HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/1993, Study Session - Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexationr-
������►�►►i�ulllllll�p1° city of san� ups OBIspo
ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance wzg�--
SUBJECT: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ANNEXATION
MEETING DATE:
P Z el— 93
ITEM NUMBER:
Since the Council's approval of proceeding with annexation of the Airport Area, concerns
have been expressed regarding the fiscal impacts that would be associated with doing so.
The purpose of this workshop is to familiarize the Council with the key concepts generally
associated with performing fiscal impact analyses, and the role that this kind of analysis
should play in evaluating annexation and land use issues.
To facilitate this workshop, we have contracted with Angus MacDonald, a nationally
recognized expert on urban economic issues, including fiscal impact analysis. In addition
to sharing his knowledge with us, we have also invited representatives from three cities who
are active in this area to discuss their experiences:
■ Jerry Fraser, Principal Planner
City of Santa Maria
■ Bill Feldmeier, Director of Financial Planning
City of Davis
■ Dale Pfeiffer, Director of Public Works
City of Vacaville
The proposed agenda for the workshop outlining the key areas to be covered is attached.
AR\ANEXFISC.YP
Council Workshop Agenda — August 24, 1993
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ANNEXATION
What
I. INTRODUCTION — PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
II. FISCAL IMPACT ANAYLSIS — WHAT IS IT?
A. Overviewofirsue
1. What is the role of fiscal impact analysis in evaluating annexation/land
use issues?
2. What is the difference — if any — between evaluating the impact of the
annexation itself versus the land use decisions and development review
process that will follow?
B. What are the key variables/assumplionsthat are typically considered in
performingfascalimpactanalyses? For example:
Who
John Dunn
Angus Mac Donald
1. Demographics — What do the new residents or businesses look like?
2. Absorption rates — How quickly will various components of the new development occur?
3. Timeframe — Over what period are we evaluating the impact?
4. Geography — How broadly or narrowly defined is the area to be analyzed?
5. Operating and capital costs
6. Average versus marginal costs
7. Allocation of costs and revenues between land use types
8. ' Internal shifting and redistribution of costs and revenues (regionally or locally)
C. What do we typically find as a result of fiscal impact analyses?
1. Are there any "general' rules of thumb?
2. What factors appear to be the most important? (ie, land use, demographics?)
D. How can development fees be used to mitigate adverse fiscal impacts?
Are times changing regarding their use? ie, incentives for development rather than fees?
What other tools are available to mitigate potential adverse fiscal impacts?
III. EXPERIENCES IN OTHER CITIES
A. What's happening in other "savvy"communities? Case studies
1. Santa Maria
Jerry Fraser
2. Davis
Bill Feldmeier
3. Vacaville
Dale Pfeiffer
B. What's happening locally?
Bill Statler
1. Paso Robles — Wal Mart
2. South County Fiscal Impact Analysis
C. What experience has San Luis Obispo had with fiscal impact analysis?
Bill Statler
1. Broad Street
2. Dalidio
3. Commercial scenarios — General Plan update
IV. SUMMARY/QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Council Members/
Workshop Participants
CITY OF SANTA MARIA
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEXATION STUDY
P R O J E C T H I S T O R Y A N D B A C K G R O U N D
HISTORY
The Sphere of Influence boundary for the City of Santa Maria was
originally adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in
1977. Since 1977, major changes in the economic and development
framework in Santa Maria have occurred, as have legislative guidelines
relative to sphere boundary amendments and annexations. The City was
invited by LAFCO to review their sphere in 1982, but a review was not
considered necessary at that time. Subsequently, the sphere was amended
in 1987 as a result of two annexation applications being filed and
approved by LAFCO. This Sphere Study titled, "The City of Santa Maria
Sphere of Influence Boundary and Concurrent Annexation Study," repre-
sents the first comprehensive review of the City's Sphere boundary since
1977, as provided for in Section 564.25, Chapter 4, of the Cortese/Knox
Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985.
During 1986, 1987 and 1988, LAFCO reviewed several Sphere and Annexation
Study scenarios, as presented by the City, at public hearings held in
the Santa Maria area. Following the approval by LAFCO of the project
description and designation of the City as the Lead Agency to prepare
the Environmental Impact Report, the City preceded to prepare a project
scope of work and request for proposals for distribution to qualified
consultants. The contract was signed in the summer of 1989 with
McClelland Consultants now known as Fugro-McClelland a firm located in
Ventura, California.
To enhance the coordination of the project with the three agencies
involved in this process, the City of Santa Maria, County of Santa
Barbara and the Local Agency Formation Commission, a Joint Review Panel
was established consisting of a staff member from each agency. This JRP
served as a vital tool throughout the project when ideas, methodologies
misunderstandings needed to be discussed and resolved.
This Sphere and Annexation Study, with supporting documentation provides
an analysis of the proposed amendments to the City's Sphere of Influence
and concurrent Annexations at a level of detail sufficient to meet the
requirements of the Cortese/Knox Reorganization Act and will permit
LAFCO to make decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction.
This Sphere and Annexation Study provides a basis for .recommendations
for governmental reorganization, present and planned land uses in the
areas, including agriculture and open space, the present and probable
need for public facilities and services, adequacy of public services
that will be needed and the City's Plan and methods to provide the Urban
Services needed.
-1-
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
PAGE 2
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND CONCURRENT ANNEXATION STUDY
The Project
Purpose To establish a long range program regarding
the location, phasing and nature of future
City growth.
Cost ..................... $650,000 to date.
Funded by Property Owners and City of Santa
Maria
Time in preparation ...... 3 years.
ORIGINAL PROJECT AS REVIEWED BY LAFCO
Total study area .......... 5,472 acres.
Primary target areas .... 2,620 acres.
CEQA alternative areas... 2,822 acres.
Six numbered areas
Area 1, ........
Area 3, ........
Area 5, .........
Area 6, .........
Area 7, .........
Area 9, .........
Hidden Pines, 60 acres.
West Main, 152 acres of which
to remain in agriculture.
Blosser Southeast, 314 acres.
Blosser Southwest, 258 acres.
Mahoney Ranch, 574 acres.
East Black Road, 1,262 acres.
Three CEQA Alternative areas ........
Area A, :........ Entrada Este, 467 acres.
Area B. ......... West Orcutt, 1,1.69 acres.
Area C, ......... E1 Camino Real, 1,216 acres.
70 acres is
NOTE: Acreages from Draft EIR, Dated February 18, 1991, evaluating
original project.
Time period covered ........ 1990-2010, 20 years
Products produced by the Study ...........
Phase I report,
Tract 1, Baseline conditions and Economic report.
Tract 2, Target Area Land Use Study.
Revised Economic Forecast Report based on the 1990 Federal Census.
Environmental Impact Report, including appendices, Summary of Environ-
mental Impacts, and Response to Comments.
-2-
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
PAGE 3
Six First Draft Specific Plans,
SPZ-88-011 Area 11 Hidden Pines Specific Plan.
SPZ-88-031 Area 3, West Main Specific Plan.
SPZ-88-051 Area 51 Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan.
SPZ-88-06, Area 61 Blosser-Southwest Specific Plan.
SPZ-88-071 Area 71 Mahoney Ranch Specific Plan.,
SPZ-88-101 Area A, Entrada Este Specific Plan.
One special study of Area 5 using Neo -traditional (Transit
oriented development/Pedestrian oriented development) Land
Use Patterns.
Basic Findings .... ..........................
Projected population, Year 2010, Santa Maria/Orcutt, 158,000.
3.4 % to 1.6 % growth rate, 1990-2010, average 2.5
4.5 % growth rate for City, 1980-1990.
Housing Need, Santa Maria/Orcutt, 22,456 units, 1/3 Orcutt, 2/3 Santa
Maria.
Retail Commercial space need, 3,378,577 square feet.
Office space need, 1,183,000 square feet.
Industrial space need, 3,864,000 square feet.
School Sites provided, Santa Maria, 2 - Jr. High, 2 -Elementary.
Open Space and Parks need, 842 acres.
Public Participation .................
Two public workshops, each consisting of three separate workshops for
the benefit of the Public, Property Owners,
Concerned Agencies, City, County and Local Agency Formation Commis-
sion Staff, Commissions, Council and Board of Supervisors. These
workshops were held in November, 1989 and July, 1990 at City Hall and
County Facilities in Orcutt. The final Workshop was conducted in
October, 1991, in the City Council Chambers for all concerned to
attend.
Newsletters...........................
There were three Newsletters (Boundaries) published through out the
process. the thrust of these newsletters was to inform those
concerned of what the project was about, the process, status of the
project, and announce the Workshops. The newsletters were distribut-
ed in November, 1989, July, 1990, and October 1991. Approximately
2000 newsletters were distributed each time.
Cblm
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
PAGE 4
COUNCIL DIRECTED PROJECT
February 41 1992
On February 4, 1992, the City Council reviewed the findings and
recommendations contained in the above mentioned reports to determine,
what Study Areas or combination of Study Areas
would best serve the needs of the future growth of the City of Santa
Maria, the City's ability to serve the Areas with Urban services; Fire,
Police, Water, Waste water, Solid Waste, Social Programs and maintain
the quality of life for the citizens of the City. The City Council
Amended Project is intended to be a twenty (20) year growth plan. As
stated above the original project contained 5,472 acres. The City
Council Amended Project contains 3,122 acres. The result of the City
Council Review is as follows:
Direct Staff to prepare an Amendment to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report to address the amended project to include reevaluation
of, the no project alternative, school impacts, traffic, two
development scenarios for Area 9, changes in land use configurations,
cumulative impacts, and comments received on the Draft EIR dated
February 18, 1992.
