Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MUNICIPAL PIER - Capital Improvements - Pier Concession Buil
/o/ REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION F Date October 5, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Admi nil s or -- Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Admi ni strat r -- C ROVE BY CITY UNCIL Subject: Funding Alternatives: Pier Concession Buil ngs s i9�. Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception C I Y cL-,N Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: A funding source has not yet been identified for the reconstruction of the concession buildings on the new Municipal Pier. The estimated cost of these concession buildings is $1 million. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Approve the use of $1 million of the City's existing but unused Certificates of Participation (COP's) as the funding source for the pier concession buildings. 2. Approve the use of concession lease revenue to pay the debt service on the COP's. ANALYSIS: On March 2, 1992 the City Council instructed staff to prepare an analysis of three alternative methods of funding the pier concession buildings. July 6, 1992 City Council action on the alternatives was delayed 90 days due to uncertainty regarding the State budget impact on the City. Attached is an analysis of the three alternatives which, in summary, would result in the following City revenues and expenses during the remaining life of the debt service for the City's unused COP's. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS Present Value of Alternative _ Description Net Revenue (24 Years) 1 No use of City funds Private funding is not to construct concession currently available buildings 2 Use of unused COP's $ 1 ,426,168 3 Use of cash resources 1 ,414,563 P10 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Funding Alternatives: Pier Concession Buildings The narrative detail in the attachments provides a more detailed analysis of the revenue and expense totals for these alternatives. Based on the above summary, it is the staff's recommendation that Alternative 2 - Use of Unused COP's, be approved as the funding approach for the pier concession buildings. Since the pier concession buildings provide a revenue source that can be used to pay the debt service on the COP's, this alternative is consistent with the City Council 's previous approval of the criteria for use of the unused COP's. Use of the unused COP's is recommended instead of using General Fund cash reserves due to; 1) the small financial difference, and 2) the desire to preserve General Fund reserves for budget contingencies under current economic conditions. The debt service on $1 million of unused COP's is $90,000 per year. The revenue from the pier concessions would more than cover this annual cost as indicated in the attached analysis (first year estimated concession revenue is $116,000 from the Ruby's restaurant, plus 10% of the bait shop and coffee shop concession revenue). Ruby's is not in a position to finance construction of the concession buildings, but has offered to increase the minimum annual lease payment to the City to $90,000 for the first two years of operation and $100,000 annually thereafter. An additional $20,000 minimum annual rent is paid on the bait shop and coffee shop. Therefore, the City's $90,000 per year debt service cost is more than covered by guaranteed annual payments from the concessionaire. FUNDING SOURCE: As indicated. ALTERNATIVES: As indicated. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Analysis of three alternative funding approaches. 2. Projected Construction Timetable 3. September 17, 1992 letter from Ruby's Restaurant Group 4. Summary - History of Pier Concession Building Project -2- WPADSERT:921 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1992 i a i The attached analysis includes expenses through the year 2016 which is the year that the last payment on the 1986 COP's would be made. As indicated in the following summary, the second alternative - Use of Unused COP's, is the best financial alternative when the full 24 year period of time is analyzed: Total Net Present Value of Alternative Revenue Total Net Revenue 1 - No Use of City Funds Private funding is not currently available 2 - Use of Unused COP's $ 3,938,978 1 ,426,168 3 - Use of Cash Resources 5,063,977 1 ,414,563 Staff recommends Alternative 2 - Use of unused COP's since the Pier Concession Project results in new revenue to pay debt service on the existing unused COP's. In addition, the availability of cash resources (Alternative 3) currently is dependent on; 1) our General Fund Reserve being maintained as estimated in the Budget, and 2) 71ER". on to prioritize unfun d capital projects. Ay :� Deputy Cit t ator RJF:skd Attachments WPADSERT:950 . ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS ALTERNATIVE 1 No Use of City Funds to Construct Pier_ Concession Buildings Description - In order to construct the Pier concession buildings without use of City funds, a concessionaire would be requested to construct the buildings at the concessionaire's cost. We have reviewed this option with the selected concessionaire, Ruby's Restaurant Group, but their investors have decided to invest their money elsewhere. Therefore, this alternative is no longer available with the concessionaire previously approved by the City Council . In addition, there is a revenue loss from FEMA under this alternative since the federal government funding to the City for damage to the pier was based on a reconstruction by the City of the storm damaged restaurant at the end of the pier. If the restaurant is not rebuilt at the City's expense, we will lose the $295,500 reimbursement from FEMA for the damage to the restaurant. WPADSERT:908 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS ALTERNATIVE 2. Use of Long Term debt Description - The existing unused Certificates of Participation (COP's) that were issued for the parking structure north of the pier could be used to construct the pier concession buildings. Debt service on the unused COP's is currently being paid from the interest earnings on the unused COP's. The estimated annual debt service for $1 million is $90,000. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures _ Revenues Debt Year Construction Service FEMA Income 1993 $ * $ 90,000 $ 295,500 $ 35,000 1994 0 90,000 0 116,000 1995 0 90,000 0 123,500 1996 0 90,000 0 131 ,375 1997 0 90,000 0 139,644 1998 0 90,000 0 148,326 1999 0 90,000 0 157,442 2000 0 90,000 0 167,217 2001 0 90,000 0 179,278 2002 0 90,000 0 191 ,942 2003 0 90,000 0 205,239 2004 0 90,000 0 219,201 2005 0 90,000 0 233,861 2006 0 90,000 0 249,254 2007 0 90,000 0 265,417 2008 0 90,000 0 282,388 2009 0 90,000 0 300,207 2010 0 90,000 0 318,917 2011 0 90,000 0 338,563 2012 0 90,000 0 359,191 2013 0 90,000 0 380,851 2014 0 90,000 0 399,894 2015 0 90,000 0 419,888 2016 �� 90,000 0 440,883 Totals $�0 $ 2.1� $ 225,500 $ 5.803.478 Present Value $ 1 ,023,395 $ 295,500 $ 2,254,063 * Construction would be funded by use of $1 million of unused COP proceeds. Annual debt service expenditures of $90,000 would be required to repay this debt. Revenue/Expense Summary (24 Years) Total Present Value City Revenue $ 6,098,978 $ 2,449,563 City Expense 2,160,000 1 ,023,395 Net Revenue $ 3.938.978 $ 1 .426.168 WPADSERT:908 • ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS ALTERNATIVE 3. Use of Cash Resources Description - The estimated General Fund reserve (fund balance) on June 30, 1993 is $4,000,000 or 4%. In addition, $6.7 million is currently reserved from the PERS credit/refund. City fiscal policies require a reserve of 3 to 5%, or a maximum of $5 million. Therefore, the amount of the General Fund Reserve in excess of $5 million could be used for one-time capital project expenditures, consistent with adopted fiscal policies. Under this alternative, $1 million of the reserves would be allocated to the Pier Buildings Projects. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Debt Year Construction Service FEMA Income 1993 $ 1 ,000,000 $ 0 $ 295.500 $ 0 1994 0 0 0 116,000 1995 0 0 0 123,500 1996 0 0 0 131 ,375 1997 0 0 0 139,644 1998 0 0 0 148,326 1999 0 0 0 157,442 2000 0 0 0 167,217 2001 0 0 0 179,278 2002 0 0 0 191 ,942 2003 0 0 0 205,239 2004 0 0 0 219,201 2005 0 0 0 233,861 2006 0 0 0 249,254 2007 0 0 0 265,417 2008 0 0 0 282,388 2009 0 0 0 300,207 2010 0 0 0 318,917 2011 0 0 0 338,563 2012 0 0 0 359,191 2013 0 0 0 380,851 2014 0 0 0 399,894 2015 0 0 0 419,888 2016 0 0 0 440,883 Totals $_ l ,000�00 $�Q $„295.500 $ 5.7�68.478 Present Value $ 1 ,000,000 $ 295,500 $ 2,119,063 Revenue/Expense Summary (24 Years) I Total Present Value City Revenue $ 6,063,977 $ 2,414,563 City Expense 1 ,000,000 1 ,000,000 Net Revenue $ 5.063.277 $ 1 ,414.563 WPADSERT:908 10/92 PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS PROJECTED TIMETABLE DESCRIPTION DATE MONTHS Approval of Funding Oct. 92 RFP - Design of Buildings Feb. 92 4 (Construction Drawings) Approval of Design Consultant March 93 1 Completion of Design May 93 2 Advertise Construction Contract June/July 93 2 Award of Construction Contract Aug. 93 1 Construction of Buildings Sept./Feb. 93 6 Tenant Improvements March/May 93 3 Concession Open to Public June 94 - 19 R/RJF/2 0 0 a September 17, 1992 Mr. Robert Franz City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr, Franz: Earlier this year we discussed the possibility of Ruby' s contributing funds to build the pier buildings in exchange for free rent. We submitted a proposal offering a contribution of $600,000.00 in exchange for six years of free rent. since the schedule for building the pier buildings has slipped significantly from the original time line, our group of investors has decided to invest their money elsewhere. Because of this turn of events, we must rescind our offer to contribute funds in exchange for free rent. since the City Council is concerned about the revenues from the pier concessions covering the debt the City would incur to build the buildings, we would like to modify our offer to help alleviate those concerns. We will raise the current initial minimum annual rent for the first two years from $70,000.00 to $90, 000.00 and increase the fixed minimum annual rent which begins in year three from $80,000.00 to $100,000.00. Since this offer starts us off at a significantly higher rent amount, we would like to take a look at modifying the periodic minimum rent adjustments in the final negotiations . This new guaranteed minimum should assure the City Council that any funds expended to build the restaurant will have adequate sources of repayment. I look forward to meeting with you on September 22 to discuss the details of how our new offer might help move the project forward. Sincer y, Doug C anaugh cc; Jim Silva Dan Brennan Dick Harlow 7]T! NW B737MMN7 110 Newpert Center Drive, Su,t• 110 • NewFe,i J3*..k CA 9266o • (714) 64/4-782q SAX (7,4) 644-4625 PIER BUILDINGS/CONCESSIONAIRE PROCEDURAL HISTORY DATE ACTION May, 1989 Draft RFP for Concessionaire distributed for comment. August, 1989 RFP mailed, ads placed. October, 1989 Council authorizes proposals for individual pier concession operations as well as combined concession operations (ie, all 3 buildings). October, 1989 10 proposals received. January, 1990 City Council Committee appointed to review proposals. May, 1990 City Council approves guidelines for review of two finalists (Ruby's and Sea Cove). August, 1990 City Council approves selection of Ruby's as recommended by Committee. August, 1990 to Feb. 1991 Ruby's Restaurant Group works with Pier Design Committee, Pier Building Architect on design of buildings. February, 1991 City Council approves conceptual design of pier buildings. September 1991 Environmental Assessment Committee approves building project compliance with EIR. December, 1991 Pier Design Committee approves building materials. March, 1992 City Council approves building materials/colors. March, 1992 City Council requests analysis, by June, 1992, of funding alternatives for pier buildings. July, 1992 City Council defers consideration of funding alternatives for ninety (90) days. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date June 1 . 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrat Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Subject: Funding Alternatives: Pier Concession Buildings t s/9-z- Consistent with Council Policy? [)(] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 90 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: A funding source has not yet been identified for the reconstruction of the concession buildings on the new Municipal Pier. The estimated cost of these concession buildings is $1 million. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the use of $1 million of the City' s unused Certificates of Participation (COP's) as the funding source for the pier concession buildings. ANALYSIS: Attached is a copy of the Request for City Council Action dated March 2, 1992 which instructed staff to prepare an analysis of the following three alternative methods of funding the pier concession buildings: Funding Alternatives: . Pier Concession Buildings Alternative Description 1 No use of City funds to construct concession buildings 2 Use of long term debt 3 Use of cash resources Attached is the analysis of these three alternatives which in summary would result in the following City revenues and expenses during the next seven years: Alternative Revenue Expense Net Revenue (Expense) 1 0 $ 400,000 ($ 400,000) 2 $ 1 ,111 ,787 630,000 481 ,787 3 1 ,111 ,787 1 ,000,000 111 ,787 The narrative detail in the attachments provides the reasons there are different revenue and expense totals for these alternatives. Based on the above summary, it is the staff's recommendation that Alternative 2 — Use of Long Term Debt, be approved as the funding approach for the pier concession buildings. Since the pier concession buildings provide a revenue source that can be used to pay the � 1 P10 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Funding Alternatives: Pier Concession Buildings debt service on the long term debt, this alternative is consistent with the City Council 's previous approval of the criteria for use of the unused COP' s. Use of the unused COP's is recommended instead of issuing new long term debt since new debt would involve new issuance costs and establishment of a new bond reserve fund which would be inefficient in comparison to the use of the unused COP' s which have already been subjected to such issuance costs and establishment of reserves. FUNDING SOURCE: As indicated. ALTERNATIVES: As indicated. ATTACHMENTS: Analysis of three alternative funding approaches. -2- WPADSERT:921 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS ALTERNATIVE 1 No Use of City Funds to Construct Pier Concession Buildings Description — In order to construct the Pier concession buildings without use of City funds, a concessionaire would be requested to construct the buildings at the concessionaire' s cost. We have reviewed this option with the selected concessionaire, Ruby's Restaurant Group, and they have indicated a willingness to finance the construction of the end of the pier restaurant building (only) up to a maximum cost of $600,000. Since the total funding for all three buildings is an estimated $1 million, this will leave $400,000 for funding by the City. Ruby's has indicated that they would request one year of free rent for each $100,000 of funding required of Ruby's for the construction of the building. Therefore, the following analysis assumes six years of free rent in order to reduce the City cost for the building from $ 1 million to $400,000. In addition, there is no revenue from FEMA under this alternative since the federal government funding to the City for damage to the pier was based on a reconstruction of the storm damanged restaurant at the end of the pier by the City. If the restaurant is not rebuilt at the City's expense, we will lose the $295,500 reimbursement from FEMA for the damage to the restaurant. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Year Construction Debt Service FEMA Rental Income 1993 $ 400,000 0 0 0 1994 0 0 1995 0 0 1996 0 0 1997 0 0 1998 0 0 1999 0 _ 0 Totals $ 400.000 $—a U $� Revenue/Expense Summary (7 Years) City Revenue $ 0 City Expense 400,000 Net Cost $ 400,000 WPADSERT:908 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS ALTERNATIVE 2. Use of Long Term Debt Description — New long term debt in the amount of $1 million could be issued by the City or the unused Certificates of Participation (COP's) that were issued for the parking structure north of the pier could be used to construct the pier concession buildings. Debt service on the unused COP's is currently being paid from the interest earnings on the unused COP's. The estimated annual debt service for $1 million of long term debt is $90,000 whether new debt or the unused COP's are utilized. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Year Construction Debt Service FEMA Rental Income 1993 $ * $ 90,000 $ 295,500 $ 0 1994 0 90,000 116,000 1995 0 90,000 123,500 1996 0 90,000 131 ,375 1997 0 90,000 139,644 1998 0 90,000 148,326 1999 0 90.000 157.442 Totals $--a $ 630,000 $ 295.500 $ 816,282 * Construction would be funded by use of $1 million of unused COP proceeds. Annual debt service expenditures would be required to repay this $1 million. Revenue/Expense Summary (7 Years) City Revenue $ 1 ,111 ,787 City Expense 630,000 Net Revenue $ 481 ,782 WPADSERT:908 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS ALTERNATIVE 3. Use of Cash Resources Description - If the 1992/93 General Fund Budget is adopted as recommended by the staff, then the City will have a General Fund reserve (fund balance) of $6.6 million or 6.8% on June 30, 1993. City fiscal policies require a reserve of 3 to 5%, or a maximum of $5 million. Therefore, the amount of the General Fund Reserve in excess of $5 million could be used for one-time capital project expenditures, consistent with adopted fiscal policies. Under this alternative, $1 million of the fund balance would be allocated to the Pier Buildings Projects and, in essence, the determination would be made that this is the highest priority use of this one-time revenue from the General Fund. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Year Construction Debt Service FEMA Rental Increase 1993 $ 1 ,000,000 $ 0 $ 295,500 $ 0 1994 0 0 116,000 1995 0 0 123,500 1996 0 0 131 ,375 1997 0 0 139,644 1998 0 0 148,326 1999 0 0 157.442 Totals $ 1 .000.000 $_2 $ 225,500 $ 816.287 Revenue/Expense Summary (7 Years) City Revenue $ 1 ,111 ,787 City Expense 1 ,000,000 Net Revenue $ 111 ,787 WPADSERT:908 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 1992 At the June 1 , 1992 City Council Meeting this item was continued to June 15, 1992. Supplemental information was requested regarding the alternative funding approaches. One question was why Alternative 2 did not include $1 million under the expenditure column for construction of the pier buildings. The reason that this is not included is that Alternative 2 is the analysis of the use of long term debt. Since this alternative contemplates the borrowing of money to construct the pier concession buildings, the expenditures for this alternative are calculated as the annual debt service payments for borrowing $1 million. It would not be accurate to include both the amount being borrowed ($1 million) and the annual debt service payments to repay the $1 million. The second request for supplemental information was to extend the analysis through the term of the unused Certificates of Participation (COP's). The attached analysis includes expenses through the year 2016 which is the year that the last payment on the 1986 COP's would be made. As indicated in the following summary, the third alternative - Use of Cash Resources, is the best financial alternative when the full 24 year period of time is analyzed: Total Net Present Value of Alternative Revenue Total Net Revenue 1 - No Use of City Funds $ 4,552,190 $ 1 ,098,678 2 - Use of Long Term Debt 3,903,977 1 ,391 ,168 3 - Use of Cash Resources 5,063,977 1 ,414,563 Staff recommends Alternative 2 - Use of Long Term Debt since the Pier Concession Project results in new revenue to pay debt service on the unused COP's. In addition, the availability of cash resources currently is dependent on; 1) our General Fund Reserve being maintained as estimated in the Preliminary Budget, and 2) future action to prioritize unfunded capital projects. Maintaining the General Fund Reserve is dependent on; 1) adoption of expenditure cuts and new revenues as recommended in the budg , 2) the co inued economic recovery, and 3) the potential actions of the a ver a in their budget deliberations. ROBERT J. FRAN Deputy City Ad inistrator RJF:skd ' Attachments / WPADSERT:950 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF 24 YEAR REVENUES AND EXPENSES ALTERNATIVE 1 No Use of City Funds to Construct Pier Concession Buildings REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Debt Rental Year Construction Service FEMA Income 1993 $ 400,000 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 167,217 2001 0 0 0 179,278 2002 0 0 0 191 ,942 2003 0 0 0 205,239 2004 0 0 0 219,201 2005 0 0 0 233,861 2006 0 0 0 249,254 2007 0 0 0 265,417 2008 0 0 0 282,388 2009 0 0 0 300,207 2010 0 0 0 318,917 2011 0 0 0 338,563 2012 0 0 0 359,191 2013 0 0 0 380,851 2014 0 0 0 399,894 2015 0 0 0 419,888 2016 0 0 0 440,883 Totals $ $ $ $ 4,952,121 Present Value $400,000 $1 ,498,678 Revenue/Expense Summary (24 Years) Total Present Value City Revenue $ 4,952,191 $ 1 ,498,678 City Expense 400,000 400,000 Net Revenue $ 4.552.190 $ 1 .098.678 Present value discount at 8% based on current earnings on City's investment portfolio. WPADSERT:908 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF 24 YEAR REVENUES AND EXPENSES ALTERNATIVE 2. Use of Long Term Debt REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Debt Rental Year Construction Service FEMA Income 1993 $ * $ 90,000 $ 295,500 $ 0 1994 0 90,000 0 116,000 1995 0 90,000 0 123,500 1996 0 90,000 0 131 ,375 1997 0 90,000 0 139,644 1998 0 90,000 0 148,326 1999 0 90,000 0 157,442 2000 0 90,000 0 167,217 2001 0 90,000 0 179,278 2002 0 90,000 0 191 ,942 2003 0 90,000 0 205,239 2004 0 90,000 0 219,201 2005 0 90,000 0 233,861 2006 0 90,000 0 249,254 2007 0 90,000 0 265,417 2008 0 90,000 0 282,388 2009 0 90,000 0 300,207 2010 0 90,000 0 318,917 2011 0 90,000 0 338,563 2012 0 90,000 0 359,191 2013 0 90,000 0 380,851 2014 0 90,000 0 399,894 2015 0 90,000 0 419,888 2016 0 90,000 0 440,883 Totals $ $ 2.160.000 $ $ 5.768,478 Present Value $ 1 ,023,395 $ 295,500 $ 2,119,063 * Construction would be funded by use of $1 million of unused COP proceeds. Annual debt service expenditures would be required to repay this $1 million. Revenue/Expense Summary (24 Years) Total Present Value City Revenue $ 6,063,978 $ 2,414,563 City Expense 2,160,000 1 ,023,395 Net Revenue $ 3.903.977 $ 1 ,391 .10 WPADSERT:908 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING APPROACHES PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS OF 24 YEAR REVENUE AND EXPENSES ALTERNATIVE 3. Use of Cash Resources REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES Expenditures Revenues Debt Rental Year Construction Service FEMA Income 1993 $ 1 ,000,000 $ 0 $ 295,500 $ 0 1994 0 0 0 116,000 1995 0 0 0 123,500 1996 0 0 0 131 ,375 1997 0 0 0 139,644 1998 0 0 0 148,326 1999 0 0 0 157,442 2000 0 0 0 167,217 2001 0 0 0 179,278 2002 0 0 0 191 ,942 2003 0 0 0 205,239 2004 0 0 0 219,201 2005 0 0 0 233,861 2006 0 0 0 249,254 2007 0 0 0 265,417 2008 0 0 0 282,388 2009 0 0 0 300,207 2010 0 0 0 318,917 2011 0 0 0 338,563 2012 0 0 0 359,191 2013 0 0 0 380,851 2014 0 0 0 399,894 2015 0 0 0 419,888 2016 0 0 0 440,883 Totals $ 1 .000.000 $ $ $ 5,768,478 Present Value $ 1 ,000,000 $ 295,500 $ 2,119,063 Revenue/Expense Summary (24 Years) Total Present Value City Revenue $ 6,063,977 $ 2,414,563 City Expense 1 ,000,000 1 ,000,000 Net Revenue $ 5,063,972 $ 1 ,414.563 WPADSERT:908 3� /- FiC�aN REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION March 2, 1992 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administr Submitted by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator, Prepared by: Alternative Funding Approaches: Pier Concession Bu i s Subject: APPRO ED BY C Y COU GIL Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception, cffy ('LIr Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: FUNDING: A funding source has been identified for the new lifeguard tower and restrooms on the reconstructed Municipal Pier but no funding source has yet to be identified for the concession buildings. The estimated cost of these concession buildings is $1 ,000,000. RECOMMENDATION: Instruct staff to prepare a complete analysis of alternative methods of funding the pier concession buildings for the presentation to the City Council in June 1992. ANALYSIS: At the February 18, 1992 City Council meeting the staff was instructed to prepare a description of a proposed process for determining the funding for concession buildings on the reconstructed municipal pier. Staff has identified three funding alternatives that need a complete analysis prior to recommendations being presented to the City Council . The analysis of the funding alternatives is anticipated to take two to three months and a recommendation therefore could be submitted to the City Council in June 1992. A brief description of the three alternatives and the process which the staff would need to pursue to complete the analysis is described as follows: ALTERNATIVE #1 : No use of City funds to construct concession buildings In order to construct the pier concession buildings without use of City funds a concessionaire would be requested to construct the buildings at their cost. The following determinations need to be made by staff before a recommendation can be made on this alternative: r PI O 5/85 1 . Legal authority to construct privately financed buildings on the municipal pier. This will require review with the State Lands Commission, City Attorney' s office and possibly other regulatory agencies such as the Coastal Commission. 2. Review with concessionaire. The City has selected Ruby' s as the concessionaire for the pier concessions. In order to determine the feasibility of private construction of the concession buildings, the lease terms that were previously proposed by Ruby' s and conceptually accepted by the City would need to be modified. 3. Loss of federal funds. Part of the Federal government (FEMA) funding to the City for damage to the pier from the 1988 storm was based on a reconstruction of the public restaurant at the end of the pier. The analysis of this alternative will include financial impact of the loss of that portion of the FEMA reimbursement. ALTERNATIVE #2: Use of Long Term Debt. The planned pier concessions would generate a revenue to the City that has been estimated at $100,000 per year initially and increasing over time. In addition the City could extend the Parking Surcharge beyond 1992-93 to generate additional revenues that could be allocated for repayment of a long term debt issue to finance the pier buildings. In regards to this alternative, staff would need to analyze the feasibility of issuing new debt as opposed to utilizing a portion of the $10.2 million unused COP proceeds which are currently available. This latter alternative could be recommended with the pier concession revenues and/or revenues from the extension of the Parking Surcharge being utilized to pay the debt service on the COPS. ALTERNATIVE #3: Use of Cash Resources. Although the general fund budget shortfall for next year is currently estimated to be roughly $5 million dollars, there may be a fund balance or reserve in excess of the City' s policy of a 3-5% reserve that could be used for capital projects. This funding source would be available only in the event that the 1992-93 budget is balanced, in accordance with adopted City fiscal policies (copy attached) . This source of funding for the pier buildings cannot be fully analyzed until policy directions are determined for balancing the 1992-93 fiscal year budget. Attached is a projected timetable for the construction of the pier concession buildings assuming a decision on funding is made in June of this year. The schedule shows an opening of the concession buildings to the public in January 1994. A "fast tracking" of the process at every step of the process could possibly result in the opening of the concession buildings to the public prior to July 1993. Alternatives: As indicated under analysis. Funding Source: To be determined. Attachments: 1 . Projected timetable 2. City fiscal policies RJF:pdc WPADSERP:94 02/24/92 PIER CONCESSION BUILDINGS PROJECTED TIMETABLE DESCRIPTION DATE MONTHS Approval of Funding June/92 3 RFP - Design of Buildings June-July/92 2 (Construction Drawings) Approval of Design Consultant Aug/92 1 Completion of Design Dec/92 4 Advertise Construction Contract Dec/92 - Jan/93 2 Award of Construction Contract Feb/93 1 Construction of Buildings Mar-Oct/93 8 Tenant Improvements Nov-Dec/93 2 Concession Open to Public Jan/94 - 23 R/RJF/2 + Y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FISCAL POLICIES On-going expenses should be supported by on-going revenues The General Fund reserves should be maintained at no less than 3%, with a 5% reserve being desirable. No new capital improvements should be approved until associated operating costs are funded by recurring revenues. Each Enterprise Fund should reflect the true cost of operation including direct and indirect costs supported by the General Fund. If the City's Budget is balanced, General Fund reserves in excess of 5% should be transferred to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund on an annual basis. To implement the above fiscal policy statements, a phase-in period will be required. Amended June, 1991 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 2 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Admini / Prepared by: �4� ` 0 Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Subject: PIER BUILDINGS — MATERIALS SELECTION &Aef.Z C 19- Q. Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Excepti� --. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Materials and colors for the pier buildings should be approved prior to proceeding with the construction drawings. RECOMMENDATION• Take action to select the materials and colors for the exterior of the five pier buildings. ANALYSIS: Ron Yeo FAIA Architect, Inc. has been retained by the City to develop the pier buildings design through the design development phase. The City Council has given prior approvals for the number of buildings, the uses, their size, shape and mass. Remaining in this phase of the development of the building design is the approval of the materials and colors to be used. The Pier Design Committee and the architect have worked together through all phases of the design development. The Pier Design Committee recommendation to the City Council is that a terrazzo material be used for the exterior walls; the concept of ceramic tile murals or panels be employed for the recessed exterior walls; and that the roof be a standing seam metal type. Based on the concepts presented, the estimated construction cost for the five pier buildings is $1.3 million. This does not include the placement of the ceramic tile murals. The cost of the murals would be dependent upon the design and the program developed for their installation. The architect estimates this work could run as high as $500,000. The murals are separated from the buildings cost, as there is the option to develop a program to allow for installation over a period of time. The architect will make a presentation of the three options that were developed in the Pier Design Committee meetings. Selection of an architect to proceed with the construction drawings will be brought to the Council separately after the issue of the building funding and phasing are addressed. PIO 5/85 Request for Council Action Pier Buildings January 6, 1992 Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: No additional funds are needed for this action. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Provide direction as to how to proceed. ATTACHMENTS: Plat of building locations on Pier. Building elevations and floor plans. Cost estmate. MTU:LFS:JM:dw 3158g/4&5 a a f '��� �'�9�•'�'alb i � ! � { I •j�fi ode 6' 'sir � I � I v 12, 1t{ i i I `J�I 'tie"-.'r:�YS�r �. "• N� ' ,�___ 1.--.__.. ti } FL ; �. ,• ��%�T1'�'w/\/jar ' L:•��`F_4.=Y'.y ul` l�`°iz."�' St }•f n E '� gYr- CMWTYT HUNTINGTON BEACH GS Etv�K�:�OP,'' PIER BUILDIN ° • ari�{wn""iYd�'1�t1{'.�'JYStta6w�».�#'3`txA'h'.5•�. ! 1 �,�\\ • .. _ r�P•�l"�.+ .�.yyc , , i , ��"` '� ., ,�. A, n �r �v;' x'Ws;tSa'4'L i„`� ;*�e, i'le �pt�` m•1 � � • r `t' � ( �` r io-'�i T� t•�r�frt� '✓i �Y�ryF,h '• ;;.. ',i("'' I { ! ,t '�,t �"�;r^'.i+... try J`s�.,y} 'Y,f'i gyp' �. yg{y^��f:E�*�e E,G: 4 i N f +�'• �' 00 ..';�; � at.,•a- ;�• „� . . �t} >>"s�• k £ �'' �jszx'�X�;,,gv ;�-5Ny„ ���?t�^5�, .,^�s,�s#� f1-i#�!��l;i{ �'� i ti� �� ! }�� 1 } 4 1 .iJ{..t.t .� �' ��, 1` !'e, •1, ,� '- ,' y •'�'�'S;"��„�'�` °k d;-, � rN .✓ 1* ( ,,�+� �,�t5 ae.� !S 'E. '1 1� ��:y��nrn,'• - �• � 3sy'' W N , m C� W i ! c�n d pF��� {�iy 7�'�'"•^�]+5�I tY'Y`4� Z a RN'N"y','tf MAD• /.. 1 ,�5 r��x�•y�,a`y��^��. 1'rl'dW's�n�k�f� Cww1M� l att ' {4i�"`�,�,$;'{.�!'rr9!�':,^'Fb`£••#`�'JxJ'�'K'��,'�,-��•'H�'�:.a' y. of w..d .. �, ��) .$� _ —_ •�J --__— t t t al �1 �y M`-�•r 'C•f' r t�tl t� t-e� MK IL M 1"N - NO(�TftV(EST F� F1!/°t1'ION ir.�o' NORTHef2T EI.E�/RTIGN yr-roe � a +k ' _ f-i .�...-µit• i + _ '- � ,yy-_. Nt ::__.�r Q LU Cl) m0 _ z O f✓TrtraNST CIL/f+Tk%N rr-ro }7h{Vv1�T E EV1710N w'•-ram syo, C7 zm FT. O MEN'ry Z CC W a00 e,9,FT.(3 WOMEN'�c s a 2++ FT(p cetASE aCOp tt50 rRa IT TOTAL- N_ Co � � `I'• Ofl�Yd9 BIB 0' f' 1' •' 1]' rw�r uo. •fd"� r tiny�"�+'• ( 1tKMti rj'r• 2��, r'f X'�'J^•" :#-13.,, ,fya' `�r '.'{'. , �+�e tAk `W� Pik ° }` •k t goo 00 •��°�# rpe�n i�Ft�-(-� ,��'} �h � �'s � _� - ._...ti... �^•�,���f y�a�Ftt F t���V f� 61&�t'c �n� �� k w, Yjj�'>*.t4' ,'",�'r','J's'CItF. �? •• U ^v 1 . a `2 nl d • � C ........................................ .................................... .. ........*.................................. ........... ::PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS :: ::DATE 10104191 : ............................................................................................................................................................................ .........................i................................................................................. ESTIMATE' : CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE ::JOB.NO 1143 ............................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................I............................................. :TYPE, CSI 16 DIVISION .... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............. :ARCH/ENG :: RON YEO, FAIA,ARCHITECT, INC. :PREP M. SKERRITT i.......................................................................................................................................................................................................i.................................................................................. .LOCATION HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA :CHECK R. SINDELAR ........................................................-...... ........I........--............... ............................................ .................................................................................................................... ESC FACT 2.00%:: ......................................................................................i.................................................................................. ......................................................................... ............................ G EO FACT 0.00%:: ...................I...................................................................i..................................................... ................ ................................................................................ :MKT FACT 0.00%:: ........................................................................................;............................................................................................................................................................................................. ::DESC PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................I................................................................. .....................................................................................................I...............................I...... ............................................................................I...................................................................................................................................I.......... .......................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................ ....................................................... ........................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................ ................................................................................................................ :............................................................... TOTAL................................................. ::SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE : COST .................................................................................I................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... -............................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... :BERMLINE SNACK SHOP 114,714 .............................................................................I................................................................................................................. ............................... ............................................ ............... ................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................... .....................I........................... ..................... ... LIFE GUARD TOWER .............. : 112,850......... .............................................. ....................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................ . .............................................. ::RESTROOM BUILDING ..............................; ..... 154,021 ................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. ....................................................................................................................................I........................................ ............................................................................................................ ::BAIT AND -TACKLE/SNACK SHOP 122,937 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........ . .......... ............................. :PIERHEAD RESTAURANT SHELL. 813,055 .............................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................ ............................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................. ........ .................... ......................... .............................. . . ........................... ......................................................................................................... . .... . ....... xx .............................. .... . ... ...... ............................................................ ................................................................................ ..............................................-............................................................................................................... ........................................... ............................................................ ....... ................................................................... ............................... ........................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................................I............................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............................. ..............-....................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................. ...................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................. .............-*...... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .............................. ........................... ................... ............................................................ ................................................... ..................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................... ............................................................ ...............................I.................................................................................................................................-.......................................... ........................................................................................ . ..........I.................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ......................... .............................. ............*....... ..........................I...........................4....................................................................................................................... ................................................. .............................. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................ ............................................................ ................................................................................................ . ...................................................................... ........................................... ..............................*..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................. ................................................................................................................................I....................................................................................................... ........................................... ........................... ........................................................ ...... . .............................................................................................................................................. . .................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ........................................... ..................................................................................... ....... ........................................... .................-... ........................................... .................................................................................................................: ........................... ................................................................................ ... ....................... ............. .............. ............................. ................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................. ........... ............................................. .............................................-..............................I................................... ............................................................ ...................-................... CAI 10/04/91 HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS PROJECT SUMMARY E 0 u MEAN HICH WATER(4.77 MLLW) 75 70 65 60 55 (5p) 45 40 35 30 25 201 15 f0 I S 7 p 0 Y I Y 185.78' PACIFIC COAST NEAO RES AURANT I BAIT t TACKLE�/SNAgCSHOPI I I I II BERM UNE SNACKSHOP HIGHWAY FS FS TR NSFCRMER P _ O .1 11 F F = i I 1 i 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 10.63' R�STRDOM BLD�. I I U(fCUARD TOriR I I N WN FISH CLEANING STATION(TYPICAL) I m 0 Z Z- PLAN I 00 1-_80' Zm 1828.37' - FACE OF EIOSTINC Z m MEAN HIGH WATER(4.77 MLLW) RETAINING WALL D W =a DECK EL.38'MLLW O BENT® I DECK EL. 7.65'MLLW 0 MLLW O BENT@ . z SOUTH ELEVATION r 1--80' NUfE lj1 lFrSG ARC, MINA( �tiy INIEN'-50 70 INPCA- L.00AToQ, ate. MA%ING, 1Z7RM �QZE5 O CUIL-PWC3 19NISI f N1A:cRlAAlo, L-7j' CG1-G#6,CET. Ld1 ,ETc.Wu- 5C P5:15RM1NFA AT FLiTU(zE 0- .o• ..a• NQY.G Ma REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION February 18, 1992 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council G Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator0q e-'--b Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works - a cn r� Subject: PIER BUILDINGS AND PLAZA CONNECTION — PHASING AND FUNDING i b :r Consistent with Council Policy? 1K] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City Council has requested that staff develop a phasing and funding plan for the Pier buildings. RECOMMENDATION: A. Authorize staff to proceed with the development of Phase One of the Pier Buildings Project which would include the lifeguard tower and restroom facility. B. Authorize a one year extension of the Beach Parking Surcharge to fund Phase I of the Pier Buildings Project. C. Direct staff to develop a financing strategy for Phase II of the Pier Buildings Project. D. Approve plaza connection and authorize staff to proceed with construction as a change order to the Pier Contract. ANALYSIS- I. Pier Buildings At the December 16, 1991, Council meeting, the Council requested information regarding the cost and various options for financing the Pier buildings including the cost/benefit of having the lessee pay for construction. The cost of constructing all five buildings is estimated at $1.32 million. It must be noted that two buildings, the lifeguard tower and the restroom facility, are more critical to the Pier and should be constructed as soon as possible. It is estimated that a budget of $300,000 would be necessary for the construction of these two buildings. In the interim, the existing portion of the old lifeguard tower will be relocated from the Pier construction tressel back onto the Pier. It should be noted the tower is of insufficient height, and in deteriorated condition. City Council discussed the possibility of having the restaurant lessee construct and pay for the remaining buildings and include such a condition in the agreement with he lessee. Staff is investigating whether the Coastal Permit would allow for private ownership of the buildings. Staff will also explore all options in putting together a financing package for the remaining buildings. PI O 5/85 Pier Buildings - Phasing & Funding February 18, 1992 Page 2 To provide the funds to complete Phase One construction of the Pier Building Project, it is recommended that the necessary $300,000 come from a one year extension of the Beach Parking Surcharge. Funding for the design of all five buildings is included in the Pier budget. Recommendations for a design consultant will be brought to Council on March 2. II. Interim Plaza Connection Staff will present options available for constructing an interim plaza, connection to the Pier before the Pier is open to the public. The recommended option, estimated at $50,000, can easily be built in the required time frame, and can be funded within the change order allowance in the Pier Contract Fund. FUNDING SOURCE: The proposed source of funding for Phase I of the Pier Buildings Project is a one year extension of the Beach Parking Surcharge. The proposed source of funding for the interim plaza connection is the change order allowance with the Pier budget. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Identify another source of funds, e.g., a portion of the $10.2 million in proceeds from unexpended Certificates for Participation. ATTACHMENTS: Pier Buildings Cost Estimate MTU:LFS:REE:dw 3160g/6&7 r .. . ...... .... ...... - - . ... ...... • .. ................................................................................ ...... . .... ........ :PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS 'DATE 10/04/91 .............................. .. ... . ................................................................................................................:..............................:.............................................................................. :ESTIMATE CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE :JOB NO 1143 ..............................................................................................................................................................................:....................................................................................:....................... ;TYPE CSI 1 fi DIVISION ......................................................................:..............:....................: ......................................................;.............................. ....................... .....,.,. . :ARCH/ENG : RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. :PREP : M. SKERRITT .........................................................•......................................................,..............................;..............................;........................;...................................._................. :LOCATION : HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA : :CHECK R. SINDELAR ................................ o . ........................,...........................,..............................,..............................,........................;........................... . :ESC FACT : : 2.00/o: .......................o............................................................................................................................................;...................................... ....... :GEO FACT :: : 0.00/o: """' .........................................................................................,.....................................................................................;..............................;........................;........................................ .. .. :MKT FACT 0.00/o = """' " :.. ................... .................................................................................................:.......................................................................................:............................................................................. DESC PROJECT SUMMARY .. .... .... .... ....................................................................................................................... :... ............................ ...................... ...TOTAL :SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST .............................. ......................................................................................:...........................:..............................:..............................:........................ :BERMLINE SNACK SHOP : 114,71 .............................. ...........................................................:......................................................................................:.............................. ......I............ ............................. :LIFE GUARD TOWER ' 112 8E ...............................................................................................................................................................................:.............................. :RESTROOM BUILDING 54,02 ................................................................................................................................................:.............................. ..............'...............;BAIT AND TACKLE/SNACK SHOP 122,93 ..............................:......................................................................................:........................... ................... .... ............................. PIERHEAD RESTAURANT SHELL 813,05 : OL :ISTD.iv1;4TE0'P:l '.I:G =<:<.t>> :::<,. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION �a� �9 December 16, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: r Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Iry AP V19$BY CITY COUNCIL Subject: PIER FUNDING /3. -• 0% 19R/ CITY K Consistent with Council Policy? PC Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Construction funds to complete the pier need to be identified. RECOMMENDATION ACTION: , �► �/tee�,idP.,.�a,�- �/�.,ir�.�e�i�.�,� A. Approve a loan to the Pier Project from the Uncommitted Water Fund capital reserves in the maximum amount of $2,500,000. B. Authorize the repayment to the water fund to include an interest rate consistent with current City investment rates. ANALYSIS: (C) S r �� wry ,ry,,,.�,,� /�c•ti. cam, fwa !'c��.,�os e704 tvvs <a*P AvI4 ice / ,ry <Aa'&o. ,- At the time of the award of the contract for the construction of the pier, not all identified ] project funds were on hand. At this time there remains a short-fall of approximately $2.5 million in project funds needed to complete the pier construction, the related engineering and construction management services and to prepare the construction plans for the five pier buildings. Construction funding necessary for the buildings is estimated at an additional $1.3 million. The Landmark Campaign has commitments of $1.3 million of which only $378,000 has been received, with an anticipated total goal of $2.5 million. These private funds will be received over a 3-5 year period. At the end of the project, an additional $200,000 is also anticipated to come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To provide the funds to complete the pier project, it is recommended that $2.5 million be loaned, at an interest rate consistent with City investments, to the pier project from the Uncommitted Water Fund capital reserves as proposed in this year's city budget. The loan would be repaid from the campaign funds as they are received. Any additional funds needed for repayment beyond those from fund raising would need to be identified in the future. A search for additional sources continues. It is that anticipated funding for and possibly phasing of the pier buildings will be discussed at the January 6th Council meeting. PI O 5/85 'Request for Council Action Pier Funding December 16, 1991 Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: Loan from the Uncommitted Water Fund capital reserves. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Identify another source of funds. ATTACHMENTS: Project budget, expenditures and fund re-cap and revised cost estimate FIS LFS:REE:lb 3127g/5 & 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL PIER CONSTRUCTION COST AND REVENUE 12-09-91 I N C L U D E S P I E R B U I L D I N 4 8 C O N 8 T R U C T I 0 N C O 8 T 8 Actual Estimated Budget Current Budget Received Future Expense Estimate Estimate Funding Estimate To Date Revenue Pier construction $9,437,773 $9,400,000 City General Fund $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Pier buildings $800,000 $1,300,000 City Reach Parking Revenue $630,000 $G33,000 $85,000 Construction management $417,340 $489,000 City - CIP Fund Transfer $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Design/construction engineerin $487,000 $545,000 Orange County $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Buildings (development) $80,000 $125,000 Coastal Conservency-State $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $200,000 Buildings (construction plans) $0 $150,000 Office of Emergency Services-Federal $262,000 $237,000 $25,000 Move old pier buildings $29,500 $27,000 Budget Augmentation-State $252,000 $0 Fund raising $325,381 $230,000 FEMA-Federal $1,006,000 $711,000 $245,000 Other $100,000 $100,000 Interset Income $270,000 $270,000 HBPFC Surplus Escrow $164,000 $164,000 Sister City-Anjo $93,000 $93,000 Other Fund Raising $350,000 $363,000 $40,000 Unfunded (professional Fund Raising) $2,300,000 $157,000 $2,150,000 TOTAL $11,676,994 $12,366,000 $11,677,000 $8,775,000 $2,745,000 Loan from uncommitted Water Fund capital reserves $3,591,000 CURRENT ESTIMATE $12,366,000 A I T H 0 U T P I E R B U I L D I N 0 8 C O N S T R U C T I O N C 0 A T 8 Actual Estimate Budget Current Budget Received Future Expense Estimate Estimate Funding Estimate To Date Revenue Pier construction $9,437,773 $9,400,000 City General Fund $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Pier buildings $800,000 //////////// City Beach Parking Revenue $630,000 $630,000 $85,000 Construction management $417,340 $489,000 City - CIP Fund Transfer $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Design/construction engineerin $487,000 $545,000 Orange County $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Buildings (development) $80,000 $125,000 Coastal Conservency-State $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $200,000 Buildings (construction plans) $0 $150,000 Office of Emergency Services-Federal $262,000 $237,000 $25,000 Move old pier buildings $29,500 $27,000 Budget Augmentation-State $252,000 $0 Fund raising $325,381 $230,000 FEMA-Federal $1,006,000 $711,000 $295,000 Other $100,000 $100,000 Interset Income $270,000 $270,000 HBPFC Surplus Escrow $164,000 $164,000 Sister City-Anjo $93,000 $93,000 Other Fund Raising $350,000 $363,000 $40,000 Unfunded (professional Fund Raising) $2,300,000 $157,000 $2,150,000 TOTAL $11,676,994 $11,066,000 $11,677,000 $8,775,000 $2,795,000 Loan from uncommitted Water Fund capital reserves $2,291,000 CURRENT ESTIMATE $11,066,000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNPNGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUESTED LOAN OF WATER FUNDS Date DECEMBER 5, 1991 TO FACILITATE COMPLETION OF PIER CONSTRUCTION, FIS 91-43 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed loan of uncommitted Water Fund Capital Reserves to facilitate the completion of the Pier Construction Project. An appropriation of $2,500,000 should be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the unaudited, undesignated Water Fund would be reduced to $4,239,000, prior to the repayment of these monies as generated through fund raising activiH es. RO RT Deputy ty ministra r RJF:skd WPADSERT:689 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date February 19, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator/?a/ ,i j,�, �' �a�jw.•t Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: PIER BUILDINGS Consistent with Council Policy? X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• The conceptual design for the pier buildings should be approved prior to proceeding with the next design phase. RECOMMENDATION: Take action to approve or modify the conceptual plans for the pier buildings. ANALYSIS- Ron Yeo FAIA Architect, Inc. has been retained by the City to design the five pier buildings for the preliminary, conceptual and design developement phases. The architect has completed the conceptual phase and is presenting the size and shape of the buildings for approval prior to preceding with the design development phase which will provide the materials, colors and details of the buildings. The Pier Design Committee and the architect have worked together to develop the conceptual plans. The Pier Design Committee approved the conceptual design at their January meeting and recommended presentation to the City Council for approval. FUNDING SOURCE: No additional funds needed for this action. ALTERNATIVE ACTION- Provide alternate direction as to the design of the pier buildings. ATTACHMENTS: Conceptual Plans Staff Report MTU:LFS:JM:dw 2776g/13 I P10 5/85 STAFF REPORT Transmitted for your consideration is a request by the Department of Public Works for conceptual approval of the general design and location of the pier buildings. Conceptual approval is necessary in order to begin the entitlement process for the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission. Analysis.: On January 24, 1991, the Pier Design Committee agreed on the general design and location of the pier buildings . The project architect, Ron Yeo, is preparing a visual presentation for the February 19, 1991, City Council meeting. The presentation will include an overview of the design efforts and a discussion of location and massing of the proposed buildings . The five buildings include a restroom building, the lifeguard tower, two concession buildings an a two-story restaurant located at the end of the pier. The location and footprint of the proposed buildings are similar to the former pier buildings. In addition, the project architect is proposing a second story enclosed seating area for the restaurant instead of an open seating area as previously discussed by the Pier Design Committee. The Department of Public Works is seeking the direction from the City Council in order to initiate the necessary design evaluation and public hearings . Since the buildings are located seaward of the mean high tide line, the California Coastal Commission is required to review and approve the Coastal Development Permit. Staff anticipates a Coastal Commission hearing in May of 1991. (8689d) RON-YEO,FAIA % CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS ARCHITECT,INC. MEAN HIGH WATER (4.77 MLLW) *PIER 65 60 550 50 45 40 35 28 30 25 2011 15 10 T 0 Ig5.78' CE PACIFIC COAST RESTAURANT I BAIT&TACKL SNACKSHOP I I I I l BERM LINE SNACK P HIGHWAY FSC= IFI rR STROOM BLDC. LI EGUARD TO R FISH CLEANING STATION(TYPICAL) PLAN 1630't FACE OF EXISTING f I MEAN HIGH WATER(4.77 MLLW) RETAINING WALL DECK EL.38'MLLW 1 I I _ ®BENT® 0 B TQ.5'MLLW 0 MLLW SOUTH ELEVATION RON YEO,FAIR ITY O F HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS ARCHITECT,INC. �MeS01" INF�M�1�1 2 Jr�It,��Y 2¢11991 RONYEO,•FAIA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS 19.11 ARCHITECT,INC. T� 11111 i VTsz L ctx�r�tcsi1 fii toN I I woa slow« C srvrraic� 1 RO*YEO,FAIA z, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS ARCHITECT,INC. _BEN i Gi��s� W©MAN RON YEO,FAIA I7 AN-0 Tr-LE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS ARCHITECT,INC. gg JA UAL 24, 1191 RON YEO,FAIA CITY OF � � J� T' ✓b."