The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMP 98-01; Villages of La Costa; Master Plan (MP)VILLAGES OF LA COSTA La Costa Greens, La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks Carlsbad, CA Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) and Related Documents December 19, 2000 Submitted by: Real Estate Collateral Management Company Morrow Development 6965 El Camino Real, Suite 105, PMB 685 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Prepared by: Onaka Planning & Economics P.O. Box 12565 La Jolla, CA 92039-2565 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 Purpose 1-1 Project Description 1-1 Fiscal Impact Study Methodology 1-2 Summary of Conclusions 1-2 II. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS II-l Methodology II-l Project Description II-4 General Fund Revenues II-5 General Fund Expenditures II-9 Average Fiscal Impact of Existing Development 11-10 III. REFERENCES III-l LIST OF FIGURES [Figures and tables are appended to the end of each section.] 1-1 Regional Map II-1 The Greens Development Plan II-2 The Ridge Development Plan II-3 The Oaks Development Plan LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Summary of Fiscal Impacts to the Annual Operating Budget of the General Fund by Project and Alternative 1-2 Summary of Impacts to Annual General Fund Revenues and Expenditures: Proposed Project 1-3 Summary of Impacts to Annual General Fund Revenues and Expenditures: Proposed Project Excluding Affordable Housing II-l La Costa Greens: Proposed Buildout Program II-2 La Costa Ridge/Oaks: Proposed Buildout Program II-3 La Costa Greens: Distribution of Development by Tax Rate Area II-4 La Costa Ridge/Oaks: Distribution of Development by Tax Rate Area II-5 Population, Housing and Land Use in the City and the Project II-6 City of Carlsbad General Fund Revenues, FY 2000-01 II-7 City of Carlsbad General Fund Expenditures, FY 2000-01 II-8 Estimated Citywide General Revenues and Expenditures of Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development (FY 2000-01) OP/E 158 VLC FIS T2 1 Villages of La Costa FIS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose The purpose of this study is to estimate fiscal impacts of a master plan amendment and related planning documents for La Costa Greens, La Costa Ridge, and La Costa Oaks, which are three of the Villages of La Costa located in southeastern Carlsbad (Figure 1-1; figures and tables are appended to the end of each section in the order referenced). La Costa Greens is located in the city's Local Facilities Management (LFM) Zone 10, while La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks are located in LFM Zone 11. Planning documents to be submitted to the City of Carlsbad consist of an amendment to the previously approved La Costa Master Plan (MP 149), revision of Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01), a General Plan amendment, an amendment to Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 11, a LFMP for Zone 10, and two Master Tentative Subdivision maps, together with associated approvals. The fiscal impact study is intended to accompany the submission of these documents, as required by Section 21.38.060 (2)(B) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The owner/applicant of the proposed project is Real Estate Collateral Management Company, a Delaware corporation, whose agent, Morrow Development, is located at 2300 Alga Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009. Project Description La Costa Greens La Costa Greens is a 660-acre planned development in LFM Zone 10, located east of El Camino Real and north of Alga Road. There are 1,038 housing units in 13 planning areas of residential development, approximately 8 acres of business park, elementary school, park, community facilities, and 246 acres of open space. The residential development consists primarily of detached single family housing, with three planning areas of attached housing, including affordable units. La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks La Costa Ridge, located west of San Marcos Creek, and La Costa Oaks, located east of the creek, together comprise a 1,206-acre planned development in LFM Zone 11, located south of Alga Road OP/E 158 VIC FIS H2 1-1 Villages of La Costa FIS and both east and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The two villages contain 1,360 housing units, community facilities, and 619 acres of open space; there are no commercial or industrial uses. Fiscal Impact Study Methodology Impact on the General Fund The fiscal impact study examines the effect of the proposed project on the annual revenues and expenditures of the city's general fund. Effects on special funds and enterprise funds are likely to be neutral, since charges would be levied on the project to cover the full cost of services provided by those funds. Effects on capital funds are discussed in Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 and the amended LFMP for Zone 11. Consequently, this study does not address potential impacts to the city's special funds, enterprise funds, or the capital improvement program. Average vs. Marginal Cost Analysis This study analyzes average costs, based on projected revenues and expenditures of the city's general fund for the current fiscal year (FY) 2000-01. When there is sufficient unused capacity remaining in the city's public service infrastructure or when any required infrastructure improvements are fully funded, average cost analysis.is more conservative than marginal cost analysis, because revenues generated by the project are assumed to cover not only the incremental cost of additional services, but also a pro rata share of fixed costs such as general government, maintenance of public buildings and grounds, and other city wide services. Inflation Revenues and expenditures are estimated at buildout of the project, but computed in terms of year 2000 dollars, except when the most recent data available are for previous years and when the use of such data does not lead to a significant bias in the analysis. Summary of Conclusions At buildout, estimated expenditures from the general fund to provide public services to the proposed project would exceed estimated revenues by $226,200 per year (Table 1-1). La Costa Greens would have a slightly positive impact ($24,200 per year), while La Costa Ridge and Oaks would have a negative impact (minus $250,400 per year). Comparing only the residential portions of these projects, La Greens has an average impact of positive $10 per unit per year, while La Costa Ridge and Oaks have an average impact of negative $184 per unit per year (Table 1-2). The OP/E 158 VLC FIS H2 1-2 Villages of La Costa FIS negative impact, however, is less in absolute value than the average impact of negative $426 per unit for all residential units in the city (discussed in Section II). The proposed project contains a total of 359 affordable housing units—180 units in La Costa Greens and 179 units in La Costa Oaks, of which 8 are secondary units attached to large single family units. Together, affordable housing units generate a negative fiscal impact of approximately $222,700 per year (Table 1-1). This results from the assumption that an affordable housing unit would require the same level of public services as a market unit, while generating substantially less property tax revenues. When only market housing and business park are considered, La Costa Greens would generate a positive fiscal impact of $128,000 per year, and La Costa Ridge and Oaks would generate a negative fiscal impact of $131,500 per year, which is slightly over one-half of the impact when affordable housing is included. Without affordable housing the project as a whole would have an essentially neutral impact (negative $3,500 per year) in the city's general fund operating budget. The different fiscal impacts of La Costa Greens and La Costa Ridge/Oaks reflect in part the different development programs of these villages — for example, La Costa Greens contains a business park, while La Costa Ridge and Oaks do not. More importantly, the villages differ in the shares of the 1% property tax received by the City of Carlsbad. On average, the city receives about 18.5% of the 1 % tax, but this share varies substantially by tax rate area. The average share in La Costa Greens is slightly higher than the citywide average, about 19.4%, while the average in