HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20121113 City of Aspen Health and Human Services Grants
2013 Budget Proposal
The City has for several years made plans to decrease its contribution to Health and Human Service Grants:
➢ This was discussed last year with the County in a joint worksession: July 5, 2011 Joint work session with
City Council and BOCC
1:25 minutes into the work session,Steve Barwick made the following comments:
"Actually we've discussed this with City Council during the last two budget processes, the results of that
are the Long Range Plan built upon city funding of the health and human services goes to zero dollars at
the end of 2012. City Council said they agree that the tax should be sized to pay the entirety of the fund
but weren't going to cut any funding until you had a chance to review that.
Funding is in the "long range plan this year and next year,then goes to zero. Mostly we view it as a double
taxation issue."
➢ The City's 2013 proposed budget reduces the city contribution to $90K in 2013 in accordance with
direction given previously to our financial planning.
A proposal for going forward . . .
1. The city will not make contributions to individual agencies, rather its funding will be
provided to Pitkin County, which will determine the grant awards for individual
providers.
2. The city will reduce its contribution to$300K for FY 2013,to$200K in 2014, and eliminate
it in 2015 and beyond, except for the funding provided to the Senior Center under an IGA
and a $50K reservation in the City's General Fund for emergencies (retains city funding at
a level of$90K per year).
3. The city continues to fund childcare for those who live or work in the Aspen UGB —
spending approximately$1.66 million in FY 2013.
4. The city will participate in providing a solution for detox services.
S. IF the county wishes to retain the total level of funding in 2013 as was provided in 2012,
the city will match dollar for dollar any county contribution above the $300K level, up to
the 2012 amount.
6. The city will support asking the voters to fund the Health Communities Fund to the level
necessary to fund the programs desired in a general election in November 2014.
7. The city suggests that an analysis of health and human services funding be undertaken,
to include:
a. A review of all funded agencies budgets, so that we are clear about the amount
of their total funding that is provided by local governments.
b. A review of the administrative costs associated with each agencies operations
—including the salaries of their directors.
c. A review of the efficacy of the services provided — what is the taxpayer
receiving for their contributions. This should be focused not only on activities
provided, but on outcomes. Especially outcomes.
d. Some suggestions and decisions would then be made about how rational the
system of providers is relative to the needs of the community and a
conversation about consolidation of service delivery and which agency
provides the "best bang for the buck" so that duplication is not funded and the
community is best served through the decisions made about who to fund and
who not to fund.
-._. 2006 2007* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Community Health $ 54,230 $ 54,230 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ 60,000
Right Door $ 10,000 $ 12,675 $ 60,000 $100,700 $ 60,000 $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 60,000
Valley Partnership $ 11,010 $ 11,010 $ 58,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 32,000
Aspen Counseling Center $ 50,050 $ 50,050 $ 57,550 $ 57,550 $ 57,550 $ 57,550 $ 57,550 $ 57,550
Buddy Program $ 11,030 $ 11,030 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,op0 $ 15,000
Family Visitor Program $ 3,890 $ 3,890 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Response $ 6,030 $ 6,030 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Aspen Youth Center** $ 6,220 $ 6,220 $ 11,980 $ 11,980 $ 11,980 $ 12,500 CNP CNP
Children's Health Foundation $ - $ 2,500 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ -
RoaringForkFamilyResourceCenter $ 1,030 $ 1,030 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Sopris Therapy Services $ 5,150 $ 5,300 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 8,000 $ 7,000
YouthZone $ 5,720 $ 5,720 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 9,000
Catholic Charities $ 5,000 $ 5,150 $ 6,030 $ 6,030 $ 6,030 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 $ 6,000
Alpine Legal Svcs(fka Roaring Fork Legs $ 5,500 $ 5,665 $ 5,840 $ 5,840 $ 5,840 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,850
Cancer Survivor Center(NEW'07) $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 7,000 $ 5,000
Roaring Fork Hospice $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Valley View Hospital SANE $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000
Mtn Valley Devel opment Servi ces $ 1,630 $ 1,630 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,500
Columbine Homemakers $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,600 $ 1,600 5,000 5,000 $ $ -
Aspen Center for Int Health/Children's $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Windwalkers(New'08) $ - $ $ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,000
Pathfinders (NEW'08) $ - $ $ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Mtn Family Health Centers (NEW'08) $ $ - $ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 2,000
Hospice of the Valley (NEW'10) $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Aspen Homeless Shelter (NEW'10) $ $ $ $ $ $ 51000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000
Colorado West Detox (NEW'11) $ $ - $ - $ $ . - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Your Friends For Life (NEW'11) $ $ - $ $ $ $ - $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Aspen Community Church (NEW'11) $ - $ - $ $ $ $ - $ 11000 $ 1,000
Subtotal of City Grants $190,990 $193,630 $363,400 $385,200 $339,500 $415,450 $390,950 $340,900
Senior Services'(IGA) $ 24,110 $ 25,076 $ 36,330 $ 38,510 $ 38,160 $ 38,160 $ 38,730 $ 39,310
Total $215,100 $218,706 $399,730 $423,710 $377,660 $453,610 $429,680 $380,210
*Grant Base in 2007 was$230,430 plus seniorservices of$36,330.Additional onetime grants of$50,000 and Council directed grant of
$82,970 were added to this total. Click plus sign on top of page to expand the details.
**Aspen Youth Center moved to the Community Non Profit(CNP)grants in 2011
***Senior Services-IGA
Heath and Human Service Grants - City
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
*Above graph includes the Senior Services funding amount
A
ATTACHMENT A
2013 HHS Grant Requests-City of Aspen and Min Coutity vs.2012 Funding
t
00.41 Sr fANRYANO VOYnI Yyf t]AtINO-Yromeb 911.aol:l,AmotleMlO.eenomb.- it
tepl3arNoN $20,000 620,000 $10,000 SSA50
TMO.ddy Pm3nm $50,000 336,000 $18.090 S10.DOO
cam.0.0had5.t $151000 Mesa $ $6.000
Lm.r3/ac7Ab]NanN NM Iar PNkm 34Q0DO $44000 WA WA Countyonly
Oom
- F.mny vle m,Pot— $70. 3701000 3161 $16,000
Tka ManaN FVnd The Va67 793,000 S N/a WA nevi eppikantCounly
S.RI0 Nt
Mounuln Volley
$76,00D $65.000 $7,000 33,600
9/yab ent NA
PWf PA—Art;0.M.,Ina $10, $10,000 WA WA Countyonly
►Ran CNnb Furman w6lea,Adult $301916 WA WA N/A nawapplte.ntCOUnty
a hm 9aNeN
RESPONSE 5371600 $30,000 $14500 316,000
RNn do R.Qansl C4nbr 313.411 WA WA N/ ,rw apglwNCounb
Roaring FOM lamly RNaVra Getem 756.000 $40,000 314 f14000
V.Wyuf.}WAs $15000 310,000 $3, so
$45,000 $45,000 $10,900
','•'?�,.•':.,'.. �00AL9i►N1010ALH6ALT&Promob Oi�PA»Ia1MAbdmf of N4Mdvab. .
