HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Amend Public FacilitiesFee
~'.
,..
. 1
.
CITY CLERK
File # D~[2][Q]-[2J[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE: April 6, 1999
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
(to be available at Council meeting)
.
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
{JV' ~';~
4)
5)
6)
PUBUC HEARING: Amendment to Public Facilities Fee
Report by Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Sen1ices Director
1)
2)
3)
Current Fee By Land Use Type and Area
Proposed Fee By Land Use Type and Area
Resolution Revising The Public Facilities Fee For Future
Development Within The City Of Dublin, including the
following exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Land Use Map
Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update
Fee Schedule
General Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Library Planning Task Force Reports
Civic Center Programming Document
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study (March 1996)
Resolution No, 32-96
Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment
Park Sierra General Plan Amendment
Starward Drive General Plan Amendment
Open Public Hearing
Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
Question Staff and the public
Close Public Hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Revising The Public Facilities Fee For
Future Development Within The City Of Dublin
Authorize Staff to retain an appraiser to do a land appraisal
as of July 1, 1999
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Cost of facilities to serve growth are estimated to be $133 million
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~..................._-~-~----------------------------------------------~---~~-------------~------
COPIES TO:
F\pubfacfee\update2\cc46ph.doc
Hausrath Economics Group
ITEMNO.~ D~(
'"
. "Library per-square-foot construction cost; and
· Civic Center per-square-foot construction cost.
.
Chan!!es in Current and Future Population
Changes in current and future resident and worker population estimates have changed \vhich affect
calculated fees for all facility types. The following changes were made:
. Development projections were changed to reflect recent General Plan revisions and development since
1995. These include the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, Park Sierra General Plan
Amendment and the Starward Drive General Plan Amendment.
· Existing population and employment estimates were increased to reflect the most recent data
available.
Plan Chan!!es
New information from planning processes led to the following revisions:
· The size of two planned community/recreation facilities was reduced by a combined 11,000 square
feet;
· Due to the planned replacement of the library, existing building square footage was excluded from the
current inventory, and the land parcel upon which the new facility will be build was included:
. Demand from Western Dublin was added to the calculation of needed Parks facility expansion.
Attachment 1 illustrates the current fees by land use type and area that were adopted by the City Council
in March, 1996. Fees for residential development in Eastern Dublin range from $4.834 for a multi-family
unit to $7,735 for a single-family unit. Non-residential fees range from $392 per 1,000 square feet for an
. industrial use to $889 per 1,000 square feet for an office use. Fees for residential development outside of
Eastern Dublin, but excluding Western Dublin are $3,332 for a multi-family unit and $5,331 for a single-
family unit. As the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment was not approved at the time that the fee
was adopted, there are no fees shown for Western Dublin.
Attachment 2 illustrates the proposed fees by land use type resulting from the 1998 update to the fee
study. Fees for residential development in Eastern Dublin range from $7,012 for a multi-family unit to
$11,219 for a single-family unit. Non-residential fees range from $868 per 1,000 square feet for an
industrial use to $1,969 per 1,000 square feet for an office use. Fees for residential development in
I
Western Dublin (limited to the Schaefer Ranch project) range from $6,878 for a multi-family unit to
$11,004 for a single-family unit. Non-residential fees range from $863 per 1,000 square feet for an
industrial use to $1,957 per 1,000 square fee for an office use. In-fill development pays only the Citywide
fees which range from $4,914 for a multi-family unit to $7,862 for a single-family unit. However, in-fill
development is also subject to the City's Quimby Act ordinance for Neighborhood Park requirements.
Overall, the Public Facilities Fee for residential development has increased by approximately 45%. This
is due to the following factors:
1. Land values have increased by 84% for community parks and by 48% for neighborhood parks. This is
based on an appraisal done by Associated Right-of-Way Services. When the fee was initially
determined there was no development in Eastern Dublin. The subsequent development has greatly
enhanced the land values.
.2. Improvement costs have increased by 58% for community parks and by 21 % for neighborhood parks.
This is due to a significant elevation in construction costs.
3. Library costs have increased by 60%. The cost per square foot has increased from $196 to $314 and
the value of the land for the library has been included.
3
4. The cost for the Civic Center has increased from $445,000 to $2,099,214. The 1996 study was "based' to
on the cost of tenant improvements to the unimproved space at the Civic Center. A more thorough
analysis has been done which has resulted in the need for modifications to existing office areas in
addition to tenant improvement to the unimproved space.
.
The Public Facilities Fee for non-residential development has increased by approximately 121 %. In
addition to the factors noted above for residential development, the worker equivalency factor for worker
usage of libraries and parks has been changed to reflect updated survey information.
The largest component of the Public Facilities Fee is the cost to acquire park land which amounts to
approximately 55% of the fee. For those property owners who have sufficient park land on their property
to dedicate in accordance with the law, the total out of pocket fee paid to the City (exCluding dedicated
land) is $5,039 per unit for land designated at 0-6 units per acre, and $3,144 per unit for land designated at
6.1 units and above per acre. This equates to an approximate 25% increase in the overall fee amount.
However, not all park land can be acquired through dedication. To comply with City policies described
above, the fee must be calculated so that sufficient monies are collected to purchase the land which cannot
be acquired by dedication. The park land component of the Public Facilities Fee could be lowered if
landowners entered into agreements with the City to guarantee the City would be able to acquire the park
land at lower land values than those used in the Study Update.
FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS:
The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be
revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that
the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin and within
Eastern Dublin. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three years.
.
The fee will also be adjusted automatically, effective July 1,2000 and each July 1 thereafter as follows:
Improvement Costs
The costs of construction of the Facilities identified in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased by
the annual percentage increase/decrease in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20-
city average) for the month of April over the s,ame Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the
prior year. For example, if the improvement cost for community parks in Year One is $198,205 per acre
and in Year Two the Construction Cost Index is + 1.9% more than Year One, that will result in an increase
to $201,970 per acre.
Land Costs
The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities identified in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased
annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land
appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the
immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the
same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, if the appraised land value
in Year One is $IO/acre and in Year Two is $ll/acre, that is an annual increase of 10% which will result
in a yearly increase of 10%.
.
4
"
In ,,otder to implement the methodology related to land costs~ it is necessary to retain an appraiser to
complete a land appraisal as of July 1999 to compare with the July 1998 appraisal. The July 1999
appraisal will be compared with the July 1998 appraisal to arrive at a percentage increase/decrease to
become effective July 1,2000 and until modified by the Council on the basis of an appraisal.
.
DEVELOP:MENT COMMUNITY INPUT:
Two meetings were held with the development community to review the Study Update. Those in
attendance voiced concern with the amount of the fee increase and the timing of the fee increase. The
amount of the fee increase is well documented and cannot be lowered without compromising the validity
of the fee program. Staff did, however, look at delaying the fee increase. Three scenarios were
investigated.
Scenario 1: Fee Increase Delayed Until 8/4/99
(120 days from date of anticipated Council adoption)
Estimated Lost Revenue: $1.18 million
Scenario 2: Fee Increase Delayed Until 10/3/99
(180 days from date of anticipated Council adoption)
Estimated Lost Revenue: $460,000
Cumulative Lost Revenue: $1.65 million
Scenario 3: Fee Increase Delaved Until 3/31/00
(360 days from date of anticipated Council adoption)
Estimated Lost Revenue: $413,000
Cumulative Lost Revenue: $2.06 million
. The estimated lost revenue from delaying the adoption of the fee would need to be funded from sources
other than the Public Facilities Fee. This is not possible under the City's existing General Plan policies
which state that new development must pay the full cost of infrastructure needed to serve the area.
CONCLUSION:
As demonstrated in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, and other related studies, future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern
Dublin will generate the need for the facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998
Update. Provision of these facilities is criticaI to the implementation of the goals and policies contained
in these documents. If adequate facilities are not provided to serve the needs generated by new
development those new residents will place a burden on existing Dublin park and recreational facilities.
Adoption of the Public Facilities Fee is consistent with the General PIan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and will implement those plans. The Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed and
approved the Public Facilities Fee in concept. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council
conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution revising the Public Facilities Fee. Additionally, it is
recommended that the City Council authorize Staff to retain an appraiser to do an appraisal as of July 1,
1999.
.
5
"
"
/ erJ I~
.
TABLE 4
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE AND AREA
Residential Nonresidential
(p~r Dwelling Unit) (perl.GDO Sq,fL)
Single Multi -
Area Family Family Comm']. om ce 1ndustr'l.
Citywide
Community Parks. Land $1,166 $1,416 $210 SAOS $180
Community Parks, Improvements 1,331 832 123 238 105
Community Buildings 1,139 712 36 69 31
Libraries 560 350 77 150 66
Civic Center ,,- 22 6 12 :i
~ -
Total Fee $- rr $3,332 $452 S;877 $387
::l,~.)
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $1 ,440 $900 $0 $0 SO
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 762 476 0 0 0
Aquatic Center 202 126 Q 12 2
Total $2,404 $1,502 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs $5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Costs 2.404 1.502 Q 12 ~
Total Fee $7,,735 $4,834 $458 $889 $392
"
Source: Recht Hausrath & Assodates
.
.
A TT ACHMENT 1
;. oryl ~ . "
TABLE EA
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE AND AREA
Residential Nonresidential
(per Dwelling Unit) (per 1,000 Sq. Pt.)
Sinnle- Multi-
:;:.
Area Family family Comm'I. Office Industr'l.
Citywitl c
Community Parks, L~nd $3,971 $2,482 $564 $1,096 $483
Community Parks, Improvements 1,875 1,172 267 519 229
Community Buildings 1,091 682 34 65 29
Librari es 762 476 119 231 102
Civie Center 163 102 24 46 20
Total Fee 57,862 54,914 51,008 51,957 SS63
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,21 8 $ 1,3 86 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 91 - 578 0 0 0
-;)
Aquatic Center 214 134 II 12 5-
Total $3.357 $2,098 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs $7,862 $4,914 $1,008 $1,957 $863
Eastern Dublin Costs 3.357 2.098 II 12 2
Total Fee 511,219 57,012 51,014 51,969 $868
\Vestem Dublin Only .
Neighborhood Parks, Land 52,218 $1,386 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 925 ill Q Q Q
Total $3,143 $1,964 $0 $0 $0
\Vestern Dublin
Citywide Costs $7,862 $4,914 $1,008 $1,957 $863
Western Dublin Costs 3.142 1_964 Q Q Q
Total Fee 511,004 56,878 51,008 51,957 S863
Source: Tables 7 _2 and 7.3
A TT ACHMENT 2
.
.
.
"
.,
.1 ;..oj' / Ij
RESOLUTION NO. - 99
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOP:MENTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to
pay for municipally owned public facilities within "Eastern Dublin" and within the jurisdictional limits of
the City of Dublin (excluding areas within Eastern Dublin) ; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan ("SP") were
adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GP A outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres within the City's
eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet
of commercial, office, and industrial development; and
. WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for
approximately 3313 acres within the GP A area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land Use Map contained
in the GPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area shown on the Land Use Map as "Future
Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the GPA and SP
(SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the CouI)~il on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two
Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the Council on July 25, 1994,
by Resolution No. 77-94, and the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council on
June 16, 1998 ("Park Master Plans");
WHEREAS, the City approved a Library Planning Task Force Report, dated April 1993, and a
subsequent Library Planning Task Force Report dated September 1998 ("Library Reports"); and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document ("Civic Center
Report") dated November 1986;
. WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda
describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the SP, including completion of
City office space, construction of a library, acquisition and construction of parks and community facilities;
1
A TT ACHMENT 3
it:0'/~
"
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain municipal public facilities would be
constructed and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such
facilities; and
.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which includes mitigation measures to assure
that development within Eastern Dublin pays its proportionate share of municipal public facilities
necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda
describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the City of Dublin
and Eastern Dublin through the year 2025, and contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public
facilities required by future development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a
"Public Facilities Fee" for development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of
Dublin by Recht Hausrath & Associates, in a document dated March 1996 and entitled "City of Dublin
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (hereafter "Study"); and
WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 32-96 provides that the City will periodically review the
Public Facilities Fee and make revisions as appropriate; and .
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved general plan amendments for development in Western
Dublin (Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment) and for development within Dublin (Park Sierra
General Plan Amendment and Starward Drive General Plan Amendment) since the adoption of Resolution
No. 32-96; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Hausrath Economics Group to assist the City in reviewing and
updating the Public Facilities Fee; and
WHEREAS, Hausrath Economics Group has prepared a revised report dated February 1999 and
entitled "Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update" (hereafter "Study Update") which is attached as
Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96, in reliance on the Study, sets forth the relationship between
future development in Dublin and Eastern Dublin, the needed public facilities and improvements, and the
estimated cost of those public facilities and improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Public Facilities
Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to account for approval of general plan amendments since the Study,
(2) to include a "Neighborhood Parks Land" and a "Neighborhood Parks, Improvement" component for
Western Dublin limited to the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment area only which is within the .
City of Dublin; (3) to update real property costs; (4) to reflect the change in plans for library services from
two libraries to one library; (5) to update the needed expansion of the Civic Center; and (5) to reflect more
accurately worker usage of libraries and parks; and
2
"
"
5 ~ /!!J
WHEREAS, the Study Update was available for public inspection and review for ten days prior to
. this public hearing; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows;
A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee" ) is to finance municipal public
facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and in Eastern .
. Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described in the study, include the following: completion
of the Civic Center office space; construction of a new library; relocation and expansion of the existing
senior center; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks and community
buildings (including a community theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center).
The public facilities described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities".
B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Study Update, the testimony received at this noticed public
hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic
Center Report, the GPA, the SP, the EIR and Addenda, and all correspondence received (hereafter
"record") the Council approves and adopts the Study Update, and incorporates such herein, and further
finds that the future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for
. the Facilities and the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the
Library Reports, the Civic Center Report, the GP A and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within Eastern Dublin is within the
scope of the EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate
development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the Facilities, were
adequately analyzed at a Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR, no substantial
changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance so as
to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives.
Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before
any such Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the
Facilities at this stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 30-year period and specific details as to
their timing, construction and precise location are not presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin (excluding
Eastern Dublin) is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing
service areas; that the City currently provides neighborhood and community park services, community and
recreation facilities services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library
System currently provide library services; that the public facilities fee will be used to maintain current
service levels; and that existing deficiency costs are not included in the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates
to development within the City (excluding Eastern Dublin) is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA
. (public Resources Code S21080(b)(8)(D)).
3
b ~, /~.
F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI S7 of the
California Constitution.
G.
The record establishes:
.
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities and the
impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development
in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both residential and non-residential -- will generate persons
who live, work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for
the Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the
construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both residential and non-residential --
generates or contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost
of the Facilities or ,portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin
in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of
land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which
development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the
Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study Update, the September 1998 Library .
