HomeMy WebLinkAboutIRVINE COAST FISCAL IMPACT REPORT*NEW FILE*
COAST
IRVINE 9�: FISCAL
IMPACT REPORT
IRVINE COAST
FISCAL IMPACT REPORT
0
RFr- I
FEB 101988
cr
S
IRVINE COAST
FISCAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ZONE CHANGE
Prepared for:
THE IRVINE COMPQiNY
November 1980
WILLIAMS-MEBELBECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
330 Washington Street, Suite 710
Marina del Rey, California 90291
Telephone (213) 822-0114
I t
STUDY PARTICIPANT'S
THE IRVINE COMPANY
Richard J. Cermack, Manager, Advanced Planning
Stephen P. Sandland, Project Manager
Commercial/Industrial Division
Myron E. Erickson, Program Manager,
Engineering Division
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Anthony Carstens, Principal Analyst
Mark Armstrong, Research Analyst
WILLIAMS-KUEBELBECK AND ASSOCIATES, LNC.
ltan
Economic and Financial Consuts
Robert J. Gardner, Associate, Project Manager
William H. Whitney, Ph.D., Principal
Rosalie E. Calderone, Senior Economist
Brian M. Tracy, Economist
LARRY SEEMfAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
William F. Foley, Vice President
Carollyn Lobell, Project Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION
I-1
A. Overview
I-1
B. Objective
I-1
C. Methodology
I-1
II.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
II-1
A. General Find
II-1
B. Special Districts
II-2
C. Schools
II-3
III.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
III-1
A. Description of Proposed Development
III-1
B. Constant Dollar Assumption _
III-4
C. Park Program'
III-4
D. Road System/Circulation-
III-7
E. The Residential Development Program
III-8
F. The Commercial Development Program
III -is
G. Summary
III-17
IV.
COUNTY GENERAL FUND
IV-1
A. General Find Revenues
IV-1
B. General Fund Costs
N-9
C. Net Fiscal Effect
IV-18
V.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS
V-1
A. Water and Sewer
V-1
B. Fire Protection Services
V-S
Continued .....
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
V. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS (Continued)
C.
Orange County Library District
V-7
D.
County Harbors, Beaches and Parks
V-11
E.
Orange County Flood Control District
V-13
F.
School Districts
V-14
G.
Other Districts
V-21
H.
Landscaping and Lighting District
V-22
I.
Irvine Coast Homeowners Association
V-23
J.
County Service Areas
V-23
K.
Bonds
V-24
APPENDIX
A - bERIVAT-M OF PROPERTY --TAX REVENUES
A-1
APPENNDIX
B - CAO-DERIVED ANLTIPLIERS
B-1
:APPENDIX C - CAv4�ENTS ON THE DRAFT IRVINE COAST FISCAL IMPACT
REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY lUlINISTRATIVE
OFFICE AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS C-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No. Page
III-1
Proposed Phasing Schedule, Irvine Coast Property,
1982-1997
III-10
III-2
Irvine Coast: Projected Population per Development
Period, 1983-1999
III-13
III-3
Summary of Development Assumptions
III-18
IV-1
Projected Annual Assessed Value and General Fund
Property Tax Revenues, 1982-1999
N-2
IV-2
Projected Annual General Fund Revenues from
Transient Occupancy and Sales Taxes, 1983-1999
IV-4
IV-3
General Fund: County -Derived Average Revenue
Multiplier, Fiscal Year 1979-1980
IV-6
IV-4
Projected Annual Recurring Revenues Using County -
Derived Multipliers, Residential Development
Only, 1983-1999
IV-7
=IV-5 _-Ptojected_Annual Recurring Revenues Using County
-
_Derived Multipliers, Commercial Development
Oily, 1983-1999 IV-8
IV-6 Projected Annual General Fund Revenues from All
Sources IV-10
IV-7 Projected Annual Road Maintenance. IV-12
IV-8 General Fund: County -Derived Average Cost
Multipliers, Fiscal Year 1979-1980 IV-14
IV-9 Projected Annual Recurring Costs Using County -
Derived Multiplier, Residential Development
Only, 1983-1999 1V-15
IV-10 Projected Annual Recurring Costs Using County -
Derived Multipliers, Commercial Developments
Only, 1983-1999 IV-16
IV-11 Projected Annual General Fund Costs from All
Sources IV-17
IV-12 Projected Annual General Fund Revenue Surplus,
1982-1999 IV-19
Continued ....
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
No. Page
V-1 Property Tax Revenues to Special Districts
Other than School Districts within Irvine
Coast Project Area V-4
V-2 Projected Annual Revenues and Costs to Orange
County Structural Fire Protection District,
1982-1999 V-8
V-3 Projected Annual County Library Revenues and
Costs, 1982-1999 V-10
V-4 Comparison of Costs and Revenues for Orange
County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District,
Selected Years, 1982-1999 V-12
V-5 Projected Fiscal Impact of Irvine Coast Development,
Newport -Mesa School District, 1983-1999 V-18
V-6 Property Tax Revenues to School Districts,
Community Colleges and Department of Education
Districts, 1982-1999 V-20
Existing Secured Valuation, Tax Rates, Requirements
and Maturity"Dates for Bond Jurisdictions within
Irvine Coast, 1979-1980 V-25"
V-8 Added Secured Valuation from Irvine Coast Develop-
ment and Impact on Bond Tax Rates: 1991 V-26
V-9 Added Secured, Valuation from Irvine Coast Development
and Impact on Bond Tax Rates: 1999 V-27
APPENDIX TABLES
A-1 Proposed Phased Lot Sales, Irvine Coast Plan,
.annually by TRA, 1982-1997 A-4
A-2 Annual :Market Value from Custom Lot Sales of
Irvine Coast Property by Tax Rate Area, 1982-1997 A-5
A-3 Annual Number of Custom Homes Added in Irvine Coast
Development Each Year, by Tax Rate Area, 1983-1999 A-6
Continued ....
iv
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
No. Page
A-4 Annual Market Value from Custom Single Family
Home Construction, 1983-1999 A-7
A-5 Market Value of Hotels, Retail and Pre -Built
Homes by Tax Rate Area, 1986-1999 A-8
A-6 Projected Market Value of Development by Tax
Rate Area by Yearly Increments-, 1982-1999 A-9
A-7 Annual Property Tax Revenue from Development
by TRA, by Yearly Increments, and Cumulative
Total Revenues, 1982-1999 A-10
A-8 Total Property Tax Revenue to Tax Rate areas
within Irvine Coast Plan, 1982-1999 A-11
A-9 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 55-017,
1982-1999 A-12
A-10 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 55-031,
1982-1999 A-1-3
A-11 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 55-036,
1982-1999 A-14
A-12 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 55-056,
1982-1999 A-15
A-13 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 55-066,
1982-1999 A-16
A-14 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 66-030,
1982-1999 A-17
A-15 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 66-036 A-18
A-16 Annual Property Tax Revenue Accruing to Taxing
Jurisdictions within Tax Rate Area 81-028 A-19
Continued ....
v
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
No. Page
A-17 Annual Property Tax Revenue from Development of
Irvine Coast Plan, Allocated by Jurisdiction,
1982-1999 A-20
B-1 General Fund -- Cost Factors, Fiscal Year
1979-1980 B-2
B-2 Detailed Listing of Budget Units by Activity
and Function B-3
B-3 Detailed Listing of Revenues by Source B-6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
1 REGIONAL LOCATION, IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT III-2
2 LAND USE PLAN, IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM III-3
3 PUBLIC ACQUISITION PROGRAMS, IRVINiE COAST
PLANNING UNIT III-S
d IRVINE COAST PLANING UNIT PROPOSED DEVELOPNtEN"T
AREAS III-11
I. INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION'
A. Overview
The Board of Supervisors of Orange County has recently created
an interim Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) process which establishes
an independent procedure for disclosure of potential fiscal
effects. as indicated by the County administrative Office, the
newly required FIR would identify and project public agency costs
and revenues attributable to a proposed land development project.
The results of the FIR would serve as input to the Board, as it
considers fiscal concerns along with environmental and social
issues in deciding on the approval of a proposed project.
3. Obiective
The objective of this report is to evaluate the fiscal effects of
The Irvine Company's proposed Irvine Coast Plan per the require -
rents of the interim FIR process. accordingly, costs and revenues
anticipated from this development have been identified by public
agency and set forth in the body of this report.
C. }!ethodology
he approach taken in the following analysis required the employment
of two methodologies. The first methodology involved case studies or
direct contact with public agencies providing the following services
to the proposed development: sheriff/coroner, fire protection, schools,
water/waste water, roads, flood control, library, parks/open space and
other services provided by special districts. Interviews were held
with representatives of the case study agencies to address the follow-
ing fiscal concerns:
1. i1e current level of ser%.ice provided by the agency.
2. The induced cost increment as derived from service standards
and cost per service unit factors available from the agency.
The expenditure analysis would reflect capital costs and
operations and maintenance costs as they would occur during
the.proposed development's build -out period.
3. Available revenue sources by which to fund the projected costs.
The revenue analysis would determine the extent to which the
proposed development.could support the projected costs.
The second methodology involved the application of per capita and
per acre multipliers as a means to project County General Fund costs
and revenues induced by the proposed development. The County Admini-
strative Office has developed the multipliers which essentially
represent County -wide average costs and revenues. As a result, it
should be noted that the CAO-derived multipliers do not reflect the
costs and revenues associated with recently developing areas of the
County.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the fiscal impact evaluation of the proposed Irvine Coast
Plan clearly show that the new development would not be a fiscal burden
to potentially affected jurisdictions. This finding is observed through-
out the 1982-1999 development period and at full development. In fact,
the proposed development would provide for more property tax revenues to
taxing jurisdictions than it would generate in service expenditures.
More specific findings and conclusions are discussed below for the General
Fund, Special Districts and Schools.
A. General Fund
Revenues from property taxes, transient occupancy taxes, sales
taxes and other General Fund revenue sources would increase from
$138,000 in 1982 to $7,874,000 at build -out in 1999. The revenue
distribution at build -out is projected as follows:
Total
Percent
Source
000's
Total
Property Taxes
$2,848
36.2%
Transient Occupancy Taxes
2,453
31.2
Sales Taxes
911
11.6
Other Revenues
1,662
21.1
Total
$7,874
100.0%
Costs associated with roads, Sheriff and other budget units would
begin at $341,000 in 1983, increasing to $2,237,000 per year at
full development beginning in 1999.
The net fiscal effect as demonstrated by a comparison of General
Fund revenues and costs reveals that the proposed plan would
produce the following:
- a revenue surplus to the County General Fund each year during
the life of the program; and
- a cumulative revenue surplus during the 1982-1999 development
period that would amount to $55,422,000.
B. Special Districts
Analysis indicates that revenues received from property taxes
generated within the Irvine Coast project area would exceed the
costs of providing services to that area, for all special juris-
dictions which may be involved in providing services to the Irvine
Coast property.
Revenues in excess of $72,000,000 would be received by special
districts (not including school districts) within the project
area during the period 1982-1999. These districts are: Irvine
Ranch Water District; Orange County Library District; County
Flood Control District; County Harbors, Beaches and Parks; Orange
County Cemetery District; Orange County Vector District; and Orange
County Sanitation District.
At project completion in 1999, annual revenues totaling $3,864,000
would be received by: Orange County Library District; County Flood
Control District; County Harbors, Beaches and Parks; Orange County
Cemetery District; Orange County Vector District; and Orange County
Sanitation District #5.
I
Annual costs to these districts for providing services to the area
which have been quantified are $687,000. This figure includes costs
of the Fire Protection District, Library District and Harbors,
Beaches and Parks. Annual revenues less quantified costs yields a
net revenue stream of $3,177,000. Since not all costs have been
quantified, the precise amount of annual net revenues cannot be
determined. Final net revenues to these special districts, however,
would be well in excess of their costs of servicing the Irvine Coast
project area.
C. Schools
Under recent tax legislation, school districts are limited in the
amount of revenue they may expend per student, despite any increases
in assessed valuation which the district may realize. Therefore,
although the Irvine Coast development would -generate property tax
revenues well in excess of costs of servicing additional students
generated by the development, the affected school districts, Irvine
Unified, Newport -Mesa Unified and Laguna Beach Unified;- would not.
realize any net revenue gains. y
f
The affected community college districts, Coast Community College and
Saddleback Community College, would receive annual revenues of
$1,638,000 by 1999. Property tax revenues would exceed the costs
incurred by these districts in servicing the additional students
residing at Irvine Coast.
III. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
III. TIE PROPOSED DnELOP�E.NT ,\'D
DaILOPNIL47 aSMiPTIONS
The development assumptions contained in this report are based on the best
information available at the time of report preparation. In many cases,
decisions on final development plans cannot be made until later stages of
planning. Therefore, the assumptions presented herein are not necessarily
commitments for final plans by the County of Orange, Special Districts, or
The Irvine Company. Rather, they represent the best estimates of these
plans presently availablc.
A. Description of Proposed Development
The Irvine Coast property encompasses 9,370 acres of undeveloped 'Land
located in the unincorporated area of South Orange Count;r. The site
is bordered on the Nest by the Pacific Ocean; on the north by the City
of Newoort Beach; on the south by the City of Laguna Beach; and on
the east by unincorporated and undeveloped lands of the Irvine Ranch.
The project area is identified in Figures ? and 2.
The area is undeveloped at present except for park i nds and may be
described as a hilly coastal environment. The northern area consists
of flat terraced areas and gentle slopes and is within the sphere of
influence of the active and developing City of Nieapert Beach. Ine
southern half is characterised by steeper slopes and canyons and is
within the sphere of in: of the City of Laguna Beach.
The maior portion of development is targeted for the northern portion
of the site. Residential development is olanred on a phased basis,
commencing with lot sales fred 1932 through 199 Construction of
new homes is anticipated from 1932 through 1999.
Huritington I
� Anal � 't
,,, • , c car
I'
'.• ,'.•'<.•:\.� it
Newport Peaa!>,'
cor6na:d'ei-0
IRVINE' COAST "P
AEI Toro
Mission
Laguna' 'acti .
Diego County
Dana
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
N IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT
ENVWUNMENUt MANA MENI AGENCY
COUNTY OF ONAM.E
IRVINE
MD L
I
\ � LA'S � �7� � ��l •:�(� j �� I ,�� � Jl� ti
lX, �
NEWPORT BEACH
\t�..PR
�d i�• ( ��`��'' _ �/._� \ t_�\l lyl�t\tl/A _i• .-�/V�% . 't ���t1\ �'!` �") l\�_(\��_Ii ',,�. i,�` �1\l)�`l�i�Z(
•;,.fir �r I I�..\/7 llnt 'Znl�
�•�� �l � �.1 iiLl
1
MD 1~ PR
Crystal Cove
I
adlS10
IV_i
LEGEND FIGURL' .2
LD LOVIDENSITYRESIDENIIAL pl I UIYA(J, C CONSERVATION Land Use Plan
MD MEDINMDENSITYRESIOEN11Al rAb6J0L1.A01 tl HISIUIIICDISIRICT p"•Y�
V VIS110R-SEIIVINOCOMIAEIICIAI �.] F'RELIMINAIIY nOADWAY Fb✓
R IILSIDENDALRECREATION AUGMENTS
IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT
PR PLIULICRECREATION 1"- a000"- a000, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LHVYIUHW HIM MAIYMAMIHIAIa NCv 11I1Wil tl lN1AM1
A maximum of '_,000 market rate residential units will be allowed on
the entire 9,370-acre property. A lesser number may actually be
developed, due to topographic constraints, political constraints,
design/marketing criteria, and potential acquisition of acreage for
federal park purposes.
This report assumes a .,000 unit development in order to test the
greatest magnitude of impact, in terns of increased costs to the County
and special districts which would provide serrices to the project area.
A discussion of the parameters and assumptions utilized in the report
to develop municipal cost and revenue projections follows.
B. Constant Dollar assumption
i costs and revenues throughout ne report are stated in terms cf
constant 1980 dollars. No inflationary projections have been made.
Therefore, any stated increases in costs or revenues are due to the
effects of the incr'easi g scale'of development, and not to inf'_atiorarr
pressures.
f
C. Park Program
under the proposed development program, the :major portion of the 9,370
acre Irvine Coast property would be maintained in State, CoLmty, and
possibly Federal park lands. Public recreational and open space area
would range from 5,070 to 6,390 acres, dependent upon whether certain
areas targeted for potential Federal or State acquisition were purchased.
This acquisition question was undecided at the time of :-eport preparation.
In addition to public recreational areas, approximately 560 acres wi-cnti
the project area are targeted for private recreational use. The major
park areas are discussed in the following paragraphs. Public park
areas are illustrated in Figure 3.
=' _ris discussion is based on itio nation from he Irri*ue Coast �I.
SLIDDlement and the ,?raft Local Coastal Program, Ir.i-re Coast zlia.ning
n,t, Grange Cot --it- environmental >!anagement .�;engr.
1. Crystal Cove State Park
This is a 2,397 acre park acquired from The Irvine Company by the
State of California in December 1979. The park includes all but
50 acres of the land between Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean,
as well as land in and around Moro Canyon. The Irvine Company
donated 500 acres of Moro Ridge (included within the 2,397 acres)
which gives the park most of the Moro Canyon watershed. The Cali-
fornia Department of Parks and Recreation will prepare a general
development plan for this park, which will provide for beach access,
trails, vista points, overnight camping and recreational vehicle
facilities.
2. Conditional County Dedication Areas
The Irvine Company would be willing to dedicate 2,650± acres in
the southern portion of the site area, including all of the Emerald
Canyon watershed, to the County of Orange in exchange for development
of designated residential and commercial areas of the proposed project
area. This park area would be dedicated to the County in three
phases. Dedication of each phase of the park area would be condi-
tional upon development of a designated portion of the planning
areas.
3. Los Trancos Carryon Park
The main areas of Buck Gully and Los Trancos Canyon would be reserved
for private recreation/open space and would be maintained by the
Homeowners Association. This 560-acre park area would satisfy the
County of Orange requirement for local community parks.
4. Potential Park Areas
In addition to the areas described, two other tracts of land are
slated for possible Federal or State acquisitions.
a. State Expansion area
The State has the right to purchase 393 acres adjacent to
upper Moro Canyon. The Irvine Company has agreed to a fixed
price for this area until September 1981.
b. Urban National Park Lands
The Orange Coast National Urban Park Bill proposes the creation
of a 13,000-acre par'_< in the general location of the Laguna
Greenbelt. Within the Irvine Coast, 931 acres in Muddy Canyon
and on the frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill are proposed for
Federal purchase. Proposed Sand Canyon avenue forms the north-
western boundary of the Federal park, with the exception of the
frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill. The proposed San Joaquin
.sills Transportation Corridor fo:as the northeastern bcundar..•.
