Central City Impact Fee
|
|
- Scot O’Neal’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Central City Impact Fee Fee Breakdown For Projects Currently In The Area Subject To The Downtown Transportation Impact Fee Net Increase Residential (per unit) Retail (per bldg. sqft) Office (per bldg. sqft) Hotel (per room) $1,915 $1.54 $3.05 $819 Central City Impact Fee Total Cost Residential (per unit) Retail (per bldg. sqft) Office (per bldg. sqft) Hotel (per room) $2,968 $3.76 $5.08 $1,347 Key Dates Public Workshop December 19 th (12pm-1:30pm) 300 Richards Blvd. Room 221 Planning and Design Commission Review and Comment January 25 th Planning and Design Commission Hearing February 8 th City Council Hearing February 27 th 1
2 Truxel Rd El Camino Ave 5 Garden Hwy Northgate Blvd Del Paso Blvd American River 160 Richards Blvd River District Specific Plan Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\15xxxx\D150842_CityofSacramentoDowntownSpecificPlan\03_Projects\Fig2-2_CentralCityPlanArea.mxd, FEP 11/28/2017 WEST SACRAMENTO 50 N Sacramento 5 Sacramento County Yolo County River 3rd St I St 4th St 5th St 6th St Q St R St S St 0 3,000 Feet Railyards Blvd Railyards Specific Plan Riverside Dr Broadway Land Park Dr 7th St 9th St 10th St P St N St L St 12th St W St X St SACRAMENTO Freeport Blvd 13th St E St F St G St H St I St J St K St 14th St 15th St 16th St CCSP Area 21st St 19th St C St 24th St Capitol Ave T St 99 29th St Broadway Alhambra Blvd C St E St H St J St Folsom Blvd 50 Stockton Blvd 80 Central City Specific Plan Area SOURCE: USDA, 2016;, 2016; ESA, 2017 Central City Specific Plan Figure 1 Central City Specific Plan Area 2
3 3
4 Central City Impact Fee Key Benefits of the Central City Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report - Cost savings with the certainty the Environmental Impact Report provides: o Potential for more than 10 months of time savings, by a project not needing to prepare separate environmental documents. o Depending on ownership, option on property, equity investment, and assumed savings from circumventing an extended CEQA review and litigation, the risk reduction and time savings can equate to hundreds of thousands of dollars. - Increased heights: o In the Commercial (C-2) zone; from 65 feet to 85 feet. o In the Office (OB) zone; from 35 to 65 feet. o In the Residential (RMX) zone; from 45 to 65 feet. - The maximum density in the Office (OB) zone is increased from 36 units an acre, to 65 units an acre. - Planning & Design Commission review is not required for exceeding 60 feet in height, in the C-3 zone. - Updated Central City Design Guidelines to reflect the latest infill development practices. - Opportunity Sites analysis that screens historic resources and includes a phase I environmental analysis. - Reduced private open space requirements: o In Central Business District, no private open space is required. Key Benefits of the Central City Impact Fee - Mechanism for developers to be reimbursed for eligible utility costs. - Inclusion of Grid 3.0 funding for various modes of transportation: o Makes the plan area more attractive to current and future residents. o Provides bike, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure necessary for mobility of existing and new residents. o Reduces parking demand. - Inclusion of Police and Fire funding for enhanced public safety facilities. Benefits to the Plan Area That Have Already Been Implemented: - Streamlined Entitlement Process - Reduced Park Impact Fee for the Central City. - Reduced Transportation Development Impact Fee for the Central City. - Reduced Quimby park requirement from 5 to 1.75 acres per 1,000 residents. - Fee Deferral Ordinance - Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) 4
5 Table 1 Projected Future Land Uses Total CCSP [1] Units/ Bldg. Square Feet Persons Sq. Ft./ Persons per per Employee Employees Served Land Use Hotel Rooms Household/ [2] Residents [3] [4] units Residential 13, , ,710 Nonresidential Commercial bldg. sq. ft. Retail 1,073, ,146 1,073 Service 769, ,563 1,282 Subtotal Commercial 1,842, ,709 2,355 Office 1,518, ,421 2,711 Medical Office 314, , Government [5] Subtotal Nonresidential 3,674, ,177 5,590 hotel rooms Hotel [3] Total 21,710 11,737 27,580 Source: DKS; ESA; EPS. lu summ [1] Excludes River District and Railyards. [2] Square feet per employee assumptions provided by DKS. [3] Hotel rooms and employment provided by ESA. [4] Persons served is defined as residents plus 50% of total employees. [5] Office and Government uses are combined for the purposes of this analysis. Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ m8 5
6 Table 2 Estimated Project Requirements and Funding at Buildout (2017$) Estimated Project Requirements and Funding Plan Area- Based Funding Other Funding Sources Private Estimated Central City Existing City and Other Subarea Developer Improvement Impact Fee Other Agency Funding Program Utility Rate Funding/ Item Costs (2017$) Program Fee Programs [1] Contributions [2] Revenue [3] Other [4] Construction Infrastructure Improvements Transportation Grid 3.0 [5] [6] $160,237,000 $26,678,227 $4,500,000 $900,000 - $128,158,773 - Freeways [7] $21,508,000 - $21,508, Total Transportation $181,745,000 $26,678,227 $26,008,000 $900,000 - $128,158,773 - Combined Sewer System (CSS) $115,509,600 $11,678,600 $10,350,000 - $93,481, Separated Storm Drainage $62,039, $62,039, Water $33,018,000 $13,436, $19,582, Total Infrastructure Improvements $392,311,600 $51,792,827 $36,358,000 $62,939,000 $113,063,000 $128,158,773 - Public Facility Improvements Street Lighting $31,110, $20,700,000 $10,410,000 Library [8] $9,663, $9,663,000 - Parks and Open Space [7] $20,186,000 - $20,186, Schools [7] $42,914,000 - $42,914, Police [8] $7,861, $7,861,000 - Fire [8] $6,456, $6,456,000 - Total Public Facility Improvements $118,190,000 - $63,100, $44,680,000 $10,410,000 Total Infrastructure and Public Facilities $510,501,600 TRUE $51,792,827 $99,458,000 $62,939,000 $113,063,000 $172,838,773 $10,410,000 su summ Source: ; NV5; DKS Associates; Mark Thomas & Co.; EPS. [1] Includes the following development impact fee programs: Park Impact Fees, Combined Sewer System Fee, Transportation Development Impact Fee, and Water Fee. Includes the following Other Agency development impact fee programs: Voluntary I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program and Sacramento City Unified School District SB 50 Fee. [2] Includes Existing Downtown Transportation Impact Fee Balance and Basin 52 Subarea Funding. [3] Includes utility rate revenues for CSS and Water. Utility rate revenue to be used for standard repair and replacement of facilities not needed to accommodate new development. In certain cases, utility repair