Planning Task Force Report and the Park Master Plans are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the
Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs
of constructing the Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair and
reasonable relationship to, and is roughly proportional to, each development's burden on, and benefit
from, the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents
or employees each particular development wil1~ generate.
H. The Study Update is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin, the existing deficiencies and the public facilities
required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions.
a. "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities for the purchase and sale of
commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities and
services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not
.
4
"
",
? ?O' I!)
.
limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings
and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and
drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home
furnishings and improvement centers; hotel/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service
stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters,
b. "Development" shall mean the .construction, alteration or addition of any building
or structure within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin.
c. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan Amendment
Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting the property designated as
"Future Study Area! Agriculture."
d. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in the
Study Update and as described in the Park Master Plans, the September 1998 Library Planning Task Force
Report, the Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable
alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate
construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a
reasonable relationship between development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin and the
need for the alternative facilities (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the
Study Update, and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development's fair and
proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
. e. "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the manufacture, production, assembly, and
processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial land uses
include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractor's storage yards:
fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing;
warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy commercial uses.
f. "Multiple Family" shall mean any dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building
Code, as adopted by the City, which is constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for
6.1 or more units (whether attached or detached) per acre.
g. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical and
professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing
operations, and research and development and other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land
uses include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices; insurance
offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and office buildings; professional and
administrative offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and development and travel
agenCIes.
h. "Single Family" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building
. Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on property
designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units (whether attached or detached) per acre.
5
g' oz5 I~
"
i. "Western Dublin" shall mean only the property within the Schaefer Ranch General
Plan Amendment area.
.
2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
a. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Single Family
and Multiple Family residential unit within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin when the
Certificate of Occupancy for the unit is issued, provided that the Fee shall be payable when the building
permit is issued for any such unit from and after the date the .city Council approves a Capital
Improvement program for the Facilities.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within
the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin when the building permit is issued for construction of such
building or structure.
c. A fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential development for any addition to
an exiting building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet.
d. Any use of land which is not included in the definition of "Commercial,"
"Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Community Development Director to one of the three
categories, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definitions of such terms.
3.
Amount of Fee.
.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated
herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(1) Any alteration or' addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that
a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing
multi-family residential unit;
(2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that
has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within
one year after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction
increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure
that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained
within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and there is no change in the land use
designation of the property (as between Commercial, Office and Industrial).
(4) Any non-residential building or structure constructed on property on which
a building or structure was demolished for which the Fee had been paid within the prior ten year period,
.
6
/ ~ /~
.
provided the exemption shall be in the amount of the previously-paid Fee only and the applicant shall pay
any additional amount based on the then-current Fee.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Capital Project
Fund. Separate and special accpunts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to account for such
revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for
the following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisition and
construction of the Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds
from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from
grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Facilities.
(3) To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Facilities
which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program.
. b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities and only for the
purpose for which the Fee was collected.
6. Standards.
The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the standards of the
City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library
Reports, the Civic Center Report; the GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda.
"
7. Existin~ Deficiencies.
The Study Update identifies existing deficiencies and calculates the deficiency for
community parks, community buildings, and library space. The City Council shall by resolution identify
funding sources for the existing deficiencies.
8. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of Fees in each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as
.part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of
availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall
7
Il> '15 15> .-
be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable .
relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
9. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the Council in reliance on the
record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine
whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall
review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within
the City of Dub]in and within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the
findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP, Park Master Plans, Library
Reports, Civic Center Report and General Plan, as well as increases due to changes in construction costs
and land values. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years.
10. Automatic Adjustment in Fee.
The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in
years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 9 above.
The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective Ju]y 1,2000 and each Ju]y 1
thereafter, as follows:
a. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown on Tab]e 3.7 for parks; Table
4.4 for community/recreation facilities (including the aquatic center); Table 5.4 for library facilities; Table
6.3 for Civic Center expansion in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased by the annual percentage
increase/decrease in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the
month of April over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year. The City
Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
.
b. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities as shown on Table 3.4 for Neighborhood
I
and Community Parks and Table 5.4 for library land in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased
annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land
appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the
immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the
same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, if the appraised land value
in Year One is $lO/acre and in Year Two is $l1/acre, that is an annual increase of 10% which will result
in a yearly increase of 10%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 9 above. The City
Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
11. Administrative Guidelines.
The Council shall, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide procedures for
calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative aspects of the Fee. Such .
guidelines shall include procedures for construction of designated Facilities by developers.
8
"
/1 t90 J:J
.
The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works
Director using the costs of construction and land values used by the City in calculating and establishing
the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation
nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the
improvements constructed are the Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall
only be from revenues raised by payment of the Fee.
12. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Hie provided in Sections 2 and 3
of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution and shall
supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 32-96 sixty (60) days from the effective date of this
resolution.
12. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any
individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and
unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the
Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
"
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
.
9
,'{.
-~
~
'.
Gen~ra I 'Plan
-Eastern EXtended Planning Area
LAND USE MAP
----1
.----- ,
..-----.--- - - i
'i~,..p" ~
'StMCI'J~t.O. I
y-;~~
()1-~..---- I
- 1
1 1 j
I :
---l L~_-----l
------- , i
I :
' I
I :
L;.---I FUTURE STUDY AREA I
I 1 j
: I AGR!CU~ TURE. r
~---' 1 J
. l ---l r-
""" I 2743.9 Acres \
[ L
I !
1 I
I
_. ..--::d
r------
, . ~,:.--_.
, -- ~..
, ~~--~-"';....-
, ..,..........<
_r-
Legend
COMMERCIAL
~ Ne.;gtrbc:rt<lod Coomerc;"
~ .'General Commefc.JI
mr,,:,;f./ Carrro. Offi;e
t::':: ,::: I h<Junial P a,~
RESOENTlAl
CD High D.ndy .,. Wlac
~ M.<f......lfo;;h O.n.s;ty 14'25 Wlac
, ~ MedU:n Density 6-1' cIJIac
CD lo~ Density lr6 dJlac
~ RL...I Aesido~Ii'VAgoicUl...el WI 100 iC
P VB l ICI SEM~PUBlIC/O P EN
I'.;;i,~~j PubklS .rri-Pub6:: F .cilly
o EI.m.ntary 5 chool
@ Junior H;~ Scheol
@ If9/! School
@ N>i::lSemi. PuClc
Park s & Rt!! Cf! af:i:::Jo
o City Par~
81 ComrnL<lily Park
€I N.ightxlrhood Park
Ne~hbo<hood Square
ODen SD'C.
S ~f I!' am Corridor
.
.,
""A
r C'~:'I
IT;:l1
~
th;'.tj
..I . ~
~
CIACUlA lION
Arl.rial S'r..,
Co reclor Stre!'1
Tr aroiI !Uoe
SOl Boundary
Gen.ral Plan ~nl Srudy "'..
- --- . Saeone Plan SIUdy Ar.a
EASTERN
bUBLi.N'~::'~' .-f.
W~e R.hert.'& Todd '. . . c.
. . :.:. ~. . :r"~. ':-
!i.y 10, 1993
F>9U'O 28
F.. "- .... '., ,:.~i;,},~:'i~?'i'", -:"1
. ""- .'~., '~~'t:r<or:.'~ . :. '.
. .~ ::' ',~:' ;;:. .~~~~t\tj~\:rfD=;:;. :',~ .
"
. EXmlIDl1f A ..,
":'--.. '.
}S.
c\..
~
. . - . ~ b P1arn.~ l)~1'l".iJ;i.~"1 ~p;w~ ~B" hs l.e~ Ie., ler cemplel e <liseuss;o:. J
* Goner.1 CommerCial ma y be De. rrulte~ by . " lent wi,h AP A (soe t.,11O< comDlol. <li, cu," 100 )
* * ~~ cem.rI to Ful..... Sludy Areal Agrkulltre where d. t!!tmin.d nc"",,' _ _
---
~--
-
.
.
.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY
1998 UPDATE
A Report to the
CITY OF DUBLIN
Prepared by
HAUSRATH ECONOMICS GROUP
February 1999
~;.
"
HAUSRATH
ECONOMICS
GROUP
t;-x k, hI i- -i3
.~~~-
t" .
)~ ., ,"
/13
0~.
Ji" 7''':'
/1 1//1 l...f., /
7y/~;7/ '\'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~tr'
HAUSRATH
ECONOMICS
GROUP
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY
1998 UPDATE
A Report to the
CITY OF DUBLIN
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
HAUSRA TH ECONOMICS GROUP
February 1999
1212 BROADWAY, SUITE 1500, OAKLAND, CA 94612-1817
T: 510_839. 8383 F: 510.839.8415
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy........................................................................................................... iv
SITUATION.......................................... .................. .................................................................. vi
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS........................................................................................... vi
FACILITIES COST................................................................................................................... vi
FEE LEVELS.............................................................................................................................. x
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES.................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA............................................................ 1
FEE DETERMINA TI ON ........................................................................................................... 2
New Development Projections............................................................................................... 2
Facilities Requirements........................................................................................................... 2
Facilities Costs........................................................................................................................ 3
Facilities Cost Allocation........................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS .............................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4
DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION .......... ............................... .......................................... 5
Residential Proj ections............................................................................................................ 8
Nonresidential Projections...................................................................................................... 8
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3: NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS ............................................ 10
EXISTING FACILITIES.......................................................................................................... 10
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS............. ...... ..................... ........................................ 12
PARK COSTS.......................................................................................................................... 14
COST ALLOCATION.............................................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES............................................ 18
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................................................................... 18
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS ............................................................................. 19
COST ALLOCA TI ON.............................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 5: LIBRARIES......................................................................................................... 23
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES............ ................ ................................. .............. 23
F ACILITY STANDARDS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ....................................... 24
COST ALLOCA TI ON.............................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 6: CIVIC CENTER................................................................................................... 28
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................................................................... 28
COST ALLOCATION.............................................................................................................. 29
Hausra/h Economics Group
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 7: CALCULATION OF FEES AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ..............31
SUMMARY OF COSTS.......................................................................................................... 31
COSTS BYLAND USE TyPE................................................................................................ 33
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION......................... ................................................................. 36
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND QUIMBY
ORDINANCE ........................................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX A: EXISTING DEFICIENCIES .... ........ ...... ................... ................. ................ ....... 39
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 39
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES.... ................................. ..... ................. ............ ............. 39
APPENDIX B: CHANGES IN FEE LEVEL, 1996 TO 1998..................................................... 43
APPENDIX C: CIVIC CENTER COST ALLOCATION DOCUMENTATION ...................... 45
Hausrath Economics Group
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table E.l
Table E.2
Table E.3
Table E.4
Table E.5
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
LIST OF TABLES
Residential Development and Population Proj ections ........................................ viii
Nonresidential Development and Population Projections.................................... ix
Costs of Expanding Facilities to Accommodate Growth................................. ...... x
Fee by Land Use Type and Area.... ............ .......... ...... ............. ...... ........................ xi
S fE .. D fi' . ..
ummary 0 Xl stIng e lClencles ...................................................................... xu
Residential Development and Population Proj ections ........................................... 6
Nonresidential Development and Population Projections .....................................7
Existing Parks Inventory...................................................................................... 11
Parks Expansion Needed to Serve Growth .......................................................... 12
Service Populations for Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks .................14
Park Land and Development Cost ....................................................................... 15
C.ost to Expand Parks..... ..................... ......................... ........................................ 16
Park Expansion Cost per Resident....................................................................... 17
Community Park Expansion Cost per Worker..................................................... 17
Existing and Proposed Community/Recreation Facilities Inventory ................... 19
Community/Recreation Facilities Service Population ......................................... 20
Community/Recreation Facilities Expansion Needed to Serve Growth.............. 21
Cost to Expand Community/Recreation Facilities............................................... 21
Community/Recreation Facilities Expansion Cost per Capita............................. 22
Existing and Proposed Library Facilities Inventory ............................................23
Library Service Population.................................................................................. 24
Library Expansion Needed to Serve Growth ....................................................... 25
Cost to Expand Library Facilities ........................................................................ 26
Library Cost per Capita........................................................................................ 27
Existing and Proposed Civic Center/Police Facilities Inventory .........................28
Civic Center Service Population ............ .......................................... ....................29
Civic Center Total Expansion Cost and Cost per Capita..................................... 30
Total Expansion Cost to Serve Growth ............................................................... 32
Impact Fee by Residential Land Use ................................................................... 34
Impact Fee by Commercial and Industrial Land Use .......................................... 35
Park Impact Fee per Single Family Residence ....................................................37
Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication ........................................ 38
iii
Hausrath Economics Group
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PREFACE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Dublin requested this revision of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study in
order to update demographics, costs, and standards to reflect changes since the previous analysis
was carried out in 1995.
Localities imposing development impact fees typically update cost-related information on a
yearly basis. This enables the fee to be adjusted for the effects of inflation so that fee revenue is
sufficient to cover costs of expanding facilities to serve new development.
Demographic and facilities inventory information is typically updated on a three- to five-year
cycle. Increases in the population of workers and residents tend to be accompanied by changes
in the total capital inventory. Updating this information allows existing deficiencies to be
recalculated. In some cases, the fee is based on the current year inventory standard, which is also
recalculated with this information.!
Finally, changes in General Plans and facility master plans can cause planned service standards
to increase or decrease, with a concomitant effect on certain fees.
In the case of the City of Dublin, changes in all these categories have led for a need to update its
fee documentation. The updates made to the 1996 report, which relied on data from 1995, are
summarized below.
Cost Updates
Costs of construction and acquisition of capital facilities change over time, primarily due to
inflation. The following costs have increased since they were determined in 1995:
. Parkland values and park improvement costs per acre;
. Community/recreation facilities per-square-foot construction cost;
. Library per-square-foot construction cost; and
. Civic Center per-square-foot construction cost.
Chane:es in Current and Future Population
Changes in current and future resident and worker population estimates affect calculated fees for
all facility types, by changing the denominator used to calculate the facility standard per capita
and/or the average cost per capita of expansion. The following changes were made (see Chapter
2):
. Development projections were changed to reflect recent General Plan revisions
and development since 1995.
I Among the fees calculated in this report, the only one relying on a current facility standard is the Civic
Center component. This report documents that the Civic Center fee is set substantially below what is justified using
the current standard.
Hausrath Economics Group
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Existing population and employment estimates were increased to reflect the most
recent data available from the City of Dublin, the California Department of
Finance, and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
Facilities Inventorv Chane:es
The following inventory changes nave occurred since 1995:
· A 6,000 square foot community gymnasium was added to the existing
community/recreation facilities.
. The inventory of library volumes increased from 83,000 to 90,000.
Plan Chane:es
New infonnation from planning processes has led to the following revisions:
. The size of two planned community/recreation facilities (the Community Center
and Recreation Center) is reduced by a combined 11,000 square feet.
