City of Lafayette Staff Report
For:
City Council
Redevelopment Agency Board
Planning Commission
By:
Ann Merideth, Community Development Director
Date Written:
February 2, 2010
Meeting Date:
February 8, 2010
Subject:
Presentation by Libby Seifel of the "Draft Downtown Lafayette
Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis" and progress
report on financial feasibility analysis
Summary
As part of the scope of the environmental analysis of the Downtown Specific Plan, the
Agency Board approved in August 2009, the preparation of an economic and fiscal
impact analysis as a companion document to the environmental impact report. The Board
subsequently approved in December a separate scope of work for the preparation of a
financial feasibility analysis of the Specific Plan.
Libby Seifel of Seifel Consulting, Inc. will present the draft findings of the economic and
fiscal analysis. Ms. Seifel also will present a short progress report on the financial
feasibility analysis.
Recommendation
Discuss and direct staff.
Attachment
"Draft Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan and Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis" -
February 2010
DRAFT
Downtown Lafayette Specific PDan
Economic and FiscaH mpact Ana'ysis
Prepared for:
City
of Lafayette
February 2010
Seifel
CONSUtTING INC.
221 Main Street
Suite 420
San Francisco CA
94105
415.6180700
fax 415.618.0707
www,seifetconi
Ontroducflon and Project Background
In December 2006, the City began a process to prepare a Specific Plan for the downtown that will
guide its development for the next 20 years. This community-based process has encompassed a
citizens advisory committee, a community-wide survey, several workshops, articles in the City's
newsletter, and numerous public meetings. Several alternative land use alternatives have been
developed through this process, and they are culTently being evaluated as part of the
environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
As part of this process, the City retained Seifel Consulting Inc. (Seifel) to analyze and compare
the following key economic and fiscal impacts from the four alternative land use scenarios
analyzed in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
o
Employment generation
o
Sales tax, property tax and development impact fee revenues
Costs of capital improvements and maintenance
This technical report presents the methodology, assumptions and findings from this analysis, and
it is organized as follows:
I.
Introduction and Project Background
II.
Summary of Findings
III.
Methodology
IV.
Projected Employment Generation
V.
Fiscal Revenues
VI.
Capital and Maintenance Costs
VII.
Conclusion
A technical appendix of tables accompanies this report. In addition, a summary presentation of
Seifel's findings has been prepared and submitted to the City Council for review and discussion
at their February 8, 2010 meeting.
City of Lafayette
1
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
00. Summary of Fnthngs
Seifel worked closely with City staff to evaluate the potential employment and revenue
generation from each of the four land use alternatives described in the FIR. In sunirnary, the four
alternatives include the:
1.
Proposed Project
2.
No Project Alternative, which assumes build-out under the City's existing General Plan
3.
Planning Subcommittee Alternative, which includes slightly less commercial and
residential development than the Proposed Project
4. High Density Alternative, which is based on the Draft Lafayette Downtown Strategy and
Specific Plan that was released for public review in January 2009, and contains about
35
percent more residential and commercial development than the Proposed Project
For each alternative, Seifel projected the construction jobs that would be generated as new
development occurred, as well as the number of permanent jobs that could be created once new
development is fully built out. Similarly for revenues, one-time revenues (development impact
fees and construction related sales tax) are projected based on the total amount of revenues that
would occur from new development over the build out period while ongoing revenues (property
taxes and sales taxes) are projected based on full build out. This enables a consistent comparison
of the fiscal and economic impacts of the alternatives.
A.
Employment Generation
Future development in the Downtown will generate both one-time construction jobs and ongoing
permanent employment from new commercial businesses. Graph 1 compares the potential
employment generation from the four development alternatives. Over the development build out
period, between 1,330 and 3,860 construction jobs are anticipated to be created, or about 67 to
129 jobs per year.' Between 900 and 1,590 permanentjobs are projected to be created from new
commercial development at build out under the different development alternatives. Table 1
compares the ratio ofjobs projected to be created by the Proposed Project and the other
alternatives with the General Plan alternative.
The development build out period for the General Plan is assumed to be 20 years, while build out for the other three
alternatives is assumed to be 30 years.
City of Lafayette
2
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Graph I
Summary of Employment Impacts at Build-out
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
4,500
4,000
3,500
"1
2,500
. 2,000
a
1,500
1,000
500
0
1,800
1,600
1,400
1 200
'
1,000
800
a
600
400
200
0
Construction Jobs
Permanent Jobs
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
3
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Proposed Project
Alternative 1 -
Alternative 2 -
Alternative 3
General Plan
Planning
High Density
Subcommittee
Proposed Project
Alternative 1 -
Alternative 2 -
Alternative 3 -
General Plan
Planning
High Density
Subcommittee
Table I
Comparison of Construction and Permanent Jobs
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
_________________________________
One-time
Jobs
% of GP
Build-out
Ongoing
Jobs
% of GP
Build-out
Proposed Project
2,830
213%
1,170
130%
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
1,330
100%
900
100%
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
2,780
209%
1,140
127%
Alternative 3
-
High Density
3,860
290%
1,590
177%
Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest ten jobs.
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
B.
Revenues
Full build-out of the Downtown under any of the EIR alternatives would generate one-time and
ongoing revenues to the City of Lafayette and its Redevelopment Agency. Development impact
fees and construction related sales tax are one-time revenues that would accrue to the City.
Property taxes and sales taxes are the two major sources of ongoing fiscal revenues.
The City's General Fund will receive one percent of the future taxable retail sales generated from
new development. During the life of the City's redevelopment project area, the Redevelopment
Agency will collect property taxes from the incremental growth in assessed value from properties
located within the Downtown Specific Plan Area, as it is essentially coterminous with the
Redevelopment Project Area. Once the Redevelopment Plan ends, the City's General Fund would
receive the City's share of property taxes.
As shown in Table 2, one-time revenues to the City are projected to range from $20.5 million to
$52.8
million in FY 2009/10 dollars while ongoing revenues to the City are projected to range
from
$1.5
million to $2.6 million in FY 2009/10 dollars at build out. Assuming that the
Redevelopment Plan continues through the build out period of each alternative, the assessed value
of the Project Area could increase from $670 million in FY 2009/10 to between $1.9 billion and
$3.2 billion in FY 2040/4 1, depending on the land use alternative.
Tax increment revenues to the Agency from the increase in assessed value are projected to range
from $351.9 million to $521.4 million in nominal dollars over the next thirty years, depending on
the alternative. As these tax increment revenues would occur over time, future revenues are
discounted at 6 percent per year to translate these future revenues into today's dollars, or constant
FY 2009/10 dollars. As shown in Table 2, tax increment revenues to the Agency are projected to
range from $127.4 million to $173.6 million in constant FY 2009/10 dollars, with the Proposed
Project generating nearly 20 percent more tax increment revenue than the General Plan
alternative. Table 2 compares the revenues from each alternative as a percentage of the projected
revenues that would result from the General Plan alternative.
City of Lafayette
4
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 2
Summary of Fiscal Impacts at Build-out
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
___________
City Revenue?
Agency Revenues"
%ofGP
%ofGP
%ofGP
__________________________________
One-time
Build-out
Ongoing'
Build-out
Total
Build-out
Proposed Project
$38,969,000
190%
$2,102,000
136%
$151,433,000
119%
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
$20,528,000
100%
$1,547,000
100%
$127,349,000
100%
Alternative 2- Planning Subcommittee
$38,312,000
187%
$2,075,000
134%
$150,192,000
118%
Alternative 3
-
High Density
$52,788,000
257%
$2,593,000
168%
$173,637,000
136%
Note: Dollar figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.
a.
Detailed calculation of revenues shown in Tables 4 through 10.
b.
Agency revenues are gross tax increment.
c. The City will receive property tax revenues from development within the Downtown Specific Plan Area after the
redevelopment plan ends, which is assumed to be FY 2040/41 for purposes of this analysis.
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
C.
Capital and Maintenance Costs
The Downtown Specific Plan includes cost estimates for proposed municipal facility
improvements in the Downtown, including a new 200-space structured parking facility, and
streetscape, walkway, park, and creek improvements. The total capital costs for these
improvements, excluding land acquisition costs, is estimated by City staff and the Specific Plan
consultants to be approximately
$63.5
million.
Maintenance costs for these improvements are projected to be about $275,000 per year based on
the following cost factors: structured parking at $100 per space; streetscape improvements at
$1.30 per square foot; park improvements at $1.30 per square foot; and creek improvements at
$16,500 per acre.
