MAY 2013 - LAFCOSPSP Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis 4 May 28, 2013 P ROJECT S CENARIOS At the time of approval of the SPSP, the North County Corridor (NCC) was in its planning

SIERRA POINTE SPECIFIC PLAN

OAKDALE, CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN

AND

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Final Draft

MAY 28, 2013

Sierra Pointe Specific Plan

Oakdale, California

Public Facilities Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Objective ........................................................................................................................1

Project Description.........................................................................................................2

Project Scenarios ............................................................................................................4

2. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN ............................................................ 6 Facility Needs and Cost Estimates .................................................................................6

Financing Mechanisms ..................................................................................................7

Project Feasibility ........................................................................................................11

3. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 13 Methodology ................................................................................................................13

Major Assumptions ......................................................................................................15

Fiscal Revenues ...........................................................................................................16

Fiscal Expenses ............................................................................................................20

Net Fiscal Impacts........................................................................................................20

4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 22 Public Facilities Financing ...........................................................................................22

Fiscal Impacts ..............................................................................................................24

REPORT TABLES & FIGURES

REPORT TABLES

Table 2-1: Infrastructure Cost Estimates by Development Scenario ....................................... 6

Table 2-2: Infrastructure Cost Estimates by Funding Category .............................................. 7

Table 3-1: Summary of Net Fiscal Impacts .............................................................................. 21

REPORT MAPS Local Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ 2

Development Phasing Map ............................................................................................................ 4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 – DETAILED FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES (FROM G&K) ............. A-1

APPENDIX 2 – FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLES Table 1: Summary Results of Fiscal Impact Analysis ................................................................... A-12 Table 2: City Population and Employment, 2004-2011 ................................................................. A-13 Table 3: Market Assumptions by Land Use ................................................................................... A-14 Table 4: New Service Population and Real Estate Development Detail ...................................... A-15 Table 5: City of Oakdale Gross Expenditures FY 2004-2011 ....................................................... A-16 Table 6: City of Oakdale Expenditures per Person Served FY 2004-2011 ................................. A-17 Table 7: Fiscal Impacts of New Development ................................................................................ A-18 Table A1: City of Oakdale Gross Revenues FY 2004-2011........................................................... A-19 Table A2: City of Oakdale Gross Revenues per Capita FY 2004-2011 ....................................... A-20 Table A3: Property Tax Allocation, Estimated .............................................................................. A-22 Table A4: CFD No. 2007-1 (Public Safety Services) Revenue ...................................................... A-23 Table A5: Sales and Use Tax Assumptions .................................................................................... A-24 Table A6: Sales Tax Analysis ........................................................................................................... A-25 Table A7: Property Transfer Tax Revenue .................................................................................... A-26 Table A8: Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues .............................................. A-27

APPENDIX 3 – INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING DEV’T ...... A-28

SPSP Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis 1 May 28, 2013

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVE

This report analyzes the public facilities burden that must be carried by the land uses proposed in

the Sierra Pointe Specific Plan (Specific Plan, SPSP, or Project) and the potential recurring fiscal

impacts to the City of Oakdale (City) from the development proposal. The SPSP is a public

policy document that sets guidelines for the long-term use of land within the Project area.

Similarly, the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP or Finance Plan) and Fiscal Impact

Analysis (FIA) provide a long-term look at the burdens associated with providing infrastructure

to the SPSP area and the annual fiscal impacts that will be generated by the Project once it is

built out.

The Finance Plan identifies infrastructure required to serve the Project, its corresponding costs,

and implementation measures to ensure those costs are funded. It represents the culmination of a

cooperative process that involved public and private participants with interests in the SPSP. The

Finance Plan will serve as a blueprint to guide individual development applications and ensure

that future development conforms to the strategy outlined in this Finance Plan. The Finance Plan

also includes a brief summary of overall feasibility. As development progresses, the timing and

mix of costs and funding sources may change. Furthermore, the costs and infrastructure

obligations are estimates at this time, and demonstrate one approach to fund required

infrastructure needs; actual results may be different. However, regardless of the extent to which

proposed financing mechanisms are used or other financing mechanisms are introduced later in

the Project, the feasibility of the overall burden has been evaluated. The PFFP is a planning

document that includes a proposed financing strategy for the Project; it does not commit the City

or landowners to a specific financing obligation. Furthermore, the PFFP does not establish any

impact fees. Adoption of any development impact fee program to fund SPSP infrastructure

needs can only occur after a comprehensive update of the City’s Capital Facilities Fee (CFF)

Program has been completed.

The Fiscal Impact Analysis establishes the fiscal feasibility for the City by analyzing the

potential recurring fiscal impacts to the City produced by new development. The analysis

compares the annual costs of providing public services to the annual revenues that will be

generated by new development to determine the net fiscal impact. Districts and funds supported

by development fees and user charges (e.g., enterprise funds), state funding (e.g., school

districts), or a specific allocation of property taxes (e.g., school districts, irrigation districts,

mosquito abatement districts) are not included in the analysis. This report focuses solely on the

fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund, Development Services Fund, and Engineering &

Public Works Fund.

In summary, this report does the following:

Describes the proposed land uses as well as developed value and demographic

assumptions


Summarizes public facilities required to serve future development in the SPSP area

Presents the costs of required public facilities and assigns the costs to one of three

funding categories (i.e., CFF Program, SPSP Fee Program, and Developer funded in-tract

costs)

Summarizes the financial feasibility of the Project

Projects the annual fiscal revenues to the City’s General Fund, Development Services

Fund, and Engineering & Public Works Fund generated from the Project

Projects the annual fiscal expenses incurred by the City’s General Fund, Development

Services Fund, and Engineering & Public Works Fund to provide services to the Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The City lies in the northeastern portion of Stanislaus County, approximately 11 miles northeast

of Modesto in California’s agricultural Central Valley. Regionally, Sacramento is located

approximately 60 miles to the north and San Francisco is approximately 125 miles to the west.

The Project consists of approximately 297 acres along the eastern edge of the City. The SPSP

includes approximately 284 acres of new development, which are incorporated into the PFFP and

FIA. The remaining 13 acres comprise 45 existing homes and are not included in this study.

The SPSP area is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Downtown Oakdale along Highway

120/East F Street and consists of multiple parcels generally bounded by Highway 120/East F

Street to the north, South Stearns Road to the east, Orsi Road to the west, and Sierra Avenue to

the south. A local vicinity map of the SPSP area is shown below.


Land Uses

At buildout, the Project is expected to include 856 new residential units and approximately 1.1

million square feet of non-residential development. The residential component of the Project

area encompasses approximately 152 gross acres and will include very low density residential

(VLDR), low density residential (LDR), medium density residential (MDR), and high density

residential (HDR) units. There are currently 45 existing VLDR units in the SPSP, but these

existing units are excluded from the analyses because the units are served by existing

infrastructure. Regarding non-residential land uses, the SPSP includes general commercial, flex

use/general commercial, and office land uses that are anticipated to develop on approximately 69

gross acres. An additional 18 gross acres is also planned for public/semi-public use that is

anticipated to be a new community college campus. It is assumed that the general commercial

land uses will be comprised of an evenly distributed mix of retail and other commercial uses

based on a cursory market analysis that was prepared as part of the City’s current General Plan

Update. For purposes of this analysis, the estimated gross acreage does not include the acreage

associated with major roads, parks, and open space. Unless otherwise indicated, the terms gross

acres and acres are used interchangeably throughout this report.

The SPSP is divided into three phases of development: i) Residential Neighborhood Phase; ii)

Mixed Use Corridor Phase; and iii) North County Corridor (NCC) Future Phase. The boundaries

of each phase of development are shown in the map below. The City’s General Plan refers to the

entire SPSP area as Planning Area 9. A breakdown of the proposed land uses within the Project

is presented in Table 4 of Appendix 2. Unless otherwise specifically stated, the remaining text in

this report refers to the development of the entire SPSP area. Where necessary, discussion of the

separate development areas is provided.

Estimated Market Values

Estimated market values for each residential and non-residential land use category reflect values

used in the City’s General Plan Update Fiscal Impact Analysis (General Plan FIA), dated

April 15, 2011. Average values of $350,000 per very low density residential unit, $300,000 per

low density residential unit, $240,000 per medium density residential unit, $150,000 per high

density residential unit, and $200 per building square foot of general commercial, flex

use/general commercial, and office uses are used in this analysis. These values are shown in

Table 3 of Appendix 2.

Demographic Assumptions

It is anticipated that development will result in approximately 2,266 new residents and 3,257

employees at Project buildout. Population and employment estimates are presented in Table 4 of

Appendix 2. Population per household and square feet per job assumptions are provided in



PROJECT SCENARIOS

At the time of approval of the SPSP, the North County Corridor (NCC) was in its planning

stages, and no final alignments had been selected. The NCC is proposed to be a parallel route to

Highway 108 and is envisioned to ultimately provide an east/west connection from Highway 99

to Highway 108/120 at the eastern edge of the City. Alignment 1A, one of the potential

alignments being considered, would run through the southeast and northeast corners of the SPSP,

with partial interchanges located immediately east of the SPSP area – one along Stearns Road

and one along Highway 120/East F Street.


To account for this possible alignment, two development scenarios are incorporated into the

PFFP and FIA. The first scenario evaluates the financial viability and potential recurring fiscal

impacts associated with new growth in the Residential Neighborhood Phase and Mixed Use

Corridor Phase only. The NCC Future Phase area, which encompasses 68 acres, is assumed to

be selected as the location for a portion of Alignment 1A; therefore, no development is

anticipated in this area. A summary of the proposed land uses excluding the NCC Future Phase

is presented in Table 3 of Appendix 2.

The second scenario analyzes feasibility and fiscal impacts associated with new growth in the

entire SPSP area, including the NCC Future Phase. This scenario implicitly assumes that

Alignment 1A is not selected. The tables in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 are explained in detail

in this report. In many instances, information for both scenarios is presented on one table in

order to easily compare the results between development scenarios. In addition to the land use

assumptions of each development scenario being different, Giuliani & Kull, Inc., the Project

engineer, identified the infrastructure costs for each development scenario.


Chapter 2

PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN

FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ESTIMATES

The Sierra Pointe Specific Plan describes in detail the water, storm drainage, sewer, irrigation,

street, and park improvements proposed to meet the needs of the community. The Specific Plan

also includes a series of maps and exhibits for all Project-specific infrastructure needed to serve

future development within the Project area. Giuliani & Kull, Inc., provided preliminary cost

estimates for the SPSP area excluding the NCC Future Phase as well as separately for the NCC

Future Phase. These two sets of cost estimates are summed to determine the cost for the entire

SPSP area, including the NCC Future Phase. A mark-up of 35% is applied to all facility costs to

account for soft-costs such as design and engineering, construction management, facility

inspection, and cost contingencies. The total cost of backbone infrastructure required for the

entire SPSP area is estimated to be approximately $26.2 million including the NCC Future

Phase. The total cost is reduced to approximately $23.1 million if Alignment 1A is selected for

the NCC and, therefore, no development occurs within the NCC Future Phase.

Giuliani & Kull also organized each infrastructure item into one of three funding categories:

CFF; SPSP; or in-tract. These categories are described more fully below, but they essentially

relate to infrastructure that would be included in the City’s capital facilities fee program (CFF),

that would be part of a newly-created fee program unique to the specific plan area, or that would

be constructed as homebuilders and commercial/industrial developers install subdivision or

in-tract improvements.

Summaries of the required infrastructure costs, including a 35% mark-up for contingency and

soft costs, to serve each development scenario and by funding category are presented in

Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 below. Detailed cost estimates from Giuliani & Kull, Inc., are presented

in Appendix 1.

TABLE 2-1

INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES BY DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ($ IN MILLIONS)

Improvement

SPSP

Excluding

NCC Future

Phase

Entire

SPSP Area

(Including NCC

Future Phase)

Water $3.6 $3.7

Storm Drainage $2.3 $2.4

Sewer $1.9 $2.0

Irrigation $2.5 $2.5

Street 1 $10.6 $11.3

Park $2.2 $4.2

Total 2 $23.1 $26.2

1 Includes costs related to entries, rails, and open space as well as dry utilities.

2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.


TABLE 2-2

INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES BY FINANCING MECHANISM ($ IN MILLIONS)

Improvement

CFF

Costs

SPSP

Costs

In-Tract

Costs

Total

Costs 2

Water $3.3 $0.0 $0.4 $3.7

Storm Drainage $2.4 $0.0 $0.0 $2.4

Sewer $1.1 $0.9 $0.0 $2.0

Irrigation $0.0 $2.5 $0.0 $2.5

Street 1 $8.1 $3.2 $0.0 $11.3

Park $4.2 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2

Total 2 $19.2 $6.6 $0.4 $26.2

1 Includes costs related to entries, rails, and open space as well as dry utilities.

2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

In addition to the Project-specific infrastructure costs identified in the tables above, certain

infrastructure will be required to serve existing development within the Project area. While these

infrastructure costs are not included in the feasibility analysis, they have been identified by

Giuliani & Kull, Inc., and are presented in Appendix 3.

FINANCING MECHANISMS

Several different funding mechanisms will likely be used to pay for public facilities required to

serve new development within the Project area. Impact fees, land-secured bonds, and other

funding alternatives must be analyzed in detail prior to development. However, for purposes of

this Finance Plan, all required infrastructure is categorized into one of three funding categories

(i.e., CFF Program, SPSP Program, developer equity/private financing for in-tracts). The

primary features of each funding category and its potential application to the SPSP area are

discussed below.

Development Impact Fees

Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600), which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, created

Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. In order to establish, increase, or impose a fee as

a condition of approval of a development project, AB 1600 (also known as the Mitigation Fee

Act) requires a public agency to specifically identify the public facilities funded by the impact

fees, and determine how there is a reasonable relationship, or “nexus,” between the type of

development project and the need for the facilities, the cost of the facilities, and the need to

impose a fee.

Development impact fees are monetary exactions (other than taxes or special assessments) that

are charged by local agencies in conjunction with approval of a development project. The fees

are paid by builders or developers, typically at the time a building permit is issued. Impact fees

are levied for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of a public facility,

improvement, or amenity that benefits the Project. The collection of impact fees does not require


formation of a special district; an impact fee program is implemented by a public agency’s

adoption of a resolution or ordinance.

Further, the City impact fees will be an important component of this Finance Plan. Once the

SPSP area is annexed into the City, a fee ordinance may need to be adopted (or a development

agreement would need to be executed) by the City and the City’s existing capital facilities fee

program should be updated prior to development of the Project; fee programs may also be

updated and revised as part of future development phases. Because fees are collected as

development occurs and many of the facilities identified in this report are expected to be in place

prior to development, fee revenues collected in future years may be used to reimburse developers

that have paid to cover more than their fair share of Project costs prior to the availability of fee

revenues.

