16634 rvsp urban services plan 01.19.09

S A C R A M E N T O

2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95833 www.epsys.com

phone: 916-649-8010 fax: 916-649-2070

B E R K E L E Y

phone: 510-841-9190 fax: 510-841-9208

D E N V E R

phone: 303-623-3557 fax: 303-623-9049

RIOLO VINEYARD URBAN SERVICES PLAN Prepared for: Placer County Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. January 2009 EPS #16634

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

Project Context ................................................................................................................. 1

Urban Services ................................................................................................................. 2

Purpose of this Urban Services Plan............................................................................. 7

Goals and Policies of this Urban Services Plan ......................................................... 10

Summary of Costs ......................................................................................................... 11

Annual Costs and Allocation....................................................................................... 12

Funding Mechanisms.................................................................................................... 18

Additional Review Before Setting Special Taxes and Assessments ....................... 23

Report Organization...................................................................................................... 26

II. PROJECTED GROWTH AND ABSORPTION....................................................................... 27

Absorption...................................................................................................................... 27

Population Equivalents................................................................................................. 27

III. PROPOSED FINANCING MECHANISMS........................................................................... 33

Services Community Facilities District....................................................................... 33

County Services Area.................................................................................................... 34

IV. DETAILED SERVICE LEVELS............................................................................................. 37

Fire ................................................................................................................................... 37

Sheriff .............................................................................................................................. 42

Trails and Parks ............................................................................................................. 48

Open Space ..................................................................................................................... 52

Baseline Countywide and Municipal Services .......................................................... 56

Library............................................................................................................................. 61

Transit ............................................................................................................................. 67

Recreation Services........................................................................................................ 71

Roads............................................................................................................................... 76

V. ANNUAL CASH FLOW AND DEFICIT FUNDING MECHANISMS .................................... 81

Annual Cash Flow......................................................................................................... 81

Deficit Funding Mechanisms....................................................................................... 87

Appendices

Appendix A: Detailed Cost Estimates

Appendix B: Land Use Sensitivity Analysis LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Services—Responsible Department ..............................................8

Table 2 Summary of Services Provided by Placer County .............................................9

Table 3 Summary of Urban Services Costs and Revenues ...........................................11

Table 4 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs at Buildout...........................................14

Table 5 Summary of the Net Cost Components.............................................................15

Table 6 Community Residential Unit and Population Estimates................................16

Table 7 Estimated Residential per‐Unit Cost for Services after PPH Weighting ......17

Table 8 Cross‐Subsidy to Meet County High‐Density Residential Assessment Limit..................................................................................................19

Table 9 Weighted Average Affordable Housing Subsidy per Unit ............................20

Table 10 Weighted Average Residential Tax/Assessment with Affordable Housing Adjustment........................................................................21

Table 11 Estimated Annual Tax/Assessments..................................................................24

Table 12 Estimated Annual Tax/Assessment and Fee Summary ..................................25

Table 13 Projected Population and Employment at Buildout........................................28

Table 14 Projected Absorption Schedule...........................................................................29

Table 15 Population Equivalents at Buildout ...................................................................30

Table 16 Annual Population Equivalents (2 pages).........................................................31

Table 17 Fire Service Costs/ Summary ..............................................................................39

Table 18 Annual Costs at Buildout: Fire...........................................................................40

Table 19 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Fire.......................................................41

Table 20 Sheriff Services Standard.....................................................................................44

Table 21 Sheriff Costs Summary ........................................................................................45

Table 22 Annual Costs at Buildout: Sheriff......................................................................46

Table 23 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Sheriff ..................................................47

Table 24 Parks and Trails Costs..........................................................................................49

Table 25 Annual Costs at Buildout: Parks and Trails.....................................................50

Table 26 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Parks and Trails .................................51

Table 27 Open Space Costs .................................................................................................53

Table 28 Annual Costs at Buildout: Open Space ............................................................54

Table 29 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Open Space.........................................55

Table 30 Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs ..............................................58

Table 31 Annual Costs at Buildout: Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services .........59

Table 32 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Baseline Countywide/ Municipal Services ...............................................................................................60

Table 33 Additional Assumptions for Library Cost Distribution..................................63

Table 34 Library Costs/Triggers .........................................................................................64

Table 35 Annual Costs at Buildout: Library ....................................................................65

Table 36 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Library ................................................66

Table 37 Transit Costs/Triggers..........................................................................................68

Table 38 Annual Costs at Buildout: Transit .....................................................................69

Table 39 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Transit .................................................70

Table 40 Recreation Costs....................................................................................................73

Table 40 Recreation Costs....................................................................................................73

Table 41 Annual Costs at Buildout: Recreation...............................................................74

Table 42 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Recreation...........................................75

Table 43 Road Costs (2 pages) ............................................................................................77

Table 44 Annual Costs at Buildout: Roads ......................................................................79

Table 45 Projected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Roads...................................................80

Table 46 Summary of Gross Annual Costs .......................................................................82

Table 47 Summary of Annual Offsetting Revenues ........................................................83

Table 48 Annual Special Tax/Assessment Revenue Summary ......................................84

Table 49 Annual Surplus/(Shortfall) ..................................................................................85

Table 50 Annual Cash Flow Summary..............................................................................86

Table 51 Annual Affordable Housing Subsidy Required (2 pages) ..............................88

Table 52 Affordable Housing Fee Cash Flow (2 pages) ..................................................90 LIST OF MAPS

Map 1 Regional Growth Areas Southwest Placer Region.............................................3

Map 2 Land Use Plan .........................................................................................................5

P:\16000\16634 Riolo Vineyards Financing Strategy\16634.4 Services Analysis\Reports\16634 RVSP Urban Services Plan 01.19.09.doc

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan Area (RVSP or Plan Area) is a 526‐acre master planned community planned for 933 residential units and 7.5 acres of commercial land. At buildout, the Plan Area will have roughly 2,188 residents and 167 commercial employees. Map 1 shows the general vicinity in which the RVSP is located in southwest Placer County (County). The Map 2 shows the anticipated land uses in the RVSP. Located in the unincorporated County, the RVSP will require a full complement of urban services and infrastructure. This Urban Services Plan describes the service standards required to provide an urban level of public services in the RVSP, the corresponding annual costs for these services, and the potential funding sources to cover the cost of these services.

PROJECT CONTEXT

The County is considering several different proposed projects in the unincorporated southern region of the County that will require urban levels of service. During implementation, the Urban Services Plan will be coordinated with the public services needed for these other new development areas, and the delivery of urban public services in the RVSP must be viewed in the context of an overall countywide system providing services to all of these projects. In an effort to plan comprehensively, the County commissioned fiscal analyses and public services studies that considered public facilities, public service standards, and the impact of these costs on the County. The following companion documents contributed to development of this Urban Services Plan:

• Draft Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan (Specific Plan), dated December 2007 prepared by McKay & Somps, describes the vision, land uses, environmental resources, community design, and amenities for the Plan Area.

• Draft Riolo Vineyard Public Facilities Financing Plan (Financing Plan), prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., (EPS), describes costs, timing, and funding of backbone infrastructure and public facilities for the Plan Area.

• Draft Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated October 7, 2008, conducted by Hausrath Economics Group (HEG), estimates the fiscal impact on the County’s General Fund resulting from development of the project. Specifically, the fiscal analysis estimates the costs to the County of providing local government services to project residents and employees. The

Riolo Vineyard Urban Services Plan

January 2009


2

fiscal analysis then compares these costs to the sales tax, property tax, and other County revenues generated by the project. The October 2008 Fiscal Analysis is an update to an August 2007 draft report. All monetary values in the 2008 Fiscal Analysis are shown in 2006 dollars.

• Consultant Studies were prepared by Citygate, Willdan, and LSC Transportation Consultants in 2005 on behalf of Placer County. These consultant studies evaluated urban service levels provided by other similar communities and provided the basis for a set of services standards applied to the RVSP. The consultant studies covered the following urban services:

- Citygate—Sheriff, Parks, and Recreation.

- Willdan—Public Works.

- LSC Transportation Consultants—Transit.

• Facilities Timing as Proposed by the County spreadsheet was prepared by the County Executive Office, last updated on October 27, 2008. This document shows proposed timing triggers and estimated costs for public facilities in the RVSP and is an attachment in the Financing Plan prepared by EPS.

• Riolo Vineyard Public Services as Proposed by the County spreadsheet was prepared by the County Executive Office and last updated in September 2008. This document contains estimated timing and costs for staffing, facility maintenance, and equipment replacement needed to deliver public services in the RVSP as identified in this Urban Services Plan document.

• Development Agreement by and between the County of Placer and JTS Communities, Inc. (Development Agreement or DA). The DA specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, and terms and conditions of funding necessary urban services.

URBAN SERVICES

The Financing Plan describes the backbone infrastructure and public facilities to be installed in the RVSP. This Urban Services Plan is a companion document that describes the standards, delivery, costs, and funding mechanisms required to maintain this infrastructure and provide urban services in the Plan Area.

Map 1Regional/Site Map


January 2009


4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY CONTAINS NO TEXT.

Map 2Land Use Plan


January 2009


6



January 2009


7

Specifically, the Urban Services Plan addresses the services, costs, and funding mechanisms for delivery of the following public services in the RVSP:

• Fire Protection

• Sheriff Protection

• Park and Trail Maintenance

• Open Space Maintenance

• Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services

• Library Services

• Transit Services

• Recreation Services

• Roads Maintenance Table 1 identifies the provider of each service, while Table 2 summarizes the level of service planned for each public service. Please note that utility‐type services (e.g., sewer, water, recycled water, and maintenance) are funded through user fees and charges and are not included in this Urban Services Plan.

PURPOSE OF THIS URBAN SERVICES PLAN

The purpose of this Urban Services Plan is to describe the service levels and financing strategy to fund an urban level of public services that will be provided to RVSP’s future residents, businesses, and employees. This Urban Services Plan accomplishes this strategy by the following steps:

1. Specifying the service standards for public services to be provided to RVSP residents, businesses, and employees. The costs of these services have been estimated based on a set of consultant reports, analyses prepared by the County service providers, and other available information.

2. Identifying funding sources to pay for the service costs. These sources include existing revenues, as well as newly created funding sources paid by future development in the RVSP.

3. Providing information regarding the timing of delivery of urban services related to the growth in population and employment in the RVSP.

4. Establishing the policy framework for financing the required urban services.

DRAFTTable 1Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSummary of Services - Responsible Department

Public Service CategoryResponsibleDepartment

Fire Placer County Fire Department

Sheriff Placer County Sheriff's Department

Parks Placer County Facility Services

Trails Placer County Facility Services

Open Space Placer County Facility Services

Library Placer County Library

Transit Placer County Transit

Recreation Placer County Facility Services

Roads Placer County Public Works

"provider_summ"

Prepared by EPS 11/20/2008 P:\16000\16634 Riolo Vineyards Financing Strategy\16634.4 Services Analysis\Model\16634 2008 Urban Svcs Model 7.xls

8

DRAFTTable 2Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSummary of Services Provided by Placer County

Services County Recommended

Level of Service

PotentialFundingSource

Fire Riolo Vineyard should share in the PVSP East Fire Station service costs in proportion to its relative population.

CFD, CSA, property tax revenues, existing assessments.

Sheriff Overall estimate of 1.22 officers per 1,000 population. CFD, CSA, property tax revenues, Prop 172 sales tax revenues.

Trails and Parks 6.3 miles of trails and approximately 10 acres of parks, CFD, CSA.

Open Space There are approximately 124 acres of onsite open space in the Riolo Vineyard project. 30 acres will be maintained by the County, and the remainder will be maintained privately by the HOA.

CFD, CSA, user charges.

Library The West Placer Library will serve Regional University, Riolo Vineyard, and Placer Vineyards. Riolo Vineyard will pay its proportionate share based on population.

CSA, property tax (Library Fund).

Transit Transit based on Level 3 as defined in the West Placer Transit Study (10/03/2005, LSC Transportation Consultants). Provides for inter-regional and suburban local service to and from Roseville as well as other West Placer areas at 60 minute headways. Also includes dial-a-ride service.

CSA, sales tax revenues, fare box revenues.

Recreation Services General recreation programming. CFD, CSA, user charges, property tax revenues.

Roads 7.8 centerline miles of roads (excluding subdivisions). CSA, Road Fund revenues.

"los_summ"


9


January 2009


10

GOALS AND POLICIES OF THIS URBAN SERVICES PLAN

The goals of this Urban Services Plan serve to provide a solid framework for delivery and financing of services in the Plan Area. Financing required services recognizes existing County policies and urban service levels as a priority for funding and maintaining services over public financing of project‐ and development‐related infrastructure and facilities. The goals of this Urban Services Plan are as follows:

• Identify urban services required by the Plan Area.

• Establish a level of urban services for the Plan Area commensurate with surrounding jurisdictions.

• Identify funding sources to pay for urban service costs that minimize financial risk to the County and can be sustained as development occurs and at buildout.

• Ensure services are funded and available when needed.

• Consistent with General Plan policy, finance services by development of the project without adversely affecting existing County funds.

The policies below shall be followed in implementing this Urban Services Plan for the Plan Area:

1. Services to the Plan Area will be funded and provided to residents, businesses, and employees of the Plan Area at an urban level commensurate with similar urban communities.

2. Ensure timing for funding of urban and countywide services is coordinated so that services are available when needed as the Plan Area population and employment grows.

3. A funding strategy shall be developed to ensure that the County’s General Fund is not negatively impacted by the cost of providing urban and countywide services in a sustainable and reliable manner.

4. Use of public financing to fund services shall take priority over the use of such financing for infrastructure and public facility improvements in the Plan Area.

5. As described in the DA, when public financing is used, the total annual tax or assessment rates for developed land shall not exceed fiscally prudent levels and will be consistent with the rules and procedures of the County Bond Screening Committee.

6. Before properties can be developed, such properties shall be required to annex into the Community Facilities District (CFD) for Services or a County Service Area (CSA) before recording the final map. Parcel maps that are found by the


January 2009


11

applicable hearing body to be for bona fide agricultural use and are consistent with their current agricultural zoning are exempt from this policy.

7. Other financing mechanisms, such as creation of private districts or associations, may be used to fund maintenance of certain facilities in the Plan Area. Any such alternative or supplemental financing mechanisms shall comply with the other policies described above.

SUMMARY OF COSTS

Table 3 summarizes the estimated total annual service costs at buildout, the potential offsetting revenues from existing sources of revenues, and the amount of funding that would be needed from new special taxes and assessments in the RVSP. All cost estimates were prepared by County staff and consultants, as required by the County for this Urban Services Plan. Table 3 Summary of Urban Services Costs and Revenues

Item Amount

Gross Annual Cost at Buildout [1] $3,512,901

Offsetting Annual Revenues ($1,801,773)

Amount Funded by Special Taxes/Assessments [2] $1,711,128

Percentage of Gross Cost Funded by Special Taxes/Assessments 49%or Other Funding Mechanisms

"summ_table"

[2] The amounts estimated to be funded by special taxes and assessments arepreliminary. The special taxes and assessments will be re-evaluated and setthrough the formation process of the CFD and the CSA following project approval.

[1] Costs are estimated and subject to change.

New special taxes and assessments levied on new development in the RVSP would be required to fund approximately 49 percent of the estimated service costs. The special tax/assessment levels required to fund urban services are projected to be considerably higher compared to other new development areas in the region, mainly for these reasons:


January 2009


12

• County recommended service levels are designed to be comparable to those in surrounding jurisdictions in the region with service level standards higher than typically provided by the County.

• The RVSP generates a very low amount of property taxes available to fund countywide and urban services as a result of the property tax allocation factors assigned to the site.

• As a relatively small master‐planned development, the RVSP does not include much fiscally positive nonresidential retail development.

The Urban Services Plan cost and revenue estimates are based on 2006 estimates. The service levels and cost estimates will be refined as part of implementation of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan and the DA require preparation of the following Master Plans/Studies before implementation of the Specific Plan:

• Public Facilities Master Plan

• Landscaping Master Plan

• Sewer Master Study

• Drainage Master Plan The results of the Master Plans will be incorporated into formation of any CFD or CSA structures that fund urban services in the RVSP. The required special taxes and assessments also will be updated as part of the process of forming the required special financing districts. These financing mechanisms will include provisions to adjust special taxes and assessments for inflation and potential contingencies.

ANNUAL COSTS AND ALLOCATION

The estimated costs of providing urban services to the RVSP are based on the service level ranges identified in the RVSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a series of consultant studies, and estimates provided by the County departments that will be responsible for providing the urban services. The County‐provided urban services cost estimates will be refined as part of the process of establishing special financing districts (e.g., Mello‐Roos CFD[s] or Assessment Districts) to provide the authorization to levy special taxes and assessments necessary to fund the urban services.


January 2009


13

SUMMARY OF COSTS

Table 4 summarizes the gross and net annual costs, at buildout, to provide an urban level of public services in the Plan Area. Table 4 also shows the share assigned to residential and commercial development. Table 5 summarizes the average net cost of services per residential unit and per commercial square foot for each service type, which amounts to approximately $1,897 per residential unit and $0.37 per commercial building square foot. For residential, nearly one‐third of the net costs are for annual sheriff protection. For commercial, about two‐thirds of the net costs are related to fire and sheriff protection.

COST ADJUSTMENTS

Single‐Family versus Multifamily Weighting

The total amount of public services largely is based on the number of persons served. Single‐family units have a higher number of persons per household compared to multifamily. As Table 6 shows, approximately 95 percent of the RVSP’s population is attributed to single‐family units and the remaining 5 percent is attributed to multifamily units. At this time, it is assumed that all of the planned multifamily units will be affordable units. In addition to the multifamily affordable units, Table 6 also shows single‐family affordable housing units in the RVSP. The RVSP is required to have affordable units totaling 10 percent of the total units, with 40 percent of the affordable units provided as very low income housing, 40 percent as low income housing, and 20 percent as moderately affordable housing. For the purposes of this analysis, the affordable units are all shown as either high‐density or medium‐density units. The actual requirements for affordable housing will be specified in the DAs for the different developers. JTS likely will provide their affordable housing on the multifamily site. Frisvold likely will provide medium‐density affordable units. Lund and Elliott likely will provide low‐density affordable units unless the DAs provide an alternative solution. Table 7 shows the reallocation of residential costs between single‐family and multifamily units to account for the higher number of persons per household in single‐family units. As a result, the weighted cost is roughly $1,920 per single‐family unit and $1,540 per multifamily unit.

