Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutULTRASYSTEMS, INC. - 1979-03-05 P r' f = ' r,� iII S i �a � z ti r 1 k4 Ci .q ('' 3 � �X✓'� s 4 r`'f'^1 T a � .� � �� °fit r „`�x,� �r �--^' h•+ r1r � '� :yy�F x x � a U'r . �����l`�'1'� ` S'7 j rt u xaw i ur � '�S'��k J �.Y � � ., �} � 7 r . 1 � f• /p � i 4 nr} �, Al l,,,N! 1 '� '9y t try t ee �' rt � E,r"t .,-.•. - '. k �B ef) fs , nK�' ';,h ii- ��, Yt ,h "' ,,y �4� (. ,•�1•--„'N:� .r�J"'J"` �L,"'"_"Y C?', y ��'..r. ,� .h. � � i �= cr.! l� � r i ( "'.''"may ',�','. �`;.i U ,5• 4ti✓/'�..s ! vz", ,��--fN'• ue J� d' � �� � �J tom..-• y _y ti.yy�` CI`f! OF HUNTING TON BEACH Office of the City Clerk P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Reach, Calif, 92642 FINAL. REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION n A Or�_ A LAND USE FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PREPARED BY ULTRASYSTEMS, INC, 2400 MICKELSON DRIVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 99715 (724) 752-7500 i 1 NOVEMBER i979 VOLUME I - METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 'rfr ..syst :its ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY: Huntington Beach City Council Don MacAllister, Mayer Bob Mandic, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Bailey Ruth Finley Ron Pattinson John Thomas Clancy Yoder PREPARED FOI USE BY Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Commission Robert Bazil , Chairman Ralph Bauer, Vice Chairman Bruce Greer Beverly Kenefick Prim Shea Jahn Stern Grace Winchell CITY STAFF INVOLVED: City Administrator - Floyd Belsito rAccounting Officer - Wayne Lee Department of Development Services Projept Staff James Pal i n, Director June Catalano, Senior Planner Charles Clark, Associate Plan:'jer Carol Inge, Assistant Planner Hal Simwns, Planning Aide Hal Messinger, Planning Intern Rad Coulter, Planning Intern Steve Levin, Planning Intern Guy Perrin, Planning Intern Sam Feldman, Planning Intern !t sP ►n� y TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 METHODOLOGY AVELOPMENT iSection Page 1 ,.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 REVENUE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Property Tax . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Other Local Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.2.1 Sales 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 . . . . . . . . . . 2-2.1 2.2.5 felzphene Utility Tax . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 2.2.6 _ Electricity Utility Tax . . . . . . . . 2-23 2.2.7 Cigarette Tax . . . _ . . . . . I . 2-24 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 05 iress Licenses • • . 2-26 2.4 Revenue From Other Agencies. . . . . . . 206 2.4.1 Trailer Coach License Feet . . . . . . . 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 2,11 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 Other Revenues . . . . . 2,40 2.61 Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties. . . ; . 2•-4G 2.6.2 Miscellaneous . 2-41 2.7 Water Fees and Service Charges . . 2-42 2.7.1 Water Fees_ . . . .- . r . . . 2-42 2.7.2 Water Sales 2-43 I � i ti bras st.ms Y TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 i Section Page i 3.0 COST SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 General Government and Administration . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.2.1 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.2.2 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3.3 Harbors, Beaches & Parks . . . . . . . . . 3-14 3.3. '. Harbors & Beaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 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 Water 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 Usps . . . . 4-27 Osle' . 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 impacts. Volume 2 deals with the appl?cation of the model to evaluate the City's General Plan of development, and 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 modal development effort are. • Information that can be used to project land use mix cost p J / revenue impact. 0 Assistance in determining the quantity of various revenue- producing uses which are needed to offset net cost uses. s Assistance in identifying costly sand uses. e A basis for structuring future data collection needs withan the City, Y Assistance in setting land use mix goals and objectives. 0 A decision-making tool to aid in growth planning decision;,: 0 A means for determining the pp Qntial fiscal impact of late�s development proposals or zone changes. 0 AssiV—Ince in comparing various alternative land use and density configurations. e A basic method for forecasting future budget impacts. s A procedure for determ;TM ,ty how City services could be deli- vered to new development. • An analytical method of assessing the casts and rovenues associated with new development. a Assistance in comparing various alternative commercial and Industrial development plans. 0 A methodology for forecasting "city-wider commercial and industrial revenue. b Basic tools which can assist decision-makers in the preparation of redevelopment plans, I Grltras sty The basic features of the fiscal impact modei ran be summarized as follows: (1 ) considers 24 different revenue sources to the City including property tax, other local taxes, licenses and perml� ts, °om other agencies, development oriented chz ar revenues, and water fees and service char jts, (2) considers i0 different City public service cost sources including general governme t 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 �4) annual costs for capital improvements can be determined r.. on the basis of cash, bond financing (with or without sinking fund retirement) , straigrt"-line amortization or capital recovery amortization at a specified interest rate (5) gives 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 In this volume, is presentiLA a detailed discussion of the derivation of the revenue and cost factors utilized in the basic methodology &nd an application is made to selected residential , commercial and industrial land uses of specific types should they exist in the City today, t �*9 fu': uays2� 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 used to evaluate development proposa14, in the City of Huntington Beach. The diF- r cussion presented is based primarily on previous research* cofiducted under the HUD 701 CompreV,. ns-ive Planning Assistance Grant program by Ultrasystems in conjunction with the County of Orangeo the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange. 1`he results of this previous researc;t have been modified accordingly to reflect the types of fiscal impacts which can be expected to occur from new development in Huntington Beach. In particular, a computerized fiscal impact model , developed over a period o•F' nearly 4 years, has been modified to predic the specific revenues and costs associated with development activities in the City. Appendices A and B in this report contain the specific 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 how to modify this previously Jeveloped model, extensive review was undertaken to determine the major revenue and C'.Gst sources in the City which are associated with development activities. It was determined that the revenue sources expected to be impacted by new development h are: (1) Property Tax (2) Other Local `faxes (2.1 ) Sales Tax (2.2) In-Lieu dater Utility Tax (2.3) Water Utility Tax (2.4) Gas Utility Tax (2.5) Telephone Utility Tax (2.6) Electricity Utility Tax (2.7) Cigarette Tax (2.8) Peal Property Transfer Tax *See: User's Manual on Economic and Ei►vironmental Growth Impact Analysis. prepare y City of Ana eim an U trasystems, Inc. , 30 ,June 1977 l-1 i t Y s' (3; Licenses and Permits (3,1 ) Animal Licenses (3.2) _Business Licenses (4) Revenue From Other Agencies (4.1 ) Trailer Coach License Fees (4.2) Alcoholic Beverage Fees (4.3) Motor Vehicle In-Lieu tees (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 Similarly, the cost sources 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 & Parks (3.1 ) Harbors & Beaches (3.2) Parks & Recreation (4) Public Works (4.1 ) Administration & Engineering (4.2) Facility and Equipment Maintenance (4.3) Street Maintenance 1-2 (5) Library (6) Water Service In order to predict these revenues and costs, it was necessary to review cast historical trends and then determine on what basis they would be iderived. The latter required the development of appropriate revenue and cost factors utilizing a variety of data sources including annual statements of expenditures and receipts, aui:ited financial statements, and miscellaneous data on land use acreage, footage of streets and annual population estimates. To illustrate the :',�sults obtained, Table 1 .1 presents a Summary of the per 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 thrr-gh FY 79, and Table 1.4 presents the cost factors derived for estimating cost impacts. Section 2.0 pres„nts 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 examples of the use of these factors in predicting the fiscal impacts in the City for selected developmi�nt proposals. z 1-3 Table 1.1 Historical Sutronary of City of Huntington Beach Annual Per Capita Revenues 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978 1978-19979 Historic_4? Annual Per Per Per Per Per Per ' Change in Revenue Source Total Capital) Total Capita(2) Total Cap Total Capita�4� Total Capita(5) Total CaGita�6� Per CaoitJh 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 $7,251 ,302 $43.31 + 13.b Cigarette Tax 477,571 3.33 467,668 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.a? 78,214 0.53 104,564 0, 150,866 0.95 131,682 0.82 17-1,739 0.72 - 2.6 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees 1,339,934 9.33 :. 8,66 1,413,448 9,28 1,682,217 10.64 2,059,030 12.77 2,341,592 13.99 + 8.4 Gasoline Tax 1,296,089 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 3.64 498,753 3.27 593,325 3.75 720,518 4.47 1,005,452 6.01 + 11.1 Miscellai ous 384,610 0.45 441,619 0.47 572,113 0.70 555,474 0.56 850,566 0.90 910,133 1,07 + 18.9 0 population = 143.,600 12 population = 147,900 3 population = 152,300 4 population = 158,100 5) population = 161 ,300 �6 population = 167,419 7� over the period FY 74-FY 79 a 1 ro m an = M -M M M M M Table 1 .2 City of Huntington Beach Revenue Factors ESTIMATED 1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980 , FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR REVENUE SOURCE BASIS 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.l4r Per square foot gross leasable area (See Section 2.2.1 ) for commercial and industrial projects In-Lie!.i Water Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See 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 Ln 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 Tax Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.2.5) Per business for commercial and "ndustrial (See Section 2.2.5) projects Electricity Utility Tax Per dwelling unit for residentia'; projects (See Section 2.2.5) Per business for commercial and industrial ('See Section 2.2.16) projects Cigarette 'Tax Per capitL for re'ideritia.l projects 319 -0. Real Property Transfer Tax Per dollar of sales .00055 None .0t : 1 Based on ti-e 1% property tax limitation of the Ja'rvis-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 citywidc average; however, for individual projects thr.. factor value used would ,be based on the estimated family income as it relates to the income requirement For house' purchase, Table 1 .2 (Continued) ESTIh1ATED � 1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980 FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR REVENUE SOURCE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE 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 .Agencie Trailer Coach License Per dollar of coach value (See Section 2.4.1 ) Fees Alcoholic Beverage Fees Per business for commerciLl projects (See Section 2.4.2) Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Per capita for residential projects 13.99 8.4 15.17 Feet' Gasoline Tax Per capita for residential projects 9.48 1 .0 9.5. Development Oriented Charges Permit & Processing Fees Per dwelling unii for residential projects (See Section 2.5.1 ) Per acre or per sq. ft. for commercial and (See Section 2.5.1) industrial projects ' Park;> & Recreation Fees Per dwelling unit for residential projects (See Section 2.5.2) Library Fees Per dwelling unit for residential p;°ojects (See Secti 8 2.5.3) Sewer Fees Per dwelling unit on per acre for residential (See Section 2.5.4) projects Per acre for commercial and industrial (See Section 2.5.4) projeots Drainage Fees Per acre (See Section 2.5.5) Other Revenues Filies, 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 i- Table 1 .2 (Continued) ESTIMATED 1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979-1980 FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR REVENUE SOURCE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE_ %) VALUE Water Fees & Service Charles Water 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 residential projects (See Section 2.8.2) Per business for commercial and (See Section 2.8.2) industrial projects v E 1:71 r Table 1.3 Historical Summary of City of Huntington Beach Net Annual Expenditures(l) Historical Annual 2 Cost Source 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978 1978-1979 Change General Government and $3,815,849 $4,348,823 $4,554685 $5,418,141 $6,314,581 $8,153,536 + 16.4 Administration Public Safety Police Protection 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 1,105,9C0 + 1.3 Parks and Recreation 1,039,264 1,299,010 1,320,C55 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 Eutipmant 567,887 882,883 1,311,256 1808,402 1,929,995 1,735,524 + 25.0 Maintenance Street Maintenance 1,935,795 2,2"2,193 2,145,266 2,113,707 2,362,019 2,682,051 + 22.6 Library 6U,590 756,857 939,386 991,209 1,203,855 1,039,717 + 10.8 Water 2,387,381 3,023,632 3,297,058 3,548,017 3,6A f,',271 3,534,510 8.2 TI excludes capital expenditures and includes consideration of reimbursement revenues (2) over the period FY 74 - FY 79 Table 1 .4 City of Huntington Seach Cost Factors ESTIMATED 1978-1979 HISTORICAL 1979,1980 ' FACTOR ANNUAL FACTOR COST SOURCE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION VALUE CHANGE ! VALUE General Government Administration Per capita for residential projects $ 37.89 12.6 $ 42.68 Per acre fc? commercial and industrial projects 684.38 12.5 770. 13 Public Safety Police Protection Per capita for res dei,tial projects 41 .78 10.7 46.23 Per square foci for commercial and industrial projects (See Section 3.2.2) Fire Protection Per capita for residential projects 25.36 10.0 27.88 Per square foot for commercial 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 7.82 Public-Works Administration & Engineering Per acre 88.25 3.5 91 .34 Facility & Equipment Maintenance per acre 145.70 20.8 ` 176.07 Street Maintenance Per linear foot ofstreets 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 l st . 2.0 REVENUE SOURCES In this section, a discus ion of each of the major revenue sources -from rew development is presented along with the derivation of the estimating equati- ns for predicting future revenues. The specific detailed equations are given in Appendix A. �.1 Property Tax 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 valuation. Because of the recent passage of Proposition 13, the total property tax revenue is limited to 1% of the assessor market value (relative to 1975-1976) and is limited to an annual increase of no more than 2%. As a 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 taxin,l agencies) tax rate - specifically the total* 1977-1978 average tax rate considering the City, County of Orange, id 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' fror A( ( verage ' fraction of Number Property tax X market property tax of DU value X limitation Xrevenue receive per DU factor ,O1 by City = ,154 for residential projects, and from Average Fraction of Property' tax umber market property tax (01f acres X X limitation X value revenue -ece i ved per acre factor .01 by City = .154 for commercial and industrial projects *County of Ora ge Tax Rates 1977-1978 2-1 wit 2.2 Other Local Taxes 2.2.1 Sales Tax Sales tax revenue is generally estimated on the basis of per capita sales tax revenue for residential projects and on the basis of -ales per square foot for commercial (or industrial) projects. Referring to Table 1 .1 , histor-cal trends show the following: Sales lax Revenue Fiscal Year Revenue = Population = e'er Capita 1978-1979 $7,251 ,302 167,419 $43.31 1977-1978 6,147,068 1-01 ,300 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 FY74 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 (Average (Sales tax Number X number of y revenue of DU's� people per DU 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 for new construction units) to estimate family income. An approximate rule of thumb for ownership units is that market value is typi4ally 2--1/2 times annual income 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 i Table 2.1 Oistribt)tion of Taxable Retail Expenditures(1 ) by Family Size Family Size (Persons) Family Income 1-2 _3-4 5 6 & Over Under $3,000 $ 850 $ 1 ,017 $ 1 ,1,33 $1 ,133 $3,000- 3,999 1g1.00 1 ,300 1 ,450 1 ,45E 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 2,53- 8,000- 8,999 2,167 2,450 2,717 2,783 9,000- 9,999 2,350 2,650 2,933 3,017 10,000-10,999 ?,533 2,850 3,150 3,250 11 ,000-11 ,993 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 ',733 18,000-18! ! 9 999 ? 83 4,300 "' °-<933 19,000-19,999 4,033 4,467 „w�"J 4,133 20,000-49,999 (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) Based 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 Inrorrw (5) 3080 + .1027 Income 2.3 r . 1lrasystem, Beach then receives approximately 1% in the form of sales tax revenue. This discussion suggests the use of a formula of the form Taxable Number retail (Sales tax revenue of DU,, X expenditures per $1 retail per family safes = .01 per DU In the commercial (or industrial ) project case, sales tax revenue can generally be derived from 1umbar Cross leasable /AEinual tax revenue of acrC Xarea (GLA) X sales per X) (Sales per $1 retail 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 apaas, 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 theory, 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' hard lines (hardware and appliances). The community center makes grea,er depth of merchandise available •- variety in sizes, styles, colors, and prices. It is built around a junior department store, variety store, or discount department store as the major tenant, in addition to a supermarket. It does not have 6 full-line department store, though it may have a strong specialty store, In ',Trom Table 2,1 . 