. Due to the planned replacement of the library, existing building square footage is
excluded from the current inventory, and the land parcel upon which the new
facility will be built is included.
· Demand from Western Dublin is added to the calculation of needed Parks facility
expansion.
· The Civic Center section incorporates a brief treatment of relative service
standards for existing development vs. growth, in order to document that the
expansion cost attributed to new development is justifiable.
Other Revisions
Other revisions include:
· An accounting of existing fee fund balances in the calculation of existing
deficiencies (Appendix A);
· A new section (Appendix B) explaining changes in calculated fee levels between
the March 7, 1996 report and this update; and
. A revision of the methods used to determine worker facilities usage factors for
Parks and Library.
Finally, the Executive Summary, Chapter 1 (Introduction), Chapter 7 (Calculation of Fees and
Program Implementation), and Appendix A (Existing Deficiencies) have been changed to be
consistent with the updated infonnation.
Hausrath Economics Group v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SITUATION
The City of Dublin is planning for extensive growth in its Eastern Extended Planning Area, and
expecting modest growth in infill areas and the Western Expanded Planning Area. The City's
planning process includes consideration of the public facilities that will be needed to ensure an
adequate level of public services. This report documents the capital expansions planned by the
City of Dublin through build-out, expected around 2025. It sets forth the basis for measuring
facilities standards and applies the costs of the needed expansions in order to quantify the
facilities impact associated with increments of new development. Although the emphasis is on
Eastern and Western Dublin, the growth projections include an allowance for additional
development in the existing portions of the City so that the fees may be applied citywide.
It is anticipated that Dublin will rely primarily on the authority to levy fees specified in
Government Code Section 66000 et seq., although park requirements could be established under
the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477). Costs of new development are assigned to
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses according to occupant densities to arrive at fees
per unit by land use type. In situations where a deficiency exists for a particular facility type, the
cost of remedying the deficiency is estimated as well. The cost of remedying existing
deficiencies is not included in the calculated fees, and will be funded separately by the City.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The build-out capacity of Eastern Dublin is estimated at 13,906 dwelling units and 9.7 million
square feet of commercial and industrial space, excluding any expansion of County facilities. In
Western Dublin, 476 dwelling units and approximately 26,000 square feet of commercial and
office space are anticipated. Existing areas ofthe City are expected to grow by a comparatively
small amount: 417 dwelling units and 692,000 commercial/industrial square feet. The total
increase in the resident and worker population associated with this new development is estimated
at about 34,000 residents and 27,000 workers citywide, a 143 percent increase in the resident
population and a 203 percent increase in the worker population.
Table E.l shows existing and proposed residential land uses and resident population. Existing
and proposed nonresidential land uses and worker population are shown in Table E.2.
FACILITIES COST
The cost to expand facilities covered under the fee program to serve new development will total
approximately $133 million, as shown in Table E.3.
The cost of expanding neighborhood and community parks is based on the standard of 5.0 acres
per 1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the City's existing park
dedication ordinance. The land component may be dedicated or satisfied in the form of an in-
lieu fee, depending upon the circumstances of individual projects. Neighborhood park costs are
Hausrath Economics Group
vi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
included only in the calculation ofthe fee for Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin, because those
parks would benefit only those specific areas, not the citywide service population.
The cost of expanding community and recreation facilities includes several projects located in
Eastern Dublin, including a relocation and expansion of the existing senior center, a community
theater, a community center, a recreation center, and an aquatic center. For the senior center, the
costs shown refer only to the net increase in size over the existing building.
Proposed library improvements include the construction of a new library and the expansion of
library volume holdings.
The Dublin Civic Center houses administrative offices and the Police Department. The building
was designed to accommodate activity commensurate with an estimated resident service
population of 40,000 in the year 2005. The current improvement plan calls for an expansion of
the police wing and the finishing of certain areas currently used as storage. Most of this cost is
allocated to new development, as explained in Chapter 6.
Hausrath Economics Group
vii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE E.!
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Residential ,
I I
Development and , ,
1998 1998 I Growth Growth I 2025 2025
Population by Area Units Residents I Units Residents I Units Residents
,
Eastern Dublin ,
Single Family 150 480 : 3,766 12,050 3,916 12,530
Multiple Family 43 ~! 9.947 19.890 ' 9.990 19.976
Total 193 566 I 13,713 31,940 13,906 32,506
.
I
I
Western Dublin I I
. ,
Single Family 2 10 I 474 1,520 I 476 1,530
. J
Multiple Family Q ill Q ill Q il
Total 2 10 : 474 1,520 i 476 1,530
I
I ,
I I
Remainder of City , I
I I
Single Family 5,916 19,227 ' 54 170 ' 5,970 19,397
Multiple Family 2.069 ~! 3B 11Q 2.432 ~
Total 7,985 I 417 900 ~ 8,402 24,330
23,430 .
...~ ...y~" ..._~ ~ .mN0> ~. ,.... _ """" L. _._' _ """" m ..... ~L """'" ""_.
. .
Dublin Citywide ! I
I ,
Single Family 6,068 19,717 I 4,294 13,740 I 10,362 33,460
I ,
Multiple Family 2.112 ~I 10.310 20.620 I 12.422 24.910
Total 8,180 24,006 i 14,604 34,360 i 22,784 58,370
Source: Table 2.1
Hausrath Economics Group
viii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE E.2
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
,
Nonresidential I I
Development and 1998 , Growth Growth 2025
1998 I , 2025
Population by Area (1,000 sq. ft.) Workers' (1,000 sq. ft.) Workers I (1,000 sq. ft.) Workers
,
I I
Eastern Dublin , ,
Commercial 0 O! 4,415 8,740 ! 4,415 8,740
J 15,200 I
Office 0 0: 3,952 3,952 15,200
Industrial llQ 680 I .LQQ.Q U2Ql .L.llQ 2.3 70
Total 370 680 I 9,367 25,630 ! 9,737 26,310
,
I I
, ,
Western Dublin I I
, ,
Commercial 0 01 13 30 1 13 30
Office 0 oj 13 50 i 13 50
Industrial Q 0' Q Qi Q Q
-I
Total 0 0' 26 80 ' 26 80
1 I
,
Remainder of City 1 i
,
Commercial 2,645 5,710 I 455 900 I 3,100 6,610
Office 1,083 4,540 208 800 I 1,291 5,340
,
Industrial l..3..81 2.560 I 22 QI 1.416 ~
, ,
Total 5,115 12,810 I 692 1,700 I 5,807 14,510
, ,
--.. ~.~.... ." .~...,~ .. ~ .,".........~.~,.. ~ ==M~=Y^ m "l"~ - "- ... ~~ m - - - .. -.- - "~'lm ~" ~ no .~= ~ m....~ ... ,..NN~
Dublin Citywide I ,
I I
Commercial 2,645 5,710 ' 4,883 9,670 i 7,528 15,380
Office 1,083 4,540 i 4,173 16,050 ' 5,256 20,590
Industrial ill1 3.240 ' 1.Q22 l.22Q 2.786 ~
Total I 10,085 27,410 ! 15,570 40,900
5,485 13,490 ;
I I
, ,
Source: Table 2.2
Hausrath Economics Group
ix
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE E.3
COSTS OF EXP ANDING FACILITIES TO
ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
Facility Type by Area Cost of Growth
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Aquatic Center
Total
Western Dublin
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Total
Cost Summary
Citywide
Eastern Dublin
Western Dublin
Total
Source: Table 7.1
FEE LEVELS
$50,526,000
23,844,062
12,164,000
9,813,000
2.099.214
$98,446,276
$22,129,800
9,211,170
2.133.250
$33,474,220
$1,062,600
442.290
$1,504,890
$98,446,276
33,474,220
$1.504.890
$133,425,386
Table EA summarizes calculated impact fee levels by land use. The costs of expanding facilities
to serve growth have been allocated to individual land uses according to residents per dwelling
unit and workers per 1,000 square feet of gross nonresidential space. The majority of fees are
levied on all development within the city limits because they fund facilities benefiting a citywide
service population. Neighborhood parks and the aquatic center have a local benefit, so fees for
these facilities are levied only on development in Eastern or Western Dublin.
Hausrath Economics Group
x
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE E.4
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE AND AREA
Area
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total Fee
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total Fee
Western Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Total
Western Dublin
Citywide Costs
Western Dublin Costs
Total Fee
Source: Tables 7.2 and 7.3
Hausrath Economics Group
Residential
(per Dwelling Unit)
Single Multi-
Family family
i
I Nonresidential
- (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
I Comm'l. Office Industr'l.
I
$3,971
1,875
1,091
762
ill
$7,862
$2,218
925
214
$3,357
$7,862
~
$11,219
$2,218
925
$3,143
$7,862
3.142
$11 ,004
!
$2,482 I
1,172 :
682
476
102 !
$4,914 i
I
I
~
$1,386 I
578
.ll4
$2,098
I
I
$4,914
2J!2.8.
$7,012
$1,386
ill
$1,964
I
$4,9141
.l.2M i
$6,878 I
$564
267
34
119
21
$1,008
$1,008
.6
$1,014
$1,008
Q
$1,008
$1,096
519
65
231
46
$1,957
$0
o
.6
$6
$0
o
12
$12
$1,957
12
$1,969
$0
Q
$0
$0
Q
$0
$1,957
Q
$1,957
$483
229
29
102
2Q
$863
$0
o
5-
$5
$863
2
$868
$0
Q
$0
$863
Q
$863
xi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
New development may not be charged for a higher standard of facilities than is provided to other
parts ofthe community. To do so would impose the burden of remedying existing deficiencies
on new development. In the case of community buildings and libraries, the facilities standard at
build-out will exceed the existing standard. The City of Dublin must, therefore, provide a
portion of the funding for these facilities from sources other than impact fees, recognizing the
benefit existing land uses will receive from an improved level of service. Table E.5 shows the
cost to remedy existing deficiencies, estimated at $7.7 million.
TABLE E.5
SUMMARY OF EXISTING
DEFICIENCIES
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
Total
$2,172,656
3,934,804
1.620.369
$7,727,829
Annually, 1998-2025
$286,216
Source: Table A.3
Hausrath Economics Group
xii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
City facilities benefit a service population including City residents and workers. As developers
build new homes and commercial/industrial buildings, this service population increases. The
City must expand its facilities to serve the expanded service population, or existing residents and
workers will experience a decline in the facilities standard.
Newer cities such as Dublin often have deficient standards for existing facilities. Dublin is
planning to expand some of its facilities above current standards. This policy will allow the City
to accommodate both existing and new development at the desired levels of service.
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the cost of expanding public facilities to serve new development through
the year 2025 and correcting existing deficiencies. The public facilities fees that new
development should pay are calculated by dividing the total cost of expanding each facility by
the service populations calculated separately for each facility type. The City can choose to adopt
fees at or below the levels calculated in this report.
This introductory chapter is intended to provide an overview of the concepts and methodology
used to design a public facilities fees program. The second chapter provides background on the
development projections and demographic assumptions used throughout the report. Each
succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis of the specific costs and assumptions involved in
the calculation of per capita expansion costs for a facility type: parks, community/recreational
facilities, libraries, and the Civic Center. In the final chapter, the per capita expansion costs are
converted to fees per unit by land use type.
Appendix A documents the cost of existing deficiencies that the City must fund through means
other than impact fees. Appendix B summarizes reasons for the increase in calculated fees from
our last fee report in 1996. Appendix C contains technical information provided by the City
relating to the Civic Center facilities expansion.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
Several events during the past 20 years have steadily undercut the financial capacity of local
governments to build infrastructure: passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond
initiatives, and reductions in federal and state assistance.
Since Proposition 13, property tax revenue has been inadequate to fund capital needs and, for
some cities, insufficient for ongoing operations and maintenance expenses to maintain levels of
service. In response, many cities and counties are shifting the financing burden of infrastructure
expansion onto new development, which is itself the primary cause of the need for expansion.
This shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of public facilities fees, also
known as development impact fees. Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities,
Hausrath Economics Group
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal fee programs are comprehensive,
requiring developers to pay for all municipal facility expansions needed to accommodate new
development.
As a result of widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed
AB 1600, which established ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of
impact fee programs. Government Code Section 66000 et seq., which became law in January
1989, requires local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new
development, the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that development. The law restricts
how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees, and requires that the fee
amount be sufficient only to fund the additional facilities required to serve new growth.
It is important to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must be
used exclusively to fund the capital costs of new facilities, and must conform to other conditions
imposed by AB 1600 and case law. As long as fees comply with these restrictions, they can be
imposed by the elected governing board of a city or county. Taxes, on the other hand, may be
used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and usually must be approved by the
voters. Thus, it is critical to document that the fee is not greater than the capital cost of facilities
to accommodate new development, or it may be legally challenged as a tax. This study serves
that purpose.
FEE DETERMINATION
Our design of the City's public facilities fee program follows a four-step process:
· Select a time period and project new development;
· Determine facility service areas, and identify facilities to accommodate new
development;
· Estimate facilities costs; and
· Allocate costs among new development in an equitable fashion.
New Development Projections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required
to serve growth. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Spec~fic
Plan (January 7, 1994) list new development, residents, and workers projected for the City's
Eastern Extended Planning Area. The City has provided additional information on growth in the
Western Extended Planning Area as well as the existing infill area. All of these areas are subject
to impact fees. Projections are for build-out of the City, which is estimated to occur around
2025.
Facilities Requirements
Determining the expansion of facilities necessary to serve new development requires calculating
level-of-service standards for city infrastructure. Standards are often stated in terms of a per
capita inventory factor (e.g., acres of parkland per capita). New development's share of
Hausrath Economics Group
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
expansion cost is calculated by multiplying the per capita standard by projected service
population growth.
For park facilities, new development's share of expansion cost is determined by applying a
parkland standard consistent with the Quimby Act legislation enabling parkland dedication by
new development. For the remaining facilities, the City has proposed specific improvements to
accommodate its build-out population. In these cases, the per capita standards are calculated for
the build-out year and used to assign costs to new and existing development.
New development cannot be asked to remedy an existing deficiency. The City can adopt its own
reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the existing per capita standard, but new
development cannot be held accountable for a higher standard unless the City plans to use
alternative funds to expand existing facilities to the same standard. This is called correcting an
existing deficiency.
Facilities Costs
The City of Dublin has provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the
year 2025. That portion of facilities costs which remedies existing deficiencies (to benefit the
existing population) and that which expands capacity (to accommodate growth) are determined
according to the principles discussed above.
Facilities Cost Allocation
Allocation of expansion cost is carried out on a service population basis, a method often used to
reflect differing impacts of residential and nonresidential land uses on public facilities. Service
population is calculated by adding residents and workers weighted as a fraction of residents. The
worker equivalency factors are designed to reflect the worker demand relative to resident
demand for a particular service type. For each facility type considered in this study, a different
worker equivalency factor is used.
