HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2012 b2 palm nipomo pkg structurec((o���cunciL»C f
C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Jay Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE DIRECTION
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to prepare a
focused environmental impact report (EIR) for the Palm Nipomo parking structure project and
authorize the City Manager to award if the contract is within the project budget.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF
Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure
on Parking Lot 14 located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey Street. On December 1, 2009, the
City Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and
environmental review. Since that time the consultant team has been hired, two public workshops
held, and a preliminary design developed. The preliminary design includes the removal of the City
owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey to allow for the future development of a Little Theater
or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical Plan for Downtown.
Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate the design's potential impact on the
environment. Through these studies it has been determined that the removal of the existing
residential structures would be considered a significant adverse impact to historical resources and
therefore an EIR needs to be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts.
DISCUSSION
The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project was established by the Council as an "other" major
City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003 -05 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several
occasions to discuss the site and designs for a parking structure at the southeast corner of Palm and
Nipomo Street. A summary of past Council actions is available for review on the City's website
and in the Council Reading File. At its April 24, 2007, meeting the Council identified Site Plan
Design Option D3 (self -park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking
Structure. The selected design was chosen over a mechanical or automated parking structure and
did not include any other uses within the structure. It did include an area for other uses fronting the
structure on Monterey Street.
At its meeting of March 17, 2009, the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fund
prepared by a consultant, and received recommendations by a Council - appointed Ad Hoc Parking
Fund Review Committee (Attachment 1). The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive
findings and recommendations. On a 4:0 vote (Mayor Romero absent), Council directed staff to
RX31
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 2
take the next steps of environmental review for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure including
completion of design and the preparation of plans and specifications (Attachment 2).
During FY 2009 -11, a consultant team was hired to develop the design and conduct the necessary
environmental analysis. To date, two public workshops have been held to gain community input on
the proposed garage and urban design plan for the site and its surroundings. Details regarding these
workshops can be viewed on the City's website at www slocity or publicworks /palmnipomo asp .
These efforts have culminated in a preliminary design (Attachment 3). The design currently
assumes the removal of the City owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey to allow for the future
development of a Little Theater or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical
Plan for Downtown. The redevelopment of these two properties will also allow the single story
structures to be replaced with taller structures that will aid in screening the four to five story parking
structure and reducing the appearance of its mass. Additionally, public plazas will replace the
existing private front yards. Feedback from workshop participants on these design concepts has
been positive.
The following graphic depicts how the parking structure will be partially screened from Monterey
Street by a separate structure (shaded) in front of it.
i� 1/T f Fri ?- � li / ✓ ' i" ->... .g7 --------
_.._._ _. ..__._
This strategy is also proposed for the Nipomo Street frontage where a two story office /commercial
structure (shaded) is proposed to front the parking structure. This screening/massing strategy "has
been effectively utilized on the City's Marsh Street parking structure where office and retail space
front the street and the majority of the structure is located behind these uses.
B2 -2
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 3
Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate the preliminary design's potential impact
to the environment. Through these studies, it was determined by the environmental sub - consultant
that the level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review will need to be greater if the
project removes the residences at 610 and 614 Monterey as envisioned by the preliminary design
shown in Attachment 3. Specifically, the sub - consultant concluded that demolition of the two City -
owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey Street would cause a substantial diminishment of the
integrity of the Downtown Historic District and would be considered a significant adverse impact.
Development under this scenario would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Relocation was
considered, but dismissed as infeasible for the 614 Monterey Depression -era Adobe.
Staff recommends that the City proceed with the preparation of an EIR to address the cultural
resources issue. While an EIR would focus on the specific issue of concern, other potential issues
such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, and traffic volume would be addressed. The EIR
would also include an alternatives analysis and formal response to comments. Because the EIR
would be focused and utilize studies and analysis developed to date, the Palm Nipomo
environmental consultant estimates the cost to prepare a focused EIR at potentially less than
$75,000.
Condition/Status of Monterey Street Residences
610 Monterey Street, photographed on the following page, is owned by the City's Parking Fund, is
in fair condition, and currently rented to residential tenants through a contract with the Housing
Authority.
B2 -3
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 4
610 Monterey Street dwelling constructed in the 1938.
The adjacent residence at 614 Monterey, photographed on the following page, was purchased by the
Parking Fund in 2006. The renters that lived in the residence when the City purchased it remained
until 2011 when they notified the City they were moving out. After vacating, the property
management company inspected the property and identified a significant list of repairs needed
before renting the structure to a new tenant including a new roof, windows, furnace, stove, oven,
paint, removal of bathroom mold, and retaining wall reconstruction. Upon further inspection by
City staff and a structural engineer, it was determined that the dwelling's structural integrity should
also be examined before being reoccupied. Staff estimates a structure evaluation would cost
approximately $5,000. Such an examination would include a physical inspection of the structure
(including attic, sub -floor, roof, structural assembly, as well as the electrical, gas and plumbing
services), material testing of the structure for structural integrity, and the preparation of a report.
Once this examination is complete, the City will have a better understanding of the work that needs
to be undertaken if the structure is retained.
Without a structural evaluation, repair costs are difficult to estimate given the age and historic status
of the structure. For example, re- roofing the structure could cost four times more than a typical
dwelling because the existing roof most likely does not comply with current codes. Additionally, a
new roof for this structure is required to comply with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines.
For now the Council should assume that the repairs could exceed $100,000 and once repaired the
dwelling could rent for approximately $1700 per month. If the structural evaluation confirms these
estimates, staff recommends against the alternative of retaining/repairing the structure due to the
significant cost and impact to the overall Palm Nipomo project. The residence would remain vacant
until demolition
lite
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction
614 Monterey Street dwelling constructed in the 1930's
5
Update on the Palm Nipomo Project Need
In 2009, the City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee for the Palm
Nipomo parking structure project to answer two questions:
A. Can we afford it?
B. If we built it, will they come?
The Committee met four times and developed the following findings which remain valid today:
1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure.
The consultant's analysis of the Parking Fund in 2009 included the assumption that parking
demand will increase 1% annually and that modest rate increases will occur every three
years beginning in 2012 -13. While demand has not increased as expected because of the
economy, the project has also not moved forward as quickly for the same reason, therefore
the impact of the demand not increasing is not significant at this time. With Council
approval of Sunday parking, new "Super Core" rates, and planned future rate increases, the
Parking Fund remains in good financial condition today.
2. The structure is consistent with current City plans.
The City's Downtown Concept Plan and General Plan promote public parking on the
perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access and recommend
this area of downtown for cultural facilities. No changes have been made to these
documents to invalidate this finding.
i RI
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 6
3. The structure will be needed at this location in the near future.
Although the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects have been delayed, they
continue to move forward and will remove approximately 225 existing public parking
spaces. The Chinatown project will eliminate the public parking lots along Palm Street no
later than 2019. The Garden Street Terraces agreement calls for construction to begin on
Lot 2 no later than September 2015. Other planned or approved redevelopment projects
that will create parking demand in walking distance to the project include:
A. San Luis Obispo Museum of Art
B. Vaquero mixed use project at the corner of Marsh and Nipomo Streets
C. Parsons House
D. Foster Freeze mixed use project
E. Leitcher House mixed use project.
Construction of the parking structure will be timed with downtown development projects to
have the structure available when the need is there as envisioned by the Ad Hoc Committee.
Factors such as changes in the economy, parking demand, and the construction of
redevelopment projects downtown area are all variable and impact when the parking
structure will be needed. Staff can update Council regarding downtown parking demand as
part of the annual Parking Fund review. Should Council seek additional input, staff can
request funding for an update of the consultant's report when the construction plans are
being developed or when significant changes in parking demand appear on the horizon.
4. There are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location.
In 2009, the Ad Hoc Committee identified a list of ten "carrot and stick" parking pricing
strategies to encourage parking at this location for future consideration if and when needed.
To date, only the addition of the "Super Core" rate increase has been enacted leaving the
majority of the strategies available for implementation in the future. Many of these ideas
are parking management strategies that are not tied to the Palm Nipomo parking structure.
Accordingly, Council may wish to consider them during the annual Parking Fund review.
Because these findings remain valid today, staff recommends that the project continue to proceed
through the design and environmental review process. Moving forward now will give the City the
ability to time the construction of the project to coincide with the parking need, rather than trying to
catch up once the parking need is evident.
FISCAL IMPACT
To date, approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis.
Existing studies will be utilized in the EIR so the expenditures to date have been appropriate. Staff
estimates the cost to prepare a focused EIR at less than $75,000. Approximately $1,193,000
remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget for design services and
environmental review. Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likely increase depending
on final project design and environmental conditions.
i �
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 7
ALTERNATIVES
1. Revise preliminary design to retain 610 and 614 Monterey residences The preliminary
design could be revised to retain the two residences as part of the project. Such a redesign
could also require the preparation of an EIR if visual impacts (resulting from reduced
screening potential from the existing single story structures) cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant level. Should Council wish to proceed with this alternative, staff
recommends that Council approve up to $5000 in consultant services to fund the structural
evaluation and cost estimates on structure repairs that will be presented to Council before a
final decision is made.
