HomeMy WebLinkAboutCNB_FISCAL_IMPACT_1983111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill 1111111
*NEW FILE*
C N B_F 1 SCAL_1 M PACT_1983
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
' November, 1983 Prepared By:
' Ralph Andersen b Associates
1446 Ethan Way
Suite 101
' Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 929-5575
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
CHAPTER I
Introduction And Background For The Fiscal Impact Analysis System. 1
CHAPTER II
Methodology For Analyzing And Allocating Costs And Revenues. . . . . 9
CHAPTER III
Revenue Allocation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CHAPTER IV
Cost Allocation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CHAPTER V
Implementing And Updating The Fiscal Impact Analysis System . . . . 51
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Forms For Fiscal Impact Analysis System. . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix B: Department Expenditure Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Appendix C: Acreage Distribution Of Existing Development . . 115
LIST OF TABLES
Table A
Table B
Table C
a
Table II-1
Table II-2
Table II-3
Table II-4
Table II-5
y Table II-6
j Table III-1
Table III-2
Table III-3
Table IV-1
Table IV-2
Table IV-3
j Table IV-4
Table V-1
Page
Number
Comparison of Costs And Revenues for Existing
Land Uses (Average Cost/Revenue Analysis) . . . . . .
. .
iv
Comparison of Marginal Cost/Revenue Factors
For New Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
vii
Comparison of Average Cost/Revenue Factors
For Existing Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
viii
Land Use Distribution -In Acres . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
10
Residential Dwelling Unit Distribution . . . . . . . .
. .
11
Commercial And Industrial Square Footage Distribution.
. .
11
Percentage Land Use Distribution -Acres And Square Feet
. .
12
Three Basic Steps Of Fiscal Impact Analysis System . .
. .
12
Illustrative Determination Of Cost Allocation Factors.
. .
13
Distribution Of City Revenues Allocation Factors
To Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
20
Residential Population Per Dwelling Unit . . . . . . .
. .
21
Cigarette Tax Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
26
Fixed And Variable Cost Distributions For General
CityOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
39
Distribution of City Expenditures To Land Uses . . . .
. .
40
1981 Police 'Crime Reports Specified By Land Use . . .
. .
43
Major Maintenance And Reconstruction Capital Costs . .
. .
49
Fiscal Impact Analysis System, Update Process Outline.
54
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides the City of Newport Beach with a tool that will permit
City staff to conduct an assessment of the financial .implications of develop-
ment. A fiscal impact analysis system has been developed that identifies cost
and revenue factors that can be applied to appropriate -units of measure which
are characteristic for various types of development. The units of measure to
which cost and revenue factors are applied are dwelling units, square footage
of commercial and industrial, and street miles added by development. Simpli-
fied forms •have been provided in Appendix A that permit City staff to enter
the units of measure applicable to a particular development proposal and then
calculate and summarize the probable overall cost and revenue impact on the
City for the development being studied.
The chapters of this report explain how and why the fiscal impact system was
developed, how the various cost and revenue factors were derived, and outlines
a procedure for City staff to annually update the data so that the system
remains current. By applying the fiscal impact analysis system to specified
data (units of measure) it is possible to generally assess the financial
implications of development and answer the following questions:
. How much does it cost for the City to serve a particular land
use or specific development?
. How much revenue will be received by the City from a particular
land use or specific development?
It is important to emphasize that in order to develop a fiscal impact analysis
Iyystem that is broadly applicable to all types of development, and is rela-
tively simple to use and update, the analysis must be recognized as a general
Indicator rather than absolutely precise. Where a proposed development is
unusual or particularly critical, and/or the fiscal impact analysis system
shows a very close cost/revenue impact, the City should consider conducting a
Specific case study analysis. The fiscal impact analysis as developed in this
report.provides the City with a system that has been tailored specifically for
the City of Newport Beach and is designed to use actual budget data that is
current and is based on actual costs and revenues applicable to the City of
Newport Beach. The cost and revenue factors were developed after extensive
analysis of City data and numerous meetings and discussions with representa-
tives of all City departments. Therefore the system is factually based and
provides a realistic and practical basis for a general assessment of the fis-
cal impact of development.
Existing Development As Well As New Development Can Be .Analyzed Using Average
Cost And Marginal Cost Factors
Chapter II of this report provides a detailed explanation of the methodology
for analyzing and allocating costs and revenues. As requested by the City,
the fiscal impact analysis system has been developed to provide for analyses
on either an average cost basis or marginal cost basis. Average cost factors
are determined by applying all costs and revenues to each land use. This
average cost approach is most appropriately applicable to existing development
in that current total costs and revenues are the amounts necessary to serve
the entire City as presently developed. Allocating these costs to the various
land uses permits the City to assess how costs and .revenues are attributable
to existing types of land uses in the City. Also, the average cost concept
permits an allocation of costs for new development to conceptually "buy -in" to
existing infrastructure and services.
However, in order to,more accurately assess the costs and revenue that would
actually result from new development, it is necessary to utilize a marginal
cost analysis. A marginal. cost analysis identifies the increase in costs and
revenues that would result from additional, new development. For this analy-
sis it is important to recognize that some City cost and revenue are rela-
tively fixed and would not increase with new development. At the same time
other costs and revenues are variable and would increase with additional
development. The components of City costs and revenues which are variable
relative to new development are therefore identified and utilized for a mar-
ginal cost analysis, which is the most appropriate method of analyzing new
development.
Utilization of Average or Marginal Cost Analysis Compares Costs And Revenues
For Various Types of Development In The City
In order to adequately assess the cost/revenue impact of either existing or
proposed new development, it is necessary to apply the cost and revenue fac-
tors developed in this report'to particular land uses or development projects
Ion a case -by -case basis. In this way, the cost/revenue factors are applied to
the particular characteristics and units of measure (dwelling unit mix, square
footage of commercial and industrial, and street miles to be added) for the
specific case under consideration. However, the City has asked for some gen-
eral overall conclusions as to the costs and revenues of existing development
and new development. Some very general, order -of -magnitude observations can
be made by applying the average cost/revenue allocation factors to all current
development City-wide. Also, a comparison of marginal cost factors and mar-.
Jginal revenue factors permits a general comparison of various types of new
!development. Table A compares City-wide costs and revenues for various types
of land uses presently developed in the City by applying the average cost/
revenue factors to City-wide units of measure data for each land use.
It should be noted that in order to apply the fiscal impact analysis cost/
revenue factors in a general City-wide approach, some costs and revenues had
to be averaged (such as certain public works costs and property tax revenues)
which are more appropriately and accurately applied on a case -by -case basis in
the fiscal impact analysis system. For example, it was necessary to allocate
property tax revenues proportionately by land use in Table A. however actual
implementation of the fiscal impact analysis system provides for a more
accurate allocation on a case -by -case basis.
With this in mind, the comparison of costs and revenues for existing land uses
in Table A provides a general assessment which indicates that overall there was
a small surplus of revenues vs. costs generated by existing development in
1982-83. This is consistent with the City's 1982-83 fiscal year budget, where
appropriated revenues exceeded budgeted costs for General City Operations.
More specifically, Table A indicates that existing residential land uses tend
to generate less revenues than costs, while the opposite is true for Indus-
trial, hotel and most commercial land use categories. An exception to this
y' general statement would be local retail uses where costs exceed revenues for
these present land uses.
In order to provide a similar comparison of costs and revenues for various
types of new development the marginal cost/revenue analysis is utilized.
Again, the fiscal impact analysis system is designed to provide accurate
TABLE A
—' COMPARISON OF COSTS AND REVENUES FOR EXISTING LAND USES
(AVERAGE COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS)
Surplus or
Percent
^'
Land Use
Service Cost*
Revenue**
(Deficit)
To Costi
Residential
—,
Single Family
$14,806,089
$13,540,350
$(1,265,739)
( 8.5)%
Duplex
5,061,200
5,005,062
( 56,138)
( 1.1)
—'
Multi -family
4,488,694
3,944,083
( 544,611)
(12.1)
Mobilehome
6859106
667,542
( 170564)
2.6)
^'
Sub -Total
$25,041,089
$23,157,037
$(1,884,052)
( 7.5)%
Commercial
^�
Local Retail
734,279
525,442
( 208,837)
(28.4)
Regional Retail
2,933,851
4,049,086
1,115,235
38.0
Office/Misc.
3,4849657
4,665,310
1,180,653
33.9
Restaurant
1,227,481
1,269,450
41,999
3.4
Sub -Total
$ 8,380,268
$10,509,288
$ 2,129,020'
25.4%
358.5%
Hotel
$ 490,312
2,248,142.
19757,830
'
Industrial
$ 683,430
1,3409583
657,093
96.1%
' TOTAL $34,595,099 $37,255,050 $ 2,659,951 7.7%
Notes:
* The Fiscal Impact Analysis System allocates $5,613,455 in costs on the basis
of street miles. Because street mile data was not available for each exist-
ing land use, it was necessary for this illustration to add this cost to
each land use in proportion to all other costs (19.3229%).
_' ** The Fiscal Impact Analysis System allocates Property Tax revenues on a case
study basis using actual values of new development and tax rate factors
applicable to particular areas of the City where development occurs. Data
on Property Tax revenue by land use for existing development in the City is
not available, therefore, Property Tax revenues were added to other -revenue
factors on an average per acre basis for this illustrative comparison of
average costs/revenues.
I
iv
results on a case -by -case analysis which takes into consideration the specific
variables associated with a particular new development. In order to provide a
general, overall cost/revenue comparison, it was necessary to allocate some
costs (such as most of Public Works and Street Tree Maintenance) and certain
revenues (such as property tax) on an overall average or proportional basis.
Because the nature of new development is not presently known, we can only com-
pare applicable cost/revenue factors for the various categories of new devel-
opment. With these things in mind, Table B provides a general cost/revenue
comparison for new development using marginal, cost/revenue factors. For com-
parison,.Table C shows the average cost/revenue factors for existing develop-
ment.
From Table.B it can be seen that on a very general overview basis, the marginal
revenues will tend to exceed marginal costs in all categories of new develop-
ment. That is, the additional revenues generated by new development will tend
to exceed the additional costs resulting from new development. As explained
more thoroughly in Chapters II, III and IV of the report, not all costs and
revenues are affected by development. With respect to costs, a detailed analy-
sis of each department's costs (Appendix B) identifies those costs which would
not increase with additional' development and are relatively fixed, as well as
costs that are variable (marginal costs) relative to new development. Over-
all,• approximately 51.2 percent of General City Operating costs are fixed and
would not increase with new development (see Table IV-1 in Chapter IV). On
the other hand, only approximately 15.1 percent of City revenues in 1982-83
were fixed relative to new development and would not increase.
Therefore, in general, revenues will increase relatively more than costs with
respect to new development. This is primarily due to the fact that most of
the City is presently built -out and a majority of the infrastructure and oper-
ating costs are in place which could absorb the relatively small amount of
remaining new development. As noted in Chapter II of the report the City's
existing operating costs provide for approximately 86.1 percent of the City,
and only 13.9 percent of the City remains that might be considered develop-
able. Therefore, there are many economies of scale that permit some services
to be provided to new development without increasing overall costs.
It should be noted that the general overall analysis of marginal costs and
revenues as presented in Table B, would not necessarily hold on a case -by -case
v
basis. This is because the fiscal impact analysis system was developed using
a variety of individual cost and revenue factors that are applied to the par-
ticular characteristics (square footage, dwelling units, etc.) of each new
—' development on an individual basis. The cost or revenue factors shown in the
overall summary of Table B might not all apply in the same way to particular
development proposals. This is why the Fiscal Impact Analysis System applies
cost and revenue factors individually (as developed -in this report) on a
case -by -case basis using the worksheet forms provided in Appendix A.
1
_' vi
TABLE B
COMPARISON OF MARGINAL COST/REVENUE FACTORS FOR NEW DEVELOPEMENT
Land Use
Residential
Single Family
Duplex
Multi -Family
Mobilehome
Marginal Cost
Factor*
$402.42/dwel.
unit
307.62/dwel.
unit
344.57/dwel.
unit
313.37/dwe1,
unit
Commercial
Local Retail $
Regional Retail
Office/Misc.
Restaurant
0.52/square foot
0.52/square foot
0.19/square foot
1.43/square foot
Net Revenues
Marginal Revenue or (Cost) Per
Factor** Factor _
$ 646.72/dwel.
unit $
244.30/dwel,
unit
573.37/dwel.
unit
265.75/dwel.
unit
529.03/dwel.
unit
184.46/dwel.
unit
560.36/dwel.
unit
246.99/dwel.
unit
$ 0.55/square
foot $
0.03/square
foot
1.14/square
foot
0.62/square
foot
0.51/square
foot
0.32/square
foot
2.07/square
foot
0.64/square
foot
Hotel $182.82/room $1,414.54/room $1,231.72/room
Industrial
0.10/square foot
0.56/square foot 0.46/square foot
Notes: *The Fiscal Impact Analysis System allocates $5,613,455 in costs on the
basis of street mile factors. Because street mile data cannot be deter-
mined in advance relative to the other units of measure (square feet,
dwelling units and hotel rooms) it was necessary to add those street
mile costs proportionately as a percentage of other costs (19.3229%)
for the purpose of this analysis.
**The Fiscal Impact Analysis system allocates Property Tax Revenues on
a case study basis using actual values of development and tax rate fac-
tors applicable to particular areas of the City. Since these cannot bQ
known at this time, Property Tax Revenues were added to other revenue
factors on an average per acre basis.
vii
TABLE C
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE COST/REVENUE FACTORS FOR EXISTING DEVELOPEMENT
Net Revenues
Average Cost
Average Revenue
or (Cost) Per
Land Use
Factor*
Factor**
Factor
Residential
Single Family
$836.50/dwel. unit
$ 764.99/dwel. unit
$ (71.51)/dwel. unit
Duplex
695.69/dwel. unit
687.98/dwel. unit
(7.71)/dwel. unit
Multi -Family
728.92/dwel. unit
640.48/dwel. unit
(88.44)/dwel. unit
Mobilehone
689.94/dwel. unit
672.25/dwel. unit
(17.69)/dwel. unit
Commercial
Local Retail
0.89/sq. foot
0.64/sq. foot
(0.25)/sq. foot
Regional Retail
0.89/sq. foot
1.23/sq. foot
0.34 /sq. foot
Office/Misc.
0.45/sq. foot
0.60/sq. foot
0.15 /sq.•foot
Restaurant
2.09/sq. foot
2.16/sq. foot
0.07 /sq. foot
Hotel
315.72/roan
1,447.61/roan
1,131.89/roan
Industrial
0.33/sq. foot
0.65/sq. foot
0.32 /sq. foot
Notes: *The Fiscal Impact Analysis System allocates $5,613,455 in costs on the
basis of street mile factors. Because street mile data was not avail-
able relative to the various types of current land uses, it was neces-
sary to add those street mile costs proportionately as a percentage of
other costs (19.3229%) for the purpose of this comparative analysis of
average costs and revenues.
**The Fiscal Impact Analysis System allocates Property Tax Revenues on
a case study basis using actual values of new development and tax rate
factors applicable to particular areas of the City where development
occurs. Data on property tax revenue by land use for existing develop-
ment in the City is'not available, therefore, Property Tax Revenues were
added to other revenue factors on an average per acre basis for this
illustrative comparison of average cost/revenue factors.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FOR THE
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
This Report Provides The City With A Fiscal Impact Analysis System That Is
Current And Can Readily Be Utilized And Maintained By City Staff
The City of Newport Beach has recognized the importance of determining the
potential fiscal impact of development on the City as an integral part of the
planning and development review, process. For a number of years, the City has
assessed the fiscal impact of development and planning alternatives, using
several methods or systems. Initially, the City's staff utilized an internally
developed system for fiscal impact analyses, and in July, 1976, a Fiscal Impact
Analysis System was prepared for the City by a professional finance consultant.
Since the City's Fiscal Impact Analysis System was prepared in 1976, a number
of changes have occurred which have significantly altered the nature of local
government finance in general, and the applicability of the City's Fiscal Im-
pact Analysis System in particular. Some of the more significant events that
have affected local government finance include:
Proposition 13 - Approved by the voters in 1978 (now Article XIII A
of the State Constitution) totally changed the nature and method
for determining property tax revenues.
. Proposition 4 - Approved by voters in 1979 (now Article XIII B of
the State Constitution), among other things, placed limits on
local government appropriations of proceeds of taxes.
SB 102 - Adopted by the State Legislature in 1981 and eliminated
three State revenue subventions that were historically received by
local government, and also reduced the Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fee
subvention for one year.
. SB 215 - Approved by the State Legislature in 1981, and among
other things, established a new revenue source for local govern-
ment transportation through 1985-86.
1
I
. 1982-83 State Budget - Adopted by the State Legislature, resulted
in significant reductions in State subvention revenues provided to
cities, specifically the Motor Vehicle in -Lieu subvention.
In addition to the changes noted above, continued development has occurred
resulting in greater developed areas in relation to vacant land; and some
changes in City service levels and organization of services have occurred.
Because of these and other changes, the previously developed Fiscal Impact
Analysis System is no longer applicable, and the City has been reviewing cost/
revenue impact through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process on a
project -by -project basis. The City is in need of a current system which will
enable City staff to accurately assess the revenue vs. cost impact of develop-
ment within the City as well as development added to the City through projected
annexations. Therefore, the City retained the firm of Ralph Andersen & Asso-
ciates to prepare an updated Cost/Revenue Impact Analysis System. Among other
things, the updated Fiscal Impact Analysis System accomplishes the following
objectives:
. Development of an "average cost" and "marginal cost" analysis and
methodology for the City's Cost/Revenue System. The analysis
encompasses all affected revenues and expenditures for general
City Operations.
An identification and accomodation of the effects of Proposition
13 and other recent changes in local government finance, particu-
larly property tax revenue.
. An analysis of the fiscal relationships and effects of various
land use developments on City expenditures and revenues, with par-
ticular consideration of the property tax revenue implications for
commercial and residential properties.
. An analysis and incorporation of the,effects of revenue appropria-
tion limits and other revenue measures (such as recent legisla-
tion, the State budget, and changes in service charges and fees).
2
I_I
-1
-1
-1
. Assumptions and methodologies for revenue and cost distributions
which are clearly explained and documented, particularly including
the approach used for identifying and distributing sales tax
revenues.
. Identification of all assumptions upon which the system is based,
with clear definitions and documentation.
. A total design for the cost/revenue system that permits simple,
manual utilization and updating by City staff.
With the preceding in mind, this report represents a guide or users manual for
use of the updated Fiscal Impact Analysis System.