2-4 cif theory, the typical size is 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but i:n practice the range may vary. The community center is the intermediate or in-betwAen type of center, most difficult to estimate for size and pulling power. The regional center provides for general merchandise, apparel , furniture, and home furnishings in depth and variety, as well as a range of services and recreational facilities. It is build around one or two full- line department scores of generally not less than '100,000 square feet. In theory, a typical size for definitive purposes is 400,000 square feet of gross 93 leasable area. The regional center is the second largest type of shopping center. 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 5ar West based on a 1978 survey* by the Urbart Land Institute. These factors could be used as appropriate in !1� 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 business basis. As an example, Table 2.14 presents a summary of the average annual taxable sales per business for each of' sixty-one different business categories in the City over the 5-year time period 1974-1978. 2.22 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 water utility 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 96.97% of -the total water utility operating revenue and thus is the major contributor to the in-lieu water utility i� *Dollars & Cents of Shopping renters: 1978, Urban Land Institute 2-5 NMI fthgvve ® �• � � Table 2.2 Tenants Most Frequen'Jy Found in Neighborhood Shopping Centers Median Sales Volume per Median Square Foot Tenant Classification Rank GLA s .rt. GLA GENERAL MERCHANDISE Variety Store 19 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 out 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 GIFTS/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 nRUGS Super drug 17 15,000 89..33 Drug 5 4,900 78.31 PERSONAL SERVICES Beauty 2 1 ,200 47.65 Barber 3 640 36.97 Cleaner and dyers 4 1 ,600 33.14 Laundry 10 1 ,500 16.76 FINANCIAL. Banks 13 2,5139 --- Real estate 15 1 ,200 OFFICES Medical and dental 11 1 ,064 --- 2-6 Ithlasystems Table 2.3 High Sales Volume Tenants in Neighborhood Shopping Centers Median Sa ies Volume per Square Foot Tenant Classification GLA Garden $205.0G Supermarket 178.73 Liquor and ;vine 130.72 Convenience market 121 .51 Candy and. nuts 102.21 Radio, TV, Hi-Fi 98.14 Luggage and leather 97.63 Fast food/Carry out 96.29 Ire cream parlor 89.46 Super dru2 89.33 Table 2.4 Low Sales Volume Tenants in Neighborhood Q 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 r Bowling alley 19.64 ® Arcade, amusement 22.18 Formal wear/Rental 22.47 Curtains and drapes 28.13 1 Costume jewelry 29.25 Table 2.5 Sales and Size Characteristics of Neighborhood Centers (Sample = 49) Gross Leasable Sales per Area (sq.ft. ) sq.ft. GLA Upper Decile 96,639 $194.84 Median 55,176 121 .31 Lower Decile 26,835 59.74 : 2-7 vems , v Table 2.6 Tenants Most Frequently Found in Community Shopping Centers Median Sales Volume per ' Median Square Font Tenant Classification Rank GLA(sq.ft.) GLA GENERAL MERCHANDISE Jr. department store 10 37,500 $ 60.49 Variety store 17 15,780 37.90 FOOD Supermarket 2 22,384 200.93 FOOD SERVICE Restaurant without liquor 8 2,490 78.07 Restuurant with liquor 18 4,150 75.86 Fast food/Carry out 16 1 ,323 115.51 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 Jewelry 9 1 ,500 129.68 DRUGS Drug store 19 6,500 106.50 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 15 1 ,800 35.64 FINANCIAL Banks 11 3,200 --- OFFICES Medical and dental 5 846 --- 2-a ON ms 4 Table 2.7 high Sales Volume Tenants in Community Shopping Centers sMedian Sales Volume per Square Foot Tenant Classification GLA Key shop $318.13 7 Supermarket 200.93 Showroom/Catalog store 180.51 :k Meat, poultry, and fish 176.62 Jil Liquor and wine 169.31 Jewelry 129.68 Credit jewelry 129.50 Costume jewelry 126.23 Fast food/Carry out 115.51 Lams 108.25 Table 2.8 Low Sales Volume Tenants in Community Shopping Centers Median Sales Volume per Square Foot Tenant Classification GLA E Bowling alley $ 12.12' Laundry 20.53 Candle 23.45 Cinemas 30.22 Floor coverings 30.83 Interior decorator 33.04 Arcade, amusement 33.46 Gleaner and dyers 35.64 }_ Art gallery 36.04 a Variet store 37.90 Table 2.92.9 Sales and Size Characteristics of Community ,{ Centers (Sample = 39) Gross €� Leasable Sales per Area (sg.ft. ) sq.ft. GLA Upper Decile 255,574 $137.67 ., Median 149,370 93.08 Lower Dec i l e 77,227 53.47 2-9 /t e 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 11100 125.17 CLOTHING Ladies specialty 4 2,038 100.13 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 42.99 Mens and bays shoes 11 1 ,492 117.65 HOME AT:PLIANCES/MUSIC' Radio, TV, HiFi 17 2,361 127.90 GIFTS/SPECIALTY Cards and gifts 6 2,265 76.92 Books and stationery 10 3,120 96.04 JEWELRY AND COSMETICS Jewelry 5 1 ,792 190.342 PERSONAL SERVICES Beauty 12 1 ,280 68.13 Barber 20 800 61 .61 FINANCIAL Banks 14 3,370 -- 2-1,0 ��. Table 2.11 High Sales Volume Tenants in Regional Shopping Centers Median Sales Volume per Square foot Tenant Classification GLA Key shop $311 .37 Cameras 215.84 Tobacco 191 .28 Jewelry 180.32 Meat, poultry, and fish 177.57 Pretzel shop 173.64 Convenience market 171 .40 Credit jewelry 167.55 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 Bowling alley $ 10.91 Laundry 24.07 Cinemas 37.16 Cleaner and dyers 39.93 Figure salon 40.74 Variety store 42.71 Automotive (TB&A) 48.46 Upholstering 49.05 Discount 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 Decile 615,085 $115.35 Median 346,.025 80.88 Lower Cecile 161 ,959 55.34 2-.11 I r; 0 Table 2.14 Average Annual Taxable Sales by Type of Business in the City of Huntington Beach 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Average Average Average Average Average Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Number of Saes Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per General Business Area Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Women's Apparcl Stores 28 $ 263,429 34 $ 224,206 35 $ 229,143 40 $ 230,300 52 $ 277,885 Men's Apparel Stores 12 230,750 1s 188,533 14 229,500 12 43,000 13 280,692 Family Apparel Stores 12 152,250 1; 79,308 11 122,909 13 122,692 18 150,667 Shoe Stores 16 209,063 16 195,063 16 204,688 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 Department 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 N Surfboard Stores 19 1517,842 23 134,130 28 1251,000 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 1Z5,800 4 205, 50 5 257,600 7 270,429 Music Stores 6 93,500 10 106,000 7 140,420 11 212,364 12 297,750 Stationery and Book Stores 11 94,545 10 811,500 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 Sc,iool Furniture and Equipment Stores 2 N.A. 4 N.A. 4 8,750 7 7,571 8 24,125 Full-Time Specialty Stores 46 53,065 44 55,932 61 58,918 78 55,526_ 93 53,538 Grocery and Food Stores without Alcoholic Beverages 19 265,316 21 253,381 27 251,815 28 281,286 40 150,075 Liquor Stores 28 2B8,429 34 270,353 3S 293,143 34 320,882 35 347,200 Table 2.14 (Continued) 1974 1975 1976 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 General Business Area Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Eating and Drinking Places. without Alcoholic Beverages 91 $ 171,407 107 $ 162,075 116 $ 178,440 136 $ 165,375 1.48 $ 186,466 Drug Stores 19 470,368 21 458,476 26 437,231 27 460,074 29 494,655 Non-Store Retailers (Full'-Time Only) 128 7,016 135 8,674 152 7,914 175 14,234 181 13,249 Part-Time Permittees 558 4,982 772 5,228 915 9,127 i,047 10,069 1,15E 6,700 Household and Home Furnishing Stores 34 515,206 36 448,500 49 394,469 52 446,808 64 370,484 Radio and Household Appliance Stores 15 208,533 14 243,285 14 387,214 20 388,600 23 483,435 N Sec-nd-Nand Stares 6 17,833 8 11,750 10 9,200 8 4,750 5 5,600 -Grocery Stores with Beer, and Wine Licenses 18 106222 18 119,389 18 126,889 20 119,650 21 118,190 Grocery Stores with General Liquor Licenses 17 1,070.,412 19 1,179,474 20 1,216,450 21 1e373,810 24 1,876,417 Eating and Drinking Places with Beer and Wine Licenses 34 88,382 39 87,308 42 !$5,524 50 105,060 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 1,393,017h 10 3,262,9GJ 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 zld Electrical Supply Stores 0 N.A, 0 N.A. 2 N.A. 3 N.A. 3 N.A. Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores 5 434,400 6 408,333 6 484,167 7 405,000 8 371,250 New Auto Vehicle Dealers 15 3,864,533 15 4,364,933 16 5,079,563 15 6,464,333 16 7,351,067 Automotive Supply, Automobile Trailer Dealers and Trailer Supply Stores 28 148,321 28 138,214 30 163,233 196,200 41 168,732 1 am mom M Table 2.14 (Continued) 1974 1975 _ 1976 1977 1978 Average Averagp Average Average Average Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Number of Sales Number of Sales Plumber of Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per General Business Area Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits_ Business Permits Business Service Stations 87 $ 326,483- 89 $ 374,393 85 $ 445,800 86 $ 483,198 82 $ 575,024 Used Auto Vehicle Dealers 4 85,250 5 81,400 6 72,000 8 217,000 9 129,889 Boat and Motorcycle Dealers and Supply Stores 18 142,667 15 162,333 12 38e,750 15 505,733 18 346,278 Automotive Repair Shops and Garages 43 81,070 52 72,731 62 78,323 78 73,333 88 67,977 Repair and Hand Trade Shops 84 37,881 96 38,323 109 41,000 124 40,008 135 58,437 Portrait Studios 10 39,500 8 51,750 10 44,300 10 46,500 10 59,600 NJ Clubs and Places of Amusement with On-Sale General Licenses I N.A. 3 N.A, 3 N.A. 5 83,000 5 88,600 Shoe Repair Shops 7 5,714 7 6,715 8 4,250 8 5,500 9 6,111 Morticians and Undertaking Parlors 4 54,250 4 53,000 4 64,250 4 77,000 4 109,000 Personal Service Shops and Amusement Planes without On-Sale General Licenses 77 12,455 85 13,765 110 '4,318 140 14,22.1 163 15,626 Construction Contractors and Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Lumber and Building Material 35 147,829 33 145,364 30 206,900 42 181 ,910 52 170,712 Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Store and Office equipment 3 N.A. 5 86,200 6 89,500 10 59,300 10 59,100 Health Services _ 11 18,182 13 21,231 16 27,313 19 43,632 32 21,625 Public Utilities and Concerns Providing. Transportation and Allied Services 10 85,500 7 38,143 9 60,000 12 67,583 16 94,063 Table 2.14 (Continued) �• 1974 1975 1976 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 at' Sales Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per Business Per General Business Area Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Electronic and Electrical Equipment 18 $ 7,944 23 $ 14,783 23 $ 8,000 22 $ 25,136 28 $ 66,464 Governmental Agencies, Associations, Fraternal, Religious and Social Organizations 29 $6,862 28 70,429 30 70,300 30 72,600 29 77,517 Business Service Concerns 76 12,289 80 15,867 83 30,120 104 59,269 ill 42,703 Producers and Wholesalers of Food, Tobacco, Alcoholic Beverages. and Farm Products Including 'rood Processing Equipment 22 11,955 19 35,053 20 42,600 21 38,333 20 62,350 tr, Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Textile Products, Household Furniture and Furnishings 47 36,553 51 34,686 60 38,467 70 32,829 77 46,935 Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Drugs, Chemicals and Allied Products 9 37,222 13 38,462 17 45,706 19 79,368 24 200,625 Producers and Distributors of Motion Pictures and Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Motion Picture Equipment and Supplies 3 N.A. 4 48,750 G 45,667 6 52,667 5 66,000 Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Automotive Vehicles, Trailers, Automotive Parts and Equipment 23 26,522 28 38,107 34 45,559 30 83,300 55 62,745 Manufacturers and Distributors of Transportation Equipment Other than Automotive 12 376,667 16 341,063 20 82,450 29 28,931 32 77,000 Table2.14 (Con-...ued) 1974 1975 1976 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 General Business Area. Permits Business ^ Permits Business _ Permits Business Permits Business Permits Business Producers and Refiners of Petroleum, Whriiesaiers of Petroleum Products,_ and Manufacturers and Distributors of Oil Well Refining and Service Station Equipment 6 �t 114,333 4 $ 619,000 5 258,200 5 $ 209,800 5 $ 215,600 Producers and Distributors of Heavy Industrial Equipment and Machinery (N.E,C.) 30 44,200 35 31,714 47 26,596 52 50,385 72 15,861 Publishers, Producers and Distributors T Light Industrial Equipment (N.E.C.) o, and ,All Other Permittees ((I.E.C.) 98 35,633 112 40,500 148 41,236 180 42,361 215 52,200 n...C. Not elsewhere classified S9URCE: California State Board of Equalization i C if It tax revenue. Table 2.15 presents estimates of average annual water revenue and in-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 :uses, all based on the 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 water Number utility tax of DU's revenue per DU for residential projects, and from Number Number of In-lieu water of acres X businesses X utility tax revenue per acre per business for commercial and industrial projects. 2.2.3 Water Utility Tax 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- use and on a per b,asiness basis for selected com- mercial and industrial land uses. The derivation o7 water utility tax revenue is generally obtained from Number X (Wate%- utility tax of DU's� \ revenue per DU fi;N residential projects, and from Number (Number of (Water utility ® of acres X 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 UTILITY UTILITY CONSUMPTION(8) TYPE OF LAND USE SALES TAX TAX 100 ft3) Residential Low Density (0-7 DU/acre) Single Family (Detached) $67.23 $10.08 $3.36 161 .4 Condominium 43.37 6.51 2.17 92.0 Mobile NomeO 52.50 7.88 2.63 101 .9 Medium Density (7-15 DU/acre) Single 'Family (Detached) 75.61 11 .34 3.78 163.5 Condominium 42.16 6.32 2.11 85.9 N Apartment (2-4 units) 61 .53 9.23 3.08 141 .8 C Apartment (5+ units) 57.12 8.57 2.86 118.5 Nigh Density (,:15+ DU/acre) Condominium 28.41 4.26 1 .42 42.5 Apartment (2-4 units) 54.83 8.22 2.74 111 .6 Apartment (5+ units) 49,.70 7.46 2.40, 96.5 Commercial' Regional Shopping Center Major Department Store 2,457,27 368.59 73.72 6,144.0 Restaurant 186.40 27.96 9.32 450.0 Variety S ore 125,81 18.87 6.29 191 .5' Mall Shop21 45.69 6.85 2.28 48.3 Services(3) 72.42 10.86 3.62 103.2 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 ft3) Community Shopping Center Junior Department Store 888.75 133.31 44.44 2,269.0 Restaurant 251 .95 37.79 12.60 910.4 S<<oermarket 235.00 35.25 11 .75 541 .5 Drugstore 154.76 23.21 7.74 355.0 General Retail & Service(4) 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 & Service 55.36 8.30 2.77 106.4 Laundromat/Cleaners 1 ,217.06 182.56 60.85 3,152.0 Convenience Shopping Center Mini-market (4) '65.65 24.85 8.28 391 .0 General Retail" & Servic 106.18 15.93 5.31 196.7 General Commercial Restaurant 345.05 51 .76 17.25 869.0 Service Station 61 .93 '9.29 3.10 138.0 General Retail & Service(4) 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 500-.36 89.90 29.97 1 ,507.0 Sports Club(5) 522.42 78.36 26,12 1 ,306.0 Office/Professional 10 J 5 1 .52 0.57, 24.0 Table 2.15 (Continued) WATER REVENUE(8) p IN-LIEU WATER WATER ANNUAL WATER UTILITY UTILITY CONSUMPTION(8) TYPE OF LAND USE SALES TAX TAX (100 ft3) Industrial Oil Production 62.40 9.36 3.12 148.5 Aerospace (Major)(6) 82,365.30 12,354.80 4,118.27 211 ,810.0 Light Manufacturing/ 2 (7) Wholesale (<20,000 ft ) 27.24 4.09 1 .36 38.6 Light Manufacturing/Wholesale >_20,000 ft Assembly/Testing 210.28 31 .54 10.51 518.0 Fabrication 12,773.64 1 ,916.05 638.68 22,443.0 ry o Warehousing 19.60 2.94 0-.98 41 .9 Non-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 Telephone 1,958.41 293.76 97.92 4,031,.3' (� ) Range = 0-12 DU/acre ,2 Apparel, jewelry, yardage, shoes, etc. f3) Medical, finance, hair salon, barber, repair, etc. 4 Apparel : auto supply, realty, etc. (5) Raquette-ball, hand-ball , gymnasium, etc. (6) McDonnell-Douglas (7) Engineering, office supply, machine shop, etc. (8) Per dwelling unit for residential projects and per business for commercial and industrial land uses SOURCE; City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 4 r,a, 2.2..4 Gas Utility Tax A 5% tax is imposed on the natural gas service charge for each ruser of natural gas in the City. According to the Southern California Gas Company, in calendar year 1978 the consumption and sales t/ customer type in the City were as follows: _ Customer type Residential Commercial (l ) Industrial (2� Plumber of Customers 49,69.5 1 ,484 206 $,1 Consumption (1000 cu. ft. ) 4,404,240 1 ,196,846 11 ,634,224 1 Operating Revenue $8,459,671 $2,509,696 .$24,547,305 sating Revenue per Customer $170.23 $1 ,691 .17 $119,161 .67 On a per customer basis the avera a annual gas utility tax revenue would be ( .05) (;$17M3) = $8.51 for residential customers, (.05) ($1 ,691 .17) = $84.56 for commercial customers, and ( .05) ($119,161 .67) = $5,958.08 for industrial customers. For commercial and industrial customers there are manv factors which influence natural gas consumption such as type of business, energy source(s) used, size in square footage, etc. Thus, the use of averages of these types could be misleading since they are based on a mixture of many types of businesses of varying sizes. The derivation of gas utility tax revenue is generally obtained from Number X Gas utility taX of DU's revenue per DU for residential projects, and .from Number (Number of Gas utility of acres X businesses X tax revenue per acre per business for commercial and industrial projects. miscellaneous retail machine shops, hospital , (1) includes wholesale suppliers, _ , p , p insurance, real estate$ financial and personal services (2) includtNs agricultural , mining$ `petroleum extraction and general manufacturing, but excludes the Edison facility 1 2-21 2.2.5 Telephone Utility Tax A 5% tax is imposed on all charges for intrastate telephone com- munication services in the City. Excluded from this tax are charges for coin-operated telephones, land-mobile services, maritime-mobile services and interstate telephone calls. The General Telephone Company basis: 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 exter. ,;on lines or additional phones on the same line and intrastate toll calls and other taxable charges, this tax would generate on an annual 'oasis an amount iequal to $3.27 per dial telephone and $4.02 per push-button telephone for residential customers, and an amount equal to $4.35 per dial telephone and $5,40 per push-button telephone for business customers. The derivation of telephone utility tax revenue is generally obtained from Number, X (Telephone utility of GU's `tax revenue per DU for residential projects, and from Number (Number of (Telephone utility of acres X businesses X tax revenue per acre per business for commercial and indostrial projects. 