DOCSLIB.ORG

Jefferson Union High School District

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jefferson Union High School District 2016-1025 and 2016-1048 NEW ISSUE - FULL BOOK-ENTRY INSURED RATINGS (2014A Bonds Only): S&P: “AA” Kroll: “AA+” UNDERLYING RATING (2012C & 2014A Bonds): S&P: “A+” See “RATINGS” herein. In the opinion of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel, subject, however to certain qualifications described herein, under existing law, the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and such interest is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations, although for the purpose of computing the alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations, such interest is taken into account in determining certain income and earnings. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, such interest is exempt from California personal income taxes. See "TAX MATTERS." $4,860,000 2016-1025 $30,000,000 2016-1048 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (San Mateo County, California) (San Mateo County, California) General Obligation Bonds General Obligation Bonds 2012 Election, Series C 2014 Election, Series A (GO Reauthorization Bonds®) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: August 1, as shown on inside cover Cover Page. This cover page contains information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of all the provisions of the Bonds. Investors must read the entire official statement to obtain information essential in making an informed investment decision. Authority and Purpose. The captioned General Obligation Bonds (the “2012C Bonds” and the “2014A Bonds,” together referred to herein as the “Bonds”) are being issued by the Jefferson Union High School District (the “District”) pursuant to certain provisions of the California Government Code and resolutions of the Board of Trustees of the District adopted on April 19, 2016 (together referred to herein as the “Bond Resolution”). The Bonds were authorized at elections of the registered voters of the District held on November 6, 2012 and November 4, 2014, respectively, which authorized and reauthorized the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing school facility projects. The 2012C Bonds are the third series of bonds to be issued pursuant to the authority of the November 6, 2012 election, and the 2014A Bonds are the first series issued pursuant to the authority of the November 4, 2014 election. See “THE BONDS – Authority for Issuance” and “THE FINANCING PLAN” herein. Security. The Bonds are general obligations of the District. The Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County has the power and is obligated to annually levy ad valorem taxes upon all property subject to taxation by the District without limitation of rate or amount (except certain personal property which is taxable at limited rates) for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds. The District has other outstanding issues of general obligation bonds and refunding general obligation bonds which are similarly payable from ad valorem taxes levied on parcels in the District and will be payable on a pro rata basis with the Bonds. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.” Payments. Interest on the Bonds accrues from the date of delivery and is payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2017, by check, draft or wire mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered. Payments of principal and interest on the Bonds will be paid by The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., agent for the San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector, as paying agent for the Bonds (the “Paying Agent”), to DTC for subsequent disbursement to DTC Participants who will remit such payments to the beneficial owners of the Bonds. See “THE BONDS – Description of the Bonds.” Redemption. The 2014A Bonds are subject to optional redemption prior to maturity as described herein. The 2012C Bonds are not subject to optional redemption. See discussion of redemption under the heading “THE BONDS.” Book-Entry Only. The Bonds will be issued in book-entry form only, and will be initially issued and registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). Purchasers will not receive physical certificates representing their interests in the Bonds. See “APPENDIX F – Book-Entry-Only System.” Bond Insurance. The scheduled payment of principal of and interest on the 2014A Bonds when due will be guaranteed under a municipal bond insurance policy to be issued concurrently with the delivery of the 2014A Bonds by ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL CORP. See “BOND INSURANCE FOR 2014A BONDS” herein. MATURITY SCHEDULE (See inside front cover) The Bonds were sold and awarded pursuant to a competitive bidding process held on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, as set forth in two separate Official Notices of Sale with respect to the 2012C Bonds and the 2014A Bonds, respectively. The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued, subject to the approval as to their legality by Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel. Certain legal matters also will be passed upon for the District by Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, as Disclosure Counsel. It is anticipated that the Bonds in definitive form will be available for delivery to Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, on or about