1. CFF Program

Development in the SPSP area is expected to participate in the City’s Capital Facilities

Fee (CFF) Program. The City of Oakdale CFF Program includes components to fund

various types of infrastructure, public facilities, and equipment that will serve future

development in the City and will provide a City-wide benefit. As shown in Table 2-2 and

Appendix 1, approximately $19.2 million of infrastructure costs required to serve the

Project is anticipated to be funded through the CFF Program. However, the City will

need to conduct a comprehensive update of the CFF Program to ensure that the Project’s

required infrastructure needs are incorporated. Potential overlaps between infrastructure

included in the CFF Program and that included in the proposed SPSP Fee Program should

be resolved as part of the CFF update. The CFF Program update will also need to address

how land costs associated with regional road right-of-way acquisition, water well and

tank facilities, storm drainage infrastructure, and various other public improvements will

be treated, as well as how the need for a second pipeline crossing will be handled.

Any SPSP infrastructure included in the CFF Program will be treated in the same manner

as existing CFF improvements. For example, if the CFF Program currently funds the cost

of wells elsewhere in the City, then wells needed to serve development in the SPSP

would also be funded by the CFF Program. In addition, a separate storm drainage zone

may be created in the CFF Program to fund storm drainage facilities within the SPSP to

be consistent with the treatment of other storm drainage systems within the existing CFF

Program. However, certain SPSP improvements may be needed prior to when sufficient

CFF revenue is available to fully fund the needed improvements. In the event that CFF

revenues are not sufficient, the Project developer will be required to construct the

required improvements and be reimbursed through the CFF Program as development

within the Project and around the City occurs.

2. Proposed SPSP Fee Program

Certain types of infrastructure provide a general benefit to the entire SPSP, but they do

not provide a general benefit to the entire City. Consequently, these types of Project-

specific infrastructure cannot be included in the CFF Program. One potential source of

funding for Project-specific improvements will be a Project-specific fee program. The


proposed SPSP Fee Program is anticipated to fund approximately $6.6 million in sewer,

irrigation, and street improvements, as shown in Table 2-2 and Appendix 1. The

proposed SPSP Fee Program will need to be adopted by the City prior to development to

ensure full participation from the entire SPSP area and that everyone within the Project

pays their fair share of required facilities costs.

New development in the SPSP will be subject to costs associated with preparation and

adoption of the Specific Plan and related documents, estimated at a total amount of

$750,000. This cost would be spread to all land uses within the SPSP. SPSP

development will also be subject to costs associated with agricultural land mitigation. It

is estimated that approximately 63 acres of farmland in the SPSP area will be converted

to residential land uses, and that total agricultural land mitigation costs will amount to

approximately $0.5 million. This cost would be allocated to all residential land uses

within the SPSP. Specific Plan preparation costs and agricultural land mitigation costs

are likely to be included in the SPSP Fee Program.

3. Other Fee Programs

Lastly, development in the SPSP area is expected to participate in development impact

fee programs administered by other public agencies, including the County Public

Facilities Fee (PFF) Program and Oakdale Joint Unified School District fee program.

The Finance Plan assumes the Project will pay the applicable fees imposed during the

construction and permitting process.

Developer Equity/Private Financing

In addition to improvements anticipated to be funded by the City’s CFF Program and proposed

SPSP Fee Program, this analysis includes improvements that are classified as in-tract

improvements. In-tract improvements are commonly referred to as subdivision or discretionary

permit infrastructure, and include local water and storm drainage improvements within a single

subdivision project. These improvements serve a given subdivision or development and are

commonly provided as a condition of development. In-tract improvements are typically incurred

and funded privately by developers, together with the costs related to vertical construction of

homes and commercial buildings. Developers build these costs into their private pro forma cash

flow analyses as individual lot costs, and do not receive fee credits or reimbursements for these

costs. Approximately $0.4 million in in-tract improvement costs is assumed to be installed by

developers and dedicated to the City.

Mello-Roos Community Facilities District

The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Act) [Section 53311 et seq. of the Government

Code] was enacted by the California State Legislature in 1982 to provide an alternate means of

financing public infrastructure and services subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

Complying with Proposition 13, and with Proposition 218 passed in 1996, the Act permits cities,

counties, and special districts to create defined areas within their jurisdiction and, by a two-thirds

vote within the defined area, impose special taxes to pay for the public improvements and


services needed to serve that area. The Act defines the area subject to a special tax as a

Community Facilities District (CFD).

A CFD may provide for the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or

other tangible property with an estimated useful life of at least five years. A CFD may also

finance the costs of planning, design, engineering, and consultants involved in the construction

of improvements or formation of the CFD. The facilities financed by the CFD do not have to be

physically located within the CFD. The facilities that can be financed by a CFD include, but are

not limited to, the following:

Roads, water and sewer lines, flood control channels

Local park, recreation parkway, and open-space facilities

School sites, structures, furnishings, and equipment

Libraries

Child care facilities

Dry utility improvements (limited to five percent of bond proceeds if improvements are

to be taken over by a non-publicly owned utility agency)

Any other governmental facilities which the legislative body creating the CFD is

authorized by law to contribute revenue to, construct, own, or operate

A CFD may also pay for public services, including the following:

Road maintenance

Police protection

Fire protection

Recreation program services

Library services

Park and open space maintenance

Flood and storm protection services

Removal or cleanup of hazardous substances

Sandstorm protection

Seismic retrofitting

School facilities maintenance

A CFD may only finance the services mentioned above to the extent that they are in addition to

those provided in the area before the CFD was created and may not supplant services already

available within that area.

There are two limitations on the amount of financing available from a CFD, the first being the

value-to-lien-ratio. “Value” is considered to be the appraised value of the property, including

entitlements and improvements in place on the date the CFD bonds are to be sold. The value of


improvements to be constructed with bond proceeds is included in the value calculation. “Lien”

refers to the proposed bond issue, as well as any other debt secured by the property. Senate Bill

1464, which became effective January 1993, requires a minimum value-to-lien ratio of 3:1.

The second restriction on the amount of financing available from a CFD is the total effective tax

rate (ETR) paid by a homeowner or property owner in the CFD. The ETR consists of the basic

one percent ad valorem property tax levy mandated by Proposition 13, plus overrides from

voter-approved bonded indebtedness and non-ad valorem taxes, assessments, and parcel charges

(expressed as a percentage of market value). Market value can be determined based on input

from local developers, a market consultant, local realtors, or an appraiser. There is no legal

limit, but a maximum ETR of 2.00% of market value has developed as a standard for residential

development in many areas throughout the State, although it tends to be closer to 1.80% in

northern California and even lower in some areas of the Central Valley. It is thought that ETRs

higher than these amounts may lead to market resistance by prospective homebuyers, or potential

“taxpayer revolts” by overburdened homeowners. The maximum supportable ETR for a given

project should also consider the maximum tax rates paid by homes in competing projects in the

area and, based on the strength of the real estate market, the demand for homes in general.

Formation of a CFD authorizes a public agency to levy a special tax on all taxable property

within the CFD in the manner prescribed in the formation documents. Property owned or

irrevocably offered to a public agency may be exempted from the special tax. Mello-Roos

special taxes are collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes, unless

otherwise specified by the agency. Special tax revenues may be used to pay debt service on

bonds sold or may also be used to pay directly for facilities and public services.

CFD bonds can be short- or long-term obligations. Typically, long-term bonds have either a

twenty-five or thirty year maturity. Short-term notes or bonds can be issued to provide interim

funding; these obligations are then retired when another source of revenue becomes available.

Due to the flexibility associated with the Act and the wide range of facilities that can be funded

by it, it is likely that CFD bonds will be used to fund facilities within the SPSP area and help fill

funding gaps. Developers will want to ensure that special tax levels are competitive with other

areas of the City and with surrounding jurisdictions. The City will want to ensure that special

taxes are collected and bonds repaid in a timely manner as promised to bond investors. Note

that, depending on land values, development status, infrastructure phasing requirements, and

other factors, multiple series of bonds may need to be issued over time rather than one bond issue

occurring when the Project starts. Any initial bond issue may be constrained by the appraised

value of the land in the CFD and market interest rates at the time bonds are sold.

PROJECT FEASIBILITY

Most of the facilities identified in Appendix 1 are generally required to be in place prior to any

development. However, the actual facilities needed will depend on the development scenario

that occurs. This Finance Plan does not include a detailed feasibility analysis based on the

specific infrastructure costs identified in Appendix 1; however, a detailed feasibility analysis was

prepared for the Project based on similar infrastructure needs and costs. That detailed feasibility


analysis indicated that the Project, with and without the NCC Future Phase, appears to be

financially feasible. The Project changes reflected in this version of the report do not appear to

adversely affect the overarching feasibility findings from that original analysis; in fact, it is likely

that the Project is even more feasible now than it was estimated to be when that original analysis

was conducted.

Financial feasibility of proposed development is based on a common test used to gauge Project

feasibility: the burden-to-value ratio. While there are no results from this test that guarantee

Project feasibility, a burden-to-value ratio that is no more than 15% to 20% in this area of the

Central Valley is typically considered feasible. The ratios for each land use designation within

each development scenario fell either below or within this range.


Chapter 3

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Fiscal impacts arising from land development can be categorized broadly as either one-time

impacts or recurring impacts, both of which involve a revenue and expense component. For

example, a development project may create the need for a police substation, and the one-time

construction cost of the station may be offset by a development impact fee; these costs and

revenues would be included in a public facilities financing plan. The annual expenses associated

with staffing and maintaining the police substation may be offset by annual property taxes and

other revenues generated by new development to the City; these costs and revenues are part of a

fiscal impact analysis. The fiscal impacts evaluated in this report are the annual, or recurring,

revenues and expenses that affect the City as a result of new development associated with the

proposed Project.

METHODOLOGY

The fiscal analysis compares the annual costs of providing public services against the annual

revenues that will be generated by new development to determine the net fiscal impact. This

FIA focuses solely on the fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund, Development Services Fund,

and Engineering & Public Works Administration Fund.

Two methodologies are employed in estimating recurring fiscal impacts. First, the case study

method is used to estimate recurring revenues and expenses by applying defined service

standards, existing tax and fee rates, and suggested operating and maintenance costs to the land

uses and services proposed in the Project. The second methodology used is the multiplier

method, which assumes that fiscal impacts will result from proposed development at forecasted

rates per person served based on historical averages for the City. The City’s budgets from fiscal

years 2003-04 through 2010-11 are used to estimate average revenues and expenses. The case

study and multiplier methods are generally used under the following conditions:

Case Study Method

1. Marginal cost is a better approximation of the actual costs to provide similar services.

2. The land use distribution of the project being analyzed does not resemble the land use

distribution within the public agency’s area.

3. Service standards and estimated future costs for new projects are anticipated to be

different than they are now.

Multiplier Method

1. Average cost is a reasonable approximation of the actual costs to provide similar

services to specific developments in future years.

2. Specific revenues and expenses are generated based on population (e.g., gas taxes,

social services).


3. Service standards and other information are not available or accurate.

The multiplier method relies on a “persons served” factor, which is most often the sum of all

residents plus a certain percentage of employees. The exact relationship of service demands and

revenue potential between residents and employees is difficult to measure, but a service

population comprised of all residents and 31% of employees is utilized in this analysis. The 31%

ratio suggests that a resident generally has approximately three times the impact of an employee.

For example, employees are assumed to be in the City for 2,080 hours per year (based on 52

weeks per year for five days a week for eight hours a day) while residents are assumed to be in

the City for 6,656 hours per year (based on 52 weeks per year for seven days a week for 16 hours

a day, plus 52 weekends in a year for 2 days a week for eight hours a day). The ratio of

employee hours to resident hours is approximately 31%. Table 2 in Appendix 2 presents

historical demographic and employment statistics in the City, ranging from 2004 through 2011,

and includes the number of persons served.

In addition, the FIA incorporates fiscal impacts associated with the public/semi-public land use

to capture potential impacts from students, faculty, and staff at the proposed community college

campus. For purposes of this analysis, community college students are assumed to have similar

impacts as employees and are considered employee equivalents.

Case study and multiplier approaches are used to estimate different recurring fiscal impacts for

new development as listed in the following table:

CITY OF OAKDALE

Case Study Method Multiplier Method

Recurring Revenues

Property Tax Gas Tax

CFD No. 2007-1 (Public Safety Services) Hotel Motel Tax

Sales & Use Tax Business License Fees

Public Safety Sales Tax Franchise Fees & Other Taxes

Real Property Transfer Tax Licenses & Permits

Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties

Other Intergovernmental

Charges for Services

Other Revenues

Transfers In

Development Services Fund Revenues

Engineering & Public Works Administration Fund Revenues

Recurring Expenses

General Government

Fire

Police

Parks & Community Services

Public Works

Development Services Fund Expenses

Engineering & Public Works Administration Fund Expenses


MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

Many assumptions are factored into the analysis of fiscal impacts. Pursuant to the scope of work

for this Project, the FIA incorporates general assumptions, methodologies, and formats reflected

in the City’s General Plan Update Fiscal Impact Analysis (General Plan FIA) dated April 15th

,

2011. A brief summary of the most critical assumptions, in terms of their effect on revenues and

expenses, are delineated below:

1. The projected annual fiscal impacts are presented in current year 2012 dollars. Future

impacts could be escalated by an inflation factor that is tied to an appropriate inflation index

such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) index or one of the regional consumer price

indexes (CPI).

2. A summary of the land use, value, and related assumptions that are incorporated into the

fiscal analysis for each development scenario is presented in Tables 3 and 4 of Appendix 2.

An important assumption that affects property tax and property tax in lieu of vehicle license

fees is the estimated value of dwelling units and non-residential development in the Project.

Average values of $350,000 per very low density residential unit, $300,000 per low density

residential unit, $240,000 per medium density residential unit, $150,000 per high density

residential unit, and $200 per building square foot of general commercial, flex use/general

commercial, and office uses are used in this analysis.

3. Legal actions taken at the state level in the 1990s diverted a percentage of the 1.0% property

tax into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For purposes of the fiscal

analysis, it is assumed that this situation will continue in future years.

4. The Project is currently located in unincorporated Stanislaus County within Tax Rate Area

084-010; however, it is expected to annex into the City limits before development begins.

Pursuant to the Property Tax Sharing Agreement between the City of Oakdale and the

County of Stanislaus, the City will receive 30% of the County General Fund allocation of the

1% property tax associated with future incremental property tax revenue while the County

will retain the remaining 70% upon annexation of the development area. In addition, the

City will receive 100% of property tax allocations to the Oakdale Fire District. The resulting

allocation of the 1% property tax redistributed to the City General Fund (post ERAF) is

projected to be 8.47% of the 1% property tax, as shown in Table A3 of Appendix 2.

5. Fiscal revenue and expense standards reflect historical averages of revenues and expenses

based on eight City budgets, ranging from fiscal year 2003-04 through fiscal year 2010-11.

By using historical averages for revenues and expenses that capture periods of economic

expansion and contraction, this analysis also accounts for potential economic and real estate

cycles that may occur during development of the Project.