and replacement needs may overlap with utility line upsizing needed to accommodate new development. The City may consider approaches to strategically prioritize repair and replacement needs in concert with utility upsizing and funding the costs that would otherwise be standard repair and replacement via utility rate revenues. [4] "Other" funding may include grant funding, or other sources of revenue such as capital campaigns by user groups. [5] The Grid 3.0 costs allocated to new CCSP development reflect the justifiable allocation of costs to new CCSP development. CCSP development will be eligible for a credit against the TDIF for Grid 3.0 costs also included in the TDIF. [6] Assumes the TDIF will fund new citywide development share of the Grid 3.0 Projects, per the TDIF Nexus Study. The TDIF Nexus Study includes $16.5 million in Grid 3.0 improvements, however the City adopted the TDIF with exemptions or incentives for certain types of development or thresholds of development (e.g., Transit Center development; Housing Incentive area development; first 5,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential development projects). The City estimates the actual revenue produced by the TDIF will be approximately 27 percent of the total costs included in the TDIF, therefore the TDIF is expected to generate approximately $4.5 million (2017$) in Grid 3.0 improvements [7] Assumes cost is equal to fee revenue generated by Central City Specific Plan development. [8] Equal to the costs associated with providing current facility level of service for new Central City Specific Plan development. Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ m8 6
7 Table 3 Summary of Central City Impact Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Central City Impact Fee: Maximum Justified Fee CCSP Land Uses Item Residential Retail [1] Office [2] Hotel Central City Impact Fee Component per unit per bldg. sq. ft per room Transportation $1,292 $2.04 $2.82 $596 Sewer $771 $0.28 $0.28 $421 Water $608 $1.17 $1.61 $243 Subtotal (Transportation, Sewer, Water) $2,672 $3.49 $4.71 $1,260 Police $462 $0.36 $0.50 $106 Fire $379 $0.30 $0.41 $87 Subtotal (Police, Fire) $841 $0.66 $0.92 $194 Total All Components $3,513 $4.15 $5.62 $1,453 Plus 3% Administration $105 $0.12 $0.17 $44 Total Including Administration $3,618 $4.27 $5.79 $1,497 Source: Public Review Draft Report Downtown Specific Plan Public Facilties Finance Plan, October 2, sum alloc max [1] Includes Retail and Service land uses. [2] Includes Office and Medical Office land uses. Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ m8
8 Table 4 Summary of Central City Impact Fee - Proposed Fee Central City Impact Fee: Proposed Fee CCSP Land Uses Item Residential Retail [1] Office [2] Hotel Central City Impact Fee Component per unit per bldg. sq. ft per room Transportation $1,292 $2.04 $2.82 $596 Sewer $771 $0.28 $0.28 $421 Water $608 $1.17 $1.61 $243 Subtotal (Transportation, Sewer, Water) $2,672 $3.49 $4.71 $1,260 Police [3] $115 $0.09 $0.13 $27 Fire [3] $95 $0.07 $0.10 $22 Subtotal (Police, Fire) $210 $0.17 $0.23 $48 Total All Components $2,882 $3.65 $4.94 $1,308 Plus 3% Administration $86 $0.11 $0.15 $39 Total Including Administration $2,968 $3.76 $5.08 $1,347 Source: Public Review Draft Report Downtown Specific Plan Public Facilties Finance Plan, October 2, sum alloc prop [1] Includes Retail and Service land uses. [2] Includes Office and Medical Office land uses. [3] Reflects 25 percent of maximum justifiable fee. See Table 3 for maximum justifiable fee amount. Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ m8
9 Table 5 Net Impact of Proposed Central City Impact Fees Land Use Category Proposed Central City Impact Fee [1] Transportation Impact Fee District [3] Downtown Transportation Impact Fee Change TDIF Change (Assumes Incentive Rate) [2] Within Current Downtown Net Increase CCSP Remainder Downtown TDIF Change Transportation (Assumes Impact Fee Incentive Rate) [2] Change Net Increase per unit Residential $2,968 ($27) ($1,026) $1,915 ($69) NA $2,899 Nonresidential Retail [4] $3.76 ($0.07) ($2.15) per bldg. sq. ft. $1.54 ($0.18) NA $3.58 Office [5] $5.08 ($0.08) ($1.96) $3.05 ($0.18) NA $4.90 Hotel $1,347 ($20) ($509) $819 ($50) NA $1,297 per room Source: ; EPS. net change [1] See Table 4. [2] Central City Impact Fee based on maximum allocation of Grid 3.0 costs to Central City development. Central City development would therefore receive a credit against the TDIF for that portion of the TDIF that also funds Grid 3.0 costs. [3] Defined by the "downtown benefit district area" as provided in the Railyards/Richards/Downtown Nexus Study dated September 17, The downtown benefit district area is generally bounded by the Sacramento River to the west, S Street to the south, 17th Street to the east, and the Railyards Specific Plan to the north. The downtown benefit district area already receives credit for overlapping facilities. This table reflects the net change once the Central City Impact Fee replaces the current Downtown Transportation Impact Fee. [4] Includes Retail and Service land uses. [5] Includes Office and Medical Office land uses. Prepared by EPS 11/28/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ m8 9
10 Figure 1 Citywide Development Impact Fee Updates Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison for Single-Family Residential 2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 3 Bedrooms, 8.0 Units/Acre Single-Family Residential $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 Estimated Fee Burden and Bond Debt per Unit $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Elk Grove Elk Grove Folsom Folsom Rancho Cordova Rancho Cordova Rancho Cordova Rancho Cordova Unincorp. Sac. County Unincorp. Sac. County Rocklin Roseville Woodland Central City Specific Plan [1] South Sacramento Jacinto Creek North Natomas Greenbriar River District [2] 65th Street [2] Delta Shores Franklin Crossing Laguna Ridge Empire Ranch Folsom Plan Area Anatolia III Capital Village SunRidge Park (Phase 2) Villages of Zinfandel N. Vineyard Station Vineyard Whitney Ranch Fiddyment Ranch Springlake City/County Fees/Other Agency Fees (Includes School Mitigation) Bond Debt Plan Area Fees Proposed Central City Impact Fee Net Increase [3] [1] Assumes within ROMA fee area (Downtown portion). sfr chart [2] Plan Area Fees for the River District and 65th Street include economic development incentives in the form of reduced fees during the first years of development. This analysis assumes the full fee rates as indicated in the Plan Areas' respective Finance Plans. [3] Reflects the net increase between the existing Downtown/Railyards/River District Transportation Impact Fee and the proposed Central City Impact Fee Program. NOTE: With the exception of the TDIF, PIF, River District Fee, 65th Street Fee, and proposed Central City Impact Fee, the fees in this analysis reflect fees current as of June Prepared by EPS 11/29/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\Fee Comps\ Outreach Fee Comp m1 10