2. Revise preliminary design to mitigate any project impacts to a less than significant level:
If visual impacts of the parking structure cannot be mitigated with the retention of the two
residences, this alternative may necessitate a redesign to a shorter and smaller scale
structure that would be less efficient (and more expensive per space to construct/maintain)
and would not meet the City's 400 parking space goal.
3. Defer project. The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in the area
increases. Deferring the project will increase costs because the environmental documents
prepared to date will need to be updated. Additionally if the economy improves during the
time the project is on hold, design and construction fees are likely to increase. Since it is
anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could be available for
use, staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase. Rather, staff
recommends using this time to complete the design under the current consultant contract
and complete the construction plans so the City can time the construction to meet the
demand.
ATTACHMENTS
1. March 17, 2009 Council Agenda Report: Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee
Findings and Recommendations
2. March 17, 2009 City Council Meeting Update
3. Preliminary Design Plan
COUNCIL READING FILE
Summary of Past Council Actions
T: \Council Agenda Reports\2012- 01- 03 \SS3 -Palm Nipomo Parking (Walter- Mandeville) \CAR Palm Nipomo Direction.doc
B2 -7
ATTACHMENT _I
Council
AQCnbA WPORt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Ad Hoe Parking Fund Review Committee, move forward with advance
development of the Monterey Street parking structure (previously referred to as the Palm Nipomo
parking structure) by taking the next steps of environmental review, completion of design, and
preparation of plans and specifications.
REPORT -IN-BRIEF
Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure
on Parking lot 14 which is located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey. Streets. During the
consideration of this project the Council has had concerns about whether the Parking Fund could
afford this parking structure and whether it would be used at this location. At the 2008 Parking
Fund Review, the Council approved the hiring of a consultant and the appointment of an Ad Hoc
committee to address these concerns. Consequently, consultants were hired and committee
members were appointed including Council Member Carter as` the. Council's representative.
The consultants worked with staff on the financial analysis of the Parking Fund, methodologies
on projecting revenues and expenses, parking supply and demand, pending development projects,
and later with six detailed financial forecast scenarios presented to the Committee (Attachment
1). The Committee, the consultants, and staff met four times over four months to develop the
findings and recommendations for this report.
The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee are:
• the Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure;
• the next structure should be renamed to the Monterey Street structure to better identify
and market its location;
• the Council should move forward with full design and EIR review; the structure is
consistent with current City plans;
• the structure will be needed at this location in the near future; and
• there are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location.
B2 -8
ATTACHMENT.
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
The former Palm/Nipomo (Monterey Street) parking structure project was established by the
Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003 -05 Financial Plan. A
Capital improvement Project (CIP) for the initial design ($1,350,000), environmental review
($300,000), and construction ($12,000,000) was approved the same year. The Council has
reviewed conceptual structure designs, approved property acquisitions, and approved revenue
increases at nine separate Council meetings to date.
On April 24, 2007, the Council identified Design Option D3, a 445 space "self- park" parking
structure design as the preferred site design over a mechanical or automated parking structure
without any mixed. use added as part of the structure. The self - parking design is how our current
structures operate. Drivers park their vehicle and pay at the exit. (This report is provided in
Attachment 2.)
During the review of design options for the structure, two questions kept surfacing:
1. Can we afford it?
2. And if we build it, will they come?
_. The affordability issue was partially addressed in 2006 when the Council accepted recommended
revenue enhancements that were phased in over a couple of years. However, a concern remained
that we were replacing "low cost — higher revenue producing" parking assets like metered spaces
in lots and on streets with "higher cost -lower revenue producing" parking in the form of parking
structures. Downtown projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will eliminate
existing surface parking and at the same time increase parking demand. This led to additional
legitimate concerns about whether we could afford the parking structure with the current
revenues we have in place.
The location of the structure was yet another issue. The City owns Parking Lot 14 at the corner
of Palm and Nipomo streets as well as residential properties at 610 Monterey, 614 Monterey and
633 Palm. Together these properties provide an ideal location to build a parking structure, but
Would the public use it?
The site is not in a highly developed area of the downtown and it was perceived by some as being
too remote from the downtown core. The current parking lot at this location is not well utilized.
So, other locations were considered (including Wells Fargo), but these locations proved to be
unattainable. In short, the Palm - Nipomo site has the distinct advantage of being owned by the
City and is therefore readily available. On the other hand, the Council and others have expressed
concern about its location in supporting its use and cost for a parking structure.
With these two issues in mind, on May 20, 2008 during the Parking Fund Review, the Council
directed staff to hire a financial consultant -and put together an Ad Hoc Parking Review
rim
ATTACHMENT
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 3
Committee (Committee) to answer these questions. The end result of this direction was to
prepare a report for Council consideration that included:
a. The financial analysis of the Parking Fund to verify its present fiscal condition and project its
future conditions with and without the Palm - Nipomo parking structure.
b. Options and strategies for: 1) correcting any identified imbalances under a "no added
structure scenario," if any such imbalances are projected; 2) promoting use of a new parking
structure at Palm - Nipomo (should one be built); and 3). generating sufficient revenues to
meet projected construction and operating costs of a new structure at Palm - Nipomo.
Committee and Consultants
The six - member Committee consisted of. Councilmember Andrew Carter (Council appointee);
Cydney Holcomb (Residents for Quality Neighborhoods); Mike Multari (Planning
Commissioner); Pierre Rademaker (Chamber of Commerce Appointee); Susan Rains (Mass
Transportation); and Tom Swem (Downtown Association Appointee).
Fieldman Rolapp was hired as our primary consultant because of their past work with many City
projects and familiarity with the City's financial operations. To handle parking demand analysis,
Fieldman Rolapp hired Walker Parking Consultants. The consultants reviewed all financial
documents and the methodologies of projecting revenues and expenses for the Parking Fund.
They were instrumental in providing detailed analysis and projections for six different scenarios
that used different base assumptions as the Committee requested. They also validated the
majority of staff s prior assumptions and methods for projecting revenues and expenditures.
Walker provided analysis based on our current and future parking supply when compared to our
current and future. parking demand. Walker was provided with information on current parking
supply on streets, in parking lots and in structures. Staff provided occupancy counts for our
streets, lots and structures as well. Staff then.provided information on all pending projects. in the
downtown with information on the uses, how much public parking they will eliminate, and how
much parking is privately supplied. Actual parking demand was calculated using the Urban
Land Institutes calculations.
The Committee and consultants were joined by staff members Jay Walter, Tim Bochum, Debbie
Malicoat, Bill Statler, Madelyn Paasch, Jessica Rhoadarmer and Robert Horch providing
information and analysis.
Committee Meetings
1. Meeting One (11/6/08) — The first meeting covered basic introductions, background, fiscal
policies, financial information, the structure site plan, and the scope of the project. Staff
went over a proposed schedule of the meetings and dates and promised to email the group
two financial scenarios of the Parking Fund before the next meeting: "Without Palm-
Nipomo" and "With Palm Nipomo." These two scenarios were sent out the week before the
next meeting after considerable work by the consultants.
B2 -10
AI TACHMENT
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 4
2. Meeting Two (12/9/08) — The consultants and staff presented the two parking forecasts, base
revenue and expenditure assumptions, with modest projected increases in parking demand.
After much discussion, direction was given to staff to adjust three assumptions and add four
more scenarios. Staff and the consultants agreed to make revisions and provide final
information to Committee prior to next meeting. The six updated scenarios were emailed to
the Committee just before the next meeting.
3. Meeting Three (1/9/09) — Staff and the consultants provided the adjustments that were
requested concerning parking in -lieu revenues, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) expenses,
and the cost of living (CPI) adjustments for operating expenses. Each of these line items
were adjusted in all scenarios provided to the group.
Six different financial forecasts were presented. Two forecast scenarios assumed no new
parking structure, keeping things as "status quo." One scenario included the normal 1%
parking demand increase and one forecast did not.
The other four forecasts assumed the new parking structure being built with various additions
and subtractions for demand increases from the Chinatown and the Garden Street Terraces
(GST) projects, as these would have significant impacts on the Parking Fund.
After much discussion, Committee members were satisfied with the financial and parking
demand information provided by staff and the consultants. Some "carrot" and "stick" methods
of ensuring the structure would be used were presented but the group did not think they
needed to get into this much detail at this time because parking demand can change
significantly by the time the structure is built. The Committee thought it was best to explore
these when the new structure was closer to being built. The Committee requested a draft of
this report for their review at the next meeting.
4. Meeting Four (2112109) — Staff presented the draft staff report with the group's
recommendations for review and comment, which the Committee unanimously approved
with modifications that are reflected in this report.
B2 -11
AITACHMENT
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 5
Parking Scenarios with Different Assumptions
The following is the summary of all of the six forecast scenarios. More detail is provided in
Attachment 1.
