EIFD - A Mechanism for Eco Rapid Transit - FinalDraft_22Jan2015

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
A Mechanism to Finance Eco-Rapid Transit
University of Southern California, Sol Price School of Public Policy
Master of Planning Course: Planning Studio
January 2015

DEC 2014 ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS
A MECHANISM TO FINANCE ECO-RAPID TRANSIT
II | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The team is proud to present this report Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District: A Mechanism to Finance Eco-
Rapid Transit for our University of Southern California (USC) graduate planning studio project. This report is
based on the planning and analysis work of our core team comprising of:
 Rebecca Chung
 Qianyao Duan
 Adam Montgomery
 Kristine Rose
 Rui Tu
 Sasha Ussef
 Siyuan Yin
The study works were completed under the guidance and supervision of Mark Pisano, a professor of the
Practice of Public Administration at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. Serving as the executive director of
the Southern California Association of Governments (SGAG) for the past 31 years, his experience and
knowledge contributed greatly to the success of this project.
The team would also like to thank the contribution of those who ably prepared the necessary background
material and data required for the analysis of this report as well as providing our team with constructive
feedback regarding our work. These individuals are hereby gratefully acknowledged:
 Walter Beaumont
 Greg Devereaux
 Norman Emerson
 Gail Goldberg
 Michael Kodama
 Allyn Rifkin
 Fred Silva
 Lillian Burkenheim Silver
 Ping Wang
 Eco-Rapid Transit Staff

DEC 2014 ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS
III | P a g e
Table of Contents
1 OVERVIEW: ECO-RAPID TODAY AND VISION FOR TOMORROW................................................................... 1
1.1 The Corridor Today....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Eco-Rapid’s Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Implementation of a Public Dialogue......................................................................................................... 2
2 BACKGROUND: STATE OF ECO-RAPID TRANSIT............................................................................................. 3
3 BRINGING THE VISION: LITERATURE REVIEW OF LONDON CASE STUDY ................................................... 4
4 ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS (EIFD) ...................................................................... 6
4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
4.2 Funding Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 7
4.3 Facilities Financed by an EIFD...................................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Differences between RDA, IFD, and EIFD ................................................................................................... 8
4.5 Benefits and Barriers of EIFD ....................................................................................................................11
4.6 Multiple Funding Streams Available to use in EIFDs...............................................................................12
5 PROPOSED EIFD IMPLEMENTATION FOR ECO-RAPID .................................................................................13
5.1 Specific Steps for Eco-Rapid to Create and use EIFDs ............................................................................14
6 CASE STUDY: DOWNEY STATION ...................................................................................................................15
6.1 Station Overview.........................................................................................................................................16
6.2 Opportunities for Value Capture...............................................................................................................19
6.3 Financial Strategy & Modeling Results .....................................................................................................21
6.3.1 Tax Increment Financing and Developer Fees ...............................................................................21
6.3.2 Motor Vehicle-in-Lieu Fees (VLF) ......................................................................................................25
6.3.3 Parking Management Fees ...............................................................................................................26
6.4 Summary of Value Capture........................................................................................................................29
7 TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................30
8 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................31
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................32
Appendix A: Key Terms and Explainer Overview
Appendix B: Visual Structure of EIFD JPA
Appendix C: Assumptions for Tax Increment Financing
Appendix D: Assumptions for VLF Backfill
Appendix E: Assumptions for Parking Management In-Lieu Fee

JAN 2015 ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS
1 | P a g e
By embodying the vision of the public, the planning process reframes cities and has the ability to use many
mechanisms to create infrastructure, opportunities, and spaces for the people. Financial tools primarily
drive these changes and developments that ultimately create wealth for a region. Through a regional
collaborative and systematic effort, cities can create and capture more of this wealth. To erect this vision of
city advancement requires the engagement of all stakeholders to strategically invest and regenerate a
fiscally stressed city through competitive, attractive economic development.
1 OVERVIEW: ECO-RAPID TODAY AND VISION FOR TOMORROW
Eco-Rapid Transit’s rail initiative will transform the Los Angeles and Orange County region if the
organization continues to collaborate. To expedite implementation of the rail corridor by providing access
to multiple funding streams, Eco-Rapid can use an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), signed
into legislation under the purview of Senate Bill 628, to capture the inherent wealth created increased
socio-economic opportunities of the corridor. EIFD will not be a platform for negotiation, deliberation, or
even consensus, but rather a mode that promotes the process of thinking together in order to build
various forms of necessary infrastructure while using financial tools efficiently to address the pressing
needs of a place and a people. A common
understanding will provide the basis for a clear
analysis and deeper exploration of the varied
narratives and perspectives of multiple
constituents.
1.1 The Corridor Today
The project’s focus area, a 34-mile corridor that
extends north and south of downtown Los Angeles,
has an elaborate history that has shaped the places’
current state of organization and infrastructure.
The needs of these cities vary, but the Eco-Rapid
project can positively influence each place if the
process remains flexible and open to the current
conditions of these places.
Figure 1: Project Location

2 | P a g e
The scope of the project requires the participation of many cities. The magnitude and significance of the
project will attract further engagement if the dialogue revolves around the specific public needs of each
jurisdiction. Therefore, understanding the initial point of public dialogue will occur through defining the
scale and underlying needs and urgencies for the project. Currently, the existing JPA (Joint Powers
Authority) has acquired some funding and produced studies and plans about the corridor. The jurisdictions
participating in the JPA have specific demands addressed in the plans, however, under the uniformly
prescribe to an overarching mission of increased opportunities.
By focusing on the rail project through an economic development plan that integrates mixed-use
infrastructure, the public can reconsider the potential socio-economic opportunities for the area. Through
the 3-D process - decentralized, diversified, and distributed- communities can create a platform to seek
further opportunities to thrive and develop long term (Pisano, 2013). Due to the current fiscal stress of the
state, financing projects has become more difficult because of the dependence on stressed public funds
and individual income levels (Pisano, 2013). Creating partnerships across sectors in order to improve
resource management and implement an outward procurement process will promote the decentralization
of networks and information and encourage user based systems (Pisano, 2013). The Eco-Rapid Transit rail
projects can inspire increased transparency amongst stakeholders, a platform for social and economic user
benefits, an occasion to preserve and progress the identity of residents in the jurisdictions, and will provide
fiscal, environmental, and innovation transformations for the community.
1.2 Eco-Rapid’s Vision
In hopes of creating better communities adjacent to the project, the rail line will not only improve
accessibility and mobility, but will enhance the quality of quotidian life in these cities. The goals and
objectivþes of the project include economic stimulus, environmental justice, and creating public spaces
through the greening of the area. Each of these objectives will create wealth in the region that can and
should be captured. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts serves as a mechanism to capture this
wealth by transforming land use and engineering plans into business plans.
1.3 Implementation of a Public Dialogue
Prior to attempting to fulfill the need of a place, an extensive consideration of the current infrastructure is
necessary. How do we support a community plan for each of the participating members while keeping the
overarching ideas of the Eco-Rapid project in mind? How can we create a business plan that includes and
provides for the interests of all constituents? Transparency is key in order to understand the connections
between development and infrastructure.

3 | P a g e
When reconsidering the built environment of a place, it is important to be cautious about meeting specific
demands of the public while understanding the changes that will occur in the long run. A flexible structure
that allows for site-specific growth defined through the applied financial tools will support strategic growth
of a city. This is further supported by a collaborative, corridor approach. The implementation of an EIFD
will catalyze significant public dialogue that will support not only the growth of infrastructure, but most
importantly the dialogue of the people and place. Interaction with stakeholders should be similar to the
process described in the London case below.
2 BACKGROUND: STATE OF ECO-RAPID TRANSIT
Composed of 13 members and several supporting agencies, Eco-Rapid Transit, formerly known as the
Orangeline Development Authority (OLDA) is a joint powers authority (JPA) established for the purpose of
pursuing the development of a transit system. The system plans to be environmentally friendly and energy
efficient, while also providing improved transportation options to expand economic growth in the region.
The 13 members of the agency have proposed stations that will be located along a former Pacific Electric
Right-of-Way south of downtown Los Angeles (the West Santa Ana Branch) and a remaining rail corridor
north of downtown Los Angeles (the Antelope Valley Line). The current project scope proposes the
northernmost station be located at the Bob Hope Airport in the City of Burbank and the southernmost
station be located in the city of Artesia.
Formed in 2003, the Orangeline Development Authority was established to support mobility across the
Southern California region, with the specific objective of developing additional travel options in the
corridor. During its initial years, the agency strongly advocated for a transit line using Maglev technology to
connect the two counties; however, as alternatives have been analyzed, the agency has switched its focus
to a rail transit line. Over the course of its 11-year existence, city membership in the agency has fluctuated
resulting in changes in the scale of the project. As the years have progressed, the agency has generally
experienced a decreasing scale in the magnitude of the project. At its most extensive, the transit project’s
concept stretched from Palmdale in northern Los Angeles County to Santa Ana in Orange County. In the
last year alone, the agency has lost several city members including Palmdale, Cerritos, and Santa Ana.
Departures have placed constraints on the budget as membership dues have decreased to reflect the
fewer track miles of the future transit line. The project scope has contracted as city membership has
decreased, with the scope now extending from Bob Hope Airport to Artesia and focused on the following
13 members:

4 | P a g e
Table 1: Members of Eco-Rapid Transit
* City of Artesia * City of Huntington Park
* City of Bell * City of Maywood
* City of Bellflower * City of Paramount
* City of Bell Gardens * City of South Gate
* City of Cudahy * City of Vernon
* City of Downey * Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Authority
* City of Glendale
Total development costs for the Southern portion of the transit line extending from Downtown Los Angeles
to Artesia are estimated to be up to $3 billion (Ikhrata, 2013). Currently, the agency has secured $240
million in funding, which will be available in 2015, from the Los Angeles County voter approved Measure R
program. Further funding has been received for station, land use, and alternatives studies and analysis. In
2005, the agency was allocated $280,000 in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) federal funding to conduct preliminary station and land use analysis. In
2012, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Orange County Transportation Act (OCTA) conducted a $1.8
million alternatives analysis, specifically for the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way stretching from Paramount to
Santa Ana (Ikhrata, 2013).
3 BRINGING THE VISION: LITERATURE REVIEW OF LONDON CASE STUDY
The fundamental role of government is creating the formal and informal incentives for all the organizations
in society to operate in a way, through systematic innovation, that achieves desired goals (Pisano, n.d.).
The vision to implement infrastructure at the scale presented by Eco-Rapid Transit, begins at the
framework of the 3-D approach: decentralized, diversified, and distributed (Pisano, n.d.). Ken Livingstone,
the first Mayor of the Greater London Authority, initiated the regeneration of the city during a moment of
fiscal stress by focusing on two features of the city: transportation and land use planning. The former
mayor used his authority to exercise effective socio-economic change through focusing solely on land use
and transportation issues. Livingstone creatively took advantage of a systematic approach to collaborative
thinking in order to allow the public to have oversight over the process of developing the built
environment. He did not issue concessions, and instead reconfigured the system through evaluating
performance and providing opportunities for public oversight.
London’s rail network includes a high speed international rail, central underground tube system, and an
extensive bus system. The tube and bus systems have been governed by the national government and

5 | P a g e
depended on the private sector for development (Pisano, n.d.). Along with these systems the radial city was
experiencing increased congestion from the highway and road network (Pisano, n.d.). Livingstone
appointed Bob Kiley as the transportation commissioner of the Transportation for London (TFL), and
together worked to shift the framework. Conventionally, the P3 approach allowed for the public sector to
contract with the private. This procurement instrument privatized operation and left the fiscal
responsibility and risk with the public sector (Pisano, n.d.).
Both opposed this system, Livingstone and Kiley gained public support by making the consumer appreciate
the value of transit and emphasize the consumer’s role as primary decision maker (Pisano, n.d.). The
development strategy shifted the procurement process and enabled the ties to be formed between the TFL
and other entities in order to create more funding streams to support the transit improvements in the
system and the adjacent areas. He pushed cars out of the central portion of the city by implementing a
congestion pricing fee. This not only decreased CO2 emissions, but also reduced the amount of vehicles
coming into the city and encouraged public transit (Pisano, n.d.). The tube was refurbished and upgraded,
to support sustainable systems, increased ridership, and improved information systems. The introduction
of the information chip, the Oyster Card, improved the collection of revenues and operational facilities
(Pisano, n.d.). These changes affected the travel behavior of individuals in the city, and were able to
complement these social changes with economic decisions. He also increased the pricing of the
underground system, assuming that the better designed, more flexible and accessible system increased
customer satisfaction and the demand for service (Pisano, n.d.).
Further, the public sector and the private sector used their capacity as partners to work on a transparent
level and within a specific legal framework in order to fund the acquisition of land, the development of
infrastructure, and the production of long-term investment strategies (Pisano, n.d.). The highly organized
TFL examined and understood the linkages of the national and international rails lines to the underground
system. With this, two upgrades to the system were introduced - the Crossrail and the London Overground.
These lines created more connectivity, increased the rail capacity, reduced travel time, increased ridership,
and affected the adjacent land uses especially in high-growth areas. Due to these changes the income
stream also increased (Pisano, n.d.). The $21 billion Crossrail project, which included 42 stations over 25
miles, was the largest capital structure project made in western countries. The funding strategy pulled from
three different sources - national funds, a beneficial use stream, and the increased productivity of
investments affected by the farebox recovery. Businesses were encouraged to support the underground
and overground systems. This allowed the for local authorities to implement community impact levies
(CILs) over the 50-year time period of the program, which are fees that are placed on business properties
that are put towards the cost of funding infrastructure (Pisano, n.d.).

6 | P a g e
The success factors in the case of London can be applied to elements of the US system. It is important to
keep in mind the following key elements of integrated problem solving and funding strategies (Pisano, n.d.):
 Policy and staff leadership must transcend political cycles and parties long-term. They must
identify the scale of the project, the correct spatial linkages, and a structure to capture benefits.
 Any strategic plan that includes a series of programming, projects, or investments tended toward a
specific outcome must have quantified benefits that can be used as a mechanism to motivate
users, consumers, and voters to pay the necessary fees.
 Collaboration on levels - public, private, and community - in order to identify which tradeoffs will
lead to a desirable outcome is necessary.
 Create accountability for the service through a marketing approach led by an executive that
brands the service with a great level of transparency and communication in order to build trust
with the existing and potential consumers and users.
 Mega-regional decision making framework that provides a nexus between decisions and actions
through the lens of finance. During fiscal stress, this will create more beneficial use funding
strategies to accompany the conventional tools. Create a team of staff that works together and
understands the significance of enterprise funding that accompanies the development of the
system.
Overall, these strategies changed the demographic composition, therefore, increasing the economic
competitiveness of London. With a clear organization structure and a focus on financing specific
infrastructure projects, it is possible to create beneficial change in your city.
4 ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS (EIFD)
Similar to London, Eco-Rapid Transit has taken a revolutionary approach to transit finance by taking a
transportation project and transforming it into one focused on economic development. Eco-Rapid member
cities have realized that collaboration is the key. In order to capture the most wealth for the region, this
cannot just be a project that uses Right-of-Way (ROW) and bids for the most attractive Transit Oriented
Development, but must in fact be a system wide regeneration effort. As Eco-Rapid Transit already foresees
the rail projects as economic and environmental justice projects, the project was inherently designed to
create wealth around newly developed transit stations, providing access to employment centers, and
improving the quality of life through new, affordable housing. With access to Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs), Eco-Rapid is poised to develop a business plan that captures the wealth created

7 | P a g e
by the transit line to fund environmentally efficient rail that creates competitive, attractive economic
development and improved quality of life for area residents.
4.1 Overview
Introduced first in February of 2013 by Senators Beall and Wolk, EIFD Senate Bill No. 628 was signed into
law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 26, 2014 as a mechanism to fund construction and
rehabilitation of public infrastructure projects in California. EIFDs are independent government entities that
“drive sustainable growth by connecting a vast number of infrastructure projects with a new array of
funding streams” and by placing financing decisions at the front of the planning stage, rather than after
(California Economic Summit, 2014). While dramatically and influentially different, EIFDs will likely have the
impacts on local agency planning and development similar to the Redevelopment Agencies of past. A brief
set of key terms and an explainer document can be found in Appendix A.
4.2 Funding Strategies
EIFD’s may fund infrastructure using the following mechanisms (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
Districts, 2014):
1. Property tax increment of consenting taxing agencies (cities, counties, special districts but not
schools).
2. Revenues from property tax corresponding to the increase in assessed valuation of taxable
property attributed to those property shares received by a city or county pursuant to in lieu of VLF
and dedicated to a city or county to the EIFD.
3. Property tax revenue distributed to a city, county or special district after payment of a successor
agency debts.
4. Fees or assessment revenues derived from one of 10 specified existing sources, including
assessments for benefits and developer fees.
5. Loans from a city, county or special district, that must be repaid at no more than the Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) interest rate that is in effect on the date the loan is approved by the
governing board of the city, county or special district making the loan.
6. User Fees and Partnerships derived from the use of the Infrastructure Finance and Investment
Act, which the EIFD can use as it is established as an separate government entity.
7. Availability Payments, annual payments to a third party, which sit as line item entries city or
county budgets and are amortized over a specified period.

8 | P a g e
4.3 Facilities Financed by an EIFD
A multitude of public and private infrastructure and facilities can be financed by EIFDs, including
infrastructure construction and rehabilitation. Jurisdictions may create an EIFD to finance the following
types of facilities, but they are not limited to only these infrastructure projects (League of California Cities,
n.d.):
 Highways, interchanges, ramps and bridges, arterial streets, parking and transit facilities.
 Parks, recreational facilities, open space and libraries.
 Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation. A district may use any powers of the
Polanco Redevelopment Act to remediate property.
 Acquisition, construction and repair of industrial structures for private use.
 Transit priority projects as defined under Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
 Projects which implement a sustainable community’s strategy.
 Mixed-income housing developments (An EIFD may fund only those units dedicated to low or
moderate income housing, and child care, after-school care and social services integrally linked to
the tenant of the restricted.
 Reimbursement of a developer located within the boundaries of a district for permit and other
expenses incurred when constructing affordable housing pursuant to the Transit Priority Project
Program under Section 65470 of the Government Code.
 Facilities constructed to house providers of consumer goods and services.
 Authority to make investments to renovate and develop industrial properties.
4.4 Differences between RDA, IFD, and EIFD
While sharing many similar components, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts differ significantly
from related Redevelopment Agencies and traditional Infrastructure Financing Districts.
Redevelopment Agencies: The dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) at the end of 2011 ended the
ability of local governments to capture a share of property taxes to combat blight. In existence for 60 years,
cities and counties in California had formed over 400 redevelopment agencies to areas determined as
blighted. RDAs were accountable to the public as they were overseen by a local city council, county board
of supervisors, or a distinct appointed board. The formation of a RDA did not require an election; instead,
any governing body within a county or city could initiate the formation (Blount, 2014).

