost and
expense incident thereto are proper charges against the local
agency.
5
14. ~ Cal. Gùv'¡ Code SS 82041.5 (d~finition of mass maihllg), 89G'll
(prohibition of mass maiiings); 18 Cal. Code of Reg. S 18901 (regulation
implementing prohibition),
15. S« September 9, 11J1!8 Witt Opinion, at 3-4.
16. ~ California Fair Political Practices Commission, Response to League of
California Cities' Request for Informal Assistance No. 1-89-669, February 7, 1990,
at 3 (available from League).
17. M. at 3-4.
18. M.
19. Id. at 4-5.
20. ~ Cal. Gov't Code S 843025 (definition of intermediary).
21. Id. at 4-5.
22. I!1. at 5-6.
23. ~ Ba¡¡ley v. Washin¡¡ton Township Ho&pital District. 65 Cal. 2d 499, 55
Cat Rptr. 401 (1966) (hospital district's prohibition of employees from
participating in any ballot measures pertaining to the district was
unconstitutionally overbroad); Rosenfield v. Malcom. 65 Cal. 2d 559, 55 Cal.
Rptr. 505 (1967) (holding that county cannot dismiss a county employee on the
grounds that it disagrees with the employee's activities); Fort v. Civil Service
Commission. 61 Cat 2d 331, 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 (1964) (invalidating a county
charter provision prohibiting civil service employees from engaging in political
activities).
24. California Government Code section 3201 provides:
The Legislature finds that political activities of public
employees are of significant statewide concern. The provisions of
this chapter shall supersede all provisions on this subject in the
general law of this state or any city, county, 01' city and county
charter except as provided in Section 3207.
Cal. Gov't Code S 3201.
25. See ¡¡eneralIy People v. Battin. 77 Cal. App. 3d 635, 143 Cal. Rptr. 731
(4th Dist. 1978) (successful criminal prosecution of county supervisor for misusing
public funds for improper political purposes). See also Series of City Attorneys
Opinions by John Witt, City Attorney of San Diego, September 29, 1986, August,
20, 1985, February 20, 1985, August 7, 1982, June 20, 1975 and August 1, 1967
(available as a packet from the League).
8
·
26. ~ Cal. Goilt Code S 3201 ("Any city, county, or city and county charter
or, in the absence of a charter provision, the govemin~ body of any local IIsency
and any agency not subject to Section 19251 by establishlns rules and re¡ulations,
may prohibit or otherwise restrict the following: (1) Officers and employees
engaging in political activity during working hours[; and] (b) Political activities on
the premises of the local agency.").
27. Califonúa Government Code section 3205 provides:
An officer or employee of a local agency shall not, directly or
indirectly, solicit political funds or contributions, knowinSly, from
other officers or employees of the local agency or from persons on
the employment lists of the local agency. Nothins In this section
prohibits an officer or employee of a local agency from
communicating through the mail or by other means requests for
political funds or contributions to a significant segment of the public
which may include officers or employees of the local agency.
Cal. Goilt Code S 3205.
28. California Government Code section 3209 provides:
Nothing in this chapter prevents an officer or emrloyee of II
state or local agency from soliciting or receivins politica funds or
contributions to promote the passage or defeat of a haUnt measure
which would affect the rate of pay, hours of work, retirement, civil
service, or other working conditions of officers or employees of such
state or local agency except that a state or localllgency may
prohibit or limit such activities by its employees during their
working hours and may prohibit or limit entry into governmental
offices for such purposes during working hours.
Cal. Gov't Code S 3209.
29. See ¡:enerally People v, Battin, 77 Cal. App. 3d 635, 143 Cal. Rptr. 731
(4th Dist. 1978) (successful criminal prosecution of county supervisor for misusing
public funds for improper political purposes). See als~ Cal. Gov't Code S 3201
("Any city, county, or city and county charter or, in the absence of II charter
provision, the governing body of any local agency and any agency not subject to
Section 19251 by establishing rules and regulations, may'prohibit or otherwise
restrict the following: (a) Officers and employees engllsing in politicalllctivity
during working hours[; and] (b) Political activities on the premises of the local
agency.")
30. California Government Code section 3206 says:
No officer or employee of a local agency shall participate in
9
political activities of any kind while in uniform.
Cal. Gov't Code S 3206.
31. ~ Stanson. 17 Cal. 3d at 221, 130 Cal. Rptr. at 707-08.
32. lå.
