Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.4 Camp Parks Annex Prop Tax Exchange CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: . July 28, 1986 SUBJECT Camp Parks Annexation Property Tax Exchange Agreement PA 85-018 EXHIBITS ATTACHED Draft Resolutions ; Property Tax Exchange Agreement and Exhibits ; Resolution No. 106-85 ; Hughes Heiss & Associates Report "Approaches to Developing a Cost- Allocation formula related to the Santa Rita Development" RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Adopt Resolutions and authorize Mayor to execute 7jr agreement 2 ) . Direct Staff to negotiate a fire service agreement with DSRSD for the annexation area FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See below DESCRIPTION Pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the City and County are required to agree upon an exchange of property tax revenues before an annexation can be completed. On September 25, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 106-85 which provided for an exchange of property tax for the Camp Parks Annexation equal to the City ' s existing property tax allocation percentage, ( 6 . 90 ) , as well as the Dublin San Ramon Services District property tax allocation ( 21 . 20 ) , if the City assumed services provided by the District in the annexation area. In response to the County ' s original opposition to the City ' s annexation of the Camp Parks area, as well as the City ' s proposed property tax exchange, the County arranged a meeting with City representatives on January 18, 1986 for the purpose of discussing the differences between the City and County on the annexation issue as well as other issues . At that meeting, the County expressed its desire to receive all revenues generated from the Santa Rita property portion of the annexation which exceeded the cost of providing services in order to support the City ' s annexation . Since that meeting, the staffs of both agencies have worked diligently to arrive at an agreement which would conform to the basic policy issues discussed at the January meeting. As a result, an agreement has been developed which the staff of both agencies believe treats the County and the City equitably with respect to this annexation. EXCHANGE OF REVENUES The property tax exchange agreement addresses the exchange of property tax and other revenues on four different parcels, three of which are included in the Camp Parks annexation and are identified as Exhibits A, B & C in the agreement . The agreement provides for the following exchange of revenues on these four parcels . A. CAMP PARKS PROPERTY & TASSAJARA PARK The City will receive 25 . 4% of those property taxes collected, as well as all other revenues that the City would be eligible -to receive . B. SANTA RITA PROPERTY With respect to the Santa Rita property, the following revenue exchange provisions would apply: 1 . The County would be entitled to all revenues generated from the Santa Rita Property with the following exceptions : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- COPIES TO: Mel Hing, Alameda County 4 Paul Ryan, DSRSD ITEM NO. �, w AGENDA STATEMENT: Camp Parks Annexation Property Tax Exchange Agreement PA 85-018 Page 2 a. Those revenues identified in Column D of Exhibit E b. 100% of the local sales tax generated by a car dealership currently or hereafter located within the City ' s existing boundaries which relocates to the Santa Rita Property within 12 months of ceasing operation within the City. 2 . The County would pay to the City an amount equal to the cost to the City of providing services to the Santa Rita Property . Costs would be reimbursed as shown in the Cost Allocation Formula (Exhibit F) developed by Hughes , Heiss & Associates . The agreement is drafted in such a way that the City would also be the provider of fire services and would collect the cost of providing fire service from the County as identified in Exhibit F. This would necessitate that the City enter an agreement with a Fire Service provider such as DSRSD, before the annexation could be completed by LAFCO. As show. in the Fire Service Cost Table of Exhibit F, only operational costs are addressed. Funding of those capital costs associated with the construction and equipping of a new station in the City ' s eastern sphere would have to be determined in the future . An equitable method of spreading the cost for all properties which benefit from the new station would have to be developed. If the cost of future services to the Santa Rita Property are anticipated to exceed revenue generated by the Santa Rita Property, the County and the City must reach agreement concurring with the funding of the revenue shortfall before the City implements any of the services . 3 . Revenues collected by the City and remitted to the County would be counted against the County ' s appropriation limit NOT the City ' s . C . FUTURE ANNEXATIONS OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY' S EASTERN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The City will receive 25 . 4% of the property tax from properties lying in this area as well as all other revenues the City would typically receive . Since there is no annexation application for these properties being processed at this time, a future Board of Supervisors or City Council could modify the resolution approving the 25 . 4% property tax split . However, the agency which took such action would be penalized with loss of revenue from areas within the Camp Parks Annexation. DEVELOPMENT OF SANTA RITA PROPERTY The property tax exchange agreement also addresses the future development of the Santa Rita Property as follows : 1 . The County has the right to develop the Santa Rita property in accordance with the zoning established by the City in Ordinance No. 25-85 (see Exhibit D attached) and the City ' s General Plan. 2 . City would be responsible for the planning review of those projects on the Santa ' Rita Property, provided that the review would not materially interfere with the development of the property as it relates to density or intensity of development within the parameters of Ordinance No. 25-85 . L- AGENDA STATEMENT: Camp Parks Annexation Property Tax Exchange Agreement PA 85-018 Page 3 3 . City agrees not to modify Ordinance No. 25-85 or other planning, building, etc . , regulations which reduce the intensity of development below that which currently is in effect within Hacienda Business Park. 4 . City agrees to work cooperatively with developers of the Santa Rita Property and enter into a development agreement with the County and the County ' s developer of the Santa Rita Property prior to any development of the Santa Rita Property . The only development which could occur outside of a development agreement would be temporary uses permitted through the City ' s Administrative Conditional Use Permit process or non-residential governmental buildings and uses . If the County or City failed to meet the above obligations, the agreement could become null and void. FUTURE OF SOUTHERN 150 ACRES OF CAMP PARKS The staffs of both the City and the County have also discussed the future of the 150 acres at the southerly end of Camp Parks and its possible disposal by the federal government as surplus property. The staffs agree that this property may have some potential for future transportation purposes ; and that it would be beneficial for the County and City to work together with respect to the future uses of this property. RECOMMENDATION It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council take the following actions : 1 ) Adopt the Resolution approving the Agreement between the County and the City as it relates to the Camp Parks , Tassajara Park and Santa Rita Properties and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement . 2 ) Adopt the Resolution providing for the Exchange of Property Tax Revenues for the Properties in the City of Dublin Extended Planning Area East of the Camp Parks , Tassajara -Park and Santa Rita Properties . 3 ) Direct Staff to negotiate a fire service agreement with DSRSD for the annexation area. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN - PROVIDING--FOR-AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX-REVENUES---- - FOR THE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA EAST OF THE CAMP PARRS, TASSAJARA PARR AND SANTA RITA PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has created an Extended Planning Area to encompass properties to the east of the current city limits and to provide for an orderly annexation of said properties, all of which are located in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County; and WHEREAS, Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that no local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the affected agencies having first agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenues; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda have reached an agreement concerning the exchange of property tax revenues in the event properties in the Dublin Extended Planning Area east of Camp Parks, Tassajara Park, and Santa Rita are annexed by the City of Dublin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the exchange of property tax revenues between the City of Dublin and County of Alameda for the properties in the Dublin Extended Planning Area east of the Camp Parks, Tassajara Park, Santa Rita properties shall be as set forth in paragraph 7 of the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit"A" , and, pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the exchange therein set forth is approved. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 1986 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGARDING CAMP PARRS, TASSAJARA PARR AND SANTA RITA PROPERTIES AND APPROVING AN EXCHANGE -OF-PROPERTY PROPERTY TAX REVENUES THEREFOR - WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has a proposal pending before the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex some or all of the properties respectively known as "Camp Parks" , Tassajara Park" , and "Santa Rita" , all of which are located in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County; and WHEREAS, Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that no local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the affected agencies having first agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenues; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda have reached an agreement concerning the exchange of property tax revenues in the event that the above-named properties are annexed by the City of Dublin, and a copy of said Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That said Agreement (Exhibit "A") is approved and adopted and the Mayor of the City of Dublin is authorized to executed said Agreement on behalf of the City of Dublin; 2. That the exchange of property tax revenues between the City of Dublin and County of Alameda for the Santa Rita property shall be as set forth in paragraph 5 of said Agreement, and, pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation .Code, the exchange therein set forth is approved; 3 . That the exchange of property tax revenues between the City of Dublin and County of Alameda for the Camp Parks and Tassajara Park properties shall be as set forth in paragraph 6 of said Agreement, and, pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the exchange therein set forth is approved. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 1986 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGARDING CAMP PARRS, TASSAJARA PARR AND SANTA RITA PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (hereinafter "City") has a proposal pending before LAFCO to annex some or all of the properties described hereinafter, which properties are within the unincorporated territory of Alameda County but within the City' s Sphere of Influence and, to the extent permissible by law, the City desires to reach agreement with the County of Alameda (hereinafter "County") regarding the development of the properties and formulae for allocation of property tax and other revenues from the properties in advance of the annexation; and WHEREAS, County is agreeable to the contemplated annexation and wishes similarly to arrive at an enforceable long range agreement with City with respect to development of the aforementioned properties and the allocation of property tax and other revenues attributable to the properties; and WHEREAS, properties consist of the following: (a) All that property described more particularly in Exhibit "A" hereto, which exhibit is made a part hereof by this reference, hereafter referred to as "the Camp Parks property" ; (b) All that property described more particularly in Exhibit "B" hereto, which exhibit is made a part hereof by this reference, hereafter referred to as "Tassajara Park" ; and (c) All that property described more particularly in Exhibit "C" hereto, which exhibit is made a part hereof by this reference, hereafter referred to as "the Santa Rita property" . NOW, THEREFORE, County and City do agree as follows: 1. Upon annexation by Dublin of the Santa Rita property, County shall have the right to develop such property in accordance with City' s land use designation for the property as that designation is set forth in City' s general plan and City' s Ordinance No. 25-85 amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dublin. Zoning established by City as of the date of this Agreement, and set forth in City' s Ordinance No. 25-85, shall become effective upon annexation as allowed by Government Code Section 65859 . Dublin Annexation Agreement 7/16/86 Page 1 2. Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may possess as a California county, County agrees to be bound by the provisions of City Ordinance No. 25-85 in its development of the properties described herein. Accordingly, planned development rezoning and site development review will be processed in accordance with City zoning ordinance and tentative subdivision maps will be processed in accordance with City' s subdivision map ordinance. City agrees however that such processing will not be accomplished in a manner which will materially interfere with the development of any of the property described herein for density and intensity as set forth in City' s Ordinance No. 25-85, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" , and incorporated herein by reference. City acknowledges that County enters this agreement with the understanding and expectation that City does not intend to modify Ordinance No. 25-85 or any land use, planning, zoning, or building regulation in such a manner as to reduce permissible intensity, use and density standards to a level less than that presently in effect with Hacienda Business Park located in the City of Pleasanton. City agrees that such a reduction will constitute failure of a material condition precedent and constitute grounds for County' s unilateral rescission of any and/or all executory provisions of, this agreement. 3 . City understands that County will seek out private development of all or parts of the property described herein through a ground lease or other arrangement with a major development company, which company will take the lead role in designing any project and obtaining necessary approvals for the development of any project. Accordingly, City agrees to work cooperatively with any such developer or developers. 4 . The parties hereto agree that they will enter into a development agreement of the sort .authorized by and described in Government Code Section 65864, et seq. , prior to any development of the Santa Rita property. Any such agreement shall include as a party any developer (s) who lease(s) the Santa Rita property or otherwise develops it with County. As used herein, "development" shall mean any "use" as defined in City' s zoning ordinance with the exception of those uses defined as (1) temporary uses and for which an administrative conditional use permit has been secured; and (2) nonresidential governmental buildings or uses. The execution of such an agreement as to each portion of County property to be developed Dublin Annexation Agreement- 7/16/86 Page 2 is a condition material to this agreement. Failure of the parties to execute such an agreement for each piece of County property shall constitute a failure of condition and excuse performance of any remaining executory provisions of this contract. 5. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, et seq. , the parties agree that upon annexation property tax, sales tax and other revenues will be divided between City and County as follows: (a) Santa Rita Property: City will transfer to County on a quarterly basis all revenues attributable to the Santa Rita property as such revenues are specified in Column (C) on Exhibit "E", which exhibit is made a part hereof by this reference. Such revenues and the transfers thereof shall not be deemed an appropriation subject to limitation by City for purposes of California Constitution Article XIIIB. (b) County and City will each retain those revenues as specified in Exhibit "E" . (c) County will remit to City on a quarterly basis an amount equal to all of City's costs for providing services to the Santa Rita property for that quarter, said costs to be determined in accordance with the formulae which are attached hereto as Exhibit "F", and made a part hereof by this reference. (d) Auto Franchises: The parties agree that sales taxes attributable to auto franchises located within the City limits of City contribute materially to City' s tax base. Notwithstanding paragraph 5 (a) , County agrees that should any auto franchise, whether currently located within City' s existing boundaries, or hereafter located within the City' s existing boundaries, relocate to any County owned property described in Exhibit "C" to this agreement within twelve (12) months from the date the franchise ceased operating in the City, all sales tax attributable to the said facility shall be allocated to City as if the facility had remained in the City of Dublin. Should any auto Franchise which was first located on the Santa Rita property thereafter relocate its facility within City's boundaries as they currently exist within twelve (12) months from the date the franchise ceased operating in the Santa Rita property, City agrees to remit to County on a quarterly basis all sales taxes attributable to such auto franchise. Dublin Annexation Agreement 7/16/86 Page 3 (e) City and County agree that each entity' s appropriation limit shall remain unchanged upon annexation of the properties. (f) Future Services: In the event that City determines that municipal services of any nature are required in the Santa Rita property area and the costs of said services will exceed the revenue attributable to the Santa Rita property, City and County shall, in advance of the implementation of said services, reach agreement concerning the responsibility of City and County for the funding of the portion of the service costs which exceed the Santa Rita area revenues. 6 . City and County agree that upon annexation City will receive 25 .4% of the property and/or possessory interest taxes attributable to the property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" to this agreement. 7. Allocation of Revenues in the Event of Future Annexations: City and County agree that upon future annexations City will receive 25 .4% of the property and/or possessory interest taxes from any property lying to the east of City and within City' s present Sphere of Influence and not subject to this agreement. Allocation of revenues for such properties according to the above percentage is a condition material to this agreement. In the event that County alters or modifies the resolution approving the property tax exchange for the properties in the City of Dublin Extended Planning Area east of Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita to change the 'said 25.4% property tax/possessory interest tax split then: (1) the provisions of paragraph 5 (a) of this agreement shall be ineffective and shall be of no force or effect and City shall retain all revenues attributable to the Santa Rita property; (2) County shall pay to City an amount equivalent to 25 .4% of the property tax and/or possessory interest tax from the Santa Rita property; and (3) the provisions of paragraph 5 (c) shall be ineffective. In the event that City alters or modifies the resolution approving the property tax exchange for the properties in the City of Dublin Extended Planning Area east of Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita to change the said 25.4% property tax/possessory interest tax split then: (1) City will Dublin Annexation Agreement 7/16/86 Page 4 Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita to change the said 25.4% property tax/possessory interest tax split then: (1) City will remit the 25 .4% of property tax revenues attributable to the properties described in Exhibits W and W to County: Dated: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors Approved As To Form: County Counsel Dated: CITY OF DUBLIN By: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approve As To Form: City Attorney Dublin Annexation Agreement 7/16/86 Page 5 ASSESSOR'`S` MAP":946 Code Area Nos 154-03-64-OW�1:1 26-005 76-001 76-004 Map, of the Property of the 15 Estate of E. A. Dougherty. (6k.8 Pg.75) NO. COURSE DISTANCE I Sitl°31'E 14910 • 2 SWUE 75.67 Rancho San Ramon UM.Amador) (Pot.6k."a'Pg.171) 3 S2G'25E 11798 4 S I°4c,+ 57.06 _ �� &0 8 P 9 Y Bk e s730s°�i W c.06 �,R a Amended Ma of the Town of Dou hert cek. 7 540°35 w 3807 a 59°21'E 55.49 A P P r a X S c e l e y D S72°0:'E 39.03 o, •� `( •, , 10 n78-25'E 79.67 1" = 1500° G0 %A r '`r• v� — n G O s Y 4 z¢a m N C R P K v„•a..c f y'34 x m 1,a) G O G O V N ;,Co o a :� 541 N / ,33 ..oeACJ W " a r 11 S10'1e•C roo.-t4tF6533AC) : XHIBI T A 12 . 'r-O1'E 191.4.9 13 5 2•e5'w off.i9 E 14 S Z-op•H tit."io I S S 9'11'W 1 09.3.4 S%31W E 49.59 A APN 946-' 0.15- 1-5 NWr SF T�:� �� i ^ ,, • 457.33 AC. 2 53p'LI•E 59.4-4 9 I •I S 16-{C I- 1 S'"a S 5►. 0 �1 i 2i ISIC59•w 9994' i. ,l 23 S•r 14'W 109.11 i +ti 24 Sit S87E 4902 2S S29•o3'E 114.54 B 6Ac1 �{s1 6� S 4E'13'G 154.91 -X176 5342 •. A ' l � � 28 S 4C'30'W fA.60 °y'S',t• 1� •• r4 f.�•r•�; '. 5; 104 1 -.a 14 � eeJ•K'Y !49[6/Ae) (183.6&4c-) ':' eo•ea ere (2099(AC) O •faeJ .•[ iii n I �•/L.// A JO 11 •'�. '.�..t�l.•.i ''�` IS 13 3 Q AR '- AREA 3636.12 064.5OAC1 Q56.65AC1I/ `eor In contra costa — 916.1 s er in ' alamedo 2720.0 500' "1 to freeway — 6.55 `• (2713.47) > ''•'.:% r:�i 1 --------- - .5 d•-------------- - Aecx0 �•5 EST.E.A.°. .J 1 0 �r'�� ••��• USA 15 76-001 0 f:`_��1,, ' /288.54Ac(,Y) COunrr ru 1a..1�1./•° 104C 951.81 Ac '� e '_� S/P.�RRt� �` �•/. f / Q' Ooh � ¢ � (584.58Aa) ♦ _ y ,. :t:p� �.,, �•..�.. . Cl) couvr 0(1. 76-004.*. ,�:.CASTRO*VALLEY•�. -- `c-+J 99� 1101 INTER STAT.E. 580 0 1 it` O 1�'•il':;:- :�; ¢ 3200 a 1100 - . - . 1— 1101 a IL 0 01 EXHIBIT A, Camp Parks Property, is defined as that area identified by Alameda County Assessor v Parcel Number 946-015-1-5 as of July 1986. :4•j�.:.: '. .=r�:._ . - ' �-.-::• '"`----- 64-00 -005Code Ar ea Nos.A OMAP 946 " ,S � 26-005 .. 76-001 76-004 Map of the Property of the NO. COURSE DISTANCE 15 Estate of E. A. Dougherty. (Bk.8 Pg.75) I 518°33 E 14910 ' 2 S351 G3 E 75.67 ooa�ql 'o Rancho San Ramon(J.M.Amodor) (Pot.Bk"A" Pg.171) 3 •,24•'25E 117.99 �NM2ttl 4 S I°a�'w 57.06 Amended Ma of the Town of Dou hert (Bk 5 S30001 w 30'12 P 9 Y PY 6 S75°33'w 104.06 Approx Scale y 7 S4w3s'w 38.07 tl S9°21'E 55.49 y 9 S7200.•E 39.03 5 D OR 0 �. 10 n7812S'E 79.67 o uN� ;• , YC O In. -mom Cos vkj Y� �coo W 00 P 0 V �.7 1 as �N'nNN PM�O APN 9 �� �4=N ,3. ye�0 33 4 6 015- 1-6 A + 541 09 r5767AcJ W 16 ooa EXHIBIT f' It s Ia-I&Q 1'x0.14. 533Ac1 12 c I'll 21'E Ier"o 13 s T OS'- 91.29 '•r 0�' 14 S 21-00'W 56-io •' � IS S 9'11'W 1 09.32 Ai 1� Il 515 se's EE_ 7.5•.5,3 p' 18 N 6l-13•E 4Z.G9 �Wt 19 5 8e'-3SE 239V 13 457.33AC. 20 53i-aTE 99.32 mf„f�• W 11E.ie' •• ��' • 1 22 S 1l'99•W 9694 :. •/ `. ��� 2_ ',' ,• 7.3 sa-1a'w 109.11 t'.teC_ •-���YYY'�11 �� _ 24 S11'SB'E 49u2 n - APN 94 6-015- 1-7 ,1 3.: I0' rn v. 8 A 14 as1•4'Y _ _ r49LSIAC) (/8366Ae) : ieoe� (2O"L41) J .,. (/64SOAC) (256.65AC) ef•� 4 ��`•i 'F:.,•'• � yAL•..AREA, 3636.12 � ��r'je,e7 r ?7 "In contra costa - 9 1 6.1 q in alanieda ' 2720.0 :, ' 500. t�J yy �''• ' t0 freeway - 6.55 2� ►, `:i .c 12 7 13.4 7) ?. .,e, cc ). t' a .. )- O.-' ,. •, 1 1•� -_fii!-il;e_=.1 ae'Ad____________ ____ ESL E.A.D.RANCHO Q �'1 r'."�.-•�t 11 USA 5efa 1 _-- c w l- ru i+•' n 76-001 1 - 1 /268.54Ae(RI eouivrr je. e° O s;=�•;-;t•..• � Q ,• �,,. 104 z 95t81 Ac jSpRR I C2 cc 1: n (i+u•mow C a D ti; - h ^Pi couvrr ` J.. 7.• p T L e�,•e,, 1 C {cam;��,;:;'c';` "�''''26..0 9,� : � a�`�' � - �•` 10 IAI _ .,...{_ C, i c ,:�' 76 004 CASTRO VALLEY 9 T o r_ `J Oq INTER STATE 580 qC �a v 3200 Il - 1100 110' Li EXHIBIT B, Tassajara Park, is defined as that area _ a identified by Alameda County Assessor Parcel Numbers 946-015-1-6 and 946-015-1-7 as of July 1986. Map of..the Property of the 15 - Estate of E. A. Doughertyr'Wk.8 Pg.75) N0. cc(PSE DISTANCE • 2 S35`C3E 75.67 Rancho San Ramon(J.M.Amodor) (P01.8k."a' Pg.171) 3 .21'25E 11798 e8ia>: 4 S I°-;t'w 57.06 Amended Map of the Town of Dougherty(a, 5 s3°aiw 30.12 6 S7S°33•w 104.06 • N 7 S4J°35 w 3807 Approx Scale a S9°21'E 55.49 9 ST2°G:E 39.03 .0 ... �n 1 6 0 Orr NSA •, s��' 10 n78°25E 79.67 G v s_ O Sj_A V t7 m°L N V o m N Z R P Y v..•.,•,t 4,3 "Ym INDODOM G� 0%j v Y F; G E� W vd=N ` ntj`�� 0 QiYJ P,% 7,t 541 1 tL � �j 09,LC.10 33 . 157.62ACJ �j1•• :rte` •• i d 16•p04 �-,. - -e ` •r 'N m (26333AC1 7; II s 40'Iee ro.o.ia • -i am . ll s tl'2l'E 18S4o .•'• v 13 S r o5'w 111.29 :'•r Op 14 S 21'00'vi 51.30 it Is S9'11•W 188.'12 0 S 13°WE 'Zs 18 N G7.113''E 42.09 1 a1 r• 'I 19 S W IS E Zg9f. I ,a• y� :"; - J 45755.4c. 20 53T i E 1 52 i� Y v:,{,. 1,111 . 21 SIS•1L E 23 :. .:� 1 22. S 1C'99'w 91L94 i Z- , '._;- S 11.68"E AWL °1J� �' •.,,.' - 25 s29•ose. 141.54 /g/.¢/6lcJ �j � Z!. S 4d'13'G 154.91 011. 2"1 S Y 2Y H S's 1- s �. . 8:- A 14 '.14918/Ael (2099.Ad .�/1•�• ���01 �.�{•: `s• 'r�ti'••"1yr_•;••,,'• "'tip IS 13 �2• TAC. AREA 3636.12 06430AC1 (258.65Ar) if K. contra costa - 91 6.1 d 4 0 �.Q X ° in.'aiarrieda :. 2720.0 500- to' freeway* - 6.55 2 ?: (2713.471. =K APN 946-015- 1-4 } O•• •. .,..`. .., - /sissy a Zs_�,uJ_ _� EST F&:L cc ..� \ •..,' 1. ,USA. _ w �.J:.� �• . /-5 1 ri+`' n 76-001 i- 1288 54AC(fie) COUA•7Y 40 I C �.¢::r\"a1S:•�.' ., i, .n - 95481 Ac p 0. 4L i EXHIBIT C '1 50 M y 7. ;► �c;�w SG co�uvrr" ( �`J zx APN 94 6-015-2 Y 9 �-�y. •. .raw- .. ' ,..CASTRO VALLEY,. �l 90 CJ 9O INTER STATE 580 r II 3200 I < 1100 o EXHIBIT C, Santa Rita Property, is defined as < u that area identified by Alameda Countyz } V.:. ;� : ',: .�. `...+: Assessor Parcel Numbers 946-015-2 and °'i`'�t:' I• t: 946-015-1-4 as of July 1986. t w'� CAI ORDINANCE N0. 25 85 l AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE EXISTING. CITY LIMITS ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City Council of the City of Dublin. does ordain as follows: Section 1 : Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner: The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) (APN 946-15- . 