HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04011997 - C114-C119 - - - C., I !4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCol ra
/ Cost..
FROM: Supervisor Joe Canciamilla, District V ^A, ,,�y ,
DATE: April 1, 1997 County
SUBJECT: state Route 4 East Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) /Project Study
Report
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Refer to the Transportation Committee a progress report from the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority on the Major Investment
Study/Project Study Report for the State Route 4 East Corridor now
under preparation.
FISCAL IMPACT
No impact to the County General Fund.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has initiated a
Major Investment Study/Project Study Report for the State Route 4
East Corridor. The purpose of this effort is to define a
transportation investment strategy for the State Route 4 East
Corridor. The preparation of the MIS/PSR is a collaborative
planning effort involving both the local jurisdictions,
state/regional agencies, and stakeholder groups. CCTA staff has
offered to provide a progress report to the Board of Supervisors.
This progress report should be referred to the Transportation
Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES AT RE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
o0'�E OF SUPERVISORS
// I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT�r. TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD (335-1242) ATTESTED Clo.0 � ( , iQ9 J
cc: Community Development PHI BATC ELOR, CLERK OF
D. Dennis, CCTA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
i ,
SDK:\mis-psr.bo B , DEPUTY
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Costa
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
'
DATE: April 1, 1997 County
SUBJECT: Refer proposed FY 1998 Budget and increase in annual dues for the West
Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee to the Transportation
Committee
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) 6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Refer the proposed FY 1998 Budget and proposed dues increase for
the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee to the
Transportation Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT
No impact to the General Fund. The County's annual dues
contribution to maintain the West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee are paid with Measure C Return-to Source Funds.
The dues are proposed to increase from $9, 500. 00 in FY 1997 to
$13, 804 . 00 in FY 1998 (45% increase) .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A draft FY 1998 operating budget for the West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) was presented to the
WCCTAC Board at their February 28th meeting. The WCCTAC budget,
which is adopted annually by April 30 (as required by the Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement) , is supported by dues annually
collected from its member agencies. Contra Costa County under the
JEPA annually contributes 10% to the operating budget.
Since the FY 1998 Budget is proposed to be increased, Contra Costa
County's dues for FY 1998 would also be increased to $13 ,804 .
The Transportation Committee should review and consider the WCCTAC
budget for FY 1998 and the proposed increase in dues for Contra
Costa County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON ril 1, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT V TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD (335-1242) ATTESTED April 1. 1997
cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
L. Hogeboom, WCCTAC THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SDK:\gbubo.397 BYy . ��� , DEPUTY
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ra
FROM: SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER
DISTRICT IZI
Costa
DATE: APRIL 1, 1997 County
SUBJECT: TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE
RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & .BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFER to the Transportation Committee the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council Draft Traffic Development Fee Resolution and Nexus Study
(Exhibit "A") .
FISCAL IMPACT
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) is requesting from
each member jurisdiction $3 , 000 to finalize any further
documentation on an as-needed basis to implement a Traffic
Development Fee in the Tri-Valley Area.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 26, 1997, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) ,
approved the distribution of Exhibit "A" to the County as well as
to the other TVTC jurisdictions for review and comment. The TVTC
has requested that these comments express any changes both in
language and policies reflecting a Traffic Development Fee package
the County could approve. The TVTC has requested that all the TVTC
jurisdictions forward their comments before April 23 , 1997 . These
comments will serve as the basis for developing a Joint Exercise
Powers Agreement (JEPA) . The TVTC, after incorporating the
comments, will redistribute the package, which will include a Draft
JEPA, for each TVTC jurisdiction to approve in implementing the
Traffic Development Fee Program in the Tri-Valley Area.
I have concerns about this fee proposal and have discussed them
with representatives of Danville, and San Ramon to coordinate our
response to the TVTC. I would like the assistance of staff,
working through the Transportation Committee, to develop , a
recommendation to the Board on this trans
p tation ee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE /
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 1, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Dan Pulon, CDD, (510/335-1241) ATTESTED April 1, 1997
cc: Community Development, PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Transportation Planning THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AND�NTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department, y
Transportation Engineering BYe . , DEPUTY
DJP\aw
A:\misc:\fee.bo
EXHIBIT A
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
Traffic Engineering
P. O. Box 520 - 200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
March 12, 1997
Donna Gerber
Supervisor Tri-Valley Jurisdictions
Contra Costa County
(W)820-8683 Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Scott Haggerty _
Supervisor The attached package is the culmination of many years work by your
Alame
(W)272-6691 representatives to Tri-Valley Transportation Council ( VTQ, your staff
representatives and several consultants. We are asking that you one more
Millie Greenberg, time confirm your commitment to implementing transportation development
Councilmember fees for regional transportation needs. -
Danvillc
837-3231 The attached information is the MC recommended projects, proposed fee
Guy Houston rates and some overall policy used to guide the drafting of a Joint Exercise of
Mayor Powers Agreement (TEPA) to administer the project implementation. The
Dublin MC has held two workshops and public meetings to obtain_ public
(W)828-3337
(H)928-2152 comment and specific reaction from the building industry. Their comments
have been useful in reshaping the proposal and while the proposal will not
Sharrell Michelotti be all things to every interest,—we believe it-moves us reasonably closer to
Councilmember
Pleasanton our charge of developing a Tri-Valley Transportation system which can better
(W)462-2419 serve both existing and future development in the Tri-Valley in an equitable
Tom Reitter, fashion.
Councilmember
Livermore Process Suggested
(W)422-Mg
(H)443-3326
MC believes that the most expeditious process will require each
Hermann Welm, jurisdiction to review the current proposal and let us know of any fatal flaws
Via Mayor which you believe must be corrected for the fee proposal to be acceptable to
San Ramon,CA
(W)262-4946 your jurisdiction. In addition to these comments we also ask that you
(H)838-8261 appoint a legal counsel to assist in developing a common language for the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee ordinance and JEPA agreement to
be adopted by all jurisdictions once any needed revisions are determined by
consensus. The attached East Contra Costa County Regional Fee and
Financing Authority )EPA is a starting point. The third action would be to
appropriate an additional $3000 which will be used, if needed, to finalize
any further documentation which MC and your legal staff believes must be
done to implement the fees.