A Thorough And Comprehensive Work Program Was Utilized To Develop A Current
Fiscal Impact Analysis System
4 In order to fully and accurately meet the needs of the City and achieve the
objectives outlined above, a workplan was designed specifically for this pro-
ject. The workplan included a series of tasks which are outlined as follows:
Task 1 - Meetings With Planning Director And Others As Appropriate,
To Confirm Objectives, Approach And Timing
It was important that the assignment be initiated with a
clear understanding of project objectives, approach, timing, end -
products, and related concerns. Accordingly, project staff met with
the Planning Director and other City personnel as appropriate to re-
view the proposed project workplan and timetable.
Product Of Task 1
This task resulted in a mutual understanding of project objectives
and approach, as well as a refined agenda of tasks and a timetable
for their completion.
Task 2 - The City's Current And Planned Land Uses And Projected An-
nexations Were Reviewed
In order to develop a cost/revenue impact analysis system
that best meets the needs of the City, it was important to under-
stand and document the particular nature of current and planned
-'
1
development within the City as well as development that will become
a part of the City as a result of projected annexations. Project
staff built upon their existing knowledge of Newport Beach by initi-
ally reviewing existing documents and reports on current and planned
development. Staff also met with City planning staff and others as
appropriate to review and document the nature, scope, and timing of
development, projected annexations, and existing land uses. Project
staff identified and documented relevant data and assumptions re-
garding:
. Existing demographic and economic data.
Existing land uses by type, location and area of the
total City.
. Nature, scope and timing of planned development.
. Nature, scope and timing of projected annexations.
. Other land use data and considerations affecting City
costs and revenues.
Product Of Task 2
Thi's task resulted in a documented profile of current and planned
land uses within the City, and for projected annexations. This data
and information provided the basis for developing appropriate
methods for identifying and distributing costs and revenues.
Task 3 - Service And Infrastructure Requirements Associated With
Development Of Various Types Of Land Uses Were Identified
Once data and assumptions were developed regarding current
and planned development, project staff prepared a profile of local
service and public facility requirements for various areas and land
uses within the City. The profile took into consideration both the
incremental or marginal service requirements associated with devel-
opment, as well as the overall relationship of development to City
services and infrastructure. The profile identified and documented
the data and assumptions regarding service and public facility
4
infrastructure requirements for all General City Operations as iden-
tified in the City's 1982-83 fiscal year budget. Excluded from the
analysis were Enterprise Operations which by definition are self
supporting through their unique revenue sources. Enterprise funds
_ are an accounting method for identifying certain City services or
functions which are self-supporting or enterprise -like operations.
Since an Enterprise Fund operation is self -funding from specific
fees or charges designated for the enterprise, there are no costs
' incurred which would be paid from City General Fund revenue sources.
In fact an Enterprise Fund operation may provide a net return to the
City General fund as compensation for General Fund Services or costs
related to enterprise operations. For these reasons Enterprise Funds
(Water Fund and Marina Park Fund) are assumed to be self -funding as
development occurs, and will not result in a net cost to the City
since fees and charges will pay for services and facilities provided
to development.
' The service and infrastructure profile was based upon meetings with
appropriate City departmental staff, Ralph Andersen & Associates'
' knowledge of local agency practices, and a review of the City Budget
and other appropriate City documents and reports.
Product Of Task 3
' This task resulted in an inventory of services provided to existing
land uses and new development within the City including an identifi-
cation of service level costs and other criteria for City services
and infrastructure.
Task 4 - Cost Data Was Developed On The Basis Of Average And Marginal
Cost Measures
Provision of City services and facilities to development
requires certain one-time and continuing costs. These were identi-
fied as (1) specific variable (marginal) costs attributable directly
to development, and as (2) a general application of total costs
(average cost) for city-wide services and infrastructure from which
development benefits. Some of these costs are assumed by the devel-
oper as a condition of approval for development, while others become
_, 5
I
I
I
a direct obligation of the City. This task identified the nature
and magnitude of such costs, clarified who would be responsible for
such costs, and developed 'specific criteria and assumptions for
applying appropriate costs to development.
Product Of Task 4
This task resulted in a comprehensive inventory of all costs associ-
ated with. providing City services and facilities to development.
The nature, magnitude and responsibilities for such costs were iden-
tified and specific methodologies and criteria for distributing
costs applicable to the various types of land uses were developed,
including marginal cost and average cost allocation factors.
Task 5 - Revenues Derived From Development Were Identified
As with costs, development generates additional revenue
that can be utilized to finance City services and capital improve-
ments. All sources of additional revenue were identified, including
such sources as:
• Property Taxes
• Transient Occupancy Tax
Sales and Use Tax
. Property Transfer Tax
Licenses and Permits
State Subventions
- Cigarette Tax
- Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees
- Gasoline Taxes
Charges and Fees For Services
Building Excise Tax
. Other Miscellaneous Sources
Project staff carefully reviewed City budget documents and various
ordinances, resolutions and. adopted policies relating to City reve-
nues. Project staff also met with appropriate City finance person-
nel to review the basis, nature and administration of City revenues.
Project staff also specifically took into consideration the effects
of. Proposition 13, Proposition 4, and other more recent legislation
affecting City revenue sources.
J
Product Of Task 5
This task resulted in the development of a complete and definitive
listing of all City revenue sources that would be available from
development, and a rational and appropriate methodology and criteria
for the City to identify amounts of revenue with the specific types
of development from which each revenue source is derived.
Task 6 - A Comprehensive Revenue And Cost Impact Analysis System Was
Developed
Utilizing the analyses and products of the preceding tasks,
project staff developed a comprehensive system for analyzing the
revenue and cost impacts of development. The system has been speci-
fically developed for the City of Newport Beach and takes into con-
sideration actual costs, service levels and other conditions unique
i to the City. The system for determining costs and revenues applic-
able to the various land uses is practical, rational, and capable of
being implemented and maintained by City personnel on an ongoing
basis. The system primarily covers development within the City, but
also identifies specific considerations and/or modifications of
approach necessary to apply the system to projected annexations.
The system permits the City to analyze-cost/revenue impacts on the
basis of both an average cost approach, and marginal cost approach.
Product Of Task 6
This task resulted in developing a comprehensive system for the City
to utilize to identify and analyze the cost and revenue impact of
various types of development, including projected annexations.
Task 7 - This Report Was Prepared To Provide The City With A Current
Fiscal Impact Analysis System
The approach for an updated system for analysis of cost/
revenue impact is documented and explained in this report. This re-
port is intended to provide the City with a clear, concise explana-
tion of the Fiscal Impact .Analysis System, and serve as a guide or
manual for the ongoing use and maintenance of the system.
7
i
Based upon the work program and methodology outlined by the preceding tasks,
the subsequent chapters of this report provide:
. A methodology for analyzing and allocating costs and revenues to
the various types of development (Chapter II).
. An identification and explanation of revenue allocation factors
(Chapter III).
. An identification and explanation of cost allocation factors
(Chapter IV).
. Instruct
Analysis
tem, and
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING AND ALLOCATING COSTS AND REVENUES
A Principal Objective Is To Identify Costs And Revenues Associated With The
Major Land Use Categories
As a basis for determining the amount of revenue or cost that is attributable
to various types of development, it is necessary to initially allocate City
revenues and costs to the major land use categories. For each revenue and
cost category, allocation to land uses can be accomplished by either of two
methods, which are:
. Specific Land Use Analysis - Where costs or revenues are known to
have a specific relationship to one or more land uses, and alloca-
tions are based upon available records or known relationships.
. General Land Use Distribution - Where there is a more general
relationship of costs or revenues to each of the major land uses
and allocations are made on the basis of the proportionate rela-
tionship of land uses in the City.
For the land use distribution allocation method, it is necessary to first un-
derstand the relationship or distribution of developed land within the City
among the major land uses. Table II-1 summarizes the current acreage distri-
bution among the principal land uses and Appendix C provides a detailed analy-
sis of the distribution of existing development by various land uses and areas
of the City.
,)From Table II-1, it can be seen that the basic land use categories of residen-
Itial, commercial, hotel, and industrial amount to nearly 75 percent of the
6,417.08 total net acreage in the City (excluding beaches, streets, and other
public rights of way). This 75 percent totals 4,760.63 acres for all residen-
tial, commercial, industrial and hotel uses presently developed. The remain-
ing 25 percent (1,656.45 acres) consists of utilities, public/institutional,
open space/greenbelts and undeveloped land. Only 13.9 percent of, the City
(895.00 acres) remains vacant and undeveloped. This reflects the increased
development that has occurred over the last 10 years. In 1973, the amount of
vacant land was 2,538 net acres (not including streets, waterways, and public
benches), amounting to 31 percent of the City's total net acreage.
'_1 9
i TABLE II-1--Land Use Distribution -In Net Acres
(excludes beaches, streets and other public rights of way)
—� Relative Percentage For
Land Use Acres Cost/Revenue Distribution
Residential 3,385.10 71.11%
Commercial:
Local Retail 64.98
Specialty Retail 75.65
Regional Retail 104.46
Office 417.43
1 Medical 27.35
Restaurant 62.00
Miscellaneous 400.53
Sub -Total I97n_-_9 24.21
Hotel 53.53 1.12
Industrial 169.60 3.56%
—� TOTAL: COST/REVENUE DIST. 4,760.63 100.00%
Utilities 58.78
Public/Institutional 411.94
Undeveloped 895.00
' Open Space/Greenbelts 290.73
TOTAL: ALL LAND USES 69417.08
Appropriate Unit Measures Were Developed For Use In Allocating Costs And Rev-
enues To The Basic Land Use Categories
In general, the analysis of costs and revenues (detailed in Chapters III and
IV) revealed that the most appropriate measures for allocating revenues and
— costs were (1) the number of dwelling units for residential land uses, (2) the
I'amount of square feet for commercial and industrial land uses, the number of
rooms for hotels, and (3) street miles or fractions thereof added for all land
F uses. The following tables break down the land use categories into these
units of measure that will be used for allocating costs and revenues. Table
II-2 shows a further breakdown of residential land uses by category and dwell-
ing units, in order to distribute residential costs and revenues to the respec-
tive types of residential development.
10
0
I_i
TABLE II-2
Residential Dwelling Unit Distribution
Land Use Category
Single Family
Duplex (2-4 Units)
Multi -Family
Mobile Home/Misc.
TOTAL
Dwelling Units
17,700
7,275
6,153
1,054
32,182
Percent Of Total
55.0%
22.6
19.1
3.3
100.0%
For hotels, the most appropriate unit of measure is the number of rooms.
Therefore hotel land uses are initially allocated on an acreage basis (53.53
acres are currently hotel uses) and then on the basis of the number of rooms
(currently 1,553 total rooms).
Since revenues and service costs are largely associated with developed areas,
and for commercial and industrial uses the relationship of square footage is
more appropriate than acres, it is necessary to adjust the commercial and in-
dustrial acreage percentages by their relative proportion of total square
footage for commercial and industrial uses. Table II-3 above indicates that
industrial square footage represents 14.2 percent of the total for commercial
and industrial square footage, while commercial is 85.8 percent of the total.
The proportionate relationship of square footage for commercial and industrial
is used to adjust the acreage land use distribution. This results in adjusted
land use proportion which is a minor change in the distribution percentages as
shown in Table-II-4.
TABLE II-3
Commercial And Industrial Square Footage Distribution
Land Use Category Square Feet Percent Of Total/Sq. Ft.
Commercial
Retail-Regional/Specialty
Retail -Local
Office/Medical
Restaurant
Miscellaneous
Sub -Total
Industrial
3,284,463
822,030
7,153,349
587,899
574,513
12,422,254
2,058,003
TOTAL 14,4809257 —,
11
85.8%
14.2%
100.0%
TABLE II-4
Percentage
Land Use Distribution -Acres And Square
Feet
Percent of
Percent of
Distribution
Land Use
Acreage
Square Footage
Percentage
Commercial
24.2%
85.8%
23.9%
Industrial
3.6
14.2
3.9
Sub -Total
27.8%
100.0%
27.8%
Hotels
1.1
-
1.1
Residential
71.1
-
71.1
TOTAL
100.0%
100.0%
The adjusted distribution percentages, as shown in Table II-4, therefore become
the basis for the initial allocation of costs and revenues using the Land Use
Distribution Method. As noted earlier, a number costs and revenues are allo-
1cated using the Specific Land Use Analysis Method where a known relationship
of costs and revenues to land use exists that is different than the General
Land Use Distribution identified in the preceeding tables. The application of
these methods is explained further in Chapters III and IV under the detailed
analysis of each of the revenue and expenditure categories. Whichever of the
cost allocation methods is used, the overall cost/revenue allocation methodol-
ogy utilizes three basic steps, illustrated generally by Table II-5 as follows:
TABLE II-5
Three Basic Steps Of Fiscal Impact Analysis System
1. DETERMINE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF COST/REVENUE
Total Cost X Land Use Distribution Total Cost/Revenue
or Revenue Percentage Per Land Use
e
2. DETERMINE COST REVENUE ALLOCATION FACTORS FOR EACH COST/REVENUE CATEGORY
Total Cost/Revenue a Allocation Factor Measure = Cost/Revenue
Per Land Use (Total Sq. Ft., Dwelling Allocation Factor
Units, Etc.)
t
3. CALCULATE COST/REVENUE APPLICABLE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Cost/Revenue X Unit Measures For Proposed = Cost/Revenue For
Allocation Factor Development (Sq. Ft., Unit, Proposed Development
Etc.)
12
4
Table II-5 above illustrates, in a simplified form, the overall methodology for
allocating costs and revenues attributable to development proposals under the
Fiscal Impact Analysis System. Chapters III and IV provide a detailed explana-
tion of how each of the particular allocation factors are determined for the
various City revenue and expenditure categories respectively. The three basic
steps are illustrated further in determining how costs of the City Council's
budget are attributable to particular developments.
TABLE II-6
Illustrative Determination Of Cost Allocation Factors
1. DETERMINE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION:
Cost Distribution
1982-83 Residential Commercial IndustrialHotel
;Department Total Budget (71.1%) 23.9% 3.9% 1.1%
City Council $74,725 $53,130 $17,859 $ 29914 $822
2. DETERMINE ALLOCATION FACTORS: CITY COUNCIL
Cost f
Allocation
Cost
Land Use
Distribution
Measure
Allocation Factors
Residential
$53,130
32,182 Units
$1.6509/dwelling unit
Commercial
$17,859.
120422,254 Sq. Ft.
$0.0014/Sq. Ft.
Industrial
$ 29914
2,0589003 Sq. Ft.
$0.0014/Sq. Ft.
Hotel
$ 822
1,553 Rooms
$0.5292/room
3. CALCULATE
COST APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Cost Allocation
Proposal xxx
Cost For Proposal
Land Use
Factor
X ' Units/Sq. Ft. =
Proposal xxx
(Residential
$1:6509/Unit
300 Units
$ 495.27
Commercial
$0.0014/Sq. Ft.
53,000 Sq. Ft.
$ 74.20
Industrial
$0.0014/Sq. Ft.
0 Sq. Ft.
-
Hotel
$0.5292/room
0 rooms
-
TOTAL: City Council Cost $ 569.47
Table II-6 illustrates use of the General Land Use Distribution method for
determining costs applicable to a sample development proposal. Where a more
specific relationship of cost or revenue exists, or can be identified, a more
refined calculation of costs or revenues relative to more specific land use
categories is used (such as for multi -family, regional retail, etc.). Using
13 ,
the specific land use analysis method, a more refined allocation of costs and
revenues is determined where appropriate (see Chapters III and IV). For exam-
ple, in allocating property tax revenue, it is necessary to allocate revenue
on a specific case study basis, using construction value data applicable to
the particular development being studied. This is necessary due to the method
by which property tax revenue increases are allocated pursuant to Proposition
XIII (Article XIII A of the State Constitution) and related implementing leg-
islation. While many revenues or costs do not require as specific a case
study analysis, the allocation factors for property tax and some others do
reflect specific relationships of particular revenues or costs based upon
avail 2 records or known relationships; in these cases, the Specific Land
Us is Method is used rather than the more general Land Use Distribution
Me ined above.
EAW Development Should Be Analyzed On An Averac
Deve ent Should Be Analyzed On A Marginal Cost Basis
The rating costs of City departments consist of either fixed costs (those
that ould remain unchanged regardless of the level of additional develop-
ment or variable costs (those that will increase or decrease depending on
the 1 vel of development). In this respect, some departments have costs that
are a tirely fixed, while others are entirely variable, and many have individ-
ual cost items that are both fixed and variable. For example, the City Coun-
cil's1costs are entirely fixed in that, other things equal, they would remain
unchanged as the City continues to build out. The Police Department has both
fixed and variable cost components of the Department's expenditures.
i
Thus far, the preceding portions of this Chapter present the methodology for
;developing cost allocation factors on an average cost basis. Average cost
allocation factors are determined on the basis of allocating total department
costs and all revenues to land uses by the appropriate allocation measures.
This, average cost approach is appropriately applicable to existing development
in that current department costs reflect the amounts necessary to serve the
entire City and total costs are therefore allocated on an average basis. This
permits an analysis bf how costs are attributable to existing land uses in the
City relative to revenues generated by those land uses. Also, the average
cost concept permits an allocation of costs for new development to "buy -in" to
existing infrastructure and services.
14
However, in order to estimate the actual increase in cost relative to increased
revenue that is attributable to new development, it is necessary to utilize
the marginal cost/revenue concept for allocating costs. The concept of mar-
ginal cost/revenue examines the additional cost and additional revenue that
can be attributed specifically to new development. To do this, it is neces-
sary to identify those cost or revenue components which are variable, and will
increase as further development in the City occurs. The portion of a depart-
ment's expenditures that is variable is therefore the marginal cost that will
increase in proportion to additional development.
As the City approaches full development, an increasingly larger proportion of
City costs become fixed as infrastructure and services are put in place that
will accomodate a larger proportion of the City. The area that is undeveloped
becomes proportionately smaller and therefore the amount of costs to be added
(variable or marginal costs) to serve new development is proportionately less.
Further, some of the currently vacant, undeveloped land may remain in open
space and require Tittle or no additional services. As noted earlier, in
1973, approximately 31 percent of the City's area was undeveloped; currently
only 13.9 percent is undeveloped. Therefore, existing City operating costs
provide for approximately 86.1 percent of the City's area, and the additional
area to be served represents approximately 13.9 percent of the City's area.
When a City is relatively new and undeveloped, nearly all costs would be
affected by additional development and a relatively high percentage would be
variable. On the other hand, a city that is nearly built -out would have most
facilities and services in place and therefore a relatively low percentage of
Jcosts would be variable relative to additional development.
