HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21 OF 21Kill Xm twig Istil Int Elk]
POPULATION RESEARCH UNIT
DEMATMENT OF` irINANCE
SUMMARY REPORT STATE Of CALIrORNIA
BUTTE CONTROLLED COUNTY, POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-85 PACE' 4
DATE PRINTED 04/26/65
-= POPULAT I OR HOU, I NG UNITS r --= »_. ------ POP
PER
HOUSE MOBILE CROUP 5 OR MOVI LE OGcU.• L HOUSE
CITYTOTAL HOLDS HOME'S QUARTERS' TOTAL. SINGLE 2. TO 4 I11ORE HOMES 1PIED VACANT HOLD'
91 CGS ;. 1459 1459 90 0 562 466 42 15 39 531 5.52 2748
»r--------..__»» _r».. ----------------------- w------ ------_---r-------i »»_..__,.---- -..--• _ ----- ------
CH I CO 31163 282116 61 12875 13344 67'10 1992 46106 36, 124'1'1 6.33 2:263
---»»_------• r.._ -..r,. ------------:.----------------r.. r---a,r_,.r------»...--- ._ »_.-. »-..--
r»rr-
GRiDLEY - -- 4283 41511 i0 92 1811 1552 108 145 6 1649' 8.95 P,5112.
--- ----------- --...J-----_r_-rriw�}. �.✓»r.»_»�.----..r------------------
OROVILLE 9463 9652 320 311 4540 2633 497 1176 234 41518 7153 2299
--- ---' -- .---
PARADISE P-004 23681 3287 513 10833 7786
576 507 19b4 1009�F � 6.82 2.346
1!##%It 13.%pq#4I%:%%%p#AIF%#N%%MN#%IIx%M####111►11##�1.1j•%MNM##11R1/ibMMtii1 MIFM1►%%M•.M±f•1►#p�1111Mp11#11#M#q�#%i!8%Ril%.%%IFMIR�M!#Il�Aki1►N*p%*/NF�Mp•If�M#M#�.1►iF%M�*�MNA/l1F
TOTAL INCORPORATED 71062 67271 3768 3791 31090 19147 3215 6449 2 79 28971 6.82 2.322`
Y "11##ly%pI/#%#tl #1{##%MIF#%###Nk#%##AMMMpiw�...11###A6MM#M#�rN#I##M#1{%%#7F#i1#N#IF#MM%�10111#A%%%%p#it�411#pq%If 1F##11#R11#%liif#IU%%4#�rll{{k#M11%%+i 11HMAA4RSAAlFR4. ,.-.
%o UNINCORPORATED 89909 89361 16185 548 38681 24873 2664 2810 8334 35237 8.90 2.;136
lV •pnM:pr%11##I11/%MMg1G 11%ppMRM%####iM%%#111►A1;%#MNK«%Mp%1F 11p#MMIiRM I�#p1F 11 �6pp%#4F1{%iM11I1%N1111p%IF###A:pli#pMp%!p%%Rpl1%####N%1'1p#p%#%i1M%0l 1111%#1HF#MI1M%M##%1!
%#%pp%i1###i1M%M#M#11%Mpp#%11##%##'MIF%#%%If%%iF11X111/%%11##MI/#%%Y1►%p%#p%1►#p%%11%##p4NlFpl/#iM%MIi%N1Fp�MM%pNM1#MM##Np###MM#*11oRi1.A:,%%sMxo*#aira!#%#xais'11##•.
TOTAL COUNTY' 160971 156632 10,453 4339' 69771 44020 5879 9259 106,13' 64208 7.97 2.439
16 a REA SON hill.T1�T_E�
FnTrrRE
PROJECTS IN
THE AREA
gpPF.I1D:[x'
The following list identifies
or treasonably foreseeable
all city and
in the
county projects which are currently
area bounded,by Lindo Channel, Stat
proposed
n
Route 32, the proposed Eaton
Avenue extension and Esplanade (A).
TRIP ENDS
Ann North Valley Plaza
Various
Commercial
5,964
O
GPA/REZ `BCYC -(Chico Area., GP):
ous
Various
Res..9ential
(91 du)
909
REZ Marshall
42-34-49
Residential
(4 du)
40
TPM Nagy
44-79-06
Residential
(2 du)
2U
TPM Iiottshalk:
42-34-47
Residential
(3 du)
30
TPM Puller
42-34-49
Residential
(2 du)
20
�.
