HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 110-17 Revising the Public Facilities Fee for Future Development RESOLUTION NO. 110 — 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
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 (the
"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 and 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 by adoption
of Resolution 71-15, adopted an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted several individual park master plans including but
not limited to 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 Dublin Library with all improvements being made to the 37,000 square foot
building falls within the Alameda County Library Master Space Plan (dated January 2017) standard
square foot per capita range of 0.45 to 0.55; 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
WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior Center
Study, and SPs, describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the GP and
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 1 of 8
SPs, including completion of City office space, construction of and improvements to the library, and
the 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 new development fund its fair share of the costs needed for the
acquisition and/or construction 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 it 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;" and
WHEREAS, in 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 60-99 revising the "Public
Facilities Fee" and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Hausrath Economics Group,
dated February 1999 and entitled "Public Facilities Fee 1998 Update;" and
WHEREAS, in 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 214-02 revising the "Public
Facilities Fee" and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by MuniFinancial, dated October 14,
2002 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 134-15 revising the "Public
Facilities Fee" and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Willdan Financial Services, dated
July 7, 2015 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update;" and
WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 134-15 provides that the City will periodically review
the "Public Facilities Fee" and make revisions as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. which in September 2016
completed an appraisal of land values for parkland acquisition in the area; and
WHEREAS, the City recently retained Willdan Financial Services to assist the City in reviewing
and updating the Fee; and
WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services prepared a report dated July 19, 2017 and entitled
"City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update" (hereafter "2017 Study Update"), which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A; and
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 134-15, 214-02, 60-99 and 32-96 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 2017 Study Update relies on the City of Dublin's previous studies and
demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to update
persons per dwelling unit based on dwelling types (Single family and townhomes; other multi-family;
senior housing); (2) to increase improvement costs for Neighborhood Parks to reflect the City's recent
costs to improve parks; (3) to utilize the updated per capita target of .45 to .55 square feet per capita
in the Alameda County Library Master Space Plan, adopted January 2017, placing the City's Library
facility at .50 square feet per capita at buildout; (4) to revise the Civic Center planned improvements
to reflect the relocation of the police wing improvements from the Civic Center to the Public Safety
Complex; (5) to adjust the Community Building planned improvements to reflect the planned
improvement of a Cultural Arts Facility in the current Police Services space to be vacated as a result
of Dublin Police Service's relocation to the Public Safety Complex; and (6) to reduce the build-out
employment estimate to align with the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Plan Bay Area
2040 projections.; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Study Update was made available for public inspection and review for
ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Fee is to ensure that new development will not burden the existing
service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate development. The
Fee is intended to provide a funding source from new development for capital
improvements to serve that development. Such capital improvements which are specifically
described in the 2017 Study Update, include the following: Public Safety Complex
improvements for Police Services; build-out of the Library; acquisition and construction of
neighborhood and community parks; acquisition, construction or build out of 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 2017 Study Update, the testimony received at this noticed public
hearing, the Staff Report, the GP, the SPs, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports,
the Civic Center Reports, and the Senior Center Study, and all correspondence
received (hereafter "Record") the City Council approves and adopts the 2017 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, are consistent with the Record.
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
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 3 of 8
substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of
substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review
under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are approved. It is
not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities at this stage,
as they will be implemented 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.
The City currently provides neighborhood and community park services, community and
recreation facilities services, and civic center services. The City and the Alameda County
Library system currently provide library services.
F. The 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 Codes
21080(b)(8)(D)).
G. In adopting the Fee, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, section 7 of
the California Constitution.
H. 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. 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; 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 2017 Study Update 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
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 4 of 8
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.
I. The 2017 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.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions.
A. "Commercial" shall mean all commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel
development.
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 1998 Study Update, the 2002 Study Update, the 2015 Study Update, and the 2017
Study Update and as described in the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic
Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, GP, SPs, 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 2017 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 all manufacturing and warehouse development.
E. "Office" shall mean all general, professional, and medical office development.
2. Administrative Guidelines.
The City Council adopted by Resolution 147-16 on September 6, 2016, the Dublin Consolidated
Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, (the "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 Administrative Guidelines are incorporated herein by this reference, as they may
be amended from time to time.
3. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
The Fee shall be charged and paid for each residential unit and non-residential building or
structure. The fee shall also be charged and paid for non-residential development for any addition
to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. Fees shall be paid at
such time as set forth in the Administrative Guidelines.
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 5 of 8
4. Reimbursement or Credit.
The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by use of the calculations set
forth in the Administrative Guidelines.
5. Amount of Fee.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee.
6. Exemptions From Fee.
The Fee shall not be imposed on any development qualifying for an exemption as set forth in the
Administrative Guidelines.
7. 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 supplement 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.
8. 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 Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic
Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, the GP, SPs, EIR, and Addenda.
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 6 of 8
9. 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.
10.Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the
Record. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee
should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee
to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the
City of Dublin. 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, and Senior Center Study, 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.
11.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, 2018 and each July 1 thereafter, as follows:
A. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown on Table 3.3 for Public Safety
Complex improvements; 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 2017 Study Update
shall be increased/decreased by the annual percentage increase/decrease in the
Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the month of
April over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year. The
City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
B. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities as shown on Table 5.3 Neighborhood and
Community Parks in the 2017 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 2013, the cost per square foot of neighborhood
parkland was $50.00/square food, and in 2016 it was $53.00/square foot, which results
in an annual compounded growth increase of 2% resulting in a yearly increase in land
valuation of 2%. The City will continue to use the same formula to adjust the Fees on
July 1 annually. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 7 of 8
12.Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. In compliance with Government Code section
66017, the Fee shall be effective on October 15, 2017.
