www.FinanceDTA.com
Newport Beach | San Jose | San Francisco | Riverside | Dallas | Houston | Raleigh | Tampa
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
June 9, 2021
To: Mike Tunney, Howard Industrial Partners
From: David Taussig and Jerry Wen, DTA
Subject: Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
Attached for your review is an Executive Su mmary of a Fiscal Impact Analysis (“FIA”) evaluating the Pepper Avenue Industrial Building project (the “Project”) being proposed by Howard Industrial Partners (the “Project Proponent”) in the City of Rialto (the “City”) located in the County of San Bernardino (the “County”). The intent of this memorandum is for DTA to provide a brief summary of the projected fis cal impacts to the City’s General Fund that would result from the development of the Pr oject under the proposed amended zoning.
The specific purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the Project will fully pay for all of the services that it will be receiving from the City.
Description of the Project Site and Project Use
As depicted in Figure 1 below, the Project si te includes approximately 24.23 gross acres of land located on the eastside of Pepper Avenue approximately 500 feet south of the SR-210 Freeway and constitutes the entirety of Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan. The Project Proponent is presently in discussion with the City to amend the existing zoning to allow for light industrial uses.
As illustrated in the conceptual site plan below, the Project is anticipated to be comprised of 432,000
building square feet (“BSF”) of warehouse buildings at its build-out. Pursuant to direction provided by the Project Proponent, 100% of the Project is assumed to be occupied by a Point-of-sale (“POS”) fulfillment center (“FC”) operator for the purpose of this analysis.
Figure 1: Project Site and Conceptual Site Plan
2 Howard Industrial Partners June 9, 2021
Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
Analytic Methodology and Assumptions
Notably, only recurring revenues and costs ar e analyzed in this FIA. Costs that are considered non-recurring, such as capital ex penditures, are excluded from the analysis.
This is because new development is generally required to construct its own new capital improvements, such as roads or parks, or pay Development Impact Fees (“DIFs”) that enable the City or some other developer to construct these improvements. As these are one-time costs that will not recur, there is no expectation that new development will need to pay for these capital expenditures a second time. Li kewise, revenues that are non-recurring, such as DIFs paid by developers, are also excluded from the FIA. In sum, the model reflects the estimated recurring annual deficit or surplus to the City’s General Fund that will result from the development of the Project.
DTA chooses its analytical assumptions in accordance with industry standards and documents those decisions carefully. The fo llowing list explains how some of these assumptions were derived:
Discounting Revenues: Certain revenues ar e not expected to increase one-to-one with new development. Thus, 20% and 25% discount rates have been applied to various General Fund revenues to reflect th e estimated ratio of fixed revenues (not impacted by future development) to variable revenues. In addition, DTA conservatively applies a 100% discount on the intergovernmental revenues given that the allotment of such revenues generally involves complex socioeconomic and demographic factors that are difficult to f orecast. Furthermore, a 100% discount is applied on certain City General Fund revenues that are not expected to increase with new development, including various lease revenues and contractual revenues.
Discounting Expenses: Notably, DTA has co nservatively assumed that no discount factors would be applied to General Fund expe nditures, even though it is likely that those services costs will not need to be 10 0% duplicated despite the influx of new non-residential development within the Project.
Point-of-Sale (“POS”) Fulfillment Centers: The POS FC can be a major generator of sales tax revenues for the municipality in which it is located. There has been considerable discussion surrounding the is sue of sales tax collection from online retailers associated with fulfillment centers. A fulfillment center is a physical location from which a logistics provider, who may be a third party, directly fulfills customer orders for e-commerce retailers. These centers exist to distribute online orders directly to retail customers in a timely fashion and generate revenues that are considered POS revenues. California law, culminating with the 2019 Marketplace Facilitators Act, allows operators of fulfillment centers such as Amazon to designate a POS that permits them to direct 100% of their share of sales tax revenues for “taxable sales” to a pre-determined city in which they have a physical presence.
Unfortunately, however, not all retail sales are considered taxable within California.
