Memorandum
To: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Subject: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for Cupertino Dividend Homes EPS #251059
Date: December 17, 2025
This memorandum provides a third-party peer review of a fiscal impact analysis concerning the proposed residential projects on two adjacent sites at 20045 & 20065 and 20085 & 20111 Stevens Creek Boulevard (“Project”) from Dividend Homes (“Developer” or “Applicant”). The goal of the review is to evaluate the assumptions, findings, and methodology of a report (“Report”) prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (“KMA”) for the Applicant.1 The City of Cupertino (City) engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to conduct this peer review.
The KMA fiscal impact analysis estimates the effect of a proposed residential development on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund budget, accounting for both new tax revenues and incremental public service costs. The analysis provides an estimate of ongoing net fiscal impact at project stabilization, once the project is fully built and occupied. All fiscal impact estimates cited are in constant dollars.
For this peer review, EPS prepared an independent fiscal impact analysis to evaluate KMA’s results, and to test assumptions related to the Project and analytical baseline (i.e., existing office uses). EPS compares its analysis results to KMA’s reported results. This memorandum describes key affirmations or differences in assumptions, methodology, and findings. The Appendix to this memorandum contains a table set that details the EPS fiscal analysis.
1 The original report is titled “Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed Dividend Homes Redevelopment Project to the City of Cupertino” (“Report”), dated December 12, 2024.
Fiscal Impact Peer Review for Cupertino Dividend Homes
Project Description
The Proposed Project would consist of 89 townhomes, of which 18 are designated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units consistent with the City’s inclusionary requirements (nine units provided at Moderate income and nine at Median income). The Project is expected to increase the City’s resident population by 254 persons. The site is currently occupied by approximately 68,000 square feet of commercial office space. 2 The fiscal impact of
the existing office buildings at the site is treated as the baseline condition (i.e., fiscal effect in the absence of redevelopment) to measure net change affecting the General Fund.
The KMA analysis concludes that the fiscal impact of the Proposed Project is net positive, with a projected General Fund impact of $47,400 annually at full buildout.
Key Findings
1. KMA’s analysis concludes that the Proposed Project is likely to generate a net positive fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. EPS peer review and modeling corroborate this finding, with EPS results indicating an estimated impact that is more positive.
EPS tested with the estimated “net-net” fiscal impact (i.e., the net fiscal impact of the proposed project minus that of the existing offices) presented in Table 1. EPS estimates that the annual fiscal impact at full buildout of the Proposed Project is approximately $64,500. This impact estimate result exceeds KMA’s estimate by $17,100, largely due to differences in socioeconomic data used. EPS finds that Property Tax and Property Tax in lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) are likely to be the largest sources of revenue, together accounting for roughly 74 percent of total estimated revenues.
2 Square footages reported by KMA.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Table 1 Fiscal Impact Summary Results
2. EPS finds KMA’s methodology for estimating fiscal impacts follows generally accepted approaches, with sufficient documented calculations to enable EPS peer review of the study methodology and results.
Key assumptions used in estimating fiscal costs and revenues are included, and the Report’s summary tables are accompanied by narrative and detailed tables provided in later sections and appendices. Most estimates apply an average cost method to estimate impacts (i.e., average General Fund cost per unit of development) on a per service population basis. Selected categories alternatively use the case study approach (i.e., estimated using assumptions specific to the theoretical prototype land uses). Both methods are widely recognized and are considered standard practice for fiscal impact analyses.
