HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 2001-2841 ORDINANCE NO. 2841
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
FISCAL DEFICIT FEE AS A BUILDING PERMIT-BASED FEE
TO PROVDE PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE
PREPARATION OF 15 ANNUAL, FISCAL REVIEWS FOR
THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT, AND FOR THE
PAYMENT OF ANY FISCAL DEFICITS IDENTIFIED BY
THOSE ANNUAL REViEWS, AS REQUIRED BY
ORDINANCE 2829, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE SAN
MIGUEL RANCH FISCAL DEFICIT ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Public
Facilities Financing Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis (PFFP/FIA) were approved by the City Council
on October 19, 1999, by Resolution No. 19631; and
WHEREAS, the PFFP/FIA identified that the San Miguel Ranch Project would operate at
an annual net fiscal deficit to the City; and
WHEREAS, condition number 22 of Resolution No. 19631, required the project
applicant to establish a mechanism to mitigate that deficit to the City's satisfaction prior to
annexation of the project site; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2000, the City Conncil approved a Master Tentative
Subdivision Map for the San Miguel Ranch project by Resolution No. 2000-068; and
WHEREAS, condition no's. 95a & 95b of Resolution No. 2000-068, further specified the
Applicant's responsibility to establish an account to finance the preparation of annual fiscal
reviews and deficit analyses for the project, and to establish a permanent mechanism, prior to
approval of the first Final Map within the project, to pay the City for the ongoing preparation of
the annual reviews, and for any fiscal deficits identified by the annual reviews; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2000, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) adopted a Resolution (Ref. No. R099-42) approving San Miguel Ranch
Reorganization subject to conditions, one of which reads "Pursuant to conditions regarding a
forecasted annual fiscal deficit, contained in the SPA and Tentative Map, the property owner will
establish and fund a mitigating mechanism to the City's satisfaction"; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2000, in conjunction with actions on annexation of the San
Miguel Ranch project area, the City Council approved Ordinance 2829, establishing the San
Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Account; and
Ordinance 2841
Page 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 3 and 5 of Ordinance 2829, the Applicant (NNP-
Trimark San Miguel, LLC) ("Applicant") shall, prior to approval of the first Final Map within
the project, establish and fund a permanent mechanism to satisfy the Applicant's responsibility
for funding preparation of the 15 annual reviews, and for payment of the project's fiscal deficits
identified by those reviews; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit 2 attached hereto is an excerpt from the approved San Miguel Ranch
PFFP/FIA and generally describes the forecasted annual fiscal deficit; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit 3 attached hereto identifies the proposed San Miguel Ranch Fiscal
Deficit Fee which will establish a permanent funding mechanism and ensure payment of said fee
to the City prior to issuance of building permits, to mitigate any fiscal deficits resulting from the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based upon information presented to it in
conjunction with prior action on the Project's SPA, PFFP/FIA, Tentative Subdivision Map and
Annexation, that imposition of the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee on all developments
within the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan area for which building permits have not yet been issued
is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective
implementation of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and is reasonably related to the development
of the San Miguel Ranch Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project's PFFP/FIA indicates that the City's operating deficits result
from residential development, not commercial, so the proposed fees are proposed to be tied to
residential dwelling traits, both single and multiple family; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the action is not
a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore is not
subject to environmental review. No further action is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Territory to Which Fee is Applicable
The area to which the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee herein established shall be
applicable is the same as the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and defined by the San Miguel Ranch
Reorganization (City Council Resolution 2000-482) and reflected on Exhibit I, attached hereto
("Affected Territory").
Section 2. Purpose
By Ordinance 2829, the City Council established the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit
Account. Pursuant to Sections 3 and 5 of Ordinance 2829, the purpose of this ordinance is to
Ordinance 2841
Page 3
establish the permanent funding mechanism to pay the City for conducting 15 annual fiscal
reviews and analyses, and for any fiscal deficits resulting from the San Miguel Ranch project.
Section 3. Establishment of Building Permit Fee
A San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee ("Fee") to be expressed on a
per-residential-dwelling-unit basis, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
residential project within the Affected Territory.