ASpan MFlYM3w0Y6WAapan 310.000 WA R/A M/ newapplka"Icounty
W loommebm
A.Nn Oanoarawk.Otnter for $5,000 WHO $ $5.
N..Rn a
Aap.n Woun-t0.Ohu,O, $2,500 $2,500 $1,000 $1,000
Npan tlomakes Sh.R.r 330,000 $20,OD0 $10.000 36.000
Aspon to hndwb Denali NaaM SW000 $20.0001 FVA WA County only
Aak oa
Oommumb NNM S.Mm $350,000 $271205 760.000 364000
f4/d Ab$keop WrIstry 34.000 JA 34AN WA new appllcaMCounty6
City
Pond MNrel tl,.RKMw $30.000 WA Wa new eP➢11uptCOUmy
Hol"of tM VOW,Ino.d14 360. $36, 316,000 UR-UP S15 $1000 $0 Maunteln Famly NNM Oep%. $44.000 , $4.400 $2,000
no
ON.k is Alb,heed 01.10 0 WOO $10.000 $6,000 33,000 s0
Planned P.—Iftw/ $1,600 J7. N/A WA County only
f7II R—n 3 FO,h$0.01 Fb.Rh tenter. $35.000 $10,000 N/A WA Countyonly
1 5.prla Thanes S.M— $10,000 S1D,000 $7, -0ounb CMPf.2012;
1 mm M pack b HIS In 2013
Tom,.Doer 30.000 33, $51.000 WA Dld not eppbfor City In
VNlay Vlaw Noapaa13-1 WA So. WA $0.000 Ale ncy clo3 ad
wlnddeDMM L4dhe Theroo,Connr J140DD $5.000 $2,000 -c-n 0NP42012
med,13 b ImAtbNN3 m 2013
►�[17MRLJlkL]Nw$MTAl3 3019,600 0429,705 -$U%400 $102,0001.
GOALS:ML1ITAL NEALiN•$YSSfANOlNW1PRlVlMT10M-►IOD10te qt payMNeypl lwlt3Na3 aflMhNU.W
Predad".1me It RM promob pn»nfon al w6obnok a3a...
The"aRop.am.r,aprplaakat $26000 610,000 WD00 $0
ma AVMF
O.bndo West Pa1c1,10rle Neslftel 360,000 MUBO WA WA county only
0obrado WattRa&r.l Mantel Resith $156.000 $78,200 $67.550 JS7,660
dbo Aspen Ceure41k13 Center
I ONondo West R.C-1 MNibl Hea1M IX notapplyfor Cityor
LvyS Dltfl WA SLO, "/ 36`000 counymndatksyear
PethflM.n N/ $14000 WA 82,000 Md not apply fat C,ty at
County funds this year
Th.RILht DOW 390,000 $65,000 $90, $50.000
"nods C.OwIlM NOnpreM $25,000 WA 315,000 WA flow appocantCounyA,
Ventyhrt—hip rom6►nvanlran $30.100 630.300 $33,000 $32,000
Tour Frlanda Is,Life SJ,ODO 63,000 $8,000 $3,000
MINrµUT,OTNliU38TANO[ $ .40,100,90 $ L30,Ti0.00 $ 210,050.00 4 109,660.00
USC 399roT,t13
OOAL 4:4}4.00[1$30 OF NNI9RL Premeb 5l.Nelat,.motloml,aoenomb aM ph7dal wlbdrlLa}Nets.:
PlSde oovnb Labl SanleM
$378.195 $365,223 NQ469 739,310 \
01N10A.WELLailNo aundiAU $ 375d9A00 0 305,223.00 3. 40.459.00 3 39,310.00 `
TOTAL S 1,973,437.00 3 1,394,350.00 0 493,739.00 3 350,210.00 J
Mtrasaa in requests over peter
4L0% 29.576
1MWlOt213a0 PM AN A 31113 NHS CM CwM7 CuaM Reµh,I ra.3011 FLM�np Conpanlm 6prtaelhee�faUl 101617 1
THE Crnr of ASPEN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 9, 2012
MEETING DATE: November 13, 2012
RE: 150 Housing Development Fund Budget/Burlingame Phase II
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Direction requested regarding further construction of
Burlingame Phase II
BACKGROUND: At a City Council work session on July 18, 2011, a memo prepared by
staff for that work session considered 8 different phasing scenarios, some of which would require
bonds to be issued and some required a short-term, inter-fund loan. At that time, City Council
voiced support for no-debt scenarios and to cash-flow the construction of Burlingame Phase II.,
There was particular support for what was called Scenario #3 which was summarized as "80x2
no debt, revenues on time" and which contemplated construction of 82 units in 2013 and 2014
without a need to borrow.
City Council later made a decision during the 2012 budget process (October 2011)to go forward
with the Phase IIA access/infrastructure construction in 2012 as a precursor to Scenario #3
described above.
In a Council work session memo dated December 6, 2011, staff published a Burlingame Phase II
project estimate. The estimate for Phase IIA at that time was for a remaining construction budget
of almost $44.1 million for the site work, construction of buildings 1-7 and single family homes
#1-4.
CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 2013: In the proposed budget, several
assumptions and conditions have changed relative to earlier planning:
• RETT revenues are projected to be down nearly $500,000 in 2012 ($5.2 million)from the
amount budgeted to begin the year ($5.7 million) — this is conservatively projected to
continue in 2013 (budgeted at $5.2 million), although recent months have seen some
uptick.
• $75K is being budgeted for 2012 and into 2013 to make repairs to the property at 312 W.