DRAFTTable 4Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSummary of Estimated Annual Costs at Buildout (2006$) [1]

Gross Annual Net Annual Residential CommercialCost at Offsetting Cost at Share Share

Item Buildout Revenues Buildout of Cost of Cost

Fire $379,799 ($223,870) $155,929 $151,179 $4,749

Sheriff $713,958 ($64,256) $649,702 $634,685 $15,017

Trails & Parks $208,034 $0 $208,034 $208,034 $0

Open Space $12,600 $0 $12,600 $12,600 $0

Baseline Countywide/ Municipal Services $1,611,060 ($1,286,683) $324,377 $318,898 $5,480

Library $68,366 ($31,196) $37,170 $37,170 $0

Transit $96,139 ($48,070) $48,070 $47,029 $1,041

Recreation Services $190,738 ($98,907) $91,832 $91,832 $0

Roads $227,783 ($48,792) $178,991 $175,771 $3,220

Subtotal $3,508,477 ($1,801,773) $1,706,704 $1,677,197 $29,507

Rounding Adjustment [2] $4,424 $4,424 $2,999 $1,425

Total $3,512,901 ($1,801,773) $1,711,128 $1,680,196 $30,932

Net Cost Breakdown 100% 98% 2%

"cost_summary"

[2] Rounding adjustment to account for rounding up individual services cost per unit to nearest dollar.[1] Costs are estimated and subject to change.

Prepared by EPS 1/16/2009 P:\16000\16634 Riolo Vineyards Financing Strategy\16634.4 Services Analysis\Model\16634 2008 Urban Svcs Model 7park.xls

14

DRAFTTable 5Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSummary of the Net Cost Components [1]

Average AverageCost Percentage Cost Percentage

Item per Unit of Total per Sq. Ft. of Total

Service ComponentFire $171 9% $0.06 16%Sheriff $717 38% $0.18 49%Trails & Parks $235 12% $0.00 0%Open Space $15 1% $0.00 0%Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services $360 19% $0.07 19%Library $42 2% $0.00 0%Transit $54 3% $0.02 5%Recreation Services $104 5% $0.00 0%Roads $199 10% $0.04 11%Total $1,897 100% $0.37 100%

"avg_unit_cost"

[2] Per-unit services cost for affordable units is the same as market-rate cost.[1] Costs are estimated and subject to change.

Residential [2] Commercial


15

DRAFTTable 6Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanResidential Dwelling Unit and Population Estimates

NetDwelling Mapping Developed Persons per Total Percent of

Units Factor [1] Units [2] Household Residents Total

Formula a b c = a * (1-b) d e = c * d f = e / 2,188

Single-Family

Low Density 588 5% 559 2.50 1,397 63.8%Medium-Density 244 5% 232 2.50 580 26.5%Medium-Density (Moderate Affordable) [3], [4] 19 5% 18 2.50 45 2.1%Medium-Density (Affordable) [3], [4] 14 5% 13 2.50 33 1.5%Ag/Rural Residential 8 5% 7 2.50 19 0.9%Subtotal Single-Family 873 829 2,074 94.8%

Multifamily

High-Density 0 5% 0 2.00 0 0.0%High-Density (Affordable) [3], [4] 60 5% 57 2.00 114 5.2%Subtotal High-Density 60 57 114 5.2%

Total 933 886 2,188 100.0%

"units pop est"

[1] Represents a contingency to account for proposed units that may not be developed.[2] Represents the estimated number of proposed units that will be developed after applying the 5% mapping factor. [3] Affordable housing units = 10% of total units, or 93 units. Very low and low income affordable units constitute 40% each of the total affordable units, for a total of 74 units. These units are identified as "affordable." Moderate income units constitute 20% of the total affordable units for a total of 19 units. These units are identified as "moderate affordable." It is assumed that the moderate affordable units will be owner-occupied, while the remaining affordable units will be rental units.[4] For the purposes of this analysis, the affordable units are all shown as either high-density or medium-density units. The actual requirements for affordable housing will be specified in the DAs. JTS likely will provide their affordable housing on the high-density site. Frisvold likely will provide medium-density affordable units. Lund and Elliott likely will provide low-density affordable units unless the DAs provide an alternative solution.


16

DRAFTTable 7Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanEstimated Residential per-Unit Cost for Services After PPH Weighting

NetDeveloped Total Percentage CSA/CFD Annual

Units Residents of Total Funded Cost

Formula a b c=b*total d=c/a

Single-Family

Low-Density 559 1,397 63.8% $1,072,776 $1,920Medium-Density 232 580 26.5% $445,390 $1,920Medium-Density (Moderate Affordable) 18 45 2.1% $34,556 $1,920Medium-Density (Affordable) 13 33 1.5% $25,341 $1,920Ag/Rural Residential 7 19 0.9% $14,590 $1,920

Subtotal Single-Family 829 2,074 94.8% $1,592,654 $1,920

Multifamily

High-Density 0 0 0.0% $0 $1,540High-Density (Affordable) 57 114 5.2% $87,542 $1,540Subtotal High-Density 57 114 5.2% $87,542 $1,540

AverageTotal 886 2,188 100.0% $1,680,196 [1] $1,897

"cost per unit"

[1] From Table 4.


17


January 2009


18

County Goals for Residential Taxes/Assessments

County staff set a maximum rate of $1,250 per multifamily unit and $2,500 per single‐family unit. To reduce the multifamily rate to $1,250 through a cross‐subsidy, the single‐family rate must increase to $1,940 per unit, which is still under the maximum rate of $2,500. Table 8 shows this calculation. In addition, County staff also set a maximum rate of $900 per unit for moderate affordable single‐family housing units (both single‐family and multifamily) and $500 per unit for all other multifamily affordable housing units. This rate is achieved not by adjusting the tax/assessment paid by market‐rate units, but rather through a onetime fee paid at building permit. This fee, which will be discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter V, is the affordable housing component of the Urban Services Shortfall Fee. It is calculated so that the annual subsidy needed to fully fund services costs for affordable housing will be available until all affordable housing units have converted to market rate units in 2071. Table 9 shows that, on average, an affordable housing unit in the RVSP requires an annual subsidy of $910.

FUNDING MECHANISMS

The Urban Services Plan describes the annual cost to provide public services, net of offsetting revenues, provided primarily through contributions from property tax revenues, sales tax revenues, and property taxes in lieu of vehicle license fees. These annual costs are covered through a variety of funding mechanisms, including an annual special tax and assessment for services (tax/assessment). A combination of additional sources is provided to fund any annual shortfalls when revenues from developed property are not sufficient to fully fund the required urban services. The funding mechanisms included in the Urban Services Plan are listed below.

SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS

After accounting for the average costs and adjustments described above, Table 10 summarizes the net cost, weighted cost, County staff goals, and tax/assessment per residential unit used in this analysis. Costs are estimated and subject to change based on analyses that will be prepared during the formation process of the CSA or CFD to fund urban services. Beyond any revenues generated through property tax and sales tax, the Urban Service Plan features two major funding sources for public services:

• CFD maximum special tax for services.

• Benefit assessments levied through a CSA.

DRAFTTable 8Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanCross-Subsidy to Meet County High-Density Residential (HDR) Assessment Limit

Item Formula Amount

County Maximum Rate for Tax/Assessment per HDR Unit a $1,250

Total HDR Units b 57

Total Revenue from HDR units c = a * b $71,250

Total Annual Residential Share of Cost [1] d $1,680,196

Remaining Cost for Single-Family Units e = c - d $1,608,946

Total Single-Family Units f 829

Annual Single-Family Cost per Unit [2] g = e / f $1,940

"cross sub"[1] From Table 4.[2] Some of the multifamily cost was shifted to the single-family units, thereby increasing

the single-family cost per unit. Amount rounded up to nearest $10.


19

DRAFTTable 9Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanWeighted Average Affordable Housing Subsidy per Unit

Item

Net AffordableUnits [1]

ShiftedAnnual Cost

per Affordable Unit [1]

Tax/Assessment per Affordable

Unit [1]

Annual Subsidy per

Affordable Unit

Formula a b c d=b-c

Single-Family Moderate Affordable Housing 18 $1,940 $900 $1,040

Single-Family Affordable Housing 13 $1,940 $500 $1,440

Multifamily Affordable Housing 57 $1,250 $500 $750

Total Affordable Housing (rounded) [2] 88 $910

aff hsg subsidy[1] See Table 10.[2] Annual subsidy per unit is weighted average.


20

DRAFTTable 10Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanWeighted Average Residential Tax/Assessment with Affordable Housing Adjustment

Tax/ Annual Tax/Net Shifted County Assessment Assessment

Developed Net Annual Cost Maximum Used in Revenue atLand Use Units/Sq. Ft. Cost per Unit Tax/Assess. Analysis Buildout

Reference Table 6 Table 8Formula a b c d e f = a * e

Single-Family Units Per Unit Per Unit

Low-Density 559 $1,920 $1,940 $2,500 $1,940 $1,084,460Medium-Density 232 $1,920 $1,940 $2,500 $1,940 $450,080Medium-Density (Moderate Affordable) 18 $1,920 $1,940 $2,500 $900 $16,200Medium-Density (Affordable) 13 $1,920 $1,940 $2,500 $500 $6,500Ag/Rural Residential 7 $1,920 $1,940 $2,500 $1,940 $13,580Subtotal Single-Family 829 $1,570,820

Multifamily

High-Density Units Per Unit Per Unit

High-Density 0 $1,540 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $0High-Density (Affordable) 57 $1,540 $1,250 $1,250 $500 $28,500Subtotal High-Density 57 $28,500

Total 886 $1,599,320Weighted Average Tax/Assess. [1] $1,806

Square Feet Per sq. ft. Per sq. ft.Commercial [2] 83,600 $0.37 N/A N/A $0.37 $30,932

"avg_max_tax"Source: Placer County Executive Office.[1] Average tax/assessment per unit less than cost per unit in Table 5 because affordable housing is assessed less than itscost. Shortfall covered through affordable housing component of the Urban Services Shortfall fee.[2] See Table 13 for net sq. ft. and Table 5 for cost per sq. ft.


21


January 2009


22

FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR ANNUAL SHORTFALLS

During the development timeline, shortfalls in urban services funding are anticipated to arise because of two key factors:

• Limits on services tax/assessment rates for affordable housing units.

• Delivery of certain urban services early in the development process to meet public safety and other County standards.

This Urban Services Plan includes a combination of funding sources to eliminate annual shortfalls:

• Urban Services Shortfall Fee (USSF)—The USSF has two components:

- USSF Affordable Housing Component.

- USSF Services Shortfall Component.

• Transfers from the fund that administers the USSF Affordable Housing Component fees (termed as the Affordable Housing Fund).

The County also may implement user charges and fees for additional recreation funding. Chapter III and Chapter V discuss these funding mechanisms in detail.

ESTIMATED TAXES/ASSESSMENTS

The estimated taxes/assessments for urban services are summarized below.

Single‐Family

• Low‐Density, Market‐Rate: $1,940 per unit.

• Medium‐Density, Market‐Rate: $1,940 per unit.

• Agricultural and Rural Residential: $1,940 per unit.

• Medium‐Density, Moderate Affordable: $900 per unit.

• Medium‐Density, Affordable: $500 per unit.

Multifamily

• High‐Density, Market‐Rate: $1,250 per unit.

• High‐Density, Affordable: $500 per unit.

Commercial

• Retail Development: $0.37 per building square foot, or approximately $4,029 per acre (based on a Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 0.25).


January 2009


23

Table 11 shows a breakdown of the tax/assessment, shown purely for conceptual purposes. This conceptual breakdown is based on the same percentages shown in Table 5, but given the number of adjustments made to the original per‐unit costs, the individual components may not be completely accurate. Table 12 summarizes the funding required by land use to fully fund the net annual services costs.

Additional Adjustments

Please note that the estimated tax/assessment per unit/per square foot includes two adjustments:

• A 5‐percent mapping factor or land use contingency factor. In many large specific plan areas, new development may build out to a total of approximately 85 to 95 percent of the maximum potential estimated in the specific plan. This analysis is based on the assumption that roughly 95 percent of units and commercial square footage will be developed, resulting in a decrease in overall demand for services (e.g., reduced population results in decreased demands for staffing) but an increase in per‐unit responsibility for maintenance of facilities.

• The Special Tax and Assessment have been rounded. The cost per unit has been rounded up to the nearest dollar to ensure adequate funding.

ADDITIONAL REVIEW BEFORE SETTING SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS

The Urban Services Plan details cost and revenue impacts on the County generated by development of Riolo Vineyard based on a planning level per capita average approach to fiscal modeling. At this planning level, the assumption is that the cumulative results for specific proposed projects, when combined with existing land use patterns and development, reflect a reasonable long‐term assessment of outcomes, assuming existing relationships between public service costs and discretionary public revenue. Both the County and applicant recognize this is a planning level document at this time and that before setting special taxes and assessments, there will be refinement through more detailed analysis of cost and revenues. It is noted that the applicant has concerns with the planning level study methodology to date, and the current estimate of shortfall funding necessary to mitigate the fiscal deficit of this project. The applicant has represented that urban services can be achieved through imposition of a special tax and assessment as low as $1,300/unit. This is not the result of the planning level modeling conducted. Subsequent analysis will occur to more fully consider and evaluate fees and assessments between the $1,300/unit (average) and the $1,770/unit (average) identified in this Draft Urban Services Plan.

DRAFTTable 11Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanEstimated Annual Tax/Assessments (2006$)

Moderate AffordableItem Pct of Single- Affordable (Single-Family Pct of

Total [3] Family Multifamily (Single-Family) & Multifamily) Total [3] Commercial

FAR Assumption FAR = 0.25

Service ComponentFire 9% $175 $113 $81 $45 16% $654Sheriff 38% $733 $472 $340 $189 49% $1,961Trails & Parks 12% $240 $155 $111 $62 0% $0Open Space 1% $15 $10 $7 $4 0% $0Baseline Cnty/Mun. Svcs 19% $368 $237 $171 $95 19% $762Library 2% $43 $28 $20 $11 0% $0Transit 3% $55 $36 $26 $14 5% $218Recreation Services 5% $106 $69 $49 $27 0% $0Roads 10% $204 $131 $94 $52 11% $436Total [1] 100% $1,940 $1,250 $900 $500 100% $4,030

"fee_summary"Source: EPS

[1] See Table 10 for total tax/assessment per unit and per sq. ft. Total tax/assessment per acre = total tax/assessment per sq. ft. * 43,560 sq. ft./acre * FAR.

[2] Service component tax/assessment = total tax/assessment * service component percent of total[3] See Table 5.

Residential Tax/Assessment per Unit [2]Nonresidential Tax/

Assessment per Acre [2]


24

DRAFTTable 12Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanEstimated Annual Tax/Assessment and Fee Summary

Land Use

Annual Services Tax/Assessment per Unit/Sq. Ft.

Affordable Housing

Component [1]

Services Shortfall

Component

Single-FamilyMarket Rate $ 1,940 $ 5,010 $ 0Moderate Affordable $ 900 $ 0 $ 0Affordable $ 500 $ 0 $ 0

Multifamily Market RateMarket Rate $ 1,250 $ 5,010 $ 0Affordable $ 500 $ 0 $ 0

Commercial $ 0.37 $ 0 $ 0

tax fee summary[1] See Table 52.

Urban Services Shortfall Fee


25


January 2009


26

REPORT ORGANIZATION

The remainder of this report is organized into the following chapters and appendices:

• Chapter II summarizes the Plan Area land uses, projected population and employment, and the County’s projected absorption schedule for buildout of the Plan Area.

• Chapter III describes the potential funding structure for delivery of urban public services through a CFD tax or a CSA assessment.

• Chapter IV contains detailed information for each urban service component, including the level of service, gross and net annual costs, resulting annual residential per‐unit and nonresidential per‐square‐foot costs for services, and an annual cash flow comparing annual costs to estimated fee revenues.

• Chapter V shows the annual services cash flow and describes potential funding mechanisms that may be used to address funding shortfalls in years in which they may occur.

• Appendix A contains the detailed annual timing triggers and estimated costs provided by the County for fire, sheriff, and baseline countywide and municipal operations.

• Appendix B contains the results of the cash flow analysis for two alternative land use absorption schedules provided by the County.


27

II. PROJECTED GROWTH AND ABSORPTION

The Plan Area comprises approximately 526 acres in southwest Placer County, immediately east of the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan. Table 13 summarizes total projected population and employment as presented in the Specific Plan. At buildout, the Specific Plan includes 933 residential units and 88,000 square feet of retail space. A 5‐percent mapping factor is applied to estimate development at less than 100 percent of approved residential units and commercial square footage, resulting in 886 net residential units and 83,600 net retail building square feet. The remainder of this document uses these development estimates to calculate costs. Of the 886 units, 829 will be single‐family units and 57 will be multifamily units. Based on the projected level of development, there will be an estimated 2,188 residents and 167 employees in the RVSP at buildout.

ABSORPTION

Table 14 shows the projected annual absorption of the RVSP. As discussed in the previous section, the Plan Area is expected to include 886 residential units and 83600 commercial building square feet. The County’s absorption schedule projects residential development will begin in 2010 and will be completed by 2016. The commercial site development is projected to begin in 2012 and completed by 2016.

POPULATION EQUIVALENTS

County departments estimated urban service costs based on the proposed project, but each service provider has its own method of projecting population equivalents. For purposes of allocating costs, the analysis applies the population equivalent factors provided by the County, shown in Table 15 (buildout) and Table 16 (annually).

DRAFTTable 13Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Population and Employment at Buildout

Unit Type/Land Use Category

GrossDwelling

Units/ Sq. Ft.MappingFactor [1]

NetDwelling

Units/Sq. Ft.Population/Employees

Residential [2]

Single-FamilyLow Density 588 5% 559 2.50 pph 1,397Medium Density 277 5% 263 2.50 pph 658Ag/Rural Residential 8 5% 7 2.50 pph 19Subtotal 873 829 2,074

Multifamily (High Density) 60 5% 57 2.00 pph 114

Total Residential 933 886 2.47 pph 2,188

Total Commercial 88,000 5% 83,600 500 sq. ft./emp. 167

"pop_employ"Source: Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan, December 2007

[1] Represents an adjustment of five percent to reflect proposed land uses that may not be developed. [2] Includes market rate and affordable units.