��'� \ HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS ARCHITECT,IN( FAT I IN CN! �IN'� RON YEO,FAIA _ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER BUILDINGS uo G� F� Mc�H !C�-✓ ARCHITECT,INC. TA, CD EMP i aE]D ice 4 19 JJ D Q�(D i Meat ! OED OE]D GE]D C![:]D wit o 0 QHD \ , , , � ! � REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Daft August 61 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members C Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administratorl� /l�(/--" - e� y: "► Pr red b Rich Barnard, Deputy City Administrator tv co C3 t CP Subject: SPECIAL EVENT FOR PIER FUND RAISING ''� " QLA C Consistent with Council Policy? PQ Yes [ ] New Policy or E)Weption Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: The Waterfront Hilton has offered the city co-sponsorship of one of its special events planned for the Hilton's grand opening. The purpose of the special event would be to raise funds for the reconstruction of the Huntington Beach Pier. City staff is requesting the City Council to approve a $5,000 budget as "seed money" for the event. This "seed money" will be repaid to the city from the proceeds of the event. Recommendation: Approve an amount of$5,000 to provide upfront "seed money" for a special event to raise money for the Huntington Beach Pier. Analymis-. The Waterfront Hilton is planning a four day grand opening celebration from September 13th through September 16th. The Hilton has offered to the city an opportunity to co-sponsor the Jan and Dean poolside show as a fund raiser for the reconstruction of the Huntington Beach Pier. The special event will be used as an opportunity to promote private contributions to the pier reconstruction fund and to raise funds through the sale of tickets to the Jan and Dean performance. The price of the tickets will include an opportunity for potential donors to learn, first hand, about the pier project, enjoy refreshments in a private setting overlooking the Pacific Ocean, an opportunity to win door prizes, to have a free personalized caracature done, and to be provided reserved seating for the Jan and Dean poolside show. The Waterfront Hilton is providing, at no cost, assistance with advertising and promoting the event, a large banquet room and patio area for the guests, all hotel personnel to service the special event, and two-thirds of the cost of the entertainment to take place at poolside. Food will be provided at cost. We are exploring the possibility of having the beverages donated. The city's "seed money" for the Jan and Dean pier fund raising event will be used in part to pay for a portion of the entertainment and for miscellaneous items associated with putting on such a special event, i.e. tickets, food, decorations, etc. Naturally, we will make every reasonable effort to have as much material donated toward the event as possible in order to minimize the out--of-pocket costs. It is the intent to repay to the city the upfront "seed money" from the proceeds. P10 5/05 RCA-Pier Fund Raising ' July 25, 1990 Page -2- Funding Source: The Huntington Beach Pier Reconstruction Fund. Alternatives• 1. Do not co-sponsor the Jan and Dean event and forgo the opportunity to participate in the Waterfront Grand opening celebration as a fund raising event for the reconstruction of the Huntington Beach Pier. MTU:RB/paj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and City From Michael T. Uberuaga tcz Council Members City Administrator Subject MAIN—PIER PHASE 11/ Date April 22, 1991 ABDELMUTI PROJECT DESIGN AND NEGOTIATIONS On Monday, March 11, 1991, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a contract with Lang Lampert Architects to design alternatives for the upper story(ies) of the Abdelmuti parcel. Lang Lampert has designed three alternatives (e.g. office, commercial, and residential), for the Agency to review at this meeting. Staff will also present the Keyser Marston report at the meeting which analyzes the project from the land use and economic perspectives. In addition, Agency Special Counsel has prepared the first draft of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), incorporating the business terms as directed by the Agency in Closed Session on Monday, February 25, 1991. The DDA's first draft was transmitted to Mr. Abdelmuti's counsel, and we are awaiting his response. Staff anticipates submission of the DDA for City Council consideration on May 20, 1991. MTU/KBB:ls 8656r STATE CAlIFgRN1A—T1# RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gorem r CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 945 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 � -LONG BEACH, CA 90602 CITr 3 13) M5071 C!Ty O R iFl3AbTit€f;7 i 11 Aru,CALIF. IMPORTANT PIJR(.TC HEARING NOTT .E ��., PERMIT NUMBER: 5-90-490 � . APPLICANT: City of Huntington Reach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolish pier and structures, construct concrete pier of approximately same size (54,000 sq. ft.) in same location. PROJECT LOCATION: South of Pacific Coast Highway, terminus of Main Street, Huntington Beach HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: DATE: Thursday, July 12, 1990 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers City Hall 333 West Ocean Blvd. Long Reach (213) 590-6043 HEARING PROCEDURES: People wishing to testify on these matters may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commission if received a minimum of three working days prior to the public hearing. Written comments may be of any length; oral testimony may be' limited to 5 minutes or less for each speaker, depending on the number wishing to be heard. No one can predict how quickly the Commission will complete agenda items or how many will be postponed to a later date. The Commission begins each session at the time listed and considers each item in order, except in extraordinary circumstances. Staff at the appropriate commission office can give you more information prior to the hearing date and you can call the staff at the hearing location for last-minute information. Questions regarding the report or the hearing should be directed to Vicky Komie at the above address. to 5311D =tosstal Ca�++ission Procedures for Pomits and Aeoeals - Because the state Coastal Commission mow issues all Coastal permits for areas without LCts. it has developed mew, streamlined procedures for Considering these permits. Appli- - cants should submit their permit applications at the appropriate office. Secause regional commissions no longer existg the state eo.maission's workload bat increased tremendously. ' The fellowing procedures are intended to speed up the-.tF?cess without me!lUcting important coastal issues. IT IM ARM AN APPUCAM In most eases, your application rill be teviimild by the distr ct . staff and placed on the state commission agenda for the earliest p oslible meeting. Staff will dettraine if the application can be put on either the consent or administrative calefidai-or whether it must receive a full public bearin!t. A29`IM STKATIrE CALENDAR: Admiaittrative permits may be !rianted by the executive director for rrojtcts which are minor new developments. additions to existing structures (rot exceeding i1DD,0UD in cost), single family.residences. or vnslti-famil.• projects of four units or leas The coastal Act requires that ell •drtnlrtrative. "rn!ts be rep"ted to the Commission at its next meeting before they take affect. AdmInis::atSvc pc:z"Sts will -be reaorte0 on the administrative calendar. -If four or sore commissioners request that an item be bold for public bearing, the project will be removed from the administrative calendar and scheduled for a public bearing and possible rote at the next regular em- ulation meeting. Conditions say be attached to an administrative permit. Applicants and other interested parties may speak In opposition to the project or its conditions. Testimony Zs-limited to I minutes for each side. CONSENT tALLNDAR: Projects considered by staff to be consistent with the Coastal Act but which do not qualify for the administrative calendar vu!•.be placed on the consent calendar. Projects on the consent calendar will be aoproved by the commission with a single vote for the entire calendar. If three or more cormcissioners wish to pull an it® off consent, that Item will normally be rescheduledfor a regular public hearing and possible vote at the next regular commnission meetinr. Conditions may be attached to consent calendar permits. Applicants who accept these conditions need not speak,. Opponents should tell the commission why the project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Three minutes will be allowed for each side to sneak to the comission. . If there are several persons wishirg• to address an item. efforts should be made to eonsoli.:ate pre- sentations in order to stay within the time-limits. Interested persons should cheek with the commission staff regarding subsequent hearings. 7MM12AR CALENDAR PLIDTIT APPLICA7I0N5: Projects potentially inconsistent with the Coastal Act or which can be approved only with_ eorkditions for w%lch _here are as -:mar precosents will be ,placed on the r sushi ealoidsr and will be considered after a full public bearing. Persons supporting or opposing the project should tell the commission why they think the project to,or is not 'eonsistent with the Act. Testimony v+ust address coastal act policies and environmental Impacts of the project and should mot be redundant. sob side is allotted 10 minutes, with the applicant speaking sirst and than the opposition. 1poken rebuttal is :Pot allowed, but written rebuttal or other pertinent material any be wbnitted to the staff following the bearinp. Projects on the regular calendar will normally be scheduled for continued hearing and votiaP at the hest regular tommistiovs seetiag. #y �t le some pf Sects, the staff any have erougb Infoiwation•to makp•a prellAinary reco®en- lotion for approval after the public bearing has bean belt!. Sr. that case, the commission uy vote that day and not postpone the decision. then a staff reeoma►endatlon is-presented to the eoinission'-both the applicant and ipronents have five minutes each to eomment on the recommendations. After the bearl" Le closed, the commission will discuss the matter and vote. ]Uf�tfS7 TAR RECONSIDERATION: An applicant may Bequest that the commmission reconsider its• previous action on a permit. The applicant must show t there is relevant mew Wvidence which could mot have seasonably been presented at a original bearing or that an error of fact or law occurred. Only the applicant and rams who participated in ;he original proceedings are eligible to testify. Testimony Is limited to three minutes SOT each side. Should the commissioners vote to grant the reconsideration requests the setter will be scheduled for a public hearing as If it were a new application. ?ER.I-:IT A1AM%1T1,ENTS: • An applicant any apply for an amendment to Is previo452y approved project. .The amendment will be scheduled for a public bearing sad any ipesaon say speak In sst+port of or opposition to the smendment. Five minutes Will be allotted to each aide. _ PI•SLIC WEARING ?ROCEDL TS: If the item you are Interested In speaking on is scheduled for a public hearing, you must fill out a "Request to Speak" form and;ive it to a staff person before the bearing starts. Sian-" turns will be available on a table at the back of the bearing room. line limits for spoken testimony vary according to the three different m2eadara. Secaust of tniS limited time, applicants and opponents, are encouraged to submit written cemme:,ts to the commission office at least one week in advance of the bearing. Cements of up to two pates will be copied and forwarded to the comissioners by the staff. if you wish to submit lengthy cements, you must submit 20 copies to the commission office at least one week before the bearing. _ if it is convenient, you may also wish to bring 20 copies of your spoken testimony to the hearing for distribution to the commissioners. Speakers say use maps, slides, photographs, models, and other visual materials to their presentations to the commission. Since such materials become part of the public record . os. the permit, reproductions of the materials shown must be submitted to the eosmmission staff before or during the commission setting, or the oriltinals will be retained by the to=-Ission for 60 days. A carousel slide projector and screen will be evailablt at the meetings. RHT_N WIU AN AGENDA ITEM 3E IMARD: Unfortunatelys so ont tan predict bow quickly the cormmission will complete agenda items. tact session begins at the time noted on the seat- ing notice. tach item is considered in the order listed, except in extraordinary air- runstances. The cam;aission will consider an item even though the interested persons are not present. Staff at the appropriate commission office can zivt you more information prior to the hearing date and you can call the staff at the bearing location for last- Mir-Mtn information. WIPAIM EOC nISMONS: To ensure the integrity of the permit process, the Coastal Com- mission has adopted regulations (Sections 13025.1 end 23045) prohibiting a Commissioner [rom voting on a permit matter if be or she bat received a campaign contribution from an Interested party. If you intend to speak an a permit mutter, please Indicate on TOUT spaaker slip and/or in your testimony. If you have made campaign contributions in excess of $100 to any Commissioner within the last years and If Dos to Which Commissioner you eon- tributed. : . r- IM WAXY ♦0?ES DOES IT TAKE TO MMME AK AMICATiONT Each permit must bq approved by a majority of 'the conmmissioners who are authorised to vote and Who are rZ elect to the Tom. 111 permits on the consent calendar will be voted upon at one time with just one motion and one well call. RELIC RECORDS: Public records on matters before tl�e commission will be available for Inspection at the setting and at other times In tba Commission officee tetra copies of staff reports will also be available at the seetiatt• 1CCfSS TO IfwjwCS: Comission Meetings are in centralisee locations and are accessible to persons with disabilities. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION T Date May 7, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator~` Prepared b Richard Barnard, Deputy City Administrator �-may � Y� ppPBUVEn H a CILY CIT• � ,e� Subject: PROFESSIONAL FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN FOR THEop rn HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER PROJECT ->m CI CL ' Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ] New Policy or Exce Statement of issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On February 5, 1990, the City Council authorized staff to solicit proposals from professional fund raising companies to assist the City of Huntington Beach in making up the current short fall in funds for the reconstruction of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Pier. �c = c RECOM1.1ENDATI ON: =� 1. Approve the Robert B. Sharp Company to undertake a $2.5 million fund raising campaign for the -reconstruction of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, at a cost not to exceed $250,000. -";m c15 : �c 2. Authorize the staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to draft an agreement between the City and the Robert B. Sharp Company. csa o ANALYSIS: In the summer of 1989, the Robert Mayer Corporation volunteered to spend $24,000 to employ the services of the Robert B. Sharp Company to prepare a feasibility study to determine to what extent the private sector would be interested in financially contributing to the construction of the new Huntington Beach Municipal Pier. The study was completed in December of 1989. On February 5, 1990, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with requesting proposals for the purpose of seeking assistance from a professional fund raising company to develop a fund raising campaign directed toward raising between $2.5 million and $3.5 million to complete the pier project fund raising effort of $12,741,050. Ten firms were sent Requests for Proposals (RFP's) . Responses to the RFP's were received from four (4) firms. All the firms were qualified to conduct a fund .raising campaign for the pier project. However, the Robert B. Sharp Company is at a distinct advantage over the other firms submitting proposals since they had the opportunity of preparing the feasibility study (at Robert Mayer's expense) . While we offered to make the findings of the Robert B. Sharp Feasibility Study available to all firms, it was learned during the interview process that an important part of any professional fund raising campaign is for the firm hired to conduct their own feasibility study. This is important since the reputation of the firm is at stake when they commit to undertaking a fund raising project to raise a large amount of money. To make a commitment to the city without conducting their own NO 5/85 ICA - Fund Raising Campaign May 7, 1990 Page -2- feasibility study could seriously jeopardize the f irm's reputation and could result in the failure of a campaign. Knowing this fact, and realizing that the Robert B. Sharp Company has concluded a feasibility study, and that the city needs to minimize delays in moving the Pier Project forward, the staff is proposing to retain the services of the Robert B. Sharp Company to manage a $2.5 million professionally run fund raising campaign. The cost to the city to employ their services, will be set at a amount not to exceed $250,000. The contract will specify that it can be terminated by the city at any time. The campaign will run over a 1 - 111 year time period. During the campaign the consultant will report on a regular basis to the city on the progress that it is making toward reaching the funding goal. If the campaign is not going well the city will be in the position to terminate, at any time, and pay only the expenses incurred to the date of termination. This is said only as a precaution. Staff does believe that the city will be successful in raising the $2.5 million. Staff also believes that the private fund raising is an important part of the over all pier funding package and needs to be pursued. We do have confidence that there is private support for contributing to the pier and this resource needs to be tapped. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Employ the services of the Robert B. Sharp Company on a consulting basis and direct that existing staff be assigned full-time to the fund raising campaign. 2. Not to pursue the services of a professional fund raising company and direct the city staff to write letters to individuals and company's soliciting major contributions to the Huntington Beach Pier Project. 3. Direct staff to discontinue efforts to raise private funds for the pier reconstruction project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of the Request for Proposal (RFP) . 2. Proposals from the following firms: A. Robert B. Sharp Company B. American City Bureau C. The Oram Group, Inc. D. Development Management Associates Funding Source: I. Pier Reconstruction Fund #PG-AS-154-635-00 MTU/RB REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 7, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Ub-eruaga, City Administrator 1 6 c Prepared by: Rich Barnard, Deputy' City Administrator ` "PROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Subject: PIER FUNDING REPORT 7 ;rr. ',[ 19-A `icy 12"' o Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ' TL X. ITY CLERK Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the City Council meeting of April 2, 19900 the Council requested a report from staff on the current project costs and a status of the funding program and the funding options which- are available to the City Council for the reconstruction of the Huntington Beach Pier project. RECONMNDATTON: Direct staff to continue its fund raising efforts by seeking funds from a combination of Federal, State, County, and local government sources and to continue its private fund raising programs. ANALYSTS: The cost of the pier project is currently estimated to he $12,741,050. Since November of 1988 the city staff, working in conjunction with the Pier Funding Committee, has identified $7,859,000 from governmental sources-and private fund raising efforts. The attached report, prepared by Robert Franz, indicates an unfunded amount of $3,391,050 assuming that the funding which. is listed under "Estimated Funding Sources" is, realized by the city. The actual amount which is currently unfunded is closer to $4,882,050. As can he seen from the report, the City Council does have options available to them to make-up the short fall. These options include: (1) The use of proceeds from prior debt issues of the city; (2) Canceling of current capital improve- ment projects in favor' of the pier project; (3) Use of self-insurance fund; (4) Use of Redevelopment Agency funds; (5) Allocation from the unappropriated General Fund balance; and (6) Issuance of debt. The City Council could use any one or a combination of the above mentioned options. It needs to be pointed out that the choice of any one or a combination of the options does carry^ degrees. of consequences. Staff would recommend that the decision to use these options should only come after all other sources of funding are exhausted. The staff also believes that the option to seek a voter approved general obligation bond is ill advised at this time. A decision to proceed with a bond measure should only be pursued after all other possible funding options have been explored and exhausted. P10 5/85 v*ft'*bn Pier Funding Report May T, 1990 Page -2- ANALYSIS (Cont.) : A realistic timeframe for a bond measure to be placed on the ballot would be November of 1990. This would be after the award of the contract for the recon- struction of the pier. Once the contract is awarded, the city is committed whether a bond issue is approved or not. Secondly, there are funding options available to draw from to make up the short fall. While there may be degrees of consequences associated with the option outlined in the attached report, these options are available and can be used to make up the short fall. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Identify specific funding options from the April 25, 1990, report and direct staff to use these monies to make-up the current short fall. 2. Direct the staff to proceed with the process of having placed on the November 1990 ballot a general obligation bond measure for the voters of Huntington Beach to consider. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report prepared by Robert Franz, dated April 25, 1990, entitled "Funding Alternatives - Pier Reconstruction Project", with the following exhibits: A. Pier Reconstruction Funding Alternatives B. City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvements 1989/90 C. City of Huntington Beach - Debt Financing of Pier Reconstruction MTU:RB/paj FE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCMN BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject FUNDING ALTERNATIVES - Date APRIL 25, 1990 PIER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT The cost of reconstruction of the pier is currently estimated to be $12,741,050 as follows: RECONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Construction $ 11,1689510 Buildings 6689000 Design 487,200 Construction Management 417,000 12,74�Q50 Funding sources, as described below, have been identified for this project in an amount estimated at $8 to $9 million, leaving a balance of $3 to 4 million. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify alternative methods of financing the $3 to 4 million dollar balance. Prior to outlining alternative funding sources, a review of the estimated available funding is as follows: ESTIMATED FUNDING SOURCES Funding Source Amount Status Orange County a) Orange County $ 250,000 Agreement between the City & County is Urban Park Fund complete. b) County Harbor, 1,000,000 Request is in the 1990/91 county budget. Beaches & Parks Fund Approval appears likely State of California a) AB 1580 (Brown) 195009000 Legislation adopted. Will be acted on by Coastal Conservancy in June 1990 after certification of EIR. Funding is virtually certain. b) Coastal Conservancy 500,000 City will seek concurrently with AB 1580 funds. Funding approval appears likely. Federal Government Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reimbursement for Storm 1,100,000 Pending historical MOA, approval of Damage variance from City flood plain regulations, and ruling on City appeal. Funding appears likely. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES - PIER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ESTIMATED FUNDING SOURCES Continued Funding Source Amount Status City of Huntington Beach a) General Fund 1,600,000 Allocated from General Fund in 1988/89. Has been used to fund design phase (est. $500,000). Balance for pier construction. b) Proceeds from Sale 1,500,000 Pending negotiations for sale of property of Irby Park Site (1/2 of proceeds earmarked for Pier Reconstruction). Funding dependent on acceptability of buyer's conditions. c) Parking Lot Surcharge 600,000 Revenue collected to date $162,000, balance provided from parking revenues as received during Pier Reconstruction project. d) Interest Earnings 300,000 $70,000 received to date for 1989/90. Private Donations: 19000,000 Private donations from a professional fund raising campaigns and community groups/individuals has resulted in $177,000 to date. Unfunded: 393919050 TOTAL .1129741,050 Staff is interviewing firms to conduct a private fund raising campaign to raise in excess of $3 - 4 million. As indicated, staff estimates of fund raising potential of $1 million without the utilization of a professional firm. Council has requested analysis of funding options and alternatives to raise the $3 to 4 million unfunded amount if the fund raising efforts fall short or if the City decides not to pursue fund raising by hiring a professional firm. The attached exhibit outlines alternatives identified by staff. ROB ROBERT J. FRANZ Deputy City Administrator RJF:skd Attachments -2- EXHIBIT PIER RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 1. Use Proceeds from Prior Debt Issues of the City - $2 million is estimated to be ava lab le from prior de5t Issuedy the City to finance the two parking structures in the downtown area. The sources and uses of funds from the two Certificates of Participation (COP) issues (one in 1986 and one in 1989) are as follows: Source of Funds Amount 1986 & 1989 Proceeds (Net after cost of $ 25,0509000 issuance, reserves, & payoff of prior debt) Estimated Interest earnings on proceeds 59500,000 through February 1993. Developer Acquisition of Commercial Space 1,235,000 Main Street Parking Structure TOTAL $ 3�000 Use of'Proceeds Amount Land acquisition and construction of 169500,000 Main Street Parking Structure Parking Structure North of the Pier 119500,000 Estimated Cost Construction Contingency 195009000 Uncommitted 2,2859000 TOTAL _ 31 J85.000 Caution needs to be exercised in committing a portion or all of the uncommitted proceeds since the cost of the parking structure north of the pier is based on 1989 estimates and will increase by the time of projected construction in 1993. Therefore, a portion of the uncommitted funds may be needed for increased construction costs. 2. Cancel Current Capital Improvement Projects - An estimated $1.5 million of budgeted projects could be cancelled and the funds could be reprogrammed for the Pier Reconstruction, (see attached list). 3. Self Insurance Fund - An estimated $2 - 3 million in excess of required reserves is available in the Self Insurance Fund. Our outside liability claims administration firm has estimated our liability for all claims filed to be $3 million, and this estimated has been audited by our outside financial auditor. Current cash reserves are $6 million, therefore, an estimated $3 million is available in excess of required reserves. This excess amount could be utilized for any one-time purpose such as the Pier Reconstruction Project. EXHIBIT PIER RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Continued 4. Redevelopment Agency Funds - Although the Redevelopment Agency has significant unfunded commitments for the Waterfront Project, there are funds from the $26.7 million tax allocation bond issue of 1988 that have not been expended or appropriated. Following is a summary of the planned use/commitments for these funds: Planned Use/Commitments Amount Restricted to Housing Set-Aside Programs $ 6,762,000 Hoover/Gothard Connection 49000,000 Street Improvements- Edinger Avenue 1,0009000 Street Improvements- Oakview 2,000,000 Street Improvements- Main Street 1,000,000 Rennovations- Maxwell's 500,000 Land Acquisition- Main Pier Phase II 2,8002000 $ 18,062,000 5. Utilization of Una o riated Fund Balance - General Fund - The unappropriated fund balance or the General Fund is n excess o million (estimated) as of July 1, 1990. This estimated fund balance is 3% of the total General Fund budget compared to a recommended 5 to 7% fund balance that most cities utilize. Technically these funds are available for emergencies and could be utilized for the unfunded portion of the Pier Reconstruction Project, however, staff would not recommend utilizing any of the unappropriated fund balance for the Pier Reconstruction Project. 6. Debt Issue - Attached is an updated analysis of a general obligation bond and other debt issue alternatives that the City could utilize. The general obligation bond issue would provide a funding source for the repayment of the debt issue through the levy of a new property tax after voter approval at a general election. Other debt issuance alternatives would not require voter approval, would not have a property tax levy and therefore would not create a funding source for the repayment of the debt issue. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1989/90 -----------•-------- ESTIMATED RECOMMENDED BUDGETED EXPENDITUR CARRYOVER BALANCE PROJECT LIST FY 89/90 FY 89/90 TO FY 90/91 AVAILABLE -- ---- --------------- -------- --------- ----------- --------- 1. Shields Pump Station 400,000 0 400,000 2. Municipal Arts Center 60,000 60,000 3. Civic Center Alarm Sys. 135,000 10,000 125,000 4. Fee Study 200,000 0 220,000 5. Pier Reconstruction 1,300,000 1,300,000 (transferred to Pier fund in 89/90) 6. Seniors' Center Add. 150,000 0 150,000 7. Police 800 Mhz System 475,000 421,000 8. Oil Wells - Bluff area 1,400,000 800,000 600,000 9. City-wide GIS system 100,000 0 100,000 10.Heil Pump Station 200,000 0 200,000 ll.Lake Improvements 225,000 0 225,000 12.Park Infrastructure_ 150,000 0 150,000 13.Central Park Restroom 50,000 50,000 17.Apparatus Bay - Fire 160,000 0 160,000 18.Celebration Plaza 575,000 30,000 550,000 19.Civic Center Parking Lot 200,000 200,000 20.Underground Fuel Tanks 250,000 250,000 21.Maintenance Projects 200,000 200,000 22.Parking Facility - Beach 410,000 30,000 400,000 23.Downtown Tram 100,000 50,000 50,000 24.Capital Outlay 615,000 615,000 TOTL IMPROVEMENTS 7,355,000 4,016,000 1,705,000 1,625,000 1 EXHIBIT City of Huntington Beach August 1989 , Debt Financing of Pier Reconstruction ALTERNATIVE 1: $5,000,000 NET PROCEEDS BOND CURRENT TOTAL DEBT EST. ANNUAL TYPE OF ISSUE RATING INTEREST RATE REQUIRED DEBT SERVICE COMMENTS ----------------------------- --------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- General Obligation (G.O.) AA 7.20% $5,150,000 $423,000 Requires ballot measure approval by 213 margin Certificates of Participation At 7.38% 51780,000 484,000 (C.O.P. ) Asset Transfer Certificates of Participation At 7.38% 6,940,000 593,000 City or Calif. Urban Waterfront (C.O.P.) Traditional Authority could issue C.O.P. ' s California Cities Financing Baa 7.60% 71000,000 611 ,000' Corporation (CCFC) ALTERNATIVE 2: $10,000,000 BOND CURRENT TOTAL DEBT EST. ANNUAL TYPE OF ISSUE RATING INTEREST RATE REQUIRED DEBT SERVICE COMMENTS ----------------------------- --------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- General Obligation (G.O. ) AA 7.20% $10,225,000 $841,000 Requires ballot measure approval by 213 margin Certificates of Participation At 7.38% 11 ,445,000 957,000 (C.O.P. ) Asset Transfer Certificates of Participation At 7.38% 13,740,000 11173,000 City or Calif. Urban Waterfront (C.O.P. ) Traditional Authority could issue C.O.P. 