Hyman — depending on decisions made regarding whether this is to be a single family
residence or two condos as it has been being used, this cost could increase by another
$100K. This property will be rented to qualified APCHA tenants as soon as the repairs
are completed.
• A transfer subsidy to the Marolt Seasonal property of$400K in 2013, $500K in 2014-
2016, and $400K in 2017 is being programmed in order to shore up the finances of that
fund as winter seasonal rentals have trended down in recent years. We are beginning to
discuss a renegotiation of contract with the MAA for greater cost-sharing and will
Page 1 of 9
i
THE CITY of ASPEN
schedule some time with the Council soon to update you on those conversations. We do
note that rentals for this fall-winter are progressing better than in recent years and are
cautiously optimistic about the upcoming season.
• As a result of the above transfer and the need to conserve cash in the 150 Fund, the
transfer to Truscott is being eliminated for 2013 and 2014 — the Fund Balance in the
Truscott Fund is capable of absorbing this revenue loss for the eriod and the transfers
ansfers
will be restored in 2015.
• The building plan for Burlingame Phase IIA is being proposed differently than has been
previously discussed. Previously we had discussed a 3-year plan that would begin with
buildings 1-5 under a GMP contract, to be followed with the construction of buildings 6
and 7. In order to better coincide with the Pre-Sales demand, and to manage cash flow,
we are proposing to begin with buildings 1-4—completing and occupying buildings I and
2 in 2013, then 3 and 4 in 2014. We would commence construction of buildings 5-7
under a new GMP contract in 2014 and complete/occupy them in 2015. Single Family
homes would be constructed as we pre-sold the pairs of homes in the designs.
• The proposed budget had contemplated that this program would not require any interfund
borrowing and would continue to minimize the impacts of construction on the adjacent
BGI community.
• Category changes were proposed as well — these changes would result in a revenue loss
of some $3.9 million when compared to prior sales revenue estimates, but would better
match the actual demand we are seeing.
PROPOSED UNIT CATEGORY MODIFICATIONS
In 2008 Council directed staff to establish unit categories in Phase II to match those of
Burlingame Phase 1. This direction was documented in the approved land use ordinance for
Burlingame Phase II, however the language in the ordinance also leaves Council the flexibility to
modify the unit categories up until the time when the units are sold.
To address concerns about demand, a presales program was implemented. Below is the current
building-by-building status of reservations for which APCHA is currently holding a$500 deposit
for each:
BUILDING #of #of UNITS
# UNITS RESERVED % RESERVED
1 13 8 62%
2 14 8 57%
3 8 4 50%
4 13 13 100%
Subtotal 48 33 69%
5 4 0 0% _
6 15 5 33%
7 15 6 40%
Subtotal 34 11 32%
Total 82 44 1 54%
Page 2 of 9
THE Crnr of ASPEN
Since building 4 is 100% sold out and building 5 is 100% unsold, this was a logical break point
in the phasing,thus the phasing plan proposed is to go forward with buildings 1-4 in 2013.
Of the 44 current reservations:
• 21 are in category 2, _
• 16 are in category 3,
• 6 are in category 4 and
• 1 is in category 5.
Of the 82 condos in buildings 1 through 7, 16 units are assigned categories 5 through 7. Of those
16 units, only 1 category 5 unit is currently reserved. It is additionally notable that from 2011
through mid-2012, only 7 applicants became qualified for the housing program in categories 5
through 7 (the whole housing program, not just Burlingame). Whether the reason is due to a
buyer's market down-valley or other reasons, the presales program has had success in capturing
category 1 through 4 applicants fairly readily while attracting only a single category 5 applicant.
There is currently a waitlist of 8 applicants in category 2 and 2 applicants in category 3. These
applicants cannot reserve a unit currently because there is not a unit in there category that fits
their family. Since the presales program was conceived for the City to ascertain what the true
market demand for affordable workforce housing is and to build to the actual market demand,
staff suggests that Council consider the option of lowering the unit categories to match the
market demand that is currently being encountered.
The tables below show the proposed category reductions for Phase IIA (Buildings 1-7) in both
summary and detail:
Summary:
3 X@ Cat 5 4 Cat 3 4@ Cat 5 4 Cat 2
1@ Cat 6 --> Cat 4 2@ Cat 6 4 Cat 3 3@ Cat 6 4 Cat 2
1 @ Cat 74 Cat 4 1 @ Cat 74 Cat 2
}
Page 3 of 9
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Detail:
Burlingame Phase 11-Specific Unit Categories Proposed to be Lowered
Phase 2A
Building POO Unit Address Bedrooms Type PLANNED LOWERED PLANNED 2012 LOWERED 2012 Revenue
Cate o Cate ory Sales Price Sales Price Sacrifice
1 D 475 Paepcke Drive 203 2 Townhome 5 2 $412,000 $133,000 (5279,000)
2 B 440 Paepcke Drive 203 3 Townhome 5 3 $440,000 $224,000 ($216,000)
2 C 442 Paepcke Drive 101 3 Flat 6 2 5480,000 $161,000 5319,000
2 C 442 Paepcke Drive 301 3 Flat 7 4 $528,000 $330,000 5198,000
3 C 425 Paepcke Drive 301 3 Flat 6 2 $480,000 $161,000 $319,000
y S F 360 Paepcke Drive 104 2 Townhome 7 2 $501,000 $133,000 ($368,000)
5 F 360 Paepcke Drive 103 2 Townhome 6 3 5453,000 $193,000 ($260,000)
5 F 360 Paepcke Drive 101 3 Townhome 6 4 $480,000 $330,000 ($150,000)
5 F 360 Paepcke Drive 102 3 Townhome 5 3 5440,000 $224,000 ($216,000
6 C 333 Paepcke Drive 204 2 Townhome 5 2 5412,000 $133,000 ($279,000)
6 C 333 Paepcke Drive 302 1 Flat 5 2 $381,000 $107,000 $274,000
6 D 335 Paepcke Drive 202 3 Flat 6 2 $480,000 $161,000 ($319,000)
7 C 273 Paepcke Drive 204 2 Townhome 6 3 5453,000 $193,000 (5260,000)
7 C 273 Paepcke Drive 302 1 Flat 5 2 5381,000 $107,000 $274,000)
7 C 273 Paepcke Drive 301 3 Flat 5 3 $440,000 $224,000 16,
Phase 2A SUBTOTAL: ($
($3,947,000)
In the event that any category 5-7 buyers do come forward to reserve units, staff would
intend not to refuse them thus staff is essentially requesting the flexibility to sell to the
market demand without going any lower than proposed here without further Council
decision-making. This would allow the majority of the applicants on the waitlist to reserve a
unit and would create additional category 2-4 units which could be reserved as others come
forward (and which may result if Council approves moving forward in 2013).