* In millions
**First "stabilized" year for "With Palm - Nipomo" scenarios; working capital and revenues over
expenses improve in all "With Palm- Nipomo" scenarios at end of forecast period (2019 -20)
In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its
operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million
dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working
capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures.
Committee Findings and Recommendations
Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by.the consultants and staff,
mm
the Coittee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council.
The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good
financial condition through fiscal year 2016 -17. The consultants verified that in all six
scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The
Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This
finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:"
a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and
b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 201243.
2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the
name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for
the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like
the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is
promoted. . Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is
considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets.
B2 -12
Working Capital
By 2016
-17 **
Lowest Forecast Year
Debt
Working
Revenues
Scenario
Amount *
% Op Up
Capital *
Over Ex
No Pa)m-Nipomo Project
1. Status Quo Revenue
$7.5
321 %
N/A
$733,600
2. No Demand Increase
7.4
317%
I N/A 1
10.4
321,600
With . Project
3. With GST and Chinatown
$1.1
377- -
$10.0
$2.7
$634,300
4. With GST/Without Chinatown
2.0
70%
13.0
3.3
446,10.0
5. Without GSTMith Chinatown
3.0
106%
10.0
4.7
630,500
6. Without GST or Chinatown
1.1
39%
10.0
2.8
624,300
* In millions
**First "stabilized" year for "With Palm - Nipomo" scenarios; working capital and revenues over
expenses improve in all "With Palm- Nipomo" scenarios at end of forecast period (2019 -20)
In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its
operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million
dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working
capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures.
Committee Findings and Recommendations
Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by.the consultants and staff,
mm
the Coittee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council.
The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good
financial condition through fiscal year 2016 -17. The consultants verified that in all six
scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The
Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This
finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:"
a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and
b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 201243.
2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the
name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for
the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like
the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is
promoted. . Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is
considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets.
B2 -12
ATTACHMENT
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 6
3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. Due to the favorable forecast
of the scenarios presented to the Committee, there is sufficient funding to move forward with
the architectural design and environmental review process. The revenue enhancements
approved by the Council in 2006 combined with retirement of the bonds for the original Palm
and Marsh Street parking structures provide a sufficient basis for the affordability of the new
structure. Working capital can be used to lower the amount financed with the bond issuance.
This will lower on -going debt service payments in the future.
Waiting' to move forward is not recommended because of the number of development
projects in process in the downtown. They will increase parking demand and eliminate
parking on the street and in several City parking lots. Parking will be needed in the next 5-
10 years. Even if we begin the design and environmental review process now, it will be Eve
to seven years before construction of a parking structure on this site is completed. Deferring
this project beyond that is not recommended.
4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and
the General Plan. The location of this structure is consistent with the City's Downtown
Concept Plan_ and General Plan's Land Use Policy. These documents promote public
parking on the perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access.
This area of downtown is identified as the cultural center. Building a parking structure may
increase cultural development and/or other commercial development in the area.
Land.Use Element policy 4.10 says: "There should be a diversity of parking opportunities.
Any major increments in parking supply should take the foFm of structures, located at the
edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within
the core." The location of the parking structure is consistent with this policy as the Concept
Plan placed the area for off -site parking just outside the edge of the core..
The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street
spaces combined with increases in parking demand. _ Although we have sufficient public
parking today, by the time the structure is built we probably will not. There are 12 projects
in various stages of development review in the downtown that will impact parking. Two of
these projects, Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces, are substantial because they eliminate
public parking and increase parking demand. The other ten projects propose to meet their
parking requirements on site or pay parking in -lieu fees. Even without these projects the
parking consultant conservatively projected added. parking demand downtown to justify
building this structure in the near future.
Generally, parking structures are not Elled to capacity when they first open.. When new
parking supply is added at a structure, parking habits adjust and over time more cars will
park in a structure. The Committee concluded that the structure itself would stimulate
growth in the area, creating more parking demand. Downtown developments will contribute
to the demand and. the two larger projects eliminate parking supply with the loss of City-
owned parking lots. This combination justiEes that the structure will be used at this location.
B2 -13
ATTA°,ICTIMENT _
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 7
There are a number of strategies for encouraging parking at this location once the structure is
built. - The Council can assess the best ones at that time. Staff provided several ideas that
would encourage the public to use the Monterey Street structure using different "carrot" and
"stick" approaches. The Committee believed that there would be enough eventual parking
demand to justify the building of the structure by itself. They also recognized that the Council
and staff had a good understanding on how to adjust rates during annual Parking Fund reviews to
encourage more use if it is required when the structure opens. If not, this analysis should be
done looking at the parking needs in the future, not now. This will allow staff to better analyze
the changes in public parking after Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces are under construction.
or built. These concepts include:
a. Modify all parking pricing strategies so the Monterey structure is the most affordable
structure downtown.
b. Offer more "free" time in the Monterey structure.
c. Reduce or eliminate free parking. time at the other three structures
d. Offer a "low" flat rate at the Monterey structure and use progressive rates in the all other
structures.
e. Allow over -night and residential parking at. the Monterey structure.
f. Add parking meters on the 600 Block of Palm.
g. Offer reserved parking at the Monterey structure.
h. Only allow monthly passcards at the Monterey structure
i. Add another meter rate zone with the highest amount in the central commercial core
j. Use multi -space meters without attendants in the Monterey structure.
Again the Committee does not recommend that the Council act on any of these at this . time.
They are simply "in the pantry" and available for future consideration if and when needed.
On the .other hand, many of these ideas are management strategies that are not tied to the
Monterey Street parking structure. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider them during
the annual Parking Fund reviews (or any other appropriate times) as ways of improving
downtown parking management and/or adjusting revenues.
Next Steps
If the Council accepts the Committee's recommendations, the next steps are:
1. Prepare request for proposals (RFP) for architectural review plans, select consultant 5/09
2. Submit application for architectural and environmental review 2 /10
3. Prepare RFP for environmental review, select consultant 5110
4. Complete draft environmental document 1/11
5. Review by Cultural Heritage Committee 3/11
6. Review by Architectural Review Commission 8/11
7. Review by Planning Commission 1 /12
8. Review by the Council, authorization to prepare plans and specifications 4/12
9. Complete plans and specifications 10/12
10. Bid Construction Project TBD by Council
B2 -14
ATTACHMENT
Ad, Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations. Page 8
The above schedule does not reflect potential time increases to process appeals of certain
milestones for the project (such as ARC or PC approvals) that may occur as part of the project
development process. Even with the recommended action to move forward with this project, it
will be 2014 before this project goes out to bid; and likely 2016 before it is open for operations.
CONCURRENCES
All members of the Committee were in agreement with the findings and the recommendations.
Staff agrees with the Committee's finds and recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the Committee's recommendations: funds have
already been appropriated for the next steps of environmental review and design. However, the
total cost of building the Monterey Street Parking Structure is estimated at $20 million. As
reflected in the attached scenarios, the Parking Fund has the fiscal capacity to build and operate
the Monterey Street Parking structure.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do nothing and accumulate funds. Downtown parking demand will continue to increase
while our parking supply in parking lots and streets deceases due to redevelopment: It will
take a minimum of 3 years to design the project and obtain approvals. This alternative is not
recommended because this report shows there will be parking demand and funding to move
forward someday with the Monterey Street parking structure.
2. Use the funding to promote "green," parking alternatives rather than accommodate
more parking in structures and lots. The Parking Fund will continue to work to promote a
combination of "green" parking alternatives by adding bicycle parking and funding
alternative transportation programs. However, it is unrealistic to think -that we can eliminate
parking cars at this time. Parking structures can be used to accommodate hybrids, electric
vehicles, bicycles, shared car programs and other "green" concepts as they develop in the
City.
3. Fund more transit ,services. The Parking Fund contributes revenue to the Gold Pass
program and maintains bus parking on city streets and in the Railroad Square parking lot:
The Parking Fund will continue to work in combination with local transit and assist in
promoting and funding transit services. This will lessen parking demand but not enough to
eliminate the need for another parking structure.
4. Add more parking on existing downtown streets. One idea coming from the Committee
was maximizing parking on downtown streets with the use of angled parking on Higuera and
Marsh. This would add more parking supply but it would increase traffic in the core and it is
not consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Conceptual Plan. Both plans enhance
pedestrian access in the core and place parking in the form of structures on the perimeter of
the downtown. This alternative is not consistent with these plans.
B2 -15
I,�'FVWIIM ENT
Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 9
5. Purchase more parking lots. This would generate revenues, be less costly .and would
accommodate parking demand. However, like the alternative above, it is not consistent to
approved City plans that promote higher density of uses in downtown. This may be a viable
option for areas outside of the immediate downtown, because they can be used for future
structure locations.
