The Sacramento Streetcar Project

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Sacramento Streetcar Project The Sacramento Streetcar Project An Eye on Sacramento Report January 13, 2015 “Start Digging a Hole” "In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.” ---Willie Brown, former California Assembly Speaker, from his July 28, 2014 S.F. Chronicle column. For further information on this EOS Report, please contact: Craig K. Powell, President Dennis Neufeld, Director of Research (916) 718-3030 - [email protected] (916) 539-1054 - [email protected] For further information about Eye on Sacramento, please contact: Lisa Garcia, Vice-President, Community Outreach Director Eye on Sacramento, 1620 35th Avenue, Suite K, Sacramento, CA 95822 Phone: (916) 403-0592; E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.eyeonsacramento.org Eye on Sacramento is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 II. MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT OF EYE ON SACRAMENTO 7 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 - Proposed Streetcar Route 9 - Estimated Construction Costs and Funding 10 IV. STREETCAR RESURRECTION 10 - Sacramento's Historic Streetcar 10 - The Modern Streetcar Movement 11 - Early Streetcar Leadership by West Sacramento 11 V. CAUSES FOR CONCERN 12 - Public Opinion is Coalescing Against the Streetcar Movement 12 - Revival or Dying Fad? 13 - Ridership and Service Plan 14 - Streetcars vs. Buses 14 - Innovative Bus Designs May End Streetcar's Monopoly on "Cool" 15 - Absence of Destinations 16 - Troubling Similarities to Tampa and Little Rock Streetcar Systems 16 - Union Pacific Track: Roadblock to Expansion East of 19th Street 17 - West Sacramento Bus Riders Will Be Forced to Transfer 19 - West Sacramento Service Will Be Cut in Half 20 VI. TRAFFIC AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES 21 - Worse Traffic on I, J and L Streets 21 - Meet the Traffic Problems of 2018 22 - Vulnerability of Light Rail to Streetcar Delays 25 - Tower Bridge Crossing 26 - The $150 Million Turning Lane 27 - Problems with Arena Service 28 - Safety, Security of Streetcars: Will It Be Any Better Than Light Rail? 28 - Streetcars and Bicycles Are Not Mixing 29 VII. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS 29 - Impacts Will Vary by District 29 - Economic Projections of Higher Property Values: Are They Credible? 30 - Construction Impacts on Merchants and Businesses: Mitigation? 31 VIII. PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT & FISCAL IMPACTS 31 - Imposition of Tax Assessment is a Two-Election Process 31 - Apparent Major Change in Method of Calculating Assessments 32 - Proposed Property Owner Ballot: A Blank Check? 32 - The Truth About the 40-Year Duration of the Property Tax Assessment 33 - Why the Tax Assessment is Much, Much Greater Than $30 Million 34 2 Page - The Role of GO! Streetcar and Its Sponsor, Friends of Light Rail & Transit 34 - Arena Developers' Sweetheart Deal on the Streetcar Tax 35 - Sacramento Owners vs. West Sacramento Owners: A Question of Fairness 36 - Special Benefit to West Sacramento's Triangle District Developers? 36 - The Extraordinarily High Cost of the Streetcar Facility: $15.9 Million 37 - Worrisome Lack of Conditions to Use of Property Tax Assessments 38 - Cost Overruns After Construction Has Begun: Who Will Be Responsible? 39 - Will Contingency Reserves Be Adequate to Cover Construction Cost Overruns? 39 - The Certainty of Annual Streetcar Operating Deficits and Sacramento's "Fiscal Cliff" 40 IX. FUTURE CONCERNS 41 - Challenge of Coordinating Six Governmental Jurisdictions 41 - Lack of Budgeting for Car Replacements 42 - City's Fanciful Plan to Build Nine Additional Streetcar Lines 43 3 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key Findings Impacts of Streetcar Project on Economic Development After a review of the experiences of other U.S. cities and an examination of the proposed Sacramento streetcar system, we've concluded that streetcars would not increase mobility, cut commute times or reduce traffic congestion and would be less cost-effective than buses due to their higher capital costs. These days, streetcars are being promoted as a catalyst to development and economic growth. However, we find no credible evidence that establishes that streetcars are a significant factor in stimulating development. While promoters of streetcars cite instances of increased development in areas of some cities in which streetcar lines have been built, they have failed to prove "causation," that is to say, that streetcars were the actual cause of the concurrent building development. In the frequently cited case of Portland, development along its streetcar line was greatly assisted by significant tax and other government subsidies that were extended to developers. But Sacramento cannot currently offer developers the same generous package of development incentives that local government in Portland was able to provide to developers of property near their new streetcar line. Consequently, we