May 17, 2016, in New York, New York. The date of this Official Statement is May 3, 2016. MATURITY SCHEDULES BASE CUSIP(†):472466 $4,860,000 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (San Mateo County, California) General Obligation Bonds 2012 Election, Series C (GO Reauthorization Bonds®) Maturity Date Principal (August 1) Amount Interest Rate Yield Price CUSIP† 2017 $950,000 5.000% 0.600% 105.276% M65 2018 1,140,000 5.000 0.700 109.393 M73 2019 1,300,000 5.000 0.900 112.924 M81 2020 1,470,000 2.000 1.000 104.107 M99 $30,000,000 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (San Mateo County, California) General Obligation Bonds 2014 Election, Series A Maturity Date Principal (August 1) Amount Interest Rate Yield Price CUSIP† 2017 $3,455,000 4.000% 0.600% 104.077% J51 2018 315,000 4.000 0.700 107.209 J69 2019 355,000 4.000 0.830 110.006 J77 2020 410,000 4.000 0.960 112.499 J85 2021 460,000 4.000 1.100 114.631 J93 2022 510,000 4.000 1.270 116.239 K26 2023 565,000 5.000 1.410 124.513 K34 2024 625,000 5.000 1.520 126.748 K42 2025 690,000 5.000 1.660 128.401 K59 2026 755,000 5.000 1.790 129.817 K67 2027 825,000 5.000 1.930 128.312C K75 2028 905,000 5.000 2.040 127.143C K83 2029 985,000 5.000 2.130 126.197C K91 2030 1,070,000 5.000 2.180 125.674C L25 2031 1,160,000 5.000 2.240 125.051C L33 2032 1,255,000 3.000 3.000 100.000 L41 2033 1,355,000 3.000 3.020 99.730 L58 2034 1,445,000 3.000 3.040 99.441 L66 2035 1,545,000 3.000 3.060 99.130 L74 2036 1,645,000 3.000 3.080 98.800 L82 2037 1,735,000 3.000 3.100 98.451 L90 2038 1,830,000 3.000 3.110 98.242 M24 2039 1,930,000 3.000 3.130 97.864 M32 2040 2,035,000 3.000 3.150 97.469 M40 2041 2,140,000 3.000 3.170 97.061 M57 † Copyright 2016, American Bankers Association. CUSIP data herein are provided by Standard & Poor's CUSIP Service Bureau, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and are provided for convenience of reference only. The District does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of these CUSIP data. C Priced to first optional par call on August 1, 2026. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT Use of Official Statement. This Official Statement is submitted in connection with the sale of the Bonds referred to herein and may not be reproduced or used, in whole or in part, for any other purpose. This Official Statement is not a contract between any bond owner and the District or the Purchasers. No Offering Except by This Official Statement. No dealer, broker, salesperson or other person has been authorized by the District or the Purchasers to give any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this Official Statement and, if given or made, such other information or representation must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the District or the Purchasers. No Unlawful Offers or Solicitations. This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor may there be any sale of the Bonds by a person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such an offer, solicitation or sale. Information in Official Statement. The information set forth in this Official Statement has been furnished by the District and other sources which are believed to be reliable, but it is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. Estimates and Forecasts. When used in this Official Statement and in any continuing disclosure by the District in any press release and in any oral statement made with the approval of an authorized officer of the District or any other entity described or referenced herein, the words or phrases “will likely result,” “are expected to,” “will continue,” “is anticipated,” “estimate,” “project,” “forecast,” “expect,” “intend” and similar expressions identify “forward looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • School Bond Citizens' Oversight Committees, Prop 39
    School Bond Citizens’ Oversight Committees, Prop 39 Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments Issue Are San Mateo County school district Proposition 39 Citizens’ Oversight Committees effective? • Can they make a difference by insuring that bond money is spent effectively? • Can cost overruns be avoided? • Can they ensure fraudulent practices or mismanagement of bond funds do not occur? Background On November 7, 2000, California voters approved Proposition 39, the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability Act. The measure required a 55% voter approval and specified accountability requirements for school construction bond measures, including requirements for certain types of audits. Proposition 39 requires school districts that pass Proposition 39 bonds to seat a Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC) to assure the community that bond funds are expended in the fashion outlined in the district’s bond resolution. The COC must meet at least once a year and inform the public about the expenditure of bond revenues. The COC shall actively review and report on the proper expenditure of taxpayers’ money for school construction. The California Legislature passed and Governor Davis signed, Assembly Bill 1908 which provided additional requirements relative to school district general obligation bond elections. Those requirements included provisions for school districts conducting Proposition 39 elections to have a COC as required by Education Code Sections 15278, 15280, and 152821. The COC shall advise the public as to whether a school or community college district is in compliance with the requirements of California Constitution article XIIIA, section 1, subdivision (b), paragraph (3). The COC shall consist of at least seven members to serve for a term of two years without compensation and for no more than two consecutive terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial Report
