City of Roseville Community Facilities Districts. February 13, 2018

Similar documents
New Home Tax Disclosure Report

WEST ROSEVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN WESTPARK COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2 (PUBLIC SERVICES)

SPECIAL TAX AND BOND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

Administration Report Fiscal Year 2016/2017. Hesperia Unified School District Community Facilities District No June 20, 2016.

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.

EXHIBIT B COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO (NORTH VINEYARD STATION NO. 1)

Treasure Island Development Program

NORTH POINTE SPECIFIC PLAN RIPON, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN

TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

SECOND AMENDED RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO

TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ORDINANCE

SPECIAL TAX AND BOND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

REPORT OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CFD NO (West Lake Elsinore Public Improvements)

Community Facilities District Report. Jurupa Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 13. September 14, 2015

CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF A SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO OF THE TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3 (SEABRIDGE AT MANDALAY BAY) OF THE CITY OF OXNARD

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

REPORT OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CFD 98-1 (Summerhill Public Improvements) Fiscal Year

Goals and Policies Concerning Use of MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982

REPORT OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CFD (Rosetta Canyon Public Improvements) Fiscal Year

FINDINGS OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FEASIBILITY

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

An Introduction to Community Facilities District Financing. City of Dixon City Council Workshop May 29, 2013

2011 ANNUAL REPORT. 1. The Audited Financial Statements of the Capistrano Unified School District June 30, 2011.

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 4 - MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

GREENBRIAR PROJECT PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN. May 9, Prepared for: INTEGRAL COMMUNITIES

REPORT OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CFD 91-2 (Summerhill Public Improvements) Fiscal Year

REPORT OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE

CALIFORNIA TAX DISCLOSURE REPORT

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. Community Facilities District #1. As of July 2017

Table of Contents. Sections. Tables. Appendices

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO (OJAI)

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CITY OF MENIFEE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

CHICO/CARD AREA PARK FEE NEXUS STUDY

I i. Attachment E Proposed Plan of Finance For New Hall. Prepared by the Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG) and I ~ KNN Public Finance. i j !

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES October 2018

CHAPTER V: IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

CHAPTER 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN

STAFF REPORT. Mike Webb, Director of Community Development & Sustainability. Cannery Request for Community Facilities District (CFD) Formation

2 Treasure Island Development Program Up to 8,000 homes (25% Affordable) New Streets, utility infrastructure, geotechnical improvements 300 acres Open

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3928

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1154

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve the agenda Motion Second Vote

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM. Office: (916) Gibson Drive, Suite 260, Roseville, CA 95678

City Council Report. 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA File ID: October 23, 2018 Consent Item 02

Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1. Feasibility Report Special Assessment Bonds (Assessment Area One)

ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND DISCLOSURE REPORT

CITY OF PAIMDALE REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE CITY MANAGER. DATE: January 9, 2013

CORDOVA RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT MEASURE J

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET & FISCAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS

City of Palo Alto (ID # 3972) City Council Staff Report

Debt Service Requirements

City of Watsonville Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

City of Stockton. Legislation Text AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 AND 509 WEST WEBER AVENUE

Community Development Districts (CDDs)

Drainage Impact Fee AB 1600 Nexus Study Update to the Thermalito Master Drainage Plan

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3992

CITY OF MODESTO. 1) Introduction.

County of El Dorado CFD Series 2002 and 2005 Special Tax Bonds. Continuing Disclosure Annual Report. Fiscal Year Ending: June 30, 2014

Capital Revenue Projections Presented to the Finance Committee May 31, 2008

SOUTH DAVIS METRO FIRE AGENCY FIRE IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN (IFFP) AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS (IFA)

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3968

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

VAN BUREN SEWER PROJECT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING APRIL 20, 2017

EXHIBIT C. Assessor s Parcel or Parcel means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor s Parcel number.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council as follows:

4. Parks and Recreation Fee Facility Needs and Cost Estimates Fee Calculation Nexus Findings 24

Understanding Mississippi Property Taxes

CHAPTER IV IMPLEMENTATION

HANSFORD ECONOMIC CONSULTING

Current Projects Detail

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 5 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10

The New Housing Market and its Effect on Infrastructure Financing Capacity

Treasure Island Development Authority

FINAL ENGINEER S REPORT FOR. OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (Golden Valley Ranch) Fiscal Year

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3970

Development Opportunity: Priority Development Site

Metropolitan Council. Item: Meeting date: December 11, 2013

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE EXECUTIVE OFFICE

CASTROVILLE COMMUNITY PLAN - FINANCING COMMUNITY PLAN IMPROVEMENTS

OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE


RESOLUTION NO Adopted by the Sacramento City Council. April 14, 2015

CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT FISCAL YEAR

RESOLUTION NO Adopted by the Sacramento City Council. December 11, 2018

FIDDYMENT RANCH ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA. Land Available for Sale ±5.30 Acre Lot $1,847,000 Zoned Community Commercial

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS. Page. Major Debt Service Fund:

RESOLUTION NUMBER 4779

Fiscal Year 2017 BUDGET

Volusia County Public Information Presentation Thoroughfare Road Impact Fee

Texas Municipal Utility Districts: An Infrastructure Financing System

CITY OF OAKLAND COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

4.1 Overview. 4.2 Land Use Plan

Palm Beach County FY 2018 Proposed Budget

Transcription:

City of Roseville Community Facilities Districts February 13, 2018

Council Policies 1. New growth areas must be fiscally neutral at buildout 2. New growth areas cannot rely on existing general fund for services 3. New growth areas require special taxes and impact fees to ensure the above requirements are met and ensure they are able to fund services equal to existing city

Financing Options 1. Impact Fees Fund City Facilities 2. Developer Contributions Fund Project Specific Improvements 3. Backbone Infrastructure CFD #1 & CFD #5 4. Operational CFDs a. CFD#2 maintenance within WRSP b. CFD #3 offset citywide general fund costs (Police, Fire, Parks, etc.)

Impact Fees Two Types of Impact Fees 1. Citywide and Regional (Nexus Fees) 2. Development Agreement (negotiated) Citywide and regional fees are assessed to all new development 1. Funds expansion and construction of City and Regional facilities Development agreement fees designed to fund specific projects or add value to community 1. WRSP Blue Oaks Fee 2. SPA 3 Downtown Benefit Fee 3. NRSP 2 Traffic Benefit Fee 4. SVSP, Westbrook, Creekview Placer Parkway Fee

CFD Formation Authorized facilities identified Bond capacity determined Costs allocated to large lots to repay bond debt Think of it as a 2 nd mortgage Example $80M CFD

Fiddyment Ranch CFD #1 Bond debt prior to refinancing was $71.5M Bond debt after refinancing was $64.4M Tax levy ends in 2036 $45.8M

Fiddyment Ranch CFD #5 (SPA 3) Authorized $75M in bonds Paid off CFD #1 debt of $18.6M Current debt as of 2017 = $23.8M Tax levy ends in 2047 CFD #1 debt of $45.8M SPA 3 (CFD #5) Paid CFD #1 $18.6M CFD #5 debt of $23.8M

Roseville Receives Small Portion of Property Tax California approximate property tax rate: 1% Roseville receives 15% of the 1% paid Approximate value of all property in Roseville: $27.7B Property tax receipts generated: $277M Roseville receives: $42M

$750 Typical Household Property Tax to Roseville Assume an average house value in Roseville is valued at $500,000 This generates $5,000 in property tax Roseville receives $750

Roseville Receives Small Portion of Sales Tax 7.25% sales tax rate in Roseville - The state minimum Roseville receives 1 of the 7.25 paid per dollar spent - Majority goes to State and County Approximate annual taxable sales in Roseville: $5.4B Sales tax generated: $392M Roseville receives: $54M