1-5 ) , the U. S . Department of Justice property and National Aeronautics and Space Administration property located within APN 946-15-1-5 , the U.S . Department of Air Force property (946-15-1- 6 ) , the East Bay Regional Park District property ( 946-15-1-7 ) and the northerly 320+ acres of the Alameda County property ( 946-15- 1-4 ) is hereby prezoned to an Agricultural District . The southern portion of Alameda County property and the U .S . Government parcel (946-15-2 ) are hereby pr.ezoned to a PD/Business Park Industrial District ( 400+ acres) and a PD/Business Park Industrial : Low Coverage District ( 200+ acres) . Exhibit B, Findings and General Provisions concerning PA 85-018 on file in the Dublin Planning Department is hereby adopted as the regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the _ property within this District upon annexation to the City. A map of the area is as follows : • i l7a3salere Creekl Q :• '/ Regional Park 1 Pnrks Reserve /. • • • ' d >Forcos Training • ' ��`[ a Area 1> + • • to O • ',•i •: .a Santa Rlle G • ♦ Rehabilitation Center ' 7C a • }f Businoss Park/industrial:Low Coverage ® Busfness Park/industrial c t rr✓. l 1 Public lands Section 2 : This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced ( 30 ) days from and after its passage. Before the expiration of ( 15 ) . days after its passage it . shall be published once with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the same and in the Tri-Valley Herald a newspaper published in Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF October , 1985 .. AYES : Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder NOES: None ABSENT: None Ma or ATTEST: 41, City C e k RESG_ ,rION NO. 105-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN • ------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR PA 85-018 DUBLI!i PUBLIC LANDS PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION WHEREAS, the City Council on October 8 , 1984 and March 11, 1985 initiated the prezoning and annexation of approximately 2700 acres of publicly-owned properties generally east of Dougherty Road and Southern Pacific Right of Way; west of Tassajara -Road; north of -I=580 ; -and south of Contra Costa County - line as described in PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and Annexation Application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said prezoning and annexation on June 17 , 1985 and recommended approval and establishment of findings and general provisions concerning PA 85-018 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on September 23 , 1985 ; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was givEn in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending specific prezoning designations; and WHEREAS, the City .Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as herein set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: 1) the environmental documents prepared for the General Plan, along with the responses to comments on the environmental review for the prezoning and annexation, will adequately serve as the environmental documents for this project; and 2 ) The prezoning designations are consistent with the General Plan; and 3 ) The prezoning is appropriate for the subject properties in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves a) the prezoning of the Public Lands area . identified in the General Plan (approximately 2100 acres) to an A (Agricultural)' District and b) the prezoning of the Business Park/Industrial and Business Park Industrial Low Coverage areas to a PD (Planned Development )- Industrial District . The PD-Industrial area shall be governed by the following general provisions : 1 ) All new development projects in the Business Park Industrial and Business Park Industrial ; Low Coverage areas shall be processed as a new PD rezoning . 2 ) In the Business Park/Industrial area (approximately 400 acres ) new development shall conform to the General Plan description which states : "Uses are non-retail busineses ( research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices ) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor DP 83-20 •7iTrT Ta•-^-�.�'."`+7M;a�"'�q•}•'c Y;�7T�`*"'R'S F,.�....�-.�.�s'�" •+tT.! �.h'.N�:l��i.!!S:T..�-ri�,�'T. ae �{�.pwy�;1^.�lli! •Y.iY Y:'••� —R-�.ir !1'!•;: l.- I•r ..\: '�'• ;�1!•�'J'l;': d�ti. .;��4'j%,_ Tom' .4 ".L1 ;Hi:'• �f/. K yfN- .�:.�• G`r-�f:'! 1i� J.('^.•. 7i 1. ♦, .. ... :.. .i: i1. ,,a iVs'�ikt .Sr1 ;. •rx�w++::%!"t•_ _ �.`..,-fH..'".l,t;!:�:� ✓: �•.:;..iF`.':•�,•�;,�:>. r�•U• .� _•.•_+v a`{'. _ `Ud. •.J' L `•• i .J:iir.• 7:.a,w. ,•.1ws....:?._ L �.•.:.-. j..J..S- F��3�.r,N,�. -r' �rii�'L�•r.+a _."v'�;L::.:- _ .Y/r_JT�:.Y. G t-�,'4,r. }��',•:,-. Mlr� •t.,.:_;t,_:,-1,Y,c<<r.3.`..:h+�..t• -�: „•..•. .-.'=l .cS�z-6x:.=:G -"•' r area to site a,ea (FAR) are contolled 1 parking and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to . 40 FAR' s . Examples : Clark Avenue; Sierra Court. " 3 ) In the Business Park Industrial/Low Coverage area (approximately 200 acres) new development shall conform to, the General Plan description which states : "This classification is intended to provide a campus-like setting with open plazas and landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses described in the" Business Park/Industrial classification for the Primary Planning Area and to allow retail uses to serve businesses and residents . Maximum floor area ratio (building floor area as percent of lot area) to be determined by zoning regulations should be between . 25 and .37 . " 4 ) In both Business Park Industrial areas, new public land uses shall require a Conditional Use Permit . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day oil- September 1985 . AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonhee3er and Mayor Snyder NOES : None ABSENT: None Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DP 83-20 +.nr.. �� ..�?G��•±���r�'�?I r '�,�?'1Gn+:.. :'r-<.t #..-. r �. -�":�'»_^"'t n 'o:-. r.��-'-y: `i.:-- ,.,.rAlA=,�;f•...,1.2� .r T.-]zits _,.."r.:,t t�tr vj i ��%l, ...�+A f.�f.,����'Y� Lu!•i�'1 i.;�c�y!:.:h�c+:.�?.i:?3+��-i:�c*:„Y��ti �F''• I`.�r!"'.r.-.r" +. .��;:�•" `r!+• F..�y.�& 'l� �•.!ST'!�i*:'� �, '=Y:#G=• a`Yr�-.'i•�.+-sp7 ,+]p�'-'/i �i;*:'J''" •'•'{t� o ei'.ytvr. '- �,,,w t'. ...... .v._ r`�.:.Sir.j.���i3'T•",',li7r+'�S�F..�Y,��. ,.< ;t;.�{+t�t, zC.},';,^�t,� � �� ��. .t�,Y '�! '?r �L-r"':C"" � .5-°'..:. nl:;'%��'�,%L��^'f r,��r :�S.tR:r'�>•ar.�+.}'Yk.R'!.��Srzb!+af..!?/a:/L.+4,�_,..::�..4:•!'�`.��SI..Wl�'k1_•t�'�'L.:ivf.',Ti£T�....la.:=':r.. .i:tif'R. :��''..yc`.—._:� z `:rtre.✓r. 'r.ii. 1. s _y;.;,i F (A) (B) REVENUES REVENUES County Collects & Keeps County Collects on Behalf . of' City & County Retains 1. Property taxes and/or 1. Real property transfer tax possessory interest tax (C) (.D) REVENUES REVENUES City Collects & City Retains Remits to County 1. Sales tax 1. Fees for services 2 . Hotel tax 2 . Assessments (all types of assessment districts) 3 . Franchise fees 3. Fines and forfeitures 4 . State . subventions (except 4 . Federal/State/County grants those restricted in use) which are restricted in use 5. Federal/State/County 5 . State subventions which grants which are unrestricted are restricted in use as to use and legally may transferred to the County DOiIBIT F COST ALLOCATION FORMULA EXH IB IT F Alameda County and City of Dublin ILLUSTRATIVE WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING COSTS ALLOCATABLE TO THE SANTA RITA DEVELOPMENT Direct Costs Number of Net Total Units in Alloca- Budgeted Revenues Service Divided Total Units Maintained Unit Santa Rita table Cost Component Cost Minus Type Amount Equals Cost By Type Number = Cost Times Annexation Equals Cost Traffic Signal Veh. Code Maintenance $ - Fines $ _ $ Traffic Signals = $ X = $ Street Light- Ing Maint. - - - _ — Street Li hts = X = Street Main- tenance tenance - - - = Street Mlles - X - Street Sweeplpq Curb Miles = X = u - o a Street Mainten ' ance & Street Gas Sweeping $ - Taxes = N/A I N/A N/A = N/A N/A N/A = $ Z)TreeT Iree Maintenance - - - _ — Street Trees = X = Street Land- scape Malnt. - - - = Miles of Median = X = Current Current Ping. Bud. Ping. Bud. Santa Rita Not Fee Divided Fee Allocation Area Fee Supported B __§_upported Equals Factor Times Revenue Current PInq. I$ I I Fees $ — = X $ $ Santa Rlta Calls Divided I Total Calls Allocation For Service BY For Service Equals Percent Times Bud eted Cost Equals Police Service — = X $ _ $ TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ Public Works Total Cost Total Allocated Total Cost Cost of Al loca- Costs Alloca- of all P.W. Costs of P.W. Divided of Allocation Public Works table ted to S.R. Services • Services BY Services Equals Factor Times Administration Equals Cost Type Amount Public Works St. Main./ $ Management St. Sweep. $ $ _ X $ _ $ Tree Main. _ St. Land- scape Maint. Total $ $ Field Maintenance Total Cost of Calculation Calculation of Iloca- Costs Allocated to All Field Main- of Alloca- Net Engineering kilocation table Santa Rita tenance Services tion Factor Costs Times Factor Equals Cost Engineering Type Amount Field Maint. Costs Total Engineering Services Street Main- $, Allocated to S. R. Costs tenance $ Divided Minus Street Sweep- By - in Tree Main- Total Field Fee Revenue tenance Malnt. Costs Street Land- scape Mtnce. Equals = Equals = raffic Sig- nal Mtnce. Allocation Net Engineering Street Light- e Factor Costs X % _ Ing Mtnce. Total $ Net 0 er Inq & Ca ital Bud et lloca- Total Divided Total Overhead Allocation Total of All Costs table Type Amount By lBudqet Minus Costs Equal Net Cost Equals Factor Times Allocated To S.R. Equals Cost Other Overhead City M r. $ irect Direct Total Costs Legal Ser. $ Finance — - $ _ = X $ _ $ Insurance Bld . Mamt Total TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $ I TOTAL ALLOCATABLE COSTS $ ILLUSTRATIVE WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING FIRE SERVICE COSTS CALCULATIOtl OF DIRECT COST s ` Step One: Calculated Allocation Factor Assessed Valuation of Calls for Service Add Santa Rita Property Generated at Santa Rita Divided By Plus i Total Assessed Valuation Total Calls for Service Total tf'? of Response District of In Response District of Divided B Station Providing First Station Providing First 2 2 y Response to Santa Rita Response to Santa Rita i.;.: _ Equal Equals E uais r . o 0 Allocation Factor Step Two: Calculate Allocatable Direct Costs F,. Direct Costs of Operating Station Times Allocation Factor From Equals Direct Costs Step One Allocatable to Santa Rite ¢ x ° y-. CALCULATION OF INDIRECT COST Stan Three: Calculate Allocation Factor ' ,;.. Fire Prevention Inspectloris at Santa Rlta Plans Checked Related to I Santa Rita Construction Add D Add 0 Divided By Divided By Plus E Plus E .. Total Fire Prevention Inspections Total Plans Checked Total Total Divided By DI Ided By j; Equals _ 2 2 Equals Equals Allocation Allocation D E Factor _Factor Step Four: Calculate Allocatable Costs Direct Fire Prevention Unit Costs Times Allocation Factor From Step Three Equals Indirect Costs Allocatable to Santa Rlta x CALMLA E TOTAI. A110CATMI-E FIRE SERVIf - COSTS Direct Costs From Step Two Pius Indirect Costs (ran Stan 4 E uals Total Costs F FIRE CAPITAL COSTS Funding of Fire Capital Costs related to the provision of fire service to the Santa Rita Property will be as mutually agreed upon by the City and the County. ;1{ Eb-I IB IT F INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING COST ALLOCATION FORMULA Step 1 : Contact City Engineering Department/Public Works Department. Collect current information on the number of units under maintenance in incorporated Dublin including the Santa Rita development area and the Santa Rita development area alone as follows: Item Total Ci -L--Santa Rita Traff is Signals Street Lights Street Miles Curb Miles of Street Street Trees Miles of Landscaped Median Enter the results in the appropriate areas of the "Total Units Maintained" column. Step 2: Extract budgeted total cost data for each of the Field mainten- ance services from the approved budget and enter them next to the appropriate Field maintenance service in the 'Budgeted Cost" column on the form. Step 3: Check Budget for Traffic Signal Maintenance. Determine amount of Vehicle Code Fine revenue allocated to Traffic Signal Main- tenance. Enter in the "Revenue" column and deduct from total budgeted cost for Traffic Signal Maintenance, entering the remainder In the "Net Total Service Cost" column. EXHIBIT F (2) Step 4: For each Field maintenance service, divide net total service cost by total units maintained to calculate unit costs. Multiply resulting unit costs by the number of units located within the Santa Rita development to calculate allocatable cost for each Field maintenance activity. Sub-total Street Maintenance and Street Sweeping costs in the "allocatable cost" column and transfer the result to the 'Budgeted Cost" column opposite "Sub-total Street Maintenance $ Street Sweeping". Step 5: Contact Department of Finance. Determine current Per capita allocation amounts for Section 2106 and 2107 gas tax revenues. Contact Alameda County Sheriff' s Department. Collect Average Daily Population for the Santa Rita Jail Facility for the last 12 months. Multiply result by the allocation amounts for Section 2106 and 2107 revenues and enter the product in the "Revenue" column at the Gas Tax line. Deduct the amount from "Sub-total " Street Maintenance and Street Sweeping costs. Enter remainder in the "Net Total Service Cost" column. Extend result to Allocatable Cost column. Step 6: Review budget/contact Planning Director. Determine portion of Planning Budget allocated to "current planning". Enter result in "Budgeted Cost" column opposite Current Planning. Check budget and identify fee revenue budgeted to be generated by Planning. Enter in the Revenue column. Contact Planning Director: determine amount of fee revenue generated by Santa Rita located projects. Enter under the Santa Rita Area Fee Revenue column. Then accomplish the following calculations: Divide fee revenue by the budgeted cost for current planning. Enter the resulting percentage under the "$ Current Planning Budget Fee Supported" column. Subtract this percentage from 100. Enter the result under the "% Current Planning Budget Not Fee Supported" column. Divide the two percentages as shown in the form. Multiply the resulting "Allocation Factor" times the amount in the "Santa Rita Area Fee Revenue" column to calculate the portion of Current Planning cost not covered by fee revenue which is allocatable to Santa Rita. Step 7: Contact Police Chief. Determine total numbers' of calls for service (CFS) handled in all of Dublin including Santa Rita and the number generated at Santa R i to alone. D i v i de the number of CFS generated by total CFS and enter the resulting EXN I IT F (3) percent- in the "Allocation- Percent" column on the' Pol ice Services " line. Extract the amount budgeted for total police services from the budget, multiply