Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Facility & Infrastructure Financing Workshop (2) D4TS • • The Davis Company • • FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING WORKSHOP FOR DUBLIN COMMUNITY OFFICIALS PRELIMINARY AGENDA Date: Thursday, November 12, 1992 Time: 5:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. Place: Regional Conference Room, Dublin City Hall 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, Ca 94568 Dinner will be served at 5:45 p.m. compliments of the Dublin Unified School District. • • Planning and managing growth during the 90's may involve many of the same strategies and tools for financing infrastructure and community facilities that were used during the 80's. However, decision makers and public administrators are facing new challenges and opportunities due to changes in the economy and institutional financing and regulatory practices. This workshop has been especially designed to focus on issues of common concern to public agencies in the City of Dublin. I. Welcome and Introductions Pete Snyder, Mayor City of Dublin II. 'Overview of the Community's Future Facility & • • Infrastructure Requirements ( This part of the Workshop • will highlight the key infrastructure needs and types of decisions facing the community.) • III. Discussion of Contemporary Financing Strategies •& Tools ( This part of the Workshop will focus on the financing strategies and tools that are most • • s 14UU K Street,Salle 811 Sucru,uir,du,CA 45814 1116.444.0ISU 114x 910.447.40tr • Facilities and Infrastructure Financing Workshop, Preliminary Agenda, Page 2 of 2. typically used by public agencies when dealing with needs similar to those that will exist in Dublin.) N. Discussion of Public Agency Coordination Requirements In A Complex, Multi-Agency environment. ( T.his part of the discussion will focus on joint public agency arrangements, development phasing critical decision points for involving all public agencies, development phasing, and physical planning.) V. Overview of Case Studies Applicable To Other Jurisdictions ( Prior to the Workshop participants will receive briefing materials that include, among other items, Case Study Summaries of the experiences of three other jurisdictions that are experiencing growth demands similar to those projected for Dublin. An overview discussion of the Case Study material will be presented during this part of the Workshop.) • VI. Refreshments Break @ approximately 8:00 P.M. VII. Round Table Wrap-up ( The Resource Experts will answer questions and clarify information of interest to the participants.) VIII. Adjournment @ 9:30 P.M. (Special Note To Workshop Participants: It is clear that the management of development phasing is a key matter of concern to all public agencies in the City of • Dublin. All. Resource Experts are being asked to address this question.) WORKSHOP OUTLINE FINANCING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN NOVEMBER 12, 1992 Prepared by: The Davis Company 1400 K Street,Suite 311 Sacramento,CA 95814 916/444-6150 Planning and Managing growth during the 80"s may involve many of the same strategies and tools for financing infrastructure and.community facilities that were used in the past. However, public officials, financial experts, and developers/builders are facing new challenges and opportunities due to changes in the economy and institutional and regulatory practices. This workshop has been especially designed to focus on issues of common concern to public agencies in the City of Dublin. The Davis Company _ November, 1992 TO: Dublin City Officials DATE: November 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Financing Workshop Outline During the past few months our firm has worked with your staff to organize this workshop on the subject of facilities and infrastructure financing. In some respects, this is a difficult time to be discussing development financing due to the moribund nature of our national and local economies. In other ways, now is perhaps the "best time" to undertake long-range planning, while there is more time than normal to investigate how others have approached similar problems and to choose your best course(s) of action. In order to decide on the content and format of this workshop, we met on several occasions with Rich Ambrose, Bob Beebe and Vince Anaclerio and their staff. Each chief executive helped us clarify the types of challenges that Dublin is facing and the kinds of questions that are surfacing in your respective organizations about financing infrastructure and community facilities. We chose the "workshop style" setting because we believe it will be