$138 Typical Household Sales Tax to Roseville Roseville typical household spending About $80,000 annual household income About 23% of income, or $18,400 spent on taxable items About 75% of the taxable spending, or $13,800 is spent in the City This generates $1,001 in sales tax in the City Roseville receives $138

$888 Typical Household Taxes to Roseville The combined tax receipts received by the City of Roseville by a typical residence: Sales Tax: $138 Property Tax: $750 Total Tax $888

Shortfall of Household Taxes to Service Costs Assumptions: $100M sales tax and property tax received by Roseville 136,000 residents 2.54 residents per household Cost of city services funded by taxes: $1,867 Tax income received from WRSP = $888 per household WRSP shortfall in funding costs of services: $979 per household

How is WRSP Shortfall Funded CFD #2 Funds neighborhood parks, open space and corridors in WRSP CFD #3 Funds shortfall for all other general fund costs including Public Safety, Street Maintenance, Development Services and General Government

Fiddyment Ranch CFD No. 1 (Public Facilities) District formation: September 15, 2004 Bonded District Final Maturity on Series 2017 bonds: September 1, 2036 No additional obligations other than the current bonds issued so this levy will end in 2036. Bonds issued to finance the acquisition and construction on certain public facilities Budget used to pay the debt service (Principal/Interest) of the bonds issued and any associated administrative costs. Cannot be levied over the Max Tax (annual inflator on the max tax of 2%/year)

Fiddyment Ranch CFD No. 5 (Public Facilities) District formation: March 16, 2016 Bonded District Final Maturity on Series 2017 bonds: September 1, 2047 Bonds issued to finance the acquisition and construction on certain public facilities Budget used to pay the debt service (Principal/Interest) of the bonds issued and any associated administrative costs. Cannot be levied over the Max Tax (annual inflator on the max tax of 2%/year)

Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 Max Tax District Land use Large Lot Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 FY16-17 Max tax per unit* FY17-18 Max tax per unit* (2% inflation/yr) Max Tax per unit FY35-36 F-1A&B, F-2 through 4, LDR (Phase 1) F-5A&B $1,648.72 $1,681.68 $2,401.85 LDR (Phase 2) F-14A through F-14D $1,665.16 $1,698.46 $2,425.82 LDR (Phase 2) Developed Large Lots F-9A, F-15A, F-15B, F-15C, F-16A, F-16B; Classified as small lots still not developed: F-7, F-8,F-9BCD, 11, 12, F-19A and F19-B $1,722.58 $1,757.02 $2,509.46 $1,847.58 and $1,892.51 $1,268.24 and $1,293.60 and MDR (Phase 1) F-17 and F-23 $1,325.06 $1,351.56 HDR F-25&26 $662.52 $675.78 $965.18 *When a CFD is formed there is a certain amount of maximum tax assigned to each Large Lot in the District. When a Lot subdivides, our administrator has to keep the total maximum tax by Large Lot intact (per the Rate and Method of Apportionment). So if more parcels are added then what they had originally provided when the Rate and Method of Apportionment ( RMA ) was written, then this max tax will be lower per unit. If it has less parcels than what shows on the RMA, then the opposite effect would occur, and there would be a higher max tax/unit in order to keep the total maximum tax for each Large Lot (after inflation per year is applied) intact.

Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 Max Tax Land use (phases 2 District and 3) Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 (Base year max tax LDR $1,688.80 set in FY2015-16) Large Lot F-13B1, F-13B2 FY16-17 Max tax per unit No levy but max tax for FY would have been equivalent to $1,722.58/unit FY17-18 Max tax per unit (2% inflation/yr)* Various Undeveloped lots - $3,690,060.27 Max Tax FY46-47 $1,757.02 *First year of levy $3,120.21/unit