33. lå. at 226-227, 130 Cal. Rptr. at 711 (flI1ding that "public officials must use
due care, i&.. reasonable diligence in authorizing the expenditure of public funds,
and may be subject to personal liability for improper expenditures made in the
absence of due care").
34. ~ Cal. Penal Code 55 72.5(b) (use of public funds to attend a political
funcûon to support or oppose a ballot measure); 424 (misappropriation of public
funds); 484-87 (theft). See also PeQple v. Battin. 77 Cal. App. 3d 635, 143 Cal.
Rptr. 731 (4th Dist. 1978) (prosecution of county supervisor for engaging
campaign activities during county business hours using county facilities).
10
JUL 11 '30 14:32 TO 408 252 0753
FRor'1 TOI.-'__If"~ OF DRt~l_) I LLE
T-520 P.02
,
..
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
-
<J.'O :
FROM:
Mayor and Town Council
Danvil1e Park and co~unity Facilities fUnding
~his report recommends adoption of: a resolution of formation to
create a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to finance the
development of parks and community facilities; a resolution to
incur bonded indebtedness I a resolution to call a special election
and requestinq the Contra Costa County Election Department to
administer the election.
aa.CKGItOVND
with the adoption of the Danvi1le General Plan in 1985, the Town
made the commitment to protect the quality of life within the
community and to preserve critical open space. In 60 doing,
facilities and services to meet the needs of the elderly were to
be encouraged while striving to provide facilities to achieve a
balance between social, cultural and recreational needs of the
entire community.
A park service standard of S acres of developed land per thousand
residents was established by the Town Council for park and
recreation facilities in Danville. Although the standard will be
difficult to attain, the Town has bequn to close the gap by
'- purchasing land and coremitting existing resources toward the
development of park and recreation amenities.
OVer the past two years, the Parks and Leisure Services commission
has developed a project list which followed the quidelines and
standards of the General Plan while meeting the varied needs and
.interests of Dat'\ville'lII residents. They held public mEletings, met
with special interest groups and conducted a citizen survey to seek
views from the community at lar;8. As a result of their efforts,
a project list was developed which includes completion of Sycamore
Valley Park site; Crow Canyon Park site: two school-park
renovations: Magee Park, which will include an arts center,
hi.torical m.useum, and small community building; renovation of the
Veterans Halll rehabilitation of the Village Theater: creation of
an amphitheater at Oak Hill Park: joint development of an indoor
.ports center at the new Charlotte Wood School; and development of
a comprehensive Townwide Trails system. '!'he Town has begun
planning for these new parka and community facilities. Master plans
have been prepared for a number of projects. Exhibit A provides
. resume of projects developed by the Commisaion. These projects
were confirmed by the Town Council.
MANY ÐEMANDS ON AVAILABLE FUNDING
since incorporation the '1''''''11 has spent more than $3 million on park
projectsl $2.6 million v," "sèd to purchase land to assure adequate
v
.:rUL 11 . ~O 14: 33 TO 41::115 Z:::¡Z ~r7:::¡3
FRor1 TOl"lr·· OF DRNl) I LLE
,
T-:5Z0 F.03
"
-
open apace for ita r_idents. LeS& than one third of park funding
hall come from park dedication feell or qrants with the balance
ooaing from the ~own'a general revenue. First phase construction
at Crow Canyon Park site is underway, funding for this project
comes from an advanoe on future park dedication fees and must be
repaid. First phase construction at Sycamore Valley Park site,
financed by the sycamore Valley Assessment District, will begin
next year.
Dellpite its strong cOllUnitment to parks the Town has recognized that
its general revenue is insufficient to bring Danville residents an
outstandinq park system while .eeting the Town'. other capital
improvement needs. These include purchase and development of
acreaqe at Charlotte Wood, a Corporation Yard, ~own Offices, the
Southern Pacific Depot, downtown beautification, library, and road
improvQents such as the Green Valley widening. Providing
incentives for historic: preservation may require a higher level of
funding and development of a capital recovery program to protect
the Town's assets also will lay claim to a portion of available
funding.
Service additions or expansions may include day care, recreation
programming, senior services, or higher levels of law or code
enforcement, and will .aka their demands on existing resources.
~lRANCINa HECHANISM
-......-
The consulting firm of Economic and Planning Systems was hired to
advise the Town on financing alternatives and recommended the
formation of a Mello-Roqs community Facilities District. Council
selected this method of financing as it was a flexiÞle funding
mechanism which \ias not an "ad valorem" tax which enabled the Town
~o: equalize the burden between new and now established ho.eowners:
exempt business properties not receiving a direct benefit from the
proposed park projects; and levy a tax for both park construction
and maintenance of the new park and community facilities.
