Dublin City Council
June 21, 2022

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840

MEMORANDUM
To:

From:

Date:

Tri-Valley Transportation Council Technical Advisory Committee (TVTC TAC) Michael Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP1
Elizabeth Chau, P.E.

May 5, 2022
Subject: TVTC SEP 2021 Update – AB 602 Supplemental Analysis As the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study was adopted in August of 2021, prior to the implementation of Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), the Nexus Study and its resultant f ee program is not subject to its requirements. However, TVTC has undertaken this supplemental analysis to guide future analysis requirements and to help inform the
TVTC how AB 602 may impact the program when the next Nexus Study update1 is completed. This analysis was approved by TVTC Board on April 18, 2022.

Back
ground
Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602)
Assembly Bill 602 was approved and signed into law on September 28, 2021. Among other things, this bill
requires that impac t fee nexus studies adopt ed on and after January 1, 2022 must, as appropriate,
identify the existing level of service, the new level of service, and include an explanation as to why the new level of service is necessary for each public facility included in an impact fee program. It should be noted that the basis for the required level of service analyses is not specifically defined in AB
602 and that as a practical matter, level of s ervice methods applied to various public facilities need to vary depending on the type of facility being analyzed and the information available.

AB 602 also requires t hat studies adopted after July 1, 2022 either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to t he square footage of the proposed unit s, or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate t he fee.
2020 Nexus Study
The performance analysis conducted in support of the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study analyzed the benefits of proposed projects in the aggregate based on specific improvement ca tegories. This aggregate approach is an industry-accepted method when evaluating project impacts on a regional, system- wide basis. This method is especially appropr iate where a fee program is targeted t o regional improvements, as is the case with T VTC’s fee program. These categories included roadway capacity, transit, safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, and t echnology . Since these improvement 1 The next nexus study is required to be completed within 8 years (2029).

Attachment 3
Exhibit B to Resolution
AB 602 Supplemental Analysis
490

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 categories improve different aspects of the transportation system, differing methodologies and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were necessary to appropriately evaluate their anticipated benefit to the transportation system. It should be noted that some projects have multiple beneficial project elements and thus could be analyzed using more than one analysis technique (i.e., a project can have both a congestion benefit and a safety benefit). However, for the purposes of this analysis, project analysis was limited to the basis which best reflects the primary benefit and/or purpose of the project.

Level of Service Analysis
Methodology
Table 1 summarizes the methodology and measure of effectiveness (MOE) that was used to evaluate existing and future conditions for public facilities included within the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study. As described in the prior section, the methodology and MOE selected were dependent on the type of public facility being analyzed and the data available.

Table 1: Methodology and Measure of Effectiveness
Improvement
Type Facility Type Methodology Measure of Effectiveness Roadway Capacity
Freeway HCM Freeway LOS (Density)
State Route HCM Highway LOS (Density)
Arterial ACTC Roadway Segment LOS (V/C)
Interchanges HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Transit All Facility Type TCQSM Service Frequency LOS
Safety All Facility Type HSM Safety Performance
Functions Crash Rate
Pedestrian/
Bicycle All Facility Type Montgomery County Level of
Traffic Stress Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Intersection - HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Technology All Facility Type Qualitative Assessment Resultant Delay/Congestion Reduction
Note: HCM = Highway Capacity Manual, ACTC = Alameda County Transportation Commission, LOS = Level of Service, TCQSM = Transit Quality of Service Manual, HSM = Highway Safety Manual Roadway Capacity
Analysis of roadway capacity projects was completed based on the HCM concept of Level of Service (LOS). The HCM LOS for a roadway facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from LOS A (free flow traffic with minimal delay) to LOS F (heavy congestion operating near or over capacity). As discussed in the following sections, Freeway, State Route, and Interchange projects were evaluated using methodologies defined in the HCM 6th Edition, while arterial roadway analyses were completed based on a volume/capacity (V/C) methodology commonly applied for project analyses undertaken by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). 491

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 For existing conditions, AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak period traffic volumes were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Census Program2 or recent publicly accessible traffic studies conducted within the Tri-Valley area. These traffic counts were then evaluated to determine the highest AM and PM peak hours of traffic which is the basis of the analysis contained herein. Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build peak hour volumes were developed using post-processed data from a version of the CCTA travel demand model updated to reflect input from the TVTC member jurisdictions. Further information on the travel demand model’s development is provided within the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study. Generally speaking, forecast volumes were developed using the “difference method”, which involves adding forecasted traffic growth (future minus existing estimated traffic volumes from the travel demand model) to an existing count.

In cases where a project is proposing a new roadway segment (C-4 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extension and C-5 El Charro Road Widening), a parallel roadway segment was used as the basis for evaluating project need.

A minimum level of service standard of LOS F was used for roadway analyses.

Freeway
Freeway facilities were analyzed using the HCM 6th edition methodology for basic freeway segments.

As shown in Table 2, LOS is determined based on the density of traffic flow.

Table 2: Freeway Facility Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS) Density (pc/mi/ln)
A ≤ 11
B > 11 – 18
C > 18 – 26
D > 26 – 35
E > 35 – 45
F > 45 or v/c > 1.0
pc/mi/ln = passenger car per mile per lane; v/c = volume-to-capacity Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 6th Edition
State Route
State Route facilities were analyzed using the HCM 6th edition methodology for multi-lane roadway segments. As shown in Table 3, LOS is determined based on density of traffic flow. 2 Caltrans, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census, Accessed March 2022. 492

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 3: Multilane Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Density (pc/mi/ln)
FFS: 45 mph FFS: 50 mph FFS: 55 mph FFS: 60 mph
A ≤ 11 ≤ 11 ≤ 11 ≤ 11
B > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18
C > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26
D > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35
E > 35 – 45 > 35 – 43 > 35 – 41 > 35 – 40
F > 45 > 43 > 41 > 40
Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 6th Edition
Arterial
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) evaluate arterials using different methodologies. ACTC’s methodology is based on volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratios while CCTA evaluates arterials based on intersection level of service. This analysis was evaluated based on the ACTC methodology given the nature of the analysis requirements. During the design phase of a project, it is anticipated that more detailed operational analysis will be completed.

Arterial level of service analysis assumed a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour. The LOS criteria shown in Table 4.

Table 4: ACTC Rodway Segment Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS) V/C
A 0.35
B 0.58
C 0.75
D 0.90
E 1.00
F > 1.00
Source: Alameda Congestion Management Program 2019
Interchange
Interchanges were analyzed based on HCM intersection methodologies. The basis of the LOS criteria is shown in Table 5.
493

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Signalized Unsignalized1
Delay (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10.0 – 20.0 > 10.0 – 15.0
C > 20.0 – 35.0 > 15.0 – 25.0
D > 35.0 – 55.0 > 25.0 – 35.0
E > 55.0 – 80.0 > 35.0 – 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
1 For All-way stop-control intersection (AWSC), LOS is defined based on average intersection delay. For side-street stop- controlled intersections (SSSC), LOS is defined based on the worst movement delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 6th Edition
Transit
Transit projects were evaluated based on service frequency LOS from theTransit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) under which LOS criteria varies depending on the type of transit service. As shown in Table 6, LOS for urban scheduled transit service3 is determined on headway or the time between buses/trains. For intercity schedule transit services, commuter or express buses, LOS is determined on the number of trips provided each day.

For this analysis, all transit projects were evaluated on the basis of the urban scheduled transit service LOS criterion as the projects are anticipated to operate throughout the day on a fixed schedule. A level of service standard of LOS F was used for this analysis. In addition, other benefits such as increases in ridership, as well as resultant system-wide VMT reductions may also be evaluated.

Safety
The number of crashes per million vehicle miles travelled (crash/M-VMT) were calculated for the project segment based on the observed number of crashes within 5 years. The number of crashes for the future no build conditions were estimated based on the Safety Performance Functions (SPF) described in Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 2010. SPFs are regression equations that estimate the average crash frequency for a specific site type as a function of annual average daily traffic and the segment length. The reduction in crashes in the Future 2040 Build scenario were calculated by applying Crash Modification Factors (CMF) based on proposed safety improvements for each project.

For the purposes of this study and based on the observed data reviewed, a threshold designation was established for crashes per million-VMT of more than 1. 3 Urban schedule transit service includes all scheduled service within a city, as well as service between cities within a larger metropolitan area.
494

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 6: Transit Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Urban Scheduled Transit Service Intercity Scheduled Transit Service
Headway (min) Veh/hr Trips/Day
A < 10 > 6 > 15
B 10-14 5-6 12-15
C 15-20 3-4 8-11
D 21-30 2 4-7
E 31-60 1 2-3
F > 60 < 1 0-1
Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
Pedestrian / Bicycle
Pedestrian / Bicycle improvements were evaluated using the modified level of traffic stress (LTS) methodology used in the Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan4 in Maryland. This methodology is based on the original LTS methodology developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute and San Jose State University5. Both methodologies assign a traffic stress level base on street/traffic attributes (e.g. traffic speed, traffic volume, number of lanes, etc.). As shown inTable 7, the original LTS has four stress levels, while the Montgomery County methodology provides three additional stress levels. The Montgomery County methodology also includes criteria for separated bikeways, two-lane roads, and industrial streets. For the purpose of this analysis, a threshold of LTS 4 was used.

Table 7: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) categories
Original LTS Montgomery County LTS
LTS 1 – Very Low LTS 0 – None
LTS 1 – Very Low
LTS 2 – Low LTS 2 – Low
LTS 3 – Moderate LTS 2.5 – Moderate Low
LTS 3 – Moderate High
LTS 4- High LTS 4 – High
LTS 5 – Very High
Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D , 2018 4 Montgomery County, MD The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018 5 Mekuria, Maaza, Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012
495

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Crossings were evaluated based on the criteria summarized inTable 8, which is based on posted speed limit, if there is a median refuge, and the number of lanes of the street being crossed.

Table 8: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria - Crossing
Posted Speed
Limit on Street
being Crossed
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
No Median Refuge Median Refuge (≥ 6 ft wide)
2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
30 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2.5
35 LTS 2.5 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2.5 LTS 3
≥ 40 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4
Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D , 2018 Segments were evaluated based on criteria summarized inTable 9, which is based on posted speed limit and the type of buffer between the shared path and adjacent roadways.

Table 9: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria - Segment
Posted
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Shared Use Path
Side path w/ Buffer < 5ft
(and no railing OR many
driveways)
Side path w/ Buffer ≥ 5ft
(and no railing OR many
driveways)
Independent Right-of-
Way
≤ 25 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
30 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
35 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
40 LTS 2 LTS 1B or LTS 2 LTS 0
≥ 45 LTS 2 LTS 1B or LTS 2 LTS 0
Note:

A LTS 1 is given if the road is residential and buffer is at last 5 feet wide.

B LTS 1 is given if the buffer is wide.

Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D , 2018 Intersection
Intersection improvements were evaluated using the HCM intersection methodology. As shown in Table 5, intersection LOS is based on delay. Existing AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) traffic volumes were obtained from recent publicly accessible traffic studies. Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build volumes were developed based on the “difference method” previously described. A level of service standard of LOS F was used for this analysis.

Technology
Technology projects included in the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study include studies to evaluate and identify potential technology-based solutions. Since these are studies and not public facilities, no MOE or 496

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 thresholds were established at this time. AB 602 acknowledges that level of service analysis is not possible for certain types of projects. However, a qualitative assessment was conducted to determine how the technology being studies may result in delay or congestion reduction to offset the impacts related to future growth.

Results
This section presents a summary of results for each project.

Roadway Capacity
Freeway
Freeway analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) · C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions · C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta
Project B-1 evaluated multiple segments along I-580 and I-680. In the existing conditions, these segments operated at LOS D or LOS F. Even though some segments continue to operate at LOS F with the Project in 2040, there will be a reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c).

Even though Project C-3 is a local roadway, the I-580 segment between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard was analyzed because the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyon Parkway extension would divert local traffic from this freeway segment. In existing condition, the I-580 segment between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard operates at an unacceptable LOS F. Even though some segments continue to operate at LOS F with the Project in 2040, there will be a reduction in v/c.

For Project C-7, future development will increase congestion along I-680 and will improve with the construction of the project.

State Route
State Route analysis was used to evaluate the state route portion (SR-84/Isabella Avenue) of Projects A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange. Future development will change the LOS from LOS B or better in existing condition to LOS C through LOS E in 2040 No Build condition. Project A-2b will improve LOS to LOS B or better.

Arterial
Arterial analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange
· B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension
· C-5 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
· Roadway capacity portion of Project B-8 El Charro Road Widening 497

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Project A-2b evaluated Portola Avenue along the I-580 overpass. This segment operates at LOS F in existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project A-2b will improve operations to acceptable levels of service.

Project B-6 evaluated Jack London Boulevard, east of El Charro Road. This segment operates at LOS F in the existing and 2040 No Build conditions. With the project, Jack London Boulevard may continue to operate at LOS F; however, there will be a reduction in v/c.

For Project B-8, future development will increase congestion along Camino Tassajara and will cause the roadway to operation at LOS F in 2040 No Build conditions. Project B-8 will improve operations to acceptable levels.

Since Project C-5 will extend El Charro Road south of Stoneridge Road/Jack London Boulevard, a parallel route along Santa Rita Road was analyzed. Future development will increase congestion along Santa Rita Road and will cause the roadway to operate at LOS F. Project C-5 will improve operations to acceptable levels.

Interchange
Interchange analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification
· B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
· B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification
· C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements
· C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange
· C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements
· C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements
For Project B-3, the I-580/First Street interchange operates at LOS C or better in the existing condition. Future development will increase the delay at the interchange. Project B-3 will reduce delay compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

For Project B-4, the I-580/Vasco Road interchange operates at LOS E or better in the existing condition. Future development will cause this interchange to operation at LOS F in the PM peak.

Project B-4 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS C or better.

For Project B-5, the I-580/Greenville Road interchangeoperates at LOS E or better in the existing condition. Future development will cause this interchange to operate at LOS F in PM peak. Project B- 5 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS E or better.

For Project C-6, the I-680/Sunol Boulevard interchange operate at LOS F in the existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project C-6 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS B or better. 498

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 For Project C-9, the I-680/Stoneridge Drive interchange operates at LOS B in the existing condition.

Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-9 will reduce delay compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

For Project C-12, the I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange operates at LOS C or better in the existing condition. Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-12 will improve operations compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

For Project C-13, the I-580/Fallon Road interchange operates at LOS A or better in the existing condition. Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-13 will improve operations compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

Transit
Transit projects include the following projects:
· A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2
· C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1
· C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service
For Project A-11, both 10R and 30R routes have 15-minute headways (LOS C) in the existing condition. Without the improvements proposed in Project A-11, congestion from future development may increase the headway for these routes. Improvements proposed in Project A-11, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, dedicated travel lanes may allow 10R and 30R to operate more quickly and efficiently.

Project C-14 would construct new stations and a transit line, so there is no LOS for existing or 2040 No Project conditions. It is anticipated that Valley Link would operate on similar headways as BART which is 15 minutes in the AM peak and 20 minutes in the PM peak, which equates to LOS C. In addition, the Valley Link EIR reports a 0.3% reduction in average weekday VMT between No Build and Build condition.

Project C-16 would establish a new express bus service, so there is no LOS for existing or 2040 No Project conditions. It is currently proposed that the bus would run on 20-minute headways during the peak period, which equates to LOS C.

Safety
Safety analysis evaluate the following projects:
· A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1
· A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2
· A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
· A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
· C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements
· C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement
499

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 · Safety component for Project B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
Project A-9a and A-9b were analyzed together because both projects are difference project phases within the same project limits. In existing conditions, the project segment along Crow Canyon has a crash rate of 0.59 and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate to 0.62. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects A-9a and A-9b will reduce the crash rate to 0.06.

Project A-10a and A-10b were analyzed together because both projects are difference project phases within the same project limits. In existing conditions, the project segment along Vasco Road has a crash rate of 0.68 and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate to 0.98. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects A-10a and A-10b will reduce the crash rate to 0.53.

For Project B-8, the project segment along Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road has a crash rate of

0.83 in the existing condition and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate over the threshold to 1.04. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-1 will reduce the crash rate to 0.76.

For Project C-1, the project segment along Tesla Road has a crash rate of 0.86 in the existing condition and future development is anticipated increase the crash rate over the threshold to 1.11. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-1 will reduce the crash rate to

0.62. For Project C-2, the project segment along Norris Canyon Road exceeds the crash rate threshold in the existing condition with a rate of 1.20. Future development is anticipated to increase the rate to

1.63. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-2 will reduce the crash rate to 0.20.

Pedestrian / Bicycle
Pedestrian / Bicycle analysis was conducted for all of the Iron Horse Trail projects which include the following:
· C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road · C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road · C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
· C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
· C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
· C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road · C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road · C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements
500

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 The crossing at Bollinger Canyon Road (Project C-11a) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition . The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11a will construct an overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

The crossing at Crow Canyon Road (Project C-11b) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11b will construct an overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

The crossing at Dublin Road (Project C-11c) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11c will construct an bicycle/pedestrian bridge which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

Project C-11d will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions. Project C-11d will construct LTS 1 trail segment.

Project C-11e will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions. Project C-11e will construct LTS 1 trail segment.

Project C-11f will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions. Project C-11e will construct LTS 1 trail segment.

The crossing at Sycamore Valley Road (Project C-11g) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11g will construct an overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

Project C-11h will provide system-wide improvements, such as closing existing gaps in the trail system, therefore it was assumed that there is no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions.

Project C-11h will construct LTS 1 trail segment to fill in existing gaps and other improvements.

Intersection
Intersection analysis evaluate the following projects:
· C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements · C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
Project C-4 evaluated Vasco Road and Dalton Avenue intersection. This intersection operates at LOS F in existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project C-4 will improve operations to acceptable levels.

Project C-8 evaluated Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps/Pimilico Drive intersection. This intersection operated at LOS D or better in existing conditions. Future development will increase congestion at this intersection. The project will improve operation compared to 2040 No Build conditions.
501

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Technology
There are two technology projects: C-10 Innovate 680 and C-15 Technology Enhancements. Since these are studies and not public facilities, no MOE or thresholds were established at this time. However, a qualitative assessment was conducted to determine how the technology being studied may result in delay or congestion reductions or other benefits.

Project C-10 Innovate 680 consists of multiple components including transit infrastructure and service improvements, roadway improvements, and technology enhancement, this project has been categorized as a technology improvement because TVTDF funding is being requested only for the Advance Technology component of the project. Other project components are expected to be funded through alternative sources. The Advance Technology component consists of implementing three technology-related strategies to improve operation along the I-680 corridor. Strategies include providing an enhanced 511 mobile app and implementing a shared autonomous vehicles (SAV) program for first and last mile connectivity and access at Mobility Hubs, to shift travel away from single occupant vehicles by providing travelers with better information about mode choice opportunities, resultant travel time, cost per trip, and the availability of transit. Other technology strategies include integrating adaptive ramp metering and/or corridor/incident management systems which can help improve the efficiency and safety of the transportation system.

Project C-15 Technology Enhancements proposes to provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between local arterials and regional facilities. The project is expected to be completed in three phases - Feasibility, Design & Construction. The TVTDF will help fund the feasibility study phase of the study, since the details of the design and construction phase are unknown at this time. The feasibility study will focus on the first and last mile connectivity opportunities at key transit hubs and along major transit routes in the Tri-Valley area. Leveraging existing and emerging technology, such as connected and autonomous vehicles, may help increase safety and mobility for all modes. These technologies may also help with increasing transit ridership or expanding transit service to less-served areas, especially for communities that currently lack service. Given that the resultant projects are intended to offset the impacts of future development, the feasibility study is appropriate to include in the TVTC project list.

AB 602 Proportional Allocation
Future development is responsible for paying for its proportional use of public facilities, rather than the full unfunded cost of projects. Under AB 602s project-specific analysis methods , the proportional allocation of costs for certain projects under the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study would be lower. ܤܣ602݊݋݅ݐܽܿ݋݈݈ܣ݈ܽ݊݋݅ݐݎ݋݌݋ݎܲ 2040ℎݐݓ݋ݎܩ݈݀݅ݑܤ݋ܰ
݁݉ݑ݈݋ܸ݃݊݅ݐݏ݅ݔܧ
AB 602 proportional allocation calculations are included inAttachment A.

AB 602 Analysis Maximum Fee Rate
Table 10 presents the AB 602 maximum fee. Historically, TVTC jurisdictions have not applied the maximum fee schedule, therefore Table 10 also presents the rate being proposed as part of the 2022 502

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 SEP update. As shown, in Table 11, the proposed 2022 SEP rates are less than the adjusted maximum fee rate under the AB 602 analysis methods. Maximum rate adjustmentcalculations are included in Attachment B.

Table 10: 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study Maximum Fee
Land Use
AB 602
Maximum Fee
Rate
2022 SEP
Proposed
Rates
Single Family (DU) $18,752 $6,596.40
Multi-Family (DU) $11,056 $3,889.20
Retail (SF) $36.04 $5.92
Office (SF) $25.04 $8.81
Industrial (SF) $14.42 $4.97
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $21,679 $6,100.68
DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
Attachment A – AB 602 Proportional Allocation Calculations Attachment B – AB 602 Maximum Rate Adjustment Calculations 503
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Attachment A – AB 602 Proportional Allocation Calculations 504
Project Methodology Existing
Volume
Future
Volume Growth
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound) - - - - A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) - - - - A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange Roadway Capacity – State Route Roadway Capacity - Arterial 12,800 22,100 9,300 73%
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) - - - -
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station - - - - A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane - - - -
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound - - - - A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade - - - - A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications - - - - A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange - - - -
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Safety - - - 100% A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Safety - - - 100% A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Safety - - - 100% A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Safety - - - 100% A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 Transit - - - 100% B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) Roadway Capacity - Freeway 54,000 55,500 1,500 3% B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road - B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension Roadway Capacity - Arterial 3,300 7,600 4,300 100% B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) - - - - B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive) Roadway Capacity - Arterial Safety - - - 100%
B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements - - - - B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road) - - - - B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps - - - -
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements - - - -
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements Safety - - - 100%
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement Safety - - - 99% C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions Roadway Capacity - Freeway 28,400 37,700 9,300 33% C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements Intersection 4,400 5,500 1,100 25% C-5 El Charro Road Widening Roadway Capacity - Arterial - - - 100% C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange 9,400 11,100 1,700 18% C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta Roadway Capacity - Freeway - - - 100% C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange Intersection - - - 100% C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% C-10 Innovate 680 Technology - - - 100%
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,500 6,000 500 9% C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,600 6,400 800 14% C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Pedestrian/Bicycle 7,600 8,300 700 9% C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% Project Completed
Project Fully Funded
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Removed
Project Removed - Incorporated into
Project C-10
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Removed - Incorporated into
Project C-5
Project Completed
505
Project Methodology Existing
Volume
Future
Volume Growth
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 4,000 6,000 2,000 50% C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) Transit - - - 100%
C-15 Technology Enhancements Technology - - - 100%
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service Transit - - - 100%
Project C-2: Growth is based on the percentages of TVTC road users along project corridor.

