good afternoon finance committee members i'm david robb project planner and i'm here to discuss a loan restatement request for cornell place the cornell place project is located at six hundred and twenty five six  nine cornell place on the west side of the freeway and a short walking distance to santa barbara city college cornell consists of two apartment buildings providing twenty rental units for low and moderate income households it has two two bedroom units ten three bedroom units four bedroom units and six five bedroom units now for a little background in one thousand nine hundred and eighty four the former redevelopment agency of the city of santa barbara provided lower westside associates a residual receipts loan in the amount of five hundred and sixty thousand dollars secured by the improvements at six hundred and twenty five six hundred and twenty nine cornell place at the time of the agency underlying real property was leased from another entity in one thousand nine hundred and ninety cornell place inc acquired title to the real property and improvements and assumed the agency loan the agency loan has a four and a half percent simple interest rate to the bond financing that has a balance of seven hundred twenty five thousand dollars so let's review the current financing on the project in first positions the bond financing for seven hundred seven hundred twenty five thousand followed by the city of santa barbara's loan for five hundred and seventy four thousand eight hundred and sixty nine dollars the city lawn puts all the other financing the project results in a combined loan to value of twenty six percent based on a very conservative property valu six million dollars currently the owner is paying eight thousand seven hundred fifty four dollars monthly on the existing bond finance in the first lien holder which will be paid in full on november fifteenth twenty twenty are very few three four and five bedroom affordable units in santa barbara by restating the city loan instead of accepting payment in full in july the city will preserve these larger units is affordable for an additional thirty years currently the owner is paying the city two thousand eight hundred and twenty three dollars per month based upon project year two thousand and thirteen residual receipts the restated city loans shall provide for the following the extended thirty years to expire july seventeen two thousand and fourteen the interest rate will continue at four and a half percent beginning january st two thousand and fifteen the monthly payment will be four thousand five hundred and twenty five dollars or the calculated residual receipts payment whichever is greater beginning december st two thousand and twenty after the existing bond financing is paid and fall the monthly payment will increase to nine thousand five hundred and twenty five dollars or the calculated residual receipts payment whichever is greater the allowed reserves included in the calculation for the residual receipts payment will be increased from six percent to ten percent of the annual gross rental income these additional reserves will provide source of funds which will be used as needed to extend the useful life of this project all other long terms remain unchanged and the city l subordinate only to the existing bond financing which once again will be paid in full november twenty november two thousand and twenty extended affordability the city previously restricted fourteen shall provide that if upon annual review it is determined that a households adjusted gross income has exceeded one hundred and twenty percent of area median income or the moderate income category the tenants mont rent could increase to that amount equal to of thirty percent of the households income this rant could not be increased unless the lease has expired and with it and there's a ninety day notice that's required in such cases the maximum rent charged the tenant will not exceed the hud published fair market rents or the exception for fair market rents if applicable as previously stated this project has very desirable three four and five bedroom units it has helped that this provision will encourage some turnover to accommodate a very long waiting list and maintain the required proportion of low income units for larger households owner and the city the owner benefits by having predictable payments being able to provide quality affordable housing for decades and having their long term extended without a balloon payment affordability bit extended another thirty years to expire on july seventeen twenty four with the end of the redevelopment agency it's important that long term stable funding sources to generate funds to pay for ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the city's affordable program be maintained in conclusion the recommendations are that finance committee consider and recommend that council approve a restatement of the one thousand nine hundred and eighty four law in agreement and authorized the community development director to execute subject to approval as to form by the city attorney such agreements and related city documents is necessary thank you and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have i'd also like to point out that we have emmitt hawkes and cindy yang in the second row from community housing corp in attendance they represent the owners if you'd like to direct any questions their way very good thank you questions from the committee members mister white a comment however is that also a benefit to the city is that the income goes up from the two zero a month to four zero a month or thereabout so yes it's noticeable so the extension of the thirty two of the affordability by thirty years that's not the maximum that could be imposed right it could can't it go to forty five year or something like that finance committee member white there's already been thirty years on this projects we're adding another thirty typically it's a prior to the expiration of affordability that's that's a fair compromise if you will we're getting an