|
Draft Memorandum July 25, 2013
<br /> EPSP Infrastructure Feasibility Analysis Page 5
<br /> Table 2 - Land Value Test Feasibility Summary
<br /> Option
<br /> Item 1 4 5 6
<br /> Infrastructure Costs(rounded)
<br /> Backbone Infrastructure $61,471,000 $63,312,000 $62,087,000 $62,087,000
<br /> Off-Site Improvements' $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
<br /> Potential Relocation of OSC and TS2 $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000
<br /> Predevelopment/Developer Return3 $19,117,750 $17,078,000 $19,271,750 $19.271.750
<br /> Total Infrastructure Cost Burden $95,588,750 $85,390,000 $96,358,750 $96,358,750
<br /> Improved Residual Land Value $160,077,772 $190,424,938 $181,386,172 $312,751,138
<br /> Raw Land Value $64,489,022 $105,034,938 $85,027,422 $216,392,388
<br /> Land Value(per acre) $158,840 $258,707 $209,427 $532,986
<br /> 'Reflects a conservative"place-holder"assumption of$4 million to cover any upgrades to recycled water exchange program to attain required
<br /> water supply and$1 million to cover Stanley Boulevard frontage cost to County and any additional off-site improvements that may be necessary.
<br /> 'This assumption will be refined once the actual relocation cost is determined;does not include land value.
<br /> 'Assumed at 25 percent of the backbone infrastructure and off-site utility improvement costs;excludes land acquisition costs.This return
<br /> reflects various development risks,including City growth management,unforeseen infrastructure expenses,and changes in
<br /> land values,among others.
<br /> Source: Kier&Wright Civil Engineers Surveyors and EPS.
<br /> As shown in Table 2, resulting raw land value ranges between $155,000 and $535,000 per acre.
<br /> Land values are highly variable and subject to a number of site-specific and market factors.
<br /> Based on EPS research and input from developer and real estate professionals active in the Tri-
<br /> Valley, a raw unimproved but entitled land is likely to range between $100,000 and $300,000
<br /> per acre, as shown in Appendix A. As a result, this feasibility test suggests that development
<br /> option 6 and 7 could justify a development investment, while options 4 and 5 are marginally
<br /> feasible3. Development option 1 appears to be the least feasible.
<br /> In addition, EPS has assessed project-wide feasibility based on the more general infrastructure
<br /> cost-to-value test utilized in previous analysis, as summarized in Table 3. This analysis
<br /> generally supports the relative feasibility ranking described above with option 6 resulting in the
<br /> strongest feasibility prospects, while other options fall within the marginal feasibility range (these
<br /> infrastructure feasibility tests have not yet been conducted on option 7).
<br /> 3 An analysis for Option 7 is included in Appendix B.
<br /> P:\1210001121090EastPleasanton\ReportUnnasnucture Burden Memorandum1121090_Intr mm3_072413.docx
<br />
|