Based on the parking analysis presented in this report, the Proposed Project would require a
350-space parking garage, for an additional capital cost of
$2.25
million (excluding land
acquisition costs), and the High Density alternative would require a 450-space parking garage at
an additional capital cost of $3.75 million. Given the higher amount of parking, maintenance
costs for the Proposed Project are projected to be an additional $150,000 per year, or a total
annual cost of $425,000, while maintenance costs for High Density alternative would be an
additional $250,000 per year.
Ill.
Methodology
This section describes the development alternatives and the methodology used to project the
fiscal and employment impacts resulting from each of the four alternatives. Refer to Appendix
Tables A- 1 and A-2 for a summaiy of the development assumptions.
A.
Development Alternatives
The City and Design Community and Environment (DC&E), its EIR consultant, prepared four
illustrative development alternatives for the Plan as part of the FIR. Projected new development
City of Lafayette
5
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
under these alternatives consists of mixed-use buildings on several sites throughout the Plan area.
All four of the alternatives assume the same development footprint, and differ primarily in the
height of the buildings that allows for different development intensity. The alternatives are
described in detail below.
While the EIR assumes 1,000 square feet per unit to provide a conservative estimate of the
potential environmental impact of development, particularly from a traffic generation standpoint,
this analysis assumes 1,200 square feet per unit, in order to more conservatively estimate the
potential level of employment and revenue generation from future residential development. Thus,
the number of residential units presented in this report for each land use altemative is less than
the projected number of units presented in the EIR. The 1,200 square foot unit size is reflective of
typical condominium and townhouse developments in Bay Area suburban communities.
1.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project includes 180,000 square feet of new commercial retail space,
180,000 square feet of new commercial office space, and 1,471 new residential units, assuming
1,200 square feet per unit. Build out is projected to occur over thirty years, beginning in
FY 2010/11. Refer to Appendix Table B-i for the projected development schedule.2
2.
Alternative I
-
General Plan
The General Plan alternative assumes only the development allowed under the current General
Plan would occur. This alternative includes 138,000 square feet of new retail space, 138,000
square feet of new office space, and 608 new residential units. Build out is projected to occur
over twenty years. Refer to Appendix Table B-2 for the projected development schedule.
3.
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
The Planning Subcommittee alternative is slightly lower in development intensity than the
Proposed Project. This alternative includes 175,000 square feet of new retail space, 175,000
square feet of new office space, and 1,450 new residential units. Build out is projected to occur
over thirty years. Refer to Appendix Table B-3 for the projected development schedule.
4.
Alternative 3
-
High Density
The High Density alternative contemplates a higher development intensity than the
Proposed Project. This alternative includes 245,000 square feet of new retail space, 245,000
square feet of new office space, and 2,008 new residential units. Build out is projected to occur
over thirty years. Refer to Appendix Table B-4 for the projected development schedule.
Table 3 presents a summaiy of the development programs for the alternatives.
2 The development schedule for all build-out alternatives assumes that construction is completed one year prior to the
year the assessed value from the new development appears on the assessment roll schedule.
City of Lafayette
6
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 3
Summary of Development Alternatives
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic Impact Analysis
Development_Program
Residential
____________________________________________
Office (SF)
Retail (SF)
(Units)'
Proposed Project
180,000
180,000
1,471
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
138,000
138,000
608
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
175,000
175,000
1,450
Alternative 3
-
High Density
245,000
245,000
2,008
a. The number of housing units in this analysis differs from the number of units in the EIR. The EIR
assumes 1,000 square feet per housing unit to provide a conservative estimate of the potential
environmental impact of the development; this analyis assumes 1,200 square feet per housing unit
to provide a conservative estimate of the potential economic impact of the development. The unit
type breakdown is based on development assumptions from DC&E as follows: SF - Detached, 1%
of total units; SF - Attached, 10% of total units; Multifamily, 89% of total units.
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E.
In order to compare alternatives, employment and revenue generation is calculated assuming the
full build out of each alternative as described above. However, based on the projections of
commercial demand prepared by Bay Area Economics for the Specific Plan, and Seifel's review
of potential retail expenditures from new households under each alternative, the City would be
permitting more commercial development than is supportable by new residential development
in Lafayette.3
B.
Employment Generation Analysis
Construction activity and retail/office commercial development in the Downtown would create
both one-time construction related jobs and ongoing jobs. Seifel projected the number of
construction-related jobs at project build-out using assumptions of construction costs and average
wages for construction jobs in Contra Costa County.4 Seifel projected the number of permanent
jobs from development of commercial retail and office uses at build-out using the EIR
assumptions for the number of employees per square foot of commercial development.
BAE's market analysis from 2007 projects that the City of Lafayette can support 100,000 square feet of additional
retail space if 1,100 or more new residential units were to be built, and about 75,000 square feet of office space.
Seifel's preliminary analysis on supportable retail space from new residential development, based on Contra Costa
County household incomes and assumptions of household taxable expenditures and the percent of retail sales
captured by Lafayette, indicates that the General Plan alternative does not allow for sufficient residential
development to support the projected new retail space. While the amount of new residential development in the other
three Specific Plan alternatives would better support the anticipated new retail space, the City of Lafayette will need
to capture substantial sales from the region in order to support this level of commercial development.
Construction-related employment calculated using an average salary of $57,548 for construction and extraction
occupations in Qi 2009 in Contra Costa County, from the California Employment Development Department.
City of Lafayette
7
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
C.
Fiscal Revenue Analysis
Working with City and Agency staff, Seifel prepared a projection of ongoing revenues, including
potential sales tax revenues and tax increment revenues accruing to the City and Agency at full
build out under each of the development alternatives, and a projection of one-time revenues,
including development impact fees to the City and construction-related sales tax.5 Ongoing sales
tax revenues were projected based on an evaluation of taxable retail sales from existing retail uses
in Lafayette and input from City staff regarding potential retail development during build-out.
Construction related sales tax revenues were projected based on an assumed minor percentage of
construction materials purchased in Lafayette. Development impact fees were projected based on
existing City fees and the amount of proposed development. Tax increment and property tax
revenues were projected based on assumptions of development phasing, incremental assessed
value from new development and other factors of assessed value growth.
0.
Capital and Maintenance Cost Analysis
The capital and maintenance cost estimates for proposed municipal facility improvements are
based on the assumptions presented in the September 2009 Revised Draft Downtown Lafayette
Specific Plan. These capital and maintenance cost estimates are adjusted and increased where a
land use alternative is anticipated to need more structured off-site parking than proposed in the
September 2009 Revised Specific Plan.
V. Projected EmpHoyment Generation
Seifel reviewed existing analyses and worked with City staff to prepare a projection of one-time
construction employment and ongoing permanent employment that would result from each of the
alternatives. The projections for construction employment are based on assumptions of
development cost, the percentage of costs attributable to labor (wages) and average wages for
construction-related jobs in Contra Costa County; the projections for ongoing employment are
based on assumptions of the range of square feet per employee for commercial development.
A.
Ongoing Employment
Seifel used EIR estimates for the range of the square feet per employee generated by each
commercial land use to provide a projection of the range of potential ongoing permanent
employment at build-out.6 Seifel projected non-residential employment by dividing the total
square feet for retail and office uses under each alternative by the low and high end of employee
density ranges.
As the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan Area and the Lafayette Redevelopment Area are nearly
cotenninous, and since the City did not elect to receive its share of Tier One statutory pass-through payments from
the Lafayette Redevelopment Area, this analysis presents property tax revenue to the City after the end of the
Redevelopment Plan in FY 2040/41. Tax increment revenues to the Agency at build-out are projected separately, as
shown in Section V.C.2 below.
6
The FIR estimated 200-300 square feet per employee for office uses and 300-500 square feet per employee for
retail uses.
City of Lafayette
8
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 4 shows the range of projected ongoing employment under each alternative. The estimate
of permanent jobs created ranges from 736 to 1,150 under the General Plan alternative, and from
1,307 to 2,042 under the High Density alternative. For the purposes of calculating the summary of
construction and permanent jobs presented in Graph 1 and Table 1, the average square feet per
employee is used, which also corresponds to the midpoint of the range.
Table 4
Permanent Direct Employment at Project Build-out
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Projected Direct Employment
Development
Low
High
______________________________________
Program (SF)
Estimate
Average
Estimate
Proposed Project
Office
180,000
600
720
900
Retail
180,000
360
Total
360,000
960
1,170
1,500
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
Office
138,000
460
552
690
Retail
138.000
216
Total
276,000
736
897
1,150
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
Office
175,000
583
700
875
Retail
175.000
350
421
Total
350,000
933
1,138
1,458
Alternative 3
-
High Density
Office
245,000
817
980
1,225
Retail
245,000
490
613
817
Total
490,000
1,307
1,593
2,042
a. The EIR assumes a range of 200- 300 square feet of office space per employee and 300-500 square feet of
retail space per employee. This analysis presents projected employment based on this range.