Total Area in Council directed project ..... 3,122 acres
Proposed Sphere Boundary Amendment and Concurrent
Annexationarea .......................... 1,563 acres.
Proposed Sphere Boundary amendment only .. 1,559 acres.
THE ABOVE ACREAGES ARE DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS:
Six numbered areas
Area 1* & 1N .... Hidden Pines, 60 & 139
Area 3* ......... West Main, 83 acres.
Area 5* ......... Blosser Southeast, 315
Area 6* ......... Blosser Southwest, 258
Area 7* & 7X* . Mahoney Ranch, 460 & 79
Area 91 consisting of 9N*, 9E and 9W ....
350, and 756 acres.
acres.
acres.
acres.
acres.
.... East Black Road, 156,
Area A, consisting of Al*, A2 and A3 ......... Entrada Este, 152, 156,
& 158 acres.
* Areas designated for concurrent annexation.
The remaining areas were designated for Sphere Boundary Amendment
only.
NOTE: Acreages from Amendment to Draft EIR, Dated April, 1992.
Differences in acreages between the Draft EIR and the Amendment are
due to refinement of the project areas.
-4-
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
PAGE 5
THE FOLLOWING AREAS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL AMENDED PROJECT
Area B, ......... West Orcutt, 1,169 acres.
Area C, ......... E1 Camino Real, 1,216 acres.
Major Elements of the Amended project
Population at buildout of the City, including all areas of the amended.
project, is projected to be ...... ..... ......................101,489.
Population at buildout of the City, with concurrent annexation areas
only, is projected to be ........................................94,318.
Housing units, all types at buildout of the City, including all areas of
the amended project, and total buildout of the existing City Limits, is
projectedto be ..............................• ,.................34,785.
Housing units, all types, with concurrent annexation area only, is
projectedto be.................................................32,343.
Retail commercial space, (Amended Project Area Only), buildout of
present City Limits not included ........................875,232 sq. ft.
Industrial Space, (Amended Project Area Only), buildout of present City
Limits not included ...................................6,403,865 sq. ft.
Industrial Space, (concurrent annexation areas only), buildout of
present City Limits not included ....................1,806,107 sq. ft.
School Sites Provided in all project areas ......................... 1
high school, 2 junior high schools, 3.5 elementary schools,..120 acres.
Open Space & Parks in all project areas .....................283 acres.
Open Space & Parks in the present City Limits ...............218 acres.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING HISTORY
The Planning Commission Of the City of Santa Maria held five (5) public
hearings to consider the following and recommendations to the City
Council:
1. Review and recommendation to City Council regarding Certifica-
tion of Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #90010130,
Amendment to Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Response
to Comments as the Final Environmental Impact Report. In
addition, the adoption of CEQA findings in accordance with
Section 15091, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in
accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines and a
Tiered Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. Review and recommendation to City Council regarding General
Plan Land Use classifications for the Sphere of Influence and
Concurrent Annexation Areas as shown on Exhibit "A".
3. Review and recommendation to City Council regarding Pre -zoning
for the Concurrent Annexations Areas as shown on Exhibit "B".
4. Review and recommendation to City Council regarding approval of
Concept Specific Plans prepared for Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and A.
-5-
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
PAGE 6
NOTE: Planning Commission Hearing Dates to Consider the above were
held on the following dates:
1.
July 1, 1992.
2.
July 15, 1992.
3.
July 29, 1992.
4.
August 5, 1992.
5.
August 19, 1992.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING HISTORY
The City Council of the City of Santa Maria held one public hearing on
September 15, 1992, to consider the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tions and direction to staff regarding subsequent Sphere of Influence
Boundary Amendments and Annexations as follows:
1. Certification of Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH
#90010130, Amendment to Draft Environmental Impact Report and
the Response to Comments as the Final Environmental Impact
Report. In addition, the adoption of CEQA findings in accor-
dance with Section 15091, a Statement of Overriding Consider-
ations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines
and a Tiered Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. City Council approval of General Plan Land Use classifications
for the Sphere of Influence and Concurrent Areas as shown on
Exhibit "A".
3. City Council approval of Pre -zoning for the Concurrent Annex-
ations Areas as shown on Exhibit "B".
4. City Council approval of Concept Specific Plans prepared for
Areas 1, 31 51 6, 7 and A.
5. City Council direction to staff regarding the filing of a
formal application with the Local Agency Formation Commission
in accordance with Gov. Code Sec. 56428, Subsec (a), to amend
the Sphere of Influence of the City of Santa Maria.
6. City Council adoption of a Resolution of Application in
accordance with Gov. code Sec. 56000, Subsec. (c), and direct-
ing staff to file said resolution with the Local Agency
Formation Commission requesting that certain territories be
annexed to the City of Santa Maria.
NOTE: PUBLIC TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED ON EACH OF THE ABOVE ITEMS. THE
MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT AND IN
CONCURRENCE THAT THE PROJECT CONCERNS HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDED PROJECT AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
PAGE 7
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
The City submitted an application to the Local Agency Formation
Commission on December 24, 1992, with the required application fee of
$11,000.00. This application requested the LAFCO consider and approve
the addition of 3,122 acres to the City's Sphere of Influence and by
Resolution of Application requested LAFCO to authorize the annexation of
lands within the sphere boundary amendment totaling 1,563 acres to the
City.
On June 10, 1993, LAFCO conducted the first hearing on the Sphere of
Influence Boundary Amendment request for the City of Santa Maria. On
June 24, 1993, LAFCO conducted the second hearing and authorized the
LAFCO staff to prepare the necessary resolutions for approval of the
request to add 3,122 acres to the Sphere of Influence of the City of
Santa Maria. On August 5, 1993, LAFCO adopted the resolutions.
Subsequent to the completion of the property tax exchange negotiations
now in progress between the City of Santa Maria and the County of Santa
Barbara the annexation requests will be set for hearing by LAFCO.
A3-7SphrHist
dIC
0
Summary of Remarks by Angus McDonald
w
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
.August 24, 1993
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
August Z4, 1993
THE BASICS
FISCAL Annual ongoing revenues and expenditures,
ANALYSIS: primarily involving the General Fund and the
Gas Tax Fund. Can you afford the annual
cost of the police officers and firefighters
implied by your forecast of growth and
development?
PUBLIC How are you going to pay for public
FACILITIES improvements to serve new development?
FINANCE: How are you going to remedy existing
deficiencies?
IMPACT: An impact is the difference between a
proposed action and some other reasonable
course of action!
Figure 4-1
TIME PATH FOR AM IMPACT VARIABLE
J, r-----------------
Za----
C A time
Remarks by Angus McDonald Page i
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impad Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
HOW DOES ONE DO A FISCAL ANALYSIS?
1. Describe your land uses. Do a test of market reality.
2. Use your computer models to forecast revenues. They
work fine. They'd work even better if they could
forecast what Pete, Willy, and our other friends in
Sacramento are going to do.
3. Forecast expenditures in one of two ways, depending on
the importance of the expenditure item:
• Apply your current cost -per -person -served to your
forecast of land uses. Never forget that employees and
tourists are also "persons served" in your forecasting
equation.
• Use a case study prepared by, or approved by, relevant
the Department Heads if the budget item is an
important one.
Without fail, have a Department Head review of BZ
forecast of ongoing expenditures.
4. Don't let your fiscal analysis team leave the room until
they've proposed appropriate mitigations.
Remarks by Angus McDonald page 2
City Of San Leis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
HOW DOES ONE PREPARE
A PUBLIC FACILITIES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (PFIP)?
1. Recognize that the practice of engineering is involved
here, folks!
2. Set measurable Level of Service (LOS) standards.
Reference them in your General Plan/Specific Plan.
3. Use the same market forecast that you used in the Fiscal
Impact Analysis.
4. Have your engineers do their thing. Incorporate the
results into a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as
defined in Government Code § 66002.
5. Select the means of financing. Give preference to the
use of development impact fees, with or without
enhancements. Consider the use of tax-free bonds, but
be very conservative and careful.
6. Define personal responsibility for implementation. Write
these definitions into your PFIP.
Remarks by Angus McDonald
Page 3
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impad Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
SPECIFICS OF ANNEXATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Q: Will the City be analyzing the annexation itself or the
land use decisions that follow?
A: The City will be analyzing the impact of land use
decisions that can be anticipated after annexation. The
City should be prepared to:
• Define land use entitlements,
• Define responsibility of landowners to pay for
improvements, and
• As required, define responsibility of landowners to
participate in fiscal impact mitigations.
This should be done as part of one comprehensive
process.
Q: Are you endorsing a separate fiscal impact analysis for
each annexation proposal, Angus?
A: No, I am recommending that you prepare a Specific Plan
that encompasses the amount of land that you expect to
annex over a reasonable long-term planning period (e.g.,
15-20 years). The Specific Plan includes (of course!) a
proper Fiscal Analysis and a CIP/PFIP.
Remarks by Angus McDonald
Page 4
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal lmpad Analysis of Annexation
August 14, 1993
SPECIFICS OF ANNEXATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS (Continued)
Q: Why?
A: Because a project -by -project analysis can be hopelessly
misleading. For example, an analysis of a residential
project does not properly consider the fiscal effects of
residents as employees and employers. An analysis of a
Specific Plan picks up the so-called "multiplier effects."
