Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Amend Public Facilities Fee or 19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK ` CITY COUNCIL File #600-70 DATE: July 21, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager " SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment of Public Facilities Fee and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 7.78 (Public Facilities Fee) and 9.28 (Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes) of the Dublin Municipal Code Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager and Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider proposed increases/decreases to the Public Facilities Fee program. The program was last updated in 2002, and the proposed rates reflect changes in costs and development projections since that time. Public Facilities Fees are collected to mitigate the impact created by future development on certain public facilities including: civic center; library; parks; aquatic facilities; and community buildings, such as community, cultural and recreational centers. The proposed changes to the fee program include the establishment of one citywide fee, regardless of development area, and one residential fee regardless of population densities. Additionally, the City Council will consider introducing a related Ordinance amending the Dublin Municipal Code to reflect new parkland dedication categories within the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed amendments to the Public Facility Fee ("PFF") program will result in the collection of adequate revenue to ensure that the City is able to build facilities required to provide services to the City's population through build-out. As proposed, the PFF Program would fund approximately $245 million in capital facilities to serve growth through build-out. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending Chapters 7.78 (Public Facilities Fee) and 9.28 (Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes) of the Dublin Municipal Code; and adopt the Resolution Revising the Public Facilities Fee for Future Development within the City of Dublin. Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 6.1 Reviewed By Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: The City Council adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 on December 12, 1994, creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee is to finance municipal public facilities to mitigate the impacts caused by future development within the City of Dublin on parks and public facilities. Such facilities include the following: expansion of Civic Center administrative office space and police wing; expansion of the library; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks, construction of aquatic facilities, and construction of community buildings such as community, cultural and recreational centers. The City imposes other development fees to mitigate the impacts on other public facilities, including on the transportation system and on fire facilities. Several City Council-approved documents set forth the scope of public facilities necessary to serve new development. The City first adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in July of 1994, which has been updated at various points since that time, most recently on May 19, 2015. The Master Plan provides direction for addressing the long-term park and recreational facility needs of the City through build-out of the community. The Plan envisions a park system at build- out of the City based on a standard of providing five-acres of park lands for every 1,000 residents, including both neighborhood and community parks. Additionally, the Master Plan calls for the development of the following community facilities: a community center; recreation center; cultural center; senior center; and aquatic facilities. The Library Planning Task Force Report in April of 1993 recommended expansion of the then existing library and construction of an additional library in Eastern Dublin. A subsequent study done in September 1998 recommended construction of one 37,000 square foot Library on the Civic Center site. Approximately 30,000 square feet of the library was completed in 2005, with the remaining approximate 7,000 square feet to be funded by the Public Facilities Fee program and improved at a later date. These standards are based on the recommended square footage of Library space at 0.6 square feet per Dublin resident that were established in the prior Library Study. Based on these standards, an additional 9,000 square feet will need to be constructed in the future to accommodate growth within the community, for a total of 16,000 square feet of new Library space. Funding for this expansion is included in the proposed Public Facility Fee Update. The City Council originally approved a Civic Center Programming Document dated November 1986 that provided for the ultimate build-out of the Civic Center to accommodate what was then an estimated resident population projection of 40,000 people in the year 2005. The City revisited the programming study in 2007 and again in 2010 to determine the projected needs for Civic Center expansion based on updated population projections. The 2010 study projected the need for approximately 14,000 square feet of additional space to accommodate the City's administrative needs through buildout, the cost of which is included in the proposed fee program update. Page 2 of 8 It has long been the City's policy that new development pay for the increase in infrastructure necessary to accommodate the development as codified in various City documents including, but not limited to, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C), the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (Policy 10-1, page 151), the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (contains goals and guiding policies relating to the implementation of funding sources to acquire, develop, operate and maintain recreational facilities — Goal 3), etc. Consistent with such policies, the proposed Public Facilities Fee Program Update assumes that development will pay for its fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of the planned improvements. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a Public Facilities Fee for development within the City of Dublin. The Public Facilities Fee was based on the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study prepared by Recht, Hausrath & Associates. In 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 60-99 revising the Public Facilities Fee that was based on the Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update prepared by Hausrath Economics Group. A revised Public Facility Fee Program was again adopted by the City Council in 2002. In 2007, the City began preparation of a Public Facilities Fee program update as such programs are generally updated about every five years; however, due to the tenuous economic conditions existing at that time, the City deferred action on the Public Facilities program update until a time when economic conditions have improved. As economic conditions have improved over the past few years, Staff finds it prudent to proceed with the fee update at this time. PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM PROGRESS SINCE LAST UPDATE: Since the last update of the Public Facilities Fee Program, the City has added a number of facilities to meet the needs of its residents and fulfill the goals of the program. In particular, the City has added approximately 83 acres of improved parkland, acquired an additional 57 acres of parkland awaiting improvement, and completed the following facilities: Library, Senior Center, Shannon Community Center (a portion was funded by the program), and begun construction on the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex. Of the 83 acres of improved parkland, the City has completed construction on the following park facilities: • Bray Commons Park • Passatempo Park • Devany Square • Piazza Sorrento Park • Emerald Glen Park • Positano Hills Park • Fallon Sports Park • Schaefer Ranch Park UPDATED FEE STUDY: The Resolution adopting the public facilities fee program directs Staff to update the Public Facilities Fee periodically to ensure that adequate revenues are being collected to build the facilities within the program. Willdan Financial Services prepared a revised report titled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update (2015 Study Update)" (Attachment 1). The purpose of the 2015 Study Update is to update cost information based on recent data for: • Parkland acquisition cost per acre; • Parkland development cost per acre; • Community building costs; • Aquatic Center costs; • Library building costs; and Page 3 of 8 • Civic Center expansion costs. The impact fee model used to develop the previous update by Hausrath Economics Group was reconstructed to reflect the new information. Attachment 2 illustrates fees by land use type and area that are currently in effect as of July 1, 2015. Fees for residential development in Eastern Dublin range from $21,492 for a multi-family unit to $34,389 for a single-family unit. Non-residential fees range from $2,690 per 1,000 square feet for an industrial use to $6,105 per 1,000 square feet for an office use. Fees for residential development in Western Dublin (limited to the Schaefer Ranch project) range from $21,118 for a multi-family unit to $33,787 for a single-family unit. Infill development pays only the Citywide fees which range from $15,369 for a multi-family unit to $24,590 for a single-family unit. However, in-fill development is also subject to the City's Quimby Act ordinance for Neighborhood Park requirements. Attachment 3 illustrates the proposed fees by land use type resulting from the 2015 Study Update to the fee study. Fees for residential development, regardless of location or unit type, are proposed to be $24,444 per dwelling unit. Non-residential fees range from $1,717 per 1,000 square feet for an industrial use to $4,637 per 1,000 square feet for an office use. Overall, the Public Facilities Fee is proposed to decrease by 29% for residential development projects that have a density of 6.0 units per acre or less under the current fee program, and it will increase by approximately 14% for residential developments with density levels of 6.1 units per acre and greater. The proposed fee will decrease for non-residential developments with office and industrial land use designations by 24% and 36% respectively. The commercial nonresidential fee is proposed to increase by 10%. The changes in the fee structure are due to the following factors: 1. Change to Population Numbers. The total amount of additional residents included within the Public Facility Fee Update is approximately 15,000. Adding 15,000 people to our Public Facilities Fee program means that we have to build additional facilities to accommodate that increased population. For example, the additional 15,000 people generate the need for 75 acres of new parkland based on the City's master plan standards of 5 acres per 1,000 people. Thus, a large portion of the proposed fee increase is attributable to the updated population numbers. The population have been updated according to the below reasons. a. The City of Dublin's General Plan provides population projections for the ultimate buildout of the community. For the 2002 Fee Program Update, the General Plan has population projections that were based on how many persons, on average, occupied single-family homes (defined as less than 6.1 units per acre) and how many persons occupied multifamily homes (defined as greater than or equal to 6.1 units per acre). Further, the General Plan's population projections incorporate the most recent information from the 2010 Census. The2010 Census provided household density information for the residential population as a whole at 2.7 persons per dwelling unit. This shift in measuring how many persons live in each dwelling unit, rather than by unit types, added approximately 8,000 people to the City's buildout population projections, over the amount used for the 2002 Update. Page 4 of 8 b. In addition to the change in Census methodology, new development within the Dublin Crossing and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan areas have added additional homes and residents to the Dublin community that were not envisioned during the 2002 Study Update. Within Dublin Crossing, there are 1,995 units, and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan includes another 2,500 units. This increase in units under the prior population calculation methodology adds about 7,000 residents to the community. 2. Change in Land and Construction Values. Since the 2002 fee update, land and construction values have increased. For land values, an average annual increase of 11.36% for community parks and 9.49% for neighborhood parks has been identified in the Public Facility Fee appraisal update by Associated Right-of-Way Services (Attachment 4) when compared to the previous appraisal done in December 2000. a. For the 2002 Update, Community Parkland was valued at $12 per square foot, and it currently is valued at $34 per square foot based on the annual inflationary increases since 2002. The 2015 Update bring lands value up to current market conditions at $50 per square foot. Thus, the current fee program undervalues community parkland acquisition costs by 49%. b. For the 2002 Update, Neighborhood Parkland was valued at $15 per square foot, and it currently is valued at $31 per square foot based on the annual inflationary increases since 2002. The 2015 Update bring land value up to current market conditions at $50 per square foot. Thus, the current fee program undervalues neighborhood parkland acquisition costs by 52%. c. Improvement costs have increased by 95% for community parks and by 57% for neighborhood parks. These increases reflect the City's current experience with construction bids and costs for Passatempo, Positano, and Jordan Ranch parks. d. Community Building costs have increased by 95% from $441 per square foot to $730 per square foot. This increase is based on the costs identified in the recent Recreation and Aquatic Complex Capital Project. e. The cost of the Aquatic Center has increased by 69% as a result of a cost estimate provided by the City's pool consultant for the Recreation and Aquatics Complex. (Attachment 5) f. Library costs included within the Public Facility Fee program have increased by 82%, and are based on the building costs of$730 square feet. g. The cost for the Civic Center has increased by 189%. This is based on the estimated cost for the Civic Center expansion project at $730 per square feet of additional space needed. h. The cost increase for the Commercial fee is primarily due to the fact that, of the non-residential sector (nonresidential sector includes commercial, office and industrial land use designations) will experience the most growth from now until buildout. As a result, it carries a larger portion of the nonresidential fee than the other nonresidential fee categories. Page 5 of 8 3. Change in Fee Application. Additional changes within the 2015 Study Update include the inclusion of a new fee category to reflect the updated standards within the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. a. On May 19, 2015, the City Council adopted the Parks & Recreation Master Plan that included a new parkland category called Natural Community Parks. Additionally, the Master Plan update reallocated the standard of 5.0-acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents to include the new parkland category, which is included within the proposed Public Facilities Fee Program. The Master Plan standards are: Active Community Parks at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; Natural Community Parks at 0.3 acres per 1,000 residents; and Neighborhood Parks at 1.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The inclusion and redistribution of the parkland standard lowers the cost impact of new facilities as Natural Community Parks have a significantly lower land acquisition cost and operations/maintenance cost than its two counterparts. b. Finally, the City's current Public Facilities Fee Program includes a number of different fees, which are placed on new development depending upon which area of the City the development is located. For ease of administration and to ensure that new developments in areas such as within Downtown Dublin pay their fair share toward facility needs, the proposed Public Facilities Fee program includes only one fee that will be paid by development within the community. This will increase cost for certain areas of the community that previously did not pay certain portions of the fee. However, the addition of those fees will allow that City to provide the needed facilities to mitigate the impact of development with those areas. Under the current program, the developments outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area as well as within Schaefer Ranch do not pay Neighborhood Park fees, nor do they contribute to aquatic facilities. As development is now envisioned and planned for in the downtown and other areas, it is appropriate to create one consistent fee regardless of development location. Simply, residents from new developments generate the same impact on the City services regardless of within which specific plan are they reside. Since the Public Facilities Fee was first adopted in 1996, the cost of land acquisition and park and facility construction has increased dramatically. The land and improvement cost per acre and the cost per square foot for building construction that were first used to establish the fee in 1996 and subsequent update in 2002 were based on the City's previous experience in these areas. Construction costs experienced by the City and developers for such projects as Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatics Complex and Fallon Sports Park Phase II have proven that the cost factors that the fee is based upon will not cover the cost of acquisition and construction of facilities in today's construction climate. The largest component of the Public Facilities Fee is the cost to acquire parkland, which amounts to approximately 45% of the fee. For those property owners who have sufficient park land on their property to dedicate in accordance with the law, the total out of pocket fee paid to the City (excluding dedicated land) is $13,515 per unit. However, not all park land can be acquired through dedication. To comply with City policies described above, the fee must be calculated so that sufficient monies are collected to purchase the land which cannot be acquired by dedication. Page 6 of 8 FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS: The City will continue to conduct future study and analysis to determine if the Fee should be revised at a future date. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three years. Since 2002, the fee has been adjusted automatically based on the formula as described below. It is proposed that the fee increase methodology be kept the same for improvement costs and the annual inflationary factor for land valuation is proposed to be 9%. Improvement Costs The costs of construction of the Facilities identified in the 2015 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. For example, if the improvement cost for community parks in Year One is $720,000 per acre and in Year Two the Construction Cost Index is +2.5% more than Year One, that will result in an increase to $738,000 per acre. Land Costs The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities identified in the Study Update shall be increased/decreased annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost in the most recent land appraisal from 2013 (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 in 2000 for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, in 2000, the cost per square foot of neighborhood parkland was is $15.38/sgft and in 2013 it was $50.00/sgft, which results in an annual compounded growth increase of 9% resulting in a yearly increase in land valuation of 9%. The City will continue to use the same formula to adjust the fee on July 1 annually. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: As mentioned above, due to changes in report beginning with the 2010 Census, the City of Dublin General Plan no longer includes population density information for single-family and multifamily density types. However, the current fee program is based on the assumption that such data will be available, and, in particular, the Dublin Municipal Code provides for the collection for fee based on these density types. Should the City Council proceed with the adoption of the recommended Public Facility Fees, the Dublin Municipal Code will need to be amended to reflect the change from two fees being collected (multifamily and single-family) to one residential fee based on the 2010 Census information that there are 2.7 persons per dwelling unit within the City of Dublin. Additionally, the Code will be updated to provide for one Public Facilities Fee Citywide. The current program has different fees for different parts of the community, depending upon where your development is sited. For ease of administration and to ensure that new developments in areas such as within Downtown Dublin pay their fair share toward facility needs, Staff is recommending that one fee be applied for the community. Finally, the Parks & Recreation Master Plan calls for the creation of a new fee for the development of a community park that is nature based. Additionally, the Master Plan reallocated the 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents requirement slightly between the 3 parkland categories (Active Community Parks at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; Natural Community Parks at 0.3 acres per 1,000 residents; and Neighborhood Parks at 1.7 acres per 1,000 residents). The proposed ordinance includes this change, and changes can be viewed in Attachment 6. Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION: As demonstrated in the General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Public Facilities Fee Study Update, and other related studies and documents, future development in the City of Dublin will generate the need for those facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Study Update dated July 2, 2015. Provision of these facilities is critical to the implementation of the goals and policies contained in these documents. If adequate facilities are not provided to serve the needs generated by new development, those new residents will place a burden on existing Dublin facilities, parks, and recreational centers. Adoption of the Public Facilities Fee is consistent with the General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and will implement those plans. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 7) and adopt the Resolution (Attachment 8) revising the Public Facilities Fee. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: On June 15, 2015, Staff held an informational meeting with the development community to discuss the proposed Public Facility Fee update. Invitations to this meeting were mailed to the development community using the contact information on file with the City from past, current, and potential developments the City is aware of. A notice was placed in the Tri-Valley Times on July 11, 2015 and July 18, 2015, notifying the community of the City Council's consideration of the proposed fee increase and that the 2015 Public Facilities Fee Study Update is on file with the City Clerk for public review for a 10 day period prior to the City Council's consideration of the fee increase. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Public Facilities Fee Study Update 2. Current Fee by Land Use Type and Area 3. Proposed Public Facility Fee 4. Associated Right-of-Way Services —Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report 5. Aquatic Facilities Cost Estimate 6. Ordinance Amending Chapters 7.78 (Public Facilities Fee) and 9.28 (Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes) of the Dublin Municipal Code with Changes Tracked for Review 7. Ordinance Amending Chapters 7.78 (Public Facilities Fee) and 9.28 (Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes) of the Dublin Municipal Code 8. Resolution Revising the Public Facilities Fee for Future Developments within the City of Dublin Page 8 of 8 CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIc FACILITIEs FEE STUDY UPDATE Wlh. )( X94 ,I, Rlh'MI�\2YN�p�I��i"Y 0 5 oe W1 LLDAN Financial Services Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Lancaster, CA Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Orlando, FL Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909) 587-3510 Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA www.willdan.com This page intentionally left blank. III III E 0 III """ C iN1111111 I III IIICN',,,, r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3 Facility Standards and Costs 3 Use of Fee Revenues 4 Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 4 Other Funding Needed 4 Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances 4 1 . INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 6 Public Facilities Financing in California 6 Study Objectives 6 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Program 7 Fee Program Maintenance 7 Study Methodology 7 Types of Facility Standards 8 New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8 Organization of the report 9 2. GROWTH FORECASTS.................................................................... 11 Land Use Types 11 Existing and Future Development 11 Occupant Densities 12 3. CIVIC CENTER FACILITIES ............................................................... 14 Service Population 14 Facility Inventories and Standards 15 Existing Inventory 15 Planned Facilities 15 Cost Allocation 16 Use of Fee Revenue 16 Fee Schedule 16 4. LIBRARY FACILITIES....................................................................... 18 Service Population 18 Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards 18 Planned Facilities 19 Cost Allocation 19 Fee Schedule 20 5. PARK FACILITIES............................................................................ 22 Service Population 22 Facility Inventories and Standards 23 Existing Inventory 23 W I LLDAN Financial sorv�ce8 i City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Parkland Unit Costs 25 Improved Parkland Equivalent 25 Existing Park Facility Standards 26 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 26 Parks Cost per Capita 28 Use of Fee Revenue 28 Fee Schedule 28 6. COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERS ................................................ 