Section 4. Determination of Dwelling Units
Each single family attached and detached dwelling unit shall be considered one dwelling
unit for purposes of this Fee. Each multi-family, attached and detached dwelling unit, shall also
be considered a dwelling unit for the purposes of this Fee. Commercial and other non-residential
uses shall not be charged this Fee.
Section 5. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited
The Fee for each residential dwelling unit shall be calculated at the time of building
permit issuance, and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map
or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted,
or when application was made for the building permit. The Fee shall be adjusted from time to
time as the City determines appropriate.
Section 6. Amount of Fee
The Fee shall be calculated at the following rates:
$896.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2001; and
$922.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2002, and
$950.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2003, and
$979.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2004, and
$1,008.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2005.
The calculation of the initial Fee for the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee is shown in
Exhibit 3.
Should issuance of building permits for residential dwelling units continue beyond
calendar year 2005, the fee shall be increased an additional 3% for each subsequent calendar
year, and the increased fee shall be applied to all residential units issued building permits in that
calendar year.
Ordinance 2841
Page 4
The City Council intends to review the amount of this Fee annually or from time to time.
The City Cotmcil may, at such reviews, adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to assure
compliance with the purposes of this Fee as set forth herein, and the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
and PFFP/FIA.
Section 7. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures
The proceeds collected from the imposition of this Fee and any interest earned thereon,
shall be deposited into the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Account established by Ordinance
2829, and such proceeds shall be expended only for the purposes and under the authorities set
forth in that Ordinance 2829.
Section 8. Revision and Refund of Fees
At such time as the City Council determines that this Fee is no longer required to be
collected for the purposes set forth herein, the Fee shall be suspended.
If the Fee is suspended as provided above, the Finance Director shall provide a report to
the City Council summarizing the revenues and expenditures to date resulting from the Fee. If
there are surplus funds available, the City Manager shall provide a recommendation to the City
Council on the most fair and equitable disposition of any excess Fees that may have been
collected. In the absence of an alternative determination of fairness by the City Council, a
refund, which divides the remaining unused balance by the residential units for each developer,
or applicant who has paid the Fee shall be deemed a fair method.
Section 9. Findings
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find that the establishment of the
Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective implementation
of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and is reasonably related to the development of the San
Miguel Ranch Project, for the following reasons:
A. The San Miguel Ranch Tentative Map Resolution, Condition of Approval No. 95,
requires that a Fiscal Deficit program be established to correct any annual operating
deficiencies incurred by the City as a result of the development of the San Miguel Ranch
Project. This program will finance the cost of 15 annual reviews and analyses of the fiscal
impact of the project upon the City, and payment of any fiscal deficits identified by those
annual reviews.
B. The San Miguel Ranch PFFP/FIA produces a representation of the project's fiscal
impacts upon the City for any given year to the buildout of the project.
Ordinance 2841
Page 5
C. It is projected that the City's operating deficits will result from residential development,
not commercial or industrial, so the proposed fees are to be tied to residential units, both
single family and multi-family.
D. The amount of the Fee levied by this ordinance to fund the annual fiscal deficit analyses
does not exceed the estimated cost of providing this service.
E. The collection of the Fee established by this ordinance at the time of the building permit
is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the purposes described in the San
Miguel Ranch PFFP/FIA and in Ordinance 2829.
Section 10. Fee Additional to Other Fees and Charges
The Fee established by this ordinance is in addition to the requirements imposed by other
City laws, policies or regulations relating to the development of San Miguel Ranch.
Section 11. Time Limit for Judicial Action
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance
shall be brought within the time period as established by Government Code Section 54995, after
the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 12. Expiration of This Ordinance
This ordinance shall be of no further fome and effect when the City Cotmcil determines
that the accounts are no longer needed for the purposes stated herein.
Section 13. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after its second reading and
adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter /?jOla/M. Kaheny ~/)
Planning and Building Director ~ity Attorney
Ordinance 2841 -
Page 6
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 14th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
Shirley HortonffMayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk rs
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 2841 had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of August, 2001
and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 14th
day of August, 2001.