that amount by the "Allocation percent" to calculate police service costs allocatable to Santa Rita. Step 8: Total the following from the "Allocatable Cost" column and enter the result opposite "TOTAL DIRECT COSTS". Traffic Signal Maintenance Street Lighting Maintenance Sub-Total Street Maintenance & Street Sweeping Street Tree Maintenance Street Landscape Maintenance Current Planning Pol ice Services Step 9: Allocate Public Works Management costs allocatable to the Santa Rita development by: (1 ) Total ing the fol lowing pubs Ic works costs allocated to Santa Rita -- Tree Maintenance, Street Landscape Maintenance, and the sub-total Street Maintenance & Street Sweeping costs -- all extracted from the "Allocatable Cost" column at the top of the form; (2) Totaling 'Budgeted" costs for the same services; (3) Dividing (1 ) by (2) ; and multiplying the resulting percentage times the budgeted cost of Public Works Administration (extracted from the budget). Step 10: Allocate Engineering costs by . a comparable approach Involving: ( 1 ) Totaling all Field maintenance costs allocated to Santa Rita -- extracted from the "Allocatable Cost" column at the top of the form; (2) Totaling total budgeted costs for the same services -- extracted from the 'Budgeted Cost" column at the top of the form; (3) Dividing (1 ) by (2) to calculate the allocation percent; (4) Extracting total budgeted cost and expected revenue data for Engineering Services from the budget and calculating the net cost of Engineering once revenue is deducted; and (5) Multiplying the result by the allocation factor to calculate portion of Engineering Service costs allocatable to Santa Rita. Step 11 : Allocate general Overhead costs by: (1 ) Extracting and totaling budgeting costs for City Manager, Legal Services, Finance, Insur- ance, and Building Management; (2) Extracting total budgeted operating and capital project expenditures from he Budget, add- Ing them together, and entering in the "Total Budget" column on the form; (3) Subtracting overhead costs (City Manager, et. al . ) from the amount in the "Total Budget" column to calculate "Net Cost"; (4) Dividing the total amount of overhead (City Manager, EXHIBIT F (4) et. al . ) by the result in (3) to develop the al-location -factor; (5) Totaling all direct and other indirect costs allocated to Santa Rita and extracted from the appropriate portions of the form (TOTAL DIRECT COSTS, allocated Public Works Management, and allocated Engineering Services costs) and multiplying them by the allocation factor calculated in (4) above to determine the portion of Overhead Costs allocatable to Santa Rita. Step 12: Total direct and indirect costs to calculate total costs allocatable to Santa Rita. The chart following this page illustrates how the cost allocation form is used to accomplish each of the steps described above. Step 4: Calculate unit costs and multiply by Santa Rita units. Step 3: Enter revenue data from th t Step 2: Extract budgeted cost field data for int services. Step 1: Collect volume data for field maintenance services. .,P ;- •umm vgn.r ...me I �.. i — T ° r.�r�n�. I..«,i,. r..r. Step. 4: u,.m,IYI- .i e.,o,o t w,xo i ir.,re Lm. .eq.:es �..•h t u.ffl �'�� 1 •,••oo I I u.:ro! — « ,; I 1 Total street maintenance — e,.eol and sweeping costs--transfer Step 5: "'•"M^°° 'nsw 'e'o — �- - '"' total to budgeted cost column. Calculate gas tax reve (et,';;,,, ! ! I © 9 Ste 6: nues--deduct from _ or•: W o; V 1.3.0 i ! m 1 Step street maintenance and I " Calculate current ee, ! ..... sweeping costs. ,•9� ,; »;' Mme' planning cost share i ., E.eer.° IE-«M I ° Step 8: allocatable to i +I I ' 999 — o= —'T �- Add allocatable costs o+ Santa Rita. «TS^a from A, 8, C, D, E, F, and G--enter total direct costs Step 7: ..... allocatable to Santa Rita Calculate alloca- table police service S,' I � I I(� TZs costs. ooro v. Step 9: Calculate public works o;;; 9 IS r «•. •ew rw, e.o r„iegr°.r rY fir, L«,+ management costs Engr°..-rY �°•, I„« °�- ,,�„ Lrv:w, m .,wn, a • - � Mo e.'A'I mr .I G,. _.Yr.,rrY l r 'I ' allocatable to Santa Rita. _ c , •w',q-I . .q,. I,I IJo-a,l i �E:u,r. r Step 10: ;u°I •+:n n..•x Ir.,,r ' m..os i-.,.,. I iq•a0' . m.ws L O Calculate engineering -' '.” I I II On o..r I,m i ,,ore.• t4er I I a Tr.° service costs alloca- table to Santa Rita. ar«. :r +.°.e•,: I "I ".•> I 'or.r• Step 12: '' u:.m3,:.1 Inv.em� •u,,.+e.,u1 vas . un.,+ p•mau. I,n.w,O Add lines I. •1. and K to I I I I I I total indirect costs. Add indirect costs to direct costs from line H to calculate Step 11: total allocatable costs. Allocate general overhead costs. A RESOLUTION NO. 106-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- AGREEING TO AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CONCERNING PA 85-018 DUBLIN -PUBLIC LANDS PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION - WHEREAS, the City Council on October 8 , 1984 and March 11, 1985 initiated -the prezoning and annexation of approximately 2700 acres of publicly-owned properties generally east of Dougherty Road and Southern Pacific Right of Way; west of Tassajara Road; north of I-580 ; and south of Contra Costa County line as described in PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and Annexation Application; and WHEREAS, section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (AB 8 ) provides, among other things, that no local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the agencies affected by such change first having agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenue between and among the affected agencies; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (Resolution No 186574 ) have developed a method for equitably distributing the property taxes; and WHEREAS, each specific annexation needs a resolution from both the City and County agreeing to the exchange of property tax revenues for the annexation to be completed and filed with the State; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That for the said annexation by the City of Dublin, (which will be first effective for the fiscal year following the filing of the Certificate of Completion with the State Board of Equalization providing the filing occurs prior to December 31 of the preceding year ) the Auditor-Controller of the County of Alameda shall be directed to cause an exchange of property tax revenues pursuant to the following provisions of paragraph numbers 1 and 3 of Exhibit "A" of the property tax revenues redistribution method developed by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors . 1 ) In all annexations involving developed or developing residential territory, as well as mixed residential/commercial areas and vacant or underdeveloped industrially-zoned areas; the City would automatically be entitled to receive an allocation of the County' s general fund computed property tax revenue from that area, equal to the City/County' s existing allocation percentage ratio within its corporate limits; 3 ) In the event that a City assumes full responsibility for a service or services presently provided by a separate County Taxing agency or special district within a territory proposed to be annexed, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. 99 (b) , the County will endeavor to transfer to the City the entir-e computed -property tax revenue presently allocated to such County agency or district from said area. 2 ) The City certifies that there is no significant commercial and/or industrial development in the proposed annexation. r..�.,r r+�-w.w:yr � T�"'� ^�7 z-� .r:;-^— *—+� ^^.s.-+-z•-c.---, 5 . <. , 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby agree to the property tax revenues redistribution method stated herein. PASSED,. ' --APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September, 1985 . AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder NOES : None ABSENT: None ATTEST: City Clerk . „ - - .,�.. ;.J: ...t.,� rr-;;p.. .c7+.:` rte--_ •'i^i. ....«-.r.. -t.,-• _ _ 7•,s•7_,.��..-.�-:. .. Y C � "' x 'd.+ x t � .tti s� o;n'fi r •r r i r+ y .: ''� .7, ':"1• ',t.'X r' t, y.r,1 i "! S. wy1 C Y'^y.•i t y. P,y,S! .�.Y Y k tP^+.� ^' .ry k �.t»..?'S i:S! i ✓..* 1,Ira_ '�_ r _}",r 'Y :�.,c t' 'tro "p 1„ ;,' �'�ar`•r.l'>..� •f.^-'-�r;:> t ;:,y' Kr Tf •7 i,.' ,'t,•�tS' "'r'`J :s,: "�,,., -�.r� .Va•n�5�.. .{.h �i'r'.� r,z n.., L."7's�'; %fi � :`�.p,.,#'" ."iY7`t�ej� i7r r._r,.C''..' r ,.t;,vy `Y. ,4,..a *k sxr iv �� ?• !. � 't '1•.n. .G.t:'>«s :s x.f �'t - ^� � 1!• .,v.,w `,,;5#t k •a• '� T �,.c� �F^ ��!.,.?. � �'^x l,.'r«"' 'r.r g .x,,f'"• r' ..a1 � t t�` + '� �rY%Yf'. .;,. 'j:1"�" n- 'n• 'w }a! r,� :�.J•c+• ,'ar'. �r .� e i'. tr•_rj�r�{,.'.L�npf�SF.., ;Sr mss• �ari..�� �.�.` �?;�:•. `': 3? E�'�' 'r��{'y", .�'#v+,�"a�„ •r,y�5'� `��"' rW is � ref-"�>,�• 9�• `�� sy1,✓ .r,,r4f Al'�111 S� ` .R� .,.. .t # '4'2 y', u,.'V i3 arlr „t' a' }�•�:?t �1 ',4�,.7�'+,X . $' .� ='t�'x- .t.+a..� l•:. i. 2�'i. 1'.y`^�'.7�t4.r'�"7°'2 r.x.i+ xa '4' ',�{� .��'•`�,. „y ,F,,.S„w�a,y.,��•y•hW„� � -�, 4rA .Y-� .i l..';, ,,..ti ,�^r 4-. etS�,.kc,-51”it 'U�t�,h.�'v.--r�a.,'��c.�.rr:-r.•.. �*>�,}.•5 � ��r'�.; e�^•fi �,Lrt aat ,e..FY•;..r=.-;.�. .:y+.y r.,. x ti+l�'1 y;_�.71�c. •.->� iZ' � �} -�� 74 ':?r'j+`v 11..�5 r ^ , _'*•' C�� ro�� �x fy y�`�•.. Y. >t� t•,p fi.lr�.�:f �'ry{,aye -Cy"i£ + is �",. p�', r e^� 'r.� 1 .4' LA�a t ..<f ,•• . �Y�� ,Tt ff h 5• � .yis•1 't�4� t!4 ,.S r A rfr '� _ J - ✓ r a y - - a ' 4 �_`'' •�� t1+. 1 y�� r� }yr�f ��[ r .3�C_r:x<+4• -4• A}'}P d-_-1r3S^ 'c•r'...ec "'_,l:t' � <• �.'r �.:`"` t. t +" 1 "'7_ sa - �r' -?r+ r;: `r k..r}:Y Y,r •tf+ k r d.k•< S- 4.:t ` rj •gt7- �,' "; f-,.- yr?., 5., `,• .St• :•mot '« i i t ,;k t•�-t r r " rn7�,f e kt". ,''�• ;+,:. a'Y :;':4,..,.'r t`t'''•.� rr,'tr •Z ,w.F+.s..� ,.(�a'FryF.c,u..�Y z;.k:r {'..t�t3•tea.'.„+',• ��'' ;� t :-ti*k` s�, e`a,: `. ...a, aEj:.'..=:•i .ii. ,,rs.!;t`•k;.;c !-`+s1'. i•k°•'q'�'; v-g s,.,••r te:•,.y.;;iu >..ial.•.. ,*•rf. 4'a . r 'a;..r£•`'h, +r".'., ..'`SwY i' c Y.yv4 F yy7 ,r M S� i+ ` d?age,i P^ ;�' t ,� +. � •s`.t`s%y - �, . . L�5 '�' '� i e 's x a' a.sZ ?i fi. `h • w, kr5i ::`kc '^sue, -�,C.h cs»T c: y. 4'a.:" M ri" h y �i ,. �M' ,'!FS' t+a..,.+, �iy�.'�'f' �•' s F�-.r,.e, tier ..?x<sh }�`4`h1"`vi<, •+�Tr r.,c, - w"- ».* ir•Y °y'�.I. .-x3?{ .{a,�;,i a ,.d w^t a t'�'; ,�*�3�..�' ,A -�c .� y ,li m•�' .v{ ;��•�%5�'�'`r'.. 'a�.�,� �y �,, "+�1•�S :�'n>�� i�o �s c�,��° �`a.,�•'(J a�-,,»yt .y�,Sr�``•.w �.�� r�`�'�� ^+ r � }.r� � t r 1 ;d .. ..,,. z. hL�4'. S,a�J•r.rz't .r r^iu�� ,"ta `a >'{k�r x'C S'"x.S�t�Si° ss�t,',�. •,� 5. � �. !C t •,> �•�E �r'r a . �t,,,''+,..t N+'�. t ', .Y -. ✓`.� :.••? '`"rr ." rte k� ¢'k1.. v.y a;RJ. y ..i. 't `4, tr !•.`a" �sF,t°Z,.h }.`r a �+i_.r,,,�5.1 "y - .5a t...,.,,, >_ i y ','�rrM >. �ls .,• •' t '.' '.":. � :t1 ,tI :�, r'S,. t' .�{ .� f ,F 1•� k_ ra .�., r4 a. > lr r r 't y r f y FLi: 5•`,1 y t{',ry.�F• 7r��^} "_i'�` h 4�}Gr F'Sf�•x�n Ltr S��'�i�Y�p v;��L.�1 3.� "4 f� a,{. a.' 'cr�,^' t(,'s.+ ig'4� ..t-u Sa F.`• Approaches to Developing A Cost-Allocation Formulati� ;� 4• �, Related to the Santa Rita Development � ? l.__ 1 f _ • Y ALAWDA COUNTY CITY OF DUBLIN + ti ' D r r•'Std: � .Jrp � FM .'i t s r,• 4 k 5� { k w�yJ.x7t rx�'i> `:t'. t 1. � l',+' G� -cf -�,P r 7t Sur• Ft'>;'i�'�'k{}�i s t•.•fM 'xr �. r _ .Y� ' ^ Y J < �.J M �X : � Y'ti •��f• iv3 ,a y. t^ � t t•4 : Y,'1 .y.+! 4. t t C s` r _.`` _� f.!� i �S✓- J t A•y ' L'" ..j '� �1 a 7.Q 'y-'�'.14..t S� �� t 4 � J LLR ��' `fi � r ^ Fr�r✓�`,��„�',i� � �Jx%,R�• +. � 'r$ +�•� . Yfis��^r-4`��vX�°'X S "y •� j' k '1 a. ,HUGHESv' HEISS &'ASSOCIATES 1 r fir.Yr.-• r r' ,k te7 »r - r... ,.a .ii , s.. + r,w.,cl;:cjrrr :i '. tt t:y:i e;}h,r,, +�. pry ,•.`i4�x•. �¢ a a:'ry'y .. >ta.v_.'Tv .'to'yy,r s'?.ht°.,;. ,.,j_- -.ry' ''Z'xyb?t ff fY�t S.^it J `5'hA r�+ r r �1 rs YP`iy F'�'"T.i%?} r��7�s tty �l'i�4g+Y,}'Y1 •'a l .i .,` .1�:;1'4'1,i:�� ,-i�-,�•rJ,nyr• ham{�Sr�G � ti.�.,+ ,.y .y-!''t +Y e-�5 ;,1`':n L �3a,�yy,+e` sr'�:''e'Tt��l.,'���P'�:%a"�t.� # �43�w��r��•, �'$ "ra�C a�"� �a;g`.,.;,, ��; _ ,�'" w.wy!*•*`+_.�C.:;.!+�'ror' 4-`,',�:�rit tai'. � i ';'ret ',^.sr '-.,.. �.�.n he y.. f �1, 4 '�a">+Il..,'<'�4�4.-. ��.'•'1�',;SYr�w ��..^c�V.+tires +�{e�,}h�•ri�u�.a,4�y�.�r�`S'. `?,-v v.�(:'TbTa,��,t_gam;;%. ,.• ''�t2��id J' ! -1, `.6,75 c>*,.<;{,,.r `+•�,.- �: y '...rE^rrrl: ^. �� ,e`*�. ��'ntY,,:�� �'.-1,�+�.sF�3_.'�`?,•*5•a�:.� ,�ra�� g �v �sr"y�..,.�xr,,r�r`s'L ��'°:�� '.4tr'° t".;'.. q�',�+rc�-..:M�°�A � � *�.�' ,.�;v;. l Y'c'+�F 1 { X*n x d',Z ,"'-. ,+^•.a;.. 'S ''�ur�!�" F'sn rS- 1. ?,t'S, �i" y( wr ds �` � `S ,1 '�.. �. � �. _ a�'S t;r• Z Ss�''�"z. t, $Y+��• +v �•d, �,,x'+. ���^aci,.74r .<�������� ,��t4§�,k t W4 �, { _^z ., .-�;} ;.;?• ..., .- +:�.. '+� '* �" 1 'C..r••„� <. �Ms.rn � cS,r,�.;; 4r r� 5 v`r x�~�r �i.c^�:.� a"f`�t '+�;!a�. 