Current Wait List:
Cat 2- 1 Bedroom Cat 2-3 Bedroom Cat 3-3 Bedroom
3 persons 6 persons 2 persons
Results of Proposed Category Changes:
2-Cat 2/1 Bedroom 3 -Cat 2/3 Bedroom 3 -Cat 3/3 Bedroom
units to be made units to be made units to be made
available available available
Therefore 8 of the 11 people on the wait list could be accommodated by the proposed category
changes, and--assuming they made their reservation-we would have 52 of Phase IIA's 82 units
presold.
Page 4 of 9
4 1
THE CR'Y of ASPEN
A table of current reservations and available units is shown below:
RESERVED Categories
Bedrooms 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL %
1 8 3 0 0 0 0 11 25%
2 8 4 2 0 0 0 14 32%
3 5 9 4 1 0 0 19 43%
TOTAL 21 16 6 1 0 0 43 100%
% 49% 37% 14% 2% 0% 0% 100%
AVAILABLE Cate ories
Bedrooms 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL %
1 0 4 4 2 0 0 10 26%
2 1 6 6 2 2 1 18 47%
3 0 0 2 3 4 1 10 26%
TOTAL 1 10 12 7 6 2 38 100%
% 3% 26% 32% 18% 16% 5%1 100%
Shown in red = 'sold out' Proposed to be lowered to cat 2-4
diCity of Aspen
TODAY'S BUDGET PROPOSAL: In preparing the City Manager's Proposed Budget, we
have used the construction estimates from our contractor-at-risk — Haseldon Contruction — and
their estimates for escalation (inflation) of 3% per annum. We also added another 1% escalation
to those numbers in order to be conservative. However we knew these were estimates and that
we would be shortly receiving a new GMP contract proposal from Haseldon. The delay in this
budget worksession is a result of wanting to have these new, revised numbers before we held our
budget discussions with council, and some effort on staff's part to tighten the estimates we
received a few weeks ago. Those numbers have escalated beyond what we were led to believe
was probable—causing an increase to the budget of some $1.93 million.
Obviously with a budget proposal that was tight to begin with, this increase causes some change
to the financing plan proposed in the City Manager's Proposed Budget back on October I". That
plan had an ending fund balance of $35,167 — but still contemplated no need for interfund
borrowing to complete the vertical construction in Phase IIA. These increases to the construction
budget will require some form of interfund borrowing if you are to proceed on the time frame
proposed. According to the current estimates — and on an accrual basis — the fund balance be -
$286,326 at the end of FY 2013, and -$1,711,882 at the end of FY 2014. If units are sold as
assumed, the fund will return to positive territory during FY 2015 and end that year at
$6,474,616. On a cash basis, it is estimated that the fund will require interfund loans sometime in
FY 2014 and continue into FY 2015 until the final buildings are completed and sold.
Page 5 of 9
THE CITY of ASPEN
The Phase IIA increase to the year-on-year budget estimates amounts to a 4.38% increase and is
shown in the table below:
Burlingame Phase IIA Estimated Expenditures by Year:
Dec 6, 2011 Estimate Compared to Current Estimate
Budget Dec 6, 2011 Current Variance 6-Dec-1 1 Proposed/Current
Year Estimate Estimate Phasing Plan Phasing Plan
2012 $9,360,000 $9,140,000 AccesslInfrastructure
($220,000) Access/Infrastructure In progress, 60-65%complete
2013 $16,770,000 $17,815,000 $1,045,000 Buildings# 1 & 3 Buildings#1, 2, 3 & 4
31 of 48 units, 65%reserved
2014 $5,490,000 $15,050,000 $9,560,000 Buildings#2, 4&5 Buildings#5, 6& 7
11 of 34, 32%reserved
2015 $12,470,000 $4,015,000 ($8,455,000) Buildings #6 & 7 Single Family Homes# 1-4
0 of 4, 0%reserved
Subtotal $44,090,000 $46,020,000 $1,930,000 86 Units Complete 86 Units Complete
EM I
Increase: 4.38% (Approximately 5%of Budgets Remain Contingency)
The increase of$1.9 million is around a 4.4% increase in the remaining construction budget and
still contains a healthy contingency of 5%, or $1.95 million. One of the reasons for having
contingency in the project has long been to cover potential cost increases. About half of the
contingency which was in the in the Dec 6, 2011 has been used to offset part of the increases in
the current estimate. The above proposed 2013-2015 budgets are still carrying $1,950,000 in
contingency. This could have been dropped to only $20,000 and be made to cover the
$1,930,000 increase, but staff recommends instead that the contingency be held at 5% because it
is unrealistic to expect that there should be no unknowns with a project of this scale. With the
high level of construction oversight that is planned, staff will make every effort to carry forward
100%of the contingency each year.
SOURCE OF THE CHANGES: Because the 2011 estimates were based on the Detail Design
(DD) drawings and the current estimate is based on the final Construction Drawings (CD level),
there have been a lot of overlapping increases and decreases in the detailed project estimates.
Also, the adjustments to the proposed phasing described in the table above creates complexities
in the year over year site work thus an attempt to summarize here is a great simplification, but
when netted out, the $1.93 million increase can be roughly attributed as follows:
Page 6 of 9
THE CITY of ASPEN
Item $ %
Due to safety concerns, 100%of the utility loop was incorporated into Phase IIA
instead of 50%in Phase IIA and 50%in Phase IIB.This offsets future Phase 116 $312,000 16%
costs.
Irrigation water source modifications,added pump house and redundant $460,000 24%
pumping facilities(half of which will be paid for by the Parks Department)
Enhanced stormwater systems- added rain gardens and permeable pavers $300,000 16%
Due to the high-efficiency sealed envelopes,added ducted kitchen exhaust for $60,000 3%
air quality.Also added electrical outlets for increased livability.
Increased single family home estimates 10%for design-build.This will be
incorporated into the sales prices of the homes thus will not affect subsidies, but $239,000 12%
does affect annual budgeting an overall cost reporting.