If all proposed State and Federal park lard were acquired,
the number of homes which could be developed within the Irvine
Coast area would-be reduced to 1,735. This report analyzes
effects of 2,000 homes, which includes those in areas targeted
for potential park acquisition.
i
^. Road System/Circulation
Currently, the only direct access to the planning area is provided
by Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1). Two arterial highways are proposed
to be extended into the Irvine Coast from the north: Sand Canyon
avenue and Pelican Hill Road. Both arterials will connect to Pacific
Coast Highway while also providing a connection to the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor. From the :vest and adjacent to the
coastal -one, San Joaquin Hills Road is proposed to connect to Pelican
Hill Road and Sand Canyon avenue. The two arterials would be built
by The Irvine Company and dedicated to the County of Orange.
In a regional context, these roads would become the most direct routes
for inland generated traffic to achieve coastal access to recreation
areas on the Irvine Coast. Both roads would carry through tra:f'_c,
coastal recreation traffic and local-, ,_-orerated t__f_r_c.
Sand Canyon avenue would provide access to -lost of the -public recrea-
tional areas on the Irvine Coast. The roadway is planned to run in a
general north -south direction from beyond the San Diego Freeway to
Pacific Coast Highway. It is designated as a primary arterial highway
(four lanes).-!/ The road would be constructed in 1987, unless the
State of California were to fully develop its park area before that
date in which case development of the road would be moved up
accordingly to provide access to the park.
Pelican Hill Road would be a key regional link to the coast. It is
designated as a major arterial highway (six lanes), and would provide
through access from Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road.
This road would be constructed at the outset of the development program,
projected for 1982.
Residential areas within the pla-Ln ng unit would be served by private
local streets connecting to the arterial system.
�. The Residential Development Program
1: Custom Lot Program
The Irvine Coast property is projected for development under a
custcm lot program. The Irvine Company would develop all infra-
structure including the road system, both arterials and private
roads, and utilities: water, sewer, electricity, gas, etc. Lots
in these developed areas would be sold to private owners who :could
then construct their own homes.
A maximum of 2,000 market rate dwelling units would be allowed cn
the property. The ;majority of the residential dwelling units would
be dispersed single-family units on large estate lots. The basic
design concept proposed is development along the ridge lines and
some side slopes, leaving canyon bottoms as open space, and
disturbing natural topography as little as possible.
I Local Coastal Preg-.am, Irvine Coast Planning unit, Crange County
2. Phasing and Absorption
The development program would be phased from 1982 through 1997.
Planned residential site areas 1 through 21 would be developed on
a phased schedule beginning with the northern portion of the Irvine
Coast property and progressing southward through 1997. The pro-
posed phasing schedule is presented in Table III-1. Development
areas are illustrated in Figure 4. Approximately 200 lots each
year would be sold in 1982 and 1983. The remainder of the lots
are targeted for an absorption rate of 110-120 per year. An average
absorption of 9.17 lots per month is projected, based upon absorption
rates which The Irvine Company has experienced in similar custom lot
sales programs.
3. Rate of Home Construction
Residential structures would be built on custom lots by individual
owners. Construction and completion of units would lag behind
sales of lots. For purposes of projections and analyses, it has
been assumed that 50 percent of all homes would be completed and
occupied one-year after purchase of the lot-, and that the remaining
50 percent would be completed and occupied two years after lot
purchase.Y Therefore, if 110 lots are sold in 1984, 50 percent of
these will have completed residences in 1985, and the remaining 50
percent will have residences completed by 1986.
4. Density of Development
The Irvine Coast property would be a low density development
averaging less than one dwelling unit per acre in most of the
developed areas. There are two exceptions to this overall density
ratio. Area 1, Cameo Shores with 215 units, is projected for a
density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. ,area 10, Buck Hill with
80 units, would be a medium density area of five dwelling units
per acre.
This construction schedule is based upon Irvine Company experience in
other custom lot sales programs.
Area Total
1 215
3.6 600
7 30
8 16U
9 25
10 60
11 150
13 164
14 1?4
20-21 40
is 157
16 .30
17 IOU
18 23
19 1J0
2,ODU
z,u0u
Table 111-1
PROR)SR0 P,113ING SC10:1111I1:,
IRV[R COAST
PROPERLY
.
1982 - 1997
L73:
1983
1934
1985
19:6
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
110
105
]lu
110
110
110
110
s0
su
45
55
25
55
25
25
]00
25
82
82
27
110
37
40
64
95
15
15
82
IS
•
:i
;3
37
22U
215
110
110
110
125
160
125
107
109
150
116
108
32
116
37
220
435
545
655
765
. 890
1,050
1,175
1,282
1,391
1,541
1,657
1, 765
1,847
1,963
2,000
,. .,_•,m r:1 .e. fcdatal park land.
E l:..: •; �lrogixi wp,esents the sale of ,ostm lots.
.I
I � 1.." 41
Si'0 1). N40-� fie• OKA*=
23
$r %4,% ;r,
f
r/
ok VY �,,
:fill
.21
VUL.
I IT
,,q �A 11�, ' �• nj �. r:Y '� 1�_ i � �- t:2?'', l�e (' ���ajjj"' .
j j j
FEET:
-20--r-
IRVINE COAST
FIGIME 4 - IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE
5. Population in Residential Areas
Population growth would occur in phases, in accordance with phased
construction of the residences. Growth patterns would follow the
f
same lagged structure as residential construction, with 50 percent
of the population in each area projected to be in residence one
year after the lot sale transaction, and the remaining 50 percent
within two years.
A population of 3.37 persons per dwelling unit is utilized in
developing population projections for the project area. This is
the factor used by Orange County Administrative Office as an esti-
mate of county population per household, for single-family detached
and attached residences in the unincorporated Orange County area.
The figure is derived from the California Department of Finance
1976 Special Census for Orange County.
Population estimates are presented in Table III-2. As shown,
population in the project area is projected at 6,745 persons, based
on a build -out of 2,000 homes -at the end of full development in 1999.
Population will increase an average of 400 persons per year during
the development stages.'
6.' Prices of Custom Lots
Custom lots are anticipated to sell for a median price of $350,000
per lot. This sale price is supported by recent sales of custom
lots in the developing Harbor Ridge Area, an Irvine Company sub-
division which is east of the Irvine Coast property.
7. Estimated Market Value of .New Homes,
The Irvine Company estimates that the market value of residences
constructed on the Irvine Coast property would be $225 per square
foot of residence, based upon resale values of adjacent existing
homes in Cameo Shores.
I4 \a IV^9,•I It
I'. i l.•. t I h i l
ita.A I-il::nd
I'•: L:mws
I:ua. IsL•,uJ
Sra,al Iltll
t :u. bb�nw Iltll
4t,..n t:.npml
:. sli:aaa Ridge
r•u , l ItJry
)ti'dy t: r.yon
XLrtc 1.>p.nSl Cn=
Towl
Culol,ltivu total
Table III- 2
IRVING MIST: PROOE'Ll171 POIUTATICN
PER DMIDINUVC 110I01)
7983 - 1999
Total
1983
1984
INS
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
19n9
726
136
354
186
2,028
186
372
372
372
372
270 ' •
', 84
300
"'50'+
' 50
338
76 ,
' 169
93
84
42
42
270
93
13S
42
504
42
210
210
42
SS2
138
276
138
588
, '
44
233
247
64
134
67
67
530
108
265
157
100
25
s0
25
336
138
168
30
84
42
42
371
123
18S
63
6,745
372
726
558
372
372
396
480
480
390
362
433
447
379
320
333
257
63
6,745
372
1,098
1,656
2,028
2,400
2,796
3,276
3,756
4,146
4,508
4,946
5,393
5,772
6,092
6,425
6.682
6,745
I::-.Lc: 1 pupulation factor of 3.37 persons per dwelling unit is used to calculate population.
:?,:ncu: 'Table 111-1 .Ind liilliams-Faubelbe:t, aid Associates, Inc.
The average sale price and value of the improvements may be estimated
according to the following formula:
Average buildable pad
8,000 SF
Minus:
50% Yard Area
41000
Minus:
3-car Garage
600
Net Area of Residence
3,400 SF
Sales
Price at $225/SF
$765,000
Minus:
Lot Value
350,000
Value
of Improvements
$415,000
Average market value of residences at Irvine Coast is therefore
projected as $765,000.
8. Affordable Housing
Orange County requires that'25 percent of all new residential units
be priced in the range of affordable housing. Therefore, if 2,000 units
were constructed in the Irvine Coast site area, an additional 667 units
of affordable housing must also be provided by The Irvine-Compary.
These units would probably be built outside the project area in_an.
as yet undetermined jurisdiction. This fiscal impact report does
not address any impacts of the affordable housing units.
9. Homeowners Association
A Homeowners Association would be formed in the Irvine Coast area.
This Association would maintain the private roadway system and the
private open space area, and would provide a private security force.
The Association would also serve as the agency for providing any
other private services which might be required by the development,
including maintenance of the local drainage system, slope and land-
scaping maintenance if not provided by the County, and any other
services required to be provided.
10. Los Trancos Canyon Park
The Los Trancos Canyon Park, an area of approximately 560 acres,
would be maintained as a private open space area. This area would
be deeded to the Homeowners Association by The Irvine Company, and
would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The Los Trancos
Canyon Park would satisfy County local park requirements.
F. The Commercial Development Program
Approximately 160 acres would be devoted to visitor serving commercial
facilities. These facilities will include 2,000 hotel rooms plus
support commercial uses within the hotels, and 335,000 square feet of
specialty retail and commercial development.
1. Hotels
Four separate hotel facilities that would accommodate the spectrum
of visitors to the park would be phased between 1986-1994, based on
the following schedule:
Planning Area #2 - Pelican. Hill
1986 500 hotel rooms
1990 500 hotel rooms
1994 500 hotel rooms
Planning Area #12 - Wishbone Hill
1991 500 hotel rooms
The hotel sites would be retained in Irvine Company ownership;
therefore no increase in base land value for property tax purposes
may be anticipated. The construction cost of the hotels is esti-
mated at $100,000 per room, which includes the hotel facilities as
well as the rooms themselves.
Average room rate is estimated at $70 per night and an annual
occupancy rate of 80 percent is projected.1/
Fifty percent of the hotel's revenue will derive from room rentals./
The remaining 50 percent will be taxable retail sales, including
28 percent food sales, 14 percent beverage sales, and 8 percent
retail sales.
2. Specialty Retail/Commercial Development
Approximately 335,000 square feet of visitor serving retail commer-
cial area is proposed for four separate locations within the project
area. Two tourist recreation/commercial sites will be located
inland of the Pacific Coast Highway at Sand Canyon Avenue and at
Pelican Hill Road. Additionally two small sites in Laguna Canyon
are intended for small scale facilities. These visitor serving
facilities will include, in addition to the hotels, restaurants,
commercial recreational facilities, offices, and tourist commer-
cial -shops.
A 250,000'square foot commercial area is proposed adjacent to the
Pelican Hill hotel sites. This area would be built in three phases.
Approximately 100,000 square feet is proposed in 1986; 100,000 square
feet in 1990; and the remaining 50,000 square feet in 1993.
Approximately 35,000 square feet of separate retail area would be
developed in 1991, in conjunction with construction of the hotel
at Wishbone Hill.
Finally, in 1992 approximately 50,000 square feet of retail/commer-
cial development would be phased in site areas 22 and 23 adjacent
to Laguna Canyon Road.
l Based upon observed room rates and occupancy levels at existing Newport
Beach and Irvine hotels.
Based on industry statistics for similar quality hotels.
16
:,
Land ownership of these areas would be retained by The Irvine
Company. Construction costs are estimated at $60 per square
foot in constant 1980 dollars. Retail sales are projected at
an average of $150 per square foot.
G. Summary
Development parameters and assumptions set forth in this section
are sm
Table III-3
SUNDIARY OF DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
A. Developed Property Values
No. of Units Market Value Per Unit/Square Foal/
Land Use (or Square Feet) Land Improvements Total
Residential 2,000 units $350,000
Hotel 2,000 rooms --
Commercial 335,000 sq. ft. --
Total
B. Commercial Sales Parameters
Hotels/
Annual Occupancy:
Average Room Rate
Total Revenue Per Room:
Room Charges:
Taxable Sales:
(Restaurant,
Bar, Retail)
Commercial 3/
80 percent .
$70 per night
$40,880
20,440
20,440
$415,000
.o
$765,000
100,000
60
Market Value,
All Units
$1,530,000,000
200,000,000
20,100,000
$1,750,100,000
Gross Leasable Area: 335,000 square feet
Sales Per Square Foot: $150
Total Annual Sales: $50,250,000
17 Based upon observed market sales and values at existing developments.
2/ Based upon average room rates and occupancy at existing Newport Beach and Irvine hotels, and
industry statistics for room sales as a percentage of total hotel revenues.
3/ Based on observed sales at area retail establishments.
IV. COUNTY GENERAL FUND
f
W. COUNTY GENERAL FIND
An evaluation of the general fund revenues and costs generated by the
proposed Irvine Coast Plan is presented in this section. Revenues and
costs have been developed and displayed for each year during the build -
out period. General Fund revenue sources include property taxes,
transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes and other revenues for which
the CAO has prepared per capita and per acre multipliers. General
Fund cost categories consist of the sheriff/coroner and road
budget units in addition to the budget units for which the CAO has also
developed per capita and per acre multipliers. All projections are
expressed in constant 1980 dollars.
A. General Fund Revenues
1. Property Taxes Revenues
The projected market value of the proposed development would range
from $77.0 million in 1982 to $1,750.5 million at full development...
With assessed value computed at 25 percent of market value; the _
Irvine Coast development would represent an assessed valuebf-$19.2
million in 1982 and $437.6 million at final build -out. Given that
the subject property has a 1980-81 assessed value of approximately
$6.7 million, the net increase in assessed value would be substantial,
ranging from $12.5 million in 1982 to $430.9 mullion at full develop-
ment as shown in Table IV-1.
Property tax revenues generated to the County General Fund by
the proposed development program have been calculated per the
tax limitations of Proposition 13 and the allocation framework of
Assembly Bill 8. Under the latter measure the allocation system
for property tax increments has once again been placed upon a
geographical or "point source" basis with the Tax Rate Area
designated as the fundamental unit of analysis. The derivation
of property tax revenues received by the County is provided in
detail in Appendix A. Development values employed in the analysis
A. Assessed Value
(In Millions)
Projected--Y
17.ttstinyZ/
Net ❑icamsc
R. Pu,perty Tax
fy Ii�\ entiq
tin 1housinds)
1
IV 1tineral rlmd3/
8
Table IV-1
PRO.1=..D AI\TRM MESSED VAIAM AND (a41'RAL FIND PROPERTY TAX RLVIRM-
lim - 1999
(in Constant 1980 Dollars)
1982
1983
1934
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
j 19.2
; 49.5
$ 77.4
$101.8
$134.4
$156.8
$189.0
$214.4
$248.2
$279.0
$302.8
$327.4
$369.4
$391.8
$414.3
$427.9
$435.6
$437.6
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
,6.7•
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
$ 12.5
$ 42.8.
$ 70.4
$ 95.1
$127.7
$150.1
$182.3
$207.7
$241.5
$272.3
$296.1
$320.7
$362.7
$385.1
$407.6
$421.2
$428.9
$430.9
$ 139 $ 357 $ S57 $ 723 $ 942 $1,073 $1,262 $1,412 $1,635 $1,829 $1,983 $2,134 $2,403 $2,543 $2,689 $2,781 $2,834 $2,848
Abiesned value estimted at 25 percent of anticipated market value. Projected market value is developed in Appendix A.
raluc for Fiscal Year 1980-81.
lctal funeral Fund property tax revenues are derived in Appendix A. Rounded to the nearest thousand.
Sour u: liilli.uns-Xuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
have been provided by The Irvine Company and reflect that firm's
most recent estimate of sales prices and achievable market values.
The Irvine Coast program would yield $2,848,000 to the General
Fund per year after build -out has been reached in 1999. The
magnitude of the property tax revenues generated by the Irvine
Coast program can be demonstrated by comparing: a) the property
taxes contributed to the General Fund by the subject property
relative to that generated by the County as a whole; with b) the
population increase represented by the program relative to the
current total County population. The proposed program at full
development would increase the 1979-80 County -wide property tax
revenue contribution of $59.7 million to the General Fund by 4.8
percent. In contrast the Irvine Coast population of 6,745 persons
at build -out would represent only 0.4 percent of the present
County population of 1,896,,200 persons.
2. Transient Occupancy. Taxes
Transient occupancy taxes are General Fund revenues derived from a
6.percent County tax levied on occupants of hotels and motels. Given
hotel operating characteristics provided by The Irvine Company
(80 percent annual occupancy and an average room rate of $70 per
night), Table N-2 shows that transient occupancy taxes would reach
a maximum of $2,453,000 per year after completion of the fourth
hotel in 1994. The first year that the County would receive tran-
sient occupancy taxes would be 1986, when the first of the four
proposed hotels would begin operations and accordingly yield
$613,000 in tax revenues to the County.
3. Sales Taxes
Sales tax revenues collected by the County would result from
retail purchases occurring at: a) restaurant and other commercial
activities located at each hotel; and b) three specialty retail shop-
ping centers presently scheduled to feature a gross leasable area of
I
Table IV-2
PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERAL nJNO REVENUES rRODU TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY AND SALES TAXES
1983 - 1999
(In Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Revenues
A.' Transient Occupancy Taxes
Gross Receiptsl/
Taxes2/
B. Sales Taxes
Gross Receipts
ffotel3/
Other Retail4/
Subtotal
Sales Taxes
• 1995-
1983-85 1986 1987 1988 1989 • 1990 1991 1992 , 1993 1994 1998
$10,220 $10,220 $10,220 $10,220 $20,440 $30,660 $30,660 $30,660 $40,880 $40,880
613 613 613 613 1,226 1,840 1,840 1,840 2,453 2,453
$10,220 $10,220 $10,220 $10,220 $20,440 $30,660 $30,660 $30,660 $40,880 $40,880
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 32,250 42,750 42,750 S0,250 50,250
$25,220 $25,220 $25,220 $25,220 $50,440 $65,910 $73,410 $73,410 $91,130 $91,130
252 252 252 252 504 659 734 734 911 911
i
17 Assumes average rate of $70 per night and 80 percent annual bccipancy.
Determined at 6 percent of gross receipts.
3� The Irvine Conpany projects that taxable sales from restaurants and retail located in the hotels would approximate receipts from room occupancy
4� Sales performance assumed at $150 per square foot. Phasing of retail space from Chapter III.
Source: Williams-Kuobelbeck and Associates, Inc.
approximately 335,000 square feet. According to The Irvine
Company, taxable sales originating at the hotels are expected
to equal the revenues which the hotels would receive in room
charges. Taxable sales at the specialty center have been
projected using a sales performance factor of $150 per square
foot, a sales level noted at many specialty centers in Southern
California. On the basis of these assumptions, taxable sales
from commercial land uses would range from $25,220,000 in
1986 to a build -out total of $91,130,000 beginning in 1994.