more conducive to the exchange of information. We particularly appreciate the assistance of your staff in preparing for this workshop. Several "resource experts' have been invited to make presentations in key subject areas. These experts include highly regarded public officials, developers, and bond counsel, all of whom have extensive practical experience dealing with complex development financing problems. We met with each of them to review Dublin's current and future challenges and provided each with a list of general questions they should address in their presentations, or in response to questions. These questions are included in this outline. Finally, several case study summaries of large community development projects are included in this outline to help illustrate how other communities are dealing with similar challenges. We will discuss these in greater detail during the Workshop. The order of events for this Workshop is listed on the following pages. This outline is not a substitute for the official agenda that has been prepared by your respective agencies and is being sent to you along with this Financing Workshop Outline. We look forward to seeing you on November 12. 1 FINANCING WORKSHOP OUTLINE FOR DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1992 5:30 P.M., DUBLIN CITY HALL Welcome and Introductions H. Overview of Dublin's Facility & Infrastructure Needs for The Future. ■ III. Financing Strategies & Tools. Orrick, Herrington (This part of the Workshop will focus on the & Sutcliffe financing tools and strategies that are most typically used by public agencies when dealing Doug Fraleigh, Dir. with needs similar to those in Dublin.) Public works Dept. Sacramento County IV. Public Agency Coordination Requirements Charles Long,City Mg. In a Complex, Multi-Agency Environment. Fairfield, CA (This part of the discussion will focus on joint public agency arrangements, critical decision points for involving all public agencies in the physical planning process, and development phasing.) V. Financing Requirements From The Developer's Peter McCuen, Point Of View. ( This discussion will feature McCuen Properties a review of the implications for the developer of typical financing strategies for "public improvements".) V. Refreshment Break @ approximately 8:00 P.M. VII. Overview of Case Studies For Other Jurisdictions Michael Davis (This Outline includes, among other items, Case The Davis Company Study Summaries for other jurisdictions that are • experiencing growth demands similar to those projected for Dublin. An overview of the case study material will be presented during this part of the Workshop.) 2 VIII. Round Table Wrap-up (The Resource Experts will answer questions and clarify information of interest to the participants.) IX. Adjournment @ approximately 9:30 P.M. 3 BIOGRAPHIES FOR EXPERT RESOURCE PARTICIPANTS Expert Resource Participants Infrastructure and Facilities Financing Workshop Dublin, California, November 12, 1992 SUBJECT: Public Agency Coordination In A Complex Environment RESOURCE: - Charles A. Long, City Manager, Fairfield, California Charles "Charlie" Long has served as the City Manager in Fairfield, California since May 1988. Prior to his appointment as City Manager, he served in the positions of Chief, Redevelopment Services, Finance Director and Assistant City Manager in Fairfield between 1978 and 1988. Before entering public service, Mr. Long was a Financial Consultant with the firm Bartle Wells and Associates between 1974 and 1978. He received a Bachelor's Degree in Economics from Brown University and a Master of Public Policy from the University of California, Berkeley. Fairfield is a suburban community with a population of approximately 80,000 and an annual budget of$180 million dollars. Both Mr. Long and the City of Fairfield are recognized leaders in the field of municipal finance. Fairfield's reputation for a business approach to government has been featured in articles in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The City has received awards for excellence and innovation from the League of California Cities and the International City Management Association. SUBJECT: Financing Strategies and Tools RESOURCES: John R. Myers, Esq., and E. Randolph Hooks, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Doug Fraleigh, Director of Public Works Sacramento County Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe is a nationally prominent firm engaged in the general practice of corporate, municipal and commercial law. The firm was founded in 1863 and presently has more than 270 attorneys with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento. Orrick is regarded as the premiere bond counsel firm in California, and is the only bond firm with a special "School Finance Group." The'firm has significant experience serving as bond` counsel for financings in most all municipal service areas, including water and power. Orrick often ranks first in the total number of financings among bond counsel. 