30 Service Population 30 Facility Inventories & Standards 31 Cost per Capita Standard 31 Fee Schedule 32 Use of Fee Revenue 33 7. AQUATIC FACILITIES ....................................................................... 34 Service Population 34 Facility Inventories & Standards 35 Cost per Capita Standard 35 Fee Schedule 36 Use of Fee Revenue 36 8. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 38 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 38 Inflation Adjustment 38 Reporting Requirements 38 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 38 9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ...................................................... 39 Purpose of Fee 39 Use of Fee Revenues 39 Benefit Relationship 39 Burden Relationship 39 Proportionality 40 WILLDAN Financial Servdce8 H u Su�zv�ziai�y This report summarizes an analysis of public facilities fees needed to support future development in The City of Dublin through build out. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below: • Civic Center Facilities * Park Facilities • Library Facilities * Community Recreation Centers • Aquatic Facilities Backgrouind aind I , vii The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Facility S, iii r aind Costs There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements. The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the community recreation facilities and aquatic facilities fees in this report. The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. For example, if the remaining facility needs to build out represent a facility standard that is less than the existing standard, then the entire cost of planned facilities can be allocated to new development. This approach is used to calculate the civic center facilities, library facilities and park facilities fees in this report. 1+VILLDAN Financial Sorv�ce8 3 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The system plan approach is based on a master facilities plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is not used in this report. Use of IFee Reveinues Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to: land acquisition, construction of buildings, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment. Developimeint II ii IFee Schedule a iii iii ii Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary Civic Community Center Library Recreation Aquatic Land Use Facilities Facilities Parks Centers Facilities Total Residential-per Dwelling Unit $ 892 $ 977 $18,646 $ 3,433 $ 496 $24,444 Nonresidential-per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial $ 237 $ 212 $ 2,832 $ 148 $ 21 $ 3,450 Office 319 285 3,806 199 28 4,637 Industrial 118 105 1,410 74 10 1,717 Sources:Tables 3.5,4.5,5.8,6.4 and 7.4. 0-their IFunding Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Dublin. They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. Based on the methodology utilized to calculate the fees in this analysis, no other funding is needed to fully fund the facilities in each fee category. Existhing II ii IFee Fund BaIII iii This analysis incorporates the existing impact fee fund balances, by fee category, into the fee calculations. For categories calculated using the planned facilities standard, the fund balance is subtracted from the total cost of planned facilities allocated to new development prior to calculating the cost per capita. For the library facilities category, negative fund balances represent facility costs to new development. Those costs are added to the cost of planned 1+VILLDAN Financial Servdce8 4 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update facilities and included in the fee analysis. See Chapter 4 for an in-depth discussion regarding the negative library fee fund balances. Table E.2 summarizes the existing impact fee fund balances. Table E.2: Impact Fee Fund Balances Fund Balance Category: 6/30/14 Neighborhod Parks - Land $ 7,671,690 Neighborhod Parks - Improvements 3,068,320 Community Parks - Land 5,126,816 Community Parks - Improvements 1,337,513 Community Nature Parks - Land - Community Nature Parks - Improvements - Aquatic Center' (2,760,819) Community Buildings2 (15,555,039) Li brary3 (1,880,252) Civic Center 453,312 Total $ (2,538,459) Adjusted for cost of pool in aquatic complex. 2 Adjusted for cost of recreation and aquatic complex buildings. 3 Negative fund balance w as spent of facilities to serve new development. Source: City Of Dublin, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Year Ended June 30,2014 1+VILLDAN Financial Servdce8 umi r, uu uuu a cb��o uu r This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Dublin. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections: • Public Facilities Financing in California; • Study Objectives; • City of Dublin Impact Fee Program; • Fee Program Maintenance; • Study Methodology; and • Organization of the Report. Public Facilities Fi iii iii iii iii iii iii III iii" iiriin iii The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out: • The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and • Steep reductions in federal and state assistance. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of"growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report. Dublin is forecast to experience continued growth through build out. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Dublin has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development. 1+VILLDAN Financial Srrv,ce8 6 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update City of I DuUhhn Public Facilities IFee Program Dublin currently charges a variety of impact fees to fund the construction and expansion of public facilities to serve new development. The Dublin Public Facilities Fee (PFF) has been in place since 1996. The PFF funds civic center, parks, libraries, and community and recreational facilities. A comprehensive update of the fee was last carried out in 1998 and adopted in 1999. In 2002, MuniFinancial (now Willdan Financial Services) updated the fee for changes in facility costs. Since that time, the fees have been updated for inflation on a regular basis. Fee programs must be regularly adjusted for inflation, as not doing so can result in impact fees that do not generate sufficient revenues to fully fund facilities to serve new development through the planning horizon. This report provides a comprehensive update of the fees based on the City's current facility plans, current facility cost estimates, and current population and employment projections for the City of Dublin. IFee Program Maiiiateinaince Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 8. While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. In this case, it has been 13 years since the City last comprehensively updated its fee program. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 8. Study Methodology Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include: 1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; 2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; 3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; 4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development; 5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and 6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects. A&` , '�hiILLIDAf .. �.,.., Financial Services 7 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. An example of a facility standard is park acres per 1,000 residents. Using such a standard, the analysis can estimate the amount of parkland needed to serve the increase in population. Facility standards are identified for each facility category included in this analysis. An in-depth discussion of facility standards is included below. IIr. )�m,'.m (') IIF:b(:liilll't S"'t iiri 'aiir ' III' There are three separate components of facility standards: • Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. • Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards. • Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day. IlNie n eiri t Nleeds arld (,)st A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below: Existing In v✓e t ry Method The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows: Current Value of Existing Facilities Existing Development Demand - $/unit of demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new A&,�` , ILLIDAf .. .,.., Financial Services 8 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the community recreation facilities and aquatic facilities fees in this report. Planned Facilities Method The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows: Cost of Planned Facilities New Development Demand = $/unit of demand This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used to calculate the civic center facilities, library facilities and park facilities fees in this report. 4 "ystem Ptah Method This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development: Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand = $/unit of demand This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is not used in this study. it iii iii -viii iii of the report The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2. Chapters 3 through 7 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories: • Civic Center Facilities * Park Facilities • Library Facilities * Community Recreation Centers • Aquatic Facilities Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018. A&` , ILLIDAN ...",,,.. Financial Services 9 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9. A&` , VVILLIDAf .. ,�.,.. Financial Services 10 Illuu°°I uuuuuuumi�llli umum uuuuumuu umi Growt[i i �u VIIIII uu uuu Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2015 base year and a planning horizon of build out. Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows: • The estimate of existing development in 2015 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at build out is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2015 through build out are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues. The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities. The service populations for all facilities included in this study include a varying weighted amount of workers, by category, to reflect varying levels of demand for facilities. Land To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units including detached and attached one- unit dwelling and attached multi-family dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. • Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed use development with both multi-family and commercial uses. In those cases the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type. The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. Exis-fling aind Futuire Developiment Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, workers, and building square feet in Dublin, both in 2015 and at build out. These estimates are used to calculate the fees for all fee categories. The current population estimate for the Dublin comes from the California Department of Finance (DOF). The population projection for build out is consistent with the City's General Plan. Current WILLDAN Financial Servdce8 11 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update estimates of dwelling units in Dublin also come from the DOF. Total dwelling units at build out is informed by data from the General Plan, based on a growth increment of 8,787. Base year workers were estimated based on data provided by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The projected increase in employment is based on the increase in building square feet, multiplied by the employment density factors identified below in Table 2.2. Estimates of base year and build out nonresidential square footage were derived from the City's General Plan. Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates Growth (2015- 2015 Build out Build out) Residential Residents' 51,784 75,000 23,216 Dwelling Units' 19,551 28,338 8,787 Building Square Feet (OOOS)2 Commercial 3,800 10,165 6,365 Office 2,640 4,220 1,580 Industrial 1,730 3,140 1,410 Total 8,170 17,525 9,355 Employment 3 Commercial 9,045 23,875 14,830 Office 5,937 10,882 4,945 Industrial 3,498 5,134 1,636 Total 18,480 39,891 21,411 Base year population and dwelling units from CA Department of Finance,Table E-5. Excludes group quarters. Build out estimate consistent w ith General Plan. 2 Existing and projected building square feet based on data from the City's General Plan. 3 Base year employment from CA EDD. Excludes local government employees. Build out estimated by multiplying the increase in square footage, by land use category, by the corresponding employee density factors in Table 2.2 below. Sources: City of Dublin General Plan; California Department of Finance,Table E-5, 2015; (CA DOF) California Employment Development Department, 1st Quarter, 2014(CA EDD);Wlldan Financial Services. Occupaint in iii-viii All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot or hotel room) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density or impervious surface (for storm drain fees) of the development. A&` , VVILLIDAf r� .. ,�.,.., Financial Services 1G City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor of 2.7 residents per dwelling unit was identified in the Table 2.1 of the City's General Plan. The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Dublin, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study. Tablle 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions Residential Dmlling Unit 2.70 Persons per dwelling unit Nonresidential Commercial 2.30 Employees per 1,000 s . ft. Office 3.13 Employees per 1,000 s . ft. Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 s . ft. Sources:Table 2.1 of the City of Dublin General Flan;The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report,Table 6,p. 16-23, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments,October 31,2601;WWlildan(Financial W I LLDAN Financial Services 13 3. Civic Center I The purpose of the civic center impact fee is to fund the civic center facilities needed to serve new development. The existing civic center currently houses City administration and police services. Service I Civic center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for civic center facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for civic center facilities. Table 3.1: Civic Center Impact Fee Service Population A B AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 11.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,215 11.00 23,200 Total (Buildlout) 75,000 75„000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.31 5,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,411 0.31 8,600 Total (Buildout) 39,891 12,300 Combined Existing (2015) 57,500 New Development (2015-Buildout) 29,800 Total (Buildout) 87„300 (Vote:Workers are w ei0ghted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of work hours to non-work hours in a. w eek(401128). Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred.. Sources:Table 2.1;'dWilldan Financial SeMces. WILLDAN .,, ' Fjna dal Services 14 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility II iii iii- iiriii iii d Standar This section describes the City's civic center facility inventory and facility standards. Ili:: .iii iii iir g III iiri reir.v.IxYr Table 3.2 shows the existing building and land inventory. The replacement cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. The value of land is assumed to be $2,178,000 per acre based on the "medium density residential" valuation from an August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. Table 3.2: Existing Civic Center Facilities Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value Civic Center Land' 4.84 acres $ 2,178,000 $ 10,542,000 Civic Center Building' Police Services 20,054 sq. ft. $ 730 $ 14,639,420 City Administration 32,633 sq. ft. 730 23,822,090 Subtotal-Civic Center/Police Building 52,687 sq. ft. $ 38,461,510 Total Value-Civic Center $ 49,003,510 Land values identified in:Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013. 2 Building replacement cost is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center,excluding pool costs. Sources: Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013;Willdan Financial Services. The City of Dublin has two expansions planned for the civic center. One project aims to expand the police wing of the civic center and the other will expand the administrative wing of the facility. The total cost of the facilities attributable to new development is $10.2 million. Table 3.3 presents the planned civic center facilities and cost estimates. Table 3.3: Planned Civic Center Facilities Tota I Cost Administrative and Police Wing Expansion $10,193,720 Total Cost - Planned Civic Center Facilities $10,193,720 Source: 2010 Building Study Prepared by RDC September 2010. A&` '�h/ILLIDAf ...",,,.. Financial Services 15 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Cost Allocation Table 3.4 the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is calculated by dividing cost of net cost of planned facilities by the increase in service population. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. Note that the net value of planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee. Table 3.4: Civic Center Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Value of Planned Facilities $10,193,720 (Less Existing Fund Balance) (453,312) Net Value of Planned Facilities $ 9,740,408 Sendce Population Growth (2015 to Buildout) 29,800 Cost per Capita $ 327 Facility Standard per Resident $ 327 Facility Standard per Worker' 101 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31. Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3;Willdan Financial Services. Use of IFee Reveinue The City can use civic center facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of civic center facilities serving new development. IFee Schedule Table 3.5 shows the proposed civic center facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. A&` , VVILLIDAf ...",,,.. Financial Services 1G City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 3.5: Civic Center Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge 1,2 Total Feel S . Ft. Residential Dvvellina Unit $ 327 2.70 $ 883 $ 9 $ 892 Nonresidential Commercial $ 101 2.33 $ 235 $ 2 $ 237 $ 0.24 Office 101 3.13 316 3 319 0.32 Industrial 101 1.16 117 1 118 0.12 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 3.4;Willdan Financial Services WILLIDAf �.. ,�.,.., Financial Services 17 w Facilities m uw m 11arary The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of library facilities in the City of Dublin to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. Service I Library facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities. The 0.25-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 4.1: Library Service Population A B AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Work er Existing (2015) 18,480 0.25 4,600 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,411 0.25 5,400 Total (Buildout) 89,891 10,000 Combined Exiistiing (2015) 56,4010 New Development (2015-Buildout) 28,600 Total (Buildout) 85,000 Demaind per worker is weighted at 0.25 of demand per resident based on the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Econonmios Group. Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Sources:Table 2.1;Wlldan Financial Services. Facility Inventories, Table 4.2 shows the existing inventory of library facilities in the City of Dublin. The replacement cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. The value of land is $2,178,000 per acre based on the WILLDAN Fjnan dal Services 18 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update "medium density residential" valuation from an August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. Table 4.2: Existing Library Facilities Inventory Amount Unit Cost Total Cost 'xistinq Land 3.75 aches $ 2,178,000 $ 8,167,500 Building' 38,2.15 sq. ft. 730 27,896,950 Collections 145,700 items 36 5,245,000 Total Value of Existing Facilities $ 41,309,450 City has constructed 38,215 square foot library buil6ng to date,but only furnished 30,,000 square feet of the building. Building replacement cost is based on a recent construction cost estimate to buirdld the Emerald Glean Aquatic Center,excluding pool l costs. Source: City of Dublin; Dublin Building Detail Report,2012; Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013; Bow ker Annuals Library and Trade Book Almanac;Wlldan Financial Services. IIRII iiaiine IIF c-i III liiLe Table 4.3 displays the planned library facilities. The City plans to expand the currently library space in three phases. The first two expansion projects improve the building interior so that the existing building shell can be used. The final phase adds 9,000 square feet of building space to the existing building. The total cost of planned library facilities is approximately$8.4 million. Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities Total Cost Building Improvements Phase I -Small Space $ 222,456 Phase 11 - Large Space 1,564,999 Final Phase -9,000 sq. ft. expansion 6,570,000 Total Cost - Planned Library Facilities $8,357,455 Source: City of Dublin,CA,Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2014-2019. Cost Allocation Table 4.4 displays the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is calculated by dividing the net cost of the planned facilities by the increase in service population. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.25 to determine the value per worker. WILLDAN Fjna dal Services 19 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update In this case, the negative impact fee fund balance is also included as a planned facilities cost. The fund balance was loaned from the General Fund to the library impact fee fund and was spent on facilities to serve new development, ahead of that development. In total, $10.2 million of planned facilities will be funded through the impact fee. Note that the value of the planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee. Table 4.4: Library Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Value of Planned Facilities $ 8,357,455 (Less Existing Fund Balance)' (1.880.252) Net Value of Planned Facilities $10,237,707 Service Population Growth (2015 to Buildout) 28,600 Cost per Capita $ 358 Facility Standard per Resident $ 358 Facility Standard per Worker 90 Library fund is currently at a deficit. Fee revenue w as used to construct facilities in anticipation of demand from new development. Costs incurred w ere needed as a result of future demand and are legitimate to include in this fee calculation. 2 Based on a weighing factor of 0.25. Sources: Tables 4.1,and 4.3;Willdan Financial Services. �Fee Schedule Table 4.5 shows the proposed library fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee is a reasonable approximation of the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. W'I LLL)Af 20 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 4.5: Library Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E 11,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge 1,z otal Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dtnelling Unit $ 358 2.70 $ 967 $ 10 $ 977 Nonresidential Commercial $ 90 2.33 $ 210 $ 2 $ 212 $ 0.21 Office 90 3.13 282 3 285 0.29 Industrial 90 1.16 104 1 105 0.11 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1) legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 4.4;Willdan Financial Services. I LLIDAN 21 7 '. F'irr��nti�.l Sr�rvdce 5. Parl< Facilities The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The impact fee is based on maintaining the City's existing parkland standards. Service I Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park acres per 1,000 residents. As residents are considered to be the primary users of parks in Dublin, demand for parks and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population, rather than a combined resident- worker service population. However, when allocating costs for community parks, a share of demand is allocated to workers. The 0.23-weighting factor for worker demand for community parks is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 5.1 provides estimates of the City's current and projected park service population. Table 5.1: (Perks Service Population A B A x B=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015- uildout) 23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Bailout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (21015) 18,480 0.23 4,300 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,4111 0.23 4,900 Total (Buildout) 39,891 9,200 Combined Existing (2015) 56,100 New Development (2015-Buildout) 28,100 Total (Builout) 84,200 Worker demand is w ei0hted at 0.23 of residenit demand based)on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Totals have been rounded)to the nearest hundred. Source:Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Econornics Group;City of Duublinl;Willdan Financial Services. WILLDAN Fjnan dal Services 22 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility II iii iii- iiriii iii d Standar This section describes the City's park facility inventory, facility standards, and park facility costs. Ili:k. iii iir g III iiri reir.v.IxYr The City of Dublin maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 5.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. WILLIDAf 23 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.2: Existing Parkland Inventory Acres i in lPrimary Acres in Acres In Planning Ea ste rin Schaefer Name Area Dubliiin Ranich, Total improved Parkland (acres) Community& Parks Dublin Civic Center/Library Grounds 11.42 11.42 Dublin Historic Park and Museums 7.78 7.78 Dublin Senior Center 2.00 2.00 Dublin Sports Grounds 22.77 22.77 Dublin Swim Center 3.60 - 3.60 Emerald Glen Park - 42.25 42.25 Emerald Glen Park (unimproved) 6.89 6.89 Fallon Sports Park 27.20 27.20 Fallon Sports Park (cleedledi c redli ts;un m proved) - 32.86 32.86 Shannon Park 9.67 - 9.67 Subtotal 57.24 109.20 166.44 Comm u,nity Parks-Nature Based Iron Horse Nature Park (purchased; unimprovedl) 12.13 - 12.13 Subtotal 12.13 - 12.13 Neighborhood Parks Alamo Creek Park 5.26 - 5.26 Bray Commons - 4.78 4.78 Devany Square - 1.91 1.91 Dolan Park 4.85 - 4.85 Dougherty HiHs Dog Park 1.43 - - 1.43 Jordlan Ranch NP (cleeded/credits;unimproved) - 4.99 - 4.99 Jordlan Ranch NIS (cleeded/c redits;unimproved) - 2.00 - 2.00 Kolb Park 4.86 - - 4.86 Mape Memorial Park 2.68 - 2.68 Passatempo Park 5.01 - - 5.01 Piazza Sorrento - 2.00 - 2.00 Positano Hils Park 4.60 4.60 Sean Diamond (deeded/creclits;unimproved) 5.03 5.03 Schafer Ranch Park - - 10.55 10.55 Stagecoach 0.82 - - 0.82 Ted Fairi - 6.97 - 6.97 Subtotal 24.91 32.28 10.55 67.74 School Parks Dublin Elementary School 8.80 - - 8.80 Dublin High School 5.40 5.40 Frederiksen Elementary School 7.80 7.80 Murray Elementary School 8.60 8.60 Nielsen Elementary School 5.40 5.40 Wells Middle School 7.60 7.60 Subtotal 43.60 - - 43.60 Total Improved Park Acreage 125.75 89.71 10.55 226.01 Total Unimproved Park Acreage 12.13 51.77 - 63.90 Source Cty of 11 bhn * WILLDAN �Fjnandal Services 24 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Pairklaind Unit Table 5.3 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land acquisition, standard park improvements, including construction and soft costs. The facility development cost per acre, by park type, is added to the standard land acquisition costs of $2,178,000 used throughout this report, to determine the total cost to develop an acre of neighborhood, community, or nature-based community parkland within the City. Nature-based community parkland is assumed to cost $10 per square foot. Table 5.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs Community Neighborhood Community Parks- Item Parks Parks Nature Based Improvement Cost per Acre' $ 495,948 $ 720,000 $ 555,246 Land Acquisition per Acre 2,178,000 2,178,000 435,600 Total - Land and Improvements Cost per Acre $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Improvement costs estimated based on recent park construction cost estimates for community parks,open space parks,and actual data from Fallon Sports Park and parks w ithin the surrounding communities. 2 Assumes$2,178,000 per acre based on medium density residential valuation from August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. $10 per square foot assumed for nature based community parkland based on the same study. Sources: City of Dublin;Willdan Financial Services. Ihimproved Pairklaind iii III in Before calculating the existing parkland standard, unimproved parkland owned by the City must be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. Table 5.4 details this conversion. The conversion is based on the ratio of the cost of an improved acre of land (including land and improvements) relative to an acre of unimproved parkland (only land), by park type. WILLL)Af 25 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.4: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent Community Community Neighborhood Parks- Parks- Nature Type Parks Programmed Based Total Parkland Improved $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Undeveloped Land 2,178,000 2,178,000 435,600 Undeveloped Land Costs 81.45% 75.16% 43.96% Percentage of Parkland costs Undeveloped Acres 12.02 39.75 12.13 63.90 Equivalent Improved Acres 9.79 29.88 5.33 45.00 Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3;Willdan Financial Services. Ili:k.stiii iir g IlFlarlll II: 'relii 111 lii�; �; iir iir° Table 5.5 shows the existing parkland standard based on the parkland acreage shown in Table 5.2, the improved equivalent acres calculated in Table 5.4 and the existing residential population shown in Table 5.1. The City has an existing standard of 5.23 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City's current policy standard shown in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The standard is segmented between park types. Table 5.5: Existing Parkland Standards Community Parks- Neighborhood Community Nature Pa rks Pa rks Based Tota I Existing Developed Acres 99.32 126.69 - 226.01 Equivalent Unimproved 9.79 29.88 5.33 45.00 Total 109.11 156.57 5.33 Existing Population 51,800 51,800 51,800 51,800 Existing Standard 2.11 3.02 0.10 5.23 Service population for neighborhood parks is based on residents. Community parks service population based on residents plus a weighted amount of employees. Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2;Willdan Financial Services. II: 'relii 111 lii :iii mm IlNleede k") . (re(re( iir°rtir r1(')daxt mom IlNie n eirvi. Table 5.6 calculates the value of the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the City's policy standards, segmented by park type. Because the City has an existing standard WILLIDAf 26 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update above the policy standard, it can charge fees to new development at a lower standard and still meet the policy standard by build out. Reductions in parkland needs are also made for developer dedication credits and the existing fund balances. The total amount of parkland acreage needed at build out is determined using the parkland standards and the total projected residential population. Existing improved acres, by type, are then subtracted from the total acreage needs to determine the remaining parkland acreage needed to serve new development. For improvement needs, expected developer parkland dedications are subtracted from the acreage needed to serve new development to determine the net parkland needs. For land needs, expected developer parkland dedications and the existing amount of unimproved acreage are subtracted to determine the net amount of land needed to serve new development. The net improvement needs, and net land needs are then multiplied by the cost of improvements and land to determine the total cost of parkland facilities to serve new development. Existing fund balances, by category, are subtracted from the costs to determine the parkland and improvement costs remaining to achieve the policy standards by the planning horizon. In total, $184.3 million in parkland and improvements are needed to serve new development through the planning horizon. Table 5.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Community Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature Calculation Parks Parks Based Total Policy Standard A 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00 Population at Buildout s 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Acres Needed at Buildout C=Ax(eil000) 127.50 225.00 22.50 375.00 Existing Improved Acreage D 99.32 126.69 - 226.01 Improvements ImproeementstoBuildout E=C-D 28.18 98.31 22.50 148.99 (Less CFD Dublin Crossings) F - 21.30 - 21.30 (Less Neighborhood Park Dedication Credits) G 0.48 - - 0.48 Net Improvement Needs H=E-F-G 27.70 77.01 22.50 127.21 Land Land-Acres to Buildout E=C-D 28.18 98.31 22.50 148.99 (Less Existing Unimproved Acres) 12.02 39.75 12.13 63.90 (Less Neighborhood Park Dedication Credits) J 0.48 - - 0.48 (Less CFD Dublin Crossings) K - 21.30 - 21.30 Net Land Needs L=E-1-J-K 15.68 37.26 10.37 63.31 Improvements Per Acre M $ 495,948 $ 720,000 $ 555,246 Land Per Acre N 2.178.000 2.178.000 435.600 Total O=M+N $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Improvements to Serve New Development P=HxM $ 13,737,760 $ 55,449,360 $ 12,493,035 $ 81,680,155 (Less Existing Fund Balances) Q (3.068.320) (1.337.513) (4.405.833) Subtotal R=P-Q $ 10,669,440 $ 54,111,847 $ 12,493,035 $ 77,274,322 Land to Serve New Development S=LxN $ 34,151,040 $ 81,152,280 $ 4,517,608 $ 119,820,928 (Less Existing Fund Balances) T (7.671.690) (5.126.816) - (12.798.506) Subtotal U=S-T $ 26,479,350 $ 76,025,464 $ 4,517,608 $ 107,022,422 Park Facilities To Serve New Development v=R+u $ 37,148,790 $ 130,137,311 $ 17,010,643 $ 184,296,743 Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2,Willdan Financial Services. 1+VILLIDAN ,, Financial Servdces 2 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update IlFlarlk ')st, IIper ' a IIp i'ta Table 5.7 calculates the cost per capita necessary to achieve the parkland policy standards by the planning horizon. The net cost of land and improvements identified in Table 5.6 are divided by the increase in service population to determine the cost per capita. The service population for neighborhood parks only includes residents. The service population for community parks and nature-based community parks includes residents and a weighted amount of workers. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements and for each type of park facility. Table 5.7: Cost per Capita Parkland Standards Community Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature Calculation Parks Parks Based Total New Development Net Facility Needs Improvements A $ 10,669,440 $ 54,111,847 $ 12,493,035 $ 77,274,322 Land B 26,479,350 76,025,464 4,517,608 107,022,422 Total c=A+B $ 37,148,790 $ 130,137,311 $ 17,010,643 $ 184,296,743 Growth in Service Population D 23,200 28,100 28,100 Cost per Capita Improvements E=A/D $ 460 $ 1,926 $ 445 $ 2,830 Land F=B/D 1,141 2,706 161 4,008 Total Cost per Resident G=E+F $ 1,601 $ 4,631 $ 605 $ 6,838 Cost per Worker H=G x 0.23 - 1,065 139 1,204 Service population for neighborhood parks is based on residents. Cor rnanity parks service population based on residents plus a weighted Sources: Tables 5.1,5.6,Wlldan Financial Services. Use of IFee Reveinue The City plans to use park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park and recreation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. IFee Schedule Table 5.8 shows the proposed park facilities fee schedule. The proposed fees are based on the costs per capita shown in Table 5.7. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as shown in Table 2.2. The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. WILLIDAN 28 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.8: Park Facilities Impact Fee A B C=AxB D E=C+D Cost Per Residentl Admin Land Use Worker Density Base Fee Charge' Total Fee Residential Neighborhood Parkland $ 1,141 2.70 $ 3,082 $ 31 $ 3,113 Community Parkland 2,706 2.70 7,305 73 7,378 Community Parkland- Nature Based 161 2.70 434 4 438 Neighborhood Park Improvements 460 2.70 1,242 12 1,254 Community Park Improvements 1,926 2.70 5,199 52 5,251 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 445 2.70 1,200 12 1,212 Total $ 6,838 $ 18,462 $ 184 $ 18,646 Nonresidential Commercial Neighborhood Parkland $ - 2.33 $ - $ - $ - Community Parkland 622 2.33 1,449 14 1,463 Community Parkland- Nature Based 37 2.33 86 1 87 Neighborhood Park Improvements - 2.33 - - - Community Park Improvements 443 2.33 1,032 10 1,042 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 2.33 238 2 240 Total $ 1,204 $ 2,805 $ 27 $ 2,832 Office Neighborhood Parkland $ - 3.13 $ - $ - $ - Community Parkland 622 3.13 1,947 19 1,966 Community Parkland- Nature Based 37 3.13 116 1 117 Neighborhood Park Improvements - 3.13 - - - Community Park Improvements 443 3.13 1,387 14 1,401 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 3.13 319 3 322 Total $ 1,204 $ 3,769 $ 37 $ 3,806 Industrial Neighborhood Parkland $ - 1.16 $ - $ - $ - Community Parkland 622 1.16 722 7 729 Community Parkland- Nature Based 37 1.16 43 - 43 Neighborhood Park Improvements - 1.16 - - - Community Park Improvements 443 1.16 514 5 519 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 1.16 118 1 119 Total $ 1,204 $ 1,397 $ 13 $ 1,410 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 5.7;Willdan Financial Services. WILLIDAf F'irr�nti�.l Srrvdce 29 6" . Community Recreation Center uuul�, III The purpose of the community recreation centers impact fee is to fund the community recreation centers needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of community recreation centers per capita. Service I Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for community recreation centers. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 6.1: Community Recreation Centers Service (Population A B AxB=C Weiighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.05 900 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21„411 0.05 1,100 Total (Buildout) 39,891 2,000 Combined Existing (2015) 52,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 24,300 Total (Buildout) 77,000 '4l'd'orlker deirrind is weighted at O.05 of resident derrmnd based on the CityofDublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Econornics Group. Source:Table 2.1;Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Econorrres Group;City of Dublin;Vvilldan Financia9 Services. WILLDAN Fjnavedal Services 30 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories Table 6.2 shows the inventory of existing community recreation centers. Note that a share of the Stager Community Gymnasium is allocated to City use based on the City's proportion contribution to the construction of the facility. Table 6.2: Existing Community and Recreational Facilities City of Square Feet Cost per Square Dublin Allocated to Square Feet Share City Use Foot Total Value Existing Facilities Stager Community Gymnasium' 6,002 6'9% 4,141 $ 730 $ 3,023,200 Senior Center 15,500 100% 15,500 730 11,315,000 Shannon Community Center 20,088 100% 20,088 730 144,664,200 Swim Center Building 9,800 100% 9,800 730 7,154,000 RecfAquatic Complex - Phase 1 30,480 100% 30,480 730 22,250,400 Heritage Center Heritage Center and Bell Tower 2,482 100% 2,482 $ 730 $ 1,811,900 Old St. Raymond's Church/Visitor Center 1,550 100% 1,550 730 1,131,500 Main House 2,304 100% 2,304 730 1,681,900 Old House Restroom 1,650 100% 1,650 730 1,204,500 Sunday School Barn 2,900 1100% 2,900 730 2,117,000 Total Existing Facilities 92,756 90,895 $66,353,600 1 Allocation of Stager Community Gymnasium square footage and facility value to City of Dublin based on the City's contribution of$1 million to funding the construction of the facility. $1 million represents 69%of the total facility costs,based on information provided by the City. ' Cost to construct new recreation centers based on recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. Sources:Dublin Building Detail Report,2012-1 Willdan Financial Services. Cost per Cqp��ta Standard Table 6.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology results in no existing deficiencies. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the worker-weighting factor identified in Table 6.1 to determine the cost per worker. WILLDAN Fjna dal Services 31 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 6.3: Community Recreation Centers Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 66,353,600 Existing Sendce Population 52,700 Cost per Capita $ 1,259 Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,259 Facility Standard per Worker' 63 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05. Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2;Willdan Financial Services. �Fee Schedule Table 6.4 shows the proposed community recreation centers fee schedule. The existing cost per capita from Table 6.3 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 6A Community Recreation Centers Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E 11,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge' 2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dwellinq Unit $ 1,259 2.70 $ 3,399 $ 34 $ 3,433 Nonresidential Commercial $ 63 2.33 $ 147 $ 1 $ 148 $ 0.15 Office 63 3.13 197 2 199 0.20 Industrial 63 1.16 73 1 74 0.07 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 6.6,Willdan Financial Services WII LIDAN 32 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Use of �F ee Reveinue The City can use community recreation centers impact fee revenue for the construction or purchase of buildings, land and equipment that are part of the system of community recreation facilities serving new development. Table 6.5 shows the projected fee revenue that would be generated by the community recreation centers impact fee. Table 6.5: Revenue Projection -Community Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita $ 1,259 Growth in Service Population (2015 -Buildout) 24,300 Projected Fee Revenue $ 30,593,700 Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.4. I LLIDA 33 uwlwlwl w Aquatic I The purpose of the aquatic facilities impact fee is to fund the aquatic facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of aquatic facilities per capita. Service I Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for aquatic facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 71: Aquatic Facilities Service Population A B AxB= Weiighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.05 900 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21„411 0.05 1,100 Total (Buildout) 39,891 2,000 Combined Existing (2015) 52,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 24,300 Total (Buildout) 77,000 '4l'd'orlker deirrind is weighted at O.05 of resident derrmnd based on the CityofDublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Econornics Group. Source:Table 2.1;Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Econorrres Group;City of Dublin;Vvilldan Financia9 Services. WILLDAN .,, ' Fjna dal Services 34 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility II iii in iiriii Standards Table 7.2 shows the inventory of existing aquatic facilities. The value of the existing aquatic facilities, $356 per square foot, is based on a recent cost estimate for the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center. Note that the costs only include the pool facilities themselves; buildings and site work are not included in the cost estimate. Table 7.2: Existing Aquatic Facilities Cost per Surface Area Square Foot' Total Cost Existing Facilities Dublin Swim Center Main Pool 8,987 $ 356 $ 3,199,400 Dublin Swim Center Play Pool 1,010 356 359,600 Emerald Glen Indoor Pool 6,270 356 2,232,100 Emerald Glen Competitive Pool 6,174 356 2,197,900 Emerald Glen Play Pool 4,538 356 1,615,500 Total Existing Facilities 26,979 $ 9,604,500 Note: Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. ' Represents cost of pools only,excluding building and site work. Source: City of Dublin, Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, Dahlin Group,CD Cost Estimate, 19 July 2014. (')st Ilper ' qpl ta Staridar Table 7.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to aquatic facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology results in no existing deficiencies. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the worker-weighting factor identified in Table 7.1 to determine the cost per worker. Table 7.3: Aquatic Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 9,604,500 Existing Service Population 52,700 Cost per Capita $ 182 Facility Standard per Resident $ 182 Facility Standard per Worker' 9 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05. Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2;Willdan Financial Services. WII LIDAf 35 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update �Fee Schedule Table 7.4 shows the proposed aquatic facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 7.4: Aquatic Facilities - Existing Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge 1,2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dtnellina Unit $ 182 2.70 $ 491 $ 5 $ 496 Nonresidential Commercial $ 9 2.33 $ 21 $ - $ 21 $ 0.02 Office 9 3.13 28 - 28 0.03 Industrial 9 1.16 10 - 10 0.01 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1) legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 7.3;Willdan Financial Services Use of �F ee Reveinue The City can use aquatic facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of aquatic facilities that are part of the system of aquatic facilities serving new development. Table 7.5 shows the projected fee revenue that would be generated by the aquatic facilities impact fee. WILLIDAf 36 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 7.5: Revenue Projection -Aquatic Cost per Capita $ 182 Growth in Service Population (2015 -Buildout) 24,300 Projected Fee Revenue $ 4,422,600 Sources:Tables 7.1,and 7.3. I LLIDA 37 8 umi �m � uuuuuumui �m uuuumui ui y mii uu uuu uu uuu uuu �m Ihimpact IFee Program Adopfloin I Pirocess Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect. III ii fl -viii iii Adjus-firneint The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation. Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation: • Buildings— Engineering News-Record's Building Cost Index(BCI) • Equipment — Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation. With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation, as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic fluctuations that the localized indices are subject to. Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update. While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Reporthing Requireiments The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. Pirogirainimiing Reveinues iii I iir ,j iii-t h the CIP The City maintains a five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)to plan for future infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. 1+VILLDAN Financial Sorv,ce8 38 umi uuu uu uuu uuu uu uuu uuu �mo �uuuuu I i � � Act uuuuuuumi�llli uuuuuumuu�llli Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five Mitigation Fee Act findings when adopting a fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act. Puirpose of IFee Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act). Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development. Use of IFee Reveinues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or§66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged(§66001(a)(2) of the Act). Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: civic center, library, aquatic facilities, parks and community recreation centers. Beine-fit Relafioinship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees'use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(3) of the Act). The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. it iii III -viii ins h iii Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(4) of the Act). A&` , VVILLIDAN .. �,,.., Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories, service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population. Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter. Piropoitoinality Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed(§66001(b) of the Act). The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts and Unit Costs, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. W'I LLL)Af 40 Page 2 of 7 Single Family Multi-Family (6.0 Units per (6.1 Units per Second Eastern Dublin acre or less acre or more Units Neighborhood Parks, Land $6,860 $4,287 $4,287 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 2,337 1,462 1,462 Aquatic Center 602 374 374 Sub-Total (Eastern Dublin) $9,799 $6,123 $6,123 Community Parks, Land $13,837 $8,646 $8,646 Community Parks, Improvements 5,390 3,371 3,371 Community Buildings 3,543 2,216 2,216 Libraries 1,395 872 872 Civic Center 425 264 264 Sub-Total (City-Wide) $24,590 $15,369 $15,369 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE $34,389 $21,492 $21,492 Single Family Multi-Family (6.0 Units per (6.1 Units per Second Schaefer Ranch Only acre or less) acre or more) Units Neighborhood Parks, Land $6,860 $4,287 $4,287 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 2,337 1,462 1,462 Sub-Total (Schaefer Ranch) $9,197 $5,749 $5,749 Community Parks, Land $13,837 $8,646 $8,646 Community Parks, Improvements 5,390 3,371 3,371 Community Buildings 3,543 2,216 2,216 Libraries 1,395 872 872 Civic Center 425 264 264 Sub-Total (City-Wide) $24,590 $15,369 $15,369 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE $33,787 $21,118 $21,118 Outside Single Family Multi-Family Eastern Dublin and (6.0 Units per (6.1 Units per Second Schaefer Ranch acre or less) acre or more) Units Subject to Quimby Park Dedication or In-Lieu Fees (Chapter 9.28 Dublin Municipal Code). Calculation required based on market value. Community Parks, Land $13,837 $8,646 $8,646 Community Parks, Improvements 5,390 3,371 3,371 Community Buildings 3,543 2,216 2,216 Libraries 1,395 872 872 Civic Center 425 264 264 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE $24,590 $15,369 $15,369 Page 3 of 7 Eastern Dublin Commercial Office Industrial Aquatic Center $17 $38 $14 Sub-Total (Eastern Dublin) $17 $38 $14 Community Parks, Land $1,969 $3,822 $1,688 Community Parks, Improvements 767 1,491 656 Community Buildings 112 213 92 Libraries 215 419 187 Civic Center 65 122 53 Sub-Total (City-Wide) $3,128 $6,067 $2,676 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE(') $3,145 $6,105 $2,690 Outside Eastern Dublin Commercial Office Industrial Community Parks, Land $1,969 $3,822 $1,688 Community Parks, Improvements 767 1,491 656 Community Buildings 112 213 92 Libraries 215 419 187 Civic Center 65 122 53 Sub-Total (City-Wide) $3,128 $6,067 $2,676 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE(') $3,128 $6,067 $2,676 Fee is based on Land-Use Type per 1,000 square feet. Single Family Multi-Family (6.0 Units per (6.1 Units per RESIDENTIAL acre or less) acre or more) Second Units Per Dwelling Unit $870 $544 $544 NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial Land-Use Type (Per square foot) $0.131 $0.254 $0.112 @ = o 2 2 2 2 2 2 O j / 2 2 2 2 2 / / 2 Q ] # ] ] ] ] / / -h § R. 2 ). R. R \. f f � E § l< l< l< l< o o Cr E / / ƒ ƒ / / � J E E 5 5 _ / a a / / 7 / 0OmJ / J / j \ O = g E _ E � % I � w - � w ? $. a 2 c . a . a . o w a c t u t w k \ / o t / � 2 / / CO R & 2 (D a CL � c ƒ � C) 0 Q c ] \ 2 / k o 2 / w t 2 c % $ = a $ 2 7 / � % 0 � - - ? O % N) / , , 2 a \ c a c 2 t w 2 ƒ C § CD / / � CD cr lee CD l � c r CD w a 2 / , , 2 \ w ± w ® a c = u = _ £ CL c / / CD w @ Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study i Prepared by: Eric Roman, SR/WA, R/W-AC i i August 2013 ASSOCIATED (SIGHT OF WAY 2300 contra Costa Blvd. Suite 525 S INC.RVICES, I Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 925.691.8500 phone 925.691.6505 fax www.arws.com August 9, 2013 Jacque Diaz Special Projects Manager/Public Information Officer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: City of Dublin— Update of Impact Fee Study I Pursuant to our contract, a land value study has been made of the Fair Market Value of portions of Dublin. The project assignment covers 3,888 acres north of 1-580 and east of Tassajara Creek. A 2,711-acre portion is referred to as "Dublin Ranch". The "East Dublin Specific Plan" is for master-planned communities. The entire E acreage is subject to a Specific Plan originally adopted in 1996. It was amended in 1997, and a portion revised in November 2002. The northern portion of the Dublin Ranch Development has been developed as residential. The West Dublin and Silvera Ranches are residential developments with considerable open space. An additional area known as Schaefer Ranch is located in West Dublin, north of Interstate 580 at Schaefer Ranch Road adjacent to Castro Valley. This appraisal consulting assignment is subject to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, assumptions and limiting conditions set forth in the attached report. Sincerely, f Eric Roman, SW/WA, R/W-AC Appraiser i i i i City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Certification of Appraiser I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief: I The subject property and the comparables relied upon in making this assignment were as represented in said assignment. That to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements contained in this appraisal consulting assignment (Report) are true and correct, and the information upon which the opinions expressed therein are based is correct; subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions therein set forth. I understand that such report may be used in connection with the determination of impact fees and/or offsetting credits for various development projects. j That neither my employment nor our compensation for making this report is in any way contingent upon the values reported herein. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent event. That I have not revealed the findings and results of such report to anyone other than the proper officials of the agency and I will not do so until so authorized by said officials, or until we are required to do so by due process of law, or until I am released from this obligation by having publicly testified as to such findings. That I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this Report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. That I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this Report or to the parties involved with this assignment. Keith Shintani provided assistance in the entire process of the assignment, including the writing of this report, market research, data collection and analysis. No one else provided significant j real property assistance to the person signing this certification. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, and are the Appraiser's own personal, impartial, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. i ' r I t C 1 City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Certification of Appraiser(continued) The value conclusions, as well as other opinions expressed herein, are not based on a requested minimum value, a specific value or approval of a loan. The analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this Report, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, I have completed the i Standards and Ethics Education Requirement for Candidates of the Appraisal Institute. I hereby certify that in my opinion the Fair Market Value of the property rights appraised as described in this Report are shown in the Valuation Summary and that these opinions and conclusions were made subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions in this report and without collusion, coercion or direction from anyone as to value. 08/09/13 Date Eric Roman, SR/WA, R/W--AC Certified General Real Estate Appraiser AG025365 i I i 2 City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions The following Assumptions and Limiting Conditions have been relied upon and used in making this study and estimating the respective values required by the purpose of the consulting assignment report and its intended use. 1. No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report. 2. The property is valued free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report. 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. Sketches, plats, or photographs contained in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing properties and no survey has been made of the property in the report. 6. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for discovery of hidden or non-apparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or the structures that render it more or less valuable. Encroachment of real property improvements is assumed to not exist. No responsibility is assumed for arranging for engineering studies or a survey, which may be required to discover these conditions. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report. 8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless non-conformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this appraisal consulting assignment report. i 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, or other legislative or administrative authority from an local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value conclusions contained this report are based. 10. The Appraiser is not a soil expert. The existing soil and substructure has been assumed adequate for existing or proposed uses unless contrary information is provided and contained in this report. It is advisable to have a soil analysis and report completed by a qualified soil engineer or other qualified expert so that any interested party will become knowledgeable as to the important soil information including seismic data, soil contaminants, type of fill if any or other relevant matters. I I ( 3 I 1 City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions (continued) 11. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely affect the property's value, marketability, or utility. 12. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and j improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and is invalid if so used. I 13. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written prior consent of the Appraiser, and in any event, only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 14. The delivery and/or possession of this report does not require the Appraiser to attend or give testimony at any meeting, public hearing, pretrial conference, deposition or court trial unless there is a written agreement between the Appraiser and the party possessing or relying on this report or requesting such services. 15. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the Appraiser, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media. I IIII i I I I I i I i I I 4 l City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Special Assumptions and Limiting Conditions • Preliminary title reports were not available. Property boundaries were not staked by survey and the Appraisers utilized provided maps. Ownership data and history was not included in this report as not being necessary for the purpose and intended use of this report. • This valuation analysis is for the sole use of the City of Dublin for determining the amount of facility impact fees to be imposed or offsetting credits. Final determination of any fees or credits to be done by City. The valuations are to be a guide for setting any individual fee or credit. • It is assumed that there are no hazardous or toxic substances in the soils comprising the subject ownerships or sectors. • The valuations and analyses are NOT site specific. No existing or anticipated legal parcels were considered in this process. The valuation sectors or areas are a mixture of potentials for a variety of uses, including low density residential, higher density residential, commercial retail, commercial offices, business parks and public uses such as schools, parks and open space. • The overall acreage for the appraised areas was provided by the City of Dublin. The Appraiser has relied upon these measurements and use breakdowns in forming an opinion to value. This valuation analysis assumes that each sector described has reasonable street exposure and access. This is primarily along proposed major streets such as Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Croak Road. • For impact fees or credits, this valuation analysis and conclusion assumes that typical dedications have occurred or will occur at no cost to the City. The residual land and unit values reflect a more finished condition to the land. • Some areas are within an area of the Livermore Airport use restriction zone. Should a different use be approved other than what is proposed, a revision to those areas may be in order. i i I 5 I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Competency Statement f The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice require that prior to accepting an assignment or entering into an agreement to perform any assignment an Appraiser must properly identify the problem to be addressed and have the knowledge and experience to complete the assignment competently". If the Appraiser is not qualified, this must be disclosed to the client and all steps necessary to complete the assignment competently must be taken and described. On the basis of the experience of the Appraiser responsible for the analysis and conclusions of value for the subject property areas in this report, it is my opinion that I have the proper background and experience to perform the assignment in a competent manner. This is based on the Appraiser's appraisal experience in valuation analysis of properties similar to the subject properties located throughout the Greater Bay Area, and Northern California, including the City E of Dublin. The Appraiser's qualifications are included in this report and list appraisal education and experience. Scope of Assignment / Limitations This assignment by the client is to analyze and report estimated values both as a range of unit land values and as "blended unit" land value of certain areas within portions of Dublin. These will be used in the City's determining facility impact fees for various parcels. This appraisal process or development is considered complete and conforms to the premise that reasonable Appraisers would pursue this assignment in a like manner. The Appraiser performed a field review of the subject property areas to determine the size, condition and utility of the land in the areas. Searches of public records, real estate listings and sales services were employed to obtain data. Brokers and owners of similar type properties were interviewed to assist in making estimates of market conditions, both general and specific to Dublin. Relevant property sales were researched and confirmed. The Appraiser has concluded that the appraisal report format is a restricted type. This provides sufficient data for understanding while minimizing those reporting areas, which are already known to the client or do not reduce the reliability of the analysis. The Appraiser's intent is to provide enough data and analysis so as to have no misleading information and provide conclusions of high reliability for determining appropriate fees to be collected from developers as they apply for development of a specific parcel or parcels of land or for credits to be used as offsets against appropriate fees. This analysis is not valid for property acquisition purposes nor is it valid for value on any specific parcel or ownership within the Study Area. 6 I l City of Dublin ` Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Introduction Purpose of Assignment Provide the City of Dublin with ranges of estimated unit land values of vacant land within various land use areas of land uses proposed in the City of Dublin Specific Plan (and/or the Dublin Ranch, East Dublin Ranch, Silvera Ranch and Schaefer Ranch) as of the effective date of valuation August 9, 2013, and based on the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this report. Intended Use It is understood that the City of Dublin intends to specifically use the report and estimates of unit land values to: (1) establish the amounts of fees to be levied on the permitted development of respective properties and/or, (2) establish the amounts of monetary credits given permitted developments of respective properties where land is donated or dedicated, as needed, in j excess of that legally or typically imposed by the City for such developments. An example would be credits offsetting payments of impact fees payable for public parks. Scope and Limitations of Value Estimates 1. The estimated ranges of units of value of the vacant land within the various areas of specified land uses and arbitrary subdivisions into designated sectors thereof made by the Appraiser as shown in this appraisal consulting assignment report: Assume they are applicable to only those areas of a property or land area lying outside of and in excess of the legally or typically required dedication areas imposed by the City (i.e., City of Porterville v. Young case valuations are excluded). 2. Land use designations and the estimated highest and best use of the land by the Appraiser are based on designations in the City's Specific Plan and the Development Plan as approved by the City, updated in 2002. 3. Land use areas are assumed to be in a raw land physical state with adequate public or private road access and public utilities fronting at least one full length of one side of each land use area unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. The unit value ranges and the estimated specific overall unit land values for the respective land use areas cannot be used to estimate the Market Value of any specific parcel of ownership or subdivided land parcel. The ranges and the specific overall or blended unit values reported are not an appraisal of any specific parcel. They are based only on general indicated land use areas and opinions of highest and best use. t i i 7 �4 i City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Effective Date of Valuation The value conclusions stated in this report are as of August 9, 2013. Market Value Defined The following definition of market value taken from The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal published by the Appraisal Institute is used. The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: I 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; p 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. i 'i I s L J I City of Dublin ` Impact Fee Study--August 2013 (+ General Information ' Dublin is located about 35 miles east of San Francisco, conveniently situated at the crossroads of highways 580 and 680 in the Livermore-Amador Valley. Dublin's location at the intersection of two (2) major stagecoach routes and later two (2) major freeways has sustained and at times, spurred its growth as a residential and business community from early days. In the 1960's, the San Ramon Village development brought Dublin into the modern era. The 70's and 80's saw continued growth and many new businesses and new housing. On November 3, 1981, Dublin voters approved a measure to incorporate Dublin as Alameda County's 14th city. Dublin is now governed by a five-member council, which includes an elected mayor. Area and Location r Legal Status: General Law City Dublin Area: 11.42 Square Miles Incorporated: 02/01/1982 Location: 37:42:08N 121:56:05W Approximately: Elevation: 125-367 ft. above sea level 20 miles from Oakland Airport Climate: Average Annual Temperature 34 miles from San Francisco International Low: 44.2 High: 71.2 89 miles from Sacramento, California Avg. Rainfall: 17 inches History of Dublin (source: City of Dublin) Dublin has long been known as the "crossroads" of the Bay Area. Dublin now sits at the crossroads of two major highways: Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. However, the significance of the "crossroads" dates back over two hundred years when Dublin served as the crossroads of two important stage routes - one from the Bay Area to Stockton and the other from Martinez to San Jose. The Alamilla Spring, located in the Dublin area, provided a place for travelers to change horses and freshen up before continuing their journey. Dublin has a rich history dating back to 1772 when Pedro Fages led an expedition of 16 mounted men on a journey in search of a land route to Drake's Bay which at that time was called San Francisco Bay. Their return journey brought them through the Amador Valley. It was approximately 1822 when building began in the area. Jose Maria Amador had been paid in land for his years of service as a Mexican soldier and as administrator of Mission San Jose. He received a land grant of 16,517 acres in the Amador — Livermore Valley. He built several adobe homes and many small buildings that were used as shops where his Indian workers made soap, blankets, shoes, farm tools, etc., for use on his ranch. In 1850, Michael Murray and Jeremiah Fallon came to this area from Ireland. They purchased 1,000 acres of land from Jose Amador and built homes for their families. The area began to grow as many settled in the area. i 9 ( I 6 City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 In 1867, Alameda County was created from parts of Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties. j Both Murray and Fallon served on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Townships were established the next year and Murray's name was chosen for this area. By 1877 the first schoolhouse in the Amador-Livermore Valley, along with a church, two hotels, Green's Store, a wagon and blacksmith shop, and a shoemaker's shop were constructed in Dublin. The Murray Schoolhouse, Green's Store, St. Raymond's Church and the old cemetery (where members of the Donner Party Expedition are buried) have been preserved and are now located on Donlon Way. Mail was delivered to the Dougherty Station Hotel. Thus, the area became known as Dougherty's Station. Subsequently, the area became known as Dublin and in 1982, the City incorporated. i The ranch was very prosperous until gold was discovered in 1849. Ranch workers left for the gold fields and the ranch was neglected. In 1852, Amador began selling his land to Americans who wanted to farm. Michael Murray and Jeremiah Fallon, by way of New York, New Orleans and Mission San Jose, purchased 1,000 acres of what is now Dublin and Stoneridge, built homes and started farming. In 1853, Alameda County was created out of parts of Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties and Dublin became part of Alameda County. James Whitt Dougherty came to Dublin from Tennessee after several years in Sacramento operating a store. Mr. Dougherty and a partner purchased 10,000 acres from Amador and began to develop Dublin into a small farm community. By 1876, Dougherty was the second largest landholder in Alameda County and was a member of the county Board of Supervisors. In 1856, the Murray School District was formed and Murray School was built. The school replaced a small subscription school and now serves as a museum on the Heritage Center grounds, 6600 Donlon Way. St. Raymond's Catholic Church was built in 1859 and served the community until 1941. The church is now part of the Heritage Center. John Green came to Dublin from New York by way of Oakland. Mr. Green purchased Michael Murray's farm, built a mercantile store and hotel in the corner of Donlon Way and Dublin Boulevard and became Dublin's first and leading businessman. By 1870, Dublin had two hotels, a store, a wagon and blacksmith shop, a shoemaker, a school, a church, a Sunday school and was the crossroads for Bay Area travelers. By 1878 the community known as Dublin, Amador's Dougherty Station, or Dougherty, was officially named Dublin. During the past 20 years, the rapidly expanding Tri-Valley area has become renowned as a place of prosperity; a center for internationally acclaimed business parks and home to some of the world's largest corporations. I The City of Dublin, located at the crossroads of the Tri-Valley, has contributed to the planned growth and forward thinking of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, the City continues to look ahead to expand and enhance the quality of life for members of the community. i i I i I r i 10 y I } City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Recent Activities The recently adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan represents a five-year effort to develop a planning framework for the future growth and development of approximately 3,300 acres in the j largely unincorporated area that lies east of Park Reserve Forces Training Area. The Plan, which has been developed with a thorough analysis of environmental conditions and extensive input from the City decision-makers, landowners, and the community-at-large, provides a comprehensive land use program for the planning area along with goals and policies to guide future public and private actions relating to the area's development. In addition, the Plan includes detailed information on necessary infrastructure improvements and costs, and a strategy for insuring the Plan's implementation. The Plan is the mechanism that will insure that development proposed for the planning area will be coordinated and occur in an orderly manner. Dublin Ranch and Emerald Glen are within the Specific Plan boundaries. Development of Dublin Ranch located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is well underway. t It is comprised of a total of 1,277 acres and is located between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. A 1,037± acre portion of the site has been annexed to the City of Dublin and the Plan has been approved by the City. A 200± acre portion that is north of I-580 east of Tassajara Road, is outside the currently approved planning areas. Phase I of the Dublin Ranch Development contains 210± acres and is a nearly sold-out, successful residential development. It is anticipated that upon completion, the development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will nearly double the population of the City of Dublin. There will be approximately 650± acres of commercial/industrial uses and approximately 1,700± of residential development. There will be approximately 240± acres of parks and open space. The above Specific Plan includes the ongoing land sales and development on the former Camp Parks (PRFTA) property. Other than the subject areas of this appraisal, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has sold almost all of its available property to large users for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Its remaining area is west of Hacienda Drive, known as "The Dublin Transit Center", has a new BART Station and construction has begun of up to two million square feet of office space, a multi-family residential community (305 apartments, 257 condominiums) and ground floor retail uses. Significant building activity has occurred throughout the land formerly owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. The northern portion of the Dublin Ranch has new single-family residences. The current development is a product of over 12 years of planning combined with a strong economy and that has resulted in the current growth in Eastern Dublin. According to the City of Dublin's General Plan, the Western Extended Planning Area is roughly 3,200 acres and is generally located west of the Primary Planning Area. This Planning Area presents a unique opportunity for the City of Dublin, being part of an open space corridor which stretches from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County. With its steep terrain and scenic oak woodlands, the Western Extended Planning Area has important open space value for Dublin and the region. i At the same time, portions of the Western Extended Planning Area have provided a unique opportunity for carefully planned development in the southwestern portion of the Planning Area. Major ridgelines screen most of the development from key off-site viewpoints resulting in opportunities to provide housing and recreation without major disruption to the scenic values in the surrounding area. Clustering development has increased land use efficiency and protected key ridgelines, woodland areas and other important features. The General Plan includes policies 11 )f I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 that are specifically geared to the unique qualities and opportunities of the Western Extended Planning Area. An Urban Limit Line was adopted by initiative on November 7, 2000 for a portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. The Urban Limit Line is coterminous with the City limit line as of the effective date of the Initiative. Pursuant to the Initiative, lands west of the Urban Limit Line are required to be designated as Rural Residential/Agriculture on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1) for a period of 30 years from the effective date of initiative Resolution 209-OO.The intent of the Urban Limit Line is to protect the natural resources of the western hills by guiding development to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and where urban services can be provided in a more efficient and cost effective manner. The City will not approve or recommend approval of the permanent use or extension of City services or facilities, including but not limited to, utilities or roads, to support or facilitate urban development beyond the Urban Limit Line. The location of the Urban Limit Line may only be changed by a vote of the people of Dublin during the effective period, and only following review and approval of a General Plan Amendment by the City Council. Any request to change the Urban Limit Line must be accompanied by a request to amend the land use designation to an urban designation. l r i i i 12 City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 T Valuation Methodology The Dublin Ranch Specific Plan requires the construction of significant infrastructure and building of public facilities. As part of the planning process and to provide funds to create community facilities, the City requires a range of unit land values to ascertain fees and credits. i A range of unit values of the land, based on fee simple title, has been estimated by employing the market data approach. This approach to value is based upon comparison of prices and terms of sales of properties to the subject areas and sub-areas being appraised. Listings of properties for sale may be used to indicate the trend of prices and market for remaining available land. The comparison is made considering appropriate adjustments for characteristics of an inferior or superior nature. The adjusted sale price then gives an indication of land value for the property being appraised. r i The adjustments considered are location, time, shape, topography, access, probable use, and other influences, which might affect value. A primary assumption is that the subject areas are vacant raw land and have reasonable street access and utilities but not to ultimate development requirements. The cost and income capitalization approaches to value have not been utilized in estimating the value the area. There are no major improvements on the subject land; consequently, these approaches were not appropriate for valuing the subject land. The ranges of value for the various subject areas or sub-areas appraised are presented in the Valuation Summary Table. Conclusions of unit land values are shown as a range. A blended unit land value is presented which is the Appraisers' opinion of that area or sub-areas as a whole of potential or highest and best land uses. It does not represent an average, but may be so mathematically. I The unit values presented do not reflect appraised values for acquisition/purchase. They should not be applied to any specific parcel of land ownership or land to be divided. j i 1 C i i 13 i City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 General Description and References l of Property to be Valued The entire land area to be valued consists of an irregular but generally rectangular land area approximately two (2) miles wide along the northerly side of 1-580 between Tassajara Road and the eastern city limits of Dublin as well as Schaefer Ranch, located on the north side if Interstate 580 at Schaefer Ranch Road. The total land area is approximately 3,888 acres. That entire area generally referred to as the Dublin Ranch Development, Fallon Village and Schaefer Ranch has numerous areas of differing designated land uses. The uses are described in the area's Specific Plan and shown generally on the following land use maps and spreadsheet. Generally the areas along or closest to 1-580 and Tassajara Road are designated for various commercial uses influenced by major traffic routes. Areas northerly and easterly contain a transition from neighborhood commercial and administrative offices to medium and medium- high density residential to residential hillside and golf course oriented single-family residential subdivisions. Due to the large size and varied land use as previously described, the Appraiser has divided the subject property into approximately 16 sub-areas based on primary traffic streets and similar or complimenting land use designations. This combination provides a more reasonable basis for focusing the analysis and valuation on location and reflecting designated land uses which are believed to affect the unit value of the land. This pattern is only a tool or method of identifying, (for the Appraiser and the Appraiser's client), a reasonable basis for indicating land value by comparisons of sale properties and for estimating value ranges for the area (or areas) in relation to other areas within the entire grid as well as neighboring or nearby sectors. i i j I 14 j 1 City of Dublin i Impact Fee Study--August 2013 ff Project Area Description , The project assignment covers 3,888 acres north of 1-580 and east of Tassajara Creek. A 2,711-acre portion is referred to as "Dublin Ranch". The "East Dublin Specific Plan" is for master-planned communities. The entire acreage is subject to a Specific Plan originally I adopted in 1996. It was amended in 1997, and a portion revised in November 2002. The northern portion of the Dublin Ranch Development has been developed as residential. The West Dublin and Silvera Ranches are residential developments with considerable open space. An additional area known as Schaefer Ranch is located in West Dublin, north of Interstate 580 at Schaefer Ranch Road adjacent to Castro Valley. The narrative descriptions of land uses applicable to specific land use categories are quotations from the Final East Dublin Specific Plan, dated January 4, 1997 and adopted in November of 1997 by the City and amended July 1999 or other City sources. All area assumptions include the areas of the future main street thoroughfares and secondary streets. Subject Area Descriptions Schaefer Ranch (See Schaefer Ranch Map) Schafer Ranch consists of approximately 492 acres. Approximately 120 acres will be developed with 466 residential units, with a density of just under 4 units per acre. An additional 5.7 acres will be developed with general commercial uses, while the remaining 366 acres will be preserved for parks and open space. Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) and Transit Village (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area is located north of Interstate 580, west of Tassajara Road and to the south and east of Camp Parks. The area consists of approximately 686 acres. It includes various types of residential and mixed use development as well as general commercial and industrial development. Approximately 185 acres has been designated for open space or other public uses. i Casterson, Tassajara Meadows and Greenbriar (See East Dublin Area Location Map) Casterson, Tassajara Meadows and Greenbriar are residential areas locates north of Gleason Boulevard and east of Tassajara Road. Combined, they represent approximately 96 acres of medium density residential development. I Dublin Ranch, Phase 1 (See East Dublin Area Location Map) Phase 1 is located east of Tassajara Road, north of South Dublin Ranch Drive/Antone Way. This area contains 210 acres including approximately 145 acres of low and medium density 15 I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Cresidential development. The remainder of the area is preserved for neighborhood parks and private recreation. i Dublin Ranch, Area A (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area includes the Dublin Ranch Golf Club and golf course located along the northern portions of both sides of Fallon Road, but only to the east side, south of Antone Way. This area contains a total of 351 acres including approximately 135 acres of low density residential designated land and 71.5 acres of agricultural/rural residential development. The remainder is preserved for open space. Dublin Ranch, Area F (North) (See Aerial Map) This area is located north of Gleason Drive, south of Antone Way, east of Brannigan Street and west of Lockhart Street. This area contains a total of 88.5 acres. Approximately 53 areas of this area have been designated for medium and low density residential development. The remaining area will be preserved for public use either as school sites or as open space. Dublin Ranch, Area F (Toll Brothers) (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area is located south of Gleason Drive, north of Central Parkway, east of Brannigan Street and west of Lockhart Street. This area contains a total of approximately 123 acres. Approximately 105 areas of this area have been designated for medium density residential development. The remaining area will be preserved for public use either as developed park sites or as open space. Dublin Ranch Area G (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area is located east of Brannigan Street, west of Fallon Road, south of Central Parkway and north of Dublin Boulevard. The area is approximately 84 acres. This area has been designated for a variety of development including approximately 51 acres of high and medium high residential uses, approximately 22 acres of this area has been designated for neighborhood commercial development. The remainder, approximately 11 acres has been designated for parks or open space. Dublin Ranch, Area B (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area is located east of Lockhart Street, west of Fallon Road, north of Central Parkway and south of Gleason Drive. This area contains approximately 210 acres. Of this area, approximately 32 acres has been designated for high or medium/high residential development. Approximately 92 acres had been designated for medium residential development. The remaining approximately 86 acres had been designated for school sites, parks or open space. 16 I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Dublin Ranch, Area H f (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area is located south of Dublin Boulevard, west of Keegan Street, and east of Brannigan Street. The area is bordered to the south by Interstate 580. This are contains approximately 70.8 acres. Of the total, 43.9 acres have been designated for campus office use. The remaining area, 26.9 acres has been designated for industrial use. Dublin Ranch, Area C (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This area is located south of Dublin Boulevard, west of Fallon Road and east of Keegan Street. The area is bordered to the south by Interstate 580. This are contains approximately 85.8 acres. Of the total, 44.6 acres have been designated for campus office use. The remaining area, 41.2 acres has been designated for industrial use. Dimanto i (See East Dublin Area Location Map) This are is located between 1-580 to the south, Gleason Drive to the north, Tassajara Road to the west and Keegan Street to the east. It is shown on the East Dublin Area Map as the non- shaded portion. The area is approximately 72 acres and has been designated for industrial use. Dublin Ranch West (See Aerial Map) This area is located on the west side of Tassajara Road, North Dublin Ranch Drive. The area contains approximately 184 acres. Of this area, 93.5 acres has been designated for residential uses ranging in density from low to medium/high. Approximately 90.6 acres will be reserved for open space or improved public park areas. Fallon Village (See Fallon Village Map) This area is located on the east side of Fallon Road, north of Interstate 580. The area contains a total of approximately 1,134 acres. A variety of uses is planned for this area including 487.5 acres of residential development ranging in density from low to medium/high, 142.9 acres f agricultural or rural residential use, approximately 61 acres of industrial use, approximately 73 acres general commercial/campus office use, 72 acres of general commercial, and 6.4 acres of mixed use development. The remainder of the area, 291.5 acres, will be reserved for parks or open space. The following table illustrates the planned use for each of the areas described above. 17 I ' I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Area Area Total Size(s) Size Area Location Planned Uses (Acres) (Acres) Schaefer Ranch North of I-580 @ High Density Residential 120.52 Scaefer Ranch Road General Commercial 5.69 492.05 Public/Open Space 365.84 ACSPA High Density Residential 34.60 North of Interstate 580, Medium/High Density Residential 38.90 west of Tassajara Medium Density Residential 60.20 Road and to the south Low Density Residential 89.20 685.60 and east of Camp General Commercial 133.75 Parks Campus Office 79.05 Industrial 65.00 Public/Open Space 184.90 Casterson North of Gleason Medium Density Residential 19.90 19.90 Tassajara Meadows Boulevard; East of Medium Density Residential 11.70 11.70 Greenbriar Tassajara Medium Density Residential 64.35 64.35 Dublin Ranch(Phase 1) Medium Density Residential 35.70 East of Tassajara, Low Density esidential 109.80 north of SoSouth uth Dublin y - 210.00 Ranch Drive/Antone Private Recreation 2.00 Public/Open Space 62.50 Dublin Ranch (Area A) Both sides of Fallon, Low Density Residential 135.30 but only east side, Rural Residential/Agricultural 71.50 351.50 south of Antone Public/Open Space 144.70 Dublin Ranch(Area F North) N. of Gleason, S. of Medium Density Residential 20.00 Antone, E. of Low Density Residential 33.40 88.50 Brannigan, W. of Lockhart Public/Open Space 35.10 Dublin Ranch (Area F Toll) S. of Gleason, N. of ` Medium Density Residential 105.00 Central, E. of 123.10 Brannigan, W. of Lockhart Public/Open Space 18.10 Dublin Ranch (Area G) High Density Residential 25.00 E. of Brannigan, W. of Medium/High Density Residential 26.20 Fallon, S. of Central, N Neighborhood Commercial 22.00 84.30 of Dublin Public/Open Space 11.10 Dublin Ranch(Area B) High Density Residential 23.60 E. of Lockhart, W. of Medium/High Density Residential 8.60 Fallon, N. of Central, 210.40 Medium Density Residential 91.80 S. of Gleason Public/Open Space 86.40 Dublin Ranch(Area H) S. of Dublin, W. of Campus Office 43.90 Keegan, E. of 70.80 Brannigan Industrial 26.90 Dublin Ranch(Area C) S. off Dublin, W. of Campus Office 44.60 85.80 Fallon, E. of Keegan Industrial 41.20 i G 1 18 City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 TABLE CONTINUED i ` Area Area Total Size(s) Size j Area Location Planned Uses (Acres) (Acres) Diamanto S. of Gleason, E. of Tassajara, W. of Industrial 71.88 71.88 Keegan Dublin Ranch West Medium/High Density Residential 20.10 W. ofTassajara, N. of Medium Density Residential 54.60 184.10 Dublin Ranch Dr. Low Density Residential 18.80 Public/Open Space 90.60 Fallon Village Medium/High Density Residential 23.80 Medium Density Residential 60.10 Low Density Residential 403.60 Mixed Use 6.40 E. of Fallon Road, N. General Commercial 72.10 1,134.40 of 1-580 Campus Office 72.70 Industrial 61.30 Rural Residential/Agricultural 142.90 Public/Open Space 291.50 Tota 1 3888.38 1 I i I I I 19 I City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 Market Sales Approach General Scope Areas of Influence and Search The subject area under study and for which estimates of unit land values are to be made consists of approximately 3,888 acres at the eastern side of Dublin abutting and north of 1-580 j as well as Schaefer Ranch. The areas to the south and east, across 1-580 from the study area, are within the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. The study areas are under the primary influences of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and now within the city limits. One of the primary I influences on the subject area is the ongoing development of the former Camp Parks site by sales of the Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County of land adjacent to and westerly of the subject area. The subject area has numerous areas of various designated land uses within in it. These include parks and open space, neighborhood squares or parks, schools, low, medium, medium high and high density residential, commercial offices, general commercial for retail and other potential uses. Due to the wide variety of designated land uses within the subject area, sales and listing data was sought regarding properties with similar variation of several different land uses or with individual land use potentials similar to a specific sub-area of the entire subject area. Generally, data was obtained from research in the public records, subscription services and inquiry with owners, developers and public officials. The data obtainable is reflective of somewhat broader categories of medium density and high density residential subdivisions, general commercial and sites used by specific parties for their own respective commercial retail or office building and light industrial uses. These will be employed to indicate the range of the unit land value estimated for the respective areas delineated and used in the following valuation analyses portion of this report. The discussions with developers and public officials and the Appraiser's observations verify the continued residential development of lands along the 1-580 corridor after a period of decline. Commercial office activity within the past couple of years has been relatively stagnant. However the market has experienced strong retail and medical oriented use demand. The search for sales and listing information was initially focused on the northerly side of 1-580, the area considered to be generally primarily influential on the subject area under study. The search was expanded to other areas with actual or potential land uses similar to those designated for the subject area. The data obtained and used in the analyses to estimate the most probable price ranges for the various areas as delineated by ARMS are contained in the following section of this report in a summary format and by individual comparable data sheets in the appendix. The delineation of specific areas for valuation purposes were made by ARMS and thereafter discussed with the client as to their relevancy for the client's intended use of the values and the report for the subject area. It was determined that the areas are compatible with the client's needs and intended uses. I i I 20 i City of Dublin Impact Fee Study--August 2013 It is important to note that sales and listing data used, is interpreted by the Appraiser to indicate value ranges as of the effective date of valuation. No attempt has been made to project or estimate probable prices at future dates whether soon or years in the future. No attempt has been made to predict the time necessary to absorb any of the delineated land areas within the subject area into actual development. Also, no attempt is made to discount the estimated values as of the effective date of valuation for the costs of holding any area or parcel of land until its development sometime in the future. i The following section summarizes the data used in this report. Valuation Summary The following Valuation Summary table indicates a price per square foot value for each type of planned use within the each area. Based on the proportion of each property type within a particular area, and the value conclusion of each type, a weighted value on a per square foot basis, is concluded each of the identified areas. I i I i 21 VALUATION SUMMARY Weighted Area Area Value Per Value Per Size(s) Total Size Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Area Location Planned Uses (Acres) (Acres) (2013) (2013) Schaefer Ranch North of 1-580 @ High Density Residential 120.52 $50.00 Scaefer Ranch Road General Commercial 5.69 492.05 $25.00 $12.75 Public/Open Space 365.84 $0.40 ACSPA High Density Residential 34.60 $55.00 Medium/High Density Residential 38.90 $53.00 North of Interstate 580, Medium Density Residential 60.20 $50.00 west of Tassajara Road Low Density Residential 89.20 $45.00 and to the south and General Commercial 133.75 685.60 $25.00 $25.25 east of Camp Parks Campus Office 79.05 $25.00 Industrial 65.00 $15.00 Public/Open Space 184.90 $0.35 Casterson North of Gleason Medium Density Residential 19.90 19.90 $50.00 Tassajara Meadows Boulevard;East of Medium Density Residential 11.70 11.70 1 $50.00 Greenbriar Tassajara Medium Density Residential 64.35 64.35 $50.00 Dublin Ranch(Phase 1) Medium Density Residential 35.70 $50.00 East of Tassajara, Low Density Residential 109.80 $40.00 north of South Dublin 210.00 $29.50 Ranch Drive/Antone Private Recreation 2.00 $0.80 Public/Open Space 62.50 $0.35 Dublin Ranch(Area A) Both sides of Fallon, Low Density Residential 135.30 $40.00 but only east side, Rural Residential/Agricultural 71.50 351.50 $15.00 $18.50 south of Antone Public/Open Space 144.70 $0.35 Dublin Ranch(Area F North) N.of Gleason,S.of Medium Density Residential 20.00 $50.00 Antone,E.of Low Density Residential 33.40 88.50 $40.00 $26.50 Brannigan,W.of Lockhart Public/Open Space 35.10 $0.35 Dublin Ranch(Area F Toll) S.of Gleason,N.of Medium Density Residential 105.00 $50.00 Central,E.of Brannigan,W.of 123.10 $42.75 Lockhart Public/Open Space 18.10 $0.35 Dublin Ranch(Area G) High D nsity Residential 25.00 $55.00 E.of Brannigan,W.of Medium/High Density Residential 26.20 $50.00 Fallon,S.of Central,N Neighborhood Commercial 22.00 84.30 $45.00 $43.75 of Dublin � Public/Open Space 11.10 $0.35 Dublin Ranch(Area B) High Densit Residential 23.60 $55.00 E.of Lockhart,W.of Medium/High Density Residential 8.60 $50.00 Fallon,N.of Central,S. Medium Density Residential 91.80 210.40 $45.00 $28.00 of Gleason Public/Open Space 86.40 $0.35 i Dublin Ranch(Area H) S.of Dublin,W.of Campus Office 43.90 $25.00 Keegan,E.of 70.80 $21.25 i Brannigan Industrial 26.90 $15.00 Dublin Ranch(Area C) S.off Dublin,W.of Campus Office 44.60 85.80 $25.00 $20.25 Fallon,E.of Keegan Industrial 41.20 $15.00 Diamanto S.of Gleason,E.of I Tassajara,W.of Industrial 71.88 71.88 $15.00 $15.00 Keegan Dublin Ranch West Medium/High Density Residential 20.10 $50.00 W.of Tassajara,N.of Medium Density Residential 54.60 $45.00 Dublin Ranch Dr. Low Density Residential 18.80 184.10 $40.00 $23.00 Public/Open Space 90.60 $0.35 Fallon Village Medium/High Density Residential 23.80 $55.00 Medium Density Residential 60.10 $50.00 Low Density Residential 403.60 $45.00 Mixed Use 6.40 $45.00 E.of Fallon Road,N.of General Commercial 72.10 1,134.40 $25.00 $24.75 I-580 Campus Office 72.70 $25.00 Industrial 61.30 $15.00 Rural Residential/Agricultural 142.90 $5.00 Public/Open Space 291.50 $0.35 Total 3888.38 I I I 1 ' 4 � m m v Q a Q ifl aj LL- a ° — — o'er cpA }Wn C a a m m � K XEA � uSl� ` pp ..m LU4 �� O m m ] d N �" 0 0 0 0 Ji 15 a _o o � cw,r OC 9 8 8 F rc � c E E E o C D O D •dp N � � x i O K All J Q " s o = n a LV i a � n� - •y a o 0 0 ' m LU LLI 1p N — l3 Em m �1 o rc ao a ��� til eeeeeee J , r fl i L rlsa •. ^ . : .. ca 1 z r J . F}r.✓3j �� J JF � l►0�����O�we•:� v pivi AI�'n,!' ® 8 r /ir r1/7 tf e a ��.G P►:��Qlpi�r num sir ��.e'.�•�Pr `► • /7flllf6 • r � /- / \ ; tnn• r t 8 ,'••P tii�°a al��r,,�<iO ftii/ilry�rrii• 1 ���J/F 4•i� ttll {tm�pir! ,,. r, .,cr t` r. S V+fltttt{f� 8tl� � rdtvv anr4i�rr � , r OrieHij►� / (®lei Of!, 4171 1, E 4 1 !r/ t�ll!®�lll � nmrt Cp\{tt ® _ �3,r•ti�e r / Is PP pi®®o®fi®o®voo®®coq �rl ©f.F ii ec= f 1�.�1 — a Pie � r ��o Ili►��fJ� >• .���, vq ■m nn►� , e oo a. U k •Inupll � �'°�l Y ry �r itttai alp,`�ept` er !a+ -ri'mog aditttttt(►!e ragi.'e:e�o'' i qiw rry � r g�.1 I • a,- `° _ { s t\rti7 �®.*�iiyr�� t t4=.,1�PB� �`��9®i rrJ � � tnatgtd rii°reef R UIi ✓ 1 1r R � • ®®►a tltltlesk o r r.liw �f® r� 1 � $.P�'r y] fi '' • � � Irulr L,e ;r4`?r� 1 � rf,�� � r�it// Y 1� .• 6eerenn{/ems .r�ri P q m �;ra` - ��f,. e g wlmg �a 1 .e Jrr r I - I/ l �l/rrt r ( f f r / urr i y f�'� ;e1 � � `L E•(�iJ�7eq e��B ` Y � • rrf�rl Sf G f Jep. I �r/ r1i:triie•���r�itil aii i�� _t 'ij Ii JJ� r • .f 1 1 d� f f Comp Type of Grantor(Seller) Parcel Size No. Property Address/APN Grantee(Buyer) Price COE Acre(s) Sq.Ft. Price/Acre Price/SF / +Document Number AG-01 Agricultural 13636 Christensen Rd Listing $1,700,000 For Sale 188.77 8,222,821 $9,006 $0.21 Byron,CA 099B-7020-004 AG-02 Agricultural NWC Manning Rd&Morgan Listing $1,400,000 For Sale 100.00 4,356,000 $14,000 Territory Rd Livermore,CA AG-03 Agricultural Morgan Territory Listing $2,400,000 For Sale 343.82 14,976,799 $6,980 $0.16 Livermore,CA 006-110-001 AG-04 Agricultural 7010 Vallecitos Rd Listing $2,875,000 For Sale 136.00 5,924,160 $21,140 $0.49 Pleasanton,CA 096-0365-302 AG-05 Agricultural N Eden Canyon Rd Listing $525,000 For Sale 29.99 1,306,364 $17,506 $0.40 Castro Valley,CA 085A-2100-002 AG-06 Agricultural Patterson Pass Rd Lot 2 Listing $533,610 For Sale 76.23 3,320,579 $7,000 $0.16 jAG-07 Agricultural Patterson Pass Rd Lot 1 Listing $556,710 For Sale 79.53 3,464,327 $7,000 $0.16 Livermore,CA 099B-7925-002 AG-08 Agricultural Altamont Pass Rd Listing $6,862,500 For Sale 305.00 13,285,800 $22,500 $0.52 Livermore,CA 099B-6300-001-02 AG-09 Agricultural 999 Palomares Rd $6,235,425 12/21/12 1368.00 59,590,080 $4,558 $0.10 Sunol,CA 085A-4700-002-35 AG-10 Agricultural 31924 Palomares Road Riyoko Lingerfelt $190,000 08/06/12 10.27 447,361 $18,500 $0.42 Castro Valley,CA Wesner et al 085A-4100-003-00 256448 AG-I1 Agricultural 5851 Crow Canyon Road Monaco et us $405,000 03/01/12 13.77 599,821 $29,412 $0.68 Castro Valley,CA Arezou Dadgar 085A-0001-007 68290 AG-12 Agricultural 2001 Victorine Rd Leonardini L A Trust $1,500,000 12/16/11 215.00 9,365,400 $6,977 $0.16 Livermore,CA William E&Mark A Mazzaocco 006-150-001 274372 AG-13 Agricultural 0 Wente St Mien et us $1,000,000 09/16/11 58.0_2 2,527,351 $17,235 $0.40 Livermore,CA Norman Family Trust i 099-0800-001-14 263316 AG-14 Agricultural 2115 Norris Canyon Rd First Chewie LLC $2,800,000 01/27/11 117.01 5,096,956 $23,930 $0.55 San Ramon,CA Weina Yu 211-210-009,-017 020278 AG-15 Agricultural 0 Collier Canyon Road Ann Branco $140,000 01/28/10 12.48 543,629 $11,218 $0.26 Livermore,CA Bank of America 905-00007-008 20124 i t Grantor(Seller) Comp Type o[ Parcel Size Address/APN Grantee(Buyer) Price COE Zoning General Plan Price/Acre Price/SF No. Property: Document Number Acre(s)/Sq.Ft. CL-01 Commercial 2125 San Ramon Rd Retail Pacific Inc $1,300,000 For Sale 1.20 52,272 DDZD- DoNNino n Dublin-Retail $1,083,333 $24.87 Dublin,CA Do vmoN.n District I 941-0305-034-02 Dublin Zoning District CL-02 Commercial Tassajara Rd San Jose Construction $113,400,000 For Sale 54.00 2,352,240 PD General Commercial, $2,100,000 $48.21 Dublin,CA PA 94-030 Neighborhood Commercial, 985-0051-001-00,-002-00,-003- Medium/lligh-Den.Res. 00 (14.1-25.0 du/ac), High-Den.Res. (25.1+du/ac). I CL-03 Commercial SWC Hacidena Dr&Dublin Blvd Alameda County Surplus Property $14,200,000 Under 14.32 623,779 PD Campus Office $991,620 $22.76 Dublin,CA Authority Contract PA-85-018 _ 986-0033-007 Regency Centers CL-04 Commercial 2850 Las Positas Road Las Positas Partners,LLC $950,000 _09/10/12 1.46 63,598 PDC-00-199 CSGC $650,685 $14.94 Livermore,CA SMBC Leasing and Finance Inc. 099-0015-058 295513 CL-05 Commercial 7201 Amador Valley Blvd Valley Community Bank $325,000 07/31/12 0.35 15,246 DDZD- Doantoum Dublin-Village $928,571 $21.32 Dublin,CA DOwntoNn Parkway District 941-0210-035 Dublin Zoning District Dublin Education Group LLC 250148 CL-06 Commercial SEC Owens Dr&Willow Rd El Purchaser Ca Q.15-85 Inc $11,100,000 06/14/12 8.42 366,775 PUD-MU Business Park $1,318,290 $30.26 Pleasanton,CA (0.1998) Mixed Use t 941-2778-013 BRE Properties,Inc 193238 CL-07 Commercial Dublin Blvd @ Tassajara Rd Lakireddy Vijay k $3,700,000 01/31/12 3.36 146,362 PD General Commercial $1,101,190 $25.28 Dublin,CA PA 94001 986-0016-023-00 4321 Toyota Dr Llc 029734 CL-08 Commercial W Las Positas Blvd Surplus Property Authority of $44,880,000 08/25/11 46.00 2,003,760 PUD-HDIUC Retail/Highway/Service $975,652 $22.40 Pleasanton,CA Alameda County (0.2006) Commercial. 946-1128-002-09,-003-09 PUD-C Business and Professional (0.2006) Offices. Medium Density(2-8 du/ac) High Density(8+du/ac) Continuing Life Communities Pleasanton LLC 244157 I i I i I � I I it Grantor(Seller) Comp'. Type of : Parcel Size 9ddresslAPN Grantee(Buyer) '. Price COE : Zoning General Plan Price(Acre Price lSF No. Property Document Number Acre(s)/Sq.Ff. IL-01 Industrial 3100 Valley Ave North Pacific Coast Company $1,050,000 For Sale 1.90 82,764 PUD-I General and Limited $552,632 $12.69 Pleasanton,CA (0.1317) Industrial 946-1251-029-00 FL-02 Industrial Technology PI Balch Enterprises Inc $1,030,000 06/25/13 1.31 57,064 P-2008-122 industrial-Service $786,260 $18.05 Fremont,CA MJA Enterprises LLC 525-1250-066-00 228524 IL-03 Industrial W Warren Ave King&Lyons $8,105,000 03/15/13 40.50 1,764,180 O-S(F)&I-R Open Space-Private& $200,123 $4.59 Fremont,CA Industrial-Tech 519-0820-002-22,-24 LLC Omp&I&G Creekside Invstrs 098220 TL-04 Industrial 28218 Julia Street Gloria A.Smith,Administrator for $488,255 12/21/12 0.83 36,155 Industrial industrial Corridor $588,259 $13.50 Hayward,CA the estate of Jose Jesus Omelas 456-0051-008-02 Bhupinder Singh and Jyoti Kaur et at i 426593 IL-05 Industrial 889 E.Airnay Blvd Fremont Bank $800,000 09/27/12 2.01 87,556 CS HC(I4ighmmay Commercial) $398,010 $9.14 Livermore,CA (Commercial 099-0130-003 Service) bfatthew L.Hicks 316504 IL-06 Industrial 4560 Automall Pky Grimmer/Auto h-fall Properties LP $600,000 08/01/12 1.51 65,776 P-2008-122 Industrial-Service $397,351 $9.12 Fremont,CA Fremont Auto Mall Pkwy,LLC 525-1327-043-00 252692 ' IL-07 Industrial Volpey Way Grubman William I Trust $2,400,000 06/19/12 4.62 201,247 ML(Light All,(Light Industrial) $519,481 $11.93 Union City,CA Industrial) 463-0045-069-01,-02, Coast Citrus Distributors 463-0045-068-01,-02 207953 t IL-08 Industrial Old Ward Springs Blvd Balch Enterprises,Inc. $6,000,000 12/29/11 8.13 354,143 GI Industrial-General/Study $738,007 $16.94 Fremont,CA Area 519-1310-003-04,-004-01, Bitney Springs LLC -005-04 379361 IL-09 Industrial Cushing Pky a Fremont Blvd Carl E&Mary Ann Berg $12,558,500 10/07/11 15.50 675,180 I-R&Portion Industrial-Tech $810,226 $18.60 Fremont,CA O-S(F) 519-0850-122-00 DeltaAmerica Ltd 284934 IL-10 Industrial 45976 Warm Springs Blvd Jess and Joan Bettencourt $1,350,000 08/05/11 2.15 93,654 IR Industrial-Tech/Study Area $627,907 $14.41 Fremont,CA _ _ 519-1687-048 Global Link Investment,LLC 225822 IL-11 Industrial 23555 Saklan Rd Berkeley Land Co Inc $600,000 06/13/11 0.90 39,204 LM(Light IC(Industrial Corridor) $666,667 $15.30 Hayward,CA Manufacturing 441-0092-005-05 ) 23555 Saklan Road LLC 168672 i Comp! Tope of ' Grantor Parcel Size No. Property `Address/APN Grantee '. Price COE Zoning General Plan Price lAcre Price/SF i Acre(s)/Sq.Ft. :Document Numher RL-01 Residential 4155 Central Ave Listing $1,480,000 For Sale 0.42 18,295 P-2006-67 Residential-Medium $3,523,810 $80.90 Fremont,CA (CSPC) (14.6-29.9 du/ac) { 501-0536-049-02 !� RL-02 Residential Tassajara Rd Listing $48,300,000 For Sale 23.00 1,001,880 PD General Commercial, $2,100,000 $48.21 Dublin,CA PA 94-030 Mediunb"gh-Den.Res. 985-0052-024-00 (14.1-25.0 du/ac), Nigh-Den.Res. (25.1+du/ac). RL-03 Residential 7020 Tassajara Blvd $1,995,000 Under 4.35 189,486 PD Medium Density Residential $458,621 $10.53 Dublin,CA Contract PA 06-030 (6.1-14.0 du/ac) 986-0004-002-01 l Keller Williams Tri-Valley R 04 Residential 3216D St Harmonius Holdings $690,000 05/14/13 3.61 157,252 Alameda SDR-Suburban Density $191,136 $4.39 Hayward,CA County Residential(City) 417-0220-011-01,-012-01 (1.0-4.3 du/ac) Avtar Singh&Meera Rani 174127 RL-05 Residential Weir Dr Scarpa Steven I&Gosain Bhupinder $323,000 05/09/13 3.27 142,441 Alameda LDR-Low Density $98,777 $2.27 Hayward,CA K&P County Residential(City) 426-0160-091-00 (4.3-8.7 du/ac) Yankee,Inc. 137547 RL-06 Residential 4141 Central Ave Centerville Research Group LLC $740,000 04/01/13 0.42 18,295 P-2006-67 Residential Medium $1,761,905 $4075 Fremont,CA (CSPC) (14.6-29.9 du/ac) 501-0536-048-02 Central Grove Villas Developer 150043 RL-07 Residential 14341 Bancroft Ave Laurence&Clifford Davilla $640,000 02/19/13 0.98 42,689 RM 1800(24 High Density $653,061 $14.99 San Leandro,CA du/ac), (19-25 du/ac) 077E-1569-013-03 SA-1 Yiling C Cheng 081618 RL-08 Residential S Side Las Positas Rd,E of David Waterman&Norma $275,000 01/29/13 170 60,984 CG Rural Residential $196,429 $4.51 Hilliker PI Waterman Livermore,CA Ashish Bodke&Kevin Kashefi 099-0015-025-04(por) 430265 RL-08 Residential 38569 Mission Blvd Mahesh N&Kamini MPatel $1,650,000 01/25/13 1.08 47,045 R-3-18 Residential-Medium $1,527,778 $35.07 Fremont,CA (16.5-I8 (14.6-29.9 du/ac) 507-0527-040-02 du/ac) Saratoga MV I LLC I 040149 I RL40 Residential Manon Ave Shirley&Sharon E Lynch,etc. $400,000 09/13/12 0.98 42,689 RS-Single !\DJR-Medium Density $408,163 $9.37 Hayward,CA Family Residential 453-0090-014-00 Residential (8.7-17.4 du/acre) Malresh&Shilpa Gogri 299409 RL-I1 Residential 4154-4182 Fremont Blvd Arena Capital LLC $2,400,000 04/25/12 0.99 43,124 P-2010-272 Residential Medium $2,424,242 $55.65 Fremont,CA (14.6-29.9 du/ac) 525-0605-014-02 Florio Development LLC 269964 RL-12 Residential 671 Berry Ave Valley Community Bank $280,000 04/20/12 0.91 39,640 High Density HDR-High Density $307,692 $7.06 Hayward,CA Residential Residential(17.4-34.8 444-0060-004-00 du/acre) Charles Pifer 130146 RL-13 Residential Fallon Rd&Positano Pky D-2 Dublin RE Investors LLC $19,228,000 06/10/11 19.20 836,352 PD Single Family Residential $1,001,458 $22.99 j Dublin,CA PA 05-038 0.9-6.0 du/ac) 985-0028-007-02 K Hovnanian Homes Northern California Inc- 167879 ' RL-14 Residential 15101 Washington Ave United Commercial Bank $470,000 04/22/11 1.19 51,836 RM-1800 High Density $394,958 $9.07 a San Leandro,CA (24 du/ac) (19-25 du/ac) d 08OH15150802 Long Chang 118222 i r RL-15 Residential Fallon Rd&Positano Pky C-1 $11,960,000 04/16/11 16.70 727,452 PD Single Family Residential $716,168 $16.44 Dublin,CA PA 05-038 (0.9-6.0 da/ac) 985-0075-004-00 K Hovnanian at Positano LLC 216314 i RL-16 Residential Palemro Way SR Structured Lot Options I LLC $20,004,000 03/25/11 9.45 411,642 Medium Density Residential $2,116,825 $48.60 Dublin,CA PD (6.1-14.0 du/ac) f 985-0053-008-00 PA 08-002 Standard Pacific Corp 090965 RL-17 Residential Capoterra R'ay SR Structured Lot Options l LLC $12,996,000 03/31/]1 5.18 225,641 I,-tedium Density Residential $2,508,880 $57.60 Dublin,CA PD (6.1-14.0 du/ac) I 985-0053-009-00 PA 08-002 D R Horton Bay Inc 095661 4 CITY OF DUBLIN EMERALD GLEN AQUATIC CENTER Dahlin Group CD Cost Estimate Job No. 13004 19 July 2014 3 t t i i 4I I i i � 6� W � EMERALD GLEN AQUATIC CENTER DUBLIN, CA OCMI JOB#: 13004 CD COST ESTIMATE DATE: 19 JULY 2014 PROJECT SUMMARY ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01.BUILDING $12,440,695 $413.78 02.AQUATICS $5,658,025 $355.85 03.SITEWORK $8,108,788 $20.51 04.STORAGE BUILDING $487,518 $298.72 05.TOILET BLOCK $112,115 $778.58 TOTALCON5TitlICTiON OUST $26,807,141 1 f s� ADDITIONAL AQUATICS FF&E: Rock climbing wall at pool $45,400 Water polo goals $6,810 Pool equipment and carts $11,350 Aquatics obstacle course $22,700 TOTAL CONSTT{iJGTiON COST WITH AQI�ATICS FF&E � � $26,893,401 f i I I Prepared by: O'Connor Construction Management, Inc. Sheet 1 of 44 ORDINANCE NO. — 15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 7.78 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 9.28 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES WHEREAS, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City of Dublin's ("City") general plan, the City's various Specific Plans, including but not limited to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, etc., and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain public facilities must be constructed; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that a public facilities fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements; and WHEREAS, a public facilities fee ("fee") has been established to pay for said municipally owned public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows.. Section1. Section 7.78.010 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions in underline and deletions in strikethro irvh): In order to implement the goals and objectives of the city of Dublin's ("city") general plan, the Eastern Dublinvarious specific plans, including but not limited to Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the parks—Parks and reGr n Recreation master pI-anPlan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain public facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a public facilities fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan and the city's Eastern Du'blonyarious specific plans, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan. Section 2. Section 9.28.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions in underline and deletions in strikethroul 1 Attachment 6 It is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, safety and welfare require that five (5) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within the city be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The amount of land to be dedicated, or fees to be paid, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreation facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. The amount of land to be dedicated shall be the amount calculated from the following formula: LAND = AxB A. "A" means the park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, based on the type of dwelling units of the proposed subdivision and the park area per one thousand (1,000) people of the city. 1. The park area of the city is determined to be 5.0 acres per one thousand (1,000) people, or .005 acres per person, which is further broken down to 3.5-0 acres per one thousand (1,000) people for active community parks, 0.3 acres per one thousand people for natural community parks, and 1.5-7 acres per one thousand (1,000) people for neighborhood parks. 2. The park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, A, is established as follows: a. For dwellin units rto be Gonstn Gted on property designated in the general planwothon the City of D- blin or Eastern Dublin speGifiiG plaan (Newer units per acre,-eEach dwelling unit is assigned 32_7 people. Therefore: A = 3-.22.7 x .0035 0030 = .0112 0081 acres per unit (for community parks) A = 2.7 x .0003 = .0008 acres per unit (for natural community parks) A = 3-.22.7 x .0015-0017 = .0048-0046 acres per unit (for neighborhood parks) A (Total) = .04-8-0135 acres per unit b. For dwelling units to be GenStFUGted on property designated On the general plan or €astterrn Dublin spenifin plan for 6.1 or more units per aGrL eaGh nit��jigno�o people. Therefore- �--r�r-crvr� A - 2.0 x 0035 - .007 a�c pe�i}(f9FGOmm�unity parks) " "" Y 2 Attachment 6 o - 2.0 x 0015 - .003 aGres per unit (far neighborhood arks) (Total) - 0.010 acres per i B. "B" means the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision. For the purpose of this section, the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision shall be determined as follows: In areas zoned for one (1) dwelling unit per lot or parcel, the number of dwelling units shall equal the number of parcels indicated on the final map. When the subdivision is located in an area zoned for multiple dwelling units per parcel, the number of dwelling units shall equal the maximum number of dwelling units allowed under that zone. For residential condominium projects, the number of dwelling units shall equal the number of condominium units indicated on the final map. For planned development projects, the number of dwelling units shall equal the number of dwelling units indicated on the approved planned development plan. Section 3. Section 9.28.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions in underline and deletions in strikethroi irrh): A. Where fees are required by the city to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fees shall be equal to the fee for "community parks land", "natural community parks land", and "neighborhood parks land" of the city's public facilities fee. B. Where fe are required by the Gity to be void in lieu of land deiGatien and no foe for "neighborhood narks land" is established On the p bliG fo�tieS# fe subdivisions IGGated within the Gity eXGluding the Eastern Dublin SPeGifiG plan 0 the foes for neighborhood narks shall be based on the nUrrent market value of the developable aGreage of the area to be subdivided as determined by the DireGtOr 0 PubliG Works and Community Development DireGter at the tirne of approval of the final subdivision coon and shall he GaIG Mated as follows: FEE - AxBxG D "D" is defined in Sen+inn 9.28.040-. "R" is defined in Sen+inn 9.28.040-. "C" is the GUrrent market value of the developable aGreage of the area to be subdivided. "D" nh} developable aGr off the area to he subdivided. 3 Attachment 6 if the subdivider c)bjeGts te the determination Of GUrrent market value, the subdivide may request the Gity tG obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate mutually agreed upon by the Gity and the subdivider, whiGh appraisal will be Gensidered by the Gity on determining the GUrrent market value. All GGStS required to obtain SaGh appraisal shall be borne by the subdivider. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Dublin hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced on October 15, 2015. Section 6. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21th day of July, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: David Haubert, Mayor ATTEST: Caroline Soto, City Clerk 4 Attachment 6 ORDINANCE NO. — 15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 7.78 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 9.28 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES WHEREAS, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City of Dublin's ("City") general plan, the City's various Specific Plans, including but not limited to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, etc., and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain public facilities must be constructed; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that a public facilities fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements; and WHEREAS, a public facilities fee ("fee") has been established to pay for said municipally owned public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as fol lows: Section1. Section 7.78.010 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: In order to implement the goals and objectives of the city of Dublin's ("city") general plan, the various specific plans, including but not limited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain public facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a public facilities fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan and the city's various specific plans, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan. 1 Attachment 7 Section 2. Section 9.28.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: It is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, safety and welfare require that five (5) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within the city be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The amount of land to be dedicated, or fees to be paid, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreation facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. The amount of land to be dedicated shall be the amount calculated from the following formula- LAND = A x B A. "A" means the park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, based on the type of dwelling units of the proposed subdivision and the park area per one thousand (1,000) people of the city. 1. The park area of the city is determined to be 5.0 acres per one thousand (1,000) people, or .005 acres per person, which is further broken down to 3.0 acres per one thousand (1,000) people for active community parks, 0.3 acres per one thousand people for natural community parks, and 1.7 acres per one thousand (1,000) people for neighborhood parks. 2. The park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, A, is established as follows: a. Each dwelling unit is assigned 2.7 people. Therefore: A = 2.7 x .0030 = .0081 acres per unit (for community parks) A = 2.7 x .0003 = .0008 acres per unit (for natural community parks) A = 2.7 x .0017 = .0046 acres per unit (for neighborhood parks) A (Total) = .0135 acres per unit B. "B" means the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision. For the purpose of this section, the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision shall be determined as follows: In areas zoned for one (1) dwelling unit per lot or parcel, the number of dwelling units shall equal the number of parcels indicated on the final map. When the subdivision is located in an area zoned for multiple dwelling units per parcel, the number of dwelling units shall equal the maximum number of dwelling units allowed under that zone. For residential condominium projects, the number of dwelling units shall equal the number of condominium units indicated on the final map. For planned development projects, the number of dwelling units shall equal the number of dwelling units indicated on the approved planned development plan. 2 Attachment 7 Section 3. Section 9.28.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Where fees are required by the city to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fees shall be equal to the fee for "community parks land", "natural community parks land", and "neighborhood parks land" of the city's public facilities fee. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Dublin hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced on October 15, 2015. Section 6. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 t" day of July, 2015. AYES- NOES- ABSENT- ABSTAIN- David Haubert, Mayor ATTEST: Caroline Soto, City Clerk 3 Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECITALS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to pay for municipally owned public facilities within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted a General Plan ("GP") and Specific Plans ("SPs"), including but not limited to, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the GP outlines future land uses within the City's sphere of influence including new residential, commercial, office, and industrial developments; and WHEREAS, the SPs provide more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs within the GP areas; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update was adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2015, by Resolution No. 72-15; and WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level of environmental review for the 2015 update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and on May 19, 2015, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) by Resolution 71-15; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted several individual park master plans including the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan, Fallon Sports Park Master Plan, Dublin Historic Park Master Plan, and the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan ("Park Master Plans"); and 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 dated November 1986, and subsequent Civic Center Programming Documents dated from 2007 and September 2010 ("Civic Center Reports"); and WHEREAS, the City has approved a Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study ("Senior Center Study"), dated February 4, 2002; and ATTACHMENT 8 WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior Center Study, and SP, describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the GP and SP, including completion of City office space, construction of a library, acquisition and construction of parks and community facilities; and WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Fee Program assumes that certain municipal public facilities will be constructed and that development within the City of Dublin pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements; 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 Reports, Senior Center Study, GP, and SPs describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities within the City of Dublin, and contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public facilities required by future development within the Dublin community; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a "Public Facilities Fee" for development within the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of Dublin by Recht, Hausrath & Associates, in a document dated March 1996 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (hereafter "Study"); and WHEREAS, in 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 60-99 revising the "Public Facilities Fee" to reflect changes since the adoption of Resolution No. 32-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 60-99 superseded Resolution No. 32-96 and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Hausrath Economics Group, dated February 1999 and entitled "Public Facilities Fee 1998 Update" (hereafter "1998 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, in 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 214-02 revising the "Public Facilities Fee" to reflect changes since the adoption of Resolution No. 60-99; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 214-02 superseded Resolution No. 60-99 and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by MuniFinancial, dated October 14, 2002 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update" (hereafter "2002 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 214-02 provides that the City will periodically review the Public Facilities Fee and make revisions as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Willdan Financial Services to assist the City in reviewing and updating the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the City retained Associated Right of Way which in August 2013 completed an appraisal of land values for parkland acquisition in the area; and ATTACHMENT 8 WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services prepared a report dated July 7, 2015 and entitled "City of Dublin Development Impact Fee Update" (hereafter "2015 Study Update"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 214-02, 60-99 and 32-96, in reliance on the 2002 Study Update, 1998 Study Update, and the Study, set forth the relationship between future development in the City of Dublin, the needed public facilities and improvements, and the estimated cost of those public facilities and improvements; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Study Update relies on previous studies and demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Public Facilities Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to update cost information for parkland acquisition, (2) to update cost information for parkland development; (3) to update cost information for community buildings, such as the library building, civic center expansion, and cultural and recreational centers; and (4) and to update the cost information for aquatic facilities; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Study Update was available for public inspection and review for ten days prior to this public hearing; and FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee") is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments within the City of Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described in the study, include the following: completion of Civic Center administrative office space and police services wing; build-out and expansion of the Library; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks and community buildings (including cultural centers, community and recreational centers, and aquatic facilities). 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 2015 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 Reports, the Senior Center Study, the SPs, and all correspondence received (hereafter "record") the Council approves and adopts the 2015 Study Update, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the future development in the City of 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, and the various Specific Plans including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area is within the scope of its Environmental Impact Report (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 ATTACHMENT 8 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 through build-out of the community and specific details as to their timing, construction, and often precise location are not all presently known. E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of 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 any existing deficiency costs are not included in the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the City is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D)). F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, section 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—both residential and nonresidential—will generate persons who live, work and/or shop in 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 within the City of Dublin—both residential and nonresidential— 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 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 contributes to the need for the Facilities; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the 2015 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 2015 Study Update is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by development in the City of Dublin, the existing deficiencies, if any, and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and any deficiencies. ATTACHMENT 8 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; 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. C. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in the Study, the 2002 Study Update, and the 2015 Study Update and as described in the Park Master Plans, the September 1998 Library Planning Task Force Report, the Civic Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later determines: (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within the City of Dublin and 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. D. "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 hatching 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. E. "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. ATTACHMENT 8 2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed. A. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each residential unit within the City of Dublin when the Certificate of Occupancy for the unit is issued, provided that the Fee shall be payable when the building permit is issued from and after the date on which 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 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 existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. D. Any use of land that 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 B 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. B. The Neighborhood Park Land and Improvement portions of the Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following: 1. The portion of Fee otherwise imposed on a project that is attributable to an affordable unit, as defined in Dublin Municipal Code section 8.68.020.A, where the project applicant ATTACHMENT 8 provides evidence to the City Manager demonstrating that, prior to October 15, 2015, it obtained or submitted to obtain public-agency financing to build the affordable units. This exemption shall not be available after December 31, 2016. 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 of the Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2. To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Facilities. 3. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity; and 4. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Fee program. B. Fees in the Capital Project Fund 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 Reports, the Senior Center Study, the GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda. 7. 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. 8. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee. The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine ATTACHMENT 8 whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GP, SPs, Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior Center Study 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. 9. 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 8 above. The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July 1, 2016 and each July 1 thereafter, as follows: A. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown on Table 3.3 for Civic Center expansion; Table 4.3 for library facilities; Table 5.3 for parks; Table 6.3 for community/recreation facilities; Table 7.3 for aquatic facilities in the 2015 Study Update shall be increased by the annual percentage increase 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 5.3 for Neighborhood and Community Parks in the 2015 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, in 2000, the cost per square foot of neighborhood parkland was $15.38/square foot, and in 2013, it was $50/square foot, which results in an annual compounded growth increase of 9%. This results in a yearly increase in land valuation of 9%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 8 above. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. 10. Administrative Guidelines. The Council has, by resolution, adopted 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 value of right-of-way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from revenues raised by payment of the Fee. ATTACHMENT 8 11. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective on October 15, 2015. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective October 15, 2015 and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 214-02. 12. Severability. Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ATTACHMENT 8 CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIc FACILITIEs FEE STUDY UPDATE WIh. )( X94 ,I, Rlh'MI�\2YN�p�I��i"Y 0 5 WILLDAN' Financial Services Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Lancaster, CA Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Orlando, FL Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909) 587-3510 Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA www.willdan.com x lh li Ili li I This page intentionally left blank. VIII C ( IIIIIIIIIIII' IIII 'n IIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3 Facility Standards and Costs 3 Use of Fee Revenues 4 Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 4 Other Funding Needed 4 Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances 4 1 . INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 6 Public Facilities Financing in California 6 Study Objectives 6 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Program 7 Fee Program Maintenance 7 Study Methodology 7 Types of Facility Standards 8 New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8 Organization of the report 9 2. GROWTH FORECASTS.................................................................... 11 Land Use Types 11 Existing and Future Development 11 Occupant Densities 12 3. CIVIC CENTER FACILITIES ............................................................... 14 Service Population 14 Facility Inventories and Standards 15 Existing Inventory 15 Planned Facilities 15 Cost Allocation 16 Use of Fee Revenue 16 Fee Schedule 16 4. LIBRARY FACILITIES....................................................................... 18 Service Population 18 Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards 18 Planned Facilities 19 Cost Allocation 19 Fee Schedule 20 5. PARK FACILITIES............................................................................ 22 Service Population 22 Facility Inventories and Standards 23 Existing Inventory 23 WILLDAN Financial Services l City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Parkland Unit Costs 25 Improved Parkland Equivalent 25 Existing Park Facility Standards 26 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 26 Parks Cost per Capita 28 Use of Fee Revenue 28 Fee Schedule 28 6. COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERS ................................................ 30 Service Population 30 Facility Inventories & Standards 31 Cost per Capita Standard 31 Fee Schedule 32 Use of Fee Revenue 33 7. AQUATIC FACILITIES ....................................................................... 34 Service Population 34 Facility Inventories & Standards 35 Cost per Capita Standard 35 Fee Schedule 36 Use of Fee Revenue 36 8. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 38 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 38 Inflation Adjustment 38 Reporting Requirements 38 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 38 9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ...................................................... 39 Purpose of Fee 39 Use of Fee Revenues 39 Benefit Relationship 39 Burden Relationship 39 Proportionality 40 WILLDAN Financial Services H uu€ Illll�ilillllllllllllllum lu„ uuuumimu uut uuuumimu Su��I ���mnary This report summarizes an analysis of public facilities fees needed to support future development in The City of Dublin through build out. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below: • Civic Center Facilities * Park Facilities • Library Facilities * Community Recreation Centers • Aquatic Facilities Background tip The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Facility Standards There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements. The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the community recreation facilities and aquatic facilities fees in this report. The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. For example, if the remaining facility needs to build out represent a facility standard that is less than the existing standard, then the entire cost of planned facilities can be allocated to new development. This approach is used to calculate the civic center facilities, library facilities and park facilities fees in this report. WILLDAN Financial Services 3 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The system plan approach is based on a master facilities plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is not used in this report. Use of Fee Revenues Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to: land acquisition, construction of buildings, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment. Development I Summary Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary Civic Community Center Library Recreation Aquatic Land Use Facilities Facilities Parks Centers Facilities Total Residential-per Dwelling Unit $ 892 $ 977 $18,646 $ 3,433 $ 496 $24,444 Nonresidential-per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial $ 237 $ 212 $ 2,832 $ 148 $ 21 $ 3,450 Office 319 285 3,806 199 28 4,637 Industrial 118 105 1,410 74 10 1,717 Sources:Tables 3.5,4.5, 5.8,6.4 and 7.4. Other Funding Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Dublin. They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. Based on the methodology utilized to calculate the fees in this analysis, no other funding is needed to fully fund the facilities in each fee category. Existing Impact Fee Fund I Balances This analysis incorporates the existing impact fee fund balances, by fee category, into the fee calculations. For categories calculated using the planned facilities standard, the fund balance is subtracted from the total cost of planned facilities allocated to new development prior to calculating the cost per capita. For the library facilities category, negative fund balances represent facility costs to new development. Those costs are added to the cost of planned WILLDAN Financial Services 4 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update facilities and included in the fee analysis. See Chapter 4 for an in-depth discussion regarding the negative library fee fund balances. Table E.2 summarizes the existing impact fee fund balances. Table E.2: Impact Fee Fund Balances Fund Balance Category: 6/30/14 Neighborhod Parks - Land $ 7,671,690 Neighborhod Parks - Improvements 3,068,320 Community Parks -Land 5,126,816 Community Parks -Improvements 1,337,513 Community Nature Parks - Land - Community Nature Parks - Improvements - Aquatic Center' (2,760,819) Community Buildings2 (15,555,039) Library 3 (1,880,252) Civic Center 453,312 Total $ (2,538,459) Adjusted for cost of pool in aquatic complex. 2 Adjusted for cost of recreation and aquatic complex buildings. 3 Negative fund balance w as spent of facilities to serve new development. Source: City Of Dublin, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Year Ended June 30,2014 WILLDAN Financial Services � cU W u€ p mll This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Dublin. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections: • Public Facilities Financing in California; • Study Objectives; • City of Dublin Impact Fee Program; • Fee Program Maintenance; • Study Methodology; and • Organization of the Report. �Public Facilities i in Jif r i The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out: • The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and • Steep reductions in federal and state assistance. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of"growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report. Dublin is forecast to experience continued growth through build out. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Dublin has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development. WILLDAN Financial Services 6 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update City of I Dublin I Public Facilities I Pirogiram Dublin currently charges a variety of impact fees to fund the construction and expansion of public facilities to serve new development. The Dublin Public Facilities Fee (PFF) has been in place since 1996. The PFF funds civic center, parks, libraries, and community and recreational facilities. A comprehensive update of the fee was last carried out in 1998 and adopted in 1999. In 2002, MuniFinancial (now Willdan Financial Services) updated the fee for changes in facility costs. Since that time, the fees have been updated for inflation on a regular basis. Fee programs must be regularly adjusted for inflation, as not doing so can result in impact fees that do not generate sufficient revenues to fully fund facilities to serve new development through the planning horizon. This report provides a comprehensive update of the fees based on the City's current facility plans, current facility cost estimates, and current population and employment projections for the City of Dublin. Fee �Pirogiram Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 8. While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. In this case, it has been 13 years since the City last comprehensively updated its fee program. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 8. Study Methodology Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include: 1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; 2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; 3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; 4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development; 5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and 6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects. I LLDAN __ Financial Services 7 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. An example of a facility standard is park acres per 1,000 residents. Using such a standard, the analysis can estimate the amount of parkland needed to serve the increase in population. Facility standards are identified for each facility category included in this analysis. An in-depth discussion of facility standards is included below. ..111... p s ("),f, III: °: Clii III Iii tan a iir°ds There are three separate components of facility standards: ® Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ® Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards. ® Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day. n Ill::: n arid �m"),(3)t( A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below: Existing In v✓e t ry Method The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows: Current Value of Existing Facilities Existing Development Demand = $/unit of demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new I LLDAN __ Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the community recreation facilities and aquatic facilities fees in this report. Planned Facilities Method The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows: Cost of Planned Facilities New Development Demand = $/unit of demand This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used to calculate the civic center facilities, library facilities and park facilities fees in this report. 4 "ystem Ptah Method This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development: Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand = $/unit of demand This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is not used in this study. Organization of the repoirt The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2. Chapters 3 through 7 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories: • Civic Center Facilities * Park Facilities • Library Facilities * Community Recreation Centers • Aquatic Facilities Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018. I LLDAN __ Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9. I LLDAN VFinanuial Services Growt[�Ii uu uuummuuuu uu 2 uuu uu°i Y uuuumlmuiu Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2015 base year and a planning horizon of build out. Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows: • The estimate of existing development in 2015 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at build out is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2015 through build out are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues. The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities. The service populations for all facilities included in this study include a varying weighted amount of workers, by category, to reflect varying levels of demand for facilities. ILand Use Types To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units including detached and attached one- unit dwelling and attached multi-family dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. • Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed use development with both multi-family and commercial uses. In those cases the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type. The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. Existing r Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, workers, and building square feet in Dublin, both in 2015 and at build out. These estimates are used to calculate the fees for all fee categories. The current population estimate for the Dublin comes from the California Department of Finance (DOF). The population projection for build out is consistent with the City's General Plan. Current WILLDAN Financial Services 11 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update estimates of dwelling units in Dublin also come from the DOF. Total dwelling units at build out is informed by data from the General Plan, based on a growth increment of 8,787. Base year workers were estimated based on data provided by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The projected increase in employment is based on the increase in building square feet, multiplied by the employment density factors identified below in Table 2.2. Estimates of base year and build out nonresidential square footage were derived from the City's General Plan. Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates Growth (2015- 2015 Build out Build out) Residential Residents' 51,784 75,000 23,216 Dwelling Units' 19,551 28,338 8,787 Building Square Feet (OOOS)2 Commercial 3,800 10,165 6,365 Office 2,640 4,220 1,580 Industrial 1,730 3,140 1,410 Total 8,170 17,525 9,355 Employment 3 Commercial 9,045 23,875 14,830 Office 5,937 10,882 4,945 Industrial 3,498 5,134 1,636 Total 18,480 39,891 21,411 Base year population and dwelling units from CA Department of Finance,Table E-5. Excludes group quarters. Build out estimate consistent w ith General Plan. 2 Existing and projected building square feet based on data from the City's General Plan. 3 Base year employment from CA EDD. Excludes local government employees. Build out estimated by multiplying the increase in square footage, by land use category, by the corresponding employee density factors in Table 2.2 below. Sources: City of Dublin General Plan;California Department of Finance,Table E-5, 2015; (CA DOF)California Employment Development Department, 1st Quarter, 2014(CA EDD);Willdan Financial Services. Occupant its All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot or hotel room) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density or impervious surface (for storm drain fees)of the development. I LLDAN KFiriancial Services 12 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor of 2.7 residents per dwelling unit was identified in the Table 2.1 of the City's General Plan. The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Dublin, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study. Tablle 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions Residential Dwelling Unit 2.70 Persons per dwelling unit Nonresidential Commercial 2.33 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 3.13 Employees per 1,000 s . ft. Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Sources:Table 2.1 of the City of Dublin General Flan;The(Natelson Company, Inc., Empioyment Density Study Summary Report,Table 6,p. 16-23, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments,October 31,2001;Wlildan(Financial WILLDAN Financial Services 13 fl 3. Civic Center I U acilities The purpose of the civic center impact fee is to fund the civic center facilities needed to serve new development. The existing civic center currently houses City administration and police services. Service Civic center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for civic center facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for civic center facilities. Table 3.1: Civic Center Impact Fee Service Population A 8 ,4xB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2010) 51,784 11.00 51„800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,215 11.00 23,200 Total (Buildlout) 75,000 75,000 Work ers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.31 5,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,411 0.31 6,600 Total l (Buiildout) 39,891 12,300 Combined Existing (2015) 57,500 New Development (2015-Buildout) 29,800 Total (Buiildlout) 87,300 Note:Workers are w ei0ghted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of work hours to non-work hours in a. week(400128). Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred.. Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services. WILLDANI Financial Services 14 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories Standards This section describes the City's civic center facility inventory and facility standards. Ill ; lii lii firm III rm r n firm k)ry Table 3.2 shows the existing building and land inventory. The replacement cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. The value of land is assumed to be $2,178,000 per acre based on the "medium density residential" valuation from an August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. Table 3.2: Existing Civic Center Facilities Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value Civic Center Land' 4.84 acres $ 2,178,000 $ 10,542,000 Civic Center Building' Police Services 20,054 sq. ft. $ 730 $ 14,639,420 City Administration 32,633 sq. ft. 730 23,822,090 Subtotal-Civic Center/Police Building 52,687 sq. ft. $ 38,461,510 Total Value-Civic Center $ 49,003,510 Land values identified in:Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013. 2 Building replacement cost is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center,excluding pool costs. Sources: Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013;Willdan Financial Services. III III °: firmfirm n III: °: Clii III liitlil )S The City of Dublin has two expansions planned for the civic center. One project aims to expand the police wing of the civic center and the other will expand the administrative wing of the facility. The total cost of the facilities attributable to new development is $10.2 million. Table 3.3 presents the planned civic center facilities and cost estimates. Table 3.3: Planned Civic Center Facilities Tota I Cost Administrative and Police Wing Expansion $10,193,720 Total Cost - Planned Civic Center Facilities $10,193,720 Source: 2010 Building Study Prepared by RDC September 2010. I LLDAN Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Cost Allocation Table 3.4 the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is calculated by dividing cost of net cost of planned facilities by the increase in service population. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. Note that the net value of planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee. Table 3.4: Civic Center Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Value of Planned Facilities $10,193,720 (Less Existing Fund Balance) (453,312) Net Value of Planned Facilities $ 9,740,408 Service Population Growth (2015 to Buildout) 29,800 Cost per Capita $ 327 Facility Standard per Resident $ 327 Facility Standard per Worker' 101 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31. Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3;Willdan Financial Services. Use of Fee Revenue The City can use civic center facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of civic center facilities serving new development. Schedule Fee Table 3.5 shows the proposed civic center facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. I LLDAN KFiriancial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 3.5: Civic Center Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge 1,2 Total Feel S . Ft. Residential Dvvellina Unit $ 327 2.70 $ 883 $ 9 $ 892 Nonresidential Commercial $ 101 2.33 $ 235 $ 2 $ 237 $ 0.24 Office 101 3.13 316 3 319 0.32 Industrial 101 1.16 117 1 118 0.12 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 3.4;Willdan Financial Services I LLDAN Financial Serwlces 17 umumuum tll 1 4i. J ibrary The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of library facilities in the City of Dublin to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. Service Library facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities. The 0.25-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 4.1: Library Service Population A B AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 511,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,218 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Work ers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.25 4,6010 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,411 0.25 5,400 Total (Buildout) 39,891 10,000 Combined Exilsting (2015) 56,400 New Development (2015-Buildout) 28,600 Total (Buildout) 85,000 Demand per worker is weighted at 0.25 of demand per resident based on the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services, Facility fiStandards Table 4.2 shows the existing inventory of library facilities in the City of Dublin. The replacement cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. The value of land is $2,178,000 per acre based on the WILLDAN Financial Services 18 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update "medium density residential"valuation from an August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. Table 4.2: Existing (Library Facilities Inventory Amount Unit Cost Total Cost 'xis€in Land 3.75 aches $ 2,178,000 $ 8,167,500 Building' 38,215 sq. ft. 730 27,896,950 Collections 145,700 items 36 5,245,000 Total 'Value of Existing Facilities $ 41,309,450 City has constructed 38,215 square foot library building to date,but only furnished 30,,000 square feet of the building. Building replacement cost is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Erneraid Glean Aquatic Center,excluding pool l costs. Source: City of Dublin; Dublin Building Detail Report,2012; Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013; Bow ker Annuals Library and Trade Book Almanac„Wlldan Financial Services. IPIII anined F ac.J III liiI'J S Table 4.3 displays the planned library facilities. The City plans to expand the currently library space in three phases. The first two expansion projects improve the building interior so that the existing building shell can be used. The final phase adds 9,000 square feet of building space to the existing building. The total cost of planned library facilities is approximately $8.4 million. Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities Total Cost Building Improvements Phase I -Small Space $ 222,456 Phase 11 - Large Space 1,564,999 Final Phase -9,000 sq. ft. expansion 6,570,000 Total Cost - Planned Library Facilities $8,357,455 Source: City of Dublin, CA,Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2014-2019. Allocation Cost Table 4.4 displays the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is calculated by dividing the net cost of the planned facilities by the increase in service population. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.25 to determine the value per worker. WILLDAN Financial Services 19 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update In this case, the negative impact fee fund balance is also included as a planned facilities cost. The fund balance was loaned from the General Fund to the library impact fee fund and was spent on facilities to serve new development, ahead of that development. In total, $10.2 million of planned facilities will be funded through the impact fee. Note that the value of the planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee. Table 4.4: Library Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Value of Planned Facilities $ 8,357,455 (Less Existing Fund Balance)' (1.880.252) Net Value of Planned Facilities $10,237,707 Service Population Growth (2015 to Buildout) 28,600 Cost per Capita $ 358 Facility Standard per Resident $ 358 Facility Standard per Worker 90 Library fund is currently at a deficit. Fee revenue w as used to construct facilities in anticipation of demand from new development. Costs incurred w ere needed as a result of future demand and are legitimate to include in this fee calculation. 2 Based on a weighing factor of 0.25. Sources: Tables 4.1,and 4.3;Willdan Financial Services. Schedule Fee Table 4.5 shows the proposed library fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee is a reasonable approximation of the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. WILLDAN Financial Services 20 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 4.5: Library Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E 11,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge 1,z otal Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dvwelling Unit $ 358 2.70 $ 967 $ 10 $ 977 Nonresidential Commercial $ 90 2.33 $ 210 $ 2 $ 212 $ 0.21 Office 90 3.13 282 3 285 0.29 Industrial 90 1.16 104 1 105 0.11 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 4.4;Willdan Financial Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 21 P m "" m c�'i[i t�'i le s The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The impact fee is based on maintaining the City's existing parkland standards. Service Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park acres per 1,000 residents. As residents are considered to be the primary users of parks in Dublin, demand for parks and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population, rather than a combined resident- worker service population. However, when allocating costs for community parks, a share of demand is allocated to workers. The 0.23-weighting factor for worker demand for community parks is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 5.1 provides estimates of the City's current and projected park service population. Table 5..1: (Parks Service Population A B A x B=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,1000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.23 4,300 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,4111 0.23 4,900 Total (Buildout) 39,891 9,200 Combined Existing (2015) 56,100 New Development (2015-Builldout) 28,100 Total (Buildout) 84,200 Worker demand is w eighted at 0.23 of resident demand based)on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Econornics Group. Totals have been rounded)to the nearest hundred. Source:Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Econornics Group;City of(Dublin;willdan Financial Services. WILLDANI Financial services 22 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories Standards This section describes the City's park facility inventory, facility standards, and park facility costs. Ill ; lii lii firm III rm r n firm k)ry The City of Dublin maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 5.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. WILLDAN Financial Services 23 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.2: Existing Parkland Inventory Acre slin Primary Acresin Acres In Pla nini ng Ea ste m Schaefer Name Area Dublin Ranch, Total Improved Parkland (acres) Community& Parks Diul Civic Center/Library Grounds 11.42 11.42 Diul Hstoric Park and Museums 7.78 7.78 Diul Senlor Center 2.00 2.00 Dubbin Sports Grounds 22.77 22.77 Dubbin Swim Center 3.60 - 3.60 Emeralldl Gillen Park - 42.25 42.25 Emeralldl Gillen Park (unlimproved) 6.89 6.89 Fallon Sports Park 27.20 27.20 Fallon Sports Park (deededi c redi ts;Lin I m proved) - 32.86 32.86 Shannon Park 9.67 - 9.67 Subtotal) 57.24 109.20 166.44 Community Parks-Nature Based Iron I Nature Park (purchased; unimproved) 12.13 - 12.13 Sul 12.13 - 12.13 Neighborhood Parks Allamo Creek Park 5.26 - 5.26 Bray Commons - 4.78 4.78 Devany Square - 1.91 1.91 Dolan Park 4.85 - 4.85 Dougherty I Dog Park 1.43 - 1.43 Jordan Ranch NIP (deededli c redlilts;u ni m proved) - 4.99 4.99 Jordan Ranch NIS (deededli c redlilts;u ni m proved) - 2.00 2.00 Kolb Park 4.86 - 4.86 Maps Vernoriall Park 2.68 2.68 Passatempo Park 5.01 - 5.01 Pliazza Sorrento - 2.00 - 2.00 Positano I Park 4.60 4.60 Sean Dliannond (deeded/credits;lunlimprovedl) 5.03 5.03 Schafer Ranch Park - - 10.55 10.55 Stagecoach 0.82 - - 0.82 Ted Fairfielldl - 6.97 - 6.97 Subtotal) 24.91 32.28 10.55 67.74 School Parks Diul Elementary School 8.80 - - 8.80 Dubbin I School 5.40 5.40 Frederksen Elementary School 7.80 7.80 Murray Elementary School) 8.60 8.60 Nliellsein Elementary School 5.40 5.40 Wells MliddIle School 7.60 7.60 Sul 43.60 - - 43.60 Total Improved Park Acreage 125.75 89.71 10.55 226.01 Total Ulnlimprovedl Park Acreage 12.13 51.77 - 63.90 SOUrcR Cil:y of BNiln * WILLDAN ,"Financial Services 24 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update �Pairkland Unit Table 5.3 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land acquisition, standard park improvements, including construction and soft costs. The facility development cost per acre, by park type, is added to the standard land acquisition costs of $2,178,000 used throughout this report, to determine the total cost to develop an acre of neighborhood, community, or nature-based community parkland within the City. Nature-based community parkland is assumed to cost$10 per square foot. Table 5.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs Community Neighborhood Community Parks- Item Parks Parks Nature Based Improvement Cost per Acre' $ 495,948 $ 720,000 $ 555,246 Land Acquisition per Acre 2 2,178,000 2,178,000 435,600 Total -Land and Improvements Cost per Acre $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Improvement costs estimated based on recent park construction cost estimates for community parks,open space parks,and actual data from Fallon Sports Park and parks w ithin the surrounding communities. 2 Assumes$2,178,000 per acre based on medium density residential valuation from August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services,prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. $10 per square foot assumed for nature based community parkland based on the same study. Sources: City of Dublin;Willdan Financial Services. Improved �Pairkland Equivalent Before calculating the existing parkland standard, unimproved parkland owned by the City must be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. Table 5.4 details this conversion. The conversion is based on the ratio of the cost of an improved acre of land (including land and improvements) relative to an acre of unimproved parkland (only land), by park type. WILLDAN Financial Services 25 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.4: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent Community Community Neighborhood Parks- Parks- Nature Type Parks Programmed Based Total Parkland Improved $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Undeveloped Land 2,178,000 2,178,000 435,600 Undeveloped Land Costs 81.45% 75.16% 43.96% Percentage of Parkland costs Undeveloped Acres 12.02 39.75 12.13 63.90 Equivalent Improved Acres 9.79 29.88 5.33 45.00 Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3;Willdan Financial Services. Ill ; lii lii firm III: °: iiLl k a d III lii ty Standar ds Table 5.5 shows the existing parkland standard based on the parkland acreage shown in Table 5.2, the improved equivalent acres calculated in Table 5.4 and the existing residential population shown in Table 5.1. The City has an existing standard of 5.23 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City's current policy standard shown in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The standard is segmented between park types. Table 5.5: Existing Parkland Standards Community Parks- Neighborhood Community Nature Pa rks Pa rks Based Tota I Existing Developed Acres 99.32 126.69 - 226.01 Equivalent Unimproved 9.79 29.88 5.33 45.00 Total 109.11 156.57 5.33 Existing Population 51,800 51,800 51,800 51,800 Existing Standard 2.11 3.02 0.10 5.23 Service population for neighborhood parks is based on residents. Community parks service population based on residents plus a weighted amount of employees. Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2;Willdan Financial Services. III ad viii(,)s ) A(A k) ... CCU Yirnirn() ak N(� fl()piirn ffm Table 5.6 calculates the value of the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the City's policy standards, segmented by park type. Because the City has an existing standard WILLDAN Financial Services 26 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update above the policy standard, it can charge fees to new development at a lower standard and still meet the policy standard by build out. Reductions in parkland needs are also made for developer dedication credits and the existing fund balances. The total amount of parkland acreage needed at build out is determined using the parkland standards and the total projected residential population. Existing improved acres, by type, are then subtracted from the total acreage needs to determine the remaining parkland acreage needed to serve new development. For improvement needs, expected developer parkland dedications are subtracted from the acreage needed to serve new development to determine the net parkland needs. For land needs, expected developer parkland dedications and the existing amount of unimproved acreage are subtracted to determine the net amount of land needed to serve new development. The net improvement needs, and net land needs are then multiplied by the cost of improvements and land to determine the total cost of parkland facilities to serve new development. Existing fund balances, by category, are subtracted from the costs to determine the parkland and improvement costs remaining to achieve the policy standards by the planning horizon. In total, $184.3 million in parkland and improvements are needed to serve new development through the planning horizon. Table 5.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Community Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature Calculation Parks Parks Based Total Policy Standard a 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00 Population at Buildout s 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Acres Needed at Buildout C=Ax(eil000) 127.50 225.00 22.50 375.00 Existing Improved Acreage D 99.32 126.69 - 226.01 Improvements Improvements to Buildout E=C-D 28.18 98.31 22.50 148.99 (Less CFD Dublin Crossings) F - 21.30 - 21.30 (Less Neighborhood Park Dedication Credits) G 0.48 - - 0.48 Net Improvement Needs H=E-F-G 27.70 77.01 22.50 127.21 Land Land-Acres to Buildout E=C-D 28.18 98.31 22.50 148.99 (Less Existing Unimproved Acres) 12.02 39.75 12.13 63.90 (Less Neighborhood Park Dedication Credits) J 0.48 - - 0.48 (Less CFD Dublin Crossings) K - 21.30 - 21.30 Net Land Needs L=E-1-J-K 15.68 37.26 10.37 63.31 Improvements Per Acre M $ 495,948 $ 720,000 $ 555,246 Land Per Acre N 2.178.000 2.178.000 435.600 Total O=M+N $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Improvements to Serve New Development P=HxM $ 13,737,760 $ 55,449,360 $ 12,493,035 $ 81,680,155 (Less Existing Fund Balances) Q (3.068.320) (1.337.513) (4.405.833) Subtotal R=P-Q $ 10,669,440 $ 54,111,847 $ 12,493,035 $ 77,274,322 Land to Serve New Development S=LxN $ 34,151,040 $ 81,152,280 $ 4,517,608 $ 119,820,928 (Less Existing Fund Balances) T (7.671.690) (5.126.816) - (12.798.506) Subtotal U=S-T $ 26,479,350 $ 76,025,464 $ 4,517,608 $ 107,022,422 Park Facilities To Serve New Development v=R+u $ 37,148,790 $ 130,137,311 $ 17,010,643 $ 184,296,743 Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2;Wlldan Financial Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 27 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update ks gym:")s"t Ire )ir ca pliita Table 5.7 calculates the cost per capita necessary to achieve the parkland policy standards by the planning horizon. The net cost of land and improvements identified in Table 5.6 are divided by the increase in service population to determine the cost per capita. The service population for neighborhood parks only includes residents. The service population for community parks and nature-based community parks includes residents and a weighted amount of workers. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements and for each type of park facility. Table 5.7: Cost per Capita Parkland Standards Community Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature Calculation Parks Parks Based Total New Development Net Facility Needs Improvements A $ 10,669,440 $ 54,111,847 $ 12,493,035 $ 77,274,322 Land s 26,479,350 76,025,464 4,517,608 107,022,422 Total c=A+s $ 37,148,790 $ 130,137,311 $ 17,010,643 $ 184,296,743 Growth in Service Population D 23,200 28,100 28,100 Cost per Capita Improvements E=A/D $ 460 $ 1,926 $ 445 $ 2,830 Land F=siD 1,141 2,706 161 4,008 Total Cost per Resident G=E+F $ 1,601 $ 4,631 $ 605 $ 6,838 Cost per Worker H=Gx0.23 - 1,065 139 1,204 Service population for neighborhood parks is based on residents. Comrrunity parks service population based on residents plus a w eighted Sources: Tables 5.1,5.6;Wlldan Financial Services. Use of Fee Revenue The City plans to use park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park and recreation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. Schedule Fee Table 5.8 shows the proposed park facilities fee schedule. The proposed fees are based on the costs per capita shown in Table 5.7. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as shown in Table 2.2. The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. WILLDAN Financial Services 28 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.8: Park Facilities Impact Fee A B C=AxB D E=C+D Cost Per Residentl Admin Land Use Worker Density Base Fee Charge' Total Fee Residential Neighborhood Parkland $ 1,141 2.70 $ 3,082 $ 31 $ 3,113 Community Parkland 2,706 2.70 7,305 73 7,378 Community Parkland - Nature Based 161 2.70 434 4 438 Neighborhood Park Improvements 460 2.70 1,242 12 1,254 Community Park Improvements 1,926 2.70 5,199 52 5,251 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 445 2.70 1,200 12 1,212 Total $ 6,838 $ 18,462 $ 184 $ 18,646 Nonresidential Commercial Neighborhood Parkland $ - 2.33 $ - $ - $ - Community Parkland 622 2.33 1,449 14 1,463 Community Parkland - Nature Based 37 2.33 86 1 87 Neighborhood Park Improvements - 2.33 - - - Community Park Improvements 443 2.33 1,032 10 1,042 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 2.33 238 2 240 Total $ 1,204 $ 2,805 $ 27 $ 2,832 Office Neighborhood Parkland $ - 3.13 $ - $ - $ - Community Parkland 622 3.13 1,947 19 1,966 Community Parkland - Nature Based 37 3.13 116 1 117 Neighborhood Park Improvements - 3.13 - - - Community Park Improvements 443 3.13 1,387 14 1,401 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 3.13 319 3 322 Total $ 1,204 $ 3,769 $ 37 $ 3,806 Industrial Neighborhood Parkland $ - 1.16 $ - $ - $ - Community Parkland 622 1.16 722 7 729 Community Parkland - Nature Based 37 1.16 43 - 43 Neighborhood Park Improvements - 1.16 - - - Community Park Improvements 443 1.16 514 5 519 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 1.16 118 1 119 Total $ 1,204 $ 1,397 $ 13 $ 1,410 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Adninistrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 5.7;Willdan Financial Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 29 6. Cary-try-unity R Centers The purpose of the community recreation centers impact fee is to fund the community recreation centers needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of community recreation centers per capita. Service Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for community recreation centers. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Tablle 6.1: (Community Recreation Centers Service (Population A a .axa=c Weiighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,2116 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.05 900 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21„4111 0.05 1,100 Total (Buildout) 39,891 2,000 Combined Existing (2015) 52,700 New Development (21015-Buildout) 24,300 Total (Buildout) 77,000 Worker deirrrand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Econonics Group, Source:Table 2.1;Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group;City of Dublin;Willdan Financiall Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 30 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility fiStandards Table 6.2 shows the inventory of existing community recreation centers. Note that a share of the Stager Community Gymnasium is allocated to City use based on the City's proportion contribution to the construction of the facility. Table 6.2: Existing Community and Recreational Facilities City of Square Feet Cost per Square Dublin Allocated to Square Feet Share City Use Foot Total Value Existing Facilities Stager Community Gymnasium' 6,002 6'9% 4,141 $ 730 $ 3,023,200 Senior Center 15,500 100% 15,500 730 11,315,000 Shannon Community Center 20,088 100% 20,088 730 14,664,200 Swim Center Building 9,800 100% 9,800 730 7,154,000 Rec/ quatic Complex - Phase 1 30,480 100% 30,480 730 22,250,400 Heritage Center Heritage Center and Bell Tower 2,482 100% 2,482 $ 730 $ 1,811,900 Old St. Raymond's Church✓Vislitor Centel 1,550 100% 1,550 730 1,131,500 Main House 2,304 100% 2,304 730 1,681,900 Old House Restroom 1,650 100% 1,650 730 1,204,500 Sunday School Barn 2,900 100% 2,900 730 2,117,0010, Total Existing Facilities 92,756 90,895 $66,353,6010, 1 Allocation of Stager Community Gymnasium square footage and facility value to Gty of Dublin based on the Gty's contribution of$1 million to funding the construction of the facility. $1 million represents 69%of the total facility costs,based on information provided by the City. ' Cost to construct new recreation centers based on recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. Sources:Dublin Building Detail Report,2012,Willdan Financial Services- Cost,t, per " plii ta Standard Table 6.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology results in no existing deficiencies. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the worker-weighting factor identified in Table 6.1 to determine the cost per worker. WILLDANI Financial Services 31 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 6.3: Community Recreation Centers Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 66,353,600 Existing Service Population 52,700 Cost per Capita $ 1,259 Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,259 Facility Standard per Worker' 63 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05. Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2;Willdan Financial Services. Schedule Fee Table 6.4 shows the proposed community recreation centers fee schedule. The existing cost per capita from Table 6.3 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 6A Community Recreation Centers Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C=AxB D=CX0.01 E=C+D E 11,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge' 2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dwellinq Unit $ 1,259 2.70 $ 3,399 $ 34 $ 3,433 Nonresidential Commercial $ 63 2.33 $ 147 $ 1 $ 148 $ 0.15 Office 63 3.13 197 2 199 0.20 Industrial 63 1.16 73 1 74 0.07 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 6.6;Willdan Financial Services WILLDAN Financial Services 32 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Use of Fee Revenue The City can use community recreation centers impact fee revenue for the construction or purchase of buildings, land and equipment that are part of the system of community recreation facilities serving new development. Table 6.5 shows the projected fee revenue that would be generated by the community recreation centers impact fee. Table 6.5: Revenue Projection -Community Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita $ 1,259 Growth in Service Population (2015- Buildout) 24,300 Projected Fee Revenue $ 30,593,700 Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.4. WILLDAN Financial Services 33 T. Aquatic umumuum tll 1 The purpose of the aquatic facilities impact fee is to fund the aquatic facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of aquatic facilities per capita. Service Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for aquatic facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 7.1: Aquatic Facilities Service Population A a .axa=c vW'eiighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,2116 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.05 900 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21„4111 0.05 1,100 Total (Buildout) 39,891 2,000 Combined Existing (2015) 52,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 24,300 Total (Buildout) 77,000 Worker deirrrand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Econonics Group, Source:Table 2.1;Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group;City of Dublin;Willdan Financiall Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 34 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories Standards Table 7.2 shows the inventory of existing aquatic facilities. The value of the existing aquatic facilities, $356 per square foot, is based on a recent cost estimate for the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center. Note that the costs only include the pool facilities themselves; buildings and site work are not included in the cost estimate. Table 7.2: Existing Aquatic Facilities Cost per Surface Area Square Foot' Total Cost Existing Facilities Dublin Swim Center Main Pool 8,987 $ 356 $ 3,199,400 Dublin Swim Center Play Pool 1,010 356 359,600 Emerald Glen Indoor Pool 6,270 356 2,232,100 Emerald Glen Competitive Pool 6,174 356 2,197,900 Emerald Glen Play Pool 4,538 356 1,615,500 Total Existing Facilities 26,979 $ 9,604,500 Note: Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. ' Represents cost of pools only,excluding building and site work. Source: City of Dublin,Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, Dahlin Group,CD Cost Estimate, 19 July 2014. gym:I)s� Ire n�it (,- I lii °: °: iir'm °: iil° Table 7.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to aquatic facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology results in no existing deficiencies. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the worker-weighting factor identified in Table 7.1 to determine the cost per worker. Table 7.3: Aquatic Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 9,604,500 Existing Service Population 52,700 Cost per Capita $ 182 Facility Standard per Resident $ 182 Facility Standard per Worker' 9 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05. Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2;Willdan Financial Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 35 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Schedule Fee Table 7.4 shows the proposed aquatic facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 7.4: Aquatic Facilities - Existing Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge 1,2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dwellina Unit $ 182 2.70 $ 491 $ 5 $ 496 Nonresidential Commercial $ 9 2.33 $ 21 $ - $ 21 $ 0.02 Office 9 3.13 28 - 28 0.03 Industrial 9 1.16 10 - 10 0.01 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 7.3;Willdan Financial Services Use of Fee Revenue The City can use aquatic facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of aquatic facilities that are part of the system of aquatic facilities serving new development. Table 7.5 shows the projected fee revenue that would be generated by the aquatic facilities impact fee. WILLDAN Financial Services 36 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 7.5: Revenue Projection -Aquatic Cost per Capita $ 182 Growth in Service Population (2015- Buildout) 24,300 Projected Fee Revenue $ 4,422,600 Sources:Tables 7.1,and 7.3. WILLDAN Financial Services 37 8 �I��II uu€ Illm rymlmll� IIO Illllllmllllul �Imll� Illllllupillul III Im� lml�om Imt 0 III Impact Fee �Pirogir irocess Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect. Inflation The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation. Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation: • Buildings — Engineering News-Record's Building Cost Index (BCI) • Equipment — Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation. With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation, as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic fluctuations that the localized indices are subject to. Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update. While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Reporting i r The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. Programming Revenues and �Pirojects with the CIP The City maintains a five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)to plan for future infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. WILLDAN Financial Services 38 uuu uu€Illy uu€ m u Illy uu€ ul uummillllllluuu u u Act uuu uuu Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five Mitigation Fee Act findings when adopting a fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act. �Puirpose of Fee Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act). Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or§66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged(§66001(a)(2) of the Act). Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: civic center, library, aquatic facilities, parks and community recreation centers. Benefit I i i Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees'use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(3) of the Act). The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. i Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(4) of the Act). I LLDAN Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories, service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population. Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter. Proportionality Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed(§66001(b) of the Act). The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts and Unit Costs, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. WILLDAN Financial Services 40 ■ m CL \ .2 � � f \ 2 / G G r 0) e � e I \ \ G — _ _ _) ¥ k �CD m L % E \ ± � 0 / CO 7 ¥ G I G e G \ « 2 . . (:Fl 't / G % \ Cl) Q / 6c> 6c> 6c> 0 ƒ \ ± 5 % ƒ 2 \ ¥ o co G ¥ / E 2 , , o 17 G 't & \ It EcD LL 0 Q o CD ■ � � ƒ 2 3 k � / t : / / f 7 I / o / ¥ G 2 � CO $ m ƒ 7 $ a m — ¥ e m — m m m G 22mmmm 16c> m m I ƒ / m § / \ E 2 § I I I _ B m U) 2 � E R E m EE / / cn U) � cz CZ e e 3 3 = = 2 E a- _0 @ @ 2 25 § 2 E E 2 2 k c k / " :'E ::/ 2t, \ c 0 0 = = = = 0 = a) / / E E E E ® E »J .7.7 E E E E § E @ .g 5 41 a) a) 0 0 0 0 0- 0 £ 2t 9 Q L 2 2 0 0 0 Q « g a g e