The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - April 15, 2003 SSCITY OF LODI INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING "SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2003 An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, April 15, 2003, commencing at 7:02 a.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hitchcock Absent: Council Members — None Also Present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, and City Clerk Blackston B. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR UPDATE City Clerk Blackston reviewed the weekly calendar (filed). C. TOPIC(S) C-1 "Proposed pre -annexation agreement" City Manager Flynn reported that the City has reentered negotiations of the annexation agreement with the County. He explained that in order for cities to annex property there must be an agreement between the County and City regarding property tax sharing. He recalled that in 1993-95 when cities lost significant property tax and the counties were cut funding from the state, the counties negotiated an agreement with the cities on how to share property tax. Mr. Flynn stated that one of the choices all cities have is not to have an agreement; however, once one city negotiates an agreement it becomes the benchmark for all cities in the future. He stated that the last agreement took eight months to negotiate and is referred to as a 90/10 split. For one dollar of property tax, 50 cents goes to schools, 2 cents to special districts, and of the remaining 48 cents, the County gets 90% and cities get 10%. Mr. Flynn stated that Lodi gets 4.8 cents of every tax dollar of new properties annexed. Mr. Flynn stated that a bill is pending which would redistribute property tax, i.e. cities would give up 50% of their sales tax in exchange for an equal dollar value of property tax. He noted that the League of California Cities is not taking a position on the bill and it has a high probability of being passed. Council Member Hansen commented that it would likely have a negative effect for Lodi because sales tax increases at a greater ratio than property tax. Mr. Flynn replied that sales tax fluctuates with the economy, whereas property tax is stable. He interpreted the bill to be a form of social legislation. The state is trying to promote residential growth as apposed to commercial growth. He believed that there are more cities that would benefit by the proposed bill than would be penalized. Council Member Land stated that he would be opposed to the bill unless the following conditions were met: 1) that the state would refund the City $20 million, which is approximately $2 million a year that the City has lost from ERAF; and 2) a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the property tax to the cities. Mr. Flynn reported that the most recent letter received from the County outlined other topics to consider such as sharing sales tax on newly annexed property, and impact fees for regional traffic, agricultural mitigation, and community facilities. Continued Aprif 15, 2003 In reference to the regional traffic impact fee, Mayor Pro Tempore Howard stated that she had been speaking in opposition of the concept since she first learned about it. She reported that the Council of Governments (COG) is strongly considering a fee associated with single family residential units and possibly commercial, industrial, or retail building. The proposed fee ranges from $2,215 to $3,728 for single family residential units. It is anticipated to bring in between $235 million to $462 million to San Joaquin County for traffic mitigation. Ms. Howard believed that such a fee goes against the concept that COG works to achieve, it is a strain on homebuyers, and challenges regional housing goals. The fee would be in addition to Measure K. Efforts to renew the half cent sales tax are underway. Council Member Beckman expressed agreement with Ms. Howard's position on the regional traffic impact fee. Mr. Flynn stated that the City of Stockton is interested in decentralizing many of the social programs they have. He read the following from page 8 of the Final White Paper (filed), "Examples of these community social service facilities, which may or may not be operated by the County, are homeless shelters, halfway houses, shelters for battered women, crises intervention centers, family service agencies, and food banks. All cities produce demand for these services, and they should be considered an intrinsic part of each respective community." Mr. Flynn believed that Lodi should be given credit for its grassroots initiative and he expressed opposition to additional County facilities being located in the City. He stated that the city managers have rejected the fiscal impact analysis (filed) done by Economic Planning Systems, on the grounds that their assumptions are wrong. Mr. Flynn suggested that it might be useful for Lodi to have an analysis of what it costs to provide services, where it gets revenues, and the dollars associated with supporting an acre of residential, commercial, and industrial property. Referencing page A-1, Council Member Hansen noted that it indicates that a 90.5% property tax share is needed by the County to fund regional services. He questioned whether they are proposing to take away a half percent from the cities. Mr. Flynn replied that maintaining the agreement as is (90/10 split) would be acceptable to the County. In addition, Mr. Flynn commented that he was fundamentally opposed to impact or higher fees because he saw them as promoting growth. He pointed out that some of the best agricultural land in world is in the local area and yet there seems to be no interest in looking at the long term protection of this asset, which is part of the identity of the City of Lodi. Council Member Beckman believed that having an agreement in place was important and expressed support for the 90/10 split. He also voiced support for the concept of getting more property tax revenue. He recommended that this matter be brought back to Council with a couple of different options to choose from. Council Member Hansen agreed that it would be better to have an agreement in place than to wait until the City needed to annex property. He preferred that the sales tax revenue not be decreased in exchange for property tax. He expressed agreement with Ms. Howard's position regarding the regional traffic impact fee; however, he noted that Measure K does not supply sufficient funding for the number of projects. At the request of Mayor Hitchcock, Community Development Director Bartlam reported that the Farm Bureau and the general agricultural community in the County are opposing the agricultural mitigation fee. In the current proposal, the County would control the funds that were collected, which the cities disagree with. The fee is meant to mitigate the environmental consequence of converting prime farmland to a developed piece of ground. Mr. Bartlam stated that it would take a great deal of compromise on the part of the County to get the fee in place. He reported that most of the other cities that have major development occurring in the County, i.e. Tracy, Lathrop, and Manteca, have development agreements on their projects, which is a contract between the developer and the city that spells out what their obligations are, including fees. Mr. Bartlam stated that 2 Continued April 15, 2003 Lodi would be better off with its own fee because it has a very specific set of circumstances that are not the same as other cities in the County. Mr. Bartlam pointed out a fallacy in the belief that no agreement with the County would result in no growth. He explained that the County has a definite perspective that growth should occur within cities. The caveat is that cities need to accommodate that growth, and if they fail to, the County will, which is a stated objective in their general plan. Growth does occur even though geographic boundaries are not expanded. He cited Woodbridge and the Flag City area as examples. Mayor Hitchcock suggested that the City Manager continue to participate in meetings with the County on the proposed pre -annexation agreement. Mr. Flynn announced that today was Council Member Hansen's birthday and last Saturday was City Attorney Hay's 60"' birthday. D. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS None. E. ADJOURNMENT No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 a.m. ATTEST: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk 3 Mayor's a +CounCo Member's V1 a4k1y - a alon r WEEK OF APRIL 15, 2003 Tuesday, Apol 15, 2003 7:00 a.m. Shirtsleeve Session 1. Proposed pre -annexation agreement (CM) 5:30- 7:00 p.m. Go Figures Ribbon Cutting/Grand Opening, 139 South Guild Avenue, Lodi. Wednesday, April 16, 2003 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting (Note: Closed Session 6:00 p.m.) Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:30 p.m. Black Tie Gourmet Catering, Ribbon Cutting/Grand Opening, 623 East Oak Street, Lodi. Friday, April 18, 2003 9:30 -11:30 a.m. Howard. Lodi Youth Commission's Speak for Youth with Herman Cain, Chairman of Godfather's Pizza, Inc., Lodi Academy Gymnasium, 1230 South Central Avenue, Lodi. Saturday, April 19, 2003 8:30 a.m. Lodi Parks and Recreation's Breakfast with the Bunny, Lodi Middle School Auditorium, 945 South Ham Lane. Easter Egg hunts begin at 9:00 a.m. Sunday, April 20, 2003 Monday, April 21, 2003 5:30 p.m. Special Closed Session Meeting, Carnegie Forum, Lodi. Disclaimer. This calendar contains only information that was Provided to the City Clerk's office CITY OF LODI COUNCII. COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Proposed Pre -Annexation Agreement MEETING DATE: April 15, 2003 PREPARED BY: Deputy City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council review with the City Manager recent discussions with San Joaquin County representatives regarding proposed pre -annexation agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:The City of Lodi currently has a Pre -Annexation Agreement with San Joaquin County that was executed in 1996 and is effective through June 15, 2003. The Agreement generally stipulates that the City, upon annexing new properties to the City limits, will provide a property tax sharing of 90 percent to the County and 10 percent to the City of Lodi. The County, in anticipation of the expiration of Pre -Annexation Agreements with all of the cities, has initiated meetings with the respective City Managers to explore elements of a new Agreement. Thus far, discussions have included property tax re -allocations, sales tax sharing, and regional impact fees (i.e. Regional Traffic Impact Fee, Agricultural Mitigation Fee, and Community Facilities Fee). The City Manager will brief Council on recent discussions among City Managers and County representatives. Attached for Council's reference are two documents: 1. Board of Supervisors correspondence dated March 5, 2003 2. "San Joaquin County Tax -Sharing Agreement" White Paper dated February 27, 2003 FUNDING: n/a qR ectfully, G Ja et S. Keeter Deputy City Manager Attachments APPROVED: H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager a�rBPreannexSScounoom.dac 04/09/03 v y. OfriOe of the County Administrator • ilirg '•� COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN Courthouse. Room 707 222 East weber Avenue Stockton, California 85202-2778 (209) 488-3211 Fax (209) 46a-2875 March 5, 2003 Board of Supervisors Courthouse Stockton, CA Dear Board Members: Initiation of Discussions Regarding Agreements for Property Tax Allocation Upon Annexation, and Financing Regional Services Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize and direct the County Adritinistrator to: 1. Enter into discussions with the City Managers