's California Cities Financing Bea 7.60% 13,855,000 11208,000 Corporation (CCFC) i * 3 04) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Z6W/Vo Date May 7, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APBjtpVED By�j COUNCxi. Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator 920 »,t�-4 nM Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works ci Subject: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FOR MUNICIPAL PIER PROJECT c� c� Consistent with Council Policy? lid Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Proposals were requested from qualified civil engineering firms to perform construction management services for the upcoming Huntington Beach Municipal Pier project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the City Attorney to prepare a consultant agreement with the firm of Concept Marine Associates, Incorporated, including a fixed fee of$417,340.00 to be approved by City Council at the meeting of May 21, 1990. 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to hire Concept Marine on an hourly basis not to exceed$10,000.00 for purpose of analizing the constructibility of Moffatt & Nicholls plans and specifications and for the purpose of performing a bidding campaign during the advertisement of the construction project. ANALYSIS: On March 5, 1990, Requests for Proposals were sent to qualified civil engineering firms for performance of all construction management services necessary for the demolition and construction project for the new Huntington Beach Municipal Pier. Anticipated tasks include: (1)review construction plans and specifications for constructibility; (2) provide geotechnical and materials testing services; (3)provide pile fabrication inspection; (4) help evaluate bids and qualifications of bidders; (5)provide full time'on-site inspection; (6) process submittals and help with negotiations and approval of change orders and progress payments; (7) monitor contract and construction schedule; (8) develop final "punch list" at conclusion of contract and recommend final approval of the project. I Proposals were received from four recognized civil engineering firms. On Friday, April 13th, a City staff selection committee reviewed all four proposals and filled out rating sheets for each firm's proposal. The scores and fees of the four firms are as follows: 1. Concept Marine 92.0% $417,340.00 2. Noble Consultants 98.7% $550,000.00 3. Harris & Associates 66.7% 3-6% of Const. Cost 4. Kitchell CEM 63.7% 4-6% of Const. Cost PIO 5/85 RCA - Const. Mgmt. for Municipal Pier Project May 7, 1990 Page 2 It was felt by the selection committee that the top two firms both had a broad background in pier projects, causing the great disparity in the scores between the top two firms and the bottom two firms. On Wednesday, April 25th, the top two firms were interviewed by a second selection committee comprised of City staff, a City Council representative and a representative from the Pier Design Committee. Concept Marine received a combined rating of 94.8% and Noble Consultants received a rating 78.2%. It was felt by the commitee that both firms had a strong team with regard to pier construction projects; however, Concept Marine seemed to be stronger in construction management and had a more comprehensive and unique approach to the project. Their proposal was much more through and well thought out. One of the sections of Concept Marine's proposals that was most intriguing to the committee involved the firm conducting for the City a bidding campaign in order to assure that the city receive the greatest number of competitive bids. FUNDING SOURCE: Funding for this task will come from the Pier Fund. ALJYJtKAJ=ACTIONS: Direct staff to perform all construction management services for the Pier project. Not only is the Public Works Department too understaffed to perform such a major task, but the staff is also under-qualified for such an operation. ATTACHMENT: Expanded Pier Cost Estimate LFS:REE:lw 241lg/3 & 4 4/26/90 EXPANDED COST ESTIMATE * Pier Construction Contract $11,169,510 Pier Design(Moffatt do Nichol) 487,200 Construction Management 417,340 Pier Buildings 669,000 TOTAL $12,741,050 * SEE ATTACHED 2411g/5 ` 4 1' I Huntington Beach Pier Fier Reconstruction ENGINEERS ESTIMATE °Feb. 7, 1990 ITEM ' " ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM NO* ITEM DESCRIPTION - QUANT.ITY. UNIT PRICE TOTAL .e to ietCe.e e40 iR Lleayt lie fR1Y,t#II W iR�R Wt�S=i:ee seas=ee==a==.e.s�=et gr�taelil4iN�we==AtfYtiltlCrYs iR me==ae�mmaaseee�s.ee a a 1 Mob i 1 i z art i on 1 LS .125000.00 125000 2 Construction Trestle 2600 LF 1013.75 2635750 3 Demolition .Supersteucturs 1 LS 289910.00 289910 4 remove Existing Pi-les 2SO' EA' - 624. 25 174790 5 Rembve Offshore Debris, 1 LS 20000.00 20000 6 Furnish Piles 29364 LF 35. 00 1027740 7 Drive Piles 362 EA 746.00 262392 8 Concretes Deck & Cap 4461 CY 525.00 2342025 9 Concrete Edge Beam 524 CY 800. 00 419290 10 Concrete Utility Trench ��.-362 CY 460.00 166520 it Utility Trench Cov. & Frm 375 EA 496.00 186750 12 Aluminum Mailing 3894 LF 22.25 86419 13 Light Fixtures 52 EA 3750.00 1950U0 14 Electrical' Systems 1 LS 239000.00 Z M3000 15 Mechanical Systems i LS 236000.00 238000 16 . Emergency Access System 1 LS 53225.00 53225 .17 0 TOTAL DIRECT COST _ # 846092! Jobsite Overhead !9. "a 40083 • 761577 Insurance Bonds & Pees . 3 % a460921 253828 Home Office Overhead 15 V. r 8460921 1269138 Profit 5: % 8460921 423046 ' aeS�.:C�ese�sm.e: TOTAL ESTIMATE 1116e51s? REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date April 16, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council AFpROVED BY CITY COUNCIL V. ,(0 Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator s" Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works 0ZPr ca.B Subject: ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL REVIEW OF HUNTIN B MUNICIPAL PIER PROJECT DESIGN ' "" 4= W � i�o Consistent with Council Policy? [ kyes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, our Pier Design Consultant, will present architectural renderings of the pier plans as they are designed, compare them with old photographs of l the existing pier and discuss architectural and historic aspects of both designs for City Council review and approval. 1tECOMMEj�A j�'IQN: 1. Select one of, Vw architectural profiles as recommended by the Pier Design Committee. q-) 2. Choose between round and octagonal pilings as recommended by the Pier Design Committed, or authorize staff to bid both alternatives for cost comparison. 3. Approve the architectural and historic treatments employed in the project as proposed by Moffatt and Nichol Engineers. ANALYSIS: Plans and specifications are virtually complete for the design of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier. The plans have been through a long review process at the Council level, the Pier Design Committee and the City's Design Review Board several times. That process is now essentially complete. The Pier Design Committee has approved the basic design concepts with the following recommendations: 1. The Pier Design Committee has reviewed several typical architectural profiles for the pier and have arrived at two alternatives for the Council to select between. One alternative has curved haunches with a two foot—ten inch radius as shown in the attached New Alternative#4. The other alternative•employs a contiuous curved arch between haunches, as shown in the attached New Alternative #2. Plo 5/85 a Request for Council Action Architectural & Historical Review of Huntington Beach Municipal Pier April 16, 1990 Page 2 2. The Pier Design Committee felt that the use of circular piles was more in keeping with maintaining the historic look of the new pier. However, it was pointed out by our structural consultant that octagonal piles are state of the art. They are easier to form and are "off the shelf" items with pile suppliers. Circular piles are now considered"custom". It was felt by the consultant that circular piles could add as much as $500,000 to the project. The Committee agreed that staff move ahead with the project using alternative bidding to identify exactly what the cost differential would be. At the time of the bid award, the City Council would have the opportunity to make the final decision on which type of piles to use. FUND_jG SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could decide to employ a different architectural profile rather than the two that were recommended by the Pier Design Committee, ATTACHMENTS: Two alternative architectural profiles. LFS:REE:lw 2392g �1 1 in r 4. NEW ALTERNATIVE # 4 SCALE: V = 4' 'n t b n Ifi l4 Ar=,= NEW ALTERNATIVE # 2 SCALE: 1" = 4' REQUtS, FOR CITY COUNCL.ACTION Date September 18, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Deputy City Administrator 0 'P Subject: PIER PLAZA DESIGN IPPROVED By CITY COUNCIL Consistent with Council Policy? Yes Now Policy or Ex Iry- CITY CLERK Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STAIENMT OF Mffi: 4- The Pier Plaza Architect has completed is study on the conceptual design of the Plaza area size. Therefore, it is necessary for the City Council to make a decision on the Plaza size to move to phase 11 which will be the preparation of more detailed schematic plans and working plans and specifications for the Plaza area. RECOMAffiNDAT 1. The Pier Design Committee and staff recommends that the City approve the larger concept "A", Pier Plaza, which is approximately 2.1 acres in size. 2. To authorize sit_a o fTroposals-from-consultants to prepare the schematic plan s—mwkirf-ed—rawings and specifications for a fifia_T1ner-P4azca_design. ANALYSIS: The Pier Design Committee, following the City Councilis review of the initial Plaza concept on July, 17, 1989 and'after having completed the in depth review outlined below, met to discuss three alternative Plaza area sizes on July 28, 1989 at the pier. At that time, after walking the area of the three alterative sizes, it was the consensus of the Committee that the larger area of 2 acres in size be the preferred plan. The minutes reflecting this discussion as well as the three alternative plans are attached for the Council's review. After an in depth review of the goals, opportunities and constraints of the Pier Plaza area, the following key elements are part of the schematic plan: 0 open "cone of vision" from Main street/Pacific Coast Highway • demolition and relocation of Maxwell's restaurant • street level Arrival Plaza • Surf Museum • lower level Celebration Plaza • Amphitheater Terraces, including handicap ramps, stairs, circulation, etc. • viewing platforms and walks NO 5/05 RCA - Pier Plaza Page 2 In order to accommodate the peak loads of circulation and various desired elements including a 10,000 square foot Surf Museum, viewing and sitting areas, cultural and functional visual elements in an open, clean, safe, cohesive area, the Plaza site requires an area of two to four acres. Size "A" of 2.1 acres recommended as the minimum size to successfully accommodate the desired goals into an appropriate scale Plaza. This area should be expanded with additional open space and bluff top esplanade of I to 2 acres north of the Plaza. This would accommodate present and future space needs, allowing`for easy circulation through to the beach, along with passive recreation areas. It can accommodate small or large groups up to 1,200 people, and'up to 25,000 square feet-of potential leasable concessions adjacent to the Plaza which could help defray construction and maintenance costs. Handicap ramps could be an integral part of the circulation pattern and amphitheater. It also incorporates a subterranean link between parking areas north and south of the Pier. AIternatives considered for a reduced size include: Size "B" of 1-3/4 acres can accommodate uses similar to "A", but with less area devoted to concession, amphitheater and lower level plaza areas. Size "C" of I acre is considered the bare minimum area and would restrict the ability for concessions, mainly allowing for circulation to and from the beach only. Handicap access would have to be separated from other access. The construction costs can vary considerably depending upon the final Plaza design. There are some costs that can be attributed to the total size of the Plaza but the largest variable is the amount of "underground" elements incorporated. The roadway link, drop off, concessions, toilets under the walkway and Festival Plaza will be more expensive than a plaza "on grade". A project of this size and importance should have a minimum budget of 2 million dollars, 5.5 to 7 million dollars would be the expected top range, with a moderate solution of 3 to 4 million dollars. An optimum budget of 5 million dollars is suggested. It should also be noted that a number of letters were received by citizens in favor of the larger area as well as favorable comments received at the public forum held on August 17, 1989. Phase II of the project will be to solicit proposals for alternative design schematic concepts as well as provide working drawings and specifications necessary to ultimately go to bid for construction of the Plaza area. It-should be noted that the Pier Plaza area is a totally separate project from the Pier rebuilding project. RCA - Pier Plaza Page 3 FUNDING SOUR E: Capital Improvement Budget - Pier Reconstruction, Account No. E-CP-AS-154-6-37-00 ALTERNATIVE ACTION• Do not accept the recommendation of Architect and staff and request additional alternative design plans. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pier Design Committee Minutes of July 28, 1989. 