Note
Project B-6: Growth exceed 100%, therefore AB 602 proportion allocation was assumed to be 100% 506
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Attachment B – AB 602 Maximum Rate Adjustment Calculations 507
Project Total Cost
(2021$ Million)
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
AB 602 TVTDF
Eligible Cost
(2021$ Million)*
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound) - - - A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) $325.40 - - A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange $22.70 73% $4.58
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) - - -
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station - - - A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane - - -
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound - - - A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade - - -
A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications - - - A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange - - -
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $10.87 100% $8.42 A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $58.77 100% $57.08 A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $40.57 100% $11.14 A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $31.20 100% $28.62 A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 $22.35 100% $21.21 B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) $1,785.65 3% $34.69 B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road - - - B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification $61.00 100% $7.93 B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $85.65 100% $16.61 B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $86.00 100% $18.92 B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $28.16 100% $10.08
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) $72.48 - - B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive) $88.08 100% $54.55 B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements - - - B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road) - - - B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps - - -
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $277.85 - -
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements $13.19 100% $13.19
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement $24.49 99% $24.24 C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions $160.39 33% $35.72 C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements $3.39 25% $0.85 C-5 El Charro Road Widening $68.09 100% $38.09
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements $16.60 18% $1.37 C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta $527.57 100% $300.72 508
Project Total Cost
(2021$ Million)
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
AB 602 TVTDF
Eligible Cost
(2021$ Million)*
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange $10.33 100% $2.63
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange $11.98 100% $4.08
C-10 Innovate 680 $57.21 100% $54.66
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road $22.88 9% $0.78 C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road $19.69 14% $2.81 C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin $11.60 9% $0.00
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore $26.99 100% $26.99
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs $1.65 100% $0.30 C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road $0.87 100% $0.48 C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road $19.78 50% $9.89 C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements $85.60 100% $85.60 C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements $39.13 100% $34.50 C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements $34.51 100% $19.96 C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) $258.25 100% $258.25
C-15 Technology Enhancements $0.33 100% $0.33
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service $59.35 100% $59.35
TOTAL $4,470.60 $1,248.62
*AB 602 TVTDF Eligible Cost also includes reduction in cost to account for external "cut-through" trips that is generated by growth outside the Tri-Valley area. 509
Attachment 4 Exhibit C to Resolution
TVTC Resolution 2022-07 and 2022 Strategic Expenditure
Plan Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan
510
511
512
513

Tri‐Valley Transportation Council
2022 Strategic Expenditure Plan
Approved Funding Plan

April 18, 2022

Total
$17,000,000 $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $14,577,263 $16,331,555 $14,584,716 $13,862,627 $14,130,377 $12,945,760 $15,598,510 $12,953,043 $33,769,769 $13,979,792 $162,733,410 $2,915,453 $3,266,311 $2,916,943 $2,772,525 $2,826,075 $2,589,152 $3,119,702 $2,590,609 $6,753,954 $2,795,958 $32,546,682 $116,618 $130,652 $116,678 $110,901 $113,043 $103,566 $124,788 $103,624 $270,158 $111,838 $1,301,867 $28,545,192 $35,403,594 $25,532,950 $17,036,476 $13,233,353 $15,317,352 $13,827,460 $17,887,802 $34,769,840 $34,016,746 $128,884,861 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 22-32 Total Disbursed $6,076,190 $21,421,738 $19,475,674 $14,994,382 $8,169,043 $13,843,912 $6,198,467 $9,863,619 $11,825,089 $10,419,955 $122,288,069 Remainder $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $23,596,791 $23,596,791 A-2b $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,650,000 $5,150,000
A-9a $1,550,000 $1,550,000
A-9b $1,690,000 $1,690,000
A-10a $500,000 $2,820,000 $3,320,000
A-10b $2,580,000 $2,580,000
A-11 $800,000 $800,000
B-4 $5,139,000 $3,426,000 $8,565,000
B-5 $5,160,000 $3,440,000 $8,600,000
B-8a $4,380,000 $2,000,000 $6,380,000
B-8b $1,450,000 $1,450,000
C-2 $538,561 $538,561
C-3 $16,039,300 $16,039,300
C-6 $2,650,000 $2,650,000
C-7b $3,298,382 $5,298,382 $5,298,382 $7,298,382 $21,193,529 C-8 $1,033,378 $1,033,378
C-10 $3,432,438 $2,288,292 $5,720,730
C-11a $2,287,629 $2,287,629
C-11c $600,000 $600,000
C-11d $2,698,530 $2,698,530
C-11e $164,866 $164,866
C-13 $2,070,661 $1,380,440 $3,451,101
C-14 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $25,825,445 Revenue Forecast ($)
Return to Local Source - 20% ($)
Admin Fee -0.8% ($)
Revenue for TVTDF Allocation ($)
ID
Project
July 1st FY Balance ($)
I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
Projected Disbursement - 2022 SEP Update
SR 84 / I-580 Interchange - Phase 2
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 1
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 2
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Phase 2
Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
I-580/Greenville Rd Interchange Modification
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Contra Costa County Segment)
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Dublin Segment) Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement - Segment 1
Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension
Sunol/680 Widening
I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Northbound)
Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
Innov ate 680
Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
Fallon/El Charro Interchange
514

6.1 - Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee Adoption
City Council
June 21, 2022
515
Agenda
• Nexus Study and SEP Process
• Recommended Rate Adjustments
• SEP Revenue
• Dublin Funded Projects
516
• Nexus Study
– Considers 20 years
– Updated every 8 years
– Considers all projects
– Determines MAXIMUM Fee
– Complies with:
• AB 1600
• AB 602
– TVTC Adopted August 2021
• Strategic Expenditure Plan
– Considers 10 years
– Updated every 5 years
– Considers funded projects
– Determines ACTUAL Fee
– Considers:
• Project prioritization
• Annual growth forecast
– TVTC Adopted in April 2022
Studies
517
Strategic Expenditure Plan and Recommended Rate Adjustments • Establishes funding level and allocation of TVTDF
Land Use Current 2021
Rate
% of
Maximum
Recommended
2022 Rates
Change
from 2021
Rates
% Change
Single Family (DU) $5,057 15% $6,596.40 $1,539.40 30.4% Multi-Family (DU) $3,484 15% $3,889.20 $405.20 11.6%
Retail (SF) $3.74 6% $5.07 $1.33 35.6%
Office (SF) $8.59 15% $8.81 $0.22 2.5%
Industrial (SF) $5.00 15% $4.97 -$0.03 -0.6%
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $5,620 12% $6,100.68 $480.68 8.6% DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
518
Resulting Revenue of
Recommendation
*Estimated total revenue does not account for CCI rate adjustments ** 20% must be used for SEP projects, but at local agency/sponsor discretion ***Project cost are in 2021$ and may increase over time Estimated Total Revenue* $162,733,410
Return to Local Source (20%)** $32,546,682
Admin Fee (0.8%) $1,301,867
Revenue for TVTDF Allocation $128,884,861
Top 15 Total Project Cost ( 2021 $)*** $1,058,477,852
Remaining 2017 SEP Commitments $14,290,000
519
Dublin Funded Projects
ID Project Funding Years 22-32 Total
B-8b Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project
(Dublin Segment) 23/24 $1,450,000
C-3 Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension 23/24 $16,039,300 C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin 22-23 $600,000
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange 26/27-27/28 $3,451,101 C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) 27/28-30/31 $25,825,445 520
Recommendation
• Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt
the Resolution Adopting the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee Pursuant to
the requirements of the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement
521
Thank Y ou
522

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 6.2
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1; Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2; Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1; Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1; Street Lighting District 1999-1
Prepared by: Jordan Foss, Management Analyst II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving the Engineer’s Reports and the levy of special assessments in each of the five assessment districts for Fiscal Year 2022-23. A public hearing is required to set the annual levy.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessment for City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1, and Street Lighting District 1999-1.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

A summary of revenues, expenditures, and balances for each assessment district is shown in the table below. Revenues and expenditures for each assessment district are tracked separately. 523

SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
ST. LIGHT
1983-1

STAGECOACH RD

LANDSCAPE
1983-2

DOUGHERTY RD

LANDSCAPE
1986-1

SANTA RITA

LANDSCAPE
1997-1

EAST DUBLIN
ST. LIGHT
1999-1
PROJECTED REVENUE $320,395 $112,241 $198,669 $390,680 $336,937

ESTIMATED
EXPENDITURES $305,399 $78,466 $128,102 $351,313 $262,041

TRANSFER TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND $14,996 $33,775 $70,567 $39,367 $74,896 BALANCE TO RESERVES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

RESERVES BALANCE

ESTIMATED BEGINNING
BALANCE1
$602,476 $337,959 $100,979 $1,217,805 $465,191

RESERVE TRANSFER TO
OPERATING FUND $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

ESTIMATED INTEREST
AND OTHER INCOME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

RESERVE TRANSFER

TO CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT FUND
$14,996 $33,775 $70,567 $39,367 $74,896

TRANSFER OUT FOR
CIP $0 $0 $0 ($195,000) ($42,000)

PROJECTED ENDING

BALANCE FISCAL YEAR
2022-23
$617,472 $371,734 $171,546 $1,062,172 $498,087
1The Fund Balances shown in the table above, represent amounts held for both operating reserves and capital replacement.

DESCRIPTION:

At the City Council meeting held on May 17, 2022, the City Council initiated the annual proceedings, received the Preliminary Engineer’s Reports for each of the five assessment districts, and set a public hearing date of June 21, 2022 to receive comments on the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessments for each assessment district. Details related to each assessment district and the proposed assessment amounts can be found in the attached May 17, 2022, City Council Staff Report (Attachment 2).

City Council will hold a public hearing, deliberate, and consider approving the Engineer’s Reports and ordering the levy of assessment for each of the following five assessment districts:
 Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983-1
524

 Landscape and Lighting District No. 1983-2
 Landscape and Lighting District No. 1986-1
 Landscape and Lighting District No. 1997-1
 Street Lighting District No. 1999-1
The Engineer’s Reports for each assessment district are included as Attachments 3 through 7.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

Property owners in the Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2 and Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1 were mailed courtesy postcards with the public hearing date and proposed fiscal year assessments. Public hearing notices were published in the newspaper and posted at several City locations. Copies of the hearing notices and Engineer’s Reports were also posted on the City of Dublin website and the City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessment for City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1, and Street Lighting District 1999-1 2) City Council Staff Report dated May 17, 2022 (without attachments) 3) Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1 4) Engineer's Report for Landscaping and Lighting District 1983-2 5) Engineer's Report for Landscaping and Lighting District 1986-1 6) Engineer's Report for Landscaping and Lighting District 1997-1 7) Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1 525
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT,

AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1983-1, LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 1983-2, LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 1986-1, LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 1997-1, AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 1999-1
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 42-22 (the “Resolution”), directing preparation of annual reports for City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance Districts and Landscaping and Lighting Districts (the “Districts”), the City Council designated the City Engineer, or their designee, as Engineer of Work and ordered said Engineer to make and file a report in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, said reports were made and filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular, whereupon it was determined that said reports should stand as Engineer's Reports for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution and that June 21, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, and remotely via Zoom Communications, was appointed as the time and place for a hearing by the City Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessment, notice of which hearing was published and posted in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, at the appointed time, said hearing was held, and all persons interested and desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters pertaining to said levy were heard and considered by this City Council, and this City Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order said levy and confirmation of diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the reports of said Engineer to pay the cost and expenses thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve that:
(a) The property owners owning more than fifty percent of the area of assessable land within each of the Districts had not, at the conclusion of said hearing, filed written protests against the said proposed levy, or against the engineer's estimate of costs and expenses, or against the maps and description, or against the diagram or the assessment to pay for the costs and expenses thereof; and (b) The public interest, convenience, and necessity require that said levy be made; and
(c) The Districts benefited by said improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof are as shown by a map thereof filed in the office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.
526
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
527

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 4.3
DATE: May 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolutions Directing Preparation of Annual Engineer’s Reports, Approving Preliminary Engineer’s Reports, and Appointing a Time and Place for Hearing Protests for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1, and Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1 Prepared by: Jordan Foss, Management Analyst II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider directing preparation of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Engineer’s Reports, approving the preliminary Fiscal Year 2022-23 Engineer's Reports, and scheduling a public hearing date of June 21, 2022 for the five assessment districts.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Take the following actions: 1) Adopt the Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Engineer’s Reports for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1, and Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1; and 2) adopt the Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineer’s Reports and Appointing a Time and Place for Hearing Protests for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1, and Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The cost of preparing the Engineer's Reports is included in the annual adopted budget and is paid by each respective assessment district. A summary of revenues, expenditures, and balances of each district is shown in the following table. Revenues and expenditures for each assessment district are tracked separately.

Attachment 2
528

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 REVENUES & EXPENDITURES ST. LIGHT
1983-1

STAGECOACH RD

LANDSCAPE
1983-2

DOUGHERTY RD

LANDSCAPE
1986-1

SANTA RITA

LANDSCAPE
1997-1

EAST DUBLIN
ST. LIGHT
1999-1
PROJECTED REVENUE $320,395 $112,241 $198,669 $390,680 $336,937

ESTIMATED
EXPENDITURES $305,399 $78,466 $128,102 $351,313 $262,041

TRANSFER TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND $14,996 $33,775 $70,567 $39,367 $74,896 BALANCE TO RESERVES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

RESERVES BALANCE

ESTIMATED BEGINNING
BALANCE1
$602,476 $337,959 $100,979 $1,217,805 $465,191

RESERVE TRANSFER TO
OPERATING FUND $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

ESTIMATED INTEREST
AND OTHER INCOME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

RESERVE TRANSFER

TO CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT FUND
$14,996 $33,775 $70,567 $39,367 $74,896

TRANSFER OUT FOR
CIP $0 $0 $0 ($195,000) ($42,000)

PROJECTED ENDING

BALANCE FISCAL YEAR
2022-23
$617,472 $371,734 $171,546 $1,062,172 $498,087
1The Fund Balances shown in the table above, represent amounts held for both operating reserves and capital replacement.

DESCRIPTION:

The procedure for establishing annual maintenance assessments is governed by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, which is State Law codified in the Streets and Highways Code. The procedure requires that the City Council direct preparation of Engineer’s Reports and consider approval of those reports for the City of Dublin’s two street lighting maintenance assessment districts and the three landscaping and lighting districts described below for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The City Council must also consider setting a public hearing date to hear any protests prior to approving the levy of assessments in each district. Staff proposes the public hearing to be on June 21, 2022, in the City Council Chamber, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, and remotely via Zoom Communications.
529

The five assessment districts formed under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 are briefly described below. More detailed information about each district, including a map of the boundary of each district, can be found in Attachments 3 through 7.

Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1
This District was established to replace the County Service Area, which had paid maintenance and energy costs for public streetlights within the City of Dublin. The boundary of this assessment district encompasses the entire City, except for the Dublin Ranch area, Tracts 7067, 7586, 8024, 8073, and 8074, and the Boulevard project. The City Council approved formation of this District on August 2, 1983, with the initial assessment in the 1984-1985 tax year.

The maximum assessment allowed under the authorizing documents is $19.34 per unit for residential uses and $106.37 per acre for commercial uses. The maximum assessment has been levied since Fiscal Year 2007-08. There is no provision in the formation documents to increase the per unit levy. As noted in the Engineer’s Report any increase would require the approval of the property owners subject to the assessment.

In past years, the largest expenditure within this District's operating expenses was the annual capital lease payment to Chevron Energy Solutions for a light emitting diode (LED) fixture retrofit project. This project took place in Fiscal Year 2012-13, retrofitting 2,821 streetlights. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the City Council approved the use of a General Fund reserve to pay the annual capital lease payment; the entire lease balance was subsequently paid off by the General Fund reserve in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Without the debt expenditure, the District can build up reserves and a capital improvement fund balance for future repair and replacement costs of streetlight infrastructure that is at the end of its service life or has been damaged due to automobile accidents.

The proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 remains the same as Fiscal Year 2021- 22, as shown below.

Property Type
Current
Fiscal Year
Proposed
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Annual
Change
($)
Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) $19.34 $19.34 $0
Commercial Per Acre $106.37 per acre $106.37 per acre $0 Landscaping and Lighting District 1983-2 (Stagecoach Road) This District provides funds for the maintenance of certain landscape improvements in the Dublin Hills Estates and Amador Lakes developments along Stagecoach Road. The District's boundaries include all of Tract 4719 and cover the 150-unit single-family Dublin Hills Estates development and the Amador Lakes development. The City Council approved formation of this District on January 23, 1984, with the initial assessment in the 1985-1986 tax year.

The District is responsible for the maintenance of the Stagecoach Road landscaping and the interior slope landscaping within Tract 4719. The spread of assessments assigns 61.6% of the 530

total assessment to the single-family homes of Dublin Hills Estates and 38.4% to the Amador Lakes Apartments. The Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessments are expected to pay for the ongoing maintenance and utility costs associated with the District. Details of budgeted expenditures can be found within the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Preliminary Engineer’s Report.

The assessment methodology approved in Fiscal Year 2003-04 by property owners in the District includes an escalation clause that allows for adjustments to the assessment according to the Consumer Price Index and utility cost increases. These factors are updated in the Engineer’s Report on an annual basis. The maximum assessment in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is $487.79 per single family residence and $82.48 per multi-family residence. The City can elect to levy less than the maximum based on reserve funds on hand and the budgeted costs for District expenditures.

The proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 was increased 9.6% over the Fiscal Year 2021-22 amount to increase the District capital improvement fund (CIF) balance, which will be used to fund repair and replacement of v-ditches and retaining walls within the District.

The proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is shown below.

Stagecoach Road Assessments (District 1983-2)
Property Type
Current
Fiscal Year
Proposed
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Annual
Change
($)
Dublin Hills Estate - Single Family
Homes $409.40 $448.60 $39.20
Amador Lakes - Apt/Condominiums $69.25 $75.87 $6.62
Landscaping and Lighting District 1986-1 (Villages at Willow Creek) This District was formed with the initial assessment in the 1987-1988 tax year and encompasses the Villages at Willow Creek development off Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The surrounding homes are apartment complexes, condominiums, and the 145-unit single-family development (Ridgecreek).

The work performed by this District includes litter pickup, maintenance of fences, and landscaping along Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and Fall Creek Road, along Amador Valley Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road, and along Wildwood Road, Fall Creek Road, Shady Creek Drive, and Willow Creek Drive. Landscaping within the condominium and apartment developments is the responsibility of the homeowners' association or property owners for those individual developments. The landscaping along and within the Alamo Creek channel area is not included in the assessment district as it is the responsibility of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessments are expected to pay for the ongoing maintenance and utility costs associated with the District. Details related to the budgeted expenditures can be found within the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Preliminary Engineer’s Report.

The assessment methodology approved in 2001 by property owners in the District includes an 531

escalation clause that allows for adjustments to the assessment according to the Consumer Price Index and the utility cost increases. These factors are updated in the Engineer’s Report on an annual basis. The maximum assessment in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is $298.03 per single family residence, $149.02 per multi-family residence, and $1,192.10 for commercial property.

The proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 was increased 21.4% over the Fiscal Year 2021-22 amount to increase the District CIF balance, which will be used to fund repair and replacement of additional plantings as well as sidewalk repairs within the District. The District CIF balance was also appropriated to a City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to remove, replace, and/or repair tubular steel fencing throughout the District.

The proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is shown below.

Villages at Willow Creek Assessments (District 1986-1)
Property Type
Current
Fiscal Year
Proposed
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Annual
Change ($)
Single Family Homes $245.51 $298.03 $52.52
Amador Lakes - Apt/Condominiums $122.76 $149.02 $26.25
Commercial $982.04 $1,192.10 $210.06
Landscaping and Lighting District 1997-1 (Santa Rita Area) This District was formed in 1996 at the request of the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. The initial assessment was levied in Fiscal Year 1997-1998. The area covered by this District is bound by Gleason Drive on the North, Interstate 580 on the South, Arnold Road on the West, and Tassajara Road on the east.

The District maintains portions of roadside landscaping for Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Central Parkway, Arnold Road, Tassajara Road (westerly portion), and Gleason Drive. The District also maintains the trail and landscaping along the Tassajara Creek channel. Median landscape maintenance is not included in this District.

As provided in the Engineer’s Report, individual lots in residential subdivisions are assessed based on density. The original Engineer’s Report for this District provided for an initial maximum assessment of $710.00 per acre, which could be increased annually based on the change in the Consumer Price Index as well as actual increases in the cost of utilities. This maximum allowable assessment is updated in the Engineer’s Report on an annual basis. The maximum assessment per acre in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is $1,588.25 per acre.

Although the assessment district formula establishes a maximum cost that can be levied, based on planned expenditures in the District the proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 remains the same as Fiscal Year 2021-22, as shown below. The density of the various housing units changes the allocation on a per-acre basis and results in different assessments as shown 532

below.

Santa Rita Area Assessments (District 1997-1)
Property Type
Current
Fiscal
Year
Proposed
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Annual
Change ($)
California Creekside Single‐Family Residential $128.52 $128.52 $0.00 California Brookside Multi‐Family Residential $55.69 $55.69 $0.00 Summer Glen ‐ Richmond American (North) Lots $112.54 $112.54 $0.00 Summer Glen ‐ Richmond American (South) Lots $123.85 $123.85 $0.00 Summer Glen ‐ Kaufman & Broad Lots $172.36 $172.36 $0.00 Summer Glen ‐ Pulte Lots $216.24 $216.24 $0.00
Dublin Greene Tract 7084 Single Family Residential $136.13 $136.13 $0.00 Dublin Greene Tract 7149 Single Family Residential $102.50 $102.50 $0.00 Dublin Greene Tract 7149 Condominiums $53.43 $53.43 $0.00 Other Parcels Including Retail, Office, and Industrial $903.85 $903.85 $0.00 Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1 (Dublin Ranch) This District funds the electric energy, maintenance, and repair costs associated with street lighting that has been installed in the Dublin Ranch area and Tracts 7067, 7586, 8024, 8073, and 8074. The City Council approved formation of this District on June 1, 1999, with the initial assessment in the 1999-2000 tax year.

The District also includes a CIF reserve set aside to pay for improvement projects outside the normal operations and maintenance costs, such as painting a portion of the decorative streetlight poles within the District. In addition to pole painting, it is planned that CIF will be used to complete a project to convert the existing decorative lights to more energy-efficient LED lights.

The assessment methodology in the original Engineer’s Report for this District includes an escalation clause that allows for adjustments to the assessment according to the Consumer Price Index and utility cost increases. These factors are updated in the Engineer’s Report on an annual basis. The maximum assessment in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 adjusted by the approved adjustment formula is $64.14 per single family residence and $352.77 per acre for commercial parcels. The City can levy less than the maximum based on reserve funds on hand and the budgeted costs for District expenditures.

The proposed assessment amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23 remains the same as Fiscal Year 2021- 22, as shown below.

Dublin Ranch Street Lighting Assessments (District 1999-1) Property Type Current
Fiscal Year
Proposed
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Annual
Change
($)
533

Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) $38.03 $38.03 $0.00
Commercial Per Acre $209.15 $209.15 $0.00
Upon City Council adoption of the resolution approving the respective preliminary Engineer’s Reports, a public hearing will be held on June 21, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. on the proposed assessments.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Engineer's Reports for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986- 1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997-1, and Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1
2) Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineer’s Reports and Appointing a Time and Place for Hearing Protests for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1983-2, Landscape and Lighting District 1986-1, Landscape and Lighting District 1997- 1, and Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1 3) Preliminary Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1983-1 4) Preliminary Engineer's Report for Landscaping and Lighting District 1983-2 5) Preliminary Engineer's Report for Landscaping and Lighting District 1986-1 6) Preliminary Engineer's Report for Landscaping and Lighting District 1997-1 7) Preliminary Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance District 1999-1 534
Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1983-1
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Final Engineer’s Report
June 21, 2022
Attachment 3
535

Table of Contents

Page No.

Certificate ......................................................................................... ii Section I - Introduction ..................................................................... 1 Section II – Engineer’s Report ......................................................... 3 Part A – Plans and Specifications ......................................... 5 Part B – Estimate of Cost ...................................................... 7 Part C – Assessment District Diagram ................................ 12 Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ............ 14 Part E - Assessment Roll .................................................... 19

536

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF DUBLIN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1983-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
The undersigned,
acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the Dublin City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 22500 et al of the California Streets and Highways Code. The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: M
ay 18, 2022 By :

Eduar do Espinoza, P.E.

RCE # 83709
537

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The City of Dublin (“City”) levies and collects special assessments on parcels within the City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District No. 1983-1 (“District”) to maintain the public street lighting improvements. The District was initially formed in 1983 to provide a dedicated source of funding for the ongoing maintenance of street lighting improvements within the boundaries of the District.

The a ssessments a nd m ethod of a pportionment des cribed in this Report ut ilize commonly accepted assessment e ngineering practices and have been calculated and proportionately spread to each parcel based on the special benefits received as approved by the City Council at the time the District was formed.

General Descripti on of the District

The District was created in 1983 to replace the County of Alameda Lighting Service Area within the City of Dublin and to fund the ma intenance and servicing costs for the City’s street lighting system. In Fiscal Year 1995-96 , the City of Dublin a cquired the PG&E owned streetlights within the District to reduce maintenance costs. The District includes all parcels that were within the County of Alameda Lighting Service Area which includes all parcels within the City except for Dublin Ranch; the Clifton Park development in the western hills; Tracts 7067, 8024, 8073 and 8074; and the Jordan Ranch Development.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided in Part C of this Report.

Compliance with the C
alifornia Constitution

Assessments a re levied an nually w ithin the District p ursuant to t he Landscape a nd Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”). A ll assessments described in this Report and approved by the City Council are prepared in accordance with the 1972 Act and are compliant with the provisions of the C alifornia Constitution A rticle XIIID ( “Article XIIID”), which was enacted with the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996. Pur suant to Article X IIID Section 5, certain existing assessments a re exempt from the s ubstantive and procedural requirements of Article XIIID Section 4. Specifically, Article XIIID Section 5(a) exempted:

“Any assessment imposed exclusiv ely to finance the ca pital costs or maintenance and operat ion expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or v ector co ntrol. Subsequent increases in such assessme nts shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.”

538
The City has determined t hat the annual assessments o riginally established for the District were for the maint enance and operat ion of streetlights w ithin the publ ic street rights-of-way. As suc h, pur suant to Article XIIID Section 5(a), the pre‐ existing assessment amou nt has been exempted from the proc edural requirem ents of Artic le XIIID Sectio n 4 since t he amount of the assessment has not increased since the passage of Proposition 218.

Any future increase in the assessment ra te or su bstantial cha nges in the services provided wo uld require that the Dis trict be brought into com pliance w ith a ll the requirements of Article XIIID a nd w ould require the approval of the property o wners subject to the a ssessment bas ed u pon a mailed ballot w hich would be sent to each property owner.

Summary of Distric t

A summary of the assessments to be levied for each property type are shown in the table below. Based upon the estimated expenditures, a transfer will be contributed to the Capital Improvement Fund Balance for Fiscal Year s 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is also reflected in the projected fund balances . However, should expenditures continue to rise to a level that exceeds the annual assessment revenue, a transfer from the Operating Fund Balance will be required in that f iscal year. Should annual transfers be required to cover annual expenditures, the fund balance will be drawn upon and depleted in future years. Should this circumstance occur, this may require a significant reduction in service levels in future years so that expenditures match assessment revenues or the City will need to contribute to the District from other available funds or increase the current assessment rate by receiving approval by property owners within the District.

Property Type Asse ssme nt Ra te
Single Family Residential (SFR) $19.34 per Parcel
Condominium $19.34 per
Parcel
Duplex, Multi
‐
Family Residential $38.68 per Parcel
Triplex, Multi
‐
Family Residential $58.02 per Parcel
Fourplex, Multi
‐
Family Residential $77.36 per Parcel
Apartments, Multi
‐
Family Residential $116.04 per Parcel
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional $106.37 per Acre
Vacant Commercial/Industrial/Institutional $53.18 per Acre Rural $9.67 per Parcel
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space $0.00 per Parcel
TABLE 1: ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983-1
539

SECTION II

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500
THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF DUBLIN

STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1983-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the City Council of the Cit y of Dublin on May 17, 2022, I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983-1 (the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II (Engineer’s Report), which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for Fiscal Year 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith.

The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

540
The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains an assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements apportioned to each benefited parcel of land within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Dublin and is incorporated in this Report. The list is keyed to the records of the Alameda County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

541
PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The District provides for the continued installation, maintenance, and servicing of str eet lighting improvement s within t he public right-of-way w hich provide spec ial benefit to parcels and properties within the District.

