Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-13; City Council; 8859; Hosp Grove Financinga ma c .rl O? mo $4$4 aa a 0 uw w $4(d ou wm Y AB# grK? MTG. 1/13/87 DEPT. FIN ca oc -rl (d TITLE: HOSP GROVE FINANCING CITY MGR.~ $4 50 UU a, $4a u. OkC uoo .. z 9 b a I RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the staff report and consider funding acquisition of Hosp Grove through a cash purchase from the General Capital Construction Fund augmented by a loan of $2.9 million from the Sewer Construction fund. Fund and Revenue Sharing The staff has reviewed the possible funding methods associated with the purchase of Hosp Grove. Manager discuss the most viable alternatives. The attached memorandums from the Finance Director and City Staff's recommendation is based on the following: 1. The best way to finance a purchase of this type is through General Obligation Bonds. This effort failed in the November election and is therefore not available to the City. 2. The next alternative is to use debt financing through the use of Certificates of Participation and the creation of an income stream to provide revenue sufficient to meet debt service needs. Since Council is reluctant to advocate tax increases, reductions in the General Fund operating budget would be necessary to provide sufficient funds for interest and principal payments. This alternative is not recommended due to the present condition of the 1987-88 budget. 3. The final alternative available to the Council is a cash purchase of Hosp Grove using General Capital Construction Fund and Revenue Sharing Unobligated Fund balances, and a loan of approximately $2.9 million from the Sewer Construction Fund. This alternative will only work if the City can a) repay the loan soon enough to avoid any conflict with sewer system improvements or sewer plant improvements requiring major sewer fund cash outlays; and, b) defer repayment to the end of each fiscal year and use any surplus General Funds to support the loan repayment. If the Council wishes to repay the debt from General Fund revenues as a regularly budgeted item, reductions in General Fund operations will be necessary. The staff has reviewed ten different methods of funding the Grove purchase and finds that the cash purchase is the most viable alternative. These are summarized in the attached report from the Finance Director dated November 16, 1986. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding of Hosp Grove through a cash purchase will require the commitment of $3.9 million in Unobligated Funds in the General Capital Construction Fund and Revenue Sharing Fund. This will reduce the funds available for funding future capital projects, such as Senior Citizens' Center , Library, Las Palmas acquisition or City participation in street assessment districts. 1 -2- AGENDA BILL NO. r8dv FISCAL IMPACT: The loan of $2.9 million from the Sewer Construction Fund will not seriously affect the Sewer Improvement Program if the loan is repaid in five years or less. Repayment schedules longer than 5 years could affect the sewer system or Encina Plant improvement schedules. Interest will be charged on any loan of funds at a rate equal to the City portfolio's average rate of return. This should be between 6.5% and 7.5% annually based on current rates. On a five-year repayment schedule at 7% the City will repay $3.5 million in principal and interest for a $2.9 million loan. If no surplus funds are available at year end, reductions in City operations will be necessary to accomplish repayment of this loan. EXHIBITS : 1. Memo from Finance Director - dated 12-4-86, Hosp Grove Financing 2. Memo from City Manager - dated 12-4-86, Hosp Grove Fiscal Impact 3. Memo from Finance Director - dated 11-18-86, Hosp Grove Financing 2 , .' . .. . DECEMBER 4, 1986 . TO : CITY MANAGER FROM : Finanbe Director HOSP GROVE FINANCING BACKGROUND The City Council will be placing a measure on the March ballot asking the of Carlsbad to approve the purchase of Hosp Grove from the City's General The proposed purchase price of the grove is as follows: Land Purchase - $5,775,000 Compensation to Developer for past investment in the Grove project I 702,000 Required improvements to Monroe - 300,000 Subtotal $6,777,000 voters fund . Debt issue costs and reserves (if debt is used as part of financing package) - $1,000,000 Total acquisition cost $7,777,000 FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS The following points options available to the Council: should be considered when evaluating the various financing 1. 2. 3. 4. When debt or interfund loans are used to finance any project, the method of providing revenue to guarantee the ultimate repayment of the debt must be considered. If no income stream is provided, debt should not be used. If no new revenue source is provided and the General fund is expected to support the repayment. reduce funds available to support other city operations and future capital projects. This commitment of general fund revenue will All financing options that do not create a new revenue source require reductions in operations, deferral of projects or changes in funding priorities. If interfund loans are used, the fund must a. avoid interference with the operation of the fund providing the loan b. be repaid in a reasonable time with interest. (Current interest rate would be - 7.5%.) 