On October 24th, Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to
create a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to finance the
development of parks and community faoilities and a resolution of
Intention to Zncrêase Bonded Indebtedness pursuant to the Mallo-
R008 Community Facilities Act of 1982. In 80 doing, Council
established the amount of the tax rate, .et the bond limit and
adopted policy positions as follows:
a. Project list ~otaling $10,860,100
b. Maximum t.ax rate of $84 per year
c. Maximum bond limit of $12,500,000
d. Maintenance costs t.o be recovered at 75' level
e. Built in inflation to be included a 3'
f_ 'lime limit for the bonds set at 30 years
~ Council wall aware that once the tax rate and bond amount were
JUL 11 ·~O 14:~4 TO 40Ô Z~Z 07~~
FRorl TOl.t,IN OF DRN',) I LLE
"
T-5Z0 F.04
.'
"
establisheel, they could not be increased. i'herefore, upper limits
were .at to provide flexibility, recoqnitinq that final amounts
coulð be reduced at the November 30th public hearing.
-
aDtlITION1\L DVJIHt1I 80Ul.CIS
JlUIt DBDlCAT::a:OH nEB
~e ~own imposes a fee upon new development to provide for
park and recreation facilities. At the present time new single
family units pay $1,670 each at the time of project approval. An
increase to $2,338 will 90 into effect on January 21, 1989. OVer
the past five years Danville has allocated these revenues to park
purchases.
A forecast of Park Dedication Fee revenues and existing
commitments indicates that approximately $1.8 million will be
available to help pay for the proposed park and recreation
improvements over the next 3 years.
BBRPD BOND PROCEEDS
East Bay Regional Park District Measure AA passed in November
and the Town of nanville will receive approximately $825,000 for
local park development.
SPECIAL TAX REVENUES OS ED POR I'AY-AS-YOt1 GO BXPBNDUUUS
-
!I'he revenues produced by the maximum ~nnual special tax levied
under the COllUllunity Facilities District can be used to fund
directly park improvements as well to meet debt service
requirements. By creating a "sinking fund" with some of the annual
8pecial ~ax levy, the amo~~t of bonds issued and associated debt
.ervice can be reduced.
The Council may consider funding all projects with pay-as-you-go
financing_ If other revenue sources are available sooner or if
construction of facilities takes lonqer than anticipated, the
District may accumulate enough resources to construct the
~provements without issuing any debt. ~e council will be able
~o evaluate the need for debt financing and make that decision
according to future conditions. Because that decision relies on
events not under the Town's control, authorizing i.su~nce or debt
~. an essential option to retain.
COKMt1NITY 8URVBY
Survey Research Institute, a firm specializing in public attitude
aurvey research, conducted a random suple of registered voter. in
Danville in October 1988 to determine if'residents would support,
and to what level, a special tax for parks.
The survey indicated a relatively high probability that at least
~ the two-thirds of the electorate required to pass a bond measure
I
.-
'--
'-'
-
JUL 11 '3D 14: 34 TO 4[1:3 252 0753
FROM TDWi"1 OF DRr~V I LLE
,
T-520 P.05
will support it given that the prOlp'am provides for the protection
of open .paces, the creation of new trails and the provision of
facilities for senior citizens. Respondents indioated ~at
additional taXes should not exceed $50-55 per year per parcel and
also indicated that they would support a permanent ~ax in a lesser
«mount to pay for ongoing maintenance.
.....1..4 »roj.ct ~iD&IIoiDq .1&11
orb. :findings of ~e .urvey conclude that a tax rate .et at $84 per
year would likely :fail and should be reduced to $54. iJ'hia decrease
will require a reduction in project ~undinq to $7.9 million. This
can be accomplished by considering a combination of the following
options:
1. Eliminating projeots,
2. Reducing the amounts of individual projects; or
3. Extending the development program from two to three years.
Staff has revised the financing plan to conform to 8. tax rate of
$54 per year. Funding projections have been developed which
incorporate balances of cash to be available and proceeds from the
EBRPD Measure AA. These funds have been 5pread over a three year
period.
YEAR FUND AVAIL.