5 :'y (Financing Strategies and Tools, continued) Mr. Myers is the resident public finance partner in the firm's Sacramento office. He has practiced exclusively in the area of public finance for nearly fifteen years. His experience includes bond counsel and underwriters' counsel participation in the areas of assessment bonds, Mello-Roos bonds, lease financings and revenue bonds. He has testified before the California Legislature as an expert witness on public finance matters. Mr. Myers is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School. Mr. Hooks is an attorney with Orrick who has practiced in the area of public finance for ten years for a broad range of issuers, including cities, counties, school districts and state agencies, including the State of California. He is familiar with a variety of financing techniques, including general obligation bonds, Mello-Roos bonds, enterprise revenue bonds, revenue anticipation notes and certificates of participation. Mr. Hooks is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and the Georgetown University Law School. Mr. Fraleigh has served as the Director of Public Works for the County of Sacramento since 1986. He has over thirty years' experience in the design, construction and maintenance of public facilities. He received his Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Kentucky. After employment with the California Division of Highways and Aerojet General Corporation, Mr. Fraleigh joined Sacramento County's Department of Public Works over twenty years ago. Prior to being appointed director, he served as a Construction Engineer for county buildings, Chief of the Technical Services Division and deputy director of the department. Sacramento County is atypical of most urban counties in that the unincorporated areas in that the unincorporated area is far greater than the population in the.incorporated areas of the county. The County provides most of the services normally associated with municipalities. SUBJECT: Financing Requirements From the Developer's Point Of View RESOURCE: Peter McCuen, President, McCuen Properties Peter McCuen has been active in Sacramento area real estate development since 1980. His commercial real estate projects include approximately 100 office and light manufacturing buildings in the Sacramento area. His current projects include a 430,000 square foot, 26 story- downtown office tower, a 25 acre urban mixed use project on the west bank of the Sacramento River, a 48 acre mixed use redevelopment project on the west bank of the Sacramento River, a 335 acre mixed use residential and office project in Lagoon Valley in Solano County, and a 7,900 acre rural residential development in El Dorado County. 6 From 1973 to 1980 Mr. McCuen was president of Verbatim Corporation of Sunnyvale, the world's largest producer of flexible disks. While he was president, the company grew to a sales volume of$65 million and an employee compliment of 1,500, with production plants in North Carolina, Ireland, Japan and Australia. In 1965 Mr. McCuen founded Acurex Corporation, an aerospace research and development company, where he served as president for eight years. Mr. McCuen graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University'with a degree in Engineering, and went on to earn both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at Stanford. He is an appointed member of the Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education in California and the California Advisory Board on Air Quality and Fuels. He serves on the U.C. Davis College of Engineering Board of Visitors and the California State University Advisory Board. He is a former member of the Stanford University School of Engineering Advisory Council. SUBJECT: Case Study Overview & Overall Workshop Coordination RESOURCE: Michael Davis, The Davis Company The Davis Company was formed in 1991 to assist public agencies in the areas of economic and community development management. The firm is based in Sacramento and serves clients in the Western United States. The basic mission of the practice is to help clients improve the delivery of public services. Typical assignments include assessments of fiscal feasibility, development agreement and redevelopment technical assistance, management assistance for