For example, there is no sales tax paid in California on purchases made by residents or businesses located outside of the Stat e, nor are there sales taxes imposed for groceries or pharmaceutical drugs sold insi de or outside of the State. In addition, some retailers may request that they retain a share of sales taxes from a local municipality in return for locating their fulfillment centers in a specific community. 3 Howard Industrial Partners June 9, 2021
Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
Based on studies performed by Prologis Re search, distribution facilities used as fulfillment centers by e-commerce retailers support annual sales of up to $1,000 per BSF. Given that e-commerce retail sales in the United States grew by 102% from 2014 to 2019, even prior to the COVID pandemic, the demand for fulfillment center space has been increasing exponentially. Su rveys performed by Coldwell Banker Real Estate and Prologis Research prior to COVI D indicated that 30% to 40% of the users of new warehouse space were specifically looking for space for fulfillment center(s).
However, as explained above, the tota l taxable sales generated by any given fulfillment center is difficult to gauge, as each is heavily dependent on the specific tenant as well as the volume and prices of the taxable goods shipped from that location to California residents or business. Pursuant to direction from the Project Proponent, DTA has assumed that 100% of the warehouse square footage in the Project would be occupied by a marketplace facilitator such as Amazon, QVC, Uline, Staples, etc., and that one-half of the po tential sales ($500 per square foot) would ultimately generate sales taxes. DTA a ssumes that 35% of those sales taxes will be apportioned to the City based on a re cent sales tax apportionment agreement entered between the California Departme nt of Tax and Fee Administration and Amazon FC located throughout much of the State, including the City of San Bernardino. Based on this 35% assumption , the Project is anticipated to generate $781,220 in direct sales taxes.
Square Feet per Employee (“SF/E”): DTA utilizes an approximation of 1,200 SF/E based on the 1.2 million BSF of Amazon’s fulfillment center in the City of Moreno Valley and an estimated 1,000 full-time employees working in that fulfillment center, which would equal 1,200 SF/E. Based on this as sumption, the Project is anticipated to generate 360 permanent on-site jobs.
Tax Sharing (Secured Property Taxes): Prop erty tax revenue estimates were derived using apportionment factors provided by the County Auditor-Controller as applied to the general 1% ad valorem property tax levy. Total secured property tax revenues received by the City from the proposed Project will equal approximately 13.6% of the basic 1% [Proposition (“Prop”) 13] property tax levy from the Tax Rate Areas (“TRAs”) encompassing the Project. Please note that the gross tax increment, as calculated by the County Auditor-Controller, has b een reduced to account for the projected Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) property tax shifts.
Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fe es (“VLFs”): The approval of Prop 1A in California in 2004 enacted a constitutional amendment that introduced a new methodology to calculate property taxes in lieu of VLFs. Per California Revenue and Taxation Code §97.70, the property tax in lieu of VLF amount now grows in proportion to the growth rate of gross assessed valuation in a city or county.
Property taxes in lieu of VLF revenues are projected to grow with the change in the Citywide gross assessed valuation of taxabl e property from the prior FY. Property taxes in lieu of VLF revenues constitute an addition to other property tax apportionments and were calculated for the purposes of this FIA at $1.36 per $1,000 increase in assessed valuation on a Citywide basis.
4 Howard Industrial Partners June 9, 2021
Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
For additional details regarding the specific assumptions and methodology utilized to calculate the fiscal impacts for the Project, please see Attachment 1 below.
The City’s General Fund – Net Fiscal Impact Summary
As listed in Table 1 below, the overall net fis cal impact to the City's General Fund resulting from the revenues anticipated to be generated by the Project's build-out, as compared with the cost of public services associated with the Project's build-out, assuming that a fullfilment center will be located within the Project, will be a sign ificant annual recurring fiscal surplus of $841,266 .
Table 1: General Fund Fiscal Impact and Service CFD Impact Summary
5 Howard Industrial Partners June 9, 2021
Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
As reflected in Figure 2 below, the two largest projected City General Fund revenue sources attributable to the Project at build-out are direct sales taxes and property taxes (including property tax in lieu of VLFs). Direct sales taxes alone will generate 68.0% of the City's revenues from the Project, with property taxes adding an additional 23.3%. Conversely, the largest projected City General Fund expendit ures will be for infrastructure and park maintenance costs (48.2%), police (20.8%), and fire protection (12.3), as depicted in Figure 3 below.
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Revenues at Project Build-Out
Figure 3: Recurring General Fund Ex penditures at Project Build-Out
Notably, even without the projected direct sales tax revenues of $781,220 from the POS FC, the net fiscal impact anticipated to be generated by the Project's build-out will still be an annual recurring fiscal surplus of $60,046 .