1 �-r �e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number ._ 1 . BASIC OBJECTIVES FOR A COST ALLOCATION FORMULA 1 2. ALLOCATABLE VERSUS NON-ALLOCATABLE COSTS 2 3. REVENUE CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING A COST ALLOCATION FORMULA 6 4. BASIC.RECOMMENDED COST ALLOCATION PHILOSOPHY 7 5. AS NOTED IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS REPORT, ANALYSIS SUGGESTS THERE WILL BE SOME POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN THE BASIC OBJECTIVES UNDERLYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY COST ALLOCATION FORMULA g LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Number I. CLASSIFICATION OF CITY OF DUBLIN OPERATING COSTS BY LEVEL OF - IMPACT SANTA RITA DEVELOPMENT 4 11. ILLUSTRATIVE WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING COSTS ALLOCATABLE TO THE SANTA RITA DEVELOPMENT 17 I I I . ALTERNATIVE TWO - COST ALLOCATION FORMULA 19 IV. ILLUSTRATIVE FORM FOR CALCULATING ALLOCATABLE FIRE SERVICE COSTS 25 APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING A COST—ALLOCATION FORMULA RELATED TO THE SANTA RITA DEVELOPMENT The major purpose of the analysis contained in the following pages is to develop and evaluate alternative approaches for apportioning incremental service costs experienced by the City of Dublin in serving the Santa Rita annexation area. The cost allocation formula is a key component of the planned agreement between Alameda County and the City of Dublin under which: Dublin annexes the Santa Rita area, providing city services to the area thus opening it for urban style commercial and industrial development. Alameda County retains all property tax and other related revenues associated with the Santa Rita annexation area and development. Alameda County reimburses the City of Dublin for service costs incurred. The following pages address development of cost allocation formula consistent with the above: 1. BASIC OBJECTIVES FOR A COST ALLOCATION FORMULA Any practical cost allocation formula needs to satisfy a variety of key and sometimes conflicting objectives including the following: Both parties to the agreement need to recognize any cost allocation f ormu l a as fa i•r, not only in the first year of the agreement but in subsequent years without significant renegotiation or adjustment. In short, the formula needs to stand the test of time and should represent a long range approach both parties can agree upon. To the extent practically possible, the formula needs to be flexible and should reflect the varying impacts of the development on the actual cost of services experienced by Dublin. It needs to be understood that these costs w i l I not be uniform on either a service by service or year by year basis. In the early stages of the development, costs will typically be less than when the development is completed. As the development grows, costs can be expected to Increase accordingly. Different types of costs will grow at different rates. For example: .. Early in the development, costs related to infrastructure maintenance and police services can be expected. to be relatively modest. As the area develops and streets, trees and other components of the infrastructure come under city maintenance, costs of services can be expected to escalate. .. Conversely, early in the development, services and attendant costs related t o tannin engineering, P 9, 9 9, _. permit processing, and other development control activities will be significantly higher than later in the period when build-out is approached.. To the extent that the cost allocation formula does not reflect differing rates of growth and the impact of that growth on costs, the formula will "overcharge" or F "undercharge" one of the parties to the agreement. The formula needs to be understandable to both elected and appointed officials. If it is unduly complex, it could set the stage for disagreement and repeated renegotiation of both content and amount over the course of the agreement. i It should not require excessive data collection and related staff time to implement and maintain on a continuing'basis. As subsequent discussion will illustrate, no single approach will completely f u l f i l l each of these objectives. Major trade-offs involved w i l l include the following: As the simplicity of the formula approaches increase, the capability of the formula. to reflect actual cost of services will be diminished. As a result, the potential to over or under charge parties to the agreement at any specific point in time will be increased. As the potential of the formula to capture changes in costs over the development period is expanded, its complexity will increase. This includes the requirement to maintain data to support cost allocation decisions in each Impacted service area. With these thoughts as background, the next section addresses issues involving the nature and scope of costs which need to be included in and excepted from a formula of any degree of complexity. 2. ALLOCATABLE VERSUS NON-ALLOCATABLE COSTS. The first step In the development of any !cost allocation formula is agreement on the type of costs which should be included. This is a key issue because of the nature of the Santa Rita development. As currently . conceived, the development will not "mirror" the City of Dublin in either composition or impact on services provided by the city. Key issues include the fol lowing: -2- _ The project is expected to be largely commercial and industrial in nature. With the exception of one or more on-site hotels, there will be no residential population. As a result, the development will not impact many of the ., services provided by the city, espec i a l I y those people oriented services like recreation, para-transit services, and the like. Given the above, before developing any cost allocation formula, it is necessary to classify or isolate costs which should be included in and excluded from any cost allocation formula. Analysis of the City of Dublin's budget results in the identification of three basic categories of operating costs: Direct Impact -- those services and activities and related costs which are directly and incrementally influenced by annexation of the Santa Rita development. No Relationship -- given the industrial and commercial nature of the development, those city services and associated costs which __. w i l l not be Incrementally effected by the development. Overhead or Indirect Impact -- representing those costs not clearly incrementally impacted by annexation, but which reflect a "cost of doing business" for Dubl in. While these costs will not grow at a even pace as city services related to the development expand, they can be expected to grow as the total magnitude of direct service delivery operations increases. The appendix to this report provides a detailed analysis of the basic services and activities to which resources are allocated in the City of Dublin's budget. Each service and activity is analyzed from the perspective of its sensitivity to annexation of the Santa Rita development and assumption of associated service demands. Costs are classified under each of the categories listed above. The results of the analysis contained in the appendix are summarized In Exhibit 1, which follows this page. In addition to the services, activities, and cost categories shown in Exhibit 1 any formula also needs to consider the cost of services currently provided by the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) . Absorption of the Santa Rita area will also impact these services. Currently, DSRSD provides four basic services -- sewer, water, fire protection, and parks. Analysis indicates that the impact of the Santa Rita development on these services will be as follows: SEWER/WATER -- . These services are 100% funded by user fees and is connection fees. Any incremental cost of these services provided to the Santa Rita development will be completely covered by revenue generated through use of the utilities. -- PARKS -- While the parks service is property tax funded, given the commercial and industrial nature of the Santa Rita development, there will probably be no Incremental impact. As a I I:�, -3- EXHIBIT I Alameda County/City of Dublin CLASSIFICATION OF CiTY OF DUBLIN OPERATING COSTS BY LEVEL OF IMPACT SANTA RITA DEVELOPMENT i t Direct Impact Indirect Impact Police Services City Council Traffic Signal Maintenance City Manager Street Lighting Maintenance Legal Services Street Maintenance Finance Street Sweeping Building Management Street Tree Maintenance Insurance i Street Landscape/Median Disaster Preparedness Maintenance Public Works Management Planning Vector Control 1 Building and Safety Engineering i . No Impact Crossing Guards Animal Control Para-transit Service Library Service Recreation Park Maintenance i i I.... -4- i result, these services should be excluded from any cost allocation formula related to either Dublin or DSRSD. FiRE -- Fire protection represents the only DSRSD general funded service impacted by the Santa Rita development. The development has the potential to impact both capital and operating costs related to the delivery of fire service. , This issue is explored and analyzed in more detail later in this report. In addition to the costs outlined above, the city maintains and funds four basic capital improvement budgets as follows: General Capital Improvements -- covering a wide variety of capital expenditures ranging from construction of a new civic center for Dublin through a variety of studies impacting the city. Community Improvement Capital Improvement Budget -- covering a wide variety of city infrastructure Improvements ranging from street lights through street signs. Park Improvements -- covering upgrading and expans'ion of park facilities available to city residents. Street Improvements -- involving both expansion and renewal of the city street infrastructure. A variety of arguments can be made regarding the extent to which the capital Improvement budgets should be involved in any cost allocation formula related to the Santa Rita development. They include the following: The community improvement and street improvement capital budgets reflect additions to the city Infrastructure which might be Influenced by the Santa Rita development. For example, it could be assumed that expanded traffic generated by the development could require additional improvements to the city infrastructure such as street widening, more traffic signaling or signing, and the like. The park improvement budget, given the non-residential nature of the project, can be assumed to have no significant relationship to the Santa Rita development. The general capital improvement budget, given the broad mix of project and studies contained in that project, represents a set of capital expenditures which are difficult to relate to the development on a consistent and continuing basis. Analysis contained In subsequent sections will address the extent to which capital improvement expenditures ought to be included in any cost allocation philosophy or formula. -5- 3. REVENUE CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING A COST ALLOCATION FORNJLA. _ Some attention needs to be given to how involved services are funded. The basic issue involves some services which may be incrementally impacted i by annexation of the Santa Rita development area, but are either wholly or partially offset by fee revenue, or are funded by revenues not impacted by the agreement between Alameda County and Dublin as currently structured. Item Issue Traffic Signals Repair Partially funded by vehicle code fines - partially funded by general fund. Can be ' expected that vehicle code fine revenue would _ be accelerated by S.R. development. Actual allocatable cost should probably include some adjustment to reflect funding source. Street Lighting Currently fully funded by Assessment District. Will S.R. development if established, fall l ' within Assessment District? If not, mainten- ance will require som4 incremental , non- dedicated revenue to maintain. Street Maintenance Currently 99% funded by gas tax. Gas taxes are allocated on a per capita basis and are restricted in use to street improvements or maintenance activities. Annexation of the Santa Rita property, to the extent it includes the County jail facility at Santa Rita, will generate incremental_ revenue based on jail pop- ulation. These incremental revenues should be "credited" against street maintenance costs charged to Alameda County by Dublin. i_ Street Sweeping 100% gas tax funded. Same as above. Street Tree Maintenance 2% of total cost contributed by Assessment District. No relationship between Assessment District and Santa Rita. Any incremental service cost totally from general fund. I Street Landscape Maint. , Same As Above. Planning 9% funded by fee revenue. Can be assumed Santa Rita project(s) will contribute fee revenue re- lated to direct application processing. Need to dea I w i th two i ssues: (1 ) Extent to w h i ch p l ann i ng budget devoted to community-wide planning issues - not related;.to Santa Rita; (2) Extent to which p anni ng budget rel ated to current pl anni ng/appi i- cat i on processing and extent to which fee revenue cover that cost. If portion of cost uncovered, some method needs to be developed to relate pro- ! cessing of Santa Rita development to current planning/application processing workload. i -6- I- a , Building and Safety While clear incremental workload impact during construction period, activity totally offset by building permit revenue during construction '^ period. No cost allocation as long as no general fund subsidy required. 4. BASIC RECOMMENDED COST ALLOCATION PHILOSOPHY Given the material contained in the preceding sections, it is possible i--• to develop a basic cost allocation philosophy which can be employed to ( structure and evaluate alternative formulas. Principal components of a recommended cost allocation philosophy include the following: In the direct service cost area, incremental unit service costs . should be calculated based on actual net cost to Dublin. For example, for services which are all or partially off-set by fee revenues which can be expected to be increased by the Santa Rita development, only those portions of service costs not covered by fee revenue should serve as the basis for cost allocations. There are a variety of "gray areas" or indirect costs which cannot be directly related to the Santa Rita development, but make possible direct service delivery and represent a cost of doing business for the City of Dubl in. Since Dublin does not allocate these overhead costs as some jurisdictions do, they are not included in any direct service cost calculations based on incremental unit cost component divided into the net city cost budget component. A "reasonable" cost allocation approach Involves: Allocating 'overhead" to a unit cost related to Santa Rita, but calculating it based on a relationship between overhead and full cost of . all services being administered to include operating costs and and capital costs included in the city budget. Calculating the above 'overhead" percentage on cost exclusive of those attributable to the Santa Rita development. The other "gray" area involves capital improvements made to the city infrastructure which: (1 ) benefit the Santa Rita develop- ment (e.g. , improve street systems, better signs, etc. ) ; (2) are funded by revenues impacted by the city's agreement with Alameda County (e.g. , property taxes, sales taxes, etc. ) ; and/or (3) are funded by revenue sources which are external subventions and cal- , culated on resident population which will not be impacted by the Santa Rita development. Key issues involved include capital improvement costs in any cost allocation formula are as follows: - There is no direct relationship between most infra- i__: structure improvements and impact of the Santa Rita development. As a result, any simple quantifiable relationship will be difficult to calculate and maintain on a continuing basis. -7- The Santa Rita development will generate some additional �r revenue b virtue of employment brou ht to the area -- Y 9 e.g. , sales tax increases resulting from employee shopping in the Dublin area. This can be expected to have some ! .•; impact on general fund revenues, but there is virtually no easy or fully valid way to quantify that impact. Given the above, it appears preferable to accept capital improvement expenditures from any cost allocation agreement based on the following factors: i .. The non-quantifiable incremental impact on general _. fund revenues (primarily sales tax) resulting from employment generated by the Santa Rita development. Because this incremental impact will be virtually impossible to quantify, it would not be considered in any cost allocation formula. It is best to assume that a reasonable trade-off would be to accept in- direct capital improvement/infrastructure enhance- ;- ment from the cost allocation formula in recognition that incremental costs may in fact be, offset by expanded revenues realized by the city. . . Where capital improvements can be specifically tied to the development, the parties could negotiate cost shares or cost allocations on a case by case basis -- providing for these instances In their agreement but excepting cost sharing from the cost allocation formula. As a result, both Alameda County and Dublin should consider ensuring that the negotiated cost allocation agreement- contains language that provides for a negotiated settlement should the requirement for a specific capital project generated by the Santa Rita development arise. 5. AS NOTED IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS REPORT, ANALYSIS SUGGESTS THERE WILL BE SOME POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN THE BASIC OBJECTIVES UNDERLYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY COST ALLOCATION FORMULA. That basic conflict involves simplicity versus flexibility in capturing actual incremental cost impact as accurately as possible. The section which follows explores several different alternative approaches for allocating costs impacted by the development. The formulae presented in this section deal with all direct and indirect costs with the exception of fire service which is dealt with in a section at the end of this report. (1) Alternative 1 : Allocate Costs Based On The Annual Calculation of Incremental Impact of the Santa Rita Development. The first alternative presented in this section has been designed to the extent practical to capture as accurately as possible the true incremental cost experienced by Dublin as a result of the Santa Rita annexation. It incorporates the following basic components: -8- I:_ All services and their related costs identified as having a net incremental cost impact related to the annexation are charged ( and calculated on a direct unit cost basis. ! Methods of calculating unit costs are kept on a relatively simple basis and are maintained on information already collected f� by the city and its operating department on a continuing basis. It has been assumed that it would be impractical to maintain any workload accounting or tracking system which would identify and --. isolate direct service costs immediately associated with the Santa Rita development. While the explanation which follows may seem complex, it needs to be clearly understood that it has been designed to reflect use of data already maintained by the City of Dublin and its various operating departments. The only additional requirement to implement and maintain the formula outlined in this section would be to isolate service units directly related to the Santa Rita development as they are added to the city's inventory. Since these data are already kept to support maintenance programming, planning, and operations, addition and maintenance of Santa Rita data reflect little incremental workload. The formula also includes allocation of some real overhead costs which can be realistically related to managing service delivery. Several factors have been considered: Given the city's current limited administrative structure, Dublin contracts for many services. Since the annexation w i I I increase workload In a number of areas (managing publ is works activities, some engineering services, etc. ), real cost i ncreases w i l l be:exper i enced i n some "overhead" areas. i - Items like insurance will be directly impacted by the scope of services del ivered by the city. If service expands, cost can be expected to increase. As a result, the formula presented in this section incorporates an overhead allocation approach. The paragraphs which follow explain the basic components of our unit cost allocation formula. (1 .1) Allocation Of Direct Costs: Listed below are each of the categories identified as direct service costs resulting from annexation isolated earlier in our `analysis. Police Services: Given the nature of the development, it will be extremely difficult to tie incremental numbers of police officers/contract deputies to demands generated by the development. j.. Relevant issues include the following: -9- The Santa Rita development will generate law enforcement demand based on response to calls for service, traffic control, automatic alarms (generally accounted for as part of calls for service), and follow-up investigation. With the exception of traffic control , it is highly unlikely that workload/service demands can be directly translated into incremental numbers of officers required. - - Commercial/office uses generate proportionately lower calls for service than residential developments of comparable size/population levels. B itself, neither size density,, or service demand w i l l be sufficient to generate the need for a discrete beat. Not at all clear that by itself, the development can be quantitatively linked with the need for incremental traffic control officers. For example, peak demand generated i- during morning/late afternoon -- evening work hours j. probably sufficient to require one to two . units for Ilmited periods. Other periods/on weekends, traffic control in context of larger community requirements. . - Will also consume services not directly related to isolation of requirements for incremental officers, including dispatch, investigation, field supervision. Some measures typically employed to estimate incremental cost of pol ice sery Ices (e.g. "x" number of pol ice off icers per 1 ,000 population) are not usable given the absence of residential population at the Santa Rita development. Given the above, the most equitable approach for allocating law enforcement costs would involve basing cost allocation on actual law enforcement service demand generated by the development. The basis i for al l ocation woul d be ca l I s for pol ice sery ice -- data currentl y collected by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department for Dublin. The only additional requirement would involve the need to isolate calls for service generated by Santa Rita which could be accomplished on a continuing basis with little incremental effort. Given this approach, the following steps could be employed to calculate Iaw enforcement costs allocatable to the Santa Rita annexation: Calls for Service In Santa Rita Area Law Enforce- Allocatable Total Calls For Service in Dublin X ment Budget - Cost - and Santa Rita __. Traffic Signals Currently, traffic signal maintenance/operations are 51% funded Lu by vehicle fines and 49% by general funds. It can be assumed that employment at the Santa- Rita development will accelerate revenue I : L -10- related to vehicle fines. An equitable approach would be to calculate allocatable cost as net cost of unit maintenance after general fund revenues deducted. Traffic Signal Vehicle Total Signals Unit Traffic Ailoca- Maintenance - Fine Requiring = Maintenance x Signals In = table Budget Revenue Maintenance Cost Development Cost Street Lighting -• If Santa Rita lighting is not included under the assessment district which funds Dublin operations, allocatable costs calculated as follows: Total Street Lighting Street Lights Unit Street Miles Alloca-. Maintenance and Under = Cost x in Santa Rita = table Operating Budget Maintenance Development Cost Street Maintenance -- The current budget for street maintenance is 99% gas tax funded. As noted earlier, if annexation includes the Santa Rita Jai.l facility, Jail population will generate incremental gas revenues based on the following approximate schedule: Est i mated IncrementaI Type Allocation Method Impact of Annexation Street $ Highways Calculated based on Given approximate average Code Sec. 2107 monthly gasoline sales daily Jail population of statewide. Allocated Santa Rita of 2,500, would on a per capita basis. -- generate approximately Current allocation $22,375 in incremental estimated at $8.95 revenue. per capita. Street 8 Highways Provides base alloca- Annexation will have no Code Sec. 2106 tion of $400 per mo. impact on the $400 per plus $3.92 per capita month base allocation. "- (actual amount varies With Jail ADP in 2,500 based on actual state- range, annual incremental wide gasoline sales. revenue at $9,800 level . Street 8 Highways Provides allotment on While Santa Rita Jail pop- Code Sec. 2107.5 "sliding scale" to off- ulation could contribute set costs of engineer- to Dublin moving from one ing and administration range on allotment scale to related to street main- the next: (1 ) Difficult to tenance. Scale isolate incremental impact provides $1,000 for considering both city and each 5,000 population Jail population; (2) Actual up to 25,000 popula- revenue impact probably -_ tion and $1,000 for minimal (measured in $100 each 25,000 popula- to $200 range) . As a re- tion levels from sul t, should not be cal cu- 25,000 to 100,000. lated as incremental revenue. -11- Under current practice, gas taxes (Sec. 2106 and 2107) are employed to support street maintenance and street sweeping. Given the above, incremental costs should first be calculated and then revenues _ credited as noted in the following steps. First, calculate allocatable street maintenance costs. Total Street Street Miles Unit Street Miles Gross Maintenance Under = Cost x In Santa Rita = Incremental Budget Maintenance Development Cost Issue: A weakness of this method is that it is based on an average cost basis which assumes equal distribution of maintenance requirements by street mile. in reality, actual maintenance demand will not be evenly distributed, potentially resulting in "over allocation" if the Santa Rita development's streets do not receive same propor- tional level of repairs as do the remainder of the City's streets. Over the longer range, this problem could be expected to even out as the development's street main- demands increase. The only alternative would be to charge for actual cost, but would require maintenance of a detailed job cost accounting system. Street Sweeping As noted above, this service is also funded by gas taxes which are restricted in use to street maintenance/improvement purposes and incrementally impacted by the jail population at Santa Rita. Next step would be to calculate incremental street sweeping costs: Street Curb Unit Curb Gross Sweeping Miles = Cost x Miles In = Incremental Budget Swept Development Cost f. . Issue: For this approach to be valid, need to ensure Santa Rita development receive same composition of street sweeping j frequency as the remainder of the city. Apply Incremental Gas Revenues to Gross Costs to Calculate Net Allocatable Cost Once incremental service costs related to street maintenance and street sweeping have been calculated, deduct gas tax revenues generated by jail population in the annexation area to determine net allocatable cost. Street Sweeping Street Maintenance Sec. 2106 Net Cost + Cost - Sec. 2107 Incremental Alloca- '__ Revenues table Cost -12- L' Street Tree Maintenance General Fund supported service. Cost should be fully allocated. Total Street Number of Unit Street Trees Alloca- Tree Maintenance Street = Cost x in Santa Rita = table Budget Trees Development Cost Street Landscape Maintenance General Fund supported sery ice. Cost should be fully al locatable. Total Street Miles of Land- Unit Miles of Land- Alloca- Landscape scaped'Median = Cost x scaped Median = table Maintenance (or) Square in Santa Rita Cost Budget Feet of Median Development (or) Square Feet of Median in Santa Rita Development Planning 1 Analysis of Dublin's budget indicates that "current" planning involving application processing is not fully fee supported, and requires general fund subsidy. It can be assumed that the Santa Rita development will generate significant workload for current planning and should be levied some cost if fee revenue .does not cover cost of operation. This cost should be allocated only to the extent the development generates current planning workload. Total Planning X % of Current Planning Budget Not Fee Support = Alloca- Fee Revenue of Current Planning Budget Fee Supported table cost From Santa Rita Development Building and Safety This activity is fully supported by building permit related revenue. As a result, it can be assumed to be a non-allocatable cost since incremental workload generated by the development can be expected to be funded by permit fee revenue related to that incremental workload. (1.2) Allocation of Indirect Costs: Non-Administrative Indirect or Partially indirect Cost a There are two types of indirect costs which should be considered in any cost allocation formula: , overhead or administrative costs involving management or direction of city operations, and service related costs which cannot be directly related to a unit workload measure. This section addresses the second category which include the fol I ow i ng sery ices: i I •, -13- Public Works Management Engineering Vector Control Disaster Preparedness Allocation issues are as follows: - Public Works Management: Provides for basic line supervision of f iel d ma ntenance operations and includes costs normally. considered as part of direct service costs related to street maintenance, street sweeping, tree maintenance, and the like. As a result, an equitable cost allocation approach would Involve relating these supervisory costs to the basic line maintenance operations and the incremental unit costs related to these operations assigned/allocated to the Santa Rita development. Suggested allocation approach as follows: r Costs Allocated to Santa Total City Costs Cost . Net Rita Development For: for: Street Maintenance of Public Ailoca- Street Maintenance, _ Street Sweeping x Works Ad- = table Street Sweeping, Street Tree Maintenance ministra- Cost Street Tree Maintenance, Street Landscape Main- tion Street Landscape Maint. tenance Engineering: Under current approaches, a portion of engineering costs related to development review are offset by fee revenue as are building and safety costs. Remaining, uncovered costs involve some activities related to programs directly related .to/involved in the service cost allocations made above - including street maintenance, street lighting, etc. S.ince this relationship exists, these net engineering costs ought to be allocated based on proportional maintenance program including scope of system under maintenance. Allocation method as follows: Net Cost of Total budgeted Cost allocated to Net General Engineer- _ cost for Traffic Santa Rita Develop- = Alloca- . ing and Traffic Signals, Street X ment for Traffic table Engineering Services Maintenance, Signals, Street Main- Cost Street Lighting, tenance and Lighting Street Sweeping, Street Tree Main- tenance, and Street Landscape Maintenance -14- i . 