In order to determine the amount of current City costs that are variable,
departmental management was interviewed and budget data was analyzed to iden-
tify the amounts and percentages for each department that are fixed vs. vari-
able. Appendix B provides a detailed analysis of each department's fixed and
variable costs for each expenditure account. Overall, total City costs were
determined to be 51.2 percent fixed and 48.8 percent variable. When the City's
previous Fiscal Impact Analysis System was prepared in 1976, approximately
38.9 percent of City operating expenditures were fixed while 61.1 percent were
variable. The proportionate increases in fixed costs from 38.9 percent to
15
51.2 percent reflects the increases in developed land over the six year peri-
od. Table IV-1 in Chapter IV presents a summary of the analysis of fixed vs.
variable costs for all General City Operations.
Costs And Revenues Are Analyzed In Current Dollars In Order To Avoid Distor-
tions And Reflect Current Levels Of Service
If no development were to occur in the City, costs and revenues would likely
increase. This would be primarily due to inflation in revenues and the costs
t of City goods and services purchased, and to some extent, possible increases
I in service levels. In order to focus clearly on the impact of development,
the Fiscal Impact Analysis System utilizes current (in this report 1982-83)
budget dollars. In this way, the fiscal impact of development can be analyzed
relative to current revenues, costs and service levels, and avoid the specula-
tive impact of future changes in inflation rates, legislation or policies. As
noted in Chapter V, the recommended procedure for updating the Fiscal Impact
Analysis System provides for an annual revision of cost and revenue allocation
factors to reflect the adopted budget for the fiscal year in which analyses
are conducted.
16
CHAPTER III
REVENUE ALLOCATION FACTORS
The Fiscal Impact Analysis System Allocates General City Operating Revenues To
Specific Land Uses
The City of Newport Beach receives revenues from a variety of sources. The
Fiscal Impact Analysis System determines factors for allocating all General
City Operating Revenues to the various land use categories. As noted earlier
(page 5), the system does not include revenue or costs for Enterprise .Fund
Operations (Water Fund and Marina Park Fund). In essence,• Enterprise Funds
are established to account separately for all costs and •revenues which are
specifically applicable to a particular service or function that is a self-
supporting or enterprise -like operation. Enterprise fund operations typically
pay for themselves and may even provide a return to the General Fund, usually
as reimbursement for General Fund Services and costs provided to the Enter-
prise Fund. Since Enterprise Funds are entirely self-sustaining, it is
assumed that the fees and charges of those funds would continue to provide for
the costs of those funds as additional development occurs, and no net costs
would be incurred by the City for Enterprise Fund services.
As noted in Chapter I, the analysis of revenues takes into consideration a
number of significant changes in law that affect local government finance.
The following summarizes the effects of the principal changes in law which are
reflected in the analysis of each City revenue source later in this Chapter:
. Proposition 13 (Article XIII A of the State Constitution --This
initiative constitutional amendment totally changed the nature
i
and method for determining property tax revenues. A detailed
discussion of the nature and effect of Proposition 13 as it
relates to fiscal impact analyses is presented in this Chapter
under Property Taxes. The principal effect is that a separate
case study approach must be used to determine property tax rev-
enues from development, rather than apply overall City-wide fac-
tors. This is because the actual equivalent tax rate for the
City (the City's share of the overall 1% tax rate) is different
for each of the 80 separate tax rate areas in the City. Also,
the analysis is enhanced by utilizing actual known values of
construction on a case study basis.
17
. Proposition 4 (Article XIII B of the State 'Constitution) --This
initiative constitutional amendment places a ceiling or limit on
6 the amount of "proceeds of taxes" which may be appropriated in
each fiscal year. The limit is based upon the amount of "pro-
ceeds of taxes" which the City collected in the base year of
1978-79. This amount is adjusted annually by the percentage
increase in the City's population; and the percentage change in
the Consumer Price Index or the percentage change in the Calif-
ornia per capita personal income, whichever is less. The City's
I appropriation limit has been adjusted annually by these factors,
i and the City's current actual appropriations are well below the
calculated appropriations limit. The difference between the
limit and the actual appropriations provides the City with an
amount available for additional appropriations up to the limit.
As development brings additional costs and revenues, the pro-
ceeds of taxes appropriated could potentially approach the lim-
it. Therefore, staff should monitor projected revenue increases
from development which are proceeds of taxes relative to the
City's appropriations limit in order to assure that the City
will be able to appropriate all revenues derived in order to
provide for projected costs. This is a highly unlikely situa-
tion since the City presently has relatively small remaining
areas for development, and there is a large difference between
current appropriations and the limit provided by Proposition 4.
. SB102 and S8215 Adopted By The State Legislature in 1981--SB 102
aeliminated three state subventions revenues that were previously
provided to cities and reduced Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fee rev-
enues to cities. SB 215 provides additional gasoline tax rev-
enues to cities for transportation purposes. The fiscal impact
anal'ysi's system takes these changes into consideration as well
as other state budget reductions in revenues to cities, and the
revenue factors reflect the actual amounts appropriated in the
City budget.
`' 1 18
In this Chapter, General City Operating Revenues are allocated to the major
land use categories, and specific allocation factors are developed, using the
Land Use Distribution Method or the Specific Land Use Analysis Method as
appropriate, based upon a review of each revenue source. The preceding chap-
ter outlined the general methodology for allocating revenue and costs. Table
III-1 on the next page provides a comprehensive listing of each revenue cate-
gory, the amounts distributed to each major land use and revenue allocation
factors for each•category of development.
J'Following Table III-1 is a discussion of the method used for distributing each
J irevenue to the basic land uses, and how the specific allocation factors for
each revenue source were determined. Appendix A of this report presents forms
'to be used by City staff to apply revenue allocation factors to specific
development proposals in implementing, the Fiscal Impact Analysis System.
t
The remaining portions of this Chapter present a discussion of the method for
allocating each revenue source to the various land use categories. These
methods were used to determine the specific revenue distribution and alloca-
tion factor amounts for the 1982-83 fiscal year as shown in Table III-1. The
1 allocation methods described in this Chapter should be used in subsequent
fiscal years as the City annually updates the Fiscal Impact Analysis System
—, based upon the City's adopted final budget for each fiscal year. In this way,
the System will reflect current service levels and funding levels.
_1 1
With the exception of property taxes, which are allocated on a case study
basis, each revenue is allocated using the basic methodologies discussed in
Chapter II. In general, revenues are first distributed to the four major land
uses (residential, commercial, hotel and industrial) using either the General
. 19
I
II
x'+B1s_ rg r 4 x 8 5 y gxg ggc 5 ip' i r�gsaSir�?a= °ay li
-Z
c -c
^ �V
asr L5a
a s L
iaa 3 s 's ei
s ,s"
s? Fryto
IN
L •r c f 5 5 M n nn#
x GO
r n x i=l:e L I�• I I a+I
+r;.;. t 'a 6•
?:n „x 5 159 I E3jig
C5 s5�g
iF=
i gg
e ~ Y Ilnju� yY » ❑ gg1y1 7 gyYui.0 .. x �~# 5
IN o y la: a LN M_
N
s 6nur}y49 xn i§. " r
CYe Sf 3 11 Is A Q L I I It I t I II 1 I I ? alit I I 3 Y IZI 18i: Y IG'?s: � F Is I� R
�p I I I I:I I Itil »II III » II 1 � E_
tZ
II t t " I I t it f� lit 4 hk =1 : R z3
III,• t 1 III 1 111: „ III II 1 " �L
ICI s x a 161111
: a s lit Y: :g
Ij
la IF 9 E s A II 1 I 3 4 L I Y : 7 Is lit E I$s 0 4it
�
tIII,+$ g1,y III, pp p g q x
g�9;IB6$01U 1S.
; IF .i L .. C tl q
3 ^
y" u I „ 1It Ii 1I # = n:II 2 a uI yy^
I 9 .I;.g�%I !.■ 6q 'y" Lx
' l x A N o I S # S o IR a LE d z L
i ao
— ' Land Use Distribution Method or the Specific Land Use Analysis Method. Unless
otherwise indicated, revenue allocation factors are then determined for each
of the several land use categories as follows:
Residential revenues - the four categories of single family,
duplex, multi -family and mobile home are allocated by dwelling
unit in one of the two following ways:
"- - Directly to dwelling unit: revenues distributed to
' residential areas are distributed to each of the four
residential categories based upon the total dwelling
' units currently in the City. The allocation factor is
_ therefore the result of dividing the residential revenue
' amount by the number of dwelling units.
_ - Population to dwelling unit: revenues which are received
in proportion to population (per capita) are first allo-
cated to each of the four residential categories based
upon the 1976 census' population per dwelling unit,
adjusted to current total population, estimates (65,312
in 1982-83) developed by the State Department of•Finance
' for allocating per capita State subventions as follows:
TABLE III-2
Residential Population Per Dwelling Unit
' Residential 1976 Pop. Adj. to Adj.
Category Per D.U. 1982 POP/C.U.
.. Single family 2.77 86.87% 2.41
.. Duplex 2.10 86.87% 1.81
Multi -family 1.51 86.87% 1.31
.. Mobile home 1.59 86.87% 1.38
' ! The above population per dwelling unit amounts are then
multiplied by the appropriate per capita revenue amount
to arrive at the revenue factor per dwelling unit.
Commercial revenues - the categories of local retail, regional re-
tail, office/miscellaneous, and restaurant are allocated by square
' feet.
21
• t
. Industrial revenues - are allocated by square feet.
. Hotel revenues - are allocated by the number of hotel rooms.
-� PROPERTY TAXES
Proposition 13, the state-wide tax limitation initiative adopted in June, 1978,
by the California voters, substantially changed the nature of the property tax
and placed a state-wide limitation on property tax revenues in the following
ways:
. The property tax rate is limited to an overall maximum of one per-
cent of full cash value (the market value) of land and improve-
ments to the land. The amount raised by this uniform tax rate is
allocated among all tax agencies as prescribed .by State law.
. The values, above those in effect in the 1975-76 tax base year,
may be increased only by:
- A 2% annual maximum inflation rate.
- Reassessment to current full market value when property
is sold (transfer of ownership).
- ' - The value of new construction or improvements to property
made after 1975-76.
. In addition to the uniform one percent tax rate, an additional
amount may be levied sufficient to cover indebtedness obligations
—, existing prior to June 6, 1978.
- ' . The maximum one percent rate, may be increased upon 2/3 voter
j approval.
—, For the purposes of the Fiscal Impact Analysis System, it is important to rec-
ognize that property tax revenues on existing, developed property will increase
at no more than two percent annually, unless it is sold and thereby is reas-
sessed at current market value. However, new development is added to the tax
roll at the full market value. Information provided by the State Board of
Equalization indicates that subsequent increases in value due to changes in
ownership have been growing at essentially the same rate for all land uses.
22
A
Therefore it is most important to identify accurately the initial value of new
development.
The tax rate that is applied to the value of new development is a maximum of
one percent of full cash value for operating revenues. However, the City
receives only a portion of the total one percent levy, with the remainder be-
ing allocated to all other taxing agencies within the City. The basis for
allocation of the one percent levy is determined by State law (primarily
Assembly Bill 8 adopted in 1979) and the allocation varies among the 80 sep-
arate tax code areas in the City. Prior to Proposition 13, the City had one
uniform levy throughout the City; now the levy varies slightly from one tax
code area to another, depending upon the combination of taxing agencies in
each of the 80 separate tax code areas.
i
I Since the taxable value of new development is determined on the basis of cur-
rent actual market value, and the City's allocation of the one percent levy is
determined on a tax code area basis, it is therefore necessary to determine
allocation of this revenue source on a specific case study basis. While
standard allocation factors can be determined for the other revenue sources,
it is necessary to perform a specific analysis in each case for -property tax
revenues. However, this is a relatively straightforward process and involves
the following steps:
1. Determine tax code area in which the new development will occur,
and the City's allocation percentage for that tax code area.
2. Determine the full market value of the new development's improve-
ments.
3. Multiply the value of improvements by the City's tax -rate alloca-
tion factor for the tax code area in which development will
occur. This results in the marginal property tax revenue alloca-
tion for the development.
23
To illustrate this process, assume a 20 unit residential development valued at
$120,000 per unit, which will be located in the City's tax code area number
7-003.
1. Determine tax allocation factor:
City allocation factor (percentage) is 0.2022% for tax
code area number 7-003.
2. Determine value of new development:
20 units at $120,000 equals $2,400,000 value.
3. Multiply allocation"factor times the value:
$2,400,000 x 0.2022% equals $4,853 property tax revenue.
The method outlined above is used to allocate property tax revenue from
"secured" property (land and improvements). In addition, the City would re-
ceive "unsecured" property tax revenue as a result of certain types of devel-
opment. Unsecured property tax revenue would not be derived from residential
property, but would be available from commercial and industrial development
where equipment; furnishings,, etc. are taxed as unsecured value. Based upon
historical data, approximately 70% of the City's unsecured assessed value is
estimated to be attributable to commercial and industrial values with the bal-
ance primarily from •boats which would not be affected by development since the
number of boats will not likely increase significantly with additional devel-
opment. Therefore, only the 70% of unsecured property tax revenue that is
attributable to commercial and industrial development is assumed to increase
in relationship to new development. In 1982-83 70% of unsecured value would
be $481,201. For new development this amount is initially distributed propor-
tionately to only commercial, industrial, and hotel uses on an acreage basis
a and then allocated to particular commercial and industrial uses on a square
footage basis, and to hotels on a per room basis as follows:
1 24
0
I-1
_1
c
Unsecured Property Tax Allocation
Land Use Distribution
Commercial Industrial Hotel Total
Acres 1152.40(83.8%) 169.60(12.3%) 53.53(3.9%) 1,375.53(100%)
Unsecured Revenue $4039246(83.8%) $59,188(12.3%) $18,767(3.9%) $4819201(100%)
Allocation Factors
Land Use Revenue
Commercial $403,246
Industrial $ 59,188
Hotel $ 189767
e Units =
12,422,254 sq. ft.
2,058,003 sq. ft.
1,553 rooms
Factor
$ 0.0325/sq, ft.
$ 0.0288/sq. ft.
$12.0844/room
The. revenue worksheet forms provided in Appendix A provide City staff with, a
structure for allocating property tax revenues on a case study basis using the
method outlined above. For purposes of a general comparison of revenue
sources to existing land uses, the property tax revenues shown in Table III-1
have been allocated using the land use distribution method (adjusted acreage
basis as outlined in Chapter II). For purposes of the Fiscal Impact Analysis
System, all property •taxes have been consolidated rather than shown separately
for the General Fund, Parks and Recreation Fund, and Library Fund.
OTHER TAXES
This general revenue category includes revenue the City receives from redemp-
tions, penalties and interest; cigarette tax; transient occupancy tax; fran-
chises; sales tax; and property transfer tax. The methods for distributing
these revenues to the three basic land uses is discussed as follows under each
of these revenue sources.
Redemptions, Penalties And Interest
This revenue source tends to be of a general, City-wide nature and is there-
fore distributed to the major land uses using the General Land Use Distribu-
tion method. Allocation factors are determined for residential uses directly
to dwelling units; on- a square footage basis for commercial and industrial
uses; and by rooms for hotels.
-1
25
Cigarette Taxes
_t
The City receives this. State subvention
as prescribed by law, with one-half
the, amount being subvented
on a per capita basis and the other
half in propor-
tion to the City's sales
tax receipts.
Therefore, for fiscal year 1982-83,
the per capita portion is
distributed by
the State at $1.95
per capita (from
the State Department of Finance), and this is allocated to residential dwell-
ing units on a per capita
basis. The remainder
of cigarette tax revenue is
allocated to residential,
commercial, and industrial uses on
a square footage
later in this
—,
basis in the same proportion
as sales tax revenues (described
Ichapter). This calculation is summarized
as follows:
TABLE III-3
Cigarette Tax
Allocation
Per Capita Portion: $133,109:
Residential
Adjusted
Per Capita
Allocation
Land Uses:
Pop./d.u.
Allocation
Factor/d.u.
Single family
2.52
1.95
4.9140
Duplex
1.90
1.95
3.7050
Multi -family
1.36
1.95
2.6520
Mobile Home
1.47
1.95
2.8665
Taxable Sate Portion: $132;891:
Allocation
!'
Land Use: % of Sales
x Revenue = Distribution/Sq. ft./d.u.=
Factor
Residential:
Single family 29.25%
$1329891 $
389870.65 17,700
d.u. $2.1961/d.u.
Duplex 9:08
132,891
12,066.50 7,275
d.u. 1.6586/d.u.
Multi -family 5.53
1329891
79348.87 6,158
d.u. 1.1934/d.u.
—�
Mobile home 0.94
1329891
1,249.17 993
d.u. 1.2580/d.u.
'
Commercial:
Local retail 1.25
132,891
1,661.14 822,030
s.f. 0.0020/s.f.
Regional retail 29.87
132*891
399694.54 39284,463
s.f. 0.0121/s.f.
Office/Misc. 8.14
132,891
10,817.33 79727,862
s.f. 0.0014/s.f.
Restaurant 12.30
132,891
16,345.58 587,899
s.f. 0.0278/s.f.
—'
Hotel -
Industrial 3.64
-
132,891
- -
4,837.23 2,058,003
-
s.f. 0.0024/s.f.
Total 100.0%
$132,891.00
jw
26
Transient Occupancy Tax
The transient occupancy tax is derived from the City's six percent tax on the
room rates for hotel and motel rentals. Therefore, this revenue source is
allocated entirely to the hotel land use category. The allocation factor is
calculated as the average revenue per room (in 1982-83: $1,950,000 divided by
1,533 rooms, is $1,256 per room). As an alternative, greater accuracy could
be achieved if the actual projected room rental rates for a proposed hotel are
known, and actual revenues are• projected on a case study basis using average
occupancy rates, the projected room rental rates, and the City's six percent
—, tax rate to develop an allocation factor per room.
Franchises
Franchise fee revenues are received by the City from certain businesses for
_ the right to utilize public rights of way (electric, gas, cable television,
etc.) and are derived from all land uses. Therefore, this revenue source is
distributed using the General Land Use Distribution Method. Allocation fac-
tors are determined directly to dwelling units for residential, on a square
footage basis for commercial and industrial uses, and by rooms for hotels.
Sales Tax
— Sales tax is second only to property taxes as the largest general City operat-
ing revenue source (approximately 22 percent of the total). Together, prop-
erty taxes and sales tax amount to nearly half the City's general operating
—' revenue. For this reason, the Fiscal Impact Analysis system has used a speci-
fic case study approach for property tax revenue allocation (described ear-
lier). Similarly, sales tax allocations are determined on the basis of a
careful, detailed analysis which results in the development of allocation fac-
'tors for sales tax revenue.