2-22 ��Iftt��Msyvszeftml 2.2.6 Electricity Utility Tax A 5% tax is imposed on the electrical energy service charge for each user of electricity in the City. According to the Southern California Edison Company, in calendar year 1978 the consumption and sales by customer type in the City were as follows : Customer Type Commercial Residential and Industrial Number of Customers 57,137 4,045 Total Consumption (kwhrs) 321 ,288,400 -545,893,212 Total Operating Revenue $14,759,131 $21 ,055,087 Operating Revenue per Customer $258.31 $5,205.21 On a per customer basis the :averse annual electricity utilitytax revenue would be (.05) ($258.31 ) = $12.92 for residential customers, and (.05) ($5,205.21 ) = $260.26 for commercial/industrial customers. The latter quantity is no doubt high for commercial customers due to being heavily biased by the consumption attributed to manufacturing industries in the City; however, it is not possible to obtain a separation of the electrical energy consumed into commercial versus industrial users. The derivation of electricity utility tax revenue is generally obtained from Number X Electricity utility of DU's tax revenue per DU for residential projects, and from Number Number of Electricity utility of acres X businesses X I pax revenue per acre r Per business ifor commercial and industrial projects 2-23 s •It yst r:, 2.2 7 Cigarette Tax According to Section 30462 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, cigarette tax monies are first apportioned between cities and counties in the proportion that local sales tax distributed to each city and each county bears to the total of such local sales tax distributed. Fifty per- cent of the city's share is allocated in the proportion that the local sales tax revenues of each city bears to the total local sales tax revenues of all the cities and 50 percent is allocated in the proportion that the popu- lation of each city bears to the total population of all the cities. For these reasons, one generally 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 1 .1 , his- torieal trends show the fallowing: Cigarette Revenue r Fiscal Year Tax Revenue Population = Per 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 5140672 152,300 3.38 1974-1975 467,668 147,900 3.16' 1973-1974 477,571 143,600 3.33 The approximate rate of decrease per yearfrom FY74 through FY79 is 0.9%, which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated cigarette tax revenue per capita is (0•997 ) ($3.19) = $3.16. The derivation of cigarette tax revenue is generally obtained from Number Average e (Cigarette of DU's X nu;nber of X tax revenue)' people per DU per capita 2.2.8 Real Property Transfer Tax The real property transfer tax is based on the value of the sales transaction and is computed on - he basis of $0.275 per $500 of sales or, 2 24 !t s? equivalently, $0.00055 per $1 of sales. The derivation of real ro erty p p transfer tax revenue is obtained from .Average X( Number market propertsfer y of DU's value X (tReal axnrate per DU for residential projects, and from Avera9 e Real property Number market i of acres value taxnsfer 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 b.� derived on a per capita basis. Referring to Table 1 ,1 , historical ;-7f?ids show t: following: Animal Revenue Fiscal Year License fees 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 1975-1976 104,564 152,300 0.69 1974-1975 78,214 147,900 0.53 1973-1974 117,585 143600 0.82 The approximate rate of decrease per year from FY74 through FY79 is 2.6%, Swhich implyies that in 1979-1980 the estimated animal license fee revenue per capita is (0.974) ($0.72) = $0.70. The derivation of animal license fee revenue is .obtained from (verage Number Animal license people per DU of DU' X umber pe X fees per capita . 1-25 rt cyst 2.3.2 Business Licenses Business license tax revenue varies according to a number of factors such as type of business, number of employees and number of com- mercial vehicles. Illu trative examples of average annual fees on a per business basis are presented in Table 2.16. Business license tax revenue is derived from Number of Average business Number X businesses X license tax of acres er acre p per business 2.4 Revenue From Other A, eg ncies 2.4.1 Trailer Coach License Fees At the time of vehicle registration, the Department of Motor Vehicles collects an annual license fee of 2% of the market value of trailer coaches, According to the Revenue and Taxation Code Secs. 11003,,3 and 11003.4, all license fees paid on trailer coaches, less the cost of administration, are apportioned to the county where the trailer coach is located and is distributed on 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 ar coaches. There are 200 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 age as determined relative to an 18 year depreciation schedule. For example, a new class AA coach would pay $1 + $11 = Q 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 follows: * 'B 0 4 'n that all new mobile T�.as will change. on July 1 , 1980 as the: result of 5 1 0 i homes sold after this date will be placed on the local property tax rolls and will no longer be subject to vehicle license flees. 2-26 ltrasys8ems ref. Table 2.16 Average Annual Business License Fees per Business by Type of Business in the City of Huntington Beach General Business Area Average Fee Per Business Women's Apparel Stores $ 57 Men's Apparel Stores 47 Family Apparel Stores 42 Shoe Stores 42 Variety and General Stores 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 40 Jewelry Stores 39 ez Office, Store and School Furniture and Equipment Stores 38 Full-Time Specialty Stores 41 Grocery and food Stores without Alcoholic Beverages 42 go Liquor Stores 46 Eating and Drinking Places without Alcoholic Beverages 71 Drug Stores 64 Hon- Store Retailers (full-Time Only) 38 Part-Time F6rnnitttees 41 Household and Home Furnishing Stores 46 Radio and Household Appliance Stores 49 Second-Hand Stores 38 Grocery Stores with Seer and Wine Licenses 39 Grocery '"cores with General LiLuDr 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 56 2-27 !t st ms Table 2.16 (Continued) General Business Area Average Fee Per Business 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 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. Places 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 Soc'al Organizations 41 Business Service Concerns 41 Producers and Wholesalers of Food, Toba-con, 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 It Evst .^ Table 2.16 (Continued) General Business Area Average Fee Per Business Producers and Distributors of Motion Pictures and Manufacturers and Wholesalers cf Motion Picture Equipment and Supplies $ 38 Manufacturers and Wholesalers of Automotive Vehicles, Trailers, Automotive Parts and Equipment 72 Manufacturers and Distributors of Transportation Equipment Other than Automotive 52 Producers and Refiners of Petroleum, Wholesalers of Petroleum Products, and Manufacturers and Distributors of Oil Well Refinings and Service Station Equipment 133 Producers and Distributors of Heavy Industrial Equipment and Machinery (N.E.C.) 58 Publishers, Producers and Distributors Light Industrial Equipment (N.E.C.) and All Other Permittees (N.E.C.) 44 Mobile Home Parks 4100 Apartments (2) Hotels and Motels (3) dw N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified (1 ) Plus $374 for annual operating permit fee C2) $6 per unit for complexes with 3 or more units (3) $6 per unit 2-29 t st,errs Coach Class Age (yrs . ) AZ CZ EZ KZ RD ZZ 0 70 219 369 668 1 ,052 1 ,637 1 57 181 304 550 867 1 ,348 2 45 142 239 432 681 1 .09 3 37 116 195 354 557 8�17 4 33 103 174 314 495 i% s 5 29 90 152 275 433 074 6 25 77 130 236 371 �?13 7 20 64 108 196 309 4C 8 20 62 104 189 297 462 9 19 59 100 181 285 443 10 18 57 95 173 272 424 11 17 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 15 14 44 74 134 210 327 16 13 41 69 126 198 308 17 or older 12 39 65 118 186 289 Average Decrease Per Year (% ) = 10.9 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.7 In 1978-1979 the City of Huntington Beach received $87,140 in trailer coach license fees. Based on an estimate of 3,318 mobile homes in 1978, this implies an annual revenue of $87,140/3,318 = $26.26 per coach. The derivation of trailer coach license fee revenue is obtained from Average License fee of Number value per per dollar of license fee of trailer X trailer X (value trailer coach revenue returt�e�1 coaches coach .02 (Fraction to city = ,.333 where, if one chooses to use the fee schedule, an e. timate is given by Number License fee of trailer Wil + (fee from schedule)]) per dollar = coach sides of trailer Average value of coaches coach value in coach class represented Eby given coach *This provides an estimate of the annual assumed depreciation rate in trailer coach value. 2-30 n e Wult o�• 2.4.2 Alcoholic Beverage Fees According to Section 25761 v the Business and Professions Code, alcoholic beverage control license fees re 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 two categories of licenses, namely: "on-sale" and "off- sale." On-sale licenses generally include bars and restaurants of which, as of June 1978, there were 118 such licenses in Huntington Beach. Off- sale licenses include manufacturers, wholesalers, liquor stores and grocery stores of which, as of June 1978, there were 101 such licenses in Huntington Beach. The total fees and fines collected during the period January- December 1978 amounted to $63,82' or $291 per license on an annual basis. This discussion suggests that alcholic beverage license revenue be derived on a per business bas-is and is thus obtained as follows: X Number Humber of Alcoholic a 6us nesses� X ueverage license (of acres, ,per acre fee per business 2.4.3 Mo zr Vehicle In-Lieu Fees According to Section 11005 of the 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 population 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 basis of per capita motor vehicle in-lieu fees for residential projects. Referri.ng to TAble 1 .1, historical trends show the following.- Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue Fiscal Year Fee Revenue Population Per Capita 1978-1979 $2,341592 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 1973-1974 1 ,339,934 143,600 9.33 2-31 i r The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 8.4%. which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated motor vehicle in-lieu fee revenue per capita is (1 .084) ($13.99) = $15.17, The derivation of motor vehicle in-lieu fee revenue is generally obtained from 1 Average (Motor vehicle ";umber X number of X in-lieu fee t �of DU's people per DU per capita 2.4.4 Gasoline Tax According to the Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2104(d) , ., base sum is established from the tax per gallon specified by the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law and is based on 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 maintained 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 population 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 peY Lapita gasoline tax revenue for residential projects. Referriing to Table 1 .1 , historical trends show the following: Gasoline Revenue Fiscal Year Tax Revenue Population = 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 2--32 b �J [j SLR`GL'37SJ The approx mate rate of increase 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 (l. l ) ($9.48) = $9.57. The derivation of gasoline tax revenue is generally-obtained from umber Average Gasoline (01 f umb DU'er X number of X tax revenue people per DU per capita 2.5 Development Oriented Charges 2.5.1 Permit & Processing Fees Permit and processing fees include the various development-oriented charges (excluding park fees, library fees, sewer fees, storm water drainage fees, and water fees) such as: development plan review, tentative tract appli- cation, plan ,check, engineering and inspection, right-of-way encroachment, grading permit, building permit, plumbing permit, electrical permit, mechanical permit, and various filing and appeal fees. Since these charges can be ex- pected to vary according to a variety of factors, an average fee would provide 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 that the derivation of permit and processing fee revenue be obtained from 1 Average permit `Qf DO's & Number X processing fee ` revenue per DU ® for residential projects, and from either ® (Average permit & Number X processing fee of acres revenue r acre of (Number of Cverage permit Numberes X square feet X rocessing fee of per acre evenue per sq. ft./ for commercial and industrial projects. 2-33 f � Table 2.17 Average. Fees a<<d Development Charges by Type of Land Use in the City of Huntington Beach PERMIT & PARKS & LAND USE PROCESSING RECREATION LIBRARY SEWER WATER Low Density Residential DUlacre Single Family (Detached) $679 per DU $903 per OU $ 58 per DU $391 per DU $195 per DU 1 ,758 per acre 876 per acre Condominium 622 per DU 812 per DU 30 per OU 71 per DU 38 per DU 342 per acre 185 per acre Mobil Home* 42 per DU 610 per DU 191 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU 503 per acre 249 per acre Medium Density Residential (7-15 DU/acre) Single Family (Detached) 539 per DU 1 ,l71 per DU 36 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU 538 per acre 267 per acre ,v Condominium 316 per DU 976 per DU 6 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU 717 per acre 356 per acre Apartments (2-4 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 'DU 30 per DU 899 per acre 372 per acre High Density Residential (15+ DU/acre) Condominium 385 per DU 878 per DU 45 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 DU 73 per DU 36 per DU 1, i31 per acre 562 per acre Apartments (5+ units) 333 per DU 870 per DU 42 per DU 73 per DU 36 per DU 1.,450 per acre 720 per acre up 12 DU/acre Table 2.17 (Continued) h PERMIT LAND USE PROCESSING RECREATION LIBRARY SEWER WATER Commercial Community Center $1 ,375 per acre - - 298 per acre 171 per acre 0.139 per ft2 Neighborhood Center 1 ,529 per acre -- 271 per acre 186 per acre 0.167 per ft2 Convenience Center 2,310 per acre -- -- 199 per acre 580 per acre 0.302 per ft2 General Commercial 1 ,344 per acre 278 per acre 539 per acre 0.093 per ft2 Commercial Recreation 809 per acre -- -- 276 per acre 288 per acre 0.180 per ft2 Ln Office Pr.fessionai 1 ,545 per acre -- -- 242 per acre 347 per acre 0.196 per ft2 Industria'1 Light Manufacturing(<20,000 ft2) 984 per acre 312 per acre 273 per acre 0.058 per ft2 Light Manufacturing(>_20,000 ft2) 473 per acre - -- 320 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 Note. acre = gross acre SOURCE'. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 4 f ! •�� St 2.5.2 Parks & Recreation Fees Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map, subdividers are { � required-to dedicate land., pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes. The amount of the fee is based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which otherwise would be required to be dedicated as determined 'from the following formula: E � 5 acres * Population p mber 1000population per 1000 X densityX (Nu of DU's (population (factor per DU where 3.55 for single family 1 .18 for multiple family single/bachelor t Population density, 1 .49 for multiple family 1 bedroom factor per DU 2.30 for multiple family 2 bedrooms 3.20 for multiple family 3+ bedrooms, `x 1 .80 for mobile home z An alternative approach, currently in use, to determine the amount of the parks and recreation fee is to use the following schedule: t� Type of Unit Fee per Unit Single Family $1 ,171 Multir,e Family Single/Bachelor 389 4� 1 Bedroom 492 i 2 Bedroom 759 3 Bedroom + 1,05 Nob i l e Nome 594 Table 2.17 presents typical average values of parks and recreation fees on a per dwelling urtit oasis as tine result of a survey conducted by the Planning Department. This discussion suggests that the derivation, of parks and recreation fee revenue be ud',IZIaim:d from Current City standard for land devoted to park and recreational purpose-, 2--36 Ai st /Average parks Number X and recreation of DU°s fee per DU for residential projects only. 2.5.3 Library Fees An excise tax pertaining to community enrichment library fees is imposed upon the construction of new residential units in 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 family dwelling, a dwelling unit in a duplex, apartment house or dwelling group, and any other place designed for human occupancy which contains a kitchen, and any space in a mobile home park designed or intended for a house trailer, mobile home, camper or similar vehicle. For mobile home parks, the square 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 average values of library fees on a per dwelling unit basis as the result of a survey conducted by the Planning Department. This discussion suggests that the derivation of library fee revenue be obtained from Number X Average library of DU's ('fees per DU for residential projects only. 2.5.4 Sewer Fees Sewer fees ate collected by the City as a condition to granting the application and furnishing sewer service to t,"e premises on the basi. of the following schedule: (1) $90 for the first dwelling 'unit plus $60 for each additional dwelling unit on 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. ..r a a �s In addition, Orange County Sanitation District (Nos. 3 and 11 ) feeE are collected on the basis of $50 for each 1000 squar ; 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. Fo its ser- vices in collecting the fees, the City retains 5% of all such fee collected. The total of fees derived from the above fee schedule and from th s 5% ser- vice charge represent the sewer fee revenue collected. Table 2.1 Presents typical average values of sewer fees as the result of a survey co ;:iucted by the Planning Department. It is important to note that for commercial and industrial uses these fees are shown on a per gross acre basis. The derivation of sewer fee revenue is obtained from ei•-..-her Number feeof DU's X (Sewer °e»venue per DU or from Number (Sewer fee 1 of acres X ` revenue per acre) for residential projects. For commercial and industrial projects t e latter formulation is used. 2.5.5 Drainage Fees A drainage fee is imposed upon new development according i) 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 Q 2-38 r_ {I s+ 1 SCy o"' � a i ° ,� f d A s l``a "{ 1 +. % d �✓''+". .�" X. fi vtif"«1 a a Ty ti+ // � /t�� n�C+����4C(p.f'Cti'4tti,f '�� ��� _J.r +��r �1 �< :f ♦.t�t,��: * .� 3 � � .. � � �♦W eta �y+.!•++ '�Q`+.t� � f y��it '` v �S <'vv ^"'�rr" ,�,, 'wy a � s� �'�../ �� I °v t�4` �" ��F •, •f,�l�, �' '• K - +s� �,�� �ti �� /� � �g ,� ��� erg. ��, `.. a ��+ ' V � ��'�t o *�N, �•fj�`� ". t 1'� e:A w � / '�• '`..mot;.• 3C ++� !/�,.� �P v ,y �, " '�•J1 `� y�'� � eif}f;f .�.,y�? pr+'� `^., �� LlA" � y�aya � ,j,/ �` r :. *� �'b� +f a.,.� •�i.) .g. 4 -,� \ � �•• \(',e�. *1. a �yd i' 111 x k>.'jt y /�., i- A r'. J �+,� b� i�',t't} , /• /t�:, a'�`` ! s � r, i l� �;r... •, �d''' ,-''��D ,'� fl+.y `/% �/ ` v. � F W. � '6Sl J �♦y �+J`` **��,,, L `.i• e,°,ti A \,� ' ��.31, G�• ` C�! •✓, r' i+ �\ �" ,.1�. 1 O !y;b)}»' �,7 (J ',/% .fr.� }.'•'.> ay 'N".� O �� ,�Qt.. . ,� T ,��3r y ✓' �7 'tl,r 3��'• �.+ a \ f: .� �1 �`'. ``` �.a \ .- ,��NT 40 0� ++. ` .� � •♦ A•,'S' :�,ti ! �.. ♦ �f � ✓ / ay s, �+.- �w�+- �y4 a *4fi\�J",1" � �� �ti4 y 'ifK,(/��Z z X' ��,. a w�Y " �:JM a` ,;+C �\, w ^�,' _' Pli !'` '; ,'`♦. , .t /�44�f ."