10A Action 2012 1119 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5,836,665 5,879,122 5,565,446 6,179,057 Intergovernmental 1,521,624 1,306,313 1,444,885 1,377,230 Charges for Services 4,868,253 4,649,882 2,623,652 2,591,269 Fines and Forfeitures 1,418,732 1,296,568 1,149,193 1,216,009 Use of Money and Property 2,505,626 1,835,368 1,231,323 1,069,402 Interdepartmental Charges 1,799,108 1,858,477 2,272,568 2,295,293 Other Revenues 606,579 862,204 3,353,866 351,142 Total Revenues $75,260,888 $71,133,146 $70,717,953 $72,548,445 EXPENDITURES: General Government $11,036,809 $10,865,272 $10,344,760 $9,541,217 Public Safety 44,062,516 45,198,529 45,036,744 43,280,305 Engineering and Transportation Transportation 7,986,163 7,717,876 6,497,362 5,867,054 Recreation and Culture 10,342,370 10,578,857 9,076,796 7,818,751 Community Development 3,424,379 3,234,315 2,847,217 2,662,945 Debt service: Principal 471,547 446,193 460,741 465,358 Debt service: Interest and Fees 72,847 55,955 41,407 41,870 Total Expenditures $77,396,631 $78,096,997 $74,305,027 $69,667,500 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures: ($2,135,743) ($6,963,851) ($3,587,074) $2,870,945 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers In -$1,500,000 $1,457,121 $600,000 Transfers Out (3,786,352) (2,148,842) (1,617,942) (4,193,746) Proceeds from Issuance of Debt --461,717 -Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) ($3,786,352) ($648,842) $300,896 ($3,593,746) Net Change in Fund Balance ($5,922,095) ($7,612,693) ($3,286,178) ($722,801) FUND BALANCES: Beginning of the year, as previously reported $43,223,753 $37,301,658 $29,688,965 $26,402,787 End of the Year $37,301,658 $29,688,965 $26,402,787 $25,679,986 (1) For a breakdown of each component of taxes, taxes, see Table 6. Sources: City of San Leandro Audited Financial Statements; City of San Leandro. A-8 Budget Process. In accordance with applicable sections of the California Government Code and the City’s Charter, an annual budget is adopted by the City Council no later than the first regular meeting in July for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1. As part of the budget process, all City departments submit budget requests for the next Fiscal Year. These requests are reviewed, and a final City Manager recommended budget showing estimated revenues and expenditures of the City is prepared. This proposed budget is transmitted to the City Council and made available to the public for review. Study sessions and a public hearing are conducted before final adoption of the budget by the City Council. The City functions with significant financial interdependency between the various City funds. Manifestations of financial interdependency include taking responsibility for financing deficits, being entitled to operating surpluses, and giving implied guarantees (“moral responsibility”) for debt obligations. The City has has no discretely reportable component funds and/or units; the City’s blended component funds and/or units include or have included: operations of the Redevelopment Agency, the San Leandro Parking Authority, the Authority, and the San Leandro Economic Development Agency. The City has two proprietary utility and enterprise funds. The Water Pollution Control Plant Enterprise fund was established to account for the City’s sewers, which protect public health and preserve water quality through collection, treatment and disposal of the community’s wastewater and wastewater solids. The Shoreline Enterprise Fund was established in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to combine the Marina Enterprise and the Golf Course Enterprise Funds. The City Manager is authorized to approve appropriation transfers within any City department or fund up to a specified amount; however, any new appropriation or appropriation transfer between departments or funds requires approval by the City Council. Supplemental appropriations may be necessary during the year and are reflected in the budget amounts in the financial statements. Expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations at the department level. Under the City Charter, all unexpended appropriations lapse at the end of the Fiscal Year unless they are lawfully committed, or are required by law to be continuously appropriated from year to year. Lawfully committed amounts include amounts legally encumbered at year end. Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed as an extension of formal budgetary integration in the governmental fund types. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end are reported as reservation of fund balances since they do not constitute expenditures or liabilities, and re-appropriations in the subsequent year provide authority to complete these transactions as expenditures. The City Council reviews budget results at the mid-year review and at budget adoption. The ongoing review and long range planning focus for financial management provides numerous opportunities to identify and respond to changes in revenues and expenditures and in community priorities. City Reserves. In 1989-90, the City Council adopted a policy for funding financial reserves and a series of financial values that were to be utilized in the development of the future budgets (the "Financial Goals Statement"). The Financial Goals Statement identifies and formalizes the financial principles by which the City is guided; it provides direction for preparing annual budget strategies and budgets and for conducting the day-to-day and long-term municipal affairs. A-9 In part, the Financial Goals Statement states that the City will maintain reserve fund or working capital balances of at least 20% of operating expenditures in the General Fund and Enterprise Funds. This is considered the minimum level necessary to maintain the City’s credit worthiness and to adequately provide for (i) economic uncertainties, local disasters, and other financial hardships or downturns in the local or national economy. (ii) contingencies for unseen operating or capital needs. and (iii) cash flow requirements. Reflecting this policy goal, the City maintains: (i) a Major Emergencies Reserve Fund and (ii) an Economic Recovery Reserve Fund, the value of which Funds, together, are targeted to equal 20% of operating Expenditures in the City's General Fund and Enterprise Fund, when possible. The amount of the Major Emergencies Reserve has remained unchanged during the recent years of depressed economics. This Reserve has remained at $5,000,000 since 2007-08. The Economic Recovery Reserve, valued at $10,033,000 in 2007-08, was partially utilized for operations over the past several years. [CONFIRM: That said, the City's Fiscal Year 2012-13 budget was approved without any further draw-down of the Economic Recovery Reserve.] In Fiscal Year 2007-08, the Major Emergencies and the Economic Uncertainty Reserves together totaled about 19% of the General Fund operating expenditures ($77,397,000). The aggregate Reserve amounts declined over the past several years and were recorded at $____, about __% of the General Fund operating expenditures, as of June 30, 2012. These amounts are unassigned and available for spending in the future. Interfund Borrowing and Cash Flows. General Fund expenditures tend to occur in level amounts throughout the Fiscal Year. Conversely, General Fund receipts have followed an uneven pattern primarily as a result of secured property tax installment payment due dates in April and December and as a result of delays in payments from other governmental agencies, which represent the largest sources of City revenues. As a result, General Fund cash balances have typically declined or been negative for part of the Fiscal Year and, if negative, have been covered by interfund borrowings pursuant to Section 6 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. The State Constitution prohibits interfund borrowings by cities after the last Monday of April of each Fiscal Year of amounts that exceed 85% of taxes accrued. Self Insurance. The City maintains a Self Insurance Fund. The Self Insurance Fund provides the City insurance protection against public liability cases and worker’s compensation claims related to injuries to City employees. The Fund’s balance sheet records the liability for Claims and Judgments for outstanding cases and claims. As of June 30, 2012, the City's total liability for Claims and Judgments amounted to $_____ and the Self Insurance Fund reflected a fund balance of $____, including a $_____transfer from the General Fund fund balance. General Fund Budgets. The City’s General Fund original and final budget figures for the year ended June 30, 2012, the City’s audited actual figures for the year ending June 30, 2012 and the City’s adopted General Fund budget figures for the year ending June 30, 2013 are set forth in the following table. “Operating Transfers In” in the following table generally represent [DISCUSS]. “Debt Service” expenditures reflected in the table below are related to [DISCUSS]. See “-General Fund Obligations,” below. A-10 [OTHER DESCRIPTION AS NECESSARY] A-11 TABLE 5 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE (BUDGET AND ACTUAL) Year Ended June 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Amounts Fiscal Year 2012-13 Amounts Original, Adopted Budget Final, Revised Budget Audited, Actual Variance with Final Budget Original, Adopted Budget REVENUES: Property and other taxes $ 57,762,000 Licenses and permits 5,785,155 Fines and forfeitures 1,190,000 Service charges 2,381,000 Intergovernmental 1,064,050 Use of money and property 1,017,764 Interdepartmental charges 2,295,294 Other 265,233 Total Revenues $ 71,760,496 EXPENDITURES: Current: General government $ 9,475,573 Public safety 44,279,435 Engineering and transportation 6,357,635 Recreation and culture 8,260,895 Community development 2,811,787 Debt service: Principal 483,036 Interest and fees 24,193 Total Expenditures $71,692,554 Revenues over (under) expenditures $67,942 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfer in -Transfer out (67,942) Issuance of debt -Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) $(67,942) Net Change in Fund Balance -Fund Balance, Beginning of Year Fund Balance, End of Year A-12 General Economic Condition and Outlook of the City. Commencing in 2008, the City has taken a number of steps to address the negative impacts of the economic downturn on the financial condition of the City. The following discussion describes annual economic conditions of the City with measures taken in the City’s past three Fiscal Years, and projections and steps planned for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Fiscal Year 2009-10. For Fiscal Year 2009-10, the City identified a $3.6 million operating deficit in its General Fund, which it remedied by pursuing cost cutting measures administered to reduce City expenditures by 4.9% from the prior Fiscal Year. Annual revenues received decreased by 0.58% from the prior Fiscal Year due to the continued economic downturn experienced by the City since 2008. Specifically, decreases in annual revenues received were attributable to a surge in unemployment, which deteriorated the City's labor market, and a concurrent decline in consumer confidence. The decline in consumer confidence was reflected in the City’s financial report as a decrease in values of property and a decline in consumer good sales. Fiscal Year 2010-11. In Fiscal Year 2010-11, economic conditions resulted in a slow paced recovery throughout the City, with continued high unemployment, and a weak housing market. Statewide, local governments continued to experience declining revenues. San Leandro’s fiscal conditions improved slightly over original 2010-11 budget projections. The City’s 2010-11 year-end General Fund totals improved, largely due to an increase in revenues. Final amounts reflected an operating increase of $2,870,000 for the Fiscal Year. Overall, City Staff calculated an ending fund balance in the General Fund of approximately $25,680,000 (which included non-spendable and restricted fund balances as well as assigned and unassigned fund balances) at the close of Fiscal Year 2010-11, an improvement of $2,224,000 over 2010-11 Adopted Budget projections. Fiscal Year 2011-12. [ADD TO DISCUSSION] The City finished finished Fiscal Year 2011-12 with an assigned and unassigned General Fund balance of approximately $____. In Fiscal Year 2011-2012, the City achieved average annual savings of approximately [CONFIRM] $290,000 as a result of refinancing the side fund obligation of its PERS Safety Plan (as such is described in “-Retirement System,” below). See “-General Fund Obligations,” below. The City also achieved savings via an internal loan of $6 million from its Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund. With respect to Fiscal Year 2011-12 revenues, the City received the following actual percentages of budgeted revenues: General Fund Revenues Actual Amount Original Budget Amount Percent of Budget Amount Property Taxes $ $ % Sales and Use Taxes Franchise Taxes Utility Users Taxes Property Transfer Taxes Transient Occupancy Taxes A-13 Fiscal Year 2012-13. [ADD TO DISCUSSION] [The City anticipates the need to undertake further structural cost reductions in order to maintain a balanced budget in the future.] While the State is no longer a significant source of City revenues, and the City does not anticipate that the State’s current financial condition will materially adversely affect the financial condition of the City, there can be no assurances that any of the State’s current financial pressures, the 2012-13 State Budget, or future State budgets will not adversely affect the City. The State’s budget balancing plans have and may continue to harm the City's finances, it may not receive State funds as previously received and presently anticipated, in a timely manner, or at all, and the State's elimination of redevelopment agencies may continue to have a dramatic impact upon the City's financial circumstances. See “STATE BUDGET” and “RISK FACTORS – State Budget”, and “-Redevelopment Agencies Dissolution.” . City Staff continues to monitor State budget developments and the progression of dissolution of redevelopment agencies, providing the City Council with updated information regularly. General Fund Sources – Taxes and Other Revenues. The City’s three largest sources of revenues are, in order, property taxes, sales taxes and the utility users taxes. The following table illustrates the City’s primary General Fund sources over