Increases due to escalation, phasing complexity and modifications to designs in $561,000 29%
advancing from the DD level (2011 estimate)to the CD level(current estimate).
Increase in Phase IIA(2012-2015)budgets $1,932,000 100%
So,the increases are a result of:
• Phasing decisions: $312K
• Scope changes in the design: $820K
• Construction inflation due to council decisions about timing of construction: $561K
Although it is difficult to substantiate local housing market cost increases, building permits in the
state of Colorado appear to be up by over 150% as compared to 2011. A Wall Street Journal
article dated October 25, 2012 cited cost increases in some building materials of over 20% in the
past year, and Reed Construction Data recently wrote that the current three-month moving
average of multifamily building permits is at its highest level since August 2008. Haselden
Construction continues to work diligently on finding additional cost savings that the City may be
able to gain.
DISCUSSION:
ALTERNATIVES FOR 2013 BUDGET
The evolution of the phasing plan along with all of the other factors mentioned above make it
necessary for staff to advise Council that an inter-fund loan could be necessary to continue with
the proposed/current phasing plan.
Actual cash outflows will likely lag and could negate the need for an inter-fund loan altogether,
but because the proposed budget assumes completion of buildings 1 and 2 and 90% of sales
revenues from those buildings in 2013, there is a risk in the event of construction delays that an
Page 7 of 9
THE CITY of ASPEN
inter-fund loan could become necessary if those closings cannot occur, but this would be a short-
term cash flow problem only which could also be covered by the 2014 budget if that is approved.
The planned 2013 sales revenues from buildings 1 and 2 are about $2 million and $2.5 million
respectively and are already adjusted for the unit category modifications proposed above.
DELAY CONSTRUCTION: An alternative to continuing with the proposed plan would be to
delay further construction and take the opportunity to re-bid the next phase of the project. Pros
and cons of those alternatives are presented below.
1:Continue current/proposed phasing 2:Delay and Re-bid
Pros Cons Pros Cons
Mitigates cost increases Forfeit potential savings Competitive re-bidding Potential for continued
over time from re-bidding could produce some cost increases overtime
savings
Satisfies expectations of Requires short-term, Current reservation
the 44 current inter-fund borrowing Fund balance growth holders may pull out to
reservation holders may facilitate positive seek alternative housing
cash flow
When prospective
buyers see something Further economic
coming out of the recovery could bring
ground,they might be more unit reservations
more likely to move on
a possible purchase
Will be prepared if
further economic
recovery brings more
unit reservations
RENT — DON'T SELL CAT 5-7 UNITS: Councilmember Frisch has discussed the possibility
of NOT making changes to the category mix, instead retaining the current mix of units in
categories 5-7, and if those units fail to sell, we would instead rent those units out until such time
as category 5-7 sales could be made. This would result in a revenue loss of$6.761 million and its
replacement with an annual rental revenue stream of$367,780 (assuming rentals of 15 units at
Cat 4 prices—almost certainly the high end of what might be possible). You can make your own
assumptions about how soon those 15 units might sell — with sales revenue being realized and
rental income going away. It may be desirable to plan to rent for some period of time any units
that remain unsold after final COs are issued—and until we can sell those remaining units.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The long range plan for the 150 Housing
Development Fund which was submitted for Council's budget book was drafted prior to a final
GMP for the construction of buildings 1-4 starting in 2013. Staff was aware that it would be
necessary to update Council with up-to-date figures, but increases to levels necessitating an inter-
fund loan were not anticipated.
Page 8 of 9
THE CITY of ASPEN
Although the 2013 budget shortfall is approximately $286,000, retainage of over$800,000, some
expenditures for buildings 3 and 4 along with the majority of expenditures for the finished
landscape will run through mid-2014 (even though the City's budget process requires that some
of those expenditures be approved as part of the 2013 budget and recognized on an accrual
basis), thus lagging cash outflows might make an inter-fund loan unnecessary for 2013 if
buildings 1 and 2 can be sold as planned.
The result of decreasing the unit categories as proposed in Phase IIA (buildings 1-7, 82
multifamily units) would be an average category change from 3.5 to 2.9 and a revenue sacrifice
of$3.95 million. This combined with the described increases to the cost estimates for Phase IIA
result in subsidies of approximately $300,000 (if 0% of contingencies are spent) to $340,000 (if
100% of contingencies are spent) per unit for Phase IIA (not considering Phase IIB and any
potential future market fluctuations 8-10 years from now and impossible to predict given current
market volatility). Five percent of all future budget projections for BGIIB are contingency so
there is opportunity for savings and/or to further absorb market changes.
The resulting estimated subsidies for Phase IIA are higher than previously published estimates
but are indicative of the most current market conditions that staff has been able to ascertain.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the attached recommendation from the City's
owner's agent, Rider Levett Bucknall, staff recommends that Council continue with the
proposed/current phasing plan and prepare for a short-term, inter-fund loan if necessary for cash-
flow. By doing this, Council will be able to mitigate additional market increases and satisfy the
expectations of the 44 current unit reservation holders. Any marginal savings achievable through
re-bidding will more than likely be outweighed by further cost increases due to housing market
acceleration over time.
Staff also recommends that Council go ahead with the category modifications as proposed to
meet the current actual housing market demand which is being encountered.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives include a delay and re-bid approach or choosing to go ahead
without modifying the unit categories.
In the event that a delay and re-bid approach is decided, staff would need to provide Council
with a proposed delay and re-bid approach/schedule after some analysis can be done.
If Council chooses to go ahead with the proposed/current phasing plan but without the proposed
unit category modifications, staff would intend to keep Council updated with presales progress
and could also develop alternatives related to the potential for renting units out upon completion
if that were to become advantageous.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: RLB Recommendation
Page 9 of 9
RLB Rider Levee s. k--,a[L
1675 Larimer Street
Suite 470
Denver,Colorado 80202
T:+720 904 1480
November 8, 2012
Mr Chris Everson email: chris.everson @ci.aspen.co.us
Affordable Housing Project Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL—COST REVIEW BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4
Dear Chris,
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the Haselden 48 unit Building 1 to Building 4 GMP and
discuss the options and recommendations moving forward.
100% IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS 2013 GMP
On August 31, 2012, OZ Architecture issued the 100% documents for the full project, which Haselden
sought subcontractor bids for Buildings 1 through 5. During the bid process, the City made the
decision to remove Building 5 from the 2013 construction plan. To avoid bidder confusion and given
the fact the GMP bid response structure made it fairly easy to remove Building 5, we received the
GMP on October 5, 2012 including B5. However, with the exclusion of B5 the initial Phase 2A Building
1 to Building 4 project total was approximately$18,000,000.
Buildings and sitework saw significant increases from the budget and this precipitated an intensive
Value Engineering exercise with the wider IPD team. As such over$1 mil was able to be deducted
from the proposal, with key items being buyout savings, earthwork material import, misc sitework and
staffing.
The revised GMP for Buildings 1 through 4 totals $16,878,716. Direct costs for sitework, B1-B4 and
parking (P1-P4) totals $14,234,542, General Conditions $1,268,427 and markups $1,375,747.
PROCESS
Overall we believe that Haselden was proactive during the bid process and had relevant questions
relating to the packaging and design details. Haselden indicated they solicited 500 subcontractors and
received only 28% response whereas earlier efforts saw a 50% response. As such we see that the
recovering construction market has impacted the bid process resulting in construction cost increases
greater than anticipated. .
Subcontractor coverage we see as low occurred in Earthwork (2 bidders) and Steel (1 self performed
bid), but we think the two earthwork bidders are appropriate for the scale of the project and the steel
work can be reviewed in full detail by RLB prior to any award.
Page 1 of 6
November 08, 2012 RLB I Rider Levett Bucknall
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL—COST REVIEW BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GCs are an 8.9% markup on direct costs. Staffing/personnel makes up 66% of this and the level of
effort and rates appear reasonable and consistent with the Contract.
Subsistence and travel makes up the bulk of the balance and one item we query is that there are 208
weeks of company vehicle time for 317 weeks of personnel. This implies that 2/3 of the staff have
company vehicles. We would have thought that only the senior staff would have vehicles—which
equates to 156 weeks. Deducting these 52 weeks of vehicles could remove $29,580. All other GC
items appear reasonable.
LOGISTICS
For site and the 4 buildings, there is $240,415 of cleanup labor, which over 10 months of construction,
averages $24,041/month and equates to four full labor FTEs. This appears high and given
subcontractors are responsible for their own cleanup to GC provided dumpsters, we would expect this
item to at least halve in cost. This would mean one laborer around 50% of the time for each building
with some of this time needed for the adjacent site.
Haselden allowed for 36,000 sf of staging areas, with 4,500 sf at each of the pods. Our review of the
plans is that this simply won't fit. In addition to the parking areas which will provide good laydown, we
think a 100' by 30' to 40' pad is all that is practicable at each of the buildings, so this area should
reduce to 12,000 to 15,000 sf for a reduction of around $40,000.
Site survey also appears high for the sitework. Given the All package is setting the roads and
pavements, etc and the subcontractors are all responsible for layout from GC provided benchmarks, it
appears the $58,199 survey in division 01 E is high.
$15,000 of erosion control inspections are allowed for under sitework, and it appears that these should
be able to be carried out by the engineer assigned to the project for 30 weeks in the General
Conditions.
A skidsteer at$48,489 is included for misc site activities and erosion control. We see this is
unnecessary for this type of project and given the civil scope and recommend this be removed from
the GMP.
Across the four buildings, temporary heating totals $111,634. Given the April to December/January
current schedule, and the fact the mechanical rough in will occur in mid summer at the latest, we think
that this temp heating may be able to be achieved at a much lower cost with the installed mechanical
equipment. With 48 housing units and assuming the all need 2 months of heating late in 2013, this is
96 months of heat. $1,163 of heating per unit/month appears high particularly given the high efficiency
envelope designed.
SITEWORK
Sitework totals $4,164,603 and in comparison to the budget, the main increases seen were in
Earthwork and Site Electrical/Lighting. There is still work to do in finalizing the earthwork and hopefully
this cost will reduce when the A/l as-built survey is completed. Site electrical appears driven up by the
Page 2 of 6
November 08, 2012 R LB I Rider Levett Bucknall
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE If
2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL—COST REVIEW BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4
design development increases for the pumphouse feed and networked fire alarm. Additionally, the
well as the Haselden budget appeared low for the site conduit and wiring (for which there is 7,000 If).
We want to work more with HCL on site electrical to make sure the scope is correct. Although
sitework has seen line item escalation increases, one factor of an increase to the December 2012
budget is that scope that was budgeted in the A/I package is in fact now associated with the building
phasing, so the sitework budgets needed to be reset.
BUILDINGS
Including the markup allocation, buildings total $11,765,196 and saw a $437,000 (4%) increase, with
the unit cost per sf increasing from the previously budgeted $206/gba to $214/gba. The main drivers
are framing, drywall and mechanical increases.
Budget Nov 2012 GMP Variance %Var
Building 1 $ 3,022,818
$ 3,117,283 $ 94,465 3.1%
Building 2 $ 3,422,973
$ 3,509,431 $ 86,458 2.5%
Building 3 $ 1,9511751
$ 119971685 $ 45,934 2.4%
Building 4 $ 2,929,676
$ 3,140,797 $ 211,121 7.2
Total Buildings $ 11327'218 $ 11,765,196 $ 437,977 3.9%
Avg$/sf @ 55,093 sf GBA $ 206 $ 214 $ g o
The GMP cost of Building 4 is affected by schedule changes, with the initial budget not including
temporary heating costs given the timing of work. i.e. the apparent higher percentage increase is not
due to higher costs now, but a lower budget cost. B4 is the same makeup as B1 and was budgeted
$93,000 less.
Framing experienced a large increase. Material costs alone have seen 30-35% increases and the
uptick in the housing market is contributing to labor and overhead cost gains.
Drywall had good subcontract bid coverage, yet saw a large gain. Material increases, the reduced
package size and construction market uptick are likely drivers here.
Mechanical is the one item that was not affected by scope increases, however this larger cost increase
from budget is likely driven by less purchasing power given the smaller phases and also the
construction uptick. This package had good bid coverage but is affected by some of lower
subcontractors not being able to bond which would have created a project risk.