Not all assumptions and methodologies incorporated into the General Plan FIA apply to the

SPSP FIA or reflect current laws and regulations. Important changes reflected in the SPSP FIA

include the following:

1. Revised employment statistics from the California Employment Development Department.


2. Resident and employment generation rates for medium density residential units and

non-residential uses.

3. Incorporating fiscal impacts associated with the public/semi public land use to capture

potential impacts from students, faculty, and staff at the proposed community college

campus.

4. Incorporating fiscal impacts to the City’s Development Services Fund as well as Engineering

& Public Works Fund.

5. Revised methodologies to estimate Business License (i.e., based on employees only; students

at the proposed community college are excluded) and Gas Tax (i.e., based on residents)

revenues.

6. A revised methodology to estimate Police expenditures (i.e., based on residents and

employees only; students at the proposed community college are excluded) based on

discussions with Police Department staff.

7. Measuring taxable sales based on the supply of retail square footage planned within the

Project as opposed to measuring it based on the demand for retail generated by the Project.

8. Eliminating revenue associated with the remaining vehicle license fee pursuant to

Senate Bill 89.

FISCAL REVENUES

The City will provide the vast majority of public services to the Project. The City’s General

Fund, Development Services Fund, and Engineering & Public Works Fund are the primary

discretionary funds that will be impacted by new development proposed by the Project and, as a

result, are the only funds estimated in this study. As shown in Table 7 of Appendix 2, the annual

fiscal revenues generated by the Project, including the NCC Future Phase, at buildout are

estimated to be approximately $2.6 million. Annual fiscal revenues generated by the Project if

the NCC Future Phase does not develop are reduced to approximately $2.1 million at buildout.

Secured Property Tax

Property taxes, which are based on assessed valuation, are distributed to public agencies and

special districts based on the allocation factors of the applicable Tax Rate Area (TRA). At the

time this fiscal impact analysis was prepared, the Project was located within TRA 084-010.

Table A3 in Appendix 2 identifies the allocation factors of the 1% property tax to the various

districts, funds, and agencies in the TRA. The tax allocations for the County General Fund and

Oakdale Fire District Fund are adjusted to reflect the allocation to the City of Oakdale upon

property annexation, pursuant to the Property Tax Sharing Agreement between the City of

Oakdale and the County of Stanislaus. Furthermore, the total tax allocation is adjusted to reflect

the actual allocation distributed to the City General Fund after revenues have been shifted to the


Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For purposes of the fiscal analysis, it is

assumed that this shift will continue into the future.

The resulting allocation of the 1% property tax redistributed to the City General Fund (post

ERAF) is 8.47% of the 1% property tax. The property tax allocation of the 1% basic property

tax is applied to the estimated assessed value created by the Project. Total annual secured

property tax revenues for the SPSP area, with and without the NCC Future Phase, are shown in


CFD No. 2007-1 (Public Safety Services)

The City established the City of Oakdale Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Public

Safety Services) (CFD No. 2007-1) through adoption of Resolution No. 2007-77 on May 7,

2007. CFD No. 2007-1 provides funding for public safety services, including fire services, law

enforcement, code enforcement, and animal control. It is assumed that the Project will annex

into CFD No. 2007-1 prior to development and pay the annual special tax, which is currently

$452 per single family unit and $301 per high density unit; there is no CFD No. 2007-1 special

tax for non-residential property, as shown in Table A4 in Appendix 2.

Sales and Use Tax

Several methodologies can be used to estimate taxable sales. One method measures taxable sales

based on the supply of retail square footage. Under this approach, a taxable sales per square foot

estimate is multiplied by the total retail square footage planned for a project. Another approach

looks at the demand side of the equation. Under that approach, household income, percentage of

household income spent on taxable goods and services, and a taxable sales capture rate for the

City are estimated to determine taxable sales.

The supply side approach, which simply counts taxable sales where point-of-sale transactions

occur, is the more conservative of the two approaches and is the one used in this analysis. Of

course, a significant portion of the taxable sales captured by the retail square footage developed

in the Project will be generated by new residential development that also occurs in the Project.

The industry standard for development projects in nearby areas is approximately $250 of taxable

sales per square foot of retail use, which is multiplied by approximately 182,000 building square

feet of retail uses to produce approximately $45.6 million in taxable sales. Other general

commercial, flex/general commercial, and office land uses are assumed to produce only minimal

taxable sales (from a few point-of-sale businesses operating out of office space) estimated to be

$5 per square foot, which is multiplied by approximately 697,000 building square feet of these

uses in the entire SPSP area to produce approximately $3.5 million in taxable sales. These

assumptions are presented in Tables A5 and A6 of Appendix 2.

In addition to the 1.0% local sales tax, the City also receives a portion of the County’s and

State’s pooled revenues. When a sale cannot be identified with a permanent place of business in

this state, the local sales tax is allocated to the local jurisdictions through countywide or

statewide pools. Accordingly, certain sellers are authorized to report their local sales tax either

on a countywide or statewide basis. These may include auctioneers, construction contractors


making sales of fixtures, catering trucks, itinerant vendors, vending machine operators, and other

permit holders who operate in more than one local jurisdiction, but are unable to readily allocate

taxable transactions to particular jurisdictions. Use tax is also allocated through a countywide

pool. Examples of taxpayers who report use tax allocated through the countywide pool include

out-of-state sellers who ship goods directly to consumers in the state from a stock of goods

located outside the state, and California sellers who ship goods directly to consumers in the state

from a stock of goods located outside of the state. The countywide pools are prorated, first

among the cities and the unincorporated area of each county using the proportion that the

identified tax for each city and unincorporated area of a county bears to the total identified for

the county as a whole. Next, the combined total of the direct sales tax allocation and the prorated

countywide pool amount is used to allocate the statewide pool amount to each city and county.

Furthermore, cities often make agreements to pay for services provided by the county in which

the city is located, by providing a percentage of the city’s local tax directly to the county in-lieu

of writing a check. The city must enact an ordinance reducing the local sales and use tax rate by

the amount that will be defaulted to the county.

Based on data from the State Board of Equalization, the City of Oakdale’s share of revenues

from the pooled funds is approximately 11.2% of its local sales tax revenue. In addition, Oakdale

currently receives 95% of the 1% local tax imposed in the City and the County of Stanislaus

receives the other 5%. These factors are presented in Table A5 of Appendix 2. It is assumed

that these percentages will continue to be received in the future; therefore, these revenues are

incorporated into the analysis, as shown in Table A6 of Appendix 2.

Public Safety Sales Tax

Proposition 172 created a one-half cent sales tax for local public safety. Each county allocates

Proposition 172 revenues to each city in that county based on their proportionate share of net

property tax loss due to ERAF. A figure of 0.40% is used to calculate the percentage of public

safety sales tax revenue accruing to the City of Oakdale, as shown in Table A5 of Appendix 2.

Real Property Transfer Tax

When a residential dwelling unit or non-residential structure is sold within a city, a tax

representing a small percentage of the value is generally transferred to a fund to be split between

the city and the county in which it resides. As shown in Table A7 of Appendix 2, the current rate

in Oakdale is $0.55 per $500 of value, and the City receives 50% of the amount generated from

real property transfers.

Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees

The City’s net assessed value for the 2011-12 tax roll and property tax in lieu of VLF for

2011-12 were obtained from the County Auditor-Controller’s office and are shown in Table A8

of Appendix 2. The property tax in lieu of VLF allocated to the City as a result of growth in the

SPSP area, with and without the NCC Future Phase, can be calculated by increasing the City’s

2011-12 allocated property tax in lieu of VLF amount in proportion to the increase in the


assessed value from each development scenario. Property tax in lieu of VLF estimates for each

development area are summarized in Table A8 of Appendix 2.

Fiscal Revenues Estimated Using the Multiplier Method

Of the various revenue sources itemized in Table 7 of Appendix 2, twelve are calculated using

the multiplier method. Gross revenues from fiscal years 2003-04 through 2010-11 as well as the

8-year average are shown in Table A1 of Appendix 2, while the resulting multipliers are shown

in Table A2 of Appendix 2. These multipliers are applied to the appropriate residents,

employees and students, or persons served estimate for each calculation, and are summarized in


Gas tax revenues are based on the number of residents within the City.

Hotel and motel tax revenues relate to residential and non-residential land uses; therefore, an

average charge per person served is used to determine additional revenue in this category.

Business license fee revenues are based strictly on an employee multiplier; students at the

proposed community college are excluded.

Franchise fees and other taxes relate to residential and non-residential land uses; therefore, an

average charge per person served is used to determine additional revenue in this category.

Licenses and permits relate to residential and non-residential land uses; therefore, an average

charge per person served is used to determine additional revenue in this category.

Both residents and businesses generate various fine revenues; therefore, the multiplier for

fines, forfeitures, and penalties is calculated on a persons served basis.

Revenue from other agencies (intergovernmental) is calculated on a persons served basis.

Service charges relate to both residents, employees, and students; therefore, an average

charge per person served is used to determine additional revenue in this category.

The multiplier for other revenues is calculated on a persons served basis.

The multiplier for transfers in to the General Fund from other City departments is calculated

on a persons served basis.

Development Services Fund charges relate to both residents and employees; therefore, an

average amount per person served is used to determine additional revenue in this category.

Engineering & Public Works Administration Fund services charges relate to both residents

and employees; therefore, an average amount per person served is used to determine

additional revenue in this category.


FISCAL EXPENSES

Each development scenario will increase operation and maintenance costs for the City as the City

provides for the demands of the increased population. As shown in Table 7 of Appendix 2, the

annual fiscal expenses generated by the Project, including the NCC Future Phase, at buildout are

estimated to be approximately $2.4 million. Annual fiscal expenses generated by the Project if

the NCC Future Phase does not develop are reduced to approximately $2.0 million at buildout.

Fiscal Expenses Estimated Using the Multiplier Method

All of the expense categories are calculated using the multiplier method. Gross expenditures

from fiscal years 2003-04 through 2010-11 as well as the resulting 8-year average are shown in

Table 5 of Appendix 2, while the resulting multipliers are shown in Table 6 of Appendix 2.

These multipliers are applied to the appropriate residents, employees, or persons served estimate

for each category anticipated for each development scenario, and are presented in Table 7 of

Appendix 2.

General government services are estimated using a persons served multiplier. This category

includes the city council, city manager, human resources department, city clerk, finance

division, city treasurer, and city attorney as well as non-departmental functions.

Fire protection costs are estimated using a persons served multiplier.

Police protection costs are estimated using a persons served multiplier. Students from the

proposed community college are excluded in determining the number of persons served

based on discussions with Police Department staff.

Parks and community services costs are estimated using a persons served multiplier.

Public works expenditures are estimated on a persons served basis.

Development Services Fund expenditures include costs associated with planning, building,

and development services, and are estimated on a persons served basis.

Engineering and Public Works Administration expenditures are estimated on a persons

served basis.

NET FISCAL IMPACTS

SPSP Excluding NCC Future Phase

If the NCC Future Phase does not develop as residential uses, the Project is expected to generate

approximately $2.1 million in annual fiscal revenues to the City at buildout. Fiscal expenses are

estimated to be $2.0 annually when the Project is fully developed, resulting in an annual surplus

of approximately $0.1 million.


Entire SPSP Area (Including NCC Future Phase)

Assuming the NCC Future Phase develops as residential development, the Project is expected to

generate approximately $2.5 million in annual fiscal revenues to the City at buildout. Fiscal

expenses are estimated to be $2.4 annually when the Project is fully developed, resulting in an

annual surplus of $0.1 million. A summary of the net fiscal impacts anticipated at buildout of

each development scenario is included in Table 3-1 below and detailed in Table 7 of Appendix 2.

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF NET FISCAL IMPACTS ($ IN MILLIONS)

SPSP

Excluding

NCC Future

Phase

Entire

SPSP Area

(Including NCC

Future Phase)

Annual Revenues $2.1 $2.5

Annual Costs $2.0 $2.4

Net Fiscal Impact $0.1 $0.1

Both development scenarios are anticipated to be fiscally positive. The difference in the net

fiscal impacts between the two scenarios is relatively small. The entire SPSP area (including

NCC Future Phase) development scenario is estimated to generate approximately $6,000 more in

annual surplus revenue than the SPSP excluding NCC Future Phase scenario.

As discussed previously, the estimated annual recurring fiscal impact associated with each

development area assumes the Project annexes into CFD No. 2007-1 and, therefore, will be

subject to the corresponding special tax to pay for public safety services. However, if the Project

does not annex into CFD No. 2007-1, the entire SPSP area (including NCC Future Phase)

development scenario will likely generate a $0.2 million annual deficit to the City at buildout.

Similarly, the surplus anticipated at buildout of the SPSP excluding NCC Future Phase scenario

would turn into a $0.1 million annual deficit.

Although fiscal impacts at various phases of development are not included in the FIA, it should

be noted that phasing is critical. Depending on which land uses develop first, the City could

experience either a period of recurring fiscal deficits or recurring fiscal surpluses as the Project

builds out. As a result, the City may require mechanisms to fund deficits in the interim years.

Furthermore, the City may require funding mechanisms (e.g., CFDs or Landscaping and Lighting

Districts) to cover Project-specific streetlight, park, and roadway and storm drain landscape

maintenance costs.


Chapter 4

CONCLUSIONS

PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING

As noted in prior areas of this report, many of the facilities identified in this report are generally

required to be in place prior to any development. However, the actual facilities needed will

depend on the development scenario that actually occurs. Fee revenue will not be available

upfront to fund the construction of these facilities, so the City and the Project proponent will

need to consider private financing or municipal debt financing alternatives. Since the developer

may be required to advance-fund the improvements constructed initially, the developer would

also be entitled to a fee credit or reimbursement from future development within the Project or

Citywide depending on the type of improvement (i.e., CFF Program, SPSP Program, or In-tract).

Developers will receive a fee credit or reimbursement for construction of facilities included in

the CFF Program or SPSP Fee Program, but they will not receive a fee credit or reimbursement

for in-tract facilities.

CFDs have been used throughout the City to fund various infrastructure and public services, and

a CFD could finance the vast majority of public improvements that the developer may need to

install to support SPSP development. The developer may want to use CFD financing to

accelerate reimbursement for some of the upfront infrastructure.

Although this Finance Plan does not include a detailed feasibility analysis based on the specific

infrastructure costs identified in Appendix 1, a detailed feasibility analysis was prepared for the

Project based on similar infrastructure needs and costs. That prior feasibility analysis indicated

that the Project, both with and without the NCC Future Phase, appears to be financially feasible.

If an updated feasibility analysis were to be conducted, it would probably reveal that the Project

is even more feasible now than when the original analysis was prepared.

Implementation

The SPSP identifies a program for both residential and non-residential growth within a specific

area of the City of Oakdale and will be subject to updates and revisions in future years as

development applications are submitted and processed.

