10-30-2017 - Kosmont Companies Feasibility Analysis for Enhance - Item No. 1 (2).pdf(
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina I Office of the City Manager
DATE: October 30, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Freeland
City Manager
SUBJECT: KOSMONT COMPANIES FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction on whether they would like to proceed
with establishing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) within the Downtown
and/or BKK District(s).
BACKGROUND:
In 2012 the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California took away a significant financing
tool for Cities and Counties. Since then, Cities have struggled to find alternative economic
development tools to help finance needed infrastructure and development.
The State of California approved new economic development tools pursuant to the passage of
Senate Bill (SB) No. 628, titled Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD). These
districts, formed by Cities and Counties, offer a new platform to finance a broad array of economic
development projects. EIFD's adopt and carry out an Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), funded
by tax increment, that can finance affordable housing/mixed-use, civic infrastructure, parks & open
space, childcare facilities, brownfield remediation, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects,
industrial structures, wastewater/groundwater, and light/high speed rail.
Furthermore, Assembly Bill (AB) No. 313, contains revisions to SB 628. Such changes include:
granting more responsibilities to the Public Financing Authority (PF A) in preparing, proposing,
and adopting an infrastructure financing plan, authorizing EIFD's to utilize remediation and
environmental cleanup privileges, and allowing special districts to contribute their fee revenue
towards funding projects within the EIFD.
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Page 2 of 7 -October 30, 20 I 7
DISCUSSION:
EIFD's are governmental entities established by a City or County that carries out a plan within a
defined area to construct, improve, and rehabilitate infrastructure. The legislative body that
governs an EIFD is a PF A, which is composed of participating governments and members of the
public. The EIFD carries out the IFP that is adopted by a City or County, describing the public
facilities and development to be financed by the EIFD. EIFD's induce collaborating partnerships
with Cities, Counties, special districts, and private developers to form districts geared around
infrastructure, sustainability, and energy efficiency. EIFD's have a lifespan of 45 years to collect
and spend property tax increment. No public vote is required to form an EIFD and it does not raise
property taxes. EIFD's are funded through tax increment financing, a public financing tool that
allows municipalities to divert future property tax revenue increases from a defined area toward
an economic development project or public improvement project in the community. Revenue
sources include property tax increment, bonds, fees or assessment revenue, loans, property tax
revenue (after redevelopment debt obligations), and other sources such as Federal and State grants.
In order to form an EIFD, the municipality's redevelopment agency must have received a Finding
of Completion from the DOF, which the West Covina Successor Agency to the former
Redevelopment Agency received in December 2015. As such, the City can pursue the formation
of an EIFD. The City would first need to identify the EIFD essentials: identify infrastructure,
development projects, and define project areas. The City Council would then need to adopt a
resolution of intention to create the EIFD and the IFP and then hold a Public Hearing for the
adoption of the IFP and formation of an EIFD. If a bond issuance is part of the IFP, it would
require 5 5% voter approval.
As EIFD's utilize tax increment financing, it is beneficial to establish an EIFD prior to completion
of any new development in the district. The district would be able to take advantage of establishing
the tax increment base year prior to any increase in property values and any new development(s)
would increase the tax revenues to benefit the EIFD.
EIFD's are a new financing tool Cities and municipalities can access to fund infrastructure needs
of the community. The proposed infrastructure and facility improvements will create regional
benefits through improved roads and highways, creation of a new regional transit center, possible
upgrades to the Los Angeles County Library facility, brownfield remediation to the former BKK
landfill site, and development of additional affordable housing. While they are great resources
there are some limitations with EIFD's. As they are financed by property tax, the the formation
of an EIFD has to be a collaboration between the City, Los Angeles County (County), and any
other taxing entity excluding school districts. Recently the County adopted a the "Approval of
Board Policy for Evaluating Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District and Community
Revitalization and Investment Authority Projects" (dated August I, 2107). The policy lists
requirements for reviewing requests for EIFD from Cities and municipalities. A proposed EIFD
must meet the County's policy requirements including the following: a City's share of property
tax increment must equal a minimum of 15 cents ($0.15) for every dollar ($1.00) captured in an
EIFD project area, the proposed EIFD project must align with the Board's established priorities
including affordable housing, homeless prevention, workforce development, or sustainability
among others (Attachment No. 1 ). In addition, EIFD's rely on increases in the property tax values,
(
(
(
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Page 3 of7-0ctober30, 2017
as such they don't produce significant revenue stream until year ten (10). As EIFD's have a forty-
five ( 45) year term, they are limited in total revenues they can generate.
On April 19, 2016, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Kosmont
Companies (Kosmont) for the feasibility analysis of establishing two EIFD's, one in the
Downtown district and another at the former BKK landfill site. Their task was to determine
whether the identified EIFD could support the financing of needed infrastructure improvements
and determine whether or not to proceed with the formation of either EIFD.
The Downtown District proposed boundaries were designed based on the boundaries of the
Downtown District Plan that was adopted in December 2016, with the addition of various
properties including the Greenway Network (a multi-purpose trail traversing the entire city), the
former Vincent Children's Center School site, and other non-contiguous sites north of the 1-10
'freeway (Attachment No. 2). As the Downtown District Plan aims to increase development in the
area, it would be beneficial to establish the EIFD to capture the property tax increment from the
increase in property taxes as a result of the development in the area. The BKK District proposed
boundaries include the properties within the BKK landfill (Attachment No. 3). The City
concentrated on the BKK area because of the need to provide infrastructure to attract development
on the brownfield site in addition to providing required remediation.
Each proposed district contains various planned and proposed economic development projects
including revenue-generating commercial, office, recreational, and residential. In addition, the
rehabilitation of existing buildings is also proposed.
The following have been identified as the new developments within each EIFD and the
infrastructure cost estimates within each:
Prooosed Downtown EJFD Area
Proiect Name Descrintion Address
I. Porto's Bakerv & Cafe Restaurant 1350 W. Garvev Avenue
2. Merrill Gardens Assisted Housing Facility (5 story Residential I 400 West Covina Pkwy
121,061 sauare foot, 13 l-bed faciJitv)
3. Transit Center Public Trans. I 12 Plaza Drive
4. Greenwav Network /Formerlv Walnut Creek Trail) Recreation/Onen Snace Throughout Citv
5. Plaza West Covina Mall Commercial/Retail 112 Plaza Drive
6. Meritarre Homes /56 Unit Multi-Familvl Residential 1530 W. Cameron Avenue
7. School District Site -Residential Develonment Residential 1024 W. Workman Avenue
Pro ,osed BJ(]( EIFD Area
Proiect Name Descriotion Address
8. Commercial/Retail/Recreational Facility Commercial/Recreation/ South of Galster Park
/Formerlv Golf Course Develonment) Ooen Space
9. Charles Comnanv Office Buildings Office Alano-Azusa Avenue
10. AAA Pad Develonment Commercial 2100 S. Azusa Avenue
I I. Trail Svstem Recreation/Open Snace South of Galster Park
12. K-9 Unit Training Facilitv Government Along Azusa Avenue
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Page 4 of 7 -October 30, 2017
Both districts are in need of infrastructure improvements to support future development including
roadway, sewer, landscaping, water, storm drain, pedestrian/bike paths, and development of City
facilities. The following are the proposed infrastructure improvements and the associated costs:
Infrastructure Cost Estimate
New Police Facility or Police/Fire Joint Use Facility Station $40,000,000-
$50,000,000
NPDES Infiltration Improvements at Cortez Park $20,000,000
Transit Center $13,700,000
New Fire Station $12,000,000
Downtown Conversion of medians to drou1?ht tolerant landscaninP" $5,000,000
Pedestrian/Bike Trail $5,000,000
New Citv Yard $4,000,000
Sewer Imnrovements $2,000,000
Unnrade to Los Aneeles Countv Libr•~, TBD
Affordable Mixed Use Proiect TBD
Downtown Parking-Structure TBD
Total $111,700,000
Infrastructure Cost Estimate
Street Imnrovements/Curb and Gutter/Sidewalk $4,000,000
Canital Imnrovements (Sewer/Street/Plumbirw/Water) $3,000,000
Azusa Avenue Street Inmrovements $2,000,000
BKK Park Snace Trails $2,000,000
K9 Unit Trainine Facilitv $500,000
Installation of Retention Basin $500,000
Movement of Methane Sensors/ MitiP"ation Measures TBD
Total $12,000,000
EIFD's are funded from property tax increment and require approval from the various taxing
entities to use their portion of the property tax towards the EIFD. The only exceptions are the
school districts. EIFD's are not allowed to utilize school districts' portion of property taxes. For
every property tax dollar, the City of West Covina receives approximately eighteen (18) cents and
the County of Los Angeles receives fifty-two (52) cents. In order to proceed with an EIFD and
have it be profitable in West Covina, Los Angeles County must contribute a portion of its property
taxes. Recently, because of the interest of Cities seeking to establish EIFD's, the County has
established a policy stating it would not contribute to Cities whose share of property tax does not
exceed fifteen (15) cents. As such, for West Covina it is feasible to seek a partnership with the
County as well as the other taxing entities to establish an EIFD in either proposed district.
The analysis also considers current enforceable obligations that are subordinate to any and all
existing enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency. West Covina's former
Redevelopment Agency's long-term enforceable obligations, including refunding bonds, lease
revenue bonds, and ongoing tax deferral agreement payments, are paid using Redevelopment
Property Tax Trust Fund Residual revenues and have been taken into account when calculating
tax increment totals.
(
(
(
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Page 5 of? -October 30, 2017
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 9470 (Downtown)
TaxEntitv Allocated % Share
Countv of Los Angeles -General Fund 51%
Citv of West Covina 18%
LA Countv Flood Control 2%
LA Countv Sanitation 1%
LA Countv Fire 1%
Other Taxin<' Entities 27%
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 10611 ffiKK)
TaxEntitv Allocated % Share
Countv of Los Angeles -General Fund 51%
City of West Covina 19%
LA Countv Flood Control 2%
LA Countv Sanitation 2%
LA Countv Fire 1%
Other Taxing Entities 25%
In its analysis, Kosmont presents two scenarios illustrating a partnership between the City of West
Covina and the County of Los Angeles in an effort to maximize tax increments. The property tax
distribution regulations mentioned above are considered in both scenarios and are calculated for
different tax sharing levels. In both scenarios, the City contributes 100% of property tax in lieu of
Motor Vehicle License Fees and any property tax increment for both the proposed EIFD's:
1. Scenario 1: City contributes-18 to-18.7 cents
County contributes -9 to -9.3 cents (50 % match)
2. Scenario 2: City contributes -18 to -18.7 cents
County contributes-18 to 18.7 cents (100 % match)
Downtown BKK
Annual Revenue Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Year 10 $1,187,700 $1,482,200 $1,473,131 $1,841,975
Year 20 $2,097,000 $2,617,000 $1,876,000 $2,345,700
Year 30 $3,205,400 $4,000,300 $2,367,000 $2,959,600
45 Year Total $114,854,612 $143,335,522 $85,900,162 $107,407,297
Under either scenario for the Downtown EIFD, funding for the proposed infrastructure costs
totaling over $111,700,000 could be reached, with the exception of the three projects which are
pending final cost estimates. While the three projects (upgrade to LA County libraty, affordable
mixed-use development, downtown parking structure) costs are not known at this time, staff
believes the improvements for all three would exceed $3,154,612, the balance of the proposed
EIFD revenues minus the proposed infrastructure projects costs. In order to proceed with the
Downtown EIFD, the proposed infrastructure projects would need to be prioritized to focus the
available funding on the desired projects. Unlike the Downtown District, both scenarios proposed
for the BKK District would reach the infrastructure costs of $12,000,000 and all proposed projects
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Page 6 of 7 -October 30, 2017
could be completed with over $70,000,000 available to fund the pending mitigation measures at
the site.
In order to pursue establishment of an EIFD, the following steps are necessary:
1. Establish EIFD Boundaries
o Conduct public outreach with landowners and potential PF A members
o Final determination of PFA composition, tax increment contributions
o Final determination ofEIFD boundaries
2. Adopt Resolution oflntention
o City and affected taxing agencies adopt Resolution(s) of Intention to form EIFD
andPFA
3. Prepare and Adopt Infrastrncture Financing Plan
o PF A drafts IFP
o Draft/ update / process necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documents
o Distribute IFP to property owners with corresponding CEQA documentation
4. Enter Into Tax Sharing Agreement With Other Taxing Entities
5. Approve IFP and Form EIFD
o City and affected taxing entities contributing increment adopt resolution( s)
approving IFP
o PF A conducts a public hearing to approve the IFP and form EIFD
6. Public Financing Authority Implements IFP
o Filing with Board of Equalization per guidelines from Board for Change of
Jurisdictional Boundaries
o IFP takes effect upon adoption of approval of resolution
o EIFD property tax division begins following fiscal year
Kosmont has concluded that the establishment of either a Downtown District or BKK District
EFID are feasible. The conservative option with the County matching the City's contribution could
generate sufficient funding within the 45-year term of the EIFD to fund some, if not all, of the
proposed infrastructure projects proposed for the Districts. The Downtown District would require
prioritization of infrastructure projects to match the proposed revenues for the EIFD. The next
step would be to be to seek partnerships with the various taxing entities, specifically Los Angeles
County, to determine their willingness to participate in the proposed EIFD's. Staff would
recommend hiring Kosmont to assist in the next phase of establishing the EFID's.
Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on whether they would like to proceed with
establishing the Downtown District and or the BKK District EIFD's and if so, staff would
recommend bringing back for City Council approval an agreement with Kosmont to provide
assistance in the next phase of establishing EIFD's.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's Office assisted in the drafting this report and approved it as to form.
(
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Page 7 of? -October 30, 2017
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options:
1) Approve staffs recommendation;
2) Proceed with an EIFD within the proposed Downtown District area;
3) Proceed with an EIFD within the proposed BKK District area;
4) Proceed with one EIFD combining the Downtown and BKK District areas;
5) Proceed with amended boundaries for either both or one EIFD District area; or
6) Provide alternative direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As EIFD' s are funded through property tax, pursuing an EIFD would require the City to pledge its
portion, eighteen cents ($.18) on the dollar, it receives in property tax. However, the City would
be able to capture approximately $36,000,000 to $109,000,000 in combined City and County
property tax funding towards infrastructure projects. If the City Council wishes to proceed with
establishing EIFD's, the estimated cost of hiring Kosmont would be approximately $40,000 to
$50,000 per EIFD. A formal proposal from Kosmont would be requested if Council wishes to
proceed with establishing an EIFD.
Prepared by:
~zs:-Gerardo Rojas c_)
Project Coordinator
Additional Approvals:
Approved via Email
Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment No. 1 -County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office "Approval of Board Policy for
· Evaluating Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community
Revitalization and Investment Authority Projects"
Attachment No. 2 -Aerial of Downtown EIFD District
Attachment No. 3 -Aerial ofBKK EIFD District
Attachment No. 4 -EIFD Feasibility Analysis Summary
(
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SACH1 A. HM!Al. ChietfExaoutiv6"-0fficar
County of Los Angeles
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFlCE
. . K~nn.a!>Hahn H.~ oi l>.<!roinistratjon
500 West T emplo Street. Room 713; Los A)lgeie,,;Caifomla 001112
(213)97~1101 ·
h!ljrill:l!1>,lacourrty.QOv
Bolird of Supervisors
~~~-
1.!AAA PJQLEY-Il!Ol,IAS
SeoondDistrici: ==~
JAAICE !W!ll
Fourili bistrlci:
KAlllm'~ BARGER
Flffh District
August 01, 2017 ADOPTED
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Supervisors:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
26 August 1, 2017
d~.&il~.
LORI GlASGOW
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
APPROVAL OF BOARD POLICY FOR EVALUATING ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
AND INVESTMENT AUTHORITY PROJECTS
(ALL DISTRICTS}
'(3 VOTES)
SUBJECT
The Chief Executive Officer recommends approval of a new Board. of Supervisors policy establishing
evaluation criteria for proposed Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District and Community
Revitalization and Investment Authority projects.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD:
Approve the attached Board of Supervisors policy (Board Policy) entitled, Evaluating Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and Community Revitalization and Investment Authority
(CRIA) Projects.
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
On September 29, 2014, the Governor approved Senate Bill 628, which authorized the formation of
an El FD, and on September 22, 2015, approved Assembly Bill 2, which authorized the formation of a
CRIA. EIFDs and CRIAs are limited tax increment financing districts created after the dissolution of
redevelopment agencies in early 2012. The County's participation in any such district is voluntary
and would require approval of the Board.
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
8/1/2017
Page2
Because the County would be a principal contributor of property tax revenue to any EIFD or CRIA, it
is expected that many cities within the County may request that the Board of Supervisors (Board)
consider participating in an El FD or CRIA within that clty's boundaries. The Board Policy described
herein Will ensure that the County performs the necessary due diligence prior to any decision
whether to participate in an EIFD or CRJA. The Board policy will ensure that no EIFD orCRIA is
presented to the Board without first determining that it provides a positive fiscal impact to the County,
and is consistent with established Board priorities. Any departure from the Board Policy would need
to be justified by overriding considerations related to the merit of the EIFD or CRIA proposal.
The Chlef Executive Office (CEO) developed the Board Policy in cooperation with the Economic
Development Policy Committee. (Policy Committee), which includes representation from each of the
five Board Offices. The Policy Committee approved its final content at a meeting on March 23, 2017.
The Board Policy was then presented to the Audit Committee and approved by this body on May 18,
2017. The Audit Committee is also managed by representatives from each 'bf the five Board Offices.
FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
There will be no fiscal impact to the County resulting from the approval of the proposed Board Policy.
There would only be a fiscal impact if the Board were to approve an EIFD or CRIA, and the Policy
mandates a very comprehensive review process prior to any recommendations being made to the
Board. Furthermore, the Policy contains provisions such that the County may request
reimbursement from a proposing city should there be costs associated with the County's review of
any EIFD or CRJA proposal.
As part of the Board Policy, the CEO has established specific criteria that will mitigate any financial or
budgetary risk to the County. Such criteria include: 1) CEO fiscal analysis demonstrating a positive
net impact to the County General Fund; 2) a "But. for ... " analysis that evaluates whether the County's
participation is a necessary pre-condition for the infrastructure projects to be undertaken; 3) a
requirement that a city's contribution of property tax in the project must be equal to or greater than
the County's contribution; and 4) a requirement that the County cannot contribute 1 oo percen\ of its
share of property tax. Each of these requirements is intended to protect the County General Fund in
the event.that an EIFD or CRIA w.ere notto meet its original property tax growth projections.
FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Both EIFDs and CRIAs were designed to function as tax increment financing districts, which would
allow a governmental authority to secure a portion of property tax revenue for the construction of
public infrastructure and other capital needs. The structure of these districts would be such that
property tax revenue growth above a certain base .year would accrue to the benefit of a newly-
formed administrative body rather than to the local taxirig entitles. A key difference between ElFDs
and the former redevelopment agencies, however, is that the tax increment given to the new district
excludes all property tax associated with school districts, which under redevelopment was backfilled
and paid for by the State of California (State). The result is that approximately 50 percent of all
property tax increment in any district is not av9H:,,ble to.the EIFD or CRJA. The largest potential
source of property tax increment would no longer be the State, but would instead be the County.
Since the time of their authorization in 2015, there has been only limited interest across the State in
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
8/1/2017
( Page 3
(
{
'
forming an EIFD or CRIA. The apparent reason for the lack of progress in EIFD and CRIA fonnation
is that there is not sufficient tax increment to be generated in the absence of State property tax
contributions. local taxing entities forming an EIFD or CRIA can no longer leverage State property
tax funding and, therefore, require significantly greater property tax growth to become financially
viable. The fiscal analysis included in the Board Policy is designed to ensure that all parties
participating in an EIFD or CRIA provide a meaningful property tax contribution to the proposed
project. For example, cities that don't contribute a share of property tax equal to at least 15 cents
($0.15) for every dollar ($1.00) of tax increment will only be eligible if there are significant overriding
considerations that merit their review and assessment.
Formation process
According to Section 53398.68(a) of the California Government Code, the County, as an affected
taxing entity must approve any contribution of property taxes to the proposed El FD project by a
resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Government Code Section 62005(d) similarly requires all
taxing entities to adopt a resolution to participate in the proposed CRIA plan, although the resolution
may be adopted after the plan is approved by the city. The CEO will conduct its review of any EIFD
or CRIA proposal in advance of presenting a resolution to the Board for its consideration.
IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS)
There is no anticipated impact on current services or projects.
CONCLUSION
Upon approval of the recommended policy, please provide an adopted copy to the Chief Executive
Office, Economic Development/Affordable Housing Unit, Room 754 of the Kenneth Hahn Hall of
Administration.
Respectfully submitted,
SACHI A HAMAI
Chief Executive Officer
SAH:JJ:DSB
RM:acn
Enclosures
c: Executive Office, Board of Supervisors
County Counsel
Auditor-Controller
Economic Development Policy Committee
. Po!lcyi;:
. 0.000
•1 los Ange/er Ci;,unly ·
ii BOANh Of StJPfRVJSODS POI/CY IMNUAl
Title: Effective Date:
Evaluating Enhanced lnfrastruc~ure Financing District 00/00/00
{EIFD) and Community Revitalization and Investment
Authority (CRIA) Projects
PURPOSE
Establishes a County policy that defines the role of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), in
conjunction with County Counsel and Auditor-Controller, in evaluating Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (ElFD) and Community Revitalization. and l11vestment
Authority (CRIA) proposals from cltles Wlthln the County. The proposals from cities
should be consistent with the economic development goals of the County, as established
by the Economic Development Policy Committee. These goals include measurable gains
in job creation, private investment in the community, expansion of the tax base, and
enhanced opportunities for disadvantaged, target populations.
EIFDs and CRlAs were signed into State law to provide cities and counties with a llmlted
form o'f property tax increment financing to assist with .1he, funding of infrastructure and
development projects after the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2012.
REFERENCE
October 20, 2015 Board motion by Supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas and Hllda L. Soils.
EIFD POLICY
On September 29, 2014, the Governor approved Senate Bill 628, which authorized the
formation of an ElFD. The following policies are to guide the County's review and
response to proposals for the County to participate ln EIFD projects. The pdrpose of the
policy is to protect the County's interests, and provide policy guidance to the CEO When
evaluating ElFD proposals from clties. All correspond,mce wlth cltl~s, and any Eloa,rd
communications concerning EIFDs, must cite and be i':orisis!entwith these pol!tiies. Aiw
departure from these policies must be justified by significant overriding consideratibl'lr ~-
\...:;;,, ~PLJC.Af>l,.t;.. .... Tc::> t.s\U)u...>)-,)f'·t~ CLT'?;.
----·-:-:--. -
(
(
' (
Minimum Requirements:
'\. The City's share of property tax increment must equal a minimum of 15 cents /
($0.15) for every dollar ($1.00) captured in the E!FD Project Area.
2. The City's contribution of property tax increment must at least equal that
contributed by the County General Fund and its special districts. Examples of
Col)nty special districts include the Fire District, Flood Control District, and Library
Fund.
3. The County must not be required to _contribute 100 percent of its property tax
increment.
4. The Fiscal Analysis conducted by the CEO must demonstrate a positive net
impact to the County General Fund as a result of the tax revenue generated from
the Project Area.
5. In addition to supporting economic development, the proposed EIFD Project must
align with established Board priorities in ~ ~ more of the following areas: fL
1) affordable housing; 2} homeless prevention; 3) workforce development; or
4) sustainability.
6. Any rental housing proposed for the E!FD must allocate a minimum of 20 percent "
of all units for affordable housing. In certain circumstances, this requirement may
be satisfied through payment of an in-lieu fee, or through provision of an
equivalent number of affordable housing units at a separate location in proximity
to the economic development site.
7. The E!FD proposal must be consistent with Division 2 of Title 5 of the California
Government Code (Section 53398.5 " 53398.58), which authorizes the fonnation
of ElFDs. .
Fiscal Analysis:
1. Each EIFD proposal shall be subject to a fiscal analysis that wm determine the
expected financial impact to the County General Fund and any special districts
that may contribute a portion of their tax increment share. Where appropriate, the
County may require reimbursement from the proposing entity for the cost of
conducting the fiscal analysis.
2. The fiscal analysis shall review the following:
a. Anticipated growth in assessed value absent any new development;
b. Expected new development in terms of retail square footage, business park
square footage, office space, apartment units, condominium units, housing
units, hotel units, and parking spaces;
c. Tax increment generated as a result of each new development opportunity
associated with the EIFD;
d. Tax increment contributions from each participating agency;
e. Scenario analysis based on differing contributions from each County taxing
entity;
f. Property tax revenue resulting to each taxing entity based on new
development and growth in assessed value; and
g. Sales and transient occupancy tax revenues resulting to the City and
County ..
3. The resulting fiscal analysis must demonstrate a positive net impact to the County
General Fund based on the anticipated tax revenue. This analysis shall include a
comparison of the increased amount of property and sales taxes to the County
generated by the project with the amount of property taxes contributed to the
ElFD.
4. A sensltivity analysis shall be conducted to evaluate the risk associated with tax
forecasts based on various economic scenarios that might impact the amount of
actual development realized in the EIFD.
Proposal Standards:
1. Any EIFD proposal from a city must Initially be directed to the Economic
Development Unit of the CEO for review.
2. All EIFD proposals must dem(mstrate regional and community significance in
areas that may include job creation, affordable housing, blight removal,
sustainability measures, or improvements to regional transportation.
3. Project .feasibility analysis must include . a "But for ... " review that evaluates
;. whether the contrlbutlon of County property tax increment ls a necessary
pre-condition for the infrastructure and development projects oeing considered .
....
4. Cost estimates for all Infrastructure to beHunded by the EIFD must be provided. A
cap on County contributions should be established related to the list of
infrastructure projects to be completed. Additionally, a plan for funding the
anticipated operations and maintenance costs for the proposed infrastructure
must be given.
5. A plan to fund the administrative costs of the ElfD ln the start-up and early years
of the project should be presented.
6. A schedule of bond Issuance, and an estimated amount of bond proceeds, must
be provided in relation to any debt to be secured by ElfD tax incr.ement.
7. lf the proposed EIFO is within a former redevelopmentproject area, the amount of
residual revenue from the redevelopmeritsuccessor agency must be evaluated in
relation to the projected amount of tax Increment. ·
(
(
i(
8. Job creation must be projected, including for local and targeted workers as
identified in the County's Local and Targeted Worker Hire Polley.
9. Opportunities for affordable housing, including permanent supportive housing,
must be referenced -even if not included in the recommended plan for the
proposed Project Area.
1 O.Any potential impact to adjacent unincorporated areas must be identified and
evaluated.
CRf.APOLICY
On September 22, 2015, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 2, which authorized the
formation of a CRIA The following policies are to guide the County's revlew and
response to proposals for the County to participate in CRIA projects. The purpose of the
policy is to protect the County's interests, and provide policy guidance to the CEO when
evaluating CR!A proposals from cities. AH correspondence with cities, and any Board
communications concerning CR!As, must cite and be consistent with these policies. Any
departure from these policies must be justified by significant overriding considerations.
Minimum Requirements:
1. The City share of property tax increment must equal a minimum of 15 cents
($0.15} for every dollar ($1.00) captured in the CRIA Project Area.
2. The City contribution of property tax increment must at least ·equal that
contributed by the County General Fund and its special districts. Examples of
County special districts include the Fire District, Ftoad Control District, and library
Fund. ·
3. The County must not be required to contribute 100 percent of its property tax
increment.
4. The Fiscal Analysis conducted by the CEO must demonstrate a positive net
impact to the County General Fund as a result of the tax revenue generated from
the Project Area.
5. The proposed CRIA must conform to the statutory requirement that 25 percent of
the property taxes generated by the CRIA must be set aside for Low and
Moderate Income Housing.
6. Any rental housing proposed for the CRlA must allocate a minimum of 20 percent
of all units for affordable housing.
7. The CRIA proposal must be con$istent with Division 4 of Title 6 of the California
Government Code (Section 62000 -62208), which authorizes the formation oi
CR!As.
Fiscal Analysis:
1. Each CRIA proposal .shall be subject to a fiscal analysis that will determine the
expected financial Impact to the County General Fund and any special districts
that may contribute a portion of their tax Increment share. Where appropriate, the
County may require reimbursement from the proposing entity for the cost of
conducting the fiscal analysis.
2. The fiscal analysis shall review the follow1ng:
a. Anticipated growth in assessed value absent in any new development;
b. Expected new development in terms of retall square footage, business park
square footage, office spa-0e, apartment units, conoominium units, housing
unfts, note! units, ahd parking spaces;
c. Tax 1ncrement generated as a result of eacti new development opportunity
associated with the CRIA;
d. Tax increment contributions from each participating agency;
e. Scenario analysis based on differing contributions from each County taxing
entity;
f. Property tax revenue resulting to each taxing entity based on new
development and growth in assessed value; and
g. Sales and transient occupancy tax revenues resulting to the City and
County.
3. ;The resulting fiscal analysis must demonstrate a positive net Impact to the County
General Fund based on the anticipated tax revenue. This analysis shall' include a
comparison of the increased amount of property and sales taxes to the County
generated by the project with the amount of property taxes contributed to the
CRIA.
4. A sensitivity analysis shall be, conducted to evaluate the risk associated with tax
forecasts based on var1ous economic scenarios that might impact the amount of
actual development realized in the CRIA.
Proposal Standards:
1. Any CRlA proposal from a City must initially be directed to the Economic
Development Unit of the CEO for review.
2. All GRIA proposals should clearly identify the requlred blight conditions in
Government Code Section 62001 (d) or (e).
(
(
\(
3. All CRIA proposals must demonstrate regional and community significance in
areas that may include job creation, affordable housing, blight removal,
sustainability measures, or improvements to regional transportation.
4. Project feasibifity analysis must include a "But for ... " review that evaluates
whether the contribution of County property tax increment is a necessary
pre-condition for the infrastructure and development projects being considered.
5. A plan to fund the administrative costs of the CRIA in the start-up and early years
of the project should be presented.
6. A schedule of bond issuance, and an estimated amount of bond proceeds, must
be provided in relation to any debt to be secured by CRIA tax increment.
7. Proposals must address a possible cap on the annual or lifetime contribution of
tax increment from the County.
8. If the proposed CRIA is within a former redevelopment project area, the amount of
residual revenue from the redevelopment successor agency must be evaluated in
relation to the projected amount of tax increment.
9. Job creation must be projected, including for local and targeted workers as
identified in the County's Local and Targeted Worker Hire Policy.
1 O.Any potential impact to adjacent unincorporated areas must be Identified and
evaluated.
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
Chief Executive Office
DATE lSSUEDlSUNSET DATE
Issue Date: Sunset Date:
1
(
( VJ
I:]) . ,....;
~
'"O
§
0
i:q
Q µ..
~ ~
~ 0
j
0
Q
'"O
I:])
VJ
( 0
0 :-i ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
(
if!. ~
( .....
~
'"O
§
0
i:q
0 .....
~ if!. .....
Q
Q
~ 1-s ~
~
i:q
'"O
~
if!.
( 0
0.. 0 l-( p.,
/-=---~~
EIFD Preliminary Feasibility Analysis
October 25, 2017
Prepared By:
Kosmont Companies
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 630
Manhattan Beach
Telephone: (424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
~ ~ (j
I ""3
:Z
9
.a::.
~,
1 f/11 ko;!~ "'""!"'"I"'
• Kosmont was· retained by the City to perform a preliminary analysis
("Analysis") of the feasibility of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District ("EIFD") for identified areas within the City as follows:
• Downtown West Covina
• BKK Site
• The purpose of Analysis is to identify the practical & financial/economic
efficacy of one or multiple EIFDs, to determine whether or not to
proceed with formation and implementation of an EIFD
• Overview of the Analysis is presented herein
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in thls analysis.
2~
kosm2,,i;i.\~
1
~'
• Existing conditions:
>'" -980 acres within West Covina included in the preliminary EIFD project areas:
>'" Downtown EIFD Area (-320 acres)
>'" BKK EIFD Area (-660 acres)
~.
>'" Various planned / proposed economic development projects exist within the City of West
Covina, including revenue-generating commercial I office I recreational I residential / hotel
development opportunities and rehabilitation of existing buildings
>'" Required infrastructure improvements to support future private development, including
roadway, sewer, landscaping, water, storm drain, ped/bike circulation, and city buildings
• Challenges:
>'" Unlikely for existing infrastructure to support quality development without upgrades
>'" Fewer economic development tools available to assist in area-wide revitalization following
the dissolution of redevelopment agencies
>'" Ongoing payments per LA County & West Covina RDA tax deferral agreement
>'" Cooperation with taxing entities (e.g. LA County) as related to % share of EIFD revenues
The analyses, proj~ctions, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
3 ta ko;tmNI
• Opportunity:
>-State has prioritized installation of key local and regional infrastructure
sustainability, energy and resource efficiency, and GHG reduction
>-In support of these objectives, State authorized new tools including Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts ("EIFDs"), enabling tax increment financing for local / regional
infrastructure and real estate projects
>-Necessary infrastructure improvements and industrial renovations within and around the
proposed project areas are eligible EIFD expenditures
>-Cities like West Covina can additionally take advantage of the State's preference to provide
grant funds to EIFDs (e.g. GHG / Cap and Trade, Props 1 and 84) that pursue sustainable
infrastructure and resource management
>-Portions of both EIFD areas (Downtown & BKK) are within High Quality Transit Areas
(HQTAs) as identified in SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy
>-May enhance GHG/Cap and Trade funding eligibility for EIFD infrastructure projects
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
4 ffJI ko;htJt
.. ~ /~ ,-:---.,
• Kosmont retained by City to evaluate the feasibility of one or more EIFDs to
support financing of essential infrastructure improvements to determine whether
or not to proceed with formation of EIFDs
• Key findings:
>-EIFD, if approved, can serve as the financial vehicle to fund key infrastructure and
unlock revitalization in the City
>-West Covina sponsored EIFD will likely be more effective with County participation
>-Most effective when other taxing entities participate (e.g. City, County, special
districts)
>-Should seek complementary funding sources (e.g. grant funds, CFO, impact fees,
reimbursable developer contributions)
• Next steps include outreach to potential public and private sector stakeholders /
partners (e.g. land owners/ developers, County/ other taxing entities)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for mustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
5~
kosmg,r,J~,
1. Review of EIFD Fundamentals (SB 628 / AB 313)
2. Strategic I Boundary Considerations for West Covina
a) Land Ownership/ Proposed Future Development
b) Infrastructure Needs
c) Potential Public and Private Partners
3. Funding and Financing
a) Preliminary Tax Increment Analysis
b) Complementary Funding Sources / Financing Mechanisms
4. Implementation and Next Steps
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
6 ff1J kof!I
1
/~r-.._ ~ ~
1. Review of EIFD Fundamentals (SB 628 / AB 313)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
7~
kosmg,!lt"",
• Businesses across the state must continue to incorporate GHG emissions reductions
strategies into business models in response to legislative mandates such as AB 32,
SB 375, SB 350, and most recent accelerations via SB 32 and AB 197, along with
federal emissions & environmental legislation.
ftqw .. ¢~tifotl'lla.l-las PursueclrGHG Recfuctions
Sustainable Infrastructure
Investments
Energy-Saving Industrial
Processes
Renewable Energy
Investments
CEQA Analysis Changes Cap and Trade Program Building Efficiency
Design and Upgrades from VMT to # of Trips
8
ta
ko;im .. The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
'""'""'" ~ ..
CALIFORNIA: WORLD LEADER IN FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
s • •
Requires State to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions_..,.,,,
below 1990 levels by 2030.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or g k tw
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis. OSillQJiLI
The analyses, projectio1
Sustainability·
Infrastructure
Energy/Resource
Efficiency
Place-making &
Community
Revitalizatio.1•···
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actuo.t results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
-10 ~
kOSffil)JJ.i~i
/an". ~
• State has approved new "districts" including EIFDs (and CRIAs, others):
);;. Enable tax increment financing for local/regional projects (e.g. purchase, construction, expansion,
improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation)
}-Compel joint ventures with cities, counties, special districts, and private developers
);;. Districts geared to infrastructure, sustainability, energy efficiency
);;. Can combine tax increment with other regional and state-authorized financing programs such as
GGRF grant funds, PACE, etc.
• District lifespan is 45 years to collect and spend property tax increment
• Any property with estimated useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance
• Managed by newly created Public Financing Authority (led by City or County) -board of
5+ members, includes at least 2 public members
• EIFD activities directed by PFA-adopted Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
• No public vote required to create district
• 55% landowner or registered voter election needed for tax increment bonds
• No school district increment allowed
• Does not increase property taxes
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
11 ~
kOSffiQl;J.\,.,.I
Industrial Structures
Wastewater/Groundwater Light/ High Speed Rail
Parks & Open Space Childcare Facilities Brownfield Remediation
The analyses, projections·, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
12 ~ ko;htl!h
1
--~
1. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
• Governmental entity established by a city or county that
carries out a plan within a defined area to construct,
improve and/or rehabilitate infrastructure
2. Public Financing Authority (PFA)
• Legislative body that governs the EIFD
• Majority comprised of participating government
council/boards and at least two public members
3. Infrastructure Financing Plan
• Plan adopted by city or county. Describes public facilities &
development to be financed by the EIFD
• Implemented by PFA
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
~
13 t1I
kosm9Jl.\~1
• Can use multiple funding sources with tax increment:
~ *If Bond Issuance then 55% voter approval required
• Potential to apply State funding sources:
> Proposition 1 bond funds
> Cap-and-trade proceeds
• Federal & State Grants
> Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds
> Federal DOT/EPA/DOE funding programs
• Other Funding Sources:
> Property tax revenue including RPTTF
> Vehicle license fee (VLF) prop. tax backfill increment
> Development agreement I impact fees > Userfees
> City I county/ special district loans
> Hotel bed tax (TOT)
> Benefit assessments
> Contribution from Special District (e.g. CFD)
> Levied by EIFD
> Private investment
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
14 ,,.. ko;hi~ e..mpa"l"'I
~ ,"'
2. Strategic I Bounidary Consideration1S for West Covina
a) Land Ownership/ Proposed Future Development
b) Infrastructure Needs
c) Potential Public and Private Partners
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
15 'All
kOSillQ,!;),\,.
• Scale of District
>'" Proposed EIFD district boundaries/areas do not need to be contiguous
• Location of Key Infrastructure Projects
},-Development in and around EIFD project area(s) is key driver for district formation
},-EIFD proposed boundary should consider areas where proposed infrastructure
projects and investments are planned
},-EIFD projects to deliver local/regional benefits and incentivize private investment
• Land Ownership
},-140 unique landowners in respective EIFD areas (BKK: 13 and Downtown: 127)
},-Landowners to be notified of public hearing to adopt proposed Infrastructure
Financing Plan
• Public/Private Partnerships
},-Engage potential public/private development partners early in process to determine
projects of mutual benefit that may be included as part of EIFD boundaries.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
16 ~
kosm9,..,,9,L..,
1
/-'-..
• -980 total acres in prelim EIFD area(s),
including >650 acres of vacant land
• -$897 million in existing assessed value
• Numerous commercial / retail / recreational /
resiaential / hotel / office development /
rehabilitation projects in the pipeline.
• Critical to prioritize proposed/potential projects
and evaluate capacity to leverage EIFD
increment generation over time.
• Street improvements
• Water, Sewer
• Pedestrian / Bike Trail
• Retention Basin
• Open Space, Landscaping
• City Buildings (Fire Station, City Hall, City Yard,
Police Station/Dept.)
• Mitigation Measures (BKK)
.~
• Residential / Assisted Living
• Office
• Recreation (Golf, Adventure Park)
• Hotel
• Transit
• Supporting Public Amenities
Public Agencies:
• Los Angeles County
• Los Angeles County Flood Control
• Los Angeles County Sanitation
• Los Angeles County Fire
• LA County Library
Private Sector:
• Major landowners / developers
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
-...
17 ~
kosm9-1t.t.
111 Potential EIFD(s) may consist of the following areas:
Downtown 320 265 127 $800,765,749
BKK .660 38 13 $96,130,058
,-, ,, :>140 i,·
, ; ,,: ./1 ,i-':;
\1 _,_:, ' ' ' . ' ·/ -: .: !'' ; '-::-:,: : ' ' .,: 11:$896,895,807 .. ,:<J(-:: ,,' ' ' ' !
'•·,Jii303···· !Total
*Estimated assessed values include secured & unsecured values taxes & include
reductions for property tax exemptions.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
18 ~
kosmg.u,tb
-~
·i·g,iy•l3~1:iH~;it'rn:.:::
1
•
1
Potential EIFD Area:
"•· ether City: Parcels:
?'-"·"· ···c.;; , ;,.,;. r,r,,;;,
:J.• F\•1• ;:
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
-
2 Assisted Housing Facility
3 Transit Center
4 Greenway Network
5 West Covina Mall
6 Meritage Homes
School District Site
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
''€
.~
8
9
10.
11
~
Commercial/Retail/Recreation
Facility (formerly Golf Course
Development)
Charles Co Office Buildings
AAA Pad Development
Trail System
f,,,.,~c,-·~:,'.ikf~? '\, .~}\',,
+:"
r' " N z,f ~,, ... ~
-~
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
21 ffJJ ko;!'ffl ·""'~""'"'
Planned/ Proposed Projects:
" . Project Name .. · I fl)escription ·
PrelirninaryDownfown EIFD Area ;,c :-,· . :-, . , ··.:_-.-. •;I--, .-. '
1 · Porto's Bakery & Cafe
2
3
Assisted HousingFacility
Transit Center
h;
Restaurant
Residential
Public Trans.
4
5
6
Greenway Network (Formerly Walnut R~creation/Open Space
Creek Trail)
West Covina Mall
Meritage Homes
School DistricfSite -Residential
Development 7
PrenrninaryBKKE'rFhA .. ~a:.•
8
9
.10
11
12
Commercial/ Retail/Recreation
Facility (Formerly Golf Course.
Development)
Charles Co Office Buildings
AAAPad Development ·
Trail System
K-9 Unit Training Facility
Commercial/Retail
Residential
Residential
Commercial/Recreation/
Open Space
Office
Commercial
Recreation/Open Space
Government
. Address· · ·. .. I
1350 W. GarveyAvenue
1400 VVesfCoviria Pkwy
112 Plaza Drive
Throughout City
.112PlazaDr
1530 W, Cameron Ave
1024V\I. Workman Avenue
Former,.Golf Course Site"
at the BKK Landfill .
Along Azusa Ave.
2100 S Azusa Ave
South of Galster Park ·
, Former "$elf Course Site"
at the BKKLandfill
lriTI Analysis
In Tl Analysis
N.A.
N.A.
lri Tl Analysis
In Tl Analysis
In Tl Analysis
In Tl Analysis
N.A
N.A..
N.A.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
•
~
Major infrastructure estimates provided by City:
Infrastructure/ Improvements
New Police Facility or Police/Fire Joint Use Facility Station
NPDS Infiltration Improvements at Cortez Park
Transit Center
New Fire Station
Conversion of medians to drought tolerant landscaping
Downtown I Pedestrian/Bike Trail
New City Yard
Sewer Improvements
Upgrade to Los Angeles County Library/ Police Station / Affordable Mixed Use Project
Downtown Parking Structure
SUBAREATOTAL .•• ' ' '
Street improvements/curb and gutter/sidewalk
Capital improvements (sewer/street/plumbing/water)
Azusa Avenue street improvements
Park Space Trails
BKK K9-Unit training facility
Installation of retention basin
Movement of methane sensors/ Mitigation Measures ----------------~------"-""______ -
~~BARE~ TOT Al.,
Total Identified Infrastructure/ Improvements
Est. Cost
$40,000,000-
$50,000,000
$20,000,000
$13,700,000
$12,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
TBD --TBD
I · $101,700,000-
. $111,700,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$500,000
$500,000
TBD
I · $12,000,000
$113,340,510 •
$123,340,510
-.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustra'tive purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
23 ~
kosmg,mk,<
1
3. Financing and Funding
a) Preliminary Tax Increment Analysis.
b) EIFD formation Considerations
c) Funding Sources/ Financing Mechanisms
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
24 ~
kOSffiQJlti.,.
~
• Primary District Goals
> Maximize revenue streams to support needed infrastructure improvements for
proposed future development/redevelopment in project area
> Establish EIFD and assessment baseline as soon as possible to capture maximum
increase in assessed value
• Funding Capacity
> EIFD is most effective with multi-jurisdictional/ taxing entity partnerships (e.g. City,
County, special districts) and complementary funding sources (e.g. grants, CFO,
impact fees, developer contributions, other City funds)
> Cooperative taxing entity efforts can attract private investment (and State grant
funds) more efficiently
• Public/Private Partnerships
> Identify and engage potential public/private partners early in process to determine
any projects of mutual benefit that may be included as part of EIFD
> West Covina may consider partnering with Los Angeles County and/or other taxing
entities to maximize increment pledged to EIFD
> Private sector partnerships may help kick start EIFD funding & needed infrastructure
improvement projects
~
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
25 f!f!J ko;biJt
• Tl analysis presented herein assumes two scenarios:
• Scenario 1 :
> City contributes 1 OOo/o of property tax in lieu of MVLF and property tax increment
(-18 to -18.7 cents)
> County contributes a 50°/ci match of City's share of tax increment (-9 to -9.3 cents)
• Scenario 2:
> City of West Covina contributes 100% of property tax in lieu of MVLF and property
tax increment (-18 to -18.7 cents)
> Los Angeles County contributes a 100°/o match of City's share of tax increment (-18
to -18.7 cents)
Downtown BKK
Annual Revenue Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Year 10 $1,187,700 $1,482,200 $1,473,131 $1,841,975
Year 20 $2,097,000 $2,617,000 $1,876,000 $2,345,700
Year30 $3,205,400 $4,000,300 $2,367,000 $2,959,600
<·... ..--;.i·"':"' :.,.(_i::._.-:·: ,-: ,:_:,::_,, ... ' ' __ ,i'/[/i'':::.: ., ' :·:,:::."X':·: '. ,, : _,{,,'·:·::,_ ._.,.-.:;::::~Tr''',• : , 1 .,--, , .. • -: :,r,,, ,_. '· •· rri , i:::;-1:: .·,.,--:.'::··.: :: ,-:::·' 4.5-Yea.rTotal·· > · .. $.1J4,ss4;s12 : ···! $143335522•• \ , .... :$85 900 11162, • $107,407,297 I : -· "·:,·' ,.·· :_.:};' ' -;:-_;!-·: ,: }.':i·-.'' ' ,: 1-i:i'.,;:!· :: '':., .":-:·_:_{:·::,<·:,_:,:_· .. .. : . ,. ' : .. : .
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro fonna and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
26 ~
kOSIDQ.Q,\,.
----·, I. ,• West Covina City Boundary ----,-ri West Covina Patee! Join D Potential BKK EIFD Area
01 D Potential Downtown EIFD Area
1,,
TRA
2129
3083
3117
9463
9470
,:c-·-"'"'·
~~~" 9497
10592
10611
111110612
10613
·--· 9483
9487
9495
10614
·==s 12724
., ,,
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
~
• Significant portion of City (and preliminary EIFD area) overlaps former
Redevelopment (RDA) projects areas
• Former West Covina RDA has long-term enforceable obligations (-$132 million
in refunding bonds, lease revenue bonds, other obligations) through 2054
• Pursuant to EIFD legislation (SB 628/AB 313):
> Any debt or obligation of an EIFD is subordinate to any and all existing enforceable
obligations of the former redevelopment agency
> Available revenues to the EIFD shall not include any taxes required to be deposited
[first] into the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust (RPTTF), but shall include periodic
distributions to City or County from RPTTF after pre-existing legal commitments and
statutory obligations funded from that revenue are made (i.e. residual revenues)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
28 ~
kosmg1J.ti.,.
/~ -~
J~.o,t:. ~ ~ ii!'U!I.M: ,.,....-..... i'. Former R~A ProjectAreas.
I ' •. I vyestCq~ina(}ity Boundary ' '.'.
Prelirriinp.ry E.1 FD ProjectArea tylap
:a.-"' ·-· I I • i ,
PIJOOEAVl. i I Ii ;
·-~ _·c::;1 i ' . . '1' 'T~;~ --f --. -~s,,3 ' -~ '! ; ti
' • '
'· ;~-...
' , , I',, ' ', ,,, ' , , ,, '
.~ ,,
"'· ' ':ii'
1
,I' j •
-... ·L·-·"'."· i.' ' ,,
(~i: ~.,,
-~ ~ g"' ~ ""', ~ ~ -fl!'. ! i. j i
--'lJ """"'Nf. ~ i ~ J~ ~ ~ I -51:HQCI. ' .,.....,.o<t 9'
I'
~ ' .s: !
f I , ltlWILA)IIJ.A\lE. -·
~!V'l'i.
' 'IJ,lf!w,c,ii,1#, '1·'
-..;.t$i:_ '( I' ' ·%
i-.,iir. i
r~"" 9 r-v. i
-·ii
............ .,..~
,/' " ,1,"
,' ~,· ' i 1_~0R~.,\
'i1'1;, Li~, ,-.. ·· ··.~. z { ·.· f '.,. j .u. .,...,, llq ·l '
i ~ i r ,-r~ ::5
,.'i'ltl~AVE!. ~·1
~
-"' / "
"'t. . , "' I . r . . l '";"!'~ i { ,, ' ~. '·· ' ! J • ' • -:-~
, ~~I
~-~ ( :t .; ' " .•
I I I.,.;.,, i ., . ' ··,
' ' '.;,c " ~ ·i : ,. --'"'-... ·'1.
"""'ti li!f-_,,l,
-~ -··
....,. ...... :ti ' •. ' : f 'iii:l-=i
~-,,,-,'
m;;!ll'~tml', --=
-=
-~~
.. fl ,' I -/ i '= R; . , ,·. . I ,.,...,..,,,. .. ~-,. .. .. ...... .
'1' 1. (' l' ,; qi I ' ,, ~I .·.·· ·~ ' \ ' I' . l ' ' '' 9 'j' : _,~--,._.....,~ t --, ....
....:-4 l ' i'"i~ . · ; .. ~ ~ l -~ i'.--i :i! ! ,Sf ,~ ! ~~.I J' a{ TI~-:5 _: \ : '
' ' I I ' I ,. '""""' ·JC· -~
~-·' "'-!' :1~1~ i -llf; •.• ~' "" "" . .~·1•11·>,j i-" . ' I · .. ·
,'. "'. . "'. •"~ f ,, ! 1· i' ! i I ~~=.1 t_, ' I' -•. ' '1N· ' '·-~.l· ~ ·-.>~ __ i!_1"'.,· ', ' ~r ~-·•-IJiJ tl .~ i * . -~""I It -tt -,,_ . i_; -~w .. a ~~-
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return,.and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or 29k ,tw
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis. OSIDQ.1-"l!r.,,1
-w.
.. -~\\ ! n,, 4 .. ~ ,._,,... ! ,
f °'1:' ~ J' "' ,, 5 ,.. Q' #'
I ;_.. s .·--; ~d'" ~ ,,'if .. _ .. -~ ..... ' •• ""11.1 .,.... ... %', • \ ~ ., -~ I, l ,,, ,,,,'.'l ' ,f
11 t• ~f:f.'5-r
''
-·· ' '
w..~m,
t
i .,
-n
'~ .......... ., ~-. !: ~~ ~
/,.
.p"" ,,.
' .,,,
' ~" I ,. ... 7..:~ ', \.(:-
~ .JW;<:ur-, ¥
" I ffe:11 '""~
I i),. "'" //fi/ff~ --
~ I
9
/
~.
•r\ ' ,el
~~~l!Htjl ... j .
/$f t i ,ff
""' ,<"
'le ""' ' '""" ~ ' "'i,-#~ \ ~" .,. <fc .. '
I'/.,,'"\;&
:,.\~ '~
~' ~ '~ .,;. ,.,..._ ... , ,, ' \ ' ·-" .. I I= ....
~ ~
1/1!%~ / ....... '\ ,..,.'lllz,,. ~ ,,
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
~
"-----~-
• EIFDs encourage regional planning approach with multiple local agencies (cities,
counties & special districts) to maximize tax increment financing
• SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifies High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) to encourage
new housing and employment around transit in the region
• HQTAs are defined as areas that are:
);:> Generally walkable transit village or corridor consistent with the adopted RTP/SCS
);:, Within one-half mile of a well-serviced fixed guideway transit stop
);:> Includes bus transit corridors where buses pick up passengers every 15 minutes or
less during peak commute hours
• Significant portions of proposed EIFD areas (Downtown & BKK) are within identified
HQTAs (see Map on next slide)
• HQTAs areas can favorably compete for Cap and Trade funding and support eligible
TOD and/or active transportation infrastructure within proposed EIFD areas.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro fonna and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
31 f/J,J kO;~.I
~-JTt,,
SCAG fiigh Quality TransitAreas (701'2)
' ;,, ' ' '
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro fonna and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
32 ff1J ko;it~~I
~ -
Start-up Capital -an important component of EIFD formation
• At formation, EIFDs have zero revenues and tax increment is minimal
• West Covina may consider following complementary funding sources to
provide initial capital for needed infrastructure in Project Area:
1. Initial developer loan or pledge repaid through credit and reimbursement agreement
2. Development impact fee levies
3. Grant funding (e.g. GGRF grant application for sustainable infrastructure,
Proposition 84 funds for flood control improvements)
4. CFD / other special district fees and/or assessments
5. Other City incremental revenue sources (e.g. utility tax, sales tax, business license)
6. City/ county/ special district loans
7. PACE Financing (tax lien financing for energy efficiency improvements) as
appropriate
8. Measure M/R and SB1 Transportation Gas Tax Revenues
9. Additional revenues could include potential digital signage revenue (e.g. Eastland
Center)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
33 'JI
kosm9.u,\~
4. Implementation and Next Steps
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
34 tw
kosmpJU,.,
--
1. Adopt Resolution of Intention
2. Prepare & Adopt Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
3. Enter into tax sharing agreements with other
public/ taxing entities
4. Approve IFP and form EIFD
5. Public Financing Authority (PFA) implements IFP
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. PrOject proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
~"'
35 ~ ko;tm ..
•
•
•
CEQA -Legislation says IFP must be distributed with any required CEQA documentation
for proposed public facilities and project development
>-IFP should leverage existing Specific Plan and/or General Plan environmental
documentation to the extent possible
Timing for adoption -Necessary to coordination formation efforts with County Auditor-
Controller and State Board of Equalization
>-Necessary filings per guidelines from Board for Change of Jurisdictional Boundaries
by December 1st of the year immediately preceding division of taxes for EIFD
Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations -SCAG and other MPOs can serve an
important role as an implementation agency to assist cities in implementing EIFD to
deliver regional sustainable infrastructure.
>-Assistance may include regional cooperation and support, technical assistance to
apply for available grants, and/or financial assistance (start up loans/funding
sources).
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
36 ~
kosmg.U,t.,,
~~""'-.._
1. Complete preliminary Analysis, including tax increment analysis and analysis of supporting funding and
financing tools (seeking authorization to pursue ASAP)
2. Conduct public outreach with landowners and potential PFA members (e.g. County) (seeking
authorization to pursue ASAP}
3. Final determination of PFA composition, tax increment contributions (targetJune 1st)
4.Final determination of El FD boundaries (target June 1st}.
5. City/affected taxing agencies adopt resolution(s) ofintenti~nto form EIFD and PFA (target July 1st)
6. PFAdrafts IFP (target completion by Sept, 1st)
7. Draft/ update/ process necessary C:EQA documents (target completion by Sept. 1st)
8. Distribute IFP to property owners along with corresponding CEQA documentation (by Oct. 1st -target
Sept. 1st} · ·
9. City/ affected taxing entities contributing increment adopt resolution(s) approving IFP (by Oct 1s1}
-.
10. PFA conductsa public hearing to approve the IFP and form EIFD (after CEQA challenge period and .at
least 60 days after.lFP is distributed.(targetOcftst) ·
11. Filings with BOE per guidelines from Board for Change of Jurisdictional Boundaries (by Dec. 1st -
target Nov. 1st to.allow for revision) ·
• IFP takes effect upon adoption of approval resolution (#9 above}
• EIFD property tax division begins following fiscal year
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
37 t4I
kOSffiQJJ,t.
Current phase of work:
1. Present initial findings to City Council for feedback/ direction
Potential future phase of work:
2. Outreach to land & building owners in EIFD area interested in early or long-term
investment in development/ tenant improvement projects, and finalize boundary
3. Outreach to Los Angeles County to determine interest in partnership &
discussion related to tax increment deferral obligation
4. Refine tax increment / financing analysis based on public/private outreach above
5. Evaluate start-up/ complementary funding sources (e.g. GGRF / other grants,
CFO, private developer loans/contributions)
6. Initiate EIFD formation process including PFA formation, preparation of
Infrastructure Financing Plan, etc.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed ln this analysis.
38 ~
kosmg;u.\~
_., __ _
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented
herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future
results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ
from those expressed in this analysis.
Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the City
are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be to be "advice"
within the context of this Analysis.
Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies' affiliate,
Kosmont Transaction Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC
and MSRB.
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
39 ta ko;l;! ..
Thank You I
Questions?
Kosmont Companies
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 630
Manhattan Beach
Telephone: (424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
40 tw
kosmgn.tr.,.1
~
Appendix
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
41 lW
kosmgnti,,..
• Tax Rate Area (TRA) 9470 has the majority of AV in the potential Downtown EIFD area
• In TRA 9470, City captures -18 cents for every $1 in property tax general levy
• County of Los Angeles General Fund ("GF") captures -51.2 cents
• Other top non-school taxing entities listed below:
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 9470
County of Los Angeles -GF 0.51245887
City of West Covina 0.17998105
LA County Flood Control 0.01556086
LA County Sanitation 0.01738914
LA County Fire 0.00756011
Notes:
• Factors represent cents for every dollar of 1 % property tax general levy (post-ERAF)
• Source: Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
42 'JI ko;!~~
,--~
• Scenario 1:
>-City of West Covina contributes all (-18 cents) of its property tax increment
>-Los Angeles County contributes a 50% match with City (-9 of its -51.2 cents)-County must
consent
>-City dedicates all of its incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF (-$929 annually for every $1
million in new assessed value within the EIFD)
• Property tax increment + incremental property tax in-lieu of MVLF:
Annual Revenue City Base County City VLF Total
Prop. Tax Prop. Tax Prop Tax Available
Year10 $589,000 $294,600 $304,100 $1,187,700
Year20 $1,040,000 $520,000 $537,000 $2,097,000
Year30 $1,589,700 $794,900 $820,800 $3,205,400
' : . ' :: ' ; : ,.· " ' ' :; ' ' . . ' ' ' ··:. ·:: : · ... · ,, :··::-'..' : ;: ·•·· . ~ ,;·; ' '
I-· :,_;•· . !,! .. ' :· ' ,, ,,'_:; 1(.$29;411,883 ·. ' ' ' ' " '' ' ' 45-:Year Total · ,,.·:' ''.,, $S6;961,819 :·•' •. ,, $28j480;91Q · $114,854,612 ..