PARKING STRUCTURES/CARPORTS
Possibly as a result of the need to breakout costs between buildings and carports becoming a little
blurred, and considering that we already have the concrete walls for P1, P4, P5 and P7 installed as
part of the A/I package, the cost for the carports appears to be $70/sf. Upon initial pass this appears
high, but given the heavy wood framing and heavy concrete foundations generally appears
reasonable. One item which appears high is the corrugated metal roofing, which given material pricing
received should be nearer$8/sf rather than the $10.42 allowed by the subcontractors. This could be
Page 3 of 6
Novemb er 08, 2012 RLB I Rider Levett Bucknall
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL—COST REVIEW BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4
an $80,000 to $100,000 variance at the carports which we'd like to follow up. It maybe that another
subcontractor should be approached.
With heavy feature timber and given the simplicity of design, lumber is a high proportion of the overall
cost. As with the buildings, the lumber material price increases affected the carports considerably.
OPTIONS
The IPD approach was to have a general contractor offer preconstruction advice over the course of the
project design and then bid the work to finalize the GMP. The apparent options are to a/. cancel the
construction program for next year (do nothing) and defer the work to 2014 or later b/. re-bid the 2013
work package now to target 2013 construction, c/. negotiate the price and terms with Haselden.
Option Pros Cons
Do nothing Allows RETT fund balance to increase over Drops the promises of the presales
2013 program
Loses momentum
Loses project knowledge
Will likely"chase" escalation
Rebid now for 2013 An outside chance of meeting presales 013 see two contractors on site in
construction promises in 2013
Smaller general contractor may be better Likely so cost savings subcontractor
suited to the smaller packages pool,
Steep learning curve with the design,
site, Phase I relationships
If a low starting price is given, risk of
change order increases
Loses all previous IPD input
Meets presales promises Might not be the lowest starting price if
Negotiate compared to a rebid approach
Allows reducing/incorporating the A/I work
into the plan
Continues the site knowledge
Continues working relationships defined by
the IPD process
Potential for better quality given knowledge
of plans/specs
GMP is ultimately the price ceiling
Cashflow occurring in 2014 will mitigate fund
shortfall
Page 4 of 6
November 08, 2012 R L B I Rider Levett Bucknall
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL—COST REVIEW BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4
RISK ITEMS
• Material import -The A/I package has revealed that site volumes of cut material are low and
we need to import some material to assist A/I, as well as mine some of the southern site. One
of the factors could be the original topographical survey which has a +/- 1' error in the contours
—across a 16 acre site, a 6" error could be 12,900 CY and a 12" error 25,800 Cy. More work
is being done on this package in conjunction with the A/I as-built survey. Phasing impacts this,
in that the south of the site was a net cut and the north of the site a net fill. Without
constructing the southern buildings in this phase, the risk is that we have an imbalance at the
north. With earthwork being an allowance that needs finalization, this is the high risk area.
• Building permit—this is required by April 01, 2013 and although this is 4.5 months away,
complexities of phasing and the impact on the sitework/civil engineering has necessitated a
breakout drawing set. This is an area we are actively in chasing.
• Incumbents—for ease of warranty and insurance etc, management is much easier with
consistency of contractor and subcontractors across a phased project. However, there is
always risk that the "preferred" party feels as the incumbent and so pricing may not be as sharp
as it would be in a fully open bid. The IPD approach still has competitive bids at the sub level
and we feel as though bids were sought from numerous qualified subcontractors and the
review approach was fair, with all subs given the opportunity to ask questions and/or have
scope explained.
• Quality—with any phased approach, quality can vary when new parties are brought in and
need to "retrain" particularly with the framing, envelope and mechanical system being used on
BRPI I. The current packaging is suitably sized for work flow from one pod to another, but any
smaller packages create the risk of a jigsaw of subcontractors and responsibilities which will be
complicated for the future HoA to deal with.
• Schedule—we are working with Haselden to ensure the City's requirements to have Building 1
and 2 sold and occupied in 2013 and to ensure the A/I deferred work to the road and curb and
gutter is off the critical path. The current target is November 2013 and we are focused on
minimizing the risks above to enable a smooth work plan.
NEXT STEPS
Summarizing above, prior to signing the final GMP contract addendum with Haselden we would like to
review a number of cost items in addition to finalizing the schedule:
1. Company vehicles
2. Cleanup labor
3. Building staging areas
4. Site survey and layout
5. Site storm water inspections
6. Skidsteer
7. Temporary heating costs
8. Site electrical
9. Framing - package structure and effect of timing
10. Corrugated siding unit rate
11. Finalizing earthwork
12. Additional steel bid/review
Page 5 of 6
November 08, 2012 R L B Rider Levett Bucknall
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL—COST REVIEW BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4
RECOMMENDATION
Overall the GMP is comprehensive, thorough and incorporates appropriate subcontractor bids for the
key trades. We think there are still some items in the GMP proposal that can and should be
negotiated out—to be set aside as owners contingency or an early completion bonus in the overall
budget. The key risk item is the earthwork package which will be validated with site survey and will
need some time to finalize, given the current A/I construction work.
Although this GMP saw some increases from the budget submitted in December 2011, we feel as
though the scope and escalation increases have been justified and are supported by economic data
and subcontractor bid coverage.
We recommend that the 2013 Burlingame Phase II budget is approved and that Staff and RLB are
tasked to further negotiate the contract value and terms with Haselden to present to City Council as
a future Council consent item.
We trust this is of assistance. Please contact us for any queries relating to this report. As always, we
are happy to meet to discuss our observations.
