This is Lorne's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Lorne's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Lorne
Recent Activity
Here's the latest (and I presume, now final) entry in the case docket, per the link above: "Counsel having so stipulated, the appeal is dismissed, with each party to bear its own costs on appeal. The remittitur is to issue forthwith."
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Wrapping Up Hoover School at The Burlingame Voice
Looks like a settlement has been reached, or is afoot, if I interpret the subsequent docket entries since my previous post: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2082245&div=2&doc_no=A142405
Toggle Commented Jan 19, 2015 on Wrapping Up Hoover School at The Burlingame Voice
Not sure what the current status of the lawsuit is, specifically with regard to the District's appeal. My understanding is the District had until Jan 6 (for which they were eariler granted a deadline extension) to file their opening brief, but I have yet to see indication of anything filed. Their appellate case can be tracked here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/briefing.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2082245&div=2&doc_no=A142405
Toggle Commented Jan 11, 2015 on Wrapping Up Hoover School at The Burlingame Voice
Joe - The letter was authored by your's truly. And here's the Post's series, currently available on their homepage: http://padailypost.com/pensions1.html http://padailypost.com/pensions1-how.html http://padailypost.com/pensions2.html
FYI, the following letter to the editor was published in today's Palo Alto Daily Post: -------------- Dear Editor: Thank you for your series on Peninsula cities’ pension debts. I can’t speak for the other cities in your analysis, but in the case of Burlingame, where I reside, I believe the $45 million unfunded liability you highlight understates its total pension debt. This is because, in 2006, Burlingame issued $32.9 million of pension obligation bonds to pre-pay its unfunded liability at the time. Essentially, this transformed a “soft” actuarial liability into a “hard” debt liability, the total interest cost for which will be $19.7 million per the bond prospectus. Burlingame will be paying principal and interest on this debt through 2036. Furthermore, it is worth noting that, unlike most municipal bonds, which are tax-exempt, pension obligation bonds are taxable. This means the issuer has to pay a higher interest rate to compensate investors. Burlingame is paying in excess of 5% interest on its bonds. Finally, Burlingame’s bonds, which did not require voter approval, are constraining the city’s future borrowing capacity. Indeed, per the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget, they are itemized as the general fund’s largest debt service obligation, with principal and interest payments totaling $3.5 million for the fiscal year. Unfortunately, this is crowding out borrowing capacity for unfunded infrastructure projects, such as a potential new community center. As a result, the city may have no other option but to ask voters to approve new taxes for these projects, which may not have been the case if its pension debt condition were different.
Thanks Cathy - I'm curious how much bonding capacity the city has without going to voters with a new tax (particularly one that would penalize newer property owners!). My understanding from the most latest comprehensive annual financial report is that the 2006 pension bonds took up a lot of debt capacity on the city's balance sheet (it was the largest debt item per the following): https://www.scribd.com/doc/239559626/Burlingame-Long-Term-Debt-Balance-Sheet
Looks like we're moving forward with issuing bonds for capital projects. Here's a staff report re: the contract for a new bond advisor from this past week's Council meeting: https://www.scribd.com/doc/250565774/Burlingame-bond-issuance-advisor
I would imagine there's a decent chance Burlingame may be following in San Carlos' footsteps in the near future, in terms of a bond/tax measure on next November's ballot (at the risk of beating a dead horse, newer property owners better watch their backs if it turns out to be a general obligation bond/assessed value tax!). Not sure when this inventory wish list which appears on Burlingame's website was last updated, but here are the priority projects and associated price tags: http://www.burlingame.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=913 And here's today's SM Daily Journal article about San Carlos: http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-11-12/san-carlos-council-taking-first-steps-on-possible-bond/1776425133208.html
FYI, the following excerpt is from the General Update provided in conjunction with the latest bond oversight committee meeting on September 4: "A halt to the legal action may be pending however, because the Petitioners and the District have agreed to enter non-binding mediation in order to try and settle the legal issues" Also noting the District recently redesigned their website. You now have to do a bit of digging to find the bond oversight committee reports. On the home page, go to the "District" tab, and then "Business Services"; you'll then see a link to "Measure D and Measure A Bond Oversight Committee" on the right side of the page (which is still ultimately a link to a page on Dreiling Terrones Architecture's URL). Finally, only a General Update report for the September 4th meeting is available. I was informed by the District that updated Expenditure reports associated with that meeting have been deferred for approval, for some reason, until the next bond oversight committee meeting on November 6th.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2014 on Hoover School Update at The Burlingame Voice
I should have mentioned the link above is a staff report being presented at this coming Monday's City Council meeting.
