Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 14-91 RESOLUTION NO. 14-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REVISING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 119 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance 119 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Development Fee, and WHEREAS, Exhibit A is a study of the impacts of planned future development on existing public facilities in the incorporated areas, along with an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new development, and said study set forth the relationship between new development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements. The study, entitled "Appendix D: Developer Fees" was prepared by the firm of Crawford, Multari and Starr and is dated December, 1990; and WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of this fee is to finance facilities shown in Exhibit A to reduce the impacts of runoff, traffic and other impacts show in the exhibits, caused by new development, within the incorporated area. B. The development fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the public facilities described or identified- in Exhibit "A", attached hereto; C. After considering the above study and analysis and the testimony received at this public hearing, the Council approves said study, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the new development in the incorporated area will generate additional runoff, traffic, and other impacts shown in the exhibits within the impacted area and will contribute to the degradation of public facilities and services in that incorporated area. D. There is a need in this described impact area for the improvements shown in Exhibit A which have not been constructed or have been constructed, but new development has not contributed .its fair share toward these facility costs and said facilities have been called for in or are consistent with the City's General Plan; Resolution No. 14-91 Page 2 E. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts of the types of development described in paragraph 2 below, for which the corresponding fee is charged, and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships or nexus are in more detail described in the study referred to above; F. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs. NOW, THEREFORE, it hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that: 1. A development fee shall be charged prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of occupancy in the case that a building permit is not applicable. The City Community Development Department shall determine if the development dies within this benefit area, the type of development and the corresponding fee to be charged in accordance with this resolution, including proportionate fees for alterations or additions, if applicable. 2. Fees. SINGLE MULTI- NON- SERVICE TYPE FAMILY FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1. Inside Urban Service Line Drainage 0.245 0.245 0.245 Streets, Roads & Bridges 0.219 0.300 1.166 Public Safety 0.113 0.224 0.452 Parks 0.511 1.011 0.128 Miscellaneous 0.023 0.023 0.023 TOTALS: 1.111 1.803 2.014 2. Outside Urban Service Line Drainage 0.245 0.245 0.245 Streets, Roads & Bridges 0.747 0.747 0.747 Public Safety 0.613 0.724 0.952 Parks 0.51,1 1.011 0.128 Miscellaneous 0.023 0.023 0.023 TOTALS: 2.139 2.750 2.095 3. Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used to pay for ( 1) the described public facilities to be constructed by the City; or (2) reimbursing the City of the development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City. Resolution No. 14-91 Page 3 4. Fee Review. On or about June, 1991 and each following year, the Public Works Department shall review the estimated cost of the described capital improvements, the continued need for those improvements and the reasonable relationships between such need and the impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which this fee is charged. The Public Works Department shall report its findings to the City Council at a noticed public hearing and recommend any adjustment to this fee or other action as may be needed. S. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days. 6. Exhibit A is hereby adopted by reference and is considered a part of this resolution. 7. Resolution 100-88 is hereby repealed. 8. These new fees shall become effective upon. adoption, provided, however, that any project submitted for review prior to the adoption date shall be charged the rates in effect prior to adoption. On motion by Coune 1person Borgeson, and seconded by Councilperson Shiers, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety, by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: Couneilmembers Nimmo, Dexter, Shiers, Borgeson and Mayor Lilley NOES: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED: April 9, 1991 By:. RO ERT B. LILLEY, r AR-D6A:YI-NA City Clerk Resolution No. 14-91 Page 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART R ONT N City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MARK JOSEPH n Administrative Sery es Director i City of Atascadero Resolution No. 14-91 Fiscal Analysis EXHIBIT "A" i 1 Appendix D: Developer Fees I Background. Communities increasingly use fees to make new development pay its "fair share" of the cost of needed public facilities. in most states, including California,the"rational nexus"has been adopted either explicitly