Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07281987 - 2.5 ""BOARD OF SUPERVISORS a � FROM: Oxtra Harvey E. Bragdon C,,/�.71C� Director, Community Development Dept. ^ DATE: ( ( Intl/ July 28, 1987 tJ�,/l,lf Icil SUBJECT: Westbound Lane Interim Project to State Route 4 over Willow Pass SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REPORT: This report is to update your Board on the status of the interim capacity improvement to Highway 4 that will add a westbound lane over Willow Pass. The construction plans are almost complete and following review by Caltrans the project will be ready for construction bids this fall. At that time Caltrans will request, from the local agencies, the funds to pay for construction which will be put in escrow for the project. For several months, County staff has negotiated with the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch to prepare a proposal for funding construction. Sutro and Company, Inc. , an investment banking firm, has prepared a proposal for consideration by the County and the cities. Essential elements of the proposal are as follows: 1 I 1. Provides $2. 8 million at bond closing for capital improvements to State Route 4 over Willow Pass; 2 . No pledge of any city/county real property or other collateral is required as direct .security for the bonds; 3 . Takes full advantage of the lower borrowing costs offered by tax-exempt financing; 4 . Formation of . a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by the County and two cities (one representative each) , to provide for joint issuance of bonds with each participant assuming an equal share of the debt service payments; 5. Approval of the financing by no less than a 4/5 ' s vote of the governing board or council of each of the participant' s issuers; dp8:H4update.t07 Orig. Dept. - CDD,TPD CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; X YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO DATt OF OARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREISI: ACTION OF BOARD ON July 28, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED i OTHER X • ACCEPTED report from Community Development Director on the status of the Highway 4 widening project as amended to include a reasonable growth management policy and the implementation of an aggressive TSM Program. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Community Development ATTESTED Transportation Division PHIL ATCHE OR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,a/ ,DEPUTY M381/7-83 6. Deposit of the first year' s debt service prior to bond closing, and approval subject to appropriation, to deposit subsequent debt service payments six months prior to due date with the Trustee; 7. Term of maturity .not to exceed five years; 8. Pledges the General Fund . as the source of funds for debt service; and 9. Each participant establishes a development fee system for new development that is planned to reimburse the participants for debt service costs on the financing. Although the financial documents would pledge General Fund revenues, road fees from the East/Central County Corridor Area of Benefit will be used to fund the County's debt service. The Area of Benefit road fee was established at $230 per dwelling unit based on a $2. 6 million financing plan. Revisions to the cost of the project require that the fee be raised to an estimated $342 per unit. The fee will be evaluated annually to keep pace with construction activity and will end once all County debt service payments are met. The General Fund would be at risk should development activity slow down substantially. To further insulate the General Fund, staff will recommend that Road Fund revenues be used if necessary, to be reimbursed over the year by the road fee receipts. It is proposed that each participant share equally in the debt service payments. However; the County and the cities propose to reallocate the debt service pursuant to a separate cost allocation agreement, whereby the County' s cost for this improvement will ultimately reflect its prorata share of housing construction activity in Eastern Contra Costa County during the term of the loan ( five years) . Although each participant would be committed in the loan documents to make equal debt service payments, annual adjustments will be made that could .increase or decrease the cost to a participant, based on the relative level of new housing development. The Pittsburg City Council has reviewed this financing proposal and is considering changes to the proposed terms and conditions because of a recent loss of tax revenues to its General Fund. They propose that each participant not assume an equal share of the debt service payments, but have the loan documents apportion debt service to each participant based on their estimated prorata share of housing construction activity during the term of the loan. The objective of this change is to avoid large adjustments in loan costs of each participant that would be made pursuant to the separate cost allocation agreement. Exhibit A describes the impact of this proposed change. The Pittsburg City Council also proposed to further insulate its General Fund by establishing a road fee in excess of $342 per unit in the first several years of the loan to allow the creation of a reserve fund. The reserve fund would be used to cover any shortfall in road fee revenues should development activity slow down substantially in the fourth or fifth year of the loan. If the reserve is not needed, it would be refunded to the current owners of the properties on which the higher fees were assessed. The Pittsburg City Council is scheduled to consider the financing proposal again on Monday, August 3 , 1987. County staff will recommend a proposal to your Board on August 11, 1987. The City Manager of Antioch has not scheduled this item yet for his City Council. SLG:dsp dp8:H4update.t07 Enc. - Exhibit A cc: Barbara A. Neustadter, Transportation Planning EXHIBIT A ALTERNATIVE DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS FOR THE HIGHWAY 4 INTERIM PROJECT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRORATA SHARE DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE OF ESTIMATED BASED ON BASED ON JURISDICTION HOUSING GROWTH HOUSING GROWTH EQUAL SHARES DIFFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Antioch 45% $1,572,120 $1,164,533 $407,587 City of Pittsburg 20% $698,720 $1,164,533 ($465,813) Uninc. East County 35% $1,222,760 $1,164,533 $58,227 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $3,493,600 $3,493,600 $0 NOTE: Housing growth estimates cover period from 1/1/88 to 12/31/92, and were prepared by the City of Pittsburg and the County Community Development Department. Specific figures are as follows: 4,250 units in Antioch; 2,000 units is Pittsbura, =nd 3,225 in unicorporated areas.