+�a. stir//. q k ,} `�,^: �� ♦4P�. rj`, �` to *'':., ,d'ti Y •%y. ° �� .�'✓\"' °�A✓ �r,� �t+�..�'�� ,�♦ +\�r j �,. / ✓�' �/ "`st 1 +�j;V \ z\�v '� *� ± i f✓ v fay �i. 1j ti ^ ',a� 2 ".� + >`;�' «'ti y. .; t� 4lt✓.♦j ♦ k�r d^ Y. H �.+ " `. „Ff �r ° ftil� \ �`F"i m \�j 'i \�'a �♦ 4/ + °� �w ems` jk `IJ l .�' � I:�if rFds�i'-�* I / =i` +J l',,y`' `d: �p'�:,ate ti.�:y.}•'+1 i::�i'"�,'t \c') a " . :D � .\.�lr d,. I♦ t kcrfh'ti i r .�y t �i �a p .Y,. %�. Id,� t' �S+ ♦.}/ +�/• '�? /i T. . G { � A` e•� �i' ., �"1 X>._�t.4��IS' �r'� "t.f !,. a�, J'al:". 4. l�'j' .? ./ �: �� 44,,r dip\\,..,n �!' '`r ''i'� t f� " e o /+,t A4�: '\ty .;lt';�}��'.� �+a.4�y�'... �,.♦°,, ",4(C°������� �' '{�. '--.��+r',r,`,�\,,.,. 1 j' •;+ w� ,+�.� >+o�{� ♦ �ti�\.' � e'�` ..4:.. ,N,' 5�y "« °�� t*"�A a.1 fy' QP �� !/ \� �`���.� � f/, ,'`';. 1 y a\ ♦ijjte��0-'. ''f '+>� t. ,,+"?'��,,.�>,�. v b�.�ty'1"` ♦�; � l'. y r F,' � /"""..- '+t a�=.k �l' .M � E.'f,Ay .*��I". y �,3�`a� +' i !ice 1'f dJ: ^ sr,;'Y }�'t. .. •' 1 J +. `,� l P , .``,.,.1� V..,�- + ..rrf �q: ��\/•' 3 t i.'."�,al� r .; t 9 X , �♦,� �1 �,�1s-�y�; ��! ✓ { R '! t� � ,��j�y , <♦ v�� � ! J., r � 1 �� �. t n�....J�t.X7 iN S`o "_� ��'i-"..f 1 w 'C'!°•e � '4. �,` 'y„ I�f1�74 V � jl',/f.. .�4f �' "-•-..-- ��. n " jl�i IT + l� l( �I it �!� `. •s r ra .. y yyy 1Ito .y lEOENP HUNTIISIGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA ___ [XsttE=o[MuxASN —rOPOftO STORM CHANNEL WASTER PLAN STORM DRAIN, SYSTEM —"1XN,UHI,I 1DCIIA '-^[Xif6 U/ILlNlO eIIANNlI .� •txlsp cOMPIEIt PUMP s1ATION MARCH 4,1975 �+�o[xisr 1NCOMntlt PUMP slAnmt l'-�.l EXlsl LAXE ....DEAINAOt MSIEKI 6U)NOAXY Figure 2.1 2-39 !t 1sl ''s Drainage Fee Per Di-trict Gross Acre 5 $ 2,000 5A 2,000 5B 0 5C 0 5D 0 6A 2,000 6B 2,000 6C 3,000 7,A 2,800 7B ''200 �i �"7C 2,000 7D 2,000 7E 3,000 7F 2,000 7G 3,000 7H 3,330 7I 4,000 8A 0 8B 5,600 8C 4,500 8D 1 ,650 8E 0 8F 2,300 8G 6:000 8H 2,500 9 4,000 70 1 ,500 ll J 12 5,000 This discussion sug5?sts that the determinatioi of drainage fpe revenue be obtained from (Number x (Drainage b \of acres/ `fee per acre) as 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, nistorical trends shoe the following: *includes court fines, library fines & fees, and traffic fines 2-40 � t stems i Fines, Forfeitures, Re, enue Fiscal Year and Penalties - Population = Per is ita ® 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 i 975-?:976 ¢'' $753 152,300 3.27 1974-1975 538476 147,900 3.64 1973-1974 510,877 143,600> 3.55 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 11 .1%, which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated fines, ;Forfeitures and penalties ® revenue per capita is (1 .011 ) ($:6.01) = $6.68. P� The derivation of revenue from fines, feitures and penalties is obtained from umber Average ►�ines forfeitures(01f Du's X number of X I and penalties revenue) (people per DJ) per capita 1 for residential projects only. 2.6<2 Miscellaneous L 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 'Lo estimate the amount of these revenues directly attributable to residents it is assumed that they are in the same proportion as the observed percentage of visitors ,o the beach area as re- corded in incident reports by the Department of Harbors and Beaches. Referring to Table 1 .1 , historical trendb show the following 2-41 p i t srE is Fraction of Miscellaneous Visitors from Revenue Fiscal Year Revenue X City - Population Per Capita j' 1978-1979 $910,139 0.197 167,419 $1 .07 g 1977-1978 850,566 0.170 161 ,300 0.9 1976-1977 555,474 0.160 158,100 0.56 1975-1976 572,111 0.186 152,300 0.70 1974-1975 441 ,619 0,157 147,900 0.47 197�,1974 384,510 0.168 143.600 0.45 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 to FY 79 is 18.9%, which implies that in 1979 - 1980 the estimated miscellaneous revenue per capita is (1 :189)($1 .07) = $1 .27. The derivation of miscellaneous revenue is obtained from Average Iiscellaneous Number X number of X revenue per of DiJ' s people per DU) (capita for residential projects only. 2.7 Water Fees and Service Charges 2.7.1 Water Fees Water fees basically include, (1 ) water service fees collected as n a cond►tion to granting the application and furnishing water service to the premises, (2) water connection. and meter installation charges,. and (:i) con- struction water charges. Water service charges are derived on the following >� basis. (1) $30 per dwelling unfit 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 or more (3) $150 per net acre for all commercial and manufacturing developments, and those portions of trailer parks which accomodate overnight parking. T, A 2-42 v t t St In (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 connec°:ion and meter installation charges are based on the actual cost of labor and material in saying 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 flat rate per dwelling unit, lined feet of curb, square feet of sidewalk, square feet of concret pavement, barrels of cement used in construction, amount of backfill settl and quantity of water used. Table 2.17 presents typical average values o, .4ater fees by type of land use based on a survey conducted by the Planning Department. This discussion suggests that the derivation of water fee revenue be obtained from either Number X Water fee of DU's revenue per DU or from �Dumber Water fee revenue of acres X Viper acre for residential projects-, For commercial and industrial projects the latter fformulation i_s used, 2.7 .2 Water Sales Water sales revenue is derived on the basis of water consumption using the following rate schedule. Domestic, 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 charqe per month Water in cu. ft. 5/8" or 3/41' $ 2.45 500 VI 4.90 1 ,000 1_1/2" 7.35 1 ,500 2." 9.80 2,000 2-43 i Size of service Minimum charge per month Water in cu. ft. 3" $ 24.50 5,000 4" 49.00 10,000 6" 98.00 20,000 a" 147.00 31:1,00n 196.00 40,000 A charge of One Dollar ($1 ) shall be made for each unit in excess of one connected to each meter. "Unit" means any building or a portion of a building consisting of nne or more rooms separated from the rest of the building by a partition, occupied independently of the other parts of the building or another building. Table 2.15 presents typical aver�2L values of annual water sales by type of land use based on a survey conducted by the Planning Department. This discussion suggests that the d-ivation of water sales revenue be obtained from (Num (Average water sales revenue] \per OU for residential projects, are (ONu m lb r X (Average water sales reven va ue per acre for commercial and industria, projects. �1 n 2- 4 4 i 3.0 COST SOURCES in this section, a discussion of each of the major cost sources from new development is resented aloe with the derivation of the esti- mating equations for predicting future casts. The specific detailed equa- tions are given in Appendix D. 3.1 General Government and Administration General government and administration costs are those generally associated with the following cost categories : a 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 5erviues 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 rcharged bark to Harbors and Reaches and Street Maintenance, respectively. 3-1 i1t st Planning Administration Current Planning Advance Planning Land Use Building & Community Development Administration Plan Review and Inspection Certificate of Occupancy For residential projects �;aese costs are allocated first on the basis of developed acres for residential land uses and then on a per capita basis. Referring to fable 1 .3, historical trends show the following: General )vernment Fraction of & iinistration Developed Acres Cost Per Fiscal Year Costs X Residential Population = Capita 1978-1979 $8 153 936 0.778 167,419 $37.89 1977-1978 6,314,581 0.781 161,300 30.57 Q 1976-1977 5,418,141 0.790 158,100 27.07 1975-1976 4,554,685 0.789 152,300 23.60 1974-1975 4,348,823 9.788 147,900 23.17 1973-1574 3,8145,849 0.78E 143,600 20.89 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 12.6%, which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated general go'!ernmexit and adminis- tration costs per capita are (1 .126)" ($:7.89) = $42.68. the derivation of general government and administration costs is obtained from /Average General government rNumber X of X and administrat�;on t of DUk s �number peop je per DU/ cost per capi to 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: 4 3- ,r,,, lt� ytit s General Governmelt Fraction of Number of Fa. Administration Developed Acres Commercial/Industrial Cost Per Fiscal Year Costs X Commercial/Industrial ;- Developed Acres _= Acre 1978--1979 $8,153,936 0.222 Z,645 $684..-'8 1977-1978 6,314,581 0.219 2,561 539.93 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 3,811 5,849 0.2114 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, 980 the estimated general government and administration costs per acre are (1 .125) ($684.38) - $770.13. The derivation of general government and administration casts is obtained from Number / General government of acres X and administration cost per acre 3.2 Public Safety 3.2.1 Police Protection Police protection costs are those generally associated With the full-owing coat categories; Police Administration General Support Personnel Police & Public Affairs Records Training Planning &. Research 'rime Aralysis Vice & Organized Crime Investigative Scientific Investi.;-tion Patrol Comminications Jail Traffic G Aero 3-3 (asysf s) o 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 obta r the net annual cost of police protection. As in the case of general government 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 (as 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 increa5-�As then the de- mand for police protection service shou.d 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 Tub/le 1 .3, historical trends show the following: Police Fraction of Protection Developed Acres Cost Per Fiscal Year Cost _ X Residential) Population Capita 1978-1979 $8,991 ,331 0.778 167,419 $41 .78 1977-1978 8,420,844 0.781 161 ,300 40.7Y 1976-1977 7,382,782 0.790 158,100 3E 89 1975-1976 6,215,791 0.789 152,300 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 FY 79 is 10.7%, which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated police protection cast per toita is (1 .107) ($41 .78) = $46.23. The derivation of police Xrotection cost is obtained from Average Number r Peal ice protection of MIS X number of X cost per capita r peoplo per DU 3-4 It t its Table 3.1 Distribution of Police Department Call Activity by ;type of Land Use in the City of Huntington Beach for Calendar Year 1978 NUMBER PERCENT OF TYPE OF LAND USE OF CALLS TOTAL Single Family 14,537 19.9 Multi-Family 2-4 Units 1 ,184 1 .6 Apartments 6,179 8.5 Mobile Homes 263 0.4 Other Residential(l ) 1 ,754 2.4 Commercial 13,457 18.4 Industrial 125 C 2 Streets & Highways 29,386 40.2 City Parks 446 0.5 City Beach & Pier 908 1 .2 State Beach 129 0.2 Miscellaneous(2) 4,717 6.5 73,085 100.0 (1 ) Includes inclosed yards, open yards and alley ways (2) Includes school yards and buildings, church yards and buildings, public buildings, and construction sites SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Poli e Department 3-5 1�m*a . . - %107 t • For commercial and industrial projects these costs are allofated first on the basis of developed acres and then, '.n 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 Protection Developed Acres fior Commercial Fiscal Year Cost X Commercial - Land Uses i1978-1979 $8,991 ,331 .100 $899,133 1977-1978 8,420,844 .100 842,084 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 steep is to estimate police protection costs on the basis of the type of commercial use. Referring t- fable 3.2, this would be accomplished as follows for fiscal year 1978-1979: Fraction Commerial of Developed Square Cost Per e Name Police Cost X Acres by Type Footage = Sq. Ft. 1 Regional Shopping Center $899,133 .0505 866,879 $.052 2 Community Shopping Center 899,133 .1877 2,104,537 .080 3 Neighborhood Shopping Center 899,133 .0980 979,981 .090 4 Convenience Shopping Center 899,133 .0516 625,264 .074 5 General Commercial 899,133 .2829 2,236,866 .114 6 Co". ercial Recreation 899,133 _.2849 132,213 1 ,938 7 Offl`ce/Professional 899,133 .0444 601 ,529 .066 1 The deri vaL ion of police protection cost is thus obtained from Number of Number of sq. (Police protection acres of X ft. per acre X cost per sq. ft. commercial of commercial of commercial type use (type use type use 3.6 a - Table 3.2 Description* of Existing Commercial Uses in the City of Huntington BeachaJ�• Building Number Square Type Name Description of Acres Footage 1 Regional 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 shops and offices anchored by a supRr- 117.08 979,981 Center market and, possibly, a drugstore; usually 2-1C 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 Cgmmerc;ui Recreation Includes airport, ;olf courses, racquetball clubs, and 340.56 132,213 public marinas; size of uses varies. 7ice/Professional ueneral professional use such as attorneys, doctor, 53.07 601 ,529 business services, etc. SOURCE: City Planning Departi:ment r �r�tmsys�' ms r Relative to industrial land uses, historical trends show the following: Police Fraction of Total Cost Protection Developed Acres = for Industrial Fiscal Year Cost X Industrial Land Uses 1978-1979 $8,991 ,331 .122 $1 ,096,942 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--197a 4,600,501 .114 524,457 The approximate rate of increase per ye: : from FY 14 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 Commercial of Developed Square Cost Per Type Name Police Cost X Acres by Type - Footage Sq. Ft.. 1 Oil Production $1 ,096,942 .3766 N.A. N.A. 2 Aerospace 1 ,096,942 .1639 1 ,081 ,914 $.166 3 Light Manufacture/ Wholesale( 20,000 ft2) 1 ,096,942 .0697 1 ,860,748 .041 4 Light Manufacture/ Wholesale(< 20,000 ft2) 1 ,096,942 .1478 3,033,149 .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 .210 The derivation of police protection cost is thus obtained from (Number of Number of sq. Police protection acres of X ft. per acre l X cost per sc1. ft. industrial_ (of industrial of industrial type user type use (type use . r o 3.2.2 Fire Protection Fire protection costs are those generally associated with the following cost categories; 3-8 r _Table 3.3 Description* of Existing Industrial Uses in the City of Huntington Beach .� Building Number Square Type Name Description of Acres Footage 1 Oil Produ( )n 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 manufacture ( �: 20,000 ft2) and/or wholesale are the dominant activities 4 Light Manufacture/ Includes 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 a 5 Warehousing Includes structural storage as the dominant activity 40.20 563,630 6 Non-Structural Includes such uses as recreation vehicle storage, boat 81 .99 67,056 Storage/Service yards, mainL ,nance yards, trucking yards, auto wrecking and junk yards, and ready-mix concrete facilities 7 Miscellaneous Service Includes general services within industrial areas 112.27 05,464 and lumber yards 8 Public Utility Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone 116.56 72,867 facilities SOURCE: City Planning; Department Irrasysr ins Fire Administration, Fire Prevention & Inspection Fire Control Support Services Fire Joint Powers Medical Aid Paramedic Fire Station Building Maintenance. Reimbursement revenues such as those associated with Fire Joint Powers are deducted from the total costs derived from t,,` above categories in order toMi !► obtain the net annual cost 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 of per square ' foot of use for commercial and industrial projects. The criterion for this method ofallocation is likewise 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 Y, Residential Population - Capita 1978-1979 $5,456,237 0.78 167,41.9 $25.36 1977-1978 4,816,562 0.781 161 ,300 23.32 1976-1977 4,321 ,509 0.790 158,100 21 .,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 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 10.0%, which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated fire protection cost per capita is `(1 .100) ($25.36) = $27.88`. The derivation of fire protection cost is obtained from �i 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 Emergency/Medical Assistance Non-Fire& Non-Emergency/Medical (4) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent ype of Land Use of Calls of Total of Cal-is of Total of Calls of Total Single Family 240 2C:6 1 ,548 65.8 425 30.0 Condominiums 0.2 70 3.0 2 0.1' Multi Family Duplexes 2 0.2 - 3 O 2 Apartments (3-6 units) 188 11 .8 108 4.6 117 8.3 Apartments (7+ units) 47 4.0 - 43 3.0 Mobile Homes 10 0.9 162 6. 