Item Net New
GENERAL FUND a b c = b - a
Annual Revenues [1]
Sales Tax $4,500 $24,400 $19,900
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $11,300 $54,200 $42,900
Other Property Tax $22,700 $109,200 $86,500
Utility Tax $4, 400 $12,100 $7,700
Franchise Fees $3,700 $10,300 $6,600
Business License $6,300 $0 ($6,300)
Property Transfer Tax $1,000 $11,500 $10,500
Total General Fund Revenues $53,900 $221,700 $167,800
Annual Expenditures [2]
Council and Commissions $100 $300 $200
Administration $700 $1,900 $1,200
Law Enforcement $17,900 $49,100 $31,200
Administrative Services $800 $2, 200 $1,400
Parks and Recreation $0 $19,600 $19,600
Community Development $6,200 $16,900 $10,700
Public Works $22,500 $61,500 $39,000
Total General Fund Expenditures $48,200 $151,500 $103,300 Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $5,700 $70,200 $64,500 Source: City of Cupertino FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS.
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
Existing Proposed
Fiscal Impact Peer Review for Cupertino Dividend Homes
KMA’s methodology diverges from EPS’s standard practice in a few respects, including the choice of data sources and the documentation of underlying assumptions. For example, KMA derives citywide employment estimates from ESRI data, producing a total of 25,849 employees, whereas the LEHD OnTheMap database reports 54,376 employees. Because LEHD integrates multiple administrative datasets, including employer payroll records, EPS considers it a more reliable representation of actual employment conditions. The resulting difference affects the estimated service population, and consequently, the expenditure and revenue multipliers, affecting total fiscal costs and revenues.
In addition, in instances where KMA references “KMA assumptions” without identifying the source documentation for these inputs, EPS applies data-supported assumptions or references EPS experience with comparable projects to validate assumptions. For example, the source of the estimated average square footage per business reported in Table 11 is not documented. EPS referred to the suite configurations in the existing office buildings, found through property listings, to calculate the number of businesses that can be accommodated currently.
3. EPS and KMA adopt different methods or assumptions for key fiscal inputs, including revenue estimation, income assumptions, and treatment of existing use revenues.
Notable differences were found in the calculation of new sales tax revenues and business license tax revenues for the existing commercial site. Key differences are summarized below:
• Revenue Categories
KMA includes revenues from Fines and Forfeitures within its fiscal impact calculations, whereas EPS excludes this category. EPS notes that fines and forfeitures are typically incidental and not directly attributable to new development. Their inclusion may modestly overstate net new General Fund revenues in KMA’s analysis by $900.
• Business License Tax Revenues
KMA’s model calculates Business License Tax revenues based solely on the per-unit annual fee, omitting the additional per-square-foot component. EPS’s approach includes both components, which results in a total estimated business license tax of approximately $6,300 compared to KMA’s estimated $2,400.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
• Sales Tax and Retail Capture
KMA assumes a 30 percent retail capture rate and an average weekly taxable sales figure of $17 per employee, while EPS assumes a 40 percent capture rate and $127 in weekly taxable sales per employee.
3 The EPS assumptions
are consistent with previous Cupertino fiscal impact studies done by EPS. EPS relies on ICSC survey data concerning office workers’ retail expenditures.
KMA’s lower capture and spending assumptions may understate potential sales tax revenue associated with the existing and proposed development. • Pe
rsons per Household (PPH)
KMA applies an ESRI-sourced estimate of 2.89 persons per household, compared to EPS’s 2.85, which is based on the State of California Department of Finance (E-5) data. The difference is minor and within reasonabl e
d
emographic variance.