1/ . Vector Control The minor cost of this program suggests it should be considered to be extraneous to the cost allocation decision. As a result, it should be excepted from the cost allocation formula. Disaster Preparedness There v i rt a l l no a to Th i s u y way I ink program services to the incremental impact of development. Development will contribute to basic disaster preparedness capability of community through contri- butt on for I aw enforcement and perhaps f ire sery Ices. As a resul t, it Is valid to except this service from any cost allocation formula. I. Administrative Indirect Costs. While it is virtually impossible to quantify incremental impact, annexation of the development w i 1 1 , along with other community growth, contribute to growing complexity in city operations with attendant impact on costs related to: City Manager l Legal Services i Finance Insurance Conversely, there w i l l be little probable impact on cost of City Council . From the practical perspective, the City Council does not represent a variable cost. Building Building mana�ent reflects telephone space costs, and miscellaneous costs related to providing facilities to support city services. As such, service expansion related to city annexation of the Santa Rita development can be expected to have some incremental impact on these costs. An equitable approach to relating indirect administrative services to the Santa Rita development annexation should incorporate the following philosophical components: Develop proportional costs of relevant indirect administrative services and the cost of activities administered including: j - Operating services covered by the annual operating - budget. - Capital improvement projects planned for the year which require time and absorb resources from the administrative perspective. -15- L_ Apply that proportion to the costs allocated to the Santa Rita development as the final step in the cost allocation process. The appropriate calculation would be as follows: - Budget Costs Operating and for City Man- Capital Budget Total of ager, Legal Less Costs for Incremental Alloca- Services, City Manager, x Operating = table Finance, Legal Services, Costs Ailo- Cost Insurance, Finance, Insurance, cated to Santa Building Building Rita. Management Management i. - (1 .3) 111ustrative Application of the Alternative One Cost AIIocation ' Formula It could be asssumed that the approach outlined In the previous pages seems relatively complex. The presentation has been lengthy because of the need to explain and Justify each of the cost- allocation components. In practice, application of the entire cost allocation formula including each of the indirect and direct unit cost calcu- lations could be accomplished with a minimum amount of staff time using readily available data (virtually all of which is currently maintained by the city) and financial data contained in the budget and subsequent expenditure reports. Exhibit II, which follows this page, shows a sample work sheet which applies the formula in the context of Dublin' s proposed 1986-1987 operating and capital budget. Unit workload data related to Santa Rita are illustrative in nature and are presented only to show how the formula might function. Principal conclusions which can be drawn from Exhibit II include the following: It indicates that the entire cost allocation process can be reduced to a one page work sheet. It indicates that since most data are already maintained by the city, the entire cost allocation calculation could be completed during the annual budget process with a relative minimal expenditure of staff time. It is expected that no more than 4 to 6 hours of staff time would be required to both co I I ect data - required for calculations and to complete calculations as displayed in the exhibit. (1 .4) Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative One. Major advantages and disadvantages of the formula presented in this section include the following: i -16- EXHIBIT 11 Alameda County and City of Dublin ILLUSTRATIVE WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING COSTS ALLOCATABLE TO THE SANTA RITA DEVELOPMENT Direct Costs Number of Net Total Units In Alloca- Budgeted Revenues Service Divided Total Units Maintained Unit Santa Rita table Cost Component Cost Minus Tvve Amount Equals Cost 8 Tvna Number - Cost Times Annexation Equals Cost Traffic Signal Veh Code _ Maintenance $104 200 - Fines $ 64,000 f 40,200 Traffic Signals 17 $2,365 X 7 f 16,555 Street Light- _ In Maint. 134 500 - - - 134,500 Street Lights 1.529, = 88 X 219 19,272 Street Main- _ tenance 463 150 - 463 150 Street Mlles 50 9,263 X 13 1-20-14-19- Street Swee in 57 600 - - - 57,600 - Curb Mlles 138 417 X 34 14,178 u - o a Street Malnte once d Street Gas SweeoI 1134 597 - Taxes 32,175 102,422 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A f102,422 ree ree Maintenance 74,400 - - - a 74,400 - Street Trees 7,600 - 10 X 1,840 18,400 Street Land- scape _ Malnt. 149,050 - 149,050 Mlles of Median 10 = 14,905 X 3 44,715 Current Current Ping. Bud. Ping. Bud. Santa Rita Not Fee Divided- Not Fee JAIlocatlon Area Fee Su or fed B Su orted E uais factor Times Revenue Current Pln . S232,998 Fees E117 99 49.4 - 50.6 - 976 X $20. $19.526 Santa Rita Calls Divided Total Calls Allocatlon For Service BY For Service E uals Percent Times Budgeted Cost Equals Police Services 23 000 2,200 9.56 111,596,530 %-)2..712. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 3-73 562. Public Works Total Cost Total Allocated Total Cost Cost of Alloca- Costs Alloca- of all P.W. Costs of P.W. Divided of Allocation Public Works table ted to S.R. Services Services BY Services Equals Factor Times Administration Equals Cost Type Amount Public Works St. Main./ f $463,150 Management St. Sweep, 102,42 57,600 $165,537 -- $744,200 22.241 X $108,000 124,019 Tree Main. 18.400 74,400 St. Land- scape Melnt. 44,71 149,050 Total f165 53 S744,200 c ' Field Maintenance Total Cost of Calculation c.i­i ation of iloca- Costs Allocated to All Field Main- of Alloca- Net Engineering kilocation table Santa Rita tenance Services tion Factor Costs Times Factor Equals Cost Engineering Type Amount Field Maint. Costs Total Engineering Services Street Main- S463,150 Allocated to S. R. 201,364 Costs 417,700 tenance $102,422 Divided Minus Street Sweep- 57,600 By - In Tree Main- Total Field 982,900 Fee Revenue tenance 18 400 74,400 Maint, Costs 388,250 , Street Land- c2,Mtnce, 44,715 149,050 Equals Equals raffic Sig- nal Mtnce. 16 555 104,200 Allocation Net Engineering reet Ight- Factor 20.49$ Costs 29,450 X 20.49% 6 033 Ing Mtnce. 19,272 134,500 otaI S201,364 982,900 Net 0 er Inq d Ca Ital Bud et 1loca- Total Divided Total Overhead Allocation Total of All Costs tablee Type Amount By Bud et Minus Costs E ual Net Cost Equals Factor Times Allocated To S.R. Equals Cost Other Overhead City Mrir. $220,930 Direct Direct Total Costs Legal Ser. 86,510 — 1 1 24,019 Inance 116 930 $14,232,16 - $735,820 = $13,496,343 5.45% X $373,562 6,033 403,614 - $21,997 Insurance 192 700 Bldg. mt 1 118,7'50 Total JS735,820 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS S56,049 TOTAL ALLOCATABLE COSTS 5425 611 1 Advantages I.` - The formula as presented approximates the actual r i ncrementa I cost of serving the development. If the formul a 1 s appl led as structured, it shout d resul t i n the calculation of costs which relatively closely reflect the -- impact on the City of Dublin of annexing the area. L . The formula uses readily available data. - The formula w i l l require a relatively minimal amount of staff time to complete. Disadvantages The formula could be viewed as complex by elected off ici al s. (2) Alternative Two: Allocate costs based on broader comparative measures. The only other practical approach to establishing a cost al I ocation formul a wouI d I nvol ve apporti on ng costs w ithout detaI I ed allocation of direct and indirect unit costs on a service by service basis. A problem with this approach is that there are relatively few . _ readily available and accurate comparative measures which could be used to allocate costs. i - While population is a commonly - used measure in some cost allocation formulae, it is not relevant to this situation because of the absence of residential population at Santa Rita. This essentially leaves two measures which could be employed to apportion costs: Assessed valuation in Dublin and Santa Rita. - Land area in Dublin and Santa Rita. These measures could be employed as follows: The Santa Rita development would be calculated as a portion of the total Dublin service area as measured by either comparative assessed valuation or land area. The resulting percentage would be employed to allocate costs to the Santa Rita development. Use of this cost allocation approach Is illustrated in Exhibit III which follows this page. it should be noted that the various costs included in the second alternative formula are � - based on the cost impact analysis contained earlier in this report. I Inherent in this approach to a cost allocation formula is the assumption that such measures as assessed valuation and land area -18- L EXH IB IT I I I I .J Alameda County and City of Dublin. i ALTERNATIVED TWO - COST ALLOCATION FORMULA Step One: Allocation Factor Cost Calculation Secured Assessed Valuation Total Secured Assessed at Santa Rita Development _ Valuation in Dublin = Allocation Factor Including Santa Rita Development or Total Acres in Santa _ Total Acres in Dublin Rita Development Including the Santa = Allocation Factor Rita Development r f � Step Two: Calculate Direct Cost Allocation Total Budgeted Costs for: Pol ice Services (Net) Traffic Signal Maintenance Street Lighting Maint. (Net) Street Maintenance X Allocation Factor = Allocatable (Net) Street Sweeping Direct Costs Street Tree Maintenance Street Landscape Maint. (Net) Current Planning (Net) Engineering Public Works Adm i n i s. Step Three: Calculate Indirect Costs Total Budgeted Costs for: City Manager Operating and Total Direct Allocatable Legal Services Capital Budget Costs Allo- Indirect Finance _ Less Costs for X catable to = Costs Insurance City Manager, Santa Rita Building Management Legal Services, Finance; Insur- ance, Building Management Step Four: Total All Allocatable Costs Allocatable Allocatable Indirect Total Costs Direct Costs + Costs = Allocated to Santa Rita Development -19- represent valid measures of determining the cost of serving an urban service area. They assume that service requirements for all the services involved are equal ly distributed among Dubl in and the Santa Rita I deveI opment. Major advantages and disadvantages of the cost allocation approach outlined in this section include the following: Advantages: As presented, the formula is relatively simple and could be easily understood without detailed study. The formula employs basic budget and expenditure data which are readily available without any research or staff time. - Appl ication of the formula has virtually no staff time impact. r Disadvantages: The formula as presented Is not flexible. Because of the assumed constant service demand based on the measure underlying the formula, it has no capabi I ity to reflect variations in service demand presented by the Santa Rita devel opment. As a result, this .approach to the formula could result in over or under charging both parties to the agreement -- especially during the development period. (3) Approaches To Allocating DSRSD Service Costs There is currently no real closure regarding the ultimate disposition of DSRSD including whether or not the District will continue to serve as an umbrella agency or will be dissolved and service control apportioned between Dublin and San Ramon. Incremental service cost analysis ignores which agencies control services) and considers how incremental service cost could be allocated if the property were annexed to either/or DSRSD and Dublin but no transfer of property tax equivalent to the current DSRSD increment were effected. Analysis suggests three