The County would collect one percent of projected taxable sales
in the form of sales taxes. Projected sales tax revenues, as
derived in Table IV-2, would vary from $252,000 in 1986 to
$911,000 beginning in 1994.
4. Other Revenues
The County Administrative office has developed a set of per capita
and per acre multipliers in order to project revenues which would
likely accrue to the remaining General Fund revenue classifications.
The CAO-derived revenue multipliers are summarized by major source
in Table W-3. A breakdown of the individual revenue classifications
contained in each major revenue category is provided in Appendix B.
Tables IV-4 and IV-5 represent the remaining General Fund revenues
generated by the residential and commercial land uses respectively.
These tables have been developed by multiplying the population and
commercial acreage by the appropriate multipliers provided in
Table IV-3. At full development in 1999, residents of the Irvine
Coast program would generate $1,387,000 per year to the General
Fund. Beginning in 1994 when all commercial developments on the
subject property would be operating, revenues from remaining General
Fund sources would amount to $275,000 per year.
IV-5
Table IV-3
GENERAL FUND: COUNTY -DERIVED AVERAGE REVENUE MULTIPLIER1/
FISCAL YEAR 1979-1980
(In Constant 1980 Dollars)
Residential Commercial Industrial
Revenue Source/ ($/person) ($/acre)($/acre)
Taxes Other Than3/ $ 11.95 $ 196.90 $ 195.87
Current Property
Licenses, Permits
16.32
238.10
241.59
and Franchises
Fines, Forfeitures
3.91
64.45
64.11
and Penalties
Revenue From Use
13.45
221.65
220.48
of Money
Aid From Other
127..27
631.12
394.41
Government Agencies
Charges for Current
Services
31.72
354.77
356.12
t Other Revenues.
0.92
15.12
15.04
Total
$205.54
$1,722.11
$1,487.62
The County Administrative Office has developed per capita and -per acre
"multiplier" or factors for use in determining recurring revenues in
most general fund categories.
2/ Excludes property tax revenue and transient occupancy taxes which are
calculated directly.
3/ Excludes sales tax revenues which are calculated directly.
Source: County of Orange, county Administrative Office, "Interim Fiscal
Impact Report Process Methodologies", October 1, 1980; Williams-
Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
0
icrcnuo-_,nurcc
t':u't:nt Pnqurty
! 1nn'e,, Pennits and
Pe,u:au_eb
'mv,, lurfeitures and
••.n.:: t:ei
f:erwu, hvn Ube of Money
A:d f:m Otiuor Guvernnent
het a e>
(Ange, frr Curren Services
Uthee VVIL11ties
lutal
Table Iv-4
PROJEMD AN UAI. RCCUPRING IIL'VENUES USING MUN-111711VIM WTIPLILRS
IUSIMMIN. ULATIAPMOST CNI.Y11
1983 - 1999
(in Tbausnds of Constant 1980 Dollars)
,
1983 1984 1985 1986 1937 1988 1939 19911 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
$ 4 $ 13 $ 20 S 24 S 29 $ 33 $ 39 $ 45 $ 50 $ S4 $ 59 $ 64 $ 69 $ 73 $ 77 $ 80 $ 81
6 18 27 33 39 46 53 61 68 74 81 88 94 99 105 109 110
1 4 6 8 9 11 13 15 16 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 26
S 15 22 27 32 38 44 51 56 61 67 73 78 82 86 90 91
47 140 211 258 306 35S „ 4)7 477 527 S7S 629 686 735 77S 818 850 859
12 35 S2 64 76 89� 304 119 132 143 157 171 185 193 204 212 214
Y 1 2 2 2 -3 3 - 3 4 _ 4 S 5 S 6 6 6 6
$ 76 $ 226 $ 310 $ 416 $ 493 $ 575 $ 673, $ 771 $ 853 $ 929 $1,017 $1,108 $1,187 $1,252 $1,321 $1,373 $1,3E7
Al l calculutrons rounded to the nearest thousand. -
�� Prum Cotumty-derived per capita revenue multipliers which are provided in Table IV-3.
'� lcob th.e $s00.
aoun,.. arl]iau-Kuebelbed, and Associates, Inc.
Table IV-5
PRQIELFED AMd1kL RECURRING REVENUES USING COUNTY -DERIVED DR1L'1'IPLIERS, CUNMRCIAL D E—LOP mNr ONLYY
1983 - 3999
(In Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1983-
1995-
Revenue Sources 1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1999
Taxes Other Than -
$ 8
$ 8
$ 8
S 8
$ 15
$ 23
$ 24
$ 24
$ 32
$ 32
Current Property
Licenses, Permits
9
9
9
9
19
28
29
29
38
38
and Franchises
Fines, Forfeitures -
3
3
3
3
S
8
8
8
10
10
and Penalties
'
i
r !- Revenue From Use -
9
9
9
9
17
26
27
27
35
35
of Money
,
co
Aid From Other
24
24
24
24
49
74
76
76
101
101
Goverrwent Agencies
Charges for Current -
14
14
14
14
28
41
42
42
57
57
Services
Other Revenues
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Total
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$134
$202
$208
$208
$27S
$275
Note: All calculations rotmded to the nearest thousand.
Y From County -derived per acre revenue multipliers for coumnrcial uses as provided in Table IV-3.
Sourcc: Williams-Kucbelbeck and Associates, Inc.
S. Summary
A summary of General Fund revenues provided by the Irvine. Coast
development is presented in Table N-6. Total revenues from all
General Fund sources would increase from $138,000 in 1982 to
$7,874,000 at build -out in 1999. The distribution of the generated
revenues by source would be as follows beginning in 1999:
a) property taxes--$2,848,000 or 36.2 percent; b) transient occu-
pancy taxes--$2,453,000 or 31.2 percent; c) sales tares--$911,000
or 11.6 percent; and d) other revenues (multipliers)--$1,662,000
or 21.1 percent.
B. General Fund Costs
1. Sheriff/Coroner
At the present level of development, the Sheriff/Coroner's office
provides one officer during the day shift to patrol the unincorporated
area between the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. -The focus
of activity is on the beach related recreational facilities. The
officer --is provided through contract services with the State of
California. Prior to the State contract, only infrequent service,
based on actual calls for service, was provided. Therefore, at
the present"time the County General Fund expenditure for protection
services in the project area is minimal.
The Sheriff -Coroner's officer estimates that because of the isolated
nature, of the project's location, any significant development would
require a minimum of one patrol unit on a 24-hour basis. The popu-
lation of 382 persons estimated for 1983, after the initial lot
development and residential construction has begun, would be con-
sidered as significant development and would require a 24-hour patrol
unit, according to the Sheriff Department.!/ The cost of patrol
services may be estimated as:
Night Shift $ 76,544
Day Shift 74,194
Evening Shift 76,544
Total $227,282
!. Per telephone interview with Captain Dennis LaDucer, October 1980.
Tublo 1V•6
PIMILCII9) MAIM. C197L•ILd. LINO 1UNINIMS FM1 ALL 801Rm-
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
+•urcc
1982 1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1938
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
.1995
1996
1997
1993
'wjarty Taxer/
$ 138 $ 357
$ 557
$ 723
$ 912
$1,073
$1,262
$1,412
$1,635
$1,829
$1,983
$2,134
$2,403
$2,543
$2,689
$2,781
$2,834
S2,sls
t.u:a mat Occtm:utcyv-
aXes
-- --
--
--
613
613
613
613
1,226
1,840
1,840
1,840
2,453
2,4S3
2,453
2,453
2,453
2,453
,des Ta�cs=�
-- --
--
--
252
2S2
252
252
504
659
734
734
911
911
911
911
911
WI
al..r 8ucurt in94/
„.
l..:sidmual
-- 76
226
340
416
493
575
-673
771
853
929
1,017
1,108
1,187
• 1,252
1,321
1,3n
Caaauutal
68
68
68
, 6&
134
202
208
208
275
275
275
275
275
275
l.tal
S 138 $ 433
$, 783
$1,063
$2,291
$2,499
$2.770
$3.Ra8
$4.270
$5,383
S5,694
$5,933
$7,150
$7,369
$7,580
$7,741
$7,846
S7.874
.te: All calculations ro mded to tlw nearest thousand.
Ha', Table 1C-2.
hm Table IP-2.
frua Tables IV-5 and IV-6.
„une: Williams-Webelbeek and Associates, Inc.
These figures have been established by the Orange County auditor -
Controller for contract services with the Cities of Villa Park
and San Juan Capistrano, and include total departmental and County
administrative costs. Thus, the Sheriff -Coroner's Department
estimates that annual costs for servicing the project area would
be $227,282, beginning in 1983 through 1999.
2. Roads
Pacific Coast Highway, which traverses portions of the site, is
operated and maintained by the State of California. Two arterials,
Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue, would be built and dedi-
cated to the County. All other roads would be privately owned and
maintained by the property owners of the Irvine Coast area. For
analytical purposes, maintenance of the 5.1 miles of deducated
roads has been assumed to be a General Fund function, since:
a) a County Service Area does not presently exist that encompasses
the subject property; and b) the County has interpreted Proposition
13.as excluding a newly formed district in a presently undeyeloped
area from receiving a portion of the 1 percent property tax levy.;
Based on per lineal mile maintenance costs provided by the Environ- .
mental Management Agency, the Agency responsible for road maintenance,
annual maintenance which includes street -sweeping would amount to
$55,400 per year for the two roads, as shown in Table IV-7.
Maintenance costs are for the entire dedicated right-of-way area,
including medians. Maintenance would also include slopes. if they
were dedicated to the County and were included within the right-of-
way. If slopes were not dedicated to the County, they would
probably be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
The maintenance costs prepared by the FMA are based on overall
County -wide average costs for road maintenance. These averages
do not differentiate between older or newer roads; nor between
Table IV-7
PROJECTED ANNUAL ROAD MINTENANCE
(in Constant 1980 Dollars)
Lineal No. of Annual Maintenance Costly
Road Miles Lanes Per I:ineal Mile Total
Pelican Hill Road 2.27t 6 $11,500 $26,100
Sand Canyon Avenue 2.84± 4 10,300 29,300
Total 5.11 $10,800 $55,400
Year
Cost is
First
Incurred=/
1983
RM
A/ Costs are an overall county -wide average for all roads, whether new or older. Costs are averaged for
the entire right-of-way, and would include any medians or slopes existing within the rights -of -way.
Costs include street sweeping, maintenance, and all labor, overhead and materials.
�� Based upon proposed development schedule.
level and hilly roads. These averages, however, are the best
estimates presently available from the EHA. Since roads in the
development area would be new, the maintenance costs presented
probably represent high estimates, at least for the initial
development years.
Finally, Pelican Hill Road would be built and dedicated to the
County in 1982, with annual maintenance costs first appearing in
1983. Sand Canyon Avenue would be constructed in 1987, unless
the State of California were to fully develop its parks area
before that date, in which case road development would be moved
up correspondingly.
3. Other Costs
CAO-developed per capita and per acre multipliers have been used
to project additional General Fund costs not previously identified
in the analysis. The CAO cost multipliers are summarized by budget
function in Table IV-8', with a more detailed breakdown of costs by
y budget -activity provided in Appendix B.
Additional General Fund costs generated by residential and commer-
cial uses are presented in Tables N-9 and IV-10, respectively.
General Fund costs incurred by the remaining budget activities and
attributable to the proposed residential uses would range from
$88,000 in 1983 to $1,608,000 at full development. Costs associ-
ated with the proposed commercial uses would initially expand the
General Fund by $89,000 in 1986, reaching a maximum of $367,000
per year beginning in 1994.
4. Summary
Table IV-11 consolidates the previously determined annual costs
attributable to the Irvine Coast development. Projected General
Fund costs would begin at $341,000 in 1983, climbing to $2,257,000
Table IV-8
GENERAL RND: COUNTY -DERIVED AVERAGE COST MULTIPLIERS
FISCAL YEAR 1979 - 1980
(in Constant 1980 Dollars)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Function
($/person)
($/acre)($/acre)
General
$ 53.43
$ 880.38
$ 875.14
Public Protection
122.29
1,376.10
1,395.19
" Public Ways and
Facilities
-
0.02
0.02
Health and Sanitation
6.62
-
-
Public Assistance
54.00
0.36
0.36
Recreation and
Cultural Services
1.55
25.04
24.91
Debt Service
0.55
8.99
8.95
Total
$238.44
$2-,290.99 '_ _
$2,305.17 .
Source: County of Orange, County Administrative Office,
"Interim Fiscal
Impact Report
Process Methodologies", October 1,
1980.
0
Table IV-9
PRQICCI'M M'NUAL R13.MING IASfS USING MMY-DE UVW MILTIPLIER,
IUSIDINfLAI. DMI.01MYC C:I.Yl/
1983 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
�mct tni,
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
titer ul
$ 20
S 59
$ 88
$ 108
$ 128
$ 149
$ 175
S 201
$ 222
$ 241
tdl is Ih erection
45
134
203
248
293
342
401
459
507
S51
itl•lic N.tys and Facilities
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-_
__
__
�e.tlth .MJ SJnitUt LOn
2
7
11
13
16
19
22
25
27
30
'.tbltc Aa>tstance
20
S9
89
110
130
151
177•
203
224
243
ducat 101
_•4rctuen and Cultural
.ht S;rc« e
latul
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
$ 264 $ 288 $ 308 $ 325 $ 343 $ 357 $ 360
605 660 706 745 786 817 825
33 36 38 40 43 44 4S
267 291 312 329 347 361 364
1 2 3 3 4 4 S 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 30
Y 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 _ 3 3 3 4 4 4
$ 88 • $ 26Z $ 395 $ 483 $ S72 $ 667 $ 782 $ 896 $ 988 $1,074 $1,180 $1,286 $1,376 $1,451 SI,S33 $1,593 $1,609
ote All calculations rounded to the nearest thousand_.
i
' C•noit]•-d.•tived pc•r capita cost eultipliers are provided in Table IV-8.
tl.at SSOO.
u:c;. htlli srb-Auetelboek and Associates, inc.
a
r�
ON
Table IV- 10
PRQIELTED AMUAL RECURRING COSTS USING COMJIY-DERIVED MULTIPLIERS, CONWRCIAL DEVEWFMINI'S
ONLY
1983 - 1999
(In
Thousands
of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1983-
199s-
Function 1985
1986
1987
1988.
'1989 1990 1991
1992
1993
1994
1999
General -
$ 34
$ 34
$ 34
$ 34 $ 69 $103
$107
$107
$141
$141
Public
54
54
54
54 107 161
167
167
220
220
Protection
Public Ways -
2/
2/
2/
2/ 2/ 2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
and Facili-
"
ties
11calth and - - - - -
Sanitation
public
Assistance -
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
Education -
-
Recreation -
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
3
4
4
and Cul tural
Services
Debt -
2/
2/
2/
" 2/
1
1
1
1
1.
1
Service
Total
$ 89
$ 89
$ 89
$ 89
$179
$268
$277
$277
$367
$367
Note: All calculations rounded to the nearest thousand.
1/ County -derived per acre cost multipliers are provided in Table IV-8.
2/ less than $500.
Source: Williams-Auebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
Table IV-11
PP.QiL'i.-MD ABLY M. GIINURAL M- D LWM FRMI ALL SOURCES
1982 - 1999
(in Thous;mds of Consttmt 1980 Dollars)
l;n,te
1982 1983
]981
1985
1986
1987
1988
'198!1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
199S
1996
1997
1998
1999
.k;::I i, is �ronrr
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
S 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
$ 227
S 227
S 227
$ 227
$ 227
'�l •��
26
26
26
26
26
'SS
^ ,• 55
SS
55
SS
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
00.,: i.-,urnng Costs
+.�
. ...
88
Z62
395
483
S72
667
782
896
988
1,074
1,180
1,286
1,376
1,4S1
1,S33
1,593
1,608
V.,•,:erc:a1-3/
89
89
19,
89
179
268
277
277
367
367
367
367
_367
26?
•1 ••t•�1
$ 311
$ SIS
$ 648
$ 82S
$ 914
$1,009
$4,153
$1,357
$1,S38
$1,633
$1,739
$1,935
$2,02S
$2,100
$2,182
$2,242
S2,257
'•, le: As 1 .alculations rounded to the nearest tjsewemd.
IV-9.
I ,•r ,.41c 11'-lo.
I;ca>i'u.belbeck and Associates, Inc.
per year at full development beginning in 1999. Of the total
General Fund costs of $2,257,000 generated annually at full
development by the proposed development, Road and Sheriff costs
would amount to $282,000 or 12.5 percent.
C. Net Fiscal Effect
A comparison of General Fund revenues and costs related to the proposed
Irvine Coast development is presented in Table IV-12 for each year
until build -out has been reached in 1999. A review of Table IV-12
reveals the following:
The proposed development would generate a revenue surplus
to the County General Fund each year during the life of the
program.
The annual revenue surplus is projected at $138,000 in 1982,
increasing to $5,617,000 at build -out in 1999.•
At full development, the Irvine Coast program would contribute
$7,874,000 per year to the General Fund, an amount which is
3.5 times as great as the annual General Fund expenditure of
$2,257,000 generated by the proposed development.
During the 1982-1999 development period, the cumulative revenue
surplus associated with Irvine Coast would add to $55,422,000.
Using a 4 percent real annual discount factor, the present worth
of this revenue surplus generated between 1982 and 1999 is
$33,751,000.
la[c[ori
Rmumes�/
levy: L\Penditures2/
AIIaLLII Surplas
Cuawlatite Su111us
G
to
1982
$ 138 $
$ 138 $
$ 139 $
1983
433 $
341
92 S
230 $
Table IV-12
PROJECTED AWV1111. GUNTYAL FIND REVENUE SN WS
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1934 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 2991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
783 $ 1,063 $ 2,291 $ 2,499 $ 2,770 $ 3,018 $ 4,270 $ 5,383 $ 5,694 $ 5,933 $ 7,150 $ 7,369 $ 7,580 $ 7,741 $ 7,846 $ 7987.1
SIS 648 825 914 1,009 11153 1357 I.S38 1,633 1,739 1,935 2,025 22,100 2,182 2r2i2 2,257
268 $ 415 $ 1,466 $ 1,585 $ 1,761 $•1,865 $ 2,913 S 3,845 $ 4,061 $ 4,194 $ 5,215 $ 5,344 $ 5,480 $ 5,559 $ 5,604 $ 5,617
498 S 913 $ 2,379 $ 3,964 $ 5,725 $ 7,590 $10.503 $14,348 $18,409 $22,603 $27,818 $33,162 $38,642 $44,201 $49,805 SSS,422
Nut e: Al calculations rounded to the nearest tlwusand.
Fr -ma Table IV-6.
=/ Rua Table IV-11.
Seuuce: Williams-Kucbelbeck and Associates, inc.
V. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS
V. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS
This chapter concerns special districts and schools which would potentially
provide services to the Irvine Coast Planning Unit and receive revenue
from incremental property taxes generated by the proposed development.