I
I
March 11, 1997 -2-
Given the current accelerated rate of development, we believe that time is of the essence
as not only is our transportation system showing the signs of overcapacity, but the
opportunity to have new development help pay.for their impacts is fast diminishing as we
approach buildout in many of our jurisdictions. We suggest that if at all possible you return
your comments to us for our April 23, 1997 meeting so that we may resolve any issues
presented and be able to return to each jurisdiction a revised fee proposal for adoption in
May. We know that this is an ambitious schedule, however, we also know how things can
slip if not diligently pursued.
Critical Issues:
Projects to be Funded:
1. 1-580/1-680 interchange
2. State Route 84
Jack London to Concannon
1-580 Interchange
Vallecitos to 1-680
3. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
4. 1-680 HOV Lanes - Route 84 (Highway 84 to Top of Sunol Grade)
5. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Bollinger to Diablo)
Fee rate -
A fee rate has been proposed to accomplish the top five projects. (Table 1) It is trip based
for land use types. We believe it is the best starting point given the regional nature of our
funded facilities. The MC has examined the use of AM, PM and average traffic
generation rates and recommends the use of the "average".
Initial Project Priorities and Cash Flow
While the fee is set to fund all five projects, cash flow and the lack of bonding ability will
mandate that the projects be phased over the life of the fee. Land use projections are done
to year 2010. The TVTC recommends that the first call for funds be to the 1-580/1-680
Flyover, with a second priority jointly to the Isabel Highway 84 Measure "B" local project
and completion of the environmental and preliminary design work for the remaining
projects. TVTC recommends that no more than 25% of any one year's revenue should go
toward environmental or design activities, which then places the emphasis on
construction. Periodic review of fee structure and priority will determine the priority of the
remaining projects at a later date when additional information and EIR documents are
completed.
z
P 1
March 11, 1997 -3-
Agreement To Seek Additional Funds And Carry Over Any Extra Money To Other Priority
Tri-Valley Projects.
There are limited avenues to obtain any additional funds for our needed projects. These
include sales tax measures and enactment of some new regional or state gas tax.
Projections of the likely amount of any such funds available to Tri-Valley indicates that an
ongoing Development fee will be required. Our Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
as mutually adopted, should serve as the Tri-Valley's official position on need and
allocation of discretionary funds for regional improvements. It is anticipated that even with
the development fees that need will outpace our ability to deliver improvements in some
areas.
Fee Exemptions
The handling of projects with existing exemptions is clear cut, however, the modifications
of development agreements without requirement to conform to the MC Fee Rate is at
issue. Another specific exemption, for public facilities, must also be resolved.
Agreement to include costs of future Plan updates and fee administration in the fee rate
Fee schedules and cost estimates will change over time as will projections of Tri-Valley
development an expenditure of 1% for administration and traffic model updates is
recommended. The cost of any administration and Traffic Model update up to 1 % of
revenues should be included within the fee schedule.
Draft Resolution
The draft resolution is provided for review as it contains many of the issues discussed by
the TVTC. Other background material is also furnished.
We would appreciate comments be as specific as possible as we hope to resolve any fatal
flaws quickly and return these documents in their final form after our April 23, 1997
meeting.
Sincerely,
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION.COUNCIL
0q. 'E. ZOelm'4'9
Hermann Welm
Chair
Attachments: Resolution
Nexus Study
3
I '
March 1997
DRAFT TVTC RESOLUTION
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY
WHEREAS; Each Tri-Valley Jurisdiction has adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
Action Plan (TVTPAP) and agreed to pursue the joint adoption of Transportation
Development Fees and. —
WHEREAS; the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has been constituted to plan and
assist in the funding of such a plan and,
WHEREAS; Certain mutually agreed to policies must be adhered to by each of the Tri-Valley
jurisdictions if an equitable Fee Program is to be enacted by each jurisdiction.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT; The following policies are proposed as part of
the "Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Proposal":
1) Each jurisdiction shall adopt their own version of the "Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee", (TVTDF), in substantially the same language as each of the other
jurisdictions, including the 5 priority projects shown on Attachment A.
2) That the initial fee rates shall be as in Attachment B.
3) The changes in any jurisdiction's "Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee" shall not
be done unilaterally and will entail comprehensive review by each of the Tri-Valley
Jurisdictions in terms of equity and impact of the changes on the completion of those
stated projects contemplated to be funded by the TVTDF.
4) That a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) will be formed to cover the
establishment and administration by a member agency of the fees. The fees shall be
deposited into a common fund to be administered according to financial guidelines as
unanimously adopted by all of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
5) That the first call on the fee funds will be to reimburse any moneys advanced by member
jurisdictions to complete the highest priority project on the approved Project list, and then
to the next highest priority project.
6) Reimbursement of funds advanced by member jurisdictions shall include interest fixed at
five percent.
7) That the TVTDF rates shall be based on the average of AM and PM peak hour trips and
land use categories and be uniform across all jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley.
f
r ,
1 e
8) That member jurisdictions currently collecting development fees for projects listed in
TVTDF will revise their local fees to delete those projects and enact the TVTDF.
9) That the fees will be adjusted at least every.five years, or as needed, to take into account
the most recent project cost estimates, rates of development, project priorities and
external funding commitments. Each update shall also include a financial plan, include
cash flow and project estimates.
10) That fee rates will automatically adjust annually as indicated by the construction cost
index published in Engineering News Record.
11) That additional projects may be added by unanimous vote of all TVTC jurisdictions, to
the TVTDF "Funded Projects List" from the most recent adopted TVTPAP provided that
the fee rate and cash flow can accommodate the added project(s) as well as the currently
funded projects.