    City of Daly City Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 CITY OF DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2019 Prepared by DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Todd High Director CITY OF DALY CITY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTORY SECTION Page Letter of Transmittal ................................................................................................................................. v Organization Structure .............................................................................................................................. xiii City Council and Administration and Department Heads ....................................................................... xiv GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ............................................ xv II FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................. 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis ................................................................................................. 5 Basic Financial Statements: Government-wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................ 18 Statement of Activities ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Should Tire-Derived Products Be Used on Athletic Fields in San Mateo County Schools?
    SHOULD TIRE-DERIVED PRODUCTS BE USED ON ATHLETIC FIELDS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY SCHOOLS? Issue | Summary | Glossary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations Requests for Responses | Methodology | Bibliography | Appendixes | Responses ISSUE In recent years, the use of recycled rubber tires, or “tire-derived products” (TDP), in playground and athletic field surfaces nationwide has increased. The trend began as a way to dispose of the enormous amount of tire-related waste that is generated each year. The Grand Jury investigated the use of these tire-derived products in San Mateo County school athletic fields in light of the considerable health and safety concerns raised by other communities and expressed in the print and online media regarding such products, particularly its “crumb rubber” form. How many crumb rubber fields exist at San Mateo County schools, and what is the process used by school districts to consider the safety and desirability of such material before utilizing it to replace existing fields? SUMMARY Citizens in communities around the U.S. have expressed concern to school districts, legislators and public facilities administrators that children may be exposed to potentially toxic materials by using artificial turf (AT) fields surfaced with TDP, particularly crumb rubber. Aware of these types of concerns, the Grand Jury became interested in what local school districts are doing to address them. The Grand Jury investigated the use of crumb rubber in athletic fields maintained by local school districts, including the process and costs of installation and maintenance of such fields, and the monetary grants and subsidies offered as incentives to use TDP. The Grand Jury also examined arguments in favor of artificial turf fields made with crumb rubber, including how those fields compare with natural grass in terms of overall costs, maintenance costs, safety for the people who use them, and the potential impact on the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum Regarding Final Official Statement
    475 Sansome Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 t. 415.391.5780 f. 415.276.2088 MEMORANDUM REGARDING FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT $41,430,000 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (San Mateo County, California) 2015 General Obligation Refunding Bonds To: Interested Parties Date: May 21, 2015 Re: Correction to Final Official Statement Below is a paragraph which corrects a paragraph on page 15 of the Final Official Statement dated May 14, 2015 for the above-captioned Bonds. The paragraph is the third paragraph on page 15, with the sub-caption “Capitalization of the Bond Insurer.” The corrected paragraph is as follows: “The Bond Insurer’s total admitted assets, total liabilities, and total capital and surplus, as of March 31, 2015 and as prepared in accordance with statutory accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the New York State Department of Financial Services were $466.5 million, $22.2 million and $444.3 million, respectively.” We apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause. NEW ISSUE - FULL BOOK-ENTRY RATINGS: Standard & Poor’s: Insured: “AA” Underlying: “A+” See “RATINGS” herein In the opinion of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel, subject, however to certain qualifications described in this Official Statement, under existing law, interest on the Refunding Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and such interest is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations, although for the purpose of computing the alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations, interest on the Refunding Bonds is taken into account in determining certain income and earnings.