11 Figure 2 Infrastructure Burden Comparison for Multifamily Building 2 Acre, 200 Unit Complex (900 Sq. Ft. Per Unit) $45,000 Multifamily $40,000 Total Estimated Fee Burden and Bond Debt per Unit $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento West Sacramento West Sacramento Central City Specific Plan [1] Railyards Specific Plan [2] River District [3] 65th Street [3] Bridge District Specific Plan Tier 1 [4] Bridge District Specific Plan Tier 2 [4] City/County/Other Agency Fees (Includes School Mitigation) Bond Debt Plan Area Fees Proposed Central City Impact Fee Net Increase [5] [1] Assumes within ROMA fee area (Downtown portion). [2] Railyards plan area fee reflects the cost allocations from the November 2016 Railyards Specific Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan. A nexus study for the Railyards Plan Area Fee Program has not yet been approved. [3] Plan Area fees for the River District and 65th Street include economic development incentives in the form of reduced fees during the first years of development. This analysis assumes the full fee rates as indicated in the Plan Areas' respective Finance Plans. [4] The Bridge District One Time Special Tax (Plan Area Fee) is tiered to provide lower fee burdens to the earlier phases of development. Tier 1 is applied to the first 1 million square feet of Bridge District new development. Tier 2 is charged to new development between 1 million and 6 million building square feet. As of November 2017, development is still charged the Tier 1 rate. [5] Reflects the net increase between the existing Downtown/Railyards/River District Transportation Impact Fee and the proposed Central City Impact Fee Program. mfr chart Fees Current as of November Prepared by EPS 11/29/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\Fee Comps\ Outreach Fee 11Comp m1
12 Figure 3 Infrastructure Cost Burden for Office Building 75,000-Sq.-Ft. Building, 5-Acre Site Office Building $40 $35 Total Estimated Fee Burden and Debt per Bldg. Sq. Ft. $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Elk Grove Folsom Rancho Cordova Unincorp. Sac. County Roseville Davis Central City Specific Plan [1] Railyards Specific Plan [2] River District [3] Granite Park North Natomas Laguna Ridge Broadstone Unit 3 Infill N. Vineyard Station [4] Highland Reserve E. Davis/ Mace City/County/Other Agency Fees (Includes School Mitigation) Bond Debt Plan Area Fees Proposed Central City Impact Fee Net Increase [5] [1] Assumes within ROMA fee area (Downtown portion). [2] Railyards plan area fee reflects the cost allocations from the November 2016 Railyards Specific Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan. A nexus study for the Railyards Plan Area Fee Program has not yet been approved. [3] Plan Area fees for the River District include economic development incentives in the form of reduced fees during the first years of development. This analysis assumes the full fee rates as indicated in the River District Finance Plan. [4] CFD proceeds are not included in this analysis because bond proceeds primarily pay for fee-funded infrastructure. [5] Reflects the net increase between the existing Downtown/Railyards/River District Transportation Impact Fee and the proposed Central City Impact Fee Program. office chart NOTE: With the exception of the TDIF, PIF, River District Fee, and proposed Central City Impact Fee, the fees reflected in this analysis reflect fees current as of May Prepared by EPS 12/15/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\Fee Comps\ Outreach Fee Comp m1 12
13 Figure 4 Infrastructure Cost Burden for Retail Building 10-Acre Site, 100,000-Sq.-Ft. Project Retail Building $60 Total Estimated Fee Burden and Bond Debt per Bldg. Sq. Ft. $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Elk Grove Folsom Rancho Cordova Central City Specific Plan [1] River District [2] Jacinto Creek North Natomas Delta Shores Laguna Ridge Broadstone Unit 3 Infill Rancho Cordova Sunridge Anatolia I [3] Unincorp. Sac. County N. Vineyard Station [3] Unincorp. Sac. County Vineyard Roseville North Central West Sacramento Southport City/County/Other Agency Fees (Includes School Mitigation) Bond Debt Plan Area Fees Proposed Central City Impact Fee Net Increase [4] [1] Assumes within ROMA fee area (Downtown portion). [2] Plan Area fees for the River District include economic development incentives in the form of reduced fees during the first years of development. This analysis assumes the full fee rates as indicated in the River District Finance Plan. [3] CFD proceeds are not included in this analysis because bond proceeds primarily pay for fee-funded infrastructure. [4] Reflects the net increase between the existing Downtown/Railyards/River District Transportation Impact Fee and the proposed Central City Impact Fee Program. retail chart NOTE: With the exception of the TDIF, PIF, River District Fee, and proposed Central City Impact Fee, the fees reflected in this analysis reflect fees current as of May Prepared by EPS 12/15/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\Fee Comps\ Outreach Fee Comp m1 13
14 Table 1 Summary of CCSP Prototype Feasibility Indicators Item Prototype #1: MFR Rental Prototype #2: MFR Ownership Condominium Prototype #3: Mid-Rise Office Building With Ground Floor Retail Prototype #4: Hotel Description 5-Story Apartment Building with Structured Parking 5-Story Condominium Building with Structured Parking 5-Story Mixed Use Office Building with Ground Floor Retail 7-Story Hotel Project per unit per unit per 1k gross bldg. sq. ft. per room Estimated Value [1] $372,000 $552,000 $324,000 $248,000 Development Characteristics Mo. Lease Rate/Sales Price/ADR $2,295/unit/mo. $552,000/unit $3.00/sq.ft./mo. $185 ADR/room Cap Rate 5.50% % 8.00% Site Acres Density (DU per Acre or FAR) DU/Acre 94.0 DU/Acre 2.75 FAR 5.00 FAR Gross Building Area 70,785 70,785 59, ,900 Number of Units/Rooms Average Square Feet per Unit/Room 850 1, Parking Assumptions (Structured Parking) 1.00/unit 1.50/unit 1.00/1,000 sq. ft. 0.50/room FEASIBILITY FINDINGS Current Fees With Proposed Central City Impact Fee [1] Rounded to the nearest $1,000. indicator Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ Feasibility 14 m1