don't place much credence in economic forecasts that predict that Sacramento will experience development increases comparable to what Portland experienced when it installed its streetcar line. To the extent that streetcars do serve as a catalyst to economic growth, we believe that essentially the same economic impact can be secured at a fraction of the proposed cost by, instead, purchasing and deploying redesigned and reengineered modern transit buses that are virtually indistinguishable in appearance and function from modern streetcars (a picture of such a modern transit bus appears on page 15 of this report). Based on cancellations of streetcar projects and overruns of both construction and operating costs experienced by other U.S. cities, and our review of studies, reports and media accounts, it appears that public opinion - and the opinion of many transit experts - is shifting away from the modern version of the streetcar. In fact, it appears that much of the impetus for building such systems has been the willingness of the federal government in recent years to fund half of the costs of construction, which, in Sacramento's case, is expected to amount to $75 million. In other cities that have built streetcars, some local merchants and businesses have experienced major disruptions to their businesses during the 24-month construction period involved in building a streetcar system. We have seen no indication that the project will offer assistance to help such impacted businesses. 4 Impacts of Streetcar Project on Traffic Based on our detailed review of every almost element of the proposed streetcar system, we conclude that it would increase traffic congestion on I, J and L Streets and will create major traffic problems near the I-5 on-ramps and off-ramps at 3rd and J Streets, as well as problems on the Tower Bridge and at the intersection of J and 19th Streets. The streetcar is slated to use existing Light Rail tracks on some streets in Downtown, including 7th and 8th Streets and one block of H Street. Since streetcars are much slower that Light Rail trains, there are real concerns that streetcars will cause back-ups and delays for Light Rail trains, which, at 360-feet long, can clog up intersections, trip traffic signals and aggravate congestion at Downtown intersections. The Special Tax Levy Downtown and Midtown property owners are being asked to cast advisory ballots on a proposed special tax levy on their properties without the benefit of having correct or complete information on important details of the tax levy, bond financing costs or the streetcar project itself, including financial risks and impacts of the project. Media reports on the streetcar project have included erroneous information about the amount of the total taxes that would be paid by property owners and how long such tax payments must be made. The total assessment will not be $30 million as has been erroneously reported, but will, instead, be 20% of the total costs of constructing the streetcar project (estimated to be $150 million), plus interest and other financing costs on Mello-Roos bonds that will have a maturity of up to 40 years (not 30 years, as has been reported in the media). The bonds will finance a $30 million cash contribution to the construction costs of the streetcar project. Additional amounts will be borrowed to cover prepaid bond interest, bond reserves and issuance costs, up to a maximum authorized borrowing of $38 million. If the full $38 million is borrowed, the total interest and other financing costs on the bonds could amount to as much as $58 million, depending on interest rates, bond maturities, payment and other terms, which could bring total tax payments by property owners to pay off the bonds (including financing costs) up to as much as $96 million. It is more likely, however, that total tax payments will be closer to $75 million. Property owners will pay a tax rate that's based on how close their property is to the proposed streetcar line, with those parcels located within one block of the line paying the highest rate, those within two blocks paying the second highest rate and those within three blocks paying the lowest rate. Commercial and office property owners will pay a rate based on both the square footage of their land and the square footage of their buildings. For example, a commercial office building located within two blocks of the line would pay an annual rate of $0.040 cents for each sq. ft. of land and a rate of $0.112 cents for each building sq. ft. Owners of residential property will pay a rate based on the number of units on the property. 5 Special Tax Break for Arena's Owners: $10,000,000 Estimated Tax Subsidy Owners of the new Downtown Arena, however, will be paying much lower tax rates than other commercial property owners. They will pay no tax at all on their land and will pay a $0.040 rate on most of its building square footage, a rate 64% lower than the rate paid by all other commercial property located the same distance from the streetcar line ($0.112).
