Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Costal Program on the Ci H-j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC14C'Ty CLERKS E3 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION S HUNTINGTON BEACH _ ' COPY TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRAT SUBJECT: FISCAL IMPACTS OF BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ON THE Cl T Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1994 "Annex 11" of the City's comments on the Bolsa Chica El is the attached report on fiscal impacts prepared by Public Economics, Inc. The City Clerk's office has been provided with a limited number of copies for sale to the public (for the cost of printing). Please let me know if you have any questions. rn m i N RJF:pdc cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk Gail Hutton, City Attorney Melanie S. Fallon, Director Community Development 1 S Cl;'y C!ERK'S COPY y Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program on City of Huntington Beach Prepared by: February 14, 199 PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. 2100 E. Katella Ave., Suite 195, Anaheim,CA 92806,Tel: (714) 937-0806 Fax: (714) 937-1804 Table of Contents CITY Y CLERK'S COPY I. Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page I A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 ' B. Summary of Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 ' C. Specific Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 VII. Analysis of Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 ' A. Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 VIII. Major Assumptions and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16 IX. Recurring Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 t A. Analysis of Recurring Revenues . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Analysis of Recurring Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26 ' XI. One-Time Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33 ' A. Types of One-Time Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33 B. One-Time Fiscal Impacts Under the Three Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34 1 1 List of Appendices ' Appendix A: Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts SCENARIO #1 - ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT ' Scenario #1 - City Budget Analysis ' Appendix B: Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts ' SCENARIO #2 - ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ' Appendix C: Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts SCENARIO #3 - PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY, WITH NO FIRE COST RAPACTS • Scenario 43 - Project Remains in County, With Fire Cost Impacts • Scenario #3 - City Budget Analysis ' Appendix D: One-Time Fiscal Impacts SCENARIO 41 - ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT Appendix E: One-Time Fiscal Impacts ' SCENARIO 42 - ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ' APPENDIX F: One-Time Fiscal Impacts SCENARIO #3 - PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY 1 Appendix G: Project Description Information 1 1 L Conceptual Framework 1 A. Introduction A.1 Overview As proposed in the draft environmental impact report ("DEIR") prepared by the County of Orange ("County"), implementation of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal ' Program ("LCP" or "Project") will have significant adverse environmental effects on the City of Huntington Beach ("City"), including changes in public services and ' community facilities resulting from the Project. The adverse fiscal impacts, or net marginal costs of these environmental effects, include both recurring and one-time impacts from development of the LCP, which calls for construction within the 1,604 ' acre LCP area of 4,286 new residential dwelling units over a 12 to 22 year period. The entire LCP area is located within a pocket of unincorporated County, and is ' completely surrounded on the east, west, and north by the City and on the south by Pacific Coast Highway and Bolsa Chica State Beach. In addition, the Bolsa Chica ' project will also include 598 dwelling units within the City on 367 acres adjacent to and contiguous with the LCP area. ' A.2 Nature of Fiscal Impacts Fiscal impacts include both recurring and one-time costs and revenues: • Recurring costs arise from the need to provide public services to Project 1 • residents, and include the costs of police and fire protection, street and drainage maintenance, maintenance of parks and parkways, operation and ' maintenance of library and recreation programs, general government operations, etc. • Recurring revenues include recurring tax,fee, and other payments made by Project residents, as well as related State subventions and other public revenue ' • One-time costs include the costs of infrastructure, community facilities, and other public improvements required to serve the Project, both on-site tand off-site ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page I 1 ' • One-time revenues include developer fee payments and exactions, as well ' as net bond proceeds from Mello-Roos or public financing programs used for capital facilities One-time costs and revenues are typically generated during Project construction. For large scale projects like Bolsa Chica, recurring costs and revenues will be generated in each year of construction through Project buildout, and in every year ' following Project buildout. ' A.3 Adverse Fiscal Impacts The Project will have adverse fiscal impacts on the City (i.e., result in a fiscal ' deficit) if either of the following occurs: ' • Recurring City costs attributable to the Project exceed recurring City revenues ' • One-time City costs attributable to the Project exceed one-time City revenues ' From the City's point of view, the Project will be fiscally balanced only if: • One-time City costs attributable to the Project are less than or equal to ' one-time City revenues ' • Cumulative recurring surpluses to the City are greater than or equal to zero • Annual recurring surpluses to the City are greater than or equal to zero or ' annual recurring deficits are fully mitigated, both before and after Project buildout A.4 Adverse Fiscal Impacts as Adverse Environmental Effects ' Section 15126(g) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), expressly states that "increases in population may further tax existing ' community service facilities[,] so consideration must be given to this impact." Thus, environmental effects include changes in public services and community facilities resulting from the Project. As used in this discussion, "adverse fiscal impacts" refer to the net marginal costs of the Project to the City for such services and facilities, and ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 2 1 ' includes both recurring and one-time costs. Hence, the accompanying fiscal impact ' analysis provides a quantitative measure of the adverse environmental effects of the Project resulting from changes in public services and community facilities. ' B. Summary of Conclusions ' The City has reason to be concerned about the negative environmental effects of the Project on the City of Huntington Beach, including adverse fiscal impacts on public ' services and community facilities. The City is concerned that these adverse impacts on the City have been ignored or inadequately documented in the County's environmental and planning process for the Bolsa Chica Project. The City requires ' that analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the Project: ' • Account for all three development and annexation scenarios described below • Account for recurring and one-time fiscal impacts on the City for all three scenarios • Identify all adverse fiscal impacts on the City ' • Identify all feasible mitigation measures for such adverse impacts ' • Evaluate the feasibility of all mitigation measures, including the Area Transportation Improvement Program ("ATIP") and the Wetlands Restoration Plan ("WRP"), based in part on the economic viability of such ' measures, i.e., based on how such measures affect the economic feasibility of the Project ' • Ensure that the Project is designed and processed in such a way that completion of the Project, including full implementation of the WRP and ' other required mitigation measures, including all those required by the City, can be reasonably expected and demonstrated prior to Project approval. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 3 1 1 C. Specific Fiscal Impacts ' CA Adverse Fiscal Impacts on City of Huntington Beach ' Fiscal impacts on the City will occur under any of three scenarios: ' • Scenario 1: Project is annexed to the City concurrent with Project approval and prior to development ' • Scenario 2: Project is annexed to the City during or after Project development ' • Scenario 3: Project remains in the County ' Scenario 1 ' Recurring and one-time City costs and revenues will be greatest under Scenario 1. Costs will be greater since the City will be responsible for providing a number of public services and improvements from the beginning of Project development. Revenues will also be greater since the City will collect most recurring tax, fee, and other payments directly from Project residents, and levy most one-time fees and ' charges directly on the developer. However, as shown in the attached fiscal analysis, the Project is still fiscally unbalanced under this scenario, and has a significant ' adverse fiscal impact on the City. 1 Scenario 2 Recurring and one-time impacts will be smaller under Scenario 2, since the City will ' be responsible for providing the same public services and improvements required under Scenario 1, but for a shorter period of time, i.e., after annexation into the City. ' Project residents will also make recurring tax and other payments to the City for a shorter period of time, and the City will presumably collect no one-time fees and charges prior to annexation. As shown in the attached fiscal analysis, the Project is ' also fiscally unbalanced under this scenario, and again has a significant adverse fiscal impact on the City. ' Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Cleica Local Coastal Prograin 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beale Page 4 ' Scenario 3 Recurring and one-time fiscal impacts will be smallest under Scenario 3, since the City will presumably provide fewer public services and improvements to the Project ' than under the other two scenarios. However, the City will also collect fewer recurring tax and other payments from Project residents, and will presumably collect no one-time fees or charges. For these reasons, as shown in the attached fiscal ' analysis, the Project is also fiscally unbalanced under Scenario 3. The degree of fiscal imbalance is exacerbated by two factors: ' • The City will still be obligated to provide some on-site public services and improvements, i.e., services and facilities provided or located within the Project ' • The City will also be obligated to satisfy demands by Project (i.e., County) residents for off-site public services and improvements, i.e., services and facilities provided or located within the City. For example, given the location of the LCP, Project residents will have to use City streets to access the Project, get to and from work, and buy goods and services from City retailers and other local businesses. In so doing, they will require and benefit from City street maintenance and police protection services. Given the proximity of the Project ' to City facilities, Project residents will also make extensive use of City libraries, parks, and beaches, as well as City community services and programs. While the City may receive some recurring revenues under Scenario 3 (e g., sales taxes and parking revenues), there are no mechanisms currently in place under this ' scenario to: • Ensure that recurringCity revenues cover recurring City costs Y g Y • Provide any one-time revenues to the City ' The foregoing is al true for Scenario 2 for the period prior to annexation of the go g so p ' Project by the City. C.2 Mitigation Measures for Adverse Fiscal Impacts Section 15126(c) of the Guidelines to CEQA also requires that feasible measures be ' identified to mitigate adverse environmental effects of the Project. Where environmental effects include changes in public services and community facilities, Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page S 1 mitigation measures must include mechanisms for providing and funding such g P g g ' services and facilities. These mitigation measures and funding mechanisms include but are not limited to the following: ' • Community Facilities Districts using the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 • Special Assessment Districts using the Municipal Improvement Acts of 1913 and 1915 as well as other statutes • Landscaping and Lighting Districts using the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 ' • Developer fees ' • User fees • Development agreements 1 Each of the above except user fees may be employed to fund one or more types of ' public improvements and capital facilities, thereby providing potential mitigation for related, adverse one-time environmental effects on the City. Each of the above ' except developer fees may be used to fund one or more types of public services, thereby providing potential mitigation for related, adverse recurring environmental effects on the City. ' Developer fees are paid by the developer or builder, usually at the time that building ' permits are issued. Developer fees constitute another building cost to the developer, and tend to increase the market price of housing and/or decrease builder profit. Special taxes and assessments are paid by the developer and/or final owners of property, typically in addition to and at the same time that regular property taxes are paid. Special taxes and assessments are used to (i) secure bonds for financing capital ' improvements, and (ii) fund recurring expenditures for selected public services. By increasing the effective annual tax burden (hence, annual home ownership costs), special taxes and assessments tend to decrease the market price of housing as well as ' developer profits. User fees are charged for public services only, and are typically paid by residents, employees, and visitors, not property owners (user fees for fire ' protection services are a notable exception). Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/1S/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 6 ' C.3 Miti ation Measures for Adverse City Impacts In the case of the Bolsa Chica LCP, failure to identify and provide for the mitigation measures described above will lead to additional significant adverse environmental effects from the Project, i.e., reductions in the level of public services and the availability of community facilities to existing City residents. In the absence of mitigation measures to provide and fund City services and facilities to serve the Project, such services and facilities can only be provided by diverting or diluting resources required by existing City residents. This additional environmental impact is both foreseeable and likely. ' Mitigation Under Scenario 1 With Scenario 1, use of the above measures and mechanisms to mitigate adverse fiscal impacts on the City could ensure that the Project is fiscally balanced. Under this scenario, the Project would presumably be processed through, and developer ' fees paid to, the City, and the City Council would serve as legislative body for whichever special financing districts are employed. The City could choose to enter into a joint financing agreement with local school districts, for example, to allow joint financing of City and school district improvements with the same public financing program. ' Mitigation Under Scenarios 2 and 3 ' With Scenarios 2 and 3, use of the above mitigation measures and mechanisms will not mitigate the adverse fiscal impacts on the City. Under both scenarios, the Project ' would presumably be processed in the County. While the County may ensure mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the County, under Scenarios 2 and 3 there are no mechanisms in place at this time to ensure mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the City. Measures to mitigate adverse City impacts in this case could include: • Developer fees imposed by the County on behalf of the City, for the cost of City improvements attributable to the Project, both on-site and off-site. Such "City 1 fees" would be in addition to developer fees imposed by the County for County facilities. Fiscal Impacts of Boha Cleica Local Coastal Program 02115/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 7 • Cooperation and reimbursement agreement between the Count and City, to P g Y Y� ' ensure that the nexus and other administrative requirements of AB 1600 are satisfied should the Project be annexed into the City. Such an agreement would ensure that County developer fees are used only for public improvements ' required by the Project, and would provide for transfer or reimbursement of developer fee revenues from the County to the City for selected public improvements. • Joint financing agreement between the County and City, involving all special financing districts established by the County. This agreement would ensure that any adverse fiscal impacts of the Project on the City prior to annexation are fully mitigated, whether these involve City services and improvements provided or located on-site (within the Project) or off-site (within the City). Such "City taxes and assessments" would be in addition to special taxes and assessments imposed by the County for County facilities and services. This agreement would ' also ensure that ownership and responsibility for maintenance of on-site public improvements, provision of on-site public services, and right to receive special taxes and/or assessments within the Project, are transferred from the County to the City in an orderly and timely fashion. ' • Development agreements between the City, County, and developer implementing all the measures set forth above. In the absence of these measures, the onlymitigation measure currently available g Y ' to the City under Scenarios 2 and 3 is user fees. While user fees may mitigate some recurring City impacts, they provide no mitigation for one-time impacts. Further, user fees may have limited effectiveness even for recurring impacts. Existing City residents already pay taxes, fees, and assessments directly to the City. Existing City user fees supplement these other revenues. There are no user fees charged for many City services, which are funded by other City revenues. In other cases, user fees provide only partial funding for services. To ensure that Project ' residents pay the full cost of using City services under Scenarios 2 and 3, separate user fees would have to be put in place for non-City (i.e., Project) residents. ' These user fees would apply to all City services for which there is currently no fee or for which the fee is less than the full cost of service. Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beads Page 8 While it may P �'Y be possible to le differential user fees on residents and ' non-residents for some public services (e.g., parking and library services), differential fees are probably impractical for many other services. Hence, the effectiveness of user fees alone for mitigating adverse recurring impacts on the City is limited. ' Area Transportation Improvement Program Although not treated as such in the DEIR, the proposed Area Transportation Improvement Program may be regarded as a potential mitigation measure for adverse fiscal impacts on the City resulting from off-site traffic generated by the Project. As discussed in the DEIR, potential funding of ATIP improvements may involve Measure M funds, gas tax revenues, special financing districts, developer fees, and other developer exactions. While ATIP may mitigate some of the traffic impacts of the Project on the City, it does not mitigate all such impacts. Further, whether ATIP constitutes a reasonable or acceptable mitigation measure to the City will depend in ' part on how it is funded. Unfortunately, operational funding of the proposed program has not been determined at this time. C.4 Fiscal Impacts on County of Orange A fiscal impact report ("FIR") is reportedly being prepared by County consultants. The City's interest in the County FIR primarily involves recognition by the County of the three scenarios presented above, and adequacy of the County's evaluation of recurring and one-time fiscal impacts on the City. However, the City is also interested in the adequacy of evaluation of fiscal impacts on the County, to the ' extent that: • Assumptions about County responsibility for providing public services and facilities, and acceptance by Project residents of the level of County services provided, may be unrealistic ' • Adverse fiscal impacts on the County may also require mitigation, in addition to mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the City ' For example, the County FIR may assume that (i) the County will provide library or fire protection services to the Project, even though City libraries and fire stations are ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 9 1 far closer than their County counterparts, or (ii) that Project residents will be ' satisfied with long trips to County libraries or long response times by County firefighters (which would exceed current County standards). In this case, if the County FIR ignores fiscal impacts on the City, the County FIR will be inadequate ' since it will ignore the likelihood that (1) public services will in fact be provided by the City, and (ii) Project residents may eventually demand annexation by the City. The County FIR may also identify the need for developer fees, special taxes and assessments, etc. to mitigate adverse one-time and recurring impacts on the County. ' For example, the proposed Wetlands Restoration Program may be regarded in part as a mitigation measure for adverse fiscal impacts on the County under Scenarios 2 and 3 resulting from Project development adjacent to the wetlands. In this case, if the County FIR ignores fiscal impacts on the City, the County FIR will be inadequate since mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the County and the City could make the Project and/or required mitigation measures economically unfeasible, thereby threatening successful completion of the Project and/or WRP improvements which it ' is supposed to provide. ' C.5 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation Measures As noted above, CEQA requires that all feasible measures for mitigating the adverse environmental effects of the Project be identified and considered. To determine whether a mitigation measure is feasible, Section 15364 of the Guidelines to CEQA ' requires that the lead agency take into account "economic factors" which may prevent a mitigation measure from being implemented "in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time." This requires assessing both the economic viability and ' proposed funding of the proposed mitigation. ' As lead agency, the County has failed to identify the adverse fiscal impacts of the Project on the City, or the potential measures for mitigating such impacts. Further, it is unlikely that required mitigation measures for these environmental effects will ' permit the Project to be economically feasible regardless of the scenario under which the Project is developed. This is due to the fact that mitigation will be funded primarily by the developer and Project homeowners, in the form of County and City developer fees and/or special taxes and assessments. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chico Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 10 1 ' Responsibility for payment of special taxes and assessments will presumably involve P Y PY P P Y both homowners--following construction and sale of property--and developers--while property is vacant, under construction, or unsold. (Developers may also pre-pay special taxes and assessments in escrow, rather than 1 "pass-through" those obligations to homeowners.). Responsibility for payment of developer fees will rest with the developer. The economic feasibility of such ' mitigation funding will depend on the relative shares of funding paid directly by homeowners versus developers, and on the effective tax rate ("ETR"). ' Effective Tax Rate The ETR consists of the 1 percent general property tax levy mandated by Proposition 13, plus (i) ad valorem property tax overrides for voter-approved bonded indebtedness, and (ii) non-ad valorem special taxes and assessment installments (expressed as a percentage of assessed value). It is widely believed that an ETR of 2 percent of assessed value represents an effective cap on property ' taxes and assessments, to the extent that such funding is paid directly by the homeowner. This is because ETRs above 2 percent are thought to create ' insurmountable market resistance by home buyers, thereby reducing home sales and profits to such a degree that development becomes economically unfeasible. (ETRs above 2 percent are also thought to lead to future taxpayer revolts by overburdened homeowners.) Given negative media coverage of Mello-Roos financing programs during 1991 and 1992, some believe that any Mello-Roos taxes (if not special ' assessments) will seriously impair home sales and profitability. Witness the "No Mello-Roos" advertisements in many new subdivisions. Whether home buyer concerns about Mello-Roos and other special financing districts are based on fact and sound reasoning or merely on conjecture, it is clear ' that there is market and political resistance to use of such districts, and that this resistance is not likely to subside in the near future. Special financing districts are likely to be needed to fund measures which are legally required to mitigate the adverse fiscal impacts of the Project on the City. Given the magnitude of these adverse impacts, the required level of special district financing by Project 1 homeowners will probably exceed the 2 percent ETR cap. In this event: • The Project may be started but not completed ' Fiscal Impacts of Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/1S/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 11 • Private improvements may be completed but not wetlands improvements P Y P P required by the WRP • Mitigation may be provided for adverse fiscal impacts on the County but not ' the City • Mitigation measures for the City (including ATIP) may be implemented but ' never completed, or never implemented at all The DEIR must consider the impacts of these possibilities. Mitigation Paid Directly by Developer Developer fees are one form of mitigation paid directly by the developer, and provide an alternative to special financing districts. However, developer fees are ' "pay-as-you-go" financing and only become available when development occurs (e.g., when building permits are issued). To the extent that public facilities are appropriately phased with construction in an incremental manner, such pay-as-you-go financing may be an acceptable means of mitigating one-time impacts. However, to the extent that "up front" facilities are needed in advance of ' new development, fees will not provide timely mitigation. In this case, debt financing like that provided by Mello-Roos and other financing districts will be ' required. ' Even if developer fees can provide timely mitigation, the cost burden imposed on the developer by such fees may also reduce home sales and/or profits to such a degree that the Project becomes economically unfeasible. A similar cost burden may be imposed by special taxes and assessments paid directly by the developer. In either case, as with special district financing paid by homeowners, the Project may ' be never be completed, or improvements to the wetlands made, or mitigation provided or completed for adverse impacts on the City. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 12 H. Analysis of Fiscal Impacts 1 A. Summary of Findings The City of Huntington Beach ("City") has undertaken an analysis of the fiscal ' impacts on the City from development of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program ("LCP" or "Project") as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") prepared by the County of Orange ("County"). The conclusions of the ' analysis are that regardless of whether the Project is developed under County jurisdiction, under City jurisdiction, or whether the Project is annexed into the City during development or after Project buildout, development of the Project will cause significant adverse fiscal impacts on the City. These impacts are presented below for three different scenarios. All impacts are shown in constant 1994 dollars. All three scenarios assumes that Project buildout is attained in year 13 of Project development. ' Scenario #1: Project Annexed to City Prior to Development Recurring Impacts: Under Scenario 41, the Project will generate an annual recurring deficit to the City of $2.8 million at Project buildout and every year thereafter. Annual recurring revenues will equal $4.5 million compared to annual ' recurring costs of $7.3 million. This implies a revenue-cost ratio of 61 percent. Please see Table A-9, Appendix A, page A-7. ' One-time Impacts: Under Scenario #1, City impact fees, charges for development-related planning, engineering, permit processing, and building-safety services, and other mitigation measures governed by a development agreement will presumably ensure that one-time costs for additional City infrastructure, ' community facilities, and development services are offset by one-time revenues. ' Cumulative Impacts: In the absence of any mitigation for recurring impacts, the cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City through Project buildout will equal S19.2 million, in addition to .S2.8 million per year emery year thereafter. ' Please see Table A-9, page A-7. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 13 i ' Scenario #2: Project Annexed to Ci , During Development Under this Scenario, it is assumed that the Project is annexed to the City in the seventh year of Project development. Recurring impacts: At Project buildout, annual recurring impacts for this ' scenario are the same as for Scenario #1 because the Project will presumably have been incorporated into the City, resulting in the same annual impacts derived from the same revenue and cost assumptions. Therefore, at buildout and every year ' thereafter this scenario will generate an annual recurring deficit to the City of $2.8 million, based on revenues of $4.5 million, costs of $7.3 million, and a revenue/cost ratio of 63 percent. Please see Table B-9, Appendix B page B-3. One-Time Impacts: In the six years during which the Project is presumably being ' developed within the County under Scenario #2, one-time impacts are estimated at $8.3 million in impact fees and other mitigation payments foregone by the City. ' This estimate assumes establishment of no mitigation measures to offset these impacts prior to annexation. Please see Table E-1, Appendix E. ' Cumulative Impacts: In the absence of mitigation measures for recurring impacts, and assuming no mitigation of one-time impacts prior to annexation, the ' cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City through Project builtout will equal $16 9 million in recurring impacts and $8.3 million in one-time impacts for a total cumulative impact of $25.2 million, in addition to $2.8 million per year in recurring impacts every year thereafter. Please see Table B-9, Appendix B, page B-3. Scenario #3: Project Remains in County ' Recurring Impacts: Under Scenario #3, the Project will generate an annual recurring deficit to the City of$1.15 million at Project buildout and every year ' thereafter, not including the major planning and station location impacts on the City fire department. Recurring off-site revenues are estimated at $0.8 million ' per year compared to recurring off-site costs of $1.95 million per year. This implies a revenue-cost ratio of 40 percent. Please see Table C-9, Appendix C, page C-5. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 14 ' If the impacts to Fire Department operations are included, then the annual recurring deficit at Project buildout increases to $5.3 million, based on annual revenues of $0.8 million and annual costs of $6.1 million. The resultant ' revenue-cost ratio in this case is 13 percent. Please see Table C-9f, Appendix C, page C-7. (Please see the discussion of recurring costs for Scenario #3 for more ' information on fire department cost impacts.) One-Time Impacts: One-time impacts to the City are estimated at $14.4 million ' in impact fees and other mitigation payments foregone by the City through Project buildout. This estimate assumes establishment of no mitigation measures to offset ' these County impacts on the City. Please see Table F-1, Appendix F. When one-time impacts include the additional fire station construction ' requirements for this scenario, these impacts are increased to S16.8 million. Please see Table F-If, Appendix F. ' Cumulative Impacts: In the absence of mitigation measures for recurring or one-time impacts, the cumulative in:pact of annual deficits to the City through ' Project buildout will equal $8.1 million in recurring impacts and $14.4 million in one-time impacts for a total cumulative impact of$22.5 million, in addition to ' S1.15 million per year in recurring impacts every year thereafter. Please see Table B-9, Appendix B, page B-3. ' If Fire Department impacts are included, the cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City under this scenario through Project buildout increases to S41.8 million. ' When this cumulative recurring deficit is combined with one-time impacts which include needed fire station construction, the total cumulative impact on the City ' through Project buildout is $58.6 million, plus $5.3 million per year every year thereafter. ' Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/IS/1994 on Cite of Huntington Beach Page 15 1 1 ' III. Major Assumptions and Methodolog y ' Due to the lack of adequate information in the DEIR regarding the development program and phasing, certain assumptions have been required in order to perform this analysis. The ' Fiscal Impact Report ("FIR") on the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan ("EIR/EIS") completed in March 1992 provides the basis for many of these assumptions, the most critical of which ' involve pricing and absorption rates for dwelling units within the Project. Pricin : The average dwelling unit price in the previous FIR is $325,000. The average ' unit price in this analysis has been reduced to $271,000. This reduction is due in part to the relative concentration of smaller, lower priced units in the LCP area compared to the ' 4,884 total units within the LCP and adjacent City areas. However, the primary reason for the reduction is recognition of the relative permanence of changes in real estate market conditions. In 1992, it was assumed that market prices would return to pre-recession levels fairly quickly. While this was a credible assumptiion in 1992, subsequent events require different assumptions in 1994. Market comparisons in the Huntington Beach area have been reviewed for the purpose of this analysis. The pricing structure assumed here ' reflects the top of the current market in Huntington Beach, assuming an average of about 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit. 1 Absorption: Assumptions regarding absorption rates are based on statements in the DEIR, as well as the prior FIR. The DEIR (page 3-34) refers to Project buildout ' occurring in 12 to 22 years. The previous FIR used al0 year absorption schedule provided by the Project applicant. This analysis assumes absorption rates which achieve ' buildout in 12 to 13 years. Inflation: All fiscal impacts shown in this analysis are in constant 1994 dollars. The fiscal tmodel employed in this analysis is designed to test the impact on long term City fiscal balance of different rates of cost and revenue inflation as well as real estate appreciation. ' However, model outputs are very sensitive to inflation assumptions, and much uncertainty is involved in predicting inflation variables. Furthermore, insertion of different inflation variables into the model masks the true picture of the Project's fiscal impact under ' conditions prevailing today. For these reasons all fiscal analyses discussed here are stated in constant 1994 dollars. ' Methodolozy: For the majority of cost and revenue categories, the methodology employed in estimating recurring fiscal impacts is the Case Study method. The Case ' Study approach projects fiscal impacts based on future service demand or revenue potential, determined through review of City planning documents (master plans for Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Chica Local Coastal Progran► 0211511994 ' on City of Huntington Beach Page 16 1 ' services, the general plan, management studies, etc.) and fiscal documents (budgets), ' analysis of recently completed FIRs on similar local projects, comparisons with the consultant's prior experience and data sources, and, most importantly, interviews with relevant City and other related government agency staff. These various sources of information on service demand and revenue potential are then evaluated for their applicability to the project. Fiscal impact estimates not based on the Case Study approach have employed the Per Capita Multiplier method, which assumes that recurring costs or ' revenues will result from the Project at the same rates per person as currently prevail within the City. Two different methods for assessing impacts are implied by the term Per Capital Multiplier as used in this analysis. These two methods are explained below: ' Standard Per p Mu Capita Multiplier "Per Ca 1" . This first and more standard method is .p Q ' applied to those costs or revenues that are determined to be directly generated by exisiting City residents. As an example, motor vehicle in-lieu revenues from the state are subvented to local jurisdictions based, for the most part, on local residential ' population. On the cost side, the level of local library service costs are generally agreed to be a factor of residential population. ' Per Acre/Per Capita Multiplier ("Per Cap 2". The second type of per capita multiplier used in this analysis is more accurately termed a Per Acre/Per Capita multiplier. With t this approach, when it is determined that a cost or revenue is generated by non-residential (business) as well as residential land uses, then the City-wide cost or revenue impact is first prorated across relative City-wide non-residential versus ' residential developed acres. The second step in this method is to divide the residential portion of the impact by City population to obtain a per capita multiplier for determining Project impacts due to residential development. The impacts of non-residential uses are calculated on a per-acre basis. (No non-residential development is included in the Project as evaluated in this analysis.) An example of a "Per Cap 2" revenue is parking ' fines and delinquencies. A "Per Cap 2" cost is any City department administration cost not included in a Case Study analysis. ' In this analysis, the Case Study method is used to estimate the majority of recurring costs relating to general government, police, fire protection, and public works. Community ' development, community services, and library costs are estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier method. On the revenue side, the Case Study method is employed to determine ' secured and unsecured property taxes, real property transfer taxes, oil extraction taxes, sales and use taxes, utility taxes, and franchise fees. All other City revenues, including ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on Qv of Huntington Beach Page 17 II 1 State subventions; fines, forfeitures and penalties; use of money and property, and ' recreational fees are estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier method. Where possible, fiscal impacts have been estimated based on detailed analysis of the City ' budget for fiscal year 1993-94, and reflect current city service standards. 1 1 ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 18 1 IV. Recurring Fiscal Impacts ' This section identifies and describes the areas of the recurring revenue and cost impacts to ' the City resulting from development of the LCP under each of three development scenarios. After the general description of each revenue and cost impact area, the applicability of the impact to each of the three development scenarios is discussed. Also discussed are the methodology and assumptions used in projecting these impacts. Detailed numerical analysis of the impacts discussed below are contained in Appendices A, ' B, and C for Scenarios #l, #2, and 43, respectively. ' A. Analysis of Recurring Revenues 1. Property Taxes--Secured Roll ' The County Auditor/Controller identifies property tax rates as a percentage of total assessed valuation by Tax Rate Area (TRA). The Project covers all or portions of ' three TRAs in unincorporated Orange County: 073-002, 064-006, and 064-001. The Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement ("Agreement") dictates how property taxes will be allocated between the City and County subsequent to an annexation. Based on the tax allocations in the three TRAs, application of the terms of the ' Agreement results in an allocation of 17.75 percent of the one percent basic property tax levy to the City general fund. However, beginning in 1992-93, the state began to ' shift local property tax revenues from cities and counties to local public schools in order to reduce State apportionments to education, thereby reducing the State's ' budget deficit. The legislated tax shift for 1993-94, combined with the 1992-93 shift, reduces the City's effective portion of the property tax dollar from 17.75 percent to 14.48 percent. This percentage reduction is an estimate based on City information. ' The actual reduction, when these required tax shifts are completely incorporated into the County's tax allocation information system, may turn out to be greater. ' In addition to the general fund amount, the City of Huntington Beach receives an ad valorem tax allocation above the basic one percent tax levy for debt service related to ' the City's Public Employee Retirement System ("PERS"). The PERS allocation is equivalent to five percent of the one percent base levy amount. This PERS allocation is assignable as project-generated revenue because it offsets a cost which would otherwise be paid from general fund revenues. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 19 ' Scenario #1: In this scenario, with the Project annexed to the City, each year the City will receive property taxes equivalent to one percent of assessed valuation ("AV") within the Project area multiplied by the City's estimated 14.48 percent tax ' allocation factor, plus the 5.0 percent PERS override--for a total of 19.48 percent of all property tax. Please see Appendix A, Table A-1 for details on property tax ' revenues under this scenario. Scenario #2: The City will receive property tax revenues from the Project area only tafter the Project is annexed to the City--assumed to occur in the seventh yeart of Project development. ' Scenario #3: Under this scenario, in which the Project remains in the County, the City will receive no property taxes from the Project area. 2. Property Taxes--Unsecured Roll Unsecured property taxes are levied on tangible personal property that is not secured P P Y g P P P Y by real estate. Examples of unsecured property include trade fixtures (e.g., manufacturing equipment and computers), as well as airplanes, boats, and mobile homes on leased land. Based on experience with other projects in Southern ' California, unsecured property values are assumed to average about one percent of secured value for residential land uses and 15 percent of secured value for ' commercial uses. Scenario #1: As with secured property taxes, the City will receive unsecured ' property taxes under this scenario based on the Project's unsecured assessed valuation times 1.0 percent, multiplied by the City's basic levy allocation factor for ' the prior year, assumed to equal 14.48 percent plus 5.0 percent. Please see Appendix A, Table A-1 for more details on unsecured property taxes under this scenario. Scenario #2: As with secured property taxes the City will receive this revenue only ' after annexation into the City. Scenario #3` If the Project remains in the County, the City will not receive revenues from this source. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 20 1 3. Property Tax Transfer The property transfer tax applies to all sales of real property, and is imposed by the County of Orange at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of sale or resale value, excluding assumed liens or encumbrances. Within incorporated areas, revenues from this tax ' are divided equally between the City General Fund and the County General Fund. This analysis includes revenues from this source at the time the developer sells the property to its first buyer and subsequently each time the property is resold. It is assumed that residential property is resold every 13.33 years, for an average annual ' turnover rate of 7.5 percent, and that commercial / industrial property is resold every 20 years, for an average annual turnover rate of five percent. This analysis assumes ' that continuing liens and encumbrances are insignificant. Scenario #1: The City will receive this revenue from the Project under this ' annexation scenario. Please see Table A-1 for details. ' .Scenario #2: Only after annexation of the Project area will the City receive this revenue. ' Scenario #3: No revenues from this source are generated for the City under this scenario. ' 4. Oil Extraction Tax Oil Barrel Tax ' The City imposes a tax on each barrel of oil extracted from active wells within the City. The current tax rate is about $0.21 per barrel. Oil well production on the ' project site estimated at 876,000 barrels in 1992-93. Oil production is expected to decline at eight percent per year. Based on these factors, revenues to the City have ' been estimated through Project buildout. Scenario #1: This revenue will accrue to the City under this scenario to the extent ' that oil producing portions of the Project are also within City boundaries. Please see Table A-1, Appendix A for further detail. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 21 ' Scenario #2: As with Scenario #1 these revenues will flow to the City only during ' the time that the Project's oil producing areas are within City limits. Scenario #3: These revenues will not accrue to the City under this scenario. 5. Sales and Use Taxes ' The fiscal model has the potential to estimate Project sales and use tax revenues from P J ' two sources: (1) direct sales tax revenues from taxable retail sales at on-site retail facilities, and (2) indirect sales tax revenues from Project residents' taxable expenditures, or stimulation of expenditures, within Huntington Beach City limits. ' Inasmuch as the LCP includes no on-site commercial development, the Project as evaluated in the analysis will not generate direct sales tax revenues. Indirect Sales Tax Revenues The Project will contribute sales tax receipts to the City by increasing the local population, hence, the total purchasing power of local residents. These indirect ' sales tax revenues have been estimated using two methods. The first method is based on anticipated household income within the Project, using an assumed retail expenditure share and a City retail capture rate. The second method is based on an ' estimate of City per-household sales tax generation from the City's sales tax consultant. Although both methods are shown in the fiscal model (see Tables A-2 t and C-2), the second method based on an estimate of sales tax generation per City-area household has been incorporated into the fiscal impact calculation because the data appears more reliable, even though it is two years old. (Data on ' household incomes based on house prices and data on taxable expenditures as well as data on the location of these expenditures as a percentage of income has enough ' significant unreliable variables to make it the second choice if more direct information is available, such as in this case.) For this second method of estimating Project indirect sales tax generation, the analysis utilizes a factor from ' the City's sales tax consultant of$143 per Project household. ' Scenario #1, #2, and#3: All sales tax revenues generated from Project residents' taxable expenditures at locations within Huntington Beach will accrue to the City under all three scenarios. Please see Tables A-2 and C-2 for details on this revenue source. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolva Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 22 1 6. Utility User Taxes and Franchise Fees Utility user taxes are levied on residential and commercial consumers of electric, gas, cable, water, telephone and refuse collection services. The City of Huntington Beach assesses the consumers of all of these services except refuse collection at a tax rate of ' five percent of service billings. Franchise fees may be levied on privately owned utility companies (except telephone companies), cable television companies, and selected other businesses for the privilege of using City rights-of-ways. The City of ' Huntington Beach levies a five percent franchise fee on the local cable company. Three of the five percent accrues to the general fund, two of the five percent is ' earmarked for a City cable / video fund. To offset the loss of taxes on water utility assets, the City water utility is assessed an in-lieu tax of 15 percent of revenues. Utility tax and franchise fee revenues accruing to the City from the Project have been ' estimated based on (1) average service usage factors for residential and commercial / industrial customers supplied by various Southern California utilities, and (2) billing ' rates obtained from local service providers and the City. ' Scenario #1: The Project will generate revenues to the City under this scenario. Please see Table A-2 for details on this source of revenue. ' Scenario #2: After annexation these revenues will flow to the City. ' Scenario #3: Under this scenario the Project will generate no revenues to the City. ' 7. General Fund Per Capita Revenues All the revenue sources evaluated above are Case Study revenues. Calculation of the balance of revenues to the City from Project development are based on either the "Per Cap 1" or "Per Cap 2" per capita multiplier approaches as discussed in Section ' II.B. Results of analysis of the 1993-94 City budget to determine sources of ' Project-generated per capita revenues can be found in the Appendices for Scenario #1 and Scenario #3, Tables A-3a and C-3a, respectively. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 23 Scenario #1: Under the scenario that the Project is developed in the City, the total annual per capita revenues generated by the Project are estimated at $93.96. As can be seen on Table A-3a, the largest per capita revenue source is the Motor Vehicle in Lieu subvention from the State at $33.71 per resident. Other significant per capita revenues are charges to the water fund (for City administrative services) at $10.88 per capita and utility unitary (property)taxes at $5.83 per resident. rScenario #2: Project-generated revenues under this mid-development annexation scenario are comprised of Scenario #3 revenues for the initial phase of development ' during which the Project is in the County and Scenario #1 revenues after annexation (see Scenario #1 above). Scenario #3: These per capita revenues, along with sales taxes are the only sources of income to the City if the Project remains in the unincorporated County. City ' revenues from parking (beach and retail/commercial), beach and park concessions, and recreation program fees are generated by residents in the general area and even the region who use City beaches, commercial facilities, parks, or recreation programs. The revenues accruing to the City as a result of Project residents' use of City facilities and programs is estimated at $15.88 per Project resident per year under ' Scenario 43. Please see Table C-3a in Appendix C for details on this source of revenue under Scenario #3. ' 8. Other Sources of Revenue ' The fiscal model on Tables A-3, B-3, and C-3 includes Gas Tax subventions, Transportation Fund (Measure "M"), and Fire-Medical Program revenues as ' potential sources of income stemming from Project development. Of these three revenues only Fire-Medical Program funs are a probable income source relating to the Project. Gas tax funds not transferred into the general fund and Measure "M" ' funds are utilized by the City for capital improvement projects and therefore do not contribute revenues for ongoing street maintenance and repairs typically funded from igeneral fund revenues. ' Scenario #l: With the Project a part of the incorporated City under this Scenario, revenues will be generated by the Project due to Fire-Medical Program subscriptions and service fees at the same rate as other residential areas within the City. Based on ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 24 ' the 1993-94 City budget this income is estimated at $8.37 per capita. This revenue source is treated on Table A-3b in Appendix A. Scenario #2: Revenues from the Fire-Medical Program will accrue to the City only ' when the Project is within the incorporated City unless special arrangements are made to extend this service to the Project area. Therefore this analysis assumes income to the City from the Project from this source only after annexation. Scenario #3: If the Project remains in the County, no revenues will be generated to ' the City from the Fire-Medical Program, specifically, or these "Other" revenue sources in general. 1 1 ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Prograin 0211511994 on Cily of Huntington Beach Page 25 ' B. Analysis of Recurring Costs ' 1. General Government and Administration ' This analysis utilizes the ratio of general government and administrative costs (City Council, Administration, Treasurer, Attorney, Clerk, and Administrative Services--"G&A") to all other general fund operations and maintenance costs as the ' factor for establishing the cost of providing City G&A services to the Project. This ratio is applied annually to the total of all Project-generated direct City operation and ' maintenance ("O&M") costs to determine a corresponding yearly share of G&A costs for the project. As may be seen on Table A-5b, Appendix A "City Budget Analysis - 1. General Government," based on the 1993-94 City Budget, the ratio of G&A costs to other City costs is .0932 to one. ' Scenario #1: Under this scenario the Project will generate G&A costs to the City from initial Project occupancies. Please see Table A-5b for more information on this cost area. Scenario #2: The Project is anticipated to create G&A costs to the City only during the time it is in the incorporated City. Scenario #3: While initial analysis has concluded that no G&A costs will be generated to the City when the Project is in the County, this conclusion is under further review. Subsequent revisions to the fiscal model and analysis may include a tG&A factor in order to account for City overhead costs relating to the Project's other indirect impacts on the City. 2. Non-Departmental Costs ' Non-Departmental costs consist mainly of City utilities such as gas for powering flood control and sewer lift stations, water for park and city landscaping ' maintenance, electricity for street and traffic light illumination, and funds to pay the cost of certificates of participation ("COPs" - debt service / lease) on civic center ' buildings. As shown on the bottom portion of Table A-5b in Appendix A (and Table C-5b in Appendix C), this cost is spread as a "Per Cap 2" cost and is assessed to both residential and business land uses. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 26 Scenario #1: This cost will fully apply to the Project when it is a part of the City. Please see Table A-5b in Appendix A for details on these costs. 1 Scenario #2: This cost will apply fully when the Project is a part of the City. A ' portion of these costs are estimated to be generated to the City while the Project is in the incorporated County--as discussed under Scenario #3. ' Scenario #3: This analysis assumes that Project residents' use of City streets and parks and other City facilities will result in costs to the City for the utilities to operate ' these facilities such as electricity for traffic lights and street lights and water for parks and street landscape maintenance. As can be seen on Table C-5b in Appendix C, ' costs are allocated to Project residents for City utilities at a rate equivalent to 25 percent of that for City residents. This allocation results in a cost to the City of $4.25 per Project resident per year if the Project remains in the County. 3. Police Services ' Cost impacts on the Huntington Beach Police Department resulting from the LCP P � P g ' have been estimated differently based on whether or not the Project is incorporated into the City. The method of calculation of these impacts is discussed under the individual scenarios below: 1 Scenario #1: If the Project area is a part of the City, then a "Per Cap 2" ' methodology is employed. After spreading police service costs over City residential versus non-residential acreage, the resultant per resident cost is $134.54. Project population during any year in which the Project is a part of the City, multiplied by ' this per-resident cost of police service determines total cost of police service to the Project for that particular year. Please see Appendix A, Table A-5c for the ' calculation of the cost multiplier and Table A-5 for the annual flow of costs. Scenario #2: Police costs under this scenario are a combination of Scenario #3 during the period the Project remains in the County and Scenario #1 for the years after annexation. ' Scenario #3: Under this scenario the Huntington Beach Police Department has determined that additional service requirements generated by Project residents' ' activities both within the City and on the Project site (calls for back-up) will ' Fiscal Impacts ofBolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/1S/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 27 1 necessitate adding two police officers to the force at Project buildout. At a full cost of $147,000 per officer, including support personnel, administration and overhead, ' the cost of providing police service to the Project under this scenario is $294,000 annually at buildout. This equates to $28.92 per Project resident per year. Please ' see the Police Department's comments on the LCP EIR as well as Appendix C, Table C-5c and Table C-5 for additional detail on police costs to the City if the Project remains in the County. 4. Fire Protection Services As with police services, the calculation of fire protection costs varies greatly ' depending on the scenario. The method for deriving these costs is described under the individual scenarios below: ' Scenario #1: If the Project is developed within the City, the Fire Department will locate a station on the Project site. An on-site station would enable adequate fire ' protection services with acceptable response times to the residences within the Project and, depending on ultimate Project circulation system design, also adequate response times to areas outside the Project. The on-site station would consist of a ' fire truck, fire engine, paramedic van, and an ambulance. A total of 33 professional fire fighters and / or emergency medical personnel for a total of 1 1 around-the-clock ' staff would be required in order to man this station. Total annual operating costs for this station are $2.98 million. Estimated "fair share" costs (based on service radius) to the Project for operation of this station at buildout are $1.53 million annually. ' Please see Table A-5d and Table A-5 in Appendix A for information on these costs and the phasing of these costs. ' In addition to these site specific "case study" fire control and emergency medical ' service costs, please refer to Table A-5d for the per capita costs of other fire department services such as fire prevention, hazardous materials control and response, and dispatch network operations. These services are provided on a Citywide basis and lend themselves to a per-capita cost evaluation. As can be seen on Table A-5d, these per capita costs equal $13.98 per year. Scenario #2: Please see the discussion under Scenarios #1 and #3. ' Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Cliica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on Cilp of Huntington Beach Page 28 I Scenario #3: If the Project is developed in the County and fire protection is ' provided by the County Fire Department, the Huntington Beach Fire Department has indicated that two additional fire stations may be required within the City to cover this "hole" created in service radius' and related emergency response times. (Please ' see the comments on fire protection in the City's LCP EIR Response Letter for further details on station location impacts resulting from the Project and from the ' various development and circulation-related alternatives.) Two additional fire stations would cost $4.2 million per year to operate. Thus the ' impact of development within the County, even though indirect, is of very considerable magnitude for the City and the Fire Department. The estimated impact ' of$4.2 million to operate two additional City stations is of such a magnitude that this cost impact has been omitted from the impact model for one version of the Scenario #3 impact analysis. However, this cost impact is quantified and included in a second set of relevant output tables from the Scenario #3 impact model. Output results from Scenario #3--Project Remains 111 County, With I-'ire Cost Impacts can be found on ' Tables C-5f and C-9f, pages C-6 and C-7 of Appendix C. 5. Public Works Public Works Department cost impacts from the Project consist of six separate ' components: (1) A per capita cost multiplier for Department administration and general city-wide facilities maintenance, (2) a per-acre local park landscape ' maintenance cost, (3) a per-lane-mile street maintenance cost for Project on-site streets, (4) a per acre street landscape maintenance cost for on-site street parkways and medians; (5) a per-streetlight maintenance and illumination cost for on-site street lights; and, (6) a per-lane-mile maintenance cost for the Project's impacts on the existing City system. This last cost includes a full maintenance cost consisting of a ' street surface maintenance and replacement program plus street landscaping and street tree maintenance costs. The application of each of these six public works cost impacts to the three development scenarios is discussed below. 