concerning future agreements for property tax allocation upon annexation and the financing of regional services; 2. Pursuant to those discussions, bring policy recommendations applicable to future annexations to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Reason for Recommendation California Annexation procedures require that property tax agreements be in place before the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) can process an annexation application. There are no requirements regarding the format or contents of an agreement, but an annexation cannot be considered without one. I11diAdual agreements can be executed for each annexation, or a master agreement can be executed between a county and a city. In 1996, the Board approved a master annexation agreement, the terms of which were subsequently incorporated within agreements executed between San Joaquin County and each of its cities. All of the current annexation agreements (on file with the Clerk of the Board) expire on June 15, 2003. The fiscal terms of the current agreements were limited to the allocation of property taxes upon annexation. The agreements provide for the sharing of reallocated property taxes in the ratio, generally, of 90 percent County and 10 percent city. The attached white .paper was prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to provide a framework for the upcoming discussions with the cities relative to future annexation agreements. EPS is a consulting firm retained by the County to update the fiscal analysis data, which was Board of Supervisors March 5,200 Initiation of Discussions Regarding Agreements for Property Tax Page 2 Allocation Upon Annexation, and Financing Regional Services used as the basis for the discussions in developing the 1996 agreements. The white paper provides an overview of annexation agreements and related regional issues. Annexations, and the resulting patterns of urban expansion, place increasing demands on regional services. Within this context the County continues to be responsible for many fundamental regional services, including those related to health, human services, and criminal justice. One of the main uncertainties faced by the County, and addressed in the white paper, is the pending impact resulting from the State budget crisis. When counties faced a similar State budget crisis in the 1992-93 fiscal year, the result was the shift of local property tax revenues from local governments to the schools. This action produced a fundamental change in fiscal relationships and caused local governments to look other for revenue sources to meet its service responsibilities. The white paper presents examples of these new directions. It further notes that other counties and cities have adopted different solutions to regional fiscal -issues. These solutions include the sharing of sales tax revenue and the regional collection of public facility fees. Even under the best case scenario, the current sales tax sharing iatio, standing alone, does not address these needs. Therefore, it is intended that these issues be included in the discussions with the cities relative to establishing new annexation agreements. However, those discussions will be approached without a presumption as to how, or if, those issues are ultimately dealt with in the context of establishing new agreeiiients. Fiscal Impact The staff recommendation to conduct discussions with the cities will have no fiscal impact. However, depending upon the outcome of those discussions, significant fiscal impacts are expected. Specific fiscal impact of the new annexation agreements will be presented to the Board at such time as the agreements are submitted for consideration. Action To Be Taken Following Approval The County Administrator will initiate discussions with the City Managers regarding future annexations and the financing of regional services. Specific policy recommendations will subsequently be presented for the Board's consideration. Very truly yours, Manue Lopez County.Administrator ML- u_p Aux4ment c Auditor C unaft County cocad LAFaCo City mnag= Bond C1edt 1Q area& of 3/1 LM BL03-02 San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 OVERVIEW OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND FINANCING OF REGIONAL SERVICES California procedures, as defined by Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code, require that a property tax agreement pursuant to 99 (b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code be in place before the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) can process an annexation application. There are no requirements regarding the format or contents of an agreement, but an annexation application cannot be considered without one. Individual agreements can be negotiated for each annexation or a master agreement can be executed between a county and a city. San Joaquin County originally executed master agreements with each city in 1980. On December 12,1995, the Board of Supervisors approved the termination of the agreements and authorized a comprehensive fiscal review of the annexation process. Following an extensive negotiation process, agreement was reached with the city managers on basic terms for master agreements on a Countywide basis. Subsequently, new master agreements were executed between -the Board of Supervisors and each City Council. All of the current annexation agreements expire on June 15, 2003. During the later part of'2002, theCountyAdministrator's Office, with the assistance of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) conducted a comprehensive update of the .original fiscal analysis conducted in 1995. The update considered changes in the County's Budget and projected growth trends in the city sphere of influence areas. The technical conclusions presented in this paper derive from this updated fiscal analysis. Overall, this paper and the underlying fiscal analysis are intended to inform the discussions and negotiations surrounding expiration of the current agreements. Many counties, including San Joaquin County, have executed master agreements to provide a predictable policy and fiscal framework over an extended period of time. In contrast, by negotiating agreements for individual annexations, counties have been able to address fiscal issues unique to particular projects. For example, the Folsom Auto Mall development involved a project -specific tax sharing agreement between the City of Folsom and Sacramento County. However, master agreements may exclude certain annexations, such as those containing existing commercial development, in order to negotiate project -specific terms where necessary. It should be recognized that these agreements are not always limited to consideration of property tax sharing. Some iurisdi�'ctions, in order to address annexation impacts, have entered into agreements that also provide for the sharing of sales -tax revenue and regional collection of development impact fees. For example, the City of Fresno and Fresno County recently entered into a 15 -year tax -sharing agreement that will continue the sharing of property tax and sales tax between the City of Fresno and Fresno County. By way of another example, the City of Sonora and Tuolumne County have negotiated an agreement providing for the distribution of multiple revenue sources, including property taxes, sales tax, transient occupancy tax and development impact fees, to Tuolumne County. San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS 1. The County's current master annexation agreements provide for the allocation of property tax revenues upon annexation. The terms of the current agreements were limited to the allocation of property taxes upon annexation. The agreements acknowledge, in a preamble, that there is a lack of consensus regarding local government funding issues arising from annexations. However, the agreements do establish a commitment to regional cooperation, including mutual efforts toward cost-effective service delivery. For each annexation, the County Auditor aggregates the property -tax shares belonging to the County and each Special District from which the annexation area is detaching. This aggregated portion of the property tax is reallocated based on the terms of the applicable annexation agreement. The current agreements generally provide for a sharing of reallocated property taxes in the ratio of 90 percent County and 10 percent City, with significant exceptions including the following. + Lathrop - (a) property -tax sharing associated with theme park projects would be phased in; (b) transient occupancy tax sharing, initially designated for transportation projects. Tracy and Manteca - four specific annexation applications are subject to an 80 percent County and 20 percent City distribution. • Ripon and Escalon - as long as the respective City populations are less than 20,000 and annexations are less than 150 acres, the property tax distribution is 63.4 percent County and 36.6 percent City. • Areas where the County receives transient occupancy tax or significant sales tax revenues are excluded. 2. Most new development will occur within city spheres of influence. A total of nearly 23,000 households, adding 68,000 residents, and 8,300 employees are projected by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) to locate within city spheres during the next eight years, as shown on Figure 1. This amount of population is the equivalent of adding another city the size of Tracy today. Nearly two-thirds of the residential development projected to occur in the County during this time frame is expected to annex to the County's cities. Current SJCOG projections for population and employment growth provide the basis for property - tax and other revenue estimates. These projects were reviewed with County and the respective City staffs as a part of the update process. 2. M San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 3. The State budget crisis could substantially affect the County's general purpose revenues. Fiscal analysis of local revenues and costs is complicated by potential actions of the State of California to balance its budget, which will require finding an estimated $35 billion through spending reductions, new taxes, and reducing subventions to cities and counties. Counties are vulnerable, particularly to the Governor's proposed reduction of most of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) subvention. If the reduction in VLF funds accruing to Counties was implemented as originally proposed, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) estimates that this would result in a loss to San Joaquin County of approximately $38 million through June 30, 2004. In a period of shrinking local economic resources, San Joaquin County continues to be responsible for fundamental regional services, such as the District Attorney, the Public Defender, contributions to the Courts, Juvenile and Adult Probation, the Custody Facility, Juvenile Detention, Public Health, and Public Assistance. These services benefit all County residents. 