Population/Employment

Factor


28

DRAFTTable 14Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Absorption Schedule

Gross Item Assumption Total Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

95%Residential Dwelling Units

Single-FamilyLDR 588 559 32 136 136 102 81 47 25MDR 277 263 51 51 47 47 48 19 0Ag/Rural Residential 8 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal 873 829 83 194 183 149 129 66 25

Multifamily (HDR) 60 57 0 57 0 0 0 0 0

Total Residential 933 886 83 251 183 149 129 66 25

Nonresidential Square Feet 88,000 83,600 0 0 9,500 19,000 19,000 19,000 17,100

AcresResidential 326.9 326.9 30.6 93.0 67.5 55.0 47.2 24.4 9.2Commercial 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5Total 334.4 30.6 93.0 68.4 56.7 48.9 26.1 10.8

Population persons per hhLDR 2.50 1,470 1,397 80 340 340 255 203 118 62MDR 2.50 693 658 129 128 118 118 119 47 0HDR 2.00 120 114 0 114 0 0 0 0 0Ag/Rural Residential 2.50 20 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0Total 2,303 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62

sq. ft./employeeCommercial Employees 500 167 0 0 19 38 38 38 34

absorptionSource: Placer County Executive Office

Net Absorption


29

DRAFTTable 15Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanPopulation Equivalents at Buildout (2006$)

Total PopulationPopulation Employees Equivalents

Population and Employees at Buildout [1] 2,188 167

Fire -- Annual Costs Percent [2]Cost Allocation Factor 1.00 0.69Population Equivalent 2,188 115 2,303

SheriffCost Allocation Factor 1.00 0.31Population Equivalent 2,188 52 2,240

Library, Parks & Trails, Recreation, Open Space, Landscape Corridors

Cost Allocation Factor 1.00 0.00Population Equivalent 2,188 0 2,188

Baseline Countywide/Municipal ServicesCost Allocation Factor [3] 1.00 0.23Population Equivalent 2,188 38 2,226

RoadsCost Allocation Factor 1.00 0.24Population Equivalent 2,188 40 2,228

TransitCost Allocation Factor 1.00 0.29Population Equivalent 2,188 48 2,236

Population and Employees for Fire Cost Allocation Between Residential and Nonresidential [4] 2,215 167 2,382

Fire -- Cost Allocation Between Residential and Nonresidential [2]Cost Allocation Factor [5] 1.00 0.42Population Equivalent 2,215 70 2,285

cost allocation factors[1] See Table 13.[2] Different allocation methods are used for determining the total annual costs (See Table A-1).and the cost allocation between residential and nonresidential development (See Table 18).[3] Different components of the Baseline Countywide and Municipal Services costs have differentcommercial cost allocation factors. The overall commercial cost allocation factor is calculated asthe total baseline costs per employee divided by the total baseline costs per resident (See Table A-3)[4] Population was estimated by the Placer County Fire Department to use in the allocation ofcosts between residential and nonresidential uses. The population assumes 2.5 people perhousehold for all residential uses.[5] Allocation factor was developed by the Placer County Fire Department to use in theallocation of costs between residential and nonresidential uses (See Table 18).Allocation factor = (500 sq. ft./employee) * (1/3 unit/1,000 sq. ft.) * (2.5 people/unit).

Prepared by EPS 11/20/2008 P:\16000\16634 Riolo Vineyards Financing Strategy\16634.4 Services Analysis\Model\16634 2008 Urban Svcs Model 7.xls30

DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table 16Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Population Equivalents

Item Allocation TOTAL 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Factor [3]

Population/Employees

Population [1] 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees [1] 167 0 0 19 38 38 38 34

Population Equivalent

FirePopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees [2] 0.69 115 0 0 13 26 26 26 23Annual Total 2,303 209 601 471 399 347 190 85Cumulative Total 209 810 1,281 1,680 2,028 2,218 2,303

SheriffPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees 0.31 52 0 0 6 12 12 12 11Annual Total 2,240 209 601 464 385 333 176 73Cumulative Total 209 810 1,274 1,659 1,991 2,167 2,240

LibraryPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62 Cumulative 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188

Parks & TrailsPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62 Cumulative 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188

RecreationPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62 Cumulative 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188


31

DRAFTPage 2 of 2

Table 16Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Population Equivalents

Item Allocation TOTAL 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Factor [3]


Population [1] 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees [1] 167 0 0 19 38 38 38 34

Open SpacePopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62 Cumulative 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188

Landscape CorridorsPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62 Cumulative 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188

Baseline Countywide/Municipal ServicesPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees 0.23 38 0 0 4 9 9 9 8Annual Total 2,226 209 601 462 382 330 173 70Cumulative Total 209 810 1,272 1,654 1,983 2,156 2,226

TransitPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees 0.29 48 0 0 6 11 11 11 10Annual Total 2,236 209 601 464 384 332 175 72Cumulative Total 209 810 1,274 1,658 1,990 2,165 2,236

RoadsPopulation 1.00 2,188 209 601 458 373 321 164 62Employees 0.24 40 0 0 5 9 9 9 8Annual Total 2,228 209 601 463 382 330 173 70Cumulative Total 209 810 1,273 1,655 1,985 2,158 2,228

pop equiv[1] Includes 5 percent mapping factor.[2] Allocation factor for annual cost percent.[3] See Table 15.


32


33

III. PROPOSED FINANCING MECHANISMS

Two likely mechanisms for funding annual services costs in the RVSP are a Services CFD special tax and assessments charged through a CSA. There is a mutual interest on the part of the County and the project proponents to create a governance structure that clearly defines the County’s role and responsibilities in ensuring municipal services delivery and that minimizes the potential for future inter‐governmental conflicts as the Plan Area develops.

SERVICES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT

The Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act was enacted in 1982 and provides a method for local governments to fund public facilities and certain services, particularly for newly developing areas. Cities, counties, and special districts may form CFD(s), or District(s), over specific defined areas in their jurisdiction; a CFD is a special financing entity through which a local government is empowered to levy special taxes and issue bonds authorized by a two‐thirds vote of the qualified electors of the District. The County may form one or more Services CFDs to fund those public services permitted by the Community Facilities Act. A CFD may fund a variety of public services:

• Sheriff services

• Fire protection/suppression/ ambulance/paramedic

• Recreation program services

• Library services

• Trails, parks, parkways, and open space

• School maintenance

• Operations and maintenance of museums and cultural facilities

• Hazardous substance cleanup services

• Flood and storm protection

• Road and street light maintenance

LEVY AND FEATURES OF THE SPECIAL TAX

Voting Requirements

The CFD may levy special taxes after a two‐thirds vote by the District in favor of levying a tax. Specifically, if there are 12 or more registered voters in the proposed district, each voter is entitled to one vote, and there must be a two‐thirds majority vote in favor of the tax levy. If there are fewer than 12 registered voters, each landowner receives one vote per acre owned, and there must be a two‐thirds majority vote in favor of the tax levy.


January 2009


34

Recreation program services, library services, and operations and maintenance of museums and cultural facilities can only be authorized if there are at least 12 registered voters, and there must be a two‐thirds vote in favor of the tax levy.1

Special Features of the Special Tax

The special tax may not be based in proportion to the value of real property, nor does it have to be based on benefit. Instead, special taxes should be apportioned on any reasonable basis and may be spread across developable land uses based on some other measure (e.g., density of development, square footage of construction, flat acreage). In addition, public property is exempt from special tax levies.

COUNTY SERVICES AREA

For services not funded through a Services CFD, the County will implement a CSA to fund certain costs through annual assessments. A CSA is authorized under California Government Code Section 25210.1—25211.33. The Government Code provides an “alternative method for providing governmental services by counties in unincorporated areas” by enabling counties to provide extended service for the following types of services in an unincorporated area of the County:

• Extended sheriff services

• Fire protection

• Local park, recreation, or parkway facilities and services

• Street sweeping and lighting service, maintenance, and repair

• Road maintenance

• Library services

• Water and sewer service

• Trails, parks, parkways, and open space

• Extended library facilities and services

• Any other governmental service performed by the county to a greater extent than in the county’s cities

• Other miscellaneous services

• Other items as approved through special legislation

The RVSP could annex into an existing County CSA; alternatively, the County could create one or more new CSAs to serve the RVSP.

1 Section 53328 (b) of the Community Facilities Act.


January 2009


35

FEATURES OF CSA ASSESSMENTS AND CHARGES

A CSA can establish zones with tax rates, service charges, benefit assessments, or connection charges.

Voting Requirements

A benefit assessment is an assessment based on “the particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.”2 To authorize the imposition of benefit assessments, ballots in favor of the assessment must equal or exceed ballots in opposition to the assessment. Ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.

Special Features of Benefit Assessments

Assessments will vary with the extent of benefit from services provided to the property in each zone. Whereas a CFD special tax can be apportioned among taxable land uses on any reasonable basis, a CSA benefit assessment must be based on the direct, proportionate special benefit derived from each service or maintenance cost (according to Article XIII of the California Constitution).

2 California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 2.


January 2009


36



37

IV. DETAILED SERVICE LEVELS

This chapter contains detailed information on the calculation of per‐unit and per‐square‐foot costs for services in the RVSP funded through one or more financing mechanisms. All urban services costs are based on estimates produced by County staff and consultants as required for this Urban Services Plan. Certain urban services in the RVSP are provided solely to residential development, while other urban services are provided to both residential and nonresidential development. In these latter cases, EPS estimates that residential development, on a per‐persons‐served basis, accounts for around 98 percent of development, while commercial development accounts for the remaining 2 percent (see Table 4). Detail related to specific services costs, to the proportionate share of annual services costs to RVSP development, and to the estimated shortfalls or surpluses related to providing services to the RVSP are provided in this chapter.

FIRE

Fire protection services will be provided to the RVSP by the Placer County Fire Department (PCFD). The Placer Vineyards East Fire Station is planned in the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan. The County allocated a portion of the fire service costs for this fire station to the RVSP. Based of the RVSP’s relative population compared to Placer Vineyards Specific Plan population, the RVSP was allocated 14.2 percent of the Placer Vineyards East Fire Station services costs. Fire services costs for this fire station include operation and maintenance of a 3‐bay, 2‐company fire station located on site. In all, the County proposes approximately 21 firefighters and officers in the two companies and approximately 24 command and support staff. The fire station services costs also include operation of a corporation yard and dispatch costs. The development of backbone infrastructure and public facilities will be driven by the phasing and triggers set forth in the Financing Plan. Annual fire services costs are phased in over time in proportion to annual population and employment growth, as shown in Table 17. Appendix A contains the detailed fire cost estimates provided by the County.


January 2009


38

ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS

Table 18 shows the gross and net annual fire services costs at buildout and the allocation of these costs between residential and nonresidential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual fire services cost is approximately $380,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

Annual offsetting revenues, in the form of property tax revenues to the fire district, are estimated to be approximately $224,000 at buildout.

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual PCFD cost is approximately $156,000 at buildout; 97 percent of this cost is allocated to residential development and 3 percent is allocated to commercial (nonresidential) development. These cost allocations result in an annual per‐residential‐unit cost of $171 and per‐commercial‐building‐square‐foot cost of $0.06. Please note that these costs are rounded up (to the nearest dollar for residential and to the nearest cent for nonresidential) to assure adequate funding when deriving the tax/assessment.

Annual Cash Flow

As represented in Table 19, a small operating deficit occurs for fire services in the first year of development. In all remaining years, there are annual surpluses.

DRAFTTable 17Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanFire Service Costs Summary (2006$)

AnnualItem [1] Cost 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

At Buildout

Building Permits 83 334 517 666 795 861 886

Fire Costs

Fire Station Operations and Training $ 19,491 $ 1,769 $ 6,854 $ 10,841 $ 14,219 $ 17,158 $ 18,767 $ 19,491Staffing -- Paramedic 3 Person Fire Engine Company $ 160,660 $ 14,579 $ 56,501 $ 89,363 $ 117,210 $ 141,430 $ 154,698 $ 160,660Staffing -- Paramedic 4 Person Fire Ladder Truck Company $ 81,681 $ 7,412 $ 28,725 $ 45,433 $ 59,590 $ 71,904 $ 78,650 $ 81,681Fire Station and Equipment Replacement Fund $ 34,493 $ 3,130 $ 12,130 $ 19,186 $ 25,164 $ 30,364 $ 33,213 $ 34,493Dispatch Costs $ 11,516 $ 1,045 $ 4,050 $ 6,406 $ 8,402 $ 10,138 $ 11,089 $ 11,516Corporation Yard/Services Center $ 10,253 $ 930 $ 3,606 $ 5,703 $ 7,480 $ 9,026 $ 9,873 $ 10,253Regional Communications and Equipment Replacement $ 17,031 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 17,031Command and Support Staff $ 44,675 $ 4,054 $ 15,711 $ 24,849 $ 32,593 $ 39,328 $ 43,017 $ 44,675

Total $ 379,799 $ 35,833 $ 130,493 $ 204,695 $ 267,573 $ 322,262 $ 352,222 $ 379,799

"fire sum"Sources: Placer County Executive Office and Placer County Fire Department

[1] See Table A-1 for details.

Year


39

DRAFTTable 18Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Fire (2006$)

Population Annual CostItem Equivalent Percent at Buildout

[1]

Gross Annual Fire Cost at Buildout $379,799Less Offsetting Revenues [2] ($223,870)Net Annual Fire Cost at Buildout $155,929Percent Cost Reduction 59%

Share of Annual Fire CostsPopulation 2,215 97.0% $151,179Employment 70 3.0% $4,749Total 2,285 100.0% $155,929

Residents at Buildout 2,188Cost per Capita $69

Units at Buildout 886Cost per Unit [3] $171

Commercial Sq. Ft. at Buildout 83,600Cost per Sq. Ft. [3] $0.06

"fire"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] HEG Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) --Table 12.[3] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


40

DRAFTTable 19Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Fire (Constant 2006$)

Annual Cumulative Cumulative Annual Net Annual Surplus/

Year Units Nonres. Sq. Ft. Total Cost [2] Residential Nonresidential Total (Shortfall)

59% $171 $0.06 percost reduction per unit bldg. sq. ft.

2010 83 0 $35,833 $14,712 $14,193 $0 $14,193 ($519)2011 334 0 $130,493 $53,575 $57,114 $0 $57,114 $3,5392012 517 9,500 $204,695 $84,039 $88,407 $570 $88,977 $4,9382013 666 28,500 $267,573 $109,854 $113,886 $1,710 $115,596 $5,7422014 795 47,500 $322,262 $132,307 $135,945 $2,850 $138,795 $6,4882015 861 66,500 $352,222 $144,607 $147,231 $3,990 $151,221 $6,6142016 886 83,600 $379,799 $155,929 $151,506 $5,016 $156,522 $593

"fire surplus"[1] Includes 5-percent mapping factor.[2] Percentage cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.

Units/Sq. Ft. [1] Annual RevenuesCosts


41


January 2009


42

SHERIFF

Sheriff services will be provided to the RVSP by the County Sheriff’s Department. The Specific Plan Draft EIR identifies an estimated range of additional sheriff protection services personnel that will be needed to provide sheriff protection to serve the Plan Area. The County proposes funding for 2.7 sworn officers and 0.6 non‐sworn officers to serve the RVSP at buildout. This staffing level equates to a ratio of 1.22 sworn officers and 0.28 non‐sworn officers per 1,000 population. Table 20 details the calculation of the staffing ratios. The operation staffing plans and required vehicles to serve the RVSP are summarized below:

• Sworn Staff Regular: 2.7

• Non Sworn/Support Staff: 0.6

• Vehicles: 3.0 Table 21 summarizes the annual costs for sheriff services. Appendix A contains the detailed costs for sheriff services. At buildout, the gross annual sheriff services costs for the RVSP are estimated as follows:

• $375,000 for sworn staff

• $51,000 for non‐sworn staff

• $265,000 for programs and services

• $23,000 for administration and overhead


Table 22 shows the gross and net annual sheriff services costs and the allocation of these costs between residential and nonresidential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual sheriff services cost is approximately $714,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

Approximately 9 percent (approximately $64,000) of budgeted costs are covered by offsetting revenues, such as charges for service and intergovernmental revenue.


January 2009


43

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual sheriff cost at buildout is estimated to be $650,000; 98 percent of this cost is allocated to residential development and 2 percent is allocated to commercial (nonresidential) development. These cost allocations result in an annual per‐residential‐unit cost of $717 and per‐commercial‐building‐square‐foot cost of $0.18. Please note that these costs are rounded up (to the nearest dollar for residential and to the nearest cent for nonresidential) to assure adequate funding when deriving the tax/assessment.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 23, a small operating deficit occurs for sheriff services in the first year of development. In all remaining years, there are annual surpluses.

DRAFTTable 20Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSheriff Services Standard

Item

Population/Employment at Buildout

SheriffPopulation

Weighting Factor

Sheriff Population Equivalent

Population and Employees at BuildoutPopulation 2,188 1.00 2,188Employees 167 0.31 52Total 2,355 2,240

Required StaffProposed Sworn Staff 2.73Proposed Sworn Staff Standard (per 1,000 population equivalent) 1.22

Proposed Non-Sworn Staff 0.63Proposed Non-Sworn Staff Standard (per 1,000 population equivalent) 0.28

staff ratioSource: EPS and Placer County Executive Office


44

DRAFTTable 21Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSheriff Costs Summary (2006$) [1]

Item 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Sheriff Costs

Sworn Staff Regular $34,971 $135,532 $213,151 $277,534 $333,216 $362,628 $374,766

Non Sworn Staff $4,738 $18,361 $28,876 $37,599 $45,142 $49,127 $50,771

Programs & Services $24,766 $95,984 $150,954 $196,550 $235,984 $256,813 $265,409

Admin/Overhead $2,147 $8,322 $13,089 $17,042 $20,461 $22,267 $23,013

Total Sheriff Costs $66,622 $258,199 $406,070 $528,724 $634,803 $690,835 $713,958

sheriff sumSource: Placer County Executive Office

[1] See Table A-2 for details.

Year


45

DRAFTTable 22Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Sheriff (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Sheriff Cost at Buildout $713,958Less Offsetting Revenues [2] 9% ($64,256)Net Annual Sheriff Cost at Buildout $649,702Percent Cost Reduction 9%

Share of Annual Sheriff CostsPopulation 2,188 97.7% $634,685Employment 52 2.3% $15,017Total 2,240 100.0% $649,702




"sheriff"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] HEG Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Notes to Appendix A.[3] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


46

DRAFTTable 23Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Sheriff (Constant 2006$)




2010 83 0 $66,622 $60,626 $59,511 $0 $59,511 ($1,115)2011 334 0 $258,199 $234,961 $239,478 $0 $239,478 $4,5172012 517 9,500 $406,070 $369,524 $370,689 $1,710 $372,399 $2,8752013 666 28,500 $528,724 $481,139 $477,522 $5,130 $482,652 $1,5132014 795 47,500 $634,803 $577,670 $570,015 $8,550 $578,565 $8952015 861 66,500 $690,835 $628,660 $617,337 $11,970 $629,307 $6472016 886 83,600 $713,958 $649,702 $635,262 $15,048 $650,310 $608

"sheriff surplus"[1] Includes five percent mapping factor.[2] Percent cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.

Units/Sq. Ft. [1] Costs Annual Revenues


47


January 2009


48

TRAILS AND PARKS

County Facility Services will provide maintenance services for the trails and parks in the RVSP. The RVSP contains 6.25 miles of trails and 10 acres of parks. County staff has estimated park maintenance costs at $12,391 per acre, as shown in Table 24. In addition, the County provided an estimate of $8,888 per mile to maintain all onsite trails except the Native Earth Trail, and $2,376 per mile to maintain the Native Earth Trail.