15 Table 2 Summary of CCSP Prototype Feasibility Analysis Page 1 of 2 Prototype #2: MFR Ownership Prototype #1: MFR Rental Condominium With Proposed With Proposed Current Central City Current Central City Item Assumptions Fees Impact Fee Assumptions Fees Impact Fee Development Characteristics Site Acres Site Sq. Ft. 21,780 21,780 Leasable/Saleable Area [1] 56,628 56,628 Gross Building Area 70,785 70,785 Number of Units/Rooms Average Square Feet per Unit/Room 850 1,200 Total Parking Spaces (Structured) per unit per unit Capitalized Value/Sales Price [2] $371,808 $371,808 $551,591 $551,591 Development Costs Direct Construction Costs [3] $220,988 $220,988 $313,514 $313,514 Other Soft Costs $44,198 $44,198 $62,703 $62,703 Current Fees & Permits $15,183 $15,183 $18,085 $18,085 Construction Financing [4] $10,794 $10,908 $15,181 $15,295 Builder Fee [4] $34,939 $35,309 $49,138 $49,508 Subtotal Development Costs $326,102 $326,586 $458,621 $459,105 Proposed Central City Impact Fee $0 $2,968 $0 $2,968 Total Development Costs $326,102 $329,554 $458,621 $462,073 Infrastructure Cost Burden $15,183 $18,152 $18,085 $21,053 Infrastructure Cost Burden as a % of Value/Price 4.1% 4.9% 3.3% 3.8% Infrastructure Cost Burden as a % of Development Costs 4.7% 5.6% 3.9% 4.6% Residual Land Value Per Unit/1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft./Room $45,706 $42,254 $92,971 $89,518 Per Land Sq. Ft. Target: $139 $128 $201 $193 Residual Land Value as a % of Value/Price 10% or higher 12.3% 11.4% 16.9% 16.2% Feasibility Finding [1] Prototype #3: Includes 10,000 square feet of retail. [2] Includes capitalized value of structured parking. [3] Includes site work and structured parking construction costs. [4] Analysis assumes construction financing and builder fee increases when Central City Impact Fee is included. Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ Feasibility m1
16 Table 2 Summary of CCSP Prototype Feasibility Analysis Page 2 of 2 Item Prototype #3: Mid-Rise Office Building With Ground Floor Retail Prototype #4: Hotel With Proposed With Proposed Current Central City Current Central City Assumptions Fees Impact Fee Assumptions Fees Impact Fee Development Characteristics Site Acres Site Sq. Ft. Leasable/Saleable Area [1] Gross Building Area Number of Units/Rooms Average Square Feet per Unit/Room Total Parking Spaces (Structured) ,780 21,780 50,911 54,450 59, , Capitalized Value/Sales Price [2] Development Costs Direct Construction Costs [3] Other Soft Costs Current Fees & Permits Construction Financing [4] Builder Fee [4] Subtotal Development Costs Proposed Central City Impact Fee Total Development Costs per 1,000 gross bldg. sq. ft. per room $324,002 $324,002 $247,631 $247,631 $223,636 $223,636 $149,992 $149,992 $44,727 $44,727 $29,998 $29,998 $13,866 $13,866 $8,528 $8,528 $10,866 $11,053 $7,258 $7,310 $35,171 $35,778 $23,493 $23,661 $328,267 $329,061 $219,270 $219,490 $0 $4,864 $0 $1,347 $328,267 $333,924 $219,270 $220,837 Infrastructure Cost Burden Infrastructure Cost Burden as a % of Value/Price Infrastructure Cost Burden as a % of Development Costs $13,866 $18,730 $8,528 $9, % 5.8% 3.4% 4.0% 4.2% 5.7% 3.9% 4.5% Residual Land Value Per Unit/1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft./Room Per Land Sq. Ft. Residual Land Value as a % of Value/Price Target: 10% or higher ($4,266) ($9,923) $28,361 $26,794 ($12) ($27) $202 $191 (1.3%) (3.1%) 11.5% 10.8% Feasibility Finding [1] Prototype #3: Includes 10,000 square feet of retail. [2] Includes capitalized value of structured parking. [3] Includes site work and structured parking construction costs. [4] Analysis assumes construction financing and builder fee increases when Central City Impact Fee is included. summ feas Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ Feasibility m1
17 Table 3 Central City Impact Fee Credit for Existing Uses - Examples Item Formula Office to Condominium Reuse Example Reuse Prototypes Office to Hotel Reuse Hotel Expansion New Use Residential Hotel Hotel Fee per Unit/Room A $2,968 $1,347 $1,347 Number of Units/Rooms B Total Fee Revenue C=A*B $83,114 $134,720 $336,799 Existing Use Credit [1] Office Office Hotel Fee per Bldg. Sq. Ft./Room D $5.08 $5.08 $1,347 Bldg. Sq. Ft./Rooms E 40,000 60, Total Fee Credit F=D*E $203,390 $305,085 $269,439 Net Fee Payment/Credit [2] G=C-F $0 $0 $67,360 Source: EPS. ccsp credit [1] Buildings demolished within 3 years are eligible for preexisting use credit. [2] If credit for existing use exceeds fee for new use, payment is equal to $0. Prepared by EPS 11/27/2017 P:\152000\ Downtown Specific Plan\Models\ Feasibility 17 m1
Revised Public Review Draft Report
Revised Public Review Draft Report Central City Specific Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan Prepared for: City of Sacramento Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) February 6, 2018 EPS #152140
More informationCity Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA
City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.cityofsacramento.org File ID: 2017-01623 January 9, 2018 Consent Item 04 Title: Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report for the Year Ending
More informationMeasure A Performance Standards Program Performance Report, FY
Program Performance Report, FY 2009-10 1 I. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT A. Local Transportation Funding Each year, the County and each City must commit discretionary local funds (excluding Measure A) for street/road
More informationFY2014/15 Approved Budget. SECTION 13 Finance
13 SECTION 13 Finance 129 Finance The mission of the Finance Department is to educate, inform, and provide excellent internal and external customer service with integrity, efficiency, and quality. The
More informationCity of Sacramento Annual Continuing Disclosure Report Fiscal Year 2013/14
City of Sacramento Annual Continuing Disclosure Report Fiscal Year 2013/14 Issue Sacramento City Financing Authority 1999 Capital Bonds (Solid Waste and Redevelopment Projects) Par $ 71,180,000 Issued
More informationFY2017/18 Approved Budget. SECTION 14 Finance
14 SECTION 14 Finance 169 Finance The mission of the Finance Department is to educate, inform, and provide excellent internal and external customer service with integrity, efficiency, and quality. The
More informationPOLICY TOPIC PAPER 1.0: SPECIFIC PLANS AND SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS
POLICY TOPIC PAPER 1.0: SPECIFIC PLANS AND SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS BACKGROUND The City uses a number of tools to guide and manage development. In addition to the General Plan, there are a number of Specific
More informationD R A F T M E M O R A N D U M
D R A F T M E M O R A N D U M To: From: Joe Speaks, CH2M Darin Smith and Matt Loftis Subject: 4th and King RAB Financing Opportunities; EPS #141018 Date: August 18, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems Inc.
