CC SR 20231017 02 - Civic Center Master Plan
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/17/2023
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to review the Finance Advisory Committee’s (FAC) and
the Civic Center Advisory Committee’s (CCAC) recommendations regarding the
Preliminary Conceptual Civic Center Campus Master Plan Project (Project).
RECOMMENDED COMMITTEE ACTION:
1) Review the FAC’s recommendations regarding potential Project funding options
and provide direction on the following funding options:
a. $45.4 million as the maximum amount the City can afford to self -finance
consisting of:
i. $18.6 million down payment (cash on hand)
ii. $26.8 million long term loan. If the City Council opts for a loan, FAC’s
statement is that under the present market conditions, a loan of $26.8
million is the maximum borrowable whose subsequent payments can
be afforded while upholding the 50% reserve policy during the full
term of the loan (baseline of 30 years). This funding is also based on
the assumption that the City is eligible to obtain such a loan.
b. Other potential additional funding sources for the City Council’s
consideration for any amount above $45.4 million (in alphabetical order):
i. Capital campaign – estimated at 30% of project costs and/or based
on feasibility study.
ii. General Obligation Bond – (It could be used for all or part of the
needed financing)
iii. Grants – potentially for public safety, parking
iv. On-site revenues
v. Public/private partnerships - Peninsula cities, private companies
*To the extent that the proceeds of other potential additional sources
exceed the target, such overage shall be used to reduce some or all of the
loan or cash portions.
2) Review the CCAC’s recommendations regarding the Project’s preliminary
conceptual site plan and potential construction phasing; and,
3) If deemed acceptable, direct Staff to return at a future meeting date with additional
information to consider whether to proceed to Stage 2 of the Project including
information regarding a design competition.
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
Vina Ramos, Interim Director of Finance VR
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. October 5, 2023 Joint FAC/CCAC Agenda Packet
B. September 25, 2023 CCAC Agenda Packet
C. September 14, 2023 FAC Agenda Packet
D. August 31, 2023 FAC Agenda Packet
E. August 24, 2023 CCAC Agenda Packet
F. August 3, 2023 CCAC Agenda Packet
G. July 27, 2023 FAC Agenda Packet
H. July 20, 2023 FAC Agenda Packet
I. Feb. 16, 2021 City Council Report: Citizens Satisfaction Survey
J. October 15, 2019 City Council Report: Program Document
K. December 7, 2021 City Council Report: Ken Dyda Civic Center
L. March 10, 2022 CCAC/FAC Facilitated Financing Workshop
M. March 24, 2022 CCAC Report: Public Tour and Workshop
N. April 28, 2022 CCAC Agenda Packet-Site Plan Review
O. May 26, 2022 CCAC Agenda Packet-Site Plan Review
P. July 28 CCAC Agenda Packet-Site Plan Review-Site Plan Review
Q. September 22, 2022 CCAC Agenda Packet-Site Plan Review
R. December 15, 2022 CCAC Agenda Packet-Site Plan Review
S. February 23, 2023 CCAC Agenda Packet: Geotech Report
T. City Council Reserve Policy No. 41
BACKGROUND:
Developing the Civic Center property has been a goal of the City for decades. It was part
of the City’s original General Plan and the 2018 updated General Plan. In 2015, the City
Council approved a Parks Master Plan Update, which included a recommendation for a
separate Civic Center Master Plan. The Civic Center Master Plan effort began in 2016
with a City Council approved community survey. The survey was mailed to more than
13,500 Rancho Palos Verdes residences in December 2016. Nearly 2,300 completed
surveys were returned to the City, a 17% return rate that was well above industry
standards for a direct-mail campaign. The highest-rated components identified in the
survey included picnic facilities, trailheads, public safety-first responder facilities/heliport,
village green/public plaza, shade structures, community center, amphitheater,
playground, and permanent dog park.
In March 2017, the City Council approved a resolution to form the Civic Center Advisory
Committee (CCAC), which held its first meeting on September 28, 2017. In June 2018 ,
the CCAC, with the assistance of Staff and the architecture firm Gensler , began work on
developing a preliminary program document that would include a list of project
components and approximate square footage. Gensler also began developing
preliminary conceptual site plans.
2
On August 8, 2018, 93 people attended a Gensler-facilitated public workshop at the Point
Vicente Interpretive Center. The City Council approved the program document on
October 15, 2019, and directed Staff to develop a request for proposals (RFP) for master
plan design services and construction drawings (Attachment J) This process was put on
hold the following year to allow Staff to research financing/development options, such as
design build and public-private partnership (P3).
In early 2021, a citizen satisfaction survey was conducted which included several
questions related to the Civic Center project (Attachment I). Following CCAC
recommendations, the City Council approved a revised program document and renamed
the Civic Center after long-time City Councilmember, former Mayor, and City Founder
Ken Dyda on December 7, 2021 (Attachment K). At its February 2022 meeting, the City
Council approved agreements with Griffin Structures (Griffin) to serve as Project Manager
and for Gensler to provide additional design work.
On March 10, 2022, the CCAC and FAC co-hosted a public Financing workshop on
“Project Delivery Options for Major Municipal Capital Projects” led by ARUP (Attachment
L). Hundreds of residents and visitors attended public tours of the Civic Center site
including the Nike Missile silos in March 2022. The final tour on March 24 , 2022 was
followed by a Gensler-facilitated workshop where attendees heard an overview of the
project and program document and participated in breakout sessions (Attachment M).
At its April 28 and May 26, 2022 meetings, CCAC provided input on preliminary
conceptual Civic Center site plans prepared by Gensler based on input from Staff, CCAC,
surveys, and public workshop (Attachment N & O). The CCAC expressed a clear
preference for an option called the “radial bar design” (see below).
3
The intent of this preliminary conceptual plan was to assist the City in developing a
preliminary budget to determine what the City can afford before considering proceeding
to subsequent stages in the master planning process.
Removal of Fire and Sheriff Station
The Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff stations were components of both program
documents and initial conceptual site designs, including the radial bar design. That design
positioned both stations on the eastern portion of the site as well as a parking structure
that would have provided direct ingress and egress to Hawthorne Boulevard for
emergency vehicles.
These elements were removed after funding, logistical, and commitment concerns were
raised by City Manager Ara Mihranian regarding the likelihood of Los Angeles Coun ty
constructing both a fire station and sheriff station on the top of a parking structure with
direct ingress and egress onto Hawthorne Blvd as shown below. The City Manager’s
concern was initially brought to the CCAC’s attention at its July 28, 2022 meeting
(Attachment P). As a result, the CCAC directed Staff to reach out to officials with Los
Angeles County regarding their level of commitment to sheriff and fire stations being part
of the Civic Center Master Plan.
