HomeMy WebLinkAboutULTRASYSTEM, INC - 1979-03-07 AG :1EEXENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered int -) this ,,,�'"`� day
of 1g77� by and between the CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIv—ORNIA, a ivinicip&! corporatien, Lerein-
of tee• referred to as CITY, and ULTRda.SYSTEMS, INC. , a lice-sed
firm; hereinafter referred to as COASGLTANT,
Alt
r 2 C I T A L S:
1. The vity Council. of CITY is authorized to engage
the services of a professional consultant firm fo:^ development,
of a .,ompurer fiscal impact model of land urt - , for and on
behalf of CI_Ir; and
2. ft is necessar ?•--I dest.•able thai, professional
services be performed for C raoi,e specifically descrtbi�•d
in the Scope of Services, hare_ after r4f'erred to -as PROJECT,
attached hereto as Erhibit "A;" and by this reference inoor-
rated herein and rya e a part hereof; and
3. CONSUI;TANT shall have that degree of specialized
expertise co:itemy-laced w-thin California Goverm ent Cade Sec-
Lion 37103 and shall 3 ve all necessary li.cenzes therefor to
practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and
4. CONSULTANT agrees to perforin, the necessary tastes
associated with development of a compvter fiscal it -Mt model;
wad
v
S. CITY hereby employs CONS.LILIMT to perform the >'"``
services as required by PROJECT ane CONSULTANT agrees to provide �
those services; and '^
6. No official or employee of CITY has a financial
interest in the subject natter of this agreement contemplated
within the provisions of 'al. fornia Covernment Code Sections
1090-1092 artd �5=
7. CONT SU'LTATrT warrants that ii; shall perform the
A`
services herein contemplated in compliance with the C.,�lifornia
laws related to n.inimur. hours and wages (California Labor Code
Section il71 et seq.) , occupational health and saict;r (29 U_S.C.
651 et sc,q, ar.d the California Labor Code Section 6300 et seq.),
and fair employment practices (29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.
and California Labor Code Section 1410 et seq.) to the extent
same are applicable herein; and
8. The parties hereto desire to set forth their
rights, duties and liabilities it connec ica z ith the services
to be performed under this PROJECT,
NOV, THEREI=ORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT
as follows
SECTION 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE. DONE:
f I CONSULTANT shall provide all professional serv-
ices as described in the Scope of Services, marked Exhibit "Alt
attached ht;reto and made a part of this agreement.
(b) CONSULTANT shall provide guidance in the collection
of the basic data described in Exhibit "'A", Configura.tw4on Input
2.
Data and Miscellaneous Revenue/Cost Data. CITY will provide
staff and assume primary responsibility for the collection of
the data outlined in Exhibit "B"
(c) CONSULTANT shall designate a Project Manager `
tiho shall represent it 4nd be its primary contact and. agent
in all, consultationF with CITY during fulfillment of the terms
of this agreement.
(d) For the purposes of this agreement the PlanningJ+.
Director of CITY is hereby designa'ued Project Coordinator to
wort: directly with CONSUL'`ANt in connection with the work of
this agreer>ient.
(e) CONSULTANT shall attend and assist in a maxim-zrn
of two public presentations within forty-five (45) :'ays of
submittal of the Final Report.
SECTION 2. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTRUTES AND OTHER.
DOCUMENT6
CONSULTANT agrees that all original drawings, reports,
bath field and office notes, calciiiations, maps ane other docu-
ments, where specifically identified as a task or subtasl, product
in. the Scope of Services, shall be turned over to CITY upon
completion of PROJECT. CONSULTANT further agrees to provide
CITY wive (5) copies of the Draft Final Report for review within
four (4) months of signing, of contxact by both parties unless
otherwise by mutual agreement, CITY will provide comments and
suggested changes in writing to CONSULTANT within fi ceen (15)
days otherwise whe Draft Final Report will be considered
Ila
acceptable. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with thirty (30)
copies of the Final Report within thirty (30) days of submittal. �
of the Draft Final Report. �.
SECTION 3. DISCRIMINATION;
f `nsa
CONSULTANT agrees tbat in the performance of the terms g
of this agreement, it will rot en.gptre in, nor permit its agents �
to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because
of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,.
physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, or sex
E
of such persons, except as provided in Szction 1120 of the
t
California Labor Code. Violition of this provision nay result
in the imposition of penalties referred to in Division 2, Part
7, Chapter I of the California Labor Code.
S 'TIO'N 4. INDEILNIFICATTON, DEFENSE, HOLD H.AR;kILESS:
CONSULTANT hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify
and save harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees,
against loss, danag*e or expense by reason of any suits, claims,
demands, judLiaents any: causes of action caused by CONE ULT N'T,
aAs employees, agents, subcontractors, or by any third k .ty
arising out of or in consequence of CONSULTXNT'S performance
of this agreement, except where such loss, damage or expen.�e is
caused solely by the wrongful acts of CITY, its agents, officers
or employees i-3 connection with the general supervision or
direr ion of the works to be performed under this agreement,
StMOINI S. WOR" "'RS, COMPENSATION:
Cfl vSULTANT shall' comply `7ith all of the prcvisiop..s
4.
of the Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the
State of California, the applicable provisions of Divisickn Y
and S of the California Labor Code arri all amendments thereto;
a•zd all similar State or Federal acts or laws applicable; and �#
si:all indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY from and against
P all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and M,
judgments of every nature and description, including attorney's
fees and costs, presented, brought or recovered against CITY,
wr; _
for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which
may be incurred by reason of any work to be performed by CON-
SULTAINT under this agreeriert.
SECTION 6. I dSUItArXE:
CONSULTANT agrees to furnish to CITY and maintain
in force until the completion of PROJECT a general liability
insurance policy in which CITY is named as an additional insured.
The policy shall insure CITY, its officers and employees, while
acting within the scope of their duties, .against all claim;
arising out of or in connection with PROJECT. The policy shall
Provide for not :;.ess than the fol?o=aing amounts., Combined single
limit bodily* injury anal/or property damage of $1,OOO,000 per
occurrence. Such policy of insurance shall specifically provide
that any other insurance i�a.rried by CITY which may be applicable
shall be deemed excess and CONSULTANT'S insurance primary despite
any conflicting provisions in CONSULTVNT''S policy to the contrary.
ECTTOIN 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR:
It is further understood and agreed that CONSULT91T
F`
yyk
C
E
t'
t
i
j
F
1 a ww
is, and shall be, acting at all times as an independent contra.e
for herein and not as an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT shall
secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all pay- -"
mont of income tax, social security, state disability insuzance
compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll de-
ductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees �
and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the serv-
ices to be performed hereunder.
SECTION S. PROVISION FOR P' YME.uT*
(a) In consideration of the performance of the serv-
ices described in Exhibit "A," CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a
total fee of Fourteen Ty.ousand Five Hundred and no/100ths Dollars
($14,S00) .
(b) CONSULTANT shall submit monthly progress reports
to CITY during the first week of each month. Included in ea`i
progress report shall be a summary of the work accomplished
ing the preceding Month, an account of any significant proble,
encountered, and an estimated percent. PROJECT completion by
(c) CONSULTANT shall: submit bi-monthly invoices f
payment to CITY. CONSULTANT shall specify or. said invoice
work completed in the tLme period covered by said invoice, as
reporteJ by CONSULTANT in previously submitted progress xepoTts
for the sate period. Upon invoice Teceipt and approval, but in
no event later than frty-five (4-S) days after invoice receipt,
CITY shall make payment thereon to CONSULTANT, pa.yablp to ULTRA
zYSTRUS, INC. CITY shall withhold payment of One Thousand. Five
6
k
Hundred and no/100ths Dollarq ($1,500) to CONSULTANT until corr.-
pletion of a maximum of two (2) public presentations o- to *1o,,
more than, forty-five (45) days after submittal of the Final
Report, whichever occurs first.
POW
SECTION 9. EXTP.A WORK
(a) In. the eve.,,' )riz-itio:n, in writing by
the CITY'''S Project Cooi if changes from: the work as >
indicated in Exhibit "A'° or for other written permission
aut-horizing additional work not contemplated herein, additional
compensation shall be allowed for ' A "i extra work but extra
compensat?.on shall not exceed 10 percent of the total contract,
as specified above, without approval of MIN,
(b) CONSUz:T&NT shall submit bi-monthly invoice: which
specify the a , where work was completed and the associated
time fo-r- completion to the CITX'S Project Coordinator ror ap-
proval. Work performed, at the request of CIn , outside the
limit specified iq th4s agreement is to be designated as "EXTRA
WORK" on by-monthly invoices. Dior?- performed in connection
with an authorized written change order will be so designated
on said invoice.
SECTIO14 10 TEPNI'NATION OF CONTRAM
All work shall bn done wn a s-,od and workmanlike manner
and CITY reserves the right to terminate services h:ereundet•
at my time wi.t : or without cause, and i4hether or not PROJECT
has been fully completed, Any termination hereof, and any
special instructions :=ereupier frog i CITY shall be rea.ae throug1h
7',
`II
t
{
e
pk
4
Y!U
CITY'S Project Coordinator, and in writing, whi0i may be de-
livered in person to CONSULT-UT or nailed through the Pormal
course of mail to its now-estab'l hed business address. In
the event this agreement is cancelled all drawings designs
CP
specifications and appurtenant data may be usee by CITY without
additional cost to CITY, Should CITY decide to terminate this
Y
agreement for any reason, CONSULTANT shall 2�e zntitled to
compensation based on the completion of all wozk in each `cask
to the date of termiriat i.on as described in F-<I ibit 11C11 Project
Costs by Task. Such completion of work by task shall be deter-
mined by concurrence of CONSULTANT Project Manager and CITY
Project Coordinator.
SECTION 11. SUBCONTRACTORS:
This agreement is a personal service contract and
the supervisory work hereunder shall nc:t be delebated to any
person or entity without the consent of CITY.
(Rest of page not used)
y
F
F,
SECTION 12.. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS t
CONSULMIT agrees that no regular employee of CITY
shall bo employee; by its f.;rn during the time that this agreement t
4,V
is in effect.
�n
IN WITNESS UTHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused r
this agreement to be executed by and through their authorized
officers t.ze day, month and year first above written.
Ultra:sysvtems, Incorporated ULTRASYSTDIS, INC.
2400 Micheison Drii,e Co.isultaAt
Irvine, California 92715 P.J. Stevens
By `�• .n.�sx_ __ �Praszden 3
By
R, L. Greengard
—Tice PresI era o:rpo~a e SeUe ary
CITY OF HUIT INGTON BEACH
a municipal corporation
ay o r
ATTEST, APPROVED AS TO FORM
a ty let x v tMre ,
ItEVIEUT-D .AND APPROVED.- I:�ITIATE AND 1� TT*!
i ` , Adnnistrator . .ctxng . a n ng Di rector
y '
ggC
A
C
f
f
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purposes of the Huntington Beach Fiscal Impact Model Project are rv'
to develop a local government fiscal impact model, specifically �
` appropriate for the ana.Lysis of cost and revenue impacts associated
with specific development projects, existing development citywide or
sampled by type of use, and alternative land use plans; to employ
the modvA in producing fiscal impact forecasts due to financing
capital improvements through various options; to provide a decision-
ma.kina tool to aid in growth management decisions and a basic method
for forecasting future budcet impacts; and further to develop in-house
City Staff familiar4.ty with the model by providing a bri :f tra ling
program and by providing written documentation of the fiscal, impact
model that can assist City Staff in subsequent, continued use of the
model after this project is concluded.
The Huntington Beach Fiscal impact Model Project contains seven bas;.c.
t•;azks to be followed by the consultant in preparing the local governr<<ent
fiscal impact model of land uses.. The level of detail associated with
e&--h task is strictly governed by the time-flames and budgetary limitations
mutually agreed between the City and consultant as specified in this
Scope of Se-vices and in Exhibit "C" project Costs by Task. The
specific details of these tasks can be described as follows:
R
f -
3
k
2 i
r;sw
tt
TASK 1 - IDENTIFY REVENUE SOURCES t<
Consultant will identify the significant revenue sources that
are impacted by new and existing development within the City of *»°�W
Huntington Beach. Included in these sources are property tax, p
k �
sales and use taxes, various licenses and per,n4ts, vehicle code
fines, motor vehicle in-lieu fees, cigarette tares, business
r
w
license fees, gas cax receipts, and various charges for current
g
�v
services such as zoning, engineering, subdivision, and parcel
map filing fees.
z TASK 2 - IDENTIFY COST SOURCES
Consultant will identify the significant cost sources that are
impacted by new and Busting development within the City of
Huntington Beach. Included ixi these sources are general government,
police and fire protection, planning, library, recrearirti, parks,
human services, bt :xlding, harbors and beaches, and public works.
TASK 3 DERIVE REVENUE AND COST EST:AATINC RELATIONSHIP
Having ,identified the applicable ri.venues and costs, the next step
is to develop the basis from which these are derived such as per
capita for the various state subventions, per dollar of construction
1
value for building pex �;Lts, per dollar of assessed value for property
tax, etc. for revenues, and per capita (or per acre) for police and
fire protection., public health, and parks and recreation co.y;:s.
Revenue and cost for �ilati,ons will then be developed on tht, basis
f'rem which they are "erived. For example, in the case of a per
f
capita revenue a typical f+ormusdtion would be as follows
f
i'
3
3
i.
(Number of dwelling units)
(Number of people per dwelling unit)
(Revenue per capita) ,
A similar formulation could be written for per capita costs. `.
TASK 4 - COLLECT REVENUE AND COST FACTOR DATA
In order to estimate the applicable revenues and casts it is
necessary to compute the corresponding ::e onue and cast factors
These are the quantities on the basis for which the revenues and
costs are derived such as sates tax revenue per capita, motor
t vehicle in-lieu fees per capita, pDlice protection cost per capita,
fire protection coat per capita or per acre, public works cast ,per
acre, street maintenance cost per i;a['t:, etc. The computations of
r
these u. -ors will be accomplished through the use of data in the
city, and the use o:: the estimating relationships derived in TASK 3.
TASK 5 - MODIFY EXISTING FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
The fiscal impact model developed by the Consultants for the County
of Orange and the cities of Anaheim and Orange u.:,ier a HUD 701 grant
provides a structure which can be readily ^codified to f' : the budgetary
situation of the City of Huntington Beach. Some of the revenues and
costs that can be estimated n the present model do riot fit th,,a City
�i
of Huntington Beach ;3ituation and thus should be eliminated. on the
other hand, it may be necessary to modify :some of the present
model, revenue and cost formulations to fit "how it is� done in
Huntington Beach" The basis for t;er2 changes would be the use
` of the revenue and cost Pstinkating ,elationships derived in TASK 4.
The crud result of this process would be the development of a comp-
Tuter axed cost./tevenue model which is a "replica" of how revenues and
,,&Nkomo=
i'
5"
5 t
costs are derived in the City of Huntington Reach fzom land use
protects. This model will all, for the computation of capital costs
incurred as the result of new developmen,, and will also include the
4
�r
provision __r estimating capital costs according to the method of pay-
ment (cash, bonds, bonds plus sinking funds,. etc. ) .
TASK 6 - DEMONSTRATE JSE OF MODEL VIA ILL'USTRATIVT PROJECT EXAMPLE,
GENTERAL PLAN ANALYSIS, AND SELECTED EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS ANALYSIS
Having developed, as a result of TASKS 1-5, a computerized cost/
revenue model for the City, the next step in the basic contractural
effort will be to demonstrate the use of the modell on both the
4
City`s computer and the CDC 6600 at the Orange County Computer Center.
One or more illustrative project examples will be selected in conjun-
ction with City Staff and officials. The next step will be to use
the computerized fiscal impact methodology to perform an analysis
of the City's currently adopted land use General Plan and existing
development on a Citywide `rasis. An analysis would also be conducted
to evaluate the fiscal it ict of a selected sample of existing land
uses by type asp to which uses appear to pay their own way versus those
which do not. Using these examples and analyses, projections will be
made for a given time period of interest of the annual costs and revenues
by source, the ratio of total annual revenues to total annual costs, the
present worth of total revenues less total costs over the selected time
period, and the cumulative development status where appropriate in terms
of population, dwelling units, acres developed and land valuation.
TASK 7 -- FINAL REPORT PREPARATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Upon coy>pletion of TASKS 1.,-6, the Consultant will prepare ,a report
(30 copiii�s try be provided to the city) documenting the effort performed
in terms of data and information: collected, a description of the cost/
5
revenue methodology developed, a listing of the computer program (copies
of the program decks will also be provided) , a set of instructions
regarding how to uss the program at either of the two facilities, a �• �'.
discussion of the illustra;,fire examples considered in the program < "
demonstration, and the fiscal impact analyses of existing land uses
aid the General Plan. ;.
6
}
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EFFORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF TUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
Total
Elapsed
Time (moriths)
0 1 2 3 5 6
Initial Meeting with City Staff
Task l - Identify Revenue Sources 1.0
Task 2 - identify Cost Sources 1.0
Task 3 _ Derive Revenue and Cost
Estimating Relationships 1.0
Task 4 Collect Revenue and Cost
Factor Data 1.5
Task. 5 Modify Existing Fiscal
Nam
Impact Model 1.0
Task 6 - Demonstrate Use of Model 1.5
Via Illastrative Example,
General Plan Analysis, anca
Selected Existing Develop-
ments Analysis
Task 7 Final Report Preparation 0.5+
and Presentation
Submit Monthly Progress Reports -----
Submit Draft Report -----
Submit Final Report --- -
Make Presentations, as
Necessary • , • • •• _ ___
6.0
,,,,. q...:........---ae ,w wr',w,r--tire, .,, •:�-a -�•
,r:
EXHIBIT B { '
z CONFIGURATION INPUTS NECESSARY FOR
EVALUATION OF LAND USE FISCAL IMPACTS
Z1 Residential Land Use Factors (l1 such as: number of dwelling #
units by type; number of acres of each dwelling unit type; CfY
number of people per dwelling init; market value per dwelling
unit; fraction of Market value representing improvements.
21 Commercial. Land Use Factors (l} such as: number of commercial
land use types; number of acres of each commercial use; number of
commercial services per acre; conimercial square footage per acre,
market value per acre of commercial use; fra -ion of market value
representinq improvements.
31 It dustrial Land Use Factors (l1 such as: aunmber of industrial
land use types; number of acres of each industrial use; number of
industrial services per acre; industrial square footage per acre;
market value per acre of industrial use; fraction of market value
representing improvements.
41 PlanninS[ Factors (2) such as: linear footage of streets per acre;
linear footage of storm drains per linear foot of streets; linear
footage of water Imaina per acre; linear footage of sewar lines per
acre; park planning standard (for existing parks) in acres per capita,
(1) These may vary by geographical area within they City.
(2) These may vary by type of land use..
4
f
-v>
?.)MIBIT B
MISCELLA SOUS Ri;�VT,, UE AND COST-RELATED DATA NECESSARY FOR
EVAT;?TION OF LAND USE FISCAL IMPACTS
l} State Board of f4ualization data on total taxable retail transactions ;. :.
by type of business and number of businesses in the City (preferably
.� ;'
for calendar year (1978) k
21 Average business license fee by type of business in the city (applicable .4
schedules arc useful,howeYer, a sample .f each existing business type
should be compiled.) .
a: 3) Average annual refuse collection cost per dwelling unit by type and
per business by type in the City (a 7plicable schedules are useful ;.
t
however, a sampling would be necessary for existing developmen'4'
. z
4) Average total permit and processing fees per new dwelling unit
const) ucted by type and per acre (or per sq. ft. GFA) of new commerc 1,
and industrial construction (this would require a sampling by type
of land use) .
5) :average annual eater consumption and water revenue pt ; dwelling unit
by typo and per business by type in the City (this would require a
t:
sampling by type of land use) ,
6) Annual City operating cost per gal.lo,i (or per 100 cu. ft.) of water
provided. for a 6-year period of time.
7) State Department of Finance certified clay population estimates as
of January for 1973- 1978.
8) Statements of expenditures and receipts for fiscal years 1973-1978.
9) Cumulative linear footage :,or mileage) of publ;c streets maintained
by the City for fiscal. years 1.973-1.978.
10) Cumulative developed acres by typo of Land use (riasidential, commercial
or industrial) for fiscal years 1973--1978 (NOTE: It is recognized that
the City ;fight not maintain such an annual inventory, however, it should
be provided for wbatec=or years the data is available
}}f
f'.
F
f-
f.:
1
=y�a
11) Cumulative linear footage <,f sewers and storm drains, if maintained w4
�x
by the City, for fiscal years 1973 1978.
12) Cumulative number of developed parks and parkways maintained by
the City for fiscal years 1973-1978. ;
r
x
HUNTINGTON BEACII LAND SL FISCAL
AL i 1i'r1t "i :;eiJt:L
' PROJECT COOTS BY J'ASK
c
k h
t,
rt r...
i
i} identify Revenue: Sources
2) identify Cost Sourc�!s
3) I7ey ile Pevenue and Cost:
Estimating Rejatj,,3-jSjjipf;
4) Collect Revenue arij
Factor Data �..."; .'4 iVia ijlu.,itrativo
k+1(l
5) Modify
Impact Jodej
�} i7f'Rtt?ItSe''.:`c1?"E: �,Si? C.?i `�t;�C(fi? •
SL''lected E.Xistinq I.(-wejoi)-
meats Analysis
7? rina Rr. :Sax . Prx,parat un
and Presentatiol-Is 500
AFrRWED AS TO .FOMW:
;AIL HUTT€?N
"thy f�iz°a2dy
�, s�p�aty yG,i�gt�Y
M
..., • _.. ... .,.fin
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Submitt;d by James W. Palm Department
Planning
Date Prepared March 77, 1979 , 13 Backup Material Attached Ej Yes; No k =_
Subject CONSULTANT C0414T tACT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTERIZED
FISCAL IMPY kCT MOREL OF LAND USES. ;•^
' City administrator's Comments
awPiPROVLO DX CJJ k t:0i.NC11, '
Approve as recomriende N _ 2
�.
Statement of rssue,Recommendation,analysis, Funding Source,Al*ernative Actions: ,
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Staff has formulated and reviewed in concert with Ultrasystems, Inc.
a professional services agreement for +be development of ri computerized
fiscal impact model of land uses as previously authorized by the City
Council. The project will, provide a means of determining the potential
fiscal impact of development projects and alternative land use plans.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONt
Authorize the execution of a professional services agreement between
the City and Ultrasystems, Inc. (consultant) for development of the
fiscal impact model.
ANALYS I S
At .its March 5, 1979 meeting, the City Council approved the selection
of Ultrasystems, Inca to develop a computerized fiscal impact model.
which will enable City staff to analyze fine impacts ot specifi4 devel-
opment proposals and different .land use alternatives on the General
Plan. Pursuant to this approval, the Planning staff and the City
Attorney's Office .haveformul.ated a professional services agreement with
the consultant. The contract attached for the City Council's review and
<rxecut ion outlines .among other things the description of work to be
clone; the disposition of plans and other dociaments; the working condi-
tions under which the project will be completed; the provision for
payment and, extra work; and the conditions governing a termination of
agreement.
f
Attached -to the contract is a detailed description of the basic tasks
to be followed by the cor,,sultant in preparing the fiscal impact model.
4
F
f
'e
t
s... is
Fiscal. impact N:3del - Contract �
March 7, 1979
Page 2
The 'revel of dete.il asecciatad with each Mask is strictly governed
by the time-frames and budgetary limitations mutually agreed betwee4,
the City and the ^onsultant a5 specified.
3�R
ALTERNATIVE ACT TUNS t "
1 Revise the professioital services agreement as desired.
2. Postpor.-i or cancel the study, �
Each of these alternatives may involve time delays and nigher costs.
Respectfully submitted,
.games.. W. Pals.n
Acting Planning E`.::ector
t
JWP CG:df
Attachment; Professional Services Agreement iynd Exhibits
REQUEbF FOR CITY COUNCIL.. ACTION
Submitted by ,Tames W. Palin Department Planning c
Bate Prepared February , , 19 79 crackup Material Attached [] Yes Nc
_ Subipr Consultant i1t selection for r1 YQ '.o Xiif T2# Q computerized f1 s,.-al impact
modF1 of land uses.