Although facility expansion costs are allocated based on service population (e.g., cost per
resident or cost per worker), fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development,
(e.g.. fee per dwelling unit or fee per 1,000 square feet of building space). Total facilities costs
are distributed among land use units based on the resident or worker occupancy of each. This
approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to accommodate a
particular type of development.
Hausrath Economics Group
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents estimates of existing and anticipated development and population growth
for the City of Dublin. Population growth projections provide a basis for estimates of the public
facilities needed to accommodate new development. Estimates of current residential and worker
populations within the City are also needed, in order to calculate future anticipated per capita
service standards for most of the facility types in this report.
Current residential and nonresidential development, and 1998 residential and worker population
figures, are based on the most recently available information. The City has provided its
estimates of current levels of commercial and residential development by subarea, which have
been supplemented by California Department of Finance (DOF) data. The current residential
population figure is also based on DOF data for January 1998. The estimated 1998 worker
population is based on a City estimate, and is similar to the current Association of Bay Area
Governments estimate of total employment for Dublin and surrounding unincorporated areas for
1995.
In succeeding chapters, the cost of expanding each public facility is allocated to new
development on the basis of the population served by the facility type. Both residents and
workers use city services, but at different rates depending on the service. The service population
is calculated separately for each facility type to reflect this, combining residents with a fraction
of workers based on average worker and resident usage.
The development projections calculated here are based on planned land uses, expressed in
residential dwelling units or square feet of commercial/industrial building space. Population and
employment projections are derived from these estimates. For Eastern Dublin, land use planning
data is taken from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, dated January 7, 1994. Data for Western Dublin is based on the development proposed
under the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. For the remainder of the City, estimates of
potential development are based on City estimates, including an apartment project described in
the Park Sierra General Plan Amendment and a single family residential project described in the
Star ward Drive General Plan Amendment. Although remaining growth within the infill area
may be limited, its inclusion permits the fees calculated here to be applied citywide.
There are four additional issues of note with respect to the development projections:
. For library and community/recreation facilities, expansion cost per capita is
calculated based on a "build-out analysis," in which a future anticipated facility
inventory is divided by a future service population to derive a future facility
standard, which is used to determine the fee. If the future service population is
underestimated, the calculated fee will be overestimated (and vice versa) ifthe
Hausrath Economics Group
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
future facility inventory is held constant. The City intends to adjust facility
inventories in the future as needed, in order to maintain the service standards
calculated herein.2
. Public facilities fee revenues are intended to help finance capital investments with
a life expectancy of several decades or more. This suggests that the time horizon
for the program should correspond to the anticipated build-out of the City. Given
the long time horizon, however, we recommend that the City periodically review
facilities costs and standards, and revise fee levels accordingly.
. The City anticipates that certain areas contiguous to its current boundaries will be
annexed, a normal process for a city in a growing region. For the purposes of this
study, the projections for Eastern Dublin assume that only the areas specified on
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Map (Fig. 213),
excluding the future study area, will be annexed. Although Doolan Canyon is
reviewed in the General Plan Amendment, it is regarded as a future study area
with no present plans for annexation.
. In Western Dublin, Schaefer Ranch has been annexed. With the exception of the
Schaefer Ranch project, development potential ofthe Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area is excluded from the projections used in this report.
DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION
One of the last large areas of developable land within the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri -Valley
region has been one ofthe fastest-growing areas in northern California. Extensive development
is projected to occur in Eastern Dublin, the next large tract of developable land in the progression
of growth eastward along Interstate 580. The City of Dublin also anticipates some development
to occur in Western Dublin and within the existing city limits.
Table 2.1 shows estimates of residential units and total residential population for 1998 through
2025. Table 2.2 shows the same information for nonresidential development and the worker
population. Existing and future development is shown for Eastern Dublin, Western Dublin, the
remainder of the City, and the three areas combined. The projections are disaggregated because
certain elements of the facilities fee program may apply to only a portion ofthe City.
The amount of population and employment growth can be estimated using occupant density
factors. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment
density is expressed as square feet of building space per worker. The residential and
commercial/industrial density factors used in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are used here for
consistency, as described in the notes to Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Density factors represent averages
across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and account for vacancies.
2 The parks facility standard is based on the legislated Quimby Act standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000
residents. The exact timing and final amount of development will not have a significant effect on the parks
comonent of the fee.
Hausrath Economics Group
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2.1
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Residential
Development and
Population by Area
Eastern Dublin
Single Family
Multiple Family
Total
Western Dublin
Single Family
Multiple Family
Total
Remainder of City
Single Family
Multiple Family
Total
Dublin Citywide
Single Family
Multiple Family
Total
!
1998
Units
,
1998 Growth
Residents! Units
I
I
I
12,050 !
19.890 I
I
31,940 I
I
I
I
1,520
Q
1,520
I
,
I
54 170
.ill. 11Q !
417 900 !
........ M .m... ... ....m. '" .,_ ,,,. "'.., .. ..I
150
1l
193
I
480 I
.8Q
566 I
3,766
9.947
13,713
474
Q
474
4,294
1 0.310
14,604
,
I
Growth i
Residents i
13,740 I
I
20.620 I
34,360 i
I
2025
Units
3,916
9.990
13,906
476
Q
476
5,970
2.432
8,402
10,362
12.422
22,784
2025
Residents
12,530
19.976
32,506
1,530
Q
1,530
19,397
4.933
24,330
33,460
24.910
58,370
Note: Growth in resident population estimated assuming 3.2 residents per single family unit and 2.0
residents per multifamily unit. Resident occupancy factors based on Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2025 residents rounded to nearest 10.
I
,
10
Qi
10i
I
I
I
5,916 19,227 !
2.069 ~ !
I
7,985 23,430 I
_, ..m,., ,. "",_, "" ..".. "" __".." ..... 1
I
I
,
19,717 1
,
4.289 1
24,006 I
,
!
2
Q
2
6,068
2....U2.
8,180
Sources: State Department of Finance, Report E-5, 1/1/98; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment; Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (l~7-94); Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment;
Park Sierra Homes General Plan Amendment; Starward Drive General Plan Amendment; Hausrath
Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2.2
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Nonresidential
Development and
Population by Area
,
!
,
1998 1998 I Growth
(1,000 sq. ft.) Workers i (1,000 sq. ft.)
1
Growth i 2025
Workers i (1,000 sq. ft.)
5,710 455
4,540 , 208
~I 2.2
,
12,810 I 692
,
~m_~_~_~_
I
5,710 i
4,540 I
U1Q1
13,490 '
I
Eastern Dublin
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
o
o
3.1Q
370
Western Dublin
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Remainder of City
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
2,645
1,083
lJ..S1
5,115
Dublin Citywide
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total *
2,645
1,083
J.:l.2
5,485
o
o
Q
o
0:
o!
QB.Q!
680 I
I
,
I
oi
0'
1
()'
u-I
0'
I
4,415
3,952
Uill.Q
9,367
13
13
Q
26
4,883
4,173
.LQ2.2
10,085
8,740
15,200
I
.l..22Q :
25,630 !
,
1
30 i
50
0'
-I
80 '
I
900
800 ,
QI
1,700
I
9,670 ;
,
16,050
.l..22Q
27,410 1
4,415
3,952
1.370
9,737
3,100
1,291
lA.l.Q
5,807
7,528
5,256
2.786
15,570
2025
Workers
8,740
15,200
U1Q
26,310
13
13
Q
26
30
50
Q
80
6,610
5,340
~
14,510
15,380
20,590
~
40,900
Note: Growth in worker population estimated assuming 505 square feet/worker for commercial development,
260 sf/worker for office development, and 590 sf/worker for industrial development. Worker ocupancy
factors based on Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2025 workers rounded to nearest 10.
* Total jobs for the current area based on ABAG Projections '98 estimate of total employment for 1995 for
Dublin area (sphere of influence, including unincorporated portions outside the City limits). Employment
densities per gross leasable area controlled to ABAG total.
Sources: State Department of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; East
Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment; Park Sierra Homes General Plan
Amendment; .Warward Drive General Plan Amendment; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Residential Projections
There were 8,180 residential units in the City of Dublin in January 1998, according to the
California Department of Finance. This includes units located in Western and Eastern Dublin.
The 1998 residential population was 24,006 residents, including residents within the existing
City limits plus roughly 580 residents in the Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin areas. City staff
expects that proposed residential development citywide will add another 34,360 residents, for a
build-out population of 58,370.
Eastern Dublin is presently undergoing development. According to the City, there are
approximately 150 single family units and 43 multifamily units in the area in 1998. According
to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, residential development in Eastern Dublin is
projected to include 13,906 units at build-out. Over one-half ofthese are in the single family and
medium density categories with average densities ranging from four to 10 units per acre.
Residences of other densities are planned as well, including 10-acre ranchettes, and high density
(35 units per acre) multifamily complexes. Western Dublin is also currently undeveloped, and
only has two existing rural residences. The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment calls for
474 residential units, most of which will be detached single family homes. The project will also
include some attached single family units. According to City staff, development in the
remainder of the City will be limited to 417 units. This includes the Park Sierra and Starward
Drive projects, which call for 283 multifamily and 31 single family units.
Nonresidential Proiections
Commercial and industrial space in the existing City presently totals about 5.11 million square
feet, more than one-half of which is retail ("commercial"), based on an inventory estimate
provided by City staff, dated 10/98. Public space is exempted from the inventory. The majority
of commercial development potential exists in Eastern Dublin, where 9.37 million square feet is
anticipated. In Western Dublin, about 26,000 square feet of commercial and office space is
expected under the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. In the remaining City, there is
roughly 692,000 potential square feet of nonresidential space left to build.
Not shown in Table 2.2 are roughly 1.1 million square feet of public and semi-public land uses
proposed for Eastern Dublin. Much of this is comprised of proposed or built Alameda County
facilities including offices, jail expansion, corporation yard, and an animal shelter. Public
agencies are exempt from paying development impact fees; thus, the development and the
corresponding employment is excluded from the fee analysis. The City is party to an agreement
with the County of Alameda (dated May 4, 1993) regarding the City's right to control land uses
on property owned by the County or its Surplus Property Authority. Under that agreement, if
any ofthe property is used by governmental agencies other than the County, such use will be
subject to the City's land use regulations, which would include the public facilities fee. In the
event any such property is proposed for use by governmental agencies other than the County, the
City will include such uses in the fee analysis.
Existing employment is estimated by City staff to be around 13,500. Development citywide will
add roughly 27,400. Thus, employment at build-out is estimated at 40,900, excluding any
employment associated with public facilities.
Hausrath Economics Group
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
. "Single family unit," as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted
by the City of Dublin, refers to a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be
constructed on property designated in the General Plan or Specific Plan for six or
fewer units per acre.
. "Multifamily unit," as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted
by the City of Dublin, refers to a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be
constructed on property designated in the General Plan or Specific Plan for 6.1 or
more units per acre.
. "Commercial land uses" are uses of land for facilities for the buying and selling
of commodities and services, the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such
commodities and services, and/or other space uses incidental to these activities.
Commercial land uses include, but are not limited to, apparel and clothing stores;
auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans;
beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores;
eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general
merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishing and improvement centers;
hotels/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping
centers; supermarkets; and theaters.
. "Office land uses" are defined as those uses of land for general business offices,
medical and professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large
wholesaling or manufacturing operations, and research and development and
other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include, but are
not limited to, administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices;
insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and
office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional
associations; real estate offices; research and development; and travel agencies.
. "Industrial land uses" are those uses of land for the manufacture, production,
assembly, and processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to
these activities. Industrial land uses include but are not limited to: assembly;
concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractor storage yards; fabrication; lumber
yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing;
warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy commercial uses.
For a use that is not listed above, the Community Development Director will determine into
which of these categories the use fits, taking into consideration the existing definitions and the
land use.
Hausrath Economics Group 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Dublin owns 11 parks on 167 acres of land, 79 acres of which are classified as active
parkland, while the remaining 88 acres are classified as open space. Active parkland is further
categorized as neighborhood or community parkland.
· A neighborhood park is typically located in a residential neighborhood or cluster
of residential units and is developed to provide space for relaxation, play and
informal recreation activities. Neighborhood park improvements are oriented
toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhoods in which they are
located.
· A community park typically offers a variety of recreational opportunities to attract
a wide range of local age groups and interests. Community park improvements
are oriented toward facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure
experience of all citizens and attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Existing facilities are shown in Table 3.1. The City of Dublin has entered into an agreement
with the Dublin Unified School District for joint use of school playfields to increase the
availability of parkland. Although the City would prefer to develop more parks in existing areas,
it is constrained by the absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to
achieve its desired standards. The availability of school sites during nonschool hours adds
another 36 acres, for a total of 115 acres of active parkland.
The City of Dublin's Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes policies for expansions of
parks and community facilities to serve growth. Similarly, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amend/nent (GPA) call for development of several parks.
These range from neighborhood squares of two or three acres to larger community parks in
excess of 50 acres. The City also anticipates the need for a neighborhood park to serve
development in Western Dublin.
Hausrath Economics Group
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.1
EXISTING PARKS INVENTORY
Park Acres
Community Parks
Dougherty Hills* 4.00
Dublin Sports Grounds/Civic Center 35.00
Dublin Swim Center 3.00
Heritage Center 5.00
Senior Center 0.25
Shannon Park 10.00
Total 57.25
Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek 8.00
Dolan Park 5.00
Kolb Park 5.00
Mape Park 3.00
Stagecoach Park 0.75
Total 21.75
SchoollPark Facilities
Dublin Elementary 9.00
Dublin High School 4.00
Fredriksen Elementary 4.00
Murray Elemeqtary 7.00
Nielsen Elementary 6.00
Wells Middle School 6.00
Total 36.00
Total Existing Parks Acreage 115.00
*Includes only developable acreage for active park use.
Sources: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan;
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Hausrath Economics Group
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Park planning is guided by the Quimby Act, which sets forth a legislated parkland standard to be
applied to new development. The City regards the Quimby Act maximum standard of 5.0 acres
per 1,000 population as its target for providing parks to existing developed areas. The existing
park ratio is 4.79 acres per 1,000 residents, including shared school sites. Over time, the City
expects to acquire additional parkland beyond what is necessary for new development to bring
the inventory of parks associated with the existing population up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
The cost of resolving the existing deficiency is addressed in Appendix A.
In Dublin, the overall 5.0-acre standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and
community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population, as specified in the City of Dublin Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. Table 3.2 shows the park expansion required to serve new development
based on these standards. The neighborhood park standard is applied only to Eastern and
Western Dublin, excluding the small amount of development anticipated elsewhere in the City.