The SPSP and the PFFP are based on assumptions of land use, facility demands, facility

standards and design, and cost estimates. Each of these assumptions may be subject to change in

future years; therefore, the PFFP may also be revised to reflect these changes. The ongoing

implementation of the PFFP will be parallel to the continued monitoring of the SPSP, and will

require the same degree of time and effort to keep it current and useful. In this manner, the PFFP

will guide the overall funding of community infrastructure required to serve the SPSP area.

1. Updates and Revisions

The PFFP should be updated each time there is a change in facility plans, land use plans,

or cost estimates. When these items are revised, there will be a corresponding change in


the fair share burden to each land use in the Project. Land use and facility changes will

result in revisions to the benefit analysis and corresponding fee allocation to each land

use. To the extent some properties in the SPSP area have been developed and paid their

fair share prior to a program update, revisions will apply only to future new development.

If facility costs are determined to be higher than estimated in the PFFP, the City will need

to increase fees in future years and/or call on developers to fund the extra expenses based

on the provisions of an acquisition agreement.

As the City adopts new ordinances or updates existing ordinances in future years, fees

will be adjusted based on actual costs realized after construction bids have been received

for public facilities. If actual costs are higher than expected, the City will have to

increase fees and/or rely on the terms of an acquisition agreement to avoid a financing

deficit in future years.

2. Action Items

Prior to commencement of development in the SPSP area, the City may need to adopt a

fee ordinance or resolution implementing a SPSP fee for each type of capital facility or

shared cost to be included in the SPSP Fee Program. The initial ordinance will reflect

fees based on information available at that time. Fees will be adjusted annually or on a

more frequent basis to reflect actual costs and current cost estimates. Alternatively, the

City could execute a development agreement, in accordance with Section 36-23.20 of the

Oakdale Zoning Code and as envisioned in the Specific Plan, with Project landowners

that, among other provisions, describes and quantifies the required fees.

Furthermore, before any SPSP fees are established, the City will need to update its

Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) program to, among other things, include applicable Project-

specific infrastructure costs and to resolve any potential overlaps between the proposed

SPSP Fee Program and the CFF. This will be especially important with respect to how

storm drainage and park facilities are treated in the CFF as opposed to the Specific Plan,

and how credits against the CFF for these facilities may be applied. In addition, land

costs associated with each infrastructure type should be addressed as part of the CFF

Program update and the creation of the proposed SPSP Fee Program.

Pursuant to Section 66006 of the Government Code, the City could establish a separate

SPSP capital facility account and a unique fund for each type of public facility for which

fees are collected. Establishment of this account will prevent commingling of the SPSP

fees with other City revenues and funds. Interest income earned by fee revenues in this

account will be deposited in the account and applied to facility construction costs.

Within one hundred eighty (180) days of the close of each fiscal year, the City will make

information pertaining to the account [as required by Section 66006 (b)(1)] available to

the public and will review this information at a regularly scheduled public hearing.

In addition, if the developer requests formation of a Mello-Roos CFD as discussed herein

and the City concurs with that request, the City must form a financing team made up of

experts in the various fields associated with implementation of such districts, including

bond counsel, bond underwriter, and special tax consultant. The City and financing team


will be responsible for forming the district, issuing bonds to pay for required facilities,

and levying special taxes to ensure timely repayment of bonds.

FISCAL IMPACTS

The FIA examines the fiscal impacts generated at buildout of the SPSP area, both including and

excluding the NCC Future Phase. Both development scenarios are anticipated to be fiscally

positive. The difference in the net fiscal impacts between the two scenarios is almost negligible.

Both development scenarios – the entire SPSP area (including NCC Future Phase) and the SPSP

excluding the NCC Future Phase – are estimated to generate an annual surplus of approximately

$0.1 million at buildout.

Implementation

Although fiscal impacts at various phases of development are not included in the FIA, it should

be noted that phasing is critical. Depending on which land uses develop first, the City could

experience either a period of recurring fiscal deficits or recurring fiscal surpluses as the Project

builds out. As the City enters into development agreements, as discussed above, this risk may

need to be shifted to Project landowners.

In addition, the Project will need to annex into CFD No. 2007-1, or implement an equivalent

financing mechanism, prior to commencing development. The City will also require the Project

to participate in additional funding mechanisms (e.g., Landscaping and Lighting Districts) to

cover Project-specific storm drain and landscape maintenance costs, since it is City standard

practice to require all new subdivisions to participate in an LLD (Landscaping and Lighting

District). Formation of, or annexation into, an LLD for these purposes must also consider a

sinking fund or other mechanism to fund potential landscape restoration costs in instances where

Oakdale Irrigation District pipelines running under new landscaped areas within the Project need

to be repaired or replaced.

APPENDIX 1

DETAILED FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES

(from Giuliani & Kull, Inc.)

Page A-1

Pre

limin

ary

Op

inio

n o

f P

rob

ab

le C

ost

of

Ba

ckb

on

e In

fra

stru

ctu

reSi

erra

Po

inte

Sp

ecif

ic P

lan

Ma

rch

21

, 20

13

Oa

kda

le, C

A

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

WA

TER

MIX

ED U

SE C

OR

RID

OR

PH

ASE

8"

C9

00

PV

C P

IPE

42

0LF

$2

7$

11

,34

0IN

-TR

AC

T

12

" C

90

0 P

VC

PIP

E6

,43

0LF

$6

0$

38

5,8

00

CFF

8"

LATE

RA

L3

0LF

$3

5$

1,0

50

IN-T

RA

CT

8"

VA

LVES

2EA

$1

,50

0$

3,0

00

IN-T

RA

CT

12

" V

ALV

ES1

0EA

$2

,00

0$

20

,00

0C

FF

FIR

E H

YDR

AN

TS1

5EA

$3

,50

0$

52

,50

0C

FF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$4

73

,69

0

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

8"

C9

00

PV

C P

IPE

5,8

70

LF$

27

$1

58

,49

0IN

-TR

AC

T

12

" C

90

0 P

VC

PIP

E1

1,5

28

LF$

60

$6

91

,68

0C

FF

8"

LATE

RA

L3

00

LF$

35

$1

0,5

00

IN-T

RA

CT

12

" LA

TER

AL

42

0LF

$5

0$

21

,00

0C

FF

8"

VA

LVES

28

EA$

1,5

00

$4

2,0

00

IN-T

RA

CT

12

" V

ALV

ES4

6EA

$2

,00

0$

92

,00

0C

FF

FIR

E H

YDR

AN

TS5

0EA

$3

,50

0$

17

5,0

00

CFF

WEL

L1

EA$

1,0

00

,00

0$

1,0

00

,00

0C

FF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$2

,19

0,6

70

NC

C F

UTU

RE

PH

ASE

8"

C9

00

PV

C P

IPE

1,7

40

LF$

27

$4

6,9

80

IN-T

RA

CT

8"

LATE

RA

L9

0LF

$3

5$

3,1

50

IN-T

RA

CT

8"

VA

LVES

10

EA$

1,5

00

$1

5,0

00

IN-T

RA

CT

FIR

E H

YDR

AN

TS4

EA$

3,5

00

$1

4,0

00

IN-T

RA

CT

SUB

-TO

TAL

$7

9,1

30

TOTA

L W

ATE

R$

2,7

43

,49

0

No

te:

An

cilla

ry it

ems

such

as

late

rals

, va

lves

, fir

e h

ydra

nts

, etc

. in

dic

ate

d w

ith

in t

his

est

ima

te f

or

ba

ckb

on

e in

fra

stru

ctu

re f

aci

litie

s o

nly

.

Pa

ge

1 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-2

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

STO

RM

MIX

ED U

SE C

OR

RID

OR

PH

ASE

24

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 1

,64

0LF

$6

0$

98

,40

0C

FF

24

" LA

TER

AL

30

LF$

65

$1

,95

0C

FF

STO

RM

DR

AIN

MA

NH

OLE

3EA

$3

,00

0$

9,0

00

CFF

CA

TCH

BA

SIN

9EA

$2

,50

0$

22

,50

0C

FF

FREN

CH

DR

AIN

- S

R 1

20

/10

8 S

TREE

T D

RA

INA

GE

50

0LF

$1

50

$7

5,0

00

CFF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$2

06

,85

0

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

24

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 3

,22

4LF

$6

0$

19

3,4

40

CFF

36

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 2

,03

0LF

$8

0$

16

2,4

00

CFF

48

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 1

70

LF$

10

7$

18

,19

0C

FF

24

" LA

TER

AL

21

0LF

$6

5$

13

,65

0IN

-TR

AC

T

36

" LA

TER

AL

90

LF$

85

$7

,65

0C

FF

STO

RM

DR

AIN

MA

NH

OLE

13

EA$

3,0

00

$3

9,0

00

CFF

CA

TCH

BA

SIN

26

EA$

2,5

00

$6

5,0

00

CFF

PA

RK

-1 B

ASI

N1

6,6

91

CY

$4

$6

6,7

64

CFF

PA

RK

-1 F

REN

CH

DR

AIN

3

,36

0LF

$1

50

$5

04

,00

0C

FF

PA

RK

-2 B

ASI

N1

2,0

66

CY

$4

$4

8,2

64

CFF

PA

RK

-2 F

REN

CH

DR

AIN

2,3

00

LF$

15

0$

34

5,0

00

CFF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$1

,46

3,3

58

NC

C F

UTU

RE

PH

ASE

24

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 6

50

LF$

60

$3

9,0

00

CFF

36

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 5

00

LF$

80

$4

0,0

00

CFF

48

" SD

R 2

6 P

VC

PIP

E 1

70

LF$

10

7$

18

,19

0C

FF

24

" LA

TER

AL

60

LF$

65

$3

,90

0IN

-TR

AC

T

STO

RM

DR

AIN

MA

NH

OLE

3EA

$3

,00

0$

9,0

00

CFF

CA

TCH

BA

SIN

6EA

$2

,50

0$

15

,00

0C

FF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$1

25

,09

0

TOTA

L ST

OR

M

$1

,79

5,2

98

Pa

ge

2 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-3

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

SEW

ER

MIX

ED U

SE C

OR

RID

OR

PH

ASE

8"

SDR

26

PIP

E1

,79

0LF

$3

5$

62

,65

0SP

8"

LATE

RA

L 3

0LF

$4

0$

1,2

00

SP

SEW

ER M

AN

HO

LE5

EA$

3,0

00

$1

5,0

00

SP

SUB

-TO

TAL

$7

8,8

50

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

8"

SDR

26

PIP

E8

,30

0LF

$3

5$

29

0,5

00

SP

10

" SD

R 2

6 P

IPE

2,2

60

LF$

44

$9

9,4

40

SP

6"

C9

00

PV

C P

IPE

FOR

CE

MA

IN S

TUB

FO

R F

UTU

RE

30

LF$

25

$7

50

SP

8"

C9

00

PV

C P

IPE

FOR

CE

MA

IN6

30

LF$

27

$1

7,0

10

SP

8"

LATE

RA

L 2

70

LF$

40

$1

0,8

00

SP

10

" LA

TER

AL

90

LF$

50

$4

,50

0SP

SEW

ER M

AN

HO

LE2

4EA

$3

,00

0$

72

,00

0SP

LIFT

STA

TIO

N 8

"1

EA$

50

0,0

00

$5

00

,00

0C

FF

LIFT

STA

TIO

N 6

" 1

EA$

35

0,0

00

$3

50

,00

0C

FF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$1

,34

5,0

00

NC

C F

UTU

RE

PH

ASE

8"

SDR

26

PIP

E1

,54

0LF

$3

5$

53

,90

0SP

8"

LATE

RA

L 9

0LF

$4

0$

3,6

00

SP

SEW

ER M

AN

HO

LE4

EA$

3,0

00

$1

2,0

00

SP

SUB

-TO

TAL

$6

9,5

00

TOTA

L SE

WER

$1

,49

3,3

50

Pa

ge

3 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-4

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

IRR

IGA

TIO

N

MIX

ED U

SE C

OR

RID

OR

PH

ASE

WES

T P

UM

P P

IPEL

INE

DEM

O E

XIS

TIN

G 3

0"

IRR

IGA

TIO

N P

IPEL

INE/

AP

PU

RTE

NA

NC

ES5

,10

0LF

$2

0$

10

2,0

00

SP

INST

ALL

NEW

30

" IR

RIG

ATI

ON

PIP

ELIN

E3

,00

0LF

$1

20

$3

60

,00

0SP

AIR

VEN

TS A

ND

MIS

C. S

TRU

CTU

RES

8EA

$3

,00

0$

24

,00

0SP

SUB

-TO

TAL

$4

86

,00

0

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

AD

AM

S N

o.1

PIP

ELIN

E

DEM

O E

XIS

TIN

G 4

2"

AD

AM

S N

o.1

IRR

IGA

TIO

N P

IPEL

INE/

AP

PU

RTE

NA

NC

ES2

,31

0LF

$3

0$

69

,30

0SP

DEM

O E

XIS

TIN

G 3

0"

LAN

E/C

ON

SOLI

IRR

IGA

TIO

N P

IPEL

INE/

AP

PU

RTE

NA

NC

ES5

00

LF$

20

$1

0,0

00

SP

INST

ALL

NEW

42

" IR

RIG

ATI

ON

PIP

ELIN

E3

,20

0LF

$1

70

$5

44

,00

0SP

AIR

VEN

TS A

ND

STR

UC

TUR

ES8

EA$

3,0

00

$2

4,0

00

SP

CO

NTR

OL

STR

UC

TUR

E FO

R L

AN

E/C

ON

SOLI

IRR

IGA

TIO

N P

IPEL

INE

1LF

$2

0,0

00

$2

0,0

00

SP

AD

AM

S C

REE

K P

IPEL

INE

INST

ALL

NEW

36

" IR

RIG

ATI

ON

PIP

ELIN

E5

,00

0LF

$1

45

$7

25

,00

0SP

SUB

-TO

TAL

$1

,39

2,3

00

NC

C F

UTU

RE

PH

ASE

N/A

SUB

-TO

TAL

$0

.00

TOTA

L IR

RIG

ATI

ON

$1

,87

8,3

00

Pa

ge

4 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-5

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

STR

EETS

ENTR

IES,

TR

AIL

S, &

OP

EN S

PA

CE

Cit

y G

atew

ays

1EA

$5

0,0

00

$5

0,0

00

SP

Trai

ls (

Pav

ed)1

0LF

$2

3$

0SP

OS

Lan

dsc

apin

g21

.63

AC

$4

0,0

00

$6

5,2

00

SP

ENTR

IES/

TRA

ILS/

OS

SUB

-TO

TAL

$1

15

,20

0

MIX

ED U

SE C

OR

RID

OR

PH

ASE

STEA

RN

S R

OA

D -

NO

RTH

EN

TRY

80

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

80

0LF

$1

00

$8

0,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

1,6

00

LF$

13

$2

0,8

00

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")1

04

5TN

$7

5.2

$7

8,5

84

CFF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

98

5C

Y$

56

$5

5,1

60

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

1,6

00

LF$

10

$1

6,0

00

CFF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G9

,60

0SF

$2

.50

$2

4,0

00

CFF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

3EA

$5

,00

0$

15

,00

0C

FF

STEA

RN

S R

OA

D -

NO

RTH

87

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

87

0LF

$1

00

$8

7,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

1,7

40

LF$

13

$2

2,6

20

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")1

31

6TN

$7

5.2

$9

8,9

63

CFF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

12

41

CY

$5

6$

69

,49

6C

FF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0C

FF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0C

FF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

3EA

$5

,00

0$

15

,00

0C

FF

HIG

HW

AY

12

0/1

08

2,7

60

LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

2,7

60

LF$

10

0$

27

6,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

5,5

20

LF$

13

$7

1,7

60

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")6

07

2TN

$7

5.2

$4

56

,61

4C

FF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

57

24

CY

$5

6$

32

0,5

44

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

5,5

20

LF$

13

$7

1,7

60

CFF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G4

4,1

60

SF$

4.0

0$

17

6,6

40

CFF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

9EA

$5

,00

0$

45

,00

0C

FF

SUB

-TO

TAL

$2

,00

0,9

41

Pa

ge

5 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-6

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

STR

EETS

CO

NT'