12) Tri-Valley jurisdictions agree to mutually seek external funding for all priority projects
and, if successful, support the carryover of any excess funds for implementation of the
priority project(s)next in line.
13) That each jurisdiction shall levy the TVTDF on all development not legally precluded
from the fee, and that any development agreements which replace or supersede
agreements shall include the TVTDF requirement.
14) That TVTC may adopt exemption rules, by unanimous agreement. (i.e. low income
housing,or other public needs).
15) That each jurisdiction appropriate $3,000 additional funds for the implementation of
TVTDF to be reimbursed by future TVTDF funds.
tvtc\feres397.sam.sm
updated 3/11/97
F
J r 01 o o w v w
~ Z r hle N NDN
V D W Y!W40)-tl!H r
ul O
O
� Q
d W -
W W
W LL
LL
F
Wr rno0 oV (D 0
IL J Z �� N �6r9 EN9
O LL Zv).
W �O
73
J_
Q W N �
H
Z Z y
O Za
_ ~ 000
Q H H 0O
_o
Q Op U)
d = F 0 rn
Zc� Q H c
Q = d C m ° O
IM 00
Fes- U ca= � p °° tn
—
uj
W � o Q =g
co
Q 0 o J � LL Z v
aJ -i 2? age
LL d
F ms ¢ -1 a
0 Clm
1n CO OD CC)
c4 co O
6
ATTACHMENT "B"
PROPOSED TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
FEE SCHEDULE
BASED ON A.M./P.M.
LAND USE CATEGORY AVERAGE
Single Family $2582 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family $1555 per dwelling unit
Retail (<200ksf) $1.15 per square foot
Retail (>200ksft) $1.38 per square foot
Office $3.82 per square foot
Industrial $2.78 per square foot
� r
Tri-Valley Regional Transportation
Improvement Fee Program
Nexus Analysis
■ Introduction
In July 1995, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council MVM adopted the Tri-Valley Action
Plan as its blueprint for transportation planning through the year 2010. The Plan
acknowledges that financial constraints played a critical role in selecting an optimal level
of service and idendying only the most critical improvement to regional roadways and
transit facilities. As an integral component of the plan's financial strategy, TVTC will
leverage over$162 million in federal,state,and local(Le.,Measure C and Measure B sales
tax funding)provided it can raise matching funds from other local sources.
The MC selected 11 Improvements that will require over 5534 million, leaving $366
million of the plan currently unftmded In order to fund this gap, the TVPC has
undertaken a study of a Regional Transportation Improvement Fee (RTIF). The RTIF
would charge a fee on new development to augment other funding for projects on routes
of regional significance. The purpose of this report is to document the technical analysis
necessary for the implementation of the RTIF traffic V
■ MethodoIogy
An area-wide fee program must conform to the requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq. and subsequent opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme
Court, and lower courts. While the statutes and court decisions provide general
guidelines, the design and implementation of multi-jurisdictional impact fees is not as
tightly circumscribed as other local revenue measures (e g., assessment districts, local
sales tax measures, subdivision map/developer exactions). Nevertheless, the statutory
requirements and judicial guidance behooves the TVEC to follow a basic five step process
to design its regional fee:
1. Convert New Development Into A Net Increment of New Trips.ABAG's Ptvjations
94 provides the forecast of new residents and employees moving into the TH-Valley
area over the next 20 years.This projection of resideuutial and employment growth in
each jurisdiction most be converted to a 13 year increment of new trip generation
(1997 to 2020). This increment must then be reduced by the number of trips
associated with enrmpt developmerrL Exempt development has already received a
vesting tentative map or has a development agreement excluding assessment of
additional fees.
Cm*ndge SpU mahm Ire 1
S
�. . il....t. • . t 1• Y Y • �•
• � • 1
. .Y. ..
i t i. t J• •.
1 1 • f � - • Y .• - t -
1 • ♦ . 1.• t t • • i .
• ♦ . t ♦ � J
• 1 • • • I • Y !I • J r I. rill 1•
! I: .
•I • •• w • I - • • • • .
w • ! .1 ' !
• A yt . 1 5 1
r t i •i '.
. 1 � r.�
! Y - i s t - f ! ! - i! • •�.Yt
• - • . - • t r r. •
. • _.• • ♦ •• i � t r • w
t - • • ♦ J _ f f • - f fl
Y
- • •! • • - • • r r. • •
- � - i s • i N •f r • _ � t
a i. • ' v • Y •� rr 1
• . w • • •• • ! ti - t • !
.1 • u ! . - 4 � s • ala.
'1 tli/
u a.I a . .1 . • _
. • . . a u oi.t. ! 1
Table 1. ABAG Forecast of Trl-Valley Households
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Incremerrt Shares Growth
Alamo/Blsckhawk 7,148 7,906 758 1.7% 10.6%
Danville 12.943 14,790 1,847 4.0% 143%
Dougherty 2,224 10,356 8,132 17.8% 365.6%
Tassajara 168 280 112 02% 67.1%
San Ramon 15077 1841 3,334 73% 223%
Other Contra Costa Co. 697 845 148 03% 213%
Total Contra Costa Co. 38.256 52388 14.332 313% 37.5%
Livermore 24291 34,997 10,706 23.4% 441%
Pleasanton 21.277 30,151 8.874 19.4% 41.7%
Dublin 9,372 20380 11,508 25.2% 122.8%
Other Alameda Co. 240 549 309 0.7% 129.1%
Total Alameda Co. 55.180 86,577 31397 68.7% 56.9%
Total Tri Valley 93,436 139,165 45.729 100.0% 48.9%
As shown in Table 1,residential development in Alameda County will accommodate over
two-thirds of the area's residential development Dougherty Valley, the area's fastest
growing community, will account for almost 18 percent of the area's new residents.
Dublin and the unincorporated area of Alameda County are the new two most rapidly
developing jurisdictions and will account for 26 percent of the growth.