Recommended publications
  • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: November 18, 2020 ITEM #12
    CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: November 18, 2020 ITEM #12 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A STREETCAR SERVICE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY: [ ] Commission [ X ] Staff Jason McCoy, Supervising Transportation Planner Capital Projects and Transportation Department [ ] Other ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action OBJECTIVE This report provides the City Council with a thorough background and update on the status of the revised Downtown Riverfront Streetcar (Streetcar Project) and provides an opportunity for Staff to receive direction from the City Council pertaining to the Streetcar Service Memorandum of Understanding. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff respectfully requests that the City Council: 1) Approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) as a framework for developing an Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for the Streetcar Project, and delegate authority to the City Manager to execute the MOU; and 2) Recommend that the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) Board of Directors execute the MOU at their December 14, 2020 meeting as a framework for developing an Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for the Streetcar Project. BACKGROUND The Streetcar Project received approval from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to enter Project Development as a Small Starts Project in 2014. This FTA discretionary grant program funds transit capital investments such as light rail and bus rapid transit and requires completion of the Project Development phase in advance of receipt of a construction grant agreement. The original scope of the Streetcar Project was an approximately four-mile looped system extending between the West Sacramento Civic Center and Riverfront Street, across Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River and into Downtown and Midtown Sacramento.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Analysis for High Capacity Public Transit on the Rail
    Proposal Alternatives Analysis for High Capacity Public Transit on the Rail Right of Way Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission in Partnership with Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO) RFP 2020-08-05 September 3, 2019 Contents 01 Transmittal Letter I 02 Work Plan 01 03 Schedule 09 04 Cost Proposal 10 05 Firm Qualifi cations 12 06 Project Team, Organization Chart, and Staffi ng Plan 16 07 Qualifi cations and Relevant Experience 19 08 Federally/State-Funded Transportation Project Experience 23 09 Management Approach 24 10 References 26 Appendix A Additional Information Appendix B Resumes Appendix C Exceptions and Deviations Appendix D Cost Proposal Detail by Task Appendix E Required Forms HDR supports sustainable resource conservation and material recycling practices. This proposal package is 100% recyclable. This page is intentionally left blank. September 3, 2019 Ginger Dykaar Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacifi c Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95060 RE: Proposal for Alternatives Analysis for High Capacity Public Transit on the Rail Right of Way RFP 2020-08-05 Dear Ms. Dykaar, HDR, a full service Planning and Engineering Corporation with a long-history of transportation planning and alternatives analysis experience, is pleased to submit this proposal to assist the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) and Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO) to conduct a high capacity transit alternatives analysis for the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. We have thoughtfully developed a complete team to meet every technical challenge required of the RTC and METRO including expertise across all transit modes and systems; federal, state, and local transport fi nance; travel modeling and market assessment; active transportation and trails; performance-based planning using triple bottom line processes and linkages to vision and goals; economic growth analysis; environmental and engineering constraints and design needs; value engineering and business planning; and engaging public and stakeholder partners.
    [Show full text]
  • FY2021/22 Proposed Budget
    DARRELL STEINBERG CITY OF SACRAMENTO FACTS CITY OF SACRAMENTO Mayor The City of Sacramento was founded in 1849 and 2022 ANGELIQUE ASHBY CITY BUDGET | FISCAL SACRAMENTO OF YEAR | PROPOSED 2021-2022 Mayor Pro Tempore, District 1 is the oldest incorporated city in California. Proposed SEAN LOLOEE In 1920, city voters adopted a Charter (municipal Councilmember, District 2 constitution) and a City Council/City Manager form 2021 Budget of government. JEFF HARRIS Councilmember, District 3 The City is divided into eight districts. KATIE VALENZUELA Councilmember, District 4 Elected members of the City Council serve a four- year term. JAY SCHENIRER Vice Mayor, District 5 The Mayor is elected by all voters in the City. In ERIC GUERRA 2002, voters approved a measure for the Mayor Councilmember, District 6 to serve full-time. All other Councilmembers are elected by district and serve part-time. RICK JENNINGS, II Councilmember, District 7 The Mayor and other Councilmembers have an MAI VANG equal vote in all matters. Councilmember, District 8 The City of Sacramento currently encompasses approximately 100 square miles. The current estimated population is 510,931. CityofSacramento.org PROPOSED CITY OF SACRAMENTO FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 BUDGET DARRELL STEINBERG Mayor ANGELIQUE ASHBY JAY SCHENIRER Mayor Pro Tempore, District 1 Vice Mayor, District 5 SEAN LOLOEE ERIC GUERRA Councilmember, District 2 Councilmember, District 6 JEFF HARRIS RICK JENNINGS, II Councilmember, District 3 Councilmember, District 7 KATIE VALENZUELA MAI VANG Councilmember, District 4 Councilmember,
    [Show full text]
  • SMUD Corpyard RFQ.Indd