ATTACHMENT
1. Scenarios 1 -6 with assumptions
2. Council agenda report where the Council approved Palm = Nipomo concept plan and approved
moving forward.
n r�` � ?� r!}- '§k "� 8a � r��`L ''qz i' . `. • t .r3,,, ar�`�cz Ss, -t'`t.,,;'^2�'� �2* i'"�, �. � t t t f <i^iv r.3 ,�.. Y °^c S ,� . � �z k 4'�'r -�m� 4'� . }�, �a �lr�. ��.�,
�V;;;� sai?e,s s., d .n. �✓ �`z,.. mil, �� t �_>'!�. � {_t,�, .3�ak� ;S'.. �z. ��" !ye �jS `7�i 3•��,.�s�� Ric�;t{z''L`c`
TAAd Hoc Parking review Committee, !1: 1' Mtg\CAR do
B2 -16
i
N
I
M-+
J
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo
(3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. h�
(4) CIP for 2008-09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800);, and reduction of $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario.
(5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria.
h�l
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING'CAPITAL
Attachment 1,A
Scenario #1: "No Palm- Nipotno Project :
Status Quo Revenues"
Actual
Budgeti)
Projected
2005-06
2006-07
2007 -08
2008.09 2009 -10 201041 201142
2012 -13 201344
2014 -15
2015 -16
2016 -17
2017 -18
2018.18
2019 -2020
Revenues
Service Meter Collections
Parking Meter Collections
Lots
$ 298,000
$ 387,700
$ 379,600
$ 380,310 $ 481,942 $ 261,661 $ 134,375
$ 135,719 $ 221,513
S '223,728
.$ 225,965
$ 228,225
$ 230,507
$ 232,812
S 235,140
Streets
868,200
956,600
1,039,800
1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977
1,340,247 1,353,650
1,367,186
1,380,858
1,394,667
1,408,613
1,422,699
1,436,926
Parking Garage Collections
672,800
802,400
796,200
814,961 1,097,506 1,221,033 1,298,195
1,311,177 1,282,070
1,294,891
1,307.840
1,320,918
1,334,127
1,347,469
1,380,943
Long -Term Revenues
- 408,000
404,000
391,800
388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186
412,267 416,390
420,554
424,760
429,007
433,297
437,630
442,006
Lease Revenues
219,400
244,300
243,100
240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514
247,989 355,489
358,014
360,564
363,139
365,741
368,368
371,022
Pae4ngln4JeuFear
332,700
41,300
17,400
22,760 54,289 2,657,003 719,284
61,655 64,121
66,686
69,353
72,127
75.013
78,013
81,134
Other Service Charges
147,300
73,300
900
100 100 100 100
100 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Total Service Charges
$ 2,946,400
$2,909,600
$2,868,800
$2,874,984 $3,577,449 $ 6,102,844 -$ 4,132,630 $ 3,509,154 $ 3,693,332
$ 3,731,158 S 3,769,440
$ 3,808,184 $ 3,847,398
$ 3,887,092
$ 3,927,272
Investment and Property Revenues
253,600
524,900
384,00
141,156 138,240 150,019 314,019
345,059 355,328
297,496
322,914
346,647
368,654
388,746
406,722
Flnes and Forfeitures
712,900
822,400
774,100
834,079 891,974 846,340 818,811
827,000 883,769
892,607
901.533
910,548
919,654
928,850
938,139
Otter Revenues
8 900'
8 600
Total Revenues
$ 3,921,800
$4,265,500
$4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $4,607,664 $ 7,099,203 $ 5,265,461
$ 4,681,212 $ 4,932,429
$ 4,921,261
$ 4,993,886 $ 5,065,379 $ 5,135,706
$ 5,204,688
$ 5,272,133
Expenditures
Operating Programs t"
$ 1,871,700
$1,997,200
$2,004,400
$2,201,900 $2,333,624 $ 2,436255 $ 2,525,713
$ 2,626,638 $ 2,736,076
$ 2,845,383
$ 2,959,047
$ 3,077,241
$ 3,200146
S 3,327,952
$ 3,460,854
Capital Improvement Plan Projects (4)
8,161,300
1,412,900
117,700
319,000 212,000 222,600 231,504
240,764 2,650,395
260,411
270,827
281,660
292,926
304,643
316,829
Debt Service
682,000
1,481,500
1,512,400
1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473,600
1,471,500 1,473,700
968,200
972,900
972,900
972,900
972,900
972,900
Total Expenditures
$10,915,000
$4,891,600
$3,634,500
83,996,000 $4,018,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6,860,171
$ 4,073,994
$ 4,202,774
$ 4,331,801
$ 4,465,973
S 4,605,496 $ 4,750,583
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing
$ 7,930,900
Total Other Sources (Uses)
$ 7,930,900
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Revenues and 00W Sources Over
(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses
$ 937,700
$ (826,100)
$ 393,000
$ (145,781) $ 588,940 $ 2,966,348 $ 1,034,643
$ 342;310 $ (1,927,742)
$ 847,267
$ 791,112
$ 733,578
$ 669,733
$ 599,192
$ 521,549
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
4 6,353,200
$ 7,29.0,900 $ 6,664,800
$ 7,057,800 $6,912,019. $ 7,500,959 $10.467.307
$11,501,950 $ 11,944,260 $ 9,916,518 $10,763,785
$11,554,897 $ 12,288,475 $ 12,956,208 $13,557601
Working Capital; End of Year
$ 7,290,900 $6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 6,912,019 $ 7,500,959 $10p67,307 $11,501,950 $ 11,844,260 $ 9,916,518 $10,763,785 $11,554,897 $12,288,475 $12,958,208
$19557,401
$146078,950
Working Capital as a Percentage of
Operating Programs Expenditures 01
390%
334%
352%
314% 321% 430% 455%
451% 3620%
378%
390%
399%
4115%
407%
407%
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo
(3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. h�
(4) CIP for 2008-09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800);, and reduction of $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario.
(5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria.
h�l
Revenues
Service MeterCdkections
Parking Meter Collections
Lots
Streets
Parking Garage Co6ections
Long -Term Revenues
Leese Revenues
Parking In -Lieu Fees
Other Service Charges
Total Service'Charges
Investment and Property Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs 0
Capital Improvement Plan Projects i`)
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing
Total other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over
(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Working Capital as a Percentage of
Operating Programs Expenditures 's)
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARIGNG FUND.CNANGES IN WORICING CAPITAL Attachment 1-8
Scenario #2: "No Palmi4pomo Project: Status Quo Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand Increase"
Actual"' Budget") Projoetedm
2005-08 2008-07 2007 -08 2008-09 2009 -10 2010-11 2011 -12 2012.13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2018-17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -2020
$ 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 376,544.. S 472,446 $ 253,965 $ 129,132 $ 129,132 3 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 S 210,274 S 210,274
868200
9$6,600
1,039,800.'
1,017,713
1,275,199
1275,199
1,275,199
1275,199
1275,199
1275,199
1,275,199
1,275,199
1,275,199
1275,199
1275,199
672,800
802,400
796,200
806,912
1,075,882
1,188!133
1,254,510
1,256296
1215,882
1217282
1218,696
1,220,124
1221,566
1223.023
1,224,495
408,000
404,000
391,800
384,860
392,258
392258
392258
392258
392,258
392.258
392,258
392,258
392.258
392.258
392,256
219,400
244,300
243,100
237,856
237,856
237,856
235,856
235, 856
340,866
340, 856
340, 856
340,856
340,856
340,856
340,856
332,700
41,300
17,400
22,760
54,289
2,657,003
719,284
61,655
64,121
66,686
69,353
72,127
75,013
78,013
81,134
147,300
73,300
1 800
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
$ 2,946,400
$2,909,600.
$2,868,800
$2,846,745
$3,508,031
$ 6,004,815 $ 4,006,338
$ 3,350,496 $ 3,498,690 $ 3,502,655
$ 3,506,736
$ 3,510,938
$ 3,515,266
$. 3,519,723 $ 3,524,315
253,600
524,900
384,600
141,156
137,676
147,878
307,302
333,629
337,827
. 272,344
288,601
301A04
311,252
317,295
319467
712,900
822,400
774,100
834,079
$83,143
829;664
794,730
794,730
840,876
840, 676
840, 876
840,876
840,876
840,876
840,876
8,900
8,600
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
$ 3,921,800 $4,265,500' $4,027,500 $ 3,821,981 $4,528,849 $ 6,982,357 $ 5,106,371 $ 4,478,855 $ 4,677,393 $ 4,615,875 $ 4,636,213 $ 4,653,418 $ 4,667,394 $ 4,677,894 $ 4,684,658
$ 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2.004.400, $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,525,713 $ 2,626,638 S 2,736,076 $ 2,845,383 $ 2,959,047 $ 3,077,241 $ 3,200,146 $ 3,327,952 $ 3,460,854
8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 319,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829
882,000 1.481,500 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474.000 1°473,600 1,471,500 1,473,700 968,200 972,900 972.900 972,900 972.900 972,900
$10,915,000 $4,891,600 $3,634,500 $3,996,000 $4,018,724 .g 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6,860,171 $ 4,073,994 $ 4,202,774 $ 4,331;801 $ 4,465,973,, $ 4,605,496 $ 4,750,583
$ 7,930,900
$ 7,930,900
$ 937,700
$ 6,353,200
$ (626,100) $ 393,000
$ 7,290,900 $ 6,664,800
$ (174,019) $ 510,125
$ 7,057,800 $ 6;883,781
$ 2,849,502
$ 7,393,906
$ 877,553 $ 139,953
$ 10,243,408 $ 11,126,961
$.(2,182,778) $ 541,881
$11,280,914 $ 9.078,136
$ 433,439 $ 321,617
$ '9,620.017. L10,053,456
S 201,421
$10,375,073
$ 72.398 $ (65,925)
$10,576,495 $10,648.893
$ 7,290,900
$ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800
$ 8,883`781 $ 7,393,906 .$10,243,408
$11,120,961 $ 11260,914
$ 9,078,136 $ 9,820,017
$10 053,456 $10,375,073
$10,576,495
$10.64$893 S 10.582,968
390%
334% ' 352%
. 313% 317 %:
420 °%
440% 429%
332°% 338%
340% 337%
331%
320% 306%
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments.