As generally defined in the 1972 Act, m aintenance a nd servicing of the street l ighting improvements may include one or any combination of the following:

1) The installation or construction of public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to streetlights and traffic signals.
2) The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof; including but not limited to, grading, removal of debris, the installation or construction of c urbs, gutters, w alls, sidewalks, or paving, or wa ter, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
3) The maintenance or s ervicing, or both, of any of the foregoing i ncluding the furnishing of se rvices and materials for the or dinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including, but not limited to:
a) Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvements; b) Grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation, repair or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or w ater, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities;
c) The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and o ther improvements to remove or cover graffiti;
d) Electric current or energy, gas, or other agent for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.
4) Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
a) The cost of preparation of the report, i ncluding plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
b) The costs of printing, advertising, and publishing, posting, and mailing of notices;
c) Co mpensation pay able to the County for collection of assessments; d) Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; e) Any other e xpenses i ncidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance a nd servicing of the improvements; and,
f) Costs as sociated with any elect ions held f or th e approval of a new or increased assessment.

Pursuant to the 1972 Act:

"Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, o peration, and servicing of a ny i mprovement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. 542
"Service" or "s ervicing" means the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas, or other illumin ating a gent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.

Drawings showing the specific locations of the improvements are on file in the City’s Public Works Department and are made a part of this report by reference. 543
PART B

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

All public stre etlights and o ther eligible improvements within the District are maintained and serviced on a regular basis, using assessment revenues. Since the assessment rate cannot be increased, due to th e passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, assessment revenues have not always been s ufficient to f und 100% of th e annual operations a nd maintenance costs of street lighting in past years. In years where the revenues were less than the costs to maintain the District improvements, the District transferred funds from the District’s existing fund balances to fund the shortfall in assessment revenues.

Although the District has seen an incr ease in revenue because of new development, the increases in costs have increased much more quickly than the increase in assessment revenue because of growth.

The proposed cost estimate for the District is sh own in Table 2. This inc ludes an estimate of th e costs of utilities, o perations, services, a dministration, and ma intenance associated with the improvements, including a ll labor, personnel, equipment, materials, and administrative expenses for the next two (2) fiscal years . The summary also shows the estimated fund balance, and the projected contribution/(transfer) that will be required from the fund balance based upon the estimated expenditures and assessment revenue.

Projected cost estimates are also shown for two (2) fiscal years.

The followi
ng describes the general services and costs shown in the cost estimate.

District Costs

Operating Supplies – The cost of supplies for ongoing maintenance and servicing of the street lighting improvements incl uding stre et light repair parts and the labor associated with performing the r epair work. In a ddition, a portion of this cost is set as ide as a contingency amount for both large scheduled and unscheduled, but necessary repairs.

Contract with Alameda C ounty – The c ost of s treet light main tenance provided from the County of Alameda based on the current fiscal year contract.

California Street Light Association – T he cos t of St reet L ight As sociation dues based on the relative number of streetlights within the District.

Utilities Electricity – The cost of streetlight electrical energy use, including miscellaneous utility charges.

Improvements (Not Building) – The cost of improvements (not building) includes costs associated with the maintenance, construction, and rehabilitation of authorized improvements.

544
Miscellaneous Expenses – Costs that cannot easily be categorized i nto a ny of the other District Costs defined above.

Legal Notices – The cost of legal notices includes costs associated with preparation and publishing of any, and all required legal notices associated with the District.

District Administration – The costs of contractin g with professionals to provide services specific to the annual levy administration, including preparation of t he Engineer’s Report, resolutions, and levy submittal to t he C ounty. T hese fe es can also include any additional administrative, legal, or engineering services specific to the District such as the cost to prepare and mail notices of the public meeting and hearing.

Public Works Administration – The cost of public works administration includes costs derived by the City’s Public Works Department or other department in relation to the administration and management of the District.

County Collection Fee – The cost to the District for the County to collect assessments on the annual secured property tax bills. A lameda County charges 1.7% of the total amount levied.

Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy

Reserve Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 S ection 22569 (a), provides for a Dis trict Reserve Fund for o perations. Negative amounts shown for this cost estimate item represent transfers from the Reserve Fund that reduces the Balance to Levy. Maintaining a f ully funded Operating Reserve eliminates the n eed for the C ity to transfer funds fr om non ‐District accounts to pay fo r operational e xpenses during the first half of the Fiscal Year a nd provides t he Dis trict with s ufficient funds to address any unforeseen or unusual expenditures that may occur during the year.

Capital Improvement Fund Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 5, beginning with Section 22660, provides for the Dis trict to esta blish by re solution an assessment installment plan fo r proposed im provements and expe nditures that a re greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment. D epending on the nature of the planned i mprovements, the collection of funds necessary to complete the project may be collected over a period up to thirty years, but typically not more than five years. The funds co llected shall be accum ulated in a s eparate i mprovement fund commonly referred to as a Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) and are not co nsidered part of the regular maintenance of the improvements or the Reserve Fund.

Because the money accumulated in t he C apital I mprovement Fund is for a specific planned project (budgeted separately), the amount shown for this item in the annual cost estimate will typically be a positive number representing the amount being collected that year as part of the B alance to Levy. A negative num ber ( Transfer) should o nly occ ur after the project has been completed and excess fu nds are being credited back to the District’s regular accounts. The annual fu nd Reserve Collection/(Transfer) and C apital 545
Improvement Fund Collection/(Transfer) are shown under the F und Balance Information section of the Cost Estimate.

Balance to L evy – This is the total amount to be co llected for the current fiscal year through the annual assessments (for special benefits). The Balance to Levy represents the sum of Total District (Direct and Administration) Costs, Reserve Fu nd Contributions or Transfers, Contributions from Other R evenue Sources, and the Contribution Replenishment (if any). Only t hose costs re lated to the i mprovements identified as conferring special benefits to property within the District are levied and collected on the tax roll.

The following page shows the cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

546

FY 2022-23
Cost Estimate
Projected
FY 2023-24
Cost Estimate

DISTRICT REVENUES
Estimated Assessment Revenues 315,395$ 315,395$
Contributions from Other Revenue Sources 5,000$ 5,500$ Total District Revenues1 320,395$ 320,895$

DISTRICT COSTS
Operating Supplies 10,000$ 10,000$
Contract with Alameda County 88,786$ 93,225$
California Street Light Association 1,000$ 1,000$ Utilities - Electricity 192,383$ 198,155$
Im
provements (Not Building) -$ -$
Miscellaneous -$ -$
Legal Notices 575$ 592$
District Administration 6,655$ 6,855$
Public Works Administration -$ -$
County Collection Fee 6,000$ 6,180$
Total District Costs 305,399$ 316,007$

MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AND COLLECTIONS/(CREDITS) APPLIED TO LEVY Reserve Collection/(Transfer) -$ 5,304$ Capital Improvement Fund Collection/(Transfer) 14,996$ (416)$ Total Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy 14,996$ 4,888$ Balance to Levy 315,395$ 315,395$
Variance Between Estimated Assessment Revenues and Balance to Levy -$ -$ Total As s es s ment Revenue at Maximum Rate 315,395$ 315,395$ Variance above/(below) Maximum Assessment Revenue -$ -$

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 152,700$ 152,700$ Reserve Fund Adjustments -$ 5,304$
Transfer From/(To) Capital Improvement Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$
Interest -$ -$
Ending Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 152,700$ 158,003$ Beginning CIF Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 449,776$ 464,772$ CIF Adjustment 14,996$ (416)$
Transfer From/(To) Reserve Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$
Interest -$ -$
Ending CIF Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 464,772$ 464,356$ 1Total District Revenues includes the estimated assessment revenues for each fiscal year and contributions from other revenue sources such as interest earnings, etc.

Table 2: City of Dublin
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983-1
547

Capital Improvement Projects

In addition to collecting funds annually for maintenance, funds are also allowed to be collected for capital improvement projects. Capital improvement projects generally include the repair and replacement of public improvements authorized to be maintained by the District. These funds are collected and often accumulated in a separate fund and are not considered to be a part of the regular maintenance of the improvements.

Following is a list of capital improvement projects the City plans to address utilizing District funds in the upcoming fiscal years and thereafter as funds allow.

Citywide Streetlight Replacement: As needed replacement of streetlights that are at the end of their service life or that have been damaged due to automobile accidents.

548
PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are shown herein. The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.

549
City of Dublin
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983-1
Assessment Diagram
Prepared by Francisco & Associates, Inc.

N:\Dublin\FY18-19\Diagrams\LLAD1983-1_Assessment Diagram (SA 04/20/2018) ¯3,250 0 3,250 6,5001,625
Feet
Legend!
!
!
! LLAD 1983-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within LLAD 1983-1
Dublin Blvd
San Ramon Rd
TassajaraRd
550
PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

General

The 1972 Act permits the establishment of a ssessment districts by a gencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which incl ude the construction, maintenance and s ervicing of public li ghts, landscaping, and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act f urther re quires that t he cost of these im provements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

“The n et am ount to be assessed upon la nds within an assessment district m ay b e apporti oned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assess able l ots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”

The formula used for calculating assess ments in the D istrict t herefore reflects the composition of the parcels, and the im provements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on estimated benefit to each parcel. In addition, pursuant to Article XIIID Section 4:

“No assessm ent shall
be imposed on any p arcel which exceeds the
reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. O nly speci al benefits are assessab le, and an ag ency sh all separate the general b enefits from the sp ecial benefits conferred on a parcel.”

Benefit Analysis

Each of the i mprovements have been c arefully reviewed by the City a nd the corresponding assessments have been proportionately spread to each parcel based on special benefits re ceived from t he improvement s as determined at the time the District was established.

General Benefits — In reviewing each of the District improvements, the proximity of those improvements to both properties within the District and those outside the District, as well as the r easons for installing and constructing such improvements, it is e vident that the improvements are s olely the result o f developing properties w ithin t he District and the ongoing maintenance and o peration of these improvement s will directly a ffect t he properties wit hin the Dis trict. Although the improvements include public areas, easements, rights-of-way, and other amenities available or visible to the public at large, the construc tion a nd installation of these im provements were o nly n ecessary for the development o f properties w ithin the District a nd were not r equired, nor necessarily desired by any properties or developments outside the District boundary and any public 551
access or use of the improvements by others is incidental. Therefore, it has been determined that the i mprovements and the ongoing maintenance, servicing and operation of those im provements provide no m easurable g eneral benefit to properties outside the District or to the public at large, but clearly provide distinct and special benefits to properties within the District.

Special Benefits — The me thod of ap portionment (m ethod of assessment) outlined herein is based o n the premise that each assessed parcel w ithin the District receives special be nefits from the im provements and the d esirability and se curity of those properties as enhanced by the presence of public lighting near those properties.

The special benefits conferred on property from street lighting and other public lighting facilities includes the convenience, safety, and security of property, improvements, and goods. Specifically:

1) Enhanced deterrence of crime and the aid to police protection.

2) Increased nighttime safety on roads, streets, and public areas.

3) Improved ability of pedestrians and motorists to see.

4) Improved ingress and egress to property.

5) Reduced vandalism and other criminal acts a nd damage to i mprovements or property.

6) Improved traffic circulation and reduced nighttime accid ents and personal property loss.

The preceding special benefits contribute to the aesthetic value and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District and thereby provide a special enhancement of the properties. Furthermore, it has been determined that the lack of fu nding to properly service a nd maintain the D istrict im provements w ould have a negative im pact on the properties within the District.

All the preceding special benefits contribute to a s pecific enhancement and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District.

Non-Assessable Properties — Within the boundaries of the District, there are several types of properties that a re cons idered to r eceive no specia l benefit from t he Dis trict improvements and are therefore not assessed. These parcels include:

1) Publicly owned parcels that are reserved as public open space or are developed as City parks for active recreation and are maintained and serviced by the District; 2) Publicly owned wetland parcels;
3) Certain public utility parcels;
552
4) Privately owned open space parcels; and
5) Privately owned "sliver" parcels that have resulted from a lot line adjustment with an a djacent larger pa rcel. The a djacent la rger parce ls, of w hich these "s liver" parcels are a part, are assessed at the residential rate

Assessment Methodology

The spe cial b enefits re ceived by each parcel w ithin the District a nd each parcel’s proportional annual assessment a re calculated based on a formula that utilizes Equivalent Dwelling Units. The Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) method of apportionment establishes a proportional b enefit relationship between the various p arcels w ithin the District a nd the i mprovements m aintained by the District. T he typi cal single family residential parcel is a ssigned 1.00 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) since it represented more than 73% of the total parcels within the District.

EDU’s are assigned to the other land uses based upon the pr operty’s development status, type of developm ent (County of A lameda land use code) and property s ize as shown in the table below. Parcels determined to be vacant will be assessed at a reduced rate of 50%, by multiplying the parcel’s assigned EDU factor by 0.5 (or 50%).

Single-Family Residential (SFR) — (County land use 1x) this la nd use i dentifies properties that are developed for single family residential use and are assigned a factor of 1.00 EDU per parcel. This is the base value that all other land use types are compared and weighted against (i.e., Equivalent Dwelling Unit “EDU”). This land use classification may i nclude, but is not limited to, l ots or parcels identified as s ingle family residential homes, planned development (tract or townhouse t ype), and modular/manufactured single family residential units.

Condominium Unit — (County land use 73) this land use identifies properties that are subdivided residential parcels that have more than one residential unit developed on the property. This land use is assigned 1.00 EDU per unit.

Property Type Asse ssme nt Ra te
Single Family Residential (SFR) $19.34 per Parcel
Condominium $19.34 per Parcel
Duplex, Multi‐Family Residential $38.68 per Parcel
Triplex, Multi‐Family Residential $58.02 per Parcel
Fourplex, Multi‐Family Residential $77.36 per Parcel
Apartments, Multi‐Family Residential $116.04 per Parcel Commercial/Industrial/Institutional $106.37 per Acre
Vacant Commercial/Industrial/Institutional $53.18 per Acre Rural $9.67 per Parcel
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space $0 per Parcel
TABLE 1: ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983-1
553
Duplex, Multi-Family Resident ial — (County la nd use 22) this la nd use identifies properties that are developed for multi-family residential use and are assigned a factor of

2.00 EDU per parcel. This land use classification includes double or duplex units.

Triplex, Multi-Family Resid ential — (County land use 23) this la nd use i dentifies properties that are developed for multi-family residential use and are assigned a factor of

3.00 EDU per parcel. This land use classification includes triplex u nits; or double or duplex units together with a single-family home.

Fourplex, M ulti-Family Residential — (County la nd use 24) this land use identifies properties that are developed for multi-family residential use and are assigned a factor of

4.00 EDU per parcel. This land use classification incl udes four living units; a fourplex, a triplex and a single-family home, two doubles or duplexes, or a combination thereof.

Apartment Complex, Multi-Family Residential — (County land use 7x, except 73) This land use identifies properties that are developed for multi-family residential use of five (5) or more units and are assigned a f actor of 6.00 EDU p er parcel. This l and use classification may include, b ut is not limited to, lots or parcels identified as vacant apartment land capable of supporting 5 or more units, residential property converted to 5 or more units, cooperatives, restricted i ncome properties, f raternities, sororities, chur ch homes, multiple residential (5 or more units), and residential high-rise (7 or more units).

Commercial — (County land use 3x, 8x, 9x) this land use identifies properties that are considered improved for commercial use and are assigned a factor of 5.50 EDU per gross acre. This land use classification may include, but is not limited to, lots or parcels identified as car w ashes, commercial garages, a utomotive dealerships, parking lots, parking garages, service stations, funeral homes, nursing or boarding homes, hospitals, hotels/motels, banks, medical-dental, single and multi-story office buildings, commercial land, department stores, discount stores, restaurants, shopping centers, or supermarkets.

Industrial — (County land use 4x) this land use identifies properties that are developed for industrial use and are assigned a f actor of 5.50 EDU per gross acre. This land use classification may i nclude, but is no t limit ed to lots, or parcels identified as vacant industrial land, wa rehouses, light a nd heavy in dustrial, nurseries, sand and gravel quarries, salt ponds, trucking a nd d istribution ter minals, wrecking yards, a nd miscellaneous industrial.

Institutional — (County land use 6x, except 65) this land use identifies properties that are developed for institutional use and are assigned a factor of 5.50 EDU per gross acre.

This land use classification may include, but is not li mited to, lots or parcels identified as vacant land that is a necessary part of an institutional property, improved government- owned property, low income housing (secured P.I.’s only), golf courses, private schools, churches, lodge-halls, clubhouses, and other institutional properties.

Rural Property — (County land use 5x) this land use identifies pr operties that a re defined as rural lands and are assigned a factor of 0 .50 EDU per parcel. This land use classification may include, but is not limited to, lots or parcels identified as rural residential 554
home sites, one or more mobile homes on rural home sites, rural property with significant commercial or ind ustrial use, p roperty used for a griculture (more than 10 acres), rural land in transition to higher land use classification, and rural land under non- renewal of the Williamson Act.

Exempt Property, Cemeteries & Common Open Space — (County land use 0, 03-05, 65) this land use identifies properties that are exempt from assessment and are assigned

0.00 EDU. This land use classification may include, but is not l imited to, lots or parcels identified as exempt public agencies; property leased or owned by pu blic u tilities, cemeteries, and planned development common areas.
555

PART E

ASSESSMENT ROLL

The proposed assessment and the amount of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the la test roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file under separate cover with the City Clerk. Furthermore, the description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Alameda and those records are, by reference, made part of this r eport. The a ssessments sh own w ill be s ubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller and i ncluded on the property tax roll for each parcel shown in t he assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Parcel identification, the l ines a nd d imensions of each lot, pa rcel, a nd subdivision of land within th e District, are inclusive of t he parcels as shown on t he Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Maps as they existed at the time of the passage of t he Resolution of Intention, and shall i nclude subseq uent subdivisions, lot line adjustments or parcel changes therein. Reference is hereby made to the Alameda County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and di mensions of each lot a nd parcel of land within the District.

556
Landscape & Lighting
District No. 1983-2
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Final Engineer’s Report
June 21, 2022
Attachment 4
557

Table of Contents

Page No.

Certificate ......................................................................................... ii Section I - Introduction ..................................................................... 1 Section II – Engineer’s Report ......................................................... 3 Part A – Plans and Specifications ......................................... 5 Part B – Estimate of Cost ...................................................... 7 Part C – Assessment District Diagram ................................ 11 Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ............ 13 Part E - Assessment Roll .................................................... 18

558

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF DUBLIN
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1983-2
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the Dublin City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 22500 et al of the California Streets and Highways Code. The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: May 18, 2022
By:

Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

RCE # 83709

559

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The City of Dublin (“City”) levies and collects special assessments on parcels within the City of Dublin Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 1983- 2 (“District”) to maintain the landscaping and irrigation improvements within the District.

The assessments and methods of apportionment described in this Report utilize commonly accepted assessment engineering practices and have been calculated and proportionately spread to each parcel based on the special benefits received as approved by the City Council at the time the District was formed.

General Description of the District

The District was initially formed in 1983 to provide a dedicated source of funding for the ongoing maintenance of street landscaping within Tract 4719. The District originally included the maintenance of Stagecoach Park and the landscaping along Stagecoach Road north of the City Limit; however, those improvements are no longer funded by the District. Currently, the District includes only the roadway landscaping along Stagecoach Road and on the "interior slopes" (Coral Way and Agate Way) within the Dublin Hills Estates development.

The maintenance cost of Stagecoach Park, as well as the undeveloped Dougherty Hills Park, is paid by the City through the Park Maintenance Operating Budget and is not a part of this Assessment District.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided in Part C of this Report.

Compliance with the California Constitution

Assessments are levied annually within the District pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”).

All assessments described in this Report and approved by the City Council are prepared in accordance with the 1972 Act and are in compliance with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID (“Article XIIID”), which was enacted with the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996.

560
Pursuant to Article XIIID Section 5, certain existing assessments were exempt from the substantive and procedural requirements of Article XIIID Section 4. Specifically, Article XIIID Section 5(a) exempted:

“Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.”

The City determined that the annual assessments originally established for the District were for the maintenance and operation of landscaping within the public street rights -of-way or public easements.

However, in 2003/2004, the City conducted a public hearing that included a mailed ballot to all the property owners in this District proposing an increased assessment to maintain and replace certain landscaping improvements. In accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the property owners approved a 10% increase in assessment rates and the addition of an escalation clause for succeeding years that allows the maintenance cost to increase according to the Consumer Price Index and the utility cost to increase according to the actual cost of utilities.

Any future increase in the assessment rate more than the maximum allowable rate or substantial changes in the services provided would require the approval of the property owners subject to the assessment based upon a mailed ballot which would be sent to each property owner pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID.

Summary of District

A summary of the assessments to be levied in Fiscal Year 2022-23 for each property type is shown in the table below.

Property Type Asse ssme nt Ra te
Single Family Residential (SFR) $448.60 per Parcel
Multi F
amily Residential (MFR) $75.87 per Parcel/Unit
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space $0.00 per Parcel
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1983-2
561

SECTION II

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF DUBLIN

LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1983-2
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin on May 17, 2022, I , Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Dublin Landscape and Lighting District No. 1983-2 (the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II, which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for F iscal Year 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith.

The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

562
The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains an assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements apportioned to each benefited parcel of land within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Dublin and is incorporated in this Report. The list is keyed to the records of the Alameda County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

563
PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The District provides for the continued maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and irrigation improvements within the public right -of-way and public easement along Stagecoach Road between the limits of Amador Valley Boulevard and the northerly City Limit. In ad dition, the District also provides for the maintenance of the slopes, including landscaping and irrigation, within the public right-of-way for the slope areas along the rear of Lots 80 through 86, and 37 through 48 within Tract 4719.

As generally defined in the 1972 Act, maintenance and servicing of the improvements may include one or any combination of the following:

1) The installation or planting of landscaping. The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities. 2) The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servic ing thereof; inclu ding but not limited to, gra ding, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, w alls, sidewalks, or paving, or wa ter, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
3) The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing including the furnishing of ser vices and ma terials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including, but not limited to:
a. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvements; b. Grading, c learing, removal of debris, the installation, repair or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, or w ater, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities
c. Providing for the life, growth, health, a nd beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury;
d. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; e. The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and o ther improvements to remove or cover graffiti;
f. Electric curre nt or energy, gas, or other agent for the lighting or o peration of any other improvements;
g. Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of a ny fountains, or t he maintenance of any other improvements.
4) Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
a. The cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifica tions, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
b. The costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting, and mailing of notices;
c. Compensatio n payable to the County for collection of assessments; 564
d. Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; e. Any other e xpenses i ncidental to the constructio n, installation, or maintenance a nd servicing of the improvements; and,
f. Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

Pursuant to the 1972 Act:

"Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement.

"Service" or "servicing" means the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.

Drawings showing the specific locations of the improvements are on file in the City’s Public Works Department and are made a part of this report by reference.

565
PART B

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

All landscape and other eligible improvements within the District are maintained and serviced on a regular basis. The proposed cost estimate for the District is shown on a following page herein. This includes an estimate of the costs of utilities, operations, services, administration, and maintenance associated with the improvements, including all labor, personnel, equipment, materials, and administrative expenses. The summary also shows the estimated fund balance, and the projected contribution/ (transfer) based upon the estimated expenditures and assessment revenue. Projected cost estimates are also shown for the next two (2) fiscal years.

The following describes the general services and costs shown in the cost estimate.

District Costs

Maintenance Landscape – The cost of maintenance and repair of the landscaping and open space areas within the District.

Utilities Water – The cost of furnishing water for maintenance of landscape and irrigation systems within the District.

Utilities Electricity – The cost of electricity for maintenance of landscape, powering of irrigation systems, and entry lighting within the District.

Miscellaneous Expenses – Costs that cannot easily be categorized into any of the other District Costs defined above.

Legal Notices – The cost of legal notices includes costs associated with preparation and publishing of any, and all required legal notices associated with the District.

District Administration – The costs of contracting with professionals to provide services specific to the annual levy administration, including preparation of the Engineer’s Report, resolutions, and levy submittal to the County. These fees can also include any additional administrative, legal, or engineering services specific to the District such as the cost to prepare and mail notices of the public meeting and hearing.

Public Works Administration – The cost of public works administration includes costs derived by the City’s Public Works Department or other department in relation to the administration and management of the District.

566
County Collection Fee – The cost to the District for the County to collect assessments on the annual secured property tax bills. Alameda County charges 1.7% of the total levy amount.

Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy Reserve Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 Section 22569 (a), provides f or a District Reserve Fund for operations. Negative amounts shown for th is cost estimate item represe nt transfers from t he Reserve F und that reduces the Balance to Levy. Mai ntaining a fully fun ded Operating Reserve eliminates the need for the City to transfer funds from non -District accounts to pay for operational expenses during the first half of the fiscal year and provides the District with sufficient funds to address any unforeseen or unusual expenditures that may occur during the year.

Capital Impr ovement Fund Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 5, beginning with Section 22660, provides for the Distri ct to esta blish by reso lution an assessment installment plan fo r proposed im provements and expe nditures that a re greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment. D epending on the nature of the planned i mprovements, the collection of funds necessary to complete the project may be collected over a period up to thirty years, but typically not more than five years. The funds co llected sha ll be accum ulated in a s eparate i mprovement fund commonly referred to as a Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) and are not considered part of the regular maintenance of the improvements or the Reserve Fund.

Because th
e money accu mulated in t he C apital I mprovement Fu nd is for a specific planned project (budgeted separately), the amount shown for this item in the annual cost estimate will typically be a positive number representing the amount being collected that year as part of the Balance to Levy. A negative number (Transfer) should only occur after the project has been completed and excess funds are being credited back to the District’s regular accounts. The actual fu nd b alances and expenditures for C apital Improvem ents are clearly identified under the Fund Balance Information section of the cost estimate.

Balance to L evy – This is the total amount to be co llected f or the current fiscal year through the annual assessments (for special benefits). T he B alance to Levy represents the sum of Total District ( Direct and Administration) Costs, Reserve Fu nd Co ntributions or Transfers, Contributions from Other R evenue Sources, and the Contribution Replenishment (if any) . Only t hose costs re lated to the i mprovements identified as conferring special benefits to property within the District are levied and collected on the tax roll.