Table 2 shows that the three jurisdictions in Alameda County will accoanmodate more
than three-quarters of the Tri-Valley's employment growth. Total employment for the
region is expected to increase by over 57 percent, with total jobs in the Contra Costa
County inrreaung by more than 42 percent and in Alameda County by 64 percent
Table 2. ABAG Forecast of TriValley Employment Growth from 1997 to 2010
Jurisdiction 19V 2010 Increment Shares Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 2„072 2.272 200 03% 9.7%
Danville 61960 7,226 266 03% 32%
Dougherty 765 5,365 4,600 60% 601.3%
Tassxjara 31 32 1 0.0% 32%
San Ramon 32397 45,204 12.807 16.7% 39.5%
Other Contra Costa Co. 91 92 1 OA% 1.1%
Total Contra Costa Co. 42315 60,191 17,876 23.4% 42.2%
Livermore 33,811 Sims 18,004 233% 53.2%
Pleasant= 40,137 611476 21339 27.9% 532%
Dublin 16,836 36000 191164 250% 113.8%
Other Alameda Co. 791 943 152 02% 192%
Total Alameda Co. 91,576 150.234 58.658 76.6% 641%
Total Tri-Valley 193,891 21045 76,534 1000% 572%
Cambridge Sysumahm Inc. 3
10
Population and employment growth will generate and attract new trips on the area's
regional roadways. The socio-economic projections shown in Tables 1 and 2 are used in a
transportation demand forecasting model developed specifically for the Tri-Valley area to
forecast the increase in travel. The results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.
Trip Generation
Table 3 presents the a.m. peak-hour traffic volumes for the years 1997, 2010, and the
growth within the 14 year htcreoten t. The projections assume all 11 Action Plan projects
are built
Table 3. Growth in AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 2997 to=0
1997 2020 laaement Share Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 6,$57 7,604 753 1.3% I1Ax
Danville 15,516 16,471 953 1.7% 6.1%
Daugherty 3,572 11,6$3 $,2I2 143% 227.1%
Tassajana 160 233 73 0.1% 45A%
San Ramon 23,336 25,179 1,$43 32% 7.9%
Other Contra Casts County 519 695 176 0.3% 34.0%
Total Cancra Costa County 49,%2 61,$70 11,908 20.9% 23.8%
Livermore 37,$74 52,917 15AW 26A% 39.7%
Ptessanwn 36,369 4904 13,315 23.4% 36.6%
Dublin 28,$22 35,145 16,323 28.7% $6.7%
Other Alameda County 575 893 318 0.6% 553%
Total Alameda County 93.640 13$.b39 44L9W 79.1% 48.1%
TOWTrl-Valley 143AM 200.509 56,907 100.0% 39A%
The total increment of 56,907 new trips encompass all trips that either onsa to or
terminate in tate Tri-Valley area. In addition, the area will accommodate roughly 5,530
new through trip ends(external-external),or roughly 10 percent of the total isaease.
Exempt Development
The total inerenunt of new trip generation (from 1997 to 2010) includes trips from new
development that will be exempt from paying a fee. Their exemption is due to either once
of t
wo legal criteria applying to a develapate:tt project that has (1)) Leen issued a vested
ofth
tive map or (2) completed a deveIopatent a�eement that explicitly excludes assess-
of ar►y additional fees.' If either o these asteria apply to a developaunt pzo�ect as
official date first the jurisdiction's council or board adopt the RIg, the developer
pull the proscribed number of building permits without gaping a fee
r M for arty neawn the vesting tentative map or developmamt agreement of an exempt development
expires or must be re-negotiated,the jurisdiction may impose the fee.
CAUNWIs S txc 4
Ir
� I
While the transportation impacts of exempt development will be as real as the impacts
from non-exempt development,the TVTC cannot impose a fee and therefor cannot collect
fee revenues for the proposed projects. Thus,we must subtract the number of new trsps
generated by exempt development from the total increment of new trips, The result is the
net amount of new trips over which we can allocated the unfunded cost of the selected
improvements.
Table 4 shows the exempt development in the Tri-Valley area.
Table 4. Exempt Development By Jurisdiction
Residential Retail Square Owe Square Industrial
Jurisdiction Dwelling Units Feet Feet Square Feet
Alamo/Blackhawk -
Danvilie - .
Dougherty - - - -
TVPOA -
San Ramon 650 • 2,123.600 -
Other Tri-Valley CC County - - -
Total Contra Costs Co. 650 2123,600
Livermore 1,414 - 4,961,000
Pleasanton 2790
Dublin 172
Other Tri-Valley Alameda County - -
Total Alameda Co. 4,376 - 4,961,000
Total Tri-Valley 5,026 ' af- 2123.600 4,961,000
The exempt development shown in Table 4 is subtracted from the total 1997 to 2010
increment of new development in Tri-Valley. The projection of new development for Tri-
Valley is a rough estimate based on the ABAG forecasts. Average
vacancy rates are used to convert households to dwelling units. Average density factors
are used to covert employees to square feet of retail. office and industrial spare. The
results are shown in Table 5.
CA=bndre Spt meein,Ina 5
Ir-
s r
1 r.
Table& Estimates of New Development for Tri-Valley(1997—2010)
1997-2020
Land Use Catetrories Increment
single Family Dwelling Unit 34,597
Multi Family Dwelling Unit 6,105
Small Retail Square feet(QOOA00 sq.ft.) 8,848,040
Large Retail Square Feet(>200M sq.ft) 2,949,347
Office Square Feet 9.152,200
Industrial Square Feet 5396,500
For each category of land use exempt development was converted into trips and the
amount deducted from the total number of trips for that land use. For example, a vested
project with twenty dwelling unit of single family residential would generate 0.74 a.ar.
peak hour trips per unit or a total of 14.8 a.m. peak hour trips. The results of this
adjustment process are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Total,Exempt,and Net AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
Total Trip Ends Exempt Trip Ends NN Trip Ends
Alamo/Blackhawk 753 0 753
Danville 953 0 953
Dougherty 81121 0 81111
Tasaajare 73 0 73
San Ramon IAA 689 2,254
Other Contra Costa Co. 176 0 176
Livermore&North Livermore 15A43 3x57 11,286
Pleasanton 13315 2093 11.722
Dublin&East Duhlm 16324 122 16,201
Other Alameda Co. 318 0 318
Total 56,907 6,661 50,246
The appropriate trip generation rates are applied to the exempt development in order to
estimate the number of new trips that most be deducted frout the total me ementr The
total number of trips from exempt residential development equals roughly 3,500 a.m
pails trips, or about 56 percent of the total 6,661 exempt trips. Non wsidential develop-
ment will generate the remaining"percent. These estimates are deducted from the total
a The hip generation rates are determined from the Trig Cknentem,5th Edition,Institute of Traffic
Engineers (Up and modified saaordatgg to special Tri-Valley conditions as determined from the
apdated traffic modet T1us+e rates are shown in Table 12.
Catabridge Sysi rmahm lac. 6
l3
MINOR
increment of 56,907 new trips,producing roughly 50,246 net trips that may be assigned a
share of the cost of improvements.
■ Transportation Improvements .
In July of 1995,TVTC adapted the Tri-Valley Thrnsportatran PIarrjAction Plum for Routes of
Regional Signzjimrux(Action Plan). The Action Plan identifies 11 projects that will achieve
the best level of service within the Tri--Valley given financial constraints, physical limita-
tions within corridors, and development pattems. The Plan integrates enhuucements to
roadway capacity,increased transit service,control of demand (growth management and
TDIA), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided (see Tlrc
Action Plan,pages 117 to 173).
Table 7 identities the 11 major projects on routes of regional significance within the Tri-
Valley. The TVTC selected this set of actions- as well as other programs and measures
described in the Pian- to mitigate congestion and achieve a specific set of Traffic Service
Objectives. These results assume that future traffic will be constrained by the limited
capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri Valley Gateways (see The Action Plan,
Chapter 5,"Gateway Constraints').
Table 7. Adson Plan Projects and Available Funding
Funding Unfunded
Project Total Cost Available Amount
I-580114M Interchange 5221.2 $211.1 $20.1
Route 84(includes interchanges at I-580 and Stanley) $223.0 $36.1 $176.9
I-680 Auxiliary Innes(Diablo Road to Bollinger Carryon) $40.0 $16.4 523.6
BART Extension:west Dublin station $43.0 $0.0 543.0
I-580 TassaWa to N.Livermore:HOV Lanes 540.0 $OA $40.0
I-680 Rte 84 to 5unok HOV Lanes $14.4 $0.0 $14.4
I-SBOJFoothrll Interchange modifications for W.Dublin BART no $0.0 S2.0
2.680IAkosta Interchange modifications $9A $23 $73
Crow Carryon Rd Safety Impraveme t $18.0 SO2 $27.8
Vasco Road Realigrmrent 575.0 $OA 525.0
Express Bus Service $8.0 $0.0 $8.0
Total Action Plan $534.2 $266.1 5368.1
The unfunded cost of all 11 Action Plan projects equals roughly$368 million in 1997 dol-
lars,or about 70 percent of the total cost.
After considerable technical analysis and careful consideration,the TVTC has determined
that a fee program designed to fund the full 3368 million shortfall would place an
excessive financial burden on new development This burden would be most severe on
low-irunme housing and commercial development For example, heavy fees on
C MbfWgc 5yrtarmao,lac. 7
ry
1
commercial development would have the probable- and counterproductive-
consequence of driving some job-creating development outside the Tri-Valley, thus
exacerbating the region's jobs/housing imbalanm
Given time objectives, the TVTC ranked the 11 projects according to their affect of con-
gestion and the amount of state and federal funding that could be leveraged using fee
revenues as a local match In order to facilitate this ranking,Route 84 was divided into six
separate projects. Each was then evaluated on its own merits and compared to the other
14 Action Plan projects. Table 8 presents the six highest-ranked proj MtL
Table S. Selected Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Funding Unfunded
Proiect Total Cost Available Amount
I-580/I-M k terchattge $I= $111.1 $10.1
Rte 84:I-S80/Isabel Ext.new I/C;Isabel at 4 lam $40.0 $QA $40.0
Rta 84/Isabel Ext:j.London to Concarmon&Iy80/Airway 532.0 528.1 $3.9
Rte 84:I-580 to Vineyard:widen to 4 lanes 525.0 $0.0 $15.0
I-680 Auxiliary Lanes(Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) $40.0 516.4 $23.6
BART Extension:weNDublinstatm $43.0 S0.0 $43.0
Total For All Six Projects 5309.2 $163.6 $144.6
As shown in Table 8, this short list of the highest ranked projects totals $309 million in
cost of which roughly $145.6 million- or about half- is unfunded. Thus, this short list
represents a 65 percent reduction in the unfunded cost TVTC intends to cover with the
impact fee.
Existing Local Impact Fees for Action Plan
Some Tri Valley jurisdictions require new development to mitigate their impacts on the
same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the Action Plan projects.
Developers either pay local impact fees,dedicate right-of-way,or consu act transportation
facilities Same jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six projects in their
local fee programs. In these cases,the TVTC will work with local jurisdictions to reduce
the local fee by the amount of the regional component and new development will pay the
full regional fee. Thus,the total amount being funded by the RTIF fee must be increased
by the amount of funding from local fees.
Table 9 presents an initial inventory of each jurisdiction's locally funded (or required)
imtprovememts to the six highest-ranked.projects.
CM*ndr Sys*mftm Inc. a
13'
Table 9. Local Funding for Selected Projects
Jurisdiction Millions of 1997
Dollars
Alamo/Blackhawk -
Danville (estimate) $0.7
Dougherty (estimate) $62
Tas"Wa
San Ramon (estimate) S 1.4
Other TV Contra Costa County (estimate) $0.1
Total Contra Costa Co. S&S
Livermore $7.5
Pleasanton -
Dublin -
*Other TV Alameda County -
Total Alameda Co. S 7S
Total Tri-Valley $16.0
The amounts shown in Table 9 for the fora jurisdictions fn Contra Costa County are
estimates of the Southern Contra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation. The estimates assumte
roughly proportional to the trip generation estimated frost each jurisdiction. As noted
above, the $16 million total in local fee revenue must be added to the $145.6 million in
unfunded cost The total amount to be funded with RTff, therefore, equals $161.6
million
■ Nexus Analysis
The impact of new Tri-Valley development on regional transportation facilities is based
on an update of the Tri-Valley Model completed by Dowling Associates (Tri-Valley Re-
Validation Report, June 1997). This computes model simulates current and future traffic
flaws on the roadway network ander a wide range of user-specified conditions. The
model is extremely useful for determining the impact of new development on roadway
levels-of-service. in particular,the model estimates new development's fair share of the
Action Flan improvements by isolating the effects of new development from those of
existirmg development,through(external-extenu4t)trips,and casting dem
This analysis indicated that this development will cause levels-Of-service to decline
despite all of the fmtprovemestts proposed in MTCs short and long r=ge unprovement
plan Not will the improvements to be funded as part of the Action Flan prevent
degradation's in leveis•of-service.
As part of its Action Flan,the TVTC has evaluated the impact of new development on its
subTegional system and identified numerous improvements. These imtpmvements- if all
were completed by the year 2020- will increase the area's capacity for vehicle miles of
cm*ridge Syxkmahm I= 9
1(,
travel (VMT) by almost 21 percent New development will hu:rcase the number of VMT
using this rapacity by 48 percent thus absorbing almost 99 percent of the new capacity.
VMT from through trips(Le.,trips travel through the area but not stopping) will irw:esse
16 percent. Of the total 254,281 increase in VMT, new development will account for 90
percent of the increases Table 10 presents the results of the VMT analysis in more detail.
Table= VMT Analysis from 1997 to 2010
1'997 2010 Increment Change
VMlforADTri-Valley 632756 8V.037 354,262 40.2%
VMT for Through Trips 151.087 176,167 24,280 15.9%
VMT for Intu al Tri-Valley 480,769 710,870 330,102 47.9%
VMT Capacity 1,117,59 1,350559 233.500 20.9%
±Y:
The results shown in Table 10 would justify the TVTC allocating 90 percent of the Action
=1 Plan's total cost-roughly SSSS million-to new development in the Tri-Valley area. For-
tanately, TVTC has secured 5166 million (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources,
leaving$368 million still unfunded. While the TVTC could require new development to
fund the entire unfunded balance,it has selected six projects it believes are most needed.
These Projects, however, will not prevent $ome degradation in the regional network's
level of service.
■ Fee Calculations
Fee calculations involve four steps
• Step 1-Allocation of Costs: Determine if the total share of unfunded costs should be
allocated uniformly to all new development in the Tri-Valley area,regardless of juns-
diction,or if a the fees must be determined on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
• Step 2- Cost per Peak hour a Trip End: Calculate three per trip amounts and three
fee schedules based generating sufficient revenues to fund the 5368 mill m unfunded
balance for all 11 Action Flan Projects and the$161.6 million for the selected projects.
• Step 3-Preliminary Fee Schedules:Apply the three costs per peak hour trip and tic
the trip generation characteristics of different types of land use to create three pre-
liminary fee schedules.
. • Step 4-Final Fee Schedule:As an alternative to the three fee schedules in Step 3,cre-
ate a discounted fee schedule which reduces the financial burden placed on new
development by collecting less than the f a unfunded amount
Cmabndr Sysknotim lec - 10
,ry
t
Allocation of Costs
The fee revenue generated by each jurisdiction should be rough proportion to the benefits
each jurisdiction receives from the Action Plan improvements. This fiance,however,is
difficult to quantify given the complexity of travel patteau in the Tri Valley, As an alter-
native to a quantitative analysis, the TVTC's Technical Advisory Committee has recom-
mended six projects it believes represent a reasonable balance of benefits to an
Jurisdictions. Given the extensive experience of the TAC's anembe rship, this qualitative
approach is a satisfactory alternative to a qualitative analysis using the transportation
model (Le., select-link analysis of all proposed projects'). Thus, TVTC has decided to
apply a uniform cost per peak hour trip end across all TVTC jurisdictions,
Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End
A uniform cost per peak hour trip end is calculated by dividing the net increase of 50,246
new aaa peak hour trip ends by the three revenue targets:5368 million for all 11 Action
Plan Projects and$161.6 million for six selected projects.. Table 11 presents the two costs
per peak hour trip end.
Table 1T. Alternative Funding Amounts and Corresponding Costs Per Peak
Hour Trip End.
Revenue Targets Per Peak Flour share of
($I,oD "D's) Trip End Action Plan
Full Action Pian(11 Projects) 5368.1 57,362
Selected Proiects $161.6 53.216 44%
Preliminary Fee Schedules
The fee amounts are determined by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip end by
the number of trips generated by a particular land use. For purposes of efficiency and
consistency, MC has limited its fee schedule to two types of residential development
(i.e., single and multi-family dwelling units) and four types of commercial spam Oarge
and small retail,office,and industrial). Table 12 shows the Institute of Traffic Engineers
trip generation rates for each of these land use. In addition,it shows the adjustments for
average trip length,trip divamm,and the Final adjusted trip length.
'For each segment of regional roadway that wi71 be improved using fee revenues,wkd link andysis
shows the origins and destinations of future trips. Thus,the results help allocate the benefit of the
improved roadway according to the amount of new development in each jurisdiction.