TP4 Marshall
42-03-14
Residential
(4 du)
40
TPM Pletcher
42-�09-28
Residential
(3 du)
30
TPM Nie Bois
42-34-•26
Residential
'(4 du)
40
42-01-35
Residential
(4 du)
40
TPM Brown
UP Chico Iron Works
43-20-05
Commercial
105
VAR Jacobs
42-07-3s
Residential
'(24'multi
240
unitp)
REZ Arnold Paeifie
06-15-71
Commercial'
TPM Ball
42-x14-21
Residential
i4 dui
40
TPM Mar8hall42-34
-i24
Residential..
(7 du )
70
UP Ashby
66=17-29
Residential
(120' du)
1,200
'I
TPM. Shoatbird
42--34y.11Q
Residential
(4 du)
4 0
`e
TF'P. Brazell,
42-34-25
Residential
(2 du)
20
TPM Crawford
42-07-57'
Residential.
(2 du)
20
'
TPP! Marongiu
42;;.34-s3
Residential
(2 du)
-
20
TPM Ohs.
49-34-05
Residential
(3 du';)
30
TM Meester
42-34-45
Residential
_
(4 du)
20
e
UP Turner
49-06-13
Residential 0 du)'
10
42-05-57
Residential (15 du)
50
TOTAL
305 dwelling units
17,537
(a)'
Reasonably Anticipated is
projects (Tuttle, 1.986).
defined as
proposed Pending and
approved
TPM
Tentative Parcel Map
GPA
General Plan At :endment
REZ
Rezone
UP
Use Permit
VAR
Variance
L
■
1
16.9=2
16.70
METHODOLOGIES AND ASSUMPTIONS'FOft ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ('1986 DOLLARS)
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
County Road Improvement Standards'$1,1144,125 or $2,262,825
SRS -1 standard = $11144,125
Road widths: 36 feet
Cost per squre foot: $1.25
' '
LINEAL iEET` SQUARE FOOT COST
ROAD SEGMEtJT
Muir SR 32 to Bell 4,
600 129,600 $162,000
4,500 162,000 $202,500
Rodeo - Muir to Henshaw 5,850 210,000 $263,250
Mord Bell to East 141950 1780200 $222,750
Guynn - Bell to East 3,825 137,700 $172,123
Alamo Bell to East 2,700 g7i200 K+:21,500
Henshaw -Nord to Alamo 25,25 915,300 $1,144,125
.Total
RS -2 standard $2,262,825
same as 8RS-1 standard plus sidewalk, curb and gutter at $144 per lineal foot
of roadway ($22 per lineal foot on one 'side of the strect).
(25,425 feet) $414 (feet) = $1,118,700
Source. Earth Metrias-.Incor,porated, 1986; E_de11,S986.
ROa.dwaY Reali�ents $7,500
Bell/Muir
i`
tell/Nord
Bell/Gwynn
BelllAlamo
Rodeo/Norid
Land eosts = $0 '(see Figure 13.10-i
Areas to be abaY►doned/"sold are approXimately equal to areas to be
acquired' gh Any difference would alter projected posts at a rate of
/bou t.
$O,g2/square foot ($110,(100/acre): Land costs o $0� Assumes property to be
acquin'3 . ,Uu vacant land and abandoned land would 'b
e purchased for an
equivalent price.
Paving costs = $1,250 per i3O,ersectioi far 5 intersections $6,250
Road improvements estimatt,',°` include almost all of` tha paving for realignments'
Rowever, approximately 1,060 square feet of additional paving would be
req
red at new ,intPrsectians to al.locr for right,.turn3ti
ui g movements
$1,250
_ P g -
techni ues to relocate existing sign e
Other costs sto si ns, street signs $100 per sl. n� This cost shotild b
avoided with standard construction
Source: Earth Metrias Ino&porated, 1006,' Edell;; 15486►
16:10-1
win M M M M
- �1
r
1
r
KEY f:
AREA TO ABANDON/SELL
°°°°° AREA TO ACQUIRE/,BUY r �
PRgALIGNMENT
P05ED RE r t
r /
'--�--- EXISTING ROADWAYS
i ar rr.••
= t. p r
.� r rr'•' �' opo
1. • � O O tl 0
..• �✓ pooh c b u
oQOnDaO02000 000000
�.�
N ,:� .Obpppo°:"00'°°dtlO��aC�dpp°opo0�dp�oppO�O�°Gbp°�oO°pp�oh°
00000000000�c00000'. 00o°da0000�oc
C0p,g4ppo°o°oh610 :8 - ** .0 0.0 0.0320 d
000
�; ooh° ° 0 0 0 tl b noobptlptlpo ° n p
AC.'(.Y O. `�� / ♦J ."� ' . - �a.p..b✓pp�p'OD°p°OO'ptlapOptl�bpOg�OOpVbUbOpbUDbObbOppUO,M,O_ O0.°ObbU0p V °0°�ppObp ppQ pp°0 °pOQobp°tl0pOOp°00ppo04`
p0
ob
bUODO°9UOb b p O p O y
CI 000400 0100 pU ^DppOb
ob
0, bbpbpppObQbbo00oppb
p°npp000000000000 o
pp0 C
000
00
OVbgobpdp o0oapr
°0op°o�Op'pu°q°
oa0
0o0,
o
ooi�--'-
,.,o
.`
ODn°cRTGNT OP WAY
..
