HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 LibraryTaskForceRpt
, - ~
~
CITY CLERK
File # Ol2Jrm[{j-[hJ[Q]
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 1,1998
SUBJECT:
Library Planning Task Force Report
Report By Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
/ A. Task Force Report "
/ B. Current Public Facility Impact Fee Cash" Flow Projections
EXlDBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
/2uA-
\
A. Receive Report
B. Receive Public Comment
C. Consider Recommendations on Page 5 of Agenda Statement
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
See Discussion Below
DESCRIPTION: One of the 1997 high priority goals adopted by the City Council was
to prepare an update to the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report including site identification for a
new library/community activity center. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council, at it's August
19, 1997 meeting, appointed a Library Planning Task Force.
.The Task Force convened in September 1997 and met for a total of ten meetings. Information that was
reviewed and considered by the Task Force included growth projections for the City, library facilities
standards, criteria for library site selection, library use patterns, library site possibilities, and ancillary use
possibilities. Architectural feasibility studies were provided by George Miers and Associates COMA) and
a financial analysis including capital and operating costs was provided by David M. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd. (DMO). Task Force members also toured other library facilities and possible library
sites in Dublin.
After a thorough review of the information received and the options considered, the Task Force reached
the following conclusions and recommendations:
. Construct one central library at the site of the Dublin Civic Center to include
Dedicated library space (based on a 0.6 square foot per capita) 34,000 sf
Friends of the Library storage and workspace 600 sf
Community meeting rooms 2.400 sf
Total Square Footage 37,000 sf
. Construct the library using a phased approach as follows
_ Construct a 37,000 square foot library building shell and finish 20,000 square feet of library
space to become operational by the year 2003
_ Expand library services to 34,000 square feet as the City's population and library tax revenue
. increases to support that population
------------------------CO-PUEST()~--~~;~-~~~~~;;~~;---------------
Alameda County Library ~ 4
ITEMNO.~
G:\library\cc91 frptdoc
. Expand library service hours to forty (40) hours per week with sixty (60) hours per week as if, i
desirable goal if funding becomes available '
. Consider a parcel tax to fund the capital cost shortfall and operating costs, if necessary
Attached in Exhibit A is the Library Task Force Report. The report discusses in detail the methodology .
undertaken by the Task Force as well as the findings and recommendations of the Task Force. The in-
depth financial study provided by DMG which includes capital and operational costs is attached as
Exhibit 8 of the Report.
ISSUES
Staff has identified and analyzed the following issues related to the recommendations of Library Planning
Task Force regarding construction ofa new 37,000 square foot library"at the Dublin Civic Center.
1. Funding
a) CaDital Costs
The estimated capital costs for construction of a 37,000 square foot library building on the Civic
Center site, including construction, project development and management, and furnishing and
equipment costs, is $11,957.000. At present, the City's Public Facility Impact Fee is only
designed to generate $6,777,000 based upon the 1993 Library TaskForce recommendations.: This
is because the current fee assessed on new development was based on a 7,000 square foot
expansion of the current library building and construction of a new 20,000 square foot library in
Eastern Dublin.,."_
The financial analysis prepared by DMG anticipates that $9,293,000 of the total library capital
construction costs ~ be paid for with Public Facilities Fees. This would entail adjusting the .
Fee to take into account the new library scenario as well as inflation and revised population
estimates. The balance of $2,664,000 would need to come from other sources. These sources
could include: 1) Future General Fund Operating Revenues; 2) General Fund Reserves; 3) Parcel
Tax; and 4) additional developer contributions, or a combination of any of the above.
If the library were selected as the next project to be funded by Public Facility Fees and if the
Library component of the Public Facility Fee was adjusted as discussed above, it is anticipated that
sufficient Public Facility Fees would be available to fund library construction in about 2001-2002.
Further analysis on the source of revenue for the unfunded portion of the library would need to be
undertaken, but this analysis could occur during the planning and design phase of the project.
b) Operating Costs
The estimated costs for full operation of a 37,000 square foot facility C34,000 square feet of
dedicated library space) at forty service hours per week is $1,754,122. The revenue available in
2003 to support these hours would be only $1,288,069 resulting in an operating deficit of
$466,053. Although library related property taxes can be expected to increase as the community
grows, the higher costs associated with operating a larger library would not be offset by projected
revenues without a significant increase in support from the City General Fund until 2019.
Estimated costs for operating a phased operation, 20,000 square feet of library space at forty hours .
per week, is $1,363,000. The higher costs associated with this option would not be offset by
projected revenues without an increase in support from the City General Fund until 2006.
-2-
. ,-'.
..
.
.
.
If General" Fund support for Library operations was increased in the proportion City property tax
revenue increased (based upon current development projections for the next five years) the City
could support 40 hours of service in the 20,000 square foot phased development approach in the
year 2003.
c) Parcel Tax
One option to cover the unfunded capital and operating costs would be a parcel tax/per household
assessment. A parcel tax would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote. DMG has initially
studied the financial feasibility of a parcel tax and believes that a parcel tax ranging from $45 to
$70 could support the unfunded capital costs and operating deficit. Further analysis on the need
for and the ability to gIDn approval of a parcel tax would need to be undertaken before this option
is pursued. If the City pursued the phased development approach ~d increased it's General Fund
support to the Library as discussed above, a parcel tax or new source of revenue might be needed
if the Council wanted ~ than 40 hours of service in the year 2003.
2. Impact On Other City Projects
a) Public Facility Fees
The following public facilities will be needed to serve new development in the City of Dublin and
in Eastern and Western Dublin: Emerald Glen Park; Sports Park; Community Park;
Neighborhood Parks; Community Center; Recreation Center/Gymnasium; Community Theater;
Senior Center; Aquatic Center; and Civic Center Expansion. All of these projects will be funded
either entirely or partially by Public Facilities Fees.
Staff anticipates that $24,700,000 in Public Facility Fee Revenue will be collected over the next
five years Csee Exhibit B). The 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Program currently includes the
following Public Facility Fee funded projects: Emerald Glen Park Phase I; Civic Center
Expansion; Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Park and Schaefer Ranch Neighborhood Parks. The total
cost of these projects is estimated to be $8,475,000. Thus, the available balance of Public Facility
Fee Revenue is estimated at $16,225,000 under the current fee structure.
Construction of a new library utilizing the available Public Facility Fee Revenue may impact the
City's ability to proceed in the near future with other Public Facility Fee funded projects Csee
Table 1 below) depending upon the Council's project-priorities.
TABLE 1
PROJECT
Emerald Glen Park (future phases)
Acquisition of 17.5 acres
Improvement of 31 acres
Sports Park (improvements only)
Aquatic Center
Community Buildings
Community Center (23,000 s.f.)
Recreation Center/Gymnasium (29,000 s.f.)
Senior Center (12,000 s.f.)
Community Theater (16,000 s.f.)
ESTIMATED
COST
$ 5,250,000
$ 6,200,000
$13,600,000
$ 2,233,250
$ 5,025,500
$ 6,037,500
$ 2,400,000
$ 3,200,000
The total square footage of the community buildings identified above is 80,000 square feet. Public
Facility Fees will only fund development of 61,600 square feet of community buildings. Funding
for the balance of 18,400 square feet of community buildings would need to come from other
sources.
-3-
0'--'
,
b) Community Meetinr Roomo;
The 34,000 square foot library building will be designed to include meeting rooms which are
typically found in a library. In order to utilize Public Facility Fees to fund the additional 2,400
square feet of community meeting rooms recommended by the Task Force, the proposed 23,000 .
square foot community center in Emerald Glen Park would need to be reduced by 2,400 square
feet. This reduction in the community center could be achieved by eliminating 1,200 square feet
of classrooms/meeting rooms currently identified as a program element for the community center.
The balance could be achieved with reductions to the other program elements such as the
community hall, teen activity room, arts/ceramics studio, multi-use center or preschool. Staff
would questIon whether the 2,400 square feet of meeting rooms proposed for the library would
have the same utility as the proposed space at the community center. Because of the proximity to
the library the space would need to be designed in such as way that it would not conflict With
traditional library uses.
Further analysis on the need for additional public meeting space, whether this space could be
designed for recreational use and the impact of the elimination of this square footage on the future
community center would need to be undertaken as part of the library space plan.
c) PrQJect Timing
The first step in proceeding with the construction of a new library would be to undertake a space
plan to further refme the space needs and layout of the library. This would be followed by detailed
design development, environmental review, contract documents and construction. The following
schedule for library construction is based on the experience of Alameda County Library with
previous library construction:
Notice to Proceed
Space Plan
Complete Design Development DocumentslEnvironmental Review
Complete Contract Documents
Bidding
Notice to Proceed with Construction
Construction
Beneficial Occupancy and Move In
Total Time From Notice to Proceed to Move In
Start Date
9 Months
4 Months
6 Months
2 Months
1 Month
20 Months
1 Month
43 Months
.
d) Staffing
In order to proceed with the development of a new library at this time, additional staff resources
will be required to manage the project. As part of the 1998-99 CIP the Council funded 39
different Capital Improvement projects requiring project management time on the part of senior
staff. As a point of information, the staff time required to manage the Civic Center project was
equal to .50 FTE of the Assistant City Manager's time during the planning, architectural selection,
design phase C20 months), and .30 FTE of the Assistant City Manager's time during construction
C20 months). This did not include the additional time of working with a citizen's advisory
committee which may be needed for the library project.o
There are insufficient staff available in the Fiscal Year 1998-99 Budget to function as project .
manager for the Library project. If the City Council is interested in pursuing the planning/design
during Fiscal Year 1998-99 Staff would need to develop a plan for handling project management
responsibilities.
-4-
..
fI'../'-.
.3.
Disposition of Existing Library Building
a) Potential Senior Center
Concurrently with the work of the Library Planning Task Force, Staff was authorized to perform
an evaluation of the existing library to determine it's potential for another public Use, specifically
a senior center. The City retained the services of Group 4/ Architecture, Research and Planning,
Inc. to determine the program needs for a senior center, evaluate the present library building and
develop a conceptual floor plan for a proposed senior center at the library.
.
Group 4 has determined that the library building could be renovated to meet the program needs for
a senior center but not without major remodeling of the building. Group 4 recommends that the
cost of new construction and the quality of a new senior center be compared to the cost of
converting the library to a senior center. Group 4 estimates that renovation of the library building
for use as a senior center could range from 80% to 110% of the cost of a new senior center,
however, without further analysis by structural, mechanical and electrical engineers, and by a
hazardous materials consultant, it is not possible to accurately pinpoint the cost of renovation.
The Senior Center Advisory Committee provided input on the program needs for the senior center
and reviewed the conceptual floor plan for the proposed senior center at the library. The
Committee supports renovation of the library building to a senior center.
.
b) Acquisition Qf Library Building
The Dublin Library building was financed by General Obligation Bonds which will be retired in
March 1999. The Dublin Library Corporation owns the library building and leases it to the
County in exchange for annual lease payments provided from property taxes. When the bonds are
completely paid off, title will vest with the County. The City would need to negotiate a transfer of
ownership from the County in order to pursue reuse of the building for a senior center.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept Task Force Report
2. If the City Council concurs with Task Force Recommendations, determine whether the Library Project
should proceed ahead of other Public Facility Fee fmanced projects identified in Table 1 ofthis report.
3. If the City Council wishes to pursue the Library Project during Fiscal Year 1998-99, authorize Staff to
take the following action:
a) Prepare a plan to address project management for the Library and report to the Council
b) Authorize Staff to secure consultant services to update the Public Facility Fee
c) Pending resolution of Ca) above authorize the preparation of a Request For Proposals for consultant
services to prepare a space plan for the new library which would also address whether the
additional meeting space proposed by the Library Task Force is best suited for the Library or the
new Emerald Glen Park Community Center
d) Authorize the City Manager to develop a financial plan to address the portion of the capital cost
which cannot be funded by the Public Facility Fee.
.
-5-
City of Dublin
Li)bra Planning
Tas 0.. -~p~rt
September 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Library Planning Task Force
Report
CITY OF DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
September 1998
Guy S. Houston, Mayor
David C. Burton, Vice Mayor
Valerie A. Barnes, Councilmember
Lisbeth Howard, Councilmember
Janet Lockhart, Councilmember
SUBMITTED BY
Library Planning Task
Force
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIBRARY PLANNING
TASK FORCE REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1
1
2
9
mTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND
FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE
OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY TASK FORCE
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Executive Summary 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report
Dublin Population Estimates and Projections
Library Planning Task Force Roster
Alameda County Library - Recommended Criteria for Library Site
Selection
Alameda County Library - Library Use Patterns by Residence of
Borrowers
Recommended Criteria for Library Site Selection - Civic Center Site and
Current Dublin Library Site
George Miers & Associates Architectural Study Summary
David M. Griffith & Associates Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library
Alternatives
Alameda County Library - Dublin Library Space Needs
6.
7.
8.
9.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The current Dublin Library located on Amador Valley Boulevard opened in 1979. It was fmanced by General
Obligation Bonds. The site for the library is owned by Alameda County and leased to the nonprofit Alameda
CountylDublin Library Corporation. The Corporation in turn owns the building and leases it to the County in
exchange for annual lease payments provided from property taxes. The bonds, will be retired March 1, 1999.
When the bonds are completely paid off, title will vest with the County. The County is responsible for building and
grounds maintenance for the current library building. Currently new libraries located in cities within the County
Library system are the responsibility of the participating local agency; therefore, all maintenance costs are assumed
by the local agency.
Since 1982 the City of Dublin has contracted with the County for additional library service hours. At an annual cost
of $216,000 (1997-98 cost) the City currently funds 14 hours per week beyond the County's basic 20 hours per
week. In order to fmance the basic 20 hours per week the County provides a $300,000 annual subsidy to the
operating budget of the Dublin Library in addition to the Library Property Tax collected from Dublin property
owners.
In November 1991 the Dublin City Council approved a joint planning effort between the City and the County
Library System in order to examine current and future library facility needs of the community. The 1993 Library
Planning Task Force Report, which was presented to the City Council in May 1993, was the result of the joint
planning effort. The recommendations contained in the 1993 report were: 1) Take action as soon as possible to
expand the current library to its maximum capacity of 22,000 square feet; and 2) When development occurs in
eastern Dublin and after the population in that area exceeds 10,000, take action to construct an additional library
facility in eastern Dublin. The Executive Summary of the report is reproduced as Exhibit 1. Shortly after
completion of the report, the State of California shifted property tax revenues away from local agencies to public
schools. As a result of the shift, th~ County Library System property tax revenue was reduced by fifty percent and
City revenues were substantially reduced. As a result of this shift in revenue and the slow pace of new development
in the eastern and western portions of Dublin, the City took no action upon the Task Force recommendations.
Current (July 1997) estimates place Dublin's maximum population at buildout at 58,000 (excluding the jail
populations of 4000) by year 2022. (Exhibit 2) This estimate is far less than the 73,100 projected in the 1993
Library Planning Task Force Report.
In view of the City's present projected growth the current library building will not meet the needs of the future
Dublin community. In order to thoroughly assess the community's library needs, the City Council appointed a
Library Planning Task Force to prepare an update to the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report. The updated
report was also to include an evaluation of the suitability of the Civic Center site as a location for a new
library/community activity center.
II. FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE
On July 15, 1997, the Dublin City Council unanimously approved the formation of a Library Planning Task Force
to prepare an update to the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report. Advertisements were placed in local
newspapers which generated nineteen respondents. On August 19 all nineteen respondents, one member of the
Parks and Community Services Commission and one member of the City Council were appointed to the Task Force.
Of the twenty-one appointed individuals, sixteen served. A Membership Roster of the Task Force is included in
Exhibit 3.
The Task Force charge included the following:
1. Determine how best to accommodate the City's future library facility needs.
2. Determine what other community uses could be accommodated with the library facility.
3. Determine whether the Civic Center site can accommodate a central library facility that includes the community
uses identified above.
In order to accomplish these goals the Task Force performed the following work steps:
-1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Reviewed the data contained in the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report and determined whether the
assumptions were still valid (Le. growth projections, library facilities standards, library site selection
criteria and library use patterns).
2. Toured library facilities in other cities.
3. Identified potential community/non-library uses that might be included in a new library facility.
4. Evaluated specific site recommendations for an additional library or replacement library.
5. Identified the development potential of the Civic Center site for a new central library and prepared a possible
site plan for a new library facility at the Civic Center.
6. Considered several service hour options and identified the desirable number of hours that a new library should
be open.
7. Reviewed and evaluated the costs associated with library construction and operation.
8. Identified funding sources for library construction and operation.
9. Determined the fmancial impacts to the City and the County.
10. Evaluated whether the current library building fits in the City's future library plans.
The Task Force met monthly from September 1997 through May 1998. Paul Moffatt was elected Chair and Connie
Spence Vice Chair. Task Force members received information from the County Library System, Dublin Library,
City Staff. In order to provide the Task Force the information needed to complete the report, the City contracted
with the frrrn of George Miers and Associates to provide architectural data; and with David M. Griffith &
Associates, Ltd., a fmancial consulting frrrn versed in library fmancing. Subjects included review of the 1993
Library Planning Task Force Report (Executive Summary, Exhibit 1) , growth projections for the City of Dublin
(Exhibit 2), Library Facility Standards, Site Selection Criteria (Exhibit 4) , Library Use Patterns (Exhibit 5),
library site possibilities at both the Civic Center site and the current library site (Exhibit 6), ancillary use
possibilities, architectural feasibility of renovation and expansion possibilities of the current Dublin Library and
architectural feasibility of construction at the Civic Center site (Exhibit 7), fmancial aspects including capital and
operating costs of renovating the current library and constructing a new library on the Civic Center site (Exhibit 8).
Members of the Task Force also toured other library facilities and possible library sites in Dublin.
III. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE
In determining the ultimate library facility needs, the Task Force considered library size, ancillary usage,
site/location, and service hour options as well as funding sources for library construction and operation.
~
In order to best accommodate the City's future library facility needs, the Task Force had to determine the size of
library the City's future population would require. The following criteria were used in making the determination.
The Projected Population of the City at Buildout
The City Community Development Department projects that at buildout (2022) the City's population (excluding the
4000 incarcerated population) will be 58,000. The population will be split almost equally between the eastern
portion of the City and the centraVwestern portion. (Exhibit 2)
Library Building Square Feet Per Capita Standards
In order to determine the spatial requirements of a library, a square foot per capita standard is utilized. Historically
the Alameda County Library System has employed a 0.5 square feet per capita standard in developing new library
facilities. This historic standard according to County Library personnel and the fmancial consultant only
accommodates spatial requirements for hard copy library materials (books, magazines, videos) and minimal
computer space. A 0.6 square foot per capita standard is currently being adopted for new library construction. This
standard provides for hard copy materials as well as expanding new technological requirements.
Based upon the 0.5 square feet per capita standard the base library size needed to accommodate the build out of the
City equals 30,000 square feet; based upon the 0.6 square feet per capita standard the base library size needed to
accommodate the build out of the City equals 34,000 square feet.
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ancillary Uses
The Task Force began study of ancillary uses of the library site with a brainstorming session. The Task Force
included in the list ancillary uses observed during a tour of area libraries. Data was provided by Dublin Community
Development Department, Dublin Library, Alameda County Library, and PIC (Private Industry Council). The
following is a list of possible ancillary uses identified by the Task Force:
Coffee Shop/Cafe
Art Gallery
One Stop Career Center
Friends of the Library Book Sale Area
Storage Space
Community Meeting rooms
KitchenIFood Preparation area
Museum
Options were eliminated if the service was provided elsewhere within the City (Le. Heritage Center museum, Civic
Center art gallery) or if deemed inappropriate for joint use (i.e. kitchen). After considerable discussion the following
uses were identified for further analysis.
Friends of the Library Space (600 Square Feet)
Two Community Meeting Rooms (1200 Square Feet Each)
Retail complex to include coffee shop, gift shop, stationary store (3000 Square Feet)
One Stop Career Center (6000 Square Feet)
.sm
Once the estimated square footage of library space was decided, the Task Force identified and evaluated the
following five library site/combination options:
Option #1
Two branch libraries: renovation of the current library and construction of a new library to be
located on the Emerald Glen Park property.
Construction of a central library to be located on the Camp Parks property.
Construction of a central library to be located on the Emerald Glen Park property in eastern
Dublin.
Construction of a central library to be located on the Civic Center property.
Renovation and expansion of the current library to a size large enough to serve as a central library.