large scale development projects, fee and nexus studies,studies of permitting and entitlement systems, and technical assistance in the formation of special districts and authorities. In less than two years The Davis Company been retained for project assistance to more than 20 local governments. Mr. Davis has served state and local goverment for over 25 years as both a senior level public manager and consultant. Prior starting his own practice Mr. Davis served as the City Manager of Danville, California, and as the Director of Planning and Development for the City of Sacramento between 1982 and 1991. From 1976 to 1982 he was a principal and partner in the firm of Ralph Andersen and Associates. Between 1968 and 1976 he served in various staff positions for the cities of Inglewood and Brea, California. Mr. Davis received his Bachelor's Degree in Public Management from the University of Sounthern California, Los Angeles. 7 TOPICS & QUESTIONS The general discussion topics and questions outlined in this section were provided to each Resource Expert in advance of the Workshop. • 8 RESOURCE EXPERT Mr. John Myers, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe GENERAL TOPIC An overview of the financing strategies and tools that are most typically used in developing areas like Dublin. The public agency sponsors of this Workshop want to focus. this part of the discussion on the practical application of the financing tools and strategies such as: t x Pay As You Go User Fees GO Bonds Integrated Financing Districts Certificates of Participation Revenue Bonds Assessment Bonds Generally Mello & Marks Roos, 1915/13 Acts TOPICAL QUESTIONS • Based on your experience, please address the following general questions adding specific examples to illustrate your points wherever possible. 1. How have recent events related to economic conditions and regulatory/institutional practices affected financings involving the tools and strategies outlined above? 2. Are some financing tools better suited than others for use by cities, utility districts and schools? Which financing tools are best suited for facilities such as parks, open space and fire stations? 3. What risks do local governments undertake when they assist in the financing of public improvements that are required to support growth? 4. How can agencies phase financings to acquire the needed capital for facilities and other improvements that are needed to accommodate growth? 5. Should the City, School District and the Services District consider undertaking any form of joint financing authority? . 6. When many different property.owners are served by the same facilities, how are the costs spread? Does a pay-as-you-go approach work in this circumstance? 9 RESOURCE EXPERT MR. CHARLES A. LONG, CITY MANAGER, FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA GENERAL TOPIC An overview of public agency coordination requirements in a complex, multi-agency environment The public agency sponsors cif this Workshop desire to focus this part of the discussion on joint public agency arrangements for financing, and on the critical decision points for involving all affected public agencies in the physical planning and financing process. The coordination of private development phasing, financing and the construction of public facilities is a particularity strong interest among the sponsors. TOPICAL QUESTIONS Based on your professional experience,'please address the following general questions, adding specific examples to illustrate your points wherever possible. 1. What types of informal and formal 'arrangements are best suited to insure strong cooperation and coordination among public agencies that are affected by the development process (i.e., cities and local special districts such as schools, utilities and fire districts)? 2. If an agency is the provider of a primary service (i.e.; water, sewer, roads) the service capacity will normally be put in places where development occurs. This is not always true for parks, schools and other services. How do communities avoid growth impact cycles where existing residents are penalized by high fees or insufficient resources until sufficient income is available to expand facilities? 3. What are the practical downsides to the use of "assessment and fee based" financing tools? Should the public sector be concerned about loading too much cost onto new development or is this a decision that is best left for the developer to say when enough is enough? 4. Who should be in charge of deciding what to finance, and when and how to finance it? What is the developer's role in these decisions? 