The CCAC received updates at its September 22, 2022 meeting on meetings Staff had
held with a number of Los Angeles County officials, including Joe Nicchitta, Chief Deputy
CEO of Los Angeles County’s Chief Executive Office, John Cooke, Assistant Chief
Executive Officer of the County’s Asset Management Branch, and Mark Baucum, Chief
of Staff to Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn regarding the likelihood of
obtaining firm commitments from the County to fund the construction of a fire or sheriff
station at the Civic Center site (Attachment Q). While no definitive commitment or
rejection was received at these meetings, the consensus was that funding or support was
unlikely due to financial and logistical concerns. Based on this outreach, the sheriff station
and fire station were removed from the preliminary conceptual site plan (but could be
added back to the site plan at a future time).
Federal Agency Involvement (GSA, DOJ, and FEMA)
In 2019, the City Council approved agreements with the United States government
regarding Civic Center property deed restrictions. This action followed an extensive
lobbying effort to shift oversight of that section of the property from the National Park
Service (NPS) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) with oversight by the General Services Administration
(GSA). Passive recreation covenants on approximately 9.5 acres on the eastern side of
the Civic Center property were replaced with law enforcement (overseen by DOJ) and
emergency management (overseen by FEMA) covenants. his area is commonly referred
to as the “public safety zone.” GSA is responsible for the overall Federal administration
of the site and compliance with the covenants. For reference, the overall size of the Civic
4
Center property is 19.03 acres with 7.79 acres on the west side of the property designated
as a “General Government” zone,” 9.5 acres designated as a “Public Safety” zone on the
east side, and the remaining 1.7 acres designated for passive use. See map below.
Due to the removal of the fire and sheriff stations, the CCAC directed Staff on July 28,
2022, to approach both DOJ and FEMA to clarify questions and concerns about “public
safety zone” requirements on the Civic Center site.
Both DOJ and FEMA expressed concerns about the removal of the stations. They also
expressed concerns that parts of several site components in the “general government
zone” that were not public safety-related extended into the “public safety zone” as shown
below in shaded blue.
Both agencies referenced a site plan submitted in 2018 to GSA that was subsequently
reviewed and accepted by both the DOJ and FEMA. The submitted site plan was part of
the basis for approving the transfer of authority from NPS to GSA. The site plan was
created by the firm of Richard Fisher Associates and submitted to GSA and NPS by the
City as part of the application process.
The site plan was not known, used, or reviewed by the CCAC, current Staff, or Gensler
in creating the current program document or the preliminary site plans that have been
reviewed by the CCAC.
5
During subsequent conversations with DOJ, FEMA, and GSA, it became apparent that
there was an assumption on their part that the 2018 Richard Fisher Associates site plan
was an approved site plan that was under construction by the City.
Staff subsequently met with Anita Lee, a Realty Specialist in the Real Property Utilization
and Disposal Division of GSA to explain that the 2018 site plan was not under construction
and was only intended to facilitate the discussion and process to transfer the deed
restrictions from NPS to GSA. Ms. Lee noted that the City may be non-compliant if
concrete steps are not made towards completion of the Civic Center per an approved
plan with public safety elements. She referenced a 5-year compliance review period.
While emphasizing that the GSA would work closely with the Ci ty on revisions to the
project plans, she noted that non-compliance could eventually lead to the public safety
section of the property reverting to Federal control leading to an eventual sale of the land.
In that situation, the City would have the option to buy back the property or a portion at
current fair market value. While that amount is not known, given the size, location, and
views from the property, it would be reasonable to assume that that dollar amount would
be in the tens of millions.
She reiterated that the GSA would rather work towards resolving any issues and advised
that creating and submitting a revised plan was the appropriate next step . She
emphasized the need to submit a revised plan to all three Federal agencies with additional
public safety and law enforcement components to offset the removal of the sheriff and fire
stations.
Based on the feedback from Los Angeles County officials and the federal agencies,
Gensler prepared a revised Radial Bar plan that included the following public safety
features:
• Helipad
• Helopod (approved by City Council on January 17, 2023 -installed in June 2023)
• Emergency Evacuation Area
• Emergency Operations Center
• Sheriff Drop-In Office
• Park Ranger Facilities
• Maintenance Yard/Emergency supply storage and staging area
The CCAC considered two modified versions of the preferred Radial Bar plan at its
December 15, 2022 meeting, one with a land swap and the other without (Attachment R).
Both options contained two site plans reflecting the first and second floor levels of the
main building.
The land swap option included a proposed swap of less than one acre consisting of
32,400 square feet of general unrestricted zone transferred from the City to GSA
oversight, with an equivalent transfer transferred from the City to GSA. This proposal
would allow for greater flexibility in the placement of City Hall buildings in the general
6
government use area, as well as improved vehicular and pedestrian access, while not
reducing the size of the “public safety zone.”
On January 11, 2023, Staff submitted the land swap option and project narrative to GSA.
Ms. Anita Lee with GSA informed the City on February 2, 2023, that GSA would not
approve the proposed land swap design option, stating that parking designed to access
government buildings would only be used for emergency purposes occasionally.
She stated that it was not GSA’s role to decide whether the public safety and law
enforcement project components presented by the City would be acceptable or not,
reiterating that that was in the domain of FEMA (pu blic safety) and DOJ (law
enforcement). At her direction, Staff submitted the revised site plan and application
materials, without the land swap option, to DOJ and FEMA. The application emphasized
the potential use of the public safety zone as an emergen cy evacuation zone. The
application emphasized the importance of a robust emergency/evacuation plan especially
in light of the recent tragic earthquake in Turkey and Syria and the ongoing threat of fire,
earthquakes and other potential natural disasters in the Palos Verdes area that is known
to have limited access off the Peninsula.
FEMA informed Staff that the proposed revised plan has been deemed acceptable. DOJ
has not yet taken a formal position on the revised application which is still under review.
GSA noted that if DOJ decides they should not be involved because the law enforcement
component is not sufficient, then DOJ could simply opt to remove themselves from the
process and FEMA would oversee compliance. Staff is in ongoing communication with
all three federal agencies and continues to wait for a formal combined response.
Coast Guard Outreach
On April 21, 2022, then-Mayor David Bradley sent a letter to the United States Coast
Guard expressing interest in acquiring or pursuing joint partnerships regarding Battery
Barnes and Pt. Vicente Lighthouse properties. Battery Barnes is a 3.9-acre parcel located
directly to the west of City Hall. The site includes an approximately 5,000 sq ft. World
War II subterranean bunker facility that was later used by the Coast Guard. This historic
site, which is currently not being used by the Coast Guard, would be a desirable addition
to the Civic Center property. A current City Council approved goal is to continue pursuing
both Coast Guard-owned properties. Coast Guard personnel have informed Staff that
there is an ongoing divestiture process at Base Los Angeles/Long Beach with the
possibility that Battery Barnes and the lighthouse may become available at some point in
the future. It is Staff’s understanding that this will likely be a long and complicated process
with many competing interests. A follow up letter was sent to the Coast Guard on February
28, 2023.