Source: DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
B.
One-Time Construction-Related Employment
Seifel projected the total number of one-time construction jobs by estimating the direct
construction costs of each alternative and assuming that 50 percent of these costs would be
attributable to labor. Table 5 shows the direct construction costs and estimated total labor cost for
each of the alternatives.
Using average construction wage information from the California Employment Development
Department for Ql 2009 in Contra Costa County, Seifel estimates that between 1,330 and 3,862
construction jobs would be created, depending on the alternative.7 Assuming that build out would
take place over a thirty-year period, on average between 67 and 129 construction jobs would be
created per year.8 Although other benefits would result from construction activities, indirect
impacts from construction employment have not been included in this analysis. Table 5
summarizes the construction-related direct employment impacts.
Average salary for construction and extraction occupations is $57,548.
Build-out is assumed to be 20 years for the General Plan alternative. If a 30-year build-out were assumed for the
General Plan alternative, average jobs per year would be 44 rather than 67.
City of Lafayette
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 5
Construction-Related Direct Employment Impact
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Projected Construction Costs
Projected Job Generation
Development
Cost Per SF or
Estimated
Jobs Per
_______________________________________
Program
Units
Total Cost
Labor Costt
Total Jobsc
Yeard
Proposed Project
Office
180,000 SF
$145 /SF
$26,100,000
$13,050,000
Retail
180,000 SF
$145 1SF
$26,100,000
$13,050,000
Residentia1
L471 Units
$186.000 /Unit
$273,606,000
$136,803,000
Total
_______________ ______________
$325,806,000
$162,903,000
2.831
94
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
Office
138,000 SF
$145
7SF
$20,010,000
$10,005,000
Retail
138,000 SF
$145
/SF
$20,010,000
$10,005,000
Residentiale
608 Units
$186,000 fUnit
$113,088,000
$56,544,000
Total
________________ _______________
$153,108,000
$76,554,000
1,330
67
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
Office
175,000 SF
$145 /SF
$25,375,000
$12,687,500
Retail
175,000 SF
$145 /SF
$25,375,000
$12,687,500
Residential
1450 Units
$1 86,000 /Unit
$269,700,000
$134,850,000
Total
________________ _______________
$320,450,000
$160,225,000
2,784
93
Alternative 3
-
High Density
Office
245,000 SF
$145 /SF
$35,525,000
$17,762,500
Retail
245,000 SF
$145 /SF
$35,525,000
$17,762,500
Residentiale
2.008 Units
$186,000 IUnit
$373,488,000
$186,744,000
Total
________________ _______________
$444,538,000
$222,269,000
3,862
129
a. Costs are based on the per square foot and average unit cost provided by BAE.
b. Assumes
50%
of construction costs are labor costs (wages).
c.
Construction-related employment calculated using an average salary of $57,548 for construction and extraction occupations in Qi 2009 in Contra Costa County.
d. Total construction period is assumed to be 30 years, except for Alternative 1 (General Plan), which is assumed to be 20 years.
e.
The number of housing units in this analysis differs from the number of units in the EIR. The EIR assumes 1,000 square feet per housing unit to provide a
conservative estimate of the potential environmental impact of the development; this analyis assumes 1,200 square feet per housing unit to provide a
conservative estimate of the potential economic impact of the development.
Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD); Bay Area Economics (BAE); Design, Community & Environment (DC&E); Seifel Consulting Inc
City of Lafayette
10
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
V FscaO Revenues
Fiscal revenues accruing to the City consist of both one-time revenues and ongoing revenues.
Seifel analyzed the three major sources of fiscal revenues that would benefit the City and its
Redevelopment Agency:
o
Sales tax revenues to the City General Fund
o
Development impact fees to the City General Fund
o
Property tax and tax increment revenues to the City and Agency
A.
Sales Tax Revenues to the City General Fund
This analysis estimates ongoing sales tax revenues generated from the proposed retail
development and one-time sales tax revenues from local purchase of materials during
construction. The City of Lafayette collects a one percent sales and use tax from businesses
generating taxable sales within the City.9 Seifel projected annual sales tax revenues accruing to
the City by multiplying the estimated annual taxable retail sales by one percent.'°
1.
Annual Sales Tax Revenues from New Development
Sales tax revenues would be generated by new retail uses located in the Plan area. Taxable retail
sales in Lafayette are estimated based on a weighted average of $307 per square foot in retail
sales, assuming the proposed breakdown of retail business types as shown in Figure 1.11 This
weighted average is assumed to be the same for each alternative, with different total revenue
amounts resulting from the different amounts of retail space proposed under each alternative.
California State Board of Equalization.
10
Taxable sales in Lafayette are estimated at 90 percent of total sales, based on analysis of actual reported taxable retail
sales in Lafayette from the 2009 California Retail Survey.
Weighted average of the dollar amount of sales per square foot for several types of retail businesses multiplied by the
percentage of each type of retail business in Lafayette. The dollar amount of sales per square foot for each retail type
was taken from Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers/The SCORE 2008 published by Urban Land Institute. The
breakdown of retail types in Lafayette is an estimate derived from analysis of actual reported retail sales in Lafayette
in the 2009 California Retail Survey published by Eureka Group and Taxable Sales In California (Sales & Use Tax)
2002 published by the California State Board of Equalization. The Other Retail category in Figure 1 contains several
retail categories found in Lafayette, including general merchandise, auto dealers, and service stations.
City of Lafayette
11
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Figure 1
Proposed Breakdown of Retail Business Types
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appa
Buildiii
Materials
Home
Furnishin
(5%)
Grocery (15%)
Restaurant/Bar
(30%)
Other Retail
(40%)
Source: City of Lafayette, 2009 California Retail Survey, Seifel Consulting Inc.
Table 6 shows the estimated annual sales tax revenue at build-out for each alternative in constant
FY 2009/10 dollars, which ranges between $381,000 and $676,000. As the weighted average is
calculated based on the proposed breakdown of retail business types, Table 6 also includes an
upper and lower bound of plus or minus
$50
from this weighted average to provide an estimate of
how sales tax revenues would differ if the mix of retail uses differs from what is presented above.
For the purposes of presenting a summaiy of sales tax revenue, only the sales tax revenue
resulting from the weighted average was used in calculating the summary of fiscal impacts
presented in Table 2.
2.
One-Time Sales Tax Revenue from Construction Materials
Construction materials purchased within City boundaries would generate one-time sales tax
revenue to the City. This analysis assumes that 50 percent of construction cost is for materials,
and that
5
percent of those construction materials will be purchased in Lafayette.t2 As shown in
Table
7,
estimated one-time sales tax revenue from purchase of construction materials ranges
from approximately $38,000 to $111,000 in constant FY 2009/10 dollars, depending on
the alternative.
t2
One building supply store, Diamond K Supply, is located in Lafayette, but, according to local developers, it
primarily serves home improvement customers and is not likely to be used for large development projects.
City of Lafayette
12
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 6
Annual Retail Sales Tax Generation at Build-out
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
(in Constant FY 2009110 Dollars)
Taxable
Retail Square
Sales
Sales
Total Taxable
Annual Sales
Feet
per SF
per SFb
Sales
Tax Revenue'
Proposed Project
180,000
Upper Bound
$357
$321
$57,771,000
$578,000
Average
$307
$276
$49,671,000
$497,000
Lower Bound
$257
$231
$41,571,000
$416,000
Alternative
1 -
General Plan
__________
138,000
Upper Bound
$357
$321
$44,291,000
$443,000
Average
$307
$276
$38,081,000
$381,000
Lower Bound
$257
$231
$31,871,000
$319,000
Alternative
2 -
Planning Subcommittee
__________
175,000
Upper Bound
$357
$321
$56,166,000
$562,000
Average
$307
$276
$48,291,000
$483,000
Lower Bound
$257
$231
$40,416,000
$404,000
Alternative 3
-
High Density
___________
245,000
Upper Bound
$357
$321
$78,633,000
$786,000
Average
$307
$276
$67,608,000
$676,000
Lower Bound
__________
$257
$231
$56,583,000
$566,000
Note: Total taxable sales and sales tax revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand,
a.
Average sales per SF is a weighted average of the dollar amount of sales per square foot for several retail categories,
based on analysis of the 2008 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers retail study, multiplied by the percentage of each
retail category projected to be developed. Percentage of retail categories is based on analysis of retail sales in Lafayette
in the 2009 California Retail Survey and discussions with City staff. This analysis assumes that all development
alternatives will have the same percentage mix of retail uses. An upper and lower bound of
+1-
$50 from the weighted
average is provided for comparison purposes, as the exact mix of retail uses is unknown.
b.