The follow
ing page shows the cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

567

FY 2022-23
Cost Estimate
Projected
FY 2023-24
Cost Estimate

DISTRICT REVENUES
Estimated Assessment Revenues 109,241$ 111,425$
Contributions from Other Revenue Sources 3,000$ 3,300$ Total District Revenues1 112,241$ 114,725$

DISTRICT COSTS
Maintenance - Landscape (MCE) 42,772$ 43,803$
Utilities - Water 28,308$ 29,723$
Utilities - Electricity 1,638$ 1,720$
Miscellaneous Expenses -$ -$
Legal Notices 575$ 592$
District Administration 3,410$ 3,512$
Public Works Administration -$ -$
County Collection Fee 1,763$ 1,816$
Total District Costs 78,466$ 81,166$

MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AND COLLECTIONS/(CREDITS) APPLIED TO LEVY Reserve Collection/(Transfer) -$ 1,350$ Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) Collection/(Transfer) 33,775$ 32,209$ Total Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy 33,775$ 33,559$ Balance to Levy 109,241$ 111,425$
Variance Between Estimated Assessment Revenues and Balance to Levy -$ -$ Total As s es s ment Revenue at Maximum Rate2 118,778$ 121,154$ Variance above/(below) Maximum Assessment Revenue (9,538)$ (9,729)$

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 39,233$ 39,233$ Reserve Fund Adjustments -$ 1,350$
Transfer From/(To) Capital Improvement Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$
Interest -$ -$
Ending Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 39,233$ 40,583$ Beginning CIF Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 298,726$ 332,501$ CIF Adjustment 33,775$ 32,209$
Transfer From/(To) Reserve Fund -$ -$
Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$
Interest -$ -$
Ending CIF Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 332,501$ 364,709$ 1Total District Revenues includes the estimated assessment revenues for each fiscal year and contributions from other revenue sources such as interest earnings, etc.
2The Maximum Assessment Revenue for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 was estimated to be equal to the FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Revenues and escalated by 2%.

Table 2: City of Dublin
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1983-2
568
Capital Improvement Projects

In addition to collecting funds annually for maintenance, funds are also allowed to be collected for capital improvement projects. Capital improvement projects generally include the repair and replacement of public improvements authorized to be maintained by the District. These funds are collected and often accumulated in a separate fund and are not considered to be a part of the regular maintenance of the improvements.

Following is a list of capital improvement projects the City plans to address utili zing District funds in the upcoming fiscal years and thereafter as funds allow.

General Improvements: The City has identified the need for minor retaining wall repairs, additional irrigation and planting, as well as repairs to V -ditches, which fall outside the scope of the regular maintenance budget for the District. Repairs will be addressed based upon need and available fund balance in the upcoming two- year cycle.

569
PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are shown herein. The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.

570
City of Dublin
Landscape and Lighting District No. 1983-2
Assessment Diagram
Prepared by Francisco & Associates, Inc.

Stagecoach Rd
Quartz Cir
Turquoise St
Coral WyTopaz Cir
Jade Cir
Amador Valley Blvd
Village Pkwy
Iron Horse Regional Trail
Legend
LLAD 1983-2 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within LLAD 1983-2
0 700 1,400350
Feet
N:\Dublin\FY18-19\Diagrams\LLAD1983-2_Assessment Diagram (SA 01/24/2018) 571
PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

General

The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by a gencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which incl ude the cons truction, maintenance and servicing of public li ghts, landscaping, and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

“The net am ount to be assessed upon lands wi thin an assessm ent district may b e apporti oned by a ny formula or method which fairly distributes the net a mount among all assessable lots or p arcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be rece ived by each such l ot or parcel from the improvements.”

The formula used for calculating assess ments in the D istrict t herefore reflects the composition of the parcels, and the im provements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on estimated benefit to each parcel. In addition, pursuant to Article XIIID Section 4:

“No assessm en
t sh all be i mposed on a ny parcel which exceeds t he
reasonable cost o f the proportional special b enefit conf erred on that parcel. O nly special benefits are assessable, and an a gency shall separate the gen eral benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”

Benefit Analysis

Each of the i mprovements have been carefully reviewed by the City a nd the corresponding assessments have been proportionately spread to each parcel based on special benefits re ceived from t he improvement s as determined at the time the District was established.

General Benefits — In reviewing each of the District improvements, the proximity of those improvements to both properties within the District and those outside the District, as well as the r easons for installing and constructing such improvements, it is evi dent that the improvements are solely the result o f developing properties w ithin t he District and the ongoing maintenance and o peration of these improvement s will directly a ffect t he properties wit hin the Distr ict. Although the improvements include public a reas, easements, rights-of-way, and other amenities available or visible to the public at large, the construction a nd installation of these im provements were o nly n ecessary for the development o f properties w ithin the District a nd were not r equired, nor necessarily desired by any properties or developments outside the District boundary and any public 572
access or use of the improvements by others is incidental. Therefore, it has been determined that the i mprovements and the ongoing maintenance, servicing and operation of those im provements provide no m easurable g eneral benefit to properties outside the District or to the public at large, but clearly provide distinct and special benefits to properties within the District.

Special Benefits — The method of apportionment (method of assessment) established herein is based on the premise that each assessed parcel within the District receives special benefits from the improvements and the desirability of those properties enhanced by the presence of well-maintained landscaping near those properties.

The special benefits associated with landscape improvements are specifically:

1) Enhanced desirability of properties through association with the improvements.

2) Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive r epresentation of the area and properties.

3) Enhanced adaptation of t he urban environment within the na tural environment from adequate green space and landscaping.

4) Environmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire prevention.

5) Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the District resulting from well-maintained improvements associated with the properties.

6) Enhanced q ua
lity of life th rough well-maintained green space and landscaped areas.

7) Reduced cr iminal a ctivity a nd property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties in the District th rough well-maintained sur roundings and amenities including abatement of graffiti.

8) Enhanced environmental quality o f th e parcel s by moder ating t emperatures, providing oxygenation, and attenuating noise.

The preceding special benefits contribute to the aesthetic value and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District and thereby provide a special enhancement of the properties. Furthermore, it has been determined that the lack of funding to properly service and maintain the District improvements w ould have a negative impact on the pr operties within the District.

573
Non-Assessable Properties — Wi thin the boundaries of the District, th ere are se veral types of properties th at a re cons idered to r eceive no specia l benefit from t he Distr ict improvements and are therefore not assessed. These parcels include:

1) Publicly owned parcels that are reserved as public open space or are developed as City Parks for active recreation and are maintained and serviced by the District; 2) Publicly owned wetland parcels;
3) Certain public utility parcels;
4) Privately owned open space parcels; and
5) Privately owned "sliver" parcels that have resulted from a lot line adjustment with an a djacent l arger pa rcel. The a djacent l arger parcel, of w hich these "sliver" parcels are a part, are assessed at the residential rate.

Assessment Methodology
The special benefits received by each parcel within the District and each parcel’s proportional annual assessment are calculated as follows:
• Sixty-one and six tenths’ percent (61.6%) spread equally to the 150 single family homes of Dublin Estates; and
• Thirty-eight and four tenths’ percent (38.4%) spread equally among the 553 apartments/condominiums of Amador Lakes Complex.

Maximum Assessment Rate

It is recognized that the cost of maintaining the District improvements increases slightly every year because of inflation. In Fiscal Year 2003- 04, the property owners approved a formula for increasing assessments for each future fiscal year to offset increases in costs due to inflation.

The maximum assessment amount for each property type shall be increased each fiscal year in an amount equal to the annual percentage increase of the local San Francisco Oakland San Jose Area Consumer Price Index (“Index”) for “All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” which is applied to all costs except utilities (water and electricity), plus the actual percentage increase in utility costs (collectively, “Annual Escalation Factor”).

In order to implement the District’s Annual Escalation Factor annually, two rates were developed based on the cost estimate that was prepared at the time the property owners approved the annual escalator. The first rate (the “CPI Rate”) was created to encompass the annual District cost increases except for utilities. The second rate (the “Utili ty Rate”) was created to encompass the annual utility cost increases.

The Index is to be applied annually to the prior year’s maximum CPI Rate for each property type to pay for all costs except utilities. The maximum Utility Rate was established to pay for all utility costs for each property type and is to be increased annually 574
by the percentage change in the budgeted amount for utilities as shown in the District’s annual fiscal year Engineer’s Reports. The increase in utility costs shall be calculated by taking the upcoming fiscal year’s budgeted amount for utilities and subtracting the District’s previous highest yearly budgeted amount for utilities. This difference is used to calculate the annual increase in the Utility Rate for each property type. The combination of the maximum CPI Rate and maximum Utility Rate (collectively, “Maximum Assessment Rate”) shall equal the Maximum Assessment Rate for the upcoming fiscal year. Please see Table 3 for details regarding the Maximum Assessment Rate for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The timing of the annual percentage increase of the Index was changed beginning in 2018 and for each year thereafter for administrative purposes, to ensure the City is allowed the time necessary to have all annual documents prepared and approved by the City Council by June of each year, and to meet both County submittal and statutory requirements. Each fiscal year, the City shall identify the annual percentage difference in the Index between the most recent calendar year and that of the prior calendar year; more specifically, the annual percentage change used to escalate the prior year’s assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 was determined based on the difference using the annual amount for calendar years 2021 and 2020. Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such Index or discontinue the preparation of such Index, the City shall use the revised index or comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living. The following table shows the Maximum Assessment Rates allowable for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

575

If the City Council determines that an inflation adjustment is not required for a given fiscal year, the City Council may authorize the ensuing fiscal year’s assessment without applying the adjustment formula to the amount levied. If the cost estimate and assessments for the District require an increase greater than the adjustment set forth in the formula, then the proposed increase would be subject to approval by the District property owners. Each fiscal year, the maximum assessment rate shall increase at the maximum amount allowable regardless of whether the increase is levied to the parcels within the District.

CPI for 2020 Calendar Year1 292.601
CPI for 2021 Calendar Year1 304.602
% Change in CPI - Increase 4.10%
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per SFR - CPI Rate $322.53
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per MFR - CPI Rate $54.54
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per SFR - CPI Rate $335.76
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per MFR - CPI Rate $56.77
Prior Year Maximum Utility Budget 2 $37,020
Utility Budget for FY 2022/23 $29,946
% Change in Utilities Rate - Increase3 0.000%
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per SFR - Utility Rate $152.03
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per MFR - Utility Rate $25.71
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per SFR - Utility Rate $152.03
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per MFR - Utility Rate $25.71
FY 2021/22 Maximum Assessment Rate per SFR $474.56
FY 2021/22 Maximum Assessment Rate per MFR $80.24
FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Rate per SFR 4 $487.79
FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Rate per MFR 4 $82.48
1 CPI is based off of the All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. 2 The FY 2020/21 Budget Amount for Utilities was the previous highest amount budgeted for utility costs.
3 Equals the % difference between the FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23 Maximum Utility Rate. If the Utility Budget does not increase, no increase will be realized.
4 Equals the FY 2021/22 Maximum CPI Rate + Maximum Utility Rate.

TABLE 3: MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1983-2
576
PART E

ASSESSMENT ROLL

The proposed assessment and the amount of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file under separate cover with the City Clerk. Furthermore, the description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Alameda and those records are, by reference, made part of this report. The assessments shown will be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller and included on the property tax roll for each parcel shown in the assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Parcel identification, the lines and dimensions of eac h lot, parcel, and subdivision of land within the District, are inclusive of the parcels as shown on the Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Maps as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention, and shall include subsequent subdivisions, lot line adjustments or parcel changes therein. Reference is hereby made to the Alameda County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the District.

577
Landscape & Lighting
District No. 1986-1
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Final Engineer’s Report
June 21, 2022
Attachment 5
578

Table of Contents

Page No.

Certificate ......................................................................................... ii Section I - Introduction ..................................................................... 1 Section II – Engineer’s Report ......................................................... 3 Part A – Plans and Specifications ......................................... 5 Part B – Estimate of Costs .................................................... 6 Part C – Assessment District Diagram ................................ 10 Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ............ 12 Part E - Assessment Roll .................................................... 17

579

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF DUBLIN
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1986-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the Dublin City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 22500 et al of the California Streets and Highways Code. The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: May 18,
2022 By:

Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

RCE # 83709

580

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The Ci ty of Dublin (“City”) levies a nd collects spe cial assessm ents on parcels within Landscape and Lighting D istrict No. 1986-1 (“District”) to maintain the improvements within the Villages in the Willow Creek area.

The assessments a nd me thod of app ortionment d escribed in this Report utilize commonly acce pted assessment engineering practices and have been calculated and proportionately spread to each parcel based on the special benefits received as approved by the City Council at the time the District was formed.

General Description of the District

The District was initially formed in 1986 to provide a dedicated source of funding for the ongoing maintenance of landscaping, including fencing and sound walls , along the west side of Dougherty Road from Amador Valley Boulevard to the northerly City Limit, along Amador Valley Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Wildwood Road, along Wildwood Road and Fall Creek Road, and certain landscaped areas within the Ridgecreek single- family home development. Landscaping within the condominium and apartment developments is the responsibility of the homeowners' association(s) or property owner (s) for those individual developments.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided in Part C of this Report.

Compliance with the Cali fornia Constitution

Assessments are levied annually within the District pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”). All assessments described in this Report and approved by the City Council are prepared in accordance with the 1972 Act and are in compliance with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID (“Article XIIID”), which was enacted with the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996.

In Fiscal Year 2001- 02, the assessments in the District were increased by 54% with the approval of property owners in compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218. The increase in the assessment rate was required as the reserve funds had become depleted and could no longer be used to offset utility and maintenance cost increases. The property owners also approved an escalation clause for future years that allows the assessment to increase according to the annual percentage change of the Consumer Price Index and the utility cost to increase according to the actual cost of utilities.

581
Any future increase in the assessment rate in excess of the maximum allowable rate or substantial changes in the services provided would require the approval of the property owners subject to the assessment based upon a mailed ballot which would be sent to each property owner.

Summary of Di strict

A summary of the assessments to be levied in Fiscal Year 2022-23 for each property type is shown in the table below.

Property Type EDU Factor
Single Family Residential (SFR) 1.00 per Parcel $298.03 per Parcel Multi Family Residential (MFR) 0.50 per Unit $149.02 per Unit Commercial 4.00 per Parcel $1,192.10 per Parcel
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space 0.00 per Parcel $0.00 per Parcel Asse ssme nt Ra te
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1986-1
582

SECTION II

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500
THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF DUBLIN

LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1986-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the City Council of the Cit y of Dublin on May 17, 2022, I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Dublin Landscape and Lighting District No. 1986- 1 (the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II, which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District . Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for F iscal Y ear 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

583
The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains an assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements apportioned to each benefited parcel of land within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Dublin and is incorporated in this Report.

The list is keyed to the records of the Alameda County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

584
PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The District provides for the continued maintenance and servicing of landscaping, including fencing and sound- walls within the public rights -of-way and within public easements within private streets , which provide special benefit to parcels and properties within the District. The specific improvements maintained by the District include:

a. The median and roadside landscaping along the north side of Willow Creek Drive.

b. Roadside landscaping along Shady Creek Drive within Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 37, 38, and south of Lot 145, all within Tract 5511.

c. Roadside landscaping, wall, fence, and pathway improvements along the west side of Dougherty Road, between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northerly City limit, and a long the n orth side of Amador Valley Boulevard, between Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road.

d. Roadside landscaping, fence, and pathway improvements on the west side of Wildwood Road.

e. Roadside landscaping, fence, wall, and pathway improvements on the west side of Dougherty Road and the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard, adjacent to Lot 150.

f. Roadside landscaping, fence, and pathway improvements on t he west and nor th sides of Fall Creek Road.

g. Roadside landscaping and emergency access surfacing at the n orth end of Crossridge Road within the street right-of-way.

Pur
suant to the 1972 Act:

"Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement.

"Service" or "servicing" means the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas, or other illumin ating a gent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.

Drawings showing the specific locat ions o f the i mprovements a re on file in t he City’s Public Works Department and are made a part of this report by reference. 585
PART B

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

All landscaping a nd o ther eligible impro vements wi thin the D istrict a re maintained a nd serviced on a regular basis. T he proposed cost estimate for the District is shown on a following page herein . This inclu des an estimate of the costs of utilities, operations, services, administration, and maintenance associated with the improvements, including all labor, personnel, equipment, materials, and administrative expenses. The summary also shows the estimated fund bal ance, a nd the projected contribution/(transfer) based upo n the estimated expenditures and assessment revenue. Projected cost estimates are also shown for the next two (2) fiscal years.

The following describes the general services and costs shown in the cost estimate.

District Costs

Maintenance Landscape – The cost of maintenance and repair of the landscaping and open space areas within the District.

Utilities Water – The cost of furnishing water for maintenance of landscape and irrigation systems within the District.

Utilities Electricity – T he cos t of electricity for ma intenance of la ndscape a nd powering of i rrigation systems within the District.

Miscellaneous Expenses – Costs that cannot easily be categorized i nto a ny of the other District Costs defined above.

Legal Notices – The cost of legal notices includes costs associated with preparation and publishing of any, and all required legal notices associated with the District.

District Administration – The costs of contracting with professionals to provide services specific to the annual levy administration, including preparation of the Engineer’s Report, resolutions, and levy submittal to t he C ounty. T hese fe es can also inclu de a ny additional administrative, legal, or engineering services specific to the District such as the cost to prepare and mail notices of the public meeting and hearing.

Publi
c Works Administration – The cost of public works administration includes costs derived by the City’s Public Works Department or other department in relation to the administration and management of the District.

County Collection Fee – The cost to the District for the County to collect assessments on the annual secured property ta x bills. A lameda County cha rges 1. 7% of the total levy amount.

586
Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy

Reserve Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 S ection 22569 (a), provides for a District Reserve Fund for o perations. Negative amounts shown for this cost estimate item represent transfers from t he Reserve Fu nd that r educes t he Balance to Levy. Maintaining a f ully fun ded Operating Reserve eliminates the need for the City to transfer funds from non‐District accounts to pay for operational e xpenses during the first half of the Fiscal Year a nd provides t he Distr ict with sufficie nt funds to address any unforeseen or unusual expenditures that may occur during the year.

Capital Impr ovement Fund Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 5, beginning with Section 22660, provides for the Distri ct to esta blish by reso lution an assessment installment plan fo r proposed im provements and expe nditures that a re greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment. D epending on the nature of the planned i mprovements, the collection of funds necessary to complete the project may be collected over a period up to thirty years, but typically not more than five years. The funds co llected sha ll be accum ulated in a s eparate i mprovement fund commonly referred to as a Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) and are not considered part of the regular maintenance of the improvements or the Reserve Fund.

Becaus
e the money accu mulated in t he C apital I mprovement Fu nd is for a specific planned project (budgeted separately), the amount shown for this item in the annual cost estimate will typically be a positive number representing the amount being collected that year as part of the Balance to Levy. A negative number (Transfer) should only occur after the project has been completed and excess funds are being credited back to the District’s regular accounts. The actual fu nd b alances and expenditures for C apital Improvem ents are clearly identified under the Fund Balance Information section of the Cost Estimate.

Balance to L evy – This is the total amount to be co llected f or the current fiscal year through the annual assessments (for special benefits). T he B alance to Levy represents the sum of Total District ( Direct and Administration) Costs, Reserve Fu nd Co ntributions or Transfers, Contributions from Other R evenue Sources, and the Contribution Replenishment (if any) . Only t hose costs re lated to the i mprovements identified as conferring special benefits to property within District are levied and collected on the tax roll.

The fo
llowing page shows the cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and 2023-2 4. 587

FY 2022-23
Cost Estimate
Projected
FY 2023-24
Cost Estimate

DISTRICT REVENUES
Estimated Assessment Revenues 194,169$ 198,052$ Contributions from Other Revenue Sources 4,500$ 4,950$ Total District Revenues1 198,669$ 203,002$

DISTRICT COSTS
Maintenance - Landscape (MCE Base Amount) 45,768$ 45,981$ Maintenance - Landscape (MCA Additional) -$ -$ Utilities - Water 73,143$ 76,800$
Utilities - Electricity 2,356$ 2,474$
Miscellaneous Expenses -$ -$
Legal Notices 575$ 592$
District Administration 3,410$ 3,512$
Public Works Administration -$ -$ County Collection Fee 2,850$ 2,936$
Total District Costs 128,102$ 132,295$

MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AND COLLECTIONS/(CREDITS) APPLIED TO LEVY Reserve Collection/(Transfer) -$ 2,097$ Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) Collection/(Transfer) 70,567$ 68,611$ Total Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy 70,567$ 70,707$ Balance to Levy 194,169$ 198,052$
Variance Between Estimated Assessment Revenues and Balance to Levy -$ -$ Total As s es s ment Revenue at Maximum Rate2 194,169$ 198,052$ Variance above/(below) Maximum Assessment Revenue -$ -$

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 64,051$ 64,051$ Reserve Fund Adjustments -$ 2,097$ Transfer From/(To) Capital Improvement Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$ Interest -$ -$
Ending Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 64,051$ 66,148$ Beginning CIF Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23)3 36,928$ 107,495$ CIF Adjustment 70,567$ 68,610$
Transfer From/(To) Reserve Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$ Interest -$ -$
Ending CIF Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 3 107,495$ 176,105$ 1Total District Revenues includes the estimated assessment revenues for each fiscal year and contributions from other revenue sources such as interest earnings, etc.
2The Maximum Assessment Revenue for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 was estimated to be equal to the FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Revenues and escalated by 2%.
3The City is planning to utilize the CIF Balance to contribute towards the cost for future fencing projects throughout the District.

Table 2: City of Dublin
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1986-1
588
Capital Improvement Projects

In addition to collecting funds annually for maintenance, funds are also allowed to be collected for capital improvement projects. Capital improvement projects generally include the repair and replacement of public improvements authorized to be maintained by the District. These funds are collected and often accumulated in a separate fund and are not considered to be a part of the regular maintenance of the improvements.

Following is a list of capital improvement projects the City plans to address utilizing District funds in the upcoming fiscal year and thereafter.

General Improvements: The City has identified the need for additional plantings, as well as sidewalk repairs, which fall outside of the regular maintenance budget for this District. Repairs will be addressed based upon need and available fund balance in the upcoming two-year cycle.

Alamo Creek Park and Assessment District - Fence Replacement: The City has identified the need to remove, replace, and/or repair tubular steel fencing throughout the District and around and within Alamo Creek Park. The projects costs associated with Alamo Creek Park fencing is not funded by the District, but is funded by the City’s General Fund. District funding for the project is currently $400,000.

589

PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are shown herein. The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.

590
City of Dublin
Landscape and Lighting District No. 1986-1
Assessment Diagram
Prepared by Francisco & Associates, Inc.

Willow Dreek Dr
DOugherty Rd
Amador Valley Blvd
Fall Creek Rd
0 650 1,300325
Feet
N:\Dublin\FY18-19\Diagrams\LLAD1986-1_Assessment Diagram (SA 04/17/2018) Legend
LLAD 1986-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within LLAD 1986-1
591
PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

General

The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by a gencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which incl ude the cons truction, maintenance and servicing of public li ghts, landscaping, and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessa ble l ots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be rece ived by each such lot or pa rcel from the improvements.”

The formula used for calculating assess ments in the D istrict t herefore reflects the composition of the parcels, and the im provements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on estimated benefit to each parcel. In addition, pursuant to Article XIIID Section 4:

“No assessm ent s
hall be imposed on any p arcel which exceeds the
reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.

Only speci al benefits are assessab le, and an ag ency sh all separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”

Benefit Analysis

Each of the i mprovements have been carefully reviewed by the City a nd the corresponding assessments have been proportionately spread to each parcel based on special benefits re ceived from t he improvements as determined at the time the District was established.

General Benefits — In revie wing each of the District improvements, the proximity of those improvements to both properties within the District and those outside the District, as well as the r easons for installing and constructing such improvements, it is e vident that the improvements are solely the result o f developing properties w ithin t he District, and the ongoing maintenance and o peration of these improvement s will directly a ffect t he properties wit hin the Distr ict. Although the improvements include public a reas, easements, rights-of-way, and other amenities available or visible to the public at large, the construction a nd installation of these im provements were o nly necessary for the development o f properties w ithin the District a nd were not r equired, nor necessarily desired by any properties or developments outside the District boundary and any public access or use of the improvements by others is incidental. T herefore, it has been 592
determined that the i mprovements and the ongoing maintenance, servicing and operation of those im provements provide no m easurable g eneral benefit to properties outside the District or to the public at large, but clearly provide distinct and special benefits to properties within the District.

Special Benefits — The method of ap portionment (method of assessment) esta blished herein is based o n the premise that ea ch assessed parcel w ithin the District receives special be nefits from the im provements and the desirability of those properties is enhanced by the presence of well-maintained landscaping near those properties.

The special benefits associated with landscape improvements are specifically:
1) Enhanced desirability of properties through association with the improvements. 2) Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive representation of the area and properties.
3) Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural environment from adequate green space and landscaping.
4) Environmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire prevention.
5) Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the District resulting from well-maintained improvements associated with the properties. 6) Enhanced q uality of life th rough well-maintained green space and landscaped areas.
7) Reduc ed criminal activity and property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties in the District th rough well-maintained sur roundings and amenities including abatement of graffiti.
8) Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by moder ating t emperatures, providing oxygenation, and attenuating noise.

The preceding special benefits contribute to the aesthetic value a nd desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District and thereby provide a special enhancement of the properties. Furthermore, it has been determined that the lack of fu nding to properly service a nd maintain the D istrict im provements w ould have a negative im pact on the properties within the District.

Non-Assessable Properties — Within the boundaries of the District, there are several types of properties th at a re cons idered to r eceive no specia l benefit from t he Distr ict improvements and are therefore not assessed. These parcels include:

1) Pu
blicly owned parcels that are reserved as public open space or are developed as City parks for active recreation and are maintained and serviced by the District; 2) Publicly owned wetland parcels;
3) Certain public utility parcels;
4) Privately owned open space parcels; and
5) Privately owned "sliver" parcels that have resulted from a lot line adjustment with an adjacent larger parcel.

