Annexation Fiscal Analysis - Castaic Area Town Council

Transcription

Annexation Fiscal Analysis:
West Ranch,
Ranch Castaic & Tesoro
Revised Report
October 21,, 2009
City of Santa Clarita, West Ranch & Castaic Town Councils
Burr Consulting
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................................................. III PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................. IV 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. ANNEXATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 LAFCO OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 4 ANNEXATION PROCESS .............................................................................................................................................. 5 3. STUDY AREAS ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 POLICY ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 14 DEMOGRAPHICS & GROWTH ................................................................................................................................... 16 4. METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 20 FISCAL ESTIMATES .................................................................................................................................................. 20 5. MUNICIPAL REVENUES ................................................................................................................................... 22 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................... 22 TAXES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23 SUBVENTIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 OTHER ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36 6. MUNICIPAL SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................... 37 SERVICE PROVIDER OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 37 PUBLIC SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 45 PARKS AND RECREATION ........................................................................................................................................ 49 PUBLIC WORKS ....................................................................................................................................................... 54 CITY ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................... 63 FISCAL MITIGATION PAYMENT ................................................................................................................................ 65 FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY .......................................................................................................................................... 66 7. SOURCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 69 DATA SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 69 INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE ...................................................................................................................... 72 8. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 73 BY BURR CONSULTING
i
A NNEXATION F ISCAL A NALYSIS : W EST R ANCH , C ASTAIC & T ESORO
L IST OF T ABLES
TABLE 2-1: TABLE 3-4: TABLE 5-4: TABLE 5-5: TABLE 5-7: TABLE 5-8: TABLE 5-9: TABLE 5-10: TABLE 6-1: TABLE 6-6: TABLE 6-7: TABLE 6-8: TABLE 6-9: TABLE 6-11: TABLE 6-12: TABLE 6-13: TABLE 8-1: TABLE 8-2: TABLE 8-3: TABLE 8-4: TABLE 8-5: TABLE 8-6: TABLE 8-7: TABLE 8-8: TABLE 8-9: TABLE 8-10: TABLE 8-11: COMMISSION MEMBERS, 2009................................................................................................................. 5 PROJECTED ANNUALIZED COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE GROWTH RATES ...................................... 19 PROPERTY TAX GROWTH ...................................................................................................................... 24 ESTIMATED SALES TAX BY AREA, FY 06-07 ......................................................................................... 25 SALES TAX GROWTH ............................................................................................................................. 26 UTILITY USERS TAX ESTIMATES, FY 06-07 .......................................................................................... 27 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX GROWTH RATES..................................................................................... 29 DTT GROWTH RATES ............................................................................................................................ 29 SERVICE PROVIDERS.............................................................................................................................. 38 COUNTY-MAINTAINED PUBLIC PARKS IN STUDY AREAS ...................................................................... 49 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY PARKS: TYPE, LOCATION AND ACREAGE...................................................... 50 CITY-MAINTAINED OPEN SPACE ........................................................................................................... 51 TOTAL RECREATION PARTICIPATION..................................................................................................... 52 PAVEMENT CONDITIONS BY AREA ........................................................................................................ 56 SOLID WASTE SERVICE COMPARISON ................................................................................................... 62 CITY ADMINISTRATIVE AND CENTRAL SERVICE POSITIONS .................................................................. 63 POPULATION AND JOB PROJECTIONS BY AREA, 2007-2020 ................................................................... 74 BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTIONS BY STUDY AREA, 2007-2020 ............................................ 75 BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE PER EMPLOYEE ....................................................................................... 76 PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION BY AREA, FY 06-07 ................................................................................ 77 ASSESSED VALUE AND PROPERTY TAX CALCULATIONS ....................................................................... 78 DYNAMIC CITY GENERAL FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES, FY 06-07 THROUGH FY 19-20 ....................... 80 DYNAMIC CITY ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES, FY 06-07 THROUGH FY 19-20 ............................. 82 DYNAMIC CITY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES, FY 06-07 THROUGH FY 19-20 ................ 84 DYNAMIC CITY ROAD FUND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES, FY 06-07 THROUGH FY 19-20 ...................... 87 STATIC ESTIMATES OF FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY, FY 06-07 ............................................................. 88 DYNAMIC ESTIMATE OF FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY ................................................................................. 91 L IST OF F IGURES
FIGURE 3-1: FIGURE 3-2: FIGURE 3-3: FIGURE 5-1: FIGURE 5-2: FIGURE 5-3: FIGURE 5-6: FIGURE 5-11: FIGURE 5-12: FIGURE 5-13: FIGURE 6-2: FIGURE 6-3: FIGURE 6-4: FIGURE 6-5: FIGURE 6-10: FIGURE 6-14: FIGURE 6-15: ii
RESIDENT POPULATION BY AREA, 2007-2020 ....................................................................................... 16 PROJECTED ANNUAL HOUSING GROWTH RATES, 2010-2020 ................................................................ 16 JOBS BY AREA, 2007-2020 ....................................................................................................................17 GENERAL FUND TAXES AND SUBVENTIONS .......................................................................................... 22 ROAD FUND REVENUES ......................................................................................................................... 22 PROPERTY TAX SHARES, FY 06-07 ....................................................................................................... 23 TAXABLE SALES PER RESIDENT, FY 06-07 ............................................................................................ 26 VLF REVENUE ESTIMATES, FY 07 -FY 20 ............................................................................................ 31 GAS TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES, FY 07 -FY 20 ..................................................................................... 32 PROP. C LOCAL RETURN REVENUE ESTIMATES, FY 07 -FY 20 ............................................................. 33 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CALLS PER CAPITA, FY 06-07................................................................ 41 AVERAGE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TIMES, FY 06-07 ................................................................ 41 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS PER CAPITA, FY 06-07 .............................................................................. 42 COSTS AND ACTIVITY BY UNINCORPORATED AREA, FY 06-07 ............................................................. 43 PRIVATE ROAD IN CASTAIC STUDY AREA ............................................................................................. 54 DYNAMIC FISCAL IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND BEFORE FISCAL MITIGATION ........................................ 66 DYNAMIC FISCAL IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND ...................................................................................... 67 PREPARED FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
L IST OF M APS
MAP 3-1: MAP 3-2: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ........................................................................................................................ 9 ANNEXATION STUDY AREAS ................................................................................................................. 10 ACRONYMS
AFA:
AMR:
AV:
BOE:
BOS:
CEQA:
CFA:
City
CKH Act:
CPI:
CY:
DOF:
DTT:
ERAF:
FTE:
FY:
GAC:
GIS:
IFA:
JPA:
LAFCO:
MSR:
MTA:
NA:
NP:
OVOV:
SCAG:
SOI:
TOT:
UUT:
Annexation fiscal analysis
American Medical Response
Assessed value
California Board of Equalization
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
California Environmental Quality Act
Comprehensive fiscal analysis (of incorporation)
City of Santa Clarita
Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Act
Consumer Price Index (CPI-U all items, all cities)
Calendar year
California Department of Finance
Documentary transfer tax
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
Full-time equivalent
Fiscal year
Governance Alternatives Comparison
Geographic Information Systems
Initial fiscal analysis (of incorporation)
Joint Powers Authority
Local Agency Formation Commission
Municipal Service Review
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Not applicable
Not provided
One Valley, One Vision
Southern California Association of Governments
Sphere of influence
Transient occupancy tax
Utility user tax
BY BURR CONSULTING
iii
P R E FAC E
This report is an annexation fiscal analysis prepared for the City of Santa Clarita on behalf of the
Castaic and West Ranch Town Councils.
C AV E A T S
This report includes analyses of municipal service delivery and policy options for the City, Los
Angeles County, and the West Ranch and Castaic Town Councils to consider as they make decisions
regarding the options of incorporation, annexation to the City of Santa Clarita, or maintaining the
status quo as unincorporated areas.
The authors exercised their professional judgment in selecting the most reliable and recent
available data sources and gathering comparable data from the various providers.
This report was prepared in 2009 based on information and knowledge available at that time.
The authors considered comments raised by the Town Councils, the City of Santa Clarita, and the
County, and made appropriate revisions.
CREDITS
The authors extend their appreciation to those individuals at the City of Santa Clarita and Los
Angeles County who provided interviews, planning and financial information, and documents used
in this report. The contributors are listed at the end of this report.
iv
PREPARED FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
1. E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
This report is an annexation fiscal analysis (AFA) report on the potential annexation of the
unincorporated communities of West Ranch, Castaic and Tesoro to the City of Santa Clarita. This
study is not mandated by law, and has been prepared at the request of the West Ranch and Castaic
Town Councils and the City of Santa Clarita for purposes of evaluating policy options under
consideration by the community.
ASSUMPTIONS
Annexation is the transfer of governance and municipal service responsibilities from a county to
a city. In this report, annexation is assumed to include detachment from the Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1687 and Road District No. 5, and transfer of associated revenues and responsibilities
from Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita. Dissolution of County Waterworks District
#36 and transfer of its responsibilities to another water retailer appears logical; however, it has not
been proposed to date and was not modeled in this study. Also, the report assumes that annexation
is to become effective July 1, 2010. It is also assumed that taxes and fees levied in the City would be
imposed in the annexation study areas and that those levied by the County but not the City, such as
the 4.5 percent utility users tax, would be discontinued. Although the report focuses on three
geographic study areas, the boundaries of those areas are for analysis purposes and would likely
evolve during the course of the annexation process. Finally, this report presents both static and
dynamic fiscal estimates. Static estimates do not account for growth and inflation since Fiscal Year
2006-07, whereas dynamic estimates account for projected growth and inflation.
SERVICE PROVIDERS
Annexation would involve a change in the existing service providers for local governance, street
maintenance, landscape maintenance, stormwater and drainage, land use planning, code
enforcement, building regulation, parks, and recreation. The solid waste hauler would change.
SERVICE LEVELS
There is mixed evidence on the impact of annexation on service levels.
Although police response times in the annexation study areas are faster in the existing city limits
than those projected following annexation, density and road networks also adversely affect travel
time. The pavement condition is very good in study area 1 (Tesoro), and good in study areas 2
(Castaic/Val Verde) and 3 (West/Stevenson Ranch). The County and the City spend at comparable
levels on road maintenance. However, the County has deeper resources for maintaining roads, as
State law allocates gas tax revenues more generously to counties than to cities.
The City provides a higher service level for park maintenance and recreation, as measured by
expenditures, and offers a wider variety of recreation services. This study assumed the City would
extend its enhanced recreation programming to the annexed areas. There is a similar extent of
usable park space in the City and study areas, with slightly more regional park resources in the City
and more local park acreage in the study areas.
The County processes building permits more quickly than does the City; however, the City
permit office is more convenient as it is open twice as often as the County’s permit office. The City
appears to provide a higher service level than the County in terms of code enforcement, as measured
BY BURR CONSULTING
1
by expenditures and response times; both the City and County offer comparable service levels for
emergency code enforcement cases.
Service levels for animal control would not likely be affected.
Businesses in the study areas would receive higher economic development service levels upon
annexation, as measured by economic development staff per job and reflected by the extent of
services and accomplishments reported.
F I S C A L I M PA C T S
Residents
Annexation would reduce the average household’s annual taxes and fees by approximately $93.
Residents of the study areas pay approximately $151 per home per year under the County’s
utility user tax; the City does not impose such a tax. If residents wish to annex in spite of a negative
fiscal impact on the City, they could propose to the City that some or all of the utility tax be retained
upon annexation to offset negative fiscal impacts on the City. Solid waste charges would decline by
about $43 per home per year if the study areas annexed to the City.
Residents would be responsible for paying a stormwater utility fee to the City of $24 per home
per year. Residents would pay $26 per home per year to the City for acquisition of open space,
which is a fee they do not presently pay to the County. Similarly, City street light assessments are
$51 per home per year higher than County assessments.
Annexation of the study areas to the City could have positive or negative impacts on residents
who use public recreation programs. Those who currently participate in City recreation programs
would enjoy fee reductions, as they would no longer pay the non-resident fee premium. Those who
currently participate in County recreation programs would likely pay higher fees to the City,
although impacts vary depending on the recreation program choices of a particular household.
Businesses
Businesses in the study areas presently pay a 4.5 percent utility tax to the County; the City does
not levy a utility tax. The hotel tax rate would decline from 12 percent to 10 percent. Businesses
would pay a stormwater utility fee to the City. Solid waste would be provided by a private hauler,
Burrtec, with an exclusive franchise in the City; this could have positive or negative fiscal impacts
depending on a particular business’s existing arrangement. New development pays higher park inlieu fees to the City than to the County. The local business license tax would be unaffected in the
study areas.
Annexation of the study areas to the City would offer eligible businesses in the study areas with
opportunities for State income tax savings because the City would annex the Valencia Commerce
Center and other commercial areas to a State enterprise zone and there is no enterprise zone in the
study areas.
County Government
Annexation of all three study areas combined would have a negative fiscal impact of
approximately $5.8 million on the County general fund, and a positive fiscal impact of approximately
$2.5 million on the County road fund.
Annexation of the study areas separately would be different from the combined impact.
Annexing area 3 (West Ranch) would have a negative impact of $6.5 million on the County general
2
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
fund, area 2 (Castaic/Val Verde) a negative $1.0 million impact, and area 1 (Tesoro) a positive $1.7
million impact. Annexation would generally have positive fiscal effects on County road funds.
In order to effectuate annexation, the City and County must agree on a property tax transfer, or
a complex fiscal mitigation arrangement. The City and the County have not begun negotiations on
either arrangement. How such an agreement would be structured is unknown at this time.
The County’s share of competitive grants for road improvements (Proposition C discretionary
grants) in the study areas was relatively low in the base year. The County could choose to enhance
revenues in these areas prior to annexation, in which case the fiscal impact on the County could be
greater than discussed in this report.
Fiscal impacts on the County would likely be less than those discussed in this report if the
analysis was based on a fiscal year other than the FY 2006-07 base year used in this study due to
anticipated revenue declines associated with the current economic recession.
City Government
Millions
Before factoring in the fiscal
$9
mitigation payment, annexation of
$8
study area 3 (West Ranch) would
$7
$6
generate the greatest positive fiscal
$5
impact on the City general fund ($5.1
$4
million in FY 10-11) primarily due to
$3
relatively high sales tax generated in
$2
this area. Annexation of study area 2
$1
(Castaic) would yield a marginally
$0
positive fiscal impact ($0.2 million in
-$1 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
FY 10-11), meaning that revenues are
expected to barely pay for service
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
needs. Annexation of study area 3
(Tesoro) would have a modestly negative fiscal impact throughout the 10-year forecast period
primarily due to relatively high law enforcement costs in this study area. It is important to note that
the modeled revenue in this study did not include interest earnings, transfers from capital funds, or
transfers from reserves. Similarly, this report it did not factor in expenditures for capital
replacement or financial reserves. Accordingly, the impacts identified above do not factor in
reserves and capital savings.
The fiscal impact of annexing all three study areas would be positive, primarily because the fiscal
mitigation payments associated with the Castaic and West Ranch areas would be partly offset by the
Tesoro study area. However, annexation of the study areas separately would have negative fiscal
impacts on the City initially. Nonetheless, if the public prefers the annexation alternative, there are
various strategies that could be pursued to ensure fiscal feasibility, such as negotiations, boundary
changes, and enhanced economic development. It is important to note that this study modeled
operational impacts.
Infrastructure needs include road improvements, possibly drainage
improvements, and possibly a lack of adequate space at the parks for the City to provide recreation
programming that matches existing City service levels. If public interest in annexation is significant,
the City is encouraged to conduct an engineering evaluation to ensure that there would be adequate
funds to provide for both operational and capital needs in the study areas prior to initiating
annexation.
BY BURR CONSULTING
3
2. A N N E X A T I O N
This chapter provides an overview of the annexation process and the three annexation areas.
LAFCO OVE RVIE W
The Local Agency Formation Commission has jurisdiction over decisions about annexation and
incorporation. This section provides an overview of LAFCO’s history, powers and responsibilities.
After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic
development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To
accommodate this demand, many new local government agencies were formed, often with little
forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in a given region, and existing agencies often
competed for expansion areas. The lack of coordination and adequate planning led to a multitude of
overlapping, inefficient jurisdictional and service boundaries, and the premature conversion of
California’s agricultural and open-space lands.
Recognizing this problem, in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the
Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission's charge was to study and make
recommendations on the “misuse of land resources” and the growing complexity of local
governmental jurisdictions.
The Commission's recommendations on local governmental
reorganization were introduced in the Legislature in 1963, resulting in the creation of a Local Agency
Formation Commission, or LAFCO, in each county.
The Los Angeles LAFCO was formed as a countywide agency to discourage urban sprawl and
encourage the orderly formation and development of local government agencies. LAFCO is
responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, including
annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts,
and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize,
simplify, and streamline governmental structure.
LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes
proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services by cities
and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs
and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment
of subsidiary districts, formation of a new district or districts, and any reorganization including such
actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters,
landowners, cities or districts.
Los Angeles LAFCO consists of nine regular members: two members from the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors (BOS), a representative of the City of Los Angeles, two city council
members, two independent special district members, a San Fernando Valley representative
appointed by the BOS, and one public member who is appointed by the other members of the
Commission. There is an alternate in each category. All Commissioners are appointed to four-year
terms. The Commission members are shown in Table 2-1.
4
A NNEXATION
Table 2-1:
Commission Members, 2009
Appointing Agency
Two members from the Board of Supervisors
appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
Two members representing the cities in the County.
Must be a city officer and appointed by the City
Selection Committee.
Members
Gloria Molina
Zev Yaroslavsky
Carol Herrera, City of
Diamond Bar
Margaret Finlay, City of
Duarte
Alternate Members
Don Knabe
One member representing the City of Los Angeles.
Must be a city officer and appointed by the Los
Angeles City Council President.
Greig Smith
Tom LaBonge
Two members representing the independent special
districts in the County. Must be a district governing
body member and appointed by the independent
special district selection committee.
Jerry Gladbach, Castaic Lake Robert Apodaca,
Water Agency
Central Basin Municipal Water
Donald L. Dear, West Basin District
Municipal Water District
One member from the San Fernando Valley appointed
by the the Board of Supervisors.
One member from the general public appointed by the
other eight Commissioners.
James DiGuiseppe
Richard Close
Henri F. Pellissier
Kenneth I. Chappell
Judith Mitchell, City of Rolling
Hills Estates
ANNEXATION PROCESS
PRECONDITIONS
There are several preconditions to annexation: territory must be contiguous to the annexing
city,1 territory must lie within the sphere of influence of the annexing city, 2 and the annexing agency
must pre-zone the affected area.
Sphere of Influence
A pre-condition for annexation is that the proposed annexation area must lie within the City’s
sphere of influence (SOI). An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable
future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual
boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized
community services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open
space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requires LAFCO to develop and determine the SOI of each
local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years.
LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an
application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment.
The City or any interested party may apply to LAFCO for an amendment to the City’s SOI.
LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding a public hearing to consider the SOI
1
Government Code §56744.
2
Government Code §56375.5.
BY BURR CONSULTING
5
and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a
report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at
least five days before the public hearing.
For the most part, the annexation study areas are outside the existing SOI, although a small
portion of the Tesoro study area lies within the City’s existing SOI. The City’s SOI was most
recently amended in 2005 to include the Whitney Canyon area which was annexed at that time.3
When LAFCO last updated the City’s SOI in 2005, it made no changes to the SOI.4
The City filed an application in 2009 for an SOI amendment to expand its SOI to include the
1,433-acre Hasley Hills, North Bluffs, Live Oak and Valencia Commerce Center areas as well as
annexation of the areas, although that application had not yet been processed when this report was
written and no LAFCO hearing date had yet been set. The proposed Hasley Hills SOI expansion
area composes a portion of the Castaic annexation study area.
Pre-Zoning
A pre-condition for annexation is that the City must pre-zone the proposed annexation areas.
Existing zoning in the annexation areas is established by the County. Land use designations are
being updated by the County in 2009, and were under consideration at the time this report was
prepared. Although the County determined the land use designations, its planning efforts in the
Santa Clarity Valley have been conducted jointly with the City of Santa Clarita. Recognizing that the
City of Santa Clarita is located within and is an integral part of the greater Santa Clarita Valley, both
the City and the County have embarked on a joint planning effort called One Valley One Vision
(OVOV). Through this process, the City and County have agreed on certain guiding principles.
The OVOV planning process reflects the City’s and County’s mutual decision to coordinate land
uses and the pace of development with provision of adequate infrastructure, conservation of natural
resources, and common objectives for the Valley.5 As a result, it is improbable that land use
designations in the areas would change if the areas choose to annex to the City. The City would be
required to pre-zone the annexation study areas prior to initiating annexation. The City would be
precluded from changing the land use designations for a two-year period following annexation.6
PROCESS
Annexation may be initiated by petitioning voters, petitioning landowners or by the governing
body of the annexing agency. If initiated by the annexing agency, that agency must also prepare a
service plan delineating which services will be extended to the territory, along with information on
service levels, infrastructure requirements and service financing.
Once initiated, the proposal is reviewed by LAFCO staff, a property tax exchange is negotiated
by the County and the City, and environmental review is conducted.7
3
Los Angeles LAFCO minutes, Jan. 12, 2005.
4
Los Angeles LAFCO minutes, Jan. 26, 2005.
5
City of Santa Clarita, Draft General Plan: Introduction, 2008, p. I-2.
6
Government Code §56375(e).
7
Although LAFCO serves as lead agency for the environmental review, preparation of the environmental document is typically
performed by the annexing city.
6
A NNEXATION
The affected agencies negotiate the terms for property tax to be transferred from the County
and affected special districts to the City. The property tax rate was capped at one percent (excluding
tax overrides for repayment of voter-approved bonds) by Proposition 13 in 1978. The property tax
was allocated among local agencies serving an area based on their respective shares of property tax
revenue at that time. As the County provides both countywide (e.g., courts) and municipal (e.g., law
enforcement and road maintenance) services, it receives a higher share of property taxes in
unincorporated areas than in areas located within the bounds of a city.
LAFCO reviews the application, and may approve the proposal at a public hearing. LAFCO
decides not only whether to approve the annexation but also any terms and conditions for its
approval. In making these decisions, LAFCO considers factors including the City’s ability to
provide and finance services in the annexation area, anticipated growth, land use, service needs,
service adequacy, regional housing needs, effects on adjacent areas, and the comments of affected
agencies and landowners.8 LAFCO is authorized to establish annexation conditions, such as the
effective date, annexation area boundaries, extension or continuation of taxes by the City or the
County, levying of special taxes, new bonded indebtedness for the annexation area and
improvement district changes.9 Existing taxes, such as business license taxes, and assessments in the
annexing city would be imposed on the annexation area at the same rates as are imposed in the City
of Santa Clarita.10 Typically, the annexed areas are detached from County-dependent road, street
lighting and landscape districts.
The annexation proposal may be approved by LAFCO without an election if less than 15
percent of the voters in the affected area file a written protest.11 If 15 to 50 percent file written
protest, LAFCO submits the annexation question to the voters, and a majority of voters decide the
matter. LAFCO terminates annexation proceedings if a majority of voters file a written protest.
Upon annexation, residents of the annexed area have the same rights and duties as if the
territory had been a part of the city upon its original incorporation. Upon annexation, the City
assumes responsibility for providing and/or financing municipal services, such as law enforcement,
road maintenance and public landscaping.
8
Government Code §56668.
9
Government Code §56886. LAFCO terms and conditions may not directly regulate land use, property development or subdivision
requirements.
10
The LAFCO resolution typically authorizes such changes in taxes and assessments to the extent allowed by law. The annexing city
bears responsibility for whether or not the City must comply with Prop. 218 in regard to any increases in taxes and assessments
associated with annexation. The State Attorney General has opined that the LAFCO process satisfies Prop 218 requirements.
Although it is common practice for annexing cities in California to rely on the State Attorney General opinion, it should be noted that
the State Legislative Counsel has opined that the LAFCO process does not satisfy Prop 218 requirements.
11
Government Code §57075.5.
BY BURR CONSULTING
7
3. S T U D Y A R E A S
OVE RVIEW
This section describes the City’s existing boundary area, as well as the three annexation study
areas analyzed in this report. The annexation study areas were defined geographically in
consultation with community, City and County representatives in 2007.12
EXISTING CITY
When formation of the City of Santa Clarita was proposed, incorporation proponents had
petitioned for cityhood for an area that originally encompassed 150 square miles. That originally
proposed boundary area included the communities of West Ranch, Hasley Canyon, Castaic and Val
Verde.13 Some local developers objected to being included in the proposed city’s boundaries; the
proposed incorporation area was then reduced to 75 square miles excluding West Ranch, Hasley
Canyon, Castaic, Val Verde and areas east of SR-14.14 LAFCO approved an area encompassing 39
square miles as the original city in 1987.
Since the City’s formation, there have been 28 annexations approved. The boundary area has
grown to 53 square miles. Relatively recent annexations included Whitney Canyon (521 acres) in
2005, and California Canyons (43 acres), Stonecrest (194 acres) and Northpark (501 acres) in 2006.
The City’s existing SOI encompasses its boundary area of 53 square miles, in addition to 30
square miles of adjacent unincorporated territory.15 The SOI extends west to I-5, north to Angeles
National Forest, south to the vicinity of the I-5 and SR-14 junction, and east to Spring Canyon.
Areas within the SOI, but outside of the existing Santa Clarita city limits, include the Valencia West
Creek subdivision in the northwest of the SOI, along San Francisquito Canyon Road to the Angeles
National Forest in the northern portion of the SOI, and the communities of Bouquet Canyon,
Forrest Park and Pinetree in the northeast of the SOI. The City estimated that there are
approximately 5,000 housing units in its existing SOI, and potential for an additional 15,000 housing
units to be built within the existing SOI. 16 With the exception of the Towsley Canyon area annexed
in 2003, I-5 has historically been the primary western limit of the City and its SOI.
Significant planned developments within the City of Santa Clarita include the Porta Bella,
Riverpark and Downtown Newhall projects. Plans for these projects include 2,911 dwelling units
and over 1.2 million square feet of office and industrial space as part of Porta Bella, 1,089 dwelling
units and 16,000 square feet of commercial space associated with Riverpark, and 1,092 dwelling units
and over 1.0 million square feet of commercial space in the Downtown Newhall development.
12
Annexation study areas are identical to the study areas in the incorporation feasibility study. Study area boundaries were provided
to the authors by West Ranch and Castaic Town Council representatives. Joint subcommittees from the Town Councils defined the
study areas in consultation with staff at LAFCO, the City of Santa Clarita, and County Supervisor Antonovich’s office. The
boundaries of the annexation areas are for analysis purposes, and would be reviewed/revised as part of the application and hearing
processes.
13
Boyer, Carl, 3rd, Santa Clarita: The Formation and Organization of the Largest Newly Incorporated City in the History of Mankind, 2005, p. 84.
14
Boyer, Carl, 3rd, Santa Clarita: The Formation and Organization of the Largest Newly Incorporated City in the History of Mankind, 2005, p. 95.
15
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Preliminary Draft Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan: One Valley One Vision 2008,
2008, p. 4.
16
8
Correspondence from City of Santa Clarita Planner Sharon Sorensen, May 8, 2009.
Map 3-1
60TH ST W
Existing City of Santa Clarita Boundary
in Relation To Annexation Study Areas
COLUMB I A WY
Legend
AB
ET
Forest
H
City of Santa
Clarita Boundary
L
Town Council Study Area
G
DE
Los
ODAngeles County
L AKE
HU
G
D
H WY
BOUQU
ET
CA
N
E S RD
RD
O
NY
SI ERRA
A D U L CE CANYON
A GU
R
Tesoro
SA #1
1
NEWHA
LL
Y MA Y O
MA
GIC
M
SOL
NR
HE
DR
RA
NC
H
RD
OU
NT
E
AIN
MC
P KW
Y
BE
PK
Y
W
N RD
AV
´
1
EY RD
LYONS AV
NE
W
0
LL
CANYO
Ranch
SA #3
D
VA
D
OA
ILR
RA
3
D
West
SAN
GOLD E N
AN
R
TH E O LD
Ventura
County
$
^
"
!
HA
LL
AV
ß
?
2
Miles
Map reproduced with permission granted
by Thomas Bros. Maps (Copyright 2008).
Q:\PROJECTS\CD\090608k1\mxd\towncouncil_soi.mxd
SA
N
G
LE
FE
RN
The City of Santa Clarita does not warrant
the accuracy of the data and assumes no
liability for any errors or omissions.