City Administrator's Comments
Approve as recommended.
r
w
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,
STATEMENT OF ISSUE-
Staff has reviewed the proposals submitted for the development of a
computerized fiscal impact model of land uses as previously
authorized by the City Council. This project will provide a means
for detex:mini.ng the potential fiscal impact of development projects
and alternative land use plans.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the selection of Ul trasystems, Inc. to develop the fiscal
Impact :model for the City for a maximum fee of c14,5o0-
n,
ANALYSIS
At its December 4, 1978 meeting, the City Council authorized staff
to solicit proposals from consultants for the devo'opment of a
computerized fiscal im-act model which will enables "iffy staff to
analyze the impacts of specific development proposals and different
land wile alternatives on the General Plan, The project will also
allow evaluation of the fiscal impact of the currently adopted land
use General Plan and existing development on a Citywide basis.
A th;rd: benefit of the study is to permit City staff to evaluate
the fiscal impact of a selected sample of existing land uses by type
of use and perform an analysin as to which developments appear to
pay their owp way versus those which do not.
x
t
x
Y
t
t
f
Paae b%,o
The three firms which responded to the Request for proposal are
listed below, together with the estimated total cost: '.
1. Ultrasystems, Inc. $14,500
�. The Natelson Company, Inc. $11,000
3. Pro?ect Economics, Ino. $18,250 a`
The three proposals were reviewed in detail by City Staff. The
selection process was based on the demonstrated qualifications and t ,
expertise of the project staff and the firm itself, the details of
the proposed work program, and the reasonableness of the cost
schedule. The lowest biddin; firm lacked detail in its work
program and would not commit to a specific time frame by *ask.
Moreover, the other firms proposed to include a published analysis
of existing development ci6ywide and a sampling of land use types
to determine which ones ply their own way Versus those that do not,
The highest bidder woult. add a $20,000 license fee to its proposal
to set the model up on the City's computer. The $18,250 reflects
use of the firm's computer facilities. Based on these factors,
it is recommended that the middle bidding firm, Ultraasystems, Inc. ,
be given the responsibility for this project.
FUNDING SOURCE-
The project will be funded frcm the City's A*r, -,Recessionary Fund
and personnel salari,.:�s account of the Planning Department. The
Anti-Recessionary Fund will provide $9,562 to the project. The
remainder of the required monies will come from the personnel
salaries account of the Planninq Department.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Felect another consultant to perform the work,
2. Tire additional City Staff to undertake the project without
consultant assistance,
3. Reduce the scope of the study,
4. Po�'tpone or cancel the study.
Each of these alternatives would involve time delays, higher costs,
and/or a project not entirely reflecting the City's needs.
R spectfully submitted,
ames W. Galin
Acting :Planning Director
Attachment:
1 Finatwial Impavtn Statement
1 ,
6-
Y
MJPWJ
J
3 CITY OF HUla TINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION v,
HUNTING70k MACH v
To Floyd G. Belsito HOrt F. B. Arguello
City Administrator Director of,EjnaRca
Subject Financial Impact Report - Dale February 25 ;,�979 r x.
Fiscal Impact FIodel
As requested, I have preps-ed a Financial impact Report relative to the development
of a fiscal impact model for use in this city. If the City Council wishes to approve ,
this project, there are funds available in the anti-recessionary account and within
the PlannFng Department's budget. There would be no direct Impact an the City's
contingency account
F. B. Arguello
W rect r of Finance
FBA/cg
rF
OM
C!TY OF HUNT i NGTON BEACH is
FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT'
Project Name Fiscal impact Model
Description To provide for development of a computerized fiscal impact model x°
fir,.
cf land useL.
t, DIRECT PROJECT COSTS
1 .1 One-Time. Costs
-1,and rn., ac)- a-
Acquisition Construction ties, E ui ment. Other Total Cost
14,500 $ 14500
1.2 Recurring Annual Costs
Additional UMaterIals Outside
Pa roil Personnel Su lt •s Services Revenues Total Cost
1.3 Replacement/Renewal Costs
None
2. I NDI REC_ COSTS
None
3
Financial Impact Repc—
Page 2
3, NON-DOLLAR COSTS p
._r
None
XN` ...
Yt:F
4, BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT
1. Will enable City staff to analyze the impact of spe; ific development ..
proposals and different land use alternatives on the General Plan.
2. Will allow zvaluation of the fiscal imp-lct of the currently adopted land use
General Plan and existing development on a. City-wide basis.
3. Will permit City staff to evaluate the fiscal impact of a selected sample of
existing land. uses, Gy type of use.
5, PROJECT USAGE
As described in 41 above.
b„ EXPENDITURE TIMING
Upon letting of contract and completion thereof.
7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT
None
> CITY OF HUINTINGTON BEACH
W'&',", Jlw NTINGTON BEACH, CAS IFOPNIA 92648
This is to certify that the following described policies i r>~in.full form arid expire as indicated herein:
O
{ a,stis+ot Vsittr`d: ULTRASYSTEMS=_.INCv. _.,. A�tdress; _ 2400 MICHELSON DRIVE,_ IRVINE, CALIF
ALE, PERATIONS ,i. S. A.
.St�crifttun c�tf 4"'torlt: .. _ .., , . _. ., Locations. _. _ _,. _ _ . _
COVERAGE POLICY NO. EXPIRATION 1NSUROR U1011'5 OF LIABILITY
`+€Vi. RKMEN'S COMPENSATION RC 811066 2/2/82 Great; Arierican STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S €LABILITY €'C 811066 2/2/32 Great kiieri can $ 2,000,000..00-
BODILY INJURY LIABILITY c r'i �#� t'r T, F , Combined Single Limit
AND PROPERTY DAMAGE ��/Cz`�J1�1, j�y/�!�rf�` S ��� �fi�°i. /�y
(lncltatJ"tn Automobile) �� y �3Cft Occurrence
4 �j i rr _ Aggregate
EXCESS COMBINED SINGLE �
LIMIT BODILYINJURY hf r . �, / / r � $ t:rrEach Occurrence
AND PROPERTY DANIAGE � � S '_� Aggregate
(Including Automobile) rr �° � - -"-
;Z
I'll THE FLINT THE OLICY LISTED ABOU IS CANCELLED OR IATERIALLY ALTEPE D THE INISUROR LISTED'
WILL GIVE THIRTY 30) DAYS WRITTEN ADUNCE }')rICE TO HE CERTIFICATE UDE R.
-
�tcixtt�k.��r��uxs�tz��rstut�cH«I��-x�,x�alfr,>�c��s�xsc+xtz:asz��b���six,�ctx�ox�w��izx:�r�x��;x�.tartx. x>;r;re
l�i? ftty�;!:l4Ah�
'!'Isis,certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder, This venificate does not
amend,extend or alter tho coverage afforded by the policies listed above,
Notwithstanding any requirement, terra, or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate is
issued,the insurance afforded by the policies listed above is subject to all the terms of such policies.
THE DOUGHERTY CO., INC. THE DQ GHERTY COMPANY,, INC.
P.O.sox 72TI
LO:'C BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90807
July 15, 1981 „
.DATE: ..a._ 1- 31 d24-i+72i BY:
N Gordon M. Dougherty
I
i7eau*n r rip?ai a ct r.rt vxD
t�'3`�1y4iUft';l 4'Crt�.rnra Ci;. k s,erx. ;.n p. it ;sl.:}r3Bpt
twfHfiF!i.,'AtE�W I€'�SURAy,t.F t c.,off,, a G". ti9�;.�gc>
4tY c:f ffiur,Cin^,icr:fjpath TO
tteµt. C' t>e3'?r -r�:ty Atr:trr�ey
A.U.Box 191? 0TY Or-HUNTING TON k iiCH,CAttFORNfA
Hunlingtonifeach.Cabfam;a92G413 A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
This is to c rtify that the policies of smurAnce as described below have been ihw d to tb.a insured by the under-
signed and are in farce at this tirne.If these policies are ranceiled or chani,led in,uch a manner thit will affect this certificate,the
insurance company agrees to giva 30 days prior written notme,by mail,to City sf Hurivngtor.Beach.P.0,flux 190, Huntington
Beach,California 9264&
Name of Insured LILTRASYSTF21S, INC. — —
Address of Insured 2400 MICHELSON DRIVE, IRVINE, CALIF RNIA 92715
Location of Insured Operations _ ALL OPERATIONS
Desu-ri tion of Operations �—
r
r POLICIES IN FORCE POLICY LIMITS 6F LIABILITY �- -�
NUMBER EFFECTIVE EXPIRATION �-
A, Workers Compensation PG Statutory ;
x Employers Liability 791065 2/l/76 CONT. s 2,000,000 00 kr
B. Public Lisbdity: Ocombined single
limit per occurrence.
Bodily Injury, R
Wnufacturers and SLY,
Contractors 9448561 9/l/77 9/1/80 Each Person s`
CompreflensiYe -a
General S Each Ac6dent '
flncluding products completed
trperaiionsl .
operty Damage S Each Accident
G. Automobile Liability; $500,000. "^ Combined Single Ulmii-
SLP a
Bodily injury 9448561 ' 9/1/77 9/l/8li S Each Person
S _ _ Each Accident
Property Damage 5 Each Accident
Does policy cover: 41'laasa Mack at i9.ist onel
All owned automobiles I x I Yes t I No
Non-owned automobiles ( x)Yes t 1 IUo
Hired automobiles I x)Yes I I No
D. Additional insured Endorsement:
The insurer agrees that the COY of Huntington Reach and its Ciey Council,andior all City Council appointed groups,
committees,commissions,boards and any other City Council arpointed body,and/or elective and appointive officers,
servants or employees of the City of Huntington Beach,when eating as such are additional insureds hereunder,for the
acts of the insured,and Such insurance shall be primary to any insurance of the Citv of Huntington Beach.
E, Hold Harmless Agreement: By Insured' -
The insured zSrees to protect,defend,indemnify,and save harmless th,?Nty of Huntington'Beach against.loss,damage or
expense by re=a on of any suits,claims,demands,judgment's tnd causes of action mused by incised,his employees,agents
or any subcontractor or by any third party arising out of or in consequence of the petformance of all or any operations
covered fay;he certifi"to of insurance.
P. t eenarks: APPROVED AS TO FORM'
Excess, Liability Policy NO. 123067, Harbor Insurance Company GAIT.HUTTON
Term; 9/1178 -- 9/.1/79 .city At rney
Limits: $$00,000,00 Combined Single Limit Excess of Primary By.
Date March 30, 1979 4T. AUTHQAY40 REPR SENT:ATIV SURANCE OMPANY
INWR NCI;CC PA11i`J
area WrWm lasurance Company
iiairteHarbbz �AS[1rLt1ICn �:OTA an � settnaturaofAutharrMi-Rotrrmerxtxtivlsrltgr
Addrw P, 0 Box 7277 Address
taty Long; BeachCalifornia 90807 Telephone � (213) 424-1621.
)t�tt n+or}p hal awd la MAIL TO I
• cc+nPlsJsd avrsitkast 1?�� Origdsaef .grytnttsmi t).yt. „a �,
a city of fi qt Pink r tarty Clark
II
•We.. C,btd `Utp'attwnay h
P.D.Uax'1~^~�[untt 1NiA. y
Wunthw"Beach,Ca. -
+
This is f� �`^-�- - ra bears issued to the imuted by the under-
%[V.ad and are in fa t i�4U$h8` t4fiiidflJ/.r tiC, a nunntr that will affect this sr'tifita2e,the
ct '
insurantompahy antingtoh Btaeti,P.Q.Box 190,Hurvirwon
Beach,California$: Low 0MR,V-11 O OR
ro�
FJrsma of lnturasf ULTY.ASXSTSlfS 12i 4"„~*
r,
Address aflitsueed 2400 MICHELSON DRIVE, LEVINE, CAL.:Pt1RHIA 92115
Potation Lf lniumd Operations + OPERAfiCORS
Description of Operations R.S.A. A'a
POLI
Pr/LfCtES tIat ZpC£ I NUMBER EFFECTIVE GXPtfiA7i0� LtialT$tJF LIABILITY .._ .
A. VYorkan Corrtfasnt+n set PC 5tatutrr- ,=
2/1/76 C4
Employer?Liability 791065 ff11tttJ4 04
g2aU44 440
S.Public t.iabili + fambined sine
ty, 4h�a8� _ Af
aodiiy Injury: limit per bccurrenca.
-LP
fAanOfaetureus and 5448561 911/77 9/1180
Contractors 5 Each Person
Comprahensivt f
Geneva! ! 5 +_.Each Accident ;
(Indoding producer eomMeted
Operations) _
ProPa:tti Darn"a $ Each Awderit
C. Automobile k$50,000.00 Combined S3nZle Limit
Bodily Injury SIX } 3.«� '_. _>acb fibnon o
9448561 �911/77 � 9/1180 S '-� „Each Amdent
Property Damage S Each Accident
Uaas pgltcy bows lPlxst fihackr!twttantl
All owned autombbefas f g)Yet I R*
son-owned solwivowkS. f XI"$S f )III
Hired sutomobnler f x f Yfa I, I No
D, Additional Intafed Lndofstmsm. (PER ATTACHED)
Tha insuiet ay'rtet that the City Of ffunt)riittoh Saach area its City Count??,andfor all 01y Wunc,l appointed gmupt,
xummkteas.atnimess)cm,boards and any rather#sty Ccuncif 4r7point6d body,and;'or efacuto and appotntivo bfflc*rs. +. s
samInts or erripfoytes of the City of l untirgton Stoch,.when acting as such are additional insureds hatauridar.for the -
acts of the Insured,and such inti rancie shatl be primary to soy%mwan:'r of the City of Huntington Stash.
E. field ffarrntess Aylretment. fay tnrartCi. °s.A1 Cam... ..''rf-^�u �"a-""""' �
The insured agrees to protect,defend,indemnify and Lava harmlets Lhc,!'ity of Huntivivoit Beath gantttoss.ttarrssym or
anpaom by frawn of soy tints,c)afms,demands,iudgmertts and ctu-a of wttfah Mused by intua Jlit antpfoyats,agents
or any subwa-ntractot ar by toy third piny*ruing out of or m conirauwty of the patioimatitt x all or any Operations
coirrtsatf by the cettifttatoOf inutranm
Aamarlel GA LAPPROlilri iOrV ED AS TO FOAM, r J,'..Pit
Fxc aB �nilLt vPo CtY Olney six'='•'C+*is
Tam- 9/1/78 - 9111Y9
1,i4tst$500,000.00 tt#u*J 5ia81a Lixi.t: excvig of F2�sely
y Qty Att r y
l,xfit w_ ._ AUTHORIZC .EPf PSF AT)VP '5UhA C oANY
tarsuty �a c
�txtta ��i SYtesxz�tsfvaa Ctr>U(raYtt�#y,+''� �
t� � �'t'a Yt'8 .t:�t'i'gy�.'Sr 1c44 Sat,A:Krr, it a#TMKT rYBt*abM' k
fwrlt� 3
rr•
F
f
71 ci►'TS
CITY OF HUNTINGTON B1tACH
CERTIFICATE OF INSUMCE REQUIPEMENTS
Proof of Workers' Compensation required, or present a oerti•- w
fiCate of consent to self-Insure issued by the Director of
industrial Relations (See city form, Paragraph A).
F t" '
Public 1;:.ability limits insufficient. Minimum acceptable is
combined single limit per occurrence including '.
property_dsmage (See city form, Paragraph B).
Automobile llability is required. Minimum acceptable is ;
combined single limit per occurrence including
property damage (See city form., Paragraph C).
;era on nsuxed a dbrseuen e ru-iolk insurance company
must name the city as additional insured for the acts or
omissions to act of the insured and not of the city (See
city .`orm, Paragraph D).
Hold haa'ml.ess agreement not ,signed by insured. The insured
must h Id `he city harmless (See city fort, Paragraph E).
Policy number and effective;''expirntion date missing..
Insurance company not licensed to do business in California.
The Certificate of Insurance must be issued by a surplus line
broker admitted in California or by an insurance company
licensed to do business in California,
�-� Telephone numt.-^ for insurance broker missi-g.
t�[t Automobile liability, Paragraph C, does policy cover;
All otimed automobiles ( )yes ( )no
Non-owned automobiles ( )yes ( )no
Hired ;automobiles ( )yes ( )no
At least one box must be checked YES.
011
d Other. � e,�'p ' .:z t
1 '._.. Y
f:
f
—gin
t
Y
!, 1
am r
.jr..
1,
- t V'•8
i trL{
..�aY
t
t,
a rt Ft 5'` 1 r
t a
s� sr s
-
y
' t .-Al."
is t �. f.• ''�'. # '} 2 (*,-} .} r,Yl _
-
t
r �
I d Y
yt
IMF
VIM
i7 a IY
• a+r r tr tC 1 YI r ti{' x}w � 1:.it �' t e" t 1i^ i` h. v � `� V y ,, r
� �f a �' � '�7 y�-.y" r• J a t f y e p �d + � re i i { s f
1 74
t 1 b a q r +P 7 1K fir it Y SF fi<� 'f't,ry s a r r s eiCCA t i t 7- r A �. s t x -
f � Y4lit
for
: r llSi �c tr K -y k t. ti � + �"G �•{.,' J t t # t �i rr � }"
lY'J
AM
F.%VlII'I#+� t��
7r L• v 9 q+t$ xr �t
yv i� F x •t h t c t-d u* u� F �,s/, i k
-
r
v, y
i 1 W,. b' I :.1 d l ,y �'It'. yw �'�r�'r■�r.�,t t. ,�r
a tfP,
,
oe
k
9
C
f,
� rt
CITY OF HU NTINGTON BEACH
Office of the City Clerk
P. 0. Box 190
Huntiri ton Beach, calif. 92648
FINAL REPORT ON THE
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
u
OF A LAND USE FISCAL IMPACT
METHODOLOGY FOR THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PREPARED BY
tr�
ULTRASYSTE;MS, INC.
2400 MICHELSON DRIVE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715
(714) 752-7500
# } C3VEMER 1979 VOLt1ME I — METHODOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
T
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS w
AUTHORIZED BY:
Huntington Beach City Council
{ 5�
Don MacAllister, Mayor
Bob Mandic, Mayor Pro Tem
Ruth Bailey
Ruth Finley s
Ron Pattinson
John Thomas
Clancy Yoder
PREPARED FOR USE BY:
Huntington Beach City Council
x�
and
Hunt=n tg on Beach Planning Commission
Robert Bazil, Chairman
Ralph Sauer, Vice Chairman
Bruce OrAer
Beverly Kenefick
Pram Shea
John Stern
Grace Winchell
CITY STAFF INVOLVED:
City Administrator - Floyd Belsite
Accounting Officer - Mayne Lee
Department of Development Services
Project Staff
Jarps Patin, Director
June Catalano, Senior Planner
Charles :lark, Associate Planner
Carol Inge, Assistant Planner
Hal Simmons, Planning Aide
Hal Messinger, Planning Intern
Rad Coulter, Planning Intern
Steve Levan, Planning Intern
Guy Perrin, Planning Intern
Sam Feldman, Planning Intern
,. yr TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 - METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT u.
Section Page
1 .0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ">
2.0 REVENUE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 z
2.1 Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
7 2.2 Other Local Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.2.1 Sates Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.2.2 In-,Lieu Water Utility Tax . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.2.3 Water Utility Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2.2.4 Gas Utility Tax . . . . 2-21
2.2,5 Te',ephone Utility Tax . . . . . . . 2-22
2.2.6 Electricity Utility Tax . . . . . . . 2-23
2.2.7 Cigarette Tax . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
N 2.2,8 Real Property Transfer Tax. . . . . . . . . . 2-24
2.3 Licenses and Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
2.3.1 Animal licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
2.3.2 Business Licenses . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
2.4 Revenue From Other Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
2.4.1 Trailer Coach License Fees . . . . . . 2-26
2.4.2 Alcoholic Beverage Fees . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
2.4.3 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees. . . . . . . . 2-31
2.4.4 Gasoline Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
2.5 Development Oriented Charges . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
2.5.1 Permit & Processing Fees. . . . . . . . . . 2-33
2.5.2 Parks & Recreation Fees . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
2.5.3 Library Fees . . . . . . . . 2-37
2.5.4 Seger Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
2 5.5 Drainage Fees . . . . . . . . . 2-38
2.6 Laher Revenues . . . . . . . . _ . 2-40
2.6.7 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties. . . . 2-40
2.6.2 Miscellaneous . . . . . . 2-41
2.7 stater Fees and Service Charges . . . . . 2-42
2.7.1 beater Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
�" 2.7.2 Dater Sales . . . . . . . . . 2-43
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
f '
Section Page
3.0 COST SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 General Government and Administration . . . . . . . 3-1r
3.2 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 `
3,2.1 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.2 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 Sys
3.3 Harbors, Beaches & Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 k
3.3.1 Harbors & Beaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
ti
.. 3.3.2 Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.4 Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
3.4.1 Administration & Engineering . . . . . . 3-16
3.4.2 Facility & Equipment Maintenance . . . . . 3-17
3.4.3 Street Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.5 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
3.6 dater Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
4.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SELECTED LAND USES . . . 4-1
4.1 Comparison of Residential Land Uses . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.2 Comparison of Commercial Land Uses . . . . . . . . 4-23
4.3 Comparison of Industrial Land Uses . . . . . . . . 4-27
P
9P6.
I
�r
t
}
,dt�SySl I7fyS. �
ABSTRACT
This the first volume of a 3-volume study to develop a '
computerized fiscal impact model for use by the City in the evaluation
of land use fiscal imparts. Volume 2 deals with the application of
the model to evaluate the City's General Ylar, of development, and
s
Volume 3 contains a detailed description of the model and the various
formulas utilized.
The intended benefits to the City as the result of this model
mm development effort are;
a Information that can be used to project land use mix cost/
revenue impact.
Assistance in determining the quantity of various revenue
producing uses which are needed to offset net cost uses.
9 Assistance in identifying costly land uses.
0 A basis for structuring future data collection needs within
the City.
® Assistance in setting land use mix goals and objectives.
A decision-making tool to ail in growth planning decisions.
a A means for determining the potential fiscal impact of large
development proposals or zone changes.
0 Assistance in comparing various alternative land use and
density cc figurations.
A A basic method for forecasting future budget impacts.
ry A procedure for determining how City services could be deli-
vered to new development.
0 An analytical method of assessing the costs and revenues
associated with new development,
0 Assistance in comparing various alternative commercial and
industrial development plans.
0 A methodology for forecasting "city-wide" commercial and
industrial revenue.
a Basic tk.ols which can assist decision-makers in the preparation
of redevelopment plans.
r
S`
4
k
i
11Qtt, :t�ftul
"$ The basic features of the fiscal impact model can be summ... �d
as follows:
V;
` (1) considers 24 different revenue sources to the City
including property tax, other local taxes, licenses
and permits, revenue from other agencies, development
oriented charges, other revenues, and water fees and
F
service charges
(2) considers 10 different City public service cost sources
including general government and administration, public
safety, harbors, beaches and parks, public works, library
and water service
(3) allows for capital expenditures for public safety, harbors,
beaches and parks, public works and library facilities
a (4) annual costs for capital improvements can be determined
on the basis of cash, bond financing (with or without
sinking fund retirement), straight-line amortization or
capital recovery amortization at a specified interest rate
(5j Qives annual projections for each revenue and cost source
on a cash flow basis or on the basis of today`s dollars
(6) presents annual revenue and cost totals as well as annual
revenue-to-cost ratios
xi• In this volume, is presented a detailed discussion of the
derivation of the revenue and cost factors utilized in the basic methodology
and an application is made to selected residential, commercial and industrial
land uses of specific types should they exist in the City today.
rap
1.0 INTRODUCTION ;.
This section presents the development of a fiscal Impact methodology _;
and the derivation of the corresponding revenue and cost factors which can be
us, to ,aluate development proposals in the City of Huntington Beach. The dis- `
n p, ented is based primarily on previous research* conducted under the
HUn Comprehensive Planning Assistance Grant program by Ultrasystems in
cor,,inction wi'h the County of Orange, the City of Anaheim and the City of
Orange. The results of this previous research have been modified accordingly
to reflect the types of fiscal impacts which can be expected to occur from new
w.
development in Huntington Beach In particular, a computerized fiscal impact
model, developed over a period of nearly 4 years, has been modified to predict
the specific revenues and costs associated with development activities in the
City. Appendices A and 8 in this report contain the spicific revenue and cost
equations, respectively, which are contained in the Huntington Beach version of
this computerized fiscal impact model . Appendix C contains the output formats
used to present the revenues and costs.