3 Retail capture rate of 40% is consistent with Cupertino retail square footage relative to trade area retail square footage, assuming most shopping occurs within an area defined by a 15-minute drive time.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
1330 Broadway, Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
DIVIDEND HOMES
FISCAL PEER REVIEW
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EPS #251059 December 17, 2025
1330 Br
oadway, Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
INDEX
Report Tables
Table 1 Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison APPENDIX A: General Assumptions
Table A-1 General Assumptions
Table A-2 Proposed Land Use Development Plan
Table A-3 Estimated Service Population
APPENDIX B: Revenue-Estimating Tables
Table B-1 Revenue-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Santa Clara FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget (2025$) Table B-2 Estimated Annual Project Revenues at Buildout Table B-3 Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Table B-4 Documentary Transfer Tax
Table B-5 Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue
Table B-5A Estimated Annual Taxable Sales, Hybrid Market Support Method Table B-6 Estimated Business License Tax
APPENDIX C: Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget Table C-2 Estimated Annual Project Expenditures at Buildout APPENDIX D: Supporting Tables for Revenue Estimates
Table D-1 Property Tax Allocations
Table D-2 Estimated Assessed Valuation at Buildout
Table D-3 Household Income and Expenditure Assumptions
Table 1
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison
Item Net New
GENERAL FUND a b c = b - a
Annual Revenues [1]
Sales Tax $4,500 $24,400 $19,900
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $11,300 $54,200 $42,900
Other Property Tax $22,700 $109,200 $86,500
Utility Tax $4,400 $12,100 $7,700
Franchise Fees $3,700 $10,300 $6,600
Business License $6,300 $0 ($6,300)
Property Transfer Tax $1,000 $11,500 $10,500
Total General Fund Revenues $53,900 $221,700 $167,800
Annual Expenditures [2]
Council and Commissions $100 $300 $200
Administration $700 $1,900 $1,200
Law Enforcement $17,900 $49,100 $31,200
Administrative Services $800 $2,200 $1,400
Parks and Recreation $0 $19,600 $19,600
Community Development $6,200 $16,900 $10,700
Public Works $22,500 $61,500 $39,000
Total General Fund Expenditures $48,200 $151,500 $103,300 Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $5,700 $70,200 $64,500 Source: City of Cupertino FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; EPS.
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
[1] See Table B-1 for details on revenue estimating procedures. [2] See Table C-1 for details on expenditure estimating procedures.
Existing Proposed
Table A-1
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
General Assumptions
Item Assumption
General Assumptions
Base Fiscal Year [1] FY 2024-25
General Demographic Characteristics
City of Cupertino
Population 59,471
Employees [2] 54,376
City of Cupertino Persons Served [3] 86,659
Source: California Department of Finance (DOF); California Employment Development Department (EDD); EPS.
[3] Defined as total population plus half of total employees. [1] Reflects the City of Cupertino Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget. Revenues and expenditures are in 2025 dollars. This analysis does not reflect changes in value resulting from inflation or appreciation.
[2] The LEHD program's Onthemap.ces.census.gov estimated a total of 54,376 jobs in Cupertino, CA in 2022.
Table A-2
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Proposed Land Use Development Plan
Land Use SF per Unit
Average
Density
Dwelling
Units
Nonres. [1]
Bldg Sq. Ft. SF per Unit
Average
Density
Dwelling
Units
Nonres.
Bldg Sq. Ft.
Residential Townhomes DU/Ac. DU/Ac.
Type 1 1,548
Market-Rate 34
BMR- Moderate 4
BMR- Median 4
Type 2 1,978
Market-Rate 9
BMR- Moderate 1
BMR- Median 2
Type 3 2,016
Market-Rate 9
BMR- Moderate 1
BMR- Median 1
Type 4 2,050
Market-Rate 15
BMR- Moderate 2
BMR- Median 2
Type 5 2,257
Market-Rate 4
BMR- Moderate 1
BMR- Median 0
Total Residential 0 0 0 0 161,163 0 89 0
Nonresidential FAR FAR
Office 68,201 0
Total Nonresidential 0 0 68,201 0 0
Total Land Uses [1] 0 68,201 161,163 0
Source: California Department of Finance (DOF); California Employment Development Department (EDD); EPS. [1] As reported in KMA study.