More informationSACRAMENTO COUNTY MEASURE B TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN ( )
THE ROAD MAINTENANCE & TRAFFIC RELIEF ACT OF 2016 NATOMAS ELVERTA ANTELOPE RIO LINDA NORTH HIGHLANDS SACRAMENTO COUNTY MEASURE B TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN (2017-2047) CITRUS HEIGHTS ORANGEVALE
More informationGRASS VALLEY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY
HEARING REPORT GRASS VALLEY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY Prepared for: City of Grass Valley Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. March 2008 EPS #17525 S A C R A M E N T O 2150
More informationSacramento Transportation Authority Sacramento Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority. Final Budget. Fiscal Year 2015/16
Sacramento Transportation Authority Sacramento Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority Final Budget Fiscal Year 2015/16 Introduction Message to the Governing Board The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA)
More informationFiscal Impact Analysis
May 12, 2017 Fiscal Impact Analysis Westport Cupertino Development Prepared for: KT Urban, LLC Prepared by: Applied Development Economics, Inc. 1756 Lacassie Avenue, #100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.934.8712
More informationTransportation Sustainability Program
TSP Transportation Sustainability Program MARKET & OCTAVIA CAC JANUARY 2012 GOALS & OBJECTIVES Better align City practices with citywide policy goals Harmonize California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
More informationEXHIBIT A. The Road Maintenance & Traffic Relief Act of 2016 Sacramento County Measure B Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan ( )
EXHIBIT A The Road Maintenance & Traffic Relief Act of 2016 Sacramento County Measure B Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (2017-2047) I. Implementation Guidelines A. Revenue Estimates and Distribution.
More informationAffordable Housing Fees Study
Affordable Housing Fees Study presented to City of Petaluma presented by Darin Smith August 6, 2018 Oakland Denver Los Angeles Sacramento Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1410,
More informationCity of Antioch Development Impact Fee Study
Report City of Antioch Development Impact Fee Study Prepared for: City of Antioch Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. February 2014 EPS #20001 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND RESULTS...
More informationFY2014/15 Approved Budget. SECTION 22 Citywide and Community Support
22 SECTION 22 Citywide and Community Support 185 Citywide and Community Support Debt Service The Debt Service Program finances the cost of capital improvements through revenue bonds, capital leases, notes
More informationPresented By: L. Carson Bise II, AICP President
Impact Fee Basics: Methodology and Fee Design Presented By: L. Carson Bise II, AICP President Basic Options for One-Time Infrastructure Charges Funding from broad-based revenues (general taxes) Growth
More informationREGIONAL TRANSIT ISSUE PAPER Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item No.
REGIONAL TRANSIT ISSUE PAPER Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item No. Board Meeting Date Open/Closed Session Information/Action Item Issue Date 13 07/27/15 Open Action 07/08/15 Subject: Setting a Public Hearing on
More informationSANITATION DISTRICTS AGENCY
SANITATION DISTRICTS AGENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS Budget Unit Page SACRAMENTO AREA SEWER DISTRICT - OPERATIONS... 35... 2 SACRAMENTO REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT - OPERATIONS... 328... 4 COMMUNICATIONS...
More informationFiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Draft Report Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. February 17, 2017 EPS #151010 Table of Contents
More informationCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM K-1
Fund # begins with a Fund Type Fund Type Description/Restrictions 1 General The City's principal operating fund, which is supported by taxes and fees and which, generally, has no restrictions on its use.
More informationPUBLIC SERVICES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN SALINAS FUTURE GROWTH AREA. November 12, 2007
PUBLIC SERVICES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN SALINAS FUTURE GROWTH AREA November 12, 2007 Prepared for the City of Salinas Prepared by Applied Development Economics 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560
More informationCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM K-1
Fund # begins with a Fund Type Fund Type Description/Restrictions 1 General The City's principal operating fund, which is supported by taxes and fees and which, generally, has no restrictions on its use.
More informationbae urban economics Memorandum Fee Analysis for General Plan Update Cost Recovery and for General Plan Implementation
bae urban economics Memorandum To: Vacaville City Council From: Matt Kowta, Principal, MCP Date: July 10, 2016 Re: Fee Analysis for General Plan Update Cost Recovery and for General Plan Implementation
More informationSacramento County Housing Trust Fund. Annual Report. for. January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1 Sacramento County Housing Trust Fund Annual Report for January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency May 2017 Page 5 HOUSING TRUST FUND ANNUAL REPORT FOR
More informationProposed Menlo Gateway Project Development Agreement Term Sheet
Proposed Menlo Gateway Project Development Agreement Term Sheet Presentation to City Council April 6, 2010 Availability of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Fiscal Impact Analysis More Information.