Assumes 90% of retail sales in Lafayette are taxable, based on analysis of historical retail sales by retail category over
the past five years.
c.
Assumes 1% sales tax rate accruing to the City of Lafayette.
Source: 2009 California Retail Survey, Urban Land Institute 2008 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
13
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 7
Construction-Related One-Time Sales Tax Revenue
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
(in Constant FY 2009/10 Dollars)
Estimated Direct Construction Cost
Sales Tax Revenue
Sales Tax
Total
Material Cost
Revenue
Development
Cost Per SF or
Construction
Total Material Purchased in
Accruing to
______________________________________
Program
Unit'
Cost
Cost"
Lafayette'
Lafayetted
Proposed Project
Office
180,000 SF
$145 /SF
$26,100,000
$13,050,000
Retail
180,000 SF
$145 /SF
$26,100,000
$13,050,000
Residential'
1,471
Units
$186,000 /Unit
$273,606,000
$136,803,000
Total
__________________
_______________
$325,806,000
$162,903,000
____________
$8,145,000
____________
$81,000
Alternative
I
-
General
Plan
Office
138,000 SF
$145
/SF
$20,010,000
$10,005,000
Retail
138,000 SF
$145 /SF
$20,010,000
$10,005,000
Residential'
608
Units
$186,000 /Unit
$113,088,000
$56,544,000
Total
__________________ _______________
$153,108,000
$76,554,000
____________
$3,828,000
____________
$38,000
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
Office
175,000 SF
$145 /SF
$25,375,000
$12,687,500
Retail
175,000 SF
$145 /SF
$25,375,000
$12,687,500
Residential'
1,450
Units
$186,000 /Unit
$269,700,000
$134,850,000
Total
_____
$320,450,000
$160,225,000
____________
$8.01 1,000
____________
$80,000
Alternative 3 - High Density
____________
Office
245,000
SF
$145 /SF
$35,525,000
$17,762,500
Retail
245,000
SF
$145 /SF
$35,525,000
$17,762,500
Residential'
2,008
Units
$186,000 /Unit
$373,488,000
$186,744,000
Total I
_______________
$444,538,000
I
$222,269,000
I
$11,113,000
I
$111,000
Note: Dollar figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.
a. Costs are based on the per square foot and average unit cost provided by BAE.
b.
Assumes 50% of direct construction costs are equipment/material costs.
c. Assumes
5%
of construction material is purchased in the City of Lafayette.
d.
Assumes 1% sales tax rate accruing to the City of Lafayette.
e. The number of housing units in this analysis differs from the number of units in the EIR. The EIR assumes 1,000 square feet per housing unit to provide a
conservative estimate of the potential environmental impact of the development; this analyis assumes 1,200 square feet per housing unit to provide a
conservative estimate of the economic impact of the development.
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
14
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
3.
Development Impact Fees and Parking Development Payment Fees
The City requires payment of development impact fees in order to offset the costs of providing
necessary facilities and improvements to new residents and employees. Seifel projected the total
amount of impact fees at build-out using the existing City fees. Table 8 shows the current amount
of each fee. Table 9 summarizes the projected total amount of fees generated under each
alternative, except for the Parking Development Payment (PDP) fees. Table 10 shows projected
PDP fees. The specific fees are described in more detail below.
a.
Park Fees
Park Fees, which include a Parkland Fee and a Park Facilities Fee, are levied on all new
residential development in Lafayette. The fees allow the City to purchase new parkland as well as
provide park improvements or intensify the use of current recreational resources so that they can
accommodate more users. The potential revenues from the Park Fees fund the acquisition of new
parkland; improvements to parks and supporting facilities; expansion of trails; construction and
renovation of playgrounds, playing fields, and outdoor courts; as well as other amenities that will
be needed to serve future Lafayette residents.
The Park Fees also include a Park Fees Program Administration Fee levied at one percent of the
combined Parkland Fee and Park Facilities. This analysis uses the existing fees effective
July 25, 2009 as shown in Table 8. Table 9 combines the amount of each Park Fee, and the
associated administration fees, to summarize the total amount of the Park Fees for each
alternative. Depending on the alternative, Park Fees revenues would range between $4.8 million
and
$15.8
million in constant FY 2009/10 dollars.
b.
Walkways Fee
Lafayette's Walkways Fee was established in 1969 for the purpose of providing a comprehensive
system of walkways, curbs and gutters in the City. The City adopted a Master Walkways Plan
(Walkways Plan) in 1999 and revised the list of priority walkways improvements needed to
support existing and future new development in 2006. In 2009, the City updated the Walkways
Fee in order to adequately fund the construction and provision of walkways improvements
identified in the 2006 revision of the Walkways Plan. The updated Walkways Fee more
accurately reflects the cost to the City to provide walkways, and helps ensure that the City
maintains a comprehensive system of walkways infrastructure and facilities to meet the additional
demand created by new development. The updated fee also ensures that existing walkways
infrastructure will not become overburdened, and future development will bear its fair-share
responsibility for improving and maintaining the walkways system.
The amount of the current Walkways Fee was based on analysis of the amount of residential
development allowed under the General Plan. However, three of the alternatives in this analysis
allow more residential development than what is allowed under the General Plan. Nevertheless,
for the purposes of projecting Walkways Fee revenues for residential development beyond the
number of units allowed under the General Plan, this analysis assumes that additional walkways
improvements would be required, and new development's share of these improvements would
result in the same fee level as currently charged. New conunercial development will be required
to mitigate any impacts on the walkways system caused by new development either through the
provision of new walkways improvements or equivalent contribution to the citywide
walkways system.
City of Lafayette
15
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
The Walkways Fee includes a Walkways Fee Program Administration Fee. This analysis uses the
existing fees effective July
25,
2009 as shown in Table 8. Table 9 combines the amount of the
Walkways Fee and the associated administration fee to summarize the total amount of the
Walkways Fee for each alternative. Depending on the alternative, Walkways Fee revenues would
range between $424,000 and $1.4 million in constant FY 2009/10 dollars.
Lamorinda Sub-Regional Transportation Fee
In August 1994, the Lamorinda Project Management Committee (LPMC) adopted the Lamorinda
Transportation Improvement Program (LTIP) as its blueprint for transportation planning through
the year 2010. The LTIP is the result of the Lamorinda Traffic Study completed in late 1994,
which identified roughly 37 improvements to regional roadways and transit facilities totaling
approximately $17.7 million (1998 dollars). The LPMC then created the Lamorinda
Transportation Impact Fee (LTIF) as a mechanism to charge new development to mitigate the
traffic impacts it creates. A fee structure for new development was established based on the
expected impact of the new development and the cost to mitigate the impact. The Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) is the subregional fee designed to mitigate the
impacts of new developments on the regional transportation system. Lamorinda implements its
STMP through a subarea developer fee that is overseen by the Lamorinda Free and Financing
Authority (LFFA), a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority (JEPA) comprised of elected officials
from each jurisdiction within Lamorinda.'3
The Lamorinda Sub-Regional Transportation Fee (LSRT Fee) is levied on both residential and
commercial development. This analysis uses the existing fees effective July 25, 2009 as shown in
Table 8. Table 9 summarizes the total amount of these fees for each alternative. Depending on the
alternative, LSRT Fee revenues would range between $2.9 million and $8.7 million in constant
FY 2009/10 dollars.
d.
Drainage Fee
Lafayette's Drainage Fee was established in 1985 for the purpose of funding a Drainage Master
Plan, a citywide drainage study that would identify the drainage facilities needed to support
existing and future new development in Lafayette. The Drainage Master Plan, completed in 1998,
identified and documented a list of proposed projects and their estimated costs needed to support
existing and future development in Lafayette. Subsequent analyses by City staff have refined the
list of proposed storm drainage projects and costs. The most current list, the Master CIP Storm
Drain Priority Report (Storm Drain Priority Report), was updated in April 2007.
In 2009, the City updated the Drainage Fee to support the construction and provision of new
drainage facilities and expansions to existing facilities, identified in the April 2007 Storm Drain
Priority Report, in order to allow for more intense usage of the Lafayette's citywide drainage
system by future residents and employees. The updated Drainage Fee more accurately reflects the
cost to the City to provide drainage facilities to the City, and helps ensure that the City maintains
a comprehensive system of drainage infrastructure and facilities to meet the additional demand
created by new development. The fee also ensures that existing drainage infrastructure will not
become overburdened, and future development will bear its fair-share responsibility for the
drainage system.
'
Larnorinda Action Plan Update. Third Draft Report. DKS Associates. December 2008.