Executed this 7th day of August, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Cler't~
Ord #2841
: ESTANCIA
ROLLING HILLS
..... CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT P"OJECT DESCmPT~O.:
^PPUCAN~TRI MARK PACIFIC-SAN MIGUEL LLC. San Mi!;luel Ranch
PROJECT Unincorporated County area ad acent Fiscal Impact Review Ordinance
ADDRESS: to the northerly boundary of Chu a Vista.
An ordinance establish a Fiscal impact Review Process
· NORTH No Scale SM-O01F
' EXHIBIT I
Fiscal Analysis
handles the'maintenance of city parks and provided park maintenance costs of S8.599 per
public park acre. CIC allocated the park cost on a per acre (340 acres cilywide and 12.45
required acres for San Miguel Ranch) and recreation costs on a per housing unit basis.
Annual park maintenance costs allocated to San Miguel Ranch are estimated at $1 (}4.568
at build-out ($8.399 * 12.45). Vista Mother Miguel does not include any park uses.
However. park costs of 5;8.399 X .4 acres were applied because of the city's requirement
for 3 acres of park per 1.000 population. Therefore. annual park maintenance engineering
costs for Vista Mother Miguel are 5;;3,400. Excluding the Women's Club. which is
assumed to be self-suppor~ing, costs for recreation services total 5;46 per housing unit.
Using this multiplier, results in costs of $64,600 for the San Miguel Ranch (refer to Table
A-18) and $2,000 for Vista Mother Miguel (refer to Table B-18). The following table
details Se cost allocation for Parks and Recreation.
98/99 Budget Cost Allocation Unit/Acre
Parks 5;3,I 27,684 58.399 per park acre
Administration-Parks 374.260
Administration-Open Space 334.552 Provided by lighting & landscape district
Maintenance 2,418_870
General 2,147,445
Marina Park 271,425 Not applicable
Recreation 5;2.502,606 5;46 per housing unit
Athletics 260,720 $5 per housing unit
Aquatics 5 ] 6.172 510 per housing unit
Senior Citizens 288.8.39 5;5 per housing unit
General 1,062.6t 5 5;20 per housing unit
Administration-Recreation 374.260 5;7 per housing unit
Net Fiscal Impact
Utilizing the previously mentioned methodologies, estimated net fiscal impacts are
presented in Tables 61 and 62. As previously mentioned, all values are in 1998 dollars.
No annual adjustments to revenues or costs were utilized. The estimated annual flows of
costs and revenues are primarily related to ~he estimated project absorption.
Table 61 presents the results of the fiscal impact associated with the San Miguel Ranch.
Fiscal revenues range from $219,500 in the first >'ear of development (2001) m
$1,137,300 at build-om (2006). Fiscal expenditures range from $219,1'00 in ),ear one to
$1,262,400 at build-out. The net fiscal impact from developing the San Miguel Ranch
is a positive $400 in year one and becomes a negative $125,100 at project build-out. It
should be noted that during some years the net fiscal impact will be more or less due to
infrequently needed street repairs.
San Miguel Ranch ~
Public Facilities Finance Plan 4.4.14 - 18
San Misue] Ranch consJsm ora ~'pical mixed land-use plan thcludine sinote famih' homes.
multi-family homes, neighborhood shopping center, parks and school.~The ~omes ra[noe from
$140.000 for a mu]ti-family unit to $400.000 for a sino]e farni]v home on a large lot. Tile
median hqusing price and associated estimated household incom~ for San Miguei-Rancb are
significantly higher than the overall city. The San Mi~uel Ranch is expected to eenerate
higher than average per m-fit property and sales taxes. (3ther revenues are expected-to be at
or above city_ averages. In terms of expenditures, ~his project is no~ expected Io incur any
unusual or higher than average costs for city sen'ices.