D

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

SPEC

IAL

FEA

TUR

ESR

ou

nd

abo

uts

3EA

$5

0,0

00

$1

50

,00

0SP

Enh

ance

d C

ross

ings

3EA

$5

0,0

00

$1

50

,00

0C

FF

(O

rsi R

oad

at

J St

reet

& L

and

o, T

wild

oSt

earn

s In

ters

ecti

on

)

ENTR

IES/

TRA

ILS/

OS

SUB

-TO

TAL

$3

00

,00

0

RO

AD

WO

RK

SIER

RA

RO

AD

1,9

70

LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

1,9

70

LF$

10

0$

19

7,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

3,9

40

LF$

13

$5

1,2

20

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")2

98

0TN

$7

5.2

$2

24

,09

6C

FF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

28

09

CY

$5

6$

15

7,3

04

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0C

FF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0C

FF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

7EA

$5

,00

0$

35

,00

0C

FF

RO

AD

A1

,38

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

1,3

80

LF$

10

0$

13

8,0

00

SP

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

2,7

60

LF$

13

$3

5,8

80

SP

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")1

80

3TN

$7

5.2

$1

35

,58

6SP

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

16

99

CY

$5

6$

95

,14

4SP

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0SP

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0SP

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

5EA

$5

,00

0$

25

,00

0SP

STEA

RN

S R

OA

D -

SO

UTH

3

,60

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

3,6

00

LF$

10

0$

36

0,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

7,2

00

LF$

13

$9

3,6

00

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")5

44

5TN

$7

5.2

$4

09

,46

4C

FF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

51

33

CY

$5

6$

28

7,4

48

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0C

FF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0C

FF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

12

EA$

5,0

00

$6

0,0

00

CFF

Pa

ge

6 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-7

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

STR

EETS

CO

NT'

D

OR

SI R

OA

D3

,69

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

3,6

90

LF$

10

0$

36

9,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

7,3

80

LF$

13

$9

5,9

40

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")6

34

2TN

$7

5.2

$4

76

,91

8C

FF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

59

79

CY

$5

6$

33

4,8

24

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0C

FF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0C

FF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

12

EA$

5,0

00

$6

0,0

00

CFF

EAST

J S

TREE

T1

,50

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

1,5

00

LF$

10

0$

15

0,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

3,0

00

LF$

13

$3

9,0

00

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")1

95

9TN

$7

5.2

$1

47

,31

7C

FF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

18

47

CY

$5

6$

10

3,4

32

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0C

FF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0C

FF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

5EA

$5

,00

0$

25

,00

0C

FF

SEIR

RA

PO

INTE

DR

IVE

3,8

70

LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

3,8

70

LF$

10

0$

38

7,0

00

SP

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

7,7

40

LF$

13

$1

00

,62

0SP

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")5

05

5TN

$7

5.2

$3

80

,13

6SP

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

47

66

CY

$5

6$

26

6,8

96

SP

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0SP

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0SP

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

13

EA$

5,0

00

$6

5,0

00

SP

LAN

DO

DR

IVE

40

0LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

40

0LF

$1

00

$4

0,0

00

SP

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

80

0LF

$1

3$

10

,40

0SP

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")5

23

TN$

75

.2$

39

,33

0SP

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

49

3C

Y$

56

$2

7,6

08

SP

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0SP

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0SP

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

1EA

$5

,00

0$

5,0

00

SP

SUB

-TO

TAL

$5

,42

8,1

63

Pa

ge

7 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-8

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

STR

EETS

CO

NT'

D

NC

C F

UTU

RE

PH

ASE

EAST

J S

TREE

T5

70

LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

57

0LF

$1

00

$5

7,0

00

CFF

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

1,1

40

LF$

13

$1

4,8

20

CFF

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")7

45

TN$

75

.2$

56

,02

4C

FF

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

70

2C

Y$

56

$3

9,3

12

CFF

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0C

FF

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0C

FF

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

2EA

$5

,00

0$

10

,00

0C

FF

SEIR

RA

PO

INTE

DR

IVE

1,1

40

LF

DR

Y U

TILI

TIES

1,1

40

LF$

10

0$

11

4,0

00

SP

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER (

2 E

AC

H)

2,2

80

LF$

13

$2

9,6

40

SP

ASP

HA

LT P

AV

ING

SEC

TIO

N (

5.5

")1

48

9TN

$7

5.2

$1

11

,97

3SP

CLA

SS II

AG

GR

EGA

TE B

ASE

SEC

TIO

N (

10

.5")

14

04

CY

$5

6$

78

,62

4SP

MED

IAN

CU

RB

0LF

$1

0$

0SP

MED

IAN

LA

ND

SCA

PIN

G0

SF$

2.5

0$

0SP

STR

EET

LIG

HTI

NG

4EA

$5

,00

0$

20

,00

0SP

SUB

-TO

TAL

$5

31

,39

3

TOTA

L ST

REE

TS$

8,3

75

,69

7

PA

RK

S

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

STS

6.4

5A

C$

11

8,5

00

$7

64

,32

5C

FF

LAN

D C

OST

S6

.45

AC

$1

29

,00

0$

83

2,0

50

CFF

SOU

TH S

UB

-TO

TAL

$1

,59

6,3

75

NC

C F

UTU

RE

PH

ASE

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

STS

6.1

4A

C$

11

8,5

00

$7

27

,59

0C

FF

LAN

D C

OST

S6

.14

AC

$1

29

,00

0$

79

2,0

60

CFF

SOU

TH S

UB

-TO

TAL

$1

,51

9,6

50

TOTA

L P

AR

KS

$3

,11

6,0

25

Pa

ge

8 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-9

Des

crip

tio

nQ

uan

tity

Un

itC

ost

/Un

itTo

tal

Fee

Cat

ego

ry

SUM

MA

RY

BY

PH

ASE

MIX

ED U

SE C

OR

RID

OR

PH

ASE

SU

B-T

OTA

L$

3,2

46

,33

1

RES

IDEN

TIA

L N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

PH

ASE

SU

B-T

OTA

L$

13

,71

5,8

66

NC

C F

UT

UR

E P

HA

SE S

UB

-TO

TAL

$2

,32

4,7

63

ENTR

IES,

TR

AIL

S, &

OP

EN S

PA

CE

$1

15

,20

0

CO

MB

INED

SU

B-T

OTA

L $

19

,40

2,1

60

OTH

ER C

OST

SC

ON

TIN

GEN

CY

10

%$

1,9

40

,21

6

SOFT

CO

STS:

EN

GIN

EER

ING

, CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MA

NA

GEM

ENT/

INSP

ECTI

ON

25

%$

4,8

50

,54

0

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L$

26

,19

2,9

16

SUM

MA

RY

BY

CA

TEG

OR

Y

SUB

-TO

TAL

SOFT

CO

STS

TOTA

L

CFF

$1

4,1

86

,41

3$

3,5

46

,60

3$

19

,15

1,6

57

IN-T

RA

CT

$3

23

,06

0$

80

,76

5$

43

6,1

31

SPEC

IFIC

PLA

N$

4,8

92

,68

7$

1,2

23

,17

2$

6,6

05

,12

8

$1

9,4

02

,16

0$

4,8

50

,54

0$

26

,19

2,9

16

No

tes: 1.

This

est

imat

e is

bas

ed o

n a

co

nce

ptu

al d

esig

n.

Ch

ange

s o

r in

crea

ses

may

occ

ur

du

e to

go

vern

ing

age

ncy

req

uir

emen

ts, o

r d

ue

to o

ther

item

s th

at m

ay

be

dis

cove

red

du

rin

g th

e fi

nal

des

ign

ph

ase

of

the

pro

ject

.

CO

NTI

NG

ENC

Y

$1

,41

8,6

41

$3

2,3

06

$4

89

,26

9

$1

,94

0,2

16

Pa

ge

9 o

f 9

3/2

9/2

01

3

Page A-10

APPENDIX 2

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLES

Page A-11

Tabl

e 1:

Sum

mar

y R

esul

ts o

f Fis

cal I

mpa

ct A

naly

sis

Ann

ual I

mpa

cts

on C

ity

Ent

ire S

peci

ficP

lan

Are

a(In

cl. N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

)

SP

SP

Exc

ludi

ng N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

Incl

udes

CFD

No.

200

7-1

(Pub

lic S

afet

y Se

rvic

es) R

even

ueR

even

ues

2,55

7,63

1$

2,

081,

258

$

Cos

ts

2,43

8,35

8

1,

967,

946

Net

Rev

enue

119,

274

$

11

3,31

2$

Per

cent

of R

even

ues

5%5%

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le; G

oodw

in C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

Sier

ra P

oint

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an

Page A-12

Tabl

e 2:

City

Pop

ulat

ion

and

Empl

oym

ent,

2004

-201

1

Item

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Res

iden

ts17

,179

17

,393

17

,759

18

,488

19

,192

19

,558

19

,854

20

,839

Jobs

6,31

3

6,17

1

5,98

6

5,80

0

5,54

8

4,54

8

4,24

3

4,96

8

Serv

ice

Popu

latio

n119

,136

19

,306

19

,615

20

,286

20

,912

20

,968

21

,169

22

,379

1 Ser

vice

pop

ulat

ion

equa

ls th

e su

m o

f res

iden

ts a

nd 0

.31

times

the

num

ber o

f job

s.

Sou

rces

: Cal

iforn

ia D

epar

tmen

t of F

inan

ce; E

mpl

oym

ent D

evel

opm

ent D

epar

tmen

t; W

illda

n Fi

nanc

ial S

ervi

ces;

Goo

dwin

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

.

Page A-13

Tabl

e 3:

Mar

ket A

ssum

ptio

ns b

y La

nd U

se

Den

sity

Res

iden

t or W

orke

r Eq

uiva

lent

Den

sity

Sale

s Pr

ice

Use

(uni

ts/a

cre

or

FAR

)(r

esid

ents

/uni

t or w

orke

r eq

uiva

lent

/100

0 sq

ft)($

/uni

t or

$/sq

ft)

Res

iden

tial U

ses

Ver

y Lo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l2.

2

2.78

350,

000

$

Low

Den

sity

Res

iden

tial

5.0

2.

7830

0,00

0

M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l8.

0

2.78

240,

000

Hig

h D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l16

.0

2.12

150,

000

Non

-Res

iden

tial/P

ublic

/Sem

i Pub

lic U

ses

Gen

eral

Com

mer

cial

- R

etai

l10.

30

2.50

200

$

G

ener

al C

omm

erci

al -

Oth

er1

0.30

3.

3320

0

Flex

Use

/Gen

. Com

mer

cial

0.30

3.

3320

0

Offi

ce0.

30

3.33

200

P

ublic

/Sem

i Pub

lic2

0.30

32

.02

n/a

1 A

ssum

es 5

0% o

f pro

pose

d G

ener

al C

omm

erci

al u

ses

will

be

reta

il us

es a

nd th

e re

mai

ning

50%

will

be

offic

e re

late

d us

es.

2 Ass

umes

a c

omm

unity

col

lege

cam

pus

will

be

deve

lope

d an

d th

e fo

llow

ing

ratio

s to

est

imat

e w

orke

r equ

ival

ents

:

1) 5

00 s

quar

e fe

et p

er fa

culty

/sta

ff m

embe

r (47

7 fa

culty

/sta

ff), a

nd 2

) 15

stud

ents

per

facu

lty/s

taff

mem

ber (

7,15

5 st

uden

ts).

Sou

rces

: Sie

rra

Poi

nte

Spe

cific

Pla

n; W

illda

n Fi

nanc

ial S

ervi

ces;

Cal

iforn

ia C

omm

unity

Col

lege

s C

hanc

ello

r's O

ffice

; Goo

dwin

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

.

Page A-14

Tabl

e 4:

New

Ser

vice

Pop

ulat

ion

and

Rea

l Est

ate

Dev

elop

men

t Det

ail

Entir

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an A

rea

(Incl

. NC

C F

utur

e Ph

ase)

SPSP

Excl

udin

g N

CC

Fut

ure

Phas

e

Use

Uni

ts o

rS

qft

Res

iden

ts o

r W

orke

r E

quiv

alen

ts1

Ass

esse

d V

alue

($

000s

)U

nits

or

Sqf

t

Res

iden

ts o

r W

orke

r E

quiv

alen

ts1

Ass

esse

d V

alue

($

000s

)

Res

iden

tial U

ses

Ver

y Lo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l287

242

30,4

50$

8724

2

30

,450

$

Lo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l36

31,

009

10

8,90

0

15

041

7

45

,000

M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l23

364

8

55

,920

17

348

1

41

,520

H

igh

Den

sity

Res

iden

tial

173

367

25,9

50

173

367

25,9

50

Subt

otal

, Res

iden

tial

856

2,26

6

221,

220

$

583

1,50

7

142,

920

$

Non

-Res

iden

tial/P

ublic

/Sem

i Pub

lic U

ses

Gen

eral

Com

mer

cial

- R

etai

l18

2,42

945

6

36

,486

$

18

2,42

945

6

36

,486

$

G

ener

al C

omm

erci

al -

Oth

er18

2,42

960

8

36

,486

18

2,42

960

8

36

,486

Fl

ex U

se/G

en. C

omm

erci

al24

6,20

282

1

49

,240

24

6,20

282

1

49

,240

O

ffice

268,

678

896

53,7

36

133,

555

445

26,7

11

Pub

lic/S

emi P

ublic

238,

361

7,63

2

-

238,

361

7,63

2

-

Subt

otal

, Non

-Res

iden

tial/P

ublic

/Sem

i Pub

lic1,

118,

099

10,4

13

17

5,94

8$

98

2,97

69,

962

14

8,92

3$

TOTA

L39

7,16

8$

29

1,84

3$

2 Exc

lude

s 45

exi

stin

g un

its.