City of Lafayette
16
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
The Drainage Fee is assessed per net new square foot of impervious surface. This analysis uses
the existing fees effective July
25,
2009 as shown in Table 8. Table 9 combines the amount of the
Drainage Fee and the associated administration fee to summarize the total amount of the Drainage
Fee for each alternative. This analysis uses assumptions made by the FIR consultant that net new
impervious surface for all four alternatives will be the same, as the development intensity is a
function of the height of the buildings rather than the development footprint, and 80 percent of
the land area of the parcels in the Plan area will be built-out. Assuming 80 percent build-out, total
net new impervious surface created would be approximately 2 million square feet under each
alternative. Table 9 shows the total amount of the Drainage Fee under each altemative, which is
$1.1 million in constant FY 2009/10 dollars.
e.
Parking Development Payment
The Parking Development Payment (PDP) was established in 2006 to offset the cost of providing
new parking spaces in order to accommodate the parking needs of new development, as specified
in the City's zoning code. When new development does not provide sufficient parking and its
parking shortage exceeds 20 percent of the required parking based on the net floor area of the
proposed land use(s), the Planning Commission shall impose a requirement that the applicant pay
a PDP fee as a condition of approval. The Commission may also choose to impose the payment
requirement for any shortage of parking less than 20 percent.
The PDP fee schedule includes a fee for surface parking ($19,200 per parking space) and
structured parking ($36,900 per parking space). The PDP fee is based on the cost of land and
improvements for a 350-square foot parking space. For both parking types, land costs are
assumed to be
$44.25
per square foot. The land cost is based on historical data on properties sold
in Downtown Lafayette between 1997-2004. The $19,200 parking fee (surface) is based on this
land cost plus $10.31 per square foot for improvements; the $36,900 parking fee (structured) is
based on the assumption that half an acre of land is utilized to construct a 124-stall, two-level
parking structure with one level underground and one level at grade. The structured parking fee is
based on approximately half the land cost of surface parking to account for underground parking
and the cost of a parking structure at $83.21 per square foot. The PDP for structured parking is
assessed on development in the Downtown Core, and the PDP for surface parking is assessed on
development outside the Downtown Core.
While no PDP fees have been paid to date, this analysis assumes that due to the increased
intensity of development projected under any of the alternatives, 25 percent of required parking
spaces resulting from development under the alternatives will be subject to the PDP fee. This
analysis uses the existing fees effective January 1, 2006 as shown in Table 8.
Table 10 shows projected PDP fee revenues resulting from the alternatives. Table 10 includes two
alternative scenarios for the proportion of each type of parking space subject to the fee (structured
or surface), in order to provide a range of potential impacts. This analysis assumes either a
50/50
percentage split between structured and surface parking or a 75/25 percentage split between
structured and surface parking would occur. Depending on the alternative and the assumed
percentage split of the type of parking spaces subject to the fee, PDP fee revenues would range
between $11.2 million and $29.7 million in constant FY 2009/10 dollars. For purposes of
calculating the summary of fiscal impacts presented in Table 2, only the PDP fee revenue
resulting from the 50/50 percent split was included.
City of Lafayette
17
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 8
Development Impact Fee Schedule
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
__________________________________________________
SF
-
Detached
SF
-
Attached
Multifamily
Commercial
Parkland Fee (per
Unjt)a
_____________
$6,262.00
$4,348.00
$3,785.00
N/A
Park_Facilities Fee (per Ufljt)a
$6,380.00
$4,430.00
$3,857.00
N/A
Park Fees Program Administration Fee
$126.42
$87.78
$76.42
N/A
Walkways Fee (per unit)c
$1,076.22
$747.27
$650.59
_____
N/A
Walkways Fee Program Administration Feec
$53.81
$37.36
$32.53
N/A
Lamorinda Sub-Regional Transportation Feed
$5,637.00
$5,637.00
$3,516.00
$2.37
Drainage Fee (per SF)C
_______________
$0.52
$0.52
$0.52
$0.52
Drainage Fee Program Administration Fee (per SF)C
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
Parking
Development
Payment-Structured
(per space)'
$36,900.00
$36,90ft00
$36,900.00
$36,900M0
Parking Development Payment
-
Surface (per space)'
$19,200.00
$19,200.00
$19,200.00
$19,200.00
Note: N/A = Not applicable.
a. Based on existing fees effective 9/26/2008.
b.
Administration fee is 1% of Parkland Fee plus 1% of Park Facilities Fee.
c. Based on existing fees effective
7/25/2009.
d. Based on existing fees effective 1/25/2009
commercial development.
e. Based on existing fees effective 7/25/2009
f Based on existing fees effective 1/15/2006.
Source: City of Lafayette.
Fee is assessed per unit for residential development and per gross square foot for
Fee is assessed per net new square foot of impervious surface.
City of Lafayette
18
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 9
Projected Development Impact Fee Revenues at Build-out
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
(in Constant FY 2009/10 Dollars)
Lamorinda Sub
Regional
Development
Walkways Transportation Drainage
____________________________________
Program
Park Fees'
Feeb
Fee'
Feed
Total Fees
Proposed Project
Office
180,000 SF
TBD
$426,600
$426,600
Retail
180,000 SF
TBD
$426,600
$426,600
Residential'
SF - Detached
15 Units
$191,526
$16,950
$84,555
$293,032
SF- Attached
147 Units
$1,303,270
$115,341
$828 639
$2,247,249
Multifamily
1,309 Units
$10,103,412
$894,204
$4,602,444
$15,600,060
Total
1,471 Units
$11,598,208 $1,026,495
$6,368,838
$1,119,800
$20,113,341
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
Office
138,000 SF
TBD
$327,060
$327,060
Retail
138,000 SF
TBD
$327 060
$327,060
Residential'
SF - Detached
6 Units
$76,611
$6,780
$33,822
$117,213
SF - Attached
61 Units
$540,813
$47,862
$343,857
$932,532
Multifamily
541 Units
$4,175,665
$369,568
$1,902,156
$6,447,389
Total
608 Units
$4,793,088
$424,211
$2,933,955 $1,119,800
$9,271,054
Alternative 2 - Planning Subcommittee
Office
175,000 SF
TBD
$414,750
$414,750
Retail
175,000 SF
TBD
$414,750
$414,750
Residential'
SF - Detached
15 Units
$191,526
$16,950
$84,555
$293,032
SF - Attached
145 Units
$1,285,538
$113,771
$817,365
$2,216,674
Multifamily
1,290 Units
$9,956,762
$881,225
$4,535,640
$15,373,627
Total
1,450 Units
$11,433,826 $1,011,947
$6,267,060 $1,119,800
$19,832,633
Alternative
3 -
High Density
Office
245,000 SF
TBD
$580,650
$580,650
Retail
245,000 SF
TBD
$580,650
$580,650
Residential'
SF - Detached
20 Units
$255,368
$22,601
$112,740
$390,709
SF - Attached
201 Units
$1,782,022
$157,711
$1,133,037
$3,072,769
Multifamily
1,787 Units
$13,792,817 $1,220,735
$6,283,092
$21,296,644
Total
2,008 Units
$15,830,207
$1,401,0471
$8,690,169
1
$1,119,8001
$27,041,222
a. Includes Parkland Fee and Park Facilities Fee. Based on cxisting fees effcctive 9/26/2008, inclusive of program administration fcc.
b. Based on existing fees effective 7/25/2009, inclusive of program administration fee. For the purposes of projecting Walkways Fee revenues for
residential development beyond the number of units permitted under the General Plan, this analysis assumes that additional walkways
improvements will be required. The cost of walkways improvements for this additional residential development is estimated using the existing
costs provided in the Walkways Fee Program. New commercial development will be required to mitigate any impacts on the walkways system
caused by new development through the provision of new walkways improvements or equivalent contribution to the citywide walkways system.
c.
Based on existing fees effective 1/25/2009.
d. Based on existing fees effective 7/25/2009, inclusive of program administration fee. Assuming 80 percent buildout, total net new impervious
surface created is approximately 2 million square feet. This analysis assumes net new impervious surface for all four alternatives will be the
same, as the development footprint remains the same even though the development intensity changes. No breakdown between residential and
commercial development is shown as all parcels will contain both development types.
e.
The number of housing units in this analysis differs from the number of units in the EIR. The FIR assumes 1,000 square feet per housing unit to
provide a conservative estimate of the potential environmental impact of the development; this analyis assumes 1,200 square feet per housing
unit to provides conservative estimate of the potential economic impact of the development. The unit type breakdown is based on development
assumptions from DC&E as follows: SF - Detached, 1% of total units; SF - Attached, 10% of total units; Multifamily, 89% of total units.
Source: City of Lafayette, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
19
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table 10
Projected Parking Development Payment Revenues at Build-out
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
(in Constant FY
2009/10
Dollars)
Total Fees'
Parking
# of Spaces
75%125%
50%!50%
Development
Spaces
Subject to
Structured!