593
Assessment Methodology
The spe cial b enefits receiv ed by each parcel w ithin the District a nd ea ch parcel’s proportional annual assessment a re calcula ted on the basis of a formula that utilizes Equivalent Dwelling Units. The Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) method of apportionment establishes a proportional b enefit relationship between the various p arcels w ithin the District a nd the i mprovements m aintained by the District. T he typical single family residential parcel is assigned 1.00 EDU.

EDU’s are assigned to the other land uses based upon the pr operty’s development status, and type of development (County of Alameda land use code) as shown in the table below.

Single-Family Residential (SFR) — (County land use 1x) This la nd use i dentifies properties that are developed for single-family residential use and are assigned a factor of

1.00 EDU per parcel. This is the base value that all other land use types are compared and weighted against using EDUs.

Mul
ti-Family Residential — This la nd use identifies pro perties that a re developed for multi-family use and are assigned a factor of 0.50 EDU per unit.

Commercial — This land use identifies properties that are classified for commercial use and are assigned a factor of 4.00 EDU per parcel/lot.

Common Op en S pace, Ce meteries & O ther Exempt Property — This land use identifies properties that are exempt from assessment and are assigned 0.00 EDU.

The following formulas are used to calculate each property’s assessment:

Total Balance to Levy / Total EDUs = Levy per EDU (Rate) Parcel EDU x Levy per EDU = Parcel Levy Amount
Property Type EDU Factor
Single Family Residential (SFR) 1.00 per Parcel
Multi Family Residential (MFR) 0.50 per Unit
Commercial 4.00 per Parcel
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space 0.00 per Parcel
TABLE 3: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1986-1
594
Maximum Assessment Rate

It is recognized that the cost of maintaining the District improvements increases slightly every year because of inflation. In Fiscal Year 2001-02, the property owners approved a formula for increasing assessments for each future fiscal year to offset increases in costs due to inflation.

The maximum assessment amount for each property type shal l be increased each fiscal year in an amo unt equal t o the annual percentage increase of the local San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose Area Consumer Price Index (“Index”) for “All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” which is app lied to all costs except utilities (water and electricity), p lus the actual percentage increase in utility costs (collectively, “Annual Escalation Factor”).

In order to implement the District’s Annual Escalation Factor annually, two rates were developed based on the cost estimate that was prepared at the time the property owners approved the annual escalator. The first rate (the “CPI Rate”) was created to encompass the annual District cost increases except for utilities. The second rate (the “Utility Rate”) was created to encompass the annual utility cost increases.

The Index is to be applied annually to the prior year’s maximum CPI Rate for each property type to pay for all costs except utilities. The maximum Utility Rate was established to pay for all utility costs for each property type and is to be increased annually by the percentage change in the budgeted amount for utilities as shown in the District’s annual fiscal year Engineer’s Reports. The increase in utility costs shall be calculated by taking the upcoming fiscal year’s budgeted amount for utilities and subtracting the District’s previous highest yearly budgeted amount for utilities. This difference is used to calculate the annual increase in the Utility Rate for each property type. The combination of the maximum CPI Rate and maximum Utility Rate (collectively, “Maximum Assessment Rate”) shall equal the Maximum Assessment Rate for the upcoming fiscal year. Please see Table 3 for details regarding the Maximum Assessment Rate for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The timing of the annual percentage increase of the Index was changed beginning in 2018 and for each year thereafter for administrative purposes, to ensure the City is allowed the time necessary to have all annual documents prepared and approved by the City Council by June of each year, and to meet both County submittal and statutory requirements.

Each fiscal year starting in 2018, the City shall identify the annual percentage difference in the Index between the most recent calendar year and that of the prior calendar year; more specifically, the annual percentage change used to escalate the prior year’s assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 was determined based on the difference using the a nnual amount for calendar years 20 21 and 2020. Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such I ndex or discontinue the preparation of such In dex, the C ity sha ll use the revised index or comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living. The following table shows the Maximum Assessment Rates allowable for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
595

If the City Council determines that an inflation adjustment is not required for a given fiscal year, the City C ouncil may authorize the ensuing fiscal year’s assessment without applying the a djustment fo rmula to the amount levied. If t he cost estimate a nd assessments for the District require an increase greater than the adjustment set forth in the fo rmula, th en the proposed in crease w ould be su bject to a pproval by the District property owners. Each fiscal ye ar, the maximum assessment rate shall increase at the maximum amo unt allowable regardless of whether the in crease is levied to the parcels within the District.

CPI for 2020 Calendar Year1 292.601
CPI for 2021 Calendar Year1 304.602
% Change in CPI - Increase 4.10%
FY 2021/
22 Maximum Rate per EDU - CPI Rate $163.61
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per EDU - CPI Rate $170.32
Prior Year Maximum Utility Budget 2 $83,200
Utility Budget for FY 2022/23 $75,499
% Change in Utility Rate - Increase3 0.000%
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per EDU - Utility Rate $127.71
FY 2022/
23 Maximum Rate per EDU - Utility Rate $127.71
FY 2021/22 Maximum Assessment Rate per EDU $291.32
FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Rate per EDU 4 $298.03
1 CPI is based off of the All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. 2 The FY 2017/18 Budget Amount for Utilities was the previous highest amount budgeted for utility costs.
3 Equals the % difference between the FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23 Maximum Utility Rate. If the Utility Budget does not increase, no increase will be realized.
4 Equals the FY 2022/23 Maximum CPI Rate + Maximum Utility Rate.

TABLE 3: MAX IMUM ASSESSMENT RATE
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1986-1
596
PART E

ASSESSMENT ROLL

The proposed assessment and the amount of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file under separate cover with the City Clerk. Furthermore, the descri ption of each lot or pa rcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Alameda and those records are, by reference, made part of this r eport. The assessments sh own w ill be submi tted to the County Auditor/Controller and inclu ded on the property tax roll for each parcel shown in t he assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Parcel identification, the l ines a nd d imensions of each lot, pa rcel, a nd sub division of land within th e District, are inclusive of t he parcels as shown on t he Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Maps as they existed at the time of the passage of t he Resolution of Intention, and shall i nclude subsequent subdivisions, lot line adjustments or parcel changes therein. Reference is hereby made to the Alameda County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the District.
597
Landscape & Lighting
District No. 1997-1
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Final Engineer’s Report
June 21, 2022
Attachment 6
598

Table of Contents

Page No.

Certificate ......................................................................................... ii Section I - Introduction ..................................................................... 1 Section II – Engineer’s Report ......................................................... 3 Part A – Plans and Specifications ......................................... 5 Part B – Estimate of Costs .................................................... 7 Part C – Assessment District Diagram ................................ 11 Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ............ 13 Part E - Assessment Roll .................................................... 19

599

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF DUBLIN
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1997-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the Dublin City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 22500 et al of the California Streets and Highways Code.

The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: May 18, 2022 By:

Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

RCE # 83709

600

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The City of Dublin (“City”) levies and collects special assessments on parcels within the City of Dublin Landscape and Lighting District No. 1997-1 (“District”) to maintain the landscaping and irrigation improvements within the Santa Rita area.

The assessments and method of apportionment described in this Report utilize commonly accepted assessment engineering practices and have been calculated and proportionately spread to each parcel based on the s pecial benefits received as approved by the City Council at the time the District was formed.

General Description of the District

The District w as formed to fund s treet landscape maintenance a nd utility costs for the Santa Ri ta development area, also known as Emerald Park. T he total D istrict a rea is approximately 422 developed acres bounded by Arnold Road on the west, Gleason Drive on the north, Tassajara Road on t he east, and Interstate 580 on t he south. A diagram of the District is included within this report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided in Part C of this Report.

Compliance with the California Constitution

Assessments are levied annually within the District pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”).

All assessments described in this Report and approved by the City Council are prepared in accordance with the 1972 Act and are in compliance with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID (“Article XIIID”), which was enacted with the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996.

In accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the property owners approved a formula for increasing assessments in succeeding years that allows the maintenance cost to increase according to the Consumer Price Index and the utility cost to increase according to the actual cost of utilities.

Any future increase in the assessment rate in excess of the maximum allowable rate or substantial changes in the services provided would require the approval of the property owners subject to the assessment based upon a mailed ballot which would be sent to each property owner pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID. 601
Summary of District

A summary of the assessments to be levied in Fiscal Year 2022- 23 for each property type is shown in the table below.

Development/Property Type Asse ssme nt Ra te
California Creekside Single
‐
Fami
ly Residential (SFR) $128.52 per Parcel
California Brookside Multi
‐
Family Residential (MFR) $55.69 per Unit
Summer Glen
‐
Richmond American (North) Lots $112.54 per Parcel
Summer Glen
‐
Richmond American (South) Lots $123.85 per Parcel
Summer Glen
‐
Kaufman & Broad Lots $172.36 per Parcel
Summer Glen
‐
Pulte Lots $216.24 per Parcel
Dublin Greene Tract 7084 Single Family Residential $136.13 per Parcel Dublin Greene Tract 7149 Single Family Residential $102.50 per Parcel Dublin Greene Tract 7149 Condominiums $53.43 per Unit
Other Parcels Including Retail, Office, and Industrial1 $903.85 per Acre 1 Other Parcels includes all other land uses including commercial, retail, office, industrial, and all other parcels that do not fall into one of the developments/property types referenced above.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1997-1
602

SECTION II

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500
THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF DUBLIN

LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1997-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the City Council of the Cit y of Dublin on May 17, 2022, I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Dublin Landscape and Lighting District No. 1997- 1 (the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II (Engineer’s Report), which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for Fiscal Year 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

603
The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains an assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements to be apportioned to each benefited parcel of land within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Dublin and is incorporated in this Report.

The list is keyed to the records of the Alameda County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

604
PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The District p rovides for the continued maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and open space areas within the following areas:

1. Portions of the northerly and southerly street frontages for Dublin Boulevard, from Arnold Road to Tassajara Road.

2. The northerly and southerly street frontages for Central Parkway from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road, excluding the elementary school and Emerald Glen Park frontage landscaping.

3. The southerly street frontage for Gleason Drive, from Arnold Road to Tassajara Creek.

4. The easterly street frontage for Arnold Road, from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive.

5. The easterly street frontage for Hacienda Drive from Summer Glen Drive to Gleason Drive, and westerly street frontage for Hacienda Drive from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive.

6. Tassajara Creek and trail, from I-580 to the northerly property boundary of the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority property (APN 986-1-1-10).

7. Street median landscaping is not part of this District.

As
generally defined in the 1972 Act, maintenance and servicing of the improvements may include one or any combination of the following:

1. The installation or planting of landscaping. The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities.

2. The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servic ing thereof; including but not limited to, gra ding, removal of debris, the installation or construction of cur bs, gutters, w alls, sidewalks, paving, or wa ter, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.

3. The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing including the furnishing of services and ma terials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including, but not limited to:
a. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvements; b. Grading, c learing, removal of debris, the installation, repair or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities;
c. Providing for the life, growth, health, a nd beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury;
d. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; e. The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti;
f. Electric current or energy, gas, or other agent for the lighting or operation of 605
any other improvements;
g. Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of a ny fountains, or t he maintenance of any other improvements.

4. Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
a. The cost of preparation of the report, i ncluding plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
b. The costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting, and mailing of notices;
c. Co mpensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; d. Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; e. A ny other e xpenses i ncidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance a nd servicing of the improvements; and,
f. Costs as sociated with any elect ions held fo r th e approval of a new or increased assessment.

Pursuant to the 1972 Act:

"Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, o peration, and servicing of a ny i mprovement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement.

"Se
rvice" or "servicing" means the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas, or other illumin ating a gent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.

Drawings s howing the specific locations of the improvement s are on file in the City ’s Public Works Department and are made a part of this report by reference. 606
PART B

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

All landscaping a nd o ther eligible impro vements wi thin the D istrict a re maintained a nd serviced on a regular basis. The proposed cost estimate for the District is shown on a following page herein . This includes an estimate of the costs of u tilities, operations, services, administration, and maintenance associated with the improvements, including all labor, personnel, equipment, materials, and administrative expenses. The summary also shows the estimated fund balance, and the projected contribution/(transfer) based upo n the estimated expenditures and assessment revenue. Projected cost estimates are also shown for the next two ( 2) fiscal years.

The following describes the general services and costs shown in the cost estimate.

District Costs

Maintenance Landscape – The cost of maintenance and repair of landscaping and open space areas.

Utilities Water – The cost of furnishing water for maintenance of landscape and irrigation systems.

Utilities Electricity – The cost of electricity for maintenance of lan dscape, powering of irrigation systems, and entry lighting within the District.

Miscellaneous Expenses – Costs that cannot easily be categorized i nto a ny of the other District Costs defined above.

Legal Notices – The cost of legal notices includes costs associated with preparation and publishing of any, and all required legal notices associated with the District.

District Administration – The costs of contracting with professionals to provide services specific to the annual levy administration, including preparation of the Engineer’s Report, resolutions, and levy submittal to t he C ounty. T hese fe es can also inclu de a ny additional administrative, legal, or engineering services specific to the District such as the cost to prepare and mail notices of the public meeting and hearing.

Publ
ic Works Administration – The cost of public works administration includes costs derived by the City’s Public Works Department or other department in relation to the administration and management of the District.

County Collection Fee – The cost to the District for the County to collect assessments on the annual secured property ta x bills. A lameda County cha rges 1. 7% of the total levy amount.
607
Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy

Reserve Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 S ection 22569 (a), provides for a Dis trict Reserve Fund for o perations. Negative amounts shown for this cost estimate item represent transfers from t he Reserve Fu nd that r educes t he Balance to Levy. Maintaining a f ully funded Operating Reserve eliminates the n eed for the C ity to transfer funds fr om non ‐District accounts to pay fo r operational e xpenses during the first half of the fiscal year a nd provides t he Dis trict with s ufficient funds to address any unforeseen or unusual expenditures that may occur during the year.

Capital Improvement Fund Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 5, beginning with Section 22660, provides for the Dis trict to esta blish by re solution an assessment installment plan fo r proposed im provements and expe nditures that a re greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment. D epending on the nature of the planned i mprovements, the collection of funds necessary to complete the project may be collected over a period up to thirty years, but typically not more than five years. The funds co llected shall be accum ulated in a s eparate i mprovement fund commonly referred to as a Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) and are not considered part of the regular maintenance of the improvements or the Reserve Fund.

Bec
ause the money accumulated in t he C apital I mprovement Fund is for a specific planned project (budgeted separately), the amount shown for this item in the annual cost estimate will typically be a positive number representing the amount being collected that year as part of the Balance to Levy. A negative number (Transfer) should only occur after the project has been completed and excess funds are being credited back to the District’s regular accounts. The actual fu nd b alances and expenditures for c apital improvements are clearly identified under the Fund Balance Information section of the Cost estimate.

Balance to L evy – This is the total amount to be co llected f or the current fiscal year through the annual assessments (for special benefits). T he B alance to Levy represents the sum of Total District (Direct and Administration) Costs, Reserve Fund Contributions or Transfers, Contributions from Other R evenue Sources, and the Contribution Replenishment (if any) . Only t hose costs re lated to the i mprovements identified as conferring special benefits to property within the District are levied and collected on the tax roll.

The f
ollowing page shows the cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

608

FY 2022-23
Cost Estimate
Projected
FY 2023-24
Cost Estimate

DISTRICT REVENUES
Estimated Assessment Revenues 380,680$ 388,294$ Contributions from Other Revenue Sources 10,000$ 11,000$ Total District Revenues1 390,680$ 399,294$

DISTRICT COSTS
Maintenance - Landscape (MCE Base Amount) 209,753$ 213,377$ Maintenance - Landscape (MCE Additional) -$ -$ Utilities - Water 115,920$ 121,716$
Utilities - Electricity 655$ 688$
Miscellaneous Expenses 14,000$ 14,000$
Legal Notices 575$ 592$
District Administration 3,410$ 3,512$
Public Works Administration -$ -$ County Collection Fee 7,000$ 7,210$
Total District Costs 351,313$ 361,095$

MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AND COLLECTIONS/(CREDITS) APPLIED TO LEVY Reserve Collection/(Transfer) -$ 4,891$ Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) Collection/(Transfer) 39,367$ 33,308$ Total Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy 39,367$ 38,199$ Balance to Levy 380,680$ 388,294$
Variance Between Estimated Assessment Revenues and Balance to Levy -$ -$ Total As s es s ment Revenue at Maximum Rate2 668,937$ 682,315$ Variance above/(below) Maximum Assessment Revenue (288,257)$ (294,022)$

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 175,657$ 175,657$ Reserve Fund Adjustment -$ 4,891$ Transfer From/(To) Capital Improvement Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$ Interest -$ -$
Ending Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 175,657$ 180,548$ Beginning CIF Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 1,042,148$ 886,514$ CIF Adjustment 39,367$ 33,308$
Transfer Out For CIP (195,000)$ -$
Transfer From/(To) Reserve Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$ Interest -$ -$
Ending CIF Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 886,514$ 919,822$ 1Total District Revenues includes the estimated assessment revenues for each fiscal year and contributions from other revenue sources such as interest earnings, etc.
2The Maximum Assessment Revenue for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 was estimated to be equal to the FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Revenues and escalated by 2%.

Table 2: City of Dublin
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1997-1
609
Capital Improvement Projects

In addition to collecting funds annually for maintenance, funds are also allowed to be collected for capital improvement projects. Capital improvement projects generally include the repair and replacement of public improvements authorized to be maintained by the District. These funds are collected and often accumulated in a separate fund and are not considered to be a part of the regular maintenance of the improvements.

Following is a list of capital improvement projects the City plans to address utili zing District funds in the upcoming fiscal year and thereafter.

General Improvements: The City has identified the need for minor sound wall repairs, as well as pavement/trail repairs at Tassajara Creek, which are outside of the scope of the regular maintenance budget for this District. Repairs will be addressed based upon the need and available fund balance in the upcoming two- year cycle.

Persimmon Drive Asphalt Path Rehabilitation: The City has identified the need for rehabilitation of the asphalt trail adjacent to Persimmon Drive.

610
PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are shown herein. The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.

611
City of Dublin
Landscape and Lighting District No. 1997-1
Assessment Diagram
Prepared by Francisco & Associates, Inc.

N:\Dublin\FY18-19\Diagrams\LLAD1997-1_Assessment Diagram (SA 04/17/2018) Legend
LLAD 1997-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within LLAD 1997-1
Dublin Blvd
Central PkwyHacienda Dr Tassajara RdArnold Rd
Gleason Dr
600 0 600 1,200300
Feet
612
PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

General

The 1972 Act permits the establishment of a ssessment districts by a gencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which incl ude the construction, maintenance and s ervicing of public li ghts, landscaping, and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act f urther re quires that t he cost of these im provements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessa ble l ots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be rece ived by each such lot or pa rcel from the improvements.”

The formula used for calculating assess ments in the D istrict t herefore reflects the composition of the parcels, and the im provements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on estimated benefit to each parcel. In addition, pursuant to Article XIIID Section 4:

“No ass
essment shall be imposed on any p arcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.

Only speci al benefits are assessab le, and an ag ency sh all separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”

Benefit Analysis

Each of the i mprovements have been c arefully reviewed by the City a nd the corresponding assessments have been proportionately spread to each parcel based on special benefits re ceived from t he improvement s as determined at the time the District was established.

General Benefits — In revie wing each of the District improvements, the proximity of those improvements to both properties within the District and those outside the District, as well as the r easons for installing and constructing such improvements, it is e vident that the improvements are s olely the result o f developing properties w ithin t he District and the ongoing maintenance and o peration of these improvements will directly a ffect t he properties wit hin the Dis trict. Although the improvements include public areas, easements, rights-of-way, and other amenities available or visible to the public at large, the construc tion a nd installation of these im provements were o nly n ecessary for the development o f properties w ithin the District a nd were not r equired, nor necessarily desired by any properties or developments outside the District boundary and any public access or use of the improvements by others is inc idental. Therefore, it has been 613
determined that the i mprovements and the ongoing maintenance, servicing and operation of those im provements provide no m easurable g eneral benefit to properties outside the District or to the public at large, but clearly provide distinct and special benefits to properties within the District.

Special Benefits — The method of ap portionment (method of assessment) established herein is based o n the premise that each assessed parcel w ithin the District receives special benefits from the improvements and the desirability of those properties enhanced by the presence of well ‐maintained landscaping in close proximity to those properties.

The special benefits associated with landscape improvements are specifically:

1) Enhanced desirability of properties through association with the improvements.

2) Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive r epresentation of the area and properties.

3) Enhanced adaptation of t he urban environment within the na tural environment from adequate green space and landscaping.

4) Env
ironmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire prevention.

5) Increased sense of pride in ownershi p of property within t he District resulting from well-maintained improvements associated with the properties.

6) Enhanced quality of life t hrough well -maintained gr een space and landscaped areas.

7) Reduced cr iminal activity and property -related crimes (espe cially vandalism) against properties in the Distr ict t hrough well -maintained surroundings an d amenities including abatement of graffiti.

8) Enhanced environmental qual ity of th e parcel s by moderating t emperatures, providing oxygenation, and attenuating noise.

The preceding special benefits contribute to the aesthetic value and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District and thereby provide a special enhancement of the properties. Furthermore, it has been determined that the lack of fu nding to properly service a nd maintain the D istrict im provements w ould have a negative im pact on the properties within the District.

Non-Assessable Properties — Within the boundaries of the District, there are several types of properties that a re cons idered to r eceive no specia l benefit from t he Dis trict improvements and are therefore not assessed. These parcels include:

614
1) Publicly owned parcels that are reserved as public open space or are developed as City parks for active recreation and are maintained and serviced by the District; 2) Publicly owned wetland parcels;
3) Certain public utility parcels;
4) Privately owned open space parcels; and
5) Privately owned "sliver" parcels that have resulted from a lot line adjustment with an adjacent larger parcel.

Assessment Methodology

The initial Engineer’s Report provided for a max imum assessment o f $710 per developed acre, based on a total of 389,400 square feet of street improvements and a total of 957,000 square feet of creek improvements and 440.08 acres of developed property anticipated at the time of formation for build-out of all property within the District.

The cost of the improvements was divided equally among the total number of developed properties within the boundaries of the District on a per acre basis.

“Developed acres” shall include property having a recorded final map or parcel map as of July 1st of each year.

The following formulas are used to calculate each property’s assessment:

1. Cost of maintenance of installed improvements (“M”).

2. Total amount of developed acres (“A”).

3. The annual assessment for the developed acres for that year (“M”) shall be spread on a per-acre basis (“M” ÷ “A”) based on the following:
a. Commercial, retail, office, industrial, and all other parcel classifications not referenced herein’ developed area, per acre basis.
b. Single-family residential area, per acre basis.
c. Multi-family residential area, per acre basis.

4. The single -family and multi -family residential area per acre assessment will be further spread on a per lot basis based on the number of lots on the final map, parcel map, or condominium map for each development.

5. If the initial assessment in any year would exceed $710 per acre, the amount in excess of $710 shall be assessed to the remaining undeveloped acres on a per acre basis, subject to the maximum developed acre amount.

6. The maximum developed acre assessment of $710 per year will be increased annually by the percentage increase in the San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose Area Consumer Price Index for “All Urban Consumers and Clerical Workers” (applies to all costs except water and electricity), plus any budgeted increase in the cost for water and electricity.

7. If the square footage cost of the improvements will be less than the amount set forth herein (after adjustment), the assessment shall be reduced proportionately to reflect the reduced cost of improvements in that year.

615
Rate Classifications

Single and Multi-family residential sub divisions wit hin the Distr ict will be assigned a rate on a per lot basis. To determine the assessment per lot, the number of acres w ithin the subdivision will be divided by the number of lots within the subdivision.

Commercial (including retail, office, and industrial uses, as well as apartment properties) are assessed based on the per acre figure of $9 03.85 multiplied by the number of acres per individual lot for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Maximum Assessment Rate

It is recognized that the cost of maintaining the District improvements increases slightly every year because of i nflation. As at the time t he D istrict was fo rmed, t he p roperty owners approved a formula for increasing assessments for each future fiscal year to offset increases in costs due to inflation.

The maximum assessment amount for each development/property type shal l be increased each fiscal year i n an amo unt equal t o the annual percentage increase of the local San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Ar ea Consumer P rice Index (“Inde x”) for “All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” which is app lied to all costs except utilities (water a nd electricity), p lus the actual percentage increase in utility costs (collectively, “Annual Escalation Factor”).

In order to implement the District’s Annual Escalation Factor annually, two rates were developed based on the cost estimate that was prepared at the time the property owners approved the annual escalator. The first rate (the “CPI Rate”) was created to encompass the annual District cost increases except for utilities. The second rate (the “Utility Rate”) was created to encompass the annual utility cost increases.