    [Show full text]
  • Funding Year 2010 Authorizations – 4Q2011
    Universal Service Administrative Company Appendix SL30 Schools and Libraries 2Q2012 Funding Year 2010 Authorizations - 4Q2011 Page 1 of 196 Applicant Name City State Authorized 21ST CENTURY CHARTER SCHOOL @ COLORADO COLORADA SPRINGS CO 23,209.60 21ST CENTURY CHARTER SCHOOL @ FOUNTAIN SINDIANAPOLIS IN 13,374.00 21ST CENTURY CHARTER SCHOOL @ GARY GARY IN 55,638.50 21ST. CENTURY CHARTER SCHOOL INDIANAPOLIS IN 21,513.60 A E R O SPECIAL EDUCATION COOP BURBANK IL 12,270.34 A L BROWN HIGH SCHOOL KANNAPOLIS NC 33,994.17 A.C.E. CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL TUCSON AZ 2,844.80 A.W. BROWN FELLOWSHIP CHARTER SCHOOL DALLAS TX 169,806.21 A+ ARTS ACADEMY COLUMBUS OH 3,207.16 AAA ACADEMY POSEN IL 20,715.42 ABBE REGIONAL LIBRARY AIKEN SC 12,388.90 ABERDEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT ABERDEEN MS 49,402.84 ABERDEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 ABERDEEN WA 921.68 ABERDEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 6-1 ABERDEEN SD 5,577.37 ABILENE FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY ABILENE KS 10.50 ABILENE INDEP SCHOOL DISTRICT ABILENE TX 216,085.91 ABILENE UNIF SCH DISTRICT 435 ABILENE KS 298.57 ABINGTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DIST CLARKS SUMMIT PA 28,832.77 ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL SCHOOLS NEW YORK NY 42,286.17 ABRAMS HEBREW ACADEMY YARDLEY PA 242.85 ABRAMSON NEW ORLEANS LA 2,088.03 ABSAROKEE SCHOOL DIST 52-52 C ABSAROKEE MT 617.40 ABSECON PUBLIC LIBRARY ABSECON NJ 598.84 ABYSSINIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NEW YORK NY 20,978.57 Academia Claret Bayamon PR 2,815.67 ACADEMIA CRISTO DE LOS MILAGROS CAGUAS PR 533.52 ACADEMIA DE LENGUA Y CULTURA ALBUQUERQUE NM 9,409.38 ACADEMIA DEL CARMEN CAROLINA PR 2,650.68 ACADEMIA DEL ESPIRITU SANTO BAYAMON
    [Show full text]
  • Should Tire-Derived Products Be Used on Athletic Fields in San Mateo County Schools?