13.Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual
component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjusted 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 15th day of August, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Goel, Gupta, Hernandez and Mayor Haubert
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: r--,
ay r
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Reso No. 110-17, Adopted 8/15/2017, Item No. 6.1 Page 8 of 8
CITY OF DUBLIN
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY UPDATE
FINAL
JULY 19, 2017
WWI 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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
Background and Study Objectives 3
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 3
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
Administrative Costs 9
Organization of the report 9
2. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST 11
Land Use Types 11
Existing and Future Development 12
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
Fee Schedule 16
Projected Fee Revenue 17
4. LIBRARY FACILITIES 18
Service Population 18
Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards 18
Planned Facilities 19
Facility Standards 19
Cost Allocation 20
Fee Schedule 21
5. PARK FACILITIES 22
Service Population 22
Facility Inventories and Standards 23
Existing Inventory 23
/WILLDAN
Financial Services 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
Fee Schedule 28
6. COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES 31
Service Population 31
Facility Inventories & Standards 32
Planned Facilities 32
Cost per Capita Standard 33
Fee Schedule 33
Projected Fee Revenue 34
7. AQUATIC FACILITIES 35
Service Population 35
Facility Inventories & Standards 36
Cost per Capita Standard 36
Fee Schedule 37
Projected Fee Revenue 37
8. IMPLEMENTATION 39
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 39
Inflation Adjustment 39
Reporting Requirements 39
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 39
9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 40
Purpose of Fee 40
Use of Fee Revenues 40
Benefit Relationship 40
Burden Relationship 40
Proportionality 41
/WILLDAN I
Financial Services
Executive Summary
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 Facilities
• Aquatic Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new
development pays the capital costs associated with development. Although development 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 development. 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.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the proposed development impact fee that would meet the City's identified
needs and would comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services I 3
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table El: Proposed Impact Fee Summary by Fee Category
Civic Community
Center Library Recreation Aquatic
Land Use Facilities Facilities Parks Facilities Facilities Total
Residential-per Dwelling Unit
Single-Family&Townhome $ 1,490 $ 268 $ 19,314 $ 3,736 $ 336 $ 25,144
Other Multi-Family 910 164 11,790 2,281 205 15,350
Senior Housing 541 97 7,022 1,358 122 9,140
Nonresidential-per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial $ 348 $ 52 $ 2,259 $ 141 $ 12 $ 2,812
Office 468 70 3,035 190 16 3,779
Industrial 174 26 1,124 71 6 1,401
Senior Service Facility 142 21 921 58 5 1,147
Sources:Tables 3.5,4.6,5.8,6.5 and 7.4.
Other Funding Needed
Impact fees can only fund the share of public facilities attributable to new development in Dublin.
They cannot be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by
development outside of the City.
Existing Impact Fee Fund 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. Those costs are added to the cost of planned facilities and
included in the fee analysis. Table E.2 summarizes the existing impact fee fund balances.
W/WILLDAN
Financial Services I 4
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table E.2: Impact Fee Fund Balances
Fund
Balances as
Category: of 06/30/16
Community Park Land $ 8,890,023
Neighborhood Park Land 8,123,033
Community Park Improvements 6,587,149
Neighborhood Park Improvements 4,348,102
Community Buildings (8,151,690)
Library (378,888)
Civic Center 2,725,302
Aquatic Center (4,558,820)
Quimby Act Park In-Lieu Fees (1,158,805)
Community Nature Park Land 65,768
Community Nature Park Improvements 450,207
Total $ 16,941,382
Source: City Of Dublin.
/WI LLDAN I
Financial Services
1 . Introduction
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 Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 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 "development
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.
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 development. 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 factual and analytical support for the City Council
to make 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 development through build out. This development 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
development. This report makes use of the most current available development 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 I 6
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee 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, library, community recreation facilities, and
aquatics 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. In 2015, Willdan updated the fee program again for changes in facility plans and
development forecasts. 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 Program Maintenance
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 City must update inventories of existing facilities and the costs for
planned facilities, and then recalculate the fees 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 development forecasts and/or facility plans become available. In
this case, it has been two 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
development. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future development: Identify a base year for
existing development and a development 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.
WWI LLDAN ( 7
Financial Services
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.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
development, 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 development 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.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
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 are
summarized below:
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 - $/unit of demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a
fair share allocation of the cost of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An
example of the former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An
example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be
needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing
WWI LLDAN I 8
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
development, as well. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the
standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used to calculate the
library facilities and park facilities fees in this report.
System P/an Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand =$/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 used to calculate the civic center facilities, community center facilities and aquatic facilities fees
in this study.
Existing Inventory 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 development are identified
through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a
new facility master plan. This approach is not used in this report.
Administrative Costs
This report presents a fee schedule for each facility category examined in the analysis. 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.
Organization of the report
/WILLDAN I 9
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and
identification of development 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 Facilities
• 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.
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.
WWI LLDAN I 10
Financial Services
2. Development Forecast
Development 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 development projections used in this study based on a 2016 base year and a planning
horizon of build out.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future development are critical assumptions
used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2016 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 development and
remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
Estimates of development from 2016 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 Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, development projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types
that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below.
• Single Family and Townhomes: Detached and attached single-family
dwellings, including townhomes. Detached single family homes are one-unit
structures detached from any other houses. Attached single family homes (also
known as townhomes or row houses) are one-unit structures that have one or
more walls extending from ground to roof separating them from adjoining
structures.