Geotechnical Report
On February 15, 2023, the City Council approved an agreement with Griffin, to provide
project management services for the Civic Center Master Plan project. The ag reement’s
7
scope included a Geotechnical investigation of the site to be conducted by a Griffin
subcontractor, Leighton Group (Leighton).
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to provide preliminary information on the
nature of the Civic Center site and its geologic conditions as it relates to opportunities and
constraints related to preliminary site planning efforts. Prior to preparing a site plan, it is
important to have a thorough understanding of the geologic con dition of the site to
determine where and whether potential development can occur.
Leighton completed all scheduled boring and drilling on site. Surface and subsurface
investigative methods were performed including geologic reconnaissance, bucket auger
drilling, downhole logging, hollow stem auger exploration, and geotechnical laboratory
testing. Leighton also reviewed geotechnical reports and supplemental documentation
prepared in 1999 and 2000 for the proposed Terranea Resort (then referred to as Long
Point Development) which looked at both Upper and Lower Point Vicente properties.
Leighton has reviewed items including topography, landforms, cliff face setbacks,
locations of mapped springs and seeps, slope profiles and slope aspect, geologic
structures, weathering of geologic units, the proximity of active faults, and the potential
for earthquake ground shaking.
Below are some key takeaways from the geotechnical report’s conclusions and
recommendations summary that was presented to the CCAC on February 23, 2023
(Attachment S):
1) The site is not located within a state designated special study zone for surface fault
rupture.
2) The site is subject to strong ground shaking as is the case for most of Southern
California.
3) The site is not located within a currently designated liquefaction hazard zone.
4) The site is underlain by stiff to hard clay and silt, and shallow bedrock.
5) Proposed Civic Center improvements can be founded on conventional spread
footings bearing solely on a zone of newly excavated and recompacted engineered
fill soils derived from onsite earth materials.
6) The report contains specific recommendations for site grading, foundation s, and
other geotechnical aspects of the conceptual project.
The report notes that the eventual project should be performed in accordance wi th all
applicable building codes and standards to reduce seismic risk and that Leighton
Consulting should be retained to provide geotechnical review of site grading, foundation
and shoring if applicable when final plans are available . They note that additional
geotechnical review may be necessary if the site’s conceptual plan changes significantly.
Cotton Shires, the City’s Geological consultant reviewed the submitted Leighton
Geotechnical Review. Their report noted that the report by Leighton was based on
conceptual designs prepared by Gensler that are still being evaluated. They note that
formal design plans have not been prepared.
8
FAC and CCAC Involvement
After years of conceptual planning with numerous iterations of program validation and site
planning with different third-party agencies in regard to the conditional uses of the Civic
Center Master Plan, the Project’s Preliminary Conceptual Site Planning Stage (Stage 1)
is nearly complete for the City Council’s consideration.
The FAC and CCAC are advisory committees that the City Council appoints to provide
recommendations on City matters for consideration by the City Council. Upon the
formation of the CCAC, their Council-approved workplan has been to essentially develop
and recommend a phasing schedule and conceptual master site for the programmatic
features approved by the City Council. Whereas the Council-approved workplan for the
FAC, among other things, is to recommend what the City can afford and how to potentially
pay for a new Civic Center Campus Master Plan.
Using the program document and preliminary conceptual site plan, Staff, with the
assistance of Gensler, Griffin, and Kosmont Financial Services (KFS) developed
preliminary cost estimates, potential financing options, and potential site revenue
sources. In coordination with the City Council Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Pro Tem
Cruikshank and Councilmember Alegria, and pursuant to the Council-approved Fiscal
Year (FY) 2023-24 Workplan for the FAC, this information, along with other information
regarding the Civic Center Project schedule, preliminary site plan, and preliminary
construction phasing was presented to the FAC at special meetings held on July 20 and
27, 2023 (Attachments H & G). Subsequently, FAC requested additional information and
analyses to be presented at their August 31 and September 14, 2023, meetings
(Attachments D & C).
The presented preliminary cost estimate of $105.9 million was developed based on
certain assumptions including commencing Phase One in 2027 and Phase Two in 2030,
and is inclusive of hard costs, soft costs, and 30% contingency. When adding the
estimated escalation costs of about 4%, the 2027 estimated value of $105.9 million is
approximately $129.3 million.
This evening, the City Council is being asked to review the recommendations of the FAC
and CCAC on the Preliminary Conceptual Civic Center Campus Master Plan Project in
terms of the preliminary budget, site plan, and construction phasing schedule.
DISCUSSION:
The FAC and CCAC have held multiple separate meetings in July, August, and September
2023 to analyze and develop recommendations regarding the preliminary conceptual
Project site plan, phasing, and potential funding options. The CCAC and FAC approved
their recommendations on September 14 and 25, 2023 respectively, and approved
presenting their recommendations at a joint meeting on October 5, 2023.
9
The recommendations from the CCAC and FAC on the Project are reliant on one another.
Throughout the meetings that were held in the past three months, t he FAC received a
report from the CCAC on the proposed preliminary site plan and preferred phasing for the
Project they intend to recommend to the City Council and the CCAC received a report
from the FAC on their recommendations on funding the Project. The CCAC and FAC
exchanged information and formulated finalized individual Committee recommendations
to the City Council. The Chair from the FAC and the Chair of the CCAC presented their
respective Committee’s recommendations at the October 5 joint meeting. Additionally,
the joint meeting ensued discussions for each Committee, ultimately affirming their
recommendations.
Outlined below are the summary of the meetings and recommendations presented at the
October 5 joint FAC and CCAC meeting for the City Council’s review and consideration
to determine whether to proceed to Stage 2 of the master planning process.
1. FAC Recommended Potential Project Funding Options.
Prior to the joint meeting on October 5, 2023, the FAC met four times on July 20 and 27,
2023, August 31, 2023, and September 14, 2023. At these meetings, the FAC received
information from Staff and the City’s Municipal Financial Consultants (KFS) regarding
potential funding options for discussion and review. Overall, FAC’s funding considerations
are based on the baseline information noted above and as follows:
• The original objective is to provide a funding pathway for the Project’s estimated
cost of $105.9 million (hard costs, soft costs, 30% contingency) for Design -Build
delivery. Later in the process, due to the FAC’s concern of the affordability of
$105.9 million (hard costs, soft costs, 30% contingency), their objective shifted to
evaluating the City’s capacity to afford loan payments while upholding City reserve
policies.
• Maintain prudent fiscal management/fiscal stewardship.
• Maintain 50% General Fund reserve balance policy through the life of the loan
(current assumption at 30 years).
o City Council Reserve Policy No. 41 (Attachment T) stipulates a minimum fund
balance of at least 50 percent of the annual operating expenditures in the
General Fund. For the CIP Fund, the policy requires a minimum of $5 million
as a reserve for major improvement projects related to the City’s infrastructure
projects.