SOURCE
1
$1,550,000
825.000
Park Fund - Available Reserve 1989-90
EBRPD Measure AA funds
2,375,000
2
379,000
701. 000
Park dedication fees collected in 1990-91
Mello-Roes District Revenue (Sinking Fund)
3
1,080,000
779,000
3.674.000
Mello-Roos District Revenue (Sinking Fund)
~ond Proceeds
4,453,000
~AL ~7.90B.OOO
'COJDa8SION UCOXMBNtlATIONS
council requested that the cOlllJllission revise the project - list
(Exhibit A) by reducing and/or eliminating projects. At a November
16th study session of the cOlllJllission, the projects were prioritized
·
"
JUL 11 '90 14:35 TO 408 252 0753
T-520 P.06
FROM TDtJN OF DRNU I LLE
'-
~ .. ro~1ows:
Pr.... ect
Priority ()
Byc. Valley(1) $3,000,000
~ow Cyn (2) 920,000
Gr..nbrook(3) 741,000
rh>_n 'V1y (4) 391,700
OR Amphith(5) 302,000
~aqee (100t) (8) 1,132,400
rrails (7) 1,910,000
Srctr (Rev) (6) 475,000
~g.Thtr (Rev) (9) 900,000
~asium (10) 800.000
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
1'otal
Project
J:2G
Year
J..
Year
.1
Year
2
Unfunded
920,000
741,000
391,700
$1,739,000
$1,261,000
302,000
1,078,300
1,000,000
475,000
$ 54,100
910,000
900,000
800.000
'l'OTAL
$10,572,100 $2,052,700 $1,739,000
PUNDS AVAILABLE
$2,375,000 $1,080,000
$4,116,300
$4,453,000
$2,664,100
~e Commission considered each projeot with the greatest emphasis
placed on projects which would provide faci11ties for youth. Staff
used the Commission priorities to assiç¡n funding years to each
project once final financing figures were available. Discussion
concerning specific projects was as follows:
aveamore Vallev Park - as this park is still in the master planning
phase, the p:rogram has yet to be determined, therefore the
development cost estimates are still tentative. The Commission was
reluctant to reduce this project when all the variables are not
known. The funding was placed in the aecond and third year as
construction en the first phase of development will not be
oompleted until that time.
~rails - great recognition that oommunity interest in trails/open
.pace is high. Recommend þhasing of small linkages/projects
'throughout the program with emphasis in Sycamore Valley.
,lMa~ee - the Commission wanted to oomplete as much of the project
.. possible after funding those with higher priorities.
Villaae Theatre - as the JUster plan has not been completed on this
~.cillty, the commission was reluctant to .identify any funding for
it. Discussion was held relative to promoting IS qrasB roots
community-based fund raising project to develop this facility.
Gvmnasiu1I\ - this was a last priority item due to the low interest
....... received in the community survey.
-
JUL 11 '30 14:3~ TO 40B 252 0753
J
FROM TOI,JN OF DRN'....!} LLE
T-52D P.D?
8'1'AI'F UCOKIŒImA'1':EON
staff ~.commenèls different priorities froJII the COJIIJIIission's. The
differences focus on tiainq and balance among the project types.
The project list follows the 8aae funding and phasing criteria as
the Commission. consideration was qiven to the responses in the
COJIIJIIunity Survey in prioritizing projects and phasing the:m.: '
'.t'he Vil1aae Theatre i. recommended tor funding at . level that will
bring the buildinq up to code and create a Wtheatre shell-. The
balance of the project cost will haVe to be ~aililed from other
.ourees in a fund drive directed by the theatre'. primary user
vroups. The project is included because the survey identified the
'theatre as important to a liIiqniticant aegment of voters and because
it þrovides a balance in project types and users served.
Senior Center rehabilitation is aoved to year one because of its
hiqh survey ranking. Tratl funding is moved to year one for the
.ame reason.
y
'--"
Crow Canvon Park is delayed to year three to permit funding of the
~enior Center and Trails in year one.
PrO"ÎBct
:p' . ?rity ()
-
yc_ Valley(5)
~row cyn (7 )
rnbk Soch/ÞkU>
rn Vy Sch/Pk(2)
HP AJnphith(6)
agee (8)
rails (3)
rCtr/Vets (4)
19.'l'heatre(9)
yanasiWD (10)
t.rO';'At.
Total
Project
~
Year
J.