'," ' ·: i '·,,: ·• '., ·,._ ' ' " ''' i ' ,. '
• Compared to initial estimate of required infrastructure improvement costs -$101 M to
-$111M
• Does not include potential additional contributions from other taxing entities
--
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
43 '&I
kosm2.u.1~1
• Scenario 2:
> City of West Covina contributes all (-18 cents) of its property tax increment
> Los Angeles County contributes a 100% match with City (-18 of its -51.2 cents)-County must
consent
> City dedicates all of its incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF (-$929 annually for every $1
million in new assessed value within the EIFD)
• Property tax increment + incremental property tax in-lieu of MVLF:
Annual Revenue
Year10
Year20
Year30
City Base
Prop. Tax
$589,000
$1,040,000
$1,589,700
County City VLF
Prop. Tax Prop Tax
$589,000 $304,100
$1,040,000 $537,000
$1,589,700 $820,800
Total
Available
$1,482,200
$2,617,000
$4,000,300
' ., ',:_i ·,' ',_,_:_·_>:)·: :-::_,' i_, <<. :·i ': /"·>< {'!'.-, . /'·_=._.: -/.:::;-.r;_: : rr;-:::;-:-· :",' :""·' ·: /:-\.:,'.:::; ._:_: ·_:·· _:-:::;?: ::t:>! :"'{'ii:_:''.:''·'\\/_:;:·:; 't: ::_, .' :,:\ i{:::::,'::_ i' <'.\'.i<:: 'i'--:. ·(\'.<:,;,'· '' -: i 45-Year Total··· $56,961;8.19·•·•·· ·· ,.:;:<$56,961,819' \?$29,411,883 , .. $143,335;522•···
' .. ,.· ' .. ,. -· .. ·, ';,., ·'>::".:+:I:.'.','··· . .'."-, ''"i·.·-:, ·· · ' ';!i,i~,_,,•:,·:,1 ·,,, •+L,,. ·.; , ·f -· ·, ,.. "_.,
• Compared to initial estimate of required infrastructure improvement costs -$101 M to
-$111M
• Does not include potential additional contributions from other taxing entities
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project pro form a and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
44 ~
kOSffiQU,,,l,.,,
~.
• Tax Rate Area (TRA) 10611 has the majority of AV in the potential BKK EIFD area
• In TRA 10611, City captures -18.7 cents for every $1 in property tax general levy
• County of Los Angeles General Fund ("GF") captures -53.2 cents
• Other top non-school taxing entities listed below:
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 10611
County of Los Angeles -GF 0.531807293
City of West Covina 0.186831206
LA County Flood Control 0.016153158
LA County Sanitation 0.019610342
LA County Fire 0.008004032
Notes:
• Factors represent cents for every dollar of 1 % property tax general levy (post-ERAF)
• Source: Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
~.
45 ~
kosm9...,,9.t.,,
• Scenario 1:
}> City of West Covina contributes all (-18.7 cents) of its property tax increment
}> Los Angeles County contributes a 50% match with City (-9.35 of its -53.2 cents) -County
must consent
}> City dedicates all of its incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF (-$929 annually for every $1
million in new assessed value within the EIFD)
• Property tax increment + incremental property tax in-lieu of MVLF:
Annual Revenue City Base County City VLF Total
Prop. Tax Prop. Tax Prop Tax Available
Year10 $737,687 $368,844 $366,600 $1,473,131
Year20 $939,400 $469,700 $466,900 $1,876,000
Year 30 $1,185,300 $592,600 $589,100 $2,367,000
·'.::·-·. :· .. ,::.-·_:'' . h. : ·::LI:/?' . _ ... -:;_,, .. ,-,· .}) ''' I :., I • ': ,,:,/"\:? • •' • ! ; : , i/-:::(ilf\i). :r.::=:-.· :, · :_.,,.,::;::'-;\',.: .... '-<}::\:_:, .•.. $~'s,9oo;'q:62 .. 45-Year.Total.· .· $43;014,270 > , .· .. •· $21,507,135'Ui f:! $21;378,756'Ji . ' > .. ' ' ,,., I'·-. ',: -,,-,··· _,_ ': ,:_,.,,_:s;,r ,-·,,: .·,,,.. : : 'I , .• ,;] :··: ! , : ' :.·-,,;: ,'-". _::_'' '·'· ,··,' ·, ! ' • '
• Compared to initial estimate of required infrastructure improvement costs -$12,000,000
• Does not include potential additional contributions from other taxing entities
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
46 ~
k.OSIDQ,ll.ti,.,,1
.~
• Scenario 2:
~ City of West Covina contributes all (-18. 7 cents) of its property tax increment
~ Los Angeles County contributes a 100% match with City (-18. 7 of its -53.2 cents) -County
must consent
~ City dedicates all of its incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF (-$929 annually for every $1
million in new assessed value within the EIFD)
• Property tax increment + incremental property tax in-lieu of MVLF:
Annual Revenue City Base County City VLF Total
Prop. Tax Prop. Tax Prop Tax Available
Year10 $737,687 $737,687 $366,600 $1,841,975
Year20 $939,400 $939,400 $466,900 $2,345,700
Year30 $1,185,300 $1,185,300 $589,100 $2,959,600
I', ': 1,; ., I .. · : ; :,"·: ··> ; . : .-, . ! s' i. . : : .. '.,; ;' ,'' .' ,' :.·-::_1 ___ ·:. ,: '' ·:i ·., : ' : ' ,', I;":':.,'· .. :'. ,: __ ·! ·:
4s-Yearfo,taf , •.. ' •..•. :•• I . $43,014,270
• .• i . ~43,Q14,270······ •·••·. I $21,378,756 • $107,407,297 ·',, .. -.·::, ' ,_ .. _. :. -: ,, 1-, ' : ' .. : ', ,:, ,·:.,
• Compared to initial estimate of required infrastructure improvement costs -$12,000,000
• Does not include potential additional contributions from other taxing entities
.-'"',
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from tho~e expressed in this analysis.
47 ~
kOSillQll,{~
1
3083
... ?3117>
9463
9483
. ·~487• ..
9495
.•.•.... • OJ60087877 <.:·c.--, .· ,y_,,-:;;~·.o,
Downtown 0.1357 45498 0.331121002
Do)O!ntoµ,. (b;;~k) :. d11a&es1ets · .. : .. io,i514'sgs'f64 •. , b:d1'5g1•g357
Downtown (creek) 0.160087877
Downtown (creek) 0.135068929
OowntoWn
· cf17$9SJQ.~1••
0.135068968
0.307481644 0.010130363
0.329210165 0.010193683
o:5J245a7~9., .. ·•• ·.·c:i::o}ssao88o <'1,'>::: ·,:.~"c:· ·· · :e'J/-i:,\··c -'i, ':;;'A:,,1<:i
0.010193700
• 9497.);.t bai<ntown (c,eeliji.,• ·b.13479863S::;
0.329210050
!0,:328446000 .• ., .c •••••• d •••••
10592 Downtown 0.015619364
10614 BKK 0.542362835 0.016480732
0.014208116
>,,,••ii 0.0t7454512
0.013608210
0.014142754
0.014142753
0.0076(}3g55
;1·,,
0.007061589
0.007560114
0.007560111
o:6i's6sio3o i :• o.oo-fs~:zsa2 ' ' "'·····------' ... ' ' ' '·--' -
0.008246211 0.190561592
•.•••. ,, •...••. · 6.186831207 o.01'61's~tsaI,i,. •··· .. 'Big~.?tiJo342 ·c:t,;.p:ooaoo4'032
Notes:
• Factors represent cents for every dollar of 1 % property tax general levy
• Where tax rate areas overlap with former RDA project areas, property tax distribution is superseded by separate project-area-
wide distribution schedule until expiration / maturation of outstanding Successor Agency enforceable obligations
• (Downtown) and Green (BKK) highlights in above table identify Tax Rate Areas that comprise a majority of proposed
EIFD areas
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. At1&.! results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
48 ~
kosm2m1,,;!
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
Porto's Bakery New
Merrill -Assisted Housing New
West Covina Mall Tis
Meritage Homes New
School District Site -Res. New
Commercial/Retail/Recreation New
Office Buildings New
~
10,000 SF.
121,061 SF
200,ooosQ
56 Units
80 Units
See Footnote
400,000 SF
Ii
$400 psf
$250 psf
$SO psf
$600,000
$600,000
N/A
$250 psf
* Estimate considers a variety of land uses and topography/ site conditions.
Construction costs are adjusted by annual, compounded, 2% adjustments.
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or
future results. Project proforma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
.-·~
49 f/J ko;t~I~
01
:,;" 0
0
:~fi b ' '