Structured!
_____________________________________
Program
Required
Feeb
Surface
Surface
Proposed Project
Office
180,000 SF
648
162
$5,269,800
$4,544,100
Retail
180,000 SF
720
180
$5,845,500
$5,049,000
Residential"
SF - Detached
15 Units
30
SF Attached
147 Units
294
Multifamily
1,309 Units
1,309
327
$10,632,600
$9,181,200
Total
1,471 Units
3,001
669
$21,747,900
$18,774,300
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
Office
138,000 SF
497
124
$4,063,800
$3,515,100
Retail
138,000 SF
552
138
$4,490,400
$3,870,900
Residential"
SF - Detached
6 Units
12
SF -
Attached
61 Units
122
Multifamily
541 Units
541
135
$4,397,400
$3,795,600
Total
608 Units
1,724
398
$12,951,600
$11,181,600
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
Office
175,000 SF
630
158
$5,139,900
$4,412,700
Retail
175,000 SF
700
175
$5,696,400
$4,917,600
Residential"
SF - Detached
15 Units
30
SF
-
Attached
145 Units
290
Multifamily
1,290 Units
1,290
323
$10 465,800
$9,069 000
Total
1,450 Units
2,940
655
$21,302,100
$18,399,300
Alternative 3
-
High Density
Office
245,000 SF
882
221
$7,181,400
$6,207,900
Retail
245,000 SF
980
245
$7,960,800
$6,881,100
Residential"
SF - Detached
20 Units
40
SF - Attached
201 Units
402
Multifamily
1,787 Units
1,787
447
$14,529,600
$12,547,200
Total
2,008 Units
4,091
I
912
I
$29,671 ,800
(
$25,636,200
a.
Assumes 2 spaces per dwelling unit (DU) for SF-Detached and SF-Attached, 1 space/DU for Multifamily, I space per
250
net square feet
(SF) retail, and I space per 250 net SF office based on the City of Lafayette Municipal Code and discussions with City staff. Assumes
net SF is 90% of gross SF for office uses and 80% of gross SF for retail uses based on discussions with developers and City staff.
b. Assumes all parking for SF-Detached and SF-Attached will be provided on site, while
25
percent of required spaces for other uses will be
developed off-site and subject to the Parking Development Payment.
c.
Total fee amounts based on existing fees effective
1/15/2006.
Assumes structured parking will be developed in the Downtown Core and
surface parking elsewhere.
d.
The number of housing units in this analysis differs from the number of units in the Project EIR. The FIR assumes 1,000 square feet
per housing unit to provide a conservative estimate of the potential environmental impact of the development; this analyis assumes
1,200 square feet per housing unit to provide a conservative estimate of the potential economic impact of the development. The unit
type breakdown is based on development assumptions from DC&E as follows: SF - Detached, 1% of total units; SF - Attached, 10% of
total units;
Multifamily, 89% of total units.
Source: City of Lafayette, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
20
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
B.
Tax Increment Revenues to the Agency and Property Tax
Revenues to the City
As previously noted, the boundaries of the Plan area are essentially coterrninous with the
boundaries of the Project Area. All projected development resulting from each of the alternatives
will therefore generate tax increment revenue to the Agency.
The end of the life of the Project Area coincides with the assumed year of build-out for three of
the four alternatives (the General Plan alternative is assumed to reach build-out in FY 2030/31),
at which time property tax revenues from the proposed development will fully revert back to the
City. Thus, this analysis presents the projected incremental assessed value for each alternative at
build-out in order to provide an estimate of net new property tax revenue accruing to the City
through build-out. The City will also continue to receive its full share of property tax revenues
from the frozen base assessed value of the parcels in the Project Area, generating additional
property tax revenue not included in this analysis.
For purposes of this analysis, tax increment is assumed to be collected through the end of the
redevelopment plan in FY 2040/41. However, the Project Area has a tax increment cap of
$75
million. If this cap were to be reached prior to the end of redevelopment in FY 2040/4 1, the
total tax increment revenues to the Agency would be less than what is presented in this analysis,
and property tax revenue will accrue to the City's General Fund the year after the tax increment
cap is reached. Based on development assumptions used in this analysis, the Proposed Project and
Planning Subcommittee alternatives would reach the tax increment cap in FY 2026/27, the
General Plan alternative would reach the tax increment cap in FY 2032/33, and the High Density
alternative would reach the tax increment cap in FY 2024/25.
Tax increment projections are based on a set of average assumptions over the next thirty years,
coinciding with the time limit for tax increment receipt in the Project Area. Tax increment
projections are based on the growth in assessed value above the base year assessed value
(incremental AV). In order to isolate the fiscal impact to the Agency, tax increment projections in
this analysis are calculated from FY 2009/10 to the end of tax increment collection. However,
property tax revenue accruing to the City after the end of the redevelopment plan is estimated
based on the total assessed value of the Downtown. Many of the parcels in the Plan area are
currently developed, and thus the existing value of the parcels must be subtracted from the
assumed new value. The build-out and incremental AV assumptions used in this analysis are
summarized in Appendix Tables A-i and A-2.
Growth in Assessed Value
Projected growth in AV is based on assumptions of the incremental AV of residential and
commercial development, the annual phasing of new development according to each build-out
scenario, and an annual inflation rate (assumed at two percent per year).'4 Under all four of the
alternatives, residential development is assumed to commence in FY 2010/11 and commercial
development is assumed to commence in FY 20 13/14. New development in Lafayette is generally
assessed the year after development. Graph 2 shows projections of AV growth under the
different alternatives.
14
By law, the annual inflation rate can be no more than two percent a year. Two percent is a reasonable and
conservative estimate given the build-out time horizon.
City of Lafayette
21
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Graph 2
Comparison of Assessed Value Growth
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
.
3,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
Projected Assessed Value Growth Alternative
3 (High Density)
N
Projected Assessed Value Growth
Proposed Project N
2,500,000,000
Projected Assessed Value Growth Alternative 2
(Planning Subcommittee)
.
,
2,000,000,000
..
Projected Assessed Value Growth
Alternative 1 (General Plan)
1
1,500,000,000
Z
Current Assessed Value
FY 2009/10
1,000,000,000
500,000,000
Fiscal
Year Ending
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
22
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
1.
Tax Increment Revenues to the Agency
Tax increment revenues are projected by applying the effective property tax rate of one percent to
the incremental AV. Since all parcels analyzed are within the Project Area, the Agency would
receive 100 percent of the property tax revenues derived from the incremental growth in assessed
value resulting from new development.'5 The Agency must spend a portion of this revenue to pay
its obligations, such as pass-through payments and the 20 percent housing set-aside. The amount
of these obligations, however, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
As shown in Table 9, full build-out of the parcels is projected to increase the total AV of the
Project Area to between $1.9 billion and $3.2 billion in nominal dollars, depending on the
build-out alternative, and generate between $351.9 million and
$521.4
million in incremental tax
revenues in nominal dollars over the time period for collecting tax increment. After meeting its
obligations, including County administration fees and other pass-through payments, the Agency
would deposit between $72.4 million and $108.0 million in nominal dollars into the Housing
Set-Aside fund.
As these revenues would occur as a stream over time, future revenues can be discounted to
translate these future revenues into today's dollars, or constant FY 2009/10 dollars. Table 11
shows that projected net tax increment to the Agency would be between $127.4 million and
$173.6 million in constant FY 2009/10 dollars.'6 The tables in Appendix B provide details on the
new development roll value schedules under each of the build-out alternatives. Graph 2 provides
an illustrative example of the growth of revenues to the Agency and Agency obligations under the
Proposed Project.
As discussed above, the property tax increment revenues are assumed to accrue to the Agency until the end of the
redevelopment plan in FY 2040/41. Should the redevelopment plan's $75 million tax increment cap be reached prior
to FY 2040/41, the City's General Fund will start receiving property tax revenue from development within the
Plan area.
6
Assuming a discount rate of 6 percent.
City of Lafayette
23
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table
11
Tax Increment Revenue Summarya
FY 2009/10 - FY
2040/41
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Gross Tax Increment
Housing Set-Aside
Non-Housing Revenue
Nominal
FY 2009/10
Nominal
FY 2009/10
Nominal
FY 2009/10
_____________________________________
FY 2040/41 AV
Dollars
Dollarsb
Dollars
Dollarsb
Dollars
Dollars'
Proposed Project
$2,669,953,000
$442,373,000
$151,433,000
$88,475,000 $30,287,000 $109,903,000
$33,092,000
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
$1,939,694,000 $351,941,000
$127,349,000
$70,388,000
$25,470,000
$76,451,000
$23,911,000
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
$2,646,858,000 $438,122,000
$150,192,000
$87,624,000 $30,038,000 $108,253,000 $32,602,000
Alternative 3
-
High Density
$3,188,017,000 $521,351,000
$173,637,000
$104,270,000 $34,727,000 $139,935,000
$41,736,000
Note: Dollar figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.
a.