(4) CIP for 200&09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800); and reduction of $1,647,000 for Palm - Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario.
(5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according'to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria.
N
OC
y
F3•d
y
n
L�
N
`O
A
11
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL
Attachment 14-
Scenario #3: "With Palm - Nipomo Project
(with Garden Street Terraces and with
Chinatown Projects)"
.
Acual 01 Budget")
Proiectedm
2005-06
2006 -07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10
.2010.11
201142 201213
201314 2014 -15
201546
2019.17
2017 -18 2018 -19 2019.2020
Revenues
Service Meter Collections
'
Parking Meter Collections
Lots $
298,000 $
387,700 $ '379,600 $ 380,310 $ 481,942 S
261,661 S
134,375 $ 149,291 $
243,664 $ 232,308
S 258,094 $
260,675 $
263,282 S 292,506 S 295,431
Streets
868,200
956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831
1,313,839
1,326,977 1,464,460
1,478,104 1,493,895
1,649,608
1,866,104
1,682,765 1,859,136 1,877,728
. Parking Garage Collections
672,800
802,400 796200 814,981 1,097,508
1,221,033
1,298,195 1,442,294
1,416,277 1,424,380
1,582,486
1,598,311
1,614,294 1,793,481 1,811,410
Long -Tenn Revenues
408,000
404,000 -391.800 388,709 400.143
404,144
408,186 .453,494
458,029 476,402
643213
562,715
582,553 661,569 682,661
Lease Revenues
219,400
244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637
245,063
245,514 247,989
355,489 358.014
360, 564
363,139
365,741 368,368 371,022
Parking In -Lieu Fees
332,700
41,300 17,400 22,760 54289
2,657,003
719,284 61,655
64,121 66,686
69,353
72,127
75,013 78,013 81,134
Other Service Charges
147,300
73,300 - 900. 100 100
100
100 100
100 . 100
100
100
100 100 100
Total Service Charges $
2,946,400 $
2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 $ 2,874,984 S 3,577.449 $
6,102,844 $
4,132.630 $ 3,81 ,283 $
4,016,784 $ 4,051,785
$ 4,463,419 $
4,523,172 $
4,583,747 $ 5,053,173 $ 5,119,511
Investment and Property Revenues
253,600
624,900 384,600 141,156 107,300
119,873
271,460 306,232
334,220 296.713
31,612
81,898
80,927 98,225 130,742
Fines and Forfeitures
712,900
822,400 774,100 $34,079 891,974
846,340
818,811 909,700
_
972,146 981.867
1,090,855
1,101,763
1,112,781 1,236,300 1,248,663
Other Revenues
8,900
8,600 - -
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
Net New Revenues Pr
New Development ar
Transient
- - 34,654
69,307
103,961 152,476
202,451 252,426
332,642
387,614
387,614 426,376 426,376
Monthly
-
- - - 13,500
27,000
40,500 59,400
65,688 71,775
85,759
92,565
92,565 101,822 104,622
Residential Zone Displacement rn
-
22,500
22,500
22,500 24,750
24,750 24,750
27.225
27,225
27225 30,000 30000
Total Revenues $
3,921,800 $
4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $
7,187,864 $
5,389,883 $ 5,271,840 $
5,609,939 1. 5,679,316
$ 6,031,510 $
6,194238 $
6,284,860 $ 6,94$,895 S 7,057,113
Expenditures -
Operating Programs t4i $
1,871,700 $
1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $
2,436,255 $
2,525,713• $ 2,626.638 $
2,736,076 $ 2,840.183
$ 2,953,639 $
3,417,441 $
3,553,955 S 3,695,913 S 3.843,533
Capital Improvement Plan Projects lst
8,161,300
1,412,900 117,700 1,866,000 212,000
222,600
231,564 240,764
2.650395 20260,411
270,827
281,660
292,926 304,643 316,829
Debt Service
882,000
1,481,500 1 512 400 1,475,100 1.473.100
1,474.000
1473 600 1,471,500
1,473,700 1,415,437
1,797,493
1,860843
1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,918 _
Total Expenditures $
10,915,000 $
4,891,600 S 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $ 4,016,724 $
4,132,855 $
4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $
6.860,171 $ 24,516,031
$ 5,021,958 $
5,559,943 $
5,708,273 S 5,881,974 S 6,016,280
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 10I $
7,930 900
10,000,000
Total Other Sources (Uses) $
7,930,900
- - -
-
- -
- 10,000,000
-
-
- - -
Revenues and Other Sources Over
(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses $
937,700 $
(626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $
3,055,009 $
1,159,045 $ 932,938 $'(1,250,232)
$ (8,836,715)
.S 1,009,552 $
634,295 $
$76,586 $ 1,083,921 S 1,040,833
Working Capital, Beginning of Year $
6A63,200 $
7,290.900 $ 6.664,800 $ 7.057.800 $ 6,365,019 $
5.993,673 $
9,048 682 $ 10,207,727 $
11,140,685 $ 9,890,433
$ 1,053,718 $ 2,083,270 $ 2,897,564 $ 3,274,150 $ 4,358,071
Working Capitol, End of Year $
7,290,900 $
6,684,800 $ . 7,057,800 .$ 5,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $
9,048,682 $
10207,727 $ 11,140,665 $
9,890433_ $ _ 1,053,7iS _ $ 2,063270 $ 2197564 $ 3,274,150 S 4,358,071 S 5,398,904
Working Capltat as a Percentage of
Operating Programs Expenditures FI
390%
334% 352% 2441A 257%
371%
404% 424%
361% 37%
70%
79%
92% 118% 1401A
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fieidman. Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3), Provided by Walker Parking Consultants.
(4) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Goliemment Expenses, and MOA Adjustments,
(5) CIP for 2008 -M includes. $319,000. carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm•Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,80D for waylinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the
construction of Palm- Nipomo. The assumption is
that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014.15 and the structure Is completed and operational in Fiscal Year 2016 -17.
(6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $10,000,000 In
net proceeds from the Palm• Nipomo Bond Issuance.
(7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 201/6 of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's
fiscal policy and
Standard and Poors rating criteria.
ti
11
Revenues.
Service Meter Collections
Parking Meter Collections
Lots
Streets
Parking Garage Collections.
forg Tenn Revenues
Lease Revenues '
Parking In-Ueu Fees
Other Service Charges
Total Service Charges.
Investment: and Property Revenues
Fines and Forfeinrces
Other Revenues
Net New Revenues(*
New Development (* .
Transient
Monthly
Residential Zone Displacement nr
Total Revenues
Expenditures
.Operating Programs�l
Capital Improvement Plan Projects("
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sourcas (uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing <o
Total Other Sources (Uses)
$ 7,930,900 13,000,000
$ 7,930,900 - - - - 13,000,000 - - -
Revenues and Other Sources over -
(Undsh Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ (626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 658,303 $ 1,287,607 $ 1,088,631 $ (1,131,381) $ (5,893,145) $ 895,777 S 446,099 $ 387,301 $ 895,556 $ 842,534
Working Capital, Begirming of Year $ '6,353,200 $ 7,296,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5:365,019 $ 5,993 673 $ 6.651.976 $ 7,939,583 $ 9,028,215 $ 7,896,854 $ 2,003 708 $ Z899,485 $ 3,346.W $ 3 732.885 S 4628442
Worldling Capital, End of Year $ 7:290,900 $ 6,664,800. $ 7,057,600 $ 5,385,019 S 5.993,673 "651,976 S 7,939,583 $ 9,028 215 $ 7 898,854 $ 2 003 708 S 2,899485 $ 3.346.584 $ 3.732.M S .4,628,442 $ 5
=975
Working Capital as a Percentage of .
Operating Programs Expenditures pl 390% 334% 352% 244% 257% 271% 313% 342% 287 %. 70% 98% 97% 104% 125% 142%
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants.
(4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOAAdjustmenis.
(5) CIP for 200849 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 forPalm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note mat $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of 510,000,000 for the construction of
Palm - Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014 -15 and the structure Is completed and operational In Fiscal Year 2016 -17.