In my view, if a Specific Plan, properly analyzed,
produces a fiscal target acceptable to the City, then the
issue of who did what to whom, fiscally speaking, is
immaterial. A balanced Plan that incorporates
environmental and social objectives and that has an
adequate tax base and an adequate Public Facilities
Implementation Plan is pronounced "good." Any project
that is consistent with this Specific Plan, accordingly, has
alread been subject to a fiscal analysis. If a project is
inconsistent, then a Specific Plan amendment is
necessary and should be subject to a subsequent fiscal
analysis.
Q. Why not go all-out and analyze General Plan buildout?
A: An analysis much longer than 20 years taxes our ability
to make reasonable assumptions.
Remarks by Angus McDonald
Page 5
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
CONVENTIONAL WISDOMS/
NOVEL MITIGATIONS
1. Unfortunately, the conventional wisdoms are frequently
true.
2. However, there can be surprisingly high expenses to
serve apparent "fiscal winners."
3. My personal crystal ball regarding what the State is
going to do does not show a pretty picture.
4. Youair control your fiscal future, at least in part, if
you:
• Monitor the relationship between land use decisions and
fiscal performance. Do this at least annually.
• Demand consistency of assumptions and technical
approach in fiscal impact studies.
• Use benefit assessments if there truly is "special benefit."
• Intervene, if necessary. Demand linkages between
residential and non-residential uses.
Remarks by Angus McDonald
Page 6
i
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
ANGUS N. McDONALD
Angus N. McDonald heads the firm of Angus McDonald & Associates, a California
corporation specializing in real estate economics and public finance.
Mr. McDonald is one of California's most experienced practitioners in all elements of fiscal
analysis and public facilities finance. He was the financial consultant to the California
Transportation Commission during its first four years after formation. He has consulted to
the California Department of Transportation, as well as to the State transportation agencies
in Iowa and Hawaii.
Mr. McDonald has been responsible for more than 200 evaluations of financial and fiscal
impacts for local governments in California. He was responsible for the original edition of
the Economic Practices Manual published by the State of California, Office of Planning and
Research. He has participated in establishing manuals of practices for fiscal impact analyses
for Monterey County, Sacramento County and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Recent project experience includes technical assistance to a joint city/consultant team that
assembled a Capital Improvement Plan totaling nearly $500,000,000. He was responsible for
the Laguna Public Facilities Financing Plan in Sacramento County where the cost of public
improvements totaled $189,010,000 (January 1, 1986 dollars). The Mello -Roos bond issue
that was part of this financing was the largest that had been issued as of that time. He was
also responsible, at the same time, for design of the Antelope Development Fee Ordinance
in Sacramento County. In this instance, fees rather than bonds were recommended as being
more responsive to County requirements and landowner objectives. He has used all of the
techniques of finance for public facilities currently available in California.
Mr. McDonald has also prepared public facilities financing plans for landowners/developers
for recommendation to a public agency. He served as advisor to the Central California
Building Industry Association on proposed local development impact fees.
Mr. McDonald has written and spoken widely on issues of governmental organization and
public finance. In particular, he has emphasized the importance of considering issues of
fiscal impact and financing of public improvements at the time when development
entitlements are first considered.
Mr. McDonald is both a Professional Engineer and a Certified Planner.
Page 7
City of San Leis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
After Before
Workshop Workshop
I. Does residential development pay its way?
❑
❑
YES
❑
❑
NO
❑
❑
That's a poorly -formulated question, Angus!
2. Fiscal analysis is best done:
❑ ❑ On a project -by -project basis, as developers and builders file their
subdivision maps.
❑ ❑ When Area Plans or Specific Plans are adopted.
❑ ❑ When the General Plan is updated.
3. Rank the following land uses in order of "fiscal attractiveness"
(]=Best, 5=Worst)
A single-family residence
An apartment complex
A Sharper Image mail order processing center
A "big box" retailer
A pharmaceutical research center
4. What role is there in the City's planning process for forecasts of
amount and location of development?
❑ ❑ None. That's the private sector's issue.
❑ ❑ Optional
❑ ❑ Essential
Prepared by Angus McDonald Page 1
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Workshop on Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation
August 24, 1993
SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (Continued)
,ANSWERS QUESTIONS
After Before
Workshop Workshop
5. Can development impact fees help pay for the ongoing cost of
services?
❑
❑
YES
❑
❑
NO
6. "You can get any answer you want from a focal impact analysis.
All you have to do is play games with your assumptions."
❑
❑
Strongly agree with this statement
❑
❑
More or less agree with this statement.
❑
❑
Neutral
❑
❑
More or less disagree with this statement
❑
❑
Strongly disagree with this statement
Prepared by Angus McDonald Page 2
CITY OF DAVIS 27 -Apr -93
CITYWIDE MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMPANY Updated: 04/27/93
CITIZENS AND EMPLOYEES "MUNICIPAL SERVICES POLICY"
FY 1992-93 Final Budget / CITYWIDE EXISTING Compared to GENERAL PLAN UNBUILT
(EXCLUSIVE OF USER / REGULATION FEES & OPERATING GRANTS)
Citywide
Gen Plan
PARCEL REVENUE:
Existing
Unbuilt
EXPENDITURES:
Subtotal
Percent
Property Tax
$228
$150
City Council
$6
0.9%
Sales & Use Tax
120
154
City Attorney
10
1.4%
State Subventions (Motor Vehicle)
82
45
City Manager/City Clerk
21
3.0%
Public Safety Charge
49
46
Finance & Administrative
Lighting & Landscaping
Services Department
60
8.5%
Assessment District
83
57
Community Development Dept.
14
2.0%
Municipal Services Tax
45
39
P&CS: Administration
31
Business License Tax
28
49
P&CS: Community Promotion &
Transient Lodging Tax
17
0
Education
13
Gas & Electric Franchise
13
8
P&CS: Human Services
11
Cable T.V. Franchise
10
5
P&CS: Parks & Open Space
93
Real Property Transfer Tax
6
59
P&CS: Public Facilities
------
------
Maintenance
40
TOTAL PARCEL REVENUE
5681
8612
P&CS: City Facilities Maint
0
P&CS: Recreation
40
P&CS
P&CS: Cultural Services
3
231
32.8%
OPERATING REVENUE:
Fire: Admin & Research
12
Charges to other Operating Costs:
Fire: Operations
80
- Overhead Support Cost
14
14
Fire: Prevention
13
Fire
- In -Lieu Property Tax
5
5
Fire: Training
22
127
18.0%
- Enterprise Franchise Fee
4
4
Police: Administration
27
Police: Field Services
100
Investment Earnings, Rent, Lease
8
8
Police: Invest Services
43
Police.
Fines & Forfeitures
1
1
Police: Technical Services
66
236
33.5%
Other Sources
10
10
Public Works: Administration
2
Public Works: Street Repair/Maint
0
P.W.
TRANSFERS:
Public Works: Lighting
7
9
1.3%
From RDA (Loan repayment 2 of 5)
4
n/a
Special Projects
3
0.4%
TRANSFER TO FUND BALANCE:
(23)
(19)1
PROGRAM SUPPORT EXPENDITURES
------
$717
------
101.8%
------
------
Expenditure Savings
(13)
-1_8%
TOTAL REVENUE PER D.U.E.
$704
$635
......
------
-----------------------------------------------.
======
TOTAL EXPENDITURES PER D.U.E.
$704
.100.0%
UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE: ESTMATED
------
June 30, 1993
Citywide
Citywide
Total
D.U.E.'s
Existing
Unbuilt
Probable
Estimated Unreserved Fund
08/19/92
04/27/93
Buildout
Balance July 1, 1992:
852
Residential (avg 2.4 occupants/unit)
18,987
7,992
26,979
Schools (2,357)
0
0
0
Increase of Fund Balance:
23
Commerical (315 sq ft = 1 employee)
3,226
5,848
9,074
------
Industrial (actual employees / 2.4)
394
174
568
Estimated Unreserved Fund
------
Balance June 30, 1993:
875
Total D.U.E.
22,607
------
14,014
------
36,621
THE BOTTOM LINE TEL NO.209-295-4184 Aug 24.93 10:56 P.02
a
CITY OF DAVIS — 11 -May -93
•
CROSSROADS MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMPANY Updated: 04/27/93
A CITIZENS AND EMPLOYEES "MUNICIPAL SERVICES POLICY"
FY 1992-93 Final Budget / C17TWIDE EXISTING Compared to SELECTED CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
(EXCLUSIVE OF USER / REGULATION FEES 6 OPERAiING GRANTS)
--------------•---_---------------------------------
Citywide
PARCEL REVENUE: Existing
Property Tax
$228
Sales 8 Use Tax
120
State Subvcriliuns (Mulur Vehicle)
82
Public Sufcty Charge
49
Lighting 8 LarxJscaping Assessment Dist:
83
Municipal Services Tax
45
Business Licensc Tax
28
Transient Ledging Tax
17.
Gas b Electric Franchise
13
Cable T.Y. Franchise
10
Real Property Trarv:fcr Tax
6
TOTAL PARCEL REVENUE
$681
mumu.