20 1 .4 Commercial 91 7,8 15 O,ti. 134 9.4 Industrial 43 3.7 197 8.4 80 5.6 L. Streets & Highways 323 27.7 - - 214 15.1 J City Parks 114 9.8 - - 12 0.8 City Beach & Bier 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) O Only 40% of the total emergency/medical assistanc calls could be assigned to a particular land use (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 Fore Department !t stems Number Average Fire protection (of DU'') X number of X (cost per capita% (people per DU 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 r' 1978-1979 $5456,237 .100 $545,624 1977-1978 4,816,562 .100 481 ,656 1976-1977 4,321 ,509 .100 432,151 1975-1976 3,761 ,025 .099 376,103 ' 1974-1975 2,360,778 .099 236,078 1973-1974 2,883,614 .100 288,361 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 13.6%. The next step is to estimate fire 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_ Fire Cost X Acres by Type Footage Sq- Ft. 1 Regional Shopping Center $545,624 .0505 866,879 ,$.032 2 Community Shopping Center 545,624 .1877 2,104,537 .049 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 Recreation 545,624 .2849 132,213 1 .1.76 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 X ft. per acre X cost per sq, ft, commercial of commercial of commercial type use type use type use Relative to industrial land uses* historical trends show the following: 3-12 Irrrtsv�t ;ns -' Fire Fraction of Total Cost Protection Developed Acres for Industrial Fiscal Year Cost X Commercial - Land Uses 1978-1979 $5,456,237 .122 $665,661 1977-1978 4,816,562 .119 573,171 1976-1977 4,321 ,509 .110 475,366 1975-1976 3,761 ,025 .112 421 ,235 1974-1975 2,a60,778 .113 266,768 1973-1974 2,883,614 .114 328,732 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 Type y Name 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 5 Warehousing 665,661 .0277 563,630 .033 6 Non--Structural Storage/Service 665,661 .0565 67,056 .561 7 Miscellaneous Service 665,661 .0774 435,464 178 8 Public Utility 665,661 .0804 72,867 3-13 wlt° s�teinsl ' r The derivation of fire protection cost is thus obtained from Number of (Number of sq. protection acres of ft. per acre Xcost. per sq. ftindustrial of industrial of industrial type use type use (Fire type use 3.3 Harbors, Beaches & Barks 3.3.1 Harbors & Beaches Harbors and bea,:.hes costs are those generally associated with the , following categories: r Administration Lifeguard Beach Maintenance Par' ing Facility s Municipal Pier Parking Meters < Mechanical Maintenance t ,, Building Mai nter:ance Parking Authority .Payment Reimbursement revenues such as those associated with the Junior Lifeguard Program and County Lifeguard & maintenance are deducted from the total posts derived from the above catego; .es 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 these expenditures borne by residents is in the same proportion as the observed percentage of visitors to the beach area as recorded in incident reports by the Department f of Harbors and Beaches Referring to Table 1 .30 histori ,al trends show the following: f 3-1 a 7t�ru•sP ms Fraction of Harbors & Visitors from Cost Per riscal Year Beaches Cost X City - Population = Capita 1978-1979 $1 ,105,900 0.197 167,419 $ 1 .30 1977-1978 1 ,080,693 0.170 161,300 1 .14 1976-1977 1,196,524 0.160 158,100 1 .21 1975-1976 1 ,123:834 0.186 152,300 1 .37 1974 1975 1 ,058,108 0.157 147,900 1 .12 1973-1974 1 ,038,194 0.168 143,600 1 .21 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through FY 79 is 1 .4%, which implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated harbors and beaches cost per acre is (1 .014) ($1 .30) = $1 .32. The derivation of harbors and beaches cost is obtained from Number (Average (Harbors and of DU's number of X beaches cost people per DU per capita for residential projects only. 3.3.2 Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation costs are those generally associated with the following cost categories: Recreation & Parks Administration Recreation Administration Warehouse Community Centers City Gym & Pool Adult Sports Boys sports Girls Sports Summer & Adventure Playground Instructional Classes Aquatics Special Events & Excursions Summer Day Camp After School Playground -15 lost * Oak View Center Park Maintenance Nature Center Building Maintenance Recreation, Parks & Human Services Reimbursement revenues such as 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: 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 ,386,767 158,180 8.77 1975-1976 1,320,055 152,300 8.67 1974--1975 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 19 9-1980 the estimated parks and recreation cost per capita is (1 .013) ($7.7'2) = $7.82. The derivation of parks and recreation cost is obtained from Average Number (Parks & recreationl of DU's,{ X number of X cost per capita f people per DU for residential . �,=;its only. F 3.4 Public Works 3.4.1 Administration & Engineering Administration and engineering costs are those generally associated with the following cost categories: rAdministration Design Engi-neering Surveying Construction Inspection Traffic Enginee►,ing 3-16 /t st s Special inspection fee rrvenues are deducted from the total costs derived from the above categories ;n order to obtain the net annual administration and engineering cost. Administration and engineering costs are prorated on the basis of total developed acres for residential , commercial or industrial 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, historical trends show the following:. Administration & Developed Cost Per Fiscal Year Engineering Cost Acras = Acre 1978-1979 $1 ,051 ,180 11 ,912 $88.25 1977-1978 1 ,025,466 11 ,696 87.168 1976-1977 986,971 11 ,186 88.23 1975-1976 851 ,927 10,682 79.75 1974-1975 778,430 10,402 74.83 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 that: 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 �of Number Administration & acres' X engineering cost per acre for all land uses. 3.4.2 Facility & Equipment Maintenance Facility and equipment maintenance cost are those generally associated with the following cost categories: Administration Mechanical Maintenance Vehicle ' jinting & Body Repair Sewer & Storm Drain Line Maintenance Sewer & Storm Drain :Pump Station 3-17 .OrnssysP Equipment Maintenance Mechanical Fabricatic Fridges & Channels Fool 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 u de,^ t assumption + e n he ump on t}.at these land use types (exclusive of transportation, public or quasi-public uses) place the major burden on facility and equipment maintenance services. Referring to Table 1 .3, histor- ical trends show the following Facility & Equipment Maintenance Developed Cost Per Fiscal Year Cosa Acres - Acre 1978 .1979 $1 ,735,524 11 ,912 $145.70 1977-1978 1 ,929,995 11 ,696 165.01 1976-1977 1 ,808,402 11 ,186 161 .67 1975-1976 1 ,311 ,256 10,682 122.75 1974-197L 882,883 10,402 84.88 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. The derivation of facility and equipment maintenance cost is ob- tained 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 following cost categories; Street Maintenace Plan Check, Inspection & Design Street Signing & painting 3-18 v its Street Tree Maintenance Landscape Maintenance Street & Special Lighting Street Sweeping Tree & Landscape Chemicals Parking Control Street Ligh : 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: Strut ® Maintenance _ Street _ Cost Per �C Fiscal Year Cost Foota e Foot 1978-1979 $2,682,051 1 ,773,552 $1 1 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 1974-1916 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 1979-1980 the estimated street maintenance cost per foot is (1 .027) ($1 .51 ) = $1 .55. The derivation of street maintenance cost is obtained from ( of acres) Street (Street maintenance Number , X footage X cost per foot per er acre for all land uses. 3.5 Library Library costs 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 Building Maintenance Satellite Libraries 3.19 st 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 since these costs are normally attributed to population. Referring to Table 1 .3, historical trends show the following: Library Cost Per 1 Fiscal Year Cost - Population - Capita 1978-1979 $1 ,039,717 167,419 $6.21 1977-1978 1 ,203,855 161 ,300 7.46 1976-1977 991 ,209 168,100 6.27 1975-1976 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 implies that in 1979-1980 the estimated library cost per capita is (1 .074) ($6.21 ) = $6.67. The derivation of library cost is obtained from Number Avera e ( Librarycost (of DU°s l_ %� number of X per capifia 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-Operation Pumping Expense-Operation Water Treatment Plant-Operation Transmission & Distribution Customer Accounting Administrative & General Other Expenses Other Income Deductions Pump Station Maintenance Building Maintenance 3-20 (UI A11AIMS1 IM Total water service costs are prorated on a per unit of consumption basis such as per 100 cu. ft. or per gallon. Referring to Table 1 .3 and using annual water production data provided by the Water Department, historical trends show the following: Water Service Cost Fiscal Year $%gallon $/100 cu. ft. 1978-1979 .00038 0.2868 1977-1978 00042 0.3164 1976-1977 .00039 0.2920 1975-1976 .00035 0.2618 1974-1975 .00036 0.2676 1973-1974 .00030 0„2261 The approximate rate of increase per year from FY 74 through 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. ft. This discussion suggeststhat the derivation of water service costs be obtained from (of Number 1 Average annual Water service DU`s) X water consumption X cost per unit (per DU (of consumption for residential projects, and from ' Number Number of Average annual Water service of acre s X businesses X water consumption ,X zost per unit per acre per business of 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 4,0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SELECTED LAND USES In order to obtain a comparative evaluation of new development if it were to occur today in the Gity, viewed in the context of the revenues to be Pill generated versus the costs to be incurred in 1979 only, fourteen residential , seven commercial and five industrial land uses were 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: (l ) RESIDENTIAL 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 1 to 4 units per acre in density. They would be two story, 3 and 4 bedroom units and have a full market value of approximately $300,000. SINGLE i=AMILY DETACHED, MARINA - These are single family homes such as those located on Trinizad Island in Huntington Harbour. Typical densities range from 4 to 6 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. Marko.. values differ according to such access, b�,+ $306,000 is a" average value for new W 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 peracre. An example of such units wouu" ue those off of Springdale Street, south of Talbert Avenue. full market value averages $175,000 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 j CONDO REGULAR - These are low density condominiums located in inland areas throughout the City. Densities range from 6 to 7 units per acre. An example of this type of development is located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and New land Street. Full market value averages $120,000 per unit. MOBILE HOME - TM s is a typical mobile home such as those located in various mobile home parks throughout *--..e City. Because mobile hcmes are purchased elsewhere and then moved to a park, density and location have no effect on their va7 e. Typical new mobile home values range from $20,000 to $45,000 with $35,000 being average. CASE: Medium, Density SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, TOWNLOT - These are single family units built in the Townlot and 01dtown areas of the City. Lot sizes are primarily 25 ft. X 117 ft. Despite the small lot and building dimensions, values are generally high due to the close proximity to the 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. Full 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. APARTMEPST 2-_4 REGULAR - These are 2 to 4 unit apartment buildings located in inland areas throughout the City. Densities typically range from 9 to 14 units g Y yP Y 9 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 Bolsa Chica Street. Full market values average $55,800 per unit. 4-2 ill f pseyl,, I1iS' 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 ® 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. Pull market values average $60,000 per unit. CASE: High Dens t CONDO REGULAR - These are high density condominiums located in inland areas throughout the City. Densities range from 16 to 20 units per acre. An example of this type of development can be found on E1 Arroyo Drive, south of Slater Avenue and west 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 $66,500 is generally higher than similar structures located els.!�where because of the close proximity to the ocean. An example of this type of development can be found on the southwest corner of 12th Street and Pecan Avenue. APARTMENT 2-4, REGULAR - These are high density 2-4 init 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 $55,500 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 o Holland Drive and Beach Blvd. Full market value averages $52,000 per unit. 4,3 q>A ltrusystems (2) COMMERCIAL 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 found on the southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Sher Lane. Typical full market value is $800,000 per acre. Community 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 Brookhursc Street and Adams Avenue. Typical full market value is $900,000 per acre. Neighborhood Center is a 2 to 10 acre shopping center with 50,000 to 100,000 square feel; 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 northwest corner of Atlanta 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 fond pick--up store is generally she primary tenant. An example of this type of development is the southeast corner of 17th Street and Orange Avenue. Typict full market value is $550,000 per acre. Mixed Commercial/Office takes the form of a complex with more than 150000 square feet 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 similar complex on Center drive at the 405 Freeway. Full market value of this type of development is approximately $2.8 million per acre. 4--4 !t ysdems i 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 market value is $500,000 per acre. Mixed Specialty Counercial and Residential is a theme development featuring ground level speciality shops and upstairs residential units which are essentially mewum density condominiums. 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 i Light Manufacturing, 8000 - 30,000 square feet/Tenant features manufacture and/or wholesale as the dominant activities. Tenants may include machine shops, auto repair, art studies, electronics and chemical manufacture, and engineering companies. Building to lot size may typically run 18,000 square feet per acre. An example of this type of development may be found in the Huntington Industrial •, Park near Bolsa Avenue and Graham Avenue. full market value averages $600,000 per acre. Light Manufacturing, Less than 8,000 square feetlTenant also features manufacture and/or wholesale as the dominant activities. Because building size per occupant is small there is likely to be a larger number of machine and auto repair shops r ,. than in other 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. Full market +glue ¢ 5 5 a is typically $ 000 per ace.7 , r Mini-Warehousing consists of a complex of building structures containing 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 41t;asyst ms in size and contain greater than 50,000 square, feet of building space, with an average of 210 sq. ft. per unit. An example of this type of development can be -found on Gothard Street south of Lorge Circle. Full market value may average $475,000 per acre. Regular Warehousing features structural storage as the dominant 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 acre. An example of this type of development can be found in the Huntington Industrial Park. Full market value averages $550,000 per acre. 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 buil'din; 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 categories of land uses are presented i'n Tables 4.1 through 4.3. Relative to the revenue and cost factors derived previously in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, respectively, Tables 4.4 and 4.5 present the basic assumptions and factors to be used. 4.1 Comparison of Resic'-�ntial Land Uses Residential land usi-s 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, elect city utility tax, and cigarette tax. 4-6 no Table 4.1 Characteristics of Residential Land Uses Evaluated STREET DENSITY POPULATION FULL MARKET VALUE ($1 ,000) FOOTAGE (4) TYPE OF USE , DU/ACRE PER DU LOW NOMINAL HIGH PER ACRE Low Density Estat 1 .50 3.50 275 300 373 160.00 SFDM Marina 4.78 3.21 ^475 306 475 224.25 SFD Regular 4.46 3.20 140 175 220 254.84 Condo Marina 6.85 2.69(2) 200 225 410 99.43 Condo Regular 6.24 1 .71 100 110 120 95.51 Mobile Home 6.83 1 .97 30(5) 35(5) 45(5) 91 .00 Medium Density .a - '' SFD0 ) Townlot 8.40 2.93(2) 145 150 160 221 .00 Condo Regular 8.94 1 .96 95 100 115 126.20 Apt. 2-4 Regu',ar 14.45 2.10(3) 60 66 70 210.56 Apt. 5+ Regular 13.20 1 .81 55 60 65 172.00 "' ►, Density Condo Regular 16.00 2.22(3) 90 95 110 96.50 Apt. 2-4 Regular ?5.44 2.58(2� 50 56 65 223.10 Apt. 2-4 Townlot 18.30 2.14(fl 60 57 70 221.00 Apt. 5+ Regular 24.57 1 .51 50 52 60 220.30 ( Single Family Detac ed~ (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 r Table 4.2 Characteristics of Commercial Land Uses Evaluated SQUARE MARKET TAXABLE STREET FOOTAGE VALUE SALES FOOTAGE NUMBER NUMBER TYPE OF USE PER ACRE PER ACRE PER SQ. FT. PER ACRE OF ACRES OF TENANTS Community Center Type A 9,952.36(9) $ 8211070 $ 63.23 125.51 14.59 300 ) Community Center Type B 10,458.66(9) 8621838 108.54 125.51 12.3C 12(2) Neighborhood Center 8,769.41 ( 10) 723,477 40.12 199.70 8.37 16(3) Convenience Center 7,098.77(11 ) 585,548 68.70 288.21 1 .62 7(4) Mix^d Commercial/Office 42,288.11 (12) 2,814,919 8.1`0) 70.68 14.21' (5) .A (13) Office/Professional ,650.27 524,590 0 248.50 5.49 (6) Mixed Specialty Commercial' (14) and Residential 7,332.47 1 ,159,7�44 59.74 137.06 7.76 (7) (1 ) 1 grocery with general liquor license, 1 drug store, 3 restaurants with beer and wine licenses, l restaurant with general on-sale license, 1 restaurant without alcoholic beverages, 2 food stores without alcoholic beverages, 2 florists, 1 sporting goods store, 1 jewelry store, 1- stationery store, 1 music store, 1 home furnishings store, 2 radio/appliance stores, 1 men's apparel store, 2 women's apparel stores, 2 health services stores, 2 personal service shops, 1 specialty store, and 4 business service concerns. (2) 1. grocery with general liquor license, l drug store, 1 department store, 2 restaurants with bear and wine licenses, l women's apparel store, 2 persorul service shops, and 4 business service concerns Table 4.2 (Cont. ) . y (3) 1 grocery with general liquor license, l drjg store, 3 restaurants with beer and wine licenses, 1 family apparel store, l men`s apparel store, 1 household furnishings store, 1 sporting goods store, l food store without alcoholic beverages, 1 auto supply store, 2 personal service shops, and 3 business service concerns. (4) 1 liquor store, 1 food store without alcoholic beverages, 1 restaurant with beer and wine license, l health service office, l personal service shop, l business service concern and l auto supply store. (5) l restaurant without alcoholic beverages, 2 restaurants with general on-sale license, 76 office building tenants, 1 theater, 1 hotel with 250 rooms, 2 business service concerns, 1 personal service shop, and 1 gift store., (6) 20 business service concerns. (7) 42 specialty shops, l restaurant with general on-sale license, 7 business service concerns, 2 personal service shops and/or amusement plar:es, and 1 hotel with 50 rooms. 1.0 (8) Based on 5,000 sq. ft. Coffee shop @ $78.07 per sq. ft. plus 55,250 sq. ft. restaurant @ $75.86 per sq. ft. plus 10,000 sq. ft. theater @ $30.22 per sq. ft. plus 236 sq. ft. gift shop @ $37.90 per sq. ft. , averaged over 600,914 sq. ft. (9) Type 2 commercial (10) Type 3 commercial (17 ) Type 4 commercial (12) 77.53% is Type 5 commercial and 22.47% is Type 7 commercial (13) Type 7 commercia1 (14) 91 .56% is Type 5 commercial and 8.44% is Type 7 commercial e Table 4.3 Characteristics of Industrial Land Uses Evaluated SQUARE MARKET TAXABLE STREET FOOTAGE VALUE SALES FOOTAGE NUMBER NUMBER TYPE OF USE PER ACRE PER ACRE PER SQ. FT. PER ACRE OF ACRES OF TENANTS Light Manufacturing 16,502.97(4) $576,104 $10.60 222.03 9.77 87 (1 ) (< 8,000 sq. ft./tenant) Light Manufacturing 17,601 ..25(5) 614,444 3.13 222.03 21 .59 39 (1 ) (8,000-30,000 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 17.29 (4)(3) o , Miscellaneous Service (1 ) Producers and distributors of light industrial equipment. (2) Miscellaneous storage of public items and manufactured goods. (3) 2 automotive repair/wrecking shops, 1 vehicle storage yard, and 1 trucking business, (4) Type 4 industrial . (5) Consists of 24.53% Type 3 industrial and 75.E+7% Type 4 industrial . (6) Type 5 industrial . (7) Type 6 industrial . 