po'.ga
UObbf
O°br
_ 000, -
n.
�r
earthi scAL� , .
INMome ii i PIGOPt 13,10-1 APPROXIMATION tip 'A AbtJAY R�ALIG
ra _1 s0
t�ics N NMENT RI;QuIRiTS
m .. .water+` w..M.e-..-:_.n �+-.�. .+••...:� W'.:...,,ol �.. k 4++�+..r1wr..r..� c.��
.Left. Turn
Pockets and Parking Restrictions $21,139
Esplanade
at Henshaw; 300 feet of 48''footwide paving at $1.25 per square foot
_ $18,000
Esplanade
at Lassen; Striping $2,500
Signal improvements $15",000 x 675 +270
20,700 + 750 + 675 + 270
Alternative (ExpandedArea) $15,000 x _ 825 + 33¢
20,700 + 750 + 825 + 330
Souree•.
Earth Metrics Incorporated, '1986, Edell,, 1986.
,
Widen East_ Avenue. _ $132,643 _
Required
a gutter would
standard $84,123 (idewalk, curb and be paid for by
property
owners along East Avenue).
'
Alamo,
half stay to Guynn! 675 feet of 13 foot paving at, $1.80/square font
_ $15,795
SR32,
half way to Guynn,; 1,460 feet of 26 foot paving at $1.$0/square foot
_ $68,328
Pro rata
culvert at.
E $45 per lineal
share of 900 feet of 27 inch storm ra na"e
foot = $1,093,500
to drain East Avenue.
500
10,216
_
x $1►093500 - $53,520
Source:
Earth,'Metrios Incorporated, 1986; Edell, 1986.._
%AO.4
R/W Acquisition _ $105,000
Surface Drain Crossing = $20,000'
Total (;it. 1984 dollars) = $4,165,200
Five percent increase per year for two years
(1986 dollars) _
$4,592,133
Additionally,'the 'Storm ,Drainage Maintenance
Fee would. be $4 to
$5
dwelling unit per year.
per
Source. Earth Metrics incorporrated, 1986;
1984; Bird, 1986-
Edell, '1986; Rolls
,Anderson Rolls,
Connection to Sewer = $.j-,190,500 (a)
Inf.rstrueture Main
- Line: Extension ;Fee
and Sewer Lines through the Site
LOCATION OF LINE LENGTH,
DIAMEE UNIT
_ TER COST
AMOUNT
Treatment Plant to Site 26,130 ft.
36t, $80
$2,0901400
'
Alamo' -Bell to Henshaw 2s7OO ft.
6ft $22
$ ' 59,400
Guynn-Bell. to Henshaw 3,600 ft.
6" $22
$ 79,200
Nord -Bell to Henshaw 4,500 ft.
tip $22
$ 99,000:
;Rodeo -Muir to 1,500 ft.
southeast 1,500 ft.
Muir -Bell to Rodeo 11800 ft.
6► $22
$' 3MOO
Bell -Trunk -Line to Alamo 6;000 ft.1C.
$25
450,000
1 0 000
Total
$2,961,000
Annexation Cost = None (a)
Treatment P
per dwlant Expansion Fee � $850 ehl,� „t - 229,500
t
(a) Refer to Response to Comment 14.16.
Source! Earth `M'etries Incor drat
p ed, 19$6; U61
1984.
1, 1986;.Rolls Anderson
Rolls, _
16.10-6
.SANE DOLAfi
2•,
� .. lurla,Is4e steowo O,sr 4tT'.
b ae s »oa - 04,co c.r.iroa»i asin
04
th ' ba `d dfffCt Stiff to ihfOna the :RegI0nD1
1 would ask that the B r
Mater Quality Cdntrol. Board that the 00Ard views twplefentatiom of
April 22, 1986
the provisions of the Nitrate Action Plan along the folloolog
Iriorities.
O
a
_
1, Extensionof a eaeunity water systea throughout tt►t urban
H
b
R E C E 1 V E O
RJ
area and to high nitrate Masi
at
o0i at'
Thisone i
66m and the tiof
entail ttto
County of Butteard
f,1�i�` Qn 11"`•j
61
in Water. It e
tthet�5slftanceon
the waterpurveyor
25 Count Cr -ter Oriv*
OrOVIM;_ CA 9S96S der c tax
eedll
mean the orequest thl
p,U,C, in Implemhting financing acceptable to the COMPUAity.
t=.
01
ciry a cmto
it may also mean assisting the ntighborbobds OUtiidc' the
•�
�
-. Oy
Oetr bard lMebers
bar ea in mu w ter coepa.�hief, CSA�i 4t' some
arm
G1
�
'other entity f0 ng and al to a ester supply;rq
'
ke• Nitrate `Action Plan
as it iiavai a',county, in cooperation 'rith
2. soonble eht
AskD
z
At our 'meeting of April l; 1986 we directed the Administrative
the cltyi will 'seek the east affordabl"e meant to Implilaht,
0
Officer to tend the attached letter to the Regional Hater Quality
the stars drainage Ulan, this
must lmmediately entail
•
Control Bbard. Our actions, and the reporting of then, have led people
systenitic elimination of existing
dry evils,
to be Concerned that we are abandonlog the. Nitrate ACtlao Plan and
our efforts to salvo• the ground water p"robleas in Chito.
L bevelopment of alternatives to tewiring the entire urban
'
g s other
arta method
and continued Investigation Of tlnincin
W
This cOnclUslon
than in areawide iatsesta,ent district,
JR
We still have a NitraterAttionyplin and ire tontfnuin to
In s'unnary, the Board takes the tett of .nitrate contaoiaatlon
cd
opeedte under its provisions, Septic pernits are. togtlnulno
in our ground water as A serious natter. We also retogniae 'that
'0
o
to be authorized based, on the plans and its interim standardsi
any solUtion(s) +rte Seek to iaplenent most 'reflect the neids and finances
;
t -r
>
iZof
14
What we did ibandbn was the formation of ori assesseent distritt
our toatm lilty,
rd
'that tiould requlre the people of the Unincorporated area of Chico
W
04
vt
0
-to pay the entire Cast of sewersi Storm drains and water 'treatftmty,
Sincerel ,
lana expansion. 4e did this because chase- people Could inat
p p
va
�+
afford these actions and it is not fair to ask them to do to,
�.-H
We will cohtinur to to develop alternative W,Iins In cones
inane Oolin
,work
lunation with the Reolonal Mater Quality. Control Hoard, ,the
Sroervi3or - Oistrlct'2
..
y of theland6plereVi"se eof
1
rs.
thecprdVisionsan
the Nitrate
weQ01»eed,tonreview
JU/lore
cet strative'bfficer
P,
to
sewerfan a sto'rnand
tive�n 'thendeadiineslfar approval drainrplans
. jCitytlianaCbuntlr
Ity g..
sU _. _ . drat. 01411 . t, not
be changed axsstly because the 'vol& n i
.
Cuunty OldhWiJ Diructo
c6istomp
completed, Thi3 d,!iay is saalethirig d'ver ahith the Baird has �
County Public Works alrettbr
H
had no tantrol, Without this pUn it is lnpossible to deselop
tame Is
County PublitAea16 6irettbr
,-t
financing alternatives and itepiealntitton tlneiihes,
CaUnty Environeentai Health Oirectdr,
true with extensioh of coawv,nity Witte SUp ply throughout the
urban irei and to high nitrate ireas,
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FINANCING METHODS
16.12 DISCUSSION OF
Mo2y3is: ftut(Pfnaricbg YMthad
,FYwol arid
Cenerni GovamMmt
FINANCING METHODS
r
When cu!ren,1 taxes cannot Cover costs, local governments must'
finance most, capital improvements on a long-term basis either
through bonejed indebtedness or public leasebacks from nonprofit
r
corporations. 'Total bonded debt resulting from a proposed develop-
ment is estimated on the basis of the cost of specific capital
improvement project: to be financed. It is,, however, necessary for
budget,lig purposes to estimate the annual interest and principal
payments, ar lease payments, associated with specific capital
improvements. The timing of future revenues= in relation to the
21.8
l
JJWJYAL Fume SO-A" Cao! rnd rk"Wiv meow& o
F
timingof payments for long-term obligations, also becomes an
p ent plans
important consideration when preparing capital im rovem
and approving specific projects.
,fid Indebtedness
sell four types of bonds to finance capital 1
Local jurisdictions l
provegeneral obligation bonds, assessment bands,. tax
' imments.• or
allocation bonds , and revenue mbo � s. Bon and credt) are city
county with a guarantee of pay
as
Pneral obli anon (G.o.) bonds. Because they offer good security
anctax- ree interest, the interest rate on the G.O.
bonds (hence, the
cosi of the debt to the issuing jurisdiction) is less than that of the
other types of bonds. General obligation bonds must be approved by l
two-thirds of the voters. Special fpcovisions, however, can �0 1
created by
the State Legislature or unusual situations.
b Area
60% of the voters. r issue
instance, the Bay Rrea Rapid Transit Qisti�ict s major bond
required approvaly
tal
The assessment bond is oftwneren einifheaarea nto be ia to f served by Inanct the
improvements:
Bach Lando rata !.hare of the bonded
capital improvement is assessed a pro s of, assessment
indebtedness.- In California, there ace two Type l
bonds
J
Im ravernent Act of 1911 (aka I911 Hct Bonds): Each bond is
arcel for its pro rata share of the
issued against a specific p Treasurer sends a
total indebtedness: The city or, county
se crate billing to each parcel owner twice yearly for !principal
-
and interest due4 and transmits the money to the bondholder.
In the event of delinquency,
the bondholder's only, recourse is
similar to foreclosing a mortgage.
Im rovement. Act of 1915 (aka 1915 Act Bondsh These are
` whole
sera n e.g;, ,
000nco 59 and interest ssue aarenbil' 1 on the
assessment district. Pr but in flat arriounts0 In the
regular tax bill (not as a tax the r , or county may sell the
event of delinaw' ,cys
delinquent pcopertles to false funds, and are also required--if
e that and oilier resources' are not sufficient==to levy a tax rate
of up to $O.Io throughout the city or county to meet the
.r
delinquency.
2 al Imps ovement ACt of 1913 authorizes bond
The Municip ovemen!h and differs from the 1011 Act
issueson thebass�of timing of assessments and bond sales.
municipal
Principally
Bonds, however, are not issued under this Acts
16.12i64
Mesal Mawr M SWIIAM CO -ft and nx WbV Mehode
f7no't�� Ritilwdi ' I t
Although interest on assessment and G.O. bonds is limited to 9%, the
em
bonds can. be sold at less than lmand(theCre i scdsv punted to ue) to make
the
marketable. Effectively, the pr
_ yield in order to make the bond issue
COMPO- ltassesstnentltbondsl in
investment opportunities. e f the land
California may be initiated by either the owners of 60% o
in question or a .legislative body, such as 'a cityor county or certain
special districts. While a public utility district may not do so, the
county may issue assessment bonds,on the district's behalf.
ated
l mandatoryprocedurebodies.
Because for the exact amount of the1 special
legislative bodies. B rt owners is not
assessment and its apportionment among prope y
known when an agency designates an assessment area, the jurisdic-
d.
`slative body may be negated by protest
tion must hold
p a legislative
,s are determine
a rotest hearingonce the cost' and to be'
Financing
initiated by
from owners of 50% or more of either the vi a. of 1
assessed or the front footage. An exception occurs
when the necessary touthe -
�, Health officer has recommended the pt )
test. tive vote of the
p ma
public health and there u afour-fifths affix
legislative body 'overruling the pro
d.
The third form of bonded indebtedness Is the tax tax revenue allocation
These 'aonds are ones for which cert agencies us!
tax Increment
pay for debt service. Redevelopment ag g this tY of bond.
financing, earmark ereefore freatly concfor erned about the security of
- Band buyers are, thee 8 uarantees debt service on
tax allocation bonds. Since no agehcy g ;
these bonds, the. potential buyer evaluates the security of the bond
on the basis of the certainty of the projected tax revenues.
- 3
!f
1-11 � with the economics of the area
Bond buyers arc usually not far...... ,dtefla for
issuing the bonds and thus adopt rather, is nser ativ a buyers Will
their evaluation. Ohe cronsequehce
not phey urchase bonds until the improvements' that will tying .z the
projected tax revenues have eV nu ao�P re than sufficient for debt
require that projected tax
service, usually 1.5 times the debt service.
California statutes set limits on the amount of bonded indebtedness
a local jurisdiction may 'incur al
it tito �andeind repaid
gschooener l
pdistr cts is 596 of the local' a limit for n s a districts 104b. le for
ro rty tax revenues.
al Jurisdiction s assessr d value, whi
+ i +
cities this limit is 1596 and for unified .s
Source: California 0£f ice Of41a""* ,anc1 Research, 1:co_ "tet
Practices Manual, 198
16.12