The Lafayette Redevelopment Area has a tax increment cap of $75 million. Under the development assumptions in this analysis the cap would be reached before
the redevelopment plan ends in FY 2040/41, limiting the total amount of tax increment revenue to the Agency. The Proposed Project and Planning Subcommittee
alternatives would reach the cap in FY 2026/27, the General Plan alternative would reach the cap in FY 2032/33, and the High Density Alternative would reach the
cap in FY 2024/25. The revenue figures presented in this analysis assume tax increment is collected throguh FY 2040/41.
b. Discounted to constant FY 2009/20 10 dollars at 6%.
Source: City of Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
24
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
60,000,000
Graph 3
Projected TI Revenue to Agency - Proposed Project
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Gross Tax Increment
50,000,000
Pass-Through Payments
40,000,000
30,000,000
E
z
20,000,000
10,000,000
Non-Housing Revenue
Debt Service Payments
Housing Set-Aside
\\
____
Fiscal
Year Ending
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
25
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
2.
Property Tax Revenues to the City
The City will receive the full amount of property tax revenue from the new development under
each alternative starting the year after the Project Area ends. The amount of property tax revenue
accruing to the City is projected using the same development assumptions used to project tax
increment revenue to the Agency, and is based on the total AV of the Project Area at the end of
redevelopment in FY 2040/41. Table 12 shows the projected total FY 2040/4 1 AV, the total
projected annual property tax on this AV, and the portion of the annual property tax revenue
accruing to the City General Fund.'7
Table 12
Annual Property Tax Generation After Redevelopment Plan Endsa
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic Impact Analysis
Total Assessed
Value in
Annual Property
Annual General
_________________________________
FY 2040/41
Tax Revenueb
Fund Revenue"
Proposed Project
$2,669,953,000
$26,700,000
$1,605,000
Alternative 1
-
General Plan
$1,939,694,000
$19,397,000
$1,166,000
Alternative 2
-
Planning Subcommittee
$2,646,858,000
$26,469,000
$1,592,000
Alternative 3
-
High Density
$3,188,017,000
$31,880,000
$1,917,000
Note: Dollar figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.
a.
The City of Lafayette will start receiving incremental property tax revenue from the proposed development
the year after the end of the Lafayette Redevelopment Plan. The Plan is in effect through FY 2040/41, but
could end sooner if the $75 million tax increment cap is reached prior to FY 2040/41. Under the development
assumptions in this analysis, the Proposed Project and Planning Subcommittee alternatives would reach the
cap in FY 2026/27, the General Plan alternative would reach the cap in FY 2032/33, and the High Density
Alternative would reach the cap in FY 2024/25. Refer to separate tax increment projections prepared by
Seifel for tax increment revenues to the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency at project build-out.
b. Property tax rate is assumed to be 1%.
c. Portion of annual property tax to City General Fund is 6.0 13%.
Source: City of Lafayette, BAE, DC&E, Contra Costa County, Seifel Consulting Inc.
Vi
Capita' and Maintenance Costs
Development under any of the alternatives will result in costs to the City for both capital
improvements and maintenance of these improvements. The September 2009 Revised Draft
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan includes cost estimates for proposed municipal facility
improvements, including a new 200-space structured parking facility, as well as streetscape,
walkways, parks, and creeks improvements. These cost estimates include both capital costs and
annual maintenance costs.
'
Total property tax revenue is total AV multiplied by the effective property tax rate of one percent. The portion of the
property tax revenue that accrues to the City General Fund is 6.013 percent.
City of Lafayette
26
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
A.
Capita' mprovement Costs
Categories of capital improvements include streetscape and walkways improvements, new
parking facilities, park facilities and improvements, and creek corridor restoration. Capital costs
for these improvements are based on both land acquisition costs and per square foot construction
costs. The total amount of capital costs for these improvements, excluding land acquisition costs,
is approximately
$63.5
million. However, while the Downtown Specific Plan provides cost
estimates for a 200-space parking facility, this analysis assumes that additional parking facilities
would be required under some alternatives. The Proposed Project would require a 350-space
parking garage, for an additional capital cost of $2.25 million (excluding land acquisition), and
the High Density alternative would require a 450-space parking garage at an additional capital
cost of $3.75 million.'8
B.
Maintenance Costs
The Downtown Specific Plan also estimates maintenance costs for the capital improvements.
Annual maintenance costs are as follows: structured parking at $100 per space; streetscape
improvements at $1.30 per square foot; park improvements at $1.30 per square foot; creek
improvements at
$16,500
per acre. Total annual maintenance costs for these improvements are
approximately $275,000. Maintenance costs for the alternatives would differ relative to the
amount of additional parking facilities proposed. Annual maintenance costs for the Proposed
Project would be an additional $150,000 per year, and annual maintenance costs for the
High Density alternative would be an additional $250,000 per year.
VII Conclusion
As shown in this report, the four land use alternatives are projected to result in varying amounts
ofjob generation and revenues. To summarize:
•
The General Plan alternative is projected to generate the smallest number of jobs and least
revenues to the City and Agency.
•
The Proposed Project and the Planning Subcommittee alternatives are projected to generate
about twice the number of construction jobs and approximately one-third more ongoing
permanent jobs than the General Plan alternative, and are projected to generate about double
the amount of one-time revenues and one-third more ongoing revenues to the City.
•
The High Density alternative is projected to generate the greatest number ofjobs and
revenues to the City and Agency, estimated at three times as many construction-related jobs,
and 75 percent more ongoing permanent jobs,
2.5
times the City's anticipated one-time
revenues, and 68 percent more ongoing revenue as compared to the General Plan alternative.
The projected revenues and employment under the land use alternatives assume that full build out
would occur, and would thus be less if full build-out did not occur. However, based on the
projections of commercial demand prepared by Bay Area Economics for the Specific Plan and
As discussed in the section describing the projected PDP revenues, this analysis assumes that
50
percent of the
parking spaces subject to the PDP would be structured parking spaces.
City of Lafayette
27
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Seifel's review of potential retail expenditures from new households under each alternative, all
four of these alternatives include more commercial development than is supportable by new
residential development in Lafayette.
The economic and fiscal impact analysis suggests that further consideration regarding the mix of
proposed land uses, their location and concentration within key areas of the Specific Plan
boundaries are important elements to be considered as the City Council evaluates the land
use alternatives.
City of Lafayette
28
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Appencflces
Appendix A
- DeveJopment Assumpflons
City of Lafayette
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table A1
Development Assumptions
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
(In Constant FY 2009110 Dollars Unless Noted)
A. Development Program
Alternative 2:
Planning
Alternative 1:
Commission
Alternative 3:
Proposed Project
General Plan
Subcommittee
High Density
Office (SF)
180,000
138,000
175,000
245,000
Retail (SF)
180,000
138,000
175,000
245,000
Residential (SF)
1,765,000
730,000
1,740,000
2,410,000
Residential (Units)
1,471
608
1,450
2,008
SF -
Detached
1% of total units
SF - Attached
10% of total units
Multifamily
89% of total units
B. Development Construction Cost/Value
Cost per
AV per
Incremental AV
SF or Unit
SF or Unit
per SF or Unit
Office
Equipment/Material
$73
Labor
Total
$145
$447
$360
Retail
Equipment/Material
$73
Labor
Total
$145
$419
$340
Residential
Equipment/Material
$93,000
Labor
893,000
Total
$186,000
$600,000
$450,000
C. Construction Period
Residential (General Plan)
20 Years
Residential (other alternatives)
30 Years
Commercial
15
Years
Source: Bay Area Economics (BAE); Design, Community & Environment (DCE); Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
Seitel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table A-2
Employment and Revenue Assumptions
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
A. Employment
1 Construction-Related Employment
Average Annual Salary for Construction Employment
$57,548 per employee
2 Permanent Employment
Square Foot/Employee
Office
200 - 300 SF per employee
Retail
300 - 500 SF per employee
B. Construction Related One-Time Revenues
1 Sales Tax
-
New Construction
Percent of Equipment/Material Purchased in Lafayette
Sales Tax Rate Accruing to City
5%
1.0%
C. Annual Revenues
1 Sales Tax
Direct Taxable Retail Sales
Support Retail (total sales per SF) in Constant FY 2009/10 Dollars
$307
Percent of Support Retail with Taxable Sales
90%
2 Property Tax
Property Tax Rate (Applied to Assessed Value)
1.0%
General Fund Levy (Unadjusted for ERAF)
6.013%
3 Tax Increment
The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency receives tax increment revenue generated from new development located in the
Lafayette Redevelopment Area through the life of the redevelopment plan (FY 2040/41). Refer to tax increment
projections separately prepared by Seifel Consulting Inc. to see tax increment revenue generated by proposed development
in the Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan area.
