TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Jen Baker
Maria Öberg
SUBJECT: Infrastructure Financing
Tools for Economic
Development Study Session
DATE: September 21, 2026
Approved Date:
9/25/2026
PURPOSE
Provide the City Council with an overview of two primary infrastructure financing tools - Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts - including how each tool functions, when each is most effective, and the opportunities and limitations associated with their use to finance public infrastructure that supports economic development and private investment.
OUTCOME
Equip the City Council with a common understanding of the circumstances under which Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts are appropriate and successfully implemented, share eligible uses of proceeds, outline the scope and timeline of infrastructure funds garnered, create awareness of the costs associated with the administration of the tools, and share evaluation criteria that may be used when considering these financing tools to support future economic development and infrastructure investment opportunities.
BACKGROUND
Major development projects frequently require public infrastructure investments that occur before or concurrently with private development. These needs may include streets, transit, utility systems, public spaces, and other public facilities. Traditional funding sources such as the General Fund, enterprise revenues, development impact fees, grants, and general obligation or lease financing may not be sufficient or appropriate for every project.
STUDY SESSION: 10/2/26
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
California’s modern redevelopment financing story began with redevelopment agencies (RDAs), which were authorized in 1945 and became a major local economic- development tool through the use of property-tax increment financing. Under the RDA model, increases in property-tax revenue within a designated project area could be captured by the redevelopment agency and used to finance public improvements, land assembly, housing, and other redevelopment activities. By the years leading up to 2011, redevelopment agencies were receiving more than $5 billion annually in property-tax revenues statewide. The system became increasingly controversial because the tax increment was diverted from other local taxing entities and, indirectly, increased the state’s costs for K–14 education.
A major turning point came in 2011–2012, when California eliminated redevelopment agencies as part of the state budget process. ABX1 26 dissolved the agencies, and following a California Supreme Court decision, the dissolution took effect on February 1, 2012. Existing redevelopment obligations were transferred to successor agencies and continued to be paid, but the ability to create new RDA tax increments effectively ended.
The disappearance of RDAs created a significant gap in California's local infrastructure and economic-development financing toolkit.
Beginning in 2014, California rebuilt and expanded the tax-increment financing toolkit, with the goal of giving local governments new ways to finance infrastructure without recreating the former RDA structure. Senate Bill 628, enacted in 2014, created Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), allowing cities and counties to dedicate participating agencies' property-tax increment toward public infrastructure and other qualifying projects of communitywide significance. EIFDs cannot capture school- district property taxes, and participation by other taxing entities is voluntary; SB 628 originally required 55% voter approval for EIFD bond issuance, but Assembly Bill 116 (2019) eliminated the bond vote in exchange for enhanced transparency requirements; formation remains subject to a protest process. Subsequent legislation expanded and refined EIFDs and created additional specialized tools, including Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities, affordable housing authorities, and Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvement Districts. The result is not a return to the old redevelopment model, but rather a portfolio of narrower tax-increment and infrastructure-financing tools designed to allow local governments to capture a portion of future growth in property-tax revenues and convert that future revenue into upfront infrastructure investment.
A Community Facilities District (CFD), established under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act in 1982, may levy a special tax on property within a defined district and may use that revenue to fund eligible facilities and services or to repay bonds. CFDs can create a new special-tax revenue stream and may be leveraged relatively early in a project, while tax increment does not create a new tax and generally grows as development occurs. Tax-increment financing may be particularly useful in combination with other tools, including a CFD.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
ANALYSIS
This Study Session provides the City Council with an overview of infrastructure financing tools that can support economic development and major development projects, with a particular focus on CFDs and EIFDs. This Study Session is intended to establish a common understanding of how each tool mobilizes capital, the timing and scale of potential financing opportunities, eligible uses of proceeds, required approvals, and the circumstances in which each tool may be most effective.
This Study Session is informational and does not establish a CFD or EIFD, authorize debt, commit City property tax increment, or approve funding for a specific development. Following the Study Session, the City Council should be able to distinguish the core mechanics of CFDs and EIFDs and understand how the tools may be used separately or together to address infrastructure needs associated with future development.
