The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 LibraryTaskForceRpt , - ~ ~ CITY CLERK File # Ol2Jrm[{j-[hJ[Q] . AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 1,1998 SUBJECT: Library Planning Task Force Report Report By Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager / A. Task Force Report " / B. Current Public Facility Impact Fee Cash" Flow Projections EXlDBITS ATTACHED: RECOMMENDATION: /2uA- \ A. Receive Report B. Receive Public Comment C. Consider Recommendations on Page 5 of Agenda Statement FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Discussion Below DESCRIPTION: One of the 1997 high priority goals adopted by the City Council was to prepare an update to the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report including site identification for a new library/community activity center. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council, at it's August 19, 1997 meeting, appointed a Library Planning Task Force. .The Task Force convened in September 1997 and met for a total of ten meetings. Information that was reviewed and considered by the Task Force included growth projections for the City, library facilities standards, criteria for library site selection, library use patterns, library site possibilities, and ancillary use possibilities. Architectural feasibility studies were provided by George Miers and Associates COMA) and a financial analysis including capital and operating costs was provided by David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMO). Task Force members also toured other library facilities and possible library sites in Dublin. After a thorough review of the information received and the options considered, the Task Force reached the following conclusions and recommendations: . Construct one central library at the site of the Dublin Civic Center to include Dedicated library space (based on a 0.6 square foot per capita) 34,000 sf Friends of the Library storage and workspace 600 sf Community meeting rooms 2.400 sf Total Square Footage 37,000 sf . Construct the library using a phased approach as follows _ Construct a 37,000 square foot library building shell and finish 20,000 square feet of library space to become operational by the year 2003 _ Expand library services to 34,000 square feet as the City's population and library tax revenue . increases to support that population ------------------------CO-PUEST()~--~~;~-~~~~~;;~~;--------------- Alameda County Library ~ 4 ITEMNO.~ G:\library\cc91 frptdoc . Expand library service hours to forty (40) hours per week with sixty (60) hours per week as if, i desirable goal if funding becomes available ' . Consider a parcel tax to fund the capital cost shortfall and operating costs, if necessary Attached in Exhibit A is the Library Task Force Report. The report discusses in detail the methodology . undertaken by the Task Force as well as the findings and recommendations of the Task Force. The in- depth financial study provided by DMG which includes capital and operational costs is attached as Exhibit 8 of the Report. ISSUES Staff has identified and analyzed the following issues related to the recommendations of Library Planning Task Force regarding construction ofa new 37,000 square foot library"at the Dublin Civic Center. 1. Funding a) CaDital Costs The estimated capital costs for construction of a 37,000 square foot library building on the Civic Center site, including construction, project development and management, and furnishing and equipment costs, is $11,957.000. At present, the City's Public Facility Impact Fee is only designed to generate $6,777,000 based upon the 1993 Library TaskForce recommendations.: This is because the current fee assessed on new development was based on a 7,000 square foot expansion of the current library building and construction of a new 20,000 square foot library in Eastern Dublin.,."_ The financial analysis prepared by DMG anticipates that $9,293,000 of the total library capital construction costs ~ be paid for with Public Facilities Fees. This would entail adjusting the . Fee to take into account the new library scenario as well as inflation and revised population estimates. The balance of $2,664,000 would need to come from other sources. These sources could include: 1) Future General Fund Operating Revenues; 2) General Fund Reserves; 3) Parcel Tax; and 4) additional developer contributions, or a combination of any of the above. If the library were selected as the next project to be funded by Public Facility Fees and if the Library component of the Public Facility Fee was adjusted as discussed above, it is anticipated that sufficient Public Facility Fees would be available to fund library construction in about 2001-2002. Further analysis on the source of revenue for the unfunded portion of the library would need to be undertaken, but this analysis could occur during the planning and design phase of the project. b) Operating Costs The estimated costs for full operation of a 37,000 square foot facility C34,000 square feet of dedicated library space) at forty service hours per week is $1,754,122. The revenue available in 2003 to support these hours would be only $1,288,069 resulting in an operating deficit of $466,053. Although library related property taxes can be expected to increase as the community grows, the higher costs associated with operating a larger library would not be offset by projected revenues without a significant increase in support from the City General Fund until 2019. Estimated costs for operating a phased operation, 20,000 square feet of library space at forty hours . per week, is $1,363,000. The higher costs associated with this option would not be offset by projected revenues without an increase in support from the City General Fund until 2006. -2- . ,-'. .. . . . If General" Fund support for Library operations was increased in the proportion City property tax revenue increased (based upon current development projections for the next five years) the City could support 40 hours of service in the 20,000 square foot phased development approach in the year 2003. c) Parcel Tax One option to cover the unfunded capital and operating costs would be a parcel tax/per household assessment. A parcel tax would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote. DMG has initially studied the financial feasibility of a parcel tax and believes that a parcel tax ranging from $45 to $70 could support the unfunded capital costs and operating deficit. Further analysis on the need for and the ability to gIDn approval of a parcel tax would need to be undertaken before this option is pursued. If the City pursued the phased development approach ~d increased it's General Fund support to the Library as discussed above, a parcel tax or new source of revenue might be needed if the Council wanted ~ than 40 hours of service in the year 2003. 2. Impact On Other City Projects a) Public Facility Fees The following public facilities will be needed to serve new development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern and Western Dublin: Emerald Glen Park; Sports Park; Community Park; Neighborhood Parks; Community Center; Recreation Center/Gymnasium; Community Theater; Senior Center; Aquatic Center; and Civic Center Expansion. All of these projects will be funded either entirely or partially by Public Facilities Fees. Staff anticipates that $24,700,000 in Public Facility Fee Revenue will be collected over the next five years Csee Exhibit B). The 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Program currently includes the following Public Facility Fee funded projects: Emerald Glen Park Phase I; Civic Center Expansion; Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Park and Schaefer Ranch Neighborhood Parks. The total cost of these projects is estimated to be $8,475,000. Thus, the available balance of Public Facility Fee Revenue is estimated at $16,225,000 under the current fee structure. Construction of a new library utilizing the available Public Facility Fee Revenue may impact the City's ability to proceed in the near future with other Public Facility Fee funded projects Csee Table 1 below) depending upon the Council's project-priorities. TABLE 1 PROJECT Emerald Glen Park (future phases) Acquisition of 17.5 acres Improvement of 31 acres Sports Park (improvements only) Aquatic Center Community Buildings Community Center (23,000 s.f.) Recreation Center/Gymnasium (29,000 s.f.) Senior Center (12,000 s.f.) Community Theater (16,000 s.f.) ESTIMATED COST $ 5,250,000 $ 6,200,000 $13,600,000 $ 2,233,250 $ 5,025,500 $ 6,037,500 $ 2,400,000 $ 3,200,000 The total square footage of the community buildings identified above is 80,000 square feet. Public Facility Fees will only fund development of 61,600 square feet of community buildings. Funding for the balance of 18,400 square feet of community buildings would need to come from other sources. -3- 0'--' , b) Community Meetinr Roomo; The 34,000 square foot library building will be designed to include meeting rooms which are typically found in a library. In order to utilize Public Facility Fees to fund the additional 2,400 square feet of community meeting rooms recommended by the Task Force, the proposed 23,000 . square foot community center in Emerald Glen Park would need to be reduced by 2,400 square feet. This reduction in the community center could be achieved by eliminating 1,200 square feet of classrooms/meeting rooms currently identified as a program element for the community center. The balance could be achieved with reductions to the other program elements such as the community hall, teen activity room, arts/ceramics studio, multi-use center or preschool. Staff would questIon whether the 2,400 square feet of meeting rooms proposed for the library would have the same utility as the proposed space at the community center. Because of the proximity to the library the space would need to be designed in such as way that it would not conflict With traditional library uses. Further analysis on the need for additional public meeting space, whether this space could be designed for recreational use and the impact of the elimination of this square footage on the future community center would need to be undertaken as part of the library space plan. c) PrQJect Timing The first step in proceeding with the construction of a new library would be to undertake a space plan to further refme the space needs and layout of the library. This would be followed by detailed design development, environmental review, contract documents and construction. The following schedule for library construction is based on the experience of Alameda County Library with previous library construction: Notice to Proceed Space Plan Complete Design Development DocumentslEnvironmental Review Complete Contract Documents Bidding Notice to Proceed with Construction Construction Beneficial Occupancy and Move In Total Time From Notice to Proceed to Move In Start Date 9 Months 4 Months 6 Months 2 Months 1 Month 20 Months 1 Month 43 Months . d) Staffing In order to proceed with the development of a new library at this time, additional staff resources will be required to manage the project. As part of the 1998-99 CIP the Council funded 39 different Capital Improvement projects requiring project management time on the part of senior staff. As a point of information, the staff time required to manage the Civic Center project was equal to .50 FTE of the Assistant City Manager's time during the planning, architectural selection, design phase C20 months), and .30 FTE of the Assistant City Manager's time during construction C20 months). This did not include the additional time of working with a citizen's advisory committee which may be needed for the library project.o There are insufficient staff available in the Fiscal Year 1998-99 Budget to function as project . manager for the Library project. If the City Council is interested in pursuing the planning/design during Fiscal Year 1998-99 Staff would need to develop a plan for handling project management responsibilities. -4- .. fI'../'-. .3. Disposition of Existing Library Building a) Potential Senior Center Concurrently with the work of the Library Planning Task Force, Staff was authorized to perform an evaluation of the existing library to determine it's potential for another public Use, specifically a senior center. The City retained the services of Group 4/ Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc. to determine the program needs for a senior center, evaluate the present library building and develop a conceptual floor plan for a proposed senior center at the library. . Group 4 has determined that the library building could be renovated to meet the program needs for a senior center but not without major remodeling of the building. Group 4 recommends that the cost of new construction and the quality of a new senior center be compared to the cost of converting the library to a senior center. Group 4 estimates that renovation of the library building for use as a senior center could range from 80% to 110% of the cost of a new senior center, however, without further analysis by structural, mechanical and electrical engineers, and by a hazardous materials consultant, it is not possible to accurately pinpoint the cost of renovation. The Senior Center Advisory Committee provided input on the program needs for the senior center and reviewed the conceptual floor plan for the proposed senior center at the library. The Committee supports renovation of the library building to a senior center. . b) Acquisition Qf Library Building The Dublin Library building was financed by General Obligation Bonds which will be retired in March 1999. The Dublin Library Corporation owns the library building and leases it to the County in exchange for annual lease payments provided from property taxes. When the bonds are completely paid off, title will vest with the County. The City would need to negotiate a transfer of ownership from the County in order to pursue reuse of the building for a senior center. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept Task Force Report 2. If the City Council concurs with Task Force Recommendations, determine whether the Library Project should proceed ahead of other Public Facility Fee fmanced projects identified in Table 1 ofthis report. 3. If the City Council wishes to pursue the Library Project during Fiscal Year 1998-99, authorize Staff to take the following action: a) Prepare a plan to address project management for the Library and report to the Council b) Authorize Staff to secure consultant services to update the Public Facility Fee c) Pending resolution of Ca) above authorize the preparation of a Request For Proposals for consultant services to prepare a space plan for the new library which would also address whether the additional meeting space proposed by the Library Task Force is best suited for the Library or the new Emerald Glen Park Community Center d) Authorize the City Manager to develop a financial plan to address the portion of the capital cost which cannot be funded by the Public Facility Fee. . -5- City of Dublin Li)bra Planning Tas 0.. -~p~rt September 1998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Library Planning Task Force Report CITY OF DUBLIN CALIFORNIA September 1998 Guy S. Houston, Mayor David C. Burton, Vice Mayor Valerie A. Barnes, Councilmember Lisbeth Howard, Councilmember Janet Lockhart, Councilmember SUBMITTED BY Library Planning Task Force I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIBRARY PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT SEPTEMBER 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 1 2 9 mTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY TASK FORCE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Executive Summary 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report Dublin Population Estimates and Projections Library Planning Task Force Roster Alameda County Library - Recommended Criteria for Library Site Selection Alameda County Library - Library Use Patterns by Residence of Borrowers Recommended Criteria for Library Site Selection - Civic Center Site and Current Dublin Library Site George Miers & Associates Architectural Study Summary David M. Griffith & Associates Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives Alameda County Library - Dublin Library Space Needs 6. 7. 8. 9. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The current Dublin Library located on Amador Valley Boulevard opened in 1979. It was fmanced by General Obligation Bonds. The site for the library is owned by Alameda County and leased to the nonprofit Alameda CountylDublin Library Corporation. The Corporation in turn owns the building and leases it to the County in exchange for annual lease payments provided from property taxes. The bonds, will be retired March 1, 1999. When the bonds are completely paid off, title will vest with the County. The County is responsible for building and grounds maintenance for the current library building. Currently new libraries located in cities within the County Library system are the responsibility of the participating local agency; therefore, all maintenance costs are assumed by the local agency. Since 1982 the City of Dublin has contracted with the County for additional library service hours. At an annual cost of $216,000 (1997-98 cost) the City currently funds 14 hours per week beyond the County's basic 20 hours per week. In order to fmance the basic 20 hours per week the County provides a $300,000 annual subsidy to the operating budget of the Dublin Library in addition to the Library Property Tax collected from Dublin property owners. In November 1991 the Dublin City Council approved a joint planning effort between the City and the County Library System in order to examine current and future library facility needs of the community. The 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report, which was presented to the City Council in May 1993, was the result of the joint planning effort. The recommendations contained in the 1993 report were: 1) Take action as soon as possible to expand the current library to its maximum capacity of 22,000 square feet; and 2) When development occurs in eastern Dublin and after the population in that area exceeds 10,000, take action to construct an additional library facility in eastern Dublin. The Executive Summary of the report is reproduced as Exhibit 1. Shortly after completion of the report, the State of California shifted property tax revenues away from local agencies to public schools. As a result of the shift, th~ County Library System property tax revenue was reduced by fifty percent and City revenues were substantially reduced. As a result of this shift in revenue and the slow pace of new development in the eastern and western portions of Dublin, the City took no action upon the Task Force recommendations. Current (July 1997) estimates place Dublin's maximum population at buildout at 58,000 (excluding the jail populations of 4000) by year 2022. (Exhibit 2) This estimate is far less than the 73,100 projected in the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report. In view of the City's present projected growth the current library building will not meet the needs of the future Dublin community. In order to thoroughly assess the community's library needs, the City Council appointed a Library Planning Task Force to prepare an update to the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report. The updated report was also to include an evaluation of the suitability of the Civic Center site as a location for a new library/community activity center. II. FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE On July 15, 1997, the Dublin City Council unanimously approved the formation of a Library Planning Task Force to prepare an update to the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report. Advertisements were placed in local newspapers which generated nineteen respondents. On August 19 all nineteen respondents, one member of the Parks and Community Services Commission and one member of the City Council were appointed to the Task Force. Of the twenty-one appointed individuals, sixteen served. A Membership Roster of the Task Force is included in Exhibit 3. The Task Force charge included the following: 1. Determine how best to accommodate the City's future library facility needs. 2. Determine what other community uses could be accommodated with the library facility. 3. Determine whether the Civic Center site can accommodate a central library facility that includes the community uses identified above. In order to accomplish these goals the Task Force performed the following work steps: -1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. Reviewed the data contained in the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report and determined whether the assumptions were still valid (Le. growth projections, library facilities standards, library site selection criteria and library use patterns). 2. Toured library facilities in other cities. 3. Identified potential community/non-library uses that might be included in a new library facility. 4. Evaluated specific site recommendations for an additional library or replacement library. 5. Identified the development potential of the Civic Center site for a new central library and prepared a possible site plan for a new library facility at the Civic Center. 6. Considered several service hour options and identified the desirable number of hours that a new library should be open. 7. Reviewed and evaluated the costs associated with library construction and operation. 8. Identified funding sources for library construction and operation. 9. Determined the fmancial impacts to the City and the County. 10. Evaluated whether the current library building fits in the City's future library plans. The Task Force met monthly from September 1997 through May 1998. Paul Moffatt was elected Chair and Connie Spence Vice Chair. Task Force members received information from the County Library System, Dublin Library, City Staff. In order to provide the Task Force the information needed to complete the report, the City contracted with the frrrn of George Miers and Associates to provide architectural data; and with David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., a fmancial consulting frrrn versed in library fmancing. Subjects included review of the 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report (Executive Summary, Exhibit 1) , growth projections for the City of Dublin (Exhibit 2), Library Facility Standards, Site Selection Criteria (Exhibit 4) , Library Use Patterns (Exhibit 5), library site possibilities at both the Civic Center site and the current library site (Exhibit 6), ancillary use possibilities, architectural feasibility of renovation and expansion possibilities of the current Dublin Library and architectural feasibility of construction at the Civic Center site (Exhibit 7), fmancial aspects including capital and operating costs of renovating the current library and constructing a new library on the Civic Center site (Exhibit 8). Members of the Task Force also toured other library facilities and possible library sites in Dublin. III. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE In determining the ultimate library facility needs, the Task Force considered library size, ancillary usage, site/location, and service hour options as well as funding sources for library construction and operation. ~ In order to best accommodate the City's future library facility needs, the Task Force had to determine the size of library the City's future population would require. The following criteria were used in making the determination. The Projected Population of the City at Buildout The City Community Development Department projects that at buildout (2022) the City's population (excluding the 4000 incarcerated population) will be 58,000. The population will be split almost equally between the eastern portion of the City and the centraVwestern portion. (Exhibit 2) Library Building Square Feet Per Capita Standards In order to determine the spatial requirements of a library, a square foot per capita standard is utilized. Historically the Alameda County Library System has employed a 0.5 square feet per capita standard in developing new library facilities. This historic standard according to County Library personnel and the fmancial consultant only accommodates spatial requirements for hard copy library materials (books, magazines, videos) and minimal computer space. A 0.6 square foot per capita standard is currently being adopted for new library construction. This standard provides for hard copy materials as well as expanding new technological requirements. Based upon the 0.5 square feet per capita standard the base library size needed to accommodate the build out of the City equals 30,000 square feet; based upon the 0.6 square feet per capita standard the base library size needed to accommodate the build out of the City equals 34,000 square feet. -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ancillary Uses The Task Force began study of ancillary uses of the library site with a brainstorming session. The Task Force included in the list ancillary uses observed during a tour of area libraries. Data was provided by Dublin Community Development Department, Dublin Library, Alameda County Library, and PIC (Private Industry Council). The following is a list of possible ancillary uses identified by the Task Force: Coffee Shop/Cafe Art Gallery One Stop Career Center Friends of the Library Book Sale Area Storage Space Community Meeting rooms KitchenIFood Preparation area Museum Options were eliminated if the service was provided elsewhere within the City (Le. Heritage Center museum, Civic Center art gallery) or if deemed inappropriate for joint use (i.e. kitchen). After considerable discussion the following uses were identified for further analysis. Friends of the Library Space (600 Square Feet) Two Community Meeting Rooms (1200 Square Feet Each) Retail complex to include coffee shop, gift shop, stationary store (3000 Square Feet) One Stop Career Center (6000 Square Feet) .sm Once the estimated square footage of library space was decided, the Task Force identified and evaluated the following five library site/combination options: Option #1 Two branch libraries: renovation of the current library and construction of a new library to be located on the Emerald Glen Park property. Construction of a central library to be located on the Camp Parks property. Construction of a central library to be located on the Emerald Glen Park property in eastern Dublin. Construction of a central library to be located on the Civic Center property. Renovation and expansion of the current library to a size large enough to serve as a central library. Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Option #5 Each site option was evaluated using the following criteria: Dublin Population Estimates Alameda County Library Recommended Criteria for Library Site Selection Population was Projected by Area (Central, Western and Eastern Dublin) Alameda County Library Use Patterns by Residence of Borrowers Dublin Library Space Needs as Identified by Alameda County Library (Exhibit 9) Library Parking Standard 1.5 square feet of parking per 1 square foot of building with 350 square feet equaling one parking space Land availability Cost implications and advisability of operating two branch libraries Architectural feasibility After evaluation the Task Force concluded that Options #1, #2 and #3 should not be further analyzed. Option #1 (two branch libraries) was undesirable for several reasons, foremost was the increased operating costs for two libraries as opposed to one central library. The main objection to Option #2 (Camp Parks) was that it was not located in a shopping area or civic area and was not easily accessible to public transportation or pedestrian traffic -3- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and there was no guarantee the City could secure the needed property from the Army. Option #3 (Emerald Glen Park) was ruled out because it was not centrally located to the entire community. Options #4 and #5 were recommended by the Task Force for in-depth evaluation including a fmancial analysis by DMG and an architectural/site analysis by George Miers and Associates. The attributes of these two options are discussed below. Option #4 Construction of a central library to be located on the Civic Center property The Task Force concluded that the centrally located Civic Center site will best serve the entire community, currently and at buildout when the population will be divided between the central/western area and the eastern area of the City. The location adjacent to civic buildings, accessible by public transportation, and space to develop exclusive parking meet most of the recommended criteria for library site selection. According to the architectural firm of George Miers and Associates the site provides enough space to construct a facility using the 0.6 square foot per capita standard recommended by the Task Force as well accommodate some ancillary options. Option #5 Renovation and expansion of the current library to a size large enough to serve as a central library The Task Force concluded that if the current library could be effectively renovated and expanded to meet the City's future needs it would be a viable site. The location is well established and is in the central shopping area of Dublin. Also, the site is accessible by public transportation. The site does have some constraints. First, the site will only accommodate a 30,000 square foot one-story facility. In order to accommodate a facility using the 0.6 square feet per capita standard, a two story building would be required. And, according to County Library officials a two story library requires increased staffmg resulting in an escalation of overall operating costs. Second, the parking area is presently inadequate to serve a 30,000 square foot (or larger) building. In order to accommodate the required library parking, the City would be required to either buy property from the adjacent shopping center, or enter into a joint use agreement with the shopping center owners. Financial Analysis of Options The next step undertaken by the Task Force was to commence a fmancial analysis of Options #4 and #5. This analysis included estimated project costs, projected development fees, and projected balance of unfunded capital costs. This analysis was done using both the 0.5 square feet per capita standard and the 0.6 square feet per capita standard. The proposed ancillary uses were also analyzed to determine their impact on the overall project costs. As noted previously, the site of the current Dublin Library does not provide adequate space to construct a library in excess of 30,000 square feet unless a two story building is constructed and additional land adjacent to the library is acquired for library parking. Thus, this site was not analyzed using on the 0.6 square feet per capital standard. Table 1 Capital Cost Comparison of Renovation of Current Library Versus Construction of New Central Library Using 0.5 Square Feet Per Capita Standard 1~..".._EP-tIII 30,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms :!!'m_lrll:'I::~~I'i!~II::I:m!I:.~II1:II::::::.:::,.,.j:j:j::.:::j:::::::,::j:. 30,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms 9,759,000 $ 10,701,000 $8,563,000 $2,138,000 33,000 sf · Library & library meeting rooms · 600 sf Friends of the Library space · 2400 sf Community meeting rooms -4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 36,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $ 11,643,000 . 600 sf Friends of the Library space . 2400 sf Community meeting rooms . 3000 sf retail complex 42,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $ 13,527,000 . 600 sf Friends of the Library space . 2400 sf Community meeting rooms · 3000 sf retail complex · 6000 sf .One Stop. Career Center (1) Assumes revision to current Public Facil!ty Impact Fee $8,563,000 $3,080,000 $8,563,000 $4.964,000 Table 2 Capital Cost Comparison of Renovation of Current Library Versus Construction of New Central Library Using 0.6 Square Feet Per Capita Standard .~;_~J1=I._"~. :::;m~II[~~~:.m;.~~~;;ii;~II:~~;ITi;I;:~~I~I.~I.':'i;'i;::::::i::.::::.....::;:..::.: 34,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms 37,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $11,957,000 . 600 sf Friends of the Library space 2400 sf Community meeting rooms 40,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $12,899,000 · 600 sf Friends of the Library space . 2400 sf Community meeting rooms . 3000 sf retail complex 43,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $13,697,000 . 600 sf Friends of the Library space · 2400 sf Community meeting rooms . 6000 sf .One Stop. Career Center 46,000 sf . Library & library meeting rooms $14,783,000 . 600 sf Friends of the Library space . 2400 sf Community meeting rooms . 3000 sf retail complex · 6000 sf .One Stop' Career Center (1) Assumes revision to current Public Facility Impact Fee $9,293,000 $2,664,000 $9,293,000 $3,606,000 $9,293,000 $4,404,000 $9,293,000 $5,490,000 Library Service Hours The Task Force expressed the importance of expanding the current level of library operating hours particularly at a new or augmented facility. Library service hours (actual open hours) are the major contributing factor to library operating costs. The Task Force proposed the following service hour scenarios: 34, 40, 52, 56 hours per week. The Task Force directed the fmancial consultant to calculate library operating costs based upon the proposed service hour scenarios for a 34,000 square foot library. (The additional 3,000 square feet of space in the proposed 37,000 square foot facility which would be occupied by the proposed ancillary uses has no effect on the service hour costs). The total annual operating cost ranges from $1,514,754 for 34 hours; $1,754,122 for 40 hours; $2,021,557 for 52 hours; and $2,457,261 for 56 hours. Once operating costs were determined, the next step was to project the dates at which the County Library could operate each of the service hour options. The following tables illustrate possible dates at which the County could operate a new library. Two scenarios are provided. Scenario 1 assumes construction and operation of a 37,000 square foot facility; Scenario 2 assumes construction of a 37,000 shell with phased construction/operation (initially completing and operating 20,000 square feet of dedicated library space with completion of the remaining library space when it is necessitated by population growth). Table 3 assumes that the City contributions for library services will remain at the current (1998) level of $216,000. Table 4 assumes that the City's General Fund contribution increases proportionately to the increase in overall property tax revenue. -5- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3 Comparison of Dates at Which Time Alameda County Library System Could Operate A 37,000 Square Foot Library With No Additional City Contributions Scenario 1 Full Operation Scenario 2 Phased Operation ::=$CeNAQIOi1ri////:r::://///:r=::f/jrrr:f//////(f$.OENARKUieMj~~f:::::=:=:::=:rf::///:rr':::=:://ff///rr::::::::,::j:tf//f/j:=t:tt::: .i=r~,~io~~~I!~~~rr;li~~Bf?~atJi~~'oi 2011 2006 (20,000 sf library space) 40 2019 2006 (20,000 sf library space) 2019 (Expansion to 34,000 sf) Insufficient Funds 52 Insufficient Funds 56 Insufficient Funds Insufficient Funds Table 4 Comparison of Dates at Which Time Alameda County Library System Could Operate A 37,000 Square Foot Library With Increased City Contributions Scenario 1 Full Operation Scenario 2 Phased Operation 40 ($CeNAQIOi1j::j:j:::::/:::=/:,j:j=fj:::j:j::rr:/j:f:r:::/:::,::::j:j,j,j::rrr:::/jj,j:$.OENARlCBf;"jSfir:/=:::/fir:::j:::j:jr:fj,j:j:j=::fffir=:=::::::f::jtt::::::::,j,::::==:=jrr::t:::j:f .~~f.;~a~:~~j,~~j.~tiiJ_~=i~~~ 2005 2003 (20,000 sf Library Space) 2010 (Expansion to 34,000 sf) 2010 2003 (20,000 sf Library Space) 2010 (Expansion to 34,000 sf) Insufficient Funds Insufficient Funds 52 56 Insufficient Funds Insufficient Funds Funding In order to clearly depict the overall fmancial aspects of the library scenarios recommended by the Task Force, the City's fmancial consultant, David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. prepared in-depth fmancial studies for the following library scenarios: (1) renovation and expansion of the current library to a serve as a central library, and (2) construction of a central library to be located on the Civic Center site. The study included both capital and operating costs for each scenario. Proiected Capital Costs According to DMG, construction and remodeling costs vary widely based on specific structural characteristics such as design, facility quality, location, and special site characteristics, however, basic construction and renovation costs were generated by the consultant. Renovation of the current library site would entail both new construction costs for 15,000 square feet and renovation costs for 15,000 square feet. Only the portion of the capital costs attributed to new growth can be fmanced by new development fees. The impact of including the Civic Center land cost as part of the cost basis for development fees on overall cash requirements to cover unfunded capital costs for the new construction projects is reflected in the development fee portion of the table below. The detailed fmancial analysis can be found in Exhibit 8. -6- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 6 Projected Capital Costs .. . :':':';'::::":. '::r::::~:~:rr::r::::::i:i:i:~:~:i:~:::~:~:f::~:~:r::~:i:::i:i:::i:i:i:::::::~:::::::::i:::::i:::::i:: i:i:::::::i:i:::i:::i:::::i:i:i:i:i:~:i:fi{:i:::i:: ;.::;:;:;:;::.;. . ....... "..:. ,';.. :.;: "';.. ,', ...... . ..;.:...... . ,,'.; ....;:. .................................... .. ......... . ... .... :::::::::::::1~mijt::::::::f.i~f"::::JAt5.mMIII:::::::::::::::::::::t:::::::::~:::::::::::ijlrt::~ti:::::::::::::::::n::::::::::::::::~illlmiM:i.::::::::::::::::::;:::::::idl~l~ij::i~~li:::~i.i~riW::i:ii:::: Civic Center Site $11,015,000 $8,660,000 $2,355,000 34,000 sf Civic Center Site $11,957,000 $9,293,000 $2,664,000 37,000 sf Current Library Site $8,057,000 $4,826,000 $3,231,000 Remodel to 30,000 sf Table 6 above illustrates that in order to fmance the construction of the proposed 37,000 square foot facility it will be necessary for the City to fund $2,664,000 in addition to $9,293,000 fmanced by development impact fees. It will also be necessary to fund the gap from the time development impact fees are needed and when they are received. The following are possible funding scenarios for managing the Facility Impact Fee cash flow and capital cost shortfall: 1) Future General Fund Operating Revenues, if available; 2) Placing a higher priority on the library than other Public Facility Fee funded projects; 3) Revision of the Public Facility Impact Fee; 4) General fund Reserves; 5) Additional Developer Contributions; and 6) Parcel Tax. PrQ}ected ODerating Costs Annual operating costs are influenced not only by facility size, but also by the number of weekly service hours the library is open to the public. The following table illustrates estimated operating costs for a variety of service hour scenarios for a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot library. Table 7 Projected Annual Operating Costs for 30,000 to 34,000 Square Foot Library Using Various Service Hour Scenarios 1::::.i.:::::.:.::::li.I~I:.j:i.:.:::::.:.i::::jj:::.i:1:::::::li:~I~I::i.:ii::.:::.:::::::i:i:j:i::::::..11::~I~I::::::i.:.:::I:.:::I:::::::::.::::::I.:III::::.i.Iil::ii'i. $1,400,754 $1,640,122 $1,907,557 $2,343,261 Staffing, Operating & Support Costs Incremental Maintenance & Utilities $ 114,000 $ 114,000 $ 114,000 $ 114,000 Total $1,514,754 $1,754,122 $2,021,557 $2,457,261 The table below compares a forty hour per week operation in a full operation 34,000 square foot facility with a forty hour per week operation in a phased operation facility. Library revenues in the full operation facility are based on the City's contribution remaining at its present $216,000. In the phased operation the City's contribution increases proportionately to the increase in overall property tax revenue. As the table illustrates with full operation and no increase in the City contribution, revenues will not be equal to operating costs until the year 2019. With a phased operation and increase in the City's contribution, however, revenues will equal costs in 2003. In order to fund more than forty service hours per week additional funding source would be required. According to the DMG report, a parcel tax of $45 per household would support 40 initial service hours in the initial 20,000 square foot fmished library space in a phased operation and would provide sufficient revenues to either open the full 34,000 square feet of library space by 2005/6 with 40 hours, or maintain the smaller space and increase service hours to 48. By 2008 the parcel tax would provide enough revenue to open the full 34,000 square feet and operate it 48 hours per week. This assumes no increase in the City's contribution to library services. -7- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8 Library Cost and Revenue Projections for Forty Service Hours - Full and Phased Operation -City Contribution Remains at $216,000 2000 $1,076,372 $1,754,122 ($677,750) $1,363,000 ($286,628) 2001 1,146,614 1,754,122 (607,508) 1,363,000 (216,386) 2002 1,229,096 1,754,122 (525,026) 1,363,000 (133,904) 2003 1,288,069 1,754,122 (466,053) 1,363,000 (74,931) 2004 1,326,370 1,754,122 (427,752) 1,363,000 (36,630) 2005 1,350,673 1,754,122 (403,449) 1,363,000 (12,327) 2006 1,371,561 1,754,122 (382,561) 1,363,000 8,561 2007 1,412,028 1,754,122 (342,094) 1,363,000 49,028 2008 1,442,144 1,754,122 (311,978) 1,363,000 79,144 2009 1,475,362 1,754,122 (278,760) 1,363,000 112,362 2010 1,508,920 1,754,122 (245,202) 1,363,000 145,920 (1) City Contribution Remains at $216,000 Table 9 Library Cost and Revenue Projections for Forty Service Hours - Full and Phased Operation -City Contribution Increases Proportionately ------ 2000 $1,126,000 $1,754,122 (628,122) $1,363,000 ($237,000) 2001 1,210,000 1,754,122 (544,122) 1,363,000 (153,000) 2002 1,294,000 1,754,122 (460,122) 1,363,000 (69,000) 2003 1,378,000 1,754,122 (376,122) 1,363,000 15,000 2004 1,462,000 1,754,122 (292,122) 1,363,000 99,000 2005 1,545,000 1,754,122 (209,122) 1,363,000 182,000 2006 1,593,000 1,754,122 (161,122) 1,363,000 230,000 2007 1,641,000 1,754,122 (113,122) 1,363,000 278,000 2008 1,689,000 1,754,122 (65,122) 1,363,000 326,000 2009 1,737,000 1,754,122 (17,122) 1,363,000 374,000 2010 1,784,000 1,754,122 29,878 1,363,000 421,000 441,878 V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations described below evolved after a series of meetings at which the Task Force identified options for meeting the current and future library needs for the City of Dublin based on a projected buildout of 58,000 and using the 0.6 square feet per capita library building standard. Recommendations include site/location, library and ancillary building size, ancillary use, library weekly service hours, and possible funding sources. The recommendations represent various points of view and include fmancial, social, and political considerations. The Task Force concludes that the existing library building no longer meets the library needs of the growing community and that it can not be expanded to meet the 0.6 square feet per capita library building standard required for new library construction without significantly increasing operating costs. The Task Force further concludes that a new central facility constructed on the Civic Center site would provide all residents with the best possible library service. The Task Force therefore recommends: -8- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Size: Library and Ancillary Construct a 37,000 square foot building to include: 34,000 square feet of dedicated library space 600 square feet for Friends of the Library storage and workspace 2400 square feet for community meeting rooms The Task Force recommends using a phased approach to construction of the library services facility. Construct a 37,000 square foot library building footprint in the year 2000. Develop and operate 20,000 square feet oflibrary space in 2003. As the eastern portion of the City develops expand library services to 34,000 square feet in 2010. Site/Location Construct one building at the Civic Center site to serve as a central library for the City of Dublin. The Task Force concluded that the centrally located Civic Center site will best serve the entire community, currently and at buildout when the population will be divided between the central/western area and the eastern area of the City. The location adjacent to civic buildings, accessible by public transport, and with space to develop exclusive parking meets most of the recommended criteria for library site selection. The site provides enough space to construct a facility using the 0.6 square foot per capita standard adopted by the Task Force as well as accommodate any ancillary options. Library Service Hours The Task Force recommends a minimum of forty service hours per week and proposes 60 hours per week as a desirable goal if funding becomes available. Funding It was the consensus of the Task Force to recommend that the City Council consider a parcel tax to fund the capital cost shortfall and operating costs if necessary. The Library Planning Task Force has actively expressed support for Senate Bill 2026, the Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 1998. If the bond is passed by the voters in November 1998 funds will be available on a competitive basis statewide for construction and renovation of public libraries. The Task Force recommends pursuing these funds when and if they become available. The Library Planning Task Force wishes to acknowledge the support of the Dublin City Council for authorizing the study, the efforts of the Alameda County Library Staff and consulting firms George Miers & Associates and John Heiss of David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. -9- EXHIBIT 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -'. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Dublin Library Planning Task Force accepts as a basic premise that the public at large benefits from high quality library service and that maintaining such service is a desirable goal. There is general consensus among the Task Force that the Dublin Library facility is no longer optimum for such service delivery for the needs of the current population or for projected population growth. An upgrade and expansion of the current library to 22,000 sq ft should serve the central and western population currently and at buildout, necessitating no further construction until such time that additional develop- ment occurs in eastern Dublin. Community access to all library services would be en- hanced. In order to maintain and improve library service, the Library Planning Task Force makes the following two recommendations regarding library facility needs: . Take action as soon as possible to expand the current facility to its maximum capacity (22,000 sq ft). - Explore availability of State and Federal grants for matching funds. - Negotiate City-County building ownership agreement. - Negotiate joint use agreement for parking spaces. - Prepare a ballot measure to present to the Dublin voters to raise the funding necessary for expansion/remodeling. . When development occurs in eastern Dublin and after population there exceeds 10,000: - Take action to construct an additional library facility in eastern Dublin. - Earmark potential site as soon as possible and include in Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin. - Develop funding mechanism to raise local revenues from eastern Dublin. These recommendations are discussed more fully in the section entitled Summary and Recommendations. Several Exhibits are presented for general reference in the final section of this report, some of which illustrate data the Task Force considered in making the above recommendations. The Task Force is aware that population projections, including those shown as Exhibits in this document, are subject to change, and as a result of the recent referendum regarding western Dublin, have changed. The Task Force has taken this into consideration and the recommendations remain as presented. Due to its length, only the body of the Dublin Library Improvement Study is reproduced as Exhibit 1. The full Report is available at the Dublin Library. Copies were presented to Members of City Council in June, 1991. April, 1993 Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DUBLIN POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS As of May 7, 1992 (Data obtained included in 1993 Library Planning Task Force Report) Jan. 1995 Jan. 2000 Jan. 2005 Jan. 2010 Maximum Build Out Central Dublin 25,800 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. (yr. 1997) Western Dublin (if 0 2,000 5,700 7,800 8,400 max. construction begins (Yr. 2020) in 1996) Eastern Dublin (if 0 5,100 16,900 28,700 41,700 max. construction begins (yr. 2022) in 1995) Total includes 4000 25,800 43,100 49,600 63,500 77,100 max. incarcerated (yr. 2022) DUBLIN POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS As of July 1, 1997 (Data provided by City of Dublin Community Development Department) Jan. 1995 Jan. 2000 1 Jan. 2005 2 Jan. 20103 Maximum Build Out 4 Central Dublin 26,262 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. 27,000 max. (yr. 1997) Western Dublin 0 470 1,828 2,000 2,500 max. (if construction (yr. 2020) begins 1996) Eastern Dublin 0 2,663 13,881 24,000 32,500 max. (if construction (yr. 2022) begins in 1996 Total 26,262 30,133 42,709 53,000 62,000 max. (yr. 2022) 5 Total less 4000 incarcerated 22,262 26,133 38,709 49,000 58,000 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. From development and population projections 1997-2002 June 18, 1997. Assumes same rate in Eastern Dublin 2005-2010 as 2000-2002. Assumes same rate in Eastern Dublin 2005-2010 as 2000-2005. Western Dublin stops at Schaefer Ranch. Includes incarcerated population of 4,000. EXHIBIT 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIBRARY PLANNING TASK FORCE ROSTER Michael White 7500 San Sabana Rd. Dublin, CA 94568 (W) (415) 395-9091 (H) (510) 828-0462 Linda Ferris 7542 Amarillo Road Dublin, CA 94568 (W) (510) 828-2551 ext. 238 (H) 828-5205 Paul Moffatt (Chair) 11742 Solana Drive Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 828-0936 Michael Curry 7080 Inclined Place Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 828-2146 Sonya Hveem 8256 Rhoda Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 829-3646 Roy Bertuccelli 4698 Pheasant Court Dublin, CA 94568 (W) (510) 670-5709 (H) (510) 803-8768 Betty Hudak 6938 Mansfield Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 829-3771 Danny Raymond 6860 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 (W)(510) 847-7335 (H) 829-4106 Karen Dyer 6829 Sage Court Dublin, CA 94568 (W) (510) 743-1200 (H) (510) 833-0112 Valerie Barnes 7366 lone Court Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 828-0231 Tanya Marie Clark 7832 Gardella Drive Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 828-2338 Cynthia Raymond 6860 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 (W) 829-9044 (l0:00am-2:00pm) (H) 829-4106 Michael Bischoff 7609 Landale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 (H) (510) 828-1186 FAX (510) 828-7186 Cindy Cobb-Adams 11447 Cresta Lane Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 828-7177 Connie Spence (Vice-Chair) 7385 Hansen Drive Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 828-7584 Justin Schmidt (Alternate) 7695 Sunwood Drive Dublin, CA 94568 (510) 829-4329 Steven Jung 7315 Las Palm as Way Dublin, CA 94568 (W) (510) 828-6550 (H) 803-0915 EXHIBIT 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALAMEDA COUNTY lIBRARY RECOMMENUEU CRITERIA FUR LIURARY SITE SELECTION The followiny standards pertain to the optimum location of a library within a cOllllllunity. They ar'e intended to -Insure max'\mum convenience to patrons and maximum ~se of the lHJrary and are l-tsted 111 the order of their importance. 1. Libraries should be located in shopping areas or civic centers. Both areas JJI'ov'!de the 11"IgII concentrations of people which lead to maximum use of the library. Shopping centers are the areas where people buy convenience goods and visit repeatedly; the shopping center becomes a conlnunity or neighborhood core in many respects. Likewise civic centers an? the areas which people visit repeatedly for a variety of municipal serv'ices and "If.designed properly, can also become cOllrnunity centers. If a commercial area is preferred, a shopp'ing center is preferable over old retan al'eas or highway oriented cOlmlerical areas, because of better parking, better appearance, and more compactness. 2. Libraries should be located centrally for the population they are to serve. This factor would come into play if more than one location were to be considered in an area. 3. Public Transporation. Librar:ies should be located in areas that are easily accessible by public transportation. 4. libraries should be located with regard to convenience to schools. Although this consideration should not be overlooked, it is given less importance than the above standards,' because libraries should not over-emphasize service to children at the expense of the general public. Moreover, studies have revealed that about 85% of the trips to most libraries are by car. Permanent libraries should never be located at schools. Many library systems which have tried this relationship have abandoned the practice. Site Planning and Design Standards: These standards concern site size and arrangement; building location and design; and other specific considerations. Their purpose is to improve the accessibility, visibility, safety, function, and beauty of libraries. 1. Library sites should have approximately four times as much area as the floor area of the proposed buildinq. This allows for necessary parking, appropriate .landscaping, walkways, adequate on-site circulation, s He/street improvements, and a proper sett 1 ng. . . 2. libraries under 40.000 square feet should be located on one floor for the most efficient usage of staff and for improved security. 3. Libraries should have exclusive parking based on a min1m~m standard of one. space per 100 square feet of building floor area plus staff parkinq. Space given above is required by Alameda County. Local city ordinances /IIay establish a different standard for required parking spaces. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECOM1.tENUEU CIUTEHl^ FOR LIUHAHY SITE SELECTION PAGE 2 4. Libraries should be sited with regard to maximum visibility and accessibility. The best site for a library is usually one adjoining an arterial street. Libraries should not be buried among shops, located to the rear of a shopp"lllg center or civic center, or surrounded by large areas of asphalt. ~ 5. Pedestrian safety and convenience should be considered in library sHe arrangement. Pedestrians - mostly children - account for only about 15% of the total v'isits to libraries. 6. Parking should be immediately adwent to the building, should be !-,Q]J.::liUtlt~~!. and should not be Illdden from the street. This is seldom a problem "Ill shopping centers or newly designed civic centers, but couTd be one for libraries located in older business districts.. " 7. The architecture, site arrangement, and landscaping of a library should be of a style and quality befitting a public library. The design of a library must fulfill two crHeria: beauty and function. Regarding beauty, a library facility - like other public buildings ~ should be dignified and not necessarily reflect "faddish" design trends. On the other hand, it must not appear uninviting, and should have a facade which declares its function. Generous landscap1ng, particularly in the parking areas, should represent ~ good example for private developers. O. Libraries should be well identifed, but' with tasteful signs. Some existing libraries suffer from inadequate identifications. List of Criteria: An ideal site for a liprary will have good: visibility patron access - auto, walk, bicycle, bus, BART site arrangement and setting parking: adjacent to building not h1dden from street we 11 li ghted level landscaped accessibility to utilities (avo1d long runs) site engineering: take into consideration se1smic, flooding potential space for adequate building size, expansion, street improvements, parking, landscaping. Conversely the following should be avoided: overly irregular or inclined site secluded unsafe or poor access no other adjacent offices or stores open evenings or Saturdays too small/too large (creates maintenance and.security burdens) not placed in keeping with long range population projections any characteristics which will cause problems with a negative declaration or CEQA. 4/15/91 I 08680 EXHIBIT 5 I ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY Library Use Plltlero:; by Re~idellce otBorrowers Fiseal Year 1996/97 I' All reshkllce llreas which contributed Ic,?!1 than I % of Ii Hbrary's u:;t: bave been combined and are ltsted as "All Otllers". I ALUANY DlffiUl'! }JLJi!~SANTOI'f Albany 55.3% Dublin 52.6% Pleas3nton 81.5% Delkeley 17.8% Contra Costa Co. 19.8% Contra Costa Co. 3.0% I Contra Costa Co. 15.6% PICIU;/lnlon 12.3% Dublin 3.0% Richmond 5.5% Castro V 1I11ey 4,3% Livermore 3.0% Ollkland 1.8% rrem~)nt 2.1% Fremont 2.4% I All Others 4.0% Llveonore 1.7% Castro Valley 1.6% IInYWllrd 1.3% SlUloI U% San Lorenzo 1.0% All OUleTs <1.'1% ll.llilKM 0 n II. F- Ail Others 4.9% I (Inc. Hot Wheels) SAN LQJU~NZO Premonr 44.4% FREMONT ~ Fed. \.01'1' l n:st. 11.3% San L\lIt<lIn1 480% I Union City 6.1% Fremont 79.1% Eden Township'" 18.2% Caslin VIIII"y 4.5% Unitm Clly 6.8% II a) \\-AI'd 1I.:J% Dublin 4.0% Ncwtltk ')1% San LejUldl"o &.9vr.. I Eden TO'M1Ship* 4.0% Hayward 2.5% c.a~tm V:lllp.y 3.5~1. P\~immton :1.R% All OtJll:Il 6.3% .Ftcxnont 22% Nmvar.k 3.0% O~and 1.5% Contr;. Costa Co. 1.7% UnlQU CIty 1.1% I San JOtlquin Co. 1.7% IRVINGJ:QN All Others 5.3% Oakland 1.5% Hayward 1.4% Fremont 91.0% I Alhany \.0% SUIl JOIlC l.G% UNIQNCn'Y All Others 11.6% Newark 1.5% ?leasanton 1.1% Un.i.on City 7JJ% UlllCiU City 1.0% Fremont lS.l% I CASTRO V A-1<l1A:;Y All Olllers 3.8% Hayward 5.4% N cwal'k l.2,}:', Castro Valley 77.5% Eden TO\,,1l.ship'" 1.8% I Eden Township'" 6.1% NEW A.llli All Others 5.2% JlIl)'Wilrrl 5.5% Fremont 1.11% Newark 67.S% "'Edell Township reflect:; Ult: San Le;mdro 1.7% Fr-emt;ml 20.6% unincorporated areas of Ashland, I San LQfCn7--O i.~% Union City 6.4% Chenyland, FailYiew, and oilier Oakland 10% All Others 5.5% (lultounding unincorpol'ated areas. All Others 4.9% I NILES !:1~NTERVII...LE Fremont 89.5% I Fremont 87.6% Ul1ion City 2.8% Union City 4.7% I'leasanton 1.5% Newarl:; 2,2Q{, C:.u;tro Valley 1.0% All Gtllec:s 4.5% Hayward 1.0% I All Othc($ 4.2% ,. I' I UDllSEnwp PrO,bome SI?i .10- I I EXHIBIT 6 ...lUlCQl\fl\:1,)iilS.l)E;:Q..CR.l:rEJ.tIA..F.'OR.Lla.ltA.RYSIl'E.SELECl'ION ). .. .GIVIC F=~'f.. . ... . .. . . 'n "' n. . _. . ..,. .. <..?~l!f~~i. . H. . .... .... . ....n n" .. . ......." . . .... ...." . ....... ..... .. . . ...... .......... .. ... . ... ...-........ . .... .., .. '.. n... H . ".... ... ." ...... .. ......... tm.RA:Ry..... . . ..... .,. ... . OPTIMUM SITE LOCATION WITHIN A COMMUNITY Located in shopping areas or civic centers ./ (civic) ./ Located centrally ./ Located 10 areas easily accessible by public transportation ./ ./ Located with convenience to schools, but not at a school SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Site should have 4 times as much area as proposed building floor area ./ no Libraries under 40,000 sf should be located on one floor ./ could be 30,000 sf only done on one floor Should have exclusive parking based on minimum standard 1 space per 100 sfof ./ no building floor area plus staff parking Sited with regard to maximum visibility and accessibility ok, but not ok, but not great great Pedestrian safety and convenience ./ ./ Parking adjacent to building & not hidden from street ./ 1/2 & 1/2 Should be styled befitting a public library ./ ./ Well identified with tasteful SIgn ./ ./ Accessibility to utilities (avoid long runs) ./ ./ Site engineering (take into consideration seismic, flooding potential) ./ ./ Space for adequate building size, expansion, street improvements, parking, ./ no landscaping THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE AVOIDED Be an overly irregular or inclined site Have no other adjacent offices or stores open on evenings or Saturdays Not placed in keeping with long range population projections Secluded Be too small/too large (creates maintenance and security burdens) Have characteristics which will cause long range problems with a negative declaration or CEQA Exhibit 6 ------------------- EXHIBIT 7 I ( ;r( m(;r ^ lIIRS 11\ /\......';( )( 1'\/1...... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /\".{,i/I'( III/I' ,1/111 {'{.I/I/I;/l1' Bonnie Leonard ' Park and Community Services City of Dublin 110 Civic Drive Dublin, Ca January 19, 1998 Dear Bonnie, We have studied the existing library site plan and developed the following options for development on the site. EXISTING SITE PLAN: The existing library measures approximately 14,400 square feet and there are 72 parking spaces. Note that the library is not square with the back of the site. This leads to an inefficient parking layout. OPTION 1: This plan attempts to maximize parking on the site, without increasing the building footprint. Much of the landscape area around the building has been eliminated as well as the landscape berm facing Amador Valley Blvd. This plan has a total of 96 parking spaces; still short of the required 129 spaces for a 30,000 square foot library by 26%. While it would be theoretically possible to add a second floor to the existing library, therefore doubling square footage, we have not evaluated if this this is possible. In addition, if the building could structurally support a second floor a two story library would have inherent inefficiencies both in plan and in operation. OPTION 2: This plan enlarges the building footprint to 30,000 square feet and maximizes parking on the remainder of the site. 72 parking spaces are included in this plan. Note that the parking areas triangular shape, would not readily lend itself to a parking structure. OPTION 3: This plan proposes building a new structure over a level of parking and maximizing parking on the remainder of the site. This plan includes a 30,000 square foot library and provides 148 parking spaces (sufficient based upon a requirement of 129 spaces.) In summary, it is not possible to provide a single story 30,000 square foot library and associated parking on grade on this site. Sincerely, Trina Good win joY 15/h 5/r('('/ ()akland, CA Y4612 ('i /II) ,1 ('.'i-5 7//7 {~lX (51U) ''1('5-94.H .. .. ~- _.~ --.. - ~ .-- . . -....... -.........-. ,..-. ...., . , . ..---... ~.._. . -~ .-.- -.,...-:...~-+...-.. " , 'I ::1 :,'.J ;;. :::.:j :.:, ,~ . ~ ,..1 . ..~: ..~ . '. :// ,:::;:11 ,:....j )j .....:: 1'1. eJ "'1 .... .... :~':I ",':' :.:.: .':'1 :.:;:j I =::: ~~'1 ~: I ~I I J 1~"~l" ~.1.; I I . . "' . ~~.... ........, . ")(l,i;" ""- ;~ \lm~~ ~~ , ):r\a~ ;, t! ! ~. --:_.-~~'.'l~;.C- .:~i:. ':' .:' ',. ': --.....-.......... .' '" ~\'.' .i'~~Fn.Y:~r.l . . 1 ~, I'"~ S' 1J1'~ k:~ / ~J- \,--"1 r:,..~-.<:, OJ c 5 z (j) (0 ~ U1 :n ~ m ~ :0 0 ^ ._~. 2 -l>- -a G) 0 ~ Ul 0 0 ~ Ul 0 0 Z m ~ Ul ...... 0 " S, 1 , , '} " } :,j ',; , , , :1 :1 I ',j 1 2l . ~ s ~~ ~ ~ R ~ (OA ~;z N ~ ~ -I ~ g in Os ~~ o z 41 '~IT" .., . ' : r fi~q ~ C l ;!; 'jl li 1; ~ · :'1 H~ 1. . I'!; ~ t. .1... : l (~ .~.:; .. PoG) ,~i ! ~~ ~ftfl1 . 0111 ~i ~ ); ~ ~ ;ri~ DUBLIN L1BRARY-; EXISTING SITE STUDY DUBLIN. CA ~:,-:.' ~(i: e:"~ -:: ". l~_..:.__,; ~.~> . . GEORGE MIERS & ASSOC/A TES Arr:hIeeftn/~ '10 Sun" SI,.., s.a.,Fran:.Gco. CA ""01 (4'S}89lS.(1XIS ", .. ]. . " >- O. ~'=> ' cr: I- . <(Cf) O:w CO 1-: -.J-CS Cf)Z ZC)::J -.JZgJ CO_Cl ::>r-:- OCf) >< w "~ d'. . ,,;;' , ,~J 6 I' ). ~ ""1 :;AAW/NG 1IIEt.LA.5l .........,. ." ... ....-..-.... , ~~I . .:~:.'... ~ """"'" ..c .>rr ,xK-J'OIIl : - ~hTll -Q <(" . 'X"-0' -S-..). '<-', ^' Y" ~ c?' 9 ,OPTION 2 . OPJION 2 . ADDITION TO 30,000 SOFT. ""'" N.T.S. _"'/10 '0 '". .... ..~ ", '. ":"'-- . ": '. . ". ~ I' . """NO , 97006 72 PARKING SPACES eO FEET "'It V20/98 . .a:t.:4.~....... '~T' . HEr .: :.~ ~.:.i.' . )p. 3 . . . ;/)~::~;:::;.tr=;~n:::':\:i>'::'ii{?:.~\i~)';;:;';:\;/:)k::'::.:.:~.:::;:r71>.:.;~::.:;/).~{:!.:!:\:'~.:i)i;::.:~::::::{:.::~:::~{7F(':;::::::.;.:-i.'7?~~':.::;'.:~.~:':~:.:::<:{\::.:..::::::::\;::~.;./::.<!:.::\//::t;'.?~:<77::.:.:::.:.~::!.:.::j7~;:;~.:::.~l.::::~.::i;;"(}:;i;;~i~:?~<)(:::7~--:;::}::~:';":::: .~..:.'::.:~ . \,': . . ,\:.~. ";':,., '~";;.' ; 'T. .,...;<:...,:.c-'-;:--;-'" <.~.;., 'C. s: ,D l' :j. ~~~ \,---"l f::;;~ ...t;:, / \ . ..:: z. . . <:; m . G)' ~ ~.~ ~ 03.~ 5 -urn 2 ~ OJ G). 0 . ~ @ ~ ts 0 "0' ;-p (/J ~ g :::! ~ ~ Ul 0 @E;e Z U) m ~ . .. tv Q. ..' ./ . . a,> . ,;/.,;/"~', , ffITlllT'Trrrr:\ ..\'\ " ~. '0v .' ~ I II ~ .~ "1 .:., :::\ .JI .-.j :::: ..* .... ,..1 .:.; ::: ..... :\ , \, '. , I , .,: i ,;..~-"'a':' " '.: ~, ~ "", ~ , I \\13~\~~\ '\7 ~\ ~ \\~~'~\~t~:l'~\\\~'\~\~~'\ .+> g 0 C' 0 ~ ," -"\' '" 0 '" z ,,\. j,' ()) 01 ," ,I m (,J 9 ~ l'! /. '. ~..~. ~..--- ."- -- ;...,.,.~ ....~:\ "';'::", ~j~ .... ~ . '~ l:i- (~ .'~J.;.. ~ \ \ ....~:U , . . OUBUN UBRARY,; EX\ST\NG S\~E STUDY DU8LIN.CA . ' I \ III ii' ~t ! :;;~ '! fri~ a en en ._-~ ~_.. - ,- i.' _::;.....,.;..c'-..:c.....,-.:..~r ! ! . - -- -- -.-----. ~~ ,\ ' , I :~.:.... t I I' ,. I I 1 A. '" ..:C 1" ..:'.... I.' . . . I 'I ., I 'j en)> =i!::j mm "'C::c . r-Z ,~~ < {T1 .;.. . .' t o j I Ri' ~.! , '-"1 · ';t' 'r'~' ~. ;"l ,'l'!' .~",.._.. ..:. DUBLIN' · , CiVIC~ CENTER:~', ....,.: ~Ii I ~~ ,~ ;il J ~i . / ~r5S:'~~:':;:~~~2:;;~~;2~~~~~~3~~~~~~sl i. (J))> . '. ~!:i . mm .,,:0 r-Z )>> Z::! < m I\) f' i o ~ll ~~ ~; Ih J' ~~ ! ~s; a cn.~ J/ . ':.".__ ~__T--'_'_"::' _. .'. __~ ":" -C::-_~,__ ...---.:::-_~.;- ..--:::,,".- - "'-"'.''-- '~~_:-...: .-:::~:- ~ ,~-.--.~- :.-.....- --:;."-...,~:~,~ "',~ '-"'" - ~~r~ ~~~i '" ~~f~ t~" " ..~;~. ;~ ~f< ~ ~f t~ ~~ ~~ ......~ ~; ~~ ...t ", ' -'~ ';,: ~~ H~~ llf '......... ". ~~ i::~... ' 't~ ~l'''. ~~ ", · ~~~t ~ ,,~ , . " .... ~;: t ~~ l~ . ~.. ~ . '--:,:, , .. 1 ~~ k i~ ~ ~ ~;t :- ~~ ~~ e ! it: ~ ~ ]: ~j';, .... !. I ""~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ en> =iq mm .,,::0 r-Z >~ Z::! < m c,.) I I f ! 1 I I 'I I I , ! , , ~ t ' o DUBLIN . , " ,~'CIVIC.:. CENTER", U' , ..'" -!