• Other Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as duplexes,
condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormitories. These are units
in structures containing two or more housing units. Second dwelling units on
single family lots are also included in the other multi-family land use category.
+ Senior Housing: All age-restricted dwellings.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development.
• Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
• Senior Service Facilities: Convalescent care facilities.
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.
/W I LLDAN I 11
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
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 and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, workers, and building square
feet in Dublin, both in 2016 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
(DOE), increased by City data showing 258 single family units and 111 multifamily units built
between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016. This increase in dwelling units is estimated to add
1,003 residents, using occupancy density factors in Table 2.2. The population projection for build
out is consistent with the City's General Plan. Current estimates of dwelling units in Dublin also
come from the DOF with the same adjustments noted above. Total dwelling units at build out is
informed by data from the City.
Base year workers were estimated based on data provided by the California Employment
Development Department (EDD). The projected increase in employment is based on projections
for Dublin from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area (2013).
Table 2.1: Current Population and Employment Estimates
Growth (2016-
2016 Build out Build out)
Residents 54,749 75,000 20,251
Dwelling Units'
Single Family / Townhome 13,700 18,756 5,056
Multi-family /Apartment/ Condominium 6,764 8,916 2,152
Total 20,464 27,672 7,208
Employment 3 18,480 31,650 13,170
Base year population and dwelling units from CA Department of Finance,Table E-5, increased by
City data showing 258 single family units and 111 multifamily units built between January 1,2016.and
June 30,2016. Increase in dwelling units estimated to add 1,003 residents. using occupancy density
factors in Table 2.2. Excludes group quarters. Build out estimate of 75,000 residents from Park and
Recreation Master Plan(2015).
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 assumed to
be 2040 projection from ABAG's Plan Bay Area.
Sources:City of Dublin General Ran;Park and Recreation Master Ran(2015);California Department
of Finance,Table E-5,2016;(CA DOF)California Employment Development Department, 1st Quarter,
2014(CA EDD);Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, 2013;Willdan Financial
Services.
Occupant Densities
/WILLDAN
Financial Services I 12
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Because
service demand is based on population, it is necessary to use occupant density assumptions to
calculate per-unit and per-square-foot fees. 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) 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 of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential
occupant density factors for both the various types of dwelling units were calculated using the
most recently available data from US Census'American Community Survey specific to the City of
Dublin. Table B25033 identifies the estimated population, by type of dwelling unit. Table B25024
identifies the total amount of dwelling units, by type. The occupant densities resulting from
dividing the population by the corresponding dwelling unit type is shown in Table 2.2.
The ACS does not provide sufficient data to calculate the occupant density for senior dwelling
units. Instead of ACS data, this analysis relies on data from an Energy Star Benchmarking study
for a Senior Care Facility. That study estimated the total number of senior supportive units in the
US and the estimate number of residents in those units. The resulting occupancy density factor
is shown in Table 2.2.
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.
Table 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions
Residential Dwelling Units
Single Family 3.08 Persons per dwelling unit
Multi Family 1.88 Persons per dwelling unit
Senior Housing 1.12 Persons per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.33 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 3.13 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Senior Service Facility 0.95 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Sources:Tables B25024 and B25033,U.S.Census Bureau,2010-2014 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates;The Natelson Company,Inc.,Employment Density Study Summary
Report,Table 6,p. 16-23,prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments,
October 31,2001;Commission on affordable housing and health facility needs for seniors in the
21st century,2002;Energy Star Benchmarking For Senior Care Facility,2010;Willdan Financial
Services.
*/WILLDAN
Financial Services
3. Civic Center Facilities
_-
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 Population
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 (2016) 54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout) 20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016) 18,480 0.31 5,700
New Development (2016-Buildout) 13,170 0.31 4,100
Total (Buildout) 31,650 9,800
Combined
Existing (2016) 60,400
New Development (2016-Buildout) 24,400
Total (Buildout) 84,800
Note:Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of work hours to non-w ork hours in a
week(40/128). Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services 14
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's civic center facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Table 3.2 shows the existing civic center building and land inventory. The replacement cost for
the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Recreation
& Aquatic Complex, excluding pool costs. The value of land is assumed to be $1,089,000 per
acre based on the "campus office" valuation from a September 2016 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 Total Value
Civic Center Land 4.84 acres $ 1,089,000 $ 5,270,800
Civic Center Building 2
Police Services 20,054 sq. ft. $ 8,296,600
City Administration 32,633 sq. ft. 13,500,800
Subtotal -Civic Center/Police Building 52,687 sq. ft. $ 413.715 $ 21,797,400
Total Value-Civic Center $ 27,068,200
Note: Totals have been rounded to the hundreds.
1 Land value for campus office land use identified in:Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,
September 2016.
2 Facility values identified in:Dublin Building Detail Report,2012.
Sources:Dublin Building Detail Report, 2012;Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,
Planned Facilities
The City of Dublin plans to make improvements to the public safety complex. The total cost of
the improvement is $13.5 million. Table 3.3 presents the planned civic center facilities and cost
estimates.
Table 3.3: Planned Civic Center Facilities
Cost per
Amount Units Unit Total Cost
Public Safety Complex Improvements for Police Services' 25,836 square feet $ 523 $13,512,200
Total Cost-Planned Civic Center Facilities $13,512,200
Note: Total allocated costs rounded to the nearest hundred.
1 Total project cost=$15 million for 28,700 square feet. 25,836 square feet allocated to police services,including shared space.
Sources:City of Dublin Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2016-2021,June 2016;Cultural Arts Center Feasibility
Review,2016;WIldan Financial Services.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services 15
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Cost Allocation
Table 3.4 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This value is calculated by
dividing cost of total cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value
per worker.
Table 3.4: Civic Center Facilities System Standard
Calculation
Value of Existing Facilities A $27,068,200
Value of Planned Facilities B 13,512,200
Total System Value (Buildout) C=A+B $40,580,400
Future Service Population (Buildout) D 84,800
Cost per Capita E=C/D $ 479
Facility Standard per Resident E $ 479
Facility Standard per Worker F=Ex 0.31 148
1 Based on a worker weighting factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3;Wilkian Financial Services.
Fee 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).
jWILLDAN
Financial Services 16
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 3.5: Civic Center Facilities Fee -System Standard
A 8 C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family &Townhome $ 479 3.08 $ 1,475 $ 15 $ 1,490
Other Multi-Family 479 1.88 901 9 910
Senior Housing 479 1.12 536 5 541
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 148 2.33 $ 345 $ 3 $ 348 $ 0.35
Office 148 3.13 463 5 468 0.47
Industrial 148 1.16 172 2 174 0.17
Senior Service Facility 148 0.95 141 1 142 0.14
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 3.4;Wlldan Financial Services
Projected Fee Revenue
Table 3.6 projects civic center fee revenue by multiplying the cost per capita from Table 3.4 by
the increase in service population. After accounting for Dublin Crossings, which has prepaid
fees, the civic center facilities fee will generate $10.3 million through the planning horizon. Non-
fee funding sources will have to fund $526,298 worth of the planned facilities, or new
development will have paid too high a fee.
Table 3.6: Revenue Projection -System Standard
Calculation
Cost per Capita A $ 479
Growth in Service Population (2016 - Buildout) 8 24,400
Fee Revenue C=Axe $11,687,600
Less Dublin Crossings - Prepaid Fees D 1,427,000
Net Fee Revenue E=C-D $10,260,600
Cost of Planned Facilities F $13,512,200
Net Fee Revenue E 10,260,600
Existing Fund Balances G 2,725,302
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified H=F-E-G $ 526,298
Sources:Tables 3.1,3.3 and 3.4.
�WILLDAN
Financial Services I 17
4. Library Facilities
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 Population
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. That analysis
relied on survey data of nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and
Pleasanton are adjacent suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker
demand for these types of facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 4.1: Library Service Population
A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2016) 54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout) 20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016) 18,480 0.25 4,600
New Development (2016-Buildout) 13,170 0.25 3.300
Total (Buildout) 31,650 7,900
Combined
Existing (2016) 59,300
New Development (2016-Buildout) 23.600
Total (Buildout) 82,900
1 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 Inventories, Plans & Standards
/WILLDAN I 18
Financial services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
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
Recreation & Aquatic Complex, excluding pool costs. The value of land is $1,089,000 per acre
based on the "campus office" valuation from a September 2016 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
Existing
Land 3.75 acres $ 1,089,000 $ 4,083,800
Building' 37,000 sq. ft. 730 27,010,000
Total Value of Existing Facilities $ 31,093,800
The 37,000 square foot library building was completed in Fiscal Year 2002-03 and 30,000 square feet
was occupied.The 21st Century Room w as built out in FY 2016-17. The remaining 5,150 square feet of
unoccupied space was reserved for future tenant improvements.
Source:City of Dublin;Dublin Building Detail Report,2012; Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for
City of Dublin,September 2016;Bow ker Annual Library and Trade Book Almanac;Willdan Financial
Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 displays the planned library facilities. The City plans to make improvements to the
unimproved area of the existing library. The total cost of planned library improvements is
approximately$1.7 million.
Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities
Amount Unit Cost Total Cost
Building Improvements
Civic Center Library Improvements - Phase II 5,150 sq. ft. $ 322.33 $1,660,000
Total Cost- Planned Library Facilities $1,660,000
Note: Total rounded to the nearest hundred.
Sources: City of Dublin Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2016-2021,June 2016;Willdan
Financial Services.
Facility Standards
Table 4.4 calculates the existing and future library facility standards.At buildout the City will have
a standard of 0.45 library square feet per capita.
W/WILLDAN
Financial Services I 19
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 4.4: Library Square Feet per Capita
Existing Buildout
Library Square Feet' 31,850 37,000
Service Population2 59,300 82,900
Square Feet per Capita 0.54 0.45
'City constructed 37,000 square foot library building in 2002-03,but
only furnished 31,850 square feet of the building.Remainder is
funded through this impact fee.
2 Includes residents and weighted workers.See Table 4.1.
Sources:Tables 4.1,4.2 and 4.3.
Cost Allocation
Table 4.5 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.
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, over $2 million of
facilities to serve new development 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 4.5: Library Facilities Planned Facilities Standard
Calculation
Value of Planned Facilities A $ 1,660,000
(Less Existing Fund Balance)' a (378.888)
Net Value of Planned Facilities C=A-B $ 2,038,888
Service Population Growth (2016 to Buildout) D 23,600
Cost per Capita E=C/D $ 86
Facility Standard per Resident E $ 86
Facility Standard per Worker2 F=Ex 0.25 22
' Library fund is currently at a deficit. Fee revenue was used to construct facilities in
anticipation of demand from new development. Costs incurred were needed as a result of
future demand and are legitimate to include in this fee calculation.
2 Based on a worker weighting factor of 0.25.
Sources: Tables 4.1,and 4.3;Willdan Financial Services.
fWILLDAN I 20
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 shows the maximum justified library 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).