In the determination of tow to modify this previously developed
model, extensive review was undertaken to determine the major revenue and cost
sources in the City which are associated with development activities. It was
determined that the revenue sources expected to be impacted by new development
y, are.
(I) Property Tax
r (2) Other Local Taxes
(2.1) Sales Tax
(2.2) In-Lieu Water• Utility Tax
(2.3) Water Utility Tax
(2.4) Gas Utility Tax
z (2.5) Telephone Utility Tax
`w
(2.6) Electricity utility Tax
(2„7) Cigarette Tax
(2.8) Real Property Transfer Tax
*See: user's Manual on Economic and Environmental Growth Impact Analysis.,
prepared�iy t o"f`naROm and M—rasystems, Inc., 30 June t 77
i-a
r;
x
{
lu
b
(3) Licenses and Permits
(3.1 ) Animal Licenses ..._
(3.2) Business Licenses +
(4) Revenue From Other Agencies
I 4'
(4.1) Trailer Coach License Fees
(4.2) Alcoholic Beverage Fees
(4.3) Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees
t
(4.4) Gasoline Tax
(5) Development Oriented Charges
(5.1) Permit & Processing Fees
(5.2) Parks & Recreation Fees
(5.3) Library Fees
(5.4) Sewer Fees
(5.5) Drainage Fees
(6) Other Revenues
(6.1) Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties
(6,2) Miscellaneous
(7) Water Fees and Service Charges
(7.1) Water Fees
(7.2) Water Sales
u Similarly, the cost svarces expected to be impacted by new development
are:
(1) General Government and Administration
(2) Public Safety
(2.1) Police Protection
(2.2) Fire Protection
(3) Harbors, Beaches & Perks
(3.1) Harbors &: Beaches
(3..2) Parks & Recreation
(4) Public Works
(4.1) Administration & Engineering
(4.2) Facility and Equipment Maintenat,ce
(4.3) Street Maintenance
l-2
� r
2
s
x fi
(5) Library
(6) hater Service r.
Tn order to predict these revenues and costs, it was necessary to
review past historical trends and then determine on what basis they would be.
derived. The latter required the develot °nt of appropriate revenue and cost
factors utilizing a variety of data sources including annual statements of
expenditures and receipts, audited financial statements, and miscellane�js
data on land use acreage, footage of streets and annual population estimates.
To illustrate the esults obtained, Table 1 .1 presents a summary of the per
F`~ capita revenues over the period FY 74 through FY 79, Table 1.2 presents the
revenue factors derived for estimating revenue impacts, Table 1.3 presents
a summary of annual operating costs over the period FY 74 through FY 79, and
Table 1.4 presents the cost factors derived for estimating cost impacts.
Section 2..0 presents a detailed discussion of the derivation of
these revenue factors and Section 3.0 presents a detailed discussion of the
derivation of these cost factors. Finally, Section 4.0 presents illustrative
A
examples of the use of these factors in predicting the fiscal impacts in the
City for selected development proposals.
1-�3
Table 1.1 Historical Summary of City of Huntington Beach
Annual Per Capita Revenues
1971-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978 1978-1979 Historical
Annual
Per Per Per Per Per Per Change in
Revenue Source Total Ca ita(l) Total Ca itat�� �7otai Ca ita�33 Total Ca ita�4� Total Ca ita(5) rota, Cap
Per Ca i
Sales and Use Tax $3,300,470 $22.98 $3,521.982 $23.81 $4,197,518 $27.56 $5,205,890 $32.93 $6,147,068 $38.11 $7.261,302 $43.31 + 13,5
Cigarette Tax 477,571 3.13 467,668 3.16 514,672 3.38 498,782 3.15 550,503 3.41 534,407 3.19 + 0.9
Animal Licenses: 117,585 0.82 78,214 0.53 104,564 0:59 150,866 0.95 131,682 0.82 120,739 0.72 - 2.6
Ebtor Vehicle
in-Lieu Pees 1,339,934 9.33 1,280,409 8.66 1,413,448 9.28 1,682,217 10.64 2,059,030 12.77 2,341,592 13.99 + 8.4
4. Gasoline Ta. 11296,089 9.03 1,302,634 8.81 1,331,502 8.74 1,433,571 9.07 1,511,227 9.37 1,587,594 9.48 + 1.0
fines, Forfeitures
and Penalties 510,377 3.55 538.476 3.64 499,753 3.27 593,325 3,75 720,518 4.47 1,.135,452 6.01 + 11.1
Miscellaneous 384,610 0.45 441,619 0.47 572,113 0.70 555,474 0.56 850,566 0.90 910,139 1.07 + 18,9
M0 Population A 143,600
(2 population - 147,900
((3 population - 152,300
(4 population = 158,100
(51 population - 161,300
6 population - 167,419
7 over the period FY 74-FY 79
OMNI
I I E� Mw
,..�.- v
r
Table 1,o2 City of Huntington Beach Revenue Factors
ESTIMATED
1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980
FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR
REVENUE SOURCE M MIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE % VALUE
Property Tax Per dollar assessed value(l) (2) —
Other Local Taxes
Sales Tax Per capita for residential projects $43,31(3) 13.5 $49.16(3)
Per square -foot gross leasable area (See Section 2,2.1)
for commercial and industrial projects
In-tied Water Per dwelling unit for residential projects kSee Section 2.2.2)
Utility Tax
Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.2.2)
projects
Water Utility Tax Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.2.3)
Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.2.3)
projects
Gas Utility Tax Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.2.4)
Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.2.4)
projects
Telephone Utility 'fax Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.2.5)
Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.2.5)
projects
Electricity Utility Tax Per dwelling unit for residential projects (S2e Section 2,2.6)
Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 2,2.6)
projects
Cigarette Tax Per capita for residential projects 3.19 -0.9 3.16
Real Property Transfer
Tax Per dollar of sales .00055 None .00055
1 Based onthe I%' property tax limitation of the Jarvis-Gann Initiative and the portion of property tax revenue
received by the City
(2) Limited to a maximum of 2% by the Jarvis-Gann Initiative
(3) This is a city, 'de average; however, for individual project *he factor value used would be based on the
estimated family income as 4t relates to the income requirement for house purchase.
s
Table 1 .2 (Continued) ;
ESTIMATED
1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980
FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR
REVENUE SOURCE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE 9; VALUE
Licenses and Permits
Animal Licenses Per capita for residential projects 0.72 -2.6 0.70
Business Licenses Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.3.2)
projects
Revenue From Other Agencies
Trailer Coach License Per dollar of coach value (See Section 2.4.1)
Fees
Alcoholic Beverage Fees Per business for commercial projects (See Section 2.4.2)
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Per capita for residential projects 13.99 8.4 15.17
Fees
Gasoline Tax Per capita for residential projects 9. 18 1 .0 9.57
Development Oriented 'Charges
Permit & Processing Fees Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.5.1)
Per acre or per sq. ft. for commercial and (See Section 2.5.1)
industrial projects
Parks & Recreation Fees Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.5.2)
Library Fees Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.5.3)
Sewer Fees Per dwelling unit on per acre for residential (See Sec{ion 2.5.4)
projects
Per acre for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.5.4)
projects
Drainage Fees Per acre (See Section 2.5.5)
Other Revenues
Fines, Forfeitures & Per capita for residential projects 6,01 11 .1 6.68
Penalties
Miscellaneous Per capita for residential projects 1 .07 18.9 1 .27
Table 1.27.2 (Continued) --
ESTIMATED �� •.
1978{,1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980
FACTL7n ANNUAL FACTOR
REVENUE SOURCE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE % VALUE
Water Fees A Service Charge,
rater Fees Per dwelling unit or per acre for (See Section 2.8.1)
residential projects
Per .acre for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.8.1)
projects
Water Sales Per dwelling unit for reside -tial projects (See Section 2.8.2)
Per business for commercial and (See Section 2.8.2)
industrial projects
B
Table 1.3 Historical Summary of City of Huntington Beach Net Annual Expenditures(l) '
Historical
Annual
Cost Soiree 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 1976-1977 1-977-1978 197ii-19799 Chan e % t2J
General Government ;,id $3,015,849 $4,348,823 $4,554,685 $5,418,141 $6,314,581 $8,153,936 + 16.4
Administration
Public SaLqj
Police "rotectio❑ 4,600,501 5,394,818 6,215,791 7,382,782 8,420,844 8,991,331 + 14.3
Fire Protection 2,883,614 3,260.778 3,761,025 4,321,509 4,816,562 5,456,237 + 13.6
Harbors, Beaches and Parks
_ Harbors and Beaches. 1,038,194 1,058,108 1,123,834 1,196,524 1 080,693 1,105,900 + 1.3
Parks and Recreation 1,039,264 1,299,010 1,320,055 1,386,767 1,590,642 1,293,037 + 4.5
Public Works
Administration and
Engineering 746,388 778,430 851,927 986,971 1,025,466 1,051.180 + 7,1
facility and Equipment 567,837 882,883 1,311.256 1,808,402 1,929,995 1,735,524 + 25.0
Maintenance
Street Maintenance 1,935,795 2,252,193 2,V 266 2,113,707 2,362,019 2,682,051 + 22.6
1.1 bra ry 622,593 756,867 939,3P.6 991,209 1,203,855 1,039,717 + 10.8
Water 2,387,381 3,023,632 3,297,058 3,548,017 3,649,271 3,534,510 + 8.2
(7j"—OcM Oes capital expenditures and includes consideration of reimbursement revenues
(2) over the period FY 7" - FY 79
G
qe it Y+ i�'. i+ '+ y ..�-1 4' 3 J 9
Table 1.4 City of Huntington Beach Cost Factors
ESTIMATED t
1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980
FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR
'COST SOUR CE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE VALUE
General Government &
Administration Per capita for residential projects $ 37,89 12.6 $ 42.68
Per acre for commercial an,
industrial projects 684.33 12.5 770.13
Public S
Police Protection Per capita for residential projects 41.73 10.7 46.23
Per square foot for commercial and
indristrial projects (See Section 3,2,1)
Fire Protection Per capita for residential projects 25.36 10.0 27.83
Per square foot for conviercial and
industrial projects (See Section 3.2.3)
Harbors, Beaches & Parks
Harbors & Beaches Per capita for residential projects 1.30 1.4 1 .32
Parks & Recreation Per capita for residential projects 7.72 1 .3 7.62'
Public Works
Administration &
Engineering Per acre 38.25 3.5 91 .34
Facility & Equipment
Maintenance Per acre 146.70 20.8 176.07
Street Maintenance Per linear foot of streets 1.51 2.7 1 .55
Library Per capita for residential projects 6.21 7.4 6.67
Water Service Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 3.6)
Per business for commercial and industrial (See Section 3.6)
projects
r
�4�»
.ill l
F:
t I 75;eb
tt.
f �
2.0 REVENUE SOURCES
In this section, a discussion of each of the major revenue sources
-from new development is presented along with the derivation of the estimating
equations for predicting future revenues. The specific detailed equations
are given in Appendix A.
j;
2.1 Property Tax
Ma Property tax revenue is based on use of the general fund property
., tax rate applied to assessed valuation, which is defined to be 25% of the
assessor market value. For 1977-1978 this tax rate was $1.55 per $100
assessed valuationn. Because of the recent of Pro osition 13, the l '
passage P
total property tax revenue is limited to 1010 of the assessor market value
(relative to 1975-1976) and is limited to an annual increase of no more than
21. As 4 result, the City of Huntington Beach does not actually receive the
total revenue derived by applying this tax rate to the assessed valuation, but
generally a smaller portion. For estimation purposes, it is assumed that
the City receives property tax revenue in the same proportion as its tax
rate is to the total (i.e. , for all taxing agencies) tax rate - specifically
the total* 1977-1978 average tax rate considering the City, County of Orange,
and the various special districts is $$10.0593 of which $1.55, or 15.4%, is the
City rate. Therefore, it is assumed that the City receives 15.4% of 1% of the
assessor market value. The derivation of property tax revenue is thus obtained
from
Av??�age� Fraction of
(Property tax
Number m property tax,
X limitation .t
of OU`s value J' factor = .01 revenue received
pe,� DU / by City = .154
for residential projects, and from
(Average,) Fraction ofProperty taxNber market property tax
aF acres X value factor ianrevenue receveper a, factor = .O1 by City = .154
for coi,m, -vial and industrial projects
*County' of Orange Tax hates 1977-1978
2-1
m
f
t
R
{
ys%
2.2 Other Local Taxes
2..2.1 Sales Tax t
Sales tax revenue is generally estimated on the basis of per
4'
capita sales tax revenue for residential projects and on the basis of sales per
square foot for commercial (or industrial) projects. "
Referring to Table 1.1, historical trends show the following:
Sales Tax Revenue
Fiscal Year Revenue : Population = Per Capita
1978-1979 - $7,251,302 167,419 $$43.31
1977-1978 5,147,068 161 ,3GO 38.11
1976-1977 5,205,890 158,100 32,93
1975-1976 4,197,518 152,300 27.56
1974-1975 3,521,982 147,900 23.81
1973-1974 3,300,470 143,600 22.98
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY, through FY79 is 13.5%�,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated sales tax revenue per capita
is (1.135)($43.31) _ $49.16.
-} The derivation of sales tax revenue from residential projects Is
generally obtained from
x
(Average Sales tax
Number number of y. revenue
of Ru's people .per I I per capita) ,
where the sales tax revenue per capita factor used can either be a citywide
average such as that derived above or can be derived on the basis of family
income. In the latter case, dwelling unit market value can in many cases be
used (at least fog new construction units) to estimate family income. An
approximate rule of thumb for ownership units is that market value is typically
2-1/2 times annual inco�e or, equivalently, annual income is equal to 40% of
market value. On this basis, one can use the sales tax tables generated by
the Internal Revenue Service to estimate the taxable retail expenditures by
family income and family size In California (see Table 2.1). The City of Huntington
2-2
1tM5yxy
Table 2..1 Distribution of Taxable Retail Expenditures(l)
by Family Size .
Family Size (Persons) '
�
family Income ,2 _ 3-4 5 6 & Over
Under $3,000 850 $1 ,017 $1,133 $1,133 x.,
$3,000- 3,999 11100 1 ,300 ',450 1,450
t t
" 4,000- 4,999 1,333 1 ,550 1,733 1 ,733
5,000 5,999 1 ,550 1,783 2,000 2,000
6,000- 6,999 1,767 2,017 2,250 2,267
7,000- 7,999 1 ,967 2,233 2,483 2,533
81000 81999 2,167 2,450 2,717 2,783
91003- 9,999 2,350 21650 2,933 3,017
10,000-10,999 2,533 2,850 3,150 3,250
11,000-11,999 2,717 3,050 3,367 3,483
12,000-12,999 2,900 3,233 3,567 3,700
13,000-13,999 3,067 3,417 3,767 3,917
14,000-14,999 3,233 3,600 3,967 4,133
15,000-15,999 3,400 3,783 4,150 4,333
16,000-16,999 3,567 3,967 4,333 4,533
17,000-17,999 3,733 4,133 4,517 4,733
18,.000-18,999 3,883 4,300 4,700 4,933
19,000-19,999 4,033 4,467 4,883 5,133
20,000-49,999 (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1) $ased on Internal Revenue Service optional sales tax deductions for
California residents divided by .06.
(2) 2420 + .0807 Income (4) 2930 + ,0977 Income
(3) 2680 + .0893 Income (5) 3080 +• .1027 1h, :ome
2-3
�r.
rrlt sterns;
Beach then receives approximately 11 in the form of sates tax revenue. This
discussion suggests the use of a formula of the form to
Taxable '
(01umberf
retail /Sales tax revenue DU,s X expenditures X per $1 retail .:
per family sales = .0I
per DU
In the commercial (or industrial) project case, sales tax revenue ...
can generally be derived from
Number Gross leasable Annual Sales tax revenue
of acres X area (GLAD X sales per per $1 retail
x per acre sq.ft. GLA sales = .01
If a developer is able to provide an estimate of the annual sales per sq.ft.
GLA} then this should be used; otherwise, Urban Land Institute factors could be
used. For example, in Huntington Beach there are three basic types of shopping
centers which are plausible fOr the size of the city and the surrounding
support areas, namely, neighborhood, community and regional centers.
A neighborhood center provides for the sale of convenience goods
(foods, drugs and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning,
barbering, shoe repairing, etc,) for the day-to-day living needs of the
immediate neighborhood. It is built around a supermarket as the principal
tenant. In theor�t, the neighborhood center has a typical gross leasable area
of 50,000 square feet. The neighborhood center is the smallest type of shop-
ping center.
In addition to the convenience goods and personal services of the
neighborhood center, a community center provides a wider range of facilities
for the sale of soft lines (wearing apparel for men, women, and children) and
hard lines (hardware and appliances). The community center makes greater depth
of Merchandise available — variety in sizes, styles, colors, and prices. It
is built around a junior department store, variety store, or discount department
k store as the major tenant, in addition to a supermarket. It does not have a
full-line department store, though it may have a strong specialty store, In
*Frost Fable 2.1
2-4
,y
s
F theory, the typical size is 750,010 square feet of gross leasable area, but f °-
in practice the range may vary. The community center is the intermediate or
ir-between type of center, most difficult to estimate for size and pulling
power. :.
` qo regional center provides for general merchandise, apparel,
k.
+ furr,:vur :, 7 ,ie furnishings in depth and variety, is well as a range
;; of 4n-, recreational facilities. It is build aroundd one or two full-
line s'xWres of generally not less than 100,000 square feet. In
throrjr a Yt—ical size for definitive purposes is 400,000 square feet of gross.
s. ;(At ,rya. The regional center is the second largest type of shopping
cater. As such, the regional center provides services typical of a business
district, yet not as extensive as a super regional, which generally ranges
from 750,000-1,000,000 square feet in size.
Tables 2.2-2.13 present typical annual sales results for neighbor-
hood community and regional centers in the Far best based on a 1978 survey*
by the urban Land Institute. These factors could be used as appropriate in
lieu of any other more valid estimates.
On the other hand, State Board of Equalization taxable sales data
could also be used to obtain gross estimates of sales tax revenue on a per
u business basis, As an example, Table 2.14 presents a summary of the average
annual taxable sales per business for each of sixty-nne different business
w categories in the City over the 5-year time period 1974-1978.
2.2.2 In-Lieu Water Utility Tax
In-lieu water utility tax is a reimbursement to the City from the
water enterprise and is derived on the basis of 15" of the total way, ;lity
operating revenue which consists of (1) metered sales, (2) fire service sales,
(3) irrigation sales, (4) municipal sales, and (5) construction sales. Metered
sales generally comprise on the order of 96-«971% of the tota' water utility
operating revenue and thus is the major contributor to the in-lieu water utility
*Dollars Cents of Shopping Centers; 1978, Urban Land Institute
2-5 1
• C. '- e Table 2.2 Tenants Most Frequently Found in Neighborhond T
Shopping Centers
Median Sales `
Volume per
Median Square Foot
Tenant Classification Rank GLA s .ft. GLA
GENERAL MERCHANDISE
� Variety Store l9 10,160 $ 38.00
FOOD
Supermarket 1 22,648 178.73
FOOD SERVICE
Restaurant without liquor 7 2,400 71.95
Restaurant with liquor 9 3,600 75.65
Fast food/Carry cut 8 1 ,410 96.29
CLOTHING
Ladies ready-to-wear 6 1,680 50.04
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC
Radio, TV, Hi-Fi 14 2,000 98.14
BUILDING MATERIALS/GARDEN
Hardware 18 6,000 34.89
GIFT/SPECIALTY
Cards and gifts 16 1,810 39.98
JEWELRY AND COSMETICS
Jewelry 20 970 61.32
LIQUOR
Liquor and wine 12 2,300 130.72
DRUGS
Super drug 17 15,000 89.33
x. Drug 5 4,900 78.31
PERSONAL SERVICES
Beauty 2 1,200 47.65
Barber 3 640 3G.97
Cleaner and dyers 4 1,600 33.14
Laundry 10 1,500 16.76
FINANCIAL
Banks 13 2,539 ---
Real estate 15 1 ,200 - -
OFFICES
Medical and dental 11 1 ,064 --
2-6
i
i
i
a
r, -
t
t3
i'
ag
rx
614a*14M ,
• Table 2.3 high Sales Volume Tenants in Neighborhood : ; .
Shopping Centers
Median Sales
Volume per
Square Foot
Tenant Classification GLA
Garden $205.08
Supermarket 178.73 t
Liquor and wine 130.72
"` Convenience market 121.51
F Candy and nuts 102.21
Radio, TV, Hi-Fi 98.14
Luggage and leather 97.63
is t food/Carry out 96.29
ce cream parlor 89.46
Super drug 89.31
Table 2.4 Low Sales Volume Tenants in Neighborhood
Shopping Centers
Median Sales
Volume per
Square Foot
Tenant Classification GLA
Music studio and dance $ 6.29
Cosmetics 14.16
Floor coverings 16.61
Laundry 16.77
Plant store 18.22
Bowing alley 19.64
Arcade, amusement 22.18
Formal wear/Rental 22.47
Curtains and drapes 28.13
Costume jewelry 29.25
Table 2.5 Sales and Size Characteristics of Neighborhood
Centers (Sample = 49)
x. Gross
Leasable Sales per
Area (sq.ft. ) sq.ft. GLA
Upper Decile 96,639 $1'94.84
Median 55,176 121.31
Lower Decile 26,835 59.74
2-.7
a
Kx++
Table 2.6 Tenants host Frequently Found in Community
Shopping Centers
Y
-`z
Median Sales
Volume per ,
Medi:�n Square Foot
Tenant Classification Rank GLA(sq.ft.) GLA
GENERAL MERCHANDISE
Jr. department store 10 37,500 5 60.49
Variety store 17 15,780 37.90
FOOD
Supermarket 2 22,384 200.93
i"
FOOD SERVICE
Restaurant without liquor 8 2,490 78.07
k#stuarant with liquor 18 4,150 75.86
Fast food/Carry out 16 1 ,323 115.51
r
CLOTHING
Ladies specialty 13 2,000 84.34
Ladies ready-to-wear 1 2,969 76.84
Menswear 7 3,040 79.10
SHOES
Family shoes 3 3,024 62.27
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC
Radio, TV, Hi-Fi 14 2,000 94.18
GIFTS/SPECIALTY
Cards and gifts 6 2,000 50,04
JEWELRY AND COSMETICS
Jeweiry 9 1,500 129,68
>. DRUGS
Drug store 19 6,500 106.513
OTHER RETAIL
Yard goods 20 4,000 45.84
PERSONAL SERVICES
Beauty 4 1,200 47.05
Barber 12 612 49.64
Cleaner and dyers i5 1,800 35.64
FINANCIAL
Banks 11 3,200 ._
OFFICES
Medical and dental 5 846
2�8
r
A
Table 2.7 Nigh Sales Volume Tenants in Community
Shopping Centers
Median Sales
Volume per :.
Square Foot
:ems Tenant Classification GLA
# Key shop $318.1344 '�
Supermarket 200.93'
Showroom/Catalog store 180.51
Meat, poultry, and fish 176.62
Liquor any; wine 169.31
Jewelry 129.68
;relit jewelry 129.50
Costume jewelry 126.23
Fast flood/Carry out 115.51
Lams 1088 25
Table 2.82.8 Low Sales Volume Tenants in Comunity
Shopping Centers
—Median Sales
Volume per
Square Foot
Tenant Classification GLA
Bowling alley $ 12.12
Laundry 20.53
Candle 23.45
Cinemas 30.22
Y Floor coverings 30.83
Interior decorator 33.04
Arcade, amusement 33.46
Cleaner and dyers 35.64
Art gallery 36.04
,,Variety store 37.90
Table 2,.9 Sales and Size Characteristics of Community
' Centers (Sample = 39)
-- - Gross
Leasable Sales per
Area s .ft.. s .ft. GLA
Upper Dec le 255,574 $137.67
Madian 149,370 93.08
Lower Decile 77,227 53.47
2-
s
1
.�. Table 2.10 Tenants Most Frequently Found in
Regional Shopping Centers
Median Sales
Volume per
Median Square Foot # �.