4. Continuation of the property -tax allocation terms of the current agreement would simply enable the County to maintain existing Ievels of essential regional services. If the State budget crisis results insignificant impacts to the County are operating budgets, the County may need to perform additional fiscal analysis of the annexation process. The current analysis is based on the status quo - the existing County budget, the existing annexation agreements, and simply maintaining existing levels of regional services. A detailed fiscal analysis was conducted by the County and EPS at the time the existing agreements were negotiated in 1946. The current update to that analysis compares estimates of revenues to be generated by new development with projections of prorated costs based on current service levels. The time frame of the fiscal analysis extends through the year 2010, approximately seven years beyond the term of the current agreements. Figure 2 provides a summary of the updated fiscal analysis. This analysis indicates that 90.5 percent of the property -tax revenue subject to reallocation within newly annexing areas would be required to offset the costs projected to maintain regional Countywide services. Pending impacts to other County revenue sources, such as those described above in item #3, continuation of the property -tax allocation terms of the current agreements (generally 90 percent allocated to the County) would only enable the County to maintain current service levels. San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 SALES TAX CONSIDERATIONS 5. Agreements for sales tax sharing to offset development impacts have occurred between jurisdictions. Jurisdiction -wide sharing of sales -tax revenues can be implemented through modification of the Bradley -Burns local sales -tax rates, by affirmative action of the local legislative bodies. To provide some context, it is estimated that a shift of approximately 2 percent of the total sales tax revenues received by the cities to San Joaquin County would approximate 10 percent of the property -tax revenues subject to reallocation. Project specific annexation agreements can also provide for the sharing of sales -tax revenue. The sharing is calculated based on sales -tax data, but can be accomplished through the transfer of other local revenues such as property taxes. For example, the Folsom Auto Mall development resulted in the 50/50 sharing of the sales tax produced in this. 55 acre project zone between the City of Folsom and Sacramento County. The actual mechanism to implement this sales tax sharing is a reduction in the total annual secured property revenues received by the City. Fresno County and the City of Fresno recently entered into a 15 -year tax sharing agreement including sales tax sharing and property tax sharing provisions, along with the collection of count%-Mde regional impact fees. This comprehensive tax - sharing agreement was signed in January 2003 and involves the following comprehensive sharing of property tax and sales tax between the City of Fresno and Fresno County. Key features of the agreement include: Property Tax Upon annexation, Fresno County retains all of its base property tax revenue. • In addition, Fresno County receives 62% of the available property tax increment, as defined in Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the City of Fresno receives the remaining 38 % of the available property tax increment. Sales Tax • Fresno County receives 5% of the Bradley -Burns 1% citywide sales tax revenue collected within the City of Fresno. • Fresno County receives an additional 31/6 of the Bradley -Burns 1% sales tax revenue collected within the area annexed to the City of Fresno. • Fresno County receives an additional calculated percentage of the Bradley -Burns 1% sales tax based on the impact of a "high-volume" (in excess of $400,000 in annual sales tax revenues) sales tax generator within the area to be annexed to the City of Fresno. _ 4 San jm7uin County Annexations February 27, 2003 Regional Impact Fees ip The City of Fresno agrees to either collect the countywide development impact fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors or require the development applicant provide proof that they have paid these fees directly to Fresno County. REGIONAL INITIATIVES 6. The County is concerned with growth -related impacts on public facilities, and may be interested in linking regional development impact fees with annexation agreement terms. All growth in the County, regardless of its location causes a range of regional impacts and places additional demands on regional services. Although development fees for capital programs do not generate funding for operations, various regional impact fees are under discussion to respond to growth -related impacts and facility needs in San Joaquin County. A regional fee for the habitat conservation went into effect in FY 2000-01. • The Habitat Conservation Fee varies according to the type of land being converted to non-agricultural usage and is administered by the San Joaquin Council of Governments. The fee currently ranges between $845 per acre for orchard property to $1,690 per acre for cropland property. Additional programs under discussion could, in aggregate, total fees of up to $5,500 per typical single family unit. Since some of these costs would be funded by other means, e.g. project -specific farmland loss mitigation and the "regional" portions of locally administered traffic impact fees, the net impact (increase in total fee burden) will be less than this amount. • The Regional Traffic Impact Fee is anticipated to range from $2,215 to $3,728 for the typical single family residential unit depending on which program of regional transportation improvements is being considered is adopted. If adopted the Council of Govemment's (COG) -initiated Regional Traffic tiiitigation Fee would generate between $235 and $462 million by FY 2025. • The Agricultural Mitigation Fee has not been developed at this time. This development impact fee, intended to replace existing project by -project mitigation of farmland loss with a more programmatic approach could generate as much as $46.7 million through 2025, if the actual average per unit fee reflects the existing typical "1:1" mitigation ratio. San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 • The Community Faalities Fee would provide funding for essential County community facilities infrastructure. The County has estimated that it faces costs in the range of nearly $300 million to construct buildings and other facilities needed to serve the County's new residents as growth continues in the next several decades. A fee set to cover 25 percent of total anticipated net costs of these facilities to the County would generate approximately $50 million for the Community Facilities program through 2025. The fee on a typical single family unit needed to generate this funding would be in the range of $1,500 per unit. Z Cooperation in siting community social service facilities would be in the region's best interest San Joaquin County needs the cooperation of each incorporated city to accommodate various community social service facilities. Examples of these community social service facilities, which may or may not be operated by San Joaquin County, are homeless shelters, half -way houses, shelters for battered women, crisis intervention centers, family service agencies, food banks, etc. All cities produce demand for these services, and they should be considered an intrinsic part of each respective community. As noted above, this paper is intended to provide information for the discussions between the County and cities regarding the negotiation of new master annexation agreements following expiration of the current agreements in June 2003. It is clear that the County and the cities face considerable challenges as they continue to accommodate economic and population growth. It should be a common goal of all local governments to assure that quality of public services and facilities, including those provided by the cities and the County, are maintained and, where possible, improved as this growth occurs. If fact, if quality of public services and facilities are not maintained growth prospects will ultimately be impaired along with the quality of life for existing residents. Figure 1 San Joaquin County Tax Sharing Agreement Summary of All Incorporated Agencies - Sphere of Influence Areas Projected Cumulative Development through 2010 Cumulative Development Category FY 2010 Totals Single Family Residential Units 16,030 Multi -family Residential Units 6,837 Total Residential Units 22,867 Total Estimated New Population 67,600 Retail 235,152 Commercial/Service (Private) 741,752 Govemment/Not-for-Profit 686,000 Industrial 3,106,704 Total Non -Residential Square Feet 4,769,608 Total Estimated New Employees [1] 8,270 Dev_summ" [1] Includes 7,020 private sector and 1,250 public sector new employees Source: San Joaquin County Council of Governments and EPS PmAersdby4EPS �.��e� un.a. o _ . r.•�:�.. �___._ F, Figure 2 San Joaquin County Tax Sharing Agreement Summary of All Incorporated Agencies - Sphere of Influence Areas, Fiscal Impact on County General Fund (Constant 2002 $'s) 'Cnty_Summ" [1] The property tax revenues available for allocation are from the annexation pool based on the estimated new development in the annexation area. Source: San Joaquin County 2002-03 Final Budget and EPS 49r.A' .MB3dn . FY 2010 Budget Item Totals County General Fund Revenue - without property taxes $5,192,834 County General Fund Expenses $16,730,213 Annual Operating Surplus (Deficit) without Property Taxes -$11,537,379 Sphere Annexation Pool Property Tax Revenues Available $12,742,661 Annual Deficit as a % of Property Tax Available 90.5% Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) after the Impact of a 900/.110% Property Tax Split -$68,984 90% Property Tax Revenue to County $11,468,395 10% Property Tax Revenue to City $1,274,266 'Cnty_Summ" [1] The property tax revenues available for allocation are from the annexation pool based on the estimated new development in the annexation area. Source: San Joaquin County 2002-03 Final Budget and EPS 49r.A' .MB3dn . MOTION: Before the Board of Supervisors County of San Joaquin, State of California Initiation of Discussion Regarding Agreements for Property Tax Allocation Upon Annexation, and Financing Regional Services This Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes and directs the County Administrator to: 1. Enter into discussions with the City Managers concerning future agreements for property tax allocation upon annexation and the financing of regional services; and 2. Pursuant to those discussions, bring.policy recommendations applicable to future annexations to the Board of Sunervisors for consideration. I BERBY CERTIFY that the above order was passed and adopted on March 11, 2003, by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: c County Administrator County Counsel I.APCo City Managers Board Clerk LOIS M. SAHYOUN Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of San Joaquin State of Califomia COB 12187) Economic dp Planning Systems Public Finance Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Land Use Policy WHITE PAPER SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TAX -SHARING AGREEMENT Prepared for: San Joaquin County Prepared by: Economic & Plan dng Systems, Inc. Date: February 27, 2003 EPs #12542 SACaANSUTO 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 290 phone: 916-649-8010 Sacramento, CA 95833-3647 fxx: 916-649-2070 6E 11 Ki LEY 0 I Viw phone: 510441-9190 phony 303.623-3557 fax: 510.641-9208 fax: 303-623-9049 s Before the Board of Supervisors County of San Joaquin, State of California MOTION: B-03— Initiation of Discussion Regarding Agreements for Property Tax Allocation Upon Annexation, and Financing Regional Services This Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes and directs the County Administrator to: 1. Enter into discussions with the City Managers concerning future agreements for property tax allocation upon annexation and the financing of regional services; -and 2. Pursuant to those discussions, bring.policy recommendations applicable to future annexations to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. I HERBY CERTIFY that the above order was passed and adopted on March 11, 2003, by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: r. County Adminimtor County Conal I.AFCo city Manages BoWd Oai LOIS M. SAWOUN Clerk of the Board of Sapervisors County of San Joaquin State of C9lifornia COs 12,17) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. OVERVIEW OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND FINANCING OFREGIONAL SERVICES.................................................................................................1 PropertyTax Analysis..................................................................................................2 SalesTax Considerations.............................................................................................6 Regionalinitiatives.......................................................................................................7 APPENDIX A: San Joaquin County Tax -Sharing Agreement, Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas — All Cities LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure I Projected Cumulative Development through 2010 ........................................ 