additional twenty years of affordability beyond having any any funds on the project whatsoever okay you start any questions just two really big to restate so you said the twenty six percent it had lowered the value but that's the total debt now that's not the city's share of that that's correct so we're even a smaller percentage of that that's correct and then being in second place do we have any rights over refinancing of the other debt well if they're potentially down the road that they were to incur other dad finance committee member hart we always review any reef and dancing and we approve the subordinat our existing debt so if they were to pay off the bond financing and come to us and say well we want to take more finance and out and we want you to be in second lien position we would review the terms of that and come to the appropriate committee perfect okay that's all i have the only question i have thank you so if we weren't to follow this recommendation what would happen chair chairperson francisco they would probably pay off the loan in july and we would lose the affordability of the project potentially so really the advantage to the city there's no fun there's no financial advantage the advantage is preserving that housing stock in the affordable housing i would say the advantage also is we're getting a four and a half percent on our our money and we're getting that guaranteed payment plan that steps up from a minimum of forty five hundred starting next year to ninety five hundred and twenty twenty so we're actually getting a good  money and buying extended affordability as well okay and there's nothing else out there that would allow us that would give us that poor and a half percent or better return  there's always instruments that are available that you can invest in that give you a better return than four and a half percent that we as the city i believe invest in the life rate which is currently less than one percent i would imagine mister sumar do you have a comment on that would we be prevented from investing in anything that would give us four and a half percent or better well we're talking about it you know housing projects do we had idle money that was just sitting around what we would do with it we would invest it in earn yeah less than four percent but i think the question is comparing it to other would entertain a motion i'd move the staff recommendation all those in favor hi thank you thank you next item so the next item is continuing our discussion on the fiscal year two fifteen recommended budget so today the focus will be entirely on looking at fees proposed fees for next year and it'll be even more narrow than that because we're gonna just focus on general fund fees so all those departments that reside within the general fund will be  discussing their fees where there are changes next week we will be talking about the enterprise fund fees you'll see a lot more discussion or at least some more discussion there so we are just going to go through them one by one and and some of them have just really just review with you what we've already talked about you know length particular with water and wastewater and a lot of ways we've talked about those already so we're really just gonna kind of ask you to have any questions with regard to those but we're gonna start with the finance department there's no overhead or anything at that but just a couple of forty in your fee resolution and what this administrative fee section is doing is that there are a few fees that have been in the past and several different sections and what we're doing is trying to apply them consistently throughout the city so we are now putting them in one finance administrative fee section the first one i wanted to talk about is the decline check payment fee this is for any numerous different types of billings such as a our billings our utility bill if we get a return check the bank does charges fees associated with that so we are proposing to charge a fee of twenty eight dollars it is a slight increase from last year from twenty seven dollars and this will be a consistent application for all of our billings the second  one the declined electronic payment fee this is a new one this year and we did place it in the resolution while we did some additional research with our bank since it is a new contract with the bank to find out what fees are involved and we did discover that we have less fees involved in th believed we did there are some very minimal fees so we are proposing to actually strike this from the fee resolution so we wouldn't be charging this twenty eight dollars fee for the electronic payment and the last one are the general copy fees throughout the different sections you'll see some specialized copy fees are different these are just meant for the general copy fees the cost for both black and white in color to provide a more consistent application throughout the city any questions so i didn't understand about the electronic decline electronic payment fee is that going to be reduced or is it non existent we're gonna eliminate it we were proposed to eliminate it we have what that is is most commonly for auto payments for our accounts  billions or a utility billings we have customers sign up for auto payments occasionally those will be returned and the bank is only charging us a one dollar fee for those rights and and you mentioned the copy fees where do those appear they're in various different sections there's specialized copy fees i believe public works has some specialized copy fees and those are above and beyond just a general cop that black and white copy of the one page document and what is the general copy be the general copy fee we're proposing is going to be for black and white either on the books or it's in the works that they would be charging we previously we didn't pay any fee to the bank for all of our banking services now there will be a fee in a quite a substantial one right  where i'm headed with this is to say that then i had understood that that would be covering such likes as declaring check payment fees and so forth so can you describe how that would be working mister chair committee member white so we've always pay for banking services it's just how he paid and what how much we paid historically with the santa barbara bank and trust we paid through what's called a compensating balance so we put money in the bank and they kept the interest on that because of interest rates going down the the cost to us was very minimal in the last few years particularly with union bank they're evaluating other services so they're gonna propose much higher fees and how he paper that could also be through compensating balances or just writing them a che but these are the fees that we are at least one of the fees that were charged it's not a big one but when somebody has an nsf check we're charge for that that's part of our fees that we pay and so we're just proposing to pass that on along along with additional staff time to the to the customer okay carry on okay next we have the fire department i think there ron lichty their business manager san francisco can we do members so fire department has a couple of feet changes for the new fiscal year and they're both relatively minor and immaterial first one is we're having one increase it's an increase to the wildland fire suppression assessment district and we charge homeowners in that assessment district a fee annually for those services to provide vegetation clearance and evacuation road clearance and defensible space management for them which you're familiar with we get a annual engineer's report is able to increase the fee for costs increases and the main we're allowed to increase it for the regulation by up to four percent this year it only increased zero seventy seven percent so under one percent and the average  cents for each homeowner to seventy five dollars in the seventy two cents now it's a fifty two cent increase and for the extreme foothill zone it went from ninety three dollars and seventeen cents to ninety three dollars and eighty nine cents a seventy two cent increase the impact of that fee increase is about overall to the front two thousand dollars so and then the second change was actually a decrease of two dollars we have a fire inspection fee for we call title nineteen properties and those title nineteen institutions are like long term health care day care centers that kind of facility and the health and safety regulations say we permitted to charge only fifty dollars for one for one level of that for the lower level and then there's one hundred dollars for larger institutions so there's two two levels there and we were charging fifty two dollars and we had to crease that to fifty dollars and for the larger institutions it was a hundred and four dollars and it reduces down to only a hundred dollars it was a and the impact to that we only have a lot honored it depends on the year how many facilities we have but the impact of that to the fund would only be about three hundred dollars in total is since i live in the benefit assessment area i would ask that that component be voted on separately so that i can abstain i think we can arrange that okay thank you thank you very much good afternoon margaret esther library services manager we're recommending two changes one is the elimination of the one dollar hold fee was established approximately increased from fifty cents to one dollar approximately three years  ago this was when the state eliminated the reimbursement for jurisdictions in sharing our materials so we are recommending the elimination of that fee this year it has adversely affected the branches that have a significant low income population and we are we believe that that will level the playing field the second change is this was an oversight we have a collection agency that we do recommend when fees get a little high and and booked certain items are lost and this has been established but it was an oversight that we did not have it on our fee so  adding that's it that's it we're simple there's some very few changes very simple any questions on that gentlemen no questions just a comment thanks for eliminating the reserve materials hold fee that's a great idea okay number of fees we have six hundred and twenty nine program and facility fees and then the fiscal fifteen budget we're proposing that four hundred and eighteen are of our fees are going to remain unchanged so sixty six percent of them will be proposing to change two hundred eleven fees and adding eighteen new fees with a number of new programs that will be offering staff consider staff can review fees annually and consider a number of factors during the process considering community need the importance of the program the demographics of the audience is the activity unique or available in the community we look at our competition we do have quite a bit of competition for example in our first summer camps and we also try to pro price our programs to maxify maximize participation are just a few examples of some of the fees that we're proposing increases for in this next fiscal year i'll just highlight a couple of them we have our non profit lease rates at our neighborhood centers we're just proposing a three percent increase basically four cents per square feet there's an example of a summer camp fee that we're increasing out of bounds camp one week is going from one hundred and fifty five to one hundred and seventy five we're just adding some additional field in that camp so the prices have gone up our adult flag football example there our team cost is going from three hundred to four hundred it's a new program and after the first season we determined we really needed to referees to ensure fairness and safety in the program so that's reflecting going from one referee to two referees per game we have our outdoor private gathering fees there that's an example of a rental for fifty people for ten hours in a park city park we're proposing some increases for those private gatherings anywhere from three to seven percent we're still showing a lot of good revenue growth in our rentals and and we're keeping our prices consistent with what the let the county charges for their park so we felt really confident in that if that increased and lastly we have some proposals for increases the korea recreation center the kre o gym goodness sakes we could book that for every hour of the day it's so busy we're proposing an increase of five percent and the carrillo recreation center since it's been remodeled we just have a lot of interest for events weddings and fundraisers there so we're proposing a five percent increase for that facility i'm happy to answer any questions you might have about parks and recreation fees changed and then where would the new fees be in this document in the document you'll see in the far right corner there in the comment section for each of the fees we note whether it's a new fee whether we're deleting increase okay did we get this just now today there are two copies also in your offices there are okay all right thank you mister wei thank you projected in the way of fee increases for last year and what was planned for this year as a general rule we do look at an across the board adjustment for various cost of living and operating expenses and then we look specific specifically at certain programs if a more particular adjustment is needed so again what we are recommending today is three percent across the board in general for planning fees and building and safety permit fees and as i said every year we also look at the appropriateness of other changes so i'm going to highlight on this screen we're showing just a list of the typical type of planning permit process fees that will be are recommended for a three percent increase and that includes coastal permit condo conversions development plan or environmental review modifications tentative maps the fees that where we're recommending no change this year include appeals in prior years we've had discussions about whether or not appeals of decisions of say for example historic landmarks to council or staff hearing officer to planning commission whether or not the council would be interested in looking at the appeal process and based on the last major discussion we've had we've just kept the fees low consistent with working with the city clerk's office as well so those would remain  changed we found that for minor coastal reviews that the amount of time that staff spends a couple of hours is appropriate and we didn't think that needed to be increased same with our mailing service we have already on stock many of those yellow bright signs and the cost is remaining constant so no change there our staff hourly rate is a combination it's an average rate a couple different planner positions it's one hundred and thirty five an hour and based on a quick assessment we felt that was appropriate to remain unchanged modification reviews this is an area where we meet property owners that sometimes are really undertaking a fairly minor project and we don't want to see that the planning fee is such a substantial concern to them so we're proposing modifications remain the same and in parentheses it says non dart dart is the more formal application review that goes to the planning commission and then lastly the zoning information reports i think you all are familiar that we're working continue to work closely with the santa barbara association of realtors and the current bees are a reflection of what was changed last year we did make some changes last year we actually reorganized and lowered the fee for multi unit properties that is more reflective of again the level of service needed and then for the single family home we are recommending that it remain the same there's still concern on the part of the real real estate community at that the city's fee of four hundred and sixty five dollars they feel is substantial we feel it's appropriate based on the number of hours that we're spending but we don't see any need to to increase that at this time similar story for building and safety in general there is an across the board three percent increase but what's listed on the screen here are a number of fairly minor and routine things that it's really important that people come in and get the permits and keeping a fee static at a reasonable rate we feel is the right  also are keeping unchanged a number of our plan and archive storage we've maintained the costs fairly consistently in those programs and so we're recommending that no change to those items as well and there were a few things in building and safety that actually these were little specialized fees that we find we don't need anymore because the plan check review and inspection of these types of items the green plan check is really part of now the california codes and we don't really need a separate fee it would have been double charging so we haven't really even been charging these fees so those are proposed to be eliminated and then just a minor comment there's a few  s related to document review in the housing and affordable housing program and those are recommended to be remain the same as well so that's our presentation only question i would have is what is the state strong movement instrument fee you know i should have asked mister cassidy trying to figure it  out good afternoon chairman francisco committee members my name is larry cassidy i'm the inspection supervisor for a building safety the strong motion instrument program is a state mandated program which takes fees from jurisdictions across the state and they take those monies and install instruments to study seismic activity in the affects on buildings and structures of all types did you have a question mister weh so where are we now in terms of how much these services are costing us you i know traditionally you've been able to give  when it comes to building and safety the projection is to be towards full cost recovery and that includes both inspection and plan check in planning and land development our goal ranges around fifty percent in most programs i can tell you that in prior years design review was up closer to seventy percent recovery but now we have had a slowdown in the last couple of years so i think the recovery for design review is also closer to fifty percent this the department and planning division has had a reduction in staff so the costs have also come down so our target is still fifty percent on subsidy so fifty percent in planning  roughly full cost recovery in building and safety that's correct there are a few exceptions again in planning we are targeting the cir to be close to full cost recovery and our plan check function that with  the planners that do the plan check those are also targeted for their contribution to be full cost and then some things are subsidized a bit more sign permits continue to be subsidized even though we simplified the process they're still as an weekly review of signed permits and so i think the subsidy of that is a bit under fifty or over fifty i'm sorry and you said and then on the volume of applications and suchlike i'm imagining there's a sweet spot in there where we're fully using our staff and therefore collecting the maximum amount of revenue can you characterize that for us right now how are we doing with i know height we've been hiring had bits of hiring here and there so that was as a sign of of more activity but anyway give us a couple of words on that the added staff positions that we had last year were hourly staff to help an enforcement so those positions really didn't relate to revenues at all the the estimate that we have and i think you this will be reported at one of the third quarter reports so we think in building and safety it's really hard it's hard in all these areas to project but mister estrella says every year and he tends to be pretty darn right that will come in at our projections i think that what we projected for this year was both in building and in planning was a slight increase over last year so in planning we're not a hundred percent sure that will come  n we think we may be under revenues projections a little bit we had a slowdown in single family design board this year that was a little bit unexpected we have been having more work in the planning commission than years past so i think we're doing fine in terms of the staffing level for the development activity right now for this past year that hasn't been a major concern the added staff that we  were able to bring on just recently was related to a grant for the update of the local coastal program and then of course the council had a special capital program to update the zoning ordinance and that's a specific project where we added a staff position but if you look at the rest of the staff we're pretty busy and so i think we're at a good place right now other than the recommended added plan check for planning that's part of the recommended budget you'll you'll hear more about that on next week afternoon mister chair committee members jonah wozniak principal civil engineer for the public works department and i've given you a handout is actually that slide donated from that slide i thought it might be a little challenging to read as it may be so i thought you could have a copy to refer to as well so our public works this is the land of element engineering on development and real property fees for public works and our resolution consists of eight pages and i just have highlighted the the items that have changed so overall similar to the community development department we have a three percent across the board the increase and then we have these modifications changes and clarifications for these line items as listed and so generally the these fees are for the work activities in the public rights of way andor orange city property or associated with the land of element activities that public works is the lead for such as the post pc activit subdivision map act civil drawings for the public right away outdoor dining and those types of activities and there every year annually for the last many years has been approximately one thousand five hundred to one six hundred public works permits issued per year so these fees are based on cost recovery for the services rendered again three percent across the board and they're represented in this slide as the red on this slide and similarly where there's no word changes on the other items it'll just be the three percent for the all the other items and again there's three percent are generally consistent with the the other land development team and other departments as part of the line development team so no generally no feel fee new feline items are proposed just these closure other examples would be in the outdoor dining we've moved from under construction the amendment to an outdoor dining license agreement to the care to the area of the application so it was easier for staff to find it and for others to recognize it and then on the bottom the sub there's a map review we had recently map that came in for correction typically maps coming in for corrections they deal with the the legal survey points and they get changed or modified when they get constructed when they get actually placed in the field and so map modification may be needed we had one that came in that had twelve points and that was very neutral usually there's one or two just a handful at most and so our fee structure was such that it would have been at a hundred and twelve dollars an item it would have been a one thousand three hundred dollars processing cost and we recognized well we need to modify that so that when those that type comes in  types come in we have a better better cost recovery structure because it only costs in the neighborhood of four or five hundred dollars to process that type of a change so we made that type of a change and generally these all these changes are in line with better have it having a better mechanism  to do a more accurate cost recovery i did have a question what do you do in the instance you just described where the fees don't match the we certainly make it work to make it fair thank you it's been a pleasure having all of you here today