Option #2
Option #3
Option #4
Option #5
Each site option was evaluated using the following criteria:
Dublin Population Estimates
Alameda County Library Recommended Criteria for Library Site Selection
Population was Projected by Area (Central, Western and Eastern Dublin)
Alameda County Library Use Patterns by Residence of Borrowers
Dublin Library Space Needs as Identified by Alameda County Library (Exhibit 9)
Library Parking Standard
1.5 square feet of parking per 1 square foot of building with 350 square feet
equaling one parking space
Land availability
Cost implications and advisability of operating two branch libraries
Architectural feasibility
After evaluation the Task Force concluded that Options #1, #2 and #3 should not be further analyzed. Option #1
(two branch libraries) was undesirable for several reasons, foremost was the increased operating costs for two
libraries as opposed to one central library. The main objection to Option #2 (Camp Parks) was that it was not
located in a shopping area or civic area and was not easily accessible to public transportation or pedestrian traffic
-3-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and there was no guarantee the City could secure the needed property from the Army. Option #3 (Emerald Glen
Park) was ruled out because it was not centrally located to the entire community.
Options #4 and #5 were recommended by the Task Force for in-depth evaluation including a fmancial analysis by
DMG and an architectural/site analysis by George Miers and Associates. The attributes of these two options are
discussed below.
Option #4
Construction of a central library to be located on the Civic Center property
The Task Force concluded that the centrally located Civic Center site will best serve the entire
community, currently and at buildout when the population will be divided between the
central/western area and the eastern area of the City. The location adjacent to civic buildings,
accessible by public transportation, and space to develop exclusive parking meet most of the
recommended criteria for library site selection. According to the architectural firm of George
Miers and Associates the site provides enough space to construct a facility using the 0.6 square
foot per capita standard recommended by the Task Force as well accommodate some ancillary
options.
Option #5
Renovation and expansion of the current library to a size large enough to serve as a central library
The Task Force concluded that if the current library could be effectively renovated and expanded
to meet the City's future needs it would be a viable site. The location is well established and is in
the central shopping area of Dublin. Also, the site is accessible by public transportation.
The site does have some constraints. First, the site will only accommodate a 30,000 square foot
one-story facility. In order to accommodate a facility using the 0.6 square feet per capita standard,
a two story building would be required. And, according to County Library officials a two story
library requires increased staffmg resulting in an escalation of overall operating costs. Second, the
parking area is presently inadequate to serve a 30,000 square foot (or larger) building. In order to
accommodate the required library parking, the City would be required to either buy property from
the adjacent shopping center, or enter into a joint use agreement with the shopping center owners.
Financial Analysis of Options
The next step undertaken by the Task Force was to commence a fmancial analysis of Options #4 and #5. This
analysis included estimated project costs, projected development fees, and projected balance of unfunded capital
costs. This analysis was done using both the 0.5 square feet per capita standard and the 0.6 square feet per capita
standard. The proposed ancillary uses were also analyzed to determine their impact on the overall project costs. As
noted previously, the site of the current Dublin Library does not provide adequate space to construct a library in
excess of 30,000 square feet unless a two story building is constructed and additional land adjacent to the library is
acquired for library parking. Thus, this site was not analyzed using on the 0.6 square feet per capital standard.
Table 1
Capital Cost Comparison of Renovation of Current Library Versus Construction of New Central Library
Using 0.5 Square Feet Per Capita Standard
1~..".._EP-tIII
30,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms
:!!'m_lrll:'I::~~I'i!~II::I:m!I:.~II1:II::::::.:::,.,.j:j:j::.:::j:::::::,::j:.
30,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms
9,759,000
$ 10,701,000
$8,563,000
$2,138,000
33,000 sf
· Library & library meeting rooms
· 600 sf Friends of the Library space
· 2400 sf Community meeting rooms
-4-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
36,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $ 11,643,000
. 600 sf Friends of the Library space
. 2400 sf Community meeting rooms
. 3000 sf retail complex
42,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $ 13,527,000
. 600 sf Friends of the Library space
. 2400 sf Community meeting rooms
· 3000 sf retail complex
· 6000 sf .One Stop. Career Center
(1) Assumes revision to current Public Facil!ty Impact Fee
$8,563,000
$3,080,000
$8,563,000
$4.964,000
Table 2
Capital Cost Comparison of Renovation of Current Library Versus Construction of New Central Library
Using 0.6 Square Feet Per Capita Standard
.~;_~J1=I._"~.
:::;m~II[~~~:.m;.~~~;;ii;~II:~~;ITi;I;:~~I~I.~I.':'i;'i;::::::i::.::::.....::;:..::.:
34,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms
37,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $11,957,000
. 600 sf Friends of the Library space
2400 sf Community meeting rooms
40,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $12,899,000
· 600 sf Friends of the Library space
. 2400 sf Community meeting rooms
. 3000 sf retail complex
43,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $13,697,000
. 600 sf Friends of the Library space
· 2400 sf Community meeting rooms
. 6000 sf .One Stop. Career Center
46,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $14,783,000
. 600 sf Friends of the Library space
. 2400 sf Community meeting rooms
. 3000 sf retail complex
· 6000 sf .One Stop' Career Center
(1) Assumes revision to current Public Facility Impact Fee
$9,293,000
$2,664,000
$9,293,000
$3,606,000
$9,293,000
$4,404,000
$9,293,000
$5,490,000
Library Service Hours
The Task Force expressed the importance of expanding the current level of library operating hours particularly at a
new or augmented facility. Library service hours (actual open hours) are the major contributing factor to library
operating costs. The Task Force proposed the following service hour scenarios: 34, 40, 52, 56 hours per week. The
Task Force directed the fmancial consultant to calculate library operating costs based upon the proposed service
hour scenarios for a 34,000 square foot library. (The additional 3,000 square feet of space in the proposed 37,000
square foot facility which would be occupied by the proposed ancillary uses has no effect on the service hour costs).
The total annual operating cost ranges from $1,514,754 for 34 hours; $1,754,122 for 40 hours; $2,021,557 for 52
hours; and $2,457,261 for 56 hours.
Once operating costs were determined, the next step was to project the dates at which the County Library could
operate each of the service hour options. The following tables illustrate possible dates at which the County could
operate a new library. Two scenarios are provided. Scenario 1 assumes construction and operation of a 37,000
square foot facility; Scenario 2 assumes construction of a 37,000 shell with phased construction/operation (initially
completing and operating 20,000 square feet of dedicated library space with completion of the remaining library
space when it is necessitated by population growth). Table 3 assumes that the City contributions for library services
will remain at the current (1998) level of $216,000. Table 4 assumes that the City's General Fund contribution
increases proportionately to the increase in overall property tax revenue.
-5-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3
Comparison of Dates at Which Time Alameda County Library System Could Operate A 37,000 Square Foot
Library With No Additional City Contributions
Scenario 1 Full Operation
Scenario 2 Phased Operation
::=$CeNAQIOi1ri////:r::://///:r=::f/jrrr:f//////(f$.OENARKUieMj~~f:::::=:=:::=:rf::///:rr':::=:://ff///rr::::::::,::j:tf//f/j:=t:tt:::
.i=r~,~io~~~I!~~~rr;li~~Bf?~atJi~~'oi
2011 2006 (20,000 sf library space)
40
2019
2006 (20,000 sf library space)
2019 (Expansion to 34,000 sf)
Insufficient Funds
52
Insufficient Funds
56
Insufficient Funds
Insufficient Funds
Table 4
Comparison of Dates at Which Time Alameda County Library System Could Operate A 37,000 Square Foot
Library With Increased City Contributions
Scenario 1 Full Operation
Scenario 2 Phased Operation
40
($CeNAQIOi1j::j:j:::::/:::=/:,j:j=fj:::j:j::rr:/j:f:r:::/:::,::::j:j,j,j::rrr:::/jj,j:$.OENARlCBf;"jSfir:/=:::/fir:::j:::j:jr:fj,j:j:j=::fffir=:=::::::f::jtt::::::::,j,::::==:=jrr::t:::j:f
.~~f.;~a~:~~j,~~j.~tiiJ_~=i~~~
2005 2003 (20,000 sf Library Space)
2010 (Expansion to 34,000 sf)
2010 2003 (20,000 sf Library Space)
2010 (Expansion to 34,000 sf)
Insufficient Funds Insufficient Funds
52
56
Insufficient Funds
Insufficient Funds
Funding
In order to clearly depict the overall fmancial aspects of the library scenarios recommended by the Task Force, the
City's fmancial consultant, David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. prepared in-depth fmancial studies for the
following library scenarios: (1) renovation and expansion of the current library to a serve as a central library, and
(2) construction of a central library to be located on the Civic Center site. The study included both capital and
operating costs for each scenario.
Proiected Capital Costs
According to DMG, construction and remodeling costs vary widely based on specific structural characteristics such
as design, facility quality, location, and special site characteristics, however, basic construction and renovation costs
were generated by the consultant. Renovation of the current library site would entail both new construction costs
for 15,000 square feet and renovation costs for 15,000 square feet. Only the portion of the capital costs attributed to
new growth can be fmanced by new development fees. The impact of including the Civic Center land cost as part
of the cost basis for development fees on overall cash requirements to cover unfunded capital costs for the new
construction projects is reflected in the development fee portion of the table below. The detailed fmancial analysis
can be found in Exhibit 8.
-6-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6
Projected Capital Costs
.. . :':':';'::::":. '::r::::~:~:rr::r::::::i:i:i:~:~:i:~:::~:~:f::~:~:r::~:i:::i:i:::i:i:i:::::::~:::::::::i:::::i:::::i:: i:i:::::::i:i:::i:::i:::::i:i:i:i:i:~:i:fi{:i:::i:: ;.::;:;:;:;::.;. . ....... "..:. ,';.. :.;: "';.. ,', ...... . ..;.:...... . ,,'.; ....;:. .................................... .. ......... . ... ....
:::::::::::::1~mijt::::::::f.i~f"::::JAt5.mMIII:::::::::::::::::::::t:::::::::~:::::::::::ijlrt::~ti:::::::::::::::::n::::::::::::::::~illlmiM:i.::::::::::::::::::;:::::::idl~l~ij::i~~li:::~i.i~riW::i:ii::::
Civic Center Site $11,015,000 $8,660,000 $2,355,000
34,000 sf
Civic Center Site $11,957,000 $9,293,000 $2,664,000
37,000 sf
Current Library Site $8,057,000 $4,826,000 $3,231,000
Remodel to 30,000 sf
Table 6 above illustrates that in order to fmance the construction of the proposed 37,000 square foot facility it will
be necessary for the City to fund $2,664,000 in addition to $9,293,000 fmanced by development impact fees. It will
also be necessary to fund the gap from the time development impact fees are needed and when they are received.
The following are possible funding scenarios for managing the Facility Impact Fee cash flow and capital cost
shortfall: 1) Future General Fund Operating Revenues, if available; 2) Placing a higher priority on the library than
other Public Facility Fee funded projects; 3) Revision of the Public Facility Impact Fee; 4) General fund Reserves;
5) Additional Developer Contributions; and 6) Parcel Tax.
PrQ}ected ODerating Costs
Annual operating costs are influenced not only by facility size, but also by the number of weekly service hours the
library is open to the public. The following table illustrates estimated operating costs for a variety of service hour
scenarios for a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot library.
Table 7
Projected Annual Operating Costs for 30,000 to 34,000 Square Foot Library Using Various Service Hour
Scenarios
1::::.i.:::::.:.::::li.I~I:.j:i.:.:::::.:.i::::jj:::.i:1:::::::li:~I~I::i.:ii::.:::.:::::::i:i:j:i::::::..11::~I~I::::::i.:.:::I:.:::I:::::::::.::::::I.:III::::.i.Iil::ii'i.
$1,400,754 $1,640,122 $1,907,557 $2,343,261
Staffing, Operating & Support Costs
Incremental Maintenance & Utilities
$ 114,000
$ 114,000
$ 114,000
$ 114,000
Total
$1,514,754
$1,754,122
$2,021,557
$2,457,261
The table below compares a forty hour per week operation in a full operation 34,000 square foot facility with a forty
hour per week operation in a phased operation facility. Library revenues in the full operation facility are based on
the City's contribution remaining at its present $216,000. In the phased operation the City's contribution increases
proportionately to the increase in overall property tax revenue. As the table illustrates with full operation and no
increase in the City contribution, revenues will not be equal to operating costs until the year 2019. With a phased
operation and increase in the City's contribution, however, revenues will equal costs in 2003. In order to fund more
than forty service hours per week additional funding source would be required.
According to the DMG report, a parcel tax of $45 per household would support 40 initial service hours in the initial
20,000 square foot fmished library space in a phased operation and would provide sufficient revenues to either open
the full 34,000 square feet of library space by 2005/6 with 40 hours, or maintain the smaller space and increase
service hours to 48. By 2008 the parcel tax would provide enough revenue to open the full 34,000 square feet and
operate it 48 hours per week. This assumes no increase in the City's contribution to library services.
-7-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 8
Library Cost and Revenue Projections for Forty Service Hours - Full and Phased Operation -City
Contribution Remains at $216,000
2000 $1,076,372 $1,754,122 ($677,750) $1,363,000 ($286,628)
2001 1,146,614 1,754,122 (607,508) 1,363,000 (216,386)
2002 1,229,096 1,754,122 (525,026) 1,363,000 (133,904)
2003 1,288,069 1,754,122 (466,053) 1,363,000 (74,931)
2004 1,326,370 1,754,122 (427,752) 1,363,000 (36,630)
2005 1,350,673 1,754,122 (403,449) 1,363,000 (12,327)
2006 1,371,561 1,754,122 (382,561) 1,363,000 8,561
2007 1,412,028 1,754,122 (342,094) 1,363,000 49,028
2008 1,442,144 1,754,122 (311,978) 1,363,000 79,144
2009 1,475,362 1,754,122 (278,760) 1,363,000 112,362
2010 1,508,920 1,754,122 (245,202) 1,363,000 145,920
(1) City Contribution Remains at $216,000
Table 9
Library Cost and Revenue Projections for Forty Service Hours - Full and Phased Operation -City
Contribution Increases Proportionately
------
2000 $1,126,000 $1,754,122 (628,122) $1,363,000 ($237,000)
2001 1,210,000 1,754,122 (544,122) 1,363,000 (153,000)
2002 1,294,000 1,754,122 (460,122) 1,363,000 (69,000)
2003 1,378,000 1,754,122 (376,122) 1,363,000 15,000
2004 1,462,000 1,754,122 (292,122) 1,363,000 99,000
2005 1,545,000 1,754,122 (209,122) 1,363,000 182,000
2006 1,593,000 1,754,122 (161,122) 1,363,000 230,000
2007 1,641,000 1,754,122 (113,122) 1,363,000 278,000
2008 1,689,000 1,754,122 (65,122) 1,363,000 326,000
2009 1,737,000 1,754,122 (17,122) 1,363,000 374,000
2010 1,784,000 1,754,122 29,878 1,363,000 421,000
441,878
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations described below evolved after a series of meetings at which the Task Force identified options
for meeting the current and future library needs for the City of Dublin based on a projected buildout of 58,000 and
using the 0.6 square feet per capita library building standard. Recommendations include site/location, library and
ancillary building size, ancillary use, library weekly service hours, and possible funding sources. The
recommendations represent various points of view and include fmancial, social, and political considerations. The
Task Force concludes that the existing library building no longer meets the library needs of the growing community
and that it can not be expanded to meet the 0.6 square feet per capita library building standard required for new
library construction without significantly increasing operating costs. The Task Force further concludes that a new
central facility constructed on the Civic Center site would provide all residents with the best possible library service.
The Task Force therefore recommends:
-8-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Size: Library and Ancillary
Construct a 37,000 square foot building to include:
34,000 square feet of dedicated library space
600 square feet for Friends of the Library storage and workspace
2400 square feet for community meeting rooms
The Task Force recommends using a phased approach to construction of the library services facility.
Construct a 37,000 square foot library building footprint in the year 2000.
Develop and operate 20,000 square feet oflibrary space in 2003.
As the eastern portion of the City develops expand library services to 34,000 square feet
in 2010.
Site/Location
Construct one building at the Civic Center site to serve as a central library for the City of Dublin.
The Task Force concluded that the centrally located Civic Center site will best serve the entire community, currently
and at buildout when the population will be divided between the central/western area and the eastern area of the
City. The location adjacent to civic buildings, accessible by public transport, and with space to develop exclusive
parking meets most of the recommended criteria for library site selection. The site provides enough space to
construct a facility using the 0.6 square foot per capita standard adopted by the Task Force as well as accommodate
any ancillary options.
Library Service Hours
The Task Force recommends a minimum of forty service hours per week and proposes 60 hours per week as a
desirable goal if funding becomes available.
Funding
It was the consensus of the Task Force to recommend that the City Council consider a parcel tax to fund the capital
cost shortfall and operating costs if necessary.
The Library Planning Task Force has actively expressed support for Senate Bill 2026, the Public Library
Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 1998. If the bond is passed by the voters in November 1998 funds will
be available on a competitive basis statewide for construction and renovation of public libraries. The Task Force
recommends pursuing these funds when and if they become available.
The Library Planning Task Force wishes to acknowledge the support of the Dublin City Council for
authorizing the study, the efforts of the Alameda County Library Staff and consulting firms George Miers &
Associates and John Heiss of David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.
-9-
EXHIBIT 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Dublin Library Planning Task Force accepts as a basic premise that the public at
large benefits from high quality library service and that maintaining such service is a
desirable goal. There is general consensus among the Task Force that the Dublin
Library facility is no longer optimum for such service delivery for the needs of the current
population or for projected population growth. An upgrade and expansion of the current
library to 22,000 sq ft should serve the central and western population currently and at
buildout, necessitating no further construction until such time that additional develop-
ment occurs in eastern Dublin. Community access to all library services would be en-
hanced.
In order to maintain and improve library service, the Library Planning Task Force makes
the following two recommendations regarding library facility needs:
.
Take action as soon as possible to expand the current facility to its
maximum capacity (22,000 sq ft).
- Explore availability of State and Federal grants for matching funds.
- Negotiate City-County building ownership agreement.
- Negotiate joint use agreement for parking spaces.
- Prepare a ballot measure to present to the Dublin voters to raise
the funding necessary for expansion/remodeling.
.
When development occurs in eastern Dublin and after population there
exceeds 10,000:
- Take action to construct an additional library facility in eastern Dublin.
- Earmark potential site as soon as possible and include in Specific
Plan for Eastern Dublin.
- Develop funding mechanism to raise local revenues from eastern
Dublin.
These recommendations are discussed more fully in the section entitled Summary and
Recommendations. Several Exhibits are presented for general reference in the final
section of this report, some of which illustrate data the Task Force considered in making
the above recommendations. The Task Force is aware that population projections,
including those shown as Exhibits in this document, are subject to change, and as a
result of the recent referendum regarding western Dublin, have changed. The Task
Force has taken this into consideration and the recommendations remain as presented.
Due to its length, only the body of the Dublin Library Improvement Study is reproduced
as Exhibit 1. The full Report is available at the Dublin Library. Copies were presented
to Members of City Council in June, 1991.
April, 1993
Page 1
EXHIBIT 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUBLIN POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
As of May 7, 1992
(Data obtained included in 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report)
Jan. 1995 Jan. 2000 Jan. 2005 Jan. 2010 Maximum
Build Out
Central Dublin 25,800 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max.
(yr. 1997)
Western Dublin (if 0 2,000 5,700 7,800 8,400 max.
construction begins (Yr. 2020)
in 1996)
Eastern Dublin (if 0 5,100 16,900 28,700 41,700 max.
construction begins (yr. 2022)
in 1995)
Total includes 4000 25,800 43,100 49,600 63,500 77,100 max.
incarcerated (yr. 2022)
DUBLIN POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
As of July 1, 1997
(Data provided by City of Dublin Community Development Department)
Jan. 1995 Jan. 2000 1 Jan. 2005 2 Jan. 20103 Maximum
Build Out 4
Central Dublin 26,262 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max.
(yr. 1997)
Western Dublin 0 470 1,828 2,000 2,500 max.
(if construction (yr. 2020)
begins 1996)
Eastern Dublin 0 2,663 13,881 24,000 32,500 max.
(if construction (yr. 2022)
begins in 1996
Total 26,262 30,133 42,709 53,000 62,000 max.
(yr. 2022) 5
Total less 4000
incarcerated 22,262 26,133 38,709 49,000 58,000
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
From development and population projections 1997-2002 June 18, 1997.
Assumes same rate in Eastern Dublin 2005-2010 as 2000-2002.
Assumes same rate in Eastern Dublin 2005-2010 as 2000-2005.
Western Dublin stops at Schaefer Ranch.
Includes incarcerated population of 4,000.
EXHIBIT 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIBRARY PLANNING TASK FORCE ROSTER
Michael White
7500 San Sabana Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
(W) (415) 395-9091
(H) (510) 828-0462
Linda Ferris
7542 Amarillo Road
Dublin, CA 94568
(W) (510) 828-2551 ext. 238
(H) 828-5205
Paul Moffatt (Chair)
11742 Solana Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 828-0936
Michael Curry
7080 Inclined Place
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 828-2146
Sonya Hveem
8256 Rhoda Avenue
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 829-3646
Roy Bertuccelli
4698 Pheasant Court
Dublin, CA 94568
(W) (510) 670-5709
(H) (510) 803-8768
Betty Hudak
6938 Mansfield Avenue
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 829-3771
Danny Raymond
6860 Amador Valley Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
(W)(510) 847-7335
(H) 829-4106
Karen Dyer
6829 Sage Court
Dublin, CA 94568
(W) (510) 743-1200
(H) (510) 833-0112
Valerie Barnes
7366 lone Court
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 828-0231
Tanya Marie Clark
7832 Gardella Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 828-2338
Cynthia Raymond
6860 Amador Valley Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
(W) 829-9044 (l0:00am-2:00pm)
(H) 829-4106
Michael Bischoff
7609 Landale Avenue
Dublin, CA 94568
(H) (510) 828-1186
FAX (510) 828-7186
Cindy Cobb-Adams
11447 Cresta Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 828-7177
Connie Spence (Vice-Chair)
7385 Hansen Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 828-7584
Justin Schmidt (Alternate)
7695 Sunwood Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 829-4329
Steven Jung
7315 Las Palm as Way
Dublin, CA 94568
(W) (510) 828-6550
(H) 803-0915
EXHIBIT 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY lIBRARY
RECOMMENUEU CRITERIA FUR LIURARY SITE SELECTION
The followiny standards pertain to the optimum location of a library within a
cOllllllunity. They ar'e intended to -Insure max'\mum convenience to patrons and
maximum ~se of the lHJrary and are l-tsted 111 the order of their importance.
1. Libraries should be located in shopping areas or civic centers. Both
areas JJI'ov'!de the 11"IgII concentrations of people which lead to maximum use
of the library. Shopping centers are the areas where people buy
convenience goods and visit repeatedly; the shopping center becomes a
conlnunity or neighborhood core in many respects. Likewise civic centers
an? the areas which people visit repeatedly for a variety of municipal
serv'ices and "If.designed properly, can also become cOllrnunity centers. If
a commercial area is preferred, a shopp'ing center is preferable over old
retan al'eas or highway oriented cOlmlerical areas, because of better
parking, better appearance, and more compactness.
2. Libraries should be located centrally for the population they are to
serve. This factor would come into play if more than one location were to
be considered in an area.
3. Public Transporation. Librar:ies should be located in areas that are
easily accessible by public transportation.
4. libraries should be located with regard to convenience to schools.
Although this consideration should not be overlooked, it is given less
importance than the above standards,' because libraries should not
over-emphasize service to children at the expense of the general public.
Moreover, studies have revealed that about 85% of the trips to most
libraries are by car.
Permanent libraries should never be located at schools. Many library
systems which have tried this relationship have abandoned the practice.
Site Planning and Design Standards: These standards concern site size and
arrangement; building location and design; and other specific considerations.
Their purpose is to improve the accessibility, visibility, safety, function,
and beauty of libraries.
1. Library sites should have approximately four times as much area as the
floor area of the proposed buildinq. This allows for necessary parking,
appropriate .landscaping, walkways, adequate on-site circulation,
s He/street improvements, and a proper sett 1 ng. .
.
2. libraries under 40.000 square feet should be located on one floor for the
most efficient usage of staff and for improved security.
3. Libraries should have exclusive parking based on a min1m~m standard of one.
space per 100 square feet of building floor area plus staff parkinq.
Space given above is required by Alameda County. Local city ordinances
/IIay establish a different standard for required parking spaces.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOM1.tENUEU CIUTEHl^ FOR LIUHAHY SITE SELECTION
PAGE 2
4. Libraries should be sited with regard to maximum visibility and
accessibility. The best site for a library is usually one adjoining an
arterial street. Libraries should not be buried among shops, located to
the rear of a shopp"lllg center or civic center, or surrounded by large
areas of asphalt.
~
5. Pedestrian safety and convenience should be considered in library sHe
arrangement. Pedestrians - mostly children - account for only about 15%
of the total v'isits to libraries.
6. Parking should be immediately adwent to the building, should be
!-,Q]J.::liUtlt~~!. and should not be Illdden from the street. This is seldom a
problem "Ill shopping centers or newly designed civic centers, but couTd be
one for libraries located in older business districts.. "
7. The architecture, site arrangement, and landscaping of a library should be
of a style and quality befitting a public library. The design of a
library must fulfill two crHeria: beauty and function. Regarding
beauty, a library facility - like other public buildings ~ should be
dignified and not necessarily reflect "faddish" design trends. On the
other hand, it must not appear uninviting, and should have a facade which
declares its function. Generous landscap1ng, particularly in the parking
areas, should represent ~ good example for private developers.
O. Libraries should be well identifed, but' with tasteful signs. Some
existing libraries suffer from inadequate identifications.
List of Criteria: An ideal site for a liprary will have good:
visibility
patron access - auto, walk, bicycle, bus, BART
site arrangement and setting
parking: adjacent to building
not h1dden from street
we 11 li ghted
level
landscaped
accessibility to utilities (avo1d long runs)
site engineering: take into consideration se1smic, flooding potential
space for adequate building size, expansion, street improvements,
parking, landscaping.
Conversely the following should be avoided:
overly irregular or inclined site
secluded
unsafe or poor access
no other adjacent offices or stores open evenings or Saturdays
too small/too large (creates maintenance and.security burdens)
not placed in keeping with long range population projections
any characteristics which will cause problems with a negative
declaration or CEQA.
4/15/91
I 08680
EXHIBIT 5
I ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY
Library Use Plltlero:; by Re~idellce otBorrowers
Fiseal Year 1996/97
I' All reshkllce llreas which contributed Ic,?!1 than I % of Ii Hbrary's u:;t: bave been combined and are ltsted as "All Otllers".
I ALUANY DlffiUl'! }JLJi!~SANTOI'f
Albany 55.3% Dublin 52.6% Pleas3nton 81.5%
Delkeley 17.8% Contra Costa Co. 19.8% Contra Costa Co. 3.0%
I Contra Costa Co. 15.6% PICIU;/lnlon 12.3% Dublin 3.0%
Richmond 5.5% Castro V 1I11ey 4,3% Livermore 3.0%
Ollkland 1.8% rrem~)nt 2.1% Fremont 2.4%
I All Others 4.0% Llveonore 1.7% Castro Valley 1.6%
IInYWllrd 1.3% SlUloI U%
San Lorenzo 1.0% All OUleTs <1.'1%
ll.llilKM 0 n II. F- Ail Others 4.9%
I (Inc. Hot Wheels)
SAN LQJU~NZO
Premonr 44.4% FREMONT ~
Fed. \.01'1' l n:st. 11.3% San L\lIt<lIn1 480%
I Union City 6.1% Fremont 79.1% Eden Township'" 18.2%
Caslin VIIII"y 4.5% Unitm Clly 6.8% II a) \\-AI'd 1I.:J%
Dublin 4.0% Ncwtltk ')1% San LejUldl"o &.9vr..
I Eden TO'M1Ship* 4.0% Hayward 2.5% c.a~tm V:lllp.y 3.5~1.
P\~immton :1.R% All OtJll:Il 6.3% .Ftcxnont 22%
Nmvar.k 3.0% O~and 1.5%
Contr;. Costa Co. 1.7% UnlQU CIty 1.1%
I San JOtlquin Co. 1.7% IRVINGJ:QN All Others 5.3%
Oakland 1.5%
Hayward 1.4% Fremont 91.0%
I Alhany \.0% SUIl JOIlC l.G% UNIQNCn'Y
All Others 11.6% Newark 1.5%
?leasanton 1.1% Un.i.on City 7JJ%
UlllCiU City 1.0% Fremont lS.l%
I CASTRO V A-1<l1A:;Y All Olllers 3.8% Hayward 5.4%
N cwal'k l.2,}:',
Castro Valley 77.5% Eden TO\,,1l.ship'" 1.8%
I Eden Township'" 6.1% NEW A.llli All Others 5.2%
JlIl)'Wilrrl 5.5%
Fremont 1.11% Newark 67.S% "'Edell Township reflect:; Ult:
San Le;mdro 1.7% Fr-emt;ml 20.6% unincorporated areas of Ashland,
I San LQfCn7--O i.~% Union City 6.4% Chenyland, FailYiew, and oilier
Oakland 10% All Others 5.5% (lultounding unincorpol'ated areas.
All Others 4.9%
I NILES
!:1~NTERVII...LE
Fremont 89.5%
I Fremont 87.6% Ul1ion City 2.8%
Union City 4.7% I'leasanton 1.5%
Newarl:; 2,2Q{, C:.u;tro Valley 1.0%
All Gtllec:s 4.5% Hayward 1.0%
I All Othc($ 4.2% ,.
I'
I UDllSEnwp PrO,bome SI?i
.10-
I
I
EXHIBIT 6
...lUlCQl\fl\:1,)iilS.l)E;:Q..CR.l:rEJ.tIA..F.'OR.Lla.ltA.RYSIl'E.SELECl'ION ). .. .GIVIC F=~'f..
. ...
. .. . . 'n "' n. . _.
. ..,. .. <..?~l!f~~i.
. H. . .... .... .
....n n" ..
. ......." .
. .... ...." .
....... ..... ..
. . ...... .......... .. ... . ... ...-........
. .... .., .. '.. n...
H . ".... ... ."
...... .. ......... tm.RA:Ry.....
. . ..... .,. ... .
OPTIMUM SITE LOCATION WITHIN A COMMUNITY
Located in shopping areas or civic centers ./ (civic) ./
Located centrally ./
Located 10 areas easily accessible by public transportation ./ ./
Located with convenience to schools, but not at a school
SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Site should have 4 times as much area as proposed building floor area ./ no
Libraries under 40,000 sf should be located on one floor ./ could be 30,000 sf only
done on one floor
Should have exclusive parking based on minimum standard 1 space per 100 sfof ./ no
building floor area plus staff parking
Sited with regard to maximum visibility and accessibility ok, but not ok, but not
great great
Pedestrian safety and convenience ./ ./
Parking adjacent to building & not hidden from street ./ 1/2 & 1/2
Should be styled befitting a public library ./ ./
Well identified with tasteful SIgn ./ ./
Accessibility to utilities (avoid long runs) ./ ./
Site engineering (take into consideration seismic, flooding potential) ./ ./
Space for adequate building size, expansion, street improvements, parking, ./ no
landscaping
THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE AVOIDED
Be an overly irregular or inclined site
Have no other adjacent offices or stores open on evenings or Saturdays
Not placed in keeping with long range population projections
Secluded
Be too small/too large (creates maintenance and security burdens)
Have characteristics which will cause long range problems with a
negative declaration or CEQA
Exhibit 6
-------------------
EXHIBIT 7
I
( ;r( m(;r ^ lIIRS
11\ /\......';( )( 1'\/1......
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/\".{,i/I'( III/I' ,1/111 {'{.I/I/I;/l1'
Bonnie Leonard '
Park and Community Services
City of Dublin
110 Civic Drive
Dublin, Ca
January 19, 1998
Dear Bonnie,
We have studied the existing library site plan and developed the following
options for development on the site.
EXISTING SITE PLAN: The existing library measures approximately 14,400
square feet and there are 72 parking spaces. Note that the library is
not square with the back of the site. This leads to an inefficient
parking layout.
OPTION 1: This plan attempts to maximize parking on the site, without
increasing the building footprint. Much of the landscape area
around the building has been eliminated as well as the landscape
berm facing Amador Valley Blvd. This plan has a total of 96
parking spaces; still short of the required 129 spaces for a 30,000
square foot library by 26%. While it would be theoretically possible
to add a second floor to the existing library, therefore doubling
square footage, we have not evaluated if this this is possible. In
addition, if the building could structurally support a second floor a
two story library would have inherent inefficiencies both in plan
and in operation.
OPTION 2: This plan enlarges the building footprint to 30,000 square feet and
maximizes parking on the remainder of the site. 72 parking spaces
are included in this plan. Note that the parking areas triangular
shape, would not readily lend itself to a parking structure.
OPTION 3: This plan proposes building a new structure over a level of parking
and maximizing parking on the remainder of the site. This plan
includes a 30,000 square foot library and provides 148 parking spaces
(sufficient based upon a requirement of 129 spaces.)
In summary, it is not possible to provide a single story 30,000 square foot library
and associated parking on grade on this site.
Sincerely,
Trina Good win
joY 15/h 5/r('('/
()akland, CA Y4612
('i /II) ,1 ('.'i-5 7//7
{~lX (51U) ''1('5-94.H
.. .. ~- _.~ --.. - ~ .-- . . -....... -.........-. ,..-. ...., .
, . ..---... ~.._. . -~ .-.- -.,...-:...~-+...-..
" ,
'I
::1
:,'.J
;;.
:::.:j
:.:,
,~ . ~
,..1
. ..~:
..~ .
'.
://
,:::;:11
,:....j
)j
.....::
1'1.
eJ
"'1
....
....
:~':I
",':'
:.:.:
.':'1
:.:;:j I
=:::
~~'1
~: I
~I
I
J
1~"~l"
~.1.;
I
I
. . "' . ~~.... ........, .
")(l,i;" ""-
;~ \lm~~ ~~
, ):r\a~
;, t!
! ~.
--:_.-~~'.'l~;.C- .:~i:. ':' .:' ',. ':
--.....-.......... .'
'" ~\'.' .i'~~Fn.Y:~r.l .
. 1 ~,
I'"~
S'
1J1'~
k:~
/ ~J-
\,--"1
r:,..~-.<:,
OJ
c
5
z
(j)
(0 ~
U1 :n
~ m
~
:0 0
^ ._~.
2 -l>- -a
G) 0 ~
Ul 0 0
~ Ul
0 0 Z
m ~
Ul
......
0
"
S,
1
,
,
'}
"
}
:,j
',;
, ,
,
:1
:1
I
',j
1
2l .
~
s ~~ ~ ~ R
~ (OA ~;z
N ~ ~ -I
~ g in
Os
~~
o
z
41 '~IT" ..,
. ' : r fi~q ~ C
l ;!; 'jl li 1; ~
· :'1 H~
1. . I'!;
~ t. .1...
: l (~
.~.:; .. PoG)
,~i ! ~~
~ftfl1 . 0111
~i ~ ); ~
~ ;ri~
DUBLIN L1BRARY-;
EXISTING SITE STUDY
DUBLIN. CA
~:,-:.'
~(i:
e:"~
-:: ". l~_..:.__,; ~.~> . .
GEORGE MIERS
& ASSOC/A TES
Arr:hIeeftn/~
'10 Sun" SI,..,
s.a.,Fran:.Gco. CA ""01
(4'S}89lS.(1XIS
",
..
]. .
"
>-
O.
~'=> '
cr: I- .
<(Cf)
O:w
CO 1-:
-.J-CS
Cf)Z
ZC)::J
-.JZgJ
CO_Cl
::>r-:-
OCf)
><
w
"~
d'. .
,,;;' ,
,~J
6
I'
).
~
""1
:;AAW/NG 1IIEt.LA.5l
.........,. ." ...
....-..-.... ,
~~I
. .:~:.'... ~
""""'"
..c .>rr ,xK-J'OIIl
:
-
~hTll
-Q
<("
. 'X"-0'
-S-..).
'<-',
^' Y" ~
c?'
9
,OPTION 2
.
OPJION 2 .
ADDITION TO 30,000 SOFT.
""'"
N.T.S.
_"'/10
'0
'". .... ..~ ",
'. ":"'-- . ": '. . ".
~
I' .
"""NO
, 97006
72 PARKING SPACES
eO
FEET
"'It
V20/98
. .a:t.:4.~.......
'~T' .
HEr
.: :.~ ~.:.i.'
. )p.
3
. . .
;/)~::~;:::;.tr=;~n:::':\:i>'::'ii{?:.~\i~)';;:;';:\;/:)k::'::.:.:~.:::;:r71>.:.;~::.:;/).~{:!.:!:\:'~.:i)i;::.:~::::::{:.::~:::~{7F(':;::::::.;.:-i.'7?~~':.::;'.:~.~:':~:.:::<:{\::.:..::::::::\;::~.;./::.<!:.::\//::t;'.?~:<77::.:.:::.:.~::!.:.::j7~;:;~.:::.~l.::::~.::i;;"(}:;i;;~i~:?~<)(:::7~--:;::}::~:';":::: .~..:.'::.:~
. \,': .
. ,\:.~. ";':,., '~";;.' ; 'T. .,...;<:...,:.c-'-;:--;-'" <.~.;., 'C.
s:
,D l' :j.
~~~
\,---"l
f::;;~
...t;:,
/
\ .
..:: z.
. . <:; m
. G)' ~
~.~ ~
03.~ 5
-urn 2
~ OJ G). 0
. ~ @ ~
ts 0 "0' ;-p
(/J ~ g :::!
~ ~ Ul 0
@E;e Z
U) m ~ .
.. tv
Q. ..'
./
. .
a,> .
,;/.,;/"~',
, ffITlllT'Trrrr:\
..\'\
" ~.
'0v
.'
~
I
II
~
.~
"1
.:.,
:::\
.JI
.-.j
:::: ..*
....
,..1
.:.;
:::
.....
:\ ,
\,
'. ,
I
, .,:
i ,;..~-"'a':'
" '.:
~, ~
"", ~
,
I \\13~\~~\ '\7 ~\ ~ \\~~'~\~t~:l'~\\\~'\~\~~'\
.+> g 0 C' 0 ~ ," -"\'
'" 0 '" z ,,\. j,'
()) 01 ," ,I m
(,J 9 ~ l'!
/. '.
~..~.
~..--- ."-
--
;...,.,.~ ....~:\
"';'::", ~j~
.... ~
. '~
l:i-
(~
.'~J.;..
~
\
\
....~:U
, .
. OUBUN UBRARY,;
EX\ST\NG S\~E STUDY
DU8LIN.CA
. '
I
\ III ii'
~t ! :;;~
'! fri~
a en en
._-~ ~_.. - ,-
i.' _::;.....,.;..c'-..:c.....,-.:..~r
!
! .
- --
--
-.-----. ~~
,\ '
,
I
:~.:....
t
I
I'
,.
I
I
1
A. '" ..:C
1" ..:'....
I.' .
. .
I
'I
.,
I
'j
en)>
=i!::j
mm
"'C::c .
r-Z
,~~
<
{T1
.;.. .
.'
t
o
j I Ri' ~.!
, '-"1 ·
';t'
'r'~' ~.
;"l ,'l'!'
.~",.._.. ..:.
DUBLIN' ·
, CiVIC~ CENTER:~', ....,.:
~Ii I ~~
,~ ;il J ~i .
/
~r5S:'~~:':;:~~~2:;;~~;2~~~~~~3~~~~~~sl
i.
(J))> .
'. ~!:i .
mm
.,,:0
r-Z
)>>
Z::!
<
m
I\)
f'
i
o
~ll ~~
~; Ih J' ~~
! ~s;
a cn.~
J/
. ':.".__ ~__T--'_'_"::' _. .'. __~
":" -C::-_~,__
...---.:::-_~.;- ..--:::,,".- - "'-"'.''--
'~~_:-...: .-:::~:- ~
,~-.--.~- :.-.....- --:;."-...,~:~,~
"',~ '-"'" -
~~r~
~~~i '"
~~f~ t~" "
..~;~. ;~ ~f< ~
~f t~ ~~ ~~
......~ ~; ~~ ...t ",
' -'~ ';,: ~~ H~~ llf
'......... ". ~~ i::~...
' 't~ ~l'''. ~~
", · ~~~t ~ ,,~ , .
" .... ~;: t ~~ l~ . ~.. ~ .
'--:,:, , .. 1 ~~ k i~ ~ ~ ~;t
:- ~~ ~~ e ! it:
~ ~ ]: ~j';,
.... !. I ""~
~ ~ ~ ;~
en>
=iq
mm
.,,::0
r-Z
>~
Z::!
<
m
c,.)
I
I
f
!
1
I
I
'I
I
I
,
!
, ,
~
t '
o
DUBLIN . , "
,~'CIVIC.:. CENTER",
U' , ..'"
-!~ ~rn
~"'i (1)0
liw , 8~
~l I ~n;
~ ."'::0
i en,,,",
EXHIBIT•8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
DMG
Final Report on the
Financial Feasibility Analysis
d
Library Altern.atives
CITY OF DUBLIN
David M. Griffith & Associates
Burlingame, California
RECEIVED
JUL 1 31998
ClTY U~ DUBUN
July 11, 1998
•
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
I
I
I
I Table of Contents
I Section Page
Number
I Executive Summary E -1
I 1. Study Objectives 1
2. Proposed Adjustments in Planning Assumptions 2
I 3. Projected Population Growth and Library Facility
Needs C)
.)
I 4. Projected Capital Costs 5
I 5. Projected Development Fees Available to Support
Capital Development 11
I 6. Timing for Facility Expansion 13
7. Current Library Financial Structure 16
I 8. Projected Annual Operating Costs and Revenues 18
I 9. Financing Issues an.d Altematives 37
Appendices
I A Representative Library Project Costs for Recent
California Construction and Renovation Projects A-I
I B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
Necessary to Support Library Construction and
I Operations B-1
I
I
I
David M. Griffith & Associates
•
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SU1\iMARY
The report which follows provides the results of our analysis of the
financial feasibility of a series of library facility improvement options for
Dublin. The study was conducted in conjunction with the Library Planning
Task Force and focused on identifying and evaluating costs and revenues
associated with the library development options identified by the Task
Force, and evaluating the financial feasibility of each.
This executive summary presents the major findings of the study
which are supported by the detailed analysis contained in the main body of
the report.
FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
The library facility size targets initially identified by the Task Force
were based on a library facility space standard of .5 square foot of library
space per capita. "While this is the historical standard employed by many
jurisdictions to adopt library facility targets, there are some indications that
this standard is outdated and fails to reflect changing demands faced by
libraries. For example:
.
The modern library is providing expanded space for not only
hard copy materials, but also significant spaces for computer
work stations to support customer access to both library
operated automated systems, and a broad variety of automated
information sources. These work stations and related spaces
can add significantly to space requirements for a modern
library.
.
Concurrently, while automated information systems increase
in importance, public demand for hard copy books, periodicals,
and audio visual materials shows no sign of decreasing.
Indeed, as the socio-economic and ethnic composition of the
population becomes more diverse, demand for a greater variety
of library materials increases.
Given the above, we have found that a target of .6 square feet of
library space per capita is a more modern planning target, and that this
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page E - 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
target has been adopted by a number of jurisdictions which have recently or
are currently involved in the library facility planning process. We
recommended and the Task Force concurred that Dublin, as it approaches
evaluation of library needs and facility alternatives, adopt this standard. To
that end, this report employs that standard to project space required for the
development alternatives identified by the Task Force. Based on population
projections, application of the standard projects 34,000 square feet of library
space for Dublin to serve the City at buildout. This space requirement
projection was incorporated into the following development alternatives
identified by the Task Force.
ConsmlCtion of a new librarv buiIdin1! on the Civic Center site. The new
construction option was to address three scenarios:
· A 34,000 square foot library.
. A 37,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.) and
3,000 sq. ft. of space for two public meeting rooms (approximately
1,200 sq. ft. each), with the remaining space (approximately 600
sq. ft.) to be used by the Friends of the Library for storage and work
space.
· A 43,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.) and
9,000 sq. ft. of space for other uses. The additional space would
accommodate the functions discussed above plus 6,000 square feet
for a Career Center.
Renovation of the existin1! librarv structure accomplished by adding
"wings" to each side of the building, thereby enlarging the facility to 30,000
square feet. This option provides for only additional library space since the
current site is not large enough to accommodate a larger facility.
FACILITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The main body of the report provides detailed information employed
to project capital development costs for each of the alternatives listed above.
Costs were estimated based on prevailing costs for comparable projects in
California determined through survey, and based on input from an
architectural firm with recent experience in library construction and
remodeling projects in the Bay Area. Capital cost projections include
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page E - 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
provisions for enhancing the collection which would be required if a larger
library is constructed. The table which follows shows projected capital
costs, in current dollars, for each of the alternatives identified by the Task
Force.
Table 1
Total Project Costs
for Library Improvement Alternatives
Facility Projected Start-up Costs
Alternative (Dollars in Thousands)
- Facility Collection Start-up Total
Development! Enhancement
.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~;.-::::::::::::::::::: Improvement
New 34,000
square foot Lib. $ 10,676 $339 $ 11,015
New 37,000
square foot Lib. $ 11,618 $339 $ 11,957
New 43,000
square foot Lib. $ 13,358 $339 $ 13,697
Remodel and
E:t..1J3.Ild Current
Facility to $ 7,718 $339 $ 8,057
30,000 square
feet
It should be noted that these costs provide broad indicators of
potential project cost only and can vary widely depending on specific design
characteristics; site characteristics; and market conditions.
CAPITAL PROJECT FINANCING
The main body of the report projects estimated development fee
revenues which could be generated as growth occurs to support library
expansion and improvement. These projections are illustrative and are
subject to more detailed analysis by the City's development fee consultants
and approval of any changes in fees by the City Council. Nevertheless, we
believe they are illustrative of the portion of projected library capital costs
which could be offset by development fees. The table on the next page shows
the results of the analysis and identifies the amount of project costs which
would not be covered by development fees for each alternative.
David M. Griffith & Ass(lciates
Page E - 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
Table 2
Projected Capital Costs
Not Funded by Development Fees
ltern 30,000 Sq. Ft.
Remodel
34,000 Sq. Ft. 37,000 Sq. Ft.
New Facility New Facility
(Dollars in 0(0)
$ 11,015 $ 11,957
43,000 Sq. Ft.
New Facility
ful~t~Mtf1lJ~tlttlttttilil~
Project Cost $ 8,057
Development
Fees $ 4,826
Unfunded
Capital Balance $ 3,231
.
$ 13,697
$ 8,660
$ 9,293
$ 9,293
$ 2,355
$ 2,664
$ 4,404
Table 2 demonstrates the impact of including Civic Center land costs as
part of the cost basis for development fees on overall cash requirements to
cover unfunded capital costs for the new construction projects. The table
also illustrates that, because the Civic Center land cost can be included in
the cost of the new construction alternatives, unfunded capital costs for
remodeling the old library would be significantly higher than for
constructing more library space in a totally new facility. It should also be
noted that the projections above reflect full receipt of development fees by the
end of the planning period (2021), and assuming the library project would
be completed well before the end of the planning period, funds would need to
be borrowed In advance of the receipt of development fees to fund
construction and there would be additional costs associated with interest
related to that borrowing.
Conversely, the library could be selected as the next project to be
funded by public facility/development fees in which case the library could be
funded in about 2001 - 2002 based on estimates of City staff. If this approach
were taken, other projects funded by these fees would have to be deferred or
funds borrowed to support construction of these projects. Because this use
of public facility funds reqUIres a policy decision by the Council, the
analysis provided in this report is limited to the portion of public facility fees
which could be generated based on library project alternatives, and as noted
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page E - 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
in a subsequent section, we have also assumed that construction of a new
library would precede full receipt of library related public facility fees and
borrowing would be employed to bridge the funding gap between
expenditure and receipt.
LIBRARY OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES
The main body of the report contains detailed projections of operating
costs and revenues for each of the alternatives. Clearly, operating cost
projections are directly related to the number of weekly service hours a
library facility is open. Projections contained in the main body of the report
cover service hour scenarios ranging from 34 hours (the current service
level) through 56 weekly service hours. The Task Force felt, and we concur,
that a new library should be open an increased number of hours and the
study has employed 40 weekly service hours as the target once a new or
remodeled facility is available.
Our findings related to costs and revenues are as follows:
.
While library related property taxes can be expected to increase
as the community grows, the higher costs associated with
operating a larger library will not be offset by projected
revenues without a significant increase in support from the
City General Fund until late in the planning period which
ends in 2021.
.
If the new library is constructed earlier In the planning period,
additional revenues will be required to support operations for
some years.
.
We have assumed that the City General Fund cannot be
expected to contribute more to support library operations than
the current proportion employed for that purpose. While this
amount can be expected to grow as development occurs and
general property taxes and other revenue increases, revenues
will still fall short of operating costs for a new library for some
years.
.
The significant projected gaps between costs and revenues
raise the issue of immediate or short-term construction and
Page E - 5
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
full operation of a 30,000 or 34,000 square foot library which has
been sized to meet community needs at buildout. The main
body of the report presents an alternative which would involve
implementing a phased approach toward expanding library
facilities. This would include building the target 34,000 square
foot new facility, but initially, finishing, opening and operating
only a portion of the total facility (e.g. 20,000 square feet) and
subsequently finishing and expanding the remainder of the
building as the community grows. This would reduce initial
operating costs, but even with this approach, revenues would
fall short of operating costs for some period following opening
of the new library if that opening occurs early in the years
following 2000.
Given the above, as with capital costs, additional revenues from a
new source would be required to support operations.
APPROACH FOR COVERING CAPITAL AND OPERATING cosr
DEFICITS.
Given the above, we employed the following basic: assumptions
associated with financing development and operations of a new library:
.
Based on other service demands, the City would be financially
unable to contribute a higher proportion of General Fund
revenues to annual library service operations than is currently
the case.
.
For planning purposes, it is reasonable to assume that this
General Fund contribution will grow at the same rate as the
overall General Fund.
.
The County cannot be expected to increase its subsidy of
annual operations.
.
Any annual library costs above library designated property
taxes, the City General Fund contribution, the County subsidy,
and other minor revenues currently available will need to be
supported by new revenues.
.
The only assumed avenue for generating new revenues to
support operations is a parcel tax/per household assessment.
.
Current City reserves are insufficient to make a maioI'
contribution to any library capital costs for new construction or
remodeling which are not funded by development fee revenues
David M. Griffith & Ass(lciates
Page E - 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
without significantly impacting operating revenues for
existing services.
.
Because development fees will be received as homes and
businesses are built over a 20 year period, funds will need to be
borrowed to develop a new or improved library if that facility is
to be made available within the next ten years, unless a policy
decision is made to accord priority to the library project; apply
development fee revenues to the library project; and defer other
development fee funded projects.
.
Any capital costs not funded by development fee revenues,
including those associated with borrowing, would need to be
covered by new revenues, and we have assumed that the
approach for generating those revenues could be a parcel/tax
per household assessment.
.
As a result, for illustrative purposes in this report, we have
assumed that remodeling or construction may need to be
funded by borrowing which will require repayment of both
capital and debt service costs.
.
While State bond revenues for local library construction may be
available, there is no certainty at this time that a bond measure
will be approved, and if it is approved, Dublin will receive
revenues to offset all or some of the cost of new construction.
.
As a result, for the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed
that a parcel tax/per household assessment could be required
to cover unfunded capital and operating costs.
.
A parcel tax would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote.
The main body of the report calculates parcel taxes/per household
assessments required to fund capital. debt, and operating costs deficits for
each facility alternative and operating scenario (i.e. phased operations
versus full operation of the new facility immediately following completion of
construction. The table which follows shows the level of parcel tax
necessary to support the various operating scenarios to cover unfunded
capital costs and support 40 service hours when the new or remodeled
facility is completed. The information provided in the table assumes a new
library would be in operation during the year 2000.
nrwirl M nriffith c\'r A<;.<;nr;r7fp.<:;
D~ <Tn 7;' ry
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
Table 3
Projected Parcel Tax
Required to FUnd Capital
and Operating Deficits for
Library Development Alternatives
Option Required Household
Assessment Per Year
i$~}\t*~lf!tti~t$l~i;~~~~~~i~~~~1~~f:*~~i~~~~tlj~i~~l~11f:~~~1~~~~f#:f:t~~~~~lli~)~~~f~f:~~;~~r;~jii~~11~~1~~~~ Capital Operations Total
43,000 Square Foot New Facility with
Meeting Space and Career Center .40
Initial Service Hours. $40 $40 $00
37,000 Square Foot New Library with
Meeting Space - 40 Initial Service Hours. $ 30 $40 $70
34,000 Square Foot New Library - 40 Initial
Service Hours. $27 $40 $67
30,000 Square Foot Remodeled Library - 40
In itial Service Hours. $26 $40 $00
37,000 Square Foot - Phased Operation with
40 Initial Service Hours. $30 $15 $45
34,000 Square Foot - Phase~ Operation with
40 Initial Service Hours. $27 $15 $42
Principal conclusions which can be drawn from the information
presented in the table are as follows:
.
The Career Center option included in the 43,000 square foot
facility alternatives increases the parcel tax associated with
the other Alternatives by $ 10 annually, and this amount
represents at least three weekly service hours in the first year
and that amount increases moderately over the planning
period.
.
The parcel tax required to support remodeling of the existing
library is almost the same as constructing a new and larger
library.
.
A phased library operation, without the Career Center, would
provide the same weekly service hours in the initial years as
the non-phased alternatives, and would also generate revenues
sufficient to increase service hours as growth occurs up to 48
hours when the full library facility could be opened in about
2008 with the lowest per parcel tax/household assessment.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page E - 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LIBRARY SERVICE FINANCING
The analysis contained in the report as employed the year 2000 as the
assumed start-date for operating a new or remodeled library, and cost -
revenue comparisons have been base~' on that start date. Given this
projection, as previously described, under all facility size and service hour
scenarios, there are projected cost - revenue deficits in the early years of the
planning period (especially during the 2000 and 2005 period); and in the
absence of other operating revenue sources, we have assumed that a parcel
tax or fee could be needed to fill that deficit. If actual operations of a new or
remodeled library were initiated later than 2000 under certain conditions,
the need for a parcel tax/fee to support operations during the initial years
could change. The table which follows shows the cost-revenue impact of a
phased approach (operate 20,000 square feet initially and expand into the
full 30,000/34,000 as community growth occurred. Revenue projections
assume that the City's current contribution would not increase as a
proportion of the General Fund, but would increase at the same rate as
overall General Fund growth which was previously projected at a rate
comparable to projected increase in assessed valuation and property taxes.
Year Projected Base Operating Cost Operating Cost
Revenues for for
(000 ) 40 Hours with 40 Hours with
20,000 Square 30,000 Square
Feet Feet
(000) (000)
~tlttlt~fgtil~f~~lmf:~~ \~?l~lJ~~~~~~j~j\~*~~l;jlll\~j\l~jI~;Jjfj~ l~~~tt~jjl~~~~t~~jIl~~;\~~~l~lltl~jj~jj~~f tj~!~~tjjjjjj~j~~llllr{trtjltj~~j*;~~J
2000 $ 1,126 $ 1,363 $ 1,754
2001 $ 1,210 $ 1,363 $ 1,754
2002 $ 1,294 $ 1,363 $ 1,754
2003 $ 1,378 c' <$1,363 $ 1,754
2004 $ 1,462 ,$1,363 $ 1,754
2005 $ 1,545 ,'$1,363' $ 1,754
2006 $ 1,593 $1,363 $ 1,754
2007 $ 1,641 $ 1,363 $ 1,754
2008 $ 1,689 $ 1,363 $ 1,754
2009 $ 1,737 $1,363 $ 1,754
2010 $ 1,784 $ 1,363 $ 1,754
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page E - 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary for the
Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis
It is practical to assume that a library construction project, once pre-
planning, design, and actual construction time requirements were
cons.idered, would be unlikely to complete a facility which would be ready
for occupancy in 2000, and that three to four years would probably be
required to deliver a facility ready for occupancy. If this assumption is
employed, the potential need for a parcel, tax/fee for operations under the
phased approach is largely eliminated as follows:
.
If the project required three to four years to plan and build and
the project was initiated in early 1999, the library would be
ready for occupancy in 2003.
.
Under the phased operation approach, costs for providing 40
weekly service hours in the finished 20,000 square feet are
projected to be about $ 1.363 million which is slightly less than
the $ 1.378 in revenues projected. If revenue growth occurs as
projected, there could be no need for additional revenues
through a parcel tax/fee or other source to provide 40 service
hours in the 20,000 square feet of finished library services.
.
By 2009, revenues would be nearly sufficient to expand
operations into the full 30,000/34,000 square feet and maintain
40 weekly services hours, again without additional revenues
from a parcel tax or other revenue source.
This analysis demonstrates the impact of the phased approach in
terms of fitting library expansion and operations to projected revenues and
growth in the community, and also illustrates how timing and service hour
assumptions and alternatives could impact the need for additional
revenues (through a parcel tax or other source) to fund operations.
*
*
*
The maIn body of the report which follows presents the detailed
analysis which has been summarized in the preceding paragraphs.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Pa eE-10
FINAL REPORT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
OF LIBRARY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN
This report presents the results of our analysis of capital and
operating costs for expanded' library services in Dublin, and projects
revenues potentially available to support those services. The report opens
with a brief introduction to the objectives of this study.
1. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were to analyze the following:
· To identify the capital costs for the library facility alternatives
identified by the Library Planning Task Force including the
following:
Construction ofa new library building on the Civic Center site.
The new construction option was to address three scenarios:
A 30,000 square foot library.
A 36,000 square foot building housing a library (30,000
sq. ft.) and 6,000 sq. ft. of space for proposed joint uses.
The proposed joint uses include two meeting rooms
(approximately 1,200 sq. ft. each), space for a retail
complex (3,000 sq. ft.) and the remaining space
(approximately 600 sq. ft.) to be used by the Friends of the
Library for storage and work space.
A 42,000 square foot building housing a library (30,000
sq. ft.) and 12,000 sq. ft. of space for proposed joint uses.
The joint use space would house the functions discussed
above plus a 6,000 square foot Career Center and Mini
Copy Center.
Renovation of the existing library structure accomplished by
adding "wings" to each side of the building, thereby enlarging
the facility to 30,000 square feet. This option provides for onlv
additional library space.
· Determine annual operating costs for a 30,000 square foot
library. Since operating costs for a library are directly related
to the number of weekly service hours provided by the library,
operating costs are projected under several service hour
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
assumptions ranging from 34 to 56 service hours per week.
· Project revenues available to support library operations and
library capital improvements in Dublin based on projected
growth in assessed valuation and other revenue sources such
as development fees and identify any gaps between revenues
and costs.
· Identify options for generating additional revenues to address
cost - revenue gaps.
All projections are based on the assumption that Dublin would
continue as a member of the Alameda County Library System.
The intent of the analysis was to provide the Library Planning Task
Force information related to costs, revenues, and financing issues
associated with each of the library improvement options being considered so
that the Task Force c~uld select an option for recommendation to the City
Council.
2. PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS FOR
TIllS ANALYSIS
The library facility size targets initially identified by the Task Force
were based on a library facility space standard of .5 square foot of library
space per capita. While this is the historical standard employed by many
jurisdictions to adopt library facility targets, there are some indications that
this standard is outdated and fails to reflect changing demands faced by
libraries. For example:
· The modern library is providing expanded space for not only
hard copy materials, but also significant spaces for computer
work stations to support customer access to both library
operated automated systems, but also to a broad variety of
automated information sources. These work stations and
related spaces can add significantly to space requirements for
a modern library.
· Concurrently, while automated information systems increase
in importance, public demand for hard copy books, periodicals,
and audio visual materials shows no sign of decreasing.
Indeed, as the socio-economic and ethnic composition of the
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
population becomes more diverse, demand for a greater variety
of library materials increases.
Given the above, we have found that a target of .6 square feet of
library space per capita is a more modern planning target, and that this
target has been adopted by a number of jurisdictions wl}ich have recently or
are currently involved in the library facility planning process. We strongly
recommend that Dublin, as it approaches evaluation of library needs and
facility alternatives, adopt this standard. To that end, this report employs
that standard and the basic facility alternatives outlined above have been
adjusted to reflect the .6 square feet per capita target. The Library Planning
Task Force concurred with this proposal and the analysis of facilities, costs,
and library strategies which follows is based on the .6 per square foot per
capita target.
3. PROJEcrED POPULATION GROWTH AND LffiRARY FACILITY
NEEDS
Exhibit I, which follows on the next page, projects population
increase in Dublin for the planning period utilized for this project.
Projections are based on current development projections for additional
residential units by year. The base population reflects Dublin's net
population once the detention facility inmate population, which is included
in the City's total population is excepted. Thus, the beginning year total
City population of 27,700 is reduced to 23,700 (deducting the average 4,000
inmate jail and correction facility population) for the purposes of projecting
population and related library facility needs.
As shown in the Exhibit I, buildout resident population to be served
by a Dublin Library would total about 57,000. With a target for library
facilities of .6 per square foot per capita, a library sized to serve the
community at buildout would be 34,000 square feet rather than 30,000
square foot library initially selected by the Task Force. As a result, the
analysis which follows projects capital costs for this slightly larger facility
as summarized on the page following Exhibit 1.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 3
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
EXHIBIT I
City of Dublin
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN *
Year Beginning Projected Population End of Year
Residential Increase Residential
Population Population
1998 23,700 1,085 24,785
1999 24,785 1,525 26,310
2000 26,310 1,498 27,808
2001 27,808 2,110 29,918
2002 31,520 1,602 33,122
2003 33,122 1,490 34,612
2004 34,612 1,244 35,856
2005 35,856 871 36,727
2006 36,727 1,020 37,747
2007 37,747 882 38,629
2008 38,629 882 39,511
2009 39,511 1,129 40,640
2010 40,640 1,376 42,016
2011 42,016 1,376 43,392
2012 43,392 1,376 44,768
2013 44,768 1,376 46,144
2014 46,144 1,376 47,520
2015 47,520 1,532 49,052
2016 49,052 1,532 50,584
2017 50,584 1,532 52,116
2018 52,116 1,532 53,648
2019 53,648 1,158 54,806
2020 54,806 1,158 55,964
2021 55,964 403 56,367
2022 56,367 156 56,523
2023 56,523 156 56,679
*
Population projections exclude correctional facility inmates.
Source: Based on residential unit development projections provided by
the City of Dublin Planning Department. Projections assume an average
household population of 2.5.
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Construction of a New Library Facility on the Civic Center Site. In addition
to selecting the .6 square feet of library per space per capita as a planning
target, the Task Force, after some discussion, decided to eliminate space for
a copy center from the facility alternatives. When coupled with the .6 per
square feet of library space per capita, this led to adjustment of the
alternatives as follows:
· A 34,000 square foot library.
. A 37,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.)
and 3,000 sq. ft. of space for two 1,200 square foot meeting
rooms and 600 square feet of space for use by the Friends of the
Library.
· A 43,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.)
and 9,000 sq. ft. of space including 3,000 sq. ft. of space for two
1,200 square foot meeting rooms, 600 square feet of space for
use by the Friends of the Library, and 6,000 square feet for lease
by a Career Center.
Renovation of the Existing Library Facility, given site size, is probably
limited to the 30,000 square foot maximum. As a result, projections are
limited to 30,000 square feet for this alternative.
Capital costs for each of these alternatives are projected in the section
which follows.
4. PROJEcrED CAPITAL COSTS
Construction, project development and management, and furnishing
and equipment costs for new or remodeled/expanded libraries can vary
widely depending on design, amenities, and location of construction. To
estimate the construction costs which might be incurred related to the
various facility alternatives identified for analysis by' the City, we
accomplished the following:
· Reviewed the alternatives with and obtained broad
construction cost estimates from a San Francisco Bay Area
architectural firm with recent experience in designing and
building library facilities in the Bay Area over the last two
years. The architects provided some basic cost guidelines
which reflected their experience and actual costs associated
with recent major Bay Area library projects including those
completed in:
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 5
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Burlingame -- Essentially construction of a new library
while retaining the front, exterior facade of a historical
library building.
Mountain View -- New main library.
Foster City -- City constructed branch of the San Mateo
County Library System.
San Carlos -- Current new branch library under
construction by the City and the San Mateo County
Library System.
· In addition, we surveyed other library projects completed in
California in the last year and obtained comparable
information on construction costs. This survey excluded non-
comparable projects and focused on those completed in urban
areas in Northern and Southem California.. Survey results
indicated the following ranges of construction costs in the
same categories employed by the architects to develop
illustrative project costs in the following categories:
Construction: Actual facility construction costs for the
building and major infrastructure (e.g. heating
ventilating and air conditioning systems).
Furnishings/interior finish:. Furniture, wall covering
and carpeting, library equipment such as shelving,
office furniture, and the like.
Other costs: Costs in this category include professional
fees (architectural design and project management;
telecommunication system infrastructure installation;
and contingency allocations.
Appendix A to this report provides the detailed results of the survey.
The results of the construction cost survey are summarized in Table 1
which follows on the next page:
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 6
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Table 1
Representative Library
Construction Costs
Construction
Estimated Cost Per Square Foot
Furnishing! Other Project
Finish Costs
$29 $68
Total
Architect's Estimate Based
on Bay Area Experience
Average Unit Costs Based on
Survey of Projects
Completed in California
Within the Last Year
Average of the Two Sources
$233
$330
$224
$19
$54
$297
$229
$24
$61
$314
As shown in the Table 1 and as demonstrated in Appendix A, costs
can vary quite widely based on actual project characteristics such as
design, facility quality including amenities and materials, location, and
special site characteristics. For the purposes of the broad projections
contained in this report, we believe it is most prudent to project potential
facility costs by employing the mid-range between the architect's estimates
and the survey as represented by the "Two Source Average" row as shown
in the table above.
Concurrently, costs for remodeling, renovation, and expansion of an
existing facility can also vary widely based on the specific structural
characteristics of the facility being remodeled/expanded as well as design,
scope, site issues, and amenities incorporated into the facility. Again, we
utilized the same two sources to develop some basis for broadly projecting
remodeling/renovation/expansion costs associated with the alternative
which involves remodeling and expansion of the existing library building.
Table 2, which follows on the next page, shows the range of cost estimates
from the two sources and Appendix A to this report provides additional
detail on the various renovation and remodeling projects completed in
urban California during 1997.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Table 2
Representative Library
Remodeling Costs
Construction
Reported Cost Per Square Foot
Furnishing! Other Project
Finish Costs
$29 $44
Total
Architect's Estimate for
Generic Renovation Project
Average Unit Costs Based on
Survey of Projects
Completed in California
Within the Last Year
Average
$150
$223
$102
$11
$20
$131
$126
$20
$32
$178
Given the broad range in both completed projects and between the
projects surveyed and the architect's estimate for a "typical" project without
detailed evaluation of the facility involved, we have used the averages in the
table above to estimate remodeling/renovation costs associated with the
existing facility.
The next table, Table 3, shows our estimate of capital costs associated
with the various new facility alternatives under consideration by the
Library Task Force based on the assumptions outlined above. Costs are
presented in terms of current dollars.
Table 3
Projected Construction Costs for a New
Dublin Library
Construction
Projected Capital Costs
(Dollars in Thousands)
FurnitureJ Other Costs
Interior Finish
$24 $61
Total
Unit Cost Per
Square Foot
New 34,000
square foot Lib.
New 37,000
square foot Lib.
New 43,000
square foot Lib.
$229
$314
$ 7,786
$816
$2,074
$ 10,676
$ 9,847
$888
$888
$ 2, 257
$ 2,623
$ 11,618
$ 8,473
$ 13,358
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 8
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
To estimate costs associated with remodeling and expanding the
existing facility, different costs need to be applied to the current facility and
new construction to expand that facility to the 30,000 square foot maximum.
Table 4 below applies those assumptions and also incorporates the projected
cost for acquiring land to provide additional parking at the existing site:
Table 4
Projected Construction Costs for
Remodeling and Expanding the
Existing Library Facility
Facility
Improvement
Component
Projected Capital Costs
(Dollars in Thousands)
Construction Furniture!
Interior Finish
Other Costs
Total
Renovation of
Existing 15,000
Square Feet
Addition of
15,000 New
Square Feet
Cost for
Additional
Parking
Project Total
$ 1,890
$300
$480
$ 2,670
$ 3,435
$360
$915
$4,710
$338
$338
$ 5,325
$660
$ 1,733
$ 7,718
It should be noted that these costs provide broad indicators of
potential project'cost only and can vary widely depending on specific design
characteristics; site characteristics; and market conditions.
In addition to the basic facility related costs shown in the previous
tables, a larger library would also require expansion of the collection to
respond to the increased use which could be expected with a larger facility.
While such a collection expansion could be deferred or implemented over
time, capital cost estimates should include some provision for collection
improvement which would be consistent with an expanded and higher
quality library facility. Estimates of collection expansion requirements are
shown in Table 5 which follows below:
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 9
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Item
Library Materials
Adult Books
Children's Books
Audio - Visual
Ma terials
Sub. Total
Processing Costs
(Based on recent
DMG studies. Per
item cost includes
costs required to
catalog, enter
materials into
automated system;
and process (e.g. bar
codes; covers; etc.).
TOTAL
Table 5
Costs for Collection for
A New or Remodeled Library
Unit Cost
15,000
$3.00
Total Cost
79,140
$ 294,360
$ 45,000
$ 339,360
The Table 6 which follows shows total projected costs for each of the
alternatives including both facility development/improvement costs and
costs associated with collection improvement.
Table 6
Total Project Costs
for Library Improvement Altematives
New 34,000
square foot Lib. $ 10,676 $339 $ 11,015
New 37,000
square foot Lib. $ 11,618 $339 $ 11,957
New 43,000
square foot Lib. $ 13,358 $339 $ 13,697
Remodel and
Expand Current
Facility to $ 7,718 $339 $ 8,057
30,000 square
feet
David M. Griffith & Associates
Projected Start-up Costs
(Dollars in Thousands)
Collection Start-up Total
Enhancement
Facility
DevelopmentJ
Improvement
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
The next section estimates growth related revenues available to offset
some of the capital costs outlined above.
5. PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FEES AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT
Deyelopment fee revenues available to support the alternative library
development plans are subject to detailed analysis by the City's development
fee consultants and approval of any fee modifications by the City Council. It
IS possible, for the purposes of this analysis, to illustrate potential
development fees by applying the City's current methodology and the
vanous capital improvement scenanos being considered in this report to
project potential cash flow available to support the vanous project
alternatives. This analysis includes the following:
. Projecting population and employment through buildout and
differentiating between current population and employment
and the increment to be generated as a result of growth. Based
on the population projections and projected commercial and
industrial development, those relationships through buildout
are as follows:
Item
Existing
Growth
Total Resident
Equivalents
Population
23,700
32,823
56,523
Employment
10,000
28,100
38,100
Total *
25,900
39,005
64,905
*
Employees multiplied by a factor of .22 to calculate resident equivalent library users.
Same methodology employed by the City's development fee consultants.
· Then, calculating the per resident and per employee cost of the
potential library improvement scenanos which can be
attributed to growth and offset by development fees as
demonstrated in Exhibit II, which follows on the next page.
Exhibit II shows development fees for the 34,000 and 37,000
square foot new construction alternatives. Because the Career
Center space included in the 43,000 square foot project cannot
be charged against development fees under the requirements
of AB 1600, development fee revenue for this alternative would
be the same as for the 37,000 square foot facility. Clearly, these
fee estimates are subject to additional analysis and approval ly
the Council once that analysis is completed Nevertheless,
they do provide an order of magnitude basis for projecting
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 11
I EXIllBIT II
City of Dublin
I ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEES
FOR ALTERNATIVE LIBRARY PROJECTS
I Library Development Scenarios
New 34,000 Square New 37,000 Square Remodel and
Foot Library Foot Facility Expand to 30,000
I Square Foot Facility
Build Out Population 64,905 64,905 64,905
Equivalents
I Square Feet Per
Population .52 .57 .46
Equivalent
I Growth Population 39,005 39,005 39,005
Equivalents
Square Feet
Attributable to 20,283 22,233 17,942
I Growth
Project Cost
Building and $11,015 $ 11,957 $ 8,057
I Collection
Cost of Civic Center $ 3,504 $ 3,504
Land at $ 20 per
I square foot.
Project Total $ 14,519 $15,461 $8,057
Project Cost Per $427 $418 $269
I Square Foot
Times Square Feet
Attributable to 20,283 22,233 17,942
I Growth
Cost Attributable to $ 8,660,841 $ 9,293,394 $ 4,826,396
Growth
I Cost Per Resident - $222 $238 $124
Growth
Cost Per Employee - $49 $52 $27
I Growth (at .22 per
resident as per
above)
Cost Per Dwelling
I Unit Based on City
Projections and
Average Per $555 $596 $310
I Dwelling Unit
Population (2.5 per
DU)
I Cost Per
Commercial/
Industrial Square $.13 $.134 $.07
Foot (estimated
I based on average of
388 square feet per
employee)
I
I David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
development fee related revenue which could be available to
support a portion of the development costs associated with each
project alternative.
Development fees for each of the alternatives can then be compared to
total project costs fo:r: each of the alternatives to estimate the portion of
capital costs which would not be offset by development fee revenue and
would need to be funded by other means. Table 7 which follows provides
that comparison.
Table 7
Projected Capital Costs
Not Funded by Development Fees
30,000 Sq. Ft. 34,000 Sq. Ft. 37,000 Sq. Ft. 43,000 Sq. Ft.
Remodel New Facility New Facility New Facility
(Dollars in 000)
Project Cost $ 8,057 $ 11,015 $ 11,957 $ 13,697
Development
Fees $ 4,826 $ 8,660 $ 9,293 $ 9,293
Unfunded
Capital Balance $ 3,231 $ 2,355 $ 2,664 $ 4,404
The table demonstrates the impact of including Civic Center land
costs as part of the cost basis for development fees on overall cash
requirements to cove~ unfunded capital costs for the new construction
projects. The table also illustrates that, because of this feature associated
with the new construction alternatives, unfunded capital costs for
remodeling the old library would be significantly higher than for
constructing more library space in a totally new facility.
6. TIMING FOR FACILITY EXPANSION
Clearly, the timing for construction of a new facility or significant
expansion of the existing facility is dependent on both financial and political
factors. Nevertheless, several factors need to be understood to formulate
and evaluate facility alternatives: (1) With a 15,000 square foot library and a
resident population of about 23,700, Dublin's library provides .63 square feet
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 13
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
of library space per capita which is generally consistent with the suggested
library space standard; and (2) If a 30,000 or 34,000 square foot facility were
constructed and operated in the short term, the facility would be sized to
serve a much larger community, and some years could be required for the
community to "grow into" the facility. Exhibit III, which follows on the
next page, shows space required by standard compared to space available
in the current facility and deficiencies in library space based on the .6
square foot standard.
As can be seen from the projections presented in Exhibit III, while
growth will relatively quickly outpace the capabilities and size of the
existing facility, it will be well into the next century before a 30,000 or 34,000
square foot library facility would be "sized" to facility population. Since
subsequent analysis will raise issues about operating costs associated with
the various alternatives, and operating costs are directly related to facility
size, the analysis will also draw on the trend data shown in the table to
suggest some phasing alternatives associated with both new construction
and remodeling.
The next section which begins on the page following the exhibit addresses
projected operating costs for a new or remodeled and expanded library.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIDIT III
City of Dublin
LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS BASED ON
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
Year Residential library Space Deficiency Based on
Population Needed at .6 Square Existing Facility
Feet Per Capita (Square Feet)
1998 24,785 14,871 -
1999 26,310 15,786 786
2000 27,808 16,685 1,685
2001 29,918 17,945 2,945
2002 33,122 19,873 4,873
2003 34,612 20,767 5,767
2004 35,856 21,514 6,514
2005 36,727 22,036 7,036
2006 37,747 22,648 7,648
2007 38,629 23,177 8,177
2008 39,511 23,707 8,707
2009 40,640 24,384 9,384
2010 42,016 25,210 10,210
2011 43,392 26,035 11,035
2012 44,768 26,861 11,861
2013 46,144 27,686 12,686
2014 47,520 28,512 13,512
2015 49,052 29,431 14,431
2016 50,584 30,350 15,350
2017 52,116 31,270 16,270
2018 53,648 32,189 17,189
2019 54,806 32,884 17,884
2020 55,964 33,578 18,578
2021 56,367 33,820 18,820
2022 56,523 33,914 18,914
2023 56,679 34,007 19,007
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
7. CURRENT LffiRARY FINANCIAL S'IRUCTURE
To provide a basis for the subsequent analysis of library operating
costs for the various alternatives, it is important that the basic financial
structure of library services in Dublin be understood. Overall, the principal
source o~ revenue which supports library services in Dublin is the County
Library Property tax. During State revenue take backs several years ago,. a
significant portion of this property tax was diverted to support schools. The
impact of this diversion was to reduce the actual amount of the library
related property tax to support library services by about 50 %. As a result of
the diversion, the "net" property tax rate which does and will continue to
generate revenues to support library services is as shown in the table which
follows:
Table 8
Library Related
Property Tax Basis
Item Amount
County Library Property
Tax Levy (share of the 1 %
of assessed valuation tax 4.83%
rate allowed by Proposition
13).
Proportion of the County
Library Property Tax Levy 51.35 %
Diverted to Support Schools
Net Levy (share of the 1 % of
assessed valuation tax rate)
available to support library 2.35 %
services (48.65 % of the
original levy).
This means that, on the average, of each $ 1 of property tax
generated, about 2.35 cents is dedicated to support library services. This tax
currently generates about $ 391,000 per year from Dublin.
Library services currently provided in Dublin are supported by two
pnmary revenue sources:
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
· The property tax described above which is allocated to the
Alameda County Public Library which in turn operates the
library. Property tax revenues support a base service level of 2)
service hours per week for the Dublin Library, and are also
used by the County Library to fund central services and staff
which support the Dublin Library (e.g. automated system;
materials acquisition and cataloging; management and
administration).
· A City General Fund contribution to fund service hours in
addition to the base service level supported by the County
system. Currently, the City contributes about $ 216,000
annually to increase service hours from the 20 hour base
service level to 34 hours per week.
On an overall basis, the current Dublin library, even with the City's
general fund contribution, is "subsidized" by the County library as
demonstrated in the table which follows which reflects 1997 - 1998 cost and
revenue data:
Table 9
Current Dublin Library Costs and Revenues
Estimated 1997 - 1998
Cost/Revenue Item
206,720
60,190
Costs
Staffing Costs
Staffing Costs - Dublin Based Direct Service Staff
(includes both County funded and City funded staff)
Other Operating Costs
Services and Supplies Including Building Maintenance
Collection Materials
System Support Services (management and
administration, technical services, automated systems
support, materials delivery, etc.)
Sub-Total Operating Costs
Full Cost Total
Revenues
Property Tax
City Contribution for Additional Service Hours
Donations
Estimated Fines/Fees
Revenue Total
Net Annual Cost - Revenue Deficit
231,160
$ 498,070
$ 937,857
$ 391,256
216,997
5,516
18,000
$ 631,769
($ 306,088)
The costs shown in the table exclude some central program services
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
provided by the Alameda County Library which are delivered to Dublin and
other members of the County Library system which are not directly related
to staffing and operating the Dublin branch. These include such services
as the Literacy Program, the Bookmobile, the Business Library at the
Fremont Main Library, and the like. While these services have value and
would increase the County "subsidy" noted above, they have been excepted
from the analysis because they are not directly related to current or
projected costs of staffing, equipping, operating, and directly supporting a
Dublin Library.
The data indicate that: (1) Property tax and other revenues fall well
short of current operating costs when both direct Dublin Library and
Alameda County Library support services and the City's general fund
contribution are considered; and (2) The County Library System
"subsidizes" the Dublin Library by about $ 300,000 annually.
In projecting future operating cost scenarios, we have assumed that
the County System "subsidy" would not be increased if a larger library were
built and operated, and that Dublin generated revenues (either through the
Library property tax or other direct City contribution) would need to be
sufficient to offset projected operating and service costs.
8. PROJECI'ED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES.
This section projects the operating costs for the library alternatives
under two different scenarios: (1) Full operation of the facilities as soon as
they are built or remodeled/expanded; and (2) Phased operations which
would involve expanding into a new or remodeled facility as the community
grows. The first section presents key assumptions employed to project
operating costs. Subsequent sections illustrate the costs of full operation(s)
for each of the facility alternatives; project revenues likely to be available to
support expanded operations; compare the cost and revenue performance of
the full operations scenario; and also illustrate the cost-revenue impact of a
phased implementation and operation scenario.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
(1.) Projected Costs for Operating a Larger Library
As noted earlier in this section, annual operating costs are not
only influenced by facility size, but also by the number of weekly
service hours the facility is open to the public since service hours
have direct impact on total staff hours required to staff public service
desks and other direct public contact functions. Currently, the
Dublin library is staffed with a total of 10.58 full-time equivalent (FTE)
staff positions, of which 6.74 are funded by the County Library and
3.84 funded by the City contribution to support additional service
hours above the 20 hour County base service level. Exhibit IV, which
follows this page, shows projected annual operating costs (expressed
based on 1997 - 1998 salary, benefit, and other costs) for a variety of
different service hour alternatives for a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot
library. For the purposes of this analysis, we have determined that
there is no sigriificant incremental cost when a 30,000 square foot
facility is compared to 34,000 square feet. Each cost estimate includes
the following:
· Salary and benefit costs for the staffing level required to
support the service hour alternative and to "staff' an
expanded library facility. As can be noted from review of
the information presented in Exhibit IV, the "average
cost" per employee drops as service hours increase since
the County Library would make more extensive use of
less costly part-time staff and proportionally more para-
professional positions to cover those extended service
hours.
· Library materials which involves annual purchase for
collection replacement and enhancement. The amount
increases with the service hours based on the
relationship between services hours, circulation (use of
library materials), and the need to replace materials at a
greater rate as use of the collection increases. Clearly,
annual operating costs could be increased or decreased
based on resources allocated to materials. The estimates
outlined in the exhibit are based on patterns observed in
other libraries with comparable service hours and of
comparable size.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 19
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Dublin Branch Library
Estimated Operating Costs
for 30,000 Sq. Ft. Library (1)
34 Hrs/Wk 40 HrslWk 52 Hrs/Wk 56 HrslWk
Annual Annual Annual Annual
FTE Salary FTE Salary FTE Salary FTE Salary
Salaries & Benefits
-Supervising Librarian II 1.00 61,500 1.00 61,500 1.00 61,500 1.00 61,500
-Supervising Librarian I 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.00 56,400
- Librarian II 3.00 132,048 4.00 176,064 4.75 209,076 4.75 209,076
- Library Assistant 1.50 53,694 2.00 71,592 2.00 71,592 4.00 143,184
-Supervising Clerk II 1.00 44,700 1.00 44,700 1.00 44,700 1.00 44,700
- Library Clerk II 4.00 119,952 4.50 134,946 6.00 179,928 7.00 209,916
- Clerk II 1.00 29,988 1.00 29,988 1.00 29,988 1.00 29,988
- Library Page 3.49 66,436 4.00 75,894 5.00 94,868 5.00 94,868
Subtotal 14.99 508,318 17.50 594,684 20.75 691,652 24.75 849,632
Salary Savings @ -4% (20,333) (23,787) (27,666) (33,985)
Total, Salaries 487,985 570,897 663,986 815,647
Benefits @29.28% 142,882 167,159 194,415 238,821
Total, Salaries & Benefits 630,867 738,055 858,401 1,054,468
Operating Expenses
Services & Supplies 224,309 262,420 305,209 374,922
Library Materials 125,000 147,611 171,680 210,893
Systemwide Support Svcs 322,443 377,228 438,738 538,950
Subtotal, Op. Expenses 671,752 787,259 915,627 1,124,765
Countywide Support Svcs 98,135 114,808 133,529 164,028
Total, Op. Expenses 769,887 902,067 1,049,156 1,288,793
Grand Total 1,400,754 1,640,122 1,907,557 2,343,261
(1) Based on1997-98 operating costs.
David M. Griffith Associates
-
-
-
EXHIBIT IV
City of Dublin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
· Indirect support costs allocated based on the current
approach used by the Alameda County Library which
allocates support costs in relationship to direct branch
library costs. These include use of and support of the
automated library system; new materials processing;
inter-library loans; and system management and
administration.
As can be seen from the information shown in Exhibit IV,
annual operating costs would range from $ 1.4 million to $ 2.3 million
depending on service hour alternatives.
Currently, Alameda County maintains the Dublin Library and
costs associated with those services are included in the allocated
operating and support costs which have been estimated in Exhibit
IV. If the City built a new library or substantially remodeled the
current branch library, it is likely that responsibility for maintenance
would shift to t~e City as is the case with Pleasanton which covers
maintenance costs associated with the City owned library facility.
Again, actual costs would be dependent on facility characteristics
and how they were delivered. It is possible to estimate costs based on
several sources:
· The International Facilities' Management Association
annually publishes "standard" per square foot costs for
various types of public and private facilities. These costs
include both routine services (e.g. custodial, HV AC
system preventative maintenance, etc.) and reserves for
replacing major infrastructure. The standard for a
public access facility like a library is $ 2.72 annually, per
square foot. This excludes utility costs.
· Pleasanton currently pays for both facility maintenance
and utility costs for the City owned 30,000 square foot
library. Per square foot costs are:
Maintenance and custodial: $ 3.42 per square foot.
Utilities: $ 2.68. It should be noted that utilities
costs are variable based on service hours and that
the Pleasanton Library is currently open to the
public 51 hours per week. Thus, the per service
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
hour/per square foot cost for utilities is $ .05
To reflect potential costs associated with the various facility
alternatives, some provision needs to be made for maintenance and
utility costs. Concurrently, it is also reasonable to assume that, if the
City built a facility and provided for maintenance, some portion of the
County allocated costs for operating expenses and support might be
reduced to reflect assumption of that responsibility by the City. As a
result, we have assumed the following in projecting costs associated
with the alternatives:
· That costs associated with the current 15,000 square foot
facility are included In the operating cost estimates
shown in Exhibit IV, and that those costs could be
reduced moderately if the City assumed responsibility
for maintenance and utilities.
· As a result, to project illustrative costs, we have applied
Pleasanton's per square foot costs to the incremental
square feet above the 15,000 square foot level. These costs
would be as follows for the service hour and facility
alternatives.
Table 10
Projected Facility Maintenance Costs
Item
30,000 Square Foot
Facility
$ 51,300
34,000 Square Foot
Facility
$ 76,000
43,000 Square Foot
Facility
$ 95,760
Maintenance at
$ 3.42 Per Square
Foot
Utilities At $.05 per
square foot per
service hour.
Reflects 40 service
hours per week.
TOTAL ANNUAL
$ 30,000
$ 38,000
$ 56,000
$ 81,300
$114,000
$151,760
We have assumed the 40 hour servIce level to project utilities
costs to avoid presenting multiple cost levels for each service hour
scenario to simplify the presentation of cost - revenue comparisons in
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
the next section. Comparably, to further simplify presentation of cost
- revenue comparisons, we will assign the mid-range maintenance
and utilities costs of $ 114,000 for purposes of cost - revenue
companson for the vanous servIce hour scenanos which are
presented in the next section. -As a result, projected costs by service
hour scenano which will be employed In subsequent cost and
revenue comparisons are as shown in Table 11, below.
Table 11
Projected Total
Operating Costs
Cost Item
Projected Annual Operating Costs by Service Hour Scenario
34 Service 40 Service 52 Service
Hours Hours Hours
$ 1,400,754 $ 1,640,122 $ 1,907,557
56 Service
Hours
$ 2,343,261
Staffing,
Operating and
Support Costs
Incremental
Maintenance and
Utilities Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL
$114,000
$ 114,000
$114,000
$ 114,000
$ 1,514,754
$ 1,754J122
$ 2,021J557
$ 2,457 ~I
To evaluate cost impact of the various alternatives, revenues
available to support library services need to be considered and are
presented in the following paragraphs.
(2.) Projected Revenues Available to Support Library Operations
As noted earlier in this report, property taxes are the principal
source of revenues available to support library services in Dublin.
Over the coming years, these property taxes can be expected to
Increase as residential and commercial development occurs In
Dublin and total assessed valuation increases.
Exhibit V, which follows this page, shows projected growth in the
City's property tax base and library property taxes. Projections are
based on annual growth for residential and commercial properties
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT V
City of Dublin
PROJECTED ASSESSED VALUATION
AND LIBRARY RELATED PROPERTY TAX
1.
Projected Assessed Valuation By Year
All Dollars Shown In Thousands
Year Beginning of Year Projected Growth End of Year
Assessed Valuation Assessed Valuation
1998 $ 1,682,915 $ 114,000 $ 1,796,915
1999 $ 1,796,915 210,368 2,007,283
2000 2,007,283 217,556 2,224,839
2001 2,224,839 322,455 2,547,294
2002 2,547,294 350,987 2,898,281
2003 2,898,281 250,950 3,149,231
2004 3,149,231 162,984 3,312,215
2005 3,312,215 103,419 3,415,634
2006 3,415,634 88,879 3,504,513
2007 3,504,513 172,204 3,676,717
2008 3,676,717 128,153 3,804,870
2009 3,804,870 141,353 3,946,223
2010 3,946,223 142,798 4,089,021
2011 4,089,021 117,341 4,206,362
2012 4,206,362 104,141 4,310,503
2013 4,310,503 117,341 4,427,844
2014 4,427,844 104,141 4,531,985
2015 4,531,985 104,141 4,636,126
2016 4,636,126 134,581 4,770,707
2017 4,770,707 132,031 4,902,738
2018 4,902,738 132,031 5,034,769
2019 5,034,769 120,431 5,155,200
2020 5,155,200 96,382 5,251,582
2021 5,251,582 85,606 5,337,188
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXIllBITV (2)
2.
Projected Library Property Taxes
Year Assessed Valuation Library Property
(000) Tax"
1998 $1,796,915 $ 422,275
1999 2,007,283 471,712
2000 2,224,839 528,372
2001 2,547,294 598,614
2002 2,898,281 681,096
2003 3,149,231 740,069
2004 3,312,215 778,370
2005 3,415,634 802,673
2006 3,504,513 823,561
2007 3,676,717 864,028
2008 3,804,870 894,144
2009 3,946,223 927,362
2010 4,089,021 960,920
2011 4,206,362 988,495
2012 4,310,503 1,012,968
2013 4,427,844 1,040,543
2014 4,531,985 1,065,016
2015 4,636,126 1,089,490
2016 4,770,707 1,121,161
2017 4,902,738 1,152,143
2018 5,034,769 1,183,171
2019 5,155,200 1,211,472
2020 5,251,582 1,234,122
2021 5,337,188 1,254,239
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
consistent with the City's General Plan and sequenced and valued
based on information provided by the City. The second page of Exhibit
V projects annual library related property tax generated by the
projected assessed valuation. All projections are in 1998 dollars. The
projections exclude: (1) Reassessment of the existing tax base due to
turnover and reassessment; and (2) Increases in assessed valuation
of new development which may occur as construction and land costs
increase over the planning period. Since increases in neither area
can be projected with accuracy, we believe constant dollar projections
are most representative of revenue trends.
It should also be noted that the property tax revenues projected
on the preceding page are based on the current .0235 share of the total
property tax dollar currently apportioned for library service in Dublin
and on the aveI."age, in those areas served by the Alameda County
Library system. As previously described, this amount was
significantly reduced by the diversion of more than half the library
property tax rate to support of schools during State revenue take
backs earlier in the 1990's. Over the last several years, there has
been some discussion at the State legislature level about restoring all
or a portion of these diverted funds (i.e. reversing the ERAF shift),
but there are no current indicators that these funds will actually be
restored in the forseeable future. If the legislature does take action to
restore all or some of these funds, the revenue projections previously
shown could be expected to increase significantly.
Revenues for library services in Dublin, as noted earlier in this
report, also include City contributions for increased services;
fines/fees generated by activity at the Dublin branch library; and the
current subsidy of Dublin library services (compared to direct
revenues generated) by the Alameda County Library. For the
purposes of the cost - revenue comparisons shown in this report, we
have assumed the following:
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
· Included a "subsidy" by the County Library of $ 300,000
annually. While this subsidy reflects current policy and
operations, this could change (increase or decrease)
depending on the overall financial structure of the
County Library System over the planning period. For
example, if one or more current members elected to
withdraw from the System, the financial structure could
be effected to the extent that this "subsidy" might have to
be reduced or eliminated.
· Projected fines/fees at an increased level which might be
expected with increased activity at a larger library. An
amount of about $ 26,000 annually has been projected
which reflects about 50 % of the activity levels generated
at Pleasanton which has a facility comparable to the one
employed as the basis for the projections contained in
this report, but serves a larger population.
· Have assumed that donations would continue at the
current level of about $ 5,000 annually.
· Have assumed that the current $ 217,000 City subsidy
would continue at this same level.
These assumptions would add about $ 548,000 annually to
projected property taxes to support library services.
(3.) Cost and Revenue Comparisons for the Full Operations
Scenarios
Exhibit VI on the next page shows projected revenues and
costs associated with the various service hour scenarIOS over the
planning period through 2021. Both costs and revenues are
presented in terms of current, 1998 dollars and no provision is made
for inflation in either costs or revenues. Revenues include both
property taxes and the additional $ 548,000 including County
subsidies, current City contribution, estimated fine and fee revenue,
and donations as previously described. A constant dollar assumption
has been employed to simplify the comparison since it is highly likely
that costs and revenues could increase at different rates and
practical, accurate projections of those different rates are virtually
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXIllBIT VI
City of Dublin
LIBRARY COST AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Year Library Annual Operating Costs Based'on
Revenues Service Hour
Scenarios
34 Hours Per 40 Hours Per 52 Hours Per 56 Hours Per
Week Week Week Week
1998 $ 970,275 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
1999 1,019,712 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2000 1,076,372 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2001 1,146,614 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2002 1,229,096 $ 1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2003 1,288,069 $1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2004 1,326,370 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2005 1.350,673 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2006 1,371,561 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2007 1,412,028 $ 1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2008 1,442,144 $1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2009 1,475,362 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2010 1,508,920 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2011 1,536,495 ":"'$1514754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
iM): . , .... , . .... ....
2012 1,560,968 i"'$1,tl147~ $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
<', '-""'" ".....,. ......".'..., ,
2013 1,588,543 '.ll)il$1;lil~;754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2014 1,613,016 '(i::$~;S14,7~' $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2015 1,637,490 . iilitwil'$1514754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
'.-:t;yf<<. ." _....,
2016 1,669,161 'y"w$1;514,7p.f . $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2017 1,700,143 iwPi.$l;51~;7p.f $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2018 1,731,174 ../$ ':l;51~,7~' $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2019 1,759,472 '\11i'1!.$..1.,DH;7~ +....$J;'7~;122 . $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
2020 1,782,122 +Ip'" $':l,li14;7~. "t!jWA1'$.l'\l754"122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
'7'-"" .'" . ,
2021 1,802,239 11:(1;.;$'1'514754' "~,1$li7~"122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261
, . ,.." ." '. .
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
impossible for a 20 + year planning period. As a result, we believe
that any attempt to project differing cost and revenue increase rates
could blur cost - revenue comparisons, and as a result, have excepted
them from the analysis.
Exhibit VI compares revenues and costs for the vanous
scenarios. The shaded/bold cells under the service hour scenarios
indicate the year when revenues as projected would equal or exceed
costs without any additional City contribution for library services.
The data shown in the chart indicate the following:
· Only the 34 hour and 40 hour weekly service hour
scenarios would have costs covered by revenues without
additional City contribution, and then, only well toward
the end of the planning period as shown in the chart.
Assuming a new library would probably not be
constructed and in full operation until 2000, these two
service hour scenarios would require the following
increase in City General Fund Support.
34 Hour Scenario: $ 438,000 in 2000, decreasing
moderately annually through 2010.
40 Hour Scenario: $ 678,000 in 2000, decreasing
moderately annually through 2018.
· Both the 52 hour and 56 hour scenarios would require
significant additional general fund contributions
through and probably beyond the end of the planning
period of 2021.
52 Hour Scenario: $ 945,000 in 2000, dropping
moderately annually but still $ 267,000 per year in
2021 and probably thereafter.
56 Hour Scenario: $ 1,381,000 in 2000, dropping
moderately annually but still $ 655,000 per year in
2021 and probably thereafter.
It should also be clearly noted that these cost - revenue
comparisons do not include provisions for any debt servIce or
principal retirement related to capital costs required for facility
construction or remodeling and expansion of the collection as
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
previously noted.
(4.) Cost and Revenue Comparisons for a Phased Approach 10
Operations
The significant gaps between costs and revenues raIse the
Issue of immediate or short-term construction and operation of a
30,000 to 34,000 square foot library which has been sized to meet
community needs at buildout based on application of the .6 square
foot of library space per capita standard. As previously demonstrated
in Section 3 of this report, population increase will support need for a
30,000 to 34,000 square foot facility only toward the end of the planning
period.
An alternative would be to implement a phased approach
toward expanding library facilities to avoid some of the major
disparities between operating costs and revenues associated with full
facility operations in the short term. This would involve:
· Building the target 30,000 to 34,000 square foot new
facility, but initially, finishing, opening and operating
only a portion of the total facility and subsequently
finishing and expanding the remainder of the building
as the community grows. Based on the population -..,
space requirements projections shown in Section 3, one
strategy would be to:
Build the new library at the Civic Center site with
a building footprint and external structure of
30,000 to 34,000 square feet of potential library
space.
Initially, open and operate 20,000 square feet to
improve service and provide space generally
consistent with library needs based on current
and short term projected community population.
Then, as the community grows, finish and open
the remaining space to the facility's full
capability.
· The same approach could be employed under the
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 30
I
01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
remodel and expand scenario. Depending on the
detailed architectural analysis, this could involve either:
Remodeling and expanding the current facility to
the full 30,000 square foot target, but initially
opening and operating only a portion of the facility
to the 20,000 square foot level as noted above, or
Remodeling the existing b~ilding and adding one
wing of 7,500 square feet in the short term, and
then, as the community grows, subsequently
building the second wing with another 7,500
square feet to bring the facility to the 30,000 square
foot target.
Based on the previous population and space requirement
projections presented in Section 3, a phased timing scenario could be
as follows:
· Remodel and expand or build a new facility by the year
2000 and finish and operate 20,000 square feet at that
time.
· If a new library is built at the Civic Center site, finish
the additional space (10,000 to 14,000) and expand into
the remainder of the building in 2010.
· If the existing facility is remodeled and expanded, build
and finish to expand to 20,000 to 22,500 square feet in 2000
and either finish or add the second 7,500 square feet to
provide a full 30,000 square foot facility by 2010.
Under this approach, initial operating costs for a 20,000 square
foot facility would be less than those previously presented for the
larger facility in the preceding paragraphs. Table 12 on the next
page shows projected operating costs for operating a 20,000 square
foot library employing the same cost assumptions as previously
described. Costs are projected for 34 weekly service hours which
replicates current service levels.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Table 12
Projected Operating Costs for a
20,000 Square Foot Library
Service Hours 34 Hrs/Wk
Annual
FTE Salary
Salaries & Benefits
- Supervising Librarian II 1.00 $ 61,500
- Librarian II 2.50 110,040
- Library Assistant 1.00 35,796
-Supervising Clerk II 1.00 44,700
- Library Clerk II 3.50 104,958
- Clerk II 1.00 29,988
- Library Page 2.50 47,628
Subtotal 12.5() $ 434,61()
Salary Savings @ -4% (17,384)
Total, Salaries 417,226
Benefits @29.28% 122,164
Total, Salaries & Benefits $ 539,390
Operating Expenses
Services & Supplies 215,005
Library Materials 107,879
Systemwide Support 276,370
Services
Subtotal, Op. Expenses $ 599,254
Countywide Support 68,000
Services
Total, Op. Expenses $ 659,254
County Library Total $ 1,198,644
City Maintenance Costs $ 40,650
Annual Total $ 1,239,294
Based on the proposed scenario of opening and operating 20,000
square feet in 2000 and expanding to 30,000 to 34,000 in 2010, the cost
revenue comparison would be as shown in Table 13 on the next page.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Table 13
Cost Revenue Comparison
Year Library Operating Costs
Revenues 34 Service
Hours
2000 1,076,372 $ 1,239,294
2001 1,146,614 $ 1,239,294
2002 1,229,096 $ 1,239,294
2003 1,288,069 .'. .... $1;239,294
2004 1,326,370 I...... .. $1;239,294:
2005 1.350,673 ...../.../'/...$1;239,294 .
2006 1,371,561 .. ..
2007 1,412,028 ..... '$1;239,294
2008 1,442,144
2009 1,475,362 .. $1,239,29.{
2010 1,508,920 $ 1,514,754
2011 1,536,495 ,,/ $J,514,754
2012 1,560,968 .. $1,514,754
2013 1,588,543 <$1;514,754
2014 1,613,016 ,. $ :1.,514,754
2015 1,637,490 ....... '. '$1514754
, ".
2016 1,669,161 ,.".... .$:1.,514,754
2017 1,700,143 "\.., ..$1,5].4,754
2018 1,731,174 %;..j,4 "'$1""514'754
"'f.'~~'. :rJ'~:":, ::,:"j ,." .
2019 1,759,472 >.'.: "~/.$1;514;754
2020 1,782,122 ""&>>$1514;754
.'..:.-,:.::'<~<~<~ -;: ' .j': ,'" -.-
2021 1,802,239 . "';:.;$].;514,754
As with the previous cost and revenue companson, the bold
and shaded cells show the years when revenues are equal to or
exceed costs and no additional City contribution above those assumed
would be required to support library operations. As shown in the
chart, the phased approach significantly reduces the cost - revenue
gap associated with library improvement and expansion. More
specifically:
· In 2000, there would be a need for an additional $ 163,000
to support operations at the 20,000 square foot level, but
that would rapidly decrease as property tax revenues
increase and would be eliminated by 2003.
· In 2010, when the operation would be expanded from
20,000 to 30,000 square feet, revenues would be nearly
equivalent to costs and little additional subsidy above
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 33
I
"I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
current levels would be required in either 2010 or
throughout the remainder of the planning period.
. During both periods (2000 -- 2010 and 2010 -- 2021), service
hours above the 34 hour level projected could be
increased without additional City contribution once
revenues moved above costs.
The phased approach could also result In a different
sequencing of capital costs. This would involve: (1) Building the
external shell (either new construction or facility expansion) to the
target level, but (2) Finishing only 20,000 square feet of the interior
space. The next table shows sequencing of costs for the 30,000 square
foot remodel/expansion of the existing facility and construction of a
new 34,000 square foot library.
Table 14
Impact of Sequencing on
Capital Cost Requirements
Project Development Cost
Component
Remodel of Existing
Facility
Construction of New 34,000
Square Foot Library
Dollars (000)
Year 2000 Costs
Construction, Finish, and
Other
Collection Enhancement
2000 Total
Year 2010 Costs
Interior Finish and Other
Collection Enhancement
2010 Total
Project Total
413
112
$525
$ 8,057
543
112
$655
$ 11,015
(5.) Cost - Revenue Projections Assuming Increase in General
Fund Contributions to Support Library Operations
The analysis to this point has been based on the assumption
that the City's current General Fund contribution for additional
service hours of $ 216,000 per year would remain constant over the
planning period. Since growth as projected can be expected to
increase General Fund revenues, it is reasonable to assume that this
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
growth will provide the City the potential to increase contributions for
enhanced library services above levels currently funded. The actual
capacity of the General Fund to support enhanced library services is
dependent on a number of factors:
· Growth trends involving other revenues not addressed
by this study such as 'sales tax.
· Changes in allocations of revenues by the State.
· Cost trends related to other City services.
· City Council policies involving priorities and serVIce
levels for all City services.
Detailed projection of General Fund capacities would need to
consider and evaluate each of these factors, and analysis at this level
is beyond the scope of our work.
Nevertheless, it is possible to generally project potential
increases in City contributions to library services based on the
following assumptions:
· General Fund revenues would increase at the same rate
of increase as projected in this study for City assessed
valuation.
· General Fund contributions to library servIces would
continue as a constant proportion of General Fund
expenditures and thus, increase at the same rate as
General Fund revenues.
If these limited assumptions are applied, projected growth In
General Fund contributions would increase as shown in Table 15
which follows on the next page.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 35
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Table 15
illustrative Projected
Increase In General Fund
Contribution to library Service
Operations *
Year
City Assessed
Valuation
(000)
$ 1,796,915
2,007,283
2,224,839
3,415,634
4,089,021
4,636,126
5,251,582
General Fund
Contnbution to
Librar;y Services
$ 216,000
241,242
267,439
410,580
491,525
557,290
631,271
1998
1999
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
* Projections are based on operation oftne fuJl30,000 square foot facility.
If the same proportional General Fund contribution were
continued and growth occurs as projected, this would reduce the
projected operating deficits (without consideration of a per household
fee or assessment) associated with the various service hour scenarios
as shown in the next table.
Table 16
Library Costs and Revenues
Assuming Increase in General Fund
Contributions
Year Librar;y Annual Operating Cost <Deficits) Based on
Revenues Different Service Hour
(000) Scenarios (000)
l"lfilllll~ ... . . 34 Hours 52 Hours Per 56 Hours Per
:1!li~11J.jlll\1li~llt~1Ijli Per 40 Hours Per
Week Week Week Week
2000 $ 1,126 ( $ 389) ($ 628) ($ 896) ($ 1,332)
2005 1,545 (30) (ID) (477) (913)
2010 1,784 ~ (238) (674)
2015 1,977 462 (45) (481)
2020 2,196 681 442 (26)
The bold and shad'3d cells indicate when a deficit would be eliminated
and a surplus of tbe amount available under the various service hour
scenarios. This illustrative analysis indicates that, even if some
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
growth in the General Fund contribution is assumed, there will be a
significant cost-revenue gap for the early years of the planning
period, and for most of the planning period at the higher service hour
levels.
9. FINANCING ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES
The previous analysis of capital and operating costs and revenues
have indicated the following:
· Under any facility scenario, there is a gap between capital
related revenues generated by development fees and project
cost.
· Additionally, projections indicate that revenues available to
fund library operations will increase, but operation of a larger
library at. the current level of service hours or with increased
services will cost more than projected revenues for a
significant number of years in the future. This cost - revenue
gap could be reduced but not eliminated by phasing into a
larger library.
Given the above, we believe the basic assumptions associated with
financing development and operations of a new library are as follows:
· At this time it appears that the City will be financially unable
to contribute a higher proportion of General Fund revenues to
annual library service operations than is currently the case.
· For planning purposes, it is reasonable to assume that this
General Fund contribution will grow at the same rate as the
overall General Fund.
· The County cannot be expected to Increase its subsidy of
annual operations.
· Any annual library costs above library designated property
taxes, the City General Fund contribution, the County subsidy,
and other minor revenues currently available will need to be
supported by new revenues.
· The principal avenue for generating new revenues to support
operations may be a parcel tax/per household assessment.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
· Use of City reserves to make a maior contribution to any library
capital costs for new construction or remodeling which are not
funded by development fee revenues would significantly impact
existing operating revenues for existing City services.
· Because development fees will be received as homes and
bus.inesses are built over a 20 year period, funds may need to be
borrowed to develop a new or improved library if that facility is
to be made available within the next ten years unless the
Council determines that priority will be accorded to a library
project and available development fees (library and for other
purposes) are initially applied to the library project and other
development fee supported projects are delayed.
· For illustrative purposes, we have assumed that remodeling or
construction will need to be funded by borrowing which will
require repayment of both capital and debt service costs.
· Any capital costs not funded by development fee revenues,
including those associated with borrowing, will need to be
covered by new revenues, and the only current practical
approach for generating those revenues is a parcel/tax per
household assessment.
· While State bond revenues for local library construction may be
available, there is no certainty at this time that a bond measure
will be approved, and if it is approved, Dublin will receive
revenues to offset all or some of the cost of new construction.
· As a result, at this time we have assumed that a parcel tax/per,
household assessment may be required to cover unfunded
capital and operating costs.
· A parcel tax will need to be approved by a two-thirds vote.
Based on the assumptions outlined above, we estimated the level of
parcel tax/per household assessment required to fund capital and operating
cost deficits associated with the various alternatives identified by the
Library Planning Task Force. This included calculating debt serVIce
associated with borrowing funds to support construction before full
development fee revenues were received. Appendix B to this report
describes the methodology employed in more detail. It should be clearly
understood that these are estimates and can change significantly based on
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
interest rates; the pace of development which generates development fees;
and/or changes in construction costs, resulting from design or inflation
influences. As a result, the per householdlparcel assessments estimated
in this section are provided to illustrate the order of magnitude d
assessment(s) needed to close the cost - revenue gaps projected for the
various alternatives.
Additionally, any operating cost - revenue gap is associated with the
assumed number of weekly service hours the library would be operated.
The Library Planning Task Force felt strongly, and we agree, that a new or
remodeled library would need to be open at least 40 hours per week (an
increase from the current 40 weekly service hours) to improve service and
generate public support necessary to achieve voter approval of a household
assessment/parcel tax. The sections which follow summanze the
operating, financial characteristics, and projected per household
assessment/parcel taxes which would be needed to fund capital and
operating deficits for each of the alternatives identified by the Task Force in
the absence of other revenues.
(1.) 43.000 Square Foot Library
Characteristics: 34,000 square foot library; 6,000 square for
Career Center; 2,400 square feet for two community meeting
rooms; and 600 square feet for Friends. 40 weekly service hours
when opened. New Construction at Civic Center Site.
Financial Summary:
Cost Item
Project Cost Total
Projected Development Fees
Unfunded Capital
Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt
Service and Principal Repayment
Annual Assessment Per Household for
Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for
New Library
Capital And Debt Service
Service Hours
Per Household Annual Total
Amount
$ 13,697,000
$ 9,293,000
$ 4,404,000
$ 527,000
$40
$40
$~
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Considerations:
. $ 40 of the projected $ 80 parcel tax fee would be for
operations and would be needed to offset revenue deficits
during the initial five to seven years following opening of
the library. After that point, the fee could be reduced, or
maintained and service hours increased to 52 hours by
2005/6 and 56 hours by 2010.
. The Career Center included under this alternative is
unlikely to generate significant rental revenue and
space costs required to build the space for the Career
Center cannot be recouped by development fees. The
annual cost associated with principal repayment and
debt service for facility costs associated with this space is
estimated at up to $ 126,000. This would be equivalent to
$ 10 of the $ 40 portion of the annual assessment required
for unfunded capital. This $ 10 is the equivalent of about
three weekly service hours in 2000.
(2.) 37,000 Square Foot Library
Characteristics: 34,000 square foot library; 2,400 square feet
for two community meeting rooms; and 600 square feet for
Friends. 40 weekly service hours when opened. New
Construction at Civic Center Site.
Financial Summary:
Cost Item
Project Cost Total
Projected Development Fees
Unfunded Capital
Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt
Service and Principal Repayment
Annual Assessment Per Household for
Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for
New Library
Capital And Debt Service
Service Hours
Amount
$ 11,957,000
$ 9,293,000
$ 2,664,000
$396,000
Per Household Annual Total
$70
Considerations:
. $ 40 of the $ 70 parcel fee would be required for operations
and would be needed to offset revenue deficits for the
initial five to seven years following opening of the new
facility. After that point, the fee could be reduced or
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 40
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
maintained and weekly service hours increased to 52
hours by 2005/6 and 56 hours by 2010.
· The Career Center space has been eliminated from this
option, reducing the annual assessment for unfunded
capital from $ 40 to $ 30 per year.
(~.) 34,000 Square Foot Library
Characteristics: A 34,000 square foot library. Like the
Pleasanton Library, the facility could be designed to include
one general purpose meeting room for library and other
programs and the desired Friends space could probably be
accommodated within facility. The other extra meeting rooms
associated with the larger facility alternatives are eliminated.
It is assumed that 40 weekly service hours would be provided
when the new facility opened. The library would be a new
facility constructed at the Civic Center Site.
Financial Summary:
Cost Item
Project Cost Total
Projected Development Fees
Unfunded Capital
Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt
Service and Principal Repayment
Annual Assessment Per Household for
Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for
New Library
Capital And Debt Service
Service Hours
Per Household Annual Total
Amount
$ 11,015,000
$ 8,660,000
$ 2,355,000
$ 360,000
Considerations:
· $ 40 of the projected $ 67 parcel tax/assessment would be
required to fund operations to offset revenue deficits
during the initial five to seven years following opening of
the library. After that point, the fee could either be
reduced or maintained and weekly service hours
increased to 52 hours by 2004/5 and 56 hours by 2010.
· Elimination of extra space for community meeting
rooms and Friends reduces annual parcel fee for debt
service by $ 3 compared to previous 37,000 square foot
facility alternative.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 41
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
(4.) 30.000 Square Foot Library
Characteristics: Current library expanded to 30,000 square
foot at existing site. Extra meeting rooms and Friends space
eliminated. 40 weekly service hours when opened.
Financial Summary:
Cost Item
Project Cost Total
Projected Development Fees
Unfunded Capital
Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt
Service and Principal Repayment
Annual Assessment Per Household for
Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for
New Library
Capital And Debt Service
Service Hours
Per Household Annual Total
Amount
$ 8,057,000
$ 4,826,000
$ 3,231,000
$ 345,000
$26
$40
$66
Considerations:
· $ 40 of the $ 66 parcel tax/per household fee would be
required for operations to offset revenue deficits during
the initial five to seven years after remodeling was
completed at the library opened. After that point, the fee
could be reduced, or maintained and service hours
increased to 52 hours by 2005 and 56 hours by 2010.
· The annual parcel fee for capital retirement and debt
service for the remodeling altemative is about the same
as those required for the 37,000 square foot and 34,000
square foot new library options because of the impact of
including civic center land values in the development fee
calculations for the new construction alternatives.
(5.) 34,000 to 37.000 Equare Foot Library With Phased Operation
Characteristics: 34,000 to 37,000 square foot library. Build
shell and finish 20,000 square feet for library space, expanding
to the full 34,000 square feet as the community grows and
revenues become available. Operate the initial 20,000 square
feet for 40 weekly service hours when the new facility is
completed. New construction at the Civic Center site.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
Financial Summary:
Cost Item
Amount
Project Cost Total
34,000
Square Feet
$ 11,015,000
$ 8,660,000
37,000
Square Feet
$11,957,000
$ 9,293,000
Projected Development Fees
Unfunded Capital
Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt
Service and Principal Repayment
Annual Assessment Per Household for
Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for
New Library
Capital And Debt Service
Service Hours
Per Household Annual Total
$ 2,355,000
$ 2,664,000
$27
$15
$42
$30
$15
$45
Considerations:
· $ 15 of the projected per household assessment/parcel
taxes would be required for operations and would
support 40 initial service hours in the initial 20,000
square foot of finished library space; would provide
sufficient revenues to either open the full 34,000 square
feet of library space by 2005/6 and open it 40 hours per
week, or maintain the smaller space and increase to 48
service hours; and by 2008 provide enough revenue to
open the full 34,000 square feet and operate it 48 hours
per week. .
*
*
*
Exhibit VII, which follows this page, provides a summary
companson of the parcel taxes/household assessments necessary to offset
the capital and operating cost funding deficits associated with each
alternative. Principal conclusions which can be drawn from the
information presented in this section are as follows:
· The Career Center option included in the 43,000 square foot
facility alternatives increases the parcel tax associated with
the other alternatives by $ 10 annually, and this amount
represents at least three weekly service hours in the first year
and that amount increases moderately over the planning
period.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT VII
City of Dublin
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PARCEL FEES/
HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THE LlBRARYDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Option Required Household
Assessment Per Year
Capital Opera- Total
tions
43,000 Square Foot New Facility with
Meeting Space and Career Center - $40 $40 $80
40 Initial Service Hours.
37,000 Square Foot New Library with
Meeting Space - 40 Initial Service $30 $40 $70
Hours.
34,000 Square Foot New Library - 40
Initial Service Hours. $27 $40 $67
30,000 Square Foot Remodeled
Library - 40 Initial Service Hours. $26 $40 $66
37,000 Square Foot - Phased
Operation with 40 Initial Service $30 $15 $45
Hours.
34,000 Square Foot - Phased
Operation with 40 Initial Service $27 $15 $42
Hours.
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Feasibility Analysis of
Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin
. The parcel tax required to support remodeling of the existing
library is about the same as of the 34,000 square foot and 37,000
square foot new library alternatives. As explained at several
points in the report, this is because the new construction
alternatives include the value of the civic center land for a new
facility in the calculation of development fees and the
remodeling alternative does not.. As a result, the new
construction alternatives generate development fees which
cover a higher proportion of actual construction' project cash
cost than do those which can be charged under the remodeling
alternative.
. A phased library operation, without the Career Center, would
provide the same weekly service hours in the initial years as
the non-phased alternatives, and would also generate revenues
sufficient to increase service hours as growth occurs up to 48
hours when the full library facility could be opened in 2008 with
the lowest per parcel taxlhousehold assessment.
*
*
*
The appendixes which follow provides supporting materials
referenced in the main body of this report.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page 45
Appendix A
Representative Library
Project Costs for Recent
California Construction
• and Renovation Projects
1 -
'-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Representative Per Square Foot Costs
For Library Facility New Construction Projects Completed
in California During 1997
Construction
Reported Cost Per Square Foot
Furnishing! Other Project
Finish Costs
$40 $68
17 33
17 28
18 23
11 14
22 110
13 77
10 77
$19 $54
$225
285
170
326
218
207
172
187
$224
Belvedere - Tiburon
Danville
Foster City
Los Angeles - Branch
Los Angeles - Branch
Oakland - Branch
San Diego - Branch
San Diego - Branch
Average
RenovationlRemodeling Costs for California
Library Projects Completed in 1997
Reported Cost Per Square Foot
Construction Furnishing! Other Project
Finish Costs
$00 $W $~
48 19 5
165 N / A 38
80 12 7
166 10 20
ffi 3 m
$102 $ 11 $ID
Arcadia
Chino
Del Mar
Escondida
Los Angeles - Branch
South San Francisco
Average
David M. Griffith & Associates
Total
$333
335
215
367
243
339
262
274
$297
Total
$129
72
203
99
196
86
$131
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed
to Estimate Assessments
Necessary to Support
Library Construction
and
Operations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXB
Methodology Employed
to Estimate Per Household
Assessment Necessary to
Support Library Construction
and Operations
This Appendix describes the approach employed to estimate the per
household assessments required to generate the additional revenues
required to close the cost-revenue gaps associated with the library facility
and operating alternatives described and evaluated in the main body of the
report.
The basic steps employed to calculate the per household assessments
were as follows:
1. First, the amount needed to fund construction/capital costs was
determined as follows:
· Total project cost was compared to total development fees
projected for each library development alternative, and the
unfunded balance determined.
· Then, the projected balance of development fees actually on
hand when construction was likely to begin was estimated
based on:
Current development fee balance for library purposes as
provided by the City.
Projected development fee receipts, for each of the
alternatives, for each year between now and the time
construction began. It was assumed that construction
payments would be required in 2000, and development
fees would be received prior to construction based on City
projections for commercial and residential development
by year and as projected in the main body of the report.
Exhibit A - I, which follows this page, shows projected
development fee receipts by year for the 34,000 square foot
library.
David M. Griffith & Associates
Page B-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXIllBIT A . I
Projected Development Fees for
Library Improvements
By Year
City of Dublin
Assumption: New 34,000 Square Foot Library: Residential Development Fee
for Libraries at $ 555 per unit and $ .13 per square foot average for
commercial and industrial space.
Year Residential Commercial Total for Year Cumulative
Development Development Total
Fees Fees
1998 $ 250,860 $ 126,234 $ 377,194 $ 377,194
1999 361,860 109,019 470,879 848,073
2000 310,245 176,277 486,522 1,334,595
2001 . 458,985 168,477 627,462 1,962,057
2002 344,655 105,102 449,757 2,411,814
2003 323,010 45,302 368,312 2,780,126
2004 274,170 - 274,170 3,054,266
2005 179,265 - 179,265 3,233,531
2006 219,225 90,704 309,929 3,543,460
2007 204,240 77,704 281,944 3,825,404
2008 204,240 90,704 294,944 4,120,348
2009 256,965 77,704 334,669 4,455,017
2010 309,690 33,800 343,490 4,798,507
2011 309,690 20,800 330,490 5,128,997
2012 309,690 33,800 343,490 5,472,487
2013 309,690 20,800 330,490 5,802,977
2014 309,690 20,800 330,490 6,133,467
2015 340,770 49,400 390,170 6,523,637
2016 340,770 46,150 386,920 6,910,557
2017 340,770 46,150 386,920 7,297,477
2018 340,770 44,590 385,360 7,682,837
2019 254,190 20,150 274,340 7,957,177
2020 254,190 8,710 262,900 8,220,077
2021 83,805 9,750 93,555 8,313,632
2022 31,080 - 31,080 8,344,712
2023 31,080 - 31,080 8,375,792
David M. Griffith & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
· Then, since it was assumed that construction would be
initiated/completed around the year 2000, it was assumed that
borrowing would be required to fund the following amount:
Total Project Cash Cost
(minus)
Development Fees on
Hand When Construction Begins
Employing the 34,000 square foot library alternative, this
yields the following:
Total Project Cash Cost: $ 11,015,000
(minus)
Available Development Fees in 2000: $ 1,335,000
Equals Capital Funds to Be Borrowed: $ 9,680,000
2. Then, bOITowing costs were estimated as follows:
· Principal was calculated based on the results of the above
calculation.
· It was assumed that the required amount would be borrowed
for 20 years and that the current approximate average interest
rate for municipal bonds in California (provided by A.G.
Edwards) of 4 % to 5 % would be employed to estimate interest
costs. For the purposes of this analysis, we have used 5 %.
Employing the 34,000 square foot facility example, payments
for each of the 20 year planning period were calculated as
follows:
Principal payments were calculated by dividing the
$ 9,680,000 by 20 payment periods yielding an average
payment of $ 484,000 per year.
Average annual interest cost was calculated as follows:
Total amount borrowed: $ 9,680,000
Amount Outstanding at the mid-point of the payment period
(Year 10): $ 4,840,000. This reflects average annual
outstanding balance for the 20 year period.
Times .05 for average annual interest rate for the twenty
year period: $ 242,000
Principal Average Per Year: $ 484,000
Average Debt Service Per Year: $ 242.000
Total: $ 726,000
Appendix B
Page B-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
· Then, average annual development fee revenues available to
apply to principal and debt service were estimated by dividing
the projected development fee revenue for the alternative by 20
years (minus amounts collected pnor to the beginning of
construction). For the example, the calculation is as follows:
"Total Development Fee Revenue:
Less Amount Collected:
Net to Be Received:
Divided By 20:
$ 8,660,000
$1,335,000
$ 7,325,000
$ 366,000
3. Then, the level of assessment necessary to cover unfunded capital
and debt retirement was calculated. It should be noted that the
development fee amount collected shown above is the amount
projected to be collected in the first three years as shown in Exhibit
IA. This amount was then deducted from the average annual
payment for principal and interest to determine the net annual
amount which would need to be funded by another revenue source --
in this case, a parcel tax/household assessment. The calculation for
the example was as follows:
Total Annual Principal and Debt Service:
Less Development Fee Revenue Average Per Year:
Equals Net Unfunded Annual Amount:
$ 726,000
366.000
$ 360,000
· This amount was then compared to the projected number of
units, by five year increment over the planning period, to
estimate the magnitude of a parcel fee necessary to fund the
unfunded capital and debt service costs. Total residential units
were estimated by dividing projected population by an average
household size of 2.5 and adding projected new units by year to-
the existing number of households to determine the total
number of households against which the assessment could be
applied during each year over the planning period. For the
example, this yielded the following:
Year
Total Number of
Residential Units
9,869
12,796
14,912
17,725
Capital and Debt
Service Deficit
$ 360,000
$ 360,000
$ 360,000
$ 360,000
Amount Per Unit
2000
2005
2010
2015
Period Average
$36
28
24
20
$27
· The estimated parcel fee for capital and debt service for each
year was determined by dividing the annual amount for capital
and debt service by the number of residential units per year,
and an average for the period determined as shown above.
Appendix B Page B - 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
· The average of $ 27 was employed to estimate the annual
assessment necessary to cover unfunded capital and debt
service costs over the planning period.
· A comparable approach was employed to estimate
assessments required to cover unfunded capital and debt
service associated with each of the other facility alternatives.
The next table shows summary calculations for each.
43,000 Square Foot
New Facility
Cash Cost of Project
Projected
Development Fees
Development Fees
Available at Project
Initiation
Capital Amount
Needed to Be Funded
by Debt
Annual Payment
Principal
Interest
Total
Average Annual
Development Fee
Revenue
Net Annual
Payment Unfunded 527 396 345
Assessment Required Based On Growth Projections - Year and Households Projected
$ 13,697
37,000 Square Foot
New Facility
Dollars in (000)
$ 11,957
30,000 Square Foot
RemodellExpansion
$ 8,057
9,293
9,293
4,826
1,433
1,433
744
12,264
10,524
7,313
613
307
920
526
263
789
366
183
549
393
393
204
2000 - 9,869 DUs $53 $40 $35
2005 - 12,796 DUs 41 31 27
2010 - 14,912 DUs 35 27 23
2015 -17,725 DUs 30 22 19
Average
Assessment $40 $30 $26
4. Operating costs were projected and compared to revenues, annual
deficits noted, and the level of assessment required to cover that gap
was calculated. This involved the following steps:
· Costs for operating the library were determined based on the
analysis provided in the main body of the report. This example
reflects operating the new 34,000 square fuot library 40 hours
per week to reflect the Task Force's belief that a new facility
would need to have increased service hours to build
community support for an assessment for library services.
Appendix B
Page B - 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
Projections for the example assume operation of the full
facility.
· Costs were compared to projected base revenues, by year, and
annual operating deficits which would need to be covered by an
assessment determined. Revenues were projected based on the
following assumptions:
Library related property taxes as projected in'the main
body of the report.
The County's current "subsidy" projected at current
levels with no increase assumed.
The City's current General Fund contribution which
was assumed to increase consistent with overall
property tax increase as described in the main body of
the report.
· Costs and base revenues were compared and deficits
calculated as shown in the table which follows below.
Year Projected Base Operating Cost for (Deficit)
Revenues 40 Hours Smplus
(000) (000) (000)
2000 $1,126 $ 1,754 ($ 628)
2001 1,210 $ 1,754 (544)
2002 1,294 $1,754 (460)
2003 1,378 $ 1,754 (376)
2004 1,462 $1,754 (292)
2005 1,545 $ 1,754 (209)
2006 1,593 $ 1,'754 (161)
2007 1,641 $1,754 (113)
2008 1,689 $ 1,754 (65)
2009 1,737 $ 1,754 (17)
2010 1,784 $1,754 +30
Deficits were then compared to the number of households
projected for each year to estimate the level of assessment
required each year to cover the projected deficits as shown in
the table on the next page.
Appendix B Page B - 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
Year Projected (Deficit) Assessment
Number of Surplus Required to cover
Households (000) Projected Deficit
2000 9,869 (628) $63
2001 10,713 (544) 51
2002 . 11,354 (460) 41
2003 11,950 (376) 31
2004 12,448 (292) 23
2005 12,796 (209) 16
2006 13,204 (161) 12
2007 13,557 (113) 8
2008 13,910 (65) 5
2009 14,362 (17) 1
2010 14,912 +30 -
.
As can be seen from the table above, required assessment
amounts vary by year as growth and the number of households
across which the assessment can be levied increases. As a
result, an attempt was made to estimate a consistent or
common assessment which could be employed for multiple
years. This involved "averaging" the assessment for the initial
years, and then determining cash flow by year and ultimate
impact on both costs and service hours as growth occurs. For
example, review of the information presented in the table above
indicated that an assessment in the $ 40 per household range
would probably be consistent with overall cash flow
requirements for the alternative under analysis. The next
table shows how that was tested.
Year Projected Projected Additional Net (Deficit) Service
Base (Deficit) Revenue at Surplus Hours
Number of Surplus $40 (000)
Households (000) Assessment
(000)
Annual Cumul.
2000 9,869 ( $628) $395 ($ 233) ($ 233) 40
2001 10,713 (544) 429 (115) ( 348) 40
2002 11,354 (460) 454 (4) (352) 40
2003 11,950 (376) 478 102 (250) 40
2004 12,448 (292) 498 206 40
2005 12,796 (209) 512 303 52
2006 13,204 (161) 528 367 52
2007 13,557 (113) 542 429 52
2008 13,910 (65) 556 491 56
2009 14,362 (17) 574 557 56
2010 14,912 +30 596 626 56
The $ 40 hour assessment would result in short-term deficits
in the initial two years, but those deficits would be eliminated
Appendix B Page B - 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
as growth occurs and a net revenue surplus would be
generated by 2004. Following that, the assessment could be
reduced or eliminated, or sustained and service hours
increased as indicated in right hand column of the previous
table.
The same methodology was employed to estimate assessments'
associated with facility phasing alternatives. The phasing
alternative consisted of: (1) Building/remodeling 30,000 to 34,000
square feet of library space; (2) Initially opening and operating 20,000
square feet of the 34,000 square foot library, and (3) Then, as growth
occurs, finishing the remaining space and opening the full facility
later in the planning period as growth occurs. Relevant calculations
are as follows:
· Costs and base revenues were compared and deficits
calculated as shown in the table which follows below.
Year Projected Base Operating Cost for Smplus
Revenues 40 Hours (Deficit)
(000) (000) (000)
2000 $1,126 $ 1,363 * ($ 237)
2001 1,210 $ 1,363 ( $ 153)
2002 1,294 $ 1,363 ( $ 69)
2003 1,378 $ 1,363 $15
2004 1,462 $ 1,363 $99
2005 1,545 $ 1,363 $182
2006 1,593 $ 1,363 $230
2007 1,641 $ 1,363 $278
2008 1,689 $ 1,363 $326
2009 1,737 $ 1,363 $374
2010 1,784 $ 1,363 $421
* Operating costs for 20,000 square feet with 40 weekly service hours.
As indicated in the table above, the deficit associated with
operating the smaller facility 40 hours per week is eliminated
relatively quickly as growth occurs, and a surplus is created
which, if combined with a parcel fee, could be employed to add
service hours or open the full facility.
· Projected deficits and surpluses were then compared to the
number of households projected for each year to estimate the
level of assessment required each year to cover the projected
deficits as shown in the table on the next page.
Appendix B Page B - 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
Year Projected (Deficit) Assessment
Number of Surplus Required to cover
Households (000) Projected Deficit
2000 9,869 ($ 237) $24
2001 10,713 ( $ 153) 14
2002 11,354 " ( $ 69) 6
2003 11,950 $15 0
2004 12,448 $99 0
2005 12,796 $182 0
2006 13,204 $230 0
2007 13,557 $278 0
2008 13,910 $326 0
2009 14,362 $374 0
2010 14,912 $421 0
Year Projected Projected Additional Net (Deficit)
Base (Deficit) Revenue at Surplus
Number of Surplus $15 (000)
Households (000) Assessment
(000)
Annual Cumul.
2000 9,869 ($ 237) $148 ($ 89) ($ 89)
2001 10,713 ( $ 153) 161 8 (81)
2002 11,354 ( $ 69) 170 111
2003 11,950 $15 179 195
2004 12,448 $99 187 286
2005 12,796 $182 192 374
2006 13,204 $230 198 428
2007 13,557 $278 203 481
2008 13,910 $326 209 535
2009 14,362 $374 215 589
2010 14,912 $421 224 645
Appendix B Page B - 9
.
As can be seen from the table above, required assessment
amounts vary by year as growth occurs and the number of
households across which the assessment can be levied
increases. At the smaller initial facility size, the deficit
decreases rapidly. As a result, an attempt was made to
estimate a consistent or common assessment which could be
employed for multiple years to include covering costs when the
facility was expanded to the full operating and service space.
This involved "averaging" the assessment for the initial years,
and then determining cash flow by year and ultimate impact
on both costs and service hours as growth and facility
expansion occurs. For example, review of the information
presented in the table above indicated that an assessment in
the $ 15 per household range would probably be consistent with
overall cash flow requirements for the alternative under
analysis. The next table shows how that was tested.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments
The information shown in the table on the previous page
indicates that total revenue (base plus that generated by the $ 15
assessment/parcel fee) would generate sufficient revenues by
2005/2006 to open the full 30,000/34,000 square feet 40 hours per week,
or expand service hours in the smaller facility if the decision were
made to defer expanding into the full facility until community
population required the full facility. For example, by 2005, revenues
would totaJ about $ 1.74 million which compares to the projected cost
of operating a 30,000/34,000 square foot facility 40 hours per week.
Appendix B
Page B-1 0
EXHIBIT 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY
DUBLIN LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS
FIGURES FROM 1993 REPORT
(Includes Incarcerated Population)
YEAR PROJECTED SQ. FT. REQUIRED SQ. FT. REQUIRED
POPULATION AT ..5 PER CAPITA AT.6 PER CAPITA
2000 34,100 17,050 20,460
2005 49,600 24,800 29,760
2010 63,400 31,750 38,000
Build Out (2022) 77,100 38,550 46,260
Total Less 4000
in carcera ted 73,100 36,550 43,860
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY
DUBLIN LIBRARY SPACE NEED
BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION PROJECTION
(Less Incarcerated Population)
YEAR PROJECTED SQ. FT. REQUIRED SQ. FT. REQUIRED
POPULA nON AT .5 PER CAPITA AT .6 PER CAPITA
2000 26,133 13,067 15,680
2005 32,709 19,355 23,226
2010 49,000 24,500 29,400
Build Out (2022) 58,000 29,000 34,800
Total less 4000 58,000 29,000 34,800
incarcerated
4 ./'.
.
.
.
rJ'l
"""
rJ'l
~
~
~
;::l
t:
~~
~~
~S
~ =
~N
Z .s
~~
~~
~~
r;;;1C1'\
r-c1""C
~
~
U
<
r-c
u
....
~
c:l
;::l
~
=~
0<
=:w
~>-
..J
E:5
o
E-
\O...-II\O....-I....-It'---...-
OOOOOOO-O\N
-.rOONOOMMM
N~ f"'-~ 00 O\~ -.r- ori -~
f"'-f"'-OO-.r--\O
1rl--.rNN-OO
..;-r-:oriM' M'
liI'}
l'I'l
<:>
<:>
M
I
N
<:>
<:>
N
~
<:>1rl00<:>0\-.r-.r
\ONO\-o\O\M
f"'--.r-f"'--.rMf"'-
0\ 0\ 00 -D 00 00- M'
f"'-N-.rOOMNIrl
-.r ("1 <:>~ Irl \0-
- -
~
M
<:>
<:>
~
-
<:>
<:>
N
>-
r>:.
-.r-.r.....O\Moo\O
000\0\<:>~f"'-f"'-
-.rIrlNOO\\OOO
oo~ N- \0- -.r~ -D 0\ -.r-
f"'-NO\\OIrl-.r\O
N_ ~ -.r_ 00 0\ N
- --
~
-
<:>
<:>
N
e!
<:>
<:>
~
<:>IrlMIrl<:><:>0
<:>O\OONN\O\O
O\f"'-OOf"'-<:>\O<:>
0\ 00 -.r~ -- ...; -.D \0-
ooNO\--.r-f"'-
00"'10\\0 \0-
-
liI'}
<:>
<:>
<:>
N
~
0\
0\
-
>-
r>:.
O\O\MM\ONOO
IrlMM-.r.....-N
-.rMf"'-\O-.rf"'-1rl
r: 'I1ff:!f"" ("'.I" ....-I.. .,..; .......... 0\-
N-.rO\f"'-Moo<:>
O\o_f"'-~ 1"'1-
~
CI'\
0'\
0'\
....
I
ClO
CI'\
0'\
....
>-
r..
-\ON N f"'-OO \0
OMf"'--O\\O<:>
00 Irl<:>0\\0 N\0
ori -- IJ;)- N -.r- M' 00-
O'\Nf"'-IrlN-1J;)
1rlf"'--.rM N
liI'}
g~s~::e~~
<:>_--oof"'-\01rl
...... ........ 0" N.... 'IfIIIIIII4- V).. 00'"
<:>MOO\ONNOO
-.rOO\OM 1"'1
~
I
E
~
8
~
>
"0 8 '"
a 0. t>ll
....1 !l .5
"0
~~:;
Q., Q., co ...
.0.0.0 .a
.- ...... .- ~
333 ~a
~ ~ ~ ... .2
o 0 0 :S .~
UUU....1U
S
Q
Cl)
8
Cl)
>
o
...
0.
.5
~
Q., ...
8~
-Eu
..8 .2
-;bee
._ :;;I
Cl) cr
z<
l'I'l l'I'l
co co
""il' -.r
Q\ Q\
f"'- f"'-
\0 \0
.; .;
N N
VI {o"}
<:>
M
r--
.;
\0
N
.;
(,I')
r--
r--
ClO
N
l'I'l
00
'lS
(,I')
l'I'l
-.r
<:>
Q\
Irl
\0
.;
(,I')
<:>
Irl
00
aO
Irl
r--
l"i
VI
M
0'\
co
N
Irl
-.r
M
VI
....
<:>
--:.
....
....
r--
N
(,I')
..J
<
E-
o
E-
l'I'l
00
..,
Q\
r--
\0
.;
N
VI
l'I'l
\0
r--
.;
....
-.r
Q
M
(,I')
\0
00
co
...;
00
Irl
l"i
....
(,I')
1""1
""il'
00
N
N
0'\
aO
(,I')
l'I'l
0'\
0'\
~
....
iii
VI
....
<:>
....
....
-
r--
N
(,I'j
~
~
z
~
~
~
E-
o
E-
~
E-
<
..J
;l
~
;l
U
OIrlNOO
Irlf"'-NOO
O\I'--\OOIJ;)
r-: OO~ N N- M'
ooO\OO'\N
OO""'f"'-\O~
M' N- -
VI
o
o
o
o~
Irl
.....
-
o 0
Irl 0
o 0
v;J- N-
1.0 0\
0_ f"'-
Irl-.r
NOO
1'--00
N- ..;-
-.rl'--
1'--0\
N-
o 00
Irl M
0'\ r--
r-: r-:
00 M
VI
-
~..Io:
"0' ta
p::Q.,
Q "0 '"
.9 g ~
<II ..Q Q.,
a ;]"0
~ c....Q 0
..... ~ oJ)~
1~1~!
~ ;>- ~ .-
~~g~~
Q.,Q.,Cl)Q.,,,:=
Co: Co: p:: ..:::: t.l
Cl) CI.l ... t.l a
66E~~
:E:Eo ~
~ ~ ~ Cl)
Cl) Cl) .2 ,J:l ~
8 e .~ :;;I "'5
~~UQu:l
o
o
-.r
..,;
Irl
Irl
o
o
(''t
0\
\0
q
.....
r-- r--
.., -.r
0'\ 0'\
.; .;
r- r-
.., -.r
aO aO
VI (,I'j
<:>
<:>
-.r
.;
<:>
~
....
r-
..,
0'\
.;
r--
..,
aO
(,I')
(,I')
~
ltl
Q
r-
r--
'lS
(,I')
<:>
<:>
M
Q\
1.0
q
-
r-
..,.
Irl
o
r-
r-
'Ii
VI
fII'j
<:>
Irl
q
ClO
ltl
ac:..
....
r--
""il'
"'l
....
<:>
r--
.n
(,I')
(,I')
0'\
<:>
\0
r:
....
l"';.
l'I'l
r-
0'\
N~
1""1
..,
ClO
l"i
fII'j
(,I')
ClO
00
1.0
iii
N
....
ClO
co
1.0
.n
N
....
(,I')
fII'j
u:l
~
p
!::
Cl
Z
ril
~
~
~
b
E-o
~
~
~
..J
P
~
;l
U
Vi
~
~
....
Q
~
ril~
Uvi
Z>
~~
~1oQ
~~
Cl.....
..J
g
E-
1.0
1""1
ltl
.;
<:>
N~
\0
....
{o"}
o
N
1""1
Q
\0
Irl
N
{o"}
r-
r-
go
N
l'I'l
00
'Ii
CII'}
1""1
..,
ClO
0\
ClO
Irl
l"i
(,I')
o
<:>
00
o
<:>
~
....
CII'}
-
r--
....
l"';.
""il'
1.0
N
...;
-
fII'j
1""1
....
""il'
.n
ClO
Irl
N
CII'}
1.0
M
Irl
.;
o
N
'Ii
....
CII'}
1.0
M
Irl
..,;
o
N
'Ii
....
(,I'j
1.0
....
M
.;
-.r
\0
l"i
....
CII')
0'\
M
"'l
....
....
go
'lS
(,I'j
1.0
0\
..,~
....
N
N
l"i
(,I'j
1.0
0'\
\0
o
N
"'l
-
{o"}
l""l
....
..,
.n
ClO
ltl
N
(,I'j
~
U
Zoo
~~
rilt::
~=
~z
-1oQ
Clt.,
~;<
>1oQ
-vi
S~
;lZ
~~
B~
EXHIBIT B