D. Other Assumptions
1
Inflation Adjustment
Year adjusted to
FY 2009/10
2 Assessed Value Growth
2.0%
Source: Urban Land Institute (ULI), California Employment Development Department, BAR, DC&E, City of Lafayette,
Contra Costa County, Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Board of Equalization, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Appendix B
-
Projected Development RoD Value Schedues
City of Lafayette
iv
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table B1
New Development Roll Value Schedulea_ Proposed Project
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Total
Grand Total
_______________
Retail
Office
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
__________
Square
Incremental
Square
Incremental
Assessed Value
Assessed Value
Plan
Units
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Constant Dollars
Constant $
Future $
Year
Fiscal Year
($450,000/unit)
__________
($340/SF)
__________
($360/SF)
Residential
Non-Res
_____________
152009- 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
_____________
0
162010- 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 2011 - 2012
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
22,940,820
18 2012- 2013
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
23,399,636
19 2013 - 2014
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
23,867,629
20
2014 - 2015
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
33,619,260
21 2015 - 2016
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
34,291,646
22
2016 - 2017
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
34,977,479
23 2017- 2018
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000
22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
35,677,028
24 2018 - 2019
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
36,390,569
25 2019- 2020
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
37,118,380
26 2020 - 2021
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000
22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
37,860,748
27 2021 - 2022
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
38,617,963
28
2022- 2023
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000
22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
39,390,322
29 2023 - 2024
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
40,178,128
30 2024- 2025
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000
22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
40,981,691
31 2025- 2026
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
41,801,325
32 2026- 2027
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000
22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
42,637,351
33
2027- 2028
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
43,490,098
34 2028- 2029
49
22,050,000
12,000
4,080,000
12,000
4,320,000 22,050,000
8,400,000
30,450,000
44,359,900
35
2029- 2030 49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
32,765,140
36 2030- 2031
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
33,420,443
37
2031 - 2032
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
34,088,852
38 2032- 2033
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000 34,770,629
39 2033 - 2034
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
35,466,041
40 2034- 2035
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000 36,175,362
41 2035 - 2036
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
36,898,869
42 2036- 2037
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
37,636,847
43 2037 - 2038
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
38,389,584
44 2038 - 2039
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
39,157,375
45 2039 - 2040
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
39,940,523
46 2040 - 2041
50
22,500,000
22,500,000
0
22,500,000
41,570,748
Total
1471
661 950000
_________
180000
_____________
61200000
_________
180000
_____________
64800000
661 950000] 126000000 787950000
1091880387
a.
Units or square footage counted the year after construction is completed.
Source: City of Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table B-2
New Development Roll Value Schedule5-Alternative
I
(General Plan)
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Total
Grand Total
_______________
________
Retail
Office
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Square
Incremental
Square
Incremental
Assessed Value
Assessed Value
Plan
Units
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Constant Dollars
Constant $
Future $
Year
Fiscal Year
($450,000/unit)
_______
($340/SF)
__________
($360/SF)
Residential
Non-Res
_____________ _____________
152009- 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162010-
2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 2011 - 2012
30
13,500,000
0
0
13,500,000
0
13,500,000
14,045,400
18 2012- 2013
30
13,500,000
0
0 13,500,000
0
13,500,000
14,326,308
19 2013- 2014
30
13,500,000
0
0
13,500,000
0
13,500,000
14,612,834
20 2014- 2015
30
13,500,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000 13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
22,015,371
21
2015 - 2016
30
13,500,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
22,455,679
22 2016- 2017
30
13,500,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000 13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
22,904,792
23 2017- 2018
30
13,500,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000 13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
23,362,888
24 2018- 2019
30
13,500,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000 13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
23,830,146
25 2019- 2020
30
13,500,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000 13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
24,306,749
26 2020- 2021
30
13,500,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
24,792,884
27 2021 - 2022
30
13,500,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
25,288,741
28 2022- 2023
30
13,500,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000 13,500,000
6,440,000
19,940,000
25,794,516
29 2023 - 2024
31
13,950,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,950,000
6,440,000
20,390,000
26,904,172
30
2024- 2025
31
13,950,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,950,000
6,440,000
20,390,000
27,442,255
31
2025- 2026
31
13,950,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,950,000
6,440,000
20,390,000
27,991,101
32 2026- 2027
31
13,950,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,950,000
6,440,000
20,390,000
28,550,923
33
2027- 2028
31
13,950,000 9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,950,000
6,440,000
20,390,000
29,121,941
34 2028- 2029
31
13,950,000
9,200
3,128,000
9,200
3,312,000
13,950,000
6,440,000
20,390,000
29,704,380
35
2029- 2030
31
13,950,000
0
0
13,950,000
0
13,950,000
20,728,966
36 2030- 2031
31
13,950,000
0
0
13,950,000
0
13,950,000
21,143,545
372031 - 2032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
382032-
2033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
392033
- 2034
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
402034- 2035
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
412035 - 2036
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
422036- 2037
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432037 - 2038
0
0
0
0
0
442038 - 2039
0
0
0
0
0
452039 - 2040
0
0
0
0
0
462040- 2041
0
0
0
0
0
I
Total
I
608
273,600,000 138,000
46,920,000
138,000
49,680,000 273,600,000
96,600,000 370,200,000
469,323,591
a.
Units or square footage counted the year after construction is completed.
Source: City of Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table B-3
New Development Roll Value Schedulea - Alternative 2 (Planning Subcommittee)
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Total
Grand Total
_______________
Retail
Office
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
________
Square
Incremental
__________
Square
Incremental
Assessed Value
Assessed Value
Plan
Units
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Constant Dollars
Constant $
Future $
Year
Fiscal Year
($450,000/unit)
_______
($340/SF)
__________
($360/SF)
Residential
Non-Res
______________ _____________
152009- 2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162010- 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 2011 - 2012
48
21,600,000
0
0 21,600,000
0
21,600,000
22,472,640
18 2012- 2013
48
21,600,000
0
0 21,600,000
0
21,600,000
22,922,093
19 2013- 2014 48
21,600,000
0
0 21,600,000
0
21,600,000
23,380,535
20 2014- 2015
48
21,600,000
11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
32,864,805
21 2015- 2016
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
33,522,101
22 2016- 2017
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
34,192,543
23 2017- 2018
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
34,876,394
24
2018- 2019
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
35,573,922
25 2019 - 2020
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
36,285,401
26
2020- 2021
48
21,600,000
11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
37,011,109
27 2021 - 2022
48
21,600,000
11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
37,751,331
28 2022- 2023
48
21,600,000
11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
38,506,357
29
2023 - 2024
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
39,276,485
30 2024- 2025
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667 40,062,014
31
2025- 2026
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
40,863,254
32 2026- 2027
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
41,680,520
33 2027- 2028
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000 21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
42,514,130
34
2028 - 2029
48
21,600,000 11,667
3,966,667
11,667
4,200,000
21,600,000
8,166,667
29,766,667
43,364,413
35 2029- 2030
48
21,600,000
0
0 21,600,000
0
21,600,000
32,096,464
36 2030- 2031
48
21,600,000
0
0 21,600,000
0
21,600,000
32,738,393
37
2031 - 2032
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
34,088,852
38 2032- 2033
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
34,770,629
39
2033 - 2034
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
35,466,041
40 2034- 2035
49
22,050,000
0
0 22,050,000
0
22,050,000
36,175,362
41 2035 - 2036
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
36,898,869
42 2036 - 2037
49
22,050,000
0
0
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
37,636,847
43 2037 - 2038
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
38,389,584
44 2038 - 2039
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
39,157,375
45
2039 - 2040
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
39,940,523
46
2040 - 2041
49
22,050,000
22,050,000
0
22,050,000
40,739,333
I
Total
I
1,450
652,500,000
_______
175,000
_____________
59,500,000
_________
175,000
_____________
63,000,000
652,500,000
122,500,000
775,000,000
1,075,218,319
a.
Units or square footage counted the year after construction is completed.
Source: City of Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, Seifel Consulting Inc.
City of Lafayette
Seifel Consulting Inc.
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2010
Table B-4
New Development Roll Value Schedulea_ Alternative 3 (High Density)
Downtown Lafayette Specific Plan Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Total
Grand Total
_______________
Retail
Office
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
________
Square
Incremental
___________
Square
Incremental
Assessed Value
Assessed Value
Plan
Units
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Feet
Assessed Value
Constart Dollars
Constant $