Affected special district funds include: Irvine Ranch Water District;
Orange County Library District General Fund; Orange County Structural Fire
Protection General Find; Orange County Flood Control District General Fund;
Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District General Find; Orange
County Cemetery District #1; Orange County Vector Control District; Orange
County Transit District; and Orange County Sanitation District #5 Operating.
Affected school funds include: Laguna Beach Unified General Fund;
Saddleback Community College General Fund; Irvine Unified General Fund;
Newport -Mesa Unified General Fund; Coast Community College General Fund;
and Department of Education County School Service Funds.
A. Water and Sewer
Water services in the development aiea_would be provided by the Irvine
Ranch Water District (IRWD), which has -jurisdiction ovei-the resi-
dential and commercial development areas planned for development on
the subject property. Local sewer service and collection would be
provided by IRWD, with Orange County Sanitation District #5 (OCSD #5)
providing regional sewage collection, transmission and treatment.
Services to the two tourist/recreation areas along Laguna Canyon Road
would likely be provided by Laguna Beach County Water District,
pending an agreement with IRWD. Details of this agreement have yet
to be negotiated.
1. Irvine Ranch Water District
IRKD has established two separate Improvement Districts (IDs)
which would provide services to the project area. ID 141 would
handle the provision of capital facilities for water; and ID 241
would handle provision of capital facilities for sewer. IRWD
would install main sewer and water lines down the center of both
arterials and all private streets. The developer would be respon-
sible for providing connections from the main lines to individual
lots. IRWD would also provide capital facilities as required to
service the project area.
IRM would charge the developer connection fees to hook into main
service lines. The current fee schedule for tourist/recreational
commercial areas is distributed between water and sewer as follows:
$ 3,220 per acre for water
7,130 per acre for sewer
$10,350 per acre
Connection fees for residential dwellings would be $575 per unit
for water and $1,173 per unit for sewer, or a total fee of $1,748
per dwelling unit. Based upon this fee schedule, IRWD would
receive an estimated $5,152,000 in connection fees from the Irvine
Company for installation of services to the projected 2,000 resi-
dential units and 160 acres of commercial property presently
proposed for development.
Connection fees would only cover a portion of the capital cost
requirements for providing services to the Irvine Coast area. The
remaining portion of the costs would be covered through property
taxes, either through a special bond levy or via funds allocated
to EM within the Basic Levy.
IRWD's original intent had been to finance capital costs in the
development area through bond sales. Bonds would be retired
through a separate bond levy within affected tax rate areas.
In lieu of a bond sales program, however, IRWD Improvement
Districts 104 and 204 were included as taxing jurisdictions
within the Basic Levy rate in affected TRAs, to finance formation
and start-up costs. With the passage of Proposition 13, they
were continued within the Basic Levy rate, and theoretically would
continue to receive revenues indefinitely. As shown in Table V-1,
by full development in Year 1999 these two districts are projected
to receive $3,311,000 annually in property tax revenues from the
project area.
However, after start-up costs have been covered probably about at
mid -point of the build -out program, IRWD would not require the
annual revenue, and would probably apply for a discontinuance of
the Basic Levy rate.1/
Annual operating costs would be paid from monthly service fees for
water and sewer, which would be charged to individual property
owners based upon their usage levels. These service fees would
cover all operations and maintenance costs. -
Water and sewer services to the small portion of the development
area along Laguna Canyon Road might be provided by Laguna Beach
County Water District, under an agreement with IRWD. Any initial
capital costs for providing services to these areas would be borne
by the developer. Operating costs would be covered with monthly
user fees Y
2. Orange County Sanitation District #5 (OCSD #5)
orange County Sanitation'District #5 would have jurisdiction for
treatment of sewage emanating from the project area. The district
foresees no capacity problem at the existing treatment plant which
Y Based upon discussions with IRWD personnel, October 1980.
V Based on discussions with Laguna Beach County Water District.
.ti
Table V-1
PROPERN TAX REYINI0'S TO SPECIAL DISMICTS OIIOR 71M SCHOOL D1SMICTS
WITHIN IRVINE COAST PRDM ARM
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
19D3
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Irvine Ranch
hater Dist.
ID 1104 4 204 -
Gen. had
$30,710
$ 54
$ 139
$ 217
$ 349
$ 542
$ 756
$1,064
$1,307
$1,541
$1,858
$2,098
$2,343
$2,658
$2,874
$3,088
$3,219
$3,292
$3,311
Orange County
Flcod Control
Dist. - Gen.
fund
5,140
24
61
95
124
162
184
216
242
279
312
337
364
409
432
457
474
483
485
County Structural
Fire Protection -
n,* ,;. ,
Gur. fund
19,527
90
231
361
469
609
696
819
916
1,060
1,186
1,284
1,382
1,556
1,647
1,741
1,801
1,835
1,844
Ccumty Library
'
Dist. - Gen. Fund
6,608
30
78
123
159
207
236
277
310
359
401
435
468
52S
S57
589
609
621
624
-Orange County
'
laibor, beaches
6 Pans Dist.
G:11. Fund
3,350
16
40
62
81
US
119
140
1S7
181
203
219
237
268
283
299
309
31S
316
Orange County
frwi>it Dist.
875
4
10
16
22
27
31
37
41
47
53
s8
62
71
74
78
80
82
82
Ou:ngu County
1Laor Control
Dist.
353
2
4
7
8
11
12
1S
,. 17
19
21
23
26
28
30
31
33
33
33
Orange County
C votary Dist. 11
234
2
2
4
5
7
9
30',
12
13
14
16
16
19
20
20
21
22
22
Orange County
Satlitatien Dist
15 Operating
5.288
26
6S
102
132
175
200
235
262
301
337
158
395
430
448
458
158
458
4:.8
Total
$72,035
$ 248
$ 630
$ 987
$1,349
$1,845
$2,243
$2,813
$3,264
$3,800
$4,385
$4,828
$5,283
$5,964
$6,365
$6,761
$7,004
$7,141
$7,175
Source: Appendix Table A-17; Williano4mbelbock and Associates, Inc.
would service the project area. Capital costs which CCSD #5 would
incur include trunk lines and pumping stations as may be required.
to service Irvine Coast. Payment for these capital facilities would
be provided by the developer. User charges cover ongoing maintenance
and operations expenditures related to the provision of sewage
treatment.
OCSD would receive revenues from property taxes from the development
which the district may use to defray operating and/or capital costs.
The projected annual revenue stream from the study area is illustrated
in Table V-1. Total revenue from 1982 through 1999 is estimated at
$5,288,000. Annual revenues at project completion are projected at
$458,000.
B. Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services for the Irvine Coast project would be provided
by the Orange County Fire Department. At present, service to the area,
which is mostly uninhabited, is furnished by Emerald: -Bay (Station 11);
a Fire Suppression Volunteer (FSV) department; and University.(Station 4)
Fire Station, a full-time staffed station. `.
Phasing of additional services for the newly developing Irvine Coast
area would depend on the construction schedule for the 2,000 dwelling
units. Based upon the projected construction schedule, fire depart-
ment personnel estimate that in order to provide adequate protection
services, a new fire station should be constructed and in operation
by 1986-87. Before this station is constructed, fire protection
would likely be provided to the area by a combination of: i) an,automatic
aid agreement with the City of Newport Beach, and 2) extension of services
from existing Orange County Fire Stations 4 and 11. Based on present
working relationships with the City of Newport Beach, fire department
personnel estimate that Newport Beach would be agreeable to providing
interim services to the Irvine Coast property on a contract basis.
The County is presently paying $127,000 for a similar contract with
the City of Newport Beach for protection services to an area bounded
by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. A similar
cost has been assumed for the Irvine Coast property for the time
period from the inception of lot sales, until a new station is con-
structed within or near the project area. The Fire Department has
indicated that $127,000 is probably higher than the costs which will
actually'be incurred, since the Irvine Coast area is less densely
developed than the comparison area.
Additional costs to the County for fire protection services during the
Irvine Coast development period would include:
construction of a permanent fire station facility on or
adjacent to the Irvine Coast property; and
annual maintenance and operational costs for this permanent
facility, including costs of wages, salaries and benefits.
Construction costs for a new station and equipment have been
estimated by the Fire Department as follows:
Site Acquisition $125,000
Station Construction 6002000
$725,000
Wild Land/Structural Engine 85,000
Total Cost, New Station
Construction $810,000
Annual operational costs have been estimated as:
Salaries and Benefits for
3 personnel at all times
(8 positions) $28S,000
Services, Supplies, Support
and Overhead 90.000
Total Annual Costs $375,000
Personnel costs are based upon a 72 hour work week presently scheduled
for Orange County Fire Department personnel. However, the Fire
Department is undergoing a negotiation process with personnel, and
the work week may be reduced to 56 hours. In that case, personnel
costs would increase accordingly. Existing work week schedules
and salary costs are used in the analysis.
An annual estimate of costs and revenues to the Fire Department from
Irvine Coast development is presented in Table V-2. Revenues would
accrue entirely from property taxes and are estimated at $19,527,000
for the 1982-1999 development period. Costs during this same time
frame are estimated at $6,568,000, Therefore, the development is pro-
f jected to generate $12.4 million in excess revenues to the Structural
Fire Protection District between 1982-1999.
C. Orange County Library District
Library services in the planning area would be provided by the Orange
County Library District. The nearest Orange County Public Library
facility to the Irvine Coast area is the Laguna Beach Branch. This
branch is approximately three to six miles from the residential develop-
ment planned for the Irvine Coast. The County Library currently has no
plans to build a facility on the Irvine Coast property. Library service
could be provided on the subject property via the 'Books -by -Mail"
program or bookmobiles.
7
0uiget
Cate or
Property Tax
Retenues 1/
II.esb: Costs
Net Surplus/
(Micit)
Cuculative
Sugdus/
(I)c£:ctt)
Table 9-2
PRAJBCM AM M REVENUES AND COSTS TO ORAN(1i CORM STIUMIiA1. FIRE PROTMTICN DISTRICT
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 1999
$19,527 $ 90 $ 231 $ 361 $ 469 $ 609 $ 696 $ 819 $ 916 $1,060 $1,186 $1,284 $1,382 $1,556 $1,647 $1,741 $1,801 $1.835 $1,844
6,568 127 121 127 9372/ 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 37S 375 37S 375 375
Y
12,959 (37) 104 234 (468) 234 321 444-1.. S41 685 811 909 1,007 1,181 1.272 1,366 1,426 1,460 1,469
12,959 (37) 67 301 (167) 67 388 832 1,373 2,058 2,869 3,778 4.785 5,966 7,238 8,694 10,030 11,490 12,959
Note: All calculations retarded to the nearest thousand.
1/ From Appendix A, Table A-14.
2/ Includes cost of fire station construction and equipment, estimated at $810,000:'
Suun:e: Orange County Fire Department; Williams-Kuebolbeck and Associates, Inc.
A review of the County Library's service standards indicates that
the Laguna Beach Branch could accommodate the entire Irvine Coast
population in the future without creating a deterioration in service.
The County Library has established a service standard which can be
used to determine whether or not a local branch is of an adequate
size (floor area) to serve the local community. The present library
standard is five people per square foot of library building area. By
this standard, if the relationship between local population and
library building size exceeds five or more, then the library service
to the community is considered to be less than adequate. The
Laguna Beach Branch contains 9,611 square feet of floor area and
according to the County standard could serve 48,055 persons.
The branch presently serves 19,345 persons and is projected to
serve 23,411 persons by 1990. Assuming that the Irvine Coast
build -out population of 6,745 persons would frequent the Laguna
Beach Branch, the resultant service population would nevertheless
be'below the population level which this Branch is designed to
serve.
Table V-3 projects direct library service costs imposed by Irvine
Coast residents by multiplying: a) the annual number of new
residents; by b) the relationship between the Library Budget
and the estimated number of County residents served by the system.
Information provided by the County Library reveals that the branch
libraries collectively serve a population of approximately one
million persons. With a 1979-80 budget of M l million, the average
cost per resident is approximately $7. On this basis, increased
costs to the County Library from Irvine Coaac have been projected to
range from $3,000 in 1983 to a maximum of $47,000 by 1999.
Category
Population
Libraryy Revenues
Library Costs
Atuuul Surplus
Cumtlattve Surplus
1
Table V-3
PROJEC IM AWWOAL COUNTY LIBRARY REVENUES M COSTS
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1989
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
-0-
372
1,098
1,656
. 2,028
2,400
2,796
3,276
3,756
4,146
4,508
4,946
5,393
5,772
6,092
6,425
6,682
6,74S
S 30
$ 78
$ 123
S 159
$ 207
S 236
$ 277
$ 310
$ 359
$ 401
$ 435
$ 468
S 525
$ 557
$ S89
$ 609
$ 621
$ 624
-0-
3
8
12
14
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
40
43
45
47
47
30
75
11s
147
193
219
257
287
333
372
403
433
487
517
546
564
S74
577
30
10s
220
367
560
779
1,036
1,323
1,656
2,028
2,431
2,864
3,351
3,868
4,414
4,978
S,552
6,129
'N Assures a per capita factor of $7 per additional resident.
Scwce: Willis-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
On the revenue side, the County Library district would receive
property tax revenues from the Irvine Coast Planning Area, estimated
at $624,000 annually by 1999. As shown in Table V-3, projected revenues
from the area exceed projected costs in each development year 1982
through 1999. The circulative surplus is projected as $6,129,000 by
1999.
D. County Harbors, Beaches and Parks
The State of California owns, operates and maintains Crystal Cove
State Park and is also responsible for beach maintenance within the
project area. The U.S. Forest Service would be responsible for main-
tenance of any Federal Park lands which are acquired. The Homeowners
Association would be responsible for maintenance of the Las Trancas
Canyon private recreation area.
The County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Environmental Management Agency, may be responsible
for maintenance of the-2,650-acres:of conditionally dedicated open space
land in the Emerald Cove area. 31i .park area would conditionally be
dedicated to the County by The Ir%ane Company in three phases as
designated areas from the development plan are subdivided and sold.
Approximately one-third of the acres would be dedicated to the County
in 1986; another one-third by 1991; and the remaining one-third by 1997,
based upon the proposed schedule for development. If the rate of
development is slowed, park lands would also be dedicated at a slower
rate.
Maintenance costs for open space areas such as the proposed conditional
dedication area are presently estimated by the County at $100/acre.
Therefore, maintenance costs would increase as more park acreage is
acquired. They are estimated at $90,000 annually in 1986; $180,000
in 1991; and $265,000 annually by 1997 when all open space lands would
have been dedicated.
County Harbors, Beaches and Parks is a special district which receives
property tax revenues within the Basic Levy Rate. A comparison of
costs to maintain conditionally dedicated open space areas, and revenues
received by the Fund from property within the development area, is
presented in Table V-4.
Table V-4
CONTARISON OF COSTS AND REVENUES
FOR ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES
AND PARKS DISTRICT, SELECTED YEARS
1982 - 1999
(in Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Year-
Property Tax Revenue
Costs
Surplus
1982
$ 16,000
-0-
$ 16,000
1986
105,000
$ 90,000
15,000
].991
203,000
180,000
23,000
1999
316,000
265,000
51,000
Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
The comparison indicates that at project completion in 1999, this
district would receive an estimated $51,000 more in annual property
tax revenues from the area than it would expend in ,providing services
to the open space areas within the development.
Although a surplus to HPBD would result from the development, the
added population within the Irvine Coast project area would presumably
increase demand/costs for services at other HPBD facilities within a
15-mile radius of the project area. No cost of services estimates for
these facilities and level of population have been provided by HPBD.
E. Orange County Flood Control District
Orange County Flood Control District falls under the jurisdiction
of the Environmental Management Agency (BA). This district would
be responsible for maintenance of any flood control channels in the
project area. No flood control channels are planned as a result of
project development and there has been no history of flooding or damage
in the project area. Therefore, although projections of Flood Control
District costs for the area have not been made, they are expected to
be relatively small.
The drainage system envisioned for the project area would maintain
the use of the existing natural drainage system and the canyon bottoms.
Desiltation basins and retention basins might need to be installed to
slow down the water if any increase in runoff from residential develop-
ment occurred. If these were installed and dedicated to the County,
then the Flood Control District would be responsible for their main-
tenance.
In summary, the concept of drainage envisioned for the Irvine Coast
project area would be to maintain the natural level of erosion. No
major flood control channels would be required. Costs for installa-
tion of any drainage systems within the project area would be borne by
the developer. The County Flood Control District might be responsible
for periodic maintenance of basins which might be installed in canyon
bottoms. No costs have been developed for this maintenance.
The Flood Control District's sole source of revenue is from property
taxes. Property tax revenues to this district from the development
are shown in Table V-1. Total revenues are projected at $5,140,000
between 1982-1999. Annual revenues at project completion are projected
at $485,000.
F. School Districts
The project area lies within the jurisdiction of three school dis-
tricts: Irvine Unified, Newport -Mesa Unified, and Laguna Beach
Unified School Districts. This section discusses potential impacts
to each district from project development, and the overall impacts of
recent tax legislation on revenues which school districts may receive.
State of California legislation which includes Proposition 13, SB-90
and the Gann Tax Revenue Limit Initiative places a limitation on
revenues which school districts may receive. These limitations result
in no fiscal benefit to local school districts from increases in
assessed valuation. School districts are limited by State law as to
the amount of money they may expend per pupil. For example, Irvine
Unified's present expenditure limit is $1,973 per pupil, and they are
unable by law to spend more than this amount. School districts are
allowed annual inflationaiy increases in per pupil expenditures of a
minimum of 2 percent and a maximum of 10 percent. The amount of increase
to be allowed -is decided'by.the State each year.
In 1980-81, Irvine Unified will receive 70 percent of its revenues
from the State, and 27 percent from property taxes. If the District's
assessed valuation were increased and more revenue received from
property taxes, the State's contribution to school district revenues
would decrease correspondingly. In any event, total revenues which the
school district may receive from all sources may not exceed the State
mandated ceiling per student. With these limitations in mind, impacts
of the Irvine Coast development on affected school districts are
discussed herein.
1. Irvine Unified School District
Approximately 52 homes would be constructed within the present
jurisdiction of the Irvine Unified School District. District
: .a,..: . r „ .. _ , ao: ,..M!?. tr,8N,47b�f•;v„a
officials stated that a generation factor of 0.93 students per
dwelling unit was utilized by their district.11 No school children
are anticipated from the project area until 1995, when areas within
the jurisdiction of Irvine Unified would be developed. Utilizing
the generation factor of 0.93, approximately 30 school children
would be expected by 1995, and a total of 48 by 1996.
Irvine Unified presently expends $1,973 per pupil per year. Multi-
plying this cost by the projected numbers of students each year
yields an estimated annual cost to the District of $59,000 for 30
pupils in 1995, and $95,000 for 48 pupils in 1996 and beyond.
Irvine Unified officials indicated that no capacity would exist
for these students within existing facilities and that new facili-
ties would need to be constructed if the students were to be
accommodated. Capital costs for construction were estimated by
the District at $8,300 per student for grades K-6th; $10,000 per
student for grades 7-8; and $12,500 per student for grades 9-12.