The Index is to be applied annually to the prior year’s maximum CPI Rate for each development/property type to pay for all costs except utilities. The maximum Utility Rate was established to pay for all utility costs for each development/property type and is to be increased annually by the percentage change in the budgeted amount for utilities as shown in the annual District’s fiscal year Engineer’s Reports. The increase in utility costs shall be calculated by taking the upcoming fiscal year’s budgeted amount for utilities and subtracting the District’s previous highest yearly budgeted amount for utilities. Thi s difference is used to calculate the annual increase in the Utility Rate for each development/property type. The combination of the maximum CPI Rate and maximum Utility Rate (collectively, “Maximum Assessment Rate”) shall equal the Maximum Assessment Rate for the upcoming fiscal year. Please see Table 3 for details regarding the Maximum Assessment Rate for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The timing of the annual percentage increase of the Index was changed beginning in 2018 and for each year thereafter for administrative purposes, to ensure the City is 616
allowed the time necessary to have all annual documents prepared and approved by the City Council by June of each year, and to meet both County submittal and statutory requirements. Each fiscal yea r starting in 2018, the C ity sha ll id entify t he annual percentage difference in the Index between the most recent calendar year and that of the prior calendar year; more specifically, the annual percentage change used to escalate the prior year’s assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 was determined based on the difference using the annual amount for calendar years 2021 and 2020. Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such Index or discontinue the preparation of such Index, the City shall use the revised index or comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living. The following ta ble shows the Maximum Assessment Rates allowable for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

If the City Council determines that an inflation adjustment is not required for a given fiscal year, the City C ouncil may authorize the ensuing fiscal year’s assessment without applying the a djustment fo rmula to the amount levied. If t he cost estimate a nd CPI for 2020 Calendar Year1 292.601
CPI for 2021 Calendar Year1 304.602
% Change in CPI - Increase 4.10%
FY
2021/22 Maximum Rate per Acre - CPI Rate $1,257.66
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per Acre - CPI Rate $1,309.24
Prior Year Maximum Utility Budget 2 $114,179
Utility Budget for FY 2022/23 $116,575
% Change in Utilities Rate - Increase3 2.098%
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per Acre - Utility Rate $273.27 FY
2022/23 Maximum Rate per Acre - Utility Rate $279.01
FY 2021/22 Maximum Assessment Rate per Acre $1,530.93
FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Rate per Acre 4 $1,588.25 1 CPI is based off of the All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. 2 The FY 2014/15 Budget Amount for Utilities was the previous highest amount budgeted for utility costs.
3 Equals the % difference between the Prior Year Utility Budget and the Current Year Utility Budget. If the Utility Budget does not increase, no increase will be realized.
4 Equals the FY 2022/23 Maximum CPI Rate + Maximum Utility Rate.

TABLE 3: MAX IMUM ASSESSMENT RATE
Landscape & Lighting District No. 1997-1
617
assessments for the District require an in crease greater than the adjustment set forth in the fo rmula, th en the proposed incre ase w ould be su bject to a pproval by the District property owners. Each fiscal ye ar, the maximum assessment rate shall increase at the maximum am ount allowable regardless of whether the in crease is levied to the parcels within the District.
618
PART E

ASSESSMENT ROLL

The proposed assessment and the amount of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the la test roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file under separate cover with the City Clerk. Furthermore, the description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Alameda and those records are, by reference, made part of this r eport. The a ssessments sh own w ill be s ubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller and i ncluded on the property tax roll for each parcel shown in t he assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Parcel identification, the l ines a nd d imensions of each lot, pa rcel, a nd subdivision of land within th e District, are inclusive of t he parcels as shown on t he Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Maps as they existed at the time of the passage of t he Resolution of Intention, and shall i nclude subseq uent subdivisions, lot line adjustments or parcel changes therein. Reference is hereby made to the Alameda County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and di mensions of each lot a nd parcel of land within the District.

619
Street Lighting
District No. 1999-1
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Final Engineer’s Report
June 21, 2022
Attachment 7
620

Table of Contents

Page No.

Certificate ......................................................................................... ii Section I - Introduction ..................................................................... 1 Section II – Engineer’s Report ......................................................... 3 Part A – Plans and Specifications ......................................... 5 Part B – Estimate of Costs .................................................... 7 Part C – Assessment District Diagram ................................ 11 Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ............ 13 Part E - Assessment Roll .................................................... 18

621

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF DUBLIN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1999-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the Dublin City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 22500 et al of the California Streets and Highways Code.

The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: May 18, 2022 By:

Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

RCE # 83709

622

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The Ci ty of D ublin (“City”) levies a nd c ollects special assessm ents on pa rcels w ithin the City of D ublin Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1999‐1 (“District”) to maintain the public street lighting improvements within the District.

The assessments and method of apportionment described in this Report utilize commonly accepted assessment engineering practices and have been calculated and proportionately spread to each parcel based on the s pecial benefits received as approved by the City Council at the time the District was formed.

General Description of the District

The District was initially formed in 1 999 to provide a dedicated source of funding for the ongoing maint enance of public s treet lighting improvements w ithin the b oundaries of the Dublin Ranch development ( excluding t he golf course). Tract 70 67, which is t he C lifton Park development off Mountain Rose Place in the western hills of the City was annexed to the District in 2000, and Dublin Ranch Areas A and G were annexed in 2001. The remaining portions of Dublin Ranch, in cluding areas B, C, F a nd H were annexed to the District in December 2005. Fallon V illage (Tract 7586) w as a nnexed to the District in 20 07, and Jordan Ranch (Tract 8024, 8073 & 8074) was annexed to the District in 2011. One reason for the formation of the District was that a special decorative lighting fixture was designed and installed throughout the area to create a community element as part of the development. A Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided within this Report.

A r
educed copy of the Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided in Part C of this Report.

Compliance with the California Constitution

Assessments are levied annually within the District pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”).

All assessments described in this Report and approved by the City Council are prepared in accordance with the 1972 Act and are in compliance with the provisions of the C alifornia Constitution A rticle XIIID ( “Article XIIID”), which was enacted with the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996.

The formation of this District was initiated by petition from the developer, and the City has determined it is compliant with the substantive and procedural requirements of Proposition 218 and the 1972 Act. At the time the District was formed, the property owners agreed to the inclusion of a formula for increasing assessments for each fiscal year to offset increases due to inflation as described in the assessment methodology.

623
Any future increase in the assessment rate in excess of the maximum allowable rate or substantial changes in the services provided would require the approval of the property owners subject to the assessment based upon a mailed ballot which would be sent to each property owner.

Summary of District

A summary of the assessments to be levied in Fiscal Year 2022- 23 for each property type is shown in the table below.

Property Type EDU Factor Asse ssme nt Ra te
Single Family Residential (SFR) 1.00 per Parcel $38.03 per P arcel Commercial 5.50 per Acre $209.15 per Acre
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space 0.00 per Parcel $0.00 per Parcel TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
Street Lighting District No. 1999-1
624

SECTION II

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500
THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF DUBLIN

STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1999-1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin on May 17, 2022, I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1999-1 (the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introducti on), and this Section II (Engineer’s Report), which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for Fiscal Year 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith.

The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Dublin.

625
The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains an assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements to be apportioned to each benefited parcel of land within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Dublin and is incorporated in this Report.

The list is keyed to the records of the Alameda County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

626
PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The District provides for the co ntinued i nstallation, maintenance, a nd s ervicing of s treet lighting improvement s within the public ri ghts-of-way a nd w ithin pu blic easements within private streets which provide special benefit to parcels and properties within the District.

For the f irst several years after formation of t he D istrict, t his D istrict did not incur a significant maint enance cost; however, as th e streetlights age, the nu mber of repairs are increasing. In ad dition, a portion of the funds collected from the annual assessments of the District are being s et aside for f uture capital im provement project costs in a s eparate improvement fund referred to as a Capital I mprovement Fund (CIF). T he CIF was established for proposed improvements a nd expenditures t hat are greater than can be conveniently
raised from a single a nnual assessment. An ticipated projects include LED conversions and pole painting. These fun ds are not co nsidered part of t he regu lar maintenance of the improvements or a part of the Operating Reserve Fund.

In Fisc
al Year 2012-13, 321 streetlights in the District were retrofitted with new light emitting diode (LED) fixtures. The total construction cost for these improvements was $283,800. As part of this retrofit, the district received a one‐tim e rebate amount of $39,950 from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

As generally defined in the 1972 Act, m aintenance a nd servicing of the street l ighting improvements may include one or any combination of the following:

1) The installation or construction of public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to streetlights and traffic signals.
2) The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing o r which are ne cessary or convenient for the maintenance or s ervicing thereof; i ncluding but not limit ed to, gra ding, re moval of debris, the installation or construction of c urbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
3) The maintenance or servicing, or bot h, of any of the foregoing including the furnishing of se rvices and materials for the or dinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including, but not limited to:
a) Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvements; b) Grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation, repair or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, or w ater, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities;
c) The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and o ther improvements to remove or cover graffiti.
d) Electric current or energy, gas, or other agent for the lighting or o peration of any other improvements.
4) Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
a) The cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, 627
diagram, and assessment;
b) The costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting, and mailing of notices;
c) Co mpensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; d) Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; e) Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements; and,
f) Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

Pursuant to the 1972 Act:

"Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement.

"Service" or "servicing" means the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas, or other illumin ating a gent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.

Drawings showing the specific locations of the improvements are on file in the City’s Public Works Department and are made a part of this report by reference.

628
PART B

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

All public streetlights and other eligible improvements within the District are maintained and serviced o n a regular basis. The proposed cost estimate for the District is shown on a following page herein. This i ncludes an esti mate of the costs of utilities, operations, services, administration, and maintenance associated with the improvements, including all labor, personnel, equipment, materials, and administrative expenses. T he summary also shows the estimated fu nd bal ance, a nd the projected contribution/(transfer) based upo n the estimated expenditures and assessment revenue. Projected cost estimates are also shown for the next two (2) fiscal years.

The following describes the general services and costs shown in the cost estimate.

District Costs

Operating Supplies – The cost of supplies for ongoing maintenance and servicing of the street lighting improvements including street light repair parts and the labor associated with performing the repair work. In addition, a portion of this cost is set aside as a contingency amount for both large scheduled and unscheduled, but necessary repairs.

Contract with Alameda C ounty – The c ost of s treet light main tenance provided from the County of Alameda based on the current fiscal year contract.

California Street Light Association – The cost of Street Light Association dues based on relative number of lights within the District.

Utilities Electricity – The cost of streetlight electrical energy use, including miscellaneous utility charges.

Miscellaneous Expenses – Costs that c annot easily be categorized i nto a ny of the other District Costs defined above.

Legal N
otices – The cost of legal notices includes costs associated with preparation and publishing of any, and all required legal notices associated with the District.

District Administration – The costs of contracting with professionals to provide services specific to the annual levy administration, including preparation of the Engineer’s Report, resolutions, and levy submittal to t he C ounty. T hese fe es can also inclu de a ny additional administrative, legal, or engineering services specific to the District, such as the cost to prepare and mail notices of the public meeting and hearing.

Public Works Administration – The cost of public works administration includes costs derived by the City’s Public Works Department or other department in relation to the administration and management of the District.
629

County Collection Fee – The cost to the District for the County to collect assessments on the annual secured pr operty ta x bills. A lameda County cha rges 1. 7% of the total levy amount.

Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy

Reserve Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 S ection 22569 (a), provides for a Dis trict Reserve Fund for o perations. Negative amounts shown for this cost estimate item represent transfers from t he Reserve Fu nd that r educes t he Balance to Levy. Maintaining a f ully funded Operating Reserve eliminates the n eed for the C ity to transfer funds fr om non ‐District accounts to pay fo r operational e xpenses during the first half of the fiscal year a nd provides t he Dis trict with s ufficient funds to address any unforeseen or unusual expenditures that may occur during the year.

Capital Improvement Fund Collection/(Transfer) – The 1972 Act pursuant to Chapter 5, beginning with Section 22660, provides for the Dis trict to esta blish by re solution an assessment installment plan fo r proposed im provements and expe nditures that a re greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment. D epending on the nature of the planned i mprovements, the collection of funds necessary to complete the project may be collected over a period up to thirty years, but typically not more than five years. The funds co llected shall be accum ulated in a s eparate i mprovement fund commonly referred to as a Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) and are not considered part of the regular maintenance of the improvements or the Reserve Fund.

Bec
ause the money accumulated in the Capital Improvement Fund is for a specific planned project (budgeted separately), the amount shown for this item in the annual cost estimate will typically be a positive number representing the amount being collected that year as part of the Balance to Levy. A negative number (Transfer) should only occur after the project has been completed and excess funds are being credited back to the District’s regular accounts. The actual fund balances and expenditures for Capital I mprovements are clearly identified under the Fund Balance Information section of the cost estimate.

Balance to L evy – This is the total a mount to be collected for t he c urrent f iscal y ear through the an nual assessments (for special benefits). T he B alance to Levy represents the sum of Total District ( Direct and Administration) Costs, R eserve Fund Co ntributions or Transfers, Contributions from Other R evenue Sources, and the Contribution Replenishment (if any). Only t hose costs re lated to the i mprovements identified as conferring special benefits to property are levied and collected on the tax roll.

The following page shows the cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

630

FY 2022-23
Cost Estimate
Projected
FY 2023-24
Cost Estimate

DISTRICT REVENUES
Estimated Assessment Revenues 324,437$ 330,926$ Contributions from Other Revenue Sources 12,500$ 13,750$ Total District Revenues1 336,937$ 344,676$

DISTRICT COSTS
Operating Supplies 10,000$ 10,000$
Contract with Alameda County 88,786$ 93,225$ California Street Light Association 400$ 400$ Utilities - Electricity 152,880$ 160,524$
Miscellaneous Expenses -$ -$
Legal Notices 575$ 592$
District Administration 3,500$ 3,605$
Public Works Administration -$ -$ County Collection Fee 5,900$ 6,077$
Total District Costs 262,041$ 274,423$

MISCELLANEOUS COSTS AND COLLECTIONS/(CREDITS) APPLIED TO LEVY Reserve Fund Collection/(Transfer) -$ 6,191$ Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) Collection/(Transfer) 74,896$ 64,062$ Total Miscellaneous Costs and Collections/(Credits) Applied to Levy 74,896$ 70,253$ Balance to Levy 324,437$ 330,926$
Variance Between Estimated Assessment Revenues and Balance to Levy -$ -$ Total As s es s ment Revenue at Maximum Rate2 547,297$ 558,243$ Variance above/(below) Maximum Assessment Revenue (222,860)$ (227,317)$

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 131,021$ 131,021$ Reserve Fund Adjustment -$ 6,191$ Transfer From/(To) Capital Improvement Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$ Interest -$ -$
Ending Operating Reserve Fund Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 131,021$ 137,212$ Beginning CIF Balance (est. 7/1/22 and 7/1/23) 334,170$ 367,065$ CIF Adjustment 74,896$ 64,062$
LED Conversion Project -$ -$
Transfer Out For CIP (42,000)$ (42,000)$
Transfer From/(To) Reserve Fund -$ -$ Prior/Penalties/Public Damage -$ -$ Interest -$ -$
Ending CIF Balance (est. 6/30/23 and 6/30/24) 367,065$ 389,128$ 1Total District Revenues includes the estimated assessment revenues for each fiscal year and contributions from other revenue sources such as interest earnings, etc.
2The Maximum Assessment Revenue for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 was estimated to be equal to the FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Revenues and escalated by 2%.

Table 2: City of Dublin
Street Lighting District No. 1999-1
631
Capital Improvement Projects

In addition to collecting funds annually for maintenance, funds are also allowed to be collected for capital improvement projects. Capital improvement projects generally include the repair and replacement of public improvements authorized to be maintained by the District. These funds are collected and often accumulated in a separate fund and are not considered to be a part of the regular maintenance of the improvements.

Following is a list of capital improvement projects the City plans to address utili zing District funds in the upcoming fiscal year and thereafter.

Light Pole Painting: The City has identified the need for regular painting of light poles within the District.

Citywide Energy Improvements: The City has identified the need to upgrade streetlights to energy -efficient light emitting diode (LED) technology. District funding will cover the cost of LED streetlight upgrades within the District.

632
PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are shown herein. The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Alameda County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.

633
City of Dublin
Street Lighting District No. 1999-1
Assessment Diagram
Prepared by Francisco & Associates, Inc.
¯
N:\Dublin\FY21-22\Diagrams\LLAD1999-1_Assessment Diagram (AH 03/25/2021) 0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet
0 200 400 600100
Feet
Legend!
! !
! !LLAD 1999-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within LLAD 1999-1
Mountain
Galway Ct Inspiration Cir
Clifden Ct Rise Pl
Tract 7067
Dublin Blvd
Central Pkwy
Fallon Rd
Fallon Rd
Gleason Dr
Poitano Pkwy
634
PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

General

The 1972 Act permits the establishment of a ssessment districts by a gencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which incl ude the construction, maintenance and s ervicing of public li ghts, landscaping, and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:

“The n et am ount to be assessed upon l ands within an assessment district may be apporti oned by any formula or m ethod which fa irly distributes t he n et amount among all assessabl e lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”

The formula used for calculating assessments in the D istrict t herefore reflects the composition of the parcels, and the im provements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on estimated benefit to each parcel. In addition, purs uant to Article XIIID Section 4:

“No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. O nly special benefits are assessa ble, and an a gency sha ll separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”

Benef
it Analysis

Each of the i mprovements have been c arefully reviewed by the City a nd the corresponding assessments have been proportionately spread to each p arcel based on special benefits re ceived from t he improvement s as determined at the time the District was established.

General Benefits — In reviewing each of the District improvements, the proximity of those improvements to both properties within the District and those outside the District, as w ell as the r easons for installing and constructing s uch improvements, it is e vident that the improvements are s olely the result o f developing properties w ithin t he District and the ongoing maintenance and o peration of these improvement s will directly a ffect t he properties within the District. Although the improvements include public areas, easements, rights-of-way, a nd other amenities available or v isible to the p ublic at large, the construction a nd installation of these im provements were o nly n ecessary for the development o f properties w ithin the District a nd were not r equired, nor necessarily desired by any properties or developments outside the District boundary and any public access or use of the improvements by others is incidental. Ther efore, it has been 635
determined that the improvements and the ongoing maintenance, servicing and operation of those im provements provide no m easurable g eneral benefit to properties outside the District or to the pu blic at lar ge, but clearly provide distinct and specia l benefits to properties within the District.

Special Benefits — The me thod of ap portionment (method of assessment) established herein is based o n the premise that each assessed parcel w ithin the District receives special benefits from the improvements and the desirability and security of those properties is enhanced by the presence of public lighting in close proximity to those properties.

The special b enefits of street lighting and other public lighti ng f acilities are for the convenience, safety, and security of property, improvements, and goods. Specifically:

1) Enhanced deterrence of crime and to aid police protection.

2) Inc
reased nighttime safety on roads, streets, and public areas.

3) Improved ability of pedestrians and motorists to see.

4) Improved ingress and egress to property.

5) Reduced vandalism and other criminal acts and damage to improvements or property.

6) Improved traffic circulation and reduced nighttime accidents and personal property loss.

The preceding special benefits contribute to the aesthetic value and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District and thereby provide a special enhancement of the properties. Furthermore, it has been determined that the lack of funding to properly service and maintain the District improvements w ould have a negative impact on the properties within the District.

All the preceding special benefits contribute to a s pecific enhancement and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District.

Non-A
ssessable Properties — Wi thin the boundaries of the District, th ere are se veral types of properties that a re cons idered to r eceive no specia l benefit from t he Dis trict improvements and are therefore not assessed. These parcels include:

1) Publicly owned parcels that are reserved as public open space or are developed as City parks for active recreation and are maintained and serviced by the District; 2) Publicly owned wetland parcels;
3) Certain public utility parcels;
4) Privately owned open space parcels; and
5) Privately owned "sliver" parcels that have resulted from a lot line adjustment with 636
an adjacent larger parcel. The adjacent larger parcel, of which these "sliver" parcels are a part, are assessed at the residential rate.

Assessment Methodology

The spe cial b enefits re ceived by each parcel w ithin the District a nd each parcel’s proportional annual assessment a re calculated on the basis of a formula that utilizes Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU). T he EDU method of a pportionment est ablishes a proportional b enefit relationship between the various p arcels w ithin the District a nd the improvements m aintained by the District. T he typi cal single-family residential parcel is assigned 1 .00 EDU since it represented more t han 85% of the total p arcels within the District.

EDU’s are assigned to the other land uses based upon the pr operty’s development status, type of developm ent (County of A lameda land use code) and property size as shown in the table below.

Single-Family Residential (SFR) — (County land use 1x, 2x, 7x) This land use identifies properties that are developed for single-family residential use and are assigned a factor of

1.00 EDU per parcel. This is the base value that all other land use types are compared and weighted against ( i.e., EDU). This land use classification may include, but is not limited to , lots or parcels identified as single- family residential homes, condominium, vacant residential land zoned for four units or less, planned development (tract or townhouse type), and modular/manufactured single- family residential unit s. Developed apartments are assigned a factor of 1.00 EDU per dwelling unit. Parcels with a vacant apartment land use are treated like commercial and assessed 5.50 EDU per acre.

Commercial — (County land use 3x, 8x, 9x) This land use identifies properties that are considered improved for commercial use and are assigned a factor of 5.50 EDU per gross acre. This land use classification may include, but is not limited to, lots or parcels identified as car washes, commercial garages, automotive dealerships, parking lots, parking garages, service stations, funeral homes, nursing or boarding homes, hospitals, hotels/motels, banks, medical -dental, single and m ulti-story office buildings, bowling alleys, theaters, vacant commercial land, department stores, discount stores, restaurants, shopping centers, supermark ets, comme rcial or industrial condominium prior to sale of one unit, a nd miscellaneous comme rcial. In addition, institutional property, such as schools and other types of public property are identified within this category.

Property Type EDU Factor
Single Family Residential (SFR) 1.00 per Parcel
Commercial 5.50 per Acre
Exempt, Cemeteries, Common Open Space 0.00 per Parcel
TABLE 3: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Street Lighting District No. 1999-1
637
Common Open Space — (County land use 0, 03-05, 65) T his land use identifies properties that are exempt from assessment and are assigned 0.00 ED U. This land use classification may include, but is not limited to, lots or parcels identified as exempt public agencies, property leased or owned by public u tilities, cem eteries, a nd planned development common areas.

The following formulas are used to calculate each property’s assessment:

Total Balance to Levy / Total EDUs = Levy per EDU (Rate)

Parcel EDU x Levy per EDU = Parcel Levy Amount

Maximum Assessment Rate

It is recognized that the cost of maintaining the District improvements increases slightly every year because of inflation. At the time the District was formed, the property owners approved a f ormula f or increasing assessments for each future fiscal year to o ffset increases in costs due to inflation.

The maximum assessment amount for each property type shal l be increased each fiscal year in an amo unt equal t o the annual percentage increase of the local San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose Area Consumer Price Index (“Index”) for “All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” which is app lied to all costs except utilities (water and electricity), pl us the actual percentage increase in utility costs (collectively, “Annual Escalation Factor”).

In order to implement the District’s Annual Escalation Factor annually, two rates were developed based on the cost estimate that was prepared at the time the property owners approved the annual escalator. The first rate (the “CPI Rate”) was created to encompass the annual District cost increases except for utilities. The second rate (the “Utility Rate”) was created to encompass the annual utility cost increases.

The Index is to be applied annually to the prior year’s maximum CPI Rate for each property type to pay for all costs except utilities. The maximum Utility Rate was established to pay for all utility costs for each property type and is to be increased annually by the percentage change in the budgeted amount for utilities as shown in the annual District’s fiscal year Engineer’s Reports. The increase in utility costs shall be calculated by taking the upcoming fiscal year’s budgeted amount for utilities and subtracting the District’s previous highest yearly budgeted amount for utilities. This difference is used to calculate the annual increase in the Utility Rate for each property type. The combination of the maximum CPI Rate and maximum Utility Rate (collectively, “Maximum Assessment Rate”) shall equal the Maximum Assessment Rate for the upcoming fiscal year. Please see Table 3 for details regarding the Maximum Assessment Rate for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The timing of the annual percentage increase of the Index was changed beginning in 2018 and for each year thereafter for administrative purposes, to ensure the City is 638
allowed the time necessary to have all annual documents prepared and approved by the City Council by June of each year, and to meet both County submittal and statutory requirements. Each fiscal yea r starting in 2018, the C ity sha ll id entify t he annual percentage difference in the Index between the most recent calendar year and that of the prior calendar year; more specifically, the annual percentage change used to escalate the prior year’s assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 was determined based on the difference using the annual amount for calendar years 2021 and 2020. Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such Index or discontinue the preparation of such Index, the City shall use the revised index or comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living. The following ta ble shows the Maximum Assessment Rates allowable for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

If the City Council determines that an inflation adjustment is not required for a given fiscal year, the City Council may authorize the ensuing fiscal year’s assessment without applying the adjustment formula to the amount levied. If the cost estimate and assessments for the District require an increase greater than the adjustment set forth in the formula, then the proposed increase would be subject to approval by the District property owners. Each fiscal year, the maximum assessment rate shall increase at the maximum amount allowable regardless of whether the increase is levied to the parcels within the District.

CPI for 2020 Calendar Year1 292.601
CPI for 2021 Calendar Year1 304.602
% Change in CPI - Increase 4.10%
FY
2021/22 Maximum Rate per EDU - CPI Rate $39.66
FY 2022/23 Maximum Rate per EDU - CPI Rate $41.28
Prior Year Maximum Utility Budget 2 $183,600
Utility Budget for FY 2022/23 $152,880
% Change in Utility Rate - Increase3 0.000%
FY 2021/22 Maximum Rate per EDU - Utility Rate $22.85
FY
2022/23 Maximum Rate per EDU - Utility Rate $22.85
FY 2021/22 Maximum Assessment Rate per EDU $62.51
FY 2022/23 Maximum Assessment Rate per EDU 4 $64.14
1 CPI is based off of the All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. 2 The FY 2021/22 Budget Amount for Utilities was the previous highest amount budgeted for utility costs.
3 Equals the % difference between the FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23 Maximum Utility Rate. If the Utility Budget does not increase, no increase will be realized.

TABLE 4: MAX IMUM ASSESSMENT RATE
Street Lighting District No. 1999-1
639
PART E

ASSESSMENT ROLL

The proposed assessment and the amount of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the la test roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file under separate cover with the City Clerk. Furthermore, the description of each lot or pa rcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Alameda and those records are, by reference, made part of this r eport. The a ssessments sh own w ill be s ubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller and i ncluded on the property tax roll for each parcel shown in t he assessment roll for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Parcel identification, the l ines a nd d imensions of each lot, pa rcel, a nd subdivision of land within th e District, are inclusive of t he parcels as shown on t he Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Maps as they existed at the time of the passage of t he Resolution of Intention, and shall i nclude subsequent subdivisions, lot line adjustments or parcel changes therein. Reference is hereby made to the Alameda County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the District.