Tenant Classification Rank GLA s .ft. GLA
GENERAL MERCHANDISE
Department store 19 131 ,000 $ 65.65
FOOD
Candy and nuts 13 732 121.55
FOOD SERVICE
Restaurant without liquor 15 3,003 87.81
Restaurant with liquor 18 5,000 78.70
Fast food/Carry out 9 1,100 125.17 z
CLOTHING
Ladies specialty 4 2,038 101%13
Ladies ready-to-wear 1 4,003 91.10
Menswear 2 3,417 99.18
Family wear 16 6,157 77.63
Unisex/Jean shop 7 2,031 138.98
SHOES
Family shoes 3 3,663 88.29
Ladies shoes 8 3,164 82.99
Mens and boys shoes 11 1,492 117.65
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC
Radio, TV, HiFi 17 2,361 127.90
GIFTS/,SPECIALTY
Card, and gifts 6 2,265 76.92
Books and stationery IV 3,120 96.04
JEWELRY AND COSMETICS
Jewelry 5 1,792 180.32
PERSONAL SERVICES
Beauty 12 1,280 68.13
Barber 20 800 61.61
"INANCIAL
Banks 14 3,370 ---
2-10
F�
a
JAWS
' Table 2.11 High Sales Volume Tenants in Regional
Shopping Centers
1- ,
Median Sales
Volume ppr .
Square Foot
Tenant Classification GLA "
m, Key shop $311.37
Cameras 215.84
Tobacco 191.28
Jewelry 180.32 `
Pleat, poultry, and fish 177.57
Pretzel shop 173.64
Convenience market 171.40
Creait jewelry 167.55 +t
`. Costume jewelry 163.56
Supermarket 148.95
Table 2.12 Low Sales Volume Tenants in Regional
Shopping Centers
Median Sales
Volume per
Square Foot
Tenant Classification GLA
Bawling alley $ 10.91
Laundry 24.07
Cinemas 37.16
Cleaner and dyers 39.93
Figure salon 40.74
Variety store 42.71
Automotive (T8&A) 48.46
Upholstering 49.05
Di--count department store 50.76
Arcade, amusement 54.98
Table 2.13 Sales and Size Characteristics of
Regional Centers (Sample = 22)
Gross
Leasable Sales per
Area sq.-ft.) sq.ft. GLA
Upper Dec'ile 615,085 $115.35
Median 345,025 80.88
Loiter Decile 161959 55.34
2-11
'>z �w ... JG t:. _:' S� ;v ii .,k 3 a' Y.... ,� �. � C.. � •..y � A x`. _:. � �'"'.� _� ...� v.. � �`"' .�_ '.,� Mx:.
r•
Table 2.12.14 Average Annual Taxable Sales by Type of Business in the City of Huntington Beach
Yr
1974 1975 w 1976. _ _ ... 1977 - w 1978
Average n +T Average,_. Average Ave;3ge Average
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Number of Sates Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales
Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per Eusiness Per
General Business Area Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business
Norm's Apparel Stores 28 $ 263,429 34 $ 224,206 35 $ 229,143 40 $ 230,300 52 $ 277,885
Men's Apparel Stores 12 230,750 is 188,533 14 229,500 12 303,000 13 280,692
Family Apparel Stores 12 152,250 13 79,308 11 2,909 13 122,692 18 150,667
Shoe Stores 16 209,063 16 195,063 16 .:04,688 17 194,059 18 212,167
Variety and General Stores 8 370,000 7 188,857 4 219,250 3 N.A. 6 937,167
0epsrtment and Dry Goods Stores 17 3,171,824 20 2,950,250 19 3,429,368 17 4,245,765 20 3,787.950
Art, Gift and Novelty Stores 18 25,500 20 28,850 29 24,103 32 26,500 37 35,243
Sporting Goods, Bicycle and
Surfbr,ard Stores 19 157,842 23 134,130 28 124,000 27 149,407 34 144,147
Florist Shops 7 46,571 11 30,182 14 34,357 18 43,333 19 54,368
Photographic Equipment and Supply
Stores 3 N.A. 5 125,600 4 205,250 5 257,600 7 270,429
Music Stores 6 93,500 10 106,000 7 140,a2o 11 212,364 12 297,750
' Stationery and Book Stores 11 94,545 10 80,500 14 73,786 21, 62,571 25 65,880
Jewelry Stores 9 205,444 9 224,222 14 171,643 15 189,200 16 203,125
Office, Store and School Furniture
and Equipment Stores 2 N.A. 4 N.A. 4 8,750 7 7,571 8 24,125
Full-Titre Specialty Stares 46 53,065 44 55,932 61 58,918 78 55,526 93 53,538
Crocery and Food Stares without
Alcoholic Beverages 19 265,316 21 253,381 27 251,815 28 281,286 40 150,075
Liquor Stares 28 288,429 34 270,353 35 293,143 34 3iO,B82 35 347,200
i
Y. nMjrARV
Table 2.14 (Continued) a
1974 1975 6 197. 1977 1978
Average Average Average :Average Average
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales
Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per
rieneral Business Area Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business
Eating and Drinking Places without
Alcoholic Beverages 91 $ 171.407 107 S 162,075 116 $ 178,440 136 $ 165,375 148 $ 186,486
Drug Stares 19 470,368 21 458,476 26 437,231 27 460,074. 29 494,655
Non-Store Retailers ,._11-Time Only) 128 7,016 135 8,674 152 7,914 175 14,234 181 13,249
Part-?'ime Permittees 553 4,982 772 5,228 915 9,127 1,047 10,069 1,158 6,700
Household =nd Home Furnishing Stores 34 515,206 36 448,500 49 394,469 52 446.803 64 370,434
Radio and Household Appliance Stores 15 208,533 14 243,285 14 337,214 20 388,600 23 488,435
;wSecond-Hand Stores 6 17,833 8 11,750 10 9,200 8 4,750 5 5,600
-Grocery Stores with Beer and Wine
Licenses 18 106,222 18 119,389 i8 126,889 20 119,650 21 118,190
Grocery Stores with General Liquor
Licenses 17 1,074,412 19 1,179,474 20 1,216,450 71 1,373,810 24 1,876,417
Eating and Drinking Places with Beer
and Wine Licenses 34 88,382 39 87,308 42 95,524 50 105,160 60 104,817
Eating and Drinking Places with
General On-Sale Licenses 32 393,938 37 411,973 35 458,943 40 501,250 46 526,370
Garden Supply and Equipment Stores 9 190,556 11 191,818 11 218,909 12 199,333 11 231,000
Lumber and Building Material Dealers 6 840,667 8 1,393,000 10 3,262,900 14 474,707 16 3,542,063
Hardware Stores 7 649,143 10 512,100 11 501,909 12 507,417 13 483,308
Plumbing and Electrical Supply Stores 0 N.A. 0 N.A. 2 N.A. 3 N.A. 3 N.A.
Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores 6 434,400 6 408,333 6 484,167 7 405,000 6 371,250
New Auto: Vehicle Dealers 15 3,864,533 15 4,364,933 16 5,079,563 15 6,464;333 15 7,351,067
Automotive Supply, Automobile 'Trailer
Dealers and Trailer Supply Stores 28 148.321 2p 138,214 30 163,233 35 196,200 41 168,732
,
t
3
�' i€. n k' �. � x. R .. i.. .+ � k W sC afs i.: jn Yk- �,: Y.: . 4:-". ,4 Via:, � ♦ # Y%
Table 2.14 (Continued)
1914 1975 1976 19" � w _ 1978
. .�.....� ._...._.....�..m...._ .,_........�..._,.. ....� ��............,.,_. ...._ .-„ Yam.. -
AJ(eage Average Average Average ,. -age
Taxable Taxable Taxohic Taxable Taxable
Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of SnIta Humber of Sales Number of Sales
Business Ptr Businesz "er Business Per Business Per Business Per
General Business Area Permits 8usincs Permits NlsirlPis Permits Casiness Permits Business Permits Business
Service Stations 37 S 326;481 89 $ 374,393 85 $ 445,300 86 $ 483,198 82 $ 575,024
Usee`!-,to Vehicle 17e;iers 4 8`1253 5 81,400 6 7[,000 8 217,000 9 1291B89
e9at and:Moforcycle dealers and
Seypply Stores 18 142,667 15 162,333 12 388,750 15 505,733 18 344,278
Automotive Repair Shops and Garages 43 81,070 52 72,7?1 52 78,323 78 73,133 88 67,97i
Repair and Nand Trade Snops 84 3',F81 96 38,323 109 41,000 124 40,008 135 58,437
Portrait `itudios 10 39,500 B 51,750 10 44,300 10 46,50n 110 591000
.Clubs and Places of Amusement with
+' On-Sale General Licenses 3 N.A. 3 N.A. 3 i<.A. 5 83,000 5 88,C00
Shoe Repair Shops 7 5,774 7 6,715 8 4,250 8 51500 9 6,111
Morticians and Undertaking Parlo s 4 :4,250 4 53,000 4 64,250 4 17,000 4 109,000
Personal service .naps and Amusement
places without On-Sale General
Licenses 77 12,4is 85 13,765 110 14,318 140 14,221 163 15,626
Construction Conaractors and
loan ifacturers and Wholesalers of
Lumber and Building )4ate,4al 35 147,829 33 145,364 30 206,900 42 181,810 52 17):712
Manufacturers and Wholesalers of
Store and Of`tce Equipment 3 N.A. 5 86,200 6 69,500 10 59, `. " 10 59,100
Ilealth Services it 18,182 13 21,E31 16 Z7,313 19 43,632 32 21,!,25
Riblic Utilstier and Concerns
Prnviding transportation and
Allied Services 10 ! 38,143 9 60,000 12 67,,533 16 94,063
N Win
,
Table2,(4 (Continued)
. '
_.. �1174 -.1975w...��_ 1916 1977 1978
Average AveragE - Average Average .w. Average
Taxable Taxable Ta;;abte Taxable Taxable
Number of Sales ftt. e-of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sa,4s dumber of ' les
$uslaess Per Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per
General Busine, ss Acea Permits Btusinesss . Permits Buss nes'r. Permits Business. Permits_ Business Permits But ,less
Vla;sfacturersandWholesalers of
Electronic 4-id Electrical Equipment 18 $ 7,944 23 $ 14,783 23 $ 8,000 22 $ 25,136 28 $ 66,464
Dover". otal Agencies, Associations,
Fraternal, Religious and ;octal
0rganfzattons 29 56,U2 28 70,429 30 70,300 30 720600 29 77,517
Business Service Yoncerns 76 12,289 80 15,867 83 A0 .120 104 59,269 111 42,703
Pry*ners a f Wholesaler- of Foo.
Tobe .00, Alcotrolic Beverages arnl
sarr Prodects Including Food
'. Protttsing Equipment 22 11,955 19 35,053 20 42,ti00 21 38,333 20 62,35y
Kanufactt rersand Wholesalers f
Text+te Products, :!ouseholo
Furniture and Furnishings 47 36,553 5I 54,686 60 38,'z7 70 32,829 77 46,935
efanewtururs and Wholesa 1-s of
Drugs, Ghericals and A'111ed
Products 9 37,222 13 38,462 11 45,706 la 79,368 24 200,625
Producers and "stributors of
Notion Pictures and Manufacturers
?tid Wholesalr,,a of Motion
Picture Eq0,,-etez 4*d Supplies 3 N.A. 4 48,750 6 45,667 6 52,667 5 66,000
Paw,facturers anu Wholesalers of
Automotive Vehicles, Tratltrs, 62,745
Mtomutive Parts and Equipment Z3 26,522 28 38,107 34 45,559 30 83,300 55
Nanufazturers and Distributors of
Transportation F.q)ipment Other
than Automotive 12 376,667 16 741,063 60 82,450 29 28,931 32 77 J00
y
_ r
� •• '� � ^l '"Kim+ ��'. _ A,
^
g � r
Table 2,14 (Continued) F
1914 1975 1976 1977 1978
Average Average Average Average Average
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Number of Sales Humber of Sales Number if Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales
Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Pe, Business Per
6enetal Business Area Permits Businc_s Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits_, Business
Producers and Refiners of Petroleum,
Wholesalers of Petr,)leum Products,
and Manufacturers and Distributors
of Oil Well Rofining and Service
Station Equipment 6 S 114,333 4 $ 619,000 5 $ 258,200 5 $ 209,800 5 $ 215,600
Producers and Distributors of Heavy
,,ndustrial Equipment and Machinery
`!•E.C•} 30 44,200 35 31,714 47 26,596 52 50,385 72 45,861
Pub'1 skiers Producerp and n,strihutors
Ligl*t Industrial Cquignent (N.E,C,} c
0, and Art Other Permittees (N.E.C.l 98 35,6;i3 112 40,500 148 41,?36 13v 42,361 415 2.200
N.E.L. = Not elsewhere classified
SOURCE: California State Board of Eoualization
f
i
ew
tax revenue. Table 2.35 presents estimates of average annual water revenue l `.
Y_': '"
and ---lieu water utility tax revenue on a per dwelling unit basis for '
selected residential land uses and on a per business basis for selected :
commercial and industrial land i-ses, all based on t e results of a survey
conducted by the City Planning Department.
The derivation of in-lieu water utility tax revenue is generally .
obtained from
(In-lieu .ater
Number X utility tax
�of DU'_ revenue per DU;
for resid-ntia', projects, and from
Number Number of In-.1 eu grater
x of acres X businesses X ( utility tax revenue
pe-- acre per business
for commercial and industrial projects.
.; 2.2.3 Water Utility Sox
A` 5% tax is imposed on the water service charge for each user of
water in the City. On this basis, Table 2.15 also presents estimates of the
average annual water utility tax revenue on a per dwelling unit basis for
selected residential land vses and on a per business basis for selected com-
mercial and industrial land uses..
The derivati n of wager utility tax revenue is generally obtained
., from.
Number (Water utility tax
of DU's \revenue per DU
for residential projects, and from
umber X (Number of (Water utility
cofacres businesses Y, tax revenue
�> \per acre per business
for commercial and industrial projects.
2-17
Table_ 2.15 Average Annual Water Revenues and Water Consumption
for Selected Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach
WATER REVENUE(8)
IN-LIEU
WATER WATER ANNUAL �
WATER UTILITi UTILITY CONSUMPTION`
TYPE 0P LAND USA _ SALES � TAX TAX _ (100 it1)
Resideatial
Low Densit 0-7.DYacrea
Single Family (Detached) $67.23 $10.08 $3.36 161 .4
Cones,;mi nium 43.37 6.51 2.17 92.0
Mobile tc..(Je 1) 52,50 7.88 2.63 io119
Medium Density (7-15 M acre
Single Family (Detached) 75.61 11.34 3.78 163.5
Condomin l�:,�. 42.16 6.32 2.11 85.9
Awtman't f" � units) 61.53 9.23 3.3a 141 .8
Apartment (5+ units) 57.12 8.57 2.86 118.5
Nigh Densi t (15+ oUlacreI
Condomirivf 28.41 4.26 1 .42 42.5
Apartment j2-4 units) 54.83 8,22 2.74 111 ,6
Apartment (5+ units) 4MO 7,46 2.49 96.5
Commercial
Regional Shopping Centex
Major Department Store 2,457.27 368.59 73.72 6,144,0
Restaurant 186.40 27.96 9.32 450.0
Variety 5 ue 125.81 18.87 5.29 191 .5
MaI1 $?;pp2f 45.69 6.85 2.28 48.3
S:.!rvices(3) 72.4' 10,86 3.62 10M
pp
Table 2__15 '\Continued} �.
WATER REVENUE(B)
.Vw
IN-LIEU
WATER WATER ANNUAL
WATER UTILITY JI T ILITY CONSUMPTION(8)
TYPE OF LAND USE SALES -4TAXI TAX (100 ft3)
CommuohopPing Center
Junior Department Store 888.75 133.31 44.44 2,269.0
Restl4rant 2511(115 37.79 12.60 910.4
Supermarket 235.00 35.25 11.35 541.5
Drugstore (4) 154.76 23.21 7.74 355.0
General Retail & Service '' 75.10 8.57 2.86 91 .9
Laundromat/Cleaners 454.61 68.19 22.73 1 ,163.0
Neighborhood Shopping Center
Supermarket 4 200,78 30.12 10,04 457.0
General Retail & Srrvi ce� � 55.36 8.30 2.77 106.�`
Laundromat/Cleaners 1 ,217.06 182.56 60.85 3,152.
ra
'. Convenience Shopping Center
Mini-market 165.65 24.85 8.28 391,0
General Retail & Service(4) 106.18 15,93 5.31 196.7
General Commercial
Restaurant 345.05 51 .75 17.25 869.0
Service Station 61 .93 9.29 3.10 138.0
General Retail & Service�`l� 99.70 14.96 4.99 203.0
Hotel/Motel 5,428.48 814.27 271 .42 10,353.0
Commercial Recreation
Golf Course 1,101.37 166.11 55.37 2,936.0
Airport 599.36 89.90 29.97 1,507.0
Sports Club(S) 522.k2 78.36 26.12 1,306.0
OTfice/Professional 10.15 1 .52 0.51 24.0
M1 h
.,...
.tr
Table 2.15 (Continued)
WATER REVENUE(8)
IN-LIEU
WATER WATER ANNUAL
WATER UTILITY UTILITY CONSUMPTION(8)
TYPE OF LAND USE SALES TAX TAX 100 ;t3
Industrial
Oil Production 62.40 9,36 3.12 148.5
Aerospace (Major)(6) 82,365.30 12,354.80 4,11b.27 211,810.0
Light mAnufacturing!
Wh,l esal e (e 20,000 1 }(7) 27.24 4,09 1.36 38.6
Light Manufacturina/Wholesale
Assembly/Testing 210.28 31.54 10.51 518.0
Fabricatior 12,773.64 1,916.05 638.68 22,443.0
z
Warehousing 19.60 2.94 0.98 41.9
Nan-Structural Storage/Service 119.54 17.93 5.98 280.0
Miscellaneous Service
Lumber Yard 403.76 60.56 20.19 993.0
General Industrial 202.46 30.37 10.12 482.0
Public Utility
Electrical Power 107,253.66 16,088.05 5,362.68 281 ,732.0
Teiep), one 1:958.41 293.760 97.92 4,031.0
(l Range = 0-12 DU/acre
{2 Apparel, jewelry, yardage, shoe,, etc.
(3 Medical, finance, hair salon, barrier, repair, etc,.
4 ,,4) Apparel, auto supply, realty, etc.
(5) Raquette-ball, hand-ball, gymnasium, etc.
(6 McDonnell-Douglas
x (7) Engineering, office supply, machine shop, etc.
(8) Per dwelling unit for residential projects and per business
for conms rcial and industrial 1anO .k-,as
SC'URCE< City of Huntington 3earh P% - :.u^
i
t
r S'*St
2.L 4 Gas Utility Tax
a ..
A 51 tax is imposed on the natural gas service charge for each
user of rtatural gas in the City. According to -hf Southern California Gas }
.., Company, in calendar year 1978 the consum, qnu sales by customer type
in the City were as follows:
Customer Type
Residential Commercia;(l) Industrial(2)
Number of Customers 49,695 1 ,484 206
Total Consumption (1000 cu. ft.) 4,404,240 ,196,846 11,634,224
Total Operating Revenue $8,459,671 "—,509,696 $24,547,305
Operating Revenue per Customer $170.23 $111691.17 $119,161.67
On a per customer bais the avera a annual gas utility tart revenue would be
(,05) ($170,23) = $8.51 for residential customers, (.05) ($1 ,691 .17) =$84.56
for commercial customers, and (.05) ($7152161.67) = $5,958.08 for industrial
custzaters. Fo- commercio . -d industrial customers there are many factors
which influence r~atural gas consumption such as type of business, energy source(s)
used, size in square footage, etc. Thus,the use of averages of these types
could be misleading Since they are based on a mixture of many types of businesses
of varying sizes,
'the derivation of gas utility tax revenue is generally obtained from
(Number X (;as utility tax)
of 0U"srevenue per 6U
for residential projects, and ,from
Number of Gas utility
4 Number businesses X tax revenue
(of a` s per ccre (per business)
"
4 For commercial anu industrial projects.
r- (l) includes wholesale suppliers, miscellaneous retain, machine shops, hospitals
insurance, real estate, 'Financial and personal services
(2) includes agr cultural, mining, petroleum extrnctivn and general , nufr�ctur ng,
but excludes the Edison facility
2-21
rn
t
K
i
NNW
ft
r 2.2.5 Telephone Utility Tax ;
w;
A 5% tax is imposed or all charges `or intrastate telephone com-
:; municatian services in she City. Excluded fr;m� this tax are charges for
coin-operated telephones, land-mobile services, maritime-mobile services and '
interstate telephone calls. The General Telephone Company basic rates by
type of service are:
Type of Service Monthly Charge '
Residential _ $5.45 per dial telephone plus
$0.70 per extension
$6.70 per push-button telephone plus
$1.20 per extension
Business (commercial $7.25 per dial telephone plus
or industrial) $0.70 per extension
$9.00 per push-button telephone plus
$1.45 per extension
On the basis of the monthly charge and ignoring both the existence of extension
lines or additional phones on the same line and intrastate toll calls and
other taxable charges., this tax wGuld generate )n an annual basis an amount
equal to $3.27 per dial telephone and $4,02 per gush-button telephone for
residential customers, and an amount equal to $4.35 per dial telephone and
F $5.40 per push-button telephone for business customers.
The derivation of telephone utility tax revenue is generally obtained
from
Number X Telephone utility
of0U"s tax revenue per 0U
for residential projects, and 'From
Number Number of /Telephone utility
of acres X businesses k ( tax revenue
P
per acre \per business
for commercial and industrial projects.
2-�2
j.
L �
2.2.6 Electicityt iJtii 4ty Tax j
A 51" tax is imposer the electrical energy service charge for
each user of electricity in the City. According to the Southern 01 ifurnia °
Edison Company, in .:alendar year 1978 the consumption and sales by customer r
type in the Ciwy were as follows: �
Customer Type
Commercial
m._. ReWpAtial and industrial
Nt,imber of Customers 57,137 4,045
Total Consumption (kwhrs) 321 ,288,400 545,893,212
Total Operating Revenge $14,759,131 $21 ,055,087
Operating Revenue per Customer $258.31 $5,205.21
On a per customer basis the average annual electricity utility tax revenue
would be (.05) ($258.31) = $12.92 for residential customers, and
(.05) ($5,205,211 = $260,26 for commercial/industrial customers.. The latter
q.':entily is no doubt high for commercial customers due to being heavily basea
by the consumption; attributed to manufacturing industries in the City, however,
it is not post%le to obtain a separation of the electrical energy consumed
into conmercial versus industrial users.
The derivation of electricity utility tax revenue is generally
obtained from
a Number X Electricity utility
'Uf OU,S (tax revenue per OU
for residential proaects, and from
Number s ,lumber of � (Electricity utility
of acre X bisinessos X tax revenue
f per acre I \per business
a for commercial and industrial projects,
2-23
t
7 �
2,2.7 Cigarette Tax '
According to Section 30462 of the Revenue and Ta -ution Code,
r3 igaretta t, monies are first apportioned bet..een cities and counties in `
the proportion that local sales tax distributed to each city and each `'. .
co4:nty bears to the total of zucn local sales tax distributed. Fifty per-
cent of the city's share is allocated in the proportion that the local salts
i
tax revenues of each city bears to the total local sales tax revenues of
all the cities and 50 percent is allocated in the proportior that the pbpu•-
Tation of each city bears to the total population of ali the cities. For
these reasons, one gen(yrall,y estimates cigarette tax revenue on a per .capita
basis.
Cigarette tax revenue is thus derived on the basis of per capita
cigarette tax revenue^ for residential projects. Referring to Table I , his-
torical trends shove the following:
Cigarette Revenue
Fiscal Year Tax ,Revenue_ Eo ation - 'er Capita
1978-1979 _ $534,407 167,419 $3.19 ~
1977-1978 550,503 161,300 3.41
1976-1977 498,782 158,100 3.15
1975-1976 514,672 152,300 3,38
19i4-1975 467,F68 147,900 3.16
1973-1974 477,571 143,600 3J3
The approximate rate of decrease ner year from FY74 through 1=Y79 is 0 M,
which implies that in 1979-7980 the estimated cigarette tax revenue per capita
is (0.991) ($3,19) - $3.16.