$3,000,000
920,000
741,000
391,700
302,000
1,132,400
1,910,000
475,000
900,000
800.000
$ 741,000
391,700
400,000
475,000
$10,572,100
$2,007,700
$2,375,000
ONes AVAILABLE $7,5108,000
Year Year
~ .1 Unfunded
$1,145,000 $1,583,300 ~271,700
5120,000
302,000
700,000 432,400
600,000 910,000
650,000 250,000
800.000
$1,447,000 $4,453,300 $2,664,100
$1,080,000 $4,453,000
&BY %8St7BS
At the November 30th public hearing on the Kello-Roos District,
.everal pOlicy issues will need to be determined by Council. The
following list cOlllpri8es 1;.bose considerations which will be
incorporated into the resolutions:
a. Proiect~ - . project list will need to be adopted.
Development amounts will not need to be specified ~or
.........
'"
'.
'-
'-'
'--
JUL 11 "30 14:36 TO 406 2~Z ~7~3
T-520 P. 0.'3
FROM TOl'JN OF DRf'~I,) I LLE
"
e.a.eh 'P1:ojttct, but. baaed on the funds estimated to
become available, project. will need to be reQuced
and/or eliminated by approximately $2,809,400.
b. Maintenance - the Town will not have the resources to
Cover tull maintenance costa for the new facilities once
they come On line. Since Mello-Roos allows maintenance '
costs to be included in the program, Council has deter-
mined that amounts remaining trom the tax be allocated
for that purpose. A 75\ maintenance recovery was an
acceptable target and would be desirable with the under-
standing that those amounts would offset capital costs
in the first five years. This was a high priority item
identified in the Community Survey.
c. Bettina the Debt Limit - the debt limit previously Bet
at $12,500,000 should be reduced to reflect the reduced
bond size. It is estimated that a limit of $10 million
should provide the ada~~ate limit for flexibility to
complet.e the projects.
d. ~Lrua-~~~ - the consultants have advised
that with a goed caIT.p,Ügn a $54 per year tax rate
would most likely be passed by the voters. The dif-
ference in p~'oceeds betloieen $50 and $54 tax will fi-
nance about $800,000 ~ore in park improvements.
e. ~~~,.T~.Q.,,,) - taxation will be based on a per
parcel per year rate. rn fo~ing the Mello-Roos Dis-
trict CO\1T.cil agreed tQ exempt all non-residential
parcels as they did not receive a direct benefit from
the proposed projects.
~nflatiOQ L~~ - to preserve purchasing power of the
tax given future inflation, a 3% inflator has been
built into the program. Council previously agreed to
this and should maintain this component in the finan-
cing plan.
f.
9-
~ - the District should continue to tund aaintenance
with a reduoed tax rate after bonds are retired; no lhit
.hould be placed on the existence of the District.
UCOKMEImED ACTIONS
1. Adoption of Policy .Issues
e. Adopt project ~i$t.
b. Establish m1nim~ maintenance recovery at 75\.
c. Sêt the debt limit at $10,000,000.
d. Set the tax rate at $54 per year.
.. Exclude non-residential parcels from the District.
f. Set an inflation factor at J'.
JUL 11 '30 14: :::,7 TO 4[1::':: ¿:'12 07:)3
FROf'l TOj)Jr,~ OF DRr-J') I LLE
, "
T-52[1 P.03
'.
.
..
2. Adoption of Resolutions
'-- a. Resolution No. 128-88, a resolution of formation of
COmmunity Facilities District, authorizing the levy
of a special tax within the District, preliminarily
establishing an appropriation limit for the District
and submitting levy of the special tax and the
.stablishment of the appropriations limit to qualified
.lectors of the District and approval of . Negative
Declaration for the project pursuant to CEQA.
b. Resolution No. 129-88, determining the necessity to
incur bonded indebtedness within the Community
Facilities District and submitting the proposition to
qualifie~ electors or the District.
'-'. :Resolut;l.('.'" No. 130-88, calling fQr a special election
and rE.ç¡:ê;f>"t;) ng i,he Contra Costa County Election Depart-
1I:ent to .!I dr, ird !> ter the elect ion.
Pr"p"r~d by:
J'anett,e Bowell
Parks & Recreation Manager
'-'
Attaoc:l'uroent s:
Reso1 '.It.ions;
O~¡" n~' "'T""'e-" " ','. (¡:-v¡, 'bi'" ~)
.... "'C:: ~ (M,J.. ;"....-J ...."'" ~,b1_ ....,""--'!..... _'_. '"
Fin;r¡çing Pl",n (ExJ".Ü:it B)
Fir¡tlncial M':1rlel {1'.'x},ibit C)
"'-"