3 Figure 2 Fiscal Impact on County General Fund (Constant 2002) .............................. 5 OVERVIEW OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND FINANCING OF REGIONAL SERVICES California annexation procedures, as defined by Section 99 (b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, require that a property tax agreement be in place before the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) can process an annexation application. There are no requirements regarding the format or contents of an agreement, but an annexation application cannot be considered without one. Individual agreements can be negotiated for each annexation, or a master agreement can be executed between a county and a city. San Joaquin County (County) originally executed master agreements with each city in 1980. On December 12,1995, the Board of Supervisors approved the termination of the agreements and authorized a comprehensive fiscal review of the annexation process. Following an extensive negotiation process, consensus was reached with the city managers on basic terms for master agreements on a countywide basis. Subsequently, new master agreements were executed between the Board of Supervisors and each City Council. All of the current annexation agreements expire on June 15, 2003. During the later part of 2002, the County Administrator's Office, with the assistance of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), conducted a comprehensive update of the original fiscal analysis conducted in 1995. The update considered changes in the County's budget and projected growth trends in the city sphere of influence areas. The technical conclusions presented in this paper derive from this updated fiscal analysis. Overall, this paper and the underlying fiscal analysis are intended to inform the discussions and negotiations surrounding expiration of the current agreements. Many counties, including San Joaquin County, have executed master agreements to provide a predictable policy and fiscal framework over an extended period of time. In contrast, by negotiating agreements for individual annexations, counties have been able to address fiscal issues unique to particular projects. For example, the Folsom Auto Mall development involved a project -specific tax -sharing agreement between the City of Folsom and Sacramento County. However, master agreements may exclude certain annexations, such as those containing existing commercial development in order to negotiate project -specific terms where necessary. It should be recognized that these agreements are not always limited to consideration of property tax sharing. Some jurisdictions, in order to address annexation impacts, have entered into agreements that also provide for the sharing of sales -tax revenue and regional collection of development impact fees. ' For example, the City of Fresno, the Fresno Redevelopment Agency, and Fresno County recently entered into a 15 -year tax -sharing agreement that will continue the sharing of ' property tax and sales tax between the City of Fresno and Fresno County. By way of another example, the City of Sonora and Tuolumne County have negotiated an agreement providing for the distribution of multiple revenue sources, including Final White Paper San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 property taxes, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and development impact fees, to Tuolumne County. PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS 1. THE COUNTY'S CURRENT ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS PROVIDE FOR I THE ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES UPON ANNEXATION. The fiscal terms of the current agreements were iunited to the allocation of property taxes upon annexation. The agreements acknowledge, in a preamble, the lack of consensus regarding local government -funding issues arising from annexations. However, the agreements do establish a commitment to regional cooperation, including mutual efforts toward cost-effective service delivery. I For each annexation, the County Auditor aggregates the property -tax shares belonging to the County and each Special District from which the annexation area is detaching. This aggregated portion of the property tax is reallocated based on the terms of the applicable annexation agreement. The current agreements generally provide for a sharing of reallocated property taxes in the ratio of 90 percent County and 10 percent City, with significant exceptions: • Lathrop—(a) property -tax sharing associated with theme park projects would be phased in, and (b) transient occupancy tax sharing, initially designated for transportation projects. • Tracy and Manteca—four specific annexation applications are subject to an 80 percent County and 20 percent City distribution. • Ripon and Escalon—as long as the respective City populations are less than ' 20,000 and annexations are less than 150 acres, the property tax distribution is 63.4 percent County and 36.6 percent City. ' • Areas where the County receives transient occupancy tax or significant sales tax revenues are excluded. 1 2. MOST NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR WITHIN MY SPHERES OF INFLUENCE. A total of nearly 23,000 households, adding 68,000 residents, and 7,020 employees ' are projected to locate within city spheres during the next 8 years (Figure 1). This amount of population is the equivalent of adding another city the size of Tracy today. Nearly two-thirds of the residential development expected to occur in the County during this timeframe will require annexation to the County's cities. a 2 EPS #12545 Figure 1 San Joaquin County Tax Sharing Agreement Summary of All Incorporated Agencies - Sphere of Influence Areas Projected Cumulative Development through 2010 Cumulative Development Category FY 2010 Totals Single Family Residential Units 16,030 Multi -family Residential Units 6,837 Total Residential Units 22,867 Total Estimated New Population 67,600 Retail 235,152 Commercial/Service (Private) 741,752 Government/Not-for-Profit 686,000 Industrial 3,106,704 Total Non -Residential Square -Feet 4,769,608 Total Estimated New Employees (1] 7,020 'Lev summ- (1] Includes 5,770 private sector and 1,250 public sector new employees Source: San Joaquin County Council of Governments and EPS t t . Prepared by EPS 3 12542 White Paper Exhibits 3/262003 Final White Paper San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 Current San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) projections for population and employment growth provide the basis for property tax and other revenue estimates. These projects were reviewed with County and the respective City staffs as a part of the update process. 3. THE STATE BUDGET CRISIS COULD SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PURPOSE REVENUES. Fiscal analysis is complicated by potential actions of the State of California to balance its budget, which will require finding an estimated $35 billion through spending reductions, new taxes, and reducing subventions to cities and counties. Counties are particularly vulnerable, especially to the Governor's proposed reduction of most of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) subvention starting in February 2003. If the proposed reduction in VLF funds accruing to counties is implemented, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) estimates a resulting loss to the County of approximately $38 million through June 30, 2004. In a period of shrinldng local economic resources, the County continues to be responsible for fundamental regional services, such as the District Attorney, the Public Defender, contributions to the Courts, Juvenile and Adult Probation, the Custody Facility, Juvenile Detention, Public Health, and Public Assistance. These services benefit all County residents. 4. CONTINUATION OF THE PROPERTY -TAX ALLOCATION TERMS OF THE CURRENT AGREEMENT WOULD SIMPLY ENABLE THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN EXISTING LEVELS OF ESSENTIAL REGIONAL SERVICES. If the State budget crisis results in significant impacts to the County's operating budgets, the County may need to perform additional fiscal analysis of the annexation process. The current analysis is based on the status quo— the existing County budget, the existing annexation agreements, and simply maintaining existing levels of regional services. A detailed fiscal analysis was conducted by the County and EPS at the time the existing agreements were negotiated in 1996. The current update to that analysis compares estimates of revenues to be generated by new development with projections of prorated costs based on current service levels. The timeframe of the fiscal analysis extends through the year 2010, approximately 7 years beyond the term of the current agreements. ' Figure 2 provides a summary of the updated fiscal analysis. This analysis indicates that 90.5 percent of the property -tax revenue subject to reallocation in newly annexing areas would be required to offset the costs projected to maintain regional 4 EPS #22545 i Figure 2 San Joaquin County Tax Sharing Agreement Summary of All Incorporated Agencies - Sphere of Influence Areas Fiscal Impact on County General Fund (Constant 2002 $'s) rity_Summ' (1] The property tax revenues available for allocation are from the annexation pool based on the estimated new development in the annexation area. Source: San Joaquin County 2002-03 Final Budget and EPS Prepared by EPS 12542 White Paper Exhibits 3/28/2003 ........... FY 2010 Budget Item Totals County General Fund Revenue - without property taxes $5,192,834 County General Fund Expenses $16,730,213 Annual Operating Surplus (Deficit) without Property Taxes -$11,537,379 Sphere Annexation Pool Property Tax Revenues Available $12,742,661 6/6 of Property Tax Sharing in Sphere Zones 90.5% Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) after the Impact of a 900/6110% Property Tax Split -$68,984 90°x6 Property Tax Revenue to County $11,468,395 10% Property Tax Revenue to City $1,274,266 rity_Summ' (1] The property tax revenues available for allocation are from the annexation pool based on the estimated new development in the annexation area. Source: San Joaquin County 2002-03 Final Budget and EPS Prepared by EPS 12542 White Paper Exhibits 3/28/2003 ........... Final White Paper San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 countywide services. Pending impacts to other County revenue sources, continuation of the property -tax allocation terms of the current agreements (generally 90 percent allocated to the County) would enable the County to maintain current service