A maximum construction cost of $600,000 for new capital facilities':.
might be attributable to the Irvine Coast development. {
The Irvine Unified Board has suggested deannexation of portions
of their territory which include the Irvine Coast project area,
and its annexation by the Newport -Mesa Unified District. However,
no formal action has occurred. •If this annexation were approved,
project area students would attend schools within the Newport -Mesa
District. Newport -Mesa has excess school capacity and would
easily be able to accommodate the addititional students. Therefore,
construction of new capital facilities would not be required under
this scenario.
Telephone interview with Mr. King, Director of Planning Facilities,
Irvine Unified School District, October 15, 1980.
If deannexation were not approved, the costs of providing the
interim school facilities would be paid from the District's General
Fund, until permanent school facilities were constructed under the
Leroy F. Greene State School Building Program. Since net revenues
to the District's General Fund would not increase under present
tax legislation, the costs of providing interim housing for the
48 projected students would have an adverse fiscal impact on the
school district.
For purposes of this analysis, the assumption is made that the
portions of the project area which are presently within the boundaries
of the Irvine Unified District would be annexed to Newport -Mesa
Unified School District. Irvine Unified would experience no cost
increases as a result of the development. Although increases in
assessed valuation would yield $133,000 annually in increased property
tax revenues to the Irvine Unified General Fund, these increases
would be offset by decreases in State contributions, so that the
net result would be no impact to the school district from project
development.
2. Newport -Mesa Unified School District
Newport -Mesa School District would serve the major portion of the
project area, encompassing 1,360 of the 2,000 projected homes by
1999. -The school district's experience has been that homes in the
price ranges projected for Irvine Coast generate only 0.1 students
per dwelling unit.I/
Therefore, ten dwelling units would have to be constructed before
one school child enters the educational system. A factor of 0.5
students per dwelling unit should be used for the medium density
houses scheduled for development in 1988 and 1989.
1 Per telephone interview with Dale Wooly, Newport -Mesa School District,
October 15, 1980.
Based upon these generation factors and the development's,
anticipated phasing schedule, the number of students projected
for the Newport -Mesa School District was estimated. Annual esti-
mates are presented in Table V-5. By 1999, students from the
project area would total 168. An additional 48 students anticipated
from the Irvine Unified School District area would increase the
number of total projected students from the development to 216.
The Newport -Mesa School District is presently at 66 percent of
capacity, and District officials anticipate that the students
generated from the Irvine Coast project area would easily be accom-
modated within existing facilities.1/ No additional capital costs
would be expected because of project development.
The school district estimates that it will expend $2,305 per
student in 1980-81. Annual projected costs and revenues, based on
the phasing program, are developed in Table V-5. Total costs for
project area students in 1999 would be $498,000 based on a student
_ population of 216.-:"Property tax revenues to the school district
from the project area would total $4,065,000. Incremental tax revenues
would exceed incremental costs by $3,567,000 annually. Under exist-
ing State legislation, these surplus revenues would be used to
decrease the amount of State contributions to the school district,
and no net revenue increase would be realized.
If the higher student generation factor of 0.93 utilized by neigh-
boring Irvine Unified School District were applied to the Newport -
Mesa area, 1,275 students would be expected from the 1,360 homes
within the project area, plus 48 from the Irvine Unified area.
Based upon the cost factor of $2,305 per student per year, costs
to the district in 1999 would total $3,050,000 annually. Annual
1 Per telephone interview with Dale Wooly, Newport -Mesa School District,
October 15, 1980.
Table V-5
PROJF.Ci£D FISCAL AIPACT OF IRVINE COAST MEIDDOU
NWORT-WSA SCHOOL DISMICr
1983 - 1999
'(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1996-
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
9989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1999
Projected Studentsl
11
33
49
60
71
111
13S
144
ISO
151
155
158
194J
21691
Annual Cost3/
S 25
S 76
$ 113
$ 138
$ 164
$ 256
S 312
$ 332
$ 346
$ 348
$ 357
$ 364
$ 447
S 498
Total Annual Revwwe
from Incremental
Property Taxes ±/
728
1.174
1,539
2,072
2,325
2,808
3,095
3,503
3,600
3,635
3,708
4,065
4,065
4,065
=' Based on a student generation factor of .1 per duelling emit for low density, and .5 per dwelling unit for median density. 55 meits in 1987 and 25
units in 1988 will be median density. '
=� Includes 30 students anticipated from present Irvine Unified School District area in 1995; and 48 in 1996.
=� Based on a per -student cost of $2,30S per year.
4� From Table A-17. Ikeder existing tax legislation, this incremental revenue'WMil serve to decrease State's contribution to school district, and
*Hold not affect the expenditure level per student.
Source: Williams-Kuobelbeck aced Associates. Inc. anal Newport -Musa Unified School District.
Y
revenues from property taxes, $4,065,000, wauld-still exceed
district costs by $1,015,000.
Analysis of impacts to the Newport -Mesa School District utilizing
their own student generation factors indicates that an annual
operating surplus of $3,567,000 would be expected from the project
area.
A sensitivity analysis utilizing higher student generation factors
estimated by the neighboring Irvine Unified School District indi-
cates that an annual surplus of $1,015,000 would still result,
even using the higher factors. Newport -Mesa School District would
not experience any negative fiscal impacts from the Irvine Coast
development, even if a student body larger than presently antici-
pated is generated.
Although increases in assessed valuation would yield increased
property tax revenues to the school district under either scenario,
these increases would-be offset by decreases in the present level of
State contributions; so that the net result would be no fiscal impact
to the school district from project development.
3. Laguna. Beach Unified Fund
Information on student generation factors and projected costs per
pupil had not been received from Laguna Beach Unified District at
this writing. Approximately 588 homes from the development area
would be within the jurisdiction of this school district.
Revenues from property taxes would accrue to this district beginning
in 1985. projections of annual revenues are shown in Table V-6.
They will grow to $1,248,000 annually by project build -out.
Revenues are anticipated to be sufficient to cover the incremental
costs of any additional students generated to this school district
from the project area.
Table V-6
P9OPEW TAX ikNMS 70 SOVOL DISFOICIS,
CCIMtMITY COLLEGES AND DEPARMIT OF EDWATION DISTRICTS
1982 - 1999
'
(in Thousands bf Constant 1980 Dollars)
:t
Total
1982 1983 1984 INS 1986 1987 AqW.,' ` I989 1990 1991 1992 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
-Wsa
' '
I fiord
$S0,740
$ 291 $ 752 $1,177 $1,4SB $1,874 $2,115 $2,516 $2,832 $3,202 $3,282 $3,33S $3,481
$3,897
$4,046
$4,118
$4,121
$4,121
$4,121
Unified
664
-- -- -- -- -- ,-- -- -- -- -- --
Ss
87
126
130
133
133
Beach
I Fund
8,682
-- -- -- SO 78 110 110 110 178 410 599 723
795
877
1,017
1,150
1,227
1,248
oast Cmmu-
.ity College
general Ford 14,148 80 210 327 406 523 S90 ', 101 ' 790 893 91S 929 971 1,087 1,128 1,148 1,150 1,150 1,150
addleback C.C.
kneral Fund 3,342 -- -- -- 18 29 40• 40 40 6S 1S2 221 266 30S 342 403 4S2 481 4S8
kept. of Educa-
ion School
unjs 3,260 12 30 48 66 86 101 117 129 154 189 217 240 268 286 309 327 339 272
Total $80,836 $ 384 $ 992 $1,S52 $1,998 $2,590 $2,9% $3,484 $3,901 $4,492 $4,948 $S,301 $5,681 $6,407 $6,766 $7,121 $7,330 $7,451 $7,4S2
;Jute: Appendix Table A-17; Nillians-Kuobelbeck and Associates, Inc.
4. Community College Districts
The project area lies within the jurisdiction of two community
colleges: Saddleback Valley and Coast Community Colleges. Property
tax revenues projected for these districts are shown in Table V-6.
Coast Community College would receive property tax revenues from
the project area beginning in 1982. These revenues are estimated
at $80,000 in 1982; $893,000 in 1990;.and $1,150,000 annually by
1999. Saddleback Valley Community College General Fund would receive
property tax revenues from the project area beginning in 1985.
Revenues are projected to grow to $488,000 annually by 1999.
Although student generation and cost factors were not received from
these districts, the expectation is that property tax revenues from
the project area would exceed the costs of providing services to
these areas.
S. Department of Education County School Service Funds--'
Special Department of Education County School ServicefFunds-would
also receive annual revenue from incremental property taxes. These
finds have been aggregated into one category, and annual revenues
are shown in Table V-6. Revenues to these funds at project comple-
tion in 1999 would amount to 2 percent of all incremental school
revenues, or $342,000 annually. Costs for these districts have not
been estimated, but the expectation is that property tax revenues
from the project area would exceed the costs of providing these
services to the area.
G. Other Districts
Other districts which will receive revenue from and provide services
to the project area include: Orange County Vector District; Orange
County Transit District; Orange County Cemetery District. The Vector
District provides mosquito abatement control throughout Orange County;
other districts provide public transit services and cemetery services.
Each district would receive property tax revenues from the project
area. Annual revenue streams for each district are shown in Table V-1.
The Cemetery District would receive total revenues of $234,000 from
1982 through 1999. Annual revenues in 1999 are projected at $22,000.
The Vector District would receive total revenues of $353,000 from 1982
through 1999; annual revenues in 1999 are projected as $33,000. The
Transit District would receive total revenues of $875,000 through 1999;
annual revenues in 1999 are projected as $82,000.
H. Landscaping and Lighting District
A countywide landscaping and lighting district was formed in July
1980, to finance lighting services by benefit assessment in newly
developing unincorporated areas of Orange County. All new development
areas not within County Service Area boundaries have been recommended
by the subdivision committee of the Environmental Management Agency
for inclusion within this benefit assessment district. In all likeli-
hood,cannexation to -this district would be required as a condition of
tract map approval for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit.l,I
The district would provide street lighting services to the project
areas. Property owners would be assessed for services provided by the
district on the basis of costs. No costs would accrue to the General
Fund or other property owners not located at Irvine Coast.
The district, formed in July 1980, has no operating history and will
not receive funding until July 1981. Therefore, at the time of
report preparation no estimates of costs for providing services to
the Irvine Coast Planning Unit were available.
1 Per telephone interview with Bob Hamilton, EKA Special Districts Admin-
istrator, October 1980.
I. Irvine Coast Homeowners Association
A Homeowners Association (HOA) would be formed within the Irvine Coast
project area. This HOA would be responsible for maintenance of the
private roadway system (all roadways except for the two main arterials,
Pelican Road and Sand Canyon Avenue) . The HOP. would provide and pay
for a private security force. Los Trancos Canyon Park, proposed to
satisfy County local community park requirements and presently envisioned
as private open space area, would be deeded to the HOA, which would be
responsible for park maintenance. Finally, the HOA would provide all
other private services that might be required by the Irvine Coast
development. These services might include maintenance of any slope
areas along roadways not dedicated to the County; maintenance of canyon
areas; maintenance of private drainage and flood control systems, etc.
The HOA would be funded by assessments to homeowners within the project
area.
J. County Service Areas
.Historically, a County -Service Area (CSA) might have been responsible_
_for providing services such as public road maintenance, slope and
`landscaping maintenance, etc. Since under the provisions of Proposition
13 no CSA's may be funded through property taxes, services formerly
provided within CSR's would either be performed by the HOA or would
be paid for from the County General Fund. Road maintenance has been
included as a General Fund function in this analysis.
No County Service Areas have been formed in Orange County since the
passage of Proposition 13. Although CSR's may be formed, they presently
lack a mechanism for receiving funds. Pending Board of Supervisors
policy, new CSA's might receive monies diverted from the General Fund
revenues. If CSR's could be funded, a County Service Area might be
formed within the project area and services such as road maintenance
provided within the context of a CSA. For the present analysis
however, we have handled these services within the General Fund.
K. Bonds
In 1979-80, the eight tax rate areas which cover the Irvine Coast
Planning Unit included a total of 18 separate bond jurisdictions.
Payments to these jurisdictions are reflected by any tax rates above
the $4.00 basic levy rate within these tax rate areas. Total tax
rates for all property within affected TRA's ranged from 4.2410 to
4.2979, with the exception of TRA 81-028, which had a higher rate of
5.0645. Existing bond issues within the TRA's accounted for all rates
above 4.00•
Bond jurisdictions which would be impacted by new development within
the project area are listed in Table V-7. As the assessed valuations
within these jurisdictions increased from the new development, the
tax rates necessary to raise the annual net requirements for retirement
of the bond issues would decrease. Annual net requirement is assumed
constant every year until the bond maturity date.
As illustrated in Table V-7, all affected bond issues would expire
between the years 1983-2000. Table V-8"shows-the projected impacts
from the development on tax rates in 1991, for bond£ -issues which have-
not expired by that date. In affected areas, the added assessed
valuation from the Irvine Coast project would have the effect of
reducing bond tax rates by .0003 to .0519. The magnitude of rate
reduction is dependent upon the proportion of Irvine Coast assessed
valuation to total assessed valuation for the bond jurisdiction.
Table V-9 presents a similar analysis for 1999, the year of project
completion. Rate reductions range from .0026 to .0653. By 1999 the
majority of the impacted bond issues would have matured, and payments
would no longer be required.
Table V-7
EXISTING SECURED VALUATION, TAX RATES, REQUIRBENIS AND
MATURITY DATES FOR BOND JURISDICTIONS WITHIN IRVINE COAST
1979 - 1980
Bond Jurisdiction
San Joaquin El. NMU-SJ 1966 Bond I/R Fund
Tustin HSHS-NMU-JO 1966 Bond I/R Fund
Newport -Mesa Unif. Bond I/R
County Improvement Bonds Election
1956 I/R Fund
Orange County Flood Control Dist.
Bond I/R Fund
Metro. Water Dist. - Mn. Orange Co. Annex 15
Orange County Sanitation Dist. 15
Bond I/R Fund
Irvine Ranch Water Dist..Bond I/R Fund
Metro. Water Dist. CMO Original Area
Newport Beach El. S75 JO Anx. Bond I/R Fund
Newport Harbor HS-NPT BCH El. Bond I/R Fund
Tustin KS-NPT Bch El. Bond I/R Fund
Newport -Mesa Unif. Newport Bch.
E1. St School Bldg. Aid •
Laguna Beach U-Basic Bond I/R Fund
Saddleback Comm. College Bond I/R
Irvine Unified Bond I/R Fund
Irvine Unif. State School Bldg. Aid
San Joaquin El. Basic Bond I/R Fund
Total
Assessed
Secured 1
Tax
Net Annua72/
Maturity
Va]uation
Rate
Requirement
Date
1,651,022
.0181
; 29,833
1994
1,651,022
.0232Y
'38,303
1994
2,225,276
.0012
2,670
1994
11,457,335
.0922
1,056,366
1991
104,465,076
.0028
29,250
1997
107,539,879
.0146
1,570,082
1996
812,882
.0900
73,159
4/
6,208,608
.0047
29,180
1990
3,490,79S
.1702
594,133
1998
75,693,112
.0900
6,812,380
4/
129,720
.0185
2,400
1983
9,436,330
.0488
460,493
1985
2,225,276
.0012
2,670
1985
4,983,852
.0298
148,519
1983
2,428,126
.1093
265,394
1993
26,542,766
.0243
644,989
1988
5,274,845
.5460
2,880,065
1999
5,124,801
.2887
1,479,530
2000
S,243,474
.0687
360,227
1994
1 In hundreds of 1980 dollars.
Net Requirement defined as Total Requirement minus a) any carryover from previous year; b) prior year's obtainment of delinquent
taxes; and c) revenue from unsecured property taxes. Total secured valuation is divided into Net Requirement to obtain the Bond Rate.
Here total secured valuation is multiplied by the Tax Rate to obtain the Net Requirement.
3/ Two bonds, Tustin High School and Newport -Mesa Unified; San Joaquin, combined by county.
4/ Information unavailable. Assumed to continue through 1999. '
Source: 1979/80 Tax Rate Book, County of Orange. 1979/80 Assessed Valuation, County of Orange; June 30, 1979 Statement of Bonded Indebtedness,
County of Orange; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
Bond Jurisdiction)
San Joaquin Ed-NMU
SJ 1966 Bond I/R Fund
Tustin 11S "-S JOf
1966 Bond I/R Fund
Newport -Mesa Unified Bond I/R Fund
County Improvement Bonds
Election 1956 I/R Fund
G Orange County Flood Control Dist. Bond I/R Fund
Metro -Water Dist. - Municipal Orange Co. 'Annex 15
Irvine Ranch Water Dist. Bond I/R Fund
Metro -Water District-CMWO-Original Area
Laguna Beach Unif. Basic Bond
I/R Fund
Irvine Unified Bond I/R Fund
Irvine Unified State Sch. Bldg. Aid
San Joaquin E1 Basic Bond I/R Fund
'a
'fable V-8
ADDED SECURED VALUATION F101 IRVINE COAST DEVELOININT
AND IMPACr ON BMD TAX RXIES: 1991
(In Constant 1980 Dollars)
Added Se9yed
Total
Vdluation_
From Irvine Coast +
Secured 3/
Net
Projected
1979/80
Net Tax
ValuationRequirement
Tax RatW
Tax Rate
Rate Reductions/
$ 1,668,000
$ 3,319,022
$ 29,833
.0090
.0181
.0091
2,458,022
38,303
.0154
.0232
.0078
1,668,000
3,059,276
2,670
.0009
.0012
.0003
1,668,000 ' '
13,125,335
1,OS6,366
.0805
.0922
.0117
2,790,500
107,255,576
29,250
.0003
.0028
.002S
2,790,500
110,046,076
1,570,082
.0143
.0146
.0003
1,105,500
4,596,29S
594,133
.1293
.1702
.0409
993,750
76,686,862
6,812,380
.0888
.0900
.0012
431,250
2,859,376
265,394'
.0928
.1093
.0165
-0-
5,274,84S
2,880,065
.5460
.5460
.0-
-0-
5,124,801
1,479,530
.2887
.2887
-0-
-0-
5,243,474
.360,227
.0687
.0687
-0-
Includes only bonds not matured by 199 1 (see Table V-7).
In hundreds of dollars. From Table A-7.
3/ Added Secured Valuation colmmD plus 1979/80 Secured Valuation from Table V-7.
4/ Net requirement, divided by total secured valuation. Requirement assumed constant overtime.
s/ 1979/80 Tax Rate minus projected tax rate.
6� Combines Tustin Nigh School and Newport Mesa Unified San Joaquin Bonds. Added secured valuation assumed to accrue equally.