Study Session Learning Objectives
This Study Session is organized around the practical questions Councilmembers are likely to face when evaluating infrastructure financing for a future development and/or program. At the conclusion of the Study Session, Councilmembers should be able to answer the following questions:
• Why would a City activate one or more infrastructure financing tools? • What are the high-level differences between a CFD and an EIFD? • How much capital can be activated through each tool, and which variables drive that yield?
• How quickly can each tool become influential in financing development- related infrastructure?
• When is a public vote or protest process involved?
• What types of infrastructure or other eligible costs may be financed? • What development conditions make a CFD or EIFD more or less effective? • When can the tools be combined to address different phases of a project?
Community Facilities Districts
A CFD is a special district sponsored by a public agency. CFD proceeds can be used for ongoing, enhanced maintenance (above standard City levels of service) or for capital facilities. When used for capital facilities, the public agency will generally borrow against the future CFD revenues, typically by issuing bonds. Over the last two decades, San José has formed primarily services CFDs (the Convention Center Facilities District, which secures bonds, is the exception), but this Study Session will focus on capital improvements that require upfront financing with bonded CFDs.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
District boundaries can be tailored to the development area and may include non- contiguous parcels, improvement areas, tax zones, or future annexation areas. At formation, the district establishes a maximum special-tax structure, eligible facilities, and maximum bonded indebtedness. Special taxes may be allocated among properties using reasonable criteria based on land use, product type, size, geography, or other factors. CFDs require two-thirds voter approval, or a landowner vote (one vote per acre) when fewer than 12 registered voters reside in the district.
CFD bond capacity is driven by several variables. These include the maximum annual special-tax revenues projected at buildout, the value of land supporting the debt, debt- service coverage, interest rates, development status, and bond-market conditions. CFD bonds may be sold in relatively early stages of development, although interest rates and marketability depend on project appeal, development momentum, and credit quality.
Eligible CFD uses can include a broad range of public capital facilities such as roads, public parking, street lighting and signalization, streetscape improvements, parks, libraries and cultural facilities, water and sewer facilities, flood control, environmental remediation, fire prevention facilities, certain soft costs, and developer impact fees.
CFDs may also fund certain incremental public services (for example, enhanced maintenance, as discussed above), but cannot supplant services that existed before district formation (see Attachment A: CFD Scenario).
Bonded CFDs require considerable specialized services and therefore take two to four years of sustained work to prepare, form, and administer the CFD formation process, with ongoing annual administration. Services CFDs typically take one to two years, with ongoing annual administration.
City CFDs (data as of June 30, 2025)
Date of
Election
Special Tax 2024-25
Revenue
Status
2024-25
Expense
Status
Status of
Funded
Project
3/27/2001 CFD No. 6 (Great Oaks-
Route 85)
$9,077 $6 Project
Completed
6/19/2001 CFD No. 5B (N. Coyote
Valley Services)
$0 $0 No Activity
9/3/2002 CFD No. 8
(Communications Hill)
$1,481,896 $1,286,126 Ongoing
Maintenance
12/17/2002 CFD No. 9 (Bailey-Highway
101)
$36,396 $0 Project
Completed
4/1/2003 CFD No. 10 (Hassler-Silver
Creek)
$7,458 $3 Project
Completed
6/7/2005 CFD No. 11 (Adeline-Mary
Helen)
$99,598 $39,577 Ongoing
Maintenance
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
Date of
Election
Special Tax 2024-25
Revenue
Status
2024-25
Expense
Status
Status of
Funded
Project
11/8/2005 CFD No. 12 (Basking
Ridge)
$277,327 $301,120 Ongoing
Maintenance
6/16/2009 CCFD (Convention Center)* $15,173,257 $13,212,958 Ongoing 9/20/2011 CFD No. 14 (Raleigh-
Charlotte)
$746,290 $613,118 Ongoing
Maintenance
10/2/2012 CFD No. 13 (Guadalupe
Mines)
$90,831 $51,990 Ongoing
Maintenance
6/17/2014 CFD No. 15 (Berryessa-
Sierra)
$168,743 $141,899 Ongoing
Maintenance
6/6/2017 CFD No. 16 (Raleigh-
Coronado)
$537,599 $335,086 Ongoing
Maintenance
8/14/2018 CFD No. 17 (Capitol Expy-
Evergreen Place
$154,372 $150,618 Ongoing
Maintenance
* The Special Tax Bonds, Series 2011 and CSJFA Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2011A, were refunded in full by CSJFA Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2022A in April 2022. Under the Pledge Agreement dated as of April 1, 2022, between the City, for and on behalf of the Convention Center Facilities District, and the Authority, the City pledged a lien and security interest on the Special Taxes (4% hotel special tax levied by the Convention Center Facilities District for the benefit of the Authority as security for the City’s obligations to make Lease Payments to the Authority).
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
An EIFD differs fundamentally from a CFD because it does not impose a new special tax. Instead, it captures an agreed portion of the future growth in property-tax revenues that would otherwise accrue to participating taxing entities within the district. The eligible uses of EIFD proceeds are public capital facilities of community-wide significance with an estimated useful life of 15 years or longer. EIFDs are sometimes referred to as "Redevelopment 2.0": local jurisdictions used tax-increment financing for decades, and the Legislature enacted a more limited version roughly two years after the 2012 dissolution of redevelopment agencies, which occurred amid the state’s post-Great Recession budget crisis.
An EIFD uses tax-increment financing, a mechanism that works in three steps. First, a base year property tax value is established for a defined area at the time the district is created. Second, as public infrastructure investment supports new development and rising property values within the district, the 1% property tax generated above that base- year value, known as the "increment,” grows over time. Third, the EIFD can then allocate all or part of a participating taxing entity's share of that increment, and this growing revenue stream can be used on a pay-as-you-go basis or to repay bonds issued to fund the infrastructure upfront. In effect, the infrastructure investment helps generate the property value growth that, in turn, pays for the investment.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
EIFDs do not require a vote for formation, rather public notice, and a sequence of public hearings. Advancement of the EIFD will proceed, provided there is no majority protest.
Since AB 116 (2019), EIFD processes reflect that less than 25% protest is insufficient to challenge the EIFD plan; 25-50% triggers an election; and over 50% protest halts the proceedings.
The amount of revenue available to an EIFD, therefore, depends on the amount and timing of new assessed value, each participating agency's share of the 1% property tax, and the percentage of that share committed to the EIFD. The goal of an EIFD and other tax-increment financing is to catalyze development that would not have occurred without the public investment under consideration, therefore growing property taxes at a higher rate than would otherwise have been possible.
Not all jurisdictions receive the same percentage of the 1% property tax. For purposes of the study session illustration (Distribution of Tax Increment chart below), staff assumes that the City receives roughly 13.5% of property taxes, the County of Santa Clara receives 18%, school districts receive 44%, and other taxing entities receive the remaining 24.5%1. School district property tax shares are not available to an EIFD.
Accordingly, a City-only EIFD that commits 100% of the City's eligible increment would capture up to approximately 13.5% of the gross new 1% property tax generated by development within the district.2 EIFD increment can also include growth in property tax in lieu of Vehicle Licensing Fee assessment, which could materially raise a City-only yield.
1 The exact distribution of property tax is variable depending on the thresholds of Vehicle License Fee, Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, and Special Districts assessments. 2 Property Tax Distribution Rates are available through the Santa Clara County Controller at https://controller.santaclaracounty.gov/property-tax-distribution .
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
The possible city-level increment capture across a sampling of California cities is listed below3. The varying levels of city increments demonstrate that an EIFD can be differently impactful in different communities, by virtue of a city’s respective yield and which participating districts also contribute their share of an increment to a given project.
City City-share of Increment Year
City and County of San Francisco4 64% 2023
City of Fresno 23.38% 2020
City of Sacramento 22.6% 2019
City of Santa Cruz 16% 2024
City of Santa Rosa 11.99% 2025
Illustrative EIFD Scenario
For City Council discussion, staff developed a simplified mixed-use district scenario with $10 billion of new future assessed value at full buildout (see Attachment B: EIFD Scenario). This example is intended to demonstrate the mechanics of EIFD yield and is not a projection for a specific project.
3 City-by-city reference data captured with the support of BAE Urban Economics. 4 San Francisco's 64% increment share reflects a combined city-county share and does not compare directly to city-only shares.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
Illustrative Assumption Amount
Net new assessed value at full buildout $10.0 billion
1% property tax generated by new value $100.0 million/year City share of 1% property tax 13.5%
City property-tax increment $13.5 million/year
Illustrative City contribution to EIFD 100%
Annual EIFD increment at full buildout $13.5 million/year Illustrative debt-service coverage 1.50x
Annual debt-service capacity $9.0 million/year
Approximate 30-year bond capacity at 5%* $138.4 million *For some types of infrastructure, low-interest loan programs like the Federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and/or Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) programs may reduce the cost of borrowing and increase potential yield.
The example demonstrates that $10 billion of new development does not produce $100 million per year for the EIFD. Rather, $10 billion of new assessed value produces $100 million of gross 1% property tax, which is then distributed among taxing entities. If only the City participates, the City's 13.5% share produces approximately $13.5 million annual increment at full buildout. Applying an illustrative 1.50x debt-service coverage ratio results in approximately $9 million of annual debt-service capacity. At an illustrative 5% interest rate and 30-year term, that stream would support approximately $138 million of gross bond principal before considering issuance costs, reserves, capitalized interest, or other structuring factors.
The timing of development is equally important. Tax increment grows as assessed value enters the tax roll. Consequently, an EIFD may have limited borrowing capacity during early project phases, even if the ultimate development program is very large. Tax increment, therefore, lags development activity. This timing characteristic is one reason an EIFD may be paired with a CFD or other financing source that can provide infrastructure funding earlier in the development cycle.
Why EIFD Yield Differs Across Jurisdictions
EIFD yield can vary substantially between jurisdictions, even when the amount of new development is similar. Four variables are particularly important:
• The amount of new assessed value created within the EIFD boundary. • The share of the 1% property tax allocated to each participating agency in that tax-rate area.
• The number of eligible taxing entities that agree to participate, such as the City, County, or eligible special districts.
• The percentage of each participating agency's eligible increment that is committed to the EIFD.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
For example, a jurisdiction in which the city itself receives a larger share of the 1% property tax, or where the county also contributes incrementally, can generate materially more EIFD revenue from the same amount of development than a City-only district in which the city receives a smaller allocation. Accordingly, comparisons among EIFDs should focus on the underlying tax allocation, participation, development assumptions, and contribution rates rather than headline bond amounts alone.
Illustrative Mixed-Use District
To demonstrate how the tools could operate in a large district setting, this Study Session will use an illustrative $10 billion mixed-use venue-anchored district as a use case. The district is assumed to require substantial public infrastructure before full buildout. In the illustration, a CFD may provide an earlier special-tax-backed financing source, while the EIFD increment becomes increasingly meaningful as new assessed value is created and placed on the tax roll.
The example is designed to illustrate sequencing rather than prescribe a financing plan:
early infrastructure investment may help unlock development; development creates assessed value; assessed value creates property-tax increment; and the increment may then support later-phase infrastructure or reimburse eligible investments. The appropriate mix of tools would depend on project-specific economics, legal requirements, public benefits, market conditions, and City Council policy direction.
Key Policy Considerations for Future Use
• Whether the infrastructure investment is necessary to enable or accelerate development that otherwise would not occur on the same timeline. • Whether the public benefits of the infrastructure and development justify dedicating future revenues or imposing a special tax within the district. • Whether the financing tool produces resources at the point in the development timeline when infrastructure funding is actually needed. • Whether district boundaries, tax structures, and eligible uses align costs with the properties and development that benefit from the infrastructure. • Whether participation by other public agencies materially improves project feasibility and whether the resulting revenue-sharing arrangement is appropriate. • Whether projected revenues and debt capacity remain resilient under slower development, lower assessed values, or higher interest rates.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 21, 2026
Subject: Infrastructure Financing Tools for Economic Development Study Session
COORDINATION
This memorandum was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, Public Works Department, and Transportation Department.
/s/
Maria Öberg Jen Baker
Director of Finance Director of the City Manager’s
Office of Economic Development and
Cultural Affairs
For questions, please contact Tara Reid, Executive Assistant to Jen Baker, City Manager’s Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs, at [email protected] or (408) 535-8179.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: CFD Scenario: 65-Unit Development on 1 Acre in San José Attachment B: EIFD Scenario
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A Attachment A
CFD SCENARIO: 65-Unit Development on 1 Acre in San Jose How a Community Facilities District (CFO) Can Help Fund Horizontal Infrastructure PROJECT SNAPSHOT HOW A CFD CAN HELP: FUNDING HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE EL. El'zll
9 Development Program
65 apartment units
5-7 stories (mid-rise)
Site
1 acre in San Jose
Construction Type
Total Development Cost
(excluding land)
� $43.9 million
($675,000 per unit)
I Land Cost (illustrative)
L =$5.5 m i lli on
0 CFD FORMED
••• eon
•
SPECIAL TAX
LEVIED
�
e ➔
A special tax is levied on
property in the district
�
BONDS ISSUED
EARLY
o Ill
Special tax revenue is
pledged to bonds,
providing upfront
>
City establishes a CFD
around the project
area and defines the
maximum special tax.
and appears on the
property tax bill. capita I for infrastructure
needed before full
buildout.
ILLUSTRATIVE HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE
Eli g ible I mprovements (Typical) Est. Cost
A Streets, curb, gutter & sid ewalks $1,600,000
◊ Water & sewer extensions $1,000,000
: Storm drain & flood control $800,000
� Street lighting & signalization $400,000
§ Landscaping & streetscape $700,000
� Undergrounding / utilities $500,000
[�����a TOTAL HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEED $5,000,000 - DEBT CAPACITY CHECK (1 ACRE}
1 Acre Development
Assessed Value at Buildout (illustrative) Typical Lien-to-Val ue Upto3:1 ➔
Indicative Max Bond
Capacity
(3:1 LTV)
�
INFRASTRUCTURE
BUILT
£
Horizontal infrastructure
is constructed,
unlocking the site and
supporting private
development
+>
�
DEVELOPMENT
PAYS BACK
4I
As units are built and
sold/leased, the
special tax repays
the bonds and
covers costs.
HOW THE CFO FINANCES IT
�
BOND AMOUNT $5,000,000
e
Assumed Debt Service 1.25x Coverage
E Term 30 Years
Annual Debt Service Need lftft I (including coverage) = $295,�
WHAT THIS ENABLES
a@a
Infrastructure costs
SPECIALI9a9:17:IHI4
(ILLUSTRATIVE)
What special tax per unit is needed to
support $295,000 of annual debt service?
Annual Debt Service Need
(including 1.25x coverage)
+ Number of Units
Requi red Special Tax
Per Unit Per Year
Required Special Tax
Per Unit Per Month
$295,000
65 = $4,540
� $378
IS THE SPECIAL TAX REASONABLE?
For comparison, many Bay Area CFDs for
residential projects range from $50 to $200+
per unit per month depending on location,
amenities and product type.
$378 per month is within a feasible range
for market-rate rentals.
�
= $40,000,000 = $12,000,000
(Well above $5M need)
Upfront infrastructure
built sooner, reducing
delivery risk.
Project can break ground
and deliver units faster. repaid by the development
that benefits from it.
Supports housing supply,
jobs, and economic growth
in San Jose.
� KEY TAKEAWAY: A CFD uses a modest monthly special tax (= $378 per unit) to generate about $295,000 in annual revenue, which can support V a pproxi matel y $5 million in bonds to build the streets, util i t i es, and other horizontal infrastructure that unlocks the project.
Illustrative only. Actual results wi l l vary based on rates, interest rates, costs, and market conditions.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity
THE BASIC
FORMULA
EIFD revenue is a
function of four
key factors .
•
Development Value
{new assessed value)
1% Property Tax
�����
• (1% of $10,000,000,000)
0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
fa
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bounda ry.