La Costa Ridge and Oaks is much lower, at 13.1%. If the average share in the latter two villages were as high as the citywide average, property tax revenues received by the city would be higher by $344,000, which would be more than sufficient to offset the estimated negative impact discussed above. When all three villages are considered, property and sales taxes represent the largest sources of revenues to the general fund, followed by state grants of vehicle license fees and franchise taxes (Table 1-2). The largest expenditure category is public safety (police and fire protection), followed by community services (library, cultural arts, and parks and recreation) and public works, including street and facilities maintenance. For comparison, estimated fiscal impacts of only the market housing and business park are shown in Table 1-3. The fiscal impact of market housing in La Costa Greens is positive $114,400 per year. Combined with positive impact of the business park, total impact would be positive $128,000 per year. The average fiscal impact of market housing in La Costa Ridge and Oaks OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 1-3 Villages of La Costa FIS would be negative $111 per unit per year, or about a quarter of the average impact of existing housing in the city. Fiscal Impacts Under Alternative Development Scenarios Estimated fiscal impacts under two alternative development scenarios are shown in Table 1-1. Under Alternative 1, the proposed elementary school would be relocated from planning area (PA) 1.4 to PA 1.7. As a result, the number of single family dwelling units that could be constructed in the latter planning area declines from 127 to 80 units. Overall fiscal impact would increase slightly in magnitude to negative $228,300 per year, compared to negative $226,200 under the proposed project. Under Alternative 2, 8 secondary (affordable) units in PA 3.14 would not be constructed. Instead, 8 townhome units in PA 2.6 would be converted to affordable units. In comparison to the proposed project, overall fiscal impact would decline slightly in magnitude to negative $223,800 per year. Other Financial Contributions of Proposed Project It should be noted that the proposed project will provide financial contributions to the city in areas other than the general fund operating budget. They include: • Maintenance of median landscaping in Rancho Santa Fe Road adjacent to La Costa Oaks — The proposed villages will be a part of and contribute funds toward an existing Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District Zone M for street medians. By using private funds to maintain median landscaping in Rancho Santa Fe Road, the proposed project would reduce the future maintenance obligation of the assessment district, while contributing $8.34 per single family unit per year (and a smaller amount by multifamily units, depending on density) toward the maintenance of median landscaping, or over $16,700 per year from the proposed project.1 • Excess parkland dedication — The proposed project will dedicate 32.9 acres of parkland (Alga Norte Park) to the city, or 16.28 acres in excess of that required to serve the project. According to the 1996 Parks Agreement, the excess parkland will 1 $8.34 per single family unit times 1,796 units, plus an assumed average of $3.00 per multifamily unit times 594 units (excluding secondary units). OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 1-4 Villages of La Costa FIS be sold to the city at $175,000 per acre. However, since comparable land is currently valued at $650,000 per acre, the agreed price represents a below-market sale, with a total benefit of $7,730,000 to the city. • Interest-free loan toward purchase of natural habitat lands — The proposed project, as part of the Villages of La Costa master plan area, will advance to the city approximately $3.2 million, without interest, toward purchase of natural habitat lands required for city projects, including the Habitat Management Plan (the city's Natural Community Conservation Plan). The proposed project will thus make substantial contributions toward construction and maintenance of public facilities in the city, separately from any impacts to the general fund. OP/E 158 VIC FIS M2 1-5 Villages of La Costa FIS THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA I Figure 1-1 REGIONAL MAP Table 1-1 SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET OF THE GENERAL FUND BY PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE (In thousands of dollars) Proposed Project Market housing Business park Subtotal Affordable housing (see note below) Total La Costa Greens $114.4 13.6 $128.0 [103.8^ $24.2 La Costa Ridge and Oaks ($131.5) ($131.5) (118.9) ($250.4) Total ($17.1) 13.6 ($3.5) (222.7) ($226.2) Alternative 1 Elementary school located on a portion of Neighborhood 1.7; reduced housing Alternative 2 8 units in PA 2.6 converted to affordable housing; school as in proposed project $22.2 $24.2 ($250.4) ($248.0) ($228.3) ($223.8) Note: Under proposed project and Alternative 1, affordable housing is located in PA 1.15 (180 units), PA 3.6 (171 units), and PA 3.14 (8 secondary units). Under Alternative 2, there are no secondary units in PA 3.14; instead, 8 townhome units in PA 2.6 are developed as affordable housing. Table 1-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES: PROPOSED PROJECT (x $1000, except as noted) La Costa Greens Revenues Property Tax-Secured Unsecured Sales Tax Franchise Tax Real Property Transfer Tax Business License Tax Vehicle License (In-Lieu) Other State Subventions Total Expenditures Policy and Leadership Group Administrative Services Public Safety Community Development Community Services Public Works Cr. for private street maint. [1] Non-Departmental Contingency Total Net Surplus or (Deficit) Surplus or Deficit per Unit or Acre ($) Residential $826.7 — 176.0 60.6 42.3 — 110.8 26.0 $1,242.4 $17.3 34.0 456.6 62.4 282.3 202.0 (6.3) 109.4 74.0 $1,231.7 $10.6 $10 /DU Industrial /R&D $29.4 2.9 27.2 4.1 1.5 11.7 0.0 0.0 $76.8 $1.2 2.3 30.8 4.2 0.0 13.6 0.0 7.4 3.8 $63.3 $13.6 $1,776 /Ac. Total $856.1 2.9 203.2 64.7 43.8 11.7 110.8 26.0 $1,319.2 $18.5 36.3 487.3 66.6 282.3 215.7 (6.3) 116.8 77.8 $1,295.0 $24.2 — La Costa Ridge and Oaks $832.1 — 230.5 79.4 42.6 — 145.1 34.1 $1,363.9 $22.7 44.5 598.2 81.7 369.9 264.7 (7.7) 143.4 97.0 $1,614.3 ($250.4) ($184) /DU Total LC Greens, Ridge and Oaks $1,688.2 2.9 433.7 144.2 86.4 11.7 255.9 60.2 $2,683.1 $41.2 80.8 1,085.5 148.3 652.2 480.4 (14.0) 260.2 174.7 $2,909.3 ($226.2) — Source: Tables 11-1 through II-7; Onaka Planning & Economics. 1. Estimated cost of maintaining private streets, not charged to General Fund. Table 1-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES: PROPOSED PROJECT EXCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING (x $1000, except as noted) La Costa Greens Revenues Property Tax-Secured Unsecured Sales Tax Franchise Tax Real Property Transfer Tax Business License Tax Vehicle License (In-Lieu) Other State Subventions Total Expenditures Policy and Leadership Group Administrative Services Public Safety Community Development Community Services Public Works Cr. for private street maint. [1] Non-Departmental Contingency Total Net Surplus or (Deficit) Surplus or Deficit per Unit or Acre ($) Residential $782.7 145.4 50.1 40.0 91.6 21.5 $1,131.4 $14.3 28.1 377.4 51.6 233.4 167.0 (6.3) 90.5 61.1 $1,017.0 $114.4 $133 /DU Industrial /R&D $29.4 2.9 27.2 4.1 1.5 11.7 0.0 0.0 $76.8 $1.2 2.3 30.8 4.2 0.0 13.6 . 0.0 7.4 3.8 $63.3 $13.6 $1,776 /Ac. Total $812.2 2.9 172.6 54.2 41.5 11.7 91.6 21.5 $1,208.3 $15.5 30.4 408.2 55.8 233.4 180.6 (6.3) 97.8 64.9 $1,080.3 $128.0 — La Costa Ridge and Oaks $803.3 200.2 69.0 41.1 126.0 29.6 $1,269.2 $19.7 38.7 519.5 71.0 321.2 229.9 (7.7) 124.5 84.1 $1,400.7 ($131.5) ($111) /DU Total LC Greens, Ridge and Oaks $1,615.4 2.9 372.8 123.2 82.6 11.7 217.6 51.2 $2,477.5 $35.2 69.0 927.6 126.7 554.6 410.5 (14.0) 222.3 149.0 $2,481.0 ($3.5) — Source: Tables 11-1 through II-7; Onaka Planning & Economics. 1. Estimated cost of maintaining private streets, not charged to General Fund. II. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS H. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section describes the methodology, assumptions, and estimated average revenues and expenditures used in the analysis. Methodology The operating budget of the City of Carlsbad is divided into general, special revenue, enterprise, and other funds (City of Carlsbad, 2000). Funds other than the general fund are self-supporting; that is, revenues are collected to balance expenditures, hence would not be affected by the proposed project. (Impacts to the city's capital improvement program are examined in the previously approved Local Facilities Management [LFM] Plan for Zone 10 and in the proposed LFM Plan Amendment for Zone 11, hence are not addressed in this study.) Within the general fund, certain city functions and services are partially or sometimes entirely self-supporting through the collection of fees or charges from the users of those services. Such fees and charges are here termed functional revenues and distinguished from general or unrestricted revenues, such as property and sales taxes.2 This study focuses on unrestricted revenues and public services funded by those revenues. To do this, the analysis (1) excludes all funds other than the general fund and (2) offsets or subtracts functional revenues from both the revenues and expenditures of the general fund. Equivalent Dwelling Units Some municipal services benefit primarily the residents of the City of Carlsbad. Examples are libraries, cultural arts, parks and recreation services. Average costs of these services are defined in terms of cost per capita. Other services, such as general government and public safety, benefit both the residents of the city and other developed land uses, including commercial and industrial uses. In computing average costs for the latter group of services, this study relies on the concept of equivalent dwelling units (EDU). Under this approach, it is assumed that one EDU of 2 "Financial Transactions Concerning Cities of California," prepared annually by the State Controller's Office, defines functional revenues as those "that can be associated with and allocated to one or more expenditure function and meet one of the following criteria: (1) The revenue is generated from direct services, such as revenues from fees or charges; (2) The revenue is associated with a specific service by external requirements, such as grant conditions, bond sale agreements, statutory or charter requirements." OP/E 158 VLC FIS H2 II-l Villages of La Costa FIS developed residential use and one EDU of developed non-residential use will require the same expenditure of funds for public services which are provided to these uses. For residential development, each housing unit is represented as one EDU. That is, it is assumed that both single family unit and multifamily unit will require similar levels of public services. For non-residential development, equivalent dwelling units are computed for two categories of land use: (1) commercial retail and office and (2) industrial. This division follows the available data on existing land use published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). However, it should be noted that SANDAG's definition of industrial land includes a range of uses from heavy industrial uses, such as manufacturing, to light industrial uses, such as research and development. In Carlsbad, the most prevalent activities on land classified as industrial are light industrial, research and development, and low-rise office buildings. For this analysis, non-residential EDUs are calculated in two steps. First, total EDUs for commercial and industrial land uses in the city are calculated based on three factors which indicate demand for public services by those uses relative to demand by residential areas. These factors are employment, net developed land area, and assessed value. Employment. Periodically, SANDAG conducts an employment inventory by workplace. This inventory is similar to the U.S. Bureau of Census's economic censuses, which estimate employment at workplace, in contrast to estimates of labor force which are based on the census of population. The latest data (SANDAG, 1997b) indicate that there were 36,830 workers employed at 3,295 sites in Carlsbad in 1995. By industry, there were 9,477 workers in manufacturing; 1,917 in wholesale trade; 7,346 in retail trade; 2,556 in finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE); 9,985 in services; 2,043 in government; and 3,506 workers in other industries, including agriculture, construction, transportation and utilities. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that employment in retail trade and FIRE and one-half of service employment occur on commercial land, while employment in manufacturing and wholesale trade and the other one- half of service employment occur on industrial land. Accordingly, employment on commercial retail/office land is estimated to be 14,895 (= 7,346 + 2,556 + 9,985 / 2), while employment on industrial land is estimated to be 16,387. Carlsbad's resident population in 1995 was 68,064. Assuming that it is necessary to provide some public services equally to a worker and a resident, the ratio of employment to resident population is one indicator of public service demand by existing non-residential developments relative to residential areas of the city. Based on the above OP/E 158 VLC_FIS_M2 II-2 Villages of La Costa FIS data, the ratios are 21.88% (= 14,895 / 68,064) for commercial employment and 24.08% for industrial employment. Developed Land Use. SANDAG also conducts inventories of existing land use in San Diego County and its cities. According to the latest study of land use distribution in 1995 (SANDAG, 1997a), the City of Carlsbad in 1995 contained 4,506 acres3 of residential use, 642 acres of commercial retail and office uses, 690 acres of industrial use, 3,612 acres of public facilities and utilities, and 3,097 acres of parks and recreation. Excluding vacant and agricultural lands, developed land in the city totaled 12,547 acres. Some public services, such as police patrols or general planning functions (i.e., those not directed toward specific project areas), are provided in approximate proportion to land area. Demand for these services by commercial land uses in the city is estimated to represent 14.25% (= 642 / 4,506) of the demand generated by residential areas, and demand by industrial land uses, 15.31 %. These figures provide a second method of estimating the ratio of non-residential to residential EDUs in the city. (For this analysis, it is assumed that the cost of providing public services to public facilities, utilities, and parks is borne by tax-generating land uses, i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial.) Assessed Value. Assessed values used for property taxation, if they accurately reflect current market values, provide an alternative measure of demand for public services. That is, given other things equal, property values indicate private investment of economic resources requiring public protection and other services. A shortcoming of assessed value is that, since the passage of Proposition 13, assessed values of long-held properties have diverged substantially from current market values. Nevertheless, if there are similar rates of new residential and non-residential construction, as has been the case in Carlsbad, assessed values can provide an alternative method of calculating relative demands for public services by existing residential and non-residential developments in the city. Assessed value, however, is not an accurate indicator of EDU of a new project in comparison to existing projects. According to San Diego County Assessor's Office, total assessed value in Carlsbad in 1999 was $8,567.0 million (County of San Diego, 1999). Excluding agricultural and other vacant land, assessed value of residential properties totaled $5,893.7 million, commercial properties, $1,030.7 million, and industrial properties, $744.5 million. Accordingly, commercial properties represented 3 Unlike previous inventories, the 1995 inventory reports net acres of land use, excluding local streets. OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 II-3 Villages of La Costa FIS 17.49% (= 1,030.7 / 5,893.7) of the assessed value of residential properties, and industrial properties, 12.63%. Estimated EDUs of Non-residential Developments. Assuming that the three factors discussed above are given equal weights in estimating the demand for public services, the ratio of total EDUs of non-residential to those of residential developments in the city is calculated as a geometric mean of the ratios of those factors. The ratio of commercial retail and office EDUs to residential EDUs is 17.6% (= [21.88% x 14.25% x 17.49%]1/3), and the corresponding ratio of industrial to residential developments is 16.7%. Since there were 33,680 dwelling units in the city in January 2000, total EDUs for commercial developments is 5,928 (= 33,680 x 17.6%), and that for industrial developments, 5,624. Geometric, rather than arithmetic, mean is used for these calculations, since the component factors are ratios, not physical units.4 Project Description Proposed Project The proposed project consists of three villages in Villages of La Costa, a master-planned residential development in southeastern Carlsbad, located in Local Facilities Management (LFM) Zones 10 and 11 (Figures II-1, II-2, II-3). Proposed buildout program for La Costa Greens is shown in Table II-1 and that for La Costa Ridge and Oaks in Table II-2. Approximate distributions of proposed development by the County Assessor's parcels and tax rate areas are shown in Tables II-3 and II-4. La Costa Greens. This village, located north of Alga Road and east of El Camino Real, contains 1,038 housing units, including 180 units of affordable housing (assumed to be rental units), and a proposed business park (7.9 gross acres; 7.7 net developable acres) with a potential development of 137,650 sq. ft. Other land uses of note are an elementary school, community facilities, and open space. Under discussion with Carlsbad Unified School District is an alternative location of the elementary school in Planning Area 1.7, which, if implemented, would reduce the number of housing units in the planning area from 127 to 80 units (from 1,038 to 991 units overall); under this alternative, Planning Area 1.4 would have an open space use, such as a community park. 4 Using historical data from 1995 (the most recent available for employment and land use) along with current data on population, housing, and assessed values assumes that ratios of employment to resident population or those of developed commercial and industrial land to residential land have remained unchanged since 1995. OP/E 158 VLC_FIS_M2 II-4 Villages of La Costa FIS Excluding open space, proposed development is distributed over nine Assessor's parcels and five tax rate areas (TRAs). The share of the 1 % property tax received by the city in these TRAs ranges from 12.61% to 20.29% (rounded). Weighted by the estimated market values of development, the average share is 19.45%. La Costa Ridge and Oaks. La Costa Ridge is located south of Alga Road and west of San Marcos Creek; La Costa Oaks is located east of San Marcos Creek and on both sides of Rancho Santa Fe Road. These villages together contain 1,360 housing units, including 179 units of affordable housing, community facilities, and open space, but no commercial or industrial uses. La Costa Ridge has a lower average density (2.3 units per net residential acre) than La Costa Oaks (3.2 units per net acre). 171 affordable housing units are located in planning area (PA) 3.6 and 8 secondary units in PA 3.14. Under an alternative development scenario, there would not be any secondary units, and 8 townhome units in PA 2.6 would be converted from market to affordable housing. Excluding open space, development is distributed over 24 Assessor's parcels and 10 tax rate areas (Table II-4). The share of the 1% property tax received by the city in these TRAs ranges from 9.00% to 19.30% (rounded). Weighted by the estimated market values of development, the average share is 13.08%, or about two-thirds of the average share of taxes collected in La Costa Greens. Equivalent Dwelling Units of Proposed Project. EDUs of the proposed project are shown in Table II-5. As in the case of the city (see above), each residential unit is assigned one EDU. For the business park development, both employment and net land area are considered. The project's estimated employment is 275 persons, based on average employment density of one person per 800 sq. ft. (see previous Table II-l). Compared to citywide totals, the proposed project would increase industrial employment by 1.4% and total land area of industrial development by 1.1%. By taking a geometric mean of these factors, it is estimated that the project would increase industrial EDUs in the city by 1.2% (= [1.4% x 1.1%]1/2), or by 70 EDUs. As noted above, the project's estimated assessed values, which reflect current market values, are not used in the calculation of EDUs, since total assessed values in the city do not reflect current market values. General Fund Revenues Estimated total general fund revenues to the city in FY 2000-01 is $74,258,000 (Table II-6). Functional revenues of $14,476,000 would be generated by fees and charges for services, OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 II-5 Villages of La Costa FIS including planning and construction permits and interdepartmental charges. Following the methodology described above, these are identified as functional or cost recovery revenues and are used to offset expenditures. Subtracting functional revenues, unrestricted revenues available for general public services total $59,782,000. Estimates of citywide, average revenues and bases for calculating revenues from the proposed project are also shown in Table n-6. The revenues which would result from the proposed project are discussed below. • Property, property transfer, and sales taxes • Franchise tax • Business license tax • Vehicle license tax • Other State subventions Property Tax The city's 2000-01 budget anticipates that it will receive on average 18.5% of the 1% property tax revenues collected in the city.5 This rate can vary substantially in different tax rate areas (TRAs) of the city, as discussed above. Projected sales prices of market housing (i.e., single- and multifamily units) were estimated by the project applicant (see previous Tables n-1 and n-2). Price of affordable multifamily rental unit was estimated as follows. The city requires a minimum of 15% of residential development to be affordable to low income households earning 80% of the median household income in San Diego County. In 1999, median household income in San Diego County was $43,617 (SANDAG, 1999). A low income household would have 80% of the median income, or $34,894. Assuming that 30% of gross income would be spent on housing, annual expenditure for rent would be $10,468. With a gross income multiplier of 12, market value of this unit is $125,600 (rounded). A secondary (affordable) unit attached to a large single family unit is assumed to be valued at $70,000. Average assessed value of business park/industrial development was assumed to be $110 per sq. ft. Total secured taxable value of La Costa Greens at buildout is estimated to be $440,246,500, 5 Projected revenues from property taxes in FY 1999-2000 total $16,900,000 (City of Carlsbad, 2000), generated from locally assessed tax base of $8,713,534,437 (secured) and $422,808,903 (unsecured), or total assessed value of $9,136,343,340. OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 II-6 Villages of La Costa FIS including $15,141,500 for the business park. Unsecured assessed value associated with the business park is assumed to be 10% of secured values.6 Total secured taxable value of La Costa Ridge and Oaks at buildout is estimated to be $635,597,600. Sales Tax The city's share of sales tax revenues equals 1 % of all taxable transactions in the city. There are two broad categories of taxable transactions, retail sales and non-retail sales. Retail taxable transactions can be further classified into purchases by the residents of Carlsbad and purchases by non-residents. Taxable Retail Transactions. Average taxable retail purchase by resident households in Carlsbad in 2000 is estimated to be $16,951 per year; this was calculated as follows. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, average annual expenditures by households in San Diego County in 1997-98 totaled $37,974.7 Of this amount, generally taxable expenditures totaled $10,261,8 and other partially taxable expenditures totaled $6,940.9 Assuming that one-third of the latter purchases are taxable, average taxable expenditure per household in the county in 1997-98 was $12,574 (= 10,261 + 6,940/3). Adjusted for inflation, average taxable expenditures in the county in 2000 is estimated to be $13,113.10 Median household income in Carlsbad, however, is approximately 29.27% higher than median household income in the county.11 Taking this difference into account, average taxable expenditure in Carlsbad is estimated to be $16,951 per household (= $13,113 x 1.2927), and average sales tax revenues to the city, $169.51 per household per year.12 6 In 1999, total unsecured assessed value in the city was approximately 24% of the total secured assessed values of commercial and industrial properties. 7 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997-98 Consumer Expenditure Survey. 8 Examples include food away from home, household furnishings and supplies, apparel and services, vehicle purchases, and gasoline and motor oil. 9 Examples include food at home, housekeeping operations, other vehicle expenses, and entertainment. 10 Based on change in the consumer price index for all urban consumers in the Los Angeles-Riverside- Orange County area, from 161.0 in January 1998 to 167.9 in January 2000 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). " 1999 median household income of $56,383 in Carlsbad, compared to $43,617 in the county. 12 It should be noted that this definition of average taxable expenditure per household matches expenditures by the city's residents at stores outside the city with a portion of expenditures by non-residents at stores located in the city. OP/E 158 VLC FIS H2 II-7 Villages of La Costa FIS Accordingly, sales tax revenues from purchases by resident households in Carlsbad is estimated to total $5,709,097 (= $169.51 x 33,680 households), or about 27.88% of total estimated sales tax revenues for FY 2000-01 ($20,475,000). The remainder, or 72.12%, of taxable retail transactions are due to purchases by non-residents. These transactions are not considered in this analysis, since the proposed project does not contain any retail establishments. Taxable Non-retail Transactions, In 1998 taxable, non-retail transactions accounted for 23.97% of total taxable transactions (State Board of Equalization, 1998). Examples of non-retail transactions include sales of materials and equipment at construction sites and final sales by manufacturers or distributors. Some of these sales take place at office and industrial buildings throughout the city, though volume and frequency are not known. It is assumed for this analysis that one-half of non-retail sales tax revenues in the city are generated in industrial/R&D buildings, or an average of approximately $3,556 per acre (= 23.97% x 50% x $20,475,000 / 690 acres). At an average floor/area ratio (FAR) of 30%, this translates to sales tax revenue of $0.27 per sq. ft. per year. Franchise Tax Utility franchise taxes are paid by both households and businesses. It is assumed here that tax payments are proportional to equivalent dwelling units. The average revenue in FY 2000-01 is $58.41 per EDU. Real Property Transfer Tax In Carlsbad, real property transfer tax is levied on property value appreciation realized at sale, compared to the value at previous transfer. The level of tax collection can vary depending on the rate of appreciation in the price of existing properties and on the number of sales. Revenue for FY 2000-01 is projected to average 5.12% of total property tax revenues. Business License Tax On average, it is anticipated that the city would collect $166.55 of business license per EDU of commercial and industrial development. OP/E 158 VLC_FIS_M2 II-8 Villages of La Costa FIS State Subventions The city's share of vehicle license (in-lieu) taxes is assumed to vary in proportion with population. Estimated revenues in FY 2000-01 are $46.04 per capita. Other subventions are anticipated to average $10.83 per capita. General Fund Expenditures All departments and expenditure categories were included for analysis, except for a portion of the non-departmental budget. Total general fund expenditures projected for FY 2000-01 is $71,591,390 (Table II-7). After subtracting functional revenues ($14,476,000; see Table II-6), one-half of the non-departmental budget ($4,768,625), and the portion of the contingency budget corresponding to the excluded items ($1,229,754), net expenditures funded from unrestricted revenues are projected to total $51,117,011. Expenditure categories were divided into two groups, based on who would benefit from the services represented by those expenditures. General public services, such as general government and public safety, are assumed to benefit all land uses. Demand for these services is estimated based on equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). Public services which are directed primarily to residents of the city, such as library and recreation services, are estimated based on population. In order to estimate the unit costs of public services, expenditures are first adjusted for any fees or charges received for services. For example, the Community Development Department is projected to spend $5,130,400 in FY 2000-01. However, the department is projected to generate $2,412,000 in fees, leaving $2,718,400 to be funded from unrestricted revenues. This represents the planning and building-related activities which are performed for the general benefit of the city. Street Maintenance—Credit The general fund budget includes $2,233,137 to maintain 303 miles of streets,13 at an average maintenance cost of $7,370.09 per mile. The fiscal impact model assumes that new development would result in additional maintenance expenditure by the city, both by increasing the miles of streets to be maintained and increasing the usage of existing streets. Some of the streets in the proposed residential villages, however, will be privately maintained, hence they will not impact the maintenance budget of the general fund. To account for this, expenditure savings are calculated as one-half of the average street maintenance cost per mile times the length of private 13 Statistical information contained in 1998-1999 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 II-9 Villages of La Costa FIS streets in the proposed project (1.7 miles in La Costa Greens and 2.1 miles in La Costa Ridge and Oaks) and subtracted from the estimated impact to the public works component of the general fund. The other one-half is assumed to be needed to maintain a small amount of public streets in the project and to increase the maintenance of existing streets. Non-Departmental Non-departmental activities include general service functions, such as animal regulation and property tax administration. However, this category also includes special functions which would not be related specifically to new development. For this analysis, one-half of the non-departmental budget was assumed to be impacted by the project. Contingency The city's preliminary general fund budget contains a contingency of $4,300,000, or 6.39% of all other projected expenditures. Assuming that this represents a potential additional cost of public services, similar contingency is added to estimated expenditures for the proposed project. If the contingency is not used, either the project's net surplus would increase, or any deficit would decrease. Unit Costs of Public Services Unit costs of providing public service are also summarized in Table II-7. These costs total $849.42 per equivalent dwelling unit and $117.34 per capita, plus contingency of 6.39%. Average public service cost, including contingency, for a residential unit with 2.3178 persons is estimated to be $1,193.06 per unit (= [$849.42 + 2.3178 x $117.34] x 1.0639). Average cost for a non- residential development is estimated to be $903.70 per EDU (= $849.42 x 1.0639). Average Fiscal Impact of Existing Development Table II-8 summarizes the average fiscal impacts of existing residential, commercial retail/office, and industrial developments in the city. Application of revenue and expenditure assumptions discussed above to existing developments results in an average impact of negative $426 per residential unit, but positive $2,920 and $829 per acre, respectively, for commercial and industrial developments. The negative impact of residential development (totaling $14.3 milk'on city wide) is thus more than offset by sales tax revenues from net purchases by non-residents ($9.8 million) and transient occupancy tax ($8.8 million). OP/E 158 VLC FIS H2 11-10 Villages of La Costa FIS 1.3 TOWN HOMES/ SMALL LOT ,|^g|'" I NOTE: THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES SHOWN ABOVE. Figure II-1 