Table 25 shows the gross and net annual trails and parks maintenance costs at buildout. All of the net costs are allocated to residential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual trails and parks maintenance cost is approximately $208,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

There are no projected offsetting revenues for trails or parks maintenance.

Net Annual Costs

Because there are no offsetting revenues, the net annual cost at buildout is equal to the gross annual cost, resulting in a cost of $235 per dwelling unit. Commercial development is excluded from the trails and parks cost allocation.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 26, there are projected annual funding surpluses in all years.

DRAFTTable 24Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanParks and Trails Costs (2006$)

Item Quantity Unit Cost Timing2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Trails MilesOnsite Trails [1] 4.55 $8,888 straight-lined $5,777 $11,554 $17,332 $23,109 $28,886 $34,663 $40,440Native Earth Trails [2] 1.70 $2,376 straight-lined $577 $1,154 $1,731 $1,731 $2,885 $3,462 $4,039Subtotal 6.25 $6,354 $12,708 $19,063 $24,840 $31,771 $38,125 $44,480

Parks AcresPark 1 1.00 $12,391 120th building permit $0 $12,391 $12,391 $12,391 $12,391 $12,391 $12,391Park 2 1.30 $12,391 270th building permit $0 $16,108 $16,108 $16,108 $16,108 $16,108 $16,108Park 3 4.40 $12,391 500th building permit $0 $0 $54,520 $54,520 $54,520 $54,520 $54,520Park 4 5.70 $12,391 TBD based on development of

Elliott parcel$0 $0 $0 $70,629 $70,629 $70,629 $70,629

Subtotal 12.40 $0 $28,499 $83,020 $153,648 $153,648 $153,648 $153,648

TRAILS & PARKS SUBTOTAL $6,354 $41,208 $102,082 $178,488 $185,420 $191,774 $198,128

Park Rehabilitation [3] 5% $318 $2,060 $5,104 $8,924 $9,271 $9,589 $9,906

TOTAL TRAILS AND PARKS COST $6,672 $43,268 $107,187 $187,413 $194,691 $201,362 $208,034

"parks costs"Sources: Riolo Vineyards Specific Plan, Placer County Executive Office

[1] Reduced trail maintenance by $1,000 per mile. [2] Native Earth Trail cost calculated as follows:

5,280 feet/mile a1.7 miles b

8,976 feet c=a*b5 feet wide d

44,880 sq. feet e=c*d$0.09 cost/sq. ft. f

$4,039 total cost g=e*f$2,376 cost/mile h=g/b

[3] Administration is absorbed, but still need 5% for future rehab.

Year


49

DRAFTTable 25Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Parks and Trails (2006$)

Population Annual CostItem Equivalent [1] Percent at Buildout

Gross Annual Parks and Trails Cost at Buildout $208,034Less Offsetting Revenues [2] $0Net Annual Parks and Trails Cost at Buildout $208,034Percent Cost Reduction 0%

Share of Annual Parks CostsPopulation 2,188 100.0% $208,034Employment 0 0.0% $0Total 2,188 100.0% $208,034


Units at Buildout (excl. commercial mixed use) 886Cost per Unit [3] $235


"Parks"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] HEG Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008). No offsetting revenues.[3] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


50

DRAFTTable 26Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Parks and Trails (Constant 2006$)



0% cost reduction $235 per unit $0.0 perbldg. sq. ft.

2010 83 0 $6,672 $6,672 $19,505 $0 $19,505 $12,8332011 334 0 $43,268 $43,268 $78,490 $0 $78,490 $35,2222012 517 9,500 $107,187 $107,187 $121,495 $0 $121,495 $14,3082013 666 28,500 $187,413 $187,413 $156,510 $0 $156,510 ($30,903)2014 795 47,500 $194,691 $194,691 $186,825 $0 $186,825 ($7,866)2015 861 66,500 $201,362 $201,362 $202,335 $0 $202,335 $9732016 886 83,600 $208,034 $208,034 $208,210 $0 $208,210 $176

"parks surplus"[1] Includes five percent mapping factor.[2] Percent cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.



51


January 2009


52

OPEN SPACE

Open space maintenance to the RVSP will be provided by County Facility Services or as otherwise designated by the County. There are approximately 123.9 acres of onsite open space in the RVSP. As shown in Table 27, the County will maintain 30 of these acres, and the remaining acres will be maintained privately by the Homeowners Association. Based on cost estimates provided by the County, the onsite open space is maintained at a rate of $420 per acre.


Table 28 shows the gross and net annual open space costs at buildout. All of the net costs are allocated to residential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The estimated gross annual open space maintenance cost is approximately $12,600 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

There are no projected offsetting revenues for open space maintenance.

Net Annual Costs

Because there are no offsetting revenues, the net annual cost at buildout is equal to the gross annual cost, resulting in a cost of $15 per dwelling unit. Commercial development is excluded from the open space maintenance cost allocation.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 29, all open space maintenance costs are assumed to be phased in on a straight‐line basis through buildout. There is a small projected operating deficit in the first year of development, after which time, the cash flow becomes positive.

DRAFTTable 27Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanOpen Space Costs (2006$)

Cost/ Annual CostItem Unit at Buildout Timing

Open Space Maintenance CostsOnsite Open Space Maintenance 30 acres $420 $12,600 straight-linedOff-Site Open Space Maintenance 0 acres $165 $0 straight-linedDrainageway Channel Maintenance 0 miles $50,000 $0 straight-lined

Total Open Space Costs $12,600

"os costs"Sources: Placer County Exec. Office (cost assumptions), Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan (acres).

UnitQuantity


53

DRAFTTable 28Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Open Space (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Open Space Cost at Buildout $12,600Less Offsetting Revenues $0Net Annual Open Space Cost at Buildout $12,600Percent Cost Reduction 0%

Share of Annual Open Space CostsPopulation 2,188 100% $12,600Employment 0 0% $0




"os"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


54

DRAFTTable 29Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Open Space (Constant 2006$)




2010 83 0 $1,800 $1,800 $1,245 $0 $1,245 ($555)2011 334 0 $3,600 $3,600 $5,010 $0 $5,010 $1,4102012 517 9,500 $5,400 $5,400 $7,755 $0 $7,755 $2,3552013 666 28,500 $7,200 $7,200 $9,990 $0 $9,990 $2,7902014 795 47,500 $9,000 $9,000 $11,925 $0 $11,925 $2,9252015 861 66,500 $10,800 $10,800 $12,915 $0 $12,915 $2,1152016 886 83,600 $12,600 $12,600 $13,290 $0 $13,290 $690

"os surplus"[1] Includes five percent mapping factor.[2] Percent cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.

Annual RevenuesUnits/Sq. Ft. [1] Costs


55


January 2009


56

BASELINE COUNTYWIDE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES

Countywide services are those that are not provided by cities and include detention, District Attorney, probation, public defender, and certain other public protection services; human services; animal control; library services; and some general government services (e.g., county assessor, auditor/controller, treasurer/tax collector, legislative functions). Other services include those provided by the County in the unincorporated area only that duplicate services provided by cities. These services are referred to as municipal services and include sheriff patrol and investigation, county road maintenance, building inspection, parks administration, most planning services, and a share of executive, legislative, and administrative general government services.3 This section details the baseline countywide and municipal services only. In addition, there are further services required for some service types, such as road maintenance and sheriff services, to establish an urban level of service. These additional services are detailed in other sections of this chapter. Finally, for library services, it is assumed that the services required to establish an urban level of service (discussed later in the “Library” section of this chapter) will replace the countywide and municipal baseline library services. Consequently, the library services costs are excluded from the baseline costs. As the population grows, there will be a gradual increase in the need for baseline countywide and municipal services. For purposes of this Urban Services Plan, it is assumed that each residential unit or building square foot of commercial space will generate a set increase in required services. Cost assumptions for baseline countywide and municipal services are summarized in Table 30 and detailed in Appendix A. Based on per‐unit and per‐employee cost factors developed by HEG for the County, the estimated average annual cost for baseline countywide and municipal services amounts to $724 per resident and $163 per employee. These per‐resident and per‐employee costs exclude some sheriff costs to avoid double‐counting services discussed above in the “Sheriff” section; however, they do include a 15‐percent increase on the public safety portion of countywide service costs to account for growth‐related cost increases.

3 HEG, “Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis,” October 7, 2008, (pg. 3).


January 2009


57


Table 31 shows the gross and net annual baseline countywide and municipal services costs at buildout and the allocation of these costs between residential and nonresidential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual baseline countywide and municipal services costs is approximately $1.6 million at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

There are both General Fund and Public Safety Fund offsetting revenues. There are an estimated $1.0 million in General Fund offsetting revenues derived primarily from property taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes in lieu of vehicle license fees. In addition, there is an estimated $260,000 in Public Safety Fund offsetting revenues derived from sales tax revenue. In total, there are an estimated $1.3 million in offsetting revenues for baseline countywide and municipal services.

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual baseline countywide and municipal services cost is approximately $324,000. This amount equates to costs of $360 per dwelling unit and $0.07 per nonresidential building square foot.

Annual Cash Flow

For purposes of this Urban Services Plan, baseline countywide and municipal services costs are assumed to be approximately equivalent to revenues. As each unit is built, thus generating an additional need for services, the annual per‐unit tax or assessment is collected. The same is true for commercial development. As shown in Table 32, a small operating deficit occurs for baseline countywide and municipal services in the first year of development. In all remaining years, there are annual surpluses.

DRAFTTable 30Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanBaseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs (2006$)

Item Assumption

Annual Cost at Buildout

(2006$)

Annual per-Resident Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services CostsCountywide Services - Other [1] Cost per Resident $248Countywide Services - Public Safety [1][2] Cost per Resident $129Unincorporated Area/Municipal Services [1] Cost per Resident $552(Less Sheriff) [3] Cost per Resident ($224)Total Annual per-Resident Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs $705

Adjustment to Account for Growth-Related Cost Increases [4] 15% $19Adjusted Cost per Resident Cost per Resident $724

Total Residents at Buildout 2,188

Total Annual Resident Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs at Buildout $1,583,845

Annual per-Employee Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services CostsCountywide Services - Other [1] Cost per Employee $38Countywide Services - Public Safety [1][2] Cost per Employee $40Unincorporated Area/Municipal Services [1] Cost per Employee $148(Less Sheriff) [3] Cost per Employee ($70)Total Annual per-Employee Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs $157

Adjustment to Account for Growth-Related Cost Increases [4] 15% $6Adjusted Cost per Employee Cost per Employee $163

Total Employees at Buildout 167

Total Annual Employee Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs at Buildout $27,215

Total Annual Countywide/Baseline Municipal Services Costs $1,611,060

"ms costs"Sources: Hausrath Economics Group (HEG), Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis , October 7, 2008; Placer County.

[1] HEG Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008). See Table A-3 for additional detail.[2] Includes contribution to Public Safety, Detention and Correction, Judicial, Protection and Prevention, and Administration.[3] Sheriff cost backed out of total municipal services cost to avoid double-counting.[4] This 15% increase is included per the County's direction. It applies only to the Public Safety portion of countywide services cost.


58

DRAFTTable 31Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs at Buildout $1,611,060Less General Fund Offsetting Revenues [2] ($1,026,339)Less Public Safety Fund Offsetting Revenues [2], [3] ($260,344)Net Annual Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs at Buildout $324,377Percent Cost Reduction from Offsetting Revenues 80%

Share of Annual Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services CostsPopulation 2,188 98.3% $318,898Employment 38 1.7% $5,480Total 2,226 100.0% $324,377




"ms"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] HEG Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Table 10.[3] Represents public safety sales tax revenue from project residents.[4] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


59

DRAFTTable 32Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services (Constant 2006$)


YearCumulative

UnitsCumulative

Nonres. Sq. Ft.Cumulative Residents

CumulativeEmployees

PopulationCost

EmployeeCost

AnnualTotal

Net AnnualCost [2] Residential Nonresidential Total

AnnualSurplus/

(Shortfall)

$724 $163 80% $360 $0.07 perper resident per employee cost reduction per unit bldg. sq. ft.

[2] [2]

2010 83 0 209 0 $151,291 $0 $151,291 $30,461 $29,880 $0 $29,880 ($581)2011 334 0 810 0 $586,341 $0 $586,341 $118,056 $120,240 $0 $120,240 $2,1842012 517 9,500 1,268 19 $917,877 $3,096 $920,974 $185,432 $186,120 $665 $186,785 $1,3532013 666 28,500 1,641 57 $1,187,884 $9,289 $1,197,173 $241,043 $239,760 $1,995 $241,755 $7122014 795 47,500 1,962 95 $1,420,249 $15,482 $1,435,730 $289,076 $286,200 $3,325 $289,525 $4492015 861 66,500 2,126 133 $1,538,965 $21,674 $1,560,639 $314,225 $309,960 $4,655 $314,615 $3902016 886 83,600 2,188 167 $1,583,845 $27,215 $1,611,060 $324,377 $318,960 $5,852 $324,812 $435

"ms surplus"[1] Includes 5-percent mapping factor.[2] See Table 30.[3] Percentage cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.

Costs Annual RevenuesUnits/Sq. Ft. [1]


60


January 2009


61

LIBRARY

Library services will be provided through the County Library. A regional library is planned in the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan (PVSP) Public Facilities Financing Plan. This analysis is based on the assumption that the PVSP, Regional University Specific Plan, and RVSP will contribute to the cost of the library, based on a per‐persons‐served allocation. Table 33 shows that the RVSP makes up 5.7 percent of the total population served by the regional library. It is expected that the RVSP will, therefore, fund 5.7 percent of gross library costs. Table 34 summarizes the annual costs for library services. According to the County Executive Office, the regional library facility will operate 6 days a week with business hours on two or three evenings per week. The County suggests the staffing guidelines outlined below:

• Senior Librarian: 1

• Librarian II: 2

• Library Clerk‐Senior: 1

• Library Clerk‐Journey Half‐Time: 3

• Library Clerk‐Journey Full‐Time: 2

• Technology Sol. Analyst: 0.25

• Extra Help: 1


Table 35 shows the gross and net annual library service costs at buildout. All of the net costs are allocated to residential development.

Gross Annual Costs

RVSP’s share (5.7 percent) of the gross annual library services cost is approximately $68,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

Annual revenues from the Library Fund are expected to offset approximately $31,000 of library costs each year.


January 2009


62

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual library services cost at buildout of the library is estimated to be $37,000. Note that although buildout of the library is projected to occur much later than buildout of the RVSP, the library services cost at its completion is used to establish the cost per dwelling unit for library services. This cost results in a cost of $42 per dwelling unit. Commercial development is not charged for library services.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 36, a small operating deficit occurs for library services in the first year of development. In all remaining years, there are annual surpluses. In future years past buildout of the RVSP in 2016, the surpluses should decline as the library is further built and additional service costs are added.

DRAFTTable 33Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAdditional Assumptions for Library Cost Distribution

Item PopulationPercentage of

Total

Regional University 7,198 18.75%

Riolo Vineyard 2,188 5.70%

Placer Vineyards 29,011 75.56%

Total Population 38,397 100.00%

"lib assump"Source: Placer County


63

DRAFTTable 34Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanLibrary Costs/Triggers (2006$)

Item Unit Cost/ Total Buildout CompletionQuantity Unit Cost 1 886 of the library

Estimated Year 2010 2017 2020 2032Percent of Costs 15% 20% 40% 100%

Staffing CostSenior Librarian 1 $100,152 $100,152 $15,023 $5,008 $20,030 $60,091Librarian II 2 $88,975 $177,950 $26,693 $8,898 $35,590 $106,770Library Clerk - Senior 1 $60,222 $60,222 $9,033 $3,011 $12,044 $36,133Library Clerk - Journey HT 3 $26,310 $78,930 $11,840 $3,947 $15,786 $47,358Library Clerk - Journey FT 2 $54,624 $109,248 $16,387 $5,462 $21,850 $65,549Technology Sol. Analyst 0.25 $95,798 $23,950 $3,592 $1,197 $4,790 $14,370Extra Help 1 $80,000 $80,000 $12,000 $4,000 $16,000 $48,000

Staff Subtotal $630,452 $94,568 $31,523 $126,090 $378,271

Program CostLibrary Collection 1 $200,000 $200,000 $30,000 $10,000 $40,000 $120,000Placer Adult Literacy 1 $7,500 $7,500 $1,125 $375 $1,500 $4,500

Program Subtotal $207,500 $31,125 $10,375 $41,500 $124,500

Facility Maintenance CostBuilding & Grounds 1 $75,000 $75,000 $11,250 $3,750 $15,000 $45,000Electrical 1 $55,000 $55,000 $8,250 $2,750 $11,000 $33,000Gas 1 $9,000 $9,000 $1,350 $450 $1,800 $5,400Water 1 $6,000 $6,000 $900 $300 $1,200 $3,600Disposal 1 $6,500 $6,500 $975 $325 $1,300 $3,900Technology & Communications 1 $10,404 $10,404 $1,561 $520 $2,081 $6,242

Facility Maintenance Subtotal $161,904 $24,286 $8,095 $32,381 $97,142

Library & Office Supplies 1 $60,000 $60,000 $9,000 $3,000 $12,000 $36,000

Equipment Replacement 1 $10,000 $10,000 $1,500 $500 $2,000 $6,000

Misc. Expense 1 $5,000 $5,000 $750 $250 $1,000 $3,000

Mileage & Training 1 $6,000 $6,000 $900 $300 $1,200 $3,600

Total Cost Excluding Administrative Overhead $1,080,856 $162,128 $54,043 $216,171 $648,513Administrative Overhead 11% $118,894 $17,834 $5,945 $23,779 $71,336

Total Library Costs $1,199,750 $179,962 $59,987 $239,950 $719,850Riolo Vineyard Share 5.70% $68,366 $10,255 $3,418 $13,673 $41,020

Cumulative Library Costs: RVSP Share $10,255 $13,673 $27,346 $68,366

"lib costs"Source: Placer County Executive Office

Timing (Building Permits)


64

DRAFTTable 35Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Library (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Library Cost at Buildout $1,199,750Percent Allocation to Riolo Vineyard [2] 5.70%Riolo Vineyard's Share of Gross Annual Library Costs $68,366Less Offsetting Revenues [3] ($31,196)Net Annual Library Cost at Buildout $37,170Percent Cost Reduction 46%

Share of Annual Library CostsPopulation 2,188 100.0% $37,170Employment 0 0.0% $0Total 2,188 100.0% $37,170




"lib"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] See Table 33.[3] HEG Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Table 10.[4] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


65

DRAFTTable 36Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Library (Constant 2006$)


Year Units Nonres. Sq. Ft. Total Cost [2] Residential Nonresidential TOTAL (Shortfall)


2010 83 0 $10,255 $5,576 $3,486 $0 $3,486 ($2,090)2011 334 0 $10,255 $5,576 $14,028 $0 $14,028 $8,4522012 517 9,500 $10,255 $5,576 $21,714 $0 $21,714 $16,1382013 666 28,500 $10,255 $5,576 $27,972 $0 $27,972 $22,3962014 795 47,500 $10,255 $5,576 $33,390 $0 $33,390 $27,8142015 861 66,500 $10,255 $5,576 $36,162 $0 $36,162 $30,5862016 886 83,600 $10,255 $5,576 $37,212 $0 $37,212 $31,636

"library surplus"[1] Includes 5-percent mapping factor.[2] Percentage cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.



66


January 2009


67

TRANSIT

Before development begins in the RVSP, a Transit Master Plan for public transit service will be prepared and approved by the County Board of Supervisors before the approval for recordation of the first large‐lot subdivision map in the Plan Area. The Transit Master Plan will describe in detail the service providers and the transit service levels for the RVSP. Table 37 shows the annual costs for transit services. The estimated costs assume a level of service that provides for inter‐regional and suburban local service to and from Roseville as well as other West Placer areas at 30 minute headways. It is assumed that all required services will be provided beginning at the issuance of the 800th building permit.


Table 38 shows the gross and net annual transit costs at buildout and the allocation of those costs between residential and nonresidential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual transit services cost is approximately $96,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

State and federal funds may be available to offset costs. Until more detailed estimates from the Transit Master Plan are available, a 50‐percent offset, or approximately $48,000 annually, is assumed.

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual transit cost at buildout is estimated to be $48,000; 98 percent of this cost is allocated to residential development and 2 percent is allocated to commercial development. These cost allocations result in annual costs of $54 per dwelling unit and $0.02 per commercial building square foot.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 42, transit services show a net operating surplus in the first four years of development, then annual shortfalls for the next two years, and finally a surplus in the last year of development.

DRAFTTable 37Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanTransit Costs/Triggers (2006$)

ItemUnit

Quantity Cost/UnitTotal Cost

(at 800 Bldg Permits)

Estimated Year 2014

Route Operating CostsRoute bus in Service 0.25 238,000$ $59,500ADA bus in Service 0.1 142,400$ $14,240Commuter Bus in Service 0.1 75,840$ $7,584Route Operating Costs Subtotal 0.45 $81,324

Staffing CostsTransportation Supervisor 0.05 76,000$ $3,800Administrative Dispatcher 0.05 68,000$ $3,400Staffing Subtotal $7,200

Supply CostsPrinted Materials 0.05 16,500$ $825Computers 0.05 2,500$ $125Office Supplies & Expense 0.05 2,500$ $125Postage 0.05 2,000$ $100Other Supplies 0.05 3,000$ $150Supply Subtotal $1,325

Building Maintenance CostsBuilding Maintenance 0.1 10,000$ $1,000Building Maintenance Subtotal $1,000

Internal Charges CostsCounty Vehicle Mileage 0.05 15,000$ $750Drug/Alcohol Testing 0.05 4,000$ $200County Telecom Charges 0.05 26,800$ $1,340Internal Charges Subtotal $2,290

Other ChargesPublic Works Manager 0.01 90,000$ $900Senior Transportation System Sup. 0.01 75,000$ $750Analyst 0.01 75,000$ $750DPW Admin Charges 0.01 30,000$ $300A 87 0.01 30,000$ $300Other Charges Subtotal $3,000

Total Transit Costs $96,139

tran costsSource: Placer County Executive Office


68

DRAFTTable 38Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Transit (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Transit Cost at Buildout $96,139Less Offsetting Revenues [2] 50% ($48,070)Net Annual Transit Cost at Buildout $48,070Percent Cost Reduction 50%

Share of Annual Transit CostsPopulation 2,188 97.8% $47,029Employment 48 2.2% $1,041Total 2,236 100.0% $48,070




"tran"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] Estimated as 50% of annual buildout cost. May include state and federal funds and fare box recovery.[3] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


69

DRAFTTable 39Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Transit (Constant 2006$)




2010 83 0 $0 $0 $4,482 $0 $4,482 $4,4822011 334 0 $0 $0 $18,036 $0 $18,036 $18,0362012 517 9,500 $0 $0 $27,918 $190 $28,108 $28,1082013 666 28,500 $0 $0 $35,964 $570 $36,534 $36,5342014 795 47,500 $96,139 $48,070 $42,930 $950 $43,880 ($4,190)2015 861 66,500 $96,139 $48,070 $46,494 $1,330 $47,824 ($246)2016 886 83,600 $96,139 $48,070 $47,844 $1,672 $49,516 $1,447

"tran surplus"[1] Includes five percent mapping factor.[2] Percent cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.



70


January 2009


71

RECREATION SERVICES

County Facility Services will be responsible for regional park facilities maintenance, staffing, and general and recreation programming. In conjunction with the recommendations made in the 2005 Citygate report, “Placer County Recreation and Park Development Project,” the County originally developed the following standards for the provision of regional recreation facilities: for every 40,000 people, there should be one aquatic center, community center, gymnasium, senior center, recreation center, and youth center. Table 40 shows the recreation level of service and cost assumptions. These assumptions are detailed below.

Recreation Facility Maintenance

Recreation facility maintenance includes maintenance at all of the facilities mentioned above. The annual cost for recreation facility maintenance is estimated at $17.63 per capita.

Recreation Programming

Citygate estimates that the annual cost for recreation programming comprises two recreation components: general programming, described more below, and $11.44 (2006$) net per capita for recreation programming at the recreation center. With additional administration costs of $1.94 per capita, total recreation programming amounts to $13.38 per capita. Please note that the County recently eliminated RVSP’s participation in programming for the community center, gymnasium, senior center, and youth center, but retained RVSP’s participation in programming for the recreation center.

Recreation Supervision Staffing

The Citygate report, “Placer County Recreation and Park Development Project,” recommends the following staffing guidelines to serve the total population projected for the southwest County:

• Recreation Manager: 1

• Recreation Supervisor: 2

• Secretary: 4 The County estimates that these staffing levels can be provided at a gross cost of $13.30 per capita, including administration and materials and supplies. The staffing outlined above comprises only the core supervisory staff; other staffing will be added as the recreational programs and services are defined.


January 2009


72

General Recreation Programming

Finally, the County estimates a cost of $42.86 per capita for general recreation programming, separate from the recreation programming associated with specific recreation facilities described above.

Total Recreation Costs

In total, gross recreation costs amount to $87.17 per capita at buildout.


Table 41 show the gross and net annual recreation costs. All of the net costs are allocated to residential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual recreation services cost is approximately $191,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

Offsetting revenues from cost recovery (e.g., user charges) estimated at 65 percent of programming costs amount to around $99,000 annually for recreation supervision, general programming, and recreation programming combined.

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual recreation services cost is approximately $92,000 at buildout, resulting in a cost of $104 per dwelling unit. Commercial development is excluded from the recreation services cost allocation.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 42, there are projected annual funding surpluses in all years of development of the Plan Area.

DRAFTTable 40Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanRecreation Costs (2006$) [1]

Item Per Capita Cost Total

Population at Buildout 2,188

Recreation Facility Maintenance CostsRecreation Center Maintenance $1.24 $2,713Community Center Maintenance $4.33 $9,474Gymnasium Maintenance $1.85 $4,048Aquatic Center $7.73 $16,913Senior Center Maintenance $1.24 $2,713Youth Center Maintenance $1.24 $2,713Recreation Facility Maintenance Subtotal $17.63 $38,574

Recreation Programming CostsRecreation Center Programming $11.44 $25,031Community Center Programming $0Gymnasium Programming $0Senior Center Programming $0Youth Center Programming $0Recreation Programming Subtotal $11.44 $25,031Administration (17%) $1.94 $4,255Recreation Programming Subtotal w/Admin. $13.38 $29,286

Recreation Supervision CostsRecreation Manager, Sup., & Secretary $8.75 $19,145Administration $1.49 $3,260Materials & Supplies $3.06 $6,695Recreation Supervision Subtotal $13.30 $29,100

General Recreation Programming CostGeneral Recreation $36.63 $80,146Administration (17%) $6.23 $13,631General Recreation Programming Subtotal $42.86 $93,778

Total Gross Recreation Costs $87.17 $190,738

Less Recreation Programming Recovery Costs (65%) ($8.70) ($19,036)Less Recreation Supervision Recovery Costs (65%) ($8.65) ($18,915)Less General Recreation Recovery Costs (65%) ($27.86) ($60,955)Subtotal Offsetting Revenues ($45.20) ($98,907)

TOTAL RECREATION SERVICES $41.97 $91,832

"rec costs"Source: Placer County Executive Office

[1] This Urban Services Plan reflects recreation programming associated with one recreationbuilding, an assumption used for the Regional University project approved months prior to thisproject. Prior to setting special taxes and assessments, this funding assumption may berevisited if it is determined that more than one recreation facility will be serving the RioloVineyard development.


73

DRAFTTable 41Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Recreation (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Recreation Cost at Buildout $190,738Less Offsetting Revenues [2] ($98,907)Net Annual Recreation Cost at Buildout $91,832Percent Cost Reduction 52%

Share of Annual Recreation CostsPopulation 2,188 100.0% $91,832Employment 0 0.0% $0Total 2,188 100.0% $91,832




"rec"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] See Table 40 for offsetting revenues from recreation cost recovery.[3] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


74

DRAFTTable 42Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Recreation (Constant 2006$)




2010 83 0 $17,868 $8,603 $8,632 $0 $8,632 $292011 334 0 $71,904 $34,618 $34,736 $0 $34,736 $1182012 517 9,500 $111,300 $53,586 $53,768 $0 $53,768 $1822013 666 28,500 $143,377 $69,029 $69,264 $0 $69,264 $2352014 795 47,500 $171,148 $82,400 $82,680 $0 $82,680 $2802015 861 66,500 $185,356 $89,241 $89,544 $0 $89,544 $3032016 886 83,600 $190,738 $91,832 $92,144 $0 $92,144 $312

"rec surplus"[1] Includes 5-percent mapping factor.[2] Percentage cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.

Costs Annual RevenuesUnits/Sq. Ft. [1]


75


January 2009


76

ROADS

Road maintenance services to the RVSP will be provided by County Public Works. Table 43 shows the road maintenance cost assumptions. Based on data provided by MacKay & Somps, there are 7.8 centerline miles of roadway. Per‐centerline‐mile costs were provided by the County. Further, the original road service cost estimates developed by the County in 2007 were reduced by 29 percent to reflect adjusted County services costs per the direction of the Board of Supervisors.


Table 44 shows the gross and net annual road maintenance costs at buildout and the allocation of these costs between residential and nonresidential development.

Gross Annual Costs

The gross annual road maintenance cost is approximately $228,000 at buildout.

Offsetting Revenues

HEG estimates a $22 per‐resident revenue multiplier for Public Ways and Facilities (Road) Fund revenues. This results in annual offsetting revenues at buildout of $49,000.

Net Annual Costs

After accounting for annual offsetting revenues, the net annual road maintenance cost is approximately $179,000 at buildout; 98 percent of this cost is allocated to residential development and 2 percent is allocated to commercial development. These cost allocations result in annual costs of $199 per dwelling unit and $0.04 per commercial building square foot.

Annual Cash Flow

As shown in Table 45, it is assumed that road maintenance costs are incurred on a straight‐line basis starting in the first year of development. The cash flow shows an operating deficit in the first year of development. In all remaining years, there are annual surpluses.

DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table 43Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanRoad Costs (2006$)

Item Unit Cost/Unit Before AfterQuantity (2006$) Reduction Reduction Timing

71%Engineering & General Admin Costs

Engineering Services 2,188 $26.54 $58,076 $41,234 straight-linedGeneral Administration 2,188 $2.35 $5,138 $3,648 straight-lined

Engineering & General Admin Subtotal $63,215 $44,882

Streets & Roadways CostPavement Mgmt. System 7.80 $888.89 $6,933 $4,923 straight-linedAnnual Street Maintenance 7.80 $5,558.91 $43,359 $30,785 straight-linedRoadway Construction 7.80 $11,749.00 $91,642 $65,066 straight-linedPavement Marking Renewal 7.80 $944.51 $7,367 $5,231 straight-linedSign Replacements 7.80 $843.57 $6,580 $4,672 straight-linedStreet Sweeping 7.80 $1,142.27 $8,910 $6,326 straight-lined

Streets & Roadways Subtotal $164,792 $117,002

Traffic Management CostsCirculation Controls Mgmt. 7.80 $371.83 $2,900 $2,059 straight-linedPeak Hour Traffic Controls 7.80 $48.41 $378 $268 straight-linedPeak Hour Pedestrian Controls 7.80 $48.41 $378 $268 straight-linedSchool Bus Circulation 7.80 $31.93 $249 $177 straight-linedSpecial Events 7.80 $31.93 $249 $177 straight-lined

Traffic Management Subtotal $4,154 $2,949

Traffic Signals CostsPower Costs 1 $662.29 $662 $470 straight-linedMaintenance 1 $6,347.89 $6,348 $4,507 straight-linedReplacements 1 $8,244.12 $8,244 $5,853 straight-lined

Traffic Signals Subtotal $15,254 $10,831

Street Lights CostsPower Costs 15 $247.20 $3,708 $2,633 straight-linedMaintenance 15 $20.60 $309 $219 straight-linedReplacements 15 $8.24 $124 $88 straight-lined

Street Lights Subtotal $4,141 $2,940

Parking CostsSurface Maintenance 7.80 $1,251.45 $9,761 $6,931 straight-linedSweeping 7.80 $58.71 $458 $325 straight-linedPavement Marking Renewal 7.80 $283.25 $2,209 $1,569 straight-linedParking Control & Management 7.80 $21.63 $169 $120 straight-lined

Parking Subtotal $12,597 $8,944

Storm Drainage CostsCatch Basin Cleaning 7.80 $2,258.79 $17,619 $12,509 straight-linedStorm Water Line Flushing 7.80 $2,058.97 $16,060 $11,403 straight-lined

Storm Drainage Subtotal $33,679 $23,912



DRAFTPage 2 of 2

Table 43Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanRoad Costs (2006$)

Item Unit Cost/Unit Before AfterQuantity (2006$) Reduction Reduction Timing

71%


NPDES Pgm. Implementation CostsConstruction Site Storm Water Control 7.80 $232.78 $1,816 $1,289 straight-linedPublic Education/Outreach 7.80 $85.49 $667 $473 straight-linedIllicit Discharge Inspection 7.80 $89.61 $699 $496 straight-linedPublic Involvement/Participation 7.80 $67.98 $530 $376 straight-lined

NPDES Pgm. Implementation Subtotal $3,712 $2,635

Corporation Yard CostsOffice Building Janitorial 7.80 $296.64 $2,314 $1,643 straight-linedPower & Gas 7.80 $448.05 $3,495 $2,481 straight-lined

Corporation Yard Subtotal $5,809 $4,124

Fleet Maintenance Costs Fleet Maintenance 7.80 $621.09 $4,845 $3,440 straight-lined

Fleet Maintenance Subtotal $4,845 $3,440

Equipment Replacement CostsEquipment Replacement 1.00 $8,625.01 $8,625 $6,124 straight-lined

Equipment Replacement Subtotal $8,625 $6,124

TOTAL Annual Road Maintenance Cost $320,820 $227,783

"road costs"Source: Placer County Executive Office


DRAFTTable 44Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Costs at Buildout: Roads (2006$)


[1]

Gross Annual Roads Cost at Buildout $227,783Less Offsetting Revenues [2] ($48,792)Net Annual Roads Cost at Buildout $178,991Percent Cost Reduction 21%

Share of Annual Roads CostsPopulation 2,188 98.2% $175,771Employment 40 1.8% $3,220Total 2,228 100.0% $178,991




"road"Source: Riolo Vineyard Services as Proposed by Placer County

[1] See Table 15.[2] HEG Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Table 10.[3] Per-unit cost rounded up to the nearest dollar, per-square foot cost rounded up to the nearest cent.


79

DRAFTTable 45Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Annual Surplus/(Shortfall): Roads (Constant 2006$)


Year Units Nonres. sq. ft. Total Cost [2] Residential Nonresidential Total (Shortfall)


2010 83 0 $32,540 $25,570 $16,517 $0 $16,517 ($9,053)2011 334 0 $65,081 $51,140 $66,466 $0 $66,466 $15,3262012 517 9,500 $97,621 $76,710 $102,883 $380 $103,263 $26,5532013 666 28,500 $130,161 $102,280 $132,534 $1,140 $133,674 $31,3942014 795 47,500 $162,702 $127,850 $158,205 $1,900 $160,105 $32,2552015 861 66,500 $195,242 $153,420 $171,339 $2,660 $173,999 $20,5792016 886 83,600 $227,783 $178,991 $176,314 $3,344 $179,658 $667

"road surplus"[1] Includes 5-percent mapping factor.[2] Percentage cost reduction attributable to offsetting revenues.



80


81

V. ANNUAL CASH FLOW AND DEFICIT FUNDING

MECHANISMS

The cost of planned levels of services may, at times, exceed the available special taxes and assessment revenues from developed property because several of the urban services are required early in the development process to meet public safety and other required County standards. In addition, revenues may not match anticipated expenditures in certain years because the residential and commercial taxes/assessments are based on the total cost at buildout rather than at certain cash flow intervals. Another contributing factor to annual shortfalls is the required subsidy for affordable housing units.

ANNUAL CASH FLOW

GROSS COSTS AND OFFSETTING REVENUES

Table 46 shows the annual gross service costs for the RVSP. At buildout, gross costs amount to $3.5 million. All urban services costs are based on estimates produced by County staff and consultants as required for this Urban Services Plan. Table 47 shows the offsetting revenues, by service component for the RVSP. At buildout, offsetting revenues total $1.8 million.

CFD SPECIAL TAX/CSA ASSESSMENT

Table 48 shows the estimated annual CFD special tax and CSA assessment revenue that will be used to fund net urban services costs. Revenues are estimated by using an average per‐unit tax/assessment rate of $1,806, which incorporates into it the limits on affordable housing and high‐density residential units, as shown in Table 10 in Chapter I. These revenues, combined with taxes/assessments on commercial development amount to $1.6 million at buildout.

RVSP CASH FLOW

Table 49 shows the annual cash flow for urban services delivery to the Plan Area based on the County’s estimated absorption schedule, net of offsetting revenues, special taxes and assessments, and the USSF Affordable Housing Component (described in the next section) to offset costs. Based on the County’s projected absorption schedule, there is no shortfall in RVSP services funding. Table 50 shows the annual cash flow for the entire Plan Area, incorporating some of these additional funding sources that are discussed in the following section.