A
NDO
RD
N
O
AK
FO
O
S
B
LV
D
TH
IL
L
BL
VD
DAD
N
Castaic
SA #2
CAN Y
O
RD
IL
LA
SOI
KE
R
D
H
RD
OVOVELBoundary
IZ
H
O-NF
O
TE
STA
Map 3-2
W
HM
RD
West Ranch & Castaic
Town Council Study Area
SP
O-W
FRW
HM
Y
HM
HM
RD
HU
O/BLM
G
H
ES
N1
O
LAK
TC
E
O-NF
Legend
CT
RED
N1
EN
LD
GO
P
POINT
DR
PL
10
0
33
N
TA
PI
A
AR
LIE
N
YO
CHARL IE
W
Y
RD
MT
RG
NU
RE
NB
RD
O
AVEN
IDA
W
Y
F RAN
DR
HACIENDA
FR
A
Y
N
CR
SA N
RD
PK
W
Y
K
B ROO
LN
AS
H
EX
MCBEAN
BEL
IA
DR
O
CA L
N
S
GRANITE
CT
A
AVEN I
D
ND
WI
LE
RI
O
CT
CT
S
O
VA
WY
LN
WY
E
LN
RY
K EEPSAK
EM
M
SWEETW
ATE
R
LN
HEARTWO
LN
CU
NN
ING
CLA
RK
S
AR
BR
I
W
GR
AND
VI E
SO
N
CO U
RTVI EW
DR
WELL
SLEY
DR
DR
CHES
TERF IEL D
H
S ILVER
MAN
SF
IEL
D
CT
WY
DE
ER
F
R
T ERFORD BRAN
BU
RY
CT
DR
BE
B
RO
HILLS BO
DE
N
PL
AM
C
WY
YARDLEY
ER
LN
DR
U GH
PL
E
N
O
CT
D
PL
R
CT
RN
LB
U
SHE
PL
BR
O
ILL
S
PKW
Y
WE
LLI
BERK SH
IRE
H
TO
V ER
G RANDV
IE
W
ON
T
CT
BELM
WY
PARK LA NE
BR
IDG
VIE
EW
LN
ER
CT
B AY SID
E
LN
NA K
CT
S PIN
CV
CT
ERS
VIE W
E
BREAK
CT ISLAND
WATERSID
PIERPONT
MA
LN
PARK
WY
PA
RK
LA
NE
LN
GN
OL
R IV
IA
ER
VIE PL
W
WY
PK
R
AT
E
LA
KE
VIE
W
CV
ED
ISLAND
W
AV
SU
EN
NS
ET
SKYC
W EE
P ING
WILL
OW
OLI
VE
MIL
L
CT
FRANCI
S QUI
SUNNY
LN
IDE
MCBEAN
RIVE
RS
CT
N
EA
MCB
23
70
0
EM
Y
CT
G D AL
ENA
DR
DR
I TA
OM
BL O
PUE
PA
L
MIG
DR
A L ME
ND
CT
SER
EN
A
RA
DR
G A LV EZ
CT
E NTO
VI
H UERTA
VIA CRU Z
VIA
LU
PO
VIA NA
MAD
UR
O
L IC
IA
DE
A
RR
A
BA
A
VI
NA
A
VI
A
AVA
NT
R
D
SI
CO
LA
NA
RA
A
VI
A
VI
23
30
0
CA
A
ND
TU
EY
RO
IL
A
W
NI
D
AV
E
VIA
DA L
IA
AVD
RO
NA
DA
VIA TAN
ARA
VIA
VALENT
INA
ELA
CAPP
BO
RD
EA
VIA U
CHAN
T ILL
Y
C
FINA
EL
D
RD
NY
ON
A
PZ
ESCOVA
VIA
VI A
DI A
CAL IN
VIA DA
LA
MA DER
A
25700
ALTA
RA
KAN
NE
LA
Y
W
AN VIA
A
VIA JA C
A
CT
DR
AV
K
R
PE
A
PA
CH
D
LLO
HI
ST
AV
YL
N
AR
JENA DR
OA K
AD
DAI
E
AM
SE
CLOVE
RD
ST
S BO RO
T TA
DR
L
HERITAGE
OAK CT
DR
AV
WH
ITE
OA
K
CT
EBELDEN
OAK LN
BR I
CALGROV
L EY
HARB
Y DR
23
50
0
TT
AN
DR
LITTLE
O LD
TE
STA
TTA
ISE
DR
R
TE
WA
PL
STILL
PL
ROUGH
FAMB
CANERWELL
SBORO
LM
SS
A
IL
CA
P
IR
A
B
DR
R
C
BENITO
CT
CT
L
D
PK
VI A H
A
R
RO S E
KA
0
70
N EARGA
E
OS
RL
CA
D
ID
ONT DR
R
NS
DR
VALLEY
H
VERM
TA
DR
DR
FAIN
E
FOURL
TH
N
DE
24
AC
AD
234
00
BLV
D
S ST
CIT
RU
CT
CT
G W OOD
CT
DO
T
VI
EW
RD
RE
G
PA EN
RK TS
IR
C
PARK
24100
Z
OS S RD
G CR
CHARIN
YO
0
24
20
R
F E N D A WY
GAL ANTE WY
BLANCA WY
ALEGRO DR
DR
PARK
RD
RD
DR
LOCHMOOR RD
PARADA
RANA
QUILLA
OLIVAS
PL
PL
RD
TAMARISK
WY
VALLEY
YUCCA
LOCHMOOR
VELAN
RD
DR
WHISPERING TREES
VIA V ELADOR
VI
A
BR
TA
HI
L
VIS
DOL VI A
AR
IT A
YO
N
AVEN
IDA
CA N
A
VIA BR
AS
A
VIA ARTIN
25 200
0
CA R
IZ
FO
WILEY
W
C
T
DR
246 00
WY
NASHUA
KITFOX
HOGAN DR
2
LN
NE
W
AC
RD RE
DR
AUT
O
CE N
TE R
W
PL
A
DR
E
DR
N PLA Y ER
ST
A
VI
OW
TT
Y
IO
MA
RR
L
CHICORY
S A RGASSO
I
CONSTI
WA
TR
AI L
LN
R IVE
R
D EN
K LN
EE
HI
D
GRO
VE
SUMMER
DR
TO
C R E EK
DR
DR
EL
NN
EN
CE
CL
AR
DR
CO
D
E
RK
OD
LA
O
LN
DR
L
DE
N
AM
PTO
HT
ON
PL
CT
M
IT
LL
E
E
PL
E
S
N
VISTA
FAIRWAYS
DR
DR
N
VISTA
FAIRWAYS
T
EL
I
DR
GA
LE
0
LN
60
TU
T
CT
CT
TI
CT
S PLENDIDO
AV
AN
BILE
Z IA
LN
G RA
MIRA
N
DR
AV
AV
CT
CR
AV
CT
Y
AD
SH
LN
EE K
CR
E
LN
ANN
OIR
VAN
RD
YS
E
ON
ID
AV
RO
E
AV
REY
VE
AP
DR
RR
O
CE
SA
N
LI T
A
ME
BEVE
R
GLE N LY
C
AR
WY
2 4500
WIN
DR
ES
C
T
PL
CH
N
IN
AK
E
BL
RA
OW
N
KE
BR
DIC
EM
ER
2 580
0
O
C
AS
E
M
L
KE N
TT
25
SO
N
EN
EV
CH
ISO
ST
LN
254
00
LN
DO
ENSON
RA
ST EV
GE
R
D
ID
T
CREEK
P
TRIL L IUM
TR
00
0
UIT
O
Q
IS
C
SA
LN
LN
RAT
LN
REN
DIN
LN
H
SEU
RO
GOG
ET
MON
CEZ
DEG
LN
LN
LN
AS
MAT
ISSE
NT
A
EZ
SA
YN
ST
ON
E
EET
L ORIK
S
IN
W
DE
DR
O
R
D
DR
D
CT
HO
2700 0
TR
LE
M
M
AP
MO
SYCA
LN
HA
R
D
PL Y
LO
N
NC
H
EM
CL
L
LN
IRVING
KEAT S
OA
KR
RD
OAKS
WY
WHISPERING
N
MA
LY
AN
M
AV
CH
DR
ER
VE
ER
NG
A
TO
PP
ER
AR
CT
H
O
HAMM
PL
W
L
S
WEBSTER
C
AV
LFE
IR
N
FR
DE
E NS
0
80
W
AY
25
M
VIA A
PA R
RD
DR
BLVD
TH
E
RR
OUGH
S
BU
PL
RIST
IE
CT
CH
PL
JOY
CE P
LN
ER
NG
SI
TW
AI
N
BRON
TE
LN
LN
R NETT
BA
IN
G
HE
M
LN
PL
ON
AS
DICK
AR
N
KE
E
ZA
AN
E NA
R
PL
PL
IN
LD
W
BA
00
BA
TE
S
RE
S
XG
LO
FO
PL
BANEBERRY
D
RA
ER
WY
ST
CABRILLO
GU
LA
DE
OR
D
NF
STA
T
25
48
RO
C
60
0
CA
NY
ON
E
AY
A
PL
E
U FF
CEDAR
RI
DGE
PL
PIN
BL
OOK
WBR
ALDER
CT
WILLO
LL
YO
AK
A
RD
K
C
EE
D WOOD
PIN
CT
EN
DD
HI
CT
ST
UL
BO
C RE
PIN E
VIEW
L
RE
LAU
OAK
DE
R
DR
OA K
VE
NT
AN
CT
CT
OL D
PL
IF
P
CL
PL
PL VOLT
AIRE
CARROL
L
Y
R
E
W
S
HO
OD
MO
WY
KI
NS
PL
U
US
M
AN
HO
OR
EA
WY
TH
PL
HO
P
260
PL
9
TE
R
POT
25
99
LN
PL
ON
LO
RY
AL
NN
YS
KE
R
PO
PE
PL
PL
AV
PL
WY
N GW
AU
HE
MI
SHEL L
EY
O
RE
AY
OS
SO
BLUE
RIDGE
LN
M
CAMA
TE
O
RA
NCH
MIRA D A
CR
VE
DR
ON
S
CT
SIR
AN
I
LA
V
E
PO
S I TA
S
MA
ND
ER
CT A
RR
A
SE
LN
CO
P
RD
N
0
O
10
25
26
10
SLAT
E
ER
CT
SP
JA
AVENUE PRESIDIO
BU
LO
RO
SO
LN
NE
ST
O
O
SUNDANCE
SHA
STA
LN
TAL
AVE
RA
LN
IS
S
LA
RD
ON
AT
I
RA
AU
RO
PE
R
R BI
LT
NT
VA
N
PO
DU
TE
C
Y
PK
W
SE
N
KN
UD
RD
LN
TH
O
VIA B
PEACHLAND
BL
L
VIA
T
AN E
C AST
SC A
ROT
L
IL
M
AV
HIGHSPRING
DR
TE
RO
CORSA
RA
RONDEL
GR E E N
25100
R IE R
A
0
ID
10
EN
25
H
OL
FA R
VIA
SO
ELI
NO
CA
E
VIA D
25200
WHEELER
EVERETT
ATWOOD
VERMONT
G REENSB
RD
HA
RC AGE
O
LL
VI
IDA
EN
AV
ELA
PP
CA
AVD
E DI S
WY
CT
FOR
D
DE
PL
WY
VANDERB
ILT
AV
YO
Y
PL
CY
O
IN
L
IO
WY
OR
PL
PA
A
VI
QU
A
VI
DE
C
CI
LA
A PA
00
Y
A
AD
VI
25
NE
BR
TICA
NAU
CA
AS
FR
R
JA
LA
V IA
FI
CI
PA
A
BN
O
A
VI
RE
FO
RS
A
VI
A
VI
DR
AR
NAV
TH
A
VI
A
SN
HA
W
E
T
A
O WY
ZI
N
U
LA
P
HO
ED
LC
SA
NC
AN
Y
NEBLINA
CT
RA
DR
DURA
CT
MELISA
CT
CT
TO
PE
RA
CT
SA
DR
I
AR
LE
J
PA
CAL
CT
S
RD
L
GO
SA
E
CA
LL
N
N2
DR
A
L
WY
R
BE
WOLFE
RD
AV
LA
EL
A
166
TR
AV
VI A
A
GA L ER
VI A
G U INE
DO R
AVD
O-P
166
LA
CHERR
VIS
VA
L
VE
VIA CASTANE T
23600
D DR
60
0
X
EL OS
RSA
HAPPY
DA
A
A
AD
N
V IA
VIA AN
DR
AM
ADR
D
ALTA
ICE
CO
00
BYRON
A
0
26
RO
FU E
NTE
VIA
E BANO
VIA BE
E
AC
CT
RR
TE W
VIE
24
A
A
SO
VIA
D
W
LA
UN
D A RB
VAQU ERO CT
DR
VIEJO CT
AD
Y
HOPK
INS
NO
CAR ILLO
DR
N
RO
ADOLFO CT
CO
RE
MO
W
A
V IA
POWELL
AN
RL
CA
ID
LER
AV
RD
PI N O Z A D R
ES
R
OZA D
MEND
RIA
LE
DR
BA
PK
VA
R
RD
SIST
INE
DR
RD
P
DUM
BISC
AV
CHE L
S EA
RD
CT
FENWAY
K
OA
DR
KI
N
PL
RD
RD
R
D
RD
VI A
LN
LAS TE
RR
E
AS
VIA
TES
OR
MI
NO
VIA
RD
SID
RE
SOLANO
RA
IR A
M AD E
H A CIE
ND A
LU
MI
CA
NA
LLE
SAN
AVE
EDISON
CE
ME
N
B
E
SE
EL
CHANN
FA
R
A
E
G E RD
STO
RA
ST
PL
U AR O
PINECONE
SA G
29600
E
G
DIABLO
RANGEWOOD
PLAINS
CT
LIVE
QUINCY
29200
BEACH
NC
H
CT
LN
G
HO
M
FA
R
RD
S
BISCAILUZ
HT
M OONLIG
LN
RD
PK
W
Y
FR
AN
KL
IN
CT
STE W
ART
VALLEY
RD
GATE
OLD
N
STATE
CT
DAISY
THE
CT
MBY
HOL
LN
OS
E
NR
PE
ER
AN
G
PL
GR
WY
Y
AN
C
FI
WA
KE
HA
S
ST
HIGH-
PAI
NE
IAM
S
WILL
SHER
MA
N
AVEN
UE
AVE N
UE
RD
OLYMPIC
KES
SLE
R
CT
LOUD
ON
CT
NE
CT
THOR
GALBRE
TH
CT
CA
KN
I
ME
DF
OR
D
PL
AV
L
P
CRAWFO R
LN
ER
W
NDO
CT
GL
E
PE
NN
UE
AVE
N
WK
HUNTS
GOLDEN
PL
CA
Y UC
CT
DR
CT
LET
WY
HA M
FT
PL
BANC
RO
CAM BRIDGE
CT
LN
G ALLOPING
TROTTERS
MI
TA
DR
EL
LO
K AV
DR
E
ME
S
NC
N
ST
WK
RE
JA
LAW
WK
AL
SE
LEA WK
KEARNEY
WK
DOUGLAS
WK
B EA C
O
T
SE
N
SU
N
OA
WK
E
CUSWALE
R OS
L
OIS
DUB
CENTRA
WK
LN
CO
HARDING
WY
LI
N
CT
AV
NYON
CA
TAFT
CT
S
285 0
0
AV
DR
COTTAGE
GROVE
DR
WK
IDE
VEGA
ST
ST
AV
COOLID
GE
MO
ASCH
EL
SAIN
T
REN
CE
LAW
28900
RD
2 9100
DR
NCORSE
CO
RNINGS
DR
UOIA
SH
AS
TA
E
OS
R
EEK
CR
E RO
RO
M
RD
BONI
TA
PL
RD
E
RID A
N
VAL
SE Q
VISTA
R
CT
PARK
CLOVE
FALL S
CAN
Y
STAR
CT
CHI
DR AN
APPALA
VINEYARD
ON
DR
PL
PL
CORSICA
CORDOBA
(C M
CANYO N
3 0 100
W HITNEY
RAZ
A
TER
CT
PL
E R GO
DR
LL
D
CANYON
CARTAGENA
VALLE)
RD
APARRI
10
0
30
T
SHE
FRW Y
RD
30900
SLOAN
RD
CM D
VALLE
APAM AV
ST
W
Y
VA
L
3 08 0 0
YON
C AN
ON
E RO
0
RO
M
30
60
30 7 0 0
CA N Y
CRE E K
30200
OA K
GILM
DR
BURLWO
N ST
CH
CH
CA AR
N LIE
Y
D ON
R
O
CT
DR
T
VIA
NA
ALI
CAT
UNA
O
LM
ETA
VIA
DANZA
DE
FOURL
ROBIN
ST
L AG
DR
SANTA
DR
JANDR
E RO
E
AL
LA
A
LL
BE
OL
NT
PA
P
CO
ZANO CT
MAN
ZA
LA
CT
N
UR
TA
EN
SC
DA
AN
AR
CINA
BO
V IA
A
VI
RA
DR
BR
SOM
CT
ICO
MP
TA
AN
SL
LA
CT
RA
R
TIE
VIA
DO
BA
CT
CT
SA
V
PO
T
U
DR
E VENING SIDE
AILUZ
CH
LA
CT
CO
RA
A
A
CT
N
YO
RD
O/BLM
VI
ENTRANA
Y
W ILE
OLD
N RD
CAN YO
KERRY
H
LE
M E N CO
VIA
DA
ON
A
UN D
ROT
PL
NC
A
A
SC
A
PLAZA C H I V
ON
SR
ON
A
VI
VIA
A VE NIDA
CANY
LY
FL A
DE
RD A M ENT
EY
WIL
WABUSKA
FOXTAIL
N2
PL
ES
CA
VIA
CRE
DA
TO
NIFER
JEN
DR
CT
E
RGR E N
RD
CT
ER
CORIAND
TE
IN
N
LTO
A KE
LIS
PL
KE LTON
YL
ER
CH
C
O-NF - National Forest
LE
RD
VA
EN
AV
A
VI
VI
A
VIA
CO
DR
0
W
10
C
HO K
CIR
YN
BR
WK
HA
25
ST
RE
C
LY
EN
VI
LAMPARA
DR
CT
A
4
N
OR
EVANS
E
VI
RD
DA
AD
A
PLAZ
LAN
GAVI
ELA
EG
VIA
C A MA
L
VI
A
DA
EY
LL
VIA
PLAZA
N
TU
RO
RD
L
RKE
MA
LN
EC
NIS
DE
PL
VA
PLATA
AV
AR
M RD
VA
A
VE
GA IR
C
O
HIL
R
SA
LUNETA
GLORIT
A
ST
SA G
LN
U1
AB
K
OA
LL
MI
RD
CT
L
IAN CIR
L
IND
LLS RA
ST
WE
KE
DR
CIR
LA
CT
CT
CT
IN E
RE
LC
ZE
SM
HA
JA
OLD
BO
LE DR MACA
VA
VIA CA ND
DR
LS
24200
167
EN L N
ELCREST LN
LAUR
247 T
00
AV
LYO N S
LA
ID A
AVEN
NA
D ORE
LN
0
EL
U
30
DR
0
CH IQ
T
25
AM
N
60
25
FAR R
70
2520 0
CK
DR
E AR
SEO
RD
U
L
PLATI NA DR
RD
O
OB
ALE
CT
CA
A
NT
ME
NA
UR
TO 0
A
VI
DE
OR
24
S
3
43
A CT
R
LL
GOLF COURSE
DAR
AC
LL
RM
PA
LI
HE VI A
CA
AD
AL A B
VI
DR
VIA
DA
B AJA
DR
INO
AV
GR
A
R
AVD
TE
EST RELLA
PL
CT
RE A L
A
VI
POM
JOHN RUS S E
ICIO
MAR
DR
C
EST
A
V
ND
VIA CA
T
SA C
CT
IN I A
T TI
DR
UN A
RT
DR
V IS TA RIDGE
DR
HO
L
O-W - Water Body
G
CASTI
L LA
CT
RE
E
AIL
PALA
RD
CT
S TA
LO
BAR G A N
VIA
1
T
AT
M
PL
DR
AL
TO
S
DR
E
BR
A
PL
AO
EN
ERO
CT
ME
LI
WY
GA U
MA
DR
RIZO
AS
TOM
RA
DA
CI
NI
ST
AL
AVE
A
VI
A
ST
LIT
AR
JO
A
AC
AN
M
ON
JU
ST MO NT
DR
WY
A
NO
NG
VIA
VIA
ID
W
O
LA
VIA
EN
AD
E
LA
AV
IV
ME
SE
CK
VE
ER
UR
VIA
LL
RD
NO
Y RO
Y
BE
CO
W
NE
D
S
DR
IM
OL
AE
R OOK
CH
DB
NID
A
RA
AV E
ST
DO
AL
PL
RA
STA
FE D
GO
RD
DO
LA
L
RD
PL
RI
TO
ES
LA
DA
FE
CIELO CT
HILLS
MATEL
RD
DR
DR
N
SA
DR
NO
CO
R
ER
Y
AR
DR
IM
PR
A
VI
V IA
NA
TA
LA
Y
234
0
ITA
PAS E O
CA R
O
VO
GA
RD
VENTURI
DR
LEMA
AN
D
KI R S T
ALTAMONTE AV
TREVINO
24400
EZO
AB
CT
TI
N
E
T
IN
SA R I T
MO
N
AS
CT
CT
N
167
ER
T
CT
E
RN
RO
TO
AV
UNDINE
N VIA PALADAR
EL
R CT
BO
R
USE
HA
HO
EY
NN
R A CT
CE
TO
C
NN
CT
WY
LLO C T
MI
O
RA AL M
P
EM
SINGING
AN
W
DR
C
CT
ND
CT
AR
LN
W
NICKLAUS
HI
WY
TON
IGH
BE
RA
U
O
GA L
WAY
PL
DALGO
N
W
LA
R
BA
ANO
MIL
LN
N
TO
TAR
E
TID
DR
ES
PEARY DR
DR
OAK
IC A
AS
T
D
IN G
AV
L
AIL
RS
ER
LT
KE
STO
LN
VE
C
E
LU
ING
R
US
HO
ALB
DR
CH A R
BAS
MO R N
ZE R MATT
U
TO
HIL
A
GR
LE
LE
MB
GA
PA RK
RD
H
OD
S UM
TE
SA
LN
DG
RI
OR
CK
RB
PH
HA
G
SA
RO
A
TUR I N
DA
NO
LIN
RA
IST
TE
BR I G
M
OW
CT
CT
TO
DR
EN
K
W IC
RR
L
N
MO
SI
CT
L
EM
A
PKW
VA
A
VI
VIA
CT
AL
RO
HAM
CT
A
BI
CT
M
LU
CO
CT
NG
BL
PE
Y
MA
E
EY
CIN
TR
CRE
EKS
IDE
RD
DR
SA
CT
BU
WEM
CT
NOTTING
SO
RE
IV
M
ON
DR T E
E
1
DR
SIENA
WY
Y OW
OW
PA
CT
CHIS
H
5
4
237
00
AV
N
R
DR
G
2
3
RK
NTA
IN
MO
TO
MP
DR
ST
N
CANY ON
1
AM
HA
UT
MON T
E
L
DE T E
N
MO
LA
A
SAL
ON
WK
235 00
VIEW
BAY
CT
BLACKER HOUSE CT
SO
00
265
E DIS
N
IG
LN
CK
V
SL
PKW
ON
NT
CT
DGE
BRI
PA R
RD
DR
TR
N
K
HOR
PL
PE A
SKY
4
C
K
BROO
PL
DR
BIG
LN
ED
IS
O
WY
LE
SA DD
PL
3
K
WIC
BER
PL
ERS
RIV
TR
MUIR
2
NE
LA
CT
LIT
FI TL E
EL
D
MI
LL
ST
ON
CT
R
NO
MA
CIR
WESTVIEW
1
ORD
IDEN
MER
PL
ORD
23 79 8
ON
GRANDVIEW
NTA
F
WATE R
DR
SANFORD
WY
MO
LY
KE
PL
D
OR
NF
SA
WY
BLA
RD
29
90
PL
LN
T
RT
HF
IE
L
CT D
TR
AV
EV
AN
ST
ST
MCKINLEY
HILL SBO ROUG
D
LN
OOD
NORW
PL
LIN D EN
RD
LD
ON
HT
UITO
CT
IN G
ND
0
BRADENTON
CHIQ
LN
NEUR
M
CT
PARKER ST
PL
ND
LA
WY
Y
HA R
RO
CL
PL
M
SPRI N
BROOKDALE
B L O OM F I E L D
CT
CT
BALSAM
RD
K
RD
CYPRESS
AR
A
DM
WOODFIEL D
E
LAN
D
KENINGS TO N
CT
LS
PL FIEL
H
LN
NT
EM O
OS
WE
STF
RE LN
H
A
ON
CT
IND
2350
0
LITTLE
TON
WY
UT
O
MO
U
AN
1
CA
CT
S
KU
AR
ST
WY
A PL
C
SMOKEW
O
KIN G
STO
N
PL
RO
RD
MAG
IC
00
BE
AV
C AN Y
CT
HI L
ME R
DR
WHEATON
CT
E
NO
NA
VALENCIA
2 4 3 00
R
CUP
1
U3
TH W
C
LD
IE
N
AS
HF
IEL
DE
MC
UTIO
STIT
AV
RD
SOU
WE
H
C
EE
KS
I
FI RE N Z E
PL
SN
W
GOL F V IE
W
ST
MA
CT
ARD
AN
R
I
VD
BL
MA
EN
OL D
DOLCE
RD
LN
BAX
L
C OLO N
R
TO
E
THE
GLOR
ISO
CT
1
LA
RD
COLDSPRINGS
ER
PL
TH
EA
PL
AW
SANDX
MER
SE
ES
E
IS
SI D
E
T
ITEF
I
D CT
SMO
FAIRVIEW
CAM ER DR
WY
UE
OD
LN
RD
CON
PICO
CT
ID
CT
Y
ERS
WY
E
CT
KS
CK
BA BAY
NT
SCE CT
CHAT
RD
EDG
LN
WY
LE
SUN- WE
FLO
CT ER N
V
SIL TO
OO
DR
O
AD
OC LN
CRE
L AK E
LAN
DUN
CT
N
UQ
DR
WOOD
DECO
SUNDERL
AND
CT
WILMINGTON
DR
E
RD
EW
OR
WY
PL
MARINER WY
BO
1
CT
LD
TFIE
C HA
AND
CT
TO
1
STO
PEN
WH
G R EENRIDGE
WY
BOR O
PL
GA
RL
N
I R HAVEN
STONE
IS
UR Y
ERB
NT
NE
BR
LANES
WHIT
F IEL
D
PL
W
H
WE
BLUESTONE
ASH
CT
NT
MO
EAR
CL
CT MILLFORD
BE
NN
WY
RI V ER
ST
SE
CT
DW
CT
CT
CT
DR
LN
RD
BAYW O D
O
CT
26000
SAN
OT
ER
N
S
WE
GL E
DR
BRIG PL
RO
E
HIR
ES
LN
CH
K
AL
G
EP
D
CT
WY
FA
CT
N
C L A YTO
24
00
0
NE
BO
ES
YN
WA
WY
PL
AL
WIN
DW L
AR
D
237
L
DE
DR
INO
N
O LIV
IO
N
DE
GAR
CT
K
PA R
O
AV
BR ID
G
H
OL
SO
ON
E
GL
BR
R DR
CT GIN
CK
MO RD
BI
CT
CT
INT
SA NIS
PA
NS
K
T U M N PL
A
LI
NT E
LN
MOORH
L
DE
EC
0
2570
N
CH
A
LEZ
LN
CANYON
C
Y
WI E
H CT
US
TO
BEL
LN
LN
00
N
AM
RD EN
T
OLD
A
CH
UE
EE
RU
SP
PL CR
A
UR
Y
WYAV
YC H IS O M
RK
PA
OD
WO
CT
A
D
Y
EINB
W
HENLE
W
PK
BL
ES
DR
AL
Y
ER
LK PL
I
0
AV
N
WA
M
ST
CAR S O
BO
I
ND
26
RA L
RD
OV
E
THE
PL
PL
W
H
OOK
K
OA EE
TR
IDE
N
TO
NG
CHA
DSF
OR
DR
MON
D
D
OR
LF PL
RA
EM E
WELL
ROCK 500
RD
EA
SA
N
CT T
R
CO
RD
C
W
O
PHILBR
KS
CT
OR
E
WY
FO
ER
H
AT
UT
R RIDG EW
DR
B
O
LL
TI
AS
2
NA
CA
PA
LN
K PL
AW
DR
WINGAT E
CID
R
O
LN
C TO RI
TID
E
WN
C
G
L
N IN G
LL
FA
CA
TO N
NS
CT
PH
E
168
HO
U
G
SO
OR
10
25
West
3
Ranch
SA #3
MA G N O
WY
DR
T
SO
FAVOLO
ST
LN
DR
FE
AU
LN
MEADOW
S
G
W
SLO
WIN
CT
A LK
L
ASO
PAR
PL
K
OA
R
LN
RN
DR
CHESTNUT
M
ARBO
U2
HE
S
CT
UT
O AK
ST
CT
IA
AL
AIL
TR
W
DY
PL
SO
VERA ND A H
AZ
RIVER
HM
PL
R
S
IN
AK CT
WELLS CT
KE
IR
KE
D
ST
A
O W CY F FO
LL
RD N
FE
PL
HA R
P K WY
R
ON
R
R
NE
AG
W
WY
CI
R
ID
AY
RD
PL
C LA
RD
C
N
BA
NG
LO
ST
IR
IN
I
PA
LN
GE
E RID
COL
S CH U
BE
RT
CIR
G
W
AV AY
C
AN
ME
R
HE
AR
SID T HE
CT
CL EAR ID G E
AY
M
T
D
C
M U1
EA
DAY DR
1 TAMARIND
DR
SUM
R
AY
HATHAW
LN
CT
LN
NO R
K
T H PA R
EY-
U4
LN
I EW
BR
CE
GR
ST
GRASSY
KNOLL
GI
JA
R
R
VA
PL
S
PL
TR
CT
0
R
L
LN
S
GR O V E
M
HE
ERSON LN
L
KLIN
ANT
BRY
MS
AR
A ND
O
WO
ES T A
OAKVIEW
SE
RO
PL
CIR
KH
U2
LILY F
IELD LN
AV
RV
OW
O
BIN
DA
ON
LE
E
CT
LAU
RE
PL
LW
FO
OO
XW
D
OO
D
LN
CT
U
CO
CIR
D
PL
P
BR
S
F
HA
CT
LE
MI S T
CT
TOE
D
IR
NB
SU
CT
FC
IF
DR
CH
TU
E AS
T
O
RM
LE
PA
P KW
U2
ST
80
AN
ON
TT
AK
Y BLOSSOM PL
ERR
LN
N
LA
I
R
ND
DR
LA
D
VA L E
N C IA
W E ST
OLD
LN
DR
ST
AF
A N FO
Y
N
CO
CH
LE
3
6
RL
FRW
BELLAZZA
C
P
LN
T
D
AN
GA R
FA I R
DR
PL
DR
GA
W
AV
A LD
G ER
TZ
FI
LM
PER AN
CT
BRETON
CT
M
PL
NS
UR
DR
M E AD
R
NE
DR
HM
B
PO
IN T
LN
RE
INO
LDC
ST RA M B
GO
CT
F
U RST DR
E
Z
PA
V IA
AV
00
LI P
CR O WN
PERI WI N K
TAD
A
H
STA
REST
OW
H OLME
2579
8
VI
TW
IN
EW
P LN
A
O
DS
HM
N2
N
REU
TR
PL
ST
S
DR
D
AN
GOLDC
TH
LA
KS
CIR
WORDSWORTH
PL
AN ST
CI
EIL
RNE
VE
CT
PL
ON
I TM
WH
DE
EL L
EY
PO
E
LUS
S
2
N
MCBEA
ET
0
HA
FR
CT
GLADIO
E
AV
AR
DR
AL T
O O DL
VIA
A
VI
VI A
AD
ME
AS
HW
REYBU
RN
LN
ON
W
DR
OW
OA
CT
CA
N
OAK SAV
AN
NAH
CT
LE
AF
AK
BURG
25
90
BR
BO
00
HM
DR
HM
00
246
W
RD
RD
HM
EDISON
ON
CA
OL
D
HM
HM
Y
SP - Specific Plan
W
FR
TO WSL
EY
NY
NY
ON
CA
O/BLM
TH E
W/S - Floodway (within SEA)
TC - Transportation Corridor
URIT E
AZ
BORT O
LN
DR
Y
TR
MIRA S O L
OS
TE
STA
LL
TW
OA
CT
D
PL
RO
FO
LOS
ENCINOS
A
CT
169
C
ND
SH
HORSE
CA NYON
N
LI
K
AN
W
W/(M) - Floodway/Floodplain (Industry)
S AN
TRAIL
ENIDA
AV
ILA
AV
IO
LE
29000
N
IO
O
S
IS
OR
M
BR
CT
L
VA
AN
A
L
DE
RM
TR
RA
VI
L LN
R
0
HA
241
N
1
G
U
25200
BLV D
CO
LL
IN
AM
A
AR
E
OAK
K
RD
O-P - Open Space Parks
GLEN
CA
O
T IBU R
O
4
5
HO
CT
NE
LD
169
C
K
25
WY
BYRON
LN
R
CI
LN
00
IL
E
YL
CT
LN
O
O/BLM - Open Space (Bureau of Land Management)
CT
ESPERANZA WY
MONTECITO PL
RK
168
N
W
E
YL
DO
ROYAL
O-P
IE
SA
Y
R
DO
RE
A
TU
HM - Hillside Management
VENTURA
W - Floodway/Floodplain
COUNTY
LE
C AL
RA STANC I A
E
VE
MA
P RI
ARRA
CHAP
N
D
S
50
27
IN
RD
RD
PI
RIN
GF
CT
CT
V IA
OA
TE
E
AIR
CL
SIN
PL
26
3
O - Open Space
C
AN
EN
LD
LN
ISA
RD
N
O
RE
LN
PL
260
N
S A OOKSIDE
CR
LN
L ON D O N P L
O
RS
FO
Y
W
W
TT
WY
LN
AN
WM
BO
L
PK
P E A RE
10
ZIE
N
WY
0
Y
K ER
PL
I
CAN
YO
O-P
NT
IAN
HILL
ABBE
Y
C
1
2
ER
KO
RY
HIC
CT
CA
CT
MP
W
CA
HO
ES
RO
TE CT
CT R
RN
COT
CE
LS
DA
TO C
A
R
NW T
AS
PE
OO
N
D
FO
M CT
RE
EA
ST CT
DO
W
VI
EW
C
T
T
BA
CT
SUMME
RHILL
DANDELION
BROOK
INGS
GO
AU
SP
LN
AL
DY
L
26
W
LE
LI
SA
CO
O/BLM
PL
GE
NON
L
U3
LN
U2
W
AP - Airport
RY
VI
LN
AIN
TW
PL
B
UR
EN
CK
MA
WY
R
TH
DR
HE
R
EA
KS
OO
SP
KE
BR
SH A
NT
P - Public Service Facilities
SE
U4
DR
OVE E
GR
U
HO
RY
PL
L
COTT
AGE
242
EN
T
N
PL
HA
WES
BECKE
CT
ME
O
FR
PI
AVIG
EY
S
A CH
VI A
O
WY
L
WY
PL
LV
E
ILL
D
D EA
M - Industry
00
RN
O
LN
LE
LN
LN
SHA
EIN
ST
Y
W
IP
CE
LN
W
PL
P
EC
TH
AC
E
SH
A KES
RR - Resort Recreational
250
U
TO
EAG
BE
DR
KNOLLWOOD LN
E
6
E
Y
PIN
LLE
VA
DR
E
PL
BROOKHOLLOW DR
DR
LL
EY
K
OA
AC
UE R
W
DO
EA
A
O
PL
VA
5
P
DR
U3
R
DA
CE PL
CE
DR
L
ARQ
B
A
AM
E
TAG
RI
HE
E
L
CT
L
BE
N2
TR
ER
90
24
E
FO
ERA
Y
W
F
EA
PL
VIA
JO
VIE
B LA CK
RR
MUIRFIELD DR
IRONWOOD DR
R
EE
OD
CT WO
N
CT
N
LE
FAL
CT
OAK
CH
MP
BE
PL
ER
E
TH
LN
N
TO
PL
AS
EY
PL
L KN
CT
D
TO
PEP
PE
TT O
WY
PK
IT
M
CA
PL
E
LN
PL
Y
O
LL
SANDBURN
LL
LI
N
G
OC
FA
U
CK
R
N DA
O
CE
RD
H
AG
AU
KE
RD
C - Commercial
AC
CH
T
TC
L
PE
OT
EI
K
WY
CT
N
T
E
ALC
L
E
FO
DE Y
W
W
AL
LA
U3 - Urban 3 (6.7 to 15.0 du/ac)
TE
PL
YA
TT
OT
OW
SA
GR
E
W
M
LL
FE
KE
SU
EN
RL
MI NG
EM
PL
WY
LN
R
S PU
CT
DR
PEB FAIR
WA
BL
Y
G RE RTR
EN
L
SAINT ANNES RD
3
4
KAV
MA
FL
PK
WYAT
T
N2
2
FR
I
AV
TE
CT
F
O
TE
QUI
CO
E
C LI F
O
O
ER
WA
YC
CT
TR
PKW
Y
MILLS
OLD
PL
E
DR
ED I S
TR
PO
RD
CANYO
N
AL
R
U4 - Urban 4 (15 to 40 du/ac)
TER
E
I TE
AN
E
DG
RI
U1
RO
AK
TRERO
PO
POE
NYO
LN
CT
ETREE
OK
SM
LN
MES
CT
RE
K
N2
CA
VA
LD
ER
R
EE
SHADOWTREE
L
PE B B
GR
EGAT
LD
L
O
RER
PO T
RD
DR
SP
DR
PK
MOUNTAIN
170
HM
SALT
TS
HO
300
E
TH
CT
ROSEWOOD
TIMBER LI N E
E
RID G
STON
OL
N2
T
BIT
TIBBITTS
RO
D
A
ST
VI
ST
E
AV
25
0
50
RD
KN
IA
NC
VALE
ON
U2 - Urban 2 (3.4 to 6.6 du/ac)
E
AV
NT
R
KE
25
1
U1 - Urban 1 (1.1 to 3.3 du/ac)
R
O TT
MA G I C
ELM WO O D
AF
BIR C H LE
RD
RD
IB
AV
SOUT H
ERO
ROCK LN
E MERA
CT
CT
2
POTRE
A
0
OC
D
PO TR
AR
IDGE
CT
NY
0
SC
RD
CH
00
2 73
LN
M ESA
S H A D OW
TR
R OCK
CA
LA R K
ALL IUM
CA
RD
ES
LONE
K
WI
CT
RT
BIRCH
AMARYLLIS
E
AV T ST
T
R
BI
TIB
DR
R
D
00
25
C
W
SILVERSTONE LN
YO
N
ZA
AN
E
Y
AV NE
AR
KE
O
CT
EM
CR
300
AVE
N
TAI
UN
MAGIC MO
Y
PKW
R
W
1
RI P OSA
CL
QU A R T Z
SE
A
EN
70
27
E
FR
NU
25
RD
LARR
ES
N2 - Non-Urban 2 (1.0 du/ac)
SILHO
UCT T E
M AS
A
AV
00
N1 - Non-Urban 1 (0.5 du/ac)
NE
O
CA
N
EY
AVE
00
Land Use Classification
OR
O
AV
PA
L
ST
M
E
E
AV
RD
FO
WAYN E
N
VI
O
H
E
AV
M
0
ON
NC
EC
M
AR
AN
ST
170
CANY
DR
VALE
O
O
SHA
S
D
LL
DY
HI
FA
LA
PL
LC
O
N
CR
PL
N2
ES
T
PL
HAM
TT
O
SC
AL
BE
CT
AVE INS
PK
HO
E
2 79
00
RR
RD
E
PP
RA
27
9
AV
RD
RY
LD
ED
MIL
L
Magic
Mountain
HM
RD
RE
NZ
LN
A
SANT
00
28 0
DR
R
NY
E
RY
R
0
RD
00
FO
28
AN
ST
O
FE
M AY O
CY
N
UQ
UE
T
D
SSO
LO
RI
WY
LO
B LO
E
AV
CA
1
E
AV
E
171
N1
NCA
AL
00
28
RD
HM
COMMERCE CENTER DR
RR
E
S
WY
RO
SH
ENGLI
PL
CT
CT
A
EDEL
WEIS FUSHI
GARDENIA
S
CT
CORNE
RS TONE
CT
WY ARRO
WH
STARG
RST
AZER
EAD
CT
CT
1
CO
N
KE
OC
CR 0 0
GTO
IN
NT
HU LN
FO
TH
W
AV
E
0
N
CIR
E
E
S
S TA
VI
TE
IR
M
0
DR
Y
NR
Y
2600
AV
FR
RY
LL
HA
DR
262
00
R
ASTO
NG
RACI
NA
VI WY
LA
W
OLOGY
HN
AV
E
O
1
LIN
PL
BO
TA
Y
RD
LINA
MO
LA
MA
RD
NR
2 700
THE
M
CASTAIC
CYN
CA
VA
LL
SE
PL
ST
L
AL
LE
YT
H
I
HA
RD
Y
W
HE
0
Y
NR
HE
TING
HOU
SM
NEW
NC
H
D
AY
M
WES
OL
N
HE
1
0
90
26
800
28
M
W
0
RA
RA
DR
YO
MA
40A
DR
C REE
PKWY
P K WY
HAL L
SA
CIO
GRA
L
HIL
G
172
40
C
BR A
DY
NE W
GO
LD
ST EN
AT
E
M
VIST
A
A LT A
40B
DR
A
U1
TE CT
AK
CT
DR
1
40C
RD
OR
2 7 600
CYN
HE
HENRY
A LTA
L
AV
HENRY MAYO DR
172
SE
24
00
0
N2
O/BLM
O/BLM
HM
W IL
BAR RA
EL
RY
WY
N1
W
C
U2
ON
ER
LN
YO
MA
310
ADELENA
ER
COPP
HM
N
N1
30
LE U2
CAL A
IS
BR
HO
NC
RA
CT
U3
CAMPANA
ES
UL
RC
JO H N S
WY
RD
T
0
VIA
C
PK
NDE
NU
10
CIRCULO
B EL
RD
1
NB
HM
DR
C
RD
IS
O
D
FIEL
LN
MARISCAL
RD
P UEBLA
N
CO N S T
IR
K
EE
U4
O
MIS SION
ST
ED
RA
G
RD
AL
30
A
IT
O
OLD
00
A
W
LAD
LIND
S
TE S O R O
O
RD
DR
N2
AN
NY
W
ER
HE
00
285
W
NA
BE R
Y
CH
S
CK
CO
278
R
CH
RY
DR
U4
RANCHO
TE
H
W
WY
DR
UA
JOS H
NC
T EXAS
FRANKL I N
HEN
RA
CA
HAN
0
10
28
TT WY
LCO
WO
EZ
N
CAN Y O
IN
HM
NZ
RD
D
WY
BUC K
RD
T UR
YO
MA
GO
TAN
O
ORY LN
ONT
PROM
SADDLER I
DR
HM
VISTA
VIA
CH U1
O
RD
E
N
SO
RI
AR
N
N
RI O
C
DR
TO
L
RO
U1
E
TH
AV
VELT
ROOSE
AV
V I A CRESTA
BR
MA
P
AI
L
M
BR
AX
AYA
VIA VIZ C
U2
MART
N
RD
RD
CALLE
VE RANO
TR
CT
ST
CHIQUITO
N
SA
N
AV
DR
VI EW
WA
YS
ID E
LA
TER
AL
LY
EN
40
27
0
T
CAMP
SO
E
VIA S ERENO
RD
M
H
CASA
A
PL
TE
KEL
DD
EM
ER
I N G STO N
LU N
AY
W
LI N
PLYM O UT H
RD
HI
2850 0
C
PE
2850
RD
COMPA
P
MU
P
2850 0
AL
LATER
R
CA L
LE
BR I
LL ANTE
N1
DR
VA L L
U2
RD
500
29
AV
ON
X IMUM
OI
LA
P
PO
173
SA L
ST
O
STAGELINE
VIA
OIL
E
OW LN
AV
0
80
27
WY
C
AD O B E
O
PA L
DE
VER
O
GR
LA
C A LLE
TE RRAZA
S
XA
NTER
CE
RV
RD
B LO CK
TE
ST
T
U2
ST
N
MA
RD
J
VA
NA
OR
PL
AV
RD
ROCKPORT
ST
CA NY
DR
R ST
D AIRY
M
N
RD
MOTO
DR
VIEW
173
Y
BY
ASH
CT
M
A
BISCAILUZ
RD
DAIRY R
D
LN
O
CT
STORAGE
GARDEN AV
O
W
RD
POWER LI N E
HE
CT
U2
CT
DR
ST
DR
CT
RVOIR
SE
CAM P
WA
YSIDE
ST
PL
AP
AC
PL
GAB
LE
RAN
CH
CAS
A
RD
RE
RD
RS
RD
RO
DR
R
FO
D
EL
PL
N1
0
2 770
RD
WP
Y
LE DANVERS
STURBRIDGE DR
PK
GRANDE
D
M OTOR
Tesoro
1 #1
SA
FA RM
RD
N
O
NE
M
ORCHAR
M
RD
FARM
G
HOG
RD
S
RD
ST
C
SE
DO
RT
LI V
D
BLACKFO OT
GE
ED
CK
M
CT
HO
N
NH
OG
FAR
M
C
RID
T
UI
SQ
PA L M AS
PL
LN
SE
29800
FA
R
D
GA
GLORY
A K LN
T
ER
MULEDEE R
TA
ES
CI
L AS
O
D
ES
W
PL
N
HA
TO
WY
BIR
TE
AR
LO
DE
SE
RT
PL
EE
KB
AV
WK
ST
PK
N
M
ED
DO
WOODSTOCK AV
OO
N
ST
LINC O L N
TR
RD
N1
299 00
NANTUCKET
ST
JACKSON
NYO N
CA
INEE
E NG
C IR
Y
AN
R
WK
BERT S
NS
ST
C
RD
N ST
SO
WI L
MONROE
HAVEN
N
YES
RE
GARFIELD
HAYES CT
CA N Y O
TAPIA
TAPIA
REFINERY
IGOLD
O
OS
PEC
CT
N
AV
T
GH
D
RO
M AR
2 76
DA
VID
SO
DR
AV
WK
EL K
ON
RY
DR
WITH
ERSP
R
DSO
WIN
B ASS
ST O
WK
SIM
MO
ON
U
TUNAS
RD
RO
ST
MPS
O
CE N T
WY
THO
DU
ST
AVEN
UE
ADAMS
ST
WK
K
EN
ID GE
BR
CONCORD
PRE
W
BUR
VAN
ST
ER
50
0
COMMERCE
ST
WY
A NAN
AV
I ETT
MA D I S ON
LT
PL
LE
E DA
AS
TE
PL
WH
AV
N
TO
OT
2
TAYLOR
ST
K
PL
N
C
W
WY
CH
VIEW
WY
MORNING
C
NA
PL
OL
00
N
U1
BU
1
MIL
LER
CEN T
RAL
AV
L INC
300
MAD
IS
O
HUN S
A
SH
CAM
B
ET
PI CF O RD
AV
DR
DRIVE R
WILLIAMS WK
JOHNSON AV
GLE
R EBR
D
BY R O N
28
O
PL
RV
IN
O
TW
BR
O
400
ST
AV
PL
U4
W
LN
IRIS
DR
S P CT
RIN
GVA
LE
LN
AR
A
MA
WELL
CROM
K
TOC
1
2
00
M
PL
PL
M
IL
TL E B URY
MAYFARE
ST
237
SILVER
LAN
C
C AS
ST
HU N
S TO C K
AN
RD
0
CT
C
SE
U1
SOM
ERS
B R A LT
L
C A DI L LY
RM
L
DE
DR
WA
TE
3000
T INA
CT
DR
RE
HME
GI
OO
O
29
W
NBO
ET
ZION
IDLEWOO
D
BR
FI
PI
P
L IV E R
LN
OD
ID AV
C
FORST
CT
AS
CA
NY
LE
VAL
DR
QUAIL
270 00
RD
PRIMRO
00
E
HI R
BERK S
PL
2890 0
IN
RAI
R
RD
HM
WEDGEWOOD
HASLEY
N
O
O AK
HM
N
ON
ST
P KWY
DR
RD
PL
N2
PL
DR
VYELON
TRE
CA
NY
N
CT
O
EUCL
400
VE
RD
302
00
RD
ST
30
RDE
VE
U1
ME
O
GLACIER PL
LN
CT
29 8 00
YO
A
AV
S
IN
LEX
IN G
TON
FI G U EROA
ST
RD
E
EW
PL
COUNTRY
ONE
COBBLEST
CT
E OAK
LON
Castaic
2
SA #2
DR
WO
AK
V
AV
AV
OOD
DAW K
T RE LLIS
CT
B
N2
RD
ANTAS
AH
LLA
VI
G LA DE
A LD
U2
VI
29800
AV
PO C
T
LASSEN ST
HAY
WA RD
MAGIC
Q UA
IL
ON
RN
NW
PL
SA
V I STA
RD
LAKE
32100
S TAIC
A
C
31 8 0 0
E
RI D G
CA
D
NICHOLS
NEELY
ST
P OI NT
31500
CHERRY
A R R OW
RD
T
HOW
ARD
LN
LN
LN
D
DR
00
31300
O AK S
BC
AT
W
Y
280
BO
CA N Y
ON
E
NICHOLS
EY
LL
C
CASTAIC
WY
LN
WY
HEAVENLY
DR
A DOWGRASS
0
I
50
28
LN
YL
IN
E
SK
RD
LAKEVIEW
U1
U1
LAS
PL
ROUTE
LA
AD
BL
DR
O
RD
TAIC
MEADOWGRASS
O LD
C AS
RD
RD
WY
LAKE-
QUA
RD
N2
O
P
DEL
RD
LMOUR
GI
ADOW
00
HILLS RD
BLUESKY
DES E
RT S
H
315
THE
KARENA
RD
0
LN
RAINER
DR
HM
DB
RO
OK
O
KE
RD
EL
LIS
WK
ELVIRA
A
R
PA
MA
0
BR
YC
E
GILMA
LN
N
R
ON
RT
BO
ST
ST
60
RR
LN
STARLIGHT LN
P
AR R
E
ER
AM
ST
AV
O
30500
I N G TON
PL
ST
UR A M
O
q:/projects/pb/070625e1/mxd/towncouncil_studyarea_landuse.mxd
N2
N2
176A
U3
HILLS
POLSON
I
JU
E
MARTINE
Z
W
AR L
RO
YO
CT
LR
D
DR
CASCADE
E
NAR
MI
CT
IT
E
PR
JU
CT
AL
U1
HILL
31
U
DO
WY
PL
OD
LN
C
AI
ST
CA
PL
E
PL
W
VE R D
AMH
HM
SAN
FOO
TH
IL
VIEW
ALE
WY
RD
700
31
O
AL
LN
RD
IDE
VE
PANSY
P
PL
HM
S
The City of Santa Clarita does not warrant
the accuracy of the data and assumes no
liability for any errors or omissions.
