Peggy on Civic Center - worst case scenario, ownwership of city hall,

From: Peggy Griffin <Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center Master Plan - Affordability Analysis
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, TimmB@cupertino.org
Cc: Grace Schmidt <cityclerk@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,

 

I realize this is just a few hours from the study session but I have read through the material for tonight’s study session and have a few concerns that I hope you can address or clarify to the public before any decision is made:

 

1.     The material is supposed to address “affordability”.  It does a thorough job of showing the City’s finances now which is a “best case scenario”.  It does not cover how the City would be able to afford this debt during a “worst case scenario” such as during 2008/2009 time frame.

a.     REQUEST:  Please provide a worst case scenario showing how the debt would be covered if the economy takes a significant dip.  30 years is a long time and dips happen!

2.     LEASE FINANCING / ASSET TRANSFER – can you please, during the study session, explain what this is – slowly and clearly.

a.     “Lease” to me, means the City will not own the buildings anymore!  Right now, land and property are very valuable.  It is a way for businesses and residents to control their costs by avoiding rents.

                                                    i.     Q:  Is the City selling the buildings? 

                                                  ii.     Q:  Are they selling the land?

                                                 iii.     Q:  Who will end up owning the land?

                                                 iv.     Q:  Who will end up owning the buildings?

b.     “Asset transfer” to me, means transferring ownership of property.

                                                    i.     Q:  What is being sold/transferred?

3.     COP vs BONDS – I understand COP doesn’t require a 2/3rds vote and BONDS do but…

a.     Q:  what about financing differences?  Is one cheaper?  What about ownership?

4.     NEXT STEPS –  It seems to be to be a BIG conflict of interest to have the same company that does this overall plan, also do the job!

a.     BIDS  Q:  Why not go out to bid for other architects? 

                                                    i.     At home, we get at least 3 bids before doing ANY big job!  Each time we get a bid, we learn a lot and get very different perspectives.

                                                  ii.     It also forces us to decide exactly what we need and what frills we can do away with.

                                                 iii.     It also helps with costs.  If the planner does the job and knows there’s no competition, why bother giving a competitive bid?

b.     I do not think resurrecting the old August 18, 2015 CC request should occur.  I believe there should be a bidding process. 
The original request that triggered this study session was the failed approval of a request for $5,500,000 for design consultant services and the ability for the City Manager to approve up to an additional $2M.  This “design consultant services” was REALLY VAGUE!  Nobody could tell what exactly was being done for $5.5M.  If it is brought up again, (which I do not think it should) it needs to be detailed. 

                                                    i.     Q:  What in the world are we getting for $5.5M? 

                                                  ii.     Q:  What are the deliverables and the timelines?

                                                 iii.     Q:  Where and how does this fit into the overall project and costs?

Sincerely,

Peggy Griffin

 

 

Thank you,

Peggy Griffin