For Eastern Dublin, the neighborhood parks requirement is estimated at 47.9 acres; for Western
Dublin, 2.3 acres. Community parks, on the other hand, serve the entire City due to their size
and amenities. Accordingly, the community parks requirement is calculated using the citywide
growth estimate, yielding a total requirement of 120.3 community park acres. Fee calculations
later in this report follow a similar division. For a further description of the facility standards for
neighborhood and community parks, refer to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
TABLE 3.2
PARKS EXPANSION REQUIRED TO SERVE GROWTH
Expansion
Needed to
Serve
Growth
Population
,. Growth
Acres per
1,000
Residents
Neighborhood
Eastern Dublin
Western Dublin
Total
31,940
1,520
33,460
1.5
1.5
47.9
2.3
50.2
Community (Citywide)
34,360
3.5
120.3
Sources: Table 2.1; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (1.7.94); Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Although residential population is used to determine required park acreage consistent with the
standards legislated under the Quimby Act, the benefit of community parks also extends to the
worker population. Lunch hour visits and company recreation activities are two examples of
business-related park demand. The legislation authorizing the impact fees calculated in this
study, Government Code Section 66000 et seq., permits allocation of facilities costs to
commercial and industrial as well as residential land uses, provided a reasonable relationship
between growth and facilities demand is established.
Park use by workers was addressed in a 1992 survey of persons employed in nearby Pleasanton.1
The survey derived estimates of resident and nonresident worker park visits per week. The
survey showed that the average resident worker made 0.656 park visits per week, and the
average nonresident worker made 0.145 visits per week. The extra 0.511 (0.656-0.145) visits
made by resident workers are assumed to be due to the fact that they live in Dublin. Assuming
that all residents on average make 0.511 visits per week attributable to their residency in Dublin,
an average worker makes about 28 percent as many visits as an average resident (0.145/0.511).
The equivalency factor for a worker is therefore about 0.28.
However, this weighting factor probably underestimates the park demand of nonemployed
residents. As a group, these residents are likely to have more leisure time, and are likely to visit
TABLE 3.3
SERVICE POPULATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS AND COMMUNITY PARKS
Service
Residents Emolovees PODulation*
Existing
Community Parks 24,006 13 ,490
Neighborhood Parks ; 576 N/A
New Development
Community Parks 34,360 27,410
Neighborhood Parks 33,460 N/A
27,100
600
40,700
33,460
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at 0.23.
Rounded to nearest 100. (Neighborhood parks in Western and Eastern
Dublin will serve residents only, so employees are not included in
neil!:hborhood parks service population.)
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
I Economic & Planning Systems, Analysis of the City of Pleasanton Recreation and Sports Survey, June
1992.
Hausrath Economics Group
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
parks more frequently than full-time workers. Therefore, a worker equivalency factor lower than
0.28 is appropriate for allocating community park costs between residents and workers. A more
conservative worker equivalency factor of 0.23 is used in this analysis. The service population
calculation is shown in Table 3.3 (above), resulting in community park service population
growth of 40,700 persons.
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER ACRE
The intent of the fee program is to provide sufficient funds to acquire parkland (where land is not
dedicated) and construct improvements. Developers can sometimes deed portions of
development sites to the City according to the park standards, saving acquisition costs for the
City. For small developments where it is not practical to dedicate a park site, landowners will
pay an in-lieu fee which the City uses to purchase appropriately sited land. This in-lieu fee is
only charged for developments that do not include land dedication.
Both arrangements are currently implemented under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, and will
apply to Eastern and Western Dublin as well. The amount of park fees paid will, therefore,
depend upon the actual use of acquisitions versus dedications. This, in turn, will be largely a
function of ownership patterns at the time subdivision maps are filed, with dispersed ownership
corresponding to increased reliance on in-lieu fees. The standard fee for developments without
land dedication, and the discounted fee for developments that do dedicate land, will remain
unchanged regardless of the total amount of parkland dedicated.
The anticipated cost per acre of parkland to be purchased by the City is estimated at $462,000 for
neighborhood parks and $420,000 per acre for community parks, based on an assessor's survey.
Park development costs include landscaping, equipment, and utility fees. Acquisition and
development costs per park acre, and sources for these data, are shown in Table 3.4.
Hausrath Economics Group
14
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.4
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT COST
Land Cost, Devel. Cost,
Parkland Tvne Der Acre Der Acre
Neighborhood Parks $462,000 $192,300
Community Parks $420,000 $198,205
Note: Land costs based on average valuation of existing parkland by
type. Development costs based on City of Dublin consultant estimates
(see below).
Sources: "Neighborhood Park Development Cost Analysis." Singer &
Hodges, Inc. (consultant to City of Dublin). 9/11/98; Emerald Glen
Park Master Plan, David L Gates & Associates (consultant to City of
Dublin), 6/98; "Park Land Calculations," City of Dublin Public Works
Director and City Engineer. 10/2/98; Valuation Analysis Reportfor
Traffic and Facility Impact Fee Study: East Dublin (Dublin Ranch),
Associated Right of Way Services, 7/31/98.
COST ALLOCATION
Per capita park costs are calculated using per capita acreage standards and parkland acquisition!
development costs per acre. In the case of community parks, the per capita acreage standard is
different from the legislative per-l,OOO-residents Quimby Act standard, because it is calculated
by dividing the total required acreage (from Table 3.2) by a service population comprised of
workers and residents (from Table 3.3). '
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of the per capita cost of expansion. The cost for neighborhood
parks totals $982 per resident, including both land and improvements. Community (citywide)
park costs are $1,827 per resident. The total park cost for residential development in Eastern
Dublin or Western Dublin is $2,809 per resident.
Community park costs are also allocated to commercial and industrial land uses according to
employment. Table 3.6 applies the 0.23 worker equivalency factor to the per-resident
community park cost presented in Table 3.5, yielding a per-worker cost of $420.
Hausrath Economics Group
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.5
PARK EXPANSION COST PER RESIDENT
EJW Dublin Community
N'hood Parks Parks
Acreage Required 50.2 120.3
Service Population Growth 33,460 40.700
Per Capita Service Standard (ac)l 0.001500 0.002956
Acquisition Cost per Acre $462.000 $420.000
Land Acquisition Cost per Residene $693 $1,241
Per Capita Service Standard (ac)l 0.001500 0.002956
Development Cost Per Acre $192.300 $198,205
J $289 $586
Land Development Cost per Resident
Total Cost per Capita $982 $1,827
IEquals Acreage Required divided by Service Population Growth.
2Equals Per Capita Service Standard multiplied by Acquisition Cost per Acre.
3Equals Per Capita Service Standard multiplied by Development Cost Per Acre.
Sources: Tables 3.3. 3.4. and 3.5; Hausrath Economics Group.
; TABLE 3.6
COMMUNITY PARK EXPANSION COST PER
WORKER
Cost per Worker Cost per
Resident Equivalent Worker
Land $1,241 0.23 $285
Improvements $586 0.23 $135
Total Cost of Expansion $1,827 $420
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.6; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
Total
$1,934
$875
$2,809
16
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOTAL COST OF EXPANDING PARKS
The total cost of expanding parks facilities to meet the requirements to serve new development is
shown in Table 3.7. Land costs total $73.7 million for both neighborhood and community parks.
Improvements add another $33.5 million, for a total of $107 million. This total excludes the cost
of developing neighborhood parks to serve development outside of Eastern and Western Dublin,
and to raise the existing standard. The table assumes that all parkland is purchased by the City.
The actual cost to the City will probably be less than this amount, insofar as a certain percentage
of parkland will be dedicated. The fee schedule takes this factor into account by discounting the
impact fee for development that includes parkland dedication.
TABLE 3.7
COST TO EXPAND PARKS1
W. Dublin Neighborhood Total
E. Dublin N'hood Parks, Community Expansion
N'hood Parks Parks Combined Parks Cost
Land
Acres Required 47.9 2.3 50.2 120.3
Land Cost per Acre $462.000 $462.000 $462.000 $420.000
Total Land Cost $22,129,800 $1,062,600 $23,192,400 $50,526,000 $73,718,400
Improvements
Acres Required 47.9 2.3 50.2 120.3
Improvement Cost per Acre $192,300 $192,300 $192,300 $198.205
Total Improvement Cost $9,211,170 $442,290 $9,653,460 $23,844,062 $33,497,522
Total Cost of Expansion $31,340,970 - $1,504,890 $32,845,860 $74,370,062 $107,215,922
!
IAssuming all land is purchased. Land dedications will actually decrease the total cost to the City, but will not affect the
calculated fee to be paid by developers who do not dedicate land. The fee schedule takes land dedication into account by
discoun
2Neighborhood parks to serve Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin only.
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.4; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 4
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
The City of Dublin currently operates four community facilities: a community center, a senior
center, a community gymnasium, and an aquatic center, all located in the developed portion of
the City. As the City grows in size, it plans to add five more facilities: another community
center, a recreation center; a community theater, another aquatic center, and a senior center to
replace the existing one. At present, the City of Dublin's senior center is located in a leased
surplus school building. Eventually, the lease will be allowed to expire, and the senior center
will be moved to a new, larger building owned by the City. For a further description of these
facilities, refer to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Building space is summarized in the top portion of Table 4.1. The existing community center,
senior center, and gymnasium total 24,780 square feet 6fbuilding space.4 Proposed new
facilities are shown in the bottom portion of the table.. To reflect the replacement of the existing
senior center, only the net increase is shown for the proposed senior center, which will be 12,000
square feet in size, or 5,400 square feet more than the facility it will replace. Excluding the
aquatic centers, community buildings citywide are proposed to total 98,180 square feet by build-
out.
4 The aquatic centers are excluded from the citywide inventory.
Hausrath Economics Group
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4.1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
COMMUNITY/RECREATION
FACILITIES INVENTORY
Building
Sq.Ft.
Existing Facilities
Community Gymnasium 6,002
Community Center 12,178
Senior Center 6,600
Aquatic Center tlLA
Total 24,780
Proposed Facilities l
Community Center - 23,000
Recreation Center 29,000
Community Theater 16,000
Senior Center* 5,400
Aquatic Center N/A
Total 73,400
Build-out Total 98,180
N/A = Not Applicable.
*Existing senior center is to be replaced with the
proposed new facility totaling 12,000 square feet.
Space shown is net addition.
Sources: City of Dublin staff; City of Dublin Park
& Recreation Master Plan.
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Cost calculations for community/recreation buildings and the aquatic centers are handled
separately. Community/recreation buildings costs are allocated to new development on a
citywide basis. Activities taking place at these facilities can benefit residents and workers
citywide, regardless of the specific location of their place of residence or employment. It is
assumed that the new aquatic center will benefit Eastern Dublin only.
Because it is not uncommon for local businesses to make use of community buildings for
business gatherings or company recreation events, a conservative worker equivalency factor of
five percent is used here to reflect relative per-worker usage. Table 4.2 shows the resultant
Hausrath Economics Group 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
service population for the existing city and for growth from new development. New
development is separated into Eastern Dublin, Western Dublin, and the remainder of the City.
TABLE 4.2
COMMUNITY/RECREATION FACILITIES SERVICE
POPULATION
Residents
Service
Employees Population *
Existing
24,006
24,700
13,490
New Development
Eastern Dublin
Western Dublin
Remainder of City
Total
31,940 25,630 33,200
1,520! 80 1,500
900 1.700 1.000
34,360 27,410 35,700
58,366 40,900 60,400
Build-out Total
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at 0.05. Rounded to
nearest 100.
Sources: Tables 2. I and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Table 4.3 shows the calculated community buildings service standard and demand for facilities
allocated to new development. For the purposes of the cost calculation, the community buildings
are combined.5 Once the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan is implemented, the
City will have constructed community buildings totaling 73,400 square feet, net of the existing
senior center. Including existing buildings, community facilities will total 98,180 square feet, for
a projected service population of 60,400 persons, yielding a per capita facility standard of 1.63
square feet by build-out. Applying the build-out service standard to the 35,700-person growth in
the service population indicates a need for 58,200 square feet of community building space to
serve new development. The remaining facilities to be built are needed to correct existing
deficiencies and must be funded by sources other than impact fees.
5 The City has provided average per-square-foot costs of facility construction based on recent data.
Hausrath Economics Group
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4.3
COMMUNITY/RECREATION FACILITIES
EXPANSION NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
Community Building Sq. Ft.
Build-out Service Population
Service Standard (sq. ft./capita)
98,180
60.400
1.63
Service Population Growth
Service Standard
Expansion Needed to Serve Growth
35,700
1.63
58,200
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
The cost to construct these facilities is calculated in Table 4.4. Construction of community
buildings is estimated to cost $209 per square foot, according to the City's consultant (see table).
Total expansion cost is estimated at $12.1 million. As mentioned above, the City of Dublin also
proposes to construct an additional aquatic center to serve the added population in Eastern
Dublin. The new center is projected to cost $2.1 million, and is allocated entirely to the new
development in Eastern Dublin. Combining community buildings with the aquatic center results
in a community facilities cost of $14.3 million.
TABLE 4.4
COST TO EXPAND COMMUNITY/
RECREATION FACILITIES
Expansion Needed to Serve Growth
Cost per Square Foot
Expansion Cost
58,200
$209
$12,164,000
Aquatic Center Cost
$2,133,250
Total Cost of Expansion
$14,297,250
Sources: Tables 4.2 and 4.3; Emerald Glen Park Master
Plan, David L. Gates & Associates, 6/98, p. 41 (as
amended by City of Dublin staff); Hausrath Economics
Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
21
I
I COST ALLOCATION
Table 4.5 shows the allocation of expansion costs to residents and workers. The community
I buildings cost of $12.2 million allocated to new residents equals $341 per capita, based on the
citywide growth in service population. As stated previously, in calculating service population
for community centers, workers are weighted at 0.05, yielding a cost per worker of$17. Aquatic
I center costs are assigned to Eastern Dublin and total $2.1 million. Applied to the Eastern Dublin
service population growth of 31 ,940, this equals a per-resident cost of $67, and a per-worker cost
of$3.
I
I TABLE 4.5
COMMUNITY/RECREATION FACILITIES EXPANSION
COST PER CAPITA
I Community Aquatic Center
Buildings (Eastern Dublin
I (Ci~ide) Only)
Total Cost of Expansion $12,164,000 $2,133,250
I Service Population Growth * 35.700 3 L 940
Cost per Resident $341 $67
I Worker Equivalent 0.05 0.05
Cost per Worker $17 $3
I *Service population growth for Aquatic Center equivalent to Eastern Dublin
I residential growth (see Table 2.1).
Sources: Tables 2.1, 4.1, and 4.4; Hausrath Economics Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hausrath Economics Group 22
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 5
LIBRARIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Library services are provided to Dublin r~sidents by the Alameda County Library System with
partial funding from the City of Dublin. The site of the current 15,000-square-foot library is
owned by the County and is leased to the nonprofit Alameda CountylDublin Library
Corporation, which owns the building and leases it to the County in exchange for annual rent
payments used to retire the bonds used to finance its construction. When the bonds are
completely paid off in 1999, the title will vest with the County. The City has determined that a
new library will be needed to accommodate growth, and has made plans to construct a new
37,000 square foot facility on a parcel ofland it currently owns; 34,000 square feet of the facility
will be used for the library. The existing facility will no longer be used.