of the four services provided by DSRSD are extraneous to any incremental cost allocation analysis: Sewer and Water Services are fully funded by user and connection fees. Any infrastructure related to the development w i I I be provided by the developer as a condition of development. As a result, there is no relationship between these services and the . property tax and other general fund related revenues under negotiation. i -20- Parks and Recreation: Given the absence of residential population at the development, there is probably no practical relationship between the development and parks/recreation services. The only exception would involve the ultimate development plan including park space which would be turned over to the city or district for maintenance. If this were the case, the appropriate allocation formula would be: Park Developed Unit Number of Park Main- Park Acres Cost Acres in The Alloca- tenance . Under Main- = x Santa Rita Devel- = table Budget • tenance opment Under Cost Maintenance The remaining service involves fire protection and represents a more complex question. Key issues/uncertainties include the following: The DSRSD fire chief has maintained that as soon as development begins, it will trigger the need for addition of a third fire station including apparatus plus a three person company on duty on an around the clock basis. Analysis of fire service protection issue raises some question about the cost-effectiveness of adding a fully staffed station solely to serve this development. Key points include: In all likelihood, all buildings will be fully sprinklered, sharply reducing fire risk, allowing some expansion in response time for fire calls, and reducing f ire related workload. Assuming extension of Dublin Boulevard once development approved/construction under way, entrance to development would be approximately 2.85 miles from existing Dublin station or assuming Code 3 speed in 40 mile per hour range, response time of under 5 minutes to development entrance not unlikely. This is generally viewed as within urban service level parameters, especially considering buildings will probably be sprinklered. Call demand (volume) generated by the development should be heavily weighted toward emergency medical calls. Workload related to fire prevention (plan checking - prevention inspections,' etc. ) generated by the development should be relatively heavy both during and following the construction period. Residential development of areas lying within Dublin's sphere of influence and north and east of the existing _ city boundaries will trigger the probable need for a third -21- station considering response times, unsprinklered nature of residential , single family units, and EMS service demand. There could be up to 8,000 units based on j preliminary analysis by Alameda County planning department. I _ Given the above, there is some uncertainty about how/when an i additional station would be staffed. For analytical purposes, the following assumptions have been developed. That Alameda County would retain all property tax and associated general fund revenues related to the Santa Rita property including those related to delivery of fire service regardless ._ of whether that sery ice w i I I be prov Ided by DSRSD or through Dubl in/a JPA in which Dublin is a participant should Dublin and -. San Ramon effect dissolution of DSRSD. That the timing of addition of the station is unknown (compared to development and construction period) . That if the station is constructed before development of the remainder of the sphere of Influence is annexed and- developed, then full cost should be allocated to the Santa Rita development. Given the above, there are two types of cost which need to be considered: i Capital costs related to station construction, land acquisition, j and apparatus/equipment purchase. Station operating costs. Again, these are of two types: - Direct costs -- personnel , operating expense, and other items related directly to station operations. Some indirect costs largely involving fire prevention inspection by specialist staff. Potential cost allocation approaches vary by cost type: Capital Costs: Depends on how they were financed: Developer Contribution As A Condition of Development: Could involve either total financing by developer contribution or shared between developer and DSRSD/Dubl in reflecting fact station will be shared from service perspective between the Santa Rita development and the remainder of the sphere of influence/annexation area. The latter approach could be shared based on development plans for the area, calculated based on proportionate share of projected assessed valuation. I -22- r- - Shared Contribution Between Alameda County and l DSRSD/Dublin: If no developer contribution, costs could be shared based on the same proportional AV estimates _ related to development plans as noted above. - Attempt To Establish A Me[ lo-Roos District To Provide _ Start-Up Funding. A complicating issue inv olves how the County owned land would be considered for voting/district i formation purposes. Direct Costs: A preferred cost allocation approach would . provide a way for cost allocation responsibility to shift as the remainder of the sphere i s developed. Key cost components included: i - The response district of the station defined as the geographic basis for cost allocation. Basis for cost allocation: comparative service demand (calls for service) and assessed valuation in the Santa Rita development ( improvements exclusive of land value) - and the remainder of the area within the sphere of influence served by the station. Cost al location-as fol lows: Santa Rita AV Santa Rita CFS Allocation Total Response + Total Response = Factor District AV District CFS Allocation Factor 2 =Allocation Percent Allocation Direct Costs Allocated Percent X Station = to Santa Rita Cost Development Other Costs: Limited to direct cost of fire prevention staff serving . entire fire service delivery agency (DSRSD/DublIn-San Ramon JPA) service area. Costs invol ved wouI d be I imIted to direct cost of fire prevention staff (salaries, benefits, relevant vehicles, associated operating expense) and could be allocated as follows: Fire Prevention Plans Checked Inspections At Related to Santa Rita Santa Rita Allocation Development + Construction = Factor - Total Fire Prevention Total Plans InSpections Checked Allocation Factor . 2 = Allocation Percent Allocation Direct Costs Allocated Percent X Fire Pre- = to Santa Rita vention Development Cost -23- The exhibit which follows this page shows a sample form which can be employed to calculate fire service costs allocatable to the Santa Rita devel opment. t _ -24- EXHIBIT IV Alameda County and City of Dublin ILLUSTRATIVE WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING FIRE SERVICE COSTS CALCULATION OF DIRECT COST VIIIIIIIII71111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111,111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII Step One: Calculated Allocation Factor Assessed Valuation of Calls for Service Add Santa Rita Property Generated at Santa Rita Divided By _ Plus Total Assessed Valuation Total Calls for Service Total of Response District of In Response District of Divided B — Station Providing First Station Providing First 2 2 ; Response to Santa Ana Response to Santa Rita E uals: Equals I E uals I - OOB Allocation Factor Step Two: Calculate Allocatable Direct Costs Direct Costs of Operating Station Times Allocation Factor From Equals Direct Costs Step One Allocatable to Santa Rita X ! CALCULATION OF INDIRECT COST 11111// 111/11111/ 111 111111/1/1/11111111/1111/////// Step Three: Calculate Allocation Factor Fire Prevention Inspections at Santa Rita Plans Checked Related to Santa Rita Construction Add D Add D Divided By Divided By Plus E Plus E Total Fire Prevention Inspections Total Plans Checked Total Total Divided By Divided By Equals = 2 2 Equals Equal s Allocation Allocation D E Factor Factor Step Four: Calculate Allocatable Costs Direct Fire Prevention Unit Costs Times Allocation Factor From Step Three Equals Indirect Costs Al I ocatabl a to Santa Rita X CALCULATE TOTAL ALLOCATABLE FIRE SERVICE COSTS Direct Costs From Step Two Plus Indirect Costs from Step 4 Eq uaIs Total Costs i I APPENDIX . Analysis of Santa Rita Development Impact on Operating Costs and Services of City of Dublin and DSRSD I i APPENDIX (1 ) SERVICE ANALYSIS OF ANNEXATION IMPACT (1 ) Dublin/Alameda County Direct Impact of Activity Generated Annexation on Workload Fundinq Revenue and Cost Function Percent of Source Amount Source Cost Covered Workload Cost City Council General Fund $46,180 None N/A None None City Manager General Fund 188,810 None N/A None None Legal Services General Fund 65,000 None N/A None None Finance General Fund 63,440 None N/A None None Building Management General Fund 106,570 None N/A None None Insurance General Fund 96,600 None N/A None Indirect rela- tionship -- as staff/cost in- crease -- premium will Increase. Non- Departmental Account General Fund 80,000 None N/A None None Police Services General Fund 1 ,203,860 Charges Minimal -- Major impacts in Staff b equip- Revenue 275,260 for spe- $6,000 (.4%) areas involving ment plus other Sharing cial in FY 185- call response, pro-rated costs service 186 preventive patrol covered in the and traffic con- contract. trol . Less im- pact in/on other departmental service areas. (1 ) Reflects City of Dublin 1985-1986 operating budget APPENDIX (2) Activity Generated Direct Impact of Revenue Annexation on Workload FundInq And Cost Function Percent of Source Amount Source Cost Covered Workload Cost Crossing Guards General Fund $16,600 None N/A None None Animal Control General Fund 48,800 Animal 16.4% Other than ex- None Licenses pansion of po- tential service area for com- plaints, little impact on demand. Traffic Signals Vehicle Code 55,000 None N/A Can be expected Increased Fires -- that development utility $ Traffic will either in- increased Safety Fund clude or gener- maintenance ate traffic sig- contract costs. General Fund 53,000 nals in addition to existing net- work. Street Lighting Lighting 124,500 None N/A Increase in Utility costs Assessment street lights plus mainten- District requiring main- ance. tenance plus utilltv costs. Disaster Pre- General 26,700 None N/A None None paredness Street General 4,050 None N/A Increase street Budgeted dlvl- Maintenance Gas Tax 287,050 miles under ded by street maintenance. miles in total network under maintenance. i APPENDIX (3) Activity Generated Direct Impact of Revenue Annexation on Workload FundInq And Cost Function Percent of Source Amount Source Cost Covered Workload Cost Street Sweeping Gas Tax $48,000 None N/A Incremental Calculate cost/ per curb mile curb mile based increased in on cost of ser- sy stem requir- ving entire Ing sweeping. network. Public Works General Fund 66,786 None N/A No direct, N/A Administration incremental workload reIatIonshl p. Street Tree General Fund 53,400 None N/A Incremental Cost per tree Maintenance Assessment 1 ,000 increase in under mainten- District trees under ance based on maintenance. contract cost & maintenance frequency. Street Landscape General Fund 84,200 None N/A Incremental Incremental in- Maintenance Assessment 5,000 increase in crease in cost District miles of of labor/equip- median under ment to handle maintenance. additional . - median(s) . Paratransit General Fund 9,140 None N/A None -- no N/A Service Trans. Dev. residential Act. Fd. 11 ,440 population Vector Control General Fund 8,925 None N/A No direct _ No direct relationshi . relationship. Library Service General Fund 43,736 None N/A None -- no N/A residential population. i APPENDIX (4) Activity Generated Direct Impact of Revenue Annexation on Workload Fundinq And Cost Function Percent of Source Amount Source Cost Covered Workload Cost- Recreation General Fund $261 ,280 Park/Rec 16.7% None -- no N/A Fees 9.2% residential Shannon population Lease Subsid Park Maintenance General Fund 27,500 None N/A Depends on Depends. on Assessment 11 ,500 whether or areas of park District not develop- area under ment area maintenance w i l l include and level of any park. maintenance. Planning General Fund 277,290 Fees - 23.4% Processing Staff (prof. $ zoning/ 2.0% applica- clerical Sub.Div. tlons/plans support) re- Sale of related to lated to Maps - the Santa incremental Docu- Rita devel- workload. ments. o ment. Buil.ding and General Fund 210,200 Building 100% N/A N/A . Safety Permits Engineering General Fund 253,450 Fees/ 66% Increased None --. plan Assessment permit plan checking check/inspec- Districts 7,500 fees plus public tion costs Gas Tax 4,000 improvement fully supported inspection by fee support- fees. I ed revenue. APPENDIX (5) Activity Generated Direct Impact of Revenue Annexation on Workload Fundinq And Cost Function Percent of Source Amount Source Cost Covered Workload Cost Capital Project Budget Community General Fund $1,431 ,088 Reim- .2% N/A N/A Improvement Comm. Dev. 12,000 bursement Segment B l k. Grnt. Reimbursement 3,000 Park Segment General Fund 40,000 None None None None Park Ded. In- 814,694 Lieu State Bond Act 15,306 Streets Segment General Fund 1 ,486,688 None None None None FAU 555,000 Comm. Dev. Bik. Grnt. 107,000 Reimburse- ments 1 ,123,000 DSRSD Services Sewer/Water Enterprise 100% User/ 100% N/A N/A Funds - no connec- tax dollars/ tion fees general fund resources Involved. APPENDIX (6) Activity Generated Direct Impact of Revenue Annexation on Workload Fundinq And Cost Function Percent of Source Amount Source Cost Covered Workload Cost Parks General Fund 100% User 12. 1% None None fees/ Recrea- tion Aquatics Fire General Fund 100% None None Development - If station by itself - built/staffed not sufficient -- full cost to justify initially staffing/con- attributable to struction of the development. new station. Assuming ex- tension of Dublin Blvd. , - about 2.85 road miles from current Dublin Station to development. At outer range of 5.0 minute response time. With sprinkler- i ng of develop- ment - low call demand - not clear station cost effective.