Citywide
D.U.E.'s
Eaisling
08/19/92
Residential Cavo 2.4 occupants/unit) 18,987
Sclivula (2,357) 0
Commerical (315 sq ft a 1 employee) 3,226
IrxlustriaL (actual employees / 2.4) 394
Total D.U.E. 22,607
.......... .----------------------------------------•-------------------
Citywide N Central Crossroads Crossroads
Gen Plan Gen Plan Gen Plan Request
5150 $373 5261 $259
154 126 207 253
45 68 69 66
46 50 46 46
57 109 55 53
39 47 42 42
49 31 18 22
0 0 0 0
8 10 9 9
5 7 7 f
59 107 74 74
...... ----•- ------
$612 $928 $788 $831
.a..• •euo swam_ .muco
Citywide N central Crossroads Crossroads
Unbuilt Unbuilt Gen Plan Request
04/27/93 04/27/93 04/27/93 04/27/93
7,992 2,284 1,401 1,466
0 0 0 0
5,848 266 259 346
174 174 0 0
------ ------ ...... ------
14,014 2,724 1,660 1,812
u.u. ..u.. •..... euaa.
NOTE: Thr Abuve figures cuivarc thu City's existing General Fund Operating support revenues per DUE (1992-93 budget) to
the General Plan buildout (2010) revenues and certain General Plan areas anticipated or requested for future buiLd-out.
ALL projections are based on present-day valua. Revenues from direct user fees (10, certain recreational activities,
building and fire inspections and other regulation activitios) are not included in the above figures because it is
assured that all future users will also be charged their equal share. Operating grant revenue is also not included
in the above figures because they are considered one-time services.
The City's water, sewer, di•dinagc, Wid sanitation enterprise operations are assumed to be self-supporting and balanced
(demand and ability to pay versus production and delivery costs), so revenues from those fees are also not included in
the above amounts. The enterprise operation fees are designed and structured to cover 100% of their individual
mointenonec, operation and rcplaeement costa.
Capital asset revenues required to mitigate certain development burden and infrastructure constraints are identified
all h Awparate %beet tttled M.Ater DUE Fac Schedule.
comporcl.wk3
I tit JOU I I UI"I L11Vt I tL IVU . LUy-LyS-4164
s
CITY of DAVIS
HUg 24ryJ lU:7b F'.US
11 -May -93
1993.94
Master D.U.E. fee
Schedule
updated:
04/27/93
Crossroads GnPlen
Effective
07/01/93
1993-94 1991.92
Ruadway
Valar
Drainega
Sawar
Care Enh Parke
Safe Fac
Gen Fac
Open Sp
Tatatfee lotalhee
Single -Family
1,797
816
544
494
6
4,356
361
1,596
0
9910 8236
Mutti-Family
1,170
654
245
306
4
4,356
452
1,596
0
8782 7D74
Retail
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0 3500
office
2,516
653
435
. 197
42
1,742
633
958
0
6977 3885
Industrial
283
ZBB
167
83
5
152
62
112
0
1152 2053
Business -Park
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3012
service -Commercial
1,595
658
416
189
46
1,333
798
994
0
6030 3563
Crossroads GnPlan
MPFP Projected D.U.E. Cash
flow by Tear
Development Projections Last Updated
04/27/93
A = AetuoL Revenue
Roadway
Vater
Orairiege
Sewer
Core Erg)
Parks Safa fac
Gen fee
Open Sp
Total
adj bat 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1987-88 A 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1988-89 A 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989.90 A 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1990-91 A 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1991-92 A 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1992-93 224653
102030
67973
61693
712
544472
45149
199559
0
1246241
1993-94 224653
102030
67973
61693
712
544472
45149
199559
0
1246241
1994-95 392191
183964
107119
94054
3290
937825
118924
368981
0
2206348
1995-96 347261
163558
93524
81716
3147
828931
109895
329069
0
1957100
1996-97 329288
155395
88086
76760
3091
785373
106283
313104
0
1857401
1997-98 327587
155379
87400
77247
2921
797462
104898
315515
0
1868409
1998.99 161750
73461
48941
44419
513
392020
32507
143663
0
897293
1999-00 161750
73461
48941
44419
513
39ZD20
32507
143683
0
897293
2000.01 158156
71829
.47853
43432
501
363308
31785
140490
0
877353
2001.02 158156
71829
47853
43432
501
383308
31785
140490
0
877353
2002.03 154561
70197
46765
42445
490
374597
31063
137297
0
857414
2003-04 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2004-05 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ZOOS -06 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2006-07 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007-08 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2008-09 0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
a
0
2009-10 0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total 2640005
1223132
752428
671329
16392
6363787
669944
2431429
0
14788445
Less act. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Net Total 2640005
1223132
752428
671329
16392
6363787
689944
2431429
0
14788445
WELCOME TO
THE CITY OF DAVIS
BIG PICTURE FINANCIAL PLANNING
THE DYNAMICS OF FINANCIAL PLANNING
Common Sense
Realistic Expectations
THE OBJECTIVE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING
Stating the Real Cost
THE GOAL OF FINANCIAL PLANNING
Living Within Our Means
CITY Y Ue DAVIS
MAf R FINANCIAL PLANNING ST" =RE
I. CITY POLICY
Redevelopment Agency
E
S P
HOUSING PHASED
a
p I
PROJECTS
s
t
e a
c n
GENERAL
I
PIAN
f
i
a
v
c
South Davis
i
Specfic Plan
s
II. CITY WORK PLANS
All work associated with development
5 - YEAR ROILING .
ACCEPTED
HOUSING PHASED
NON -ALLOCATION
I
ALLOCATION PLAN
PROJECTS
II. CITY FINANCIAL
ACTION PLANS
EXPAND & EXTEND PIAN
Part 1
MAJOR
PROJECTS
FINANCING
Acquire Additional Assets
N. - CITY'S FINANCIAL HEALTH
All wort associated with
PROPOSED
NEW
CITY PROJECTS
REPIAWRECOND/ENHANCE PIAN
Part 2
EXISTING
FD®
ASSET
PIAN
Update Existing Assets
Comprehensive
Annual Financial
Report
This diagram is also
lmown as "Capitalzing The
General Plan."
Rey to Financial Planning is
this area where new and
existing projects, including
projects with significant scope
or financial change, are
publically discussedstudied
and approved before they are
included in MPFP, or Fixed
Asset Plans. See New Capital
Project Process Diagram.
Assets mean all real and
Personal property
including land,
infrastructure, Plant and
equipment.
IVnr:r*iry i
Parr 3
MUNICIPAL SERVICE
AND ENTERPRISE
OPERATING
BUDGETS
Maintaining City Assets
Economic & Priority Plan
Part 4
Cash Flow Plan
Pay Cash Or Charge
Prepaird by City of Davis Fnancc and Administration Services Department
IZ112/92
Monthly PARCEL ACCOUNTING MODE
Statistical Development Forecast.
Reports Actual Fee Revenue Collected
MPFP MAJOR PROJECTS
Book FINANCING PLAN MODEL
ECONOMIC MODEL
Citywide
Project Plan Area
Comparison Projects
PROMODEL.WB1
tLUF'MtN I I Yolo County
ODEL Auditor Data
0 Data Sources
Data Links
Q Reports
Prepared by THE BOTTOM LINE
06/16/93
EXHIBIT A
HTE
Policy Direction
TAZ Map
Land Use &
GENERAL PLAN
Land Use
Building Permits
Specific Plans
Database
Modules
Support Studies
City 5 Year
Roiling
HTE
Allocations
Revenue
Collection
Low Cost
Module
Housing
Monthly PARCEL ACCOUNTING MODE
Statistical Development Forecast.
Reports Actual Fee Revenue Collected
MPFP MAJOR PROJECTS
Book FINANCING PLAN MODEL
ECONOMIC MODEL
Citywide
Project Plan Area
Comparison Projects
PROMODEL.WB1
tLUF'MtN I I Yolo County
ODEL Auditor Data
0 Data Sources
Data Links
Q Reports
Prepared by THE BOTTOM LINE
06/16/93
�Ny qry
Y
uu m I Im'm I T`'m �m9 IO 9 mfmlOnmm(O 1 9
m ^ N O I I a m I I d
N mqe Ay Co �WEO s.cO me r1 O
5cU1LL
C.
Woq@:Cb
mam
O = I °m TO R
° °
Cl c. UpE2JLpOCE mL�d®mO $.^
0 ^ 0 a
i am aU'miqEixatad
_c2 242 asJ EwtN
coc mmVEUo n
E m2 p
33Qs¢ g °UD a$-_`._mgmmmmmmQmN mmmmbmXc
Ou
O rOrD dNmn LLOUmLLt22W2<222ZZ2Zm2222 Ym Q a ._1 m m U U>O^
_
;
m m V r m N
1 I
dz amaaa<a<aa-Qaaaaaaaaaaa" aaaaaaaaaaafaaa<fiaaaaaa'aaa�Caaaa n
—3—
I
q tl
� wqm Npy �
I oC�
w� w w N
w
I b ¢ LL
I
I
S mSSn »SS»»» ^,a
I'1 p810 SNNS ASSS'SO � mN S e'1g001 � �b nY1» SNS N
1m0 N
fN0 OYf O fOn
Om b m IW mw^ m
x
w
1 ui
I � N
w
1
I
I
I
U C
W N N
I O I^
0 O
S
M qIsq
I Z.6
C ,4
'Y J
LL
U y
1ViV
pmI W
O
w
U
I
I
o
I
I
I
p p p p
S »p^�»»S »w$1m°S'a»»»».,9»'w o eo 0 08 mm o0 00
O N � t'1 V
I
�
Im N tl � tl 2 N � Y M
❑
�
SSSSSSS$SSgS�SSSSS»»SSSS»SS»»SSSS»»»SSSS»ow SSSSSSSSS
I m
I m
w N v
I
I
I
I d
y LL
m p n pp W
S nn nN S8O SW
S 0tNil
VOm1 SNm
N^
p}I'f SO
wNN 8NN
8O 8O=
m�wp QZj YNf 8mA SvS
n0 ^� SmNmo
m1�A^IB
mttN'll
mO�tl
NO qON
N8COC
Nmf�
M I A
SgN �
wqnINm
MOm NnW wN1'f
MNmv
wmp
NNmNO^
qNv Y10
(' NNN
gp
w W
N N N Y N Y M N N g N N N N
g
old
~
O
UQ
�Ny qry
Y
uu m I Im'm I T`'m �m9 IO 9 mfmlOnmm(O 1 9
m ^ N O I I a m I I d
N mqe Ay Co �WEO s.cO me r1 O
5cU1LL
C.