    SHOULD TIRE-DERIVED PRODUCTS BE USED ON ATHLETIC FIELDS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY SCHOOLS? Issue | Summary | Glossary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations Requests for Responses | Methodology | Bibliography | Appendixes | Responses ISSUE In recent years, the use of recycled rubber tires, or “tire-derived products” (TDP), in playground and athletic field surfaces nationwide has increased. The trend began as a way to dispose of the enormous amount of tire-related waste that is generated each year. The Grand Jury investigated the use of these tire-derived products in San Mateo County school athletic fields in light of the considerable health and safety concerns raised by other communities and expressed in the print and online media regarding such products, particularly its “crumb rubber” form. How many crumb rubber fields exist at San Mateo County schools, and what is the process used by school districts to consider the safety and desirability of such material before utilizing it to replace existing fields? SUMMARY Citizens in communities around the U.S. have expressed concern to school districts, legislators and public facilities administrators that children may be exposed to potentially toxic materials by using artificial turf (AT) fields surfaced with TDP, particularly crumb rubber. Aware of these types of concerns, the Grand Jury became interested in what local school districts are doing to address them. The Grand Jury investigated the use of crumb rubber in athletic fields maintained by local school districts, including the process and costs of installation and maintenance of such fields, and the monetary grants and subsidies offered as incentives to use TDP. The Grand Jury also examined arguments in favor of artificial turf fields made with crumb rubber, including how those fields compare with natural grass in terms of overall costs, maintenance costs, safety for the people who use them, and the potential impact on the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadmap for Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention: a Guide for Community Action
    San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Jerry Hill, President Mark Church • Rose Jacobs Gibson • Richard S. Gordon • Adrienne Tissier RoadMapRoadMap ForFor Published June 2006 Alcohol,Alcohol, TobaccoTobacco andand OtherOther DrugDrug PreventionPrevention A Guide to Community Action Healthy Communities San Mateo County Roadmap for Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention: A Guide for Community Action San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Jerry Hill, President Mark Church y Rose Jacobs Gibson y Richard S. Gordon y Adrienne J. Tissier TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Letter ............................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Background ......................................................................................................... 3 Prevalence and Risk of ATOD Use in San Mateo County ............................... 5 Assessment of Community Needs .................................................................... 9 ATOD Prevention Task Force........................................................................... 13 Guide to Using the Roadmap........................................................................... 15 Principles for Action ......................................................................................... 17 Action Plan......................................................................................................... 19 Priority Area 1: Individual/Family
    [Show full text]
  • City Manager's Office
    AGENDA ITEM C-2 City Manager's Office STAFF REPORT City Council Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Staff Report Number: 20-267-CC Consent Calendar: Adopt Resolution No. 6579 declaring the canvass of votes cast and results of the General Municipal Election held in the City of Menlo Park November 3, 2020 Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6579 declaring the results of the General Municipal Election held November 3, 2020. Policy Issues The proposed action conforms to the California Elections Code. Background A General Municipal Election was held in the City Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Section 10262 and 10264 of the California Elections Code requires that upon certification of the results of an election by the County Elections Office, the City Council shall meet to declare the results of the election. The City Council is required to adopt a Resolution No. 6579 (Attachment A) and the city clerk is required to enter into the minutes a statement of the results. On December 3, 2020, San Mateo Chief Elections Officer Mark Church certified the results of the election and the official report is included as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 6579. According to the official report, the names of those elected as City Councilmembers to full four-year terms are: Jen Wolosin, District 3 – 1,702 votes (58.15 percent) Ray Mueller, District 5 – 2,800 votes (100 percent) Public Notice Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Environmental Review This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it is a minor change that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Plan
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF DALY CITY 333 90th Street, Daly City, CA 94015 • 650.991.8000 JULY 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The City of Daly City gratefully acknowledges those who contributed to the preparation of this document, which was developed to comply with the requirements in Provision C.3.j.i of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), Order R2-2015-0049, in collaboration with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and with use, in part, of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Green Infrastructure Plan template. The comments, guidance, suggestions, and content provided by those referenced below were instrumental to the development of the Green Infrastructure Plan. Public Works Department Richard Chiu, Director Kevin Fehr, City Engineer Sibely Calles, Senior Management Analyst Department of Economic and Community Development Tatum Mothershead, Director Michael VanLonkhuysen, Planning Manager City Manager’s Office Shawnna Maltbie, City Manager Stephen