A principal issue to be resolved in allocating sales tax revenue to new devel-
opment involves the question of whether additional sales tax receipts are
"sales newly captured" for the City (which would otherwise be sales outside
—, the City) or whether they are "sales transferred" (from other taxable sales
sources within the City). A detailed market analysis and survey of the vari-
ous taxable sales outlets in the City would be necessary to fully answer this
question. At present, the City has not conducted such an analysis and such
27
data is not maintained on an ongoing basis, therefore such an approach is not
presently practical for the ongoing operation of the Fiscal Impact Analysis
System. It is therefore necessary to analyze available data and make certain
assumptions regarding the allocation of sales tax revenue to the various land
uses.
Since all taxable sales are directly recorded by commercial, and to some
extent industrial uses, it could be argued that all sales tax should be allo-
cated to commercial and industrial uses. However, when sales are entirely of
a local nature (from City residents), increases in such sales outlets without
�a corresponding increase in City population, would merely result in "sales
'transferred" from one location in the City to another (perhaps to a closer or
more convenient store). Qn the other hand, other sales outlets derive their
sales on a regional or specialty basis, and by their nature, would generate
"sales newly captured" when locating within the City. To some extent, many
taxable sales outlets are a mixture of both, but lacking specific survey data
(which is not within the scope of this study), it is necessary to make certain
,generalisations based upon available data provided by the State Board of
Equalization (who collects and accounts for sales tax revenue) and assumptions
regarding the nature of the various land use categories.
First, it is necessary to determine the amount of sales tax revenue attribu-
table to each land use or type of business. It is also necessary to assign
sales tax revenue for each land use as to whether it is (1) locally generated
(sales transferred or generated by added population), or (2) sales newly cap-
tured (from outside the City or from local residents which would otherwise
make the purchase outside the City). With this and the previous discussion in
mind, the method for determining sales tax allocation factors for new develop-
ment is outlined as follows:
. Commercial - Local Retail: Historical sales tax data indicates
62.3 percent of City sales tax revenue is derived from retail out-
lets ($4,797,100 in 1982-83) of which local retail is estimated to
' be 20 percent ($959,420 estimated for 1982-83). The allocation
factor is determined as follows:
- Sales tax revenue of $1.1671 per square foot ($959,420
divided by 822,030 sq. ft.).
W
-, - Local• sales are estimated at 90 percent; non -local sales
-' at 10 percent.
- Alloc4tion factor is $0.1167/sq. ft. ($1:1671 x 10%).
Commercial - Regional Retail - This category includes specialty
and regional shopping center sales, which are estimated to be 80
percent ($3,837,680) of sales tax revenue from retail outlets.
The allocation factor is determined as follows:
- Sales tax revenue $1.1671 per square foot ($3,837,680
divided by 3,284,463 sq. ft.)
t4 - Local sales are estimated at 40% and non -local sales at
60%.
- Allocation factor is $0.7002/sq. ft. ($1.1671 x 60%).
Commercial —Office and Miscellaneous - Sales tax revenues from
outlets other than retail and restaurants have historically been
17.2 percent of total sales tax revenue ($1,324,400 in 1982-83).
Of this amount, office and miscellaneous land uses are estimated
to be 78.8 percent with the remainder being industrial. This
would amount to $1,043,627 based on 1982-83 budgeted sales tax
revenue, and the allocation factor is determined as follows:
- Sales tax revenue is $0.1363 per square foot ($1,043,627
divided by 7,657,749 sq. ft.).
- The distribution of local and non -local sales is assumed
to be the same as for regional retail, 40 percent local
and 60 percent non -local.
- Allocation factor is $0.0818 sq. ft. ($0.1363 x .60%).
Commercial - Restaurant - Historical sales tax data indicates that
20.5 percent of the City's total sales tax revenue is,derived from
restaurants of all types. Based on the 1982-83 fiscal year sales
tax budgeted amount, this would be $1,578,500 attributable to res-
taurants, and the allocation factor is determined as follows:
- Sales tax revenue is $2.6849/sq. ft. ($1,578,500 divided
by 587,899).
- Local sales are estimated at 40 percent and non -local at
60 percent.
- Allocation factor is $1.6110/sq. ft. ($2.6849 x 60%).
29
_'
Hotel - Unless a hotel or motel includes retail sales areas or
food and beverage facilities, sales tax revenue would be negligi-
ble. When development of a hotel includes a restaurant or retail
sales areas, the above allocation factors for restaurants or.retail '
sales should be applied to the appropriate square footage for the
use.
. Industrial - As noted earlier, historical data reveals that sales
tax revenues from types of businesses other than retail and res-
taurants amount to approximately 17.2 percent of total sales tax
revenue ($1,324,400 in 1982-83). Of this amount, the industrial
land use category is estimated to be 21.2 percent or $280,773 for
fiscal 1982-83. On this basis, the allocation factor for indus-
trial uses is determined as follows:
- Sales tax revenue is $0.1364/sq. ft. ($280,773 divided
by 2,058,003 sq. ft.).
- All revenue is assumed to be new sales captured or non -
local.
- Allocation factor is therefore $0.1364/sq. ft.
: Residential - As can be seen in the preceding analysis of commer-
cial and: industrial sales tax allocations, the portion of sales
tax revenue that is locally generated has not been allocated to
the commercial land uses since that portion would increase only in
proportion to increased purchases by local residents. Therefore,
the local portion of commercial sales tax revenue is allocated to
residential uses on a per capita basis and applied to the popula-
tion per dwelling unit of the residential categories. This is
summarized as follows:
- Commercial sales tax revenue which is locally generated
is approximately $3,450,006 or $52.80 per capita.
- The per capita amount is converted to dwelling units for -
residential categories as follows:
-'
30
Category
Single family
Duplex
Multi -family
Mobile Home
Property Transfer Tax
Pop./D.U.
Per Capita
Allocation/D.U.
2.41
$52.80
$127.2480
1.82
52.80
96.0960
1.31
52.80
69.1680
1.38
52.80
72.8640
Property transfer revenues are received by the City on the basis of $0.255 per
$500 value of real property that is transferred (sold). This revenue source
is applicable to all land uses and is distributed using the General Land Use
Distribution Method. Allocation factors are determined directly to dwelling
•units for residential, on a square footage basis for commercial and industrial
uses, and by rooms for hotels.
LICENSES AND PERMITS
The revenue distribution and allocation factors for the four categories under
this general revenue source are determined as follows:
Business License Fees - Are attributable to all but the residential land use
,categories. Revenue is distributed proportionately to commercial, industrial,
,and hotel uses on an acreage basis, and allocation factors determined on a
`square footage basis for commercial and industrial use, and by rooms for
hotels.
Investigation Fees - Are distributed using the General Land Use Distribution
Method. Allocation factors are determined directly to dwelling units for res-
idential, by square footage for commercial and industrial uses, and by rooms
}for hotels.
Vending Machine Fees - Are attributable only to the commercial, industrial,
and hotel uses, and are distributed proportionately among those uses on an
acreage basis. Allocation factors are determined on,a square footage basis
for commercial and industrial uses, and by rooms for hotels.
31
Bicycle Licenses - Are attributable only to the residential land use cate-
gories. Allocation factors are determined by population to dwelling unit.
Dog and Cat Licenses - Are attributable to the residential categories only.
Allocation factors are determined by population to dwelling units.
Building Permits - This revenue is derived from all land use categories and is
therefore distributed using the General Land Use Distribution Method. Alloca-
tion factors are determined directly to dwelling units for residential and by
square footage for Commercial and Industrial uses.
REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
This revenue source is distributed using the General Land Use Distribution
Method since it is generally proportionate to increases in revenue from all
land uses. Allocation factors are directly allocated to dwelling units for
residential, by square footage for commercial and industrial, and by rooms for
hotels.
REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
Most of the revenues under this category are revenue subventions or reimburse-
ments from the State. The methods for distributing revenues to land uses and
determining allocation factors are summarized as follows:
State Highway Reimbursement - Is distributed using the General Land Use Dis-
tribution Method. Allocation factors are directly allocated to dwelling units
for residential, by square footage for commercial and industrial uses, and by
rooms for hotels. Since this revenue would not likely increase as a result of
additional development, allocation factors are used only for the average cost/
revenue analysis, and no allocation is used for marginal cost/revenue analysis.
Motor Vehicle License Fees - The City receives a portion of the revenue from
State vehicle license fees that is levied as a tax "in -lieu" on the value of
the vehicle. The State distributes this revenue to Cities on a per capita
basis, therefore this revenue is distributed only to residential land uses.
Allocation factors are calculated on a population to dwelling unit basis.
1 32
Trailer Coach Fees - This revenue is derived from annual license fees on
existing mobile homes. For purposes of analyzing existing land uses, this
revenue is therefore distributed only to the residential - mobile home cate-
gory. No allocation is made for new development, since under State law, all
new mobile hones are taxed as property (included in property tax revenue) and
are no longer subject to the license fees.
Homeowner's Exemption Reimbursement - This revenue is received as a reimburse-
ment from the State for the amount of property tax revenue that is lost to
cities as a result of the State's limited exemption on'residential property
that is owner -occupied. Therefore, this revenue source is distributed only to
residential land uses which are owner -occupied. Allocation factors are deter-
mined directly to dwelling units for only owner occupied units, which are
assumed to be primarily the single family category for existing land uses.
The Revenue Worksheets for the fiscal impact analysis system provide for the
homeowners exemption revenue factor to be added. for residential development
other than single family when it is expected to be owner -occupied, e.g. multi-
family condominium units. For purposes of the Fiscal Impact Analysis System,.
Homeowner's Exemption revenue applicable to the General Fund, Park and Recrea-
tion Fund, and Library Fund have been combined under this category.
Business Inventory Exemption - This revenue is received as a reimbursement
from the State for revenues lost to local government as a result of the
State's exemption of business inventories from the property tax. Therefore,
this revenue source is distributed only to the commercial, industrial, and
hotel uses. Allocation factors are determined on a square footage basis for
commercial and industrial, and by rooms for hotels. For purposes of simplify-
ing the Fiscal Impact Analysis System, Business Inventory Exemption revenue
applicable to the General Fund, Park and Recreation Fund, and the Library Fund
have been combined under this category.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
The City's budget identifies nine revenue categories under this general rev-
enue source. All of these revenue categories are attributable to all three
major land uses and are distributed to each using the General Land Use Distri-
bution Method. Allocation factors are determined directly to dwelling units
for residential uses, on a square footage basis for commercial and industrial
uses, and by rooms for hotels.
33
-, OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUE
Under this general revenue category are a variety of other miscellaneous gen-
eral fund revenue sources which are generally applicable to all land uses.
Therefore, the General Land Use Distribution Method is used and allocation
factors are determined directly to dwelling units for residential, on a square
footage basis for commercial and industrial, and by rooms for hotels.
PARK AND RECREATION FUND
The several revenue categories listed for this fund in Table III-1 are all
attributable to residential land uses only, and allocation factors are deter-
mined on the basis of population to dwelling units. The allocation factor for
Corona Del Mar fees is not applicable to new development because the beach is
presently used at essentially full capacity and additional development would
not significantly increase total useage.
LIBRARY FUND
Revenues listed for this fund in Table III-1 are attributable only to the
residential uses. Allocation factors are determined on the basis of popula-
tion to dwelling units.
' FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND
For existing land uses, this revenue source is distributed using the General
Land Use Distribution Method. However, for, new development, this revenue is
not allocated since there is not a direct relationship, and revenue from this
source will not likely increase significantly as a result of development.
s STATE GASOLINE TAX FUNDS
This fund includes the several categories of State subventions which are pro-
vided to cities primarily on a per capita basis. Therefore, -this revenue
source is distributed entirely to residential and allocation factors are
determined on a population to dwelling unit basis.
134
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING FUND
—, This revenue source is received as a grant from the County for maintenance and
improvement of arterial highways within the City. For existing land uses,
—' this revenue is distributed using the General Land Use Distribution Method.,
However, no allocation is made for new development since new development would
not likely increase the City's arterial highways in sufficiently large amounts
to increase the average County grant to the City.
FINES, FORFEITURES AND PENALTIES FUND
—, This revenue source is distributed to each of the basic land uses using the
General Land Use Distribution Method. Allocation factors are determined dir-
ectly to dwelling units for residential and on a square footage basis for com-
mercial and industrial uses.
PARKING METER FUND
—' Revenue of this fund is distributed to all of the land uses using the General
Land Use Distribution Method. This is on the assumption that users of the
parking facilities are not solely residents, but are instead from all areas.
Allocation factors are determined directly to dwelling units for residential,
—' on a square footage basis for commercial and industrial uses, and by rooms for
hotels. Not included in the total amount for distribution is $67,000 which is
transferred to a reserve for off-street parking, and is not applicable to City
General Operations. For new development (marginal cost/revenue analysis) this
factor is not applied on the assumption that little or no increase would, re-
sult from new development. Since current metered parking spaces are at or
near saturation it is assumed that additional revenues would not result from
—' 'additional development as much as from additional metered parking areas. Fur-
" ther, much of the parking meter revenue is derived from non-residents.
—' ITIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS FUND
The various fees and charges, which provide revenue to this fund are primarily
received from users of the City's beach and marine facilities. Studies of the
Marine Department's activities indicate that a majority of these users are
from outside the City (see Chapter IV). Therefore; these revenues are of a
general nature and are therefore apportioned among all three basic land uses
*35
i
-, using the General Jand Use Distribution Method for analysis of existing land
uses. However, since additional, new development within the City would not
likely increase revenues to this fund, no allocation is made for new
development.
BUILDING EXCISE TAX FUND
Revenue of this fund is distributed proportionately using the General Land Use
Distribution Method. Allocation factors are determined directly to dwelling
units• for residential uses, on a square footage basis for commercial and
industrial uses, and by rooms for hotels.
Enterprise Fund Revenues, And Certain Other Revenues Are Not Included For Pur-
poses Of The Fiscal Impact Analysis System
As noted in the beginning of this chapter, Enterprise Revenue for the Water
Fund and Marinapark Fund are not included (nor are expenditures of these
funds) on the basis that these enterprises are self -funding and would not be
affected by development. Similarly, the Contributions Fund revenue is not -in-
cluded since this revenue is primarily received from developers to finance
construction of facilities required to serve development. Likewise, the cost
of these new construction capital improvements are not included since the
-' City's policy is that development will finance all infrastructure, capital
improvement costs required to serve new development.
36
A
-1
-i
CHAPTER IV
COST ALLOCATION FACTORS
Annual Budgeted Expenditures For General City Operations Are Allocated To
Specific Land Uses
As with revenues, the Fiscal Impact Analysis System distributes the City's bud-
geted expenditures for general City operations to the various land use categor-
ies, and specific allocation factors are developed that relate applicable City
costs to new development. This Chapter develops the specific expenditure allo-
;;cation factors which are applied to new development along with the revenue
(allocation factors developed in Chapter III. Together, the revenue and expen-
diture allocation factors permit an overall analysis and assessment of the fis-
cal impact of various types of development, including both new and existing
land uses.
The allocation factors developed in this chapter represent all general City
operating expenditures, and do not include budgeted expenditures for Enterprise
Fund Operations which are self -funding and are therefore not included in the
Fiscal Impact Analysis System (see discussion on page 5). The approach for
allocating costs is similar to that used for allocating revenues (Chapter III)
in that both are based upon the general methodology outlined in Chapter II.
Budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year are distributed to the land
use categories using either the General Land Use Distribution Method, or the
Specific Land Use Analysis Method, as appropriate, pursuant to the criteria
outlined in Chapter II. The distribution method and the specific allocation
factors used for each department or expenditure category are based upon a thor-
ough analysis of City expenditures and extensive discussions with departmental
rrepresentatives regarding the nature and level of services provided to various
)land uses and areas of the City. These meetings also provided the basis for
the analysis of each department's expenditures to determine the proportion of
fixed and variable costs relative to the impact of new development in the City.
(see Appendix B for department expenditure profiles).
37
-' This chapter not only distributes departmental costs to each of the land use
—, categories, but also develops average and marginal cost allocation factors for
each general City operation expenditure. This information is summarized ini-
tially in Table IV-2 which provides a comprehensive listing of all expenditure
categories, allocation amounts to each major land use category, and specific
average and marginal cost allocation factors for the various types of develop-
ments.
—, Following Table IV-2, the remainder of this chapter discusses the methods used
for distributing each expenditure category or department to the basic land
—' fuses, and how the specific allocation factors were determined. Appendix A of
this report presents forms to be used by City staff to apply the expenditure
—' allocation factors to specific new development proposals in implementing the
Fiscal Impact Analysis System.
—, Expenditure Allocation Factors Are Developed On An Average Cost And Marginal
Cost Basis
—, As discussed in Chapter II, the various existing land uses in the City should
—, be analyzed using the average cost concept, which develops cost allocation
factors based on total costs for services and facilities. For new develop-
ment, only certain city costs would be affected, therefore, departmental costs
were analyzed (Appendix B) to determine what portions were fixed and variable
relative to development. The variable proportion (percent) summarized in Table
IM on the following page are then applied to the average cost allocation
factors for each department/division in Table IV-2 to determine marginal cost
allocation factors for new development. The new development (marginal cost)
allocation factors in Table IV-2, therefore represent the incremental cost in -
'creases that would be incurred by the City as new development occurs in the
,Fremaining vacant areas of the City.
f
—, 38
1
TABLE IV-1
Fixed Ana Variable Cost Distributions For General City Operations
Department/Catego
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
City Council
City Clerk
City Manager
Personnel
City Attorney
Finance-Admin. & Acctg.
Purch. & Warehousing
Finance -Data Processing
Gen. Serv.-Bldg. Maint.
Elections
Non -Departmental
Sub -Total: Gen. Govt.
1982-83 Fixed Costs Variable Costs
Total Budget �u�n - _ un
74,725
106,785
178,175
210,110
235.385
576,345
269,105
363,450
187,280
20,300
660 330
T7,881;99if
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police -Chief of Police
; 411,125
Police -.Administrative
1,745,965
Police -Patrol
4,748,690
Police -Traffic
1,271,265
Police -Detective
1,264895
Fire -Administrative
293,505
Fire -Suppression
3,987,930
Fire -Prevention
215,010
Fire -Eger. Medical
579,460
Planning
653,530
Marine
1,312,145
Building
BIB 895
Sub -Total: Pub. Safety 31-7;3DT,
PUBLIC WORKS
Pub. Wks.-Admin. & Eng. ; 912,775
Electrical 604,430
Gen. Serv.-Admin. 143,195
Gen. Serv.-Field Maint. 1,677,225
G.S: Traf. Signs & Mkgs. 223,010
Gen. Serv.-Refuse 1,025,625
Gen. Serv.-Equip. Maint. 512,755
Sewers 65.3,100
Traffic & Parking 439 245
Sub -Total: Public Works 3-3;191'360
LIBRARIES
Libraries ; 1,424,775
PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION
P.B. & R.-Admin. ; 99,850
P.B. & R.-Recreation 144,640
P.B. & R.-Parks 862,125
P.B. & R.-Rec. Self -Sup. 422,855.