the last five years. TABLE 6 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO MAJOR TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE -GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Audited 2007-08 Audited 2008-09 Audited 2009-10 Audited 2010-11 Audited 2011-12 Property Taxes (1) $26,200,221 $27,654,817 $27,087,224 $26,720,790 Sale and Use Taxes 22,251,900 19,095,799 17,594,934 21,811,494 Franchise Tax 4,142,284 4,125,705 4,005,464 4,124,846 Utility User's Tax 10,420,171 10,103,090 9,783,055 9,932,893 Property Transfer Tax 2,924,656 2,870,441 2,297,145 2,528,604 911 Community Access Tax --2,711,671 2,694,149 Transient Occupancy Tax 320,508 294,496 304,453 Motor Vehicle License Fee 361,261 361,261 278,615 -381,122 Other Taxes --28,626 506,280 Total Revenue $66,621,001 $64,422,963 $63,812,572 $68,700,178 (1) Includes Redevelopment tax increment. Sources: City of San Leandro Audited Financial Statements and City of San Leandro. Property Taxes. Property taxes represent the largest source of tax revenue to the City (approximately ___% of general governmental tax revenues in 2011-12). Fiscal Year 2011-12 property tax revenues are recorded to be $___ million. [CONFIRM -Based on anticipated declines in assessed values for Fiscal Year 2012-13, the City budgeted property tax revenues to decline in Fiscal Year 2012-13 by ___%.] A-14 Property taxes have historically been the primary revenue source affected by voter initiatives and legislative actions. With approval of Proposition 13, property tax revenues were first curtailed over 20 years ago when they were reduced by two-thirds and thereafter limited to 2% annual increases or the CPI, whichever was less. Levy and Collection. Property taxes are levied for each Fiscal Year on taxable real and personal property as of the preceding January 1. For assessment and collection purposes, property is classified either as “secured” or “unsecured” and is listed accordingly on separate parts of the assessment roll. The “secured roll” is that part of the assessment roll containing State-assessed public utilities property and real property the taxes on which are a lien sufficient, in the opinion of the County Assessor, to secure payment of the taxes. Other property is assessed on the “unsecured roll.” Property taxes on the secured roll are due in two installments, on November 1 and February 1 of of each Fiscal Year, and become delinquent on December 10 and April 10, respectively. A penalty of 10% attaches immediately to all delinquent payments. Property on the secured roll with respect to which taxes are delinquent become tax defaulted on or about June 30 of the Fiscal Year. Such property may thereafter be redeemed by payment of a penalty of 1% per month to the time of redemption, plus costs and a redemption fee. If taxes are unpaid for a period of five years or more, the property is deeded to the State of California and may be sold at public auction. Property taxes on the unsecured roll are due as of the January 1 lien dates and become delinquent on August 31. A 10% penalty attaches to delinquent unsecured taxes. If unsecured taxes are unpaid at 5:00 p.m. on October 31, an additional penalty of 1% attaches to them on the first day of each month until paid. The County has four ways of collecting delinquent unsecured personal property taxes: (1) a civil action against the taxpayer; (2) filing a judgment in the office of the County Clerk specifying certain facts in order to obtain a lien on certain property of the taxpayer; (3) filing a certificate of delinquency for record in the County Recorder’s office in order to obtain a lien on certain property of the taxpayer; and (4) seizure and sale of personal property, improvements or possessory interests belonging or assessed to the assessee. Beginning in 1978-79, Proposition 13 and its implementing legislation shifted the function of property tax allocation to the counties, except for levies to support prior voted debt, and prescribed how levies on county-wide property values are to be shared with local taxing entities within each county. ERAF Shift and Triple Flip Legislation. Certain property taxes have been shifted from local government agencies to schools by the State Legislature for deposit in the State’s the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”), a shift that has resulted in diversion of City property taxes since Fiscal Year 1992-93. As discussed in “Sales and Use Taxes” below, on March 2, 2004, the State’s voters approved a bond initiative known as the “California Economic Recovery Act” which includes provisions known as “Triple Flip” legislation, calling for a diversion of a portion of local governments’ share of sales taxes to the State of California, and in return, a redirection of certain property taxes from the ERAF to local government. A-15 Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment. The Board of Supervisors of the County has not approved the implementation of the Alternative Method of Distribution of Tax Levies and Collections and of Tax Sale Proceeds (the “Teeter Plan”); therefore, the City’s property tax collections reflect actual delinquencies, plus penalties collected for prior year’s delinquencies. Assessed Valuation. All property is assessed using full cash value as defined by Article XIIIA of the State Constitution. State law provides exemptions from ad valorem property taxation for certain classes of property such as churches, colleges, non-profit hospitals, and charitable institutions. See “CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON TAXES AND APPROPRIATIONS” in the body of the Official Statement. Future assessed valuation growth allowed under Article XIIIA (new construction, certain changes of ownership, 2% inflation) will be allocated on the basis of “situs” among the jurisdictions that serve the tax rate area within which the growth occurs. Local agencies and schools will share the growth of “base” revenues from the tax rate area. Each year’s growth allocation becomes part of each agency’s allocation in the following year. Assessed Valuation History. The following table shows a ten-year history of the City’s assessed valuation. The County Assessor reports that the Fiscal Year 2012-13 secured property assessed value increased slightly to $9,586,071(an increase of 5.2% from Fiscal Year 2011-12) and the Fiscal Year 2012-13 unsecured property assessed value decreased to $530,480 (a decrease of 0.4% from Fiscal Year 2011-12), resulting in a total Fiscal Year 2012-13 assessed value of $9,879,635 (an increase of 4.9% from Fiscal Year 2011-12). In each of Fiscal Years 2009-10 [CONFIRM: and 2010-11], the Alameda County Assessor temporarily reduced the assessed value of certain properties in the City under Proposition 8. See “RISK FACTORS – Assessed Value of Taxable Property; Delinquent Payment of Property Taxes.” The County has confirmed in in writing with City staff that the City’s Fiscal Year 2012-13 assessed value and property taxes collected thereupon are likely to be at least equal to its Fiscal Year 2011-12 assessed value and property tax collections. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] A-16 TABLE 7 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO ASSESSED VALUATIONS OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY Fiscal Years 2004-05 to 2012-13 Dollars in Thousands Total City Assessed Valuation Assessed Valuation Attributable to Redevelopment Agency (3) Fiscal Year Ended June 30 Secured (1) Unsecured Less Exemptions (2) Taxable Assessed Value Secured Unsecured Less Exemptions Taxable Assessed Value 2004 6,676,341 536,497 (166,799) 7,046,038 2,534,206 358,306 (42,206) 2,850,306 2005 7,221,647 526,799 (182,526) 7,565,920 2,738,684 346,422 (63,818) 3,021,288 2006 7,752,095 538,060 (201,155) 8,089,000 2,902,768 357,620 (73,877) 3,186,511 2007 8,490,385 577,326 (193,142) 8,874,569 3,174,542 396,648 (65,057) 3,506,133 2008 9,065,717 568,195 (180,546) 9,453,366 3,337,069 396,034 (66,847) 3,666,256 2009 9,525,308 556,811 (207,657) 9,874,462 3,593,007 393,869 (87,613) 3,899,263 2010 9,102,245 570,588 (218,845) 9,453,988 3,599,645 395,246 (110,812) 3,884,076 2011 9,094,918 559,970 (238,681) 9,893,569 3,568,829 406,084 (208,631) 3,766,282 2012 9,109,542 532,437 (224,437) 9,417,542 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2013 9,586,071 530,480 (236,916) 9,879,635 n/a n/a n/a n/a (1) Excludes non-unitary value of $1,594,417. (2) Includes homeowner exemption. (3) On February 1, 2012, redevelopment agencies in the State were required to cease operations and dismantle. See ““RISK FACTORS – Redevelopment Agencies Dissolution.” Source: City of San Leandro, California Municipal Statistics, Inc. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] A-17 Secured Tax Charges and Delinquencies. The property tax levies and collections for the City for 2002-03 through 2012-13 are shown in the following table. TABLE 8 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO SECURED TAX CHARGES AND DELINQUENCIES 2002-03 TO 2011-12 Fiscal Year Secured Tax Charge (1) Amount Delinquent June 30 % Delinquent June 30 2002-03 $6,594,874.76 $181,164.52 2.75% 2003-04 6,842,359.84 151,036.92 2.21 2004-05 7,375,047.15 163,425.75 2.22 2005-06 7,927,156.49 199,397.71 2.52 2006-07 8,677,608.61 351,554.44 4.05 2007-08 9,257,507.78 493,915.90 5.34 2008-09 9,555,160.41 507,107.46 5.31 2009-10 8,999,348.58 332,900.68 3.70 2010-11 8,922,553.12 253,788.84 2.84 2011-12 8,765,781.78 214,515.27 2.45 (1) 1% General Fund apportionment. Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. Tax Rates. The table below shows historical property tax rates within the City. TABLE 9 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO TYPICAL TAX RATE PER $100 ASSESSED VALUATION (TRA 10-001 2012-13 Local Secured Assessed Valuation: $9,464,271,919 Fiscal Year 2008-09 Fiscal Year 2009-10 Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Fiscal Year 2012-13 General 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 San Leandro Unified School District .0699 .0771 .0897 .1108 .1085 Chabot-Las Positas Community College District .0183 .0195 .0211 .0214 .0219 Bay Area Rapid Transit District .0090 .0057 .0031 .0041 .0043 East Bay Regional Park District .0100 .0108 .0084 .0071 .0051 TOTAL 1.1072 1.1131 1.1223 1.1434 1.1398 Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. A-18 Major Property Taxpayers. The following table shows the largest taxpayers in the City as determined by their secured assessed valuations in 2011-12 and in Fiscal Year 2002-03. TABLE 10 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO LARGEST 2012-13 LOCAL SECURED TAXPAYERS Fiscal Year 2012-13 (1) Fiscal Year 2002-03 (1) Taxpayer Taxable Assessed Value Rank Percent of Total City Taxable Assessed Valuation Taxable Assessed Value Rank Percent of Total City Taxable Assessed Valuation Kaiser Foundation Hospitals $423,750,118 1 4.48% --Standard Lakeside I LP 110,098,160 2 1.16 Ghiradelli Chocolate Company 95,011,663 3 1.00 $45,667,709 3 0.75% AMB-SGP CIF-California LLC 77,850,000 4 0.82 $114,867,163 1 1.87 Madison Bay Fair LLC 77,705,138 5 0.82 ---BCI Coca Cola Bottling Co. of LA 76,996,927 6 0.81 27,831,813 10 0.45 General Foods Corp. 65,885,235 7 0.70 45,621,504 4 0.74 AMB US Logistics Fund LP 59,606,982 8 0.63 SKB Westgate Invsts LLC/Hart West 48,230,278 9 0.51 Waste Managem’t of Alameda Cty Inc. 47,257,951 10 0.50 Safeway Stores Incorporated 45,424,117 11 0.48 36,796,371 6 0.60 Anthony A. Batarse, Jr., Trust 37,090,289 12 0.39 21,103,354 13 0.34 Gateway Buena Park Inc. 36,440,413 13 0.39 AMB Property LP 34,719,654 14 0.37 Georgia Pacific Corrugated LLC 31,098,118 15 0.33 Peterson Power Systems Inc. 30,202,134 16 0.32 Emerald Properties 29,939,527 17 0.32 32,793,173 8 0.54 World Savings & Loan Association 29,160,003 18 0.31 20,516,921 14 0.33 FPA Woodchase Associates LP 26,066,774 19 0.28 PLP Partners LP-Wells Fargo Bank Trust 25,875,327 20 0.27 Lucky Stores, Inc. --0.00 59,646,052 2 0.97 Bayfair 580 LLC --0.00 44,622,275 5 0.73 San Leandro Hospital LLP --0.00 36,404,601 7 0.59 Gateway Buena Park, Inc. --0.00 31,603,528 9 0.52 Monarch Ventures --0.00 23,653,097 11 0.39 Lakeside Village Associates --0.00 23,424,919 12 0.38 American National Can Company --0.00 20,305,059 15 0.33 Build CA QRS 12 24 Inc. --0.00 20,156,810 16 0.33 Heritage Associates LLC --0.00 19,898,194 17 0.32 Bigge Street Investors --0.00 17,482,304 18 0.29 San Leandro Investors LLC --0.00 15,954,598 19 0.26 Peterson Tractor Company --0.00 15,767,340 20 0.26 Subotal $1,408,408,808 14.88% $674,116,785 10.25% All Others 8,055,863,111. 85.12 5,452,305,720 89.75 TOTAL $9,464,271,919.. 100.00% $6,126,422,505 100.00% (1) 2012-13 Local Secured Assessed Valuation: $9,464,271,919. Sources: City of San Leandro and Alameda County Tax Assessor's Office; California Municipal Statistics for Fiscal Year 2012-13 data. A-19 Foreclosure. Based on information provided by MDA DataQuick Information, an independent data collection service, for calendar year 2012, mortgage holders had sent ___ notices of default with respect to properties located within the City compared to 742 during calendar year 2011 (a decline of ___%), and ___ trustee deeds had been recorded (indicating that the property has been lost to foreclosure) during calendar year 2012 compared to 387 during calendar year 2011 (a decline of ___%). A summary of the notices of default sent and trustee deeds recorded for the City and the County during calendar years 2009 through 2012 is summarized below. TABLE 11 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO NOTICES OF DEFAULT AND FORECLOSURES Calendar Years 2008 through 2012 Notices of Default Trustee Deeds (Foreclosures) Calendar Year Calendar Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 City of San Leandro Number 1,163 768 742 460 389 387 Percent Change 18.1% (34.0%) (3.4%) (20.7%) (15.4%) (0.5%) Alameda County Number 15,156 10,873 9,197 5,910 5,532 5,046 Percent Change 17.8% (28.3%) (15.4%) (19.6%) (6.4%) (8.8%) Source: MDA DataQuick Information. Sales and Use Taxes. Sales and use taxes represent the second largest source of tax revenue to the City (approximately ___% of general governmental tax revenues in 2011-12). The City received approximately $__ million in sales tax revenue for Fiscal Year 2011-12, which would be an increase of approximately $___ million or ___% from the prior year, based upon its estimated collections following the approval of Measure Z (as such is defined below). Sales taxes previously were the City’s largest source of tax receipts, and the City is not certain