The derivation, ref cigarette tax revenue is generally obtained from
iNumber Average Cigarette
of Uif`s number of X tax revenue
people per DU per capita
2.2.8 Real Property Transfer Tax
The real property transfer tax is based can the valve of the sales
transaction and is compul.
ted on the basis of $0.275 per $500 of sales or,
2-•24
"tk
r
f
equivalently, $0.00055 per $1 of sales. The derivation of real property 3
transfer tax revenue is Obtained from .,
3 Average
(Real propertyNumber market ;
X X transfer
Of OU'sJ value
ti
per OU tax rate f
for residential projects, and from
Ave iiumbet markets Real r�roaerty�
X X transfer
(Of acres value tax rate .
per acre
for commercial and industrial projects.
2.3 licenses and Permits
2.3.1 Animal Licenses
;revenue from animal licenses is assumed to be darived on a per
p capita basis. 41%efe, ''ng to Fable 1,1 , historical trends show the following:
Animal Revenue
Fiscal Year License r-,es population - Per Capita
;> 1978,1979 $120,739 167,419 $0.72
1977-1978 131,682 161 ,300 0.82
1976-1977 150,866 158,100 0,95
1975.1975 104,564 152,300 0.69
1974-1975 78,214 147,900 0.53
1973-1974 117,585 143,600 0.82
The approximate rate of decrease per yaar from FY74 through F''79 is M%,
;which implies that in 1979-1980 the stimated animal license fee revenue per
capita is (0.974) ($0.72) = $0.70.
The derivation of animal license foe revenue is obtained from
w AverageAnimal license
hurropr k *'►tber of X
of OU'S tfees per capita '
i le per OU
2-25-
1.
i'
S
�4q
2.3.2 Business Licenses
o Business license tax revenue varies according to a number of
u factors such as type of business, number of employees and number ox com-
mercial vehicles. illustrative examples rf average !�nnual fees on a per
business basis are presented ir; Table 2.16.
Business license tax reverue is derived from
t Sl
�N�-:giber of Average business
umber
of acres businesses X lc?nse tax
per acr` per business
x 2.4 Revenue From Other Agencies
2.4.1 Trailer Coach License Fees
At the time of vehicle registration, the Department of Motor Vehicles
collects an annual license fee of 21P of the market value of trailer coaches.
According to the Revenue and Taxation Code Secs. 11003.3 and 11003.4, all
license tfi<3, paid on trailer coaches, less the cost of administration, are
apportioned to the county where the trailer coach, is located and is distributed
rn the basis of one-third to the city in which it is located, one-third to the
school district and one-third to the county. For the trailer coach owner this
amounts to an in-lieu tax, which serves as--an improvement tax instead of a
property tax,*
The State Department of Motor Vehicles has established a license
fee schedule based on 400 possible classes of coaches. There are 2 J classes
denoted AA through LZ which are the most common and 180 classes denoted MB
through ZZ which are less common, denoting higher priced coaches. The basis
for the fee is $11 per side plus an amount per side based on the trailer coach
class, market value and aye as determined relative to an 18 year depreciation
schedule. For example, a new class AA coach would pay $1 + $11 = $12 per
side in 1978 versus a new class ZZ coach which would. pay $1 ,637 + $11 = $1,648
per side in 1978. illustrative schedules of the variable component of the
fee based on coach class and age are as follork.
*T�`his w 1 change on July 1, 1980 as the result of SB 1004 in that all new mobile
homes sld after this date will be placed on the local property tax rolls and
will no longer be subject to vehicle license feQs.
2-25
Table 2.16 Average Annual Business License Fees per Business
by Type of Business in the City of Huntington Beach
General Business Area Ayera2e Fee Per Business a s+
s .
Women's App . el Stores $ 57 ! .
Men s Apparel Stores 47
r Family Apparel Stores 42
Shoe Stores 42 t
Variety and General Stars 92
Department and Dry Goods Stores 172
# Art, Gift and Novelty Stores 39
Sporting Goods, Bicycle and Surfboard Stores 42
Florist Shops 38
Photographic Equipment and Supply Stores 46
Music Stores 43
Stationery and Book Stores 46
Jewelry Stores 39
Office, Store and School Furniture and Equipment
Stores 38
Full-Time Specialty Stores 41
Grocery and Food Stores without Alcoholic
Beverages 42
Liquor Stares 46
Eating and Drinking Places without Alcoholic
Beverages 71
Drug. Stares 64
Non-Store Retailers (Full--Time Only) 33
Part-Time Permittees 41
Household and Home Furnishing Stores 46
Radio and Household Appliance Stores 44
Second-Hand Sta-as 38
Grocery Stores with Beer and Wine Licenses 39
Grocery Stares with. General Liquor Licenses 149
Eating and Drinking Places with beer and
Wine Licenses 50
Eating and Drinking Places with General On-Sale
Licenses 207
Garden Supply and Equipment Stores 156
2-2
h
Table 2.16 (Continued)
A
General Business Area Average "Fee Per Business y"
Lumber and Building Material Dealers $102
Hardware Stores 66 ''
Paint, Glass and Wallpaper Stores 48
New Auto Vehicle Dealers 178
Automotive Supply, Automobile Trailer Dealers �
and Trailer Supply Stores 48
Service Stations 38
Used Auto Vehicle Dealers 50
r Boat and Motorcycle Dealers and Supply Stores 42
Automotive Repair Shops and Garages 46
Repair and Hand Trade Shops 56
Portrait Studios 39
Clubs and Places of Amusement with On-Sale
General Licenses 66
Shoe Repair Shops 36
Morticians and Undertaking Palors 42
Personal Service Shops and Amusement P`iaces
without On-Sale General Licenses 41
Construction Contractors and Manufacturers and
Wholesalers of Lumber and Building Material 64
Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Store and Office
Equipment 42
Health Services 90
Public Utilities and Concerns Providing
Transportation and Allied Services 85
Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Electronic
and Electronic Equipment 77
Governmental Agencies, Associations, Fraternal,
Religious and Social Organizations 41
Business Service Concerns 41
Producers and Wholesalers of Food, Tobacco,
Alcoholic Beverages and Farm Products
including Food Processing Equipment 55
Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Textile Products,
Household. Furniture and Furnishings 48
Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Drugs, Chemicals
and Allied Products 47
2-28
1
131 nis,
Table 2.16 (Continued)
General Business Area Average Fee Per Business =>
Producers and Distributors of Motion Pictures ` -
and Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Motion
Picture Equipment and Supplies $ 38
Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Automotive
Vehicles, Trailers, Automotive Parts and
Equipment 72
Manufacturers and Distributors of Transportation
a Equipment Other than Automotive 52
Producers and Refiners of Petroleum, Wholesalers
of Petroleum roducts, and Manufacturers and
Distributo,s of flii Well Refining-: a,,d Service
Station Equipment 133
Producers and Distributors Gf Heavy Industrial
Equipment and Machinery (N.E,C. ) 58
Publishe-s, Producers and Distributors light
Industrial Equipment ("' E.C,) and. All Other
Permittees (N,E.O.) 44
Mobile Home Parks 4100)
Apartments (2)
Hotels and Motels (3)
Ni E.C, Not elso sere classified
(1) Plus $374 f P annual operating permit fee
(2) $6 per unit for complexes with 3 or more units
(3) $6 per unit
2a-29
s
}
E Al
` Coach Class Tom'
Age (yrs.) AZ CZ EZ KZ RD 7Z�
":f 0 70 219 369 668 1 ,052 1,637 Y '
1 57 181 304 550 867 1 ,348
2 45 142 239 432 681 1 ,059
3 37 116 195 354 557 867
4 33 103 174 314 495 770
i 29 90 152 275 433 674 x
6 25 77 130 235 371 578
7 20 64 108 196 309 481
$ 20 62 104 189 '197 462
9 19 59 100 181 285 443
lfl 18 57 95 173 272 44
11 37 54 91 165 260 404
12 16 52 87 157 248 385
13 16 49 82 149 235 366
14 15 46 78 141 223 347
1$ 14 44 74 134 210 327
16 13 41 69 126 198 308
17 or older 12 39 65 118 186 289
'ge Decrease
Per Year ( ) 10.9 10.7 1018 10.7 10.7 10.7
In 1978-1979 the City of Huntington Beach received $87,140 in
E trailer coach license fees. Based on an estima'Le of 3,318 mobile homes in
1978, this implies an annual revenue of $87,140/3,318 , $M26 per coach.
The derivation of trailer coach license fee revenue is obtained
from
Average fee fraction of
dumber value per per dollar of license fee
of trailer. X t;~ailer �(License
trailer coach '�(to
revenue returned
coaches ,:each value = .02 city ; ,333
Where, if one chooses to use the fee schedule, an estimate is given by
Number
License fee of trailer (�11 + (fee from schedule)])
per dollar coach sides ----
of trailer Average value of coaches
coach value in coach Mass represented
by given coach
*This provides an estimate of the annual assumed deprecation rate in trailer
coach value,
2-3tk
{; P
"M
2.4.2 Alcoholic Beverage Fees
According to Section 25761 of the Business and Professions -Code,
alcoholic beverage control license fees are apportioned in the proportion "
that the amount of fees collected in each city and county bears to the
total amount collected throughout the State.
There are tt5'o categories of licenses, namely: "on-sale" and "off-
sales, On-sale licenses generally include bars and restaurants of which,
as of June 1978, there were 118 such licences in Huntington Beach. Off-
sale licenses include manufacturers, wholesalers, liquor stores and grocery ,
stores of which, as of Oune 1978, there were 101 such licenses in Huntington
Beach. The total fees and fines collected durirg the period January- a
December 1978 amounted to $63,82.7 or $291 per license on an annual basis.
This discussion suggests that alcholic beverage license revenue
be derived on a per business basis and is thus obtained as follows:
Number dumber of Alcoholic
(of acres X nusinessas X beverage license
per acre fee per business
2.4,3 Motor vehicle In-Lieu Fees
According to Section 11005 of thei Revenue and Taxation Code, motor
vehicle in-lieu fees are distributed 50 percent to cities in the proportion
that the population of each bears to the populations of all cities and 50 per-
cent to counties in the proportion that the population of each county bears
to the population of all counties. For this reason this revenue is estimated
on a per capita basis.
Motor vehicle in-lieu fee revenue is thus derived on the bass of
per capita motor vehicle in-'lieu fees for residential project.x, Referring to
'fame 1.1, historical trends show the following:
Motor Vehicle In"-Lieu Revenue
Fiscal Year F?e Revenue Population = Per Capita
1978-1979 $2,341,592 167,419 $13.99
1977-1978 2,059,030 161,300 12.77
1976-1977 1,682,217 158,100 10.64
1975-1976 1,413,448 152,300 9.28
1974--1975 1,280,409 147,900 8.66
1973-1074 1,339,934 143,600 9.33
2-31
i
:jig •' iY `, .
®rq
{
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 8.4%. ;
which implies tha- in 1979-1980 the estimated motor vehicle in-lieu fee
revenue per capita is (1.084) ($13.99) = $15.17. 1
The derivation of motor vehicle in-lieu fee revenue is generally '>
obtained from
(Average (Motor vehicle t _
Number number of in-lieu fee fl
�of DE1's people per E ;}er capita
2.4.4 Gasoline Tax
r
According to the Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2104(d), a base sum
is established from the tax per gallon specified by the Motor Vehicle Fuel
License Tax Law and i4 based ,n the respective portions that the number of
fee paid and exempt vehicles registered in each county bears to the total
number of fee paid and exempt vehicles registered in the State. A portion
of this base sum is distributed on the basis of a number of criteria including
fixed allocations and miles of mainta4ned roads; however, according to
Sec.. 2106(c)(3), the remaining amount of the base sum for each county is
apportioned to the cities within the county in the proportion that the popu-
lation of each city bears to the total populatio .of all cities in the county.
Furthermore, according to Sec. 2107, a portion of the tax revenues collected
under the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law is apportioned to each city in
the proportion that the population of the city bears to the total population
of all cities in the State.. For these reasons, one generally estimates
gasoline tax revenue on a per capita basis.
Gasoline tax revenue is thus derived on the basis of per capita
gusoiine tax revenue for residential projects. Referring to Table 1 .1 , historical
Y
trends shcw the following:
Gasoline Revenue
Fiscal ,Year Tax Revenue emulation - Per Capita
1978-1979 $1.587,594 167,419 $9.48
1977-1978 1 ,511,227 161 ,300 9.37
1976-1977 1,433,571 158,100 9.07
1975-1976 1,331,502 152,300 8.74
1974-1975 1,302,634 147,900 8.81
1973-1974 1,296,089 143,600 9.03
4x,
°' 2-32
W
S
lf..
k�
AM
° . , The approximate rate of inc-ease per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 1 .0%,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated gasoline tax revenue per capita �
is (1.01) ($9.48) = $9.57.
The derivation of gasoline tax revenue is general,, obtained from ° {
w. , n
Number AveragF- (t:
Golinef DU's Xnumber of X, xrev:nue
people per Dper capita
215 1^.evelowient oriented Charges
2.5.1 Permit & Processing Fees
Permit and processing fees include the various development-oriented
charges (excluding park foes, library fees, sewer fees, storm water drainage
fees, and water fees) such as; development plan review, tentative tract appli-
cation, plan check, engineering ant; inspection, right-of-way encroachment,
grading permit, building permit, plumbing permit, electrical permit, mechanical
permit, and various filing and appeil fees. Since these charges can be ex-
pected to 'vary according to a variety of factors, an average fee would provide
4 a reasonable estimate of the permit and processing fee revenue expected from
new development, Table 2.17 presents typical average permit and processing
fee values for selected land uses in the City based: on a survey conducted by
the Planning Department,
These survey results suggest the'- erivation of permit and
processing fee revenue be obtained from
Number Avera., at
of 0U1 X processing fee
revenue per DU
for residential projects, and from either
(Average permit
'lumber x processing fee
of acres revenue per acre
or
Number to ber cf Average permit &
of acres X square feat X processing fee
per acre revenue per sq. ft,
\ t
for coo rcial and industrial projects.
2-3,3
Table 2.17 Average flees and Development Charges by Typ: of
Land Use in the City of Huntington Beach
PERMIT & PARKS &
LAND USE PROCESSING RECREATION LIBRARY SEXIER WATER
Low Density Residential (0-7 DUJacre).
Single Family (Detached) $679 per DU $903 per DU $ 58 per DU $391 per DU $195 per OU
1 ,/58 per acre 876 per acre
Condominium 622 per DU 812 per DU 30 per DU 71 per DU 38 per OU
342 per acre 185 per acre
Mobile Home* 42 per DU 610 per DU 191 per DU 73 per DU 36 per OU
503 per acre 249 oer ac-z
Medium Density Residential (7-15 DU/acre)
Single Family (Detached) b39 per DU 1,171 per DU 36 per DU 73 per DU 36 per OU
538 per acre 267 per acre
ry Condominium 316 per DU 976 per OU 6 per OU 73 per DU 36 per DU
717 per acre 356 per acre
Apartments (7-4 units) 341 per DU 785 per DU 58 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU
1,841 per DU 531 per acre
Apartments (5+ units) 180 per DU 454 per DU 40 per DU 72 per OU 30 per OU
899 per acre ;72 per acre
Hugh Density Residential (15+ DU/acre)
Condominium 385 per DU 878 per DU 05 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU
1,209 per acre 600 per acre
Apartments (2-4 units) 325 per DU 772 per DU 52 per OU 73 per Doi 36 per DU
1 ,131 per acre 562 per acre
Apartments (5+ units) 333 per OU 870 per DU 42 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU
1 ,450 peracre 720 per acre
* up 12 DU/acre
Z MY
xaI?ze 2.17 Continued)
PERMIT 4
LEND USE PROCESSING RECREATION iIBRARi SEWER WATER
Commercial,
Community Center $1,3;5 per acre - __ 298 per acre 171 per acre
0.139 per ft2
Neighborhood Center ,5?9 per acre __ __ 271 per acre 186 per acre
0.167 per ft2
Convenience Center 2,310 per acre -- 199 per acre 680 per acre
0.302 per ft2
General Cooparcial 1,344 per acre -- -- 278 per acre 539 per acre
0.093 per ft2
ry
Commercial Recreation 809 per acre 276 per acre 288 per acre
0.180 per ft2
Office Professional i, ,•: per acre -- __ 242 per acre 347 per acre
0.196 per ft2
Industrial
LightManufacturing(<20,000 ft2) 984 per acre -- -- 312 per acre 273 per acre
0.058 per ft2
Light Manufacturing(,*-20,000 ft2) 473 per acre __ -_ 323 per acre 159 per acre
0.025 per ft2
Non-Structural Storage 517 per acre -- -- 278 per acre 349 per acre
0.437 per ft2
Miscellaneous Service 681 per acre 295 per acre 241 per acre
0.130 per ft2
Warehousing 1,325 per acre -_ 289 per acre 369 per acre
0,076 per ft2
ote: acre= gross acre
SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
2.5.2 Parks & Recreation Fees
PvI or to recordation of a final subdivision nap, subdividers are .
required-to Medicate l.., d, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or bath, at the option
of the City, for park and recreational purposes. The amount of the fee is ' 1
based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which otherwise would
` F be required to be dedicated as determined from the followinq formula:
15 acres * Population (Number 1000
pQr 1000 X density X { of DUI s)/(ponulation)
population factor per DU, 1l
where
3.55 for single family
1.18 for multiple family single/bachelor
Population density 1.49 for multiple family I bedroom
factor per DU 2.30 for multiple family 2 bedrooms
3.20 for multiple family 3+ bedrooms
1.80 for mobile home.
An alternative approach, currently in use, to determine the amount of the parks
and recreation fee is to use the following schedule:
Type of Unit Fee per Unit
Single Family $1,171
Multiple Fami y
Single/Bachelor 389
1 Bedroom 492
2 Bedroom 759
3 Bedroom t 1,056
Mobile Nome 594
Table 2.17 presents typical Average values of parks and recreation fees on a
per dwelling unit basis as the result of a survey conducted by the Planing
Department
This discussion suggests that the derivation of parks and recreatien
fee revenue be obtained from
Current City standard for land. devoted to park and recreational purposes
2-36
r
r
}
Ik
r
> and Average pants
Numberof Dfl's X recreation)
fee x y
per jxc
for residential projects only. r..
2.5.3 Library Fees
An excise tax pertaining tc. conenunity enrichment library fees is
imposed upon the const:ru Lion of new residential units 4n the City on the basis
of $0.05 per square foot of floor area, including any area in a building designed
for the parking of vehicles. The term :`residential unit" means a single fam��ly
dwelling, a dwelling unit in a au lex, apartment house or dwelling r
g 9 p , group, and
any other place designed for human occupan y which contains a kitchen, and
any space in a mobile :hotne park designed or intended for a house trailer,
mobile home, camper or similar vehicle. For mobile home parks, the square
s footage of floor area is calculated as only that portion of the lot indicated
on the original construction plans for the mobile home proper and its carport.
Table 2.17 presents typical at,erage values of library fees on a per dwelling
unit basic as the result of a survey conducted by the Planning Department.
This discussion suggests that the derivation of 14brary fee revenue
be obtained from
Number Average library
of DU°s X fees per Del
for residential projects only.
2.5.4 Sewer Fees
Sewer fees are collected by the City as a condition to granting the
application and furnishing sewer service to the premises on the basis of the
fallowing schedule:
(1) $90 for the first dwelling unit plus $60 for each additional
dwelling unit or parcels containing less than 10,000 sq� ft:
(2) $60 per dwelling unit or $300 per net acre, whichever is greater,
for parcels containing more than 10,,000 square feet
(3) $300 per net acre for all commercial and industrial developments.
2-37
x
t
In addition, Orange County Sanitation District (Nos. 3 and 11) fees are
collected on the basis of $50 for each 1000 square feet of floor area with ; :
a $250 minimum fee for commercial and industrial developments, and on the ^
basis of $250 per dwelling unit for residential developments. For its ser-
vices in collecting the fees, the City retains 5% of all such fees collected.
The total of fees derived from the above fee schedule and from this 5% ser-
vice charge represent the sewer fee revenue collected. Table 2.17 presents
�. typical average values of sewer fees as the result of a survey conducted buy
the Planning Department. It is important to note that for commercial and
F.
industrial uses these fees are shown on a per gross acre basis.
The derivation of sewer fee revenue is obtained from either
Number (Sewer fee
of DU's X revenue per DU)
or from
(Plumber (Sewer
fee
I acres revenue per acre
for residential projects. For commercial and industrial projects the latter
formulation is used.
2.5..5 Drainage Fees
A drainage fee is imposed upon new development according to
w drainage district in which the project is located using the following fee
schedule and making reference to Figure 2.1;
Drainage Fee Per
District Gross Acre
2 $ 500
" 2A 2,000
3 3,000
4 0
2Y38
F
�k
4 t ��.• r `��.. ` • �� \\ tart
����lkkkkvqq..
Rp1
. r
TO
cir
'' rlr � ,�li. .w1 �vN ✓ti, k }
�hf .h !f �'` {Fr i!•`+`tlflk`t F _' `\iA k�f
f y���rA � R•1 '�!
., � h .s'rk�\ icy yr� •r,.�''!ty i,�„ .,f` .��'Ffi}r .
� yr! ,�. rr �ti♦�fr � � ,
Y E4cf1 iiA/MC
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA ,ro.o4nx°�
cru.uM�
MASTER PLAN STORM DRAIN SYSTEM .«�. �.
NlaRCH a:?975
{
iP
\
`et f n.��'xw n` Jr••
e
bra tr `�' ° �✓ l�� � �,4 ,y�J f � *`... ..
4
h
s r
is r S
� ,,,,"M; �-^' ��• 1 'Fy�;f+ ��•Y it'. ,.r\ �✓e
wft
a
?UW#kq
mm'smm-o*
atwar
t
Drainage Fee Per
District Gross Acre
5 $ 2,000 .:
5A 2,000 :.
i 47A. 5B 0
5C 0 ,.` ,°
5D 0
6A 2,000
"Y 6B 2,000 €
6C 3,000
7A 2,800
7B 2,000
7C 2,000
70 2,000
7E 3,000
7F 2,000
7G 3,000
7H 3,330
71 4,000
8A 0
88 5,600
8C 4,500
8D 1 ,650
8E 0
8F 2,300
8G 6,000
8H 2,500
9 4,000
10 1 ,500
11 0
12 5,000
This discussion suggests that the determination of drainage fee
revenue be obtained from
(Number ) X (Drainage 1
of acres fee per acre
for all types of projects.
2.6 Other Revenues
2.6.1 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties
Revenue* from fines, forfeitures and penalties is assumed to be
derived from residential projects on a per capita basis. Referring to Table
1.1, historical trends show the following;
11,
*includes court fines, library fines & foes, and traffic fines
2-40
u., wuu-mow'•
n
ah-M[
61:i 4.r,
Fines, Forfeitures, Revenue
Fiscal Year and Penalties - Population = Per Capita
r 1978-1979 $1,005,452 167,419 $6.01
1977-1978 720,518 161,300 4.47
1976-1977 593,325 158,100 3.75
197b-1976 498,753 152,300 3.27
1974-1975 538,476 147,900 3.64
fi 1973-1974 510,877 143,600 3.55
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 11.1%,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated fines forfeitures api penalties
revenue per capita is (1.011) ($6.01) = $6.68.
The derivation of revenue from fines, forfeitures and penalt es is
obtained from
umber Average Fines, forfeitures
(0"f DUI X number of X and penalties revenue
eo le per DU per capita
P � �a }
P P P /
for residential projects only.
2.6.2 Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous revenue consists of those revenues derived from
pier and beach concessions, parking lots, the Sunset Vista camper facility
and parking meters. These revenues are derived from both residents and non-
residents of the City. In order to estimate the amount of these revenues
directly attributable to residents it is assumed that they are in the same
Y proportion as the observed percentage of visitors to the beach area as re-
corded in incident reports by the Department of Harbors and Beaches. Referring
to Table 1.1, historical trends show the following:
.LL.
2-41
i
Fraction of
Miscellaneous Visitors from Revenue
Fiscal Year Revenue X City Population = Per Capita
1978-1979 $910,139 0.197 167,419 $1.07 r
1977-1978 850,566 0.170 161,300 0.90
1976-1977 555,474 0.160 158,100 0.56
1975-1976 572,113 0.186 152,300 0.70
1974-1975 441,619 0.157 147,900 0.47
1973-1974 384,610 0.168 143,600 0.45
s
The approximate ra:e of increase pet, yEar from FY 74 to FY 79 is 18.9%, which
implies that in 19i9 - 1980 the estimated miscellaneous revenue per capita is
}
(1.189)($1.07) = $1.27.