There are a couple reasons for the potential significant surplus being generated by this Project at build-out. First, parcels on which the site is located have not changed hands in many years, so the existing assessed value has been artificially restricted by a 2% annual escalator that has not reflected the impacts of real estate inflation on new development sales prices over the years. The developmen t and sale of the comp onents of the Project
6 Howard Industrial Partners June 9, 2021
Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
would remove that restriction and substantially increase the property taxes and in-lieu VLF revenues for the site. Second, the POS FC would immediately produce direct sales taxes that have not been generated by the current property.
If you have any further questions regarding th is Executive Summary, please feel free to contact David Taussig or Jerry Wen at (800) 969-4DTA.
Enclosures:
1. Attachment 1 – FIA
ATTACHMENT 1
Howard Industrial Partners
Fiscal Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Pepper Avenue Industrial Building Project
FIA
ATTACHMENT 1-A
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
CITY GENERAL FUND REVENUES (BY TYPE)
I Demographics and Other Data
2021 City Estimated Population [1] 102,567
2021 City Estimated Employees [2] 23,383
2021 Persons Served Population [3] 114,259
Notes:
[1] California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2021. [2] Spotlight by Environics Analytics, Employment Profile by NAICS Code, Sept. 2020. [3] Assumes population plus 50% of employees.
II City General Fund Revenue Sources (by Type)
Tax Revenue Persons Served $0.00
Current Secured Property Tax $7,664,965 Recurring Case Study NA NA SB 211 Property Tax $5,080,000 Recurring Case Study NA NA Prior Year Property Tax $449,190 Recurring Case Study NA NA Property Utility/Unitary Tax $440,000 Recurring Case Study NA NA Utility User Tax $13,081,510 Recurring Case Study NA NA Sales and Use Taxes $18,765,350 Recurring Case Study NA NA Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Taxes $626,000 Recurring Case Study NA NA Property Transfer Taxes $500,000 Recurring Case Study NA NA Transient Occupancy Taxes $229,540 Recurring Case Study NA NA Business Licenses $3,700,000 Recurring Per Employee 20% $126.59 Franchise Fees $3,800,000 Recurring Persons Served 25% $24.94 Motor Vehicle Licenses $52,000 Recurring Case Study NA NA Interest Income $762,380 Recurring Case Study NA NA
Charges for Current Services $6,837,677 Recurring Persons Served 25% $44.88 Development Agreements &
Inspection Services $6,409,400 Recurring Persons Served 100% $0.00 VLF/Property Tax Compensation $14,695,250 Recurring Case Study NA NA Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties $733,200 Recurring Persons Served 25% $4.81 Intergovernmental $5,756,230 Recurring Persons Served 100% $0.00 Use of Money and Property $517,897 Recurring Persons Served 100% $0.00 Licenses and Permits $2,542,950 Recurring Persons Served 25% $16.69 Other / Miscellaneous $8,426,532 Recurring Persons Served 100% $0.00 Transfers In $3,946,701 Non-Recurring NA NA NA
Total Revenues $105,016,772 NA NA NA NA
Total Recurring Revenues $101,070,071 NA NA NA NA
Discount
Fiscal Impact
Revenue
Factor
Total
RevenuesRevenue Type Revenue Type Fiscal Impact
Basis
ATTACHMENT 1-B
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
CITY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (BY TYPE)
I Demographics and Other Data
2021 City Estimated Population [1] 102,567
2021 City Estimated Employees [2] 23,383
2021 Persons Served Population [3] 114,259
Notes:
[1] California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2021. [2] Spotlight by Environics Analytics, Employment Profile by NAICS Code, Sept. 2020. [3] Assumes population plus 50% of employees.
II Recurring City General Fund Expenditures (by Type)
General Government
City Council $608,916 Recurring Case Study NA NA
City Clerk $739,926 Recurring Case Study NA NA
City Treasurer $630,182 Recurring Case Study NA NA
Community Development $4,522,829 Recurring Case Study NA NA City Manager $2,379,980 Recurring Case Study NA NA
Management Services $981,435 Recurring Case Study NA NA Human Resources $1,279,329 Recurring Case Study NA NA
Finance $2,487,276 Recurring Case Study NA NA
Non-General Government
Police $40,687,582 Recurring Persons Served 0% $356.10
Fire $24,147,565 Recurring Persons Served 0% $211.34
Public Works $11,306,273 Recurring Persons Served 0% $98.95 Community Services $4,342,584 Recurring Persons Served 0% $38.01 Non-Departmental $4,846,734 Recurring Persons Served 100% $0.00 Transfers Out $2,251,290 Non-Recurring NA NA NA
Total Expenditures $101,211,901 NA NA NA NA
Total Recurring Expenditures $98,960,611 NA NA NA NA
Fiscal Impact
Expenditure
Factor
Expenditure Type Total
Expenditures
Expenditure
Type
Fiscal Impact
Basis Discount
ATTACHMENT 1-C
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY
I Developable Land Use Description
A Non-Residential Land Uses
Building Sq. Ft. [1]
Fulfillment Center 432,000
I Non-Residential Land Use Employee Generation
A Non-Residential Land Uses Sq. Ft. per Employee [2]
Fulfillment Center 1,200
I Projected Direct Employees
A Non-Residential Land Uses Total Direct Employees
Fulfillment Center 360
I Total Projected Residential Population N/A
II Total Projected Direct Employees [3] 360
III Total Persons Served Population 180
NOTES:
[1] Source: Project Proponent.
[2] Based on the square feet per employee for Amazon fulfillment center in Moreno Valley. [3]
eight active hours in the City per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours per day. * All figures subject to rounding
An employee is typically assumed to be equivalent to 50% of a resident given they would spend only Population and Employees (Calculations)
Demographic Data
Future Land Use Data
Population and Employees (Totals)
ATTACHMENT 1-D
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Property Tax Allocation (as a Portion of the 1% General Property Tax Levy) [1] A Category / Code [2]
Allocated to City
City of Rialto - General Fund 13.642183%
Total 13.642183%
I Non-Residential Land Uses
A Fulfillment Center
Estimated Number of Sq. Ft. [3] 432,000
Estimated Valuation per Sq. Ft. [4] $220
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $95,040,000
II Total Land Use Net Taxable Value $95,040,000
I Unsecured Property Taxes - Assumptions
A Unsecured Taxes as a % of Secured [5]
Non-Residential Property 5.00%
II Property Tax Transfer - Assumptions
A Turnover Rate
[6]
Non-Residential Property 5.00%
B Other Assumptions [7]
Transfer Tax as a % of Assessed Value 0.11%
Property Transfer Tax Passed Through to City of Rialto 50.00% III Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees - Assumptions
Vehicle Licensing Fees per Capita NA
IV Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee - Assumptions Total City of Rialto Gross Assessed Value [8] $10,830,810,827 City of Rialto Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee [9] $14,695,250 Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Increase per $1,000 Assessed Value $1.36 I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Secured Property Tax
A.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $129,655
B Unsecured Property Tax
B.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $6,483
C Property Transfer Tax
C.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $2,614
General Property Tax Assumptions
Assessed Valuation Assumptions
Other Property Tax Revenue Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
ATTACHMENT 1-D
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
D Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee [10]
Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses $128,767
II Total Property Tax Revenues $267,519
NOTES:
[1] Based on "City of Rialto General Tax Levy" for Tax Rate Area (TRA). Data provided by the County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's Office. TRA allocations adjusted for ERAF. Note, figure does not include non-General Funds. [2] Post ERAF rates based on the fiscal year 2020-21 rate applicable to the TRA in the Project. Source: County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller Office.
[3] Please see Attachment 1-C. Subject to change.
[4] Source: Project Proponent.
[5] Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
[6] Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
[7] Source: California Revenue & Taxation Code §11901, et seq .;
[8] Source: County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller Office. [9] Source: City of Rialto Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021. [10] Property Tax in-lieu of Vehicle Licensing Fees applies to incremental property value. Current estimated assessed value of Project site of $134,931 excluded from calculation.
*
All figures subject to rounding
ATTACHMENT 1-E
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
SALES TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions - Employees [1]
Annual Spending per Warehouse Employee $870.49
II Non-Project Retail Taxable Sales Capture
City of Rialto Retail Taxable Purchase Capture [2] 50%
I Non-Residential Direct Sales Tax Assumptions
A Non-Residential Land Uses Taxable Sales per Sq. Ft. [3] Fulfillment Center $500.00
II Tax Sharing Agreement with Point-of-Sale Generators
Percent to City of Rialto [4] 35%
I Percent to the City of Rialto
City of Rialto Municipal Code §3.04.011 1.00%
Prop 172 Public Safety Tax [5] 0.03%
Total 1.03%
I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
AI n d i r e c t S a l e s T a x
A.1 Employee Taxable Sales
Fulfillment Center $1,619
BD i r e c t S a l e s T a x
B.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $781,220
II Total Sales Tax Revenues $782,839
NOTES:
[1] Based on the average spending on Fast Food/Deli/L unch Eateries for workers with annual income with $50K-$75K. Source: "Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age," ICSC (2012). Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.
[2] Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
[3] Per Project Proponent, 1 00% of the Project is assumed to be occupied by a Point-of-sale (“POS”) fulfillment center operator.
[4] Based on sales tax apportionment of 35% to the City of San Bernardino for its Amazon fulfillment center. [5] Gross tax rate is 0.5%. The City projects to receive approximately 6.67% of the Prop 172 sales tax receipts generated within the City, which is equivalent to 0.03% sales tax rate.
Source: City of Rialto Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021. *
All figures subject to rounding
Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions
Direct Sales Tax Assumptions
Other Sales Tax Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
ATTACHMENT 1-F
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
UTILITY USERS' TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Utility Usage Assumptions
Telephone Electricity Natural Gas Water Sewer
A Non-Residential Land Uses ($ per Business) [1] (kWh per Sq. Ft.) [2] (Cu. Ft. per Sq. Ft.) [3] (Gal. per Sq. Ft.) [4] (Gal. per Sq. Ft.) [5] Fulfillment Center $11,700 4.8 25.5 3.4 2.4
II Energy Price Assumptions
A Non-Residential Land Uses
Electricity Costs per kWh [6] $0.1181
Natural Gas Rate per 1,000 Cu. Ft. [7] $15.48
Water Rate per 100 Cu. Ft. [8] $3.32
Sewer Rate per 100 Cu. Ft. [8] $6.77
I Non-Residential Land Uses
A Fulfillment Center [6]
Telephone $11,700
Electricity $244,892
Natural Gas $170,528
Water $6,519
Sewer $9,306
I Utility User Tax Rate Assumptions
Telephone (Municipal Code §3.16.040) 8.00%
Electricity (Municipal Code §3.16.060) 8.00%
Natural Gas (Municipal Code §3.16.070) 8.00%
Sewer (Municipal Code §3.16.080) 8.00%
Water (Municipal Code §3.16.090) 8.00%
I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Utility User Tax - Telephone
A.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $936
B Utility User Tax - Electricity
B.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $19,591
C Utility User Tax - Natural Gas
C.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $13,642
D Utility User Tax - Water
D.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $522
E Utility User Tax - Sewer
E.1 Non-Residential Land Uses
Fulfillment Center $744
II Total Utility Users' Tax Revenues $35,436
NOTES:
[1] Based on the current base cost of AT&T Business Unlimited Enhanced with 5 lines. [2] Source: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table C15, 2012. [3] Source: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table C25, 2012. [4] Source: Water consumption in large commercial buildings, Table W1, 2012. [5] Sewer usage is assumed to be proportional to water usage and is estimated at 70% of water usage. [6] Source: https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/rialto/ .
[7] Source: https://www.naturalgaslocal.com/states/california/rialto/. [8] Based on current water and sewer rates. Source: City of Rialto. * All figures subject to rounding
Fiscal Impact Calculation
Utility Assumptions
Gross Utility Receipts
Utility Users' Tax Assumptions
ATTACHMENT 1-G
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
MULTIPLIER REVENUE SOURCES ANALYSIS
I Revenue Category Multiplier Factor [1] Revenue Projection Basis Business Licenses $126.59 Per Employee
Franchise Fees $24.94 Persons Served
Charges for Current Services $44.88 Persons Served
Licenses and Permits $16.69 Persons Served
Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties $4.81 Persons Served
I Fiscal Impact Category
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
Business Licenses $45,572
Franchise Fees $4,489
Charges for Current Services $8,078
Licenses and Permits $3,004
Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties $866
II Total Multiplier Revenues $62,009
NOTES:
[1] Source: City of Rialto Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021. * All figures subject to rounding
Multiplier Revenue Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
ATTACHMENT 1-H
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
INVESTMENT INCOME REVENUES ANALYSIS
I Investment Income Assumptions
Investment Period for Recurring Non-Interest General Fund Revenues (Months) 3 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Rate of Return [1] 1.24% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Percentage of Earnings Cost [2] 50.00% I Fiscal Impact Category
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
Total Property Tax Revenues (Attachment 1-D) $267,519
Total Sales Tax Revenues (Attachment 1-E) $782,839
Total Utility User Tax Revenues (Attachment 1-F) $35,436 Total Multiplier Revenues (Attachment 1-G) $62,009
II Projected Recurring General Fund Revenues Available for Investment $1,147,803 III Plus: Investment Income (Less Earnings Cost) $1,779 IV Total Recurring General Fund Revenues $1,149,582
NOTES:
[1] Based on the 2020 average LAIF apportionment rates. Subject to change. [2] Estimate. Subject to change.
* All figures subject to rounding
Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
ATTACHMENT 1-I
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
MULTIPLIER EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS
Expenditure
I Expenditure Category
Multiplier Factor [1] Projection Basis
Police $356.10 Persons Served
Fire $211.34 Persons Served
Public Works $98.95 Persons Served
Community Services $38.01 Persons Served
I Fiscal Impact Category
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
Police $64,098
Fire $38,041
Public Works $17,811
Community Services $6,842
II Total Multiplier Expenditures $126,792
NOTES:
[1] Source: City of Rialto Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021. * All figures subject to rounding
Multiplier Expenditure Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
ATTACHMENT 1-J
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
INFRASTRUCTURE & PARK MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS I Estimated Roadway Infrastructure and Sidewalks/Trails Requirements [1] Estimated Lane Miles of Roadway 0.00
Estimated Number of Signalized Intersections 0
Estimated Number of Streetlights 0
Estimated Mileage of Sidewalks/Trails 0.00
Estimated Acres of Landscaped Parkways and Medians 0.50 II Estimated Parks and Open Space Requirements [1]
Estimated Acres of Parks 0.00
Estimated Acres of Open Space/Slopes 30.00
III Estimated Storm Drainage Infrastructure Requirements [1] Estimated Acres of Basin 0.00
Estimated Mileage of Storm Drains 0.00
I Roadway Infrastructure and Sidewalks/Trails [2]
Roadway Maintenance Costs per Lane Mile 2,661.12
Traffic Signal Maintenance per Intersection 5,720.00
Street Light Maintenance per Light 61.21
Sidewalk/Trail Maintenance per Lineal Mile 839.52
Landscaped Parkways and Medians Maintenance Costs per Acre 9,583.20 II Parks and Open Space [2]
Park Maintenance Costs per Acre 18,000.00
Open Space/Slope Maintenance per Acre 4,791.60
III Storm Drainage Infrastructure [2]
Basin/Lake Maintenance per Acre 5,227.20
Storm Drain Maintenance Per Mile 1,177.43
I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Roadway Infrastructure and Sidewalks/Trails
Roadways $0
Signalized Intersections $0
Street Lights $0
Sidewalks/Trails $0
Landscaped Parkways and Medians $4,792
B Parks and Open Space
Parks $0
Open Space/Slopes $143,748
C Storm Drainage Infrastructure
Basin $0
Storm Drains $0
II Total Infrastructure & Parks Maintenance Costs $148,540 NOTES:
[1] Source: Project Proponent.
[2] Based on data obtained from the DTA Public Works database, in concert with research from the Engineering News-Record. * All figures subject to rounding
Additional Infrastructure Requirement Assumptions
Annual Maintenance Costs Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
ATTACHMENT 1-K
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA: PEPPER AVENUE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS
I General Government Overhead Expenditures
Total Recurring County Expenditures $85,330,738
(excluding General Government Overhead) [1]
Recurring General Government Overhead Expenditures 16.0% (as a % of Total Recurring County Expenditures) [2]
Marginal Increase in General Government Costs for Proposed Development 75% I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
Total Multiplier Expenditures (Attachment 1-I) $126,792 Total Infrastructure & Park Maintenance Expenditures (Attachment 1-J) $148,540 II Projected Recurring General Fund Expenditures $275,332 II Plus: General Government Costs $32,984
III Total Recurring Expenditures $308,316
NOTES:
[1] Based on City of Ontario 2020-2021 Adopted Annual Operating Budget. [2] General Government Overhead Expenditures defined as costs for Legislative, Administration, Finance, Community Development, and other General Government.
* All figures subject to rounding
Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation