The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - June 9, 2010 B-01 SMAGENDA ITEM I& I CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Im AGENDA TITLE: Discussion Regarding the Possibility of Preparing a New Redevelopment Plan MEETING DATE: June 9,2010 PREPARED BY: Interim City Manager RECOMMENDEDACTION: Discussion regarding the possibility of preparing a new redevelopment plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On November 18,2009, the City Council discussed the possibilityof having a Special City Council meeting in order to talk about the potential of initiating another redevelopment plan. The meeting date was set for June 9, 2010. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for the City Council to discuss the possibilityof creating a new redevelopment plan. As the Council is aware, there are a number of different options available to consider, including any limitations, the use cf an advisory vote, the form and area cf a plan, and timing. The meeting also provides an opportunity for those in favor and opposed to moving forward to express their views. Staff will provide a short presentation at the meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. im Konradt Bartlam, City Manager APPROVED: IrnArSidt Bartlam, Interim City Manager WhyRedevelopment — What's the objective? Lodi City Council June 9, 2010 Why redevelopment — What's the objf ctive? to expand job opportunities through stimulation of business growth and strong economy • To construct and reconstruct streets, sidewalks, alleys, storm drains, wastewater, water distribution system, and community facilities Why redevelopment — What's the objective? • To enhance the appeal of the east side neighborhoods as a place to live • Housing rehabilitation • Safety • Parks • Stores Why redevelopment — What's the objective? • Affordable and senior housing • More than 100 seniors on Loel Center's affordable housing waiting list (16 units) • Funding for rehabilitation of single and multi -family housing • Encourage home ownership and renovation Tool to address community needs Tool to address community needs . No eminent domain • No tax increase • Local control of funds • No new government • The most accepted community improvement tool Tool to address community needs • 480 incorporated cities and 58 counties in California, 398 active redevelopment agencies • Every city with a population over 250,000 has a redevelopment agency • 161 cities with population over 50,,000 have active redevelopment agencies, only 9 do not • New cities such as Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova and Citrus Heights have RDAs Tool to address community needs Who are the eight others? • Pleasanton • Chino Hills (inc. 1991) . Laguna Niguel (inc. 1989) . Diamond Bar (inc. 1989) . Encinitas (inc. 1986) . Menifee (inc. 2008) • Gilroy, 1989 "No' vote 0 Gardena, 2004 'No' vote $119,695 median HH income $103,706 $98,072 $94,061 $87,f287 $71,707 $47,277 Tool to address community needs What makes redevelopment such a powerful tool? Tax Increment • Redevelopment redistributes the growth of property tax for a limited period of time • State law governs how much property tax is collected • Lodi's average share of property tax is currently 164 to 17� of $1 of property tax paid • Occurs within a defined geographical area • Local control of local money Tool to address community needs How Tax Increment Works Tool to address community needs Property tax distribution Example: Actual residential block in east Lodi Total assessed valuation: $1.2 million (20 units) Property taxes: $12,000. Distribution: City of Lodi General Fund: $ 1,992 Education: $7,056 San Joaquin County: $2,640 Other: $ 312 Tool to address community needs $1,992 for 14 parcels = $142/parcel (Lodi 2.9 persons per household, U.S. Census) _ $49/per capita property tax In comparison: . FY 2010/11 Police budget: $260 per capita • FY 2010/11 Fire budget: $143 per capita Tool to address community needs Money can be spent on... P • Infrastructure Projects — water, sewer, sidewalks, streets, water meters, trees, park strips • Community Facilities —parks, community center(s), fire station, library • Affordable Housing (20% of increment must be spent on this activity) —rehabilitation, homeowner assistance, senior housing, paint-up/fix-up. 9 Job creation City of Lodi - City Hall 221 W._Pne Street Lodi, CA 95240 Phone: (209) 333-6801 Fax: (209) 333-6807 MRACRANDUM Oq<�FOR��PFrom Jeff••• communications s• - TO: City Council DATE: June 8, 2010 SUBJECT: Results of postcard mailer to east Lodi properties Council members, Attached is a summary of the responses received from the mailer sent last month to east Lodi addresses in advance of the June 9 special meeting. We received 101 postcards through Monday. Responses are divided into four sections: 1, potential redevelopment projects; 2, requests for additional City services or requests for service; 3, Private development requests; and 4, responses not easily categorized. The number next to a project or service represents the number of times it was mentioned on the postcards returned, followed by those projects/services that did not receive multiple mentions. All requests are included, except for non-responsive, illegible, incomprehensible, or duplicate (within the same postcard) answers. Jeff Hood Communications Specialist 1. Potential redevelopment projects receiving multiple mentions Sidewalks 31 Streets 22 Street lighting 11 Paint -up, fix -up program 6 Sewer improvements 5 Trees 5 Curb, gutter, sidewalk 5 Water system improvements 4 Alley improvements 4 Cherokee Lane improvements 3 Grafitti abatement 3 Landscaping 3 Parks 3 Speed bumps 3 Swimming pool 2 Railroad Avenue property 2 Facade program 2 Noise wall 2 Single mentions Water meters Vintage street signs for alleys Walking paths Sports complex Skating rink Schools Satellite Finance Dept. Safe places for kids Reverse -frontage wall on Turner Road Kettleman Lane underpass walkway Planters on east side of Cherokee Lane Homebuyer assistance program Revamp Grape Festival More east/west streets from Cherokee Lane to Stockton Street More parking around cannery Crosswalks Build Century Boulevard extension Central Avenue banners Bus stop shades Bike lanes Railroad trestle beautification Delta College Develop Main Street Dog park Facilities for homeless Homeowner incentive Fence around Lawrence Park playground Lake with duck feeding areas Remove Cherokee Lane trees in median Stockton Street parkway Storm drains Stop light at Tokay/Stockton 2. Requests for additional City services or City response Code enforcement 38 (Noise, rental property, weeds, unkempt property, etc.) Gangs 17 Crime 15 Tree maintenance 11 More police 9 (Gangs/crime/police 41) Pick up trash 7 Alley maintenance 5 Additional street sweeping 4 Reduce utility costs 3 Exterior color restrictions 3 Landscape maintenance 2 Occupancy restrictions 2 More animal control 2 Single mentions Street lamp maintenance Rewards for reporting crime Insufficient street parking for multi- family dwelling Once -a -year curbside trash pickup Shut down Golden Era/Star Motel Solar power program Speed enforcement Vacant lot maintenance Storm drain enforcement Time stoplights better Reduce number of apartments Recognition of well-maintained properties Recreation programs at Hale/Lawrence No alcohol in Lawrence Park Night/weekend recreation programs Night shift water conservation officer Neighborhood Watch More fire protection More stop signs After-school programs Blinking light at Turner/Stockton Art classes for children Clean up dog waste Convert narrow alleys to one-way Curfew enforcement Relax watering restrictions Encourage tree planting Financial support for Boys & Girls Club Illegal concrete ramps Highway 99 directional exit signs for Lodi Lake Park Reduce Dial -A -Ride fares Moratorium on liquor licenses Take bars off buildings 3. Private enterprise requests Bowling alley 6 Skating rink 4 Grocery store 3 Walmart 3 Attract businesses 2 Single mentions Remove Valley Avenue razor wire (?) Trader Joe's Store with Americans working there School to teach Spanish Chipotle restaurant Chuck -E -Cheese "Cleaner" businesses Clothing store Farmers market Jamba Juice Job training Merchants clean storefronts Movie theater "Nicer" restaurants Ostrich ranch Murals on packing house Private development Red Lobster Whole Foods Workplace for seniors 4. Other Enforce immigration laws 4 End homelessness 2 Single mentions Close Lawrence School Evening tutoring for children More money for schools Teach English Teach people good manners VA clinic 231 HOUSES PURCHASED FROM JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 6, 2010. 51 OF THOSE HOUSES WERE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA (22%) TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA SOLD HOUSES = $6,444,000 DOUBLE THE AMOUNT FOR AN ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF PROPERTY VALUE FOR ALL HOUSES SOLD IN REDEVELOPMENT AREA = $12,888,000 1% PROPERTY TAX GIVES A BASE LEVEL OF $128,880 YEAR 1 - 8% PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE = $13,999,040 1% PROPERTY TAX = $139,190 WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $10,310 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GETS 80% = $8,248. YEAR 2 - 8% PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE = $15,032,563 1% PROPERTY TAX = $150,326 WHICH IN AN INCREASE OF $21,446 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GETS 80% = $17,157. YEAR 3 - 8% PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE = $16,235,168 I% PROPERTY TAX = $162,352 WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $33,472 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GETS 80% = $26,778 YEAR 4 - 8% PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE = $17,533,981 1% PROPERTY TAX = $175,340 WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $46,460 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GETS 80% = $37,168 YEAR 5 - 8% PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE = $18,936,699 1% PROPERTY TAX = $189,367 WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $60,487 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GETS 80% = $48,390 TOTAL FUNDS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OVER THE FIVE YEARS: $137,741 E2 SUNDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010 THE RECORD Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for } } Dec. I - II. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. Rea' estate transactions This information is compiled from county records. Buyer �+ Property V l Location Price Seller I I f a -S I " Charles Hoang 750 Silverado Drive Manteca 215,000 Wachovia Bank Sean & Jessica McGuire David & Kelly Hunter Buseman Trust Richard Maldonado 904 Sebastian Lane 2080 Masterpiece Court 2438 Shadow Berry Drive 828 Rancho Way Manteca Manteca Manteca Manteca 215,000 250,000 272,000 105,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Jonathan & Magdalena Nagtalon James & Mary Mavridis Bank of America Gregory & Anna Streeter 1237 Shaefer Street Manteca 128,000 Ivette Fernandez Robert & Jean Comden 941 Ruby Place Manteca 137,500 Dennis Esenwein Alvaro Rous 856 Sequoia Avenue Manteca 149,000 Ownit Mortgage Eric Aguilar Leon & Elizabeth Sucht 1980 Golden Oak Way Manteca 1128 Mountain Dew Avenue Manteca 150,000 158,500 Federal National Mortgage US Bank Ruby Green 1768 Paola Lane Manteca 265,000 CWALT Inc Anthony Me juin Meraz 450 Munter Court 236 South Veracruz Place Manteca Mountain House 266,000 185,000 Milton & Sonia Tomasino Stanford Credit Union David & Tina Ly 340 Goodall Drive Mountain House 270,000 Bank of New York Racquel Pineda 675 West Refinado Way Mountain House 313,000 Citibank Eric Squires 710 South Tradition Street Mountain House 320,000 Structured Asset Trust I Susana Tr Pamela Lt Sean & Kr Hank & EI Peter Lee Xian Wu Michael & & Kimberly Bergren 611 ;is Ngigi P8 silo Layos 16E & Wilma Daniels 189 fer Tate rr Galt of Ryan & Shannon Johnson Location Price Seller 0 Forest Hills Drive Tracy 260,000 CWALT Inc. 75 Calaveras Court 11 Traditions Tracy 260,000 Federal National Mort a Court Tracv qan nn. --:..,.., _. Galt of Ryan & Shannon Johnson 315 Roosevelt Avenue Manteca 11+u,VuU 150,000 Ueutsche Bi Saturnino &Mar Margaret Diaz 544 Hawes Street Manteca 165,000 Roland Grot Michelle Benedetti Carol Davis 1940 Abby Place Manteca 175,000 CWA65 Inc. Morgan Star John Heyde 1688 Klondike Way 1264 Zinfandel Place Manteca 214,000 Loek Trust Lidumo & Maria Silveira 2341 Portifino Street Manteca Manteca 217500 George & Be Phillip & Margaret Gonzales 2052 Plumerla Lane Manteca 225,000 Boehm Entei Narmder Kaur Alexander & Justina Yeh 22962 Mtn House Pkw Mountain House 267,000 275,000 Wachovia B Richard Non Jesus Garcia 30 West Fauna Court Mountain House 151 South Vista Hermosa St Mountain House 300,000 Bernadette ( Jun Lu 707 South Tradition Street Mountain House 305;000 318,000 Humberto & Richard Jasinsky Betschart & Sons 767 Shelli Street Mountain House 360,000 Ricardo & Mi Harinder aul Tony &Bethany Mendoza 72B.Nancy Drive 278 Reece Court Ri on 250,000 Emerald Bullr Sheila Hodgson 1042 Palm Avenue Ripon Ripon 350,000 Debbie Moon les 347 San Fernando Avenue Stockton 515,000 80,000 Susan Adami CenturMuhammad Arshad Homes Arshad Khan 3207 Juliet Road Stockton 80,000 Structured A; Federal Home Kevin Good 304 East Acacia Street 1604 West Euclid Av Stockton 85,000 federal Natio Eliseo Medina85,000 enue 316 Don Cnrins Avanna Stockton c. r . Stockton Cath Fish Alice S ears- - 642 Eden Avenue "'v`"1O1 Stockton tt/:500 Ind mac Mort a e )mar Hernandez 433 Woodstock Drive Stockton 120,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Li 4412 Janell Lane Stockton 120,000 Joseph & Jill WashingZhe tori Nathilde Billaud Maria Maturana 1423 West Swain Road Stockton 122 000 125,000 US Bank Paula Biscaia 'd-11Shaw er 2237 Porter Way 3006 Admiral Drive Stockton Stockton 130,000 Gerald &Donna Harris ioberson Trust137,500 5809 St. Thomas Court Stockton Federal National.Mort a e lrun Gudi ati 'amara Lowe 4282 Blake Circle Stockton 138,000 138,000 Janice Williams Gsam Trust iur lar Sidhu 4847 Claremont Avenue 2532 Aso Taro Road Stockton 140,000 Ruru Trust Joel Gutierrez 3279 Ogden Lane Stockton Stockton 150,000 US Bank aac arc & & Grace Geeslin 10316 Lombard Court Stockton 153,000enn 158,000 GMAC Bank ar Federal Home Loan Mort lark Ezell 2533 Napoli Court 10937 Dutch Drive Stockton Stockton 160,0 00 e Federal National Mor!gage, lei un Liu 4950 Jett Drive e Stockton 162000 , Federal Home Loan Mortgage lark Rivera 5508 Teal Court Stockton 165,000 Luke & Lex Limited manda Avila 9452 Lembert Dome Circle Stockton 178,500 Bank of America Thai Oian 8515 Rice Court Stockton 180,000 Federal National Mort a e race Sun 2173 Monte Diablo Avenue Stockton 182,000 200,000 Amerisave Mortgage an'it & Bal'it Samra 2114 Swainsons Hawk StreetStockton 240,000 Delta National Bank ti Zhan 'aig Walters 6314 Pine Meadow Circle Stockton 290,000 CWALT Inc. John Nguyen Wier Velazquez 6242 Harborview Drive 912 Taft Avenue Stockton 327,000 Tom & Arlene Carleton iiliam &Laura Porter 835 West Eaton Avenue Tracy Trac 85,000 Marcia Stewart hn & Claudia Lautensla er 41 East Emerson Avenue Trac 104,500 Deutsche Bank chael &. Oornthv Raah len u,..;...,,., �i___ ,.._ _ 105_000 Chris &Mabel Cha arro a LIMULLe, JpCL;1Q11Llllb' 111 111LL111J and families. "The mission is VV 11.y 1111L L11111 L11CSC Llllllgb MLU cash?" a1JU CULL/ W D avua�,vaa�. �.•o. w ... •.. over bill paying duties if neces- ... re to make life smoother and less 3. Be generous: Donate your sary. ro stressful." unused household goods to St. 5. Be discerning Clutter and th Jo Lueck specializes in senior Vincent de Paul, Goodwill or overcrowding, according to k( downsizing, paper manage- other charitable groups. Don't Lueck, most often are `'the re- to ment and making the most of forget the Habitat for Humanity suit of having too many things ac small spaces in her Kenosha- Restore, which accepts usable rather than inadequate storage Wells Fargo Bank area organization business. She building materials that can be spaces. If you resist impulse a agrees that having a cluttered sold to finance more building buying and don't buy something hl home can rob you of energy.. projects. unless you really need it, you pl "We often have piles of things Linnig is a fan of www. can keep your possession count di all around the house," she said. freecycle.org, a sharing Web site ag low as possible." di "Piles on the desk, at the bottom that allows you to be frugal and - In short; she said, "try to ai of the stair, next to the front generous by posting items and kedowith what youown.' 140,000 door.... These are visually and giving them to people who have 6. Be Inclusive: Involve your a mentally cluttering. a real need. • family in the home organization al "Day after day, they are there, "You. may love something process. Getting kids involved 0 Sales of real estate In San Joaquin County for Dec. 16-22. tale prices are based on transfer tax paid. Real estate transactions This information is compiled from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller Roberto Gonzalez 3796 East Emerson Road Acampo $91000 CWALT Inc. Celeste Magana 178 Travertine Avenue Lathrop 164 UUU wasnington Mutuai uanK Robert Jarrett 19355 East Front Street Linden 114,000 Wells Faro Bank Syed Shah 507 North School Street. Lodi 100,000 ,T Wells Fargo Bank Nathan Bullock 1024 South Church Streets Lodi 170,000 t California Housing Finance Crystal Jennings 2426 Inglewood Drive Lodi 190,500 Freddie Mac Securities Vijay Mirmira 2535 Lynch Way Lodi 340,000 Wells Fargo Bank Ehtesham & Samina Qamar 1607 Lakeshore Drive Lodi 420,000 Roger Eng Harjeet & Davindedeet Gill 534 Morgan Street Manteca -85,000 Citigroup Mortgage Steven Russell 228 North Sherman Avenue Manteca 100,000 Betty Brodehl John & Carolee Flinn 325 Harding Avenue Manteca 105,000 Structured Asset Securities Timothy & Darsi Wilson 17500 South Austin Road Manteca 140,000 PNC Bank Cheryl Sanders 156 Cornerstone Way Manteca 140,000 Greg Chaffey Francisco Salcedo 835 Marion Street Manteca 155,000 Resmae Asset Backed Trust Raymond & Jeanette Dowell 1844 Diamond Oak Way Manteca 175.000 Federal National Mortgage .IPnnifor RPii 1327 Gianna Lane Manteca 180=0 Robin Perez Rico & Elizabeth Dungea 368 Marsala Court Manteca 18U uuu reaerai Nationai mortgage Julie Thompson 1480 Gianna Place Manteca 199,500 Ronald Bonilla James Gonsalves 1187 Napa Valley Avenue Manteca 205,000 Christopher & Yukari Doyle n -d A i ....ie Lieifinen 793 RParelaw Place Manteca 205.000 First Franklin Mortgage Denise Torres 1240 Kerwin Lane Manteca Zlb,uuu Jtf uonsuiting Satwinder & Rumdlp Chatha 334 Vasconcellos Avenue Manteca 250,000 Federal National Mortg: Edward & Elizabeth Rubaicaba 1815 Azure Court #A Manteca 325,000 Benner Trust Campo Trust 7646 Southland Road Manteca 348,000 Catherine Clements Christine Sti all 108 West Luna Loca Lane Mountain House 166,000 Structured Asset Secur Carlos Bonilla 188 West Arnaudo Blvd Mountain House 305,000. Deutsche Bank Jimmy Britton 437 Sullivan Court Mountain House 375,000 Marifat Partnership Genesis Equity Partners 627 Otis Drive Ripon 240,000 David Hicks Daniel & Chantel Thomas 456 Kristen Way Ripon 360,000 E -Trade Bank Maria Monroy 627 South Del Mar Avenue Stockton 82,000 Garcia Construction Sergio Anaya 5930 Echo Street Stockton 85,000 Federal National Mortg; Yangiu Zhou 8306 Tam 0 Shanter Drive Stockton 85,500 Washington Mutual Bai Martin Ochoa 2365E Washington Street Stockton 86,500 Ghlo Fairchild Shing Ku 613 Hudson Drive Stockton 95,000 Structured Asset Morti Pamela Closs 3438 W Benjamin Holt Dr. Stockton 95,000 Federal National Mortg John & Donna King 237 East Vine Street Stockton 95,000 Bank of New York _ Ramirn I nnP7 2627 Cerruti Street Stockton 95,000 Jorte Camacho Maria Gonzalez 2504 Nightingale Court Stockton IUU,uuu ,tuba vazquez Lindsay Palce 8441 Almondwood Lane Stockton 102,500 Hellwig Trust Rick Letterman 1167 Le Corbusier Court Stockton 106,000 Structured Asset James Sooy 229 Glasgow Avenue Stockton 110,000 American Home f Luis Anaya 7114 Percival Way Stockton 110,000 Harborview Mort Fernando Soto 2272 East 6th Street Stockton 112,000 Federal National Hardeep Singh 22 West Yorkshire Drive Stockton 115,000 Chapel Funding Elissandra Munoz 2208 North Sutter Street Stockton 115,000 Nomura Home Eq Michael Hayter 2431 Diamond Oaks Street Stockton 115,000 Jeremy & Angelic Arturo Acevedo 4194 Eagle Crest Drive Stockton 116,000 Wells Fargo Banti Peng Zhang 2633 Wesson Way Stockton 117,000 Harborview Mort Jamie Constantino 8728 Los Olivas Court Stockton 120,000' Federal Home Lo Ruth Santee 221 Eden Avenue Stockton 120,000 Federal National II-A—il iliay tte user= Sales of real estate In San Joaquin County for Dec. 22-24. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. ' ansactions This.information. compiled from county records. Real estate tr Buyer Prooerty F. ' n1 Ultz Guw f1d enopUH esa� dod OL1iuBPOOM 'HI00 HO0O .i:3. py 2ik Real estate transactions Buyer Property Location Danny & Joyce Vickers 1997 Judith Court Escalon Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Dec. 28 -Jan. 4. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. records. This information is compiled from couhty Price Seller $280,000 John & Lihua Bosma Alice Mabry 14625 Avon Avenue Lathrop 120,000 Wells Fargo Bank Monica Delarosa 15544 Zalman Lane Lathrop 130,000 La -Sac Holdings Carl Dellanno 16110 Matador Way Lathrop 133,000 Bay Holdings Dale Denson 14537 Pinewood Drive Lathrop 150,000 Nicole Hughes Jose Anaya 16244 Tumbleweed Lane Lathrop 152,000 IMB REO Limited Ivonne Ramirez 251 Gear Court Lathrop 190,000 ' Juanito & Ulia Vallesteros Allen Bradley 436 Renaissance Avenue Lathrop 233,000 KB Home Charanjit Gill 828 Trestle Point Lathrop 240,000 Jamke Limited Ramanpreet Bhinder 16021 Covered Bridge Way Lathrop 250,000 Deutsche Bank Christian & Lulu Espiritu 16792 Settler Trail Lathrop 270,000 Reginald Reed Jose & Maria Paz 14261 East Prospect Place Lockeford 135,000 Electronic Mortgage Luellen Varwig 19263 North Tully Road Lockeford 140,000 Deutsche Bank Paul & Irene Sigala 19087 N. Jack Tone Road Lockeford 145,000 Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Charles Wollenhaupt 18803 Arrowhead Drive Lockeford 218,000 Hellwig Trust Mitch & Phyllis Harrison 13800 East Victor Road Lodi .113,000 Gene & Linda Langley Kyle Hensel 1415 Cardinal Street Lodi 130,000 Doug & Suzanne Hensel Hood Trust 708 South Hutchins Streit Lodi 152,00M Flegel Trust Monique Raimundi 115 North Lee Avenue Lodi 155,000 Hicks Trust Miguel Ramirez 1128 Dartmoor Circle Lodi 165,000 Wells Fargo Bank James & Stacey Sweeten 55 North Mills Avenue Lodi 176,000 Arturo Ochoa Nicholas Snyder 1224 South Church Street Lodi 200,0000 Randy Just Adriana Rodriguez 2447 Felino Lane Lodi 207,000 Citibank Laurence Costa 5252 East Armstrong Road Lodi 215,000 Ruth Osgood Neil & Gabriela McKeown 1008 South Mills Avenue Lodi 252,500 Structured Asset Trust Theodore & Myrna Dawson 3026 Rosewood Drive Lodi 335,000 Meriy Angeles John & Marsha Martinez 2373 Cabrillo Circle Lodi 340,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Michael & Lorinda Lewis 1456 Keagle Way Lodi 342,000 Ron & Jolynn McDonald Craig Monks 1857 Lakeshore Drive Lodi 347,000 FairchildGhio John & Lucia MacHado 975 San Miguel Place Manteca 99,000 First Franklin Mortgage Gann Investment 680 Alpine Avenue Manteca 110,000 Deutsche Bank Everardo Hernandez 927 Elm Avenue Manteca 118,500 Washington Mutual Bank Thomas & Genell Silva 14837 Pueblo Drive Manteca 147,000 GMAC Mortgage Miguel Cervantes 5746 Apache Drive Manteca 150,000 Wachovia Bank Holly Cole 455 Grantwood Court Manteca 153,50.0 Matthew & Lisa Balara Michael & Tessa Bunch 1186 Princeton Place Manteca 155,000 Jessie Lee Carl Jacobson 6213 Choctaw Court Manteca 160,000 Chad Walker Michael Madsen 203 Quarry Stone Way Manteca 161,000 Fremont Reorganization Donna Nadalin 1876 Crestwood Avenue Manteca 165,000 SKJ Properties James Teicheira 1941 Pecahwood Avenue Manteca 173,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Salvador Rodriguez 1181 Napa Valley Avenue Manteca 175,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Ed & Sandra Burgos 1069 Lambdin Street Manteca 200,000 Boehm Enterprises Andrew & Annie Lin 1925 Crutchfield Lane Manteca 205,000 Wells Fargo Bank Kuldip & Parminder Gill 1382 Camilla Street Manteca 214,500 Woodside Limited Elzbieta Majka 734 Wynyard Circle Manteca 218,000 Washington Mutual Bank Ricky Toy 1123 Syracuse Place Manteca 219,500 Wells Fargo Bank Donald & Denise Tryon 1676 Komenich Drive Manteca 225,000 Jamke Limited Juli Joseph 729 Grafton Street Manteca 262,500 Fredrick & Judy Wentworth Ryan & Kimberly Zuidervaart 2084 Wisteria Place Manteca 265,000 American Home Mortgage Sally McNamra 1619 Maple Valley Street Manteca 329;500 Pulte Homes Shawn & Denise Betts 233 South Yucatan Place Mountain House 175,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Raul Vaca 1623 W. Durham Ferry Road Mountain House 175,000 Elizabeth White Laronna Watson 143 West Colima Drive Mountain House 195,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Surabhi Jain 487 Hatheway Court Mountain House 200,000 Ace Securities Anastasie Martin 28 South Tranquilidad CourtMountain House 247,000 Aurora Loan Services Lieske Wetherwax 61 West Belleza Lane Mountain House 255,000 Structured Asset Mortgage Elizabeth Reyes 382 S. Providence Street Mountain House 260,000 Yabut Trust Minh Ta 177 West Arcadia Street Mountain House 261,000 Wells Fargo Bank Todd Burkle 314 Hatheway Street Mountain House 270,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Harminder Brar 365 East Legacy Drive Mountain House 305,000 Wells Fargo Bank David Toledo 72 North Puente Drive Mountain House 310,000 Samantha Mora Scott Williams 464 Sullivan Way Mountain House 315,000 Wells Fargo Bank Madiha Khan 522 Burk Place Mountain House 317,000. Downey Savings Cynthia Anjo 104 Alexandria Drive Mountain House 317,000 GMAC Mortgage Edris Quraishi 512 South Central Parkway Mountain House 340,000 Bank of New York Ping Lum 189 S. Vista Hermosa Street Mountain House 350,000 REO Limited Fred & Lynn Juarez 65 Felicia Avenue Mountain House 385,000 Bank of New York Greg Cordeiro 661 W. Bonaventure Avenue Mountain House 464,000 Shea Homes Jimmy Lan 746 Clemens Court Ripon 130,000 Pierina Marchi Jimmy & Marianne Miller 736 South Jack Tone Road Ripon 200,000 Alexander & Kellie Burgos Vicky Pang 8207 Diana Marie Drive Stockton 80,000 Federal National Mortgage Erik Pardee 8017 EI Cajon Street Stockton 84,000 Eugene Volk Gann Investments 2531 Tecumseh Lane Stockton 87,000 JP Morgan Chase Bank Wilfredo Raquion 732 San Lucas Avenue Stockton 89,000 JP Morgan Chase Bank Tariq & Sajeda Rehman 715 Dupont Drive Stockton 96,666 Federal National Mortgage Rafael Barajas 2844 Raymond Avenue Stockton 90,000 Min Le Pablo & Jeannie Esquivel 927 North Sutter Street Stockton 92,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Ediel Vergara 2723 Indiana Street Stockton 92,500 Fortified Financial Mario Martin 911 Katherine Way Stockton 95,000 Federal National Mortgage 2 Lop W Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Jan, Real estate transactions This Sale patios are based an transfer tax paid. Thiss information is compiled from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller Real estate transactions Buyer Property Location Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Jan. 13-21. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. This information is compiled from county records. Price Seller 1-- AA—i— 717 RA -d- I...... _. Q.-.. �...... inl nnn C -d-.-1 GI -a-..-1 RL.-.---- --< �&.2 w I Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Jan. R9 * 22-28. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. eal estate transactions tions This information is compiled from county records: Buyer w Property \ Location Price Seller � 2-1 a�� 4 Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Jan. 29 -Feb. 8. Sale prices are based on transfer Real estate transactions tax paid. This information is compiled from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller rnan r�oi 2050 Farley Drive Stockton 119,500 New Centur Home Equity Alexander & Kimberlee Ripoyla 2104 S Yosemite Street Stockton 120,000 Joseph &Andrea Rllveria --�--�•�-•• .rr,vvv VIYInV IYI VII q C -IL ae -aca 10 Jim & Melanie Cook 1112 Brandvwine Drive Lodi 87.000 Wells Fargo Bank Timothv Rev 1132 Glenhurst Drive Lodi 125.000 Mastr Alternative Loan Trust Canton Trust 220 South Rose Street Lodi ,. Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Feb. Robert Lapenta Rene Magallanes 2319 Corbin Lane 5-12. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. Realestate transactions Mark Alexander This Information is compiled from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller Matthew & Michelle Terra 27499 Tiffani Lane Escalon $148,000 Indymac Mortgage Amandeep Bassi 502 Olivine Avenue Lathrop 190,000 Jaswinder Singh Jimmy Braswell 536 Millpond Avenue Lathrop 265,000 US Bank Eric Kamau 16945 Rail Way Lathrop 280,000 Nieves Mariano Devinder & Navdeep Dhindsa 16179 Sweetwater Court Lathrop 290,000 Aurora Loan Services Montana Cobb 19173 N. Jack Tone Road Lockeford 170.000 Federal National Mortgage Jim & Melanie Cook 1112 Brandvwine Drive Lodi 87.000 Wells Fargo Bank Timothv Rev 1132 Glenhurst Drive Lodi 125.000 Mastr Alternative Loan Trust Canton Trust 220 South Rose Street Lodi 130,000 Robert Lapenta Rene Magallanes 2319 Corbin Lane Lodi 151,000 Mark Alexander Phillips Trust 901 Park Street Lodi 156,500 Matthew & Jennifer Lorentzen Juvenal Torres 17159 North Manor Lane Lodi 160,000 Western Highland Mortgage Sherri Lozano 671 Eureka Avenue Lodi 165,000 Charles Moore Asad Khan 324 Watson Street Lodi 180,000 Service First of Northern California Tod Hunter 223 Hartford Drive Lodi 233,000 Jeffery & Gerry Johnson Bianchi Trust 1850 Hvde Park Lane Manteca 190.000 Foster Advantage Dennis & Jeanne Langner 1665 Sparrowhawk Street Manteca 215,000 Jamke Limited Michael & Saundi Woodall 1890 Star Tulip Street Manteca 215,000 Shelat Trust Coenenberg Trust 1813 Monaco Drive Manteca 216,000 Homestar Trust Goncalves Trust 1470 Palazzo Lane Manteca 285,000 Wells Fargo Bank Use Rutledge 1734 Luna Bella Lane Manteca 298,000 Bright Development Henry Dietz 687 Golden Pond Drive Manteca 304,000 Woodside Limited Herng & Amy Chou 155 W. Santa Barbara Way Mountain House 232,000 Structured Asset Trust Lalet & Sadhna Sharma 69 West Casita Lane Mountain House 240,000 Cynthia Murphy Scott Williams 501 Bethell Avenue Mountain House 250,000 Bac Home Loans Servicing Sammy Fung 422 S. Central Parkway Mountain House 300,000 Aurora Loan Services Welling Liu 363 South Cabello Street Mountain House 383,000 Brilliant Nest Sathiya Thulasidas 157 South Dulce Street Mountain House 385,000 Dalleet Johaui Kailash & Komala Kailash 137 South Estados Street Mountain House 400,000 Citigroup Mortgage David Hegarty 15230 East River Road Ripon 85,000 Forland Trust e Michael & Sheri Parsons 625 Reed Court Ripon 280,000 Wells Fargo Bank Ronald King 1436 W. Riverview Circle Ripon 670,000 Aurora Loan Services Patrick Christell 1609 Oxford Way Stockton 80,000 Pacific Mortgage Kamau Burnett .1712 South Sutter Street Stockton 80,000 Jerry & Maria Holmes Krebbs Trust 9014 Santa Maria Wav Stockton 85.000 First Franklin Mortgage 0 Velvette Baker Andrew & Susan Macias Jorge Hermosillo 3723 Pock Lane Stockton 87,500, New Century Home Equity Alvaro Dominguez - 2835 McCloud River Road Stockton 90,000 Lynn Edmonds Corinne Bachle 438 West Lincoln Road Stockton 95,000 Jones Trust Deabraha Syme 3108 Five Mile Drive Stockton 98,000 Ronald & Jennifer Holmes Francisca Reyes 2235 N. Funston Avenue Stockton 103,000 Hellwig Trust David & Linda Galindo 1491 S. Sinclair Avenue Stockton 105,000 American Lender Servicing Pitcock Trust 8859 Security Way Stockton 105,000 Indymac Mortgage Mee Vang 24 Gold Run Place Stockton 107.500 CWALT Inc. Patrick & Cindy Coon 1254 Lloyd Thayer Circle Stockton 111,500 Aurora Loan Services L° 3 ") <A 1 ) d> 11 C Go I ------ --,IIkJIC UI uiaL neavy Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Feb. p estate transactions 16-22. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. Real estaransactions This information is compiled from county records. Buyer va v Property V l Location Price Seller Koa Donald & Erica Lydia Perea Vinh Dinh Jatinder Cheen Kevan & Melis: Mohanbir& Na Ramon & Alma Matthew Tersem S Sindhu & Nathan Damian. Jesus Ortega Arlene Mccracken Lydia Vanolden Keith & Chandra Cunh Sunderlal & Ushakiran a Aung Do Hsueh Tang Ly Lim Wilfred & Rhonda Har( Gary Gerlach Alberto & Diana Ramir Timothy & Catherin Ob Cindy Rico Miguel Reyes Bryan & Kelly Davis Juan Cervantes -Tamar _ 1057 Topaz Court 617 West Center Stre 1037 Vernal Street 1083 Douglas Fir Driv 1475 Bridgeport Lane 1252 Devonshire Aver 1601 Hastings Drive 868 Gladiola Lane 1050 Summit Way _ 1194 Sangria Lane 1391 Madeiena Lane 2331 Toscano Drive 2469 Gibralter Drive 2214 Plumeria Place 1647 Antigua Lane 1626 La Scala Way 1122 Brookhaven Lane 2667 East Junction D 209 West Prosperidac 68 West Amistad Lan( 531 Burk Place 139 S. Vista Hermosa 688 South Escuela Dri 234 West Recreo Way 101 Bryant Avenue 747 Shelli Street 676 West Rico Way 210 East Heritage Driv 631 West Fauna Avenu 233 North Rockridge S 225 North Rockridge S 505 Meadowland Drivi 940 Tornell Drive 455 Franklin Lane 1164 Eastburg Court 1426 East Riverview Ci 320 East Poplar Street 4858 Greensboro Way 1729 Christina Avenue 1011 Sutherland Drive 9209 Fitzpatrick Circle 126 Paragon Avenue 705 San Miguel Avenu( 4430 Bidwell Place 2158 Bishop Street 3236 South Airport We 6552 N. Pershing Aveni 1209 Sutherland Drive Departmetn of H( Leul Zeru Terra Tiberon Inw Wells Fargo Bank Bank of Federal Jose & I US Bank 2,500 Residential Asset T 5,000 Federal National Mi c nnn �n.,...�„�„ n. o.,..t.. Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Feb. Real estate transactions 23 -March 2. Sale prices are based on transfer tax information is compiled from county rrecords.is Buyer Alan Property Location Price Seller & Joan Sneed 2015 Edmart Street Escalon $105,000 Aurora Loan Services Paulettelsernhagen 917 Stanislaus Street Escalon 210,000 Anderson Trust John Frazier 351 Aries Place Lathrop 91,000 Wells Faro Bank Louis Phan 13472 Pipestone Street Lathrop 185,000 Washington Mutual Bank Yuen Trust 17706 Daffodil Hill Street LathroR. 189,000 Kondaur Ca ital Nakia Caston 17910 Golden S ike Trail Lathrop 218 000 Harborview Mortgage Mahmood Abbasi 16080 Covered Bridge Way Lathrop 280',000 Ashish Patel Rudolf & Sharon Vanhemingen 5150 Ione Street Linden 81,000 Allison Trust Joseph & Linda Martinez 303 South Reid Road ' Linden 200 000 Parrish Trust Paul & Christine Tsam Is 1311 W. Century Blvd. #29 Lodi 93,000 Dokter Trust Muddsar Khan 343 North Stockton Stredf Lodi 94,000 Deutsche Bank Joshua Pursell 316 Louie Avenue Lodi 110,227 Federal National Mortgage Mia Nino 1420 Graffi na Avenue Lodi 130,000 Paula Okeefe Rosa Flores Jose Gutierrez 4301let Stroe Lodi 339 North Stockton Strek Lodi 130 0061 Wayne Hommond Christie Michaeloff 11735 North Highway 99 Lodi 155,000W 159,000 Roberto Ri le Bank of America —� Jonathan & Amy Kopecky Joseph & Heather Correia Jason Westerman 708 James Street 1108 South School Street a, 10173 Lodi Lodi 170,000 172 5004. Gravish Trust Douglas & Sarah Grossman East Highway 12 Lodi 175,000 Federal National Mortgage �� Kevin & Jenmca Frisk 4690 East Live Oak Road Lodi 181,000 Litton Loan Jeffrey & Lesley Bender 234 Tioga Drive Lodi 210 000 .Servicing Federal National Mortgage Jimmy& Lisa Jennings Jeremy Lubin 2114 West Vine Street 1100 South Mills Avenue Lodi Lodi 220,000 221,000 Downey Savings Stephen & Patricia Maynard Maria Freltas 2202 Olson Drive Lodi S p Weisz Trust 280,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage , 2078 Wyndham Way Lodi 280,000 Wells Fargo Bank Tyler Weisz 24771vory Lane Lodi " 310,000 Samuel &Carrie Mitchell Rarry DrahPrt i9no we u , Koa Donald & Erica Lydia Perea Vinh Dinh Jatinder Cheen Kevan & Melis: Mohanbir& Na Ramon & Alma Matthew Tersem S Sindhu & Nathan Damian. Jesus Ortega Arlene Mccracken Lydia Vanolden Keith & Chandra Cunh Sunderlal & Ushakiran a Aung Do Hsueh Tang Ly Lim Wilfred & Rhonda Har( Gary Gerlach Alberto & Diana Ramir Timothy & Catherin Ob Cindy Rico Miguel Reyes Bryan & Kelly Davis Juan Cervantes -Tamar _ 1057 Topaz Court 617 West Center Stre 1037 Vernal Street 1083 Douglas Fir Driv 1475 Bridgeport Lane 1252 Devonshire Aver 1601 Hastings Drive 868 Gladiola Lane 1050 Summit Way _ 1194 Sangria Lane 1391 Madeiena Lane 2331 Toscano Drive 2469 Gibralter Drive 2214 Plumeria Place 1647 Antigua Lane 1626 La Scala Way 1122 Brookhaven Lane 2667 East Junction D 209 West Prosperidac 68 West Amistad Lan( 531 Burk Place 139 S. Vista Hermosa 688 South Escuela Dri 234 West Recreo Way 101 Bryant Avenue 747 Shelli Street 676 West Rico Way 210 East Heritage Driv 631 West Fauna Avenu 233 North Rockridge S 225 North Rockridge S 505 Meadowland Drivi 940 Tornell Drive 455 Franklin Lane 1164 Eastburg Court 1426 East Riverview Ci 320 East Poplar Street 4858 Greensboro Way 1729 Christina Avenue 1011 Sutherland Drive 9209 Fitzpatrick Circle 126 Paragon Avenue 705 San Miguel Avenu( 4430 Bidwell Place 2158 Bishop Street 3236 South Airport We 6552 N. Pershing Aveni 1209 Sutherland Drive Departmetn of H( Leul Zeru Terra Tiberon Inw Wells Fargo Bank Bank of Federal Jose & I US Bank 2,500 Residential Asset T 5,000 Federal National Mi c nnn �n.,...�„�„ n. o.,..t.. v G L�,S .11 '1 a`s E2 SUNDAY, APRIL 4, 2010 THE RECORD Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for . March 3-15. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. is information is compiled from countyReal estatetransactions ranc rtions records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller Ivan Gonzalez 1719 Kemp Court Stockton 116,000 Federal National Mortgage Ravi Sastry 7417 Karlsberg Circle Stockton 118,000 Aurora Loan Services Maricela Serrano_ 149 East Gibson Street Stockton 120,000 Federal National Mortgage Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for Real estate transactions March .ThisSale prices are based transfer tax paid. This information is compiledd from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller I I 1� /-� <�.j <5 � � ZV-,V%.W Mohammad Khan 1889 East Eight Mile Road Lodi 101,000 JP Morgan Chase Bank Real estate transactions Buyer Property Location Doug & Kathleen Ouetin 2331 East Woodson Road Acampo Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for March 23-29. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. This information is compiled from county records, Price Seller $135,000 Homesales Juan & Ana Murga 1114 San Miguel Street Escalon 128,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Campbell Trust 472 Cabernet Court Escalon 190,000 Federal National Mortgage Roy & Floris Hollaway 1456 Genevieve Drive Escalon -200,000 Federal National Mortgage Edwin Powell 942 Fallbrook Court Escalon 225,000- Provident Funding Manuel & Roselia Lazo 7866 S EI Dorado Street French Camp 210,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Mary Boudreau 16022 Cambridge Drive Lathrop 101,000 IMB REO Limited Martin Latona 178 Castlewood Avenue Lathrop 160,000 Hsi Asset Trust Tyler Wedmore 14140 Stratford Avenue Lathrop 160,000 Flagstar Bank Jerome Algozo 149 Castlewood Avenue Lathrop 190,500 Charles & Eugenia Trantina Peter Ho 13601 Onyx Court Lathrop 200,500 Downey Savings Kristin Wilkins 16030 Rocky Harbor Road Lathrop 210,000 CWALT Inc. . Nivia Gufdi Komer 16149 East Sheltered Cove Lathrop 260,000 Reo Capital Investment Reginald Carter 551 New Well Court Lathrop 292,000 Cwalt Inc. Mohammad Khan 1889 East Eight Mile Road Lodi 101,000 JP Morgan Chase Bank Amar'it & Swaran it Bedi 181 Hemlock Drly Lodi 118,0001 Washington Mutual Bank Balbadar Squires 305 Maple Stree Ladf 120,000V Deutsche Bank Delta Breeze Properties '723 East Century Placif Lodi 124 0009 Federal National Mortgage Timothy Rogers 727 North Crescent Avenue Lodi f45,000 Hellwig Trust Jessica Marty 2517 Winchester Street Lodi 170,000 Nicholas Volkert Audrey Kissler Richard & Esther Rossington 2420 Modoc Way 85 Reynolds Way Lodi Lodi 189,000 271,000 May Trust Timothy & Tiffinie Nielsen Mark & Barbara Hutchison 2730 Madrone Drive Lodi 275 000 NSP Investments Terrie Wilson 124 Boxwood Court Lodi 275,000 Baumbach Trust Joseph & Harmony Sousa 2121 Wyndham Way Lodi 277,000 Rizalina Loyola Andrew & Melissa Stroud 852 Alder Place Lodi 335,000 Michael & Wendy Hazelhofei Ramandeep Kaur 11707 North Alpine Road Lodi 350,000 Bank of America Kenneth Valles 265 Joseph Road Manteca 82,000 Ward Trust - -_ Debra Sermeno 337 Sun Haven Place Manteca 120,000 Albino Ramirez Joel & Kristen Eddings 617 Fir Street Manteca 125,000 Dennis Esenwein Anthony Griego 628 Argonaut Street Manteca 137,000 Wells Fargo Bank Lucas Howard 1381 Sterling Place Manteca . 145,000 Robert & Marissa Mertes Cynthia Rundell 1258 Wimbledon Way Manteca 155000 Federal Home Loan Mortgag Ashley Mcquillan 1334 Aksland Drive Manteca 155,000 Departmetn of Housing Joseph & Patricia Gregory 567 Tappan Place Manteca 165,000 Harborview Mortgage Charles Reyes 578 Mission Ridge Drive Manteca 165,000 Onewest Bank Fernando Herrera Jesus Solis 416 North Walnut Avenue 953 Parr Lane Manteca Manteca • 168,000 170,000 Fernando Montano Federal National Mortgage Robert & Jacquelyn Ross 689 Canyon Court Manteca 192,500 Donnelly Trust Richard Nix 1832 Komenich Drive Manteca 200,000 Bank of America John & Renee Gates 1662 Gathering Lane Manteca 210,000 Federal National Mortgage Bryan Suniga 538 Dody Drive Manteca 212,000 Bank of America Nestor Gamino 1925 Passages Street Manteca 215,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgag Kevin Ly 2049 Goldeneye Way Manteca 217000 Cwait Inc. - Adelino Leal 2557 Balmy Court Manteca 220,000 Reo Capital Investment Nery Lopez 2433 Portifino Street Manteca 229,000 Sukhwant Singh "t Manveer Singh Eh Mu 1494 Wellington Avenue 291 Primrose Avenue Manteca Manteca 230 000 250,000 Ramey Marquez Jose Cardenas Henry Hong 883 Tannehill Drive Manteca 251,000 Primacy Closing Corporatioi Willie & Melissa Herrera 1425 Anacaprl Drive Manteca 252,000 Indymac Mortgage Gustavo Soto 1692 Sparrowhawk Street Manteca 265,000 Vaudelio Contreras Jorge Rodriguez 1883 Buena Vista Drive Manteca 271,000 Structured Asset Mortgage Mark & Leslie Andres 1086 Junction Drive Manteca 285,000 Reo Capital Investment Yasin & Sabira All 673 Vasconcellos Avenue Manteca 300,000 Virendra Prasad Scott Williams 236 West Lucita Way Mountain House 170,000 Merrill Lynch Vincent Baca 21 South Aldea Street Mountain House 260,000 James Murphy L Shengchun Ye 137 East Legacy Drive Mountain House 275,000 Marifat Family Limited Kamran Rasheed 443 South Tradition Street Mountain House 314,000 Structured Asset Mortgage Michael Brill Victoria Tidwell 118 Winter Lane 544 West Verano Way Mountain House Mountain House 321,000 325,000 FG Sorrelle Limited Reo A & D Limited Deepak & Pimsy Sharma 310 North Palo Alto Street Mountain House 340,000 _ Atul & Shobha Tandon Mouzam Khan 242 East Heritage Drive Mountain House 375,000 Aurora Loan Services ■ Na•iba Hamnaward III Sean Avenue Mountain House 430,000 Wachovia Bank ■ Nitesh Singh 601 West Cancion Avenue Mountain House 430,000 Reo A & 0 Limited Marcel & Denise Dionio 654 Anna Drive Ripon 253,000 Josh & Lori Mohrman Brian Herr 479 John Kamps Way Ripon 350,000 US Bank James & Michelle Gillespie 1628 Carl Lane Ripon 355,000 Washington Mutual Mortga Delwyn Shelley 226 East Pine Street Stockton 80,000 Federal National Mortgage ■ Robert Steninger 3790 W Ben Holt Drive Stockton 81,000 Federal National Mortgage ■ Remigius Bakker 1876 South Tuxedo Avenue Stockton 85,000 Case Trust Donaldo Rued2 2064 East 10th Street Stockton 85,000 Wild West Holding Roeun Phoun 9 South Thelma Avenue Stockton 89,000 Cit Mortgage Oiling Gu 9026 N. EI Dorado Street Stockton 90,000 Aurora Loan Services Kristen Anema 6426 Leesburg Place Stockton 93,000 Jeffery & Gina Whitaker ■ Andy Ponce 2435 Titlefst Court Stockton 93,000 Wells Fargo Bank • - �- IM Rhnda Island Avenue Stockton 94,000 Federal National Mortgage y I►�I�.a,a remnants from slab and tiles or marble, resulting in uuu I'L" Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for March 29 -April 2. Sale prices are based on transfer • tax paid. This information is compiled from county meal estate transactions records. Location Price Seller I] j a -'-, J'Z E2 SUNDAY, MAY 2, 2010 THE RECORD Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for April 2-9. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. This Real estate transactions information is compiled from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seiler: aaau uuao uvaaa auu vv aaau caacl t'jy _.- uao 1av UiaL/10 W111U 1.U11U1- 1CJ1UC11L1Q1 CUSLU111C1b. 1 systems. Buildings, trees and tions, Spear said it's still neces- Zoning restrictions also can i other obstructions can inter- sary to study the conditions at be a hurdle, although Spear said i Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for April 12-16. Sale prices are based on transfer tax This information is compiled from county Real estate transactions records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller Goehring Trust 25055 North Buck Road Acampo 285,000 Reeve Trust Gaylord & Mary Horney 21934 Henry Road Escalon 94,000 Horney Trust Paula Trudell 13613 Jasoer Street Lathroo 150.000 Wells Fargo Bank Aaron & April Sutherland 157 Castlewood Avenue Lathrop 160,000 Structured Asset Mortgage Juan Ochoa 752 Kilarney Court Lathrop 200,000 Juan Serrano Jagatjeet Singh 940 Waterman Avenue Lathrop 218,000 CWALT Inc. Nadira Yasin 16317 Adobe Wav LathroD 241.000 Dharam Singh Kausar Khan 1305 South Central Avenue: Lodi 87.500 Federal National Mortgage Joshua & Erin Hines 509 Ribier Avenue Lodi 145.000 Wells Fargo Bank Metcalf Silvia Aquino 1614 Coventry Way Lodi 170,000 Bac Home Loans Servicing Casey Luiz 1416 Mariposa Way Lodi 189,000 Gregory Jackson Gordon & Sharon Sprague 1301 West Walnut Street Lodi 195,000 James Davis Donald Hill 1101 Bradford Circle Lodi 235.000 Cherie Delong Gsr Trust Todd & Beth Oesterman 1625 Edgewood Drive Lodi 330,000 Smith Trust Wesley & Vicki Wolff 2901 Rosewood Drive Lodi 345,000 Robert & Kathleen Machado Ricky Miller 55 Applewood Drive Lodi 467,000 Jeffery & Laurie Larsen .., nocnnvi,.6 anti ciorro ct e # IU.nf.- mr nnn Cede.�l U-1 ��., 1An.ln�ne Bank Gilbert Camarillo 706 Virginia Street Manteca 155,000 Pauk Trust Jason & Aisha Blevins 1154 Trailwood Avenue Manteca 170,000 Reo Capital Investment Steven & Dana Holder 143 Bernt Avenue Manteca 170,000 David & Maureen Camper. 1:11;- C.:....d e....... 11........... Rn nnn Q..d....J u....... I ...... RA -- Raymond Miller 1811 Piedmont Drive Manteca 216,000 John & Monica Abrew Rogelio & Martha Matedne 2479 Aooian Wav Manteca 225.000 Ooda Investments Donna Conner-Cassidv 1127 Brook View Lane Manteca 255.000 Structured Asset Mortgage Trust Francisco & Maria Martinez 2162 Brennan Lane Manteca 280,000 Wells Fargo Bank Michael Alpers 917 Shortland Circle Manteca 283,000 Ricardo & Liana Luis Greg & Stephanie Pease 1745 Flora Place Manteca 294,500 Hsi Asset Trust Jia He 1690 Topiary Drive Manteca 310,500 Taylor Morrison of California Russell & Patricia Fischer 2217 Rockwell Lane Manteca 313,500 Pulte Homes Kenneth Felipe 8098 East Lathrop Road Manteca 325,000 Lxs Trust Fund Sharifa Noori 32 South Curioso Street Mountain House 155,000 Brilliant Nest Ivy Brice 116 West Colima Drive Mountain House 157,000 Bac Home Loans Servicing Mario Valenzuela 182 West Santa Cruz Way Mountain Housd 170,000 Jason Williamson Kishor & Krishna Bhatt 532 Kristin Wav Mountain House 270.000 Edward Enriouez Shailesh & Vrushali Khatav 331 Collins Avenue Mountain House 330,000 Ray Hudnall Zohra Hamnaward 548 West Heritage Drive Mountain House 335,000 Reo A & D Limited Daijeet Gill 367 Cordes Court Mountain House 360,000 Suraj Puri Antonia Donato Miguel Reyna 459 Douma Way Ripon 260,000 David & Mary Fenske Jena Reid 865 Nancy Drive Ripon 260,000 Robert Orlando Ian Wilbur 991 Pope Court Ripon 265,000 David & Kimberly Hoogendoorn Schutt Trust 330 Graces Lane Ripon 325,000 Kenneth Taylor Victor & Melissa Fernandez 548 West Flora Street Stockton 80,000 Maria Sosa Juan & Hilda Hernandez 163 French Camp Turnpike Stockton 80,000 Alimbini Trust Norma Zarate 801 South Olive Avenue Stockton 83,000 Federal National Mortgage Enrique &Anita Moreno 6318 Greenfield Lane Stockton 85,000 WWH-2 Partnership Rosario Marquez 220 East Monterey Avenue Stockton 85,000 Vip Mortgage Tammie Singh 9223 Don Rafael Way Stockton 90,000 Don Rafael Way Trust Diversified Asset & Property Mgmt. 8710 Kelley Drive Stockton 90,000 JP Morgan Chase Bank nir6o 4 R. 1 vnn 93.". 'VI7n Wee, UM for a„o.. ctnnlrfnn an nnn Finn}rnnir 1Mrfe.nu Stockton Francisco Perez 3327 West Alpine Avenue Stockton 98,000 Electronic Mortgage Teresa Hinkle 1477 West Swain Road Stockton 99,000 US Bank Craig Hecox 7029 Shiloh Place Stockton 99,000 First NLC Financial S cl j a It / c�7 1 J as ��• Man'it Kaur ata liranlle Avenue Lathro 16858 Or Clalm Trail Lathro Loan mortgage 164,000 Deutsche Bank Asad & Mouna Ka ed 17145 Andover Way Lathro 200,000 Wails Faro Bank on Nguyen 17975 Rust Plow Lane •Lathrop220,000 200,000 Sidharath & Ar ana Sharma Sam &Sarah Tsao. 685 Pioneer Avenue Lathro Mar Deleon Man'eet Singh 776 Homestead Avenue Lathro 235,000 Credit Suisse First Gre or & Dawn Renn 16249 East Sheltered Cove Lathro 238,000 First Franklin Mort a e Kristin Morons Cam bell 14880 Manzanfta Wa Lockeford 295,000 Reo Ca itai Investment Trinidad Martinez 1209 S. Washln on'Stree� Lodi 187,000 Bruce & Annette Vial Mohammad Ahsan 328.50ncord Stra Lodi 100 QO; Juan Cruz Mike & Lanf Malone . 1100 Graffi na Avenue Lodi I30 5 federal National Mort a e Lizeth Ponce 1408 Park Street Lodi 135;000 Christopher & Nicole Hague Azhar Shah 708 EI Ca itan D rive Lodl 160,000 Frank & Sabrina Fields �-� Kathr n Lever Jeffre Skadbur 523SouthSchoofST'eit Lodi 168,000 Uzair & Qazi Ahmad 175,00 federal National Mort Peter 2149 Jerr Lane Lodl a e & Kristina Wan 2926 Her! a Oak Ili Lodi 205,000 Nomura Home E uft Steve &Elizabeth Eastwood 2321 Rockfn ham Circle Lodi 345,000 Frank & Kathleen Qui'aivo 3 Thomas Hede and Christo her & Jand Pastore 530 North East Street Manteca 844 East Alameda 360,000 Conner Trust 100,000 Albertina Gomes ' ' EavensomTrust Street Manteca 118;000 = 838 AI ins Avenue Manteca Lxs Trust Fund Brandon Qrabb 1943 Oldham Place Manteca 120,000 US Bank ` Joshua & Charlene Uli Francisco &Ramona Orta Kevin Krein 1022AIdwina Lane Manteca 320 Ashford Avenue Manteca 150,000 I!, !l:1 is Asset Backed Securities 185,000 Miner Trust 193,000 Federal Home U P J 1 1423 Gondola Street Manteca Loan Mortgage Lonnie Bullock 1660. Hearthson Drive Manteca 195,000 Downs Savin s K Darlene Dehatt . 1977 Pur le Sa a Wa Manteca 195,000 Federal Home Loan Mort a e Devindar Khatkar 911 Shortland Circle Manteca 198,000 Rebecca Church K' M Michael & Rebekah S ads 883 Golden Pond Drive Manteca 239,000 Bank of New York Je Richard &Dolores Lustig2491 Gibraltar Drive Manteca 242,500 Woodside Limited ql Huo Chea Jesse & Jessica Hutto 882 Tannehill Drive Manteca 244,000' . Leroy& Marsha Carter 260,000 Csmc Trust R` Michelle Torres f703 Garibaldi Drive Manteca 873 Golden Pond Drive. 275,000 Federal National Mort a e St - Armando Gonzalez Manteca 748 Donovan Street Manteca Woodside Limited 277,000 ---------------- Ms Joseph & Carolyn Mora 1463 AlberoPlace Manteca 295,000 Fredrick &Jud Wentworth Kr Dale & Aneta Davis 880 Golden Pond Drive MantecaGig 295,000 Standard Pacific Corporation Ke Jeffre & Matla Clark Qiaen YU 2515 Mill Chase Wa Manteca 341,000 Woodside Limited 455,000 Liz i YangWei 149 East Le acZ Drive Mountain House 140 West Brilloso Lane Union Ranch Partners 263,500 Marifat Famil Limited The �. Ndstor &Aurelia Mercado I Mountain House 573 Sullivan Way Mountain House 265,000 Structured Asset Mort a e Mu Dar rGrebenshohikov I Russell Medelros 566 L nn Street Mountain House 665 Ellerbrook Street 318,000 Robert Har er 325,Q00 Federal National Mortgage FedePAiTra al National I Julieta Bon oc Mountain House 551 West Viento Street Mountain 327,000 RKai ai Pal I Jess Veifan • i Hemant Ka adne House 588 West Privado Wa MountaimHouse 340,000 Bruno & Eufrosina Culaton 370,000 Harborview Alli: Juanita Turner 41 Patterson Avenue Mountain House 12777 Cometa Road mortgage- 372,000 Quintin &Carmen Tu Gar Daniel Mendoza Oakdale 138 South Parallel Avenue loon 390,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Ja; Mar Karen Scholten Morris & Barbara Ball 642 Dixie Lane Ripon -Drive.Ripon 102,000 Mark & Julie Marotz 195,000 Emerald Builders Mar .Thomas & Amy Hunt 795 Mulholand 7967ravailie Wa 245,000 Tahmineh M ers Pati Bourbeau Trust Ripon 249 Kristen Wa Ripon 289,000 Washin ton Mutual Bank us Yua Groan Trust Dwi ht &Sharron Fre 16310 Eu enia Avenue Ripon 310,000 Wells Far o Bank 325,000 Robin Meeuwse Keit LGU Pro erties 340 Granite Wa Ri on 8313 Dunbarton Way. Stockton 350,000 McRo Wilbur Communities Lesl Chri ., Jenni Anderson Mar uesha Howell 3013 Oxford Wa Stockton 81,500 Wells Faro Bank 82,000 Dr wall Finishers Dine Mi uel Coria 1325 a comb.Wa Stockton 1325 West ParkStreet 85,000 Pedro Cortez Anes �. Dror Liwer Darren Pan90,000 Stockton 533 S. PershingAvenue Stockton 88,000 La -Sac Holdin s Bust R� • I Lisa Madrigal 8448 Cayuga Drive. Stockton 112 East In ram Street John & Eve Halwani 92,000 Wells Far o Bank Rola j Edward Rible Leonard Freitas Stockton 1016 Fallbrook Drive Stockton 92,000 David Butler 95,000 Wux Thor Catherine Rinehart 338 Taransa Court Stockton 3527 North Hunter Street Catherine Sanchez 100,000 James Grunsk Stew Charles Munoz An elito & Este neli A uda Stockton 3649 Clark Drive Stockton 2955 100,000 North Hunter Street Trust 100,000 Two Gu s Investments John Lei L Grace Acosta Christina Avenue Stockton 5823 Livin Ston Court 105,000 Rose Castillo Tariq Jenal n as Tira elle Trust Stockton 6936 Sumter Qu Circle Stockton 110,000 Federal Home Loan Mort a e 110,000 Eswa Jeeti Javier & Dora Garcia 48 East In ram Street Stockton 4119 Colfax Court Fixsaver Limited 112,500 Owen Trust Trani Antonio Garcia Stockton 702 Juni aro Serra Avenue Stockton 115,000 Rodne Kinerman Nand Mant Lawrence Barnhart Oscar Ochoa 242 East Downs Street Stockton 117,000 EHC Mort a e Servicin 120,000 Ross Ramaakrishnan Parch a akesan 2930 North Hunter Street Stockton• 2741 Springmill Drive Gsam Trust 121,000 John Kalesis Mich. Nean Yim Hue Tu Stockton 713 Sutherland Drive Stockton 121,500 Federal National Mortgage 123,500 Andre ALE Yuan Tian 9426 Tuscan Circle Stockton Electronic Mort a e 125,000 Mor an Stanle Robe Fatimah Nasser 1324 Llo d Tha er Circle Stockton 1317 Candlewood Way 125,000 Soundview Home Loan Trust Golde Cho N an Jose & Elisea Tulauan Stockton 130,000 Residential Asset Trust - 8349 AlmondwoodLane Stockton 130,000 Eva H Akm E L Alfonso & Maria Arredondo American Lender Servicing 5459 Governor Circle Stockton 132,000 Herminfa Delacruz 4104 Minden Lane Josep L Stockton 134,000 Green oint Mort a e Amad. Christ Chris Miller says Liberty, which has green -centered leaves balanced by a wide, creamy gold Flowers, which take second mid -summer. border, "is so showy that it's billing to the leaves, are an add- "I look for unique and unusu- o going to grab people." ed bonus when they appear in al qualities like.different forms, C Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for April Real estate transactions This in Sale prices are based transfer tax paid. This information is compiled from county records. Buyer PropertyI, Location VA- _ __ I_ will '111 -am Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for April 29 -May 5. Sale prices are based on transfer Real estate transactions records. This information is compiled from county Buyer Property Location Price Seller Diego Sierra 3974 East Calimyrna Road Acampo $95,500 Structured Asset Trust William Stanley 3080E Forest Lake Rd #R Acampo 200,000 GMAC Mortgage Teresa Slaton 3302 East Calimyrna Road Acampo 330,000 Capps Trust Robert & Carol Stober 467 California Street Escalon 262,500 Richard & Josephine Flynn Gann Investments 9664 S McKinley Avenue French Camp 150,000 Ing Bank Javier Caballero 15446 6th Street Lathrop 140,000 Rosario Manlarrez Kevin & Christina Converse 801 Granite Avenue Lathrop 147,000 Indymac Mortgage Mark Borrero 13717 Bloom Way Lathrop 161,000 Federal National Mortgage Elizabeth Nahlik 17239 Cottage Gats Lane Lathrop 165,000 Florita Bornea Richard & Gwendolyn Tavares 98 Warren Avenue Lathrop 174,500 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Lacey Bender 688 Jonquil Drive Lathrop 186,000 Departmetn of Housing Antionette Rodrigues 157 Travertine Avenue Lathrop 213,000 Deutsche Bank Saritha Kola 16959 Cobble Creek Way Lathrop 215000 Federal National Mortgage Ahmad & Rita Mukhtar 17103 Andover Way Lathrop 226,500 Aurora Loan Services William Griffitts 13340 East Church Street Lockeford '132,000 Robert & Cathalene Hefner Magdanz Trust 18852 Arrowhead_ Drive Lockeford 200,000 Steven Colwell Christopher & Veronica Carloni Roger & Yolanda Gombert 12355 Locke Road Lockeford 310,000* Seco Properties 14455 East Mira Vista Lane Lockeford 439,000 IMB REO Limited Judith Dol niuk1001 Awani Drive. Lodi 110,000 Im ac Secured Assets Trust Shawn'it Kang Lodi 115 0 Ione Taunton j Enrique Nunez 115'& Washington StriAt Lodi 419 .00011. Ruth Morey A Lois Ellis 1807 Almondwood Place Lodi 125,000 Option One. Mortgage Satyanarayana & Usha Jasty 12786E Tokay Colony Road LodM 135 000 Terri Almond John Bras 605 Tamarack Drive Lodi 147,000 Tamarack Drive Trust Tom &Alicia Decristofaro 729 Palm Avenue Lodi 160,000 James &Sandra Schick William Arisman 2026 Starling Way '- Lodi 180,000- Flagstar Bank Juan Patino 512 Massarosa-Lane Lodi 190,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Hemstalk Trust 1805 Cape Cod Circle Lodi 194,500 Gregory Jackson Todd Stockton 1123 Dover Drive , Lodi 196,000 John & Lorraine Brann Andrew Schuerkamp 1318 Robinson Lane Lodi 206,000 Federal National Mortgage Ziad Baroody 441 Periegos Way Lodi 212,000 Nomura Home Equity John Beltz 2157 Turtledove Court Lodi 230,000 Lee Kelly Berton Costamagna 159 Rivergate Place Lodi 250,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Lisa Hannigan 2554 Knob'cone Lane Lodi 265,000 Javier & Sherrie Garcia Dorothy Perkins 8 South Sunset Drive Lodi 287,000 Richard Perkins Scott Mcclung 2245 South Mills Avenue Lod( 325,000 C Bass Mortgage ! Michael & Beverly Mashburn 15825 Brandt Road Lodi : 335,000 • Asborno Trust I Waleed & Adiba Ibrahim 2329 Heavenly Way Lodi 425,000 Mccarthy Trust Stephen & Christine Benson 1237 Winerose Court Lodi 517,000 Wine & Roses Limited Donnell&Tammy Bland 448 North Grant Avenue Manteca 145,000 Kevin Wentworth _ j Amandeep Singh 1338 Bryant Court Manteca 163,500 Structured Asset Mortgage Alyssa Castillo 14691 Pueblo Drive Manteca 172,000 First Franklin Mortgage Linda Mcvicar 1861 Holly Oak Court Manteca 175,000 Deutsche Bank Tom & Diane Gannon 1426 Stoker Way Manteca . 180,000 Rosalyn Ramos i Sarah Mcquillan 1398 Gianna Lane Manteca 185,000 Washington Mutual Bank ! Emperor Properties 1937 Alghero Drive Manteca 191,000 Terry & Cathleen Jackson Gary Wilson 1737 Piedmont Drive Manteca 195,000 Wells Fargo Bank Joshua Barton 1647 Nehemiah Drive Manteca 205,000 Wells Fargo Bank Carl Parr 2355 Donatello Street Manteca 207,000 Bear Stearns L Dutra Farms4510 Peach Road Manteca 210,000 Wells Fargo Bank Charlotte Alston 1371 Camilla Street Manteca 211,500 Woodside Limited Esraj Trust 1656 Solaro Way Manteca 215,000 Reo Capital Investment j Josue Orozco-Banda 1359 Camilla Street Manteca 219,500 Woodside Limited. Frank Gomez 1383 Camilla Street Manteca 231,000 Woodside Limited John Taylor 2317 Toscano Drive Manteca 246,500 Gann Investments ! Jeff & Christine Speegle 1843 Avalanche Court Manteca 290,000 Jamke Limited Allen Valera 1762 Centerpiece Lane Manteca 294,000 Taylor Morrison of California Macdonald &Vickie Hamner 872 Golden PondDrive . Manteca 295,000 Woodside Limited Raul Calimlim 1436 Muro Lane Manteca. 305,000 Standard Pacific Corporation. Jesse & Antoinette Chagoya 1460 Tesoro Drive Manteca 320,500 Woodside Limited Gregory & Molly Mckendry 2538 Ancestry Street Manteca 323,000 Taylor Morrison of California Wayne & Libby Orvick 1757 Flora Place Manteca 378,000 Woodside Limited Zhenggiang Huang 101 McDermott Avenue Mountain House 260,000 Luminent Mortgage Scott Williams 652 West Cancion Avenue Mountain House 305,000 Bank of America Adam Clark 188 West Charlene Court Mountain House 318,000 David & April Bean Jaswinder Singh 382 South Central Parkway Mountain House 325,000 Csmc Trust Xiaolin Sun 416 Sullivan Court Mountain House 331,000 Harborview Mortgage Stavros Demos 399 North Palo Alto Street Mountain House 358,000 Olivier & Cerena Gil Kunjoonju Joseph 195 South Caballo Street Mountain House 360,000 Cindy La Ming Zhang 673 W Montecito Avenue Mountain House 360,000 Eric & Joanna Skeen Thomas & Julie Bertram 130 2nd Street Ripon 99,000 Keven Wentworth Darryl Stucker 1080 Ruess Road Ripon 219,500 Gryf & Terri Werning Gary Marchy 1156 Robert Avenue Ripon 235,000 American Home Mortgage Frederik & Brenda Harms 1647 Den Oulk Court Ripon 285,000 Cook Trust _. Rusty Williams 356 S Highland Avenue Ripon 317,000 • David & Marianne Trust Robert & Anita Pollard 1246 Spyglass Court Ripon 325,000 Christina Thomas Inderjit Birring 648 West Shasta Avenue Ripon 410,000 Bank of America Bradley Kimmey 119 West Longview Avenue Stockton 80,000 Federal National Mortgage �......... D. Qk--, Wnjain 1660 Middlefield Avenue Stockton 80,000 James Grunsky .......... ..__.. �, o -,..,.,..ase Ali Aahmood •itts bir & Narinder Dirks o Zheng & Louise Joss Kevin & Vici Gerald & Pa SimranpalS Zhuojian Hai Noriko Berry Rajat Narasii Edie Osuna Patrick Phong He Abdul Mir Mark & Mimi Gory Haar Alfred Hunter G:ryf & Terri N Gregory Vitz Luis Valdez IftikharAhmei John & Lucia i Luis Garcia Jose Garcia John Fleming Vanora Nouch Janio Nawman uwn,l11 tlS7I t 328 C�press:Stre t Loa) Lodi 428 West Locust Street Sales of real estate in San Joaquin County for May Real 1607 Fawnhaven Way 6-12. Sale prices are based on transfer tax paid. estate transact ions This information is compiled from county records. Buyer Property Location Price Seller Martin & Tina Escalon Mabel Ha 480 Ist Street Escalon $265,000 Vanvliet Trust ilCk & Lisa Beeso 14639 Avon Avenue #9 14061 Pinecrest Street Lathro Lathro 113,000 Bank of New York Joseph Rego 354 J Streer Dennis & C ndi Esenwein Ali Aahmood •itts bir & Narinder Dirks o Zheng & Louise Joss Kevin & Vici Gerald & Pa SimranpalS Zhuojian Hai Noriko Berry Rajat Narasii Edie Osuna Patrick Phong He Abdul Mir Mark & Mimi Gory Haar Alfred Hunter G:ryf & Terri N Gregory Vitz Luis Valdez IftikharAhmei John & Lucia i Luis Garcia Jose Garcia John Fleming Vanora Nouch Janio Nawman uwn,l11 tlS7I t 328 C�press:Stre t Loa) Lodi 428 West Locust Street Lodi 1221 South Pleasant Avenue Lodi 1607 Fawnhaven Way Lodi 4765 Bear Creek Road Lodi 589 Westwood Avenue Lodi 505 Massarosa Lane Lodi 1418 Bordeau Drive Lodi 1912 West Locust Street. Lodi 2724 Madrone Drive Lodi 2636 Ponderosa Drive Lodi 517 West Pine Street Lodi 1423 Tra 1668 He 571 Fem 2015 Arr 1244 Prir 1376 Mai 176A Nnr Tail Aven Joe & Irene e & Jill 1 a Nonce De Leon Avenue Stockton 90,500 Wells Faro Bank 2035 E. Washington Street Stockton 91500 Wells Fargo Bank %nny:Souza: Souza Realty & Development BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION . OF THE DELTA a 315 N. SAN JOAQUIN ST., SUITE 202 STOCKTON, CA 95202 209-235-7831 •209-235-7837 fax OFFICERS Jeremy White The Grupe Company Randy Bling June 9, 2010 Florsheim Homes Ramon Batista River islands a? Lathrop Mayor Phil Katzakian Mahesh Ranchhod American-USA Homes City Of Lodi 221 W. Pine St. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lodi, CA 95240 Debbie Armstrong Old Republic Title Company Mayor Katzakian, Rod Attebery Neumiller & Beardslee Gina Carruesco Attached is the report presented to the Lodi City Council during a Caresco Homes Rey Chavez shirtsleeve study session in April of 2009. 1 am re-submitting this report Kelly-Mere Paint Company in advance of tonight's discussion on redevelopment. The report was Ryan g Pulte Homesomen prepared by the National Association of Home Builders specifically for Cathy than the Stockton MSA encompassing all of San Joaquin County. I submit this Oak valley Community Bank report to highlight the point made during the April 2009 presentation: New Steve Herum Herum Crabtree Brown residential construction represents a net cash gain to local governments. John Looper Top Gude Construction Dudley McGee Due to factors such asra osition 13 the totality of all residential p p y Hoene Pros On The Go properties in most California cities are a net loss to local governments Terry Miles however when new construction is isolated and analyzed individually the T c;chert Construction David Nelson new construction is a net gain to cities. The tipping point where homes A.G. Spans Companies stop becoming a benefit and become a detriment to local government Carol ornelas Visionary Hoene Builders, Inc. revenues is typically at the age of 20 years. In other words homes older � Denise ky than 20 years do not pay enough to local government to cover the burden Home Legacy Homes of servicing those homes while homes newer than 20 years provide a net surplus and therefore offset the losses from older homes. LIFETIME DIRECTORS Matt Arnaiz H. D. Arnaiz Corporation The functions of a Redevelopment Agency where tax increment from Dennis Bennett Bennett Development older areas of a communityare captured and kept within the community p l� y Bill Filios for infrastructure and other improvements operate to balance the AKF Development, LLC discrepancy between older and newer homes. Through the creation of a Mike Hakeem Hakeem, Ellis & Marengo Redevelopment Agency cities are able to use the tax increment to make up Jeffrey Kirst for revenue deficiencies which otherwise exist In older neighborhoods. Tokay Development Wayne LeBaron LeBaron Ranches Sin erely, Steve Moore Westervelt Ecological Zandra Morris �--� Old Republic Title Company ohn R. Beckinan Toni Raymus Raymus Horne,,, Inc. Chief Executive Officer %nny:Souza: Souza Realty & Development THE LOCAL OI MI PACTT OF HOME BUILDING IN CSACNC JOAOCUCICNC COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN OCMEEQ CJ- O SSQ AN TAXES GENERATED 8..8 NAHB NATIONAL ASSOCIATION of HOME BUILDERS THE LOCAL IMPACT OF HOME BUILDING IN BA CJ DA©U- IICNC] COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ICNCC DCMCCEQ JD B SQ AND TAXES GENERATED Executive Summary Detailed Tables on Single Family Construction Detailed Tables on Multifamily Construction Background and a Brief Description of the Model Used to Estimate the Economic Benefits Technical Documentation Home building generates substantial local economic activity, including new income and jobs for residents, and additional revenue for local governments. The National Association of Home Builders has developed a model to estimate the economic benefits. The model captures the effect of the construction activity itself, the ripple impact that occurs when income earned from construction activity is spent and recycles in the local economy, and the ongoing impact that results from new homes becoming occupied by residents who pay taxes and buy locally produced goods and services. In order to fully appreciate the positive impact residential construction has on a community, it's important to include the ripple effects and the ongoing benefits. Since the NAHB model was initially developed in 1996, it has been successfully applied to construction in over 500 projects, local jurisdictions, metropolitan areas, non -metropolitan counties, and states across the country. This report presents estimates of the local impacts of home building in San Joaquin County, California (see map below). San Joaquin County, California The comprehensive nature of the NAHB model requires that the local area over which the benefits are spread be large enough to include the places where construction workers live and spend their money, as well as the places where the new home occupants are likely to work, shop, and go for recreation. In practice, this usually means a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Based on local commuting patterns, OMB has identified the Stockton MSA as a metro area consisting of a single county (San Joaquin) in California. In this report, wherever the term local is used, it refers to the metro area—that is, all of San Joaquin County. The report presents estimates of the impacts of building 800 single family and 200 multifamily housing units, based on construction activity taking place in San Joaquin County in 2008. The NAHB model produces impacts on income and employment in 16 industries and local government, as well as detailed information about taxes and other types of local government revenue. The key results are summarized below. Additional details are contained in subsequent sections. The estimated one-year local impacts of building 800 single family homes in San Joaquin County include �Z $199.3 million in local income, $62.4 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 3,217 local jobs. These are local impacts, representing income and jobs for residents of San Joaquin County, and taxes (and other sources of revenue, including permit fees) for all local jurisdictions within the county. They are also one-year impacts that include both the direct and indirect impact of the construction activity itself, and the impact of local residents who earn money from the construction activity spending part of it within the local area. The additional, annually recurring impacts of building 800 single family homes in San Joaquin County include �Z $25.4 million in local income, �Z $6.6 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and �Z 451 local jobs. These are ongoing, annual local impacts that result from the new homes being occupied, and the occupants paying taxes and otherwise participating in the local economy year after year. In order to fully capture the impact residential construction has on a community, it is important to account for the ongoing benefits as well as the one-time effects. The above impacts were calculated assuming that new single family homes built in San Joaquin County have an average price of $300,000; are built on a lot for which the average value of the raw land is $15,000; require the builder and developer to pay an average of $65,000 in impact, permit, and other fees to local governments; and incur an average property tax of $3,750 per year. This information was obtained from the Building and Industry Association of the Delta, the California Building and Industry Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the U.S. Census Bureau. 061 The estimated one-year local impacts of building 200 multifamily units in San Joaquin County include �Z $25.5 million in local income, �Z $12.0 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and :) 419 local jobs. These are local impacts, representing income and jobs for residents of San Joaquin County, and taxes (and other sources of revenue, including permit fees) for all local jurisdictions within the county. They are also one-year impacts that include both the direct and indirect impact of the construction activity itself, and the impact of local residents who earn money from the construction activity spending part of it within San Joaquin County. The additional, annually recurring impacts of building 200 multifamily units in San Joaquin County include �Z $5.4 million in local income, $1.0 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 80 local jobs. These are ongoing, annual local impacts that result from the new homes being occupied, and the occupants paying taxes and otherwise participating in the local economy year after year. These impacts were calculated assuming that new multifamily units built in San Joaquin County each have an average market value of $141,820; embody an average raw land value of $6,000; require the builder and developer to pay an average of $50,000 in impact, permit, and other fees per unit to local governments; and incur an average annual property tax of $1,773 per unit. As with the assumptions underlying the single family impact estimates, this information was obtained from the Building and Industry Association of the Delta, the California Building and Industry Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the U.S. Census Bureau. THE LOCAL IM ACCCCT OF HOME BUILDING IN CSACNC JOAOCUCIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INCOME. JOBS. AN TAXES GENERATED DETAILED TABLES ON SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION F ilI7;'L�1; :i-li �l.i I I Tota/One-Year Impact.- Sum of Phase I and Phase II: Local Income Local Business Local Wages Local Taxes' Local Jobs $25,448,000 Owners' Income and Salaries $6,649,000 Supported $199,300,000 $54,915,000 $144,385,000 $67,389,000 3,217 Phase I.- Direct and Indirect Impact of Construction Activity: Local Income Business Owners' Local Wages1 Local Taxes Local Jobs $25,448,000 Income and Salaries $6,649,000 Supported $114,983,000 $32,162,000 $82,822,000 $58,487,000 1,768 Phase II.• Induced (Ripple) Effect of Spending the Income and Taxes from Phase I: Local Income Business Owners' Local Wages1 Local Taxes Local Jobs $25,448,000 Income and Salaries $6,649,000 Supported $84,317,000 $22,753,000 $61,563,000 $8,902,000 1,449 Phase III.- Ongoing, Annual Effect that Occurs When New Homes are Occupied: Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes' Local Jobs Supported $25,448,000 $7,383,000 $18,064,000 $6,649,000 451 ' The term local taxes is used as a shorthand for local government revenue from all sources: taxes, fees, fines, revenue from government-owned enterprises, etc... IMPACT OF EIUIL®INM BOO SIMMILE FAMILY HOMES IN BAN JO OUIN CO.. C PF14AA °E/--®IRECT ANO INDIRECT IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Wag Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $79,102,000 $20,401,000 $58,701,000 $48,000 1,223 Manufacturing $12,000 $1,000 $11,000 $50,000 0 Transportation $202,000 $28,000 $174,000 $39,000 4 Communications $1,181,000 $361,000 $820,000 $73,000 11 Utilities $348,000 $135,000 $213,000 $82,000 3 Wholesale and Retail Trade $11,597,000 $2,123,000 $9,474,000 $36,000 267 Finance and Insurance $2,531,000 $205,000 $2,325,000 $81,000 29 Real Estate $4,994,000 $4,396,000 $598,000 $50,000 12 Personal & Repair Services $805,000 $304,000 $502,000 $32,000 16 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $460,000 $91,000 $368,000 $32,000 11 Business & Professional Services $11,101,000 $3,309,000 $7,793,000 $56,000 139 Eating and Drinking Places $381,000 $51,000 $330,000 $20,000 17 Automobile Repair & Service $381,000 $118,000 $263,000 $32,000 8 Entertainment Services $66,000 $14,000 $53,000 $44,000 1 Health, Educ. & Social Services $15,000 $4,000 $11,000 $37,000 0 Local Government $86,000 $0 $86,000 $52,000 2 Other $1,721,000 $621,000 $1,100,000 $43,000 26 [Total $114,983,000 $32,162,000 $82,822,000 $47,000 1,768 Note. Business & professional services include architectural and engineering services The 'other"category consists mostly of landscaping services, and the production of greenhouse and nursery products. B. Local Government General Revenue by TVDe TAXES: 11 USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $328,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $52,000,000 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $1,051,000 General Sales Taxes $2,185,000 Hospital Charges $689,000 Specific Excise Taxes $89,000 Transportation Charges $205,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $231,000 License Taxes $0 Other Fees and Charges $1,653,000 Other Taxes $57,000 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $55,828,000 TOTAL TAXES $2,659,000 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $58,487,000 IMPACT OF BUILOING BOO SIMMLE FAMILY HOMES IN BAN .IO ®UIN CO.. CA PNASE/t•INOUCEO EFFECT OF SPENOING INCOME ANO TAX REVENUE FROM PHASE 1 A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Wag Wages & Salaries per Full-time Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $3,226,000 $1,212,000 $2,013,000 $48,000 42 Manufacturing $15,000 $1,000 $14,000 $50,000 0 Transportation $356,000 $50,000 $306,000 $33,000 9 Communications $4,304,000 $1,436,000 $2,867,000 $72,000 40 Utilities $2,004,000 $791,000 $1,213,000 $82,000 15 Wholesale and Retail Trade $11,104,000 $2,084,000 $9,020,000 $32,000 284 Finance and Insurance $2,814,000 $254,000 $2,560,000 $72,000 35 Real Estate $11,578,000 $10,192,000 $1,386,000 $50,000 28 Personal & Repair Services $2,598,000 $1,166,000 $1,432,000 $32,000 45 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $583,000 $116,000 $467,000 $32,000 14 Business & Professional Services $9,126,000 $2,569,000 $6,558,000 $51,000 128 Eating and Drinking Places $3,261,000 $439,000 $2,823,000 $20,000 144 Automobile Repair & Service $1,580,000 $481,000 $1,098,000 $32,000 34 Entertainment Services $769,000 $212,000 $557,000 $36,000 16 Health, Educ. & Social Services $8,664,000 $1,103,000 $7,561,000 $47,000 160 Local Government $20,559,000 $0 $20,559,000 $49,000 423 Other $1,776,000 $647,000 $1,129,000 $34,000 33 Total $84,317,000 $22,753,000 $61,563,000 $42,000 1,449 Note. Business & professional services include architectural and engineering services The 'other -category consists mostly of landscaping services, and the production of greenhouse and nursery products. B. Local Government General Revenue by TVDe TAXES: 11 USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $1,573,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $2,344,000 General Sales Taxes $738,000 Hospital Charges $997,000 Specific Excise Taxes $426,000 Transportation Charges $150,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $170,000 License Taxes $0 [Other Fees and Charges $2,232,000 Other Taxes $274,000 11 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $5,892,000 TOTAL TAXES $3,010,000 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $8,902,000 IMPBACT OF BUILOIING BOO SIMMLE FAMILY HOMES IN BAN .IO OUIN CO.. CA PHASEIA6-ONGOING. ANNUAL EFFECT THAT OCCURS BECAUSE UNITS ARE OCCUFIEO A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Wag Wages & Salaries per Full-time Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $1,373,000 $526,000 $847,000 $48,000 18 Manufacturing $6,000 $0 $5,000 $50,000 0 Transportation $103,000 $14,000 $89,000 $36,000 2 Communications $1,538,000 $522,000 $1,016,000 $72,000 14 Utilities $886,000 $349,000 $537,000 $82,000 7 Wholesale and Retail Trade $4,638,000 $873,000 $3,765,000 $32,000 119 Finance and Insurance $1,494,000 $136,000 $1,358,000 $71,000 19 Real Estate $2,783,000 $2,450,000 $333,000 $50,000 7 Personal & Repair Services $778,000 $358,000 $420,000 $32,000 13 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $251,000 $50,000 $201,000 $32,000 6 Business & Professional Services $2,497,000 $749,000 $1,748,000 $50,000 35 Eating and Drinking Places $1,365,000 $184,000 $1,182,000 $20,000 60 Automobile Repair & Service $640,000 $195,000 $445,000 $32,000 14 Entertainment Services $400,000 $110,000 $290,000 $33,000 9 Health, Educ. & Social Services $3,316,000 $435,000 $2,881,000 $47,000 62 Local Government $2,251,000 $0 $2,251,000 $49,000 46 Other $1,129,000 $432,000 $696,000 $34,000 21 Total $25,448,000 $7,383,000 $18,064,000 $40,000 451 Note. Business & professional services include architectural and engineering services The 'other"category consists mostly of landscaping services, and the production of greenhouse and nursery products. B. Local Government General Revenue by TVDe TAXES: 11 USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $595,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $2,850,000 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $1,087,000 General Sales Taxes $279,000 Hospital Charges $713,000 Specific Excise Taxes $161,000 Transportation Charges $45,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $51,000 License Taxes $0 [Other Fees and Charges $766,000 Other Taxes $103,000 11 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $2,661,000 TOTAL TAXES $3,988,000 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $6,649,000 THE LOCAL IM ACCCCT OF HOME BUILDING IN CSACNC JOAOCUCIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INCOME. JOBS. AN TAXES GENERATED DETAILED TABLES ON MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION '':� IBJ 11 t IN] 1 / 1--irp l i 1110) (0 1 [.111011 LL V Tota/One-Yearlmpact.