3,000 Feet
C
K
LU
YOSEM
CT
AR
ST
E
PIN
LL
HILLCREST
LN
IE
CA
WY
PL
NO
MONTEREY CT
ST
BO N N
GE
CR E
U1
Y
HM
RR
M
BERYL
CT
P
RD
MADRID
CT
CT
Street centerlines from Thomas Bros. Maps
(Copyright 2007).
RD
Land use information from LA County Planning
ON
NY
CA
2,000
RD
MOONRIDGE
HM
G LA
301
00
1,000
N1
D
PONDEROSA
D
RE
CK
RO
CT
BA RCELONA
PL
RD
D
PL
PL
CT
CT
PL
D
RI
EY
LL
CT
EN
VA
DD
AY
REMO
NS
AI
CARNATION
CT
SAN
MA DRI
KAREN
PL
HM
0
N
PL
HI
LE
A
MALLORC
P
PA
BO
TROPEZ
U1
PL
TERRACINA
AR
CA
PL
SAINT
294 00
SERVILLA
RD
SH
CANNES
P K WY
MARSEILLE
STER
WINCHE
N
YO
ST
R
A LTA
PL
G
N
CA
G
Y
LE
HILLCREST
AN VIK
0
Parcel data: Copyright May 2007, County of Los Angeles.
All rights reserved.
The data herein is the proprietary property of the
County of Los Angeles supplied under license and may
not be reproduced except as licensed by the County
of Los Angeles. Parcel information is provided by
the Office of the Los Angeles County Assesor.
Los Angeles County assumes no liability
for any errors of omission in such information.
P
LN
SORRENTO
PL
N
MI
D AV
1,000 500
U4
P
G IBR
RE
ST
30600
CO LT
RD
D EE
N1
0
ITE
CT
CT
GORDER
WY
VAN
TOBIAH
RI
EY
LL
RD
AV
MADLOY
N
N1
EZ
CT
LN
D
ST
AV
YS
C OU N T R
U1
N2
N1
LN
C
ROLLING
E TREE
DR
CAS
DIAMON
LN
AL
ST
μ
P
S
FANTASTIC M
27700
LISA
RD
U1
VE
MT
CITE
INE
CITR
Z
TOPA
CAL
LN
U4
HU G H E
RD
N
NYO
CA
CHA R L I E
RAL
LATE
S
R ES
WY
P
CY
BAR
LN
TZ
AR
QU
LN
NA
LN
ECHI LMAN
BL
CANYON
176B
ELM
C
SIDE
VIOLIN
N
31800
C
27500
DR
RY
ER
WY
LN
27500
C
CHURCH
K ER
BR
OK
ID
HUNTER LN
DR
RY S
NT
OU
LN
CH
HIRE
SAPP
RD
0
70
T
RD
VA
OO
DR
J ASPER
27 600
K LN
REE
OA K
S
TE
WA
31
VA
L
CIR
X
CI R
PAR
U2
O
NY
CA
RD
M AR
AM ETHYST WY
27700
FERGUSON
27900
LD
HIL
L
E)
U2
LN
FO
GO
00
R
DR
BANJO
CIR
X
O NY
O/BLM
U1
SLE E P Y C
N1
30900
CT
HIPS H O T
E
0
DR
ST
ER T
20600
32
80
0
RD
R
CHUCKE
M
00
286
AF
ERLE
PL
RD
DR
Y
WE
LL
WY
RU
AIL
QU
RD
L
AR
CED
WY
2880
CLOV
E
280
L
VAL
D
WY
KE
LA
RDJOHNSO N
NARE
S
N
(CM
EST MEADOW PL
FOR
T
RES
WP
MD
R
HEATH E
CIN
D
TIMBER
PL
WY
FO
GU
C
Y
W
Y
O
RD
SL O A N
LN
WY
E
JA D
C 27600
O
D
CAN
YON
O/BLM
30
LL
DE CT
R
CEDA
RD
W
PARKER
00
AV
L
SHADO W
RD
HAWKSET
RUP
W
LO
RD
VA
BURLWOOD
30 4 00
N1
ST
285
LN
RO
VAC A
D
UR
N1
RD
BYFIELD
SAGE
Z
SA N M A RTINE
YO N
MO
OU R
RD
N1
30
BY
RU
T
PERI D O
O-W
U3
U2 RD
RD
PL
VALLE)
RD
LE)
GR E E N W
RD
D
U2
A GAT E
176
N
STALLIO U2
PL
N2
C AN
(CM
RO
ME
SLO ROAN
CTO
3030
PINED
OAKHORN AV
SL O A N
CANY O N
BA R R I N GER
RD
DE S E RT
GIL
N1
O
WY
GE
O
DWO
RE
WY
K
LN
RD
RD
H
00
U1
RID
TAPIA CANYON RD
TO
DELW
DY
AV
NC
D
0
LDING RD
80
31
2 82
GROVE
ROUT
E
SS
EL
OL
B RA
GE
RD
AN
APPLEWOOD
HAS LEY
U1
NE
ER
LD
WI
AL
ER
EM 0
90
31
0
00
DR
32
VE
LI
WI N
U2
YA L
UIR
PL
M
ST
UBB
(C
M
LN
M
KE
OA
K
SH
HM
CT
0
10
N
RO
D
O/BLM
SA
OW
32
E
TH HILL
N
EE
A
O
SL
O
RD
P
W&
31600
P
GR
C
YO
HM
OAK
CYN
RD
O
BIG
NTO
W
Y
0
I
MA R
40
M
M
PL
PI
PL
Y
FRW
C
AI
ST
32
NG
CIR
CR HM
ES
T
PINE
314 00
O AK
CT
K
AC
HIG
HLA
ND
RD
CT
AUTUMN
OAK
CA
AVION
RO
N
Water Features
W
W
W
RD
28400
TA
US
M
DR
ME
M
M
RD
00
RI D G E
TR
VICTORIA
RO
E
AT
ST
AK
M
W
VALLEY
28 7
Region Boundaries
N1
O
OAK
A
SP
D
R
OL
LN
LN
SIE
R
U2
N1
HM
FRAN
CISQ
UIT
O
E
TH
R ID G E
TO
U1
LAKEHILLS RD
CT
O
CT
VIEW
K
OAK H ILL
OA
EY
RO
AD
HM
W
HM
S TUDY A REAS
STUDY AREA 1: TESORO/PITCHESS
Annexation study area 1 is located along the eastern side of I-5 between the north city limits and
Tapia Canyon Road, and depicted as area 1 on Map 3-2.
The study area includes three communities.
Tesoro del Valle is a master-planned community located in the eastern portion of the annexation
study area.17 The County approved up to 1,791 dwelling units in this subdivision in 1999. The first
phase of construction was completed in 2006, with the construction of 1,077 residential units. The
developer has clear approval to build 239 additional units, and is seeking approval to build a total of
714 units.18 Community plans call for recreation facilities, parks, equestrian trails and open space.
Six acres of commercial use (including a large grocery store) is located south of Copper Hill Drive,
within the City’s existing SOI, outside of the study area.
Adjacent to the Tesoro study area is the proposed 405-unit Tapia Ranch residential subdivision.
The proposed subdivision would be located northwest of the Tesoro del Valle community and
predominantly outside the study area bounds.19 The proposal is for a gated neighborhood with
private streets and access primarily provided by Tapia Canyon Road in the southwestern portion of
the project area. Residential lots would range in size from 7,779 square feet to 461,459 square feet,
with an average lot size of approximately 15,400 square feet. There are 151 large-size lots proposed
(greater than 15,000 square feet) which could accommodate equestrian facilities.
Peter J. Pitchess Detention Center—a County jail facility located east of I-5 and north of the city
limits—was included to meet legal requirements for contiguity in the event this area prefers
cityhood. The Center occupies the majority of acreage in the study area, and housed approximately
7,795 inmates in 2007.20 There are four separate facilities: North Facility is a maximum-security jail
with 1,490 inmates, North Annex is a low to medium-security jail with 651 inmates, East Facility had
1,778 inmates, and North County Correctional Facility is a maximum-security jail with 3,876
inmates. The unused part of the property presents an opportunity for future planning.21
The study area excludes territory within the existing City of Santa Clarita sphere of influence. If
the study area were annexed to the City, the City would be required to annex the territory so as to
avoid creating an unincorporated island surrounded by the City.
The majority of the Tesoro study area is contained within the Castaic Town Council boundary.
The southeastern portion of the Castaic Town Council boundary includes the western portion of the
Tesoro del Valle subdivision, approximately to Las Brisas Road; however, the remainder of the study
area to the east is not included within the Castaic Town Council boundary.
17
The northern portion of the planned development is north of the annexation study area boundary. Growth projections for this
study included the entire planned residential community, but did not include the proposed commercial activity.
18
In the first phase, the developer built 475 fewer units than had originally been approved. The developer applied to the County for a
revised map, and the County has requested additional information to verify whether the revised map project will be consistent with
applicable policies and County Code provisions. The developer aims to garner County approval to include those units in future
phases through a revised map and other entitlements. If approved, minimum lot sizes would be decreased from 20,000 to 6,600
square feet in the un-built areas.
19
The proposed primary access road would run through the study area. Approximately 15-20 residential lots would be located within
the Tesoro study area, and the remainder of the proposed lots would be outside the study area.
20
Population of the Pitchess Detention Center on June 30, 2007, as reported by the Sheriff’s Department.
21
2008, pp. 28, 235-6.
BY BURR CONSULTING
11
S T U D Y A R E A 2 : C A S TA I C / VA L V E R D E
Annexation study area 2 is located along the western side of I-5 between SR-126 (Henry Mayo
Drive) in the south and Lake Hughes Road in the north, and depicted as area 2 on Map 3-2. The
study area is composed of the western portion of the area represented by the Castaic Town Council,
an advisory group of elected community members who advise the County’s fifth supervisorial
district representative. The study area includes the following communities:
•
Val Verde is a rural-residential community located in the hills northwest of Chiquita
Canyon Landfill. It was developed in the 1920s as a vacation area for Angelenos. There
are recreational and open space uses, and a store. There were 494 housing units in the
area at the time of the 2000 Census. Although residents were historically predominantly
African-American, the majority were Latino at the time of the 2000 Census.
•
East of Val Verde are the residential communities of Hasley Hills, Live Oak and North
Bluffs. There were approximately 1,530 housing units in the community in 2007.22 It
should be noted that 72 percent of the affected residents and business owners within the
area petitioned the City in 2008 to initiate annexation.23 In early 2009, the City filed an
SOI amendment with LAFCO to add this area to its SOI and has also filed an
annexation application not only for this area but also for the Valencia Commerce Center.
•
Valencia Commerce Center is a 1,400-acre industrial, commercial and retail area with
approximately 6 million square feet of industrial space, and is located adjacent to I-5 and
just north of the Santa Clara River. Major tenants include Deluxe Media, Star Nail
International, GG Industries, Mann Kind, Aquafine and the U.S. Postal Service.24 The
community is approximately 60 percent developed with about 177 acres vacant; the
vacant area has capacity for 4.2 million square feet in new space. There were about
9,126 jobs located in this area in 2007. This area is located within the proposed Hasley
Hills/Valencia Commerce Center annexation area.
•
Hasley, Sloan and Romero Canyons are located northwest of Val Verde and Hasley Hills.
The canyons are primarily residential with low-density estate homes on larger lots, and
also include a mobile home park.
•
Hillcrest is a suburban residential area located north of Hasley Hills. Densities are
comparable to Hasley Hills with up to five dwelling units per acre. There are
commercial uses adjacent to I-5.
•
The southern portion of Northlake is also in the study area. Northlake is a Specific Plan
approved for 3,623 dwelling units, a golf course and school sites. It is partially
developed with commercial and industrial uses adjacent to I-5.
Significant planned development projects within the Castaic study area include the Sterling
Gateway Industrial Center (a 1.3 million square-foot industrial park), the Gateway V project (a
planned 3.5 million square-foot industrial and business park), and the Hasley Golf Course and
subdivision, north of Hasley Canyon Road.
22
Applied Economics, Fiscal Impacts of the Hasley Hills/Valencia Commerce Center Annexation Area on the City of Santa Clarita, May 11, 2008,
p. 2.
23
Interview with Sharon Sorenson, Senior Planner, City of Santa Clarita, June 10, 2009.
24
City of Santa Clarita, Initial Study: Valencia Commerce Center/Hasley Hills Annexation, 2008, p. 3.
12
S TUDY A REAS
STUDY AREA 3: WEST RANCH/STEVENSON RANCH
Annexation study area 3 is located along the western side of I-5 between the SR-126 (Henry
Mayo Drive) in the north and Towsley Canyon Road in the south. It is depicted as area 3 on Map 32. The study area generally represents the area represented by the West Ranch Town Council, an
advisory group of elected community members who advise the County’s fifth supervisorial district
representative. The study area includes the following communities:
•
Sunset Pointe is a mostly residential area located south of Pico Canyon Road and just
west of I-5. Commercial uses adjacent to I-5 include hotels and fast-food restaurants.
The City reported that this area has expressed interest in annexation.
•
Southern Oaks is located south of Pico Canyon Road and east of Stevenson Ranch
Parkway. It is a mostly residential area, and includes a park and community center.
•
Stevenson Ranch is a master-planned community located north of Pico Canyon Road.
The area is approximately 4,000 acres in size. Land uses are primarily residential, and
also include 100 acres of commercial uses, and 45 acres of parkland. Commercial uses
along I-5 at Valencia Marketplace include big box retail, restaurants and office uses.
•
Westridge is a master-planned community located in the vicinity of Valencia Blvd., is
mostly residential, and includes a golf course and two schools.
•
The Magic Mountain community includes the Six Flags Magic Mountain theme park and
water park, and commercial and hotel uses along I-5 and Magic Mountain Parkway. The
theme park drew approximately 2.6 million visitors in 2006, 25 and grossed about $96
million in 2007.26
The study area extends northwest as far as the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. Newhall
Ranch is a proposed master-planned community with potential for nearly 21,000 residential units,
and areas designated for commercial, park, golf course and public facilities uses. Plans include 67
commercial acres, 249 business park acres, 37 visitor commercial acres and 629 mixed-use acres.
Development is projected by the County within a 25-year period.27 The area is included within the
City’s planning area.28 It is not in an annexation study area as it has not yet been developed,
although it may eventually be annexed once developed and populated.
The most significant planned development in the West Ranch study area in the Entrada project,
consisting of 3,387 residential units and nearly 3 million square feet of non-residential space, located
between Magic Mountain Parkway and the community of Westridge, in the central portion of the
study area.29 Other proposed residential projects are located south of Pico Canyon Road, in the
southern portion of the study area, and include up to a total of 332 residential units.
25
Themed Entertainment Association/Economics Research Associates, Theme Park Attendance Report, 2007, p. 6.
26
Gross 2007 revenue estimate based on source data in Six Flags, Inc., 2007 Annual Report, p. 25. The authors estimate that the park
generated approximately $0.5 million in municipal sales tax in 2007 based on analysis of the Six Flags, Inc. financial statements, and
$0.1 million in property taxes (that would accrue to City under reorganization) in that year.
27
2008, p. 30.
28
The planning area is the area where the City conducts advance planning, and extends beyond the City’s SOI.
29
Non-residential space includes office, commercial, retail, and entertainment uses, including a hotel. Other land uses that will be
incorporated into the project include a school, a fire station, and open space.
BY BURR CONSULTING
13
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
The primary policy alternatives are incorporation of the study areas as a new city and retention
of the status quo with the study areas remaining unincorporated. These alternatives are discussed in
greater detail in the Governance Alternatives Comparison report. Public opinion was unknown at the
time this study was drafted. Local voters will voice their opinions in November 2009 through an
advisory ballot measure intended to determine whether the community prefers annexation,
incorporation or the status quo.
Incorporation
Incorporation of the study areas has been studied separately with associated feasibility analysis
presented in Initial Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of West Ranch/Castaic/Tesoro by Economic
& Planning Systems, Inc. (hereafter, IFA). The IFA found that incorporation of the study areas (as
a whole) appears to be financially feasible. The IFA found that both the West Ranch and Castaic
study areas presently generate more in municipal revenues than are expended for services there, but
that the Tesoro study area generates less revenue than its service costs. As Tesoro is a relatively
small study area in terms of existing development, the study areas on the whole generate more
revenues than present service costs. If incorporated, the new city would be required by LAFCO to
make a fiscal mitigation payment to the County to avoid negative fiscal impacts on the County.
Status Quo
One or all of the areas might also remain unincorporated. The community may prefer to
continue receiving services from the County and continue to be governed by the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors.
A variant on the status quo option would be to form one or more community services districts
(CSDs) with an independently elected governing body to assume local control of certain municipal
services. Under this approach, the area would remain unincorporated. Formation of a CSD can
potentially be a transitional step toward cityhood. This option has not yet been proposed, and is not
on the advisory ballot measure.
BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES
The boundaries of the study areas are depicted on Map 3-2. These boundaries were delineated
for both incorporation and annexation study purposes only, and may be changed for purposes of
any actual annexation.30 If annexation is indeed initiated, the actual boundaries would likely differ
from the study areas. Voter preferences could potentially vary between and within study areas, for
example, if the Tesoro del Valle study area prefers annexation while other areas prefer
incorporation. The City is not under a requirement to initiate annexation in the study areas as a
whole as defined in this report, and may choose to annex areas based on voter preferences,
anticipated fiscal impacts, County preferences, or other factors.
There are a number of alternatives to the boundaries that were studied in this report and in the
IFA. The boundaries of the study areas could potentially be altered in several ways discussed here.
Annexation or incorporation could potentially occur in one, two or three of the study areas. The
advisory ballot measure planned for November 2009 will provide some guidance as to whether
30
For details on the annexation process, see Chapter 2.
14
S TUDY A REAS
public opinion on the matter is similar or different between the respective study areas. The Tesoro
study area is located adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita and its SOI, and is on the eastern side of I5. I-5 has historically been the primary western limit of the City’s SOI. If incorporation should
proceed in the West Ranch and/or Castaic areas, it is conceivable that the Tesoro area might opt for
annexation and choose to be excluded from the cityhood proposal.
Boundary alternatives in the Tesoro study area include annexation of only the Tesoro del Valle
subdivision in the study area.31 The City may annex territory only if it is contiguous to the existing
City limits; hence, annexation of Tesoro del Valle would also involve the Valencia West Creek area
(within the City’s existing SOI).32 The proposed Tapia Ranch project, which is partly within the
study area but mostly north of the study area, could potentially be annexed before or after
development occurs there. For additional discussion of proposed Tesoro del Valle and Tapia Ranch
development projects, please see the description of the study area earlier in this chapter.
There are several boundary alternatives in the Castaic study area as well. Annexation would have
to proceed based on the contiguity legal requirement. The existing city limits are contiguous to the
study area east of the Valencia Commerce Center, but meeting the contiguity requirement could
potentially be challenging for territory that is not adjacent to the City limits (i.e., the Val Verde
community). Although the Castaic Regional Sports Complex is just outside the study area, the
County reported that it would expect the facility to be included in reorganization of adjacent areas to
ensure that facility users continue to finance associated costs.33 The City could potentially exclude or
defer annexation of undeveloped areas, or eventually annex territory north and west of the study
area (where development activity is proposed and planned). Another boundary option is to include
the entire Northlake Specific Plan in this study area, as the County recently recommended.
If the West Ranch area opts for annexation, there is potential for eventual annexation of the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area just west and north of the study area. Although substantial
development in the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area has been approved by the County,
development there has not yet proceeded beyond the planning phase. Hence, there was presently
no community of consequence in the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area at the time this report was
drafted. The County projects that the development will be constructed within a 25-year period.
Given the location and size of the planned development, it would presumably be annexed to the city
in which the West Ranch study area is located (assuming that governance changes in the future).
Other options associated with future development in the West Ranch area are to ensure that the
boundaries for any future annexations do not bisect planned developments.34
31
The Pitchess Detention Center was included in the Tesoro study area to ensure contiguity with the other study areas (which is
required legally for incorporation), and could be excluded from an annexation.
32
The Valencia West Creek area was excluded from the Tesoro study area, because the study areas were intended by Town Council
representatives to be identical for the contemplated incorporation and annexation. The Valencia West Creek area is within the City’s
existing SOI; therefore, it was not included in the incorporation study area.
33
Accordingly, both the IFA and AFA included costs associated with the sports complex; in other words, both fiscal studies
effectively assumed the sports complex was in the study area.
34
The County noted that the study area boundary contains a small portion of the Newhall Specific Plan area, and runs through the
Lyons Canyon development project.
BY BURR CONSULTING
15
DEMOGRAPHICS & GROWTH
This section provides baseline estimates of residential and economic activity in the study areas
and the existing city limits, as well as projected growth in those areas over the 10-year analytic time
horizon for this study.
RESIDENTS
Figure 3-1:
The residential population in the
annexation
study
areas
is
approximately 44,900 in 2009. By
comparison, there are approximately
176,000 residents in the existing city
limits. In other words, annexation
would increase the City’s population
by about 26 percent.
Resident Population by Area, 2007-2020
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
0
The resident population in the
Tesoro study area is approximately
3,000, compared to 22,000 in Castaic,
and 19,800 in West Ranch.
In
Existing City Limits West Ranch Castaic Tesoro
addition to residents, there were
about 7,800 prisoners at the Pitchess
Detention Center and North County Correctional Facility in the Tesoro study area. Population
estimates for the annexation study areas were calculated by multiplying the number of housing units
by household size.35 Population estimates for the existing city limits were provided by the California
Department of Finance for 2007-9.
Figure 3-2:
Future residential growth is
projected at 1.4-2.0 percent annually
between 2010 and 2020.
For purposes of this study,
projected residential growth in the
existing city limits is 1.6 percent
annually from 2010-2020, matching
the most recent housing unit growth
rate projected by the Southern
California
Association
of
Governments (SCAG).36 This study
projects that 10,548 new units will be
developed in the city limits by 2020;
Projected Annual Housing Growth Rates, 2010-2020
Existing City
West Ranch
Castaic
Tesoro
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
2010-15
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
2015-20
35
The source for housing units in each study area was the Los Angeles County Assessor, Secured Basic File Abstract database as of
mid-2007. The source for average household size was the 2000 Census. The average household size in 2000 was 2.98 in Tesoro, 3.18
in Castaic and 2.72 in West Ranch. There were no more recent data on household size in the study areas.
36
Southern California Association of Governments, Integrated Growth Forecast, 2008.
16
S TUDY A REAS
by comparison, there were 7,185 new units in the development pipeline in the city limits as of early
2009, in addition to 11,500 planned units in the City’s existing SOI. Population projections for the
existing city limits are based on the assumption that household size in the existing city remains
stable.
SCAG housing projections were not used for the annexation study areas because the number of
housing units in census tracts in the study areas was estimated by SCAG to be 40 percent lower than
the actual number in 2007 in both the Castaic and West Ranch study areas. Instead, this study
developed conservative projections based on development projects presently in the pipeline in the
study areas. In the Tesoro study area, there are approximately 718 planned housing units not yet
built. In the Castaic study area, there are 2,922 housing units in the development pipeline. In the
West Ranch study area, there are 3,921 units planned. In addition, there is substantial approved
development outside the study areas, including approximately 20,000 new units in the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan area. This study assumed that housing units presently in the pipeline in the
study areas would be constructed and occupied by 2035, and assumed a smooth annual rate of
growth between 2010 and 2035. The resulting annual housing unit growth projections were 2.0
percent in Tesoro, 1.4 percent in Castaic and 1.6 percent in West Ranch. Population projections for
the existing city limits are based on the assumption that household size remains stable.
JOBS
Figure 3-3:
The number of jobs in the
annexation
study
areas
is
approximately 15,398 in 2009. By
comparison, there are approximately
68,344 jobs in the existing city limits.
In other words, annexation would
increase the City’s job base by about
23 percent.
Jobs by Area, 2007-2020
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
0
There were approximately 467
jobs in the Tesoro study area,
consisting of employees at the
Pitchess Detention Center and North
Existing City Limits West Ranch Castaic Tesoro
County Correctional Facility. In the
West Ranch study area, there are
approximately 6,931 jobs, including 3,600 jobs at Six Flags Magic Mountain. Besides the amusement
park, other jobs in the West Ranch study area are predominantly in the retail and food services
industries. In the Castaic study area, there are approximately 8,000 jobs. Many of the Castaic jobs
are with wholesale and light industrial businesses located at the Valencia Commerce Center, and the
U.S. Postal Service distribution center; there are also professional office, retail and food services jobs
in the Castaic area. Job estimates for the West Ranch and Castaic annexation study areas are based
BY BURR CONSULTING
17
on square footage of commercial structures by land use type (i.e., office, industrial, hotel, retail, and
other) and employment densities (i.e., the ratio of employees to square feet).37
Within the existing city limits, many of the jobs are in business services, although there are also a
number of retail and government jobs. Major employers include Princess Cruises, Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital, H.R. Textron, the City of Santa Clarita, the Master’s College, and
William S. Hart School District. The number of jobs within city limits in 2005 was estimated as the
average of the empirical SCAG estimate and the derived OVOV estimate.38 The number of jobs in
2007 was estimated by applying the 2005-7 housing growth rate (from California Department of
Finance) to the 2005 job estimate; this approach assumes the job-housing balance remained stable
during the 2005-7 growth years. The authors assumed that the city did not experience net job
creation between 2007 and 2009. Job growth subsequent to 2009 is shown on Table 8-1, and was
estimated based on projected growth in housing units; in other words, job growth within city limits
is assumed to keep pace with residential growth in the future. This study makes the conservative
assumption that the jobs-housing balance in the city limits will remain stable in the future.
Future job growth in the Castaic and West Ranch annexation study areas was estimated as the
product of the employment densities discussed above and projected changes in the amount of
commercial square footage by land use type.39 Commercial square footage by land use type for 2007
is empirical.40 The land use categories used for projection purposes were industrial, office, hotel,
retail, other commercial (commercial, services and utilities land uses), and other (mostly golf courses
and recreational uses). Generally, commercial square footage growth rates were developed based on
professional judgment regarding reasonable and logical absorption after review of available
information on vacancies, and activity in the development pipeline.41
The study assumed no changes in the number of jobs in the Tesoro study area in the future, as
development in that area has not proposed commercial uses and there are no definitive plans for
upsizing or downsizing the workforce at correctional facilities in the area.
37
Employment density assumptions by land use type are shown on Table 8-3. These assumptions were made based on professional
judgment after review of three sources: 1) the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey,
2003, Table B-2, 2) a 2001 SCAG consultant report (Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study, Oct. 31, 2001), and 3) City of
Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, “Santa Clarita Valley Employment Projections” (technical
background for Preliminary Draft Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan: One Valley One Vision, 2008). The first source (CBECS) is empirical,
but statistics are based on a national sample. The second source (SCAG) derived estimates based on data from a variety of databases
and assumptions regarding floor area ratios in the SCAG region. The third source (OVOV) developed assumptions for the Santa
Clarita Valley based partly on survey responses from developers and partly on CBECS data.
38
The SCAG estimate of number of jobs within the city limits in 2005 was 54,201 (SCAG, Integrated Growth Forecast, 2008). The
SCAG estimate is based on empirical sources (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) and normalized at a regional level for
consistency with official employment estimates. The OVOV estimate was 74,889 (Los Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning, Preliminary Draft Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan One Valley One Vision, 2008, p. 35); this estimate was derived based on the
study authors’ assumptions regarding employment densities, and is not a purely empirical source.
39
See Table 8-2 for detailed commercial square footage projections by study area, and Table 8-3 for employment density assumptions.
40
The source is the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Secured Basic File Abstract as of mid-2007, and is based on all parcel records
within the study areas. The Assessor parcel data do not provide square footage for most tax-exempt parcels; hence, square footage on
parcels owned by government agencies was unavailable
41
Projected square footage growth was included in the study due to the high-growth nature of the study area. Neither the IFA nor
the AFA contractual scope included a formal absorption study, and there were no available absorption studies on the study areas.
18
S TUDY A REAS
Table 3-4:
Projected Annualized Commercial Square Footage Growth Rates
Castaic
West Ranch
In the Castaic area, industrial square
2010-15 2015-20 2010-15 2015-20
footage projections are comparable to Land Use
1.6%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
expected housing growth in the region.42 Industrial
There is substantial land adjacent to the Office
1.3%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Valencia Commerce Center where Hotel
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
2.2%
further industrial development is Retail
1.3%
1.3%
0.6%
1.6%
anticipated. Industrial projects in the Other Commercial
1.3%
1.3%
1.7%
1.7%
development pipeline as of early 2009 Other
1.3%
1.3%
1.7%
1.7%
involved 0.8 million square feet (msf) in
approved projects, 0.6 msf in recorded projects and 4.5 msf in pending projects. Growth rates
assumed in this study imply that 1.4 msf in industrial space will be built between 2007 and 2020.
Office, retail, and other commercial square footage are assumed to be local-serving, and to grow at
the projected annual housing growth rate in the respective study area. Zero hotel growth is assumed
due to the very limited extent of hotel activity; applying local growth rates to such as small base does
not yield changes large enough to be consistent with the construction of even a small motel.
In the West Ranch study area, the study assumed zero industrial growth due to the very limited
industrial space in the area, and availability and plans for future growth in the adjacent Castaic study
area. At the time this study was prepared, there was a 200,000 square foot office building that was
recently constructed and vacant. The study assumes that office building is occupied by 2010 and no
subsequent office construction growth. Due to recent construction of several hotels in the existing
city limits and the West Ranch study area, this study assumes no additional hotel growth in the
short-term. Hotel growth is projected to occur in 2015 (47,000 square feet) and 2020 (65,000 square
feet). In both cases, projected square footage growth is proportional to cumulative growth in the
number of housing units in the region; additional residential growth in the region is assumed to
generate demand for additional hotel space. At the time this study was prepared, there was a
100,000 square foot strip mall that was recently constructed and vacant.43 The study assumes that
strip mall is occupied by 2010, no retail construction from 2010-14, and thereafter that retail
construction is proportional to cumulative growth in housing units in the region; residential growth
in the region is assumed to generate demand for additional retail space in West Ranch.
24-HOUR POPULATION
In addition to residential population and jobs, this report makes use of a concept called the 24hour population. The 24-hour population was estimated based on both the residential population
and the job base. The areas in this study vary significantly in the relative size of their respective
commercial populations. Not only residents, but also businesses require street, stormwater, and law
and parking enforcement services. The 24-hour population is estimated as the sum of the residential
population multiplied by two-thirds, and the job base multiplied by one-third. The job base portion
of the estimate is then normalized based on the number of jobs per resident in the particular area to
the regional ratio of jobs per resident. The resulting 24-hour population estimate at the regional
level is thus the same as the total regional population.
42
The “region” is defined here as the annexation study areas and the existing city limits. Neighboring areas were excluded due to lack
of comparable data on housing units and projections.
43
The majority of the Gateway Promenade strip mall development is located in the West Ranch study area, although the western
portion of this development is in the Castaic study area.
BY BURR CONSULTING
19
4. M E T H O D S A N D A S S U M P T I O N S
This chapter outlines assumptions used in preparing this report, and provides baseline estimates
of residential and economic activity in the study areas and the existing city limits, as well as projected
growth in those areas over the 10-year analytic time horizon for this study.
FISCAL ESTIMATES
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Annexation of the study areas is assumed to consist formally of not only annexation to the City
of Santa Clarita, but also detachment from two County-dependent districts: Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1687 and Road District No. 5. Associated property tax revenues and service
responsibilities would transfer from the County to the City.44
Annexation might also involve dissolution of County Waterworks District #36, which provides
retail water service to Val Verde and the upper Hasley and Sloan canyon areas. The reorganization
might involve dissolving the district and annexing its service area to Newhall County Water District
(Newhall CWD) or possibly adding that area to the Valencia Water Company’s service area,
although dissolution of the Waterworks District was not analyzed in this report. The Waterworks
District is primarily financed by water rates, and charges rates that are slightly higher than those
charged by Newhall CWD and Valencia Water Company. Hence, dissolution of that district it is not
expected to have a significant impact on annexation feasibility.
The report provides fiscal estimates based on financial data for a base year of Fiscal Year (FY)
2006-07.45 Annexation is assumed to occur on July 1, 2010 due to the minimum length of the
process whereby LAFCO and the community would consider this governance alternative. The
actual effective date will depend on the time required for these processes to be completed.
Revenue estimates are based on the best available data and current law. The estimates do not
account for future (and presently unknown) changes in municipal revenue allocation. The area (and
the nation) was in a recession at the time the report was prepared. Although the State faced a
significant budget deficit, the State had not yet implemented budget-balancing measures that could
conceivably affect processes for allocation of municipal revenues. Similarly, some local government
agencies in the Los Angeles area had begun to implement budget savings measures at the time this
report was prepared. Due to lags in the effect of the housing downturn on property tax revenues;
the County and the City of Santa Clarita had not yet adapted completely to revenue declines
associated with recession. Future changes to the law were unknown. Hence the study assumed
existing law on revenue allocations.
Certain formula-driven revenue estimates (e.g., gas tax) are a function of total population,
including approximately 7,800 inmates in area 1. Upon annexation, it is assumed that the City would
notify DOF of the population there and receive appropriate credit for purposes of State
44
The property tax shares of the detaching County-dependent districts do not directly transfer to annexing cities. Upon annexation,
those shares are initially transferred to the County’s general share. Then, the negotiated property tax transfer is made from the
adjusted County general share.
45
Both the County and the City of Santa Clarita define the fiscal year as beginning July 1 and ending June 30. Most California local
government agencies follow this practice.
20
M ETHODS AND A SSUMPTIONS
subventions. The formulas for allocation of vehicle license fees, Proposition 42 and gas tax to cities
are based on population; and therefore, a city would receive Proposition 42, Gas Tax, Prop A, Prop
C, Measure R, and TDA Article 3 & 8 on a per capita basis including the prison populations within
their city. Certain expenditure estimates for services used by residents (e.g., parks) are a function of
residential population, and were estimated based on residential population levels and projected
growth. Many of the estimates are a function of both residential population and daytime population
(i.e., employment) and were estimated based on 24-hour population (a hybrid measure of population
based on both residents and employees).
Certain taxes and fees charged by the County and the City of Santa Clarita differ. For example,
the County levies a 4.5 percent utility users tax and the City does not levy such a tax. The study
assumes that existing taxes and fees in the City would be imposed in the annexation study areas.
This assumption is consistent with standard LAFCO practices in the past, and supported by an
opinion of the California Attorney General. Existing assessments and Community Facilities District
(aka Mello-Roos) taxes in neighborhoods within the annexation study areas are assumed to transfer
from the County to the City, and to continue to be imposed at existing rates. This also is consistent
with standard LAFCO practices.
METHODS
Fiscal modeling of baseline expenditures in the annexation study areas generally assumed that
the City would provide municipal services to the areas at the City’s existing service levels and within
the City’s existing cost structure.
Fiscal projections are provided under two scenarios: static and dynamic.
Static estimates do not account for anticipated growth or inflation. Static estimates provide a
perspective on fiscal impacts that essentially simulates what impacts would have been if annexation
had been implemented in the base year. Although the static estimates are provided for a three-year
planning horizon, they are provided that way due to near-term transition costs and formulaic
changes in a significant revenue source—taxes in lieu of vehicle license fees (see revenue chapter for
details). In addition, static estimates allow the reader to view fiscal impacts that are not affected by
growth projections. This approach enables the reader to be assured that estimated feasibility results
are not affected by potentially optimistic (or pessimistic) growth assumptions.
Dynamic estimates account for anticipated growth, and represent a long-term budget projection
of the impacts. Long-term impacts are based on relatively conservative assumptions regarding
future growth in the Santa Clarita Valley. Dynamic estimates are provided for a 10-year planning
horizon. This approach enables the reader to envision the order of magnitude of fiscal impacts in
the future, albeit based on a greater number of assumptions than the static estimates.
Data sources used for purposes of projections are shown at the end of the report.
BY BURR CONSULTING
21
5. M U N I C I PA L R E V E N U E S
The general fund and road revenue impacts of annexation on the City are discussed in this
chapter.
OVE RVIEW
Within the City limits,
general fund revenues in
FY 06-07 were $86 million.
Taxes and subventions
composed 77 percent of
revenues ($62 million), with
fees, grants, transfers and
interest composing the
remainder.
Millions
Figure 5-1:
General Fund Taxes and Subventions
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Had the annexation
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
study areas been part of the
City in FY 06-07, the City’s
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
revenues would have been
28 percent greater (not
counting the effect of a negotiated mitigation payment). The West Ranch study area generates the
most revenues due to its extensive retail and hotel activity.
Notable impacts on residents and businesses in the annexation study areas would be elimination
of the utility users tax, reduction in the hotel tax rate, reduction in solid waste rates, increased street
lighting fees, and imposition of the City’s fees for stormwater service and open space.
Within
the
City’s
existing
boundaries,
revenues for street-related
purposes in FY 06-07 were
$20.5 million.
These
revenues are primarily
composed of gas taxes and
subventions which are
allocated to cities based on
residential
population
levels. Had the annexation
study areas been part of
the City in FY 06-07, the
City’s road revenues would
have been 28 percent greater.
Millions
Figure 5-2:
Road Fund Revenues
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
There are no significant impacts on residents and businesses in the annexation study areas
related to road-related revenues.
22
M UNICIPAL R EVENUES
TA X E S
P R O P E R T Y TA X
Figure 5-3:
The annexation study areas
generated $69 million in
property tax revenues in FY
2006-07. Property tax revenues
are allocated to the local
agencies serving the areas based
primarily on tax rates in place in
the late 1970s when California
voters approved Proposition 13.
Proposition 13 capped the tax
rate at one percent, and limited
annual growth in assessed value
(i.e., the tax base) to no more
than two percent.
Property Tax Shares, FY 06-07
Other Agencies
Education
Wastewater
Water Agencies
County Library
Fire District
Road District
Lighting District
County General
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
The County’s general share
Agency Share as % of Total Property Tax
of property tax revenues in the
study areas is 22 percent. In
addition, two percent of revenue is allocated to County-dependent special districts that would be
affected by annexation: Lighting Maintenance District No. 1687 and Road District No. 5. The
school districts serving the area receive 46 percent of property tax revenues. The Consolidated Fire
Protection District receives 18 percent. The Castaic Lake Water Agency receives six percent. The
remainder of the property tax is allocated to the County Library, the local sanitary district, and other
agencies; details are shown on Table 8-4.
When unincorporated areas annex to cities, the property tax amount transferred by the County
to the affected city is subject to negotiation. Unlike incorporation, there is no legal process whereby
LAFCO may fix the amount to be transferred from the County. The City received 5.7 percent of
property tax revenues for the territory within the city limits in FY 07-08; the City receives 5.7
percent of revenues within recently annexed areas as well, including shares associated with Countydependent districts. The property tax tables in this report provide the estimated transferable
property tax amount based on the share presently received by the City.46
Estimated property tax does not reflect fiscal mitigation payments from the City to the County.
As discussed later in this report, a fiscal mitigation payment would likely be required by the County
to offset negative fiscal impacts on the County. A fiscal mitigation payment would also be a matter
for negotiation by the County and City. Traditionally, the fiscal mitigation payment is in the form of
a property tax transfer from the County to the City, but it could be structured differently.
46
Estimated property tax does not reflect fiscal mitigation payments from the City to the County. Property tax is calculated as the
product of a) the one percent tax rate, b) total AV, c) one minus the ratio of property tax administrative fees to gross property tax
revenue (all cities FY 06-07), and d) the sum of the assumed transferring property tax shares (5.7%).
BY BURR CONSULTING
23
Property Tax Trend
During the 2003-7 housing boom, property tax revenues grew 9-15 percent annually within the
existing City, and 8-12 percent annually within the unincorporated areas of the County as a whole.47
City revenue growth slowed to 9.5 percent in FY 07-08, and declined 5.3 percent in FY 08-09.
Table 5-4:
Actuals
FY 07-08
Annual Growth Rate
Santa Clarita
LA County Unincorporated
Estimate
FY 08-09
Projections
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
Property Tax Growth
FY 11-12 FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
9.5%
6.6%
-5.3%
6.8%
-2.9%
-1.3%
0.0%
2.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
9.8%
LA County Study Areas2
City of LA
2.2%
Cumulative Growth Since FY 06-07
Santa Clarita
9.5%
LA County Unincorporated
6.6%
LA County Study Areas
9.8%
City of LA
2.2%
4.5%
9.4%
-1.1%
-7.8%
0.0%
-3.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
3.0%
6.0%
3.7%
13.8%
14.7%
11.8%
0.7%
12.3%
13.5%
3.1%
0.7%
2.8%
5.9%
9.1%
12.4%
13.5%
0.0%
14.7%
0.0%
17.0%
2.0%
20.5%
6.1%
24.1%
12.4%
Sources: Budget documents from the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, and City of Los Angeles; correspondence from Los Angeles County CEO, Los
Angeles County Assessor, and City of Santa Clarita budget staff.
Notes:
(1) FY 06-07 growth not provided due to temporary impact of ERAF 3 reductions in FY 05-06.
(2) The FY 07-08 growth rate is based on Assessor-provided assessed value estimates for the study areas. Subsequent years reflect Assessor estimates of
countywide growth in property tax revenues.
The City projects continued decline in FY 09-10, no growth in FY 10-11, and 2-3 percent annual
growth thereafter. Since the base year of FY 06-07, County projections imply that property tax
revenues will grow by a cumulative 12 percent through FY 09-10 in the unincorporated areas as a
whole, but that growth has been more volatile in the study areas. Similar to the City of Santa Clarita,
the County projects modest decline in FY 09-10 countywide, no growth in FY 10-11, and 1-3
percent annual growth thereafter. The City of Los Angeles projections are more pessimistic than
the County and City of Santa Clarita projections for FY 09-10. The City of Los Angeles expects
recovery to take one year longer than does Santa Clarita.
For purposes of this report, the authors estimate that long-term growth in property tax revenue
in the existing city limits would stabilize at 3.5 percent annually by FY 12-13.48 Annexation of the
study areas would have yielded $4.1 million in property tax revenues in the base year of FY 06-07.
Of this amount, the Tesoro area generated $0.4 million, $1.7 million in the Castaic area and $2.0
million in the West Ranch area. Over time, revenues would grow as a result of new development
and turnover of properties. For detailed calculations and methodology, see Table 8-5.
Potential impacts on municipal revenue due to the current fiscal crisis facing the State of
California are not reflected in estimates used in this report due to their dynamic and evolving nature.
47
The source for historical annual property tax growth is the Los Angeles County Assessor’s annual roll release reports.
48
Between FY 91-92 and FY 05-06, assessed value in the City grew at an annual average rate of 6.5 percent. If the housing bubble
years of FY 03-04 through FY 05-06 are excluded, the average growth rate was 5.1 percent annually. Over the same period,
population grew at 2.4 percent annually. Projected future population growth is 1.6 percent annually. Once housing prices have
stabilized, future growth in assessed value is anticipated in the range of 3-4 percent annually.
24
The Governor’s FY 09-10 budget proposed that the State borrow eight percent of local property
taxes in FY 09-10 with repayment of such amounts within a three-year period with interest.49
S A L E S A N D U S E TA X
Base Year Sales Tax
The annexation study areas generated $6.2 million in sales tax revenues based on taxable sales
activity located within the areas in FY 06-07.50 In addition to this direct activity, the annexation
areas would be credited for an additional $0.7 million in sales tax funds from countywide and
statewide “pools” of revenue that the Board of Equalization (BOE) could not directly attribute to a
particular geographic area.51
Table 5-5:
Area 1 Tesoro
$3,664
Allocable1
Pool2
Less Admin. Charges
Total Sales Tax
Share of Allocable
Area 2 Area 3 - All Study
Existing
Total
Castaic
W. Ranch
Areas
City Limits Unincorp.
$1,919,831 $4,298,459 $6,221,954 $29,488,640 $51,123,720
1
Total
Countywide
$1,262,738,360
$398
$208,574
$466,993
$675,966
$3,203,707
$5,554,186
$137,186,496
-$31
-$16,337
-$36,578
-$52,947
-$250,938
-$435,045
-$10,745,457
$2,112,068 $4,728,874 $6,844,973 $32,441,409 $56,242,862
$1,389,179,398
$4,031
3
Estimated Sales Tax by Area, FY 06-07
0.00029%
0.15204%
0.34041%
0.49274%
2.33529%
4.04864%
100.00000%
Source: Authors' calculations from Board of Equalization quarterly Fund Distribution Quarterly Allocation Summary of Bradley Burns Local Tax (pool
and admin charges) and Los Angeles County (allocable FY 06-07 sales tax generated in each study area).
Notes:
(1) All unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County as a whole.
(2) Allocable sales tax is the amount generated by businesses located in the respective geographic area.
(3) Pool is the estimated amount of county and statewide pooled sales tax that each geographic area is allocated.
(4) Share of allocable is the geographic area's share of the allocable sales tax (i.e., total excluding pool). The pool share was estimated based on the
average annual share of allocable sales tax generated in each area, because sales tax generated in study areas was available annually rather than
quarterly. Actual pool allocations are made on a quarterly basis. The annualized pool estimation approach yields an estimate for the unincorporated
areas as a whole that deviates by 2/100ths of one percent from the actual pool allocation.
49
On May 14, 2009, the Governor released the May Revision to the 2009-10 State Budget, which was intended to address a projected
budget deficit of $21.3 billion through the remainder of FY 08-09 and FY 09-10. Of all the proposals contained in the May Revision,
the most significant proposal in terms of impact on cities is $1.9 billion in borrowing of property taxes from local government under
Proposition 1A of 2004. Proposition 1A, approved by the voters in November 2004, provides that the State may not reduce any local
sales tax rate, limit existing local government authority to levy a sales tax rate or change the allocation of local sales tax revenues.
Proposition 1A provides, however, that beginning in FY 08-09, the State may shift to schools and community colleges up to eight
percent of local government property tax revenues, which amount must be repaid, with interest, within three years, if the Governor
proclaims that the shift is needed due to a severe state financial hardship, the shift is approved by two-thirds of both houses and
certain other conditions are met.
50
County of Los Angeles CEO William T. Fujioka, Santa Clarita Valley Fiscal Year 2006-07 Revenue and Expenditure Data for Tesoro,
Castaic/Val Verde, and Stevenson/West Ranch, June 30, 2008.
51
Authors’ calculations based on the following sources: 1) interview with Board of Equalization Local Revenue Allocation Unit
Supervising Tax Auditor Dan Cady, June 3, 2009; 2) Board of Equalization quarterly Fund Distribution Quarterly Allocation Summary of
Bradley Burns Local Tax (pool and shares); and 3) Los Angeles County (allocable FY 06-07 sales tax generated in each study area).
BY BURR CONSULTING
25
Figure 5-6:
Taxable sales per resident were
$13,135 on average in the cities
within Los Angeles County.
Taxable sales activity in the West
Ranch study area was relatively high
($21,717), and was relatively low in
the Castaic ($8,477) and Tesoro
($115) study areas.
There was
generally lighter sales activity in the
other unincorporated areas within
the County ($4,350).
The City of Santa Clarita had
above-average
sales
activity
($16,920) compared with nearby
suburban cities.
Taxable Sales per Resident, FY 06-07
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Other Unincorporated Areas
Average LA County cities
Los Angeles city
Simi Valley
Lancaster
Palmdale
$0
$10,000
$20,000
Taxable Sales per Resident
Sales Tax Trend
Sales tax revenue is generally cyclical. At the time this report was prepared, the nation and the
local economy were in the midst of a recession that began in December 2007, according to the
National Bureau of Economic Research. The national recession is presently projected to end by the
third quarter of 2009, according to a majority of blue-chip economists.52
Since FY 06-07, sales tax revenue has generally declined due to the recession. Actual impacts
vary by city and geographic area within California based on the mix of retail outlets, with automobile
dealers significantly affected and stores selling basic items and offering discount pricing less affected.
Some jurisdictions had experienced flat growth, while others had experienced losses of 50 percent or
more of revenue since the cyclical peak.53 BOE estimated that local government sales tax receipts
statewide declined 4 percent in FY 07-08 and another 14 percent in FY 08-09; BOE forecasts that
sales will stabilize in FY 09-10 and begin to recover by the second quarter of 2010.54
Table 5-7:
Sales Tax Growth
Actuals
Estimate Projections
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09 FY 09-10
FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Annual Growth Rate
Santa Clarita
3.2%
1.4%
-14.8%
-4.7%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
LA County
7.0%
-4.0%
-5.0%
1.0%
City of LA
3.2%
0.5%
-4.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Santa Clarita
0.0%
1.4%
-13.6%
-17.6%
-17.6%
-16.0%
-12.6%
-9.1%
-5.5%
LA County
0.0%
-4.0%
-8.8%
-7.9%
City of LA
0.0%
0.5%
-4.0%
-8.8%
-8.8%
-7.0%
-3.3%
1.6%
6.6%
Sources: Budget documents from the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, and City of Los Angeles; correspondence from City of Santa Clarita budget staff.
52
Wall Street Journal, Economic Forecasting Survey: May 2009, May 2009.
URL accessed on June 3, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash08.html?project=EFORECAST07.
53
Interview with Board of Equalization Local Revenue Allocation Unit Supervising Tax Auditor Dan Cady, June 3, 2009. Interview
with MuniServices staff, June 3, 2009.
54
Correspondence from Board of Equalization Research and Statistics Section to City and County Finance Officials, May 27, 2009.
26
The City of Santa Clarita has been more dramatically affected by the recession than the
unincorporated areas or neighboring City of Los Angeles. Within the existing City of Santa Clarita,
sales tax receipts declined by an estimated 15 percent in FY 08-09, and were projected to continue
declining in FY 09-10.55 Although the County had provided estimates of sales tax activity in the
study areas in the base year, more recent estimates of sales activity in the study areas were
unavailable. The County’s overall sales tax receipts (of which the study areas composed 12 percent
in the base year) had declined by nine percent since the base year.56 The neighboring City of Los
Angeles projected a cumulative loss of nine percent by FY 09-10 with recovery beginning thereafter.
For the study areas, the authors estimate that revenues likely declined by 9-14 percent between
the base year and FY 08-09, that revenue growth in FY 09-10 will likely be sluggish, and that
subsequently growth will revert to the long-term trend (annual average of 3.8 percent growth). By
comparison, the City had estimated sales in its boundary area had fallen 14 percent between FY 0607 and FY 08-09, that revenues will decline five percent in FY 09-10, and subsequently revenues will
grow by up to four percent annually.
U T I L I T Y U S E R S TA X
The County levies a 4.5 percent utility users’ tax (UUT) on the sales of electricity, gas and
telephone (landlines and cellular phones); the tax is paid by residents and businesses consuming
these utilities in the unincorporated areas. The City does not levy a UUT. The AFA assumes that
the City would eliminate the tax, and taxpayers in the annexation study areas would no longer pay
such taxes. If residents of study areas wish to annex in spite of an otherwise negative fiscal impact
on the City, they could propose to the City retention of some portion of the UUT.57 This study
reports on estimated UUT amounts to document the estimated financial impact on the County, as
that impact affects the probable fiscal mitigation payment that the City would pay to the County if it
should annex the study areas.
Utility Users Tax
County Allocations
Gas
Electric
Phone
AFA Allocations
Gas
Electric
Phone
Table 5-8:
Utility Users Tax Estimates, FY 06-07
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 - All Study
Tesoro
Castaic
W. Ranch
Areas
731,997
931,975 1,643,558 3,638,328
24,735
206,428
230,977
462,140
69,705
829,900
876,310 1,775,915
98,019
700,137
602,117 1,400,273
166,639
1,679,159 1,679,774 3,525,572
24,735
206,428
230,977
462,140
69,705
829,900
876,310 1,775,915
72,199
642,831
572,487 1,287,517
55
City of Santa Clarita budget documents, and correspondence from the City of Santa Clarita Department of Administrative Services.
Five-year projections through FY 14-15 were prepared by City staff in June 2009.
56
County of Los Angeles, 2009-10 Proposed Budget, April 2009, p. 41.1.
57
After an annexation, a city would typically impose in the annexation area whatever local taxes are imposed on the city as a whole.
No precedent was identified involving a LAFCO conditioning an annexation on the continuation of a tax in only the annexation
territory. It appears that the Commission technically has the authority to continue the imposition of taxes that have previously been
approved. The City would have to expressly request such an imposition in its annexation application to LAFCO.
BY BURR CONSULTING
27
The County estimated that the UUT generated $3.6 million in revenues in FY 06-07. The AFA
estimate differs from the County estimate by $0.1 million for telephone UUT revenues. The AFA
allocated the total telephone UUT revenue in the unincorporated areas to each study area based on
each area’s share of the total unincorporated 24-hour population.
In November 2008, voters in the unincorporated areas approved a ballot measure (Measure U)
that validated the tax and reduced the UUT rate from 5.0 to 4.5 percent. The new tax rate became
effective on April 1, 2009. At that time, the County also extended the tax base for the telephone
UUT to include previously untaxed telephone services, including wireless service, voice over
internet, paging, and text messaging.
The elimination of the UUT would have an average household impact of approximately $151
per home in FY 08-09 dollars.58 This estimate assumes that the residential share of the UUT
revenue is 60 percent, which is a reasonable estimate in lieu of any data on the break-out specific to
the annexation study areas.
O T H E R TA X E S
Transient Occupancy Tax
The County imposes a transient occupancy tax (TOT) at a rate of 12 percent of hotel bed sales;
whereas the City imposes a TOT rate of 10 percent. The County estimated TOT revenues in the
annexation study areas at $2.6 million in FY 06-07, of which $2.3 million is generated in the West
Ranch area, $0.3 million in the Castaic area, and none in the Tesoro area. Upon annexation, hotels
in the study areas would receive a tax reduction. As a result, the estimated TOT revenue associated
with annexation would have been $2.2 million if annexation had occurred in the FY 06-07 base year.
TOT revenues are cyclical. Consumers and businesses tend to scale back on hotel spending
during recessions. Hotel revenues are projected to decline in 2009 by 14 percent on average in the
U.S., partly due to declining occupancy and partly due to declining hotel room rates; recovery is
projected to begin by early 2011.59
Since the analytic base year of FY 06-07, TOT revenue has generally declined due to the
recession. Within the City of Santa Clarita, revenues grew significantly in FY 07-08 due to
construction of several new hotels at that time: a 140-room Courtyard by Marriott and a 157-room
Embassy Suites near the junction of I-5 and Newhall Ranch Road. However, occupancy rates in the
City declined in FY 08-09, and revenues declined by an estimated 18 percent. The City projects
continued revenue losses in FY 09-10, with 3.5 percent annual growth thereafter. The County’s
TOT revenue did not decline on net between the base year and FY 08-09, but projections for FY
09-10 imply a cumulative one percent loss in TOT revenue for all unincorporated areas since FY 0607. Neighboring City of Los Angeles projections imply a three percent decline in TOT revenue
between FY 06-07 and FY 09-10, with recovery anticipated in 2011.
58
The estimated utility users tax amount paid per home assumes that 60 percent of revenue is generated by residents and the
remainder by businesses and other non-residential utility users. The estimate is the product of a) utility users tax revenue in the study
areas in FY 06-07 ($3.5 million), b) the residential share of utility consumption (60 percent), and c) inflation between FY 06-07 and
FY 08-09 (5.2 percent) plus one.
59
PKF Hospitality Research, Hotel Horizons, March 2009.
28
Table 5-9:
Transient Occupancy Tax Growth Rates
Actuals
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09 FY 09-10
FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Annual Growth Rate
Santa Clarita
-1.1%
34.8%
-17.8%
-12.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
LA County
3.9%
9.4%
-3.3%
-6.4%
City of LA
6.0%
10.4%
-5.7%
-7.0%
3.0%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
6.5%
Santa Clarita
0.0%
34.8%
10.8%
-3.0%
0.4%
3.9%
7.5%
11.3%
15.2%
LA County
0.0%
9.4%
5.8%
-0.9%
City of LA
0.0%
10.4%
4.1%
-3.2%
-0.3%
3.7%
8.3%
13.7%
21.1%
Sources: Budget documents from the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, and City of Los Angeles; correspondence from Los Angeles County CEO's office
and City of Santa Clarita budget staff.
Although there were relatively high occupancy rates in the Santa Clarita Valley in mid-2007,
occupancy rates have subsequently declined due to the recession and construction of new hotels in
2007. For the study areas, the authors estimate that revenues will likely decline by four percent
between the base year and FY 10-11, and that subsequent growth will be 2.5-5.0 percent annually.
TOT revenue growth would be comparable in most years to inflation and growth in the 24-hour
population. The study projects that additional hotel space will be constructed during the forecast
period (through 2020) in the West Ranch study area. Revenue growth, however, is projected to be
relatively smooth over the forecast period, because hotel occupancy rates would increase until new
hotel space is constructed when occupancy rates would decrease again.
Documentary Transfer Tax
The County imposes a documentary transfer tax (DTT) of $1.10 per $1,000 in value of property
on deeds transferring property. Revenue and Taxation Code §11911 permits general law cities
within counties that have imposed such a tax to capture half of that amount from the county. The
County estimated that such tax revenues were $1.5 million in FY 06-07 in the annexation study
areas. The County would retain half of that amount, and the City would receive half upon
annexation.
Table 5-10:
DTT Growth Rates
Actuals
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09 FY 09-10
FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Annual Growth Rate
Santa Clarita
-30.5%
-22.1%
28.3%
-59.9%
2.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
LA County
0.5%
-35.8%
-28.7%
-3.8%
City of LA
-13.4%
-29.4%
-32.3%
11.1%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Santa Clarita
0.0%
-22.1%
0.0%
-60.0%
-59.2%
-57.1%
-55.0%
-52.7%
-50.4%
LA County
0.0%
-35.8%
-54.2%
-55.9%
City of LA
0.0%
-29.4%
-52.2%
-46.9%
-41.6%
-35.7%
-29.3%
-22.2%
-14.5%
Sources: Budget documents from the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, and City of Los Angeles; correspondence from Los Angeles County CEO's office.
DTT revenues are volatile, and depend on both property turnover rates and property values.
Revenues reached a peak during the earlier years of the housing bubble (FY 04-05 in the City of
Santa Clarita and FY 05-06 in neighboring City of Los Angeles) when housing turnover rates were
high. DTT revenues subsequently declined dramatically in the City of Santa Clarita due to lower
turnover rates. Between the base year and FY 10-11, DTT revenues are projected to decline by 4060 percent. The City of Los Angeles anticipates gradual recovery of DTT revenues beginning in FY
09-10 due to the effect of reduced housing prices on housing demand and recent indication of
BY BURR CONSULTING
29
increased sales activity.60 Based on analysis of trends in housing prices, turnover rates and projected
construction activity, this study estimates that DTT revenues will likely decline by 27 percent
between the base year and FY 10-11.61 Thereafter, this study estimates that DTT revenues will
increase by nine percent in FY 11-12 and 3-4 percent annually afterwards.
Business License Taxes
Within unincorporated areas, certain businesses must be licensed by the County and pay a fee
for that privilege. Business licenses in the study areas yielded $26,000 in revenue in FY 06-07,
according to County estimates. Upon annexation, businesses in the study areas would pay a similar
business license tax to the City instead of the County. After the City of Santa Clarita incorporated, it
chose to allow the County to continue collecting the tax within the city limits. The County remits a
portion of the revenue to the City and retains the remainder to fund tax collection and
administration costs. The study assumes that such revenue will increase over time based on growth
in the estimated number of jobs and on inflation.
The study assumes similar rates and enforcement efforts on the part of the City and County for
purposes of business license taxes.
60
City of Los Angeles, Revenue Outlook: Supplement to the 2009-10 Proposed Budget, 2009, pp. 56-59.
61
Data sources include DataQuick (housing prices in the Santa Clarita Valley through April 2009), Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight (historical trend in nominal and real housing appreciation rates in western U.S.), Chicago Title and Trust Co.
(historical average turnover rates), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (inflation).
30
SUBVENTIONS
VEHICLE LICENSE FEES
The City would receive revenue termed “vehicle license fees” (VLF). VLF is essentially a charge
in lieu of the property tax on vehicle value. The rate was two percent from 1948 through 2004. For
2005, the legislature reduced the VLF rate to 0.65 percent.
Historically, VLF revenue was distributed to cities based on population. In FY 04-05, most of
the allocation was shifted from population to a property tax basis for existing cities. Initial
allocations for existing cities were based on prior allocations (population). Subsequently, growth in
assessed value affects the allocation. Cities receive no property taxes in lieu of VLF for the assessed
value within the annexed area at the time of the reorganization, but do receive property taxes in lieu
of VLF for subsequent growth in assessed value in the annexation areas.62 The annexation study
areas would generate no VLF in-lieu property taxes in the first year of annexation, and would receive
approximately $1.8 million from this source by FY 19-20.
Figure 5-11:
VLF Revenue Estimates, FY 07 -FY 20
Millions
A small portion of the
$25
VLF allocation to cities
remains
based
on
$20
population; that amounted
$15
to $4.20 per capita in FY
07-08 and declined to $2.87
$10
per capita in FY 08-09.
$5
Annexing cities receive the
small portion of VLF
$0
distributed based on total
population,
including
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
population
housed
at
VLF In-Lieu Existing City VLF In-Lieu Study Areas
prisons and other group
quarters.
In
2006,
MVLF Existing City
MVLF Study Areas
legislation (AB 1602) partly
remedied the lack of VLF in-lieu property tax for existing development in annexed areas and newly
incorporated areas. AB 1602 provides a population-based allocation, which amounted to $51.07 per
capita (in the annexation area at the time of annexation) in FY 07-08.63 The population-based
component of VLF revenues for the annexation study areas was estimated based on the assumption
that statewide VLF revenue would increase by the sum of the projected statewide population growth
rate and projected inflation,64 with the resulting per capita estimate applied to the relevant population
projection. The annexation study areas would generate approximately $2.6 million in per capita VLF
revenues upon annexation, with this amount growing to approximately $3.1 million by FY 19-20.
62
Newly incorporated areas do not receive VLF in-lieu property tax revenue for growth in assessed valuation following incorporation.
63
The sunset date in AB 1602 was subsequently removed by SB 301. See California Revenue and Taxation Code §11005(e).
64
The statewide population growth rate was projected at 1.2 percent annually between 2010 and 2020 (California Department of
Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, by Age, Gender and Race/Ethnicity, Sacramento, California, July
2007). Inflation is projected at 1-2 percent annually (U.S. Congressional Budget Office, A Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget and
an Update of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook, March 20, 2009).
BY BURR CONSULTING
31
G A S TA X
The City receives an allocation of gas tax revenue from the State to be used for road-related
purposes. Gas tax revenue allocations are based on population. The AFA estimates gas tax
revenues generated in the annexation study areas would be $0.9 million in FY 06-07 dollars.
This revenue source has declined 11 percent since FY 06-07. The State gas tax rate has not
increased since 1994.
Figure 5-12:
Gas Tax Revenue Estimates, FY 07 -FY 20
Millions
$5.0
Gas tax revenues
$4.5
were projected based on
$4.0
anticipated growth in
$3.5
local population and
$3.0
statewide gasoline and
$2.5
diesel
consumption.
$2.0
Although
statewide
$1.5
revenues have increased
$1.0
in past years due to
$0.5
steadily increasing fuel
$0.0
consumption, revenues
actually declined one
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
percent in FY 07-08 and
10 percent in FY 08-09.
Existing City Area 1 - Tesoro Area 2 - Castaic Area 3 - W. Ranch
Declining revenues have
resulted from consumer
preferences for vehicles with increased fuel efficiency, in addition to the negative impact of the
recession on vehicle travel. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects increased
petroleum demand in the Pacific region in the short-term related to economic recovery, and longterm modest decline in petroleum demand related to fuel efficiencies and use of alternative fuels.65
PROPOSITION 42
Under the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP, also known as Proposition 42), cities
receive a share of the State sales tax revenue from gasoline sales for road infrastructure and
maintenance projects. These funds are distributed based on population. Revenues distributed in FY
06-07 represented repayment with interest of FY 03-04 and FY 04-05 funds that had been borrowed
by the State. Based on the statewide average per capita, the annexation areas would have generated
$0.4 million in revenues in FY 06-07 had these areas been part of the City at the time the State
borrowed the funds.66
In FY 07-08, there were no allocations to cities from this source. In FY 08-09, TCRP payments
were projected to amount to $8.62 per capita.67 State sales tax increased one cent effective April 1,
65
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Service Report, April 2009, Supplemental
Table 9.
66
California cities are required to sustain the level of general fund expenditures committed to street maintenance services at the time
Prop. 42 was implemented. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code §7104(f), the City must spend $3.1 million in general fund
revenues. There is no provision for the maintenance of effort spending level to be increased following annexation.
67
California Local Government Finance Almanac, Proposition 42 Local Street and Road Improvements - Estimated City by City Allocations,
March 2009.
32
2009. TCRP allocations to cities are delayed six months from collection. Consequently the FY 0910 allocations are affected based on a partial year, and FY 10-11 allocations are affected for the
entire year. Revenues were projected subsequent to FY 10-11 based on projected growth in
population, inflation and gasoline consumption.68
PROPOSITION C
Proposition C revenues are revenues from a 0.5 percent sales and use tax which was imposed in
1990 pursuant to Proposition C to fund public transit, paratransit, and repairing and maintaining
streets used by public transit. The City would receive Proposition C revenues distributed by the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) through formulaic per capita
allocations (“Local Return”) and discretionary grants.
Figure 5-13:
Prop. C Local Return Revenue Estimates, FY 07 -FY 20
Millions
One fifth of the
$4.5
revenues—Proposition C
$4.0
“Local Return” funds—
$3.5
are
allocated
and
$3.0
distributed monthly to
$2.5
jurisdictions on a per
$2.0
capita basis. In FY 06-07,
cities received $12.85 per
$1.5
capita based on their
$1.0
population in 2005. The
$0.5
AFA
estimates
the
$0.0
annexation
areas
generated $0.7 million in
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Proposition C Local
Return funds annually in
Existing City Area 1 - Tesoro Area 2 - Castaic Area 3 - W. Ranch
FY 06-07. The County
presently funds street service in the study areas with this funding source (among others), which
would transfer to the City upon annexation. Growth in this revenue stream over time was estimated
based on local population projections (described in Chapter 3), countywide population projections,69
and projected countywide taxable sales.70
MTA issues discretionary grants to cities and the County from two-fifths of the total
Proposition C revenues. The County did not report any revenues in FY 06-07 from discretionary
grants for street projects in the annexation study areas.71 By contrast, the City obtained discretionary
grants in FY 06-07 through FY 08-09, and projected modest grants in FY 09-10. On average in
68
Statewide gasoline consumption projections are consistent with those used for gas tax projections purposes.
69
Countywide population growth projections are based on DOF estimates through 2009, and the annualized growth rate from SCAG
projections (Southern California Association of Governments, Integrated Growth Forecast, 2008) thereafter.
70
For FY 08-09 and FY 09-10, the projected countywide sales growth rate is the MTA projection, or 2.5 percent and -11.9 percent
respectively. For FY 10-11 and FY 11-12, the projected sales growth rate is 0.0 and 2.0 percent respectively. In subsequent years, the
projected annual growth rate is 3.8 percent.
71
The County reported that it actively participates in MTA’s Call for Projects, and between 2003 and 2008 the County received more
than $34 million in road funding under both Proposition C and Surface Transportation programs in the entire Santa Clarita Valley
(which includes the study areas).
BY BURR CONSULTING
33
these years, the City received a 2.5 percent share of the discretionary grant pool for Proposition C.
By comparison, the City’s share of population over this period was 1.7 percent. The AFA assumes
that the City would receive a comparable amount of annual revenues under this program for the
annexation areas.
Federal transportation legislation authorizes the State of California to distribute Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds to regions which, in turn, distribute the funds locally. In FY
06-07, the County did not report such funding for resurfacing or other projects in the annexation
study areas. The AFA assumes that the City would obtain modest revenues from this source.
MEASURE R
In November 2008, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure R, a half-cent sales tax
increase for transportation improvements. Measure R sales taxes will start being collected July 1,
2009, and is authorized for a 30-year period. MTA projects Measure R will generate a countywide
total of $361 million in the phase-in year of FY 09-10, and double that level subsequently.72 Fifteen
percent of revenue (“Local Return”) will be distributed to the 88 cities and the unincorporated areas
of the County on a per capita basis. That amounts to $5.18 per capita in FY 09-10, and $10.26 in
FY 10-11. The annexation study areas would generate approximately $0.3 million in FY 09-10 and
$0.5 million in FY 10-11.73 These funds may be used to directly provide transportation-related
maintenance and services, including pothole repairs, major street resurfacing, bikeways, pedestrian
improvements, streetscapes, traffic signal improvements, and local transit services.
Twenty percent of Measure R funding will be dedicated to highway improvements. Funded
highway projects include capacity enhancement at the I-5/SR-14 interchange and I-5 capacity
improvements (truck lanes) north of SR-14, among other projects outside the Santa Clarita Valley.
The remaining 65 percent of Measure R funding will be spent on new transit capital projects and for
transit operations countywide.
T R A N S P O R TA T I O N D E V E L O P M E N T A C T
The California Transportation Development Act (TDA) generates municipal revenue under
Articles 3 and 8. The funding source is a 0.25 percent component of the general sales tax collected
statewide, and is allocated to counties based on their sales tax activity.
In outlying portions of the County outside the MTA service area, TDA Article 8 funds must be
prioritized for any unmet transit needs. If no such needs exist, the funds can be spent for street
purposes. MTA must conduct a public hearing process annually to determine unmet transit needs.
In FY 06-07, MTA determined that TDA Article 8 funds in the City of Santa Clarita were to be
dedicated to transit improvements, but that other funding sources for the unincorporated areas were
adequate and that the TDA Article 8 funds could be used for street purposes in these areas.74 The
County reported $1.5 million in TDA Article 8 revenues were generated in the annexation study
areas in FY 06-07. In FY 07-08 and thereafter, MTA has determined that the City of Santa Clarita
72
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Proposed FY 10 Budget, 2009, pp. 7, 50. Measure R projections are
based on the revenue collection pattern established by Proposition C during its first four quarters of existence. Revenue in future
years will be comparable to Proposition C.
73
The allocation is based on total population, and the AFA estimate assumes the City of Santa Clarita would annually report the jail
population to DOF to ensure that it maximizes per capita revenue allocations after annexation of the study areas.
74
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Transportation Development Act Article 8 Fund Program, Mar. 15, 2006.
34
had adequate funds for transit, and that TDA Article 8 funds could be expended on streets.75 TDA
Article 8 revenues were projected based on population projections for the affected areas (described
in Chapter 3 for the study areas, and relying on 2008 SCAG annualized growth projections for other
areas outside the MTA service area), MTA budgets (TDA Article 8 pool size through FY 09-10) and
projected countywide sales growth (consistent with the approach described under Proposition C).
Article 3 revenues are relatively modest at approximately $0.68 per capita in FY 08-09, and may
be used for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The annexation areas are estimated to generate
less than $0.1 million in TDA Article 3 revenues.
PROPOSITION A
Proposition A is a 0.5 percent sales tax dedicated to funding transit in Los Angeles County.
One-quarter of Proposition A funds are distributed to local agencies based on population. In FY
06-07, local agencies received $15.47 per capita. This revenue stream would provide for $0.8 million
in annual funds to the annexing city for fixed-route and paratransit operations. The County
presently funds transit service in the study areas with this funding source, which would transfer to
the City upon annexation.
PROPOSITION 172
The County received $630 million in Proposition 172 funds in FY 06-07, of which it reported
that $4.8 million offset patrol costs in the annexation areas in FY 06-07.
In 1992 and 1993, the Legislature began shifting billions of local property taxes from cities and
counties to schools in response to State budget deficits. Local property taxes were diverted from
local governments into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and transferred to
school districts and community college districts to reduce the amount paid by the State general fund.
In recognition of the considerable negative fiscal impact on the ability of local government to
finance public safety, a 1993 ballot measure—Proposition 172—adopted a 0.5 percent sales tax to
be distributed to local agencies in proportion to the impact of ERAF on that agency’s property tax
revenues. Proposition 172 funds were distributed most generously to counties, mitigating about 61
percent of county ERAF losses, and less generously to cities, mitigating about 19 percent of city
ERAF losses. The revenue allocation formula is complex, accounting for not only ERAF losses but
also vehicle license fee revenues (which were subsequently restructured as discussed earlier in this
chapter). Counties and cities may use the revenue to fund police, fire, district attorneys, corrections
and lifeguard services. A “maintenance of effort” provision requires that the agency continue to
spend at least as much as the general revenues that financed public safety activities in FY 1992-93.
Annexing cities receive property tax as a portion of the County’s property tax. The County’s
property tax allocation had been dramatically reduced by ERAF. In the case of Los Angeles County,
ERAF losses were approximately two-fifths of its property tax revenue (in FY 2005-06 dollars). The
law implementing Proposition 172—the Local Public Safety Protection and Improvement Act of
1993—did not provide any process by which annexing cities receive Proposition 172 funds, perhaps
as an oversight or perhaps due to the complexity of the revenue allocations.
Transfer of any Proposition 172 funds from the County to the City would be at the County’s
discretion. Hence, it is assumed that no such transfer would occur. The City of Santa Clarita does
not presently receive Proposition 172 revenue.
75
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Recap of Proceedings, July 26, 2007 and July 24, 2008.
BY BURR CONSULTING
35
OTHER
FRANCHISE FEES
Both the City and the County impose franchise fees on utility providers for the privilege of
transmitting and distributing utilities on the public ways of the area. Under the Franchise Act of
1937, the fee is the higher of one percent of annual sales to occupants of the area or two percent of
annual sales derived from utility pipelines and infrastructure located in the area.
The County currently imposes franchise fees on water, cable, gas, electric, and petroleum
pipeline utilities in unincorporated areas, including the study areas.
The AFA estimates that the City would receive approximately $1.5 million in franchise fees in
FY 2006-07 dollars.
Solid waste franchise fees were recently imposed by the County; both the County and the City
charge a 10 percent franchise fee on the solid waste hauler.
PERMITS AND FEES
Building and zoning permits issued in the study areas for new construction, rehabilitation and
additions to properties generated additional revenues. There are also park and recreation fees, and
other service charges that local governments impose. These charges are discussed in the next
chapter as offsets to the costs of providing particular services.
36
M UNICIPAL S ERVICES
6. M U N I C I PA L S E R V I C E S
This chapter describes how municipal services are presently provided in the annexation study
areas, how services would be delivered if the areas are annexed, and relevant information relating to
cost estimates and assumptions.
SERVICE PROVIDER OVERVIE W
This section provides an overview of the municipal service providers in the study areas.
Annexation affects municipal service delivery differently depending on the particular municipal
service, as shown on Table 6-1.
DIRECTLY AFFECTED SERVICES
There are directly affected municipal services that are presently provided to the study areas by
the County and would be provided by the City of Santa Clarita upon annexation. Such directly
affected services include:
•
General government services, including governing board, management, legal and
financial services,
•
Building inspection,
•
Land use planning,
•
Code enforcement,
•
Local park maintenance,
•
Recreation programming,
•
Street maintenance,
•
Street lighting, and
•
Stormwater management and planning.
CONTRACT SERVICES
There are also municipal services that are presently provided by the County; upon annexation,
the City would contract with the County to provide such services.
The County presently provides law enforcement and park patrol services to the annexation study
areas. As the City contracts with the Sheriff for law enforcement service, annexation would not alter
the direct service provider; however, the City may choose to enhance service levels through its
contractual agreement. Traffic enforcement services are presently provided by California Highway
Patrol, and would be provided post-annexation by the Sheriff as a contract service.
Similarly, the City contracts with the County for animal control services.
Residences in the annexation study areas presently rely on a private company for solid waste
collection; the waste hauler is selected through a franchise agreement with the County. Upon
annexation, the City would be responsible for franchising with the solid waste hauler.
BY BURR CONSULTING
37
Municipal Service
General Government
Governing Board
Manager
Attorney
Finance/Clerk/Administrative Services
Public Protection
Law Enforcement
Traffic Control/Accident Investigation
Fire Protection
Status Quo
Table 6-1:
Annexation
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County Sheriff
California Highway Patrol
Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles
County
Ambulance
American Medical Response
Animal Control
Los Angeles County
Vector Control and Mosquito Abatement Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District
Community Development
Regulation & Planning
Los Angeles County
Building Inspection
Los Angeles County
Community Services
Recreation Programs
Los Angeles County
Local Parks
Los Angeles County
Regional Parks/Open Space
Los Angeles County
Library
Los Angeles County- Santa Clarita Valley Bookmobile
Public Works
Admin. and Maintenance of Roads,
Los Angeles County
Bridges, Signals, Drainage
Flood Control & Conveyance Drainage Los Angeles Flood Control District
Street Lighting
Los Angeles County
Stormwater
Los Angeles County
Service Providers
Contract with Sheriff
Contract with Sheriff
No Change
No Change
County contract
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
continued
38
Municipal Service
Public Utilities
Domestic Water
Waste Water Treatment/Disposal
Waste Water Collection
Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal
Electricity
Gas
Cable Television
Other Services
Public Transit
Public Education (K-12)
BY BURR CONSULTING
Status Quo
Annexation
Castaic Lake Water Agency (wholesaler)
Providers- Newhall County Water District, Santa Clarita
Water Division, Valencia Water Company, Los Angeles
County Waterworks District #36
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Franchised by County
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Company
Time Warner
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Franchised by City of Santa Clarita
No Change
No Change
No Change
Santa Clarita Transit
No Change
Castaic Union School District and William S. Hart Union No Change
School District
39
UNAFFECTED SERVICES
In many cases, the municipal service provider would be unaffected by annexation, because these
services are delivered by special districts or private utility companies. Unaffected services include:
40
•
Fire and Emergency Medical Services: The Consolidated Fire Protection District of
Los Angeles County (CFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services.
CFPD serves the unincorporated areas of the County as well as 57 cities. The District is
governed by the County Board of Supervisors.
•
Ambulance transport service is provided by a private company, American Medical
Response. CFPD is responsible for contracting with the ambulance provider.
•
Regional park service would continue to be provided by the County. The County
serves both unincorporated areas and areas within city limits.
•
Library services would continue to be provided by Los Angeles County. The City relies
on the County for library operations and maintenance services; however, the City could
potentially finance library capital projects in the underserved annexation study areas.
•
Flood control services would continue to be provided by the countywide Los Angeles
Flood Control District.
•
Water wholesale would continue to be provided by Castaic Lake Water Agency.
•
Water distribution services would continue to be provided by Newhall County Water
District, Santa Clarita Water Division, and Valencia Water Company. The Val Verde
area is presently served by Los Angeles County Waterworks District #36, and there
could potentially be a change in service providers if proposed and approved by LAFCO.
•
Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services would continue to be provided
by Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). LACSD is a confederation of 25
independent separate special districts that work cooperatively under a joint agreement;
the confederation serves 78 cities and unincorporated territory. LACSD is governed by
a Board of Directors consisting of the mayor of each city and the Chair of the Board of
Supervisors for county unincorporated territory. The County Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance District will continue to maintain local sewers.
•
Electricity service would continue to be provided by Southern California Edison.
•
Gas service would continue to be provided by Southern California Gas Company.
•
Cable television service would continue to be provided by Time Warner.
•
Public transit service would continue to be provided by Santa Clarita Transit.
•
Education services would continue to be provided by Castaic Union School District
and William S. Hart Union School District.
•
Mosquito and vector control services would continue to be provided by the Greater
Los Angeles County Vector Control District.
•
Countywide services, such as regional parks, open space, coroner, and courts, are
delivered by the County to both unincorporated areas and to areas within city
boundaries, and would be unaffected.
PUBLIC SAFETY
LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Los Angeles County Sheriff provides law enforcement, detective and helicopter services to
the annexation study areas as well as the City of Santa Clarita and adjacent unincorporated areas
from its Santa Clarita Valley station in Valencia. The Station had 229 budgeted positions in FY 0607. The staffing includes all positions serving the area, including special contracts (e.g., Magic
Mountain and the school district), supervisors, traffic enforcement for Santa Clarita, and detectives.
Figure 6-2:
Law Enforcement Service Calls per Capita, FY 06-07
The Sheriff reported that the
Santa Clarita station responded to
Area 3 - W. Ranch
a total of 52,580 service calls in
FY 06-07, of which 76 percent
Area 2 - Castaic
were in the existing City of Santa
Clarita, 12 percent in the
Area 1 - Tesoro
annexation study areas, and 12
percent in other outlying
Existing City
unincorporated areas. On a per
capita basis, the volume of service
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
calls was higher in the existing
city than in the Castaic and West
Regular 911
Ranch study areas, as shown in
Figure 6-2. There were relatively more service calls in the Tesoro study area.
0.20
0.25
0.30
The Sheriff provides traffic enforcement services to Santa Clarita. The Sheriff reported that
19,844 citations were issued in the city limits in FY 06-07. Although CHP is primarily responsible
for traffic enforcement in the annexation study areas, the Sheriff has a secondary role and reported
issuing 417 citations in the study areas in FY 06-07. Because sections of the Vehicle Code are not
enforceable on private property, traffic enforcement is not performed in gated communities, such as
the Westridge, Southern Oaks, Enclave and Crown Villas subdivisions in study area 3.
Figure 6-3:
Average Law Enforcement Response Times, FY 06-07
Response
times
to
incidents in the city limits are
Area 3 - W. Ranch
faster than in the annexation
study areas, as shown in
Area 2 - Castaic
Figure 6-3. Response within
the city limits tends to be
Area 1 - Tesoro
faster primarily due to the
shorter travel times there
Existing City
related to the city’s central
location
and
greater
0
2
4
6
8
10
densities. Response times to
several of the study areas are
slowed by limited roads and vehicle access routes, and single routes of ingress and egress in several
of the areas.
BY BURR CONSULTING
41
Sheriff services provided to the City of Santa Clarita and not to the surrounding unincorporated
areas include the Sheriff’s Business Alliance, the Career Offenders Burglary Robbery Apprehension
(COBRA) team, and the Santa Clarita Community Interaction Team (CIT).76 Programs available to
both incorporated and unincorporated areas such as the Sheriff’s Teen Traffic Offender Program
(STTOP), the Community Law Enforcement Partnership Program (CLEPP) and the Sheriff’s
Community Advisory Committee (CAC) would not be impacted by annexation. Sheriff programs
currently provided only to unincorporated areas include the Community Oriented Policing (COPS)
program and the Countywide Community Interaction Team (CIT). After annexation, similar
services would be provided by the Santa Clarita Community Interaction Team (CIT).
Service Costs
The Sheriff estimated that the costs of serving the study areas were $10 million, not including
the costs of park patrol—the Office of Public Safety that relies on sworn officers to patrol parks—
and traffic enforcement services. The County reported that it finances the services in the study areas
with Proposition 172 funds ($4.8 million), the County general fund ($5.1 million), and miscellaneous
grants and service charges ($0.2 million).77 The County did not report any revenues from moving
violations or traffic citations in the study areas.
Figure 6-4:
Law Enforcement Costs per Capita, FY 06-07
The City of Santa Clarita
spent a total of $14.5 million on
City
$83
law and traffic enforcement
services in FY 06-07.
That
$480
Area 1 - Tesoro
$948
amounted to $83 per capita. The
County Sheriff’s estimated costs
$90
Area 2 - Castaic
$178
for law enforcement in the
annexation study areas amount to
$101
Area 3 - W. Ranch
$199
$948 in study area 1, $178 in
study area 2 and $199 in study
$0
$200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000
area 3. The per capita net County
cost (net of Prop. 172 and other
Net County Cost
Gross
revenues) in study areas 2 and 3
are roughly comparable to the
amount paid by the City of Santa Clarita. Specific reasons for relatively high costs in area 1 have not
been provided. In response to questions regarding the relatively high costs in area 1, the County
stated that deputy deployment is not based solely on population of the area served, but also on
factors such as geography, topography, demographics, calls for service and the types of crimes.78
76
The Vital Intervention and Directional Alternatives (VIDA) program is paid for by the City, thus City residents have priority
enrollment; however, the County reported that residents from surrounding unincorporated areas are occasionally permitted to enroll.
Annexation would expand eligibility for non-City residents that currently do not receive priority enrollment.
77
See Chapter 5 for discussion of Prop. 172 funds.
78
Los Angeles County CEO, Tesoro, Castaic/Val Verde and Stevenson Ranch Annexation and IFA Study Area Follow-Up Questions and
Responses, Oct. 30, 2008.
42
Figure 6-5:
Costs and Activity by Unincorporated Area, FY 06-07
There are several challenges in
Sheriff Cost
estimating accurate contract costs
in the study areas. Deputies and
Crimes
staff are not assigned exclusively to
Citations
a particular annexation study area,
and are assigned to cover all of the
Service Calls
unincorporated areas within the
Santa Clarita station’s service area.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The Sheriff’s Santa Clarita Valley
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
operations staff allocated costs to
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Other Unincorporated
each study area based on its
79
analysis of personnel deployment.
The Sheriff’s (gross) cost estimates for the annexation study areas, particularly the Tesoro area, are
higher than the proportional share of crimes, service calls and citations, as shown in Figure 6-5. The
Sheriff’s estimated costs in the outlying unincorporated areas are much lower than the share of
service calls in those areas.
Per capita law enforcement costs paid by contract cities are substantially lower than the County’s
costs for serving unincorporated areas. The County’s cost estimates for services provided from the
Santa Clarita Valley station to the unincorporated areas amounted to $182 per capita, whereas, the
City of Santa Clarita contract service charges amounted to $83 per capita.80 Analysis of contract city
costs in FY 04-05 indicates at that time the median contract city in Los Angeles County paid $102
per capita. Cost estimates submitted by the County for the East Los Angeles community that is
considering incorporation amounted to $228 per capita (FY 05-06 dollars); the comparable
communities of Compton, Lancaster, Palmdale, and Norwalk paid substantially less ($96-141 per
capita) in contract city charges.
There are differences between the County’s cost of providing services and the amount that
would be charged if the areas were to annex to the City and contract for services. County costs
differ from contract city charges due to a provision of state law (Government Code §51350)
preventing counties from charging contract cities for countywide services and general overhead
costs (i.e., overhead costs the County would pay if it were not providing contract city service).
Due to that provision, the City of Santa Clarita would pay for law enforcement services in the
annexation study areas on a contract city cost basis. The AFA concludes that the contract city cost
for providing law and traffic enforcement services to the study areas should be calculated based on
an average contract cost per capita of $100 in FY 2006-07 dollars in order to adjust for allowable
contract city charges; this conservative estimate is 20 percent higher than the City of Santa Clarita’s
contract city charges in FY 06-07. The AFA implemented a formula that accounts for the
geographic distribution of service calls, crimes, and citations, as well as the Sheriff’s deputy
deployment estimate in order to allocate the contract city cost among the study areas and the
79
Los Angeles County CEO, Revised Fiscal Year 2006-07 Sheriff Department Revenue and Expenditure Data for Tesoro, Castaic/Val Verde, and
Stevenson/West Ranch, July 21, 2008.
80
The County’s estimated costs for serving only the unincorporated annexation study areas amounts to $230 per capita; this figure is
higher than the costs of serving all unincorporated areas in the Santa Clarita Valley station’s service area.
BY BURR CONSULTING
43
remaining unincorporated areas served by the Santa Clarita Valley station.81 The resulting gross City
cost estimate is approximately $4.3 million in FY 06-07 dollars. That amounts to $298 per capita in
area 1, $84 per capita in area 2 and $92 per capita in area 3; hence, assumed costs per capita in each
of the areas are no less than those paid by the existing city ($84).
To provide adequate space to serve the growing Santa Clarita Valley, an expansion of the Santa
Clarita Valley station was recently completed through the leasing of a 9,500 square feet facility at
26340 Citrus Drive in Valencia. The facility lease is for seven years, cancelable after five years with
an additional five-year option to renew. In addition to the lease, the County will be responsible for
utilities and janitorial services expense.
Projections for FY 07-08 through FY 09-10 are based on the annual growth in the City of Santa
Clarita's law enforcement costs. Thereafter, projections account for growth in the 24-hour
population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost growth.
PA R K PA T R O L
The County’s Office of Public Safety (LACOPS) provides law enforcement services to Countyoperated parks. The County reported that LACOPS responded to a total of 58 service calls in FY
06-07 at parks in the annexation study areas, of which 42 calls were from the Val Verde Regional
Park. For this service, the County estimated the cost was $65,000 in FY 06-07 for the annexation
study areas combined.
LACOPS does not provide contract park patrol services to cities. Upon annexation, it is
assumed that the City would contract with the Sheriff for law enforcement services to the study area,
and that the Sheriff would provide service within the parks. The City may wish to enhance service
levels through the Sheriff contract for patrol of Val Verde Park due to the volume of incidents at
that park to ensure safety to residents in that area.
ANIMAL CONTROL
The Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control Department provides animal housing for
stray or abandoned pets, provides low-cost vaccination and spay/neuter services, provides animal
patrols for stray and injured animals, investigated inhumane animal treatment allegations, sells dog
licenses, rescues animals during natural disasters and enforces animal regulations. These services are
provided to the annexation study areas, the cities of Santa Clarita and San Fernando, and outlying
unincorporated areas (Acton, Agua Dulce, Gorman, and Tujunga) from the Castaic Shelter located
at 31044 N. Charlie Canyon Road. In addition, the County provides dispatch, major case
investigation and air rescue services from a central location outside the Santa Clarita Valley.
The County responded to 1,267 service calls in the annexation study areas in FY 06-07, and
impounded 1,005 animals in the annexation study areas. There were 4,084 licensed pets in the
annexation study areas.
Service levels provided to the annexation study areas are assumed to be comparable to service
levels provided within the city limits. The County did not have information on differences in service
levels between the study areas.
81
The formula weights service calls 25 percent, Part I and Part II crimes 20 percent, citations issued 10 percent, and the Sheriff’s
deputy deployment estimate 45 percent. The formula applies those weights to each of the geographic area’s shares of activity in that
category. The results are that 8.6 percent of unincorporated costs are in study area 1, 21.5 percent in study area 2, 21.0 percent in
study area 3, and 48.9 percent in other unincorporated areas served by the Santa Clarita Valley station.
44
The fees for licensing pets are the same in the existing city limits and the annexation study areas.
For example, it costs $20 to license a neutered dog. So annexation would not affect fees paid by
residents.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community development services include land use planning and code enforcement services.
Code enforcement activities include enforcing the building permit process for property owners
building or modifying their properties and enforcing municipal regulations, such as restrictions
against parking trucks on residential streets and restrictions against abandoning vehicles in the front
yard.
The City of Santa Clarita provides these services through its Department of Community
Development. The department consists of three divisions: Planning, Community Preservation, and
Redevelopment. Planning is tasked with short and long-term community planning. Community
Preservation maintains and assures the safety, appearance and value of buildings and property in the
City by conducting code enforcement.82
The annexation study areas presently receive planning services from the Los Angeles County
Department of Regional Planning. Upon annexation, the City’s Department of Community
Development would provide these services.
SERVICES
Advance Planning
Advance planning services include countywide studies, area/community plan updates, zoning
code amendments, and update of the Countywide General Plan.
Existing zoning in the annexation areas is established by the County.83 Land use designations are
being updated by the County in 2009, and were under consideration at the time this report was
prepared. Although the County determined the land use designations, its planning efforts in the
Santa Clarity Valley have been conducted jointly with the City of Santa Clarita. Recognizing that the
City of Santa Clarita is located within and is an integral part of the greater Santa Clarita Valley, both
the City and the County have embarked on a joint planning effort called One Valley One Vision
(OVOV). Through this process, the City and County have agreed on certain guiding principles.
The OVOV planning process reflects the City’s and County’s mutual decision to coordinate land
uses and the pace of development with provision of adequate infrastructure, conservation of natural
resources, and common objectives for the Valley.84 As a result, it is improbable that land use
designations in the areas would change if the areas choose to annex to the City. The City would be
82
Redevelopment's goal is to revitalize certain portions of the City; create, preserve, and enhance affordable housing; and seek
creative, long-term redevelopment opportunities; however, redevelopment is not affected by annexation as there are no
redevelopment project areas within the annexation study areas at present. Redevelopment is financed separately from the general and
road funds that are the focus of this study. Hence, redevelopment is not covered in the AFA.
83
The County's Title 22 zoning code establishes baseline development standards for all three study areas, while the Castaic Area
Community Standards District provides additional zoning guidance to address the community's unique preferences for portions of the
study areas.
84
City of Santa Clarita, Draft General Plan: Introduction, 2008, p. I-2.
BY BURR CONSULTING
45
required to pre-zone the annexation study areas prior to initiating annexation. The City would be
precluded from changing the land use designations for a two-year period following annexation.85
The Castaic Community Standards District was established in 2004 and covers most of the
Tesoro study area and all of the Castaic study area.86 There are unique zoning regulations in this
area. It is presumed that the City would continue those unique zoning regulations; however, that
would be the City’s prerogative.
The City’s Community Development staff oversee the monitoring of County development
activity and comment on development projects
Current Planning
Current planning processes entitlement application including a variety of discretionary permits,
land division applications, lot line adjustments, certificates of compliance, privately initiated zone
reclassifications and plan amendments and the related environmental review. The County provides
current planning services—zoning permits, land division and research, application review, impact
analysis and special projects—from its downtown Los Angeles offices. A field office located in the
Santa Clarita Valley provides planning counseling, accepts and processes plot plan and zoning
conformance review, and accepts certificate of compliance applications.
There were 32 residential and commercial permits approved, mostly in the Castaic study area, in
FY 06-07. Over the years, the permit activity has varied from only two in FY 02-03 to 38 in FY 0506.
In the City, the turn-around time for a new single-family detached dwelling is approximately four
weeks for the plan review, and one to two weeks for the re-check. In most cases, there will be one
plan check and two follow-up checks, for a total turn-around time of 6-8 weeks (approximately 4256 days). The County reported that the average time from date of building application submittal to
building permit issuance for a single family residence in the unincorporated Santa Clarita area was
approximately 40 calendar days.87 The average for the entire unincorporated area during that same
period was approximately 98 calendar days. The County attributes the difference between the Santa
Clarita area and the entire unincorporated area to the large number of tract homes built in the Santa
Clarita region, which are plan checked and processed through the use of “standard” plans for the
various models.
The County reported that its average processing time is 2.5 months for applications that do not
require a hearing (e.g., oak tree permits, minor parking deviations and Community Standards District
modifications), and two months for plot plan applications.
For those requiring a hearing,
processing times on average are 9 months for a parking permit or conditional use permit, 14 months
for new subdivisions and 24 months for zone change plan amendments. The County’s local field
office is open 2.5 days weekly.88 The City’s current planning offices are located at City Hall, and are
85
Government Code §56375(e).
86
Community Standards Districts are established by the County as supplemental districts to provide a means of implementing special
development standards contained in adopted neighborhood, community, area, specific and local coastal plans within the
unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, or to provide a means of addressing special problems which are unique to certain
geographic areas within the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.
87
This average was for the years 2002 to 2005, which the County reported was an average to high period of building activity.
88
The County reported that in addition to the Santa Clarita Field Office, Regional Planning’s downtown headquarters is staffed fulltime to perform other planning functions.
46
open five days per week. City’s performance goals include implementation of innovative process to
enhance the development review process.
Code Enforcement
Code enforcement services are provided by the County via the Department of Public Health, the
Department of Public Works, the Fire Department, the Department of Regional Planning, and/or
Animal Care and Control, depending on the nature of the incident. The County provides these
services from its office in the Santa Clarita Valley (23757 Valencia Blvd.), and coordinates with other
departments through its nuisance abatement team. Code enforcement within the City is provided by
the Community Preservation Division, which employs a staff of seven full-time code enforcement
officers, and additionally by the Building and Safety division.
The County Department of Public Health performs inspections of multi-family dwellings (of
five or more units) once every two years, and the Fire Department inspects multi-family residential
properties annually. The County conducted 21 permit and condition checks in the study areas in FY
06-07. The City does not perform systematic inspections of residential properties. Both the City
and County provide code enforcement inspections upon receiving a complaint about potential
violations.
The City inspects approximately 30 percent of non-emergency complaints within 72 hours, and
achieves compliance within six months 85-90 percent of the time. The County was unable to
provide a similar metric across all departments (because not all departments track and report data
the same way), but reported that of the 148 zoning enforcement complaints in FY 06-07, 89 percent
were brought into compliance within six months.89 The County Department of Public Works and
Department of Regional Planning conduct non-emergency inspections within one to two weeks of
receiving a complaint, and violators are issued a notice to comply within 15 to 30 days (the County
reported that resolution of non-emergency zoning code violations often require extensive research
on land use entitlements and safety hazards). The Fire Department inspects 100 percent of nonemergency complaints within 72 hours, and violators are given 14 days to comply.
In cases regarding potential threats to health and safety, both the City and County respond
within 24 hours. Examples of threats to health and safety include fire hazards, sewage problems,
hazardous materials and chemicals. The City reported that compliance with threats to health and
safety is achieved within 48 hours 100 percent of the time. The County Department of Public
Health and the Department of Public Works estimate that 90 percent of complaints regarding
potential threats to health and safety achieve compliance within 48 hours, and the Fire Department
reported 100 percent compliance within 48 hours.
Team-based approaches to code enforcement employed by the County include Neighborhood
Enhancement Teams (NETs) and Nuisance Abatement Teams (NATs). NETs conduct
neighborhood sweeps to identify code violations and achieve voluntary compliance by residents.
NETs are composed of individuals from the Department of Regional Planning, the Department of
Public Works, and the Department of Public Health, as necessary. NATs coordinate joint
inspections to focus on incidents involving multiple, serious code violations, with teams comprised
of individuals from the Sheriff’s department, the Fire Department, the Department of Public Works,
the Department of Public Health, and District Attorney investigators.
89
Of the zoning enforcement complaints in FY 06-07, 95 percent were located in the Castaic/Val Verde study area. That amounted
to one percent of housing units in the study areas. By contrast, the City’s code enforcement cases amounted to three percent of
housing units.
BY BURR CONSULTING
47
The City conducts proactive code enforcement and public outreach through the Extreme
Neighborhood Makeover program. The Extreme Neighborhood Makeover program consists of an
invitation-only block party for a particular neighborhood of the City, to educate the community
about code enforcement policies and standards. The goal of the program is to take a communitybased approach to improving the neighborhood, in order to resolve safety issues, maximize property
values, and instill a sense of pride in the community. The City also assists the neighborhood by
providing improvements to public rights of way, including tree planting and graffiti removal.
The City’s spending levels for zoning code enforcement are higher than in the annexation study
areas. The City spent $4.99 per capita on zoning code enforcement in FY 06-07; whereas, the
County spent $1.38 per capita in the study areas.90
COSTS
The County estimated its total community development costs for the annexation study areas
were $0.49 million in FY 06-07. Thirty percent of these costs were offset by zoning permit charges
and planning fees. Net of those revenues, the County’s general fund supported $0.35 million in
community development costs in FY 06-07.
The County’s general fund costs for community development services amounted to $11.30 per
capita; whereas the City’s general fund costs amounted to $30 per capita.91 The County recovered 28
percent of costs through fees and permit charges, whereas the City recovered 16 percent of costs.
The AFA cost estimates assume that the City’s per capita expenditures for planning and code
enforcement in the annexation study areas would be comparable to the City’s existing per capita
spending levels.
Dynamic cost projections through FY 14-15 are based on City projections for annual growth in
community development costs and in development-related revenues. Thereafter, projections
account for growth in the 24-hour population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost
growth.
90
Spending levels for zoning code enforcement were $877,299 in the existing City limits and $59,792 in the annexation study areas.
The County’s spending level was highest in the Castaic/Val Verde study area where it amounted to $2.48 per capita.
91
Cost per capita reflects gross community development costs divided by the 24-hour population. County costs per capita were $16
in area 1 (Tesoro), $15 in area 2 (Castaic), and $6 in area 3 (West Ranch). These costs include those categorized in the Regional
Planning and Public Works departments.
48
PA R K S
AND
RECREATION
The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation provides park maintenance, and
recreation programming services to the annexation study areas.
PA R K S E R V I C E S
Table 6-6:
County-Maintained Public Parks in Study Areas
Transfer to
County-maintained public parks within
Study Area
City?
the unincorporated study areas are listed in
Table 6-6, along with their study area location Local Parkland
and whether they would be transferred to the Castaic Regional Sports
Adjacent to
Yes
City of Santa Clarita in the event of Complex
2
annexation.
Del Valle Park
2
Yes
The majority of the park acreage is Dr. Richard H. Rioux
3
Yes
92
located in the Castaic study area. The only Memorial Park
public park within the Tesoro study area is Hasley Canyon Park
2
Yes
the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park; however, Jake Kuredjian Park
3
Yes
the County reported that future private parks
Pico Canyon Park
3
Yes
are planned to be dedicated within the
1
Yes
Tesoro del Valle subdivision (in the Tesoro Tesoro Adobe Historic Park
2
Yes
study area) to satisfy the project’s Quimby Val Verde Community Park
93
Regional Parkland
obligation.
2
No
The County’s preference is that the Hasley Canyon Equestrian
Center
Hasley Canyon Equestrian Center and
Regional Trail System would not be transferred to the City, but that the County would wish to
transfer all other county-maintained parks in the study areas, including Tesoro Adobe Historic
Park.94 The County stated that prior to annexation the County would like the City to commit to
providing missing trail linkages in the areas being annexed that have not completed the entitlement
process, in order to provide for necessary connectivity to trails in the study areas.
Although Val Verde Community Park and the Castaic Regional Sports Complex are the size of
regional parks, the County suggested that both be transferred to the City due to the fact that they
primarily serve only the local population. The County continues to operate regional parks of
comparable size to Val Verde within the city limits of Glendale, Arcadia, Covina, Carson, and Los
Angeles, although the County has in the past considered transferring those parks to the cities during
periods of fiscal distress (e.g., in 2003). The City operates a facility similar to the Castaic Regional
Sports Complex within the City Limits (the Caravahlo/SC Sports Complex).
92
The Castaic Regional Sports Complex is located immediately adjacent to a portion of the eastern boundary of study area 2, and for
the purposes of this report is included in the analysis of transferable County-maintained parks in the study areas.
93
The County had initially stated that the Tesoro Adobe Historic Park would be retained by the County; however, the County
subsequently reconsidered and decided it prefers to transfer the facility to the City upon annexation. Special funding of approximately
$52,000 annually would be transferred along with the park. The funding source is assessed monthly dues which were stipulated in
sales contracts and are collected by the Tesoro Homeowner's Association.
94
The County reported that all of the local park facilities in question have received project funding from the Safe Neighborhood Park
Proposition Bond Acts of 1992 and 1994 and Proposition 12 Bond Act of 2000, and that the City will be required to assume the grant
obligations under which these projects were funded when they are transferred to the City.
BY BURR CONSULTING
49
Total Unincorporated Study Areas
Active
Passive
Local
Regional
Located in City Limits
Almendra
Begonias Lane
Bouquet Canyon
Bridgeport
Canyon Country
Central Park
Creekview
Newhall Memorial
North Oaks
Oak Spring Canyon
Old Orchard
Pamplico
Santa Clarita Community Center
Santa Clarita
Valencia Glen
Valencia Heritage
Valencia Meadows
Caravahlo/SC Sports Complex
Chesebrough
Northbridge
Todd Longshore
Veterans Historical Plaza
Circle J Ranch
William S. Hart Park
Chevron-Pioneer
Lost Canyon
Mint Canyon
Rivendale
River Park
Sand Canyon River
Total in City Limits
Active
Passive
Local
Regional
x
x
x
x
x
x
Regional
x
x
x
Santa Clarita Valley Parks: Type, Location and Acreage
Local
Passive
Park
Located in Unincorporated Study Areas
Dr. Richard H. Rioux Memorial Park
Val Verde Community Park
Castaic Regional Sports Complex
Jake Kuredjian Park
Pico Canyon Park
Del Valle Park
Hasley Canyon Park
Tesoro Adobe Historic Park
Hasley Canyon Equestrian Center
Active
Table 6-7:
Total
Parcel
Acres
x
16.7
57.9
53.7
5.7
21.3
5.5
5.4
2.3
67.0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
235.5
128.3
107.2
168.5
67.0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.3
4.2
10.5
16.0
19.3
108.0
5.0
14.3
2.3
5.7
5.4
7.6
4.5
7.5
7.3
17.2
6.1
60.0
5.1
9.8
31.6
0.5
5.3
224.3
4.6
41.2
18.6
64.0
24.3
20.0
754.5
320.1
434.4
362.2
392.3
Acres per
1,000
Residents
Total
Usable
Acres
Acres per
1,000
Service
Residents Provider
15.2
7.4
35.0
4.5
4.0
3.4
5.4
1.4
2.1
5.2
2.9
2.4
3.8
1.5
78.4
57.6
20.8
76.3
2.1
4.3
1.8
2.5
2.1
2.3
4.3
4.2
9.0
16.0
17.2
80.0
5.0
14.3
2.3
5.0
5.4
5.0
NP
7.3
5.5
14.0
4.8
35.0
5.1
7.5
5.0
0.5
5.3
18.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
40.0
12.0
10.0
340.7
246.9
93.8
207.7
133.0
Location
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
Stevenson Ranch
Val Verde
Castaic
Stevenson Ranch
Stevenson Ranch
Castaic
Castaic
Tesoro
Castaic
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
County
County
City
City
City
County
City
City
City
City
City
City
Valencia
Canyon Country
Bouquet Canyon
Valencia
Canyon Country
Saugus
Newhall
Newhall
Canyon Country
Canyon Country
Valencia/Newhall
Saugus
Santa Clarita
Saugus
Valencia
Valencia
Valencia
Centre Pointe
Valencia
Valencia
Canyon Country
Newhall
Saugus
Newhall
Newhall
Canyon Country
Canyon Country
Towsley Canyon
Canyon County
Sand Canyon
1.7
1.3
0.5
1.7
0.0
2.0
1.4
0.5
1.2
0.8
Notes:
(1) Local parkland is generally locally-serving with its users primarily located within two miles of the facility. Local parks include pocket parks, neighborhood parks and
community parks.
(2) Regional parkland serves the region with a service radius exceeding two miles. Regional parks includes recreational and sports complex parks.
(3) Active parkland consists of developed parkland with active sports facilities, such as active ball courts (e.g., basketball or tennis), delineated sports fields (e.g., soccer,
baseball, softball), aquatic facilities, and gymnasiums.
(4) Passive parkland consists of developed or undeveloped parkland containing trails, walkways, cultural or scenic resources, open fields, picnic tables/shelter, tot lots,
etc., but not containing active recreational facilities.
(5) Park acreage is provided for total parcel area and total usable area. Total usable area was provided by the City and is defined based on the City's Quimby ordinance
to exclude areas with a three percent or greater slope, faultlines and encumbered land (e.g., floodways, utility easements).
(6) Total parkland includes all categories of parkland, including local, regional, active and passive parks.
50
The County standard for the provision of parkland in the unincorporated areas is four acres of
local parkland per 1,000 residents, and six acres of regional parkland per 1,000 residents (within the
County as a whole).95 As shown in Table 6-7, parkland service levels vary depending on the usable
acreage of each park facility. Within the study areas, the County provides a service level of between
1.7 and 3.8 acres of local parkland per 1,000 residents, and a maximum of 1.5 acres of regional
parkland per 1,000 study area residents. The County provides between 1.3 and 2.9 acres of active
parkland per 1,000 residents, between 0.5 and 2.4 acres of passive parkland per 1,000 residents, and
between 1.7 and 5.2 acres of total parkland per 1,000 residents. There is no County-maintained
open space within the study areas; however, the County operates three nearby recreation areas
(Castaic Lake, Vasquez Rocks and Placerita Canyon).
Due to the geographic distribution of the County park facilities, the amount of parkland per
1,000 residents varies between the study areas. There are 8.6 total acres (or 2.4 usable acres) of
parkland per 1,000 residents in the Castaic study area, 2.2 total acres (or 1.2 usable acres) of parkland
per 1,000 residents in the West Ranch study area, and 0.8 total acres (or 0.5 usable acres) of parkland
per 1,000 residents in the Tesoro study area.96
Table 6-8:
The City of Santa Clarita’s standard for the provision
of parkland is five acres of parkland per 1,000
residents.97 The City provides a service level of between
1.2 and 2.1 acres of local parkland per 1,000 residents,
and between 0.8 and 2.3 acres of regional parkland per
1,000 residents. The City provides between 1.4 and 1.8
acres of active parkland per 1,000 residents, between 0.5
and 2.5 acres of passive parkland per 1,000 residents,
and between 2.0 and 4.3 acres of total parkland per
1,000 residents. In addition, the City provides 17.0 acres
of open space per 1,000 residents within the City.
Both the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los
Angeles have park fee ordinances in conformance with
the State’s Quimby Act (Government Code §66477),
requiring new development to dedicate a minimum of
three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (although the
City requires a minimum of five acres per 1,000
residents, in conformance with the City’s General Plan
parkland standard), or payment of in-lieu fees based
upon the population density of the development, the
value of the land and the minimum acreage dedication
of parkland.98
95
City-Maintained Open Space
Name
Civic Center
Colmer
East Walker Ranch
Gates-King
Golden Valley Ranch
Mint Canyon
Norland Open Space
NV 1 Wetlands/Riparian
NV 2 Wetlands/Riparian
Oak Park
Penlon
Quigley Canyon Open Space
Sand River Canyon
Tick Canyon
Todd Longshore Park OS
TMC Site
Total Acres
Acres per 1,000 Residents
Acres
235.0
40.0
140.0
124.6
906.0
17.3
48.0
296.0
60.0
2.6
3.4
158.0
20.0
432.0
26.5
449.6
2,959.0
17.0
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Draft General Plan, 2008, p. 128.
96
Parkland calculations include only publicly accessible parks and recreation facilities, and do not include private parks or private
recreation facilities.
97
City of Santa Clarita, Draft General Plan: Conservation and Open Space Element, 2008, p. CO-60.
98
The Quimby Act provides funds for the acquisition of land for parks, development of new parks, or rehabilitation of existing parks;
however, it does not provide funds for the operation and maintenance of parks.
BY BURR CONSULTING
51
RECREATION SERVICES
Table 6-9:
Recreation programs and facilities offered
by the County are located at Castaic Regional
Sports Complex, Val Verde Community Park,
Dr. Richard H. Rioux Memorial Park, and
Hasley Canyon Park. Recreation programs
include youth and adult sports; youth and
adult classes including dancing, cooking,
singing, exercise, and dog obedience; various
youth summer and day camps; aquatic
programs; use of fields and facilities; and
other special events.99 The County reported a
total attendance of 273,354 in park recreation
activities in FY 06-07, meaning the average
study
area
resident
participated
in
approximately six recreation activities.100
Recreation programs offered by the City
of Santa Clarita are located at 12 of the 20
parks maintained by the City. Recreation
programs include youth and adult sports;
various child, youth and adult contract classes;
various youth summer and day camps; aquatic
programs; use of fields and facilities; and
other special events. The City reported that
over 500 contract classes are offered every
season, with an average of 3,000 participants
enrolled per season. Classes offered by the
City range from acting and art to
woodworking and yoga, with class sizes as
small as five to as large as 50. The City
reported a total attendance of 1,392,171 in
park recreation activities in FY 06-07,
meaning the average City resident participated
in approximately eight recreation activities
that year.101
Recreation program fees vary by sport or
length of class. As the City charges a non-
Total Recreation Participation
CountyMaintained
Study Area
Parks
Youth and Adult Classes
14,576
Children's Classes
4,902
Camps
8,439
Parkmobile
Youth Sports
49,853
Adult Sports
42,377
Aquatic Programs
13,535
Open Gym
Skate Park
789
Fields/Facilities
108,286
Special Events
22,738
Community Services
7,859
and Activities
273,354
Total Recration
CityMaintained
Parks
135,532
28,944
16,920
4,320
204,754
279,000
259,473
70,763
78,200
73,927
159,950
80,388
1,392,171
1
Attendance
Recreation Participation
per Resident
6.1
8.0
Note:
(1) Recreation attendance is the number of registrants or
participants in each recreation class or event, multiplied by the
number of classes or events that were held that year. For
example, one ten-member team that plays 10 games per season
would count 100 towards total attendance (10 participants x 10
games). This does not include drop-in or passive park
attendance.
(2) Community services and activities include miscellaneous
community center programs and civic activities, library activities,
church activities, and workshops.
(3) Special events include concerts, art walks, festivals and holiday
activities (Earth Day, Easter, Fourth of July, Halloween, etc.)
99
Both the County and City provide community services, activities and special events that likely benefit residents of adjacent
incorporated/unincorporated areas. It is difficult to estimate the number of City and County residents who participate in, or benefit
from, the availability of these community service programs.
100
This indicator does not account for non-resident participation. No information was available on the extent of non-resident
participation in County recreation programs in the study areas.
101
This figure is overstated due to an estimated 25 percent participation rate by non-residents. Accounting for non-resident
participation, the average City resident participated in 6.0 recreation events in FY 06-07.
52
resident premium on certain recreation fees, annexation would reduce by about 4.5 percent the fees
paid by annexation study area residents who had been attending City recreation activities prior to
annexation.102 Those residents who presently patronize County recreation activities would pay
higher fees after annexation, although a direct and complete comparison was infeasible due to the
large volume of different recreation activities and differences between the City and County in the
nature, duration and frequency of specific recreation activity offerings.
SERVICE COSTS
The County estimated its total park and recreation operating costs for the annexation study areas
were $1.1 million in FY 06-07. Twenty three percent of these costs were offset by recreation fees
and charges. Net of those revenues, the County’s general fund supported $0.8 million in park and
recreation costs in FY 06-07.
The County recovered 23 percent of costs through fees and charges, whereas the City recovered
21 percent of costs. The County’s net general fund costs for park and recreation operations
amounted to $19 per resident; whereas the City’s net general fund costs amounted to $74 per
resident.103 The AFA cost estimates assume that the City’s per capita expenditures for park and
recreation services in the Castaic and West Ranch annexation study areas would over time become
comparable to the City’s existing per capita spending levels, after adjusting for existing use of City
park and recreation facilities by non-residents. Extending the City’s enhanced recreation service
levels can be accomplished in the near-term at existing facilities in the study areas. But extending
the park operation service levels to the annexation study areas would presumably require capital
investments to enhance the park space and improvements within the parks; it would take time for
such capital facilities to be developed. The AFA incorporates enhanced recreation and park costs,
and assumes the park-related budget would be accumulated over time to finance capital
improvements. The AFA assumes that Tesoro residents will continue to use park and recreation
services in the existing City and in the Castaic study area.
Dynamic cost projections through FY 09-10 are based on City budget projections for annual
growth in park and recreation costs and in related fee revenues. Thereafter, projections account for
growth in the resident population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost growth.
C A P I TA L F I N A N C I N G
Construction of new park facilities and improvements is financed by in-lieu (Quimby) fees paid
by new development, State grants and municipal general fund resources.
The fee paid by new development in the study areas is lower than in the City limits due to the
County’s significantly lower assumption about land values.
The City of Santa Clarita’s in-lieu fee is calculated by multiplying the number of dwelling units
(DU), the population per DU (according to the Department of Finance), the dedication standard of
five acres per 1,000 residents, and the fair market value (FMV) of the buildable area; plus 20 percent
toward the cost of off-site improvements, such as extension of utility lines (DU × population per
102
Citywide recreation fee revenue would decline by approximately one percent at the time of annexation due to annexation area
residents no longer paying non-resident fee rates.
103
The City per capita cost was adjusting for non-resident use of City recreation programs; without that adjustment, the per capita
City cost was $85. County costs per capita were $0 in area 1 (Tesoro), $29 in area 2 (Castaic), and $10 in area 3 (West Ranch).
BY BURR CONSULTING
53
DU × 0.005 acres per person × FMV of buildable area = subtotal × 1.2 = in-lieu fee).104 The City
reported that a typical 100-unit single-family residential subdivision would pay approximately
$15,744 per unit in in-lieu fees.
The County of Los Angeles’ in-lieu fee (calculated by Park Planning Area, or PPA) is arrived at
by multiplying the number of dwelling units, the population per dwelling unit, the dedication
standard of three acres per 1,000 residents, and the representative land value (RLV) per acre of the
area (DU × Population per DU × 0.003 acres per person × RLV per acre = in-lieu fee).105 The
County reported that a typical 100-unit single-family residential subdivision would pay approximately
$2,827 per unit in in-lieu fees for the West Ranch area, and approximately $1,785 per unit in in-lieu
fees for the Castaic area.
PUBLIC WORKS
Public works services include street maintenance, traffic control, street lights, street sweeping,
solid waste, stormwater quality programs, and building services.
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Road-related services provided by the County of Los Angeles to approximately 119 miles of
roadway in the study areas include signal maintenance, monthly pavement and sidewalk inspections
and repairs, pothole repair (within 48 hours of receiving notice), weekly street sweeping, tree
trimming, graffiti abatement and sign operation and maintenance.
Figure 6-10:
Private Road in Castaic Study Area
Road-related services provided by the County
in the study areas are limited to those roads that
have been accepted by the County into its road
system. Roads that have not been accepted into
the County road system typically do not meet
design criteria established by the County. Roads
not meeting County criteria include roads within
gated communities, and other recently-developed
areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County, that
are directly maintained via assessments paid by
local property owners, and not by the County of
Los Angeles.106 They also include dilapidated,
private roads, such as the one shown in Figure 6-10.
104
Per the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 16.15.080, the determination of fair market value is agreed to by the
subdivider and the City, or determined by a certified appraiser.
105
The County reported that the representative land value was most recently updated in 2009, and is adjusted on an annual basis
according to the consumer price index. For FY 09-10, the RLV in the West Ranch area (PPA 35A – Valencia/Newhall) was
$291,767, and the RLV in the Castaic area (PPA 35B – Castaic/Val Verde) was $177,092.
106
Gated communities are located in the West Ranch study area, and include the majority of the Westridge community (north and
south of Valencia Boulevard), the Southern Oaks community (south of Pico Canyon Road), The Enclave community (west of
Sagecrest Circle), and the Crown Villas portion of Stevenson Ranch (north of Stafford Canyon Road). Roads within gated
communities and other private roadway facilities not maintained by the County would also likely not be maintained by the City
following annexation.
54
The City of Santa Clarita directly maintains all non-highway (arterial, collector, local and
residential) publicly-maintained roadways within the City. The City does not provide road
maintenance to private roadways and related facilities.107 Road-related services provided by the City
of Santa Clarita to approximately 448 centerline miles of roadway in the City include sidewalk and
pothole repair (within 48 hours of receiving notice), road maintenance and annual pavement
inspections, routine traffic signal maintenance and retiming every three years, sign installation and
maintenance, traffic markings and striping, and routine street sweeping.108
Roadway Features
Over three and a half percent of roadways within the City of Santa Clarita are parkways, and
nearly six percent of roadways within the City contain medians improved with landscaping. The
City provides maintenance to parkways and medians on a weekly basis. Comparable service-level
indicators for the extent of parkways and improved medians were not provided by the County of
Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department for the Landscape and Lighting Act District’s
(LLADs) within the study areas; however, the County reported that maintenance occurs on a weekly
basis.
Within the study areas, nearly 60 percent of the roads contain striping in Tesoro and West
Ranch, and nearly 50 percent of the roads contain striping in Castaic. Over two percent of the
public roads have curbs in West Ranch, and about one percent have curbs in Area 1 (Tesoro) and
Area 2 (Castaic).109 Miles of roadway striping and curbs were not provided by the City of Santa
Clarita.
Neither the City nor the County provided miles of sidewalks along the maintained roadways.
Of the 45 County-maintained traffic signals in the study areas, over half are synchronized. There
are 25 synchronized traffic signals in the Stevenson/West Ranch study area out of a total of 26 (96
percent); however, none of the 17 traffic signals in Castaic are synchronized, and neither of the two
traffic signals in Tesoro are synchronized.110 By comparison, there are 176 traffic signals within the
City, all of which are synchronized. Synchronized traffic signals improve the efficiency of the
roadway network and provide air quality benefits by decreasing stop-and-go traffic.
107
Maintenance of private roadways is the responsibility of the relevant homeowners association or private road owner(s).
108
The City reported that major streets and trails are swept weekly, minor roadways are swept weekly from October to January and
once per month during the rest of the year, and City parking lots are swept once per month.
109
To maintain and preserve the rural nature of this community, the Castaic Community Standards District (CSD) prohibits curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks unless otherwise deemed necessary for public safety purposes. This CSD encompasses the Castaic study area.
Although it contains the western portion of the Tesoro study area (including the western third of the Tesoro del Valle subdivision),
that development was exempted. The CSD contains only a sliver of floodplain in the West Ranch study area.
110
The County reported that the 17 traffic signals in Castaic are not synchronized because they are either isolated or too far apart to
be synchronized.
BY BURR CONSULTING
55
Pavement Condition
The condition of street pavement is evaluated by local agencies using a composite index called
the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Each segment of pavement is rated for distress (i.e., cracks
and potholes) and the extent and severity of distress is given a condition rating from 0 to 100. The
PCI reflects the weighted average condition of all road segments for which an agency bears
maintenance responsibility. A PCI of 75 or more is considered to be very good condition, PCI of
60-74 is good condition, PCI of 45-59 is fair condition, and PCI below 45 is poor condition.
PCI scores within the City of Santa Clarita indicate that conditions are good on both major
roads (arterials and collectors) and minor roads (local and residential).
County-maintained roads within the study areas are in the good to very good range, with local
roads tending to be in slightly better condition than major roads. Of the three study areas, the West
Ranch study area has the best pavement conditions overall. When all three study areas are
combined, the overall pavement rating is still very good, although the condition of local roads is
significantly better than major roads.
In general, roads maintained by the City are in good condition, and County-maintained roads are
very good in Tesoro and West Ranch, good in Castaic.
Table 6-11:
City of Santa
Clarita
Tesoro
All Roads (Majors and Locals)
Weighted Avg. PCI
68
75
Total Area (Sq. Feet) 85,794,876
4,296,466
Centerline Miles
264.2
6.9
Majors Roads
Weighted Avg. PCI
69
73
3,553,756
Locals Roads
Weighted Avg. PCI
67
84
742,710
Castaic
Pavement Conditions by Area
Study Areas
West Ranch
Combined
71
13,616,797
71.1
80
10,299,457
41.4
75
28,212,720
119
69
8,415,971
72
5,287,043
71
17,256,770
75
5,200,826
89
5,012,414
82
10,955,950
It should be noted that PCI scores in the study areas relate only to County-maintained roads,
and do not include roads privately maintained by homeowner assessments. Roads not within the
County road system include both recently constructed roads in new gated communities as well as
older roads in the Castaic study area that are in poor shape. Hence, it is unknown what the overall
road condition is in the study areas. Similarly, private roadways within gated communities in the
City of Santa Clarita are not included in the PCI for the City.
As a percentage of overall area, the City of Santa Clarita maintains a denser public road network
than does the County of Los Angeles within the study areas. Approximately six percent of the entire
City boundary consists of City-maintained roads, whereas only two percent of the Castaic and West
Ranch study areas, and three percent of the Tesoro study area, consist of County-maintained
roadways. That is due not only to higher densities in the City, but also to the extent of roads that
are maintained privately instead of by local government.
56
Maintenance Spending
City and County street maintenance spending levels per road mile were comparable in FY 06-07,
although generally counties receive more generous gas tax allocations to finance this service than do
cities. The City of Santa Clarita spent approximately $35,385 per road mile on street maintenance in
FY 06-07. That was a relatively high spending level. By comparison, the median city in Los Angeles
County spent $27,194 per road mile. 111 The County spent an average of $51,600 per road mile
across all unincorporated Los Angeles County in FY 06-07.112 The County reported approximately
$36,005 per mile in Area 1 (Tesoro), $35,940 per mile in Area 2 (Castaic), and $28,234 per mile in
Area 3 (West Ranch) in FY 06-07.113
In the City of Santa Clarita, 70 percent of roadway maintenance expenditures were for privately
contracted projects and 27 percent were performed directly by City staff in FY 06-07. The County
of Los Angeles performed 87 percent of roadway maintenance directly and 13 percent by contract
across all unincorporated areas in FY 06-07.
Cost Analysis
The City does not track street maintenance expenditures in the form needed for this analysis in
its budget. Specifically, the City reports street maintenance expenditures annually to the State
Controller, when it separates these costs from the costs of new construction and major capital
projects. Further complicating the cost analysis is the fact that the City is receiving additional funds
for street purposes through Proposition 1B in FY 08-09 and FY 09-10.
The AFA estimated street maintenance costs based on a benchmark of $36,000 per road mile in
each of the study areas. This is nearly equivalent to County spending levels in the base year in study
areas 1 and 2, and comparable to City spending levels in FY 06-07. This does represent an increased
spending level for the West Ranch area. The cost projections assume that the spending per road
mile increases with inflation in addition to a one percent annual real cost increase.
111
State Controller Office, Streets and Roads Annual Report FY 06-07, 2008, Tables 5 and 6. California Department of Transportation,
2007 California Public Road Data, 2008. Street maintenance expenditures include patching, overlay, sealing, storm damage, and traffic
signal maintenance; maintenance excludes expenditures for new street construction, street reconstruction and right of way acquisition.
112
State Controller Office, Streets and Roads Annual Report FY 06-07, 2008, Table 6. California Department of Transportation, 2007
California Public Road Data, 2008.
113
Los Angeles County CEO, Santa Clarita Valley Fiscal Year 2006-07 Revenue and Expenditure Data For Tesoro, Castaic/Val Verde, and
Stevenson/West Ranch, June 30, 2008. Road maintenance includes all operational expenditures categorized under Special Road District 5
and all expenditures categorized under the Road Budget Unit except the following development-related items: Conditional Use
Permit, R3 Review, Plan Check.
BY BURR CONSULTING
57
BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works’ Building and Safety Division presently
provides building inspection, permit review and plan check services for new development and
property rehabilitation projects in the annexation study areas. The Division also provides code
enforcement services, which were discussed earlier in this chapter under the Community
Development section. The Division serves the study areas from its office at 23757 Valencia Blvd.
In the City of Santa Clarita, these services are provided by the Development Services and
Building and Safety Divisions of the City’s Public Works Department. The City would provide
these services if the study areas are annexed to the City.
Building code enforcement services involve inspection and enforcement activities associated
with existing buildings. These services are largely complaint-driven, but also involve building
deficiencies that inspectors notice. The City’s spending levels for building code enforcement were
$1.39 per capita in FY 06-07; by comparison the County spent $0.76 per capita.114 Otherwise, the
demand for these services is largely dependent on the volume of new construction and development
plans. In the FY 06-07 base year, the County financed these services entirely from building permit
charges and plan check fees. In other words, the County recovered 100 percent of costs for this
function through fees and permits.
The City’s permit charges are designed to recover costs associated with building and
development. Due to differences between the City and County in terms of departmental
organization and budgetary accounting practices, it is not possible to compute a comparable cost
recovery rate for the Development Services and Building and Safety Divisions. However, an overall
cost recovery rate for the Public Works Department can be calculated; that includes street
maintenance, stormwater and other activities within the Public Works Department.115 The City’s
cost recovery rate for the general fund costs of the Public Works Department was 66 percent in the
FY 06-07 base year.116 Subsequently, the cost recovery rate has fallen to 49 percent because revenues
have declined substantially more than expenditures during the present recession.
In estimating and projecting the general fund costs for the Public Works Department associated
with annexation, the study reviewed the positions in the Department and made estimates of the
extent to which they represented fixed costs (workload and staffing need is not proportional to city
size) and variable costs (workload and staffing need is proportional to city size). For example, upper
management positions were largely deemed to be fixed costs, and street maintenance and special
districts positions were largely deemed to be variable costs. Overall, the Public Works Department
costs were assumed to be 85 percent variable with respect to city size. In terms of projecting future
114
Building code enforcement services are provided by the respective Public Works departments. Spending levels for building code
enforcement were $244,651 in the existing City limits and $33,141 in the annexation study areas. The County’s spending level was
highest in the Tesoro study area where it amounted to $1.14 per capita.
115
The County did not report department administration costs, as these were included in overhead rates for direct services, and were
defrayed by the relevant funds (particularly gas tax). By contrast, the City has an administrative cost unit in its Public Works
Department. In addition, the portion of the City’s street maintenance costs that were supported by the General Fund could not be
identified from the available budget data.
116
Gross costs for purposes of this calculation include all general fund costs of the Public Works Department. Offsetting revenues
were projected in a manner consistent with similar projections in this report. For example, gas tax transfers are projected over time
with the same projected annual growth rates as those discussed in the prior chapter. Offsetting revenues included building permit and
plan check fees associated with the Public Works Department in addition to the following transfers into the general fund: gas tax,
Prop. 42, Traffic Safety Fund (vehicle code fines), landscape maintenance district, transit fund, and stormwater utility fund.
58
costs over time, projections were based on 24-hour population growth, inflation, a real cost inflation
factor of 0.5 percent, and the variable cost factor.
S T O R M W A T E R Q UA L I T Y
The County Department of Public Works provides inspection and clean-up of storm drains and
debris basins in the annexation study areas to remove spills, accumulated sediment and vegetation.117
In addition, the Department is responsible for conducting planning and meeting increasingly
stringent regulatory requirements for stormwater reporting and management. Upon annexation, the
County Flood Control District (FCD) would retain responsibility for regional flood control and local
drainage infrastructure that meets FCD standards and has been accepted into the FCD system.118
The City would be responsible for inspecting and cleaning drains, and meeting regulatory
requirements for management planning.119 The County estimated that these services cost $883,000
in FY 06-07.120
Stormwater fees are charged to property owners in Santa Clarita to pay for draining water
runoff, which occurs when homes, patios, driveways or other structures prohibit water from seeping
into the ground. Residential properties under one-third of an acre in size are charged $24 per year,
while larger properties are charged that base amount, plus an open space rate for everything over
one-third acre. The City’s property owners approved a new stormwater fee approach in 2009; the
typical household will pay a reduced fee of $21.50 beginning in FY 10-11.
STREET LIGHTING
The County provides street lighting services to the annexation study areas. Lighting services and
energy costs are funded by ad valorem property taxes paid by property owners in the study areas and
allocated to County Lighting Maintenance District No. 1687. The property tax generated $0.8
million in FY 06-07, and funded services from that amount. The revenues amounted to $55 per
home in the base year. The City levies a street light assessment to fund street lighting services. The
assessment amounted to $56 per housing unit in the existing city limits; by comparison, residents of
the study areas presently pay $5 per housing unit to the County. Southern California Edison is the
direct service provider within the existing city limits; the City pays Southern California Edison for
utility costs and lighting services.
The AFA does not explicitly model the fiscal effects of annexation on City street lighting funds,
as City assessment revenue would cover associated costs. Upon annexation, the County street
lighting property taxes would be transferred to the County’s general share from which the City’s
property tax share would be deducted. The annexation study areas would be detached from County
117
The County is generally not responsible for cleaning storm drains in gated communities, although the County FCD does maintain
storm drains in gated communities (e.g., West Ridge) that have been turned over to the District. Otherwise, underground drains in
residential areas are inspected by the County every seven years, and drains in commercial areas inspected every 1-3 years. Drain cleanup is performed as-needed, and not specific service level or frequency of service was provided by the County.
118
Flood control infrastructure under construction by private developers to be transferred to the County will become the
responsibility of the City until such time that it is accepted by the County for maintenance.
119
The County Department of Public Works estimated that there are a total of 1,733 catch basins, 6.2 miles of drainage channels, and
60.1 miles of underground drains in the annexation study areas.
120
Los Angeles County CEO, Response to Santa Clarita Valley Narrative Data Request for Tesoro, Castaic/Val Verde and Stevenson/West
Ranch, July 31, 2008, Attachment VII, p. 5.
BY BURR CONSULTING
59
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1687, and the City would finance street lighting services from
assessments upon annexation.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Landscape maintenance performed within the study areas in unincorporated Los Angeles
County occurs through zones of Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLAD) Nos. 1, 2
and 4, administered by the County Parks and Recreation Department. The Department's Special
Districts are responsible for the maintenance of landscaped and other open space areas designated
within the boundaries of the Districts and easements that have been granted to the County.
Benefiting properties pay an assessment through their property tax bill to maintain and service the
landscaping and appurtenant improvements within the Districts. Maintenance costs within each
zone are proportionately spread among all benefiting properties within the zone based on either
acreage or number of parcels, with each property being assessed only for the cost of the
improvements from which direct (“special”) benefit is received.
Costs associated with
improvements determined to be of “general benefit” (benefitting surrounding properties or the
public at large) must be funded from other revenue sources, and are excluded from the “special
benefit” assessment.121 The LLA Districts provide and ensure the continued maintenance,
administration, and operation of improvements located within the public rights-of-way and
dedicated landscape easements associated with various tracts and individual parcels within the
Districts. The Department provides maintenance to parkways and medians on a weekly basis.
Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLA Districts) No. 1, 2 and 4 are located in the
vicinity of Santa Clarita, Castaic, Tesoro, and West Ranch. LLA District No. 1 is comprised of three
zones: the Stevenson Ranch Parkway/Pico Canyon Road area (the original zone of the District), the
Copperhill Drive area (Zone 1A, annexed in 2002), and Plum/White’s Canyon (Zone 1B, annexed
in 2003). The portion of the District in the Stevenson Ranch Parkway/Pico Canyon Road area
includes the subdivisions located off of Stevenson Ranch Parkway, between Pico Canyon Road and
Old Road (the entire Stevenson Ranch area).122
Portions of the West Ranch and Castaic study areas are in LLA District No. 2, which was
formed in 1995, by the consolidation of 26 individual County-administered LLA Districts into zones
within a single district. In 2002 the Board of Supervisors detached one of the zones. The remaining
25 zones are located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, with two zones located in West Ranch
(Zones 21 and 25) and three zones located in Castaic (Zones 19, 37 and 40). The boundaries of
Zone 25 (Stevenson Ranch) are coterminous with the boundaries of the Stevenson Ranch
Parkway/Pico Canyon Road area of LLA District No. 1.123
LLA District No. 4 was formed in 1997 along with the developments known as The Enclave (in
West Ranch) and Double C Ranch (in Castaic). Since formation, an additional 14 zones have been
annexed to the District, including three zones in the West Ranch area (Zones 73 and 75 in the
Westridge area and Zone 66 in the Valencia Marketplace area), and two in the Tesoro study area
(Zone 74 in Tesoro Del Valle and Zone 76 in Tesoro Adobe Park). All 16 zones currently within
LLA District No. 4 are located in unincorporated Los Angeles County.
121
Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation District, Engineer’s Annual Levy Report FY 06-07, District Nos. 1, 2 and 4, 2006, p. 10.
122
LLA District No. 1 was formed in 1979; however, jurisdiction for portions of LLA District No. 1 was transferred from Los
Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita in 1997. The County continues to administer the remaining portions of the LLA District
outside of the City.
123
60
Maintenance in Tesoro occurs through two zones of LLAD No. 4, maintenance in Castaic
occurs through three zones of LLAD No. 2 and one zone of LLAD No. 4 (in Double C Ranch),
and maintenance in West Ranch occurs through LLAD No. 1 (in the Stevenson Ranch
Parkway/Pico Canyon Road area), in two zones within LLAD No. 2, and in four zones of LLAD
No. 4.124 Maintenance activities consist primarily of beautification of the roadway system, and
maintenance and improvements to the graded and landscaped slopes and easements located along
the roadways. Maintenance activities within these LLAD zones are primarily of a special nature,
with all taxable parcels within the zone receiving the same net assessment. Areas that receive a
general benefit, paid from other County funds, are located in West Ranch (Zone 25 of LLAD No. 2)
and Tesoro (Zone 66 of LLAD No. 4 and facilities at Tesoro Adobe Park).125
Landscape maintenance within the City of Santa Clarita is provided by the City’s Special
Districts Division. The City primarily provides landscape maintenance services to the Copperhill
Drive area and the Plum/White’s Canyon area. These areas were originally portions of LLAD No. 1
administered by the County; however, jurisdiction for these zones of LLAD No. 1 were transferred
to the City of Santa Clarita in 1997. Maintenance activities include beautification of the roadway
system, including landscaped medians and slopes along the roadways.
Upon annexation, study area 1 (Tesoro) will split Zones 1A and 74, and study area 3 (West
Ranch) will split zones 25, 73 and 75. During the annexation process, the City and the County
would have to reach an agreement on these split Zones.126 The County identified the following
options to address split zones:
1) The County can detach only the portion of the Zone that would now be in the City’s
jurisdiction, thus allowing the City to create a new Zone for the detached portion;
2) The County may continue to provide services during a transition period to an entire Zone
through an agreement with the City; or,
3) The City may provide services to the entire Zone through an agreement with the County.
In any of the above scenarios, annexation would likely not affect landscape assessments.
124
125
Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation District, Engineer’s Annual Levy Report FY 06-07, District Nos. 1, 2 and 4, 2006, pp. 18-19.
126
The County requested that any annexation application include details of how the City proposes to handle split zones.
BY BURR CONSULTING
61
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste collection in the study areas is provided weekly by Burrtec Waste Industries to
residents of single-family homes and apartments with four or fewer units. Until 2008, residents had
arranged for solid waste services through an open market system in which they chose their solid
waste hauler directly. In 2008, the County selected Burrtec as the exclusive hauler for residents.
Ten percent of Burrtec revenues in the annexation study areas is paid to the County as franchise
fees. Businesses continue to participate in the open market system, and select their own haulers.
The City has an exclusive
franchise for solid waste
collection both for residential
and
commercial
service.
Residential rates are 18 percent
lower in the City than in the
annexation study areas. The
rate difference amounts to $42
annually
for
a
typical
household.
Service Type
Table 6-12:
Solid Waste Service Comparison
Annexation
City of Santa
Study Areas
Clarita
Residential Service
Hauler Arrangement
Hauler
Franchise Fee
Monthly Rate Regular
Monthly Rate Seniors
Collection Frequency
Commercial Service
Hauler Arrangement
Hauler
Franchise Fee
Once Weekly Rate
Collection Frequency
Exclusive franchise
Burrtec
10% of charges
$20.88
$15.66
Weekly
Exclusive franchise
USA Waste
10% of charges
$17.33
$13.86
Weekly
Unlike the County, the City
Open market
Exclusive franchise
has an exclusive franchise for
NA
Burrtec
commercial
solid
waste
NA
10% of charges
collection, which includes
NA
$67.04
apartment buildings with five
NA
1-7 times/week
or more units.
Businesses
would no longer select their Note: Commercial rate is for weekly pick-up of a 3 cubic yard bin.
hauler; however, they would
continue to have a choice as to how frequently the collection service is provided (from once weekly
to daily service).
WATER
For the most part, water services in the annexation study areas would be unaffected by
annexation. Only the Val Verde area would potentially be affected.
There are two types of water service: wholesale and retail. Castaic Lake Water Agency is the
wholesale water service provider throughout the annexation study areas, and would continue to
import and distribute water to the retail water companies serving the area. A retail water provider is
responsible for distributing water to individual properties and for billing the properties for service.
The Val Verde area presently receives retail water service from Los Angeles County Waterworks
District 36. The Waterworks District is a County-dependent district, and is governed by the County
Board of Supervisors. To promote accountability following annexation, dissolution of County
Waterworks District 36 and transfer of its responsibilities to another water retailer appears logical.
However, it has not been proposed to date and was not modeled in this study.
62
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Table 6-13:
The City government
employed 393 personnel
in FY 08-09, of which 28
percent are assigned to
administrative and central
service functions, as
opposed to the direct
field services provided by
the City departments
discussed earlier in this
chapter.
City Administrative and Central Service Positions
Department & Division
City Manager
City Council
City Manager
Human Resources
Economic Development
Communications
Administrative Services
Administration
City Clerk
Finance
Purchasing/Mail Services
Risk Administration
Special Districts
Technology Services
Transit
Positions
% of Cost
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Variable
35.50
37.50
39.50
34%
5.00
5.00
5.00
0%
13.50
11.50
13.50
45%
6.00
6.00
6.00
71%
7.00
9.00
9.00
22%
4.00
6.00
6.00
21%
61.50
68.25
70.25
70%
3.00
3.00
3.00
28%
4.50
4.50
4.50
47%
15.00
15.00
15.00
56%
7.00
7.75
7.75
51%
2.00
2.00
2.00
43%
4.00
5.00
7.00
86%
18.00
17.00
17.00
80%
8.00
14.00
14.00
95%
Generally,
these
personnel support the
direct services provided
by the City. However,
some
administrative
positions
(e.g.,
City
Council members and
upper
management)
would be considered fixed costs in the sense that additional personnel would not be needed if the
City were to grow in size due to annexation. Other administrative positions (e.g., finance cashiers,
special districts administrators, and transit administrative staff) more closely represent variable costs
in the sense that workload (and staffing needs) would tend to be proportional to city size.
In estimating and projecting the general fund costs for the City administration associated with
annexation, the study reviewed the positions in the Departments and made estimates of the extent
to which they represented fixed costs (workload and staffing need is not proportional to city size)
and variable costs (workload and staffing need is not proportional to city size). Overall, the City
Manager Department costs were assumed to be 34 percent variable with respect to city size, and
Administrative Services 70 percent variable with respect to city size, as shown in Table 6-12. The
City Attorney function was assumed to represent a 70 percent variable cost.
For miscellaneous non-departmental items, the AFA assumed that transfers for gas tax,
stormwater and self-insurance were variable costs, and that non-departmental administration costs
were 85 percent variable costs. The AFA assumed that the following were fixed costs: debt service,
reserves, capital replacement, GASB 45 and other categories. In the case of debt service and GASB
45, the costs relate to past debts so growth through annexation would not affect those costs. Other
categories for reserves and capital replacement were held as fixed costs for purposes of modeling;
the ultimate results of the fiscal modeling provide a bottom line in terms of availability of any
surplus for reserves.
In terms of projecting future costs over time, projections were based on 24-hour population
growth, inflation, a real cost inflation factor of 0.5 percent, and the variable cost factor.
BY BURR CONSULTING
63
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The City provides economic development services through the Office of the City Manager. The
City had 15.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions dedicated to economic development within
the City limits in FY 09-10. The City programs focus on business development, promoting the film
industry and tourism, and corporate sponsorship of city events. Business development programs
include 1) an ombudsman program to help businesses navigate the development process with
minimal cost, time and frustration, 2) employment assistance through a job center and workforce
training offered by a partnership with the College of Canyons, 3)tools to aid in the development of
small businesses, 4) maintenance of two websites aimed at encouraging retail and service activity for
local businesses, and 5) tax savings within the California Enterprise Zone encompassing the City.
The annexation study areas presently receive economic development services from the County.
County programs include funding for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
(LAEDC) to attract and retain businesses countywide, as well as, the Antelope Valley Workforce
Development Consortium—a private non-profit that provides job search and job development
opportunities. Both LAEDC and the Consortium provide services equally to both unincorporated
and incorporated areas, including the study areas and the City of Santa Clarita. In addition to
services offered by LAEDC to all areas, the City of Santa Clarita pays dues and is a member of the
LAEDC with access to private special events and additional resources. LAEDC resources include
one full-time regional manager for the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valley areas, which serve the study
areas as well as the cities of Santa Clarita, Palmdale and Lancaster, and the LAEDC central office
provides support to the regional manager.
Both the City and LAEDC boast awards in 2008 from the California Association for Local
Economic Development — Santa Clarita for its Small Business Support Program and Enterprise
Zone Marketing Program, and LAEDC for its Business Assistance and Development Program. In
the same year, the City was also named the Most Business Friendly City in Los Angeles County by
LAEDC.
Staffing levels were used to compare economic development service levels offered by the City
and County, including County-funded LAEDC resources. LAEDC staff dedicated to the study
areas amounts to one FTE per 257,700 people (24-hour population).127 The City employs
significantly more personnel dedicated to economic development within the City with the equivalent
of approximately one FTE per 11,400. Similarly, when staffing levels are compared based on jobs in
each of the areas, the County has a service level of one FTE per 97,500 jobs in the study area, while
in the City there is approximately one FTE per 4,400 jobs.
Eligible businesses in the annexation study areas would benefit from the Santa Clarita Enterprise
Zone upon annexation. Benefits offered by the Enterprise Zone include various state tax incentives
(credits and deductions) to businesses and individuals located within the Zone. For example, a
hiring tax credit allows businesses to reduce their State income tax by a percentage of the wages paid
to qualifying employees.128 The Zone was formed in 2007, consisting of 8,527 acres along the major
127
LAEDC central office staff dedicated to study areas calculated as the percentage of the total County population represented in the
study areas in 2008.
128
The amount of wages is limited to (up to) 150% of the minimum wage. The amount of the credit is figured over a five-year span,
beginning with the year the employee was hired. The business can deduct 50% of wages in year 1, 40% in year 2, 30% in year 3, 20%
in year 4, and 10% in year 5, for a maximum benefit of $37,440 over the 5-year span (based on a 2,080 hour work year). There is no
limit to the number of qualifying employees that can be claimed, but the credit can only be used on tax attributable to that zone (i.e.,
cannot be used to offset income generated from another location of the business).
64
travel corridors of the City. Future expansion of the Enterprise Zone is limited to 15 percent of its
original size, meaning it can expand by 1,279 acres. The Enterprise Zone has set aside 865 acres of
expansion potential to accommodate the Valencia Commerce Center/Hasley Hills area (in study
area 2) in the event of annexation to the City. Other commercial, retail and industrial areas may
annex to the Zone as long as they are contiguous to the existing Zone. To do so, the City must file
an enterprise zone expansion application with the State Housing and Community Development
Board.
F I S C A L M I T I G A T I O N PA Y M E N T
F I S C A L I M PA C T O N C O U N T Y
Annexation would have a negative fiscal impact of approximately $5.8 million on the County
general fund, and a positive fiscal impact of approximately $3.0 million on the County road fund.
For annexation to be approved, the City and County would negotiate the fiscal mitigation payment
to be made by the City to the County in order to offset negative impacts on the County.
Both the AFA and the IFA calculated a similar fiscal impact on the County general fund, as
detailed in Table 8-10. By contrast, the County stated that the negative fiscal impact on its general
fund would be $11 million. The primary difference between the AFA and County estimates relates
to the treatment of approximately $4.8 million in law enforcement costs that the County financed
with Proposition 172 funds.129 While the County deducted those revenues from law enforcement
expenditures, the AFA and the IFA did not. In calculating the fiscal impact on the County, both the
AFA and the IFA relied on the definition in Government Code §56815.130 Specifically, the net
impact is the difference between 1) current County revenues that would transfer to the new city, and
2) current County expenditures for those services which will be assumed by the new city. This
calculation “is not restricted to general purposes revenues nor does it refer to the net cost of
services, and therefore, there is no provision in section 56815 for deducting or offsetting the amount
of restricted revenues from current expenditures.”131
Both the AFA and IFA found that annexation would have a similar ($2.5 and 2.9 million
respectively) positive fiscal impact on County road and transit funds based on FY 06-07 data.
Similarly, the County estimated that annexation would have a $3.5 million positive fiscal impact on
these funds based on its projections for the current year (FY 09-10).
F I S C A L M I T I G A T I O N PA Y M E N T
In order to effectuate annexation, the City and County must agree on a property tax transfer.
Under current law, LAFCO does not have the authority to force a tax sharing arrangement on the
County even though LAFCO does have that authority with respect to incorporation. There are
advantages and disadvantages of the fiscal agreement negotiated between the City and County for
annexation. There is more flexibility with respect to a negotiated agreement. In the case of
129
See the “Subventions” section of Chapter 5 for discussion of Proposition 172 funds.
130
Government Code §56815 defines the fiscal impact on the County that must be mitigated in the event that a new city is formed in
an area where County revenues exceed expenditures. State law does not offer a definition of fiscal impact on the County in the event
of annexation. The AFA authors relied on the definition in Government Code §56815 both to promote consistency for comparison
purposes, and as the most objective definition available.
131
Memorandum from County Counsel Lloyd W. Pellman to LAFCO Executive Officer Larry J. Calemine, The Effect of Proposition 172
Revenues on the Property Tax Transfer and Revenue Neutrality Calculations. Nov. 20, 2002.
BY BURR CONSULTING
65
incorporation, LAFCO law requires the fiscal mitigation payment to be based on revenues and
expenditures in a particular base year (i.e., the fiscal year for which the most recent actual financial
data are available). Particularly in the current economic climate, the LAFCO law is overly restrictive,
as the base year is not likely to be representative of the actual future impact on the County. For
purposes of this report, the base year was one year after the economic peak and predates the
housing financial crisis. When the fiscal impact is based on a peak year, revenues will tend to be
relatively high and unrepresentative of future revenue losses; that would tend to overstate the fiscal
impact and the associated fiscal mitigation payment. When the fiscal impact is based on a
recessionary year, revenues will tend to relatively low while expenditure levels tend to be sustained
(financed through reserves); that would tend to reduce the fiscal impact and the associated
mitigation payment. Flexibility in negotiations would give both the County and the City an
opportunity to consider a longer planning period than just a single year, and perhaps a better chance
of reaching a fair agreement.
Flexibility in negotiations also affords the opportunity for the County and City to consider terms
other than those LAFCO would impose. For example, tax sharing could be accomplished through a
combination of property and sales tax so that both parties could reduce the risk of being overly
reliant on one or the other revenue stream. Recent financial events have demonstrated the
differences in timing of economic cycles on the two revenue streams.
The disadvantage of the City-County negotiation process is that the parties may fail to reach
agreement. Even if the public favors annexation, it cannot be forced upon the County.
F I S C A L I M PA C T
ON
CITY
Annexation could have a positive fiscal impact on the City depending on the nature of the fiscal
mitigation agreement with the County.
GENERAL FUND
Before factoring in the
fiscal mitigation payment,
annexation of study area 3
(West Ranch) would generate
the greatest positive fiscal
impact on the City general
fund of $5.1 million in FY 1011.132 Annexation of study
area 2 (Castaic) would yield a
positive fiscal impact of $0.2
million
in
FY
10-11.
Annexation of study area 3
(Tesoro) would have a
negative fiscal impact of $0.1
Dynamic Fiscal Impact on General Fund before Fiscal Mitigation
Millions
Figure 6-14:
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
-$1
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
132
In the event that the Six Flags Magic Mountain park were to be excluded from the West Ranch study area, the estimated impact on
the City’s general fund of annexing the West Ranch area would be approximately $0.5 million less than the estimate for the entire
study area.
66
million.
It is important to note that the AFA did not include interest earnings, transfers from capital
funds, or transfers from reserves in the modeled revenue. Similarly, it did not factor in expenditures
for capital replacement or financial reserves. Hence, the impacts shown in Figure 6-13 depict the
full impact without factoring in reserves and capital savings. One financial advantage to the City of
annexing territory in area 1 is to reduce the fiscal mitigation payment to the County.
Figure 6-15:
Dynamic Fiscal Impact on General Fund
Millions
The fiscal impact of
$6.0
annexing all three study areas
simultaneously would be
$5.0
positive, as shown in Figure 6$4.0
15. Annexation of the areas
separately; however, would
$3.0
have less favorable fiscal
impacts
on
the
City.
$2.0
Annexation of only area 1
would have a negative fiscal
$1.0
impact of $0.1 million (FY
$0.0
2010-11 dollars) on the City.
Annexing only area 2 would
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
initially have a negative fiscal
impact of $0.8 million on the
City general fund, although the fiscal impact would improve over time due to anticipated growth.
Annexing only area 3 would initially have a negative fiscal impact of $1.5 million on the City general
fund, although the impact would improve over time and eventually be positive as a result of
anticipated growth.133
Potential strategies for improving the fiscal impacts on the City general fund include: 1)
negotiations with the County with respect to a fiscal mitigation payment could reduce the amount
owed,134 2) work with the County Sheriff to gain more accurate and specific information on law
enforcement contract service costs for the study areas, 3) retention (possibly with a gradual phaseout) of a portion of the existing utility users tax,135 4) enhanced economic development efforts in the
study areas, and 5) modifications to the boundaries of the study areas to remove outlying areas that
pose particularly high costs or generate particularly low revenues (e.g., Val Verde).
It is important to note that this study modeled operational impacts, not capital impacts.
Infrastructure deficiencies may include a need for road and drainage improvements in the older parts
133
Note that feasibility findings shown in Figure 6-15 reflect a hypothetical scenario in which the City makes fiscal mitigation
payments to offset negative impacts on the County general fund. This scenario was depicted for educational purposes related to
feasibility. Actual fiscal mitigation terms would be negotiated by the City and County.
134
Relying on fiscal data spanning multiple fiscal years or a subsequent reporting period (after the economic peak), cost-sharing for
facilities such as the Castaic Regional Sports Complex, and credits for deferred infrastructure investments are examples of potentially
negotiable solutions.
135
For example, annexation of the Castaic/Val Verde study area would have a positive fiscal impact on the City under a hypothetical
scenario in which a) the Pitchess Detention Center (and associated subvention revenue) is shifted from study area 1 to study area 2,
and b) residents in the area propose annexation with an overlapping phase-out of the utility users tax (specifically, the scenario
assumes the tax rate declines from 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent upon annexation and is then phased out over the next five years).
BY BURR CONSULTING
67
of the Castaic/Val Verde study area, and possibly a lack of adequate space at the parks for the City
to provide recreation programming that matches service levels offered in the existing city limits.
Although there is visual and anecdotal evidence of road and drainage infrastructure needs in the
Castaic/Val Verde study area, the City has not yet conducted an engineering assessment of those
needs. Hence, the AFA was unable to estimate associated capital costs at this time. If Castaic area
residents demonstrate interest in annexation on the 2009 advisory ballot measure, the AFA author
encourages the City to conduct such an assessment prior to initiating annexation.
ROAD AND TRANSIT FUNDS
Annexation would have a positive fiscal impact on the City’s transit fund of approximately $0.2
million (in FY 10-11 dollars), and would gradually improve over time due to economic recovery and
growth. There would be adequate funds from Prop. A Local Return and TDA Article 8 in both
areas 1 and 2 to cover transit costs. There would be a modest revenue shortfall of $0.1 million in
area 3 in FY 10-11, although the long-run impact for area 3 has no significant fiscal impact on the
City.
The annexation study areas as a whole would generate enough revenue to cover street
maintenance expenses; however, if the areas are annexed incrementally, there could be negative
impacts. Specifically, there would be a positive fiscal impact of about $0.8 million associated with
area 1; this is due to the positive effect of the inmate population on revenue allocations. There is an
estimated $1.0 million negative impact on the City’s street maintenance funds associated with
annexing area 2; this is due to relatively extensive roads in the area compared with the population
levels in the area (which are the primary driver of revenue allocations for street purposes). There
would be adequate revenues in area 3 to cover street maintenance costs.
There would be no fiscal mitigation payment from the City to the County associated with road
and transit funds, because the County’s cost savings exceed revenue losses. Certain County revenue
streams, such as gas tax and Prop. 42 funds, are not significantly affected by changes to the
population in the unincorporated areas as would occur following annexation.
68
S OURCES
7. S O U R C E S
DA TA S O U R C E S
Population and Housing Units
•
California Department of Finance data on housing units and population in cities and
unincorporated areas as a whole
•
Los Angeles County Assessor parcel-level data on housing units by study area
•
Los Angeles County Urban Research Division census tract geo-coding of Assessor
parcel-level data, data on 2007 group quarters population in the Tesoro study area
•
2000 Census of Population and Housing (household size by census tract)
•
Southern California Association of Governments, Integrated Growth Forecast, 2008
(estimated number of by census tract and by city)
•
Analysis of Los Angeles County Assessor parcel-level data on commercial square footage
by study area
•
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (countywide job
estimates and trend)
•
U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2003,
Table B-2 (employment densities by building type)
•
SCAG consultant report (Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study, Oct. 31,
2001) for estimated employment densities by land use type
•
City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, “Santa
Clarita Valley Employment Projections,” (technical background for Preliminary Draft
Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan: One Valley One Vision, 2008)
Jobs
Growth Projections
•
Southern California Association of Governments, Integrated Growth Forecast, 2008
(projected housing, population and job growth by census tract and by city)
•
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning and City of Santa Clarita,
Preliminary Draft Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan: One Valley One Vision 2008, 2008 (data and
maps on pending, recorded and approved development activity by area)
•
County of Los Angeles Regional Planning response to consultant request for
information on pending, recorded and approved development activity by area
•
City of Santa Clarita response to consultant request for information on pending
development activity and growth projections
•
Analysis of Los Angeles County Assessor parcel-level data for pipeline development
already constructed
BY BURR CONSULTING
69
•
Analysis of aerial and street-view photographs (google.com) for pipeline development
already constructed
Economic Growth and Projections
•
U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Economic Projections for Calendar Years 2009 to 2019,
2009 (projected inflation)
•
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (job growth trend) and
Consumer Price Index (inflation trend through 2009)
•
Wall Street Journal, Economic Forecasting Survey: May 2009, May 2009 (economic growth
and recession projections, housing prices)
Housing Prices
•
Los Angeles County Assessor parcel-level data on homes sold in 2006 and 2007
•
DataQuick data on housing prices by zip code (through April 2009)
•
Federal Housing Finance Agency (formerly Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight) data on historical real housing appreciation rates (1978-2008)
Commercial Real Estate Prices
•
Los Angeles County Assessor parcel-level data on properties sold in 2006 and 2007
•
LoopNet.com data on asking prices for commercial real estate in the Santa Clara Valley,
June 2009
•
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 14708 (February 2009) data on
historical commercial price appreciation rates
Hotels
•
PKF Consulting data on Santa Clarita Valley, 2003-8 (occupancy rates and prices)
•
Los Angeles County Assessor parcel-level data on hotels and motels by area
Taxable Sales
•
Board of Equalization quarterly Fund Distribution Quarterly Allocation Summary of Bradley
Burns Local Tax (taxable pool and shares)
•
Board of Equalization quarterly Taxable Sales reports (sales by city)
•
Letter from Board of Equalization Research and Statistics Section to City and County
Finance Officials, May 27, 2009 (projections)
Subventions
70
•
California State Controllers’ Office, Monthly Statements of General Fund Cash Receipts and
Disbursements, FY 04-05 through FY 08-09.
•
California State Controllers’ Office, Monthly Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF)
Apportionments, FY 06-07 through FY 08-09.
•
California State Controllers’ Office, Monthly Highway Users Tax Apportionments, FY 06-07
through FY 08-09.
S OURCES
•
California Local Government Finance Almanac, Highway Users (State Gas) Tax Revenues California Cities, FY 91-92 through FY 05-06.
•
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference
Case Service Report, April 2009, Table 9.
•
California Local Government Finance Almanac, Proposition 42 Local Street and Road
Improvements - Estimated City by City Allocations, March 2009.
•
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Local Return Program: FY
2006-07 Estimated Allocations by Jurisdiction, 2008.
Municipal Revenue Trends and Projections
•
California State Controller, Streets and Roads Annual Report FY 06-07, 2008.
•
City of Los Angeles, Revenue Outlook: Supplement to the 2009-10 Proposed Budget, 2009.
•
City of Santa Clarita Administrative Services Department’s Five-Year Budget
Projections, last updated June 2009.
•
County of Los Angeles budget documents and correspondence from CEO
Unincorporated Services staff, 2009.
•
Los Angeles County Assessor’s annual roll release reports (historical annual property tax
growth)
•
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, FY 2009 Adopted Budget and
Proposed FY10 Budget (Proposition A and C revenue growth)
Parks and Recreation
•
City of Santa Clarita recreation programs and participation, Annexation Park Facilities
Usage Report, May 2009.
•
City of Santa Clarita Quimby Fees, Worksheet with credit template, June 2009.
Roadways
•
City of Santa Clarita average PCIs per roadway classification, Weighted PCI_06_04_09,
June 2009.
•
City of Santa Clarita, Public Works Service Indicators, June 2009.
BY BURR CONSULTING
71
INTERVIEWS
AND
CORRESPONDENCE
Board of Equalization Local Revenue Allocation Unit, Dan Cady, Supervising Tax Auditor
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit
California State Controller Division of Accounting and Reporting, Bill Byall
Castaic Town Council, John Kunak and Paul Fancett
City of Santa Clarita Administrative Services Department, Darren Hernandez, Carmen Magana and
Mary Ann Ruprecht
City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, Sharon Sorensen, Planner
City of Santa Clarita Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department, Jodi Jones, Recreation
Administrator
City of Santa Clarita Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department, Jeff Morrison, Project
Development Coordinator
City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department, Kris Markarian, Senior Engineer
County of Los Angeles CAO, William T. Fujioka136
County of Los Angeles CAO Unincorporated Services, Dorothea Park and Marjorie Santos
West Ranch Town Council, Dave Bossert
136
The County CAO’s Unincorporated Services office compiled and analyzed fiscal information, and coordinated and compiled
responses from each of the affected County departments and the County’s Urban Research Division to questions submitted by the
consultants.
72
S UPPLEMENTAL T ABLES
8. S U P P L E M E N T A L T A B L E S
Table 8-1: Population and Job Projections by Area, 2007-2020
Table 8-2: Building Square Footage Projections by Study Area, 2007-2020
Table 8-3: Building Square Footage per Employee
Table 8-4: Property Tax Allocation by Area, FY 06-07
Table 8-5: Assessed Value and Property Tax Calculations
Table 8-6: City General Fund Revenue Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
Table 8-7: City Road Funds Revenue Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
Table 8-8: City General Fund Expenditure Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
Table 8-9: City Road Fund Expenditure Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
Table 8-10: Static Estimates of Fiscal Impact on County, FY 06-07
Table 8-11: Dynamic Estimates of Fiscal Impact on City, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
BY BURR CONSULTING
73
Table 8-1:
Housing Units
Study Areas
1-Tesoro
2-Castaic
3-West Ranch
City Limits
Household Population
Study Areas
1-Tesoro
2-Castaic
3-West Ranch
City Limits
Total Population
Study Areas
1-Tesoro
2-Castaic
3-West Ranch
City Limits
Jobs
Study Areas
1-Tesoro
2-Castaic
3-West Ranch
City Limits
24-Hour Population
Study Areas
1-Tesoro
2-Castaic
3-West Ranch
City Limits
2007
73,342
14,774
1,072
6,853
6,849
58,568
219,149
44,866
3,033
22,006
19,827
174,283
228,337
52,661
10,828
22,006
19,827
175,676
83,721
15,378
467
7,980
6,931
68,344
219,149
43,328
2,430
21,633
19,266
175,821
2008
73,488
14,774
1,072
6,853
6,849
58,714
219,503
44,866
3,033
22,006
19,827
174,637
228,691
52,661
10,828
22,006
19,827
176,030
83,734
15,391
467
7,992
6,931
68,344
219,503
43,359
2,430
21,654
19,275
176,144
2009
73,570
14,774
1,072
6,853
6,849
58,796
220,623
44,866
3,033
22,006
19,827
175,757
229,811
52,661
10,828
22,006
19,827
177,150
83,741
15,398
467
8,000
6,931
68,344
220,623
43,433
2,432
21,696
19,305
177,190
2010
74,065
14,979
1,072
6,947
6,960
59,086
222,113
45,489
3,033
22,308
20,148
176,624
231,301
53,284
10,828
22,308
20,148
178,017
85,044
16,096
467
8,064
7,565
68,948
222,113
44,339
2,429
21,893
20,018
177,774
2011
75,261
15,208
1,093
7,043
7,072
60,053
225,696
46,182
3,093
22,615
20,473
179,514
234,884
53,977
10,888
22,615
20,473
180,907
86,307
16,230
467
8,190
7,574
70,076
225,696
44,936
2,469
22,216
20,251
180,760
2012
76,477
15,441
1,115
7,140
7,187
61,035
229,337
46,886
3,155
22,926
20,804
182,451
238,525
54,681
10,950
22,926
20,804
183,844
87,590
16,367
467
8,318
7,582
71,223
229,337
45,542
2,511
22,544
20,487
183,795
2013
77,712
15,678
1,137
7,238
7,303
62,034
233,037
47,600
3,217
23,242
21,141
185,437
242,225
55,395
11,012
23,242
21,141
186,830
88,895
16,506
467
8,448
7,591
72,388
233,037
46,157
2,553
22,876
20,728
186,880
2014
78,967
15,918
1,160
7,337
7,421
63,049
236,797
48,325
3,281
23,561
21,483
188,471
245,985
56,120
11,076
23,561
21,483
189,864
90,253
16,680
467
8,580
7,633
73,573
236,797
46,805
2,596
23,211
20,998
189,992
Population and Job Projections by Area, 2007-2020
2015
80,243
16,162
1,183
7,438
7,541
64,081
240,617
49,062
3,346
23,885
21,830
191,555
249,805
56,857
11,141
23,885
21,830
192,948
91,662
16,885
467
8,714
7,704
74,777
240,617
47,483
2,639
23,548
21,295
193,134
2016
81,510
16,410
1,206
7,541
7,663
65,101
244,413
49,810
3,413
24,214
22,183
194,603
253,601
57,605
11,208
24,214
22,183
195,996
93,031
17,064
467
8,848
7,749
75,967
244,413
48,150
2,684
23,891
21,575
196,263
2017
82,798
16,661
1,230
7,644
7,787
66,136
248,269
50,569
3,480
24,547
22,542
197,700
257,457
58,364
11,275
24,547
22,542
199,093
94,421
17,246
467
8,984
7,795
77,175
248,269
48,828
2,729
24,238
21,860
199,441
2018
84,105
16,917
1,254
7,749
7,913
67,189
252,186
51,340
3,549
24,884
22,907
200,845
261,374
59,135
11,344
24,884
22,907
202,238
95,833
17,430
467
9,122
7,841
78,403
252,186
49,516
2,776
24,591
22,149
202,670
2019
85,434
17,176
1,279
7,856
8,041
68,258
256,164
52,123
3,620
25,227
23,277
204,041
265,352
59,918
11,415
25,227
23,277
205,434
97,268
17,617
467
9,262
7,888
79,651
256,164
50,214
2,823
24,948
22,443
205,950
2020
86,784
17,440
1,305
7,964
8,171
69,344
260,206
52,918
3,691
25,574
23,654
207,288
269,394
60,713
11,486
25,574
23,654
208,681
98,762
17,843
467
9,404
7,973
80,918
260,206
50,950
2,871
25,308
22,771
209,257
Sources: California Department of Finance, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles County Assessor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Energy, Los Angeles County Regional Planning, and City of Santa Clarita Planning.
74
Table 8-2:
1-Tesoro
Residential
Industrial
Office
Hotel
Retail
Other Commercial
Other
2-Castaic
Residential
Industrial
Office
Hotel
Retail
Other Commercial
Other
3-West Ranch
Residential
Industrial
Office
Hotel
Retail
Other Commercial
Other
2007
2008
2009
2,960,041
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,960,041
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,960,041
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
2,960,041
0
0
0
0
0
0
2011
3,018,729
0
0
0
0
0
0
2012
3,078,581
0
0
0
0
0
0
Building Square Footage Projections by Study Area, 2007-2020
2013
3,139,619
0
0
0
0
0
0
2014
3,201,868
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
3,265,350
0
0
0
0
0
0
2016
3,330,092
0
0
0
0
0
0
2017
3,396,117
0
0
0
0
0
0
2018
3,463,451
0
0
0
0
0
0
2019
3,532,120
0
0
0
0
0
0
2020
3,602,150
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,768,092 12,768,092 12,768,092 12,943,692 13,121,706 13,302,169 13,485,114 13,670,575 13,858,586 14,049,184 14,242,402 14,438,278 14,636,848 14,838,148
7,722,318 7,737,691 7,746,325 7,798,446 7,924,395 8,052,385 8,182,448 8,314,618 8,448,930 8,582,370 8,717,923 8,855,623 8,995,504 9,137,599
211,926
211,926
211,926
214,841
217,795
220,791
223,827
226,905
230,026
233,190
236,397
239,648
242,944
246,285
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
61,352
709,544
709,544
709,544
719,302
729,195
739,224
749,390
759,696
770,145
780,736
791,474
802,359
813,394
824,580
47,226
47,226
47,226
47,875
48,534
49,201
49,878
50,564
51,259
51,964
52,679
53,404
54,138
54,883
30,534
30,534
30,534
30,954
31,380
31,811
32,249
32,692
33,142
33,598
34,060
34,528
35,003
35,484
14,462,527 14,462,527 14,462,527 14,696,425 14,934,106 15,175,631 15,421,061 15,670,462 15,923,895 16,181,427 16,443,125 16,709,054 16,979,285 17,253,886
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
4,438
183,485
183,485
183,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
383,485
510,777
510,777
510,777
510,777
510,777
510,777
510,777
510,777
557,727
557,727
557,727
557,727
557,727
622,831
1,644,671 1,644,671 1,644,671 1,744,671 1,744,671 1,744,671 1,744,671 1,770,817 1,799,422 1,827,842 1,856,711 1,886,038 1,915,829 1,946,092
285,201
285,201
285,201
289,813
294,501
299,263
304,103
309,021
314,019
319,098
324,258
329,503
334,831
340,247
149,056
149,056
149,056
151,467
153,916
156,406
158,935
161,505
164,117
166,772
169,469
172,210
174,995
177,825
Sources: California Department of Finance, Southern California Association of Governments, U.S. Department of Energy, Los Angeles County Assessor, Los Angeles County Regional Planning, and City of Santa Clarita Planning.
BY BURR CONSULTING
75
Table 8-3:
Building Square Footage per Employee
CBECS
5
Service
Industrial
Warehouse
R&D/Flex
Light Manuf
6
Institutional
Hotel
Retail
Regional
Other
Office
High-rise
Low-rise
Government
1
SCAG
2
1,160
3
OVOV
744
1,700
1,225
527
924
1,453
2,633
672
1,804
4
AFA
750
1,200
1,685
841
1,919
913
1,000
1,800
800
416
400
686
700
1,023
585
1,063
526
300
466
672
Notes:
(1) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Detailed Tables , Oct. 2006, Table B-2.
(2) Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study: Summary Report, Report to SCAG ,
2001, Table II-A.
(3) Assumptions used for Santa Clarita Valley employment projections in Preliminary Draft
Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan: One Valley, One Vision , 2008.
(4) Assumptions for purposes of this study.
(5) AFA assumptions were applied to services and miscellaneous commercial uses.
(6) AFA assumptions were applied primarily to golf course and recreational uses.
76
Table 8-4:
Recipient Agency
1
Total Property Taxes
Affected by Annexation
LA County General
County-Dependent Districts
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1687
Road District No. 5
Possibly Affected
2
LA County Waterworks District No. 36
Unaffected by Annexation
Consolidated Fire Protection District
LA County Library
LA County Flood Control District
3
Other
Independent Special Districts
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Newhall County Water District
Santa Clarita Valley Sanitary District
Other
Education
Area 1 Tesoro
Area 2 Castaic
$6,657,110
$28,397,066
Area 3 West Ranch
Property Tax Allocation by Area, FY 06-07
All Study
Areas
Area 1 - Area 2 Tesoro Castaic
Area 3 West
Ranch
All
Areas
34,280,622 $69,334,798
100%
100%
100%
100%
$7,354,986 $15,540,933
23%
2%
1%
1%
21%
2%
1%
1%
22%
2%
1%
1%
$1,532,828
$6,653,119
$59,269
$47,635
$356,864
$188,172
$414,610
$232,063
$830,743
$467,870
23%
2%
1%
1%
$0
$35,345
$0
$35,345
0%
0%
0%
0%
$5,950,305 $12,065,450
$878,350 $1,766,509
$444,905
$900,960
23%
18%
3%
1%
22%
17%
2%
1%
22%
17%
3%
1%
22%
17%
3%
1%
1%
8%
7%
0%
1%
0%
45%
1%
8%
6%
1%
1%
0%
45%
1%
8%
6%
0%
2%
0%
47%
1%
8%
6%
0%
2%
0%
46%
$1,198,027
$184,803
$95,506
$4,917,118
$703,356
$360,549
$36,116
$159,157
$443,454
$4,978
$56,220
$719
$2,997,556
$174,098
$1,717,695 $1,913,709
$234,317
$0
$236,840
$767,343
$10,686
$17,767
$12,823,849 $16,132,487
$369,371
$4,074,858
$239,295
$1,060,403
$29,172
$31,953,892
Source: Los Angeles County Assessor
Notes:
(1) Property tax amounts are actual original charges for FY 06-07. Dollar figures do not reflect uncollectable amounts, taxes paid in arrears or administrative charges.
(2) Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 36 provides retail water service to the Val Verde, upper Sloan Canyon and upper Hasley Canyon areas.
(3) Other unaffected County-dependent district activity includes accounts 1.2 (accumulated capital outlay) and 7.31 (fire flow).
BY BURR CONSULTING
77
Table 8-5:
Assessed Value and Property Tax Calculations
Item
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
Assessed Value Calculations ($1,000s of FY 06-07 dollars)
AV - Existing Development
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
1
Supp. AV - New Res Dev
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43,549
0
16,965
26,584
50,350
6,713
16,975
26,663
51,362
6,875
17,280
27,207
52,968
7,117
17,783
28,067
54,838
7,397
18,373
29,067
56,599
7,665
18,924
30,010
58,186
7,911
19,415
30,861
59,818
8,164
19,918
31,736
Base AV - New Res Dev
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85,966
0
33,489
52,477
187,446
13,482
67,720
106,244
294,574
27,645
103,832
163,097
408,179
42,681
142,069
223,429
526,140
58,396
181,676
286,068
647,010
74,610
222,159
350,240
772,542
91,517
264,119
416,906
Supp. AV - New Com Dev
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
4
0
0
0
0
1,230
0
1,230
0
691
0
691
0
54,072
0
6,169
47,904
12,513
0
12,102
410
12,710
0
12,293
417
12,911
0
12,488
424
17,037
0
12,685
4,352
26,534
0
12,885
13,649
17,552
0
12,845
4,708
17,826
0
13,044
4,782
18,104
0
13,246
4,858
18,386
0
13,451
4,935
31,042
0
13,659
17,383
Base AV - New Com Dev
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,460
0
2,460
0
3,841
0
3,841
0
111,986
0
16,178
95,808
138,518
0
40,827
97,691
164,730
0
65,729
99,000
190,714
0
90,781
99,933
225,688
0
116,615
109,072
280,985
0
143,525
137,461
318,619
0
170,568
148,051
357,105
0
198,229
158,876
396,459
0
226,518
169,941
436,697
0
255,447
181,250
Supp. AV - Turnover
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
0
98
0
154
0
154
0
7,918
0
1,987
5,931
13,039
539
4,342
8,157
18,372
1,106
6,782
10,484
23,956
1,707
9,314
12,934
30,073
2,336
11,932
15,806
37,120
2,984
14,627
19,508
43,646
3,661
17,387
22,598
50,400
4,366
20,233
25,801
57,386
5,100
23,167
29,119
64,612
5,865
26,190
32,556
Total Assessed Value
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
7
6,933,480 7,356,041 7,220,892 7,051,888 6,960,214 6,989,286 7,095,368 7,231,255 7,346,955 7,435,119 7,524,340 7,614,632 7,706,008 7,798,480
665,711 706,283 693,307 677,080 668,278 671,069 681,255 694,302 705,410 713,875 722,442 731,111 739,884
748,763
2,839,707 3,012,772 2,957,420 2,888,202 2,850,656 2,862,563 2,906,010 2,961,665 3,009,052 3,045,160 3,081,702 3,118,682 3,156,107 3,193,980
3,428,062 3,636,985 3,570,165 3,486,606 3,441,280 3,455,654 3,508,103 3,575,289 3,632,494 3,676,083 3,720,196 3,764,839 3,810,017 3,855,737
61,497
8,426
20,434
32,637
63,222
8,696
20,964
33,562
64,996
8,975
21,507
34,514
902,885 1,038,189 1,178,608
109,140 127,504
146,635
307,602 352,652
399,314
486,143 558,033
632,660
6,933,480 7,356,041 7,223,351 7,055,828 7,158,319 7,323,169 7,567,710 7,848,521 8,122,739 8,393,187 8,652,621 8,918,269 9,191,055 9,471,172
665,711 706,283 693,307 677,080 668,278 684,551 709,438 738,089 765,514 790,822 816,943 843,911 871,754
900,498
2,839,707 3,012,772 2,959,880 2,892,142 2,900,476 2,973,096 3,079,913 3,201,297 3,316,657 3,422,775 3,531,017 3,641,901 3,755,509 3,871,907
3,428,062 3,636,985 3,570,165 3,486,606 3,589,565 3,665,521 3,778,358 3,909,135 4,040,568 4,179,590 4,304,661 4,432,456 4,563,792 4,698,766
continued
78
Item
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
Property Tax Calculations (FY 06-07 dollars)
Total Property Tax
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Property Tax - General
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
8
3,875,018 4,111,868 4,037,409 3,997,955 4,035,810 4,128,618 4,266,299 4,426,590 4,586,139 4,733,155 4,879,214 5,028,774 5,182,353 5,346,970
372,056 394,731 387,479 378,410 377,242 386,428 400,472 416,641 432,118 446,399 461,140 476,359 492,070
508,291
1,587,069 1,684,481 1,654,619 1,629,304 1,637,283 1,678,147 1,738,235 1,806,515 1,871,408 1,930,967 1,991,854 2,054,227 2,118,132 2,183,605
1,915,893 2,032,657 1,995,312 1,990,242 2,021,285 2,064,044 2,127,591 2,203,434 2,282,613 2,355,789 2,426,220 2,498,189 2,572,151 2,655,075
2,601,728 2,760,746 2,710,744 2,684,048 2,709,271 2,771,581 2,864,040 2,971,685 3,078,817 3,177,538 3,275,633 3,376,084 3,479,240 3,589,798
267,237 283,523 278,314 271,800 270,962 277,559 287,647 299,261 310,377 320,635 331,223 342,154 353,439
365,090
1,052,662 1,117,272 1,097,465 1,080,674 1,085,967 1,113,071 1,152,926 1,198,214 1,241,256 1,280,760 1,321,145 1,362,515 1,404,901 1,448,328
1,281,830 1,359,951 1,334,965 1,331,573 1,352,342 1,380,950 1,423,467 1,474,210 1,527,184 1,576,143 1,623,265 1,671,415 1,720,900 1,776,380
Lighting Maintenance District
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
814,544
58,113
349,905
406,525
864,337
61,655
371,382
431,301
848,697
60,522
364,798
423,377
840,623
59,106
359,217
422,301
848,787
58,923
360,976
428,888
868,304
60,358
369,985
437,961
897,229
62,552
383,233
451,444
930,901
65,077
398,287
467,537
964,427
67,495
412,594
484,338
995,315 1,025,986 1,057,385 1,089,622 1,124,186
69,725
72,028
74,405
76,859
79,392
425,725 439,149 452,901 466,990
481,425
499,865 514,809 530,080 545,774
563,369
Road District No. 5
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
458,747
46,706
184,503
227,538
486,785
49,553
195,827
241,405
477,968
48,642
192,355
236,970
473,284
47,504
189,413
236,368
477,752
47,357
190,340
240,054
488,734
48,510
195,091
245,133
505,029
50,273
202,076
252,680
524,004
52,303
210,014
261,687
542,895
54,246
217,558
271,091
560,302
56,039
224,482
279,781
577,596
57,889
231,560
288,146
595,304
59,800
238,811
296,693
613,490
61,772
246,241
305,477
632,986
63,808
253,852
315,326
Sources: Authors' calculations based on data provided by the Los Angeles County Assessor, Los Angeles County CEO, the City of Santa Clarita, DataQuick (residential home values), LoopNet (commercial property values).
Notes:
(1) Assessed value (AV) from existing development in FY 06-07 was provided by the Los Angeles County Assessor. The FY 07-08 estimate was provided by the Assessor, with inflation removed. In subsequent years, the estimate
is based on projected property tax growth rates less projected inflation.
(2) Supplemental AV from new residential development (built after FY 06-07) is 50 percent of the product of projected new housing units in that year (see Table 8-1) and housing prices. Home price assumptions were based on
analysis of 2007 parcel-level Assessor data and DataQuick zip code medians and trends (through April 2009). Housing prices were assumed to be $450,000 on average in FY 09-10, specifically $640,000 in area 1, $360,000 in area 2
and $480,000 in area 3. In subsequent years, housing prices appreciate in real terms by 1.2% annually on average (historical trend from 1978-2008).
(3) Base AV from new residential development is the sum of a) the product of projected new housing units (see Table 8-1) and housing prices from the prior year, and b) base AV from the prior period adjusted for real appreciation.
(4) Supplemental AV from new commercial development is 50 percent of the product of projected new square footage in that year (see Table 8-2) and purchase prices (per square foot). Commercial prices were based on analysis of
2007 parcel-level Assessor data, and LoopNet.com data on current asking prices in the study area (as of June 2009). Price per square foot assumptions were $300 for retail, $380 for hotel, $160 for industrial, $325 for office, and
$115 for other commercial uses.
(5) Base AV from new commercial development is the sum of a) the product of projected new square footage (see Table 8-2) from the prior year and prices, and b) base AV from the prior period. Base AV was adjusted for real AV
appreciation (calculated with a cap of 2 percent on nominal AV appreciation net of projected inflation).
(6) Supplemental AV from turnover is calculated as four percent of the base AV in the current period from new residential and commercial development. Turnover on existing properties is excluded, because it has already been
factored into the AV from existing development.
(7) Total AV is the sum of AV from existing development, base AV from new residential development, and base AV from new commercial development for the current period, in addition to supplemental AV from turnover in the
prior period.
(8) Property tax does not reflect fiscal mitigation payments from the City to the County. Property tax is calculated as the product of a) the one percent tax rate, b) total AV, c) one minus the ratio of property tax administrative fees
to gross property tax revenue (all cities FY 06-07), and d) the sum of the assumed transfering property tax shares (5.7%).
BY BURR CONSULTING
79
Table 8-6:
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
FY 09-10
Dynamic City General Fund Revenue Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax (1%)
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
1
15,095,146
11,220,128
372,056
1,587,069
1,915,893
16,555,870 15,735,407
12,291,637 11,640,000
409,358
393,045
1,746,899 1,678,387
2,107,977 2,023,975
15,311,948 15,388,276 15,704,033
11,300,000 11,300,000 11,530,000
379,734
382,146
390,678
1,635,006 1,658,568 1,696,607
1,997,208 2,047,561 2,086,748
16,242,512
11,933,550
404,477
1,755,618
2,148,867
16,826,507 17,433,862 18,046,926
12,351,224 12,783,517 13,230,940
421,224
438,168
454,211
1,826,387 1,897,607 1,964,759
2,227,672 2,314,570 2,397,015
18,665,943 19,297,635 19,950,197 20,631,371
13,694,023 14,173,314 14,669,380 15,182,808
469,902
485,409
501,420
517,948
2,029,699 2,093,257 2,158,376 2,225,093
2,472,318 2,545,654 2,621,022 2,705,521
VLF In-Lieu Property Tax
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
2
12,020,349 13,660,573 14,234,317
12,020,349 13,660,573 14,234,317
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,810,000 13,810,000 14,186,865
13,810,000 13,810,000 14,090,000
0
0
9,611
0
0
42,993
0
0
44,262
14,832,399
14,583,150
25,158
109,698
114,393
15,528,130 16,248,171 16,987,977
15,093,560 15,621,835 16,168,599
44,026
63,115
81,192
189,684
270,166
346,199
200,860
293,055
391,987
17,729,971 18,487,792 19,270,738 20,079,651
16,734,500 17,320,208 17,926,415 18,553,839
98,870
116,343
134,382
153,006
419,594
491,436
565,043
640,457
477,007
559,806
644,898
732,348
Sales Tax
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
3
39,020,523
32,175,550
4,031
2,112,068
4,728,874
32,745,804 33,008,690 33,812,882
26,500,000 26,500,000 27,030,000
4,255
4,310
4,358
1,865,137 1,961,663 2,063,185
4,376,412 4,542,716 4,715,339
35,188,885
28,120,000
4,401
2,169,961
4,894,522
36,690,577 38,257,854 39,830,379
29,250,000 30,420,000 31,575,960
4,450
4,512
4,591
2,282,263 2,400,377 2,524,604
5,153,864 5,432,965 5,725,224
41,468,994 43,176,539 44,955,990 46,810,452
32,775,846 34,021,329 35,314,139 36,656,076
4,678
4,767
4,858
4,950
2,655,260 2,792,677 2,937,207 3,089,216
6,033,209 6,357,766 6,699,786 7,060,210
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
4
3,956,354 4,787,517
1,804,923 2,433,651
0
0
227,621
249,038
1,923,810 2,104,827
4,133,069
2,000,000
0
225,678
1,907,391
3,850,496
1,863,263
0
210,249
1,776,985
3,984,136
1,927,931
0
217,546
1,838,659
4,084,297
1,976,399
0
223,015
1,884,883
4,182,038
2,023,696
0
228,352
1,929,990
4,285,565
2,073,793
0
234,005
1,977,767
4,317,290
2,004,036
0
226,134
2,087,120
4,516,584
2,096,546
0
236,572
2,183,466
4,728,492
2,194,911
0
247,672
2,285,909
4,882,578
2,266,436
0
255,743
2,360,399
5,040,812
2,339,887
0
264,031
2,436,895
5,038,976
2,214,034
0
249,830
2,575,112
Documentary Transfer Tax
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
5
1,817,905 1,416,748
1,073,774
836,824
67,177
52,353
395,966
308,588
280,989
218,983
1,626,124
1,073,412
49,896
294,108
208,708
926,097
430,000
44,785
263,982
187,329
1,008,430
468,229
48,767
287,451
203,984
1,031,641
479,006
49,889
294,067
208,679
1,054,355
489,552
50,988
300,542
213,273
1,079,248
501,110
52,191
307,637
218,309
1,108,501
514,693
53,606
315,976
224,226
1,125,340
514,693
55,126
324,936
230,584
1,144,275
514,693
56,836
335,012
237,734
1,163,796
514,693
58,598
345,400
245,106
1,183,924
514,693
60,415
356,110
252,706
1,205,583
514,693
62,370
367,635
260,885
Business License Tax
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
6
240,656
214,877
0
11,602
14,177
246,926
221,128
0
11,621
14,177
215,808
190,000
0
11,631
14,177
218,878
191,680
0
11,724
15,473
222,215
194,817
0
11,908
15,491
225,607
198,005
0
12,094
15,509
229,055
201,245
0
12,283
15,527
232,625
204,538
0
12,475
15,613
236,313
207,885
0
12,670
15,758
239,907
211,192
0
12,864
15,850
243,558
214,553
0
13,062
15,943
247,267
217,967
0
13,262
16,038
251,036
221,435
0
13,466
16,135
254,938
224,958
0
13,673
16,307
Vehicle License Fees (MVLF)7
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
4,543,211
1,504,146
624,903
1,269,955
1,144,207
4,146,180
1,235,564
598,491
1,216,279
1,095,846
3,557,968
945,000
537,288
1,091,899
983,782
3,574,205
956,559
538,250
1,093,854
985,543
3,632,774
977,762
545,550
1,109,594
999,868
3,691,660
1,003,728
552,059
1,123,407
1,012,467
3,748,283
1,029,579
558,112
1,136,323
1,024,270
3,809,961
1,057,336
564,796
1,150,557
1,037,273
3,884,491
1,089,239
573,249
1,168,432
1,053,571
3,974,488
1,126,151
583,828
1,190,680
1,073,829
4,072,715
1,165,936
595,483
1,215,171
1,096,126
4,173,899
1,207,353
607,386
1,240,218
1,118,943
4,278,148
1,250,473
619,543
1,265,836
1,142,296
4,385,574
1,295,374
631,959
1,292,041
1,166,200
39,467,645 33,966,338
32,633,354 27,800,000
4,180
4,240
2,108,724 1,902,482
4,721,387 4,259,615
continued
80
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
Franchise Fees
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
8
Other
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
9
7,426,440 7,421,885 7,484,594
5,958,143 5,955,813 5,980,474
82,337
82,174
84,234
733,091
732,182
751,341
652,869
651,716
668,546
22,045,838 8,617,127
76,420
65,017
680,409
579,315
605,952
515,648
6,232,104
58,306
520,074
462,764
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
7,629,197 7,891,053 8,161,956
6,106,235 6,319,953 6,541,152
83,425
86,338
89,357
751,970
776,734
802,316
687,568
708,028
729,131
8,442,219
6,770,092
92,487
828,743
750,897
8,733,239 9,035,297 9,347,641
7,007,045 7,252,292 7,506,122
95,737
99,112
102,651
856,047
884,258
913,716
774,409
799,635
825,152
9,670,830 10,005,241 10,351,266 10,710,640
7,768,836 8,040,745 8,322,172 8,613,448
106,320
110,127
114,074
118,178
944,158
975,616 1,008,124 1,041,722
851,515
878,753
906,896
937,293
6,072,390
59,423
535,625
489,752
6,599,241
64,609
578,942
524,560
6,781,724
66,417
593,876
537,241
7,478,601
73,421
652,000
588,025
6,253,324
61,202
550,600
501,896
6,427,103
62,912
564,873
513,347
6,988,835
68,477
610,941
552,474
7,224,348
70,852
630,673
569,543
7,741,771
76,086
674,048
607,126
8,014,170
78,851
696,839
626,868
8,295,107
81,716
720,314
648,104
Sources: Los Angeles County, City of Santa Clarita, California State Controller, California Department of Finance, SCAG, California Local Government Finance Almanac, Board of Equalization, PKF Consulting, DataQuick.
Notes:
(1) Existing City: City projections (through FY 12), 3.5% thereafter (historical average adjusted for slower future population growth). Annexation areas: Projected based on development, prices and turnover.
(2) Existing City: City projections (through FY 12), 3.5% thereafter (historical average adjusted for slower future population growth). Annexation areas: 0.0636% of cumulative change in assessed value beginning in year following annexation effective date.
(3) Existing City: City projections (through FY 15), historical 3.8% average annual growth rate (City, FY 04-FY 09) thereafter. Area 1: Inflation (CPI-U) only; no new retail space was projected during forecast period. Areas 2 and 3: Retail square footage growth
plus a) weighted avg. projections (through FY 09-10), b) 3.8% average annual growth rate (City, FY 04-FY 09) thereafter.
(4) Existing City: City projections (through FY 10), consistent with occupancy and rate projections for study areas thereafter. Area 1: No activity. Areas 2 and 3: Projections assume gradual recovery in rates and occupancy, with supply-side impacts in FY 15 and
FY 20.
(5) Existing City: City projections (through FY 10), consistent with study area projections thereafter. Annexation areas: Based on projected new development, turnover rates, and prices.
(6) Existing City: City actuals and estimated FY 09, thereafter projected based on city job growth. Annexation areas: Based on projected job growth.
(7) Existing City: City actuals and estimated FY 09, thereafter projected based on city population and MVLF pool growth at sum of projected state population growth and inflation. Annexation areas: Annexation allocation based on population at time of
annexation, rate projected based on projected growth in statewide MVLF revenue and population.
(8) Existing City: City actuals and estimated FY 09, thereafter projected at 3.5 percent annual growth. Annexation areas: Estimated based on city amount per capita (24-hour pop).
(9) Existing City: City actuals and projections (through FY 09) for miscellaneous fees, interest income, vehicle fines (red light), and transfers from the transit fund, PFA capital fund, and GF capital fund; thereafter, increases with inflation and population growth.
Annexation areas: allocation based on population (24-hour) for fees, but excludes interest income, , and transfers from the transit fund, PFA capital fund, and GF capital fund.