1 Scenario #1: Annexation and development of the Project within the City will create costs for all six public works cost components. Please refer to the following tables in Appendix A for a description of how these six cost components are applied to this scenario. Tables A-6a and A-6b, pages a-11 and a-12, describe and estimate the phasing of Project public works cost-related infrastructure. Table A-5e shows ' Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 29 1 1 ' derivation of the costs factors. Table A-6 shows the phasedflow of local park, street, street landscape, and street lighting costs as the cost factors are applied to infrastructure development. Table A-5 summarizes these public works cost impacts as part of the overall recurring cost summary. Scenario #2: As with most of the other revenue and cost impacts, these costs shift ' from Scenario #3 costs to those of Scenario #1 at the year of annexation, which in this analysis is set at Project year seven. ' Scenario #3: Under the scenario in which the Project remains in the County, Public Works impacts will occur in three areas (i) Department administration and overhead ' costs related to Project off-site traffic and drainage impacts, (ii) local park maintenance costs for impacts of Project residents on parks within the City, and (iii) Project-generated off-site street maintenance costs. Please see the tables in ' Appendix C corresponding to the tables listed in Scenario 41, above, for details on the calculation of these costs. ' 6. CommunityDevelopment.p t. ' The Community Development Department provides development control services--planning and building / safety--to development and / or building activities within the City limits. The three Project development scenarios will have the following cost impacts on these services. Scenario #l: Developed within the City, the Project will create cost impacts on Community Development Department. This analysis assumes these costs will be ' "Per Cap 2" per capita multiplier to account for Department costs, net of fees, permits, and inspection charges. Please see Table A-5f for the derivation of this per ' capita cost. Scenario #2: Development under this "transitional" scenario will cause cost impacts only after annexation for Community Development services. ' Scenario #3: Project development in the County will not have direct or indirect cost impacts on the Community Development Department. These activities generally ' apply only to development within the City. However, annexation and planning for ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City ojHuntington Beach Page 30 annexation can create costs which may require uire consideration in the future. The ' impact model does not account for the costs to the City of the annexation process. ' 7. Community Services Community Services provides recreational, cultural, educational, and social services ' to the community. The Department also provides beach supervision and lifeguard services for the City's beaches and waterfront areas. Cost impacts to this ' Department are evaluated below under the individual scenarios. Scenario #1: Development of the Project within the City will generate direct costs ' to this City department from Project residents. The cost of operating the activities and programs of this Department are estimated based on the per capita multipliers. It ' should be noted that these costs are offset by fees charged for various programs as well as revenues from parking, recreational fees, and City concessions. The per capita multiplier costs are shown in Table A-5g. The offsetting revenues, such as parking and recreational fees, can be found in Table A-3a. Scenario #2: Project costs for this scenario will be equal to Scenario 43 prior to annexation and to Scenario #1 after annexation. ' Scenario #3: In the absence of differential fees for non-City residents--or some other form of restriction--it is anticipated that as a result of their proximity, Project ' residents will utilize City programs and enjoy the benefits of City beaches at the same rate as City residents. Therefore the cost impacts and the relevant offsetting ' revenues are essentially the same for this scenario as for those under Scenario #1. ' 8. Library Services As with Community Services above, it is anticipated that, in the absence of increased ' fees or some other limitation, Project residents will use Library facilities of the City of Huntington Beach at the same rate as other City residents, regardless of whether ' the Project is inside or outside City boundaries. Therefore the per capita cost multiplier and the resultant cost to the City remains the same for each of the three development scenarios. ' Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Reach Page 31 1 9. Fixed Asset Replacement ' Fixed asset replacement represents the cost to replace deteriorating City infrastructure and facilities. A study performed by Management Services Institute in ' 1991-92 determined that the City was falling behind in asset replacement at the rate of $45 million per year. The Fixed Asset Replacement cost category in this fiscal ' analysis is the Project's future share of replacing deteriorating City facilities such as City buildings, storm drains and pumps, sewer system, park facilities, side walks, and street lights. The cost of City street replacement is not included here, but is allocated ' to the project as a part of the per-lane-mile cost for off-site street maintenance. Described below are the fixed asset replacement costs under each of the three scenarios: Scenario #1: If developed as a part of the incorporated City, the Project will carry ' its full City-wide share of fixed asset replacement cost. The list of City assets and respective replacement cost schedules along with the City budget have been reviewed with City staff in order to reduce or eliminate any double counting with replacement programs already included the budget. As shown on Table A-5h in Appendix A, the annual per capita cost for asset replacement per Project resident for this scenario is $90.04. ' Scenario #2: Project costs for this scenario will equal those of Scenario #3 for the years prior to annexation and those of Scenario #1 after annexation. ' Scenario #3: The City's schedule of assets requiring replacement has been evaluated under this scenario to determine which assets are expected to be utilized by Project residents while living in the unincorporated County. For those assets used by Project residents, a replacement cost share has been prorated to them. Please refer to Table ' C-5h for details on this allocation. ' Fiscal Impacts of Boha Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 32 1 VI. One-Time Fiscal Impacts 1 A. Types of One-Time Fiscal Impacts One-time fiscal impacts consist of two types: (1) impacts on City capital facilities ' and infrastructure, and (2) impacts on City services to provide one-time development control functions, including plan review, engineering plan review and inspections, ' and building and safety plan review, permits, and inspections. For this second type of one-time impacts, it is the responsibility of the City to establish development control fees for plan review, permits, and inspections at an appropriate level to ' completely compensate the City for the performance of these services. While this analysis presents an estimate of development control impacts if the LCP were ' developed within the City, it can be seen on Tables D-1, E-1, and F-1 in Appendices D, E, and F that the analysis further assumes that fees and charges for these one-time services will offset the cost impacts on the City. The one-time impacts from ' development control services are assumed to create no potential unmitigated impacts on the City. ' The first type of one-time impacts mentioned above, impacts on capital facilities, is currently mitigated by the City in two different ways. One method involves the ' establishment of an impact fee for which the relationship ("nexus") between new development and the impact on a particular type of facility has been demonstrated. This method involves adoption by the City of an impact fee ordinance. The City currently impact fees for development impacts on streets (traffic mitigation fees), library facilities, local park facilities, and City sewer and water lines. The City is also ' in the process of establishing an impact fee for the City water utility in conjunction with a water facilities financing program for the City's Water Master Plan update. ' Please refer to Tables D-1, E-1, and F-1 for an estimate of the facilities impacts of development and corresponding City capital facilities impact fees for the Project. The City's second method for mitigating one-time capital facilities impacts has been through a development agreement. Among other things, developer agreements ' govern the terms and magnitude of developer exactions for service and facilities impacts, including access to special financing districts. This analysis assumes that for Scenario #1 the City will enter into a development agreement to fund facilities ' impacts of the Project on City fire, police, and community services (including marine 1 Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/1 S/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 33 t 1 safety). The Ci 's use of a development agreement as a method for mitigating Y tY P S�' g g ' facilities impacts for Scenario #2 and #3 would, at best, be problematical unless the County were to include the City in negotiations for an agreement of this type. Please refer to Tables D-1, E-1, and F-1 in Appendices D, E, and F for an estimate of those ' City facilities impacts which would need to be offset through a development agreement. ' B. One-Time Fiscal Impacts Under the Three Scenarios ' Scenario #1: As can be seen in Table D-1, Appendix D, development of the Project within the City is estimated to generate over $32.2 million in one-time fiscal impacts. ' This total is comprised of $21.7 million in impact fees, $3.5 million in facilities impacts not covered by impact fees, and $7.0 million in one-time development ' control services. However, with development of the Project occurring within the City, current City impact fees are assumed to pay for, or be adjusted to pay for, ' capital facilities covered by existing fee ordinances. It is further assumed here that development control service charges will be set to insure that costs of providing these services are offset. Finally, it is also assumed that a development agreement will be negotiated by the City to offset impacts to those facilities not covered by existing impact fee ordinances. ' In summary, although one-time impacts on the City may be greatest under Scenario #1, these impacts are assumed to be completely offset by developer payments or ' some other financing plan, leaving no unmitigated one-time impacts. Scenario #2: This development scenario, which assumes annexation of the Project into the City in the seventh year of development, shows an estimated $8.3 million in potential unmitigated one-time fiscal impacts. As can be seen on Table E-1, Appendix E, foregone impact fees for traffic, library, and parks and recreation comprise $6.3 million of this amount. Facilities impacts for fire protection, police, ' and community service, which are not covered by existing fees, constitute the balance of these costs with $2.0 million in unmitigated impacts. ' For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that impact fees/payments are made one year prior to occupancy of the residential units by the ultimate owner. However, depending on the program and method established by the County for collection of any corresponding payments while the Project is in the County prior to annexation, ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 34 1 ' substantial portions of impact fee amounts which should be applied to City impacts ' after annexation could have already been paid to the County. This may create a potential future problem--that of reallocating these impact fees back to the City. ' Scenario #3: Under Scenario #3, in which the Project remains in the County, the City will forego $14.4 million in fees to offset impacts on City facilities. Of these ' impacts $10.85 million will be impacts mitigatable through existing impact fee ordinances. Impacts on City facilities not currently subject to impact fees, including fire protection, police, and community services, will be $3.55 million. Please see ' Table F-1, Appendix F for calculation of these one-time impacts. As discussed in Section II.B.4, if the Project remains in the County, and the County provides fire service to the Project from an off-site County fire state, it will be necessary for the Huntington Beach Fire Department to construct and man two additional stations in the City. The one-time cost to the City of constructing these two additional stations and supplying these stations with the necessary apparatus is ' estimated at $5.6 million. An additional table, Table F-If, in Appendix F reflects the added one-time cost to the City of providing these facilities. This third scenario, with full accounting for impacts on the Fire Department will generate a total of $16.8 tmillion in one-time fiscal impacts on the City of Huntington Beach. ' 1:\hbbc Jcp_fv.sam ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 3S 1 � APPENDIX A 1 SCENARIO #1 ' ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT 1 1 r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r rr r r r rr TABLE A-1 ROLSA C717CA LCP EIR(4290 FJR SCENARIO JI—ANNFAA710N PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT CASE MIDY REVENUES:PROPERTY TAXES -**ESCALATION RATES*„ AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES *•*NONE••• ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUP QM QIL RESERVES AD VALORUM TAX ASSUA moy-S PLEASE REFER TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL-AS%OF SECURED: 1.0% ESTIMATED OIL RESERVES 10,000,000 BARRELS ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINING CALCULATIONS OF PROJECT NON-RESIDENTIAL-AS%OF SECURED: 15.0% ESTIMATED PRODUCTION 976,000 BARRELS/YR ASSESSED VALUE. PRODUCTION DECLINE 8.00% CURRENT ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE 514.20 BARREL TAX RATE TO CITY (SEE APPORTIONMENT FACTORS) PROPERTY TAX A ON REAL PROPERTY TRANWER TAX ASSUMP11QNS APPORTIONMENT FACTORS(FRACTION OF 1.0%PROP.TAX): RESIDENTIAL PROP TURN-OVER RATE 7.5% -CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND: 0.1448 BUS&COM PROP TURN-OVER RATE 5.0% CIIT OIL EXTRACTION TAX_AS91ffT1Q I5 -PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 0.0500 TRAM-I]t TAX(%OF SALES DOLLARS) 0.055% CITY TAX PFR BARREL OF 011, $0.2081 BARREL (PER PRODUCING WELL>10 BBU/QTR) BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Sx x1000) TOTALS 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 ------------—--------------------------------------•-----------------•--••-- ------------ ------------ ............... ............... •—----------- ......--..... ------------- .............. — — — — — ------------- ASSESSED VALUE-RESIDENTIAL 51,160,752 $46,410 $166,430 $263,415 $335,835 5413,143 $511,063 $631,159 $792,119 5898,5N $1,013.929 $1,100.742 51,160,752 $1,160,752 ASSESSED VALUE-BUSINESS CURRENT AV DEDUCTION CUMULATIVE PROJECT VALUATION $1,160,752 $46,410 $166,430 $263,415 $335,835 5413,143 $511,063 5631,139 $782,119 $898,569 $1,013,829 $1,100,742 $1,160,752 $1,160,752 (%INCREASE OVER PRIOR YEAR) 259.61% 58.27% 27.49% 23.02% 23.70% 23.50% 23.92% 14.89% 12.83% 8.57% 5.45% ............................................... —---------------------------- SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND S67 $241 5381 5486 5598 5740 $914 $1,133 51,301 $1,468 $1,594 $1,681 $1,681 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. $23 $83 5132 $168 5207 $256 $316 $391 $449 $507 $550 $580 $590 —----------—--------------•-••------------ ------ UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: RESIDENTIAL&NON-RESIDENTIAL(SEE ASSUMPS): CITT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND $I $2 $4 S5 $6 $7 $9 $I 1 S13 S15 $16 $17 $17 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. SO $I $I $2 $2 $3 $3 $4 S4 $5 $6 $6 $6 ----------—--------—-------•—------------------------------------------ TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES(SECURED+UNSECURED) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND S68 $243 5385 5491 5604 $747 5923 $1,144 51,314 $1,483 $1,610 51,698 $1,698 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. $23 S84 5133 5170 $209 $258 $119 $395 5454 $512 3556 5586 5596 -----------------—• •----_--.—.— ...... .— REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUES FROM: NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALES S26 S66 $53 $40 $43 $54 S66 $83 $64 $63 $48 $33 RESIDENTIAL RESALES $2 37 $11 $14 $17 $21 $26 S32 S37 $42 S45 $48 NEW NON-RES PROPERTY SALES NON-RES PROPERTY RESALES TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $26 $68 $60 $51 $56 $71 SR7 $109 $96 SI00 S90 S78 $49 ------------------------------------------—---------—----------------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------•----•------------•-----•—•------------••------------------.......---------•--------------•-.•----------------_•_--•-------•-•---- OIL RESERVE AD VALOREM(PROPERTY)TAXES\1 $142 5129 5117 5106 $96 $87 $78 $70 $63 $57 S51 S45 $40 CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES $142 $131 5120 SI I I $102 $94 S96 S79 $73 $67 $62 $57 $52 NOTES: I.CITY RECEIPT OF THIS REVENUE IS DEPENDENT ON CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION. THEREFORE THIS REVENUE IS SHOWN HERE BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROJECT-GENERATED REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE CITY. cAca l%bcco4286\bc fir.wk3 9 Public Econo:nics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 �r rr r� r �r rr it rr rr rr r r �r r rr rr rr rr rr TABLE A-2 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(486)FIR SCENARIO II-ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT CASE.STUDY REVENUES: SALES TAXES,UTILITY TAXES,FRANCHSE PEES INDIIiPCT SALES TAX GENERATION AS"IFTION8 pIRECi BALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS UTILITY TA%/FRANCH -CALCULATION METHOD II 'BASIC'SALES TAXES TO CITY(%OF SALES) I AO% UTILIY UTIL TAX% FRANCH FEE%U PROJECT RESIDENTS'PURCHASES WAN CITY(%): 50.0% PROJECT TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT: WATER 5.0% 15.0% in lien (EXCLUDING ONSITE PURCHASES) RETAIL(NEIGHBORHOOD) S130 GAS 5.0% N/A RETAIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURES(AS%OF INCOME): 25.0% BUSINESS(OFFICE,INDUSTRIAL) SI0 TELEPHONE 5.0% N/A -CALCULATION METHOD/2 ELECTRICITY 5.0% N/A AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER HOUSEHOLD: $143\1 %SALES TO NON-PROJECT RESIDENTS 50.0% CABLE 5.0% 3.0% PUBLIC SAFETY AUGMENTATION FUND('PSAF-) S0.26 per cap/emp\3 BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (St x1000) TOTALS 1995-96 1996-97 1997.98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 20D2-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005M 2006-07 2007-08 SALES TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION -CALCULATION METHOD/I(%INCOME) ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME $13,496 $49,475 $79,420 $103,560 $128,479 $158,346 $193,250 $236,817 $270,524 $303,891 $328,535 $344,%0 $344.960 TAXABLE PURCHASES WIIN CITY $1,687 $6,184 $9,928 $12,945 $16,060 $19,793 $24,156 $29,602 $33,815 $37,996 $41,067 $43,120 $43,120 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION $17 $62 $99 $129 $161 $198 $242 $296 $338 $390 $411 $431 $431 CALCULATION METHOD/2(SALES TAXES PER DU) PROJECT HOUSEHOLDS 144 557 930 1,290 1.649 2,045 2,472 3,000 3,412 3,820 4.113 4,296 4,296 TOTAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION $21 $90 $133 $184 $236 $292 $353 $429 S488 5546 $588 $613 $613 .._......_..........._........._.....__...._..._._.._.._._....__...... _._.-._ DIRECT BALES TAX GENERATION (This Project allematiw includes no sources of direct salts tax revenues.) ANNUAL TAXABLE RETAIL SALES ANNUAL TAXABLE BUSINESS SALES TOTAL DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ................................_.......----.-......-------................... TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES(FNDIt(02)+DIR) $21 $90 S133 SIM $236 $292 5353 5429 S488 $546 5588 $613 $613 ............................_.-_.........._...-._._._-.....-.._.......-_-........_................_......_.................................................._...._............--------'-.._..........._......... PUBLIC SAFETY AUGMENTATION FUNDS(PSAF)\3 SO SO SI $I $I $I SI $2 $2 $2 $3 $3 S3 UTILITY TAX/FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE CALCULATIONS: (SEE ASSUMPTIONS ABOVE AND IN TABLE A-29) WATER (consumplion per resident/employee) S3 $9 SIS $21 $26 $33 $40 $50 S58 $65 $71 $74 $74 GAS (swage billing) $3 $I I SI9 $26 $34 $42 $51 $62 $70 $79 S84 $98 $89 TELEPHONE (average billing) $2 $9 SI5 S21 $27 S34 $41 $49 S56 $63 S68 $71 $71 ELECTRICITY (awngc billing) S3 $12 $20 $28 $36 $45 $54 S66 $75 $94 $90 $94 $94 CABLE (avenge billing x penetration rate) S4 S14 S23 S32 $41 $51 S62 $75 S85 S96 $103 SI07 S107 ..._..._.................................-............... ........ TOTAL UTILITY TAX/FNANCH LSE PEE REVENUES $15 $56 $93 $129 $165 $204 $248 $302 S344 S396 $416 $434 $434 NOTES: I.SOURCE- HINDERLITER,DELLAMAS&ASSOCIATES;CITY SALES TAX CONSULTANT 2.PORTION OF FRANCHISE FEE WHICH CONTRIBUTES REVENUE TO THE CITY GENERAL FUND 3.PSAF REVENUES GROW ONLY WITH OVERALL COUNTY SALES TAX GROWTII,NOT WITH CITY OR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH. THIS REVENUE IS AN ESTIMATE BASED ON EXPECTED INCREASED RECEIPTS TO CITY RESULTING FROM A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN COUNTY SALES TAXES. BASED ON POPULATION AND/OR EMPLOYMENT GROWTH MULTIPLIER. abrt%00042Wbc 6r.wkS a Public Economics,loc. 14-Fcb-94 N P z g w I IR m 1R IR IR IR IR IR IR ��� IR IR IR IR N a LL >^�8a 8n 9 p R hhB S '=�g�R 8 8 H D°GL� j ;» « n mON7n mn e�m <n^«fix mn � a � tl Oc7 i N MNNNN n » u .Y �t .ZZ-a X-m -1 n • ° • u tl tl u n n i j a tl a u u O y i u p n u n 8 56 V 1 �' I NNNN n«-P II $ II N Nm ^<F Nt�i • O MMM F H i o t N II II II II II �j� I II II II II II w n n n n n O< I n n n n n p �m °�—q ! 6 .� » tc7«w ° N Z N?g<�p m opppppppp � 11 _ n n < w i �.' i N M M ~ N u N— N N N M M N n 11 a1 11 « z» nw n n = } g I 4 p n p N 11 n u u 6 w w II P N P— Z N M N N P II O II O II o II II N N M II N II N II H w II II II II II O: u n n NN II — `$ u m m P<e�m •N O II „ II 1P II h: w} T N i » II tl N N NNNN Pi II N II M II w. rn� n u Nn n n a� u n d< n n n n °'msjm i s—'—� „"Se n Cu •_� $?�' «fpV End nv n < i II II N II II N II n n j n n u n n n n n n n Mwr«M an N_omll n � n R� fo<m N:m n « n « n w N II II N N N N N II N II « II � �' N i II II N II N II II 0 II II II II II II — 11 II II II < ! I II 11 II II II p(�1 y�j] eC'°$ I Q i '°^HiR C,o`=C,�.' n �, n � <•Sw•o= n r n r n C6�;S} < op� ! I «NNN NNNN II N N tl wN N Z N« «• O �G'fir� } O�' ; • 1 11 tl H N « 11 « II « II O F 1 n n n n u t" et In gQo a n u n u „g nn '^ I 11 � i II II N II N II N II N N N -- <`Z •P —N P M N e��O N O h< m N N„ II r n II <` < N NN II N N II as NZ NN S II • d • II II II II II II n ' at 11 • 11 N » N n n u wa � M N M «N II N M 11 ZNN N — II II II I n n n N n N n n tl n n n n n n n n .1''.«« x«Nn`—� n N w n e�`"N «Z_.�Na ZR n n u < : N .