3 6 .. .. . -2- 5. The commitment of cash to the purchase of Hosp Grove eliminates the Council's ability to fund other needs that may arise and will affect the City's Capital Improvement Program. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES The City has several financing alternatives available offering a variety of positive and negative results. These alternatives are summarized in the following form: 1. Certificates of Participation - The City may issue Certificates of Participation (COP'S) for the purchase of Hosp Grove. The COP issue would be approximately $7,700,000 requiring debt service payments of about $730,000 per year (assuming a total interest rate of 6.9%). Repayment of this debt issue would have to be guaranteed by a pledge of general City revenue. 2. Combined Cash Payment and Certificate of Participation - The City may commit cash from the General Capital Construction fund and Revenue Sharing fund to finance a large portion of this purchase. The commit- ment of this cash removes the Council's ability to fund other projects during the year as needs may arise and affects the City's future Capital Improvement Porgrams by obligating funds that would have otherwise been available. The proposed financing package under this alternative is as follows: Project Costs - Land purchase & street improvement and investment buy out - $6,777,000 Debt issue costs and reserves - 650,000 Total Cost $7,427,000 Funds Available - General Capital Construction Fund - $2,700,000 Revenue Sharing Fund - 480,000 Subtotal Cash Available $3,180,000 COP's Required $4,247,000 Annual debt service payments would be approximately $398,000 (assuming a 20 year issue at 6.9%). 3. Combined Cash and COP Issue with the Defferal of Some Current Capital Projects - The amount of cash available to finance this acquisition can be further increased by deferring one capital project - the improvement of Elm Avenue east of El Camino Real. This project would then compete with other projects in the City's CIP for funding in future years. This -3- .. . this action would free about $800,000 in additional funds. Total cash available would increase to $3.9 million. Project Costs Debt issue and reserves Total Cost Funds Available Total COP Issue Required - $6,777,000 - 500,000 $7,277,000 - $3,900,000 $3,377,000 Annual debt service payments would be approximately $320,000 on an issue of this size (assuming a 20 year issue at 6.9%). A review of the current capital project list shows that there are few projects of any size upon which the Council has not already placed a high priority making deferral of projects difficult 4. Cash Purchase Using General Capital Construction Fund Resources and Loans From Other Funds - City funds may loan cash not required for current operations or projects to other funds. ability to finance future capital projects. These loans will reduce the City's Interfund loans are generally discouraged from a financial management viewpoint due to the restrictive nature of many of the City funds and the effects on the City's CIP. The Sewer Construction fund has a current uncommitted balance of about $1.7 million. Also, funds now appropriated for construction of the expansion and improvement of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility will not be required for several years. This project is budgeted at $1,380,000. made available for loan to the General Capital Construction fund. By deferring this project a total of $3,080,000 could be Hosp Grove funding could be accomplished as follows: Total Project Costs (no debt service) - $6,777,000 Total General Capital Construction Funds Available (with deferral of one capital project) - $3,900,000 Total loan needed from Sewer ConstructionFund - $2,877,000 The repayment terms for such a loan mustbe left flexible to allow the Council to pay back amounts due as often and in as large an amount as possible each year. If Council selects this alternative, repayment terms based on the General Fund paying back as much as possible each year from the year end surplus (if any) rather than a fixed payment schedule that must be established rather than appropriating funds from operations at the beginning of each year. The Council should plan to repay the interfund loan within the next five years to avoid any conflict with the proposed schedule for improvement of the Encina Plant. 5 _- j -4- Another source of funds available to the Council is the Redevelopment Agency. The agency presently owes the City $3.5 million. This loan could be repaid in a lump sum by authorizing the agency to issue tax increment bonds. Another option would be to have the agency repay a portion of the debt ($200,000 to $300,000 per year) from tax increment funds rather than issuing bonds. Both of these alternatives reduce the agency's ability to finance projects within the redevelopment area. RE COMMEND AT I ON S It is staff's position that any use of debt or interfund loans to finance this project should be accompanied by the creation of a source of revenue to pay debt service costs. Staff has assumed that 1) the City will not use a General Obligation Bond issue to finance this project, and 2) no new taxes or tax increases will be used to repay any loans or debt. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Council adopt alternative number 4 - Funding the acquisition of Hosp Grove from a combination of General Capital Construction and Revenue Sharing fund cash with loans from the Sewer Construction fund . The loan repayment schedule must be set to allow the General Fund to commit any year end surplus to the repayment of the loan rather than committing current operating revneue. If no surplus is generated in 1986-87, Council should direct staff to reduce general operations to a level that will create a year end surplus in the following years. Repayment must be accomplished in a period of approximately five years- to avoid any conflict with any projects requiring funding from the Sewer Constuction fund. Council should consider the issue of COP'S only if it is willing to consider specific reductions in the City general operations or the creation of a revenue source to pay debt service costs. 6 HOSP GROVE FINANCING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OPTION 81 Total cost to City -- Approximately $14.6 over 20 years OPTION #2 Total Cash Total Debt Cost $ 3,180,000 7,960,000 $11,140,000 Total Cost $11.1 million over 20 years OPTION 63 Total Cash Total Debt Cost $ 3,900,000 6,400,000 $10,300,000 Total Cost $10.3 million over 20 years OPTION 84 Cash $6,777,000 Total cost Cash to City $6,777,000 Total Cost to General fund over 5 years @ 7.5% = $7,455,000 7 ,-. December 4, 1986 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM : City Manager HOSP GROVE FISCAL IMPACT There are a variety of financing options which may be considered by Council at a later date. These options include: 0 allocating unappropriated fund balances 0 deferring capital projects 0 borrowing from outside sources 0 loan from sewer fund or other city funds 0 raising city taxes on developer fees 0 seeking state grants or donations It is clear that there is no way to finance this major purchase without affecting some other city program - unless we increase taxes/revenues. At the December 2 Council meeting, the decision was to put the HOSP GROVE issue on the ballot March 3. No decision was made on the exact method of financing the purchase. The proposed ballot proposition reads as follows: Do the voters of the City of Carlsbad approve spending approximately $7 million for the acquisition of 52.68 acres of undeveloped land known as Hosp Grove, the purchase to be financed with debt requiring payments from the general fund of approximately $650,000 per year. I would prefer that the proposition be silent about how the purchase be financed and that Council keep its options open. The City Attorney has indicated that the wording of the ballot is advisory only and Council need not issue debt in the future if the measure passes. The Council needs to be clear on that issue. Attached is a memo from the Director of Finance giving details of various financing options. At this time I would recommend we fund the purchase out of existing City funds supplemented by internal loans. This would avoid bond financing costs of $300,000 and bond reserve needs of $700,000. However, the Council needs time to consider all options before making a final decision. - 8 4 . 1. . City Council ' December 4, 1986 HOSP GROVE FISCAL IMPACT Page 2 .. If the voters okay the purchase March 3, the Council can decide how to pay for the purchase at that time. The purchase price negotiated by Council Committee is $6.4 million ($700,000 more than the price on the November 4 ballot). If Hosp Grove becomes city property, the city will have to widen Monroe Street and fix the drainage. No detailed engineering has been done on that but estimates range from $300,000 to $540,000. If Hosp Grove is - not developed, the sewer fund will reclaim 540 sewer permits valued at $1,000 each. If Hosp Grove becomes a city park we will need added funds for development and maintenance. Maintenance cost of trees in existing condition is estimated at $65,000 yearly. If the entire project is financed by certificates of participation it requires a bond issue of $7.5 to $8 million and an annual debt retirement cost of $750,000 for 19 years or a total cost of about $14 million. For comparison: cost Million Police/Fire Building $6.6 Stagecoach Park Construction 4.0 Macario Canyon 288 acres 2.07 Safety Center land 26 acres 2.0 The 1987-88 operating budget will be tight because: Revenues will go up $600,000 Expenses will go up $900,000 This does not include Hosp Grove. If any debt repayment is charged to general fund, it will mean the Council will have to make cuts in current programs or increase general fund revenues. At t achmen t s 1 - Director of Finance Report 12/4/86 2 - Fund Balance 6/30/86 3 - Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. Report 11/25/86 9 '. . NOVEMBER 18, 1986 TO : ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER - PATCHETT ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER - MA"EN FROM : Finance Director HOSP GROVE FINANCING The attached list summarizes in very brief form the various alternatives available to the City to fund Hosp Grove. Generally, they fall into categories by difficulty and time required to accomplish the financing. Below are a few of the most reasonable ideas: SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS To qualify as a short-term solution the alternative must not require a vote of the electorate and must be relatively simple. If bonds are included, they must be easy to issue in a very short period of time. The only type of debt that falls into this category is certificates of participation. Some key candidates for short term solutions are: 1. Cash-Out-of'Pocket acquisiton of Hosp Grove--This requires Council action and the deferral of other capital projects to accomplish. Also, any conflict with Proposition H would have to be resolved prior to such acquisition. Loans between restricted funds would be required with some determination of how such loans would be repaid. No revenue source is readily available for the repayment of these loans. &a/ 72 Street Lighting and Parks Maintenance Act--The 72 Act allows for the improvement and maintenance of lighting systems and parks. There is a possibility that the provisions for this Act could be expanded to include land acquisition. Bond Council has indicated that this alternative is based on finding appropriate solutions to the following: A. Benefit Area - who is to be inlcuded B. How the benefit is to be spread C. Overcoming any public protest or challenge from the public D. Find some interpretation of the 72 Act that would imply that land acquisition is an includable cost. MID-TERM SOLUTIONS Mid-term solutions include. those that do not require voter approval, but may be considerably more complex to administer or accomplish. 10 I. -2- The only funding alternative in this category is the salellease back of the Safety Center (if there is no attempt to raise any additional revenue to fund debt service payments). The alternative is based on the concept of selling the Safety Center to a third party, who then issues certificates of participation. purchase the facility from the City. The City then leases the Safety Center over a 20-year period and ultimately regains ownership. The income stream used to repay the debt would be the General Fund revenues. The proceeds of the certificate issue are used to This option could require the reduction or elimination of some municipal services to meet debt service payments if no alternative source of revenue is created. However, the creation of alternative sources based on tax increases would require a majority vote of the electorate, thereby making this option much more lengthy. LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS The issue of voter approved debt is the most time consuming option. It also provides some of the best answers to financing projects of this type due to its ability to match debt payments to new income sources. Most of these processes would take six months to get to the point of bond sale. 1. General Obligation Bonds--This method was tried and failed to win support of the necessary 213 of the voters. the City to issue bonds and set tax rates to create revenue to repay the debt. This type of bond allows 2. Mello-Roos District Bonds--The Mello-Roos District requires a 213 vote just like the General Obligation Bond. The Mello-Roos District is authorized to set fees based on benefit to create enough revenue to repay the debt. when they reach the size of the one necessary to purchase Hosp Grove. These districts are very complex to administer 3. 1915 Act Assessments--This option is similar to the Mello-Roos in that a benefit assessment is used to create revenue to offset debt service payments. Large 1915 Act bond issues are very complex and costly to administer. a hearing process allowing for appeals and protests can be lengthy. The creation of an equitable benefit spread is at the heart of both the 1915 Act and Mello-Roos District issues. No vote of the electorate is required, however 4. General Tax Increases--Increases in the transient occupancy tax (TOT) and business license tax could be used to create sufficient revenue to support a bond issue of the size needed to purchase Hosp Grove. increase in the TOT from 6% to 9% would provide about $600,000 per year in additional revenue. difficult to evaluate, but $50,000 to $100,000 could be raised through a 25% increase in fees and about $225,000 would result from a 50% increase in license taxes. Both of these actions would require voter approval (50% under the rules set by Prop 62). An A business license tax-increase is more 11 -3- & + \\ There are many solutions, not all of which are easy to implement. Should the Council wish to look at the short-term solutions first, they can eliminate the concept of cash loans to the General Fund unless they are willing to defer capital projects and possibly restrict operations until a new revenue source can be identified. If the 72 Act district alternative proves to be favorable, it would be the most attractive option. with the capability to issue certificates of participation. No vote is required. All options requiring a vote of the electorate are six months to one year This process merges the Council's ability to get fees unacceptable delay considering the present attachments 12 .. CITY OF CARLSBAD FINANCING ALTERNATIVES HOSP GROVE PROBLEM: issuance of debt for the purchase of 52 acres in north west Carlsbad known as Hosp Grove. To provide approximately $6 million from existing funds or the ALTERNATIVES 1. 2. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO. 1. Purchase from existing cash balances Me1 lo-Roos District General Obligation bonds Street Lighting and Parks Maintenance District (COP'S) Community Rehabilitation District Sale/lease back - Safety Center (COP'S) General tax increase (under Prop. 62) (COP'S) Lease revenue pledge to debt service (COP'S) Combination debt and existing cash 1915 Act Assessment District PURCHASE FROM EXISTING CASH BALANCES Requirements - Identify funds with cash balances that are not currently obligated or legally restricted. Identify any capital projects that can be deferred to later years or eliminated from the CIP. Authorize loan of unobligated funds to one central fund for the purchase of Hosp Grove, and establish interest rates and pay-back period for such loans. - - Advantages - Does not require sale of bonds, underwriting costs, legal costs, long term debt administration costs. - Provides a quick source of funds. - City controls pay back period. - City controls interest rate. - Does not require vote (if Council finds that this project is not subject to Proposition H). Disadvantages - Possible conflict with restrictions on special funds. - Deferral of some capital projects. - No secure revenue source available for pay back of debt. - Possible reduction or elimination of some general fund services. - Possible conflict with Proposition H. 13 2. FORM A CITY WIDE MELLO-ROOS DISTRICT AND ISSUE BONDS Requirements (general process described in Attachment #I) - Council or 10% of registered voters may start process. - Boundaries must be set. - Nature of benefits must be set. - Notice and public hearings. - 213 vote of those casting ballots required for passage. - Annual assessment spread based on benefit. Advantages - Provides guaranteed income stream for bond repayment. - Allows flat rate assessments (fixed cost per unit). - Benefit assessments can be made easy for voter to understand. - Low interest rates on all types of debt financing. Disadvantages - 213 vote for district formation. - Carries usual debt issue costs. - Administration of assessments after first year is complex on large - Level of benefit is difficult to set for Hosp Grove. districts. . 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Requirements - Identify project. - Voter approval, 213 majority. Advantages - ' Simple most direct type of debt financing. - Easy to administer. - Well received by bond market. - Few restrictions on use of funds. - Guaranteed income stream for tax assessments. D i sad vant age s - 213 vote for approval. - Defeated in November election. - Some debt issue costs. - Long lead time required to get issue before voters. 14 !. . 4. STREET LIGHTING AND PARK MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (Expand existing lighting district to allow land ,acquisition of park property, then issue certificates of participation.) Requirements - Public notice of intent. - Public hearing to modify existing street lighting district including - Creation of benefit spread model. - Annual hearings on assessments. - Issue certificates of participation supported by district assessments. notice to all affected parcels or formation of new district. Advantages - - Does not require voter approval. Creates guaranteed income stream to support certificates of participation. Disadvantages - Not ice requirement. - Possible confrontation over changes in existing district. - - Possible conflict with Proposition H. Street lighting act not designed for acquisition of property (legal problem). 5. COMMUNITY REHABILITATION DISTRICT BONDS - SENIOR OBLIGATION BNDS Requirements - Project must be related to the reconstruction, improvement and/or rehabilitation of existing City-owned property. (Purchase of new property to expand existing facilities 9 qualify.) Payments for debt service must come from existing revenue sources (general fund). act ion. Simple majority vote for approval of bond issue. - No new taxes or fees are approved as part of this - Advantages - - Requires only 50% + 1 vote for approval. Bonds should be easy to sell because of City general fund guarantee of payment. Disadvantages - - Creates no new funding streams for debt service payments. - - Possible conflict with Proposition H. New legislation - few examples of how funding works. May require reduction or elimination of some general fund services to meet debt service payments. 15 6. SALElLEASE BACK OF SAFETY CENTER AND ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (See attachment #2 for more detailed discussion.) Requirements - Form a non-profit corp (or find qualified third party) for purposes of - Issue COPS backed by lease/purchase of Safety Center. purchasing the Safety Center from the City. Advantages - - Certificates of participation are easily marketed. - - No vote required. - Provides unrestricted cash in amounts up to $10,000,000 for purchase of property or improvements. Safety Center backing certificates will produce a high quality issue. Also provides funding for Senior Citizen Center. Disadvantages - - Ballot measure for construction of Safety Center indicated no debt - May require reduction or elimination of some general fund services to Does not create any new revenue source for repayment of debt. financing would be used in the construction of the building. support debt payments. 7. REVENUE SOURCE FOR SUPPORT OF DEBT ISSUES - GENERAL TAX INCREASES UNDER PROPOSITION 62 Requirements - Must be a general tax, not a special tax (not specifically dedicated to - a purpose). Simple majority vote required under Proposition 62. A. Transient occupancy tax increase from 6% to 9% would raise about $600,000 per year. Adv a n t ages - Places tax burden on non-residents. - - Provides relatively stable revenue source for support of debt service payments. Requires only 50% + 1 vote for approval. 16 .. Disadvantages - Places Carlsbad's TOT rate at second highest in County. Present distribution - 6% - 8 cities 7% - 2 cities 8% - 8 cities and counties 10% - 1 city - Revenue source subject to variations due to economy. - Revenue cannot be specifically reserved for debt service. - Any debt service paid from general fund may have possible conflicts with Proposition H. 6. Business license taxes - increase rates by 10% to 25%. Advantages - - - City business license fees are presently at or below similar cities. Fees could be increased by various rates on various types of businesses to spread the burden. Requires only 50% + 1 vote for approval. Disadvantages - Imposes a tax on local business. - Open to challenge by specific business classes who-feel unfairly treated. - Produces only $50,000 to $125,000 annually for a 10%to 25% rate increase. Any debt service paid from the general fund may have possible conflict with Proposition H. - 8. LEASE REVENUE - PLEDGE TO DEBT SERVICE (Based on lease of City property at Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard and any other possible sites that provide opportunities for development.) Requirements - Identify parcels available for possible lease. - Identify possible lessees. - - Establish terms and conditions of lease, lease rates and receive Council approval. Issue certificates of participation based on increased revenue to the general fund. Advantages - If lessee builds substantial improvements on leased land, the City will have a secure revenue stream for the life of the lease. - Lease revenues from 2 to 3 major parcels could produce funds to support $6 million bond sale under the Community Rehabilitation District Act or certificates of participation secured by general revenues. 17 Disadvantages - - Length of time required to put together sufficient leases. Possible conflict with Proposition 14. 9. COMBINATION CASH AND DE61 (Use $3,000,000 in existing park-in-lieu funds to pay for 1/2 and $3,000,000 debt for other 1/2.) Requirements - Redraw park-in-lieu district boundaries to reduce City to two districts, north and south, divided by Palomar Airport Road. Increase transient occupancy tax from 6% to 9% by vote of electorate (50% required for approval). Issue $3,000,000 certificates of participation supported by general fund revenues. Use $3,000,000 park-in-lieu funds dedicated to purchase park land in CIP for 1/2 cost. - - - Advantages - Provides assured funding for park through joint use of cash and debt. - Provides high quality cop's due to City general fund guarantee of payments. - Allows $3,000,000 remaining debt, not pledged to park, to be used to fund Senior Citizen's Center. - Increased tax burden placed on non-City residents. 0 i sadvan t ages - - - Requires approval of voters for tax increase. Difficulty in redrawing park boundaries., Possible conflict with Proposition H. IO. 1915 ACT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Requirements - Identify project. - - Provide notice to benefit area. - Hold public hearings. - Identify area of benefit and method for benefit assessment. Annual assessment placed on tax bills. Advantages - No voter approval required. - Provides revenue stream to support debt service payments. Disadvantages - Administration of large district is costly and complex. - Benefit is difficult to fairly distribute to parcels. 18 HOSP GROVE OPEN SPACE DEVELOPING AREA OF HOSP GROVE MASTER PLAN ~--- PROP PURCHASE COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE 10 Acres 10 Acres 50 Acres 9 Acres ALREADY DEDICATED PARKLAND TO BE PURCHASED TO BE DEDICATED AS PARKLAND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT TO BE DEVELOPED 0 Acres 0 Acres 0 Acres 3.67 Acres 20.33 Acres 17 Acres TOTAL UNDEVELOPED AREA 60 Acres 43 Acres DEVELOPED AREA OF HOSP GROVE MASTER PLAN --- DEDICATED PARKLAND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 14 Acres 4.69 Acres TOTAL UNDEVELOPED AREA TOTAL BOTH AREAS 60 Acres 18.69 Acres 78.69 Acres 18.69 Acres 43 Acres 18.69 Acres ~~ ~ ~ 61.69 Acres