• Allocate a maximum of $5 million from CIP based on reserve policy.
• Allocate specific elements and phases is beyond the role and scope of FAC.
• Potential funding sources (in alphabetical order):
o Capital campaign/planned giving based on feasibility study and City
foundation policies
o Cash on hand – General Fund and CIP Fund
o General Obligation Bond - favorably reduces City debt burden and provides
input on the level of community support for the project. (It may be used to
fund the entire project).
10
o Grants
o Loan
o On-site revenues
o Public/private partnerships
On October 5, 2023, based on FAC’s discussions and review of the presented information
and analyses from Staff and consultants, the FAC affirmed the following potential funding
options (also shown in Table 1):
• $45.4 million as the maximum amount the City can afford to self-finance consisting
of:
o $18.6 million down payment (cash on hand).
o $26.8 million long-term loan. If the City Council opts for a loan, FAC’s
statement is that under the present market conditions, a loan of $26.8 million
is the maximum borrowable whose subsequent payments can be afforded
while upholding the 50% reserve policy during the full term of the loan
(baseline of 30 years). This funding is also based on the assumption that the
City is eligible to obtain such a loan.
• Other potential additional funding sources for the City Council’s consideration for
any amount above $45.4 million (in alphabetical order):
o Capital campaign – estimated at 30% of project costs and/or based on
feasibility study.
o General Obligation Bond – (It could be used for all or part of the needed
financing)
o Grants – potentially for public safety, parking
o On-site revenues
o Public/private partnerships - Peninsula cities, private companies
*To the extent that the proceeds of other potential additional sour ces exceed
the target, such overage shall be used to reduce some or all of the loan or
cash portions.
Continued on the next page
11
Table 1: Potential Funding Sources
Based on the following project budget assumptions:
Estimated Project Cost (2023)$105.9M
Based on Design-Build Delivery
Valued at $105.9M in 2023:
includes hard costs, soft costs, 30% contingency cost
Valued at $129.3M in 2027:
includes hard costs, soft costs, 30% contingency,
escalation cost of 4%
Potential sources based on FAC's review of information and analyses:
Down Payment (Cash on Hand) $18.6M
Sources:
General Fund $5M (one-time in FY23-24)
General Fund $1.5M (annually from FY24 to FY27)
CIP Fund $5M (one-time in FY23-24)
Estimated Interest Earnings $2.6M (4.45%from FY24 to
FY27)
If City Council opts for a loan, FAC's statement on a
potential maximum loan amount is: $26.8M
Uphold City's reserve policy during the life of the loan and
that City is eligible to obtain such a loan
$1.7M - estimated annual payment for 30 years, interest
@5%
$52.4M - includes estimated fees, principal, interest @5%
Total Potential Sources $45.4M
Other Potential Additional Sources
(Unsecured & Unconfirmed)
Above
$45.4M
In alphabetical order:
Capital Campaign - 30% of project cost
General Obligaton Bond (It could be used for all or part of
the needed financing)
Grants (public safety, parking)
On-site revenues
Private/Public Partnerships
*To the extent that the proceeds of other potential additional sources
exceed the target, such overage shall be used to reduce some or all of the
loan or cash portions.
12
Outlined below is a summary of the four FAC meetings which includes assumptions that
were used to prepare the analyses presented by Staff and Kosmont Financial Services
(KFS).
FAC Meetings
When undertaking a major capital project, several considerations are carefully evaluated
to ensure the City’s financial capacity can sustain the result of such decisions. As part of
the initial evaluation process, prior to presenting any potential scenarios to the FAC, Staff
considered and incorporated current City policies including:
• City Council Policy No. 52 - Debt Policy with the emphasis of the City observing
a guideline of 5% of annual revenue as the maximum permissible level for
General Fund resources committed to the repayment of debt.
• City Council Policy No. 41 – Reserve Policies for maintaining the desired levels
for reserves (Attachment T).
• City’s Investment Policy for striving to maintain the level of investment of all idle
funds as near 100% as possible through the optimum operation of its cash
management system.
At the four meetings held by FAC, Staff presented information, as detailed below, on the
potential funding sources and financial approaches that are available such as cash on
hand, traditional loan, issue securities, direct lease (Public-Private Partnership (P3)), and
other potential sources such as capital campaign/philanthropy, grants, public/private
operating partnerships, and on-site revenues. As requested by the FAC, KFS also
presented information on a General Obligation Bond for review as a potential other
funding source.
The objective of the FAC meetings in July was for St aff to present the preliminary
information about the Project and initiate discussions between FAC members regarding
potential funding sources and the potential funding gap. Additionally, Staff were to solicit
FAC’s assistance in formulating a funding path way model for the project’s estimated
amount of $105.9 million (hard costs, soft costs, 30% contingency) for a Design -Build
delivery.
Potential Funding Sources
Outlined below are the potential funding sources of $45.4 million that were thoroughly
discussed during the FAC meetings.
Cash On Hand
This option involves utilizing existing available cash resources such as the General Fund
and Capital Infrastructure Improvement (CIP) Fund to fund as much of the project as
possible, ensuring that the City’s financial stability is not compromised. When assessing
the City’s tolerable contributions, Staff analyzed factors such as the City’s current and
13
projected financial status and the City’s past financial performances. The details of these
analyses are presented later in the report – see General Fund and CIP Fund Analysis.
In July, to determine the available cash on hand, Staff presented information and various
analyses to the FAC on the City’s cash reserves and its 30-year financial outlook,
particularly the General Fund and the CIP Fund. The potential amounts that the FAC
reviewed for a down payment from the General Fund range from $18.6 million to $26.8
million.
On October 5, 2023, based on the information and analyses presented to the FAC, they
affirmed submitting its recommendation to the City Council of $18.6 million as a potential
down payment funding source. The potential fund sources and estimated fiscal years are
as follows:
Potential Down Payment (Cash on Hand)
Fund Fiscal Year Potential
Amount
General Fund 2023-24 5,000,000
CIP Fund 2023-24 5,000,000
General Fund 2023-24 1,500,000
General Fund 2024-25 1,500,000
General Fund 2025-26 1,500,000
General Fund 2026-27 1,500,000
Total General Fund 11,000,000
Total CIP Fund 5,000,000
Total Estimated Interest Earnings (4.45%) 2,600,250
TOTAL 18,600,250
Also, based on these pre-funding contributions, Staff and KFS anticipate that there will
be interest earnings of approximately $2.6 million in a 3 -year span before and during
the construction phase of the project. If approved, the City Council may allocate the pre-
funding contributions for the Project which will be invested in accordance with the City’s
Investment Policy with the goal of earning higher interest rates than the Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF). The estimated interest earnings for investmen t are 4.45%
based on the current market bond rate for 5-year US Treasurys.