�N w w » 11w 11w n j u n n u u 1 n n u n n n u n n n N«N N N O N N N N II 11 P II n aooi.. t� N II II M M «ZNN »M 11 II O II ap O N � P 1 p II N 11 N II N II — ! II II II II II u u n n n i n n n n n _z u n u n n Q O u n u n n `a n n n n n V II < II O II 11 II LL d pdaC : II � _F„ II Z II p II iF�� Z w n O u w O n n n az z n v F n g u Z n < a n d n <N>> CIm�.6�1 uunan P_~ wZn + Z ZOCO in > ZF0aO 7� Z � O 0mSr YGZ<7 un pnd w Fl II n3 n <—z— Ozu< amOm zO w < j tlu0 nI1I1 m OH�QQU( cfOd Z0 muoliC1 un1p1 a ?1�hwv—,UVI wwy 0 F < ia- z. w Z wmo " Uwo Zoluwt < w �g? 0 6 OOww Oz, Z O< iunIIIiIII i!yZw- inoIIniII aF in, or g i! 6 ]F� 6� OL K F u O Z Z -ag u <u yO< O 6] . O2 � i ,w, raw- w wE w m V aK6 wUZ uZ Nh h O - 11 -<1 p4 FII no < O.z <=! ��r tl0 a .) wO— < V — Q pOiov sCO O w0Q A-3 a y USE K 67 LL i o.0 v tl d $gi g♦ ,° op}<7 I M w M� Hag«» u ri n e u 4 N N ' u n n d P d �� d u YY � I II II II 1ck � ' I I I 11 II II u n u o _ u u <-,JI I r ?S �vNi NM�N M P 6 Se II 11 II K N N N 11 II N II Z O ; 11 II II G 11 11 11 K�m II 11 II y G O ! e'� s =25 N my»N N yO H ry 11 P II P II O LL Z M x N N w II II II F• II II II �6 11 II II O Z - q Z qly Q G ZO PP Z 6 N M N w H« N N H N 11 II II • � � w W {{ii]] 11 N II h II < II II II oC ZZa>�WN I II II II Z• 41 O W W U 6,[ II II II O• Y>N V ry II II II u S C y Q 'a3 0Z Z Y µl p N M N N N N N N Z a V f O YY R « n v p n • GQ. i-,fpp fQQm Z ! 4 II n "OL y.a O U.-1 Z d 11 4 P$ oErPnRv " s a � q v n II N u u u � j urn " n n nu n n n g G � n n n Of1(fO m p �Np 8 + P O n N spy o- N O u e II O II « 11 N II d 11 II I4L y uO p Op [[�� rr II q II u cc OC r N CD R R P N O h P O ry n C' d P 11 u u n H N n n u N A ' it II II II II II ' Z S I N M N N N 11 II II V� II II II i n u n e O ♦♦ pp II Y II N r �N p : C M N N N O M N N M H M N M N H II N II N 11 b� s dpdM u Z u u n j 0 p n n Q n nt ..pp w o _ P p u < II G � «® - O P m 11 0O II p 4 II w -- n n n ,o Z F ij d n nm n n n < LL y K 11 II II -I O Z O ~LL a j 4. II Q II II Z U n v n uj G U U i 0 p, u Z n Z n ' < m c m n O n o d z Z< I: Z u Z q z r� Fes!��-- = Q �'' W W��j' z nz ° pz�' 4Z Z O aa+N�ln t; OLL= - ! {y?� j lzj CZj," G Z`Z, u O u u Z_ C<wwNGZ O� �F v ! > Z vi y < <Z .] d p Z II >o ip7 u m= ag Y i F C °I c U a Z w Z, Z a u Q u o u H ' O��w� dae.O l�ii Q i J mi cOi �ZZZ Z Z ~ tl C n Cg n F a y a h y V j°1i i s z S G e� LL Z Z i H f u a u y n G „<ga�mm FF- qCl < „� < o W gyCSn dna <O °Cida�iH NZ6 �� g}� U a LL d d (i p�y1 Z H FZ p 6 G W 4 pCG O i S V F O wax d 8 m K µy1 p�F ~ q II C II a FZ Oy< ,..1..1 1nn �ij V q y n y� n y fi r 7 7 ad < n .3 P .]5 n m Z O p nc<w n<.�O O m m n C u O u i z A-4 TABLE A-6 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(41M)FIR SCENARIO/1—ANNFXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT RECURRING CITY COSTS: PUBLIC WORKS/OTIIER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE GE7IERAL FUND.COST FACTORS �L FA�p, (06T FACTORS LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE $4,964/ac/yr PARKWAY LANDSCAPING $14,221 /ac/yr OFF-STREET TRAIL MAINTENANCE $4,964 lac/yr MEDIAN LANDSCAPING $14,221 /ac/yr COMMUNITY PARK N/A/ac/yr STREET LIGHTS(ILLUM/MAINT) S111/liglm/yr ROAD FUND.MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS ONSITE STREET MAINT/REPLACE S3,569/lane mi/yr OFFSITE STREET MAINT/REPLACE\1 S6,000/lane mi/yr BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ($a:1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 GENERAL FUND,PARK FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE 312 $36 S50 S50 S55 S74 $104 $135 S166 $I% S227 $252 S252 OFF-STREET TRAIL MAINTENANCE(DEV'MNT AREA S2 S6 S9 S9 S10 S13 $19 S24 $30 $35 $41 $45 $45 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS: $14 $42 S59 $59 $65 $97 S123 S159 $195 S231 $267 $297 $297 ONSITE ROAD FUND,RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE ONSITE STREETS CROSS GAP CONNECTOR $2 $2 S2 $2 $4 $22 $22 $22 S22 S22 S22 $22 ARTERIALS SI $5 $7 S9 $11 S13 S17 S22 $26 S30 $33 S35- $35 LOCAL STREETS 12 $7 S10 S10 $II S14 $20 S26 $32 S38 S44 $49 $49 ONSTTE STREETS MAINT&REPLACE S4 S14 $19 $21 $23 $32 $39 S70 $79 S89 $98 S106 $106 OFFSITE STREETS MAINT k REPLACE\1 $19 $71 S 116 S 156 1197 $246 S304 $378 $436 $493 $534 SSW $560 STREET LANDSCAPING&LIGHTING MAINTENANCE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING $15 S57 $77 $92 $93 S128 $250 $292 $332 $371 $409 Sw S440 MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SI S9 $11 $12 $14 S21 S58 $63 S66 $70 S73 $75 $75 STREET LIGHTS $3 S10 S14 S15 S17 $24 S46 $54 $61 $68 $75 $81 $81 TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING&LIGHTING COSTS $19 $76 S102 Silo $124 S173 $354 S408 $459 $510 $5-57 S5% $596 NOTES: I.INCLUDES MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING IN MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS,STREET TREE MAINTENANCE,AND LONG TERM STREET REPLACEMENT COSTS. a-.\asr1\bmo4286\bo I'v.dk3 '9 Public Economics,Inc. 14-Rb-94 In � a 2 § $ � f | ! � | ■ � § � . � ' k b6IV I g.;2 ;;; 2 222E E■�§ �-$ ; � |§ ! ;:; ; { 8Z - a��� . 2 .Z4 ( ; & §Ek k \ , £ � b ! ' §/ � � \\ � ■(§ � � _� _ : ■ ,) c Fez � - : !\«\ b # b§ |[) ` 2 , E(%E\! k �. ( k \ 2§§[§ -_ / MEE A 6 TABLE A-9 BOISA CHICA LCP FIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO II--ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVFI,OPMENT SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL 131PACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUN) INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE •••NONE••• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ($s X1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $329 $794 $1.140 $1,425 $1,737 $2,124 $2,582 $3,161 S3,579 $4,011 $4,314 $4,508 $4,473 ONGOING COSTS• $718 $1,242 $1,658 $1,989 $2.349 $3,401 $4,141 $4,846 S5,417 $5.984 $6,997 $7,293 $7,293 ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.46 0.64 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.65 0." 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.61 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($389) ($448) ($518) (S565) ($611) ($1,277) ($1,558) ($1,685) ($1,838) ($1,973) ($2,683) ($2,786) ($2,821) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($389) ($837) ($1,355) ($1,919) ($2,531) ($3,808) ($5,366) ($7,051) ($8,889) ($10,862) ($13,545) ($16,331) ($19,151) a • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 141.01% 43.69% 24.92% 21.94% 22.27% 21.57% 22.40% 13.23% 12.05% 7.56% 4.49% -0.78% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 72.96% 33.52% 19.97% 18.07% 44.80% 21.75% 17.04% 11.79% 10.46% 16.93% 4.23% c:\cwi\bcco4286\bc-fir.wk3 1 Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 v APPENDIX A ' SCENARIO pI CITY BUDGET nrvnLrsIs 1 1 TABLE A-3a TABLE A-30 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4296)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1193) 186,966 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 -------------------------------------------- CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(E-M 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE NI ESTIMATE FACTOR\3 PER CAPITA PER ACRE PROPERTY TAXES: SECURED PROPERTY TAXES CASE STUDY UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES RESIDENTIAL CASESTUDY BUSINESS CASE STUDY UTILITY UNITARY TAX\2 PER CAP 1 $1.088,820 $5.93 TOTAL $1,088,820 55.83 OTHER LOCAL TAXES SALES&USE TAX CASE STUDY FRANCHISE FEES&UTILITY TAXES ELECTRICITY CASESTUDY TELEPHONE CASE STUDY GAS CASESTUDY WATER CASESTUDY CABLE CASESTUDY IN LIEU WATER UTILITY CASESTUDY TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PER CAP 2 5312,500 25.00% $1.31 $22.16 CIGARETTE TAX \3 PER CAP 1 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUS ACRE $1,500,000 BUS_LIC $487.01 OIL WELL TAX CASESTUDY LICENSES-OIL INSPECTION CASESTUDY LICENSES/PERMITS-MISCELLANEOUS PER CAP 1 570,000 $0.37 (BICYCLE,BINGO,SWIMMING POOL TOWING,ALARM,MISC.) TOTAL 54,060,140 51.68 $509.17 FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES COURT FINES \4 PER CAP 2 $330,000 $1.46 $24.92 LIBRARY FINES&FEES PER CAP 1 SI40,000 $0.75 PARKING VIOLATIONS-DELINQUENT PER CAP 2 $140,000 30.00% $0.59 $9.93 PARKING FINES PER CAP 2 $275,ODD 50.00% $1.15 $19.30 ALARM BILLING FINES PER CAP 2 $135,000 $0.56 $9.37 TOTAL $1,040,000 54.51 $63.92 USE OF MONEY&PROPERTY RENTALS LAND PER CAP 2 575,000 $0.31 $5.32 INTEREST INCOME-T.R.A.N. PER CAP 2 $450,000 $1.88 531.91 RENTALS,BUILDINGS PER CAP 2 $100,000 50.00% $0.42 $7.09 BEACH&CENTRAL PK CONCESSIONS PER CAP 2 $287,500 50.00% 51.20 $20.39 PARKING LOTS PER CAP 2 $350,000 25.00% $1.46 524.82 INTEREST INCOME-GEN FUND PER CAP 2 $364,000 51.52 525.81 PARKING STRUCTURES PER CAP 2 550,000 25.00% $0.21 $3.55 PARKING METERS-COMMERCIAL PER CAP 2 540,000 50.00% $0.17 $2.84 PARKING METERS-RESIDENTIAL PER CAP 2 541,250 75.00% $0.17 $2.92 PARKING METERS-P.C.H. PER CAP 2 $131,250 25.00% $0.55 $9.31 LATE CHARGES PER CAP 2 550,000 $0.21 $3.55 REDEV AGENCY LOAN INTEREST NA NA TOTAL 51,939,000 58.11 5137.49 Table 3e,confiaued oe:A page w Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 TABLE A-3a,"'t TABLE A-3a =2/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4296)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP(DOF,I/1/91) 181,519 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES11,023 (EST) CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,090 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\l ESTIMATE FACTOR\3 PER CAPITA PER ACRE REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CASE STUDY MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU PER CAP I S6,300,000 $33.71 STATE MANDATED COST REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 2 $134,000 $0.56 $9.50 DIRECT LIBRARY LOANS PER CAP I S50,000 $0.27 STATE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDS PER CAP I S125,000 $0.67 CABLESYSTEMST.V. CASESTUDY (FRANCHISE FEE) REGIONAL NARCOTICS SUPPRESSION PER CAP I TOTAL $6.609,000 S35.21 $9.50 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES SPECIAL POLICE SERVICES NA NA SALES OF MAPS/PUBLICATIONS PER CAP 2 S15,000 $0.06 $1.06 SPECIAL CITY SERVICES PER CAP 5400,000 S1.67 S28.36 RECOMMENDED USER FEES PER CAP 2 S685,000 $2.97 $48.57 CHARGES TO WATER FUND PER CAP $2,600,000 $10.88 SI84.36 JR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM PER CAP I S105,000 75.00R $0.56 LIBRARY SERVICE PER CAP I S70,000 $0.37 RECREATIONAL FEES PER CAP 2 S1,456,000 S6.09 $103.24 PHOTOCOPYING PER CAP I $65,000 SO.35 BLOOD ALCOHOL REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 1 $50.000 $0.27 TOTAL $5.446,000 $23.12 $365.60 OTHER REVENUE PER CAP 2 $656,5M $2.75 $46.55 TOTAL $656,500 $2.75 $46.55 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS SPECIAL GAS TAX PER CAP I $1,680,000 $8,99 TRANSFER-NARCOTICS FUND PER CAP 2 PARKING STRUCTURE PER CAP 2 SI50,000 25.00% 50.63 $10.64 LIBRARY PER CAP 2 $300,000 $1.25 $21.27 CABLE TV PER CAP 2 S89,000 $0.37 $6.31 GOLF COURSE PER CAP 2 SI50,000 75.00% S0,63 $10.64 REFUSE OFFSETTING TRANSFER-FIRE MED PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $210,000 SO.88 S14.89 TOTAL $2,579,000 $12.75 $63.75 GRANDTOTALS S93.96 $1,195.97 NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT REVENUS A.CASE STUDY REVENUE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE I(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,R INSTITUTIONAL USES) D.PER BUSINESS ACRE(BUS ACRE): BASED ON A BUSINESS ACRE SHARE 2.THE UTILITY UNITARY TAX IS DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES ON THE BASIS OF RELATIVE SERVICE AREA. HOWEVER AN AREA-BASED SPREAD IS NOT FEASIBLE IN THIS ANALYSIS AND A PER CAPITA (RESIDENTIAL POP ONLY)FAIRLY APPROXIMATES THE AREA-BASED SPREAD FOR THIS REVENUE SOURCE. 3.THE REDUCTION FACTOR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PORTION OF THESE REVENUES ESTIMATED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE,DIRECTLY OR INDIRF,CTLY,TO LOCAUCII-Y RESIDENTS w Public Ecomvucn,Inc. 14-Feb-94 N TABLE A-3b TABLE A-3b 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EiR(4286)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP FIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. OTHER REVENUE SOURCES CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN, 1/1/93) 196,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA REVENUES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3.090 ------------ ------------------------------------------------ 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE U ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ GAS TAX FUND INTEREST INCOME NA\2 NA\2 STATE TAX 2107 NA\2 NA\2 STATE TAX 2106 NA\2 NA\2 STATE TAX 2105(PROP 111) NA\2 NA\2 TOTAL MEASURE M. 112 CENT SALES TAX CASE STUDY -21%OF THE 1/2 CENT SALES TAX REVENUES FOR MEASURE'M'ARE TO BE ALLOCATED FOR LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS. THE ALLOCATION FORMULA IS WEIGHTED BY POPULATION(50%), COUNTY MASTER PLAN FACIUTIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION(25%). AND THE RATIO OF TAXABLE SALES TO THE OVERALL COUNTY(25%). THIS ANALYSIS ASSUMES THAT THE CITY WILL RECEIVE ITS 'FAIR SHARE'-i.e.A FULL 21%OF THE MEASURE'M'TAXES GENERATED WITHIN THE CITY WILL COME BACK TO THE CITY. FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $2.000,000 $8.37 $141.81 (MEMBERSHIP FEES,CHARGES FOR SERVICES) NOTES: I.TYPES OF PROJECT REVENUS A.CASE STUDY REVENUE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE l(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL.&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.THIS PORTION OF THE STATE GAS TAX SUBVENTIONS ARE PLANNED FOR USE IN STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ONGOING CITY STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.TABLE 3-3e OF'CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS' INCLUDES'SPECIAL GAS TAX'-SEE'TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS'WHICH ARE THE PORTION OF GAS TAX REVENUES FOR GENERAL FUND GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE. N W Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 FILE: BC FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 1.GENERAL GOVERNMENT TABLE: A 5b CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/I/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ------------------------------------------------------------ EXPENDITURE 1993194 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ANALYSIS BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION METHOD\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE I GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION CASE STUDY (AS A PERCENTAGE OF ONGOING DIRECT COSTS) CITY COUNCIL&INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PER CAP 2 $255,742 S1.07 $18.13 ADMIMSTRATTON PER CAP 2 $1,027,294 $4.30 $72.84 CITY TREASURER PER CAP 2 $724,955 $3.03 $51.40 CITY ATTORNEY PER CAP 2 S1,550,535 S6.49 $109.94 CITY CLERK PER CAP 2 $441,434 S1.85 $31.30 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PER CAP 2 S4,287,566 $17.93 $304.02 ------------------------------------------------------------- ....................------- TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 S8,287,516 $34.66 S587.64 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES LESS ABOVE $88,878,607 RATIO OF GEN GOV'T/ADMIN EXPENSE TO OPERATIONAL COSTS: 0.09 TO 1.00 9.32% (RN:GENGOVT_CS) NON DEPARTMENTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PER CAP 2 $637,805 $2.67 $45.22 MICRO SUPPORT PER CAP 2 $53,120 $0.22 $3.77 UTILITIES WATER(IRRIGATION,ETC)\2 PER CAP 2 $355,000 $1.48 $25.17 GAS(SEWER,DRAINAGE PUMPS,ETC.) PER CAP 2 $185,000 $0.77 $13.12 ELECTRICITY(STREET/TRAFFIC LIGHTS, PER CAP 2 $3,524,000 $14.74 S249.88 CITY FACILITIES) \3 ($2,466,263) ($10.32) ($174.88) CIVIC CENTER LEASE PER CAP 2 $2,460,000 $10.29 $174.43 OTHER(CONTR.SVCS,SELF INSURANCE) PER CAP 2 $3,738,000 $15.63 $265.05 TOTAL NON DEPARTMENTAL $9,486,662 $35.50 $601.76 N_DEPT_CAP N DEPT_AC NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT'COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1 (PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.WATER(IRRIGATION,ETC)COSTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO IRRIGATE THE 582 ACRES OF CITY PARKLAND. THE PROJECT COST OF PARKLAND IRRIGATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PARK MAINTENANCE CASE STUDY COST ANALYSIS 3.DEDUCT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT FROM ELECTRICAL IF CALCULATING STREET LIGHTS SEPARATELY,AS A CASE STUDY COST: PER CAP 2 $2,466,263 $10.32 $174.88 -SOURCE OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE COSTS:MSI STUDY,8/91 STLT CAP STLT AC 03 I Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 F FILE:BC FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 2.POLICE SERVICES TABLE: A Sc CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,I/I/93) 186,866 CRY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 IM/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROJECT PROJECT EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST POP: BUS AC: EXPENDITURE.DESCRIPTION TYPE\I ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 10,156 2 POLICE SERVICES ALTERNATIVE POLICE SERVICE COST CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES: METHOD NI(Employed in Amlysie) PER RFS/BUS ACRE: PER CAP 2 $32,166,531 $134.54 $2,280.83 $1,366,436 1993-94 Budget POL CAP POL_BUS METHOD N2 > PER RESIDENT: PER CAP 1 $32,166,531 5172.14 $1,748,239 METHOD#3 > COST PER CALL METHOD BUDGET(1991-92 DATA): $31,096,651 PROJECTED CALLS(1991-92): 104,000 COST PER CALL $299,01 (RN:POL CALL) PROJECT CALLS 4,798(RN:CALLS) (BUILDOUT) PROJECT POLICE COST (BUILDOLI) $1,434,746 (RN:POL COST) CITY DEMOGRAPHICS INFO At POLICE CALLS ANALYSIS SOURCE:1990 CENSUS DATA POLICE ADJUSTED TOTAL TOTAL OCCUP'D HOUSEHOLD VACANCY PERSONS HHOLDS TOTAL HHOLDS ADJUSTED HOUSING TYPE UNITS UNITS POPULATION RATE. PER HHOLD PER CALL CALLS PER CALL CALLS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 34,537 33.539 102,990 2.89% 3.07 2.04 16,441 1.04 32,317 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 8,904 8,372 18,636 5.97% 2.23 1.44 5,814 0.73 11,428 TWO-TO-FOUR PLEXES 9.497 9,070 24,536 4.40% 2.71 1.44 6,299 0.73 12,381 FNE OR MORE UNITS 15.866 14,330 28,410 9.68% 1.98 1.83 7,831 0.93 15,392 MOBILE HOMES 3,942 3,568 6,185 9.49% 1.73 1.44 2,478 0.73 4,971 TOTALS 72,736 68,979 190,757 5.30% 2.62 38,862 76,390 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES 11,023 CITY NON RESIDENTIAL ACRES 3,080 FST'D NON RES BLDG SF(1000 SF) 40,249 40,249 ESTIMATED NON RES SITE COVER 30.00% AVG 1000 SF/POLICE CALL 2.866 1.458 NON RESIDENTIAL POLICE CALLS 14,046 27,610 (ESTIMATED) TOTAL PREDICTED CALLS 52,908 104,000 ACTUAL CALLS 1991-92 104,000 104,000 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.508729 1 NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY M(PF,NSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE I(PER CAP I):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C,PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL.,INDUSTRIAL,R IN.STTTUTIONAL USES) w I Public Econ rt is,Inc. � 14-Feb9d FILE:BC FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 3.FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES TABLE: A Sd CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,111/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,090 ........---.................-....----•--------------- 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 3 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $516,562 $2.16 536.63 FIRE PREVENTION PER CAP 2 $956,170 $4.00 567.80 CIVIL DEFENSWEMERGENCY SERVICES PER CAP 2 $191,664 $0.80 513.59 RESERVE FIREFIGHTERS PER CAP 2 HAZMAT RESPONSE UNIT PER CAP 2 5589,965 $2.47 $41.83 HAZMAT CONTROL PER CAP 2 $479,449 52.01 534.00 HAZMAT PERM ITANSPECTION REVENUES PER CAP 2 (5200,000) (50.84) (S14.19) SEARCH&RESCUE PER CAP 2 $7,576 $0.03 50.54 DISPATCH NETWORK(CENTRAL NET IPA COSTS) PER CAP 2 5776,875 $3.25 555.09 TOTAL $3,318,261 513.88 $235.29 FIRE-CAP FIRE AC FIRE CONTROL AND PARAMEDICS-CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ANNUAL OPERATIONS COST FOR PROJECT FACILITIES TYPE 1 TYPE 2 PROJECT FAIR SHARE STATION STATION ------------------ --------------------- COST ITEM (TRCK,ENG,PARA VAN,AMBUL) (PARA.TRCK) TYPE 1 TYPE 2 PERSONNEL $2,786,442 $948,262 51,430,091 $435,355 EQUIPMENT(MAINT,REPLACE) 5142,256 559,202 573,010 530,384 SUPPLIES/OPERATING 550,723 $28,190 $26,033 $14,468 SUBTOTAL 52,979,421 $933,654 $1,529,134 5480,207 STA O&M_CS STATION DEPRECIATION $113,333 556,667 $58,166 $29,093 FOREGONE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES N/A N/A SUBTOTAL $113,333 $56,667 558,166 $29,083 STATION'FIRST IN'SERVICE AREA DATA SERVICE RESIDENTIAL AREA UNITS SHARE BOLSA CHICA 4,296 51.3% RN:SHARE% HOLLY SEACLIFF\2 4,065 48.7% OTHER AREAS 7 TOTAL 8,351 100.0% NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.SOURCE:HOLLY SEACLIFF ECONOMIC&FISCAL IMPACT STUDY,WKA,I1/93 lb I Public Scowntice,Ioc. 14-Feb-94 Cn non yE OU a Oaa`� inmT ^ � �mu m m> > Zp MM 2� y aZ > zO T yy m ® >>E 8SZa > >> o 8 n � r� r a o A a >y1C �0 N p p N c R aNb� a a �� ea as C[ v 'O 3o op N H M z Z, nva° `••' 7 qx s A<Z > n �;am m m � x cS 0 AmstZ zd n n n S V O O Q Q a 9 S V S S C V 9 S O S O S 0 0 0 9 V 9 Q O 9 T 0 9 0 S S O S T > > > m m m A T T m m m m m m m m m.m m m m m m m m m m T m m m m m m m m m A g A A A T T A p A A A A A A A A....... A p A A A A A p A T A A A A A A A A A A mp nno >�{ »»»N>»>>»»»»yyr >� »>»> �e >>>>>< 9 S 9 S Q N C� C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N g N N N N N N N N N N m r>Z S r i K j CE] f] 1 55CC{ r< ss R mQ ys�g �2saw a 'ym awg N � 8s �s� ��x� � m�s�� y m z A Ew E Ew E I > �W 'n#n'nr«M'nGn l,888lS�g«««!7.SlStsl4r��tslSlS tS'�r II I r5>"� 8,8 8n'>«« �� . P PpR ppp Fop A � �ttrE is ��WNtstsrw ,.tta".uoNIna o o � n$ nNNni�un�Y W&���3N:;4-°°$�uu wnN.