640

6.2 Public Hearing
Assessment Districts
City Council
June 21, 2022
641
Background
• May 17, 2022 – City Council set the public hearing for June 21, 2022.
• Notification - Staff posted Public Notices at City Hall. • Public Notice was published in The East Bay Times.
• Website – The Public Notice and copies of the fiscal year 2022- 2023 Engineer’s Reports were posted on the City website. • Postcards were sent to property owners in Districts 1983-2 and 1986-1.
• Public Response – None
642
Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1983-1
• Funds maintenance and utility costs for Dublin’s public streetlights. • Proposition 218: Assessments capped at $19.34 per single family residence and $106.37 per acre of commercial or industrial use. • Fiscal year budget projects an increase in reserves of $14,996, which includes estimated interest and capital improvement funds. 643
Landscape Maintenance District No.
1983-2
• Maintains Tract 4719 landscaping adjacent to Stagecoach Road. • FY22-23 budget proposes a 9% increase to a rate of $448.60 per single family home and $75.87 for apartments and condominiums.

The existing capital improvement fund balance and the additional revenue from the rate increase will fund general improvements, such as retaining wall repairs, additional irrigation and planting, and v-ditch repairs.
• Maximum assessments are $487.79 and $82.48
• Fiscal year budget projects an increase in reserves of $33,775 which includes estimated interest and capital improvement funds. 644
Landscape Maintenance District No.
1986-1
• Maintains landscaping, fences, and walls in the residential area west of Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard.
• FY22-23 budget proposes a 21% increase to bring assessment rates to the maximum. The existing capital improvement fund balance and additional revenue from the rate increase will fund current and future capital improvement projects, as well as other general improvements. • Maximum assessments are $298.03 per single family home, $149.02 for apartments, and $1,192.10 for commercial lots.
• Fiscal year budget projects an increase in reserves of $70,567, which includes estimated interest and capital improvement funds. 645
Landscape Maintenance District No.
1997-1
• Maintains landscaping in the Santa Rita development, bounded by I- 580, Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive and Arnold Road.
• FY22-23 budget proposes no increase with assessments remaining at $903.85 per acre. Assessment varies between $54 to $216 per residential unit, depending on residential density.
• Maximum assessments are $1,588.25 per acre.
• Fiscal year budget projects a decrease in reserves of $155,633, which includes estimated interest and capital improvement funding for the Persimmon Drive Asphalt Path Rehabilitation Project. 646
Street Lighting Maintenance District
No. 1999-1
• Maintains street lighting, including decorative light fixtures, in Dublin Ranch, Fallon Village, Jordan Ranch, and Clifden Park developments. • FY22-23 budget proposes no increase with assessments remaining at $38.03 per dwelling unit and $209.15 per acre for commercial use. • Maximum assessments are $64.14 per dwelling unit and $352.75 per acre. • Fiscal year budget projects an increase in reserves of $32,896, which includes estimated interest and capital improvement funds.
• T wo capital improvement projects are identified for FY2022/2023, and funded by the capital improvement funds:
– Light Pole Painting
– Upgrade to Energy-Efficient Streetlights
647
Recommendation
That the City Council:
• Open the Public Hearing for all five Assessment Districts, take testimony, close the Public Hearing, and Deliberate;
• Adopt the Resolution for all five Districts:
– Approving the Engineer’s Report
– Confirming Diagram and Assessment
– Ordering the Levy of Assessment
648

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 6.3
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of Rates for Garbage Collection, Disposal, and Recycling Services Provided by Amador Valley Industries and Establishing the 2022-23 Annual Assessment
Prepared by: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider adopting two separate resolutions establishing the garbage rates effective July 1, 2022 and establishing the Fiscal Year 2022-23 refuse-related property tax assessment. The proposed rates include the costs associated with implementing California State Senate Bill (SB) 1383, which created regulations to increase the diversion of organic waste from landfills.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Approving and Establishing the Collection of Minimum Residential Garbage and Recycling Service Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and adopt the Resolution Amending the Schedule of Service Rates for Integrated Solid Waste Services.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The rate adjustment for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 will result in a 5.66% increase for all non- construction and demolition rates; 3.30% of the increase is attributed to the annual rate adjustment, with an additional 2.36% increase due to the additional services required of Amador Valley Industries (AVI) to ensure compliance with SB 1383’s requirements. The construction and demolition (C&D) rates will be adjusted by the annual rate adjustment, 3.30%, as those services are not affected by the additional SB 1383 related costs. The residential garbage and recycling service fees, which are collected on the Property Tax bill as an annual assessment, will increase by $2.17 per month on the required residential 32-gallon can to a total of $40.56 per month. The proposed Dublin commercial rate increases vary based on the service level selected. The proposed rate of $196.81 represents the average service level for a one-yard bin collected once per week.
649

DESCRIPTION:

Background
In January 2005, the City executed an Agreement with Amador Valley Industries, LLC (AVI) for service that began July 1, 2005 and continued to June 30, 2020. On June 16, 2020, the City Council approved an Amended and Restated Agreement (Agreement) with AVI, which extended the term of the agreement until 2035, addressed capital equipment replacement needs and started incorporating local and state requirements. In addition, as part of the Amendment, a new rate model approach was agreed to that addresses annual rate adjustments, component cost separation, and regular financial reviews, to help deal with the volatility of the market in which haulers now operate.

FY 2022-23 Rate Adjustment
The rate adjustment for the FY 2022-2023 rates includes two separate components - 1) The Annual Rate Adjustment and 2) The SB 1383 Adjustment. Implementation of the requirements of SB 1383 will require additional services be provided as well as an increase in reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the regulations. Section 27 of the Agreement anticipated additional cost increases resulting from SB 1383 and provided that the City would adjust the rates to reflect those additional costs. As a result of these additional services and reporting requirements, the City and AVI, consistent with their obligation to “negotiate in good faith, a reasonable and appropriate compensation adjustment,” have been meeting over the past year to determine the best and most cost-effective way to implement these requirements. The terms and costs have been agreed upon by the City and AVI, and the proposed “SB 1383 Adjustment” reflects the result of that negotiation. In addition, the parties’ SB 1383-related negotiations under Section 27 of the Agreement have resulted in a proposed amendment to the Agreement. The proposed amendment has been agreed in principle by the parties, but it is currently subject to legal review by the City Attorney’s Office and AVI’s counsel, which is not anticipated to result in any changes to the 2022-2023 proposed rates. The Amendment will to be presented to the City Council at a future meeting for approval.

Annual Rate Adjustment
The current garbage rates became effective July 1, 2021. The Agreement with AVI provides a process for addressing the compensation generated from all rate classes on an annual basis. The Agreement establishes a total annual revenue requirement for AVI with the City retaining responsibility for establishing the rates for all categories. The Agreement contains a provision that rates must be reasonably forecasted to provide AVI with an appropriate level of compensation based on a formula detailed within the Agreement. The forecasting methodology compares customer counts between the two most recent calendar years to calculate revenue generation based on the level of services provided multiplied by the appropriate rates. Rates are adjusted as appropriate across all service sectors to meet the calculated revenue requirement as set forth by the rate model.

As required in the Agreement, the City has provided AVI with information showing the rate calculations and assumptions. Section 5.13.1 states “…the final decision of the rate structure rests solely with the City.” The proposed rate structure for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is estimated to meet the compensation requirement of $25,774,765. This compensation is possible as a result of a 650

proposed 3.30% average increase to all categories. A detailed description of the methodology required by the Agreement is included as Attachment 4.

SB1383 Adjustment
Implementing the requirements of SB 1383 requires additional resources in two areas, organics collection and information reporting. Staff is recommending the following SB 1383 implementation costs, as agreed upon and in coordination with City Staff, AVI and the City’s consultant HF&H Consulting:

Cost Type Amount*
Carts (Organics) $96,882
Recycling/Reporting Coordinators $419,165
Organics Disposal $71,961
Total $588,008
*Includes City Fees
$96,882 –Additional organic carts, organic (food waste) pails and battery boxes. There are currently over 3,840 customers that do not subscribe to recycling/organic service. SB 1383 requires such customers to subscribe to recycling/organics service, and this will necessitate AVI’s purchase of additional collection carts.
$419,165 – One additional recycling coordinator to perform additional outreach audits, to ensure compliance and 1/2 (0.5) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) reporting coordinator to track and prepare the additional monthly/quarterly and annual reports to the City, County and State required by SB 1383. The costs include the purchase of an electric vehicle for the recycling coordinator use. $71,961 – AVI received notice from Waste Management that they would no longer accept commercial food waste material, due to the projected increase in organic waste because of SB 1383. This will require that commercial organic waste be taken to an alternate facility, which has a higher cost.

FY 2022-23 Adjustment (Annual Rate + SB 1383)
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Annual
Adjustment (Only)
FY 2022-23 – Annual
Adjustment + SB
1383
Total Compensation $23,939,196 $25,774,765 $26,362,772
Residential Rates
(Monthly)
$38.39 $39.66 $40.56
Difference YOY ($) $1.27 $2.17
Difference (YOY) (%) 3.30% 5.66%
As previously mentioned, the residential service fees are collected on the Property Tax bill. Staff has included the SB 1383 costs with the FY 2022-23 rate adjustment, as any adjustment that 651

occurs after June, would not go in effect until the following rate adjustment for FY 2023-24. The annual garbage assessment must be provided to the County, within a specified period, for the County to include the fee on that year’s tax roll. City Staff, AVI and HF&H are continuing to meet, as with any new program as large as SB 1383, the actual costs of implementation may change, and any addition fee adjustments, if necessary, will be included in future rate adjustments.

Detailed Comparison of Current and Proposed Rates
Attachment 5 compares the proposed rates to the current rates for service levels that represent a majority of the subscribers in the City. The proposed rates would be effective July 1, 2022.

Competitiveness of Dublin Rates with Neighboring Agencies Historically, Staff has included a comparison of the Dublin rates compared to rates charged for similar services in surrounding communities. This comparison has focused solely on the garbage rates, as historically, recycling and organic waste were seen as smaller complimentary services.

This is no longer true with the implementation of SB 1383, as well as other regional and statewide laws. Looking specifically at garbage rates no longer offers a clear “apples to apples” comparison.

For example, Livermore now charges recycling at 80% of the garbage rate, Castro Valley a rate of 71% the garbage rate, and San Ramon at 50%, where Dublin charges 25%. The same pattern is now occurring with Organic Waste, in which Dublin charges 50% of the garbage rate, but as regulations change and options for disposal become more limited these services have become more expensive and cities are adjusting for that reality.

Overall, Dublin remains competitive, and the services offered are at least comparable to, and are often better than, the surveyed cities especially when factoring the type of service (garbage, recycling, organics, etc.), that is being provided. The current comparison is included as Attachment 6 and in this year’s comparison Staff has included Castro Valley Sanitation District, in place of Pleasanton, to include three service areas, that offer similar services. The Pleasanton costs and cost structure have become an outlier in the Tri-Valley and when incorporating their costs into an “area average”, made it appear, that Dublin was significantly higher, when in reality Dublin was very competitive with the other two cities included (Livermore and San Ramon).

Minimum Residential Garbage Service
All properties in the City are required to subscribe and have a weekly minimum garbage service (Dublin Municipal Code Section 5.32). This minimum service includes weekly curbside collection of a 32-gallon garbage container; up to two organic waste carts, including food scraps (96 gallons each); up to two recycling carts (96 gallons each); recycling collection of used oil and filters; an annual household hazardous waste drop-off event; and three on-call bulky waste pick-ups per year. Residents desiring larger garbage carts are billed directly by AVI for the incremental rate difference. The City pays AVI for the service cost of the minimum residential service with monies collected from the property tax bill.

The City Council will need to establish the annual fee, which is collected with the property tax bill for residential properties, separately from the rates for other levels of service. The proposed fee for basic residential service for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is $486.72, which is collected in two installments on the property tax bill. This equates to $40.56 per month, which is $26.04 per year ($2.17 per month) more than the rate levied in Fiscal Year 2021-22, as shown here:
652

Historical Annual Fee for Minimum Garbage Service Collected with Property Tax Bill
2020-21 2021-22
Proposed
2022-23
Annual
Change
Monthly
Change
$421.32 $460.68 $486.72 $26.04 $2.17
This base rate includes $0.45 per month to cover the cost associated with the collection being included on the property tax bill. These funds are not paid to AVI but are retained by the City to offset the administrative cost in preparing the tax roll. In addition, the cost of collection and delinquencies for the basic service is expected to be covered by prior year fund balance, penalties and prior year taxes collected by the County Tax Collector, and interest on funds held prior to payment to the Company.

Resolutions
Included in this Staff Report (Attachments 1-3) are the annual resolutions that, with City Council adoption, will establish the solid waste collection rates and the required minimum level of garbage service for the next fiscal year.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

A notice was placed in the East Bay Times on June 11, 2022 and June 18, 2022, notifying the community of the City Council’s consideration of the proposed rates and the City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving and Establishing the Collection of Minimum Residential Garbage and Recycling Service Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-23
2) Resolution Amending the Schedule of Service Rates for Integrated Solid Waste Services 3) Exhibit A to the Resolution – Proposed Adjustment to Garbage Company Rates 4) Methodology used for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Garbage Rate Adjustment in Accordance with Agreement Between City of Dublin and Amador Valley Industries 5) Proposed vs. Current Rates
6) Local Area Rate Comparison
653
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING THE COLLECTION OF MINIMUM
RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AND RECYCLING SERVICE FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022- 2023
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is mandated by the State of California, under AB 939 and SB 1016, to reduce the amount of solid waste going into the landfill; and WHEREAS, through the Mandatory Garbage Subscription Ordinance and other means, the City of Dublin is taking a proactive stance to meet the State Mandated Goals; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Mandatory Garbage Subscription Ordinance is to protect the health and welfare of the community, to provide recycling services to all residential property owners, and to equally share the costs of these programs by mandating that every residence contributes towards the cost of the service made available; and
WHEREAS, minimum service includes service described in the current Agreement with the franchised waste hauler, Amador Valley Industries (AVI); and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this action as part of a noticed public hearing on June 21, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve and establish the collection of minimum residential services fees by the City on the property tax bill as shown in Exhibit A , which is attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Staff are hereby authorized to undertake all administrative tasks to implement the assessments, including, but not limited to an agreement with Alameda County for collection, which may provide payment to Alameda County of its reasonable costs of collection not to exceed 1.7% of the total amount levied. {Signatures on the following page}
654
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
655
Exhibit A
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 3 of 4 City of Dublin

RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM GARBAGE / RECYCLING SERVICES
(Collected With Residential Property Tax Bills)
Basis of Fees
The City has negotiated a multi-year agreement with Amador Valley Industries (AVI) requiring a rate adjustment to the residential minimum garbage/recycling services collected with the property tax bills. The current annual fee of $460.68 per year will increase $26.04 for a total of $486.72 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The annual assessment equates to a monthly increase of $2.17, from $38.39 to $40.56. The Amended and Restated Agreement with AVI sets the compensation for the Agreement Year that begins July 1, 2022 and provides for annual adjustments to the rates based upon annual changes in four separate indices, two of which are maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Refuse Rate Index), plus pass-through disposal costs, for waste, recyclables and organics. The four indices account for cost changes in the following categories: growth in services; labor; vehicle maintenance; and all other costs.

In addition, the Agreement allows for a third-party administrator to review costs and revenue every three years to confirm reasonableness and to ensure that an industry standard level of operating margin in being maintained by AVI.

In order to determine the fee, the City estimates the total revenue required to pay AVI for the Minimum Service to all residential units that are eligible to use the service, according to the terms of the agreement. The specific factors considered in this calculation include the following components: the residential rate for Minimum Service; estimated number of housing units affected by the fee; costs associated with the collection of the fee as part of the Property Tax Bill; estimated delinquencies; estimated revenues from late payments and interest earnings; and funds available from collections in a prior year.

Affected Parcels
Chapter 5.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code requires the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the community by requiring that all parcels obtain minimum weekly garbage service. Residential housing units are billed for the cost of Minimum Garbage Service, which is included with the annual property tax bill. This fee only applies to residential units which have individual garbage containers and are not serviced by central bins. This does include duplexes and other attached housing types, which receive individual service.

Households subject to this fee, which only receive Minimum Service, will not be billed by the Garbage Company. Amador Valley industries will bill customers each quarter for additional services, if a household selects weekly garbage collection of a container larger than the 32-gallon container included in the Minimum Service Level.

Services Provided By the Fee
Minimum service includes weekly curbside collection of: one 32 gallon garbage container; up to two 96 gallon organic waste carts; up to two 96 gallon recycling carts; 656
Exhibit A
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 4 of 4 used oil and filters; an annual household hazardous waste drop off event; and three on- call bulky waste pick-ups per year.

Amount of the Fee
The annual amount of the assessment includes the cost of collection as well as the cost of services over the entire year. The City makes the payment to Amador Valley Industries based upon the current rate allowed for Minimum Residential Service.

TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT ANNUAL FEE
Each Single Family Residence $ 486.72
Each Condominium / Townhouse Unit $ 486.72
Each Duplex (2 Units) $ 973.44
Each Duplex (5 or More Units) $486.72 times the
number of units
657
Attachment 2
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF SERVICE RATES FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin executed a Collection Service Agreement with Amador Valley Industries (AVI) on January 12, 2005; and subsequently executed five amendments to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the City Council to adopt a rate schedule, which is estimated to produce a specified revenue amount as identified in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the initial rate schedule with Resolution 68-05 at a noticed public hearing on May 3, 2005 and the Agreement provides that the City Council is responsible for establishing all rates; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2020, the City of Dublin executed an Amended and Restated Collection Service Agreement (Amendment) with Amador Valley Industries (AVI) extending the Collection Service Agreement for another 15-year term; and WHEREAS, the Amendment with AVI provides for an adjustment to the rates each July 1 st in accordance with specified formulas; and
WHEREAS, the State of California passed Senate Bill (SB) 1383, requiring among other rules and regulations, the need to reduce the amount of organic waste being disposed in landfills, as well as an increase in the reporting requirements documenting these efforts; and WHEREAS, the parties anticipated in the Amendment that SB 1383 would require rate increases to reflect additional costs incurred by AVI arising from SB 1383, and it required the parties to negotiate in good faith on a rate adjustment. The City has met and conferred with AVI, to develop programs and costs to comply with SB 1383, which are included in the required rates; and WHEREAS, the City has calculated the required rate adjustment necessary to generate the agreed to compensation and applied not more than a 5.66% adjustment to the residential, commercial, roll-off, and other collection service rates and 3.30% for construction and demolition debris rates; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing prior to the adoption of the new rate schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Rate Schedule attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof.
658
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, while AVI may not charge a rate for these services in excess of the established rates, nothing shall prohibit AVI from charging a rate less than the established amount.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon the effective date, July 1, 2022, this resolution shall supersede all previous resolutions adopting rates for solid waste services, and the rates adopted by this resolution shall continue from year to year.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
659
Attachment 3
Exhibit A to the Resolution
Affected Parcels
Minimum Monthly Rate : 40.56 $ (Rate includes $0.45 retained by City for preparing tax roll / collection.) Residents may select a larger garbage container for an additional fee which is shown below:
64 Gallon Garbage Container: $33.95 per month (Total = 74.51 $ per month) 96 Gallon Garbage Container: $67.90 per month (Total = 108.46 $ per month) Second Container:

Additional Large Item Collection: $ 26.67
32 Gallon Container: $46.00 64 Gallon Container: $84.48 96 Gallon Container: $122.87 Commercial Bin Service Rates
2022/2023 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT TO GARBAGE COMPANY RATES
Chapter 5.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code requires for the protection of the health sa fety and welfare of the community that al l parcels obtain minimum weekly garbage service. Amador Valley Industries, Inc. is the authorized garbage collection and disposal firm operating within the Ci ty. The agreement between the City of Dublin and Amador Valley Industries, Inc. provides that the City shall adopt a rate schedule which is estimated to allow the Co mpany to achieve a fixed amount of annual revenue. Therefore, the adoption of these fees will a ffect all parcel owners. Rates are effective July 1, 2022.

Basis of Fees
The City has negotiated a multi-year agreement with Amador Valley Industries, Inc. The Company may request a change in rates b ased upon a formula which includes: changes in the Refuse Rate Index; Increased Regulator y Fees; and changes in the total tons delivered to the Landfill. In addition the Company may under specifc criteria request an extraordinary adjustment. The additional costs of eac h of these components has been allocated to th e three classes of service:

Residential; Commercial Bin Service; and Drop Box/Compactor. per Cubic Yard
Rates shown on the following page are monthly rates based upon bin size and frequency of service. Rates include collection, di sposal, and bin rental.

Residents may request additional large item collection services for a fee of :

RESIDENTIAL RATES
Commercial Can Service: Offered at locations unable to accommodate a commercial bin or with volumes deemed insufficient to utilize a commercial bin. Monthly rate includes bin rental and once per week collection and disposal.

Company Minimum Residential Collection Rate: Applies separately to each single family unit as well as each unit within a duplex or other attached housing, which receives individual garbage collection services. The rate applies to the init ial 32 gallons of garbage capacity, including once per week collection and disposal; Weekly Curbside Residential Recycling; and Weekly Curbside Green Waste Recycling; Large Item Collection Service; and access to an Annual HHW drop-off event. All containers are provided by the Company .

COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY BIN SERVICES (FRONT-END-LOADER) Minimum Cost Plus
Minimum Cost Plus
Residents may request a second garbage container which will be charged at the same rate as a first container based on the size requested.
660
Attachment 3
Exhibit A to the Resolution
Size # Times Size # Times
# Yards Per Wk # Yards Per Wk
11 4 1
12 4 2
13 4 3
14 4 4
15 4 5
16 4 6
21 6 1
22 6 2
23 6 3
24 6 4
25 6 5
26 6 6
31 7 1
32 7 2
33 7 3
34 7 4
35 7 5
36 7 6
OTHER COMMERCIAL SERVICES: Rates for additional requested services.

Container Push: 17.93$
Lock & Key: 10.77$
Excess Waste (Cu. Yd): 58.76$ per Cubic Yard
Excess Cart Exchange: 17.93$
Excess Bin Exchange: 71.63$
Excess Bin Cleaning: 89.47$
$257.51
Additional Bin Rental Per Week: $59.50 Per Week $186.68 Per Pick-up Excess Per Yard If Filled Above Water Level $58.76 Per Cubic Yard Rate Per Cubic Yard: $55.38 Compacted: $110.76
Organic material is charged at 50% of the non-compact ed or compacted rate as appropriate.

MISCELLANEOUS DROP BOX CHARGES
Relocation of Drop Box $152.21 Per Request
Weekly Drop Box Container Rental - After 1st Week $59.50 Per Week Cancel Auto Pick-up Without Notice $191.74 Per Event
Handy Hauler Extra Week Rental $59.50 Per Week
Standby Time $249.91 Per Hour
Base Monthly Rate Base Monthly Rate
$196.81 $787.24
DROP BOX / COMPACTOR RATES: Cost shown is on a per pick-up basis and is based upon the load not exceeding water le vel (Excess is charged the same rate).

Additional Miscellaneous charges may also apply.
$934.15
$1,179.93
Cost For Additional Dump:

SMALL COMPACTOR SERVICE: Rates for small compactors serviced as a commercial account on a regular route shall be billed by container size at the rate of two times the stated rate above for loose garbage.
$2,606.57
$3,787.43
Non-Compacted:

HANDY HAULER:- One-time placement and collection of a 4 cubic yard bin, including one week container rental filled no higher than water level:
$8,510.87
$2,804.31
$4,230.95
$5,657.59
$7,084.23
Organic material is charged at 50% of the Commercial Service rate.

Recycled Material is charged at 25% of the Commercial Service rate. $442.59
$688.37
$2,508.63
$3,148.03
$1,229.83
$1,869.23
$1,425.71
$393.62
$836.21
$1,623.45
$2,459.66
$3,295.87
$4,132.08
$4,968.29
$590.43
$1,180.86
$2,410.69
$3,640.52
$4,870.35
$1,278.80
$1,721.39
$2,163.98 $6,100.18
$7,330.01
$1,377.67
661
Attachment 3
Exhibit A to the Resolution
C&D Debris Box Service: Costs shown are on a per pick-up basis Material Type Cubic Yards Rate Material Type Cubic Yards Rate Concrete & Asphalt Front End Loader
Per Yard Clean $124.53 Per Yard $48.87
Clean 6 $747.18 Mixed 4 (1/2 Full) $97.74
Mixed 6 $894.24 Mixed 4 $195.48
Mixed 6 (1/2 Full) $146.61
Cardboard Mixed 6 $293.22
Per Yard Clean $24.91 Mixed 7 (1/2 Full) $171.05
Clean 20 $498.20
Clean 30 $747.30 Metal
Clean 40 $996.40 Metal 20 $581.03
Metal 30 $664.04
Dirt Metal 40 $830.08
Clean 6 $746.75
Mixed 6 $894.24 Stucco
Per Yard Clean $124.53
Drywall Clean 6 $747.18
Per Yard Clean $59.60 Mixed 6 $894.24
Clean 20 $1,192.00
Mixed C&D
Wood Per Yard $51.47
Per Yard Clean $24.91 Mixed 15 $772.05
Clean 20 $498.20 Mixed 20 $1,029.40
Clean 30 $747.30 Mixed 30 $1,544.10
Clean 40 $996.40 Mixed 40 $2,058.80

CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION (C&D) DEBRIS BOX SERVICES
662
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 1 How Adjustment Factors Are Applied to Elements That Comprise Total Compensation Annually, there is a process established where a revised total compensation figure is developed. This calculation takes into consideration changes in the number of accounts serviced as well as adjustments to eight elements.

1. Collection Compensation Element

2. Commercial Recycling Incentive Element

3. Disposal Compensation Element

4. Container Compensation Element

5. Recyclable Material Diversion Compensation Element

6. Organic Waste Diversion Compensation Element

7. Vehicle and Administration Element

8. Fee Compensation Element

1. Methodology for Adjusting Rates to Reflect Changes In Collection Costs The Amendment with AVI contains a very detailed methodology for incorporating economic changes into the annual rate adjustments. Specifically, two calculations are made as part of a larger formula. The first is the Refuse Rate Index Adjustment (RRI) and the second an Annual Growth factor.