- Sum of Phase I and Phase II: Local Income Local Business Local Wages Local Taxes' Local Jobs $5,428,000 Owners' Income and Salaries $1,011,000 Supported $25,528,000 $6,640,000 $18,886,000 $11,933,000 419 Phase I.• Direct and Indirect Impact of Construction Activity: Local Income Business Owners' Local Wages1 Local Taxes Local Jobs $5,428,000 Income and Salaries $1,011,000 Supported $13,352,000 $3,637,000 $9,712,000 $10,744,000 207 Phase II: Induced (Ripple) Effect of Spending the Income and Taxes from Phase I: Local Income Business Owners' Local Wages1 Local Taxes Local Jobs $5,428,000 Income and Salaries $1,011,000 Supported $12,176,000 $3,003,000 $9,174,000 $1,189,000 212 Phase III.- Ongoing, Annual Effect that Occurs When New Homes are Occupied: Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes' Local Jobs Supported $5,428,000 $2,299,000 $3,130,000 $1,011,000 80 ' The term local taxes is used as a shorthand for local government revenue from all sources: taxes, fees, fines, revenue from government-owned enterprises, etc... IMPACT OF BUILOING BOO MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN BAN JOAOUIN CO-® CA PFiAAFE/--OIRECT ANO INOIRECT IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Wag Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $9,324,000 $2,405,000 $6,919,000 $48,000 144 Manufacturing $1,000 $0 $1,000 $50,000 0 Transportation $24,000 $3,000 $20,000 $39,000 1 Communications $138,000 $42,000 $96,000 $73,000 1 Utilities $40,000 $15,000 $24,000 $82,000 0 Wholesale and Retail Trade $1,350,000 $247,000 $1,103,000 $36,000 31 Finance and Insurance $295,000 $24,000 $271,000 $81,000 3 Real Estate $424,000 $373,000 $51,000 $50,000 1 Personal & Repair Services $94,000 $36,000 $59,000 $32,000 2 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $53,000 $10,000 $42,000 $32,000 1 Business & Professional Services $1,299,000 $387,000 $912,000 $56,000 16 Eating and Drinking Places $44,000 $6,000 $38,000 $20,000 2 Automobile Repair & Service $45,000 $14,000 $31,000 $32,000 1 Entertainment Services $8,000 $2,000 $6,000 $44,000 0 Health, Educ. & Social Services $2,000 $0 $1,000 $37,000 0 Local Government $9,000 $0 $9,000 $52,000 0 Other $202,000 $73,000 $129,000 $43,000 3 [Total $13,352,000 $3,637,000 $9,712,000 $47,000 207 Note. Business & professional services include architectural and engineering services The 'other"category consists mostly of landscaping services, and the production of greenhouse and nursery products B. Local Government General Revenue by TVDe TAXES: 11 USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $32,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $10,000,000 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $122,000 General Sales Taxes $257,000 Hospital Charges $80,000 Specific Excise Taxes $9,000 Transportation Charges $24,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $27,000 License Taxes $0 Other Fees and Charges $188,000 Other Taxes $6,000 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $10,440,000 TOTAL TAXES $304,000 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $10,744,000 PACT OF BUILOING 000 MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN BAN JOAOUIN CO®® C PNASE/t•INOUCEO EFFECT OF SFENOING INCOME ANO TAX REVENUE FROM FHASE 1 A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Wag Wages & Salaries per Full-time Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $428,000 $159,000 $270,000 $48,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000 $0 $2,000 $50,000 0 Transportation $47,000 $7,000 $40,000 $34,000 1 Communications $582,000 $192,000 $390,000 $73,000 5 Utilities $261,000 $103,000 $158,000 $82,000 2 Wholesale and Retail Trade $1,437,000 $269,000 $1,168,000 $32,000 37 Finance and Insurance $366,000 $33,000 $333,000 $72,000 5 Real Estate $1,492,000 $1,313,000 $179,000 $50,000 4 Personal & Repair Services $352,000 $156,000 $196,000 $32,000 6 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $76,000 $15,000 $61,000 $32,000 2 Business & Professional Services $1,381,000 $382,000 $999,000 $51,000 19 Eating and Drinking Places $423,000 $57,000 $366,000 $20,000 19 Automobile Repair & Service $203,000 $62,000 $141,000 $32,000 4 Entertainment Services $100,000 $28,000 $72,000 $36,000 2 Health, Educ. & Social Services $1,111,000 $142,000 $969,000 $47,000 20 Local Government $3,684,000 $0 $3,684,000 $49,000 76 Other $231,000 $85,000 $146,000 $34,000 4 Total $12,176,000 $3,003,000 $9,174,000 $43,000 212 Note. Business & professional services include architectural and engineering services The 'other"category consists mostly of landscaping services, and the production of greenhouse and nursery products. B. Local Government General Revenue by TVDe TAXES: 11 USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $205,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $307,000 General Sales Taxes $96,000 Hospital Charges $139,000 Specific Excise Taxes $55,000 Transportation Charges $22,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $24,000 License Taxes $0Other Fees and Charges $305,000 Other Taxes $36,000 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $797,000 TOTAL TAXES $392,000 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $1,189,000 IM PBACT OF BUILOING BOO MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN BAN JOAOUIN CO.. CA PHAGE//t•ONGOING. ANNUAL EFFECT THAT OCCURS BECAUSE UNITS ARE OCCUFIEO A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners' Income Local Wages and Salaries Wag Wages & Salaries per Full-time Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $171,000 $55,000 $116,000 $48,000 2 Manufacturing $1,000 $0 $1,000 $50,000 0 Transportation $22,000 $3,000 $19,000 $35,000 1 Communications $276,000 $94,000 $182,000 $72,000 3 Utilities $75,000 $29,000 $46,000 $82,000 1 Wholesale and Retail Trade $876,000 $165,000 $711,000 $31,000 23 Finance and Insurance $184,000 $16,000 $167,000 $73,000 2 Real Estate $1,735,000 $1,528,000 $208,000 $50,000 4 Personal & Repair Services $125,000 $58,000 $67,000 $32,000 2 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $41,000 $8,000 $33,000 $32,000 1 Business & Professional Services $470,000 $142,000 $328,000 $50,000 7 Eating and Drinking Places $290,000 $39,000 $251,000 $20,000 13 Automobile Repair & Service $113,000 $35,000 $79,000 $32,000 2 Entertainment Services $60,000 $17,000 $43,000 $41,000 1 Health, Educ. & Social Services $540,000 $74,000 $466,000 $48,000 10 Local Government $344,000 $0 $344,000 $49,000 7 Other $105,000 $36,000 $69,000 $34,000 2 Total $5,428,000 $2,299,000 $3,130,000 $39,000 80 Note. Business & professional services include architectural and engineering services The 'other"category consists mostly of landscaping services, and the production of greenhouse and nursery products B. Local Government General Revenue by TVDe TAXES: 11 USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $137,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $340,000 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $130,000 General Sales Taxes $64,000 Hospital Charges $89,000 Specific Excise Taxes $37,000 Transportation Charges $10,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $11,000 License Taxes $0 Other Fees and Charges $171,000 Other Taxes $24,000 11 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $410,000 TOTAL TAXES $601,000 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $1,011,000 THE LOCAL IIM ACCT OF HOME BUILDING IN CSACNC JOAOCUCIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INCOME. JOBS. AN TAXES GENERATED BACKGROUND ANO A o R IIEFF DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL USED TO ESTIMATE THE ECONOMIC ICC The Housing Policy Department of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) maintains an economic model that it uses to estimate the local economic benefits of home building. Originally developed in 1996, the model was at first calibrated to a typical metropolitan area using national averages, but from the beginning was capable of being adapted to a specific local economy by replacing key housing market variables. The initial version of the model could be applied to single family construction, multifamily construction, or a combination of the two. In March of 1997, NAHB began customizing the model to various areas around the country on a routine basis, primarily at the request of its local affiliated associations. As of January 2008, the Housing Policy Department has produced over 500 of these customized reports analyzing residential construction in various metropolitan areas, non -metropolitan counties, and states across the country (see map below). Areas Covered by NAHB Local Impact Studies The darkest shading indicates studies that covered metro areas and non -metro counties; the somewhat lighter shading indicates studies that were produced for an entire state. The reports have analyzed the impacts of specific housing projects, as well as total home building in areas as large as entire states. In 2002, NAHB developed new versions of the model to analyze active adult housing projects and multifamily development financed with the Low - Income Housing Tax Credit. In 2005 a version of the model that analyzes residential remodeling was added to the mix. Results from NAHB's local impact model have been used by outside organizations such as universities, state housing authorities and affordable housing agencies: The Shimburg Center for Affordable Housing at the University of Florida used results from the NAHB model to establish that "the real estate taxes paid year after year are the most obvious long-term economic benefit to the community. Probably the second most obvious long-term economic benefit is the purchases made by the family occupying the completed home." www.shimberg.ufl.edu/pdfs/Newslett-lune02.pdf �Z The Center for Applied Economic Research at Montana State University used "results from an input-output model developed by the National Association of Home Builders to assess the impacts to local areas from new home construction." The results show that "the construction industry contributes substantially to Montana's economy accounting for 5.5 percent of Gross State Product." www. msubillinas.edu/caer/The%20Impact%20of%20Home%20Construction%20in%20 Montana.pdf �Z The Housing Education and Research Center at Michigan State University also adopted the NAHB approach: "The underlying basis for supporting the implementation of this [NAHB] model on Michigan communities is that it provides quantifiable results that link new residential development with commercial and other forms of development therefore illustrating the overall economic effects of residential growth." www.canr.msu.edu/cm/herc/h5over.html �Z The Center for Economic Development at the University of Massachusetts found that "Home building generates substantial local economic activity, including income, jobs, and revenue for state and local governments. These far exceed the school costs -to -property - tax ratios. ...these factors were evaluated by means of a quantitative assessment of data from the National Association of Home Builder's Local Impact of Home Building model" www.donahue.umassp.edu/publications/housing/7-economicco.html Similarly, the Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations decided to base its analysis of affordable housing on the NAHB model, stating that "This model is widely respected and utilized in analyzing the economic impact of market rate housing development," and that, compared to alternatives, it "is considered the most comprehensive and is considered an improvement on most previous models." www.aocdo.org/docs/EcoDevoStudyFinal.pdf �Z The Boone County Kentucky Planning Commission included results from the NAHB model in its 2005 Comprehensive Report. The Planning Commission used values from the impact model to quantify the increase in local income, taxes, revenue, jobs, and overall local economic impacts in the Metro Area as a result of new home construction. http://www.boonecountyky.ora/pc/2005CompPlan.aspxv 2 A Brief Description of the Model The NAHB model is divided into three phases. Phases I and II are one-time effects. Phase I captures the effects that result directly from the construction activity itself and the local industries that contribute to it. Phase II captures the effects that occur as a result of the wages and profits from Phase I being spent in the local economy. Phase III is an ongoing, annual effect that includes property tax payments and the result of the completed unit being occupied. Phase l; The jobs, wages, and local taxes (including permit, utility Loca/Industries connection, and impact fees) generated by the actual Involved in development, construction, and sale of the home. These jobs Home Building include on-site and off-site construction work as well as jobs generated in retail and wholesale sales of components, transportation to the site, and the professional services required to build a home and deliver it to its final customer. The wages and profits for local area residents earned during the construction period are spent on other locally produced Phase II.• goods and services. This generates additional income for local Ripple Effect residents, which is spent on still more locally produced goods and services, and so on. This continuing recycling of income back into the community is usually called a multiplieror ripple effect. The local jobs, income, and taxes generated as a result of the home being occupied. A household moving into a new home generally spends about three-fifths of its income on goods and Phase III: services sold in the local economy. A fraction of this will become Ongoing, income for local workers and local businesses proprietors. In a Annual Effect typical local area, the household will also pay 1.25 percent of its income to local governments in the form of taxes and user fees, and a fraction of this will become income for local government employees. This is the first step in another set of economic ripples that cause a permanent increase in the level of economic activity, jobs, wages, and local tax receipts. The model defines a local economy as a collection of industries and commodities. These are selected from the detailed benchmark input-output tables produced by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The idea is to choose goods and services that would typically be produced, sold, and consumed within a local market area. Laundry services would qualify, for example, while automobile manufacturing would not. Both business -to -business and business -to - consumer transactions are considered. In general the model takes a conservative approach and retains a relatively small number of the available industries and commodities. Of the roughly 600 industries and commodities provided in the input-output files, the model uses only 87 commodities and 89 industries. The design of the model implies that a local economy should include not only the places people live, but also the places where they work, shop, typically go for entertainment, etc. This corresponds reasonably well to the concepts of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Divisions, areas defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget based on local commuting patterns. Outside of these officially defined metropolitan areas, NAHB has determined that a county will usually satisfy the model's requirements. For a particular local area, the model adjusts the indirect business tax section of the national input-output accounts to account for the fiscal structure of local governments in the area. The information used to do this comes primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau's Census of Governments. Wages and salaries are extracted from the employee compensation section of the input-output accounts on an industry -by -industry basis. In order to relate wages and salaries to employment, the model incorporates data on local wages per job published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In order to estimate the local impacts generated by home building, it is necessary to know the sales price of the homes being built, how much raw land contributes to the final price, and how much the builder and developer pay to local area governments in the form of permit, utility connection, impact, and other fees. This information is not generally available from national sources and in most cases must be provided by representatives from the area in question who have specialized knowledge of local conditions. SUMMARY OF PHASE I VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION INPUTS: SERVICES PROVIDED AT CLOSING PERMIT/HOOK-UP/IMPACT FEES (Info Obtained From Local Sources) II MODEL OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY I INCOME FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS OUTPUTS: TAX/FEE REVENUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS The model subtracts raw land value from the price of new construction and converts the difference into local wages, salaries, business owners' income, and taxes. This is done separately for all 95 local industries. In addition, the taxes and fees collected by local governments during the construction phase generate wages and salaries for local government employees. Finally the number of full time jobs supported by the wages and salaries generated in each private local industry and the local government sector is estimated. Clearly, the local residents who earn income in Phase I will spend a share of it. Some of this will escape the local economy. A portion of the money used to buy a new car, for example, will become wages for autoworkers who are likely to live in another city, and increased profits for stockholders of an automobile manufacturing company who are also likely to live elsewhere. A portion of the spending, however, will remain within, and have an impact on, the local economy. The car is likely to be purchased from a local dealer and generate income for a salesperson who lives in the area, as well for local workers who provide cleaning, maintenance, and other services to the dealership. Consumers also are likely to purchase many services locally, as well as to pay taxes and fees to local governments. This implies that the income and taxes generated in Phase I become the input for additional economic impacts analyzed in what we call Phase II of the model. Phase II begins by estimating how much of the added income households spend on each of the local commodities. This requires detailed analysis of data from the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics primarily for the purpose of determining the weights for the Consumer Price Index. The analysis produces household spending estimates for 55 local commodities. The remainder of the 87 local commodities enter the model only as business -to -business transactions. 