~ ~rn ~"'i (1)0 liw , 8~ ~l I ~n; ~ ."'::0 i en,,,", EXHIBIT•8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ DMG Final Report on the Financial Feasibility Analysis d Library Altern.atives CITY OF DUBLIN David M. Griffith & Associates Burlingame, California RECEIVED JUL 1 31998 ClTY U~ DUBUN July 11, 1998 • TABLE OF CONTENTS I I I I Table of Contents I Section Page Number I Executive Summary E -1 I 1. Study Objectives 1 2. Proposed Adjustments in Planning Assumptions 2 I 3. Projected Population Growth and Library Facility Needs C) .) I 4. Projected Capital Costs 5 I 5. Projected Development Fees Available to Support Capital Development 11 I 6. Timing for Facility Expansion 13 7. Current Library Financial Structure 16 I 8. Projected Annual Operating Costs and Revenues 18 I 9. Financing Issues an.d Altematives 37 Appendices I A Representative Library Project Costs for Recent California Construction and Renovation Projects A-I I B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments Necessary to Support Library Construction and I Operations B-1 I I I David M. Griffith & Associates • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXECUTIVE SU1\iMARY The report which follows provides the results of our analysis of the financial feasibility of a series of library facility improvement options for Dublin. The study was conducted in conjunction with the Library Planning Task Force and focused on identifying and evaluating costs and revenues associated with the library development options identified by the Task Force, and evaluating the financial feasibility of each. This executive summary presents the major findings of the study which are supported by the detailed analysis contained in the main body of the report. FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED The library facility size targets initially identified by the Task Force were based on a library facility space standard of .5 square foot of library space per capita. "While this is the historical standard employed by many jurisdictions to adopt library facility targets, there are some indications that this standard is outdated and fails to reflect changing demands faced by libraries. For example: . The modern library is providing expanded space for not only hard copy materials, but also significant spaces for computer work stations to support customer access to both library operated automated systems, and a broad variety of automated information sources. These work stations and related spaces can add significantly to space requirements for a modern library. . Concurrently, while automated information systems increase in importance, public demand for hard copy books, periodicals, and audio visual materials shows no sign of decreasing. Indeed, as the socio-economic and ethnic composition of the population becomes more diverse, demand for a greater variety of library materials increases. Given the above, we have found that a target of .6 square feet of library space per capita is a more modern planning target, and that this David M. Griffith & Associates Page E - 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis target has been adopted by a number of jurisdictions which have recently or are currently involved in the library facility planning process. We recommended and the Task Force concurred that Dublin, as it approaches evaluation of library needs and facility alternatives, adopt this standard. To that end, this report employs that standard to project space required for the development alternatives identified by the Task Force. Based on population projections, application of the standard projects 34,000 square feet of library space for Dublin to serve the City at buildout. This space requirement projection was incorporated into the following development alternatives identified by the Task Force. ConsmlCtion of a new librarv buiIdin1! on the Civic Center site. The new construction option was to address three scenarios: · A 34,000 square foot library. . A 37,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.) and 3,000 sq. ft. of space for two public meeting rooms (approximately 1,200 sq. ft. each), with the remaining space (approximately 600 sq. ft.) to be used by the Friends of the Library for storage and work space. · A 43,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.) and 9,000 sq. ft. of space for other uses. The additional space would accommodate the functions discussed above plus 6,000 square feet for a Career Center. Renovation of the existin1! librarv structure accomplished by adding "wings" to each side of the building, thereby enlarging the facility to 30,000 square feet. This option provides for only additional library space since the current site is not large enough to accommodate a larger facility. FACILITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS The main body of the report provides detailed information employed to project capital development costs for each of the alternatives listed above. Costs were estimated based on prevailing costs for comparable projects in California determined through survey, and based on input from an architectural firm with recent experience in library construction and remodeling projects in the Bay Area. Capital cost projections include David M. Griffith & Associates Page E - 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis provisions for enhancing the collection which would be required if a larger library is constructed. The table which follows shows projected capital costs, in current dollars, for each of the alternatives identified by the Task Force. Table 1 Total Project Costs for Library Improvement Alternatives Facility Projected Start-up Costs Alternative (Dollars in Thousands) - Facility Collection Start-up Total Development! Enhancement .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~;.-::::::::::::::::::: Improvement New 34,000 square foot Lib. $ 10,676 $339 $ 11,015 New 37,000 square foot Lib. $ 11,618 $339 $ 11,957 New 43,000 square foot Lib. $ 13,358 $339 $ 13,697 Remodel and E:t..1J3.Ild Current Facility to $ 7,718 $339 $ 8,057 30,000 square feet It should be noted that these costs provide broad indicators of potential project cost only and can vary widely depending on specific design characteristics; site characteristics; and market conditions. CAPITAL PROJECT FINANCING The main body of the report projects estimated development fee revenues which could be generated as growth occurs to support library expansion and improvement. These projections are illustrative and are subject to more detailed analysis by the City's development fee consultants and approval of any changes in fees by the City Council. Nevertheless, we believe they are illustrative of the portion of projected library capital costs which could be offset by development fees. The table on the next page shows the results of the analysis and identifies the amount of project costs which would not be covered by development fees for each alternative. David M. Griffith & Ass(lciates Page E - 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis Table 2 Projected Capital Costs Not Funded by Development Fees ltern 30,000 Sq. Ft. Remodel 34,000 Sq. Ft. 37,000 Sq. Ft. New Facility New Facility (Dollars in 0(0) $ 11,015 $ 11,957 43,000 Sq. Ft. New Facility ful~t~Mtf1lJ~tlttlttttilil~ Project Cost $ 8,057 Development Fees $ 4,826 Unfunded Capital Balance $ 3,231 . $ 13,697 $ 8,660 $ 9,293 $ 9,293 $ 2,355 $ 2,664 $ 4,404 Table 2 demonstrates the impact of including Civic Center land costs as part of the cost basis for development fees on overall cash requirements to cover unfunded capital costs for the new construction projects. The table also illustrates that, because the Civic Center land cost can be included in the cost of the new construction alternatives, unfunded capital costs for remodeling the old library would be significantly higher than for constructing more library space in a totally new facility. It should also be noted that the projections above reflect full receipt of development fees by the end of the planning period (2021), and assuming the library project would be completed well before the end of the planning period, funds would need to be borrowed In advance of the receipt of development fees to fund construction and there would be additional costs associated with interest related to that borrowing. Conversely, the library could be selected as the next project to be funded by public facility/development fees in which case the library could be funded in about 2001 - 2002 based on estimates of City staff. If this approach were taken, other projects funded by these fees would have to be deferred or funds borrowed to support construction of these projects. Because this use of public facility funds reqUIres a policy decision by the Council, the analysis provided in this report is limited to the portion of public facility fees which could be generated based on library project alternatives, and as noted David M. Griffith & Associates Page E - 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis in a subsequent section, we have also assumed that construction of a new library would precede full receipt of library related public facility fees and borrowing would be employed to bridge the funding gap between expenditure and receipt. LIBRARY OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES The main body of the report contains detailed projections of operating costs and revenues for each of the alternatives. Clearly, operating cost projections are directly related to the number of weekly service hours a library facility is open. Projections contained in the main body of the report cover service hour scenarios ranging from 34 hours (the current service level) through 56 weekly service hours. The Task Force felt, and we concur, that a new library should be open an increased number of hours and the study has employed 40 weekly service hours as the target once a new or remodeled facility is available. Our findings related to costs and revenues are as follows: . While library related property taxes can be expected to increase as the community grows, the higher costs associated with operating a larger library will not be offset by projected revenues without a significant increase in support from the City General Fund until late in the planning period which ends in 2021. . If the new library is constructed earlier In the planning period, additional revenues will be required to support operations for some years. . We have assumed that the City General Fund cannot be expected to contribute more to support library operations than the current proportion employed for that purpose. While this amount can be expected to grow as development occurs and general property taxes and other revenue increases, revenues will still fall short of operating costs for a new library for some years. . The significant projected gaps between costs and revenues raise the issue of immediate or short-term construction and Page E - 5 David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis full operation of a 30,000 or 34,000 square foot library which has been sized to meet community needs at buildout. The main body of the report presents an alternative which would involve implementing a phased approach toward expanding library facilities. This would include building the target 34,000 square foot new facility, but initially, finishing, opening and operating only a portion of the total facility (e.g. 20,000 square feet) and subsequently finishing and expanding the remainder of the building as the community grows. This would reduce initial operating costs, but even with this approach, revenues would fall short of operating costs for some period following opening of the new library if that opening occurs early in the years following 2000. Given the above, as with capital costs, additional revenues from a new source would be required to support operations. APPROACH FOR COVERING CAPITAL AND OPERATING cosr DEFICITS. Given the above, we employed the following basic: assumptions associated with financing development and operations of a new library: . Based on other service demands, the City would be financially unable to contribute a higher proportion of General Fund revenues to annual library service operations than is currently the case. . For planning purposes, it is reasonable to assume that this General Fund contribution will grow at the same rate as the overall General Fund. . The County cannot be expected to increase its subsidy of annual operations. . Any annual library costs above library designated property taxes, the City General Fund contribution, the County subsidy, and other minor revenues currently available will need to be supported by new revenues. . The only assumed avenue for generating new revenues to support operations is a parcel tax/per household assessment. . Current City reserves are insufficient to make a maioI' contribution to any library capital costs for new construction or remodeling which are not funded by development fee revenues David M. Griffith & Ass(lciates Page E - 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis without significantly impacting operating revenues for existing services. . Because development fees will be received as homes and businesses are built over a 20 year period, funds will need to be borrowed to develop a new or improved library if that facility is to be made available within the next ten years, unless a policy decision is made to accord priority to the library project; apply development fee revenues to the library project; and defer other development fee funded projects. . Any capital costs not funded by development fee revenues, including those associated with borrowing, would need to be covered by new revenues, and we have assumed that the approach for generating those revenues could be a parcel/tax per household assessment. . As a result, for illustrative purposes in this report, we have assumed that remodeling or construction may need to be funded by borrowing which will require repayment of both capital and debt service costs. . While State bond revenues for local library construction may be available, there is no certainty at this time that a bond measure will be approved, and if it is approved, Dublin will receive revenues to offset all or some of the cost of new construction. . As a result, for the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that a parcel tax/per household assessment could be required to cover unfunded capital and operating costs. . A parcel tax would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote. The main body of the report calculates parcel taxes/per household assessments required to fund capital. debt, and operating costs deficits for each facility alternative and operating scenario (i.e. phased operations versus full operation of the new facility immediately following completion of construction. The table which follows shows the level of parcel tax necessary to support the various operating scenarios to cover unfunded capital costs and support 40 service hours when the new or remodeled facility is completed. The information provided in the table assumes a new library would be in operation during the year 2000. nrwirl M nriffith c\'r A<;.<;nr;r7fp.<:; D~ <Tn 7;' ry I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis Table 3 Projected Parcel Tax Required to FUnd Capital and Operating Deficits for Library Development Alternatives Option Required Household Assessment Per Year i$~}\t*~lf!tti~t$l~i;~~~~~~i~~~~1~~f:*~~i~~~~tlj~i~~l~11f:~~~1~~~~f#:f:t~~~~~lli~)~~~f~f:~~;~~r;~jii~~11~~1~~~~ Capital Operations Total 43,000 Square Foot New Facility with Meeting Space and Career Center .40 Initial Service Hours. $40 $40 $00 37,000 Square Foot New Library with Meeting Space - 40 Initial Service Hours. $ 30 $40 $70 34,000 Square Foot New Library - 40 Initial Service Hours. $27 $40 $67 30,000 Square Foot Remodeled Library - 40 In itial Service Hours. $26 $40 $00 37,000 Square Foot - Phased Operation with 40 Initial Service Hours. $30 $15 $45 34,000 Square Foot - Phase~ Operation with 40 Initial Service Hours. $27 $15 $42 Principal conclusions which can be drawn from the information presented in the table are as follows: . The Career Center option included in the 43,000 square foot facility alternatives increases the parcel tax associated with the other Alternatives by $ 10 annually, and this amount represents at least three weekly service hours in the first year and that amount increases moderately over the planning period. . The parcel tax required to support remodeling of the existing library is almost the same as constructing a new and larger library. . A phased library operation, without the Career Center, would provide the same weekly service hours in the initial years as the non-phased alternatives, and would also generate revenues sufficient to increase service hours as growth occurs up to 48 hours when the full library facility could be opened in about 2008 with the lowest per parcel tax/household assessment. David M. Griffith & Associates Page E - 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LIBRARY SERVICE FINANCING The analysis contained in the report as employed the year 2000 as the assumed start-date for operating a new or remodeled library, and cost - revenue comparisons have been base~' on that start date. Given this projection, as previously described, under all facility size and service hour scenarios, there are projected cost - revenue deficits in the early years of the planning period (especially during the 2000 and 2005 period); and in the absence of other operating revenue sources, we have assumed that a parcel tax or fee could be needed to fill that deficit. If actual operations of a new or remodeled library were initiated later than 2000 under certain conditions, the need for a parcel tax/fee to support operations during the initial years could change. The table which follows shows the cost-revenue impact of a phased approach (operate 20,000 square feet initially and expand into the full 30,000/34,000 as community growth occurred. Revenue projections assume that the City's current contribution would not increase as a proportion of the General Fund, but would increase at the same rate as overall General Fund growth which was previously projected at a rate comparable to projected increase in assessed valuation and property taxes. Year Projected Base Operating Cost Operating Cost Revenues for for (000 ) 40 Hours with 40 Hours with 20,000 Square 30,000 Square Feet Feet (000) (000) ~tlttlt~fgtil~f~~lmf:~~ \~?l~lJ~~~~~~j~j\~*~~l;jlll\~j\l~jI~;Jjfj~ l~~~tt~jjl~~~~t~~jIl~~;\~~~l~lltl~jj~jj~~f tj~!~~tjjjjjj~j~~llllr{trtjltj~~j*;~~J 2000 $ 1,126 $ 1,363 $ 1,754 2001 $ 1,210 $ 1,363 $ 1,754 2002 $ 1,294 $ 1,363 $ 1,754 2003 $ 1,378 c' <$1,363 $ 1,754 2004 $ 1,462 ,$1,363 $ 1,754 2005 $ 1,545 ,'$1,363' $ 1,754 2006 $ 1,593 $1,363 $ 1,754 2007 $ 1,641 $ 1,363 $ 1,754 2008 $ 1,689 $ 1,363 $ 1,754 2009 $ 1,737 $1,363 $ 1,754 2010 $ 1,784 $ 1,363 $ 1,754 David M. Griffith & Associates Page E - 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary for the Library Alternative Financial Feasibility Analysis It is practical to assume that a library construction project, once pre- planning, design, and actual construction time requirements were cons.idered, would be unlikely to complete a facility which would be ready for occupancy in 2000, and that three to four years would probably be required to deliver a facility ready for occupancy. If this assumption is employed, the potential need for a parcel, tax/fee for operations under the phased approach is largely eliminated as follows: . If the project required three to four years to plan and build and the project was initiated in early 1999, the library would be ready for occupancy in 2003. . Under the phased operation approach, costs for providing 40 weekly service hours in the finished 20,000 square feet are projected to be about $ 1.363 million which is slightly less than the $ 1.378 in revenues projected. If revenue growth occurs as projected, there could be no need for additional revenues through a parcel tax/fee or other source to provide 40 service hours in the 20,000 square feet of finished library services. . By 2009, revenues would be nearly sufficient to expand operations into the full 30,000/34,000 square feet and maintain 40 weekly services hours, again without additional revenues from a parcel tax or other revenue source. This analysis demonstrates the impact of the phased approach in terms of fitting library expansion and operations to projected revenues and growth in the community, and also illustrates how timing and service hour assumptions and alternatives could impact the need for additional revenues (through a parcel tax or other source) to fund operations. * * * The maIn body of the report which follows presents the detailed analysis which has been summarized in the preceding paragraphs. David M. Griffith & Associates Pa eE-10 FINAL REPORT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF LIBRARY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN This report presents the results of our analysis of capital and operating costs for expanded' library services in Dublin, and projects revenues potentially available to support those services. The report opens with a brief introduction to the objectives of this study. 1. STUDY OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to analyze the following: · To identify the capital costs for the library facility alternatives identified by the Library Planning Task Force including the following: Construction ofa new library building on the Civic Center site. The new construction option was to address three scenarios: A 30,000 square foot library. A 36,000 square foot building housing a library (30,000 sq. ft.) and 6,000 sq. ft. of space for proposed joint uses. The proposed joint uses include two meeting rooms (approximately 1,200 sq. ft. each), space for a retail complex (3,000 sq. ft.) and the remaining space (approximately 600 sq. ft.) to be used by the Friends of the Library for storage and work space. A 42,000 square foot building housing a library (30,000 sq. ft.) and 12,000 sq. ft. of space for proposed joint uses. The joint use space would house the functions discussed above plus a 6,000 square foot Career Center and Mini Copy Center. Renovation of the existing library structure accomplished by adding "wings" to each side of the building, thereby enlarging the facility to 30,000 square feet. This option provides for onlv additional library space. · Determine annual operating costs for a 30,000 square foot library. Since operating costs for a library are directly related to the number of weekly service hours provided by the library, operating costs are projected under several service hour David M. Griffith & Associates Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin assumptions ranging from 34 to 56 service hours per week. · Project revenues available to support library operations and library capital improvements in Dublin based on projected growth in assessed valuation and other revenue sources such as development fees and identify any gaps between revenues and costs. · Identify options for generating additional revenues to address cost - revenue gaps. All projections are based on the assumption that Dublin would continue as a member of the Alameda County Library System. The intent of the analysis was to provide the Library Planning Task Force information related to costs, revenues, and financing issues associated with each of the library improvement options being considered so that the Task Force c~uld select an option for recommendation to the City Council. 2. PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS FOR TIllS ANALYSIS The library facility size targets initially identified by the Task Force were based on a library facility space standard of .5 square foot of library space per capita. While this is the historical standard employed by many jurisdictions to adopt library facility targets, there are some indications that this standard is outdated and fails to reflect changing demands faced by libraries. For example: · The modern library is providing expanded space for not only hard copy materials, but also significant spaces for computer work stations to support customer access to both library operated automated systems, but also to a broad variety of automated information sources. These work stations and related spaces can add significantly to space requirements for a modern library. · Concurrently, while automated information systems increase in importance, public demand for hard copy books, periodicals, and audio visual materials shows no sign of decreasing. Indeed, as the socio-economic and ethnic composition of the David M. Griffith & Associates Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin population becomes more diverse, demand for a greater variety of library materials increases. Given the above, we have found that a target of .6 square feet of library space per capita is a more modern planning target, and that this target has been adopted by a number of jurisdictions wl}ich have recently or are currently involved in the library facility planning process. We strongly recommend that Dublin, as it approaches evaluation of library needs and facility alternatives, adopt this standard. To that end, this report employs that standard and the basic facility alternatives outlined above have been adjusted to reflect the .6 square feet per capita target. The Library Planning Task Force concurred with this proposal and the analysis of facilities, costs, and library strategies which follows is based on the .6 per square foot per capita target. 3. PROJEcrED POPULATION GROWTH AND LffiRARY FACILITY NEEDS Exhibit I, which follows on the next page, projects population increase in Dublin for the planning period utilized for this project. Projections are based on current development projections for additional residential units by year. The base population reflects Dublin's net population once the detention facility inmate population, which is included in the City's total population is excepted. Thus, the beginning year total City population of 27,700 is reduced to 23,700 (deducting the average 4,000 inmate jail and correction facility population) for the purposes of projecting population and related library facility needs. As shown in the Exhibit I, buildout resident population to be served by a Dublin Library would total about 57,000. With a target for library facilities of .6 per square foot per capita, a library sized to serve the community at buildout would be 34,000 square feet rather than 30,000 square foot library initially selected by the Task Force. As a result, the analysis which follows projects capital costs for this slightly larger facility as summarized on the page following Exhibit 1. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 3 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I :1 EXHIBIT I City of Dublin PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN * Year Beginning Projected Population End of Year Residential Increase Residential Population Population 1998 23,700 1,085 24,785 1999 24,785 1,525 26,310 2000 26,310 1,498 27,808 2001 27,808 2,110 29,918 2002 31,520 1,602 33,122 2003 33,122 1,490 34,612 2004 34,612 1,244 35,856 2005 35,856 871 36,727 2006 36,727 1,020 37,747 2007 37,747 882 38,629 2008 38,629 882 39,511 2009 39,511 1,129 40,640 2010 40,640 1,376 42,016 2011 42,016 1,376 43,392 2012 43,392 1,376 44,768 2013 44,768 1,376 46,144 2014 46,144 1,376 47,520 2015 47,520 1,532 49,052 2016 49,052 1,532 50,584 2017 50,584 1,532 52,116 2018 52,116 1,532 53,648 2019 53,648 1,158 54,806 2020 54,806 1,158 55,964 2021 55,964 403 56,367 2022 56,367 156 56,523 2023 56,523 156 56,679 * Population projections exclude correctional facility inmates. Source: Based on residential unit development projections provided by the City of Dublin Planning Department. Projections assume an average household population of 2.5. David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Construction of a New Library Facility on the Civic Center Site. In addition to selecting the .6 square feet of library per space per capita as a planning target, the Task Force, after some discussion, decided to eliminate space for a copy center from the facility alternatives. When coupled with the .6 per square feet of library space per capita, this led to adjustment of the alternatives as follows: · A 34,000 square foot library. . A 37,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.) and 3,000 sq. ft. of space for two 1,200 square foot meeting rooms and 600 square feet of space for use by the Friends of the Library. · A 43,000 square foot building housing a library (34,000 sq. ft.) and 9,000 sq. ft. of space including 3,000 sq. ft. of space for two 1,200 square foot meeting rooms, 600 square feet of space for use by the Friends of the Library, and 6,000 square feet for lease by a Career Center. Renovation of the Existing Library Facility, given site size, is probably limited to the 30,000 square foot maximum. As a result, projections are limited to 30,000 square feet for this alternative. Capital costs for each of these alternatives are projected in the section which follows. 4. PROJEcrED CAPITAL COSTS Construction, project development and management, and furnishing and equipment costs for new or remodeled/expanded libraries can vary widely depending on design, amenities, and location of construction. To estimate the construction costs which might be incurred related to the various facility alternatives identified for analysis by' the City, we accomplished the following: · Reviewed the alternatives with and obtained broad construction cost estimates from a San Francisco Bay Area architectural firm with recent experience in designing and building library facilities in the Bay Area over the last two years. The architects provided some basic cost guidelines which reflected their experience and actual costs associated with recent major Bay Area library projects including those completed in: David M. Griffith & Associates Page 5 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Burlingame -- Essentially construction of a new library while retaining the front, exterior facade of a historical library building. Mountain View -- New main library. Foster City -- City constructed branch of the San Mateo County Library System. San Carlos -- Current new branch library under construction by the City and the San Mateo County Library System. · In addition, we surveyed other library projects completed in California in the last year and obtained comparable information on construction costs. This survey excluded non- comparable projects and focused on those completed in urban areas in Northern and Southem California.. Survey results indicated the following ranges of construction costs in the same categories employed by the architects to develop illustrative project costs in the following categories: Construction: Actual facility construction costs for the building and major infrastructure (e.g. heating ventilating and air conditioning systems). Furnishings/interior finish:. Furniture, wall covering and carpeting, library equipment such as shelving, office furniture, and the like. Other costs: Costs in this category include professional fees (architectural design and project management; telecommunication system infrastructure installation; and contingency allocations. Appendix A to this report provides the detailed results of the survey. The results of the construction cost survey are summarized in Table 1 which follows on the next page: David M. Griffith & Associates Page 6 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Table 1 Representative Library Construction Costs Construction Estimated Cost Per Square Foot Furnishing! Other Project Finish Costs $29 $68 Total Architect's Estimate Based on Bay Area Experience Average Unit Costs Based on Survey of Projects Completed in California Within the Last Year Average of the Two Sources $233 $330 $224 $19 $54 $297 $229 $24 $61 $314 As shown in the Table 1 and as demonstrated in Appendix A, costs can vary quite widely based on actual project characteristics such as design, facility quality including amenities and materials, location, and special site characteristics. For the purposes of the broad projections contained in this report, we believe it is most prudent to project potential facility costs by employing the mid-range between the architect's estimates and the survey as represented by the "Two Source Average" row as shown in the table above. Concurrently, costs for remodeling, renovation, and expansion of an existing facility can also vary widely based on the specific structural characteristics of the facility being remodeled/expanded as well as design, scope, site issues, and amenities incorporated into the facility. Again, we utilized the same two sources to develop some basis for broadly projecting remodeling/renovation/expansion costs associated with the alternative which involves remodeling and expansion of the existing library building. Table 2, which follows on the next page, shows the range of cost estimates from the two sources and Appendix A to this report provides additional detail on the various renovation and remodeling projects completed in urban California during 1997. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Table 2 Representative Library Remodeling Costs Construction Reported Cost Per Square Foot Furnishing! Other Project Finish Costs $29 $44 Total Architect's Estimate for Generic Renovation Project Average Unit Costs Based on Survey of Projects Completed in California Within the Last Year Average $150 $223 $102 $11 $20 $131 $126 $20 $32 $178 Given the broad range in both completed projects and between the projects surveyed and the architect's estimate for a "typical" project without detailed evaluation of the facility involved, we have used the averages in the table above to estimate remodeling/renovation costs associated with the existing facility. The next table, Table 3, shows our estimate of capital costs associated with the various new facility alternatives under consideration by the Library Task Force based on the assumptions outlined above. Costs are presented in terms of current dollars. Table 3 Projected Construction Costs for a New Dublin Library Construction Projected Capital Costs (Dollars in Thousands) FurnitureJ Other Costs Interior Finish $24 $61 Total Unit Cost Per Square Foot New 34,000 square foot Lib. New 37,000 square foot Lib. New 43,000 square foot Lib. $229 $314 $ 7,786 $816 $2,074 $ 10,676 $ 9,847 $888 $888 $ 2, 257 $ 2,623 $ 11,618 $ 8,473 $ 13,358 David M. Griffith & Associates Page 8 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin To estimate costs associated with remodeling and expanding the existing facility, different costs need to be applied to the current facility and new construction to expand that facility to the 30,000 square foot maximum. Table 4 below applies those assumptions and also incorporates the projected cost for acquiring land to provide additional parking at the existing site: Table 4 Projected Construction Costs for Remodeling and Expanding the Existing Library Facility Facility Improvement Component Projected Capital Costs (Dollars in Thousands) Construction Furniture! Interior Finish Other Costs Total Renovation of Existing 15,000 Square Feet Addition of 15,000 New Square Feet Cost for Additional Parking Project Total $ 1,890 $300 $480 $ 2,670 $ 3,435 $360 $915 $4,710 $338 $338 $ 5,325 $660 $ 1,733 $ 7,718 It should be noted that these costs provide broad indicators of potential project'cost only and can vary widely depending on specific design characteristics; site characteristics; and market conditions. In addition to the basic facility related costs shown in the previous tables, a larger library would also require expansion of the collection to respond to the increased use which could be expected with a larger facility. While such a collection expansion could be deferred or implemented over time, capital cost estimates should include some provision for collection improvement which would be consistent with an expanded and higher quality library facility. Estimates of collection expansion requirements are shown in Table 5 which follows below: David M. Griffith & Associates Page 9 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Item Library Materials Adult Books Children's Books Audio - Visual Ma terials Sub. Total Processing Costs (Based on recent DMG studies. Per item cost includes costs required to catalog, enter materials into automated system; and process (e.g. bar codes; covers; etc.). TOTAL Table 5 Costs for Collection for A New or Remodeled Library Unit Cost 15,000 $3.00 Total Cost 79,140 $ 294,360 $ 45,000 $ 339,360 The Table 6 which follows shows total projected costs for each of the alternatives including both facility development/improvement costs and costs associated with collection improvement. Table 6 Total Project Costs for Library Improvement Altematives New 34,000 square foot Lib. $ 10,676 $339 $ 11,015 New 37,000 square foot Lib. $ 11,618 $339 $ 11,957 New 43,000 square foot Lib. $ 13,358 $339 $ 13,697 Remodel and Expand Current Facility to $ 7,718 $339 $ 8,057 30,000 square feet David M. Griffith & Associates Projected Start-up Costs (Dollars in Thousands) Collection Start-up Total Enhancement Facility DevelopmentJ Improvement Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin The next section estimates growth related revenues available to offset some of the capital costs outlined above. 5. PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FEES AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT Deyelopment fee revenues available to support the alternative library development plans are subject to detailed analysis by the City's development fee consultants and approval of any fee modifications by the City Council. It IS possible, for the purposes of this analysis, to illustrate potential development fees by applying the City's current methodology and the vanous capital improvement scenanos being considered in this report to project potential cash flow available to support the vanous project alternatives. This analysis includes the following: . Projecting population and employment through buildout and differentiating between current population and employment and the increment to be generated as a result of growth. Based on the population projections and projected commercial and industrial development, those relationships through buildout are as follows: Item Existing Growth Total Resident Equivalents Population 23,700 32,823 56,523 Employment 10,000 28,100 38,100 Total * 25,900 39,005 64,905 * Employees multiplied by a factor of .22 to calculate resident equivalent library users. Same methodology employed by the City's development fee consultants. · Then, calculating the per resident and per employee cost of the potential library improvement scenanos which can be attributed to growth and offset by development fees as demonstrated in Exhibit II, which follows on the next page. Exhibit II shows development fees for the 34,000 and 37,000 square foot new construction alternatives. Because the Career Center space included in the 43,000 square foot project cannot be charged against development fees under the requirements of AB 1600, development fee revenue for this alternative would be the same as for the 37,000 square foot facility. Clearly, these fee estimates are subject to additional analysis and approval ly the Council once that analysis is completed Nevertheless, they do provide an order of magnitude basis for projecting David M. Griffith & Associates Page 11 I EXIllBIT II City of Dublin I ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR ALTERNATIVE LIBRARY PROJECTS I Library Development Scenarios New 34,000 Square New 37,000 Square Remodel and Foot Library Foot Facility Expand to 30,000 I Square Foot Facility Build Out Population 64,905 64,905 64,905 Equivalents I Square Feet Per Population .52 .57 .46 Equivalent I Growth Population 39,005 39,005 39,005 Equivalents Square Feet Attributable to 20,283 22,233 17,942 I Growth Project Cost Building and $11,015 $ 11,957 $ 8,057 I Collection Cost of Civic Center $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Land at $ 20 per I square foot. Project Total $ 14,519 $15,461 $8,057 Project Cost Per $427 $418 $269 I Square Foot Times Square Feet Attributable to 20,283 22,233 17,942 I Growth Cost Attributable to $ 8,660,841 $ 9,293,394 $ 4,826,396 Growth I Cost Per Resident - $222 $238 $124 Growth Cost Per Employee - $49 $52 $27 I Growth (at .22 per resident as per above) Cost Per Dwelling I Unit Based on City Projections and Average Per $555 $596 $310 I Dwelling Unit Population (2.5 per DU) I Cost Per Commercial/ Industrial Square $.13 $.134 $.07 Foot (estimated I based on average of 388 square feet per employee) I I David M. Griffith & Associates I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin development fee related revenue which could be available to support a portion of the development costs associated with each project alternative. Development fees for each of the alternatives can then be compared to total project costs fo:r: each of the alternatives to estimate the portion of capital costs which would not be offset by development fee revenue and would need to be funded by other means. Table 7 which follows provides that comparison. Table 7 Projected Capital Costs Not Funded by Development Fees 30,000 Sq. Ft. 34,000 Sq. Ft. 37,000 Sq. Ft. 43,000 Sq. Ft. Remodel New Facility New Facility New Facility (Dollars in 000) Project Cost $ 8,057 $ 11,015 $ 11,957 $ 13,697 Development Fees $ 4,826 $ 8,660 $ 9,293 $ 9,293 Unfunded Capital Balance $ 3,231 $ 2,355 $ 2,664 $ 4,404 The table demonstrates the impact of including Civic Center land costs as part of the cost basis for development fees on overall cash requirements to cove~ unfunded capital costs for the new construction projects. The table also illustrates that, because of this feature associated with the new construction alternatives, unfunded capital costs for remodeling the old library would be significantly higher than for constructing more library space in a totally new facility. 6. TIMING FOR FACILITY EXPANSION Clearly, the timing for construction of a new facility or significant expansion of the existing facility is dependent on both financial and political factors. Nevertheless, several factors need to be understood to formulate and evaluate facility alternatives: (1) With a 15,000 square foot library and a resident population of about 23,700, Dublin's library provides .63 square feet David M. Griffith & Associates Page 13 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin of library space per capita which is generally consistent with the suggested library space standard; and (2) If a 30,000 or 34,000 square foot facility were constructed and operated in the short term, the facility would be sized to serve a much larger community, and some years could be required for the community to "grow into" the facility. Exhibit III, which follows on the next page, shows space required by standard compared to space available in the current facility and deficiencies in library space based on the .6 square foot standard. As can be seen from the projections presented in Exhibit III, while growth will relatively quickly outpace the capabilities and size of the existing facility, it will be well into the next century before a 30,000 or 34,000 square foot library facility would be "sized" to facility population. Since subsequent analysis will raise issues about operating costs associated with the various alternatives, and operating costs are directly related to facility size, the analysis will also draw on the trend data shown in the table to suggest some phasing alternatives associated with both new construction and remodeling. The next section which begins on the page following the exhibit addresses projected operating costs for a new or remodeled and expanded library. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIDIT III City of Dublin LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS BASED ON PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH Year Residential library Space Deficiency Based on Population Needed at .6 Square Existing Facility Feet Per Capita (Square Feet) 1998 24,785 14,871 - 1999 26,310 15,786 786 2000 27,808 16,685 1,685 2001 29,918 17,945 2,945 2002 33,122 19,873 4,873 2003 34,612 20,767 5,767 2004 35,856 21,514 6,514 2005 36,727 22,036 7,036 2006 37,747 22,648 7,648 2007 38,629 23,177 8,177 2008 39,511 23,707 8,707 2009 40,640 24,384 9,384 2010 42,016 25,210 10,210 2011 43,392 26,035 11,035 2012 44,768 26,861 11,861 2013 46,144 27,686 12,686 2014 47,520 28,512 13,512 2015 49,052 29,431 14,431 2016 50,584 30,350 15,350 2017 52,116 31,270 16,270 2018 53,648 32,189 17,189 2019 54,806 32,884 17,884 2020 55,964 33,578 18,578 2021 56,367 33,820 18,820 2022 56,523 33,914 18,914 2023 56,679 34,007 19,007 David M. Griffith & Associates I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin 7. CURRENT LffiRARY FINANCIAL S'IRUCTURE To provide a basis for the subsequent analysis of library operating costs for the various alternatives, it is important that the basic financial structure of library services in Dublin be understood. Overall, the principal source o~ revenue which supports library services in Dublin is the County Library Property tax. During State revenue take backs several years ago,. a significant portion of this property tax was diverted to support schools. The impact of this diversion was to reduce the actual amount of the library related property tax to support library services by about 50 %. As a result of the diversion, the "net" property tax rate which does and will continue to generate revenues to support library services is as shown in the table which follows: Table 8 Library Related Property Tax Basis Item Amount County Library Property Tax Levy (share of the 1 % of assessed valuation tax 4.83% rate allowed by Proposition 13). Proportion of the County Library Property Tax Levy 51.35 % Diverted to Support Schools Net Levy (share of the 1 % of assessed valuation tax rate) available to support library 2.35 % services (48.65 % of the original levy). This means that, on the average, of each $ 1 of property tax generated, about 2.35 cents is dedicated to support library services. This tax currently generates about $ 391,000 per year from Dublin. Library services currently provided in Dublin are supported by two pnmary revenue sources: David M. Griffith & Associates Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin · The property tax described above which is allocated to the Alameda County Public Library which in turn operates the library. Property tax revenues support a base service level of 2) service hours per week for the Dublin Library, and are also used by the County Library to fund central services and staff which support the Dublin Library (e.g. automated system; materials acquisition and cataloging; management and administration). · A City General Fund contribution to fund service hours in addition to the base service level supported by the County system. Currently, the City contributes about $ 216,000 annually to increase service hours from the 20 hour base service level to 34 hours per week. On an overall basis, the current Dublin library, even with the City's general fund contribution, is "subsidized" by the County library as demonstrated in the table which follows which reflects 1997 - 1998 cost and revenue data: Table 9 Current Dublin Library Costs and Revenues Estimated 1997 - 1998 Cost/Revenue Item 206,720 60,190 Costs Staffing Costs Staffing Costs - Dublin Based Direct Service Staff (includes both County funded and City funded staff) Other Operating Costs Services and Supplies Including Building Maintenance Collection Materials System Support Services (management and administration, technical services, automated systems support, materials delivery, etc.) Sub-Total Operating Costs Full Cost Total Revenues Property Tax City Contribution for Additional Service Hours Donations Estimated Fines/Fees Revenue Total Net Annual Cost - Revenue Deficit 231,160 $ 498,070 $ 937,857 $ 391,256 216,997 5,516 18,000 $ 631,769 ($ 306,088) The costs shown in the table exclude some central program services David M. Griffith & Associates Page 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin provided by the Alameda County Library which are delivered to Dublin and other members of the County Library system which are not directly related to staffing and operating the Dublin branch. These include such services as the Literacy Program, the Bookmobile, the Business Library at the Fremont Main Library, and the like. While these services have value and would increase the County "subsidy" noted above, they have been excepted from the analysis because they are not directly related to current or projected costs of staffing, equipping, operating, and directly supporting a Dublin Library. The data indicate that: (1) Property tax and other revenues fall well short of current operating costs when both direct Dublin Library and Alameda County Library support services and the City's general fund contribution are considered; and (2) The County Library System "subsidizes" the Dublin Library by about $ 300,000 annually. In projecting future operating cost scenarios, we have assumed that the County System "subsidy" would not be increased if a larger library were built and operated, and that Dublin generated revenues (either through the Library property tax or other direct City contribution) would need to be sufficient to offset projected operating and service costs. 8. PROJECI'ED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES. This section projects the operating costs for the library alternatives under two different scenarios: (1) Full operation of the facilities as soon as they are built or remodeled/expanded; and (2) Phased operations which would involve expanding into a new or remodeled facility as the community grows. The first section presents key assumptions employed to project operating costs. Subsequent sections illustrate the costs of full operation(s) for each of the facility alternatives; project revenues likely to be available to support expanded operations; compare the cost and revenue performance of the full operations scenario; and also illustrate the cost-revenue impact of a phased implementation and operation scenario. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin (1.) Projected Costs for Operating a Larger Library As noted earlier in this section, annual operating costs are not only influenced by facility size, but also by the number of weekly service hours the facility is open to the public since service hours have direct impact on total staff hours required to staff public service desks and other direct public contact functions. Currently, the Dublin library is staffed with a total of 10.58 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions, of which 6.74 are funded by the County Library and 3.84 funded by the City contribution to support additional service hours above the 20 hour County base service level. Exhibit IV, which follows this page, shows projected annual operating costs (expressed based on 1997 - 1998 salary, benefit, and other costs) for a variety of different service hour alternatives for a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot library. For the purposes of this analysis, we have determined that there is no sigriificant incremental cost when a 30,000 square foot facility is compared to 34,000 square feet. Each cost estimate includes the following: · Salary and benefit costs for the staffing level required to support the service hour alternative and to "staff' an expanded library facility. As can be noted from review of the information presented in Exhibit IV, the "average cost" per employee drops as service hours increase since the County Library would make more extensive use of less costly part-time staff and proportionally more para- professional positions to cover those extended service hours. · Library materials which involves annual purchase for collection replacement and enhancement. The amount increases with the service hours based on the relationship between services hours, circulation (use of library materials), and the need to replace materials at a greater rate as use of the collection increases. Clearly, annual operating costs could be increased or decreased based on resources allocated to materials. The estimates outlined in the exhibit are based on patterns observed in other libraries with comparable service hours and of comparable size. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dublin Branch Library Estimated Operating Costs for 30,000 Sq. Ft. Library (1) 34 Hrs/Wk 40 HrslWk 52 Hrs/Wk 56 HrslWk Annual Annual Annual Annual FTE Salary FTE Salary FTE Salary FTE Salary Salaries & Benefits -Supervising Librarian II 1.00 61,500 1.00 61,500 1.00 61,500 1.00 61,500 -Supervising Librarian I 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.00 56,400 - Librarian II 3.00 132,048 4.00 176,064 4.75 209,076 4.75 209,076 - Library Assistant 1.50 53,694 2.00 71,592 2.00 71,592 4.00 143,184 -Supervising Clerk II 1.00 44,700 1.00 44,700 1.00 44,700 1.00 44,700 - Library Clerk II 4.00 119,952 4.50 134,946 6.00 179,928 7.00 209,916 - Clerk II 1.00 29,988 1.00 29,988 1.00 29,988 1.00 29,988 - Library Page 3.49 66,436 4.00 75,894 5.00 94,868 5.00 94,868 Subtotal 14.99 508,318 17.50 594,684 20.75 691,652 24.75 849,632 Salary Savings @ -4% (20,333) (23,787) (27,666) (33,985) Total, Salaries 487,985 570,897 663,986 815,647 Benefits @29.28% 142,882 167,159 194,415 238,821 Total, Salaries & Benefits 630,867 738,055 858,401 1,054,468 Operating Expenses Services & Supplies 224,309 262,420 305,209 374,922 Library Materials 125,000 147,611 171,680 210,893 Systemwide Support Svcs 322,443 377,228 438,738 538,950 Subtotal, Op. Expenses 671,752 787,259 915,627 1,124,765 Countywide Support Svcs 98,135 114,808 133,529 164,028 Total, Op. Expenses 769,887 902,067 1,049,156 1,288,793 Grand Total 1,400,754 1,640,122 1,907,557 2,343,261 (1) Based on1997-98 operating costs. David M. Griffith Associates - - - EXHIBIT IV City of Dublin I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin · Indirect support costs allocated based on the current approach used by the Alameda County Library which allocates support costs in relationship to direct branch library costs. These include use of and support of the automated library system; new materials processing; inter-library loans; and system management and administration. As can be seen from the information shown in Exhibit IV, annual operating costs would range from $ 1.4 million to $ 2.3 million depending on service hour alternatives. Currently, Alameda County maintains the Dublin Library and costs associated with those services are included in the allocated operating and support costs which have been estimated in Exhibit IV. If the City built a new library or substantially remodeled the current branch library, it is likely that responsibility for maintenance would shift to t~e City as is the case with Pleasanton which covers maintenance costs associated with the City owned library facility. Again, actual costs would be dependent on facility characteristics and how they were delivered. It is possible to estimate costs based on several sources: · The International Facilities' Management Association annually publishes "standard" per square foot costs for various types of public and private facilities. These costs include both routine services (e.g. custodial, HV AC system preventative maintenance, etc.) and reserves for replacing major infrastructure. The standard for a public access facility like a library is $ 2.72 annually, per square foot. This excludes utility costs. · Pleasanton currently pays for both facility maintenance and utility costs for the City owned 30,000 square foot library. Per square foot costs are: Maintenance and custodial: $ 3.42 per square foot. Utilities: $ 2.68. It should be noted that utilities costs are variable based on service hours and that the Pleasanton Library is currently open to the public 51 hours per week. Thus, the per service David M. Griffith & Associates Page 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin hour/per square foot cost for utilities is $ .05 To reflect potential costs associated with the various facility alternatives, some provision needs to be made for maintenance and utility costs. Concurrently, it is also reasonable to assume that, if the City built a facility and provided for maintenance, some portion of the County allocated costs for operating expenses and support might be reduced to reflect assumption of that responsibility by the City. As a result, we have assumed the following in projecting costs associated with the alternatives: · That costs associated with the current 15,000 square foot facility are included In the operating cost estimates shown in Exhibit IV, and that those costs could be reduced moderately if the City assumed responsibility for maintenance and utilities. · As a result, to project illustrative costs, we have applied Pleasanton's per square foot costs to the incremental square feet above the 15,000 square foot level. These costs would be as follows for the service hour and facility alternatives. Table 10 Projected Facility Maintenance Costs Item 30,000 Square Foot Facility $ 51,300 34,000 Square Foot Facility $ 76,000 43,000 Square Foot Facility $ 95,760 Maintenance at $ 3.42 Per Square Foot Utilities At $.05 per square foot per service hour. Reflects 40 service hours per week. TOTAL ANNUAL $ 30,000 $ 38,000 $ 56,000 $ 81,300 $114,000 $151,760 We have assumed the 40 hour servIce level to project utilities costs to avoid presenting multiple cost levels for each service hour scenario to simplify the presentation of cost - revenue comparisons in David M. Griffith & Associates Page 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin the next section. Comparably, to further simplify presentation of cost - revenue comparisons, we will assign the mid-range maintenance and utilities costs of $ 114,000 for purposes of cost - revenue companson for the vanous servIce hour scenanos which are presented in the next section. -As a result, projected costs by service hour scenano which will be employed In subsequent cost and revenue comparisons are as shown in Table 11, below. Table 11 Projected Total Operating Costs Cost Item Projected Annual Operating Costs by Service Hour Scenario 34 Service 40 Service 52 Service Hours Hours Hours $ 1,400,754 $ 1,640,122 $ 1,907,557 56 Service Hours $ 2,343,261 Staffing, Operating and Support Costs Incremental Maintenance and Utilities Costs TOTAL ANNUAL $114,000 $ 114,000 $114,000 $ 114,000 $ 1,514,754 $ 1,754J122 $ 2,021J557 $ 2,457 ~I To evaluate cost impact of the various alternatives, revenues available to support library services need to be considered and are presented in the following paragraphs. (2.) Projected Revenues Available to Support Library Operations As noted earlier in this report, property taxes are the principal source of revenues available to support library services in Dublin. Over the coming years, these property taxes can be expected to Increase as residential and commercial development occurs In Dublin and total assessed valuation increases. Exhibit V, which follows this page, shows projected growth in the City's property tax base and library property taxes. Projections are based on annual growth for residential and commercial properties David M. Griffith & Associates Page 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT V City of Dublin PROJECTED ASSESSED VALUATION AND LIBRARY RELATED PROPERTY TAX 1. Projected Assessed Valuation By Year All Dollars Shown In Thousands Year Beginning of Year Projected Growth End of Year Assessed Valuation Assessed Valuation 1998 $ 1,682,915 $ 114,000 $ 1,796,915 1999 $ 1,796,915 210,368 2,007,283 2000 2,007,283 217,556 2,224,839 2001 2,224,839 322,455 2,547,294 2002 2,547,294 350,987 2,898,281 2003 2,898,281 250,950 3,149,231 2004 3,149,231 162,984 3,312,215 2005 3,312,215 103,419 3,415,634 2006 3,415,634 88,879 3,504,513 2007 3,504,513 172,204 3,676,717 2008 3,676,717 128,153 3,804,870 2009 3,804,870 141,353 3,946,223 2010 3,946,223 142,798 4,089,021 2011 4,089,021 117,341 4,206,362 2012 4,206,362 104,141 4,310,503 2013 4,310,503 117,341 4,427,844 2014 4,427,844 104,141 4,531,985 2015 4,531,985 104,141 4,636,126 2016 4,636,126 134,581 4,770,707 2017 4,770,707 132,031 4,902,738 2018 4,902,738 132,031 5,034,769 2019 5,034,769 120,431 5,155,200 2020 5,155,200 96,382 5,251,582 2021 5,251,582 85,606 5,337,188 David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXIllBITV (2) 2. Projected Library Property Taxes Year Assessed Valuation Library Property (000) Tax" 1998 $1,796,915 $ 422,275 1999 2,007,283 471,712 2000 2,224,839 528,372 2001 2,547,294 598,614 2002 2,898,281 681,096 2003 3,149,231 740,069 2004 3,312,215 778,370 2005 3,415,634 802,673 2006 3,504,513 823,561 2007 3,676,717 864,028 2008 3,804,870 894,144 2009 3,946,223 927,362 2010 4,089,021 960,920 2011 4,206,362 988,495 2012 4,310,503 1,012,968 2013 4,427,844 1,040,543 2014 4,531,985 1,065,016 2015 4,636,126 1,089,490 2016 4,770,707 1,121,161 2017 4,902,738 1,152,143 2018 5,034,769 1,183,171 2019 5,155,200 1,211,472 2020 5,251,582 1,234,122 2021 5,337,188 1,254,239 David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin consistent with the City's General Plan and sequenced and valued based on information provided by the City. The second page of Exhibit V projects annual library related property tax generated by the projected assessed valuation. All projections are in 1998 dollars. The projections exclude: (1) Reassessment of the existing tax base due to turnover and reassessment; and (2) Increases in assessed valuation of new development which may occur as construction and land costs increase over the planning period. Since increases in neither area can be projected with accuracy, we believe constant dollar projections are most representative of revenue trends. It should also be noted that the property tax revenues projected on the preceding page are based on the current .0235 share of the total property tax dollar currently apportioned for library service in Dublin and on the aveI."age, in those areas served by the Alameda County Library system. As previously described, this amount was significantly reduced by the diversion of more than half the library property tax rate to support of schools during State revenue take backs earlier in the 1990's. Over the last several years, there has been some discussion at the State legislature level about restoring all or a portion of these diverted funds (i.e. reversing the ERAF shift), but there are no current indicators that these funds will actually be restored in the forseeable future. If the legislature does take action to restore all or some of these funds, the revenue projections previously shown could be expected to increase significantly. Revenues for library services in Dublin, as noted earlier in this report, also include City contributions for increased services; fines/fees generated by activity at the Dublin branch library; and the current subsidy of Dublin library services (compared to direct revenues generated) by the Alameda County Library. For the purposes of the cost - revenue comparisons shown in this report, we have assumed the following: David M. Griffith & Associates Page 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin · Included a "subsidy" by the County Library of $ 300,000 annually. While this subsidy reflects current policy and operations, this could change (increase or decrease) depending on the overall financial structure of the County Library System over the planning period. For example, if one or more current members elected to withdraw from the System, the financial structure could be effected to the extent that this "subsidy" might have to be reduced or eliminated. · Projected fines/fees at an increased level which might be expected with increased activity at a larger library. An amount of about $ 26,000 annually has been projected which reflects about 50 % of the activity levels generated at Pleasanton which has a facility comparable to the one employed as the basis for the projections contained in this report, but serves a larger population. · Have assumed that donations would continue at the current level of about $ 5,000 annually. · Have assumed that the current $ 217,000 City subsidy would continue at this same level. These assumptions would add about $ 548,000 annually to projected property taxes to support library services. (3.) Cost and Revenue Comparisons for the Full Operations Scenarios Exhibit VI on the next page shows projected revenues and costs associated with the various service hour scenarIOS over the planning period through 2021. Both costs and revenues are presented in terms of current, 1998 dollars and no provision is made for inflation in either costs or revenues. Revenues include both property taxes and the additional $ 548,000 including County subsidies, current City contribution, estimated fine and fee revenue, and donations as previously described. A constant dollar assumption has been employed to simplify the comparison since it is highly likely that costs and revenues could increase at different rates and practical, accurate projections of those different rates are virtually David M. Griffith & Associates Page 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXIllBIT VI City of Dublin LIBRARY COST AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS Year Library Annual Operating Costs Based'on Revenues Service Hour Scenarios 34 Hours Per 40 Hours Per 52 Hours Per 56 Hours Per Week Week Week Week 1998 $ 970,275 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 1999 1,019,712 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2000 1,076,372 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2001 1,146,614 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2002 1,229,096 $ 1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2003 1,288,069 $1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2004 1,326,370 $ 1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2005 1.350,673 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2006 1,371,561 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2007 1,412,028 $ 1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2008 1,442,144 $1,514,754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2009 1,475,362 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2010 1,508,920 $1,514,754 $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2011 1,536,495 ":"'$1514754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 iM): . , .... , . .... .... 2012 1,560,968 i"'$1,tl147~ $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 <', '-""'" ".....,. ......".'..., , 2013 1,588,543 '.ll)il$1;lil~;754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2014 1,613,016 '(i::$~;S14,7~' $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2015 1,637,490 . iilitwil'$1514754 $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 '.-:t;yf<<. ." _...., 2016 1,669,161 'y"w$1;514,7p.f . $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2017 1,700,143 iwPi.$l;51~;7p.f $1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2018 1,731,174 ../$ ':l;51~,7~' $ 1,754,122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2019 1,759,472 '\11i'1!.$..1.,DH;7~ +....$J;'7~;122 . $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 2020 1,782,122 +Ip'" $':l,li14;7~. "t!jWA1'$.l'\l754"122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 '7'-"" .'" . , 2021 1,802,239 11:(1;.;$'1'514754' "~,1$li7~"122 $ 2,021,557 $ 2,457,261 , . ,.." ." '. . David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin impossible for a 20 + year planning period. As a result, we believe that any attempt to project differing cost and revenue increase rates could blur cost - revenue comparisons, and as a result, have excepted them from the analysis. Exhibit VI compares revenues and costs for the vanous scenarios. The shaded/bold cells under the service hour scenarios indicate the year when revenues as projected would equal or exceed costs without any additional City contribution for library services. The data shown in the chart indicate the following: · Only the 34 hour and 40 hour weekly service hour scenarios would have costs covered by revenues without additional City contribution, and then, only well toward the end of the planning period as shown in the chart. Assuming a new library would probably not be constructed and in full operation until 2000, these two service hour scenarios would require the following increase in City General Fund Support. 34 Hour Scenario: $ 438,000 in 2000, decreasing moderately annually through 2010. 40 Hour Scenario: $ 678,000 in 2000, decreasing moderately annually through 2018. · Both the 52 hour and 56 hour scenarios would require significant additional general fund contributions through and probably beyond the end of the planning period of 2021. 52 Hour Scenario: $ 945,000 in 2000, dropping moderately annually but still $ 267,000 per year in 2021 and probably thereafter. 