Steps Required to Calculate the RRI Factor
The weighted RRI factor cannot exceed 10%, and it is calculated based on the weighted percentage change in specific indices multiplied by the costs associated with key company expenses. The following tables provide a summary description of how these factors are interrelated:

STEP 1: INDICES USED IN RRI CALCULATION
Operating Cost Category Index Used
(To Produce A Weighted Adjustment)
% Index Change @
12/31/2021
LABOR Labor - Teamsters Union Local 70 Contract 2.85%
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE Machinery & Equipment-Parts, Attachments and Accessories (wpu11440378) 11.13%
ALL OTHER Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers:

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
(CUURS49BSA0)

3.21%
The Company provides the City with their expenditures in each of these areas over Calendar Year 2021. These costs are AVI expenses and exclude disposal costs or fees paid to the City. The total costs for the year are used to determine the weighting to be applied for each of the indices. The following table shows the actual weighting used in the FY 2022-2023 calculation.
663
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 2 STEP 2: RRI WEIGHTING FACTOR BASED ON RELATIONSHIP TO TOTAL COSTS Operating Cost Category AVI $
reported
% Total Expenses
(Weighting Factor)
LABOR $5,474,068 41.73%
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE $2,799,788 21.34%
ALL OTHER $4,845,419 36.93%
TOTAL $13,119,265 100%
As mentioned earlier, these factors are applied on a weighted basis. The index factor for each cost category is multiplied by the weighting factor. The result will produce the RRI, which per the agreement cannot exceed 10%. The following table shows the FY 2022-2023 results:

STEP 3: RRI CALCULATION (CANNOT EXCEED 10%)
[Index Change multiplied By Weighting Factor]
Operating Cost Category % Index
Change @
12/31/2021
% Total
Expenses
(Weighting
Factor)
RRI
Index Change
x
Weighting Factor
LABOR 2.85% 41.73% 1.19%
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 11.13% 21.34% 2.38%
ALL OTHER 3.21% 36.93% 1.19%
TOTAL 4.76%
Steps Required to Calculate the Annual Growth (AG) Factor The AG factor uses a formula that compares revenue at two points in time. The “Beginning Calculated Revenue” equals the current rates multiplied by the census as of the beginning of January 2021. This is compared to the “Ending Calculated Revenue”. The Ending Calculated Revenue is equal to the current rates multiplied by the December 2021 number of accounts served. The adjustment reflects increases in the number of billed units served. The methodology is relatively straight forward. The Agreement with AVI included an exhibit which lists various service events. For example, it included the number of single family basic service units, number of commercial bins by size, and frequency of service, etc. These are then multiplied by the appropriate monthly rate. Residential service is a bundled rate for recycling and garbage and, therefore, recycling is not included in the calculation. Moreover, each single family unit is calculated at the Basic Rate regardless of whether they may have 664
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 3 multiple recycling or green waste bins. For the purpose of calculating growth, commercial recycling bins are considered to have the same rate as commercial garbage bins with the increase in bins from year to year factored within this formula.

For the FY 2022-2023 adjustment, the Agreement provides for the calculation to be done based on the actual collection census data as of January 2021 and as of December 2021.

The rates used for this comparison are the rates in effect on July 1, 2021.

The FY 2022-2023 calculation showed that the “Beginning Calculated Revenue”, or the revenue collected by AVI for all services provided for that month, was $2,611,278 and the “Ending Calculated Revenue” was $2,720,471. This results in a FY 2022-2023 Annual Growth Factor of 4.18%. [$2,720,471 - $2,611,278 = $109,193; $109,193/$2,611,278 =

0.0418]. Per Section 5.05.1.2 of the Agreement, if the percentage change is negative, that year’s Annual Growth Factor is set at 0%.

Application of RRI and AG to Collection Compensation Element The FY 2022-2023 Collection Compensation Element as calculated was $14,650,936. In accordance with the Amended and Restated Agreement, the total Collection Compensation Element is broken into two amounts. 1) The amount that is to be included as part of the annual rate adjustment $12,654,450 (Adjusted Amount) 2) The amount that will not be adjusted annually and will be set at $840,000 for the term of the Amendment. (Set Amount).

The Adjusted Amount is first adjusted by the AG Factor [$12,654,450 * (1+.0418) =$13,183,406] and then that total is escalated by the RRI factor. [$13,183,406* (1 + .0476) = $13,810,936]. The Adjusted Amount is then added to the Set Amount ($13,810,936 +$840,000 = $14,650,936). This amount then flows into the projected total compensation shown in Section 9 of this report.

2. Methodology for Adjusting Commercial Recycling Compensation The City has agreed to provide a compensation amount to AVI for the City’s Commercial Recycling Program. This amount is escalated each year by the RRI factor, which is calculated as described above, and the growth in commercial recycling tonnage. As part of the negotiation for the Amended and Restated Agreement, the City and AVI, agreed that this element would be reset, in a which a $607,266 credit is applied to the annual compensation amount as described below. The FY 2021-2022 Commercial Recycling Compensation Element final calculation was the following ($644,125 - $607,266 = $36,859).

The commercial recycling growth is calculated based on the total tonnage at the end of each calendar year over the total tonnage for the previous. In years where the total tonnage has decreased, the growth factor is set at 0%. For Calendar Year 2021, the total recycling tons collected was 3,454.19. In 2020, AVI collected 2,712.98. This results in an increase of 665
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 4 27.32% (3,454.19 - 2,712.98= 741.21; 741.21 / 2,712.98 = 27.32%). Thus, the Commercial Recycling Growth Factor is 27.32%, as discussed above, which is added to the RRI factor with the combination of the factors used to inflate the previous year’s Commercial Recycling Program compensation amount (0.2732 + 0.0476 = 0.3208; $644,125 * 0.3208 = $206,635; $644,125 + $206,635 =$850,760). ($850,760 - $607,266 = $243,494) This amount then flows into the projected total compensation shown in Section 9 of this report.

3. Methodology for Adjusting Rates to Reflect Changes in Landfill / Disposal Costs Landfill disposal costs are established under a separate agreement between the City of Dublin and Waste Management, Inc. AVI is required to use the disposal facility designated by the City. AVI makes the payments for disposal costs and pays the price negotiated by the City under the separate agreement with Waste Management. Since these are expenses incurred by AVI, these costs must also be considered in setting the rates. The landfill component has the following two factors that impact the rates: 1) Tip Fee Factor, and 2) Annual Tonnage Factor.

Approved Tip Fee(ATF) Factor
In FY 2021-2022, the cost per ton for landfill fees will increase by $1.15 per ton as provided in the disposal agreement with Waste Management, the increase for disposal is $1.04 and $0.11 is due to increases in governmental fees. Therefore, the total disposal cost for FY 2022-2023 will be $44.57 per ton. Of this amount, $19.89 (44.5% of the per ton fee) is related to regulatory fees and $24.68 reflects the portion paid to Waste Management for landfill services.

The portion paid to Waste Management can increase only as provided in a Disposal Agreement between the City and Waste Management. The regulatory fees are levied by other agencies such as StopWaste.Org; County Local Enforcement Authority; California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery; Household Hazardous Waste Fees; County Business License; etc. This results in an ATF Factor of 2.65%. [2022 Rate = $44.57/ton and 2021 Rate = $43.42/ton  44.57 - 43.42= 1.15; 1.15/43.42 = 0.0265].

Annual Tonnage (AT) Factor
The tonnage increase for the FY 2021-2022 adjustment is based on disposal reports for the period January 1, 2021 – December 31, 2021- and is the summation of the monthly tonnages over this period. This amount is then compared against the previous year’s disposal tonnage.

The total disposal in 2021 was 30,187 tons, and in 2020, it was 30,260 tons. This results in an AT Factor of -0.24%. [30,187 - 30,260= -73.16; -73.16/ 30,260 = -0.0024].

Application of ATF and AT Factors to Disposal Compensation Element 666
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 5 The Landfill Compensation Element was $1,313,936 in 2021. In accordance with the Agreement, this amount is first adjusted by the Annual AT Factor [($1,313,936 * -0.0024 = - $3,153) + $1,313,936 = $1,310,783] and then that total is escalated by the ATF factor. [($1,310,783 * 0.0265 = $34,736) + $1,311,045 = $1,345,518]. This amount then flows into the projected total compensation shown in Section 9 of this report.

4. Methodology Addressing Container Compensation Element This element represents the amortized cost of carts and bins over the life of the agreement.

The allowed amount is modified by the AG factor. As noted above, this factor was calculated at 4.18% for the FY 2022-2023 adjustment. For the FY 2021-2022 adjustment, the amount designated for the Container Element was $312,244. Adjusting this amount by the AG Factor, there will be a $13,052 increase in the calculated amount resulting in $325,296 to be recovered from the rates in FY 2022-2023. [$312,244 * (1 + 0.0418) = $325,296].

5. Methodology Addressing the Recyclable Material Diversion Compensation Element Section 5.05.08 of the Amended and Restated Agreement prescribes the process for calculating the annual adjustment for the Recyclable Materials Diversion Compensation Element. The City shall calculate the actual tonnage of delivered recyclable material for processing in the prior calendar year by the anticipated per-ton tip fee to be charged during the subsequent Agreement Year
Calendar 2021 Recycling Tonnage = 8,669.90
Anticipated Per-Ton Tip Fee =$146.58
Recyclable Materials Diversion Compensation Element = $1,270,834 This amount then flows into the projected total compensation shown in Section 9 of this report.

6. Methodology Addressing Organic Waste Diversion Compensation Element Section 5.05.09 of the Amended and Restated Agreement prescribes the process for calculating the annual adjustment for the Organic Waste Diversion Compensation Element.

The City shall calculate the actual tonnage of actual organic waste delivered for processing to a Organic Waste Processing Facility in the prior calendar year by the anticipated per-ton tip fee to be charged during the subsequent Agreement Year
Calendar 2019 Recycling Tonnage = 8,930.18
Anticipated Per-Ton Tip Fee =$36.33
Organic Waste Diversion Compensation Element = $324,433 667
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 6 This amount then flows into the projected total compensation shown in Section 9 of this report.

7. Methodology Addressing Vehicle and Administration Element Section 5.18 of the Amended and Restated Agreement states that beginning July 1, 2020 the baseline Vehicle and Administration Asset Element shall be set at $1,595,575. The baseline amount shall not be subject to the annual rate adjustment. The Vehicle and Administration Element can be adjusted, but only under the terms as prescribed under sections 5.18 and

5.18.1 of the Amendment.

Vehicle and Administration Baseline Compensation = $1,595,575 Sections 5.18/5.18.1 Adjustments = $0
Vehicle and Administration Element $1,595,575
This amount then flows into the projected total compensation shown in Section 9 of this report.

8. Methodology Addressing Fee Compensation Element
As part of the Agreement with the City of Dublin, AVI is required to remit franchise taxes and certain fees to the City of Dublin based on a percentage of its revenue. Therefore, as the company rates go up, the Fee Element must also be adjusted in order to recognize the fees to be paid on the new revenue.

The Fee Compensation Element shall equal:

1. (Collection + Commercial Recycling Element + Disposal + Container Elements+ Recyclable Materials + Organic Waste + Vehicle and Administration) = “base compensation”

2. “base compensation” is divided by (one (1) minus the “Current Fee Percentage”) [Where the “Current Fee Percentage” = 23.35%]

3. subtract “base compensation” from the obtained value For FY 2022-2023, the Fee Compensation Element Calculation is as follows:
($14,650,936+$243,494+$1,345,518+$325,296+1,270,834+$324,433+$1,595,576) = $19,756,087(base compensation)
$19,756,087/ (1- 23.35%) =$19,756,087/ (76.65%)
$19,756,087/ 76.65% = $25,774,412
668
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 7 For FY 2022-2023, the calculated fees payable to the City are:
$25,774,412– $19,756,087= $6,018,325
The adjusted total compensation for the Fee Element is shown in Section 6 below.

9. City Process of Developing Rates Projected to Meet Total Compensation Prior to establishing the compensation that will be generated from the rates, an adjustment is made for grant revenues or other agreed upon amounts reducing operating costs. The amount of revenue required from the rates is partially offset by one item: a $48,875 agreed upon amount to reduce the cost of collection services for the Dublin Unified School District; therefore, $48,875 is credited against required revenue in FY 2022-2023. An additional adjustment of ($114) was included in the rate compensation model to offset less than anticipated costs in the timing of landfill fee increases, which have been paid by AVI and were not included in the FY 2021-2022 rate model.

The final step in developing the rates is to test the total annual expected revenue to the Company, when the rates are increased by different amounts. It is necessary for the adjustment to be at a level so that the total annual projected compensation to the Company will equal $25,774,412. The calculation for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 is performed using the customer subscription figures as of December 2021.

Updated Cost
Elements
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
(Proposed
Costs)
Absolute
Change
Percentage
Change
Collection Element $13,494,450 $14,650,936 $1,156,486 8.57% Commercial
Recycling
Compensation
Element
$36,859 $243,494 $206,635 32.08%
Disposal
Compensation
Element
$1,313,936 $1,345,518 $31,582 2.40%
Container
Compensation
Element
$312,244 $325,296 $13,052 4.18%
Recycling Disposal
Element
$1,287,588 $1,270,834 ($16,754) (1.30%)
669
ATTACHMENT 4
METHODOLOGY USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL GARBAGE RATE

ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMADOR VALLEY INDUSTRIES
Report Submitted To: City Council June 21, 2022
Prepared By: Jay Baksa, Assistant Administrative Services Director 8 Organics Disposal
Element
$308,741 $324,433 $15,692 5.08%
Vehicle and Admin
Asset Replacement
Element
$1,595,575 $1,595,575 $0 0.00%
Fee Compensation
Element
$5,589,802 $6,018,325 $428,523 7.67%
TOTAL $23,939,196 $25,774,412 $1,835,216 7.67%
670
ATTACHMENT 5
Proposed vs. Current Rates
(Selected Service Levels Representing Most Common Subscriptions)

COMPARISON OF SELECTED RATES
Current (2021/22) vs Proposed (2022/23)
Proposed
Increase over
2021/2022Current Proposed
Residential -Monthly Rates Rate 2022/2023 $ %
Minimum Residential (32) Gallon $38.39 $40.56 $2.17 5.65% 64 Gallon Residential $70.52 $74.51 $3.99 5.66%
96 Gallon Residential $102.65 $108.46 $5.81 5.66%
Sample rate categories represent 100% of residential customers Commercial -Monthly Rates
32 Gallon Cart $43.54 $46.00 $2.46 5.65%
64 Gallon Cart $79.95 $84.48 $4.53 5.66%
96 Gallon Cart $116.29 $122.87 $6.58 5.66%
1 Yard - 1 time / wk $186.27 $196.81 $10.54 5.66%
2 Yard - 1 time / wk $372.54 $393.62 $21.08 5.66%
3 Yard - 1 time / wk $558.81 $590.43 $31.62 5.66%
3 Yard - 2 times / wk $1,163.97 $1,229.83 $65.86 5.66% 4 Yard - 1 Time / wk $745.08 $787.24 $42.16 5.66%
4 Yards - 2 times / wk $1,536.51 $1,623.45 $86.94 5.66% Represents 75% of 2021 commercial customers
Drop Box - Rates Per Service
20 Yard Loose $1,048.20 $1,107.60 $59.40 5.66%
30 Yard Loose $1,572.30 $1,661.40 $89.10 5.66%
40 Yard Loose $2,096.40 $2,215.20 $118.80 5.66%
Represents 86% of 2021 non-compacted Drop Box Subscriptions 30 Yard Compacted $3,144.60 $3,322.80 $178.20 5.66%
Represents 15% of the 2020 compacted Drop Box Subscriptions Handy Hauler Available To Residents $243.72 $257.51 $13.79 5.66% 671
Attachment 6

LOCAL AREA RATE COMPARISON
2023 Garbage Rate Comparison Survey (Prepared: June 6, 2022) Proposed
3 City Dublin % Proposed Current % Increase
Residential Livermore Castro Valley San Ramon Average Basic Rate From Avg Rate over Prior FY 1 Can Residential (32-35 Gallon) 40.63 $ 50.26 $ 42.05 $ 44.31 $ 40.56 $ -8.47% 38.39 $ 5.65% 1 Can Residential (64-70 Gallon) 60.36 $ 87.29 $ 72.54 $ 73.40 $ 74.51 $ 1.52% 70.52 $ 5.66% 1 Can Residential (90-96 Gallon) 94.26 $ 124.30 $ 115.53 $ 111.36 $ 108.46 $ -2.61% 102.65 $ 5.66% Residential Notes:

Dublin: Basic rate includes 32-gallon garbage can (weekly pick-up);Weekly 64-gallon organics can; Weekly 64-gallon curbside recycling can; lager size and/or additional organic and recycling carts available free upon request; compost give-back and 3 on-call bulky waste clean-ups per year including items such as electronic waste, household batteries, tires, white and brown goods.

Livermore: As of January 1, 2022; Basic rate includes 32-gallon garbage can (weekly pick-up); Weekly 96-gallon organics can; Weekly 96-gallon curbside recycling can.

San Ramon: As of January 1, 2022, Basic rate includes 32-gallon garbage can (weekly pick-up); Two weekly 64-gallon green waste can supplied by Company. ; at no extra cost; Two weekly 64-gallon curbside recycling can or 96-gallon can available at no extra cost, and 3 special clean-ups per year.

Castro Valley: (As of July 1, 2021) - 32 Gallon Service includes 32 gallon trash cart, 32 gallon green/food scrap cart and 32 gallon recycling cart. 96 Gallon service inlcudes a 96 gallon trash cart, 96 gallon green/food scrap cart and a 96 gallon recycling cart. Residents can request an additional recycling cart at no additional cost 3 City Proposed % Proposed Current % Increase
Commercial Livermore Castro Valley San Ramon Average Dublin From Avg Rate over Prior FY 1 Yard - 1 time / wk 119.07 $ $213.68 216.34$ 183.03 $ 196.81 $ 7.53% 186.27 $ 5.66% 2 Yard - 1 time / wk 238.12 $ $374.50 401.82$ 338.15 $ 393.62 $ 16.41% 372.54 $ 5.66% 3 Yard - 1 time / wk 357.20 $ $519.67 556.31$ 477.73 $ 590.43 $ 23.59% 558.81 $ 5.66% 3 Yard - 2 times / wk 744.19 $ $945.64 1,112.65$ 934.16 $ 1,229.83 $ 31.65% 1,163.97 $ 5.66% 4 Yard - 1 Time / wk 476.26 $ $797.76 679.90$ 651.31 $ 787.24 $ 20.87% 745.08 $ 5.66% 4 Yards - 2 times / wk 992.14 $ $1,522.17 1,359.82$ 1,291.38 $ 1,623.45 $ 25.71% 1,536.51 $ 5.66% Castro Valley charges 71% of the commercial rate for recycling and 145% for organics Dublin's charges 50% of the regular commercial rate for Organics and 25% for commercial recycling San Ramon's charges 50% of the regular commercial rate for commercial recycling Livermore charges for recycling and organics at 80% of the regular commerical rate.

Drop Box
20 Yard Loose 719.33 $ $940.19 1,412.24$ 1,023.92 $ 1,107.60 $ 8.17% 1,048.20 $ 5.67% 30 Yard Loose 1,046.09 $ $1,511.80 1,696.18$ 1,418.02 $ 1,661.40 $ 17.16% 1,572.30 $ 5.67% 40 Yard Loose 1,369.99 $ $2,015.56 1,931.75$ 1,772.43 $ 2,215.20 $ 24.98% 2,096.40 $ 5.67% 30 Yard Compacted 2,769.63 $ $2,805.47 2,636.67$ 2,737.26 $ 3,322.80 $ 21.39% 3,144.60 $ 5.67%,$ Livermore rates do not include the cost of disposal/processing, which is assesed after collection. Staff has included an estimate cost with the above for comparison.

San Ramon charges a one ton minimum; Staff has included a probable disposal cost for comparison purposes.

Every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the information and comparison of similar levels of service according to our understanding of other agency rates.

Comparison With Proposed Rates
672
Adoption of Rates for Garbage
Collection, Disposal, and Recycling
City Council
June 21, 2022
ITEM 6.3
673
Background
• Agreement with AVI provides for an annual rate
adjustment.
• Adjustments are based on CPI, number of billed
units serviced, tonnage collected, and disposal
fees. Results in a 3.30% increase
• FY 2022-23 Rate Adjustment includes costs
associated with implementation of Senate Bill
1383. Results in a 2.36% increase
• Annual increase of 5.66%.
674
Tri-Valley Comparison
• City of Dublin Basic Residential Service - $40.56
• Basic Residential Services is included on Property Tax.

Current Year
Rates
Proposed
Rates
Monthly
Difference
Annual
Difference
$38.39 $40.56 $2.17 $26.04
City Rates Compare to
Dublin
%
San Ramon $42.05 $1.49 3.67%
Livermore $40.63 $0.07 0.01%
Pleasanton $27.58 ($12.98) (32.00%)
Castro Valley $50.26 $9.70 23.92%
675
Tri-Valley Comparison
• Commercial – 1 Yard x 1 Pick-up x all services
City Garbage
1 Yard x 1 Wk
Organics Recycling Actual
Cost
Dublin $196.81 50% 25% $344.42
San
Ramon
$216.34 50% 50% $432.68
Livermore $119.07 80% 80% $309.58
Pleasanton $123.49 80% 80% $321.07
Castro
Valley
$213.68 145% 71% $675.23
676
Tri-Valley Comparison
City Garbage
2yrd
Organics
1yrd
Recycling
2yrd
Actual
Cost
Dublin $393.62 $98.40 $98.40 $590.42
San
Ramon
$401.82 $108.17 $200.91 $710.90
Livermore $238.12 $95.26 $190.50 $523.86
Pleasanton $246.96 $98.79 $197.57 $543.32
Castro
Valley
$374.50 $309.84 $265.90 $950.24
Commercial 1x/week –Garbage 2yrds, Organics 1yrd, Recycling 2 yrds 677
Annual Rate Adjustments
• Refuse Rate Index Adjustment (RRI)
• Based on changes to four Consumer Price Index (CPI),
weighted based on AVI’s annual costs.
• Annual Growth (AG)
• Compares revenue at two points in time (Prior Year -January & December) to capture increase in number of units served.

Note: If change is negative, set at 0%.
• Approved Tip Fee (ATF)
• Increase in per ton charges for landfill fees for waste. • Annual Tonnage (AT)
• Change in amount of year-over-year total refuse disposed (Garbage, Organics, Recycling).
678
Overview of Cost Elements

1. Collections Element
• Cost associated with the collection of garbage,
organics and recycling including:
• Salaries & Benefits
• Equipment Operation & Maintenance
• Material Processing
• General Administration Costs
• Operating Ratio
• Annual Adjustment Calculated
• RRI Increase (RRI) & Annual Growth (AG)
679
Overview of Cost Elements

2. Commercial Recycling
– To incentivize AVI to increase commercial recycling
– Annual Adjustment calculated
• RRI Increase (RRI) and Annual Tonnage (AT)

3. Container Compensation
– Represents the cost of replacing carts and bins
– Annual Adjustment calculated
• Annual Growth Factor (AG)
680
Overview of Cost Elements

4. Waste Disposal
– City has a long term contract with Waste Management
– Annual Adjustment Calculated
• Annual Tonnage (AT) and Annual Tip Fee (ATF)

5. Recycling Disposal
– Recyclable Material processed at ACI – San Leandro
• City does not have an agreement (Pay Market Rate)
– Annual Adjustment Calculated
• Annual Tonnage (AT) and Annual Tip Fee (ATF)
681
Overview of Cost Elements

6. Organics Disposal
– Non-Commercial Organics processed at Waste Management Power Harvest
– Commercial Organics processed at Recology’s Blossom Valley Facility
• City does not have an agreement (Pay Market Rate)
– Annual Adjustment Calculated
• Annual Tonnage (AT) and Annual Tip Fee (ATF)

7. Vehicle and Administration Element
– To capture all costs associated with replacing 2/3rds of fleet and all other capital assets
– Costs will be reconciled once vehicles are purchased
– Not updated by annual adjustments
682
Overview of Cost Elements
8) Fee Element
– Amount paid to City for franchise and administrative
fee
– Adjusted annually based on a percentage of AVI’s
revenue
683
Annual Rate Adjustment
Elements FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
Proposed
Difference
Collection Element $13,494,450 $14,650,936 $1,156,486
Commercial Recycling
Compensation Element $36,859 $243,494 $206,635
Disposal Compensation
Element $1,313,936 $1,345,518 $31,582
Container Compensation
Element $312,244 $325,296 $13,052
Recycling Disposal Element $1,287,588 $1,270,834 ($16,754) Organics Disposal Element $308,741 $324,433 $15,692
Vehicle and Administration
Element $1,595,575 $1,595,575 $0
Fee Compensation
Element $5,589,802 $6,018,325 $428,523
Total $23,939,196 $25,774,412 $1,835,216
684
SB 1383 Adjustment
Cost Type Amount*
Carts (Organics) $96,882
Recycling/Reporting
Coordinators
$419,165
Organics Disposal $71,961
Total $588,008
• Carts (Organics)-$96,882- For the 3,840 customers that will now be required to subscribe to this service. Also included are food waste buckets and battery boxes.
• Recycling/Reporting Coordinators $419,165 –
Perform outreach and track and prepare additional reporting requirements.
• Organics Disposal $71,961– Alternate Organics disposal facility.
685
FY 2022-2023 Adjustment
SB 1383 (Only)
– $0.90 – Monthly Increase
– 2.36% – Increase on rates
Current
Year Rates
FY 22-23
Annual Rate
Adjustment
SB 1383 +
Annual
Monthly Rates $38.39 $39.66 $40.56
(+/-) $ $1.27 $2.17
(+/-) % 3.30% 5.66%
686
Recommendation
• Conduct the Public Hearing, deliberate and
Adopt the Resolution Amending the Schedule
of Service Rates for Integrated Solid Waste
Services; and
• Adopt the Resolution Approving and
Establishing the Collection of Minimum
Residential Garbage and Recycling Service Fees
for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
687

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL