HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 060-99 PublicFacilitiesFeeRESOLUTION NO. 60 - 99
A RESOLUTION OF TI~E CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECITALS
WHEKEAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
· 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to pay
for municipally owned public facilities within "Eastern Dublin" and within the jurisdictional limits of the
City of Dublin (excluding areas within Eastern Dublin); and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan ("SP") were
adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres within the City's
eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of
commercial, office, and industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for
approximately 3313 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land Use Map contained
in the GPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area shown on the Land Use Map as "Future
Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report CEIR") was prepared for the GPA and SP
(SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two
Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the Council on July 25, 1994,
by Resolution No. 77-94, and the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council on
June 16, 1998 ("Park MaSter Plans");
WHEREAS, the City approved a Library Planning Task Force RepOrt, dated April 1993, and a
subsequent Library Planning Task Force Report dated September 1998 ("Library Reports"); and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document ("Civic Center
Report") dated November 1986;
WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Keport, SP, EIR and Addenda
describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the SP, including completion of City
office space, construction of a library, acquisition and construction of parks and community facilities;
WI-tEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain municipal public facilities would be
constructed and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adOpted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which includes mitigation measures to assure that
development within Eastern Dublin pays its proPortionate share of municipal public facilities necessary to
mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda
describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the City of Dublin
and Eastern Dublin through the year 2025, and contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public
.facilities required by future development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a
"Public Facilities Fee" for development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of
Dublin by Recht Hausrath & Associates, in a document dated March 1996 and entitled "City of Dublin
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (hereatter "Study"); and
WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 32-96 provides that the City will periodically review the
Public Facilities Fee and make revisions as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved general plan amendments for development in Western
Dublin (Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment) and for development within Dublin (Park Sierra
General Plan Amendment and Starward Drive General Plan Amendment) since the adoption of Resolution
No. 32-96; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Hausrath Economics Group to assist the City in reviewing and
updating the Public Facilities Fee; and
WHEREAS, Hausrath Economics Group has prepared a revised report dated February 1999 and
entitled "Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update" (hereafter "Study Update") which is attached as Exhibit
B; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96, in reliance on the Study, sets forth the relationship between
future development in Dublin and Eastern Dublin, the needed public facilities and improvements, and the
estimated cost of those public facilities and improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Public Facilities
Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to account for approval of general plan amendments since the Study,
(2) to include a "Neighborhood Parks Land" and a "Neighborhood Parks, Improvement" component for
Western Dublin limited to the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment area 0nly which is within the City
of Dublin; (3) to update real property costs; (4) to reflect the change in plans for library services from two
libraries to one library; (5) to update the needed expansion of the Civic Center; and (5) to reflect more
accurately worker usage of libraries and parks; and
2
WHEREAS, the Study Update was available for public inspection and review for ten days prior to
this public heating; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee" ) is to finance municipal public
facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin.
Such facilities, which are specifically described in the study, include the following: completion of the Civic
Center office space; construction ora new library; relocation and expansion of the existing senior center;
acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks and community buildings (including a
. community theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center). The public facilities
described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities".
B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Study Update, the testimony received at this noticed public
hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic
Center Report, the GPA, the SP, the EIR and Addenda, and all correspondence received (hereafter
"record") the Council approves and adopts the Study Update, and incorporates such herein, and further
finds that the future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the
Facilities and the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library
Reports, the Civic Center Report, the GPA and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within Eastern Dublin is within the
scope of the EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate
development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the Facilities, were
adequately analyzed at a Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR, no substantial changes
in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require
important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent
project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such
Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities
at this stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 30-year period and specific details as to their
timing, construction and precise location are .not presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin (excluding
Eastern Dublin) is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing
service areas; that the City currently provides neighborhood and community park services, community and
recreation facilities services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library
System currently provide library services; that the public facilities fee will be used to maintain current
service levels; and that existing deficiency costs are not included in the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to
development within the City (excluding Eastern Dublin) is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA
(Public Resources Code §21080(b)(8)(D)).
3
F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI {}7 of the
California Constitution.
G. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities and the
impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in
the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both residential and non-residential -- will generate persons
who live, work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for
the Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the
· construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both residential and non-residential -- generates
or contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost
of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin
in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of
land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which development
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study Update, the September 1998 Library
Planning Task Force Report and the Park Master Plans are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the
Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs
of constructing the Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair and
reasonable relationship to, and is roughly proportional to, each development's burden on, and benefit from,
the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or
employees each particular development will generate.
H. The Study Update is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin, the existing deficiencies and the public facilities
required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions.
a. "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities for the purchase and sale of commodities
and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities and services and other
space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not limited to: apparel and
clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons;
book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments;
4
furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and
improvement centers; hotel/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping
centers; supermarkets; and theaters.
b. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition of any building or
structure within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin.
c. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan Amendment Study
Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting the property designated as "Future
Study Area/Agriculture."
d. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in the
· Study Update and as described in the Park Master Plans, the September 1998 Library Planning Task Force
Report, the Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable
alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate
eonstmction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a
reasonable relationship between development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin and the
need for the alternative facilities (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the
Study Update, and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development's fair and
proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
e. "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the manufacture, production, assembly, and
processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial land uses
include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractor's storage yards;
fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing;
warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy commercial uses.
f. "Multiple Family" shall mean any dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building
Code, as adopted by the City, which is constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for
6.1 or more units (whether attached or detached) per acre.
g. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical and professional
offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, and
research and development and other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include but
are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices; insurance offices; legal
offices; medical and health services offices; offices and office buildings; professional and administrative
offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and development and travel agencies.
h. "Single Family" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code
(UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated
in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units (whether attached or detached) per acre.
i. "Western Dublin" shall mean only the property within the Schaefer Ranch General
Plan Amendment area.
2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
a. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Single Family and
Multiple Family residential unit within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin when the Certificate of
Occupancy for the unit is issued, provided that the Fee shall be payable when the building permit is issued
for any such unit from and after the date the City Council approves a Capital Improvement program for the
Facilities.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within the
City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin when the building permit is issued for construction of such
building or structure.
c. A fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential development for any addition to
an exiting building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet.
d. Any use of land which is not included in the definition of"Commercial,"
"Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Community Development Director to one of the three
categories, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definitions of such terms.
3. Amount of Fee.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated
herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(1) AnY alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that
a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing
multi-family residential unit;
(2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that
has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within
one year after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction increases
the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure
that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained
within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and there is no change in the land use
designation of the property (as between Commercial, Office and Industrial).
(4) Any non-residential building or structure constructed on property on which a
building or structure was demolished for which the Fee had been paid within the prior ten year period,
provided the exemption shall be in the amount of the previously-paid Fee only and the applicant shall Pay
any additional amount based on the then-current Fee.
6
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Capital Project
Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to account for such
revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for
the following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisition and
construction ofthe Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds
from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from
grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Facilities.
(3) To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Facilities
which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities and only for the
purpose for which the Fee was collected.
6. Standards.
The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the standards of the City
of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library
Reports, the Civic Center Report, the GPA, SP, EI~ and Addenda.
7. Existing Deficiencies.
The Study Update identifies existing deficiencies and calculates the deficiency for
community parks, community buildings, and library space. The City Council shall by resolution identifiy
funding sources for the existing deficiencies.
8. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of Fees in each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as
part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of
availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be
adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable
relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
7
9. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the Council in reliance on the
record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether
the Fee should be revised. When additibnal information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee
to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of
Dublin and within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and
conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP, Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic
Center Report and General Plan, as well as increases due to changes in construction costs and land values.
The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years.
10. Automatic Adjustment in Fee.
The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in
years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 9 above.
The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July 1, 2000 and each July 1
thereafter, as follows:
a. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown on Table 3.7 for parks; Table
4.4 for community/recreation facilities (including the aquatic center); Table 5.4 for library facilities; Table
6.3 for Civic Center expansion in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased by the annual percentage
increase/decrease in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the
month of April over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year. The City
Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
b. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities as shown on Table 3.4 for Neighborhood
and Community Parks and Table 5.4 for library land in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased
annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land
appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the
immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the
same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, if the appraised land value in
Year One is $10/acre and in Year Two is $11/acre, that is an annual increase of 10% which will result in a
yearly increase of 10%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 9 above. The City
Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
11. Administrative Guidelines.
The Council shall, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide procedures for
calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative aspects of the Fee. Such
guidelines shall include procedures for construction of designated Facilities by developers.
The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works
Director using the costs of construction and land values used by the City in calculating and establishing the
Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor
shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements
constructed are the Improvements and Facilkies described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from
revenues raised by payment of the Fee.
12. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3
of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution and shall
supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 32-96 sixty (60) days from the effective date of this
resolution.
13. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any
individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and
unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the
Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Howard, Lockhart, McCormick, Zika and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
If:/G/4-6-99/reso-fee~pubfac
MAYOR
9
i
HAUSRATH
ECONOMICS
GROUP
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY
1998 UPDATE
A Report to the
CITY OF DUBLIN
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
H_AUSIL4~Tff ECONOMICS GROUP
February1999
1212 BROADWAY, SUITE 1500, OAKLAND, CA 94612-1817
T: 510.839.8383 F: 510.839.8415
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vi
SITUATION .............................................................................................................................. vi
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................... vi
FACILITIES COST ........................: .......................................................................................... vi
FEE LEVELS ............................................................. · ................................................................. x
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES .................................................................................................... xii
CI-LAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORN.'IA ............................................................ 1
FEE DETERMINATION ........................................... ' ................................................................ 2
New Development Projections ........................... : ................................................................... 2
Facilities Requirements ........................................................................................................... 2
Facilities Costs ................ ....... : .................. , ............................................................................. 3
Facilities Cost Allocation..: .....................................................................................................
CHAPTER 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ..............................................................4
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 4
DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION ................................................................................... 5
Residential Projections ............................................................................................................ 8
Non.residential Projections ...................................................................................................... 8
TE1LMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3: NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS ............................................ 10
EXISTING FACILITIES .......................................................................................................... 10
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS ................................................................................ 12
P)~,_K COSTS .......................................................................................................................... 14
COST .A&.LOCATION ................................. ~ ............................................................................ 16
CHA_PTER 4: COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES ............................................ 18
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................................................................... 18
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS ............................................................................. 19
COST .ALLOCATION .............................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 5: LIBRARIES .......................................... ; ...................... : ....................................... 2.3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................................................................... 23
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ....................................... 24
COST .ALLOCATION .............................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 6: CIVIC CENTER ................................................................................................... 28
Hausrath Economics Group i
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES .......................................................................... : 28
COST ALLOCATION .............................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 7: CALCULATION OF FEES AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .............. 31
SUMMARY OF COSTS .......................................................................................................... 3 I
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE ............................................................................................... ~ 33
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................... 36
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND QUIMBY
ORDINANCE ............................. : ............................................................................................. 36
APPENDIX A: EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................. 39
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 39
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES 39
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
CHANGES IN FEE LEVEL, 1996 TO 1998 ..................................................... 43
CIVIC CENTER COST ALLOCATION DOCUMENTATION ...................... 45
tIausrath Economics Group ii
Table E. I
Table E.2
Table E.3
Table E.4
Table E.5
Table 2. I
Table 2.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
LIST OF TABLES
Residential Development and Population Projections ........................................ viii
Nonresidential Development and Population Projections .................................... ix
Costs of Expanding Facilities to Accommodate Growth ....................................... x
Fee by Land Use Type and Area ........................................................................... xi
Summary of Existing Deficiencies ...................................................................... xii
Residential Development and Population Projections ........................................... 6
Nonresidential Development and Population Projections ..................... : ............... 7
Existing Parks Inventory ....................................................... :. ............................. 11
Parks Expansion Needed to Serve Growth .......................................................... 12
Service Populations for Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks ................. 14
Park Land and Development Cost ....................................................................... 15
Cost to Expand Parks ........................................................................................... 16
Park Expansion Cost per Resident ....................................................................... 17
Community Park Expansion Cost per Worker ............ : ........................................ 17
Existing and ProPosed Community/Re~reation Facilities Inventory ...................19
Community/Recreation Facilities Service Population .................... - ..................... 20
Community/Recreation Facilities E.xpansion Needed to SerYe Growth .............. 21
Cost to Expand Community/Recreation Facilities ............................................... 21
Community/Recreation Facilities Expansion Cost per Capita ............................. 22
Existing and Proposed Library Facilities Inventory ............................................ 23
Library Service Population .................................................................................. 24
Library Expansion Needed to Serve Growth ....................................................... 25
Cost to Expand Library Facilities ........................................................................ 26
Library Cost per Capita .................................... ' .................................................... 27
Existing and Proposed Civic Center/Police Facilities Inventory ......................... 28
Civic Center Service Population .......: .................................................................. 29
Civic Center Total Expansion Cost and Cost per Capita ......... : ........................... 30
Total Expansion Cost to Serve Growth ............................................................... 32
Impact Fee by Residential Land Use ................................................................... 34
Impact Fee by Commercial and Industrial Land Use .......................................... 35
Park Impact Fee per Single Family Residence .................................................... 37
Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication ........................................ 38
ttausrath Economics Group iii
pREFACE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Dublin requested this revision of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study in
order to update demographics, costs, and standards to reflect changes since the previous analysis
was carried out in 1995.
Localities imposing development impact fees typically update cost-related information on a
yearly basis. This enables the fee to be adjusted for the effects of inflation so that fee revenue is
sufficient to cover costs of expanding -facilities to serve new development.
Demographic and facilities inventory information is typically updated on a three- to five-year
cycle. Increases in the population of workers and residents tend to be accompanied by changes
in the total capital inventory. Updating this information allows existing deficiencies to be
recalculated. In some cases, the fee is based on the current year inventory standard, which is also
recalculated with thisf information. ~
Finally, changes in General Plans and facility master plans can cause planned service standards
to increase or decrease, with a concomitant effect on ~ertain fees.
In the case of the City of Dublin, changes in all these categories have led for a need to update its
fee documentation. The updates made to the 1996 report, which relied on data from 1995, are
summarized below.
Cost Updates
Costs of construction and acquisition of capital facilities change over time, primarily due to
inflation. The following costs have increased since they were determined in 1995:
Parkland values and park improvement costs per acre;
Community/recreation facilities per-square-foot construction cost;
Library per-square-foot construction cost; and
· Civic Center per-square-foot construction cost.
Changes in Current and Future Population
Changes in current and future resident and worker population estimates affect calculated fees for
all facility types, by changing the denominator used to calculate the facility standard per capita
and/or the average cost per capita of expansion. The following changes were made (see Chapter
2):
· Development projections were changed to reflect recent General Plan revisions
and development since 1995.
~ Among the fees calculated in this report, the only one relying on a current facility standard is the Civic
Center component. This report documents that the Civic Center fee is set substantially below what is justified using
the current standard.
Hausrath Economics Group iv
Existing population and employment estimates were increased to reflect the most
recent data available from the City of Dublin, the California Department of
Finance, and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
Facilities Inventory Chan~es
The following inventory changes have occurred since 1995:
A 6,000 square foot community gymnasium was added to the existing
community/recreation facilities.
The inventory of library volumes increased from 83,000 to 90,000.
Plan Chanees
New information from planning processes has led to the following revisions:
The size of two planned community/recreation facilities (the Community Center
and Recreation Center) is reduced by a combined 11,000 square feet.
Due to the planned replacement of the library, eXisting building square footage is
excluded from the current inventory, and the land parcel upon which the new
facility will be built is included.
* Demand from Western Dublin is added to the calculation of needed Parks facility
expansion.
* The Civic Center section incorporates a brief treatment of relative service
standards for existing development vs. ~owth, in order to document that the
expansion cost atthbuted to new development is justifiable.
Other Revisions
Other revisions include:
An accounting of existing fee fund balances in the calculation of existing
deficiencies (Appendix A);
,A new section (Appendix B) explaining changes in calculated fee levels between
the March 7, 1996 report and this update; and
A revision of the methods Used to determine worker facilities usage factors for
Parks and Library.
Finally, the Executive Summary, Chapter 1 (Introduction), Chapter 7 (Calculation of Fees and
Pro,am Implementation), and Appendix A (Existing Deficiencies) have been changed to.be
consistent with the updated information.
Hausrath Economics Group v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SITUATION
The City of Dublin is planning for extensive growth in its Eastern Extended Planning Area, and
expecting modest growth in infill areas and the Western Expanded Planning Area. The City's
planning process includes consideration of the public facilities that will be need6d to ensure an
adequate level of public services. This report documents the capital expansions planned by the
City of Dublin through build-out, expected around 2025. It sets forth the basis for measuring
facilities standards and applies the costs of the needed expansions in order to quantify the
facilities impact associated with increments of new development. Although the emphasis is on
Eastern and Western Dublin, the growth projections include an allowance for additional
development in the existing portions of the City so that the fees may be applied citywide.
It is anticipated that Dublin will rely primarily on the/~uthority to levy fees specified in
Government Code Section 66000 et seq., although park requirements could be established under
the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477). Costs of new development are assigned to
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses according to occupant densities to arrive at fees
per unit by land use type. In situations where a deficiency exists for a particular facility ~pe, the
cost of remedying the deficiency is estimated as well. The cost of remedying existing
deficiencies is not included in the calculated fees, and will be funded separately by the City.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The build-out capacity of Eastern Dublin is estimated at 13,906 dwelling units and 9.7 million
square feet of commercial and industrial space, excluding any expansion of County facilities. In
Western Dublin, 476 dwelling units and approximately 26,000 square feet of commercial and
office space are anticipated. Existing areas of the City are expected to grow by a comparatively
small amount: 417 dwelling units and' 692,000 commercial/industrial square feet. The total
increase in the resident and worker population associated with this new development is estimated
at about 34,000 residents and 27,000 workers citywide, a 143 percent increase in the resident
population and a 203 percent increase in the worker population.
Table E. 1 shows existing and proposed residential land uses and resident population. Existing
and proposed nonresidential land uses and worker population are shown in Table E.2.
FACILITIES COST
The cost to expand facilities covered under the fee program to serve new development will total
approximately $133 million, as shown in Table E.3.
The cost of expanding neighborhood and community parks is based on the standard of 5.0 acres
per 1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the City's existing park
dedication ordinance. The land component may be dedicated or satisfied in the form of an in-
lieu fee, depending upon the circumstances of individual projects. Neighborhood park costs are
Hausrath Economics Group vi
included only in the calculation of the fee for Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin, because those
parks would benefit only those specific areas, not the citywide service population.
The cost of expanding community and recreation facilities includes several projects located in
Eastern Dublin, including a relocation and expansion of the existing senior center, a community
theater, a community center, a recreation center, and an aquatic center. For the senior center, the
costs shown refer only to the net increase in size over the existing building.
Proposed library improvements include the construction of a new library and the expansion of
library volume holdings.
The Dublin Civic Center houses administrative offices and the Police Department. The building
was designed to accommodate activity commensurate with an estimated resident service
population of 40,000 in the year 2005. The current improvement plan calls for an expansion of
the police wing and the finishing of certain areas currently used as storage. Most of this cost is
allocated to new development, as explained in Chapter 6.
Hausrath Economics Group vii
TABLE E.1
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Residential
Development and 1998 1998
Population by Area Units Residents
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 150 480
Multiple Family 43 86
Total 193 566
Western Dublin
Single Family 2 10
Multiple Family _0 0
Total 2 I 0
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,916 19,227
Multiple Family 2.069 4.203
Total 7,985 23,430
Growth Growth 2025
Units Residents Units
3,766- 12,050
9.947 19.890
I3,713 31,940
3.916
9.990
13,906
474 1,520
474 1,520
476
476.
54 170
.~6_~ 730
417 .900
5,970
2.432
8,402
Dublin Citywide
Single Family
Multiple Family
Total
6,068 19,717
2.112 4.289
8,180 24,006
4,294 13,740
10.310 ~ 20.62Q
14,604 34,360
10,362
.12.422
22,784
2025
Residents
12,530
19.976
~2,>06
1,530
1,530
19,397
4.933
24,330
33,460
24.910
58,37O
Source: Table 2.1
Hausrath Economics Group viii
TABLE E.2
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Nonresidential
Development and
Population by Area
Eastern Dublin
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Western Dublin
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Remainder of City
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Dublin Citywide
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
1998 1998
(1,ooo sq. ft.) Workers
0 0
0 0
370 680
37O 68O
0 0
0 0
0 0
2,645 5,710
1,083 4,540'
1.387 2.560~
5,115 12,810'
Growth Growth
(1,0oo sq. ft.) Workers
4,415 8,740
3,952 15,200
1.000 .1.69Q
9,367 25,630
..,
13 30
13 50
26 80
2025
(1,oo0 sq. ft.)
2,645 5,710
1,083 4,540
1.757 3.240
5,485 13,490
4,415
3,952
1.370
9,737
13
13
26
2025
Workers
8,740
15,200
2._~70
3O
5O
80
455 9001 3,100 6,610
208 800 1,291 5,340
29 fi 1.416 2.560
692 1,700 5,807: 14,510
4,883 9,670
4,173 16,050
1.029 1.69Q
7,528
5,256
2.786
15,570
10,085 27,410
15,380
20,590
4.930
40,900
Source: Table 2.2
Hausrath Economics Group ix
TABLE E.3
COSTS OF EXPANDING FACILITIES TO
ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
Facility Type by Area Cost of Growth
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin :
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Aquatic Center
Total
Western Dublin
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Total
$50,526,000
23,844,062
12,164,000
9,813,000
2.099,214
$98,446,276
$22,129,800
9,211,170
2.133.250
$~,474,_20
$1,062,600
442.290
$1,504,890
Cost Summary
Citywide
Eastern Dublin
Western Dublin
Total
$98,446,276
33,474,220
$1.504.890
$133,425,386
Source: Table 7.1
FEE LEVELS
Table E.4 summarizes calculated impact fee levels by land use. The costs of expanding facilities
to serve growth have been allocated to individual land uses according to residents per dwelling
unit and workers per 1,000 square feet of goss nonresidential space. The majority of fees are
levied on all development within the city limits because they fund facilities benefiting a citywide
service population. Neighborhood parks and the aquatic center have a local benefit, so fees for
these facilities are levied only on development in Eastern or Western Dublin.
Hausrath Economics Group x
TABLE E.4
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE AND AREA
Residential Nonresidential
(per Dwelling Unit) (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Single Multi-
Area Family family Comm'l. Office IndustrT
Cit3'vvide
Community Parks, Land $3,971 $2,482 I $564 $1,096 $483
Community Parks, Improvements 1,875 1,172!. 267 519 229
Community Buildings 1,091 682 34 65 29
Libraries 762 476 119 231 102
Civic Center 163 J 02 24 46 20
$7,862 $4',914 i $1,008 $1,957 S863
Total
Fee
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,218 $I.386 i $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 925 '578 ! 0 0 0
Aquatic Center 21_~4 134 _6 12 5
Total $3,357 $2,098 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin
t
Citywvide Costs $7,862 $4,914 ! $1,008 $1,957 $863
Eastern Dublin Costs 3.357 2.098I _6 12 5
TotalFee S11,219 $7,012 ! $1,014 $1,969 S868
Western Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,218 $1,386 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement .925 578 0 0 0
Total $3,143 $1,964 $0 $0 $0
Western Dublin
Citywide Costs $7,862 $4,914 $1,008 $1,957 .$863
We.stem Dublin Costs 3.142 1.964 i 0 0 0
TotalFee $11,004 $6,878 , $1,008 $1,957 $863
Source: Tables 7.2 and 7.3
Hausrath Economics Group xi
EXISTI2NG DEFICIENCIES
New development may not be charged for a higher standard of facilities than is provided to other
parts of the community. To do so would impose the burden of remedying existing deficiencies
on new development. In the case of community buildings and libraries, the facilities standard at
build-out will exceed the existing standard. The City of Dublin must, therefore, provide a
portion of the funding for these facilities from sources other than impact fees, recognizing the
benefit existing land uses will receive from an improved level of service. Table E.5 shows the
cost to remedy existing deficiencies, estimated at $7.7 million.
TABLE E.5
SUMMARY OF EXISTING
DEFICIENCIES
Community Parks $2,172,656
Community Buildings 3,934,804
Libraries 1.620.369
Total $7,727,829
Annually, 1998-2025
$286,216
Source: Table A.3
Hausrath Economics Group xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
City facilities benefit a service population including City residents and workers. As developers
build new homes and commercial/industrial buildings, this service population increases. The
City must expand its facilities to serve the expanded service population, or existing residents and
workers will experience a decline in the facilities standard.
Newer cities such as Dublin often have deficient standards for existing facilities. Dublin is
planning to expand some of its facilities above current standards. This policy will allow the City
to accommodate both existing and new development at the desired levels of service.
ENTRODUCTION
/
This report documents the cost of expanding public facilities to serve new development through
the year 2025 and correcting existing deficiencies. The public facilities fees that new
development should pay are calculated by dividing the total cost of expanding each facility by
the service populations calculated separately for each facility type. The City. can choose to adopt
fees at or below the levels calculated in this report.
This introductory chapter is intended to provide an overview of the concepts and methodology
used to design a public facilities fees program. The second chapter provides background on the
development projections and demographic assumptions used throughout the report. Each
succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis of the specific costs and assumptions involved in
the calculation of per capita expansion costs for a facility type: parks, community/recreational
facilities, libraries, and the Civic Center. In the final chapter, the per capita expansion costs are
converted to fees per unit by land use type.
Appendix A documents the cost of existing deficiencies that the City must fund through means
other than impact fees. Appendix B summarizes reasons for the increase in calculated fees from
our last fee report in 1996. Appendix C contains technical information provided by the City
relating to the Civic Center facilities expansion.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FIN.43NCI2NG IN CALIFORNIA
Several events during the past 20 years have steadily undercut the financial capacity of local
governments to build infrastructure: passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond
initiatives, and reductions in' federal and state assistance. -
Since Proposition 13, property tax r~venue has been inadequate to fund capital needs and~ for
some citieS, insufficient for ongoing operations and maintenance expenses to maintain levels of
service. In response, many cities and counties are shifting the financing burden of infrastructure
expansion onto new development, which is itself the primary cause of the need for expansion.
This shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition ofpublic facilities fees, also
~known as development impact fees. Some fee pro,ams address only a few specific facilities,
Hausrath Economics Group 1
such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal fee pro,ams are comprehensive,
requiring developers to pay for all municipal facility expansions needed to accommodate new
development.
As a result of widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed
AB 1600, which established pound rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of
impact fee programs. Government Code Section 66000 et seq., which became law in January
1989, requires local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new
development, the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that development. The law restricts
how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees, and requires that the fee
amount be sufficient only to fund the additional facilities required to serve new growth.
It is important to distingxdsh between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must be
used exclusively to fund the capital costs of new facilities, and must conform to other conditions
imposed by AB 1600 and case law. As long as fees comply with these restrictions, they can be
imposed by the elected governing board of a city or county. Taxes, on the other hand, may be
used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and usually must be approved by the
voters. Thus, it is critical to document that the fee is not greater than the. capital cost of facilities
to accommodate new development, or it may be legalI'y challenged as a tax. This study serves
that purpose.
FEE DETERMINATION
Our design of the City's public facilities fee pro,am follows a four-step process:
Select a time period and project new development;
Determine facility service areas, and identify facilities to accommodate new
development;
Estimate facilities costs; and
Allocate costs among new development in an equitable fashion.
New Development Proiections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required
to serve growth. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (January 7, 1994) list new development, residents, and workers projected for the City's
Eastern Extended Planning Area. The City has provided additional information on ~owth in the
Western Extended Planning Area as well as the existing in.fill area. All of these areas are subject
to impact fees. Projections are for build-out of the City, which is estimated to occur around
2025.
Facilities Reauirements
Determining the expansion of facilities necessary to serve new development requires calculating
level-of-service standards for city infrastructure. Standards are often stated in terms of a per
capita inventory factor (e.g., acres of parkland per capita). New development's share of
l-tausrath Economics Group 2
expansion cost is calculaied by multiplying the per capita standard by projected service
population growth.
For park facilities, new development's share of expansion cost is determined by applying a
parkland standard consistent with the Quimby Act legislation enabling parkland dedication by
new development. For the remaining facilities, the City has proposed specific improvements to
· accommodate its build-out population. In these cases, the per capita standards are calculated for
the build-out year and used to assign costs to new and existing development.
New development cannot be asked to remedy an existing deficiency. The City can adopt its own
reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the existing per capita standard, but new
development cannot be held accountable for a higher standard unless the City plans to use
alternative funds to expand existing facilities to the same standard. This is called correcting an
existing deficiency.
Facilities Costs
/
The City of Dublin has provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the
year 2025. That portion of facilities costs which remedies existing deficiencies (to benefit the
existing population) and that which expands capacity (to accommodate grow-th) are determined
according to the principles discUssed above.
Facilities Cost Allocation
Allocation of expansion cost is carried out on a service population basis, a method often used to
reflect differing impacts of residential and nonresidential land uses on public facilities. Service
population is calculated by adding residents and workers weighted as a fraction of residents. The
worker equivalency factors are designed to reflect the worker demand relative to resident
demand for a particular service type. For each facility type considered in this study, a different
worker equivalency factor is used.
Although facility expansion costs are allocated based on service populatiOn (e.g., cost per
resident or cost per worker), fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development,
(e.g., fee per dwelling unit or fee per 1,000 square feet of building space). Total facilities costs
are distributed among land use units based on the resident or worker occupancy of each. This
approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to accommodate a
particular type of development.
Hausrath Economics Groztp 3
CHAPTER 2
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents estimates of existing and anticipated development and population growth
for the City of Dublin. Population growth projections provide a basis for estimates of the public
facilities needed to accommodate new development. Estimates of current residential and worker
populations within the City are also needed, in order to calculate future anticipated per capita
service standards for most of the facility types in this report.
Current residential and nonresidential development, and 1998 residential and worker population
figures, are based on the most recently available information. The City has provided its
estimates of current levels of commercial and residential development by subarea, which have
been supplemented by California Department of Finance (DOF) data. The current residential
population figure is also based on DOF data for January 1998. The estimated 1998 worker
population is based on a City estimate, and is similar to the current Association of Bay Area
Governments estimate of total employment for Dublin and surrounding unincorporated areas for
1995.
In succeeding chapters, the Cost of expanding each public facility is allocated to new
development on the basis of the population served by the facility type. Both residents and
workers use city services, but at different rates depending on the service. The service population
is calculated separately for each facility type to reflect this, combining residents with a fraction
of workers based on average worker and resident usage.
The development projections calculated here are based on planned land uses, expressed in
residential dwelling units or square feet of commercial/industrial building space. Population and
employment projections are derived from these estimates. For Eastern Dublin, land use planning
data is taken from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendn~ent and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, dated January 7, 1994. Data for Western Dublin is based on the development proposed
under the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. For the remainder of the City, estimates of
potential development are based on City estimates, including an apartment project described in
the Park Sierra General Plan Amendment and a single family residential project descr/bed in the
Starward Drive General Plan Amendment. Although remaining ~owth within the in_fill area
may be limited, its inclusion permits the fees calculated here to be applied citywide.
There are four additional issues of note with respect to the development projections:
For library and community/recreation facilities, expansion cost per capita is
calculated based on a "build-out analysis," in which a future anticipated facility
inventory is divided by a future service population to derive a future facility
standard, which is used to determine the fee. If the future service population is
underestimated, the calculated fee will be overestimated (and vice versa) if the
tfausrath Economics Group 4
future facility inventory is held constant. The City intends to adjust facility
inventories in the furore as needed, in order to maintain the service standards
calculated herein.2
Public facilities fee revenues are intended to help finance capital investments with
a life expectancy of several decades or more. This suggests that the time horizon
for the program should correspond to the anticipated build-out of the City. Given
the long time horizon, however, we recommend that the City periodically review
facilities costs and standards, and revise fee levels accordingly.
The City anticipates that certain areas contiguous to its current boundaries will be
annexed, a normal process for a city in a growing region. For the purposes of this
study, the projections for Eastern Dublin assume that only the areas specified on
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Map (Fig. 213),
excluding the future study area, will be annexed. Although Doolan Canyon is
reviewed in the General Plan Amendment, it is regarded as a future study area
with no present plans for annexation.
In Western Dublin, Schaefer Ranch has been armexed. With the exception of the
Schaefer Ranch project, development potential of the Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area is excluded from the projections used in this report;
DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION
One of the last large areas of developable land within the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri-Valley
region has been one of the fastest-growing areas in northern California. Extensive development
is projected to occur in Eastern Dublin, the next large tract of developable land in the pro~ession
of gowxh easm~ard along Interstate 580. The City of Dublin also anticipates some development
to occur in Western Dublin and within the existing city limits.
Table 2.1 shows estimates of residential units and total residential population for 1998 through
2025. Table 2.2 shows the same information for nonresidential development and the worker
population. Existing and future development is shown for Eastern Dublin, Western Dublin, the
remainder of the City, and the three areas combined. The projections are disaggregated because
certain elements of the facilities fee program may apply to only a portion of the City.
The amount of population and employment ~owth can be estimated using occupant density
factors. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment
density is expressed as square feet of building space per worker. The residential and
commercial/industrial density factors used in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are used here for
consistency, as described in the notes to Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Density factors represent averages
across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and account for vacancies.
2 The par'ks facility standard is based on the legislated Quimby Act standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000
residents. The exact timing and final amount of development will not have a significant effect on the parks
comonent of the fee.
Hausrath Economics Group 5
TABLE 2.1
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Residential
Development and 1998
Population by Area Units
1998
Residents
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 150 480
Multiple Family 43 86
Total 193 566
Western Dublin
Single Family 2 10
Multiple Family 0 0
Total 2 10
Remainder of City
Growth Grow'th
Units Residents
3,766 12,050
9.947 19.890
13,713 31,940
~74 1,520
474 1,520
2025 2025
Units Residents
3,916 12,530
9.990 19.97t
13,906 32,506
476 1,530
476 1,530
Single Family 5,916 19,227
Multiple Family 2.069 4.203
Total 7,985 23,430
Dublin Citywvide
Single Family 6,068 19,717
Multiple Family 2.112 4.289
Total 8,180 24,006
54 170
.>6_* 730
417 900
5,970 19,397
2.432 A 9~.
8,402 24,330
4,294 13,740 10,362 33,460
10.310 20.620 12.422 24.910
14,604 34,360 22,784 58,370
Note: Growth in resident population estimated assuming 3.2 residents per single family unit and 2.0
residents per multifamily unit. Resident occupancy factors based on Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2025 residents rounded to nearest 10.
Sources: State Department of Finance, Report E-5, 1/1/98; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment; Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment;
Park Sierra Homes General Plan Amendment; Starward Drive General Plan Amendment; Hausrath
Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 6
TABLE 2.2
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Nonresidential
Development and 1998
Population by Area (1,000 sq. fr.)
1998
Workers
Eastern Dublin
Commercial 0 0
Office 0 0
Industrial 370 680
Total 370 680
Western Dublin
Commercial 0 0
Office 0 0
Industrial _0 0
Total 0 0
Remainder of City
Commercial 2,645 5,710
Office 1,083 4,540
Industrial 1387 2.560
Total 5,115 12,810
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 2,645 5,710
Office 1,083 4,540
Industrial .1,7.57 3.240
Total* 5,485 13,490
Growth Growth
(1,000 sq. fr.) Workers
4;415 8,740
.~,93_ 15,200
1.000 1.690
9,367 25,630
13 30
.,
13 50
26 80
455 900
208 800
29 0
692 1,700
2025 2025
(1,000 sq. ft.) Workers
4,415 8,740
3,952 15,200
1.370 2.370
9,737 26,310
13 30
I3 50
26 80
3,100 6,610
1,291 5,340
1.416.
5,807 14,510
4,883 9,670 7,528 15,380
4,173 16,050 5,256 20,590
.1.029 1.690 ' 2.786 4.930
10,085 27,410 ! 15,570 40,900
I
Note: Growth in worker population estimated assuming 505 square feet/worker for commercial development,
260 sf/worker for office development, and 590 sf/worker for industrial development. Worker ocupancy
factors based on Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2025 workers rounded to nearest 10.
*Total jobs for the current area based on ABAG Projections '98 estimate of total employment for 1995 for
Dublin area (sphere of influence, including unincorporated portions outside the City limits). Employment
densities per gross leasable area controlled to ABAG total.
Sources: State Department of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; East
Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment; Park Sierra Homes General Plan
Amendment; Starward Drive General Plan Amendment; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 7
Residential Proiections
There were 8,180 residential units in the City of Dublin in January 1998, according to the
California Department of Finance. This includes units located in Western and Eastern Dublin.
The 1998 residential population was 24,006 residents, including residents within the existing
City limits plus roughly 580 residents in the Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin areas. City staff
expects that proposed residential development citywide will add another 34,360 residents, for a
build-out population of 58,370.
Eastern Dublin is presently undergoing development. According to the City, there are
approximately 150 single family units and 43 multifamily units in the area in 1998. According
to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, residential development in Eastern Dublin is
projected to include 13,906 units at build-out. OVer one-half of these are in the single family and
medium density categories with average densities ranging from four to 10 units per acre.
Residences of other densities are planned as well, including 10-acre ranchettes, and high density
(35 units per acre) multifamily complexes. Western Dublin is also currently undeveloped, and
only has two existing rural residences. The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment calls for
474 residential units, most of which will be detached single family homes. The project will also
include some attached single family units. Accordin~ to City staff, development in the
remainder of the City will be limited to 417 units. This includes the Park Sierra and Starward
Drive projects, which call for 283 multifamily and 31 single family units.
Nonresidential Proiections
Commercial and industrial space in the existing City presently totals about 5.11 million square
feet, more than one-half of which is retail ("commercial"), based on an inventory estimate
provided by City staff, dated 10/98. Public space is exempted from the inventory. The majority
of commercial development potential exists in Eastern Dublin, where 9.37 million square feet is
anticipated. In Western Dublin, about 26,000 square feet of commercial and office space is
expected under the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. In the remaining City, there is
roughly 692,000 potential square feet of nonresidential space left to build.
Not shown in Table 2.2 are roughly 1.1 million square feet of public and semi-public land uses
proposed for Eastern Dublin. Much of this is comprised of proposed or built Alameda County
facilities including offices, jail expansion, corporation yard, and an animal shelter. Public
agencies are exempt from paying development impact fees; thus, the development and the
corresponding employment is excluded from the fee analysis. The City is party to an agreement
with the County of Alameda (dated May 4, 1993) regarding the City's right to control land uses
on property owned bY the County or its Surplus Property Authority. Under that agreement, if
any of the property is used by governmental agencies other than the County, such use will be
subject to the City's land use regulations, which would include the'public facilities fee. In the
event any such property is proposed for use by governmental agencies other than the County, the
City will include such uses in the fee analysis.
Existing employment is estimated by City staff to be around 13,500. Development citywide will
add roughly 27,400. Thus, employment at build-out is estimated at 40,900, excluding any
employment associated with public facilities.
Hausrath Economics Group 8
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
"Single family unit," as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted
by the City of Dublin, refers to a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be
constructed on property designated in the General Plan or Specific _Plan for six or
fewer units per aCre.
"Multifamily unit," as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted
by the City of Dublin, refers to a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be
constructed on property designated in the General _Pla~ or Specific _Plan for 6.1 or
more units per acre.
"Commercial land uses" are uses of land for facilities for the buying and selling
of commodities and services, the sales,, servicing, installation, and repair of such
commodities and services, and/or other space uses incidental to these activities.
Commercial land uses include, but are not limited to, apparel and clothing stores;
auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans;
beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores;
eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general
merchandise stores; hardware stores; home fi.finishing and improvement centers;
hotels/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping
centers; supermarkets;, and theaters.
"Office land uses" are defined as those uses of land for general business offices,
medical and professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large
wholesaling or manufacturing operations, and research and development and
other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include, but are
not limited to, administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices;
insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and
office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional
associations; real estate offices; research and development; and travel agencies.
"Industrial land uses" are those uses of land for the manufacture, production,
assembly, and processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to
these activities. Industrial land uses include but are not limited to: assembly;
concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractor storage yards; fabrication; lumber
yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing;
warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy commercial uses.
For a use that is not listed above, the Community Development Director will determine into
which of these categories the use fits, taking into consideration the existing definitions and the
land use.
Hausrath Economics Group 9
CHAPTER 3
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Dublin owns 11 parks on 167 acres of land, 79 acres of which are classified as active
parkland, while the remaining 88 acres are classified as open space. Active parkland is further
categorized as neighborhood or community parkland.
A neighborhood park is typically located in a residential neighborhood or cluster
of residential units and is developed to provide space for relaxation, play and
informal recreation activities. Neighborhood park improvements are oriented
toward the individual recreational needs of the ne:,ighborhoods in which they are
located.
A community park typically offers a variety of~'ecreational opportunities to attract
a wide range of local age groups and interests. Community park improvements
are oriented toward facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure
experience of all'citizens and attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Existing facilities are shown in Table 3.1. The City of Dublin has entered into an agreement
with the Dublin Unified School District for joint use of school playfields to increase the
availability of parkland. Although the City would prefer to develop more parks in existing areas,
it is constrained by the absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to
achieve its desired standards. The availability of school sites during nonschool hours adds
another 36 acres, for a total of 115 acres of active parkland.
The City of Dublin's Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes policies for expansions of
parks and community facilities to serve growth. Similarly, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) call for development of several parks.
These range from neighborhood squares of two or three acres to larger community parks in
excess of 50 acres. The City also anticipates the need for a neighborhood Park to serve
development in Western Dublin.
Hausrath Economics Group 10
~ TABLE 3.1
EXISTING PARKS INVENTORY
Park Acres
Community Parks
Dougherty Hills* 4.00
Dublin Sports Grounds/Civic Center 35.00
Dublin Swim Center 3.00
Heritage Center 5.00
Senior Center 0.25
Shannon Park 10,00
Total 57.25
Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek 8.00
Dolan Park 5.00
Kolb Park 5.00
Mape Park 3~00
Stagecoach Park 0.75
Total 21.75
School/Park Facilities
Dublin Elementary
Dublin High School
Fredriksen Elementary
Murray Elementary
Nielsen Elementary
Wells Middle School
Total
Total Existing Parks Acreage
9.00
4.00
4.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
36.00
115.00
*Includes only developable acreage for active park use.
Sources: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Hausrath Economics Group 11
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Park planning is guided by the Quimby Act, which sets forth a legislated parkland standard to be
applied to new development. The City regards the Quimby Act maximum standard of 5.0 acres
per 1,000 population as its target for providing parks to existing developed areas. The existing
park ratio is 4.79 acres per 1,000 residents, including shared school sites. Over time, the City
expects to acquire additional parkland beyond what is necessary for new development to bring
the inventory of parks associated with the existing population up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
The cost of resolving the existing deficiency is addressed in Appendix A.
In Dublin, the overall 5.0-acre standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and
community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population, as specified in the City of Dublin Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. Table 3.2 shows the park expansion required to serve new development
based on these standards. The neighborhood park standard is applied only to Eastern and
Western Dublin, excluding the small amount of development anticipated elsewhere in the City.
For Eastern Dublin, the neighborhood parks requirement, is estimated at 47.9 acres; for Western
Dublin, 2.3. acres. Community parks, on the other hand,~ serve the entire City due to their size
and amenities. Accordingly, the community parks requirement is calculated using the citywide
~owth estimate, yielding a total requirement of 120.3 community park acres. Fee calculations
later in this report follow a similar division. For a further description of the facility standards for
neighborhood and community parks, refer to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
TABLE 3.2
PARKS EXPANSION REQUIRED TO SERVE GROWTH
Expansion
Acres per Needed to
Population 1,000 Serve
Growth Residents Growth
Neighborhood
Eastern Dublin 31,940 1.5 47.9
Western Dublin 1.520 1.5 2.3
Total 33,460 50.2
Community (Citywide)
.34,360 3.5 120.3
Sources: Table 2.1; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 12
Although residential population is used to determine required park acreage consistent with the
standards legislated under the Quimby Act, the benefit of community parks also extends to the
worker population. Lunch hour visits and company recreation activities are two examples of
business-related park demand. The legislation authorizing the impact fees calculated in this
study, Government Code Section 66000 et seq., permits, allocation of facilities costs to
commercial and industrial as well as residential land uses, provided a reasonable relationship
between growth and facilities demand is established.
Park use by workers was addressed in a 1992 survey of persons employed in nearby Pleasanton.~
The survey derived estimates of resident and nonresident worker park visits per week. The
survey showed that the average resident worker made 0.656 park visits per week, and the
average nonresident worker made 0.145 visits per week. The extra 0.511 (0.656-0.145) visits
made by resident workers are assumed to be due to the fact that they live in Dublin. Assuming
that. all residents on average make 0.511 visits per week attributable to their residency in Dublin,
an average worker makes about 28 percent as many visits as an average resident (0.145/0.511).
The equivalency factor for a worker is therefore about 0.28.
However, this weighting factor probably underestimates the park demand of nonemployed
residents. As a ~oup, these residents are likely to have more leisure time, and are likely to visit
1992.
TABLE 3.3
SERVICE POPULATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS AND COMMLrNITY PARKS
Residents
Service
EmploYees Por>ulation*
Existing
Community Parks 24,006 13,490 27,100
Neighborhood Parks 576 N/A 600
34,360 27,410 40,700
33,460 N/A 33,460
New Development
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at 0.23.
Rounded to nearest 100. (Neighborhood parks in Western and Eastern
Dublin will serve residents only, so employees are not included in
neighborhood l~arks service l~olmlafion.)
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Economic & Planning Systems, Analysis of the City of Pleasanton Recreation and Sports Survey, June
Hausrath Economics Group '13
parks more frequently than full-time workers. Therefore, a worker equivalency factor lower than
0.28 is appropriate for allocating community park costs between residents and workers. A more
conservative worker equivalency ~,actor of 0.23 is used in this analysis. The service population
calculation is shown in Table 3.3 (above), resulting in community park service population
growth of 40,700 persons.
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER AcRE
The intent of the fee program is to provide sufficient funds to acquire parkland (where land is not
dedicated) and construct improvements. Developers can sometimes deed portions of
development sites to the City according to the park standards, saving acquisition costs for the
City. For small developments where it is not practical to dedicate a park site, landowners will
pay an in-lieu fee which the City uses to purchase appropriately sited land. This in-lieu fee is
only charged for developments that do not include land dedication.
Both arrangements are currently implemented under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, and will
apply to Eastern and Western Dublin as well. The amouht of park fees paid will, therefore,
depend upon the actual use of acquisitions versus dedications. This, in turnl will be largely a
function of ownership patterns at the time subdivision maps are filed, with dispersed ownership
corresponding to increased reliance on in-lieu fees. The standard fee for developments without
land dedication, and the discounted fee for developments that do dedicate land, will remain
unchanged regardless of the total amount of parkland dedicated.
The anticipated cost per acre of parkland to be purchased by the City is estimated at $462,000 for
neighborhood parks and $420,000 per acre for community parks, based on an assessor's survey.
Park development costs include landscaping, equipment, and utility fees. Acquisition and
development costs per park acre, and sources for these data, are shown in Table 3.4.
Hausrath Economics Group 14
TABLE 3.4
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT COST
Parkland Tvpe
Land Cost, Devel. Cost.
per Acre l~er Acre
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
$462,000 $192,300
$420,000 $198,205
Note: Land costs based on average valuation of existing parkland by
type. Development costs based on City of Dublin consultant estimates
(see below).
Sources: "Neighborhood Park Development Cost Analysis," Singer &
Hodges, Inc. (consultant to City of Dublin), 9/11/98; Emerald Glen
Park Master Plan, David L. Gates & Associates (consultant to City of
Dublin), 6/98; "Park Land Calculations," City of Dublin Public Works
Director and City Engineer, 10/2/98; Valuation Analysis Report for
Traffic and Facility Impact Fee Study: East Dublin (Dublin Ranch),
Associated Right of Way Services, 7/31/98.
COST ALLOCATION
Per capita park costs are calculated using per capita acreage standards and parkland acquisition/
development costs per acre. In the case of community parks, the per capita acreage standard is
different from the legislative per-l,000-residents Quimby Act standard, because it is calculated
by dividing the total required acreage (from Table 3.2) by a service population comprised of
workers and residents (from Table 3.3).
Table 3.5 shows the calculation of the per capita cost of expansion. The cost for neighborhood
parks totals $982 per resident, including both land and improvements. Community (citywide)
park costs are $1,827 per resident. The total park cost for residential development in Eastern
Dublin or Western Dublin is $2,809 per resident.
Community park costs are also allocated to commercial and industrial land uses according to
employment. Table 3.6 applies the 0.23 worker equivalency factor to the per-resident
community park cost presented in Table 3.5, yielding a per-worker cost of $420.
Hausrath Economics Group 15
TABLE 3.5
PARK EXPANSION COST PER RESIDENT
E/W Dublin Community
N'hood Parks Parks Total
Acreage Required
Service Population Growth
Per Capita Service Standard (ac)t
Acquisition Cost per Acre
Land Acquisition Cost per Resident2
Per Capita Service Standard (ac)~
Development Cost Per Acre
Land Development Cost per Resident~
Total Cost per Capita
50.2 120.3
33,460 40.700
0.001500 0.002956
$462.000 $420.000
$693 $1,241 $1,934
0.001500 0.002956
$192.300 $198.205
! $289 $586 $875
$982 $1,827 $2,809
lEquals Acreage Required divided by Service PopUlation Growth.
:Equals Per Capita Service Standard multiplied by Acquisition Cost per Acre.
3Equals Per Capita Service Standard multiplied by Development Cost Per Acre.
Sources: Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5; Hausrath Economics Group.
TABLE 3.6
COMMUNITY PARK EXPANSION COST PER
WORKER
Cost per Worker Cost per
Resident Equivalent Worker
Land $1,241 0.23 $285
Improvements $586 0.23 $135
Total Cost of Expansion $1,827 $420
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.6; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 16
TOTAL COST OF EXPANDING PARKS
The total cost of expanding parks facilities to meet the requirements to serve new development is
shown in Table 3.7. Land costs total $73.7 million for both neighborhood and community parks.
Improvements add another $33.5 million, for a total of $107 million. This total excludes the cost
of developing neighborhood parks to serve development outside of Eastern and Western Dublin,
and to raise the existing standard. The table assumes that ail parkland is purchased by the City.
The actual cost to the City will probably be less than this amount, insofar as a certain percentage
of parkland will be dedicated. The fee schedule takes this factor into account by discounting the
impact fee for development that includes parkland dedication.
TABLE 3.7
COST TO EXPAND PARKS~
W. Dublin :Neighborhood Total
E. Dublin N'hood Parks, Community Expansion
N'hood Parks Parks Combined Parks Cost
Acres Required
Land Cost per Acre
Total Land Cost
Improvements
Acres Required
Improvement Cost per Acre
Total Improvement Cost
Total Cost of Expansion
47.9 2.3 50.2 120.3
$462.000 $462.000 $462.000 $420.000
$22,129,800 $1,062,600 $23,192,400 $50,526,000
47.9 2.3 50.2 120.3
$192.300 $192.300 $192.300 $198.205
$73,718,400
$9,211,170 $442,290 $9,653,460 $23,844,062 $33,497,522
$31,340,970 $1,504,890 $32,845,860 $74,370,062 $107,215,922
~Assuming all land is purchased. Land dedications will actually decrease the total cost to the City, but will not affect the
calculated fee to be paid by developers who do not dedicate land. The fee schedule takes land dedication into account by
discoun
2Neighborhood parks to serve Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin only.
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.4; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 17
CHAPTER 4
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
The City of Dublin currently operates four community facilities: a community center, a senior
center, a community gymnasium, and an aquatic center, all located in the developed portion of
the City. As the City grows in size, it plans to add five more facilities: another community
center, a recreation center; a community theater, another aquatic center, and a senior center to
replace the existing one. At present, the City of Dublin's senior center is located in a leased
surplus school building. Eventually, the lease will be allowed to expire, and the senior center
will be moved to a new, larger building owned by the City. For a further description of these
facilities, refer to the City of Dublin -parks and Recreation Master _Plan.
Building space is summarized in the top portion of Table 4.1. The existing community center,
senior center, and gymnasium total 24,780 square feet 0fbmldmg space.4 Proposed new
facilities are shown in the bottom portion of the table._ To reflect the replacement of the existing
senior center, only the net increase is shown for the proposed senior center, which will be 12,000
square feet in size, or 5,400 square feet more than the facility it will replace. Excluding the
aquatic centers, community buildings citywide are proposed to total 98,180 square feet by build-
out.
The aquatic centers are excluded from the citywide inventory.
Hausrath Economics Group 18
TABLE 4.1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
COMMUNITY/RECREATION
FACILITIES INVENTORY
Building!
Sq. Ft.
Existing Facilities
Community Gymnasium 6,002
Community Center 12,178
Senior Center 6,600
Aquatic Center N/A
Total 24,780
!
Proposed Facilities
Community Center 23,000
Recreation Center 29,000
Commun/ty Theater 16,000
Senior Center* 5,400
Aquatic Center N/A
Total 73,400
Build-out Total 98,180
N/A = Not Applicable.
*Existing senior center is to be replaced with the
proposed new facility totaling 12,000 square feet.
Space shown is net addition.
Sources: City of Dublin staff; City of Dublin Park
& Recreation Master Plan.
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Cost calculations for community/recreation buildings and the aquatic centers are handled
separately. Community/recreation buildings costs are allocated to new development on a
citywide basis. Activities taking place at these facilities can benefit residents and workers
citywide, regardless of the specific location of their place of residence or employment. It is
assumed that the new aquatic center will benefit Eastern Dublin only.
Because it is not uncommon for local businesses to make use of community buildings for
business gatherings or company recreation events, a conservative worker equivalency factor of
five percent is used here to reflect relative per-worker usage. Table 4.2 shows the resultant
Hausrath'Economics Group 19
service population for the existing city and for growth from new development. New
development is separated into Eastern Dublin, Western Dublin, and the remainder of the City.
TABLE 4.2
COMMUNITY/RECREATION FACILITIES SERVICE
POPULATION
Service
Residents Employees Population*
Existing 24,006 13,490 24,700
New Development
Eastern Dublin 3'1,940 25,630 33,200
Western Dublin 1,520 ." 80 ' 1,500
Remainder of City ~.9..00 1.700 1.000
Total 34,360 27,410 35,700
Build-out Total 58,366 40,900 60,400
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at 0.05. Rounded to
nearest 100.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Table 4.3 shows the calculated community buildings service standard and demand for facilities
allocated to new development. For the purposes of the cost calculation, the community buildings
are combined.~ Once the City of Dublin Parks and Recreatiori Master Plan is implemented, the
City will have constructed community buildings totaling 73,400 square feet, net of the existing
senior center. Including existing buildings, community facilities will total 98,180 square feet, for
a projected service population of 60,400 persons, yielding a per capita facility standard of 1.63
square feet by build-out. Applying the build-out service standard to the 35,700-person ~owth in
the service population indicates a need for 58,200 square feet of community building space to
serve new development. The remaining facilities to be built are needed to correct existing
deficiencies and must be funded by sources other than impact fees.
The City has provided average per-square-foot costs of facility construction based on recent data.
Hausrath Economics Group 20
TABLE 4.3
cOMMUNITy/REcREATION FACILITIES
EXPANSION NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
Community BUiiding Sq. Ft.
Build-out Service Population
Service Standard (sq. ft./capita)
98,180
60,400
1.63
Service Population Growth
Service Standard
Expansion Needed to Serve Growth
35,700
J.63
58,200
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
The cost to construct these facilities is calculated in Table 4.4. Construction of commurfity
buildings is estimated to cost $209 per square foot, according to the City's consultant (see table).
Total expansion cost is estimated at $12.1 million. As mentioned above, the City of Dublin also
proposes to construct an additional aquatic center to serve the added population in Eastern
Dublin. The new center is projected to cost $2.1 million, and is allocated entirely to the new
development in Eastern Dublin. Combining community buildings w/th the aquatic center results
in a community facilities cost of $14.3 million.
TABLE 4.4
COST TO EXPAND COMMUNITY/
RECREATION FACILITIES
Expansion Needed to Serve Growth
Cost per Square Foot
Expansion Cost
Aquatic Center Cost
Total Cost of Expansion
58,200
$209
$12,164,000
$2,133,250
$14,297,250
Sources: Tables 4.2 and 4.3; Emerald Glen Park Master
Plan, David L. Gates & Associates, 6/98, p. 41 (as
amended by City of Dublin staff); Hausrath Economics
Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 21
COST ALLOCATION
Table 4.5 shows the ~allocation of expansion costs to residents and workers. The community
buildings cost of $12.2 million allocated to new residents equals $341 per capita, based on the
citywide growth in service population· As stated previously, in calculating service population
for community centers, workers are weighted at 0·05, yielding a cost per worker of $17. Aquatic
· center costs are assigned to Eastern Dublin and total $2.1 million. Applied to the Eastern Dublin
service population growth of 31,940, this equals a per-resident cost of $67, and a per-worker cost
of $3.
TABLE 4.5
COMMUNITYfRECREATION FACILITIES EXPANSION
COST PER CAPITA
Community Aquatic Center
Buildings (Eastern Dublin
(Cityyv_ ide) Only)
Total Cost of Expansion
Service Population Growth*
Cost per Resident
Worker Equivalent
Cost per Worker
$12,164,000 $2,133,250
35.700 31,940
$341 $67
0.05 0.05
$17 $3
*Service population ~owth for Aquatic Center equivalent to Eastern Dublin
residential ~owth (see Table 2.1).
Sources: Tables 2.1, 4.2, and 4.4; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 22
CHAPTER $
LIBRARIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Library services are provided to Dublin re. sidents by the Alameda County Library System with
partial funding from the City of Dublin. The site of the current 15,000-square-foot library is
owned by the County and is leased to the nonprofit Alameda County/Dublin Library
Corporation, which owns the building and leases it to the County in exchange for annual rent
payments used to retire the bonds used to finance its conslruction. When the bonds are
completely paid offin 1999, the title will vest with the County. The City has determined that a
new library will be needed to accommodate growth, and has made plans to construct a new
37,000 square foot facility on a parcel of land it currently owns; 34,000 square feet of the facility.
will be used for the library. The existing facility will no longer be used.
Existing and proposed library facilities (including land and books) are summarized in Table 5.1.
The library holdings include 90,000 volumes. As with the existing library, the new, larger
building will be constructed and stocked using local funds, and will be operated by the Alameda
County' Library System. (For further description of the planned new facility, refer to the Final
.Report on the Financial Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Libra;~, AlternatiYes, David M. Griffith
& Associates, July 1998.)
TABLE 5.1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LIBRA.RY
FACILITIES INVENTORY
Land Building
Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Volumes
Existing 136,000 N/A 90,000
Projected Additions 0 34..000, 40.000
Build-Out Total 136,000 34,000 130,000
N/A'= Not Applicable
Notes: Existing buildin~ not counted as part of inventory
because it will be replaced by a new facility. Estimate of
square footage of land parcel based on information from City
of Dublin.
Sources: City of Dublin; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 23
FACILITY ST.42qD~S AND NEW DEVELOPMENT hEEDS
A citywide approach is used to calculate facility standards and allocate library costs, recognizing
that the Dublin library serves the entire city. Library expansion costs are allocated to new
development on the basis of the ~itywide service population. The build-out population is used as
the basis for determining library service standards so that the same standards will be applied to
both existing and new development.
Analysis of data from the City of Phoenix, the Santa Clara County Library System~ and the
Alameda County Library System indicates that average per-worker library usage is between 25
and 3 3 percent of the average resident's usage.6 For the purpose of calculating the service
population and the relative cost per-capita, we have conservatively used 0.25 as the per-worker
equivalency factor. The service population for libraries is shown in Table 5.2. By year 2025, the
library service population is projected to total 68,600.
TABLE 5.2.,
LIBRARy SERVICE POPULATION
Service
Residents Workers Population*
Existing 24,006 13,490 27,400
Worker equivalent 0.25
New Development 34,360 27,410 41,200
Build-Out Total 58,366 40,900 68,600
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at 0.25.
Rounded to the nearest 100.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
6 In 1995, The Santa Clara County Benefit Assessment system estimated one benefit unit per residential
parcel and from 5 t6 7.5 benefit units per commercially developed acre, depending on the type of nonresidential.
development. This translates into approximately 0.3 benefit units per resident and 0.1 per worker, yielding a per-
worker weighting factor of 0.33. Other data from a survey recently carried out by Hausrath Economics Group in
Phoenix showed that the average worker visited the library about 25 percent as much as the average resident of a
single family home, and about 35 percent as much as the average resident ora multifamily unit. Finally, in 1995 the
Fremont Main Library assigned a third of its total reference staff to its business reference desk, and 20 percent of all
reference questions were business-related. These data suggest that, insofar as Dublin workers and residents are
similar to workers and residents in these other locations, the average Dublin worker may use the library at a rate
between a quarter and a third of that of an average resident, and an average worker's use per visit may be more
intensive than that of an average resident.
Hausrath Economics Group 24
Table 5.3 show's the calculation of library service standards and the demand for facilities
allocated to new development. The improvements planned would bring the libraries serving
Dublin to a total of 136,000 land square feet, 34,000 building square feet, and 130,000 volumes.
The per capita standards are projected to be 1.98 square feet of land, 0.50 square feet of library
building space, and 1.90 voIumes. Meanwhile, the service population is projected to grow by
41,200. As shown in the bottom half of the table, the facilities required to serve growth consists
of 81,600 square feet of land, 20,600 square feet of building space, and 78,300 volumes.
TABLE 5.3
LIBRARY EXPANSION NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
Total Build-out I Service Service
Projected Service i Standard PoPulation
.
Inventory Populat~onl per Capita Growth
Land (in square feet)
Buildings (in square feet)
Volumes
136,000 68,6001, 1.98 41,200
34,000 68,600I 0.50 41.200
130,000 68,6001 1.90 41,200
!
1
;Expansion
:Needed to
Serve
Growth
81,600
20,600
78,300
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
................ Hausrath Economics Group 25
The costs of acquiring/constructing the facilities required to serve growth are shown in Table 5.4.
Ail cost estimates were supplied by the City of Dublin and consultants, as noted in the table.
TABLE 5.4
COST TO EXPAND LIBRARY FACILITIES
Land Square Feet Required
Cost per Square Foot~
Land Cost
81,600
$17
$1,387,000
Building Square Feet Required/
Cost per Square Foot2
Building Cost
20,600
$314
$6,468,000
Volumes Required
Cost per Volume
Volume Cost
78,300
$25
$1,958,000
Total Cost of Expansion
$9,813,000
~Based on Valuation Analysis Report for Traffic and Facility
Impact Study: East Dublin (Dublin Ranch), Associated Right
of Way Services, Inc, "Sales Data: Market Sales. Approach:
General Scope," Spreadsheet Area "A," "Blended Value" for
Commercial Land Area A-1.
2Based on Final Report on the Financial Feasibility Analysis
of Library Alterna#ves, David M. Griffith and Associates,
7/11/98, p. E-3, Table 1. Cost includes furnishings.
Sources: Table 5.3; Associated Right of Way Services (see
above); DMG Associates (see above); Hausrath Economics
Group.
Hausrath Economics Group
26
COST ALLOCATION
Table 5.5 shows the calculation of'per capita cost of' expansion, yielding a figure of $238 per
resident and $60 per employee.
TABLE 5.5
LIBRARY COST PER CAPITA
Total Cost of Expansion
Service Population Growth
Cost per Resident
$9,813,000
41.200
-$238
Worker Equivalent
Cost per Worker
0.25
$60
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.4; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 2 7
CHAPTER 6
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTLN'G .42~I) PROPOSED FACILITIES
Following its incorporation in 1982, the City of Dublin leased commercial space for government
operations. Later, the City acquired a site for City offices and carried through with the
completion of the City of Dublin Civic Center. The Dublin Police Department, administrative
offices, and Council Chamber a~e housed in the complex.
Existing and proposed Civic Center/Police facilities are shown in Table 6.1. Combined finished
space in the administrative wing and police wing totals 40,092 square feet. Unfinished
administrative space of 4,515 square feet will be improved to accommodate grOwth. The
planned expansion will also increase police wing improved space by 6,963 square feet.
TABLE 6.1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CIVIC
CENTER/POLICE FACILITIES INVENTORY
Finished
Building Sq. Ft.
Existing Facilities~
Administrative Building 20,702
Police Wing 19,390
Total 40,092
Current Service Population
Current Service Standard
27,200
1.47 sf/capita
Planned Expansion
Adm/nistrative Building
Police Wing
Total Expansion
4,515
6,963
11,478
Growth in Service Population
Service Standard for Expansion
40,900
0.28 sf/capita
h'Existing Facilities" does not include the Council Chambers,
meeting room or lobby.
Sources: City of Dublin (see Appendix C); Table 6.2; Hausrath
Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 28
New development will be charged only for the costs of these improvements, which are being
carried out reflecting a lower se~ice standard than the current standard (0.28 square feet of
improved space per capita, vs. the current standard of 1.47). Improvements to the administrative
and police wings are estimated to cost a total of $2.335 million, according to a space analysis
carried out by the City's consultant, Miers and Associates (see Appendix C).
COST ALLOCATION
The cost of the Civic Center improvements associated with ~owth is allocated to new
development on a service population basis. The growth of the service population is shown in
Table 6.2. For the purposes of allocating .Civic Center costs between residential and commercial/
industrial land uses, workers are assigned a weight of 0.24 to reflect business demand on police
and administrative activities. The 0.24 worker equivalency factor is a professional standard used
in fee documentation to reflect hours of business activity relative to residential activity, assuming
· an average 40-hour work week and equivalent average:per-resident and per-worker use of
specified public services.
TABLE 6.2
CIVIC CENTER SERVICE POPULATION
Service
Residents Workers Population
Existing 24,006 13,490 27,200
New Development 34,360 27,410 40,900
Build-out Total 58,366 40,900 68,100
*Service population equals residents plus workers weighted at
0.24. Rounded to nearest 100.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
The City has carried out a cost allocation analysis and determined that all but $235,816 of the
total cost of renovating and expanding the administrative and police wings of the Civic Center is
attributable to new development: a total of $2.099 million. Because the expansion of the
facilities is at a rate of only-0.28 square feet per capita (as opposed to the current service standard
of 1.47. square feet per capita), all expansion costs are correctly attributable to serving new
development. However, for any renovation items, City staffhas allocated 75 percent or more of
the cost to the General Fund.
Hausrath Economics Group 29
The total cost of $2.1 million spread across the projected expansion of the service population of
40,900 results in a cost of $51 per resident, as shown in Table 6.3. Workers are weighted at
0:24, resulting in a cost of $12 per worker.
TABLE 6.3
CIVIC CENTER TOT.&L EXPANSION COST AND
COST PER CAPITA
Total Expansion Cost~
New Development Service Population
Cost per Resident
Worker Equivalent
Cost per Worker
$2,099,214
40.900
$51
0.24
$12
~Includes portion of renovations of administrative and police
wings, as explained in text. See also Appendix C.
Sources: Table 6.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
ttausrath Economics Group 30
CHAPTER 7
CALCULATION OF FEES AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Chapters 3 through 6 describe public facilities owned by the City of Dublin and the cost of
expanding these facilities to serve growth. Each chapter also establishes a service population
measurement reflecting the relative demand of residents and workers. The cost of expanding
facilities is then allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
This chapter provides a summary of the costs of expanding facilities to accommodate growth,
and shows the calculations resulting in the public facilities fees needed to fund those costs.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Table 7.1 summarizes the total cost of expanding facilit, ies to serve growth, divided into three
areas: citywide, Eastern Dublin, and Western Dublin. "Citywide facilities (commun!ty parks,
community buildings, the library, and the Civic Center) benefit both existing and newly
developing areas. These costs can therefore be applied to new development regardless of where
it occurs in Dublin. However, new neighborhood parks will serve ~owth in Eastern Dublin and
Western Dublin only. Since these facilities will only benefit Eastern and Western Dublin, their
costs are allocated to these areas. Finally, the Eastern Dublin aquatic center will only serve
growth in that area, so its cost is allocated to Eastern Dublin.
Costs allocated citywide are estimated to total $99 million, or $2,457 per resident and $509 per
worker. Eastern Dublin neighborhood park and aquatic center costs total $33.5 million. The
corresponding per capita costs are $1,049 per resident and $3 per worker, and are added to
citywide costs for development in Eastern Dublin. The only facilities specific to Western Dublin
are neighborhood parks. The total cost for neighborhood parks in Western Dublin is $1.5
million, corresponding to $982 per resident.
Hausrath Economics Group
TABLE 7.1
TOTAL EXPANSION COST TO SERVE GROWTH
Facility Type by Area
Total
Expansion
Cost
Citywide
Community Par'ks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total/Citywide Cost per Capita
Eastern Dublin
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
· Aquatic Center
Total
Citywide Cost per Capita
Eastern Dublin Cost per Capita
Eastern Dublin per Capita Total
Western Dublin
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Total
Citywide Cost per Capita
Western Dublin Cost per Capita
Western Dublin per Capita Total
$50,526,000
23,844,062
12,164,000
9,813,000
2.099.214
$98,446,276
!
$22,129,800
$9,211,170
2.1o~.2>0
$33,474,220
$1,062,600
442.290
$1,504,890
Cost per Cost per
Resident Worker
1,241 $285
586 135
341 17
238 60
$2,457 S509
$693 $0
289 0
6_27 3_
$1,049 $3
$2,457 $509
1.049 3
$3,506 $512
$693 $0
289 _0
$982 $0
$2,457 $509
982 0
$3,439 S509
Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.4, 4.5, 5.4, 5.5, and 6.3~ Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 32
COSTS BY L.~kND USE TYPE
Per capita costs are converted to fees per land use unit in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. Occupant densities
(persons per residential unit or workers per 1,000 square feet) are shown in the top row. These
are applied to the per-resident o~per-worker costs for each facility type to arrive at the fee (per
dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space).
Citywide fees per unit are $7,862 per single family unit and $4,914 per multifamily unit. Eastern
Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center, which
bring the fees to $11,219 and $7,012. Western Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood
parks only, bringing its fees to $11,004 and $6,878. New residential development in the existing
City would also be responsible for neighborhood park mitigations, though these xvould be done
separately under the City's Quimby Act ordinance (see discussion at end of chapter).
Citywide, commercial/industrial facilities fees per 1,000 square feet range from $863 for
industrial to $1,957 for office space. Development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a small
portion of the proposed aquatic center, increasing the range of fees up to $868 to $1,969 per
1,000 square feet.
Hausrath Economics Group
33
TABLE 7.2
IMPACT FEE BY RESIDENTL4L LAND USE
Fee per Unit~
Cost per I Single Multi-
Resident i Family family
Average Residents per Unit
Cit3',vide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total Fee
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total Fee
Western Dublin Only
Neighborhood Par'ks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement
Total
$1,241
586
341
238
5~
$2,457
.3.2 res/du 2.0 res/du
3,971 $2,482
1,875 1,172
1,091 682
762 476
163 .102
$7,862 $4,914
$693 $9_,_918 $1,386
289 925 578
6._27 214 .134
$1,049 $3,357 $2,098
$2,457
1.04~
$3,5O6
$693
.$289
$982
Western Dublin
· Citywide Costs $2,457
Western Dublin Costs 982
Total Fee $3,439
$7,862 $4,914
3.357 2,098
$11,219 $7,012
$2,218 $1,386
925 578
$3,143 $1,964
$7,862 $4,914
3,142. 1,964
$11,004 $6,878
l,,single family" shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or Specific Plan for six or fewer units per acre.
Multifamily shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or Specific Plan for more than six units per acre.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 7.1; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 34
TABLE 7.3
IMPACT FEE BY COMzMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
i Fee per 1.000 Souare Feet
Cost per i
Worker i Commercial Office Industrial
Occupancy Density*.
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total Fee
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total Fee
Western Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
TOtal
Western Dublin
Citywide Costs
Western Dublin Costs
Total Fee
i 505 sffw'kr 260 sffw'kr 590 sffwkr
!
I
$285! $564 $1,096 $483
135I 267 519 229
17i 34 65 29
60i 119 231 102
~_2.~ 24 46 20
$509[ $1,008 $1,957 $863
$0I $o $o $o
O~ 0 0 0
$3! $6 $12 $5
$509i $1,008 $1,957 $863
$512i $1,014 $1,969 $868
$o! $0 $0 $0
$o! $0 $0 $0
I
$5091 $1,008 $1,957 $863
$509] $1,008 $1,957 $863
I
*Occupancy density expressed in square feet per worker.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Ecbnomics Group ............. 35 ..................
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its
facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable, and will include adjustments for inflation.
The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as
growth forecasts, development lzends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land
costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing
needs.
The actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve
adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility costs and accounting for fee
revenues. In addition, City staffwill be frequently confronted with particular situations in which
they must interpret the pro~am's criteria and render special judgments. The City may adopt
administrative guidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance
regarding ongoing operation of the pro,am. The guidelines would assist in maintaining
consistent standards regardless of City personnel turno..yer or updates to the fee program.
The City anticipates that-the public facilities fees will.' be collected at time of building permit
issuance for commercial and industrial development, and at the time of occupancy for residential
development. Once the City has adopted a capital improvement program for all the facilities
addressed, the fees will be collected at the time of building permit. Fees w/Il only be collected
on developed land if the existing structures are being expanded or otherwise modified to allow
more intense use ofth~ property than under its land use designation at the time of payment.
Fee revenues will be collected in a separate trust fund, and interest earned on fund balances will
be credited to that fund. The City will maintain a subsidiary accounting of total fees collected
and expended by type of facility. The City anticipates using its five-year capital improvement
pro,am to indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities to be funded by the public
facilities fees. For those funds unexpended or uncommitted after five years, the City should
demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which the fee was
charged; otherwise, the City shall return the fees to the current owners at the time of refund
(Government Code Section 60001 (4)(e)).
RELATIONSFIIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES
FEE PROGRAM AND QUIMBY ORDINANCE
As discussed in Chapter 3, the City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
9.28) based on the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) regarding dedication of
par~and by new development. The ordinance's provisions are applicable only when land is
subdivided for residential development. At that time, the City may require the land- owner to
either dedicate land for park services or pay an in-lieu fee. The amount of land dedicated or fee
paid is based on the estimated residential population of the proposed development and provision
of park land equal to the City's standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population.
The City would implement the park facilities fee documented in this study in conjunction with
the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are
imposed when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the development
Hausrath Economics Group " 36
process, when building permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been
charged with a Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to deduct the
park land component from the total public facilities fee shown in Table 7.2.
This deduction to the public facilities fee for land subject to the Quimby Act ordinance would be
equal to the land component of the parks fee only, not the park improvement component (see
Table 7.2). The Quimby Act ordinance is based only on the park land requirements of new
development, not the cost of park improvements, so the deduction only equals the former and not
the latter. For development in Eastern or Western Dublin, the Quimby deduction would equal
the sum of the community and neighborhood park land fees. In the remainder of the City, the
deduction would equal only the community park land fee because the neighborhood park fee is
not applied outside of Eastern and Western Dublin.
Some examples illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications, and Quimby deductions
would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees or
dedicate land.. Three scenarios are shown in Table 7.4 for a single family residence. The first
two scenarios pertain to development in Eastern or W~.$tern Dublin. In the first, the developer
elects to dedicate land for all park acreage, and only pays fees for the park development costs. In
the second scenario, the developer does not dedicate land, but pays the in-lieu fee. The third
scenario would .apply to the existing portions of the City. Here, the City's Quimby Act
'ordinance would apply to the neighborhood park requirements, and the developer would either
dedicate land or pay the in-lieu fee under that requirement. Impact fees would be charged only
for community parks.
TABLE 7.4
PARK IMPACT FEE PER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
E/W Dublin Devlpmt.
Dedicate Pay In-Lieu In_fill
Parkland Fees Devlpmt,
Community Parkland*
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Parkland*
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
$0 $3,971 $3,971
1,875 1,875 1,875
0 2,218 -NA-
925 925 -NA-
$2,800 $8,989: $5,846
N/A/= Not Applicable.
*Assumes the amount of the Quimby Act fee per Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 is equal to the
public facilities fee.
Source: Hausrath Economics Group.
................ : ...... Hausrath Economies Group . . 37
Table 7.5 shows sample fee calculations for single and multifamily residences in Eastern Dublin,
Western Dublin, and the infiI1 areas. When calculating fees, cost impacts for all facilities are
added together to arrive at the total charges. If land has been or will be dedicated, the value of
the land dedicated will be applied as a credit to arrive at a net fee amount due. Note that
neighborhood parks in-lieu fees levied under the Quimby Act apply only to the infiI1 areas.
Thus, in calculating the facilities impact fees levied under Government Code Section 66000, the
neighborhood park component is excluded for in.fill areas.
TABLE 7.5
EXAMPLE FEE CALCULATIONS INCLUDING PARK DEDICATION
E. Dublin E. Dublin W. Dublin W. Dublin Infill Area Infill Area
SF Unit MF Unit SF Unit MF Unit SF Unit MF Unit
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Aquatic Center
Total
$3,971 $2,482 / $3,971 $2,482 $3,971 $2,482
$1,875 1,172 1,875 1,172 1,875 1,172
$1,091 682 1,091 682 1,091 682
$762 476 762 476 762 476
$163 102 163 102 163 102
$2,218 1,386 2,218 1,386 0 0
$925 578 925 578 0 0
$2~4 !34 ~ ~ ~ ~
$11,2i9 $7,012 $11,005 $6,878 $7,862 $4,914
Dedicate Parkland
Community Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Land
(3,971) (2,482) (3,971) (2,482) (3,971) (2,482)
(2,218) (1,386) (2,2181 (1.386~ 0 0
Total Fees Due $5,030 $3,144 $4,816 $3,010 $3,89I $2,432
SF Unit = single family dwelling unit.
MF Unit = multifamily dwelling unit.
Sources: Table 7.2; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 38
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION
Calculation of pUblic facilities costs to serve growth and corresponding fee levels has been
predicated on certain assumptions about facilities standards. State statutes governing public
facilities fees (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and related case law require that fees be
based on standards applied uniformly to both new and existing development when the facilities
built benefit both. For the City of Dublin, the present standard is lower than the standard
anticipated in the future for certain facilities. To charge new development for a standard higher
than the present requires a commitment to bring facilities serving existing development up to the
same levels, i.e., to correct an existing deficiency. Othe.,rwise, the City would effectively shift
funding of an existing deficiency to new development.
This appendix identifies the existing deficiencies implied by the service standards used in this
report. 'Three facility types will need existing deficiencies corrected. The City of Dublin is
currently below the desired standard for community parks, community buildings, and library.
The Civic Center is more than adequate to support existing municipal activities, with minor
renovations.
TO maintain equity in its public facilities fee program, the City must correct existing deficiencies
and fund these costs from sources other than fee revenues or exactions. Typically, the cost
associated with correcting deficiencies is funded out of general revenues or other sources
dedicated to capital improvements. Large projects are often financed through revenue bonds or
certificates of participation.
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
Table A. 1 shows a calculation of the value of existing library facilities in preparation for
determining the existing library deficiency. Table A.2 shows calculations of the existing
deficiencies, ~ven the per capita standards anticipated at build-out. Refer to previous tables (as
annotated in Table A.2) for sources of per capita standards, service populations, and expansion
costs per unit.
In these calculations we subtract existing fee fund balances from the initial calculation of
existing deficiency to arrive at an estimate of net existing deficiency. This is to account for the
fact that a portion of existing fee fund balances has been paid by developers of currently
occupied residential units or nonresidential space, but has not yet been spent on improving
existing facilities. However, because some portion of any fee fund balance is to construct
facilities for development that has not yet been constructed and/or occupied, this adjustment will
tend to understate the actual deficiency.
Existing parkland falls short of the 5.0 acres per 1,000-resident standard allowed under the
Quimby Act. Additional park acreage can be acquired by the City to bring the park acreage
Hausrath Economics Group 39
TABLE A.1
VALUE OF EXISTING LIBRARY
INVENTORY
Land Square Feet
Cost per Square Foot
Land Value
Volumes
Cost per Volume
Volumes Value
Total Value of Existing Inventory
136,000
$17
$2,312,000
90,000
$25
$2,250,000
$4,562,000
Note: See Table 5.5 for dollar estimates.
Sources: Table 5.5; Hausrath Economics Group.
associated with the existing population in line with the standard applied to growth. The existing
park standard amounts to 4.79 acres per 1,000 residents, or 0.21 acres per 1,000 short of the
standard. The existing resident population is 24,006, including Eastern and Western Dublin,
indicating an additional need of 5.03 acres. Costs are shown to be $654,300 per acre, including
land at $462,000 plus improvements at $192,300. After accounting for the current fee fund
balance, there is no existing deficiency in parks facilities. However, this is due to the fact that a
substantial portion of the fee fund balance shown in Table A.2 consists of a 19-acre in-lieu
parkland dedication by the County. This dedication is intended to serve development that has
not yet occurred. Therefore the actual deficiency is still negative.
As development proceeds, the City plans to considerably expand community facilities. At
present, community buildings total 18,180 square feet, exclusive of the aquatic center and leased
space serving as the senior center. An additional 22,000 square feet are needed to bring
community/recreation facilities up to standard. At an estimated $209 per square foot, the cost of
remedying the deficiency is estimated at $4.6 million. Net of the fee fund balance of $659,000,
the cost is $3.9 million, or the equivalent of about 19,000 square feet. This includes costs
associated with replacing the square footage of the current senior center when the school
building lease is terminated.
For the purpose of calculating the current library deficiency, the per capita library standard is
expressed in dollar terms (refer to Table A.1). The existing standard, based on estimated value
of current facilities and the 1998 library service population, is $184 per capita. After the new
library is constructed and volumes are added, the standard will be $238 per person. The total
deficit amounts to $1.62 million, net of the current fund balance of $352,000.
Hausrath Economics Group 40
TABLE A.2
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
Community Community
Parks Buildings Library
(dev. acr.) (sq. ft.) (dollar value)
Calculation of Deficiency:
Existing Inventory~
1998 Service Population2
Existing per Capita Standard
Desired Per Capita Standard3
Per Capita Deficiency
Required to Remedy Deficiency:
Per Capita Deficiency
1998 Service Population
Gross Units Required
Cost per Unit4 Total Cost
Less Fee Fund Balances
Net Total Cost
Net Units Required6
115 18,180 $4,562,000
24,006 24,700 27,400
0.00479 0.74 $166
0.00500 1.63 $238
0.00021 0.89 $72
0.00021 0.89 $72
24,006 24,700 27,400
5.03 21,983 $1,972,800
$654.300 $209 N/A
$3,291,129 $4,594,447 $1,972,800
($9,098.473) ($659.643) ($352.431
$0 $3,934,804 $1,620,369
- 18,827 N/A
N/A = Not Applicable.
~Existing inventories from Tables 3.1, 4.1, and A. 1, respectively.
2For parks, the relevant service population is residents only. Other service populations from
Tables 4.2 and 5.3, respectively.
3For parks, the desired 0.005 developed acres per capita standard is equivalent to five acres per
1,000 residents. For library, desired standard is expressed as value per capita, from Table 5.6.
See also Tables 3.4 and 4.3.
*From Tables 3.2 and 4.4. Library units already in dollars.
5Fee fund balances from City of Dublin as of 6/30/98; according to City staff, 6130 balance
similar to 1/1/98 balance to correspond to I/1/98 basis for service population estimates. Total
for community parks includes fund balances for both land and impro
*Equals Net Total Cost divided by Cost Per Unit. In the case of Parks, an inventory of land has
been built up in anticipation of future development; net deficiency is set at zero although it is
actually higher.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.3, 5.6, A. 1; Hausrath Economics Group.
Hausrath Economics Group 41
Table A.3 summarizes existing deficiencies for these facilities. Combined, the City must secure
funding for $5.6 million in improvements through year 2025. On an annual basis, over 27 years,
this amounts to $206,000 per year t? be funded from sources other than fees or exactions
imposed on new development.
TABLE A.3
SUMMARY OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
$0
3,934,804
1.620.369
Total :, $5,555,173
Annually, 1998-2025
$205,747
Sources: Table A.2; Hausrath Economics Group. ,
Hausrath Economics Group 42
APPENDIX B
CHANGES IN FEE LEVEL, 1996 TO 1998
Calculated fees have increased significantly in this update of our March 1996 report. For the
purpose of briefly discussing the change in calculated fee levels, we focus on two examples: the
fee per 1,000 square feet of commercial space and the fee per single family dwelling unit in the
Eastern Dublin area.
Overall, calculated future costs increased 57 percent, from $84.8 to $133.4 million for all areas
combined. As a result, the fee per single family dwelling unit in Eastern Dublin rose from
$7,735 to $11,219, a 45 percent increase, while the fee per 1,000 square feet of commercial
space rose from $458 to $1,014, a 121 percent increase.
As shown in Table B.1, the parkland component of the t:esidential fee increased 75 percent for
community parkland and 54 percent for neighborhood parkland. These cost increases reflect
rapidly rising property values in the area.
The large increase in the Civic Center component (see Table B. 1) is due to more detailed
construdtion plans now available. This component still makes up less than three percent of the
total fee.
The increase in the fee on commercial development, as compared to the increase in cost for a
residential unit, is primarily attributable to a change in the calculation of service population to
reflect more accurate information about relative worker usage of libraries and parks. The worker
equivalency factors increased from 0.15 to 0.23 for parks (following a corrected application of
the 1994 Pleasanton survey data used previously) and from 0.22 to 0.25 for libraries (reflecting
updated survey information and a corrected interpretation of the Santa Clara Library System
information used previously).
Table B. 1 (below) shows detailed changes in mount and percent by fee subcategory.
Hausrath Economics Group 43
TABLE B.1
COMPARISON OF 1996 AND 1998 FEE LEVELS
Single Family Unit I
3/7/96 Current Increase I. 3/7/96
Report (1998) (Decrease) % Increase i Report
Citywide i
Colmnunity Parks, Land $2,266 $3,971 [ $1,705
Community Parks, hnprovements 1,331 1,875 , 544 ,
Community Buildings 1,139 1,091 ! (48)
Libraries 560 762 ! 202
Civic Center 35 163 ! 128
Total Fee $5,331 $7,862 I $2,531
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improve~nen
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total Fee
$1,440 $2,218I $778
762 925i 163
20__~2 214 ' 12
$2,404 $3,357 [ $953
I
i
$5,331 $7,862 I $2,531
2,404 3~..~.~. I
$7,735 $11,219 i $3,484
Commercial (per 1,000 sq. fi )
Current Increase
(1998) (Decrease) % Increase
75% $210 $564[ $354 ~' 169%
41% 123 267 , 144 117%
-4% 36 34! (2) -6%
36%! 77 119 ! 42 55%
6_ 24 ! 300
47%1 $452 $1,0081 $556 123%
54%i $o $o i ~o ~/~
' 2~ [ o o i o ~/~
~' ~ ~ i ~ o~
4o~[ $6 $6, s0 0~
I
47~ $452 $1,008 I $556 123%
40~1 ~ fi { ~ O%
45~[ $458 $1,014 i $556 I21~
I
I I
Sources: Public Facilities Fee dustification Stttdy, Hausralh'Economics Group, 3/96; Tables 7.2 and 7.3; I hmsrath Economics Group.
APPENDIX C
CIVIC CENTER COST ALLOCATION DOCUMENTATION
Hausrath Economics Group 45
CiViC CENTER MODIFICATI'ON
2002 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
-COST SHARING MATRIX Dev. Gen.
PAGE 1 Fees Fund
SeCurity Fence 13,000
Landscaping 4,000
Site Work Evidence Garage 32,000
Trenching and Utilities to Evidence Garage 10,000
Site Work Building Inspector Parking 3,300
Site Work Bicycle Stooge & Maintenance Garage 120,000
Trenching for Utilities to Bicycle Storage 10,000
Sub Total Site Work $271,500
10% Contingency $27,150
Design and Engineering So.ices $40,725
Total Cost for Site Work $339,375
Police Facility Physical Training , 35,900
Redo Locker Room 35,360
66 Lockers ~ 33,000
Police Facility Watch Command/Sergeant's ,. 47,250
Evidence Rooms ~ 6,000
Records/classroom 15,000
Sub Total Police Facility $172,510
10 % contingency $17,250
Design & Engineering Se~ices $25,880
Total Cost for Police Wing Remodel ' $215,640
Civic Center ~pansion Space 154,130
Park Directors O~ce 750
Public Counter Remodel 7,400
Workroom Remodel 6,400.
Coffee Area 3,400
Finance Counter 9,800
Sub Total Civic Center $232,165
10% Contingency $23,220
Design & Engineering Se~ices $34,825
Total cost for Civic Center Wing Remodel $290,210
Combined Project Costs $845,225
Contractor Overhead & Profit 126,785
Furniture $78,500
Bid contingency $84,520
Construction Management Se~ices $50,000
.......................................... Tbt~l'project Costs $1,185,030
-'--:-~5LIMINARY COST ESTIMATE .
.. evs that the schematic pl s developed by Miers and Associates dated Decemb&r 18, 1997
accomplish the above tasks. Working drax~fngs & bid specifications are now needed in order to proceed
--. v, ffl~ construction. Part of Mr. Miers' contract was to develop a cost estimate for the work outlined in his
design. Exhibit 5 is a breakout of his PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE along with a summary of costs that
totals $1,I 85,03~1 for the build-out of~pace needed through the Year 2002. Staff'estimates that the cost to
build out the additional 5,000 sq. ft. of space shown in the Year 2017 model will be an. extra $1,150,000.
Financial Analysis
I. An outline of costs associated with each phase of construction is as follows:
PHASE I
1. Site work and out-buildings (400 sq. ft
Evidence Garage & 1,500 sq. ft. Storage
2. Police Wing Remodel
3. Civic Center \Ving Remodel & Build-out
4. Contractor Overhead & Profit
5. Furniture
6. Bid Contingency
7. Construction Management Services
8. Design & Engineering Fees
'TOTAL PI-L4.SE I COST~}'
298,650
189,760 -'
255,385---"
126,785---'
78,500
84,520'""
50,000,,-"
"101.430 .....
$1,185,030
PHASE II
t. Remodel of Police Wing with the
expansion of 5,000 sq. fl. of new space
2. Design & Engineering Services -
TOT.4i~ PHASE lq COSTS
o
$1,000,000
150.000
$1,150,000
Funding for theabovework willcome from thefollowing sources:
PHASE DEVELOPMENT FEES GENERAL FUND TOTAl,
PhaseI $ 949,214 $ 235,816 $1,185,030
Phase II .. 1,150,000 0 1,170,000
$2,099,214 $ 235,816 $2,335,030
Those costs associated with improving the utilization of existing space would come from the General
Fund. All other costs associated with remodeling and expanding the .Civic Center are attributable to new
development and would come from Development Fees' collected by the City.
3. The City's Public Facility Impact Fee will need to be adjusted to cover the cost of remodeling and
expanding the Civic Center. The current Public Facility Impact Fee was 'based upon only completing
tenant improvements in the expansion space, remodeling existing space in Police and expanding the
Police parking lot, at a cost of $445,000.
4. Funding is currently available from the Public Facility Fee Fund to cover the cost of design and
engineering services estimated to cost $101,430 for Phase I or $251,430 for Phase I and Phase II.
-5-
1998-2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT. NUMBER
9391
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Civic Center Renovation/
Expansion Project
ACTIVITY
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION - LOCATION
This project provides for the completion of the Dublin Civic Center in order to accommodate the additional City Staff and
poIice personnel required to serve the City in the next five years (Phase I), and at build-out of the City (Phase II). Phase I
improvements include the build-out of 4,500 sf o~ unimproved space, expansion of the police parking lot, construction of a
400 sf evidence g=-rage and a 1,500 sf maintenance building along with tenant improvements needed in current working
areas in both the poiice wing and administrative wing of the Civic Center. Design, engineering and ail consulting services
needed for the modifications at the Civic Center are included in the CIP. Phase 11 includes a 5,000 sf addition to the police
wing to accommodate the anticipated growth in the Police Department to serve the City at build-ouL
COMMENTS
As the City grows, it will become necessary to increase personnel to adequately service the community. Several
Departments are currently out of space and cannot accommodate additional staff. During 1997-98, the City conducted a
.C~vic Center space planning study. This study identified the number of personnel in all City Departments that would
upy space in the Civic Center in the Year 2000 and at buildout of the City's General Plan. This space planning analysis
was utilized to recommend modifications to the Civic Center to meet the growth needs of the City. The Dublin Civic Center
was designed with about 4,500 square .feet of unfinished expansion area; which will need to be modified to house the
additional personnel. The costs for designing this project will be paid for by Public Facility Impact Fees. Those costs
associated with improving the utilization of existing space would come from the General Fund, all other costs associated
with remodeling and expanding the Civic Center are attributable to new development and would be funded by
Development Fees collected by the City. The modification of the Civic Center has been divided into two phases. The first
phase cost is approximately $1.2 million and will accommodate the City's space needs through the Year 2002. The second
phase of construction will accommodate space needs at the Civic Center though the Year 2017 and will cost an additional
,$1.5 million. Staff estimates that of the costs associated with both phases, $235,816 will come from the General Fund and
the remainder ($2,1E2,622) will come from development fees. The current Public Facility Impact Fee should be modified
before the renovation of the facility proceeds.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Design $ 302,038
lnspe~ion . 7,800
Improvements 1,955,100
Machinery I Equipment 78,500
Operating Supplies
IPri~ing 5,000
~ ~ -uction Admin 50.000
TOTAL
$2,398,438
FINANCING/YEARS SCHEDULE
Fund Prior Years 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Totals
001 $ 235,816 $ 235,816
310 $ 37,738 974,884 $ 1,150,000 2,162,822
37,738 $ 1,210,700 $ 1,150,000 $ 2,398,438
-7 -
CIVIC CENTER STAi. ,.'& SPACE NEEDS
SUMMARY
~.D
I
I
.~.q.
>..
H
._1
i ..... '.:.':.!..; · .~.;.'.':';"':.. ' ..........
.::..;;'..':..'.:.!:>:::h~.,O~AI. · -i ]!:.?:':.;:.,::;:;., ~' "....,.:::::,-':.'~'?~.-- ' '~i.~..'.: ..:-:...' .... :7.
DEPARTMENT , STAFF.-.- ,,,-,..--- ~:ili.~.D, ~!~.A'.!~,T.'L45 N ~ ..' ~I STAFF 1
ADMINISTRATIVE WING - ~- :;;';;~';?~'.";'?:~;:;.U'; ...... ?"i - ~ ' i:!;~;:!;~'i:.;;.'.j?:i".;::i!;:!i',;.'.!i!;;~':!~!,;jfi~;!'!~!:;~ - -'"?
1,0 Cily MgflCily Council i 10.5 !:.~!ii:;!,;;~;;i?~i~;~i{ ' '- .' I 12 5 I:'.":'~'¢;'::-'.':,!>,;";~i'O~?:?,:::';;.:,.n'..;:: 13 n'"":;";:~:::':":':'~?'' :i~i';c::' :' ''' '^-
' 2.0Adminlstralive Services O !i[!~i~i~?'-;-"~;;!~¢:?i'~i'262 '-' ' -'; 1 ~' ,';.~.'":".'?'"-'::'~.'-'=-"'-'~F~>":-:-', :...:......:.,:......,,..:o..~..1.%,,.~;,:~..,:;,:...:.
· , '~:~.':*,:'~".,.'~'-r.':..,:':." -;. :' .,' ,,,.,.~?',:s,.,'.$; 20.~-.:,,.¢...,...,,..,,,. lO ';:"{'¢':".!¢'-'".'¥~"5~J~b'~::'.:;;':<?'
,.,::.!,,,.~..;....,.,,.J.~ -.:. · 15 ....... ': .......... ':' ...... ;~.~,.. ...... 10 ....... :" ..... >',,"':.,':-.'.4'"" .... e06',,,',,;' ...... ':';~',,;" ....
5.0 Parks & Community Serv 5 '~,L.',":~'~.!,~::~?.,':~:,~1'~533 ·. · - ' :.- O
6.0 Fire Prevention Bureau j 3 ~?:~!'~."'J~O8 ;". "" 5
5
', ¢2.¢.*~'..,':"s'.~,'Z¢.~IRI::'~..'~*,':..,".":;,,'.~; ,~ ~:;*'-"- ',' .~".' ...... ',' ,"',,';~.".-
· I 0 ¢i",,',!t.%!','¢,~¢'.('.'.".'.~ ' -'.. , . ..',.,~, ,..'.'... :' ., .... .,,'q .:-" ,- ~ ,, J 08~
SuppoIt
Areas
~',', ,~%~.'.:..^'.' '.,':',¢ ¢.;'~..~..,.' ';.,:.':.-',"=;';"* i ,. "%'.':.'".':';'2/.~.'.
, ;.~.~':R¢;7¢:;';;~,~,.-'0 , .... 0 J .;:..,.:.,.:,...>..,,.~...4..,~...~..<,,,.,.,,,..:,,,:. 0 : ,.: :....,.'.'..,:',.'.4;000.
':~"-f';'.'.-.".;;,,'4' · '".;,;:',:¢"~';.,.¢; ':,: :::.'.':'.'J".;.."':. .....
: ..... "'. :..:...,.:;,::.:.::?.
, SUBTOTAL STAFF - :56'.5 :¢i:':'~:;:ii::;i:~:;::%i~i~;~" '""'""'? 71 ~ - ,..?:,,,..,..,,.,.-:.;;.:,,.v. .............. .:' · .... ,;,.,., :.-::', :: :.. ,
:SUBTOTAL (GSb ..... ' ~(/:~)i~.~"'-'? .... ... , ;..¢..?;,;,.::':....,.y'0..'.~,',:.;;,.,'::: 89 ~.,.~.,......,:,'.,,,.,,:.....;.,::v,,';?':..., .....
:.:¥::.';?;.;,,~;¢:?,:.:.:.~;;:;:;; .... -'"?.--' - - ' - - ' ' ;-::'..,:'.;:.~:,.,.-.¢: ". :~,.~: ~C: '? ..... ~ ,.-,: .': ,,: -:. ,.r,',.:...,..::-.,_-.z:
POUCEV,.o . ,
r.',~.,;.'..;:.~ <:, ¢..-~:.. ¢... ¢ ,, .:.,. ,,-:..,%-m..::-;,' · ,-'~ ::., .:-.,'..,-;? ':.'.~ -.,,.' ,.'.(.,-::.;<...~;.,,__. , 8 .-'~;:. '.1
?,o ,40 -:' '" I 50 .. ::;;-,:::.i::,?.,.;....;,:i..., .;.>:.,;':.:.:.:,.,
........ ,,;'...': ;.-'- ~.."..,,.'..-.,',? .~ ~.,,: ,,: ~ ,1~ ~ ..?;~:.:,., ..., ~,:.,:.: .~. Ii. ,;.: :.., ~ '"".::'" "-~' ' ':'¢"~" ":'"'"': '" :':; ':;; "::¢ "~." ':: o'.. '!:';..f ~,.'::..?;..r
i?:?;; - - ' "'-?
:,,..::,..,~ .. ~.; ¢:....,. ,. ,..~. ,~ . . :"-':..'.: 'i':.i-,'-¢.~.:'" "' ...... ' ?;'.r..;.:.. -'.;,: ,:: i :"!; ¢:':~"=":':; =':': ":':":¥: L¢:"%'i ::':"'?::C:
'"'i?~'''~''';¢''''C''~'''r; ':.: .' ';,' .',
:.;..:.'. t.~ ~..'.~..,~q,t....':.! :,, .',,='"/,f;.'7."., ,'~ :' ~'~¢" ":'~'"'.'":[';L~:'"';~-;~'~';;':'!
EXPANSION AREN EXISTING '::~-¢.'.'.::¢.:::.',;4;§?[I ' * :.:.:*.'.:.~*~;..':.-~,:'.~':.:.~.,:.=..'.;'c'.~,.',~.~';~;;-::, '.'.'::, ':-?'::"':.;::¢~:~:;:":'".":".",'.':~?":~
STORAGE .::..,.~.:~:;.,..;~;.,.:~).. , ; -: :.'.':~%.~,.~:'/~:,.'::v,:Q;~':.~.s~.:.:...:,:. ";'""~'~:'"" ~"':~:."~' ':~,?';".'
· ;:~;;~<;;:..-.;...:.,~.:;,~.:.,:= . . .. ::;:,:.'.-'--;.C.,,';'::.'..:;:..'.::':':';'.:;':.~ :~>:';,': ':.";'."'";:'"'i;?,;;:77:;?:::~;.:~".':;£.'.'~'~:~::;;[-'
"::'" ': ~ re" ~:'; ~ '"~":' · :'"~"::!!'"':"""~'"'~'::"'"::"::~:::";';':::'?";' .. '. :.".' ...~:.
Depadmaot tolali iht. Jude an approxlmale 15% grossing factor to account fo~ Inle~depa~nental clrculalion and axle~lo¢ w~lla which are no1 shown on Ihe IrtdJvldual depadmnnt cha~ls.
The PolI~ ~ng square f~ta~e ~or igg8 l~cl~es a grossing la,or o~
*Suppod ~mas Include slaO feslfoo~, lounge, slaim, fe~lving alee ~mpoter iooln, se~l~ elevator, Jobby, elc.
"Public Areas include public reslrooms. CoLindf Chamber, Reg~onat Moellng R~n~. arid public Slalr and lobby
EXHIBIT I-A
TABLE E.4
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE AND AREA
Area
Residential
(per Dwelling Unit)
Single Multi-
Family family
Nonresidential
(per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Comm'l. Office IndustrT
Cit3~vide
Commm~ity Parks, Land $3,971 $2,482
Community Parks, Improvements 1,875 1,172
Community Buildings 1,091 682
Libraries 762 476
Civic Center 163 102
Total Fee $7,862' $4,914
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $2,218 $t,386
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 925 578
Aquatic Center 214 134
Total $3,357 $2,098
Eastern Dublin
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total Fee
$7,862 $4,914
3,357 2,098
$11,219 $7,012
Western Dublin Only
Neighborhood parks, Land $2,218 $1,386
Neighborhood Parks, Improvement 925 578.
Total $3,143 $1,964
Western Dublin
Citywide Costs
Western Dublin Costs
Total Fee
$7,862 $4,914
3,142 1,964.
$11,004 $6,878
$564 $1,096 $483
267 519 229
34 65 29
119 231 102
24 46 20
$1,008 $1,957 $863
$0 $0 $0
0 0 0
_6 12
$6 $12 $5
$1,008 $1,957 $863
_6 12 5_
$1,014 $1,969 $868
$0 $0 $0
o o o
$o $o $o
$1,008
$1,008
$1,957
$1,957
$863
$863
Source: Tables 7.2 and 7.3
Hausrath Economics Group
xi