VILLAGES OF LA COSTA THE GREENSDEVELOPMENT PLAN THE OAKSDEVELOPMENT AREA li'igpv! HCP LOCATED WITHIN 7&£i£i NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES NOTE: THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS SIGNIFICANTS LARGER IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES SHOWN ABOVE. Figure II-2 VILLAGES OF LA COSTA THE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DBfEtiOPMENTAREA 3.15 7,500 MIN. S.F. LOTS HHi GREENBELT/ DRAINAGE CORRIDOR NOTE: THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES SHOWN ABOVE. Figure II-3 VILLAGES OF LA COSTA THE OAKSDEVELOPMENT PLAN O Otra.i- oQ 5 CQ UJUJo:o JSCOoo ^3m> Xre T3 03 re E t/3UJ 8o CD — —re•*-•o^— 0 u. CO u.o! TO 2 '5CO TO_C *(/3~3 0 I re0!i_ •ocre[ s (U 0)O TO E o 0 0 •*— X^-^ 'c o! , — .u. re O) ^ t/):ticD *j 2 en 0 0 Q. H" (UEQ.0 §d)Q TO C 'c 0N D cre D. re<u<a m o oooooooooooo T— o oors-.incMOi<*-ocMcj>cooo^~ co CM co ^* co o T- o r^» co o ^* o^~" I o> i i i^- xr in co oo co co ^f oo co CD oo i i in ' ^ ' 'O^COCDCO^^i'CDCO^'CMCMCM ' 1^ *- •4-in«ffQ-4-*-CM*-CNJCMrQ'4- s o o oooooooooooo 1- O OOOOOOOOOOOOT- O OOOOOOOOOCDOO 'TJ- ' 'T-CMCOT-OCMOCMCNCM-^-O ' 'co in-a-inirji^-Tj-r-^-a-T-coTr 0mco£ i i i i i i i : : i i i i i i i i ! T™ f t T". T". ^~ to r^* r^- ^~ ^ ^~ oo CN O) o to r*—^ o^ CNJ oo r^- to co co co 10 co o> o ^ — T— r—i i : i i i h^O^OO '^••^•OOTj-cOCO1^*'^"''— T— COCOr^cor^ ^— oor^cMT— co^csicocococo ii i i CDOICDCMCMO-'— ooaioin^i-r^-h-coocnooi^-. r^-i — ooN-r^-i^-CMinmo^ocMCM^cDo^inco CM CO '•}' T|- CM ^«}" ^ — CO T~ CM ^~ ^"" CO ^ ^~ CM TO C «5 '<£. .22 Q -5 o 0 ~ U- o ^ -C L. .* 'S W -o co ^W >if>2-7;wQ. J2^r 5(0 ^^ W ^^ ^^ CO tO D >Q_^OJ^^ T3a)o"a |i|li 11 I? •wE^S^000000000,1 5Q«u-^ i i LJ i i i i i i i i i i i LJ LJ L_ 1 i nj Q.OQ^OOQ^C^Q^Q^Q^Q1Q^Q^Q^Q^Q^Q^O-J (U 1^_ ^_ «._ ^_ _. *-*-*^^x"r^ w _ ^ f^ ' ' J ) i i _J | | ^> ^ ._! ^ 'Qf^^(^QjOf^f^o^nxn^Q^yQ^fy'Q^Q^QxOcL in CDTj- CM o" fe^ Oin r-." COT~ 00coo_ co m CO in dCOCO ~So J3 0~ •i? o^ -^ X trr/P xt— s-' t3 1s 1 E 1C _V •^ o .03 r~ m LJJ <uCO D ummarv bv LandCO o in o c iri -r^ d co -<*•^— T~ in" m"CM i- tft S inr- CM ! | oin i Is-" !CO^ COCO O i i-^_ 1 \ CO f- O) O 1^ CDoCO co en i- Is d r^ in «in ••-aCO 0 7((k it ResidentialR&D/lndustrialCommunity3 3 D3 -J 3 3 3 ) J 3 n ') £ 0 L in CD•tCM o" &^ inr-- CM 0inco_^. CO *"" 00co •" CO in co mdCOCO 1 <r> 'c o CO o recu re TO "^ rea. <o £ _c TO «— 3Or- TO 'o 73 (U^ ^. ro 2 TOC'ccre Q. _c T3 .•2 CUo 33 > "S3 a; "g « *^ S- o S S" O w ±f o c "c re jj JS "^ c a. S-3 « 1In . -a ore ^- 4:: Q.«^ 5 ^O c2 O In 2 <D S ° Q- C nOS °4) CO »^_ re .2 *^r -^ 13 ... ^ource: Villages ol. Under an altern!. Estimated value•. Assumed densit/3 T- IN rj o"„, -= oS 5 o-^ O i-«TO ^_ ffy ^ XX •-*TO •o 13 £ •?— Q) C CO 3 ID UJ TO u_ > Q! 0£ TOO c co O 'co ~~ = 5u£ o ID Q. I t- OQ ••J *-•QQ (U Q ^ Z 1 ^O ro¥ -1 </>°- 0. . I— CO CD O UJO £Q >:"" t*" « trf c5 gco E 8 °o -53< > -" Q TO "3 oN 53 2 c <U TO CD Q. O) g Q. < o o o o o o in o o o oo o CM OO O O OO CM•*_ oo_ co_ in T- r~- | O) O Is* ^ ^ O) 'CM CM •»!• CM OO T-ify O O O O O Oo o o o o oo_ o_ o o o o in" in" o" o" oo" o" !OO OO O O i- •* 'in in r— r~- in oo in co co m co coin oo CD oo CD in ti' OO CM in i- h- O in o h~ o> oo o ,CM CM 00 T- CM T- !1 co r~ oo oo •*»• •* en O> t*~ O T— O O CM^t OO Tj- CM Tf T- CJ>CM CO QJ (U o11 Q Q Q Q Q | S CO CO CO CO CO H O ^T- T- T- T- T- A COi i i i i LJ i0:0:0:0:0:0:0 0)O) Q£ | | | | | ^ £/)mo:a:Q:o:o:o:o ino mo :m ^ CM oo ^ m co ^ — ICMCMCMCMCMCMCM O O OOOCDOOOOOOOOOO oo CD T»-incor--ooTj-coi<j-inoooinCD O} oo ^^ co r*"* ^3 o^ co ^* ify ^t" r** ^3 CD Is**r*^ o^ i ^4* G) co ^f co tfj if) CD ^f ^i* ^~ c^ i«o ^^ i i IO T-iT-COO^-*-lOO)lOCOh-"TjrrOCD CD' • T—</3- ^; o ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo O OOOCDOOOOOOOOOOT- !co"r-T-inoin"ooooooin"inooin ! !CM 'T-CMCMCMTj-OOT-T-T-OOoOOh-OO ' ' o CD comcD-<-in'*cocDoor~~cMCDcoinCM r^ oo ^ ^" r^ ^f r^- co oo m CM CD co o00 , T- i- T- , ,1 { | co m-«tcoTj-o-^-in^~ooo>CMT-oO'«i- o o mcDO^'^'oOT— T— oiooomcM^ m ^° CM OO ^~ ^~ ^~ ^^ CM CM ^™ CM ^^ OO CM ^f ' 'i i ^— CM'^-or^oooTi-co'^-CDininc)1^*- CMOTCDco r^ CD ^^ ^^ ^^ m co CD co in CM m ^^ oo CD m mO5 CM TI-T— T— t— T— CMOOT— CM-r-oOCM 1-CMCM•^- oo 0 a> 8 | S~lis -c 'c .g J5 15 £» "s <° ^. ro 'R « .-S a> 3& "H g C O T3 Q EQQQ^ IQQQQQQQ SQ S .2, COOCOCOC02HCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOO2 o: 22 ^ i i i i i D Q i i 11111 i i-^ CO u> J "<5 "«2 2221 2222222 2 c "Q Q 1 | 1 | ^> ^ 1 1 | 1 t 1 1 1 CO TO H mtt:za:o:a:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o: QiOO: (ftO 111O o T— CM co ^- in ' — J ro co oo oo ro oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo co ro 1 CO ^CDro o"CD t^" o^>o_ T~ 05 ajCMco CO CM f^. "ra*^o CO r-m co"00CD<^ o CD00_ T~ 1^ o' "* [^ inoCM t/1 a0 cs 0)a> £ 3 oo n -f ~3o £ (U 0 "Io *±o cCM 3 II D. 2J to -° 2 "H tfl TO TO (0 *T M— (U 0 D u> ro<a > 05 T3 ^ y> ™ rt) ™ CJ </>i- IM3oco T-: Table 11-3 LA COSTA GREENS: DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT BY TAX RATE AREA Distributed by Assessor's Parcels and Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) 21303011 21502107 21503006 21506101 Ping. Area Development Type Housing Value Prop, share of 1 % tax received by Carlsbad 21503113 09027 0.1981214 21503014 09037 0.202924 21505215 09038 0.1943145 21548002 21506109 09058 09070 0.1260703 0.198857 Total La Costa Greens (units, except for business park) 1 . 1 Business park (x 1 000 SF) 1 .3 Townhomes / SFD 1.6 SFD 1.7 SFD 1.8 SFD 1.9 SFD 1.10 SFD 1.11 SFD 1.12 SFD 1.13 SFD 1.14 SFD 1.15 MF— Affordable housing 1.16 Townhomes / SFD 1.17 SFD Total Units Tax Values ($ per SF or Unit) 1.1 Business park 1.3 Townhomes / SFD 1.6 SFD 1.7 SFD 1.8 SFD 1.9 SFD 1.10 SFD 1.11 SFD 1.12 SFD 1.13 SFD 1.14 SFD 1.15 MF--Affordable housing 1.16 Townhomes /SFD 1.17 SFD Total Tax Value (x $1000) Tax Value Times Prop. Share Weighted Ave. of Carlsbad Share $110 340,000 51t!,000 421 000 535,000 518,000 700,000 421 ,000 700,000 421 ,000 421 ,000 125,600 340,000 400,000 137.7 44 96 127 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 337 15,142 14,960 49,728 53,467 2,675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,000 $161,972 32,090 0.0 0 0 0 82 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 0 '. 0 0 0 43,870 34,706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $78,576 15,945 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 96 42 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,608 32,640 16,800 $72,048 14,000 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 64 0 34 0 38 32 0 27 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,626 0 44,800 0 14,314 0 26,600 13,472 0 11,367 13,472 0 0 0 0 0 0 $24,839 $102,812 3,131 20,445 137.7 44 96 127 87 74 64 34 38 32 59 180 96 107 1,038 15,142 14,960 49,728 53,467 46,545 38,332 44,800 14,314 26,600 13,472 24,839 22,608 32,640 42,800 $440,247 85,611 0.1 944622 1 LU 5 UJi$i- m i- LJJ O.O LU LU Q T U_= 0 — z•o o 1— K 3m CO Q co 0 UJ UQ COOO5 [£ i<•i— cc X(0 c CO 1COQ. a> o <D (/) ^JD 1 •sUJb — • 0H* CM CD0 0 T- T- O>O O 0CO CO O> CM CM ° cn llCO O>CM 0CN CN f""* O5 Is"- ^"~^~ CN C^ CO OO O O O CN fO CO CO CO CO CO O> CN CN CN CN CN CN CN ^— 11 CN ° S3 T— T- O T- T- 00 CO CO C» CM CM ° cno CM f^ CO COCN OCM §1- CN CDT- T- T- T— T— t— T- COCN CN CN CM 1^O O O O OCO CO CO CO d CM CN CN CM O (O 5Sco enCM 0CM r-. cn in cn N-CO CD *~ ^f O ° S § § i^ TTO O O O O OCO CO CO CO CO O)CN CN CN CN CN 0CN CN CN CN CN °°_ CO CO O>CN CN OCN CN O •§J3 CO 1K" c C£ Q. O1Q nj coc 2 Q. < CO 8 0 co SS o cn or—CO 0 COr^.in 8 § o 3 1 0 inin gCM O CO inO)CNcn o 10 COCN 0 ^CNCO O cn-3-8cn^~ o ra 1ra T3(D 'n* 1 XCO•w o^ "o £CO 10 Q.g Q- in coin co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O CO co o r-~ oCO CN o o o o 01D)•o 2 Q Qn LL LL-coco oo m *- CMTO . .-I CM CN S in CDCO CD o o o 0 CM 0 S CO OCO 000 o o o O O T- o o mCM o o o o o o 000 Q Q QLL LL LL CO CO CO co ^ in CN CN CN m CMCO 0 0 O CN 0 i- o o o o o cn CO 1-in o o t-~in 0 0 o o COc Townhoiotal Units1- CD CN CM CO 8T CO CDcn o r~-CN CN •* O O O o o o o o oin oCO CO in" r--" o o o o o o 000 CM O O OCOCO cn" 88°N. N-of o" 000 o o o o o o888 in in" oCO CO Oin in f--+-t ^* D COQ. (A 2a 1 v Q Q Qflj LL U. LLJ- CO W CO T- CN CO CM CM CN O CO CNin T- i--•* M- cnCN CO T- o o o o o oo *~ o o oor- co"CN o o o o o o O CO OCOCM CM cn r^ CM" cn" 000 000 o o o o o o8 8 8 r--. in co (0CO| Q a i LL LL oC/3 CO 1— •* in CD CN CM CM CO CO CNCD cn cnh- 'S- CO (2 CN g TT T— O o o §CNco w o coin coo cn CD" cn"t-- o o o o co co T- f-m CN S10" 8 CMCD CO T- CN" co" </* in co98o co"CO o o o oe» a> CO £ co S. "° O . (fto a. -co o co •£, S "° <D £ 0) •i P •?otal Tax V;Tax ValueWeighted1- cocoincD-t-m-<rcococor--CMco •*— ^~ r-coinooooooooooin ^ •* ooooooooooooo OOOOv-OOOOOOOO OOOCOOOOOOOOOO ooocoooooooooocn co ooooooooooooo inooooooooooooCN ooooooooooooo OOOOOO^COCOOh-CNCDN. CO CN m CM CD CD oooooinoococoooo D)c 1 0) .Q -g S W o E^ it o S *F "cQQQQl jQQaQDQQm LL U. Ll_ U_ LL OU.LLLLU.LLLLLL •JJCOCOCOCOSl— COCOWCOCOCOCO o O O T- CN CO •* -Jcococococococococococococo u aj D) IUa. ~jT — Ill JQ(0 < UJoj UJ t2 X ^^—>- H ZUJ2 Q.OJ UJ UJaT u.= O "re Q >- ^m CC (0o CO <o UJC3aeg so3 3.Q£ l/>roCD <C torocc ra T3Cra (0 1raQ. -12o COCOcoC/)*< >> 1-Q a CM O 8CNCN CO8oCOCNCM s 8a 8 CNoCOCNCN 88oCOCNCN § 8a "*" CNOCOCNCN in o88CM 8 t— CM 1oCOa COo o CN CN CMOaCM ro o8aCN ° O CMCM (0 8 T— T- T- CO CO COCM OCM O) O •»t- COO 0CO COa° oCM cosgCO COCM 0CM CM 8,-CO 00 CO COCM OCM ^Ox- O*- 000 0CO COCN OCM O)OT- f-CN r-O 0CO COCN O CN CD T- <OCN I-.O 0CO COCM OCM 8O <OT- in O 0CO COa° £ T- in CO COCN OCN !,- CO CO CM 0CN D)C CO•Jj 3D rao ^> 11- cCD1oiQ O) roc ® Q- < co ino 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 co g o o 'S' -Qro | 'c ^JraT3c§Ou_w w in CO 0 o_ *~ 5 T— o pi CO coCN O inCM o 8in 8 'cD Isoh- CD ^* m CD co o o ^ co ^ in o o o in05 co ^f co r^- o o co ^~ in ^ r^ o CD r^^cnTrcncoTrcoinincDM''q-i-CMin-<- T-T-coc»T-inc3)incor^Ttcoco cocor — t—T— CNT— co^^— CNT— co^f in T-Tinoooooooooooof — CD ^3"Tj- CO C3> T-~ •<}•" CO"CM CN i- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooocooooooooooo CM ooocoooooooooooo8 co" ooocooooooooooooCM 0)CO O) CD" in" ooooooooooooooo mooooooooooooooCNino" ^~ ooooooooooooooo o o o o o o o ^" ^ o in o o o inO5 CO O O ^ h~- O CO f^ en" m" •*}•" in" ^r" co" CD" co"co-^-T-cNT-cO'^- in oooooooooooooooo o inco i- inin" o" t-" ooooooooooooooo 000088888888008 v-cor-T-inoincococoininooin ^oiJ>Tr-<i-v-coininininininh- m ^3L_ r~a §si 1 in .10 3 8 "2 « £•5 £ § ™11-8 c XOOCIO! iQQQQQQOgQ BU.U-U.U.1-'- oU-LLIJ-LLLl-Ll-l-'- COU- h-WWWWSl— WWWWWWWWW O T- CM CO T inT-cooincot^coa)T--^T-^-T- T- COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO CO in f- in o co r-fcen T- r- CD in o csCO f- O CO T- CN C o in 2 *- co" co tco in J^ co co j o c o co o o co CM CD ^- CN O) SB K 8 ^ O O CM O CN ^ co in CN co cot-~ T- CO CN COtr co CN in N-*-~ CN" r-" CM"CM CO T- "* "* CO CO CO CO CO88 88 co" co"w» co co co co coT- CM CM T- CNCD in T- CD inCN" h-" CM" r--"CD CD o o en co co in CMin" in"CM Wb CM CO (N CN O)IO O T- CO v-o" CM" CM" o"^~ in *^ o o r^- in oow> in en oT en O CO v* co in co co inCN CO O CM COT- in in T- in CD" CM" CD" CM"r-^ co r- coCM CM "* "* CO T- CD CO T-cn r— in o T—o in o ino" CN" o" CM"CM CM £ra £ w £ cra -Q co - W ^ W. mD. "C 8J Q.- £0-1 1 <**— 'tS h co o DC in in ^ • «Q £ ~j •— > £ in •—-^ 1— < * *> I— « > S> -a J2 ^ 5 •C ^ co -S 3 co 5S ™ £ S a> = " .1— > en ° c ro > •= X '<D O CO > X 'J2co^> j3 ^ra*o 1— > ° ra 1— I 1- ™ ^ 1-o »!3 ~5 m2 2 3 ~T ~ CU (D1— D_ 5 0 3 D IraJ^o CD*> < DU 5) CD>> t\l H- O •5•2i,cT ol 73l_ CUF\ toU oLU Q.••^ O 0 r2W oa:a, inXi— Qz 5j CwO 114 X z•— . (I) == « laJJ 3 "53-Q a OLre *~*1—2 -22 "to Q ^ 0 Z OX o IDa.Oa. *£ O tu >, — O •'-'^- to O 1 O— ' toCO to ca in£$ "^to ^5o 0 cu CO O) _1 "Oa: /n «* C c ^ 55 O O to °_l CO tn«S to O tuo tuVJ a< to cj_J C C >< '•§ -^ o i? to - 3 T3*; CO ° .0>\ tO o £ X? xP 00 O CO -* || j j j j^1 CM Oin CD *-_ CO_ ^ S? ^en T~ ^* CM CO | | r- ! ! ™ 1 ' CD oo mO CO Is- "*. ° ^CM r~ ! ! I!ii ii o oo oo m oO 00 O T- Oo T— TJ- in co || O CM CM O O ! ! T^ d odd , , ,- o o TJ- m Is- CD co CO CO CD O5 OO O Tfo co o co co in o CM" co" oo" •«*•" CD" co" CM" 00 CO (O -r- i- ^•^ f \in ^-'en 1- g" = S " 5 'o2 tl) Cft ca ~ 2 CM E ^ S « -55 I. ll i| § H if d I III ll 1111 1^103 «Cg ™i«'=§ 2o;i §» 0:2 <oo .2Q. 5 X° xP NP X? 0s 0s 0^ 0s CO O 0 i- ! o o o o CO O O •* Tf O O CD i "•" sP sP vO vP -P0s 0s 0s- 0s O^r- Is- o T- •<- O CD O T- O in co o Is- co f^; d d h-' (0IN oCO o m .T- 01O CM CO COo •**• m oo i-^ d d T-^ O CO CM O O)co o Ti- en ooo m CD CD i~~ co" •*" CD"CO 1 ' c*~? oCJ '~ < CO^ <utu ^5 ^" n. o j2 3 1 £X _ ^3 to"T3 *— CDC ^— -|*"t — T3 '"£ 5J "^ J S 0) JJ E '-t= 0o Q. !~ c to ~ | K 0 I if 0) Q - xp 0 0 u* O^ 0s 0s* 00 CO O O CO 0 0 0 | r-- oo o o 0 >° ^ 5 :CO 'COw> 0s 0s* 0s 0s in CM o o CM r- o CM i co m o CMu, o ^ co in" in" !CM T- ' V* o en co TT0 •* CD CMo r-- CM m O T- 1- 1- T^ d d d Is- co CM •* in•* o co oo CDin r^ CD -xt- T- CM CO 0 •* 00T- en co •xt- enoo_ o_ r- oo in" T-" -£ & -j. 3 C? ° *-^•S o -5 t .£ 1(0 *>^^ «^, *r™ ? § g « i I ^l1 1 1 I'll•^ I/) CU -J= O•d * — c >x S — to — 2, <£'£-~G-= Q c tu .5 .£CO O d) c *— ^"^ ^ tt) O "O £en ct O £ O en T- xP x° X? X? -<t o o o r«^ •«*• d d 00 O O Om CD T- CO CD" T-" COCD</> OO' ' x° x° xO x= ?-; ?-; O CM in co d T^ l-~ OO O O•* CO h- CM O 0" T-" ^« 69- ^^ SP_j CD 0 O OO CD 1^-O h~ CDCD IT— i— ^~" C3 C3 •xf O 00 TJ-•* 00 CM CMo CD en CD Is- co m m CD CO oo" in to 1 Jsl*»- 5 S H^•§ tr o £a1 UJ 0 0 O t~~ co d O T- 10 (vjCO. tN 0? 0?TJ- CD CM O co r-0 ^J ^_ _ CM COCO O CM_ CO in" W•<*tu5CO £ *0o to1- ^> § 0 D)tua. in M d) (D oUJ oQL 0. HIx Q ff ^^ fc O UJ X Table 11-5POPULATION, HOUSING AND LAND USE IN 1•so> "o ol "O3!0ao (X Ratio Relativeol*K te oo a, «- JoTO tt\ JXL 17! O O ^ re ra _l TJ'on 1 1 J5 i_to o— i to PopulationCity of or Resid. LandCarlsbad Uses in Cityofto ^j4> X<•- 5tO •4-1 TJ 4)C 0) JO <" •o aT0) (/] Q. ^S -a0) C> JB T3 "O C (0 (0 c "cCD CD 1 »_a> to c c 2: o 1 "1 . 'la 1 2J P as noted below; Onaka Planning & Economics,lent of Finance, City/County Population and Housing EstiiSIDAG, 1995 Regional Employment Inventory (1997).ition, communication, utilitiesisurance, real estatej employment is grouped with retail and one-half with indL^JDAG, 1995 Land Use in the San Diego Region (1997).i Diego County Assessor's Office, Fiscal Year 1999-2000ic mean of the ratios of (a) employment to resident populntial to residential assessed values; see text.Management household size of 2.31 78 persons per unit aic mean of proportions which the proposed developmention contained in 1998-99 Operating Budget and Capital Ir1t||^.-2<««-g^«| ^^ P C/J ^ P P O 4) O O O *"*" ^ f"\ C^iS^flJ^^fl} ^~ i!E £ "° — * uJ '^"^o)" — <ud).^= >»-Jfy- 2 >*>»</> "D CO tOtg*o - — CJ — ^ • — . — (O c W (0 -4—1aiOOt-U-OOODQ toCQCQW S3 (/)T-CM co>ij-in(o i^-oooj _CD T- "S9 zo -~ O CU CM C o: %< CUUJ CL _i 'E < D O ^ ^CO +j wm "o <i^ jf 3 •-= it: -3 2 *^* O T3 "J 5" o C> ° £to uj °-= o: £ _CU Q .0 Z *~ u. •;;; o" ^ft rf "c o .Si,15 JD TO O % £f£ UJoo CO 2 *9 « S 1§ 1< E o g(J -^ CM 5 n uj ^- C£ O "- o (D "TO CD 3 03XTO*-• •55CD "o v^S- "o 5? h- CM CO •d- cri ^~ 1 1 CO<D O OO enCM o" CM CCDCU O xesProperty TaxSecured-La CostcH ,-. -^o "ro ^3COCD D_D T3 > '~. n) tU-^ o x o *- X "55 ^CU T3 "o ^ vP O T- co "o "o 0? S?en oCM 0 go 00 ^0 CO T~ 1 1 1 1 to toCU CD to TO O T3CTO <U Secured-LC RidgiUnsecuredp — 'ro'to_cu — £ CM" CD ~° "9— TO0 X.C TOCD *- % 0 _c "^,_ J- CU M_Q. O ^0 in %t ID i ii i co toCU CU o 00_ f2 T}- o" CM wc fljC/J ^O "c ^ "O *T 11 0 0 to toCD CD TO TOx to to TO — — 1 — TO TO f5 CD CU "<5CO Q CC ^TO "55 "O CU TO w CUQ. r-~cn inin n" i ! !1 i i III 0oo in"en oo" , , u7 ^. v_ cu J: TO 0 Q.TJ .£ TOto to TO "roto to x:= r= TO 2 JS f—CU CD -*-1 i i .10 0 W •^- "^ rok_ i TO !st£ CD 0O "o Q Q111 UJi_ k.CU CD Q. Q. O CM O T-i- in oo coin co V} i ii i to cocu cu 0 0 0 0^D ^3 CM" T ^f CMco enCM" i-~Franchise TaxBusiness LicensesXTO -»— ' T^ 0) Q. O , . o S "0 c <"^ ;_ S" o-= CDCU CO> T3 S 1 E 2 'to to c 3 CU J 1 'o 2 0?CDin in in ii CD O Oo o"enen xroH- cu Real Property Transf"c "cCU CD ; 2 23 CO W: cu cu 1 ^ ^_> CD cu i Q. Q. T- CO•* in•<r CMo oo CD 0 i ii i to coCD CU>x_/^ O O 0 0CD CO 1-^ COr-- oor^- oo n"ergovernmentalVehicle License FeesOther*-_c CD ^5§ C CL . CD c__. CD > ><CD tU ^3 *^k ^ £'C TO3 to E .0 E S 0 D0 Q. CU CU 0 0 i i 0 00 0 CM" •»»•" ID CMCD CD •r-T CU CU CO CO ni niH— H—0 O 0 0 0 0 CM" TT" CO CMcn_ en,_ ~ to £:enses and PermitsBuilding PermitsOther Licenses & Pelw '3 •acCUQ. . CU ~° — CU cu Q-> XCD CD^D ~ 0 ^3 > E .0 ^ ^— O D0 Q. CD CDto to %^ %^O O 1 1 1 1 O O O OCD C3 o" h~"in co^- CO ,_" CD CD CO CO 0 0 o oo oo o o" r~-"in ro ,_" tocu lf_larges for ServicesPlanning FeesBuilding Departmentj^. O -6~6 -6c c . cCD CU ~O CU 8-S-S S-0) OJ Q_ fc> X "^- •£ c w > c/5 *-P > J Ji S .a — ^ O _ Q. Q. i— O. CU CD CD CU £ J2 JH g O O O O ill: o o o o 0000 o" o" T- " i~~"CD co in toCM T- ^- m T— " T~ ~ T- CU CD CU CD CO CO CO CO 0 O O 0 o o o oo o o oo o o o o" o" •<-" i~~TCD CD in CDCM •«- -r- m T-" T-" r- " 01 Engineering FeesAmbulance FeesRecreation FeesOther Charges or Fe<13CCDQ.X. CU "O -i-' S cu X p—CD E £) O 03 CT to -£ •S CD.0 C 3 CD Q. OJ CU CD O O | i 0 00 0 o" in" T CMOO CM_ CM" CU CU CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 o" m"•*!- CM 00 CM_CM" to IBS and Forfeitures:ome from InvestmenL. U LL J= Q. •O 01 J2 (Uh- 9ooo £ LU ^ _l (j CO LL ND REVENUES,LL 1wJ o: LUz LU CD Q<f OF CARLSB,>. fniW o Q. — •— C S"o Q_Estimated"oZ 0) c0) IV • — D T —to OffsetExpenditures [>• ^ CJ "o .Si,ro cT f*FY 2000-01Revenue•o -oc cO) 0)Q. Q.X X0) 01 "c "ctu o>E Ec cu_ ^. 0 OD) OJ — _ - CO COl_ I— c c O) O) 4-1 •»-> to tofc t O O I ! O 0o oo o o" o"0 0 T-_ If) -t-< -t--O) O) CO COni. »1 O 0 0 Oo oo o o" o"o oT- in CM" too>O) (0 | S0 1ro CO "c tu0) 3 Pro m Q. ££ "E CU ,+_j +5 j= O ooo to" -t_ 0 0o co" CM V)(U3c g0) 1 5o ooo to" ••*• totO 0)LL Eo LL "53CO ito 0oo CM"cor- ofm CO o•5 "8z 5o ^ u "i to"01 T3Cro t/TCOtoc0).0 (/) 1 CO & Economics,'ovided, such as pO) Q..£ »CZ QJ ro to ro o o g iJ- O ^ u_ 03 g D) OC 0'U n" ^^"^ C/3 T- 01 0 3 6 go SO mCNi t- UJO (jj 0 ° °1 g LL ^O CO ^ 2 •^ T3 Ctu 8-HI OJ | enCoO T311•coQ.Uu. (Orop^ cuoO 00)0) b cro CO c tnT3 "oj: O) of~ tfl ces provided,taxable good1 §tl) •s | ^ ^O d; O Q_ to CDc ro ro o)D) >ro ro « §^o ° 'o o>... to 2 (0ro CQ CM "$< "5J" *^ o 8" •b" a)ro *- I z ? tuCJ tn M— * — 'o u, .•^^ o 0 o 0) 03 sehold income in tnditures on taxabi0 <UO Q- O) ro "o §1 ro =— o ;s, adjusted fciccounted for"to "^ "ro c CO S 1 sro o>d 3 "o x £ 'ro = 0)DO >- ^•"o >, "ccu cu2 2D D CO Q. ro to -E*o ,o "3 "o~ E to ^^ oi— Oo0 0)to c CU "C _D '5"o -° •£ " C 1)ro •— 'E 3,r ^c "^-Q i1! 2 t> Z! ^ "° C"ro '-=.— CO•£= o •i 'o .E co o 'w it 30 0 ses located inwith activitiesto ~o CU 0)c t±«-e^ %>, toJ3 ro to tncu 01 ro roto (0 taxabletaxablero ro £i £ c co o Z Z •st- in oCM UJ _i ocou. co" LU = - V UJ a: UJz HIO a<m CO or<o u. O O 2."55 a> ~o f.g §<0 g UJ 3= w < c " 5>j<y, <o o _ T- CU ^?3 ccua. LU 13DUJ cua. incocpcb CMr^-_ •<!•in 'OX) oo"CM CO D QUJ!_ CUa. ino CMCO oo cn_ o"oo enco coen DLU cuQ. enco en o> enoo aT oo0_ Tf"CMO) CM" QLU cua. oenenoo'co oo oooCM" CM </) CO (It (/>(/) </5cu cu cu cu cu cu CO U) CO CO U>tu CU (U CU CU in </>vu o CM ro o m ooCM •«- h- en tj- -<tT-_ O T- O CD ID co" ••-" i~~" en o" i*-"•«d- m r^- co rj -*CM <J> T- *- r- »- o to en CM oin co CM o enco_ o_ T- cn_ o•<-" o" oo" r--" enIT) CO Tj- rf M-ir> TJ- in in m CO (OCD men en <rf •>-"-<r r-co en" w in en 03 encu cu > > O CD O ^f O(^ CM r^- CM •<-cr>_ m_ in_ •>* cn_ CD CD OO ^-" COm co en o o•<r CN -r- -^t- oo CM" -r-" m in if) in incu cu cu cu CM in in co ooco co in o i-r- oo T-_ T(- in 10 m o> o inT- oo co enCN in co oo co" CM" a. 1O Q. cu•a o•*= = « E ra O > ?»o S =5°Q. cacCO .b >, <» « 31 i i O 5 H o b b •ervicesw crtl O IministrativlAdministratu^Finance(nOJo Do PurchasingHuman Resi•*-«ccu £cuO)CO C Records MaSubtotal"cBCO tu 3Q_ O "oQ. CO "o•*-- cu CO II II o "ai "S5 >> ^cu Q immunity DCommunityu O brmationelopmentI £GeographicEconomic D'c E BuildingSubtotalcuCO£E i ou ECOU_ k_ O) CO 2 D) Q. O <2 Q. <.^ •E^ IIO CO o "co bcuo: 1" I §co -s=FT ro °- cu _^ *—•£ o CO (DQ. a: +->(0oo 'cD 73 0) (0 £ UJ T™ 9oo 0 CM {£ J || rf ^3 *n Q. O UJ •••u. <*»* LU ZZ, * fe ~2 "5 «— co £Q i -5^? «t ££.^ UJ O :rr>i n Ji^ ~" X IQH 1 -.§ 5 o UB fl) m '^"^ -J "o Q. 2 fy ^^ J|~ UJ•z.Illo Q 73 5 § OQ <S O 73W E o c1 "JT3 CM Q>^ S> e< LL LU O 1 . o •>. \—o o <uIO Q)_^ 1 -S3W 03 •g to -S 3 § §. £ 1£ S ^ "g «*» b cooto in"CM(O en" , ,ooo_ T—m T— T— "^"^ to in in t/> in w co toflj QJO^QJQ) Q)mV >- >->>->• >>-> ^ co in o ^~ r^ CM o tor^o cocntoco T-OCOco_ to_ m_ io_ co_ r-_ to_ o_ T- •_ co to to" CM" co" co" o" o" to"^3 f*1*- ^^ ^3 CO CO CO ^3 CO o" TJ-" CM" CM" T-" O c co ro o)*|"^ IH r* 1 sli•— (U C ro *;P oj o ro •=> cto -Q o c c ^ ro ro < ig l^2 §)_ «| o,|| 1 8 g oj — D c ro 4= ro 2co -SO.LUCLCO LL H3 0. <*•*(U sS0^^oc 73'D DC Q D S111 LU x l_ !_ 0) 0} QJ t^CL CL o x.Om o> S^•<- in enCO CN t-to •* ••- -* m' °en ° ro <& V) to •*• r- in (O il-~ •* CM ^f 'm T- to CM t co" co" co" o" ro Is- to r- ico_ CM_ r--_ o_ •• co" co" •**•" co" '•^- i< s—^ ~—~ *~* s—^ fo o m -tj- to o CM in r O O (O Is- < ••t" to" co" en"to i^- to CM tT~_ "*. ^ 'H v™^- ^^ -^^ *^* |s™rf< '. \ V> U) O) <D •* T- en o tr^ ^^ ^^ C3 ( m_ T-_ CM_ o_ t [C Tt" !•-" O" ••to vn co o to> i~- m co i r— r-~ en •»*• ••^ in r<Subtotaltotal [2]on-Departmentalontingencies [3]-Q "Z. O3 W 1 'c 0) Q '" Q QUJ E UJ LU r^ co co•<r .r- en oco T- '-.en <& r™ r^ D *«• r— r— r—n ^ •— Vy> Si.•o <t"-^.<t3" N ^> J)•O ^ 35 . ^ I•— ^, <"™Xc u roo c ^^'£ "n c Q -5y "-C ^ijl\ C O5 ^ & 0 C ~ = — • § •§ 12 .£ Q. a3 ^ ro -2 ^~ o0 D -^ D M. o £ Q S S 1 *- "5 1 ^55 ^-i-s | 43 g § J2 g 'g S- J3 0 0 tO 73 V3 ,9 .*- - ,9 'io cJJ cj c c *-* tu o 5 D Do 73 <Ut5 730) 73 OJ (U (U ro *^ £ U5tu3 (U CO • <U<g w >- 3 ^ 5 °-C m O to o "- ^ tir c ^ oa) c to u •o 1 *= - m oil5 D) ^ "ti 5 C D) S -Q'•= 3 S >,ro o o o S. ^ §"§,o is r c^_ 0) o -J3 0 C .2, o 0 3 ^ °O <_ 3 <-> g .t± M M « CM 3 g S -rce: City of Carlsbad,) Equivalent dwellingCost of providing serviSubtotal of expenditunAdjustment is made to^ — jo Oco LU T-: c\i co o <M <U0101CL Table 11-8 ESTIMATED CITYWIDE GENERAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (FY 2000-01) Revenues and Expenditures by Land Use (x $1000) Revenues Property Tax-Secured On Vacant and Other Land Property Tax-Unsecured Other Land Sales Tax Non-retail Sales-Other Transient Tax Franchise Tax Business License Tax Real Property Transfer Tax On Vacant and Other Land Vehicle License (In-Lieu) Other State Subventions Total Expenditures Policy and Leadership Group Administrative Services Public Safety Community Development Community Services Public Works Non-Departmental Contingency Total Net Surplus or (Deficit) Average Surplus or Deficit ($) Residential $13,313.2 — — — 5,709.1 — — 1,967.2 — 681.1 — 3,777.0 888.0 $26,335.6 $562.0 1,102.7 14,813.9 2,024.1 9,625.6 6,555.2 3,550.7 2,443.2 $40,677.4 ($14,341.8) ($426) /DU Commercial Retail / Office $2,328.1 — 232.8 — 9,858.7 — 8,795.0 346.3 987.3 119.1 — — — $22,667.3 $98.9 194.1 2;607.4 356.3 0.0 1,153.8 625.0 321.8 $5,357.2 $17,310.1 $2,920 /Ac. Industrial /R&D $1,681.7 — 168.2 — 2,453.6 — — 328.5 936.7 86.0 — — — $5,654.7 $93.8 184.1 2,473.7 338.0 0.0 1,094.6 592.9 305.3 $5,082.4 $572.3 $829 /Ac. Total [1] $17,323.1 2,028.9 [2] 401.0 538.0 18,021.4 2,453.6 [3] 8,795.0 2,642.0 1,924.0 886.2 103.8 3,777.0 888.0 $59,782.0 $754.7 1,480.9 19,894.9 2,718.4 9,625.6 8,803.6 4,768.6 3,070.2 $51,117.0 $8,665.0 — Source: City of Carlsbad Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2000-01; Onaka Planning & Economics. 1. Revenues and expenditures after functional and one-time revenues have been deducted; see Tables II-6 and II-7. 2. Property tax on vacant, agricultural, and miscellaneous land uses other than commercial, office, or industrial. 3. See Note 5 of Table II-6. III. REFERENCES m. REFERENCES California, State of. Office of Planning and Research. 1978. Economic Practices Manual (Revised 1982). Sacramento. . Board of Equalization. 1998. Taxable Sales in California (Sales & Use Tax). 38th Annual Report (1998). Sacramento. . Department of Finance. 2000. Population Estimates of California Cities and Counties. Report 92 E-l. Sacramento. Carlsbad, City of. 2000. Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. 2000-2001. Finance Department, Carlsbad, CA. San Diego, County of. 2000. "2000-01 Proportionate 1% Revenue ATI Ratios by Fund." Auditor/Controller, San Diego. . 1999. Property Valuations, Tax Rates. Useful Information for Taxpayers for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30. 1999. Auditor/Controller, San Diego. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1999. "Current Demographic and Economic Estimates: San Diego Region." San Diego. . 1997a. Land Use in the San Diego Region (1995). San Diego. . 1997b. Regional Employment Inventory (1995). San Diego. . 1997c. Population and Income Characteristics of the San Diego Region. San Diego. . 1997d. January 1. 1997. Population and Housing Estimates. San Diego. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1999. "Consumer Price Index—Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA." Washington, D.C. . 1999. 1997-98 Consumer Expenditure Survey. Washington, D.C. OP/E 158 VLC FIS M2 III-l Villages of La Costa FIS