Sou

rces

: Sie

rra

Poi

nte

Spe

cific

Pla

n; C

alifo

rnia

Com

mun

ity C

olle

ges

Cha

ncel

lor's

Offi

ce; G

oodw

in C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

3 Ass

umes

the

follo

win

g ra

tios:

1) 5

00 s

quar

e fe

et p

er fa

culty

/sta

ff m

embe

r (47

7 fa

culty

/sta

ff), a

nd 2

) 15

stud

ents

per

facu

lty/s

taff

mem

ber (

7,15

5 st

uden

ts).

1 Ass

umes

eac

h st

uden

t is

equa

l to

one

wor

ker w

ithin

the

Pub

lic/S

emi P

ublic

land

use

cat

egor

y.

SIER

RA

PO

INTE

SPE

CIF

IC P

LAN

33

Page A-15

Tabl

e 5:

City

of O

akda

le G

ross

Exp

endi

ture

s FY

200

4-20

111

Func

tion

FY 2

003-

2004

FY 2

004-

2005

FY 2

005-

2006

FY 2

006-

2007

FY 2

007-

2008

FY 2

008-

2009

FY 2

009-

2010

FY 2

010-

2011

8 Ye

ar A

vera

ge

Gen

eral

Fun

dC

ity C

ounc

il27

,849

$

33,4

36$

27

,275

$

37,5

75$

31

,570

$

31,2

29$

22

,204

$

21,6

84$

29

,103

$

C

ity M

anag

er77

,382

106,

489

13

0,43

0

145,

548

12

4,67

2

118,

796

10

7,24

0

104,

082

11

4,33

0

Hum

an R

esou

rces

-

-

-

-

106,

409

10

3,27

3

61,7

84

58

,457

41,2

40

City

Cle

rk24

,835

31,1

92

14

,333

24,2

58

11

5,20

1

116,

159

93

,836

110,

329

66

,268

Fina

nce

Div

isio

n80

,537

160,

393

15

9,61

0

204,

657

22

8,96

8

227,

501

18

4,63

5

147,

806

17

4,26

3

City

Tre

asur

er93

4

1,

117

1,

004

1,

043

1,

043

1,

044

1,

060

1,

060

1,

038

City

Atto

rney

34,5

16

29

,098

25,7

64

39

,538

90,0

44

87

,868

88,7

84

88

,908

60,5

65

Non

-Dep

artm

enta

l36

5,70

9

375,

965

36

7,42

5

408,

778

49

4,36

8

434,

804

38

3,53

0

383,

530

40

1,76

4

Fire

Dep

artm

ent2

1,78

6,31

6

1,

918,

367

2,66

4,14

5

3,

292,

893

3,42

9,43

6

3,

517,

898

3,08

2,50

3

2,

719,

958

2,80

1,44

0

Pol

ice

Dep

artm

ent

3,18

3,95

9

3,

585,

207

3,95

9,91

4

4,

371,

233

4,63

5,01

3

4,

682,

066

4,05

4,29

6

3,

814,

990

4,03

5,83

5

P

arks

and

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces3

815,

160

1,

404,

541

899,

396

96

2,26

1

1,00

8,87

2

1,

040,

350

763,

530

65

8,29

8

944,

051

Pub

lic W

orks

Dep

artm

ent

684,

717

73

1,46

8

688,

552

93

9,11

7

932,

270

87

1,08

8

750,

167

27

9,46

6

734,

606

TOTA

L G

ENER

AL

FUN

D7,

081,

914

$

8,37

7,27

3$

8,

937,

848

$

10,4

26,9

01$

11,1

97,8

66$

11,2

32,0

76$

9,59

3,56

9$

8,

388,

568

$

9,40

4,50

2$

Dev

elop

men

t Ser

vice

s Fu

nd4

Pla

nnin

g38

9,16

4$

416,

178

$

51

4,81

7$

470,

867

$

50

1,30

5$

398,

258

$

36

2,85

2$

307,

890

$

42

0,16

6

Bui

ldin

g In

spec

tion

388,

489

48

1,55

7

634,

059

60

3,36

5

413,

524

40

8,26

5

364,

246

22

4,84

8

439,

794

TOTA

L D

EV. S

ERVI

CES

FU

ND

777,

653

$

89

7,73

5$

1,14

8,87

6$

1,

074,

232

$

914,

829

$

80

6,52

3$

727,

098

$

53

2,73

8$

859,

961

$

Engi

neer

ing

& P

ublic

Wor

ks F

und4

Pub

lic W

orks

Adm

in/E

ngin

eerin

g34

0,72

5

399,

710

36

7,00

1

429,

499

44

7,06

2

427,

287

61

7,15

8

577,

225

45

0,70

8

TOTA

L EN

G. &

PW

FU

ND

340,

725

$

39

9,71

0$

367,

001

$

42

9,49

9$

447,

062

$

42

7,28

7$

617,

158

$

57

7,22

5$

450,

708

$

2 Incl

udes

Fire

Ser

vice

s C

FD tr

ansf

ers

to th

e G

ener

al F

und.

In a

dditi

on, t

he C

ity h

as a

sked

that

$10

0,00

0 be

add

ed to

eac

h of

the

eigh

t ann

ual e

xpen

ditu

res.

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le F

Y 2

003-

2011

Ado

pted

Bud

gets

Prio

r to

FY 2

008-

2009

, the

se tw

o fu

nds

wer

e co

mbi

ned

as th

e D

evel

opm

ent S

ervi

ces

Fund

.

Not

es:

1 Exp

endi

ture

s co

ver p

re-r

eces

sion

and

pos

t-rec

essi

on fi

scal

yea

rs, o

r FY

2004

-FY

2011

. Fig

ures

for F

Y20

04-F

Y20

09 a

re b

udge

t act

uals

; fig

ures

for F

Y20

09-2

010

are

proj

ecte

d, a

nd F

Y20

10-2

011

are

adop

ted

budg

et v

alue

s.

3 Incl

udes

Gen

eral

Fun

d tra

nsfe

rs o

ut to

the

swim

min

g po

ol, c

omm

unity

cen

ter,

and

seni

or c

ente

r.4 C

ity fu

nds

all p

lann

ing,

bui

ldin

g, a

nd e

ngin

eerin

g de

velo

pmen

t act

ivity

from

sep

arat

e en

terp

rise

fund

s to

cle

arly

acc

ount

for t

he u

se o

f fun

ds p

aid

for d

evel

opm

ent-r

elat

ed s

ervi

ces

and

to s

how

if a

nd w

hen

Gen

eral

Fun

d su

ppor

t is

need

ed fo

r thi

s ac

tivity

.

Page A-16

Tabl

e 6:

City

of O

akda

le E

xpen

ditu

res

Per P

erso

n Se

rved

FY

2004

-201

11

Res

iden

t

Wor

ker

Equ

ival

ent

(WE

)R

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

Gen

eral

Fun

dC

ity C

ounc

il1.

00

0.

31

1.46

$

0.

45$

1.73

$

0.

54$

1.39

$

0.

43$

1.85

$

0.

57$

1.51

$

0.

47$

1.49

$

0.

46$

1.05

$

0.

33$

0.97

$

0.

30$

1.43

$

0.

44$

City

Man

ager

1.00

0.31

4.

04

1.25

5.

52

1.71

6.

65

2.06

7.

17

2.22

5.

96

1.85

5.

67

1.76

5.

07

1.57

4.

65

1.44

5.

59

1.73

H

uman

Res

ourc

es1.

00

0.

31

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.09

1.

58

4.93

1.

53

2.92

0.

90

2.61

0.

81

1.94

0.

60

City

Cle

rk1.

00

0.

31

1.30

0.

40

1.62

0.

50

0.73

0.

23

1.20

0.

37

5.51

1.

71

5.54

1.

72

4.43

1.

37

4.93

1.

53

3.16

0.

98

Fina

nce

Div

isio

n1.

00

0.

31

4.21

1.

30

8.31

2.

58

8.14

2.

52

10.0

9

3.

13

10.9

5

3.

39

10.8

5

3.

36

8.72

2.

70

6.60

2.

05

8.48

2.

63

City

Tre

asur

er1.

00

0.

31

0.05

0.

02

0.06

0.

02

0.05

0.

02

0.05

0.

02

0.05

0.

02

0.05

0.

02

0.05

0.

02

0.05

0.

01

0.05

0.

02

City

Atto

rney

1.00

0.31

1.

80

0.56

1.

51

0.47

1.

31

0.41

1.

95

0.60

4.

31

1.33

4.

19

1.30

4.

19

1.30

3.

97

1.23

2.

90

0.90

N

on-D

epar

tmen

tal

1.00

0.31

19

.11

5.92

19

.47

6.04

18

.73

5.81

20

.15

6.25

23

.64

7.33

20

.74

6.43

18

.12

5.62

17

.14

5.31

19

.64

6.09

Fire

Dep

artm

ent2

1.00

0.31

93

.35

28.9

4

99

.37

30.8

0

13

5.82

42

.11

162.

32

50.3

2

16

3.99

50

.84

167.

78

52.0

1

14

5.61

45

.14

121.

54

37.6

8

13

6.22

42

.23

Pol

ice

Dep

artm

ent

1.00

0.31

16

6.39

51

.58

185.

70

57.5

7

20

1.89

62

.58

215.

48

66.8

0

22

1.64

68

.71

223.

30

69.2

2

19

1.52

59

.37

170.

47

52.8

5

19

7.05

61

.08

Par

ks a

nd C

omm

unity

Ser

vice

s31.

00

0.

31

42.6

0

13

.21

72.7

5

22

.55

45.8

5

14

.21

47.4

3

14

.70

48.2

4

14

.96

49.6

2

15

.38

36.0

7

11

.18

29.4

2

9.

12

46.5

0

14

.41

Pub

lic W

orks

Dep

artm

ent

1.00

0.31

35

.78

11.0

9

37

.89

11

.75

35.1

0

10.8

8

46

.29

14

.35

44.5

8

13.8

2

41

.54

12

.88

35.4

4

10.9

9

12

.49

3.

87

36

.14

11

.20

TOTA

L EX

PEN

DIT

UR

ES37

0.08

$ 11

4.73

$

433.

92$

134.

52$

455.

67$

141.

26$

513.

99$

159.

34$

535.

48$

166.

00$

53

5.68

$16

6.06

$ 45

3.18

$14

0.49

$ 37

4.84

$11

6.20

$ 45

9.11

$14

2.32

$

Dev

elop

men

t Ser

vice

s Fu

nd4

Pla

nnin

g1.

00

0.

31

20.3

4

6.

30

21.5

6

6.

68

26.2

5

8.

14

23.2

1

7.

20

23.9

7

7.

43

18.9

9

5.

89

17.1

4

5.

31

13.7

6

4.

26

20.6

5

6.

40

Bui

ldin

g In

spec

tion

1.00

0.31

20

.30

6.29

24

.94

7.

73

32

.33

10

.02

29.7

4

9.22

19.7

7

6.13

19

.47

6.

04

17

.21

5.

33

10

.05

3.

11

21

.73

6.

74

TOTA

L D

EV. S

ERVI

CES

FU

ND

40.6

4$

12

.60

$

46.5

0$

14

.42

$

58.5

7$

18

.16

$

52.9

5$

16

.42

$

43.7

5$

13

.56

$

38.4

6$

11

.92

$

34.3

5$

10

.65

$

23.8

1$

7.

38$

42.3

8$

13

.14

$

Engi

neer

ing

& P

ublic

Wor

ks F

und4

Pub

lic W

orks

Adm

in/E

ngin

eerin

g1.

00

0.

31

17.8

1

5.

52

20.7

0

6.42

18.7

1

5.80

21.1

7

6.56

21.3

8

6.63

20

.38

6.

32

29

.15

9.

04

25

.79

8.

00

21

.89

6.

78

TOTA

L EN

G. &

PW

FU

ND

17.8

1$

5.

52$

20.7

0$

6.

42$

18.7

1$

5.

80$

21.1

7$

6.

56$

21.3

8$

6.

63$

20.3

8$

6.

32$

29.1

5$

9.

04$

25.7

9$

8.

00$

21.8

9$

6.

78$

2 Incl

udes

Fire

Ser

vice

s C

FD tr

ansf

ers

to th

e G

ener

al F

und.

4 City

fund

s al

l pla

nnin

g, b

uild

ing,

and

eng

inee

ring

deve

lopm

ent a

ctiv

ity fr

om s

epar

ate

ente

rpris

e fu

nds

to c

lear

ly a

ccou

nt fo

r the

use

of f

unds

pai

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t-rel

ated

ser

vice

s an

d to

sho

w if

and

whe

n G

ener

al F

und

supp

ort i

s ne

eded

for t

his

activ

ity.

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le F

Y 2

003-

2011

Ado

pted

Bud

gets

Prio

r to

FY 2

008-

2009

, the

se tw

o fu

nds

wer

e co

mbi

ned

as th

e D

evel

opm

ent S

ervi

ces

Fund

.

8 Ye

ar A

vera

ge

3 Incl

udes

Gen

eral

Fun

d tra

nsfe

rs o

ut to

the

swim

min

g po

ol, c

omm

unity

cen

ter,

and

seni

or c

ente

r.

1 Exp

endi

ture

s co

ver p

re-r

eces

sion

and

pos

t-rec

essi

on fi

scal

yea

rs, o

r FY

2004

-FY

2011

. Cos

ts p

er c

apita

repr

esen

t the

ave

rage

cos

ts o

f ser

vice

per

cap

ita fo

r FY

2004

-FY

2011

. Fig

ures

for F

Y20

04-F

Y20

09 a

re b

udge

t act

uals

; fig

ures

for F

Y20

09-2

010

are

proj

ecte

d, a

nd F

Y20

10-2

011

are

adop

ted

budg

et

Not

es:

FY 2

005-

2006

FY 2

004-

2005

FY 2

003-

2004

FY 2

010-

2011

Func

tion

FY 2

009-

2010

Wei

ghtin

g Fa

ctor

sFY

200

6-20

07FY

200

7-20

08FY

200

8-20

09

Page A-17

Table 7: Fiscal Impacts of New Development

Annual Impacts on City

Entire SpecificPlan Area(Incl. NCC

Future Phase)

SPSPExcluding NCCFuture Phase

RevenuesProperty Taxes 336,579$ 247,322$ Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 301,847 221,801 CFD No. 2007-1 (Public Safety Services) 360,598 237,287 Sales and Use Tax 518,688 511,550 Public Safety Sales Tax 976 962 Gas Taxes 39,149 26,036 Hotel Motel Tax 58,413 48,857 Property Transfer Tax 17,000 12,000 Business License Fee1 90,909 78,324 Franchise Fees and Other Taxes 184,209 154,073 Licenses & Permits 4,719 3,947 Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties 55,317 46,267 Other Intergovernmental 83,735 70,036 Charges for Services 71,527 59,825 Other Revenue 20,469 17,120 Transfers In 58,699 49,096 Dev. Services Fund: Revenues 222,081 185,749 Eng. & PW Fund: Revenues 132,718 111,005 Total Revenues 2,557,631$ 2,081,258$

Costs City Council 7,861$ 6,575$ City Manager 30,717 25,692 Human Resources 10,675 8,929 City Clerk 17,341 14,504 Finance Division 46,609 38,984 City Treasurer 279 233 City Attorney 15,958 13,347 Non-Departmental 107,889 90,239 Fire Department 748,413 625,975 Police Department2 645,526 468,417 Parks and Community Services Department 255,460 213,667 Public Works Department 198,552 166,069 Dev. Services Fund: Planning 113,463 94,900 Dev. Services Fund: Building Inspection 119,366 99,838 Eng. & PW Fund: PW Admin/Engineering 120,247 100,575 Total Costs 2,438,358$ 1,967,946$

Net Revenue 119,274$ 113,312$ Percent of Revenues 5% 5%

Without CFD No. 2007-1 (Public Safety Services)Revenues

CFD No. 2007-1 (Public Safety Services) (360,598) (237,287)

Net Revenue (241,324)$ (123,975)$ Percent of Revenues (9%) (6%)

Notes:1Business license revenue is estimated based on the number of new jobs. Worker equivalents associated with students at the proposed community college are not factored into this calculation.2Police expenditures are estimated based on the number of new residents and jobs. Worker equivalents associated with students at the proposed community college are not factored into this calculation.