5. Are there guidelines for deciding what to finance? For example, when bond proceeds are used to "reimburse" a developer, should interest costs be included? Should assessment bond financing be reserved for extraordinary improvement requirements, such as libraries, fire stations and schools as compared to standard subdivision improvements? What about financing major improvements such as arterial streets? 10 RESOURCE EXPERT Mr. Peter McCuen, President, McCuen Properties GENERAL TOPIC An'overview of the implications of public financing from the developer/builder's point of view. The public agency sponsors of this Workshop understand the impact of today's economy on development generally. Yet, these agencies are facing a significant potential expansion of their service areas over the next fifteen to twenty years, and they want to plan effectively for this growth. SPECIFIC TOPICAL QUESTIONS 1. What are the most difficult "public improvement financing challenges" for a developer/builder in today's environment? 2. In addition to avoiding overlapping requirements and unwarranted delays, how can collaborative efforts among separate local government agencies have a significant positive influence on the "financing of improvement requirements"? 3. The numerous financing tools available to local governments range from "pay-as-you-go" methods to capital formation through debt issuance and assessments on land. Which methods are best from the developer/builder's point of view and why? 4. Assessment bonds have been used throughout the country for many years to finance public improvements - apparently successfully. What are the positives and negatives of - this approach from the developer/builder's perspective? 5. Public agencies are under constant pressure to limit the adverse. impacts of growth on existing residents and users of current services and facilities. This means that public facilities such as schools, parks and libraries, in addition to streets and utilities, should be "phased in" as development occurs. What practical limitations, if any, are on the developer/builder and the public agency when it comes to phasing-in improvements along with development? 6. Sometimes a developer/builder is required to advance funding for, or to construct improvements beyond a normal fair share with reimbursement provided at a later time. What are the implications of this technique for the developer? When is this approach- appropriate, when is it not from the developer/builder perspective? Are there specific steps that the public agency can take to help property owners reconcile "their share" of the cost of public improvements? 11 CASE STUDY SUMMARIES PROJECT: Laguna Community Facilities District Sacramento County, California Location The Laguna Community Facilities District is a Mello-Roos District formed in 1986. for approximately 3,800 acres of partially improved land in southern Sacramento County. The development area is located within the unincorporated area of the County, about twelve miles south of Sacramento City along State Highway 99. The Development The development is to consist of approximately 10,350 single family and 3,700 multi-family units on 2,252 acres. Approximately 600 acres are being zoned for non-residential uses. Residential acreage will account for more than 75 percent of the total taxable acreage. Eleven (11) major development interests comprise approximately one third of the taxable land. The current population of the District is about 16,000. The projected population upon build-out is 35,000. Since formation of the District, approximately 6,500 single family homes have been reported to have been built and sold. The District's assessed valuation has grown from just over $100 million in 1988, to in excess of$1.1 billion in fiscal year 1992-93. The County reports that an additional 400 homes are currently under construction. Facilities & Improvement Financing The District was initially authorized to issue approximately $47.8 million in special tax (i.e. Mello-Roos) bonds. Bonds are sold in phases as needed, and supportable by revenue, to finance construction. The proceeds are being used to finance street and roads (e.g. arterials, major streets, highway improvements and major collector streets), utilities and drainage facilities, excluding gas and water facilities. Major sanitary sewer collection facilities are funded by fees paid to the countywide Sanitation District. Financings of "in-tract" facilities are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by a special financing staff group in the Department of Public Works. Any approved "in-tract" financings are done via the Municipal Improvement Acts of 1911 and 1913. Schools, parks/open