Staff seeks the City Council’s acceptance of FAC’s recommendation of a potential down
payment of $18.6 million consisting of $11 million from the General Fund (over a 3 -year
period), a one-time contribution of $5 million from the CIP Fund, and to allocate the
estimated earnings of $2.6 million for the Project. If approved, when deemed appropriate,
Staff will return at a future meeting to request the City Council’s approval of additional
appropriations.
14
Securities – Lease Revenue Bonds (Loan)
This option is a traditional approach in which public agencies may raise capital by creating
a lease/leaseback structure between the City and a public finance authority (commonly
known as a loan and was used to fund the Ladera Linda Community Park Projec t). This
option does not have voter requirements like a general obligation bond (later defined in
the report) and there is direct access to capital markets based on the City’s credit. This
process takes about 90 - 120 days and assumes the issuance will ultimately be a Lease
Revenue Bond or a Certificate of Participation . This option will require consultants such
as KFS and a bond counsel to support the City with the process.
KFS has based all presented analyses to the FAC utilizing this financing mechanism as
the selected financing option. The assumptions for the financing scenarios include:
• 5% estimated tax-exempt interest rate on loan
• 30 year, fully amortizing loans
• Equal, monthly construction fund draws over 3-year period per loan that earn
interest at the “arbitrage yield”
• Semiannual interest and annual principal payments
• 2% estimated financing costs
• Excellent City credit rating in the “AA” category (to be determined by credit
rating agency)
• Down payment of $18.6 million
• Annual debt service payments are set at $1.75 million (based on $26.8 million
loan), which is the maximum loan repayment upholding the 50% General
Fund reserve balance policy through the life of t he loan (current assumption
at 30 years).
As previously mentioned, due to the FAC’s concern of the affordability of $105.9 million,
their objective has shifted to evaluating the City’s capacity to afford loan payments while
upholding City reserve policies. As such, during the FAC’s deliberations in August, Chair
Lewis, with the unanimous support from the FAC members, pr oposed that the Staff
prepare a scenario demonstrating the potential maximum down payment and annual loan
payment while maintaining the City’s reserve policy during the life of the loan (baseline of
30 years). This strategy aims to uphold the City’s long -standing tradition of responsible
fiscal management, which has consistently allowed the City to sustain a sound fiscal
position.
The FAC reviewed six (6) financing scenarios and analyses included potential annual
loan payments ranging from $2.7 million to $7.8 million. In each scenario, Staff presented
the long-term effects on the City’s finances over a 10-year period and eventually FAC
directed Staff to use a 30-year period, which is the potential life of the loan.
As shown in Table 2 on the next page, this scenario is based on a potential 30-year loan
amortization and uses a 30-year financial model. Using several financial factors and
assumptions mentioned above, the maximum annual loan amount is $1.75 million, for a
15
total loan of approximately $26.8 million. When factoring the interest and financing costs,
the total amount is estimated at $52.4 million at the end of the loan period of 30 years.
Table 2. Proforma Financing Scenario
*Source: Table 2 is provided by KFS based on Staff’s estimates of $1.75 million in annual loan
payments.
When applying the two sources totaling $45.4 million, there is a funding gap of $29.6
million for Priority 1 valued at $79.4 million. Since potential available sources would be
allocated for Priority 1, the funding gap for Priority 2, 3, and Future is $46.7 million.
On October 5, 2023, based on the information and analyses presented to the Committee,
the FAC affirmed its statement if the City Council opts for a loan, FAC’s statement is that
under the present market conditions, a loan of $26.8 million is the maximum borrowable
whose subsequent payments can be afforded while upholding the 50% reserve policy
during the full term of the loan (baseline of 30 years). This funding is also based on the
assumption that the City is eligible to obtain such a loan.
Staff seeks the City Council’s acceptance of FAC’s statement above. This potential
funding source is contingent on the construction timeline of the Project; therefore, if
accepted by the City Council, Staff will return at a future meeting to present this option at
the appropriate time for City Council’s consideration.
General Fund and CIP Fund Analysis
As part of FAC’s deliberations on the $18.6 million down payment and its statement of
$26.8 million for a potential maximum loan amount, the following analyses were
presented and discussed at the four meetings.
City "Down Payment" in 2027 with reserves and ann. "savings" thru 2027
Loan $26,860,000 Loan $0 Loan $26,860,000
Down Payment $18,600,250 Down Payment $0 Down Payment $18,600,250
Total Sources $45,460,250 Total Sources $0 Total Sources $45,460,250
Construction Fund[1][3]$74,570,857 Construction Fund[2][3]$46,798,571 Construction Fund[1][2][3]$121,369,428
Financing Costs (2%)$537,200 Financing Costs (2%)$0 Financing Costs (2%)$537,200
Funding Gap ($29,647,807)Funding Gap ($46,798,571)Funding Gap ($76,446,378)
Total Uses $45,460,250 Total Uses $0 Total Uses $45,460,250
Average Annual Pmt.$1,747,400 Average Annual Pmt.$0 Average Annual Pmt.$1,747,400
Total P&I $52,422,000 Total P&I $0 Total P&I $52,422,000
[1] Based on Priority 1 Costs of $79,456,400
[2] Based on Priority 2 & 3 Costs of $49,864,600
[3] Assumes full deposit made to Project Fund, equal draws for 36 months, earning interest at 4.45%
Priority 1, 2027 Priority 2 & 3, Future 2030 TOTALS
Sources Sources Sources
Uses Uses Uses
16
General Fund:
During the City Council’s budget workshop, Staff reported that at the end of FY 2023 -24,
the General Fund is projected to have a fund balance of $31.1 million with an unallocated
fund balance of $14.3 million, net of transfers and 50% City Council Policy No. 41 for
reserves. After applying the approved additional transfers of $1.2 million to the CIP Fund
and Pension Fund, the unallocated fund balance in FY 2023-24 is estimated at $13.1
million.
Based on FAC’s direction at its August 31 meeting, Staff exte nded the City’s existing
Financial Model which is designed for a 10-year forecasting horizon to a 30-year
projection. This is to analyze the City’s financial ability to handle the loan payments if the
City Council opts for a loan with annual payments of 30 years.
The City’s Financial Model includes many economic input (assumption) factors such as
personnel and non-personnel expenditures, pension, revenues, and estimated annual
rate of change based on historical actuals and patterns. When preparing the 30-year
projection, Staff applied the same conservative forecasting approach from the prior years,
which covered FAC’s suggestions, including full coverage for personnel costs and public
safety services. Using the FY 2023-24 adopted budget as the baseline, the following are
the key assumptions within the forecasting model:
• Public Safety services budgeted at 100%.
• Salaries and benefits including vacant positions budgeted 100%.