P.B. & R.-Senior Citizens 113,680
P.B. & R.-Street Trees �,-4444 7I2.0�
Sub -Total: P.B. & R. ; c,uyu,niu
Balboa Yacht Basin j 134510
Oil and Gas ; 531,760
TOTAL: GEN. CITY OPER. $30,553,680
CAPITAL PROJECTS ; 4,110,612
100.0 j
74,725
100.0
106,785
100.0
178,175
100.0
210,110
100.0
236,385
79.9
460,735
100.0
269,105
100.0
363,450
44.3
82,907
96.9
640 015
-377 4
2,621;39.2
93.2 ; 383,355
86.7 1,512,910
7.4 349,330
1.8
22,635
2.5
31,700
100.0
293,505
i00.0
3,987,930
60.7
130,801
100.0
579,460
100.0
653,530
80.4
1,064,965
30.0
245 669
3-9,245'790
100.0 ;
912,775
25.9
156,586
100.0
143,195
5.0
83,477
1.0 10,170
3.3 16,955
20.5 133,720
67.9 298 165
Z8 3 $ ,155,'043
86.0 ; 1,224,650
100.0 ; 99,850
6.4 -9,265
1.2 10,635
7.3
8,290
5d 4
1321M
100.0 ;
132,510
100.0 ;
531,760
51.2 $15,644,030
21.8 ; 896,890
20.1 ; 115,610
65.7
104,373
100.0
20,300
3.1
20 315
-9 d S
60"598
6.8 ; 27,770
13.3 233,055
92.6 4,399,360
98.2 1,248,630
97.5 1,231,195
39.1 84,209
19.6 257,180
70.0 573 226
-T67. $ 8,054"625
74.1 ; 447,844
95.0
1,593,748
100.0
223,010
99.0
1,015,455
96.7
495.800
79.5
519,380
32.1
141 080
_"
?fib, 17
14.0 ; 200,125
93.6 j
135,375
98.8
851,490
100.0
422.855
92.7
105,390
98.9
442 875
M
5
48.8 ;14,909,650
78.2 ; 3,213,722
39
,.IEI
161sp . Ip IMrA T \i Y.1N.II..NIs
RIi 14nr.rYn4 vH.r.•iv[nYl
fM rnkniLV W.wvl�.
IM ��fw w41
Ir..vwf�aM
•1•tp61
rnt�.
iw �•r
s CvTilnrc�ii�o'6iaR.r—
�r4
1!i•'�
•aSLL
"1'�3.4
r
LJS®.
LG �'IVT%�.�.ran.�
f RN
t Ep
;_
New
/..wnw~r>m
EKE;:
Ea.
p
.n_n
is
Us
O
� E
Lwn
a.p
ffi
iNrri
-
,A.
_
i�
Ypwi
Ymffii
JA.nI
ffi
M�
ffi
aY
Y
:}F
I.b lti
xp
_
_
IA•+Aa
•.
_
•@
_
IL•Fn
..mnl
Lo
sa
LIaiN
.LY
fA
iN
A
s
.FOr A
r
'ie
Ifi
t
Y\
it
li
.Ip
VIfM
rrw...r
f..S
r4rA.r
_ m
1.95
1AR
J:JS
J•L4
t!C }i
�lE �E
�R
S.p•
�lE
�..[t
'
�1C
CIS _Af:
_
��.
}f
�L�
Ln
_ A
6
1-
f!}.1N
\1JLf
f6i
f6B
f6�
SEw
1 4/N \ LNV f
LIp 1
LRt
f p.p
AN
JN
i 1N
i
Y
}a
yf
f 111}
\ Y
4 i
/ aF
l RYI\
t LTa
Ir w1�vn YnVIR.. bwl
.rM=M
pmf
Lpt
Ofn
Mn
R.NI
m
AI
IY.
Jv
vi9
IY
.N
Tla
aiv
v
Ira
.Nu
.m
q
ir.l.n
_
I.r.Fw
vlw.
illill
N...
v na
aE"'
}!N
A!n
An
rl
.w
T. 4Y
n l'i�
n7d
4""'...
Lim
IRE
—
O
—
_
N
�+•
:�
�wiM of
NN
v.rFv
u�
r1A
12a Ma
Im
IAv
M
arrQ��
B,
i.9.
iro
-
w.T.l'
NM
Imlw
u.O
uo
.
vLra
a
AN
.nn
_
_
_
_
n
m
-
Ar
fAv
-
NMh
WiR.n
taFA\
t N.YN
I n1Nr
t a/)M
t R.NII
/ 10.1N1 t Ab 3
NAa {
p.4Y
/41aF
a
a
.WI la
Aa
.RI
a
1!p
t n..IN
i .IY
1 AN
f N.wf
I p.W
I N1Y
Ihwrbtif�nl
.\4
Wr
O
ml1m.
m4uv.
aRm.
Y
SEE
nRIN.
nerW.
ntwl.
iai.ln
TOE
_
rN
_ !
xu11p \wa.
m.m
1lvY
�o
IA a�iH
IR�•
w
Nnl�•
IWOrriW
wntisf•
YW_
low
UnrOL!
niM-W.
IM'u
-N.
to qu•• NnxNii•
ninw•
Y
Rr �•
an uN•
mits m
.v'.nN
rLr'C
>s-11n
nR+A•
.IL!
. ..4a
•.!w
JIIA
�LIILL'
�iL101'
�WIU!
SO.LTt
_O.ItS �9.ILT
J9.115
�.L'T
Jam.!
IIiLIR
N1.LL
_IDL11S Sll.Wt'
�n
1.LLY•
�IJ.Y
J1WlA'
J'�R
_N).VP
Jr'.LY
�'.•.6
r
�fS
f4Fi
/4\NM
®JL
u.ip
ivA.A fvRv W nR!
S1vRY!
NF'ni
npAw•
Y. �JA•
R1Lp1•
WRpe•
WRYP
�.M•
WA.
�a
\ Nlr
/Ivrl.l!
t�wT wv lali[�.�
/
-
_
-
-
_
i
• 4.ML �I
NF
f R}
LTY
f
IN
X
w
Tn
LTn
LAY
_
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1�_Ilnt
URSI
BE
=iair
'^'l
m.N
�C R
1IYi2['
_lil�Af'
�L• 3!•
52=1 JLI'vJ.' _,Mu
_L.2'45'
JQ�CI'
_Il2fY1•
Miller,y.M1
yy.4'
�2�'l'
�•.1g
�Yilll'
S1m'
lumv
""1
{ n}
{nnlR•
3
taRwa
1..n.0 \.. r.R.
1 aun
i .:
i awa
\ n.,N
f am\
I NF
1 xWr
/ 1.M
t xW1
1 1Wr
_ _
_
_
• nF
a
a
a }4
_
_
_
_
1 SF
1 ffi
-
/ IAL
I .o
-
RAs
1 NA1
/ A}\
1 L.Hv
\ ll!!
1 II.IC
{ Illo
1 WA
a
Af
N Af
3 M4
/ a
-
t tM
• LHa
-
Una f. li
1 r..r..s f Rn..
f 11w
1 lO..
1 N Pn
f T.10 1 T Ip i
T.Ip f
n.fp
4 Y.N
r..r`i:
f
f pa
1 vLrw
{NSA
NJYI
R.Ip
RFa
�
-
7-
-
-
1we.n. rev.
_
-
-
1pILT
4NILif. vaKva• INLLm.
Rrp --A,
_
tlXTa•
_
a11Vp•
-
-
-
x\H\R.
mZ.-
rMLrw�
- 46—
aMA>
np nn•
pw-nN
nr.-+W
=
mm'ee•
.Mille
-
_
u rrwi
ndnn•
1.1 ur � �f nw.YmT s.. wr L.n1 �r
w w.w+Y.rr4 ns
r.wa all...
�N M1. mn.n.nW n4.w
n.� ay.n.nnnx nh Mw..•
Iv�M vl M Yrnu.nw. w.n...nN..�
vV .a Mp.n�n uvw.
n�nNeu aTa
+�n�. n rMeln �M..n. .n
0
-1
Cost Allocation Factors Are Based Upon An Analysis Of Each Department -And
Division
.The remainder of this chapter presents for each expenditure category a discus-
sion of the analysis and methodology for distributing expenditures to each of
the basic land uses, and determining appropriate cost allocation factors. In
general, cost allocation factors are determined on a dwelling unit basis for
residential land use categories, using either the "directely to dwelling unit"
basis, or "population to dwelling unit basis" as described for allocating rev-
enues in Chapter III. Commercial and industrial land use categories are allo-
cated on a square footage basis, and hotels are allocated on a per room basis.
(
In some cases, certain costs are allocated on the basis of street miles in
order to enhance the accuracy of the' Fiscal Impact Analysis System. The ori-
ginal Fiscal Impact Analysis System developed in 1976 noted that a number of
City costs might be allocated more accurately on a street mile basis, but for
various reasons (including simplicity) did not allocate any costs• on the basis
of street miles. This study has also recognized the desirability of allocat-
ing certain costs on the basis of street miles and has. developed appropriate
allocation factors to do so.
Discussions with City staff and our analysis of the various costs of each de-
partment revealed that most costs of the Public Works and General Services de-
partments (except refuse disposal) relate more closely to street miles than to
the other units of measure to which cost allocation factors are applied (square
feet, dwelling units, hotel rooms). This is true also of street tree mainten-
ance costs of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. For example, the
number of street lights to be maintained in residential areas relate to the
miles of streets upon which they are installed, and not the number of dwelling
units. That is, a high rise residential multi -family building with 50 dwelling
units would have the same number of street lights on the adjoining street as
would a few single family dwelling units. Therefore, the cost for street
lights is a function of the amount of street miles added by development rather
than the type or quantity of development adjacent to the street miles, and
street miles is the unit of measure most appropriate for this cost. Similarly,
street maintenance costs are primarily a function of the amount (miles) of
streets to be maintained rather than other units of measure (dwelling units,
square feet or hotel rooms).
41
Therefore for these types of costs, City staff will determine the increase in
street miles (or fractions thereof) required by development and apply the
appropriate street mile cost allocation factors. For all other costs, dwell-
ing units, square footage and hotel rooms will be determined and applied to
the appropriate cost allocation 'factors. The forms provided in Appendix A pro-
vide a simple means of recording and calculating costs using these allocation
factors. The following presents a more specific discussion of the methods
used for developing cost allocation factors for each of the General City Oper-
ations expenditure categories as well as applicable capital project expendi-
tures.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
aThe analysis of all eleven expenditure categories or departments listed as
General Government in Table IV-2 indicate that all are applicable City-wide,
proportionate to all land uses. Therefore, these budgeted expenditures are
distributed using the General Land Use Distribution Method (adjusted percent
of total acreage for each basic land use). Cost allocation factors were
determined directly to dwelling units for residential use categories, and on a
square footage basis for commercial and industrial uses. For new development,
the average cost allocation factors were adjusted by the percentage of expen-
ditures which are variable (as shown in Table IV-1) to determine marginal cost
allocation factors.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Within this general category are expenditures for the Police, Fire, Planning,
Marine, and Building Departments. The analysis for each of these is presented
as follows:
Police Services
The Police Department maintains records of crime reports by certain land use
categories, and by geographic areas of the City. These data for 1982 were
analyzed, and certain conclusions or assumptions can be drawn regarding the
relationship of police activity to the land use categories of the Fiscal Im-
pact Analysis System. These are summarized by Table IV-3 as follows:
1 42
TABLE IV-3
1981 Police
Crime Reports Specified By Land
Use
'
Percent Of
Percent Of
Reports For
Reports For
Land Use
Number
All Uses
Basic Land Uses
Residential:
Single Family
1,002
32.5%
35.1%
Duplex
230
7.5
8.1
Apartment
389
12.6
13.6
Other
50
1.6
1.8
h Sub -Total: Residential
1,671
54.3%
58.6%
r '
Commercial:
Store/Retail
591
19.2
20.7
Office
163
5.3
5.7
Bank
83
2.7
2.9
Restaurant
262
8.5
9.2
Sub -Total
1,099
35.7%
38.5%
Hotel/Motel
77
2.5%
2.7%
Industrial
6
0.2%
0.2%
TOTAL: BASIC USES
2,853
92.7%
100.0%
General/Public:
Parks
11
0.4
Piers/Docks
93
3.0
Beaches
122
4.0
Sub -Total: General
226
7.3%
TOTAL: ALL USES
3079
100.0%
43
As can be seen from Table IV-2, of the total crimes reported by land use in
—' 1981, approximately 54.3 percent were for residential, 35.7 percent for com-
mercial, 2.5 percent for hotels, and 0.2.percent industrial, and 7.3 percent
—, for general/public uses (parks, beaches and piers). It should be noted that
the data for each land use is maintained by the Police Department on the basis
of crime reports rather than calls for services. Crime reports were considered
to be a reasonable reflection of Police activity by land use. These data were
therefore considered to be a more accurate basis for distributing Police Costs
to the basic land uses rather than utilizing the proportionate Land Use Distri-
bution Method. In order 'to distribute costs to the four basic land use cate-
gories, the percentages were adjusted as applicable to the data for only those
four land uses.
—� The allocation factors for Police expenditures were determined, after distri-
buting costs to the four basic land uses. Factors were calculated directly to
dwelling units for residential land use categories, on a square footage basis
for commercial and industrial uses and by rooms for hotels. The average allo-
cation factors were then adjusted by the variable cost percentages as shown in
Table IV-1 to determine new development (marginal) cost allocation factors.
—' Fire Protection
The Fire Department maintains data that indicates the number of various types
—� of responses annually by geographic reporting districts in the City. These
reporting districts are essentially the same as those recorded by the Police
Department. However, data are not maintained by land use, therefore, the Fire
Department activity cannot be readily identified by land use.
Unlike Police services, the deployment of Fire personnel and equipment is
basically on a fixed basis in order to maintain response time capability from
the fire stations throughout the City. Discussions with Fire Department staff
resulted in a conclusion that fire service costs reflect the maintenance of
—' response capability throughout the City, even if there were little or no actual
fire activity. Similarly, the Fire Department's present deployment is consid-
ered adequate to serve all areas of the City, including the in -fill development
_S of remaining vacant areas of the City. (It should be noted however that a1=
though fire services are considered adequate at this time, the City General
IPlan provides for an additional fire station on the Banning site, should it
-1 - 44
prove necessary.) For these reasons, Fire Department expenditures are distri-
buted proportionately throughout existing land uses using the General Land Use
Distribution Method. Average cost allocation factors for existing land uses
are determined directly to dwelling units for residential, on a.square footage
basis for commercial and industrial uses, and by rooms for hotels. Marginal
cost allocation factors are developed only for the Fire Prevention Division
were costs were determined to be 39.1 percent variable. Other Fire Divisions
were determined to be on a fixed deployment basis with no variable costs rela-
tive to the remaining development areas within the City. In fact, further
in -fill of remaining vacant areas could potentially cause the unit cost to
decrease as the same fire station could serve more units within its 'response
area and economies of scale would result.
Planning
Discussions with Planning Department staff and an analysis of planning activi-
ties and staffing indicate that services are of a City-wide nature and gen-
erally benefit all land uses. Therefore, the Department's expenditures are
apportioned among the basic land uses by the General Land Use Distribution
Method. Also, since
staffing and
other department costs have not historically
varied significantly
relative to
the amount of new development, the Depart-
ment's expenditures
are considered fixed, with no marginal cost allocation
factors. Average cost allocation
factors were developed for existing land use
categories directly
to dwelling
units for residential, on a square footage
basis for commercial
and industrial uses, and by rooms for hotels.
Marine Department
Marine Department expenditures are entirely applicable to residential land'use
categories. For purposes of allocating expenditures to existing land uses,
W average cost allocation factors are developed on a population to dwelling unit
basis. That is, per capita amounts are developed based on the City's total
population and then multiplied by the appropriate average population per
dwelling unit for each of the residential land use categories (see Tables
III-5 in Chapter III).
45
With respect to new development it is important to recognize not only the por-
tion of the Marine Department's budget which is variable relative to develop-
ment (79.4%), but also to adjust for the proportion of the department's acti-
vity that is applicable to Newport Beach residents (24.7%). An analysis of
the Department's budget reveals that approximately 79.4 percent of the budget
is for the Marine Safety Division and would be affected by new development;
the remainder of the budget is for the Tidelands Operations Division which
would not be affected by development and is a relatively fixed cost. Of the
79.4 percent which is variable, only a portion (24.7%) is attributable to City
residents based upon an analysis of the Division's activity over the last three
years. Therefore, to arrive at a marginal cost allocation applicable to new
residential development, the amount of variable cost was adjusted by the per-
centage applicable to City residents (79.4% x 24.7% = 19.6%). A variable cost
percentage of 19.6 percent is applied to the average cost allocation factor to
determine the marginal cost factor for new development. This factor is deter-
mined on a population to dwelling unit basis applicable to residential use
categories only. The following demonstrates the calculation of allocation
factors for The Marine Department on a population to dwelling unit basis:
. Per Capita amount is total budget divided by City's total popula-
tion.
$1,312,145 - 65,312 = $209.09/capita
. Allocation factors are per capita multiplied by population per
dwelling unit.
Marginal
Population Per Capita Average Factor
Use Category Per Unit x Amount = Factor 19.6%
Single family 2.41' $20.09 $48.4169 $9.4897
Duplex 1.82 20.09 36.5638 7.1665
Multi -family 1.31 20.09 26.3179 5.1583
Mobile Home 1.38 20.90 27.7242 5.4339
Building Department
Building Department inspection staff are assigned by areas of the City, and
—� services are generally applicable to all land uses, therefore, costs are
apportioned using the General Land Use Distribution Method. The amount of new
Ili _' . 46
_I ' development would have a significant effect on expenditures of this depart-
ment. Discussions with the Building
Department Director and a detailed analy-
sis of Department expenditures (Appendix B) indicates that
approximately 70
percent of the department's costs
are variable relative to
development and
this amount is therefore applied to
the Department's average
cost allocation
for existing land uses to determine
the marginal cost allocation factor for
new development.
PUBLIC WORKS
' Included in this general category of City General Operations are the two divi-
sion of the Public Works Department, five of the six divisions of the General
Services Department (Building maintenance is under the General Government cat-
egory), and the Electrical and Sewer Budgets. In general, the expenditures of
each of these budgets are applicable city-wide and are, therefore, apportioned
to existing land uses using the Land Use Distribution method. One exception
is the General Services -Refuse Budget which is applicable only to the residen-
tial single family and duplex land use categories, since commercial and indus-
trial refuse service is primarily provided by private companies.