Source: 1979/80 Tax Rate Boole. Comity of OranVe' 1Q7QIRn G<CPC d Vnl,mtinn rn.mty of fli•aaan• L..... in 1070 gtatumnnt of Pnndnd indnhtedn+cs. rA mtv
C
N
V
Band Jurisdictions
Metro- Water District
Municipal Orange Co. Annex IS
l*tro-Water District C410
Original Area
Irvine Unified Bond I/R Fund
Irvine Unified State School
Bldg. Aid
Table V-9
ADDED SECURED VALUATION FROM IRVINE COAST DEVBL013.tW
AND IMPACT ON BOND TAX RATES: 1999
(In Constant 1980 Dollars)
Added
Secured Valuation=
$2,144,250
2,232,000
99,500
99,500 '
Total Secured
Valuation 1li�. hin Net Project"
Irvine CoastRequirement Tax Rate_
$ 2,957,132 $ 73,159 .0247
1979/80 Net Tax , I
Tax Rate Rate Reduction-'
,0900 .0653
77,925,112
6,812,380
.0874
.0900
.0026
5,374,345
2,880,065
.5359
.5460
.0101
5,224,301
1,479,530
.2832
.2887
.0055
Only includes bonds not yet matured by 199 9 (see Table V-7):.
2/ In hundreds of dollars. From Table A-7.
3/ Added Secured Valuation column plus 1979/80 Secured Valuation from Table V-7.
4/ Net requirement divided by total secured valuation.
s/ 1979/80 Tax Rate minus projected tax rate.
Source: 1979/80 Tax Rate Book, County of Orange; 1979/80 Assessed Valuation, County of Orange;
June 30, 1979 Statement of Bonded Indebtedness, County of Orange; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
-T-01\II 1 ,
APPENDIX A
DERIVATION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES
This Appendix outlines in a step-by-step analysis the methodology used
to calculate property tax revenues which would be generated by the devel-
opment of Irvine Coast Planning Unit. The analysis is based upon the
development schedule and phasing program outlined in the body of this
report and reflects tax revenues under Proposition 13 and AB-8 legis-
lation.
Table A-1 shows the number of custom lots sold each year by Tax Rate
Area (TRA). This information was generated from The Irvine Company's
Development Phasing Plan and County Assessor maps. An overlay map was
created from assessor maps showing TRA boundaries. The amount of devel-
opment per TRA per year was estimated, and the phasing schedule was
matched with the development expected in each TRA, yielding development
over time per TRA. Ten TRA's would receive revenues from the develop-
..1dent area. These are:- 55-017; 55-031; 55-036; 55-056; 55-066;.66-030;
66-035;_ 66-036; 66-037; and 81-028. Since taxing jurisdictions of
66-035, 66-036 and 66-037 are very similar they have been collapsed into
one TRA, 66-036, and the analyses performed for eight TRA's.
A breakdown of the taxing jurisdictions which receive revenues within
these TRA's, and the proportion of revenues which the jurisdictions
receive, was obtained from the Orange County Auditor -Controller's
office. Allocation factors to taxing jurisdictions within each TRA
have been calculated by the Auditor's office, based on 1979/80 alloca-
tions, in accordance with Proposition 13 and AB-8 legislation. Under
existing legislation, these factors will remain constant over time.
They have been assumed constant for our analysis.
ME
Table A-2 shows the projected market value which would accrue each year
from the phased sale of custom lots, by tax rate area. Lots are antici-
pated to sell for an average price of $350,000°each.
Table A-3 projects the number of homes which would be added each year,
by tax rate area. Table A-4 illustrates the added market value of the
new construction, at an average value of $415,000 per dwelling unit.
Tables A-3 and A-4 are based upon the assumption that 50 percent of the
custom lots sold in Year 1 would have new homes completed by the end of
Year 2, and that the remaining 50 percent would have homes completed by
the end of Year 3. The average market value of the completed residences
and lots is projected at $765,000 each. The value of the lot and resi-
dences would be added to the tax rolls separately because of the initial
custom lot sales program and the anticipated lagged construction of
residences.
Table A-4 projects added market value of the commercial property, per
TRA per year. Values for the commercial property reflect construction
cost for the improvements only. Since;land ownership would be retained
by The Irvine Company, base land valiiewould-not increase for property
tax purposes by other than the allowable inflation rate of 2 percent per
amu m. Since this analysis is performed in constant dollars, no inflation
factor has been included. Construction costs for the hotels are projected
at $100,000 per room. Construction cost of freestanding retail is pro-
jected at $60/square foot. Medium density homes which are assumed to be
pre -built for this analysis are also included within Table A-5. Market
value is projected at $765,000 each. Commercial development under the
present schedule would commence in 1986, with the final phase of commercial
development projected for 1994.
Table A-6 aggregates the yearly added market value per TRA from Tables
A-2, A-4 and A-5. Added market value for the development area at project
completion in 1999 is projected as $1,750,100,000.
Table A-7 projects incremental property tax revenues which would be added
annually during the development period, for each TRA. Table A-8 'reflects
the cumulative revenues which would be received by each TRA. Property
tax revenues which would be received by all TRA's within the project area
would total $183,064,000 for the years 1982-1999.
Tables A-9 through A-16 reflect the breakdown of taxing jurisdictions
which receive property tax revenues within the eight separate TRA's, and
the annual amount of revenues these jurisdictions would receive during
the development program.
Table A-17 is the end result of the analysis. This table projects total
property tax revenues received by each of the affected taxing jurisdic-
tions for each year during the development period. At the end of develop-
ment, the amount of revenues to be allocated among the jurisdictions
would be $17,505,000 annually.
A-3
I Y
TRa
Total
55-017
800
55-031
272
SS-036
46
55-056
22
SS-066
215
66.030
265
66-056
328
81-028
52
Total
2,000
Table A-1
'PROPOSBD•nmw LOP smm, IRVIWB COAST PINT,
AMMLY BY TRA
1082 - 1997
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 1987
1988
1989
199D
1991 1992
1993
1994
1995 1996 1997
40
110 125
160Y
125Y
2S
33
116
61
5
110
110
52
46
12
10
110
105
40
78 110 37
60
82
82 77
27
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
47
-
5
- - -
220
215
64
110
110 125
165
12S
107
82 1S0
143
154
83 115 37
n
Includes m-diva density lot and hone sales.
Source: Irvine Canpany Proposed Phasing Schedule, Mazimm Density Development; Orange County Assessors Map Books; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
TRA
55-017
55-031
y Si-036
i
to SS•U56
55-056
66-050
66.036
81-028
Total
A
Table A-2
AMAn MM1RIO:T VALUE FROM CUSTIDI LOT SALES OF IRVRM COAST PROPERTY
BY TAX RATE ABU 1�
1982 - 1997
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$252,000 $14,000 $38.500 $43,750 $36,750'-1$35,000="$ 8,750 $11,550 $40,600 $21,350 $ 1,750
95,200 $38,500 $38,500 $18,200
16.100 4 „ 16,100
7,700 4,200 3,500
75,250 38,500 36,750
� 4
92,750 14,000 27,300 $38,500 $12,950
114,800 21,000 28,700 28,700 26,950 9,450
18.200 _- _'•,x_•. 16,450 1,750 _
$672,000 $77,000 $75.250 $22.400 $38,500 $38,500 $43,750 $36,750 $35,000 $37,450 $28,700 $52,500 $50,050 $53,900 $29,050 $40,2SO $12,950
TT Based tq= an average projected sales price of $350,000 per lot.
n Excludes medico density developaent.
Source: Table A-1; The Irvine Company; and Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. '
TRa
Total
SS-017
800
55-031
272
55.OS6
46
SS-056
22
55.066
21S
66.030
265
66-036
328
81-028
52
.4tuwa1 Total
2,000
Gm4llative
Total
2,000
. Table A-3
ANNUAL NI1.OIER OF CU51061 IDIE-S ADDID
IN IRVINLt COMT DUE--lODLNT EACH YEAR
BY TAX RATE AIWA
1983 - 1999
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
20 7S 17W 140f 100 62 13 16 7S 88 33 3
SS 110 81 26
55 105
215
325
23
23
6
11
5
5S
20
20
39
94 73 19
30
30
41 82 81
51
13
23
24
3 2
142
87
110
17S 140 100 103 9S 117
146
147
119
100 75 19
467
554
664
839 979 1,079 1,182 1,277 1,394
1,540
1,687
1,806
1.906 1,981 2,000
I T Based on the assumption that 50 percent of homes would be constructed within one year after lot purchase; and the remaining 50 percent within two years after lot purchase.
21
Includes mid ium density homes constructed the same year as lot sale.
Source. lrvme Company Proposed Phasing Schedule, Maximum Density Development; Williams-KuebclbecA and Associates, Inc.
0
".
Table A-4
A18d M D WXr VALUE- FAC14 C1001 SINOLC FAMILY WE M'4S1RWrION-/
1983 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989• 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
$298,800 $ 8,300 $31,12S $49,800,$47,725,$41,500 $25,730 $ 5,395 $ 6,640 $31,125 $36.520 $13,69S $ 1,24S
112,880 $22,025 $4S,650 $33,61S 10,790
19,090 9,545 9,545
9,130 2,490 4,565 2,075 ,
89,225 22,625 43,575 22,825 ••
109,975 8,300 8,300 16,185 39,010 $30,29S $ 7,885
136,120 12,450 12,450 17,015 34,030 33,61S 21,165 5,395
21,S80 u 9,S45 . 9,960 1,23S 830
$796.800 $45,650 $89,225 $58,930 $36.105 $45.650 $49,800 $47.725 $41,500 $42,74S $39,425 $48,555 $60.590 $61.00S $49,385 $41,500 $31,125 $ 7,88S
Based upon an average projected construction cost of $415,000 per residence.
= Excludes medium density developent.
Source: Table A-3; The Irvine Company; and Williams-guebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
TRA
Total
55-0172/
$ 61,200
SS-060-1
165,000
66-0304/
3,000
66-036Y
S2,100
Annual Total
$281,300
9
'
Co Cumulative Total
$281,300
Table A-S
MARKET VALUE OF H(1fEIS, RETAIL AND PRE -BUILT
I S BY TAX RATE AREAL/
1986 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
j42,075 $19,12S
$56,000 $56,000
1991 1992 1993 1994
$ 3,000
$53,000
1995-
1999.
$52,100
$S6,000 -- 142,,07S $19,125 $56,000 $S2,100 $ 3,000 -- $53,000 -
$56,000 $S6,000 $98';075 $117,200 $173,200 $225,300 $228,300 $228,300 $281,300 $281,300
Pre -built to equal $765,000 in market value; hotel market value equal to estimated construction cost of $100,000 per roan;
freestanding retail/conmercial construction cost estimated A,$60 per square foot.
2/ Includes 80 units of pre -built medium density homes.
3/ Includes 1,500 hotel rooms and 250,000 square feet of freestanding commercial/retail development on Pelican Hill.
4/ Includes 50,000 square feet of specialty retail off Laguna Canyon Road.
5/ Includes 500 hotel rooms plus 3S,000 square feet of freestanding cmmorcial/retail on Wishbone Hill.
Source: The Irvine Company; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
Table A-6
PROJECTED lNR = VALUE OF DEVC•lM M' BY TAX RATE AREA
BY YEARLY IN(7iDEM
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total
1982 1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 1989 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999
$612,000
$14,000
$46,800
$74,875
$128,625 $101,850 $50,250
$25,730
$16,945
$47,240
$52,475
$38,270
$13,695
$1,245
208,080
$38.500 $61,325
$63,850
33,615
10,790
35,190
16,100
9,545
9,545
16,830
4,200
5,990
4,565
2,075
329,475
38,500 59,575
43,575
22,825
56,000
56,000
53,000
205,725
17,000
8,300
8,300
27,300
54,685
51,960
$30,295 $7,835
303,020
21,000
12,450
12,450
28,700
97,815
60,980
43,065
21,165
5,395
39,780
26,450
9,545
11,710
1,245
830
$1,750,100
$77,000 $120,900
$111,625
$97,430
$130,605
$89,400
$128,625 $101,850 $134,950
$123,545
$94,925
$98,605
$167,490
$90,055
$89,635
$54,450
$31,125 $7,855
a
Smacu: Appendix Tables A-2, A-4, A-5; Williams-Xuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
Table A-7
AHMM PROPERTY TAX REMUS FMI DEVELO114M BY TVA,
BY YEARLY IhVOIM5, AND C16NMM =AL RL'YLIZIEW
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
198E
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999
$ 6,121
S 140
$ 468
S 749
$1,287
$1,018
$ 503
$ 257
$ 170
$ 472
$ SZS
$ 383
$ 137
S 12
2,081
$ 385
S 613
S 639
336
108
351
161
95
95
169
42
60
46
21
3,295
385
596
436
228
560
560
S30
2,058
170
83
83
273
547
520
$ 303 $ 79
3,032
210
125
12S
287
978
610
431
212
54
398
16S
9S
118
12
8
$17,SUS
$ 770
$1,209
$1,117
$ 974
$1,307
$ 895
$1,287
$1,018
$1,350
$1,235
$ 950
$ 986
$1,676
$ 900
$ 897
S 544
$ 311 $ 79
$183,064
$ 770
$1,979
$3,096
$4,070
$5,377
$6,272
$7,559
.$8,577
$9,927
$11,162
512,112
$13,098
$14,774
$15,674
$16,571
$17,115
$17,426 $17,505
IITP,uperty tax rcrenuo oqual to 1 percent of Kirket Value per Proposition 13.
Suurcu: Williams-Ruebelbcck and Associates, Inc.
1
• ^ r Table A-8
TOTAL PROPAW TAX REVMM TO TAX RATE ARMS
WITHIN IRVINE MAST PLAN11
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Total
1982 1983
1984
1985
1986
1987 1988 •; 1989 1990 1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
S 62,687
-- --
--
S 140
$ 608
$1,357 $2,644 $3,062 $4,165 S 4,422
$ 4,592
$ 5,064
S'S,S89
$ 5,972
$ 6,109
S 6,121
$ 6,121
$ 6,121
34,127
S 385 S 998.
$1,637
1,973
2,081
2,081 2,081 2,081 2,081 2,081
2,081
2,081
2,081
2,081
2,081
2,081
2,081
2,081
1,821
-- --
--
--
--
-- -- "-- -- --
--
--
161
256
351
351
351
351
2,489
-- --
42
102
148
169 169, 169 169 169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
44,078
385 981
1,417
1,645
2,205
2,205 2,205 2,205 2,765 2,765
2,765
2,765
3,295
3,295
3,295
3,295
3,295
3,295
8.237
-- --
--
--
--
-- -- -- -- --
170
253
336
609
1.156
1,676
1,9?9
2,058
27,636
-- --
--
210
335
460 460 460 747 1,725
2,335
2,766
2,978
3,032
3,032
3,032
3,032
3,032
1,989
-- --
--
--
--
-- -- -- -- --
--
--
165
260
378
390
398
398
$183,064
$ 770 $1,979
$3,096
$4,070
5,377
6,272 7,559 8,577 9,927 11,162
12,112
13,098
14,774
15,674
16,571
17,115
17,426
17,505
=' Property tax revenue equal to 1 percent of Market Value per Proposition 13.
Souc.:: Williams-Aucbelbeck and Associates, Inc.
Annual
Tax
axing Increment
lurr,dretauns Factor 1982 1983
Irvine Ranch
tinter District .2390
Orange County
General Fund .1473
County Library .0323
County Fire .0954
County Flood .0251
Canty Harbors,
8rachcs 6 Parks .0164 ,
County Cemeter)I .0012
County Vector) .0017
Cowtty Transit .0043
Coast Coamutity
Collvge .0869
6c ;x>rt4 sa
Umfinl Ftumd .3111
Dept. Education
Co,nry School
5.•rvrc_
Fwtds _/ .0123
Comity
SmuauOn .0271
Total 1.0000
Table A-9
ANWAL PROPERLY TAX REVQ411E ACCRUING
TO TAXING JURISDICTIONS WITIIIN TAX RATE AREA 55-017
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199S 1996 1997 1998 1909
$ 33 $ 145 $ 324 $ 632 $ 875 $ 995 $1.057 $1,097 $1.210 $1,336 $1,427 $1,460 $1,463 $1,463 $1,463
20
90
200
389
539
613
651
678
746
823
B80
901
902
902
9.12
5
20
44
85
Ila
135
143
148
164
180
193
,'197
198
198
198
13
58
129
252
349
397
422
438
483
533
570
583
$84
584
531
4
1s
34
66
92
105
ill
11S
127
140
ISO
1S3
154
1S4
151
2
10
22
43
60
68
72
75
83
92
98
100
100
100
lUd
•
1
2
3
5
5
S
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
• •
1
2
S
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
2
6
12
16
18
19
20
22
24
26
26
26
26
26
12
53
118
229
318
362
384
398
440
48S
SIB
S30
532
532
532
44
189
422
823
1,139
1,296
1,376
1,429
1,575
1,739
1,858
1,901
1,904
1,904
1,904
„
2
7
17
33.,y
45
S1,
54
56
62
69
73
75
75
75
-5
4
17
37
7Z'
'' 99
113
120
124
137
15l
162
166
166
166
166
$ 140
$ 608
$1,357
$1;644',
Y3,662
$4,16S
$4,422
$4.592
$5,064
$5,589
$S,972
$6,109
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
'' Indicates less then $500.
-/ .aggregates various Dept. of Education revenues for: Dept. of Education, S.I.T. and D.C.T.: and County School Service Funds: Pht. El. Deaf, Pht. Sean. Deaf, Capital 0/1., C/O Daaf
Mua., and C/O Deaf Sacoa.
Scarce: Will iam-Euebelboc► and Associates, Inc.
0
Table
A-10
ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX
REVINUE-
ACCRUING
'
M TAXING JURISDICPICNS
WITHIN TAX
RATE AREA SS-031
1982 -
1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Tax
Taping
Increment
Jurisdictions
Factor
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
.1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
ln•ine Rauch
hater District
.0711
; 27
$ 71
$ 116
$ 140
$ 148
$ 148
;' 148.
$ 148
$ 149
S 148
$ 148
$ 148
$ 148
; 148
$ 148
$ 148
$ 148
$ 118
Orange County
'
G,n.r4l Fund
.1798
69
180
294
35S
374
374
374 .
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
371
Co mty Library
.0394
15
39
6S
18
82
182
82
82
82
82
82
12'
82
82
82
82
82
32
Ccunty Fire
.1164
4S
116
191
230
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
21'
Ccunty Flood
.0306
12
31
so
60
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64 -
County ltnrbors,
Leaches G Parks
.0200
8
20
33
40
A2
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
' Ccunty Ccnktery
.0013
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4 G.unty Vcctor
.O022
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
County Transit
.0052
2
5
8
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1l
Ccast C'cmunity
Culicge
.1059
40
106
173
209
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
2-4l "
\ml>Jrt-Mesa
Unified Fuel
.3798
146
379
622
749
790
790
790
790
790
790
290
790
790
790
790
790
790
:90
Dcpt. Education
"
County School
Seiice
I'wi.6 1/
.0152
6
15
2S
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Ccwnty
_
S.mitution
.0331
13
33
54
65
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69 .