Stolte, Assistant to the City Manager San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) Matt Fabry, Program Coordinator, SMCWPPP Reid Bogert, Stormwater Program Specialist, SMCWPPP Members of the Green Infrastructure Technical Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Jill Bicknell, Managing Engineer, EOA, SCVURPPP Members of the C.3 Provision Oversight Ad Hoc Task Group CSG Consultants, Inc. Brandon DeLucas, Assistant Planner Katherine Sheehan, PE, Senior Engineer (Team Lead) Catherine Chan, Associate Engineer Kelly Carroll, PE, QSD, Sr. Project Manager Greg Sheehan, Environmental Program Analyst Mark Lander, PE, Principal Engineer Jeff Lee, Assistant Engineer Suzanne Avila, Principal Planner Jonathan Kwan, Associate Planner City of Daly City Green Infrastructure Plan i July 2019 PREFACE Green Infrastructure (GI) is a cost-effective, resilient approach to managing water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Baylands General Plan Amendment Approved for the November Ballot
    City of Brisbane Monthly Newsletter STAR August 2018 Volume 15, Issue 8 August Highlights Final High School Bus Update Page 2 National Night Out Page 5 Brisbane Marina Kite Festival Page 6 Fall Activity Guide Special Insert Baylands General Plan Amendment Approved for the November Ballot The project that has been on everyone’s minds – amongst Brisbane to cast a direct vote on what is in the best interest of the Brisbane Community and the region – is, of course, the their community. Brisbane Baylands. On July 19th, City Council took a series of votes concerning the Baylands that will send a General Plan As part of the General Plan Amendment the voters will Amendment to the voters for the November 6, 2018 election. consider, the Council included the need for all residential land to be cleaned up (remediated) to a level which would be The first two votes the City Council took on this issue were safe enough for ground floor contact and would be safe for unanimous. These were to certify the Final Environmental schools, day care centers, and parks to be included in residen- Impact Report (FEIR) and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring tial communities. Council also wanted to provide the City and and Reporting Program and to allow between 1,800 – 2,200 the community with the most flexibility in approving future housing units. projects which would provide for the amenities our commu- nity has come to expect, improved funding of all General The third vote was approved 4-1 which allowed up to 7 million Fund services (Police, Fire, Roads, Parks and Recreation), and square feet (Councilmember O’Connell dissented saying she ensure the new development was a community and not just a was more comfortable with 4.5 million square feet).
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Financial Report
    City of Daly City Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2014 CITY OF DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 Prepared by DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Lawrence Chiu Director CITY OF DALY CITY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTORY SECTION Page Letter of Transmittal .................................................................................................................................. vii Organization Structure ............................................................................................................................... xiv GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting .............................................. xvi II FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor’s Report ................................................................................................................... 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .................................................................................................. 3 Basic Financial Statements: Government-wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ......................................................................................................... 12 Statement of Activities .............................................................................................................. 13 Fund Financial Statements: Governmental Funds: Balance Sheet ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • School Construction Management in San Mateo County
    Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments School Construction Management in San Mateo County County Superintendent of Schools Should Act Issue What can the San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools do to help San Mateo County school districts adopt and follow best practices for fiscal and construction management of large capital improvement projects? Background The 2004-2005 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (prior Grand Jury) reported1 on problems with school construction projects in San Mateo County (County), including cost overruns, defective construction, and construction-related legal problems, and recommended that the County Superintendent of Schools play a role in correcting these problems. The 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) revisited this issue to see what action the County Superintendent has taken. San Mateo County has 23 local school districts each governed by a publicly-elected school board that is responsible for hiring a district superintendent. Superintendents are responsible for implementing Board of Trustees educational policies, preparing annual budgets, overseeing the routine maintenance of facilities and, on occasion, are also responsible for school construction projects. Managing major construction or renovation projects, usually in conjunction with a bond issue or state mandate, requires a skill set not normally associated with educators. School districts are generally inexperienced in dealing with the complexities of construction management, so they depend on contractors and architects. This lack of experience can affect the cost, quality and timeliness of construction undertakings and the media routinely reports the resulting project cost overruns, delays, poor workmanship, and legal actions for remedies that can often be traced to the inadequate management 1 “School Construction Management in San Mateo County,” 2004-2005 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report.
    [Show full text]