(6) In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm- Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in
working capital contribution.
(7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poces rating criteria.
N
i
N
O
liJ
H
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL
Attachment t-0
Scenario 114:
"With Palm- Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project"
Actualill'
Budget(*
2005 -06
2006-07
2007 -0e
2008-09
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011.12
2012 -13
2013 -14
2014 -15
2015 -16
2016 -17
2017.18
2018 -19
2019.2020
.$
298,000 $
387,700 $
379,600 S
380,310 $
481,942 $
486762 $
361,727 '$
401,879 S
498,778 $
469,973 $
544,360 $
549,803 $
556,301
S 616,940
S 623,109
868,200
956,600
1,039800
1,027,890
1,300,831
1,313,839
1,326,977
1,464,460
1,478,104
1,493,695
1,649,608
1,666,104
1,682,765
1,859,136
1,877,728
572,800
802,400
796200
..814,981
1,097,508
1,106,483
1,184,519
1,316,000
1,282,720
1,295,547
1,439,353.
1,453,747
1,466,284
1,631,264
1,647,576
408,000
404,000
391,800
388,709
400,143
404,144
408,186
453,494
458,029
476, 402
543,213
562,715
582,553
661,569
Meet
219,400
244,300
243,100
240,234
242,637
245,063
245,514
247,989
355,489
358,014
360,564
363,139
365,741
W8,388
371,022
332,700
41,300
17,400
22,760
54,289
57,003
719,284
61,655
64,121
66,886
69,353
72,127
75,013
78,013
61,134
147,300
.73,300
900
100
100
100
.100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
$
2,946,400 $
2,909,600 $
2,868,800 $
2,874,964 $
3,577,449 $
3,615,394 $
4,246,306 $ 3,945,577 $
4,138,341 $
4,180,617 $ 4,606,552 $ 4,667,737 $ 4,729,757 $ 5,215,390 $ 5,2e3,350
253,600
524,900
384,600
141,156
.107,300
119,873
199,559
238,188
270,648
236,906
60,111
86,985
10D,368
111,987
138,853
712,900
822,400
.774,100
834,079
891,974 ,
950,944
920,013
1,022,134
1,092,299
1,103,222
1,225,679
1,237,936
1,250,316
1,389,101
1,402,992
8,900
8,600
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
34,654
69,307
1.03,961
152,476
156,784
161,093
181,941
186,681
186,681
205,349
205,349
-
-
-
13,500
27,000
40,500
59,400
61,380
63,360
71,874
74,052
74,052
81,457
81,457
-
-
-
-
22,500
22,500
22.600
24,750
24,750
24.750
27.725
27,225
27,2?5
301)00
30 000
$
3,921,800 $
4,265,500 S
4,027,500 $
3,850,219 $
4,647,377 $
4,805,019 $
5,532,839 $
5,442,524 $
5,744,401 $
5,769,948 $
6,173,383 $
6,2B0,615 $ 6,368,398 $ 7,033,284 $ 7,142,001
$
1,871,700 $
1,997,200 $
2,004,400 $
2,201,900 $
2,333,624 $
2,450,115 $
2,540,128 $
2,641,629 $
2,751,667 $
2,856,398 $
2,970,502 $
3,434,978 $
3,572,193
$ 3,714,881
S 3,863,260
.8,161,300
1,412;900
117,700'
1,866,000
212,000
222,600
231,504
240,764
2,650,395 .
20,260,411
- 270,827
261,660
292,926
304,643
316,829
882,000
1,481,500.
1,512,400
1,475,100
1,473,100
1,474,000
1,473600
1,471.500
.1473700
1.546.285
2,036,278
2,117,878
2115978
Z118,203
2119378
$
10,915,000 $
4,891,600 $
3,634,500 $
5,643,000 $
4,018,724 $
4,146,715 $
4,245,232 $
4,353,893. $
6,875,762 $
24,663,093 $
5,277,606 $
5,834,516 $ 5,981,097 $ 6,137,727 $ 6,299,487
$ 7,930,900 13,000,000
$ 7,930,900 - - - - 13,000,000 - - -
Revenues and Other Sources over -
(Undsh Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ (626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 658,303 $ 1,287,607 $ 1,088,631 $ (1,131,381) $ (5,893,145) $ 895,777 S 446,099 $ 387,301 $ 895,556 $ 842,534
Working Capital, Begirming of Year $ '6,353,200 $ 7,296,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5:365,019 $ 5,993 673 $ 6.651.976 $ 7,939,583 $ 9,028,215 $ 7,896,854 $ 2,003 708 $ Z899,485 $ 3,346.W $ 3 732.885 S 4628442
Worldling Capital, End of Year $ 7:290,900 $ 6,664,800. $ 7,057,600 $ 5,385,019 S 5.993,673 "651,976 S 7,939,583 $ 9,028 215 $ 7 898,854 $ 2 003 708 S 2,899485 $ 3.346.584 $ 3.732.M S .4,628,442 $ 5
=975
Working Capital as a Percentage of .
Operating Programs Expenditures pl 390% 334% 352% 244% 257% 271% 313% 342% 287 %. 70% 98% 97% 104% 125% 142%
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants.
(4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOAAdjustmenis.
(5) CIP for 200849 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 forPalm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note mat $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of 510,000,000 for the construction of
Palm - Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014 -15 and the structure Is completed and operational In Fiscal Year 2016 -17.
(6) In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm- Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in
working capital contribution.
(7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poces rating criteria.
N
i
N
O
liJ
H
N
I
N
(1) Actual resuh and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Heldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants.
(4) Operathg Programs includes Transportation Expenses, Generat Government Expanses, and MOA Adjustments. -
(5) CIP for 2006-09 Includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the
constntchan otPalm.Niponto. The assurnplion is that Palm - Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 201415 and the structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year2016.17.
(6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $1 D,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond issuance. .
(7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the city's fiscal policy and Standard and Pores rating criteria. hl
pie
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL
Attachment 1-E
Scenario #5: "With Palm - Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project"
Actual (1)
Rudget")
Proleowm
2005-06
2006-07
2007 -08
2008 -09 2009.10
2010.11
2011.12 2012 -13
2013.14 201415
2075 -16
2016.17
2017 -18 2018 -19
2019,2020
Revenues
Service Meter Collections
Parking Meter Collections
Lob
$
298,000 $
387,700 $
379,600 $
380,310 $ 481.942 E
261,661 $
264,278. $ 293.612 $
296,548 S 285,721
$ 317,436 $
320,611
S 323,817 $ 359,780
S 363,858
Streets
868,200
956,600
1,039,800
1,027,890 '1,300,831
1,313,839
1,326,977 1,464,460
1,479,104 1,493,895
1,649,608
1,666,104
1,682,785 1.859,136
1,877,728
Parking Garage Collections
672,800
802,400
796,200
814,981 1,097,508
1,221,033
1,233,244 1,370,134
1,383,835 1,397,673
1,552,815
1,568,343
1,584,027 1,759,853
1.777,452
Long -Term Revenues
408,000
404.000
391,800
388,709 400,143
404,144
408,186 453,494
458,029 476, 402
543,213
562,715
582,553 661,569
882,881
Lease Revenues
219,400
244,300
243,100
240,234 242.637
245,063
247,514 249,989
252AN 265A14
257,564
260,139
262,741 265,36s
266,022
Panting in4..ieu Fees
332,700
41,300
17,400
22,760 54,289
2,657,003
59,284 61,655
84,121 66,686
69,353
72,127
75.013 78,013
81,134
Other Service Charges
147,300
73,300
900
100 100
100
100 100 -
. 100 100
100
100
100 100
100
Total Service Charges
$
2,946,400 $
2,909,600 $
2,868,800 S
2,874,984 $ 3,577,449 E
6,102,844 $
3,539,581 $ 3,893,444 $
3,934,227 . S 3,975,492 $ 4,390,090 S 4,450,140 $ 4,511,015 $ 41963,801
S 5.050.474
Investment and Property Revenues
263 ,600
624,900
384,600
141,156 107,300
119,873
271,460 290,633
322,830 955,500
90,506
120,869
139,785 158,982
189,551
Fines and Forfiftres
712,900
822,400
774,100
834.079 891,974
846,340
899.793 99SA70
1,009,666 1,019,763
1,132,957.