BY BURR CONSULTING
81
Table 8-7:
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
Dynamic City Road Fund Revenue Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
Road Fund Revenues
Gas Tax
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
1
3,925,476 4,018,488
2,992,061 3,092,398
191,932
190,426
390,052
386,991
351,430
348,672
3,608,268
2,777,387
170,849
347,206
312,826
3,549,925
2,736,463
167,267
339,927
306,268
3,785,810
2,917,091
176,539
363,705
328,474
3,983,996
3,071,862
183,999
382,165
345,969
4,052,561
3,126,926
185,359
388,097
352,179
4,113,185
3,175,917
186,327
393,242
357,699
4,169,241
3,221,425
187,066
397,927
362,824
4,213,193
3,257,620
187,247
401,432
366,894
4,264,631
3,299,295
187,816
405,773
371,747
4,322,840
3,346,231
188,669
410,743
377,198
4,334,836
3,357,437
187,499
411,294
378,606
4,371,579
3,387,790
187,414
414,192
382,183
Proposition C "Local Return"
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
2
2,835,551 2,917,865
2,158,702 2,218,012
139,176
143,906
282,839
292,452
254,833
263,495
3,099,785
2,384,886
147,000
298,739
269,159
2,718,310
2,092,361
128,710
261,570
235,670
2,707,567
2,087,130
127,576
259,266
233,594
2,757,831
2,122,516
129,108
265,986
240,221
2,887,864
2,224,224
133,872
278,051
251,717
3,024,059
2,330,810
138,824
290,663
263,762
3,166,710
2,442,509
143,969
303,847
276,384
3,316,124
2,559,566
149,318
317,630
289,611
3,472,622
2,682,237
154,878
332,037
303,470
3,635,915
2,810,028
160,684
347,157
318,046
3,806,922
2,943,913
166,723
362,965
333,322
3,986,008
3,084,182
173,002
379,492
349,332
TCRP/Prop. 42
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
3
1,588,895
1,213,712
77,146
156,780
141,256
0
0
0
0
0
1,971,316
1,517,379
93,340
189,690
170,907
2,139,540
1,649,267
100,812
204,874
184,588
2,322,264
1,787,290
108,717
223,977
202,281
2,471,198
1,903,309
114,557
237,934
215,399
2,539,025
1,956,968
116,557
244,043
221,457
2,605,496
2,009,640
118,455
249,999
227,403
2,678,109
2,067,111
120,589
256,518
233,890
2,753,804
2,127,026
122,819
263,307
240,653
2,840,506
2,195,294
125,532
271,211
248,469
2,934,122
2,268,972
128,499
279,749
256,902
2,998,195
2,319,860
130,129
285,447
262,760
3,081,146
2,385,403
132,541
292,919
270,283
Proposition C Discretionary
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
4
13,064,152 8,547,208
11,674,058 7,170,518
285,836
283,080
580,888
575,287
523,370
518,323
7,196,491
5,797,871
287,589
584,451
526,580
3,595,536
2,359,211
251,244
517,610
467,471
5,414,060
4,169,893
250,979
521,280
471,909
5,571,081
4,293,941
255,748
535,475
485,917
5,833,881
4,499,719
265,228
559,764
509,170
6,109,138
4,715,367
275,081
585,154
533,536
6,397,447
4,941,359
285,324
611,696
559,068
6,698,275
5,176,783
296,021
639,550
585,920
7,013,313
5,423,432
307,145
668,673
614,063
7,343,234
5,681,843
318,713
699,121
643,557
7,688,745
5,952,577
330,744
730,956
674,468
8,050,583
6,236,221
343,258
764,241
706,863
TDA - Article 8
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
5
7,403,472 7,713,259
5,663,342 6,049,433
357,812
342,122
727,160
695,274
655,158
626,430
7,836,376
6,031,883
371,046
754,056
679,391
6,710,174
5,172,543
316,173
642,540
578,918
6,590,388
5,072,176
308,528
635,627
574,056
6,638,880
5,113,245
307,757
639,209
578,669
6,805,165
5,245,118
312,400
654,092
593,555
6,975,016
5,379,885
317,108
669,256
608,766
7,148,491
5,517,596
321,881
684,707
624,307
7,325,650
5,658,299
326,721
700,447
640,183
7,504,876
5,800,167
331,668
716,564
656,476
7,687,796
5,945,014
336,684
732,980
673,118
7,874,466
6,092,885
341,770
749,698
690,114
8,064,943
6,243,827
346,927
766,721
707,469
TDA - Bicycle & Pedestrian
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
6
108,254
72,740
7,303
14,841
13,371
256,740
222,227
7,097
14,422
12,994
180,356
144,777
7,316
14,868
13,396
133,796
102,987
6,335
12,875
11,600
135,000
104,065
6,361
12,927
11,647
136,293
104,895
6,381
13,145
11,872
138,869
106,956
6,438
13,371
12,104
141,636
109,166
6,502
13,614
12,354
144,888
111,753
6,587
13,902
12,646
148,727
114,796
6,697
14,246
12,989
152,895
118,096
6,819
14,619
13,361
157,155
121,458
6,945
15,005
13,747
161,534
124,915
7,074
15,401
14,143
166,037
128,472
7,206
15,808
14,551
Measure R Local Return
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,184,873
912,030
56,103
114,014
102,725
2,358,415
1,817,986
111,125
225,833
203,471
2,402,197
1,848,808
112,459
231,686
209,243
2,515,461
1,937,401
116,609
242,195
219,257
2,634,094
2,030,242
120,922
253,181
229,749
2,758,350
2,127,537
125,404
264,665
240,743
2,888,496
2,229,499
130,063
276,670
252,264
3,024,813
2,336,352
134,905
289,220
264,336
3,167,049
2,447,664
139,964
302,389
277,032
3,316,004
2,564,283
145,223
316,159
290,338
3,471,996
2,686,464
150,693
330,555
304,284
continued
82
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
Surface Transportation Program 8
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Vehicle Code Fines
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
9
126,434
0
8,548
62,013
55,873
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
131,119
0
8,865
64,311
57,943
133,003
0
8,992
65,235
58,776
133,468
0
9,024
65,463
58,981
135,203
0
9,141
66,314
59,748
136,690
0
9,241
67,044
60,405
138,057
0
9,334
67,714
61,009
139,576
0
9,437
68,459
61,681
141,530
0
9,569
69,417
62,544
144,007
0
9,736
70,632
63,639
146,743
0
9,921
71,974
64,848
149,531
0
10,110
73,342
66,080
152,372
0
10,302
74,735
67,335
155,267
0
10,497
76,155
68,615
1,938,405 2,064,405
1,555,159 1,656,616
21,491
22,857
191,347
203,657
170,408
181,275
1,189,091
955,000
13,110
116,933
104,048
1,480,552
1,185,000
16,190
145,930
133,432
1,523,993
1,220,567
16,674
150,010
136,741
1,565,612
1,254,712
17,140
153,899
139,861
1,606,778
1,288,528
17,603
157,732
142,916
1,650,660
1,324,394
18,095
161,801
146,370
1,700,775
1,365,148
18,657
166,450
150,521
1,757,838
1,411,538
19,304
171,826
155,171
1,819,496
1,461,650
20,003
177,636
160,206
1,883,318
1,513,534
20,729
183,643
165,410
1,949,379
1,567,254
21,483
189,853
170,789
2,017,759
1,622,673
22,263
196,248
176,575
Notes:
(1) Existing City: City actuals and estimated FY 09, thereafter projected based on city population and annual gas consumption growth as projected for the Pacific region by U.S. EIA in April 2009. Annexation Areas: Per capita allocations for FY 07-09 based on actual
rates, projections based on US EIA gasoline consumption projections.
(2) Existing City: City actuals through FY 08, subsequent projections based on SCAG projected (annualized) countywide population growth rate and projected growth in taxable sales (MTA) in FY 09 and FY 10, LA City projection in FY 11 and FY 12, 3.8 percent
annual rate thereafter. Annexation Areas: Projected local and countywide population growth (at SCAG projected rate), projected growth in countywide taxable sales (MTA in FY 09 and FY 10, LA City projection in FY 11 and FY 12, 3.8 percent annual rate
thereafter).
(3) Existing City: City actuals through FY 08, Local Government Finance Almanac estimates thru FY 11, thereafter projected based on projected population growth, inflation and statewide gas consumption. Annexation Areas: Per capita Local Government Finance
Almanac estimates thru FY 11, thereafter projected based on projected population growth, inflation and statewide gas consumption.
(4) Existing City: FY 07 and 08 - City actuals. FY 09 and 10 - City budgets. Thereafter, assume City attracts grants proportional to population share. Annexation Areas: County reported none; assume City attracts grants proportional to population share.
(5) Existing City: City actuals for FY 07, MTA budgets (pool size) through FY 10, thereafter the TDA pool was projected to increase with countywide sales tax (consistent with Prop. C projections) and the City's share based on projected population. Annexation Areas:
MTA budgets (pool size) through FY 10, thereafter the TDA pool was projected to increase with countywide sales tax (consistent with Prop. C projections) and the study area's share based on projected population.
(6) Existing City: City actuals for FY 07 and 08, City budget projection for FY 09, MTA budget projection (pool size) for FY 10, thereafter the TDA pool was projected to increase with inflation and the City's share based on projected city and county population.
Annexation Areas: The product of MTA per capita allocation and population estimate for FY 07. For FY 08 through FY 10, the product of MTA's projected pool size and projected population. Thereafter, the TDA pool was projected to increase with inflation and the
study area's share based on projected area and county population.
(7) Estimated based on MTA projected total revenues (thru FY 10) and projected population. Thereafter, growth calculated same as Prop. C.
(8) Existing City: Not found in City budget documents. Annexation Areas: Increased by projected inflation (IFA assumption). Not found in County RFI response.
(9) Existing City: City actuals for FY 07 thru FY 08, City budgets for FY 09 thru FY 10. Thereafter, projected growth based on annual growth in 24-hour population and inflation. Annexation Areas: Estimated based on City revenues per capita (24-hour pop) for FY
07 thru FY 10. Thereafter, projected growth based on annual growth in 24-hour population and inflation.
BY BURR CONSULTING
83
Table 8-8:
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
General Fund Expenditures
Law Enforcement
Net City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Animal Control
Gross City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Community Development
Gross City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Net City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Parks & Recreation
Gross City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Net City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
FY 09-10
Dynamic City General Fund Expenditure Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
26,965,141
20,885,226
1,033,669
2,568,235
2,478,012
27,837,161 28,822,137 29,933,892
21,572,736 22,346,204 23,219,109
1,067,565 1,105,771 1,149,323
2,646,913 2,735,665 2,837,004
2,549,947 2,634,497 2,728,457
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
1
17,911,838
13,843,812
685,768
1,713,790
1,668,467
20,355,841 22,316,974
15,732,748 17,248,481
779,339
854,422
1,947,630 2,135,269
1,896,124 2,078,801
23,964,240 25,327,443 26,146,266
18,521,630 19,589,345 20,236,936
917,489
970,024 1,001,805
2,292,879 2,419,589 2,494,018
2,232,242 2,348,486 2,413,507
31,134,064 32,382,426 33,680,917 35,031,673
24,161,402 25,141,831 26,161,936 27,219,932
1,196,365 1,245,386 1,296,469 1,349,635
2,946,345 3,059,893 3,177,811 3,299,880
2,829,952 2,935,317 3,044,702 3,162,226
2
256,503
0
12,980
189,666
53,857
257,997
0
13,526
190,614
53,857
259,212
0
13,788
191,567
53,857
263,793
0
13,905
195,160
54,728
268,864
0
14,431
198,820
55,613
274,009
0
14,948
202,548
56,513
279,242
0
15,469
206,347
57,426
284,594
0
16,023
210,216
58,355
290,102
0
16,645
214,158
59,299
295,782
0
17,349
218,174
60,258
301,608
0
18,110
222,266
61,233
307,560
0
18,903
226,434
62,223
313,641
0
19,732
230,680
63,229
319,855
0
20,597
235,006
64,252
6,672,048
5,352,904
73,973
658,622
586,550
5,626,340
4,513,944
62,379
555,396
494,620
6,331,495
5,080,812
70,101
624,613
555,969
5,233,668
4,199,843
57,946
516,311
459,568
5,818,039
4,672,669
64,143
572,137
509,090
5,158,953
4,143,334
56,877
507,323
451,418
4,772,921
3,820,137
52,192
470,442
430,151
3,965,383
3,173,802
43,361
390,847
357,373
4,677,661
3,743,893
51,150
461,052
421,566
3,841,859
3,074,936
42,010
378,672
346,241
4,972,133
3,979,581
54,370
490,077
448,105
4,107,078
3,287,211
44,911
404,813
370,143
5,224,472
4,181,548
57,129
514,949
470,846
4,329,140
3,464,945
47,339
426,701
390,156
5,492,156
4,395,796
60,056
541,333
494,971
4,565,487
3,654,112
49,923
449,996
411,456
5,776,124
4,623,078
63,161
569,322
520,563
4,817,022
3,855,434
52,674
474,789
434,126
6,001,756
4,803,668
65,629
591,562
540,898
5,005,609
4,006,038
54,724
493,495
451,352
6,245,323
4,998,614
68,292
615,569
562,849
5,209,183
4,168,614
56,937
513,688
469,943
6,498,748
5,201,449
71,063
640,547
585,688
5,421,007
4,337,769
59,238
534,705
489,294
6,762,428
5,412,493
73,947
666,537
609,452
5,641,416
4,513,770
61,631
556,579
509,435
7,035,903
5,631,375
76,937
693,492
634,098
5,869,878
4,696,308
64,112
579,272
530,186
22,527,227
18,715,363
0
2,005,208
1,806,657
17,909,381
14,816,332
0
1,627,079
1,465,970
23,871,558
19,849,435
0
2,115,812
1,906,310
19,254,020
15,949,354
0
1,738,399
1,566,267
24,578,745
20,461,696
0
2,165,748
1,951,301
20,331,303
16,869,132
0
1,821,254
1,640,918
23,967,750
19,918,931
0
2,127,449
1,921,370
19,841,771
16,434,781
0
1,790,201
1,616,790
24,812,938
20,609,276
0
2,206,312
1,997,350
20,581,499
17,044,211
0
1,856,563
1,680,725
25,637,555
21,281,654
0
2,283,626
2,072,275
21,265,672
17,600,279
0
1,921,620
1,743,773
26,463,577
21,954,339
0
2,361,333
2,147,905
21,951,023
18,156,601
0
1,987,009
1,807,414
27,343,156
22,670,600
0
2,444,078
2,228,478
22,680,812
18,748,960
0
2,056,637
1,875,214
28,335,376
23,479,353
0
2,537,156
2,318,867
23,504,048
19,417,813
0
2,134,960
1,951,275
29,453,589
24,389,639
0
2,642,781
2,421,169
24,431,835
20,170,634
0
2,223,841
2,037,360
30,660,880
25,372,382
0
2,756,822
2,531,675
25,433,532
20,983,379
0
2,319,804
2,130,348
31,917,734
26,394,724
0
2,875,784
2,647,225
26,476,362
21,828,872
0
2,419,908
2,227,581
33,226,188
27,458,260
0
2,999,879
2,768,049
27,562,017
22,708,434
0
2,524,332
2,329,252
34,588,366
28,564,649
0
3,129,330
2,894,388
28,692,260
23,623,436
0
2,633,261
2,435,563
3
4
continued
84
Note FY 06-07 FY 07-08
Public Works
Gross City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Net City Cost
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
5
City Manager
6
16,318,971
13,773,300
142,752
1,271,002
1,131,917
5,035,929
4,721,052
17,657
157,212
140,008
Existing City
FY 08-09
18,131,116 18,524,791
15,305,446 15,648,043
158,379
161,104
1,411,190 1,436,998
1,256,100 1,278,647
5,912,153 10,368,842
5,500,139 9,097,717
23,093
71,186
205,767
634,955
183,153
564,985
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
15,848,554 16,984,769 17,877,177
13,351,117 14,315,679 15,075,548
136,804
146,677
154,458
1,233,121 1,319,568 1,386,838
1,127,511 1,202,845 1,260,334
7,600,225 8,451,348 9,057,460
6,749,344 7,481,253 8,007,253
46,610
53,310
57,900
420,127
479,604
519,864
384,145
437,181
472,443
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
18,685,610
15,765,247
161,528
1,447,396
1,311,439
9,585,669
8,467,707
61,836
554,087
502,040
19,541,810 20,448,447 21,232,794
16,494,272 17,264,952 17,933,077
169,021
176,962
183,934
1,511,323 1,578,811 1,637,238
1,367,194 1,427,721 1,478,545
10,150,288 10,748,587 11,182,558
8,959,059 9,479,242 9,862,773
66,067
70,559
73,568
590,750
629,515
654,844
534,412
569,271
591,372
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
22,079,061
18,653,879
191,466
1,700,275
1,533,441
11,650,328
10,276,199
76,813
682,123
615,192
22,959,051
19,403,574
199,315
1,765,735
1,590,427
12,136,644
10,706,111
80,194
710,437
639,902
23,874,108
20,183,318
207,494
1,833,712
1,649,584
12,647,494
11,157,387
83,773
740,336
665,998
24,825,048
20,991,760
216,008
1,904,079
1,713,201
13,176,051
11,623,691
87,476
771,092
693,792
5,045,434 6,084,204
6,950,006
6,236,257
6,489,135
6,841,603
7,148,407
7,473,205
7,817,038
8,118,206
8,443,133
8,781,048
9,132,467
9,497,243
4,650,150 5,608,032
6,408,185
5,742,245
5,976,643
6,302,892
6,587,210
6,887,902
7,205,944
7,484,802
7,785,646
8,098,550
8,423,994
8,761,417
Area 1 - Tesoro
22,166
26,690
30,343
27,061
28,163
29,700
31,040
32,462
33,969
35,307
36,753
38,260
39,830
41,464
Area 2 - Castaic
197,357
237,809
270,651
243,920
253,370
266,668
278,142
290,261
303,064
314,279
326,379
338,945
351,994
365,501
175,761
294,354
305,293
316,649
328,861
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Administrative Services
7
Existing City
211,674
240,826
223,030
230,958
242,343
252,015
262,580
274,061
283,817
7,833,772 7,474,123
7,536,473
7,140,244
7,407,875
8,051,972
8,175,516
8,789,021
8,955,817
9,299,518
9,670,349 10,055,963 10,456,948 10,873,601
6,683,478 6,377,692
6,434,873
6,081,004
6,312,001
6,864,115
6,972,748
7,498,837
7,643,412
7,939,199
8,258,307
8,590,207
8,935,409
Area 1 - Tesoro
64,504
61,455
61,692
58,023
60,222
65,488
66,526
71,556
72,953
75,827
78,932
82,168
85,540
89,050
Area 2 - Castaic
574,318
547,577
550,273
523,005
541,787
588,002
596,118
639,823
650,870
674,956
700,944
727,930
755,953
784,963
511,471
Area 3 - W. Ranch
City Attorney
8
Existing City
9,293,316
487,398
489,635
478,212
493,864
534,366
540,124
578,806
588,583
609,535
632,166
655,658
680,046
706,272
2,501,929 2,250,530
2,276,830
2,282,655
2,395,622
2,514,194
2,638,649
2,769,532
2,907,147
3,018,715
3,139,091
3,264,265
3,394,429
3,529,679
2,134,551 1,920,384
3,016,703
1,944,028
1,944,028
2,041,229
2,143,291
2,250,455
2,362,978
2,481,127
2,577,143
2,680,728
2,788,466
2,900,522
Area 1 - Tesoro
20,601
18,505
18,638
18,549
19,475
20,448
21,471
22,548
23,681
24,614
25,622
26,673
27,767
28,906
Area 2 - Castaic
183,424
164,881
166,242
167,199
175,208
183,601
192,397
201,616
211,279
219,098
227,533
236,293
245,390
254,807
163,352
146,760
147,923
152,879
159,710
166,854
174,325
182,389
191,060
197,861
205,207
212,833
220,750
229,263
8,120,243 19,675,984 21,133,885
7,748,998 19,551,664 20,838,159
20,818
6,968
16,561
185,355
62,088
147,722
165,072
55,264
131,443
23,763,865
23,449,388
17,226
155,275
141,976
8,237,921
8,141,667
5,290
47,587
43,378
8,239,538
8,143,261
5,308
47,658
43,311
8,241,215
8,144,903
5,327
47,734
43,250
8,243,012
8,146,594
5,347
47,815
43,255
8,244,924
8,148,337
5,369
47,901
43,317
8,247,518
8,150,651
5,400
48,063
43,404
8,250,332
8,153,148
5,433
48,243
43,509
8,253,268
8,155,746
5,467
48,432
43,623
8,256,330
8,158,447
5,503
48,632
43,748
8,259,574
8,161,248
5,541
48,841
43,945
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Nondepartmental
Existing City
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
9
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING
85
Notes:
(1) Existing City: general fund actuals/budgeted cost for FY 06-07 through FY 09-10. Thereafter, projections account for growth in the 24-hour population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost growth. Annexation areas: net County cost for FY
06-07, projections for FY 07-08 through FY 09-10 are based on the annual growth in the City's law enforcement costs. Thereafter, projections account for growth in the 24-hour population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost growth. Net cost
signifies the City's general fund share of estimated contract service costs, and is estimated for the study areas based on the financing approach in the existing city.
(2) Existing City: animal control expenditures included in Community Development. Annexation areas: Gross County cost for FY 06-07; projections account for growth in the household population in the area, projected inflation, and a 0.5% annual real cost
increase. Offsetting animal license revenue is in the "Other" general fund category on Table 8-6.
(3) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted cost and Community Development Department service charges and permit revenues for FY 06-07 through FY 09-10, City-projected growth thru FY 14-15; thereafter, projections account for growth in the 24hour population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost growth. Annexation areas: estimated based on City costs per capita for FY 06-07 through FY 09-10; growth through FY 14-15 based on City projections; thereafter, projections account for
growth in the 24-hour population, inflation and an assumed 0.5 percent real annual cost growth.
(4) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted cost and Parks & Recreation fee revenue for FY 06-07 through FY 09-10; thereafter, City cost per resident increases with inflation and a 0.5% real cost increase, as do offsetting revenues per resident. In FY 10-11,
there is a one-time reduction of 1.1% for reduced non-resident fees. Area 1: assumed to remain zero due to lack of public park facilities in study area and proximity of City park facilities. Areas 2 and 3: Estimated based on City park and recreation costs per
resident (75% - adjusted for existing non-resident participation) for FY 06-07 through FY 09-10; thereafter, study area cost per resident increases with inflation and a 1.0% real cost increase, as do offsetting revenues per resident.
(5) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted/City-projected cost and fee/permit revenue for FY 06-07 through FY 14-15. Thereafter, City cost per capita increases with inflation and a 0.5% real cost increase. Net cost deducts public works fee and permit
revenue, and transfers from gas tax, Prop. 42, Traffic Safety Fund (vehicle code fines), landscape maintenance district, transit fund, and stormwater utility fund. Transfer projections for gas tax and Traffic Safety Fund consistent with revenue projections; other
transfers increase with inflation, 24-hour population growth and 0.5 percent real cost increase. Annexation areas: Estimated based on City public works general fund costs per capita, adjusted for a 75% variable cost factor. Cost inflation follows same trend as for
existing city.
(6) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted/City-projected cost for City Manager Department FY 06-07 through FY 14-15; thereafter, City cost per capita increases with inflation and a 0.5% real cost increase. Annexation areas: estimated based on City
costs per capita for this department, adjusted for a 34% variable cost factor; cost inflation follows same trend as for existing city.
(7) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted/City-projected cost for Administrative Services Department FY 06-07 through FY 14-15; thereafter, City cost per capita increases with inflation and a 0.5% real cost increase. Annexation areas: estimated based
on City costs per capita for this department, adjusted for a 70% variable cost factor; cost inflation follows same trend as for existing city.
(8) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted/City-projected cost for City Attorney Department FY 06-07 through FY 14-15; thereafter, City cost per capita increases with inflation and a 0.5% real cost increase. Annexation areas: estimated based on City
costs per capita for this department, adjusted for a 70% variable cost factor; cost inflation follows same trend as for existing city.
(9) Existing City: General fund actuals/budgeted/City-projected non-departmental cost for FY 06-07 through FY 14-15; thereafter, only the nondepartmental O&M administrative costs increase with inflation, consistent with the City projections for prior years.
Annexation areas: estimated based on City costs per capita for this department, adjusted for fixed/variable cost factors. Transfers for gas tax, stormwater and self-insurance were 100% variable costs, non-departmental administration costs were assumed to be 85
percent variable costs. The following were assumed to be fixed costs: debt service, reserves, capital replacement, GASB 45 and other categories.
86
Table 8-9:
Note FY 06-07
Road & Transit Funds
Transit
Expenditures
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Revenues
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Net Transit Revenues
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Street Maintenance
Expenditures
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Revenues
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
Net Street Revenues
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
1
2
FY 07-08
FY 08-09
1,908,358
113,410
889,318
905,630
2,554,903
525,348
1,067,635
961,920
646,545
411,938
178,317
56,290
1,979,072
117,612
922,272
939,188
2,476,625
509,252
1,034,924
932,448
497,552
391,640
112,652
-6,740
2,007,502
119,302
935,520
952,680
2,634,819
541,781
1,101,030
992,008
627,317
422,479
165,509
39,329
4,296,960
246,600
2,558,520
1,491,840
4,567,280
1,143,370
1,857,077
1,566,832
270,320
896,770
-701,443
74,992
4,499,154
258,204
2,678,911
1,562,039
4,080,347
1,047,870
1,649,773
1,382,703
-418,807
789,666
-1,029,138
-179,335
4,608,776
264,495
2,744,183
1,600,098
4,428,327
1,150,675
1,782,632
1,495,021
-180,449
886,180
-961,552
-105,077
FY 09-10
2,014,528
119,719
938,795
956,014
2,264,605
465,656
946,326
852,623
250,076
345,936
7,531
-103,391
Dynamic City Road Fund Expenditure Estimates, FY 06-07 Through FY 19-20
FY 10-11
2,040,717
121,276
950,999
968,442
2,238,784
456,695
936,738
845,351
198,067
335,419
-14,261
-123,091
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
2,063,165
122,610
961,460
979,095
2,263,486
457,702
948,124
857,660
200,321
335,092
-13,336
-121,435
2,083,797
123,836
971,075
988,886
2,330,795
467,879
977,019
885,897
246,998
344,043
5,944
-102,989
2,106,718
125,198
981,756
999,764
2,400,266
478,337
1,006,831
915,098
293,548
353,139
25,075
-84,666
2,136,212
126,951
995,501
1,013,761
2,471,978
489,087
1,037,594
945,298
335,766
362,136
42,093
-68,463
2,173,596
129,173
1,012,922
1,031,501
2,546,013
500,138
1,069,340
976,535
372,417
370,966
56,418
-54,967
2,214,894
131,627
1,032,168
1,051,100
2,622,657
511,542
1,102,190
1,008,924
407,762
379,915
70,023
-42,176
2,256,977
134,128
1,051,779
1,071,071
2,701,962
523,302
1,136,166
1,042,495
444,985
389,174
84,387
-28,576
2,299,860
136,676
1,071,763
1,091,421
2,783,875
535,401
1,171,243
1,077,232
484,015
398,724
99,480
-14,189
2,343,557
139,273
1,092,126
1,112,158
2,868,492
547,851
1,207,461
1,113,180
524,934
408,578
115,335
1,022
4,670,995 4,778,427 4,878,774
268,066
274,231
279,990
2,781,230 2,845,198 2,904,947
1,621,699 1,658,998 1,693,837
4,252,150 4,613,708 4,759,945
1,081,620 1,142,531 1,163,725
1,669,795 1,823,312 1,887,333
1,500,735 1,647,866 1,708,887
-418,844
-164,719
-118,829
813,555
868,300
883,735
-1,111,435 -1,021,886 -1,017,614
-120,964
-11,133
15,050
4,976,350
285,590
2,963,046
1,727,714
4,921,762
1,195,042
1,956,911
1,769,808
-54,588
909,452
-1,006,135
42,094
5,080,853
291,587
3,025,270
1,763,996
5,100,521
1,226,780
2,041,187
1,832,553
19,668
935,193
-984,083
68,557
5,202,794
298,585
3,097,877
1,806,332
5,284,436
1,259,300
2,126,516
1,898,620
81,642
960,715
-971,361
92,288
5,345,871
306,796
3,183,068
1,856,006
5,471,021
1,292,170
2,211,711
1,967,140
125,150
985,373
-971,358
111,134
5,500,901
315,693
3,275,377
1,909,830
5,668,600
1,326,935
2,301,166
2,040,499
167,699
1,011,242
-974,211
130,669
5,660,427
324,849
3,370,363
1,965,215
5,876,995
1,363,487
2,395,536
2,117,972
216,568
1,038,639
-974,828
152,757
5,824,579
334,269
3,468,104
2,022,207
6,075,952
1,397,901
2,486,289
2,191,762
251,372
1,063,632
-981,815
169,555
5,993,492
343,963
3,568,679
2,080,851
6,294,105
1,435,452
2,584,945
2,273,707
300,612
1,091,489
-983,734
192,857
Notes:
(1) Transit revenues include Proposition A Local Return and TDA Article 8. TDA Article 8 surplus may be carried over to street maintenance.
(2) Street revenues include gas tax, Proposition 42, vehicle code fines, Prop. C Local Return, Prop. C Discretionary Grants, Measure R, TDA Article 3, STP, and carry-over from transit uses of TDA Article 8.
BY BURR CONSULTING
87
Table 8-10:
AFA Estimates by Area
Area 1
Area 2
Static Estimates of Fiscal Impact on County, FY 06-07
Area 3
Estimates for All Study Areas Combined
AFA
IFA
County
General Fund
Revenues Transferred
Property Taxes General
Sales Tax
Allocable
Pool Allocation
Less Admin Charges
Real Property Transfer Tax
Franchise Fees
Utility User Tax
Business License
267,237
0
1,052,662
273,145
1,281,830
2,308,572
2,601,728
2,581,717
3,175,420
2,581,717
3,952,083
2,581,717
3,664
398
-31
67,177
37,267
166,639
0
1,919,831
208,574
-16,337
395,966
325,731
1,679,159
11,602
4,298,459
466,993
-36,578
280,989
320,985
1,679,774
14,177
6,221,954
675,966
-52,947
744,131
683,983
3,525,572
25,779
6,221,954
675,965
NP
543,216
777,073
3,542,193
23,201
6,221,954
207,655
NP
744,132
392,856
3,638,328
25,779
Subtotal
542,350
5,850,333
10,615,201
17,007,883
17,540,739
17,764,504
113,668
320,028
833,841
113,668
320,028
833,192
113,668
320,028
833,192
1
2
Net General Fund Expenditures for Service Responsibilities Transferred
Animal Care and Control
-7,463
105,231
15,900
Planning
26,846
228,481
64,701
Parks and Recreation
648
633,090
200,103
County Sheriff 3
Office of Public Safety
Public Works
2,264,027
0
2,762
3,773,377
52,814
19,332
3,773,377
12,483
11,047
9,810,781
65,297
33,141
9,810,780
65,297
33,141
5,054,736
65,252
33,140
Subtotal
2,286,820
4,812,325
4,077,611
11,176,756
11,176,106
6,420,016
1,744,470
-1,038,008
-6,537,590
-5,831,127
-6,364,633
-11,344,488
Net Fiscal Impact
3
continued
88
AFA Estimates by Area
Area 1
Area 2
County Road & Transit Funds
Gas Tax (2106c)
Gas Tax (2105a)
Prop. 42
Other Revenues
Prop. C Local Return
Prop. A Local Return
TDA Article 8
Prop. Tax - Road Dist.
Subtotal
Expenditure Reductions
Street Maintenance
Transit Costs
Subtotal
4
Net Fiscal Impact
County Street Lighting Funds
Property Tax
Other Revenues
Subtotal
Expenditure Reductions
Subtotal
Net Fiscal Impact
4
Combined Fiscal Impact
Area 3
Estimates for All Study Areas Combined
AFA
IFA
County
15,118
0
0
109,674
0
0
98,815
0
0
223,607
0
0
223,607
0
0
2,795,988
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
38,987
46,932
100,234
46,706
282,839
340,475
727,160
184,503
254,833
306,762
655,158
227,538
576,660
694,169
1,482,552
458,747
247,977
1,644,651
1,543,106
3,435,734
3,019,595
NP
243,261
113,410
2,606,575
889,318
1,183,884
905,630
4,033,720
1,908,358
4,033,720
1,908,359
4,033,720
1,908,359
356,671
3,495,893
2,089,514
5,942,078
5,942,079
5,942,079
108,694
1,851,242
546,408
2,506,344
2,922,484
NP
58,113
8,834
349,905
71,213
406,525
28,765
814,544
108,812
NP
NP
0
0
66,947
421,118
435,290
923,356
NP
0
68,103
428,077
330,787
826,967
NP
826,967
1,156
6,959
-104,503
12,423
NP
826,967
1,854,320
820,193
-6,095,685
-3,312,360
-3,442,149
NP
5
5
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING
89
Notes:
(1) The County's estimate of transferable property taxes (before fiscal mitigation) includes shares presently allocated to the Landscape Maintenance District
1687 (street lighting) and Road District. Offsetting County costs for transferred street lighting responsibilities are reflected under Street Lighting Funds.
(2) Net general fund expenditures are gross expenditures for the particular department less those service-specific revenues that the County would no longer
receive following annexation (e.g., recreation fees, building permits, planning fees, and service charges not included under "Revenues Transfered").
(3) Both the AFA and the IFA calculated net fiscal impact following the definition in Government Code §56815 as the difference between a) revenues that
would transfer from the County to the city, and b) expenditures for services to be assumed by the city. Neither the AFA nor the IFA deducted from costs the
portion of law enforcement expenditures that the County financed from Proposition 172 funds, because those funds would not transfer to the city. By
contrast, the County deducts from costs the portion of law enforcement expenditures that the County financed from Proposition 172 funds.
(4) Net fiscal impact does not factor in property tax transfer from City to County, or some other type of fiscal mitigation payment. The City and County
would negotiate fiscal mitigation terms.
(5) The County estimated the net fiscal impact on County road and transit funds as +$3.5 million in FY 09-10, but did not provide estimates of revenue
impacts in the FY 06-07 reference year used for purposes of this study.
90
Table 8-11:
Note FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
Dynamic Estimate of Fiscal Impact on City
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
FY 19-20
General Fund
General Fund Revenue
1
Existing City
88,017,727 77,885,672 70,095,307 67,230,126 67,752,016 69,275,392 71,750,105 74,320,331 76,882,332 79,654,552 82,541,901 85,503,816 88,572,763 91,550,338
Area 1 - Tesoro
1,226,923
1,211,572
1,127,009
1,109,872
1,128,313
1,158,865
1,200,232
1,248,841
1,300,240
1,352,452
1,405,510
1,458,716
1,513,542
1,570,127
Area 2 - Castaic
7,017,780
6,952,646
6,475,600
6,367,547
6,574,064
6,822,557
7,120,461
7,452,931
7,786,560
8,145,004
8,511,627
8,881,656
9,265,031
9,639,981
Area 3 - W. Ranch
11,266,771 11,430,560 10,528,957 10,516,270 10,858,203 11,210,364 11,616,299 12,143,008 12,773,375 13,412,651 14,057,787 14,689,591 15,347,501 16,101,979
All Study Areas
General Fund Expenditure
19,511,475 19,594,778 18,131,565 17,993,689 18,560,580 19,191,786 19,936,993 20,844,780 21,860,174 22,910,106 23,974,924 25,029,963 26,126,075 27,312,087
2
Existing City
59,112,317 74,839,856 82,983,909 82,096,222 69,661,287 72,585,239 74,929,794 77,831,177 80,577,512 83,410,349 86,467,424 89,647,551 92,959,898 96,396,051
Area 1 - Tesoro
906,874
987,522
1,123,507
1,142,224
1,192,926
1,240,508
1,282,677
1,331,491
1,381,621
1,436,113
1,494,965
1,556,288
1,620,245
1,686,780
Area 2 - Castaic
5,383,598
5,611,075
6,425,256
6,178,612
6,351,199
6,628,793
6,856,769
7,134,029
7,402,201
7,683,755
7,987,326
8,302,978
8,631,707
8,972,623
Area 3 - W. Ranch
4,838,578
5,060,066
5,799,807
5,641,375
5,796,155
6,043,253
6,244,763
6,496,416
6,745,488
7,003,415
7,281,904
7,571,726
7,873,809
8,194,360
All Study Areas
Gross Fiscal Impact By Area
11,129,051 11,658,663 13,348,569 12,962,211 13,340,280 13,912,554 14,384,209 14,961,936 15,529,310 16,123,283 16,764,195 17,430,991 18,125,761 18,853,763
3
Area 1 - Tesoro
320,049
224,050
3,502
-32,352
-64,613
-81,643
-82,445
-82,650
-81,381
-83,661
-89,455
-97,572
-106,703
Area 2 - Castaic
1,634,182
1,341,570
50,344
188,935
222,865
193,764
263,692
318,902
384,358
461,249
524,301
578,678
633,324
667,357
Area 3 - W. Ranch
6,428,193
6,370,494
4,729,150
4,874,895
5,062,048
5,167,111
5,371,537
5,646,592
6,027,887
6,409,236
6,775,883
7,117,866
7,473,693
7,907,619
8,382,424
7,936,115
4,782,996
5,031,478
5,220,300
5,279,232
5,552,784
5,882,844
6,330,865
6,786,824
7,210,729
7,598,972
8,000,314
8,458,323
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
All Study Areas
Fiscal Mitigation Payment
-116,653
4
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
-1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007 -1,038,007
Area 3 - W. Ranch
-6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589 -6,537,589
All Study Areas
Net Fiscal Impact
Area 1 - Tesoro
Area 2 - Castaic
Area 3 - W. Ranch
All Study Areas
-2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035 -2,866,035
5
320,049
596,175
-109,396
5,516,389
224,050
3,502
-32,352
-64,613
-81,643
-82,445
-82,650
-81,381
-83,661
-89,455
-97,572
-106,703
303,563
-987,663
-849,072
-815,143
-844,244
-774,315
-719,105
-653,649
-576,758
-513,706
-459,329
-404,683
-370,650
-167,094 -1,808,439 -1,662,694 -1,475,541 -1,370,477 -1,166,052
-890,997
-509,701
-128,353
238,294
580,277
936,104
1,370,031
3,016,810
3,464,830
3,920,789
4,344,694
4,732,937
5,134,279
5,592,289
5,070,080
1,916,961
2,165,443
2,354,265
2,413,197
2,686,749
-116,653
Notes:
(1) General fund revenues do not include utility users tax revenues in the annexation study areas. Study area constituents could potentially request annexation with retention of some or all of the tax to offset negative fiscal impacts on the City.
(2) General fund expenditures do not include capital savings, financial reserves or fiscal mitigation payment to County.
(3) The difference between general fund revenues and expenditures, not accounting for fiscal mitigation payment.
(4) Fiscal mitigation payment shown here is the general fund fiscal impact on the County, is based on the FY 06-07 base year static impact and excludes consideration for growth and inflation subsequent to FY 06-07. For each study area, the mitigation payment
amount reflects only that annexation area; if more than one annexation area is annexed, the amounts would differ. Actual fiscal mitigation terms would be negotiated by the City and County.
(5) Net fiscal impact reflecting the fiscal mitigation payment scenario discussed in note 4.
BY BURR CONSULTING
91

Annexation Fiscal Analysis - Castaic Area Town Council

Transcription

Similar documents

PBWS - College of the Canyons

The Yards of One Santa Fe

The Plan - City of Santa Clarita

GENERAL MANAGER RECRUITMENT BROCHURE Castaic Lake

After Party Flyer

BURRTEC NEWS

route schedule - Visit Santa Clarita

here - Abbey Seltzer

Valley Publications 27261 Camp Plenty Road Santa Clarita, CA 91351