The derivation of miscellaneous revenue is obtained from
:lumber Average t4iscelianeous�
(of 0tl,s X number of X revenue per
people per DU capita
forr residential projects only,
2.7 Water Fees and Service Charges_
2.7.1 Water Fees
Water fees basically incl-ude: (1) water service fees collected as
a condition to granting the application and furnishing water service to the
premises, (2) water connection and meter installation charges, and (3) con-
struction water charges, dater service charges are derived on the following
basis.
(1) $30 per dwelling unit on parcels containing less than 10,000 sq. ft.
(2) $30 per dwelling unit or .$150 per net acre, whichever is greater,
for any parcel containing 10,000 sq.. ft, of area :r more
(3) $150 per net acre for all commercial and manufacturing developments,
and those portions of trailer parks which accomodate overnight parking.
f
2-42
r
k
•1
{Y
x�
7n (1) and (2), a "dwelling unit" includes each residential quarter in hotels,
apartments and motels, and each trailer space providing permanent facilities
in trailer parks. Water connection and meter installation charges are based t
on the actual cost of labor and material in laying such service lines, in-
cluding the cost of the meters, the cost of replacing pavement plus an over-
head charge. Construction water charges are derived on the basis of a number
of criteria such as a Vat rate per dwelling unit, lineal feet of curb, square
fe , , of sidewalk, square feet of concrete pavement, barrels of cement used in
R, construction, amount of backfill settled, and quantity of water used, Table '
4y 2.17 present': typical average values of water fees by type of land use based
on a survey conducted by the Flanging Department.
This discussion suggests that the derivation of water fee revenue
be obtained from either
Numbe:� Water fee of 0;: x l revenue per OU)
or from
+Number Water fee revenue
tof acres X (per acre
for residential projects% For commercial and industrial orojects the latter
formulation is used.
2.7 .2 Water Sales
Waver sales revenue is derived on the basis of water consumption
using the following rate schedule:
Dorr�stic, Commercial and Industrial Service
Quantity
rates
First 500 cu, ft. or less $2.45
Over 500 cu, ft., per 100 cu. ft. $0.38
Minimum Charges
Size of service Minimum charge per month Water in cu. ft.
5/8" or 3/4" $ 2.45 500
l" 4.90 11000
1-1/'211 7.35 1 ,500
2" 9,50 2,000
2-43
K
Y
i
fk
Size of service Minimum charge per month Water in cu. ft.
t 3" $ 24.50 5,000
4" 49.00 10,000
6" 98.00 20,000 y
8" 147.00 30,000 ' ,
10" 196.00 40,000
A charge of One Dollar ($1) shall oe made for each unit in excess x'
of one connected to each meter.
"Unit" means any building or a portion of a building consisting
of one or mo a rooms separated from the rest of the building by a partition,
occupied independently of the other parts of the building or another building.
m
Table 2.15 presents typical average values of annual water sales }
by type of land use based on a survey conducted by the Planning Department.
This discussion suggests that the derivation of water sales
revenue be obtained from
Number (Average water
of DU's) X sales revenue
per DU
for residential projects, and from
Number (Average water
{of acres X sales revenue
.�^r acre
for commercial and industrial projects.
2-44
a
i
s a
h
3.0 COST SOURCES
In the section, a discussion or each of the major cost sources
3
from new develop« nt is presented along with the derivation of the Asti- �w
mating equations for predicting future costs. The specific detailed equa-
tions are given in Appendix B.
3.1 General Government and Administration
General government and administration costs are those generally
associated o.th the following cost categories:
City Council
Non-Departmental*
Civic Promotions
Administration
Office of the City Administrator
Internal Auditor
Budget & Research
Council Support
Public Information
Economic Development
Civil Defense
Data Processing
Purchasing
Central Services
Word Processing
City Treasurer
Central Cashier & Treasury Management
Risk Management
Animal License
City Attorney
City Clerk
Public & departmental
Elections
Personnel
Finance
Administration
" Accounting & Records
Business License
*excluding Parking authority payment and street light electricity which are
chased back to Harbors and Beaches and Street Maintenance} respectively.
w
3>I
i
t A,
Planning
Administration � �:
Current Planning
Advance Planning
Land else
Building & Community Development
Administration
Plan Review and Inspection
Certificate of Occupancy
For residential projects these costs are allocated first on the
basis of developed acres for residential land uses and then cn a per capita
basis. Referring to Table 1.3, historical trends show the following:
General
Government Fraction of
& Administration Developed Acres Cost Per
Fiscal Year Costs A Residential Population = Capita
1978-1979 $8,153,936 0.778 167,419 $37.89
1977-1978 6,314,581 0.781 161,300 30.57
1976-1977 5,418,141 0.790 158,100 27.07
1975-1976 4,F54,685 0.789 152,300 23.60
1974-1975 4,:,48,823 3.788 147,900 23.17
1973-1974 3,815,849 0.786 143,600 20.89
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 12.6%,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated general government and adminis-
tration costs per capita are (1.126) ($3 .89) = $42.68. The derivation of
general government and administration costs is obtained from
Number Average General governmentsr
of DU's number of x and
administration1
people pe
r I cost per capita
For commercial and industrial projects these costs are allocated
first on the basis of developed acres for commercial and industrial land uses
and then on a per acre basis. Historical trends show the following:
3-2
r
General
Government Fraction of Number of �
& Administration Developed Acres Commercial/Industrial Cost Per
Fiscal Year Costs X Commercial/Industrial Developed Acres - Acre
1978-1979 $8,153,936 0.222 2,645 $684.38
1977-1978 6,314,581 0,219 2,561 539.98
Yh 1976-1977 5,418,141 0,210 2,346 485.00
1975-1976 4,554,685 0.211 2,252 426.75
1974-1975 4,348,823 0.212 2,206 417.93
1973-1974 3,815,849 0,214 2,153 379.28
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 12.5% which
implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated general government and administration costs
per acre are (1,125) ($684.38) - $770.13. The derivation of general government
and administration costs is obtained from
General government
umber(ONf acres X and administration
/// (cost per acre 1
3.2 Public Safety
3.2.1 Police Protection
Police protection costs are those generally associated with the
following cost categories.,
Police Administration
General Support
Personnel
Police & Public Affairs
Records
Training
Planning & ResearF"h
Crime Analysis
Vice & Organized :rime
Investigative
Scientific Investigation
Patrol
Communications
Jail
Traffic
Aero
3-3
NMI-
G ,
44
z•:
M
'6
Reimbursement revenues such as those associated with Special police Service `
and Post Reimbursement are deducted from the total costs derived from the
above categories in order to obtain the net annual cost of police protection. rM
As in the case of general g goverment and administrative costs,
police protection costs are generally prorated first on the basis of developed
acres and then on the basis of per capita for residential projects. The
criterion for this method of allocation is based on the assumption that devel-
opment places a greater demand on police resources than does non-development
(ass is evidenced by the police call activity data of Table 3.1). The further
proration of the residential share of police protection costs on a per capita
basis is an attempt to recognize that as population increases then the de-
mand for police protection service should increase.
Eased on this method of allocation, for residential projects these
costs are allocated first on the basis of developed acres for residential land
uses and then on a per capita basis. Referring to Table 1.3, historical trends
show the following:
Y Police Fraction of
4 protection Developed Acres Cost per
Fiscal Year Cost X Residential - Population = Ca ita
1978-1979 $8,991 ,331 0.778 167,419 $41.78
1977-1978 8,420,844 0.781 161,300 40.77
1976-1977 7,382,782 0.790 158,100 36.89
1975-1976 6,215,791 M89 152, 00 32.20
1974-1975 5,394,818 0,788 147,900 28.74
1973-1974 4,600,501 0.786 143,600 25.18
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through Fv 79 is 10.7%,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated police protection cost per capita
is (1 .10') �$41.78) = $46.23. The derivation of police protection cost is
obtained from
x liuraerPolice protection
of Out X (Average number of J � cost per capita
eo le er D
people P
3-4
Table 3.1 Distribution of Police Department Cali Activity
by Type of Land Use in the City of Huntington
Beach for Calendar Year 1978
NUMBER PERCENT OF
TYPE OF LAND USE OFCALLS TOTAL
Single Family 14,537 19.9 uA '
rffi Multi-Family
i
2-4 Units 1,184 1.6
Apartments 6,179 8.5
.,_ Mobile Homes 263 0.4
Other Residential(i) 1 ,754 2.4
Commercial 13,457 18.4
Industrial 125 0.2
Streets & Highways 29,386 40.2
City Parks 446 0.5
City Beach & Pier 908 l.2
State Beach 129 0.2
Miscellaneous(2) 4,717 6.5
73,085 100.0
(1) Includes inclosed y rds, open yards and alley ways
(2) Includes school yarc and buildings, church yards and buildings,
public buildings, and construction sites
SOURCE. City of Huntington Beach Police Department
a ti;
8-5
For commnercial and industrial projects these costs are allocdted firstY`y
on the basis of developed acres and then, in order to make the costs more sensi-
tive to the specific type of land use, on a per square foot basis.
Relative to commercial land uses, historical trends show the following:
Police Fraction of Total Cost �4
Protection Developed Acres for Commercial
Fiscal Year Cost X Commercial Land Uses
1978-1979 $8,991 ,331 .100 $899,133
1977-1978 8,420,844 .i00 842,084
1976-1977 7,382,782 .100 738,278
1975-,1976 6,215,791 .099 615,363
1974-1975 5,394,818 .099 534,087
1973-1974 4,600,501 .100 460,050
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 14.3%.
The next step is to estimate police protection costs on the basis of the
type of commercial use. Referring to Table 3.2, this would be accomplished as
follows for fiscal year 1978--1979:
Fraction
Commercial of Developed Square Cost Per
Type -— Name Police Cost X Acres by Type = Footage = Sg. Ft.
1 Regional Shopping Center $899,133 .0505 866,879 $.052
2 Community Shopping Center 899,133 .1877 2,104,537 .080
3 Neighbnrhood Shopping
Center 899,133 .0980 979,981 .090
4 Convenience Shopping
Center 899133 .0516 625,264 .074
5 General Commercial 899,133 .2829 2,236,866 .114
6 Commercial Recreation 899,133 .2849 132,213 1.938
7 Office/Professional 899,133 .0444 601,529 .066
_s The derivation of police protection cost is thus obtained feom
Number of X (Number of sq. (Police protection
acres of ft. per acre X cost per sq. ft.
coms ercial of commercial of commercial
type use type use type use
3-6
v
Table 3.2 Descriptions` of Existinr Commercial Uses in the City of
Huntington 8f-ach .
Building
,;c.fiber Square
JMe: Name Description of Acres Footage
1 Regiunal Shopping Center Contains a wide range of shops anchored by one to-five 60.35 866,879
major department stores in a single complex, and gen-
erally is in excess of 35 acres.
2 Community Shopping Contains small shops and offices anchored by a 224.35 2,104,537
Center junior department store and/or supermarket; may
include a bank or savings and loan, major restaurant
or drug store; usually 10-35 acres.
3 Neighborhood Shopping Contains small short and offices anchored by a super- 117.08 979,981
Center market and, possibly, a drugstore; usually 2-10 acres.
4 Convenience Shopping Contains small shops, offices and a food store; usually 61.67 625,264
Center less than 2 acres.
5 General Commercial Includes single or multiple uses (not in a complex) 338.09 2,236,866
along a major arterial highway with a regional market
orientation; some common uses include service stations,
drive-in restaurants, automobile sales and repair,
furniture and appliance stores, entertainment and
amusements; also includes individual or complexes of
hotels, motels, specialty shops, and/or offices;
size of uses varies.
6 Commercial Recreation Includes airport, golf courses, racquetball clubs, and 340.56 132,213
public marinas; size of uses varies,
7 Office/Professional General professional use such as attorneys, doctors, 53.07 601,529
business services, etc. ti
:t
SOURCE: City Planning Department
74
Relative to industrial land uses, historical trends show the followingt
Police Fraction of Total Cost , '
Protection Developed Acres for industrial .
Fiscal Year Cast X Industrial Land Uses
1978--1979 $8,991 ,331 J 22 $1,096,942
k, 1977-1978 8,420,844 .119 1,002,080
1976-1977 7,382,782 .110 812,106
» 1975-1976 6,215,791 .112 696,169
1974-1975 5,394,818 .113 609,614
1973-1974 4,600,501 .114 524,457
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 15.9%
The next step is to estimate police protection costs on the basis of
the type of industrial use. Referring to Table 3.3, this would be accomplished
as follows for fiscal year 1978-1979:
Fraction
Cormnercial of Developed Square Cost Per
Type _ Dame _ Police Cost X Acres_ by Type_ Footage 59. Ft.
1 Oil Production $1,096,942 .3766 N.A. Ni A.
2 Aerospace 1 ,096,942 .1639 1,081,914 $.166
3 Light Manufacture/
Wholesale(a 20,000 ft2) 1,096,942 .0697 1,860,748 ,041
4 Light Manufacture/
Wholesale(< 20,000 ft2) 1 ,096,942 .1478 3,',33,149 .053
5 Warehousing 1 ,096,942 .0277 563,630 .054
6 Non-Structural Storage/
Service 1 ,096,942 ,0565 67,056 .924
7 Miscellaneous Service 1,096,942 .0774 435,464 .195
8 Public Utility 1,096,942 .0804 72,867 1.230
The derivation of police protection cost is thus obtained frog+
Number of O
umber of sq, (Police protection
acres of X t. per acre X cost per sg, ft.
industrial of industrial of industrial
type use type use type use
3,2.Z fire Protection
.Fire Protection costs are those generally associated with the following
cost categories:
3�8
u
11141
Table 3.33.3 Description* of Existing Industrial Uses in the City ;
of Huntington Beach
Building
Number Square
Name _ Description of Acres Foota e
l Oil Production Includes extraction, storage and/or office areas
2 Aerospace McDonnell-Douglas facilities 237.65 1 ,081 ,914
3 tight Manufacture/ Includes general industry with 20,000 sq. ft. or 101.04 1 ,860,748
Wholesale more of building area per user, where manifacture
(?20,000 ft2) and/or wholesale are the dominant activities
4 Light Manufacture/ T .-ludes general industry with less than 20,000 214.37 3,033,149
Wholesale sq. ft. of building area per user, where manufacturer
(< 20,000 ft2) and/or wholesale are the dominant activities
5 Warehousing Includes structural storage as the dominant activity 40.20 563,530
r
G Non-Structural Includes such uses as recreation vehicle storage, boat 81.99 67,056
Storage/Service yards, maintenance yards, trucking yards, auto
wrecking and junk yards, and ready-mix concrete
facilities
7 Miscellaneous Service Includes general services within industrial areas 112.27 435,464
and lumber yards
S P:ublic Utility Southern California €dison Company and General Telephone 116.56 72,867
facilities
* SOURCE: City Planning Department
}
., ,.,
,x kgtyh Epp;'y1ry}+�((�'�JJY.��aajt-,!e{'m`js;
CA
Fare Administration
Fire Prevention & inspection
Fire Controls
Support Services ,
Fire Joint Powers
Medical Aid Paramedic
~ Fire Station Building Maintenance..
s _
Reimbursement revenues such as those associated with Fire Joint Powers are
deducted from the total costs derived from the above categories in order to
obtain the net annual cos of fire protection.
As in the case of allocating police protection costs, fire protection
costs are generally prorated first on the basis of developed acres and then on
the basis of per capita for residential projects and on the basis per square
foot of use for commercial and industrial projects. -he criterion .or this
method of allocation is Tikewise based on the assumption that development places
a greater demand on fire resources than does non-development (as is evidenced
by the fire call activity data of Table 3.4). The further proration of the
residential share of fire protection costs on a per capita basis is an attempt
to recognize that as population increases then the demand for fire protection
service should increase.
Based on this method of allocation,, for residential projects these
costs are allocated first on the basis of developed acres for residential land
uses and then on a per capita basis. Referring to Table 1 .3, historical trends
show the following:
Fire Fraction of
Protection Developed Acres Cost Per
Fiscal Year Cost x Residential Population_ Capita
1978-1979 $5,456,237 O X8 167,419 $25.36
1977-1978 4,816,562 0.78T 161,300 23.32
19764.197? 4,321,509 0.790 158,100 2L 59
1975-1976 3,761,025 0.789 152,300 19.48
1974-1975 2,360,778 0.788 147,900 12.58
1973-1974 2,883,614 0.786 143,600 15.78
Tile approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 10;0%,
u which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated fire protection cost per capita
is (1,100) ($M 36) - $27.88.. The derivation of fire protection cost is obtained
from
3-10
Table 3.4 Distribution of Fire Department Call Activity by Type of
Land Use; in the City of Huntington Beach for Calendar
Year 1978
Fire Incidents Emer ency/Medical Assistance Non-Fire&Non-Emergency/Medical(4)
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Type of Land Use of Calls of Total of Calls(l) of Total of Calls of Total
Single Family 240 20.6 1 ,548 65.8 425 30.0
Condominiums 2 0.2 70 3.0 2 0.1
Mult -Family
Duplexes 2 0.2 - - 3 0.2
Apartments (3-6 units) 138 11.8 108 4.6 117 8.3
Apartments (7+ units) 47 4.0 - 43 3.0
Mobile Homes 10 0.9 162 6.9 20 1.4
Commercial 91 7,8 15 0.6 134 9.4
Industrial 43 3.7 197 8.4 80 5.6
ca
'F Streets & Highways 323 27.7 - 214 15.1
City Parks 114 9.8 - - 12 0.8
City Beach & Pier 2 0.2 252 10.7 3 0.2
Miscellaneous(2) 155 13.3 - 365 25.7
1,167 100.2(3) 2,352 100.0 1 ,418 99.8(3)
(1) Only 40% of the total emergency/medical assistance calls could be
assigned to a particular land use
k (2; Includes vacant lots, roadway areas, median strips, open fields,
railroad right-of-ways, etc.
(3) Not 100.0 due to round-off
(4) All calls other than fire incidents or emergency/medical assistance
SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Fire Department
7Vi
' Average
Number (Fire protection
Of DU's<� X number of X lcost per capita)
people per 0U
Relative to commercial land uses, historical trends show the following;
Fire Fraction of Total Cost
Protection Developed Acres for Commercial
Fiscal Year Cost X commercial - land Uses
1978-1979 $5,456,237 .100 $545,624
1977-1978 4,816,562 .100 481,656
1976-1977 4,321 ,509 .100 432,151
r 1975-1976 3,761,025 .099 376,103
1974-1975 2,360,77t .099 236,078
1973-1974 2,833,674 .100 288,361 '
i
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 13.6%.
The next step is to estimate fire p-otection costs on the basis of the
type of commercial use. Referring to Table 3.2, this would be accomplished as
follows for fiscal year 1978-1979s
i raction
Commercial Of Developed Square Cost Per
Type dame Fire Cost X Acres by Type Footage = Sq. Ft.
1 Regional Shopping Center $545,624 10505 866,879 $.032
2 Community Shopping Center 545,624 .1877 2,104,537 .049
3 Neighborhood Shopping
Center 545,624 .0980 979,981 .055
4 Convenience Shopping
Center 545,624 .0516 625,264 .045
5 General Commercial 545,624 .2829 2,236,866 .069
6 Commercial P.ecreation 545,624 .2849 132,213 1.176
7 Office/Professional 545,624 ,0444 601,529 .040
The derivation of fire protection cost is thus obtained from
Number of ,Number of sq. . Fire protection,
acres of Y, ft. per acre X cost per sq. ft. )
commercial of commercial of commercial r
type use type use type use. I
Relative to industrial land tses, historical trends show the following.,
3„-12
c
fait
r Vic .' o
4 � �
Fire Fraction of Total Cost
Protection Devc-loped Acres for Industrial
Fiscal Year Cost X Commercial - Land Uses
1978-1979 $5,456,237 .122 $665,661 '
1977-1978 4,8T6,562 J 19 573,171
1976-1977 4,321,509 .110 475,366
1975-1976 3,761,025 .112 421,235
1974-1975 2,360,778 .113 266,768
1973-1974 2,88 ,614 .114 328,732
m
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 15.2%.
The next step is to estimate fire protection cost on the basis of the
type of industrial use. Referring to Table 3.3, this would be accomplished as
follows for fiscal year 1978-1979:
Fraction
Industrial of Developed Square Cost Per
e Nark - Fire Cost X Acres by TYpe Footage = Sq- Ft.
1 Oil production $665,661 .3766 N.A, N.A.
2 Aerospace 665,661 .1639 1,081 ,914 $.101
3 Light. Manufacture/
Wholesale
{>_20,000 ft2 665,661 .0697 1 ,860,748 .025
4 Light Manufacture/
Wholesale
(< 20,000 ft2 665,661 1478 3,033,149 .032
0 Warehousing 665,661 .0277 563,630 .033
6 Non-Structural
Storage/Service 665,661 .0565 67,056 .561
7 Miscellaneous Service 665,661 .0774 435,464 1118
8 Public Utility 665,661 .0804 72,867 .734
3-13
s
,a
fl.
t
The derivation of fire protection cost is thus obtained froo'n t:};
Number of /Number of sq. (Fire protection 'm
p acres of ! ft. per acre cost per sq. ft,
industrial of industrial of industrial -`'
(type use type use type use
3.3 Harbors, Beaches & Parks
3.3.1 Harbors & Beaches
}
Harbors and beaches costs are those generally associated with the
following categories
Administration
Lifeguard
Beach Maintenance
Parking Facility
Municipal Pier
Parking Meters
Mechanical Maintenance
Building Maintenance
Parking Authority Payment
Reimburserwnt revenues such as those associated with the Junior Lifeguard
Program and County Lifeguard & Maintenance are deducted from the total costs
derived from the above categories in order to obtain the net annual harbors
and beaches cost. Since these expenditures benefit both residents and non-
residents of the City, it is :assumed that the portion of those expenditures
borne by residentss is in the same proportion as the observed percentage of
visitors to the beach area as recorded in incident reports by the Department
of Parbors and Beaches. Referring to Fable 1 .3, historical trends show the
following:
X
3-14
x
tav
Fraction of
Harbors & Visitors from Gosh Per
Fiscal Year Beaches Cost X City Population T Capita
1978-1979 $1,705 900 0.197 167,41.9 $ 1.30
A 1977--1578 1,080,693 O X0 16T,300 1.14
1976-1977 1,1.96,524 0.160 158,100 1 .21 �
1975-1976 1,123,834 0.186 152,300 1,37
1974--1975 T,058,108 0,157 147,900 1.12
1973-1974 1,038,194 0.168 143,600 1.21
`. The a)proximate rate of increase par year from FY 74 through rY 79 is 1 .4%,
which implies that in 1979-3980 the estimated harbors and beaches costper
acre is (7.014) ($1 ,30) = $1 .32.
The derivation of harbors and beaches cast is obtained from
Number Average (Harbors and
of 0�11 y X number of beaches cost
J people per D!1 per capita
for resid.ntial projects only.
3.3.2 Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation costs are those generally associated with the
following cast categories:
Recreation & Parks Administration
Recreation Administration
Warehouse
Comunity Centers
City Gym & Pool
Adult Sports
Boys Sports
Girls Sports
Summer & Adventure Playground
Instructional Classes
Aquatics
Special Events & Excursions
Sumer (lay Camp
After School Playgrounds
3-15
fi. R
1
f
Oak View Center
Park Maintenance
.4
Nature Center ;,r•,�
Building Maintenance -,�
Recreation, Parks & Human Services . :
Reimbursement r,ovenues sucf s those associated with recreation fees and
recreation contracts are deducted from the total costs derived from the
# ` above categories in order to obtain the net annual parks and recreation
cost. Referring to Table 1.3, historical trends show the following:
F .
Parks &
Recreation Cost Per
Fiscal Year Cost Population - Capita
1978-1979 $1 ,293,037 167,419 $7.72
1977-1978 1,590,642 161,300 9.86
1976-1977 1,386,767 158,100 8.77
1975-1976 1 ,320,055 152,300 8.67
1974-1375 1,299,010 147,900 8.78
1973-1974 1,039,264 143,600 7.24
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 1.3%,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated parks and recreation cost cost per
capita is (1 .013) ($7.72) = $7.82.
The derivation of parks and recreation cost is obtained from
Number (Average 1 (Parks & recreation1
of Di1`s� numoer of cost per capita ;
people per Dil
for residential projects only.