1,144,286
1,155,729 1284,015
1296,855
Other Revenues
8,900
8,600
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
Net New Revenues (3)
New Development r31
-
Transient
-
-
-
- 34,654
69,307
103,961 152,476
198,143 243,809
318,424
368,657
368,657 405,523
405,523
Monthly
_
_
_
13,500
27.000
40,500 59,+00
63,608 67,815
79,225
83,853
83,853 92,238
92,238
Residential Zone Displacement
22.500
22,500
22,500 24,750
24,750 24,750
27,225
27,225
27,225 30,000
30 000
Total Revenues
$
3,921,800 S
4,265,500 $
4,027,500 $
3,850,2.19 $ 4,647,377 $
7,1.87,864 $
4,877,795 $ 5,420,372 $'
5,553,223 $ 5,687,129 $ 6,038,426 $ 6,195,031
$ 6,286,264 $ 6,952,559 S 7,064,642
Expenditures
Operating Programs 141
$
1,871,700 $
1,997,200 $
2,004,400 $
2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $
2,436,255 $
2,533,617 S 2,634,858 S
2,740,132 $ 2,844,402
$ 2,958,026 $
3,422,003
$ 3,558,700 $ 3,700,848
'$ 3.848,665
Capital improvement Plan Projects
8,161,300
1,412,900
117,700
1,866,000 212,000
222,600
231,504 240,764
250,395 20,260,411
270,827
281,660
2921926 304,643
316,829
Debt Service
882,000
1,481,500
1,512 400
1,475.100 1,473,100
1 474 000
1,473,600 1 471500
1,473,700 1 415 437
1,797,493
1 860 843
1,861 393 1,861,418
1 855 918
Total Expenditures
$
10,915,000 $
4,891,600 $
3,634,500 $
5,543,000 $ 4,018,724 $ 4,132,855 $
4,238,721 $ 4,347,122 $
4,464,227 $24,520250 $ 5,026,345 $ 5,564,506 $ 5,713,018 $ 5,866,908 $ 6,021,412
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing to
$
7,930 900.
10 000 000
-
Total Other Sources (Uses)
E
7,930,900
-
-
- -
-
- _
10,000,000
-
-
-
- -
Revenues and Other Sources Over
(Under) ExpenditurasLand Other Uses
$
937,700 $
(626,100) It
393,000 $
(1,692,781) '$ 628,653 $
3,055,009 $
639,074 $ 1,073,250 $
1,088,996 $-(8,833,121)
$ 1,012,081 $
630,525
$ 573,245 $ 1,085,650
$ 1,043,230
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
$
6,353,200 $
7,290,960 $
6,664,800 S.
7,057.800 $ 5,365,019 E
Sigg3 673 $
9.048,682 $ 9,687,756 $
10,761,006 S 11.850,002
$ 3,018,881 $
4,028,962
$ 4,859,487 $ 5.232,732
S 6,318,383
Working Capital, End of Year
$
7,290,900 $
6,664,800 $
7,057,800 $
15,365,019 $ 5,993,673 S 9,048;682 "&87,756
$ 10;781.006 $ 11,850,002 S 3,011,881
$ 4,028,962 $ 4.659,487 $ 5232.732 $ 6.318,383 $ 7.361.613
Working Capital as a Percentage of
Operating Programs Expenditures pt
390%
334%
352%
244% 257°/
371%
' 382% 408%
432% 106%
136%
136%
147% 171%
191%
(1) Actual resuh and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Heldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants.
(4) Operathg Programs includes Transportation Expenses, Generat Government Expanses, and MOA Adjustments. -
(5) CIP for 2006-09 Includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the
constntchan otPalm.Niponto. The assurnplion is that Palm - Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 201415 and the structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year2016.17.
(6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $1 D,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond issuance. .
(7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the city's fiscal policy and Standard and Pores rating criteria. hl
pie
LWIM
N
N
Expenditures
Operating Programs 141
Capital Improvement Plan Projects (5)
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 161
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other sources Over
(Under)' Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, beginning of Year
Working Capital,. End of Year
Working Capital as a Percentage of
Operating Programs Expenditures m
$ 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 ,$ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,548,032 $ 2,649,849 S 2,755,723 $ 2,860,616 $ 2,974,889 $ 3,439,541 $ 3,576,938 S 3,719,816 S 3,8611,393
8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,868,000, 212,000 222.600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20.260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829
882,000 1,481,500 , 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860,843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,91a
$ 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $. 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715
$ 4,253,136 '$ 4,362,113 $ 4,479,818 $24,536,464 $ 5,043,208 $ 5,582,043 $ 5,731,257 $ 5,885,877 $ 6,041,139
$ 7,930,900 10 000 000
$ 7,930,900 - - 10,000,000
$ 937,700 $ (628,106) $
393,000 $
(1492,781) $
620,653 $
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL
777,645 $ 1240,363 $
1,213,148 $ (8,753219) $ 1,057,186 $ 624,278 $ 5641,970 $ 1,090,635 S 1,050,814
$ 6,353200 $ 7,290,900 $
6,864,800 $
Attachment 7.F
5,385,019 $
5,993,673 $
Scenario *6: "With Palm- Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects"
8,669,984 $'9,883,132 $ 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 S 2,811377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470,981
$ 7 .290,900 $ 6,684.800 $
7,067,800. $
6,365,019 $
5,993,673 $'
6,651,976 $
7A29,621 '$ 8,669,984 $
Actual (1)
Budgetnl
i
Prokct
dM
200546
2006-07
2007 -08
.2008-09
200940
2010 -11
2011 -12
2012 -13
201344
2014 -15
2015 -16
201617
2017-18
2018 -19.
2019$020
Revenues -
Service Meter Collections
-
_ Parking Meter Collections
'
Lob
$ 298,000 $
387,700 $
379,600 $
380,310 S
481,942 S
486,762 S
491,629 $
546,200 $
551,662 $
543,386 $
603,702 $
609,739
$ 615.837
$ 68-1,194 S
891,036
Streets
868,200
956,600
1,039,800
1,027,890
1,300,831
1,313,839
1,326,977
1.464,460
1,479,104
1,493,895
1,649,608
1,666,104
1,682,765
1,859,138
1,877,728
Parking {usage Collections
672,800
802,400
796,200
814,981
1,097,508
1,108,483
1,119,568
1.243,840
1,256,278
1268,841
1.,409,682
1,423,779
1,438,017
1,5971636
1A13.813
Long -Term Revenues
.408,000
404,000
391,800
388,709
400,143
404,144
408,186
453,494
458,029
47BA02
543,213
562,715
58ZS53
661,589
Ba2,681
Lease Revenues
219A00
244,300
243,100
240,234
242.637
245,063
247,514
249,989
252,489
255,014
257,564
260,139
262,741
285,368
288,022
Parking In -Lieu Fees
332,700
41,300
17,400
22,760
54,289
57,003
59,284
61,655
64,121
66,686
69,353
72,127
75,_013
78,013
81,134
OtherSerAce Charges
147,300
73,300
900
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
M
100
Total Service Charges
$ 2,946,400 S
2,909,600 $
2,868,600 $
2,874,984 $
3,577,449 $
3,615,394 S
3,653,257 $ 4,019,738 S
4,061,784 S 4,104,324 $ 4,533,223 $ 4,594,704 $ 4.057,025 S 5,146,018 $ 5,214,313
Investment and Property Revenues
253,800
524:900
384.800
141,156
107,300
119,873
199,559
222,889
260 ,100
296,494
33,897
65,613
84,341
101,410
134,129
Fines and Forfeitures
712,900
822,400
774,100
834,079
891.974
950,944
1,011,003
1,123,224
1,134,457
1,145,801
1,272,985
1285,715
1,298472
1,442,714
1,457,141
Other Revenues
8,900
8,600
-
Net New Revenues rn
New Development rn
Transient
-
-
-
-
34,654
69,307
103,961
152,476
152,476
152,476
167,723
167,723
167,723
184,496
184AN
Monthly
-
-
_
13,500
27,000
40,500
.59,400
59,400
59,400
65,340
$5,340
65,340
71,874
71.874
Residential Zone Displacement r3r
22,500
22,500
22,500
24,750
24.750
24,750
27.225
27.225
27,225
30,000
30,000
Total Revenues
$ 3,921,800 $
4,265,500 $
- 4,027,500 $
3,850,219 $
4,647,377 $
4,805,019 $
5,030,781 $ 5,602,476 $
5.692,966 $ 5,783,245 $ 6,100,394 S 6,206,321
$ 6,300,227 $ 6,976,512 $ 7,091,953
LWIM
N
N
Expenditures
Operating Programs 141
Capital Improvement Plan Projects (5)
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 161
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other sources Over
(Under)' Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, beginning of Year
Working Capital,. End of Year
Working Capital as a Percentage of
Operating Programs Expenditures m
$ 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 ,$ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,548,032 $ 2,649,849 S 2,755,723 $ 2,860,616 $ 2,974,889 $ 3,439,541 $ 3,576,938 S 3,719,816 S 3,8611,393
8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,868,000, 212,000 222.600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20.260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829
882,000 1,481,500 , 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860,843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,91a
$ 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $. 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715
$ 4,253,136 '$ 4,362,113 $ 4,479,818 $24,536,464 $ 5,043,208 $ 5,582,043 $ 5,731,257 $ 5,885,877 $ 6,041,139
$ 7,930,900 10 000 000
$ 7,930,900 - - 10,000,000
$ 937,700 $ (628,106) $
393,000 $
(1492,781) $
620,653 $
858,303 $
777,645 $ 1240,363 $
1,213,148 $ (8,753219) $ 1,057,186 $ 624,278 $ 5641,970 $ 1,090,635 S 1,050,814
$ 6,353200 $ 7,290,900 $
6,864,800 $
7,057,800 $
5,385,019 $
5,993,673 $
6,651,978 $ 7,429,621 S
8,669,984 $'9,883,132 $ 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 S 2,811377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470,981
$ 7 .290,900 $ 6,684.800 $
7,067,800. $
6,365,019 $
5,993,673 $'
6,651,976 $
7A29,621 '$ 8,669,984 $
9,883,132':5 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 $ 2.811.377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470.981 S 5.521,798
390% 334% 352% ' 244% 2570% 271% 292% 327% 359% 39% ' 74% 82% 95% 120% ' 143%
(1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by.the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division.