Average allocation factors for existing development are determined directly to
dwelling units for residential land use categories, on a square footage basis
for commercial and industrial, and by rooms for hotels. Discussions with
department staff and an analysis of the nature of these expenditures indicate
that the most accurate method for allocating costs to new development would be
based on street miles, since the increase in costs would correlate most closely
to the amount of street miles added by development. Again the exception is
for the Refuse Collection Budget, where costs are allocated to existing and
new development directly to dwelling units. Marginal cost allocation for all
Public Works Budgets for new development are based upon the variable costs,
determined in Appendix B. and summarized in Table IV-1 (Chapter II).
LIBRARIES
Library expenditures have been assigned entirely to the residential land use
categories on a per capita basis. The average per capita cost is allocated to
each residential land use category on a population to dwelling unit basis.
—, Marginal cost allocation factors are also determined on a population to
dwell-ing unit basis and the amount of variable costs relative to•new development.
_' 47
Discussions with the Library Director and an analysis of Department expendi-
ture accounts (Appendix B) indicate only approximately 14 percent of the De-
partment's expenditures would be variable relative to new development. There-
fore the marginal cost factor for new development is relatively small since
most Library facilities are presently in place that would be necessary to serve
this remaining development within the City.
PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION
-� Expenditures of all but the Street Trees Division Budget are primarily appli-
cable to the residential land uses and are allocated on a per capita basis to
the population per dwelling unit of each residential category. The exception
is for the Street Trees Division Budget where expenditures are applicable
City-wide to all land uses and correlate most closely to street miles. There-
fore, the Street Trees budget expenditures are apportioned using the General
Land Use Distribution Method, and average allocation factors for existing land
uses are on a street miles basis for residential, commercial, industrial, and
hotel uses. Marginal cost factors for new development are based on the vari-
able costs for each division budget (see Appendix B, or Table IV-1), and are
allocated on the basis of street miles for new development.
BALBOA YACHT BASIN/OIL AND GAS
The expenditures for both the Balboa Yacht Basin and the Oil and Gas budget
categories are considered to be of City-wide benefit, therefore, these expen-
ditures are apportioned using the General Land Use Distribution Method. Allo-
cation factors are determined only for existing land uses with no allocation
for new development since the expenditures would.not likely increase as a
result of new development in the City.
CAPITAL PROJECTS - MAJOR MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION
Included within the Fiscal Impact Analysis System are expenditures in the
Capital Improvement Projects Budget for maintenance and reconstruction of the
City's infrastructure. Expenditures for new facilities or additional capital
J projects are not included since it is the City's policy that new development
will finance the cost of any new infrastructure facilities required to serve
new development. This is typically accomplished by the developer constructing
48
the facilities or providing financial contributions (which have likewise not
been included).
Once constructed, new facilities become a continuing responsibility of the
City to maintain. Therefore the annual maintenance costs of these* facilities
have been included and are allocated to new development for all General City
Operations. Similarly, the periodic major maintenance and reconstruction
expenditures in the Capital Projects budget have also been included. The
amount of these expenditures is based upon an analysis, prepared in conjunction
i with Public Works Department staff, of these expenditures for the last three
lil I! years which are as follows:
TABLE IV-4
MAJOR MAINTNENACE AND RECONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS
(excludes gas tax expenditures)
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 3 Year Average
$297539870 $292589770 $2,2749125 $294289722
As can be seen in Table IV-3, these major maintenance and reconstruction costs
can vary somewhat from year to year due to the periodic nature of some of these
projects; therefore, for purposes of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Syste, a three-
year average is used. To this, an amount is added for the miscellaneous proj-
ects and studies (such as planning studies and improvements to existing City
facilities) which are budgeted in the current year ($896,890 in 1982-83). Also
J added is an amount equal to the City's gasoline tax revenue for the current
fiscal year, which is used for construction and maintenance of City streets
and highways ($785,000 in 1982-83). Together, these expenditures are as fol-
lows:
s
Capital Project Expenditures Amount
Major Maintenance & Reconstruction $29428,722
Miscellaneous Projects & Studies 896,890
Gasoline Tax Expenditures 785,000
Total $4,110,612
_1
_1 49
i
This amount is apportioned to all land uses using the General Land Use Distri-
bution Method. Only the Miscellaneous Projects and Studies amount ($896,890
or 21.8%) is considered as a fixed cost relative to development, with the
remainder being variable and applicable for determining the marginal cost
allocation factors for new development. Allocation factors for existing and
new development are on a dwelling unit basis for residential and square foot-
age basis for commercial and industrial uses.
50
1.1
-1
CHAPTER V
IMPLEMENTING AND UPDATING THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Use Of The Fiscal Impact Analysis System Involves The Application Of Revenue
And Cost Factors To Four Types Of Data
The fiscal impact analysis system has been designed to facilitate the use of
the system for analysis by City staff. Toward this end, cost and revenue fac-
tors have been developed for each of the major land use, and refined so that
they can be applied to four basic units of measure. In this way, City staff
needs to obtain only four types of data, and an estimate of the value of the
proposed improvements. The four basic types of data include the following:
. Square footage, for:
- Commercial development
- Industrial development
. Hotel rooms, for hotel development
. Dwelling units for residential development of:
- Single family
- Duplex
- Multi -family
- Mobile home
. Street miles added for development of:
- Residential
- Commercial
- Hotel
- Industrial
In the preceding chapters, specific cost factors have been developed (Chapter
IV) as well as revenue factors (Chapter III) that can be applied, as appropri-
ate to each of the preceding four types of data which City staff must deter-
mine for etch proposed development as indicated. The only additional .deter-
mination required is an estimate of the value of improvements, on a case study
basis, in order to most accurately estimate property tax revenues relative to
the requirements of Proposition 13 and related statutes.
51 -
A Series Of Forms Have Been Developed To Assist City Staff In Implementing And
Updating The Fiscal Impact Analysis System
Appendix A to this report presents a series of forms which have been developed
to facilitate implementation and updating the Fiscal Impact Analysis System.
The methodologies and allocation factors developed in the preceding chapters
have been used and refined into a set of forms which permit staff to merely
enter the key basic data (described earlier) and make simple calculations
(multiplication and addition) that will provide the analysis of fiscal impact
for each of the basic types of land use development. The forms presented in
Appendix A are self-explanatory, but should be used only after reviewing the
methodology and explanations provided in this report. The forms to be used in
`implementing the Fiscal Impact Analysis System include the following:
. Form 1: SUMMARY - provides for a general description of the
development project being analyzed, and presents a summary (by
type of development) of costs, revenues, and the net revenue sur-
plus or deficit.
. Form 2a: Revenue Worksheet-Residential - provides a worksheet for
identifying estimated revenues, by each major revenue source and
total revenues for residential development.
. Form 2b: Revenue Works heet-Commercial - provides a method of cal-
culating, for each type of commercial development, the revenues to
be derived from each major revenue source and an overall total
revenue.
. Form 2c: Revenue Worksheet-Hotel - provides for a specific cal-
culation of revenues to be derived from hotel development based
primarily upon the number of rooms to be built.
. Form 2d: Revenue Worksheet- Industrial - provides for calculation
of estimated revenues to be derived from development of industrial
land uses.
52
Form 3a: Cost Works heet -Resi den ti al - applies cost factors for
all General City operations to appropriate unit measures of dwell-
ing units or street miles to calculate total cost estimates for
residential development.
Form 3b: Cost Worksheet-Industrial, Commercial and Hotel,- applies
' cost factors for each of these types of development to calculate
total costs, as appropriate, on the basis of square footage, street
miles, or hotel rooms..
I
t In addition to the preceding forms, a "Departmental Cost Profile Worksheet" is
provided for use by City staff in annually updating the Fiscal Impact Analysis
System relative to the current years adopted final budget.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis System Should Be Updated Annually After Adoption Of
The Final Fiscal Year Budget
' As explained in Chapter II, the Fiscal Impact Analysis System is based upon
the current fiscal year's budget in order to reflect current service level
costs and revenue sources. Therefore, it is necessary to update the System
(calculate revised cost and revenue factors) annually based upon the adopted
final budget for each fiscal year. Updated cost and revenue factors should be
developed using the same methodologies as described in Chapters III and IV of
this report. The tables in these chapters provide illustrative examples of
how the factors are developed. In addition, Appendix B presents in detail,
the calculation of fixed and variable costs for each City Department (Appendix
A includes a form for City staff to use in conducting the analysis of City
budgeted expenditures).
As an overall guide, the following process outline presents a general descrip-
tion of how to update the Fiscal Impact Analysis System.
-r 53
Table V-1
_1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
UPDATE PROCESS OUTLINE
I. Determine Cost/Revenue Distribution Factors
A. Determine Current Major Land Use Distribution
1. Determine distribution. of total acres within City by residen-
tial, commercial, industrial and hotel land uses.
2. Calculate acreage distribution as a percentage for residential,
commercial, industrial and hotel.
B. Determine factor allocation measures for the categories within each
major land use.
1. Residential dwelling units and average population/unit for:
a. Single family
b. Duplex (2-4)
c. Multi -family
d. Mobile home
e. Total residential
2. Commercial = square feet for:
a. Retail -local
b. Retail -regional
c. Office
d. Restaurant
e. Hotel
f. Miscellaneous
g. Total commercial
3. Industrial = square feet
4. Street miles are used for certain Public Works expenditures and
:t the Street Trees budget.
J II. Calculate Revenue Allocation Factors
A. For each revenue category, determine the percentage and amount
' attributable to each land use category (See Chapter III for method-
ology).
J
1 54
B. Calculate the revenue allocation factors by applying the revenue
amounts for each land use category to the appropriate factor alloca-
tion measure as identified in I.B. above and described in Chapter
III (in most cases the revenue allocation factor = revenue amount
divided by the allocation measure).
Calculate Cost Allocation Factors
A.
For each department/budget unit, determine percentage and amount of
cost that is fixed and that is variable (see Departmental Cost Pro-
file Worksheet).
B.
For each department/budget unit, determine percentage and amount of
total cost and variable cost that is attributable to each land use
category, as appropriate, using either of the fol'lowing (See Chapter
IV):
1. Land Use Distribution Method, or
2. Actual Cost Analysis Method
C.
Calculate the average and marginal cost allocation factors for each
department/budget unit by applying the total cost and variable cost
amounts for each land use category to the appropriate factor alloca-
tion measure as identified in I.B. above and described in Chapter
IV. In most cases, this would be determined as follows:
1. Average Cost Allocation Factor = total cost for land use divided
by the allocation measure.
2. Marginal Cost Allocation Factor = average cost allocation factor
multiplied by the percentage of variable costs (as determined in
III. A. above).
IV. Implement Fiscal Impact Analysis System
A.
Enter the revenue allocation factors determined in II above as appro-
priate on the residential, commercial, hotel, and industrial revenue
worksheets.
B.
Enter the cost allocation factors determined in III above as appro-
priate on the residential, commercial, hotel, and industrial cost
worksheets.
' C.
Implement the Fiscal Impact Analysis System by entering the charac-
teristics of the development being studies on the cost and revenue
worksheets, and Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary form.
_1
55
The Fiscal Impact Analysis System Can Be Adapted To Annexation With Certain
' Modifications Or Considerations
The Fiscal Impact Analysis System described in this report provides for an
assessment of the fiscal impact resulting from development within the City's
current boundaries. The System can also be applied conceptually to annexa-
tions, however certain modifications and considerations should be applied.
These include the following:
Modifications/Considerations Relative To Annexations
Revenues
- Property Taxes: Property values for annexations should
be estimated on a case study basis as explained in Chap-
ter III; however, the City's share or allocation of pro-
perty tax revenue would be determined by creation of a
new tax rate area with the City's tax allocation share
being calculated pursuant to the standard agreement
developed between the County of Orange and cities within
the County.
- Other revenues: The factors developed.for other revenue
sources would generally be applicable to annexations in
the same manner as for new development within the City.
Y, Costs
- Small/"island" annexations: The costs factors for rela-
tively small annexations or "island" annexations would
generally be the same as developed for new development
within the City. However, City staff should review the
departmental cost profiles in Appendix B with department
representatives to be sure that a given annexation might
not result in a larger amount of variable costs relative
to providing services to the area annexed.
' - Major Annexations: For major annexations, such as the
potential "downcoast annexat9on", it would be necessary
' to prepare a complete revision of the departmental cost
profiles in Appendix B relative to the proposed annexa-
tion. This is because a major annexation could require
significant additional or variable costs that would
56
otherwise be relatively fixed for development within
-' current City boundaries.
Certain Major Developments May Warrant A More Specific Case Study Analysis Of
Fiscal Impact
In order to respond to the City's desires for a Fiscal Impact Analysis System
that is relatively simple and is applicable to all types of development within
the City, it has been necessary to develop a more generalized approach. The
System will provide an accurate, general assessment of fiscal impact. How-
ever, where the System's analysis shows a relatively close cost -to -revenue
ratio (little or no revenue surplus/deficit), or the project is of major sig-
nificance, the City may wish to conduct a more specific .case study analysis
for all costs and revenues.
_1
_1
57
APPENDIX A
Forms For Fiscal Impact Analysis System
-1
58
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Form 1: Summary
I. DATE:
II. NAME OF PROJECT:
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:.
IV. REVENUE/COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
A.. Revenue Totals:
1. Residential Revenues (Form 2a)
2. Commercial Revenues (Form 2b) $
3. Hotel Revenues (form 2c) $
4. Industrial Revenues (Form 2d) $
TOTAL REVENUES
B. Cost Totals:
1. Residential Costs (Form 3a)
2. Industrial, Commercial, &
Hotel Costs (Form 3b)
TOTAL COSTS
C. Net Reven
11
11
j
a
a
E
CITY OF NEWPORT�BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Form 2a: Revenue Worksheet-Residential
Estimated
Revenue
A.
PROPERTY
TAXES
1.
Estimated value of Improvements
a. I Single Family units x market value/unit
b. # Duplex dwelling units x•market value/unit
c. # Multi -family units x market value/unit
d. f Mobilehome units x market value/unit
-�
e. Value of other project improvements (clubhouse,
pools, etc.)
' $
f. Total Market Value (a + b + c + d + e)
_ $
2.
Tax Allocation
a. Project is located in Tax Rate Area(s)
b. City's allocation in tax rate area is
%
3.
Property Tax Revenue
a. Total Market Value (from if above) _ $
b. City's tax allocation (from 2 b above) = x %
c. City secured property tax revenue (3a x 3 b)
$
d. Unsecured property tax revenue (9.6% of line 3c)
$
'
B.
OTHER TAXES
1.
Single family units x $152.6166.= $
2.
Duplex dwelling units x $119.7181 = $
3.
Multi -family units x $ 91.2719 = $
4.
Mobilehome units x $ 95.2470 = $
TOTAL: OTHER TAXES (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
$
60
1-1
-1
I
I
-1
dential
C. LICENSES & PERMITS
1.
Single family units
x
$13.9540
= $
2.
Duplex dwelling units
x
$13.0015
= $
3.
Multi -family units
x
$12.7242
= $
I
4.
Mobilehome units
x
$12.7622
= $
TOTAL: Licenses & Permits
(1
+ 2 + 3 + 4)
t
D. REVENUE:
USE OF MONEY
1.
Single family units
x
$66.2064
= $
2.
Duplex dwelling units
x
$66.2064
= $
3.
Multi -family units
x
$66.2064
= $
4.
Mobilehome units
x
$66.2064
= $
TOTAL: Revenue from Use of Money (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
E. REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
1. Single family units x $38.1657 = $
2., Duplex dwelling units x $12.7410*= $
3. Multi -family units x $ 9.2947*= $
4. Mobilehome units x $34.9439 = $
TOTAL: Revenue from Other Agencies (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
*If owner -occupied (non -rental), add $21.4379 per unit
for homeowner's exemption reimbursement revenue.
61
Estimated
Revenue
Form 2a: Revenue Worksheet-Residential (Conti
F. CHARGES FOR SERVICES
1. Single family units x $55:0874 - $
2. Duplex dwelling units x $55.0874 = $
3. Multi -family units x $55.0874 = $
i
i 4. Mobilehome units x $55.0874 = $
TOTAL: Charges For Services (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
G. OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUE
1. Single family units x $14.5175 = $
2. Duplex dwelling units x $14.5175 - $
3. Multi -family units x $14.5175 = $
4. Mobilehome units x $14.5175 - $
TOTAL: Other General Fund Revenue (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
H. PARK & RECREATION FUND
1.
Single family units
x $25.1132
= $
2.
Duplex dwelling units
x $18.9652
= $
3.
Multi -family units
x $13.6507
- $
4.
Mobilehome units
x $14.3803
- $
TOTAL: Park & Recreation
Fund (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
I. LIBRARY FUND
1.
Single family units
x $3.4330
= $
2.
Duplex dwelling units
x $2.5926
- $
3.
Multi -family units
x $1.8661
=•$
4.
Mobilehome units
x $1.9659
- $
TOTAL: Library Fund (1
+ 2 + 3 + 4)
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
$
-1
nu
-1
-1
I
-1
-1
-1
Estimated
Revenue
J. STATE GASOLINE TAX FUND
1. Single family units x $28.9566 - $
2. Duplex dwelling units x $21.8676 = $
3. Multi -family units x $15.7399 = $
f 4. Mobilehome units x $16.5810 = $
TOTAL: State Gasoline Tax Fund (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) $
-1 1
-1
-1
K. FINES, FORFEITURES & PENALTIES
1. Single family units x $43.4886 = $
2. Duplex dwelling units x $43.4886 = $
3. Multi -family units x $43.4886 = $
4. Mobilehome units x $43.4886 = $
TOTAL: Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
L. BUILDING EXCISE TAX FUND
1. Single family units x $9.9238 = $
2. Duplex dwelling units x $9.9238 = $
3. Multi -family units x $9.9238 = $
4. Mobilehome units x $9.9238 = $
TOTAL: Building Excise Tax Fund (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
TOTAL REVENUE -RESIDENTIAL (Total A-M)
$
$
63
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SISTEM
Form 2b: Revenue Worksheet-Commercial
Estimatedi
Revenue
A. PROPERTY TAXES
1. Estimated value of Improvements
a.
Local Retail: Estimated value
of improvements
= $
b.
Regional Retail: Estimated value
of improvements
= $
c.'
Office/Miscellaneous: Estimated
value of improvements
= $
d.
Restaurant: Estimated value of
improvements
= $
e.
Value of other, related project
improvements if any
= $
f.