3.4 Public Works
3.4..1 Administration & Engineering
Administration and engineering costs are those generally associated
with the following cost categories:
Administration
Design Engineer "g
Surveying
Construction Inspection
Traffic Engineering
3-16
4
♦ � qFN/`
kcal l�• '.
Special inspection fee revenues are deducted from the total costs derived from
the above categories in order to obtain the net annual_ administration and
engineering cdst. ,
Administration and engineering costs are prorated on the basis
of total developed acres for residential, commercial or Indus rial land uses
under the assumption that these land use types (exclusive of transportation,
public or quasi-public uses) place the major burden on administration and
engineering services. Referring to Table 1.3, historict trends show the
following:
i
t Administration & Developed Cost per
Fiscal Year Engineering Cost - Acres Acre
1978-1979 $1,051,180 11,912 $88.25
1977-1978 1 ,025,466 11 ,696 87.68
1976-1977 986,971 11,106 88.23
1975-1976 851,927 10,682 7935
1974-1975 778,430 10,402 74.8
1973-1974 746,388 10,044 74.31
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 3.5 ,
which implies than in 1979-1980 the estimated administration and engineering
cost per acre. is (1 .035) ($88.25) = $91.34.
The derivation of administration and engineering cost is obtained
from
Administration
[Number &
of acres X engineering cost
per acre
for all land user.
3.4.2 Facilit & Equipment Maintenance
Facility and equipment maintenance cost are those generally associated
with the following cost categories;
Administration
Mechanical Maintenance
Vehicle Painting & Body Repair
Sewer & Storm drain Line Maintenance
Sewer & Storm Drain Pump Station
3-17
Equipment Maintenancetv
Mechanical Fabrication -< '
Bridges & Channels
Pool Car Maintenance
Building Maintenance
Building & Equipment Special Repairs
As in the case of administration and engineering costs, these costs are pro- '
rated on the basis of total developed acres for residential, commercial or
industrial land uses under the Pssumption that these land use types (exclusive
of transportation, public or quasi-public uses) place the major burden on
4 facility and equipment maintenance services, Referring to Tut„e 1.3, histor-
icaI trends show the following:
Facility &
Equipment
Maintenance Developed Cast Per
Fiscal Year Cost _Acres - Acre
1978-1979 $1,735,524 11 ,912 $145.70
1977-1978 1,929,995 11,696 165.01.
1976-1977 1,808,t.02 11,186 161.67
1975-1976 1,311,2b5 10.682 122.75
1974-1975 882,883 10,402 M 88
1973-1974 567,887 10,044 56.54
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 20.8%,.
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated facility and equipment mainte-
nance cost per acre is (1 .208) ($145.70) = $176.07,
�E
The derivation of facility and equipment maintenance cost is ob-
tdined from
Number ) X Facility & equipment
of acres maintenance cost per acre
for all land uses.
3.4.3 Street Maintenance
Street maintenance costs are those generally associated with the
fallowing cost categories:
Street Ma€ntenace
Plan Check, Inspection & Design
Street Signing & painting
3-18
A�
Street Tree Maintenance ,
Landscape Maintenance
Street & Special Lighting V"
Street Sweeping
Tree & Landscape ChemicalsY ,
IZA Parking Control
Street Light Electricity '.
Street maintenance costs are allocated on the basis of per foot of street
maintained. Referring to Table 1.3, historical trends show the following;
Street
Maintenance Street Cost Per
' Fiscal Year Cost Eoota e Foot
1978-1979 $2,682,051 1,773,552 $1 .51
1977- 1978 2,362,019 1 ,719,696 1 .37 ;
1976-1977 2,113,707 1,672,176 1.26
1975-1976 2,145,266 1,633,104 1.31
1974-1975 2,252,193 1,486,320 1.52
1973-1974 1,935,795 1,466,784 1.32
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 2.7%,
" which implies that in 1979--1930 the estimated street maintenance cost per
foot is (1.027) ($1�51) = $1.55.
ry The derivation of street m4i;:tenance cost is obtained from
Number (street (Street maintenance
(ofacres} footage cost per foot
per acre
for all land uses.. r
3.5 Library
Library casts are those generally associated with the following
cost categories;
Media Services
Technical Services
Children's Services
Reference Services
Adult Library Services
Administration
Extension Services
Library guilding Maintenance
Sat<llite Libraries
3,-19
r
�r
IM V
3u
Library service revenue is deducted from the total costs derived from the
above categories in order to obtain the net annual library cost.
Library costs are generally allocated on the basis of per capita );7 rf
since the;e ct:`Ms are normally attributed to population. Referring to
�r
Table I A. hi,,t-= ;cz. trends show the following.
1 i`1rary Cost Per '
Fiscal Yr-.PT. lost - Population - Capita
i.. 1978w1+"9 $1,039,717 167,419 $6.21
1,203,855 161,300 7.46
-a 7,54-`1P :M 991,209 158,100 6.27
'I975-1976 939,386 152,300 6.17
1974-1975 756,857 147,900 5.12
1973-1974 622,590 143,600 4.34
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 7.4%,
which imr.lies that in 1979-1980 the estimated library cost per capita is
(1.O74) ($6,21) = $6.67.
The derivation of library cost is obtained from
Number Averse (Librarycost
3� numberr of X per capita
(of MIS) people per DU
for residential projects only.
3.6 Water Service
Water service costs are those generally associated with the following
cost categories-
Source of Supply-0peration
Pumping Expense-Operation
Water Treatment Plant-Operation
Transmission & Distribution
Customer Accounting
Administrative & General
Other Expenses
Other income Deductions
w Pump Station Mai,.tenance
Building Maintenancn
3-20
�.ry
Total water service costs are prorated on a per unit of consumption basis such fY:
as per 100 cu.. ft. or per gallon. Referring to Table 1.3 and using annual
s water production data provided by the Dater Department, historical trends
show the following:
Water Service Cost
Fiscal Year $/gallon $J100 cu. ft.
1978-1979 .00038 0.2868
1977-•1978 .00042 M164
1976-1977 .00039 M920
1975-1976 .00035 0.2618
1974-1975 �00036 0.t676
1973-1974 .00030 0.2261
The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 thrrtagh FY 79 is 4.9%,
which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated water service costs will be
(1.049) ($0,00038) = $0.00040 per gallon or, equivalently, (1 .049) ($0.2868)
$0.3009 per 100 cu. €t.
This discussion suggests that the derivation of water service
costs be obtained from
(Number (Average annual beater service
of OU's) X water consumption X cost per unit:
per DU (of consumption
for residential projects, and from '
Slumber Number of Rverage annual Water service
of acres X businesses k water consumpt%on Y ost per unit
per acre per business (OC€ consumption
for commercial and industrial projects. In these formulations the annual
water consumption estimates are derived from the data in Table 2.15.
3-21
F
t
l
a^
qq t
5 R i F
M
4.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SELECTED? LAND USES
In order to obtain a comperative evaluation of new development if it
were to occur today in the City, viewed in the context of the revenues to be ?
generated versus the costs to be incurred in 1979 only, fourteen residential, '
seven commercial and five industrial land uses w,- v selected for comparison ;
purposes. These uses are not necessarily typical of existing developments in
the City today, but conceivably could be built in the near future. These
specific land uses selected can be described as follows:
(I RES' JENTIAL
CASE: Low Density
ESTATE - Though not existing in the City at present, this type of development
would consist of estate single family detached units ranging from l to 4 units
per acre in density. They would be two story, 3 and 4 bedroam units and have
a full market value of approximately $300,000.
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, MARINA - These are single family homes such as those
located on Trinidad Island in Huntington Harbour, Typical densities range from
4 to b units per acre. Some units are waterfront homes with docks, while others
are on the interior portion of the island and have no direct water access. Market
values differ according to such access, but $306,000 is an average value for new
marina homes regardless of location.
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED REGULAR These are normal single family homes located in
inland areas throughout the City, Densities can be expected to range from 4 to
5 units pr:r acre. An example of such units would be those off of Springdale
Street, .ith of Talbert Avenge. Full market value averages $175,900 per unit.
CONDO, MARINA - These are low density condominiums located in water oriented
areas such as the Seagate development in Huntington Harbour, Densities can be
expected to range from 6 to 7 units per acre and the average full value per
unit is $225 000.
4_1
r
4'' t
i
C
CONDO REGULAR - These are low density condominiums located in inland areas u
throughout the City. Densities range from 6 to 7 units per acre. An example � .
s of this type of development is located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue ,
and Newland Street.. Full market value auexlges $120,000 per unit.
ate.s
F
MOBILE HOME - This is a typical mobile home such as those located in various
* mobile home parks throughout the City, Because mobile homes are purchased
elsewhere and then moved to a park, density and location have no effect on
their value. Typical new mobile home values range from $20,000 to $45,000
_T with $35,000 being average.
CASE: Medium DenSitY
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, TOWNLOT These are single family units b-+ilt in the
R.s
Townlot and Oldtown areas of the City. Lot sizes are primarily 25 ft. X117 ft.
Despite the small lot and building dimensions, values are generally high due to
the close proximity to ocean. Densities range from 7 to 11 units per acre
with 8.9 being typical of newer construction. An example of this type of develop-
ment can be found on the Southwest corner of Twenty-first Street and Orange
Avenue. Furl market value averages $150,000 per unit.
CONDO REGULAR_ - These are medium density condominiums located in inland areas
throughout the City. Densities vary widely from 8 to 15 units per acre with
10 being average. An example of this type of development can be found on the
Southeast corner of Ellis Street and Chapel Lane. Full market values average
$110,000 per unit.
APARTMENT 2-4 REGULAR 4 These are 2 to 4 unit apartment buildings located in
p inland areas throughnut the City. Densities typically range from 9 to 14 units
per acre with 10.5 being average. An example of this type of development can
be found on harbour Bluffs Circle, South of Warner Avenue and East of Balsa
Chica Street. Full market val -es average $65,800 per unit.
4-2
�kr
f
APARTMENT 5+, REGULAR - These are 5 or More unit apartment buildings located
in inland areas throughout the City. Densities range from 13 to 15 units per r.g
acre. One of the few examples of this type of development existing in the City
would be those units on the northwest corner of 17th and Florida Streets. Full "
market values average $60,0O0 per unit.
CASE: High Density
CONC3 REGULAR - These are high density condominiums located in inland areas
throughout thr City. Densities range from 15 to 20 units per acre. An example
of this type of development can b,Y found. on El Arroyo Drive, south of Suter
Avenue and crest of Newland Street. Full market value averages $95,000 per unit.
APARTMENT 2-4 TOWNLOT These are 2 to 4 unit structures built in the Townlot
and Oldtown areas of the City. Densities range from 17 to 20 units per acre.
The average value per unit at $65,500 is generally higher than similar structures
located elsewhere because of the close proximity to the ocean. An example of
this type of development can be found c,r the southwest corner of 12th Street and
Pecan Avenue.
APARTMENT 2-4, REGULAR - These are high density 2-4 unit structures located in
inland areas throughout the City, Densities range from 15 to 20 units per acre.
An example of this type of development can be found on Valley Circle, north of
Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Blvd. Full market value per unit averages
$$5,500 per unit
APARTMENT 5*, REGULAR - These are 5 or more unit structures located in inland
areas throughout the City. Densities typically range from 20 to 30 units per
acre. An example of this type of development can be found on the northeast
corner of Nolla►id Drive and Beach Blvd. Full market value averages $52,000
per unfit.
4,3
�'� ult�rtsysterns_: .,»
t2) COMMERCIAL
M Community Center A is a 10 to 35 acre shopping center with greater than 100,000 ,
square feet of building space. The primary anchors are a supermarket and drug ,
store, Other tenants include restaurants and numerous small shops and offices.
An example of this type of development may be 'ound on the southwest corner
of Edinger Avenue and Sher Lane. Typical full market value is $800,000 per acre.
Commuoji j Center B is a 10 to 35 acre shopping center with greater than 100,000
square feet of building space. The primary anchors are a junior department store
` and supermarket. Other tenants may include restaurants, small shops or offices.
An example of this type of development would be on the northwest corner of
Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. Typical full market value is $900,000 rer acre.
Neighborhood Center is a 2 to 10 acre shopping center with 50,000 to 100,000 square
feet of building space, The primary anchors are a supermarket and drugstore.
Other tenants may include restaurants, small shops and offices. An example of this
type of development would be the nL `hwest corner of At".anta Avenue and Magnolia
Street. Typical full market value is $700,000 per acre.
Convenience Center is less than 2 acres in size and consists of small shops and
offices, A quick food pick-up store is generally the primary tenait. An example
of this type Lf development is the southeast corner of 17th Street and Orange
Avenue, Typical full market value is $550,000 per acre.
Mixed Commercial/Office takes the form of a complex with more than 150,000 square
feel of building space. It typically features high-rise offices, restaurants,
banks and a hotel and theater. Though there is no existing development of this
type in the City, there are plans for a similar complex on Center Drive at the
405 l:rL:!way, Full market vall�e of this type of development is approximately
$2.8 million per acre.
4-4
t
r
t
Ste
Office/Professional is any building or complex featuring private medical or
_ business service concerns. An example of this type of development is the 5 acre ;
complex on the northeast corner of Yorktown and Main Street. A typical full
ri,rket value is $500,000 per acre.
� x
Mixed Specialty Commercial and Residential is a theme development featuring
ground level speciality shops and upstairs residential units which are essentially r=
` medium density condomiiiums. Included in the development may be several small
-, offices, restaurants and hotels. A typical size may be 8 acres with 50 residential
units. Old World on Center Drive is an example of this type of development.
Typical full market value is $l million per acre.
(3) INDUSTRIAL
J oht Manufacturing, 8000 - 30,000 square fee Tenant features manufacture and/or
wnt lesale as the dominant activities. Tenants may include machine shops, auto
repair, art studies, electronics and chemical manufacture, and engineering
coa.ipanics. Building to lot size may typically run 18,000 square feet per acre.
An example: of 'his type of development may be found in the Huntington Industrial
:'art nezi;° lsa. Avenue and Graham Avenue. Full market value averages $600,000
Per
Li b ivikojuw(.Ic.turinq, Less than 8a000 square feet/Te-jnt also features manufacture
and//.- :ibo;c-sa)e as the dominant activities. Because building size per occupant
is gall there is likely to be a larger number of machine and auto repair shops
than iu o�Lher light manufacturing developments. Building to lot size may average
17,000 square feet per acre. An example of this type of development can be found
on the northwest corner of Slater Avenue and Nichols Street. Fuil market value
is typically $575,000 per acre.
Mini-Warehousing consists of a complex of building structures i:ontaining many small
storage units which are leased out to private parties. The primary use is structural
storage, and few or no retail sales are generated. A typical complex may be 3 acres
4-5
f
y
A
ge
' in size and contain greater than 50,000 square feet of building space, with , .
y..
an average of 210 sq. ft. per unit. An example of this type of development ,.;"
can be found on Gothard Street south of Large Circle. Full market value may
average $475,000 per acre. `>
Regular Warehou!iinq features structural storag^ as the aominant activity, but '
limited retail sales may be generated. Tenants typically occupy no less than
11,000 square feet of building space and there are generally 15,000 to 20,000
square feet of building per acres. An example of this type of development can
be found in the Huntington Indus�rial Park. Full trarket value averages $550,000
per acre. r
Combination Non-Structural Storage/Miscellaneous Service is a mixture of uses
typically found in the Gothard Industrial Corridor. Included may be recreation
vehicle storage, auto wrecking, auto repair and trucking operations. All of these
uses feature limited building space and generate few retail sales. Full market
value for such a mixture of uses averages $95,000 per acre.
The specific characteristics assumed for evaluation of each of these three
ca *egories of land uses are presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.3.
Relative to the revenue and cost factors derived previously in Sections L,0
and 3.0, respectively, Tables 4.4 and 4.5 present the basic assumptions and factors
to be used.
4.1 Comparison of Residential Land Uses
Residential land uses in the City of Huntington Beach can generally be expected
to have impacts in the following revenue categories;
(1) Property tax
(2) Other local taxes such as sales tax, in-lieu water utility tax,
water utility tax, gas utility tax, telephone utility tax,
electricity utility tax, and cigarette tax.
4-6
Table 4.1 Characteristics of Residential Land Uses Evaluated
STREET
DENSITY POPULATION FULL MARKET VALUE ($1 00A FOOTAGE (4}
TYPE OF USE , I1U ACRES PER DU tQW NOMIhtAL !iIGH PER ACRE
Low Bens, tt
Est t 1.50 3.50 275 300 375 160,00
SPD 1 Marina 4.78 3,21 275 306 475 224.25
SFD0) Regular 4.46 3.20 140 175 220 254.84
Cando Marina 6.85 2.69(2) 200 225 410 99.43
Cando Regular 6.24 1 .71 100 110 120 9'5.51
Mobile hu,de 6.83 1 .97 30�5} 35(5) 45(5} 91 .00
.a
Medium Densi ty
SFD(l) Townlot 8.40 2.93(2) 145 150 160 221 .00
Conch Regular 8.94 1 .96 95 100 115 126.20
Apt, 2-4 Regular 14.45 2.10(3} 60 66 70 210.56
Apt 5+ Regular 13.20 1.81 55 60 65 172-00
High -Density
Condo Regular 16.00 2.22(3) 90 95 110 96.50
Apt. 2-4 Regular 15.44 2.58(2 50 56 65 223.10
Apt. 2-4 Townlot 18.30 2.14(fl 6U 57 70 221 .00
Apt. 5+ Regular 24.57 1.51 50 52 60 220.30
�T) Si ng C�_T-am l j-96Uc�e
{2} Assume equal to 3.0 for sales tax determination
(3) Assume equal to 2.0 for sales tax determination
4) Arterial plus non-arterial (public only)
5} Plus $1 ,152 in local improvements `
, 4
� t
Wwl Owl",
Table 4.2 Characteristics of Co►toercial Land Uses Evalui,ted
SQUARE MARKET TAXABLE STREET
-W,Ark VALUE SALES FOOTAGE NUMBER ►iUMBEk
TYPE:OF USE. VER ACRE nER ACRE PER SQ. FT.a PER ACRE G; ACRES OF TPNANTS
Cotw--iity Center Type A 9,957,36(9) $ 821,070 $ 63.23 125.51 14.59 30(l)
Community Center Type B 10,458.66(g) 862,838 108.54 125.51 12 36 12(2)
Neighborhood Center 8,769.41('0) 723,4,7 40,12 i99.70 8.37 16(3)
Convenience Center 7,098,77(ll) 585,548 68.70 288.21 1,62 7(4)
Mixed Ca.,�mercial/Office 42,288,,1 (12) 2,814,,919 8.103) 70.68 14.21 (C)
Office/Professional 7,650,27(13) 524,590 ; 248.50 5.49 (S)
Mixed Specialty Commercial
and Residential 7,332,07tl4) 1,159,794 59.74 137.06 7.76 (7)
(1) 1 grocery with general liquor license, 1 drug stor-, 3 restaurant° with bee and wine licenses,
1 resta.urant with general on-s}le license, l -estaurarit without alcoholic beverages, 2 food stores
without alcoholic beverages, 2 florists, i sportii:q gords store, 'r Jewelry store, 1 stationery
store., 1 music store, 1 home furnishings store, 2 radio/arpliz,ce stares, 1 men's :,pparel store,
women's apparel stores, 2 health se,-vices stores, 2 personal service shops, 1 specieity store,
and 4 business service concerns.
(2) 1 grocery with gercral liquor licensF--, 1 drug store, 1 separtment store, 2 restaurants with beer
and wine licenses, l women's apparel store, 2 perscnal service shops, and 4 business service concerns,
r � 71 -
u �
c.
Table 4.2 (Coat.)
(3) 1 grocery with general liquor license, 1 drug store, 3 restaurants with beer and wine licenses,
1 family appz-rel store 1 teen's apparel store, l household furnishings storey l sporting goods
stare, 1 food store wiuiout alcoholic beverages, 1 auto supply store, 2 personal service shops,
and 3 business service concerns.
(4) 1 liquor store, l food store without alcoholic beverages, t restaurant with brpr and wine
license, 1 health service office, l personal service shop, 1 business service concern and
l auto supply store.
(5) 1 restaurant without alcoholic beverages, 2 restaurants Ath general on-sale license, 76 office
building tenants, l theater, 1 hotel with 250 rooms, 2 business service concerns, l personal
service shop, and 1 gift store,
(6) 20 business service con-erns,
(7) 42 specialty sh.ps, 1 restaurant with general on-sale license; 7 business serviv-, concerns,
2 personal service shops and/or amusement places, and l hotel with 30 rooms.
w
(8) Based on 5,000 sq. ft. coffee strop @ $78.07 per sq. ft. plus 55,250 sq. ft. restaurant @
$75.86 per sq. ft. plus 10,0V sq. ft. theater @ $30.22 per sq. plus 236 sq. ft. gift shop
@ $3t.90 per sq. ft., averaged over 60C,914 sq. ft.
Type 2 commercial
(10) Type 3 commercial
(11) Type 4 commercial
(12) 77.53°% is Type 5 commercial and 22.47% is Type 7 commercial
(13) Type 7 comercial
(14) 91.56% is Type 5 commercial and 8.44% is iype 7 commercial
r. .r
Table 4.8 Characteristics of Industrial Land Uses Evaluated
SQUARE MARKET TAXABLE STREET
FOQiAGE VALUE SAGES FOOTAGE NUMBER NUMBER
TYPE OF USE PER ACRE PER ACRE PER SQ. FTC. PER ACRE OF ACRES OF TENANTS
Licht Manufacturing 16 502,97(4) $576,104 $10.60 222.03 9.77 87 (1)
(e 8,000 sq. ft.Itenant)
Light Manufactui: .? 1I,6G1.25 614,444 8.13 222.03 11.59 39 0)
(8 004-O'000 sq. ft./
tenant)
Mini-Warehousing 18,785.76(6) 476,000 0 161 .26 2.88 5 (2)
Regular Warehousing 20,568.97(6) 562,500 5.09 161.26 0.58 1 (2)
Combination Non-Structural/ 1,263.45(7) 95,047 17.79 184.80 17.2q (4)")
Miscellaneous Service
(1) Producers and distributors of light industrial equipm4rit.
(2) Miscellaneous storage of public items and manufactured goods.
(3 2 automotive repair/wrecking shops, l vehicle storage yard, and l trucking business.
(4 Type 4 industrial.
(5 Consists of 24.53% Type 3 industrial a:ld 75.47% Type 4 industrial.
(6) Type 5 industrial .
(7) Type 6 industrial.
77
V -
y
Table 4.4 Assumptions and Factors Used in the Comparative Evaluation of Annual Revenues
From Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach
REVENUE. SOURCE �ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED
Property Tax Derived on the basis of full market value times 0.01
times 0.154. (See Section 2.1)
Other Local faxes
Salas Tax For residential lfnd uses, fare. _ income (I) as a function,
of dwelling unit price (P) is computed f,om the equation
I - ,21874P + 17,789. Then for the given numh r of people
per dwelling a-it and the corresponuSng family income, 1%
of the corresponding value of Table 2.1 is salected as the
f per dwelling unit sales tax revenue.
For commercial and industrial lane uses, sales tax is based
on IZ of taxable sales per q. ft. of business type.
in-Lieu Wat ,r Utility Tax See Table 2.15
Water Utility Tax See Table 2.15
Gas Utility Tax For residential ,and uses, gas utility tax is assumed to
average $8.51 per dwelling unit,
For commercial and industrial land uses, Southerr California
Gas Company summary data i4c inadequate for the pur ose of
computing m-aningful estimates. (See Section 2.2
Based on Walker & Lee survey data
Table 4 (Cont,) `
REVENUE SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED
Telephone Utility Tax. For residential land uses, telephone utility tax is
assumed to average $4.02 per dwelling unit based ou
the assumption of push-button telephones.
For commercial and industrial 1prd uses. telephone
utility tax is assumed to average $4.35 per business
based on the assumption of dial telephones.
Electricity Utility Tax For residential land uses, electricity utility tax is
assumed to average $12.92 per dwelling unit.
For commercial and industrial land uses, Southern
W ifornia Edison Company s=aary data 'is inadequate
for the purpose of computing meaningful estimates.
(See Section 2.2.6)
Cigarette Tax Cigarette tax revenue is estimated on the basis of $3.19
per capita for residential projects only_
Real Property Transfer Tax Not considered since this revenue is only derived upon the
sale of property.