9 | P a g e
Through public investment and the use of eminent domain, RDAs would stimulate private sector
investment on a variety of projects. Common project types include (California redevelopment agencies, the
sequel, 2013):
 Public and private capital improvements
 Public works projects
 Housing
The agencies were funded by the use of tax increment financing, which allowed for the entities to receive a
share of the increased property values generated by new investment and development. RDAs pledged the
tax increment to repay bonds and other debt initially used to finance the development. No voter approval
was required to issue bonds and 20 percent of the tax increment revenues were deposited into a “Low-and
Moderate-Income Housing Fund,” used to increase, improve, and preserve affordable housing in the
community (Greenhut, 2011).
Infrastructure Financing Districts: With RDAs dissolved, communities were forced to explore other financing
mechanism to stimulate economic development. One such mechanism is an Infrastructure Financing
District (IFD), which can help fund regional scale public works. The IFD, created by the 1990 California
statute, “The Infrastructure Financing District Act”, allows cities and counties to use a portion of the
property tax increment to finance defined public improvements for a period up to 30 years. The property
tax increment includes all collected property tax within the district, except for taxes allocated to school
districts, community college districts, county boards of education, and other taxing entities that did not
consent to the IFD formation (Reynolds & Thimmig, 2011). The tax increment is typically used for the
payment of IFD Revenue Bonds.
Unlike a RDA, an IFD must receive two-thirds voter approval by qualified electors in the district for both
bond issuance and for the initial formation. Further, the formation of an IFD also requires that an
infrastructure plan is developed, sent to every landowner within the district, and a public hearing be held.
The plan must be approved by all taxing entity within the district that will be contributing its property tax
increment.
Provisions within the Act detail the types of projects that IFDs can pursue. An IFD can finance the purchase,
construction, expansion, rehabilitation, and retrofit of public capital facilities, such as highways, water
systems, flood control, parks, solid waste facilities, ramps and bridges, transit, sewer projects, child care
facilities, libraries, parking facilities, and residential units (Infrastructure Financing Districts, n.d.).

10 | P a g e
Other provisions state that the IFD is unable to pay for maintenance, repairs, services, and operating costs
related to the project and the useful life of projects must be at least 15 years. While the projects do not
have to in areas determined as blighted, the must provide benefits to an area larger than the district.
Additionally, the district must not overlap an existing RDA.
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts: The newest tool, an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
(EIFD), looks to fill the void left by RDAs by loosening the provisions of an IFD. An EIFD can be formed by a
city, county, or special district through the development of an infrastructure financing plan, instead of a
two-third voter approval. The district may also be governed by multiple taxing entities, including
municipalities, counties, and special districts, but the entities must consent to the allocation of their portion
of property tax increment to the district. Moreover, bonds supported by tax increment financing can be
issued with 55 percent of the electorate, not the two-thirds required by the IFD. The bond period has also
been extended to 45 years from the date of bond approval.
Further advancements include a broader range of projects that could be served by an EIFD. The EIFD can
also serve projects such as transit priority projects, low- and moderate-income housing, projects under
sustainable communities strategies, and environmental remediation. EIFDs also allow for tax increment
financing to be combined with other revenue streams, such as assessment and fee revenues, parking
districts, availability payments, and private investment.
To summarize, the EIFD allows for greater flexibility by offering a wider array of funding sources and
investment projects than the IFD. Furthermore, the 55 percent voter approval provides the district with a
more streamlined procedure for investment.
Table 2: Comparison of RDA, IFD and EIFD
RDA IFD EIFD
Forming Process No election required ⅔ Voter Approval No election required
Project Types
Blighted Areas Public Capital Facilities Public Capital Facilities (+)
Community Significance
Financing
Tools/Resources
Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing Multiple Funding
Streams:
Tax Increment Financing,
Development Impact fee,
Special Assessment
District, Developer
Agreement, User Fees
Issues Bonds
No voter approval
required
⅔ Voter Approval 55% voter approval
Longevity ~ 40 years 30 years 45 years

11 | P a g e
4.5 Benefits and Barriers of EIFD
Benefits: The EIFD provides cities and counties with several major benefits, including:
1. Greater financing authority: More revenue streams can be dedicated to funding a project under
an EIFD structure. Operating as a separate governmental entity, the district has the authority to
earn a portion of revenue from property tax increment, user, benefit fees and assessments,
among other revenue sources.
2. More infrastructure investments: EIFDs may fund other projects beyond “public capital
facilities”, including projects of “community wide significance”. Examples of such projects include
brownfield restoration, transit priority projects, projects relating to a sustainable communities
strategy, and the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of industrial facilities and low- and
moderate-income housing.
3. Longevity: From the date bonds have been issued or loans approved, the EIFD has 45 years to
receive funding support for their projects. This is 15 years longer than the 30 years allotted for
IFDs.
4. Increased collaboration among agencies: Different taxing entities that provide tax increment to
the EIFD and members of the public may / are required to sit on the district’s governing board.
Barriers: Despite its increased flexibility and streamlined approach, SB 628 does place some limits on the
formation and authority of EIFDs. Those limits include:
1. RDA Dissolution: If a local government previously created a RDA, the agency must have fully
completed the process of concluding its actions before the local government may proceed with
EIFD formation.
2. Tax-Increment Consent and Limits: A taxing entity within the district must approve and opt into
contributing its tax increment to an EIFD. Schools and other non-consenting tax entities cannot
divert their increment to the district.
3. Voter approval still required: An EIFD does not require voter approval in order to be formed;
local governments can form an EIFD without holding an election. However, issuing tax-increment
bonds does require a 55 percent vote, decreased from two-thirds vote required by an IFD.

12 | P a g e
4.6 Multiple Funding Streams Available to use in EIFDs
A leading benefit of the EIFD is multiple funding streams can be used in the same district. The following is
an overview of some types of funding streams but it does not represent the only options available:
1. Tax Increment Financing: Public taxing entities use the tax increment financing to capture
incremental property tax revenues from designated areas as compared to the base year. Prior to
dissolution in 2012, tax increments used to be a common financing tool for Community
Redevelopment Agencies in California. Now, SB 628 entitles cities to use tax increment financing to
finance infrastructure by creating EIFDs. Under the new law, only 55% vote is needed to issue debt
backed by AB8 Tax Increment as compared to previous legislations requiring a threshold of two
thirds vote. The tax revenue is divided into different pools, which go to cities, counties, school
districts and other taxing entities. Under SB 628, cities are not able to divert property tax revenues
from school or community college districts. In the case of Eco-Rapid Transit line, cities in the OLDA
can capture the wealth by AB8 Tax Increment and VLF Backfill to finance the capital improvement.
2. Development Impact Fee: Under the Mitigation Fee Act, cities are allowed to charge developers
one-time development impact fees to mitigate the negative impacts associated with new
developments. The development impact fee should be charged based on reasonable findings of a
relation between new development and paying the fees. As it does not require voter approval, it
has been widely used to financing transportation and other infrastructure. The fees cannot be
used to fund existing deficiencies and cities must fund other sources to cover the cost of existing
uses. However, new infrastructure financed by the development impacts fee as a result of new
development, can benefit existing communities and future infrastructure users as well. In the case
of Eco-Rapid Transit Line, it will benefit the current communities by improving mobility and
enticing economic development opportunities.
3. Special Assessment District: Under a special assessment district, property owners agree to pay
additional assessment annually to fund special improvements within that district. The special
assessment should be directly proportional to the benefits the property owners will get prior to
payment. A simple majority is required to create a special assessments district. California Law
allows cities to create different type of special assessment districts to finance different types of
infrastructures. In the case of Eco-Rapid Transit line, special assessments can be charged, due to
improving mobility and economic development, as a result of the transit line.
4. Development Agreement: California law authorizes cities to negotiate with developer in order to
get desired development and new infrastructure in exchange of development rights. The public
improvement is based on project size, parking ratios and construction cost and other factors,