Sources: City of Oakdale; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.

Sierra Pointe Specific Plan

Page A-18

Tabl

e A

1: C

ity o

f Oak

dale

Gro

ss R

even

ues

FY 2

004-

2011

1

Rev

enue

by

Type

FY 2

003-

2004

FY 2

004-

2005

FY 2

005-

2006

FY 2

006-

2007

FY 2

007-

2008

FY 2

008-

2009

FY 2

009-

2010

FY 2

010-

2011

8 Ye

ar A

vera

ge

GE

NE

RA

L FU

ND

Taxe

sP

rope

rty T

axes

931,

882

$

1,

046,

390

$

1,

457,

812

$

1,

731,

596

$

1,

802,

277

$

1,

606,

724

$

1,

430,

300

$

1,

390,

500

$

1,

424,

685

$

Pro

perty

Tax

in L

ieu

of V

LF-

-

1,18

4,85

0

1,39

1,58

2

1,54

5,24

9

1,34

1,62

9

1,28

4,30

0

1,24

5,70

0

999,

164

S

ales

& U

se T

axes

3,05

4,38

1

3,

193,

359

3,

184,

441

3,

299,

160

3,

061,

197

2,

880,

873

2,

355,

479

2,

319,

000

2,

918,

486

Hot

el M

otel

Tax

188,

156

204,

937

231,

199

249,

251

248,

781

215,

000

200,

000

200,

000

217,

166

P

rope

rty T

rans

fer T

ax94

,389

243,

971

261,

656

126,

507

113,

129

82,0

00

52

,000

52,0

00

12

8,20

7

Bus

ines

s Li

cens

e Fe

e11

3,93

5

14

4,16

5

13

6,56

4

17

6,74

8

14

8,15

1

16

5,00

0

15

0,00

0

15

0,00

0

14

8,07

0

Fran

chis

e Fe

es a

nd O

ther

Tax

es59

3,44

6

53

5,40

5

62

5,91

7

66

4,05

0

76

9,40

1

78

1,00

0

76

1,00

0

78

0,00

0

68

8,77

7

Subt

otal

, Ta

xes

4,97

6,18

9$

5,

368,

227

$

7,

082,

439

$

7,

638,

894

$

7,

688,

185

$

7,

072,

226

$

6,

233,

079

$

6,

137,

200

$

6,

524,

555

$

Lice

nses

& P

erm

its12

,530

$

10,4

19$

10

,580

$

9,05

7$

12,1

09$

11

,000

$

40,0

00$

38

,000

$

17,9

62$

Fine

s, F

orfe

iture

s &

Pen

altie

s13

4,25

9$

150,

756

$

176,

357

$

228,

855

$

219,

690

$

234,

500

$

258,

500

$

258,

500

$

207,

677

$

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l Rev

enue

sM

otor

Veh

icle

In-L

ieu

743,

877

$

1,

097,

204

$

10

3,66

5$

11

2,06

0$

94

,615

$

112,

000

$

50,0

00$

50

,000

$

295,

428

$

O

ther

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l20

4,05

4

45

8,00

5

25

8,02

1

27

5,93

0

33

1,25

0

38

9,35

0

29

2,07

8

28

1,49

5

31

1,27

3

Subt

otal

, Int

ergo

vern

men

tal

947,

931

$

1,

555,

209

$

36

1,68

6$

38

7,99

0$

42

5,86

5$

50

1,35

0$

34

2,07

8$

33

1,49

5$

60

6,70

1$

Cha

rges

for S

ervi

ces

182,

549

$

17

3,81

3$

21

9,36

0$

30

9,37

0$

25

5,15

3$

31

3,52

4$

34

7,44

3$

34

9,32

0$

26

8,81

7$

Oth

er R

even

ue11

6,43

1$

94,4

30$

67

,879

$

76,5

51$

10

8,83

9$

87

,200

$

27,0

00$

21

,400

$

74,9

66$

Tran

sfer

s In

259

5,65

2$

77,0

00$

10

3,54

0$

44

,000

$

139,

000

$

231,

000

$

349,

988

$

195,

000

$

216,

898

$

TOTA

L G

EN F

UN

D R

EVEN

UES

6,96

5,54

1$

7,

429,

854

$

8,

021,

841

$

8,

694,

717

$

8,

848,

841

$

8,

450,

800

$

7,

598,

088

$

7,

330,

915

$

7,

917,

575

$

PU

BLI

C S

AFE

TY T

AX

FU

ND

Pub

lic S

afet

y S

ales

Tax

111,

754

$

15

1,99

5$

15

0,21

7$

16

8,92

0$

16

2,26

0$

11

5,53

5$

11

3,00

0$

11

3,00

0$

13

5,83

5$

Inve

stm

ent E

arni

ngs

13

511

2,01

9

2,57

9

1,68

8

204

2,00

0

2,00

0

1,37

7

Su

btot

al, P

ublic

Saf

ety

Fund

111,

767

$

15

2,50

6$

15

2,23

6$

17

1,49

9$

16

3,94

8$

11

5,73

9$

11

5,00

0$

11

5,00

0$

13

7,21

2$

GA

S T

AX

FU

ND

Gas

Tax

es35

0,92

9$

324,

893

$

325,

126

$

463,

906

$

340,

006

$

165,

947

$

300,

000

$

300,

000

$

321,

351

$

O

ther

Rev

enue

s1,

663

1,

871

83

,378

6,74

7

4,45

2

315,

805

1,00

0

1,00

0

51,9

90

Su

btot

al, G

as T

ax F

und

352,

592

$

32

6,76

4$

40

8,50

4$

47

0,65

3$

34

4,45

8$

48

1,75

2$

30

1,00

0$

30

1,00

0$

37

3,34

0$

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

SE

RV

ICE

S F

UN

DR

even

ues

964,

064

$

1,

515,

961

$

1,

372,

273

$

96

7,84

7

51

7,02

2

35

2,55

7

31

1,60

0

45

9,80

0

80

7,64

1

Subt

otal

, Dev

elop

men

t Ser

vice

s Fu

nd96

4,06

4$

1,51

5,96

1$

1,37

2,27

3$

967,

847

$

517,

022

$

352,

557

$

311,

600

$

459,

800

$

807,

641

$

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G &

PU

BLI

C W

OR

KS

FU

ND

Rev

enue

s78

,368

$

815,

282

$

392,

011

$

1,44

8,07

5

339,

522

195,

396

320,

200

333,

000

490,

232

Su

btot

al, E

ng. &

PW

Fun

d78

,368

$

815,

282

$

392,

011

$

1,44

8,07

5$

339,

522

$

195,

396

$

320,

200

$

333,

000

$

490,

232

$

1 Exp

endi

ture

s co

ver p

re-r

eces

sion

and

pos

t-rec

essi

on fi

scal

yea

rs, o

r FY

2004

-FY

2011

. Fig

ures

for F

Y20

04-F

Y20

09 a

re b

udge

t act

uals

; fig

ures

for F

Y20

09-2

010

are

proj

ecte

d, a

nd F

Y20

10-2

011

are

adop

ted

budg

et v

alue

s.2 E

xclu

des

trans

fers

in fr

om th

e P

ublic

Saf

ety

Tax

Fund

, Gas

Tax

Fun

d, C

FD N

o. 2

003-

1 (F

ire P

rote

ctio

n S

ervi

ces)

, and

CFD

No.

200

7-1

(Pub

lic S

afet

y S

ervi

ces)

.

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le F

Y 2

004-

2011

Ado

pted

Bud

gets

.

Not

es:

Page A-19

Tabl

e A

2: C

ity o

f Oak

dale

Gro

ss R

even

ues

Per C

apita

FY

2004

-201

11

Gen

Fun

d R

even

ue b

y Ty

peR

esid

ent

Wor

ker

Equ

ival

ent

(WE

)R

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

E

GE

NE

RA

L FU

ND

Taxe

sP

rope

rty T

axes

--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--P

rope

rty T

ax in

Lie

u of

VLF

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

Sal

es a

nd U

se T

ax--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--H

otel

Mot

el T

ax1.

00

0.

31

9.

83$

3.05

$

10

.62

$

3.29

$

11

.79

$

3.65

$

12

.29

$

3.81

$

P

rope

rty T

rans

fer T

ax--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--B

usin

ess

Lice

nse

Fee

n/a

1.00

-$

18

.05

$

-$

23

.36

$

-$

22.8

1$

-

$

30.4

7$

Fr

anch

ise

Fees

and

Oth

er T

axes

1.00

0.31

31.0

1$

9.61

$

27

.73

$

8.60

$

31

.91

$

9.89

$

32

.73

$

10.1

5$

Su

btot

al,

Taxe

s40

.84

$

30.7

1$

38

.35

$

35.2

5$

43

.70

$

36.3

6$

45

.02

$

44.4

3$

Lice

nses

& P

erm

its1.

00

0.

31

0.

65$

0.20

$

0.

54$

0.17

$

0.

54$

0.17

$

0.

45$

0.14

$

Fine

s, F

orfe

iture

s &

Pen

altie

s1.

00

0.

31

7.

02$

2.17

$

7.

81$

2.42

$

8.

99$

2.79

$

11

.28

$

3.50

$

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l Rev

enue

sV

ehic

le In

-Lie

u Fe

es1.

00

0.

31

--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--O

ther

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l1.

00

0.

31

10

.66

$

3.

31$

23.7

2$

7.

35$

13.1

5$

4.

08$

13.6

0$

4.

22$

Subt

otal

, Int

ergo

vern

men

tal

10.6

6$

3.

31$

23

.72

$

7.35

$

13.1

5$

4.

08$

13.6

0$

4.

22$

Cha

rges

for S

ervi

ces

1.00

0.31

9.54

$

2.

96$

9.00

$

2.

79$

11.1

8$

3.

47$

15.2

5$

4.

73$

Oth

er R

even

ue1.

00

0.

31

6.

08$

1.89

$

4.

89$

1.52

$

3.

46$

1.07

$

3.

77$

1.17

$

Tran

sfer

s In

1.00

0.31

31.1

3$

9.

65$

3.

99$

1.24

$

5.28

$

1.64

$

2.

17$

0.67

$

TOTA

L G

ENER

AL

FUN

D10

5.93

$

50.8

9$

88

.30

$

50.7

4$

86

.31

$

49.5

7$

91

.54

$

58.8

5$

PU

BLI

C S

AFE

TY T

AX

FU

ND

Pub

lic S

afet

y S

ales

Tax

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

GA

S T

AX

FU

ND

Gas

Tax

es1.

00

n/

a20

.43

$

-

$

18

.68

$

-$

18.3

1$

-

$

25.0

9$

-

$

CFD

NO

. 200

7-1

(PU

BLI

C S

AFE

TY S

ER

VIC

ES

)S

peci

al T

axes

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

SE

RV

ICE

S F

UN

DR

even

ues

1.00

0.31

50.3

8$

15.6

2$

78

.52

$

24.3

4$

69

.96

$

21.6

9$

47

.71

$

14.7

9$

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G &

PU

BLI

C W

OR

KS

FU

ND

Rev

enue

s1.

00

0.

31

4.

10$

1.27

$

42

.23

$

13.0

9$

19

.99

$

6.20

$

71

.38

$

22.1

3$

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le F

Y 2

004-

2011

Ado

pted

Bud

gets

.

FY 2

005-

2006

Wei

ghtin

g Fa

ctor

s

1 Cos

ts p

er c

apita

repr

esen

t the

ave

rage

cos

ts o

f ser

vice

per

cap

ita fo

r FY

2004

-FY

2011

. Fig

ures

for F

Y20

04-F

Y20

09 a

re b

udge

t act

uals

; fig

ures

for F

Y20

09-2

010

are

proj

ecte

d, a

nd F

Y20

10-2

011

are

adop

ted

budg

et v

alue

s.

FY 2

003-

2004

FY 2

004-

2005

Not

e:

FY 2

006-

2007

Page A-20

Tabl

e A

2, c

ont.:

City

of O

akda

le G

ross

Rev

enue

s Pe

r Cap

ita F

Y 20

04-2

0111

Gen

Fun

d R

even

ue b

y Ty

peR

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

Res

iden

tW

ER

esid

ent

WE

GE

NE

RA

L FU

ND

Taxe

sP

rope

rty T

axes

--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--P

rope

rty T

ax in

Lie

u of

VLF

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

Sal

es a

nd U

se T

ax--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--H

otel

Mot

el T

ax11

.90

$

3.69

$

10

.25

$

3.

18$

9.45

$

2.

93$

8.94

$

2.

77$

10.6

3$

3.

30$

Pro

perty

Tra

nsfe

r Tax

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

Bus

ines

s Li

cens

e Fe

e-

$

26.7

0$

-

$

36.2

8$

-

$

35.3

5$

-

$

30.1

9$

-

$

27

.90

$

Fran

chis

e Fe

es a

nd O

ther

Tax

es36

.79

$

11.4

1$

37

.25

$

11

.55

$

35.9

5$

11

.14

$

34.8

5$

10

.80

$

33.5

3$

10

.39

$

Subt

otal

, Ta

xes

48.6

9$

41

.80

$

47.5

0$

51

.01

$

45.4

0$

49

.43

$

43.7

9$

43

.77

$

44.1

6$

41

.59

$

Lice

nses

& P

erm

its0.

58$

0.18

$

0.

52$

0.16

$

1.

89$

0.59

$

1.

70$

0.53

$

0.

86$

0.27

$

Fine

s, F

orfe

iture

s &

Pen

altie

s10

.51

$

3.26

$

11

.18

$

3.

47$

12.2

1$

3.

79$

11.5

5$

3.

