The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 105-94 EDubReorg#10 RESOLUTION NO. 105-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION (PA 94-030 EASTERN DUBLIN REORGANIZATION) ANNEXATION NO. 10 Recitals 1. Pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (the "Act") (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) an affected city and affected district, as therein defined, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a "reorganization", as defined in Section 56073 and request initiation of proceedings thereon; 2. The City of Dublin is an affected city, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) are affected districts for a reorganization proposal which contains territory proposed to be annexed to said city and to the DSRSD and LARPD territory proposed to be detached from said city. 3. The City of Dublin is an affected local agency for this reorganization proposal. 4. The reorganization proposal is made pursuant to the Act. The proposal would annex 1,538 acres to the City of Dublin and 1,542 acres to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, and detach 1,029 acres from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District as described in Attachment A. 5. The territory described in Attachment A is inhabited territory within the meaning of Government Code Section 56046. 6. The exterior boundaries of the territory described in Attachment A are shown on Attachments B1 through B3 hereto. 7. This reorganization is proposed at the request of landowners owning approximately 70% of the land within the territory to be annexed. The reorganization would implement the City of Dublin's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 8. It is proposed that the proposed reorganization would be conditional upon detachment of the territory described in Attachment A from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. 9. The plan for services for the territory to be annexed is set forth in Attachment C. 10. This proposal is consistent with the City of Dublin and DSRSD's sphere of influence. PA94-030 (C2reso#105-94) 1 11. If determined appropriate by the LAFCo, the City Council consents to act as the conducting authority for the proposed reorganization. 12. The City Council determined that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the reorganization that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin project (including the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994), and that the reorganization is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES RESOLVE A8 FOLLOWS= A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. The City Council of the City of Dublin, as the legislative body for an affected local agency, does hereby adopt the foregoing recitals and makes a proposal for a reorganization, as described herein, pursuant to Section 56800 of the Cortese-Knox Act, and does hereby request that proceedings be taken pursuant to said Act~ This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Dublin. This proposal is made subject to the following terms and conditions: The description in Attachment A and the maps on Attachments B1 through B3 are preliminary and are subject to more detailed description(s) and map(s) to be prepared and submitted to the LAFCo. Adjustments to the description of the territory (Attachment A) are to be made as deemed necessary by the County Surveyor. The effective date of this reorganization shall be October 1, 1995, or nine (9) months after the date of the election in which a majority vote in favor of the reorganization, whichever is earlier. An agreement for payment of service costs satisfactory to the City shall be executed by Jennifer Lin, one of the project proponents. All terms and conditions specified in DSRSD's Reso. No. regarding this proposal are hereby incorporated into this resolution by reference. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Executive Officer of the LAFCo. PA94-030 (C2reso#105-94) 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 1994, by the following vote= AYES: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder .,NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None c: planning\carol\94030res PA94-030 (C2reso#105-94) EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION NO. 10 (EASTERN DUBLIN) TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN All that certain real property situated in the County of 'Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Parcel A as shown on the map of Annexation No. 10 (Eastern Dublin) to the City of Dublin by Resolution No. __ adopted by the City of Dublin on · 1994; said map was signed by the County Surveyor on Containing 1538 acres, more or less. This description conforms to the requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Donald J. LaBelle - Director of Public Works Ousama H. Kawar - County Surveyor R.C.E. 18499, Expires 6/30/97 By: Reid Penland, Deputy County Surveyor L.S. 5726, Expires 12/31/95 ~"'~t.~ !8 t r* C_,, 16034Desyr609Exhibit 1/63 EXHIB IT A DESCRIPTION OF DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 94-1 TO THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES .DISTRICT All that certain real property situated in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Parcel A as shown on the map. of Dublin San Ramon Services District Annexation No. 94-1 to the Dublin San Ramon Services District by Resolution No. adopted by the Dublin San Ramon Services District on , 1994; said map was signed by the County Surveyor on Containing 1542 acres, more or less. This description conforms to the requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Donald J. LaBelle - Director of Public Works Ousama H. Kawar - County Surveyor R.C.E. 18499, Expires 6/30/97 Reid Penland, Deputy County Surveyor L.S. 5726, Expires 12/31/95 16034DesJT609Exhibit 1/63 EXHIB IT A DESCRIPTION OF DETACHMENT NO. 94-1 FROM LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT All that certain real property situated in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Parcel A as shown on the map of Detachment No. 94-1 from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District by Resolution No. adopted by the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District on , 1994; said map was signed by the County Surveyor on Containing 1029 acres, more or less. This description conforms to the requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Donald J. LaBelle ~ Director of Public Works Ousama H. Kawar - County Surveyor R.C.E. 18499, Expires 6/30/97 Reid Penland, Deputy County Surveyor L.S. 5726, Expires 12/31/95 16(}34DesJT609Exhibit 1/63 // I SfL VERIA, ANN H, TRUSTREDGP~C~ CONSTRUCT1Gq CO, DOOLAN WEST ASSOCIATES SERIES NO. 84.248248 SERIES NO, 82,094709 SERIES NO. 86321121 This map corn Drams to the requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commlsmaon of Alameda Coun y, ~ ~' LIN 40. ~ RT. & EILEEN SPERFSLAGE - BOUNDARY U.SJ. (CAMP PARKS) ,~/ , ~ ,~ California. Donmad LaBma~e - Director of Fub~ Works LIN SERTES NO. 90-248111 SERIES NO. 90-2150~1 CHANG SiLO SERIES NO. 82.001756 SERIES NO. 86.234313 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP "RECORD OF DURVEY RIS NO, IO0S' DATED OCTOBER lfi0, RECORDED IN BOOK lS, pAGE R.C.E. 18499, Expires 6/30/97 · ""' By: Fiehi Penland. Depuly C~unty Suwyeor ,,~,,r"""'~i.~ LS. ti726, Reglsiretkm, Expires 12.,31/95 ~ ""~ ~ ~l This map when tiled, was accompanied by e OUBUH IIw,~ % II ceRiticste of COmpletion end caRtfind COpy of the bounda~/description delineated hereOn, as required by Section 57803 of the Government Code, which ~-sle~~ ceffi~cate of cornplat{on and boundsP/description are ~ ' records in Series No._~ of. Official .~e Records of Namede County. California. Steve Szalay - Executive Ofticer pLEASANTON ' SERIES NO. 86.2343 4 Locma Agency Forma0on Commission ' SERIES t,K~. (~ of Alameda Counly, CBfifomla . . S IAEpSN~i?~I~2~.7~0003I ~ LIN 'LIN VICINIT. Y MAP By: ConmadK. Gralf KOLLER ,,q · ' SERIES 140, 90-215062 LIN LIN . By: SL ~MEI~!~Ee'O APN 946-1040-3.2 APH leB..m03~-l- ' ' ' ' SERIES ~ 82~f343 By: R°be~t~ , * ' LS. NO;5412, Exp. 9/30 · · ' · NOTE: * SERI%ASSNTO%%f-O3°e84 TOTAL ANNEXATION AREA' 1538 ACRE ,, ~OWEUA~OROA~VmUS & 80-~.9805 ' : SERIES NO. 74- 60635 MAP AREAS. APN ~46-500-3 ;' I I SERIES NO. 82.06.343 o< -<0 ), SERIES NO. 88-07916I~ BOUNDARY OF THIS ANNEXATION WERE PROVIDED TO ER,o :,' *"=EA:°"""°'*REc°RE'D'RE°c°"DEN*E*"'* ANNEXED TO THE CTY OF DUBLIN CALTFOR~IA"~r ;~CldOre. -CENTERLINEOFr~% ...~ *RE.RE ~,q.%E~,..., ES.,ES .O. ~ ' CF CALTHANS pROPERTT DUBLIN LAND CO P NY MAY DEVANY ' LEGEND r. rt :......xx~,,.,Jo.,o.o. TB.~" BOC.U~.V.A.C'~, L,..,.E~OS,~..~.O..rrO,~.~ ' INTERSTATE 580 . ,...uo.u~.,.,~nZ..t..x. ~%.crrv o o,,, .... ' D PLEASANTON C .... OUNCIL O ........ .O. S4E. CITY OF PLEASANTON "' eeX~USTJO"*aR~n'Y OF PL ..... O, . ~ . ,,Maln,iiii'__D / ~)~ ~)~8 ADOPTED NOVEMBER S, 1i71, IN MAP BOOR 73 AT C()LI1VTY OF AMMEOA N , PAGE T (T1-162868) RECOROS OF ALAMEDA ~U TY, SERI~ ~. AF~493 S ~9~ ~UBUN ~NING ~ Th~s mep cornforms to the requirements of the LOC~ ROBERTJ. N~tS~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ..... ~' * } ' , ~n~d~e-~orof~Wo~ ~,~*~' ~C.E. 1~, Expires ~7 ~__. 9ERIE9 }~248111 SERIES ~g0-21s06s ' D N ~ .,~ ~,,.~. ~ . . - wcsN~l[ MAP ~ ~'MDE~ L LIN [SERIESNO. 92~g21~ LIN SERIES NO. ~S-01976t ~ "~:~LO~A~R~:~r ~"~ .: _ eo-2~sosi ' ~E~ NO. 94-1 /I ' NOTE: .' ~ ..' . . . ' + Zw{ 91-146798 St-14679S LIN ~ APH~ W ARD ' EXHIBIT *A' I; I~ND~Y ~ !~ ~ ~ ~P ' . . A~ Hm WAY CI~ OF DUBLIH .o~v - D~L~ ~ ~ON SER~C~ [~ ' DUeL H LAND COMPANY No. 1H~ OAHO ~OSSn ~, ~ ~L~ ~ ~ S~R ES HO,e3 ~827N ~EMAY DEVANY LEGEND ~ ' ' e~Fm EXIS,NO ~,Lffi SAN ,A~C~OF~BLIN ' INTERSTATE 580 "" .xMo. s,,vm,s os~c~ PLEASANTON CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO, e4S. CITY OF PLEASANTON ~ ~ AMMEDA EXIS~NG C~ OF PLEUANTON rlUBLIN PLANNING PLEASANTON VICINITY MAP o ~'~? '~' ~ · PAOYEH LIN SERIES NO. BO~JNDARY AS SHOWN OR THE MAP ~ [ 91-146796 DUBLIN LAND COMPANY ~.