(2) Projected by Fkidman, Rolepp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City. San Luis Obispo.
(3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. ,
(4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MCA Adjustments.
(5) C(P for 2008 -09 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007-08 and $1,547,000 for Palm-Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that 3339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Woddng Capital contribution of $10,000,000 forthe
T�
constniction of Palen ipomo. Tile assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014.15 and the'structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year 2016.17.
Fiscal Year 2014-16
`wry
(6) Includes 510,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance.
(7) Minimum.worldng capital (reserve) should equal at feast 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according for the Citys fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria.
1
-
i
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1-G
Assumptions for Parking Fund six scenarios:
1. The Parking In -Lieu Revenues have been updated to reflect the assumption that,
beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 -10, three parking spaces are being paid for annually. The
parking in -lieu fee is based on the Fiscal Year 2008 -09 fee of $17,072 per space and is
adjusted by CPI each year
2. The projected annual change in CPI for Parking In -Lieu Fees, Transportation Expenses,
General Government Expenses, and Capital Improvement Plan Projects has been updated
as discussed, i.e. in Fiscal Years 2009 -10 and 2010 -11; it is assumed to be 6% and 5 %,
respectively. For Fiscal Years 2011 -12 onward, a CPI increase of 4% per year is
assumed, based on a 20 -year historic CPI average of 3% plus an additional cushion of
1%.
3. The Capital Improvement Plan Projects tabs have been updated to include a base expense
of at least $200,000 per year.
These general updates apply to all six scenarios.
Other specific updates have been made to the various scenarios. The following is a brief
summary of the six scenarios and their specific updates, where applicable:
1. Without Palm - Nipomo Project: Status Quo Revenues
2. Without Palm- Niponio Project: Status Quo.Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand
Increase
a. The 1% demand increases, affecting various revenue streams, have been taken
out.
3. With Palm - Nipomo Project (with Garden Street Terraces and with Chinatown Projects)
a. Major impact on balance of working capital experienced in Fiscal Years 2013 -14
and 2014 -15.
4. With Palm - Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project
a. Lot 3 and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the "without Chinatown"
scenario.
b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 3
and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 3 and 11 in the absence of
the Chinatown project. .
c. The $2.6 Million Parking In-.Lieu Fee from the Chinatown. proje ct has been
deleted.
d. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been
deleted.
e. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown
have been taken out of the New Developments tab.
f. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and .11
has been deleted.
B2 -23
ATEACTIMENT
Attachment 1 -G
g. Major impact on balance of working capital starts in Fiscal Year 2013 -14 and is
especially prevalent in Fiscal Years 2014 -15 and 2015 -16.
h. In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt
financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm - Nipomo is funded as
follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the
Palm - Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution.
5. With Palm- Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project
a. Lot 2 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Garden Street Terraces
scenario.
b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lot 2.
This is due to the continued existence of lot 2 in the absence of the Garden Street
Terraces project.
c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been
deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer
to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million
advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer).
d. The $660,000 Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has
been deleted.
e. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated
with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out.
f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with the Garden
Street Terraces- Project have been taken out of the New Developments tab.
g. The $7,600 and .$3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot
2 have been deleted.
h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden Street Terraces project developer
from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out.
6. With Palm - Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects
a. Lot 2, 3, and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Chinatown and
without Garden Street Terraces scenario.
b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 2,
3, and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 2, 3, and 11 in the absence
of the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects.
c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been
deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer
to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million
advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer).
d. The $2.6 Million Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Chinatown project has been
deleted. The $660,000 Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces
Project has been deleted.
e. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been
deleted. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue
associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out.
B2 -24
"Tir'
ACT - _J_
Attachment 1 -G
f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown
and Garden Street Terraces projects have been taken out of the New
Developments tab.
g. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and 11
has been deleted. The $7,600 and $3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from
the closing of lot 2 have been deleted:
h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden. Street Terraces project developer
from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out.
L Major impact on working capital balance in Fiscal Year 2013 -14 and 2014 -15
B2 -25
1
1
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to approve the Consent Age
C1
MEETINGS.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3
ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to waive oral
motion carried 4:0 (Romero absent).
C2.
TRIATHLON.
ATTACHMENT ?�
Page 3
as indicated below.
SPECIAL AND RE(
g and approve as presented;
ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to, s recommended by the Parks and Recreation
Commission, authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City, enter into an agreement with
Heritage Oaks Bank for spons ship of the San Luis Obispo Triathlon in exchange for a
$5,000 monetary contributio nd other in -kind services of approximately $2,000;
motion carried 4:0 (Romer absent).
C3. FINAL ACCEP ANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS F
— A 16 UNIT ESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
DA PROPERTIES. L.P
ACTION: Mo ed by Carter /Marx to adopt Resolution No. 10065 (2009 Series) accepting
the public i provements, certifying completion of the required private improvements,
and relea ing /reducing the outstanding sureties for Tract 2865; motion carried 4:0
(Romer absent).
BUSINESS ITEM
1.AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Director of Public Works Walter and Parking Services Manager Horch presented the
agenda report. They, Finance & Information Technology Director Statler, and Deputy
Director of Public Works Bochum responded to questions.
Public Comments
Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo resident and member of Save Our Downtown, spoke in
opposition to the parking structure.
Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, supported the proposal with two exceptions: 1) He
objected to calling it the "Monterey Street' parking structure. 2) He thought that the
structure should not be limited to parking only, but that a design - oriented architect should
be employed to develop a creative urban design space on the structure.
s i
ATTACHMENT ?-
City Council Meeting page 4
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Pierre Rademaker, representing the Chamber of Commerce on the Ad Hoc Parking
Review Committee, concurred with both of Mr. Schwartz's concerns. He added that it
should not be called the "Palm - Nipomo" parking structure either.
Tom Swen, representing the Downtown Association on the Ad Hoc Parking Review
Committee, spoke in support of the recommendations. In response to Council Member
Ashbaugh, he indicated that while he may be in favor of having a mixed use, he had
concerns related to how it would be funded and whether it would be City -owned and
operated.
-- -end of public comments - --
Discussion followed during which staff responded to questions.
Council Member Manx suggested using "Monterey - Nipomo Street" as the name for the
structure. She suggested that it could be designed so as to leave options open for other
uses or additional parking space. She said her concerns about the project are financial
as she wants the City to be able to work with SLOCOG, the County or Court System, or
Greyhound Bus to build a multi -modal facility in the vicinity of Marsh and Higuera or Santa
Rosa Avenue should the opportunity arise.
Council Member Carter spoke in support of moving ahead with the project.
Council Member Ashbaugh expressed some concern regarding the distance of the site
from the projected parking demand, suggested that the structure should include some
multi -use options, and suggested that the environmental review should address whether
there are other feasible alternate sites.
Vice Mayor Settle spoke in support of the staff recommendation.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the RFP process and whether there are other
practical alternatives to the Palm - Nipomo site.
Parking Manager Horch discussed the new law that passed early this year which will
require the City to pay, retroactively from January 2009, County and State surcharges on
parking citations. He provided an analysis of the costs the City will incur and said this
matter will be brought before Council in the near future.
ACTION: Moved by Ashbaugh /Marc to approve the staff recommendation with added
direction that the Request for Proposals (RFP) be returned to Council for consideration
before it's issued (4:0, Romero absent).
Staff indicated that an option will be built into the RFP that would ask the architect to look
at added uses on the project site. While the report may comment on whether there are
other practical alternatives to the Palm- Nipomo site, it will not be staff's intent to do further
investigation on alternative sites.
The Special Meeting adiourned to the Regular Meeting at 7.40 p.m.
B2 -2 f
RwsFAAnLY
IMOR`I'E ARY
A4i, +g�cstt'.itS'Cc
Sid��;itk
Enhwictd
llaYin
fnrir xlf c
Calming
Assn ,&m
SODA WATER
MISSION COLLEGE
LX
5Am Lars O spo
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
ATTACHMENT_
x
SAN l
(like Radv�
--
EXISE7n i'Y t'S,"
,
(FA t
�LUi�E4ES�
�i3Yi{Cri
�y
LX
5Am Lars O spo
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
ATTACHMENT_
a tk Y.'kssa3town —+
e #�
B2 -28
x
I.E1'SHi�it
(Future Project)
a tk Y.'kssa3town —+
e #�
B2 -28