MIXED-USE DISTRICT
100% COMMITMENT)
$10,000,000,000
$100,000,000
•
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
�
Percentage Committed x 100%
(City commitment = 100%) $13, 500, 000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13, 500,000
X
e 1% PROPERTY TAX
California's 1% ad valorem
property tax applied to the
new assessed value.
X
I
e PARTI CIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
The portion of the 1% property
tax that belongs to agencies
that can participate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
X I
special districts). l
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment
Requi red Debt Servi ce Coverage
(Assumed 1.50x)
�
o Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service)
♦
a
Interest Rate & Term
(Illustrative: 30-Year Term)
� Approximate Bonding Capacity
EE) (At 5. 0%, 30 Years)
$13,500,000
� 1.50
$9,000,000
5.0%
$138,400,000
� PERCENTAGE
� COMMITTED
ANNUAL
EIFD INCREMENT
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committed
The annual property tax
i n crement available to
the EIFD.
to the EIFD.
SAME $10B
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MA TTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases.
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grows as development occurs
revenues lag development activ i ty.
CITY ONLY CITY + COUNTY HIGHER SHARE
13.5% SHARE 31.5% SHARE 25.0% SHARE
DEVELOPMENT,
•
Note: School districts (60%) do not parti cipate.
Other entities (8.5%) are excluded in this exam ple. DIFFERENT OUTCOME $13. 5M $31.5M $25. 0M Results will vary based on interest rates and terms. annual increment annual increment annual increment REM EMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax . They are a share of existing property tax generated by new development and dedicated to local i nfrast ructure.
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B
EIFD SCENARIO
How development value is translated into investment capacity 0 DEVELOPMENT
VALUE
rub
The increase in
assessed value within
the EIFD bound ary.
EXAMPLE: $10 BILLION MIXED-USE DISTRICT
CITY ONLY (13.5% SHARE, 100% COMMITMENT)
0 Development Value $10,000,000,000 (new assessed value) 8 1% Property Tax
$100,000 ,000 (1% of $10,000,000,000)
e
Participating Agencies' Share X 13.5%
(City share = 13.5%) $13,500,000
0 Percentage Committed X 100%
(City commitm ent = 100%) $13,500,000
ANNUAL EIFD INCREMENT = $13,500,000
0 Note: School districts (60%) do not participate .
Other entities {8.5%) are excluded in this example.
X
I
8 1% PROPERTY TAX e PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES' SHARE
I
X (t
California's 1% ad valorem
prope rty tax applied to the
new assessed value.
I I
The portion of the 1% property
ta x that belongs to agencies
that can partici pate in the EIFD
(City, County, and eligible
special district s).
FROM INCREMENT TO INVESTMENT CAPACITY
• Annual EIFD Increment $13,500 ,000
~ -- -
•
Required Debt Service Coverage + 1.50 (Assumed 1.S0x)
~
~ Annual Debt Service Capacity
111 (Available for debt service) $9,000,000
...
§J
Interest Rate & Term 5.0% (Illust rative: 30-Year Term) 9-.. Approximate Bonding Capacity $l3S,400,000
~ (At 5.0%, 30 Years)
Results will vary based on interest rates and terms.
1-o PERCENTAGE
COMMITTED
I
~
X --
The percentage of each
participating agency's
share that is committe d
to the EIFD.
'--- __J
KEY TAKEAWAYS
MORE VALUE = MORE INCREMENT
More new assessed value within the EIFD
creates more increment.
SHARE MATTERS
Jurisdictions with larger shares of the 1%
property tax generate more increment.
PARTNERSHIPS MULTIPLY IMPACT
When the County or other eligible districts
participate, the available increment increases .
TIMING IS CRITICAL
Tax increment grow s as development occurs
revenues lag development activity.
SAME$10B
DEVELOPMENT,
DIFFERENT OUTCOME
CITY ONLY
13.5%SHARE
$13.5M
CITY + COUNTY
31.5%SHARE
$31.SM
HIGHER SHARE
25.0%SHARE
$25.0M
annual increment annual increment annual increment
'Q' - -I
... REMEMBER: I EIFD revenues are not a new tax. They are a share of exist ing pro perty tax generat ed by new d evelo pment and ded icate d to local infrastructure.
Attachment B