DRAFTTable 46Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSummary of Gross Annual Costs

BaselineTrails & Open Countywide Recreation Total Gross

Year Fire Sheriff Parks Space Services Library Transit Services Roads Annual Costs

2010 $35,833 $66,622 $6,672 $1,800 $151,291 $10,255 $0 $17,868 $32,540 $322,8812011 $130,493 $258,199 $43,268 $3,600 $586,341 $10,255 $0 $71,904 $65,081 $1,169,1412012 $204,695 $406,070 $107,187 $5,400 $920,974 $10,255 $0 $111,300 $97,621 $1,863,5012013 $267,573 $528,724 $187,413 $7,200 $1,197,173 $10,255 $0 $143,377 $130,161 $2,471,8762014 $322,262 $634,803 $194,691 $9,000 $1,435,730 $10,255 $96,139 $171,148 $162,702 $3,036,7292015 $352,222 $690,835 $201,362 $10,800 $1,560,639 $10,255 $96,139 $185,356 $195,242 $3,302,8512016 $379,799 $713,958 $208,034 $12,600 $1,611,060 $10,255 $96,139 $190,738 $227,783 $3,450,366

"gross annual costs"


82

DRAFTTable 47Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSummary of Annual Offsetting Revenues [1] ($2006)

Baseline Total AnnualTrails & Open Countywide Recreation Offsetting

Year Fire Sheriff Parks Space Services Library Transit Services Roads Revenues

2010 $21,122 $5,996 $0 $0 $120,829 $4,679 $0 $9,266 $6,970 $168,8622011 $76,918 $23,238 $0 $0 $468,285 $4,679 $0 $37,285 $13,941 $624,3472012 $120,656 $36,546 $0 $0 $735,541 $4,679 $0 $57,714 $20,911 $976,0482013 $157,720 $47,585 $0 $0 $956,129 $4,679 $0 $74,347 $27,881 $1,268,3422014 $189,955 $57,132 $0 $0 $1,146,655 $4,679 $48,070 $88,748 $34,851 $1,570,0912015 $207,615 $62,175 $0 $0 $1,246,414 $4,679 $48,070 $96,116 $41,822 $1,706,8912016 $223,870 $64,256 $0 $0 $1,286,683 $4,679 $48,070 $98,907 $48,792 $1,775,257

"offsetting revs"[1] Annual offsetting revenues are shown in the Annual Costs at Buildout table for each service category.


83

DRAFTTable 48Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Special Tax/Assessment Revenue Summary ($2006)

Residential Total Cumulative Special Tax/ Cumulative Commercial Special TaxResidential Assessment Commercial Special Tax/ Assessment

Year Units [1] Sq. Ft. Assessment Revenue

a b = a x $1,806 c d = c x $0.37 e = b + d(Table 10) (Table 5)

2010 83 $149,898 0 $0 $149,8982011 334 $603,204 0 $0 $603,2042012 517 $933,702 9,500 $3,515 $937,2172013 666 $1,202,796 28,500 $10,545 $1,213,3412014 795 $1,435,770 47,500 $17,575 $1,453,3452015 861 $1,554,966 66,500 $24,605 $1,579,5712016 886 $1,600,116 83,600 $30,932 $1,631,048

"annual fee rev"[1] An average tax per unit is used to calculate the fee revenue.


84

DRAFTTable 49Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Surplus/(Shortfall)

Gross Subtotal Special Tax/ USSF: AnnualAnnual Offsetting Surplus/(Shortfall) Assessment Affordable Hsg Surplus/

Year Costs Revenues (Net Annual Cost) Revenue Component [1] (Shortfall)

b c d = b + c e f g= d + e + f(Table 46) (Table 47) (Table 48) (Table 52)

2010 ($322,881) $168,862 ($154,019) $149,898 $7,280 $3,1592011 ($1,169,141) $624,347 ($544,794) $603,204 $30,030 $88,4402012 ($1,863,501) $976,048 ($887,453) $937,217 $46,410 $96,1742013 ($2,471,876) $1,268,342 ($1,203,534) $1,213,341 $60,060 $69,8672014 ($3,036,729) $1,570,091 ($1,466,638) $1,453,345 $71,890 $58,5972015 ($3,302,851) $1,706,891 ($1,595,961) $1,579,571 $78,260 $61,8702016 ($3,450,366) $1,775,257 ($1,675,110) $1,631,048 $80,080 $36,018

"annual surplus"[1] Amount shown represents the level of funding required to cover the annual shortfall created by affordable unit tax/assessmentlimits. Table 52 shows the revenue balance for the Affordable Housing Fund.


85

DRAFTTable 50Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Cash Flow Summary

Gross Special Tax/ USSF: Cumulative USSF: Surplus/ Transfers (to)/fromAnnual Beginning Annual Offsetting Assessment Aff. Housing Surplus/ Svcs Shortfall Shortfall Affordable Lump Sum Ending

Year Units Balance Costs Revenues Revenue Component (Shortfall) Component [1] After USSF Housing Fund Payment Balance

a b c d f g h = b+e+f+g i = a x $0 j=h+i k l m= j+k+l(Table 46) (Table 47) (Table 48) (Table 52) (Table 52)

2010 83 $0 ($322,881) $168,862 $149,898 $7,280 $3,159 $0 $3,159 $0 $0 $3,1592011 251 $3,159 ($1,169,141) $624,347 $603,204 $30,030 $91,599 $0 $91,599 $0 $0 $91,5992012 183 $91,599 ($1,863,501) $976,048 $937,217 $46,410 $187,773 $0 $187,773 $0 $0 $187,7732013 149 $187,773 ($2,471,876) $1,268,342 $1,213,341 $60,060 $257,639 $0 $257,639 $0 $0 $257,6392014 129 $257,639 ($3,036,729) $1,570,091 $1,453,345 $71,890 $316,236 $0 $316,236 $0 $0 $316,2362015 66 $316,236 ($3,302,851) $1,706,891 $1,579,571 $78,260 $378,106 $0 $378,106 $0 $0 $378,1062016 25 $378,106 ($3,450,366) $1,775,257 $1,631,048 $80,080 $414,125 $0 $414,125 $0 $0 $414,125

"annual_cash_flow"[1] The need for the Services Shortfall Component of the USSF will be evaluated periodically to determine if it could be reduced or eliminated.


86


January 2009


87

DEFICIT FUNDING MECHANISMS

This Urban Services Plan recognizes the potential for annual cash flow deficits. In addition to the County’s existing options to cure deficits, this Urban Services Plan also includes various other funding mechanisms as described below.

USSF—AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT

One funding mechanism for public services is the Affordable Housing Component of the USSF. This component covers the shortfall created by limiting the total tax/assessment on affordable housing units to $500 for very low and low income units and to $900 for moderate income units. Market rate units pay the USSF Affordable Housing Component of the USSF at building permit issuance. Revenue from that Component is held until affordable units are constructed and require annual subsidies to cover their proportionate costs for services. These subsidies will be required until the affordable units convert to market rate units, estimated after 30 years for for‐sale units and after 55 years for rental units. Table 51 shows the annual subsidy required until the last affordable units convert to market‐rate after 30 years, while Table 52 shows that a one‐time fee of $5,010 per market rate residential unit, paid at building permit, is sufficient to continue the affordable housing subsidy until it is no longer needed.

OTHER FUNDING TO ADDRESS ANNUAL SHORTFALLS

The taxes/assessments and Affordable Housing Component of the USSF are sufficient to fund the net urban services costs at buildout, but without additional funding mechanisms, there could be annual deficits in the earlier years of the Plan Area development. These annual shortfalls could occur if specific urban services are needed early in the development process to meet public safety and other County standards.

The additional funding mechanisms available to this Urban Services Plan to cover potential funding shortfalls are listed below.

• Services Shortfall Component of the USSF.

• Transfers from the fund established for the USSF Affordable Housing Component fees (Affordable Housing Fund).

• Backup funding from initial lump sum payments from the Master Developer of the RVSP.

• Undeveloped Land Tax.

DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table 51Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Affordable Housing Subsidy Required

Subsidy Required

Year Annual CumulativeNew/

Converted Cumulative

New/Converted

[2] Cumulative $910 per aff. unit

10% (Table 9)of total

2010 83 83 75 75 8 8 $7,2802011 251 334 226 301 25 33 $30,0302012 183 517 165 466 18 51 $46,4102013 149 666 134 600 15 66 $60,0602014 129 795 116 716 13 79 $71,8902015 66 861 59 775 7 86 $78,2602016 25 886 23 798 2 88 $80,0802017 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802018 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802019 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802020 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802021 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802022 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802023 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802024 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802025 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802026 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802027 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802028 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802029 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802030 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802031 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802032 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802033 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802034 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802035 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802036 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802037 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802038 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802039 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802040 0 886 0 798 (2) 86 $78,5912041 0 886 0 798 (5) 81 $73,9382042 0 886 0 798 (4) 78 $70,5872043 0 886 0 798 (3) 75 $67,7952044 0 886 0 798 (3) 72 $65,3752045 0 886 0 798 (1) 70 $64,0722046 0 886 0 798 (0) 70 $63,7002047 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002048 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002049 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002050 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002051 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002052 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002053 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,700

Market-Rate Units [1]Total Units [1] Affordable Units [1]

Prepared by EPS 1/16/2009 P:\16000\16634 Riolo Vineyards Financing Strategy\16634.4 Services Analysis\Model\16634 2008 Urban Svcs Model 7park.xls88

DRAFTPage 2 of 2

Table 51Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Affordable Housing Subsidy Required

Subsidy Required



New/Converted




2054 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002055 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002056 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002057 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002058 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002059 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002060 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002061 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002062 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002063 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002064 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002065 0 886 0 798 (6) 64 $57,9092066 0 886 0 798 (20) 44 $39,8132067 0 886 0 798 (14) 29 $26,7832068 0 886 0 798 (12) 18 $15,9252069 0 886 0 798 (10) 7 $6,5152070 0 886 0 798 (6) 2 $1,4482071 0 886 0 798 (2) 0 $0

TOTAL $3,994,900

aff hsg sub total[1] Based on net developed affordable units shown in Table 9.[2] Assumes owner-occupied affordable housing will be converted to market rate 30 years after construction and rental affordable housing will be converted to market rate 55 years after constructionas shown below.

Affordable Housing Type Net Units Percentage

Moderate Affordable Owner-occupied 18 20%Affordable Rental 70 80%Total 88 100%


DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table 52Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAffordable Housing Fee Cash Flow

YearTotal

AnnualTotal

CumulativeNew

AffordableTotal

AffordableBeginningBalance

SubsidyRequired

Aff HousingFee

RevenueEnding Balance

Transfer (to)/from Urban

Services Shortfall Fund

Adjusted Ending Balance

$910 $5,010per aff. unit per mkt-rate unit

2010 83 83 8 8 $0 $7,280 $375,750 $368,470 $0 $368,4702011 251 334 25 33 $368,470 $30,030 $1,132,260 $1,470,700 $0 $1,470,7002012 183 517 18 51 $1,470,700 $46,410 $826,650 $2,250,940 $0 $2,250,9402013 149 666 15 66 $2,250,940 $60,060 $671,340 $2,862,220 $0 $2,862,2202014 129 795 13 79 $2,862,220 $71,890 $581,160 $3,371,490 $0 $3,371,4902015 66 861 7 86 $3,371,490 $78,260 $295,590 $3,588,820 $0 $3,588,8202016 25 886 2 88 $3,588,820 $80,080 $115,230 $3,623,970 $0 $3,623,9702017 886 0 88 $3,623,970 $80,080 $0 $3,543,890 $0 $3,543,8902018 886 0 88 $3,543,890 $80,080 $0 $3,463,810 $0 $3,463,8102019 886 0 88 $3,463,810 $80,080 $0 $3,383,730 $0 $3,383,7302020 886 0 88 $3,383,730 $80,080 $0 $3,303,650 $0 $3,303,6502021 886 0 88 $3,303,650 $80,080 $0 $3,223,570 $0 $3,223,5702022 886 0 88 $3,223,570 $80,080 $0 $3,143,490 $0 $3,143,4902023 886 0 88 $3,143,490 $80,080 $0 $3,063,410 $0 $3,063,4102024 886 0 88 $3,063,410 $80,080 $0 $2,983,330 $0 $2,983,3302025 886 0 88 $2,983,330 $80,080 $0 $2,903,250 $0 $2,903,2502026 886 0 88 $2,903,250 $80,080 $0 $2,823,170 $0 $2,823,1702027 886 0 88 $2,823,170 $80,080 $0 $2,743,090 $0 $2,743,0902028 886 0 88 $2,743,090 $80,080 $0 $2,663,010 $0 $2,663,0102029 886 0 88 $2,663,010 $80,080 $0 $2,582,930 $0 $2,582,9302030 886 0 88 $2,582,930 $80,080 $0 $2,502,850 $0 $2,502,8502031 886 0 88 $2,502,850 $80,080 $0 $2,422,770 $0 $2,422,7702032 886 0 88 $2,422,770 $80,080 $0 $2,342,690 $0 $2,342,6902033 886 0 88 $2,342,690 $80,080 $0 $2,262,610 $0 $2,262,6102034 886 0 88 $2,262,610 $80,080 $0 $2,182,530 $0 $2,182,5302035 886 0 88 $2,182,530 $80,080 $0 $2,102,450 $0 $2,102,4502036 886 0 88 $2,102,450 $80,080 $0 $2,022,370 $0 $2,022,3702037 886 0 88 $2,022,370 $80,080 $0 $1,942,290 $0 $1,942,2902038 886 0 88 $1,942,290 $80,080 $0 $1,862,210 $0 $1,862,2102039 886 0 88 $1,862,210 $80,080 $0 $1,782,130 $0 $1,782,1302040 886 (2) 86 $1,782,130 $78,591 $0 $1,703,539 $0 $1,703,5392041 886 (5) 81 $1,703,539 $73,938 $0 $1,629,602 $0 $1,629,6022042 886 (4) 78 $1,629,602 $70,587 $0 $1,559,015 $0 $1,559,0152043 886 (3) 75 $1,559,015 $67,795 $0 $1,491,220 $0 $1,491,2202044 886 (3) 72 $1,491,220 $65,375 $0 $1,425,844 $0 $1,425,8442045 886 (1) 70 $1,425,844 $64,072 $0 $1,361,772 $0 $1,361,7722046 886 (0) 70 $1,361,772 $63,700 $0 $1,298,072 $0 $1,298,0722047 886 0 70 $1,298,072 $63,700 $0 $1,234,372 $0 $1,234,3722048 886 0 70 $1,234,372 $63,700 $0 $1,170,672 $0 $1,170,6722049 886 0 70 $1,170,672 $63,700 $0 $1,106,972 $0 $1,106,9722050 886 0 70 $1,106,972 $63,700 $0 $1,043,272 $0 $1,043,2722051 886 0 70 $1,043,272 $63,700 $0 $979,572 $0 $979,5722052 886 0 70 $979,572 $63,700 $0 $915,872 $0 $915,8722053 886 0 70 $915,872 $63,700 $0 $852,172 $0 $852,1722054 886 0 70 $852,172 $63,700 $0 $788,472 $0 $788,4722055 886 0 70 $788,472 $63,700 $0 $724,772 $0 $724,7722056 886 0 70 $724,772 $63,700 $0 $661,072 $0 $661,0722057 886 0 70 $661,072 $63,700 $0 $597,372 $0 $597,3722058 886 0 70 $597,372 $63,700 $0 $533,672 $0 $533,672

Affordable Housing Fee Revenue BalanceResidential Unit Absorption


DRAFTPage 2 of 2

Table 52Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAffordable Housing Fee Cash Flow

YearTotal

AnnualTotal

CumulativeNew

AffordableTotal


SubsidyRequired

Aff HousingFee







2059 886 0 70 $533,672 $63,700 $0 $469,972 $0 $469,9722060 886 0 70 $469,972 $63,700 $0 $406,272 $0 $406,2722061 886 0 70 $406,272 $63,700 $0 $342,572 $0 $342,5722062 886 0 70 $342,572 $63,700 $0 $278,872 $0 $278,8722063 886 0 70 $278,872 $63,700 $0 $215,172 $0 $215,1722064 886 0 70 $215,172 $63,700 $0 $151,472 $0 $151,4722065 886 (6) 64 $151,472 $57,909 $0 $93,563 $0 $93,5632066 886 (20) 44 $93,563 $39,813 $0 $53,750 $0 $53,7502067 886 (14) 29 $53,750 $26,783 $0 $26,968 $0 $26,9682068 886 (12) 18 $26,968 $15,925 $0 $11,043 $0 $11,0432069 886 (10) 7 $11,043 $6,515 $0 $4,528 $0 $4,5282070 886 (6) 2 $4,528 $1,448 $0 $3,080 $0 $3,0802071 886 (2) 0 $3,080 $0 $0 $3,080 $0 $3,080

TOTAL 886 $3,994,900 $3,997,980

aff_fee_cashflowSource: EPS



January 2009


92

These funding sources are detailed below.

USSF—Services Shortfall Component

The Services Shortfall Component of the USSF is a one‐time fee paid at building permit and is estimated as not being required because no shortfalls occur that trigger this fee (see Table 50). The purpose of the Services Shortfall Component of the USSF is to provide funding in years in which there may be deficits if development of the Plan Area lags behind the need for services. The need for the Services Shortfall Component of the USSF would be periodically evaluated to determine if it was needed.

Transfers from Affordable Housing Fund

Another way to reduce annual shortfalls would be to borrow from the Affordable Housing Fund. The Affordable Housing Component of the USSF is collected at building permit as development occurs, but all of the funds are not immediately needed. Rather, it is used over time to subsidize the annual affordable housing tax/assessment revenue until the affordable units convert to market rate units and generate more tax/assessment revenue. Thus, fee revenue can be borrowed from the Affordable Housing Fund to cover annual shortfalls and be repaid before it is needed to subsidize the affordable housing tax/assessment revenue.

Lump Sum Payments

The Urban Services Plan provides additional backup funding from lump sum payments from the Master Developer of the RVSP if shortfalls remain after applying the abovementioned funding mechanisms. At this time, it is estimated that no lump sum payments will be necessary. If there are shortfalls in a particular year or years, however, then the developer would make a lump sum payment or series of lump sum payments. The timing and specifics of the USSF and lump sum payments will be detailed in the DA.

Undeveloped Land Tax

Although not modeled in the cash flow analysis, the County could collect an undeveloped land tax for public safety if needed. Properties with approved small lot tentative maps could be subject to a special tax levy/assessment in the form of an undeveloped land tax for the portion of the tax rate/assessment estimated for public safety services, as described in the DA. This tax would be levied to help cover cash flow shortfalls when special tax revenues do not provide adequate funds related to public safety (sheriff and fire).


January 2009


93

Deficit Funding Mechanisms and Potentially Reduced Absorption

The Urban Services Plan examined two alternative land use absorption scenarios provided by the County (identified as Scenario 2 and Scenario 3) that assumed slower absorption of residential and nonresidential development. While slower absorption would cause estimated annual shortfalls in the Urban Services Plan to increase, these shortfalls would be partially offset by lower services costs for urban services resulting from delayed development. Appendix B provides calculations used to estimate the impact of the alternative land use absorption scenarios. There are no shortfalls from the reduced absorption of the two alternative scenarios. The other shortfall mitigation measures, including the special tax/assessment for services, USSF Affordable Housing Component, and lump sum payments, remained unchanged from the amounts identified in Table 12 of Chapter I.


January 2009


94


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX B: LAND USE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX A

DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

Table A‐1 Fire Service Costs (2 pages) ............................................................................ A‐1

Table A‐2 Sheriff Costs....................................................................................................... A‐3

Table A‐3 Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Multiplier Detail .................... A‐4

DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table A-1Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanFire Service Costs (2006$)

Unit Cost/ TotalItem Quantity Unit Cost 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Cumulative Population Equivalent - Residents 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188Cumulative Population Equivalent - Employees 0 0 13 39 66 92 115Total Population Equivalent 209 810 1,281 1,680 2,028 2,218 2,303

9% 35% 56% 73% 88% 96% 100%FIRE STATION

3 Bay - 2 Company East Fire Station 14.2% Annual Operating Cost 1 $ 125,000 $ 17,719 $ 1,608 $ 6,231 $ 9,856 $ 12,927 $ 15,598 $ 17,061 $ 17,719

Operating & Training for Volunteer/Resident Firefighters 10 $ 1,250 $ 1,772 $ 161 $ 623 $ 986 $ 1,293 $ 1,560 $ 1,706 $ 1,772Subtotal $ 19,491 $ 1,769 $ 6,854 $ 10,841 $ 14,219 $ 17,158 $ 18,767 $ 19,491

Paramedic 3 Person Fire Engine Company 14.2%Fire Captain - Paramedic 1 $ 152,018 $ 21,549 $ 1,955 $ 7,578 $ 11,986 $ 15,721 $ 18,969 $ 20,749 $ 21,549Fire Captain 2 $ 143,716 $ 40,743 $ 3,697 $ 14,329 $ 22,662 $ 29,725 $ 35,867 $ 39,232 $ 40,743Fire Apparatus Engineer - Paramedic 3 $ 127,020 $ 54,015 $ 4,901 $ 18,996 $ 30,045 $ 39,407 $ 47,550 $ 52,011 $ 54,015Firefighter II 3 $ 104,297 $ 44,352 $ 4,025 $ 15,598 $ 24,670 $ 32,357 $ 39,044 $ 42,707 $ 44,352Subtotal $ 160,660 $ 14,579 $ 56,501 $ 89,363 $ 117,210 $ 141,430 $ 154,698 $ 160,660

Paramedic 4 Person Ladder Truck Company 5.5%Fire Captain - Paramedic 1 $ 152,018 $ 8,422 $ 764 $ 2,962 $ 4,684 $ 6,144 $ 7,414 $ 8,109 $ 8,422Fire Captain 2 $ 147,226 $ 16,313 $ 1,480 $ 5,737 $ 9,073 $ 11,901 $ 14,360 $ 15,707 $ 16,313Fire Apparatus Engineer - Paramedic 3 $ 127,020 $ 21,111 $ 1,916 $ 7,424 $ 11,742 $ 15,401 $ 18,584 $ 20,327 $ 21,111Firefighter II 6 $ 107,808 $ 35,835 $ 3,252 $ 12,603 $ 19,932 $ 26,144 $ 31,546 $ 34,506 $ 35,835Subtotal $ 81,681 $ 7,412 $ 28,725 $ 45,433 $ 59,590 $ 71,904 $ 78,650 81,681

Fire Station and Equipment Replacement Fund 14.2%3 Bay - 2 Company Station $ 18,900 $ 1,715 $ 6,647 $ 10,513 $ 13,789 $ 16,638 $ 18,199 $ 18,900Type I Fire Engine w/equipment $ 4,631 $ 420 $ 1,628 $ 2,576 $ 3,378 $ 4,076 $ 4,459 $ 4,631Type I Ladder Truck w/equipment $ 9,450 $ 858 $ 3,323 $ 5,256 $ 6,894 $ 8,319 $ 9,099 $ 9,450Reserve Type I Fire Engine (1/4) w/equipment $ 1,158 $ 105 $ 407 $ 644 $ 845 $ 1,019 $ 1,115 $ 1,158Utility/Support Vehicle $ 354 $ 32 $ 125 $ 197 $ 259 $ 312 $ 341 $ 354Subtotal $ 34,493 $ 3,130 $ 12,130 $ 19,186 $ 25,164 $ 30,364 $ 33,213 $ 34,493

Total Fire Station $ 296,323 $ 26,889 $ 104,211 $ 164,822 $ 216,184 $ 260,856 $ 285,328 $ 296,323

Year


A-1

DRAFTPage 2 of 2

Table A-1Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanFire Service Costs (2006$)

Unit Cost/ TotalItem Quantity Unit Cost 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Cumulative Population Equivalent - Residents 209 810 1,268 1,641 1,962 2,126 2,188Cumulative Population Equivalent - Employees 0 0 13 39 66 92 115Total Population Equivalent 209 810 1,281 1,680 2,028 2,218 2,303

9% 35% 56% 73% 88% 96% 100%

Year

FIRE SYSTEM SUPPORT OPERATIONS

Dispatch CostsCalls (.1* population equivalent) 230.32 20.90 81.00 128.11 168.03 202.76 221.78 230.32 Subtotal $50.00 $ 11,516 $ 1,045 $ 4,050 $ 6,406 $ 8,402 $ 10,138 $ 11,089 $ 11,516

Corporation Yard/Services Center 14.2%Service Center/Training Classrooms Replacement $ 31,084 $ 4,406 $ 400 $ 1,550 $ 2,451 $ 3,215 $ 3,879 $ 4,243 $ 4,406Apparatus Maintenance Facility/Repairs Replacement $ 12,084 $ 1,713 $ 155 $ 602 $ 953 $ 1,250 $ 1,508 $ 1,649 $ 1,713Government Center Administrative Offices (4,000 sq. ft.) Replacement $ 26,666 $ 3,780 $ 343 $ 1,329 $ 2,102 $ 2,758 $ 3,327 $ 3,640 $ 3,780Utility/Support Vehicle $ 2,500 $ 354 $ 32 $ 125 $ 197 $ 259 $ 312 $ 341 $ 354Subtotal $ 10,253 $ 930 $ 3,606 $ 5,703 $ 7,480 $ 9,026 $ 9,873 $ 10,253

Regional Communications and Equipment $ 17,031 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 2,915 $ 17,031

Command and Support Staff 1.42%Division Chief - Operations 1.0 $ 239,819 $ 3,405 $ 309 $ 1,198 $ 1,894 $ 2,484 $ 2,998 $ 3,279 $ 3,405Battalion Chief - Incident Operations 5.0 $ 198,197 $ 14,072 $ 1,277 $ 4,949 $ 7,827 $ 10,266 $ 12,388 $ 13,550 $ 14,072Fire Captain LE 2.0 $ 147,226 $ 4,181 $ 379 $ 1,470 $ 2,326 $ 3,050 $ 3,681 $ 4,026 $ 4,181Fire Captain Plan Check/Inspections 2.0 $ 147,226 $ 4,181 $ 379 $ 1,470 $ 2,326 $ 3,050 $ 3,681 $ 4,026 $ 4,181Fire Captain Training 1.0 $ 147,226 $ 2,091 $ 190 $ 735 $ 1,163 $ 1,525 $ 1,840 $ 2,013 $ 2,091Fire Captain - Paramedic Training 1.0 $ 152,018 $ 2,159 $ 196 $ 759 $ 1,201 $ 1,575 $ 1,900 $ 2,079 $ 2,159Fire Equipment Manager 1.0 $ 119,030 $ 1,690 $ 153 $ 594 $ 940 $ 1,233 $ 1,488 $ 1,628 $ 1,690Heavy Equipment Mechanic 3.0 $ 94,788 $ 4,038 $ 366 $ 1,420 $ 2,246 $ 2,946 $ 3,555 $ 3,888 $ 4,038Account Tech (County Staff) 0.8 $ 125,000 $ 1,420 $ 129 $ 499 $ 790 $ 1,036 $ 1,250 $ 1,367 $ 1,420IT Specialist 1.0 $ 86,781 $ 1,232 $ 112 $ 433 $ 685 $ 899 $ 1,085 $ 1,187 $ 1,232Logistics Officer 1.0 $ 82,606 $ 1,173 $ 106 $ 413 $ 652 $ 856 $ 1,033 $ 1,129 $ 1,173Material and Stores Specialist 1.0 $ 75,780 $ 1,076 $ 98 $ 378 $ 599 $ 785 $ 947 $ 1,036 $ 1,076Office Tech/SSA 3.0 $ 66,939 $ 2,852 $ 259 $ 1,003 $ 1,586 $ 2,080 $ 2,510 $ 2,746 $ 2,852Personnel Specialist 1.0 $ 77,781 $ 1,104 $ 100 $ 388 $ 614 $ 806 $ 972 $ 1,064 $ 1,104Subtotal $ 44,675 $ 4,054 $ 15,711 $ 24,849 $ 32,593 $ 39,328 $ 43,017 $ 44,675

Total Support $ 83,475 $ 8,944 $ 26,282 $ 39,873 $ 51,390 $ 61,406 $ 66,894 $ 83,475

TOTAL FIRE COSTS $ 379,799 $ 35,833 $ 130,493 $ 204,695 $ 267,573 $ 322,262 $ 352,222 $ 379,799fire costs

Source: Placer County Executive Office


A-2

DRAFTTable A-2Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanSheriff Costs (2006$)

Unit Cost/ TotalItem Assump. Quantity Unit Cost 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Population Equivalent 209 810 1,274 1,659 1,991 2,167 2,2409% 36% 57% 74% 89% 97% 100%

TOTAL Sworn Staff Required 1.22 0.25 0.99 1.55 2.02 2.43 2.64 2.73TOTAL Non Sworn Staff Required 0.28 0.06 0.23 0.36 0.47 0.56 0.61 0.63

Sworn Staff RegularSergeant 0.20 $150,380 $30,076 $2,806 $10,877 $17,106 $22,273 $26,742 $29,102 $30,076Lieutenant 0.18 $216,300 $38,934 $3,633 $14,080 $22,144 $28,833 $34,617 $37,673 $38,934Deputy II-Investigation 0.15 $134,930 $20,240 $1,889 $7,319 $11,511 $14,988 $17,996 $19,584 $20,240Deputies-Patrol 2.00 $129,780 $259,560 $24,220 $93,868 $147,627 $192,218 $230,783 $251,154 $259,560Deputies-Traffic 0.00 $129,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Deputy II-School Resource Officers 0.20 $129,780 $25,956 $2,422 $9,387 $14,763 $19,222 $23,078 $25,115 $25,956Sworn Staff Costs 2.73 $890,950 $374,766 $34,971 $135,532 $213,151 $277,534 $333,216 $362,628 $374,766

Non Sworn StaffAdmin. Clerk-Journey 0.18 $70,394 $12,671 $1,182 $4,582 $7,207 $9,383 $11,266 $12,261 $12,671Equipment Service Worker-II 0.25 $82,000 $20,500 $1,913 $7,414 $11,660 $15,181 $18,227 $19,836 $20,500Community Service Office-II (CSO) 0.20 $88,000 $17,600 $1,642 $6,365 $10,010 $13,034 $15,649 $17,030 $17,600 Non Sworn Staff Costs [3] 0.63 $50,771 $4,738 $18,361 $28,876 $37,599 $45,142 $49,127 $50,771

Programs & ServicesPatrol Sworn O/T, Xtra Hlp, Ret SL 2.53 $7,054 $17,847 $1,665 $6,454 $10,150 $13,216 $15,868 $17,269 $17,847Com Srv Sworn O/T, Xtra Hlp, Ret SL 3.36 $7,043 $23,664 $2,208 $8,558 $13,459 $17,525 $21,041 $22,898 $23,664Direct Supervision Overhead 3.36 $10,860 $36,490 $3,405 $13,196 $20,754 $27,023 $32,444 $35,308 $36,490Patrol Services /Supplies 2.53 $16,500 $41,745 $3,895 $15,097 $23,743 $30,914 $37,117 $40,393 $41,745Comm Services Services/Supplies 0.40 $23,303 $9,321 $870 $3,371 $5,302 $6,903 $8,288 $9,019 $9,321Administrative Overhead 3.36 $9,689 $32,555 $3,038 $11,773 $18,516 $24,109 $28,946 $31,501 $32,555Special Teams Program 2.73 $2,015 $5,501 $513 $1,989 $3,129 $4,074 $4,891 $5,323 $5,501Evidence Unit Program 2.73 $6,101 $16,656 $1,554 $6,023 $9,473 $12,334 $14,809 $16,116 $16,656Communications & Dispatch Services 2.73 $12,890 $35,190 $3,284 $12,726 $20,014 $26,060 $31,288 $34,050 $35,190Records 2.73 $6,511 $17,775 $1,659 $6,428 $10,110 $13,163 $15,804 $17,199 $17,775Vehicles 2.93 $11,661 $34,167 $3,188 $12,356 $19,433 $25,302 $30,379 $33,060 $34,167Helicopter 2.73 $1,587 $4,333 $404 $1,567 $2,464 $3,208 $3,852 $4,192 $4,333Less Special Teams Program and Helicopter [1] ($9,833) ($918) ($3,556) ($5,593) ($7,282) ($8,743) ($9,515) ($9,833)Adjusted Program & Services Costs $265,409 $24,766 $95,984 $150,954 $196,550 $235,984 $256,813 $265,409

Services Center Costs 0.00 $13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0County Admin Overhead A-87 costs 3.36 $6,849 $23,013 $2,147 $8,322 $13,089 $17,042 $20,461 $22,267 $23,013

TOTAL SHERIFF COSTS $713,958 $66,622 $258,199 $406,070 $528,724 $634,803 $690,835 $713,958

sheriff costs[1] Deducted because included in baseline countywide costs.

Year


A-3

DRAFTTable A-3Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanBaseline Countywide/Municipal Services Multiplier Detail

Total

Item

Annual Cost per Residentat Buildout

(2006$)

Total AnnualCost at Buildout(2006$)

Annual Costper Employee

at Buildout (2006$)



Formula a b=a x 2,188 c d=c x 167 e = b + d

Annual per-Resident/Employee Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs

Countywide Services Costs - (Exc. Public Safety) [1]Total General Fund $340.41 $744,817 $67.09 $11,204 $756,021Less Contribution to Public Safety ($92.93) ($203,331) ($28.81) ($4,811) ($208,142)Public Ways and Facilities Fund $0.80 $1,750 $0.19 $32 $1,782Total Countywide Services - (Exc. Public Safety) $248.28 $543,237 $38.47 $6,424 $549,661

Countywide Services Costs - Public Safety [1][2]Contribution to Public Safety $92.93 $203,331 $28.81 $4,811 $208,142Public Safety Fund $43.23 $94,587 $13.40 $2,238 $96,825Less Community Program Cost [3] ($7.44) ($16,279) ($2.31) ($386) ($16,664)Total Countywide Services Costs - Public Safety $128.72 $281,639 $39.90 $6,663 $288,303

Unincorporated Area/Municipal Services Costs [1]Total General Fund $450.85 $986,460 $118.03 $19,711 $1,006,171Public Safety Fund $83.84 $183,442 $25.99 $4,340 $187,782Public Ways and Facilities Fund $17.18 $37,590 $4.12 $688 $38,278Total Unincorporated Area/Muni. Services Costs $551.87 $1,207,492 $148.14 $24,739 $1,232,231Less Contribution to Public Safety [4] ($140.46) ($307,326) ($43.54) ($7,271) ($314,598)Less Public Safety Fund [4] ($83.84) ($183,442) ($25.99) ($4,340) ($187,782)Adjusted Total Unincorporated Area/Muni. Services Costs $327.57 $716,723 $78.61 $13,128 $729,851

Total Annual per-Resident/Employee $704.57 $1,541,599 $156.98 $26,216 $1,567,815Baseline Countywide/Municipal Services Costs

Adjust per-Resident/Employee Cost to Account for $19.31 $42,246 $5.99 $999 $43,245Growth-Related Cost Increases (15%) [5]

Total Adjusted per-Resident/Employee Cost $723.88 $1,583,845 $162.97 $27,215 $1,611,060

"cnty_mult_detail"Sources: Hausrath Economics Group (HEG), Placer County.

[1] From HEG Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Tables 2 and B-5. [2] Includes contribution to Public Safety, Detention and Correction, Judicial, Protection and Prevention, and Administration.[3] From HEG Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Table C.1[4] Costs deducted because included in Sheriff costs in Table 21. See HEG Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2008) -- Notes to Appendix A.[5] 15 percent increase applied only to Public Safety portion of countywide services costs.

Residents Employees


A-4

APPENDIX B

LAND USE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Table B‐1 Residential Annual Tax/Assessment and Fee Comparison.......................B‐1

Table B‐14 Scenario 2—Projected Absorption Schedule ...............................................B‐2

Table B‐50 Scenario 2—Annual Cash Flow Summary...................................................B‐3

Table B‐51 Scenario 2—Annual Affordable Housing Subsidy Required (2 pages) ............................................................................................................B‐4

Table B‐52 Scenario 2—Affordable Housing Fee Cash Flow (2 pages).......................B‐6

Table B‐14 Scenario 3—Gross Projected Absorption Schedule ....................................B‐8

Table B‐50 Scenario 3—Annual Cash Flow Summary...................................................B‐9

Table B‐51 Scenario 3—Annual Affordable Housing Subsidy Required (2 pages) ..........................................................................................................B‐10

Table B‐52 Scenario 3—Affordable Housing Fee Cash Flow (2 pages).....................B‐12

DRAFTTable B-1Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanResidential Annual Tax/Assessment and Fee Comparison

Land Use

Annual Services Tax/Assessment per Unit/Sq. Ft.

Affordable Housing

Component [1]

Services Shortfall

Component

BaselineSingle-Family $ 1,900 $ 4,960 $ 0Multifamily $ 1,250 $ 4,960 $ 0

Scenario 2: Slower AbsorptionSingle-Family $ 1,900 $ 4,960 $ 0Multifamily $ 1,250 $ 4,960 $ 0

Scenario 3: Slower AbsorptionSingle-Family $ 1,900 $ 4,960 $ 0Multifamily $ 1,250 $ 4,960 $ 0

tax fee comp[1] See Table 52.