Total
1.0000
$ 385
$ 998
$1,637
$1,973
$2,081
$2,081
$2,081
$2.081
$2,081
$2,081
$2,081
$2,081
$2.081
$2.081
$2.081
$2,081
$2,081
$2,081
of Education revenues for:
Dept.
of Education,
S.I.T.
and D.C.T.; and
County School Service Funds:
Plit.
E1. Deaf,
Plnt. Sucon. Deaf,
Capital
0/I., C/0 Deaf
1T1., ragates carious Dept.
El,.n., and C/O
deaf Seeon.
Saurce: Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates,
Inc.
"
Table A-11
A140W, PROPFJLIY TAX RI VENUE ACCRUING
TO TAXING JLRISDICIICNS WITIIIN TAX RATE AIUA SS-036
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Tax
Taxing Incremant
Jurisdictions Factor 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 199D 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
I nine Ranch
Hater District .2587 $ 39 $ 61 $ 84 $ 84 $ 84 S 84
Orange County
Cunural Fuld
.1473
24
38
52
52
S2
County Library
.0323
,
S
8
11
11
11
Ccunty Fire
.0954
15
25
34
34
34
County Flood
.0251
4
6
9
9
9
County Ihrbors,
8e.tches 6 Parks
.0164
3
4
6
6
6
County Cemetery3/
.0011•
Cwnty Vector1J
.0018
•
1
1
1
1
County Transit
.0042
1
1
1
1
1
Coat Ccmmatity
College
.0868
14
22
30
30
30
Nv,7xa t-Aesa
IhttfiW fund
.3112
50
80
109
109
109
Uept. Education
Cmulty School
surrt[e
Funds 31
,0126
2
3
4
4
4
C-uity
52
11
34
9
6
1
1
30
109
4
Sanitat.•oa .0271 4 7 10 10 10 I0
'total 1.0000 S 161 $ 256 $ 351 $ 351 $ 351 $ 351
I` ' Indicates less that $500. . .
Aegrcgates various Dept. of Education revenues for: Dept. of Education, S.I.T. and D.Q.T.; and County School Service Funds: Pht. El. Deaf, Pht. Secoh. Deaf, Capital 0/L, C/0 U:at
Lim, and C/O Deaf Seeon. -
Source: Willians-Kriebeibeck and Associates, Inc.
Table A-12
AMI161L PROPERTY TAX RE 12M tZCRUING
10 TAXING JUSISDICrIGNS NIT111N TAX RATE AREA SS-056
. 1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Tax
lacing Increment
Jm i>ductions Factor 1982 1983
1984
1985
1986 1987
1988 1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1993 191k1
I reune Ranch
hater District .0704
S 3
S 7
$ 10 i
12
S 12 $
12
$ 12
S 12
$ 12 $
12
$ 12
•$ 12
$ 12
$ 11
$ 12 $
12
Orange County
Guieral Fund .1799
8
18
27
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
County Library .039S
2
4
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
County Fire .1166
5
12
17
,20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Comity Flood .0307
1
3
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
S
S
5
5
5
5
S
Cowin• Jbibors,
Buachcs 4 Parks .0200
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
•3
3
3
3
3
County Cemcter)I/ .0013
•
•
•
•
•
County \Caton/ .0022
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
♦
•
•
•
f
Cu,mty Transits .0052
•
1
1
1
1"
1
1
'1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Co.i>t Cu pity
College .1060
4
11
16
38
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
*
Unniu.d rand .3800
16
39
S6
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
lk•pt. Education
'
County School
5er v ltc
Fwndb 7/ .0151
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CJU'Ity
Sanitation .0331
1
3
5
6
6'
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Total 1.0000
$ 42
S 102
S 148 $
169
$ 169 $
169
S 169
$ 169
$ 169 $
169
$ 169
$ 169
$ 169
$ 169
S 169 $
lo9
17% Indicates less than $S00.
Aggregates various Dept. of Education revenues for:
Dept,
of Education,
S.I.T. and D:C.T.; and
County School Service Funds:
Pht.
El. Deaf,
Pht. Secon. Deaf,
Capital
0/L, C/O Deaf
Elam., and C/O Deaf So=.
'
Souuce: Williams-Wuebelbeck and Associates,
Inc.
Table A-13
ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX RI:VINU0
ACCRUING TO TAXING MSDICIIONS WITHIN TAX RATE AREA 55-066
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Tax
T&xing
Increment
Jurisdictions '
Factor
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996 .
1997
1098
1999
[wine Htanch
-Water District
.0691
$ 27
$ 68
$ 98
$ 114
$ 152
$ 152
$ 152
$ 152
$ 191
$ 191
$ I91
$ 191
$ 228
$ 228
$ 228
$ 228
$ 228
$ 228
Ocnec Canty
General Fund
.1802
69
177
25S
296
397
397
397
397
498
498
498
498
S93
S93
593
S93
593
593
County Library
.039S
15
39
56
6S
87
'87
87
87
109
109
109
109
130
130
130
130
130
130
County Fire
.1167
4S
115
165
192
257
257
2S7
257
323
323
323
323
385
385
385
385
385
38S
Cc anti• Flood
.0307
12
30
44
51
68
68
68
68
8S
85
85
85
101
101
101
101
101
101
Canty Harbors,
beaches 4 Paris
.0200,
8
20
28
33
44
44
44
44
SS
55
SS
55
66
66
66
66
66
66
County Cc: atery
.0014
1
1'
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
S
5
5
S
5
5
County Vector
.0022
1
2
3
4
S
S
5
S
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Co.wty Transit
.0052
2
5
8
9
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
17
- 17
17
17
17
17
Coast Cumunity
College
.1061
40
104
ISO
174
234
234
234
234
293
293
293
293
3S0
3SO
350
3S0
350
350
Xzgi rt-t•Icsa
Lhti,cJ Fund
.3805
146
373
S39
626
839
839
839
839
1,052
1,052
1,052
1,052
1,254
1,2S4
1,254
1,2S4
1,2S4
1,:54
Dept. Education
C..r,q• School
Service
funds 1/
.0154
6
15
22
25
34
34
34
34
44
44
44
44
51
51
Sl
51
Sl
51
Comay
Sanitation
.0329
_13
32
47
S4
74
74
74
74
91
91
91
91
108
108
108
108
109
108
Tet31 1.0000 $ 385 $ 981 $1,417 $1,645 $2,20S $2,20S $2,205 $2,205 $2,76S $2,765 $2,765 $2,765 $3,295 $3,29S $3,295 $3,295 $3,295 $3,29S
Aggregates Dept. of Lducation revenues for: Dept. of Education, S.I.T. and D.C.T.; and County School Service Funds: Pht. E1. Deaf, Pht. Secon. Deaf, Capital 0/L, C/0 Deaf Eltta., and
C/O Deaf Seeon.
Source: hillians-Kucbelbock and Associates, Inc.
,Table A-14
ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX MIMM ACCRUING
TO TAXING JURISDICTIONS WITHIN TAX PATE AREA 66-030
• 1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Tax
Truing Increment
Jar asdictions Factor 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987 1988 1980 1990 1991 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1993
1991.1
Irvine Ranch
Water District .2392
$ 41 $
60
$ 80
$ 146
$ 276
$ 401
$ 473
S 492
Orange Comity
General Fund .1719
29
43
58
105
199
288
340
354
Comity Library .0377
, 7
10
13
23
44
63
75
7S
County Fire .1113
19
28
37
68
129
187
220
229
Co,umty Flood .0293
5
7
10
18
34
49
, 58
60
County Itirbors,
Bv.ches 4 Parks .0191
3
5
6
12
22
32
38
39
Comity C meteryJ .0013
•
•
'
1
1
2
3
3
Comity Fector1/ .0021
•
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
Comity Transit .0049
1
1
2
3
6
8
10
l0
S...411 ,back
Cwr.wmity
,
Coll,& .0930
16
24
31
56
108
156
184
191
Lag= Beach
Wifi d Fund .2553
43
65
86
155
295
428
SOS
526
Dept. Education
C..Wily School
se1C1ce
FWAS 2" .0349
6
9
12
21
40
58
69
"2
Comity
Sanitation --
Total 1.0000
$ 170 $
253
$ 336
$ 609
$1.156
$1,676
$1.979
$2,OSS
1 Indicates less than $500.
o/
— :,ygregates various Dept. of Education revenues for:
Dept. of Education, S.I.T. and D.C.T.; and County School Service Fronds:
Pht.
E1. Deaf,
Pht. Sion. Deaf,
Capital 0/L, C/0 lk.mf
Elem., and C/O Deaf Seeocn
I-
Source: Williams-Xuebeib and Associates, Inc.
Table A-15
AMML PROPERTY TAX REV194UE ACCRUING
TO TAXING JURISDICTIONS WITNIN TAX RATE AREA 66-036
1032 - 1999
(in Thousands of Const:ult 1980 Dollars)
Amwl
'
Tax
l wins
Ineiownt
11risdrettons
Factor 1982
1983 1984 198S
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
199S
1996
1997
1998
1909
Irvine Ranch
'
*pater District
.2609
f SS
S 87
f 120
f 120'
f',120
$ 195
f 4s0
f 609
f 722
f 776
f 791
f 791
f 791
f 791
$ 791
' range County
2�nuu1 Fund
.1603
34
54
72
72 .
72
120
276
374
443
477
486
486
486
486
486
ounty Library
.03s1
7
12
16
16
16
26
60
82
96
103
106
106
106
106
106
ounty Fire
.1038
22
35
�48
48
48
78
179
242
286
309
313
313
313
313
313
aunty Flood
.0273
6
10
13
13
13
20
47
63
76
81
82
82
82
82
82
.:ounty harbors,
4 Pads
.0178
4
6
8
8
8
13
31
41
49
53
54
54
54
54
54
:ounty Cemeteryl/
.0012
•
•
1
. 1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
'aunty Wctor!/
.0020
•
1,
1
1
1
2
3
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
'owlty Transit
.0046
1
2
2
2
2
3
8
11
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
S..Jdleback
.N mal] ty
:.Iltge
.0876
18
29
40
40
40
65
152
20S
242
261
266
266
266
266
2b6
Laguna beach
SlifteJ I'und
.2381
So
78
110
110
110
178
410
556
658
709
722
722
722
722
722
kpt. Education
'.,:rah• MOO,
'uvua Folds= .0327
-om:tl-
.uutation .0295
Total 1.0000
7 11 15 15 15 24 56 76 90 97 99 99 99 99 09
6 10 14 14 14 22 51 68 82 88 89 89 89 89 89
f 210 S 335 S 460 $ 460 f 460 f 747 $1.725 $2,335 $2,766 $2,978 $3,032 $3,032 $3,032 $3,032 $3,032
I
I%dtcaces less than $500.
Um..
C/O Deaf
Dept. of Education revenues for: Dept. of Education, S.I.T. and D.C.T.; and County School Service Rinds: Pht. E1. Beef, Pht, Secort, Deaf, Capital 0/L, C/0 Waf
L•1 un., and C/0 Oouf Secon.
urge: Willians-Xuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
1
'fable A-16
ANNLML PROPEM TAX RL•"V WE ACCRUING
TO TAXING .I USDICHONS WITiIIN TAX RATE AREA 81-028
1982 - 1999
(in Thousands of Constant 1980 Dollars)
Annual
Tax
Increment
ictions Factor 1982 1983
1984 1985 1986 1987 1938 1989 1990 1991 1992
1993 1994
1995
19D6
1997
1993
1999
Ranch
District .2344
$ 39
$ 61
$ 89
$ 92
$ 93
$ 93
County
1 Fwid .1430
24
37
54
56
57
57
Library .0313
5
8
12
12
12
12
Fire .0926
15
24
35
36
37
31
,
Flood .0244
4
6
9
30
10
10
lUrbors,
s 6 Parks .0159
3
4
6
6
6
6
CcmeteryJ .0011
Seetorl/ .0018
•
1
1
1
1
1
Transit .0041
1
1
2
2
2
2
back
city
-e+'e5e
13
20 29 30
31
31
1 ewe
Uaifttd Fund .3337
55
87 126 130
133
133
Dept. Education
-
"(,tmt)• School
Service Funds— .0141
- 2
4 S S
6
6
zawuty
S.mrtatron .0263
4
7 10 10
to
l0
Total 1.0000
$ 16S
$ 260 $ 378 $ 390 $
398 $
398 ,
Y • Indicates less that $500.-
-/ Aggregates.various Dept. of Education revenues for:
Dept. of Education, S.I.T. and D.C.T.; and County School Service Funds: Pht. El. Deaf,
Pht. Secon. Deaf, Capital 0/L,
C/O Deaf
Elc-a., .w,l C/0 Deaf Seeon.
-
'Source: Killian-Xuabolbeck and Associates, Inc.
-
Table A-17 ,
AM1 M PROPERIY TAX REVMM FROM DEVEI.059M
OF 1RVINE COASP PLAN, ALLOCATED BY JURISDICfIOM
1982 - 1999
(in lbousmids of CQAn tnnt 1980 Dollars)
Total 1992 1983 1984 198S 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199S 1996 1997 1998 1999
ivinc Ranch
ator Dlst.
I1i1046204-
�•1,. Iluld $30,710 =
54 1
139
$ 217
$ 349
$ 542
$ 756
$1,064
$1,307
$1,541
$1,858
$2,098
$2,343
$2,658
$2,874
$3,088
$3, 219
$3,292
$3,311
rinse County
,It. ltunl 30,143
138
357
SS7
723
942
1.073
1,262
1.412
1,635
1,829
1,983
2,134
2,403
2,543
2,689
2,781
2,834
2,848
I wlge County
-
l.W Control
i>L. - C,,n. Fund 5,140
24
61
95
124
162
184
216
'242
279
312
337
364
409
432
457
474
483
485
b1aiV Structural
'
ire Protection -
.en. 1'Iuld 19;S27
90
231
361
469
609
696
819
916
1,060
1,186
1,284
1,382
1,556
1,647
1,741
1,801
1,83S
1,844
minty Library
u t,t. - Cen. Ford 6,608
30
78
123
1S9
207
236
277
310
3S9
401
43S
468
525
557
589
609
621
624
a'angc County
eubrre, Reaches
P;nks Dist. -
km. fluid 3,350
16
40
62
81
105
119
140
157
181
203
219
237
268
283
299
309
315
316
wange County
i.u:ait Out. 875
4
30
16
22
27
31
37
41
47
53
S8
62
71
74
78
80
82
82
it w1gc Colulty
'cetor Control
11st. 353
2
4
7
8
11
12
is
17
19
21
23
26
28
30
31
33
33
33
)nulgd County
.
tuot.ly Dist. 11 234
2
2
4
5
7
9
10
12
13
14
16
16
19
20
20
21
22
22
lianl.: Colmty Sani-
.
aucn Dist. IS
,_rating 5,288
26
6S
102
132
17S
200
235
262
301
337
358
38S
430
448
458
458
4S8
458
.Iglala Suach Uni-
'id - Gan. Fund 8,682
--
--
--
SO
78
210
110
110
178
410
S99
723
795
877
1,017
1,150
1.227
1,248
cLputt-?icsa Uni-
'iLd - Gen. 1•wid 50,740
292
752
7,177
1,4S8
1,874
2,115
2,516
2,832
3,202
3,282
3,335
3,481
3,697
4,046
4,118
4,121
4,121
4,121
ivine thlified
w11. Iwld 664
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
5S
87
126
130
133
133
S.,dd1013ck Calamity
.ul loge - Gen. Fund 3,342 '
--
--
--
i8
29
40
40
40
65
152
221
266
305
342
403
452
481
488
.cast O:wnmuiity
:allege - Cwn. Ford 14,148
80
210
327
406
523
590
701
790
_ 893
915
929
971
1,087
1,128
1,148
1,150
1,150
1,150
h•p[. 1' mat Ifni
gaol[)' $C11001
eMCc IIL•Ida 3,260
12
30
48
66
86
101
117
129
154
189
217
240
268
286
309
327
339
342
Total 4183,064 $ 770 $1,979 $3,096 $4,070 S S,377 $ 6,272 $ 7,559 $ 8,577 $ 9,927 $11,162 $12,117 $13,098 $14,774 $15,674 $16,571 $17,115 $17.426 $17,505
urce: billiamis-Webel Associates, Inc. mid Appendix Tables A-1 through A-16.
• a-:, I �.
{
APPENDIX B
CAO-DERIVED LNULTIPLIRS
The County administrative office has developed multipliers for use in
determining General Fund costs and revenues. The multipliers are
presented in this section by major category. The individual budget
units and revenue classifications included in each major cost/revenue
category is also included.
Table B-1
MOM FUND -- COST FACDORS1/
FISCAL YEAR 1979 - 1980
(in -Constant 1980 Dollars)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Function/Activity
• ($/person)($/acre)
($/acre)
General
Legislative and Administrative
$ 2.07
$ 34.04
$ 33.86
Finance, Counsel and Personnel
6.91
113.80
113.20
Property Management, Plant Acquisition
and Promotion
6.92
114.07
113.47
Oar Ge1eral
37.S3
618.47
615.21
Subtotal
$ 53.43
$ 880.38
$ 87S.74
Public ProtectionZ
Judicial
$ 13.12
$ 176.72
$ 175.78
Police Protection, Detention
and Correction
10.69
176.22
175.29
Other Protection
98.48
1,023.16
1,044.12
Subtotal
$122.29
$1,376.10
$1,395.19
Public Ways and Facilities-/
Subtotal
--
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Health and Sanitation
Subtotal
$ 6.62
Public Assistance
Subtotal
$ S4.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.36
Education
Library Services --
Subtotal -- -
Recreation and Cultural Services
Subtotal, $ 1.55 $ 25.04 $ 24.91
Debt Service
Subtotal $ 0.55 S 8.99 $ 8.95
WrAL $238.44 $2,290.89 $2,305.17
Theecounty Administrative office has developed per capita and per acre "multipliers" or factors
for use in determining recurring costs in most general fiord categories. Budget units, which are
excluded, are evaluated separately via the case study approach.
1 Excludes the following budget units: Sheriff Jail and Fine. Costs for these budget units are
identified by means of the case study approach.
1 Excludes the Road Budget Unit. Costs for this budget unit are identified by means of the case
study approach.
4/ Excludes the library Services Budget Unit. Costs for this budget unit are identified by means
of the case study approach.
Source: County of Orange, County Administrative Office, "Interim Fiscal Impact Report Process
Methodologies", October 1, 1980.
Table B-2
Function
General
DETAILED LISTING OF BUDGET UNITS BY ACTIVITY AND FUNICTION
Activity
Legislative and
Administrative
Finance, Counsel
and Personnel
Property Management,
Plant Acquisition and
Promotion
Other General
Fund Budget
Unit limber
0112
0140
0145
0146
0184
0128
Budget Unit
Administrative Office
Board of Superrisors
Legislation
Clerk of the Board
Assessor
0132
Auditor/Controller
0712
Tax Collector/Treasurer
0192
County Counsel
0402
Personnel
0404
Affi=.mtive action
Program
0166 Real Property Leases
0167
Lease Purchases
0168
Capital Projects
0169
Housing and Cc,, ity
Development
0103
Economic Develcpment
Office
0113
Public lnrornation .