Table 4.6: Library 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 Charge2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family & Townhome $ 86 3.08 $ 265 $ 3 $ 268
Other Multi-Family 86 1.88 162 2 164
Senior Housing 86 1.12 96 1 97
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 22 2.33 $ 51 $ 1 $ 52 $ 0.05
Office 22 3.13 69 1 70 0.07
Industrial 22 1.16 26 26 0.03
Senior Service Facility 22 0.95 21 - 21 0.02
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 4.5;Willdan Financial Services.
/WI LLDAN I 1
Financial Services 21
5. Park 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 Population
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. That analysis relied on survey data of
nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and Pleasanton are adjacent
suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker demand for these types of
facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 5.1 provides estimates of the City's current and projected park service population.
Table 5.1: Parks Service Population
A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2016) 54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout) 20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016) 18,480 0.23 4,300
New Development (2016-Buildout) 13,170 0.23 3,000
Total (Buildout) 31,650 7,300
Combined
Existing (2016) 59,000
New Development (2016-Buildout) 23,300
Total (Buildout) 82,300
Worker demand is weighted at 0.23 of resident 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 Economics Group;City of
Dublin;Willdan Financial Services.
*/WILLDAN
Financial Services I 22
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's park facility inventory, facility standards, and park facility costs.
Existing Inventory
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.
School parks are included because the City has joint use agreements for using the school park
facilities outside of school hours. School parks are counted as neighborhood parks for the
purpose of calculating parkland standards.
WWI LLDAN I 23
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 5.2: Parkland Inventory
Improved Unimproved
Name Acres Acres Total
Community Parks
Dublin Civic Center/Library Grounds 11.42 - 11.42
Dublin Crossing(City Contribution)1 - 8.73 8.73
Dublin Historic Park and Museums 7.78 - 7.78
Dublin Senior Center 2.00 - 2.00
Dublin Sports Grounds 22.77 - 22.77
E5(Jordan Ranch)2 6.22 - 6.22
Emerald Glen Park 49.14 - 49.14
Fallon Sports Park 46.17 14.41 60.58
Shannon Park 9.67 - 9.67
Wallis Ranch(deeded/credits;unimproved) - 8.96 _ 8.96
Subtotal 155.17 32.10 187.27
Community Parks-Nature Based
Iron Horse Nature Park - 12.13 12.13
Sunrise Park 10.75 - 10.75
Subtotal 10.75 12.13 22.88
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 Hills Dog Park 1.43 - 1.43
Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park
(deeded/credits) 4.99 - 4.99
Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square
(deeded/credits; unimproved) - 2.00 2.00
Kolb Park 4.86 - 4.86
Mape Memorial Park 2.68 - 2.68
Moller Ranch Neighborhood Square - 1.10 1.10
Passatempo Park 5.01 - 5.01
Piazza Sorrento 2.00 - 2.00
Positano Hills Park 4.60 - 4.60
Sean Diamond(deeded/credits;unimproved) - 5.03 5.03
Schaefer Ranch Park 10.55 - 10.55
Stagecoach 0.82 - 0.82
Clover Park 2.00 - 2.00
Ted Fairfield 6.97 - 6.97
Subtotal 62.71 8.13 70.84
School Parks 43.60 - 43.60
Planned Parkland 3
Dublin Crossing(Developer Contribution)1 - 21.27 21.27
E6(Dublin Crossing)2 5.00 - 5.00
Subtotal 5.00 21.27 26.27
Total 277.23 73.63 350.86
'Dublin Crossing Community Park is 30 acres. 21.27 acres are part of a developer contribution and 8.73 acres are
part of the City's contribution.
2 These sites are school improvements that are either under construction or planned for near construction.School
park sites w ill only receive park credit if held in fee title by the City.
3 These parks are excluded from the parkland standards calculation.
Source:Qty of Dublin.
fWILLDAN I 24
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Parkland Unit Costs
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 $2,2308,680, 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 $15
per square foot.
Table 5.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Community
Neighborhood Community Parks-
Item Parks Parks Nature Based
Improvement Cost per Acre-Construction $ 504,000 $ 504,000 $ 388,700
Improvement Cost per Acre-Soft Costs 216.000 216,000 166,600
Improvement Cost per Acre $ 720,000 $ 720,000 $ 555,300
Land Acquisition per Acre2 2,308,680 2,308,680 653,400
Total - Land and Improvements Cost per Acre $ 3,028,680 $ 3,028,680 $ 1,208,700
1 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 within the surrounding communities.
2 Assumes$2,308,680 per acre based on medium density residential valuation from September 2016 appraisal by
Associated Right of Way Services,prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. $15 per square foot
assumed for nature based community parkland based rural residentiaVagricuiural valuation from the same study.
Sources: City of Dublin;Willdan Financial Services.
Improved Parkland Equivalent
Before calculating the existing parkland standard, unimproved parkland owned by the City must
be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. This conversion is necessary so that
the resulting parkland standards calculated later in this chapter reflects the City's investment in
parkland. Unimproved parkland costs less than improved parkland. If unimproved parkland was
used to calculate the parkland standard, then the resulting standard would overstate the City's
standards. Similarly, if unimproved parkland were completely excluded from the calculation of the
City's parkland standard, then the resulting standard would be understated.
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.
WWI LLDAN I 25
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 5.4: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent
Community
Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature
Type Parks Parks Based Total
Parkland Improved $ 3,028,680 $ 3,028,680 $ 1,208,700
Undeveloped Land 2,308,680 2,308.680 653,400
Undeveloped Land Costs 76.23% 76.23% 54.06%
Percentage of Parkland costs
Undeveloped Acres 8.13 32.10 12.13 52.36
Equivalent Improved Acres 6.20 24.47 6.56 37.23
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3;Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Park Facility Standards
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 5.66 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
Parks Parks Based Total
Existing Developed Acres 106.31 155.17 10.75 272.23
Equivalent Unimproved 6.20 24.47 6.56 _ 37.23
Total 112.51 179.64 17.31 309.46
Existing Population 54,700 54,700 54,700
Existing Standard 2.06 3.28 0.32 5.66
Policy Standard 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00
Includes neighborhood parks and school parks.
Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2;Willdan Financial Services.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
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.
WWILLDAN I 26
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
For improvement needs, the policy standard per type of parkland is multiplied by the increase in
service population to determine the total amount of improvements needed through buildout. Note
that the service population for improvements excludes 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings,
which has already satisfied its fee requirements. Expected developer parkland credits, and fund
balance equivalents are subtracted from the total needed improvement acreage to determine the
net park improvement needs.
For land needs, the policy standard per type of parkland is multiplied by the increase in service
population to determine the total amount of improvements needed through buildout. Note that the
service population for improvements excludes 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings, which has
already satisfied its fee requirements. Additionally, the service population excludes another 4,500
resident's worth of development that has already satisfied its land dedication requirements.
Expected developer parkland credits 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, $91.6 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
Imarovemenf i
Facility Standard(acres/1,000 residents) A 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00
Population Growth(2016-Buildout)1 B 15.500 15.500 15.500
Facility Needs(acres) C=(13/1,000)x A 26.35 46.50 4.65 77.50
Facility Needs(acres) C 26.35 46.50 4.65 77.50
Improvements Credits o 2.02 - 0.76 2.78
Fund Balance Equivalent E 6.04 9.15 0.81 16.00
Net Improvements Needs F=C-D-E 18.29 37.35 3.08 58.72
Lind
Facility Standard(acres/1,000 residents) A 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00
Population Growth(2016-Buildout)1 G 11.000 11.000 11.000
Facility Needs(acres) H=(G/1,000)x A 18.70 33.00 3.30 55.00
Facility Needs(acres) H 18.70 33.00 3.30 55.00
Land Credits I 10.04 13.21 3.29 26.54
Fund Balance Equivalent J 3.52 3.85 0.10 7.47
Quimby Fund Balance K (0.50) - - (0.50)
Net Land Needs L=H-I-J-K 5.64 15.94 (0.09) 21.49
Improvement Cost per Acre M $ 720,000 $ 720,000 $ 555,300
Land Acquisition per Acre N 2,308,680 2,308,680 653,400
Total-Land and Improvements Cost per Acre 0=M+N $ 3,028,680 $ 3,028,680 $ 1,208,700
Improvements Needed to Serve New Development2 P=Fx M $ 13,168,800 $ 26,892,000 $ 1,710,324 $41,771,124
Land Needed to Serve New Development 0=Lx N 13.020.955 36,800.359 - 49.821.314
Total Cost of Facilities R=P+Q $ 26,189,755 $ 63,692,359 $ 1,710,324 $91,592,438
' Assumes that approximately 4,500 residents worth of development has satisfied par land,but not improvement fee requirements. Additionally,population
growth totaling 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings is also excluded from this table for land and improvements. (Land service population growth:20,300-
4,500-4,800=11,000. Improvements service population growth:20,300-4,800=15,500).
2 Community nature based improvements are based on the development of the Iron Horse Nature Park
Sources: Tables 5.1,5.3,and 5.5.
WWI LLDAN I 27
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Parks Cost per Capita
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 Standard
Neighborhood Community Corn. Nature
Calculation Parks' Parks2 Parks2 Total
New Development Net Facility Needs
Improvements3 A $ 13,168,800 $26,892,000 $ 1,710,324 $41,771,124
Land B 13,020,955 36,800,359 - 49,821,314
Total C=A+C $ 26,189,755 $63,692,359 $ 1,710,324 $91,592,438
Service Population Growth(Improvements)4 D 15,500 18,500 18,500
Service Population Growth(Land)4 E 11,000 14,000 14,000
Cost per Capita
Improvements F=A/D $ 850 $ 1,454 $ 92 $ 2,396
Land G=B/E 1,184 2,629 - 3,813
Total Cost per Resident H=F+G $ 2,034 $ 4,083 $ 92 $ 6,209
Improvements 1=F x 0.23 $ - $ 334 $ 21 $ 355
Land J=G x 0.23 _ - 605 - 605
Total Cost per Worker K=I+J $ - $ 939 $ 21 $ 960
1 Neighborhood parks fee does not apply to nonresidential development.
2 Service population growth includes weighted workers equivalent to 4,900 residents.
3 Community nature based improvements are based on the development of the Iron Horse Nature Park.
4 Assumes that approximately 4,500 residents w orth of development has satisfied parkland,but not improvement fee requirements. Population
growth totaling 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings is excluded from this table for both land and improvements.
Sources: Tables 5.3 and 5.5;Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Tables 5.8a and b show the proposed park facilities fee schedule for residential and
nonresidential land uses, respectively. 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.
WWILLDAN I 28
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 5.8a: Park Facilities Impact Fee-Residential
A B C=AxB D E=C+D
Cost Per
Resident/ Admin
Land Use Worker Density Base Feel Charge2 Total Fee
Residential
Single-Family& Townhome
Neighborhood Parkland $ 1,184 3.08 $ 3,647 $ 36 $ 3,683
Community Parkland 2,629 3.08 8,097 81 8,178
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 3.08 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improwments 850 3.08 2,618 26 2,644
Community Park Improvements 1,454 3.08 4,478 45 4,523
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 92 3.08 283 3 286
Total $ 6,209 $ 19,123 $ 191 $ 19,314
Other Multi-Family
Neighborhood Parkland $ 1,184 1.88 $ 2,226 $ 22 $ 2,248
Community Parkland 2,629 1.88 4,943 49 4,992
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 1.88 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 850 1.88 1,598 16 1,614
Community Park Improvements 1,454 1.88 2,734 27 2,761
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 92 1.88 173 2 175
Total $ 6,209 $ 11,674 $ 116 $ 11,790
Senior Housing
Neighborhood Parkland $ 1,184 1.12 $ 1,326 $ 13 $ 1,339
Community Parkland 2,629 1.12 2,944 29 2,973
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 1.12 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 850 1.12 952 10 962
Community Park Improvements 1,454 1.12 1,628 16 1,644
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 92 1.12 103 1 104
Total $ 6,209 $ 6,953 $ 69 $ 7,022
Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential).
2Adrrinistrative 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;WIldan Financial Services.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services I 29
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 5.8b: Park Facilities Impact Fee-Nonresidential
A B C=AxB D E=C+D
Cost Per
Resident/ Admin
Land Use Worker Density Base Feel Charge' Total Fee
Nonresidential
Commercial
Neighborhood Parkland $ - 2.33 $ - $ - $ -
Community Parkland 605 2.33 1,410 14 1,424
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 2.33 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 2.33 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 2.33 778 8 786
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 2.33 49 - 49
Total $ 960 $ 2,237 $ 22 $ 2,259
Office
Neighborhood Parkland $ - 3.13 $ - $ - $ -
Community Parkland 605 3.13 1,894 19 1,913
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 3.13 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 3.13 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 3.13 1,045 10 1,055
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 3.13 66 1 67
Total $ 960 $ 3,005 $ 30 $ 3,035
Industrial
Neighborhood Parkland $ - 1.16 $ - $ - $ -
Community Parkland 605 1.16 702 7 709
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 1.16 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 1.16 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 1.16 387 4 391
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 1.16 24 - 24
Total $ 960 $ 1,113 $ 11 $ 1,124
Senior Service Facility
Neighborhood Parkland $ - 0.95 $ - $ - $ -
Community Parkland 605 0.95 575 6 581
Community Parkland-Nature Based - 0.95 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 0.95 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 0.95 317 3 320
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 0.95 20 - 20
Total $ 960 $ 912 $ 9 $ 921
Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential).
'Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other adrnistrative 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;Wlldan Financial Services.
WWI LLDAN I 30
Financial Services
6. Community Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the community recreation facilities impact fee is to fund the community recreation
facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing
standard of community recreation facilities per capita.
Service Population
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
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. That analysis relied on survey data of
nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and Pleasanton are adjacent
suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker demand for these types of
facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 6.1: Community Recreation Facilities Service Population
A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2016) 54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout) 20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016) 18,480 0.05 900
New Development (2016-Buildout) 13,170 0.05 700
Total (Buildout) 31,650 1,600
Combined
Existing (2016) 55,600
New Development (2016-Buildout) 21,000
Total (Buildout) 76,600
1 Worker demand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public
Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group.
Source:Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group;City of
Dublin;Willdan Financial Services.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services I 31
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Facility Inventories & Standards
Table 6.2 shows the inventory of existing community recreation facilities. 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 Recreation Facilities Inventory
City of Square Feet Cost per
Square Dublin Allocated to Square
Feet Share City Use Foot Total Value
Community Recreation Facilities
Stager Community Gymnasium2 6,002 69% 4,141 $ 701 $ 2,902,800
Senior Center 15,500 100% 15,500 701 10,865,500
Shannon Community Center 20,088 100% 20,088 701 14,081,700
EGRAC Complex-Phase 13 33,826 100% 33,826 1,051 35,561,400
Heritage Facilities
Heritage Center and Bell Tower 2,482 100% 2,482 $ 701 $ 1,739,900
Old St. Raymond's ChurchNisitor Center 1,550 100% 1,550 701 1,086,600
Main House 2,304 100% 2,304 701 1,615,100
Old House Restroom 1,650 100% 1,650 701 1,156,700
Sunday School Bam 2,900 100% 2,900 701 2,032,900
Total Existing Facilities 86,302 84,441 $71,042,600
Note: Totals rounded to nearest hundred.
Cost to construct new recreation centers based on recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Recreation&Aquatic
Complex,excluding pool costs. Cost per square foot(unrounded)for EGRAC Phase 1=$1,051.304.
'Allocation of Stager Community Gymnasium square footage and facility value to City of Dublin based on the City's contribution of$1
million to the construction of the facility. $1 million represents 69%of the total facility costs,based on the Agreement between the City
and Dublin Unified School District Regarding Joint Funding of Community Use Gymnasium dated October 1,1997.
3 Total cost of EGRAC Phase 1 is$43,830,900. $8,269,500 of that is for the aquatic center/pools and is shown in Table 7.3.
Sources:Dublin Building Detail Report,2012;WIldan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 details the planned community and recreational facilities. The City plans to complete
Phase II of the Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic Complex, including a preschool. The City
also has future plans for improvements of a 13,500 square foot Cultural Arts Center.
WWI LLDAN I 32
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 6.3: Planned Community Recreation Facilities
Square Cost per
Feet Square Foot Total Value
EGRAC Complex -Phase II (Including Preschool) 21,000 $ 730.00 $15,330,000
Cultural Arts Center Improvements 13,500 414.81 5,600,000
Total Planned Facilities 34,500 $20,930,000
Note: Totals rounded to the nearest hundred.
Sources:2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program;Willdan Financial Services.