by statute or by case law as the general rule for determining what developers can be legally charged. In essence,this legal standard requires developer fees to be directly linked, in a reasonable way,to the cost of the facilities needed to serve the development. A number of new laws and court cases are further defining other legal bounds for development fees and exactions. Subjects which have been of interest to the courts include the uniformity of service standards among new and existing development,the exclusion of existing infrastructure deficiencies from the fee formula, and the requirement that the revenues must be spent for the benefit of those paying the fees. In Callomia,AB 1600,which went into effect in 1989,explicitly sets legal limits on charging new development fees. In brief,a city must establish a reasonable relationship between development projects and the public improvements for which developer fees are charged;that is,the city must identify the purpose of the fee and establish the"nexus"or connection between need for a facility and the development. AB 1600 also requires that fees be kept in identifiable funds,be earmarked for facilities as called out in some adopted plan or schedule,and be spent within a certain amount of time or refunded. Atascadero's fee structure was recently amended to comply with these requirements. l Earlier, in 1985,the City had imposed a development fee in the form of a$0.50 per square foot (s.f.)tax . At the same time,an ad hoc development fee task force was established to recommend a reasonable and equitable fee structure to provide revenues for the capital improvements needed in the City. Based on their recommendations, the City Council adopted a development impact fee schedule in 1986. This consisted of fees for various improvement categories such as Crawtaird Multari&Starr planning •architecture•public policy 0.1 S City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis roads, parks,pope and fire facilities, etc. In addition,the Council established special development impact fees for construction of the Lewis Avenue Bridge and for drainage improvements in the Amapoa-Tecorida area. In 1988, in order to comply the requirements of AB 1600 and the limitations imposed by Proposition 62,the City adopted a new development fee structure. At the end of that year,the Lewis Avenue Bridge Fee was repealed (the Lewis Avenue Bridge was thereafter included among the other bridge projects and covered by the overall bridge fee) and the$.50 tax was voided. (The Amapoa-Tecori da Drainage Fee was left intact.) The new fee structure went into effect on January 1, 1989 and remains in effect today. Current Fee Structure. Table D-1 summarizes current development impact fees in Atascadero. The general method used to derive these fees involved 1) totaling the costs of capital improvement needs in each improvement category;2)determining a reasonable share of these costs attributable to new development;3) apportioning the costs between new residential and non-residential development; and, 4) distributing the residential share between single-family and multi-family development. The technical bases used for assigning the share of costs among the different uses varies with the kinds of facilities. For example,the cost of needed drainage improvements is allocated on the basis of runoff coefficients for different types of development.The fees for bridges and roads are based on estimates of average daily trips(ADT)generated by each type of use. The fees for parks are based on an analysis which concluded that approximately three percent of costs can be related to non-residential development,with the remainder attributable to residential growth. The share of costs assigned to single-family and to multi-family units is in proportion to projected population growth for each type of development. The cost of needed police and fire facilities are allocated 50 percent to non-residential and 50 recent to residential development. The pe pe � residential share is further distributed between single-family and multi-family units based on projected population growth in these categories, as is done in the case of parks. The approach used by the City is satisfactory,and is generally more sophisticated than fee ordinances in most other cities in this region. We,therefore,do not recommend changing the basic approach. We do discuss some possible adjustments to the fee schedule in the Crawford Muitart&Stag planning•architecture•public policy D-2 i f Table D-1 Summary of Current Developer Fees I Type of Fee Type of Land Use Residential Single Family ResWgntjW Mull-Family Non-residential Drainage 0.127 0.172 0.634 i Traffic 0.001 0.010 0.439 Bridges 0.260 0.393 0.537 1 Roads 0.036 0.055 0.075 Parks 0.337 0.593 0.079 Police 0.032 0.056 0.234 Fire 0.065 0.115 0.480 Bldg/Equipment 0.244 0.244 0.244 Cam.QQt/Eng. 0-036 0,036 0.036 Total 1.138 1.674 2.758 Source: City of Atascadero,1990 1 t Cffy of Afascadaro: tong Range Rscal Analysis 9-3 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis i subsections below. However, these should be viewed as possible refinements for the City to consider rather than recommendations for wholesale revision in methodology. Possible Adjustments. There is no single agreed-upon technique for calculating ng j development fees. The law requires a reasonable relationship between the fees and the cost of I facilities needed to serve the development;but this allows