space, fire stations, libraries or other similar services and facilities have not- been financed with this Mello-Roos District. This is the result of policy decisions made by the Board of Supervisors at the initiation of development within the financing district. Subsequently, the Elk Grove Unified School District received "voter approval" for a partially overlapping Mello-Roos District. In addition, area developers agreed to temporarily increase the "Sterling 13 (Laguna Community Facilities District, continued) Fees" paid to the School District from $1.55 per residential square foot to approximately $2.50 per square foot. Status Of The District Approximately $12.0 million of the authorized bonds remain unissued. The County reports that to date approximately $5.2 million more revenue than projected has been collected. One major landowner within the District has been delinquent on payment of the special assessments and has filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Act. Bondholder risk due to nonpayment is reduced by two significant features of the bond covenants. The "special tax" carries a parity lien with ad valorem taxes, and the District is authorized to institute 180 day judicial foreclosure. The "maximum" annual special tax per parcel is $400 per parcel, and the actual ratio of special tax revenue collected to peak debt is 1.48 to 1. The County is in the process of refinancing the remaining due to current beneficial interest rates. PROJECT: North Central Roseville Specific Plan Roseville, California Location The City of Roseville is located on Interstate 80 in south Placer County at the Sacramento/Placer County lines approximately 10 miles north of Sacramento. The North Central Specific Plan area is approximately 2,300 acres of mostly undeveloped land. The Development The Specific Plan was approved by the City Council in July 1990. Most of the land is owned or controlled by five major property owners. Approximately 2,330.acres are being zoned for non-residential uses, including land for streets and other public uses. The non-residential uses include a 189 acre commercial retail center, 205 acres of light industrial, 80 acres of retail commercial, 131 acres of business office, 105 acres of mixed use (i.e. office, retail and service commercial) plus significant open space and other public uses. 14 (North Central Roseville Specific Plan, continued) A total of 4,000 dwelling units are being planned for 500 acres, or an average density of approximately 8 units per acre. Residential zoning is being approved for approximately 2,794 multi-family, 1,040 single family and 569 medium density units. So far, one major subdivision map for approximately 1,200 single family units has been approved. Facilities and Infrastructure Financing The City of Roseville is a full service Charter City. It operates its own utility systems including power. A complete infrastructure system must be installed in order for the area to develop. The infrastructure includes streets, drainage, utilities, two freeway interchanges and major sewer and water connections through the entire plan area to serve other,developing areas.. A total of 35 acres have been reserved for an elementary school (K - 6) and an intermediate school (7 - 8). A turnkey fire station is to be provided and significant land and improvements are required for habitat preservation. In contrast to Sacramento County and numerous cities, the City of Roseville had not adopted specific policies for establishing improvement financing districts prior to establishing its first Mello-Roos District. The primary financing methods for these improvements includes the combination of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, special utility fees, citywide transportation impact fees, school fees (Sterling) plus negotiated extraordinary school impact fees, Quimby fees, extraordinary traffic impact fees pursuant to a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority with two other public agencies.for freeway interchange improvements, and State Transportation Improvement Act allocations. Landscaping and lighting district revenues are used to maintain landscaping in the public right-of-way. Current Status The Mello-Roos District includes funding for major arterial and collector streets, sewer and water distribution systems outside of subdivision tracts, major sewer and water connections to areas served outside the plan area, school facilities and habitat preservation and maintenance. The District is authorized to sell approximately $91.0 million in bonds. Approximately $78 million of this amount is for construction of improvements. Bonds will be sold in "two" phases. The Phase I issuance has occurred and included approximately one half of the District's total funding authority. 15 MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS G.O., MELLO-ROOS, AND ASSESSMENT BONDS Reprinted with the permission of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 16 COMPARISON O F SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERAL OBLIGATION,_ MELLO-ROOS AND ASSESSMENT BONDS . ASSESSMENTS MELLO-ROOS G•O• PROJECTS • Facilities Yes Yes Yes • Land Acquisition Yes Yes Yes • Services No Yes(limited) No • Operation& Maintenance Yes(limited) Yes(limited) No • Equipment • No Yes,if the equipment No , has a useful life of 5 yrs.or more PROCEDURES • Vote Required No,but a Majority Yes(also Protest Yes Protest must be to formation of overridden by 4/5 - District), No vote override • • Basis of Vote Majority of land 2/3 votes of 2/3 votes of or Protest. ' - in district(by area) ' registered voters registered or landowners(by area), voters whichever is qualified to vote • Report Required Yes Yes No • Public Hearing Required Yes Yes - No • Basis of tax or Special benefit any reasonable assessed value assessment to property being method,including of property assessed benefit(except property value) • Issuer's Administrative Yes Yes _ No Costs Recovered • Bond Term 39 Years 40 Years 25 years for School District, 40 years for Cities and Counties • Bond Anticipation Yes. • Yes No Notes • Refunding Bonds Yes Yes Yes(although requires election) • Funded Interest. - 2 years 2 years No • Copyright©1991,Orrick,Herrington&Sutcliffe ASSESSMENTS MELLO-ROOS G•O• BONDS • Security for Fixed Lien on Lien of special Ability of Issuer Bonds property in the amount tax(collected to collect taxes of the assessment annually on property) • Foreclosure Yes Yes Yes Remedy • Reserve Fund Yes Yes No • Type of Sale Negotiated or Public,unless Public Public issuer finds lower cost,then negotiated • Method of collection On property tax On property tax On property tax of assessment bill bill or any other bill of taxes procedure adopted by the issuer • DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT UTILITY FACT SHEET FINANCING WORKSHOP WATER, RECYCLED WATER, AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES WESTERN DUBLIN SUMMARY Project Summary: Area 3,255 gross acres Dwelling Units 3,138 Commercial/Industrial 16 acres Parks 263 acres Schools 10 acres Golf Courses 175 acres Estimated Annual Water. Sewer. and Recycled Water Demands:, Potable Water 1,500 Acre Feet/yr (1.35 million gallons/day) Recycled Water 1,000 Acre Feet/yr (0.9 million gallons/day) Wastewater 0.8 million gallons/day Facilities: Potable Water 4 pumping stations 5 reservoirs/4.3 million gallons total 144,000 lineal feet of water mains* Recycled Water 1 pumping station 1 reservoir/3.3 million gallons storage 73,000 lineal feet of recycled water mains Wastewater 1 pumping station 30,000 lineal feet of sewers and forcemains osts: DOLLARS ON-SITE OFF-SITE TOTAL Water Facilities $18,820,000 $646,000 $19,466,000 Recycled Water Facilities 8,037,000 TBD 8,037,000 Wastewater Facilities 1,960,000 TBD 1,960,000 $29,463,000 *Note: Values contained herein are based on preliminary facility planning and subject to further refinement. Costs include 35% for engineering and contingencies and are based on a June 1990 ENR index of 5900. 11/3/92 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT UTILITY FACT SHEET FINANCING WORKSHOP WATER, RECYCLED WATER, AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES EASTERN DUBLIN SUMMARY Project Summary: Area 6,920 gross acres Dwelling Units 17,970 Commercial/Industrial . 777 acres Parks 287 acres Schools 192 acres Estimated Water. Sewer, and Recycled Water Demands: Potable Water 6,750 Acre Feet/yr (6.0 million gallons/day) Recycled Water 1,800 Acre Feet/yr (1.6 million gallons/day) Wastewater 5.25 million gallons/day Facilities: Potable Water 4 pumping stations • 2 new turnouts 5 reservoirs/3.6 million gallons total 223,000 lineal feet of water mains Recycled Water 1 pumping station 1 reservoir/3.1 million gallons total 28,000 lineal feet of recycled water mains Wastewater 30,000 lineal feet of sewers Costs: DOLLARS ON-SITE OFF-SITE TOTAL Water Facilities $33,450,000 TBD $33,450,000 Recycled Water Facilities 4,950,000 TBD 11,950,000 Wastewater Facilities 6,970,000 TBD 6,970,000 $45,370,000 Note: Values contained herein are based on preliminary facility planning and subject to further refinement. Costs include 35% for engineering and contingencies and are based on a June 1990 ENR index of 5900. 