    September 20, 2019 Request for Qualifications (No. 190180.DJM) Redevelopment of the former SMUD Corporation Yard 59th Street, Folsom Blvd. & U.S. Hwy. 50, Sacramento, CA Responses due by 5 p.m., November 26, 2019 Powering forward. Together. 1146-19 Site Context EAST SACRAMENTO NEIGHBORHOOD St. Francis American River Kit Carson High School Parkway School CSUS Campus Camellia Shopping Center Phoebe Hearst School SITE 59th Street Light Rail Station SMUD Campus UCD Medical Center TAHOE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD Freeway Access SMUD Corporation Yard Redevelopment RFQ Table of Contents Introduction and Summary Land Area and Ownership ..............................................................................................................1 Development Objectives .................................................................................................................2 Land Use Concepts .............................................................................................................................3 Purchase and Sale/Development Agreement .....................................................................3 Supplemental Information Package .........................................................................................5 Summary of Submittal Requirements ......................................................................................5 Informational Meeting and Site Tour ......................................................................................6 Environmental Site Conditions Meeting and Site Tour ................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Consent Calendar Regular Calendar
    AGENDA (530) 661-0816 NOTICE If requested, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact Kathy Souza, Executive Assistant, for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should telephone or otherwise contact Kathy Souza as soon as possible and preferably at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Kathy Souza may be reached at telephone number (530) 661-0816 or at the following address: 350 Industrial Way, Woodland, CA 95776. It is the policy of the Board of Directors of the Yolo County Transportation District to encourage participation in the meetings of the Board of Directors. At each open meeting, members of the public shall be provided with an opportunity to directly address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board of Directors. Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the Board Clerk if you wish to address the Board. Speaker cards are provided on a table by the entrance to the meeting room. Depending on the length of the agenda and number of speakers who filled out and submitted cards, the Board Chair reserves the right to limit a public speaker’s time to no more than three (3) minutes, or less, per agenda item.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail: Big Changes Afoot? Afoot? Changes Big Rail: High-Speed
    PAGES 4-5: A SACRAMENTO REGIONAL RAIL STRATEGY Volume 29 Number 1 May 2019 – August 2019 High-Speed Rail: Big Changes Afoot? By David Schonbrunn TRAC Vice President, Policy The Governor’s startlingly candid admission that “Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacra- mento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA” has triggered what could become a major reassessment of the State’s commitment to this project. Governor Newsom’s candor was a total break from eight years of uncompromising support by Jerry Brown for a project that still has no realistic long-term funding. The release of the California High- Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) 2019 Project Update Report. and the Trump Administration’s cancellation of a $929 million grant to the project, when added to the Governor’s statement, combine to create a highly dynamic situation. While the State has sued the federal Daniel Schwen, own work 2008.. Creative Commons Attribution/Share 4.0 International government to recoup the funds, no one knows where any of this will end up. HSR system will never be more than a The private sector has wanted to standalone Bakersfield-to-Merced line. invest in passenger rail in California, CHSRA’s new plan calls for HSR but has been blocked by politicians service between Bakersfield and While transportation projects are promoting CHSRA’s project. CHSRA was Merced. This $20 billion plan would judged on their cost/benefit ratio, the cost $15 billion more than the $5 billion new plan completely flunks that test. (continued on Page Two) that has already been spent.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Trans 011 Sit Sp Pace E
    Jumpstarting the Transit Space Race: 2011 A Catalog and Analysis of Planned and Proposed Transit Projects in the US April 2011 Reconnecting America is a national nonprofit that is helping to transform promising ideas into thriving communities – where transportation choices make it easy to get from place to place, where businesses flourish, and where people from all walks of life can afford to live, work and visit. At Reconnecting America we not only develop research and innovative public policy, we also build the on-the-ground partnerships and convene the players necessary to accelerate decision-making. This work was made possible with generous support from the Rockefeller Foundation. This report was written by Jeff Wood and Elizabeth Wampler with support from Bill Sadler. Photos on cover by J. Brew and Jeff Wood. Reconnecting America, Reconnecting America, Reconnecting America, Washington DC Oakland Denver 1707 L Street, N.W., Suite 210 436 14th Street, Suite 1005 899 Logan Street, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 Oakland, CA 94612 Denver, CO 80203 T 202-429-6990 T 510-268-8602 T 303-861-1421 F 202-315-3508 F 510-268-8673 F 303-573-1574 www.reconnectingamerica.org Table of Contents Introduction and Top Line Takeaways ........................................................................................................... 4 Connecting Jobs and Low Income Households: A detailed analysis of how proposed transit lines connect to jobs and low-income households. ............................................................................................................ 10 Understanding the Transit Planning Process. .............................................................................................. 15 Regional Themes: Six major themes of transit planning that we saw repeated again and again. ............. 21 Regional Stories: A brief overview of the state of transit planning in each region we surveyed.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento County