More informationHR&A Advisors, Inc. Incremental Tier 2 & Tier 3 Development Fees Analysis for the Santa Monica Downtown Community Plan Update November 2016
Incremental Tier 2 & Tier 3 Development Fees Analysis for the Santa Monica Downtown Community Plan Update November 2016 HR&A analyzed feasible development fees for incremental floor area increases applicable
More informationMULTI TENANT FLEX BUILDINGS AVAILABLE FOR SALE
MULTI TENANT FLEX BUILDINGS AVAILABLE FOR SALE 4659 & 4661 GOLDEN FOOTHILL PARKWAY 4663 GOLDEN FOOTHILL PARKWAY EL DORADO HILLS, FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT Doug Barnett 916-939-9935 doug@meridiancp.net
More informationCENTRAL SOMA PLAN & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org CENTRAL SOMA PLAN & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Adoption Hearing Planning Commission May 10, 2018 1 TODAY S ACTIONS 1. Certification of the Final EIR 2. Adoption of CEQA Findings
More informationMid-Year Budget Report. City of Placerville, California March 13, 2018
Mid-Year Budget Report City of Placerville, California March 13, 2018 Overview How is the local economy doing? Review local economic climate Is the City living within its means? Focus on the General Fund
More informationCity of Cornwall Development Charges Background Study. Council Presentation
City of Cornwall 2017 Development Charges Background Study Council Presentation June 12, 2017 Development Charges Purpose of Development Charges (D.C.) is to recover the capital costs associated with residential
More informationENGINEER S REPORT COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 10 BENEFIT ZONE NO. 3 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO THIRD ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT NOVEMBER 21, 2005.
ENGINEER S REPORT COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 10 BENEFIT ZONE NO. 3 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO THIRD ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT NOVEMBER 21, 2005 Oakland Office 1700 Broadway Temecula, CA Phoenix, AZ 6 th Floor Sacramento,
More informationRegional Water Authority Fiscal Year Budget
Regional Water Authority Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget March 8, 2018 Overview Benefits of RWA Membership Budget Highlights Final Phase of Strategic Plan Implementation Changes to Operating Fund Calculation
More informationCity of Stockton Development Impact Fee Review Report
City of Stockton Development Impact Fee Review Report Presented to City of Stockton Development Oversight Commission June 6, 2013 Berkeley Denver Los Angeles Sacramento Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
More informationFive-Year Capital Improvement Plan
FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan 2016 2020 CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA City of Rancho Cordova Council: Mayor:. Robert J. McGarvey Vice Mayor: David Sander Council Member:.. Linda Budge Council Member:.. Dan
More informationFiscal Analysis November 14, Fiscal Analysis Fiscal Conditions Project Background
3.11 Fiscal Analysis Fiscal Analysis 3.11.1 Fiscal Conditions 3.11.1.1 Project Background The proposed action is a 149 unit residential development, including a private road and appurtenances, on a 29.3
More informationCITY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA. April 27, 2012
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CALIFORNIA April 27, 2012 CITY HALL 5 th FLOOR 915 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-2684 PH 916-808-5704 FAX 916-808-7618 Honorable Mayor and City Council Sacramento, California
More informationInfrastructure Financing Plan. Infrastructure Financing District No. 1 (Rincon Hill Area) DRAFT
DRAFT Infrastructure Financing Plan Infrastructure Financing District No. 1 (Rincon Hill Area) Prepared for: City and County of San Francisco Office of Economic Development Prepared by: December 2010 TABLE
More informationExhibit to Agenda Item 11
Exhibit to Agenda Item 11 Board of Directors Meeting Thursday, September 20, 2018 6:00 p.m. Customer Service Center, Rubicon Room Powering forward. Together. 2018 Rate Change Proposal Summary Released
More informationTown Square Redevelopment. Phase I Contract Discussion
Town Square Redevelopment Phase I Contract Discussion Date: June 8, 2017 Current Estimated Schedule Draft RFQ Review September 20, 2016 Final RFQ Publication October 10, 2016 Part I Team Shortlist January
More informationPLEASANT GROVE, UTAH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN AND ANALYSIS
PLEASANT GROVE, UTAH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN AND OCTOBER 2012 PREPARED BY: LEWIS YOUNG ROBERTSON & BURNINGHAM IMPACT FEE CERTIFICATION Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) Certification
More informationCity Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor
Meeting Date: 2/4/2014 Report Type: Consent Report ID: 2014-00008 09 City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor www.cityofsacramento.org Title: Appropriate Funds and Execute Agreement: Downtown Sacramento
More informationPermanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Ordinance
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Ordinance August 30, 2017 Image: New Carver Apartments BACKGROUND Image: New Carver Apartments Comprehensive Homeless Strategy Goal: 1,000 units of PSH per year Current
More informationMEMORANDUM. Date: July 28, 2011; amended August 31, 2011
MEMORANDUM Date: July 28, 2011; amended August 31, 2011 To: From: Project: Subject: Thomas Rogers, City of Menlo Park Mark Hoffheimer, Perkins & Will Prakash Pinto, Perkins & Will Strategic Economics Menlo
More informationCRANE CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN OAKDALE, CALIFORNIA
CRANE CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN OAKDALE, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Final Draft MAY 28, 2013 Crane Crossing Specific Plan Oakdale, California Public Facilities
More informationREGIONAL TRANSIT MEMO
REGIONAL TRANSIT MEMO DATE: February 10, 2014 TO: FROM: SUBJ: File James Drake, Service Planner Title VI Analysis of Granite Park Shuttle Pursuant to RT s major service change policy and in accordance
More informationChristopher Blunk, Deputy Director Public Works/City Engineer. PRESENTER: Christopher Blunk, Deputy Director Public Works/City Engineer
STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 10, 2018 TO: FROM: City Council Christopher Blunk, Deputy Director Public Works/City Engineer PRESENTER: Christopher Blunk, Deputy Director Public Works/City Engineer 922
More informationCITY BUDGET TOWN HALL MEETING
CITY BUDGET TOWN HALL MEETING City Budget Town Hall Meeting Agenda Mayor and Councilmember Remarks o Welcome Sacramento 101 o Overview Budget 101 o o Overview Measure U Community Budget Priorities o Budget
More informationCommunity Development Department
Community Development Department Ryan DeVore, Interim Director of Community Development Scot Mende, Principal Planner Bill Busath, Interim Director of Utilities Connie Perkins, Senior Engineer, Floodplain
More informationM EMORANDUM. Background. Michael Codron and Lee Johnson. Walter Kieser, Teifion Rice-Evans and Ashleigh Kanat
M EMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Michael Codron and Lee Johnson Walter Kieser, Teifion Rice-Evans and Ashleigh Kanat Compendium of Final Documents Prepared in Support of the Infrastructure Financing Analysis;
More informationPlanning Commission Staff Report
Staff Recommendation Planning Commission Staff Report February 5, 2015 Project: Southeast Policy Area, Amendment 1 File: PL0016 and EG-13-030 Request: General Plan Amendment, Community Plan Amendment,
More informationCity of Redding, California Development Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study
, California Development Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study December 5, 2017 Prepared by helping communities fund to morrow This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...1 Background
More informationCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM K-1
Fund # begins with a Fund Type Fund Type Description/Restrictions 1 General The City's principal operating fund that is supported by taxes and fees and which, generally, has no restrictions on its use.
More informationNorth Fair Oaks Zoning Workgroup Fair Oaks Community Center February 15, 2017
North Fair Oaks Zoning Workgroup Fair Oaks Community Center February 15, 2017 1 M e e t i n g P u r p o s e a n d O b j e c t i v e s PURPOSE: Present project timeline and next steps Present Proposed Improvements
More informationFigure 4-1. ARB IRWMP Governance Structure
Sec t i on4 I RWMPGov er nanc e o nt e m a r c Sa n o i eg R B AR Contents Contents 4. IRWMP GOVERNANCE... 4-1 4.1. Background... 4-1 4.2. ARB Structure... 4-2 4.2.1. Planning Forum... 4-3 4.2.2. Advisory
More informationProjects Receiving New Funding by. Funding Source and Project Number
20172022 Approved Capital Improvement Program s Receiving New Funding by Funding Source and Number 1001 GENERAL FUND A04000100 A07000300 A07000400 CITY CLER AUTOMATION IT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITYWIDE
More informationSan Francisco Multi-Purpose Venue Project. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Revenues. Draft Report. Prepared for: The City and County of San Francisco
Draft Report San Francisco Multi-Purpose Venue Project Fiscal Impact Analysis: Revenues Prepared for: The City and County of San Francisco Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. April 27, 2015
More informationCity of North Port. Proposed 5-yr Capital Improvement Program
City of North Port Proposed 5yr Capital Improvement Program FY 08/09 to FY 12/13 Prepared by the Department of Engineering City of North Port Five Year Capital Improvement Program FY 2009 FY 2013 Page
More informationSacramento Public Library Authority
Thursday, May 28, 2015 Overhead Cost Allocation Update Presentation of Results and Model Sacramento Public Library Authority Item 5.2 Willdan Financial Services Background Willdan Financial Services -
More informationCapital Improvement Projects
Capital Improvement Projects This section highlights the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects proposed for FY 2017-2018. Capital projects are designed to enhance the City s infrastructure, extend
More informationFiscal Impact Analysis of Great Pond Village
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Great Pond Village Town of Windsor, Connecticut Presentation to: Windsor Town Council Windsor Town Planning & Zoning May 11, 2011 Presentation Overview Introduction Fiscal Impact
More informationCapital Improvements
Capital Improvements CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT GOAL 7-1: PROVIDE & MAINTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Provide and maintain public facilities and services which protect and promote the public health,
More informationth Street, Sacramento, CA FOR SALE/LEASE ±7,167 SF OFFICE/FLEX BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO
Sale: $1,650,000 ($230PSF) / Lease: $1.75/SF, NNN ±7,167 SF OFFICE/FLEX BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO 315 ±4,341 SF 317 ±2,826 SF FEATURES & HIGHLIGHTS ±7,167 SF Fully improved flex/office building,
More informationTAUSSIG. & Associates, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS DELTA COVE (ATLAS TRACT) DAVID. Public Finance Facilities Planning Urban Economics
DAVID TAUSSIG & Associates, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS DELTA COVE (ATLAS TRACT) August 31, 2010 Prepared By: Public Finance Facilities Planning Urban Economics David Taussig & Associates, Inc 5000 Birch
More informationFROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 CMR: 346:06
21a TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 CMR: 346:06 SUBJECT: 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050]: REQUEST BY
More informationI. Introduction and Background
I. Introduction and Background The purpose of the Midterm Review of the 2007 Five-Year Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan) is to provide a review of the current status of the goals, programs and
More information4.12 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4.12 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT This section discusses the effects the proposed project may potentially have on local and regional population, housing, and employment. The
More informationTruckee Railyard Draft Master Plan EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendices A-B SCH No
Truckee Railyard Draft Master Plan EIR Volume 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendices A-B SCH No. 2007122092 Prepared for: Town of Truckee November 2008 TRUCKEE RAILYARD DRAFT MASTER PLAN Volume
More informationMUNICIPAL SERVICES AGENCY
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II OF III H-1 Budget Unit Page Municipal Services Summary... H-5 Administrative Services...27 H-8 Animal Care and Regulation...322 H-13 County Engineering
More informationMETRO AIR PARK COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN METRO AIR PARK COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Prepared for the Hearing of the Board of Supervisors On December 11, 2007 DECEMBER 11, 2007 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO METRO AIR PARK PROJECT
More informationReport to: General Committee Meeting Date: December 5, 2017
Report to: General Committee Meeting Date: December 5, 2017 SUBJECT: 2017 Development s Background Study PREPARED BY: Kevin Ross, Manager, Development Finance Ext. 2126 RECOMMENDATION: 1) THAT the report
More informationColumbia River Crossing Project Vancouver, Washington Engineering (Rating Assigned November 2012)
Columbia River Crossing Project Vancouver, Washington Engineering (Rating Assigned November 2012) Summary Description Proposed Project: Light Rail Transit 2.9 Miles, 5 Stations Total Capital Cost ($YOE):
More informationCRENSHAW & AMENDED CRENSHAW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA CRENSHAW & AMENDED CRENSHAW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 5-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FY2005 - FY2009 REQUIRED BY HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
More informationZoning Code User Guide
Adopted July 22, 2015 (AMENDED JUNE 22, 2017) Zoning Code User Guide Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Sacramento County Zoning Code User Guide Adopted July 22, 2015 (AMENDED June 22,
More informationCity of Sacramento
APPROVED 2009-2014 APPROVED CITY OF SACRAMENTO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2009-2014 Kevin Johnson Mayor RAYMOND L. TRETHEWAY III LAUREN R. HAMMOND Councilmember, District 1 Vice Mayor, District 5 SANDY
More informationCAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT: Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal 1. The provision of needed public facilities in a timely manner, which protects investments in existing facilities, maximizes the use of
More informationSelf-Supported Municipal Improvement districts
Self-Supported Municipal Improvement districts Combined Annual Report Downtown Highland Park Ingersoll Sherman Hill June 30, 2012 FAQ s What is a self-supported municipal improvement district or SSMID?
More informationMid-Year Budget Report. City of Placerville, California March 22, 2016
Mid-Year Budget Report City of Placerville, California March 22, 2016 Overview Review local economic climate Focus on the General Fund Update on all other operating funds 2 Economic Climate Unemployment
More informationCOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA. Community Development Department
APPROVED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 144 ;47,-207 3 --a3c y JUlt.0 4 2013 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA For the Agenda of: June 4, 2013 22 To: From: Subject: Board of Supervisors Community Development Department
More informationFiscal Impact Analysis
Fiscal Impact Analysis Waterfront West Newburyport, MA March 22, 2017 Prepared By Fougere Planning & Development, Inc. Prepared For Newburyport Manager, LLC FOUGERE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, Inc. Mark J.
More information5 Draft 2017 Development Charge Background Study and Proposed Bylaw
Clause 5 in Report No. 3 of Committee of the Whole was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting held on February 16, 2017. 5 Draft 2017 Development
More informationEVANSTON. FY 2017 Proposed Budget Presentation. Martin Lyons, Assistant City Manger / CFO Lara Biggs, City Engineer.
EVANSTON FY 2017 Proposed Budget Presentation Martin Lyons, Assistant City Manger / CFO Lara Biggs, City Engineer October 24, 2016 Administrative Services 1 FY 2017 BUDGET PRESENTATION-- October 17, 2016
More informationCREATION OF A PUBLIC BENEFITS FRAMEWORK
CITY COUNCIL NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: INITIATED BY: JULY 20, 2015 CREATION OF A PUBLIC BENEFITS FRAMEWORK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D~ELOPMENT (Stephanie DeWolfe, AICP, Directo (John Keho, AICP, Assistant Director
More informationDRAFT MEMORANDUM -- For Discussion Purposes Only. James R. Musbach and Garrett K. Gray. Subject: Nevada State College Financing Program; EPS #18067
DRAFT MEMORANDUM -- D RAFT M EMORANDUM To: From: NSC Committee James R. Musbach and Garrett K. Gray Subject: Nevada State College Financing Program; EPS #18067 Date: April 8, 2009 Introduction Economic
More informationEconomic Evaluation and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Gateway Oyster Point
Report Economic Evaluation and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Gateway Oyster Point Prepared for: BioMed Realty Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. April 9, 2013 EPS #131017 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Project Analysis... A-1 Project Summary Background Issues Conclusion. Findings... F-1 CEQA Findings Charter Findings
CPC-2008-3470-SP-GPA-ZC-SUD-BL-M3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Analysis... A-1 Project Summary Background Issues Conclusion Findings... F-1 CEQA Findings Charter Findings Public Hearing and Communications...
More informationCedar River Water and Sewer District FEE AND CHARGE SCHEDULE AMENDED January 21, 2014
Cedar River Water and Sewer District FEE AND CHARGE SCHEDULE AMENDED January 21, 2014 I. FLAT FEES Certificate of Availability Fee - New (W & S each) Residential - Single family residence $70.00 Commercial
More informationDevelopment Fee Program: Comparative risk analysis
Development Fee Program: Comparative risk analysis January 2008 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2015 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811 Ph. 916.447.8779
More informationSACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY AUTHORITY COST ALLOCATION PLAN APRIL 16, 2018
SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY AUTHORITY COST ALLOCATION PLAN APRIL 16, 2018 Corporate Office: Office Locations: 27368 Via Industrial Anaheim, CA New York, NY Suite 200 Oakland, CA Orlando, FL Temecula, CA
More informationRESOLUTION - APPROVING FINAL FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
ITEM 12 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Board of Directors Richard M. Johnson, Executive Director (916) 874-7606 RESOLUTION - APPROVING FINAL FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 BUDGET OVERVIEW:
More informationPolicy Statement No: 304 Adopted: June 2011 Category: Financial Management. Subject: Reporting Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund Financial
CITY OF EL CENTRO POLICY STATEMENT Policy Statement No: 304 Adopted: June 2011 Category: Financial Management 1 Revised: Subject: Reporting Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund Financial I. Purpose:
More informationSRCSD Final Budget
SRCSD 2006-07 Final Budget SRCSD Service Area Contents Organizational Chart.................................................................... 4 Board of Directors.......................................................................
More informationCounty of Sacramento
Department of Finance Ben Lamera, Director Auditor-Controller Division Joyce Renison, Assistant Auditor-Controller County of Sacramento June 15, 2018 To: Subject: Direct Levy Districts FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
More informationW Colden Ave, Los Angeles Fully Occupied Duplex, Great Cap Rate & Cash-Flow + Significant Additional Upside Potential
520-522 W Colden Ave, Los Angeles 90044 Property Details NEWER FULLY OCCUPIED DUPLEX CASH-FLOWS LIKE AN INVESTOR'S DREAM! TWO 4-BED/2- BATH UNITS ON LARGE RD-2 LOT IN TIER 1 TOD ZONE = BUILD 4 ADDITIONAL
More informationRESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING THE BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (BVSP)
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING THE BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (BVSP) WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2035 General Plan (GP),
More informationLEGEND Bridges Parks Fire Stations Project Locations Libraries Schools A
LEGEND Bridges Parks Fire Stations Project Locations Libraries Schools A Aid to Construction Fund The Aid to Construction Fund (Water) are funds received from customers for requested water service and
More informationCity of Sacramento City Council 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA,
City of Sacramento City Council 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814 www.cityofsacramento.org Meeting Date: 2/15/2011 Report Type: Consent Title: FY2010/11 s to the Utilities Capital Improvement Program
More informationRATE & FEE SCHEDULE AMENDED July 1, 2018
RATE & FEE SCHEDULE AMENDED July 1, 2018 I. FLAT FEES & CHARGES Certificate of Availability Fee - New (Water & Sewer Each) Residential - Single Family Residence $70.00 Commercial & Short Plats $200.00
More informationTAX INCREMENT FINANCING (T.I.F.)
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (T.I.F.) Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.) is a financing technique that can be used to pay for costs associated with the renovation of conservation areas. Funding is done by designating
More information