Existing and proposed library facilities (including land and books) are summarized in Table 5.1.
The library holdings include 90,000 volumes. As with the existing library, the new, larger
building will be constructed and stocked using local funds, and will be operated by the Alameda
County Library System. (For further description of the planned new facility, refer to the Final
Report on the Financial Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Library Alternatives, David M. Griffith
& Associates, July 1998.)
TABLE 5.1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LIBRARY
FACILITIES INVENTORY
Land Building
Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Volumes
Existing
Projected Additions
136,000
.Q
N/A
34.000
90,000
40.000
Build-Out Total
136,000
34,000
130,000
N/A = Not Applicable
Notes: Existing building not counted as part of inventory
because it will be replaced by a new facility. Estimate of
square footage of land parcel based on information from City
of Dublin.
Sources: City of Dublin; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hallsrath Economics Group
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
A citywide approach is used to calculate facility standards and allocate library costs, recognizing
that the Dublin library serves the entire city. Library expansion costs are allocated to new
development on the basis of the citywide service population. The build-out population is used as
the basis for determining library service standards so that the same standards will be applied to
both existing and new development.
Analysis of data from the City of Phoenix, the Santa Clara County Library System, and the
Alameda County Library System indicates that average per-worker library usage is between 25
and 33 percent of the average resident's usage.6 For the purpose of calculating the service
population and the relative cost per-capita, we have conservatively used 0.25 as the per-worker
equivalency factor. The service population for libraries is shown in Table 5.2. By year 2025, the
library service population is projected to total 68,600.
TABLE 5.2,'
LIBRARY SERVICE POPULATION
Service
Residents Workers Population*
Existing
24,006
27,400
13,490
Worker equivalent 0.25
New Development
27,410
41,200
34,360
Build-Out Total
58,366
68,600
40,900
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at 0.25.
Rounded to the nearest 100.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
6 In 1995, The Santa Clara County Benefit Assessment system estimated one benefit unit per residential
parcel and from 5 to 7.5 benefit units per commercially developed acre, depending on the type of nonresidential
development. This translates into approximately 0.3 benefit units per resident and 0.1 per worker, yielding a per-
worker weighting factor of 0.33. Other data from a survey recently carried out by Hausrath Economics Group in
Phoenix showed that the average worker visited the library about 25 percent as much as the average resident of a
single family home, and about 35 percent as much as the average resident ofa multifamily unit. Finally, in 1995 the
Fremont Main Library assigned a third of its total reference staff to its business reference desk, and 20 percent of all
reference questions were business-related. These data suggest that, insofar as Dublin workers and residents are
similar to workers and residents in these other locations, the average Dublin worker may use the library at a rate
between a quarter and a third of that of an average resident, and an average worker's use per visit may be more
intensive than that of an average resident.
Hausrath Economics Group
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5.3 shows the calculation of library service standards and the demand for facilities
allocated to new development. The improvements planned would bring the libraries serving
Dublin to a total of 136,000 land square feet, 34,000 building square feet, and 130,000 volumes.
The per capita standards are projected to be 1.98 square feet ofland, 0.50 square feet oflibrary
building space, and 1.90 volumes. Meanwhile, the service population is projected to grow by
41,200. As shown in the bottom half of the table, the facilities required to serve growth consists
of 81 ,600 square feet of land, 20,600 square feet of building space, and 78,300 volumes.
TABLE 5.3
LIBRARY EXPANSION NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
Total
Projected
Inventory
Land (in square feet)
Buildings (in square feet)
Volumes
136,000
34,000
130,000
,
I
Build-out i Service
Service i Standard
Population '.Iper Capita
"
i Expansior
Service i Needed to
Population i Serve
Growth : Growth
68,600 !
68,600 I
,
68,600 I
,
I
41,200 !
41,200 I
,
41,200 I
,
!
81,600
20,600
78,300
1.98
0.50
1.90
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The costs of acquiring/constructing the facilities required to serve growth are shown in Table 5.4.
All cost estimates were supplied by the City of Dublin and consultants, as noted in the table.
TABLE 5.4
COST TO EXPAND LIBRARY FACILITIES
Land Square Feet Required
1
Cost per Square Foot
Land Cost
81,600
ill
$1,387,000
I
Building Square Feet Required'
2
Cost per Square Foot
Building Cost
20,600
$314
$6,468,000
V olumes Required
Cost per Volume
V olume Cost
78,300
$25
$1,958,000
Total Cost of Expansion
$9,813,000
. IBased on Valuation Analysis Reportfor Traffic and Facility
Impact Study: East Dublin (Dublin Ranch) , Associated Right
of Way Services, Inc, "Sales Data: Market Sales Approach:
General Scope," Spreadsheet Area "A," "Blended Value" for
Commercial Land Area A-I.
2Based on Final Report on the Financial Feasibility Analysis
of Library Alternatives, David M. Griffith and Associates,
7/11/98, p. E-3, Table 1. Cost includes furnishings.
Sources: Table 5.3; Associated Right of Way Services (see
above); DMG Associates (see above); Hausrath Economics
Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
26
I
I COST ALLOCATION
Table 5.5 shows the calculation of per capita cost of expansion, yielding a figure of $238 per
I resident and $60 per employee.
I TABLE 5.5
I LIBRARY COST PER CAPITA
I Total Cost of Expansion $9,813,000
Service Population Growth 41.200
Cost per Resident $238
I Worker Equivalent / 0.25
I Cost per Worker $60
-
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.4; Hausrath Economics Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hausrath Economics Group 27
I
,
I
I CHAPTER 6
CIVIC CENTER
I EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
I Following its incorporation in 1982, the City of Dublin leased commercial space for government
operations. Later, the City acquired a site for City offices and carried through with the
I completion of the City of Dublin Civic Center. The Dublin Police Department, administrative
offices, and Council Chamber are housed in the complex.
I Existing and proposed Civic Center/Police facilities are shown in Table 6.1. Combined finished
space in the administrative wing and police wing totals 40,092 square feet. Unfinished
administrative space of 4,515 square feet will be improved to accommodate growth. The
I planned expansion will also increase police wing improved space by 6,963 square feet.
.1
TABLE 6.1
I EXISTING AND PROPOSED CIVIC
CENTER/POLICE FACILITIES INVENTORY
I Finished
Building Sq. Ft.
I Existing Facilities I
I Administrative Building 20,702
Police Wing 19,390
Total 40,092
I Current Service Population 27,200
Current Service Standard 1.47 sf/capita
I Planned Expansion
I Administrative Building 4,515
Police Wing 6,963
Total Expansion 11,478
I Growth in Service Population 40,900
I Service Standard for Expansion 0.28 sf/capita
'''Existing Facilities" does not include the Council Chambers,
I meeting room or lobby.
Sources: City of Dublin (see Appendix C); Table 6.2; Hausrath
I Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group. 28
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New development will be charged only for the costs of these improvements, which are being
carried out reflecting a lower service standard than the current standard (0.28 square feet of
improved space per capita, vs. the current standard of 1.47). Improvements to the administrative
and police wings are estimated to cost a total of $2.335 million, according to a space analysis
carried out by the City's consultant, Miers and Assoc~ates (see Appendix C).
COST ALLOCATION
The cost of the Civic Center improvements associated with growth is allocated to new
development on a service population basis. The growth of the service population is shown in
Table 6.2. For the purposes of allocating Civic Center costs between residential and commercial/
industrial land uses, workers are assigned a weight of 0.24 to reflect business demand on police
and administrative activities. The 0.24 worker equivalency factor is a professional standard used
in fee documentation to reflect hours of business activity relative to residential activity, assuming
an average 40-hour work week and equivalent average/per-resident and per-worker use of
specified public services. :
TABLE 6.2
CIVIC CENTER SERVICE POPULATION
Service
Residents Workers Population
Existing
24,006 13,490
27,200
New Development
34,360 27,410
40,900
Build-out Total
58,366 40,900
68,100
* Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at
0.24. Rounded to nearest 100.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
The City has carried out a cost allocation analysis and determined that all but $235,816 of the
total cost of renovating and expanding the administrative and police wings of the Civic Center is
attributable to new development: a total of $2.099 million. Because the expansion of the
facilities is at a rate of only 0.28 square feet per capita (as opposed to the current service standard
of 1.47 square feet per capita), all expansion costs are correctly attributable to serving new
development. However, for any renovation items, City staff has allocated 75 percent or more of
the cost to the General Fund.
Hausrath Economics Group
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
The total cost of $2.1 million spread across the projected expansion of the service population of
40,900 results in a cost of $51 per resident, as shown in Table 6.3 . Workers are weighted at
0.24, resulting in a cost of$12 per worker.
TABLE 6.3
CIVIC CENTER TOTAL EXPANSION COST AND
COST PER CAPITA
Total Expansion Costl
New Development Service Population
Cost per Resident
$2,099,214
40.900
$51
Worker Equivalent
Cost per Worker
0.24
$12
llncludes portion of renovations of administrative and police
wings, as eXplained in text. See also Appendix C.
Sources: Table 6.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 7
CALCULATION OF FEES AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Chapters 3 through 6 describe public facilities owned by the City of Dublin and the cost of
expanding these facilities to serve growth. Each chapter also establishes a service population
measurement reflecting the relative demand of residents and workers. The cost of expanding
facilities is then allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
This chapter provides a summary of the costs of expanding facilities to accommodate growth,
and shows the calculations resulting in the public facilities fees needed to fund those costs.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Table 7.1 summarizes the total cost of expanding facili~ies to serve growth, divided into three
areas: citywide, Eastern Dublin, and Western Dublin. :Citywide facilities (community parks.
community buildings, the library, and the Civic Center) benefit both existing and newly
developing areas. These costs can therefore be applied to new development regardless of where
it occurs in Dublin. However, new neighborhood parks will serve growth in Eastern Dublin and
Western Dublin only. Since these facilities will only benefit Eastern and Western Dublin, their
costs are allocated to these areas. Finally, the Eastern Dublin aquatic center will only serve
growth in that area, so its cost is allocated to Eastern Dublin.
Costs allocated citywide are estimated to total $99 million, or $2,457 per resident and $509 per
worker. Eastern Dublin neighborhood park and aquatic center costs total $33.5 million. The
corresponding per capita costs are $1,049 per resident and $3 per worker, and are added to
citywide costs for development in Eastern Dublin. The only facilities specific to Western Dublin
are neighborhood parks. The total cost for neighborhood parks in Western Dublin is $1.5
million, corresponding to $982 per resident.
Hausrath Economics Group
31
I
I TABLE 7.1
TOTAL EXPANSION COST TO SERVE GROWTH
I Total I
Expansion I Cost per Cost per
I
I Facility Type by Area Cost , Resident Worker
I
I
Citywide I
.
I Community Parks, Land $50,526,000 ! 1,241 $285
Community Parks, Improvements 23,844,062 ! 586 135
I Community Buildings 12,164,000 I 341 17
I
Libraries 9,813,000 I 238 60
,
Civic Center 2.099.214 I it 12
I Total/Citywide Cost per Capita $98,446,276 i $2,457 5509
I ,
; I
I Eastern Dublin ,
I
Neighborhood Parks, Land $22,129,800 : $693 $0
I
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements $9,211,170 , 289 0
I I
Aquatic Center 2.133.250 : 67 :2
Total $33,474,220 ! $1,049 $3
I I
I
Citywide Cost per Capita I $2,457 $509
,
Eastern Dublin Cost per Capita I 1.049 "
, .2.
I Eastern Dublin per Capita Total I $3,506 5512
I
I
!
Western Dublin I
I
I I
Neighborhood Parks, Land $1,062,600 ; $693 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 442.290 : 289 .Q
Total I $982 $0
I $1,504,890 ,
I
I
Citywide Cost per Capita I $2,457 $509
I ,
Western Dublin Cost per Capita I 982 .Q
,
Western Dublin per Capita Total ! $3,439 5509
,
I I
Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7,4.4,4.5,5.4,5.5, and 6.3; Hausrath Economics Group.
I
I
I
I Hausrath Economics Group 32
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE
Per capita costs are converted to fees per land use unit in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. Occupant densities
(persons per residential unit or workers per l,OOO square feet) are shown in the top row. These
are applied to the per-resident or per-worker costs for each facility type to arrive at the fee (per
dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet of commerciaVindustrial space).
Citywide fees per unit are $7,862 per single family unit and $4,914 per multifamily unit. Ea-stern
Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center, which
bring the fees to $11,219 and $7,012. Western Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood
parks only, bringing its fees to $11,004 and $6,878. New residential development in the existing
City would also be responsible for neighborhood park mitigations, though these would be done
separately under the City's Quimby Act ordinance (see discussion at end of chapter).
Citywide, commercial/industrial facilities fees per 1,000 square feet range from $863 for
industrial to $1,957 for office space. Development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a small
portion of the proposed aquatic center, increasing the range of fees up to $868 to $1,969 per
1,000 square feet.
Hausrath Economics Group
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 7.2
IMPACT FEE BY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Average Residents per Unit
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total Fee
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total Fee
Western Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Total
Western Dublin
Citywide Costs
Western Dublin Costs
Total Fee
1
I
Cost per 1
,
Resident 1
,
,
,
,
!
I
I
$1,241 :
586 !
341 !
238 1
,
.ill
$12,457 i
I
$693 i
289 '
I
67 :
-I
$1,049 I
1
I
I
,
$2,457 !
1.049 ,
$3,506 i
,
I
,
I
$693 i
R8.2 '
$982 !
I
I
1
,
$2,457 ,
,
982 ,
I
$3,439 1
,
1
Fee per Unit'
Single Multi-
Family family
3.2 res/du 2.0 res/du
3,971
1,875
1,091
762
ill
$7,862
$2,218
925
214
$3,357
$7,862
3.357
$11,219
$2,218
925
$3,143
$7,862
3.142
$11,004
$2,482
1,172
682
476
102
$4,914
$1,386
578
134
$2,098
$4,914
2.098
$7,012
$1,386
ill
$1,964
$4,914
1.964
$6,878
'''Single family" shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or Specific Plan for six or fewer units per acre.
Multifamily shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or Specific Plan for more than six units per acre.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 7.1; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
34
I
I TABLE 7.3
IMP ACT FEE BY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
I I Fee per 1.000 Square Feet
.
Cost per I
I Worker i Commercial Office Industrial
I
I
Occupancy Density* . , 505 sf/wkr 260 sf/wkr 590 sf/wkr
I
I I
I
Citywide I
.
I Community Parks, Land $285 ! $564 $1,096 $483
Community Parks, Improvements 135 I 267 519 229
.
Community Buildings 17 ! 34 65 29
I
I Libraries 60 I 119 231 102
.
Civic Center Uil 24 46 20
I Total Fee $509 i $1,008 $1,957 $863
I
!
Eastern Dublin Only .
I
I Neighborhood Parks, Land $0 ' $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 0: 0 0 0
i
Aquatic Center 3 ' n 12 5-
- ,
I Total $3 I $6 $12 $5
.
I
I
Eastern Dublin I
I I
I
Citywide Costs $509 I $1,008 $1,957 $863
Eastern Dublin Costs I n 12
11 5-
I Total Fee $512 i $1,014 $1,969 $868
,
I
Western Dublin Only ,
I Neighborhood Parks, Land $0 ! $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements Q! .Q Q Q
I Total $0 ! $0 $0 $0
I
I
Western Dublin I
I .
Citywide Costs $509 I $1,008 $1,957 $863
,
Western Dublin Costs Ql .Q Q .Q
I Total Fee $509 i $1,008 $1,957 $863
I
I
I *Occupancy density expressed in square feet per worker.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
I
Hausrath Economics Group 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its
facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable, and will include adjustments for inflation.
The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as
growth forecasts, development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land
costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing
needs.
The actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve
adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility costs and accounting for fee
revenues. In addition, City staff will be frequently confronted with particular situations in which
they must interpret the program's criteria and render special judgments. The City may adopt
administrative guidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance
regarding ongoing operation of the program. The guidelines would assist in maintaining
consistent standards regardless of City personnel turnover or updates to the fee program.
The City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building permit
issuance for commercial and industrial development, and at the time of occupancy for residential
development. Once the City has adopted a capital improvement program for all the facilities
addressed, the fees will be collected at the time of building permit. Fees will only be collected
on developed land if the existing structures are being expanded or otherwise modified to allow
more intense use of the property than under its land use designation at the time of payment.
Fee revenues will be collected in a separate trust fund, and interest earned on fund balances will
be credited to that fund. The City will maintain a subsidiary accounting oftotal fees collected
and expended by type of facility. The City anticipates using its five-year capital improvement
program to indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities to be funded by the public
facilities fees. For those funds unexpended or uncommitted after five years, the City should
demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which the fee was
charged; otherwise, the City shall return the fees to the current owners at the time of refund
(Government Code Section 60001 (4)(e)).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES
FEE PROGRAM AND QUIMBY ORDINANCE
As discussed in Chapter 3, the City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
9.28) based on the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) regarding dedication of
parkland by new development. The ordinance's provisions are applicable only when land is
subdivided for residential development. At that time, the City may require the land-" owner to
either dedicate land for park services or pay an in-lieu fee. The amount of land dedicated or fee
paid is based on the estimated residential population of the proposed development and provision
of park land equal to the City's standard of5.0 acres per 1,000 population.
The City would implement the park facilities fee documented in this study in conjunction with
the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are
imposed when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the development
Hausrath Economics Group
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
process, when building permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been
charged with a Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to deduct the
park land component from the total public facilities fee shovvn in Table 7.2.
This deduction to the public facilities fee for land subject to the Quimby Act ordinance would be
equal to the land component of the parks fee only, not the park improvement component (see
Table 7.2). The Quimby Act ordinance is based only on the park land requirements of new
development, not the cost of park improvements, so the deduction only equals the former and not
the latter. For development in Eastern or Western Dublin, the Quimby deduction would equal
the sum of the community and neighborhood park land fees. In the remainder of the City, the
deduction would equal only the community park land fee because the neighborhood park fee is
not applied outside of Eastern and Western Dublin.
Some examples illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications, and Quimby deductions
would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees or
dedicate land. Three scenarios are shovvn in Table 7.4 for a single family residence. The first
two scenarios pertain to development in Eastern or WeStern Dublin. In the first, the developer
elects to dedicate land for all park acreage, and only pays fees for the park development costs. In
the second scenario, the developer does not dedicate 1and, but pays the in-lieu fee. The third
scenario would apply to the existing portions of the City. Here, the City's Quimby Act
ordinance would apply to the neighborhood park requirements, and the developer would either
dedicate land or pay the in-lieu fee under that requirement. Impact fees would be charged only
for community parks.
TABLE 7.4
PARK IMPACT FEE PER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
E/W Dublin Devlpmt.
Dedicate Pay In-Lieu
Parkland Fees
Infill
Devlpmt.
Community Parkland* $0 $3,971 $3,971
Community Park Improvements 1,875 1,875 1,875
Neighborhood Parkland* 0 2,218 -NA-
Neighborhood Park Improvements 925 925 -NA-
Total $2,800 $8,989 $5,846
N/A/ - Not ApplIcable.
*Assumes the amount of the Quimby Act fee per Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 is equal to the
public facilities fee.
Source: Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
37
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7.5 shows sample fee calculations for single and multifamily residences in Eastern Dublin,
Western Dublin, and the infill areas. When calculating fees, cost impacts for all facilities are
added together to arrive at the total charges. If land has been or will be dedicated, the value of
the land dedicated will be applied as a credit to arrive at a net fee amount due. Note that
neighborhood parks in-lieu fees levied under the Quimby Act apply only to the infill areas.
Thus, in calculating the facilities impact fees levied under Government Code Section 66000, the
neighborhood park component is excluded for infill areas.
TABLE 7.5
EXAMPLE FEE CALCULATIONS INCLUDING PARK DEDICATION
E. Dublin E. Dublin W. Dublin W. Dublin InfiII Area InfiII Area
SF Unit MF Unit SF Unit MF Unit SF Unit MF Unit
Community Parks, Land $3,971 $2,482 i $3,97 I $2,482 $3,971 $2,482
Community Parks, Improvements $ I ,875 1,172 1,875 1,172 1,875 1,172
Community Buildings $1,091 682 1,091 682 1,091 682
Libraries $762 476 762 476 762 476
Civic Center $163 102 163 102 163 102
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,218 1,386 2,218 1,386 0 0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements $925 578 925 578 0 0
Aquatic Center .$.2.H ill .Q. .Q. .Q. .Q.
Total $11,219 $7,012 $11,005 $6,878 $7,862 $4,914
Dedicate Parkland
Community Parks, Land (3,971 ) (2,482) (3,971) (2,482) (3,971 ) (2,482)
Neighborhood Parks, La..'ld (2.218) .Q...18..Q} (2.21 8) .Q...18..Q} .0. .Q.
Total Fees Due $5,030 $3,144 $4,816 $3,010 $3,891 $2,432
SF Unit = single family dwelling unit.
MF Unit = multifamily dwelling unit.
Sources: Table 7.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION
Calculation of public facilities costs to serve growth and corresponding fee levels has been
predicated on certain assumptions about facilities standards. State statutes governing public
facilities fees (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and related case law require that fees be
based on standards applied uniformly to both new and existing development when the facilities
built benefit both. For the City of Dublin, the present standard is lower than the standard
anticipated in the future for certain facilities. To charge new development for a standard higher
than the present requires a commitment to bring facilities serving existing development up to the
same levels, i.e., to correct an existing deficiency. Otherwise, the City would effectively shift
funding of an existing deficiency to new development.
This appendix identifies the existing deficiencies implied by the service standards used in this
report. Three facility types will need existing deficiencies corrected. The City of Dublin is
currently below the desired standard for community parks, community buildings, and library.
The Civic Center is more than adequate to support existing municipal activities, with minor
renovations.
To maintain equity in its public facilities fee program, the City must correct existing deficiencies
and fund these costs from sources other than fee revenues or exactions. Typically, the cost
associated with correcting deficiencies is funded out of general revenues or other sources
dedicated to capital improvements. Large projects are often financed through revenue bonds or
certificates of participation.
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
i
Table A.I shows a calculation of the value of existing library facilities in preparation for
determining the existing library deficiency. Table A.2 shows calculations of the existing
deficiencies, given the per capita standards anticipated at build-out. Refer to previous tables (as
annotated in Table A.2) for sources of per capita standards, service populations, and expansion
costs per unit.
In these calculations we subtract existing fee fund balances from the initial calculation of
existing deficiency to arrive at an estimate of net existing deficiency. This is to account for the
fact that a portion of existing fee fund balances has been paid by developers of currently
occupied residential units or nonresidential space, but has not yet been spent on improving
existing facilities. However, because some portion of any fee fund balance is to construct
facilities for development that has not yet been constructed and/or occupied, this adjustment will
tend to understate the actual deficiency.
Existing parkland falls short of the 5.0 acres per I,OOO-resident standard allowed under the
Quimby Act. Additional park acreage can be acquired by the City to bring the park acreage
Hausrath Economics Group
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.I
VALUE OF EXISTING LIBRARY
INVENTORY
Land Square Feet
Cost per Square Foot
Land Value
136,000
ill
$2,312,000
Volumes
Cost per Volume
Volumes Value
90,000
$25
$2,250,000
Total Value of Existing Inventory
$4,562,000
Note: See Table 5.5 for dollar estimates.
Sources: Table 5.5; Hausrath Economics Group.
associated with the existing population in line with the standard applied to growth. The existing
park standard amounts to 4.79 acres per 1,000 residents, or 0.21 acres per 1,000 short of the
standard. The existing resident population is 24,006, including Eastern and Western Dublin,
indicating an additional need of 5.03 acres. Costs are shown to be $654,300 per acre, including
land at $462,000 plus improvements at $192,300. After accounting for the current fee fund
balance, there is no existing deficiency in parks facilities. However, this is due to the fact that a
substantial portion of the fee fund balance shown in Table A.2 consists of a 19-acre in-lieu
parkland dedication by the County. This dedication is intended to serve development that has
not yet occurred. Therefore the actual deficiency is still negative.
As development proceeds, the City plans ,to considerably expand community facilities. At
present, community buildings total 18,180 square feet, exclusive of the aquatic center and leased
space serving as the senior center. An additional 22,000 square feet are needed to bring
community/recreation facilities up to standard. At an estimated $209 per square foot, the cost of
remedying the deficiency is estimated at $4.6 million. Net of the fee fund balance of $659,000,
the cost is $3.9 million, or the equivalent of about 19,000 square feet. This includes costs
associated with replacing the square footage of the current senior center when the school
building lease is terminated.
For the purpose of calculating the current library deficiency, the per capita library standard is
expressed in dollar terms (refer to Table A.l). The existing standard, based on estimated value
of current facilities and the 1998 library service population, is $184 per capita. After the new
library is constructed and volumes are added, the standard will be $238 per person. The total
deficit amounts to $1.62 million, net of the current fund balance of $352,000.
Hausrath Economics Group
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.2
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
Community Community
Parks Buildings Library
(dev. acr.) (sq. ft.) (dollar value)
Calculation of Deficiency:
Existing Inventory] 115 18,180 $4,562,000
1998 Service Population2 24,006 24,700 27,400
Existing per Capita Standard 0.00479 0.74 $166
Desired Per Capita Standard3 0.00500 1.63 $238
Per Capita Deficiency 0.00021 0.89 $72
Required to Remedy Deficiency:
Per Capita Deficiency 0.00021 0.89 $72
1998 Service Population 24,006 24,700 27,400
Gross Units Required 5.03 21,983 $1,972,800
Cost per Unit4 $654.300 $209 N/A
Total Cost $3,291,129 $4,594,447 $1,972,800
Less Fee Fund Balances ($9.098.473) ($659.643) ($352.431 )
Net Total Cost $0 $3,934,804 $1,620,369
Net Units Required6 - 18,827 N/A
N/A = Not Applicable.
IExisting inventories from Tables 3.1, 11-.1, and A.I, respectively.
I
2por parks. the relevant service population is residents only. Other service populations from
Tables 4.2 and 5.3, respectively.
3Por parks. the desired 0.005 developed acres per capita standard is equivalent to five acres per
1,000 residents. Por library. desired standard is expressed as value per capita, from Table 5.6.
See also Tables 3.4 and 4.3.
"From Tables 3.2 and 4.4. Library units already in dollars.
5Pee fund balances from City of Dublin as of 6/30/98; according to City staff, 6/30 balance
similar to 1/1/98 balance to correspond to 1/1/98 basis for service population estimates. Total
for community parks includes fund balances for both land and impro
~quals Net Total Cost divided by Cost Per Unit. In the case of Parks, an inventory ofland has
been built up in anticipation of future development; net deficiency is set at zero although it is
actually higher.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,4.1,4.2,4.3,5.3,5.6, A.I; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
41
I
I Table A.3 summarizes existing deficiencies for these facilities. Combined, the City must secure
I funding for $5.6 million in improvements through year 2025. On an annual basis, over 27 years,
this amounts to $206,000 per year to be funded from sources other than fees or exactions
imposed on new development.
I
I TABLE A.3
SUMMARY OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
I Community Parks $0
I Community Buildings 3,934,804
Libraries 1 ,620.369
Total $5,555,173
I Annually, 1998-2025 $205,747
I Sources; Table A.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
I
I
I
I (
I
I
I
I
I
I Hausrath Economics Group 42
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
CHANGES IN FEE LEVEL, 1996 TO 1998
Calculated fees have increased significantly in this update of our March 1996 report. For the
purpose of briefly discussing the change in calculated fee levels, we focus on two examples: the
fee per 1,000 square feet of commercial space and the fee per single family dwelling unit in the
Eastern Dublin area.
Overall, calculated future costs increased 57 percent, from $84.8 to $133.4 million for all areas
combined. As a result, the fee per single family dwelling unit in Eastern Dublin rose from
$7,735 to $11,219, a 45 percent increase, while the fee per 1,000 square feet of commercial
space rose from $458 to $1,014, a 121 percent increase_
As shown in Table 8.1, the parkland component of the residential fee increased 75 percent for
community parkland and 54 percent for neighborhood parkland. These cost increases reflect
rapidly rising property values in the area.
The large increase in the Civic Center component (see Table 8.1) is due to more detailed
construction plans now available. This component still makes up less than three percent of the
total fee.
The increase in the fee on commercial development, as compared to the increase in cost for a
residential unit, is primarily attributable to a change in the calculation of service population to
reflect more accurate information about relative worker usage of libraries and parks. The worker
equivalency factors increased from 0.15 to 0.23 for parks (following a corrected application of
the 1994 Pleasanton survey data used previously) and from 0.22 to 0.25 for libraries (reflecting
updated survey information and a corrected interpretation of the Santa Clara Library System
information used previously).
Table 8.1 (below) shows detailed changes in amount and percent by fee subcategory.
Hausrath Economics Group
43
-------------------
~
E;
...,
t:l
-
:1-
~
Cl
::s
Cl
;;!
~.
C)
...,
Cl
-6
TABLE B.l
COMPAIUSON OF 1996 AND 1998 FEE LEVELS
Single Family Unit I Commercial (per 1.000 sq. fl.)
I
3/7/96 Current Increase I 3/7/96 Current Increase
(1998) (Decrease) I
Report % II/crease I Report (1998) (Decrease) % Increase
! I 1
Citywide , I I
! I I
Community Parks, Land $2,266 $3,971 i $1,705 75%' $210 $564 i $354 169%
I
Community Parks, Improvements 1,33 I 1,875 ' 544 41%, 123 267 ' 144 117%
1 34 !
Community Buildings 1,119 1,091 , (48) -4% 36 (2) -6%
Libraries 560 762 I 202 36% 77 119 I 42 55%
I ,
Civic Center 15. 163 I 128 366% 2 24 I 111 J.flfl%
-, -,
Total Fee $5,331 $7,862 1 $2,531 47% $452 $1,008 I . $556 123%
, t
I !
Eastern Dublin Only , ,
I I
Neighborhood Parks, Land $1,440 $2,218 i $778 54% $0 $0 ' $0 N/A
1
Neighborhood Parks, lmprovemen 762 925 ' 163 21% 0 0' 0 N/A
1 1
Aquatic Center 202 214 ' II 6% 2 6' Q mi
-1 $6 !
Total $2,404 $3,357 , $953 40% $6 $0 0%
1 1
, ,
Eastern Dublin I I
,
Citywide Costs $5,331 $7,862 ! $2,531 47%1 $452 $1,008 ! $556 123%
I
Eastern Dublin Costs 2.404 Ui11 953 40%1 2 21 Q mi
$7,735 $11,219 i $3,484 I $1,014 i
Total Fee 45%1 $458 $556 121%
i I ,
1 I
Sources: Public Facilities Fee Justifictllioll Study, Ilausrath Economics Group, ]/96; Tables 7.2 and 7.3: Ilallsrath Economics Group.
-4.
-4.
I.
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
CIVIC CENTER COST ALLOCATION DOCUMENTATION
Hausrath Economics Group
45
I v ->-' ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site Work Police Parking 79,200 ..100%
Security Fence 13,000 JOQ%
Landscaping 4,000 ::100%.
. ..
Site Work Evidence Garage 32,000 ;:::100%
,.. .
Trenching and Utilities to Evidence Garage 10,000 ',..100%"
,',".
Site Work Building Inspector Parking 3,300 . 1 oo~~
Site Work Bicycle Storage & Maintenance Garage 120,000 ]00%
Trenching for Utilities to Bicycle Storage 10,000 .,..100%
Garage )'i::...
Sub Total Site Work $271,500
10% Contingency $27,150 80% 20%
Design and Engineering Services $40,725 80% 20%
Total Cost for Site Work $339,375
Police Facility Physical Training 35,900 <25%" 75%
,.
Redo Locker Room 35,360 25% 75%
66 Lockers 33,000 25% 75%
Police Facility Watch Command/Sergeant's 47,250 .100% ..
Evidence Rooms "- 6,000 100%
. ....
Records/classroom 15,000 .:'100%
Sub Total Police Facility $172,510
10 % contingency $17,250 80% 20%
Design & Engineering Services $25,880 80% 20%
Total Cost for Police Wing Remodel' $215,640
Civic Center Expansion Space 154,130 ,:'100%."
,; ..... .
Parks & Recreation . 11,585 ....1.00.%.,...
.. . ... ...
Park Directors Office 750 '::;100%'::'
Planning & Engineering Office Changes 18,700 r1BH1~.:
Public Counter Remodel 7,400 ;,;::100%:::.:
.... ..........
Workroom Remodel 6,400 ::::100%::,::
, Coffee Area 3,400 .i::!~;eRt~:}:
Carpet 20,000 ;:JOO%},
Finance Counter 9,800 isoo%.
......... .....
Sub Total Civic Center $232,165
10% Contingency $23,220 80% 20%
Design & Engineering Services $34,825 80% 20%
Total cost for Civic Center Wing Remodel $290,210
Combined Project Costs $845,225
Contractor Overhead & Profit 126,785 80% 20%
Furniture $78,500 100%
Bid contingency $84,520 80% 20%
Construction Management Services $50,000 80% 20%
Total Project Costs $1,185,030
CIVIC CENTER MODIFICATION
2002 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
COST SHARING MATRIX
PAGE 1
Dev. Gen.
Fees Fund
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Staff believes that the schematic plans developed by Miers and Associates dated December 18, 1997
accomplish the above tasks. Working dra\\~ngs & bid specifications are now needed in order to proceed
with construction. Part of Mr. Miers' contract was to develop a cost estimate for tlle work outlined in his
design. Exhibit 5 is a breakout of his PRELIMlNARY ESTIMATE along with a summary of costs that
totals $1,185,030 for the build-out of space needed through the Year 2002. Staff estimates that the cost to
build out the additional 5,000 sq. ft. of space shown in the Year 2017 model will be an extra $1,150,000.
Financial Anal)'sis
1. An outline of costs associated with each phase of construction is as follows:
PHASE I
1. Site work and out-buildings (400 sq. ft
Evidence Garage & 1,500 sq. ft. Storage
2. Police Wing Remodel
3. Civic Center 'Wing Remodel & Build-out
4. Contractor Overhead & Profit
5. Furniture
6. Bid Contingency
7. Construction Management Services
8. Design 8:. Engineering Fees .
TOTAL PHASE I COSTS
$ 298,650 --
..
189,760 -
255,385--
126,785---
78,500
84,520"""-
50,000v'
, J 01.430
51,185,030
PHASE II
1. Remodel of Police Wing with the
expansion of 5,000 sq. ft. of new space
2. Design & Engineering Services ..
TOTAL PHASE II COSTS
^~ i' ..
1\ . t '\.
. . \ '" i'-
., ~ " . . ,
~" .
)
$1,000,000
, ,r).J
IO.J
1 ':;0.000
51,150,000
2. Funding for the above work will come-from the following sources:
PHASE
Phase I
Phase II
DEVELOPMENT FEES
$ 949,214
1. I 50.000
$2,099,214
GENERAL FUND
$ 235,816
o
$ 235,816
TOTAL
$1,185,030
1.150.000
$2,335,030
Those costs associated witll improving the utilization of existing space would come from the General
Fund. All otller costs associated with remodeling and expanding the Civic Center are attributable to new
development and would come from Development Fees collected by the City.
3. The City's Public Facility Impact Fee will need to be adjusted to cover the cost of remodeling and
expanding the Civic Center. The current Public Facility Impact Fee was based upon only completing
tenant improvements in the expansion space, remodeling existing space in Police and expanding the
Police parking lot, at a cost of $445,000.
4. Funding is currently available from the Public Facility Fee Fund to cover the cost of design and
engineering services estimated to cost $101,430 for Phase lor $251,430 for Phase I and Phase n.
-5-
I
I'
I
I DESCRIPTION - LOCATION
I This project provides for the completion of the Dublin Civic Center in order to accommodate the additional City Staff and
police personnel required to serve the City in the next five years (Phase I), and at build-out of the City (phase II). Phase I
improvements include the build-out of 4,500 sf of unimproved space, expansion of the police parking lot, construction of a
400 sf evidence garage and a 1,500 sf maintenance building along with tenant improvements needed in current working
I areas in both the police wing and administrative wing of the Civic Center. Design, engineering and all consulting services
needed for the modifications at the Civic Center are included in the CIP. Phase II includes a 5,000 sf addition to the police
wing to accommodate the anticipated growth in the Police Department to serve the City at build-out.
I
1998-2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT.NUMBER
9391
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Civic Center Renovation!
Expansion Project
ACTIVITY
GENERAL
I
COMM!:NTS
I As the City grows, it will become necessary to increase personnel to adequately service the community. Several
Departments are currently out of space and cannot accommodate additional staff. During 1997-98, the City conducted a
I Civic Center space planning study. This study identified the number of personnel in all City Departments that would
occupy space in the Civic Center in the Year 2000 and at build out of the City's General Plan. This space planning analysis
was utilized to recommend modifications to the Civic Center to meet the growth needs of the City. The Dublin Civic Center
I was designed with about 4,500 square feet of unfinished expansion area; which will need to be modified to house the
additional personnel. The costs for designing this project will be paid for by Public Facility Impact Fees. Those costs
associated with improving the utilization of existing space would come from the General Fund, all other costs asso::;jated
I with remodeling and expanding the Civic Center are attributable to new development and would be funded by
Development Fees collected by the City. The modificatio"n of the Civic Center has been divided into two phases. The first
phase cost is approximately $1.2 million and will accommodate the City's space needs through the Year 2002. The second
I phase of construction will accommodate space needs ~t the Civic Center though the Year 2017 and will cost an additional
$1.5 million. Staff estimates that of the costs associated with both phases, $235,816 will come from the General Fund and
the remainder ($2,162,622) will come from development fees. The current Public Facility Impact Fee should be modified
I before the renovation of the facility proceeds.
II
-
ESTIMATED COSTS
Fund
Prior Years
FINANCINGIYEARS SCHEDULE
1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001.02 2002-03
Totals
Il::~o"
Improvements
I tachinery I Equipment
tperating Supplies
Printing
onstruction Admin
I
$ 302,038
7,800
1,955,100
78,500
001
310
$
235,816
974,884
$ 1,150,ODO
$ 235,816
2,162,622
$
37,738
5,000
50,000
OTAL
$ 2,398,438
s
37,738 S 1,210,700
S 1,150,000 S 2,398,438
I
- 7 -
t!!.
-
.-i
IS)
ILJ
~.9
([
lL
I/)
~,
7
UJ
(Jl
1"1
lD
GJ
....
I/)
o
f-
....
In
I,D
(j)
,
I'J
1'1
UJ
I
Q.
....
IJ)
U
L
-
-
-
-
DEPARTMENT
STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE WING
1.0 City MgrfCily Council
2.0 Adminlslralive Services
3.0 Public WOrX8
4.0 Community Development
5.0 Pa!1l.s & Community Sent
6.0 Fire P'8venlion Bureau
Support Areas.
10.5
o
16
14
5
3
o
SUBTOTAL STAFF
SUBTOTAL (GSF)
POLICE WING
7.0 Pollee
56.5
40
-
------
CIVIC CENTER STAFF & SPACE NEEDS
SUMMARY
1998
I:~::~~:g:~'~i~~~~~J)~::.
:'~', :;:.;:::: :";;::: >::- 5 fi.:':: t~::'; :::':";5} .'
:~+::.::.~:.:)~: ~:::'.;.::~::f:( .~i/:.~;-~'.::' ;/.~~::
'" .. ..
:)1:::~'r~i~/:207qt;:~;'i;';"););'
WIWlj~!~~~)fm~~
STAFF
12.5
11
19
11l
6
5
o
71.5
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2002
J:Yif~t~~~EWiYiYH
2017
.........~Eh~~y~i~!~\i.
STAFF
. '" . ". ..
. .~. .. . ..... ". -
13
14
16
16
5
5
o
,..
>..~~,
1'.;: < C'..: '<:. :,:'.::,' .,' :;', ;': 'i','<:"J~/::,:.
, .. " .,. ,?5;2,17,,"';:,,/, ;,J.
<:::)?:':'.:::::".: :::;:' fJ ::. ::.... ,'.: i:'
'.:~".. ;}:';.14;549 ,::/:",~':':~:
69
..' . -,. ... - ".. ... .., .. ... . -,.:" ".. .'. ;.. ,-, :. ':."." -':.'~" ","..
:.-:~~ .:~: ~:-.:~.~.~:.~;.}.S?~-:")~ ~:'~~f.{~~~.{}/:\::L
y'i~i0~:~1rCj;~C"~1' 90 Xi,' ~6.3,j!:,;'"
:::'.;;:'".,.:, :".:,:, ,;.",?'::'. ',,:<fthJ ~9 :,<iH )i:} .'. ".::.: ';'. . ":" ,. ,,":'.,.:'
i~illi~IH;~~I~y~:\:jl,':!;J2tl~\]'t~
~J()r It"! $.T^r;Ff1;.%:(UW!:~,,:!:rrfi.t1tr. 1'ijW,;~;.~;fH:fM,; ."~',"';"'.' ':.:~,. ::'i,'.:: ::.i:.::'::':':' : Hti)it1 ;5::)-.i1i"tr
PUBUC AREAS....
EXPANSION AREN EXISTING
STORAGE
~ljll~~I~!~i~
{~rQJ ^~ (G ~ ~I t !h~: t~~t:f~~fJ~!l:~J!~;r ;~i ff.~ jf.t.~:tt-~.~lJtf}fi~tr-N .:~'~:j ~ {i~'~ J:/ .fj3~90q.: f .;~:::/ t1 t.~:.~:: rf~J ~ i4fH} f1Jj.~Jih~~~~ 7~~: :\. ;.:: ".54 .900
~f r:~~;-~ t{~~' f E.~;:~ t{~ t;~~i.
: ':. 1$9,9DO,n."
DepartmellllolalllncJutle .1I.approlllmale 15% glllsslllg faclor to accouIIll01lnl8rdepartJnenlal drculaliolllllld extellor walls whit'l are no\ shown on the Individual department chelU.
The Police W1l1g square lootage for 1990lnclude1o a glossin9la~or 01 H'%
. Support f'.was include sian lestrooms, lounge, slairs, reoolving al811 oomplller loorn, S-ervlce el€valol, lobby. ele,
.. Public Aress inell/de public reslroom!>. CDlmcil Chamber, Regional Meellng Room, anti public sl~lr and k'bby Breas
EXHIBlT 1-A
.
.
.
, ..
;J ~ /3
TABLE EA
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE AND AREA
Residential Nonresidential
(per Dwelling Unit) (per] ,000 Sq. Ft.)
Single MuIti-
Area Family family Comm'l. Office Industr'I.
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $3,971 $2,482 $564 $1,096 $483
Community Parks, Improvements 1,875 1,172 267 519 229
Community Buildings 1,091 682 34 65 29
Libraries 762 476 119 231 ]02
Civic Center 163 ]02 24 46 20
Total Fee S7,862 $4,914 $1,008 $1,957 S863
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,2] 8 $],386 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 925 578 0 0 0
Aquatic Center 2]4 134 .6. 12 .5.
Total $3,357 $2,098 $6 $]2 $5
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs $7,862 $4,914 $1,008 $1,957 $863
Eastern Dublin Costs 3.357 2.098 .6. 12 5-
Total Fee $11,219 $7,012 Sl,014 $1,969 S868
Western Dublin Only "
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,2] 8 $1,386 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 925 ill Q Q .Q
Total $3,143 $1,964 $0 $0 $0
'''estern Dublin
Citywide Costs $7,862 $4,914 $1,008 $1,957 $863
Western Dublin Costs .l.L42 .L2M Q Q .Q
Total Fee $11,004 $6,878 $1,008 $1,957 $863
Source: Tables 7.2 and 7.3
Hausrath Economics Group
xi
[gj:tlXlOfIDO"il' @