Woq@:Cb
mam
O = I °m TO R
° °
Cl c. UpE2JLpOCE mL�d®mO $.^
0 ^ 0 a
i am aU'miqEixatad
_c2 242 asJ EwtN
coc mmVEUo n
E m2 p
33Qs¢ g °UD a$-_`._mgmmmmmmQmN mmmmbmXc
Ou
O rOrD dNmn LLOUmLLt22W2<222ZZ2Zm2222 Ym Q a ._1 m m U U>O^
_
;
m m V r m N
1 I
dz amaaa<a<aa-Qaaaaaaaaaaa" aaaaaaaaaaafaaa<fiaaaaaa'aaa�Caaaa n
—3—
M Ong 40
N IO
NpN NpNNN I N
I
I �
I p
I
I
a OO O 1 �n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.mmI.�� 88 I mn
apa0 I
pNpN
I�OaO
I
88 IpO I
aN � 1
I c {g
I v
I
I
I
I
I
G G C I
p p N p I g
a s a
in!8$j 809
1�
nw O 00 I m
I
Z
LL
m-2S,n OF
a
Umm
c d
I
I
C LL
I
ip
I
I
N� ww��w
p p p
I I
p p p p p p
1
ww w
� I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
ggaaai�
33a$$ig
I
I
m o
I m
I
a (j G
I
ra
a a g 3 3 1 2
a a a a a l g
I
I
I
I
2
It
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
aSass is
3 o
oa
o a
a
W
I
1
I
I
a
0
�333,9,9I$
02322,3
m
I
1
I
I
I
o
°m 9LQNm
Z
w
m q
I bl
c ti =
oa
'6mdo
e ��
I i
Z
a
a
I N
I
J I
m
mLLm
.Gm
m o
J
y I
I
I
m
I I m
W L 0.
QT-
Z I
O
In
I
O I
7
W
m
M3aa21�
3aaaals
y
gJ m m Nm
w Y i <
na nNaa
I O1
I l i
1
1
O 1
I
N
I I p
I
Q
I
I
1
I
I
I
y
a
LL
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
M Ong 40
N IO
NpN NpNNN I N
I
I �
I p
I
I
a OO O 1 �n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.mmI.�� 88 I mn
apa0 I
pNpN
I�OaO
I
88 IpO I
aN � 1
EO
I
I
I
p p I
O tp
I
I
I m
I
I
I
I
G G C I
p p N p I g
a s a
I C
a a s s s l a
sass 3
saga i 3
3222
Sass
a assn
n
ppQ pppp p pp�
N N N s N N N N i N Ogg
g
m
I �
I p
I
I
aaaas�a;� gas
2 $3332223
I
I � I
m
N
I I
a
a
'a $$2,909
I
l m
a OO O 1 �n
5
3aai2
I
I
1
X3333
.�
I
I
I
p p I
aa3i2
I
I
23333
I m
I
I
A N N W
I
223!2
1
3a3a,9
32,932 a
a assn
n
ppQ pppp p pp�
N N N s N N N N i N Ogg
g
m
I �
I p
I
I
aaaas�a;� gas
2 $3332223
I
I � I
m
N
I I
a
a
'a $$2,909
I
l m
a OO O 1 �n
3 to N O I m
w
I
i
Q
aa3i2
I
I
23333
I
a
I
m
32212
32,932 a
I
Z
LL
I
a
E
cools 32222 a
I
I
I
I
W I
1
O O O I
2 N N p l s
I
I
23a23
l m
a OO O 1 �n
3 to N O I m
f a O g O
m m Ilm
O O O O N
n
Umm
wwlawplm
w gNi�
ww~I$
N� ww��w
gw�iw
ww w
a
i
a (j G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
yy
0
m'S
31$I
°m 9LQNm
Z
w
m q
I bl
c ti =
oa
'6mdo
e ��
m_
IouOV
aomcya�im
'u
m
mLLm
.Gm
m o
J
m 55
9 9 =
3J
l
m
f
W L 0.
J
A
5,�m
Y
m .® _•
EIS
ImQ
J
ya
moNmm
m
a°i
a
gJ m m Nm
w Y i <
na nNaa
Q
Z
Y m
m
¢
6
a 0
g a o 0 0
3$mn�
mm
m
'
Y
a u
C.L p, m 6L
V
aW
amm Y m
Q
W
Q
Y d a
d f° S
u
mnn.
m a
Lmu
U G m ism
II.ep_ -q.
C C C
°
m
W
m E Y a $
!� a..Z
W
O m
O i p.
m
W
ID O E O p
qm C O ■m
a p a Yp Y CI 0
W
¢
W
L A
Q a O
�; N 5
d
2
o
9Y± O �• C d
C ®a V .-
a`
amm9 ly
¢
&ootin.3__ 3
<
yo_Uml
3
�LL°183'.33 mym
U_�t� U
U�
m
; y q;
O
~
�rw
'!
•6 a .m.. N y
~
O 2 e
f_�Q
TI
~
OI
a rm m O O L C C •
~
/QO
,
a S Mi O
~
O
ID U E
Z2 OM ;
=y°
C
2.2 2 2 m
m
04 U b
U
< U w O
O
m.3 Q m Q U U U
W
< O IFf
LL
LL> U Q Z
Nt
am
�mO m
SmO
Q
n o
�o
oPa'o� f n
U U U
O O O O O O O O
W W W
LL LL LL LL LL 8
m
NOO m�mImo.O NO{n Olm7im° [nVy NIgOOm 8000 N�pOO I IO BO QO I Isp W
Uu„ www w.%.ww NNwww Nw NNw
_ w �
0
�tia� i i z
I I N
N
UWU
NinN� Q
Im Nm oa mmym o�:y py zQ
Im mm m m m m Y d C m I� <.Q
Imj N m I Y.s l I I m s 0 O E 0 W m m
E-
C a i �c ia.EoEa
L
a;'r n`
C-
LoouE<i. a� LL il� LL Q�
-mao`2 a • TI coE $ o � fy m �z
a" o 'aI Y Z o m u u m n m e F OF fA aA! An
C C z z o m m o 2
ag -Cc .mao�ciSm$"ogv�m6b�cmmm n v LLQ` a W
I�ooam��ozzlzam�Y�mJmO o e! ID LL a z
=
'o E c t m O c c >> l l t P N c I@ m B O c ID W z
o�om-moose�IDID��a�o�a i a �at
m o1 319 o � m -
U z_z W W W W W maeoaQ 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 m ¢ W a 2
D• o m m_ m m- N I'I a N N n m N N^ N �.< m$ sI a
d Z LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U (� (�
P O IO O O O N N N O N O N 19 N$ m O O
wwNww w www o w
w
IL
IMg S
D nm 9l 91 , $ w mn m= m F n mm
S I� OOO m m m S m m m
' E
o BFonua oaaea
LL aaaaaad a�_odaID
=ia DD aaQQ
� u
m c c c c c c cc 9 P m c,� c
c o 0 0 0 o a o . a a � m.� a c uc a LL
U a@@@@@ a a a .13 m a U@¢ P
e n n n n n `o B i `m = t 8 °a
x_5500'oam cm a000 ,PT a.?`oa Y
H U U U U Ham
O 6 N m W 0 0 0 2 m ;
NI
saaassa$s=.es�m=m�R ;
SSS Z.S S S S S S S S S S S S 2 S 2 A
I 'c�
1
I w w IN
w w
wiw
I U¢ LL
I I
I
i
I
1
I
N
8 0 0 0 m g m N N N N N n" N N$ N I
NNOO OI'fN I'1 I.1O 010O0i mpi
p
N N I N
m pO S 8 n O O S O 8 N_ m 0
0]O
1
�NQm++ONOI'1 Q m m
R
I m V1 N m C m t'l O1 O m m NN I?�� m ® N^ 1
�j N n N N
ONOI �p�y m
mm mO POI OmNNONIIJ NnNOnj mO_
0 m .
I
IN mel IS � NNNwN N� w 1
� I �
NN w wNw �N�
m
I
I
� � LL
I
Ip
I
1
I
p p p o p p Q p p p p p o poo p p p
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN�NN IN•'
I I
p p
NNN I N
I
p p p p p o p p Q p p p p p C
I$NNNNNNNNNN'NNNNNNNN
I
I D
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
p Q p p p p p p p p o p o p p p a
NNNNNNN»mN NNNNNNNNNNNNNIN
pp 85� p
p
IO 2S.NIID
p p p p p p p p p p p o o p a p
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
n
y o
I
I
W
U
I I
I
I
1
7 c m
I
1
I
I
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
MNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
p p p
NNNIN
NNNNNNNNNN'NNNNNNNNN
LL
I
I'
ti
ID
I
1
I
I
d W
I
I
¢
a
1
INNNNNNNNNNNNNN$mN.^NN'Op i^n
$ IYS_I"mam.