�naau'sn�u � d > w r i v FILE: BC_FIR 4286 WORKSHEET: CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TABLE: A 5f CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN, 1/1/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 — 1993/94 PROGRAM NET RESIDENT'L BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET REIMBURSE- PROGRAM COST COST EXPENDITURE- DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE MENTS COST PER CAPITA PER ACRE 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION H -> PER CAP 2 $421,564 $421,564 $1.76 $29.89 PLANNING DIVISION PER CAP 2 $1,433,037 $250,000 $1,183,037 $4.95 $83.89 HOLLY SEACLIFFE/BOLSA CHICA PER CAP 2 $74,987 $308,000 ($233,013) ($0.97) ($16.52) BUILDING DIVISION PER CAP 2 $1,646,432 $1,625,000 $21,432 $0.09 $1.52 PLANNING COMMISSION PER CAP 2 $25,000 $25,000 $0.10 $1.77 TOTAL PER CAP 2 $3,601,020 $2,183,000 $1,418,020 $5.93 $100.55 COMDEV_CAP COMDEV_AC NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE 1 (PER CAP 1): BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2): BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL m 0o Public Economics, Inc. 14-Feb-94 FR.E:BC_FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 6.COMMUNITY SERVICES,7.LIBRARY SERVICES ' TABLE: A_5g CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN, 1/l/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL.ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 -- - ' 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE ' 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $529,430 $2.21 $37.54 TOTAL $529,430 $2.21 $37.54 BEACH DIV SUPERVISION PER CAP 2 $164,535 $0.69 $11.67 MARINE SAFETY PER CAP 2 $1,626,262 $6.80 $115.31 BEACH MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $796,652 $3.33 $56.49 ' PARKING FACILITY PER CAP 2 $571,480 $2.39 $40.52 PIER(1992-93 BUDGET AMT) PER CAP 2 $8,000 $0.03 $0.57 PARKING METERS PER CAP 2 $150,094 $0.63 $10.64 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $235,100 $0.98 $16.67 ' JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PER CAP 1 $167,989 $0.90 PARK SURVEILLANCE/NATURE CTR PER CAP 2 $96,409 $0.40 $6.84 TOTAL $3,816,521 $16.16 $258.71 REC,HUMAN SRVCS&PARK SUPERVSN PER CAP 2 $345,216 $1.44 $24.48 ' COMMUNITY CENTERS PER CAP 2 $331,513 $1.39 $23.51 CITY GYM&POOL PER CAP 1 $202,194 $1.08 TENNIS PER CAP 2 $100,120 $0.42 $7.10 ADULT SPORTS PER CAP 2 $235,586 $0.99 $16.70 ' YOUTH SPORTS PER CAP 1 $46,132 $0.25 ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND PER CAP 1 $18,406 $0.10 INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES PER CAP 1 $277,907 $1.49 AQUATICS PER CAP 1 $121,869 $0.65 SPECIAL EVENTS/EXCURSIONS PER CAP 2 $24,780 $0.10 $1.76 ' DAY CAMPS PER CAP 1 $40,818 $0.22 SENIORS'CENTER PER CAP 2 $145,792 $0.61 $10.34 OAKVIEW CENTER PER CAP 1 $142,914 $0.76 CLUBHOUSES PER CAP 2 $29,679 $0.12 $2.10 ' SENIORS'OUTREACH PER CAP 2 $305,678 $1.28 $21.67 ARTS/CULTURAL AFFRS PER CAP 2 $144,545 $0.60 $10.25 EXHIBITS,PERFORM,SPEC EVNTS PER CAP 2 $5,073 $0.02 $0.36 COMMUNITY BAND PER CAP 2 S5,245 $0.02 $0.37 TOTAL $2,523,467 $11.55 $118.64 MUSEUM SERVICES PER CAP 2 $7,989 $0.03 $0.57 PUBLIC ART COLLECT. PER CAP 2 ART CENTER ADMIN PER CAP 2 ART CENTER PROGRAM PER CAP 2 ART CENTER BOOKSTORE PER CAP 2 ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP PER CAP 2 TOTAL $7,989 $0.03 $0.57 SISTER CITIES PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $10,870 $0.05 $0.77 TOTAL $10,870 $0.05 $0.77 GRAND TOTAL $6,888,277 $30.00 $416.23 ' COMSERV_CAP COMSERV_AC 7 LIBRARY SERVICES PER CAP 1 $3,227,573 $17.27 LIB-CAP LLB-AC NOTES: ' 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL ' AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) ' Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 a-9 FILE:BC FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 8.FIXED ASSET REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE TABL A_5h CITY POPULATION(STATE DEFT OF FIN,1/1193) 186,866 CRY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 PERCENT OR ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ESTIMATED ANNUAL REASON FOR EXCLUSION ANNUAL$ ANNUAL EXPENDITURE COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION AVG.LIFE REPLACE COST REPLACE COST FROM FISCAL IMPACT REDUCRON\2 REPLACE COST TYPE\1 PER CAPITA PER ACRE ALLEYS 20 $4,103,810 $205.191 $205,191 PER CAP $0.96 $14.55 ARTERIAL WALLS 20 $22,136,400 $1,106,920 $1,106,920 PER CAP $4.63 S78.48 AUTOMOTOVE-GENERAL 5 S4,134,729 S826,946 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% $413,473 PER CAP 2 $1.73 $29.32 AUTOMOTOVE-POLICE 3 $2,193,908 $731,303 $731.303 PER CAP $3.06 $51.85 AUTOMOTOVE-SPECIAL PURPOSE 15 $9,357,680 $623,845 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% 3311,923 PER CAP 2 $1.30 S22.12 BEACH LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT 20 PER CAP 2 BRIDGES 30 S12,000,000 S400,000 $400,000 PER CAP $1.67 $28.36 BUILDINGS 30 $103,993,647 $3,466,455 Some ongoing replacement is in budget $500,000 $2,966,455 PER CAP 2 $12.41 $210.34 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 5 $2,922,905 $564,581 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% S282,291 PER CAP $1.18 $20.02 CURBS,GUTTERS&SIDEWALKS 20 $121,952,045 S6,097,602 Some ongoing replacement is in budget $250,000 S5,847,602 PER CAP 2 $24.46 S414.64 DOCKS&PIERS 50 $8,570,000 $171,400 $171,400 PER CAP 2 $0.72 $12.15 GOLF COURSE 20 $4,050,000 $202,500 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% $101,230 PER CAP 2 $0.42 $7.18 LIBRARY BOOKS VAR $12,799,289 $1,358,499 Replaoed through the library book fund 100.00% PER CAP 2 MEDIANS 20 $2,939,542 $146,977 $146,977 PER CAP 2 $0.61 $10.42 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5 $4,332,826 $866,565 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 30.00% $433,283 PER CAP 2 $1.81 $30.72 OFFICE FURNITURE 10 $3,808,677 $390,868 $380,868 PER CAP 2 $1.59 $27.01 OTHER EQUIPMENT 10 $5,780.941 $578,094 S578,094 PER CAP 2 $2.42 SQ." PARKS,LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT VAR $61,234,773 $4,228,982 $4,228,982 PER CAP 2 $17.69 S299.86 PARKING LOTS 20 $2,916,603 $145,830 $145,830 PER CAP $0.61 $10.34 PARKING METERS 15 $498.780 $33,252 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% $16,626 PER CAP 2 $0.07 $1.18 SEWER SYSTEM 40 $55,538,260 $1.398,457 $1,388,457 PER CAP 2 $5.81 $98.45 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 50 $30,761,681 $615,234 $615,234 PER CAP 2 $2.57 $43.62 STREET LIGHTS 20 $4,240.000 S212,000 $212,000 PER CAP $0.89 $15.03 STREET TREES 50 $7,200,000 $144,000 Included in offaite street costs 100.00% PER CAP 2 STREETS 20 $253,248,705 $12,662,435 Included in offsite street casts 100.00% PER CAP 2 STREETS-PARKING 20 $52.416 $2,621 $2,621 PER CAP 2 $0.01 $0.19 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 10 $9,400,000 $940,000 Some ongoing replacement is in budget $100,000 5840,000 PER CAP 2 $3.51 $59.56 TRAFFIC SIGNS 8 $775,000 $96,875 Replacement is ongoing 100.00% PER CAP 2 WATER-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 40 $240,399.011 $6,009,975 Enterprise fund,paid thru rates 100.00% PER CAP 2 WATER-RESERVOIRS 50 $34,000.000 S680,000 Enterprise fund,paid thru rates 100.00% PER CAP 2 TOTAL $1,025,241,628 $44,887,306 $21,526,677 $90.04 $1,526.39 RN: FAR CAP FAR AC NOTES 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.AMOUNT IN PERCENTAGE OR IN ACTUAL BUDGET DOLLARS BY WHICH REPLACEMENT COSTS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN CITY BUDGET. Source of Data:Management Servioes Institute,'Cast Control System for the City of Huntington Beach', 1991-92 W Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 O i = = = = = = = M = = = = r TABLE A-6a 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES STREET SECTION ASSUMPTIONS: PUBLIC 120'ART 100' ART 80'ART 80'COL 60' COL LOCAL ST ttrttt►sst►t► sstrrsssssrss ►tttt►ttstttt ►►►ttrtrttts is►►rrssssst •►ttt►Rttt►tt No. Lanes 6 4 4 2 2 2 lanes Rt of Way 120 100 80 80 60 60 ft Pkway Lndscpe 29(Total) 18 20 16 26 20 20 ft Sidewlk Width 2s 10 10 10 10 10 10 ft Median Width 14 14 14 ft Paved Width 88 66 64 40 40 40 ft RoW Pkway Ludscpe 8 10 6 16 10 10 ft St Lites(a "x"ft 75 75 75 75 100 100 ft Streets as %of site 20% STREET QUANTITIES: ARTERIAL LIN FT MILES OF NO. LANE ST. PARKWY MEDIAN STREET NAME TYPE ARTERIALS ARTERIALS LANES MILES 11GHTS ACRES ACRES tt►ttt►tas►rsssst►ttttt►tt ♦ts►sssrs►stt tsrss/------ *****/------ ----_ ---- -------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- CROSS GAP 120' 120'ART 1,335 0.25 6 1.52 18 0.55 0.43 CROSS GAP 80' 80'COL 7,920 1.50 2 3.00 106 4.73 2.55 CROSS GAP EMERG ACCES LOCAL ST 4,095 0.78 2 1.55 41 1.88 TOTAL CROSS GAP 13,350 2.53 6.07 164 7.16 2.97 MESA CONNECTOR 100'ART 5,450 1.03 4 4.13 73 2.50 1.75 SPRINGDALE AVE 80'ART 500 0.09 4 0.38 7 0.19 TALBERT AVE 80' ART 500 0.09 4 0.38 7 0.18 GRAHAM ST 80'ART 500 0.09 4 0.38 7 0.18 COLLECTORS* 60'COL 6,000 1.14 2 2.27 60 2.75 OPEN 60'COL 2 LOS PATOS(PKWY) 60'COL 2,600 0.49 2 0.98 26 0.60 WARNER(1/2 SECT)** 100' ART 1,750 0.33 4 1.33 23 0.80 0.56 TOTAL ARTERIALS 17,300 3.28 9.85 202 7.21 2.31 (NOT INCL CROSS GAP) ALL LOCAL STREETS LOCAL ST 36,111 6.84 2 13.68 361 16.58 TOTAL PROJECT 66,761 12.64 29.60 727 30.95 5.29 • ADD AN ADDITIONAL 2400 FT OF COLLECTORS FOR 4884 PLAN(NORTHEAST OF BCSE) •• (= 112 FULL SECTION LENGTH) w I Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 r M i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE A-6b 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES-PHASING FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (S8 x1000) TOTALS 1995.96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 200401 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE OF CROSS GAP CONNECTOR DEDICATED 10.0% 10.0% SI STREET MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.51 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 ARTERIALS 0.12 0.43 0.66 0.92 0.99 1.24 1.61 2.04 2.40 2.76 3.05 3.28 LOCAL STREETS 0.32 0.97 1.35 1.35 1.50 2.00 2.93 3.66 4.49 5.32 6.15 6.94 TOTAL STREET MILES 0.44 1.64 2.26 2.42 2.74 3.74 6.97 8.23 9.42 10.60 11.73 12.64 LANE MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.21 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 ARTERIALS 0.36 1.28 1.99 2.46 2.97 3.72 4.R3 6.14 7.21 8.29 9.17 9.85 LOCAL STREETS 0.64 1.93 2.70 2.70 2.99 4.00 5.67 7.33 8.98 10.64 12.30 13.68 TOTAL LANE MILES 1.00 3.82 5.29 5.76 6.57 8.93 16.56 19.53 22.27 24.99 27.54 29.60 CITY LANE MILES OF PROJECT IMPACT RESPONSIBILITY TOTAL LANE MILES IN CITY 1,718 PROJECT%OF TOTAL CITY TRAFFIC 5.43% PROJECT LANE MILE RESPONSIBILITY 93.37 3.17 11.82 19.31 25.93 32.90 41.00 50.73 63.00 72.60 92.11 88.98 93.37 STREET LIGHTS CROSS OAP CONNECTOR 16 16 16 16 33 164 164 164 164 164 164 ARTERIALS 7 26 41 50 61 76 99 126 148 170 188 202 LOCAL STREETS 17 51 71 71 79 106 150 193 237 281 325 361 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 24 93 128 137 156 215 413 493 549 615 677 727 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTAL.lATIONS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PARKWAY MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.43 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 ARTERIALS 0.27 0.94 1.46 1.80 2.17 2.72 3.53 4.49 5.28 6.06 6.72 7.21 LOCAL STREETS 0.77 2.34 3.27 3.27 3.63 4.85 6.87 8.88 10.89 12.90 14.91 16.58 TOTAL PARKWAY MAINTENANCE ACRES 1.04 4.00 5.44 5.78 6.52 9.00 17.56 20.53 23.33 26.12 28.78 30.95 MEDIAN MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.59 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 ARTERIALS 0.09 0.30 0.47 0.58 0.70 0.87 1.13 1.44 1.70 1.95 2.16 2.31 LOCAL STREETS TOTAL MEDIAN MAINTENANCE ACRES 0.09 0.60 0.76 0.88 1.00 1.47 4.11 4.42 4.67 4.92 5.13 5.29 LOCAL PARK&TRAIL MAINTENANCE ACRES PROJECT LOCAL PARK ACRES 24.80 CUM: 1.16 3,50 4.89 4.89 5.43 7.25 10.28 13.28 16.29 19.29 22.30 24.90 BAL OF CITY PK REQ 05AC/1000 P 25.98 CUM: 1.21 3,67 5.12 5.12 5.68 7.60 10.77 13.91 17.06 20.21 23.36 25.98 TOTAL PARK MAINT ACRES 2.37 7.18 10.01 10.01 11.11 14.85 21.04 27.20 33.35 39.30 45.65 50.78 OFF-STREET TRAIL AC: 9.12 CUM: 0.42 1.29 1.80 1.80 1.99 2.67 3.78 4.88 5.99 7.09 8.20 9.12 ROW ISFT x 158Z+10650 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE ACRES AVG PARK SIZE: TOTAL PARK AC: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 41 Inc.,uPbtic Economics� taFeb-9a N � APPENDIX B 1 SCENARIO #2 ' ANNEXATIONDURINGPROJECTDEVELOPMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE B-3 BOL.SA CHICA I.CP EIR(42116)FIR SCENARIO#2-ANNEXATION'DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PER CAPITA GF.NERAI.FUND REVENUES AND ONGOING REVENUE SUMMARY —ESCALATION RATES- -NONE— BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YfiAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 OF TOTAL (Ss x1000) 1994.95 1995-96 199697 IW7-98 1999-99 19994)0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003.04 2004-05 2005-06 200607 REVENUES RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 3" 1,286 2,100 2.820 3,569 4,460 5,518 6.952 7,9W 8,931 9,678 10,156 10,156 BUSINESS DEVELOPED ACRES GENERAL FUND PER CAPITA/BUS AC REVENUES (PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES) PROPERTY(UTIL UNITARY)TAXES $32 $40 546 S52 $56 $59 S59 1.32% OTHER LOCALTAXF.S SO $2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S9 S12 $13 S15 $16 $17 $17 0.39% FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES SI $3 SS S7 S9 $11 $2.5 S31 $36 SO) $44 S46 S46 1.02% USE OF MONEY&PROPERTY SI $5 S9 S12 S15 $19 S45 S56 $64 S72 $78 S92 $82 1.84% REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES $194 $241 S278 $314 $341 $358 $358 9.00% CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES $2 S9 $14 SI9 S24 $30 S129 $158 S183 S206 $224 $235 S235 5.25% OTHER REVENUE EIS $19 $22 S25 SZ7 S28 $28 0.62% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS S0 $2 S3 $4 S4 $6 $70 S87 SIM S114 S123 $129 $129 2.90% TOTAL PER CAPITA/BUS AC SOURCES S5 $20 S33 S45 $57 S71 $518 $644 S742 SR39 $909 $954 $954 21,33% ------------------------ ------- ------------ - OTHER REVENUE SOURCES OAS TAX REVENUES(FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY) TRANSPORTATION FUND(MEASURE M,SALES TAX) S2 $B S14 SI9 $25 S31 S37 S45 S51 $57 S62 $64 $64 (E.MMATF..D BUT NOT INCLUDED IN REVENUE TOTALS) FIRE-MEDICAL PROGRAM REVENUES S46 S57 S66 S75 S81 $85 S85 1.90% ------------------------ ------- ------------ ------- - CITY REVENUE SUMMARY PROPERTY TAXES(GENERAL FUND+'PENS'): SECURED PROPERTY TAXES S1,230 $1,524 S1,750 $1,975 $2,144 $2,261 $2,261 50.55% ONSECURED PROPERTY TAXES S12 $15 SI8 S20 S21 S23 S23 0.51% TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES S1,242 S1,539 SI,768 $1,995 $2,166 $2,284 S2,284 51.06% REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $97 $109 $96 $100 S90 $78 $48 1.07% OIL RI-SERVE AD VALORUM(PROPERTY)TAXES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A OIL EXTRACTION TAXES S86 $79 S73 $67 S62 $57 $52 1.17% SALES TAX FS,DIRECT+INDIRECT S21 S80 S133 S184 S236 S2r $353 S429 $488 5546 $598 S613 $613 13.70% SAL STAXES,PURLIC SAFETY AUGMENTATION FUND SO SO SI SI SI SI $I S2 $2 S2 $3 23 $3 0.06% UTILITY TAXF.VFRANCHISE FEES $248 $302 $344 S386 $416 S434 $434 9.71% PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES SS $20 Si3 S45 S57 $71 $518 S644 $742 S939 S909 5954 $954 21.33% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES S26 SIOO S167 S230 S293 S364 $2,536 $3,104 $3,513 S3,936 $4,233 $4,423 S4,388 99.10% TOTAL GENERAL,GAS TAX,FIRE-MED FUND REVS: $26 5100 S167 S230 $2914 S364 S2.5R2 $3,161 S3,579 $4,011 $4,314 $4,508 $4,473 100.00% TOTAL GENERAL,GAS TAX,FIRE-MED FUND REVS: S26 $100 S167 $230 S191 S364 $",592 $3,161 $3,579 $4,011 S4,314 $4,508 $4,473 100.00% ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: I:Nhbc%b 4286Wcfimmb,wk3 Public Eaaxanim Inc. 14-Feb-94 TABLE B-5 HOI SA CIIICA LCP FIR(42R6)FIR SCENARIO#2-ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVF.LOPIIIF NT RECURRING CITY COSTS: GENERAL AND ROAD FUN)COSTS --*ESCALATION PATES... •••NONE••• BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 OF TOTAL ($s X1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1999-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 COSTS ............................. ----------.-----------............................ ............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ......•......... ................ ------.......................... ................ (PLEASE SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH) GENERAL FUN)COSTS 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION S311 S361 S401 S442 S522 $544 $544 7.46% NON DEPARTMENTAL(UTILITIES,LEASING) $I S5 S9 S12 SIS $19 S196 S243 $290 S317 $344 $361 $361 4.94% POLICE SERVICES S10 S37 $61 S92 $103 $129 S742 S922 $1,062 $1,202 $1,302 S1,366 $1,366 18.74% FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION&CITY WIDE SERVICES $77 S95 5110 SI24 $134 S141 S141 1.93% FIRE CONTROL&PARAMEDIC S1,000 S1,000 S1,000 S1,000 $1.529 $1,529 $1,529 20.97% PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN.ENO&CITY FACIL MAINT $3 S11 $18 $24 $30 S39 $194 $228 S263 $297 S322 $338 $338 4.64% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE• $6 SI8 S25 $25 S28 S38 S123 S159 S195 S231 S267 $297 S297 4.08% ONSITE STREET MAINTENANCE• S59 S70 S79 S99 $98 S106 $106 1.45% STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE• $108 $355 S398 $441 $482 S515 S515 7.07% STREET LIGHT ILLUM&MAINTENANCE• $46 S54 S61 S68 $75 S81 $81 1.11% OFFSITE STREET MAINTENANCE(CITY-WIDE) $19 S71 S116 SI56 S197 $246 $304 $378 S436 S493 S534 S560 S560 7.68% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(PLANNING&BLDG) S33 S41 S47 S53 S57 S60 S60 0.83% COMMUNITY SERVICES $10 S39 S63 $84 S107 S134 S166 $206 S237 $268 S290 S305 $305 4.18% LIBRARY SERVICES S6 S22 $36 S49 $62 S77 S95 SI18 S136 $154 S167 S175 S173 2.41% FIXED ASSET REPLACEMENT Sit S42 S69 $92 $117 $146 S497 S617 S711 S904 S871 $914 S914 12.54% TOTAL GENERAL FUND,ROAD FUNT)ONGOING COSTS S67 $245 S397 S524 S659 $826 S4,141 $4,846 S5,417 S5,984 S6,997 $7,293 S7,293 100.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUNT),ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS S67 $245 S397 $524 S659 5826 S4,141 S4,846 S5,417 $5.984 S6,997 S7,293 $7,293 F.SCAIATF.D AT TIIF.FOLLOWING RATE: I:\hbbc\bcco4286\bcfi rcm b.ak3 LO PuMic Economics,Inc, 14-17eM94 N ar rr rr r r �r r r� �r r� �r �r r rr rr r �r rr rr TABLE B-9 ROISA CmcA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO M2-ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMIWT SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS TO C(TY'OF-tfUNfIN(:TON REACH: GFNFRAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPFJtTV TAX INCREASE ASSUM[PT10NS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE •••NONE••• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: FIRE MASTER PLAN COSTS INCLUDED? I = YES.0 = NO 0 BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (S3 x1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006.07 2007-08 -------------------------------------------------------------•---------------------------- ---•-•----•- ------------- --••--------- -----•------- -•----------- ------------ •---•-----• ------------- ---------- --•---------- ------------- ........... Annexation Year = 'I' --> 1 CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVE70JES $26 SI(N) $167 $230 $293 S364 $2,582 $3,161 S3,579 $4,011 $4.314 $4,508 $4,473 ONGOING COSTS+ $67 $245 $397 $524 $659 $826 $4.141 $4,846 $5.417 $5,984 $6,997 $7,293 $7,293 ANNUAL RFVENUF/COST RATIO 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0." 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.61 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DFFICIT) (S41) ($145) ($230) ($294) ($365) (WI) ($1,558) ($1,685) ($1,838) ($1,973) ($2,683) ($2,786) ($2,821) CUMULATIVE SURPLUSADEFICIT) (S41) ($186) (5415) ($709) ($1,074) ($1,536) ($3,094) ($4,779) ($6,617) ($8,590) ($11,274) ($14,059) ($16,880) • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 283.94% 66.22% 37.81% 27.57% 24.21% 609.67% 22.40% 13.23% 12.05% 7.56% 4.49% -0.78% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 267.01% 61.56% 32.09% 25.77% 25.36% 401.40% 17.04% 11.79% 10.46% 16.93% 4.23% I:\hbbc\bcco4286\bcfircmb.wk T Public E onomics.Inc. 14-Feb-94 W 1 1 1 1 � APPENDIX C 1 SCENARIO #3 ' PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY, WITH NO FIRE COST IMPACTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I—� 1pmr >`° t" yQny n� SO rr> Ye •4 i z2-+za ym a j jvm°s_ s C z�yo fFp'1°z� 9 FEFn ><h c .w � �R °r= JOpOnn IQ Bg.O� ! ; ! I '`� j o 0 cc�Zuy � � � ; opj �tj �C �Cn tzZ ��Z 1°�° o cai z 23 �p o 0 o m z d _ > z ffooO v m� • yyy L OS II ! C. �y i ! •A j y f7ZOE ym 02 yr1_1 ,p IA ZCC wy�m° u I g0� .0.; l Iz 'z I i O n p ! 1 I A to E $O m z q j y j 2 y1 2 vz��Tn C A N I I i c oz�nm� Il . ry� n 0r C y y II I _ —Yp JD•i � boa Ni, m Am Z my n O II , 2'D II :off oz IT II y k A-i p I I C v n O f5maoD yC��� n 1 i I FFYDy" 1+©Jri u 1 u n 9 11 1 w n j n 1 i t I I 1 N «m a G n j I nm-I0yF n I �mmy->i z �m n u u ! � zzzzz »»> n u i ! n j 9 1 'q 6 u II i In c � ' ' a M M 1Rce re >R M eR tlt>R >R 8 g g LL d 0 W CL j O i N N N M N p �T II Z N N II N II N' n❑ j i n II n n If }J d n d If r m i j q n q n n y �U q If n u n a7 G y Z p�<G1_ i .�i 1 t=rva �� tl IfN»N M NN 11 q Z 1 Gj j u p u n n n II n n n p Q Z Q a 8 I P II II N M N II » Y N II q2y n n u n n O e Z n n u u n 16-> un O� I n n u n o: I.