5 SUMMARY OF PHASE II INPUTS:I LOCAL INCOME & TAXES FROM PHASE I SPENDING ON LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICES Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) II MODEL OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY II OUTPUTS: I LOCAL INCOME & TAXES The model then translates the estimated local spending into local business owners' income, wages and salaries, jobs, and taxes. This is essentially the same procedure applied to the homes sold to consumers in Phase I. In Phase II, however, the procedure is applied simultaneously to 56 locally produced and sold commodities. In other words, the model converts the local income earned in Phase I into local spending, which then generates additional local income. But this in turn will lead to additional spending, which will generate more local income, leading to another round of spending, and so on. Calculating the end result of these economic is a straightforward exercise in mathematics. Like Phase II, Phase III involves computing the sum of successive ripples of economic activity. In Phase III, however, the first ripple is generated by the income and spending of a new household (along with the additional property taxes local governments collect as a result of the new structure). This does not necessarily imply that all new homes must be occupied by households moving in from outside the local area. It may be that an average new -home household moves into the newly constructed unit from elsewhere in the same local area, while average existing -home household moves in from outside to occupy the unit vacated by the first household. Alternatively, it may be that the new home allows the local area to retain a household that would otherwise move out of the area for lack of suitable housing. In any of these cases, it is appropriate to treat a new, occupied housing unit as a net gain to the local economy of one household with average characteristics for a household that occupies a new home. This reasoning is often used, even if unconsciously, when it is assumed that a 2 new home will be occupied by a household with average characteristics—for instance, an average number of children who will consume public education. To estimate the impact of the net additional households, Phase III of the model requires an estimate of the income of the households occupying the new homes. The information used to compute this estimate comes from several sources, but primarily from an NAHB statistical model based on decennial census data. Phase III of the local impact model then estimates the fraction of income these households spend on various local commodities. This is done with CES data and is similar to the procedure described under Phase II. The model also calculates the amount of local taxes the households pay each year. This is done with Census of Governments data except in the case of residential property taxes, which are treated separately, and for which specific information must usually be obtained from a local source. Finally, a total ripple effect is computed, using essentially the same procedure outlined above under Phase II. SUMMARY OF PHASE III INPUTS:I INCOME OF HOUSEHOLD OCCUPYING NEW HOUSING UNIT SPENDING ON LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICES PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS II MODEL OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY II OUTPUTS: II LOCAL INCOME & TAXES The details covered here provide only a brief description of the model NAHB uses to estimate the local economic benefits of home building. For a more complete description, see the technical documentation at the end of the report. For additional information about the model, or questions about applying it to a particular local area, contact one of the following in NAHB's Housing Policy Department: i David Crowe, Chief Economist (202) 266-8383 S Paul Emrath, Assistant Staff Vice President (202) 266-8449 S Elliot Eisenberg, Senior Economist (202) 266-8398 7 CN ACHB°CS LOCAL IMPACT OF HOME BUILDING ING U V UODUU TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION A Hard Copy of the Technical Documentation is Available on Request from NAHB's Housing Policy Department. k A kmI THE LOCAL IMMPACCCT OF HOME BUILDING IN BAN JOA©CUCICNC COUNTY, CALIFORNIA COMPARING COSTS TO REVENUE FOR LOCAL OR LOCCCAL GOVCCECCRCCNMMCECNTS Introduction Home building generates local economic impacts such as income and jobs for local residents, and revenue for local governments. It also typically imposes costs on local governments—such as the costs of providing primary and secondary education, police and fire protection, and water and sewer service. Not only do these services require annual expenditures for items such as teacher salaries, they typically also require capital investment in buildings, other structures, and equipment that local governments own and maintain. This report presents estimates of the local impacts of home building in San Joaquin County, California (Figure 1). Figure 1. San Joaquin County, California The report presents estimates of the impacts of building 800 single family and 200 multifamily housing units, based on construction activity in San Joaquin County in 2008. The local economic benefits generated by this level of home construction activity are reported in a separate NAHB document.' This report presents estimates of the costs—including current and capital expenses—that new homes impose on jurisdictions in the area and compares those costs to the revenue generated. The results are intended to answer the question of whether or not, from the standpoint of local governments in the area, residential development pays for itself. 1 "The Local Impact of Home Building in San Joaquin County, California: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated," completed by NAHB in April 2009. The comprehensive nature of the NAHB model requires a local area large enough to include the labor and housing market in which the homes are built. The local benefits captured by the model, including revenue generated for local governments, include the ripple impacts of spending and taxes paid by construction workers and new residents, which occur in an economic market area. For a valid comparison, costs should be calculated for the same area. A local labor and housing market generally corresponds to a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Based on local commuting patterns, OMB has identified the Stockton MSA as a metro area consisting of a single county (San Joaquin) in California (see Figure 1). In this report, wherever the term local is used, it refers to the Stockton metro area—that is, all of San Joaquin County. Costs Compared to Revenue; Tota/ This section summarizes results for both single family and multifamily construction. Detail by structure type follows, but for many purposes a combined analysis of both types may be most appropriate. Market areas generally require a mix of housing types to accommodate residents of different income levels, different occupations, and who are at different stages in their professional careers. Although it's possible to analyze single family and multifamily construction separately, such an approach does not reflect the typically integrated character of residential development. In the first year, the 800 single family and 200 multifamily housing units built in San Joaquin County result in an estimated $83.2 million in tax and other revenue for local governments,z $2.3 million in current expenditures by local government to provide public services to the net new households at current levels, and $14.1 million in capital investment for new structures and equipment undertaken by local governments The analysis assumes that local governments finance the capital investment by borrowing at the current municipal bond rate of 4.40 percent.' In a typical year after the first, the single family and multifamily units result in $7.7 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, and $4.6 million in local government expenditures to continue providing services at current levels Z This assumes that homes are occupied at a constant rate during the year, so that the year captures one-half of the ongoing, annual revenue generated as the result of increased property taxes and the new residents participating in the local economy. 3 The analysis assumes that there is currently no excess capacity, that local governments invest in capital before the homes are built, and that no fees or other revenue generated by construction activity are available to finance the investment, so that all capital investment at the beginning of the first year is financed by debt. This is a conservative assumption that results in an upper bound estimate on the costs incurred by local governments. For information about the particular interest rate on municipal bonds used, see page 2 of the technical appendix. 2 The difference between government revenue and current expenditures is defined as an Aloperating surplus." In the case of San Joaquin County, the first-year operating surplus is large enough to pay down all debt incurred by investing in structures and equipment at the start of the first year by the end of the first year. After that, future operating surpluses will be available to finance other projects or reduce taxes. After 15 years, the homes will generate a cumulative $190.4 million in revenue compared to only $82.3 million in costs, including annual current expenses, capital investment, and interest on debt (Figure 2). Figure 2. $Million Costs Compared to Revenue: SF & MF Combined 200 180 Cumulative Cost 160 Cumulative Revenue 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Year Costs Compared to Revenue; Single Family Construction $108.1 million This section summarizes results for single family construction only. The relevant assumptions about the single family homes built (including their average price, property tax payments, and construction -related fees incurred) are described in the NAHB report, TheLoca/Impact of Home Building in San Joaquin County, California: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated. In the first year, the 800 single family homes built in San Joaquin County result in an estimated �D $70.7 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, * $2.0 million in current expenditures by local government to provide public services to the net new households at current levels, and $12.2 million in capital investment for new structures and equipment undertaken by local governments The analysis assumes that local governments finance the capital investment by borrowing at the current municipal bond rate. In a typical year after the first, the 800 single family homes result in �D $6.6 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, and $4.0 million in local government expenditures needed to continue providing services at current levels. The difference between government revenue and current expenditures is defined as an Aloperating surplus." The first-year single-family operating surplus is large enough so that all debt incurred by investing in structures and equipment at the beginning of the first year can be entirely paid off by the end of the first year. After that, the operating surpluses will be available to finance other projects or reduce taxes. After 15 years, the homes will generate a cumulative $163.8 million in revenue compared to only $70.4 million in costs, including annual current expenses, capital investment, and interest on debt (Figure 3). Figure 3. $Million Costs Compared to Revenue: Single Family 180 160 Cumulative Cost 140 Cumulative Revenue 120 100 80 60 40 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Year Costs Compared to Revenue; Multifamily Construction $93.4 million This section summarizes results for multifamily construction only. As with the section on single family construction, relevant assumptions about the type units built can be found in The Local Impact of Home Building in San Joaquin County, California: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated. In the first year, the 200 multifamily housing units built in San Joaquin County result in an estimated �D $12.4 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, * $340,000 in current expenditures by local government to provide public services to the net new households at current levels, and $1.9 million in capital investment for new structures and equipment undertaken by local governments The analysis assumes that local governments finance the capital investment by borrowing at the current municipal bond rate. In a typical year after the first, the 200 multifamily units generate �D $1.0 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, and $679,000 in local government expenditures needed to continue providing services at current levels. The difference between government revenue and current expenditures is defined as an Aloperating surplus." As was the case with single family construction, the first-year multifamily operating surplus is large enough to pay down the debt incurred by investing in structures and equipment at the beginning of the first year by the end of the first year. After that, future operating surpluses will be available to finance other projects or reduce taxes. After 15 years, the units will generate a cumulative $26.6 million in revenue compared to only $11.9 million in costs, including annual current expenses, capital investment, and interest on debt (Figure 4). Method Used to Estimate Costs $14.7 million The method for estimating local government revenue generated by home building is explained in the NAHB documents, The Loca/Impact of Home Building in San Joaquin County, California: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated a n d NAHS s Local Impact of Home Building Model., Technical Documentation. This section describes how costs are estimated. The general approach is to assume local jurisdictions supply residents of new homes with the same services that they currently provide, on average, to occupants of existing structures. The amount that any jurisdiction spends is available from the Census of Governments, where all units of government in the U.S. report line item expenses, revenues, and intergovernmental transfers once every five years to the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. Census of Governments accounts can be aggregated for every local government in San Joaquin County and then used to produce total annual expenses per single family and multifamily housing unit (Table 1). Not surprisingly, cost per housing unit varies substantially across the major service categories. Education accounts for the largest share of annual expenses, but the shares for police protection and miscellaneous general government functions are nearly as large. 5 Table 1. Total Annual Local Government Expenses per Housing Unit in 2008 Dollars In deriving the above estimates, water supply and sewerage expenses are allocated based on gallons of water consumed per day by single family and multifamily households. Streets and highway expenses are allocated based on average number of vehicle trips generated on weekdays. Education is allocated based on average number of children age 5 through 18. The other government services listed in Table 1 are assumed to be proportional to population, so costs associated with those services are allocated based on household size.4 There are several factors present in most parts of the country that tend to reduce education expenses per housing unit. The first is the average number of school -aged children present in the units. According to the American Housing Survey, there is, on average, only a little over one school -aged child for every two households in the U.S. The number is about 0.6 per household for single family and under 0.4 per household for multifamily. So education costs per housing unit are lower than costs per pupil, simply because there is less than one pupil per household. Beyond that, a share of households typically send their children to private schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the share is 12.6 percent of all school -aged children nationally. As public monies are very rarely used to pay for private instruction, this tends to further reduce K-12 public school expenses, although the extent to which that occurs 4 Information about vehicle trips comes from Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Information about water consumption comes from Analysis of Summer Peak Water Demands, a study undertaken by the City of Westminster, Colorado Department of Water Resources and Aquacraft, Inc. Water Engineering and Management. Information about household size and number of children comes from the American Housing Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. IN Single Family Multifamily Education $1,331 $775 Police Protection $881 $656 Fire Protection $466 $347 Corrections $397 $295 Streets and Highways $106 $74 Water Supply $180 $94 Sewerage $143 $75 Recreation and Culture $312 $232 Other General Government $913 $679 Electric Utilities $224 $167 Public Transit $3 $3 Total $4,957 $3,396 In deriving the above estimates, water supply and sewerage expenses are allocated based on gallons of water consumed per day by single family and multifamily households. Streets and highway expenses are allocated based on average number of vehicle trips generated on weekdays. Education is allocated based on average number of children age 5 through 18. The other government services listed in Table 1 are assumed to be proportional to population, so costs associated with those services are allocated based on household size.4 There are several factors present in most parts of the country that tend to reduce education expenses per housing unit. The first is the average number of school -aged children present in the units. According to the American Housing Survey, there is, on average, only a little over one school -aged child for every two households in the U.S. The number is about 0.6 per household for single family and under 0.4 per household for multifamily. So education costs per housing unit are lower than costs per pupil, simply because there is less than one pupil per household. Beyond that, a share of households typically send their children to private schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the share is 12.6 percent of all school -aged children nationally. As public monies are very rarely used to pay for private instruction, this tends to further