13 | P a g e
affecting anticipated cost and revenues. No voter approval is required. In the case of Eco-Rapid
Transit Corridor, new developers are attracted and the development agreement can be made by
negotiation to put fund new infrastructure.
5. Parking Management (or Other User Fees): A parking management district, which combines
several tools, can be created to finance the infrastructure and ensure efficient utilization of the
infrastructure. No vote approval is needed. In the case of Eco-Rapid Corridor, parking fees can be
charged for retail and residential uses and incentives can be provided to park-and-ride users to
utilize the transit line.
5 PROPOSED EIFD IMPLEMENTATION FOR ECO-RAPID
Establishing the structure for the Eco-Rapid EIFD is critical to financing success yet there are several
ways to use an EIFD. In the instance of Eco-Rapid, member cities should take full advantage of the already
established Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and use a three phased set up approach (see Appendix B). This
structure will allow each jurisdiction to manage their own land-use plans while working in concert with the
line to streamline planning and administration. As Eco-Rapid staff recognize, the line will be most
successful if the stations are planned through a collaborative effort. Therefore, it is recommended that the
existing Eco-Rapid JPA enter into a cooperative agreement with each member city to participate in an EIFD
as the primary mechanism of funding for the line. Once cities have finalized their land use plans and
established an EIFD, the JPA can then serve as the management and administration for the cities’ EIFDs
through capacities established under California’s Joint Powers Authority statute.
Phase 1 - Mobilize JPA: Use current JPA to research, discuss, and propose EIFDs as the mechanism to fund
Eco-Rapid Transit.
Phase 2 - Individual Jurisdictions Create EIFD: It is imperative jurisdictions develop and adopt a strong
General Plan or Specific Plan around the planned stations that support the business plan appropriate for
an EIFD. The need to fund plan development is being communicated to State’s Strategic Growth Council
discussions on Cap and Trade monies, (Bridegam, 2014). For stations that touch multiple jurisdictions, city
staff should coordinate Planning efforts. In order to capture future value of development, the land will be
entitled through a planning process streamlined through collaboration with the JPA.
After this is complete, each city will create an EIFD in the surrounding station area within their jurisdiction.
To establish an EIFD, no vote is required. In order to pursue financing activity, the establishing city council
of the EIFD will need to ensure the EIFD also serves as a Public Financing Authority (PFA) with a governing
board. The board will include three members of the legislative body of participating entity (the City) plus

14 | P a g e
two members appointed from the public. With the powers provided to EIFD acting as a PFA, the EIFD will
create a financing strategy based on the cities’ General and Specific Plans and manage any voting for bond
issuance.
Phase 3 - JPA Manages and Administers EIFDs: After all JPA members establish individual EIFDs, the JPA can
amend their agreement to be responsible for Eco-Rapid member’s EIFD’s financing management and
administration. Through this mechanism, multiple EIFDs may collaborate on strategy, share the burden of
administrative costs, and share revenues to cover these administrative costs - all while maintaining the
jurisdictional land use decisions (California State Legislature Senate Local Government Committee, 2007,
pg. 27). The JPA should continue to consulate parties such as the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), Los
Angeles County, Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), and Gateway Cities Council of
Governments - all with vested interested in the successful execution of the EIFD.
5.1 Specific Steps for Eco-Rapid to Create and use EIFDs
The following steps are the proposed plan of action for Eco-Rapid to take as they look to implement EIFDs.
Note: some steps may run in parallel while others must be sequential.
1. Prior to establishing an EIFD, jurisdiction must dissolve remnants of redevelopment agency and
adhere to these guidelines (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, Provision 53398.54):
a. Within 10 days of a city or county’s legislative body’s action to participate in an IFD, the city
or county certifies to the Department of Finance and to the public financing authority that
no former redevelopment agency assets are the subject of litigation involving the state.
b. An EIFD may finance only the facilities authorized to the extent that the facilities are in
addition to those provided in the territory of the district before the district was created.
c. EIFD debt is subordinate to obligations of former Redevelopment Agency.
d. Available Tax Revenue does not include any pre-existing commitments to the
Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund.
2. Create funding mechanism to invest in General Plan Update. This need is being communicated to
the Cap and Trade monies of the State’s Strategic Growth Council (M. Pisano, Personal
Communication, November 2014).
3. Complete Station Area Land Use Plans, Specific Plan or General Plan updates for highest and best
uses (ex: adopt AECOM study). Planning for highest and best can be done through changes to
zoning and real estate improvements. Zoning changes involve changing land uses from residential
to commercial or light industrial. Real estate improvements include implementing Floor-to-Air ratio
(FAR) minimums and/or density requirements.

15 | P a g e
4. The existing EPA coordinates individual jurisdictions to establish an EIFD around the proposed
station. Each jurisdiction will take the following steps:
a. Define the EIFD project scope. Recommend a 2-3 mile radius from Eco-Rapid Station to
capture the full breadth of investments and regeneration related to the station.
b. Create EIFD financing capacities by developing a Public Financing Authority with three
members of the jurisdiction’s legislative body plus two publicly appointed members.
Recommend including additional board members from MTA and County.
c. Board members will not receive compensation but are eligible for reimbursement of
expenses incurred during official duties.
5. Amend existing Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to coordinate financing activities, administration and
management of affiliated resources.
6. Through the JPA and using revenues contributed from jurisdictions EIFDs, hire staff specifically
dedicated to EIFDs for management of financial reporting required by EIFDs as well as
coordination with different agencies.
7. EIFDs develop and execute a package of financing tools. Based on the planning and entitlements in
each jurisdiction, the financing tools do not have to be the same across the line. However,
consistency will benefit the administrative duties of the JPA and encourage development by
mitigating the uncertainties and risk for the private sector. The package may, but is not limited to,
a combination of Tax Increment Financing, Development Impact Fee, Special Assessment Districts,
Development Agreement, and Parking Management (or Other User Fees).
8. If required, Issue Public Debt once funding sources has been decided.
a. The annual revenue stream of an EIFD that is used as an availability payment to retire the
obligation of a private investor does not need a vote.
b. An EIFD can be in place for up to 45 years.
9. Transition into day-to-day management and operations.
6 CASE STUDY: DOWNEY STATION
In order to understand the financial opportunities of an EIFD, our team evaluated a singular station to
demonstrate how the individual jurisdictions may individually and collaboratively use EIFDs for Eco-Rapid
Funding. The proposed Downey Station serves as a strong example of the value capture possible using the
combined revenue streams provisioned for in an EIFD due to its complexity with three jurisdictions in the
regeneration catchment area (Downey, South Gate, and Cudahy), large swatch of County land in the station
area, and data available for analysis.

16 | P a g e
Figure 2: Intersection of Gardendale Street and Garfield Avenue
6.1 Station Overview
Known as the Downey-Gardendale Station, the station is located in a dynamic area of the City of Downey
where redevelopment and revitalization plans are creating a visionary mixed-use regional employment and
destination center. The predominant land uses surrounding the station area are single institutional to the
north and northeast and single-family residential south and southwest. Industrial uses dominate the main
north-south corridor. Two Specific Plans currently are in place:
1. Rancho Los Amigos Specific Plan: The business center, located in the southwest corner of the
city, is a public/private joint venture between the County and Fremont Properties on County-
owned Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center land. The concept involves phasing out the existing
medical center and replacing it with commercial manufacturing, including professional offices,
research and development activities, light manufacturing, financial institutions, and restaurants.
Retail uses would also be of convenience to employees and visitors of the other uses in the area
(AECOM, 2013).
2. Redevelopment Plan for the Downey Redevelopment Project: The proposed station is located
within Gardendale/Downey Area (see Figure 3). The Plan includes the City’s desire to improve,
upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the city, which have become blighted because of deterioration,
disuse and unproductive conditions. Objectives include providing construction and employment
opportunities in the new industrial/commercial establishments as well as encouraging existing,
surrounding owners, businesses, and tenants to participate in the redevelopment activities, thus
sustaining the existing economic base of the community (AECOM, 2013)

17 | P a g e

In addition, there are several General Plan Policies consistent with the station development project which
includes: Land Use Policy 1.2.1-Program 1.2.1.2, Economic Development Policy 9.1.2-Program 9.1.2.2, and
Circulation Element Policy 2.4.1-Program 2.4.1.1(AECOM, 2013).
Data Source: U.S Census Bureau, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal
Figure 4: Percentage of Non-white
Population
Figure 3: Median Household Income

18 | P a g e
Figure 5: Existing Land Use Map
Data Source: Southern California Association of Governments

19 | P a g e
In the Gardendale station study area, the biggest parcel within the opportunity area is the Rancho Los
Amigos campus, owned by Los Angeles County. According to the Rancho Los Angeles Campus Specific Plan,
the future building program on the South Campus will accommodate a daycare center, restaurant, retail,
community facilities, office and other uses (AECOM, 2013). It shows a motive for Los Angeles County to
lease out the property and a huge opportunity to generate revenue with EIFD. If the county is willing to
engage in the TOD project, more tax revenue can be captured. When a person or entity leases, rents or
uses real estate owned by a government agency for its exclusive use, a taxable possessory interest occurs.
The taxation of this type of interest is similar to the taxation of owners of privately owned property.
6.2 Opportunities for Value Capture
The EIFD offers an opportunity to finance existing and future infrastructure, as cites are able to use tax
increment financing to capture wealth. Value is created (and should be captured) by zoning change, real
estate improvements, and investment in a transformative infrastructure of the transit line that can
regenerate the area around the stations. Further, these investments are long-term and effects are
compounded over the duration.
Change in Zoning: Development of a rail station and change in land use can facilitate new development
and ensure better utilization of the infrastructure. Cities can capture value by changing land use, including
density and land use types. Together, this can increase land value. These projects are intentionally
designed attract economic development.
Specifically with this rail project, Transit-Oriented-Developments (TOD) will feature a mix of land uses,
moderate to high density, pedestrian mobility and connectivity, and better landscape design. According to
Garfield Corridor Specific Plan, the zoning along the Garfield Corridor will be converted from residential use
to retail use (City of South Gate, 2009).
Real Estate Improvement: As property value is assessed by the land value and improvement on land, real
estate improvement can be another strategy to capture wealth. This type of value increase is usually
associated with zoning changes but is above and beyond. The change in land use will inevitably lead to new
real estate improvements, for example to build a new retail store. And the change in density will directly
encourage higher FAR or more building units based on existing land use, for example to build a new
apartment on existing residential use land. Noticeably, land value won’t change until transaction of land
occurs. So density increase won’t necessarily lead to increase in land value while real estate improvements
on use-changed land could capture both increases in land value as well as improvement value.