~A~CREAmN~PA~ CITY OF PLEASANTON DOOL~N W~ST ASSOC~4TES SERIES I~. 8t~-321f2f oo . LIN ~ot8 APN fl~] 1 SERIES ~. LIN N SERI~ NO. ' 9 IB NO. 92~58918 92~58918 ' ' ' ' 'T PAR~L A II .o,0~o, TOTAL D~A~ME~' A~A: r ~ APN ~l ~ , ~' ~E ,~ :~:~N MAY RD ~ ~A PAOYEH LIN ~ SERIES NO. 72-17 9ERI~ NO, gl-146796 LIN [ D~LWm~ -t~. APH Hint SERI~ ~, ~1~7~ I SERIES ~, ~.2~54 APe lemf ] WM, & JEAN MAYNARD ~D N l~ I~ PAGE ~ LEGEND ' AY DEVANY INTERSTATE 580 AREA RECREA"N ANO PARK nUBUN PLANNING Thls map cornforms to the requirements of the to~sl Agency Format[on Commission ol Alameda County, Donald LaBerie - Dimdot of Publlc Works R.C.E. 18499, Expires 6/30/97 · Reid Penland, Depuly County Suwyeor LS. 5726, Registration, Expires 12/3/98 cezll~oate of cornpiGEon and coffified copy of the bounden/description definested hereon, as required by Section 57803 of the Government Code, which codl~cate of complst/on End boundary descdpffon are records In Sedge No. of Official Records of Nameda County, CaIIIomla. Stave Szalay - Executive DIffer Locat Agency Formation Commission of Alameda County, California By: Donald K, Gruff Administrative Analyst, LAFCO Staff filed st the request of st__ mlnutss p~st__ M, onthe __, 19__, under Series No, __ Records of Alameda COunty, Calltotal& Patdck O'Conne{f - County Recorder day of Deputy County Recorder This map was prepared by me or Under my direaliGn By: Robed Chart LS. No. 54f2, Exp. 9,30/96 NOTE: 1. THE METHOD USED TO CALCULATE THE AREA WA~ BY 8UMMARY OF ALAMEDA COUNIT ASSESSOR PARCEL EXHIBIT 'A' DETACHMENT NO, 94-1 FROM L~VERMORE AREA P, ECR~A~ON AND PARK DISTRICT CrI'Y OF DUBUN SERVICES Police Protection Fire Protection Water Distribution Sewage Collection and Treatment Refuse Collection Street Lighting Street Maintenance and Sweeping Flood Control Parks and Recreation Library' Services Electridty Cable Television Transit Other AlaTedaCo/ty Fire Patrol ~/A ~/A Comtycf~ Zcr~7 Ceun~.: of,'Alaltdt ~/A PROPOSED AGENCY City oF D/1tin II~hl in Sa~ Ransn Sewices DisCride Ci~;.ofDab]_in Ci~y of Dublin City. of II3hl in 7ere 7/Cit-~ of Thhl in ~ nF nn~:F~T FRA~ OItRA._TOR l:~a~ TAVPA Attn:lmt, c PLAN FOR MUNICH~AL SERVICES INTRODUCTION Timing of Annexation Ever since the incorporation of Dublin, Eastern Dublin has been envisioned as someday being part of the City. It is called out as the Eastern Extended Planning Area in Dublin's original general plan (1985). For the past seven years the City has been constantly involved in planning the area. With the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and conclusion of a referendum on those two plans, some property owners in the annexation area are now showing an interest in developing their properties. Considerable time is being spent by City staff working with these owners to implement the provisions of the plans. Because oftMs, the City would like to see annexation of these properties occur in a timely manner (by 1995) so the responsibilities and obligations of these property owners under the terms of the Specific Plan can be formalized and the City's investment of time and money better protected. Additionally, although approximately one fifth of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area is currently within the City of Dublin (the 700 acre County owned Santa Rita Property), it would not be feasible to build out this area without concurrent development in the annexation area. This is because of the tremendous cost of extending infrastructure through the Santa Pdta site. Concurrent development of the annexation area would provide the critical mass necessary to make the financing of infrastructure in both areas practical. For this reason the City is interested in seeing development start in the annexation area as soon as possible. Annexation to the City is the first step in the development process. Once the annexation becomes effective~ the major landowner of the annexation area intends to submit a rezoning request and a Land Use and Development Plan. Before development in Eastern Dublin can commence, a large number of intervening actions must be accomplished. They are set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the EIR. In addition to annexation to the City and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) some of these action include preparation of: a visual survey, acoustical study, grazing management plan, wildfire management plan, parks implementation plan, solid waste management plan, construction impact reduction plan, utilities and public facilities master plans, school impact mitigation agreement, vegetation management plan, earthquake preparedness plan, energy conservation plan, energy conservation demonstration E r-,/.t / IT' project, stream corridor restoration plan and sedimentation control ordinance in addition to the Land Use and Development Plan and tentative map required to secure detailed City zoning on property in the annexation area. The preparation of virtually all of the studies, plans, agreements, etc. listed above will require the joint participation of City staff, landowners and professional consultants who are experts in the various fields involved. As a result the costs to prepare these studies will total hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to requirements of the Specific Plan, these costs will have to be born by the owners or developers of the property in the Eastern Dublin area. These owners and developers are willing to incur such a tremendous obligation provided their properties are officially part of the jurisdiction in which development will take place. Conversely, the City is willing to make the required commitment of City resources to undertake the substantial task of coordinating this work provided the property is subject to City jurisdiction. For this reason annexation to the City of Dublin is being sought at this time rather than after completion of the documents required by the Specific Plan. Availability of Services As shown in this Plan for Services the agencies responsible for providing services to the annexation area are known at this time. DSRSD is responsible for wastewater collection and treatment but it must expand its capacity to dispose of the sewage from the annexation area and from a portion of the planned growth within its current service area. This situation is currently the subject of negotiations between the Livemore Areadot Valley Wastewater Management Agency (LAVWMA) and the East Bay Dischargers Authority CEBDA). These negotiations not only involve future development within the City of Dublin and DSRSD Sphere of influence but also the spheres of Livermore and Pleasanton. Over the past six months proposals and counter- proposals have been made between LAVWMA and EBDA concerning the costs and terms of expanding capacity through EBDA. All negotiations include sufficient capacity to serve the annexation area. Capacity to provide all other services to the annexation area either currently exists, is scheduled through contract to be provided in the future, or will be available as soon as funding from the developers is provided. Because of the magnitude of the studies and plans required by the Specific Plan, it is quite possible that the sewage disposal question will have been answered before those studies are completed. No building permits can be issued until a sewage disposal solution is found. 2 Annexation Justification The following reasons justify the size and configuration of this proposed annexation. First, the proposed annexation is large enough to support the financing of planning engineering studies for determining the appropriate infrastructure systems, such as water and sewer that are necessary to service the area. Property owners within the annexation area are required to fund these studies and they need land use assurances before they are willing to do so. This annexation assures property owners of the land use and development potential and provides for the orderly development of the area. Second, once developed, this area will contain enough housing and commercial base to support the financing and implementation of infrastructure systems. Third, sixty-eight percent of the proposed annexation area is owned by one land owner who, with another land owner, has requested this annexation. Annexing just this major land owner's property would result in creating islands or unincorporated corridors. Fourth, this proposed annexation configuration follows existing property lines, and is a logical, contiguous extension of the existing Dublin city limits. Fii~h, this proposed annexation incorporates two freeway interchanges (at Tassajara and Fallon roads), and two north and south arterials, Tassajara Road and a portion ofFalIon Road, providing proper access to the annexation area. Sixth, the proposed annexation of 1,542 acres to DSRSD is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. Seventh, the proposed detachment of 1,029 acres from the LARPD is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. SERVICES The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR were prepared with the knowledge that they would be used for the annexation to the City of Dublin and the DSRSD and detachment from the Livermore Area Park and Recreation District (LARPD). Special care was taken during the preparation of these documents to insure that the analysis of service provided therein would be thorough and thereby satisfy the requirements of the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for these actions. Both documents were referred to, reviewed by and commented upon by LAFCO staff and those comments were incorporated into the final drains of the Plan and EIR. DSRSD reviewed the documents to ensure that they would support the future discretionary action of the District to annex Eastern Dublin properties. The District stated the draet EIR presented a thorough analysis of the impacts of the project on water and wastewater services keeping in mind the Distfict's master plan models for water, wastewater and recycled water would need to be 3 updated as soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan. This task is required by Mitigation Measures 3.5/2.0, 13.0 and 35.0 of the EIR and has now been accomplished through completion of the report titled Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report (G. S. Dodson and Associates, December, 1993). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR represent, in effect, a "Plan for Services" for the entire Eastern Dublin area of which the area to be annexed under this application constitutes slightly less than one-half. Infrastructure will be extended through the annexation area in phases, basically from West to East and from South to North. DSRSD would provide water, recycled water and wastewater services to the annexation area. As a condition of annexation to the District, DSRSD has required Eastern Dublin property owners to enter into Area-Wide Facility Agreements that will lead to studies which will provide the next level of detail for phasing of water, wastewater and recycled water facilities. Preliminary data on water, wastewater and storm drainage facilities needed to serve the annexation area are shown in Attachment 1. Since no development approvals are sought by virtue of this annexation application, no final approval of water and sewerage facilities is granted. The final approval of the water and sewerage facilities needed to ultimately serve the annexation area may only be granted by DSRSD. The City of Dublin and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District are responsible for the final approval of storm water drainage facilities. WATER Potable Water DSRSD has been actively planning to provide water service to Eastern Dublin. To update the information contained in the Final Specific Plan and provide a basis for future infrastructure planning efforts throughout the Eastern Dublin area, DSRSD has prepared the "EASTERN DUBLIN FACILITIES PLAN FINAL REPORT", (G. S. Dodson and Associates, December, 1993). The attached Figure 2 of this Report (Attachment 2) illustrates the required potable water pipelines, turnouts, pumps and storage facilities. DSRSD has prepared updated water demand estimates for the proposed annexation area (see Attachment 3). Potable water system cost estimates are shown in Table 7 (Attachment 4). 4 No water service is currently provided to the annexation area by DSRSD. The few residences and other land uses in the area currently use well water. With annexation, all new development could receive water service from DSRSD. Existing homes can remain on wells unless a parcel is proposed for subdivision. All subdivision development shall be provided with public (DSRSD) water as provided by County Health regulations. DSRSD currently obtains all of its water supplies from Zone 7 which wholesales treated local surface water, groundwater and imported water to various Livermore/Amador Valley water agencies. Zone 7 has stated in its "Water Supply Planning Keport" dated November, 1993 that it has sufficient water to serve the Valley for 6 to 11 years assuming an annual growth rate of 2% to 3%. This period could be lengthened to between 16 to 25 years depending on such factors as water conservation, through the implementation of Best Management Practices, and completion of certain already approved State Water Project facilities. Ultimately, however, an additional 25,000 AFY will be needed by year 2020 to satisfy "prospective" Valley general plans at the 2% - 3% growth rate. Zone 7 has identified in the "Water Supply Planning Report" a number of diverse and feasible options that it can pursue for additional water, such as water marketing/transfers; additional storage; or recycled water. These three sources have the potential to make an additional 59,300 AFY available to the Zone 7 area. Zone 7 has prepared a report addressing the necessary increases to its connection fees to fund the effort to serve additional supplies and construct necessary facilities to deliver it to retailers such as DSRSD. Zone 7 has increased its connection charge in accordance with this report to provide the funding for the development of the necessary water resources and the construction of the needed infrastructure. DSRSD has recently renegotiated its Water Supply Contract with Zone 7. The renewed contract will be for a term of 30 years and is renewable upon expiration. It obligates Zone 7 to supply all the water requested by DSRSD subject to its availability. The Agreement also provides DSRSD with the ability to seek and secure alternative sources of supply through mechanisms such as water transfers, to construct wells and pump from the groundwater basin which Zone 7 manages and to recycle water within its service area. As a source of additional water for limited applications such as landscaping, recycled water has been studied by several Valley service providers, including DSRSD, the City of Livermore, and Zone 7. DSRSD and the East Bay Municipal Utility District recently agreed to share the cost of a $110,000 study to determine the feasibility of using 3.3 mgd of treated wastewater to irrigate landscaped areas in Dublin and San Ramon. If implemented, this would make a limited volume of potable water available for other uses within Dublin. Recycled Water Recycled water from the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant will serve as an additional supply of water in addition to that provided by Zone 7 or other potential potable sources. Non-potable recycled water used for landscaped areas provides better protection of landscaping during times of extended drought or other water shortage emergencies, when potable water would otherwise be withheld from non-essential uses. The use of recycled water for such non-critical uses can actually protect property owners' substantial investments in landscaping, while also decreasing the total potable water demand. Resolution 42-92 of the DSRSD Board of Directors established a Recycled Water Policy which sets out policies and priorities for the provision of recycled water. It provides that in certain zones, recycled water would be a required addition to the potable source for specified acceptable uses. The zones within which this provision will govern will be created by DSRSD after completion of ongoing studies. It is envisioned that significant portions of the Eastern Dublin Phase 1 annexation will require recycled water facilities including dual piping and pumping and storage facilities. The attached Figure 4 of the G.S. Dodson Facilities Plan (Attachment 5) illustrates the required recycled water pipelines, pumps and storage facilities. The recycled water system cost estimates are described in Table 9 (Attachment 6). Recycled water demand is estimated for the annexation area on the attached "Estimated Recycled Water Demand" table (Attachment 7). WASTEWATER Wastewater services for the annexation area will be provided by DSRSDo The District has been actively planning to provide sewage collection, storage, treatment and disposal services to Eastern Dublin. To update the information contained in the Final Specific Plan and to provide a basis for future infrastructure planning efforts throughout the Eastern Dublin area, DSRSD has prepared the "EASTERN DUBLIN FACILITIES FINAL REPORT" (G. S. Dodson and Associates, December, 1993). Average wastewater flows for the annexation area are estimated on the attached "Estimated Wastewater Flows" table (Attachment 8). Wastewater Collection All development within the annexation area will be connected to the DSRSD collection system. Currently the few land uses in the area are on septic tanks. Existing homes will be required to 6 connect to DSRSD mains when they are within 200'feet of the property line, or when any subdivision of land is approved, in accordance with the County Health Department regulations. In general, the wastewater collection system will flow from north to south through the area then west parallel to 1-580 to existing collection facilities west of Hacienda Drive. The backbone system for the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area is shown in the attached Figure 3 from the G.S. Dodson Facilities Plan (Attachment 9). Wasewater collection system cost estimates are described in Table 8 (Attachment 10). Wastewater Storage Wastewater storage for diurnal peak flows and peak wet weather flows will be required because it may not be cost-effective to enlarge wastewater treatment and disposal facilities to the maximum size needed to accommodate all peak flows. DSRSD is currently studying where the required storage might best be located. Options include additional storage facilities at the wastewater treatment plant or at some location along the trunk sewer system either within or outside the Eastern Dublin area. Wastewater Treatment It is currently contemplated that treatment for sewage generated by development in the annexation area will be provided by the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant located south of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The plant is owned and operated by DSRSD and presently serves both the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. It has a current average dry weather flow of 11.5 mgd. Expansion of the plant has been master planned to be in four increments up to 36 mgd. Wastewater Disposal Disposal of treated wastewater from the DSRSD plant is through export to San Francisco Bay via the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Authority (LAVWMA) and East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) systems. DSRSD's current allotted capacity in the LAVWMA and EBDA systems is not sufficient for planned and approved development within DSKSD's existing area nor is it sufficient to serve development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which would require an average total daily export capacity