00 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 'Taxes Sales Tax For residential land uses, family income (I) as a function of dwelling unit price (P) is computed from the equation * I = 21874P + 17,789. Then for the given number of people per dwelling unit and the corresponding fondly income, 1% of the correspondingg value of Table 2.1 is selected as the '. per dwelling unit sales tax revenue. For commercial and industrial land uses, sales tax is based on 1% of taxable retail sales per sq. ft, of business type. In-Lieu Water utility Tax See Table 2.15 Water Utility Tax See Table 2.15 Gas Utility Tax For residential land uses, gas utility tax is assumed to average $8.51 per dwelling unit. For commercial and industrial land uses, Southern California Gas Company summary data is inadequate `or the pur ose of computii,g meaningful estimates. (See Section 2.2.4 Based on Walker & tee survey data Table 4.4 (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 on the assumption of push-button telephones. For commercial and industrial land 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 $12.9.2 per dwelling unit. For commercial and industrial fund uses, Southern California Edison Company summary 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 revenue is estimated on the basis of $0.72 per capita for residential projects only, Business Licenses See Table 2.16 Table 4.4 (Cont. ) REVENUE SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED Revenue From Other Agencies Trailer Coach License Fees Derived on the basis of full market value times 0.02 times 0.333. (See Section 2.4.1 ) Alcoholic Bevcrage Fees Alcoholic beverage fee revenue 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 Tax Gasoline tax revenue is estimated on the basis of $9.48 per capita for residential projects only. w Development Oriented Charges Permit & Processing Fees Not considered since a one-time fee. Parks & Recreation Fees Not considered since a one-time fee. Library Fees Not considered since a one-time fey, 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. M 2000 novena anQ .y Table 4.5 Assumptions and Factors Used in the Comparative Evaluation of Annual Costs From Land Uses in the City of Hun ti ngtoei Beach COST SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED General Government & For residential land uses , general government and admin- Administration istration costs are derived on the basis of $37.89 per capita. For commercial and industrial land uses, general govern- ment and administration costs are derived on the basis of $6'4.38 per acre Public Safety Police Protection For residential land uses, police protection cost is derived 4, on the basis of $41 78 per capita. For commercial and industrial land uses see Section 3.2.1 . Fire Protection For ^esidential 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 & Parks Harbors & Beaches Harbors any beaches costs are derived can 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. Table 4.5 (Cont. ) COST SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS USED Public Works Administration & Administration and engineering costs are derived on the Engineering basis of $88.25 per acre for all land uses. Facility & Equipment Facility and equipment maintenance costs are derived on Maintenance the basis of $145.70 per acre for all land uses. Street Maintenance Street maintenance cost is derived on the basis of $1 .51 per foot. s Library Library cost is derived on the basis of $6.21 per capita for residential projects only. J cn t i �1 3 t Itmsyst ins 3 Licenses and permits such as anima' licenses and business licenses (for apartments and mobile home parks) . (4) Revenue from other agenciEs such as trailer coach license fees (for mobile homes) , motor vehicle in-lieu fees and gasoline tax. (5) Other revenues such as fines, forfeitures and penalties, and various miscellaneous revenues. Table 4.6 presents a summary of these 1979 revenue impacts on a per dwelling li unit basis for each of the fourteen residential land uses selected. Likewise, residential land uses in the City of Huntington Beach can generally be expected to have impacts in the following cost categories : (1) General government 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 s and equipment Maintenance, and street maintenance. (6) Library Table 4.7-presents a summary of these 1979 cost impacts on a per dwelling unit basir- for each of the fourteen residential land uses selected. Table 4.8 presents a summary comparison of the per dwelling unit 1979 revenues and costs. It is ream'-, 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. (2) at the medium density level , ownership units represented by the single family detached tovinlot a,id condominium regular uses appear to pay their own way whereas rental units do not. (3) at the high density level , the results are similar 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 based on the ranges presented in Table 4.1 . In this regard, Table 4.9 presents the illustrative ranges of revenues less costs 4-16 Ills Table 4.6 1979 Per Dwelling Unit Revenues for Residential Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach �. Low Density Medium Density High Density SFD SFD Condo Condo Mobile SFD Condo Apt.2-4 Apt. 5+ Condo Apt. 2-4 Apt. 2-4 Apt.5+ Estate Marina Regular Marina Regular Home Townlot Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Townlot Regular REVENUE SOURCE Property Tax *' $462 $471 $270 $347 $169 $ 2 $231 $154 $lo2 $ 92 $146 $ 86 $103` $ 80 Other Local Taxes_ Sales Tex 101 102 77 87 58 45 72 56 50 49 55 54 50 48 In-Lisu Water Utility 10 10 10 7 7 8 11 6 9 9 4 8 9 7 Tax Water Utility Tax 3 3 3 2 2 3 8 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 Gas Utility Tax 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Telephone Utility Tax 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 la 13 ? Cigarette Tax 11 10 10 9 5 6 9 6 7 6 7 8 7 5 Licenses and Permits Animal Licenses 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 Business Licenses 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 Revenue from Other Agencies Trailer Coach License 0 0 0 D 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fees Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 49 45 45 38' 24 28 41 27 29 25 31 36 30 21 Fees Gasoline Tax 33 30 30 26 16 19 28 19 20 17 21 24 20 14 Other_R evenues Fines, Forfeitures A 21 19 -119 16 10 12 18 12 13 11 13 16 13 9 Penalties Miscellaneous 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 _ 2 ,2' 2 2 TOTAL $ 723 $ 721 $ 495 $ 563 $ 320 $390 $449 $ 311 $ 269 $247 $308 $272 $271 $222 Using nominal dwelling unit values man C.A mamas M " Newsom 4 ^ Table 4.7 1979 Per Dwelling Unit Public Service Costs for Residential Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach , 1 Low Density Medium Density _ High Density SFD SFD Condo Condo Mobile SFD Condo Apt.2-4 Apt. 5f Condo Apt.2-4 Apt.2-4 Apt.54 Estate Marina Regular Marina Regular Home Townlot Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Townlot Regular COST SOURCE General Government $133 $122 $121 $102 $ 65 $ 75 $111 $ 74 $ 80 > 69 $ 84 $ 98 $ 81 $ 57 & Administration Public Safety Police Protection 146 134 134 112 71 82 122 82 88 76 93 108 89 63 Fire Protection 69 81 81 68 43 50 74 50 53 46 56 65 54 38 Harbors, Beaches & P?-ks Harbors & Beaches 5 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 A Parks & Recreation 27 25 25 21 13 15 23 15 16 14 17 20 17 12 co Public Works Administration & 59 18 20 13 14 13 11 10 6 7 6 6 5 4 Engineering Facility & Equipment 97 30 33 21 23 21 17 16 10 11 9 9 8 6 Maintenance Street Maintenance 161 71 86 22 23 20 40 21 22 ?0 9 22 18 14 Library 22 20 20 -17 11 12 18 12 13 11 14 16 13 9 TOTAL $ 739 $505 $524 £ 379 $265 $291 $420 $ 283 $291 $256 $291 $347 $288 $205 x.a. cable 4.8 Comparison•of 1979 Per Dwelling Unit Revenues and Costs for Residential Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach Revenue Revenue Minus to-Cost Type of Residential Use Revenue Cost Cost Ratio tY Low Density Estate $723 $739 ($16) 0.98 SFD Marina 721 505 216 1 .43 SFD Regular 495 524 (29) 0.94 Condo Marina 563 379 184 1 .49 Condo Regular 320 265 55 1 .21 Mobile Home 390 291 99 1 .34 Medium Density SFD Townlot 449 420 29 1 .07 Condo Regular 311 283 28 1 .10 Apt. 2-4 Regular 269 291 (22) 0.92 Apt. 5+ Regular 247 256 (9) 0.96 High Densit• Condo Regular 308 291 17 1 .06 Apt, 2-4 Regular 272 347 (75) 0.78 Apt. 2-4 Townlot 271 288 (17) 0.94 Apt. 5+ Regular 222 205 17 1 .08 4•-1 g Sam m4was Table 4.9 Comparison of 1979 Per Dwelling Unit Revenue Ranges and Costs for Residential Land'Uses in the City of Huntington Beach . Revenue Revenue Minus Cost Revenue-To-Cost Ratio Type of Residential Use Low Nominal High Cost Low Nominal High Low Nominal jah Low Density Estate $680 $723 $ 893 $739 ($59) ($16) $154 0.92 0.98 1.21 SFD Marina 668 721 1,015 505 163 216 510 1.32 1.43 2.01 SFO Regular 434 495 572 524 (90) (29) 48 0.83 0.94 1.09 Condo Marina 519 563 883 379 140 184 504 1,37 1.49 2.33 Condo Regular 303 320 338 265 38 55 73 1.14 1.21 1.28 Mobile Home 356 390 458 291 65 99 167 1.22 1.34 1.57 Medium Density o SFD 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 Apt. 2-4 Regular 259 269 276 291 (32) (22) (15) 0.89 0.92 0.95 Apt. 5+ Regular 239 247 256 256 (17) ( 9) 0 0.93 0.96 1.00 High Density Condo Regular 300 308 334 291 9 17 43 1.03 1.06 1.15 Apt. 2-4 Regular 261 272 287 347 (86) (75) (60) 0.75 0.78 0.83 Apt. 2-4 Townlot 260 271 277 288 (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 .ltrasys orts and revenue-to-cost ratios for these potential market value ranges. Generally P 9 Y speaking, the observations stated previously are still true; however, there appears to be a crossover in estate unit market value between $300,000 a :d $375,000 so that breakeven occurs. In particular, referring to Table 4.10, we see that estate units with market value of at least $308,736 can be expected to pay their own way in 1979 whereas estate units with value less than $308,736 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. 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 cou?,' be bought for today. In other words, a new mobile home unit in the City today would appear to ;gay 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 tax rolls. If this were the case in 1979, then, referring to Table 4.6, the trailer coach license fees would be reduced from $233to $0 whereas the property tax revenue would increase by (.01 )(.154)($35,000) = $54. The net effect would be a total annual revenue of $390 - $233 + $54 = $211 ., In comparison to the 1979 cost of $291 (referring to Table 4.7), 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 i5, 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. 4-21' 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 ResiderE:;,ial Use Revenue Formula Cost Formula Market Value* Low Density 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 Medium Density SFD Townlot .0017353V+83.26+34.46P 120.26P+ 67.58 135,835 N Condo 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 79260 Apt. 5+ Regular .0017165V+81 .44+34.46P 120.26P+ 37.40 65,002 High Density Condo Regular .4017165V+69.94+34..46P 120,26P+ 23.73 84,047 Apt. 2-4 Regular .0017353V+85.10+34.46P 120.26P+ 36.97 99,829 Apt. 2-4 Townlot .0017165V+80.97+34.46P 120.26P+ 31 .02 77,869 Apt. 5+ Regular .0017165V+79.96+34.46P 120.26P+ 23.06 42,329 NOTE: V= dwelling unit market value P= population per dwelling uni+ * 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 costa G�It stems LAND USES IN THE CITY. AS SHOWN EARLIER IN TABLES 1 .2 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. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT ONE CANNOT NECESSARILY INFER THAT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH PAYS ITS OWN WAS TODAY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO IN THE LONG-RUN OR FOR ANY FUTURE YEAR. 4.2 Comparison of Commercial Land Uses Commercial land uses in the City of Huntington Beach can be expected to impact the following revenues: (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, and electricity utility tax. (3) Licenses and permits such a=, business licenses and alcoholic beverage fees. Table 4.11 piGsents the expected impacts on these annual revenues for the seven selected commercial land uses. Also, commercial land uses impact various public service costs of the following 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 selected commercial land uses. In summary, Table 4.13 shows that all of the commercial land uses with the exception of office/professional generate revenues significantly in excess of costs, ranging from a low of $2,440-per acre for neighborhood centers to a high of $10,391 per acre for community centers. The deficit associated with office/ professional use can be directly attributed to the lack of sales tax revenue the siC,iificance of this is readily observed from the salestax 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 City of HLztington Beach .c� Mixed Community Community Mixed Specialty Center Canter Neighborhood Convenience Commercial/ Office/ Commercial REVENUE SOURCE Type A Type_B Center Center Office Professional &Residential Property Tax $1 ,264 $ 1 ,329 $1 ,114 $ 902 $ 4,335 $ 808 $1 ,786 Other Local Taxes Sales Tax 6,293 11,352 3_,518 4,877 13,429(4) 0 4:450( 1) In-Lieu Water 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 10'2 16 31 Electricity Utility Tax (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 75(3) Cigarette Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 5+0 ,a Licenses and Permits .ram Animal Licenses Q 0 0 0 0 0 11 Business Licenses 119 64 100 221 373 149 335 Alcoholic Beverage 100 71 139 359 20 10 38 Fees Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 Fees Gasoline Tax Q 0 0 0 0 0 148 Other Revenues Fines, Forfeitures & 0 0 _,Q O 0 0 94 - Penalties Miscellaneous O 0 0 0 10 17 TOTAL $7,828 $12,848 $4,931 $6,477 $18,374 $ 981 $7,560 (1 ) Assumes 80Z 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 bel tax revenue (based on $36 `per night, 72% 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 Convenience Commercial/ Office/ Commercial COST SOURCE Type A Type 8 Center Center Office Professional & Residential General Government $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $1 ,277 & Administration Public Safety Police Protection 796 837 789 525 4,365 505 1 ,460 Fire Protection 488 512 482 319 2,642 306 885 Harbors, Beaches & Parks Harbors & Beaches 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 ParkF, & Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 N 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 0 0 0 0 0 97 TOTAL $2,392 $2,457 $2,491 $2,197 $8,032 $2,104 $4,301 '�i i 'fable 4.13 ComTarison of Per Acre 1979 Revenues and Pub is Service Costs for `lommercial Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach Revenue Revenue Minus to-Cost Type of CoinMercial Land Use Revenge Cost ,Cost R is Community Center Type A $ 7,828 $ 2,392 $ 5,436 3.27 Community Center Type B 12,848 2,457 10,391 5.23 Neighbor-hood Center 4,931 2.,491 2,440 1 .98 Convenience Center 6,477 2,197 4,280 2.95 Mixed Commercial/Office 18,374 8,032 10,342 2.29 Office/Professional 981 2,104 (' ;123) 0.47 Mixed. Specialty Commercial 7,560 4,301 3,259 1 .76 Residential 1, F U' j l 4-26- lrr; - has. ti analysis i Section 4.1 I � IS IMPOR- TANT TO NOTE THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE FOR ONE POINT IN TIME ONLY - NAMELY, 1979. BECAUSE OF THE FACE THAT THE ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS ARE DYNAMIC IN THE SENSE THAT THEY CHANGE EACH YEAR, CONCLUSIONi MADE FOR FUTURE YEARS OR IN THE LONG.-RUN COULD CONCEIVABLY BE DIFFERENT. 4 3 Comparison of Industrial Land Uses Industrial land uses in the City of Hintington Beach can be expected to Eve 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 4.10 present the expected annual reve„je 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, hecause manufacturing business in the size range B4O00-30,000 sq. ft. are wholesale oriented rather than retail oriented, there is . ':ack of significant sales tax revenue which would have the e;,*fect of . using industrial uses of this type to be less attractive from a fiscal point of view. This is indeed thc case as is shown in Table 4.16 fot this type of light manufacturing use. By comparison, lightmanufacturing uses re.4t,firing less than 8,000 sq ft. are more retail oriented and thus generate revenues in excess of costs. It should not ne.:essirily be inferred from these results that manu- facturing uses do not generate revenues in excess of costs, since this may or may not be the case. ghat is important anti is generally the determining facto,- 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 IMPOR- TANT TO NOTE THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE FOR ONE POINT IN TIME ONLY - NAif� Y, 1979. BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ANN UAL REVENUE AND COS% FACTORS ARE DYNAMIC IN THE SENSE _.9AT THEY CHANGE FAuH YEAR, CONCLUSIONS MADE FOR FUTURE YEARS OR IN THE LONG- rRUN COULD CONCEIVABLY BE DIFFERENT 4-2 MMIMMMMIMMM3► Table- 4.14 1979 Per Acre Revenues for Industrial Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach 1 Licht Manufu :turf ng Warehousing Less Than -8,000 to Combination, 8,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq.ft. Mini Regular Non-Structural/ REVENUE SOURCE Per Tenant Per Tenant Warehousing Warehousing Mi ,:ellaneous Service Property Tax $ 887 $ 946 $ 733' $ 866 $ 146 Other Local faxes Sales Tax 1 ,749 1 .;431 U 1 ,047 225 Ins-Lieu Water Utility Tax 36 7 5 5 4 Water Utility Tax 12 2 2 2 1 Gas Utility Tay: 11 } (1 ) (1 ) 0 } 11 Telephone Utility Tax 39 3 8 8 1 Electricity Utility Tax (1 ) (1 ) (1 (1 ) (1 ) Licenses and Permits co, Business Licenses 392 79 6.5 84 12 TOTAL $3,115 $ 2,471 $ 813 $ 2,012 $ 389 (1) unable to meaningfully estimate Table 4.16 1979 Per Acre Public Service Costs for Industrial Land Uses in the City of Huntington Beach _ L'r_ght Manufactu ^inq Warehousing Less Than 8,000 to Combination COS 8,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq.ft. ;Mini Regular Non.-Structural/ T SOURCE Per Tenant Per pant Warehousing Warehousing Miscellaneous Service General Government & $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 Administration Public Safety i Police Protection 875 881 1 ,014 11111 1 ,167 Fire Protection 528 533 620 679 709 Public Works Administration & 88 88 88 88 88 Engineering Facility & Equipment -46 146 146 146 146 Maintenance Street Maintenance ?35 335 244 244 279 TOTAL $2,C56 $2,667 $2,796 $2,952 $3,073 Table 4.16 Comparison of Per Acre 1979 kevenues and Public Service Costs for Industrial 1-and Uses in the City of Huntington Beach Revenue Revenue_ Minus to-Cost ape of Industrial Land Use Revenue Co;t Cost- Ratio Light Manufacturing <8,000 sq. ft. Per Tenant $3,115 $2,656 $ 459 1 , 17 8,000 - 30,000 sq. ft. 2,471 2,667 (196) 0.93 Per Tenant Warehousing � Mini Warehousing 813 2,796 (1 ,933) 0.2.9 Regular Warehousing 2,012 2,952 (940) 0.68 CbmDination Non-Structural! 389 3,073 (2,6134) 0.13 Miscellaneous Service 4-30 A 70� cITY OF.HUNTINGTON BEACH r 4aA. 0. BOX 711 'ss: % UNTINGTON BEACH, CALlr. ?NIA 92648 •" �`� f�'� 9 This is to cert that the following described policies are in full force and expire as indicated herein: ' ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. 2400 MICHELSON DRIVE, IRVINE, CALIF Name of Insur _ Address: ALL OPERATIONS D�:scription of Work: _�_ Locations: H• S. A• COVERAGE POLICY NO. EXPIRATION I INSUROR LIMITS OF LIABILITY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PC 811066 2/2/82 Great American STATUTORY PC 81 1066 2/2/82 Great Ai;ieri can $ 2,000,000.00 EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY BODILY (N,lURIt' 'LIABILITY j' i cfi�/'f �,,c/c1G� Combined Single Limit AND PROPERTY DAMAGE - � P � , $ Each Occurrence (Including Automobile) !j rr- rr $ . Aggregate LIMIT EXCESS COMYI11`J SI SINGLE h1l /y ;5`7f, z �:�s .G'SEac�f Occur/ T $ ---.�--� ,r . h rence AND PROPERTY DAMAGE(including Automobile) Ir `I �;,.• -'" °'~�=.,�cp kA IN THE EVENT THE OLICY LISTED ALOV IS I.ANCELLED OR iATERI�ILL'r ALTERED THE INSUROR LISTED' WILL, GIVE 7HIRTY 80) DAYS WRITTEN DVANCE NOTICE TO IFiE CERTIFICATE HO DER ll�kil��C��t1�6?f6�C�4�J1CYEr7k 5)iFi�S�}P�ftY�ii�R}Fk l�`�'��C R�R'��.QxiS3}�:'<�3�li�X��':�Cb�rD6�il�X�1w1t1Ye�9i�Y�i�YcX�iXr�X�t I��Xk3��Xy�'c{ftdtt t� c tt �o-s �t>c ux rt ar pi.� aar� r x�,r. alt ace +six vx�s�t k 4*g>aaxWDJX0M kit<XKX;kkWX00tMXXW3 This certificate is issued as a matter of Infaormation only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not an'iend,extend or aster the cr ,;;rage afforded by the policies listed above. Natwith�;tanding any requirertent, term, 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 DO UGHER"rY COMPANY, tNC. h.O. SOX 7277 t ONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 00807 July 15, 1981 (213)424.1821 Fly., Gordon M. Dougherty t .Y..._..r:,..,.kr..�.,.;.. r...*S,.,.±...._.�.,...„�.. .A..,n ... :. _ �.,._......az....n....+as..r.vF,i.p� A G R E E M E N T THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this_ j" _jay of— , 19'(7,� by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation, herein- after referred to as CITY, and ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. , a licensed farm, hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT, 't RE C ITALS : 1. The City Council of CITY is authorized to engage the services of a pz•ofes, ial consultant firm for development of a computer fiscal mpact model of land uses for and on s behalf of CITY: and t jf 2. It is necessary and desirable that professional services be performed for CITY as more specifically described in the Scope of Services , hereinafter referred to as PROJECT, attached heretc as Exhibit "A," and by this reference incor- porated herein and made a part hereof; and 3. CONSULTANT shall have that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Go-ernment Code Sec- tion 37103 and shall have all necessary licenses therefor to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and 4 . CONSULTANT agrees to perform the necessary tasks associated with development of a computer fiscal impact model; and JG:sh 3/14/79 l. A S. CITY hereby employs CONSULTANT to perform the sere ces as required by PROJECT and CONSULTAN).' agrees to provide those services ; and 6. No official or employee of C4TY has a financial interest in the subject matter of this agreement contemplated within the provisions of California Government Code Sections 1090-1092 ; and 7. CONSULTANT warrants that it shall perform the services herein contemplated in compliance with the California laws related to minimum hours and. wages (California Labor Code section 1171 et seq. ) , occupational health and safety (29 U.S. C. 651 et seq, and the California Labor Code Section 6300 et seq. ) , and fair employment practices (29 U.S.C. Ser ;ion 201 et seq. and California Labor Code Section 1410 et seq. ) to the extent same are applicable herein; and B. The parties hereto desire to set forth their rights , duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed under this EPOJECT, NOW, TH,ERErORV, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows SECTION 1. GENERAL :DESCRIPTION Or WORk TO BE DONE: (a) CONSULTANT shall provide all professional serv- ices as described in the Scope of Services , marked Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. (b) CONSULTANT shall provide guidance in the collection of tho basic data described. In Exhibit "B", Configuration Input 2. Data and Miscellaneous Revenue/Cost Dana, CITY will provide staff and assume primary responsibility for the collection of the data outlined in Exhibit "D". (c) CONSULTANT shall designate a Project Manager who shall rep,,esent it and be its primary contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during fulfillment of the terms of this agreement. (d) For the purposes of this agreement the Planning Director of CITY is hereby designated Project Coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in connection with the work of this agreement . (e) CONSULTANT shall attend and assist in a maximum of two public presentations within forty-five (45) days of submittal of the Final Report. SECTION 2. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTITER DOCUMENTS: CONSUL"I"ANT agrees that all original drawings , repo-,ts, both field and office notes , calculations, maps andd other docu- ments , where specifically identified as a task or subtask product in the Scope of Services, shall be turned over to CITY upon complation of PROJECT. CONSULTANT further agrees to provide CITY five (5) copies of the Draft Tinal Report for review within four (1) months of signing of contract by both parties unless otherwise by mutual agreement . CITY will provide comments and suggested changes in writing to CONSULTANT within fifteen (15) days otherwise the Draft Final Report will be cons .der2d 3. accepta')1e. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with thirty C30) copies of the Final Report within thirty C30) days of submittal of the Draft Final Report. SECTION 3. DISCRIMINATION; CONSULTANT agrees that in -the performance of the terns of this agreement, it will not engage in, nose` 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 of such persons , except as provided in Section 1420 of the California Labor Code. Violation of this provision may result ir: the impositian of penalties referred -to in Division 2 , Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code SECTION 4. INDPMNIPICATION, D1,FENSl , HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT heruby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees, against loss , damage or expense by reason of any suits, claims , demands , judgments and causes of action caused by CONSULTANT, his employees, agents, subcontractors, or by any third party arising out of or in consequence of CONSULTANT'S performance of this agreement, except where such loss, damago or expense is caused s--lely by the wrongful acts of CITY, its agents , officers or employees in connection with the general supervision or direction of the works to be performed under this agreement. SECTION S. WORKERS' COMPENSATION: CONSULTANT shall. comply with all of the provisions 4 . Agh of the Workers ' Compensation Insprance and Safety Acts of the State of: California, the applicable, provisions of DzV:Lsion 4 and 5 of the California Labor Code and all amendments thereto ; and all similar State or Federal acts or laws applicable; and shall indemnify, defend and hold harness CITY from and against all claims , demand , payments , suits , actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including attorney's fees and costs , presented, brought or recovered against CITY, for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work to be l,•.�rformerl by CON- SULTANT under this agreement . SECTION 6 . INSURANCE; CONSULTANT agrees to ;furnish to CITY and maintain in force until the completion of PROJECT a general liability insurance policy in which C_IV is named as an additional insured. The policy shall insure CITY, its officers and employees, while acting 'within she scope of their duties , against all claims arising out of or in connection with PROJECT, The policy shall provide for not less than the following amounts : Combinec; single limit bodily injury and/or property damage of $1 ,000 ,000 por occurrence. Ouch policy of insurance shall specifically provide that any other insurance carried by CITY which may be ap,, cable shall be deemed excess and CONSUlLTANTIS insurance primary despite any conflicting provisi,ans in CONSULTANT' S policy to the contrary. SECTION 7, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: It is further understood and agreed that CONSULTANT 5 . . is , and shall be, acting at all times as an independent contrac- tor herein and not as an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all pay- ment of income tax, social security, state disability insura;_.:e compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll de- ductions for CONSULTANT and its officers , agents ,q employees and all business licenses , if any, in connection with the serv- ices to be performed hereunder. SECTION 8. PROVISION FOR PAYMENT: (a) In consideration of the performance of the serv- ices described in Exhibit "A," CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a total fee of Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($14, 500) . (b) CONSULTANT shai'i submit monthly progress reports to CITY during the first week of each month. Included in each progress report shall be a summary of the work accomplished dur- ing the prece%1ing month, an account of any SigP ­ wL problems encountered, and an estimated percent PROJECT completion by task. (c) CONSULTANT shall submit bi-monthly invoices for payment to CITY. CONSULTANT shall specify on said invoice the work completed in she time period covered by said invoice, as reported by CONSULTANT in previously submitted progress reports for the same period. Upon invoice receipt and approval, but in no event later than forty-five (45) days after invoice receipt, CITY shall make payment thereon to CONSULTANT', payable to ULTRA- SYSTEMSy INC. CITY shall withhold payment of One Thousand Five g . "77.r7 ... -.. .. z �i E }i lly cf hX e, t 9 k< ; ��tb+ � �11ax � aalal� ljlil .11n' J7le 1st f l�I lit Ifli C t *Isi i Ill i vaa Ito j`ou dor � � � �' � l� , r'=$�'�` �= � . �t�s � ►`.� t����Itwt t -i w�Ct ���,�t'�xit t`� ri,i�� ���1� i i n,O I t t Aw I ♦ ttv wd lv, T M14roti h i P .. w:Y 1 CITY'S Project Coordinator, and in writing, which may be de- livered in person to CONSULTANT or mailed through the normal course of mail to its now-established business address . In the event this agreement is cancelled, all drawings, designs, specifications and appurtenant data may be used by CITY without additioral cost to CITY. Should CITY decide to terminate this agreement for any reason, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation based on the c-mpletion of all work in each task to the date of termination as described in Ei:liibit ''C" 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 not be delegated to any persox) or entity without the consent of ^ITY. r-Rest of page not used) 8. ` CITY' S Project Coordinator, and in writing, which may be de- livered in person to CONSULTANT or mailed through the normal course of mail to its now-established business address . In the event this agreement is cancelled, all drawings , designs , specifications and appurtenant data may be used by CITY without additional cost to CITY. Should CITY decide to terminate this agreement for any reason, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation based on the completion of all work in each task to the date of termination as described in Exhibit "C" 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 1.1. SUBCON` RACTORS : This agreement is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated to any person or entity without the consent of CITY. (Rest of page not used) 8 0 SECTION 12 , ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS; CONSULTANT agrees that no regular employee of CITY shall be empl-)yed by its firm during the time that this agreement is in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officery the day, month and year first above written. Ultrasystems, Incorporated ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. 2400 Michelson Drive Consultant Irvine, California 92715 . P .J. Stevens By C�+ _ —8resident By R. L. Greengard ice President-Corpora e e' cretary CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a municipal corporation �a Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Z City Clerk Ci• y t ne REVIEWED AND APPROVED ; INITIATE AND AP EDc 1I Lt� ,i A mini'strator Tctzng lanning irector 9 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES The purposes of the Huntington Beach Fiscal Impact Model Project are to develop a local government fiscal impact model specifically appropriate for the analysis of cost and revenue impacts associated with specific development projects, existing development citywide or sampled by type of use, and a"ernative land use plans; to employ the model in producia fiscal impact forecasts due to financing capital improvements through various options; to provide a decision makinq tool to aid in growth management decisions and a basi^ method for forecasting future budget impacts; and further to develop in-house City Staff familiarity with the model by providing a brief trainin4 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 basic tasks t� be followed by the consultant in preparing the local government fiscal impact model of land uses. The le%u71 of detail associated with each task is strictly governed by the time-frames and budgetary limitations mutually agreed between the City and consultant as specified in this Scope of Services and in Exhibit "C" Project Costs by Task. The specific details of these tasks can be described as follows; 2 TASK 1 -- IDENTIFY REVENUE SOURCES Consultant will identify the significant revenue sources that are impacted by new and existing development within the City of Huntington Beach. Included in these sources are property tax, sales and use taxes, various licenses and permits, vehicle code fines, motor vehicle in-lieu fees , cigarette taxes, business 14.-n-e fees, gas tax receipts, and various charges for current 1;7ices such as zoning, engineering, subdivision, and parcel 'iling fees. TASK IDENTIFY COST SOURCES Consultant will identify the significant cost sources that are impacted by new and existing development within the City of Huntington Beach. Included in these sources are general government, 1 .lice and fire protection, planning, library, recreation, parks, human services , building, harbors and beaches, and public works. TASK 3 - DERIVE REVENUE AND COST ESTIMATING RELATIONSHIP Having identified •the applicable revenues 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 value for building permits, 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 costs. Revenue and cost formulations will then be developed on the basis from which they are derived. For example, in the case of a per capita revenue a typical formulation would be as follows: 3 (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 r6venu.es and costs it is necessary to compv.te the corresponding revenue and cost factors These are the quantities on the basis for which the revenues and costs are derived such as sales tax revenue per capita, motor vehicle in-lieu fees per ca;,. ,.ta, police protection cost per capita, fire protection cost per capita or per acre, public works cost ppr acre, street maintenance cost per foot, etc. The computations of these factors will b accomplished through the use of data in the I City, a the use of the estimating relationships derived in TASK 3 . TASK 5 - MODIFY EXISTING FISCAL IMPACT MODEL i The fiscal impact model developed by the Consultants for the County of Orange and the cities of Anaheim and Orange under a HUD 701 grant provides a structure which can be readily modified to fit the budgetary situation of the City of Huntington Beach. Some of the revenues and costs that can be estimated in the present model do not fit the City of Huntington Beach situation 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 dome in Huntington Beach". The basis for these changes would be the use of the revenue and cost estimating relationships derived in TASK 4 . The end result of this process would be the development of a comp- uterized cost/revenue model which is a "replica" of how revenues and 4 costs are derived in the C:-ty of Huntington Beach from land use pro`,�cts. This model will allow for the computation of capital Costs incurred as the result of new development and will, also include the provision for estimating capital costs according to the method of pay- ment (cash, bonds , bonds plus sinking funds, etc. ) . TASK 6 - DEMONSTRATE USE Of MODEL VIA ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECT EXAMPLE, GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS, AND SELECTED EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS=ANALYSIS Laving developed, as a result of TASKS 1-5, a computerized cost/ revenue model for the City, the next step in the basic contractural effort rill be to demonstrate the use of the model on both the 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 basis . An analysis would also be conducted to evaluate the fiscal impact of a selected sample of existing land uses by type as to which uses appear to pay their own way versus those which &� 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 statuo where appropriate in terms of population, dwelling units, acres developed and land valuation. TASK 7 FINAL REPORT PREPARATION AND PRESENTATIONS Upon completion of TASKS 1.-6, the Consultant will prepare a report (30 copies to be pi�vided to the City) documenting the effort; performed in terms of data and information collected, a description of the cost/ 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 use the program at either of the two facilities, a discussion of the illustrative examples considered in the program demonstration, and the fiscal, .impact analyses of existing land uses and the General Plan. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EFFORT FOR THE bEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Total :Elapsed Time (months) " 0 — 1 2 3 4 5 6 Initial Meeting with. City Staff , Task 1 - 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 t Factor Data 1. 5 Task 5 - Modify Existing Fiscal Impact Model 1.. 0 Task 6 - Demonstrate Use of Model x 1. 5 Via Illustrative Example, General Plan Analysis, and Selected Exisning Develop- ments Analysis Task 7 - Final Report Preparation 0 .5+ and Presentation Submit Monthly Progress Reports At Submit Draft Report ----- Submit Final Report Make Presentations, as Necessary A k i.. 6 .0 ~. EXHIBIT B CONFIGURATION INPUTS NPI CESSARY FOR EVALUATION OF LAND USE FISCAL IMPACTS 1) Residential Land Use Factors (1) such as ; number of dwelling units by type; number of acres of such dwelling unit type; number of people per dwelling unit; -narket value per dwelling unit; fraction of market value representing improvements. 