~ Cmbridle byticemim lac, xx
lb
Table 12. A.M.Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments
Trip Diteaion Trip Length Adjusted AM
Land Use Catmories Base Rates Adjustment Factor Adiwtment factor peak Hour Trip Rate
Shxgie Family Residential 0.74 Im I.W 0.74
Multi Family Residential OA7 Im IAD 0.47
Retail per sq.it(,d=kaf) 1.60 020 030 0.16
Retail per sq.ft.(?2W ttsF) 0.80 OAS am 018
ofl3ce per sq.tt 1.33 IAO IAO 1,33
Industrial per sq.ft. 0.90 Im IM 0.90
Trip diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use,category that are
part of a longer trip but divert less than two miles out of the way to stop at the land use.
Trip length adjusts for trip shorter than the home-based work trips. The rates shown in
Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end produce the two preliminary
fee schedules shown below. The bottom row shows the estimated amounted of revenue
each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years.
Table 13, Preliminary Fee Schedules (1997—2010)
Full Action Plan Selected
Land Use Categories (11-Projects) Proects �
Single Family Residential $5,421 $2380
Multi Family Residential $3.443 S1 S12
Retail per square foot(1200 ksf) $1.17 $031
Retail per square foot(>220 ksf) 5132 5038
Office per square foot $9.74 $4.28
Industrial per square foot 5639 52.89
Total Revenues tS2,000,000) 5368.1 $161.6
■ Economic Burden Analysis
While TVTC may be legally entitled to levy any of the preliminary fees shown in Table 13,
there are several compelling reasons for levying a lower fee on caa►nte tW development
Tri Valley currently has a surplus of workers and a shortage of jobs (a jobs/housing
imbalance) and intends to encourage more cormrterdal growth to improve the balance.
_ Measure C states that jobs/housing balance should be considered in the establishment of
the regional fee. In addition, Tri-Valley jurisdictions are struggling to attract jobs, retail
services,and sales tax revenue.
in order to reduce the financial burden placed on commercial development, the TVTC
may adopt an alternative fee schedule which has lower flees than those shown in Table 13.
Cloal'"d9t SPU=fftim
� l'�fg 7 >;4
The appropriate alternative fee schedule should be determined through a political process
that relies on the participation of stakeholders. Any reliance on a quantitative analysis of
economic burden would encounter the following short comings.
* Who Actually Pays the Fee?—Opponents of impacts fift point out that fees directly
increase housing prices and casts of business. Proponents argue that these impacts on
the end user are short-term effects and that in the mid to long-term fees are absorbed in
the developer's profit and;or passed back to land owners. In reality,sorting out who
actually Pays impact fees is extremely ely complex and highly dependent on local market
conditions.
• How Much Is the Total Fee Burden?— Some jurisdictions use the Subdivision Map
Act, CEQA, and/or development agreements to fund some or all transportation
improvements. As a consequence. their impact fee programs (under Government
Code 66000 et seq), appear modest compared to jurisdictions using a different mix of
local funding methods.
• Art Impact Fee Burdens Measured in Relative or Absolute Terms?—Even if accurate
total amounts could be determined for each jurisdiction, the trite burden is relative to
the strength of the local real estate market and not simply a comparison of absolute fee
amounts. Thus, each jurisdiction's real estate market, redevelopment program, fiscal
condition,municipal service levels,and supply of land are critical variables that should
be considered in weighting the dollar amount of the fee.
* To What Degree Are Fees Providing Benefits to Property Owners?—NTC fees will
go directly to maintaining traffic conditions on major routes. In many locations,
specific development projects will receive duo benefits, thus maintaining (or
improving) property values. The fee's burden ev within the same jurisdiction may
vary significantly depending on the transportation conditions faced by individual
Property owners.
Given these shortcomings, TVTC must work with its various stakeholders to determine
how much it can afford to charge developers and how much it can accept in future
congestion.
Ca*idge Syxkmma,I= 13
TD: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Costa
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
DATE: April 8, 1997 County
SUBJECT:
SALES TAX COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. REFER to the Finance Committee the issue of examining how sales taxes are collected and
distributed within the County and the state.
BACKGROUND:
Sales tax collection and distribution is a highly complicated issue which requires periodic review.
The rules on"point of sale"have been frequently revised and are the subject of several bills pending
in the legislature. The State Board of Equalization regularly reallocates sales tax among local
governments due to errors in distribution.
The Finance Committee should revisit this issue and determine how best to maximize revenues to
the County and improve equity among local governments in the County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
—RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE
_APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S),
ACTION OF BOARD ON April
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT V ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED April 11 1997
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Cc: Tony Enea, County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY :'`//J`��/f� DEPUTY
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ° s Contra
FROM: Costa
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema ;„ 3
DATE: County
April 8, 1997 °7r'
79 c N
SUBJECT:
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE EARMARKED FOR THE CROCKETT AND
RODEO AREA FROM THE UNOCAL MODERNIZATION PROJECT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. APPROVE an allocation of$86,000 to the Crockett Rodeo Area, from property tax revenue
derived from the UNOCAL Modernization Project in fiscal years 1995-96 and 1996-97.
2. APPROVE an adjustment to this allocation using the Board approved revenue sharing
formula, after resolution of the property tax reassessment appeal by UNOCAL.
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 1995 the Board of Supervisors approved an order that allocated 43% of all property
tax increment, resulting from the UNOCAL Reformulated Gasoline Project, to the Crockett and
Rodeo Community (see attached Order). However, monies have not been distributed to the
community because UNOCAL has challenged the property tax assessment over the last several years
and the issue has not yet been resolved.