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2014 on College Bond Measure H at The Burlingame Voice
Speaking of bonds, here's what may be coming down the pike in Burlingame. There will be public opposition to any general obligation bonds/assessed value taxes (which unfairly penalize newer property owners): http://www.scribd.com/doc/239538682/Burlingame-Unfunded-Infrastructure-Funding-and-Tax-Options
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2014 on College Bond Measure H at The Burlingame Voice
The results of the recent community survey/input on unfunded infrastructure needs are now available. Below is a link to the corresponding staff report that will be discussed at this coming Monday's City Council meeting. Results appear starting on page 3. Per the report's summary, "The Downtown Parking Garage received the most number of “Very Critical” votes, followed by the Bayview Park. Both projects were far ahead of the next two on the list, the Burlingame Community Center and the continuation of the Downtown Streetscape to neighboring streets." http://www.scribd.com/doc/236854401/Burlingame-Unfunded-Infrastructure-Community-Survey-Results
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2014 on Rec Center Upgrade at The Burlingame Voice
As a quick follow up, I should have referred to lease-leaseback in the BESD's case as a "delivery method", not a "financing method" (since BESD already has the cash from bond financing). Here's the presentation that was given to the BESD -- You'll see lease leaseback is an used as exception for an otherwise public bidding process for contractors: https://bsd.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/bsd-eAgenda.woa/files/MTM0OTYyMzQ5MTU3NC9ic2RlQWdlbmRhLzEwNzgvNTI1NS9GaWxlcw==/lease_leaseback_presentation_-_burlingame_sd_-_october_2012_compatibility_mode.pdf
Due to the Hoover lawsuit and construction halt, looks like BESD is now seeking to exit the lease-leaseback financing arrangement referenced above (hopefully this doesn't result in further complications). Here's another subsequent press article on some of the issues surrounding lease-leasebacks for school financing; interesting to note the former attorney who represented BESD/Hoover lawsuit is quoted in the article: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25256482/controversial-lease-leaseback-contracts-have-become-popular-mt Here's an excerpt from the most recent BESD trustees meeting agenda: Staff is seeking approval form the Board of Termination for Convenience of the lease-leaseback construction agreement with Alten Construction for the Hoover Elementary School project. The Termination for Convenience would make allowance for Alten to finish the remediation work on the Project as allowed by the Court, but importantly it would eliminate the District’s continued exposure to possible claims from Alten and Alten’s subcontractors for damages for delay or standby arising out of the uncertainty of the duration of the suspension of the Project. Staff is seeking approval of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and, asking the Board for authorization for the Superintendent or their designee to continue negotiations with Alten. The final terms of the Settlement Agreement would be brought to the Board at its next Board meeting for ratification if complete.
Ooops - here's the second link I meant to paste: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2082245&div=2&doc_no=A142405
The saga continues - here's the headline from today's San Mateo Daily Journal: http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-07-16/school-district-to-appeal-hoover-construction-halt-judges-june-ruling-required-more-extensive-traffic-studies-before-project-moves-forward/1776425126660.html Also, here's the link where you can monitor this case in the appellate court (case #: A142405); interesting to note it appears the school district has hired a new legal firm. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-07-16/school-district-to-appeal-hoover-construction-halt-judges-june-ruling-required-more-extensive-traffic-studies-before-project-moves-forward/1776425126660.html
I should have noted upfront in my earlier post that the estimated price tag is $32.8 - $35.3 million. And as I've said before, although I support the underlying intent, I will adamantly oppose financing this project through general obligation bonds, for which newer property owners will disproportionally shoulder most of the burden.
Here's the link for the Council meeting video, which I forgot to include in my earlier post above (again, you can scroll directly to agenda item 10a, and Council comments/questions commence at 1:37:30. http://burlingameca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=255
The City Council approved the master design plan for the new rec/community center last night. You can scroll directly to agenda item 10a to see the presentation; Council members' subsequent questions and comments start at 1:37:30. Also, here's the corresponding staff report. Included are minutes from the Citizens Advisory Committee which has been overseeing this project. Its interesting to note the minutes from September 10, 2013. A bit hard to understand within the broader context, but it looks like there was some concern about how parking issues would (or would not) be communicated at a broader Community meeting; according to one excerpt, discussion should be "more about programming, less about parking." Source: http://burlingameca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=255&meta_id=19713
Here are the minutes from the April 27, 2009 Burlingame Planning Commission meeting - the only meeting, I believe, during which Valley International School was on the agenda. Discussion of Valley International begins at the bottom of page 9 of the minutes, and concludes at the top of page 13. Following page 14 (the final page) of the minutes are the referenced Staff Report and attachments for the agenda item pertaining to Valley International: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225680651/Burlingame-Planning-Commission-Minutes-April-27-2009-Valley-International-2200-Summit-Drive
Toggle Commented May 22, 2014 on Hoover School's New Wing at The Burlingame Voice
Per the below link to the expenditure reports distributed at the most recent May 1st bond oversight committee, the total outlay to-date for Hoover is $13,522,335. This includes $306,625 for attorney fees related to the lawsuit. Please note the document via the following link has two pages (one for each the two bond measures, 2007 Measure A and 2012 Measure D, respectively): http://www.scribd.com/doc/224142744/Hoover-School-Burlingame-Expenditures-5-1-14
Toggle Commented May 15, 2014 on Hoover School's New Wing at The Burlingame Voice
And just as a timely follow up to my earlier post above, here is the judge's final decision subsequently issued today (see highlighted item #6 on page 3): http://www.scribd.com/doc/222975086/Hoover-Final-Decision
Toggle Commented May 8, 2014 on Hoover School's New Wing at The Burlingame Voice
FYI: ------------------ PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Hoover School Community Meeting The City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and Supervisor Dave Pine invite you to a community conversation regarding Hoover School: WHEN: Saturday, May 10, 2014 TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. WHERE: Hillsborough Town Hall 1600 Floribunda Avenue Hillsborough, Ca Questions may be directed to: Lisa Goldman, Burlingame City Manager or Randy Schwartz, Hills (650) 558 7204 650) 375-7400
Toggle Commented May 8, 2014 on Hoover School's New Wing at The Burlingame Voice
In case you missed it, capital expenditures were discussed at the last Council meeting, including freeing up an additional $250,000 for addition further rec center study/draft plans. You can scroll directly to agenda item 10b: http://burlingameca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=237
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2014 on Rec Center Studies Continue at The Burlingame Voice
Yes, it would have been useful - and perhaps more meaningful- if the survey included options about how these projects would be actually paid for. And not just to get a sense of what my own potential, personal "investment" might be, but how this outlay would compare proportionally to other residents/property owners.
Toggle Commented Apr 14, 2014 on Rec Center Studies Continue at The Burlingame Voice