of 4.3 MGD-ADWF. Ongoing planning efforts for the increase of disposal capacity have been investigated by two local agencies, the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) and LAVWMA. TWA approved a Final EIR which identified several alternatives for the increase of disposal capacity. At the time of the preparation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIK the preferred alternative consisted of transporting up to 40 mgd ofuntreated wastewater to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District plant in Martinez for treatment and disposal in Suisun Bay. An expansion of the LAVWMA system was another alternative identified and is currently the option being pursued. In this alternative, a contract for increased effluent capacity would be signed with EBDA and the current LAVWMA export line would be expanded. DSRSD is a member of LAVWMA. LAVWMA is to pursuing such additional capacity, up to 12.7 MGD as joint use facilities with concurrence of all LAVMWA members. Alternately, LAVWMA may pursue sole use facilities up to 5.4 MGD for DSRSD exclusively. Negotiations have been occurring with EBDA for the purchase of such capacity. All members of EBDA have indicated a willingness to approve the 12.7 MGD, once the terms of payment of such capacity are worked out. Out of this 12.7 MGD, DSRSD is expected to have 5.4 MGD (see attachment 11, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR Addendum dated August 22, 1994 for more information). However, DSRSD plans to continue the active pursuit of an increase to wastewater disposal capacity on all possible fronts. An additional form ofwastewater disposal currently planned for eastern Dublin will be through reclamation and reuse. Zone 7 in partnership with DSKSD and Livermore commissioned a water recycling study by Brown and Caldwell titled "Livermore Amador Valley Water Kecycling Study" dated May, 1992, which shows it would be possible to reuse up to 25,000 AFY in the Livermore/Amador Valley through groundwater recharge and surface irrigation. The report established the technical feasibility of use of demineralized recycled water for groundwater recharge. The Brown and Caldwell study identified potential alternative recycled water projects valley-wide, including alternative "W-4", which concerned the use of up to 4,000 acre feet per year (3.6MGD) demineralized recycled water on the westside of the Valley, for groundwater recharge. DSRSD has since taken several steps toward implementation of this disposal alternative. DSRSD's current Capital Improvement Program includes and provides funding for the preparation of a Demineralized Recycled Water Study necessary to plan for the construction of facilities at the existing Wastewater Treatment plan to produce demineralized recycled water, as well as an Effluent Disposal Master Plan which will identify and optimize altemative disposal techniques. It is the goal of DSRSD to have additional disposal capacity via groundwater recharge with demineralized water available, if such capacity has not been provided by the expansion of LAVWMA facilities, within 3 years of the effective date of annexation. As noted in the "Water" section of the Plan for Services, recycled water piping and facilities will be required for major portions of the Phase 1 annexation, as determined by policy of the DSRSD Board of Directors. STORM DRAINAGE Zone. 7 will be responsible for large drainage channels in the annexation area. The City of Dublin will be responsible for local storm drains which connect to the Zone 7 channels. Conceptual backbone storm drainage facilities for the Eastern Dublin area are shown in Figure 9.4 (see Attachment 12). POLICE PROTECTION Currently police protection for the annexation area and the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area is provided by the Alameda County Sheriffs Department and the California Highway Patrol. Once the area is annexed, police responsibilities will shift to the Dublin Police Department. The Dublin Police Department, which operates out of a central facility in the Dublin Civic Center, currently has 28 sworn officers and 3 civilian staff. This is a police officer-to-resident ratio of 1.2/1000. Employing this same ratio, 44 additional officers may be required for the entire Eastern Dublin area. The City's police department is a division of the Alameda County Sheriffs Department and is funded by the City through a contractual agreement with the County. Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the personnel are employed by the County Sheriffs Department. The City's police department is a full service operation except for dispatch which is provided through the County Sheriffs dispatch office in San Leandro. FIRE PROTECTION At the present time fire protection services to the annexation area are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department and the California Division of Forestry. With annexation and development of the area, the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) would become 9 responsible for fire services. DRFA provides fire protection services for the cities of Dublin and San Ramon. DRFA has 45 line fire-fighters and four officers based at two fire stations, one station is located in Dublin and the other in San Ramon. DRFA operates under a standard of a 1.5 mile response zone for each station in order to maintain a response time within 5 minutes. Retention of this standard will require the construction of 2 new fire stations in the Eastern Dublin area. The first of these stations will be located just to the west of the annexation area in the vicinity of Gleason Drive and is required to be completed prior to completion of the initial development in the Eastern Dublin planning area. The second would be generally located east of Fallon Road. SOLID WASTE Coordination of solid waster management activities in Alameda County is a joint responsibility of the County's Waste Management Authority and local jurisdictions. The City of Dublin presently contracts with a private company for residential and commercial garbage collection within city limits. This disposal service company does not see any problems in providing service to the annexation area once it is developed. PARKS AND RECREATION Portions of the annexation area are currently within the jurisdictions of the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation Department (LARPD) and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) although because it is virtually undeveloped, no park facilities exist in the area. Once annexation takes place EBRPD will continue to provide regional park services to the area but part of the application for reorganization is to detach the annexation area from LARPD. Dublin has a policy in its General Plan to revise jurisdictional boundaries so City of Dublin departments have control over all park land within the Dublin Sphere of influence. The City of Dublin plans to provide local and community park and recreation services to the area. Dublin recently adopted a parks and recreation master plan ~Vhich shows 3 community and 7 neighborhood parks in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. This corresponds to the number, type and location of those facilities shown in the Specific Plan. Five of these facilities (3 neighborhood and 2 community parks) are within the annexation area. 10 UTILITIES Electricity and natural gas will be supplied to the annexation area by P.G. & E. Maintenance of street lighting will be by the City of Dublin. Existing electrical service to the area includes distribution lines to homes along Tassajara Road. No natural gas lines are currently in the area. PG & E has indicated it has capacity to expand ks facilities to provide power and gas to supply the area as planned. Telephone service is provided by Pacific Bell. Service is currently available to the area and Pacific Bell is able to expand that service to the degree necessary to accommodate the planned development of the annexation area. STREET MAINTENANCE Street maintenance and sweeping services will be provided to the annexation area by the City of Dublin. These services in the annexation area are currently the responsibility of the County of Alameda. LIBRARY The annexation area is served by the Alameda County Library system and will continue to be after annexation. While this service will initially be provided by the existing branch library located on Amador Valley Blvd., the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for a new branch in the specific plan area, probably in the Town Center portion of that area. CABLE TELEVISION Cable television service to the annexation area will be provided by the City of Dublin through franchised operators. Currently there is no cable television service to the area. TRANSIT There are currently no transit lines which directly serve the annexation area. The Livermore /Amador Transit Authority (LAVTA) and BART express bus service both serve Dublin and at 11 least the former will probably be extended to the subject area ai~er annexation. Once BART is extended to east Dublin in 1995 it will provide convenient service to the annexation area but there will then be no need for the express bus service. FINANCING Because Eastern Dublin and the area to be annexed are, for the most part, currently undeveloped rural land and full urban services are being proposed, extensive public improvements will be required for its development. The financing of these improvements is described in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Table 10-1 (Attachment 13) indicates the total cost of these improvements for the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will be $532.5 million. Of this total approximately $136 million will be needed for streets, highway interchanges and mass grading; $235 million for water and sewage treatment and storage facilities; and over $160 million will be necessary for schools, parks and public