-00 i n n n n n F• u°C❑Z n n p u n QZ LL< KP S Mw� Or q — II Q mN n II II '� II A m �r 8 i ' i Nd n N » n '� IN h S In>• N n n u n u � �Q Q 1 p II II II II • �J.I tl II II II II M d< n II p II II II K i „ N r P V N P tl II Q P'M O II S II II If N II 7+ II 11 If » II n n n u n i n u n n u u — N n n n u u n If n M II N II Z h < II U w p n n n m j j n n u n n u n n q yyy n11 n G Y Q Z P N M �X p N II II n'CZ< w 1 i p II N N 11 11 N II cc lu K_y¢E n n n u n Q� ' u n II n Z II 0�� nq n n u u u u u n u n n U Z I n u n n n � SNN N �� II P 11 < �H N R II R II R II m I `Z N i N II N II I, w N H 11 N 11 N II II II II II » II �O } I II II II II II u n n n n u u u n n n et�: u n u n �1 < �o I I N N n N p Z N w 11 N q N II I N II 11 It 11 11 II II II 11 11 II II II 11 II • O II II p 11 II II pp ��pp I P N II N II < ®S R 8 II 8 II 8 II O C N P 1 O D M N N N M N N N II II Z M N N II N II II 7• �', i — p II II II » II u u n if n p n n u If tl u n u n p n n n i1 • 11 Y Z w II N II N II If n 861 n n n n n n n n n n O 1 j u n u n n 1 P i : II II II II II _? I I II II II II II I II V; 11 II II II LLO N II < II ❑ II II II IL n y^ _r n z n n u O PC Y , O II � II II U u Z 11 yy p r 4❑< I n O r 6l II w Z II C n C II o�pJ' I py7 d �pz n n F n u z n µ1❑LL? I > tl pl Q> 11 N r < 4 p II I-ytny 1 n a ma It e• ti d It �F n l'w.Om " i 1 II �� to n IL R] tl C II C� II •y = — U � n a z r r I I < to Nh 11 p ❑ h61 FO Z II L 00-0 I m rn ��i rn0 p f yta❑i Z u Z p LOy� Z u ry gym^ F iS iV a <dQ aim > ii O• �nxC i o_�c>Q�� > I b6 ii n�3 n �S0S i <�`I -�� pm O< n Cf f�j o�c n -�niQ r ❑~LL❑ 61 n n 3 n OC~~1�Fm- Z CW QCC QVi �-Vi II eC Z S II }�Xr 61� z'{�i t�/,•Z 11 II C II 0U F < 1 <0< .1w sZ yO n UUU O Zr— a n q�'uI F<�y yarn+y—t,O, Z u t- n Pa n e•mam ❑ I Um�y11O my n L Op n m oe ZO [ � O n P� n to u 61 V Z k?to OC p VJ LL Z g 11 O F y< a-� jj—z< LL II ` II <i• II j'_aga l a C I y167+KS�d OK Oa e = ZF II C r 7 f mOC� V Y V F II �G��p� pE Z O� an wa*� yy❑zIi--z i n r _ OwZ a v.1 Fm , u XO�'e[ r<O N41 61 p 11 < II V d j .� y �� mz s0¢:LLee a ySy > <❑ 6 d <oeGd oe W C m y _ < ❑ j F•� aLLCO LL"n>i eCi u > c c�' U Y >r.aw0 i>G7pN51�p wo V n Z F I p�� C]O LL �tid LL 11 7 X O< ¢❑ n �F ¢❑i�OC O� 'V< p IN 11 h II �oe� zOac tr, C < hf w pjCw d ya rr L < n V II L• II u 1 ❑ Z 1 y n.Qu tn0 µl KtuZr II r II 7.d d, n� tnm_ F Y II ZYO w. >S6 O 11 to titn< �Kwm:u,� O < <U turn i uv'i j mai Otis o�c CiOr 11 O =1 W 11 'Otwi>>O aQFu�iOp�f n ' LL w m Vim- np n �d r ad0Ornw nF. nF. n � C-2 �r r r r� r �r �r r� rr �r �r r� r� r� r rr ■r r� r� TABLE C-5 BOLSA CIIICA LCP F.Ot(4236)FIR SCENARIO AM-PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY,WITII NO FIRE COST l:m PACTS RECURRING CITY COSTS: GENERAL AND ROAD FUND COSTS '••ESCALATION RATES... •'•NONE... C�9�5TUDY COST A.49U111PTION9 PER CAPITA/5U9_A_ tF_9_)gf EAQ:QM PER CAE PEB.A� GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION -NON-DEPARTMENTAL. $4.25 $72.04 -AS A PERCENTAGE ON DIRECT COSTS NA -FIRE PROTECTION(ADMIN&CITY-WIDE SERVICES) $0.00 $0.00 POLICE SERVICES -PUBLIC WORKS(ADMIN,ENG&CITY FACIL MAINT) $8.47 S143,57 COST PER RESIDENT $2 S.W -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(PLANNING,BLDG SERVICES $0.00 $0.00 -COST PER BUSINESS ACRE $0.00 •COMMUNITY SERVICES S29.96 $415.46 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES •LIBRARY SERVICES $17.27 $0.00 -PHASE I,PARAMEDIC STA"SHARE" S0 0 Ph I du threshold -PHASE II,PERM STA:INTERIM STAFF SO 0 Ph II du threshold F-Uff D,A_!WTM PLACEM E •PHASE II,PERM STA:FULL STAFF SO 0 Ph III du Ih¢shuld INCLUDED COS M Yea/No: Y S32,68 $554.02 PUBLIC WORKS -PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING TABLE, 'TABLE C-6,FOR THESE COST FACTORS BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 _ 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 OF TOTAL (Ss a1000) 1995.96 1996.97 19,97.98 1998.99 199900 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 COSTS ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. (PLEASE.SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH) GFNP.RAL FUND COSTS GENE•RALGOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION SO $0 SO SO $0 SO Sn $0 SO $0 SO SO SO 0.00% NON DEPARTMENTAL(UTILITIES,LEASING) $I $5 $9 $12 $15 S19 $21 S29 $34 $39 S41 S43 $43 2.24% POLICE SERVICES $10 $37 S61 $R2 $103 S129 $160 $198 $229 $258 $290 $294 $294 15.27% FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION&OTY WIDE SERVICES SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO SO SO 0.00% FIRE CONTROL.&PARAMEDIC SO SO SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO SO SO SO $0 0.00% PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN,F.NG&CITY FACIL MAINT S3 $I I SIB $24 $30 $39 $47 $58 $67 S76 S87 $86 $86 4.47% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE S6 $18 S25 $25 S28 $38 $53 S69 $85 SI00 $116 $129 $129 6.70% STREET MAINTENANCE• SO S0 SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO SO SO SO SO 0.00% STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE' 0.00% STREET LIGHT ILLUM&MAINTENANCE' 0.00% OFFSITE-STREET MAINTENANCE(CITY-WIDE) $19 S71 $116 $156 $197 S246 $304 S378 $436 S493 S534 S560 S560 29.12% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(PLANNING&BLDG) SO S0 SO SO $0 SO SO $0 $0 SO $0 SO SO 0.00% COMMUNITY SERVICES $10 S39 S63 $84 $107 $134 $165 $205 $237 $268 S290 $304 $304 15.82% LIBRARY SERVICES $6 S22 $16 S49 $62 $77 $95 SIIB $136 $154 $167 $175 $175 9.12% FIXED ASSET REPLACEMENT Sit $42 $69 $92 $117 $146 Si80 S224 $258 S292 S316 $332 $332 17.25% TOTAL GENERAL FUND,ROAD FLINDONGOING COSTS S67 $245 S397 S524 $659 S926 $1,029 $1,280 $1,480 $1,679 $1,826 $1,924 $1,924 100,00% TOTAL GEYFRAL FUND,ROAD FUND ONGOING CYSTS S67 5245 $397 $524 S659 SR26 $1.029 $1,290 $1,480 $1.679 $1,826 $1,924 $1,924 F.9CAI.ATED AT TIiE.FOLLOWING RATE.: 0.0% ---------------------------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - • PLEASE SEE ALSO FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS,TABLE C.6,FOR DETAIL t:r M*,1b-c429616c .r k3 CI Public Economics,loc. 14-Feb94 1.1 TABLE C-6 ROISA CIIICA LCP FIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO N3--PRQIECI-Rv.%IA NS I%COUM,'WIT71 NO FIRE COST 1\(PACTS RF.CURRING Crll'C(1S'IS: PUBLIC WORKSAMFE.R FACII.rrIF_ti MAIN IENANCF VF,M1fRAI,FV.ND.0 67F&CCTORS (rll.RdR_FACII,rITS,.COti-1-.FACI:ORS LOCAL PARK PIAINTGNANCI: S4,964 lac/yr PARKWAY I_NNIISCAPING S14,221 he/yr OFF-S"IREII:'TRAIT.MAINr1i' NANCE NA/ac/yr NII-DIAN I_1NDSC APING S14,221 /aclyr COMNIUNITI'PARK NA/ac;yr S1Rr.rr 1,1(;H'rS IILLUM;ALAItJrI SI I I /GBbUy'r ROAD F—UNIR-NOINTENAYCE.COSr FAC'I_ORR ONSITF STRIiISr NI.AINT'IREPI_1CIi NA OI:I;SITF STRIi1r r AIAINI';HI>I'I_ACIi\I S6,0(10/lava;mi/yr R(I I LDOU'r FISCAL YFAR YEAR: YEAR, N'FAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1'L•:NR: YEAR: YLAR: PEAR: )'FAR: YEkR: YEAR: 1'LAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 U (Ss 11000) 1995-96 1996-97 1907.99 1998.99 1999-00 20M4)1 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 ...---'--•........-'--..................................................... .......---- ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. •............ GENERAL FUND.PARK FACILrrIFC NLUYIENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE S6 SI8 S25 S25 S28 $38 S53 S69 $95 5100 SI16 S129 S129 01:17-STR I:ET lRA I I.NIA I WENA NC E COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 'r0'rALGENERAI.FUND PARK NIAINT17NANCECOSTS: S6 SIR S25 S25 S28 S38 S53 S69 S85 5100 S116 S12Q $129 ONSITE ROAD FUND,RIGIrF OF WAl'NIAIM1TENANCF. ONSITE STREETS CROSS GAP CONNECTOR ARITAIAI C LOCAL STREETS ONSr1E SMUM NIAINT&REPLACE. OFFSrfTS-rRF.FTNNIAIM1T&REPLACENIFN'T\1 S19 S71 S116 S156 $197 S246 S304 $37x S436 S493 S534 S560 S560 STRF,F'r LANDSCAPING&LIGIMNG NLUNTF.NANCF, P.ARKWNY LANDSCAPING NIF.DIAN LANDSCAPING S'IRlil:r LIGHTS TOTAI.S'IREI>T LANDSCAPING 3 LIGHTING COSTS NOTES:--- -- - I.IN(TIIDfS MAINTENANCE 01'I_ANDSC.A 1'INC:IN MEDIANS AND PARK W.A)'.S.STREET TREE MAINTENANCE,AND LONG TERM.STREET KEPI-,\CEMENT COSTS. 1:' +c$cco42R6'.hc fiw,wo ('7 ( Public Economics.Inc. 14-Fet04 r TABLE C-9 BOISA CHICA LCP EIR(4296)FIR SCENARIO N3--PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY,WITH NO FIRE COST IMIPACTS SUMIIIARY OF RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION ASSUIIIPTIONS —PROP159TY TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE **'NONE*** INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Ss z1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-09 --------------------------------------------------------—----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- •------------ ------------- ......------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---•--------- ------------- CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $26 $100 $167 $230 $293 $364 $443 S540 $615 $690 $744 $777 $777 ONGOING COSTS* $67 $245 $397 S524 $659 $826 $1.029 $1,280 $1.480 $1.679 $1,826 $1,924 $1,924 ANNUAL REVF24UFJCOST RATIO 0.39 0.41 0.42 0." 0.45 0." 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($41) ($145) ($230) ($294) ($365) ($461) ($586) ($740) ($865) ($988) ($1,082) ($1,147) ($1,147) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (54I) ($186) MI5) ($709) ($1,074) ($1.536) ($2,122) ($2,862) ($3,727) ($4,715) (55,797) ($6,9") ($8,091) • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 283.94% 66.22% 37.81% 27.57% 24.21% 21.44% 21.93% 14.04% 12.19% 7.81% 4.36% 0.00% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 267.01% 61.56% 32.09% 25.77% 25.36% 24.55% 24.45% 15.64% 13.41% 8.79% 5.34% 0.00% 1:\hbbc\bcco42861bc_fimc.wk I Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 Ln APPENDIX C 1 SCENARIO #3 PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY, tWITH FIRE COST IMPACTS 1 1 z}< I 8 8F —=888 — 8 s 8 F,•Y. I O O ♦ O —N 0 0 0 P O r G C— — b O as�s:s s ^4j x a as bra a R = " p = n u u I n n y' �8:p8p�� NNo 0G(^ I Si a Sia �FSZ Si A '= V, d _ tl H tl M N N N l•f {Y I N N N N N N M M ° ° n° } n p d n u I d n p H d n u 5t 9y n a m u u n > Z Y } II II N II F�J•<a � �� u u n u u z m z rn �Zbuj II II II J — } 8 N II N II w II aQ Sd zza>°�WW z• IvO W LLU ! II II II O• �{yY}O}N� 4� o p II II II 4Z QFOF-F-y Cj <wQ I ~ ri P �P M�S N ~ pry ° H II ewv p !A O a O3 ZZ} p 41 � M ^ N 11 O 11 O 11 b • C�mpQ. QQ. m pyy��I��� II II II � 6JJ u n u N II II II I «« II II II tr A n u u M 111 N N M N HN I II II II V pH�j< I u u n •��p Y`1 R u e n n F < < I II II II �S°S°yy'�,yy I II d d n n n .� II II II Z p S V 11 II 11 n u n a a8 a8 S u n n ' O�n O �N� � � « M �00 N N� M � N M N II ♦+ 11 � II .p N II O II O II j � II II p j O u u u j z n u u .� QQ QQ p n n n a N N N II � II N II O 8 nn PP II w II n OL m P P } P I 6 II n 11 O • O d II II LL z z n u n U O LL II II IR 11 J n t; 11 F II 1 o v ��qqZ < < QU LL 11 H' IIH II Vj y o a I p 11 V II V n UO h— n .� n Z u z n ' Q°c " � °�� 3� a z pQn n �" �O U�F.-Z_LL F Z �I µµ71 V d Z d z II < z O QKC: 1I- In w h lu W ZO �pNlNpCI h y O� N ? .°1..1 F.. V< Z II C II O� II Z S�Ssm� mm �0 is < F �U � �zco Q� �Q<<�4Q1m I tOt-- d .] V >LLFZN� Z b Vi d II 0Q, II y a Q N O oC y C Z z 1 a] 41 0NL��..1 tyo to 4y] tl 47 11 i7 II to O z S y zO Z LL p� nn � ud FQ pn a 3 LL C-6 I TABLE C-9f BOLSA CHICA LCP QR(4286)FIR SCENARIO 03—PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY,WITH FIRE COST D1IPACTS SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL DIIPACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPERTY TAR INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE •••NONE•'• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ($s x1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000.01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-09 CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $26 $100 $167 $230 $293 $364 $443 $Soo $615 $690 $744 $777 $777 ONGOING COSTS• $867 $1,045 $1,197 $1,324 $3.638 $3.805 $4,008 $4,259 $4.460 $4,658 $6,024 $6,121 $6.121 ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.08 0.10 O.l l 0.13 0.14 0.IS 0 12 0.13 0.13 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($841) ($945) ($11030) ($1,094) ($3.345) ($3."1) ($3,565) ($3,720) ($3,844) (53,968) ($5,280) ($5,345) ($5,345) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($841) ($1,786) ($2,815) ($3,909) ($7,254) ($10,695) ($14,260) ($17,980) ($21,824) ($25,792) ($31,071) ($36,416) ($41,761) • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 283.94% 66.22% 37.81% 27.57% 24.21% 21.44% 21.93% 14.04% 12.19% 7.81% 4.36% 0.00% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 20.60% 14.45% 10.63% 174.94% 4.59% 5.33% 6.27% 4.70% 4.45% 29.33% 1.62% 0.00% I:Xhbbclbcco42Mbc fimc.ak I Public Economics.Inc. 14-Feb-94 v APPENDIX C SCENARIO #3 CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS TABLE C-3a TABLE C-3a 02/14/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1193) 186,866 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 ----------------------------------------------............... CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE NI ESTIMATE FACTOR\3 PER CAPITA PER ACRE PROPERTY TAXES: SECURED PROPERTY TAXES CASE STUDY UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDY BUSINESS CASE STUDY UTILITY UNITARY TAX\2 PER CAP 1 NA TOTAL OTHER LOCAL TAXES SALES&USE TAX CASE STUDY FRANCHISE FEES&UTILITY TAXES ELECTRICITY CASE STUDY TELEPHONE CASESTUDY GAS CASE STUDY WATER CASE STUDY CABLE CASE STUDY IN LIEU WATER UTILITY CASE STUDY TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PER CAP 2 $312,500 25.00% $1.31 $22.16 CIGARETTE TAX \3 PER CAP I BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUS ACRE NA BUS-LIC OIL WELL TAX CASE STUDY LICENSES-OIL INSPECTION CASE STUDY LICENSES/PERMITS-MISCELLANEOUS PER CAP 1 NA (BICYCLE,BINGO,SWIMMING POOL TOWING,ALARM,MISC.) TOTAL 5312,500 $1.31 $22.16 FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES COURT FINES 41 PER CAP 2 NA LIBRARY FINES&FEES PER CAP 1 $140,000 $0.75 PARKING VIOLATIONS-DELINQUENT PER CAP 2 $140,000 50,00% $0.59 $9.93 PARKING FINES PER CAP 2 $275,000 50.00% $1.15 $19.50 ALARM BILLING FINES PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL $555,000 $2.49 $29.43 USE OF MONEY&PROPERTY RENTALS LAND PER CAP 2 NA INTEREST INCOME-T.R.A.N. PER CAP 2 NA RENTALS,BUILDINGS PER CAP 2 $100,000 50.00% 50.42 57.09 BEACH&CENTRAL PK CONCESSIONS PER CAP 2 5287,500 50.00% 51.20 $20.39 PARKING LOTS PER CAP 2 5350,000 25.00% $1.46 $24.92 INTEREST INCOME-GEN FUND PER CAP 2 NA PARKING STRUCTURES PER CAP 2 550,000 25.00% $0.21 $3.53 PARKING METERS-COMMERCIAL PER CAP 2 $40,000 50.00% $0.17 $2.84 PARKING METERS-RESIDENTIAL PER CAP 2 $41,250 75.00% SO.17 $2.92 PARKING METERS-P.C.H. PER CAP 2 5131,250 25.00% $0.55 $9.31 LATE CHARGES PER CAP 2 NA REDEV AGENCY LOAN INTEREST NA NA TOTAL 51,000,000 $4.18 570.91 Table 3a,catinued ne#page n Pudic Ecoaomia,loc. 14-Feb-94 m m m r m m m m m .m m m m m m m m m m TABLE C-3a,colt TABLE C-3o M4/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4296)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP(DOF,I/I/91) 181,519 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11.023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3.080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE FACTOR l3 PER CAPITA PER ACRE REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CASE STUDY MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU PER CAP I NA STATE MANDATED COST REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 2 NA DIRECT LIBRARY LOANS PER CAP I NA STATE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDS PER CAP 1 NA CABLE SYSTEMS T.V. CASE STUDY (FRANCHISE FEE) REGIONAL NARCOTICS SUPPRESSION PER CAP I TOTAL CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES SPECIAL POLICE SERVICES NA NA SALES OF MAPS/PUBLICATIONS PER CAP 2 NA SPECIAL CITY SERVICES PER CAP 2 NA RECOMMENDED USER FEES PER CAP 2 NA CHARGES TO WATER FUND PER CAP NA JR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM PER CAP I S105,000 75.00% $0.56 LIBRARY SERVICE PER CAP I NA RECREATIONAL FEES PER CAP $1,456,000 $6.09 SI(Y3.24 PHOTOCOPYING PER CAP I NA BLOOD ALCOHOL REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP I NA TOTAL $1,561.000 $6.65 $103.24 OTHER REVENUE PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS SPECIAL GAS TAX PER CAP I NA TRANSFER-NARCOTICS FUND PER CAP 2 PARKING STRUCTURE PER CAP 2 $150,000 25.00% $0.63 $10.64 LIBRARY PER CAP 2 NA CABLE TV PER CAP 2 NA GOLF COURSE PER CAP 2 $150,000 75.00% S0.63 1110.64 REFUSE OFFSETTING TRANSFER-FIRE MED PROGRAM PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL f300,000 $1.25 $21.27 GRANDTOTALS $15.88 $247.00 NOTES I.TYPES OF PROJECT REVENES A.CASE STUDY REVENUE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE I(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) D.PER BUSINESS ACRE BUS ACRE): BASED ON A BUSINESS ACRE SHARE 2.THE UTILII-Y UNITARY TAX IS DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES ON THE BASIS OF RELATIVE SERVICE AREA. HOWEVER AN AREA-BASED SPREAD IS NOT FEASIBLE IN THIS ANALYSIS AND A PER CAPITA (RESIDENTIAL POP ONLY)FAIRLY APPROXIMATES THE AREA-BASED SPREAD FOR THIS REVENUE SOURCE. 3.THE REDUCTION FACTOR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PORTION OF THESE REVENUES ESTIMATED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE,DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,TO LOCALICITY RESIDENTS fl Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb04 I N FILE:BC FIREC(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 1.GENERAL GOVERNMENT TABLE: C-5b CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,111193) 186.966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ------------ ---------------------------------------------- EXPENDITURE 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ANALYSIS BUDGET REDUCTION COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION METHOD\I ESTIMATE FACTOR\4 PER CAPITA PER ACRE 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMIMSTRATION CASE STUDY (AS A PERCENTAGE OF ONGOING DIRECT COSTS) CITY COUNCIL&INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PER CAP 2 $255,742 $1,07 $18.13 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $1,027,284 $4.30 $72.94 CITY TREASURER PER CAP 2 $724,955 $3.03 $51.40 CITY ATTORNEY PER CAP S1,550,535 $6.49 $109.94 CITY CLERK PER CAP $441,434 $1.85 $31.30 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PER CAP 2 $4,287,566 $17.93 $304.02 - -- --- - --------------------- - -- -- TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $8,287,516 $34.66 $597.64 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES LESS ABOVE $88,878,607 RATIO OF GEN GOV'T/ADMIN EXPENSE TO OPERATIONAL COSTS: ►.> TO 1.00 NA (RN:GENGOVT_(S) NON DEPARTMENTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PER CAP NA MICRO SUPPORT PER CAP 2 NA UTILITIES WATER(IRRIGATION,ETC)\2 PER CAP 2 $88,750 25.00% $0.37 $6.29 GAS(SEWER,DRAINAGE PUMPS,ETC.) PER CAP 2 $46,250 25.00% $0.19 $3.28 ELECTRICITY(STREET/TRAFFIC LIGHTS, PER CAP 2 $881,000 25.00% $3.68 $62.47 CITY FACILITIES) \3 NA CIVIC CENTER LEASE PER CAP 2 NA OTHER(CONTR.SVCS,SELF INSURANCE) PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL NON DEPARTMENTAL S1,016,000 $4.25 $72.04 N-DEFT-CAP N-DEPT-AC NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.WATER(IRRIGATION,ETC)COSTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO IRRIGATE THE 582 ACRES OF CITY PARKLAND. THE PROJECT COST OF PARKLAND IRRIGATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PARK MAINTENANCE CASE STUDY COST ANALYSIS 3.DEDUCT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT FROM ELECTRICAL IF CALCULATING STREET LIGHTS SEPARATELY,AS A CASE STUDY COST: PER CAP 2 $2,466,263 $10.32 $174.88 -SOURCE OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE COSTS:MSI STUDY,8191 STLT_CAP STLT_AC 4,THE REDUCION FACTOR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PORTION OF THESE COST ESTIMATED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO LOCAL OFFSITE RESIDENTS WHO USE THE FACILITIES POWERED BY THESE UTILITIES. n Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 1 to � f � � � � . � �¥ �2Q# §! � §(/ � -- � ;� / ■a §�) � a ■RRFR §)/ � .���, <] R \ � ~- §( 3 `)®d§g i?« / U. (% �( U _2§ , {. } }§/§ <! w< 2 §<< ( )k � 0; Koh �`�m`@ ��` t\K (! EI / (\ § §§ § gym§ §k k ' /kzL -s k \ / § /�/$\ /\ }.0 § - ls,f& 2 ow�w ( § J!il2a <00 § § z ! �2 ({}§ \ § �» _ \ ( R` �§ �`m t;§ k(§(� ■I\®` 4r;\!4!\ \0�)/| § Q / 0\§ § 0 ww w ( 1§ .\ »s! i � I § �k§ HZ } N. §§§ 2 c—& FILE:BC FIREC(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 3.FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES TABLE: C-5d CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/l/93) 196,966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ---••-- ------------------------....-.....— 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE -------------------—----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ............ ....-...... ............ ............ 3 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 NA FIRE PREVENTION PER CAP 2 NA CIVIL DEFENSE/EMERGENCY SERVICES PER CAP 2 NA RESERVE FIREFIGHTERS PER CAP 2 NA HAZMAT RESPONSE UNIT PER CAP 2 NA HAZMAT CONTROL PER CAP 2 NA HAZMAT PERMIT/INSPECTION REVENUES PER CAP 2 NA SEARCH&RESCUE PER CAP 2 NA DISPATCH NETWORK(CENTRAL NET JPA COSTS) PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL FIRE-CAP FIRE AC FIRE CONTROL AND PARAMEDICS-CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ANNUAL OPERATIONS COST FOR PROJECT FACILITIES TYPE I TYPE 2 STATION STATION COST ITEM (TRCK,ENG,PARA VAN,AMBUL) (PARAMED ENO CO) ........................................-...--................--- PERSONNEL $2,786,442 $1,130,997 EQUIPMENT(MAINT,REPLACE) $142,256 $59,202 SUPPLIES/OPERATING $50,723 $28,190 SUBTOTAL $2,979,421 $1,218,379 TYPE-1 TYPE-2 III --••---•--•-----------•—------------- NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) n Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb94 Is s � i u < € 0 o > U p K� LL LL Y.LL LL �tt', �+1 U � N < O< J Kj Ii rW W iG M u WtZy O µS2 °�u a �m.a ruia +E'<N= ff=11 d< <t�V anp d< d PµaUZ1Z7 <<< u,M»A U,u uu U,u U. Ma' pS.�y �u °i�31 Ct k d dd O" p7((K W w 0�'{yS� {`U�'pU[pUc p[ d O' < S 8 s.0 $S< SSA3 s538 y t g ��� I z zzzzzz :ssS ezzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzze zz y W 8a�1' �_ 3Slu §8 d a U W. U K a y J 6 g Nrvrvrvu N � 0Z N N N N N ry N N N N N N N N N N N ry fl N N N N N ry 'TJ' ry N ry d d d 4 6 6 0.d 6 d 6 Z W s uuuuuu uu u�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu�Wu Uu U �, �� a� ec e�s ocm o� o�oc yLL.....n.s....a[a --- - rc < 61 W W W W W W W W W LL W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LLLL W W W W < < < d 6 0 6 6 6 600 6 6 6 d U 3 u u y Z < �g s z yl m a S U W Q QyO y G < s so J u < zrps < o du Wn o S C� Wiz LL it 88 <00 O U v8 d y d W G a aQ Ze` J< ZZZ < zbrJ' < L J d ?p� 5r(GJ�C-S1� "'1 'ZJ �'J si�'-1 tUV8 Nµ?