reduce K-12 public school expenses, although the extent to which that occurs 4 Information about vehicle trips comes from Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Information about water consumption comes from Analysis of Summer Peak Water Demands, a study undertaken by the City of Westminster, Colorado Department of Water Resources and Aquacraft, Inc. Water Engineering and Management. Information about household size and number of children comes from the American Housing Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. IN varies from place to place. Moreover, according to the NCES another 1.7 percent of students nationwide, ages 5 to 17, with a grade equivalent of kindergarten through grade 12, are homeschooled, which further acts to reduce the cost of public education. Finally, state governments typically pay for some public school expenses in the form of intergovernmental transfers. In the latest Census of Governments, local governments in aggregate across San Joaquin County spent about $991 million in current expenses on education. However, more than four-fifths of this was offset by $809 million in state -to -local intergovernmental transfers for education. In addition to current expenses, providing services to residents requires that local governments make capital expenditures for items such as schools and other buildings, equipment, roads, and other structures. Estimating capital costs is in general a more difficult and complicated problem than estimating current expenses. The approach used here is to estimate a conventional economic model, where costs are expressed as a function of labor and capital, with state level data. (Information about state and local government capital in each state can be estimated through a procedure that has been established over several decades in the technical literature on public finance; see the technical appendix for details.) The results are then applied to a local area, where information is available for every variable except capital. The local capital stock then emerges as a residual in the calculation. Consistent with the approach used to estimate current expenses, the amount of capital in each category is expressed as the amount necessary to accommodate an average single family or average multifamily housing unit (Table 2): Table 2. Local Government Capital per Housing Unit in 2008 Dollars To implement these numbers, several conservative assumptions are made to avoid understating the costs. In contrast to the way current expenses were handled, intergovernmental transfers are generally not taken into account here—it is assumed that local governments undertake all capital investment without any help from the states. The exception is highways and streets, for which the amount of current expenditures per dollar of capital is typically quite low. It is 7 Single Family Multifamily Schools $6,811 $3,962 Hospitals $2,256 $1,679 Other Buildings $1,338 $996 Highways and streets $1,169 $810 Conservation & development $98 $73 Sewer systems $2,121 $1,110 Water supply $419 $219 Other structures $784 $583 Equipment $228 $170 Total $15,224 $9,602 To implement these numbers, several conservative assumptions are made to avoid understating the costs. In contrast to the way current expenses were handled, intergovernmental transfers are generally not taken into account here—it is assumed that local governments undertake all capital investment without any help from the states. The exception is highways and streets, for which the amount of current expenditures per dollar of capital is typically quite low. It is 7 further assumed that none of this demand for capital can be met through current excess capacity. Instead, local governments invest in new structures and equipment at the start of the first year, before any homes are built. To the extent that this is not true—that, for instance, some revenue from impact or other fees is available to fund part of the capital expenditures— interest costs would be somewhat lower than reported here. To compare the streams of costs and revenues over time, the analysis assumes that half of the current expenses and half of the ongoing, annual revenues are realized in the first year. This would be the case if construction and occupancy took place at an even rate throughout the year. Revenues in the first year also include all of the one-time construction impacts such as impact and permit fees. The difference between revenues and current expenses in a given year is an operating surplus. At the start of the first year, capital investment is financed through debt by borrowing at the current municipal bond interest rate,5 and the interest accrues throughout the year. Each year after that, the operating surplus is used first to pay the interest on the debt, if any exists, then to pay off the debt at the end of the year. The results are shown for the 800 single family homes in Table 3, for the 200 multifamily units in Table 4, and for single family and multifamily combined in Table 5. The difference between revenues (the third column) and all costs, including interest on the debt, is shown in the last column. For either single family or multifamily construction considered separately—as well as for the combined case that analyzes single family and multifamily construction together—revenue net of costs and interest is positive every year beginning with the first. In fact, revenue net of costs and interest is sufficient to pay off all debt by the end of year one. After that, revenue net of costs generated by the 800 single family and 200 multifamily units is roughly $3.0 million per year. Net revenue for both structure types falls slightly in year 11, due to a cost increase that occurs because capital equipment purchased at the start of the first year becomes fully depreciated and needs to be replaced at that time. All other capital investment consists of structures of various types, and these tend to have considerably longer service lives. 5The interest rate on municipal bonds is the monthly Bond Buyer 20 -year General Obligation Municipal Bond Index available on the Federal Reserve Board's Web site: http://www.federaireserve.gov/releases/hl5/data/Monthly/H15 SL Y20.txt. N. Table 3. Results for 800 Single Family Homes Table 4. Results for 200 Multifamily Housing Units Current Operating Capital Debt Interest Revenue Net Year Expenses Revenue Surplus Investment Outstanding t the Debt of Costs and Start of Year End of Year Interest 1 1,983,500 70,714,508 68,731,008 12,179,000 0 535,977 56,016,031 2 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 3 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 4 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 5 3,967,000 6649 397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 6 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 7 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 8 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 9 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 10 3,967,000 6649 397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 11 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 182,000 0 0 2,500,397 12 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 13 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 14 3,967,000 6,649,397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 15 3,967,000 6 649 397 2,682,397 0 0 0 2,682,397 Table 4. Results for 200 Multifamily Housing Units Table 5. Combined Results for 800 Single Family and 200 Multifamily Units Current Operating Capital Debt Interest Revenue Net Year Expenses Revenue Surplus Investment Outstanding the Debt t of Costs and Start of Year End of Year Interest 11 1 339,500 12,438,671 12,099,171 1,921,000 0 84,540 10,093,631 2 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 3 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 4 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 5 679,000 1,011,360 332 360 0 0 0 332,360 6 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 7 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 8 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 9 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 10 679,000 1,011,360 332 360 0 0 0 332,360 11 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 34,000 0 0 298,360 12 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 13 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 14 679,000 1,011,360 332,360 0 0 0 332,360 15 679,000 1,011,360 332 360 0 0 0 332 360 Table 5. Combined Results for 800 Single Family and 200 Multifamily Units 2 Current Operating Capital Debt Interest Revenue Net Year Expenses Revenue Surplus Investment Outstanding t the Debt of Costs and Start of Year End of Year Interest 1 2,323,000 83,153,179 80,830,179 14,100,000 0 620,517 66,109,662 2 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 3 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 4 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 5 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 6 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 7 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 8 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 9 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 10 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 11 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 216,000 0 0 2,798,757 12 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 13 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 14 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 15 4,646,000 7,660,757 3,014,757 0 0 0 3,014,757 2 COMPARING COSTS TO REVENUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TECH OVCERCNCMCCESCNTSS- TTCECCCHH- NNICCAL AP PCECCN OIX OCN ESTIMATING `MATTIINNG CAPITAL OCWNNE ACNO MAINTAINED Y LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Technical Appendix on Estimating Local Capita/ This appendix explains the method used to estimate the age and dollar value of local government capital by function (education, water and sewer services, etc.). The general approach is to estimate economic relationships using state -level data and then apply parameters from the state -level estimates to local data. First, a cost share equation based on conventional production theory is described for the structures associated with each function of government. In the equations age of capital is used as a proxy for technologic change. Age of capital, in turn, is estimated as a function of population growth. The following derivations apply to any one of the ten categories of state and local government capital—e.g., highways or school buildings—tracked in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) wealth data files. For simplicity, the notation suppresses an explicit reference to capital type. In cases where some detail of the model pertains to a particular type of capital or function of local governments, the text will make that clear. Let y= output; L= labor, w= the price of labor, and r= the price of capital, and consider a general translog cost function :6 (1) cit = flo + F'w In wt + ,6r In rt + ,6y In yt +/tea ait+ 1/2 ,6ww (In wit)2+ '8w, In wit In rt + 1/2 8r, (In rt)2 + 8wy In wt In yt+ /3ry In rit In yit+'6wa ait In wit+ 8,a ait In rt + 6yy (In Yt)2 + ,6ya ait I n Yt+ ,6aa ait In the case where the firm is a government, yt is essentially unmeasurable, so it seems reasonable to assume linear homogeneity in output. This simplifies the translog specification considerably: (2) cit= flo+ 8wln wt+ 8rin rt+ In yt+,6a ait+ 1/2 8ww(In w&)2+,6wrIn wt In rt + 1/2 8rr (In rt)2 + ,6wa at In wt+ ,bra at In rt+ baa ait Specification (2) still requires an estimate of In yn However, application of Shephard's Lemma generates the following two -equation system: (3) SL, it = wit L it /c it = a In cit /a In wit= 6w+ 6ww In wit + 6wr l n rt + ,6wa ait (4) skit = rt kt l c it = a In c it l a In rt = 6r+ ,6wr l n wit + 6,r l n rt + j6ra ait By estimating cost shares rather than the cost function itself, the ability to estimate ,60, ,6a, and ,baa (essentially nuisance parameters) is lost. Also lost is some precision, in the sense that a lower -order approximation is being estimated.' The advantage is relief from the need to supply values for the unobservable yn 6 See, for example, Walter Diewert and Terry Wales (1987), "Flexible Functional Forms and Global Curvature Conditions," Econometrica, 55, 43-68. See Henri Theil, The System -Wide Approach to Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 151. Economic theory implies several restrictions. Symmetry: ,6,, is the same in both equations Linear homogeneity in input prices: ,6,+ ,6, = 1; 1/2 6,, + 6,,+ 1/2 8,, = 0; 8,, + bra = 0. The restrictions are imposed in the usual way. One of the factor prices (wit) is used as a numeraire; and only one share equation (SL, it) is estimated, leaving parameters of the second, if needed, to be recovered by simple algebra. The resulting estimating equation is (5) sL, /r= Flit L it /(wt Lir + rir kr) _ /3w+ 8w, I n (rir/ wit) + 6w, air + .87 where Ir is a vector of indicator variables that may be added to equations for some government functions to account for outliers among specific states and time periods. More detail is provided when the regression results are discussed. Model (5) can be estimated with any standard regression package, provided state -level annual data for L, w, and rcan be specified. Series beginning in 1987 for the first two are available from the Government Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. For r, standard practice is followed by assuming cost of capital is the sum of three terms: maintenance (meaning, in this case, all non -labor operating costs), interest, and depreciation. (6) rr= Xrlkr+ Dir+ �r where xr is the difference between total current expenditures and labor costs, Oiris an interest rate for appropriate types of tax-exempt public -purpose government bonds, and ft is the national depreciation rate from BEA's wealth accounts. To estimate the cost share equations, the same annual interest rate series Ot is used for all states. Because the preferred series not available until 1990, two different sources are used to construct the 1987-2001 annual interest rate series Ot. From 1987 through to the end of 1989, the JP Morgan Revenue Bond Index (RBI) is used. The JP Morgan RBI data are monthly. An annual interest rate is constructed by taking the average of the 12 monthly observations for each calendar year. From 1990 to the present the Merrill Lynch 20 Year AAA GO series is used. The Merrill Lynch data are provided weekly. An annual interest rate is constructed by taking the average of the 52 observations in each calendar year. To insure that there is no discontinuity in the series, the annual interest rate from the JP Morgan RBI index for the years 1987 1988 and 1989 is multiplied by the average of the annual ratio of the Merrill Lynch 20 Year AAA GO series divided by the JP Morgan RBI index the for the years 1990 to the present. That ratio turned out to be 0.93. The reason the ratio is less than one is largely because the Merrill Lynch index has a duration that is on average 5 years shorter than the JP Morgan RBI Index. The final index was chosen following consultation with bonds specialists at both JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch. Although there are hundreds of thousands of unique muni -bonds, and most are rarely if ever traded, the experts felt that a 20 year maturity seemed appropriate and that the ML GO AAA series was probably best for this purpose. 2 In order to make the cost share equations operational, it's necessary to apportion equipment among the other nine types of capital for which it's possible to approximately match capital with expense and employment data by function of government. In general, a year -zero approach is employed, basing the analysis on the ratio of structures to equipment when both are brand new. Suppressing the cross-sectional (state) subscript, capital krequired for a specific local government function is the sum of structures ks and equipment ke: (7) kt = kt + kt where kt = ks0(1-,fs)ai kt = ke0(1-,fe)a, or, equivalently, (8) kso = kst(1-'P_a,I keo = ket(1-'P_a, Brand new equipment is allocated to brand new structures based on the relative total year -zero values of structures. From this, a ratio z can be derived, which will be the same for all local government functions (or structure types): (9) z = k of kso = ket(1-,f,)ae k 1(1- S)as The average z ratio for 50 states plus the District of Columbia in the most recent year for which we can compute it (1998) is .11642. This number is used below to help derive estimates of government-owned equipment and structures for a particular local area. The blended ages and depreciation rates for total capital (structures and equipment) were used to compute the independent variables in the estimating equations. The nine equations (one for each function of government) were estimated, using data for the period where complete state -level government employment and finance data were available -1987 through 1998. The procedure converged quickly (in four iterations). Results are shown in Table 3. Fit of the model was improved by including a number of indicator variables, up to three per equation. These are identified as I1, I2, and I3 in Table Al and defined in Table A2. Not all of the cost equations contain an indicator variable, and each indicator captures only a small number of states. Several variables simply indicate that an observation is for the state of Alaska, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the technology of providing some government services in Alaska would be different than in many other states. In the case of housing, New York appears to be an isolated outlier, and again that is not especially surprising. Other indicators capture a small number of states in New England or the Rocky Mountain area. The conservation series showed a clear break between 1991 and 1992 in Arizona. The Census Bureau instituted some procedural changes involving the collection and reporting of government finance data beginning in 1992. Table Al. Regression Results: Cost Share Equations Table A2: Indicator Variables for Cost Share Equations J6 w '8 wr J6 wa 11 I2 I3 Ad j R Residential -0.5454 -0.1082 0.0051 0.1531 0.2150 .453 I1 (.0001) (.0001) (.0158) (.0001) (.0001) I2 Education -0.3801 -0.1391 0.0156 Other Structures I1 .545 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Hospital 0.5682 -0.1413 -0.0247 -0.1793 .506 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Other Buildings 0.3970 -0.1655 -0.0368 .784 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Streets & Highways -0.0345 -0.0723 -0.0110 0.2072 .598 (.4529) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Conservation 0.1846 -0.0524 -0.0017 0.3443 -0.2017 0.1210 .483 (.0165) (.0001) (.6021) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Sewer -0.4148 -0.0861 0.0018 .522 (.0001) (.0001) (.1985) Water -0.0336 -0.1077 -0.0169 .413 (.5780) (.0001) (.0001) Other Structures -0.2342 -0.1112 -0.0111 0.39629 .566 (.0021) (.0001) (.0004) (.0001) Table A2: Indicator Variables for Cost Share Equations Capital type Variable Condition for 1=1 Residential I1 state=AK I2 state= NY Hospital I1 state=AZ, NH, or VT Streets & Highways I1 state=AK Conservation I1 state=AK I2 state =NY or CT; or state=AZ and year < 1992 I3 state=ID, MT, ND, or WY Other Structures I1 state= NE, NY, or WA In the equations above, age of the capital stock appears as an explanatory variable. This is not readily available, even at the state level. A commonly used approach employs perpetual accounting, investment, and depreciation rates to base -year estimates.