20 | P a g e
In the Gardendale / Downey station case; there are two types of real estate improvement generating
revenues. First, retail and commercial improvement will occur after a zoning change along Garfield
Corridor. For instance, the retail office and industrial development along with zoning change of the Rancho
Los Amigos Plan will generate nearly one million tax increment revenues (AECOM, 2013). Second, value will
increase as a result of residential or commercial improvements encouraged by density increase from the
new transit village near the Firestone & Atlantic Intersection as detailed in the Redevelopment Specific Plan
for Downey Redevelopment Project. A second transit village on Garfield Avenue with plans for high density
housing, retail and office use, as detailed in the City of Southgate General Plan 2035, will further perpetuate
real estate improvement in the area (Community Design + Architecture). As the rail project will improve
mobility and accessibility, new construction will be likely take place within the opportunity areas around the
stations. The introduction of Eco-Rapid Transit will create a huge opportunity to capture real estate
improvement wealth.
Investment and Regeneration around the Station: Studies demonstrate transit lines have a positive
effect on property value in the station vicinities 11. However, the “transit premium”, or the value added to
property by locating proximity to public transit, may vary depending on distance and property type. This
impact of transit on property value is scaled, as seen in Table 1. Even with no change in zoning or real
estate improvements, cities recognize value by investing in transit development project.
In terms of Gardendale Station, by creating an EIFD the City of Downey and the City of Southgate can use
tax increment financing along with other financing tool to fund the eco-rapid transit project and in turns
capture a long term “transit premium” (Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc., 2012).
Table 3: Summary of Estimated Property Value Premium (Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc, 2012)
Long-Term Impacts of These Investments: Public transit investment can have significantly positive
impact on economy both in short-term and long-term. well-known long-term impacts like cost saving, social
justice benefits, and environmental benefits, cities also recognize compounding values of the revenues

21 | P a g e
streams created by transit projects. Gains captured by zoning change, real estate improvement, transit
premium and possessory interests can be compounded over a 45-year time frame in an EIFD.
6.3 Financial Strategy & Modeling Results
Analysis demonstrates that the best opportunities to capture the wealth created by the proposed
Gardendale/Downey Station will be through (A) property tax increment and developer fees, (B) revenues
from property tax corresponding to the increase in assessed valuation of taxable property attributed to
those property shares received by a city or county pursuant to in lieu of Vehicle License Fees, and ‘(C)
parking management user fees. The revenue streams recognized here are based on a best estimate for
future land use plans. (Note: it is strongly advised that prior to establishing an EIFD, the jurisdictions
surrounding the station make a coordinated approach to develop land use plans that yield the highest and
best land uses for value capture).
6.3.1 Tax Increment Financing and Developer Fees
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a funding tool available for use by the EIFD, which allows the district to
capture a portion of the increased property tax values resulting from a development project. To determine
the growth, the current-assessed value of all parcels within a boundary (the base value) and the resulting
property tax value must first be determined. Once the base value has been established, the increased
property assessed value, resulting from the new development, will be calculated in order to determine the
incremental property tax value that can be allocated to the district.

For the Gardendale/ Downey Station Case, we propose a time two-phase business plan in order to capture
potential value. The first phase captures increases in value from 2014-2019, while the second phases
focuses on increases expected from 2020-2025. This two-phase business plan will incorporate gains
recognized from rezoning, real estate improvement, transit premium generated from the station, taxable
possessory interest as well as integrate all four financing tools identified above. Figure 6 illustrates the
proposed future land uses within the ½ mile catchment basin. Detailed of assumptions and analysis can be
found in the Appendix C.

22 | P a g e
Figure 6: Future Land Use of Gardendale/Downey Station Based on Highest and Best Use

23 | P a g e
Phase 1: A high density, mix-used Garfield corridor with commercial vitality and a more attractive
employment center in Hollydale Industrial District.
According to Garfield Corridor Specific Plan, Garfield Corridor is designed to evolve into a corridor
resembling a revitalized main street with a variety of residential uses, high-end retail, improved landscaping
and building improvement that promote a pedestrian-oriented corridor. In the General Plan 2035, it
designates to improve density along the Garfield Corridor on FAR and units/acre (City of South Gate, 2009).
Following the Specific Plan and General Plan, the team identified the following value capture opportunities:
1) Rezoning along Garfield Corridor by converting 50% of the residential use land to commercial and retail
use; 2) Increasing commercial and retail land use density up to FAR 3.0 as shown in other LA Metro TOD
projects and the residential land use density to 30 units/ acre; 3) Facilitate real estate improvement on both
re-zoned parcels and existing residential and commercial uses by allowing three-story commercial building
residential buildings corresponding to the density increase (improvement costs are $211/SF for commercial
and $191,000/ D.U for residential uses respectively); 4) Instituting a developer Fee in both Garfield Corridor.
Developer fee is charged at $28/SF on commercial and retail development while a $26,000/D.U. fee for
residential projects (Economic & Planning Systems Inc., 2014).
In addition to the Garfield Corridor, rezoning in the Hollydale Industrial District constitutes value capture
opportunities, where the Specific Plan encourages transition from manufacturing/distribution to highly
desired light industrial/flex to make this district more attractive. This includes converting heavy
manufacturing parcels into retail and light industrial uses and increase the density in the whole district up
to FAR 2.0 (City of South Gate, 2009). Consistent with the Garfield Corridor, real estate improvement and
developer fee were also identified as value capture opportunities (Economic & Planning Systems Inc., 2014).
Improvement costs are $104/SF for light industrial development and 10% of the construction cost can be
attributed to developer fee.
Using these assumptions and recommendations, future property values along Garfield Corridor increased
from $21,856,754 to $418,819,387 yielding, $4,680,983 in available tax increment per annum and
$46,937,379 developer fees available in 2025. The Hollydale Industrial District yields a tax increment of
$909,372 per annum and $6,746,562 in developer fees available in 2025.
Phase Two: An economically robust transit-oriented district within a ½ catchment basin from the
Gardendale/Downey Station.
Introducing public transit station will create a positive transit premium on nearby property values,
commercial activities and urban growth (Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc., 2012). With the

24 | P a g e
opening of Gardendale/Downey Station, possessory interest, VLF backfill money, transit premium, real
estate improvement, developer fees and parking management fees
In the northeastern side of the Gardendale/Downey Station, there is approximately 74 acres of Los Angeles
County owned mixed-use land known as the “Rancho Campus.” According to Rancho Los Amigos Campus
Plan, the Rancho Campus will consolidate a revitalized rehabilitation center and administrative campus
housing with public amenities and recreational spaces. By constructing physical improvement and leasing
out near 20 acre of parcels in adjacent to the South Rancho Campus, there becomes an enriched the
revenue stream through taxable possessory interest. This South Rancho Campus includes office,
commercial uses, industrial uses, daycare center and other community and county offices with total
1,808,116 building SF available for real estate improvements which should include imposing a 2:8 retail to
residential uses ratio and 3.0 FAR. The City of South Gate’s property tax is suggested for tax rate of
possessory interest.
Under the jurisdiction of the City of South Gate, the Imperial Industrial District is situated between the
proposed Downey-Gardendale Station and the Los Angeles River. As of the currently, the district is mainly
comprise of heavy manufacturing, light industrial, warehouses and sporadic parcels of commercial uses
(City of South Gate General Plan 2035, 2009). According to the General Plan, land uses along the major
corridors of Garfield Avenue and Imperial Highway is envisioned to be converted to multi-family residential
buildings in support of the potential Eco-Rapid Transit station (City of South Gate General Plan 2035, 2009).
Land uses adjacent to the LA River can still be utilized as light manufacturing; however, Office and Research
& Development (R&D) land uses are highly desirable (City of South Gate General Plan 2035, 2009). In the
opening transit year of 2025, currently vacant and/or undesirable land uses were converted to the vision
listed above.
In the second-phase of our business strategy, we are estimated to successfully generate $3,471,410 future
tax increment per annum, $444,242 of which results from taxable possessory interest. Through real estate
improvement on South Rancho Campus, we could capture around $955,263 tax increment per annum and
$2,629,427 in developer fees available 2025. The opening of the Gardendale/ Downey Station will bring
$328,321 transit premium exclusively on condominium and apartment. Imperial industrial area and
surrounding residential SFR will generate $931,598 and $811,598 tax increment respectively.
Combining both phase one and phase two, the total tax increment per annum reaches $9,061,765 with an
amount of $56,313,368 developer fees. More tax increment detail is showed in the following table:

25 | P a g e
Table 4: Tax Increment and Developer Fees of Gardendale-Downey Station
Phase 1 (2014-
2019)
Existing
Property
Value
Existing
Property
Tax
Future
Property
Value
Transit
Premium
Future
Property
Tax
Tax
Increment
Impact and
Developer
Fees
Garfield
Corridor
$21,856,754 $257,735 $418,819,387 $14,484,396 $4,938,718 $4,680,983 $46,937,379
Hollydale $14,125,230 $166,565 $91,242,919 $585,236 $1,075,937 $909,372 $6,746,562
Phase 2 (2020-
2025)
Existing
Property
Value
Existing
Property
Tax
Future
Property Value
Transit
Premium
Future
Property
Tax
Tax
Increment
Impact and
Developer
Fees
LA County
owned Parcel
$6,030,881 $1,612,311 $174,402,475 $212,442 $2,056,554 $444,242 N/A
Rancho
Campus
$25,755,431 $303,708 $106,764,888 $34,905,769 $1,258,972 $955,264 $2,629,427
Apartment in
½ catchment
basin
$56,210,758 $638,111 $85,673,578 $1,595,277 $966,432 $328,321 N/A
Imperial
Industrial
Area
$46,272,188 $545,642 $125,274,720 $7,855,989 $1,477,240 $931,598 $4,573,382
Surrounding
Residential
SFR
$263,270,371 $3,009,940 $330,788,886 $7,157,470 $3,821,719 $811,985 N/A
Total $170,251,243 $3,524,072 $1,002,177,969 $59,639,109 $11,773,852 $9,061,765 $60,886,750
6.3.2 Motor Vehicle-in-Lieu Fees (VLF)
Also known as the “Vehicle License Fee”, VLF is a revenue source collected by California State as part of
driver’s annual registration fee. The State collects the VLF from the Department of Motor Vehicles in which
a certain portion of these VLF is the reallocated back to the City in the form of additional property tax
revenue. Through EIFD, cities have an opportunity to pledge a portion of this VLF to support of the transit
infrastructure improvement (F. Silva, Personal Communication, November 2014).
The following Table 5 summarizes the amount of VLF backfill that can be captured during opening year.

26 | P a g e
Table 5: VLF Backfill Revenue Stream
Within the ½ Mile Catchment Basin VLF Backfill at Opening Year (per year)
Property under the City of South Gate $1,549,658
Property under the City of Downey $145,994
Property under the Los Angeles County $2,312,391
Total $4,008,043
A detailed analysis of the VLF for the ½ mile catchment basin can be found in Appendix D. It is anticipated
that at the transit line opening year of 2025, a total of approximately $4 million dollars of the VLF backfill
can be allocated to the ½ mile catchment basin. At a growth rate of 2% per annum, a total of $118 million
can be collected within the 45 year time frame of EIFD.
6.3.3 Parking Management Fees
Value Generating Parking Mechanism
A series of parking mechanisms can be used to capture wealth within the vicinity of the Downey-
Gardendale Station and they are as follows (Office of Sustainable Communities – Smart Growth Program,
2013):
 User Fees – By properly charging the on and off-street parking, we are not only able to offset the
operation & maintenance cost but also generates a steady form of revenue.
 In lieu fees – Developers have the opportunity to reduce their minimum parking requirements
through the paying of a one-time fee. The reduction would enable developers to save a significant
construction cost, particularly for developers that are required to construct a parking structure.
 Transportation or Parking Impact Fees – A form of in-lieu fee that requires the developers to pay a
one-time fee based on the impact their development has created on the transportation system or
parking supply.
These parking mechanisms have to be coupled with other transportation-related management strategies
to attain maximum potential. This includes:
 Time Limits – This strategy can ensure that the parking spaces are effectively utilized to capture a
spectrum of users. For instance, Old Pasadena in California charges relatively high for their on-
street parking with restricted time limit. This would eliminate employees and office users from
parking at spaces that can be used to more generate more economical benefits for the front facing
retail and commercial stores. The restricted time limit would also ensure higher turnover rates and
generate more parking revenue for the city (Shoup, 2005).

27 | P a g e
 Shared Parking – Allowing various land uses to share the same parking facility instead of
constructing parking facilities separately (Office of Sustainable Communities – Smart Growth
Program, 2013). Having one parking facility can also enable motorist to visit multiple destinations
without having drive. In addition, developers are also able to reduce their parking requirements
when parking facilities are shared. For instance, the peak parking demand for restaurants are at
weekend nights while another land use like office has peak parking demand during weekday
(Litman, 2013).
 Reducing Parking Requirements – The introduction of transit corridor encourages the surrounding
community’s reliance on automobiles as their primary form of transportation. Hence, conventional
parking requirements can be significantly reduced to accommodate the lower automobile trips
(Shoup, 2005).
There are opportunities to utilize all the parking management strategies to capture revenue. However, for
the purpose of the study, emphases have been made on in-lieu fees, and reduce parking requirements.
User fees was not take into consideration as it would require a detailed understanding of the potential
market condition of the area as well as the forecasted transit ridership that the station.
Parking Analysis In-Lieu Fees
As mentioned previously, the purpose of the in-lieu fee is to enable developers to reduce their parking
requirements in replacement of a one-time development fee. This parking mechanism is favourable
towards developers as they can significantly reduce their burden in attempts to meet the conventional
parking requirements. In-Lieu fee is also valuable to the City as revenue can be obtained from reducing
parking requirement which then can be used for facilitate other transportation improvements.
In order to determine the in-lieu fee generated by the half-mile catchment basin, the following approach
was utilized:
1. Identify the required parking spaces for every proposed development based on the existing
standards.
2. Generate the construction cost associated with the required parking spaces.
3. Reduce the parking requirement and identified the reduced parking spaces required for every
proposed development.
4. Generate a construction cost associated with the reduced parking spaces.
5. It is then assumed that 20% (aggressive approach) of the different between cost of required
and reduce parking spaces would be the in-lieu fee paid by the developer as form of

28 | P a g e
development fee. A conservative approach of 10% was also taken into consideration (see
Appendix E).
Additional assumptions were also made in the analytical process and they are provided in Appendix E. The
following Table 6 summarizes the in-lieu fee that can be generated from the in-lieu fee.
Table 6: Parking In-Lieu Fee Revenue Stream
Parking In-Lieu Fee
Conservative Approach (10%) Aggressive Approach (20%)
Phase 1 $1,588,650 $3,177,300
Phase 2 $1,395,816 $2,270,983
Total $2,984,466 $5,448,283
The figure below illustrates the total number of parking spaces required based on existing parking
standards and the total number of parking spaces after the reduction of parking requirements.
Figure 7: Parking Requirement Analysis
Parking as an Opportunity Cost

29 | P a g e
For the past couple of decades, parking planning have been perceived as a public good in which there
should be (1) abundant supply of parking and; (2) free at majority of the traveller’s destination. This
perception of urban planning have resulted in the constructed of underutilized parking facilities that has
left local government to face budget shortfalls. In addition, conventional parking standards take on a
conservative approach in which further exacerbating the parking supply required (Shoup, 2005).
By reducing the parking requirement and applying in-lieu fee, we are able to capture the correct value of
parking. The reduction of parking supply enables developer to free up their land and utilized those
additional spaces for better community improvements (City of South Gate, 2009). As indicated previously,
the value of land within the vicinity of the Transit station increase with respect to time. The opportunity
cost of those parking spaces within the area would also increase proportionally. Through the identification
of various supportive parking policies and parking management strategies, we would be able to facilitate
developers in meeting the anticipated parking demands while being fiscally sustainable.
6.4 Summary of Value Capture
The following Table 7 summarizes the value captured using various financials tools.
Table 7: Summary of Value Capture for Downey-Gardendale Station
Downey-Gardendale Station
Tax Increment Financing (per year) $9,061,765
Developer Impact Fee (one-time fee) $60,886,750
VLF Backfill (per year) $4,008,043
Parking In-Lieu Fee (one-time fee) $5,448,283
Total Capture at Opening Year, 2025 $79,404,841
Total Net Value Capture (45 Year Time Frame) $464,835,576

Approximately $79 million dollars can be captured at the 2025 opening year of the transit station. Long-
term, the investments result in total value capture of $464 million for a 45 year time frame as per the
structure of the EIFD. By implementing the right investment strategies with the introduction of the Eco-
Rapid Transit, the total assessed value of the ½ mile catchment basin around the Gardendale / Downey
Station alone increased from $301 million in 2014 to $2.44 billion, 45 years later. This is approximately 7
times the original assessed value of property that once was considered to be a rust belt.

30 | P a g e
7 TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL ANALYSIS
The example analysis was a simplistic and rudimentary approach to gain understanding of an EIFD’s
magnitude; however, there are many products available to calculate the exact value capture for which
jurisdictions may issue debt.
Envision Tomorrow Plus (ET+) is a suite of urban and regional planning tools that support planning for the
future of cities and regions. The ET+ can be used to model development feasibility on a site-by-site basis as
well as create and evaluate multiple land use scenarios. In addition to the modeling and evaluating
functions, The ET+ can also test and refine transportation plans, produce small area concept plans, and
model complex regional issue. In this project, the ET + is applied to model the land use changes around the
Eco-Rapid Transit stations by evaluating different land use scenarios.
Scenario planning is mainly composed of the following steps:
1. Create a framework for the scenario planning process
To get started, we identified our key planning issue—using transportation as an investment to
regenerate the southeast of Los Angeles County where the Eco-Rapid Transit passes through. The
investment strategies are expected to facilitate economic development in the community with the
consideration of environmental justice and urban greening. To simplify the planning process, we
only focus on the Downey station and define the study area as 0.5 mile-radius buffer around the
station.
2. Select evaluation criteria
This step involves making decisions about outcomes you want to measures to objectively
compare a range of possible futures. The evaluation criteria should reflect adopted community
goals, and may also address new or emerging community goals or issues. The evaluation criteria
are used to communicate the benefits, impacts, and tradeoffs of different policy choices and
investments within each alternative scenario.
3. Set up for scenario planning
The basis of scenario planning and evaluating is data collection and building blocks development.
Building blocks, the basis for scenario development of the ET +, describe the different types of
land uses that exist, or are planned for the future within the planning area. Each building block
includes a mix of different types of buildings along with development character assumptions such
as the amount of land devoted to streets, parks, and civic areas. We got block-level shapefiles of
both current land use and future land use from Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG).

31 | P a g e
As for GIS data, we created a buildable lands layer that can be used for scenario painting. With
land use layer added and Envision Tomorrow Plus installed, we selected several building types
from the building library according to the existing building types and the possible building types
that may occur in the future. To get the specific information, such as land price and improvement
price of each parcel, we referred to the website of Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor and
created a spreadsheet containing Residential units, Residential Square foot, land value,
improvement value, total value, and year built.
4. Create a current condition base case and a reference case
This step aims to make people understand where they currently are and where they are headed
in the future. Using the ET + to document existing conditions, we were able to estimate the likely
outcomes from existing plans and recent development trends. The results of these analyses help
the community identify the building types that are feasible to the study area, determine whether
or not the current plans will meet important community goals, and evaluate the future scenarios
given the current development trends continue.
5. Scenario experimentation and evaluation
The ET + is used to estimate outcomes of the scenarios that involves with different combinations
of changes to land use and the transportation system. Experiments of exploring both building-
level scenario options and land use scenario options are needed to evaluate alternative scenarios
and finally create a final scenario that captures the vision of the community.
8 CONCLUSION
The Eco-Rapid Corridor is primed to use transit to regenerate communities through competitive,
attractive economic development. Members of the Eco-Rapid Joint Powers Authority have already
recognized that gains from of working together as a corridor translate into revitalized communities. By
continuing to work in collaboration through the JPA, jurisdictions can implement Eco-Rapid’s vision through
the formation of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts to more quickly deliver this transit line to the
region. To move forward and recognize these benefits, Eco-Rapid members must continue to think and
work together. With a heavy focus on developing strong land use plans to serve as the Corridor’s Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District business plan, competitive and attractive economic development along the
Eco-Rapid line can begin now.

32 | P a g e
REFERENCES
AECOM. (2013). “Gardendale Station – City of Downey.” Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from http://www.eco-
rapid.org/Project/studies_reports/Downey%20Station%20Area_AECOM.pdf
Blount et al. (2014). “Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure.” U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/Redevelopment_WhitePaper.pdf
Bridegam, M. (2014, September 24). SGC proposes 40% of cap-and-trade funds for transit-oriented
development. California Planning & Development Report. Retrieved on December 9th, 2014 from
http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3578
California Economic Summit. (2014, September 3). FUNDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: A HOW-TO GUIDE FOR USING
ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS IN SB 628 (BEALL)
California Legislature Senate Local Government Committee. (2007, August). Governments Working Together: A
Citizens Guide to Joint Powers Agreements. Retreieved on December 7, 2014 from
http://www.calafco.org/docs/Senate_LG_JPA_Report.pdf
“California redevelopment agencies, the sequel.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times. 22 September 2013. Online.
Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/opinion/la-ed-
redevelopment-20130922
City of South Gate. (2009, December). South Gate General Plan 2035. Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from
http://engage-public.s3.amazonaws.com/newsouthgate/South%20Gate%20General%20Plan.pdf
Community Design + Architecture. (2013, March 1). “City of South Gate – Firestone and Atlantic Station Area
Plan.” Retrieved on 7 December, 2014 from http://www.elpadvisors.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/7-SCAG-South-Gate-Firestone-Atlantic-Station-Area-Plan.pdf
Eco-Rapid Transit Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2014, from
http://orangelinedevelopmentauthority.wordpress.com/
Economic & Planning Systems Inc. (2014, September 9). “California Infill finance Options Analysis.” Report
prepared for The Strategic Growth Council. Retrieved on 7 December, 2014 on
http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/SGC_FINAL_REPORT_9.9.14.pdf
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, SB 628. (2014).
Envision Tomorrow - Welcome to Envision Tomorrow. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from
http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/
Greenhut, S. (2011). “California’s Secret Government: Redevelopment agencies blight the Golden State”. City
Journal. Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_california-
redevelopment-agencies.html
Ikhrata, H. (2013, February 7). Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW)/West Santa Ana Branch Corridor
Alternatives Analysis (AA) – Study Recommendations. Memorandum from Southern California
Association of Government to the Regional Council.
“Infrastructure Financing Districts.” Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from

33 | P a g e
http://senweb03.senate.ca.gov/committee/standing/GOVERNANCE/IFDINFORMATION.HTM
League of California Cities. (n.d.) SB 628 (Beall) Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. Retrieved on
November 15, 2014 from http://www.cacities.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=d8e42eca-7647-
4f12-98d4-e93383abc48c&lang=en-US
Litman, T. (2013, 5 November). “Parking Management: Strategies, Evalaution and Planning.” Victoria Transport
Policy Institute. Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf
Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. (2012, June). “Parking Structure Technical Report: Challenges,
Opportunities and Best Practices.” MTC Smart Growth Technical Assistance: Parking Reform Campaign.
Retrieved on 7 December, 2014 from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/6-
12/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf
Office of Assessor, County of Los Angeles. (2014). “Guide to Taxable Possessory Interest.” Online. Retrieved on
7 December 2014 from http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/overview/possint.aspx
Office of Sustainable Communities – Smart Growth Program. (2013, January). “Infrastructure Financing Options
for Transit-Oriented Development.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 7
December 2014 from http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/2013-0122-TOD-infrastructure-financing-report.pdf
Orangeline Development Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2014, from http://www.eco-rapid.org/
Pisano, M. (2013, December 1). “3-D Infrastructure: Building the Next California.” America 2050.
Pisano, M. (n.d). “Innovations in Funding the Built and Natural Environment: The London Experiment.”
Reynolds, W. & Thimmig, P. (2011). “Creating Infrastructure Financing Districts to Stimulate Economic
Development”. Presentation. Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from http://www.edacademy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/AC11PPT/IFD%20Conference.pdf
Shoup, D. (2005). The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press.
Targ, N. & Golub, D. (2014). “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts: A New Power Tool for Growth in
California.” Legal Brief prepared for Mondaq. Retrieved on 7 December 2014 from
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/353726/Environmental+Law/Enhanced+Infrastructure+Financi
ng+Districts+SB+628+Beall

The following terms are essential to understanding the SB 628 (League of California Cities,
2014, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, 2014):

“Affected taxing entity” means any governmental taxing agency which levied or had levied on
its behalf a property tax on all or a portion of the property located in the proposed district in the
fiscal year prior to the designation of the district, but not 8 including any county office of
education, school district, or community college district.

“Enhanced infrastructure financing district” (EIFD) means a legally constituted governmental
entity separate and distinct from the city or county that established it pursuant to this chapter for
the sole purpose of financing public facilities or other projects as authorized by this chapter.

“Infrastructure Financing Plan” means the EIFD, governed by the Public Financing Authority,
implements an Infrastructure Financing Plan adopted by the city or county that describes the type
of public facilities and development that will be financed by the EIFD.

“Public financing authority” means the governing board of the district established pursuant to
this chapter.