The primary, factor responsible for this project's negative fiscal impact is primarily due
to the relatively small city share of property taxes under the existing annexation
agreement with the Count5'. Because the project is currently located in the County of San
Diego and proposed to be annexed into the' City of Chula Vista, the city's share of
properu.' tax is determined by the City/County Master Tax A~reement. which limits the
city's share to 8.6 percent. For properties located within th~ City of Chula Vista. the
average ci~ share of property tax is roughly I4.7 percent, if San Mi~uel Ranch utilized
a t 4.7 percent share, the fiscal impact would be positive for all years'-presented in Table
61. The last >'ear presented based on a 14.7 perce..nt share would be positive $98.200.
Table 62 presents the results of the fiscal impact associated with Vista Mother Miguel.
Fiscal rzvenues are $32,700 in year 2002 and remain the same throughout the prese~nted
development schedule, due to forecasted one-year absorption schedule. Fiscal
expendff~-es are $34,700 in 2002 and increase to 535,000 m build-out. The increase in
expenses is related to the infrequent street repair costs. The net fiscal impact from
developing Vista Mother Miguel is a negative $2,000 for all presented years except the
>,ear 2006 ($2,300), which includes street maintenance costs. Similar to San Mio~uel
Ranch, the median housing price and associated estimated household income for \{ista
Mother Miguel are significantly higher than the overall city. Vista Mother Miguel is
expected to generate higher than average per unit proper~y and sales taxes. Other
revenues are expected to be at or above city averages. In terms of expenditures, this
project is not expected to incur any unusual or hi~oher than avera~oe costs for city services.
This project is also proposed to be annexed into-the cilv, which'-lirnits the ~ty s share of
property mo: to 8.6 percent.
For both the gan Miguel Ranch project and the Vista Mother Mi~ouel subdivSsion, the City
and the developer will negotiate and establish a fee program to ~%et the p~'oj ected fiscal
defi cffs ~nrough a condition of approval of the SPA and/or tentative subdivision map.
· , San Migu.el ~anch
4 4 14 19
Fiscal Anal.vsis
Table 61
NET FISCAL IMPACT OF THE SAN MIGUEL R~a~NCH
ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Revenue Sources Revenues (In Thousands)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Secured ProperD.' Tax $60.4 $131.4 $196.5 5;262.3 5;314.7 $314.7
Unsecured Properb.' Tax $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.3 $3.3
Property Transfer Tax $5.5 $12.0 $17.9 524.0 $27.9 $27.9
Sales & Use Tax 5;87.0 $188.5 5265.6 $352.9 $451.1 $451.1
Franchise Tax $4.7 $10.2 $14.4 $19.1 $30.8 $30.8
TOT Tax $0.7 $1.5 5;2.1 $2.7 $4.0 $4.0
Utility Tax S6.4 5;13.8 5;19.5 $25.9 $41.7 $41.7
Business License 5;0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6.3 $6.3
Miscellaneous Revenues $54.8 5;118.8 5;167.4 $222.4 $257.6 $257.6
TOTAL REVEN~UES 5;219.5 $476.1 $683.3 $909.3 5;1,137.3 S1,137.3
Expenditure Sources Expenditures (In Thousands)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Government Adrnin. $39.8 5;94.1 $137.2 $I85.0 5225.6 $229.3
Planning 53.8 $8.3 5;11.7 $15.6 $19.1 $19.1
Police $88.9 5;192.6 5271.5 $360.7 5;467.4 5;467.2
Fire $36.2 $78.4 $110.5 $146.9 $180.1 $180.1
Library $22.2 548.0 S67.7 $89.9 $103.0 $103.0
Public Works 514.2 $33.5 548.7 $65.7 $77.6 $94.5
Park and Recreation 513.9 562.9 $108.0 $154.7 $169.2 5169.2
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5219.1 5518.0 S755.4 $1,018.4 S1,241.7 Sl,262.4