Licenses and Permits
Animal Licenses Animal license rove,ue is estimated on the basis of $0.72
per capita for �,eMdential projects only.
Business Licenses see Table 2.16
F-t.
Table4.4 ( on't,)
REVEMUE SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED
Revenue From Other A encies
Trailer Coach License Fees Derived on the basis of -full market value times 0.02
times 0.333. (See Section 2.4.1)
Alcoholic Beverage Fees Alcoholic beverage fee rever,:ue is estimated on the basis
of $291 per license (on-sale or off-sale)
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees Motor vehicle in-lieu fee revenue is estimated on the basis
of $13.99 per capita for residential projects only.
Gasoline Ta'e fasoline tax revenue 4s estimated on the basis of 1_48 per
capita for residential projects only.
DevelopTent Oriented Charges
Permit & Processing Fees iJot considered since a one-time fee.
Parks & Recreation Fees Not considered since a one-time fee.
Library Fees Not considered since a one-time fee.
Sewer Fees Not considered since a one-time fee.
Drainage Fees Not considered since a one-time fee.
Other Revenues
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties Fines, forfeitures and penalties revenue is estimated on the
basis of $6.01 per capita for residential projects only.
Miscellaneous 'Miscellaneous revenue is estimated on the basis of $1 .07
per capita for residential projects only.
c
.,._ .py � ,�+ •,�j'2 M...,ate'.:' -
p f z;
r
Table 4.5 Assumptions and Factors Used in the Comparative Evaluation of Annual Costs
From land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach E
COST SOURCE - ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED
General Government m For residential land uses, general government and admin-
Administration istration costs are derived on the basis of $37.8�- per
capita
For commercial and industrial land uses, general govern-
me,-;t and administration costs are derived on the basis of
$684.38 per acre.
Public Safes
Police Protect-Ion For residential 1—id uses, police protection cost. is derived-
on the basis of $41.78 per capita.
For commercial and industrial land uses, see Section 3.2.1 .
Fire Protection For residential land uses, fire protection cost is derived
on the basis of $25.36 per capita.
For commercial and industrial land uses, see Section 3.2.2.
Harbors, Beaches & ,?arks
Harbors &Beaches Harbors and beaches costs are derived on the basis of $1 .30
per capita for residential projects only.
Parks & Recreation Parks and recreation costs are derived on the basis of $7,72
per capita for residential projects only.
err
ar.
Taber (Cont,.)
COST SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS AND FA TORS USED
Public Works
Administration $r Adminy�;traticn and engineering costs are derived on the
Engineving basis of $88.25 per acre for all land uses.
Facility & Equipment Facility and equipment maintenance costs are derived on
Maintenance the basi 1 $Iks.?0 per acre for all land uses,
Street maintenance Street maintenance cost is derived on the basis of $1 .51
per foot.
Lwrary library Lost is derived on the oasis el t5.21 per capita
for residential projects only.
rq
"Y
F
.a
is
' �'`• (3) Licenses and permits such as animal licenses and business *,
i•
licenses (for apartments aid mobile home parks).
(4) Revenue from other agencies such as trailer coach license fees
(for mobile homes), motor vehile in-lieu fees and gasoline tax. s..
(5) Other revenues such as fines, forfeitures and penalties, ands , `.
k various miscellaneous revenues. ' : `
Table 4.6 presents a summary of thesQ 1979 revenue impacts on a per dwelling
unit basis for each of the fourteen residential land uses selected.
Likewise, residential 'and uses in the City of Huntington Beach can
generally be expected to have impacts in the following cost categories:
0) General yovernment and administration
(2) Public safety such as police and fire protection,
(3) Harbors and beaches
(4) Parks and recreation
(5) Public works such as administration and engineering, facility
and equipment maintenance, and street maintenance.
F (6) Library
,able 4.7 presents a summary of these 1979 cost impacts on a per dwelling unit
basis for each of the fourteen residential land uses selected.
TaM e 4.8 presents a summary comparisons of the per dwelling unit 1�79
revenues and costs. 1t is readily observed that:
(1) in the low density land uses, the Lower density uses given by the
estate and single family detached regular uses appear to not pay
their own way in comparison to the other higher density uses.
(21 at the mediurf density level, ownership units represented by V.1
single family detached townlot and condominium regular uses �.dpear
to pay their own way whereas rental units do not.
(3) at the high density level, the results are simil.:,r to those At the
medium density level except that extremely high density rental units
appear to pay their own way whereas lower density rental units do not.
It is of interest to determine how sensitive these observations are to
variations in dwelling unit market value b,�;ed on the ranges presented in Table 4.1 .
In this regard, Table 4.9 presents the illustrative ranges of revenues less costs
;a
4-16
ja_ble,j.4 1919 Per Owelling Unit Revenues for Residential Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach
Piedium Density.._ Iriwh Density
SFp SFD Condo Cood-1 K"$Iile SF6 Condo Apt.2-4 r '. 5+ Condo Apt. 2-4 Apt, 2-4 Apt.5t
Estate K-rina Regular Marina. R�qk r Rome Townl R,eautar Regular _,;Oak Reg.•'ar Rc4uiar Townlot Re9u1a�
REVENUE SOUVE
Property Tax * $462 $471 $270 $347 $169 $ 2 $231 $154 $102 92 $146 $ 86 $103 80
Other LocalTaxes
$ales Tax 101 10Z 17 87 58 45 72 56 50 49 56 r4 50 48
In-Lieu Rater Utility 10 TO 10 7 7 8 11 6 9 9 4 d 9 7
Tax
Water Utilitf Tax 3 3 3 2 2 3 a 2 3 3 1 3 3 3
Gay. Utility Tax 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Telephone Util'ty Tox 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Electricity Utility Tax 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
w Cigarette Tax 71 10 10 9 5 6 9 6 7 6 7 8 7 5
Licenses and Pemits
Animal Licenses 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1
Business Licenses 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6
Reyenue.frjogklfiPr enci0s
Trailer Coach License 0 0 0 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ees
Motor ehicle In-Lieu 49 45 45 38 24 28 41 27 29 25 31 36 30 11
Fees
,;a saline r 33 30 30 26 16 19 28 19 20 17 21 24 20 14
0t�ser Revenues
Fines, Forfeitures S 21 14 19 16 10 12 18 12 13 11 13 16 13 9
Perial ties
Miscellaneous a s 3 _3 2 2 3 2 2 __2 2 3 2 2
TOTAL a 723 $ 721 $495 $563 $320 $390 $449 S 3t1 $ 269 $247 $308 $272 $271 $222
U51ng nooinai dwelling unit values
M rT1W
Table 4.7 1919 Per welling Unit Public Service Casts for Residential Land Uses it the City of4untington Beach
-__ L p_w 0en11iM Medium 40ensi ry - __ __ High Density _
Sr0 SFR N Condo Ca .o Mobile SFD Condo Apt.2-4 Apt, 5+ Condo Apt.2--4 Apt.2-4 Apt.S+
state Mdrina Regular Marina, Regular H9. Tawnlot _Regular Regular Regular Requiar Re ular Townlot Regular
General Govermmnt $133 $122 $121 $102 $ 55 $ 7b $111 $ 74 $ 80 d 69 $ 84 $ 98 $ 81 S 57
t Administration
Public Safety;
Mire Protection 146 134 134 112 71 82 122 82 88 76 93 108 89 63
Fite Protection 53 i11 81. 68 43 50 74 50 53 46 56 65 54 38
Harbors. Beaches "?rks
Harbors b Beaches 5 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2
Parks S Recreation 27 ?5 25 21 13 15 23 15 16 14 17 20 17 12
J
Public storks
yAdnirftratoh & 59 18 20 13 14 13 11 t0 6 7 6 6 5 4
Engineering
Facility & Equipment 97 30 33 21 23 21 17 16 10 9 9 8 6
Maintenance
Street Maintenance 161 71 86 22 23 20 40 21 22 ?0 9 :'2 18 14
Library 22 20 20 17 11 12 18 12 11 11 14 16 _ _13 —9
TOTAL S 739 $505 $524 $~379 $255 $291 $420 $283 $291 $256 $291 $347 $288 $205
I
4
t
f_I
.2�
arY
Table 4,.8 Comparison of 1979 per Dwelling Unit Revenues and Costs for
Residential Land Uses i ) the City of Huntington Beach
v 'k-
r.rw
Revenue Revenue- ;"
,. Minus to-Cost
Type of Residential Use Revenue Cost Cost Ratio
Low Density �
Estate $723 $739 ($15) 0.98
SFD Marina 7 505 216 1 ,43
w SFD Regular 495 524 (29) 0,94
Condo Marina 563 379 184 1.49
Condo Regular 320 265 55 1.21
Mobile dome 390 291 99 .34
Medium Density
SFD Townlot 449 420 29 1.07
Condo Regular 711 283 28 1.10
Apt. 2-4 Regular 269 291 (22) 0.92
Apt. 5 Regular 247 256 0,96
High Density
Condo Regular 308 291 17 1,06
Apt, 2-4 Regular 272 347 (75) 0.18
Apt. 2-4 Townlot 271 2F8 (17) 0.94
Apt, 5+ Regular 222 20S 17 1.08
4.19
T
i
able 4.3 Conparison of 1979 Per Dwelling Unit Revenue Ranges and Cosh, for
Residential Land Uses in the Cit J Huntington Reach
Revenue y„_ Revenue Minus Cost (Revenue-To-Cost Ratio
Type,.nf Residential,tlse Low Nominal Nth Cost LoN Nominal Fish_ 66w om na._ li? N.
Eow_IIeR�
Estate $6A0 $723 $ 893 $739 ($59) ($16) $154 0.92 1.21
SF0 Marina r,63 721 1,015 505 163 216 510 1.32 1.43 2.01
SFU Regular 434 495 572 524 (90) (29) 48 C.83 0.94 1.09
Condo Marina 519 663 883 379 140 184 504 i.W 1,49 2,33
Condo Regular 303 320 338 265 38 55 73 1.14 1.21 1.28
Mobile Hom- 356 390 458 291 65 99 167 1.22 1.34 1 57
NediuT Density
r SF0 Townlot 440 449 466 420 20 29 46 1.05 1,07 1.11
Condo Regular 303 311 337 283 20 28 54 1,07 1.10 1.19
Ap' 2-4 Regular 259 269 276 291 (32) (22) (15) 0.89 0.92 0.95
Apt- Regular 239 247 256 25C (17) ( 9) 0 0.93 0.96 1.00
High 0snsi tr
Condo Regular 30 308 334 291 9 17 43 1.03 1.06 1.15
Apt. 2-4 Regular 261 272 28, 347 86) (75) '60) 0,75 0.78 0.83
Apt, 2-4 Towniot 260 271 277 28G �28) (17) (11) 0.90 0.94 0.96
Apt. 5+ Regular 218 222 236 205 13 17 31 1.06 1.08 1.15
,a
n
k
t
r uJr ,;
,yam
and revenue-to-cost ratios for taese potential market value ranges. Generally .`
speaking, the observations stated previously are still true, however, there
appears to �_ a crossover in estate unit market value be $300,000 and ;
$375,000 so that breakeven occurs. In particular, referring to Table 4.10,
we aee that estate units with market value of at least $308,736 car be expected � ,>
to pay their own way in 1979 whereas estate units with value less than $308,736 f
cannot be expected to pay their own way. Similarly, single family detached
regular dwelling units also show a crossover around $191,160, which means that
units with market value at least $191 ,160 can be expected to pay their own way
in 1979 whereas units with market value less than $191,160 cannot be expected
to pay their own way.
3
It is also noteworthy to observe that the minimum market value per
dwelling unit for mobile homes to pay their own way in 1979 is approximately
$30,700, which is considerably less than new mobile home units could be bought
for today. In other words, a new mobile home unit in the City today would appear
to pay its own way on the basis of comparing 1979. revenues with 1979 costs;
however, this could change after July 1, 1980 when new mobile home units will no
longer pay vehicle license fees and will be placed on the property fax rolls. If
this were the case in 1979, then, referring to Table 4..6, the trailer coach
license fees would be reduced —,)m $233 to ,$0 whereas the property ta:. revenue
would increase by (.01)(,154)($35,000) = $54. The net effect would be a total
annual revenue of $390 _ $233 -r :$54 = $211 . In comparison to the 1979 cost of
,$291 (referring to Table 43), we observe that the result would be a deficit
rather than a surplus in 1979. The point is that this change in taxation of
mobile homes could significantly alter the annual revenue-to-cost ratio for City
services.
In addition, the formulas in Table 4.10 can be used to compute. 1979
revenue and cost estimates for other choices of dwelling unit market value and
people per dwelling unit.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE DATA AND 'INFORMATION PRESENTED IN
TABLES 4,6 - 4.10 ARE FOR ONE POINT_ IN TIME ONLY NAMELY, 1979,. THUS, IT IS A
STATIC COMPARISON OF REVENUES AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SELECTED RESIDENTIAL
4-2?'
Table 4,10 1979 Per Dwelling unit Revenue and Cost Formulas for Residential land
Uses in the City of Huntington Beach
Dwelling Unit
Breakeven
Type of Residential Use Revenue Formula Cost Formula Market Value*
Lp�w Densj
Estate .0017353V+81.58+34,46P 120.26P+317.03 $308,736
SFD Marina .0017353V+81 .58+34.46P 120,26P+119.78 180,728
SFD Regular .0017353V+81.58+34.46P 120.26P+138.74 191,160
Condo Marina .0017353V+76.82+34.46P 120.26P+ 56.07 121,047
Condo Regular ,0017165V+72,69+34,46P 120.26P: 60.60 78,432
Mobile home .0068431V+81.70+34,46P 120.26P+ 54.37 20,706
MedMedium4m Donau
SFD Townlot .0017.353V+83.26+34,46P 120.26P+ 67.58 135,835
{ Cando Regular 0017165V+72.44+34.46P 120.26P+ 47.48 83,430
Apt. 2-4 Regular .0017165V+82.32+34.46P 120,26P+ 38.19 79,260
Apt, 5+ Regular .0017165V+81.44+34,46P 120.26P+ 37.40 65,002
Hioh.Densit
Condo Regular .0017165069.94+34.46F 120.26PI• 23.73 84,047
Apt. 2-4 Regular .0017353V+85.10+34 46P 120.26P+ 36.97 99,829
Apt. 2-4 Toanlot .0017165V+80.97+34.46P 120,26P+ 31.02 77,869
Apt. 5+ Regular .GG17165V+79.96+34.46P 120.26P+ 23.06 42,329
NOTE: V= dwelling unit market value
P= population per dwelling unit
Based on using the population per dwelling unit values of Table 4.1 in the revenue and cost formulas
to determine the value of V for which revenue equals cost.
L
'Ali t xt
LAND USE'S IN THE CITY. AS SHOWN EARLIER IN 74BLES 1 .? AND 1.4, THE REVENUE AND
COST FACTORS VARY EACH YEAR, THUS CAUSING A DYNAMIC SITUATION TO OCCUR EACH YEAR
RATHER THAN THE STATIC SITUATION EXAMINED IN THESE TABLES, xT IS FOR THIS
REASON THAT ONE CANNOT NECESSARILY INFER THAT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH
PAYS ITS OWN WAY TODAY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO IN THE LONG-RUN OR FOR ANY FUTURE t
YEAR. }
4.2 Comparison of Commercial Land Uses
Commercial land uses in tna City of Huntington Beach can be expected
s ;# to impact the fo lowing revenues:
(1) Property tax
(2) Other local taxes such, as sales tax, in-lieu .eater utility
tax, water utility tax, gas utility tax, teleQhone utility
tax, and electricity utility tax.
(3) Licenses id permits such as business licenses and alcoholic
beverage , -s,
Table 4.11 presents the expected impacts on these annual revenues for the seven
selected coamercial land uses.
Also, commerCal land uses impact various public service costs of the
follo� ing types:.
(1 ) General government and administration
(2) Public safety such as police and fire protection
(3) Public works such as administration and engineering, facility
and equipment maintenance, and street maintenance.
Table 4.12 presents the expected impacts on these annual public service costs
for the seven sele ted comercial land uses.
In summ t, Table 4.73 shows that all of the commercial land !uses with
the exception of '`ice/professional generate revenues significantly in excess of
casts, ranging f im a love of $2,440 per acre for neighborhood centers to a high
of $10,391 per ire for community centers. The deficit associated with office/
professional use can be directly attributed to the lack of sales tax revenue
the significance of this is readily observed from the sales tax revenue estimates
shown in Table 4.11 for the other commercial uses.
4-23
Table 4.11 1979 Per Acre Revenues for Commercial Land
Uses in the Cite )f Huntington Beach
Mixed
Community Community Mixed Specialty
Center Center Neighborhood Convenience Cowinercial/ Office/ Commercial
REVENUE SOURCE _Type A Type s_ Center Center Office Professional &Residential
Property Tax $1 ,264 $ 1329 $1,114 $ 902 $ 4,335 $ 808 $1 ,786
Other Local Taxes
Sagas Tax M 6,293 11,352 3,518 4,877 13,429(4) 0 4.4500)
In-Lieu stater Utility 32 21 39 74 86 6 155
Water Utility Tax 11 7 13 25 29- 2 52
Gas Utility Tax (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 49(3)
Telephone Utility Tax 9 4 8 19 102 16 81 (3)
Electricity utility Tax (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 75.
Cigarette Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
IM
N Licenses and Permits
Animal Licenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Business Licenses 119 64 100 221 373 149 335
Alcoholic Beverage 100 71 139 359 20 Q 38
Fees
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 0 0 0 0 0 0 219
Fees
Ua�;oline Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 148
Other Revenues
Fines, Forfeitures & 0 0 0 0 3 0 94
Penalties
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
TOTAL $7,828 $12,848 $4,931 $6,477 $18,374 $ 981 $7,560
a
(1 Assumes 80% of residential expenditures are elsewhere in the City
(2� Unable to meaningfully estimate
( (3) From residential use only
(4) $3,442 in sales tax plus $9,987 in bed tax revenue (based on $36 per night, 727, occupancy
and 6% bed tax)
Table 4,12 1979 Per Acre Public Service Costs for Commercial
Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach
Mixed
Community Community Mixed Specialty
Center Center Neighborhood ;-lnvenience Commercial/ Office/ Commercial
COST SOURCE TYPe Fi Tye8� Center ` Center ry Office Professional & Residential
General Govermient $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $1,277
Administration
Public_Safes
Police Protection 796 837 789 525 4,3b5 505 1 ,460
Firs Protection 488 512 482 319 2,642 306 885
Harbors, Beaches &
Parks
Harbors & Beaches 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Parks & Rec-,eation 0 0 0 0 0 0 121
Public Works
Administration & 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Engineering
Facility & Equipment 146 146 146 146 146 146 146
Maintenance
Street Maintenance 190 190 302 435 107 375 207
Library — 0 vm,_..._0 -- 0 -- p 0 —0 97
TOTAL $2,392 $2,457 $2,491 $2,197 $8,032 $2,104 $4,301
0
3
Table 4.13 Co arisen of Per Acre 1979 Revenues and f
Public Service Costs for Commercial Land
i
Uses in the City of Huntington Beach 3
rp„
Revenue Revenue
Hinus to-Cast �
Ty
pe of Cozrmercial Land Use Revenue 4rest Cost Ratio
Community Center Type A $ 7,828 $ 2,392 $ 5,436 3.27
f�
Comunity Center Type 8 12,848 2,457 10,391 5.23
Neighborhood Center 4,931 ?,491 2,440 1.98
Convenience Center 6,477 2,197 4,280 2.95
Mixed Cotmarmercial/Office 18,374 8,032 10,342 2.29
Office/Professional 981 2,104 (1,123) 0.47
Mixed Specialty Comercial 7,560 4,301 3,259 1.76
& Residential
4-2
y
{
s
/f
a
�� Ms7y'
As in the case of the residential analysis in Section 4.1 , IT IS IMPOR-
TANT TO MOTE THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE FOR ONE POINT IN TIME ONLY NAMELY, 1979, �F "
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST FACTO"S ARE DYNAMIC IN THE
SENSE THAT THEY CHANGE EACH YEAR, CONCLUSIONS MADE FOR FUTL .E YEARS OR IN THE
LONG-RUN COULD CONCEIVABLY BE DIFFERrNT. y
4.3 Comparison of Industrial Land Uses
Industrial land uses in the City of Huntington Beach can be expected to
have similar types of revenue (with the exception of alcoholic beverage fees)
and cost impacts as commercial land uses. In this regard, Tables 4.14 and 4.15
present the expected annurl revenue and cost impacts, respectively, for the five
selected industrial uses.
Table 4.16 presents a summary of revenues versus costs in which it is
observed that warehousing and various non-structure storage and related uses do
not pay their way in 1979. Generally, because manufacturing business in the size
range 8,000-30,000 sq, ft. are wholesale oriented rather than retail oriented,
there is a lack of significant sales tax revenue which would have the effect
of causing industrial uses of this type to be less attractive from a fiscal point
of view. This is indeed the case as is shown in Table 4.16 for this type of
light manufacturing use. By comparison, light manufacturing uses requiring less
than 8,000 sq. ft. are more retail oriented -1 thus generate revenues it excess
of costs. It should not necessarily be from these results that manu-
facturing uses do not: generate revenues of costs, since this may or
may not be the case. That 'Is important generally the determining factor in
whether or not such a use pays its own way is whether or not retail sales tax is
generated,
Likewise, as in the case of the selected commercial uses, IT IS I11POR-
TANT TO NOTE THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE FOR ONE POINT IN TIME, ONLY - NAMELY, 1979,
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS ARE DYN411C IN THE
SENSE THAT THEY CHANGE EACH YEAR, CONCLUSIONS MADE FOR FUTURE. YEARS OR IN THE LONG-
RUN COULD CONCEIVABLY BE DIFFERENT.
4-2 7
Table 4.14 1979 Per Acre Revenues for Industrial hand uses .
- in the City of Huntington Beach
Light Manufacturing Warehousing
Less Than 8,000 to Combination
8,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq.ft. Mini Regular ikon-Struct,iral/
REVENUE SOURCE Per Tenantµ Per Tenant w_ Warehousi nq Warehousing Miscellaneous Service
Property Tax $ 887 $ 946 $ 733' $ 866 $ 146
Other Local Taxes.
Sales Tax 1 ,749 1,431 0 1 ,047 225
In-Lieu ;!dater utility Tax 36 7 5 5 4
Water Utility Tax 12 2 2 2 1
Gas Utility Tax (I
Telephone Utility Tax 3 3 8 8 1
Electricity Utility Tax (l� 0 ) (I ) (1 ) (1 �
Licenses and_ Permits
ca
Business licenses 392 79 S5_ 84 _ 12
TOTAL $3,115 $ 2, 71 $ 813 $ 2,012 $ 389
(1) Unable to meaningfully estimate
: a
r
Table 4,15 1579 Per Acre Public Service Costs for Ind0strxal r
Land Uses in the City of Huntington b:-ach ,
l i4ht Manufacturigg_ Warehousir,
Less Than 3,000 to Combination
8,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq,ft. Mini Regular Nan-Structural!
COST SOURCE. Per Tenant_. Per tenant j arehousin Wat,ehousiig Miscel laneou 3,-r,?ice
General twiernment & $ 684 684 t84 $ u84 $ 684
Administration
Public Safe'
Police Protection 875 881 1,014 1,111 1,167
Fire Protection K28 533 6?0 679 709
Puhl is Works
U Administration & 88 83 88 88 88
Engineering
Facility & Equipment 146 146 146 146 146
Maintenance
Street Maintenance 335 335 244 _ 244 _279
TOTAL, $2,656 $2,667 $2,796 $2,952 $3,07'
s
•r
$ u,
�z
Iab e 4.1.16 Comparison of Per I,-re 1979 Revenues and
Public Service Cost> for Industria0 Land
Uses in the City of Huntington Beach �
iN
Revenue Revenue-
Minus to-Cost }
Type of Industrial band Use, Revenue Cost Cost Ratite °
r^;
Light.Manufacturing
4�
�'.. <8,000 sq. ft. Per 'Tenant $3,115 $2,656 a 459 1.17
B4OOU - 30,000 sq. ft, 2,471 2,667 (196) 0.93
Per Tenant #
Warehousing
Mini Wareh using 813 21796 (11983) 0.29
Regular Warehousinq 2,012 21952 (940) 0.68
Gowination Hon-Structural/ 389 3,073 (2,684) 0.13
Miscellaneous Service
4-30