buildings. Payment of these costs will be the responsibility of the landowners in the area as they develop their properties. The funding mechanisms used for this purpose will probably be a combination of impact fees and assessment and/or capital facilities districts. Park, school, fire and utility impact fees and Mello-Koos, Marks-Koos and special assessment districts are all described in the Plan. Tables 10-2 and 10-3 show how those fees and bond proceeds could be phased over a 17 year period. Table 10-3 indicates a bond debt service to residential value ratio well within established guidelines for repayment. Table III-9 (Attachment 14) is a cash flow analysis for Eastem Dublin over a 20 year time span and shows a cumulative net surplus to the City of Dublin of $49 million at the end of that period. All of this indicates that the development of Eastern Dublin (and the annexation area) as planned is very practical from a financial standpoint. A fiscal analysis of the service costs of the annexation area and revenues to be generated from the area over the next 5 years was prepared. This analysis projects that costs will exceed revenues over the next several years. This projection is consistent with the Specific Plan's analysis (Attachment 14) which shows costs exceeding revenues in early years. However, the Specific Plan shows that revenues will exceed costs over the long term. The city will enter into an agreement with the major proponent of the annexation to cover the anticipated short fall during the initial years in order to assure the annexation's consistency with the Specific Plan. c:\planning\carol\plantxt 12 .' ,.,..:: '-.,.'-. .,:,..... ,, ...' '...,....-.- ~ . .: E: .... · ~,- :.. :. . . ..,., : ..... : ~ - ~ '.. ' .........~ r" : "-:',. "s ~ 1 -- PIP~NE " . ""...... ~.. . ..:.-.-.: ..............-........ '. -, 2'2':.:.:-/~.-..",. /~.... ........'. ~....,"'-.': '/"o ~RE BART ~1 ~ "" .............................;~ ~'" ' .............. . 1 ' . " 10" "': ........... ".."'~ "" PARKING LOT ~1 10" ~ 10" ." 107: 10' ' .......... J~"" 10" ~ CS. Da:t,C:~a~ATES ~.CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1~10" 10" 10' TZONE 7 TURNOUT (5,502 GPM) DUBUN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT' ! 1Q' ROAO ...." 1,750 3,500 FT /: ~ EASTERN DUBUN FACIUTIES PLAN POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE SIZES RGURE NUMBER Estimated Potable Water Demand For Eastern Dublin Land Use ~ Gross (2) Unit Density I Persons Per ~ Average Day Desiqnation Acreaqe Factor (3) Unit (4) Demand, GPD (5) Residential Rural 170.5 Single Family 310.6 Medium Density 268.9 Medium-High Density 25.2 .............. High Density 33.6 I ~";t~;I 808. It Commercial/Industrial Annexation No. I ( 1 ) General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Campus Office Public/Semi-Public ............ I.,..~11:1 Parks and Open Space 0.01 3.16 125/person 1 0.00 4 3.16 125/person 550 0.49 10 2.58 125/person 971 0.87 20 2.00 125/person 141 0.13 35 2.00 125/person 329 0.29 ................... !s.:!2 ..... !i~!=:~!!~i~i.i!~j~!:!~::iiii~ii~i~::~ 150.8 N/A N/A 1950/acre 329 0.29 31.5 } N/A N/A 1950 /acre 69 0.06 7~.11 N/~ N/~ : 1950/ac,e I~ 0.~5 8.01 N/A N/A i 3800 facre 0.03 N/A N/A 3400/acre 492 0.44 N/A I N/A 3400/acre 42 0.04 N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00 ..... i;!~.~ ........ Parks and Neighborhood Squares 129.1 __ Freeway Landscaping 11.0 Open Sp.a_.cFL ............. 212.7 I c:/al "' 3,';2 .li"' Schools Schools 113,9 'l'c}l,-":,l 1'I 3.9 ............ i' .............. (:.~'rand 'I olid '1,"~4 1.9 F:\PPDPOOLXEDANNXI\PWEDANXi.xNK3/BWW N./.A.. ...............N/.A .............3029./a?.r.e .......................................,3..8.3. .....0.34 · '. ...... ...z ........."".'..' ........... ] NOTES: (1) Planning level estimates; subject to re-evaluation as more detailed information becomes available. (2) Per City of Dublin Prezone Alaplicatic~ PA 94-030, 8-1-94; and T~ble 1, E. Dublin Facil. Plan, GS Dodson, Dec., 1993, (3) Units per acre, from Final Eastem Dublin Specific Plan, May 10, 1993, (4) From U.S. Census, 1990, City of Dublin, (5) From Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan, GS Podson, Dec., 1993; Peak Day Potable Demand=2 times Av. Day Demand; Peak Day Irrigation Demand= 2.7 times Av. Day Demand; GPD= gallons per day, (6) AF/Yr=acre feet per year. (7) MGD=million gallons per day, (8) From "Estimated Recycled Water Demand for Eastem Dublin Annexation No. 1 ", August 30, 1994. Dublin San Ramon Services District August 30, 1994 Attachment 4 TABLE 7 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE Item J Quantity ~ Unit Cost' Total Costb lO-inch pipe 93,756 If ~85/Ifc 8 8.0 million 12-inch pipe 38,446 If $100/1ff $ 3.8 million 14-inch pipe 7,530 If 811511ff ~ 0.9 million 16-inch pipe 16,085 If 8125/1P 8 2.0 million 18-inch pipe 19, 135 If $135/1ff $ 2.6 million 10 mgd pump station 2 ea 82.1 million per each 4.2 million 1.3 mgd pump station 2 ea 4.9 mg reservoir 2 ea 4.2 mg reservoir 2 ea 1.5 mg reservoir iea $450,000 per each 82 per gallon $2 per gallon 82 per gallon 0.9 million 819.6 million ~16.8 million 3.0 million TOTAL POTABLE WATER SYSTEM $61.8 million Costs include construction, contingencies (30 percent), and engineering and administration (20 percent). Costs are based on an ENR Cost Index of 6295 (January 1993). Pipeline costs are for installation in existing streets. g :\...\#2504\report December 21, 1993 X G.S. DODSON &ASSOCIATES NOTE'. A BOOSTER PUMP STATION AND RESERVOIR ARE REQUIRED OFF-S~TE AS PART OF./:IHE SUPPLY SYSTEM. } ' RGURENUMBER j) DUBLIN SAN RAMON EASTERN DUBLIN RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION 4 SERVICES DISTRICT · FACIUTIES PLAN PIPELINE SIZES JOB NO. 2504 Attachment 6 TABLE 9 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE Item Quantity Unit Cost' I Total Costb 8-inch pipe 57,585 If ~80/Ifc ~4.6 million 1 O-inch pipe 13,308 If ~85/iff '~1.1 million 12-inch pipe 21,490 If $100/1ff ,~2.1 million 14-inch pipe 18,523 If ~115/lff ~2.1 million 6 mgd pump station Iea ~1.6 million per each $1.6 million 1.5 mg reservoir Iea ,~2 per gallon ~3.0 million 1.6 mg reservoir 1 ea $2 per gallon ~3.2 million TOTAL RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM 917.7 million Costs include construction, contingencies (30 percent), and engineering and administration (20 percent). Costs are based on an ENR Cost Index of 6295 (January 1993). Pipeline costs are for installation in existing streets. g :\...\#2504\report December 21, 1993 Xii ~ G.S. DODSON & ASSOCIATES Estimated Recycled Water Demand For Eastern Dublin Annexation No. I (1) Land Use Designation Residential Rural Single Family Medium Density Medium-High Density Hi,g__h_D.e.nsitY ......... I r)!al Commercial/Industrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Campus Office Public/Semi- Public 1 c}fal Parks and Open Space Parks and Neighborhood Squares Freeway Landscaping ~OB.e__n..S. Pace .............. Schools Schools 113,9 0.90 0.85 87.1 4.0 348.5 ............................... r~,a~ ..........! .......~:.~.9 ............~ ....."~'. ~'". ............' .........'.i..'.' .........:::'::::'.:'.'..ii!!i~l:~i I I I i Grand 'l'alal Irrigable Land Net Irrigable Irrigation Average Year Average Day 170.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.00 310.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.00 268.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.00 25.2 0.85 0,15 3.2 4.0 J 12,9 0.01 33,6 j O.85 0.15 4.3 4.01 17.1 0.02 ~..~ ..............................................7 :~ .............................................~::~,~:~ I 19.2 4.o i 150.8 0.85 0.15 . , 76,9 o.07 31.5j 0.85~ 0 151 4,0j 4.0j 16,1 0.01 76.1~ 0.85j 0.15i 9.7j 4.0i 38.81 o.o3 8.0i 0,85~ 0.15~ 1.0j 4.01 .... 4.1 ' 0,004 ..... ~ ~ ":~ ....... ................ ...............: ............:.'.::.': ...............:'3:~70 ................... ............... ................... . 129.1, 0.95 j 1.00 122.6 4.0 49o.6 0,44 0.85 1,00 j 9.4 4.0 J 37,4 J o.03 .... o.o 352 ~ .... . . . 132 .'0 ........... ' ~ 0,31 ~h.~ ~.9 ..........................................~ ..............'~;'~i"6 ............................................~ ........... Notes: (1) Planning level estimates; subject to revision as more detailed information becomes available. (2) Per City of Dublin Prezone Application PA g4-030, August I, 1994, and Table 3, E. Dublin Facil~ Plan, GS Dodson, Dec, 1993, (3) Fraction of Gross Acreage remaining after road and other dedications, (4) Fraction of developed areas with landscaping. (5) Evapotranspiration rate in feet per year from Cal Dept Water Resources data, (6) AF/Yr=acre feet per year, (7) MGD=million gallons per day. F:XI'PDPOOL\EDANNX1XRWEDANXLWK3/B~"~V Dublin San Ramon Services District August30,1994 ~-~ Estimated Wastewater Flows For Eastern Dublin Annexation No. I (1) Land Use Designation Residential Rural 170.5 Single Family 310.6 Medium Density 268.9 Medium-High Density 25.2 .... Hig. h...D. ensity. 33.6 'T' ot a l ~lf} 8. fi, Commercial/Industrial General Commercial 150.8 0.16 Neighborhood Commercial 31.5 0.04 Campus Office 76.1 ' 0.12 .P..u.b,!ic./Sem. L-Pub.)ic .... : ... 8.0 .... 0.01 Tot ~.,~ Parks and Open Space 0.01 3.16 80/person 0.0004 4 3.16 80/person 0.31 10 2.58 80/person 0.56 20 2. O0 8o/person 0.08 35 2.00 80/person 0.19 Floor Area, SF x ~,ooo 0.25 1642 0.1/SF 0.3 412 0.1/SF 87 0.1/SF Parks and Neighborhood Squares 129.1 N/A N/A N/A 0.00 Freeway Landscaping 11.0 N/A N/A ] N/A 0.00 __O_pen Space. 212.7 N/A N/A N/A 0.00 .: .........'rot al ......i ....3:,2 .B ...... i~iii ~i~i!ilii~!~iiiiiiiii~:~i~ Schools \ Schools 113.9 ..........:..N/.A. ................N/A ...... Tiii'!"~iT."..:'E"".'.~:."" . ......'i..':.::.'