2) Commercial Land Use Factors �� ) such as ; number of mmercial Land use types; number of acres of each commercial use; number o: commercial services per, acre.; commercial square footage per acre, market value per acre of commercial use; fraction of market value representing improvements. 3) Industrial Lana Use Factors (�) such as: number of indtistrial .land use t.y?es; 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. 4) 'Manning Factors (2) suchh as linear footage of streets per acre linear footage of storm drains per linear foot of streets . hear footage of water mains per acre; linear 'ootage of sewar li,tes per acre; park planning standard (f+- axisting parks) in; acres per capita. (1) These may vary by geographical area within the City. (2) These may vary by type of wand use. EXHIBIT B MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE - AND COST-RELATED DATA NECESSARY FOR EVALUATION OF T.,AND USE FISCAL IMPACTS 1) State Board of Equalization data on total taxable retail transactions by type of business and number of businesses in the City (preferably for calendar year (1978) . 2) Average business license fee by type of business in the City (applicable schedules are useful,however, a sample of each existing business type should be compiled) . 3) Average annual refuse collection cost per dwelling unit by type and per business by type in the City (applicable schedules are useful, however, a sampling would be necessary for existing developments) . 4) Average total permit and processing fees per new dwelling unit Constructed by type and per acre (or per sq. ft. GFA) of new commercial and industria:L construction (this would require a sampling by type of land use) . 5) Average annual water consumption and water revenue per dwelling unit by type and per business by type in the City (this would require a sampling by type of Land use) . 6) Annual City operating cost per .gallon (or per 100 cu. ft. ) of water provided for a 6-year period of time. 7) State Department oy Finance certified city 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 public streets maintained by the City for fiscal years 1973-1978 . a 10) Cumulative developed acres by type of land use (residential, commercial or industrial) for fiscal '-_ears 1973-1978 (NOTE: It is recognized that the City might not maintain such an annual inventory, however, it should be provided for whatever years the data is available: 11) Cumulative linear footage of sewers and storm drains, if maintained 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 . i i EXHIBIT C HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE FISCAL IMPACT MODEL PROJECT COSTS BY TASK APPROXI14ATE TASK TIME FRAME ESTIMATED (MOS . ) COST 1) Identify Revenue Sources 1. 0 $1,000 2) Identify Cost Sources 1. 0 $1, 000 3) Derive Revenue and Cost Estimating Relationships 1.0 $1,000 4) Collect Revenue and Cost Factor. Data 1.5 $4,000 5) Modify Existing Fiscal Impact Model 1.0 $1,500 6) Demonstrate. Use of Model Via Illustrative Example, General Plan Analysis , and Selected Existing Develop- ments Analysis 1.5 $4,500 i) Final Report Preparation and Presentations 0. $1, 500 EXUIB I`I' C HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE FISCAL IMPACT MODEL PROJECT COSTS BY TASK APPROXI14ATE TASK TIME FRAME ESTIMATED (mos . ) COST 1) Identify Revenue Sources 1. 0 $1, 000 2) Identify Cost Sources 1. 0 $1, 000 3) Derive Revenue and Cost Estimating Relationships 1.0 $1, 000 4 ) Collect Revenue and Cost Factor Data 1.5 $4, 000 5) Modify Existing Fiscal Impact Model 1.0 $1, 500 G) Demonstrate Use of Model Via Illustrative Example, General Plan Analysis , and Selected Existing Develop- ments Analysis 1.5 $4 , 500 7) Final Report Preparation and Presentations 0.5 $1,500 APPROVED AS TO FORM: GAIL HUTTON City torney puty City Attorney As to Exhibits "A" through y tic.it CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE REgUIREMENTS i FROM: r DATE �--� Proof of Workers' Compensation required, or present a certi- ficate of consent to self-insure issued by the Director of Industrial Relations (See city form, Paragraph A) . �----� Public liability limits insufficient. Minimum acceptable is $ combined single limit per occurrence including property damage (See city form, Paragraph B). Automobile liability is required. Minimum acceptable is combined- single limit per occurrence including property damage (Seecity form, Paragraph 0). AdQittionalS�n ed end rsemenE re UR91,c9:'" 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 form, Paragraph D). /!l Hold harmless agreement not signed by insured. The insured must hold the city harmless (See city form, Paragraph E). © G-7 Policy number and effective/expiration date missing. Insurance company not licensed to der business in California. The Certificate of Insurance must be J,ssued by a surplus line broker admitted in California or by an insurance company rc✓(� ' licensed to do business in California.. Telephone number for insurance broker missing. Automobile liability, Paragraph C, does policy cover: All owned automobiles ( )Yas ( )no Non-owned automobiles ( )yes ( )no Hired automobiles ( )yes ( )no At least one box must be checked YES. J�-7 Other: ,v f MAIL TO � — I completed ed oart and tfi Diatr t x t r ix oomPltrtod eartifiute Original Risk hating r *y ' ar+r^+ After H oval Yellow—Risk rAanapar , , By City Attorney Pink—City Clark. i City of Hunti on& Gold—City Attornry, DapOt.Baz, Q/i�f (/1J CFs�rtAren I1G INIA Huntington Beech,Ca This is From— GM0. ie been issued to the insured by the under- , signed and are in fo The dOUghe(ff COfi)Q80y., Inc. a manner that will eNect this certificate,the , insurance company lontington Beach,P.O.Box 190,Huntington Beach,California 9: LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA Name of Insured ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. _—— Address of Insured 2400 .lICHELSON DRIVE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 Location of Insured Operations _ ALL OPURIkTIONS Description of Operations U.S.A. ' i POLICIES IN FORCE POLICY LIMITS OF LIABILITY NUMBER EFFECTIVE EXPIRATION A. Workers Compensation PC - Statutory Employers'Liability 791065 2/l/76 CONTINUO113$2,000,000.00 B. Public liability. * combined single Bodily injury: SLP limit per occurrence, Manufacturers and 9448561 9/l/77 9/1/80 Contractors $ Each Person Comprehensive General R $ # Each Accident (Including products completed operations) Property Damege $ ` Each Accident C. Automobile Liability: k$500,000.00 Combined Single Limit Bodily Injury SLP $ ` Each Person 9448561 9/1/77 911/80 $ Each Accident Property Damage $ ` Each Accident Does policy cover: (Please checkat least one) All owned automobiles ( X)Yes { )No Non-owned automobiles ( X)Yes { )No Hired automobiles i X)Yes ( )No D. Additional Insured Endorsement: (PER ATTACHED) The insurer agrees that the City of Huntington Beach and its City Council,and/or all City Council appointed groups, committees,commissions,boards and any other City Council appointed body,and/or elective and appointive officers, servants or employees of the City of Huntington Beach,vten acting as such are additional insureds hereunder,for the acts of the insured,and such insurance shall be primary to any insurance of the �City _of(Huntington Beach. E. Hold Harmless Agreement: By Insured: ISignatural V ` The insured agrees to protect,defend,hIdemnVy and save harmless the City of Huntington Beach against loss,damage or expense by reason of any suits,claims,demands,judgment+and causes of action caused by insured,his employees,agents or any subcontractor or by any third parry arising out of or in consequence of the performance of all or any operations covered by the certificate of insurance. F. Remarks: APP.ROVEDASTOFORM' ciu5leUS EZcgss Liability PolicXNo. 125067 Harbor Jusurance City Atorney Terms 9/1/78 9/1/79 J'p' Limits., $500,000.00 Combined Single Limit excess of Primaryy, y City Atto y fT� Rate Mar.�0. 19779 AUT14ORIZE EPfiL%SE, TATiVE 1 SURA C MP ANY iNSURA CEC MP NY rear !`aercan Itiaurancz CrneipanyBy nattuo at Aurh riz vprewr wa/Ap.nt Name rhnr Tndttranre Come ny Address P• ;0. Box 7277 Address City Long Beach, California 90807 Taleai (213) 424"1 621 —� I ' — REVISED Return original and three copielaui* istribution completed certificate to; Original—Originating Dept. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE After Approval Yellow—Risk Manager City of Huntington Beach TO By City AAtt*rney Pink—City Clerk Dept. City Clerk Gold—City Attorney P.O.Box 190 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA Huntington Beach,California 92648 A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION This is to certify that the policies of insurance as described below have been issued to the insured by the under- signed and are in force at this time. If these policies are cancelled or changed in such a manner that will affect this certificate,the insurance company agrees to give 30 days prior written notice,by mail,to City of Huntington Beach,?.0.Box 190, Huntington Beach,California 92648, Name of Insured ULTRASY.STEMS, INC. Address of insured 2400 MICHELSON DRIVE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 Location of Insured Operations ALL OPERATIONS Descri tion of Operations u POLICIES IN FORCE POLICY LIMITS OF LIABILITY NUMBER EFFECTIVE EXPIRATION A, Workers Compensation PC Statutory Employers' Liability 791065 2/1/76 CONT. $ 2,000,000.00 B. Public Liability: 0660imbined single Bodily Injury; limit per occurrence. Manufacturers and SLP Contractnrs El 9448561 9/1/77 9/1/80 $ * Each.Person Comprehensive General S r # Each Accident (including products completed operations) Property Damage $ * Each Accident C. Automobile Liabifity: $500,000.00 Combined Single T.,imit SLI' Bodily Injury 9448561 9/1/77 9/1/80 $ Each Person $ # Each Accident Property Damage $ *' Each Accident Does policy cover: (Please check at least one) All owned automobiles ( x)Yes ( )No Non-owned automobiles ( x)Yes ( ) No Hired automobiles ( x)Yes ( )No D. Additional Insured Endorsement: The insurer agrees that the City of Huntington Beach and its City Council,and/or all City Council appointed groups, committees, commissions, boards and any other City Council appointed body, and/or elective. and appointive officer,,, servants or employees of the City of Hw 2ington Beach,when acting as such are additio_ial insureds hereunder,for the acts of the insured,and such insurance shall be primary tr-any insurance of the City of Huntington Beach. E. Hold Harmless Agreement: By insured: (Signature) The insured agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the City of Huntington geoch agaia'k loss,damage or expense by reason of any suits, claims, demands,judgments and causes of action caused by insured,his employees,agents or any subcontractor or by any third party arising nut of or in consequence of the performance of all or any operations covered by the certificate of insurance, F. Remarks: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Excess Liability Policy No. 123067, Harbor Insurance Company GAIL HUTTON Term: 9/1/78 9/l/79 City At rney Limits: $500,000.00 Combined Single. Limit Excess of Primary g�,; pu y t rnev ..• Date March. 30, 1979 AUTHO -D REPR SENTATIV OSURANCE JOMPANY ;INSURggNCE COMPANY , Cxceat American xCnsurance Company 13 Signature of Authorized Representative/ a NameRarbor Insurance Company P 0. Box 7277 Address Address - City Long Beach, California 90807 Telephone (213) 424, 1621 N City of Huntington Beach ��-- AMA W.O. BOX 190 CAUFi RNIA 92648 OFEICF: OF THE CITY CLERK April 3, 1979 Ultrasystems, Inc. 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92715 Attn: R. L. Greengard Vice-President Corporate Secretary Gentlemen; The City Council of the City of Huntington death at its regular meeting herd Monday, April 2, 1979, approved an agreement with your firm for the develop- ment of a computerized fiscal impact model of land uses. Enclosed is a duly executed copy of said agreement for your records. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cd Enclosures cc; Planning Department Finance Department .� te City of Huntington each TO.0 BOX ISO CALIFORNIA 92648 OFF fib Y ER SCE OF T CITY CLERK April 3, 1979 Ultrasystems, Inc, 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92715 Attn: R. L. Greengard Vice-President Corporate Secretary Gentlemen The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1979, approved an agreement with your firm for the develop- ment of a computerized fiscal impact model of land uses. Enclosed is a duly executed copy of said agreement for your records. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Cleric AMID:cd R _ Enclosures cc: Planning 'Department Finance Department 0�, ,, REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Planning Date Prepared March 7, 1979 , 19 Backup Material Attached ® Yes F� No Subject CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTERIZED FISCAL IMPACT MODEL OF LAND USES. City Administrator's Comments APPROVED T,Y CITY Gc UINT IL Approve as reoommende . .... . ..�..... .. • C �,iC Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: t1i�(J STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Staff has formulated and reviewed in concert with Ultrasystems, Inc. a professional services agreement for the develop,«pnt of a 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 ACTION: Au-A" the exe6ation of a professional services agreement between the City and Ultrasystoms, Inc. (consultant) for development of the fiscal impact model. ANALYSIS: At its March 5, 1979 meeting, the City Council approved the selection of Ultrasystems, Inc. to develop a computerized fiscal impact model' which will enable City staff to analyze the impacts of specific devol- opment proposals and different land use alternatives on the General Plan. Pursuant to this approval, the Planning staff and the City Attorn.ey's Office 'haveformulated a professional services agreement with the consultant. The contract attached for the City Council's review and execution outlines among other things the description of work to be done; the disposition of plans and other documents; 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 4,4reement. Attached to the contract is a detailed description of the basic tasks to be followed by the consultant in preparing the fiscal impact model. Plo ana Pp, i 1 Fiscal Impact Model lontract March 7, 1979 Page 2 The level of detail associated with each task is strictly governed by the time-frames and budgetary limitations mutually agreed betweE-"a the City and the consultant as specified. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Rc7ise the professional, services agreement is desired. 2. Postpone or cancel the study. Each of these alternatives may involve time delays and higher costs. Respectfully submitted, ames W. Palin Acting Planning Director JWP:CC:df Attachment: Professional Services Agreement and Exhibits REQUEP FOR CITY COUNCIAA TION Submitted by James W. Palin _ Departmeat Planning Date Prepared February 23, g 79 Backup Material Attached Yes Q No Subject Consultant selection for development of computerized fiscal impact model of land uses. City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. 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 determining the potential fiscal impact of development projects and alternative land use plans. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the selection of Ultrasystems, Inc. to develop the fiscal impact model for the City for a maximum fee of $14,500 ANALYSIS: At its Decemioer 4, 1978 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to solicit proposals from consultants for the development; of a computerized fiscal impact model which will. enable City staff to analyze the impacts of specific development proposals and different land use 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 third 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 analysis as to which developments appear to pay their own way versus those which do not. L PIO 3178 ,l,Rr ,Page two The Lhree firms which responded to the Request for Proposal are listed below, together with the estimated total cost: 1. Ultrasystems, Inc, $14 ,500 2. The Natelson Company, Inc. $11,000 3 . Project Economics, Inc $18,250 The three prcposale were reviewea in detail by City Staff. The selection process was based on the demonstrated qualifications and 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 bidding firm lacked detail in its work program and would not commit to a specific time frame by task. Moreover, the other fi.rnis proposed to include a published analysis of existing development citywide and a sampling of land use types to determine which ones pay their own way versus those that do not. The highest bidder would 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, Ultrasystems, Inc. , be given the responsibility for thisµ-project. FUNDING SOURCE: The project will be funded from the. City's An+i -Recessionary Fund and personnel salaries account of the Planning Department. The Anti-Recessionary Fund will provide $9, 562 to the project. The remc.'-:der of the required monies will come from the personnel salaries account of the Planning Department. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Select another consultant to perform the work. 2. Hire additional City Staff to undertake the project without consultant assistance. 3. Reduce the scope of the study. 4. Postpone or cancel the s . udy. Each of these alternatives would involve time delays, higher costs, and/or a project not entirely reflecting the City ' s needs. Respectfully submitted, <J V_zo L d'�%c,L�hO James W. Palin Acting Planning Director Attachment: 1. Financial Impact Statement JMP f CC jdc a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ci INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Te Floyd G. Belsito From F. B. Arguello City Administrator Director of 'na;vce6 Subject Financial Impact Report - Date February 26. 79 Fiscal Impact Model t fi M ` .1Z.; GC[`1 OF t�UUTtN�T9it B��� ADP�tNtSTRAZIV� DF� As requested, I have prepared 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 Planning Department's budget. There would be no direct impact on the City's cr tingency account. ,__AtzzMA F. B. Arguello Director of Finance FBA/cg CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FLNANC IACUMPACT 'REPORT Project Name Fiscal Impact Model Description To provide for development of a computerized fiscal impact model of land uses. 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1 . 1 Ore-Time 'Costs FLanY___ urn., aci i- ition Construction ties, Equi merit; Other Total Cost �.. $ 14 500 $ 11},500 1 .2 Recurring Annual Costs Additional_ Materials Outside Pa roll Personnel Su lies Services Revenues Total Cost P 1 .3 Replacement/Renewal Costs None 2. INDIRECT COSTS None