• Pension payments – including future contributions to CalPERS comprised of
estimated normal costs and payments toward the Unfunded Accrual Liability (UAL)
through FY 2044-45.
• Recurring transfers-out from the General Fund to support various Special Revenue
Funds without available funding sources.
• Long-term growth rate assumptions for all revenue and expenditure types as
shown below:
17
Additionally, Staff presented to FAC the average unallocated balance of General Fund in
the past five (5) years. From FY 2017 through FY 2022, the City has maintained an
average unallocated balance is $2.7 million (Table 3 below). In accordance with the City’s
reserve policy, as an option to bolster the CIP’s fund balance, the City Council approved
the Staff’s recommendation of transferring the majority of the amount from the General
Fund to the CIP Fund and a portion to the Employee Pension Service Fund. For example,
as shown below, in FY 2021-22, the City Council approved almost $2.2 million to replenish
the fund balance for the CIP Fund $400,000 to the Employee Service Fund (Table 4).
Table 3: Five-Year Average Unallocated Balance (General Fund)
Table 4: FY 2021-22 Additional Optional Transfers-Out (General Fund)
Additionally, as presented at the FY 2023-24 budget workshops, Staff estimates that the
General Fund's unallocated fund balance, which factors in the reserves policy and
additional transfers to the CIP and Employee Pension Services Fund, is projected to be
$13.1 million in FY 2023-24.
Taking all the factors mentioned above into account, as illustrated in Chart 1 and Tables
5 and 6, it is estimated that making a $18.6 million down payment followed by annual
payments of $1.75 million over a 30-year period will maintain an average unallocated fund
balance of $15.8 million and estimated to drop to $0.8 million in the year 2057 (Year 30).
Fiscal Year Unallocated
FY 2017-18 $1,253,558
FY 2018-19 $2,709,587
FY 2019-20 $960,162
FY 2020-21 $4,050,064
FY 2021-22 $4,593,127
Five-Year Average $2,713,300
Additional Optional Transfers based on
City Council Policies (FY 2021-22)
CC Policy - Pension $400,000
CC Policy - Reserves - $889,500
CC Policy - Reserves - CIP $1,300,000
Total Transfers-Out $2,589,500
18
Chart 1: Fund Balance Forecast (30 Years ~ General Fund)
Table 5. Estimated Fund Balance FY 2024 – FY 2040 (in millions)
FY ENDING ‘24 ‘25 ‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29 ‘30 ‘31 ‘32 ‘33 ‘34 ‘35 ‘36 ‘37 ‘38 ‘39 ‘40
FUND BALANCE $26 $27 $29 $30 $31 $32 $33 $34 $35 $36 $37 $39 $40 $43 $45 $46 $48
POLICY RESERVE $19 $17 $17 $18 $18 $19 $20 $21 $21 $22 $23 $23 $24 $25 $26 $27 $27
UNALLOCATED FB $7 $11 $12 $12 $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 $14 $15 $15 $16 $18 $19 $20 $21
Table 6. Estimated Fund Balance FY 2041-2057(in millions)
FY ENDING ‘41 ‘42 ‘43 ‘44 ‘45 ‘46 ‘47 ‘48 ‘49 ‘50 ‘51 ‘52 ‘53 ‘54 ‘55 ‘56 ‘57
FUND BALANCE $50 $51 $52 $53 $54 $56 $56 $57 $57 $57 $57 $56 $55 $54 $52 $50 $48
POLICY RESERVE $28 $29 $30 $31 $32 $33 $34 $35 $36 $37 $39 $40 $41 $43 $44 $46 $47
UNALLOCATED FB $21 $22 $22 $22 $23 $23 $23 $22 $21 $20 $18 $17 $14 $12 $8 $5 $0.8
CIP Fund:
For the CIP Fund, on an annual basis, Staff presents a 5-year Capital Improvement
Program to the City Council. During the FY 2023-24 budget workshop in May, Staff
presented the FY 2023-24 Financial Model for the CIP Fund using a blended spend rate
of 50% for carryover capital projects and the proposed capital projects. Using this
approach, the CIP Fund is projected to have an ending fund balance of approximately
$800K
19
$34.1 million in FY 2023-24 with an unrestricted fund balance of $25.1 million, net of City
Council $5 million reserve policy. At the end of five years in FY 2027-28, the projected
CIP unrestricted fund balance is estimated at $12 million, net of reserve policy.
As presented to the FAC, Chart 2 on the next page shows the 10-year average budget in
CIP Fund is approximately $12.8 million with average actuals of $7.7 million.
Chart 2. Average Budget vs. Average Actuals (10 Years ~ CIP Fund)
Staff presented a scenario of a one-time contribution of $5 million for a potential down
payment, which is aligned with the City’s reserve policy of allocating $5 million for a major
infrastructure project. Another scenario was presented which includes $9 million of a
potential down payment and $1 million of contributions every year until construction starts
in FY 2027. While the spent rate approach extended the deficit balance to outer years,
the FAC remained concerned that exceeding the allowed policy threshold of $5 million for
capital projects could pose financial challenges in the future.
Also, at the September 14, 2023 meeting, City Manager Mihranian reported that the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that the City will receive a
$23.3 million grant for its Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation project. Although this
will have a great fiscal impact on the City, for forecasting purposes, the amount was
already accounted for as a grant during the adoption of the FY 2023-24 Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program. Also, Staff have already factored in $22 million from grant sources
and $11.7 million from the CIP Fund for the remediation project. Therefore, the variance
will adjust the adopted budget from $11.7 million to $10.4 million in the CIP Fund,
increasing the estimated fund balance by $1.3 million.
Capital Program Budget
(10 Years)
$12.8M
Average Actuals
$7.7M
20
The FAC also discussed potential grant opportunities for the required $10 million required
FEMA match, however, due uncertain nature of grant opportunities, the FAC decided to
include this grant as part of the other potential funding sources rather than relying on it
as a guaranteed source of funding.
Taking all the factors mentioned above into account, on October 5, 2023, in accordance
with the Cit’s reserve policy, the FAC remained recommending a one-time contribution
from the CIP Fund of $5 million.
Other Potential Additional Sources (in alphabetical order)
Outlined below are the other potential additional funding sources for the City Council’s
consideration for any amount above $45.4 million (in alphabetical order). To the extent
that the proceeds of other potential additional sources exceed the target, such overage
shall be used to reduce some or all of the loan or cash portions.
Capital Campaign
On July 27, 2023, the FAC re-affirmed its recommendation for the City Council to consider
hiring a consultant firm that specializes in a capital campaign raising funds for the Civic
Center Master Plan Project. On August 15, 2023, the FAC’s recommendation was
formally presented to the City Council for review, which was unanimously approved.
On August 31, 2023, based on FAC’s direction, Staff presented a revised scenario using
capital campaign as one of the potential additional sources. The FAC requested to use
the factor of 30% of the project cost, which is equivalent to approximately $37.6 million.