ProposedExisting
Table A-3
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Service Population
Land Use
Occupied Units Persons/HH Residents Occupied Units Persons/HH Residents Residential
Market-Rate 0.0% 0 2.85 0 71 2.85 202
BMR- Moderate 0 2.85 0 9 2.85 26
BMR- Median 0 2.85 0 9 2.85 26
Total Residential 0 0 89 254
Nonresidential Occupied Bldg Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft./Employee Employees Occupied Bldg Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft./Employee Employees Office 5.0% 68,201 350 185 0
Total Nonresidential 185 0 0
Persons Served [3] 93 254
Source: LEHD OnTheMap 2022; Department of Finance; and EPS [3] Persons Served defined as total project area population plus half of total project area employees. [4] Office Sq.Ft/ Employee Density based on KMA assumption. [2] Existing employee count based total primary jobs on site from LEHD (OnTheMap 2022). Employment at Buildout based on occupied land uses and population and employment density assumptions in Table A-2.
Vacancy
Rate [1]
[1] CoStar reports office vacancy in the submarket at 16.9%. EPS has assumed a stabilized vacancy rate of 5%.
Existing
Occupied Dwelling Units/
Building Square Feet [2]
Service
Population [2]
Occupied Dwelling Units/
Building Square Feet [2]
Service
Population [2]
Proposed
Resident/ Employee
Densities [4]
Resident/ Employee
Densities [4]
Table B-1
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Revenue-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Santa Clara FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget (2025$) FY 2024-25
Estimating Case Study Budgeted Service Revenue
Item Procedure Reference Revenues Population Multiplier General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $11,648,962 NA -
Property Tax Case Study Table B-3 NA -
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF - $10,894,681 NA -
Other Property Tax - $22,280,296 NA -
Transient Occupancy Tax [1] - $7,731,947 NA -
Utility Tax Persons Served - $4,130,140 86,659 $47.66
Franchise Fees Persons Served - $3,509,346 86,659 $40.50 Other Taxes [1] - $60,738 NA -
Business License Case Study Table B-6 $744,690 NA -
Property Transfer Tax Case Study Table B-4 $878,901 NA - Licenses & Permits [1] - $3,665,866 NA -
Use of Money & Property [1] - $4,697,122 NA -
Intergovernmental [1] - $2,471,990 NA -
Charges for Services [2] - $15,102,136 NA -
Fines & Forfeitures [2] - $395,000 NA -
Miscellaneous [1] - $1,210,653 NA -
Other Financing Sources [1] - $367,000 NA -
Transfers In [1] - $15,000 NA -
Subtotal General Fund Revenues $89,804,468 -
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget; EPS. [1] This revenues source is not expected to be affected by the Project and therefore no revenue multipliers are estimated in this analysis. [2] This analysis assumes that all or part of these revenues are fully dedicated to specific General Fund departmental costs (offsetting revenues). Because these revenues are budget-neutral and are not discretionary, they are not included in estimating discretionary Project revenues.
Table B-2
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Annual Project Revenues at Buildout
Estimating
Item Procedure Source
Annual General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $4,500 $24,400
Property Tax Case Study Table B-3
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $11,300 $54,200
Other Property Tax $22,700 $109,200
Utility Tax Persons Served Table B-1 $4,400 $12,100
Franchise Fees Persons Served Table B-1 $3,700 $10,300
Business License Case Study Table B-6 $6,300 $0
Property Transfer Tax Case Study Table B-4 $1,000 $11,500 Annual General Fund Revenues $53,900 $221,700
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget; EPS. [1] This revenues source is not expected to be affected by the Project and therefore no revenue multipliers are estimated in this analysis. [2] This analysis assumes that all or part of these revenues are fully dedicated to specific General Fund departmental costs (offsetting revenues).
Because these revenues are budget-neutral and are not discretionary, they are not included in estimating discretionary Project revenues.
Amount (Rounded)
Existing Project Proposed Project
Amount (Rounded)
Table B-3
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Item Formula Existing Proposed
1% Property Tax
Total Assessed Value of Project [1] a $34,876,299 $167,737,934 Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) b = a * 1.00% $348,763 $1,677,379 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [2]
City of Cupertino c = b * 6.51% $22,704 $109,197
Santa Clara County d = b * 19.85% $69,229 $332,960
Other Agencies e = b * 73.64% $256,829 $1,235,222
Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Revenue (VLF) Total Citywide Assessed Value [3] f $33,715,982,769 $33,715,982,769 Percentage Change in AV g = a / f 0.10% 0.50%
Annual Increase in Property Tax In Lieu of VLF [4] j = i * $10,894,681 $11,270 $54,201 Source: ParcelQuest; EPS.