.:..:. ~'L ~ Grand Toti~l : 1.54 I.,9 2000/acre 0.23 I ................................... F:XPPDPOOL~EDANNX]\WWEDANX1.WK3/BWW Notes: (1) Planning level estimates; subject to re-evaluation as more detailed information becomes avajlable. (2) Per City of Dublin Prezone Application PA 94-030, August 1, 1994; and Table 2, E. Dublin FaciL Plan, GS Dodson, Dec., 1993. (3) Units Per Acre (residential) and Floor Area Ratio (commercial/industrial) from Final Eastem Dublin Specific Plan, May 10, 1993. (4) From U.S. Census, 1990, City of Dublin. (5) From Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan, GS Dodson, Dec., 1993; GPD=gallons per day. (6) MGD:million gallons per day, (7) Net floor area in 1,000's square feet. Dublin San Ramon Services District August 30, 1994 :..:'.'= :.'. :., 'i...." i' ':;-.~ '.-.:'~ ....'"':'.. ..'-P6~ ":..' ".'..' ! ':;:;" .....' !;;' ..-".".!' ~.. ....'.,."-.:"~"--.. '- ~ ":." i:" E.; .... . "'.= :., '. '~ , ""'~,; STATIOI','I: .- ..'.' : .. ......... :~ ."'9i ': ~ ;:.'.......... ...-' .; !... .. .': ....~ / :. · ~F"' '~ ,~o~'.-:: ~ :---::- ....' .-.-"' ......':::= ::~ ': :.... "' .:" ~ ....';"" ~ ".: . :.......... · .... '.:....":-s . .; ....... -.-~ .?-......:-.:.....:..· ........- -...':.;';..;-~::: .;-.:~ ;:.:..::...,".." ? ::~"'.-........ :-.-......-',.~;.....~ - .:~: -.... ...:......,,...~.-' ...... -,. .: . ::'~,~" .:'.......-"" ....---.:..;--.. ....,-;~........ ", :: ...~ ..~ ~, ~;..':': ~ .....--'..: ~ ......., ~ ....; . '.'.:' :. :~.--.~ ~ .'::... · . ..........;.~ .- ......:." '....~~'-:.~;; ~ =:: .........·,'.:...:. '..... -..:.~.,.:~ ... -.%;:.: ....::.: :::: ......:::: ..:-~= ...:~ .;: - ..~.. '.,.. ~;~' ..::...- '.~o~~,. ' " ' ' :' = " "~' ' '~ ~ ' ~ · : ' : ': "- -" "- "'.. ":'::""900""". ': :' .:"""> '~ .........,..'-..,.~~~i~ ~ .... - .......~......., ~'.-..;.. '.-......-.~ ~,........:,....~.., ~ ,:' .:: ',-.'~'.....:.-.::"......:' ...:' .......",~~:'.'.'.'."'~:~ ,o."'~ ~ ~:'.'-, " ......~ "":.:.:..:.~ ~::..'....~....-:~:'~...--.." ............:':::.. ':~ .: .-~"':,..~ ~:.-.....=.""~..'.~""~.;:. .... :~ :'---: '-..,."" "~'~ ;'. '""';:' , ~ ~:' :~-. '-'~" ' i ':: ...........;~"' :'- ..........; ....""- ........".. ;:%' ~, noo~N :~ .... '" , ,~ ...... · ... ""' ~ ~ ~ '. ~ .... · ;" ~ : .... oo 7 ." CANYON · - ~ ~ ~ :".. ~::': ....... ~- ;"":...-'~. ..' ~.. ~ .' ~ ~. ..- ~ .' : ~ : : · .... ; ..... , .... :,:~ ::..:':'~'.::: .,:~..:: ,~~'-'~, :~-......~ ...... ... ~:..~ :.~ ~=-~ ~....~'-";: .......::...:.....:.:~...7%;......~..:......:-.~.:.:,.... -.-~:. ~ ~"' ......~....."'....'.~~ l~' ~ ~~. ,.. ~ . , ..... . .. "'.. ...... ."'2 , ",.. "'.. ~ ... ~..? ~ -~." ::~ , ' ~. "......: "... ~ ', '.." ".,/ ~ .z } ...... .."'-:. :.:.-...."".. ~; ":~ ........ : .....· ~ -. ......·. ~ .......~:.,~.:~;:. '..; ,.~ ...........: ....,.: ...-,: ....'... //'~ :.' ~/'.:....~ ~. '......~j .. ' ~ .~ :.. '..j :.~ .... ; i~.'-~ ~.,.:. ...:. ~ ~ : ' ~ ~,."~ ~ ....../ :'...,.?, . ..::"' , ...........~.:-......~' .~ .......... ' s~NT~ ,TA " ~" "':.; ~ "". ~:"': ~' ~". ~ .....i. '?"'~'.; '~';:; "":''~ ? ~"' /.."' ~.-':"7 ~ .-;"..: ,~"".." ...::':, "": ~ ~~,...,..:,,~..,, :~.~.. ~..."..,:~.,...L~'..,.:,"'......;' Z ""'..~"".~ '- jAIL FACILI~ , %% :..... ...... ." ......~ 8" "~ L ' ~...~ ~:"': ~3 ~ a ~ ....~":"' ' s; ~ s ~ s 8 . . . ~ l ............... ..... __-- . . ; ...............,. .:; ..,,..,.; .....................a <' ~o' ~o~ ~.- ~ : I .."- ........: ........::""':-. ~.~' :-"' s 8" ' .........."8 8 ~ ~ 10 =;' "" ' .... ' :' " ":' : ....' ..:.:' '.'~.':'::.::.;-- ...........~'.. ""~.'. "' i6~1'.',..~...· :' ' . . ..............:'??:::.::' ....... ..........;::-'.? · ..., '.......... .......:..~: :,.-::-' ..:'..:~ '-., .,.::,-.. : .....,~.. .:' .- .:. ~. . · ............. ..-~ , , ~; ..,.. :% -. ~.~ ~:.'.:- :. . ~ ~ ~o" ~' ~ .............. m' a" ~ ...... .......~.~ .......:.~ s ~, · ~...:..% .... ~RE BART ......... Jso.. PARKING LOT .../~.... ..~ ~ :.... . .. _ _ ~:';' :.~_~- ........ ~'.: - TO~ ~CONSULTING ENGINEERS Attachment 9 ~EGEND. NEW PIPELINE EX]S~3NG PIPELINE PUMP STATION 9.5 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT EASTERN DUBLIN FACILITIES PLAN 1,750 3,500 FT WASTEWATER COLLECTION PIPELINE SIZES RGURE NUMBER JOB NO. 2504 TABLE 8 Attachment 10 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE Item Quantity ~ Unit Cost' I Total Costb 6-inch FM 8-inch SS 1 O-inch SS 12-inch SS 15-inch SS 18-inch SS 21-inch SS 24-inch SS 30-inch SS 33-inch SS 1,100 If $63/Ifc 8 69,300 63,800 If 8103/lff 86, 571,400 17,600 If 8114/lff 82,006,400 4,150 If 8136/1ff $ 564,400 1,200 If 8146/1ff 8 175,200 2,750 If $190/1ff 8 522,500 1,300 If 8206/1ff 8 267,800 2,250 If 8239/1ff 8 537,750 4,650 If 8288/If° $1,339,200 1,700 If 8309/If° 8 525,300 1 O0 gpm pump station Iea 8210,000 per each TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 8 210,000 2.8 million Costs include construction, contingencies (30 percent), and engineering and administration (20 percent). Costs are based on an ENR Cost Index of 6295 (January 1993). Pipeline costs are for installation in existing streets. g:\...\#2504\report December 21, 1993 xi ~ G.S. DODSON & ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT 11 ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Update of Plans to Provide Sewer Service Attachment 12 Conceptual Backbone Storm Drainage Facilities Figure 9.4 Legend: Open Chan~el Pipeline SDA 7-1 Channel Project I Channel Exlsting Channel aaa · · ==~ Specific Plan Boundary Note: These conceptual storm drainag~ facilities are preliminary concepts and have not been hydraulically analyzed using a computer model. As planning proceeds, it is recommended that a hydraulic computer analysis be prepared to establish channel and pipe sizing, KennedylJenks Consultants EASTERN DUBLIN Wallace Roberts & Todd ATTACHMENT 13 FISCAL ANALYSIS Table 10-1 MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COSTS AND SOURCES OF FUNDING Eastern Dublin Financing Plan/I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Streets and Highways Streets and Mass Grading/6 Intersection Improvements Freeway Overcrossings Share of Freeway Improvements Subtotal Streets and Highways Water and Sewer Water Service Wastewater service Storm Drainage Subtotal Water and Sewer Public Buildings and Park Police and Fire Stations f'/ School Development Other Public Buildings/3 Park In-Lieu Fees/4 Park Improvements/5 'Subtotal Public Buffclings and Parks [TOTAL COSTS/FUNDING Notes: Engineer's School Developer Estimated Existing Impact Fees Funding & Costs/2 Impact Fees (AB2926) , Impact Fees $108,323 $4,775 $11,468 $11,220 $135,786 SOURCES OF FUNDING (Thousands of C0nstant 1992 Dollars) $81,242 Mello-Roos or Assess- ment District $27,08~ : ~$4,775 $11,468 $~1,220 Mello-Roos or Assess- ment District Wfissuance Costs $33,85I $5,969 $14,335 $14,025 $87,215 $58,275 $28,940 $36,175 $130,300 $122,910 $7,390 $9,238 .$17,640 $17,640 $22,050 $235,155 $9,400 $9,200 $200 $106,150 $23,100 $83,050 $4,950 $4,950 $12,085 $12,085 $0 $161,529 $532,470 $21,285 $23,100 $262,427 $225,658 /1 Project evaluated is WRT's March 6, 1992 Final Plan. /2 Engineers included a contingency factor of 20% for road improvements and 30-35% for water and sewer costs. ' ERA added a 10% contingency factor to fire stations and school costs. /3 Includes 7 elementary schools, 2 middle school, and 1 high school; excludes land cost. Cost with- Cost with- Number of Number of Cost per School Type of School Acres land ($M) out land ($M) Students Schools Req. w/Contingency Elementary 10 ~.0 $5.5 2,215 7 $6.1 Middle School 20 $24.5 $19.5 1,107 2 $21.5 High School 40 $29.5 $19.0 1,502 1 $20.9 TOTAL $48.4 /4 Based on a total of 241.7 acres @ $50,00 0/acre. /5 Based on park improvement cost of $120,000 per acre of park. /6 Does not include in-tract streets and grading. f7 Police station @ $50/sq.~. with 4,000 sq.~ or total cost of $'200,000. Total cost includes 4 fire stations @ $2.3 million each. 05/I9/92 c:\123r22Lo047Xspbond3 Sources: DKS Associates, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, and Economics Research Associates $250 $103,813 ~5,188 $36,180 Cost per School w/CQnt!ngency less Fees $4.7 $16.8 $!6.4 $37.9 Table 10-2 INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PROGRAM/1, Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis - Specific Plan Area (In Thousands of Constant 1992 Dollars) Capital Improvements Streets and Mass Grading Intersection Improvements Freeway Overcrossings Share of Freeway Improvements Water Service Wastewater Service Storm Drainage Police and Fire Stations School Development Other Public Buildings Park Impwvements Total Costs 1990 1991 1992. 199.3 1994 1995 1996 $27,081 0 0 0 0 3,'~ 3,840 7,680 $4,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 675 $11,468 0 0 0 0 0 2,867 2,867 $11,220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $28,940 0 0 0 0 0 7,868 t,063 $7,390 0 0 0 0 0 2,492 337 $17,640 0 0 0 0 0 2,731 369 5'200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $83,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,950 0 0 0 0 495 495 495 $28,944 0 0 0 0 0 6,756 4,932 $2~5',658 $0 $0 $0 $(2) $4,335 $27,049 $18,418 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,335 $31,384 $49,802 Assumptions: % of Commercial Uses Absorbed Cure, % of Commercial Uses Absorbed % of Residential Units Absorbed Cure. % of Residential Units Absorbed 1997 1998 1999 0 0 0 675 675 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 638 1,063 744 202 337 236 221 369 258 0 200 0 0 4,733 0 495 495 .. 495 468 0 " 0 $2,699 $7,873 $2,408 $52,501 $60,374 $62,782 1(}% 6% 1121% 16% 22% 32% 1% 1% 2% 6% 10% 15% Note:/1 Phasing for roads, mr and water ts based on the next year's percent absorption of commercial uses. This phasing schedule Is based on WRT team discussion. Source: Economics Research Associates c:\123r22X9047~spbond3 05/19/92 Table 10-2 INFRASTRUCIXIRE PHASING PRO ORAM Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis - Specific Plan Area (In Thousands of Constant 1992 Dollars) Capital Improvements 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Streets and Mass Grading 0 0 6 :~,859 3,859 "'6 0 2,002 2,002 0 Intersection Improvements 675 0 0 400 400 0 0 0 600 0 Freeway Overcrossings 0 0 0 2,867 2,867 0 0 0 0 0 Share of Freeway Improvements 0 0 0 5,610 5,610 0 0 · 0 · 0 0 Water Service 1,276 532 851 3,245 730 584 1,314 4,669 2,043 2,043 Wastewater Service 404 168 269 937 211 169 379 : 594 260 260 Storm Drainage 443 185 295 4,765 1,071 857 1,929 2,069 905 905 Police and Fire Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School Development 4,733 0 4,733 16,782 4,733 16,352 4,733 16,782 4,733 0 Other Public Buildings 495 495 495 495 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 Park Improvements 0 0 0 14,940 540 0 0 708 360 Cr $62,782 $70,805 TOTAL $1,380 $53,900 $'20,021 $17,%1 .$8,355 $26,823 $10,903 $3,208 CUMULATIVE TOTAL $64,162 $124,706 $144,727 $162,688 $171,043 $197,866 $208,769 $211,977 Assumptions: % of Commercial Uses Absorbed 7% 12% 5% 8% 4% 5% 4% 9% 3% 1% Cum. % of Commercial Uses Absorbe~ 39% 51% 55% 63% 67% 73% 77% 86% 88% 90% % of Residential Units Absorbed 2% 3% 3% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% Cure. % of Residential Units Absorbe~ 22% 29% :36% 44% 52% 60% 68% 75% 83% 91% 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,733 0 0 $4,733 $216;10 1% 91% 7% 98% Note:/1 Phasing for roads, sewer and water is based on the next year's percent absorption of commercial uses. This phasing schedule is based on WRT team discussion. Source: Economics ResearchAssociates c:\123r22Ng047xSpbond3 05/19/92 Table 10-3 ANALYSIS OF BONDING CAPACITY F.~stem Dublin Fiscal Analysis - Specific Plan Area (In Thousands of Constant 1992 Dollars) Funds Required Total Infrastructure Costs $225,658 Capitalized Interest 19,745 Reserve Fund 25,386 Issuance Costs 4,231 Bond Underwriter's Fe~ 7,052 Annual Bond Issue 282,072 Cumulative Bond Issue 1990 1991 1992 1993 .1994 1995 0 0 0 0 4,335. 27,049 0 0 0 0 379 ' 2,367 0 0 0 0 488 3,043 0 0 0' 0 81 507 0 0 0 O_ 135 .84.5. 0 0 0 0 5,418 33,812 0 0 0 0 5,418 39,230 .1996 1997 1998 .1999 18,418 2,699 7,873 2,408 1,612 236 689 211 2,072 304 886 271 345 51 148 45 576 84 246 75 23,022. 3,374 9,841 3,010 62,252' 65,626 75,467 78,477 Debt Service Ratio (Residential Portion) Total Annual Net Debt Service Residential Share of Debt Service Value of Homes Constructed Value of Finished Lots (Res. Only) Value of Unfinished Lots (Res. Only) Total Value of Homes & Lots [Debt Service as % of Value (Resld.). Property Value Vs. Bond Issues Value of Homes Constructed Value of Commercial Uses Absorbed Value of Fixfished Lots Value of Unfinished Lots Total Development Value IValue of Property ~s. Bond Issues 0 0 0 0 465 3,366 5,342 5,631 6,476 6,734 0 0 0 0 330 2,389 3,791 3,997 4,5% .. 4,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,000 164,550 253,475 '567,225 0 0 0 0 0 16,250 24,888 22,856 30,625 33,850 234,445 234,445 234,445 234,445 234,445 227,945.. 217.990 208,848 196,598 !83,058 234,445 234,445 234,445 234,445 234,445 244,195 307,878 396,254 480,698 584,133 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,250 0 0 0 0 0 16,250 24,888 329,026 329,026 329,026 329,..07,6.329,026 317,701 298,865 329,026 329,026 329,026 329,026 329,026 333,951 437,003 164,550 253,475 367,225 137,060 188,560 284,410 22,856 30,625 33,850 . 284,573 262,738 . 242,577 609,039 735,398 928,062 60.7 8.5 7.0 9.3 9.7 11.8] Assumptions: Interest Rate 7.00% Reserve Fund 9.00% Costs of Issuance 1.50% Unde~vriter's Fee 2.50% Term (in Years) 25 Resid. Value as % of Total Value 70.97% Number of Lots (Units) 12,458 Average Home Value $185,638 /1 Includes only those costs that may be financed through Mello-Roos or Assessment District; other costs to be financed directly by developers. Source: Economics Research Associates c:\123r22X9047Xspbond3 05/19/92 Table 10-3 ANALYSIS OF BONDING CAPACITY Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis - Spedtic Plan Area (In Thousands of Constant 1992 Dollars) Funds Required .20(10 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Infrastructure Costs 8,026 1,380 6,644 53,900 20,021 17,961 8,355 26,823 10,903 3,208 4,733 Capitalized Interest 702 121 581 4,716 1,752 1,572 731 2,347 954 281 414 Reserve Fund 903 155 747 6,064 2,252 2,021 940 3,018 1,227 361 533 Issuance Costs 150 26 125 1,011 375 337 157 503 204 60 89 Bona Underwriter's Fee 251 43 ~ 1,684 626. 561., 261 · 838 341 1.0X). 1_48 Annual Bond Issue 10,033 1,724 8,305 67,375 25,027 22,452 10,444 · '33,529 13,628 4,009 5,917 Cumulative Bond Issue 88,510 90,235 98,540 165,915 190,942 213,393 223,837 257,366 270,994 275,004 280,921-' Debt Service Ratio (Residential Portion) Total Annual Net Debt Service 7,595 Residential Share of Debt Service 5,391 Value of Homes Comtmcted 489,150 Value of Finished Lots (Res. Only) 36,2.50 Value of Unfinished Lots (Res. Only) 168,558 Total Value of Homes &Lots 693,958 IDebt Service as % of Value (Resid.) 0.8% 7,743 8,456 14,237 16,385 18,311 19,208 22,085 23,254 23,598 24,106 5,496 6,001 10,105 11,629 12,996 13,632 15,674 16,504 16,7,49 17,109 613,450 722,500 910,900 1,109,650 1,308,400 1,507,150 1,662,100 1,809,850 1,964,000 2,113,900 34,338 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 41,550 39,750 41,350 41,075 13,331 154,82.3 !33,823 234,44..5 ~ 70,823 54,203 38,303 21,763 5,333 0 802,610 908,823 1,197,845 1,253,973 1,431,723 1,602,903 1,740,153 1,872,963 2,010,408 2,127,231 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%I Property Value Vs. Bond Issues Value of Homes Constructed Value of Comm'l Component Value of Finished Lots Value of Unfinished Lots Total Development Value [Value of Property vs. Bond IssUes 489,150 613,450 722,500 910,900 1,109,650 1,308,400 1,507,150 1,662,100 1,809,850 1,964,000 2,113,900 350,620 '160,110 505,300 582,300 626,100 687,560 736,060 824,560 850,530 858,530 864,050 36,250 34,338 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 41,550 39,750 41,350 41,075 13,331' 217,128 198.874 170,174 .266,416 1!7,648 91.798 66,328 _4_7,831 30,491. !3,509 4,176 1,093,148 1,306,771 1,450,474 1,812,116 1,905,898 2,140,258 2,351,088 2,574,241 2,732,221 2,877,114 2,995,457 12.4 14.5 14.7 10.9 10.0 10.0 10.5 10.0 10.1 10.5 10.7 Assumptiom: Interest Rate · 7.00% Reserve Fund 9.00% Costs of Issuance 1.50% Underwriter's Fee 2.5(>7b Term (in Years) 25 Resid. Value as % of Total Value 70.97% Number of Lots (Units) 12,458 Average Home Value $185,638 /1 Includes only those costs that may be financed through Mello-Roos or Assessment District; other costs to be financed directly by developers. Source: Economics Research Associates c:\123r22X9047x,spbond3 05/19/92 Table 10-4 MELLO-ROOS OR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COST ALLOCATIONS, BY LAND USE/3 Eastern Dublin Financing Plan Open Rural Space Residential Capital Improvements Factor (0-0,3/de) (0.3-3/de) Streets and Mass Grading trips $0 $4,951 Intersection Improvements trips 0 873 Freeway Overcrossings trips 0 2,097 (,0% Share of Freeway trips 0 2,051 Water Service DUE 0 8,906 Wastewater Service DUE 0 2,274 Storm Drainage DUE 0 5,428 Police and Fire Stations DUE 0 62 School Development child 0 55,958 Other Public Buildings Capita 0 2,277 Park Improvements capita 0 13,315 Total Capital Costs Funded 0 98,192 $24,548 4.9% Estimated Yearly Assessment/Unit $0 Yearly Assessment as % of Value /1 0.0% $2,106 0.4% LAND USES CHAROED WITH MELLO-ROOS OR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COSTS Low Medium Med-High High Density Density Density Density Regional Neigborhood (3-6/ac) (6-12/ac) (12-~5/ac) (25+/ac) Retail Re!ai! Hotel $2,963,250 $6,053,991 $2,358,470 $908,656 $9,718,303 $2,638,194 $258,449 522,494 1,067,467 415,856 160,218 1,713,575 465,178 45,571 1,254,860 2,563,709 998,751 384,792 4,115,451 1,117,207 109,446 1,227,723 2,508,268 977,153 376,471 4,(r26,453 1,093,047 '-107,080 5,329,947 10,889,210 4,848,159 544,794 4,161,939- 1,129,827 ·374,031 1,361,033 2,780,624 1,238,006 139,116 1,062,776 288,508 [ 95,511 3,248,800 6,637,376 2,955,132 332,072 2,536,856 688,672 227,986 36,834 75,254 33,505 3,765 28,763 7,808 2,585 33,490,993 45,790,716 12,888,469 11,586,364 0 0 0 1,362,887 2,523,372 1,210,637 1,088,328 0 0 0 7,969,170 14,754,845 7,078,922 6,363,748 0 0 0 58,767,990 95,644,833 35,003,058 21,888,325 27,364,114 7,428,442 $24,548 $19,555 $12,859 $8,945 $7,319 $7,319 8.2% 8.7% 10.3% 11.9% 9.1% 9.1% $2,106 $1,678 $1,103 $768 $628 $628 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% Campus Industrial Government/ Office .Park~ Institutional $6,281,923 $929,914 $1,734,838 1,107,657 163,967 305,894 2,660,232 393,794 734,659 2,602,704 385,278 718,772 6,060,866 1,153,531 1,673,790 1,547,678 294,561 427,412 3,694,322 703,120 1,020,237 41,886 7,972 11,567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,220,659 23,997,268 4,032,136 6,627,170 $5,086 $6,171 $2,335 $6,17~2 4.7% 5.6% 4.0% $436 $529 $200 $~J 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% Allocation Factors Number of Units (homes or 1,000 so 0 4 2,394 4,891 Trips per unit 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Trips 0 40 23,940 48,910 Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Dwelling Unit Equivalents 0 4 2,394 4,891 School-children per unit 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.44 Total school-children 0 3 1,556 2,128 Population or Employment per unit 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.9 Total Population 0 13 7,661 14,184 Acreage 0 607.6 649.9 505.5 Average Market Value/Unit $700,000 $500,000 $300,000 $225,000 Note:/1 Source; Assumes 25-year financing at 7 percent. Costs include the costs of issuing bonds. Market value for government/institutional land uses is undetermined. Economics Research Associates c:\123r22\9047x, spbond3 2,722 2,447 3,739 1,015 7.0 3.0 50.0 50.0 19,054 7,341 78,514 21,314 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.5 2,178 245 1,869 507 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 599 538 0 0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 6,805 6,118 0 0 137.4 71.8 317.8 72.1 $125,000 $75,0~ $80,000 $80,000 05/19/92 240 3,889 1,727 1,074 10.