Staff also presented supplementary information by using a factor of 10% of the project
cost, which is equivalent to approximately $12.4 million.
Given the substantial amount of $37.6 million, the FAC engaged in a discussion regarding
the ability to achieve this goal. The FAC will look forward to the feasibility study that will
be conducted by the development consultant. This study should provide Staff and the
FAC with more insights once the results become available. Also, the FAC formed an ad -
hoc committee comprised of vice-Chair Brown, Member Johnson, and Member Colville
that will work with Staff in the coming months to prepare the request for proposals.
On October 5, 2023, based on the information and analyses presented to the Committee,
the FAC affirmed submitting its recommendation to the City Council of using Capital
Campaign as one of the other potential additional sources. As such, Staff seeks the City
Council’s acceptance of the FAC’s recommendation regarding capital campaign.
General Obligation Bond
At the July 20 meeting, it was collectively agreed upon by FAC that they want to receive
information about the process and costs associated with a general obligation bond for
consideration as a potential funding source. As such, KFS conducted an analysis, and
presented their findings on the general obligation bond, which is presented below.
21
General Obligation Bonds (“G.O. Bonds”) are secured by a pledge of the full faith and
credit of the issuer (e.g., the City) to levy property taxes in an unlimited amount as
necessary to pay debt service and are typically payable only from ad valorem property
taxes, which are required to be levied in an amount sufficient to pay interest and principal
on the bonds coming due in each year. These property tax revenues are di stinct from
general property tax collections and are dedicated (restricted) to debt service payment
and cannot be levied or used for any other purpose. Under Article XVI, Section 18 of the
State Constitution, no county, city, town, or school district may incur indebtedness without
a 2/3 popular vote. Under Section 1(b) of Article XIIIA of the constitution, any new
indebtedness to be repaid from an ad valorem tax levied against real property must be
approved by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors, and the bonds may only be used
to finance “the acquisition or improvement of real property.”
Investors perceive G.O. Bonds to be the most secure form of loan for any given public
agency in California and therefore, generally speaking, garner the lowest financing costs
(e.g., interest rates, underwriting fees) among other forms of financing that may be
available to a local agency (e.g., Lease Revenue Bonds ((commonly known as a loan)),
Certificates of Participation). Unlike Lease Revenue Bonds o r COPs, there is no legal
requirement to pre-fund (capitalize) interest during construction because the loan is
considered an authorized indebtedness and not a lease, so there are no requirements to
abate lease payments when there is no access to the property (e.g., when under
construction). This also means that no real property of the City would have to be
encumbered to issue G.O. Bonds, nor would investors require the funding of a debt
service reserve fund, in most cases.
Process Overview
G.O. Bonds are authorized by the City’s voters and must pass by a 2/3 margin in order to
be effective. A G.O. Bond election can be held concurrently with any election to be held
by the City to keep election costs low. On average, the City’s election costs are
approximately $150,000.
If approved, an “override” will be added to 1% ad valorem property taxes charged to
property owners. These taxes are collected by the County Treasurer -Tax Collector and
forwarded directly to the bond trustee for payment to investors; the City does not handle
G.O. Bond tax override charges.
As requested by FAC on July 20, KFS prepared an additional scenario, using assumptions
on G.O. Bond funding option. As shown in Table 5 on the next page, the tax rate is
calculated by dividing the amount of the G.O. Bonds’ annual debt service requirement
across the City’s tax base. As presented to FAC on July 27, the estimated tax rate impacts
for the G.O. Bond scenario utilizing 100% financing are projected to top out in 2033 at
approximately $40.32 per $100,000 of assessed value.
This would equate to an additional annual property tax payment of between a minimum
of $269 to approximately $403.19 for a property with an assessed value of $1 million.
22
Table 5: Presented to FAC on July 27: Sample ONLY - Tax Rate Impact for G.O. Bonds
*Source: KFS
Based on the information in the past four months, Table 6 shows the updated
amounts for issuing a G.O. Bond. The total estimated bond proceeds are
approximately $121.3 million, financing costs of $1.8 million, with an estimated
average annual payment of $7.7 million ($79.4 million for Priority 1 and $49.8
million for Priority 2, 3, and Future. With this option, the total principal and interest
is $243.6 million.
Table 6. G.O Bond Scenario
*Source: KFS
On October 5, 2023, based on the information and analyses presented to the Committee,
the FAC affirmed submitting its recommendation to the City Council of using General
Obligation Bond as one of the other potential additional sources. This option could be
23
used for all or part of the needed financing. As such, Staff seeks the City Council’s
acceptance of the FAC’s recommendation regarding G.O. Bond.
Grants
During the meetings held from July through September, the scenarios presented included
$5 million in grants. This assumption is tied to potential grant opportunities for the public
safety components of the project.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding grants, on October 5, 2023, the FAC affirmed its
recommendation to categorize grants as other potential additional sources. As such, Staff
seeks the City Council’s acceptance of the FAC’s recommendation regarding grants.
On-Site Revenues
During the meetings held in July, the scenarios presented $500,000 of potential on-stie
revenues such as facilities rentals and events. This assumed that the new campus could
be an attraction for conferences, weddings, social gatherings, and other events. KFS’
suggested that the facility contracts would need to be carefully structured to preserve the
tax-exempt status of any financing as may be applicable. The uses would need to conform
to City policies and each funding source’ specific requirements.
Due to uncertainty of this revenue source, the FAC also affirmed to categorize on-site
revenues as other potential additional sources. As such, Staff seeks the City Council’s
acceptance of the FAC’s recommendation regarding on-site revenues.
Public/Private Partnership
On July 20, 2023, KFS presented to the FAC the information below regarding
public/private partnership.
Commercial On-Site
Allowing commercial operations on-site (restaurant, café, professional event
management) may be a considerable source of additional recurring revenues. Facility
contracts would need to be carefully structured to preserve the tax -exempt status of
financing and/or grant source eligibility, as may be applicable. Uses would need to
conform to City policies and each funding source’ specific requirements.
Lease (P3)
There are multiple approaches available to the City to construct the proposed Project.
Staff has undertaken an initial analysis of an efficient approach that contemplates a
“design/build” mechanism which generally means that the City will fund the project costs
itself and pay the development team to design and build them under a uniform program.
There also exists an option for a “design/build/finance” method, which is more of a
“public/private partnership” approach. Under this scenario, the development tea m not only
24
designs and builds the entire project under one agreement, but they would also finance
the costs of installing the entire project.
The primary advantage to the design/build/finance approach is that it is more of a “turn
key” solution for constructing the project. The City would award the project to the
appropriate proposer and the winning team would then commence work on the project.
The City would only start making lease payments after delivery of the completed facility,
typically upon receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. The primary drawback to this
approach is that lease payments are typically higher than payments would be if the City
financed the project itself. This is because the developer would not have access to tax
exempt financing.