Total Market Value (a + b + c +
d + e)
a $
2. Tax Allocation
a. Project is located in Tax Rate Area(s) #
b. City's allocation in tax rate area is %
3. Secured Property Tax Revenue
a. Total Market Value (from if above) _ $
b. City's tax allocation (from 2 b above) = x %
c. City secured property tax revenue (3a x 3b)
4. Unsecured Property Tax Revenue
a. Local Retail sq. ft. x 0.0325 = $
b. Regional Retail sq. ft. x 0.0325 = $
c. Office/Misc. sq. ft. x 0.0325 = $
d. Restaurant sq. ft. x 0.0325 - $
64
heet-Commercial (Continued
B. OTHER TAXES
1.
Local Retail sq.
ft.
x $0.1346 =
$
2.
Regional Retail
sq. ft.
x $0.7282 =
$
3.
Office/Misc. sq.
ft.
x $0.0991 =
$
4.
Restaurant sq. ft.
x $1.6547 =
$
TOTAL: OTHER TAXES
(1 + 2
+ 3 + 4)
C. LICENSES
& PERMITS
1.
Local Retail Sq.
Ft.
x $0.0493 =
$
2.
Regional Retail
Sq. Ft.
x $0.0493
$
3.
Office/Misc. Sq.
Ft.
x $0.0493
$
4.
Restaurant Sq. Ft.
x $0.0493 =
$
TOTAL: Licenses
& Permits
(1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
D. REVENUE: USE OF MONEY
1.
Local Retail Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0576
= $
2.
•Regional Retail Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0576
= $
3.
Office/Misc. Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0576
= $
4.
Restaurant Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0576
= $
TOTAL: Revenue from Use
of Money (1 + 2
+ 3 + 4)
E. REVENUE
FROM OTHER AGENCIES
1.
Local Retail Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0309
= $
2.
Regional Retail Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0309
= $
3.
Office/Misc. Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0309
= $
4.
Restaurant Sq. Ft.
x
$0.0309
= $
TOTAL: Revenue from Other Agencies (i + 2 + 3 + 4)
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
$
65
Form 2b: Revenue Worksheet-Commercial (Continued
_1
F. CHARGES FOR SERVICES
1.
Local Retail Sq.
Ft.
x $0.0479
= $
2.
Regional Retail
Sq. Ft.
x $0.0479
- $
3.
Office/Misc. Sq.
Ft.
x $0.0479
- E
E
4.
Restaurant Sq. Ft.
x $0.0479
= $
TOTAL: Charges
For Services
(1 + 2 + 3 +
4)
!G. OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUE
1.
Local Retail Sq. Ft.
x $0.0126 =
$
2.
Regional Retail Sq. Ft,
x $0.0126 =
$
3.
Office/Misc. Sq. Ft.
x $0.0126 =
$
4.
Restaurant Sq. Ft.
x $0.0126 =
$
TOTAL: Other General Fund Revenue (i + 2 + 3 + 4)
H. FINES, FORFEITURES & PENALTIES
1.
Local Retail Sq. Ft.
x $0.0378
- $
2.
Regional Retail Sq. Ft.
x $0.0378
= $
3.
Office/Misc. Sq. Ft.
x $0.0378
= $
4.
Restaurant Sq. Ft.
x $0.0378
= $
TOTAL: Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
J. BUILDING EXCISE TAX FUND
1. Local Retail Sq. Ft. x $0.0086 = $
2. Regional Retail Sq. Ft. x $0.0086 = $
3. Office/Misc. Sq. Ft. x $0.0086 = $
4. Restaurant Sq. Ft. x $0.0086 = $
TOTAL: Building Excise Tax Fund (i + 2 + 3 + 4)
TOTAL REVENUE -COMMERCIAL (Total A-M)
66
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Form 2c: Revenue Worksheet-Hotel
A. SECURED PROPERTY TAXES
1. Estimated Value Of All Improvements
2. Tax Allocation
1
a. Project is located'in Tax Rate Area(s) ii
b. City allocation rate in tax rate area is %
3. Secured Property Tax Revenue
a. Total Market Value (from 1 above) E
b. City's tax allocation (from 2b above) = x %
c. City secured property tax revenue (3a x 3b)
B. ALL OTHER REVENUE
Revenue Source Factor Per Room x Rooms
Unsecured Property Tax $ 12.0844
Other Taxes 19261.8435
Licenses & Permits 18.1210
Revenue: Use of Money 21.1887
Revenue From Other Agencies 11.3857
Charges For Services 17.6304
Other General Fund Revenue 4.6465
Fines, Forefitures & Penalties 13.9182
Building Excise Tax Fund 3.1758
C. TOTAL REVENUE -HOTEL
_
Estimated
_Revenue
-1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS S
Form 2d: Revenue Worksheet-Industrial
A. PROPERTY TAXES
1. Estimated Value Of All Improvements $
2. Tax Allocation
a. Project is located in Tax Rate Area(s) #
b. City allocation rate in tax rate area is %
3. Property Tax Revenue
a. Total Market Value (from 1 above) _ $
b. City's tax allocation (from 2b above) = x %
c. City property tax revenue (3a x 3b)
B. ALL OTHER REVENUE
Revenue Source Factor Per Sq. Ft. x Sq. Ft.
Unsecured Property Tax $ 0.0288
Other Taxes 0.1544
Licenses & Permits 0.0485
Revenue: Use of Money 0.0567
Revenue From Other Agencies 0.0304
Charges For Services 0.0472
Other General Fund Revenue 0.0124
Fines, Forefitures & Penalties 0.0372
Building Excise Tax Fund 0.0085
C. TOTAL REVENUE -HOTEL
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Form 3a: Cost Worksheet-Residential
A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1.
Single family units
x $5.9574
- $
2.
Duplex dwelling Units
x $5.9574
= $
3.
Multi-familly units
x $5.9574
- $
4.
Mobilehome units
x $5.9574
= $
Total: General Government
(1 + 2 + 3
+ 4)
B. PUBLIC SAFETY
1.
Single family units
x $166.2943 =
$
2.
Duplex dwelling Units
x $101.3294 =
$
3.
Multi-familly units
x $177.2837 =
$
4.
Mobilehome units
x $149.3089 =
$
Total: Public Safety (1
+ 2 + 3 + 4)
C. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Single family units x $41.0661 $
2. Duplex dwelling Units x $41.0661 = $
3. Total Street Miles x $16,766.1892 = $
Total: Public Works (1 + 2 + 3)
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
m
Form 3a: Cost
D. LIBRARIES
1.
Single family units
x $7.3579
= $
2.
Duplex dwelling Units
x $5.5566
= $
3.
Multi-familly units
x $3.9995
= $
4.
Mobilehome units
x $4.2132
= $
Total: Libraries (1 + 2
+ 3 + 4)
E. PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION
1.
Single family units
x $55.8991
= $
2.
Duplex dwelling units
x $42.2042
- $
3.
Multi-familly units
x $30.3850
- $
4.
Mobilehome units
x $32.0086'-
$
5.
Total Street Miles
x $2,170.5641
= $
Total: Parks, Beaches & Recreation (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
F. CAPITAL PROJECTS
1. Single family units x $71.1420 = $
2. Duplex dwelling units x $71.1420 = $
3. Multi-familly units x $71.1420 - $
4. Mobilehome units x $71.1420 = $
Total: Capital Projects (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
TOTAL COSTS -RESIDENTIAL (A-F)
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
70
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Form 3b: Cost Worksheet-Industrial, Commercial and Hotel
A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1. Industrial sq. ft. x $0.0046 = $
2. Commercial sq. ft. x, $0.0046 - $
3. Hotel rooms x $1.7044 = $
Total: General Government (1 + 2 + 3)
B. PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Industrial sq. ft. _
2. Commercial
a. Local Retail .sq. ft. _
b. Regional Retail sq. ft. _
c.•Office/Misc. sq. ft. _
d. Restaurant sq. ft. _
3. Hotel rooms _
Total: (1 + 2a + 2b + 2c +2d + 3)
C. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Industrial street miles
2. Commercial street miles
3. Hotel street miles
Total: (1 + 2 + 3)
x $ 0.0194 - $
x $ 0.3725 = $
x $ 0.3725 ■ E
x $ 0.0921 - $
x $ 1.1296 - $
x $128.7404 =
x $16,766.1892 = $
x $16,766.1892 - $
x $16,766.1892 = $
0. PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION (Street Trees)
1. Industrial street miles x $2,170.5641 = $
2. Commercial street miles x $2,170.5641 = $
3. Hotel street miles x $2,170.5641 = $
Total: (1.+ 2 + 3)
Estimated
Revenue
$
$
$
71
E. CAPITAL PROJECTS
1. Industrial sq. ft.
2. Commercial sq. ft.
3. Hotel rooms
Total: (1 + 2 + 3)
Estimated
Revenue
x $ 0.0609 = $
x$0.0618
x $22.7686 =
E
TOTAL COSTS -INDUSTRIALS COMMERCIAL 5 HOTEL (A-E)
72
11
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
Department.•
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. A Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54. Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
TOTAL
Division:
FIXED VARIABLE
% Amount un
73
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
I!
IF
I -1
1
I -1
I-1
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: City Council Division:
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % ountAmount
$ 619115 100.6 $ 619115
$ 13,610 100.0 $ 13,610
0 100.0 0
$ 74,725 100.0 $ 74,725
,' 75
'
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
-'
For Fiscal
Year: 1982-83
Department: City Clerk
Division: Administrative
FIXED VARIABLE
-'
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
% Amount %_ AMOUn
Salaries
$ 73,760
100.0 $ 739760
Maintenance Operation
110
Adv. & Public Relations
11
Automotive Service
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip,
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14
Publications & Dues
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.•
-'
16
Serv,-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17
Travel & Meetings
18
Utilities
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
33
Special Dept. Supplies
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40
Special Dept. Expense
'
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
'
51
52
Health & Life Ins.
Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
-
53
Retirement
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res,
Sub -Total: M & 0
$ 32,085
100.0 $ 329085
Capital
Outlay
90
�91
Office Equipment
'
Rolling Equipment
-
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
t
94
Furniture & Fixtures
-
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$ 940
100.0 $ 940
-1
'
TOTAL
$106,785
100.0 $106,785
1 76
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: City Clerk Division: Elections
FIXED VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL % Amount % Amount
Salaries 0 0 0
Maintenance Oaeration
110 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. 4 Repair of Equip.
13. Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc. $ 209000 0 - 100.0 $ 20,000
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense 300 0 - 100.0 300
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0 $ 20,300 0 - 100.0 $ 20,300
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
191 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay - 0 - 100.0 -
TOTAL $ 20,300 0 - 100.0 $ 20,300
77
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: City Manager Division: Administrative
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Oaeration
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % AmountAmount
$1429985 100.0 $1429985 0 -
$ 35,190 100.0 $ 359190 0 -
0 100.0 - 0 -
$178,175 100.0 $178,175 0 -
tE
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
for Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: City Manager Division: Personnel
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE ,
TOTAL % Amount % Amount
$135,355 100.0 $135,355 0 -
$ 74,405 100.0 $135,355 0 -
$ 350.
100.0
$ 350
0 -
$210,110
0 -
100.0
$210,110
79
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: City Attorney Division:
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
.12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies.
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
.40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount % Amount
$1499085 100.0 $149,085 0 -
$ 85,300 100.0 $ 85,300 0 -
$ 1,000 100.0 $ 1,000 0 -
$235,385 100.0 $235,385 0 -
RM
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Finance Division: Administrative & Accounting
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.*
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.*
53 Retirement*
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
FIXED
VARIABLE
TOTAL %
Amount
oun
$286,730 82.4
$236,325
17.6
$ 50,405
100.0
2,800
0
-
100.0
3,450
0
-
0
-
100.0
38,080
100.0
660
0
-
100.0
575
0
-
100.0
151,500
0
-
100.0
1,360
0
-
100.0
30
0
-
0
-
100.0
14,930
100.0
5,06O
0 -
82.4
249794
17.6 5,296
82.4
523
17.6 i12
82.4
31,778
17.6 69787
Sub -Total: M & 0 --- - -$287,735 77.3 $2229530 22.7 $ 65,205
* Same % Allocation as Salaries
' Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
' 92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
-1
$ 1,880 100.0 $ 1,880
$5769345 79.9 $460,735
0 -
20.1 $115,610
_' 81
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Finance Division: Purchasing & Warehousing
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Oaeration
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51'Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount ount
$197,230 100.0 $197,230 0 -
$ 70,425 100.0 $ 70,425 0 -
$ 1,450 100.0 $ 1,450 0 -
$269,105 100.0 $269,105 0 -
179
I
1
1
P
1
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Finance Division: Data Processing
FIXED VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL % ' Amount pun
Salaries $1959415 100.0 $195,415 0 -
Maintenance Operation
110 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0 $165,055 100.0 $165,055 0 -
Capital Outla
90 Office Equipment
}91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay $ 2,980 100.0 $ 29980 0
TOTAL $363,450 100.0 $363,450 0 -
83
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: City Manager Division: Non -Departmental
FIXED VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL %
Amount % oun
Salaries
$ 76,785 100.0
$ 76,785 0 -
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
100.0
100
11
Automotive Service
100.0
800
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
100.0
500
13
Post., Frt., Express,'Etc.
100.0
600
14
Publications & Dues
100.0
7,690
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
100.0
56,300
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
100.0
29,750
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
39100
18
Utilities
100.0
100,000
30
Office Supplies
100.0
1,720
31
Janitorial Supplies
100.0
-
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
100.0
750
33
Special Dept. Supplies
100.0
9,000
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
100.0
-
40
Special Dept. Expense
100.0
249880
41
Airport Growth Control
100.0
250,000
50
General Insurance
0
- 100.0 $ 20,315
51
Health & Life Ins.
100.0
99180
52
Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
100.0
7,285
53
Retirement
100.0
91920
54
Taxes
100.0
735
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
100.0
$ 50,000
Sub -Total: M & 0 $582,625 96.5 $562,310 3.5 $ 20,315
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
191 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay $ 920 100.0 $ 920 0 -
TOTAL $660,330 96.9 $640,015 3.1 $ 20,315
1 84
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Police Division: Off. of the Chief of Police
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
%
AmountAmount
Salaries
$285*485
100.0
$285,485
0
-
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
100.0
39000
0
-
11
Automotive Service
0
-
100.0
$ 10,000
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
-
-
-
-
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
-
-
-
-
14
Publications & Dues
0
-
100.0
430
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
0
-
100.0
11,515
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
0
-
100.0
29825
17
Travel & Meetings
0
-
100.0
1,200
18
Utilities
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
33
Special Dept. Supplies
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40
Special Dept. Expense
0
-
100.0
19800
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
100.0
6,095
0
-
51
Health & Life Ins.
100.0
20,640
0
-
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
100.0
19500
0
-
53
Retirement
100.0
649615
0
-
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$123*620
77.5
$ 959850
22.5
$ 27,770
Capital Outlay
90
Office Equipment
91
Rolling Equipment
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
94
Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$ 2,020
100.0
$ 2,020
0
-
TOTAL
$411,125
93.2
$383,355
6.8
$ 279770
85
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Police Division: Administrative
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post, Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
t 91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED. VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount % Amount
$922,315 100.0 . $922,315 0 -
100.0
200
0
-
100.0
13,450
0
-
100.0
28,400
0
-
100.0
9,350
0
-
100.0
19700
0
-
100.0
219670
0
-
0
-
100.0
135,690
100.0
19500
0
-
100.0
1589200
0
-
100.0
619340
0
-
100.0
4,500
0
-
100.0
59500
0
-
0
-
100.0
969765
100.0
59000
0
-
0
-
100.0
600
100.0
22,000
0
-
100.0
80,020
0
-
100.0
13,000
0
-
100.0
1509855
0
-
$809,740 71.2
$576,685
28.8
$233,055
$ 13,910
100.0
$ 13,910
0 -
$1,745,965
86.7
$1,512,910
13.3 $233,055
DEPARTMENTAL COST
PROFILE WORKSHEET
'
For Fiscal
Year:
1982-83
Department: Police
Division: Patrol
'
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
%
ount
%_
oun
't
Salaries
$3,027,580
0
-
100.0
$39027,580
Maintenance Operation
�10
Adv. & Public Relations
11
Automotive Service
0
100.0
1809000
—,
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
0
-
100.0
8,750
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
-
-
-
-
14
Publications & Dues
100.0
19545
0
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
100.0
99600
0
—'
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
0
-
100.0
36,200
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
19575
0
-
18
Utilities
!,
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
—'
33
Special Dept. Supplies
0
-
100.0
15,785
34
Tools, Instruments,'Etc.
-
-
-
-
'
40
41
Special Dept. Expense
Helicopter Maintenance
100.0
100.0
500
2469960
0
0
-
-
50
General Insurance
100.0
85,520
0
-
51
Health & Life Ins.
0
-
100.0
209,250
'
52
Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
0
100.0
719000
-
53
Retirement
0
.100.0
659,745
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$19526,430
22.6
$345,700
77.4
$191800730
Capital Outlay
'
;90
191
Office Equipment
Rolling Equipment
100.0
0
3,630
0
100.0
-
191,050
—
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
94
Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$194,680
1.9
$3,630
98.1
$191,050
—1
— '
TOTAL
$4,748,690
7.4
$349,330,
92.6
$4,399,360
I
1 87
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal, Year: 1982-83
Department: Police Division: Traffic
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL %
Amount
Amount
Salaries
$8749810 0
-
100.0
$8749810
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
100.0
60
0
11
Automotive Service
0
-
100.0
73,000
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
100.0
1$75
0
-
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
-
-
-
-
14
Publications & Dues
100.0
450
0
-
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
100.0
29700
0
-
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
0
-
100.0
11,400
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
570
0
-
18
Utilities
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
33
Special Dept. Supplies
0
-
100.0
1,680
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
100.0
15,000
0
-
51
Health & Life Ins.
0
-
100.0
45,420
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
0
-
100.0
13,750
53
Retirement
0
-
100.0
171,190
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Suq=Total: M & 0
$336,795 6.0
$20,355
94.0
$316,440
Capital Outlay
90
Office Equipment
100.0
1,180
0
-
'91
Rolling Equipment
0
-
100.0
57,380
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
100.0
1,100
0
-
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$59,660
3.8
$2,280
96.2
$57,380
TOTAL
$1;2719265
1.8
$22,635
98.2
$1,248,630
L-h
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Police Division: Detective
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Ooeration
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
.33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
191 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
TOTAL
$893*830
FIXED
% Amount
0 -
VARIABLE
% Amount
100.0 $893,830
0
- 100.0
27,500
0
- 100.0
1,000
0
- 100.0
1,105
100.0
9,300 0
0
- 100.0
22,260
0
- 100.0
19650
0
100.0
100.0
0
0
0
$358,665 8.6
100.0
0
$10,400 8.2
$1,262,895
2.5
8,000
13,550
$30,850
850
$850
$31,700
100.0 3,730
i
0
100.0 54,730
100.0 8,850
100.0 206,990
91.4 $327,815
0
100.0 9,550
91.8 $9,550
97.5 $1,231,195
—' 89
.
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Fire Division: Administrative
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 helicopter'Maihtenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
1 91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTALAmount %_ Amount
$192,000 100.0 $192,000 0 -
$1019505 100.0 $1010505 0 -
100.0 - 0 -
$293,505 100.0 $293,505
—' 90
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Fire Division: Suppression
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
d 10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint: & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
190 Office Equipment
191 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount % ount
$29679,715 100.0 $29679,715 0 -
$1,3009015 100.0 $1,3000015 0 -
$8,200 100.0 $1,300,015 0
$3,987,930 100.0 $3,987,930 0
-i
91
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Fire Division: Prevention
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency. Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED
VARIABLE
TOTAL %
punt
_Amount
$1469890 60.0
$88,134
40.0
$589756
100.0
770
0
-
0
-
100.0
3,580
100.0.
100
0
-
100.0
470
0
-
60.0
315
40.0
210
100.0
175
0
-
60.0
864
40.0
576
100.0
6,000
0
-
100.0
19795
0
-
60.0
8,180
40.0
59454
60.0
402
40.0
268
60.0
23,046
40.0
15,365
$67,570 62.3 $429117 37.7 $25,453
100.0 550 0 -
$550 100.0 $550 0 -
$215,010 60.7 $1309801 39.1 $84,209
'
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
'
For Fiscal
Year: 1982-83
Department: Fire
Division: Emergency
Medical Services
'
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
% Amount
%_ ount
Salaries
$4139720
100.0 $413,720
0
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
-'
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
-,
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
-'
Sub -Total: M & 0
$165,340
100.0 $165,340
0 -
_,
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
191 Rolling Equipment
-,
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
-�
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$400
100.0 $1659340
0 -
-,
TOTAL
$5799460
100.0 $5799460
0 -
-1
-1
93
DEPARTMENTAL -COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Planning Division:
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Ooeration
' 10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post, Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outl
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount _ Amount
$481,585 100.0 $4819585 0 -
$1619805 100.0 $161,805 0 -
$10,140 100.0 $101*140
$653,530 100.0 $653,530
0 -
0 -
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Marine Division:
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof:, Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Toots, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % • � un
$9519200 80:4 $7649765 19.6 $186,435
$3339765 80.4 $2689347 19.6 $65,418
$27,180
80.4
$21,853
19.6
$5,327
$1,312,145
$190549965
19.6
$2579180
80.4
95
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Building Division:
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
30 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outl
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount Z Amount
$6029735 30.0 $180,821 70.0 $4219914
$196,560 30.0 $589968 70.0 $137,592
$19,600
30.0
$59880
70.0
$13,720
$818,895 -
30.0
$245069
70.0
$573,226
96
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Public Works Division: Admin. & Engineering
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12'Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications•& Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip..
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED - VAR•IABLE
TOTAL % Wunt _Amount
$6999170 100.0 $6999170 0 -
$210,945 100.0 ;210,945 0 -
T
$2460'
100.0
$29660
0 -
$9129775
100.0
$9129775
0 -
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Public Works Division: Traffic & Parking
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept.,Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED
VARIABLE
TOTAL X
wuntAmount
$2409530 87.7
$210045
12.3
$299585
100.0
69800
0
-
0
-
100.0
969610
100.0
300
0
-
100.0
450
0
-
0
-
100.0
49900
100.0
935
0
-
100.0
540
0
-
100.0
19600
0
-
100.0
150
0
-
0
-
100.0
49140
100.0
250
0
-
100.0
100
0
100.0
8,510
0
-
87.7
159462
12.3
2,168
87.7
19351
12.3'
189
87.7
24,872
12.3
39488
$1729815 35.5
'$619320
64.5
E1119'495
$25,900.
$439 *245
98
100.0 $250900 0 -
100.0, $25,900 0
67.9 $2989165. 32.1 $1419080
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
DOpartment.: General Services Division:•Administrative
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools,'Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51.Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total :. M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL X unt _% AMQUg,
$990540 100.0 $999540 0 -
$43,655 100.0 $439655 0 -
100.0 -
$143,195 100.0 $14% 195
0 -
0 -
99
-1
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: General Services Division: Building Maintenance
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL x--
t
_Amount
Salaries
$1069135 65.3
$699275
34.7
$369860
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
0
-
100.0
$9,800
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
0
-
100.0
300
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
0
-
100.0
389060
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
0
-
100.0
91000
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
0
-
100.0
39200
33 Special Dept. Supplies
0
-
100.0
300
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
0
-
100.0
175
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
100.0
1,100
0
-
51 Health & Life Ins.
65.3
49852
34.7
2,578
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
65.3
784
34.7
416
53 Retirement
65.3
6,896
34.7
3,664
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$819145 16.8
$139632
83.2
$679513
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
191 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL $187*280 44.3 $829907 55.7 $104,3.73
�-1
100
'
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal
Year:
1982-83
Department: General Services
•
Division:
Field
Maintenance
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE
CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
xAmount_Amount
1
Salaries
$942,685
7.2
$679873
92.8
$8749812
'
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
11
12
Automotive Service
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
0
0
_
100.0
100.0
$3709000
29200
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14
Publications & Dues
0
-
100.0
35
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
0
-
100.0
'200
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
0
100.0
22,160
17
Travel & Meetings
0
-
100.0
120 •
18
Utilities
'
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
33
Maint. & Repair Materials
Special Dept. Supplies
0
2.0
-
500
100.0
98.0
349550
259130
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
0
-
100.0
29600
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
0
-
100.0
37,665
51
Health & Life Ins.
7.2
59839
92.8
75,261
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
7.2
1,008
92.8
12,992
53
Retirement
7.2
89257
92.8
1069423
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$7049940
2.2
$15,604•
97.8
$6899336
Capital Outlay
90
Office Equipment
91
Rolling Equipment
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
94
Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$299600
0
-
100.0
$29*600
+ ,
TOTAL •$196779225
5.0
$839477
95.0
$195939748
_, • 101
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For 'Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: General Services Division: Traffic Signs & Markings
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N..O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount un
$117,025 0 - 100.0 $1179025
$105,985 0 - 100.0 $1059985
0 - 100.0 -
$2239010 0 - 100.0 $223*010
102
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For.Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: General Services Division: Refuse
FIXED VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL x Amount _% Amount
Salaries $6509815 0 - 100.0 $550;815
Maintenance Oneration
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11
Automotive Service
0
-
100.0
2149000
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
0
-
100.0
920
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14
Publications & Dues
100.0
35
0
-
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
,.
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc..
0
-
100.0
69575
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
35
0
-
18
Utilities
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
33
Special Dept. Supplies
0
-
100.0
3,380
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
100.0
100
0
-
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
100.0
10;000
0
-
51
Health & Life Ins.
0
-
100.0
499490
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
0
-
100.0
139910
53
Retirement
0
-
100.0
759416
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0 $373,860
2.7
$10,170 '
97.3
$3636690
Capital Outlay
90
Office Equipment
91
Rolling Equipment
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
94
Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay $ 950
0
-
100.0
$ .950
TOTAL $190259625
1.0
$10,170
99.0
$1,015-9455
103
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: General Services Division: Equipment Maintenance
FIXED VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION TOTAL X Amount
SalariesnG�ouni
Salaries $384,610 0 - 100.0 $3849610
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11
Automotive Service
0
-
100.0
4,400
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
0
-
100.0
39100
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14
Publications & Dues
100.0
400
0
-
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip. '
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
100.0
7,875
0
-
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
105
0
18
Utilities
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
33
Special Dept. Supplies
0
-
100.0
12,100
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
0
-
100.0
2,000
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
100.0
2,000
0
-
51
Health & Life Ins.
0
-
100.0
32,830
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
0
-
100.0
5,760
53
Retirement
0
-
100.0
51,000
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$1219570 8.5
$109380
91.5
$1110190
Capital Outlay
190
Office Equipment
100.0
350
0
-
91
Rolling Equipment
92
Shop Equipment
100.0
69225
0
-
93
Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$69575
100.0
$699575
0
TOTAL
$5129756
3.3
$169956
96.7 $4959800
104
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Libraries Division:
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL %
Amount
_
un
Salaries
$852,755 100.0
$852,755
0
-
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
0
-
100.0
$39015
11
Automotive Service
100.0
1,800
0
-
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
100.0
39160
0
-
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
0
-
100.0
69500
14
Publications & Dues
100.0
995
0
-
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
100.0
269180
0
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
100.0
569855
0
-
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
29500
0
-
18
Utilities
100.0
41,245
0
-
30
Office Supplies
100.0
36,950
0
-
31
Janitorial Supplies
100.0
1,700
0
-
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
0
-
100.0
39710
33
Special Dept. Supplies
0
-
100.0
66,90U
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40
Special Dept. Expense
0
-
100.0
1209000'
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
100.0
209530
0
-
51
Health & Life Ins.
100.0
63,485
0
-
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
100.0
59775
0
-
53
Retirement
100.0
95,185
0
-
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0 $556,485
64.0
$3569360
36.0 $200,125
Capital Outlay
'90
Office Equipment'
100.0
39105
0 -
91
Rolling Equipment
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
100.0
59120
0 -
94
Furniture & Fixtures
100.0
7,310
0
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay $15,535
100.0
$159535
0 -
TOTAL $1,424,775
86.0
$192249650
14.0 $2009125
106
'
DEPARTMENTAL
COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal
Year: 1982-83
Department: Parks, Beaches &
Recreation
Division: Administrative
FIXED
VARIABLE
'
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
x Amount
%_ Amount
Salaries
$64,250
100.0 $64*250
0
Maintenance Operation•
^�
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
'
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
!'
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$329550
100.0 $329550
0 -
_,
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
$39060
100.0 $39050
0 -
TOTAL
$999850
100.0 $999850
0 -
i
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division: Recreation
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12'Maint. & Repair of Equip.
i 13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay,
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap., Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED
VARIABLE
TOTAL %
Amount
un
WOOD 0
-
100.0
$989000
0
-
100.0
$29200
0
-
100.0
ISO
100.0
95
0
-
0
-
160.0
39920
100.0
880
0
-
100.0
700
0
-
0
-
100.0
1;500
0
-
100.0
59800 "
100.0
29400
0
-
.100.0
29590
0
-
0
-
100.0
69355
0
-
100.0
850
0
-
100.0
WOO
$369140 18.0
$69665
82.0
.$299475
0
-
60.0
600
100.0
21000
$109500 24.8
$29000
$1449640 6.4
$9,265
100.0 $79500
40.0 400
0 -
75.2 $7,900
93.6 $1359375
107
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division: Parks
FIXED
VARIABLE _
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL
un
Amount,
Salaries
$534,400 0
-
100.0
$5349400
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
it
Automotive Service
0
-
100.0
$539000
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
0
-
100.0
6,180
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
100.0
$160
0
-
14
Publications & Dues
0
-
100.0
200
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
0
-
100.0
99205
17
Travel & Meetings
100.0
475
0
18
Utilities
0
-
100.0
369625
30
Office Supplies
31'Janitorial
Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
0
-
100.0
290000
33
Special Dept. Supplies
0'
-
100.0
349000
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
0
-
100.0
3,275
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
100.0
109000
0
51
Health 6 Life Ins.
0
-
100.0
439925
52
Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
0
-
100.0
4,590
53
Retirement
0
-
100.0
64,490
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0 $295,125 3.6 $109635 96.4 $2849490
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment 0 - 100.0 $129800
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C. 0 - 100.0 19,800
94 Furniture & Fixtures •100.0 2,000 0
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay $32,600 0 - 100.0 $329600
TOTAL .$8629125 1.2 $10,635 - 98.8 $8519490
-108
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division: Recreation/Self-Supporting
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Otilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
TOTAL
$1459585
$2699510
$79160
FIXED
% Amount
0 -
0 -
$422,855 '0
VARIABLE
Amount
100.0 $1459585
100.0 $2699510
100.0 $79760
100.0 $422,855
109
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division: Senior Citizens
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
'51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED
TOTAL % Amount
$86,070 0 -
VARIABLE
Amount
100.0 $869070
0
-
100.0
100
0
-
100.0
160
100.0
230
0
-
100.0
2,850
0
-
100.0
370
0
-
0
-
100.0
1,600
0
-
100.0
1,300
100.0
19000
0
-
0
-
100.0
950
100.0
39840
0
-
0
-
100.0
50240
0
-
100.0
300
0
-
100.0
.99670
$27,610 30,.0
$89290
70.0
$199320
0 - 0 -
$11396W 7.3 $&9290 92.7 $1059390
DEPARTMENTAL COST. PROFILE-WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Division: Street Trees
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post.,, Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publ'ications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outlay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Amount un
$2589750 0 - 100.0 $2589750
0 - 100.0 53,000
0 - 100.0 3,325
100.0 170 0 -
0 - 100.0 100
0 100.0 539040
100.0 200 0 -
0, -
100.0
109000
0 -
100.0
19600
100.0 49475
0
-
01
100.0
269270
0 -
100.0
2,445
0
100.0
329845
$187,470 2.6 $4,845
97.4
$182,625
0 - 100.0 11500
$11500 0 - 100.0 $10500
$447,,720 1.1 $4,845 98.9 $4429875
J,11
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET•
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Utilities Division: Electrical
FIXED
VARIABLE
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
TOTAL %_
Amount
_-Amount
Salaries
$1349135 84.2
$1129942
15.8
$219193
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
11
Automotive Service
50.0
59000
50.0
59000
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
70.0
210
30*.0
90
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14
Publications & Dues
15
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16
Serv..-Prof., Tech., Etc.
70.0
955
30.0
410
17
Travel & Meetings
18
Utilities
0
-
100.0
3959120
30
Office Supplies
100.0
50
0
-
31
Janitorial Supplies
100.0
50
0
32
Maint. & Repair Materials .
33
Special Dept. Supplies
30.0
89490
70.0
19,9810
34
Tools, Instruments, Etc.
70.0
420
30.0
ISO
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
70.0
3,640
30.0
1'560
51
Health & Life Ins.
84.2
89609
16.8
1,616
52
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
84.2
737
15.8
138
53
Retirement
84.2
14,533
15.8
2;727
54
Taxes
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
$4699345 9.1
$429694
90.9
$4269651
Capital Outlay
90 Office -Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures .100.0 950 0
Sub -Total: Cap.•Outlay $950 100.0 $950 0 -
TOTAL $604,9430 25.9 $156,586 74.1 $4479844
112
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
For Fiscal Year: 1982-83
Department: Utilities Division: Sewers
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10 Adv. & Public Relations
11 Automotive Service
12 Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13 Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14 Publications & Dues
15 Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16 Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17 Travel & Meetings
18 Utilities
30 Office Supplies
31 Janitorial Supplies
32 Maint. & Repair Materials
33 Special Dept. Supplies
34 Tools, Instruments, Etc.
40 Special Dept. Expense
41 'Helicopter Maintenance
50 General Insurance
51 Health & Life Ins.
52 Wkrs' Camp. & Unemp. Ins.
53 Retirement
54 Taxes
57 Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
Capital Outlay
90 Office Equipment
91 Rolling Equipment
92 Shop Equipment
93 Equipment N.O.C.
94 Furniture & Fixtures
Sub -Total: Cap. Outtay
TOTAL
FIXED VARIABLE
TOTAL % Mount I Nwu-nT-
$3239550 0 - 100.0 $323,550•
$1929640 0 - 100.0 $1929640
100.0 132*500 0 -
27.7 19220 72.3 3,190
$1369910 97.7 ;133,720 2.3 $3,19Q
$6639100 20.5 $1339720 79.5 ' $6199380
113
I
DEPARTMENTAL COST PROFILE WORKSHEET
I
.1
For Fiscal Year:
Department: Division:
EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
Salaries
Maintenance Operation
10
Adv. & Public Relations
11
Automotive Service
12
Maint. & Repair of Equip.
13
Post., Frt., Express, Etc.
14
15
Publications & Dues
Rental of Prop. & Equip.
16
Serv.-Prof., Tech., Etc.
17
Travel & Meetings
18
Utilities
30
Office Supplies
31
Janitorial Supplies
32
Maint. & Repair Materials
33
Special Dept. Supplies
34
Toots, Instruments, Etc.
40
Special Dept. Expense
41
Helicopter Maintenance
50
General Insurance
51
52
Health & Life Ins.
Wkrs' Comp. & Unemp. Ins.
-'
53
Retirement
54
Taxes
'
57
Unapprop. Contingency Res.
Sub -Total: M & 0
'
Capital Outlay
90
Office Equipment
91
Rolling Equipment
92
Shop Equipment
93
Equipment N.O.C.
94
Furniture & Fixtures
Sub-Total:,Cap. Outlay
-1
iTOTAL
FIXED
TOTAL x Amount
VARIABLE
Noun
I
114
APPENDIX C
Acreage Distribution of Existing Development
1'15
I in im im in in im im in im im in im in i. i. r.. i. r■. on
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, M/IICH•1982
(in net acres)
Local Speciality Regional
Planning Residential Retail Retail Retial Office Medical Restaurant Hotel Institutional Utilities Miscellaneous Industrial
A 127.70 2.40 7.81 8.37 18.08 17.82 Hospital 29.76
7.52 Convalescent Howes
8 11.03 25.33 8.84 9.64 1.53 11.90 0.50 3.91
C 66.10 4.97
0
138.90
2.78
4.18
.33
1.82
.77
11.77
1.20
E
80.00
.25
2.54
.33
.75
.06
.50
0.12
F
459.10
.74
5.58
5.64
3.88
.98
23.24
1.30
3.20 Yacht Clubs
G
66.80
8.50
6.70
7.64
3.76
0.40
0.62 Yacht Club
H
259.30
27.20
15.08 3.08
12.81
1.89
80.30
1.10,
1
486.80
10.10
10.60
1.25
24.58
0.10
25.00 Golf Course
K
498.50
6.36
3.92
.89
.54
25.70
77.55.
1.90
3590 Newport Dunes Aquatric Park
10:40 Tennis Club
L1
18.90
79.80 142.60 15.90
13.80
8.10
122.70 Golf Course
m L2
193.20
144.90 Golf Course
5.00 Club House
L3
4.81
3.14
5.10
L4
0.40
4.12
24.66 220.50
23.67
8.80
7.80
M
989.40
18_70
0_20
126.25
47_08
27.57 Cemetery
TOTAL
3385.10
64.98
75.65
104.46 417.43 27.35
62.00
53.53
411.94
58.78
400.50
1.01
1.40
91.00
42.57
169.60