City consultant models EIFD scenarios; staff recommends Measure C debt route and committee directs staff not to pursue EIFD now
Loading...
Summary
Consultants presented EIFD (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District) models showing $46M (city-only) to $77.7M (with 50% county participation) in illustrative funding over 10 years. Staff recommended using Measure C debt financing instead; the committee unanimously directed staff not to pursue an EIFD at this time and to explore Measure C options and county partnerships.
The Finance Committee heard a consultant briefing Feb. 24 on the feasibility of creating an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, a California tool that redirects property-tax growth above a base year toward infrastructure and affordable housing projects.
Christian Sprummer, vice president with NHA Advisors, described modeling that included three primary scenarios: a city-only EIFD (Scenario 1A), a city-plus-50%-county participation EIFD (Scenario 1B), and alternatives that avoid EIFD formation. "Scenario 1A would generate about $31,000,000 in potential debt funding and just over $15,000,000 in PAYGO over the next ten years," Sprummer said, while adding that county participation materially increases available funding.
NHA’s modeling showed that adding county participation at 50% (Scenario 1B) raised modeled cumulative available funds to about $77.7 million over ten years. The consultants cautioned that all EIFD outcomes depend on project delivery and timing: forming the district before projects are complete helps secure incremental assessed-value growth.
Staff summarized risks and trade-offs, noting that redirecting tax increment to an EIFD is not a new tax but it can reduce future general-fund property-tax growth that otherwise funds essential services. Given assumptions and current city priorities, staff recommended a Measure C–based debt financing approach as a lower-risk path to support affordable housing and infrastructure without encumbering the general fund.
Public comment included a three-minute remark from Carl Hutter urging EIFD adoption for downtown revitalization, housing and climate resilience.
After extended discussion about boundary selection, county participation, amortization horizons and the need for shovel-ready projects before issuing debt, Member Harmon moved and Member Santa Maria seconded a direction for staff: do not pursue EIFD formation at this time; instead, continue collaborating with housing providers and analyze Measure C debt issuance as an alternative financing path. The committee voted unanimously to forward that direction.
What happens next: Staff will proceed with detailed analysis of Measure C debt capacity, identify shovel-ready affordable housing projects, and initiate preliminary outreach to county partners if appropriate. Any future debt issuance or policy changes would return to council for approval.