I
mim
NNmim
wg IQi55��55��QQ�i�N � ���NNNN
m3oiS B25o 25
mm
i o a Nor i o.
N
e
N w
Nw w
I
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nw N N N N N N N
i
p p N p
N N I. N
I
N N N N N N N NIA N N N N N N N N N N
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I ¢
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
INNNNNNNNwNNNNNNNNNNNNNIN
NNNIN
NNNNNNNwNNNNNNNNNNN
'
I
I
I 1
I
I
I U
I
i I
I
I
1
1
I
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN$NNNNNi�
i o I
I
NNNiw
I
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
I ID
I w I w
1
I
I
I
I
I
I D
I m
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
NOO m�mImo.O NO{n Olm7im° [nVy NIgOOm 8000 N�pOO I IO BO QO I Isp W
Uu„ www w.%.ww NNwww Nw NNw
_ w �
0
�tia� i i z
I I N
N
UWU
NinN� Q
Im Nm oa mmym o�:y py zQ
Im mm m m m m Y d C m I� <.Q
Imj N m I Y.s l I I m s 0 O E 0 W m m
E-
C a i �c ia.EoEa
L
a;'r n`
C-
LoouE<i. a� LL il� LL Q�
-mao`2 a • TI coE $ o � fy m �z
a" o 'aI Y Z o m u u m n m e F OF fA aA! An
C C z z o m m o 2
ag -Cc .mao�ciSm$"ogv�m6b�cmmm n v LLQ` a W
I�ooam��ozzlzam�Y�mJmO o e! ID LL a z
=
'o E c t m O c c >> l l t P N c I@ m B O c ID W z
o�om-moose�IDID��a�o�a i a �at
m o1 319 o � m -
U z_z W W W W W maeoaQ 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 m ¢ W a 2
D• o m m_ m m- N I'I a N N n m N N^ N �.< m$ sI a
d Z LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U (� (�
P O IO O O O N N N O N O N 19 N$ m O O
wwNww w www o w
w
IL
IMg S
D nm 9l 91 , $ w mn m= m F n mm
S I� OOO m m m S m m m
' E
o BFonua oaaea
LL aaaaaad a�_odaID
=ia DD aaQQ
� u
m c c c c c c cc 9 P m c,� c
c o 0 0 0 o a o . a a � m.� a c uc a LL
U a@@@@@ a a a .13 m a U@¢ P
e n n n n n `o B i `m = t 8 °a
x_5500'oam cm a000 ,PT a.?`oa Y
H U U U U Ham
O 6 N m W 0 0 0 2 m ;
NI
saaassa$s=.es�m=m�R ;
SSS Z.S S S S S S S S S S S S 2 S 2 A
T
N O o m
1 0
G
1 Y
19
1 I N
j
I N II
m
1 S¢LL
i I
I
I 11
I II
I
88
I
I
Im0 p, 1 0
Ip I n
I � II � I
1 0 0 m l
Oee
17
II
II
1
1 �
w
I W m
LL
l M
I
I O II p l
w
�
II
� p
i
1
I II I
1 II I
II
II
I
pp ppw p
w l w
I I
o N
I II
1 u
1
i 1
I
i
I II
I II
1 C� m
I
I II
1
I
I II O
-
m
as 1:
n
$
o
we
w
i
asi 2245{
p Q p p g Q Q Q
o iQyS i CY 11
pp IUR
C.0
�wiidd73ii i��w«id id waw i n
m
U
w
1
1 ^�nspLL6
a$
jQn
WC
1
n
d
I
m
1
1
Inn
1 ?
m l 0
1 ^
I m II
I YI II
1 u
W
I C
I I w
I N II
2
I U �"
I I
I It
O
=
00
It
5
a
I
I
I 1
I
INII
I II
N
J
I ¢
I
I w II
a
1
I
I it
8
z
im ii
n
z
i
1 p
Innin
i
1
1 v n
inn
I^ o
g a
a a a a o a a b
7
ccU
N
W
1
IIDm
i
0
w0
0I1I
i ii
U o Dq 0 Dc�
If
Y
C3
m n
¢Q
III1
I, II
mIlI
o o m 3aU
& W -o U�c
Qi
Q
WULLQ
aQ �0 a0
oYfILU,s�
p LL
I
1
1 11
LL LL LL LL C Q -52 {q, U So Q L
.92 so
ilii
��i��$ o Q<QUJ am
1
I
II
11 I I m,� D u g 0 Y J� a Al ¢
1
1 n
ii
Y m m m 6@ m m c= L¢ c P@ `o w
as Q`a`�ppQ2ciaW9 mpUQ S
D
I
1 II
I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I
LLIaLL�fLL ssxs
SS88
O O I
11
8aa<amUUI..
dol nr8x
m�
N 0
V Np 1f 0 1� IrlAm 0 Ygf V 0 mmof
m d i
i m ii
❑�N
g
c+il6� wnwm =
U u Y
w l
I m a
aaw w
w a
1
1 u
w n
.
o pU p
~ U a p
I
1
I
II
I V
oo a a a o
°_¢ m
IO q
a a a z
Y U `p p8 U8 Q U U 6 m U U U � U
!
� L U U U C U U C L �.� C C U C
m
inCQ•C
W
dme yyY
at?dac
VI
rw
U
-Qm-m$ 1c1,
OY Yo om in i m y b b t
rac
p 3 O p p❑ 03t0
`
It
1 16
m
LLiEQ LLiEQ LLiEpp
LLi0E'
8i QgU .
G QaQa
aIL
iSE
IL IL
n
I'c
iEsE
a=L„a
nc
m m `o `oU
n�n
S'QUUCu If IL Q`iia`daUa
z
i
1 11
mY
Q
li
—6 —
a
W
Ill
U
z
a
z
LL
a
CITY OF DAVIS
MAJOR PROJECTS FINANCING PLAN
AUTHORIZED PROJECT
Project Approval Date:
02/07/90
Program No:
8131 Project No: A.31
Last Revision Date:
12/14/92
Gen. Plan:
4.1E Specific Plan:
Number of Revisions:
3
EIR Type:
EIR Date:
PROJECT:
SERVICE STANDARD:
DESCRIPTION:
AUTHORIZED BUDGET
COST:
BURDEN NEXUS:
Area
Source
FINANCING SOURCES:
START CRITERIA:
TARGET DATES AND
CASH FLOW PHASING:
1. Action within 10 yrs:
Covell Boulevard Reconstruct: Lake Boulevard to Hwy. 113
Major arterial Volume/capacity LOS - existing: B; minimum: D
Major reconstruction of Covell Boulevard from Lake Boulevard to State Route 113.
Reconstruction to include removal of pavement and base rock.
$869,648
WD 100%
Davis Public Works Department
1.) D.U.E. Fees: 98%
2.) Pre-MPFP Dev. Contr.: 2%
The reconstruction is to be completed by 2005.
1. Project Stages: COSTS
Master Planning:
Prelim. Engin./Prjct Devlpmt: 60.000
Design: 69.572
Construction: 740.076
$851,452
18,196
START COMPLETION
1999/2000
2000/2001
2000/2001
1999/2000
2000/2001
2002/2003
2. Action after 10 yrs: 2. Targets:
ESTIMATED ANNUAL M & 0: $ 21.500 Replacement: $ 28.000
M&O AND
REPLACEMENT COSTS: Operating Budget Program d: 7252 Apprx. Prjct Life: 25 veers
Funding Source: M & O: Transportation Funds Replacement: Transportation Funds
STATUS: On Schedule
Roadways 1-56-�
—7—
,
CITY OF DAVIS
MAJOR PROJECTS FINANCING PLAN
AUTHORIZED PROJECT
(Estimated Cost Breakdown in Current Dollars)
PROJECT NAME: Covell Blvd. Reconstruct: TOTAL COST: $869,648
Lake to Hwy 113 - 8131
PROJECT NO: A.31 I PROJECT MANAGER: W. Marshall
- Unit of Unit
Cost Item Measure Cost Quantity = Cost
1. Excavation & Grading,
(1.5' Deep)
2. Paving
3. Adjust Manholes
Subtotal:
Contingencies
Design Fee
Administration
Municipal Arts (D.U.E. Fees)
Municipal Arts (Pre-MPFP
Development Contributions)
Total:
CY $21.66 10,700
SY 21.66 21,300
Ea. 324.90 8
Source: City of Davis, Copley and construction cost index for 1992
$231,762
= 461,358
= 2,599
$695,719
62,614
69,572
_ 34,786
6,818
139
$869,648
Roadways
a -
1 ¢
m
e
� . M
All
1{i M N
z
O
. IS$$$SS$S$SSSSS
d
6.12
$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $SS$$$$$$SS$S$$$S$SS
n $SS$$S$S$$S$$$SSSS$$
9
g
$
$ $SSSS $ N $ $ $ $ $ I
sag ;a
1
1
1
1
r 1
1
3 SSSS
$ N M S S S S S S$ S$ p $SSS $ S S
N N H NN i
N N M
$•Q •Q $$ li •Q$S S $ $S$$ $$S $$i
S SSS •• S S •• S$ S S S S S S S $SSS I
;$
a
n
1
^ e
W
I
1
m
�. m Ot m
C
YI.NR
Z^IvCa
I N
M
N
$ $SS$$$$$$SS$S$$$S$SS
n $SS$$S$S$$S$$$SSSS$$
9
g
$
$ $SSSS $ N $ $ $ $ $ I
sag ;a
1
1
1
1
r 1
1
3 SSSS
$ N M S S S S S S$ S$ p $SSS $ S S
N N H NN i
N N M
$•Q •Q $$ li •Q$S S $ $S$$ $$S $$i
S SSS •• S S •• S$ S S S S S S S $SSS I
;$
SI
1
1
1
I
;
$ ;
1
1
1
S I
I
1
1
1
s;
R$�2�$omm���m�i^g^L pmH����pf��i6 e �7dip52pS252p571$$�ny$I$OS$$�C��uv��e�i6�m;��
CO «MMMN Y.�m N��Y;�S. OVIi r �m.,8(8ry fj Y pl NgR01mIm0
_ C� � N M Y i� N� ;.» O •i N �{ N i� O^ 3 M � I� I 0 0
AID E I I ¢ N I I w A
Fd e
y I 1 0
m
[Wj
^ O
N n
I�m�g <°z
I l l las 6_co um_1 m m< p �Y�• wm g 8^^m_Nxwm R�
Y Y f f n IL ®m m 0 1
dagL&v = a , Y O g Fi 1 r r r LNaQm^Ii I I Sn$ I €
V0908."aa Q ,■g6 : i3 IY u '1H mNll�Yf:%tat,clglm$1 '(• W
£££-£ c p y u O < q: q W o 0 0 0 o ID- .el c ID c R c n c Y U
D D D R Q < x e r LL \LL LL �•M Y Y. Y O � y n jja
I O c Y -L
Im a fm 40 a n`E9aau c o $0PPP�.@gg1 $n nnQ e'ALmtt go Zc
I'Ei7�onl ImCG=$ Y 5$$g S Z LL.m-n anon an nU n ID'•W 'a
zzzzn<==J omy g IDnc 9 O avoevnnanBXn�YVQNIDgo
IooeoZouom8 =>W m m �. m OF Zgaa'e`mq<<U<Sa$<oq,mg0 1-
uuuu.c'g�i^00'Ooo o$ 8 Y< E>.»»eo o mno Y a g
6 e a E= b q � e p$ U u i 9 W 1� V o e a 2 sp4J, fi C LL a C1
IB8fl8da>ae■S�€!efi $ �`caaaaFL !go till m a
W W W W m< 8 1] n U O V Q C ~ U G W 6 ~ S V V V U U V<< O <N m W< V V m WCU $• ~
e
L ivnn�inn�°i 2 �iinR ii ooa
L nn� nbb oo o-Nn.Ymwmm n I ■
LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL.LL LL O O O O O O O R^ �^^ .^ . R N N 1■
U U O x x x x x r r r r x x z S x x x x x x x x I A
—9—
a
n
^ e
W
C
0
0
A
A
1 p
1 e
A
1 0
$ 0
e
0
0
A
A
A'
0
e
SI
1
1
1
I
;
$ ;
1
1
1
S I
I
1
1
1
s;
R$�2�$omm���m�i^g^L pmH����pf��i6 e �7dip52pS252p571$$�ny$I$OS$$�C��uv��e�i6�m;��
CO «MMMN Y.�m N��Y;�S. OVIi r �m.,8(8ry fj Y pl NgR01mIm0
_ C� � N M Y i� N� ;.» O •i N �{ N i� O^ 3 M � I� I 0 0
AID E I I ¢ N I I w A
Fd e
y I 1 0
m
[Wj
^ O
N n
I�m�g <°z
I l l las 6_co um_1 m m< p �Y�• wm g 8^^m_Nxwm R�
Y Y f f n IL ®m m 0 1
dagL&v = a , Y O g Fi 1 r r r LNaQm^Ii I I Sn$ I €
V0908."aa Q ,■g6 : i3 IY u '1H mNll�Yf:%tat,clglm$1 '(• W
£££-£ c p y u O < q: q W o 0 0 0 o ID- .el c ID c R c n c Y U
D D D R Q < x e r LL \LL LL �•M Y Y. Y O � y n jja
I O c Y -L
Im a fm 40 a n`E9aau c o $0PPP�.@gg1 $n nnQ e'ALmtt go Zc
I'Ei7�onl ImCG=$ Y 5$$g S Z LL.m-n anon an nU n ID'•W 'a
zzzzn<==J omy g IDnc 9 O avoevnnanBXn�YVQNIDgo
IooeoZouom8 =>W m m �. m OF Zgaa'e`mq<<U<Sa$<oq,mg0 1-
uuuu.c'g�i^00'Ooo o$ 8 Y< E>.»»eo o mno Y a g
6 e a E= b q � e p$ U u i 9 W 1� V o e a 2 sp4J, fi C LL a C1
IB8fl8da>ae■S�€!efi $ �`caaaaFL !go till m a
W W W W m< 8 1] n U O V Q C ~ U G W 6 ~ S V V V U U V<< O <N m W< V V m WCU $• ~
e
L ivnn�inn�°i 2 �iinR ii ooa
L nn� nbb oo o-Nn.Ymwmm n I ■
LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL.LL LL O O O O O O O R^ �^^ .^ . R N N 1■
U U O x x x x x r r r r x x z S x x x x x x x x I A
—9—
..-7Y OF DAv1S
SINGLE FAMILY General Pian/MPFP Projected Cash Flow "Uncollected Revenue,. Updated 04/26/93
Roadway Water Drainage Sewer Core Parks Safe/fa Gen/fac OpenSpa 'otal
NIC
3373000
1531696
1020683
926558.7
10691..39
8176456.4
678054.05
2996949.9
0 /87/3080
W/D
1221832
548352
519274.8
337756.6
3806.42
1893761.2
243896.78
1034309.5
0 5802992.9
CID
138059.5
68416.22
38447.44
58145.02
587.1824
311229.41
38455.102
168352.33
0 841692.18
E/D
351253..5
124166.3
2478.333
69893.6
946.44
367856.54
63033.251
235817.14
0.1215445.2
ED/M
1315521
1109331
22786.19
717332.6
7962.193
5347920
503688.53
2225411.6
C 11750352
C/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
SID
1166818
688443
16187.65
474100
5993.466
2914579.6
381362.39
1572556.8
0 7220040.8
Total
8066883
4090404
1619857
2583789
29987.09
19011803
1908492.1
8233297.3
0 45544512
MULTI
FAMILY
4657.161
General
Plan/MPFP
Projected Cash Flow "Uncollected Revenue"
Updated 04/28/93
0 451622.26
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac OpenSpa
Total
NIC
W/D
CID
E/D
ED/M
C/A
SID
Total
RETAIL
NIC
W/D
CID
E/D
ED/M
C/A
SID
Total
OFFICE -
NIC
W/D
CID
E/D
ED/M
C/A
SID
Total
476209.4 266027 99512.44 124396.8 1509.441 1772945 183872.95 649823.08
819731.7 452312.9 2413D1.5 216108.3 2553.686 1952606.8 314519.19 1066449
277459.3 218036.1 53378.46 111209.4 1180.066 960883.05 148593.55 519767.37
187335.2 81272.5 916..2315 35582.21 504.765 300973.54 64561.347 192941.3
428087.8 322254.2 3725.465 161468 1876.995 1939891.9 228287.76 807240.55
345804 169382.7 1782.688 100297.3 892.1576 739185.14 108452.77 385433.28
343181.7 249511.6 3302.033 133143..9 1762.754 1319027.1 215647.03 711678.94
2877809 1758797 403918.8 882205.9 10279.86 6985512.6 1263934..6 4333333.6
General Plan/MPFP Projected Cash Flow "Uncollected Revenue"
0 3574296.1
0 5065583.1
0 2290507.4
0 864087.09
0 3892832.7
0 1851230
0 2977255.1
0 20515791
Updated 04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac OpenSpa
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
48321.02
24009.76
21269.73
7155.904
1381.696
26748.038.24114.285
29217.782
0 182218.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
136243.8
51924.1
991.3392
13978.71
3326.882
49047.538
60741.137
64313.755
0 380567.25
80093.84
53990.24
1039.672
16365
3221.209
81337.186
55539.799
69385.45
0 360972.4
635150.1
275129.9
4858.711
101013.7
14942.29
304177.96
257910.62
322331.38
0 1915514.7
99633.4
64010.84
1412.96
21141.08
4657.161
85722.942
81048.551
93995.327
0 451622.26
999442.2
469064.8
29572.42
159654.4
27529.23
547033.67
479354.39
579243.7
0 3290894.6
General Plan/MPFP
Projected Cash
Flow "Uncollected Revenue"
Updated
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer.
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac OpenSpa
Total
12579.12
3264.136
2175.136
987.276
210.7495
8712.26
2167.461
4789.8505
0 34885.985
270942.9
62735.19
57208.25
1860'5.34
4424.659
96292.942
44439.186
106644.9
0 661293.35
65678.78
21460.25
9331.903
6774.175
1482..19
33238.092
15307.374
37593.24
0 190866
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
388040.8
122321.6
2408.574
38184.99
8937.033
260279
88480.644
221695.01
0 1130347.7
475186.4
97324.86
1747.734
35820.46
6445.465
150453.61
63615.409
160312.96
0 990906.86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
1212428
307106.1
72871.6
100372.2
21500.1
548975.9
214010.07
531035.95
0 3008299.9
/0
04/28/93
18 -May -9.