[3] FY2024-2025 value based on Santa Clara County's Annual Assessor's Report. [4] Property tax in lieu of VLF amount derived from the City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. [1] Assessed Value of Existing Office Complex reflect 2024/2025 secured land and improvement values of the property per KMA report. Proposed Assessed Value from Table D-2.
[2] See Table D-1.
Table B-4
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Documentary Transfer Tax
Description Formula
Assumptions
Rate per $1,000 of AV [1] $0.55 a = $0.55
Turnover Rate [2]
Owner-Occupied Homes 12.5% b = 12.5%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 5.0% c = 5.0%
Assessed Value [3]
Market-Rate Table D-2 d $0 $167,737,934
Nonresidential Table D-2 e $34,876,000 $0
Total Assessed Value f = d + e $34,876,000 $167,737,934 Annual Transfer Tax Revenue
Market-Rate g = (d / 1,000) * a * b $0 $11,532
Nonresidential h = (e / 1,000) * a * c $959 $0
Total Annual Transfer Tax Revenue i = g + h $959 $11,532 Source: City of Cupertino; EPS.
Source/
Assumption
Existing
Project
Proposed
Project
[3] Assessed Values (AV) derived in Table D-2 note that assessed values are expressed in 2025$ and include no real AV growth.
[2] Annual Turnover Rate based on assumption that Residential properties turn over one in every 8 years and one in 10 years for the nonresidential retail component.
[1] Based on California Revenue and Taxation Code, §§ 11911-11929, which authorizes cities and counties to levy a real estate transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 value.
Table B-5
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue
Item Assumptions Formula
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales (Rounded)
Annual Taxable Sales from New Market Support Table B-5A $452,700 $2,438,400 Total Annual Taxable Sales a $452,700 $2,438,400
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.00% b = a * 1.00% $4,500 $24,400 Total Sales Tax Revenue $4,500 $24,400
Source: California State Board of Equalization; City of Cupertino; EPS.
Existing
Project
Proposed
Project
Table B-5A
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales, Hybrid Market Support Method Item Description
Annual Taxable Sales from New Occupied Households
Occupied Residential Units Table A-3 Table A-3
Residential Subtotal $0 89
Taxable Retail Expenditures [1] Table D-3 Table D-3
Type 1
Market-Rate - $0 $65,800 per HH $2,237,200
BMR- Moderate - $0 $36,900 per HH $147,600
BMR- Median - $0 $25,500 per HH $102,000
Type 2
Market-Rate - $0 $87,200 per HH $784,800
BMR- Moderate - $0 $36,900 per HH $36,900
BMR- Median - $0 $25,500 per HH $51,000
Type 3
Market-Rate - $0 $88,000 per HH $792,000
BMR- Moderate - $0 $36,900 per HH $36,900
BMR- Median - $0 $25,500 per HH $25,500
Type 4
Market-Rate - $0 $88,900 per HH $1,333,500
BMR- Moderate - $0 $39,500 per HH $79,000
BMR- Median - $0 $27,300 per HH $54,600
Type 5
Market-Rate - $0 $93,900 per HH $375,600
BMR- Moderate - $0 $39,500 per HH $39,500
Residential Subtotal $0 $6,096,100
Taxable Sales from New Households
Estimated Retail Capture in City of Cupertino [2] 40% $0 40% $2,438,440 Annual Taxable Sales from Employees Table A-3 Table A-3 Employees 185 0
Average Weekly Taxable Sales per Employee [2] $127 $0
Work Weeks per Year 48 48
Total City Taxable Sales from New Employees $1,131,654 $0 Taxable Sales from New Employees
Estimated Retail Capture in City of Cupertino [2] 40% $452,662 40% $0 Total Annual City Taxable Sales from Market Support $452,662 $2,438,440 [2] EPS Assumption.