Side by Side Comparison CFD 1 and CFD 5 FY2015-16 Assigned Special Tax Land Use Class Low Density Residential CFD No. 1 Assigned Special Tax $1,688.80 per Residential Unit CFD No. 5 Assigned Special Tax $1,688.80 per Residential Unit Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Affordable Units $1,299.08 per Residential Unit $649.54 per Residential Unit $324.77 per Residential Unit $1,299.08 per Residential Unit $649.54 per Residential Unit $324.77 per Residential Unit Non-Residential $6,495.39 per Acre $6,495.39 per Acre (Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 Base Year:FY2015/16)

Fiddyment Ranch CFD 2 (Public Services) District formation: September 15, 2004 No bonds issued-goes on in perpetuity Budget used for any authorized services as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council when the CFD was formed. Services are necessary to meet increased demands for such services placed upon local agencies as the result of development occurring within the area of the CFD Cannot be levied over the Max Tax (annual inflator on the max tax of 4%/year)

Westpark CFD 1 (Public Facilities) District formation: September 15, 2004 Bonded District Final Maturity on Series 2015 bonds: September 1, 2037 Bonds issued to finance the acquisition and construction on certain public facilities Budget used to pay the debt service (Principal/Interest) of the bonds issued and any associated administrative costs. Cannot be levied over the Max Tax (annual inflator on the max tax of 2%/year)

Westpark CFD 2 (Public Services) District formation: September 15, 2004 No bonds issued-goes on in perpetuity Budget used for any authorized services as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council when the CFD was formed. Services are necessary to meet increased demands for such services placed upon local agencies as the result of development occurring within the area of the CFD Cannot be levied over the Max Tax (annual inflator on the max tax of 4%/year)

CFD 3, Municipal Services District District formation: September 15, 2004 No bonds issued-goes on in perpetuity Budget used for any authorized services as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council when the CFD was formed.

CFD 3, Municipal Services District Funds do not get allocated to other agencies Was formed as a DA requirement in order to offset the impact the buildout of WRSP was going to have on municipal services (General Fund). The list of authorized services provides a guideline of how the funds can be allocated. Can locate the list of authorized services on our City website. City of Roseville/ Government / Departments & Divisions / Finance / Special Taxes & Assessments / Mello Roos Services Districts/ Service Districts Document Library

Infrastructure Financing As mentioned in previous slides, the West Plan has three Public Facilities Districts: Fiddyment CFD 1 - $69,409,646 in bonds proceeds issued for infrastructure Fiddyment CFD 5 - $5,997,465 in bonds proceeds issued for infrastructure Westpark CFD 1 - $68,909,959 in bonds proceeds issued for infrastructure

Infrastructure Financing Each Public Facilities District has a list of Authorized Facilities that can be reimbursed by the bond proceeds Developers submit bond draw requests to Finance/Engineering when the Authorized Facilities are constructed The next two slides account for the bonds draws submitted and amounts owed to the developers or remaining for use by the developers, through current day

Infrastructure Bond Draws Part 1 Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 Phase 1 Bonds Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 Phase 2 Bonds Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 Westpark CFD 1 Phase 1 Bonds Westpark CFD 1 Phase 2 Bonds Bond Proceeds $ 31,015,032.67 $ 38,394,613.19 $ 5,997,464.68 $ 48,135,105.00 $ 20,774,854.00 Draw 1 (2,442,566.55) (4,025,872.49) (175,700.26) (7,741,864.19) Draw 2 (4,410,626.00) (3,117,553.53) (252,981.88) (4,550,924.16) Draw 3 (5,082,482.00) (1,564,971.10) (1,500,933.10) (2,758,274.95) Draw 4 (2,978,670.00) (1,654,818.51) (806,062.97) (4,161,306.66) Draw 5 (5,021,529.79) (2,275,462.27) (287,823.47) (3,671,764.02) Draw 6 (851,817.17) (694,742.34) (2,298,995.37) Draw 7 (807,409.30) (4,129,988.51) (1,703,634.77) Draw 8 (1,523,323.59) (730,358.14) Draw 9 (1,017,218.22) (363,948.78) (2,572,732.99) Draw 10 (1,241,542.03) (3,253,328.28) (1,688,270.00) Draw 11 (1,428,923.51) (1,798,770.91) Draw 12 (1,106,536.41) (126,999.83) (1,023,464.13) Draw 13 (854,241.98) (1,490,262.97) (3,162,955.45) Draw 14 (4,607,231.21) (1,447,634.04) Draw 15 (899,486.07) (1,678,679.89) (4,791,675.09) Draw 16 (1,920,344.53) (775,493.32) (5,445,235.15) (2,582,678.65) Draw 17 (396,457.11) (4,179,039.17) Draw 18 (820,787.18) (2,302,256.07) Draw 19 (2,271,521.84) (500,100.27) Draw 20 (527,298.36) (2,258,466.56)

Infrastructure Bond Draws Part 2 Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 Phase 1 Bonds Fiddyment Ranch CFD 1 Phase 2 Bonds Fiddyment Ranch CFD 5 Westpark CFD 1 Phase 1 Bonds Westpark CFD 1 Phase 2 Bonds Draw 21 (186,539.15) (1,704,363.95) Draw 22 (278,138.67) Draw 23 (223,683.98) (1,131,304.70) Draw 24 (173,937.83) (833,012.56) Draw 25 (646,232.06) (421,718.23) Draw 26 (147,025.52) (10,728.50) Draw 27 (163,623.89) (108,690.00) Draw 28 (656,982.92) (131,700.20) Draw 29 (189,140.64) Draw 30 (96,091.89) (629,162.61) Draw 31 (445,404.01) (2,485,936.93) Draw 32 (1,987,991.92) (1,046,649.96) Draw 33 (335,300.00) (124,602.83) Draw 34 (123,169.65) Draw 35 (804,101.64) Draw 36 (514,830.47) Draw 37 (3,883,277.74) Draw 38 (609,926.97) Draw 39 (7,325,669.94) Draw 40 (5,982,823.59) $ (571,684.48) $ (443,617.50) $ 2,973,963.00 $ (1,412,755.02) $ (19,386,636.50)

Property Tax bill examples Fiddyment Ranch Stone Point Hartsfield Way (Roseville) (Roseville) (Lincoln) Est. taxable value $469,098 Est. taxable value $483,512 Est. taxable value $431,010 Ad Valorem Ad Valorem Ad Valorem General Ad Valorem 4,691 General Ad Valorem 4,835 General Ad Valorem 4,310 Roseville Elem 1 Roseville Elem 1 W Placer Unified B&I 117 Roseville Elem 53 Roseville Elem 54 W Placer Unified B&I 55 Roseville Elem 65 Roseville High 67 W Placer Unified B&I 7 Roseville High 5 Roseville High 5 W Placer Unified B&I 7 Roseville High 105 Roseville High 109 Roseville High 5 Roseville High 71 Roseville High 53 Roseville High 99 Roseville High 69 Total Ad Valorem 5,147 Total Ad Valorem 5,143 Total Ad Valorem 4,496 Direct Direct Direct Placer Mosquito 28 Placer Mosquito 28 Placer Mosquito 28 Fiddyment Ranch CFD1 1,682 Stone Point CFD 1 530 City of Lincoln CFD 11998-1 203 Fiddyment Ranch CFD2, Public Services 606 Stone Point CFD 2, Public Services 148 City of Lincoln CFD 2006-1 2,238 CFD3, Municipal Services 423 Stone Point CFD 4, Public Services 303 City of Lincoln LLD 346 Stone Point CFD 5 1,780 CFD3, Municipal Services 423 Olympus Pointe LLD 213 Total Direct Charges $2,739 Total Direct Charges $3,425 Total Direct Charges $2,816 Annual Total $7,886 $8,567 $7,312 Overall Tax Burden (FY2017-2018) 1.68% 1.77% 1.70%