ITY CF DAVIS
INDUSTRIAL
General
Plan/MPFP
Projected Cash
Flow "Uncollected
Revenue"
Undated
04/29/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OoenSoa
Total
N/C
113212
115060.9
66885.44
33071.76
1896.76
60985_8
24925.8
44705.24
0
460745.64
W/o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
C/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0. 0
0
E/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
Tw/M
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
C/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
S/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
Total
113212
115060.8
66885.44
33073.76
1896.76
60985.8
24925.8
44705.24
0
460745.64
BUSINESS
PARK
General Plan/MPFP
Projected Cash
Flow "Uncollected
Revenue"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
NIC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
W/D
24160.51
13941.15
12468.46
3816.483
403.2182
18723.628
8267..7562
20452.447
0
102233.66
C/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
E/D
406602.6
178348
3394.583
47866.52
5735.999
198419.6
123392.42
261542.64
0
1225302.3
ED/M
1374024
1044374-20394.93
321299.6
31588.46
1899223.4
645410.86
1614481.1
0
6950795.6
C/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
S/D
580087.8
425868
9522.118
139441.2
15620.58
680252.94
320937.76
748976.75
0
2920709
Total
2384874
1662531
45780.1
512423.8
53348.25
2796619.6
1098008.8
2645454.9
0
11199041
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
General Plan/MPFP
Projected Cash
Flow "Uncollected
Revenue"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
NIC
312680.9
128933.4
81567.61
37022..67
9010..963
261367.8
156418.45
194787.25
0
1181789.2
W/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
C/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
E/D
12772.86
3762.616
75.1009
1270.793
315.4802
4458.867
5730.2966
5716.7796
0
34102.788
ED/M
147759.3
81828.96
1594.164
25093.01
5879.316
150473.81
101886.8
126924.6
0
641439.98
C/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
6
S/D
334325.4
179622.3
4023.868
58925.11
15671.75
287586.65
272453.41
316301.75
0
1468910.2
Total
807538.5
394147.2
87260.75
122311.8
30877.51
703887.12
536488.96
643730.37
0
3326242.1
CITYWIDE
General Plan/MPFP
Projected Cash
Flow "Uncollected
Revenue"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
NIC
4287681
.2044981
1270823
1122039
23319.31
10280467
1045438.7
3890955.3
0
23965706
B/D
2384988
1101351
851522.8
583444.6
12569.68
3988132.6
635239.19
2257073.7
0
11814321
C/D
481197.6
327912.6
101157.8
176128.6
3249.439
1305350.6
202356.02
725712.94
0
3323065.6
E/D
1094208
439473.5
7855.587
168591.8
10829.57
920756.09
317458.45
760331.61
0
3719504.6
ED/M
4233926
2734099
51948..99
1279743
59465.2
9679125.3
1623294.4
5065138.3
0
24726741
C/A
1456140
541837.4
8389.133
237131..5
22279.91
1193816.7
429978.8
868077.62
0
4757651.5
S/D
2524046
1607456
34448.63
826751.2
43705.71
5287169.5
1271449..1
3443511.6
0
15038537
Total
16462187
8797111
2326146
4393830
175418.8
32654818
5525214.7
17010801
0
87345527
-e-May-93
Forth Central Davis
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVErUE"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OoenSpa
Total
S -F
3373000
1531696
1020683
925558.7
10691.39
8176456
678054
2996650
0
187/3989
M -F
476299.4
266027
99512.44
:24396.8
1509.441
1772945
183873
649823.1
0
3574296
Retail
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Office
12579.12
3264.136
2175.136
997.276
210.7495
8712.26
2167.461
4789.851
0
34885.98
Indust.
113212
115060.8
66865.44
33073.76
1896.76
60985.9
24925.9
44705.24
0
460745.6
Bus -Park
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Serv-Com
312680..9
128933.4
81567.61
37022.87
9010.963
261367.8
156418.4
194787.3
0
1181789
Total.
4287681
2044981
1270823
1122039
23319.31
10280467
1045439
3890955
0
23965706
West Davis
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
S -F
1221832
548352
519274.8
337758.6
3806.42
1893761
243898.8
1034309
0
5802993
M -F
819731.7
452312.9
241301.5
216108.3
2553.686
1952607
314519.2
1066449
0
.5065583
Retail
48321.02
24009.76
21269.73
7155..904
1381.696.26748.04
24114.28
29217.78
0
182218.2
Office
270942.9
62735.19
57208.25
18605.34
4424.659
96292.94
44439.19
106644.9
0
661293.3
Indust.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bus -Park
24160.51
13941.15
12468..46
3816.483
403.2182
18723.63
8267.756
20452.45
0
102233.7
Serv-Com
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2384988
1101351
851522.8
583444.6
12569.68
3988133
635239.2
2257074
0
11814321
Central Davis
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
S -F
138059.5
88416.22
38447.44
58145.02
587.1824
311229.4
38455.1
168352.3
0
841692.2
M -F
277459.3
218036.1
53378.46
111209.4
1180.066
960883
148593.5
519767.4
0
2290507
Retail
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Office
65678.78
21460.25
9331.903
6774.175
1482.19
33238.09
15307.37
37593.24
0
190866
Indust.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bus -Park
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Serv-Com
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
481197.6
327912.6
101157.8
176128.6
3249.439
1305351
202356
725712.9
0
3323066
East Davis
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks Safe/£a
Gen/fac OpenSpa
Total
S -F 351253.5 124166.3 2478.333 69893.6 946.44 367856.5 63033.25 235817.1
M -F 187335.2 81272.5 916.2315 35582.21 504.765 300973.5 64561.35 192941.3
Retail 136243.8 51924.1 991.3392 13978.71 3326.882 49047.54 60741.14 64313.76
Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indust. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bus -Park 406602.6 178348 3394.583 47666.52 5735.999 198419.6 123392.4 261542.6
Serv-Com 12772.86 3762.616 75.1009 1270.793 315.4802 4458.867 5730.297 5716.78
Total 1094208 439473.5 7855.587 168591.8 10829.57 920756.1 317458..4 760331.6
0 1215445
0 864087.1
0 380567.2
0 0
0 0
0 1225302
0 34102.79
0 3719505
_ 9
CITY cr :AVIS
East Davis Mace
Roadway
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH
FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Core
Updated
04/28/93
Gen/fac
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
1619857
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
Open -Spa
.ctal
0
S -F
1815921
1109331
22786.19
717332.6
7962.193
10279.86
5347920
503688.5
2225412
0
11750352
Retail
M -F
428087.8
322254.2
3725.465
161468
1876.995
479354.4
1939892
228287.8
807240.6
0
3892833
307106.1
Retail
80093.84
53990.24
1039.672
16365
3221.209
0
61337.19
55539.8
69385.45
0
360972.4,
33073.76
Office
388040.8
122321.6
2408.574
38184.99
8937.033
Bus -Park
260279
88480.64
221695
0
1130348
2796620
Indust..
0
0
0
0
807538.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
643730.4
Bus -Park
1374024
1044374
20394.93
321299.6
31*588.46
4393830
1899223
645410..9
1614481
0
6950796
87345527
Serv-Com
147759.3
81828.96
1594.164
25093..01
5879.316
150473.8
101886.8
126924.6
0
641440
Total
4233926
2734099
51948.99.
1279743
59465.2
9679125
1623294
5065138
0
24726741
Core Area
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH
FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
S -F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M -F
345804
169382.7
1782.688
100297.3
892.1576
739185.1
108452.8.385433.3
0
1851230
Retail
635150.1
275129.9
4858.711
101013.7
14942.29
304178
257910.6
322331.4
0
1915515
Office
475186.4
97324.86
1747.734
35820.46
6445.465
150453.6
63615.41
160313
0
990906.9
Indust.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bus -Park
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Serv-Com
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1456140
541837.4
8389.133
237131.5
22279.91
1193817
429978.8
868077.6
0
4757652
South Davis
LAND USE
PROJECTED CASH
FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Updated
04/28/93
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
S -F
1166818
688443
16187.65
474100
5993.466
2914580
381362.4
1572557
0
7220041
M -F
343181.7
249511.6
3302.033
133143.9
1762.754
1319027
215647
711678.9
0
2977255
Retail
99633.4
64010.84
1412.96
21141.08
4657.161
85722.94
81048.55
93995.33
0
451622.3
Office
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indust.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bus -Park
580087.8
425868
9522.118
139441.2
15620.58
680252.9
320937.8
748978.8
0
2920709
Serv-Com
334325.4
179622.3
4023.868
58925.11
15671.75
287586.6
272453.4
316301.7
0
1468910
Total
2524046
1607456
34448..63
626751.2
43705.71
5287169
1271449
3443512
0
15038537
Citywide LAND USE PROJECTED CASH FLOW "UNCOLLECTED REVENUE"
Updated 04/28/93
-/3 -
0
Roadway
Water
Drainage
Sewer
Core
Parks
Safe/fa
Gen/fac
OpenSpa
Total
S -F
8066883
4090404
1619857
2583789
2998T.09
19011803
1908492
8233297
0
45544512
M -F
2877809
1758797
403918.8
882205..9
10279.86
8985513
1263935
4333334
0
20515791
Retail
999442.2
469064.8
29572.42
159654.4
27529..23
547033..7
479354.4
579243.7
0
3290895
Office
1212428
307106.1
72871.6
100372.2
21500.1
548975.9
214010.1
531036
0
3008300
Indust.
113212
115060.8
66885.44
33073.76
1896.76
60985.8
24925.6
44705.24
0
460745.6
Bus -Park
2384874
1662531
45780.1
512423.8
53348.25
2796620
1098009
2645455
0
11199041
Serv-Com
807538.5
394147.2
87260.75
122311.8
30877.51
703887.1
536489
643730.4
0
3326242
Total
16462187
8797111
2326146
4393830
175418.8
32654818
5525215
17010801
0
87345527
-/3 -
0