significant latitude in approach. As noted just above, the methodology used by Atascadero is, in general, reasonable, and no major modifications are necessary(one exception may the fire fee which is discussed further below). What follows are possible adjustments which the City should review and consider. Our suggested adjustments focus on three areas: 1)updating facility costs to reflect the list of the City's capital improvement needs as described earlier in this.report;2) using the household size,population projections,unit size and other assumptions used earlier in our revenue model;and 3)refining how much of the cost of each facility is reasonably attributable to new development. Each of these is discussed further below. ` Updated List of Capital Facility Needs. This item is the most straightforward. The lists of capital facilities derived earlier in the report tend to be more inclusive than the capital facility lists used to co � mpute current fees. Regardless of other changes in approach,this kind of updating should take place at regular intervals. In all the fee calculations made later in this section,the updated capital needs lists in Chapter V above are used. Population, Household Size and Development Potential Assumpti©n& Table D-2 summarizes tate parameters used in the revenue model which are also important for computing different categories of developer fees. We feel these assumptions are conservative, reasonable arks informed. However,they are simply assumptions, and others can certainly be substituted and 1 still be considered reasonable. For consistency,we based our fee calculations on the same assumptions we used earlier. Further,two other assumptions were made to s' , y the fee computations. First theratio of ( current population in 1990(about 22,500) to the buiid-w popuiation(about 33,000 to 35,000 ), was considered to be Ito three. Given the uncertainty about projectI,than far into the future, Crawford Muitari&Starr planning•architecture -public policy D4 Table D-2 Revenue Model Assumptions Relevant to Developer Fee Calculations T pq gf Qevelooment xiiting Future Residential Single Family w No.of Units 5200 1730 Persons/Household 3.0 3.0 Average Unit Size 2200 s.f. 2200 s.f. i Residential Multi-family No.of Units 2800 2600 Persons/Household 2.7 2.7 1 Average Unit Size 1000 s.f. 1000 s.f. Non-Residential Gross Acres 296 102 Coverage 25% 25% 1 ' Source: CMS Revenue Model and Atascadero General Plan, 1990 I i_. I_ City of A o. Long Range Flwa/Analysis E)-S City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis i this is, in our opinion, a reasonable simplification. Accordingly, potential growth after 1990 was assumed to represent one-third of total City population at build-out. i I Second,the existing developed commercial land in the City was considered to be 298 acres. This includes,however,government offices and some residential uses. To simplify the calculations, i this area was all treated as a single"non-residentiai"category for estimating the non-residential share of impacts, even though we know that there are some public and residential uses mixed in. For the purposes used here,this is a reasonable approximation. Adjustments in Attributing Costs to Development.. The following summarizes some possible adjustments to how the share of costs attributable to new development for each improvement category can be estimated. The City staff should review these suggestions, consider which ones may be improvements to the existing approach and recommend such changes to the City Council. Again,we point out that there is no single"correct"way of calculating fees and that the existing methodology is generally sound. In some cases(eg:circulation),we found that limits on available data may constrain the usefulness of the refinements. In those case,without further data collection and/or further assumptions, some of the refinements may not be improvements over the currently applied methodology. We focused on the principal fee categories affecting the General Fund. Our results are summarized for each of them here. The actual formulas and calculations were provided to the City in a separate document. Drainage Fee. The current approach applies a uniform fee throughout the City. Atascadem,however, may be meanirKftHy divided into three watersheds,the areae that drain into(1)Graves Creek,(2)Atascadero Creek and(3)those that drain directly into the Salinas River. The City may prefer to charge different drainage fees in each of these 1 areas since the impacts of new development and the drainage improvements needed to solve flooding problems is different in each watershed. Crawford Muttarf&Starr planning•architecture•public policy D-6 r City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis To try this alternative approach, the drainage projects identified in the capital improvements section were first assigned to the three watersheds as follows(using the numbering from Chapter V, Table 7A): Graves Creek Basin: Projects#6,7, 11, 21 and 31 (Total estimated cost: $515,000) Salinas River: Projects#1,13,15,16 and 25 ($825,000) Atascadero Creek: all others ($4,785,000) Clearly, most of the improvements affect Atascadero Creek. The next step was to estimate the ratio of existing to future potential development for each of the drainage areas. Data about existing land use and about future development j potential has been disaggregated into various"planning areas"by the City. Each planning