|
Draft Memorandum July 25, 2013
<br /> EPSP Infrastructure Feasibility Analysis Page 6
<br /> Table 3 - Cost/Value Ratio and Tax Burden Feasibility Summary
<br /> Option
<br /> Item 1 4 5 6
<br /> Cost/Value Ratio Test
<br /> Infrastructure Costs(rounded)
<br /> Backbone Infrastructure $61,471,000 $63,312,000 $61,138,000 $62,087,000
<br /> Off-Site Utility Improvements' $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
<br /> Potential Relocation of OSC and TS $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000
<br /> Fees and Connection Charges' 5115.587,450 5143.241.954 $134287264 $186.124258
<br /> Total Infrastructure Cost Burden $192,058,450 $211,553,954 $211,025,864 $263,211,558
<br /> Development Value $1,111,711,000 $1,159,306,000 $1,215,029,000 $1,646,179,000
<br /> Infrastructure Cost/Value Ratio 17.3% 18.2% 17.4% 16.0%
<br /> Tax Burden Threshold Test
<br /> CFD Bond Proceeds and Issuance Costa $69,794,550 $71,727,600 $69,444,900 $70,441,350
<br /> Proceeds Required for Annual Debt Service4 $6,334,302 $6,509,738 $6,302,569 $6,393,003
<br /> Debt Coverage Factor 120% 120% 120% 120%
<br /> Special Tax Revenue Required(Annual) $7,601,162 $7,811,686 $7,563,083 $7,671,604
<br /> Potential Special Tax(%of Development Value) 0.68% 0.67% 0.62% 0.97%
<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 /> 2 Include water,wastewater,impervious surface,public facilities,traffic development,Tri-valley Transportation Committee, school,park dedication,
<br /> and GIS fees based on the City's January 2013 fee schedule.
<br /> 3 Assumes a Community Facilities District bond(CFD)is used to cover backbone and off-site infrastructure,but not fees(bond issuance costs
<br /> assumed at 5 percent of bond value).
<br /> 4 Assumes an Interest rate 6.5%for a 20-year term.
<br /> Source: Kier&Wright Civil Engineers Surveyors and EPS.
<br /> Given that some product values may not be realized due to the negative residual land values,
<br /> EPS also conducted a sensitivity test with these uses excluded. These results are shown in
<br /> Table 4. While this feasibility sensitivity supports option 6 as the most feasible, it highlights the
<br /> broader feasibility challenge to the extent that development would not fully materialize.
<br /> P:t 121000U21090Easrleasanron\Reporttlnfrasbuc ture Burden Memorandumt121090_Infra_mm3_072413.door
<br />
|