Source/
Assumption
Existing
Project
Proposed
Project
Source/
Assumption
[1] See Table D-3 for estimated retail expenditures per household (values rounded to nearest thousand). Proposed Project value column multiplies per household amount by total households in Project.
Source: International Council of Shopping Centers; Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Department of Tax and Fee Administration; and EPS.
Table B-6
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Business License Tax
Item Source Assumptions Project Assumptions Project
Non-Residential Bldg. Sq. Ft. Table A-2
Office 68,201 $68,201 0 $0
Estimated Number of Businesses [1] 17 0 $0
Base Tax [2] $181 $3,077 0 $0
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft. [3]
0 - 5,000 SF $0.0485 per SF $2,629 0 $0
5,001 - 25,000 SF $0.0422 per SF $591 0 $0
Total Annual Business License Tax $6,297 $0
Source: City of Cupertino; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Based on data from available office suites in the property as reported by commercial leasing agents. [2] City of Cupertino Business License Tax for FY 2024 includes a base tax and an annual rental tax per SF.
Existing Proposed
[3] Suites at 20111 and 20045–20065 Stevens Creek are each under 5,000 SF. At 20085 Stevens Creek, approximately 14,000 SF is available for a single tenant. EPS used the corresponding rates to calculate the annual fee.
Table C-1
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Population Net Adjusted
Estimating Net City or Persons Expenditure Adjustment Expenditure Item Procedure Expenditures Served Multiplier Factor [1] Multiplier General Fund Expenditures
Council and Commissions Persons Served Multiplier $1,113,918 86,659 $12.85 10% $1.29 Administration Persons Served Multiplier $6,553,963 86,659 $75.63 10% $7.56 Law Enforcement Persons Served Multiplier $18,648,806 86,659 $215.20 90% $193.68 Innovation & Technology Persons Served Multiplier $3,122,993 86,659 $36.04 0% $0.00 Administrative Services Persons Served Multiplier $7,537,109 86,659 $86.97 10% $8.70 Parks and Recreation Per Capita $6,126,441 59,471 $103.02 75% $77.26 Community Development Persons Served Multiplier $11,525,304 86,659 $133.00 50% $66.50 Public Works Persons Served Multiplier $28,040,398 86,659 $323.57 75% $242.68 Non-Departmental [2] $7,372,862 - - - $0.00
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures [3] $90,041,794 $597.66 Source: City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget; EPS. [1] Adjustment factor recognizes some department costs are fixed. [2] Not expected to be affected by the Project and is not evaluated in this analysis.
Table C-2
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Annual Project Expenditures at Buildout
Existing Project Proposed Project
Estimating
Expenditures Procedure Source
General Fund
Council and Commissions Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $100 $300 Administration Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $700 $1,900 Law Enforcement Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $17,900 $49,100 Administrative Services Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $800 $2,200 Parks and Recreation Per Capita Table C-1 $0 $19,600
Community Development Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $6,200 $16,900 Public Works Persons Served Multiplier Table C-1 $22,500 $61,500 Annual General Fund Expenditures $48,200 $151,500
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget; EPS.
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
Amount
(Rounded)
Amount
(Rounded)
Table D-1
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Property Tax Allocations
013-003
FUND
Post-ERAF & RDA
Shift
City and County
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 0.00180
Central Fire Protection District 0.15180
City of Cupertino 0.06510
Cupertino Union Elementary 0.24750
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund 0.07700
Foothill-DeAnza Community College 0.06380
Fremont Union High 0.16710
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 0.01550
Santa Clara County 0.13680
Santa Clara County Importation Water-Misc District 0.00490 Santa Clara County Library 0.02570
Santa Clara County Office of Education 0.03110
Santa Clara Valley Water District 0.00160
Santa Clara Valley Water District North Central Zone 0.00900 Santa Clara Valley Water District West Zone 4 0.00130
Totals 1.00000
Source: KMA Study; EPS.