2001 2002 2003. 2004 2005 2006
TOTAI, REVENUES $219.5 $476.1 $683.3 $909.3 $I,137.3 $1,137.3
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $219.1 $518.0 5755.4 $1.018.4 $1.24117 '5;1.262.4
NTT FISCAL 1M~PACT $0.4 ($41.9) ($72.0) ($109.1) ($104.3) ($125.1)
San Miguel Ranch
Public Facilities Finance Plan 4.4.14 - 20
Table 62
NET FISCAL IMPACT OF VISTA MOTHER MIGUEL
ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Revenue Sources Revenues (In Thousands)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Secured Property Tax $0.0 $9.8 59.8 $9.8 S9.8 S9.8
Unsecured Prope~' Tax 50.0 S0.0 S0.0 $0.0 $0.0 S0.0
Property Transfer Tax $0.0 50.9 $0,9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9
Sales & Use Tax $0.0 $12.5 $12.5 $12.5 $12.5 $]2.5
Franchise Tax S0.0 50.7 50.7 $0.7 50.7 50.7
TOT Tax $0.0 $0.1 50.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1
UtiliD' Tax $0.0 50.9 S0.9 $0.9 $0.9 50.9
Business License $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Miscellaneous Revenues $0.0 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9
TOTAL REVEhTES $0.0 S32.7 S32.7 $32.7 S32.7 S32.7
Expenditure Sources Expenditures (In Thousands)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Government Admin. $0.0 $6.3 $6.3 $6.3 $6.3 $6.4
Planning $0.0 50.6 50.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6
Police $0.0 S12.7 512.7 $12.7 $12.7 $12.7
Fire $0.0 S5.2 55.2 $5.2 $5.2 $5.2
- Librau' $0.0 $3.2 53.2 $3.2 $3.2 $3.2
Public Works $0.0 51.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.7
Park and Recreation $0.0 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4
TOTAL EXPEND1TLrRES $0.0 S34.7 $34.7 $34.7 $34.7 $35.0
2001 2002. 2003 2004 2005 2006
TOTAL REVENUES $0.0 532.7 532.7 $32.7 532.7 532.7
TOTAL EXPENDITURES S0.0 $34.7 S34.7 $34.7 534.7 S35.0
NET FISCAL ][5'fl?ACT $0.0 (S2.0) (S2.0) ($2.0) (S2.0) (S2.3)
San Miguel Ranch
4.4.14 - 21 Public Facilities Finance Plan
01,04/00 Tt.E 13:59 F:.X 619 637 4040 C I C RESE'-.RCH
RECEB/EO
Illi
CIC RESEARCH, INC P NNING
Economic Reseamh * Ma~eting Resea~h
January 4, 2000
Mr. Ed Batchelder
City of Chula Vista
3115 Fourth Avenue, Suite R
Chula Vista CA 91910
Re: San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Funding Alternatives
Dear Ed:
The purpose of this letter is to present potential funding alternatives for the identified San
Miguel Ranch fiscal operating deficit. The fiscal analysis presents an estimated annual net
fiscal impact over the proposed development period (2001 to 2005) an,al one year beyond,
to account for some public works costs, which do not occur until after 5 years. The fiscal
impact was slightly positive in the first year and negative in the 2"~ through the 6t~ year. At
build-out, the estimated annual fiscal impact was a negative $125,000 (current 1999
dollars). At the request of the City of Chula Vista, CIC developed two '~unding alternatives
for the forecasted fiscal impact deficit.
The included table presents the' net fiscal impact for the presented development period
and an additional 25 years beyond build-out. Although very unlikely, for the purpose 'of this
analysis, CIC assumed the City of Chula Vista's public costs and revenues would adjust at
the same rate over the subject period. From 2006 to 2030 the fiscal deficit is assumed to
remain at an annual $125,000 (FY 99/00 dollars). CIC presented different time periods for
which the developer could be responsible for the fiscal deficit. Also presented in the table
is the estimated annual number of housing units built and sold. This absorption period was
utilized in CtC's fiscal report.
The table presents t'e~o funding alternatives for 5 different time periods. Although the
identb'ied fiscal deficit could continue indefinitely, it is very difficult to f6recast future
revenues and expenditures. The presented time periods range from a six year (consistent
with the fiscal analysis) period to a 30-year period. The two funding alternatives include a
one-time payment and a per-housing unit fee. The per-unit fee is to be paid at the same
~irne as the building permit, based on the presented building schedule. Both
methodologies utilize a discounted cash flow analysis (Net Present Value) of the annual
deficit. In both alternatives a net present value was calculated ~r[ilizing a 3 i:~ercent
E361 VTc~ers St~eez · San Die.ex3, C, aJ~fomia 92111-2112
7'eleph~n-_ (619) 637.-4000. Fax: (619) 637-4040
01/04/00 ~tE 14:00 ?ql 6]9 G37 4040 C I C RESEARCII ~uo3
Mr. Batchelder
Ja..a ,4,=000 i ! I I
page 2
discount rate, which assumes that the difference between inflation arid interest rates is
3%~ per year.
The one-time payment-funding alternative ranges from $397,000 (assumes the developer
is responsible for a 6-year pedod) to $2,170,000 (assumes the developer is responsible
for a 30-year pedod). These one-time payments represent the net present values (NPV) of
the presented cash flows utilizing the 3% discount rate. The per-unit fee is based on the
above net present values divided by the number of units proposed and increased three
percent each year to adjust for inflation. This fee ranges from a Iow of $293 (2001 dollars
for a 6-year period) to a high of $1,805 (2005 dollars for a 30-year period) per housing
unit, based on the presented absorption schedule.
Based on discussions with City of Chula Vista's department heads, a period to include 10
years beyond the build out represents an equitable time period for which the developer
should be responsible for the fiscal deficit. This represents a 15-year period from 2001 to
2015. Utilizing the two presented funding alternatives results in a one time fee of $1.2
million or a per- building permit fee, which ranges from $896 in 2001 to $1,008 by 2005.
Sincerely,
Mark Crooks
Senior Market Analyst
MCC:slf
The 3% disc, ount rate was calculated using a 3% inflation rate and a 6% return on funds.
CIC Reseam. h, Inc.
6361 Vicker2 Sb'eet o San Diego, California 92¢11-2fl2
Telephot~e (619) 637-4000 .Fax: (61g) 537-4040
o]/04/00 TL'E ]4:o0 F~I 6]9 G37 4040 C I C RESEARCH ~ oo
Proposed San Miguel Development
Potential Funding Alternatives for Fiscal Operating Deficit
Alternative Alternative Per Building Permit Fee
One-time 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Time Period Paym, ent (200! (2002 (2003 (2004 (2005
for Estimates (FY99/00 dollars) dollars) dollars) dollars) dollars) dollars)
6 Year
2001 to 2006 $396,623 $293 $302 $311 $320 $330
10 Year
2001 to 2010 $785,905 $581 $598 $616 $635 $654
15 Year
2001 to 20!5 $1,212,042 $896 $922 $950 $979 $1,008
25 Year
2001 to 2025 $1,836,993 $1,357 $1,398 $1,440 $!,483 $1,528
30 Year
2001 to 2030 22,170,239 $1,604 $],652' $1,701 $1,752 $1,805
!) Assumes 3% inflation and 6% interest (net discount rate of 3%)
_2) Assumes the City of Chula Vista's public costs and revenues
djust at the same rate over the subject period
3) The one4ime payment fee is in FY 99/00 dollars, the per building permit fee is presented in
2001 t:)2005 dollars_
Net Fiscal
(O00s) Build-Out
Number (FY99/O0 Schedule
of Years Year dollars) (units)
I i 2001 $0.4 I 3oo
2 I 2002 ($41.9)1 350
31 2003 ($72.0) 266
41 2004 ($109.1) 301
· 5I 2005 ($104.3) 177
61 2006 ($125.1) o
71 2007 ($125.1)
_.. 8 2008 ($125.1)
9 2009 ($125.1)
10 2010 ($125.1)
11 2011 ($125.1)
12 2012 ($125.1)
13 2013 ($125.1)
14 2014 ($125.1)i
15 to 301 2015 to 2030 ($125.1) per year
Source: CtC Research. Inc. December 1999 , ~ ~.~ ~