Sincerely,
t j L
Rob Taylor BE,PSP
Associate Principal
Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd
Page 6 of 6
City of Aspen-2013 Budget
150 Housing Development Fund
Audtt Audit Audit Audit Audit Forecast Budget
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Beginning Balance $7A67,719 $535,940 $1,218,818 $3,489,280
$4,790,513 $12,706,747 $7,276,807 -$286,326 -$1,711,882 $6,474,616 $3
Revenues
One Time Development Revenue
Burlingame Unit Sales $16,065,825 $200,654 $0 $0 $G $0 $4,671,864 $7,866,656 $6,401,400 $0
Total of other Revenue 58.000.000 LO L $2,908.45 4 688 121 LC LC Subtotal,One Time Development Revenue $24,065,825 $200,654 $0 $2,808,454 $688,121 $0 $4,671,864 $7,866,656 $6,401,400 $0
Ongoing Revenue Sources
Sales Tax(45%of.45%Sales Tax) $1,013,502 $1,059,497 $901,048 $944,433 $1,011,179 $1,072,000 $1,115,000 $1,206,000 $1,254,000 $
Real Estate Transfer Tax-1% $1,160,000
$9,755,656 $5,731,302 $5,881,378 $6,370,311 $5,233,329 $5,200,000 $5,200,000 $5,500,000 $5,800,000 $6,100,000 <
Lease Revenue from the Lumber Yard $0 $606,000 $624,180 $564,360 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000
Benedict Commons Garage-Lease Revenue $10,688 $49,828 $22,420 $47,073 $29,545 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
In Lieu and Impact Fees $2,910,533 $4,600,966 $291,136 $239,138 $2,925,428 $656,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000
Other Mix.Revenue $2,618 5230'000
S8 $406,576 $16,798 $11,505 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rental Income from 312 Hyman and 802 Main $0 $49,084 $55,116 $56,400 $49,500 $18,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000
Refund of Expenditure 1019 $402,251 0
Total of Other Revenue
$2,924,858 $5,102,136 $775,248 $359,408 $3,015,978 $704,000 $308,000
Investment Income $308,0$9 $308,000 $308,000
5381.745 $108.51 5191.894 S83,064 $72,467 $96.00 $44.000
Subtotal,Ongoing Revenue sources $14,075,761 $12,607,447 $8,373,748 $8,321,575 $9,752,953 $7,492,000 $7,087,000 $7,388,000 $7,734,000 $8,211,000 $
Transfers
Other $1,126,850 $720,950 $997,050
$0 $0 $0 $O $0 $0 5o
General Fund-BarX $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o
ARC Construction Fund-Close Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $U
Trfr In:1999 Sales Tax Bond $0 $D $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Internal Housing Insurance-I Fund $0 $15,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Housing Fund-IF Loan Repayment $0 $0 $417,050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Fundsfers cis Repayment 1126850 580000 580000 12 V L 0
Subtotal,Transfers $1,126,850 $720,950 $997,050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $
Total Revenues and Transfers $39,268,442 $13529,051 $9,370,798 $11,130,029 $10,441,073 $7,492,000 $11,758,864 $15,254,656 $14,135,400 $8,211,000
Total Sources $46,336,161 $14,064,991 $10,589,616 $14,619,309 $15,231,586 $20,198,747 $19,035,671 $14,968,330 $12,423,518 $14,685,616 $2
Expenditures
Development Expenses
Old Stage Road $126,727
488 Castle Creek $5,398,876 $11,543 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0
Civic Master Plan $0 $0 $0 o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Yellow-Red Brick Expansion $D $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 So
$D 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2001A Truscott Bond Redemption $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LO LO LO
2001B Truscott Bond-2008 Transfer Truscott Fund $189,916 $3,922,190 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Expense related to Housing Tax Free Bonds $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Projects 2007 to 2008 Re-appropriation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 So
Little Ajax Development Subsidy-23118 524.000 $9 $_0 V Mo LO $_0 LO $_0 LO
Carry forward Supplemental-listed below $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 So $0 $0 So $0
Developer Fee Truscott it AD $9 19 � � LO � Lo 50 �
Deer Hill and Burlingame Troll Imp.23128&23122 $1,497,808 $33,270 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0
312 W.Hyman-Gerber Property $3,149,906 $0 $9,426 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Annie Mitchell/plus reserve 23119&23120 $294,805 $288,390 $297,085 $69,393 $837 $0 $0 $0 So $0
Repurchase/Remodel/Resale of Deed Restricted Units $0 $0 $468,331 $256,081 $4,575 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
517 Park Circle Land Purchase S498,76 $3,606.18 9 ,�0 $_0 L
Total of Other Expenses $11,180,806 $7,861,582 $774,842 $325,474 $5,413 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Burlingame Housing Infra&Admin.23104 $171,930 $9,943 $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Burlingame Housing Phase I-23121 $9,572,726 $1,023,229 $904,692 $173,136 $45,826 $346,340 $0 $0 $0 $0
Burlingame Delivery SF Lot Subsidies SO $746,648 $593,220 $202,215 $57,331 $402,590 $0 $0 $0 $0
Burlingame Housing Phase II Labor $0 $0 $0 $228,742 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0
Burlingame Housing Phase II $0 $838,828 $242,124 $1,520,701 $879,652 $10,450,660 $15,056,012
Burlingame $17,814,977 $4,011,802 So
$9,744,656 $2,618,648 $1,740,036 $2,124,793 $982,809 $11,199,590 $17,814,977 $15,056,012 $4,011,802 SO
802 W Main Land Purchase&PPP Housing development $3,687,060 $7,148 $2,852 $16,200 $4,263 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $p
BMC West 518,174.41 547.671 $9.537 $20.400 53.607 $16.390
Subtotal,Development Expenses $42,786,936 $10,535,049 $2,527,266 $2,486,867 $996,092 $11,290,980 $17,834,977 $15,056,012 $4,011,802 $0
Operotine Expenses and Transfers
Administrative Costs 23000 $39,085 $133,881 $121,166 $119,818 $121,496 $127,000 $202,210
Other Mix Housing Costs $97,419 $28,929 $54,793 $55,602 $0 $42,270 $0 $209.000 $216,000 $223,000
$0 $0 $0
Other Mlsc Housing Costs-Labor $D $0 $0 $61,679 $67,194 $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Housing Maintenance-Subsidy $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,226 $37,750 $78,310 $81,000 $83,800 $86,600
Housing Operations Subsidy-Housing Admin.Fund $177,070 $184,150 $198,880 $198,880 $188,940 $189,000 $1%500 $203,000 $210,000 $217,000
General Fund Overhead $497,360 $522,725 $523,360 $394,170 $355,740 $405,000 $602,000 $622,000 $643,000
IT Overhead $582,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,480 $5,000 $3,500 $3,900 $4,200 $4,8110
Benedict Commons Garage Maintenance-23100 $11,160 $11,185 $11,830 $12,090 $12,090 $15,000 $15,0011 $15,300 $15,600 $15,900
Truscott Fund Debt Service Subsidy-Transfer $807,190 $749,620 $743,820 $742,620 $709,590 $705,600 $0 $0 $275,000 $275,000
Transfer to Parks Food Tax Refund $0 $0 $0 $14,270 $14,410 $9,700 $9,500 $10,000 $10,500 $11,000
Wheeler Fund-Transfer-IF Loan Repayment 19 5368.004 52.915.680 55.703.130