There are several different options for this sort of project procurement and payment
structure that are available. Another benefit of this approach, depending on the specific
programs that may be offered by various proposers, involves ongoing maintenance an d
minimal operating expense to the City over the course of the project’s life.
Given the City’s primary objective of keeping initial project costs and ongoing financing
payments to a minimum, KFS has advised the City that this approach would not be a
good fit for the City because financing costs and annual lease payments were likely to be
the most expensive option when compared to the design/build approach. Accordingly,
this option has not been discussed in great detail with the FAC in the current presentation.
Leases by agencies and organizations such as Terranea Resorts are a possible source
of revenue that can be explored as the process moves forward.
Due to uncertainty of this revenue source, the FAC also affirmed to categorize
public/private partnership as other potential additional sources. As such, Staff seeks the
City Council’s acceptance of this recommendation.
2. CCAC’s Recommendations Regarding the Preliminary Conceptual Site Plan and
Potential Construction Phasing Schedule
The Project’s preliminary conceptual site plan has developed and evolved with the
involvement of the CCAC, staff, Gensler, and Griffin with public input via workshops,
surveys, site tours, City Council meetings and coordination with the City Council
Subcommittee. As mentioned previously the preliminary conceptual site plan was formed
by a program document that listed potential site components and their approximate
square footages. This document was approved by the City Council in 2018 and has been
reviewed and revised subsequently. The preliminary conceptual Civic Center Campus
Master Plan Project site plan has gone through many iterations. Recent significant
changes were made in 2022 to accommodate the removal of the proposed fire and sheriff
stations after no firm commitment was received from either the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department or Los Angeles Fire Department and it became clear that funding or
support for those elements were unlikely due to financial and logistical concerns. The
site plan was also modified to address concerns raised by DOJ, FEMA, and GSA as
outlined earlier in this report.
25
Below is the CCAC’s recommended preliminary conceptual Civic Center Campus Master
Plan site plan.
Components include the following:
• City Hall
• Multi-use Council Chambers
• Public Counter
• Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
• Emergency Response/Staging Area
• Emergency Evacuation Area
• Sheriff Drop-in Office
• Park Ranger Offices
• Community Center
• Emergency Staging Area
• Relocated Maintenance Yard
• Dog Park
• Public Plaza
• Village Green
• Parking
26
• Driveway Improvements
• Amphitheater
• Helipad
• Helopod
Project Phasing Schedule
As mentioned previously, the CCAC reviewed project phasing at its August 3 and August
24, 2023 meetings. At its August 24 meeting, the CCAC forwarded a potential phasing
plan to the FAC. At its September 25, 2023 meeting the CCAC considered reassessing
its preferred preliminary construction phasing plan based on the maximum preliminary
budget and other recommendations affirmed by the FAC (Attachment B).
The CCAC reviewed the estimated construction cost, soft cost, and contingency of each
component proposed for Phase 1 and future phases. Staff emphasized that certain
programmatic components are contingent upon other components based on the preferred
site plan.
At the October 5, 2023 joint FAC/CCAC meeting the CCAC discussed its
recommendations with the FAC (Attachment A). The CCAC unanimously re-affirmed the
recommendations from its September 25 meeting with the following modifications:
• Use priorities instead of phasing
• Include language to provide a brief explanation of why components were prioritized
• Remove budgetary references and recommended funding sources
Below is the approved CCAC’s October 5 recommendation to the City Council:
A Civic Center conceptual site plan with the following prioritization approach:
Priority 1: City Hall, public counter, and public safety components with necessary
parking (TBD): A City Hall is the most critical element required for a civic center
campus. Public safety elements are required to fulfill land-use obligations.
Priority 2: Multi-purpose City Council Chambers: Council Chambers are
important but not as critical as providing a hub for government services.
Priority 3: Outdoor amenities including dog park, plaza, and amphitheater: Outdoor
and other public site amenities can be added when funding opportunities becomes
available.
Future Phases:
• Community Center
• Public site amenities (village green, playground)
• Demolition of one-story City Hall building)
Staff seeks the City Council’s acceptance of CCAC’S recommendation as detailed above.
27
3. Provide Staff with direction to return at a future meeting date with additional
information on proceeding to Stage 2 of the Project including details regarding a
design competition.
Project Stages
Pending City Council approval of tonight’s recommendation, the Project is currently at the
end of Stage 1: Conceptual Site Planning. With Council approval Staff is recommending
proceeding to Stage 2: Master Plan, Design Development. During Stage 2, the project
team will procure a design team to prepare the initial portion of the design . The duration
of Stage 2 is expected to be 20-24 months, with an anticipated completion date of
December 2025. The design competition will result in 60% to 75% construction drawings
that can lead into Stage 3 – Planning Entitlement and Environmental Review.
Staff is proposing that Stage 2 include a design competition that follows the
recommended guidelines of the American In stitute of Architects which include the
following:
• Competent experienced staff or consultant to oversee the process
• A thorough and careful written design competition process
• Complete graphic and other illustrative materials to initiate the entitlement and
environmental review process for Stage 3
• Fair and precise rules governing the competition
• Clear submission requirements
• A realistic schedule
• A qualified jury selected by the City Council (may include the CCAC and other
community members including the Council Subcommittee)
• Appropriate stipends/compensation
• Arrangements for publicizing the winning design
The design competitions can result in the following:
• Generates a wide range of new ideas in the approach to a design
• Enhances the credibility of the sponsoring agency
• Uncover new talent who might not ordinarily be approached in a traditional process
• Attract the attention of the general public to the needs being addressed
• Broaden public discourse about design, as well as about the specific project
• Increase exposure for the sponsor
• Facilitate design options based on a budget
Staff seeks Council direction to return at a future meeting with additional information about
Stage 2 which would include the following:
• Detailed plan for development and issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
for Master Plan design
• Development of Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design Competition and
28
selection
• Detailed project schedule outlining the project stages and timeline
• Community outreach engagement lan
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
City Council Subcommittee
The City Council Subcommittee has been briefed throughout the process on FAC and
CCAC progress leading up to the October 5 Joint Meeting and the October 17 City Council
meeting.
Public Notification
Using the City’s multiple social media platforms, listserv, and weekly report, Staff is notifying
the community of tonight’s agenda item.
CONCLUSION
Tonight, Staff is asking that the City Council review the CCAC’s and FAC’s
recommendations regarding their respective review of the preliminary conceptual Civic
Center Campus Master Project’s potential project funding options (FAC), phasing
recommendations (CCAC), and a preliminary site plan (CCAC). Staff is seeking direction
from the City Council on CCAC and FAC’s recommendations and, if deemed acceptable,
to return at a future meeting date with additional information on proceeding to Stage 2 of
the Project including details regarding a design competition.
29