This Board Order is designed to expedite the distribution of revenues to the community by allocating
only 50%of the estimated revenue due to the community at this time and adjusting the amount once
the property tax appeal is settled.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI E'fT E
—APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON_April 1., 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT V ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED_A ri i 1 11 1()Q7
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Kent Rose, Assessor's Office- SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Paul Abelson, Auditor's Office
Tony Enea, Administrator's Office
BY � DEPUTY
c.► ►q
Page 2
Based on the Assessor's current figures, the revenue allocation is calculated as follows:
1995-96 1996.97 Total
Assessed Value $42,695,118 $119,094,103 $161,789,221
Estimated Tax 426,951 1,190,941 1,617,892
1%
County General Fund Share 105,457 294,162 399,619
24.7%
Community Share of General Fund 45,346 126,490 171,836
43%
Community Share 22,673 63,245 85,918
50%
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Contra
FROM: Finance Committee Costa
DATE: October 17, 1995 ; g County
SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX REVENUE SHARING FOR UNOCAL MODERNIZATION
AND CROCKETT CO-GENERATION FACILITY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. APPROVE a revised revenue sharing formula which doubles the share of County General
Fund property tax increment, resulting from the new co-generation facility, to the Crockett
Community from 21.5%to 43%.
2. APPROVE a revised revenue sharing formula which doubles the share of County General
Fund property tax increment,resulting from the UNOCAL Reformulated Gasoline Project,
to the Crockett and Rodeo Community from 21.5% to 43%.
BACKGROUND:
On August 21,the Finance Committee met in Crockett to discuss economic development issues as
well as ways and means of financing economic development in Crockett and Rodeo. One method,
adopted by the Board in 1993,is to share increases in property taxes with the Community as a result
of the construction of a new industrial plant, In that case, a new co-generation plant with a
construction cost of nearly $200 million was built in Crockett and the Board agreed to allocate
21.5%of the County's General Fund share of property tax increment to the Community in addition
to using additional revenues to support enhanced law enforcement services.
On Septe, fiber 12,the Board approved the Finance Committee's proposal that the same formulation
of 21.5% of general Fund property tax increment revenues, resulting from the UNOCAL
Reformulated Gasoline Project,to be allocated to Rodeo and Crockett for the purpose of economic
development activities. The UNOCAL modernization program is expected to cost nearly $100
million. During the September 12 Board meeting,the Supervisors requested figures on the estimated
revenue to be shared in the Crockett and Rodeo area.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARaefmith_
APPROVE �_.@Tfq' '
/am /aZi6Son
SICNATUREs : Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON — nrtrtihPr 17 199,S APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUS
�_.UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ^^--"-^^^^^^- } AND CORRECT COPY Of AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES— NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED October 17, 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOAR)OF
cc: Conmunity Development-Jim Kennedy
CE ORS AND(COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Crockett Chamber Of Commerce
Crockett Foundation
County Administrator
Page 2
On September 18, the Finance Committee reviewed the property tax revenue estimates and took
testimony from the President of the Crockett Chamber of Commerce. The Committee requested
additional information for its next meeting. On October 2, the Committee was provided with the
information presented below.
I. Construction Cost Estimates and Actual Assessed Value Increases
In 1992,Energy National Inc. estimated that the cost to construct their co-generation facility
would be$200 million. All parties negotiating tax sharing agreements used this estimate and
assumed that property tax assessments would closely approximate construction costs.
However,the Assessor's Office reports that the latest estimates from the company suggest
an estimated completion cost of slightly over $180 million. Of that amount,the company
and the Assessor are reviewing the extent to which some construction costs would not result
in increased tax assessments. Typically,the type of construction costs not subject to property
taxes are:
I. Costs incurred by the company not on the construction site;
2. administrative and public relations costs;
3. rework and redesign costs;
4. abnormal or unforeseen costs resulting from floods, fire, etc; and
5. construction reserves.
Additionally, the Assessor's staff has indicated that since a substantial amount of the
valuation is predicated on depreciating assets,the assessed value of the co-generation facility
will decline each year. This means that property tax revenues will decline in subsequent
years.
2. Police Services Share of Prol2erty Tax Revenue
Attachment A includes the police services and community portions of property tax revenue
from the co-generation facility.
3. UNOCAL Reformulated Gasoline Proiect
Staff calculated revenue sharing figures based on the September 12 Board action, which
appear in Attachment B. No actual values have been enrolled by the Assessor to date so
thc-.c figures are estimates only. As of this writing,the amount of revenue availaole this year
is not known.
4, planning and Zonine Issues
Community Development staff is currently compiling a "cookbook" on downtown
revitalization programs,and a list of financial resources available for economic development.
This will be made available to the Crockett Foundation and Chamber of Commerce. Also,
Community Development staff is following up on the small lot and height ordinances.
On October 2,the Finance Committee determined that the actual revenue to be allocated to Crockett
Community would be less than half originally estimated because:
I. The state shifted property tax revenue to the schools in 1992, 1993, and 1994 resulting in the
County General Fund share of property taxes shrinking from 46.5% to 25.5%; and
2. the $200 million estimated increase in assessed value would be closer to $105 million in
1995-96 and $168 million in 1996-97.
Attachment A
Property Tax Revenue Calculation
Crockett Co-Generation Plant
1992 1995 1996
Estimated Increase Assessed $200,000,000 $105,193,930 $168,193,930
Value
Estimated Tax Revenue (1%) 2,000,000 1,083,603 1,732,397
Assumed County General Fund 46.5% 25.5% 25.5%
Share
Estimated Percent of Revenue 21.5% 21.5% 21.5%
to Crockett
Estimated Amount of Revenue 200,000 59,409 94,979
to Crockett
Estimated Percent of Revenue 26.9% 26.9% 26.9%
for Police Services in Crockett area
Estimated Amount of Revenue 250,000 74,330 118,834
for Police Services
Note: Tax and assessed valuation figures gleaned from Assessor's records. County
General Fund share gleaned from Auditor's records for tax rate area 62001.
Attachment B
Property Tag Revenue Calculation
UNOCAL Reformulated Gasoline Project
Original Revised'
Estimated Increase in $100,000,000 $84,000,000
Assessed Value
Estimated Revenue - 1% 1,000,000 840,000
County' General Fund Share 24.7% 24.7%
Percent Share of Revenue 21.5% 21.5%
to Crockett, Rodeo and Tormey
Estimated Amount of Revenue 53,100 441600
to Crockett, Rodeo and Tormey