Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015
Subject: Civic Center - put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact fees as funding
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org
The
agenda description of the Study Session of Civic Center once again did
not mention the estimated cost of the project $70 million, even when
funding analysis is being discussed.
Thank you for considering the Civic Center on the ballot.
Please do put the Civic Center project on ballot for the residents to decide. However it is financed, all the tax payers and our children will be paying for the project for the next 30 years. We should get to decide. You are spending our money. Please be open about the price tag of the project and mention it clearly in meeting agenda and any news report from the city or in the Courier. And please give the residents a clear written explanation on why the $70 million dollar is necessary.
If
the Civic Center project will be implemented, please put the $70
million project out for other architecture firms to bid with their best
designs. Many other cities have done this for their projects. With
$20,000 stipend each for 5 firms, we can get innovative designs for City
Hall and the library expansion. Some top architecture firms are even
willing to submit their designs for free just to get a chance of bidding
on the project. If we have to build a new City Hall, that's do it right
and open it out for bids.
Architecture firm Perkins+Will
should not be permitted to work on the Civic Center project due to
conflict of interest. They have been instrumental in presenting options
to the Council and they provided testimonies that led the Council
towards the decision of tearing down the City Hall to re-build. It is in
their best interest to make the project as big as possible, whether
they did it intentionally or not. Perkins+Will should not participate in
Civic Center project anymore just to avoid any appearance of
impropriety.
Hamptons donated $7 million dollar for
Civic Center project. Sand Hill might want to pay for the underground
garage. Maybe other developers might donate more. However, $7 million
spent on the Civic Center project, if not necessary, is still $7 million
dollars that could have been spent elsewhere on improving civic
services that directly impact residents' quality of life and even save
lives.
Also, any donation from a developer earmarked for a controversial project, like Civic Center, that many residents oppose to should be avoided. This can be seen as a way to please any one of the Councilmembers who approve of the Civic Center project and trying to gain approval from the opposing residents. The Council should ask Hamptons and other developers to not earmark their donation to Civic Center to avoid any such undesirable implication.
The Funding Analysis report only explored one type of financing options, getting funding from the bank, which always involves added interest. No other funding sources have been looked at.
The Council should look into other financing options like Development Impact Fee for Infrastructure, like city hall, libraries, police stations, etc. that many other cities have implemented for years already. Of course, Development Impact Fee can only cover a small amount that's justifiable for the new projects. But that will reduce the amount we need to borrow from the bank.
Palo Alto has a Finance Committee, appointed by their City Council, to look at various funding options, like sales tax increase, hotel transient tax increase or bond measures to enhance their infrastructure. These options, like an increase in sales tax, may not be preferable, but they should at least be explored. Palo Alto has just raised their hotel transient tax again in order to cover the cost of facilities for infrastructure. And they have twice our annual revenue, but the same amount of population.
Also, any donation from a developer earmarked for a controversial project, like Civic Center, that many residents oppose to should be avoided. This can be seen as a way to please any one of the Councilmembers who approve of the Civic Center project and trying to gain approval from the opposing residents. The Council should ask Hamptons and other developers to not earmark their donation to Civic Center to avoid any such undesirable implication.
The Funding Analysis report only explored one type of financing options, getting funding from the bank, which always involves added interest. No other funding sources have been looked at.
The Council should look into other financing options like Development Impact Fee for Infrastructure, like city hall, libraries, police stations, etc. that many other cities have implemented for years already. Of course, Development Impact Fee can only cover a small amount that's justifiable for the new projects. But that will reduce the amount we need to borrow from the bank.
Palo Alto has a Finance Committee, appointed by their City Council, to look at various funding options, like sales tax increase, hotel transient tax increase or bond measures to enhance their infrastructure. These options, like an increase in sales tax, may not be preferable, but they should at least be explored. Palo Alto has just raised their hotel transient tax again in order to cover the cost of facilities for infrastructure. And they have twice our annual revenue, but the same amount of population.
Palo Also also charges Transportation Impact Fee for development projects to cover aggregated impact on traffic citywide. Any mitigation from EIR usually covers only impact close to a project. But the impact of traffic congestion usually spread to other parts of the city. Transportation Impact Fee could recover that cost from new developments.
On the one
hand, the City says we need more money for infrastructure and you
approved the new GPA procedure to allow developers to pay "community
benefits" in exchange for more height and more office and more density.
On the other hand, you are going to spend $70 million dollar on a
project without fulling exploring the different options. And you also
are unwilling to look at other financing options for the City.
Please
be consistent in your decision making. Be open and clear in your
intention and consequence of the decisions you make. Your decisions will
impact all of our lives for years to come.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
No comments:
Post a Comment