$ The procedure used here begins with that approach, but then relates the investment rates to population growth rates, one of the few items for which consistent time series are available for individual U.S. counties. From BEA national wealth data, the following are available or can easily be computed: �= real annual rate of depreciation (defined broadly, as BEA does, to include a normal rate of obsolescence and retirement of assets) > = monthly depreciation rate, a simple algebraic transformation of Nt= real, net (of depreciation) rate of investment in year t, t=1946,...,2000. 8 As in Douglas Holtz -Eakin, "State -Specific Estimates of State and Local Government Capital," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 185-210. From data compiled by the Governments Division of the Census Bureau, and ratios employed by BEA to analyze this data, the following can be computed for state iand t=1977,...,1999: vnit = real investment in new assets state i in year t. veit = real investment in existing assets state i in year t. ut = real investment in state i in year t= vnit+ vein xit = current expenditures associated with the relevant type of capital state i in year t. From standard Census Bureau data it is possible to compute 17t = population growth in the state relative to the national rate; i.e., OP;t OPi: T Hit = Pit -1 1 Pit -1 The starting point consists of initial end -of -year estimates of the real capital stock, K X76 , determined by allocating capital to each state according to its share of current expenditure, X77. This procedure, the one employed for example by Holtz -Eakin (1993), is used here only for the purpose of supplying initial values to be modified in subsequent iterations. Perpetual inventory accounting can be used to calculate the following recursively for t=1977,...,1999: (10) �it+l = �it(1- + Vt+1(1->)6 This assumes that investment made during period t+1 depreciates an average of 6 months by the end of the period. Then relative (to the national rate) net real rates of investment can also be computed: 0 �yit - cS kit -1 1 o IJNt kit -1 The goal is to obtain estimates of parameters dj and 29 in the following regression relationship: Q (12) ajPt-j+LjgDq j=1 q=1 where Jis the longest lag considered and the DQ are indicator (dummy) variables. The hypothesis underlying this specification is that a state's rate of investment (relative to the national rate) is a function of past rates of its population growth (also relative to the national rate), with indicator variables to account for anomalies in some states due to peculiarities that are difficult to observe and quantify. Inspection of the pair wise correlations between —= it and 17itj reveal that they begin to decline at or before the lag reaches eight years, depending on the type of capital. Thus, model specification for each type of capital began by tentatively considering population growth effects up to .7---8. The final specification varies from case to case. 5 As a practical matter, the final specifications employ averages of population growth rates lagged over several years. Over the course of several experiments, the sum of the coefficients on the population variables never changed substantially when an average was substituted for a series of individual lags. Coefficients on individual lags tended to fluctuate widely and lack statistical significance, due to collinearity. The use of averages thus aids interpretation without impacting the marginal impacts predicted by the equations in a meaningful way. Three indicator variables were used in all but the hospital capital equation, which employed four. In most cases, indicator variables flag relatively few states (Table A3). Table A3: Indicator Variables for Relative Investment Rate Equations Capital Category DVERYHI=1 DHIGH=1 DLOW=1 DVERYLOW=1 1 Equipment DC, WY AZ, CO, MT, AR, NH, RI UT DC, HI, MA, CO, FL, ID, CT, DE, RI NM, TX, UT, VT. WY 3 Educational Buildings WY HI, NM, TX CA, VT, WI AL, FL, GA, AR, CT, DE, 4 Hospital Buildings WY H I, IA, ID, IL, KY, ME, AZ, VT KS, NY, OH, WA OR, UT, WI, wy 5 Other Buildings DC, WY HI, MD AR 6 Highways and Streets WY DC, IA, MN, AR, ME, NH, MT ND NE SC VT 7 Conservation &Development HI, WY AZ, LA, MT AL, NY, OK, VA 8 Sewer Systems &Structures DC, NY, WA MA, MDNJ , , AR, NC OH RL WI 9 Water Supply Facilities CO, WY SD, FL, NV DE, NH 10 Other Structures DC NE NH Given initial estimates, it's possible to begin the perpetual inventory accounting process at an earlier date. If we assume that the World War II period was atypical and restrict ourselves to post-war population data, an 8 -year lag in (12) implies that 1954 is the first year for which we can obtain state investment estimates. Hence, state capital stocks in 1953 are estimated by allocating the national capital stock in that year according to its share of the U.S. population, then estimating state investment in the years from 1954 through 1976 recursively according to (13) �';t = kit -1 (�+ Nt =°;t) where —=Pit is estimated from (12). In words, (13) says that investment is enough to cover depreciation, plus another term which is the net national rate of investment multiplied by a relative factor specific to state i. It is then possible to combine (13) with (10) to derive estimates of the capital stock for the years 1954 through 1976 in most states. (Lack of complete data for in earlier years pushes the first estimate for Alaska forward to 1962.) IN In this way revised estimates !C X76 are derived, and these can be used to restart the process by repeating steps (10) through (13). This results in successively revised estimates /fit and =lit for t=1977,...,1999; parameters bl, and 219; fit for t=54,...,76; and A2i76. This ends the first iteration. This process can be repeated until either a convergence criterion is satisfied. The particular criterion used was an average absolute percentage change in the ki76 no greater than 10-10 between iterations. The procedure was carried out for all 10 BEA categories of state and local government capital. Each of the ten equations converged in fewer than 10 iterations. The final estimates are shown in Table A4. Table A4. Final Regression Results: Dependent Variable= Relative Investment Rate Equipment Residential Education Hospital Buildings nec Iterations to Convergence 8 6 6 6 6 Final Regression Coefficients (p -values): Constant -0.2590 0.5460 -0.0227 0.3663 0.5439 (.0003) (.0001) (.8295) (.0001) (.0001) Lagged relative population growth rates: Population lag 1 0.4337 0.3852 0.1336 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Population lag 2-5 0.1707 0.0662 0.0212 (.1225) Population lag 2-8 0.6865 0.0961 (.0001) (.0002) Population lag 6-8 0.0805 0.1270 (.0532) (.0009) State indicator variables: DVeryhi 5.6639 2.9842 7.2485 4.1282 1.7082 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) DHigh 1.2733 0.7862 1.6538 1.4240 1.3839 (.0002) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) DLow -1.3392 -0.8119 -1.2254 -0.8407 -0.6383 (.0001) (.0001) (.0003) (.0001) (.0001) DVerylow -1.7778 (.0001) Adjusted R2 .432 .426 .311 .323 .402 7 Table A4. Continued The estimated pre -1977 investment series can be spliced onto the 1977-1999 data and the results used to estimate the average age of capital, by type, in each state. The procedure is as follows. First, set the average age of capital in state equal to the national average for 1953. Then, use perpetual accounting to recursively calculate the average age in subsequent years: (14) ait+1 _ [(air+1) kit(1-4) + 112vnit+1(1->)6+ apL Veit+,(1->)6]/k°it+l where apt is the average age of the relevant type of private capital, in accord with the method used by BEA which assumes that existing assets purchased by governments are "typical". The process of deriving estimating capital stock estimates for a particular local area begins by adapting the average age equation (14) to location m: amt= ( a mt l +1) kmtl (1' + gt vmt(1->)6]/[kmrl _4) + V'n41->)6] .51 vnit + pay vett where gt= , that is, the average end -of -the year age of total assets Vit t (including both new and used) purchased by all states in the country during the period. N. Streets C&D Sewer Water Other Iterations to Convergence 6 6 6 6 8 Final Regression Coefficients (p -values): Constant 0.8370 0.0938 0.4386 0.2036 0.2754 (.0001) (.0617) (.0001) (.0001) (.0016) Lagged relative population growth rates: Population lag 1 0.1967 0.2253 (.0001) (.0030) Population lag 2 0.0950 (.0371) Population lag 2-5 0.2462 (.0001) Population lag 5 0.0516 (.1461) Population lag 2-8 0.4270 0.5368 (.0001) (.0001) Population lag 3-8 0.2653 (.0001) Population lag 6-8 0.0770 0.0701 (.0318) (.0594) State indicator variables: DVeryhi 4.955 2.387 1.348 2.270 13.405 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) DHigh 1.340 1.223 1.025 0.396 5.981 (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0206) (.0001) DLow -0.684 -0.785 -0.745 -0.126 -2.172 (.0006) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) (.0001) Adjusted R .502 .338 .268 .496 .528 The estimated pre -1977 investment series can be spliced onto the 1977-1999 data and the results used to estimate the average age of capital, by type, in each state. The procedure is as follows. First, set the average age of capital in state equal to the national average for 1953. Then, use perpetual accounting to recursively calculate the average age in subsequent years: (14) ait+1 _ [(air+1) kit(1-4) + 112vnit+1(1->)6+ apL Veit+,(1->)6]/k°it+l where apt is the average age of the relevant type of private capital, in accord with the method used by BEA which assumes that existing assets purchased by governments are "typical". The process of deriving estimating capital stock estimates for a particular local area begins by adapting the average age equation (14) to location m: amt= ( a mt l +1) kmtl (1' + gt vmt(1->)6]/[kmrl _4) + V'n41->)6] .51 vnit + pay vett where gt= , that is, the average end -of -the year age of total assets Vit t (including both new and used) purchased by all states in the country during the period. N. Then (13) is substituted into the average age formula and the capital factor is eliminated in order to obtain (15) amt= amt-, + 1) (1– 9)+ gt (B + Ntq.t )(I – E) 6 1-8+(g+Nt)7.,)(1—E)6 Equation (13) can be used to estimate =mt from local relative population growth factors ilmt• Starting with the national average age for 1954 as initial estimate of the average age of the capital stock in m, (15) can be applied to calculate amt recursively for subsequent years. The result is a recipe for estimating the age of the capital stock for a particular local area. To be implemented, the recipe requires only data on local population growth. Given the age estimate—along with estimates of the parameters ,6w, ,6w„ and ,6wa from the cost share equations, capital depreciation rates & from BEA, a current rate on tax-exempt bonds %mt , and values for wmt, Lmr, and xmtthat can be obtained for any unit of government from data bases maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau—capital kmt is the only unknown in the local cost share equation (16) [ wmt L mt + xmt + (0mt+f %mt]. [, w+ f6wr In ((xmdkmt+ 0,,t+,ft)1 wmt ) + /Bwa amt + 7Imt = wmt L mt However, it's necessary to account for the fact that capital in (16) consists of both structures and equipment. Equations (7), (8), and (9) imply that (17) knits = Ymtkmt and kmt e = (1-Ymt) kmt where (18) Ymt = [1 + Z(1-,Fe)amte(1- s) -amt 1-1 By using the 1998 state average value (.11642) for z, it's possible to compute ymt from BEA's depreciation rates and the estimated ages of structures and equipment. In turn, ymtcan be used to compute (19) amt = amt, s kmts / kmt + amt, a kmte / kmt = Ymt amt, s + (1-7m) amt, e and (20) Ifmt = Ymt Ift, s + (1 -7m)Ift, e for the blended age and depreciation rate of capital, respectively. Substitution into (16) yields a formula that can be applied in practice: (21) [ wmt L mt + xmt + (Omt+ YmtIft, s + (1-7mt) Ift, e) kmt]. [/3w+ 6w, I n((xmW kmt+ Omt+ YmtIft, s+ (1-Ymt)t, e)lwmt)]+,6wa(Ymt amt, s+ (1-Ymt) amt, e) + .87jmt] = wmt L nit This is the formula used to estimate kmt, the dollar value of a particular type of government capital in a particular local area. Because capital appears twice in the nonlinear expression, a closed form solution for it does not exist. Finding the solution is a one-dimensional problem, however, so knit can be recovered through elementary numerical methods. X THE METRO AREA IMPACT OF HOME BUILDING IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA Presented by Elliot F. Eisenberg., Ph.D. National Association of Home Builders '1:I: April 21,, 2009 Stockton, CA OF 13UIl ti dr :1 1 : LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACT • Construction phase — Jobs — Materials — Local fees, taxes, contributions • Ripple or feed -back from construction — Wages spent in local economy • Occupancy phase — Earnings spent in local economy • Conventional wisdom says new jobs produce new homes • But, new home construction is a key source of continued employment! ■ The Stockton,, CA MSA Multiplier Only Captures Spending that Stays in the MSA Includes: Banking, Car Repair, Dry Cleaning Day Care Services, Dental Services, Electricity, Legal Services, Medical Services, Newspaper Delivery, and Restaurants But not: Auto Manufacturing, Mattress Manufacturing, Movie Production, and Travel Agency Services History of the Model • Over 540 eco. impact analyses performed Users of the model include: Boone County Kentucky Habitat for Humanity, International MI State Housing Development Authority Michigan State University Missouri Housing Development Commission Univ. of Florida Univ. of Massachusetts Univ. of Montana West Virginia Housing Development Fund... Assumptions of the Model Average Average house price: raw lot cost: Single Family Permits/Infrastructure: $300,000 $15,000 $65,000 Multifamily $141,820 $50,000 Annual prop. taxes: $3f 750 $1,773 Economic Impact of Single Family Home Building • Construction phase • Ripple effect from construction phase • Occupancy phase • Ten year total FIRST YEAR IMPACT: SF Construction Every 800 SF Homes Local Income Local Taxes Local Jobs $114,983,000 $58,487,000 11768 INCLUDING: 1,223 ]obs in Construction 267 Jobs in Wholesale & Retail Trade 139 .lobs in Business and Professional Services FIRST YEAR IMPACT: SF Ripple [Local Income Local Taxes Local Jobs $84,317,000 $8,902,000 11449 INCLUDING: 423 Jobs in Local Government 284 Jobs in Wholesale and Retail Trade 160 Jobs in Health, Education & Social Services ONGOING SF ANNUAL EFFECT Local Income Local Taxes Local Jobs $25,448,000 $6,649,000 1 451 INCLUDING: 119 Jobs in Wholesale and Retail Trade 60 Jobs in Eating and Drinking Places 62 Jobs in Health, Education & Social Services TOTAL SF IMPACT: FIRST TEN YEARS 800 HOMES Local Income LocalTaxes $441,056,000 $130,555,000 Along with 3,217 temporary jobs And 451 permanent ones! FIRST YEAR IMPACT: MF Construction Every 200 MF Homes Local Income Local Taxes Local Jobs $13,352,000 $10,744,000 207 INCLUDING: 144 Jobs in Construction 31 Jobs in Business and Professional Services 16 Jobs in Wholesale & Reta i I Trade FIRST YEAR IMPACT: MF Ripple Local Income Local Taxes Local Job $12,176,000 $ 1, 189,000 212 INCLUDING: 76 Jobs in Local Government 37 Jobs in Wholesale and Retail Trade 20 Jobs in Health, Education & Social Services ONGOING MF ANNUAL EFFECT Local Income Local Taxes Local Jobs $5,428,000 $1,011,000 80 INCLUDING: 23 Jobs in Wholesale and Retail Trade 10 Jobs in Health, Education & Social Services 13 Jobs in Eating and Drinking Establishments TOTAL MF IMPACT: FIRST TEN YEARS Local Income LocalTaxes $77,094,000 $21,538,000 Along with 419 temporary jobs and 80 permanent ones! LARGEST LOCAL EMPLOYERS EMPLOYER St. Joseph Medical Center M& R Company New Residential Construction Safeway Distribution Center Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Pacific Coast Producers # of FT JOBS Unilever Best Foods North America Kaiser Permanente 4,000 2,000 1,975 1,500 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,065 BUT NEW HOMES REQUIRE: INFRASTRUCTURE *Fire and police protection *Garbage collection *Parks and recreational opportunities *Roads •Primary and secondary education •Etc... Required Current Expenses per SF Unit Function Single Family State Aid Education $17331 82% Police Protection $881 0% Fire Protection $466 0% Corrections $397 0% Streets and Highways $106 68% Water Supply $180 1 % Sewerage $143 0% Recreation and Culture $312 0% Other General Government $913 63% Electric Utilities $224 0% Public Transit $3 76% Total $4,957 Required Current Expenses per MF Unit Function Single Family State Aid Education $775 82% Police Protection $656 0% Fire Protection $347 0% Corrections $295 0% Streets and Highways $74 68% Water Supply $94 1% Sewerage $75 0% Recreation and Culture $232 0% Other General Government $679 63% Electric Utilities $167 0% Public Transit $3 76% Total $3,396 Required Capital per SF Unit Function Single Family Schools $6,811 Hospitals $2,256 Other Buildings $1,388 Highways and Streets $1,169 Conservation &Develop $98 Sewer Systems $2,121 Water Supply $419 Other Structures $784 Equipment $228 Total $15,224 Required Capital per MF Unit Function Single Family Schools $3,962 Hospitals $1,679 Other Buildings $996 Highways and Streets $810 Conservation &Develop $73 Sewer Systems $1,110 Water Supply $219 Other Structures $583 Equipment $170 Total $9,602 Now that we know: The benefits of construction 0 The costs of construction Does new construction pay for itself? Yes it does! For every 800 SF and 200 MF units-- • By the 1St year economic impacts offset fiscal costs • By the end of the 1St year the debt is fully paid off • In the 1St year, net is $66,109.,000 and is $3,,014,757 thereafter Year Current Expenses Revenue Operating Surplus Investment Start of Year Debt at Year End Interest On Debt Net Income 1 2,3231000 83,1533179 80, 830,179 14,100,000 0 620,517 66,109, 662 2 496469000 796609757 390149757 0 0 0 39014,757 3 416467000 79660,757 39014,757 0 0 0 310147757 4 416467000 79660,757 37014,757 0 0 0 310147757 5 496469000 796609757 390149757 0 0 0 39014,757 6 416467000 79660,757 39014,757 0 0 0 310147757 7 416467000 79660,757 37014,757 0 0 0 310147757 8 4,6461000 7,660,757 39014,757 0 0 0 3,0141757 9 496469000 796609757 390149757 0 0 0 39014,757 10 416469000 79660,757 39014,757 0 0 0 310149757 200 150 100 IC Over 15 years, every 800 SF and 200 MF units generate a cumulative $190.4 million in revenue for local governments—but only $82.3 million in costs Costs Compared to Revenue: 800 SF and Zoo MF Units $Millions —Cumulative Cost —Cumulative Revenue 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Year What does 1 year really mean? • Is it OK,, or should it be done faster? • Big purchases take time to pay off. • Car loans now last 5 years, and many lease! • How fast did you pay off your student loans? • How fast are your kids paying off theirs? • Did you pay off your home in 1 year? Almost done, just a bit more Nvlew? N' Am% fol 1 0 iie r How Large Are Non Property Tax Revenues • SF property taxes are $3,750/year But, yearly revenue is $8,312/unit per year, which is 122% more. • SF property taxes are $1,,773/year But, yearly revenue is $5,057/unit per year, which is 185% more. • Clearly, property taxes are not the whole story! A Closer Look at Primary and Secondary Ed. • 12.6% attend Private Schools • 1.7% are Home schooled • 0.4 school age children / MF unit • 0.6 school age children / SF unit • State aid is $809 million or 82% of budget QUESTIONS? Elliot F. Eisenberg., Ph.D. Call: 202.266.8398 Fax: 202.266.8426 eeisenbera@nahb.com 1201 15thStreet NW Washington, DC 20005-2800