•fZ,1 wyZ t�J y Sd 1LL OUCdJ dCC�]] 25<W]LZt. �{�6GSC< 8 58 z Z<U j K � < $ OW4 4 �cs �N+, 'Ss ZO Sosc Sx t6mmtt< [++zgy < o QQ z c fn� bw�y�b 46p <p 02 V� i <dp 5 2�a<,d`a g �M ��r-�y' 5� J«<Q��pO{y..'< �JW S—. �1' F, � S{I�d S of`µ�� W [d]MF-d< S Sd{[3t7� �(� to 2� <�dy�V 0—fLO j d�0�2�..,�(a CC�< W�� 2F In t ecZ Oi<W QXX 6d OZQ O[ d74oZ W < °c 1' y� < z o� f J � axu<LLo �u J 8 t�wF u I"S � µ o�F3 <<�F� 0¢�u6i �y O LLS —` wE52 ug— C a wy < u>o�e<< aec c ZwaW < e� ��„ g<y<< �,&r-<12< ..Wy�� x aop�f �S�a<psN(��px�'{�� wµ <� �ua` § 8 � 9W o 0y 5 >g� ScsQuddg ru QrL W I Epj< yw WF W I-� LL W Ux LL4l�mUC 0.W UU 6(O Z It p i�CC77 a~ t: a FILE:BC_FIREC(4286) WOPKS14EET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 6.COMMUNITY SERVICES,7.LIBRARY SERVICES ' TABLE: C-5g CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN.1/1193) 196,966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,090 - ' - 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES CASE STUDY ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $529,430 $2.21 S37.54 TOTAL $529,430 $2.21 $37.54 BEACH DIV SUPERVISION PER CAP 2 $164.535 $0.69 $11.67 ' MARINE SAFETY PER CAP 2 S1,626,262 $6.80 $11531 BEACH MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 S796,652 S3.33 $56.49 PARKING FACILITY PER CAP 2 $571.480 S2.39 $40.52 PIER(1992-93 BUDGET AMT) PER CAP 2 $8.000 $0.03 $0.57 PARKING METERS PER CAP 2 S150.094 $0.63 S10.64 ' MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $235,100 $0.98 $16.67 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PER CAP 1 S167,989 50.90 PARK SURVEILLANCE/NATURE CTR PER CAP 2 $96.409 $0.40 $6.94 TOTAL S3.816,521 S16.16 $258.71 ' REC,HUMAN SRVCS&PARK SUPERVSN PER CAP 2 S345.216 SI.44 $24.48 COMMUNITY CENTERS PER CAP 2 S331,513 $1.39 $23-51 CITY GYM&POOL PER CAP 1 $202.194 $1.08 TENNIS PER CAP 2 S100,120 $0.42 $7.10 ADULT SPORTS PER CAP 2 S235,586 $0.99 $16.70 YOUTH SPORTS PER CAP 1 $46,132 $0.25 ' ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND PER CAP 1 $19.406 SO-l0 INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES PER CAP 1 $277.907 S1.49 AQUATICS PER CAP 1 $121,869 $0.65 SPECIAL EVENTS/EXCURSIONS PER CAP 2 S24,780 $0.10 S1.76 DAY CAMPS PER CAP 1 $40.818 $0.22 ' SENIORS'CENTER PER CAP 2 $145,792 $0.61 $10.34 OAKVIEW CENTER PER CAP 1 $142,914 $0.76 CLUBHOUSES PER CAP 2 S29.679 $0.12 S2.10 SENIORS'OUTREACH PER CAP 2 $305.678 S1.28 S21.67 ARTS/CULTURAL AFFRS PER CAP 2 $144,545 $0.60 $10.25 EXHIBITS,PERFORM,SPEC EVNTS PER CAP 2 S5,073 $0.02 $0.36 COMMUNITY BAND PER CAP 2 $5,245 $0.02 $0.37 TOTAL $2,523.467 S11.55 $118.64 MUSEUM SERVICES PER CAP 2 S7,989 $0.03 $0.57 PUBLIC ART COLLECT. PER CAP 2 ART CENTER ADMIN PER CAP 2 ART CENTER PROGRAM PER CAP 2 ART CENTER BOOKSTORE PER CAP 2 ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP PER CAP 2 ' TOTAL $7.989 $0.03 $0.57 SISTER CITIES PROGRAM PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $6.877.407 $29.96 $415.46 ' COMSERV_CAP COMSERV_AC 7 LIBRARY SERVICES PER CAP 1 $3,227,573 $17.27 LIB_CAP LIB AC ' NOTES: 1-TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE 1(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY ' C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL.&INSTITUTIONAL USES) ' Pub&Economics.Inc. 14-Feb94 C-7 M M M r M M M M M -M M M M M M M M M M FILE: BC FIREC(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 8. FIXED ASSET REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE TABL C-5h CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN, 1/1/93) 196,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11.023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ESTIMATED ANNUAL REASON FOR EXCLUSION PERCENT ANNUAL EXPENDITURE COST COST EXPENDITURE- DESCRIPTION AVG. LIFE REPLACE COST REPLACE COST FROM FISCAL IMPACT REDUCTION REPLACE COS TYPE A PER CAPITA PER ACRE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ALLEYS 20 54,103,810 PER CAP 2 "ARTERIAL WALLS 20 $22,136,400 $1,106,820 " 51,106.820 PER CAP 2 $4.63 $78.48 AUTOh1OTOVE-GENERAL 5 $4,134,729 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% PER CAP 2 AUTOMOTOVE-POLICE 3 52,193,908 PER CAP 2 AUTOKIOTOVE-SPECIAL PURPOSE 15 59,357,680 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% PER CAP 2 •BEACH LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT 20 " PER CAP 2 •BRIDGES 30 512,000,000 5400,000 * 5400.000 PER CAP 2 51.67 528.36 BUILDINGS 30 5103,993,647 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 5 52,822,905 Sonic ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00%. PER CAP 2 CURBS,GUTTERS&SIDEWALKS 20 5121,952,045 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 *DOCKS&PIERS 50 58,570,000 5171,400 * $171,400 PER CAP 2 $0.72 512.15 *GOLF COURSE 20 54,050,000 $202,500 *Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50,00% 5101,250 PER CAP 2 $0.42 57.18 •LIBRARY BOOKS VAR 512,799,289 51.358,499 * $1,358.499 PER CAP 2 $5.68 596.33 MEDIANS 20 52,939,542 PER CAP 2 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5 54,332,826 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00%. PER CAP 2 OFFICE FURNITURE 10 53,808,677 PER CAP 2 OTHER EQUIPMENT 10 $5,780,941 PER CAP 2 'PARKS,LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT VAR 561,234,773 54,228,982 " 54,228.982 PER CAP 2 $17.69 $299.86 'PARKING LOTS 20 $2,916,603 5145,830 " 5145,830 PER CAP 2 $0.61 $10.34 'PARKING METERS 15 5498,780 533,252 *Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% 516,626 PER CAP 2 50.07 $1.18 SEWER SYSTEM 40 555,538,260 PER CAP 2 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 50 $30,761,681 PER CAP 2 *STREET LIGHTS 20 $4,240,000 $212,000 * $212,000 PER CAP 2 50.89 $15.03 •STREET TREES 50 $7,200,000 $144,000*Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% 572,000 PER CAP 2 $0.30 $5.11 STREETS 20 $253,248,705 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 STREETS-PARKING 20 552,416 PER CAP 2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 10 59,400,000 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 TRAFFIC SIGNS 8 5775,000 Replacement is ongoing 100.00% PER CAP 2 WATER-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 40 $240,399.011 Enterprise fund,paid thru rates 100.00% PER CAP 2 WATER- RESERVOIRS 50 534,000,000 Enterprise fund,paid thru rates 100.00%. PER CAP 2 TOTAL $1,025,241,628 58,003,283 57,813,407 $32.68 5554.02 RN: FAR CAP FAR AC ------------------------------------------------------------------------......... NOTES: I.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE I (PER CAP 1): BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C, PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2): BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) Source: Management Services Institute Sludp. 1991-92 n I Public Economics, Inc. 14-Feb-94 Go m m m r = m = = i .m = m = m m = = = m TABLE C-6b 012/14/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES-PHASING FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Se x1000) TOTALS 1995.96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000.01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004.05 2005-06 2006-07 ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE OF CROSS GAP CONNECTOR DEDICATED 10.0% 10.0% SI STREET MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.51 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 ARTERIALS 0.12 0.43 0.66 0.82 0.99 1.24 1.61 2.04 2.40 2.76 3.05 3.29 LOCAL STREETS 0.32 0.97 1.35 1.35 1.50 2.00 2.83 3.66 4.49 5.32 6.15 6.84 TOTAL STREET MILES 0.44 1.64 2.26 2.42 2.74 3.74 6.97 8.23 9.42 10.60 11.73 12.64 LANE MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.21 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 ARTERIALS 0.36 1 28 1.99 2.46 2.97 3.72 4.83 6.14 7.21 8.29 9.17 9.95 LOCAL STREETS 0.64 1.93 2.70 2.70 2.99 4.00 5.67 7.33 8.98 10.64 12.30 13.68 TOTAL LANE MILES 1.00 3.82 5.29 5.76 6.57 8.93 16.56 19.53 22.27 24.99 27.34 29.60 CITY LANE MILES OF PROJECT IMPACT RESPONSIBILITY TOTAL LANE MILES IN CITY 1,718 PROJECT%OF TOTAL CITY TRAFFIC 5.43% PROJECT LANE MILE RESPONSIBILITY 93.37 3.17 11.92 19.31 25.93 32.80 41.00 50.73 63.00 72.60 92.11 88.98 93.37 STREET LIGHTS CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 16 16 16 16 33 164 164 164 164 164 164 ARTERIALS 7 26 41 50 61 76 99 126 148 170 188 202 LOCAL STREETS 17 51 71 71 79 106 150 193 237 281 325 361 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 24 93 128 137 156 215 413 483 549 615 677 727 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA PARKWAY MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.43 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 ARTERIALS 0.27 0.94 1.46 1.80 2.17 2.72 3.53 4.49 5.28 6.06 6.72 7.21 LOCAL STREETS 0.77 2.34 3.27 3.27 3.63 4.85 6.87 8.88 10.89 12.90 14.91 16.58 TOTAL PARKWAY MAINTENANCE ACRES 1.04 4.00 5.44 5.78 6.52 9.00 17.56 20.53 23.33 26.12 28.78 30.95 MEDIAN MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.59 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 ARTERIALS 0.09 0.30 0.47 0.58 0.70 0.87 1.13 1.44 1.70 1.95 2.16 2.31 LOCAL STREETS TOTAL MEDIAN MAINTENANCE ACRES 0.09 0.60 0.76 0.88 1.00 1.47 4.11 4.42 4.67 4.92 5.13 5.29 LOCAL PARK&TRAIL MAINTENANCE ACRES PROJECT LOCAL PARK ACRES BAL OF CITY PK REQ 05AC/1000 25.98 CUM: 1.21 3.67 5.12 5.12 5.68 7.60 10.77 13.91 17.06 20.21 23.36 25.98 TOTAL PARK MAINT ACRES 1.21 3.67 5.12 5.12 5.68 7.60 10.77 13.91 17.06 20.21 23.36 25.98 OFF-STREET TRAIL AC: CUM: ROW 15FT x 15825+10650 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE ACRES AVG PARK SIZE: TOTAL PARK AC: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A Public Economim loc. 14-Feb94 10 � APPENDIX D 1 � scennaIos1 � ANNEXATION PRIOR roDEVELOPMENT orve.rIMe Frscnumegcrs ' TABLE D-1 BOLSA CIIICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR ' SCENARIO#1--ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMIWF ONE-MIE FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF HUNTI NGTON BEACH CAPITAL FACILITIES I1IIPACT FEES. MITIGATION PAYMENTS,AND DEVELOPNDFNi CONTROL FEES ' ESTIMATE OF ONF TI11tE FISCAL Ml PACTS Potential Total Unmitigated One-Time One-Time Fee Fa0or Revenues IMP204 CAPITAL FACILITIES MIPACT FEES ' Traffic Mitigation Fees $150.00 per Trip End t l $5.095.900 $0 Library Impact Mitigation Fees $0.15 per Sq—Foe t2 $1,024.193 $0 ' Park and Recreation Impact Fees $1,102.77 per DU t3 $4.726.476 SO Sewer Fees $150.00 per DU $642.900 $0 Water Fees $2,380.00 per DU t4 $10,200.680 SO �I jl Subtotal $21,680,149 �(1 I� MITIGATION PAYMENTS THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEI"ENT\5 I Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilitie $3.210.000 Fire Srabm 16 53,210.000 SO II Police Facilities $200,000 Sdbenm,v.hcle.v $200.000 SO II I Community Services/Marine Safety Facilities $125,000 Pennant F..ia a t8 $125.000 SO 1 Subtotal P-535,000 $_0 II ' DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES\9 Planning Dept-Plan Check Fees S 100.00 ut—tc per Du $428.600 SO li Building Dept-Plan Check.Permit.Inspection 51,100.00 eatiatete per Du $4,714.600 SO Plumbing.Mechanical.Electrical $200.00 eat ream per Du $857.200 SO I Grading Plan Review $120.00 eaamatedoe.tperac.1604ac $192.480 SO i ' Engineering and Inspection Fee 8.00%of uU—ted.t imp.—1 S667.392 $0 Final Map Processing(City only) $25.00 e.t mat.per DU $107.150 SO Subtotal �6,967,422 l� TOTAL �72a182.5]1 So �! Notes: I.Current City traffic impact fee of$I50 per average daily Trip End. Assured product mix generates an average of a We more than 7.9 trip ends per day- 2.Current City library impact fee of$0.15 per building square foot of new residential or commercial/industrial construction ' 3.Qirem City park and recreation impact fee per unit less a per unit credit for the 24.8 acres of local parklard shown in the EIR for the LCP Area City scan- dard is 5 acres per 1000 population- City's standard estimated cost of park acquisition and improvement S 184,924 per acre. This standard estimate is low. 4.The City is current in the process of updating the water master plan. The per unit amount reflects the proposed Capital Facilities Charge in the plan update. 5. Impact fees are not established by City ordinance for these impacts. Mitigation for facilities impacts on these services are established through a Development li Agreement ' 6. Fire ad emergency medical facilities and equipmem required for a fie nation within the Project Area consist of a station building($2,115,000),a fie truck (S750,000).a fire engim(S225.000),and a paramedic van and an ambulance($60,000 each). 7.Coe of police patrol vehicles and a subnatiom location within the Project Area(within the fire station) - 8.Con of additional community services program facilities generated by the Project--sports field improvemems, park and mcreatim facilities/tauldiggs plus the cost of additional lifeguard equipment to offset additional beach and waterfront impacts from the Project ' 9.Based on City fees and estimates of relevant Project variables I-ttbbctbcm4286tmp-p.wlct ' Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 D-1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E 1 SCENARIO #2 1 ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ' TABLE E-1 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO 02—ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ' ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF HUNTPiGTON BEACH CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, MITIGATION PAYMENTS,AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES ESTIMATE OF ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS II Potential II Unmitigated it ' One Time Impact Fee Factor Impacts• I CAPITAL FACELI71 ES IMPACT FEES ' Trnftic Mitigation Fees 5150-00 per Trip End tl $2,933,352 i I Library Impact Mitigation Fees $0.15 per square Foot a 5590,715 Park and Recreation Impact Fees 51.102.77 per DU\3 S2,726.050 ' I Sewer Foes $150.00 per DU SO Water Fees 52,380.00 per DU A $0 t Subtotal $6,250.116 I I MITIGATION PAYMENTS THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT\S I ' I Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilities f3.:10.000 Fire aauoa%6 $1,851,405 I I � Police Focilitics $200.000 sehr,tioe.Vehicles v $115.352 ll CommunityServices/Marine Safe Facilities 5125.000 Safety Program Facilities ta $72.095 ' Subtotal $2,038,R52 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES W Planning Dept-Plan Ch, k Fees S100-00 raimate per Du S0 Building Dept-Plan Check.Permit.Inspection S 1.100.00 cmtnoe per DU $0 Plumbing.Mechanical.Electrical $200.00 estimne per DU SO ' Grading Plan Review 5120.00 mirnsted-a perac.1604 $0 Engineering and Inspection Fee 8.00`b of euwroued■imp cost f0 Final Map Processing(Cary only) $25.00 animas per DU Subtotal TOTAL •Estimated onetime Impacts for which the City would not receive offsetting revenues If annexation were to occur In the seventh year of Project development. Notes: 1.Curren City traffic impact fan of V 50 per average daily Trip Find- Assuaned product mu generates an avenge of a little more than 7.9 trip ends per day. Also asauanes no City revenues from proposed Area Transportation Improvement Program. 2.Current City library impact fee of$0.15 per building square foot of new residential or eortmnercial/indtntrial construction ' 3.Curmw City park and recreation impact fm per unit less a per unit credit for the 24.8 acres of bcwl parkland shown in the EIR for the LCP Area. City stan- dard is 5 acres per 1000 population. City's standard estnmted cost of park acquisition and improvement$184.924 per acre. This standard estimate is low. 4.The City is current in the process of updating the water master plan. The per unit amount reflects the proposed Capital Facilities Charge in the plan update - 5.bri act fees are ant established by City ordnance for these impacts. Mitigation for facilities impacts on these services arc established through a Development Agmernent 6.Fire and emergency medical facilities and equipmcru required for a fire station within the Project Area eoraist of a station building(52.115.000),a fire truck ($750.000).a fire engne(5225.000).and a paramedic vart and an ambulance(560.000 each). 7.Cost of police patrol vehicles and a substation kueatim within the Project Area(within the fire station) - 8.Cost of additional coramtavty services program facilities generated by the Project—sports field improvements, park and mcmatk,n f—ditics/buildings plus the mat of additional lifeguard equipment to offset additional beach and waterfront impacts from the,Project 9.Based on City fees and estimates of relevant Project variables 1:NbbcQ 000a29&cap_imp.wtci Public Economics.Inc. 14-Feh-94 E-1 � APPENDIX F 1 1 scervwaIoss � PROJECT REMAINS I. COUNTY orve-rime FiscnL imencrs � APPENDIX G ' 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION INFORMATION 1 1 1 TABLE G-1 ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS LOOKUP TABLE 02/14/94 10:33 A10 BOLSA CHICA(4286)-FIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. lCONTRIBUTING ASSUMPTIONS UNIT VALUATION RANGE APPROX UNIT HOME PRICE/ PROJECTED LAND USE DENSITY MONTHLY PRICE (x1000) 1991-92 AVERAGE CONST HSHOLD INC HOUSEHOLD PERSONS LAND USE TYPE ABBREV. (DUs/AC) ABSORPTION PER SF EST PRICES PRICES SQ FT COST/SF RATIO INCOME (x1000) PER DU RESIDENTIAL: ESTIMATE L 1 4.00 S170.00 f595.0 $700.0 3,500 N/A 3.80 $156.6 PER YEAR 3.10 L 2 12.00 $170.00 $425.0 $500.0 2,5W N/A 3.90 $111.8 PER YEAR 3.10 MCI 10.00 $170.00 $340.0 $400.0 2,000 N/A 3.50 $97.1 PER YEAR 2.50 ML 2 10.00 S170.00 $2973 $350.0 1,750 N/A 3.50 $85.0 PER YEAR 2.50 MH 1 10.00 S170.00 $2".s $310.0 1,450 N/A 3.25 $75.8 PER YEAR 2.50 MH 2 10,00 S170.00 $2123 $255.0 1,250 N/A 3.00 $70.8 PER YEAR 2.00 H 1 10.00 $170.00 $1953 $235.0 1,150 N/A 3.00 $65.2 PER YEAR 2.0D H 2 1200, $170,00 $170.0 $215.0 1.000 N/A 3.00 $56.7 PER YEAR 2.00 BUSINESS SITE COVERAGE TAXABLE SQ FT/ LAND USE RATIO VALUATION(x1000) SALES EMPLOYEE COM COM 0.25 N/A $1,000.0 PER ACRE SI50.00/of 250 NEIGH COM 0.25 N/A $1,000.0 PER ACRE V50.00/sf 250 RESIDENTIAL-POLICE CALLS PER DWELLING UNIT: RESIDENTIAL-TRIP ENDS(TRAFFIC)GENERATION .,it adjusted' DENSITY RANGE CALLS DUs COPY- COPY- UNITS TRIP ('x'TO'y') /DU PER CALL OUT OUT PER AC ENDS 9.99 LOW 0.96 1.04 2.04 1.04 11 10.00 15.99 MEDIUM 1.37 0.73 1.44 0.73 10.00 7 16.00 R ABOVE HIGH 1.08 0.93 1.83 0.93 RANGE NAME:CALLS DU RANGE NAME:TRIP GEN BUSINESS-SQUARE FEET PER POLICE CALL BUSINESS LAND USE TYPE orig' adjuted' SQ FT COPY- COPY- FACTOR: ABBREV. DESCRIPTION PER CALL OUT OUT 0.%8729 NEIGH COM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1,396 2,745 1,396 1,396 COM-COM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 1,3% 2,745 1,396 1,396 IND INDUSTRIAL 1,519 2,986 1,319 1,519 RANGE NAME:SF CALL nett:trow:ttsec e.s.wn 4� Public Ecoromim Inc. I4-Feb94 Z-9 '� m Q y _ Z m m i D 'i lyy'y :Dr nD m �n �nO-i ND DDD 'A> j Z �Z 21D DID DiD D pDp miapp DpC iao •�— Z S P-i N-W�wN-IO ISO JIPw =DO n.-.�.al I m O • .a A_ t/f�y G 3 A 3 Z>w 3 ey w ' r rS2r222rrr •yA '! 7� I m I I = y O r O O • • w V P J�m-- i�I< � I i < m ' I m I i O �vm,D r 9 A mP iq m 1� •�D Or , P O.O m-s u J�O N t� •A-1 Z C I � D p i � Z A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! O ><O I O Z O O Y1N NNN_N_N r�mi 3Z v.a'De�om��uSi°..� 1 m Q m 25 y D m� A D 7 �O 88 Ns INJNNNNNNMN (_A(��...I ' O O u m J O m P P w S u 0 I m r i i r O O O yN�U r tNw W u u V u� ID„ �:, �N 25vlugu��m�Sd I^I- i _ i ! i I I 25��25`SJ8'd`N6252525 i c`-ri I I � m p3 y y l i > O O N w V N�Nu N N N N N N W N a 3 a I � O I � I > i i ! 3N I 1 I i I � K � � ��f§ §:§ � ■\ � � ��� §w■ :/ � ( � -�&| ,m ■ 7! � �«=»2!©Ee,( ■a F | | ! 3q o _ _ G—a : fA m S S S S 9 •O 'O S S S S'O 4 c W> _ �1� � aaaaaaaaaaaa» � A coa IO IO iOov '> j I Z 9 f ;;r g ••]] � ; O fA 03 ! H I j CD (Zn] Z•n • ; m m< D f7A r v ' D m 70 �O g: a`SuJr°gm H.ouBu i C `" m r O m _ 00 m wHw wwgmmo�—., 0� I v !9 C Q 1 � I • I N ! I I � 0o SSS ��ea 1 i I ! N- ! i a y !$i3 N 25SS g25<P i i _ I I I J- yy�� �Pp ao25w Zg-�e.o ' I u �j pN N ♦ A O w u0i�'�O b a_ � I � O ■ !® | \2z ° )f § ( k| �� 2�§da■§!a§e� | � � 2 | � k k ` � §;§9&■§2!!■ � k■; � | §� ;;l;aQ]2■mm� k| � ■K■K■ !|2. . � § � %§ k §+k §;■� ■) ! -; � � &§ k§)s r§ ;§m� � |; !-,■ � \\ \ 2t §;■; § . � k ! � iId ( " ®- - E§ ■&-i : &( f\ Id � k\ ! � � §/A I ; ; � , a;=■; _ � • . ��� � � E§= • ;&&S�G!!&�k � � k \� � ** } - - - ) � -- § §dk7 ; F!}q\\!k!!7 vi ^^ � p@y § - E! Ekka!§a2 L§ ; �� § 2 . \� / ƒ) £§ \ ƒDƒƒ22(.1 � 2§ ! !!0 }\\ 1 G 6 ' FES 15 '94 15337 p,02 quaill all 5 « ..«" N A Hak I »Mr Nri ri 1� M N MM 1 w N» N M N M M N A d iSt « its Eli „p- 1 lip 19 19 v b S 5a • C4f4ri apG ic .J r � �t/n�r� � � 8 � �'tJ wi v Vi Yi ri tl i TABLE X-2 BOISA CH1CA LCP EIR(4290 FIR FINANCIAL MSIBILITY MIMATE m SINGLE U'Nrr ANALYSIS m N O Analysis Homeowner Total Tax Payments Regair+ed to Offset Project Public Finandng Needs Per Unit Aaeormt `= Midmmn Mld-POW _M m Average DwelMiaq Usk Values: —Develoom m ONO+Profit S2MM $31 53 —Added-Pre1W(Pab5e Flnaar lmg Reqdreaaent)\1 MOM (S ,3M (592XM —Average ResldeatW Udt Prim: S24M $271.00D MAW Amod T=/Mwdd Ammmwnt Psymeots —Prop"Tara-Coat to Hantreweaet *ate: 1.10% $204 f2,M S3,273 —Public Ftaandug Regdrem®t-Coat to Homeowner\2 S0 &%iw K704 —"MW Spedd AauemwaWPayrnmb to O>15et Fiscal Deiclb%3 S03 sm sm —Total Tames—PrMM Tans+Mile Fhmwk[+Suedal Amamwab S3367 W717 $1 Sb6 --Effwdw Tart Rste(EPit)41 @Mtr: 1.11004 Km S4,ff M 3SAU Asrarot Total Taus are Under/(Over)ETR �1 1� R1,8399 MUM 1.Selene price leas devdopmarR cost+profit 2.Arawal cost to homeowner of 30 yr bond for Public Fio wm Req*em m v 3.Per nit ammut mgmW to offset an amual Project focal deficit of S2.5 millim m 4.Sec PEI Fiscal Analysis,"Conceptual Framework'—d6cussion of Efl'rxtttive Tax Rafe("M*) S.Aaoual amount by wbicb the total takes exceed the ETR abatlbcae42t61pra�a®r.at3 i Public Economics,Inc. 154FebA4