[1] Represents the percentage allocation of the 1% ad valorem property tax for Tax Rate Area (TRA) 013003 in which the project is located, as reported by KMA.
Table D-2
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Estimated Assessed Valuation at Buildout
Item
Residential Per Unit Units
Type 1
Market-Rate $1,875,000 34 $63,750,000
BMR- Moderate $648,349 4 $2,593,396
BMR- Median $408,752 4 $1,635,008
Type 2
Market-Rate $2,500,000 9 $22,500,000
BMR- Moderate $648,349 1 $648,349
BMR- Median $408,752 2 $817,504
Type 3
Market-Rate $2,525,000 9 $22,725,000
BMR- Moderate $648,349 1 $648,349
BMR- Median $408,752 1 $408,752
Type 4
Market-Rate $2,550,000 15 $38,250,000
BMR- Moderate $699,302 2 $1,398,604
BMR- Median $441,835 2 $883,670
Type 5
Market-Rate $2,695,000 4 $10,780,000
BMR- Moderate $699,302 1 $699,302
Total 89 $167,737,934
Nonresidential Per Sq. Ft. Bldg Sq. Ft. Per Sq. Ft. Bldg Occupied Sq. Ft.
Office $511 68,201 $34,876,000 $0 0 $0
Total Nonresidential 68,201 $34,876,000 0 $0
Total Assessed Value [2] $34,876,000 $167,737,934
Source: EPS; KMA
[1] Residential assessed value per unit based on estimated sale price of unit reported in KMA Study. For retail assessed value per sq. ft. see Table D-3. [2] Assessed Value of Existing Office Complex reflect 2024/2025 secured land and improvement values of the property per KMA report. [3] Total proposed assessed value expressed in 2025$ and include no real AV growth.
Existing Proposed
Assessed Value
per Unit/Bldg Sq. Ft.
Total Assessed
Value [2]Development
Assessed Value
per Unit/Bldg Development
Total Assessed
Value [2]
Table D-3
Cupertino Dividend Homes Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review
Household Income and Expenditure Assumptions
Estimated
Annual
as % Average
Land Use of HH Income Annual Exp.
Residential Per Unit
Type 1
Market-Rate $1,875,000 $459,000 14.3% $65,800
BMR- Moderate $648,349 $167,000 22.1% $36,900
BMR- Median $408,752 $109,000 23.4% $25,500
Type 2
Market-Rate $2,500,000 $608,000 14.3% $87,200
BMR- Moderate $648,349 $167,000 22.1% $36,900
BMR- Median $408,752 $109,000 23.4% $25,500
Type 3
Market-Rate $2,525,000 $614,000 14.3% $88,000
BMR- Moderate $648,349 $167,000 22.1% $36,900
BMR- Median $408,752 $109,000 23.4% $25,500
Type 4
Market-Rate $2,550,000 $620,000 14.3% $88,900
BMR- Moderate $699,302 $179,000 22.1% $39,500
BMR- Median $441,835 $117,000 23.4% $27,300
Type 5
Market-Rate $2,695,000 $655,000 14.3% $93,900
BMR- Moderate $699,302 $179,000 22.1% $39,500
[2] Market Rate household income assumptions:
Assumes that annual mortgage payments, plus property taxes and insurance are 30% of income.
Taxes and insurance are assumed to equal 2% of home value.
Includes a $300/month estimate for HOA dues.
[3] Taxable expenditures as a percentage of income derived from the 2022 BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey.
Mortgage payments assume a 20% down payment, 30-yr term, 5% fixed interest.
Income per
Household [2]
Assessed
Value [1]
[1] Assessed value information for residential uses based on sales price provided in KMA Study.
Source: California Department of Finance; U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; KMA; EPS.
Taxable HH Expenditures [3]