levels. SALES TAX CONSIDERATIONS 5. AGREEMENTS FOR SALES -TAX SHARING TO OFFSET DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN IURISDICTIONS. Jurisdictionwide sharing of sales -tax revenues can be implemented through modification of the Bradley -Burns local sales -tax rates by affirmative action of the local legislative bodies. To provide some context, it is estimated that a shift of approximately 2 percent of the total sales tax revenues received by the cities to San Joaquin County would approximate 10 percent of the property -tax revenues subject to reallocation. Project -specific annexation agreements also can provide for the sharing of sales -tax revenue. The sharing is calculated based on sales -tax data, but is accomplished through the transfer of other local revenues such as property taxes. For example, the Folsom Auto Mall development resulted in the 50/50 sharing of the sales tax produced in this 55 -acre project zone between the City of Folsom and Sacramento County. The actual mechanism to implement this sales tax sharing is a reduction in the total annual secured property revenues received by the City. Fresno County and the City of Fresno recently entered into a 15 -year tax -sharing agreement including sales tax sharing and property tax sharing provisions, along with the collection of countywide regional impact fees. This comprehensive tax - sharing agreement was signed in January 2003 and involves the following comprehensive sharing of property tax and sales tax between the City of Fresno and Fresno County. Key features of the agreement are these: Property Tax • Upon annexation, Fresno County retains all of its base property tax revenue from the annexed area. • In addition, Fresno County receives 62 percent of the available property tax increment, as defined in Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the City of Fresno receives the remaining 38 percent of the available property tax increment. 6 EPS 022545 Final White Paper San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 • Sales Tax Fresno County receives 5 percent of the Bradley -Burns 1 percent citywide sales tax revenue collected in the City of Fresno. • Fresno County receives an additional 3 percent of the Bradley -Burns 1 percent sales tax revenue collected in the area annexed to the City of Fresno. • Fresno County receives an additional calculated percentage of the Bradley -Burns 1 percent sales tax based on the impact of a "high-volume" (in excess of $400,000 in annual sales tax revenues) sales tax generator in the area to be annexed to the City of Fresno. • Regional Impact Fees • The City of Fresno agrees to either collect the countywide development impact fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors or require the development applicant provide proof that they have paid these fees directly to Fresno County. REGIONAL INITIATIVES 6. THE COUN'T'Y IS CONCERNED WITH GROWTH -RELATED IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND MAY BE INTERESTED IN LINKING REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WITH ANNEXATION AGREEMENT TERMS. All growth in the County, regardless of location, causes a range of regional impacts and places additional demands on regional services. Although development fees for capital programs do not generate funding for operations, various regional impact fees are under discussion to respond to growth -related impacts and facility needs in the County. A regional fee for the habitat conservation went into effect in FY 2000- 01. • The Habitat Conservation Fee varies according to the type of land being converted to nonagricultural usage and is administered by the SJCOG. The fee currently ranges between $845 per acre for orchard property to $1,690 per acre for cropland property. Additional programs under discussion represent, in the aggregate, total fees of $5,500 per typical single-family unit. Since some of these costs would be funded by ' other means (e.g., project -specific farmland loss mitigation and the "regional" portions of locally administered traffic impact fees), the net impact (increase in total fee burden) will be less than this amount. ■ 7 EPS #12545 Final White Paper San Joaquin County Annexations February 27, 2003 f • The Regional Traffic Impact Fee is anticipated to range from $2,215 to $3,728 for the ` typical single-family residential unit, depending on which program of regional transportation improvements is being considered is adopted. If adopted, the Council of Goverrm eants's (COG) -initiated Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee will generate between $235 million and $462 million by FY 2025. • The Agricultural Mitigation Fee has not been developed at this time. This development impact fee, intended to replace existing project -by -project mitigation of farmland loss with a more programmatic approach, could generate I as much as $46 million through 2025, if the actual average per unit fee reflects the existing typical "1.1" mitigation ratio. • The Community Facilities Fee would provide funding for essential County community facilities infrastructure. The County has estimated that it faces costs in the range of nearly $300 million to construct buildings and other facilities needed to serve the County's new residents as growth continues in the next several decades. A fee set to cover 25 percent of total anticipated net costs of these facilities to the County would generate approximately $50 million for the Community Facilities program through 2025. The fee on a typical single-family ' unit needed to generate this funding would be in the range of $1,500 per unit. 7. COOPERATION IN SITING COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICE FACILITIES WOULD BE IN THE REGION'S BEST INTEREST. ' The County needs the cooperation of each incorporated city to accommodate various community social service facilities. Examples of these community social service facilities, which may or may not be operated by the County, are homeless shelters, halfway houses, shelters for battered women, crisis intervention centers, family service agencies, and food banks. All cities produce demand for these services, and they should be considered an intrinsic part of each respective community. As noted above, this paper is intended to provide information for the discussions between the County and cities regarding the negotiation of new master annexation agreements following expiration of the current agreements in June 2003. It is clear that. ' the County and the cities face considerable challenges as they continue to accommodate economic and population growth. It should be a common goal of all local governments to assure that quality of public services and facilities, including those provided by the cities and the County, is maintained and, where possible, improved as this growth t' occurs. In fact, if quality of public services and facilities is not maintained, growth prospects will ultimately be impaired along with the quality of life for existing residents. . 8 EPS 012545 e Economic d. Planning Systems Public Fi nnncc Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Land Use Policy APPENDIX A: SAN JOAQUIN TAX—SHARING AGREEMENT COUNTYWIDE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREAS ALL CITIES Figure A-1 Fiscal Impact for General Fund (Constant FY 02-03 $s) Figure A-2 General Assumptions I Figure A-3 Cumulative Development Schedule Figure A4 Land Use Assumptions Figure A-5 Population and Employees Figure A-6 Cumulative Assessed Value from New Development (Constant 2002--3 $s) Figure 13-1 Revenue -Estimating Procedures for General Fund including Public I Safety Revenues Figure 5-2 Annual revenues (Constant FY 200-03 $s) Figure B-3 Property Tax Revenues Figure 134 Property Tax Administration, Fine, and Penalty Revenues Figure 13-5 Sales Tax—Space Method Figure B-6 Documentary Stamp Tax (only includes resales) [1] Figure C-1 Expenditure -estimating Procedure Figure C-2 Annual Expenses in Constant FY 2002-03 $s Figure C-3 General Fund Cost Data by Function ' Figure C-4 County Cost of Providing General Fund Services f 1 1 1 I i i DRAFT Figure A-1 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywlde Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Fiscal Impact Summary for General Fund (Constant FY 02-03 $'a) 'surruiviry" (ll Based on FY 2002103 cost multipliers. (2( The net property tax revenues available is calculated in Figure B-3 ' Source: San Joaquin County FY 2002-03 Budget, and EPS ■ PrepeW by EPS 12542 SOr Cons &to" Sumnwy 3H3rIra03 _. A-1 96_ of 2010 Item 2010 Total General Fund Revenue Property Tax $0 0% Prop. Tax Admin Fee - S82557 $326,735 6% Fines & Penalties on Delinquent Taxes $255,903 5% Sales Tax - Base Amount $0 0% Sales Tax - Public Safety Fund $260,620 5% Documentary Stamp Tax $267,208 5% Franchises - Cable TV $0 0% Franchises - Other Utilities $0 0% Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Tax $2,891,666 56% Motor Vehicle in -Lieu - R&T 11005 $985,276 19% Tax Admin Costs - SB813 & Districts $199,306 4% Other Revenues $6,121 0°% Total General Fund Revenues $5,192,834 100`/. General Fund Expenses (1] General Government $4.316,481 26% Public Protection - Courts & Detention $8,247,809 49% Public Protection - Sheriff & Patrol Services $0 0% Health & Sanitation Services $1,672,806 10% Public Assistance $2,196,709 13% Education $27,737 0% Parks & Recreation $268,671 2°% Roads & Facilitis $0 0°% Total General Fund Expenses $16,730,213 100'% Annual Operating Surplus (Deficit) 411.537,378 Revenue to Expense Ratio Prior to Tax Sharing 31% Estimated Net Property Tax Revenues Available [2j $12,742,661 Property Tax Share Needed by the County to Fund Regional Services 90.5% 'surruiviry" (ll Based on FY 2002103 cost multipliers. (2( The net property tax revenues available is calculated in Figure B-3 ' Source: San Joaquin County FY 2002-03 Budget, and EPS ■ PrepeW by EPS 12542 SOr Cons &to" Sumnwy 3H3rIra03 _. A-1 DRAFT Figure A-2 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of influence Areas - All Cities General Assumptions General Base Budget Used in Analysis FY 2002 - 03 Fiscal Year Dollars Discounted to 2002 Inflation (Discount) Rate (1] 3.5% Legislated Tax Escalation Rate 2.0% Residential Property Appreciation Rate (2] 3.5% Non -Residential Property Appreciation Rate [2] 3.5% General Demographic 2002 Unincorporated Population [3] 133,000 Incorporated Population (3] 463,000 County Population [3] 596,000 Unincorporated Employees [4] 43,487 Incorporated Employees [4] 1731946 County Employees [4] 217,435 Perseon Served Weighting Factor for Employees [5] 25% County Persons Served [6] 650,359 Unincorporated Persons Served [6] 143,872 'general assumpNoris- (1] The discount rate is the factor used in taking the present value of any inflated dollars. (2] Both residential and non-residential property are assumed to appreciate at the rate of inflation. [3] Information from the State Department of Finance. (4] Information based on data from the Census and Employment Development Department. [5] Employee data is weighted by 25% to estimate the services provided to non-residents and businesses to San Joaquin County E(6] Persons served is defined as the County population plus 25% of employees. OL Prepared by EPS ..._ 12542 Sol Cons Model Assumptions 3/13/20173 A w ■ M M M M � M � ti_ MW s, 1� - -. DRAFT Figure A-3 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of influence Areas - All Cities Cumulative Development Schedule Land Use Unit 2003 2004 2005 Fiscal Year Ending 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Single Family dwelling units 2,004 2,004 2,0134 2,004 2,004 2,004 2,004 2,004 16,030 Multi -Family dwelling units 855 855 855 855 655 855 855 855 6,837 Total Residential Units 