56 Hour Scenario: $ 1,381,000 in 2000, dropping moderately annually but still $ 655,000 per year in 2021 and probably thereafter. It should also be clearly noted that these cost - revenue comparisons do not include provisions for any debt servIce or principal retirement related to capital costs required for facility construction or remodeling and expansion of the collection as David M. Griffith & Associates Page 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin previously noted. (4.) Cost and Revenue Comparisons for a Phased Approach 10 Operations The significant gaps between costs and revenues raIse the Issue of immediate or short-term construction and operation of a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot library which has been sized to meet community needs at buildout based on application of the .6 square foot of library space per capita standard. As previously demonstrated in Section 3 of this report, population increase will support need for a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot facility only toward the end of the planning period. An alternative would be to implement a phased approach toward expanding library facilities to avoid some of the major disparities between operating costs and revenues associated with full facility operations in the short term. This would involve: · Building the target 30,000 to 34,000 square foot new facility, but initially, finishing, opening and operating only a portion of the total facility and subsequently finishing and expanding the remainder of the building as the community grows. Based on the population -.., space requirements projections shown in Section 3, one strategy would be to: Build the new library at the Civic Center site with a building footprint and external structure of 30,000 to 34,000 square feet of potential library space. Initially, open and operate 20,000 square feet to improve service and provide space generally consistent with library needs based on current and short term projected community population. Then, as the community grows, finish and open the remaining space to the facility's full capability. · The same approach could be employed under the David M. Griffith & Associates Page 30 I 01 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin remodel and expand scenario. Depending on the detailed architectural analysis, this could involve either: Remodeling and expanding the current facility to the full 30,000 square foot target, but initially opening and operating only a portion of the facility to the 20,000 square foot level as noted above, or Remodeling the existing b~ilding and adding one wing of 7,500 square feet in the short term, and then, as the community grows, subsequently building the second wing with another 7,500 square feet to bring the facility to the 30,000 square foot target. Based on the previous population and space requirement projections presented in Section 3, a phased timing scenario could be as follows: · Remodel and expand or build a new facility by the year 2000 and finish and operate 20,000 square feet at that time. · If a new library is built at the Civic Center site, finish the additional space (10,000 to 14,000) and expand into the remainder of the building in 2010. · If the existing facility is remodeled and expanded, build and finish to expand to 20,000 to 22,500 square feet in 2000 and either finish or add the second 7,500 square feet to provide a full 30,000 square foot facility by 2010. Under this approach, initial operating costs for a 20,000 square foot facility would be less than those previously presented for the larger facility in the preceding paragraphs. Table 12 on the next page shows projected operating costs for operating a 20,000 square foot library employing the same cost assumptions as previously described. Costs are projected for 34 weekly service hours which replicates current service levels. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Table 12 Projected Operating Costs for a 20,000 Square Foot Library Service Hours 34 Hrs/Wk Annual FTE Salary Salaries & Benefits - Supervising Librarian II 1.00 $ 61,500 - Librarian II 2.50 110,040 - Library Assistant 1.00 35,796 -Supervising Clerk II 1.00 44,700 - Library Clerk II 3.50 104,958 - Clerk II 1.00 29,988 - Library Page 2.50 47,628 Subtotal 12.5() $ 434,61() Salary Savings @ -4% (17,384) Total, Salaries 417,226 Benefits @29.28% 122,164 Total, Salaries & Benefits $ 539,390 Operating Expenses Services & Supplies 215,005 Library Materials 107,879 Systemwide Support 276,370 Services Subtotal, Op. Expenses $ 599,254 Countywide Support 68,000 Services Total, Op. Expenses $ 659,254 County Library Total $ 1,198,644 City Maintenance Costs $ 40,650 Annual Total $ 1,239,294 Based on the proposed scenario of opening and operating 20,000 square feet in 2000 and expanding to 30,000 to 34,000 in 2010, the cost revenue comparison would be as shown in Table 13 on the next page. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Table 13 Cost Revenue Comparison Year Library Operating Costs Revenues 34 Service Hours 2000 1,076,372 $ 1,239,294 2001 1,146,614 $ 1,239,294 2002 1,229,096 $ 1,239,294 2003 1,288,069 .'. .... $1;239,294 2004 1,326,370 I...... .. $1;239,294: 2005 1.350,673 ...../.../'/...$1;239,294 . 2006 1,371,561 .. .. 2007 1,412,028 ..... '$1;239,294 2008 1,442,144 2009 1,475,362 .. $1,239,29.{ 2010 1,508,920 $ 1,514,754 2011 1,536,495 ,,/ $J,514,754 2012 1,560,968 .. $1,514,754 2013 1,588,543 <$1;514,754 2014 1,613,016 ,. $ :1.,514,754 2015 1,637,490 ....... '. '$1514754 , ". 2016 1,669,161 ,.".... .$:1.,514,754 2017 1,700,143 "\.., ..$1,5].4,754 2018 1,731,174 %;..j,4 "'$1""514'754 "'f.'~~'. :rJ'~:":, ::,:"j ,." . 2019 1,759,472 >.'.: "~/.$1;514;754 2020 1,782,122 ""&>>$1514;754 .'..:.-,:.::'<~<~<~ -;: ' .j': ,'" -.- 2021 1,802,239 . "';:.;$].;514,754 As with the previous cost and revenue companson, the bold and shaded cells show the years when revenues are equal to or exceed costs and no additional City contribution above those assumed would be required to support library operations. As shown in the chart, the phased approach significantly reduces the cost - revenue gap associated with library improvement and expansion. More specifically: · In 2000, there would be a need for an additional $ 163,000 to support operations at the 20,000 square foot level, but that would rapidly decrease as property tax revenues increase and would be eliminated by 2003. · In 2010, when the operation would be expanded from 20,000 to 30,000 square feet, revenues would be nearly equivalent to costs and little additional subsidy above David M. Griffith & Associates Page 33 I "I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin current levels would be required in either 2010 or throughout the remainder of the planning period. . During both periods (2000 -- 2010 and 2010 -- 2021), service hours above the 34 hour level projected could be increased without additional City contribution once revenues moved above costs. The phased approach could also result In a different sequencing of capital costs. This would involve: (1) Building the external shell (either new construction or facility expansion) to the target level, but (2) Finishing only 20,000 square feet of the interior space. The next table shows sequencing of costs for the 30,000 square foot remodel/expansion of the existing facility and construction of a new 34,000 square foot library. Table 14 Impact of Sequencing on Capital Cost Requirements Project Development Cost Component Remodel of Existing Facility Construction of New 34,000 Square Foot Library Dollars (000) Year 2000 Costs Construction, Finish, and Other Collection Enhancement 2000 Total Year 2010 Costs Interior Finish and Other Collection Enhancement 2010 Total Project Total 413 112 $525 $ 8,057 543 112 $655 $ 11,015 (5.) Cost - Revenue Projections Assuming Increase in General Fund Contributions to Support Library Operations The analysis to this point has been based on the assumption that the City's current General Fund contribution for additional service hours of $ 216,000 per year would remain constant over the planning period. Since growth as projected can be expected to increase General Fund revenues, it is reasonable to assume that this David M. Griffith & Associates Page 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin growth will provide the City the potential to increase contributions for enhanced library services above levels currently funded. The actual capacity of the General Fund to support enhanced library services is dependent on a number of factors: · Growth trends involving other revenues not addressed by this study such as 'sales tax. · Changes in allocations of revenues by the State. · Cost trends related to other City services. · City Council policies involving priorities and serVIce levels for all City services. Detailed projection of General Fund capacities would need to consider and evaluate each of these factors, and analysis at this level is beyond the scope of our work. Nevertheless, it is possible to generally project potential increases in City contributions to library services based on the following assumptions: · General Fund revenues would increase at the same rate of increase as projected in this study for City assessed valuation. · General Fund contributions to library servIces would continue as a constant proportion of General Fund expenditures and thus, increase at the same rate as General Fund revenues. If these limited assumptions are applied, projected growth In General Fund contributions would increase as shown in Table 15 which follows on the next page. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 35 I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Table 15 illustrative Projected Increase In General Fund Contribution to library Service Operations * Year City Assessed Valuation (000) $ 1,796,915 2,007,283 2,224,839 3,415,634 4,089,021 4,636,126 5,251,582 General Fund Contnbution to Librar;y Services $ 216,000 241,242 267,439 410,580 491,525 557,290 631,271 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 * Projections are based on operation oftne fuJl30,000 square foot facility. If the same proportional General Fund contribution were continued and growth occurs as projected, this would reduce the projected operating deficits (without consideration of a per household fee or assessment) associated with the various service hour scenarios as shown in the next table. Table 16 Library Costs and Revenues Assuming Increase in General Fund Contributions Year Librar;y Annual Operating Cost <Deficits) Based on Revenues Different Service Hour (000) Scenarios (000) l"lfilllll~ ... . . 34 Hours 52 Hours Per 56 Hours Per :1!li~11J.jlll\1li~llt~1Ijli Per 40 Hours Per Week Week Week Week 2000 $ 1,126 ( $ 389) ($ 628) ($ 896) ($ 1,332) 2005 1,545 (30) (ID) (477) (913) 2010 1,784 ~ (238) (674) 2015 1,977 462 (45) (481) 2020 2,196 681 442 (26) The bold and shad'3d cells indicate when a deficit would be eliminated and a surplus of tbe amount available under the various service hour scenarios. This illustrative analysis indicates that, even if some David M. Griffith & Associates Page 36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin growth in the General Fund contribution is assumed, there will be a significant cost-revenue gap for the early years of the planning period, and for most of the planning period at the higher service hour levels. 9. FINANCING ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES The previous analysis of capital and operating costs and revenues have indicated the following: · Under any facility scenario, there is a gap between capital related revenues generated by development fees and project cost. · Additionally, projections indicate that revenues available to fund library operations will increase, but operation of a larger library at. the current level of service hours or with increased services will cost more than projected revenues for a significant number of years in the future. This cost - revenue gap could be reduced but not eliminated by phasing into a larger library. Given the above, we believe the basic assumptions associated with financing development and operations of a new library are as follows: · At this time it appears that the City will be financially unable to contribute a higher proportion of General Fund revenues to annual library service operations than is currently the case. · For planning purposes, it is reasonable to assume that this General Fund contribution will grow at the same rate as the overall General Fund. · The County cannot be expected to Increase its subsidy of annual operations. · Any annual library costs above library designated property taxes, the City General Fund contribution, the County subsidy, and other minor revenues currently available will need to be supported by new revenues. · The principal avenue for generating new revenues to support operations may be a parcel tax/per household assessment. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin · Use of City reserves to make a maior contribution to any library capital costs for new construction or remodeling which are not funded by development fee revenues would significantly impact existing operating revenues for existing City services. · Because development fees will be received as homes and bus.inesses are built over a 20 year period, funds may need to be borrowed to develop a new or improved library if that facility is to be made available within the next ten years unless the Council determines that priority will be accorded to a library project and available development fees (library and for other purposes) are initially applied to the library project and other development fee supported projects are delayed. · For illustrative purposes, we have assumed that remodeling or construction will need to be funded by borrowing which will require repayment of both capital and debt service costs. · Any capital costs not funded by development fee revenues, including those associated with borrowing, will need to be covered by new revenues, and the only current practical approach for generating those revenues is a parcel/tax per household assessment. · While State bond revenues for local library construction may be available, there is no certainty at this time that a bond measure will be approved, and if it is approved, Dublin will receive revenues to offset all or some of the cost of new construction. · As a result, at this time we have assumed that a parcel tax/per, household assessment may be required to cover unfunded capital and operating costs. · A parcel tax will need to be approved by a two-thirds vote. Based on the assumptions outlined above, we estimated the level of parcel tax/per household assessment required to fund capital and operating cost deficits associated with the various alternatives identified by the Library Planning Task Force. This included calculating debt serVIce associated with borrowing funds to support construction before full development fee revenues were received. Appendix B to this report describes the methodology employed in more detail. It should be clearly understood that these are estimates and can change significantly based on David M. Griffith & Associates Page 38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin interest rates; the pace of development which generates development fees; and/or changes in construction costs, resulting from design or inflation influences. As a result, the per householdlparcel assessments estimated in this section are provided to illustrate the order of magnitude d assessment(s) needed to close the cost - revenue gaps projected for the various alternatives. Additionally, any operating cost - revenue gap is associated with the assumed number of weekly service hours the library would be operated. The Library Planning Task Force felt strongly, and we agree, that a new or remodeled library would need to be open at least 40 hours per week (an increase from the current 40 weekly service hours) to improve service and generate public support necessary to achieve voter approval of a household assessment/parcel tax. The sections which follow summanze the operating, financial characteristics, and projected per household assessment/parcel taxes which would be needed to fund capital and operating deficits for each of the alternatives identified by the Task Force in the absence of other revenues. (1.) 43.000 Square Foot Library Characteristics: 34,000 square foot library; 6,000 square for Career Center; 2,400 square feet for two community meeting rooms; and 600 square feet for Friends. 40 weekly service hours when opened. New Construction at Civic Center Site. Financial Summary: Cost Item Project Cost Total Projected Development Fees Unfunded Capital Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt Service and Principal Repayment Annual Assessment Per Household for Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for New Library Capital And Debt Service Service Hours Per Household Annual Total Amount $ 13,697,000 $ 9,293,000 $ 4,404,000 $ 527,000 $40 $40 $~ David M. Griffith & Associates Page 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Considerations: . $ 40 of the projected $ 80 parcel tax fee would be for operations and would be needed to offset revenue deficits during the initial five to seven years following opening of the library. After that point, the fee could be reduced, or maintained and service hours increased to 52 hours by 2005/6 and 56 hours by 2010. . The Career Center included under this alternative is unlikely to generate significant rental revenue and space costs required to build the space for the Career Center cannot be recouped by development fees. The annual cost associated with principal repayment and debt service for facility costs associated with this space is estimated at up to $ 126,000. This would be equivalent to $ 10 of the $ 40 portion of the annual assessment required for unfunded capital. This $ 10 is the equivalent of about three weekly service hours in 2000. (2.) 37,000 Square Foot Library Characteristics: 34,000 square foot library; 2,400 square feet for two community meeting rooms; and 600 square feet for Friends. 40 weekly service hours when opened. New Construction at Civic Center Site. Financial Summary: Cost Item Project Cost Total Projected Development Fees Unfunded Capital Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt Service and Principal Repayment Annual Assessment Per Household for Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for New Library Capital And Debt Service Service Hours Amount $ 11,957,000 $ 9,293,000 $ 2,664,000 $396,000 Per Household Annual Total $70 Considerations: . $ 40 of the $ 70 parcel fee would be required for operations and would be needed to offset revenue deficits for the initial five to seven years following opening of the new facility. After that point, the fee could be reduced or David M. Griffith & Associates Page 40 I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin maintained and weekly service hours increased to 52 hours by 2005/6 and 56 hours by 2010. · The Career Center space has been eliminated from this option, reducing the annual assessment for unfunded capital from $ 40 to $ 30 per year. (~.) 34,000 Square Foot Library Characteristics: A 34,000 square foot library. Like the Pleasanton Library, the facility could be designed to include one general purpose meeting room for library and other programs and the desired Friends space could probably be accommodated within facility. The other extra meeting rooms associated with the larger facility alternatives are eliminated. It is assumed that 40 weekly service hours would be provided when the new facility opened. The library would be a new facility constructed at the Civic Center Site. Financial Summary: Cost Item Project Cost Total Projected Development Fees Unfunded Capital Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt Service and Principal Repayment Annual Assessment Per Household for Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for New Library Capital And Debt Service Service Hours Per Household Annual Total Amount $ 11,015,000 $ 8,660,000 $ 2,355,000 $ 360,000 Considerations: · $ 40 of the projected $ 67 parcel tax/assessment would be required to fund operations to offset revenue deficits during the initial five to seven years following opening of the library. After that point, the fee could either be reduced or maintained and weekly service hours increased to 52 hours by 2004/5 and 56 hours by 2010. · Elimination of extra space for community meeting rooms and Friends reduces annual parcel fee for debt service by $ 3 compared to previous 37,000 square foot facility alternative. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 41 I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin (4.) 30.000 Square Foot Library Characteristics: Current library expanded to 30,000 square foot at existing site. Extra meeting rooms and Friends space eliminated. 40 weekly service hours when opened. Financial Summary: Cost Item Project Cost Total Projected Development Fees Unfunded Capital Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt Service and Principal Repayment Annual Assessment Per Household for Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for New Library Capital And Debt Service Service Hours Per Household Annual Total Amount $ 8,057,000 $ 4,826,000 $ 3,231,000 $ 345,000 $26 $40 $66 Considerations: · $ 40 of the $ 66 parcel tax/per household fee would be required for operations to offset revenue deficits during the initial five to seven years after remodeling was completed at the library opened. After that point, the fee could be reduced, or maintained and service hours increased to 52 hours by 2005 and 56 hours by 2010. · The annual parcel fee for capital retirement and debt service for the remodeling altemative is about the same as those required for the 37,000 square foot and 34,000 square foot new library options because of the impact of including civic center land values in the development fee calculations for the new construction alternatives. (5.) 34,000 to 37.000 Equare Foot Library With Phased Operation Characteristics: 34,000 to 37,000 square foot library. Build shell and finish 20,000 square feet for library space, expanding to the full 34,000 square feet as the community grows and revenues become available. Operate the initial 20,000 square feet for 40 weekly service hours when the new facility is completed. New construction at the Civic Center site. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin Financial Summary: Cost Item Amount Project Cost Total 34,000 Square Feet $ 11,015,000 $ 8,660,000 37,000 Square Feet $11,957,000 $ 9,293,000 Projected Development Fees Unfunded Capital Annual Unfunded Payment to Cover Debt Service and Principal Repayment Annual Assessment Per Household for Capital and 40 Hour Service Operations for New Library Capital And Debt Service Service Hours Per Household Annual Total $ 2,355,000 $ 2,664,000 $27 $15 $42 $30 $15 $45 Considerations: · $ 15 of the projected per household assessment/parcel taxes would be required for operations and would support 40 initial service hours in the initial 20,000 square foot of finished library space; would provide sufficient revenues to either open the full 34,000 square feet of library space by 2005/6 and open it 40 hours per week, or maintain the smaller space and increase to 48 service hours; and by 2008 provide enough revenue to open the full 34,000 square feet and operate it 48 hours per week. . * * * Exhibit VII, which follows this page, provides a summary companson of the parcel taxes/household assessments necessary to offset the capital and operating cost funding deficits associated with each alternative. Principal conclusions which can be drawn from the information presented in this section are as follows: · The Career Center option included in the 43,000 square foot facility alternatives increases the parcel tax associated with the other alternatives by $ 10 annually, and this amount represents at least three weekly service hours in the first year and that amount increases moderately over the planning period. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT VII City of Dublin SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PARCEL FEES/ HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE LlBRARYDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Option Required Household Assessment Per Year Capital Opera- Total tions 43,000 Square Foot New Facility with Meeting Space and Career Center - $40 $40 $80 40 Initial Service Hours. 37,000 Square Foot New Library with Meeting Space - 40 Initial Service $30 $40 $70 Hours. 34,000 Square Foot New Library - 40 Initial Service Hours. $27 $40 $67 30,000 Square Foot Remodeled Library - 40 Initial Service Hours. $26 $40 $66 37,000 Square Foot - Phased Operation with 40 Initial Service $30 $15 $45 Hours. 34,000 Square Foot - Phased Operation with 40 Initial Service $27 $15 $42 Hours. David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Financial Feasibility Analysis of Library Alternatives for the City of Dublin . The parcel tax required to support remodeling of the existing library is about the same as of the 34,000 square foot and 37,000 square foot new library alternatives. As explained at several points in the report, this is because the new construction alternatives include the value of the civic center land for a new facility in the calculation of development fees and the remodeling alternative does not.. As a result, the new construction alternatives generate development fees which cover a higher proportion of actual construction' project cash cost than do those which can be charged under the remodeling alternative. . A phased library operation, without the Career Center, would provide the same weekly service hours in the initial years as the non-phased alternatives, and would also generate revenues sufficient to increase service hours as growth occurs up to 48 hours when the full library facility could be opened in 2008 with the lowest per parcel taxlhousehold assessment. * * * The appendixes which follow provides supporting materials referenced in the main body of this report. David M. Griffith & Associates Page 45 Appendix A Representative Library Project Costs for Recent California Construction • and Renovation Projects 1 - '- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A Representative Per Square Foot Costs For Library Facility New Construction Projects Completed in California During 1997 Construction Reported Cost Per Square Foot Furnishing! Other Project Finish Costs $40 $68 17 33 17 28 18 23 11 14 22 110 13 77 10 77 $19 $54 $225 285 170 326 218 207 172 187 $224 Belvedere - Tiburon Danville Foster City Los Angeles - Branch Los Angeles - Branch Oakland - Branch San Diego - Branch San Diego - Branch Average RenovationlRemodeling Costs for California Library Projects Completed in 1997 Reported Cost Per Square Foot Construction Furnishing! Other Project Finish Costs $00 $W $~ 48 19 5 165 N / A 38 80 12 7 166 10 20 ffi 3 m $102 $ 11 $ID Arcadia Chino Del Mar Escondida Los Angeles - Branch South San Francisco Average David M. Griffith & Associates Total $333 335 215 367 243 339 262 274 $297 Total $129 72 203 99 196 86 $131 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments Necessary to Support Library Construction and Operations I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXB Methodology Employed to Estimate Per Household Assessment Necessary to Support Library Construction and Operations This Appendix describes the approach employed to estimate the per household assessments required to generate the additional revenues required to close the cost-revenue gaps associated with the library facility and operating alternatives described and evaluated in the main body of the report. The basic steps employed to calculate the per household assessments were as follows: 1. First, the amount needed to fund construction/capital costs was determined as follows: · Total project cost was compared to total development fees projected for each library development alternative, and the unfunded balance determined. · Then, the projected balance of development fees actually on hand when construction was likely to begin was estimated based on: Current development fee balance for library purposes as provided by the City. Projected development fee receipts, for each of the alternatives, for each year between now and the time construction began. It was assumed that construction payments would be required in 2000, and development fees would be received prior to construction based on City projections for commercial and residential development by year and as projected in the main body of the report. Exhibit A - I, which follows this page, shows projected development fee receipts by year for the 34,000 square foot library. David M. Griffith & Associates Page B-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXIllBIT A . I Projected Development Fees for Library Improvements By Year City of Dublin Assumption: New 34,000 Square Foot Library: Residential Development Fee for Libraries at $ 555 per unit and $ .13 per square foot average for commercial and industrial space. Year Residential Commercial Total for Year Cumulative Development Development Total Fees Fees 1998 $ 250,860 $ 126,234 $ 377,194 $ 377,194 1999 361,860 109,019 470,879 848,073 2000 310,245 176,277 486,522 1,334,595 2001 . 458,985 168,477 627,462 1,962,057 2002 344,655 105,102 449,757 2,411,814 2003 323,010 45,302 368,312 2,780,126 2004 274,170 - 274,170 3,054,266 2005 179,265 - 179,265 3,233,531 2006 219,225 90,704 309,929 3,543,460 2007 204,240 77,704 281,944 3,825,404 2008 204,240 90,704 294,944 4,120,348 2009 256,965 77,704 334,669 4,455,017 2010 309,690 33,800 343,490 4,798,507 2011 309,690 20,800 330,490 5,128,997 2012 309,690 33,800 343,490 5,472,487 2013 309,690 20,800 330,490 5,802,977 2014 309,690 20,800 330,490 6,133,467 2015 340,770 49,400 390,170 6,523,637 2016 340,770 46,150 386,920 6,910,557 2017 340,770 46,150 386,920 7,297,477 2018 340,770 44,590 385,360 7,682,837 2019 254,190 20,150 274,340 7,957,177 2020 254,190 8,710 262,900 8,220,077 2021 83,805 9,750 93,555 8,313,632 2022 31,080 - 31,080 8,344,712 2023 31,080 - 31,080 8,375,792 David M. Griffith & Associates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments · Then, since it was assumed that construction would be initiated/completed around the year 2000, it was assumed that borrowing would be required to fund the following amount: Total Project Cash Cost (minus) Development Fees on Hand When Construction Begins Employing the 34,000 square foot library alternative, this yields the following: Total Project Cash Cost: $ 11,015,000 (minus) Available Development Fees in 2000: $ 1,335,000 Equals Capital Funds to Be Borrowed: $ 9,680,000 2. Then, bOITowing costs were estimated as follows: · Principal was calculated based on the results of the above calculation. · It was assumed that the required amount would be borrowed for 20 years and that the current approximate average interest rate for municipal bonds in California (provided by A.G. Edwards) of 4 % to 5 % would be employed to estimate interest costs. For the purposes of this analysis, we have used 5 %. Employing the 34,000 square foot facility example, payments for each of the 20 year planning period were calculated as follows: Principal payments were calculated by dividing the $ 9,680,000 by 20 payment periods yielding an average payment of $ 484,000 per year. Average annual interest cost was calculated as follows: Total amount borrowed: $ 9,680,000 Amount Outstanding at the mid-point of the payment period (Year 10): $ 4,840,000. This reflects average annual outstanding balance for the 20 year period. Times .05 for average annual interest rate for the twenty year period: $ 242,000 Principal Average Per Year: $ 484,000 Average Debt Service Per Year: $ 242.000 Total: $ 726,000 Appendix B Page B-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments · Then, average annual development fee revenues available to apply to principal and debt service were estimated by dividing the projected development fee revenue for the alternative by 20 years (minus amounts collected pnor to the beginning of construction). For the example, the calculation is as follows: "Total Development Fee Revenue: Less Amount Collected: Net to Be Received: Divided By 20: $ 8,660,000 $1,335,000 $ 7,325,000 $ 366,000 3. Then, the level of assessment necessary to cover unfunded capital and debt retirement was calculated. It should be noted that the development fee amount collected shown above is the amount projected to be collected in the first three years as shown in Exhibit IA. This amount was then deducted from the average annual payment for principal and interest to determine the net annual amount which would need to be funded by another revenue source -- in this case, a parcel tax/household assessment. The calculation for the example was as follows: Total Annual Principal and Debt Service: Less Development Fee Revenue Average Per Year: Equals Net Unfunded Annual Amount: $ 726,000 366.000 $ 360,000 · This amount was then compared to the projected number of units, by five year increment over the planning period, to estimate the magnitude of a parcel fee necessary to fund the unfunded capital and debt service costs. Total residential units were estimated by dividing projected population by an average household size of 2.5 and adding projected new units by year to- the existing number of households to determine the total number of households against which the assessment could be applied during each year over the planning period. For the example, this yielded the following: Year Total Number of Residential Units 9,869 12,796 14,912 17,725 Capital and Debt Service Deficit $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 Amount Per Unit 2000 2005 2010 2015 Period Average $36 28 24 20 $27 · The estimated parcel fee for capital and debt service for each year was determined by dividing the annual amount for capital and debt service by the number of residential units per year, and an average for the period determined as shown above. Appendix B Page B - 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments · The average of $ 27 was employed to estimate the annual assessment necessary to cover unfunded capital and debt service costs over the planning period. · A comparable approach was employed to estimate assessments required to cover unfunded capital and debt service associated with each of the other facility alternatives. The next table shows summary calculations for each. 43,000 Square Foot New Facility Cash Cost of Project Projected Development Fees Development Fees Available at Project Initiation Capital Amount Needed to Be Funded by Debt Annual Payment Principal Interest Total Average Annual Development Fee Revenue Net Annual Payment Unfunded 527 396 345 Assessment Required Based On Growth Projections - Year and Households Projected $ 13,697 37,000 Square Foot New Facility Dollars in (000) $ 11,957 30,000 Square Foot RemodellExpansion $ 8,057 9,293 9,293 4,826 1,433 1,433 744 12,264 10,524 7,313 613 307 920 526 263 789 366 183 549 393 393 204 2000 - 9,869 DUs $53 $40 $35 2005 - 12,796 DUs 41 31 27 2010 - 14,912 DUs 35 27 23 2015 -17,725 DUs 30 22 19 Average Assessment $40 $30 $26 4. Operating costs were projected and compared to revenues, annual deficits noted, and the level of assessment required to cover that gap was calculated. This involved the following steps: · Costs for operating the library were determined based on the analysis provided in the main body of the report. This example reflects operating the new 34,000 square fuot library 40 hours per week to reflect the Task Force's belief that a new facility would need to have increased service hours to build community support for an assessment for library services. Appendix B Page B - 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments Projections for the example assume operation of the full facility. · Costs were compared to projected base revenues, by year, and annual operating deficits which would need to be covered by an assessment determined. Revenues were projected based on the following assumptions: Library related property taxes as projected in'the main body of the report. The County's current "subsidy" projected at current levels with no increase assumed. The City's current General Fund contribution which was assumed to increase consistent with overall property tax increase as described in the main body of the report. · Costs and base revenues were compared and deficits calculated as shown in the table which follows below. Year Projected Base Operating Cost for (Deficit) Revenues 40 Hours Smplus (000) (000) (000) 2000 $1,126 $ 1,754 ($ 628) 2001 1,210 $ 1,754 (544) 2002 1,294 $1,754 (460) 2003 1,378 $ 1,754 (376) 2004 1,462 $1,754 (292) 2005 1,545 $ 1,754 (209) 2006 1,593 $ 1,'754 (161) 2007 1,641 $1,754 (113) 2008 1,689 $ 1,754 (65) 2009 1,737 $ 1,754 (17) 2010 1,784 $1,754 +30 Deficits were then compared to the number of households projected for each year to estimate the level of assessment required each year to cover the projected deficits as shown in the table on the next page. Appendix B Page B - 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments Year Projected (Deficit) Assessment Number of Surplus Required to cover Households (000) Projected Deficit 2000 9,869 (628) $63 2001 10,713 (544) 51 2002 . 11,354 (460) 41 2003 11,950 (376) 31 2004 12,448 (292) 23 2005 12,796 (209) 16 2006 13,204 (161) 12 2007 13,557 (113) 8 2008 13,910 (65) 5 2009 14,362 (17) 1 2010 14,912 +30 - . As can be seen from the table above, required assessment amounts vary by year as growth and the number of households across which the assessment can be levied increases. As a result, an attempt was made to estimate a consistent or common assessment which could be employed for multiple years. This involved "averaging" the assessment for the initial years, and then determining cash flow by year and ultimate impact on both costs and service hours as growth occurs. For example, review of the information presented in the table above indicated that an assessment in the $ 40 per household range would probably be consistent with overall cash flow requirements for the alternative under analysis. The next table shows how that was tested. Year Projected Projected Additional Net (Deficit) Service Base (Deficit) Revenue at Surplus Hours Number of Surplus $40 (000) Households (000) Assessment (000) Annual Cumul. 2000 9,869 ( $628) $395 ($ 233) ($ 233) 40 2001 10,713 (544) 429 (115) ( 348) 40 2002 11,354 (460) 454 (4) (352) 40 2003 11,950 (376) 478 102 (250) 40 2004 12,448 (292) 498 206 40 2005 12,796 (209) 512 303 52 2006 13,204 (161) 528 367 52 2007 13,557 (113) 542 429 52 2008 13,910 (65) 556 491 56 2009 14,362 (17) 574 557 56 2010 14,912 +30 596 626 56 The $ 40 hour assessment would result in short-term deficits in the initial two years, but those deficits would be eliminated Appendix B Page B - 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments as growth occurs and a net revenue surplus would be generated by 2004. Following that, the assessment could be reduced or eliminated, or sustained and service hours increased as indicated in right hand column of the previous table. The same methodology was employed to estimate assessments' associated with facility phasing alternatives. The phasing alternative consisted of: (1) Building/remodeling 30,000 to 34,000 square feet of library space; (2) Initially opening and operating 20,000 square feet of the 34,000 square foot library, and (3) Then, as growth occurs, finishing the remaining space and opening the full facility later in the planning period as growth occurs. Relevant calculations are as follows: · Costs and base revenues were compared and deficits calculated as shown in the table which follows below. Year Projected Base Operating Cost for Smplus Revenues 40 Hours (Deficit) (000) (000) (000) 2000 $1,126 $ 1,363 * ($ 237) 2001 1,210 $ 1,363 ( $ 153) 2002 1,294 $ 1,363 ( $ 69) 2003 1,378 $ 1,363 $15 2004 1,462 $ 1,363 $99 2005 1,545 $ 1,363 $182 2006 1,593 $ 1,363 $230 2007 1,641 $ 1,363 $278 2008 1,689 $ 1,363 $326 2009 1,737 $ 1,363 $374 2010 1,784 $ 1,363 $421 * Operating costs for 20,000 square feet with 40 weekly service hours. As indicated in the table above, the deficit associated with operating the smaller facility 40 hours per week is eliminated relatively quickly as growth occurs, and a surplus is created which, if combined with a parcel fee, could be employed to add service hours or open the full facility. · Projected deficits and surpluses were then compared to the number of households projected for each year to estimate the level of assessment required each year to cover the projected deficits as shown in the table on the next page. Appendix B Page B - 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments Year Projected (Deficit) Assessment Number of Surplus Required to cover Households (000) Projected Deficit 2000 9,869 ($ 237) $24 2001 10,713 ( $ 153) 14 2002 11,354 " ( $ 69) 6 2003 11,950 $15 0 2004 12,448 $99 0 2005 12,796 $182 0 2006 13,204 $230 0 2007 13,557 $278 0 2008 13,910 $326 0 2009 14,362 $374 0 2010 14,912 $421 0 Year Projected Projected Additional Net (Deficit) Base (Deficit) Revenue at Surplus Number of Surplus $15 (000) Households (000) Assessment (000) Annual Cumul. 2000 9,869 ($ 237) $148 ($ 89) ($ 89) 2001 10,713 ( $ 153) 161 8 (81) 2002 11,354 ( $ 69) 170 111 2003 11,950 $15 179 195 2004 12,448 $99 187 286 2005 12,796 $182 192 374 2006 13,204 $230 198 428 2007 13,557 $278 203 481 2008 13,910 $326 209 535 2009 14,362 $374 215 589 2010 14,912 $421 224 645 Appendix B Page B - 9 . As can be seen from the table above, required assessment amounts vary by year as growth occurs and the number of households across which the assessment can be levied increases. At the smaller initial facility size, the deficit decreases rapidly. As a result, an attempt was made to estimate a consistent or common assessment which could be employed for multiple years to include covering costs when the facility was expanded to the full operating and service space. This involved "averaging" the assessment for the initial years, and then determining cash flow by year and ultimate impact on both costs and service hours as growth and facility expansion occurs. For example, review of the information presented in the table above indicated that an assessment in the $ 15 per household range would probably be consistent with overall cash flow requirements for the alternative under analysis. The next table shows how that was tested. I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I Appendix B Methodology Employed to Estimate Assessments The information shown in the table on the previous page indicates that total revenue (base plus that generated by the $ 15 assessment/parcel fee) would generate sufficient revenues by 2005/2006 to open the full 30,000/34,000 square feet 40 hours per week, or expand service hours in the smaller facility if the decision were made to defer expanding into the full facility until community population required the full facility. For example, by 2005, revenues would totaJ about $ 1.74 million which compares to the projected cost of operating a 30,000/34,000 square foot facility 40 hours per week. Appendix B Page B-1 0 EXHIBIT 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY DUBLIN LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS FIGURES FROM 1993 REPORT (Includes Incarcerated Population) YEAR PROJECTED SQ. FT. REQUIRED SQ. FT. REQUIRED POPULATION AT ..5 PER CAPITA AT.6 PER CAPITA 2000 34,100 17,050 20,460 2005 49,600 24,800 29,760 2010 63,400 31,750 38,000 Build Out (2022) 77,100 38,550 46,260 Total Less 4000 in carcera ted 73,100 36,550 43,860 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY DUBLIN LIBRARY SPACE NEED BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION PROJECTION (Less Incarcerated Population) YEAR PROJECTED SQ. FT. REQUIRED SQ. FT. REQUIRED POPULA nON AT .5 PER CAPITA AT .6 PER CAPITA 2000 26,133 13,067 15,680 2005 32,709 19,355 23,226 2010 49,000 24,500 29,400 Build Out (2022) 58,000 29,000 34,800 Total less 4000 58,000 29,000 34,800 incarcerated 4 ./'. . . . rJ'l """ rJ'l ~ ~ ~ ;::l t: ~~ ~~ ~S ~ = ~N Z .s ~~ ~~ ~~ r;;;1C1'\ r-c1""C ~ ~ U < r-c u .... ~ c:l ;::l ~ =~ 0< =:w ~>- ..J E:5 o E- \O...-II\O....-I....-It'---...- OOOOOOO-O\N -.rOONOOMMM N~ f"'-~ 00 O\~ -.r- ori -~ f"'-f"'-OO-.r--\O 1rl--.rNN-OO ..;-r-:oriM' M' liI'} l'I'l <:> <:> M I N <:> <:> N ~ <:>1rl00<:>0\-.r-.r \ONO\-o\O\M f"'--.r-f"'--.rMf"'- 0\ 0\ 00 -D 00 00- M' f"'-N-.rOOMNIrl -.r ("1 <:>~ Irl \0- - - ~ M <:> <:> ~ - <:> <:> N >- r>:. -.r-.r.....O\Moo\O 000\0\<:>~f"'-f"'- -.rIrlNOO\\OOO oo~ N- \0- -.r~ -D 0\ -.r- f"'-NO\\OIrl-.r\O N_ ~ -.r_ 00 0\ N - -- ~ - <:> <:> N e! <:> <:> ~ <:>IrlMIrl<:><:>0 <:>O\OONN\O\O O\f"'-OOf"'-<:>\O<:> 0\ 00 -.r~ -- ...; -.D \0- ooNO\--.r-f"'- 00"'10\\0 \0- - liI'} <:> <:> <:> N ~ 0\ 0\ - >- r>:. O\O\MM\ONOO IrlMM-.r.....-N -.rMf"'-\O-.rf"'-1rl r: 'I1ff:!f"" ("'.I" ....-I.. .,..; .......... 0\- N-.rO\f"'-Moo<:> O\o_f"'-~ 1"'1- ~ CI'\ 0'\ 0'\ .... I ClO CI'\ 0'\ .... >- r.. -\ON N f"'-OO \0 OMf"'--O\\O<:> 00 Irl<:>0\\0 N\0 ori -- IJ;)- N -.r- M' 00- O'\Nf"'-IrlN-1J;) 1rlf"'--.rM N liI'} g~s~::e~~ <:>_--oof"'-\01rl ...... ........ 0" N.... 'IfIIIIIII4- V).. 00'" <:>MOO\ONNOO -.rOO\OM 1"'1 ~ I E ~ 8 ~ > "0 8 '" a 0. t>ll ....1 !l .5 "0 ~~:; Q., Q., co ... .0.0.0 .a .- ...... .- ~ 333 ~a ~ ~ ~ ... .2 o 0 0 :S .~ UUU....1U S Q Cl) 8 Cl) > o ... 0. .5 ~ Q., ... 8~ -Eu ..8 .2 -;bee ._ :;;I Cl) cr z< l'I'l l'I'l co co ""il' -.r Q\ Q\ f"'- f"'- \0 \0 .; .; N N VI {o"} <:> M r-- .; \0 N .; (,I') r-- r-- ClO N l'I'l 00 'lS (,I') l'I'l -.r <:> Q\ Irl \0 .; (,I') <:> Irl 00 aO Irl r-- l"i VI M 0'\ co N Irl -.r M VI .... <:> --:. .... .... r-- N (,I') ..J < E- o E- l'I'l 00 .., Q\ r-- \0 .; N VI l'I'l \0 r-- .; .... -.r Q M (,I') \0 00 co ...; 00 Irl l"i .... (,I') 1""1 ""il' 00 N N 0'\ aO (,I') l'I'l 0'\ 0'\ ~ .... iii VI .... <:> .... .... - r-- N (,I'j ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ E- o E- ~ E- < ..J ;l ~ ;l U OIrlNOO Irlf"'-NOO O\I'--\OOIJ;) r-: OO~ N N- M' ooO\OO'\N OO""'f"'-\O~ M' N- - VI o o o o~ Irl ..... - o 0 Irl 0 o 0 v;J- N- 1.0 0\ 0_ f"'- Irl-.r NOO 1'--00 N- ..;- -.rl'-- 1'--0\ N- o 00 Irl M 0'\ r-- r-: r-: 00 M VI - ~..Io: "0' ta p::Q., Q "0 '" .9 g ~ <II ..Q Q., a ;]"0 ~ c....Q 0 ..... ~ oJ)~ 1~1~! ~ ;>- ~ .- ~~g~~ Q.,Q.,Cl)Q.,,,:= Co: Co: p:: ..:::: t.l Cl) CI.l ... t.l a 66E~~ :E:Eo ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl) Cl) Cl) .2 ,J:l ~ 8 e .~ :;;I "'5 ~~UQu:l o o -.r ..,; Irl Irl o o (''t 0\ \0 q ..... r-- r-- .., -.r 0'\ 0'\ .; .; r- r- .., -.r aO aO VI (,I'j <:> <:> -.r .; <:> ~ .... r- .., 0'\ .; r-- .., aO (,I') (,I') ~ ltl Q r- r-- 'lS (,I') <:> <:> M Q\ 1.0 q - r- ..,. Irl o r- r- 'Ii VI fII'j <:> Irl q ClO ltl ac:.. .... r-- ""il' "'l .... <:> r-- .n (,I') (,I') 0'\ <:> \0 r: .... l"';. l'I'l r- 0'\ N~ 1""1 .., ClO l"i fII'j (,I') ClO 00 1.0 iii N .... ClO co 1.0 .n N .... (,I') fII'j u:l ~ p !:: Cl Z ril ~ ~ ~ b E-o ~ ~ ~ ..J P ~ ;l U Vi ~ ~ .... Q ~ ril~ Uvi Z> ~~ ~1oQ ~~ Cl..... ..J g E- 1.0 1""1 ltl .; <:> N~ \0 .... {o"} o N 1""1 Q \0 Irl N {o"} r- r- go N l'I'l 00 'Ii CII'} 1""1 .., ClO 0\ ClO Irl l"i (,I') o <:> 00 o <:> ~ .... CII'} - r-- .... l"';. ""il' 1.0 N ...; - fII'j 1""1 .... ""il' .n ClO Irl N CII'} 1.0 M Irl .; o N 'Ii .... CII'} 1.0 M Irl ..,; o N 'Ii .... (,I'j 1.0 .... M .; -.r \0 l"i .... CII') 0'\ M "'l .... .... go 'lS (,I'j 1.0 0\ ..,~ .... N N l"i (,I'j 1.0 0'\ \0 o N "'l - {o"} l""l .... .., .n ClO ltl N (,I'j ~ U Zoo ~~ rilt:: ~= ~z -1oQ Clt., ~;< >1oQ -vi S~ ;lZ ~~ B~ EXHIBIT B