2. , Information Packet from-Ron Yeo, Architect, consisting of alternative sizes, schematic site plan and summary sheet. JWP:Ip 5162h MINUTES PIER DESIGN COMMITTEE Date: July 28, 1989 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: Maxi's on the Pier Committee Members Preset: Committee Members Absent: Frank Higgins, Chairman John Erskine, Councilman Peter Green, Councilman, Vice Chair Grace Winchell, Councilwoman Paul Cook, City Admin. Ralph Bauer Max Bowman, Dir. of Comm. Services Bill Hartge James W..Palin, Dep. City Admin. Thomas Bagshaw Staff: Mike Adams, Dir. of Community Development Torn Andrusky, Redevelopment Les Evans, Public Works Architect: . Ron Yeo Pat Mar The meeting was called to order at 5:12 p.m. by the Chairman at which time he turned the meeting over to Ron Yeo for a presentation. Ron reviewed with the Committee the three alternative plaza displays he had prepared at the request of the City. He had these displays labeled A, B, and C in descending order of size having "A" on the display presented at the City Council meeting of July 17, 1989. Each of the other two concepts would be smaller in size but of the same general design with the 10,000 square foot surf museum in the center of the plaza area. Ron then informed us that he had traffic cones placed both to represent the outside walls of the surf museum as well as the promenade deck of the plaza to the north of the pier. He requested that the group walk the area to get a feel for the physical size of the descending surface area between the promenade deck and the exterior wall of the surf museum. Varying in size from Plan "A" of 110 square feet down to 80 feet on Plan "C". After reviewing and walking the area, the Committee sat down to discuss their feelings for the alternative sizes. The chairman requested that each member state his preferences on the three alternative plans. After which time, it was the consensus that the larger area of approximately two acres in size be the preferred plan and requested that the architect design some more schematic plans for future presentation to the City Council on the larger of the plaza concepts. Other comments made, were that if we were going to reduce the size of the central plaze, the surf museum and other uses proposed should then be moved to another location. Other comments were perhaps the 70 foot radius on the node of the promenade deck could perhaps be reduced in size once the Committee had reviewed the cost associated with these three alternative plans. In closing, it was determined that the follow—up presentation to the City Council would be during the month of September. J w SUMMARY TO KEY DECISIONS ON CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS TIIAT WILL GRI;A'1'LY AFFI-'CT fill., SIICCVS51'111. OUTCOME OF '11IF DESIGN OF TIIF PIER VLAZA ARIA . GOALS ITHMARY SECONDARY '1'II I RD R1;COMMENDATION 0110SITION v POSI'1'10N POSITION DESIGN QUALITY MAXIMIZE THE DESIGN QUALITY, DESIGN FOR LONGEVITY FUNCTION OF EACH OF THE KEY & DURABILITY WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE PIER PLAZA AREA . ABILITY TO WITHSTAND THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT MAXIMIZING THE LONG- TERM LIFE/CYCLE BENEFITS. ',4CULATION REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE DANGEROUS ELIMINATE VEHICULAR CONFLICTS BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS , ACCESS TO THE PIER BIKES, BUSES , AUTOS, SERVICE & PLAZA AT MAIN STREET EMERGENCY VEHICLES. (EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES). DESIGN THE AREAS UPCOAST & DOWNCOAST SO THAT GRADE SEPARATIONS CAN OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. PARKING IMPROVE & CONTROL PARKING & RELOCATE PARKING COVER PARKING COVER WITH A SEPARATE/SCREEN VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: INLAND-AWAY:'FROM WITH PLAZAS & PLAZA THAT CAN PARKING FROM VIEW. * PRESERVE BLUFFTOPS FOR THE BLUFF AREA. LANDSCAPING. BE"USED FOR PEOPLE ENJOYMENT PEAK LOAD * PROVIDE SAFE, CONVENIENT, PARKING. ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE BEACH/PIER USER. . ,JGAL POINT" CREATE A STRONG SIMPLE IDENTITY RELOCATE THE BOARDWALK/ & IMAGE FOR THE PIER PLAZA. BIKETRAIL SEAWARD AT THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER PLAZA THE PIER AREA. SHOULD BE UNIQUE, MAINTAINING ITS OWN STRONG CHARACTER & FLAVOR . RELOCATE MAXWELL'S TO CITY OF * PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACE TO THE SOUTH (REBUILD NEW). w um ACCOMMODATE FUNCTIONAL HUNTINGTON BEACH RECREATIONAL (PASSIVE) F IL PIER PLAZA CULTURAL ACTIVITIES . Aoly Yid MAY/e.By �c�i/rfrr r w N w r w r r f r w w cl f w w r f w r ul C ¢ C, r r r <n w 4 N V) y Z y �CCK L L L Q C J N FFF (p N i 1 1 I 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY . l CorGrEr7 t,,,tllrGpkr!2KR/CL'K s .L., ....r.».r.. .... w,. ;: .:.BLUFF AZ 47 SURF , . .. .. MUSEUM t .::p..,E?»< GU D. Q. E .�..� TRAIL BOARDWALK / BIKE •'> ":" .. ' . - x.: , : ,....... . ....... ,..,.., t. ...?...z... CELEBRATION ::::::. ...:,. .. .......:: :::..::.....:.....:.::....::..,..,..:::::. .....e.:..,.... . .... ........ : ti ....:....,.;:. ... .. . . .. ....................... :....x........,....,...,........�....... ..... P BEACH::<ACTIViT.... .:: AMPHITHEA TER ...:::.::..::':.,::..:'.;':' •.:.::::...:.::::..::::;..;.:;'.,.,..:... RACES TER ;..:::?)z i•;:.:»;:<>>s;»:<::tt:i: • w 1 a --- — It,:,.I'A SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER PLAZA ;v,;- < ,aa� emu.P7, ./6 A4A y-4Mln/7ttE+7EP-: - 7 t I fl UN T/N�,TQ�1 F� -i -- /a,cbo Sat.FT SueF mvsEm 5& FT. 7DTAt - 2./ AcxFh -m-w a&3,WET IWU W&.A-W T WE �U �/N7�fsil�E.:.lrVl7tf P4;574oAWT *'Z-t/Ew/oMr=lv7, HUNTINGTON BEACH . PIER PLAZA SIZE COMPARISON' s 4 �• y � ,"i*t"":"y .p, --^'?v"^'-+ash ' G" aT,!}=o, .+�xir B c'ra-�W' . is `�$`.,���' t' � '; .,ti.,u - `.� "• �`•>;•:'X..'�s..,.•y:r� +�.jr,. .K • ;�y .A+^,•Yn `��� 1•�aAA..}'g5a; � � n ;kd} i� �r.. .-���-`.' -"y ,'�';_ E, ro^r�t'for rpifs4� a'�4'• � yyy; �' 14 fM �`..- '�'+ .ni'i�-• y t' -'x¢ yi"n'}s� .a,.,,,:.1�`i:' s't:.' '••iT!,:'•� "; - i ''� � n ` � t r z '!.(. 6'y c}1>r y{ '',7,`•��r�`Y� T y�� �i � f� - , - rtK o :c ,`' -.��'•-Fr..s ;•k� �`�:a,+Q>:;,� �`�.p -�xka�,",�f�_�'ju:.- .tr_ Z •''.`'r' xi�.�5 J..ra``:- yt%- ~a '>�r.'v° 1A`_�,�,;.�+°�.`t'.�1�." , fr ,'�. �..n.?rtP avy s� 5 � -�'rt, *r.�t� �:,•., .r %�-f���� i.. a ;t y.ti;,�',, -.f,.,,T,:�• 7` tw +�y$s .d-r-�C' 9F.' ='''�C: � ���. t •� � r � Fv} �-., } '�',:'3;'--,:,- �a'vr�'��'``ry�"'+,~1&`'q+Nvtr,.� .zaC.s�?;,'r"Ei;ru,'�,',r.'ii�f"��3+�.:s'k.° ''roY•`FS�K���`^""rZ1 t�.,r yr;` u"` .,.k'�i''fk ''�`�' aa:.�+=•:- r �'-:l;'r„' �+ c'=z "�:•..•ar : �- *-_ .�..t F�y -�;..��`�;}�: dr. ,"�` '� �.. a .-,'� - w� � � ..�:`,�i6^ ^kaw• p; 't.rz�,fy.. ��.yrr.r >'+,4. `y� �' it ��" -.?-"",')t` F s ' y"'•_, + `•'.. ?.... 1 .,�.: t� >, � + ax "K ..�`�' �"�' '�a' ",� � a--'� v+q� �.>L� ��`�'S�-�rsz:x,�•." a t , z*-+>.�Z:,r .� - ,�� y�-.- � �.. .,,>� is �:�. � a•`t r� t,,,.�} �-�i^'+'.__r <'�: �.- �,�. •��'s�• �,,,- ,.`�,n .l'�.��Sr�;rc, r,. �� �.. ,";u� s `.�,r,A��'�a ,fix'.P .,r`r�r�.:.'�y� �Fi`'€ >:~u�r.; •-$p. F.�'?�"�,'},. � fi'�dr��F'".,iT".;�qE:m.� .r,;r ;,+�.p' S}-a `, r�l'+.v, - �� ."°.--C'^ ��� -r��4 k';*;e'• �;t-Stp-Y'�:;, �1�. 'yvC.,;fr."a, '<�$4'i�;.a.��?�E���.,{+i�c�f'�'�� r� �"-:y' � - •WW'4Y�.4 J��4:'$?_"'li'y � 5� � ���Y}i''k;: r�. �3, a M1�• {� �_t �*� �__�- �'`��� 'tea,',, ' k �++�c'rrv>" "�"�ir�k ^'-�, �`Y' 1a�: 'c• � 3 � ''':',w� ,�Y>1!•i t Y- � S st ,�},r�'`a�� F��w•Yit: MRN ra ._ � � �'7�� d'li�a.�y,'�" y,�'Yi" <, y 1`� � r� P�Ts.,t.,a, }}��� _'A-�• .'7�ter' b..fi:�' �`�$`�."�S'�,��.�Yb�� - � Y ? d'. -` 'l ..! 1d•�' .1"^FY 'sc_'>v`ij� � '�,'sF, i7 M�ec''fY• -?4�. ' GYP �ilY"�• 4 � �J.l. v : HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER PLAZA ALTERNATE SIZE STUDY } C t i.� � , �'� � + • ��, wx' Jam.�y, F i ♦, _Y :. _ r � 1 ,'A 7- 0 (=L: ` - - -}�:a: - �'�; I'� :'tar:,:..,t` 'y�p*�' �: -• .•� M.t .ahs .Jtn t 'F� - ' -it"����y.,��„ _ -t� t � i� w3 t y ..- � ��i �,r�'�s R : t� �� ��. i�-� .; ��i^Es� i ♦ - • '� .�",'r•e �::��d7;}-:L'�:t�.'v.�,�*`.ru�`'. •u�isr x..4 „r< 't 5+� `a.1-$.rk' .' � /�,� `. n+4���'M� 1 Y r.�•�r{`7 -'�L� } , F. 4k ' - ,. �,yrl� ...e J;. �� � J � .Asa '• � -ter+.�` `�,n.,a�� i` �+,� � �2-t'.,��w+�' to w r � , �. 7` t. �r- �'��,:^h.,�i.i�: r����5+. m�tip,,y`« - 7 a•rsS^' .,.�}:k,.y '4 w`^P• yv ( -' s .n, ,,.•^ �T�y'. . x- .h'-��zr.. :ari y :Y-ti;�•',"�, .�ei'.s^'a. 4�y :"{•..: .v,- .�,. vKK+°^�;�q'r t;sF}: ��; '"+� �md :S _ y� � �, tt,u;.C•,. :fi;,.".� ��o' .+}Ps ak^...rN�ia.i=� s.= - - Er•.x2'- ;�'.; �n - ', _ l`tY.a. -�"i= z:"t ��:�r7^' "'i 3.�' -�`f+' f'. st,. c s"-p,�,� �'ra �Y•}r. -'"'`YF e,,�� �_ _^r•.+C�. �% ",�'*j.. `��.. "�J'sky ¢�r��.�,��;SY?»4';.'r� `�x- '��. "k;� .�',- �• y, ,,,� ;.:..:�':a'.r�':',s;�_�`�z a�`s;� _ .ram=. -;.,.,�t',.�' c>;=,t:� i�;- '.�--r .�._ M s.. ,,�.. 't:%� � r' a�;-,•; ,r+r`a b t ��,F+� °p- 1' ��y-�xrsExp �'f�}�`��pai:�:rr.,�,rt..S. �w �a"�- to �.. ..:?«;��.;.,ti yg . - hi�.�,ge, .;,4' =�ji_ ,..� 1>>i`'�Y'.''•,��:F� fy` - - ��i>r,.,: - V•y��.' yr -4 ''r�,�,,�3.' i�-�� �y� ' ;,t,,,,"'� 4,. � .i'�^'+e. �z"^�-fir�.��,7{t�•- �s^��ti+,�-g�'�:Yr. �� �` "' ' '��i` �;; F 3.�: s. '.F„�, � � ��+. •F 'ty �d+=-17.sl.,`�Y. E' 'rr "1,.,�.+" .+l` q"�s' �k h �' �:�-6=� �i f+ .+h^:t�r�.° "��•� � �:. `2'.�>.�y, �n�';...-tiLv F• x� A,: .•'��^ 'y� -p� � i +fit v` .: ,E� ;f^�.% ��+����gg�. '� a 4 t�� t �,�`�3+}� _ � - �. -{-. ���.`P. �. `�fT'p 1\ur�,.�..P i��1"- • ,),Y94:��-TT �J',�',�1 - �Y7F�, •a y � #� r& ��'�+� ..y e Yy'�cV�i�,•,`'S'"�ji'�-�j'.a'�f .d e� 'i,,,� �+ Rye y r. �J',AS �•ri�., �q di,» ,m dg HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER PLAZA ATE SIZE STUDY UDY A � ` ALTERNATE Y >(e� ry'�g Fd i, ��. •�,sr-•y�'�.�, 1 p �y`� 6k � �7�.4•� ,y.. j � (4. �:•�: .,��yv r >k 4� ,d " �' ';�l�ti .'f:�lr-'�,ry{^4^si `�+.".~K,�"f� :"`�:1 �` zv`iti' ?i �'. 'p „��;� '�qFq� d�y� '.x. .�4a�9^�.,n Y . TV � � w a -r ��4455 ,•.� v.1 t YAM 'rk s-tr' ``�, ". � ,. 'y - „ - rya t t � �. z ��CC ra xY �` t� u• 9rei'r. *.x'4',���d, & r� ��`. � ��s,`Y' Pa��5��`� _'',y�'u�r`` X -� �� ' � asp` � ,r,. i' �,• -���._ } ..i�'.V} Ni � �}=s �Y�'; 3 ��,. O �,� la" ��; A- ar, t�*siz i "ui s�', :.•'� e� `+�. }.. �'m.iJR M x < � „+k� �,j,.�.t ' `�'i# '� :b'i Lis ` ts.. '`.,� "e�, �P ?•t:r ",�k a •,p,.} to 1. gy ice-• "x r '� 3. � ��,"-, ,. ' .sr' c_v: ;a•^; ""C.;. '� .r; :�..;,,4 ,��'{� r' r~}�:ads� ff ,g �,�.. � a� s,. :r�.'r y. y :'fir u; -�"�, �•p t Fr sl�; .,_.:.5'i'�*�a y.y,��.. ,�*£�`,_-r �i"s-t i�� �" t .,j,:.r+� �s.: . fi r x S, t `-�`< `� � :'Ss'� ,,+�+� •,ate��,' '..4.y �T�``;.. � .n � �,. y"'.'. �,,%�ri i.� ����z�,�4:i_� .S t,s_.p�,:�"k$M� �3 w+.a}r �F,�. F to a,ixy,`�Y„ �K>�� :���yk:; �a,�t��� ? .st,-r:s�da* �'�' ,•.f" •C', ,�$a.'�iti i�g 9P:4- �+, _d --;� .'z:+�,}.,.,'[,�.v s � `�. a*l, ,7a1,,•. �� a.�.�4 a i ,"f� .,,.r�...r>• •.4;., �� � ✓,Y 3 Fti Jt � d � F` �,q �{{^•x�+ 3 at.'< 4� k .l� �"a14+. �k � 8 S 4. 3 .. K',•`'i k,,.'S r+,ter .,+"' r r' .•ayml 1 car' "i, �. c �r-5 s'� {.a uia �F.rF` ,q i i' �, .. 'Wi t�v�."' C ]B M �' 2 f �,,.,hl,"„aS J-:-�'S..E .,F 1 ` � kp§�x .y'a•+*.i� � s..E LS•�«�rf2::A'i'�•,\'t�I.y Yi:.. ,x�£'f'A ,g>,`Jr rrc ;gi'�v. d •3'���`d��A%��. �-5.�:.� '..�.l.y tl.., t. �. C g - - .. Y �n�.^^ -d } .pf`�"�^I z'it 3 Y-s�r3r,.`.^N,'?� y +4r�� �� - rY'�•"_.,�2 - W# s.� '- ,� 7., - �4 r• •i}.�'��'��:���^3.�'".. a; ��� :���5'�F„ ,� '.��'.,-.�• g,,�` �?r+I�, t?�`f G rt'K �"� ,m, •�' v'�' � �� �,.. � - r"�"? a .r'� tl�1. jw �za,, t4".�� ,�`'' 3s'_ .k'E. '� � �� .."a!"�`�� t py..sk ��"y' �:. '�c'�✓rz� �'y"+`�.- `� y;�'r r >yy( t. f >' St"i'Y v�`i-.. � S'ti•'ir F,h y ':.arx '1 v^,-��'f"•.4ay � *y> >fe' .,�Z„`,,-�y^' `�„' �4r�i"�-.,t:'`�' ,.��+. � �,�. �';•��='� ir:�'H�M �����#.��" ';�''�g�� s psi".' ,' '• .arc"`` '=�y,. .� � �y�{ r� Ce Y `r- A� t 1 rg 3 )6 , . F S:t h Y � � Y HUN T INGTON BEACH PIER PLAZA l{ ALTERNATE SIZE STUDY iK REQUEST F 1i ,CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 19, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administratow:�/ 11 aU Submitted by: -.� Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject:----] MUNICIPAL PIER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATFII�NT OF ISSUE: The following is an update and revised schedule,of the design and construction of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier. RECON 4ENDATION: Receive and file. ANALYSIS: In December of 1989, Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, our pier design consultant submitted construction plans and specifications that were approximately 95% complete for preliminary plan check. That plan check was completed by staff and returned to the consultant for modifications. On February 21, 1990, the Pier Design Committee reviewed the plans and made comments regarding architectural features of the new design that were not in accord with historical aspects of the architecture of the existing pier. The Pier Design Committee then sent the project to the City's Design Review Board for consideration. On March 1, 1"0, the Design Review Board studied the plans and made several recommendations for modifications to the plans that would better replicate the existing pier, with respect to historical features. The consultant is currently modifying the plans to accommodate recommendations made by the Pier Design Committee, the Design Review Board and City staff. The plans will then be resubmitted to the Design Review Board. Completion of the plans and specifications is anticipated for April 1990. Prior to advertisement of the construction project, a study session will be conducted with the Council to present the project and to review the architectural features of the structure with respect to retaining the same look as the existing pier. Authorization to advertise is anticpated for the first Council meeting in May. No 5/85 Request for Council Action Municipal Pier Design and Construction Status March 19, 1990 Page 2 AnticiRated Construction Schedule Council authorize advertisement of construction contract May 7, 1990 Open bids June 18, 1990 Council award July 2, 1990 Begin demolition of existing pier July 23, 1990 Begin new pier construction November 1, 1990 Complete project February 28, 1992 The above schedule is contingent upon EIR certification, receipt of all necessary permits and completion of project funding. Staff will continue to update Council on significant changes to the schedule. Attached is an updated cost estimate supplied by the design consultant and a chronology of past Council actions. 2360g ' 1 rtll\ VV fV iV•VV 1 • Vvn w+g,:..:. a � ,._, . v;Y . Y� y i r4 3 t Huntington Beach Fier Fier Reconstruction ENGINEERS ESTIMATE Feb. 71 1990 ==sr�as�ams�as�s==sa�sas�=��m�frrCstmza�msms��aertn3lr=nis=s�aesaxama�¢arks�st�i��Oc�xearCzts i ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ( aeae�aaase:e��mzeu+mueaxas�usme�:=+e���sa�=�eee>l:�sae�a:�sssaomeslmaenra�ax�sx�crea��s:���:a=sum:esa i Mobilization 1 LS 125000.00 125000 2 Construction Trestle 2600 LF 1013.75 2635750 3 Demolition Superstructure I L5 289910.00 289910 4 Remove Existing Files 280 EA' 624. 25 174790 5 Remove Offshore Debris 1 LS 20000.00 20000 6 Furnish Piles 29364 LF 35.00 1027740 7 Drive Pules 352 EA 746.00 262592 8 Concrete Deck & Cap 4461 CY 525.00 2342025 9 Concrete Edge Beam 524 CY 800.00 419200 10 Concrete Utility Trench 362 CY 460.00 166520 11 Utility Trench Cov. & Frm 375 EA 498.00 186750 12 Aluminum Railing 3884 LF 22.25 86419 13 Light Fixtures 52 EA 3750.00 195000 14 Electrical Systems 1 LS 238000.00 238000 15 Mechanical Systems i LS 238000.00 238000 16 Emergency Access System i LS 53225.00 53225 t. 17 0 1s s asa�.a=>:w:s TOTAL DIRECT COST g460921 t Jobsite Overhead 19 MO 40083 761577 Insurance / Bonds & Fees 3 % 8460121 253828 Home Office Overhead 15 % 8460921 1269138 Profit S % 8460921 423046 TOTAL ESTIMATE 11168510 t f { CITY COUNCIL MILESTONES REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL PIER August 15, 1998 City Council establishes a Pier Design Committee and a Pier Funding Committee and appoint members. October 3, 1988 City Council approves request to retain a Design Consultant to assist the Pier Design Committee. November 21, 1988 City Council retains Moffatt and Nichol Engineers as consultant to assist the Pier Design Committee. February 6, 1999 City Council approves in concept materials, length, width and height of pier. April 17, 1989 City Council selects Moffatt and Nichol Engineers to accomplish design and construction plans and documents for the pier. May 1, 1989 City Council reconsiders construction material for pier, concrete pilings selected. July 5, 1989 City Council approves conceptual plans for the pier related to: Pier length, height off water and spacing of the piles and bents. Pier deck width, number and spacing of platforms and construction materials. Pier platforms, size and shape. Pier buildings use, location, size and shape. January 22, 1990 Council amended contract with Moffatt and Nichols Engineers to prepare the Environmental Impact Report and Historical Assessment.