Cost per Capita Standard
Table 6.4 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This value is calculated by
dividing cost of total cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.05 to determine the value
per worker.
Table 6.4: Community Recreation Facilities System Plan
Standard
Calculation
Value of Existing Facilities A $ 71,042,600
Value of Planned Facilities B 20,930,000
Total Value of Facilities at Buildout C=A+B $ 91,972,600
Future Service Population D 76,600
Cost per Capita E=C/D $ 1,201
Facility Standard per Resident E $ 1,201
Facility Standard per Worker F=Ex 0.05 60
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2;Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the proposed community recreation facilities fee schedule. The system standard
cost per capita from Table 6.4 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).
/WILLDAN I 33
Financial Services
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 6.5: Community Recreation Facilities Fee
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family &Townhome $ 1,201 3.08 $ 3,699 $ 37 $ 3,736
Other Multi-Family 1,201 1.88 2,258 23 2,281
Senior Housing 1,201 1.12 1,345 13 1,358
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 60 2.33 $ 140 $ 1 $ 141 $ 0.14
Office 60 3.13 188 2 190 0.19
Industrial 60 1.16 70 1 71 0.07
Senior Service Facility 60 0.95 57 1 58 0.06
1 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 6.4;Wllldan Financial Services
Projected Fee Revenue
Table 6.6 projects community recreation center fee revenue by multiplying the cost per capita
from Table 6.4 by the increase in service population. The fee will generate $25.2 million through
the planning horizon. After accounting for the negative existing fund balance, non-fee funding
sources will have to fund $3.9 million worth of the planned facilities.
Table 6.6: Revenue Projection -Community Recreation
Facilities
Calculation
Cost per Capita A $ 1,201
Growth in Service Population (2016- Buildout) 8 21,000
Projected Fee Revenue C=Axe $ 25,221,000
Total Project Cost D $ 20,930,000
Less Projected Fee Revenue C 25,221,000
Negative Fund Balance E (8,151,690)
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified F=D-C-E $ 3,860,690
Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.5.
jWILLDAN I 34
Financial Services
•
7. Aquatic Facilities
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 Population
Aquatic 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. That analysis relied on survey data of
nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and Pleasanton are adjacent
suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker demand for these types of
facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 7.1: Aquatic Facilities Service Population
A 8 AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2016) 54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout) 20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016) 18,480 0.05 900
New Development (2016-Buildout) 13,170 0.05 700
Total (Buildout) 31,650 1,600
Combined
Existing (2016) 55,600
New Development (2016-Buildout) 21,000
Total (Buildout) 76,600
1 Worker demand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public
Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group.
Source:Table 2.1;Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group;City of
Dublin;Willdan Financial Services.
,WWILLDAN
Financial Services I 35
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, approximately $487 per square foot, is based on a recent cost estimate for the Emerald
Glen Recreation & Aquatic Complex. Note that the costs only include the pool facilities
themselves; buildings and site work are included in the community recreation facilities fee.
Table 7.2: Existing Aquatic Facilities
Cost per
Surface Square
Area Foot Total Cost
Facilities
Emerald Glen Indoor Pool 6,270 $ 3,053,200
Emerald Glen Competitive Pool 6,174 3,006,500
Emerald Glen Play Pool 4,538 2,209,800
Total Value 16,982 $ 486.96 $ 8,269,500
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.
Cost per Capita Standard
Table 7.3 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This value is calculated by
dividing cost of total cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.05 to determine the value
per worker.
Table 7.3: Aquatic Facilities System Standard
Calculation
Value of Existing Facilities A $ 8,269,500
Future Service Population B 76,600
Cost per Capita C=A/B $ 108
Facility Standard per Resident C $ 108
Facility Standard per Worker D=C x 0.05 5
Based on a weighing factor of 0.05.
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2;Willdan Financial Services.
iWILLDAN I 36
Financial Services
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).
Table 7.4: Aquatic Facilities-System Plan Standard
A 8 C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family&Townhome $ 108 3.08 $ 333 $ 3 $ 336
Other Multi-Family 108 1.88 203 2 205
Senior Housing 108 1.12 121 1 122
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 5 2.33 $ 12 $ - $ 12 $ 0.01
Office 5 3.13 16 - 16 0.02
Industrial 5 1.16 6 - 6 0.01
Senior Service Facility 5 0.95 5 - 5 0.01
Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential).
2Adrrinistrative 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
Projected Fee Revenue
Table 7.5 projects aquatic facilities fee revenue by multiplying the cost per capita from Table 7.3
by the increase in service population. The fee will generate $2.3 million through the planning
horizon. After accounting for the negative existing fund balance, non-fee funding sources will
have to fund $2.3 million worth of the aquatic facilities.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services I 3 7
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
Table 7.5: Revenue Projection -Aquatic Facilities
Calculation
Cost per Capita A $ 108
Growth in Service Population (2016- Buildout) a 21,000
Projected Fee Revenue C=Axe $ 2,268,000
Remaining Project Cost D $ -
Less Fee Revenue C 2,268,000
Less Existing Fund Balance E (4,558,820)
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified G=D-C-E $ 2,290,820
Sources:Tables 7.1,and 7.3.
WILLDAN p
Financial Services I 3p
8. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
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 Adjustment
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 development forecasts and/or facility plans become available.
Reporting Requirements
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 Projects 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 39
9. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
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.
Purpose 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 development. 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 facilities.
Benefit Relationship
• 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.
Burden Relationship
• 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).
WWILLDAN
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 development 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, Development Forecast provides a description of how service population and
development 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 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, Development Forecast 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.
WWILLDAN I 41
Financial Services