58$

10.0

7$

3.

12$

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l Rev

enue

sV

ehic

le In

-Lie

u Fe

es--

----

----

Est

imat

ed in

Cas

e S

tudy

----

----

--O

ther

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l15

.84

$

4.91

$

18

.57

$

5.

76$

13.8

0$

4.

28$

12.5

8$

3.

90$

15.2

4$

4.

72$

Subt

otal

, Int

ergo

vern

men

tal

15.8

4$

4.

91$

18

.57

$

5.76

$

13

.80

$

4.28

$

12.5

8$

3.

90$

15

.24

$

4.72

$

Cha

rges

for S

ervi

ces

12.2

0$

3.

78$

14.9

5$

4.64

$

16

.41

$

5.09

$

15

.61

$

4.84

$

13

.02

$

4.04

$

Oth

er R

even

ue5.

20$

1.61

$

4.

16$

1.29

$

1.

28$

0.40

$

0.

96$

0.30

$

3.

73$

1.15

$

6.65

$

2.

06$

11

.02

$

3.42

$

16

.53

$

5.13

$

8.71

$

2.

70$

10

.68

$

3.31

$

TOTA

L G

ENER

AL

FUN

D99

.67

$

57.6

0$

10

7.91

$

69.7

3$

10

7.51

$

68

.68

$

94.9

0$

59

.61

$

97.7

6$

58

.21

$

PU

BLI

C S

AFE

TY T

AX

FU

ND

Pub

lic S

afet

y S

ales

Tax

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

GA

S T

AX

FU

ND

Gas

Tax

es17

.72

$

-$

8.48

$

-

$

15.1

1$

-

$

14

.40

$

-$

17.2

8$

-

$

CFD

NO

. 200

7-1

(PU

BLI

C S

AFE

TY S

ER

VIC

ES

)S

peci

al T

axes

----

----

--E

stim

ated

in C

ase

Stu

dy--

----

----

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

SE

RV

ICE

S F

UN

DR

even

ues

24.7

2$

7.

66$

16.8

1$

5.21

$

14

.72

$

4.56

$

20

.55

$

6.37

$

40

.42

$

12.5

3$

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G &

PU

BLI

C W

OR

KS

FU

ND

Rev

enue

s16

.24

$

5.03

$

9.

32$

2.89

$

15

.13

$

4.69

$

14

.88

$

4.61

$

24

.16

$

7.49

$

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le F

Y 2

004-

2011

Ado

pted

Bud

gets

.

1 Cos

ts p

er c

apita

repr

esen

t the

ave

rage

cos

ts o

f ser

vice

per

cap

ita fo

r FY

2004

-FY

2011

. Fig

ures

for F

Y20

04-F

Y20

09 a

re b

udge

t act

uals

; fig

ures

for F

Y20

09-2

010

are

proj

ecte

d, a

nd F

Y20

10-2

011

are

adop

ted

budg

et v

alue

s.

8 Ye

ar A

vera

ge

Not

e:

FY 2

007-

2008

FY 2

008-

2009

FY 2

009-

2010

FY 2

010-

2011

Page A-21

Tabl

e A

3: P

rope

rty

Tax

Allo

catio

n, E

stim

ated

Allo

catio

n08

4-01

0P

re-A

nnex

atio

n08

4-01

0P

ost-A

nnex

atio

nA

nnex

atio

n N

otes

ERA

F Sh

ift

Age

ncy

Pre-

ERA

FC

ount

y G

ener

al F

und

0.26

6784

0.18

6749

Cou

nty

split

s G

en F

und

with

City

; Cou

nty

keep

s 70

%

Cou

nty

Sup

erin

tend

ent o

f Sch

ools

0.00

4371

0.00

4371

Cou

nty

Fire

Ser

vice

0.00

6255

0.00

6255

City

of O

akda

le G

ener

al F

und

0.00

0000

0.12

3090

City

sha

res

30%

Cou

nty

Gen

Fun

d &

10

0% O

akda

le F

ire

Oak

dale

Fire

Dis

trict

0.04

3055

0.00

0000

Oak

dale

Fire

tran

sfer

s to

City

Eas

tsid

e M

osqu

ito A

bate

men

t0.

0090

080.

0090

08O

akda

le Ir

rigat

ion

0.07

2932

0.07

2932

Oak

dale

Uni

fied

Sch

ool D

istri

ct0.

4593

400.

4593

40Y

osem

ite C

omm

unity

Col

lege

0.07

8117

0.07

8117

Cou

nty

Sch

ools

0.02

8271

0.02

8271

Sch

ools

-Equ

aliz

atio

n A

id0.

0203

070.

0203

07S

choo

ls-T

uitio

n0.

0115

600.

0115

60O

akda

le R

edev

elop

men

t0.

0000

000.

0000

00TO

TAL

1.00

0000

1.00

0000

Age

ncy

Post

-ER

AF

Cou

nty

Gen

eral

Fun

d0.

1202

660.

0841

86-5

4.92

%C

ount

y S

uper

inte

nden

t of S

choo

ls0.

0043

710.

0043

710.

00%

Cou

nty

Fire

Ser

vice

0.00

5803

0.00

5803

-7.2

3%C

ity o

f Oak

dale

Gen

eral

Fun

d0.

0000

000.

0847

45-3

1.15

%O

akda

le F

ire D

istri

ct0.

0315

280.

0000

00-2

6.77

%E

asts

ide

Mos

quito

Aba

tem

ent

0.00

8163

0.00

8163

-9.3

8%O

akda

le Ir

rigat

ion

0.07

2932

0.07

2932

0.00

%O

akda

le U

nifie

d S

choo

l Dis

trict

0.45

9340

0.45

9340

0.00

%Y

osem

ite C

omm

unity

Col

lege

0.07

8117

0.07

8117

0.00

%C

ount

y S

choo

ls0.

0282

710.

0282

710.

00%

Sch

ools

-Equ

aliz

atio

n A

id0.

0203

070.

0203

070.

00%

Sch

ools

-Tui

tion

0.01

1560

0.01

1560

0.00

%O

akda

le R

edev

elop

men

t0.

0000

000.

0000

000.

00%

ER

AF

0.15

9342

0.14

2205

TOTA

L1.

0000

001.

0000

00

Sou

rce:

Sta

nisl

aus

Cou

nty

Aud

itor-

Con

trolle

r

Page A-22

Tabl

e A

4: C

FD N

o. 2

007-

1 (P

ublic

Saf

ety

Serv

ices

) Rev

enue

Use

Tax

Rat

eU

nits

Ann

ual

Rev

enue

sU

nits

Ann

ual

Rev

enue

s

Res

iden

tial U

ses

Ver

y Lo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l$4

51.6

987

39,2

97$

8739

,297

$

Lo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l$4

51.6

936

316

3,96

3

15

067

,754

M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

entia

l/Fle

x U

se$4

51.6

923

310

5,24

4

17

378

,142

H

igh

Den

sity

Res

iden

tial

$301

.12

173

52,0

94

173

52,0

94

Tota

l85

636

0,59

8$

58

323

7,28

7$

Sou

rce:

City

of O

akda

le

Entir

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an A

rea

(Incl

. NC

C F

utur

e Ph

ase)

SPSP

Excl

udin

g N

CC

Fut

ure

Sier

ra P

oint

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an

Page A-23

Tabl

e A

5: S

ales

and

Use

Tax

Ass

umpt

ions

Bas

ic S

ales

Tax

Rat

e (in

clud

es p

rope

rty ta

x in

-lieu

of s

ales

tax)

1.00

%C

ount

ywid

e an

d S

tate

wid

e P

oole

d S

ales

Tax

Rev

enue

as

a P

erce

ntag

e of

Bas

ic S

ales

Tax

Rat

e11

.21%

Cou

nty'

s S

hare

of O

akda

le's

Sal

es T

ax R

even

ue5.

00%

Pub

lic S

afet

y (P

rop.

172

) Sal

es T

ax R

ate

0.50

%P

erce

nt o

f Pub

lic S

afet

y S

ales

Tax

Rev

enue

Allo

cate

d to

City

0.40

%

Taxa

ble

Sal

esG

ener

al C

omm

erci

al -

Ret

ail (

per I

mpr

oved

Squ

are

Foot

)$2

50G

ener

al C

omm

erci

al -

Oth

er (p

er Im

prov

ed S

quar

e Fo

ot)

$5Fl

ex U

se/G

en. C

omm

erci

al (p

er Im

prov

ed S

quar

e Fo

ot)

$5O

ffice

(per

Impr

oved

Squ

are

Foot

)$5

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le; C

ount

y of

Sta

nisl

aus;

Sta

te B

oard

of E

qual

izat

ion;

ULI

; Goo

dwin

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

.

Page A-24

Tabl

e A

6: S

ales

Tax

Ana

lysi

s

Ent

ire S

peci

ficP

lan

Are

a(In

cl. N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

)

SP

SP

Exc

ludi

ng N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

Non

-Res

iden

tial T

axab

le S

ales

Gen

eral

Com

mer

cial

- R

etai

l$4

5,60

7,25

0$4

5,60

7,25

0G

ener

al C

omm

erci

al -

Oth

er$9

12,1

45$9

12,1

45Fl

ex U

se/G

en. C

omm

erci

al$1

,231

,010

$1,2

31,0

10O

ffice

$1,3

43,3

90$6

67,7

75To

tal T

axab

le S

ales

$49,

093,

795

$48,

418,

180

Dire

ct S

ales

and

Use

Tax

$466

,391

$459

,973

Cou

ntyw

ide

and

Stat

ewid

e Po

oled

Sal

es T

ax$5

2,29

7$5

1,57

7Pu

blic

Saf

ety

(Pro

p. 1

72) S

ales

Tax

$976

$962

Sou

rce:

Goo

dwin

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

.

Sier

ra P

oint

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an

Page A-25

Tabl

e A

7: P

rope

rty

Tran

sfer

Tax

Rev

enue

Item

Ent

ire S

peci

ficP

lan

Are

a(In

cl. N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

)

SP

SP

Exc

ludi

ng N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

Tota

l Ass

esse

d V

alue

(Res

iden

tial)

A22

1,22

0,00

0$

142,

920,

000

$

A

vera

ge P

rope

rty H

oldi

ng P

erio

d (y

ears

)B

10

10

C =

A /

B22

,122

,000

$

14,2

92,0

00$

Tota

l Ass

esse

d V

alue

(Non

-Res

iden

tial)

D17

5,94

7,60

0$

148,

923,

000

$

A

vera

ge P

rope

rty H

oldi

ng P

erio

d (y

ears

)E

20

20

F =

D /

E8,

797,

380

$

7,44

6,15

0$

Ann

ual A

ppra

ised

Val

ue o

f Tra

nsfe

rred

Pro

perty

G =

C +

F30

,919

,380

$

21,7

38,1

50$

P

rope

rty T

rans

fer T

ax R

ate

- City

Sha

re1

H0.

055%

0.05

5%

Prop

erty

Tra

nsfe

r Tax

Rev

enue

, Ann

ual

I = G

x H

17,0

00$

12

,000

$

Not

e: T

otal

s ha

ve b

een

roun

ded.

Sou

rces

: City

of O

akda

le; G

oodw

in C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

1 P

rope

rty T

rans

fer T

ax ra

te is

$0.

55 p

er $

500

sale

s va

lue.

Rev

enue

is s

plit

even

ly b

etw

een

City

and

Cou

nty.

Thi

s re

sults

in

reve

nue

to th

e C

ity o

f 0.0

55 p

erce

nt o

f sal

es p

rice.

Sier

ra P

oint

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an

Page A-26

Tabl

e A

8: P

rope

rty

Tax

In-L

ieu

of V

ehic

le L

icen

se F

ee R

even

ues

Ent

ire S

peci

ficP

lan

Are

a(In

cl. N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

)

SP

SP

Exc

ludi

ng N

CC

Futu

re P

hase

Pro

perty

Tax

In-L

ieu

of V

LFTo

tal E

xist

ing

City

Net

Ass

esse

d V

alue

(FY

201

1-12

)1,

565,

511,

526

$

1,56

5,51

1,52

6$

C

ityw

ide

VLF

Pro

perty

Tax

In-li

eu R

even

ue (F

Y 2

011-

12)

1,18

3,14

5

1,

183,

145

VLF

Prop

erty

Tax

In-li

eu P

er $

1000

Ass

esse

d Va

lue

0.76

$

0.

76$

Gro

wth

in A

sses

sed

Valu

e39

7,16

7,60

0$

291,

843,

000

$

Prop

erty

Tax

In-L

ieu

of V

LF R

even

ue30

1,84

7$

221,

801

$

Not

e: F

igur

es ro

unde

d w

here

app

ropr

iate

.

Sou

rces

: Cou

nty

of S

tani

slau

s; G

oodw

in C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

Sier

ra P

oint

e Sp

ecifi

c Pl

an

Page A-27

APPENDIX 3

INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Page A-28

Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costfor

Existing Communities within the Sierra Pointe Specific Plan

Oakdale, CA

Specific Plan-Phase: SIERRA POINTE - RESIDENTIAL

Community Name: TWILDO AVE AND SEAMAN DRIVE

Residential Street 2,462 LFCURB & GUTTER 5,610 LF $13 $72,930ASPHALT PAVING SECTION (3.5") 2182 TN $90.00 $196,380CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE SECTION (6") 3741 CY $56.00 $209,496STREET LIGHTING 8 EA $5,000 $41,033

$519,839

Water10" C900 PVC PIPE 560 LF $35 $19,600

10" VALVES 3 EA $1,750 $5,250FIRE HYDRANTS 2 EA $3,500 $7,000TEMP TRENCH PATCH 600 SF $1.30 $780

$32,630

Sewer8" SDR 26 PIPE 3,461 LF $35 $121,135SEWER MANHOLE 15 EA $4,000 $60,000SEWER LATERAL 50 EA $1,000 $50,000TEMP TRENCH PATCH 13,844 SF $1.30 $17,997

$249,132

Storm12" SDR 35 PIPE 790 LF $40 $31,60018" RCP 373 LF $45 $16,785DRYWELL 3 EA $8,000 $24,000

DRAINAGE INLET 12 EA $1,500 $18,000STORM MANHOLE 5 EA $4,000 $20,000TEMP TRENCH PATCH 5,000 SF $1.30 $6,500

$116,885

Total $918,487Unit Cost per Street Foot 373.07$

Note: The estimate shown below was prepared to provide probable construction costs associated with annexing

the named community into the City of Oakdale. It is assumed that annexation will require improvements (sewer,

water, streets, etc) to meet current City of Oakdale Standards. Please see the attached exhibit for an illustration of

the improvements assumed to be required.

Prepared by Giuliani Kull, Inc.

11/6/2012 Page 1 of 1

Page A-29

Page A-30

Documents

MAY 2013 - LAFCOSPSP Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis 4 May 28, 2013 P ROJECT S CENARIOS At the time of approval of the SPSP, the North County Corridor (NCC) was in its planning