Urban Services Shortfall Fee


B-1

DRAFTTable B-14 Scenario 2Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Absorption Schedule




Multifamily (HDR) 60 57 0 3 6 0 9 9 30


Nonresidential Square Feet 88,000 83,600 0 0 0 0 9,500 9,500 64,600


Population persons per hhLDR 2.50 1,470 1,398 0 74 150 0 224 226 724MDR 2.50 693 658 0 35 70 0 105 106 341HDR 2.00 120 114 0 6 12 0 18 18 59Ag/Rural Residential 2.50 20 19 0 1 2 0 3 3 9Total 2,303 2,188 0 116 234 0 351 353 1,133



Scenario 2

Net Absorption


B-2

DRAFTTable B-50 Scenario 2Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Cash Flow Summary




2010 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02011 47 $0 ($171,557) $94,345 $84,882 $4,550 $12,220 $0 $12,220 $0 $0 $12,2202012 95 $12,220 ($526,457) $275,575 $256,452 $12,740 $30,530 $0 $30,530 $0 $0 $30,5302013 0 $30,530 ($526,457) $275,575 $256,452 $12,740 $48,840 $0 $48,840 $0 $0 $48,8402014 142 $48,840 ($1,144,114) $564,986 $516,419 $25,480 $11,612 $0 $11,612 $0 $0 $11,6122015 143 $11,612 ($1,653,512) $839,940 $778,192 $38,220 $14,451 $0 $14,451 $0 $0 $14,4512016 459 $14,451 ($3,449,637) $1,774,679 $1,631,048 $80,080 $50,621 $0 $50,621 $0 $0 $50,621



B-3

DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table B-51 Scenario 2Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Affordable Housing Subsidy Required

Subsidy Required



New/Converted



2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 $02011 47 47 42 42 5 5 $4,5502012 95 142 86 128 9 14 $12,7402013 0 142 0 128 0 14 $12,7402014 142 284 128 256 14 28 $25,4802015 143 427 129 385 14 42 $38,2202016 459 886 413 798 46 88 $80,0802017 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802018 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802019 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802020 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802021 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802022 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802023 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802024 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802025 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802026 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802027 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802028 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802029 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802030 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802031 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802032 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802033 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802034 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802035 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802036 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802037 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802038 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802039 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802040 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802041 0 886 0 798 (1) 87 $79,1492042 0 886 0 798 (2) 85 $77,4742043 0 886 0 798 0 85 $77,4742044 0 886 0 798 (3) 82 $74,8682045 0 886 0 798 (3) 79 $72,2622046 0 886 0 798 (9) 70 $63,7002047 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002048 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002049 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002050 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002051 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002052 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002053 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,700


Prepared by EPS 1/16/2009 P:\16000\16634 Riolo Vineyards Financing Strategy\16634.4 Services Analysis\Model\16634 2008 Urban Svcs Model 7park.xlsB-4

DRAFTPage 2 of 2


Subsidy Required



New/Converted




2054 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002055 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002056 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002057 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002058 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002059 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002060 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002061 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002062 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002063 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002064 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002065 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002066 0 886 0 798 (4) 66 $60,0812067 0 886 0 798 (7) 59 $53,5662068 0 886 0 798 0 59 $53,5662069 0 886 0 798 (11) 48 $43,4322070 0 886 0 798 (11) 37 $33,2982071 0 886 0 798 (37) 0 $0

TOTAL $3,994,900





DRAFTPage 1 of 2

Table B-52 Scenario 2Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAffordable Housing Fee Cash Flow

YearTotal

AnnualTotal

CumulativeNew

AffordableTotal


SubsidyRequired

Aff HousingFee






2010 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02011 47 47 5 5 $0 $4,550 $210,420 $205,870 $0 $205,8702012 95 142 9 14 $205,870 $12,740 $430,860 $623,990 $0 $623,9902013 0 142 0 14 $623,990 $12,740 $0 $611,250 $0 $611,2502014 142 284 14 28 $611,250 $25,480 $641,280 $1,227,050 $0 $1,227,0502015 143 427 14 42 $1,227,050 $38,220 $646,290 $1,835,120 $0 $1,835,1202016 459 886 46 88 $1,835,120 $80,080 $2,069,130 $3,824,170 $0 $3,824,1702017 886 0 88 $3,824,170 $80,080 $0 $3,744,090 $0 $3,744,0902018 886 0 88 $3,744,090 $80,080 $0 $3,664,010 $0 $3,664,0102019 886 0 88 $3,664,010 $80,080 $0 $3,583,930 $0 $3,583,9302020 886 0 88 $3,583,930 $80,080 $0 $3,503,850 $0 $3,503,8502021 886 0 88 $3,503,850 $80,080 $0 $3,423,770 $0 $3,423,7702022 886 0 88 $3,423,770 $80,080 $0 $3,343,690 $0 $3,343,6902023 886 0 88 $3,343,690 $80,080 $0 $3,263,610 $0 $3,263,6102024 886 0 88 $3,263,610 $80,080 $0 $3,183,530 $0 $3,183,5302025 886 0 88 $3,183,530 $80,080 $0 $3,103,450 $0 $3,103,4502026 886 0 88 $3,103,450 $80,080 $0 $3,023,370 $0 $3,023,3702027 886 0 88 $3,023,370 $80,080 $0 $2,943,290 $0 $2,943,2902028 886 0 88 $2,943,290 $80,080 $0 $2,863,210 $0 $2,863,2102029 886 0 88 $2,863,210 $80,080 $0 $2,783,130 $0 $2,783,1302030 886 0 88 $2,783,130 $80,080 $0 $2,703,050 $0 $2,703,0502031 886 0 88 $2,703,050 $80,080 $0 $2,622,970 $0 $2,622,9702032 886 0 88 $2,622,970 $80,080 $0 $2,542,890 $0 $2,542,8902033 886 0 88 $2,542,890 $80,080 $0 $2,462,810 $0 $2,462,8102034 886 0 88 $2,462,810 $80,080 $0 $2,382,730 $0 $2,382,7302035 886 0 88 $2,382,730 $80,080 $0 $2,302,650 $0 $2,302,6502036 886 0 88 $2,302,650 $80,080 $0 $2,222,570 $0 $2,222,5702037 886 0 88 $2,222,570 $80,080 $0 $2,142,490 $0 $2,142,4902038 886 0 88 $2,142,490 $80,080 $0 $2,062,410 $0 $2,062,4102039 886 0 88 $2,062,410 $80,080 $0 $1,982,330 $0 $1,982,3302040 886 0 88 $1,982,330 $80,080 $0 $1,902,250 $0 $1,902,2502041 886 (1) 87 $1,902,250 $79,149 $0 $1,823,101 $0 $1,823,1012042 886 (2) 85 $1,823,101 $77,474 $0 $1,745,627 $0 $1,745,6272043 886 0 85 $1,745,627 $77,474 $0 $1,668,153 $0 $1,668,1532044 886 (3) 82 $1,668,153 $74,868 $0 $1,593,284 $0 $1,593,2842045 886 (3) 79 $1,593,284 $72,262 $0 $1,521,022 $0 $1,521,0222046 886 (9) 70 $1,521,022 $63,700 $0 $1,457,322 $0 $1,457,3222047 886 0 70 $1,457,322 $63,700 $0 $1,393,622 $0 $1,393,6222048 886 0 70 $1,393,622 $63,700 $0 $1,329,922 $0 $1,329,9222049 886 0 70 $1,329,922 $63,700 $0 $1,266,222 $0 $1,266,2222050 886 0 70 $1,266,222 $63,700 $0 $1,202,522 $0 $1,202,5222051 886 0 70 $1,202,522 $63,700 $0 $1,138,822 $0 $1,138,8222052 886 0 70 $1,138,822 $63,700 $0 $1,075,122 $0 $1,075,1222053 886 0 70 $1,075,122 $63,700 $0 $1,011,422 $0 $1,011,4222054 886 0 70 $1,011,422 $63,700 $0 $947,722 $0 $947,7222055 886 0 70 $947,722 $63,700 $0 $884,022 $0 $884,0222056 886 0 70 $884,022 $63,700 $0 $820,322 $0 $820,3222057 886 0 70 $820,322 $63,700 $0 $756,622 $0 $756,6222058 886 0 70 $756,622 $63,700 $0 $692,922 $0 $692,922



DRAFTPage 2 of 2


YearTotal

AnnualTotal

CumulativeNew

AffordableTotal


SubsidyRequired

Aff HousingFee







2059 886 0 70 $692,922 $63,700 $0 $629,222 $0 $629,2222060 886 0 70 $629,222 $63,700 $0 $565,522 $0 $565,5222061 886 0 70 $565,522 $63,700 $0 $501,822 $0 $501,8222062 886 0 70 $501,822 $63,700 $0 $438,122 $0 $438,1222063 886 0 70 $438,122 $63,700 $0 $374,422 $0 $374,4222064 886 0 70 $374,422 $63,700 $0 $310,722 $0 $310,7222065 886 0 70 $310,722 $63,700 $0 $247,022 $0 $247,0222066 886 (4) 66 $247,022 $60,081 $0 $186,941 $0 $186,9412067 886 (7) 59 $186,941 $53,566 $0 $133,375 $0 $133,3752068 886 0 59 $133,375 $53,566 $0 $79,810 $0 $79,8102069 886 (11) 48 $79,810 $43,432 $0 $36,378 $0 $36,3782070 886 (11) 37 $36,378 $33,298 $0 $3,080 $0 $3,0802071 886 (37) 0 $3,080 $0 $0 $3,080 $0 $3,080

TOTAL 886 $3,994,900 $3,997,980



DRAFTTable B-14 Scenario 3Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanProjected Absorption Schedule




Multifamily (HDR) 60 57 0 5 5 0 9 9 30


Nonresidential Square Feet 88,000 83,600 0 0 0 0 0 14,250 69,350


Population persons per hhLDR 2.50 1,470 1,398 0 112 112 0 224 226 724MDR 2.50 693 658 0 53 53 0 105 106 341HDR 2.00 120 114 0 9 9 0 18 18 59Ag/Rural Residential 2.50 20 19 0 1 1 0 3 3 9Total 2,303 2,188 0 175 175 0 351 353 1,133



Scenario 3

Net Absorption


B-8

DRAFTTable B-50 Scenario 3Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan - Urban Services PlanAnnual Cash Flow Summary




2010 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02011 71 $0 ($252,043) $139,069 $128,226 $6,370 $21,622 $0 $21,622 $0 $0 $21,6222012 71 $21,622 ($514,030) $273,457 $256,452 $12,740 $50,241 $0 $50,241 $0 $0 $50,2412013 0 $50,241 ($514,030) $273,457 $256,452 $12,740 $78,860 $0 $78,860 $0 $0 $78,8602014 142 $78,860 ($1,137,010) $561,105 $512,904 $25,480 $41,339 $0 $41,339 $0 $0 $41,3392015 143 $41,339 ($1,650,081) $838,077 $776,435 $38,220 $43,990 $0 $43,990 $0 $0 $43,9902016 459 $43,990 ($3,449,804) $1,774,809 $1,631,048 $80,080 $80,123 $0 $80,123 $0 $0 $80,123



B-9

DRAFTPage 1 of 2


Subsidy Required



New/Converted



2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 $02011 71 71 64 64 7 7 $6,3702012 71 142 64 128 7 14 $12,7402013 0 142 0 128 0 14 $12,7402014 142 284 128 256 14 28 $25,4802015 143 427 129 385 14 42 $38,2202016 459 886 413 798 46 88 $80,0802017 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802018 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802019 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802020 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802021 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802022 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802023 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802024 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802025 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802026 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802027 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802028 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802029 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802030 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802031 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802032 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802033 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802034 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802035 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802036 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802037 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802038 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802039 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802040 0 886 0 798 0 88 $80,0802041 0 886 0 798 (1) 87 $78,7772042 0 886 0 798 (1) 85 $77,4742043 0 886 0 798 0 85 $77,4742044 0 886 0 798 (3) 82 $74,8682045 0 886 0 798 (3) 79 $72,2622046 0 886 0 798 (9) 70 $63,7002047 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002048 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002049 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002050 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002051 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002052 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002053 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,700



DRAFTPage 2 of 2


Subsidy Required



New/Converted




2054 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002055 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002056 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002057 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002058 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002059 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002060 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002061 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002062 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002063 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002064 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002065 0 886 0 798 0 70 $63,7002066 0 886 0 798 (6) 64 $58,6332067 0 886 0 798 (6) 59 $53,5662068 0 886 0 798 0 59 $53,5662069 0 886 0 798 (11) 48 $43,4322070 0 886 0 798 (11) 37 $33,2982071 0 886 0 798 (37) 0 $0

TOTAL $3,994,900





DRAFTPage 1 of 2


YearTotal

AnnualTotal

CumulativeNew

AffordableTotal


SubsidyRequired

Aff HousingFee






2010 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02011 71 71 7 7 $0 $6,370 $320,640 $314,270 $0 $314,2702012 71 142 7 14 $314,270 $12,740 $320,640 $622,170 $0 $622,1702013 0 142 0 14 $622,170 $12,740 $0 $609,430 $0 $609,4302014 142 284 14 28 $609,430 $25,480 $641,280 $1,225,230 $0 $1,225,2302015 143 427 14 42 $1,225,230 $38,220 $646,290 $1,833,300 $0 $1,833,3002016 459 886 46 88 $1,833,300 $80,080 $2,069,130 $3,822,350 $0 $3,822,3502017 886 0 88 $3,822,350 $80,080 $0 $3,742,270 $0 $3,742,2702018 886 0 88 $3,742,270 $80,080 $0 $3,662,190 $0 $3,662,1902019 886 0 88 $3,662,190 $80,080 $0 $3,582,110 $0 $3,582,1102020 886 0 88 $3,582,110 $80,080 $0 $3,502,030 $0 $3,502,0302021 886 0 88 $3,502,030 $80,080 $0 $3,421,950 $0 $3,421,9502022 886 0 88 $3,421,950 $80,080 $0 $3,341,870 $0 $3,341,8702023 886 0 88 $3,341,870 $80,080 $0 $3,261,790 $0 $3,261,7902024 886 0 88 $3,261,790 $80,080 $0 $3,181,710 $0 $3,181,7102025 886 0 88 $3,181,710 $80,080 $0 $3,101,630 $0 $3,101,6302026 886 0 88 $3,101,630 $80,080 $0 $3,021,550 $0 $3,021,5502027 886 0 88 $3,021,550 $80,080 $0 $2,941,470 $0 $2,941,4702028 886 0 88 $2,941,470 $80,080 $0 $2,861,390 $0 $2,861,3902029 886 0 88 $2,861,390 $80,080 $0 $2,781,310 $0 $2,781,3102030 886 0 88 $2,781,310 $80,080 $0 $2,701,230 $0 $2,701,2302031 886 0 88 $2,701,230 $80,080 $0 $2,621,150 $0 $2,621,1502032 886 0 88 $2,621,150 $80,080 $0 $2,541,070 $0 $2,541,0702033 886 0 88 $2,541,070 $80,080 $0 $2,460,990 $0 $2,460,9902034 886 0 88 $2,460,990 $80,080 $0 $2,380,910 $0 $2,380,9102035 886 0 88 $2,380,910 $80,080 $0 $2,300,830 $0 $2,300,8302036 886 0 88 $2,300,830 $80,080 $0 $2,220,750 $0 $2,220,7502037 886 0 88 $2,220,750 $80,080 $0 $2,140,670 $0 $2,140,6702038 886 0 88 $2,140,670 $80,080 $0 $2,060,590 $0 $2,060,5902039 886 0 88 $2,060,590 $80,080 $0 $1,980,510 $0 $1,980,5102040 886 0 88 $1,980,510 $80,080 $0 $1,900,430 $0 $1,900,4302041 886 (1) 87 $1,900,430 $78,777 $0 $1,821,653 $0 $1,821,6532042 886 (1) 85 $1,821,653 $77,474 $0 $1,744,179 $0 $1,744,1792043 886 0 85 $1,744,179 $77,474 $0 $1,666,705 $0 $1,666,7052044 886 (3) 82 $1,666,705 $74,868 $0 $1,591,837 $0 $1,591,8372045 886 (3) 79 $1,591,837 $72,262 $0 $1,519,574 $0 $1,519,5742046 886 (9) 70 $1,519,574 $63,700 $0 $1,455,874 $0 $1,455,8742047 886 0 70 $1,455,874 $63,700 $0 $1,392,174 $0 $1,392,1742048 886 0 70 $1,392,174 $63,700 $0 $1,328,474 $0 $1,328,4742049 886 0 70 $1,328,474 $63,700 $0 $1,264,774 $0 $1,264,7742050 886 0 70 $1,264,774 $63,700 $0 $1,201,074 $0 $1,201,0742051 886 0 70 $1,201,074 $63,700 $0 $1,137,374 $0 $1,137,3742052 886 0 70 $1,137,374 $63,700 $0 $1,073,674 $0 $1,073,6742053 886 0 70 $1,073,674 $63,700 $0 $1,009,974 $0 $1,009,9742054 886 0 70 $1,009,974 $63,700 $0 $946,274 $0 $946,2742055 886 0 70 $946,274 $63,700 $0 $882,574 $0 $882,5742056 886 0 70 $882,574 $63,700 $0 $818,874 $0 $818,8742057 886 0 70 $818,874 $63,700 $0 $755,174 $0 $755,1742058 886 0 70 $755,174 $63,700 $0 $691,474 $0 $691,474



DRAFTPage 2 of 2


YearTotal

AnnualTotal

CumulativeNew

AffordableTotal


SubsidyRequired

Aff HousingFee







2059 886 0 70 $691,474 $63,700 $0 $627,774 $0 $627,7742060 886 0 70 $627,774 $63,700 $0 $564,074 $0 $564,0742061 886 0 70 $564,074 $63,700 $0 $500,374 $0 $500,3742062 886 0 70 $500,374 $63,700 $0 $436,674 $0 $436,6742063 886 0 70 $436,674 $63,700 $0 $372,974 $0 $372,9742064 886 0 70 $372,974 $63,700 $0 $309,274 $0 $309,2742065 886 0 70 $309,274 $63,700 $0 $245,574 $0 $245,5742066 886 (6) 64 $245,574 $58,633 $0 $186,941 $0 $186,9412067 886 (6) 59 $186,941 $53,566 $0 $133,375 $0 $133,3752068 886 0 59 $133,375 $53,566 $0 $79,810 $0 $79,8102069 886 (11) 48 $79,810 $43,432 $0 $36,378 $0 $36,3782070 886 (11) 37 $36,378 $33,298 $0 $3,080 $0 $3,0802071 886 (37) 0 $3,080 $0 $0 $3,080 $0 $3,080

TOTAL 886 $3,994,900 $3,997,980



16634 rvsp urban services plan 01.19.09

Documents