    2018 People’s Guide to HEALTH, WELFARE AND OTHER SERVICES SACRAMENTO COUNTY $ ? Introduction The Peoples Guide is a partnership between the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness [SRCEH], Sacramento Steps Forward, Sacramento Central Labor Council, SacSOS and United Way CA Capital Region. The People’s Guide is a practical self-advocacy information guide and directory on how to get food, income, jobs and training, housing, health and dental care, legal advice, and other important help from local, state and federal programs and community services in Sacramento County. The Guide is not only a self-advocacy guide to these programs, but also gives you advice on what you can do if you are treated unfairly or do not receive what you are entitled to by law. The Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness [SRCEH] believes that every person has the right to healthy and nutritious food, healthcare, and safe, decent, accessible and affordable housing. Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness: 916-993-7708 www.srceh.org 2-1-1 Sacramento 2-1-1 is a 24 hour per day, 7 day a week telephone information and referral service. Operators are SacSOS available in many languages. They can help you SRCEH has partnered with SacSOS [www. find emergency food and shelter, legal and financial sacsos.org] to create a People’s Guide assistance, counseling and many other resources. “app” for cell phones and computers Dial 2-1-1 that will be identical to this print edition. Currently SacSOS is a continuously updated TTY line (800) 660-4026 list of free and low-cost resources available Sacramento County 311 Mobile App: While 211 is for to Sacramento residents.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008-2013 Housing Element
    City of Sacramento 2008-2013 Housing Element 2008–2013 Housing Element Update City of Sacramento Adopted November 18, 2008 Resolution No. 2008-758 Prepared for: City of Sacramento Planning Department 915 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Greg Sandlund Assistant Planner (916) 808-8931 and Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency 600 I Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Emily Halcon Management Analyst (916) 440-1399 ext. 1420 Prepared by: EDAW 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Contact: Jeff Goldman Principal (916) 414-5800 November 2008 P 07110203.01 HOUSING ELEMENT : Table of Contents H-T Table of Contents H-E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................... H ES-1 Sacramento’s Housing Challenges.............................................................. H ES-1 Building Upon Our Past Success................................................................ H ES-3 A New Focused Housing Strategy.............................................................. H ES-4 Meeting Our City’s Housing Needs ........................................................... H ES-6 H-1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ H 1-1 1.1 State Law Requirements...................................................................... H 1-1 1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................. H 1-1 1.3 Public Participation .............................................................................. H 1-3 1.4 Organization of the Housing
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Ye​Ar 2020-2021
    COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER DIVISION 2020-2021 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS LISTING DL # DIRECT LEVY NAME CODEJ STATUS STATUTORY # DIST AGENCY NAME ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP DISTRICT CONTACT PUBLIC PHONE 0010 EAST FRANKLIN CFD NO. 2002-01 122 A MELLO ROOS 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0011 POPPY RIDGE CFD NO. 2003-01 122 A MELLO ROOS 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0012 STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 A ACT 1982 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0013 LAGUNA WEST SERVICE AREA A GC 25210.77(a) 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0014 LAKESIDE SERVICE AREA I GC 5703.1 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8400 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES (916)627-3410 0015 CITY OF ELK GROVE CFD 2003-2 A MELLO-ROOS 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0016 STREET LIGHTING MAINT DISTRICT #1 A 1982 ACT 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0017 ELK GROVE DELINQUENT DRAINAGE A GC 25820 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0018 LAGUNA RIDGE CFD 2005-1 122 A MELLO-ROOS 0035 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE CA 95758 CITY OF ELK GROVE (916)627-3205 0019 MAINTENANCE SERVICES CFD
    [Show full text]
  • Little Houses: Sacramento's Bungalow Courts Historic
    LITTLE HOUSES: SACRAMENTO’S BUNGALOW COURTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY A Project Presented to the faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History (Public History) by Genevieve Sheila Entezari FALL 2012 © 2012 Genevieve Sheila Entezari ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii LITTLE HOUSES: SACRAMENTO’S BUNGALOW COURTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY A Project by Genevieve Sheila Entezari Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Lee M.A. Simpson, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date ____________________________________, Second Reader Roberta Deering _________________________ Date iii Student: Genevieve Sheila Entezari I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Patrick Ettinger, Ph.D. Date Department of History iv Abstract of LITTLE HOUSES: SACRAMENTO’S BUNGALOW COURTS HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY by Genevieve Sheila Entezari Statement of Problem Bungalow courts are a unique form of suburban multifamily housing in Sacramento that is at risk of demolition because of urban development. Further loss is possible without proper documentation of their importance as a type of architecture that fulfilled a
    [Show full text]