2,858 2,858 2,858 2,858 2.858 2,858 2,858 2,858 22,866 Retail sq. It. 29,394 29,394 29.394 29.394 29.394 29,394 29,394 29,394 235,152 CommerciaffService (private) sq. ft. 92,719 92,719 92,719 92,719 92.719 92,719 92,719 92,719 741,752 Govemmenl/Not for -Profit sq. ft. 85.750 85,750 85,750 85,750 85,750 85,750 85,750 85,750 688.000 Industrial sq. ft. 388,338 388,338 388.338 388.338 388,338 388,338 388.338 388,338 3,106,704 Total Non -Residential Sq. Ft. 596,201 596,201 596,201 $96,201 596,201 596,201 596,201 596,201 4,769,608 'aav_Schadule cum' Sources: San Joaquin Council of Govemments and EPS Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model OevSchedyljaw a DRAFT Figure A-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas -All Cities Land Use Assumptions Land Use Descriptive Unit Market Value per Unit 3 Turnover Rate Persons per DU 1 Sq. Ft. per Employee 2 Vacancy Rate Residential Single Family dwelling units $308,486 10% 3.09 4.00% Multi -Family dwelling units $60,423 5% 3.03 4.00% Non -Residential Retail square feet $134 5% 250 5.00% Commercial/Service (private) square feet $145 5% 400 5.00% Govemment/Not-for-Profit square feet N.A. N.A. 550 0.00% Industrial square feet $97 5% 2,250 5.00% land use assump- [1] Based on U.S. Census. Single family persons per dwelling unit is assumed to equal the number of persons per household in owner occupied units; and multi -family persons per dwelling unit is assumed to equal the number of persons per household in renter occupied units. [2) Employees per square foot data is estimated based on EPS experience. [3) Market value is a composite average of new home sales prices in the market area Sources: San Joaquin Council of Governments, U.S. Census, Costar Camps, Inc., The Gregory Group, California Department of Finance, and EPS. Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model LandUse 383/1003 i 1 I . Prepared by EPS Figure A-5 DRAFT San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Population and Employees Land Use 2010 Cumulative Residents Single Family 47,659 Mufti -Family 19,927 Cumulative Residents 67,586 Cumulative Employees Retail 894 Commercial/Service (private) 1,762 Govemment[Not-for-Profit 1,247 Industrial 1,312 Other Jobs [1 ] 11802 Cumulative Employees 7,016 Cumulative Persons Served [2] 69,340 poNallon• [1] Other jobs are assumed not to require permanent non-residential building space. These jobs include agriculture, mining, construction jobs. [2] Persons served is defined as population plus 25% of employees. Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments. Caiifomia Department of Finance and EPS A-5 12542 SOI Cons Model Population 11=03 DRAFT Figure A-6 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Cumulative Assessed Value from New Development (Constant 2002-03 $'s) Land Use Cumulative Unit Total Unit 2010 Cumulative Valuation 2010 New Market Value From New Development W unit or sq. R Single Family $308,486 16,030 $4,944,914,800 Multi -Family $60,423 6,837 $413,100,400 Retal $134 235,152 $31,443,960 Commercial/Servioe (private) $145 741,752 $107,605,000 Govemment/Not-for-Profit N.A. 686,000 $0 Industrial $97 3,106,704 $302,079,840 Total New Market Value $5,799,344,000 Additional Taxable Assessed Value %ofMarherValue Single Family 94% $4,648,219,912 Multi -Family 94% $388,314,376 Retail 91% $28,614,004 Commercial/Service (private) 91% $98,102,550 Government/Not-for-Profit N.A. $0 Industrial 91% $274,892,654 Total New Taxable Assessed Value $5,438,143,496 -assessed vawa' Source: EPS s J I! il• tti� 1� t■rr rte>.e a rr ==n anew-- DRA1, Figure B-1 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Revenue Estimating Procedure for General Fund Including Public Safety Revenues Revenues Estimated Estimating Procedure San Joaquin Co. FY 2002.03 Revenues Percent of Net County Cost Funding Population or Persons Served Estimated Revenue Muth tier Property Tax Figure B-3 $69,297,000 39.7% N.A. N.A. Prop. Tax Admin Fee - SB2557 Figure B-3 $819,600 0.5% Fines d Penalties on Delinquent Taxes % of A.V. - Figure B-4 $1,578,000 0.9% N.A. N.A. Sales Tax - Base Amount Figure B-5 $10,852,000 6.2% Sales Tax - Public Safety Fund Figure B-5 $31,500,000 18.1% N.A. N.A. Transient Occupancy Tax (1] $320,000 0.2% Documentary Stamp Tax Figure &8 $2,300,000 1.3% N.A. N.A. Franchises - Cable TV Unincorp. Area Per Capita $407,000 0.2% 133,000 $3.06 Franchises - Other Utilities Unincorp. Area Per Person Served $1,686,560 1.0% 143,872 $11.72 Interest Income [1] $2,500,000 1.4% Motor Vehicle in -Lieu Tax Per Capita $25,500,000 14.6% 596,000 $42.79 Motor Vehicle in -Lieu Tax-R&T 11005 Per Capita - See Note (2) $8,888,600 5.0% 596,000 $14.58 Motor Vehicle in -lieu Tax-R&T 11005 Fixed Rev. - See Note (2) $5,481,400 3.1% Stale - Homeowners Prop. Tax Relief Part of Prop. Tax Calc. $1,322,000 0.8% State - Williamson Act Reimbursement [1] $2,030,000 1.2% Redevelopment Pass Thrus (1) $1.320,760 0.8% Tax Admin Costs - SB813 & Districts % of A.V. - Figure 134 $1,229,000 0.7% NA. N.A. Miscellaneous Revenues- Non -Recurring [1] $0 0.0% Other Revenues Per Person Served $58,900 0.0% 650,359 $0.09 Operating Transfers In - Tobacco Trust [1) $7,531,071 4.3% Total Revenues to Fund Net County Cost $174,421,891 100.0% rev est Prot d—' (1 ] These revenues are not anticipated to be affected by new development. (2) A portion of this motor vehicle license fee is tied to population (estimated on a per capita basis above), and the other portion is tied to the Fiscal Year 1982-83 personal property tax and is thus unaffected by new development. Sources: San Joaquin County Administrators Office, and EPS. Prepared by EPS 12542 Shc Cons Aiddb/ Rem"s Y134003 Figure B-2 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Annual Revenues (Constant FY 2002-03 $'s) DRAFT Item Fiscal Year tending 2010 General Fund Revenues Property Tax $0 Prop. Tax Admin Fee - S82557 $326,735 Fines & Penalties on Delinquent Taxes $255,903 Sales Tax - Base Amount $o Sales Tax - Public Safety Fund $260,620 Documentary Stamp Tax $267,206 Franchises - Cable TV $0 Franchises - Other Utilities $0 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Tax $2,891,666 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu - R&T 11005 $985,276 Tax Admin Costs - S8813 & Districts $199,306 Other Revenues $6,121 Total General Fund Revenues $5,192,834 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Prepared by EPS 'revenue' 12542 SOI Cons Mode! Revenues 3/1&&3 A -ft DRAFT Figure B-3 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Property Tax Revenues Item Source/ Assumption Fiscal Year Ending 2010 Assessed Value (Constant FY02-03 $'s) Figure A-6 $5,438,143,496 Property Tax (Constant FY02-03 $'s) 1% $54,381,435 Property Tax Allocation Factor Weighted Average County General Fund (11 0% City General Fund (i) 24% Agencies Other Than City or County [1] 7696 Total Property Tax Allocation Factor 100.00% Allocation of Tax (Constant S's) County General Fund $0 Cities General Funds $13,069,396 Other Agencies $41,312.039 Total Property Taxes $54,381,435 County General Fund Total Prop. Tax $0 Prop. Tax Admin Fee - SB255T Cities General Funds $13,069,396 County Property Tax Admin. Fee 2.5% $326,735 Estimated Net Property Tax Revenue Available $12,742,661 -property—tax- 11) ropertytax' (1) The preliminary split shown is prior to a negotiated Annexation Revenue Agreement Regarding Property Tax Exchange between the County and the cities. Source, San Joaquin Auditor -Controller's Office, and Economic & Planning Systems. Prepared by EPS 12542 Sol Cons Mode! Revenues 3/13/2003 d -Q DRAFT Figure B-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - Alt Cities Property Tax Administration, Fine and Penalty Revenues Item Source/ Assumption Fiscal Year Ending 2010 Total County Net AV, for FY 02-03 $33,533,751,938 FY 02-03 County Revenues: Fines & Penalties on Delinquent Taxes $1,578,000 Tax Admin. Costs - SB813 9 Districts $1,229.000 FY 02-03 County Revenues per $1M Net A V. Fines & Penalties on Delinquent Taxes $47.06 Tax Admin. Costs - SB813 & Districts $36.65 Projected A.V. (Constant FY02-03 Vs) $5,438,143,498 Revenue Estimate from Project.- roject:Fines Fines& Penalties on Delinquent Taxes $255,903 Tax Admin. Costs - SB813 & Districts $199,306 Sources: San Joaquin County 2002-03 Final Budget, and EPS Prepared by EPS A-10 prop edmin fim- 12542 Sol Cons Model Revenws Y132003 Figure B-5 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Sales Tax - Space Method DRAFT Item Sourcef Assumption Fiscal Year Ending 2010 Sales Tax - Public Safety Rate to County 0.475% Cumulative New Non -Residential Space Retail 235,152 Commercial/Service (private) 741,752 Industrial 3,106,704 Vacancy Rate Retail 5.00% Commercial/Service (private) 5.00% Industrial 5.00% Taxable Sales per sq. R. Retail $200 $44,678,880 Commercial/Service (private) $5 $3,523,322 Industrial $10 $29,513,688 Total Taxable Sales $77,715,890 effective rate Sales Tax - Base Amount 1.100% Public Safety Sales Tax Revenue 0.475% $369,150 Net Public Safety Sales Tax Revenues to Fund Regional Services 70.600% $260,620 Sources: State Board of Equalization, urban Land institute's Dollar & Cents of Shopping Centers, and Economic & Planning Systems. Prepared by EPS A-17 sales tax - 12512 SOI Cons Model ROVOnws 3/!3/= Figure 0-6 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Documentary Stamp Tax (only includes resales) (1) DRAFT Item Source/ Assumption Fiscal Year Ending 2010 Tax Rate per $1,000 Value (Incorp. Area) S 0.55 Tax Rate per $1,000 Value (Unincorp. Area) S 1.10 Taxable Portion of Resales 90% Residential Annual Turnover Rate 10% Non -Residential Annual Turnover Rate 5% Market Value for Residential Property Figure A-6 $5,358,015,200 Market Value for Non -Residential Prop. Figure A-6 $441,328,800 Residential Turnover Mkt. Value (FY 02-03 $1,000s) $535,802 Non -Residential Turnover Mkt. Value (FY 02-03 $1,000s) $22,066 Documentary Stamp Tax Revenues for: Resales of Residential (FY 02-03 Ss) $265,222 Resales from All Non -Residential (FY 02-03 S's) $1,886 Documentary Stamp Tax Rev. (Constant $'s) $267,208 [1[ This figure only includes resales and does not include the one-time revenue from the initial sale of the new development. Prepared by EPS F115#A document stamp tax' 12542 SOI Cons Model Revenues 3/13/2003 ■ M Il• r t1■■1 tali i. w � - _ DRAFT Figure C-1 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Expenditure Estimating Procedure expend est_pmedure- j1] The multipliers are calculated in Figure C-4. Sources: County of San Joaquin FY 2002-03 financial documents, San Joaquin County AdministratoPs Office, and EPS. Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Modet Expenditures 303/2003 Incremental Base Mutti leer f 1 Incorporated Area Unincorporated Area Item Estimatins Procedure Resident Employee Resident Employes General Government Countywide Persons Served $ 62.25 $ 15.56 $ 62.25 $ 15.56 Public Protection - Courts & Detention Countywide Persons Served $ 118.98 $ 29.40 $ 118.98 $ 29.40 Public Protection - Patrol & Sheriff Svs Unincorporated Persons Served $0.00 $0.00 $177.17 $44.29 Health & Sanitation Countywide Population $ 24.75 $ $ 24.75 $ - Public Assistance Coumtywide Population $ 32.50 $ - $ 32.50 $ - Education Other Methodology $ 0.41 $ - $ 2.90 $ 0.62 Parks and Recreation Countywide Population $ 3.98 $ - $ 3.98 $ - Roads and Facilities Other Methodology $ - $ - $ 6.00 $ 1.50 County Total - FY 2002-03 Fiscal Year 2002-03 Base Amounts $242.87 $44.96 $428.53 $91.38 expend est_pmedure- j1] The multipliers are calculated in Figure C-4. Sources: County of San Joaquin FY 2002-03 financial documents, San Joaquin County AdministratoPs Office, and EPS. Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Modet Expenditures 303/2003 Prepared by EPS Figure C-2 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities Annual Expenses in Constant FY 2002-03 $'s Expense CategM 2010 General Government $4,316,481 Public Protection - Courts & Detention $8,247,809 Public Protection - Patrol & Sheriff Svs $0 Health & Sanitation $1,672,806 Public Assistance $2,196,7O9 Education $27,737 Parks and Recreation $268,671 Roads and Facilities $0 Total Expenses $16,730,213 expense - Source: San Joaquin County Budget. FY 2002-03 and EPS DRAFT 12542 SOI Cons ModelExpendihaes 3/73/2003 A-14 Figure C-3 DR AF T San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities General Fund Cost Data by Function Prepared by EPS A -I5 12542 501 Cons M=VE*efW&xm y13=3 FY 2002-03 Cost Adopted Offsetting Recovery Net BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION & ACTIVITY Budget Revenue Percentage Coun Cost V] GENERAL GOVERNMENT Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board $1,296,807 Mountain House CSO $0 County Administrator $1,750,324 Capital Projects $76,031 CAO- Juvenile Justice System Coordination $183,116 Information Systems Division $874,804 County Accounting & Personnel System $6,602,759 Auditor Controller $2,535,171 Operating Transfers $6,299,364 Tobaoco Settlement $3,131,071 Treasurer -Tax Collector $2,129,514 Assessor $6,035,192 Assessor - AS818 5818,686 Purchasing & Support Services $1,066,142 Revenue & Recovery $1,457,305 County Counsel $763,717 Human Resources $1,266,084 Equal Employment Opportunity $241,566 Labor Relations $0 Registrar of Voters $2,085,232 Facilities Management $5,520,739 Economic Promotion $138,509 Surveyor $544,142 Rebates/Refunds/Judgement/Damages $42,500 Equipment Depreciation & Building Use Allow $12,059,129 Subtotal General Government $56,917,904 $16,432,199 28.87% $40,485,705 PUBLIC PROTECTION District Attorney $12,220,525 OA - Career Criminal Project $167,811 DA - Victim Witness Program $586,705 DA - Victim Assistance Center $608,136 DA - Major Narcotics Vendor Suppression $123,145 DA - Child Abduction Unit $483,401 DA -Violence Against Women Vert. Prosec Unit $108,812 DA - Auto Insurance Fraud Program $316,703 OA - Anti -Drug Abuse Enforcement Program $575,715 DA - Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program $120,000 DA - Workers Comp Ins Fraud Prosecution $451,865 DA - Auto Theft Prosecution Program $347,050 DA - Threat Mgmt/Stalking of Vert Prosec. Prog $140,000 DA - Elder Abuse Vert. Prosecution Program $120,000 Prepared by EPS A -I5 12542 501 Cons M=VE*efW&xm y13=3 Figure C-3 DRAFT San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities General Fund Cost Data by Function BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION 3 ACTIVITY FY 2002-03 Cost Adopted Offsetting Recovery Net Budget Revenue Percentage County Cost (1( (1] DA - Rural Crimes Prevention Program $301,125 DA - Child Abuse Vertical Prosecution Program $150,000 DA -Elder Abuse Advocacy Program $110,000 DA - DUI Prosecutor Tmg 3 Ed Program $78,480 Public Defender $8,233,954 Vertical Defense of Indigents Project $142,832 Grand Jury $54,984 Pretrial Services $531,995 Alcohol/Drug Alternative Program $413,180 Court Assigned Counsel $2,690,239 New Directions $374,652 Sheriff - Unified Court Services $4,335,780 County Support of the Courts $11,515,311 Sheriff - STC Training $135,235 Sheriff - Boating Safety $826,703 Sheriff- School Resource Officer- Linden $75,975 Sheriff - School Resource Officer- Lincoln $75,070 Sheriff - Automated Fingerprint ID $471,400 Sheriff - Hi -Tech Crimes Task Force $87,898 Sheriff - Hiring 3 Training Pool $368,133 Sheriff- Patrol $15,676,569 Sheriff - Communications $3,510,901 Sheriff - COPS MORE -CAO Project $209,882 Sheriff - Detectives $4,118,154 Sheriff - Records $2,389,469 Sheriff - Lathrop Police Contract $1,519,802 Sheriff - Custody $30,989,548 Sheriff - Work Programs $763,310 Correctional Health Services $5,240,082 Probation - Juvenile $4,606,650 Probation - Adult $3,323,858 Probation -Training Program $150,000 Probation - Administration $1,845,893 Probation -TANF $1,488,817 OCJP-JAIBG-South Stockton Co-op $70,528 Juvenile Detention $9,088,224 Agricultural Commissioner $2,739,437 Glassy -Wing Sharpshooter Prevention $405,127 Sealer of Weights & Measures $411,542 Community Development $7,057,568 Sheriff - Civil $1,076,800 Sheriff - Coroner/Morgue $817,584 Sheriff - Administration/Support Services $3,633,769 Probation - Community Justice Conferencing $199,988 Probation - Positive Youth Alternatives $188,380 Neighborhood Preservation $8,095,251 Sheriff - Public Administrator $248,890 Recorder $1,526,689 . Pgperod by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model &penddurea 3rr30003 __. - _. -16 Figure C-3 DRAFT San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas -All Cities General Fund Cost Data by Function prepared by epS 12542 SOr Cons Mode! ExpendWns W13* 08 FY 2002-03 Cost Adopted Offsetting Recovery Net BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION & ACTIVITY Budget Revenue Percentage County Cost (11 [11 Emergency Services $1,008,767 LAFCO Contribution $100,000 Subtotal Public Protection $159,644,093 $57,048,357 35.69% $102,795,736 HEALTH 3 SANITATION Public Health $16,898,290 California Children's Services $4,356,731 Environmental Health $5,464,423 Operating Transfer to Health Care Services $55,007,694 Community Health Care Assess $500.000 Subtotal Health & Sanitiation $82,227,138 $67,475,589 62.06% $14,731,549 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Human Services - Administration $100,655,128 Public Assistance - Families Dep Children $85,089,855 HAS -AFDC -Foster Care $26,171,053 Public Assistance - Aid for Adoption of Children $9,736,066 Public Assistance - Homemaker Services $8,736,051 HAS -Indochinese Refugee Program $40,000 Public Assistance - Temp Homeless Shelter $559,632 Public Assistance - General Relief $3,603.756 Burials $28,500 Veterans Service Office $300,865 Mary Graham Children's Shelter $4,931,385 Community Services $189,449 Aging & Community Services $7,893,595 Subtotal Public Assistance $248.035,335 52211.6113.775 92.19% 519,371,560 EDUCATION Library Administrative Services $116,061 Cooperative Extension $357,674 Subtotal Education $473,735 $0 0.00% $473,735 prepared by epS 12542 SOr Cons Mode! ExpendWns W13* 08 DRAFT Figure C-3 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities General Fund Cost Data by Function wsr dare 2002' (1) Offsetting revenues are from San Joaquin budget documents with the exception that public safety sales tax revenues have been excluded from offsetting revenues in calculating Net County Costs. Sources: County of San Joaquin Budget documents. San Joaquin County Administrators Office, and EPS. Prapamd by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model ExPwmMA les S113PM t. _ _.._. A-18 FY 2002-03 Cost Adopted Offsetting Recovery Net BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION & ACTIVITY Budget Revenue Percentage CountyCost 1 1 RECREATION Parks & Recreation $3.172,928 Cultural Services $148,622 Subtotal Recreation $3,321,550 $952,288 28.67% 52,369,282 PUBLIC WAYS & FACILITIES Road & Airport Contributions $863,234 $0 0.00% 5863 34 Subtotal Public Ways & Facilities 5863,234 SO 0.00% $863,234 COUNTY TOTAL - FY 2002-03 $551,682,989 $370,572,209 67.17% $181,110,780 COUNTY TOTAL - FY 4995-96 $443,232,318 $306,711,744 69.20% $136,520,574 PERCENTAGE CHANGE 24.47% 20.82% 32.66% wsr dare 2002' (1) Offsetting revenues are from San Joaquin budget documents with the exception that public safety sales tax revenues have been excluded from offsetting revenues in calculating Net County Costs. Sources: County of San Joaquin Budget documents. San Joaquin County Administrators Office, and EPS. Prapamd by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model ExPwmMA les S113PM t. _ _.._. A-18 I it iiiiiiiiif i.. � a e,. ... r . Figure C-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services DRAFT l Prepared by EPs 12542 S01 Cons Model ExpendiYr ys &7&=2 FY 2002-03 Residents or Average Adj. Incremental Base Multi lien Incorporated Area I Unincorporated Area Adopted Allocation Persons Net County BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY County Budget Method Served Cost Multiplier Resident Employeell Resident Employee 111 [2],131 [3] GENERAL GOVERNMENT Base Yr 02-03 Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board $1,296,807 1 650,359• $1.99 $1.99 $0.50 $1.99 $0.50 Mountain House CSD $0 1 650,359 $0.00 County Administrator $1,750,324 1 650,359 $2.69 $2.69 $0.67 $2.69 $0.67 Capital Projects $76,031 1 650,359 $0.12 $0.12 $0.03 $0.12 $0.03 CAO - Juvenile Justice System Coordination $183,116 1 650,359 $0.28 $0.28 $0.07 $0.28 $0.07 Information Systems Division $874,804 1 650,359 $1.35 $1.35 $0.34 $1.35 $0.34 County Accounting & Personnel System $6,602,759 1 650,359 $10.15 $10.15 $2.54 $10.15 $2.54 Auditor Controller $2,535,171 1 650,359 $3.90 $3.90 $0.97 $3.90 $0.97 Operating Transfers $6,299,364 1 650,359 $9.69 $9.69 $2.42 $9.69 $2.42 Tobacco Settlement $3,131,071 1 650,359 $4.81 $4.81 $1.20 $4.81 $1.20 Treasurer -Tax Collector $2,129,514 1 650,359 $3.27 $3.27 $0.82 $3.27 $0.82 Assessor $6,035,192 1 650,359 $9.28 $9.28 $2.32 $9.28 $2.32 Assessor - A1381 $818,686 1 650,359 $1.26 $1.26 $0.31 $1.26 $0.31 Purchasing & Support Services $1,066,142 1 650,359 $1.64 $1.64 $0.41 $1.64 $0.41 Revenue & Recovery $1,457,305 1 650,359 $2.24 $2.24 $0.56 $2.24 $0.56 County Counsel $763,717 1 650,359 $1.17 $1.17 $0.29 $1.17 $0.29 Human Resources $1,266,084 1 650,359 $1.95 $1.95 $0.49 $1.95 $0.49 Equal Employment Opportunity $241,566 1 650,359 $0.37 $0.37 $0.09 $0.37 $0.09 Labor Relations $0 1 650,359 $0.00 Registrar of Voters $2,085,232 1 650,359 $3.21 $3.21 $0.80 $3.21 $0.80 Facilities Management $5,520,739 1 650,359 $8.49 $8.49 $2.12 $8.49 $2.12 Economic Promotion $138,509 1 650,359 $0.21 $0.21 $0.05 $0.21 $0.05 Surveyor $544,142 1 650,359 $0.84 $0.84 $0.21 $0.84 $0.21 Rebates/Refunds/Judgement/Damages $42,500 1 650,359 $0.07 $0.07 $0.02 $0.07 $0.02 Equipment Depreciation & Building Use Allow $12,059,129 1 650,359 $18.54 $18.54 $4.64 $18.54 $4.64 Prepared by EPs 12542 S01 Cons Model ExpendiYr ys &7&=2 r I� I� t� � r•� � ellel �� _ . •I DRAFT Figure C-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - NI Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services a N O Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model Expendi7ures 3/f 3/2003 FY 2002-03 Residents or Average Adj. Incremental Base Multiplier Adopted Allocation Persons Net County Incorporated Area Unincorporated Area BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY County Budget Method Served Cost Multiplier Resident Employee Resident Em to e Ill 121.131 131 Subtotal General Government $56,917,904 1 650,359 $87.52 $87.52 $21.88 $87.52 $21.88 Less Offseting Revenue -$16,432,199 1 650,359 -$25.27 -$25.27 -$6.32 -$25.27 -$6.32 Net General Government Expense $40,485,705 $62.25 $62.25 $15.56 $62.25 $15.56 PUBLIC PROTECTION Base Yr 02-03 District Attorney $12,220,525 1 650.359 $18.79 $18.79 $4.70 $18.79 $4.70 DA - Career Criminal Project $167,811 1 650,359 $0.26 $0.26 $0.06 $0.26 $0.06 DA - Victim Witness Program $586,705 1 650,359 $0.90 $0.90 $0.23 $0.90 $0.23 DA - Victim Assistance Center $608,136 1 650,359 $0.94 $0.94 $0.23 $0.94 $0.23 DA - Major Narcotics Vendor Suppression $123,145 1 650,359. $0.19 $0.19 $0.05 $0.19 $0.05 DA - Child Abduction Unit $483.401 1 650,359 $0.74 $0.74 $0.19 $0.74 $0.19 DA - Violence Against Women Vert. Prosec Unit $108,812 1 650,359 $0.17 $0.17 $0.04 $0.17 $0.04 DA - Auto Insurance Fraud Program $316,703 1 650,359 $0.49 $0.49 $0.12 $0.49 $0.12 DA - Anti -Drug Abuse Enforcement Program DA - Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program DA- Workers Camp Ins Fraud Prosecution $575,715 $120,000 $451,865 1 1 1 650,359 650,359 650,359 $0.89 $0.18 $0.69 $0.89 $0.18 $0.69 $0.22 $0.05 $0.17 $0.89 $0.18 $0.69 $0.22 $0.05 $0.17 DA - Auto Theft Prosecution Program $347,050 1 650,359 $0.53 $0.53 $0.13 $0.53 $0.13 DA - Threat MgmUStalking of Vert. Prosec. Prog $140,000 1 650,359 $0.22 $0.22 $0.05 $0.22 $0.05 DA - Elder Abuse Vert. Prosecution Program $120,000 1 650,359 $0.18 $0.18 $0.05 $0.18 $0.05 DA- Rural Crimes Prevention Program $301,125 1 650,359 $0.46 $0.46 $0.12 $0.46 $0.12 DA - Child Abuse Vertical Prosecution Program $150,000 1 650,359 $0.23 $0.23 $0.06 $0.23 $0.06 DA - Elder Abuse Advocacy Program $110,000 1 650,359 $0.17 $0.17 $0.04 $0.17 $0.04 DA - DUI Prosecutor Tmg & Ed Program $78,480 1 650,359 $0.12 $0.12 $0.03 $0.12 $0.03 Public Defender $8,233,954 1 650,359 $12.66 $12.66 $3.17 $12.66 $3.17 Vertical Defense of Indigents Project $142,832 1 650,359 $0.22 $0.22 $0.05 $0.22 x0.05 Grand Jury $54,984 1 650,359 $0.08 $0.08 $0.02 $0.08 $0.02 Pretrial Services $531,9951 1 650,359 $0.821 $0.82 $0.20 $0.82 $0.20 Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model Expendi7ures 3/f 3/2003 It !