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 2,088 50,751 7,513 14,016 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.7 168 2,722 518 752 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0 0 0 0 1.0 4.5 1.8 2.5 0 0 0 0 10 218.5 141.6 98.6 $108,000 $109,800 $58,250 $0 ATTACHMENT 14 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Table 111-9 FISCAL CASH FLOW: City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis REVENUE & EXPENSE BALANCE REVENUES Property Taxes (Incl. Home. Relief) Sales and Use Taxes Real Property Transfer Tax Holel Transient Occupancy Tax Franchise Taxes Other Court Fines Intergovern. Revenue - State Other Revenues Vehicle Code Fines State Gas Taxes Total Revenue - All Funds <Santa Rita. Property: January 16, 1992 Proposed Plan> [Date = Begintag of Fiscal Year] Fund 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 (In Constant 1990-91 $1000s) General 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 '0 0 General 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gas Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPENDITURES General Government Building Management Police Fire Other Public Safety Transportation Culture & Leisure Services Community Development Health & Welfare Total Operating Budget ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) CUMULATIVE FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1130 52 0 17 1 36 '1 12 224 56 18 125 821 16 58 53 38 0 1,185 0 0 0 0 0 0 (961 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (961) Source: Economics Rcscarch Associates 01/21/92 c:\ 123r22\I 0367Xsrnew4 .wk I Table I11-9 FISCAL CASH FLOW: City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis REVENUE & EXPENSE BALANCE REVENUES Property Taxes (incl. Home. Relief) Sales and Use Taxes Real Property Transfer Tax Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax Franchise Taxes Other Court Fines Intergovern. Revenue - State Other Revenues Vehicle Code Fines State Gas Taxes Total Revenue - All Funds <Santa Rita Property: Ja.nuary 16, 1992 Proposed Plan> [Date = Beginlag of Fiscal Year] Fund 1997 1998 1999 2000 200 1 2002 (In Constant 1990-91 $1000s) General 241 598 830 1,117 1,322 1,474 General 1,621 1,721 3,242 3,342 3,951 4,05 i General 129 50 62 44 33 21 General 0 0 0 327 327 327 General 42 63 89 111 134 154 General 2 3 5 6 7 8 General 78 124 174 227 277 325 General 10 15 21 27 32 37 ... Traffic 2 3 5 6 7 8 , ~ Gas Tax 26 42 59 77 94 110 2,153 2,620 4,486 5,284 6,184 6,515 EXPENDITURES General Government Building Management Police Fire Other Public Safety Transportation Culture & Leisure SeB, ices Community Development Health & Welfare Total Operating Budget ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) CUMULATIVE FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 136 204 287 360 433 498 44 66 93 116 140 161 301 450 634 795 957 1,100 757 740 690 654 924 924 38 57 80 -101 121 139 139 208 293 367 442 508 128 191 270 338 407 468 92 137 193 242 292 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,635 2,053 2,541 2,974 3,714 4,133 518 567 1,945 2,310 2,470 2,382 (443) 123 2,069 4,379 6,848 9,2~1 Source: Economics Research Associates 01/21/92 c:\123r22\10367Nsrnew4.wkl 2003 1,572 4,051 5 327 157 8 325 38 8 110 6,601 509 164 1,124 924 142 519 478 343 0 4,204 2,397 ! 1,628 Table 111-9 FISCAL CASH FLOW: City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis <Santa Rim Property: Janqary 16, 1992 Proposed Plan> [Date = Begining of Fiscal Year] REVENUE & EXPENSE BALANCE Fund General General General General General General General General Traffic O~s Tax REVENUES Property Taxes (!ncl. Home. Relief) Sales and Use Taxes Real Property Transfer Tax Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax Franchise Taxes Other Court Fines Intergovern. Revenue - State Other Revenues Vehicle Code Fines State Gas Taxes Total Revenue - All Funds 2004 2005 2006 2007 (In Constant 1990-91 $10 00s) 1,594 1,630 1,663 1,702 4,121 4,121 4,121 4,121 353 7 8 9 327 327 327 327 161 164 168 171 8 8 9 9 325 325 325 325 39 40 41 41 8 9 9 9 110 110 110 110 7,047 6,741 6,780 6,825 EXPENDITURES General Government Building Management Police Fire Other Public Safety Transportation Culture & Leisure Services Community Development Health & Welfare Total Operating Budget ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) CUMULATIVE FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 2008 Source: Economics Research Associates 1,745 4,121 10 327 175 9 325 42 9 110 6,873 2010 1,792 1,840 4,121 4,121 11 7 327 327 178 180 9 9 325 325 43 .. 44 9 9 110 110 6,925 6,973 521 532 543 554 565 576 583 168 172 175 179 182 186 188 1,151 1,176 1,200 1,225 1,249 1,273 1,289 851 924 924 924 885 832 924 146 149 152 155 158 161 163 532 543 555 566 577 588 595 490 500 510 521 531 541 548 351 359 366 373 381 388 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,210 4,354 4,425 4,496 4,529 4,547 4,683 2,837 2,387 2,355 2,328 2,344 2,378 2,290 14,464 16,852 19,207 21,535 23,879 26,257 28,547 01/21/92 c:\123r22\10367Xsrn ew4 .wk 1 Table !11-9 FISCAL CASH FLOW: Cily of Dublin Eastern Dublin Fiscal Aualysis REVENUE & EXPENSE BALANCE REVENUES Property Taxes (Incl. Home. Relief) Sales and Use Taxes Real Property Transfer Tax Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax Franchise Taxes Other Court Fines Intergovern. Revenue - State Other Revenues Vehicle Code Fines State Oa~ Taxes Total Revenue - All Funds <Eastern Dublin Area: Jaknua~ 16, 1992 Proposed Plan> Fund 2004 2005 [Date ~- Begintag of Fiscal Year] 2006 2007 (In Constant 1990-91 $1000s) General 2,229 2,837 3,461 4,032 General 3,600 3,800 4,000 5,700 General 614 135 124 145 General 327 327 327 327 General 189 234 279 329 General 10 12 14 17 General 435 556 676 796 General 46 57 67 79 Traffic I0 12 14 17 Gas Tax 147 188 229 270 7,606 8,158 9,192 11,712 4,702 5,245 5,900 6,100 118 111 327 327 372 415 19 21 917 1,037 19 22 310 351 12,775 13,730 EXPENDITURES General Government 611 758 903 1,063 1,206 1,344 Building Management 197 245 291 343 389 434 Police 1,350 1,676 1,995 2,350 2,664 2,970 Fire 997 1,848 1,848 1,848 1,887 1,940 Other Public Safety 171 212 253 298 337 376 Transportation 624 774 922 1,086 1,231 1,372 Culture &Leisure Services 574 712 848 999 1,133 1,263 Community Development 412 511 608 717 812 906 Health &Welfare 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Operating Budget 4,935 6,737 7,669 8,704 9,660 10,604 ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 2010 CUMULATIVE FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 5,756 6,238 110 327 458 23 1,158 111 24 392 14,597 1,481 478 3,273 2,772 415 1,512 1,392 998 0 2,321 2,672 1,421 1,522 3,008 3,115 3, 126 2,276 5,998 7,420 8,942 11,950 15,065 18~190 20,466 SoilFee: Economics Research Associates 01/21/92 c:\123r22\10367\cd new4 .wk 1 Table !11-9 FISCAL CASH FLOW: City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis REVENUE & EXPENSE BALANCE REVENUES Property Taxes (incl, Home, Relief) Sales and Use Taxes Real Properly Transfer Tax Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax Franchise Taxes Other Court Fines Intergovern. Revenue - State Other Revenues Vehicle Code Fines State Gas. Taxes Total Revenue - All Funds <Eastern Dublin Area: January 16, 1992 Pwposed Plan> [Date = Begintag of Fiscal Year] Fund 1997 1998 1999 2000 (in Constant 1990-91 $1000s) General 46 193 296 527 General 100 100 200 200 General 42 22 50 55 . General 0 0 0 327 General 9 16 30 46 General 0 I 2 2 General 13 24 55 92 General 2 4 7 11 Traffic 0 1 2 2 Gas Tax 4 8 19 31 218 369 660 1,295 2001 782 1,800 93 327 72 4 143 17 4 48 3,289 2002 1,209 1,800 66 327 93 5 194 2'2~. 5 66 3,788 2003 1,516 3,400 154 327 143 7 315 35 7 106 6,01 ~ EXPENDITURES General Government 30 51 97 149 233 301 '464 Building Management 10 16 31 48 75 97 150 Police . 66 112 215 329' 515 666 ' 1,024 Fi re 167 184 234 270 924 924 924 Other Public Safety 8 14 27 42 65 84 130 Transportation 31 52 99 152 238 308 473 Culture & Leisure Services . 28 48 91 140 219 283 436 Community Development 20 34 65 100 157 203 312 Health &Welfare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Operating Budget 361 511 860 1,230 2,427 2,867 3,9 12 862 307 ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) (143) (142) (200) 65 921 1,228 CUMULATIVE FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) (279) (421) (621) (555) 2,099 3,327 Source: Economics Research Associates 01/21/92 c:\123r22\10367\ed new4 .wk 1 Table I 11-9 FISCAL CASH FLOW: City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis REVENUE & EXPENSE BALANCE REVENUES Properly Taxes (incl. Home. Relief) Sales and Use Taxes Real Property Transfer Tax Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax Franchise Taxes Other Court Fines Intergovern. Revenue - State Other Revenues Vehicle Code Fines State Oa's Taxes Total Revenue - All Fuhds <Eastern D. ublin Area: January 16, 1992 Proposed Plan> [Date .,., Begining of Fiscal Yea~I Fund 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 (In Constant 1990-91 $1000s) General 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 0 0 0 0 0 0 "1 Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gas Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 EXPENDITURES General Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Building Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Police 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Fire 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 Other Public Safely 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Cullure &Leisure Services 0 0 0 0 0 .0 7 Community Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Health &Welfare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Operating Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) CUMULATIVE FISCAL SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I36) 0 0 0 (J 0 0 (136) Source: Economics Research Associates 01/21/92 c:\l 23 r22\10367\ed new4 .wk I 'FISCAL CASH FLOWS: REMAINDER EASTERN DUBLIN