11/3/92 Table 10-1 MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COSTS AND SOURCES OF FUNDING Eastern Dublin Financing Plan/1 1 SOURCES OF FUNDING(Thousands of Constant 1992 Dollars) Engineer's School Developer Mello-Roos Mello-Roos Estimated Existing Impact Fees Funding& or Assess- or Assess- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Costs/2 Impact Fees (AB2926) Impact Fees ment District ment District Streets and Highways W/Issuance Costs Streets and Mass Grading/6 $108,323 $81,242 $27,081 $33,851 Intersection Improvements $4,775 $4,775 $5,969 Freeway Overcrossings $11,468. $11,468 $14,335 Share of Freeway Improvements(60%) $11220 . $11,220 $14,025 Subtotal Streets and Highways $135,786 Water and Sewer Water Service $87,215 . $58,275 $28,940 $36,175 Wastewater service $130,300 $122,910 $7,390 $9,238 Storm Drainage $17,640 $17,640 $22,050 Subtotal Water and Sewer $235,155 Public Buildings and Park $250 Police and Fire Stations/7 $9,400 $9,200 School Development $106,150 $23,100 $83,050 $103,813 Other Public Buildings/3 $4,950 $4,950 $6,188 Park In-Lieu Fees/4 $12,085 $12,085 $0 $0 Park Improvements/5 . $28,944 $28,944 $36,180 Subtotal Public Buildings and Parks $161,529 TOTAL COSTS/FUNDING $532,470 $21,285 $23,100 $262,427 $225,658 $282,072 Notes: /1 Project evaluated is WRT's March 6,1992 Final Plan. /2 Engineers included a contingency factor of 20%for road improvements and 30-35%for water and sewer costs. ERA added a.10%contingency factor to fire stations and school costs. /3 Includes 7 elementary schools,2 middle school,and 1 high school;excludes land cost. Cost with- Cost with- Number of Number of Cost per School Cost per School • Type of School Acres land($M) out land($M) Students Schools Req. w/Contingency w/Contingency less Fees Elementary 10 $8.0 $5.5 2,215 7 $6.1 $4.7 Middle School 20 $24.5 $19.5 1,107 2 $21.5 $16.8. High School 40 $29.5 $19.0 1,502 1 $20.9 $16.4 TOTAL $48.4 $37.9 /4 Based on a total of 241:7 acres @$50,000/acre. /5 Based on park improvement cost of$120,000 per acre of park. /6 Does not include in-tract streets and grading. 17 Police station @$50/sq.ft.with 4,000 sq.ft or total cost of$200,000. Total cost includes 4 fire stations @$2.3 million each. Sources: DKS Associates,Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton,and Economics Research Associates 05/19/92 c:\123x22\9047 spbond3 mer nos FINS A.. in VW - MI I g 'N - lo: II - !l: 1111: i : ;r e. Table 10-1 r MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COSTS AND SOURC:cS OF FUNDING Eden Property /1 SOURCES OF FUNDING(Thousands of Constant 1991 Dollars) Engineer's School Other School Mello-Roos Estimated Total Existing Impact Fees (State or Developer's or Assess- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS % Costs Costs/2 Impact Fees (AB2926) Mello-Roos) Funding ment District Streets and Highways Frontage Road $1,296 1,500 1,500 Boulevard 5,163 5,975 5,975 Other Roads (In-Tract) 19,425 22,478 22,478 Bridge(on Boulevard) 1,750 2,025 2,025 Shaefer Ranch Rd/I-580 Interchange 10,000 11,572 - 11,572 Eden Canyon Rd/I-580 Interchange 350 405 405 Infrastructure for Multi-Family Units 12,050 13,944 13,944 Subtotal Streets and Highways 50,034 57,899 Water and Sewer Water Supply Facilities 10,000 11,572 11,572 • Sanitary Sewer,Offsite Facilities 10,500 12,151 12,151 Subtotal Water and Sewer 20,500 23,722 Public Buildings and Parks Fire Station and Equipment /3 2,000 2,314 1,846 468 Police Equipment and Expansion Spac4 270 312 • 312 School Facilities /5 /4 12,900 14,928 9,500 5,428 Q Park In-Lieu Fees 4,300 4,300 4,300 Park Improvements 2,500 2,893 1,113 1,780 . Subtotal Public Buildings and Parks 21,970 24,748 Other Site Improvements Clearing,Grading,Slide Repair 58,730 67,962 -50,971 16,990 Golf Course Development 11,300 13,076 13,076 Subtotal Other Improvements 70,030 81,038 • Other Costs Plan Check&Inspection Fees,Bonds 8,000 8,000 8,000 Engineering and Architecture 10,000 Contingency @ 10% 14,873 Subtotal Other Costs 32,873 8,000 TOTAL COSTS/FUNDING $195,407 $195,407 $6,146 $9,500 $5,428 $109,583 $64,750 • Notes: /1 Project evaluated is Eden Plan,Option la. /2 The'Total Cost"column allocates the architecture&engineering and contingencies among all cost items. • /3 Fire impact fees collected by DRFA totaling$1.85 million will be used to reimburse upfront fire station construction. /4 Expansion space includes tenant improvements at$30/sq.ft.for 5,000 sq.ft.in the new City Hall. /5 Includes the cost of 1 elementary and portions of a middle(28%);excludes land cost for elementary(site donated). Sources: Aliquot,McGill Martin Self Engineers,and Economics Research Associates • - MN IMP ow am re Arm lid MI e Ill IMF rlir