Appendix B: Visual Structure of EIFD JPA

Appendix C: Assumptions for Tax Increment Financing
Phase one
(2014-2019)
Land Use Real Estate Improvement Transit
Premium
Developer Fees Property Tax
Rate
Garfield
Corridor
FAR 3.0
30 Units/D.U
Retail $211/SF
Residential $191,000/Unit
Retail 5%
Residential 2%
Retail $28/SF
Residential
$26,000/Unit
City of South Gate
1.1792%
Hollydale FAR 3.0 Retail $211/SF
Light Industrial $104/SF
Retail 5%

Retail $28/SF City of South Gate
1.1792%
Phase two
(2020-2025)
Land Use Real Estate Improvement Transit
Premium
Developer Fees Property Tax
Rate
LA County
owned parcel
FAR 3.0
30 Units/D.U
Retail $211/SF
Residential $191,000/Unit
Retail 5%
Residential 2%
Retail $28/SF
Residential
$26,000/Unit
City of South Gate
1.1792%
Rancho
Campus
FAR 1.51
Retail $211/SF2
Office $197/SF3

Restaurant $201/SF4

Industrial $162/SF5

Daycare Center $196/SF6

Retail/Restaurant,
Office/Daycare
Center 9%7

Retail/Office/Resta
urant,
Industrial 10% of
improvement cost 8

City of South Gate
1.1792%9

Apartments in
½ catchment
basin
Apartment/Condo
minium 4%
City of South Gate
1.1792%
City of Downey
1.0879%
Imperial FAR 3.0 Residential $191,000/Unit Office/Daycare Residential City of South Gate
1
Los Angeles County Department Regional Planning Mix Use Land Use and Zoning,, Retrieved from
http://planning.lacounty.gov/tod/mixed
2
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (Sep 9, 2014, P46) Retrieved from
http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/SGC_FINAL_REPORT_9.9.14.pdf, http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/SGC_FINAL_REPORT_9.9.14.pdf
3
4
5
the BCD Industrail Building Cost Per Square Foot Analysis http://www.dcd.com/pdf_files/1107analysis.pdf
6
Construction Cost Estimates for Day Care Center in National, US
http://learn.rsmeans.com/rsmeans/models/daycare‐center/
7
NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.(June 12, 2012, 4‐3), Parking Structure Technical Report, Page4‐
3,http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/6‐12/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf
8
9
http://www.latimes.com/local/la‐me‐city‐property‐tax‐table‐htmlstory.html

Industrial Area 30 Units/D.U Office $197/SF10
Office $197/SF11

Center 9%12
$26,000/Unit
Industrial 10% of
improvement cost
13
1.1792%
Surrounding
residential SFR
Residential 2% City of South Gate
1.1792%
City of Downey
1.0879%
10
11
12
NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates Inc.(June 12, 2012, 4‐3), Parking Structure Technical Report, Page4‐
3,http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/6‐12/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf
13

Appendix D: Assumptions for VLF Backfill
Variable Assumed Value Comments and/or Reference
City of South Gate Total Assessed Value $4,559,456,000 (City of South Gate, 2012, p. 132)
City of South Gate Vehicle In-Lieu $7,807,982 (City of South Gate, 2014, p. 30)
Site Total Assessed Value $243,894,229 – City of South Gate
$31,546,954 – City of Downey
$14,621,671 – County of LA
(County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor, 2014)
VLF Backfill Allocated to Site Proportional Analysis based on the following formula:

City of Downey Total Assessed Value $8,820,354,264 (City of Downey, 2012).
City of Downey VLF in-Lieu $15,104,690 VLF In-Lieu was not provided to public. Therefore, proportional
Analysis based on the following formula:

County of Los Angeles Total Assessed Value $333,185,983 (County of Los Angeles, 2014, p. 20)
County of Los Angeles VLF In-Lieu $4,503,261 (County of Los Angeles, 2014, p. 239)
City’s Assessed Value Increase (per annum) 2% per annum (Community Design + Architecture, 2013, p. 44) Real market
appreciation was assumed to be 1.9% per annum. For
simplification purposes, 2% per annum was used.
Reference
City of Downey. (2012, June 30). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. City of Downey. Retrieved on 30 November 2014 from
http://www.downeyca.org/_blobcache/0000/0005/5316.pdf.
City of South Gate. (2012, June 30). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Retrieved on 30 November 2014 from
http://gfoa.net/cafr/COA2012/SouthGateCA.pdf. p. 132.

City of South Gate. (2014, June 10). South Gate City Council Regular Meeting Agenda, Revenue Detail. Retrieved on 30 November 2014 from
http://www.cityofsouthgate.org/2014-06-10%20Regular%20City%20Council.PDF. p. 30.
County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor. (2014). Property Assessment Information System. Retrieved on 12 November 2014 from
http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/DataMaps/Pais.aspx.
County of Los Angeles. (2014). County of Los Angeles 2013 – 14 Final Budget. Retrieved on 30 November 2014 from
http://www.lacountyannualreport.com/2013/files/Budget/2013-14%20Final%20Budget%20112713.pdf.

Appendix E: Assumptions for Parking Management In-Lieu Fee
Parking Requirements
Multi-family Residential 2 per Multi-family Unit (City of South Gate Municipal Code, 2013)
(City of Downey Municipal Code, 2013)
Office 1 parking space per 300 gross floor area (City of South Gate Municipal Code, 2013)
Retail / Restaurant 1 parking space per 250 gross floor area (City of South Gate Municipal Code, 2013)
Manufacturing 1 parking space per 500 gross floor area (City of South Gate Municipal Code, 2013)
Daycare 1 parking space per 500 gross floor area The value is assumed as both City of South Gate and
Downey’s parking requirements are based on the
number of potential kids at the day care center. Since
this number was not provided, an assumed value was
utilized.
Finance Analysis – Parking Calculated were based off spreadsheet found on the
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Litman, 2012).
Cost of Surface Parking $14,833.33 per space It is assumed that all newly constructed parking spaces
would be surface parking. Although it is indicated in the
City of South Gate that there would other forms of
parking (structure, underground parking), it was more
feasible to assume surface parking. Spreadsheet of
calculating this cost of surface parking is provided in the
following pages.
Land Costs (per acre) $1,000,000 (County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor, 2014)
An approximate value of land cost per acre was
calculated based on an average of the total value of each
parcel within the ½ mile catchment basin.
Surface Space Acres 120 parking spaces per acre (Litman, 2012)
Hard Markup Cost for Construction Cost $5,000 per parking space (Litman, 2012)
Soft Markup Cost for Construction $1,500 per parking space (Litman, 2012)
Future Parking Reductions Future parking adjustment is based on a reduced
percentage of the proposed parking requirements (using
existing parking standards from the City of South Gate

and Downey)
Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirement
Reduction
30% (Litman, 2013)
Office Parking Requirement Reduction 20% (Litman, 2013)
Retail / Restaurant Parking Requirement
Reduction
20% (Litman, 2013)
Manufacturing Parking Requirement Reduction 15% (Litman, 2013)
Daycare Parking Requirement Reduction 15% (Litman, 2013)
Parking In-Lieu Fee These values are expressed as a percentage of the
incremental difference Developers save when reducing
the parking requirement.
Conservative 10% (Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc, 2012)
Detailed analysis was conducted by Nelson Nygaard
Consulting Associated with regards to the feasibility of
the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee for City of Santa
Monica. The report indicates that the strongest return
for developments (mixed use office, residential) is when
Parking In-Lieu fees are $20,000 per parking space that
is being reduced. This methodology was initially taken
into consideration. However, since parking in-lieu fees
are based on the negotiation between the developer
and the city, conducting analysis based on a
conservative and aggressive approach would be a more
accurate representation. Furthermore, using $20,000
per parking space that is being reduced also fall within
the threshold range of 10%- 20%.
Aggressive 20%
Reference
City of Downey Municipal Code. (2014). art. IX, §9708. Retrieved on 12 November 2014 from http://qcode.us/codes/downey/.
County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor. (2014). Property Assessment Information System. Retrieved on 12 November 2014 from
http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/DataMaps/Pais.aspx.

City of South Gate Municipal Code. (2013). Number of parking spaces required. art. XI, §11.34.030. Retrieved on 12 November 2014 from
http://codepublishing.com/CA/southgate/.
Litman, T. (2012). Parking Costs, Pricing and Revenue Calculator Spreadsheet. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved on 12 November 2014 from
http://www.vtpi.org/parking.xls.
Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. (2012, August). Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee, Draft Report. City of Santa Monica. Retrieved on
http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2012/20120911/s2012091104-A-1.pdf.

The following terms are essential to understanding the SB 628 (League of California Cities,
2014, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, 2014):
“Affected taxing entity” means any governmental taxing agency which levied or had levied on
its behalf a property tax on all or a portion of the property located in the proposed district in the
fiscal year prior to the designation of the district, but not 8 including any county office of
education, school district, or community college district.
“Enhanced infrastructure financing district” (EIFD) means a legally constituted governmental
entity separate and distinct from the city or county that established it pursuant to this chapter for
the sole purpose of financing public facilities or other projects as authorized by this chapter.
“Infrastructure Financing Plan” means the EIFD, governed by the Public Financing Authority,
implements an Infrastructure Financing Plan adopted by the city or county that describes the type
of public facilities and development that will be financed by the EIFD.
“Public financing authority” means the governing board of the district established pursuant to
this chapter.

EIFD - A Mechanism for Eco Rapid Transit - FinalDraft_22Jan2015

EIFD - A Mechanism for Eco Rapid Transit - FinalDraft_22Jan2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to EIFD - A Mechanism for Eco Rapid Transit - FinalDraft_22Jan2015

Similar to EIFD - A Mechanism for Eco Rapid Transit - FinalDraft_22Jan2015 (20)

EIFD - A Mechanism for Eco Rapid Transit - FinalDraft_22Jan2015