area was assigned to one of the three watersheds. (There are some cases where a planning area overlaps two basins,but the overlaps are small and do not significantly affect the results. Further refinements in land use breakdowns were beyond the scope of this exercise. ) ( Using this information,the total amount of existing development and the amount of l potential development in terms of total square footage was estimated for each drainage area. In this way,the proportion of new development to existing was calculated for each. Further breakdowns among single family, mufti-family and non-commercial uses was not done,because it was assumed that a square foot of development,regardless of type, affected drainage equally. i One might argue that a better measure of drainage impacts would be total impervious i surface rather than simply square footage of actual development. it is not clear that this would yield significantly different results,but this may be a useful adjustment which would further increase the level of sophistication in the fee calculation. These proportions were then applied to the total costs of drainage improvements in each f basin, yielding the following: i. Crawford Nabi&Stair planning-architecture-public policy D-7 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis Graves Creek: $.072/s.f. Salinas River: $.116/s.f. Atascadero Creek: $.446/s.f. j This fee structure would have development in the Atascadero Creek watershed pay higher fees than than other areas, because the majority of the drainage improvements serve that area. Overall,this alternative fee structure generates approximately the same e amount of money for the City as the current drainage fee rates;the difference,therefore, is in how the costs are distributed to new development. It is not clear that having separate fees for each drainage area is an improvement from an administrative or political perspective, even though it may be technically more correct. Streets, Roads and Bridges. We treated these improvements as one category because they are related to circulation. We noted again that there may be some meaningful way of differentiating impacts geographically in the City. Looking at the fists of road and bridge projects in Chapter V, we observed that the majority are near the older city center. .We tried to draw a boundary { around the area most impacted by deficiencies near the town center and which would 1 most benefit from improvements there. For practical purposes,that boundary roughly coincided with the Urban Service Line(USL). Similarly, most road improvements outside the USL generaity serve only the single family residential areas there and do riot seem to significantly benefit development closer to the city core. Thus,we tried an approach.under which all uses inside the USL pay for the improvements inside the USL,while uses outside the USL would pay only for improvements there. (In this exercise,we only computed a fee for single family residences outside the USL;if this approach were adopted,a fee for the small amount of L- multi-familyand non-residential outside the USL would also need to computed.) input ) Crawford Mnitad&Starr planning•architecture•public policy D$ City of Atascadero f Fiscal Analysis IAs before,we used data disagreggated at the planning area level. The City's planning areas 2,3,4, 5,8, 9 and 10 were considered to fie inside the IDSL for estimating future I development potential there. (Again, as in the case of drainage basins, the boundaries do not match exactly, but the differences are not significant for this purpose.) IFrom the capital facilities lists in Chapter V-Tables 7B and 7C,project numbers 1, 3, 10, 11, 17, 23,24 and 27 of Streets and Roads and project numbers 1, 3,4, 5, 9,13,14,15,16, 17 and 19 of the Bridges were located outside the USL. The remaining projects were all located inside the USL. E The cost of improvements outside the USL was divided between new and existing Idevelopment in the ratio of number of potential and existing single-family residential units. The resulting impact fee is about$164.30 a unit or$0.747/s.f, (if we assume an average i unit size of 2200 s.f.) This is significantly lower than the combined bridge and road fees currently assessed on single family residences. IThe cost of improvements within the USL were divided between new and existing development and then among single-family, mufti-family and non-residential on the basis of ADT generation factors. 1 Residential single family:9.5 ADT/unit Residential multi-family: 5.9 ADT/unit Non-residential: 1000 ADT/net acre of development (coverage factor of 25%was used to convert gross acres to net developed acres) We based our ADT factors on Institute of Traffic Engineers information. The City uses in its current fees schedule 10 ADT/unit for single family,8 ADT/unit for mufti-family and 500 ADT/acre of non-residential. The biggest difference is in the non-residential category. This is also the most speculative because it involves averaging numerous dissimilar uses (retail,offices, services, restaurants,etc.). Again,there is no one standard, and the �- factors used in Atascadero should be ones the City Engineer feels are best. The resulting fees for development inside the USL are as follows: Crawford Mnitarl&Starr planning -architecture•public policy D-9 V City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis Residential singlefamily: $.219/s.f. Residential multi-family:$.300/s.f. Non-residential: $1.166/s.f. or for all types,$50.77/ADT Compared to current road and bridge fees,this adjustment reduces the fee for residential uses, both in and out of the USL,but increases the fee for non-residential uses. j As in the case of drainage,it is not clear that having two fees for like development in two areas is politically or administratively superior. Without a more extensive traffic analysis than the overly simple differentiation made here,the technical basis for the geographic breakdown is weaker in the case of circulation than for drainage. The upcoming Circulation Element revision would likely provide traffic zone data which could be used to ` more precisely set different circulation impact fees for different parts of the City, if that is preferred. Pol/ce Fees. Development impact fees should be charged to help service the debt which was incurred to pay for the new police facility. (The total estimated cost of the police 1 facility amounts to approximately$2.0 million,when the cost of acquisition is included.) 1 In our approach,we assumed that the appropriate share of these costs attributable to new development is one-third of the total cost of the facility,corresponding to the proportion of new to total development at build-cwt. Thus,one-third of these costs can be attributed to new development. Further, in consultation with the Police Chief,we assumed that commercial uses account for roughly one-third of the total calls for service while residential accounts for the remainder. Thus,among the costs assigned to new development, one- third will be attributed to non-residential growth,the remainder to new residential units. { The residential share is further adjusted between single family and multi-family units, based on the projected numbers of units in each category and the estimated household sizes. 1_. This adjustment yields the following rates: Crawford Monad&Stara planning-architecture-public policy D-10 o i 1 City of Atascadero { Fiscal Analysis I Residential single-family: $.061/s.f. Residential multi-family:$.120/s.f. Non-residential: $.245/s.f. Compared to current fees,these are approximately twice as high for residential uses, and the same as the current ogres for non-residential development. Fire Fee. The capital improvements needed for building the new fire stations should be supported in part by a development impact fee. The costs include land,building and equipment needed to operate the stations. Mow these costs should be attributed to new development is not entirely clear. The Draft Fire Master Plan suggests that the new stations are needed to relieve existing deficiencies,to improve service levels to existing residents and to serve new development. It does not quantify,however, the proportion of costs that should be assigned existing and future developments. In light of this uncertainty,we used the same breakdowns as for the police fee. (This is a very conservative approach and a higher share to new development could likely be justified.) The resulting fees are as follows; 1 Residential single family: Residential mufti-family: $.115/s.f. Non-residential: $.235/s.f. { Curiously,this approach resulted in lower fees than currently charged for the sirigle family i and iron-residential categories,despite using mph higher total capital costs than are used in the City's current fire fee calculation. The present approach used by the City to calculate this fee is very different from most of the others used by the City or discussed 6 here and probably warrants some more detailed review. instead of comparing total costs to total build-out potential,fire facility costs are broken crown into annual increments which are assigned to an estimate of annual development. Among all the currently used techniques,this is one that most warrants re-assessment. Crawford Makad&Starr planning-architecture-public policy D-11 h i Table D-3 a Summary of Possible Fee Adjustments Type of Fee Type of Land Use fResidential SingJq Family Reside.ttial Mulur-Famiiv Ngn-residential Drainage i Graves Creek 0.072 0.072 0.072 Salinas River 0.116 0.116 0.116 Atascadero Creek 0.446 0.446 0.446 ' Streets,Roads and Bridges Inside USL 0.219 0.300 1.166 ( Outside USL 0.747 (1 Police 0.061 0.120 0.245 j Fire 0.058 0.115 0.235 ! Parks 0.402 0.796 0.100 { JairW Zubtatal* in USL 1.186 1.777 2.192 out USL 1.714 f bWequip& com.dev. 0.280 0.280 0.280 'I rxgiaINC } in USL 1.466 2.057 2.472 { out USL 1.994 Irotais with existing ovm.dev.and bkW&quip fees provided for easy comparison to current fees *in Atascadero Creek Watershed 1._ l City of Afawadero: Lang Rang Rslt ai Analysis i D-12 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis Parks Fee. We felt that many of the improvements listed in the area of parks and recreation, such as a new bike trail system,pavilion improvements,community center, swimming center,etc.,either address existing deficiencies or enhance levels of service. In those cases,the benefits would be shared by the community at large and,therefore, fthe costs can not be attributed to new growth alone. For these kinds of improvements, we allocated one-third of the total costs to new development,the proportion that new growth represents relative to the City at build-out. The need for the two major new parks that are proposed(NW Quad and SW Quad) may be more to accommodate new growth than the other community-wide facilities. But even these facilities will clearly benefit the existing residents and help offset existing deficiencies. Accordingly, we assumed it reasonable to divide the costs of these parts equally between new and existing development. Three percent of the costs of new development was assigned to non-residential uses as f is currently done in the existing fee schedule. The remaining was apportioned between single-family and multi-family types in the ratio of projected population in these categories. The resulting impact fees are as follows: Residential single family: $.402Js.f. ' Residential multi-family:$796/s.f. Non-residential: $.100/s.f. } Ali of these are significantly higher than current rates,and reflect primarily,the ambitious park and recreation improvement program listed in Chapter V. Summary. Tape 0-3 lists and the results of these adjustments for the drainage, roads bridges fire,police and parks fees. These adjustment wouM result in significantly higher fees for residential uses, but slightly lower fees for non-residential development. Single family residences outside the USI.would bear the greatest increase,about 75 percent above current rates. Overall, Crawford Mulled&Starr planning architecture . public poky 0.13 ,f City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis ; I the revenue model projects development fee contributions to the General Fund would be about 10 percent higher using the adjusted fee schedule than the current fee rates. Although the total cost per square foot is higher for mufti-family than single family residences, this really reflects assumptions about average unit sizes. On a per unit basis, using our assumptions, the average fee for a single family house outside the USL would be about$4387;for a single family house inside the the USL,$3225;for a multifamily unit,$2057. 1 The next step in re-assessing these fees would be for City staff to consider the adjustments discussed above,to refine the assumptions according to their judgement and experience, and to make recommendations as to which are superior to the current structure. Our review here suggests that setting different traffic and drainage fees for different geographic areas of the City may be justified. But such refinements may be better postponed until more extensive technical analyses(eg:the Circulation Element update) are conducted. 1 Once the formulas are agreed upon, annual adjustments to take into account changes to the capital improvement program and for inflation are relatively simple.' Less frequently,perhaps on five year intervals,the underlying assumptions about unit size,household size, and the size and I� coverage of non-residential development should be re-exarrined,too. Generally,with annual 1 adjustments for inflation and C!P changes,and regular but less frequent fine tuning of the demographic assumptions,the revised fee schedule should remain useful for a long time. I "The formulas used in calculating these adjusted fees, highlighting the variables that should be periodically updated,have been provided to the City separately. Crawford Mahar!&Starr planning •architecture•public policy EXHIBIT II Table 7D Projected Capital Improvements Public Works Dept P YEAR PROPOSED PROJECTS EST.COST (1990$) 1990-91 -Street Improvements $924,150 • kk)es $360,000 i 1991-92 -Drainage $791,500 S'treetwRoads $738,000 Bri laes $9,000 1992-93 -Drainage $791,500 -StreeWRoads $738,000 I 000 1993-94 -Dray we $791: Roads $738.000 - $9.000 199495 -Dr1 $791,500 •StreetwRoads $738,000 ( -Bridges $250.000 I 1995.96 -Drattge $791,50t? SreeWRoads $738,000 90,000 1996-97 -Drainage $368,000 -Streets/Roads $700,000 MM $`375,000 1997-98 -Dramas $368,000 Streets/Roads $700,000 fte $375,000 1998-99 •Dra fte $368,000 -StreetwRoads $700.000 376,000 1999.00 s368,000 ( StreetsJRoads $700,000 !. •Bridges _ $375,tO0 2000.01 $368,000 Stre4eWRoads $700,000 . . AMM $375.000 ( 2001-02 ? -Streftioads $357= -t3ridpesRM,000 2002-03 Same as in 2001-02 2003.04 Sae as in 2001-02 200+1.05 Sarver as in 2001-02 City of Atsscisdero: Long Range Fiscal Analysis 30 t PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT LISTING PROJECT COST RATE DEV. SHARE Fire Station #3 900,000 .66 600,000 Fire Station #4 1 ,200,000 .66 800,000 Police Facility 3,390,000 .33 1 , 186,500 ( includes Debt Service) Emerg . Supply Containers 30,000 .33 10,000 Snorkel (Aerial Eq. ) 300,000 .33 100,000 Quick Attack Eq. (2) 100,000 .33 33,300 Radio Repeater Site 54,000 .33 16,500 Computer-Assisted Dispatch 200,000 .33 66,000 Lighting Eq. 75,000 .33 25,000 Training Tower (Fire) 325,000 .33 107,250 Police Station Pkg . Cover 10,000 .33 3,300 Base Station/Radios (PD) 90,000 .33 30,000 TOTALS 6,670,000 NA 2,977,850 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS PROJECT COST RATE DEV. SHARE Fiscal Costing Model 11 ,000 100% 11 ,000 ( Balance) Traffic Circulation/Safety 130,000 50% 65,000 Downtown Improvements 300,000 33% 100,000 TOTALS 441 ,000 NA 176,000 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT COST RATE DEV. SHARE Lake Pavilion 1 ,950,000 .33 643,500 ( includes Debt Service) SW Quad Park 2,420,000 .50 1 ,210,000 NW Quad Park 2,304,000 .50 1 , 150,000 Land Acq . (Est . ) 1 , 150,000 _.33 379,500 Tennis Ct . Lights 75,000 .33 25,000 Corporate Yard Renovation 662,000 .33 218,460 Community Center/Gym 1 ,000,000 .33 333,300 Creekway/Trail Development 304,000 .33 104,000 Community Pool 1 ,500,000 .33 500,000 Bikeways 400,000 .33 132,000 Zoo Improvements 120,000 - .33 40,000 TOTALS 11 ,877,000 NA 4,731 ,760