• � tt� tta• to-• ttt• itis t� a>� � ,.� _..._ _. DRAFT Figure C-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model ExpendRures 3H9/2003 FY 2002-03 Residents or Average Adj. Incremental Base Multiplier Incorporated Area Unincorporated Area Adopted Allocation Persons Net County Resident Employee Resident Employee BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY County Budget Method Served Cost Multi lien [1] [21.13] [31 Alcohol/Drug Alternative Program $413,180 1 650,359 $0.64 $0.64 $0.16 $0.64 $0.16 Court Assigned Counsel $2,690,239 1 650,359 $4.14 $4.14 $1.03 $4.14 $1.03 New Directions $374,652 1 650,359 $0.58 $0.58 $0.14 $0.58 $0.14 Sheriff - Unified Court Services $4,335,780 1 650,359 $6.67 $6.67 $1.67 $6.67 $1.67 County Support of the Courts $11,515,311 1 650,359 $17.71 $17.71 $4.43 $17.71 $4.43 Sheriff - Boating Safety $826,703 3 596,000 $1.39 $1.39 $0.00 $1.39 $0.00 Sheriff - Custody $30,989,548 1 650,359 $47.65 $47.65 $11.91 $47.65 $11.91 Sheriff - Work Programs $763,310 1 650,359 $1.17 $1.17 $0.29 $1.17 $0.29 Correctional Health Services $5,240,082 1 650,359 $8.06 $8.06 $2.01 $8.06 $2.01 Probation - Juvenile $4,606,650 1 650,359 $7.08 $7.08 $1.77 $7.08 $1.77 Probation - Adult $3,323,658 1 650,359 $5.11 $5.11 $1.28 $5.11 $1.28 Probation - Training Program $150,000 1 650,359 $0.23 $0.23 $0.06 $0.23 $0.06 Probation - Administration $1,845,893 1 650,359 $2.84 $2.84 $0.71 $2.84 $0.71 Probation - TANF $1,488,817 1 650,359 $2.29 $2.29 $0.57 $2.29 $0.57 OCJP-JAIBG-South Stockton Co-op $70,528 1 650,359 $0.11 $0.11 $0.03 $0.11 $0.03 Juvenile Detention $9,088,224 1 650,359 $13.97 $13.97 $3.49 $13.97 $3.49 Agricultural Commissioner $2,739,437 1 650,359 $4.21 $4.21 $1.05 $4.21 $1.05 Glassy -Wing Sharpshooter Prevention $405,127 1 650,359 $0.62 $0.62 $0.16 $0.62 $0.16 Sealer of Weights & Measures $411,542 1 650,359 $0.63 $0.63 $0.16 $0.63 $0.16 Community Development $7,057,568 1 650,359 $10.85 $10.85 $2.71 $10.85 $2.71 Sheriff - Civil $1,076,800 1 650,359 $1.66 $1.66 $0.41 $1.66 $0.41 Sheriff - Coroner/Morgue $817,584 1 650,359 $1.26 $126 $0.31 $1.26 $0.31 Sheriff - Administration/Support Services $3,633,769 1 650,359 $5.59 $5.59 $1.40 $5.59 $1.40 Probation - Community Justice Conferencing $199,988 1 650,359 $0.31 $0.31 $0.08 $0.31 $0.08 Probation - Positive Youth Alternatives $188,380 1 650,359 $0.29 $0.29 $0.07 $0.29 $0.07 Neighborhood Preservation $8,095,251 1 650,359 $12.45 $12.45 $3.11 $12.45 $3.11 Sheriff - Public Administrator $248,890 1 650,359 $0.38 $0.38 $0.10 $0.38 $0.10 Recorder $1,526,689 1 650,359 $2.35 $2.35 $0.59 $2.35 $0.59 Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Model ExpendRures 3H9/2003 Figure CA San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services DRAFT Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Modal Expenaums 3/13/2003 FY 2002-03 Residents or Average Adj. Incremental Base Multiplier Adopted Allocation Persons Net County Incorporated Area I Unincorporated Area BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY County Bud t Method Served Cost Multi ler Resident Empl2yeel Resident Em o e 111 (21.[31 131 Emergency Services $1,008,767 1 650,359 $1.55 $1.55 $0.39 $1.55 $0.39 LAFCO Contribution $100.000 1 650,359 $0.15 $0.15 $0.04 $0.15 $0.04 Subtotal Law & Justice - Courts & Detention $131,205,605 $201.86 $50.12 $201.86 $50.12 Less Offsetting Revenue -$53,899,255 1 650,359 -$82.88 -$82.88 -$20.72 -$82.88 -$20.72 Net Public Protection - Courts & Detention $77,306,350 $118.98 $29.40 $118.98 $29.40 Patrol & Protection Base Yr 02-03 Sheriff - School Resource Officer - Linden $75,975 2 143,872 $0.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.53 $0.13 Sheriff - School Resource Officer - Lincoln $75.070 2 143,872 $0.52 $0.00- $0.00 $0.52 $0.13 Sheriff STC Training $135,235 2 143,872 $0.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.94 $0.23 Sheriff - Automated Fingerprint ID $471,400 2 143,872 $3.28 $0.00 $0.00 $3.28 $0.82 Sheriff - Hi -Tech Crimes Task Force $87,698 2 143,872 $0.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.61 $0.15 Sheriff - Hiring & Training Pool $368,133 2 143,872 $2.56 $0.00 $0.00 $2.56 $0.64 Sheriff - Patrol $15,676,569 2 143,872 $108.96 $0.00 $0.00 $108.96 $27.24 Sheriff -Communications $3,510,901 2 143,872 $24.40 $0.00 $0.00 $24.40 $6.10 Sheriff - COPS MORE -CAD Project $209,882 2 143,872 $1.46 $0.00 $0.00 $1.46 $0.36 Sheriff - Detectives $4,118,154 2 143,872 $28.62 50.00 $0.00 $28.62 $7.16 Sheriff - Records $2,389,469 2 143,872 $16.61 $0.00 $0.00 $16.61 $4.15 Sheriff - Lathrop Police Contract $1,519,802 2 143,872 $10.56 $0.00 $0.00 $10.56 $2.64 Subtotal Law & Justice - Patrol & Protection $28,638,488 2 143,872 $199.06 $0.00 $0.00 $199.06 $49.76 Less Offsetting Revenue 43,149,102 2 143,872 521.89 -$21.89 -$5.47 Net Public Protection - Patrol & Sheriff Svs. $25,489,386 $177.17 $0.00 $0.00 $177.17 $44.29 Total Public Protection $159,844,093 Prepared by EPS 12542 SOI Cons Modal Expenaums 3/13/2003 DRAFT Figure C-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services Prepared by EPS 12542 S0/ Cans A4aler Expeneeums 31312003 FY 2002-03 Residents or Average Adj. Incremental Base Multiplier Incorporated Area I Unincorporated Area Adopted Allocation Persons Net County Resident Employeal Resident Employee BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY Coun Budget Method Served Cost Multi lier 111 121.131 131 HEALTH & SANITATION Base Yr 02-03 Public Health $16,898,290 3 596,000 $28.35 $28.35 $0.00 $28.35 $0.00 California Children's Services $4,356,731 3 596,000 $7.31 $7.31 $0.00 $7.31 $0.00 Environmental Health $5,464,423 3 596,000 $9.17 $9.17 $0.00 $9.17 $0.00 Operating Transfer to Health Care Services $55,007.694 3 596,000 $92.29 $92.29 $0.00 $92.29 $0.00 Community Health Care Assess $500,000 3 596,000 $0.84 $0.84 $0.00 $0.84 $0.00 Subtotal Health & Sanitation $82,227,138 3 596,000 $137.96 $137.96 $0.00 $137.96 $0.00 Less Offsetting Revenue -$67,475,589 3 596,000 -$113.21 -$113.21 $0.00 -$113.21 $0.00 Net Health & Sanitation $14,751,549 $24.75 $24.75 $0.00 $24.75 $0.00 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Base Yr 02-03 Human Services - Administration $100,655,128 3 596,000 $168.88 $168.86 $0.00 $168.88 $0.00 Public Assistance - Families Dep Children $85,089,855 3 596,000 $142.77 $142.77 $0.00 $142.77 $0.00 HAS -AFDC -Foster Care $26,171,053 3 5961000 $43.91 $43.91 $0.00 $43.9i $0.00 Public Assistance - Aid for Adoption of Children $9,736,066 3 596,000 $16.34 $16.34 $0.00 $16.34 $0.00 Public Assistance - Homemaker Services $8,736,051 3 596,000 $14.66 $14.66 $0.00 $14.66 $0.00 HAS - Indochinese Refugee Program $40,000 3 596,000 $0.07 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07 $0.00 Public Assistance - Temp Homeless Shelter $659,632 3 596,000 $1.11 $1.11 $0.00 $1.11 $0.00 Public Assistance - General Relief $3,603,756 3 596,000 $6.05 $6.05 $0.00 $6.05 $0.00 Burials $28,500 3 596,000 $0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05 $0.00 Veterans Service Office $300,865 3 596,000 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 $0.50 $0.00 Mary Graham Children's Shelter $4,931,385 3 596,000 $8.27 $8.27 $0.00 $8.27 $0.00 Community Services $189,449 3 596,000 $0.32 $0.32 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 Aging & Community Services $7,893,595 3 596,000 $13.24 $13.24 $0.00 $13.24 $0.00 Prepared by EPS 12542 S0/ Cans A4aler Expeneeums 31312003 I■ f• tits awn .ammo .� _.. DRAFT Figure C-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas - All Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services PMered by EPS 12542 S01 Cons Model Expendlfums Yialwo3 FY 2002-03 Residents or Average Adj, Incremental Base Multi iier Adopted Allocation Persons Net County incorporated Area Unincorporated Area BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY County Budget Method Served Cost Multiplier Resident Employee Resident Empl !17 121,131 131 Subtotal Public Assistance $248,035,335 3 596,000 $416.17 $416.17 $0.00 $416.17 $0.00 Less Offsetting Revenues -$228,663,775 3 596,000 -$383.66 -$383.66 $0.00 -$383.66 $0.00 Net Total Public Assistance $19,371,960 $32.50 $3Z.50 $0.00 $32.50 $0.00 EDUCATION Base Yr 02-03 Library Administrative Services $1 !6,081 5 282,800 $0.41 $0.41 $0.00 $0.41 $0.00 Cooperative Extension $357,674 2 143,872 $2.49 $0.00 $0.00 $2.49 $0.62 Subtotal Education $473,735 $0.41 $0.00 $2.90 $0.62 Less Offsetting Revenue $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Net Total Education $473,735 $0.41 $0.00 $2.90 $0.62 RECREATION Base Yr 02-03 Parks & Recreation $3,172,928 3 596,000 $5.32 $5.32 $0.00 $5.32 $0.00 Cultural Services $148,622 3 596.000 $0.25 $0.25 $0.00 $0.25 $0.00 Subtotal Parks & Recreation $3,321,550 3 596,000 $5.57 $5.57 $0.00 $5.57 $0.00 Less Offsetting Revenue -$952,288 3 596,000 -$1.60 -$1.60 $0.00 -$1.60 $0.00 Net Total Parks & Recreation $2,369,262 $3.98 $3.98 $0.00 $3.98 $0.00 PUBLIC WAYS & FACILITIES Base Yr 02-03 Road & Airport Contributions $863,234 2 143,872 $6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6.00 $1.50 Subtotal Roads & Facilities $863,Mli $0.00 $0.00 $6.00 $1.50 PMered by EPS 12542 S01 Cons Model Expendlfums Yialwo3 ■ !11• r � � � � -^ --- DRA. 'T ' j Figure C-4 San Joaquin Annexation Tax Sharing Agreement Countywide Sphere of Influence Areas -All Cities County Cost of Providing General Fund Services BUDGET UNITS BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY FY 2002-03 Adopted County Budget Residents or Average Adj. Allocation Persons Net County Method Served Cost Multiplier Incremental Base Multiplier Incorporated Area Unincorporated Area Resident Em to Resident Employee V1 121.[31 131 COUNTY TOTAL - GENERAL FUND Less Offsetting Revenue NET COUNTY TOTAL • GENERAL FUND $551,682,989 ($370,572,209) $18191100780 $849.49 $65.68 $1,031.77 $117.57 4606.62 420.72 4603.24 426.19 $242.87 $44.96 $428.53 $91.38 muJlipliers` ]1] Adopted County Budget by Function and Activity is from Figure C-4. y (2] Allocation Methods Include: n, Method FY91-92 FY85-96 FY 2002-03 f," 1 Countywide Persons Served 594,750 633,200 650,359 2 Unincorporated Persons Served 148,500 151,150 143,872 3 Countywide Population 503,400 539,000 596,000 4 Unincorporated Population 127,400 129,400 133,000 5 Other Method (See Note 3 for description) (3] Library costs were allocated to all County reskients except for residents of Stockton and Lodi which have their own libraries. Sources: County of San Joaquin financial documents, San Joaquin County Administrator's Office, and EPS. Prepared by EPS . 12542 SOI Cons Model Erpea*wes 311312oo3