Office
0218
0219
0270
0273
0280
0352
0754
1091
1171
1221
1261
Data Services
Justice Inio: ^.ation
System
General Services
Agency
Solid Waste cn_`orce-
ment agent.;
Hyman Relations
Commission
Miscellanecus
Employees Retirement
P.W.E.A. of 1976
- Title II
CETA-Prog-ams
Federal Revenue
Sharing
Deferred Ccmpensation
a
Continued...
Table B-2(continued)
DETAILED LISTING OF BUDGED UNITS BY ACTIVITY AID MICTION
Fund Budget
Function
Activity
Unit Number
Budget Unit
Public
Judicial
0182
Clerk
Protection
0196
Grand Jury
0232
District Attcr..ey
0234
Family Support
0362-
0367
'Municipal Court
0622
Public Defender
0623
Defense of
Indigents by P/C
0692
Superior Court
0693
Juvenile Justice
Corjnission
Police Protection,
0323
'Marshal
Detention and
0502
Probation
Correction
0560
Delinquency
Prevention Cann.
0114
Agricultural Cormissicn
Other Protection
0109
Justice System
Subvention Prog.
O212
Cri.ninal Justice
- _
Council
0213
Criminal Justice
Council
0213
Burglarf Prevention
0214
Juvenile Diversion
0250
DR
0322
Local Agency
Formation Corm.
0424
Citizens Direction
Finding Ccumassion
0662
Recorder
0682
Pedestrian Crossi:.a
Guard
0875
COMMMiry Serrices
Agency
1141
Fish and Game
Propagation
1281
Survey 'fonunent
Preservation
Public Ways
Transportation
0123
Airport Land Use
and Facili-
Terminals
Commission
ties
Health and
Hospital Care
0343
Medical Serrices
Sanitation
Administration
Continued...
Taole z-= LcontInUec)
DETAILED LISTING OF BUDGET WITS BY ACTIVITY AlM FUNCTION
Fund Budget
Function
Activity
Unit Number
Budget Unit
Public
Aid Programs
0922
Aid to Adults
Assistance
0928
Aid to Families/
Dependent Children
0930
Aid to Children -
Boarding Hopes
0936
Aid to Indochinese
General Relief
0688
Institutional Labor
0948
General Relief
Other assistance
0104
Commission on the
Status of 'Vomen
0108
Senior -Citizens
Program Office
0290
Human Se^,rites Agency
Recreation
Recreation
1291
Off -Highway Vehicle Fees
and Cultural
Facilities
Services
Small Craft Harbors
1061
County Tidelands -
Newport Bav
1071
Couni-i Tidelands r
Sunset Beaca
1081
County Tidelands -
Dana Point
Debt Service
Retirement of
1021
Bond Rede.mtion
Long Term Debt
Interest on Long
1022
Bond Interest
Term Debt
Interest on Votes
0292
Interest on Votes
and War --ants
and Wa -rants
1 These activities represent the budget categories for which average
cost multipliers have been developed by the CAO.
Source: County of Orange, County adninistrative Office "Interim Fiscal
Impact Report Process Methodoi0gies", Cc=ober 1, 1930.
laola Z-.)
DETAILED LISTL�IG OF REVE\'UES BY SOURCE
Revenue Source
Taxes Other Than
Current Property
Licenses, Permits
and Franchises
Fines, Forfeitures
and Penalties
Revenue From Use of
bbney and Property
Aid From Other
Governmental agencies
Fund Budget
Unit Number
Revenue Classification
621
Augmentation Funding
623
Property Taxes - Prior Secured
624
Property Taxes - Prior Unsecured
626
Penalties and Costs on Delinquent
Taxes
629
Other Taxes .
641
animal. Licenses
642
Business Licenses
643
Construction Pe2muts
644
Road Privileges and Permits
645
Zoning Permits
646
Other Licenses and Permits
647
Franchises
641
Vehicle Code Fines
652
Other Court Fires
653
Forfeitures and Penalties
661
Interest
663
Royalties
669
State - Hcmeoorers Propert;
Tax Relief
670
State - Business Inventory
Tax Relief
671
State - Alcoholic Beverage
License Fees
673
State - Highway Users Tax
674
State - moror Vehicle In -Lieu
Tax
675
State - Trailer Coach In -Lieu
Tax
676
State - Other State in -Lieu
Tax
677
State - Public assistance -
Administration
678
State - Aid for Public Assistancc
Pro
682
Stated for Crippled
Children
684
State - Health Administration
686
State - Aid for Mental Health
688
State - Other Aid for Civil
Defense
689
State -:lid for Agriculture
Table B-3 (continued)
DETAILED LISTING OF RFMiLMS BY SOURCED
Revenue Source
Aid -From Other
Govern&ntal agencies
Charges for Current
Semi ces
Fund Budget
Unit Number
Revenue Classification
691
State - Aid for Civil Defense
692
State - Aid for Construction
693
State - Aid for Corrections
695
State - Aid for Disaster
696
State - Aid for Veterans
Affairs
697
State - Other
698
Federal - Public Assistance -
Administration
699
Federal - Aid for Public
.assistance Programs
704
Federal - Health Achinist:aticn
705
Federal - Aid for Construction
706
Federal - Aid for Disaster
707
Federal - Forest Reserve
709
Federal - In -Lieu Taxes
710
Federal - Revenue Sharing
711
Federal - Other
713
Other GoveTranental Agencies
731
Assessment and Tao Collection
Fees
732•
Audi Ling and AccoL-mtina Fees
733
Communications Serrlc:es
734
ElectionrServices
735
Inheritance Tax Fees
736
Legal Services
738
Planning and Eggi eering
Services
739
Purchasing Fees
741
Agricultural Sear! ces
742
Civil Process Services
743
Court Fees and
744
.Costs
Estate Fees
745
Humane Services
747
Recording Fees
749
Health Fees '
751
mental Health Services
752
Sanitation Services
753
Adoption Fees
7S4
Crippled Children Services
7S5
Institutional Care and Services
7S9
Other Charges for Current
Services
t
Table B-S (continued)
DErAiLED LISTING OF REVr1TJES BY SOURCED
Fund Budget
Revenue Source Unit N ber Revenue Classification
Other Revenues 784 Revenue applicable to Prior
Years
i85 Sale of Fixed assets
786 Other Sales
787 Other Revenue
The CAD has developed average revenue multipliers for these
budget classifications only.
Source: county of Orange, Co1St'j' .-dn1listrati,w'e Office, llinteri'n Fiscal
Impact Report process %Sethodologies", October 1, 1930.
4
n - J N
Comments on the Draft Irvine Coast Fiscal Impact Report received
from the County Administrative Office and Special Districts are
reproduced in this Appendix.
t
1 -AUNTY OF
5 ( 3/ FRia.NG E
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
October 29, 1980
Mr. Robert J. Gardner
Williams - Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
330 Washington St., Suite 710
Marina del Rey, California 90291
Dear Bob:
�..
R. E. THOMA
�V
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
30 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701
TELEPHONE: 834.2345
AREA CODE 714
1-B-9
The County Administrative Office has the following comments regarding the
preliminary draft Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) for the Irvine Coast project.
These comments include those from the County agencies and districts studied
in the FIR where noted.
Page II-1
Conclusions should be qualified, based on the assumptioris-�made, the -develop=
os
ment proposal, current legislation, and the projection of current cts and
revenues into the future.
Page II-2 B
Conclusions on Special Districts should be qualified as based on the current
interpretation of AB-8. Our office is aware of possible new legislation which
will affect the AB-8 allocations in the near future.
Page III-1
An explanation of the treatment of inflation is necessary somewhere in the
report. Within this.chapter on assumptions would be appropriate.
Page III-3 Phasing and Absorption
A map of residential site areas 1 through 21 would be helpful next to phasing
amble III-1.
.Pane III-6 Rate of _Home Construction
Is this rate of home construction based on past Irvine Company experience or
other data? If so, make a statement to this effect.
Mr. Robert J. Gardner
October 29, 1980
Page 2
Population in Residential Areas
There is no Orange County Planning Department. County planning is done
within the Environmental Management Agency.
Page III-7 Population
11
The projected population of 6,745 is based on the assumption of maximum
development of 2,000 units. A statement to clarify this is needed.
Page III-9 D - The Commercial Development Program
The Draft EIR states that 250,000 square feet of commerical area will be
provided adjacent to the hotel complex (page 3, Visitor -Serving facilities).
This is not discussed here or shown in Table III-4, unless it is part of
the commercial areas within the hotels. Please clarify this in the text
and Table III-4.
Page III-10
Please cite the sources used for the assumptions on hotel construction cost,
occupancy rate, revenue split, construction value, and retail sales estimate,
or where they can be found within the FIR.
Page IV-6
Table IV-3, under charges for current services, the factors are incorrect.
They should be Residential: $31.72; Commercial: $354.77; Industrial: $356.12.
The totals should read : Residential - $205.54; Commercial - $1,722.11;
Industrial - $1,487.22. The multipliers are from the 1980-81 budget.
Page V-1 A - Water and Sewer
What are the demands on the other two water and sewer districts within the
property (Laguna Beach County and Moulton -Niguel Water Districts)? Are they
outside of areas proposed for development? Please make -a statement to this
effect or discuss their respective rolls.
'State from which property taxes the revenue bonds would be repaid (i.e.,
from residential and commercial property, within the Irvine Coast, all of the
Irvine property, or district wide?).
CanyonfandhPelicaneHill?). IRWO Explainould nifathese areathesoff-sitees in water(andd
sewer lines which would be financed by revenue bonds. Explain how capital
facilities if required would be financed.
Mr. Robert J. Gardner
October 29, 1980
Page 3
Page V-2 Water and Sewer
Explain what the connection fees would be used for, and that property
taxes would go to repay revenue bonds.
Page V-4 Fire Protection Services
The County Fire Department has commented that using the existing contract
Icost rvineith Coastecontract.of NeTher formula toeestimatethe thecost of c contract potential
Assessed Value Irvine Coast
7Vss—essed value ot al 1 property X Total Budget of the Fire Station
the station covers
Page IV-12 Library
Library staff state that the Laguna Beach Branch serves 19,545 people,
not the 18,668 used in the FIR. This 19,345 figure corresponds to one of
their handouts at the case study meeting, entitled Orange County Public
Library Branches. Apparently, this figure is the actual library service
population, while 18,668 used in the Library Facilities Development Plan is
for the unincorporated area population. They also say the 8,450 square figure
for this branch is incorrect, and want us to use the correct figure of 9,611
square feet.
Page V-8 Orange County Flood Control District, The Laguna Canyon Channel (IO2) is near this project and is scheduled for
$2.6 million in improvements for 1981-82. Investigate if this project
impacts this channel, and if so, what costs should be allocated to the project.
According to the DMP, no other channels are deficient in the Irvine Coast
area.
Page V-10 Irvine Unified School District
Two scenarios should be developed here. The first is if the Irvine USD
serves the population in its district. This should include the $600,000
capital cost and the operating costs, compared to the expected revenue.
The second scenario would be if the Irvine -served areas is annexed to the
Newport -Mesa District. This annexation would not allow the transfer of
property taxes from the Irvine to the Newport -Mesa District under current
legislation. These generated students should be added to the other students
generated within the current Newport -Mesa District, then estimate costs and
revenues.
The current analysis utilizes Irvine annual costs and. revenues but says
Newport -Mesa will get the generated students so has no capital costs. Also,
please note the 'enclosed response from the Irvine Unified School District
and make necessary changes to the analysis.
. .. . . ' .. . . .. . . ... ....... I . . . -
Mr. Robert J. Gardner
October 29, 1980
Page 3
Page V-15 Laguna Beach Unified
This District stated over the. phone on October 28, 1980 that their cost
estimates would not be available until November 7. This analysis will
have to be added as a supplement if it can't be incorporated in the next
draft FIR.
Page V-16 Landscape and Lighting District
Expand on this per the Board Resolution and other information from Bob
Wi ngard
Sincerely,
AIJy
Mark Armstrong, Research Analyst
Forecast & Analysis Center
AJC:rja
r•rc c•.a, anm+
mRlro«c cucAL�c-r.
IIUA(tIM, rVRO Vrrwar
1 AMM14[•OR4 w�rr.11r
WKC 41,A(11 IvrMw Juwnwwvw+.
J//tulMlAnt (rrhWwt CVwwrn+r I MrrwY/r
GIAE Mw11LMt Ir.VA. SwwwwwR
MwwR. Sw/w/Jw-R/I
O[4w(IKA•1,5 MWWfIYwM1At
/�,.MSwwn
2941 Alton Avenue • Irvine, California • Telephone (714) 556.4900
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 19535 • Irvine, California 92713
October 27, 1980
Mr. Mark Armstrong
County Administrative Office
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92701
RE: IRVINE COAST FISCAL IMPACT REPORTS
Dear Mark:
Thank you for sending the Draft section pertaining to the Irvine
School District. I have reviewed it and offer the following comments:
1. 2nd paragraph, page V-10 -
Our Board has suggested deannexation of portions of our -territory --
southwesterly of the proposed Southeast'. Orange County Transportation'
Corridor, and its annexation by Newport -Mesa. No formal action has
occurred.
2. Last paragraph on page V-10 continuting to page V-12 and Table V-4:
Changes in school finance resulting from Proposition 13 (Jarvis -
Gann Tax Act Limitation), SB-90 and the Gann Tax Revenue Limit
Inititative provides no fiscal benefit to local school districts
resulting from changes in assessed value. The costs of providing
interim housing, paid for out of a district's general fund, until
permanent school facilities are constructed under the Leroy F.
Greene State School Building Program and other capital outlay
requirements to satisfy local needs and desires will have an
adverse financial impact resulting from any new development that
requ5res school district services.
Asa result of these changes in school finance,your fiscal impact
analysis is no longer valid.
Please advise if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
David E. King
Director, Facilities Planning
and Development
,XO I& f850-123.1
County of Orange MUD File; FIR
DATE:
.TO- Mark Armstrong DEPT/DIST: CAO
,WROW R. F. Wingard, Program Manager Open Space/Recreation/CSA Program
SUBJECT: Comments: Draft Irvine Coast FIR
As requested in your October 21, 1980 memo to Bob Hamilton, the following
comments are offered on those portions of subject draft relating to E4A
Open Space/Recreation/CSA Program Office areas of responsibility.
Harbors, Beaches and Parks District (HBPD)
i. (Par. 1) Meaning of term "conditional dedication" associated with stated
HBPD maintenance responsibility for 2,650 open space acres is unclear.
Does this mean HBPD (County) may not accept dedication, or that Irvine
Company may elect not to offer dedication? Term should be more clearly
defined and any resulting impact on HBPD or eventual property owners
explained.
2. (Par. 4) Phrase "costs to maintain the park areas" should be reworded
to "costs to maintain the conditionally dedicated open space areas."
3. (Table V-3) Year 1998 should apparently be 1996 in Table title and first
column, based on references to phased development in preceding paragraphs.
4. (Table V-3) Accelerating property tax revenue amounts appear to be
inconsistent with phased 1/3, 1/3;"1/3 development/dedication schedule.
Assuming property tax revenues are expressed in consistent 1980 base
dollars, 1998 revenues should be'three times 1985 revenues, adjusted
for declining undeveloped area tax revenues. If 1981 and 1985 revenues
are expressed in consistent 1980 base dollars, 1990 and 1998 property
tax revenues would be $203,000 and $297,000 respectively.
If property tax revenues reflect an inflation factor and are not
expressed in base year dollars, "Costs" column should also have an
inflation factor applied (Costs column currently reflects approximately
equal 1/3 increments).
Additionally, table should be footnoted to clearly identify base year
dollar or inflation factor assumptions.
5. (Par. 5) Conclusion drawn from Table V-3 is misleading that HBPD will
realize a net surplus in revenues from providing services to Irvine Coast
area. HBPD is a countywide district, providing regional recreation
opportunities to all county residents. The estimated 7,280 residents of
proposed Irvine Coast development will presumably increase demand/costs
for services at existing HBPD facilities within at least a 15-mile radius
(Dana Point and Newport Harbors, Mason and Laguna Niguel Regional Parks),
and at special county facilities such as camping parks and historical
sites. Additionally, the population increase will contribute to demand
for new regional parks and related development and maintenance/operations
costs.
Mark Armstrong/CAO -2-
RE: Comments/Draft Irvine Coast FIR
Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD)
(Par. 1) Phrase "district will provide... median landscaping services" is
inaccurate. LLD was formed specifically for providing street lighting services.
Although median landscape maintenance is a legally authorized LLD service, LLD
financing of this service is not currently planned for future.
Local/Community Parks, Slopes, Medians
Subject draft omits reference to provision for development and maintenance of
local/community parks and slopes maintenance, and incorrectly provides (see above)
for. median maintenance. These services are historically provided through a county
service area (CSA), but may be provided through a homeowners association.
Provision for these services needs to be addressed in FIR. Dedication to county
(CSA) of local and/or community park sites or provision of in -lieu fees for park
purposes is required by County Local Park Ordinance. Slopes and medians (and
their maintenance) may, and likely will, be required as a subdivision condition
of tract approval.
Current law (and Board policy) provides that no basic levy property .tax revenues
will be allocated from new developments to support CSA services in forming a new
CSA or annexing to an existing CSA.
Alternative CSA financing methods such as -special taxes (by vote of residents),
assessments, and contributions are available. However, availability of financing
from these sources -cannot be predicted with -any degree of certainty. Accordingly,
it is suggested,FlR-Section K, "Irvine Coast Homeowners Associat-ion," be expanded
to include provision for.local/community parks (through irrevocable dedication
to county), slopes and'medians services.'
General
It is noted that subject draft discussion of Flood Control District identifies EKA
as administering jurisdiction. EMA is similarly administering jurisdiction of
HBPD and Landscaping and Lighting District. For consistency, it is suggested that
reference to DIA be added to HBPD and LLD sections, or omitted from Flood Control
District section.
Please direct any questions concerning these comments to Bob Hamilton, MA
Special Districts Administrator at x2173.
REH:ac tR41-n gard
•n
I
G E
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
November 7, 1980
Robert J. Gardner
Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
330 Washington St., Suite 710
Marina del Rey, CA 90291
Dear Bob:
R. E. THOMAS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701
TELEPHONE: a34.2345
AREA CODE 714
In a meeting with your staff on October 30 1980, our office made further
comments regarding the preliminary draft Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) for the
Irvine Coast project. This letter is a summary of those comments for your
records.
- Discuss, in general, the fiscal implications using a scenario that the
National Urban Park will not be adopted.
- Discuss the regional impacts on transportation systems, -particularly
the San Joaquin H11.1s Transportation Corridor. These impacts. need
not be quantified.
- All written comments to the preliminary Draft FIR should be incor-
porated into the final draft FIR in an appendix.
MA:rja
1-B-14
Sincerely,
657
Mark Armstrong,
Research Analyst
C-9