Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-1114 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, November 14, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5: 30 p.m. Study Session 1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum) 2. Look Ahead review 3. Update on the consolidation discussion between Jackson County Fire District 5 and Ashland Fire and Rescue 4. System Development Charge committee update 5. Discussion of letters from Guanajuato (request of Mayor Stromberg) In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014; CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE***** Departments Responsible 12/6 1216 12/19 12/20 112 1/3 1116 1117 1/24 2/6 2/7 2120 2121 12/5 Stud Session in Siski ou Room 12/5 1 Report on Eugene homeless and shelter infrastructure, including car Admin SS camping (request of Mayor Stromber 2 Discussion of issues at Lithia and Pioneer parking lot (request of Admin SS Councilor Marsh 12/6 Regular Council Meeting 12/6 3 Annual presentation b the Planning Commission Bill Com Dev PRES 4 Approval of a reso for reimbursement of Crowson II Project Bev Finance CONS 5 Resolution re: reimbursement of water treatment debt Dave Admin CONS 6 Acceptance of Canvass of the Vote Barbara Recorder CONS 7 Approval of SDC rate resolution (Mike) PW PH RES 8 Acceptance of the CAFR Bev Finance NEW 9 Appointment of Council Liaison and member at large - Audit Committee Recorder NEW Barbara 10 Appointment of Citizen Budget member Barbara Recorder NEW 11 An ordinance regarding water use outside city limits David Legal ORD-2 12/19 Stud Session in Siski ou Room 12/19 12 Presentation and discussion of infill strategies Bill SS 12/20 Regular Council Meeting 12/20 13 City hall discussion continued Mike/Dave PW Admin UNFIN 14 Continued discussion/approval of Lithia Way/Pioneer St. beautification PW UNFIN ro'ect Mike 15 Annual Review of Investment Policy Barbara Recorder NEW 16 Ordinance regarding police training reimbursements (Tighe/Dave L.) Police Legal ORD-1 ORD-2 1/2 Stud Session canceled due to New Years Holiday 1/2 1/3 Regular Council Meeting 1/3 17 Swearing in of city council members Barbara Recorder SWRG 18 Proclamation re grin Christmas Tree-cycle Da Diana Admin PROC 19 Ordinance regarding police training reimbursements (Tighe/Dave L.) Police Legal ORD-2 1/16 Stud Session canceled due to MILK, Jr, Da 1/16 1117 Regular Council Meeting 1/17 20 Appointment of new Finance Director Tina HR CONS 21 Results of Citizen surve Ann Admin NEW 1/24 State of the City - Community Center ii p.m. 1/24 Page 1 of 2 11/9/2016 City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE***** Responsible 12/6 12/6 12/19 12120 112 1/3 1/16 1117 1/24 216 217 2120 2121 2/6 Stu Session in Siski ou Room 216 22 Jackson County Vector Control concerns (request of Councilor Voisin) Admin SS 23 Discussion of Electric rate design Mark Electric SS 217 Regular Council Meeting 2/7 24 Presentation and approval of the Climate and Energy Action Plan Admin NEW Adam 2120 Stud Session canceled due to Presidents' Da 2/20 2121 Regular Council Meeting 2121 25 Annual presentation b the Transportation Comm Mike PW PRES Commission Presentation Dates - 2017 February 21 - Trans ortation Commission March 21 - Tree Commission April 18 - Historic Commission May 16 -Wildfire Mitigation Commission June 6 - Band Board Jul 18 - Forest Lands Commission August 15 - Conservation Commission September 19 - Airport Commission October 17 - Public Arts Commission November 21 - Housing and Human Services Commission December 5 - Planning Commission G7 r-n Discussion of Class & Compensation stud (request of Councilor Voisin Discussion of raising the temperature threshold for declaration of extreme weather emergency shelter (request of Councilor Voisin Discussion of potential solutions to deer problems (request of Councilor Seffinger) Discussion regarding the seismic code U date on internal controls policy Senior issues (request of Mayor Stromber Page 2 of 2 11/912016 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication November 14, 2016, Study Session Update on the Consolidation Discussions Between Jackson County Fire District 5 and Ashland Fire & Rescue FROM: John Karns, Fire Chief, karnsj@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Jackson County Fire District 5 and Ashland Fire & Rescue have, since last summer, been discussing a possible consolidation of the two agencies. Additionally a request for proposals has been developed to solicit potential contractors to conduct a feasibility study for this consolidation. Staff will update the Council on the status of these discussions and seek direction for the RFP. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City has for many years been discussing the need and desire for additional line personnel in the Fire Department to address an increasing number of emergency responses. Following the Budget Committee's review and approval of Ashland Fire & Rescue's 2015-17 biennial budget, Mayor Stromberg requested a study session discussion of the future of AF&R. Specifically, the Mayor requested that staff identify the discrete elements of AF&R; how they relate to the mission of the department, how much they cost and which components the City will continue to offer in order to achieve the mission. While the staffing level for the department has, until recently, been relatively static for over 20 years, the call load has increased dramatically. The fire chief presented information and options for addressing various deficiencies in department operations during study sessions on August 31, 2015, December 14, 2015, and May 2, 2016. During the December study session the fire chief was directed by Council to: • Identify additional revenue sources, steps needed to attain an adequate staff level and a plan to get there; • Eliminate the non-emergent medical transfers; • Implement a residential fire sprinkler code; • Work on Wildland/Urban Interface code language; • Explore special districts or combined districts, and bring back a range of options; • Implement a senior fall prevention and fire safety training; and • Implement an age-friendly housing program This directive initiated the meetings with Jackson County Fire District 5. A task force was created including Ashland's city administrator, two Ashland City Councilors, the Jackson County Fire District 5 Board President, an additional JCFD5 Board member, both fire chiefs, both deputy fire chiefs, both bargaining unit presidents, and a citizen representative. Both organizations decided to explore a consolidation approach which would create a new special district encompassing both current jurisdictions. Page 1 of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND The next step in this process is to contract with a consultant who can analyze the myriad issues involved in the creation of a new district and provide the basis for determining the feasibility of doing so. An RFP for a consolidation feasibility study was jointly developed and could be issued pending approval by the City Council and the D5 Board of Directors. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Public Safety 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: After evaluating other recent fire department consolidation RFP's it is estimated that the cost will be $45,000 to $50,000 for the feasibility study. The cost of the study would be split between Jackson County Fire District 5 and Ashland Fire & Rescue yielding an expense of $22,500 to $25,000 to the City. This cost isn't currently budgeted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the issuance of the RFP for a consolidation feasibility study between Jackson County Fire District 5 and Ashland Fire and Rescue. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Draft of the RFP for a consolidation feasibility study Page 2 of 2 ~r I- F grA CITY OF ASHLAND Request for Proposals FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY Date of Release: January 9, 2017 Proposals are due prior to: 2:00 PM (PST), WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 Contracting Agency: City of Ashland Sole Point of Contact: Kari Olson Title: Purchasing Representative Address: City of Ashland 90 N. Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: (541) 488-5354 Fax: (541) 488-5320 Email: kari.olson(a,ashland.or.us RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 1 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PUBLIC NOTICE 3 2. PROPOSAL PROCESS 4 3. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 5 4. SCOPE OF WORK 11 5. PROPOSAL CONTENTS 13 6. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION 16 7. EVALUATION PROCESS 17 8. EVALUATION CRITERIA 18 EXHIBIT A - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM EXHIBIT B - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE EXHIBIT C - AFFIDAVIT OF TRADE SECRET EXHIBIT D - CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 2 of 27 PUBLIC NOTICE: IF I CITY OF -ASHLAND Request for Proposals FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposals are due prior to 2:OOPM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017 The City of Ashland and Jackson County Fire District 5 are requesting proposals from qualified consultants to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and feasibility study for the potential consolidation of Ashland Fire & Rescue and Jackson County Fire District 5 creating a new special district. The consultant will develop a work plan and confer with officials from Jackson County Fire District 5, the City of Ashland, Ashland Fire & Rescue and other stakeholder groups, including elected officials and community business leaders, to gain a comprehensive understanding on the backgrounds, goals, and expectations of the various stakeholder groups to develop and produce a Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study. The REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL is available online at www.ashland.or.us Log on to the City's website, scroll down to the Ashland 24/7 ribbon and click on "Proposals, Bids and Notifications". Click on REQUEST BID PACKET (beneath the public notice), log in to the system and download the solicitation documents. You will need to log in to the system each time you would like to download the solicitation documents and any subsequently issued addenda. In accordance with AMC Section 2.50.080, Competitive sealed bids and competitive sealed proposals may be available online, but applicants will NOT be able to submit their proposals and/or responses online. Bids and proposals must be delivered in hard copy form to the City in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFP. Individuals that obtain the solicitation materials electronically are responsible for regularly checking for instructions, addenda, and related materials. Sealed Proposals must be received prior to 2:00 PM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017, by Kari Olson, Purchasing Representative in the City of Ashland, Purchasing Office located at 90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland OR 97520. The proposals will be opened at 2:OOPM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017, and the City will record and make available the identities of the proposers. Proposals will not be available for inspection until after the evaluation process has been completed and the Notice of Intent to Award has been issued. Kari Olson Purchasing Representative City of Ashland, Oregon Kari.olsonAashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5354 Published: January 9, 2017 RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 3 of 27 W! 11q1 C I T Y O F ASHLAND Request for Proposals FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION AND FEASIBILITY STUCY January 9, 2017 ORS 279B.060(2)(c) PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Ashland and Jackson County Fire District 5 are requesting proposals from qualified consultants to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and feasibility study for the potential consolidation of Ashland Fire & Rescue and Jackson County Fire District 5 creating a new special district. The consultant will develop a work plan and confer with officials from Jackson County Fire District 5, the City of Ashland, Ashland Fire & Rescue and other stakeholder groups, including elected officials and community business leaders, to gain a comprehensive understanding on the backgrounds, goals, and expectations of the various stakeholder groups to develop and produce a Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study. ORS 279B.060(2)(b) SOLE POINT OF CONTACT Information, correspondence and questions pertaining to this Request for Proposals (RFP) shall ONLY be directed to: Name: Kari Olson Title: Purchasing Representative Address: City of Ashland 90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5354 Fax: 541-488-5320 Email: Kari.olson(&ashland.or.us This person is the sole point of contact during the entire RFP process including clarification and/or protest of specifications, method of bidding, the evaluation and award process, and/or other questions that may arise. The RFP documents may be reviewed upon request by contacting the designated sole point of contact listed above. OAR 137-047-0260(2)(a)(C) OPENING DUE DATE AND TIME Proposals must be received prior to the scheduled opening. The opening is scheduled for the following due date and time: Proposals are due prior to: 2:00 PM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017 The proposal must be addressed to the designated sole point of contact and received prior to the due date and time. Proposals received after CLOSING are considered LATE and will NOT be accepted for evaluation. Late proposals will not be considered. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 4 of 27 OAR 137-047-0260(2)(c)(A) SCHEDULE OF EVENTS ACTIVITY DATE Request for Proposals Released January 9, 2017 V Public Notice January 9, 2017 Deadline for Submitting Questions and Requests for 5.00 PM, Friday, February 3, 2017 Additional Information RFP Protest Period Ends 5:00 PM, Monday, February 6, 2017 DUE DATE AND TIME 2:00 PM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017 (Note: Proposals must be received prior to the due date and time.) Evaluation Process February 16, 2017 - March 10, 2017 Contract Recommendation Upon completion of evaluation process Intent to Award Announcement (7) Days prior to executing contract Award Protest Period Ends (7) Days after Notice of Intent to Award is released Contract Recommendation March 21, 2017 Presented to City Council for Final Approval Contract Award Upon Council Approval and (7) Days after the Intent to Award Announcement Services intended to begin As agreed to by City and successful proposer NOTE: This is a tentative schedule and is provided as a courtesy to potential proposers. The actual schedule may vary from that provided without notice to potential proposers. Any changes made to the closing date of the RFP will be made in the form of an addendum and mailed to all potential proposers who have received RFP documents. QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: All potential proposers are encouraged to ask questions and request additional information that will aid in the clarification of the RFP requirements. Questions and requests for information will be promptly considered, and written responses will be provided in the form of a written addendum and posted on the City's website. All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the RFP must: • Be delivered via email to the Sole Point of Contact identified on page 4 of the RFP • Reference the name of the RFP • Identify the Proposer's name and contact information • Be sent by an authorized representative • Refer to the specific area of the RFP being questioned (i.e. page, section and paragraph number); and • Be received by the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clarification identified in the schedule OAR 137-047-0260(2)(a)(F) Addenda The provisions of this RFP cannot be modified by oral interpretations or statements. Proposers are cautioned not to make any assumptions as to the implied meaning or intent of any part of the RFP. Proposers should request clarification. If inquiries or comments by proposers raise issues that require clarification by the City, or the City revises any part of this RFP, addenda will be provided in the form of a written addendum and posted on the City's website. Receipt of an addendum must be acknowledged by signing and returning it with the proposal. Addenda will be issued within a reasonable time to allow prospective proposers to consider the addenda in preparing their RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 5 of 27 proposals. Unless a different deadline is set forth in the addendum, a proposer may submit a request for change or protest by the close of the next business day after the issuance of the addendum, or up to the last day the RFP Protest Period ends, whichever date is later. If the date established in the previous sentence falls after the RFP Protest Period ends, the City will consider a request for change or protest to the addendum only. Addenda shall not be issued less than 72 hours before the closing unless the addendum also extends the closing. ORS 27913.405 Protest Solicitation Process A prospective proposer for a public contract solicited under ORS 27913.055, 27913.060 or 27913.085 may file a protest with the City if the prospective proposer believes that the procurement process is contrary to law or that a solicitation document is unnecessarily restrictive, is legally flawed or improperly specifies a brand name. If a prospective proposer fails to timely file such a protest, the prospective proposer may not challenge the contract on grounds under this subsection in any future legal or administrative proceeding. If the protest is received at least 10 days prior to bid closing and meets the requirements of ORS 27913.405, the City shall consider the protest and issue a decision in writing. Otherwise, the City shall promptly notify the prospective proposer that the protest is untimely or that the protest failed to meet the requirements and give the reasons for the failure. The City shall issue a decision on the protest no fewer than three business days before proposals are due, unless a written determination is made by the City that circumstances exist that justify a shorter time limit. Protests must: • Be delivered to the Sole Point of Contact identified on page 4 via email, facsimile, hard copy • Reference the name of the RFP • Identify prospective Proposer's name and contact information • Be sent by an authorized representative • State the Reason for the protest, including: o the grounds that demonstrate how the procurement process is contrary to law, unnecessarily restrictive, legally flawed, or improperly specifies a brand name; and o evidence or documentation that supports the grounds on which the protest is based • State the proposed changes to the RFP provisions or other relief sought • Protests to the REP must be received by the due date and time identified in the schedule • Protests to addenda must be received by the close of the next business day after the issuance of the addendum, or up to the last day the RFP Protest Period ends, whichever date is later. OAR 137-047-0440 Pre-Closing Modification or Withdrawal of Offers A proposer may modify its proposal in writing prior to the closing in accordance with OAR 137-047-0400, OAR 137-047-0410 and OAR 137-047-0440. Any modification must include the proposer's statement that the modification amends and supersedes the prior proposal. A proposer in accordance with OAR 137-047-0440 may withdraw its proposal by written notice submitted on proposer's letterhead, signed by authorized representative of the proposer, and delivered to the individual and location specified in the solicitation document prior to closing. OAR 137-047-0460 Late Offers, Late Withdrawals and Late Modifications Any proposal received after closing is late. A proposer's request for withdrawal or modification of a proposal received after closing is late. An Agency shall not consider late proposals, withdrawals or modifications except as permitted in OAR 137-047-0470 or 137-047-0262. Proposal Acceptance Proposals that do not address all areas requested by this RFP may be deemed non- responsive and may not be considered for any possible contract awarded as a result of this RFP. ORS 279B.060(2)(e) Cancel, Reject or Delay Procurement The City of Ashland may cancel the procurement, reject in whole or in part any or all proposals, or suspend or delay the procurement in RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 6 of 27 accordance with ORS 279B.100 when it's in the best interest of the City of Ashland as determined by the City of Ashland. In no event shall the City of Ashland have any liability for the cancellation, rejection, or suspension of a solicitation or award. The proposer assumes the sole risk and responsibility of all expenses connected with the preparation of its proposal. Collusion By submitting a proposal, proposer certifies that no officer, agent, or employee of the City of Ashland has a monetary interest in this proposal; that the proposal is made in good faith without fraud, collusion, or connection of any kind with any other proposer and that the proposer is competing solely in its own behalf without connection with, or obligation to, any undisclosed person or company. Disputes In case of any doubt or differences of opinions as to the items or services to be furnished hereunder, or the interpretation of the provisions of the RFP, the decision of the City of Ashland shall be final and binding upon all parties. Clarification of Responses The City of Ashland reserves the right to request clarification of any item in any proposal, or to request additional information necessary to properly evaluate a particular proposal. References The City of Ashland reserves the right to investigate any and all references and the past performance information provided in the proposal with respect to proposer's successful performance of similar projects, compliance with specifications and contractual obligations, completion or delivery of a project on schedule, and lawful payment of employees and workers. Recyclable and Recycled Products Contractors shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in the performance of the contract work set forth in this RFP. ORS 279A.125 The City shall give preference to goods that are certified to be made from recycled materials if the recycled product is available, meets applicable standards, can be substituted for a comparable non recycled product; and the recycled products costs do not exceed the costs of non-recycled products by more than five percent, or a higher percentage if a written determination is made by the City. ORS 282.210 All printing, binding and stationery work done for the City shall be performed within the State of Oregon. ORS 279B.060(2)(g) If required under ORS 468A.710, the contractor or subcontractor is required to possess an asbestos abatement license. AMC Chapter 3.12 Living Wage If the contract exceeds 520,283.20 the Contractor will be required to comply with Chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage to applicable employees, as defined in this chapter, performing work under this contract and to any applicable subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. The Living Wage is S14.52 per hour effective June 30, 2016 and increases annually every June 30 by the Consumer Price Index. In calculating the living wage, employers may add the value of health care, retirement, 401 K and IRS eligible cafeteria plans (including childcare) benefits to the amount of wages received by the employee. It is the responsibility of the proposer to review and comply with the Living Wage ordinance requirements, which can be viewed online at www.ashland.or.us. * * * The Living Wage is S 14.52 per hour effective June 30, 2016 (Increases annually every June 30 by the Consumer Price Index) ORS 279B.060(6)(a) Opening Procedures Notwithstanding ORS 192.410 to 192.505, proposals may be opened in a manner to avoid disclosure of contents to competing proposers during, when applicable, the RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 7 of 27 process of negotiation, but the City of Ashland shall record and make available the identity of all proposers as part of the City's public records after the proposals are opened. Notwithstanding ORS 192.410 to 192.505, proposals are not required to be open for public inspection until after the notice of intent to award a contract is issued..The fact that proposals are opened at a meeting, as defined in ORS 192.610, does not make the contents of the proposals subject to disclosure, regardless of whether the public body opening the proposals fails to give notice of or provide for an executive session for the purpose of opening proposals. OAR 137-047-0260(2)(a)(E) Certification of Nondiscrimination Proposer to certify that the proposer has not discriminated and will not discriminate, in violation of ORS 279A.110(1), against a minority, women or emerging small business enterprise certified under ORS 200.055 or against a business enterprise that is owned or controlled by or that employs a disabled veteran as defined in ORS 408.225 in obtaining a required subcontract. The Certificate of Compliance attached as Exhibit B, is required to be signed and included with your proposal. ORS 279B.060(6)(b) Proprietary Information (Trade Secrets) Notwithstanding any requirement to make proposals open to public inspection after the City of Ashland's issuance of a notice of intent to award a contract, the City of Ashland may withhold from disclosure to the public materials included in a proposal that are exempt or conditionally exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.501 or 192.502. All Proposals are public record and are subject to public inspection after Agency issues the Notice of the Intent to Award. If a Proposer believes that any portion of its Proposal contains any information that is a trade secret under ORS Chapter 192.501(2) or otherwise is exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 through 192.505). If applicable, Proposer shall complete and submit the Affidavit of Trade Secret attached as Exhibit C and a frilly redacted version of its Proposal. Proposer is cautioned that cost information generally is not considered a trade secret under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 through 192.505) and identifying the Proposal, in whole, as exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. Agency advises each Proposer to consult with its own legal counsel regarding disclosure issues. If Proposer fails to identify the portions of the Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure, Proposer has waived any future claim of non-disclosure of that information. ORS 279B.060(13) Notice of Intent to Award The City of Ashland shall provide written notice of its intent to award to all proposers pursuant to ORS 279B.135 and OAR 137-047-0610 at least seven (7) days before the award of the contract, unless the City determines that circumstances justify prompt execution of the contract, in which case the City may provide a shorter notice period. ORS 279B.060(14) Contract Award The City of Ashland shall award the contract to the responsible proposer whose proposal the City of Ashland determines in writing to be the most advantageous to the City of Ashland based on the evaluation process and evaluation factors described in the request for proposals, and any applicable preferences described in ORS 279A.120, ORS 279A.125 and ORS 279A.128 and, when applicable, the outcome of any negotiations authorized by the request for proposals. Other factors may not be used in the evaluation. In addition, any other public agency wishing to use the resulting contract may be authorized by mutual consent of the City of Ashland and the contractor. ORS 279B.410 Protest of Contract Award A proposer may protest the award of a public contract or notice RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 8 of 27 of intent to award a public contract if the proposer is adversely affected because the proposer would be eligible to be awarded the public contract in the event that the protest were successful. The written protest shall specify the reasons for the protest pursuant to ORS 279B.41 0(1)(b) and be delivered to the sole point of contact named in the RFP within seven days after issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award a contract. The City shall consider and respond in writing to a protest in a timely manner. ORS 279B.060(2)(h) Contractual Terms and Conditions The proposer selected by the City of Ashland will be expected to enter into a written contract in the form attached to this REP. This RFP and the contents of the proposal of the successful proposer will become contractual obligations if a contract is executed. The proposal should indicate acceptance of the City of Ashland's contract provisions or suggest reasonable alternatives that do not substantially impair the City of Ashland's rights under the contract. The proposer may also propose contractual terms and conditions that relate to subject matter reasonably identified in the request for proposals. The City of Ashland reserves the right to negotiate the contractual terms and conditions proposed as alternatives by the proposer. If inclusion of any of the City of Ashland's contract provisions will result in higher costs for the services, such costs must be specifically identified in the proposal. Unconditional refusal to accept the contract provisions proposed by the City of Ashland without offering acceptable alternatives may result in the disqualification of the proposal. Insurance Certificates The Contractor will be required to provide and maintain ALL required insurance certificates, and provide current Certificates of Insurance, including the City of Ashland endorsed as the additional insured, to the City prior to any lapse of insurance coverage. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 9 of 27 Additional Terms The City of Ashland reserves the right to waive irregularities or deficiencies in a proposal if the City of Ashland determines that waiver is in the best interest of the City of Ashland. The City of Ashland may request supplemental written information from a proposer concerning the proposer's ability to perform the services. If a proposer fails to provide supplemental information within the time stated in the request, the City of Ashland may refuse to consider the proposer's proposal. The City of Ashland may request an interview with any proposer. If a proposal is unclear, or appears inadequate, the proposer may be given an opportunity in the interview to explain how the proposal complies with the RFP. The City of Ashland reserves the right to make such investigation it deems appropriate to determine whether a proposer is qualified to provide the services. If a proposer fails to cooperate with an investigation, or if a proposer provides false, misleading or incomplete information, the City of Ashland may refuse to consider the proposer's proposal. In cases of doubt or differences of opinion concerning the interpretation of this RFP, the City of Ashland reserves the exclusive right to determine the intent, purpose and meaning of any provision in this RFP. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 10 of 27 SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Ashland and Jackson County Fire District 5 are requesting proposals from qualified consultants to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and feasibility study for the potential consolidation of Ashland Fire & Rescue and Jackson County Fire District 5 creating a new special district. The consultant will confer with officials from Jackson County Fire District 5, the City of Ashland, and Ashland Fire & Rescue to gain a comprehensive understanding on the backgrounds, goals, and expectations for the project. The consultant's project manager will develop and refine a proposed work plan that will guide the project. The work plan shall be developed identifying: • Tasks to be performed • Timetable for each objective of the tasks • Method used to evaluate results • Resources that will be utilized • Problem areas associated with each task The consultant's project team will conduct meetings with stakeholder groups for the purpose of gathering information. Stakeholders will include, but not limited to, the following. • Team from Jackson County Fire District 5 • Team from Ashland Fire & Rescue • Elected officials from Ashland, Phoenix and Talent • City Administrator and Chief Financial Officer from Ashland • Labor officials from both organizations • Community business leaders • Community civic groups • Chambers of Commerce • Others as they may contribute to this project The consultant's feasibility study shall, at a minimum, analyze the following. • Identify the benefits, if any, that the two jurisdictions will realize through consolidation? Benefits might include: New or improved services in Ashland or FD5; short-term or long- term cost savings; administrative efficiencies/elimination of service duplication; improved response time in all or parts of a new district; and improved ISO ratings. Include in this analysis a comparison, with pros and cons, to status quo. • Recommend a preferred staffing level to provide optimal emergency response and fire prevention/pre-planning services throughout the new district. Assume that no new fire stations will be built. • Assess the cultural differences between the two departments and the communities/areas served and how this will impact a consolidation. • Analyze and compare salary and benefits for each of the agencies and provide recommendations for how differences would be reconciled in a new special district. • Analyze the feasibility of the new fire district maintaining the Jackson County Ambulance Service Area 43. Include in this analysis the impact on Ashland's general fund of transferring ambulance service to a new special district, and the impact on necessary tax rate for a new district by assigning ambulance revenue to the district. • Recommend a preferred option for the delivery of support services (HR, accounting, budget, legal, etc.) to a new special district. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 11 of 27 • Analyze the compatibility of AF&R and FD5 Record Management Systems, IT systems and communication infrastructure and make recommendations for how these systems could be consolidated in a new special district. • Determine the feasibility and mechanisms for transferring ownership of equipment and capital assets to the new special district. • Provide a projected budget for the the first two years of the new district, including a recommended permanent tax rate and taking into account revenues from AF&R ambulance services. This should include a recommendation as to how the two agencies can fund an initial ending fund balance for the new district. Identify other potential revenue streams. • Identify the taxation laws and their applicable effects on the project. • Recommend how to tranfer funds from existing contingency, equipment, and ending fund balances to the new special district. • Analyze the training facilities needs for the new special district. • Analyze the impact of the consolidation to the existing communications infrastructure including the PSAP and dispatch center (ECSO). • Identify future potential major budgetary impacts such as PERS increases, health insurance costs, and capital replacement needs that would impact the sustainability of the new fire district. • Analyze each agency's operational and administrative policies for areas of conflict that would have to be resolved prior to merger into a new special district. This may include, but is not limited to, application and recruitment practices, testing and promotion practices, training programs, compensation systems and human resources policies. • Analyze how the new district would conintue to offer services unique to Ashland, including the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, the Firewise Communities and Fire Adapted Communities programs, the Community Emergency Response Team program and determine the feasibility of expanding these programs to the area now served by FD5 within existing revenues. • If the report concludes that consolidation is feasible, it shall include a recommendation of plan implementation. This recommendation should include a timeline, necessary policy changes, legislative requirments for consolidation, plan to implement the legislative requirements, legal and management structure model, and a strategic plan going forward. Timeline for Completing the Project It is preferred that the project be completed within 120 days after a contract has been fully executed, but the actual timeline for completion is negotiable and will be mutually agreed upon by the City and successful proposer. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 12 of 27 PROPOSAL CONTENTS Preparation Proposals shall provide a straightforward, concise description of the proposer's capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. Emphasis should be on completeness, clarity of content and cost effectiveness of the proposal. Submissions of technical literature, display charts, or other supplemental materials are the responsibility and within the discretion of the proposer. The proposal must be organized in accordance with this section titled Proposal Contents. The proposer assumes the sole risk and responsibility of all expenses connected with the preparation of its proposal. CONTENTS OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Letter of Introduction / Cover Page ✓ A letter of introduction addressed to "John Karns, Ashland Fire Chief' and signed by a person legally authorized to bind the proposer to its proposal. The letter will introduce the company and include the company name, principal contact name, physical address, mailing address, telephone number, fax number and email address. The transmittal letter may also introduce the proposal and summarize the key provisions of the proposal. Table of Contents ✓ Include a clear identification of the material by section and page number. Proposal Submission Form ✓ Complete the Proposal Submission Form as attached hereto as Exhibit A. Proposer's Project Understanding and Capabilities ✓ Provide a summary narrative of your overall understanding of the project and your recommended approach, intended process, methodology and plan to successfully complete the Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study. ✓ Demonstrate a clear and concise understanding of the extensive public engagement process and describe proposer's ability to timely manage and facilitate the extensive public engagement process. ✓ Confirm ability to provide services promptly and efficiently in accordance with the work plan and task timetable to be developed. Proposed Timeline and Schedule for Completion Please note: The contract recommendation resulting from this RFP will be presented to the City Council on January 17, 2017. The project may begin after the contract is approved by the City Council and a contract with the successful proposer has been fully executed. It is preferred that the project be completed within 120 days, but the actual timeline for completion is negotiable and will be mutually agreed upon b the City and successful proposer. ✓ Provide a proposed timeline for completing the major tasks to demonstrate how time will be managed. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 13 of 27 Include: • Start date • Major task level timeline • Include the assignment of the responsible party (project manager, key technical team, City staff, stakeholders groups, etc.) for each of the major tasks. • Proposed completion date for the project - preferably within 120 days. If a proposer is not able to complete the project in 120 days, the proposer shall include their proposed completion date and an explanation for the proposed adjustments to the completion date. Experience Project Manager ✓ Describe experience acting as the lead project manager on similar consolidation projects; Describe experience developing work plans, including tasks, timetable, resources and problem solving, and the successful execution of the work plan ✓ Describe experience with the public engagement process and conducting meetings with various types of stakeholder groups listed in the scope of work ✓ Describe any specific experience that directly correlates with the scope of work found on page 11 and 12. Key Technical Team: ✓ Describe the experience of the "Key Technical Team" ✓ Provide general types of tasks that will be delegated to the "Key Technical Team" that are intended to assist the "Project Manager"with executing the work plan, research and public engagement process. References Project Manager Your proposal must include a minimum of three (3) references for similar work, preferably some type of consolidation and/or feasibility study, completed by the "Project Manager", acting as the lead project manager on the referenced projects, within the last (3) three years. Provide the following information for each of the (3) references as follows: ✓ Name and brief description of the project ✓ Length of time spent working on the project ✓ Project completion on schedule, if not brief reason will suffice ✓ Company name ✓ Contact name ✓ Telephone number ✓ Email address Please note: The City reserves the right to investigate the references and past performance of any proposer, including the proposer's intended project manager and key technical team, with respect to successful performance of similar services, compliance with specifications and contractual obligations, and completion of a project on schedule. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 14 of 27 Contractual Terms and Conditions ✓ Indicate acceptance of the City's contract provisions found in the Contract for Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study attached as Exhibit D or suggest reasonable alternatives that do not substantially impair the City's rights under the contract. Some contract terms and conditions may be negotiable. Proposer may propose contractual terms and conditions that relate to subject matter reasonably identified in the request for proposals. The City of Ashland reserves the right to negotiate or reject the contractual terms and conditions proposed as alternatives by the proposer. If inclusion of any of the City's contract provisions will result in higher costs for the services, such costs must be specifically identified in the proposal. ✓ Provide proof of insurance (Certificate of Insurance) to satisfy the City's insurance requirements that can be found on page 24-25 of the RFP. ✓ The Certificate of Compliance attached as Exhibit B, is required to be signed and included with your proposal. ✓ Provide a written statement which identifies proposer's status regarding its eligibility to participate in public procurement activities. If the firm, business or person submitting this proposal has been debarred, suspended, disqualified or otherwise lawfully precluded from participating in any public procurement activity, including being disapproved or disqualified as a subcontractor with any federal, state or local government, or if any such preclusion from participation from any public procurement activity is currently pending, proposer shall fully disclose and explain the circumstances relating to the preclusion or pending preclusion as part of the required statement. The proposer shall identify the name, address and contact information of the governmental unit that has the authority to issue the findings or ruling, the effective date and duration of the current action or proposed date and duration of any pending suspension or debarment and the circumstances relating to the current or pending suspension or debarment. Affidavit of Trade Secret (If applicable) If applicable ONLY, complete the Affidavit of Trade Secret submission form attached hereto as Exhibit C and submit a redacted copy of the proposal being submitted in response to this RFP. CONTENTS OF COST PROPOSAL Cost Proposal (Fee Schedule) All of the information being requested in this section titled "Cost Proposal" must be included in the separate sealed envelope marked Cost Proposal and submitted separately from the proposal per the submission instructions on Page 16. ✓ Provide a detailed cost sheet for labor, materials and expenses by major project tasks, including the total cost to complete the Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study. ✓ Provide a detailed hourly fee or rate schedule for the key personnel (project manager and key technical team members) that will be working on the project. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 15 of 27 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Final contents of proposal to be submitted in sealed envelope: I . Complete set of RFP documents released by the City of Ashland 2. CONTENTS OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL One (1) original copy of the Technical Proposal, SIGNED IN INK Five (5) additional copies of the SIGNED original proposal 3. CONTENTS OF COST PROPOSAL In a separate sealed envelope marked Cost Proposal One (1) original copy of the cost proposal, SIGNED IN INK Five (5) additional copies of the SIGNED cost proposal The final contents of the proposal, including the separate sealed envelope containing the cost proposal, must be submitted in a single SEALED ENVELOPE and received at the following address: Kari Olson Purchasing Representative City of Ashland 90 N. Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Contents: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study Due by 2:OOPM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017 Please note: Late proposals will not be considered. No exceptions. It is recommended that you request available delivery options for the City of Ashland, Oregon area and verify that your method of shipment will arrive prior to the due date and time. DUE DATE AND TIME: The proposals must be received at the designated address listed above prior to 2:OOPM (PST), Wednesday, February 15, 2017. Late proposals will not be considered. Faxed or emailed proposals will not be considered. Period of Irrevocability Proposals will be offers that are irrevocable for a period of sixty (60) days after the time and date proposals are due. Proposals will contain the name, address and telephone number of an individual or individuals with authority to bind the company during the period in which the proposal will be evaluated. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 16 of 27 EVALUATION PROCESS In accordance with ORS 27913.060 (14), The City shall award the contract to the responsible proposer whose proposal the City determines in writing is the most advantageous to the City based on the evaluation process and evaluation criteria described in this RFP, applicable preferences described in ORS 279A.120, 279A.125 and 279A.128, and, when applicable the outcome of any negotiations authorized by the RFP. Other factors may not be used in the evaluation. An evaluation committee appointed by the City of Ashland will evaluate the proposals based on the evaluation criteria established in the Request for Proposal. Each category will be scored with a number of points, up to the maximum number of points assigned to each category. The greater the number of points assigned to a category, the greater the category's level of importance. Each proposal will be evaluated, scored and then ranked according to the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. Information contained in the cost proposal envelope will be opened and evaluated after the proposals have been reviewed and ranked by the Evaluation Committee. After the initial evaluation of the proposals has been completed, the Evaluation Committee may request clarifications. Requests for clarifications will be processed via email by the sole point of contact identified on page 4 of this RFP. No additions, deletions or substitutions may be made to proposals that cannot be termed as clarifications. Proposer's responses to questions shall restate the question and provide the requested clarification. After the technical proposals and cost proposals have been evaluated and scored, the Evaluation Committee may conduct telephone or Skype interviews with up to three (3) of the highest ranked proposers. The interview process is optional. The City of Ashland may reject any proposal not in compliance with all prescribed solicitation procedures and requirements and other applicable laws, and the City may reject for good cause any or all proposals upon the City's findings that it is in the best interest of the City of Ashland. If only one responsive proposal is received, the City of Ashland reserves the right to negotiate a contract with the sole responsive proposer. The City of Ashland will use the cost and price data to determine that the proposed fees are fair and reasonable. If the proposed fees are not fair and reasonable, the City of Ashland will not award the contract unless the City of Ashland and proposer negotiate fees that are fair and reasonable. The total points awarded to each proposal will be tabulated and the proposers shall be ranked accordingly. A contract with the proposer deemed to be the highest ranked proposer will then be negotiated. If negotiations with the highest ranked proposer are unsuccessful, the City of Ashland may proceed to the next highest ranked proposer, and so on until a contract is successfully negotiated. In accordance with OAR 137-047-0260(2)((b)(A)(B)(C), the statement of work will identify the scope of work to be performed under the resulting contract. outline anticipated duties of the contractor and establish the expectations for the contractor's performance of the resulting contract. The final statement of work will identify an agreed upon project schedule, tasks, deliverables and expected expenses by major task. The agreed upon tasks will also identify respective responsibilities of the contractor and City staff. In accordance with ORS 27913.060 (16), the City shall obtain the proposer's agreement to perform the scope of work and meet the performance standards set forth in the final negotiated statement of work. The final contract recommendation will then be subject to the approval of the City Council acting as the Local Contract Review Board. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 17 of 27 EVALUATION CRITERIA The proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria. Evaluation Criteria Points Letter of Introduction/Cover Page 5 Proposal Submission Form (Exhibit A) 5 Proposers project understanding and proposed methodology for completing the proj ect 25 Proposers understanding of public engagement and demonstration of ability to manage and facilitate a public engagement process; 25 Proposed Timeline and Schedule for Completion 10 Experience of project manager on similar consolidation projects 25 Experience of key technical team on similar consolidation projects 25 References 5 Contractual Terms and Conditions (Exhibit B & Exhibit D) 5 SUBTOTAL 130 Cost Proposal 20 Interview (Optional) 25 TOTAL 175 RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 18 of 27 EXHIBIT A Request for Proposals FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposal Submission Form The undersigned proposer submits this proposal in response to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, released on January 9, 2017. The proposer warrants that proposer has carefully reviewed the RFP and that this proposal represents proposer's full response to the requirements described in the RFP. The proposer further warrants that if this proposal is accepted, the proposer will contract with the City, agrees to the terms and conditions found in the attached contract and RFP or has submitted terms and conditions acceptable to the City, and will provide all necessary labor, materials, equipment, and other means required to complete the work in accordance with the requirements of the RFP and contract documents. The proposer hereby acknowledges the requirement to carry or indicates the ability to obtain the insurance required in the contract. Indicate in the affirmative by initialing here: The proposer hereby acknowledges receipt of Addendum Nos. to this RFP. Full Legal Name of Proposer: Business Address: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: Authorized Signature: Printed/Typed Name: Title: Date: RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 19 of 27 EXHIBIT B Certificate of Compliance Compliance with Oregon Tax Laws: In compliance with OAR 137-047-0260(2)(e), I hereby attest or affirm under penalty of perjury: That I am authorized to act on behalf of the proposer in this matter, that I have authority and knowledge regarding the payment of taxes, and that contractor is, to the best of my knowledge, not in violation of any Oregon Tax Laws, as defined in ORS 305.380. Compliance with Nondiscrimination Laws: In compliance with ORS 279A.110(4), OAR 137-046-0210(2) and OAR 137-047-0260(2)(a)(E), I hereby attest or affirm under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of proposer in this matter, and to the best of my knowledge the proposer has not discriminated and will not discriminate, in violation of ORS 279A.110(1), against a minority, women or emerging small business enterprise certified under ORS 200.055 or against a business enterprise that is owned or controlled by or that employs a disabled veteran as defined in ORS 408.225 in obtaining a required subcontract. Corporate Officer: By: Signature Print Name Title: Date: RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 20 of 27 EXHIBIT C AFFIDAVIT OF TRADE SECRET Note: If applicable, Proposer shall complete and include this Affidavit of Trade Secret with a fully redacted version of its Proposal. (Affiant), being first duly sworn under oath, and representing [Proposer name] (Hereafter "Proposer"), hereby deposes and swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that: 1. I am an employee of the Proposer, I have knowledge of the Request for Proposals referenced herein, and I have full authority from the Proposer to submit this affidavit and accept the responsibilities stated herein. 2. 1 am aware that the Proposer has submitted a Proposal, dated on or about [insert date] (the "Proposal"), to the City of Ashland in response to a Request for Proposal for Fire Departments Consolidation and Feasibility Study and I am familiar with the contents of the RFP and Proposal. 3. 1 have read and am familiar with the provisions of Oregon's Public Records Law, Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS") 192.410 through 192.505, and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted by the State of Oregon, which is set forth in ORS 646.461 through ORS 646.475. 1 understand that the Proposal is a public record held by a public body and is subject to disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law unless specifically exempt from disclosure under that law. 4. 1 have reviewed the information contained in the Proposal. The Proposer believes the information listed in Exhibit C-A (below) is exempt from public disclosure (collectively, the "Exempt Information"), which is incorporated herein by this reference. It is my opinion that the Exempt Information constitutes "Trade Secrets" under either the Oregon Public Records Law or the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted in Oregon because that information is either: A. A formula, plan, pattern, process, tool, mechanism, compound, procedure, production data, or compilation of information that: i. is not patented, ii. is known only to certain individuals within the Proposer's organization and that is used in a business the Proposer conducts, iii. has actual or potential commercial value, and iv. gives its user an opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. or B. Information, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that: i. Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and ii. Is the subject of efforts by the Proposer that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 21 of 27 5. I understand that disclosure of the information referenced in Exhibit C-A may depend on official or judicial determinations made in accordance with the Public Records Law. Affiant's Signature State of ) ss: County of Signed and sworn to before me on (date) by (Affiant's name). Notary Public for the State of My Commission Expires: EXHIBIT C-A EXEMPT INFORMATION Proposer identifies the following information as exempt from public disclosure: 1. 2. 3. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 22 of 27 EXHIBIT D Contract for Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Stud CITY OF CONSULTANT: -ASHLAND CONTACT: 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS- Telephone- 541/488-6002 Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: EMAIL: BEGINNING DATE: COMPLETION DATE- COMPENSATION- SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: ADDITIONAL TERMS: In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Personal Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract. FINDINGS: Pursuant to AMC 2.50.120, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department Head finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for utilization of such persona I services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and capability sufficient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and financial constraints provided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as follows: 2. Findings / Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. All Costs by Consultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance of such service. 4. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be assigned in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. 5. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated above and complete the service by the completion date indicated above. 6. Compensation: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. 7. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. 8. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530 are made part of this contract. 9. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $20,283.20 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract. Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 10. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to an person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction to property, of RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 23 of 27 whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City. 11. Termination: a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Consultant, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services, ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract, or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Consultant to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. i. Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii. Time is of the essence for Consultant's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Consultant fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Consultant shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Consultant for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 12. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. Consultant shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. 13. Assignment and Subcontracts: Consultant shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be void. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 14. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Contract. 15. Insurance. Consultant shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers b. Professional Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than, $1,000,000 for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by error, omission or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this contract. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 24 of 27 c. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than, $2,000,000 for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $500,000, $1,000,000 for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. e. Notice of cancellation or change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Consultant or its insurer(s) to the City. f. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies, excluding Professional Liability and Workers' Compensation, required herein, but only with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance. 16. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 17. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 18. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further liability to Consultant. Certification. Consultant shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated b reference. Consultant: City of Ashland By By Signature Department Head Print Name Print Name Title Date W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with the signed contract. Purchase Order No. RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 25 of 27 EXHIBIT D-A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: (1) 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are purchased for the business. (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one year. (6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. Contractor (Date) RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 26 of 27 CITY OF ASHLAND? OREGON EXHIBIT D-B City of Ashland LIVING WAGE ti~ r t i ♦ r a 4 ti CI M per flour effective June 30, 2016 (Increases annually every June 30 by the consumer Price Index) + • • . - portion of business of their 401K and IRS eligble employer, if the employer has cafeteria plans (incluing ten or more employees., and childcare) benefits to the has received financial amount of wages received by asssistance for the project or the employee. For all hours worked under a business from the City of service contract between their Ashland in excess of > Nnie_ 'Employee= does not employer and the City of $M M-20- include temporary or part-time Ashland if the contract employees hired for less than exceeds $20,M-20 or more, ; If their employer is the City of 1040 hours in any twelve- Ashland including the Parks month period. For more > For all hours worked in a and Recreation Department. details on applicability of this month if the employee spends policy, ~C or more of the po, please see Ashland In calculating the living wage, Municipal Code Section employees tme in that month employers may add the value 3.12.020. working on a project or of heaith care; retirement, . additional Call the Ashland r Adm nistrat&s office at 5414W-6002 or tivrite to the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit ft qty's weWe at waw.ashland.or.us. N Tice to EnVbym: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seen by all employees. CITY OF H L, D RFP - Fire Department Consolidation and Feasibility Study, Page 27 of 27 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication November 14, 2016, Study Session System Development Charge Committee Update FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, michael.faught it ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an update on the System Development Charge (SDC) Committee recommended SDC adjustments based on the updated Water, Sewer and Transportation Master Plans. System Development Charges are paid by developers to reimburse the City for the cost of capital improvements necessary to expand infrastructure to accommodate new growth and development. If approved, proposed SDC impacts would be as follows: • Residential and commercial wastewater SDC increases by approximately 150%; • Residential water SDC increases by .30% and commercial and industrial water SDC is reduced by 1.2% to 1.5% depending on water meter size; and • Single family residential transportation SDC increases by 5% and all other transportation SDCs increase or decrease based on the number of PM peak hour trips as shown in table 5. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff is requesting Council feedback on the proposed System Development Charges (SDC) resulting from the adoptions of the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Master Plans. Once staff incorporates any modifications to the proposed SDCs, staff will bring the proposed SDCs back to Council for a public hearing and adoption at the December 6, 2016, Council meeting. The City Council adopted the Water and Sewer Master Plan updates on April 17, 2012 and the Transportation System Plan on March 19, 2013. The updated master plans include a multitude of capital improvement projects needed to maintain service for current and future developments. Only those capital improvements that meet the needs of future developments are included in these SDC updates. (Examples include: a new water treatment plant; the TAP line for water; a new wastewater oxidation ditch and wastewater outfall for wastewater; and multi-modal transportation projects. On February 4, 2014, a System Development Committee was established to work with City staff and to develop the following System Development Charge updates based on the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Master Plans. Page 1 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND The members of the committee are as follows: • Troy Brown, Jr. • Allen Douma • Dan Jovick • Jac Nickels • Carlos Reichenshammer (Chair) • Russ Silbiger • Rich Rosenthal - Council Liaison The Committee met eight times from March 4, 2014 to February 17, 2015 (see attached minutes). The Committee recommended some adjustments to the consultant's recommendations, which are included into proposed SDC updates. Unfortunately, staff was not able to bring the committee's recommendations back to Council for adoption until now as a result of a number of factors, including ongoing public works projects and retirement of the SDC consultant. The details of the proposed SDC adjustments are included in the attached consultant's report. A summary of the recommendations is as follows: Wastewater SDC Residential Wastewater SDCs for residential development would increase from $.81 per square foot to $2.028 per square foot of livable area. Similarly, the commercial wastewater SDC is based on the number of fixture units and that also increases from $124.18 to $187.74, a 151% increase. Table 1 Updated Wastewater System Development Charges Current SDC Proposed SDC Change Reimburse- Improve- Reimburse- Improve- Measurement ment ment Total ment ment Total $ % A Residential $/Square feet $0.40 $0.41 $0.81 $0.195 $1.833 $2.028 $1.22 150% Average Residential SDC^ $800 $820 $1,620 $389 $3,665 $4,054 $2,435 150% CommercialT $/Plumbing fixture $60.79 $63.39 $124.18 $29.92 $282.00 $311.92 $187.74 151% 'Assumes 2,000 square feet and thirteen plumbing fixture units. t Commercial SDC = $/fixture unit. Water Residential Water SDCs would increase by .30% while commercial SDCs would decrease 1.20% to 1.50% depending upon the meter size. This variance in decreases results because the meter capacities are updated to new standards. Page 2 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Table 2 Current and updated Water SDC (displacement meters) Current 2014 2012 Master Plan Update with TAP & Crowson II SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC % A Residential $/habitable sf $2.60 $0.93 $1.68 $2.61 0.30% Commercial and Industrial (by displacement meter size)^ % x 3/4 $4,940 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 -1.30% 3/4 $8,250 $2,989 $5,140 $8,129 -1.50% 1 $16,452 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257 -1.20% 1'/z $26,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20% 2 $57,654 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30% 3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30% 4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -1.30% 6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30% Transportation The Single family residential Transpiration SDCs would increase from $2,044 to $2,154, however the consultant is recommending that the methodology of determining and assessing the SDC be changed from average daily trips (ADT) to PM peak-hour trips. This change will have minimal impact to residential units however some of the commercial SDC will be increased substantially based on the number of PM peak-hour trips each development is expected to create. Table 5 compares the current and updated trip measures (ADT and PM peak-hour) and SDC for which data have been published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 3 Updated Transportation System Development Charges Current Update Adjusted PM ITE Avg. Peak- Land Weekday Hour $ /PM Peak- Use Trip S /ADT trip Hour trip Difference ITE Land Use Code Unit^ Rate $214 Rate $2,112 $ % RESIDENTIAL Single Family Multi- Family 210 DU 9.55 2,043.70 1.02 $2,154.35 $110.65 5% Multi-Family 220 DU 6.28 1,343.04 0.67 $1,415.11 $72.07 5% Residential Condominium 230 DU 5.68 1,216.42 0.52 $1,098.30 ($118.12) -10% Manufactured 240 Occupied DU 4.67 998.46 0.60 $1,267.27 $268.81 27% Page 3 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Current Update Adjusted PM ITE Avg. Peak- Land Weekday Hour $ /PM Peak- Use Trip $ /ADT trip Hour trip Difference ITE Land Use Code Unit' Rate $214 Rate $2,112 $ % Recreational Home/Condo 260 DU 3.16 676.24 0.31 $654.75 ($21.49) -3% INSTITUTIONAL Truck Terminals 30 1,000 sf GFA 11.03 2360.85 0.83 $1,753.05 ($607.80) -26% Bus Depot 1,000 sf GFA 25.00 5350 NA Park 411 Acres 2.01 429.5 4.50 $9,504.50 $9,075.00 2113% City Acres 45.00 9630 4.50 $9,504.50 ($125.50) _1% Neighborhood Acres 4.50 963 4.50 $9,504.50 $8,541.50 887% Amusement Acres 72.00 15,408 4.50 $9,504.50 ($5.903.50) -38% Golf Course 430 Holes 34.21 7,320.28 3.56 $7,519.11 $198.83 3% Movie Theatre 443 Seats 0.81 173.25 0.32 $675.88 $502.63 290% Racquet Club 492 1,000 sf GFA 8.74 1,870.66 0.84 $1,774.17 ($96.49) -5% Military Base 501 Employee 1.78 380.92 0.30 $633.63 $252.71 66% Elementary School 520 Student 1.18 252.08 0.28 $591.39 $339.31 135% Junior High School Student 1.30 277.34 0.30 $633.63 $356.29 128% High School 530 Student 1.49 318.95 0.29 $612.51 $293.56 92% Junior/Community College 540 Student 1.44 307.39 0.12 $253.45 ($53.94) -18% Church 560 1,000 sf GFA 10.07 2151.04 0.94 $1,985.38 ($165.66) -8% Day Care Center/Preschool 565 Student 1.06 229.00 0.84 $1,774.17 $1,545.17 675% Library 590 1,000 sf GFA 22.30 4,763.00 7.20 $15,207.19 $10,444.19 219% Hospital 610 1,000 sf GFA 15.94 3,406.00 1.16 $2,450.05 ($955.95) -28% Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 2.47 528.58 0.37 $781.48 $252.90 48% BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel 310 Occupied Room 4.50 963.48 0.74 $1,562.96 $599.48 62% Building Materials/Lumber 812 1,000 sf GFA 11.23 2,403.39 5.56 $11,743.33 $9,339.94 389% Page 4 of 7 mill CITY OF ASHLAND Current Update Adjusted PM ITE Avg. Peak- Land Weekday Hour $ /PM Peak- Use Trip $ /ADT trip Hour trip Difference ITE Land Use Code Unit^ Rate $214 Rate $2,112 $ % Specialty Retail Center 814 1,000 sf GFA 14.95 3,198.49 5.02 $10,602.79 $7,404.30 231% Discount Stores 815 1,000 sf GFA 25.77 5,515.37 5.57 $11 764.45 $6,249.08 113% Hardware/Paint Stores 816 1,000 sf GFA 18.85 4,033.70 4.74 $10,011.40 $5,977.70 148% Nursery-Retail 817 1,000 sf GFA 13.26 2,837.51 9.04 $19,093.47 $16,255.96 573% Shopping Center 820 (under 50,000 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 14.55 3,113.02 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,124.21 165% (50,000 - 99,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.12 3,236.16 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,001.07 155% (100,000 - 199,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 17.24 3,690.10 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,547.13 123% (200,000 - 299,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 17.89 3,828.96 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,408.27 115% (300,000 - 399,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 16.29 3,485.03 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,752.20 136% (400,000 - 499,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.03 3,216.54 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,020.69 156% (500,000 - 599,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.15 3,242.27 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,994.96 154% High Turnover Sit- Down Restaurant 832 1,000 sf GFA 29.26 6,262.45 18.49 $39,052.91 $32,790.46 524% Fast Food Restaurant 833 1,000 sfGFA 36.09 7,722.72 47.30 $99,902.80 $92,180.08 1194% New Car Sales 841 1,000 sf GFA 21.56 4,613.73 2.80 $5,913.91 $1,300.18 28% Service Station 844 Gasoline Pump 7.68 1,644.14 15.65 $33,054.52 $31,410.38 1910% Supermarket 850 Employee 5.66 1,210.30 8.37 $17,678.36 $16,468.06 1361% Convenience Market 851 1,000 sf GFA 20.66 4,422.04 36.22 $76,500.62 $72,078.58 1630% Convenience Market w/ Gas Pump 853 Gasoline Pump 13.68 2,927.85 19.98 $42,199.96 $39,272.11 1341% Apparel Store 870 1,000 sf GFA 11.49 2,459.23 4.20 $8,870.86 $6,411.63 261% Furniture Store 890 1,000 sf GFA 1.59 341.32 0.53 $1,119.42 $778.10 228% Bank/Savings: Walk-in 911 1,000 sf GFA 17.93 3,836.54 NA Bank/Savings: Drive-in 912 1,000 sf GFA 24.80 5,306.59 26.69 $56,372.22 $51,065.63 962% OFFICE Clinic 630 1.000 sf GFA 12.61 2,698.26 NA General Office Page 5 of 7 OW . ~r CITY OF ASHLAND Current Update Adjusted PM ITE Avg. Peak- Land Weekday Hour $ /PM Peak- Use Trip $ /ADT trip Hour trip Difference ITE Land Use Code Unit/, Rate $214 Rate $2,112 $ % (Under 100,000 s 2,306.28 GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 10.78 1.49 $3,147.04 $840.76 36% (100,000-199,999 sf 1,951.57 GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 9.12 1.49 $3,147.04 $1,195.47 61% (200,000 sf GFA and 1,648.34 over) 710 1,000 sf GFA 7.70 1.49 $3,147.04 $1,498.70 91% Medical Office 3,875.56 Building 720 1,000sfGFA 18.11 4.27 $9,018.71 $5,143.15 133% Government Office Bldg. 730 1,000 sfGFA 66.17 14,160.98 1.49 $3,147.04 ($11.013.94) -78% State Motor Vehicles 34,107.15 Dept 731 1,000 sf GFA 159.38 19.93 $42,094.35 $7,987.20 23% U.S. Post Office 732 1,000 sf GFA 83.64 17,897.93 14.67 $30,984.65 $13,086.72 73% Research Center 760 1,000 sfGFA 5.16 1,104.03 1.07 $2,259.96 $1,155.93 105% Business Park 770 1,000 sf GFA 9.63 2,060.37 1.26 $2,661.26 $600.89 29% INDUSTRIAL General Light 110 1,000 sf GFA 1,670.57 Industrial 7.81 1.08 $2,281.08 $610.51 37% General Heavy 120 1,000 sf GFA 359.52 Industrial 1.68 0.68 $1,436.23 $1,076.71 299% Industrial Park 130 1,000 sf GFA 7.81 1,670.57 0.84 $1,774.17 $103.60 6% Manufacturing 140 1,000 sf GFA 4.31 922.77 0.75 $1 584.08 $661.31 72% Warehouse 150 1,000 sf GFA 1,169.64 5.47 0.45 $950.45 ($219.19) -19% Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 sf GFA 1.23 262.51 0.22 $464.66 $202.15 77% Utilities 170 Employees 1.06 226.84 NA Wholesale 860 1,000 sf GFA 3.30 705.71 0.52 $1,098.30 $392.59 56% "DU Dwelling Unit; GFA = Gross Floor Area; sf = Square Feet. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: If approved, the water, sewer, and transportation SDCs will ensure that future developments will pay their fair share of the capital projects listed in the adopted master plans. COUNCIL GOALS: N/A Page 6 of 7 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A SUGGESTED MOTIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Economic & Financial Analysis Summary 2. Transportation SDC Update 3. Wastewater SDC Update 4. Water SDC Update 5. SDC Committee Minutes Page 7 of 7 City of Ashland, Oregon DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER, WATER & TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATES Prepared by: ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Vancouver, WA July 2016 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC Updates July 2016 CONTENTS SUMMARY OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATES 1 WASTEWATER 2 WATER 3 TRANSPORTATION 4 TABLES Table 1. Impact of Updated SDCs on Selected Developments 1 Table 2. Updated Wastewater System Development Charges 2 Table 3 Current and updated Water SDC (displacement meters) 3 Table 4. Updated Non-Residential Water SDC Based on Meter Capacities 3 Table 5. Updated Transportation System Development Charges 5 ATTACHMENTS Wastewater SDC Update Water SDC Update Transportation SDC Update ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSI5Z Page ii City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC Updates July 2016 SUMMARY OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATES Over the past few years, the City's System Development Charge (SDC) Task Force and Transportation Advisory Board have worked with the City's staff and consultants to update the Wastewater, Water, And Transportation System Development Charges. All three updates are based on recently completed master plans. Table 1 compares the current and updated SDCs for selected land uses. • The current and updated Water SDC are measured according to the livable square footage of residences and by meter size for non-residential developments. • The current and updated Wastewater SDC is based on livable square footage for residential developments and on the number of fixture units for commercial developments. • The updated Transportation SDC is based on PM Peak-Hour Trips rather than the current Average Daily Trips. The examples in Table 1 are typical but not unique examples of SDCs by development type and size. The following sections show the current and proposed schedules of the three systems development charges. Attached to this summary are the detailed findings for the Wastewater, Water, And Transportation SDC updates. Table 1. Impact of Updated SDCs on Selected Developments Development Wastewater' Water Transportation Total 2,000 square foot single family home Average daily trips (ADT) 9.55 PM peak-hour trips 1.02 Current $1,620 $5,200 $2,044 $8,864 Update $4,056 $5,214 $2,154 $11,424 $ change $2,436 $14 $111 $2,560 % change 150% 0.3% 5.4% 28.9% 60-unit apartment (1,000 sf/unit) Meter size, inches of diameter 4 Average daily trips (ADT) 6.28 PM peak-hour trips 0.67 Current $48,600 $156,000 $80,635 $285,235 Update $121,680 $156,408 $84,902 $362,990 $ change $73,080 $408 $4,267 $77,755 % change 150% 0.3% 5.3% 27.3% 100,000 square foot retail business with 50 plumbing fixtures Meter size, inches of diameter 2 Average daily trips (ADT) 17.24 PM peak-hour trips 3.9 Current $6,209 $57,654 $368,936 $432,799 Update $15,596 $56,901 $823,680 $896,177 $ change $9,387 ($753) $454,744 $463,378 % change 151% -131% 123% 107% ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1 City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC Updates July 2016 WASTEWATER The Wastewater SDC for residential developments increases from $0.81/square foot to $2.028/square foot. The current and updated Wastewater SDC for commercial developments is based on the number of plumbing fixtures. It increases from $124 per plumbing fixtures currently to $312 per plumbing fixture- a 151% increase. Table 2. Updated Wastewater System Development Charges Current SDC Proposed SDC Change Reimburse- Improve- Reimburse- Improve- Measurement ment ment Total ment ment Total $ % A Residential $/Square feet $0.40 $0.41 $0.81 $0.195 $1.833 $2.028 $1.22 150% Average Residential SDC^ $800 $820 $1,620 $389 $3,665 $4,054 $2,435 150% Commercial t $/Plumbing $60.79 $63.39 $124.18 $29.92 $282.00 $311.92 $187.74 151% fixture 'Assumes 2,000 square feet and thirteen plumbing fixture units. 'r Commercial SDC = $/fixture unit. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2 City of Ashland -Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC Updates July 2016 WATER The current and updated Water SDC for residential developments is assessed based on square footage of livable area. The Water SDC for residential developments increases from $2.60/square foot to $2.6069/square foota 0.3% increase. The SDC by displacement meter size decreases about 1.3%. Table 3 shows the current and updated Water SDCs by meter technologies and capacities. Turbine meters are a recent technology and have a higher capacity than displacement meters as shown in Table 4. All but a few meters currently installed in the City are displacement and most new single-family residences will likely continue to use displacement meters. Non-residential developments are more likely in the future to choose turbine meters because they can deliver more water per minute than the same size displacement meters. Table 3 Current and updated Water SDC (displacement meters) Current 2014 2012 Master Plan Update with TAP & Crowson II SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC % A Residential $/habitable sf $2.60 $0.93 $1.68 $2.61 0.30% Commercial and Industrial (by displacement meter size)^ 5/8 X 3/4 $4,940 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 -1.30% 3/4 $8,250 $2,989 $5,140 $8,129 -1.50% 1 $16,452 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257 -1.20% 1'/2 $26,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20% 2 $57,654 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30% 3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30% 4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -1.30% 6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30% Table 4. Updated Non-Residential Water SDC Based on Meter Capacities Meter Size Turbine Displacement inches Reimbursement Improvement Total Reimbursement Improvement Total 5/8 X 3/4 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 3/4 3,586 6,168 9,754 2,994 5,151 8,145 1 5,970 10,270 16,240 4,787 8,235 13,022 1'/2 11,959 20,572 32,531 5,970 10,270 16,240 2 19,130 32,909 52,039 11,959 20,572 32,531 3 41,828 71,955 113,783 17,929 30,842 48,771 4 71,716 123,369 195,085 23,899 41,113 65,012 6 149,402 257,008 406,410 59,757 102,797 162,554 8 215,147 370,106 585,253 - - - ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3 City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC Updates July 2016 TRANSPORTATION Table 5 shows the current and updated Transportation SDC. Since the method for determining and assessing this SDC has been changed from Average Daily Trips (ADT) to PM Peak-Hour Trips, the impact on most non-residential uses is significantly different than for residential developments. The Transportation SDC for a single-family residence increases from $2,044 to $2,154-a 55 increase. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n ~n O l~ M ~D M DD M O v1 ~ ~ 00 N o0 00 N N - oo M O~ M N Ln k.0 o N N Q1 O N U U ~ : U p l` 1 op p O C 00 ~O M N C 7t oc Q O oG _ ir; M p c'1 C, m ~g ~j 6g 69 69 6S 64 E{3 6A 00 69 cfj to 6F- L in p~ O O O O 00 r M C', M^ In OC M M N O n Lr~ n n ^ 00 \O M 1~11 M O N ~ v> oc t-- M d' It ~ ~ In -4 M M N M In G. ^ In ^ o~ ~,o Lr) O C O C ^ r- ~ M M ^ In 00 N N C~ d1 a1 :r r- - 64 6o} 69 69 64 64 69 GS 6F3 60~ 6F3 64 41 aj 4 CC M O ~ r- Cl O ^ `n O O o "o N O o0 O C, N 3.. U O \o In ~ M o l7t In Lr) If) tf) M 0o M N M N C U ~ ^ 0 0 0 0 ct M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. ~ z O d' N ~O ~n O ~n O M 00 00 ~n ~O N oo ~i- ~n C d• O d ~t N 00 V) M `O O N N ~O O~ O M 01 M O F" M M 110 00 ~o O M N :3" O M O O Nr-: 00 ^ Lr) Q .-r ct N r- r- OMO N N M OM In Q N O M N Q\ N M N 69 C' U In o0 00 r- ~10 M O^ O O v~ N `O ^ O O O O In p o0 oo O a, rt r- U ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ M ^ N N ~ O N 00 M ~ O N O o0 O O ~ ~ i. ACC/ U F C~ Q 3 Qj .o C7 C7 C/) C/~ a C/~ cn C7 o Q Q Q Q. Q U U U U o a~ o~ = = = o c ~ ~ ~ o o Q Q Q Q~~ o W~~~~ o o O ^ ^ ^ 71- L O O O O O O ^ O M N^ O O C O Cr ^p O N M c~ M ct O~ O N M 110 O U N N N N N d l:t V) In In If) Lr) C U ~ L U QJ A (a L ~ a-•+ ru V1 ~ C m 4- O N ~ J it ~ U q ° O 73 N Jq O C U U z :3 t" 44 7~ 64 C~ Q 0 a. U U cd O c"I ca. z 42t C2 U m 72 4-j U u F U z Q o o UM = a~ o y .a A i cl W \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V) o, oc oc N C'~ ^ M 00 M V) V) M kf) `O d' oo O r- rt N N oo N - ,o (r) Cl M - - iN Q1 N ~ O ~ N V ~ C Z3 ci L. a1 ^ O 00 d O o0 O M r- O ~ ~,c "o 00 00 00 ~o r- c d M O O~ N O- N N,o C7,\ O M O N Q~ r- r- 06 N O O O O O 00 Q ~n a1 M O r- N O d O V) N a1 a1 0o O ~o C N v1 M N O N O kn rt t` O ON r- M 't Tt O 69 6g 69 Q1 ~ t/') ~o V~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N r^ \O 6q -69 64 69 64 64 64 64 69 GG 6g 64 M C'~ 69 M } 6g 69 Ef3 64 Gon~ y D\ kr) oc `O Mol~ ~n O r- M M M M M M M O N ~D O O a, M r- Tt -t d' N N N N N N N(:r~ 00 01 V) M O N O N M NIt m r` C q, M d 00 O V) oc \p " O ~,o o, M M M M M M M V) O r- N d' V) r` 0 0 N N N N N N N O o~ c*) O~c r-- N t,~ C 6g - O ^ O cr 00 00 oc 00 00 00 0o O, o, tr M r` Fi4 CC bl4 } 69 69 -69 6F} 64 6f3 69 6S M o, 64 M 4J 0. Go~ 64 69 64 6F? CH 64 69 64 C~ . A" O ~o d ~ N r` It T t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a, O O v~ r- i. 00 N M I~ v~ O lr~ r O O~ O1 Q, O\ 01 C1 d' M OO ~D M a O O O O~ M M M M M M M o0 t` N kr) 00 i, ct -0 a= O O O 00 00 a, o, r` O N O `O M ct r` kr) N M O O O C) V) d M <t M r- O O N It r- r- -M A N O N O M M -N M 4 6 00 "o N d Q N N ~ Tt ~n C1 It V') O 00 N ,o 00 ,t N N N r- ~o ,D N ~ F~ ~ M N M Vl ~ N M M M M M M M \O d' bf3 C a, L i. O ~O O ~ l~ O M v> l~ v> ~o v~ N ~ O~ M v~ ~o ~ ~ 00 ~o O `O U a O M O, kn N r- 00 N ~n N oc N O (,A bD 'C C, N kr) (,A 00 M Ln N -N 10 Q 3 < c C7 c7 r~ c7 c7 C7 c7 c7 c7 C7 c7 C7 c7 C7 c7 C7 c7 c7 . a a) v 4. 4. 4. 4. 4-. 4. 4•. 4- 4. 4r 4. O Q A 'O cn N cn n cn n cn cn cn cn cn cn n cn O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pO ~ ~ O O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W Q O 4.1 O Q W v1 0 0 0 O N It V) ~10 r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N M O N - - - - N N N N N N N N M M d' ~ Ln V V') Ln \0 \o m 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CC fB N (B O 4.1 f0 3 ui 4.1 o O U ~ ¢ C7 C~ C7 C7 C7 ~ a 4" Z N U • cd a) O O Q1 N M Ln y a~ i O U O O` U U U O o~ a~ p. U o o 0 0 0 0° c~j .x 0 C a o0 0 0 0 0 a z 'c ~ C,3 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° U ❑ N U ct W= 0 3 aj o o_ o O C) O v Lin O cd O O ~ O O cd O ~ U U O U ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -OO N ^ M OO M M kf) 41 N M ~D N 110 M av M r- Nr- O N M a1 ~D cn N (11 a, N c i aj O hD N U cB U n- ~ U Z" oo ^ M O M ~O ~ O ~ ^ O N M Q1 O ^ Ap -r- ~ ~ ~ N r- C~, oc r- \O M 00 N 00 Vl O oc m r- `O O O `O M ^ C I~ a1 00 00 O ^ l~ O ~D O N I:t r O 00 ^ ^ a1 O ^ ~D ~O O ~D N Q1 \O 6 4 - vj C M E!} 64 bF} 69 I~ M 6f3 69 69 64 69 69 Gq 69 6s sg L N ~O ~D N N d ~t ct kf) tr) ~c ~,o 00 M r- o0 `p a1 00 ~t N O O Or- O M~,c o" N O N O ^ ~ V' O O 00 ct 4 a, ^ C d ^ O r- r- d- lzl- - a, Oo V') "o oc M ~ 00 OD M ^ O O a~ N ~O N 7t r ~p N o0 \p M M M C, M N O N N N ^ ^ I:t 69 64 kn Gon, 64 6g 64 69 d' M Goa 64 64 Gll~ 64 69 G~ a 6A 69 64 64 69 CC o0 O M Q C" ¢ ~ 01~ r- ~ (n r- r- ~ 00 00 't V) CC y N a, N Z Z ~t d N ~O O N O ~D oo I~ It: 0. L ~ 7' O N It lZt O O O ~ M C az 71- V, M N -T a, `D 00 r- ~ ~ 00 V) M M O oc N M V') V) N N Ln M V, a, - a, O (n V) V) 00 1 00 kf~ O ~ r-: ter- O O a1 O N Q N N M O a1 O ~T t- ~c O~ O O M r- CA rt a. M 00 M 11C M a, \c o0 N N MLr) N N M d' 't N ~ M ^ U L L \c 00 a, a. M O - 00 N O t~ 00 ~ 1~0 ~ ao \O oo M V ^Z7 ~O ~ a, oc 00 ^ l~ L bD .O ¢ O M ^ I~ 4 N O a1 00 ~10 Q\ 00 N N Q QJ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Gt, Cs, L=, Li. Cz, Cs, Cz, Ci Ci, Cr- Ci, Cz, C=, CL C=, Li. C=, LL. D < ¢ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD C7 C7 C7 C7 U 4- 4- 4-. 4--. 4-. 4. 4-. 4- 4- 4--. 4-. 4. 4. 4-. 4- Q C O =5 rn cn cn cn n n cn CA cn cn cn cn cn rn cn V~ cn cn O ai ~L O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O [B 4- 0 Q L W^ M O O^ N O O O O O O^ N O O O O O O ~ E„ ~ C to to Q1 --M ^ N M M M ~ ~ ^ N M ~ ro L 4 L 3 W N ¢ > o ca cn E W Con z 73 a, u cn 4~- v 0 a~ U a? by &a U U s. O bJJ by cn t U U U O C 4. O O c+- O D U C1. Q U Q. cB C!~ N > > O O O O U Z C'j 2 p " C.) C u can ~ U O O U L. N tU w U Q CC > > m N O O Q~ N U U N ~ W C/)- CA CA O O O fl- cC c~ ~y N O O U U Q f~ f~ W U C7 C7 v~ a1 Z ' ' ' U F ~ O O O 00 C uo O ~ fB N U OL ~ O A G` O ~ ~71 c-I I) 6M9 O N p 06 Gol~ 69 y4 6l4 69 0. ca ~ ~ ~ O O O O 0. ~ _ \O `O N O Q N N N r- 69 O O l~ M `O O U ~ ~ ~ N O M Q 3 Q o ~ ~ a C) ~ o °o ~ o O o o w o c~ L O Q w b O p O O y V -00 C t CC N L ~ Q1 C' a ~ I I i - m U1 O (1) 4 p N fD [ J a z O S- a J ~ I I v z C7 ? ul qj o O 3 i y z rn N a, 110 O ~o M 00 M M a1 al~ M 2- V° M ~o [ N O N M a 0 N M (01 O ^ vl a1 V ^ C N ~ C7., oo v) r- ~ M O 00 M "o v), 0 O 16 M ^ - N N IZI- Q1 01 d' c~ o0 00 Lr) O r- O " " O a, 00 z:l- ^ O a, O - ~c "o O ^ `p _ N M ^ L r- M F!} 64 ^ , 64 66 69 69 6014 V) - GG ^ 64 6F} 64 6g N "Zi- d' d' W) `O oc m r- oo V) `O O O O O O M c Q, N O N^ " M N lzt ~ ~ ^ 'It a1 00 V oc m r- oo V) ~ a, U F/9 ---p O a1 N ~o a, 7t O Q Gon~ 6o~ 69 ~ coq It OM 6NF?- N(f? 6on} Gol~ 64 69 C/1 6g 69 "a .a 41 Q o1 a1 a1 Q, M r- \C o0 0o d Ln V N N Z T' 7t 7t N ct a, O N O 00 r- 't N Q N d ^ ~p 00 ~ 1~0 00 V-~ M M r- V) M kn a1 ^ a1 O M v) v) v7 V) 00 r- 00 16 00 v~ O ~ r-: 4 O O C, O N C, N `O 47 U O ~ r-~ O a1 O V) r- N~~ N O oo O ~o M a1 N N t~ Q 6F3 69 64 Ef3 f~? d Ef3 N 6g ^ 64 69 64 U1 Ef3 69 69 69 6F3 69 EA 00 N O ^ r- 00 M 00 - r M O U ~CC/ 7O r- -r- M \O ^ ,o oo \O 00 M I:t N O M Fii N O a\ 00 1~6 al~ M 47 a1 ^ d" V~ ^ M `p V) 00 4 1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4-. 4- 4-. 4. 4-- 4-- 4- 4- 4-. 4- 4- O 4-- cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn CA cn cn cn cn cn cn U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c/1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O co L O ~ ~ O O O O O O N O O O O O O O ^ O O M N M M M `O N M - - - - OC L y lB ~ L 4 I I QJ (D Q 3 OJ O N cn ~ cn Q 41 s J C7 J ~ L=• ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ II Q 't Li E z ~ a, Q C7 z cn O a1 U s t7 ti U 4-. U U U -~,4 b!) C W 03 O cn cn cd U ct z ct 03 45 0 'n C W U O p v Cl. cC ate) u N ' O W City of Ashland, Oregon TRANSPORTATION: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE Prepared by: ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Vancouver, WA July 2016 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 SUMMARY 3 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SDC 5 FORECAST NUMBER OF PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS 6 ALLOCATION OF CIP LIST TO DEVELOPMENT 11 IMPROVEMENT FEE 13 APPENDIX TABLES 25 TABLES & FIGURES Table 1 Population and Employment Growth 6 Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth 6 Table 3 Calculation of PM Peak-Hour Trips 7 Table 4 Comparison of Average Weekday Trip and PM Peak-Hour Trips for Selected Land Uses 8 Table 5 Summary of TSP Projects 11 Table 6 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee 12 Table 7 Transportation Capital Improvements Plan, 2013 Dollars 14 Table 8 Comparison of the Current and Updated SDCs for Selected Land Uses 21 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 INTRODUCTION The City of Ashland retained Economic & Financial Analysis (EFA) to update the City's Transportation system development charge based on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) developed by Kittelson & Associates and adopted by the City in 2011. This introduction is followed by a summary of the recommended changes to the Transportation SDC, a summary of the current SDC, and three sections that formulate the Transportation SDC update. The Appendix contains a listing of the ITE Trip Generation 11anual for land uses for which ITE reports the PM Peak-Hour number of trips. We use the PM Peak-hour number of trips to both create the Transportation SDC and to assess the it for specific types of development. SUMMARY The current TSDC was developed in 1997 and last updated in 1999. The updated Transportation SDC is based on a new list of capital improvements, a new forecast of population and employment growth, and the measures of trip generation have been updated from the 5t' edition of the Trip Generation Manual to the most currently available 9t' edition. Two other key differences are made. First, the current SDC is based on measures of average daily trips (ADT) by land use while the updated TSDC is based on PM peak-hour trips by land use. Second, the current TSDC is applied to a select number of land uses with high-volume trip generation (e.g., fast-food, service stations) that effectively discounts the TSDC charged to them. This update eliminates these discounts which will have a significant impact on the TSDC for these select land uses. The TSDC increases from $214 per ADT to $2,112 per PM peak-hour trip, a 887% increase. These TSDC rates are applied based on the number of trips by a specific land use. A single family residence produces 9.55 ADTs but only 1.02 PM peak-hour trips per day which results in a current TSDC of $2,043 ($214 x 9.55 ADT) and an updated TSDC of $2,154 ($2,112 x 1.02 PM peak-hour trips), a 5% increase. For high- volume land uses such as service stations, the TSDC will increase from $1,164 per pump to $33,054, a 1910% increase. Table 8 below compares the current and updated TSDC for a wide range of land uses. Discussions with the Systems Development Charge Review Committee and the Transportation Advisory Committee, recommended the final Transportation SDC should be $2,112 per PM peak-hour trip with the changes noted above. The Transportation SDC is an improvement fee only. The current transportation system lacks sufficient excess capacity to develop a reimbursement fee. The Committee recommended the following changes to the original list and growth allocations by capital projects: • Projects R41 (Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road Streetscape) and R44 (Tolman Creek Road at Mistletoe Road Streetscape) are essentially one continuous project and should be allocated 50% to growth based on testimony from the City's Planning Director. The allocation reduces R41 from 100% to 50% and R41 was increased from 0% to 50%. These projects amount to $250.68 of the total $2,112 per trip SDC. • All of the railroad crossing projects (X 1 at 4t' Street, X2 at Washington Street, and X3 at Normal Avenue) should be allocated 100% to growth. The committee concluded that these projects are ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 essential to improving access on both sides of the railroad rights of way. Together these projects amount to $283.62 of the total $2,112 per trip SDC. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SDC The Current Transportation System Development Charge was adopted in 1997 and updated in 1999, seventeen years ago. The Current SDC has several weaknesses mostly due to its age in a changing environment. These include: • Update of the capital improvements list and their costs • Changes in travel patterns • The primary source of trips per type of development is from the 5' edition of the Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991), the "Manual"; the 9'h edition was released in 2012. The current SDC also uses some unpublished estimates of travel for certain land uses that have since been updated in later editions of the Manual. • In the current SDC several assumptions were made and categories of trips by land use were consolidated into a "short" list of possible land uses and their travel patterns. Later editions of the Manual provide a broader range of trip generation by land use. • Also, the current SDC is based on average daily trips as was the original transportation master plan the SDC used as a source. The current transportation master plan is designed around PM peak-hour trip rates that more accurately determines the need for capital improvements. In the following analysis and update, EFA bases this update to the transportation SDC on the current Ashland Transportation System Plan (2012 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.), the most recent Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9'b Edition), 2012 land use and population data and forecasts, and recommendations by the Ashland Systems Development Charges Review Committee and the Ashland Transportation Advisory Committee. The next three sections of this report develop the transportation SDC update: • Forecast Number of PM Peak-Hour Trips is used to calculate the capital cost per trip of planned capital improvements • Allocation of CIP List of Development contains the current list of capital improvements and the proportion that will benefit future developments • Improvement Fee is the calculation of the updated transportation SDC The current and proposed changes to the Transportation SDC does not include a reimbursement fee. The transportation network does not have sufficient excess capacity to meet the requirements for calculating a reimbursement fee which is based on the value of excess capacity. The current and proposed update the Transportation SDC is an improvement fee only which is based on increases in capacity. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 FORECAST NUMBER OF PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS Ashland's TSP contains the following population and employment forecasts to determine the need for capital improvements. The expected growth reflects an aging population with fewer people in the workforce resulting in an increasing population/employment ratio. The planned improvements will accommodate this level of growth in population and employment. Table 1 Population and Employment Growth 2009 2034 Growth Population 21,505 25,464 3,959 % Growth 18.4% % Growth/Year 0.68% Employment 13,284 15,496 2,212 % Growth 16.7% % Growth/Year 0.62% Population/Employment 1.62 1.64 Source: Ibid., pp 60, 61. To determine the numbers of trips now and in the future, we use trip generation data, jobs by type, and the current (2009) and forecast (2034) population and employment shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth 2009 2034 Growth Households by Building Type/, Single Family 9,271 10,535 1,264 Multiple Family _ 3,813 4,958 1,145 Total 13,084 15,493 2,409 Population 21,505 25,464 3,959 % Growth 18.4% % Growth/Year 0.68% Persons/Household 1.64 1.64 1.64 Employment* 13,284 17,220 3,936 % Growth 29.6% % Growth/Year 1.04% Population/Employment 1.62 1.48 1.01 /'Ashland's utility billing system shows 9,271 single family residences and 3,813 multiple family residences and we assume the SF/MF split will remain constant through 2034. *Employment growth derived from the TSP, page 59. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 The ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th ed.) shows single-family residences produce 1.02 PM Peak-Hour trips and multiple family residences produce 0.67 PM Peak-Hour trips. Employees average 2 PM Peak- Hour Trips per employee.' The Appendix contains the Trip Generation Manual detailed list of the PM Peak-Hour trip rates for various uses. Table 3 Calculation of PM Peak-Hour Trips 2009 2034 Growth PM Peak-Hour Trips Residential Single Family-1.02 trips 9,456 10,746 1,290 Multiple Family-0.68 trips 2,555 3,322 767 Total Residential PM P-H Trips 12,011 14,068 2,057 Employment 13,284 17,220 3,936 PM P-H Trips/Employee 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total PM P-H Trips 26,568 34,440 7,872 Total PM P-H Trips 38,579 48,508 9,929 Source: Compiled by EFA from City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan. This update uses PMpeak-hour trips to both determine the aggregate number of these trips within the boundaries of the TSP and to apply the transportation SDC to specific developments. The current SDC is based on total average daily trips and is applied to specific developments based on total average daily trips with adjustments for equivalent length new daily trips (ELNDT) for selected land uses.' Table 4 shows the schedule of the current SDC by broad categories of land uses. The list in Table 4 is a subset of land uses in the appendix to this report. The appendix to this report should be used to apply this updated SDC. The PM Peak-hour trip rates were used to better reflect the demands placed on the roadways. The TSP is based on peak-hour vehicle movements through intersections. The update also drops the use of ELNDT. Since the current SDC was developed in 1999, the ITE Trip Generation Manual has been expanded to more uses and several categories of uses have been updated or changed with newer data. ' EFA compiled employment data from the City's utility billing system and business licenses, and from the US Census Bureau's survey of business. We matched trip generation data from the ITE manual with the employment by type of business to calculate the average. ITE defines the average weekday trip rate as the weighted weekday (Monday through Friday) average vehicle trip generation rate during a 24-hour period." ITE defines the average PM Peak-Hour trip rates as the peak hour of the generator between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. [ITE, Trip Generation Manual Volume I User's Guide and Handbook, 9th ed., page7]. ITE defines trip length and linked trips as measures affecting traffic on streets adjacent to a particular development. Only 22 of the more than 200 land uses in the ITE manual have been statistically measured for trip length and pass-by trips, and for this reason and the poor correlation with trip rates, the ITE cautions analysts in the use of these data [Ibid., page 33]. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 7 N t~ N O M¢ O \D N ct O DD O a1 N d O C~ ~t LO Lr) Q O'41 11) '-C M 00 Lf) Ir) M o0 M N M N Q1 00 N M O L ^ 0 0 0 0 O Tt M O O C O O O O O Or- O OLf') N 2:' 0. O a CL t1r) 00 00 ~ \O M O O 00 Oo O o~ 9- O -ZT F- O M NN`p OO ON00r- I-- Mgt OOMrn~t N Q d M v~ ~ ct O 00 -a - O ' N to N Q ~ N ~ M •--N r-• ,--Q 3 O C o C C C O C C C O C O C C O C O C C C v)Ln Qo, o C O C C C C C o C O C C C C O C O C C 0 ~ r 4~~ o0 00 ~E Qo~~ NO CEO^COOOO00OOOOM~Ln V) Q p, OQ~O~O~O ^O ~~d'~OOOOOONctO`(a,\ a? ' Z, 0 0 0^ ^ O O O O O O C O O O Cj O W Q L ~ U F• Q ~D \ O O~~lc "t OO Q~ C OO M N M O o0 O O V> -~t 00 00 ^ 00 O O V) r- ^ r- O N M M M \O l~ \O r- Lr) O~~vld M C1 OM 0,Tt 000 L ~ Q 3 F U O O N p C O O C Li, Ls LL, fs . Lz, C~ O Cz, ' (~C7 cn cn C7 j, OC7' G0Q O C~0 S], O O c ~ .3 3 3 3 3 O° Q~C/)CO ~vavav~~°ova°o°o ~ ¢'°o O O O W O O O v v 0 G.~ a a ~ •a o O O O O O O M N O O O O v~ O O O O N ~ Sir ~ ~ N M ~ ~ C M ~ ~ O N M ~ ~ Q1 ^ N ..r F" N N N N N M It IZI- I' kr) vl V) V) kn vl Ln \c `O M o0 > QJ o y E W M O 3 N cn J cn Z C ~ O Q O t? 'C U s Gs7 Q ~n O O ° O p 0. Z O O 'c7 rn ,zs cn a~ ~xx~.~aaa c7xW.~=.~UQ~xz~xaa :tf W U N[~~ct o0OOOOOO~oO V) r- N00OM¢0, Q o~, 0~, ~p 0 , C O t~ O 01, O~ O1 O1 O1, a, Q1 M 00 ~c M (,I ~ N to Z `O Z 7t ct d L 1:t M M M M M M 00 t- N V') 00 ~D 0~ d' O ~O ! Q4_ Gr L CC N Q~ M ~ ~ rn ~10 00 110 \o 00 rn o, M O 00 N O Q~ ~ 00 N N 00 N O N O V) ~ ~,o ~c ~c 7t vl rn 00 ~ - kr; 00 M r-~ r` Lr) C~ O M ct N O ar t- N -r-. -N M N N N Q -M O V-) ^ V) I~ \O V) N V') V) Ln V) O O O O (Ij 114) 1-0 r- C-- 00 r- In r'- r- It Cr) y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^ w •L a -•MOal ~~o~all c~o~7t ooCIA O~o~~r- V Q t~t Zt ~t M M d 't V O `O O - O M rt ct Vl `O ~ L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L p L ac~._ U ~ ~ F I~M~00 ~~~0^N~~ON ctN~~t~~ O` ooM~ ~D ^ N O V') ~O ~10 Ln 00 O M N V) 00 01 M N M N N O 00 Gj O O ^ Ic ~ O ~D N 00V), V, M \O d 41 bA CC Lr) M Q1 V1 V It M o 00 It It 00 M Q\ M dt ~o N - ^C -N r N 3 ~ Cl. C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C~ C7 C7 Q, C.~ C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 in. ~cn cn cn cn cn cn cn zn C/) cn cn cn n cn O cn p cn CA cn C/) CA cn C/) cn O O O O O O O O O C O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W o 0 0 0 o O O C) 0 QJ bn y ca ~ t p u c W - Vl \10 r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N t~ ct O^ M O O N O o 0 0 (3) - N (-A N N N N N N M M ct "zt Ln V') V-) t` C1 - M F ' 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o Q, a, r` o c~ a) in 4- E a) E cn 4-1 C7 C~ C7 C7 C7 ¢ C7 o a 4- cz cn p o L CA~o,o~o,a,o, ° x Oo°,,Q z 131 a) u 44 ct CA 4- CA 4- u = U O O KI F- W o t 0 O o o ° O OO o~ C ~ (j U or ;oo U o 0 O O O O ~x - co00000 o c Cnnv) N z 13 4-1 o U U y Q) U s U i 0 fl p ct U O O Q. c~ c~ V U W v~ Q Z ~n T rte, Z ~n v~ U U Q G=. C~ 4~ U C7 0 111 00 00 Ict v) kf) N Q N Q N ~D O N O1-0 00 r- "Zl- N z O ~ ,x ~ ~ ~ ^ O O O O O O U. 0.~ cc o a r- 00 ~ ~ M 00 oc \O 0o m 't N O M 00 ~,O M (f) o. t~ V~ M Q~ 00 Q ~ y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 El- o 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 Cl 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c Z E~ to 41 V Q M~~ r- r N N N N N r- O c O G, 110 110 CD It 000000 •--~--^^o-~o U WQ~ F- M N N O r- In 00 44 oc -o r- r- -4 bA RS M `p O 0000 00 \O O c U v Q d Q Q Q d d Q d Q d Q Q C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C'7 ~ C7 • ~ cn cn cn rn v~ rn v~ cn rn cn cn zn cn O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p-O y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O W O v C. O QJ y Cn O ca -O W CA 44 O O N O O O O O O O^ 0 0 'n U F QA N M M M N M ~c 11 o c~ c~a > V 0 Q ~ E o y 4-1 cn J cn p y 4-1 N C p U U Z 03 L 2 0 ~~~xm~c~c~~3~3 ~C~ 1II City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 ALLOCATION OF CIP LIST TO DEVELOPMENT Table 4 is a summary of capital improvements from the 2012 Transportation System Plan. A full list of the projects is included at the end of this chapter. The projects are categorized as: General Policies & Studies, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit, Intersection & Roadway, and Railroad Crossing. Each project is identified by its priority. High priority projects are planned for implementation in the next five years; Medium priority in the following ten years, and Low priority for some time after fifteen years. Development Driven projects will be built only if and when private development occurs in the area to be served by these improvements. Table 5 Summary of TSP Projects Priority (in years) High Medium Low Development Total Project Type 0-5 5-15 15-25 Driven Improvements General Policies & Studies 100,000 30,000 0 0 130,000 Pedestrian 8,550,000 4,050,000 2,975,000 0 15,575,000 Bicycle 3,230,000 1,150,000 570,000 330,000 5,280,000 Transit 1,000,000 2,750,000 3,500,000 0 7,250,000 Intersection & Roadway 8,948,000 7,078,000 3,725,000 23,555,000 43,306,000 Improvements Railroad Crossing 2,816,000 0 0 2,816,253 5,632,253 2012 CIP Totals $24,644,000 $15,058,000 $10,770,000 $26,701,253 $77,173,253 As part of the TSP process, the advisory committee recommended that only High, Medium, and Development Driven projects be included in the calculation of the SDC and to exclude the Low priority projects. As a result, Table 6 shows that $60.317 million of the $77.173 million of projects is considered for the SDC improvement fee. Each project in each category was evaluated for its benefit to growth. As a general rule, projects were considered to provide about 18.4% of benefit to future development which is the expected population growth through 2034. Some projects such as those in the Intersection & Roadway Improvements category and projects in the Development Driven category are either new roadways or roadway improvements that primarily service currently vacant areas of the City and primarily benefit future development. The City's Transportation Commission recommended excluding $3.27 million of improvements from the SDC calculations. Also, the City added an extension of East Main Street between Walker and Clay Streets. These corrections and one addition are shown as "*"~~-ikeee its or bold in Table 7 below. In sum, Table 6 shows only $20.971 million of the $77.173 million of project costs are allocated to growth, which is the cost basis for the SDC improvement fee. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 11 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Table 6 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee Total High, Medium % Benefit Allocation Project Type Improvements Development Driven Growth to Growth General Policies & Studies 130,000 130,000 18.5% 24,000 Pedestrian 15,575,000 11,200,000 18.4% 2,061,000 Bicycle 5,280,000 3,940,000 18.4% 725,000 Transit 7,250,000 3,750,000 18.4% 690,000 Intersection & Roadway Improvements 43,306,000 38,481,000 38.1% 14,655,000 Railroad Crossing 5,632,253 2,816,253 100.0% 2,816,000 2012 CIP Totals $77,173,253 $60,317,253 34.8% $20,971,000 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 12 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 IMPROVEMENT FEE The improvement fee is simply the allocation of cost to growth divided by the number of new PM Peak- Hour trips, $20.971 million = 9,929 PM Peak-Hour trips = $2,112/PM Peak-Hour trip. The transportation SDC improvement fee for a new single-family house will be $2,154 ($2,112 x 1.02 PM Peak-hour trips-$110.65 (5%) more than the current $2,043.70. Table 7 shows each project, its priority, and cost contribution the improvement fee system development charge. Table 8 compares the current and updated SDC for a cross-section of land uses. Table 8 shows that residential land uses are only modestly impacted by the updated SDC. The updated SDC for commercial land uses increase more, particularly those that have high trip rates such as service stations and fast food restaurants, and convenience markets. These large increases are due to two factors. First the current SDC relies on total average daily trip rates which are generally greater than PM peak-hour trip rates, but the SDC itself increased from $214/average daily trips to $2,112/PM Peak-hour trips. Second, the current SDC relies on equivalent length new daily trip (ELNDT) adjustments that reduce the number of trips charged by a significant number. For example, Service Stations have an ADT of 142.54 trips per gas pump; however, these are discounted by ELNDT to only 7.68 trips per day which results in an SDC of $1,644.14/pump. Had ELNDT not been applied the current SDC would have been $30,503.56 per pump. The updated SDC uses 15.65 PM peak- hour trips per gas pump at $2,154/PM peak-hour trip or $31,410.3 8/pump. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 13 to ^ c M O ^ M M ~o O M ~o d" "o - ~-I 00 O, 00 \o `o M 41 r- M V,) 00 00 Q', 00 O Q M Ct 00 M crl 00 V~ O O Eon U o as 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 o0 00 ~o cri 00 r-~' M kn 00 00 a; oo bA U N M 00 ^ M 00 tr) r- c-I aj ~ W v c~ 4~ U a o Q O a a Q a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - C7 0 W c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 'L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o o ~i O M M V) O V) tf) V-) kf) O O N O N l~ N N ~t r- N~ M't bJJ O O u 4- 44 cz c U t: 7D > CA t) C'~ A o Ca ri' Z o u° C7 ° 3 Z° Con a 3 0" 3 ¢ b o a o o o ° o ° C1. cn > O O O~ 4--J Ct CA E vi F15 i75 a > > 0 0 Lnn > N (aj c~ ¢ 3 4- CA v 3 ¢ CZ Q ¢ ¢ a A o a~ a~ va R c~ a 0 0 o° E E U 4-1 -U t N "o O, 00 N v) p N N 00 00 I- 00 t~ N N M 0 Z Q o w H F 111 lD (r) M ^ O `O r- 0, ~-r) O N ~ r- M I cr) I I I I I I I I c-1 r- ~ Q1 M N O ti' zl' N oo O (,q V) OC \10 o0 c n, M o0 0~ N 110, O O N N O~ 00 d ~t ~ Q L Qa O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ y v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Ln Q~ 00 M N O d• d' N 00 O N V 00 bIJ U M M 00 a1 N~ N N E 00 l -O W V ra O U ~ ~ •O A •O QL.r z 4 A ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C7 W o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O ~ O O v~ ~ v~ O~~ N 0 0 0 cn 0 „a 7t N 00 N ~ O bA O C~ 0 O W ~ O 4- V1 'O O C ~O W O > = U4- > W O Ui O 00 bA p ¢ O v ¢ r- CA /S :.74 a ~ 3 3 ¢ O x o - bn o -a o o ° `n 3 r- (A -Z C,3 7n it i75 CA 0 0 0 0 0> 0 0> 0° 0 3 0 0 0 0 Q o 0 C/~ CA C!1 ~ O U O O O O ° ° O cC ¢ a> O O C CA 73 o n ° a o cn C) Q. 'cZ ¢ U a ¢ Z ct, C7 G° ¢ U ° O C7 3 ° Z 3 rw w rw 0 a~ a~ o ° Q m 4.1 a Q N 44 u 4-4 4.1 CA 4-1 C/) -2 Cl) 4- C U O O > O 40- U O sue. r O O i, . O 2: 0- b4 U cC C,~ O c~ i C/) ct ¢ O v z ° C7~~7 U.~r~(~t~Ua ~3o~3Uaaxaaa.=uo Z L& M a1 O M cn ~O oo O N N M ~t v~ oo a1 O - O_ c \0 r- r- 00 oc y z 0 a 4- U O E, C~ W a, a, a. a a. a. a. a. a, all 111 O M N M - \o - rl 71- N ^ v~ O (r) r- O~ O CT N U p M O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O U +co~O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 CA lD 4 N lr O~~~ 0 06, C p M aJ +~r W U N ra ~ V U f!9 a. •O A •O A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U t "71- ct• lt ~ It• "t ~t 173- ~ lZt It IZI- It Tt Tt Tt d r' 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 o0 00 o0 o0 o0 00 00 00 00 o0 00 o0 V a W O ' ' ' ' ' ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O N It N "o 00 -z 00 C, 't kn O v1 N N O ^C +r N U bIJ O Ca U a) d CA (D zs .-a oA O r 4- L~ > Z5 ct > on En cz Q a O zn O a) a~ Q. O a -x O A. 4 4- O a" d O s, 2 d _ Z b O U Q o ° o ? O ? Q o ° ° ° a, ° ° > CLO 4- 4- L 3 Z - = > C/D CID CA C/~ o c c ~ °0 0 0 a, E 3 CZu) v) dwOOZw zOrx o_ 0 a~ > U (U Qa ~ •O E Qr (U 'CS O a~ w 4.1 c~ > o v~ ¢ U QC/D C/) d d a ct CA It CA o _ = E > c~ 3 0 0 3 a~ o o d a N N N N N O M `o Q~ U cq 7t r p 0 ~t r- oo N N N N N M V') V O cn U Z Q ~ O F" ~ a a, a a. a a, a. a a, ~ Aa ~A ~ Aa ~ m ~4 a1 as ~ O W 111 lD O O M O- O c-) ' ' O I I I I r-i 4, O IZT r N ~ 00 oo r- 0 O N C..) N O O O ct O O O O ~ U •o Ca O O O O O O O O O O y v~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O~~ r- CIA 110 00 lZt 00 r i a~ aA u W a U C) o o; ~ a ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a~ I- It ~ ~ ~ ~ 71- It It It l7t It It It ~ IZt Tt Itt It 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 w a y O O O O O O O O O O O > O O O O O O O O O O O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q ~ N N ~t M M O N~ ~ M O O bA O Z ~ A cd Q C > O AO c~ O cd O ¢ C,5 'U L I- oi 0 --a o cn a~ ° o 3 z o o a c U CZ 03 .b T ~ -ti -o o z Z W o pa ~ ~ ~j ~ T au x 03 Cd ~ Z v~ ¢ v~ v~ ti O T O z w Q a pa U w a! rx ¢ z 0 a~ a~ 0 ° -a u, o Ln ~ in -o o a o a~ 4- o rd C/o o m C/) -u r-2 z k ^ M 00 Vn 00 rh C) N N N a M 110 N 00 00 M 00 M U M M M M N M C 1i d O ~ _y Z O Q ~ 111 lp M "o ' C~ O O i M N O ~ -Q~ O U ~vj o0 O Q~ O O ct O M r,4 (aj G6 A L. ~ a 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ^ O ct ct N Q; p 00 lf~ b~ N o0 O O~ r. 00 r- M rn ~ ~ ~ ~ t1A W u co c U a d .O A p 0. U p o o p o 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 O o0 00 oo oc o0 o0 00 o0 00 00 00 0 o0 00 o0 C7 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E i ^ 0 0 0 0 v; o o C o N 00 00 00 O 71, r- - N tn en GO) ul t'~A O G~ C C~ ~ 0A O ..x ~ O ~ C11 ~ t, O -te ~ Q pa ~ t > pa o o ~ o ~ z ~ W 0 0 di m ~ o v~ ~ ~ d v~ U ~ C~ 3 z FO 0 CJ C) V ci E ci O o a, O O 41 CA A, x m N 44 a~ O O O ° W w -o -a s Z ct z Ln 'A F- Z Z Z E~ v~ Z v~ d d W v~ W 3 Z-cZ 1 d z 14 k 61 -t, t M \O Q~ d M oo v p ~ y Z Q O 4- U W o F 111 lp t O V) M O ' O I I i i i rl 00 Vn 00 N O N M Oll O v O M O tt \O 00 N 00 v> M N N N N a1 ~ a m O O O ' ' ' O O O O O O O O O O ' O O ' ' ' ' ' ' y ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~!j pp O Q1 N O~ 4 O ~ N O M 116 Lr ~ b~ U M M O M M Vl V1 d r-- 00 M N N N N p W V M ca W Cr •O Q •O U A ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 801 0 0 o a o 0 0-10 801 801 -cc 0 0 810 0 0-01 O o 00 00 o0 00 00 V)* 00 (ri o 00 6 00 o0 00 0 o v)* 00 ~ o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E z ki V) O O, O N 00 116 O Lr O A M O O O~ O N r- C'~ O O a1 ^ O N O" 00 ( V M M qzll N V-? U? M N V) 71- M -N N M bA O O ^ V Q~ 0~ W G x O 3 C/] ~ ~ N C~ cd ~ > C Z o > a~ o o E-o W crj bn d° d o o (D ie 3 z z 3 0 0 3 3 o w 3 3 a a12 ~0- z -CIA- O ° x Z W x x W c~ c~ c~ Q x al U Q N u, W O O O W w N vi I W O Q x x W x 3 3 3 W W 3 3> w z 4- C/~ co CA CA cn C/) ct cd (t CE c 3 0 -a o o-Z7, o o U Q ~O cz a p c~i) ran ' y0 O Q 3zZ ZdwZdZE-v~dWv~v~Uz33UZzC7~ z L (y Ln ~ M dt m N N ~t 1.0 C*~^ O N M 00 O U O O~ `p M 7t m Zt ~~It N N N M N N N N N M I y Z Q 4- U :Ll 111 .-to oo IC N rt N N 7t rn O U O v~ O O N M ^ N (:j O M 00 U O ~ H4 ~ ~ G.~ b9 69 ~ ' ' ' ' ' O O O O O O O O y co~ O O O O O O O O ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O ct M v~ O O H ~.C O U ~ O O O M 00 Q~ ~ ~ W V ~ •O Q •O ~ p N O O O O 00 p oo O O O ~ ~ M M O O O O M 0 W O ' ' ' ' ' ' O O O O O M M M y O O O O O ~n ~ ~ > O O O O O N N N O Q (1A O oc O O ^ "a oo N cI- O M X M y O N o0 00 N O M bA _O O un cl; r- z o a o rA Q O 4 ~Cll U N 4- C U U Q - C/5 V z O by C O O U cd u ) C~ > 73 CIZI 4- cn V~ CA .4- 7D n W G~ U W o U U U c Q~ co~ E 4- " ° a 3 CA C~8 U Fes, u, o' W a~ a~ Q v } 3 o x Q x 3> o z o vs ~ Ci, W ~ W ~ 4- ~ ~ ~ Q Fo„ a v th c~ _ a Q O C/) i. CC O Z y y' M V M M O N IZI- ~ Z W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 O M M r- 00 M O (r) `O V-) 00 N 00 N N ' OC M Q1 ' \O M N c oC ~ N ~ U O V N ~ w O N 00 C O O O u^, O oc ~,p C ~ M N `7 OC kn l Q _ N O~ `O O 00 00 M N V M N M 6H 6R 64 C } Eyg E~ 69 69 69 69 Eolni - 69 64 U. G r- V) ~ O O O O 00 ~ M O'~ M ~ N M ^ M N r O N v1 l r- 00 `O M 1-0 If) V O ^ d 00 r- M - ct d' a, V) t m ^ M N M QJ fl, ~.j ~ •-Q1 ~ ~ V1 O O O O M Q1 M r^ ~ ~ s9 _ 6H 69 Es9 69 64 y Go~ Goq EA 69 69 463 Go!~ 64 64 69 ff3 00 O O G ~O N O 00 O O~ N O M O V) Vl V~ ~ M 00 M N M N ^ ~ O O O O d' 171- Zt M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q..i L CC a z O N 110 It V) O V) O M 00 00 Ln 1D N 00 It V) C7~ O I:t N = M- O N N" O M 01 M M M `O 00 110 O M N C O r n, O N r--: 06 t~ ~h ^ C,\ ~lc N r- r- 00 V) O E" d' O M N M M 00 M N N M M d sr~ C i. L U V') OC 00 r- `O O M O O O O ^ 00 OC O ~ d t A V) N `D 1.0 O O O O O Ln O N 00 r- "a C3. Vl M O N M O oc N d a~ vl a~ 4- 4- ~n c4 cp 4 a~ a~ ct "'a Q Q Q Q a~ a~ a~ Go o °o v~ 1 J~ a~ w a~ ao ~ V A In W 0 0 0 0 0 dM . O N 4.1 aJ E" G ^ N M ~t QJ .1.r ~ U N N N N N Tt 17T 7t IT Q ~ _O > N E ul J w CL (21 - O U U o 'a U ce cz 7:3 z L ..r ~ ~ d Ct -ct ct 4- Q V W -o F, Q s O O 0 00 A cn U sue. U z Q O O U C t?p W x 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 V) ~ 00 0o N M 00 M k-n (n M kn ~O 110 I~t d• It c I N N "t 00 N 1 N^ M N~ lD (31 -I O U N C ~ o0 ? a1 O 00 O oo O Q1 "o 10 ya? `r Q1 M O N O - N N ~D O ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ a\ M O ~ ~ N O d' O ~ N a1 ~ o0 yg t N M 71- N o1 N -O vl d O Q1 r^ C ^ O 6~ 69 69 cr 1.6 V7 AO lf~ lr~ ct d In -4 N N 6~? ^ Gl3 64 GI4 69 - 64 69 69 64 69 64 69 M a, 69 } Ef3 69 i. N 00 Q1 V7 00 ~O M ~ ~ O M M M M M M M O o0 M --O Q1 M r- lZt 7t lZt N N N N N N N a, N O ~n ~ t~ O '--N M N ct ^ M I~ l~ I~ ~ l~ N N ~ ~ a' N DD ~ O ~ 00 ~O ~ O ~D ^ 01 M M M M M M M ~ O ~ Clr y u4 r- O O N N N N N N N O 01 L bR tr N 69 O ^ O Q1 00 00 00 00 00 00 06, C C1 y 64 64 ^ 69 Go} - - 6g 64 69 69 69 69 64 M ~ y a Gn Go?~ Gq r.3 6F1 69 Gs 69 RS Q, rn It O~c r- d' \O N r- ~lZt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o1 O CC i, y O oo N M ~n O Vn r- O o, 01 a1 a1 a1 Q, M O1 M M M M M M M DD ~ a ~ O c ,t O O O DD 00 rn o1 r- 0 N 1 O~ M d' r- v1 N O O O O ct m d M r- O 01 O V) N" t r- C\ M `O 06 M M 00 Vl Mr--: M A O 00 Lr) \O N N N V) N \O O N ~,c a1 M M - M Q1 N= It "o N \ -N r- V) a1 ~t ^ Ln O 00 - N ~o 00 ~ N N N N M N M kn N M M M M M M M ,c r` C i. O U OIZt r- O M Ln r- Lr) ~c Lr) N 7• 01 a, M 01 O O M 01 ,T N N 01 oo N Ln N oo N O N O y CC O ^ N N v1 06 01 1.6 Q Q Q Q ~ O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4-. 4- 4-. 4-. 4- 4- 4-. 4- 4-. 4- 4 . 4- 4 4- v~ O ca n n cn n cn cn v) n v~ n cn cn n v~ ~ O X 0 0 fl" ~ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/] O O V O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O U v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q1 bO L O ~n O O O O N d v7 O O O O O O O O N M ~p 0~ N - ^ ^ N N N N N N N N M M V Lr) V) V~ ~10 M 00 DD 00 00 00 00 DD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E Q _O O N 4-1 v cn ui N _ Q Q Q Q Q~ 1 ° a~ O U ' ¢ C7 0 0 0 0 a 4.1 0 s, N 4~ 01 01 01 01 Q1 za C: un Ln CA 0 03 4- ct L4 `n o 0 0 0 0 o L -o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o ❑ oz: ct - 2 ° o 0 0 0 o F- o z U w 0 3 a c o 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ cl~ C', W) cn O cC O O O Q o3 O W U Q~~ Z~~ W~ Q T Z~ 2~ 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O oo (11 `0 -M 00 M M V') 01 r. i r- O U N 00 00 `0 00 M O M ~O O ^ O N M M O V) "O r- a, coo Q O O DD a0 N DD ~ O ~ 00 M l~ ~ ~n O O - 110 r- ~O (0~ a,) ~t o0 00 V, O Eon M d S O N-t r- O 00 d~ O C, O- 6F} N C 11 69 _ 69 t~ M ff3 M r- M 64 v~ 69 E,H 69 69 Ef? 64 s4 GG 69 69 69 L N - N ~O N ~0 N N d t ~t ~n v) ~0 "D m O G1 v~ M `0 Q~ o0 N O O O O M ~0 Q~ N N O M 00 O O~ O N 00r` O~ L Cl. N ~n O a1 ^ ~t QV 00 V') ~ (r t-- B y yg O~ O v 1 -oo M O O d~ N ~c ~ ~ M ~0 N 00 ~O M M M d1 M N O N N y 69 M r- d' Es4 69 ~n Ed4 GI) G4 Gs4 69 ~t M 6g C64 6g 64 Ems? 64 64 64 64 CC .O C, O v1 N oo O M O~ O~ O~ O~ l~ M 00 ~O M N O~ N ~n ~O IZt It 'Itt N 7t Cl) S O N O.r L CC N oo ~D ~ ~ O ~ ,-.-r. ~ ~ ~ r-. O a z z m d' O l V1 M N O\ 00 r` Zt IC 00 Vn M M t- M O oo N M V) vl N N Vn M vl Q\ - a'~ O M M d O N r` 01 ~ ~ 00 ~ 00 Ln o t~ el O N N ~n :t m O C, O V) IZI, r- ~c O a1 O ~ ~ ~ N It rn l:t m 00 M \10 M C. \~0 00 00 O ~ Q rQoq ~ ~ N N M ~ N N ~ M fit' N L oo N O oo \~o M \c 00 \.C \o OC m C) L V `O lO Ln 00 ~D M t~ Vl O M I~ N O a0 Q~ M ~n O, N 00 Q C7 4~. C7 Ate. C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C~ C7 C7 C7 C~ 4- U O 4- U 4- 4-. 4-• 4- 4- cn a C/) C4 cn c C/~ un CA cn CA CA U~ CA cn O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QJ C1A i co a~ a 7t O M O O N O O O O O O C~ M CD O N .r = r 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 O" O~ ti0 C ~ ~I C CL O QJ Q) 0 Cj Cl. m N cn 4. s. c cn ¢ ~ a ° c~ 4-1 z ~ ~ ~ O op bA ~ ~ O U 'a r x' U 0C O U Q cC p¢ O U U Q 3 Q O (s" N Z ..a 0~ cz ° c~6 w U U LA. O U U 76 ~ E. U U sU, O bQ bq U OO con ° 0 0 4o O U a Q a Q U" U ci ; o o a c 0 yam. Q. O r- a O u u U >O W O U U O O O a' O cd m Z U U Q Ci. f~ W U V C7 C~ 4 z 111 o 0 0 0 ~ o c M N ~ ~ lD N O C,> 4Z ~{j O ^ ~ N M 69 6/3 Cg? Gq 69 N O OM N O Q1 O ~O ct O d oc aA 4 d N oo M 00 `D (0~ ca y 6F} 69 Ef3 64 Ff3 RS ^t7 C. o0 0o tt Ln V') N N CC i, ~ -••O O O O O O a~ z "o vn oo l- O Q~ O N O~ N ~ ~ C L z. A x \D oo M 7t N O M Q 3 v c7 c7 C7 c7 c7 ~ C7 ~ o 0 0 0 0 o Q- o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o W o a~ an U 0 0 0 0 0^ o 0 E a- 0 N Q) n E ui T N N J C a O Z 4, G~ Q co ct O ^O t- v U n.. C O Z CIO N Z C E.. Ct C o w 76 m CA CA 3 z m Q a> ~ ~ ~ a~ ' ~ o v U City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 APPENDIX TABLES ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition PM Peak-Hour Trip Rates Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 30 Intermodal Truck Terminal 1,000 SF GFA 0.83 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 SF GFA 1.08 0.36 4.50 120 General Heavy Industrial 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.49 0.78 130 Industrial Park 1,000 SF GFA 0.84 0.13 2.95 140 Manufacturing 1,000 SF GFA 0.75 0.09 7.85 150 Warehousing 1,000 SF GFA 0.45 0.16 1.65 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.29 0.13 0.50 152 High-Cube Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.16 0.07 0.27 160 Data Center* 1,000 SF GFA 0.14 0.08 0.19 170 Utilities 1,000 SF GFA 435 Multipurpose Recreational Facility 1,000 SF GFA 0.25 437 Bowling Alley 1,000 SF GFA 440 Adult Cabaret 1,000 SF GFA 38.67 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee 1,000 SF GFA 14.05 465 Ice Skating Rink 1,000 SF GFA 473 Casino/Video Lottey Establishment 1,000 SF GFA 491 Racquet/Tennis Club 1,000 SF GFA 0.84 0.70 1.06 492 Health/Fitness Club 1,000 SF GFA 4.06 3.27 4.30 493 Athletic Club 1,000 SF GFA 5.84 3.85 6.36 495 Recreational Community Center 1,000 SF GFA 3.35 2.31 5.37 520 Elementary School 1,000 SF GFA 3.11 0.94 6.06 522 Middle School/Junior High School 1,000 SF GFA 2.52 0.68 10.88 530 High School 1,000 SF GFA 2.12 0.98 5.14 534 Private School (K-8) 1,000 SF GFA 6.53 4.17 9.00 536 Private School (K-12) 1,000 SF GFA 540 Junior/Community College 1,000 SF GFA 2.64 1.06 3.46 560 Church 1,000 SF GFA 0.94 0.38 4.04 561 Synagogue 1,000 SF GFA 1.69 562 Mosque* 1,000 SF GFA 11.02 565 Day Care Center 1,000 SF GFA 13.75 3.95 39.17 571 Prison 1,000 SF GFA 11.39 590 Library 1,000 SF GFA 7.20 4.00 11.75 610 Hospital 1,000 SF GFA 1.16 0.66 7.63 620 Nursing Home 1,000 SF GFA 1.01 0.58 1.20 630 Clinic 1,000 SF GFA ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYST= Page 25 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit I Average Low High 640 Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 1,000 SF GFA 710 General Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 0.49 6.39 714 Corporate Headquarters Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.41 0.52 2.67 715 Single Tenant Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.74 0.79 5.14 720 Medical-Dental Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 4.27 2.21 7.60 730 Government Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 11.03 731 State Motor Vehicles Department 1,000 SF GFA 19.93 13.78 31.91 732 United States Post Office 1,000 SF GFA 14.67 3.46 82.89 733 Government Office Complex 1,000 SF GFA 3.59 750 Office Park 1,000 SF GFA 1.48 0.64 4.50 760 Research & Development Center 1,000 SF GFA 1.07 0.40 4.13 770 Business Park 1,000 SF GFA 1.26 0.55 2.97 810 Tractor Supply Store* 1,000 SF GFA 811 Construction Equipment Rental Store* 1,000 SF GFA 812 Building Materials & Lumber Store 1,000 SF GFA 5.56 4.33 7.18 813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 4.40 2.05 7.40 814 Variety Store* 1,000 SF GFA 6.99 3.52 13.94 815 Free-Standing Discount Store 1,000 SF GFA 5.57 3.17 9.44 816 Hardware/Paint Store 1,000 SF GFA 4.74 3.98 8.27 817 Nursery (Garden Center) 1,000 SF GFA 9.04 2.46 30.25 818 Nursery (Wholesale) 1,000 SF GFA 5.00 1.05 29.00 823 Factory Outlet Center 1,000 SF GFA 1.94 1.57 3.20 841 Automobile Sales 1,000 SF GFA 2.80 0.89 5.41 842 Recreational Vehicle Sales* 1,000 SF GFA 843 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SF GFA 6.44 4.33 7.60 848 Tire Store 1,000 SF GFA 3.26 1.62 8.14 849 Tire Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 2.58 1.63 3.41 850 Supermarket 1,000 SF GFA 8.37 4.55 18.62 851 Convenience Mart, 24 hour 1,000 SF GFA 53.42 20.83 79.00 852 Convenience Mart, 15-16 hour 1,000 SF GFA 36.22 15.83 56.67 853 Convenience Mart + Gas Pumps 1,000 SF GFA 62.57 19.54 292.89 854 Discount Supermarket 1,000 SF GFA 8.13 5.67 10.85 857 Discount Club 1,000 SF GFA 4.63 2.42 9.67 860 Wholesale Market 1,000 SF GFA 0.52 861 Sporting Goods Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 3.17 1.96 5.89 863 Electronics Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 4.50 3.45 5.78 864 Toy/Children's Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 865 Baby Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 866 Pet Supply Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 2.19 867 Office Supply Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 868 Book Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 10.66 869 Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 1,000 SF GFA ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 26 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit I Average Low High 872 Bed & Linen Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 875 Department Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.81 1.68 4.70 876 Apparel Store 1,000 SF GFA 4.20 1.78 6.80 879 Arts & Crafts Store 1,000 SF GFA 6.85 880 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF GFA 11.07 7.47 24.00 881 Pharmacy/Drugstore + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 9.72 6.50 13.48 890 Furniture Store 1,000 SF GFA 0.53 0.09 1.70 896 DVD/Video Rental Store 1,000 SF GFA 31.54 897 Medical Equipment Store* 1,000 SF GFA 1.24 911 Walk-in Bank 1,000 SF GFA 912 Drive-in Bank 1,000 SF GFA 26.69 7.14 68.50 918 Hair Salon^ 1,000 SF GFA 1.93 920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store 1,000 SF GFA 12.27 925 Drinking Place 1,000 SF GFA 15.49 3.73 29.98 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 9.02 3.24 15.89 932 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 18.49 5.60 69.20 933 Fast-Food Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 52.40 29.05 112.00 934 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 47.30 13.33 158.46 935 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA 936 Coffee/Donut Shop 1,000 SF GFA 25.81 18.19 39.10 937 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 36.16 2.08 60.50 938 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA 96.00 50.00 150.00 939 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop^ 1,000 SF GFA 940 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 943 Automobile Parts & Service Center 1,000 SF GFA 945 Gasoline/Service Station + Convenience Mart 1,000 SF GFA 97.14 27.86 451.28 948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 SF GFA 950 Truck Stop* 1,000 SF GFA 820 Shopping Center 1,000 SF GLA 826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) 1,000 SF GLA 5.02 4.59 6.18 942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF GLA (occupied) 3.51 2.75 7.14 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF Net Rentable Area 0.22 0.14 0.33 10 Waterport/Marine Terminal Acre 30 Inter-nodal Truck Terminal Acre 7.24 6.27 8.37 90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Acre 110 General Light Industrial Acre 8.77 1.32 31.25 120 General Heavy Industrial Acre 4.22 1.26 10.67 130 Industrial Park Acre 8.39 2.07 59.38 140 Manufacturing Acre 9.21 0.62 148.00 150 Warehousing Acre 8.77 3.80 30.80 151 Mini-Warehouse Acre 3.89 1.29 6.94 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Acre 2.73 0.36 10.39 240 Mobile Home Park Acre 4.61 1.24 10.00 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 27 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Average Low High 260 Recreational Homes Acre 0.14 0.08 1.33 270 Residential Planned Unit Development Acre 4.13 3.44 4.93 411 City Park Acre 4.50 412 County Park Acre 0.59 0.08 5.30 413 State Park Acre 415 Beach Park Acre 0.60 0.23 1.35 417 Regional Park Acre 0.26 0.11 1.33 418 National Monument Acre 0.51 420 Marina Acre 430 Golf Course Acre 0.39 0.30 0.63 435 Multipurpose Recreational Facility Acre 11.54 452 Horse Racetrack Acre 0.22 460 Arena Acre 481 Zoo Acre 490 Tennis Courts Acre 1.79 566 Cemetery Acre 1.64 750 Office Park Acre 28.28 15.25 88.40 760 Research & Development Center Acre 15.44 2.42 284.62 770 Business Park Acre 16.84 2.31 32.54 811 Construction Equipment Rental Store* Acre 816 Hardware/Paint Store Acre 55.64 45.71 101.11 817 Nursery (Garden Center) Acre 10.49 2.40 41.67 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Acre 0.53 0.16 2.50 860 Wholesale Market Acre 9.94 480 Amusement Park Acres 4.11 452 Horse Racetrack Attendee 0.22 453 Automobile Racetrack Attendee 454 Dog Racetrack Attendee 0.41 21 Commercial Airport Avg Flights / Day 6.96 5.12 7.82 22 General Aviation Airport Avg Flights / Day 0.30 0.17 0.33 22 General Aviation Airport Based Aircraft 0.52 0.31 0.67 254 Assisted Living Bed 0.35 0.16 0.87 610 Hospital Bed 1.60 0.80 5.74 620 Nursing Home Bed 0.37 0.21 0.51 420 Marina Berth 0.21 0.18 0.30 433 Batting Cages Cage 21 Commercial Airport Commercial Flights / Day 8.20 6.93 8.83 490 Tennis Courts Court 3.67 491 Racquet/Tennis Club Court 4.38 1.73 7.21 912 Drive-in Bank Drive-In Lane 29.05 8.50 68.50 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Dwelling Unit 1.02 0.42 2.98 220 Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.67 0.10 1.64 222 High-Rise Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.40 0.30 0.59 i♦ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 28 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 223 Mid-Rise Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.44 0.19 0.60 224 Rental Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.73 230 Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.52 0.18 1.24 231 Low-Rise Residential Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.64 0.46 0.79 232 High-Rise Residential Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.38 0.33 0.50 251 Senior Adult Housing - Detached Dwelling Unit 0.34 0.20 1.01 252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached Dwelling Unit 0.35 0.24 0.53 253 Congregate Care Facility Dwelling Unit 0.20 0.16 0.21 260 Recreational Homes Dwelling Unit 0.31 0.25 1.33 265 Timeshare Dwelling Unit 270 Residential Planned Unit Development Dwelling Unit 0.72 0.59 1.17 21 Commercial Airport Employee 1.00 0.90 1.60 22 General Aviation Airport Employee 1.46 0.99 2.27 30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Employee 164.00 0.62 0.35 110 General Light Industrial Employee 0.51 0.36 1.18 120 General Heavy Industrial Employee 0.40 0.22 1.10 130 Industrial Park Employee 0.45 0.26 1.36 140 Manufacturing Employee 0.40 0.24 1.11 150 Warehousing Employee 0.58 0.37 2.22 152 High-Cube Warehouse Employee 0.35 170 Utilities Employee 254 Assisted Living Employee 0.55 0.30 1.09 310 Hotel Employee 0.90 0.51 1.96 312 Business Hotel Employee 7.60 6.58 9.50 320 Motel Employee 1.24 0.48 4.00 330 Resort Hotel Employee 0.31 0.20 0.82 417 Regional Park Employee 12.77 7.41 32.00 418 National Monument Employee 5.58 430 Golf Course Employee 2.08 1.92 2.56 432 Golf Driving Range Employee 6.71 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Employee 9.56 452 Horse Racetrack Employee 460 Arena Employee 480 Amusement Park Employee 0.52 481 Zoo Employee 490 Tennis Courts Employee 7.33 491 Racquet/Tennis Club Employee 3.40 1.65 8.00 493 Athletic Club Employee 8.33 495 Recreational Community Center Employee 3.16 501 Military Base Employee 0.37 0.30 0.49 520 Elementary School Employee 3.41 1.03 6.68 522 Middle School/Junior High School Employee 2.97 1.23 4.61 530 High School Employee 3.23 1.13 6.98 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 29 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 534 Private School (K-8) Employee 5.72 1.85 9.69 536 Private School (K-12) Employee 3.82 3.18 4.56 540 Junior/Community College Employee 1.49 0.83 3.29 550 University/College Employee 0.85 0.49 3.08 561 Synagogue Employee 3.27 565 Day Care Center Employee 5.12 1.13 14.00 566 Cemetery Employee 13.57 571 Prison Employee 0.68 0.50 1.88 580 Museum* Employee 0.58 590 Library Employee 6.78 3.13 12.73 591 Lodge/Fraternal Organization Employee 4.05 610 Hospital Employee 0.41 0.21 1.19 620 Nursing Home Employee 0.47 0.41 0.94 630 Clinic Employee 0.86 0.78 1.38 710 General Office Building Employee 0.46 0.16 3.12 714 Corporate Headquarters Building Employee 0.38 0.20 1.00 715 Single Tenant Office Building Employee 0.51 0.29 1.14 720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 0.97 0.58 2.06 730 Government Office Building Employee 1.91 731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 5.35 3.24 7.58 732 United States Post Office Employee 3.11 0.97 40.40 733 Government Office Complex Employee 750 Office Park Employee 0.39 0.31 0.51 760 Research & Development Center Employee 0.41 0.18 1.39 770 Business Park Employee 0.39 0.24 1.01 812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 3.83 3.19 5.75 815 Free-Standing Discount Store Employee 3.52 2.24 6.93 816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee 5.43 4.83 6.50 817 Nursery (Garden Center) Employee 2.55 1.03 7.43 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 0.67 0.47 3.00 826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) Employee 841 Automobile Sales Employee 0.96 0.48 1.93 848 Tire Store Employee 854 Discount Supermarket Employee 3.24 2.57 3.86 857 Discount Club Employee 3.36 2.41 4.98 860 Wholesale Market Employee 0.64 890 Furniture Store Employee 1.27 0.55 3.50 912 Drive-in Bank Employee 4.71 3.10 6.18 920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store Employee 6.63 942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1.43 561 Synagogue Family Member 0.07 488 Soccer Complex Field 18.36 9.71 26.50 853 Convenience Mart + Gas Pumps Fueling Position 19.98 7.60 75.50 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 30 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 944 Gasoline/Service Station Fueling Position 15.65 6.83 29.33 945 Gasoline/Service Station + Convenience Mart Fueling Position 13.57 4.25 57.80 946 Gasoline/Service Station + Convenience Mart + Car Wash Fueling Position 14.62 7.00 26.71 630 Clinic Full-time Doctor 4.43 4.40 4.44 430 Golf Course Hole 3.56 3.42 3.83 431 Miniature Golf Course Hole 437 Bowling Alley Lane 4.50 466 Snow Ski Area* Lift 32.50 493 Athletic Club Member 0.17 495 Recreational Community Center Member 0.02 591 Lodge/FraternalOrganization Member 0.03 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Movie Screen 37.83 444 Movie Theater + Matinee Movie Screen 37.83 445 Multiplex Movie Theater Movie Screen 25.84 13.33 69.45 254 Assisted Living Occupied Bed 0.37 0.28 0.53 571 Prison Occupied Bed 1.22 416 Campground/RV Park Occupied Camp Site 0.41 0.38 0.57 221 Low-Rise Apartment Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.38 1.23 233 Luxury Condo/Townhouse Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.65 0.60 0.72 240 Mobile Home Park Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.60 0.39 1.07 252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.31 0.25 0.46 253 Congregate Care Facility Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.21 0.21 0.21 265 Timeshare Occupied Dwelling Unit 90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Occupied Parking Space 93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking Occupied Parking Space 310 Hotel Occupied Room 0.74 0.25 1.23 311 All Suites Hotel Occupied Room 0.55 0.40 0.87 312 Business Hotel Occupied Room 0.57 0.41 0.75 320 Motel Occupied Room 0.69 0.29 1.33 330 Resort Hotel Occupied Room 0.59 0.36 1.06 151 Mini-Warehouse Occupied Storage Unit 0.02 0.02 0.03 255 Continuing Care Retirement Community^ Occupied Unit 90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Parking Space 93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking Parking Space 414 Water Slide Park Parking Space 0.28 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Person 0.27 0.12 0.68 220 Apartment Persons 0.40 0.19 0.77 221 Low-Rise Apartment Persons 0.33 0.22 0.65 222 High-Rise Apartment Persons 0.20 0.18 0.26 230 Condo/Townhouse Persons 0.24 0.15 0.57 240 Mobile Home Park Persons 0.27 0.14 0.47 411 City Park Picnic Site 413 State Park Picnic Site ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 31 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips ITE Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High 417 Regional Park Picnic Site 310 Hotel Room 0.61 0.20 1.23 311 All Suites Hotel Room 0.40 0.32 0.47 320 Motel Room 0.56 0.24 1.83 330 Resort Hotel Room 0.51 0.35 0.69 441 Live Theater Seat 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Seat 0.32 445 Multiplex Movie Theater Seat 0.28 452 Horse Racetrack Seat 0.11 465 Ice Skating Rink Seat 560 Church Seat 931 Quality Restaurant Seat 0.30 0.18 0.44 932 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant Seat 0.72 0.27 2.09 933 Fast-Food Restaurant Seat 6.59 934 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru Seat 1.62 0.26 4.79 937 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru Seat 0.90 0.31 1.88 848 Tire Store Service Bay 5.65 3.33 8.00 849 Tire Superstore Service Bay 3.87 2.38 6.17 941 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Bay 4.60 3.25 6.00 151 Mini-Warehouse Storage Unit 0.03 0.02 0.05 520 Elementary School Student 0.28 0.09 0.50 522 Middle School/Junior High School Student 0.30 0.12 0.63 530 High School Student 0.29 0.10 0.74 534 Private School (K-8) Student 0.60 0.42 0.75 536 Private School (K-12) Student 0.58 0.46 0.79 540 Junior/Community College Student 0.12 0.08 0.20 550 University/College Student 0.15 0.11 0.44 565 Day Care Center Student 0.84 0.29 1.72 432 Golf Driving Range Tee/Driving Position 1.65 30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Truck Berth 0.57 255 Continuing Care Retirement Community Unit 0.25 0.22 0.28 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Vehicle 0.67 0.24 1.37 220 Apartment Vehicle 0.61 0.32 1.19 230 Condo/Townhouse Vehicle 0.31 0.17 0.66 240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle 0.37 0.28 0.75 501 Military Base Vehicle 947 Self-Service Car Wash Wash Stall 8.00 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 32 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS # TRIPS Standard ITE Low High Code Land Use Unit' Studies2 Av 3 4 5 Deviation6 21 Commercial Airport Employee 2 1.00 0.90 1.60 22 General Aviation Airport Employee 5 1.46 0.99 2.27 1.24 164.0 30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Employee 2 0 0.62 0.35 4.48 110 General Light Industrial Employee 21 0.51 0.36 1.18 0.75 120 General Heavy Industrial Employee 3 0.40 0.22 1.10 0.69 130 Industrial Park Employee 37 0.45 0.26 1.36 0.70 140 Manufacturing Employee 51 0.40 0.24 1.11 0.65 150 Warehousing Employee 14 0.58 0.37 2.22 0.80 152 High-Cube Warehouse Employee 1 0.35 170 Utilities Employee 254 Assisted Living Employee 17 0.55 0.30 1.09 0.76 310 Hotel Employee 13 0.90 0.51 1.96 1.03 312 Business Hotel Employee 3 7.60 6.58 9.50 2.99 320 Motel Employee 13 1.24 0.48 4.00 1.37 330 Resort Hotel Employee 4 0.31 0.20 0.82 0.58 417 Regional Park Employee 3 12.77 7.41 32.00 9.07 418 National Monument Employee 1 5.58 430 Golf Course Employee 3 2.08 1.92 2.56 1.45 432 Golf Driving Range Employee 1 6.71 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Employee 1 9.56 452 Horse Racetrack Employee 460 Arena Employee 480 Amusement Park Employee 1 0.52 481 Zoo Employee 490 Tennis Courts Employee 1 7.33 491 Racquet/Tennis Club Employee 6 3.40 1.65 8.00 2.68 493 Athletic Club Employee 1 8.33 495 Recreational Community Center Employee 1 3.16 501 Military Base Employee 8 0.37 0.30 0.49 0.61 520 Elementary School Employee 33 3.41 1.03 6.68 2.24 522 Middle School/Junior High School Employee 18 2.97 1.23 4.61 2.04 530 High School Employee 53 3.23 1.13 6.98 2.08 534 Private School (K-8) Employee 6 5.72 1.85 9.69 3.54 536 Private School (K-12) Employee 3 3.82 3.18 4.56 2.05 540 Junior/Community College Employee 4 1.49 0.83 3.29 1.36 550 University/College Employee 7 0.85 0.49 3.08 1.00 561 Synagogue Employee 1 3.27 565 Day Care Center Employee 60 5.12 1.13 14.00 3.24 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 33 City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS # TRIPS Standard ITE Low High Code Land Use Unit' Studies2 Av 3 4 5 Deviation6 566 Cemetery Employee 1 13.57 571 Prison Employee 2 0.68 0.50 1.88 580 Museum* Employee 1 0.58 590 Library Employee 10 6.78 3.13 12.73 3.82 591 Lodge/FraternalOrganization Employee 1 4.05 610 Hospital Employee 18 0.41 0.21 1.19 0.67 620 Nursing Home Employee 4 0.47 0.41 0.94 0.70 630 Clinic Employee 3 0.86 0.78 1.38 0.95 710 General Office Building Employee 173 0.46 0.16 3.12 0.70 714 Corporate Headquarters Building Employee 20 0.38 0.20 1.00 0.63 715 Single Tenant Office Building Employee 39 0.51 0.29 1.14 0.73 720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 16 0.97 0.58 2.06 1.06 730 Government Office Building Employee 1 1.91 731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 8 5.35 3.24 7.58 2.55 732 United States Post Office Employee 11 3.11 0.97 40.40 4.70 733 Government Office Complex Employee 750 Office Park Employee 5 0.39 0.31 0.51 0.63 760 Research & Development Center Employee 29 0.41 0.18 1.39 0.66 770 Business Park Employee 13 0.39 0.24 1.01 0.64 812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 4 3.83 3.19 5.75 2.11 815 Free-Standing Discount Store Employee 7 3.52 2.24 6.93 2.35 816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee 3 5.43 4.83 6.50 2.36 817 Nursery (Garden Center) Employee 11 2.55 1.03 7.43 2.10 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 8 0.67 0.47 3.00 0.91 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 826 814) Employee 841 Automobile Sales Employee 7 0.96 0.48 1.93 1.06 848 Tire Store Employee 854 Discount Supermarket Employee 4 3.24 2.57 3.86 1.87 857 Discount Club Employee 10 3.36 2.41 4.98 1.94 860 Wholesale Market Employee 1 0.64 890 Furniture Store Employee 8 1.27 0.55 3.50 1.32 912 Drive-in Bank Employee 2 4.71 3.10 6.18 920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store Employee 1 6.63 942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1 1.43 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 34 City of Ashland, Oregon WASTEWATER: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE Prepared by: ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Vancouver, WA July 2016 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY 1 CURRENT WASTEWATER SDC 1 UPDATED WASTEWATER SDC 3 Reimbursement Fee 4 Improvement Fee 5 Calculation of SDC Schedules 8 Current Methodology 8 Alternative Methodology 9 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION 13 APPENDICES 14 Appendix A: Comparison of Ashland's Wastewater SDCs with Select Oregon Municipalities 14 Appendix B: Fixed Assets of the Wastewater System 15 TABLES Table 1 Current and updated Wastewater SDC ........................................................................................1 Table 2. Current Wastewater SDC 2 Table 3. 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities and Sewage Flows ..................................................................3 Table 4. Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee ...............................................................................................5 Table 5. Allocation of Future Capital Improvements to Growth ................................................................6 Table 6. Cost Basis for Improvement Fee 8 Table 7. Proposed SDC-Current Methodology .........................................................................................9 Table 8. Meter Capacities and Equivalencies ...........................................................................................10 Table 9. Average Winter Water Usage-Single Family vs. Multifamily Residence ..................................11 Table 10. Proposed SDC-Alternative Methodology .................................................................................13 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page i City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 INTRODUCTION The City of Ashland contracted with Keller & Associates, Inc. to develop a comprehensive master plan for the wastewater utility. As part of that planning effort, Keller & Associates retained Economic & Financial Analysis (EFA) to update the City's wastewater system development charge (SDC). Keller's final Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the City was adopted by City Council on May 15, 2012.' The City's current wastewater SDC consists of both a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee as allowed by Oregon state law (ORS 223.297-223.314, as amended). This SDC update relies on Keller's 2012 Master Plan to update both fees. SUMMARY In this report, EFA provides two options for updating the wastewater SDC: one based on the current methodology and an alternative based on the capacity of the water meter installed. Both methodologies use the SDC for an average single-family residence as the basis for the SDC-i.e., all developments are assessed an SDC proportionate to the SDC for a single-family residence, which is the same for both methodologies. The SDC Task Force recommended updating the current methodology and not changing to the meter-size methodology. Table 1 shows the current and updated Wastewater SDC which increases 150% for residential developments and 151 % for commercial developments. Table 1 Current and updated Wastewater SDC Current SDC updated SDC Change Reimburse- Improve- Reimburse- Improve- Measurement ment ment Total ment ment Total $ % A Residential $/Square feet $0.40 $0.41 $0.81 $0.195 $1.833 $2.028 $1.22 150% Average Residential SDC^ $800 $820 $1,620 $389 $3,665 $4,054 $2,435 150% Commercial' $/Plumbing $60.79 $63.39 $124.18 $29.92 $282.00 $311.92 $187.74 151% fixture CURRENT WASTEWATER SDC The current schedule of SDCs was last updated in 2006. The current methodology relies on separate forecasts of wastewater flows for residential and commercial uses, and it assumes the following: (a) For residential development, a relationship between sewage flow and the size of the residence as measured by square feet of habitable (heated) area. ' Further references to the Keller master plan appear in this report as the 2012 Master Plan. 11IM111 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 (b) For commercial developments, the number and type of plumbing fixture units bear a direct relationship to the amount of sewage flow. The current residential SDC is based on the assumption that new residences have an average of 2,000 square feet of habitable space and thirteen plumbing fixtures. As shown in table 3, this average is maintained proportionately throughout the schedule of SDCs. This method does not distinguish between single-family and multifamily residences. For example, a 1,000-square-foot apartment pays the same SDC as a 1,000- square-foot single-family residence, and both pay one-half as much as a 2,000-square-foot residence. Table 2. Current Wastewater SDC Current SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Residential Vsquare foot $0.40 $0.41 $0.81 square feet" 1,000 $400 $410 $810 1,500 600 615 $1,215 2,000- 800 820 $1,620 2,500 1,000 1,025 $2,025 3,000 1,200 1,230 $2,430 3,500 1,400 1,435 $2,835 Commercial Vfixture unit $61 $63 $124 Residential SDCs are assessed in increments of 1 square foot. This schedule includes only a few examples of residential SDCs based on a range of dwelling sizes. i Average single-family residence. This method of assessing SDCs raises several issues: 1. The 2012 Master Plan provides a forecast of sewage flows and determines the capacity of the wastewater system. It does not provide a forecast of habitable square feet or separate capacity by residential and commercial use-both of which are key components of the current methodology. 2. Although a rough correlation likely exists between housing size and the number of fixture units, an exact correlation has not been established. 3. As we show later in the report, apartments produce significantly less sewage flow than single- family residences; however, the SDC per size of residence is the same for all types of residences. ' The international, national, and state plumbing codes establish an average discharge of wastewater from various types of plumbing fixtures. For example, a bathroom sink is rated as one fixture unit, while a modern flush toilet in a residence is rated as two fixture units. ■wl~ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2 City of Ashland -Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 4. SDCs are assessed when a property owner or developer applies for a building permit. Permits are taken for new construction and major remodels. This may not capture the change in fixture types and numbers for commercial uses and may miss some residential remodels that increase the square footage of habitable area (e.g., converting a garage or storage space to living space). 5. It is difficult to track installation of additional fixture units and livable square footage, and changes in the type of development-e.g., residential to commercial, or mixed residential/commercial developments. These issues are acceptable limitations on the City's ability to equitably assess the SDC. Using fixture units is a common method used by Oregon municipalities. Size of residences is also commonly used. However, we present an alternative that is easier to apply and maintains a similar degree of equity among customer classes by using the capacity of the water meter to be installed at the development. UPDATED WASTEWATER SDC The City's sewer system is comprised of two primary components: a collection system and a treatment system. The collection system was built in part by private land developers and contributed to the City and in part by the City and financed with sewer rate revenues. The City's fixed asset records (see appendix B) show that the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) comprises nearly 76% of the total book value of the sewer system. The remaining 24% is composed of the land the WWTP occupies and portions of the collection system that were publicly financed. Most of the public's investment in the sewer system is in the WWTP, and about 83% of the cost of the projects listed in the 2012 Master Plan are for the WWTP. The measure of sewage service capacity we use to develop this update of the SDC is based on capacities at the WWTP. Table 4 shows the five major components of the WWTP, their current (2012) and future (2030) capacities, and current and future sewage flows. Each of these components is designed to meet one of four flow conditions: peak hour, maximum month, peak day, and maximum dry month flows. Together these five components will meet the forecast sewage flows in all seasons of the year for a forecast population of 24,716 in 2030. The flows and capacities are measured in millions of gallons per day (mgd). The sewer system is fundamentally designed to carry the sewage load from customers' plumbing systems, which is most accurately measured by the maximum dry month flow. The maximum dry month capacities are therefore used as the basis for calculating the SDC. Peak flows correlate with peak periods of precipitation (inflow) and high ground water (infiltration) that usually occur in winter during periods of heavy rain or runoff caused by snowmelt. These flows are at a low during the maximum dry month period. Table 3. 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities and Sewage Flows Flow (mgd) Capacity (mgd) 2012 2030 2012 2030 Design Current Future Current Excess Future Increased Plant process Condition Flow Flow Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity ' 2012 Master Plan, pp. 4-6. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 Headworks Peak Hour 10.5 11.81 13.50 3.00 13.50 - Oxidation ditch Max Month 3.6 4.24 3.76 0.16 5.64 1.88 Clarifiers Peak Day 7.1 8.03 11.87 4.77 11.87 - UV disinfection Peak Day 7.1 8.03 11.00 3.90 11.00 - Membranes Max Dry Month 2.7 3.18 2.87 0.17 3.18 0.31 In the next two sections, we describe the two-step process used to update the SDC. (1) In step one, we calculate the base reimbursement fee and base improvement fee. Both fees are expressed in dollars per gallon ($/gallon) of sewage treatment capacity. (2) In step two, we assess the SDC using two methodologies: the current methodology, which is based on the type of development, and an alternative methodology that is based on water meter size and average residential usage. Reimbursement Fee The intent of the reimbursement fee is to charge new developments the cost of using the existing assets. The value of these assets is derived from two factors: the value of the fixed asset and a measure of the asset's excess capacity. The base reimbursement fee is derived from the current book value of the sewer system and the current maximum dry weather capacity of the WWTP. Value of Existing Assets We use the City's current methodology to value the existing fixed assets summarized in table 5. This method uses the depreciated the original cost of the assets (book value), which is used as the cost basis for calculating the reimbursement fee. This is the most conservative method used by Oregon municipalities to determine a cost basis. In 2002 and 2003, the City made major improvements to the WWTP. These assets are not included in the reimbursement fee, because the City borrowed money to construct these assets and elected to repay the loan with revenues from its food and beverage tax rather than sewer rate revenues. The balance of the existing assets was financed by the City's rate payers prior to 2002 and after 2003. These assets provide the basis for the reimbursement fee. As shown in table 5, the original cost basis of these assets is approximately $15.18 million. The depreciated book value of approximately $8.87 million is used as the cost basis to calculate the reimbursement fee. Excess Capacity of Existing Assets Engineers design the sewage collection system to carry the maximum flow of sewage for each sub- basin the system serves. The capacity of the WWTP is the upper limit on how much sewage can flow through the collection system. The 2012 Master Plan lists this capacity as 2.87 mgd, while sewage flows are about 2.7 mgd on average (a net reduction over the five-year study period).' The excess capacity of the existing system is therefore 0.17 mgd or about 6% of the total capacity. As shown in table 5, the base reimbursement fee is calculated by dividing the book value of the existing assets ($8.87 million) by the capacity of the assets (2.87 mgd). The result is a base reimbursement fee of a 2012 Master Plan, Table 4.3, pp. 4-3. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 $3.09/gallon. This will be applied to all future development based on the development's expected sewage flow, which we discuss following the discussion of the base improvement fee. Table 4. Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee As of June 30, 2011 Original Accumulated Depreciated Original Costs Cost Basis Depreciation Book Value Total Existing Fixed Assets' $49,410,520 ($12,911,740) $36,498,781 less 2002-2003 WWTP assets' $34,231,375 ($6,604,878) $27,626,497 Balance of Assets (Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee) $15,179,145 ($6,306,862) $8,872,284 Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd) 2,870,000 Base Reimbursement Fee ($/gallon) $3.09 Source: City of Ashland fixed assets records (see appendix B). Assets placed in service before 1970 were discounted to zero. Land values are at their original purchase price. t The 2002-2003 improvements to the wastewater treatment plant were financed by the City's food and beverage tax. These assets are not included in the reimbursement fee. Improvement Fee The base improvement fee is derived from the schedule of capital improvements listed in the 2012 Master Plan6 and the resulting increase in capacity. For purposes of this update, the fee is based on projects that will be needed over the next twenty years (see table 6), assuming a growth rate of 0.7% per year. Priority 3 projects that are scheduled for completion after 2030 are deemed too speculative to include in this SDC update. In the 2012 Master Plan, the engineer allocated the cost of capital improvements to growth and to the current City's sewer customers. Of the $23.369 million of planned improvements (2012 dollars), 5 In addition to depreciated original cost, the cost basis for the reimbursement fee can also be determined using the current estimated replacement cost or the current replacement cost adjusted for depreciation. These alternatives would increase the cost basis from $8.87 million to $27.96 million or to $14.87 million, respectively. Alternative Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee 2011 $ 2011 Inflated Accum. Net Inflated Depreciated Replacement Cost Cost basis Depreciation Book Value Value of existing fixed assets $75,388,238 ($22.242.700) $53,145,538 less 2002-2003 WWTP assets $47,427,300 ($9.150.500) $38,276,800 Balance of assets (Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee) $27,960,938 ($13.092.200) $14,868,738 Average dry weather flow (gpd) 2,870,000 2,870,000 Cost per gallon $9.74 $5.18 tThe 2002-2003 improvements to the wastewater treatment plant were financed by the City's food and beverage tax. These assets are not included in the reimbursement fee. 6 2012 Master Plan, table 14. 1, pp. 14-4. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 approximately $9.017 million is to expand capacity for future residential and commercial growth, which is the cost basis for the improvement fee. The remaining approximately $14.352 million is to repair and replace existing components of the treatment and collection systems that are expected to fail during the twenty-year forecast period or to be necessary to meet compliance with federal and state water quality standards. These improvements will be paid from sewer rates and taxes. Once all the improvements are completed over the forecast period, the wastewater system will have a total capacity of 3.18 mgd-an increase of 310,000 mgd. The base improvement fee is the cost of this new capacity or $29.09 per gallon (see table 7). Table 5. Allocation of Future Capital Improvements to Growth Primary Total Growth Apportionment City's Project Description Purpose Estimated Cost % Cost Est. Portion Priority I Improvements (2012 -2020) Wastewater Treatment 1 Outfall relocation/fish screen Compliance $856,000 15% $128,400 $727,600 2 Shading-capital cost + first Six years of O&M Compliance $1,646,000 15% $246,900 $1,399,100 I 1 \Iollitol* t'~~nlhlian~< <`~,nl}~l~t~d 01111 4 Backup (portable) pump Capacity $60,000 0% $0 $60,000 5 Membrane replacement (two trains) Replacement $1,248,000 0% $0 $1,248,000 6 Oxidation ditch shell Capacity $4,000,000 39% $1,560,000 $2,440,000 7 RAS pump replacement Capacity $90,000 20% $18,000 $72,000 8 Wastewater master plan update Update $125,000 100% $125,000 $0 Wastewater Collection System IA 18" and 24" parallel trunkline along creek Capacity $1,248,000 70% $873,600 $374,400 1B 15" main along Mountain Ave. Capacity $118,000 25% $29,500 $88,500 1C Oak St. 24" trunkline Capacity $40,000 15% $6,000 $34,000 1 D A St. 15" main Capacity $522,000 10% $52,200 $469,800 lE 12" main along railroad Capacity $275,000 57% $156,750 $118,250 IF 12" Siskiyou Blvd. main Capacity $73,000 46% $33,580 $39,420 IG Miscellaneous upgrades Various $335,000 10% $33,500 $301,500 1H Portable flow meters Operations $60,000 0% $0 $60,000 1J Storm water inflow study (2012-2013) Capacity $60,000 0% $0 $60,000 Total Priority 1 Improvements $10,756,000 $3,263,430 $7,492,570 Priority 2 Improvements (2020-2030) Wastewater Treatment I Membrane replacement Capacity/ (larger membranes) replacement $4,659,000 40% $1,863,600 $2,795,400 2 Membrane feed pumps and piping replacement Capacity $507.000 80% $405,600 $101,400 3 Additional UV reactors and Upgrade control panels Capacity $351,000 100% $351,000 $0 4 Mechanical bar screen replacement Replacement $496,000 20% $99,200 $396,800 w~ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 Primary Total Growth Apportionment City's Project Description Purpose Estimated Cost % Cost Est. Portion 5 Grit removal system replacement Replacement $801,000 20% $160,200 $640,800 6 Oxidation ditch internals Capacity $2,150,000 100% $2,150,000 $0 Existing oxidation ditch 7 Equipment replacement Replacement $1,551,000 0% $0 $1,551,000 8 Clarifier mechanism replacement Replacement $324,000 0% $0 $324,000 Replace Ashland creek lift station 9 Pumps with larger pumps Capacity $353,000 80% $282,400 $70,600 8 Wastewater master plan update Update $125,000 100% $125,000 $0 Wastewater Collection System 2A 12" pipeline on Nevada St. Capacity $217,000 38% $82,460 $134,540 2B 8" slope correction on Walker Ave. Operations $168,000 28% $47,040 $120,960 2C 12" pipeline on Wightman St. Capacity $172,000 66% $113,520 $58,480 2D Miscellaneous upgrades Various $739,000 10%~ $73,900 $665,100 Total Priority 2 Improvements $12,613,000 $5,753,920 $6,859,080 Total All Wastewater Improvements $23,369,000 $9,017,350 $14,351,650 Source: 2012 Master Plan, table 14.1. Priority 3 projects are not included in this update of the SDC and are therefore omitted from this table. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 7 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 Table 6. Cost Basis for Improvement Fee Cost Basis Cost Basis, Priority 1 and 2 projects $9,017,350 Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd) Current 2,870,000 Growth 310,000 Future Design, Priority 1 and 2 Projects 3,180,000 Base Improvement Fee ($/gallon) $29.09 Together, the base reimbursement and improvement fees total $32.18/gallon. Next, we discuss how the base fee can be applied to a specific residential or commercial development using the current methodology or the alternative methodology. Calculation of SDC Schedules Current Methodology The current SDC for both residential and commercial development is based on an average residence, which the City defines as having 2,000 square feet of habitable area and thirteen plumbing fixture units. The cost basis for residential development is $/square foot, while the commercial cost basis is $/fixture unit. This equates to a cost of $2.02 per square foot ($4,054 divided by 2,000) and $312/fixture unit ($4,054 divided by thirteen). According to the City's 2011 wastewater utility billing records, the average winter usage for a single-family household on a x 3/4" meter is 3,780 gallons per month. At an average of 2.1 persons per household (2010 US Census), sewage production is approximately 60 gallons per capita per day. The current methodology uses this residential average to calculate both the residential base fee (per square foot) and the commercial base fee (per plumbing fixture unit). Residential Base Fee ($/Square Foot) The SDC of $4,054 divided by 2,000 square feet results in a fee of $2.028 per square foot of habitable residential area-$0.195/square foot for reimbursement and $1.832/square foot for improvement. Commercial Base Fee ($/Plumbing Fixture Unit) The SDC of $4,054 divided by thirteen plumbing fixtures per 2,000-square-foot residence is used to calculate the base fee per plumbing fixture. The result is $312/fixture: $30/fixture for the reimbursement fee and $282/fixture for the improvement fee. Table 8 shows the schedule of SDCs for the current methodology and applies it to a sampling of residence sizes. For residential uses, the SDC varies proportionately to the size of the residence: e.g., a 1,000-square- ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 8 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 foot residence pays half as much as a 2,000-square-foot residence. For commercial uses, the SDC varies with the number and type of fixture units installed in the development. Table 7. Proposed SDC-Current Methodology Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Residential SDC $/square foot $0.195 $1.832 $2.027 # square feet 1,000 $195 $1,833 $2,027 1,500 $292 $2,749 $3,041 2,000^ $389 $3,665 $4,054 3,000 $584 $5,498 $6,081 3,500 $681 $6,414 $7,095 Commercial $/fixture unit $30 $282 $312 ^ Average single-family residence. Alternative Methodology The alternative methodology uses meter size (which determines a user's access to the City's water and sewer systems) as the basis for calculating the SDC, and residential usage is adjusted by type of residence: single- or multifamily. Housing type is distinguished by the number of residences on a meter-e.g., one residence per meter (single family, condominium) versus multifamily residences with a shared meter. This method of assessing SDCs is based on the equivalent a single-family resident's average water usage and sewage production) served by the smallest size water meter, %11 x 3/4". The equivalent number of W, x 3/4" meters for larger size meters is used to determine the SDC for larger size meters. Before we develop the SDC based on meter size, we discuss the capacities of various types and sizes of water meters and the relationship between single and multifamily housing and meter sizes. Water Meter Size and Type The City currently installs a combination of positive displacement and turbine type meters. In general, meters 1 " and less in diameter are displacement meters, while those larger than I " are turbine meters. All %11 x 3/4" meters are positive displacement meters. Table 9 shows the capacity of each meter size in gpm and the equivalent number of Y x3/4 " meters. For example, a I " displacement meter has 2.67 times the capacity of an equivalent Y x 3/4" displacement meter. The V turbine meter has even more capacity-3.33 times that of a W, x 3/4" displacement meter. These meter equivalencies are used to determine the SDC by meter size. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 9 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 Table 8. Meter Capacities and Equivalencies Safe Maximum Operating Capacity (gpm) Displacement Turbine Safe Maximum Safe Maximum Operating Equivalent Operating Equivalent Meter Size Capacity x 3/4" meters Capacity x 3/4" meters t % x 3/4 15 1.00 N/A 1.00 3/4 25 1.67 30 2.00 1 40 2.67 50 3.33 1'/2 50 3.33 100 6.67 2 100 6.67 160 10.67 3 150 10.00 350 23.33 4 200 13.33 600 40.00 6 500 33.33 1,250 83.33 g - - 1,800 120.00 Source: American Water Works Association, Table 53: Test Requirements for New, Rebuilt, and Repaired Cold-Water, Water Meters-Selection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance (AWWA, 4th ed., 1999). The basic residential meter (the smallest and most commonly installed) is a V x 3/4" diameter meter (i.e., V inlet from the main water line and 3/4" outlet to the building). About 90% of the City's installed meters are x 3/4" displacement meters,' and at present, the most frequently installed residential meter is a s/s" x 3/4" displacement meter. The next available size is a V displacement meter. On average, residential customers with larger meters use more water and produce more sewage than those with smaller meters. These larger meters demand a higher level of service from both the water and sewer utilities than customers with x 3/4" meters. The City does not currently offer a 3/4" displacement or turbine meter. It may be an appropriate option, however, for customers who need more capacity than a %11 x 3/4" meter but less than a V meter. For this reason, we include the 3/4" meter size in this SDC analysis and update. The sewer system is designed to carry and treat periods of peak flow. The quantity of water used and discharged as sewage drives the demand for capital improvements-greater collection and treatment capacity. By basing the SDC on meter size, the City is signaling to future developers the true cost of supplying sewer service. This schedule of SDCs gives developers the incentive to select the smallest size According to the City's 2011 billing records, only one residential customer has a 2" meter, and only two commercial customers have 4" meters. In all cases, the average monthly usage of these customers is far below the capacity of smaller meters. Number of Customers by Meter Size Total Customer class % x 3/4 1" 1 /z" 2" 3" 4" Meters Residential (single-family) 2,917 138 6 1 0 0 3,062 Commercial 299 96 59 48 6 2 510 Total Customers 3,216 234 65~ 49 6 2 3,572 % of total 90% 7% 2% 1 % 0% 0% 100% r1~ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 10 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 meter that will serve the development. For the City, it means minimizing future capital improvements to increase capacity. Residential Water Usage Multifamily residences on a single meter present a special problem because the selection of water meter size can overcharge or undercharge the development for sewer service. We therefore develop a hybrid SDC for multifamily developments. Table 10 and figure 1 compare single-family and multifamily usage in winter. For residential uses, we are most concerned with average winter usage. In summer, water usage by single-family residences nearly doubles due to outdoor usage, and that water does not enter the sewer system.8 On average, a multifamily residence uses about 70% of the water used by a single-family residence (or 2,330 gallons/month versus 3,330 gallons/month). Table 9. Average Winter Water Usage-Single Family vs. Multifamily Residence Water Usage by Meter Size (winter average) s/8 x 3/4" 1 '/2" 2" 3" 4" Average' Single-Family Residence Gal/mo per Residence 3,325 3,483 3,894 5,086 3,330 Avg gal/day per Capita 53 56 62 81 60 Multi-Family Residence Gal/mo per Residence 1,882 1,787 2,214 3,103 2,263 2,841 2,330 % of Single-Family 57% 51% 57% 61% 70% Source: City of Ashland, 2011 billing records 'Weighted by number of residences per meter size. s 5,746 gallons/month in summer vs. 3,330 in winter. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 11 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 Figure 1. Average single-family and multifamily water usage per residence, gallons/winter month 6,000 Single-family 5,000 3 Multifamily 4,000 3,000 2,000.- 1,000 Gallons/month/residence (winter average) x 3!~" 1 " 1 '/z" 211 3 ~4" Average Single-Family 3,325 3,483 3,894 5,086 3,330 ;Multi-Family (per residence); 1,882 1,787 2,214 1 3,103 2,263 2,841 2,330 Source: City of Ashland, 2011 billing records for January, February, and March. SDC by Meter Size To apply the SDC by meter size, we begin by presenting the methodology used to establish the average usage per single-family residence on a %11 x 3/4" meter. As shown in table 10, the average winter water consumption for a single-family residence, assuming 2.1 persons per household (2010 US Census), is 60 gallons per capita per day (gcpd). The proposed SDC for a single-family residence on a %'I x 3/4" meter is therefore equal to 60 gpcd x 2.1 persons/residence x the base fee of $32.18/gallon or $4,054. This is then applied to larger meters and multifamily residential developments. Table 11 shows the schedule of SDCs by meter size and meter type, and for multifamily residences. The SDC for multifamily residences is assessed based on meter size or equivalent number of residences. . Multifamily residences that are served by a single meter vary in their use of water. Some developers install larger meters than building codes or engineering estimates require in order to provide better water service to each residence during peak hours-usually the morning peak when people are preparing to leave home for work or school and the afternoon when they return. For this reason, we recommend the City charge multifamily developments the higher of (a) the SDC by meter size or (b) the rate per multifamily residence ($2,838) multiplied by the number of residences in the development. For example, an eight-residence apartment on a 1'/2" turbine meter would be charged for the 1'/2" turbine meter because the SDC by meter size ($27,041) is greater than the SDC for eight residences multiplied by $2,838 ($22,704). If the developer would have selected a 1'/2" displacement meter, the opposite would be charged-i.e., eight residences x $2,838 is greater than $13,499 for the 1'/2" displacement meter. The difference in cost is proportionate to the difference in service between the two meter types. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 12 City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016 Those on the 1'/2" displacement meter likely will suffer from lower water pressure during peak morning and afternoon usage than had they installed a turbine meter. Table 10. Proposed SDC-Alternative Methodology Displacement Turbine Meter Sizet Reimbursement Improvement Total Reimbursement Improvement Total % x 3/a $389 $3,665 $4,054 N/A N/A N/A 3/a 650 6,121 6,771 N/A N/A N/A 1 1,039 9,786 10,825 1,295 12,204 13,499 1 r/2 1,295 12,204 13,499 2,595 24,446 27,041 2 2,595 24,446 27,041 4,151 39,106 43,257 3 3,890 36,650 40,540 9,075 85,504 94,579 4 5,185 48,854 54,039 15,560 146,600 162,160 6 12,965 122,154 135,119 32,415 305,404 337,819 g - - - 46,680 439,800 486,480 Average SFR $389 $3,665 $4,054 Multifamily" $272 $2,566 $2,838 $272 $2,566 $2,838 The SDC per multifamily development is either the amount per residence ($2,432) multiplied by the number of residences or the SDC for the size meter installed. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION As provided in ORS 223.304(8)(b), the City may adjust the SDC periodically using the Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. in its weekly periodical, Engineering News-Record (ENR). This publisher's construction (and building) cost index is widely accepted in the engineering and construction industry. ENR updates the CCI monthly and provides annual summaries in the July edition. EFA recommends the City update the SDC annually, effective July 1 of each year to correspond with the City's fiscal year. The formula for updating the SDC is as follows: SDCcurrent year - SDClast year X (CCIcurrent year/CCllast year) where: CClcurrent year - CCI for the current year CClrastyear = CCI for the last year the SDCs were updated SDGurrent year = the SDC updated by the CCI SDClast year = the SDC to be updated The construction costs listed in table 6 are based on January 2012 costs. These costs equate to ENR's CCI of 9,176, the index for January 2012. The next adjustment for inflation will use this value as the CClrast year. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 13 Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis and Update July 2016 APPENDICES Appendix A: Comparison of Ashland's Wastewater SDCs with Select Oregon Municipalities SDC per single-family residence, rounded to the nearest dollar. Jurisdiction SDC/DU Rank Ashland, current $1,620 7 Ashland, proposed $4,054 2 Eugene" $2,099 5 Grants Pass $2,605 3 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) $1,523 8 Rogue Valley Sanitary Service (RVSS) t $2,337 4 Roseburg Urban Sanitary Authority (RUSA) $2,007 6 Springfield^ $5,553 1 Average $2,883 Source: Economic & Financial Analysis, 2011-12 Survey City plus Regional SDC (MWMC). t RVSS serves the following communities: Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, N. Ashland, N. Medford, N. Phoenix, NW Medford, Phoenix, Talent, W. Medford, Whetstone, and White City. $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 i $3,000 $2,000 - $1,000 Springfield Ashland, Grants Pass Rogue Valley Eugene Roseburg Ashland, MWMC proposed Sanitary Urban current Service Sanitary Authority ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 14 (,D x o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C DI O CD O O o O o o O O CD O O o 0 0 L, M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C M M O N V) Q\ O M ~O M O O O U O M 110 a, 00 00 ~ C, 00 N N 4 0- 1.0 r- 1.0 r- kn ca Q\ NMOCI O<M~ > ^ N M N M CL ~ N U O p O x x i~• W O OI ^ U CQ p _ rr, - rr; ~ t~ ~ r', OC I oC L ~ f~ V ^ N N N in C x r- rl ~ O N O N •a U C 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OI 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 'O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U y M x x^ 41 O n ,0 [ I~ t O r- 110 ^ O Q1 [ x cva ca O D^ OOQ 00 r- I-- r- I-- 't MxN 00 M 00 I•M • U x 01 N N 7 N N N N N N~ x N M U U m M 00 V) M x 4< N V) CC ~ ^ N d' ~ ~ SI ¢ O O Q O N N N N N O O O O N N O N ~O N M M Cl) N N M M M M M N N N N M M N M ~D ^ x I0 O V) O O Z O M v'~ ~n v'~ ~n \0 O O O O r-- r- O I- "t N x x 0 z z N N~'.0 `O \O N N N N I N in W a` x Oo ~Q NM ^ 0000000000 O OC C, O U M M Q\~ [~t-~Na,C>Ox Q\ QOM CT M x x m O N C, C\ O O xO x~~krx ~O MOM: 00 > Vl V; N ct x ~O M V) O "t 00 x ^ 1.0 00 C~ ~ - C ^ N x N O ~ Qr O OI N N N N N x O N x V', N v:. fr M r•i rr, x '7' N x ~ ~ x x n x ~r, r•.'~ M - - x ni r-x oc ~n 7 M M ~ N ~ v x~nx-t ~i x rte, - ~~:x r`,r~, v: x -r ir. x x r- =t . x v ` ..'Ii !I M N ~ ~ U N C • O O OOOOO Nx MI-0 It 0000000000 O O x.OO -r O _ O O O O O O O M O O 01 M O O O O O o O O O x O ^ O C, O ` 00 00 -4 C q oc ~ Q M r- Cl N N N N 00 C, O O OC O r- V) 0 M M r- r- knN[~NCY M ~~1.0~CD Mr- Ic MC', m N M0000 .--i x m M Q, CIA I-0 MO,~c~x1.0 -r ^'^^x NMx 00 C, r- C~ -hr- M O O `a O O O O O x x O r- M M OC x }i in m x m C. N M r- OC Cal N N M M N CIA N Cr ^ M a, O V) 0^ M IT ` N M O M L O ~ ~ rf ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N M d' ~ ~ d' O O ~h ~n V) O N ~C ~0 O . , ~ u M ;n ca C.) a~ N m _ 0 0 ~ ~f•~ z U~ ~3 ' °o Q o 0 0 o W 0.°i w Z ¢ ¢ U 2 Ew- w O ¢ ¢ y aUn U~ Q 7 W W ca Ul n. ILA cc a, W W U`f'U U W w z ~ ~ r_G c~ r~ `---0' c~ 0.Q w o ~ 3 L ~ to 7 ~m>-J-O~~~~z an XXXXr~~~~w ~Q~U z J N vi of o ~,F- o UO¢QZrn~ W Qw^ ¢¢OOC7¢¢~, v~ e Z C~C1QQ~ UUUU2zU ]GL~U.. anc a Q ~~w wF-zz0.3a.~m¢w cncnCcC-2 r~3zwWy ^z ~w W ~W 0 OC2 3 0000000¢~~~20m U 3 a o wwwWO¢~>W W o rxrerxrww o W u ¢¢ciarfac~e ce a F-C~Uwo~-nF 33F- v z X _ z a 0 00 <a, 00 0 N M O ~L") ~0 r- x"o 00 r- N^ V1 t O x l ' N ~O rn N N N O ^ y ~0 ~O V' V, V) M l~ 00 N ~0 4S M Q bL h ~O O O O O 0~ v V V) Ln MMMMM Vn V) 'n 5 V) ^N M O O^ M N N CV M M M M M M _ N N N N -t N M M M M ~ It i„ N "o CD O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O Q O X a O - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E O z V) 0 Q W O ~1 L. 0. C 0. p CL 3 33333 u Q 3 33333 ~.D O o o C O O 0 0 o C CD C) C) C C o C CD C o 0 0 o C CD C CD C C C O C O o o C C) O C o C o C CD C O C o 0 o C CD O C CD C O CD C o C) 0 0 o C O C C o c-I ~D O x x O \O \O N M r-- ^ 00 N t` ~ V-) `O M M O, o O O U fV M^^^ 00 ^ N O N t-- ~c 00 M M O r- C r- M N V) t~ C-- M N ~O ^ 1D ^ N d' N C d' ^ N k ^ 1C N N ^ a, t- M rl r- t1A 7 d ~ O --i N C= O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v` v C C V C ^ O_ O ^ U cC x P 1 V x x N D ^l ^ t- x x oC x r", 7 r'•. ^ I- n O a~i O N -a C U O C O o 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 o O C O C o C) 0 0 o O C o 0 0 0 o O C C C 0 0 0 C O C) 0 C) E -Z:3 C C O C O CD O C O 0 0 0 o O C O C O C O C CD C O O O C O U U O O O O O M^ M N l C n x M N M M^ O O1 11C C M^ O ^ O N f.j ^ 'rD "C O C 'l- M 00 "71- N ^ O\ W) O t-- `-n •U.~ [~I~ V)~c \C00 0000 1.01 ~xr- OM001- C~MNOr,4 zt N •~N U U ca _ G ¢ M M M V) V) V) k1r) o O O O O N N ^ 00 QQQQQ~QQQQQ~¢ooooo0000o nInIr) a,ol a, NNNNN^ - ooo D r- t- zzzzzzzzzzzzzr'?n r) roooooooocoo0o"" -t n n Z N N N N N N N N N N (71-1 N N N N N w M O, CD OOCD C)CD CD \0 V) CD V)000tn CV-)O V) 00 V)CMCr- O` V) C) U V) N 1~0 ~ 00 <D If) V) ^ 1~0 N O1 00 O1 "D O 00 M 00 M d' `C r- 00 [ 00 ID O, 00 V1 V) O Q1 O O a, in Q1 N x ^ x ^ 17t I-- ~ N ON Ic r-- 00 \O V) N M M V) M (V N N N M M 00 00 ~ O V1 N N C. M M ~D N N N ^ ^ M N N^ N O C - -10 N ^ ~ l.S ~C ~C 'r- t~ N OC OC ..1 N x O'S OC C .'1 O` In r l If, ~ t- r, M In r- ^1 'D 1.i ^ en -r. N t- C - a) t~ 7 - '7 -t It ,n ^ M C x e-, N OC OC t` t- r- .G Ii', - x -r. ~ - t- t- r^. -7r r- - ^ rl, p ~..J C rr~ C CC r- t` MN OC C "r 7 -r x rlt- t- N cQ rr; CC In x x x x - t- x x C- x x fJ r`d N x M, OC C- f^~n fr, ^ x v^ x ~D ~n (`1 N ~ rrJ- • U -f. r'', - ~ -..r ~ r.. ~ ~ ~ ~ - N ~ N ~ ~ r~ ~ ...r` - ~ ~ t` 'v; "t N ~1 M O L 7.., S= U U L' O ~ ¢ "O RY C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O bh O O C O O Cl O O C O O O O O C O O O C O C O C O O O O O C O O O O C O C O O C O C ~NC1~`O4CD M'td'~1.0 NNO1-•(o,, ~ONOt NxC^ V)' r-- CON r- r^r- O O ^ ^ M O r- O1 C~ OC M x O O M O N ~o Q^ M r- In ^ M M O OC !t M N x V') 1.0 1C ~.c 1D x V) 't V) r- kn ~ '!t zl- OC '71- x 1C to "o in O, ^ x x V) O N N O czs ~ M x in x x x x x d' O, C r- C ^ C O O t7 ~Ci M t~ t~ M M^ x O ,D Q, c, ,D M N N r- M:t t M V) V) M M N x C N V) N^^ x \C (n M \C CQ ^ cn ^ C V~ V) in ~n O O O O x x Q1 d\ ON O O ^ N N N M M M M ~t t t ~ V) 1.0 .CD ~c ~c r- r-- 00 x oc U ca ~ C C^. C C~~~ C~ C~ G~ C^ C C C^~~~ C~ C C C C C ~ C S C N U U C7 ~ Q U U ~ zz z z~~ Qo QQ ~ 41 O° ° x3 x~ o zz ZvZ~nOOw v zQ¢~~ ~~~vaz2U~~ vac/ c/~vav~r/~c/ r/ N w zzzzoo zc7zzzzzzzz~z ~~z va ~ z_OF-~z,~ 2 ww p ¢Q¢QF'F'~w¢z¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢~ ¢~U~ ¢w~U~Qwz¢~2z¢N ¢2~'~ a L wwwwaa wwwC~wwwwwwwwawwpa.wwmaaa 7c-727 CD w~0o 4-1 ~ ~ 3333~~333~33333333~33a~~33c~p~pz~3~~~3~~3~~a a wwww~~www¢wwwwwwww~wwwU Q1 Q cn~vac/~a 0.tntnc/~ -c/~cntnvacnciaC/~ tna,v:tncr a,v~cr cnc/~CAcr C/]tnC/~ r/~var/IUaa,cr :J]cr U~ Z d N z ca ~ O1 O, V') r- ^ M M M Ch ^ N V) N 110 M S C V; V) C 00 1D It O N M N 't M V) ~D r- C x O C C^ t`CD O^ Lr) V)NN~c \,C 000~-o x:00000Lf) OCIN 00If) 00NO1CC1COCCD O`ON ,OC O, C>ClC) kS V ~c 1.0 V) V) \.o \D I. ~ r- In V) ~ V) V) V) V V) In V) 11C V) In ~c 't 't lzt r- ~ \.c It d• ~ kn 't V) It Ln In V7 to V"1 V) ~n V) kn V) V) V) V1 V') V) V7 V) In V) V) V) V) V) V7 V) V7 V7 V) V7 kn kn V7 V'~ kn V') V) V) V) V) V) V) V) In U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O C O CD C) 0 0 O O CD 0 C) O O C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O ) O O O o C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 p Ul C o 0 o O C o 0 0 0 o O O 0 C O o 0 0 Cl- C C C) C O o O C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O o 0 0 z .C ¢ 0 N V Q W Ll~ u 3 ~O O CD C CD C o 0 0 o C Z) C o 0 0 o C C o o C CD C O o 0 o C O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- o 0 0 0 C O C O o 0 0 0 0 0 C CD C o 0 o C o o C O o 0 0 o C C CD C o 0 0 0 0 o C O O U N 1C - x v1 l O\ x 1C - N O -h Q\ M x-^ 01 O O^- t- O t- C't - N N O M -t ~ 1a 01 d° 01 1C 01 1C x 00 r- In o -71- x m - 1C "r) 0, r- 'r~ (-q r 01 01 01 ~o x 0, 00 M C 01 M QJ = N r- ^ M N ~t - N N (n M M M N O^- N Mkf) N N O- - M N tr) 1n O- 1C N 00 O M O w N M ? - M - d ^ ~ O ~ N U x 1.^.. 7 OC M rr- N i~'~ ~ r^ r t~_ C'~ r'1 r^ t~ t~ (^I ~r', y' OC t~ l~ ~ ~ N t~ r-1 x ~n N ~ r- - r. r- - ^ r^. ^ x x O ¢ U t~ .c --r r" x r l r- -I- r- r-, 't -t x 'n C r- r, rv - ` M x c O N -0 C y C C O C C o C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 0 C o 0 0 0 C C C C C C o O C O o 0 0 0 0 C O C O C O C o C C O O C O C O C O C O C 0 C C O o 0 0 o C C o C U v CD 1flCO'.0 1`xIn ~c) r-- O1D^•^x^'OI~NO\inv'' N V) MMt- x 1C r-1001v)~~~xOx m ca CT - 1C l~ M In O 00 1C N - N tr) O CT CT O CT O I O OC O 1C O N 1C t- t O 00 CT - -t If) 1C 1D O M 1C CT M x v) - ~h 'n 1C V) O M N N ^ O x N x M 'zt I- x N N N 1C ^ - N U N M N (n ¢ O M M M M M M M t` kr) V) 1-r) V) 1T 1D 1D 1C 1C 1C V) If) V 10 CT 01 01 Q1 ON O\ ON ^ (n ^ to v) ~ C O - C t` t O o C C C C C M M M M M N rf CT Q1 C' C C\ r- O C O C O O O N N In V) In x C O---- N N -t I-n V) In n n 11 n~ 1D 1: '-C~ \C ~j N4 mmmmmmmmmmMmm-ter-t4444444 7t 4444 4 --7t -4 -zt -t -zt -t ':t '4 -7t m U M O 't In N 01 - M In M \O 01 x 't x In 't r- M C x r- N x 1C M 10 CT If) N 01 kr) O lzt tf) M M C\ ~ C 01 01 -ONCN~CD 00r- C - 't ~ ON1ON't -t1Or-NNOCIA C 1C xO("A x - NxIn 't r- N x In x"t ~ C n n C x 1D N x N 1C 10 ~ 01 OC- N 1p x 1C 1C M M- C - O x~ cC N ~4InrMxMr- O1 ~N7t x1C-In NxC-4 v)-4Nr- 1pxN x O1-7t r- -t -'zt v1N-CrN > N N V) - in - N In v') M N 1C in ^ in O O Lrl 1 OC "t t~ N - 01- Or- OC OC N -t r'. 1 -rO r^, -t I~ 1 - x =1 fl~ C -t 10 x x f . -r. 1^, x oC -r. r r 1 -^c r- ; 'tom N r O x r ~r[~ N 1: 1; rte, rl~ N rr N cQ ~ 7 M x rte, -t -t - ,r. M r`d C - '"t "1- - _ r^J t\ :JG' - rJ x 1- ,r; In O r-" 7 ~I N N x I ~ 7:: 7Z !1 ` 7 7:~ e- ' n r-. -r i 77- vi ~ U U O ~ Q "O ~ O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CD CD 0 0 0 O C C O 0 0 0 o O C O 0 C C O C) O C O C C O O C O C 0 O C C C O C C O O C O \0 l - C x -:t -t CT v'), 1C - O N ~ v; IZI- C ^ M - tf) V~ M ~ 1C x ~ - 00 x ~ ~ O 00 N V) a,CD V~ 1C00NIn r- 1ooMx1C00NCM'~t laM'ZI-^O~Ot- zt -C 1C C, -(01r- 1~1- M~x~ 1p1C~ V) MCN NOC> nCrOxN~NxO~r- r- N-t r- x --tn n ^n MO C7 - x -zt v) 1C N x x L 01 kn t CT r- In CT -y- x c,) - 7 M C -i' - t 01 - v1 O N M v) - 10 M M N 1p ~t - M N M- N N In M M M N CT N M V) N N O-- M C M V) C Cr 1C CT M Q` - N M - N - C O x x CT Cr Cr CT a CT CT O O - ^ - N M M -t -f C C t` t~ x x x x x x x O1 01 O1 01 01 G1 U r- ~ r- r- r- r- ~ 00 x x x x x x x x x x x 00 x x 00 x 00 o0 x 00 x xxxxx OF xxxx ~ C ^ .r- ~ .r- C ~ ~ .^C C C C ~ C ~ C C ~ C C 5= C C C - C C C .r- ~ ~ G' C ~ U 0 W W ~ Q Q Q p- Q.. Q ~ Q zz ¢ ww QQQ¢33 oo a~mw)~~oo C7 C7 w ~ 3 ~oGWw ~ c7ww w.~ww~~~„wQCa ~OO~z z w Cl ~~w L1L 22c~UC¢¢ w _0 w wC~ rx33 v~> z w~r~ z2Q¢Q¢E t- Q Q c7~na?ww ¢ 00 0. QU .~.~w.aa ac~cr ui ~z ~33jj =33`i'`~`i nOOcnvacr~r~v~va r~va>OZ a4ce X22»}, N U >--wwc~00>-> v~~cG2UZZW W?z2Z2zQ22Qw¢ wwwwOOZZN p a¢aa~.UL1z2UU¢¢Q-QQ ¢Q¢Q¢¢UQ¢~¢~c~~L w.a> >-22 a ° ~~CQ7vwQ¢~~ ~nwQ~r„„~ a~27272 OOOZZw ZZwwNN z ww ¢¢.aar~c~ a 3 LL ~DIL w~ww~~Dw~~~~~D::) ~D ~D u Q1 C v~v c~v v v ~n~v~v~vav~cnv~vav v cnv v v v~vav~vavav v~v~v v ~v~v~ ncnv v v vacnv~ z a z Ul) ra ~ N - MIt Ln1Cr- 00 01CD 7tv)t- V) 1Dkr, 1Dxt- x-r- (01Nx01 O -NM7 V) \0r-oc 1O O CT O O O O C O C - - - - CT - CT - - - r- CT - CT C, - CT - - - N N N N N N N N N N M In In In V) knV)I V)(nV) V) If) kn V) tr) V) 1.o V) Ij-) v; V) a V) kn ~Inkn1cIn V) to V) V) (f) V) In V) V) V) k-r) If) V~ v) 1.r) k/-) InV' In v'~In InknIn knIn V) kn V) V) In in V) InIntr) V) tr) v) In V) kn V) If) kn V) InInInIt) V) tf-~ V) U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c y g O C O C C C O C O C C C O C C C C C C C C C C C O C C o o C O o 0 0 0 O C O C 0 v C C C C C C Cl C O C O C C O O O C O C O C O C C C C C C CD 0 C C C C C O C O C C O Q 0 0 o 0 0 0 C O C O C C C O C O C C C O O C C O O C C O C 0 C C O C C O C O C O C z Q 0 cn U Q W O r u 3 C C) C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C o o C o 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 x o C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C 0 C C) C o C O C C) C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 0 0 O O 1) In O In ^ N ^ M Q, C O ^ oo ~t M oo O r Q i M 00 4 < ~O 00 00 ~n ^ ~O O ~O M N J a C<a CO, ~D oO cn COoc^ f Oc''1 Ca N r O, o, N oo oO O tr) r O, rM~O O\ rr~'M ~O^O OQ,~'~' tn r lzt ^NI-ONG~M 00r~o ' ^ N 01m G~Oin^ co ^ N r ^ ^ N M N ^ ^ ^ > a ~ O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I hl C (-I r l Oc -T oc x r-~ ^ r-l x r- r 4 -t r I -t C- -t V x _ ^1 ~ r''1 rtil OG f i OC V nl CJ r ^ r C r! n ir. /'v: r ^ O Q U c^ Z oc r - oc r-I r!', r. r l N 'r- x oc OC r, e-1 -.r. r". r^N- u r M C N a U C o C O C O C) O C o 0 o O CD O C O C O C C C O CD O C C C C O C C) C O C o 0 0 C 0 c a o C o 0 o C CD C o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C O C o 0 0 0 0 o O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U v) O r C V) ~D 10 0, `O O C O1 N'a O zt ^ N O \O 00 N r N ^ N O O d' Q1 U cC ~ v~ M ~O O d, V) N in 00 Q1 V) ~.o V~ 00 In C O ~n V) M 00 O 00 00 ~-O GI) M M N O r r 00 ON r \.D 't m M 00 M r r O O1 O~.o M 00 ^ 01 \~c ('q ^ M V) N^ r Q\ N N C'n U M M N ^ N N ~n ^ ^ N N N^ N^ N M N^ Q V') v1 V) N N N N N N N 00 00 o0 00 oc N M M M M M M M M o0 o0 oc c1' N N N N N N N N O ^ M M M M M M M ^ O~ r r r r r r r r C C O N M M M M M M M M _O 1.0 \.p ~ ~ \Z r r r r r r r o0 o0 00 o0 o0 00 O\ O1 Ol 01 O\ ON ON Ol 't ~ 't 't ~t CZ M U O r kr) N V) N kf) O, N ^ Q` to r r 00 r r O ^ IL oc C O, a, O M V N M ~O O 00 ~c N ~O ~D M r 1~0 't 00 Q1 ^ 00 ^ N N M ~c "o 't I/') ^ V) r t 00 O` Lr) O V) M M O V) N r ~ It 't 00 M O, ~ In 0 00 '1' M V) M ~ O, O DD V) N DD r C 00 If o0 O to V) C o 7 otntn0ovn4C- - ~o^ ^ 00 00~ InOOO;oVnviV)r-- oor- o000 Vi o 00 0 ~-D N V) Tt r r M 10 C14 't N N N Lr) ~c 00 N Q`• M M O` ^ N \~c M O O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a oc ell x r^, C oc r" 7 -t rr - r.l x Ir, N V, - C N ^ Ir. C, r ^ r -r v^ 1r_ N ir. x U O .CNNNrV,x cIr,1z,,rococ - -7oc~r r ,:1: r --t = r N r .r- r 1: Nxx -t.: r Ir; In C C oC oC 0C r , r N - 'r, ~7,, 7 v x 7 'r, r r r", N '.i., ^ r'r' r -r. C r l r-, r^. r- C V-, ,r, t` ^ r^i rte, r^, M If-, 0C Oc r l el J 3-+ v U U O ~ ¢ a C C C C O C C C C C O C O C C O o o C O o 0 0 0 o O o O o O C C C C C C O o O C C C C C O o O C O C C O C 0 C O O O C C O O C O C O C C O C O C C O O C O O C o .-oco000C^MO0~O` NMOC CD. W Vi^--Moo'.0 00MCIn N V)In\c oO\0 ~t NO~O V) in O ooCIA ~000, M~NM^~c OO M 't 1.0 ^O`^OOM NOO(a,r^^O.'cMV) O,N~^O`O`N N V) In N~a,knNNCD ~o OO M ~nNInN00o00M000"Or00O,00a,ov) M r ^I-rlr ~ C~ O,~lf(::rr ~t :t~~N- OMocooNooCM~C Lr) C rocm z0,Ln rrd m ~n O, It 't O, o0 M N N r r M M O O OO (n r tn ~ tr) N 0~ M un C v) S✓ O G101 0, 01 O`O,O,0CD 0COCD C d, 737 0~ Q, 01 Q` Q\ O, O, c- .ca U o0 00 o0 00 o0 o0 o0 O\ O, C31, O, O, O, O, a, a, Q, C-1 p. C. ¢ ¢ U Q Q Q Q Q Q ri ~~CG~CC I ¢Q O E^E- W W¢> WwW WW 2W vwjrWia~~ Q O ~E¢-- ~Qp~.,,f ~ 3 W W W W 3aa Q- W~wri c~i~ 0w Ww~ cwi vwZaC70. cn7- va TT _ w zzzzz ~ Q "~~aa ~wE-ZZ ww~U ~1L ~OWZQ~w-a ¢Q¢Q¢ ¢a¢ Q¢QF~w2WU%¢~,oF-F-F-F-F-¢C~L w Q TQQZZww .~~00z~Q www~n- a 3ZZ^~L G O~v~v~ a!~wU - _ U! N c~a~C7~C~CwU>wN2222zoZZ U 00000~~wwww~~~ >->-~~o c¢aQ~o¢~ZU2~-~rxT~r Z) ::D L1 c~ cG> ww >a 000CCo a a 0 0 0¢ Q Q Q w Q U w w Q Qwa p U T T T T 0 a mmCGM_mmmaammcnaa~3m~~cnmaaOQQQcnmM_maacnm~0C)00C'~Oa~GO c ~ TTTTTT~TTTTTTwT--TTT~r.~www'~TTTTTT~a:000OOr~TT ~ Cl vav v~v~cfv tnv znv~cnv~a v rn>~~~s~Q a~ c~c~v~v i znv 22Z2Za rnCA z Q z cB ~ ^NM~ V):or000` ^M~ 10 (11 V) ~r000`r'It k-r) \OCD ^NM~V)\C) d'\~DrOOO`knCD oc(0, m M M M M M M M M t ~ V) (,1 d' 171- 't 17t 00 00 00 00 V) to V) kn V) o0 00 ^ Ch ~ Ch "t 171' u1 M (n V) V) V) 111) V~ v) Ql~ In V) V) kn V) kn 110 V) kn V) kn v; t t ~t -t V) V) V') V) V) V) kr) r _r r r r r r r r U V) V) In v) V) If) V) V) in v) V) V) In 14-~ V) V) In V'~ In to lr) V") V) t/') V) V) In ^ ^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M y g O C O o O o g C C C C C o o O o O C O C) O o O CD O C O C C O C) O C O O C O o 0 m O C O o C C C C) O o C C C o o O C O C O C O C C O C O C C O C O o 0 0 0 0 C O C O V) O C O C O C O o O C) O o 0 0 O O O O O O O O O C) O C) O C O 0 C O C O o O o C C C z Q O cn u Q U 3 O C o c o C C O o 0 o C o 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C C o o Cr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C CD 0 C C) C C C) cl, O o 0 0 o C C O N 'hMIC 00 Nr- NOt~0000 - OM - O t-- V) ItCl O. O olinV) N ~00 QJ M ~C 4 O C1 00 00 00 vi M 16 N o 00 M N v1 - tf~ t` - N C'n O 00 O O ~ n - M I ^VnMO0 ~o -^OO~ -NNN N tao C N U oc CC C`ll -r N N f '-t fl) N ^ "t v^ f.-: ^ r, r' tt. ^ v C N _7 t- - U r", 00 7 OC OC v'. .C ~r. ^ t~ ir, f C^ v. '7 x N OC 7 M f`J - I~ f N O ¢ U N - in O N O N 'O U G U O O C O C C C O C O C O O O 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O C O O C O C O O O C C O C O O C C O C O C O C C C O C O C O O O O C O O O C O C C O O O U U N "n rON r- OO,1.0 N"z O- MEMO V)r0- O` M 0000r- N i-n V) N O M O` in 00 M oc m - O C `D 00 N O, N `C 't 00 v1 N 00 O, 10 r- ~ r in - T ~.c OO N .-"r, N 00 in ~,c 00 N - O O` ^ M N M M - 00 - - Q` N 1,n y U C3 - N O [p r- ~ r- r- t- ~ I- CD - oc V) - in in in O, `O ~c N N 00 00 r- N 00 in C a1 M V) O1 ON 0, Q1 (a\ - - ~ ~-o "D v) in M r- 00 ON O, O1 N 00 00 O\ O~ O O r- ~ N C M N C V) kn k1r) in Ln kf) V) ~.c 10 ~ 00 00 00 00 00 oc o0 00 00 Oo O, O, C, O, O', C C O C - N N N L ~n kr Lr Lr Lr Lr krLrLr vi fi Sri .r vi v) kn in v) in ~.c Tj- z w M Q` d' M M O V"~ Ct C in OO r- oc O, oc N r- 110 r- (,A V') v) ---t O It r- zl' r- N M I C N M O M O M O M- C N N_ (3~ O ~ ~ Ic N in IC O M 1.0 C O r- in O, 't O, ON N U M ~C Ch 00 O, O O, m 00 in O ~c \C 00 t` C M r- ON t-- C -Zt• r,N M C ^ M O ~C ch 00 00 ~O ~O O M -7t N a ~ -T 4 zi• ~ \.O 4 r- oc ~ M V.) o0 oc ^ \rl > ~C N M N M N V) v1 M - C N G O Cn f•; l~ N 't n M CC .C \Z- - x r- r^, r^~ .c ^ N X- r ~n OC or_ N x '-t ^J OC cr '7 - N 1n 1r, N I- oc OC N c0 ~L^ -t N tr, rtIl OC lr: - t^J N -n 7 'C `J N "r. I C"i JC 7: 7- 77- v~ S_- U U C O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O C 0 0 0 0 C C O O C C O O C C O C O C O O O C O O O O O C C O O O C) L"' O M C O l !1q, 1.0 -It 00 4 00 16 O 00 00 C ~t ~D 06 -4 ~V)- O C Oo ~ O W N C O N N O O Nr- 00 r- in(n`Oin-~C \0 ~\0~t1.C oc MO, V) r,4 t- C N O 00NN 00 tit o0 M M ~C O n 7t a, o0 4, O O n oa C < O - 7 of '71'7:t N of O r- ^ Q1 t- 00a,-4 C O, ^00N-4 N N~ ~ MOOON V) l CD NO\M - O, oc ~-c - M o0o0~ 00 M 't - M Vl M O N ^ N N V) M ^ M G O t- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q, 4\ ON O, ON O O O C ca N Q Q Q G Q Q a G~ O O O O O Q d; Q O O O O O O O O~ O O O a L] C r_ C C O C> i cC U U O O L G O v~ s.¢ U 0 0 Q o2cr 3 ~C) ~¢cr~ ww ~w w wC7 - ~-3 vc7 z , z CIO ~OQWw E 33~~30~ -a~~ww jju,~?w~ ~O > FQV~ c0 64 zrx~D~~ CZ7~0~ DOE- U 3w¢>~ ~G~a~~zQ w~ C]wQ `~'W~ wOQZ~ ww~F->p¢z Cam ~Q ~rx¢~3 3t~ia O0~ a w~; m Q~O¢O TWW~Q~ EQ z ~C'OZ aoQ00w w„ 3-z Z) N ¢O~ _ zrizU ~z~O / XC7<•O~wZZ a> Q Zr~i zQc~~=F ~Q`i' cn z o c~0 z w ~z c/a¢z ~v~ F c_~-'-:G 3-¢cx -a> a D 13zt/~v:C/ CA 7C/~crC/ VS ) cnwvav~tnv)rr>>cnrr vcnv ~a!cl~~QO~v cnQ.a~v~va Q N z ca O` O, O O, - ("I M in 'Ti- \.C M if) 00 Lr) O V M N Q, \O r- ~ ~ 00 ~ \.c cn O V) r- N O N oc c, 00 O, C, <01, C31 MM MM't ~ t-- t-\C r- r- NNN kn N O. ~1.0 110 O Q, Ol o0 00 00 00 OC N N N N N 73- 't 7t 't ~-o ~c ~c t- ~ ~ ~ 00 00 OO 00 o0 o M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M y O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O C O O C O O C C C C O O O O O C N O O C O C C C O C O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 0 C O C O O C C O O O C Z cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 0 0 Q 0 V) L1 Q W u 3 (-D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o o C CD C C C C C C CD C o o C o C C o C o C C) C o o O x o o C o C CD C C C C C C) C C) C C C o c o C o o C C o 0 o C C CD C C o o C N O O y cn ^ N O' M ~n N^ ~t 't r M O to Q\ N N Q1 M N a r N Q1 Q1MO`D to 0 00r- N ~c O.M^ r- r- NO, ^ oc O, to N ON O" rgG', X00 M 0 N -C ^ ^ M M N N Cl) r- M 11D N 00 ON N^ M N N ~D r- It M N N ^ C 75 ^ `O o0 N ^ O > M 00 ~ N 6C C r~ "t ^ x C 7 - C M O A- OC y Vr, t'N OC ^ f "7 Q- r' f C oc f.- N r- oc OC '7 f^, ~L -r, r l fr. ~C 7 fr1 r ] f', f - N f 1 x O N 'O U C y C 0 0 0 0 O O O C O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C ^zzl C C O C O O C O C C O C C C O O C C C C C O O O C C C C C C C C C C O C U y ^ r- N to N C to ~D ^ to M o0 ~ 110 ^ d N O 00 ~D to o0 to `O 00 kf) Q` N C3 ca N N 00 M to ^ t~ M N In N to C 00 M 00 N O, vi ~ to C to ^ to to M Q\ N C, M N N C'h M to N N 00 Q1 N N ^ ^ U ^ ^ y y c3 r^ C M It a, MN O, 0000^^ C NNNN Cl NMMMvnN~~^~t ~ Q, ON 0000 to N C M NV) 00[- r- ^^a, O. 1,0 MMM M 01~~c ~c M,~T O,O,[-- O,^^CD OCCD CD CD CD to (li _ N N N N N N M M M M tr1 kl) ,r f t/'^ lf~~ ~~r--~ O C^--^ M M M w f=' y h 00 O C IC ~D O\ 't ~.o C 't 00 N - If) d' M O M O It C r` 00 r- 00 C OW N r~ C N OO O 00 M ^ C O'~ M O, 00 00 M C O. ^ ~D 00 00 r- 71- r` N 00 N M C Oo O, N N OO ^ 110 `O MMO^ If) O,10 C~ C I-nO,NM O NM~c If) ^nOCd'!Z~ 00'n'71n ~D N O ~D lo0~tr 4 ~4~0, M 4 C-r Q` r O,M00^,c Lr) V) NMC~~r- ~c oc N N N 00 ^ N IX) C ^ r- 110 M r- to ^ N ^ ^ ^ N 10 M M ^ ^ O N ~D ^ O co "p f^, N N 1r. Ir, N 7 00 N Ir, ^ 7 7 r, in N N ^J ,r; x ,r, fl) r- e-i ri cm r I t` r l N f,, r`i - I f% -t e i rJ 7:: 7 x r` fr, - - e-r _ y U r~i~ C U y O ~ Q 'O R O O M O 00 O N O^ O C O M O 71- ~D ON to O l~ O C O oo O C O O N Q\ C) 'o O _ O Cl t Cl O1 O 1-0 to C N C C M M C Cl If) ^ In O O, M C C N C C C C~ C C N O C C O N N O\ 't r-- to ^ 01 00 N 00 to M to 00 ^ OO O1 ~ r- 't 00 00 ~c C "t C d` C ^ O` \~c M O 00 M to 00 M 1~O to to V to 00 to m 00 N N to r- I' M V-) M r- to N r-- N oc oc r~ `O O, C N to ^ O to to `O Q\ M \Z 't l~ ^ 00 `t 't r- It (01 Ol 00 r- 00 M r- 't N 00 ~o \.c 00 O cz 00 oo N O, N O Vj r- r-- 4 O\ r-- to r- M 'O N 00 N to 1.0 M O, oc to N 00 to Q, O, oc r- N 1.0 C M M M O N N ~O ^ N Cl) M 't \O 00 O` N M^^^ M M^ CYa ^ N 00 N ^ C N N N M M M M M M In In O O O O ^ ^ ^ N N N N N C N C O C C O O O O O O CZ y O 0 0 c 0 O O O C O O O O O O C O~ O~ 0 0 0 O O O 'i -C b-0 C-' U y y = C). O cv J J y U y ca U p L~, R.. y y G' ¢ v 0pw -~-~vav z - - QppCl¢~- -OZ¢¢~ p p ¢ y p ~Z va UU Q. v cM~r O~ pzw 2w C [~z~a`,. ~z U z Q°3p zzw° C) 7- OQ 3~''QNQaQ ~jj U ¢¢www ¢ W Ei Q Q E^ Z F CQi W W 0 1 z - CC ¢ OO¢Wr/-' l~ W C' U~ ¢E-~~UF-• ~ 1,~,~--, E-¢¢ W Q Z CGS W W¢ ~~GZ¢ W r/a? E- 2 W WCG~E-v wr ~¢¢¢ri ~r~p W W a w ¢F-3F-cC ~W °'~C ~ O zz_ ~wC7 pzz C~ Ul z z>z z ~~¢zU QvvCavF- ~ p w 33 U O OoaOZO w~~p~- O~ ~zzv~~, c~rF„wcnz~w2¢r~2 Ww "w_J000 »°~UCKKKrl z L > >O>>ODUO U Or~i~m~GuCCn>z»>~a a °J Dwp- p=pQj~ F~ zpQpp~F-QZ~F¢QQw U W¢pDpQ ~ ~ cawm~aac7cnQr~¢m°aa m¢¢^c~z.~~¢¢ vacn°¢awmc~r~ ma~aa~- a pr~4ppwwwpOp pr~wX¢Cw~rxw`i'JC~oppWp~p~CD n N p / Ucnv~v~3r~~cnCYlva nva~ Ulr-- 7 C~-Umrr~C7o~>OooNV cnu~✓~v~v~vaNO, C/ v C/ W 3 Q ~ Z ^ MNCD O OMCIA ^ C ^r-000, It Nato \C N^r- oo D~to'r-00tn~o r-NM O, 't m M Mr,\DCIA \.O 110^MM 't NC~ ^C^O, O`MM^MMMM^^t't 00 °a C, 0101Cl C~ O\oll C) C) O OOOO O ^NMMMMNNNN NNh1 NNNNcnM M C N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Ch 't Ch It It 71- 't It It 't It C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 11) - y C O C O C O O C O C O C C C C O O C O C C C C C O O C O C O Cl O O C O C C C O C O O O O O C C O O C O O C C C C C C O C C O C C C C C C C O C C M O C C O C O O O C O C O C C O O O C C C O O O C C C C C C C C C O C O C O Z u Q W 0.. 3 33 3 3 3 u 3 33 3 3 3 C o o C o o C O o 0 00 `-i x o C o o C o 0 0 0 o M o o0 00 N O O U rn `n ~n O^~ N N kn '11 IT V? O M M N N DD M N M^ ~O M kn c) O tr, 00 r- V') ca N N N O It tDLO d ~ Zo - ^ > ao M N 00 O N oC M N M ^ V1 N ^ r+', f 1 A O S N - N O N t3 U U C O O O O O O O O O oo O 00 00 E 'O O C O O O O O O O O M O rn m U Y O N C~ N ~n o0 M W N M 131 N co CA M r` ^ N O 00 M ~ 00 ~ O o0 ' U • ~ ^ N O ^ M ^ `t 00 N ~c 00 U U to N N M M O M C M Q O N N M ~.o 00 V7 V-7 V) V) (-A N 00 -.r) o0 00 oc O O O _ j- o0 00 oo ^ ^ 00 00 00 00 06 LLa M j Q\ a1 00 M N o~ 0~ 't fn o0 0` 00 00 a0 O cn N O `p [ r N > O N oc d' Vi M M Ge 00 ~O N 00 M^ N M N It lD 00 Cf O oc I~O r- 00 ~ O M N M Oa rn x M M x r, O u Q :r- r '-'t OC C' 1 n r^, M --r r- I N C oC ~n C r~t~ r^, c^, x t- Oc x ca fi -t - r it - ^r ~i N N ^ `x fl fi U U ^ ~ c U U o ~¢-a O O Vn O o0 O V) Ln O 00 O O O O O O N N N N N N kn Ln r- CD 06 O O M 0, m k M r- G1 O ^ O O M ~f M M r 00 G1 M r- N N N M ^ N "4' M^ C O v oa o0 cG O O U 0 0 O O O O O U ca i i L U r^ C U Q O O CD C CD C- N ~ L V1 3 L L L ~ ~U+ U U L U vO a Z CA y O U o CZ U D> o Q v 3 O o o ° U va'o o Q iv 'A Y 3 U L ca 'O > F^ C > Q O C = ~NOO 3 u U CA U o 3 CZ L. 4J Ll UNN 5 N W Q ~ZC7 v C7 c- 3CY1 z can z_ eC ct O 0 c 000 ~ OM M U O O O O 0 00 00 (O` 01 kf) L O O O ^ 0 o z a V) u Q W O a a E- C 3 3 3 cz U 3 3 3 City of Ashland, Oregon WATER: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE Prepared by: ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Vancouver, WA July 2016 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY 1 CURRENT WATER SDC 1 UPDATED WATER SDC 2 Reimbursement Fee 2 Improvement Fee 3 TABLES Table 1. Summary Water SDC, Displacement Type 3/4-inch Meter 1 Table 2. Schedule of Water Meter SDCs by Meter Type and Size 2 Table 3. Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 3 Table 4. Original Capital Improvements List and Percent SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s 4 Table 5. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s 6 Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 7 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYST= Page i City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 INTRODUCTION An update to the water system development charge was presented in the final 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP). Since then, the TAP water line project has been completed, which reduced the size of the Crowson II water storage project. An updated schedule of water meter sizes and technologies has also been added. These changes affect the calculations of the reimbursement and improvement fees. The basic SDC methodology remains the same: residential developments are assessed based on square footage of habitable floor area and all others are assessed based on the size water meter serving the development. These adjustments to the 2012 Master Plan SDC are presented in the following sections of this report. This update relies on the forecasts of water usage and land use development contained in the 2012 WMP. SUMMARY Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential, commercial, and industrial users. Compared to the current water SDC, the updated water SDC increases 0.3% for the residential land uses and decreases 1.3% for commercial and industrial land uses. The commercial and industrial SDC decreased due to an apparent error in the 2012 Master Plan calculations which is explained below in Table 5. Table 1. Summary Water SDC, Displacement Type 3/4-inch Meter Current 2014 2012 Master Plan Update with TAP & Crowson II SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC % A Residential $/habitable sf $2.60 $0.93 $1.68 $2.61 0.30% Commercial and Industrial (by meter size)^ 5/g 3/4 $4,940 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 -1.30% 3/4 $8,250 $2,989 $5,140 $8,129 -1.50% 1 $16,452 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257 -1.20% 1 '/2 $26,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20% 2 $57,654 $201918 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30% 3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30% 4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -1.30% 6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30% /'Rounded to the nearest dollar CURRENT WATER SDC Currently the City's water customers use displacement type meters, though more recent technology uses turbine type meters. In general, turbine meters have a higher capacity to pass water than the current displacement meters. Table 2 shows both the capacities and SDCs for the two types of meters by meter size (inches of diameter). Also, the City has been defining the 3/4-inch meter as a s/s" x 3/4" (i.e., s/s" from ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1 City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 the water line in the right-of-way by 3/4-inch into the property). A true 3/4" x 3/4" will pass substantially more water than a x 3/4" as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Schedule of Water Meter SDCs by Meter Type and Size Turbine Displacement Safe Safe Maximum Equivalent Maximum Equivalent Operating Number Operating Number Capacity of 5/8 x Capacity of 5/8 x Reimburse- Improve- Total Reimburse- Improve- Total ( m)^ 3/4 Meters ( m) 3/4 Meters ment ment SDC ment ment SDC s/g x 3/4 15 1.00 15 1.00 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 3/4 30 2.00 25 1.67 3,586 6,168 9,754 2,994 5,151 8,145 1 50 3.33 40 2.67 5,970 10,270 16,240 4,787 8,235 13,022 1'/~ 100 6.67 50 3.33 11,959 20,572 32,531 5,970 10,270 16,240 2 160 10.67 100 6.67 19,130 32,909 52,039 11,959 20,572 32,531 3 350 23.33 150 10.00 41,828 71,955 113,783 17,929 30,842 48,771 4 600 40.00 200 13.33 71.716 123,369 195,085 23,899 41,113 65,012 6 1250 83.33 500 33.33 149,402 257,008 406,410 59,757 102,797 162,554 8 1800 120.00 - - 215,147 370,106 585,253 - - - "gallons per minute UPDATED WATER SDC Reimbursement Fee Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the depreciated value of existing fixed assets and the recent addition of the TAP water line. The proposed SDC in the 2012 Master Plan was based on the fiscal year 2011 (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2011) audit. The update is based on the audit ending June 30, 2013, and on the current cost of constructing the TAP water line and the Medford Water Commission SDC for water in 2014 dollars. This project was deleted from the list of capital improvements that was is to calculate the improvement fee. Since this project has been constructed, it can be counted as an existing asset with excess capacity to serve future development. In the 2012 Master Plan, the project was to serve only emergency water needs and was excluded from the calculation of the improvement fee. Since then, the scope of this project has made it a source of water to Ashland and it will be available to serve future development. In this analysis, 90% of the TAP line cost is included because it will primarily serve growth and 10% is assumed to be used for emergency use by existing development. Seventy-seven percent of the 3/4-inch meters are in single-family residences; therefore, 77% of the eligible reimbursement fee costs are allocated to residences and 23% to commercial & industrial users. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2 City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 Table 3. Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 2011 2013 Allocation % A Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7% Accumulated Depreciation ($15.228,374) ($17,254,657) 13.3% Book Value of Hosler Dam ($55.741) -100.0% Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2% Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds ($175.000) -100.0% Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds ($2.940,000) ($4,695,862) 59.7% Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) ($633.551) -100.0% Principal Outstanding ($3,748,551) ($4,695,862) 25.3% Investment in Capacity $17,147,990 $14,484,761 -15.5% Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump MWC's SDC $2,620,084 Construction $4,400,000 Less: IFA Forgivable Loan ($950,000) Net Cost of TAP $6,070,084 Allocation to Future Development $5,463,076 % Allocation to Future Development 90% Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee $19,947,837 Current 3/4" Equivalents Meters # % $ Residential 7,575 77% $15,359,834 Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $4,588,002 Totals 9,802 100% $19,947,836 Year 2032 Projections # Unit" $ / Unit Residential - sf habitable area 16,483,431 SF $0.9318 Commercial and Industrial - equivalent 3/4" meters 2,559 EM $1,792.89 ^SF = square feet, EM = equivalent 3/4" meter Improvement Fee The following two tables show the lists of capital improvements used to calculate the improvement fee. Since the Water Master Plan was completed the City changed the purpose of the TAP water line from an emergency source to a daily source of water. In so doing the planned capital improvements changed. Also, EFA updated the original project costs to 2014 dollars. Table 5 is from the 2012 Master Plan (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted. This project is under construction and qualifies as a reimbursement fee. Only 9 projects qualify to ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3 City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 be improvement fee projects; of the $44 million of capital improvements only $4.3 million is included in the SDC improvement fee. The majority of the projects have only a local impact and are not eligible for the improvement fee. The Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump project has been deleted from the list of capital improvements and added to the list of existing capital improvements. Because of this change in scope the City was able to reduce the amount of storage needed at the Crowson II reservoir which reduced the cost by $1.3 million (in 2012 $'s). Table 5 shows these calculations. Table 4. Original Capital Improvements List and Percent SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s SDC Eligible Capital Project Total Cost % $ Supply FERC Dam Security & Telemetry Improvement (50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% - FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% - FERC Structural Stability Analysis(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% - FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection(50% Electric, 50% Water) 160,000 25.00% 40,000 Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 120,000 75.00% 90,000 Sediment TMDLin Reeder Resv. 600,000 75.00% 450,000 Reeder Resv Study Implementation 30,000 75.00% 22,500 Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 100,000 75.00% 75,000 Reeder Resv Variable Depth Intake 100,000 0.00% - TID Terrace St Pump Station Improvements 220,000 0.00% - TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 100.00% 1,100,000 Test existing high capacity wells 50,000 0.00% - Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project 50,000 0.00% - Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) 0 10(0~.(0~00%~ - Emer-geney TAP Pipeline & Pump -q,000,000 Treatment & Storage Raw Water Bypass Measurement 25,000 0.00% - SCADA Radio Frequency FCC Compliance 45,000 0.00% - Final CT Disinfection Improvements 85,000 0.00% - Permanganate Feed Facility Study & Implementation 265,000 0.00% - WTP Security Upgrades 50,000 0.00% - Existing Plant Mech. Elec. & Scada Upgrades 1,500,000 0.00% - Ozone /UV Analysis & Disinfection 1,750,000 0.00% - Bear Creek Cu WLA Source Control Study & Implementation 50,000 0.00% - 2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 6,746,000 10.00% 674,600 2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 12,000,000 10.00% 1,200,000 Distribution Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse 50,000 0.00% - Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 100.00% 700,000 Park Estates Pump Station/Loop Road Reservoir Alternatives 2,000,000 0.00% - Lit Way New PRV 341,000 0.00% - Tolman Creek Road New PRV 341,000 0.00% - Pipe Replacement Program 3,700,000 0.00% - Radio Read Meter Program 1,351,000 0.00% - ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYST= Page 4 City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 SDC Eligible Capital Project Total Cost % $ Hydrant Replacement 616,000 0.00% - Emergency Response Plan Update 20,000 0.00% - Cross Connection Control Plan Update 15,000 0.00% - Safety Plan Update 20,000 0.00% - Granite Reservoir Valving 100,000 0.00% - Piping Ivy Lane 346,000 0.00% - Ivy Lane 94,000 0.00% - Normal Ave 517,000 0.00% - Walker Ave 784,000 0.00% - Parker Street 162,000 0.00% - Harmony Lane 65,000 0.00% - Lit Way 35,000 0.00% - Ray Lane 54,000 0.00% - Beach Street 91,000 0.00% - AHS Property 90,000 0.00% - Vista Street 149,000 0.00% - Vista Street 5,000 0.00% - Meade Street 235,000 0.00% - Elkader Street 72,000 0.00% - Ivy Lane 64,000 0.00% - South Mountain Ave 6,000 0.00% - South Mountain Ave 17,000 0.00% - Pinecrest Trail 178,000 0.00% - Pinecrest Trail 396,000 0.00% - Penny Drive 83,000 0.00% - Woodland Drive 52,000 0.00% - Hiawatha Place 58,000 0.00% - Morton Street 130,000 0.00% - Ashland Mine Road 115,000 0.00% - Fox Street 54,000 0.00% - Almeda Drive 35,000 0.00% Skycrest Drive 162,000 0.00% - Crispin Street 131,000 0.00% - Oak Lawn Ave 29,000 0.00% - Sylvia Street 64,000 0.00% - Black Oak Way 85,000 0.00% - Oak Knoll Dr 287,000 0.00% - Ashland Street 432,000 0.00% - I-5 Crossing 794,000 0.00% - Ditch Road 225,000 0.00% - Lithia 70,000 0.00% - Iowa Street 640,000 0.00% - Granite Street 300,000 0.00% - B Street 250,000 0.00% - ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5 City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 SDC Eligible Capital Project Total Cost % $ Terrace Street 350,000 0.00% - Totals 44,006,000 4,352,100 100% 9.89% Source: City of Ashland Comprehensive Water Master Plan, Carollo Engineers, Dec-2012 Table 6 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original 2012 Master Plan projects as of this year. The Crowson II reservoir can be reduced in size at a cost savings of $1.3 million. Ten percent of the cost and of the cost reduction are incorporated into the revisions along with an adjustment for inflation. According the ENR Construction Cost Index, construction costs increased 5.45% between June 2012 and June 2014. Table 5. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s SDC 10% Capital Project Eligible Adjustment' 2012 $'s 2014 $'s Supply FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection (50% Electric, 50% Water) 40,000 40,000 $42,000 Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 90,000 90,000 $95,000 Sediment TMDL in Reeder Resv. 450,000 450,000 $475,000 Reeder Resv Study Implementation 22,500 22,500 $24,000 Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 75,000 75,000 $79,000 TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 1,100,000 $1,160,000 Treatment & Storage - 2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson 11") 674,600 -$130,000 544,600 $574,000 2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 1,200,000 1,200,000 $1,265,000 Distribution Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse - - - Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 700,000 $738,000 Piping Totals 4,352,100 4,222,100 4,452,000 'Ten percent of the cost reduction ($1,300,000) is deducted from the eligible SDC costs. Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial & industrial users based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use. The improvement fee is the allocated cost divided by the forecast square footage of habitable space residences are expected to develop; and, the allocated cost divided by the forecast number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters commercial & industrial customers are expected to develop. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6 City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016 Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee QQ3/4 Inch % D Meter Equivalents Total Allocation Total Cost Allocation to Improvement Fee, 2014 $'s $4,452,000 Residential 7,575 77% $3,428,040 Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $1,023,960 Total 9,802 100% $4,452,000 Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 $/SF $1.6751 Forecast Growth 3/4" Equivalent Meters 332 $/EM $3,084.22 Compared to the current SDC, the updated residential SDC (reimbursement plus improvement fees) will increase 0.3%, and the updated commercial & industrial SDC will decrease about 1.3%. The decrease in the commercial & industrial SDC is due to an apparent error in the calculations of the 2012 Master Plan. The 2012 Master Plan forecast the number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters will increases by 332 (from 2229 in 2012 to 2559 in 2032); however, the 2012 calculation of the SDC was based on only 318 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.' Table 6 above is based on 332 new 3 4-inch equivalent meters. The updated SDC uses the same criteria as the 2012 Master Plan and the current methodology. The current and 2012 Master Plan methodology divides the cost between single-family residences, and commercial and industrial based on the equivalent numbers of 3/4-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch equivalency is based on the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass instantaneously relative to the amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times more water than a 3/4-inch meter). Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable (heated) floor area; and, the commercial and industrial is based on meter size which varies by the meters' abilities to provide water instantaneously-gallons per minute. ' Comprehensive Water Master Plan, page 9-29 Table 9.15 shows the current and forecast numbers of 3/4-inch EM for commercial & industrial at 332; page 9-32 shows only 318 EM were included in the calculation of the improvement fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the correct number of 3/4-inch EM, 2559 (page 9-29). w ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 7 ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES March 4, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Mike Faught called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Dan Jovick, Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr. Committee Members Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) Council Liaison Present: Rich Rosenthal Mike mentioned that at some point the committee will need to select a Chair/Vice Chair but the Committee would come back to that after introductions. He stated that Ray Bartlett who is the Financial Analyst that did all the work on the SDC recommendations is here to present the information. All of the SDC's that are being presented have been recommended, with the exception of a couple of projects that have been added, out of the Water, Sewer and Transportation master plans so these are all recommendations based on those adopted documents. INTRODUCTIONS The Committee did a round table introduction. Jac/Dan m/s to nominate Carlos as chair. All in favor. OVERVIEW Ray stepped through each of the documents which were all drafted in 2012 which now requires changes in all three areas. He pointed out that WATER SDC Issues- *Drafted in 2012 *Update all costs to 2014 dollars *Add a portion of the TAP project which was originally planned to only be used in the event of an emergency. Since then the project has changed and the cost has gone up by roughly 3 milllion dollars. At the time it was planned the City hadn't anticipated having to pay the Medford Water Commission's SDC which is fairly large. Mike pointed out that is a supply option for us in 2060. The facility is going to be constructed as a temporary facility but at some point it will likely become a permanent facility which means we need to start collecting SDC's on that now. *Reduce the Crowson II Reservoir project which saves about 1.3 million dollars *Review methods of assessment along with the sewer SDC Reimbursement Fee (see attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee) - *Value of Existing excess capacity *Original cost: Less accumulated depreciation Balance of outstanding water debts No change in capacity The reimbursement fee was based on 2011 dollars. Ray pointed out that SDC's are usually reset annually or at certain trigger points, such as: *A master plan being updated Transportation Commission January 23, 2014 Page 1 of 5 *A large increase on a project included in a master plan or *Inflation Water Improvement Fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) - *Only 4.352 million of $44 million included (2011 $'s) *Changes since 2011 - Medford Water Commission/TAP SDC cost ($2 million emergency service only to future source & reduces the size of Crowson II). Cost increased by $3.7 million now will be used as a mainline supply; provides benefit to future users. *Reduces cost of Crowson II reservoir by $1.3 million (2011 $'s); 10% allocated to improvement fee Residential SDC, $/sf $ 2.60 Current $2.45 2012 Update (not implemented) $2.65 Proposed (2% increase to end user) SEWER SDC The capital improvement projects fall into two categories; priority one and priority two. The current SDC rate did not include a number of the projects with are now on the capital improvements list. The system itself is fairly expensive to build/operate. Residential SDC, $/sf $ 0.81 Current $2.03 Proposed (150% increase to end user) (See attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee and improvement fee) ASSESSING WATER/SEWER SDC'S *Currently: Residential based on size of house Commercial based on number of fixture units *Alternatively: Residential- Single family: Meter size Multi-family: Greater of meter size or number of housing units x Rate Mike pointed out that SDC's really should be based on the demand on the system. Russ brought to the attention of the committee that he was involved in a big discussion about 10 years or so ago regarding this. The one size fits all method is only theoretically correct. The size of the meter gives you the maximum capacity which is far greater than any household could actually use. Some are forced into having a bigger meter size due to simply having a sprinkler system which has little to do with the actual maximum capacity rather than your theoretical maximum. Lawn size is probably the best way of determining. Meter size is simple and convenient; the fixture method gives you a slightly clearer picture of real amount of use. Ray pointed out that it isn't how much you use in the month; it's what you use instantaneously. You also have to consider the long term picture and the amount of owners that the home may go through. Each family will have a different amount of users. At least with the meter size method it practically limits how much can be pulled out of the water system instantaneously. Meter size makes a big difference in demand on the system. With the fixture method you may have a home with three bathrooms but only two people living there which means they are likely to not be using all three bathrooms. Also, on the Commercial side of things it is almost always easier to install fixtures after the building is completed so you may not know if fixtures have been installed. It also incentivizes the contractor to choose the meter size which will best fit the demand of that building. From a conservation standpoint meter size is generally the best way. Transportation Commission January 23, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Bill explained to the committee that as the department that collects the fees he's had to meet with unhappy customers who were increasing fixtures or making some improvements and their argument was that they were increasing fixtures but they weren't increasing demand. Russ feels we should orient these towards our capacity problems since that's what we are building out for. TRANSPORTATION Additional TSP project- *East Main Street improvement between Walker and Clay Street *2014 cost $2.559 million *Would add $258 to SDC at 100% eligible Transportation improvement fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) - *Current $2,043 *Proposed $2,196 Proposed w/Main Street $2,454 Mike added that the Normal Avenue railroad crossing is the only crossing through that area and it would also be an East Main connection which is why they had shown it as 50%. Russ feels that the railroad crossing is primarily growth related and should be as close to 100% SDC as possible. Mike said that once the connection is made there will be pass-through traffic created. There is also a nexus to what is required to be paid for by the builders. On a City wide perspective it creates a North/South connection. He pointed out that this initial meeting is really just to bring the information to the committee and then come back and go through these things. SUMMARY *Water SDC 2% increase *Wastewater 150% increase *Transportation 7.5% increase Mike asked the committee how they would like to proceed now having all of the background data. The committee decided to go home and go through all of the projects/data and come back and tackle everything, likely starting with Water/Sewer and then Transportation last. Ray spoke to the credit policy which is a part of the statute. The Committee agreed to meet every other Tuesday at 1:00 pm. Next meeting March 18tH Mike/Troy m/s to nominate Jac as Vice Chair. All in favor. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant Transportation Commission January 23, 2014 Page 3 of 5 System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee March 18, 2014 Present: Troy Brown, Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels, (vice-chair) Rich Rosenthal, and Russ Silbiger. Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer (Chair) Staff: Mike Faught, Bill Molnar, Mary McClary Vice-chair Nickels called the meeting to order at 1: l Opm. Introductions The members introduced their name and affiliations. Troy Brown Jr.---Planning Commission Allen Dourna Citizen Mike Faught---Public Works Director Jac Nickels (vice-chair)---Architect Russ Silbiger---Citizen Rich Rosenthal---Council Liaison Ray Bartlett ---Consultant (by phone) Jac Nickels announced the Committee would approve two sets of minutes at the next meeting. Troy Brown requested the agenda be sent as a pdf file. Minute approval Set aside. Public Forum No one present. Water System Development Charges (SDC) Mike Faught introduced the consultant Ray Bartlett on the phone. Mike spoke and presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the current SDC charges and proposed changes. The water SDC charges were $2.60. The 2012 update reduced it to $2.45, then TAP allocation (SDC to Medford) brought the charge to $2.65. Ray Bartlett went through the details for the changes of the proposed changes for residential and commercial water and the members discussed the recommendations. Residential SDC is based on the square footage of the residential structure, commercial rates for water would be based on meter size, and commercial sewer would be based on plumbing fixtures. Ray would work on an example for the Committee to review at the next meeting to clearly see the current charges and the proposed charges. Sewer SDC The commercial sewer charges would be based on fixture units currently at $124.18, changing to $311.19. The current rate for residential is .81 sq ft and would change to 2.03 sq ft, an 150% increase. Ray explained the old methodology left out the value of the capital improvements made. Going forward the improvements would not be funded with tax but user fees which drove up the cost of the user fees. The tax revenue pays for the debt service on the current system until 2024, approximately 1.6 million per year. None of the tax revenues are included in the SDC calculations. After that time Council had already approved the tax monies to be used for Public Works capital projects. Allen asked for an outline of how the projected costs went up 150% to both residential and commercial and wondered what this would do to an average home (2,000 sq ft). The food and beverage tax monies used to pay for the treatment plant, would become a revenue stream for the sewer fund to pay debt service for capital projects and the engineers would allocate how much should go to growth in the SDC. Each project has a growth indication and drives the SDCs. SDC funds can only be used for projects identified in the master plan. The increase is needed now to pay for growth. If the SDC's do not cover most of the costs then rates increase. Ashland's growth has been less than I% for the past 10 years. The master plan projects are based on that growth. The members discussed capacity versus rates increase, projects coming up in the future, replacement costs, percentage of sewer costs paid by SDC and rates, growth paying for itself, and limitation because of urban growth boundaries. Ashland was in the middle to low range for SDC charges when compared to similar communities mainly because other communities adjust annually. We do comprehensive master plans every 5 years and the SDC rates are re- evaluated. Water and Sewer growth was calculated by engineers. The committee asked for a rate impact comparison for several commercial buildings (10,000 sq ft) and an average residential structure (1700 sq ft). The criteria used are based on the American Water Works Association for meter capacity for meter size and manufactures. The committee would like to see the comparisons with the sewer SDC proposals also. Mike suggested the Committee pick up the Transportation discussion at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 2:30. Next meeting: April 1, at 1 pm in the Siskiyou Room. Respectfully submitted by: Mary McClary Administrative Assistant for Electric, IT and Telecommunication Departments ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES April 15, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma and Troy Brown Jr. Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, and Jac Nickels Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal Mike mentioned that at some point the committee will need to select a ChairNice Chair but the Committee would come back to that after introductions. He stated that Ray Bartlett who is the Financial Analyst that did all the work on the SDC recommendations is here to present the information. All of the SDC's that are being presented have been recommended, with the exception of a couple of projects that have been added, out of the Water, Sewer and Transportation master plans so these are all recommendations based on those adopted documents. INTRODUCTIONS The Committee did a round table introduction. Minutes approval - March 18th. Unanimous consent WATER SDC Ray stated the SDC statutes in Oregon have two portions of the SDC; reimbursement fee & improvement fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the value of excess capacity that is currently in the system, drought notwithstanding. The City in the past has used original cost depreciated for the length of time it's been in use to calculate the cost basis for the reimbursement fee. There are two other commonly used methods in practice; replacement cost or replacement cost depreciated for the length of time it's been in use; both of which produce a much higher SDC than what the City of Ashland has chosen to use. Ray pointed out that you are allowed to include projects that are financed or under construction. One of the issues that will be looked at is whether or not to take the TAP line & add that to the reimbursement fee. The improvement fee is the value of capacity that hasn't yet been built; they are projects to be built in the future which in the planning process have been identified as necessary to meet population & employment growth that's expected. Although the future can't be precisely forecasted, the master plan is based on a reasonable forecast of population & employment. The current water master plan is designed to go out to the year 2030. The TAP waterline is likely to meet demand to 2060. Ray pointed out that they are simply updating the figures in the 2012 master plan to 2013 dollars, which is the last year in which there are audited financials for capital values and using the same measurements that they had for capacity for the existing system and the growth. One of the issues that came up at the previous committee meeting was how the SDC is applied to new development. What the City has been using for sewer & water for residences is to calculate what the SDC would be for a 2,000 square foot house. The City then applies that SDC to the actual square footage of the house that is being built. The theory is the larger the house, the higher the demand for water and is a pretty commonly applied method. For non-residential uses, the water SDC is applied based on the size of the water meter that is installed. The sewer system is based on the number of fixture units that are installed. SDC Committee April 15, 2014 Page 1 of 2 The TAP project was originally left entirely out of the SDC calculation because it was considered to be satisfying only emergency demands of the current population & would only be used on a temporary basis. Based on climate change it is estimated that it would be used every 4 years or during an emergency (flood, fire etc). A discussion was had between Ray and Mike regarding whether or not the TAP project meets the SDC requirements. Mike stated if Council approves the TAP project as proposed then the original SDC proposal is what they would continue to recommend, if it does change they would recalculate it and bring it back to the committee. SEWER SDC The sewer SDC hasn't changed since the previous meeting, except for addressing a few of the issues that came up at the last meeting. One of those issues was whether or not sewer projects that are being paid for with food and beverage tax have been included. Those are not being included and they have removed those facilities that are financed and being repaid out of the food and beverage tax. The net is the facilities paid for with user fees and SDC's. There have been major improvements to the wastewater treatment plant since the last master plan was updated and the capital improvements list has had additions made to it related to regulatory requirements. The engineers evaluate what percentages are due to growth. It is required as part of the master planning process and all of the projects have different growth projections. Mike pointed out the master plans calculate the estimated population growth, and they then figure out what that impact is to the system. After reviewing the master plans/transportation system plan, the goal for the SDC committee is to make a recommendation which will be forwarded to Council for approval. Once the committee has made their recommendation a required 90-day notice would be sent out to the homebuilders association and after that it would be presented to Council along with a public hearing. The committee agreed to skip the April 29th meeting in order to have time to go through all of the material. The next meeting will be held on May 13, 2014. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:15 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant SDC Committee April 15, 2014 Page 2 of 2 ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE INFORMATIONAL ONLY **NO QUORUM** June 10, 2014 Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr. Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal Transportation Commissioner Present: Joseph Graf Mike pointed out that we did not have a quorum so the committee couldn't take action on anything during the meeting but the meeting could continue due to the scheduling of the conference call with our consultant, Ray Bartlett. Informational notes will be taken for submission to the full committee at its next meeting. WATER SDC Ray provided an example of the current sdc and the proposed sdc based on a 2,000 square foot home. Bill asked if the committee wondered where Ashland's SDC's stack up with other cities around Oregon. He said he had remembered seeing an email, possibly from the League of Oregon Cities, which showed that Ashland was sort of in the middle. Bill didn't recall the details of the document. Mike asked Ray if that was something that he could take a look at (as long as it wouldn't exceed 25% of the contract amount). Ray agreed that he could look into that. Ray then stepped through the "Update - water system development charge" document (see attached). The tables discussed in the document show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and compares the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP, Final December 2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012. Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial & industrial users on a 3/4-inch water meter. Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users. Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee. Table 4 is from the WMP (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted. Table 5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP projects as of this year. Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial & industrial users based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use. SEWER SDC Ray noted there weren't any new changes to what was proposed at the April 4th, 2014 meeting. It is pretty much the same as what came out of the master plan. The calculations were increased based on the change in asset value from 2011 to 2013. The proposed improvement fee resulted in a slight increase, adjusting for inflation. Ray pointed out when the SDC was put together originally for the current sdc there were pretty large reductions made in the calculation of the sdc, in part because the City was charging a tax on food and beverage, much of which was going towards paying for improvements to the sewer system. Those corrections have still been made but the current sdc was based on an artificially low sdc. The capital projects have increased due mostly to a pretty dramatic increase in sewage treatment requirements. SDC Committee June 10, 2014 Page 1 of 2 The committee would like to see a summary of the current and proposed, in addition to the rates. Staff will provide th at. Transportation SDC Russ questioned how they can determine the Transportation sdc based on a list of capital improvements that may or may not be completed. Faught stated that is something that the committee will have to decide. Ray pointed out the master plan eliminated the low priority and developer driven projects. The question is whether the committee wants to trim back any of the high and medium projects. Transportation is harder to predict. Russ commented that maybe the Transportation sdc is something that the sdc committee needs to revisit more often than every ten years. Mike said he actually recommends that all master plans be updated every five years. The next meeting will be held at 1:00 pm on July 8cn, 2014. Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant SDC Committee June 10, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Ashland, Oregon UPDATE: WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Prepared by: ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1409 Franklin Street, Suite 201 Vancouver, WA98660 June 5, 2014 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 Tables Table 1 Summary Water SDC 1 Table 2 Schedule of Current and Proposed Water SDC I Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 3 Table 4 Original List of Capital Improvements & SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s 4 Table 5 SDC Eligible Capital Improvements with Modifications, 2014 $'s 7 Table 6 Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 8 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page i Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 SUMMARY The following 5 tables show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and compares the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP, Final December 2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012. Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial & industrial users on a 3/4-inch water meter. Compared to the current water SDC, the 2012 WMP proposed a decrease of about 6%, and with the current changes since 2012, a 0.3% increase for the residential SDC and a 1.3% decrease for commercial & industrial. The commercial & industrial SDC decreased due to an apparent error in the WMP calculations which is explained below in Table 5. Table 1 Summary Water SDC Residential Commercial & Industrial %Afrom Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Current Current $/Square Foot of Habitable Area $2.60 $/Meter Size 3/4 $4,940.40 2012 W M P $/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.8040 $1.6436 $2.4476 -5.9% $/Meter Size 3/4 $1,522.18 $3,111.76 $4,633.94 -6.2% 2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II $/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069 0.3% $/Meter Size 3/4 $1,792.89 $3,084.22 $4,877.11 -1.3% ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1 Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users. Table 2 Schedule of Current and Proposed Water SDC Residential Commercial & Industrial %Afrom Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Current Current $/Square Foot of Habitable Area $2.60 $/Meter Size 3/4 $4,940.40 1 $8,250.47 1112 $16,451.53 2 $26,332.33 3 $57,654.47 4 $98,808.00 6 $205,866.47 8 $296,424.00 2012 W M P $/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.8040 $1.6436 $2.4476 -5.9% $/Meter Size 3/4 $1,522.18 $3,111.76 $4,633.94 -6.2% 1 $2,537.00 $5,186.00 $7,723.00 -6.4% 1112 $5,074.00 $10,373.00 $15,447.00 -6.1% 2 $8,118.00 $16,596.00 $24,714.00 -6.1% 3 $17,759.00 $36,304.00 $54,063.00 -6.2% 4 $30,444.00 $62,235.00 $92,679.00 -6.2% 6 $63,424.00 $129,657.00 $193,081.00 -6.2% 8 $91,331.00 $186,706.00 $278,037.00 -6.2% 2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II $/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069 0.3% $/Meter Size 3/4 $1,792.89 $3,084.22 $4,877.11 -1.3% 1 $2,988.75 $5,140.43 $8,129.18 -1.5% 1112 $5,975.70 $10,280.87 $16,256.57 -1.2% 2 $9,561.48 $16,448.58 $26,010,06 -1.2% 3 $20,917.65 $35,983.04 $56,900.69 -1.3% 4 $35,857.80 $61,685.21 $97,543.01 -1.3% 6 $74,704.35 $128,508.83 $203,213.18 -1.3% 8 $107,573.40 $185,053.61 $292,627.01 -1.3% Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee. The proposed SDC in the WMP was based on the fiscal year 2011 (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 20111) audit. The update is based on the most recently completed audit ending June 30, 2013, and on the current cost of constructing the TAP water line and the Medford Water Commission SDC for water in 2014 dollars. This project was deleted from the list of capital improvements that was used to calculate the improvement fee. Since this project has been financed and is under construction, it can be counted as an existing asset with excess capacity to serve future development. In the 2012 WMP, the project was to serve only emergency water needs and was excluded from the calculation of the improvement fee. Since then, the scope of this project has made it a source of w ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1 Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 water to Ashland and it will be available to serve future development. In this analysis, 90% of the TAP line cost is included because it will primarily serve growth and 10% is assumed to be used for emergency use by existing development. The proposed SDC uses the same criteria as the 2012 WMP and the current methodology. The current and WMP methodology divides the cost between single-family residences and commercial & industrial based on the equivalent numbers of 3/4-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch equivalency is based on the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass instantaneously relative to the amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times more water than a 3/4-inch meter). Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable (heated) floor area; and, the commercial & industrial is based on meter size which varies by the meters' abilities to provide water instantaneously-gallons per minute. Seventy-seven percent of the 3/4-inch meters are in single-family residences; therefore, 77% of the eligible reimbursement fee costs are allocated to residences and 23% to commercial & industrial users. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2 Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 2011 2013 Allocation % A Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7% Accumulated Depreciation ($15,228,374) ($17,254,657) 13.3% Book Value of Hosler Dam ($55,741) -100.0% Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2% Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds ($175,000) -100.0% Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds ($2,940,000) ($4,695,862) 59.7% Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) ($633,551) -100.0% Principal Outstanding ($3,748,551) ($4,695,862) 25.3% Investment in Capacity $17,147,990 $14,484,761 -15.5% Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump MWC's SDC $2,620,084 Construction $4,400,000 Less: IFA Forgivable Loan ($950,000) Net cost of TAP $6,070,084 % Allocation to future development 90.00•/0 Allocation to future development $5,463,076 Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee $19,947,837 Current 3/4" Equivalents Meters (EM) Number % Residential 7,575 77% $15,359,834 Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $4,588,002 Total 9,802 100% $19,947,836 Square Feet (SF) of Residential Habitable Area, 2032 16,483,431 $/SF $0.9318 3/4" Commercial & Industrial Equivalents Meters (EM), 2032 2,559 $/EM $1,792.89 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3 Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 Table 4 is from the WMP (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted. This project is under construction and qualifies as a reimbursement fee. Only 9 projects qualify to be improvement fee projects; of the $44 million of capital improvements only $4.3 million is included in the SDC improvement fee. The Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump project has been deleted from the list of capital improvements and added to the list of existing capital improvements. Because of this change in scope the City was able to reduce the amount of storage needed at the Crowson II reservoir which reduced the cost by $1.3 million (in 2012 $'s). Table 5 shows these calculations. Table 4 Original List of Capital Improvements & SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s SDC Eligible Capital Project Total Cost % $ Supply FERC Dam Security & Telemetry Impr. - 25.00% - FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% - FERC Structural Stability Analysis(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% - FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection(50% Electric, 50% Water) 160,000 25.00% 40,000 Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 120,000 75.00% 90,000 Sediment TMDLin Reeder Resv. 600,000 75.00% 450,000 Reeder Resv Study Implementation 30,000 75.00% 22,500 Reeder Resv Access Road TM DL Compliance 100,000 75.00% 75,000 Reeder Resv Variable Depth intake 100,000 0.00% - TID Terrace St Pump Station Improvements 220,000 0.00% - TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 100.00% 1,100,000 Test existing high capacity wells 50,000 0.00% - Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project 50,000 0.00% - Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) 0 100.00% - 2,w8,889 9-90% - Treatment & Storage - Raw Water Bypass Measurement 25,000 0.00% - SCADA Radio Frequency FCC Compliance 45,000 0.00% - Final CT Disinfection Improvements 85,000 0.00% - Permanganate Feed Facility Study & Implementation 265,000 0.00% - WTP Security Upgrades 50,000 0.00% - Existing Plant Mech. Elec. & Scada Upgrades 1,500,000 0.00% - Ozone /UV Analysis & Disinfection 1,750,000 0.00% - Bear Creek Cu WLA Source Control Study & Implementation 50,000 0.00% - 2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 6,746,000 10.00% 674,600 2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 12,000,000 10.00% 1,2001000 Distribution Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse 50,000 0.00% - Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 100.00% 700,000 Park Estates Pump Station/Loop Road Reservoir Alternatives 2,000,000 0.00% - Lit Way New PRV 341,000 0.00% - Tolman Creek Road New PRV 341,000 0.00% - r~ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4 Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 SDC Eligible Capital Project Total Cost % $ Pipe Replacement Program 3,700,000 0.00% - Radio Read Meter Program 1,351,000 0.00% - Hydrant Replacement 616,000 0.00% - Emergency Response Plan Update 20,000 0.00% - Cross Connection Control Plan Update 15,000 0.00% - Safety Plan Update 20,000 0.00% - Granite Reservoir Valving 100,000 0.00% - Piping Ivy Lane 346,000 0.00% - Ivy Lane 94,000 0.00% - Normal Ave 517,000 0.00% - Walker Ave 784,000 0.00% - Parker Street 162,000 0.00% - Harmony Lane 65,000 0.00% - Lit Way 35,000 0.00% - Ray Lane 54,000 0.00% - Beach Street 91,000 0.00% - AHS Property 90,000 0.00% - Vista Street 149,000 0.00% - Vista Street 5,000 0.00% - Meade Street 235,000 0.00% - Elkader Street 72,000 0.00% - Ivy Lane 64,000 0.00% - South Mountain Ave 6,000 0.00% - South Mountain Ave 17,000 0.00% - Pinecrest Trail 178,000 0.00% - Pinecrest Trail 396,000 0.00% - Penny Drive 83,000 0.00% - Woodland Drive 52,000 0.00% - Hiawatha Place 58,000 0.00% - Morton Street 130,000 0.00% - Ashland Mine Road 115,000 0.00% - Fox Street 54,000 0.00% - Almeda Drive 35,000 0.00% - Skycrest Drive 162,000 0.00% - Crispin Street 131,000 0.00% - Oak Lawn Ave 29,000 0.00% - Sylvia Street 64,000 0.00% - Black Oak Way 85,000 0.00% - Oak Knoll Dr 2871000 0.00% - Ashland Street 432,000 0.00% - 1-5 Crossing 794,000 0.00% - Ditch Road 2251000 0.00% - Lithia 701000 0.00% - Iowa Street 640,000 0.00% - Granite Street 300,000 0.00% - ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5 Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 SDC Eligible Capital Project Total Cost % $ B Street 250,000 0.00% - Terrace Street 350,000 0.00% - Totals $44,006,000 $4,352,100 Tables shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP projects as of this year. The Crowson It reservoir can be reduced in size at a cost savings of $1.3 million. Ten percent of the cost and of the cost reduction are incorporated into the revisions along with an adjustment for inflation. According the ENR Construction Cost Index, construction costs increased 5.45% between June 2012 and June 2014. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6 V 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 CD 0 CD CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 00 o 0 N ~ N Lll LI) ~ m O [t Ln 00 N d Ql ~ N ~ lD to m 0 CD V)- cI to N r Lf) 0 CD O O O O O O O O O O t/} O O O Ln O O tD O O i N O O O N L!1 O Z O O N d M Ln N r- O r4% O O Lr1 p d c 1 tD N M ~ O co O O a N M O 0 Un ~ aJ QJ of 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O lD O ' O O O O N Lr O llz O O N t/? Ct Ql M N r- O r~% O O Ln ri W N m QJ c-I ri ~ W No 0 0 o 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O un Ln m m Lf 1 m O O O O O O ri c-I O CCU Cl 0 N V) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U U O O O O O O O O O O O a) w - O O O O O O % O O O lD l0 N O M O O O Ln O CD O r~ LD I i r. O r" O d" F"" r-i tD N d~ N ~ C ~ O j O a O Ln U L QJ ~ u o 4A a V-) w QJ y 'O U 4- O 0 4 4- ~ m LA V) C) C: 3.1 :3 in E ~a 0 O 0 U O J Q (1) p U cLLo u + a) z O a) tiA aJ c cu X Q CL -0 J 4-0 CO - Y N -p QJ i- C t] V L -a cu air n z 0 (5 c- o LL a) z E U Ln - 0 aJ (U M i ca O U O L O a _U aJ W ~ t% Q Q N i M F U N N w m +J A p + U a Q) O C ] CCM O V~ L L -p m Q O C O U aj a c v L m aJ C7 L7 v L. U w -0 CL a) r_ C4 0- CL LO a) 4~ m ca LL. Q LC) F- L N N L^ H Q p W 1 11 F., v cn D a i-- < Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014 Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial & industrial users based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use. The improvement fee is the allocated cost divided by the forecast square footage of habitable space residences are expected to develop; and, the allocated cost divided by the forecast number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters commercial & industrial customers are expected to develop. Table 6 Calculation of Water Improvement Fee Total Cost Allocation to Improvement Fee, 2014$'s $4,452,000 3/4" Meter Equivalents Residential 71575 77% $3,428,040 Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $1,023,960 Total 9,802 100% $4,452,000 Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 $/SF $1.6751 Forecast Growth 3/4" equivalent meters 332 $/EM $3,084.22 Compared to the current SDC, the proposed residential SDC (reimbursement plus improvement fees) will increase 0.3%, and the proposed commercial & industrial SDC will decrease about 1.3%. The decrease in the commercial & industrial SDC is due to an apparent error in the calculations of the WMP. The WMP forecast the number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters will increases by 332 (from 2229 in 2012 to 2559 in 2032); however, the 2012 calculation of the SDC was based on only 318 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.' Table 6 above is based on 332 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters. ' Comprehensive Water Master Plan, page 9-29 Table 9.15 shows the current and forecast numbers of 3/4-inch EM for commercial & industrial at 332; page 9-32 shows only 318 EM were included in the calculation of the improvement fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the correct number of 3/4-inch EM, 2559 (page 9-29). ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 8 ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma (arrived at 1:09), Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels (arrived at 1:08) and Troy Brown Jr. Committee Members Absent: None Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal WATER SDC Mike pointed out last month we didn't have a quorum but we did go over some of the documents. At this meeting the plan is to summarize the water SDC and answer any questions the committee has. Dan asked whether there has been any consideration given to those homes with gray water systems. Mike asked Bill if they have gotten many questions regarding gray water. Bill said they do get the occasional question regarding gray water. One of the issues regarding gray water is how to calculate it, as well as tracking whether the system is in use as it passes from one owner to another. Ray went over the comparison that was provided by the Community Development department (see attached). SEWER SDC Ray went over 3 basic reasons why the wastewater increases 151 Also, in 2006 the City decreased the SDC from $2,707 for a typical 2,000 square foot house to $1,613-a 40% decrease. According to the 2006 "Water and Wastewater - System Development Charge Fee Schedules Summary Exhibit `A' this was due to a significant downsized allocation of capital facility costs to growth and the removal of the treatment plant funded through the food and beverage tax receipts (page 1). In the proposed 2014 update, we also remove those elements of the WWTP that are funded from the food and beverage tax. • In 2006 the reimbursement fee was based on a Net Asset Value of $9.7 million. The 2014 update is based on a Net of $8.9 million-an 8% decrease. • In 2006 the improvement fee was based on 82.5 million of SDC qualified capital improvements. The 2012 Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) has $9.0 million in SDC qualified capital improvements-a 260% increase. • In 2006 the WWMP had a design capacity of 2.58 million gallons per day (mgd) while the 2012 WWMP has a design capacity of 3.18 mgd-a 23% increase. Current Proposed 2006 2014 % Parameter SDC SDC Change Net Asset Value (millions) $9.70 $8.90 -8% Capital improvements qualified for SDC (millions) $2.50 $9.00 260% Design Capacity (million gallons per day)" 2.58 3.18 23% "Average Daily Dry Weather flow. The 2006 SDC projected 2.58 mgd by 2023; however, the 2012 WWMP shows the current flows exceed this flow at 2.85 mad. SDC Committee July 8, 2014 Page 1 of 2 Mike noted the waste water capital improvements are regulatory driven. Carlos asked about the exclusion of the food and beverage tax against the $9,017,350 growth apportionment. Ray stated that it excludes all of the capital that is being paid for by the food and beverage tax. None of the capital that is being proposed in the improvement fee is expected to be paid for by the food and beverage tax. At this point the food and beverage tax is paying for capital that has already been constructed so it is kept out of the reimbursement fee. Mike pointed out it could be used for other projects after the debt is paid off in 2022. Mike asked Ray if that was calculated towards future wastewater capital improvements. Russ pointed out there is a nice separation from priority 1 and 2 projects which is pretty close to when the majority of the debt is paid off so the food and beverage tax could be allocated to priority 2 projects at that time. Mike noted the projects have a completion timeline and we need to start collecting the SDC's now otherwise development isn't paying their fair share. Russ read the ballot measure "Funds generated after 2022 not designated for parks will be used for wastewater treatment capital improvement projects." Allen asked what percentage of the capital sewer costs are because we have to mitigate the problem we have even if there is no growth. Mike stated that some of the projects are directly related to growth and those would be delayed if there was no growth (such as the oxidation ditch listed in priority 2). Jac asked if there is no development but they still want to do these projects would rates be increased. Mike answered that it would be exactly what you do but that would be a tough conversation to have with Council if the project is 100% paid out of SDC's because it is related to growth. Growth related projects really should be paid for with SDC's. Mike pointed out the water master plan is pretty spot on for the growth projections. He feels very comfortable with the schedules based on those growth projections. Ray stated 14.4 million is allocated to rate payers which the master plan calls for significant rate increases over the next 5 years to produce the revenue to pay for that. It is also coupled with 4 additional debts that the City plans to take out to pay for the improvements. The total debt service that as forecast is greater than the food and beverage tax is likely to produce. The food and beverage tax is only paying for the capital that was purchased in 2010 and the small amount of the future debt service which doesn't leave a lot of room to allocate money to reduce the proposed SDC. However, Mike and Ray will take a look at the impact of the food and beverage tax and get the information back to the committee. APPROVAL OF WATER SDC Russ/Dan m/s to recommend Council adopt the proposed water SDC increase. All ayes. Motion passes. Next meeting scheduled for August 5, 2014 to finish up Sewer. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant SDC Committee July 8, 2014 Page 2 of 2 CU C: -C v 4~ aj ~0 3 of o,9 a ~ a 189 o o~ a r-I V - f 00 00 C) Cn 00 O I.ln o Ln ~ m m l r r-I CD r- (U Ln v ~ a C~ C r: r= o mot= m 4- ri L. ~p N Ln '0 c (N + D e--I co O O *z;r O 'I- E v- m r-4 U-) O Cr) CD O Ln O Ul) O uu (u t-i m C; r-~ n, m c~ O a u K17► t r} r - m Lr) V) N cl~ N N 2 t Q ta r-1 r-4 00 00 t tl} a, = .c +l tJ~ tl +-i o 3 E o~ o r- ©CD CD ° rr- L v w r-t Cr; Cw rv ~6 t16 oa 4 m o = vi 4n to Ca V. r-+ rn 0) r-i r~ m I) 4 . _ N C (j} r-I r-i 00 r- 3 ALn t l~ tI5 l s--I 4 M cts a. ,_r) { oa © O O O 00 ~r N Ln o 00 00 rn 0 00 O O ~ M r-i Ln C) p tJJ- 00 O O Cr7 !ti 0_ a1 O to O i n x CTl N r^,I r. N O ~i tl~ t } tJ) V-J- r-i r-q m p u tl~ tJ~ tJ7 O Q Q i i a> o Z~Ql o a o 0 0 0 + ca T-q r-4 oo 00 Cn cr► ~ O 0) Lf) U i r+'a m ~f O f`r n O O r- r-} O O m o rri r-a (Ii 4-J " N 0 0 r(l) O M 3 N ~fi O ~ O C3 O CD O E ( t-i N O 4 m m O O O Qj { i,/3. O tr)- N U-) U") 00 Vl 00 O tn c-1 r-I r-1 cn i L A.4 .i.4 r fj +j Q) a) GJ rn W t r'f1 M r-i r-i O O Cr CTl rf) 0 2 O 00 ~D N O CD O +.t7 r! CL W 0 (U N U, N rri tD IAn r-. 4 D Un tn Cr) .u-J. N 0) G) t-rl m d' rr3 -a m O CTt s-i t-i l[) 4~ N Q r~i N m r,4 uD O O O O 0) O ~ Q ^ 00 ~D ~D O O O ~D r` o M. r~ oo M. m U~ b- + -g i r-I tD' rd ry C5, r.I m` - 0 0 try v t 3 a, V) (IJ CL E-0 O u L.L 0 u ~ Irv °ro o_ CU ? a O t try ii 0 4-j om Q) 3 E L-L M L. acs ~0 z ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma, and Troy Brown Jr. Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, and Jac Nickels Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) Council Liaison Present: Rich Rosenthal Faught pointed out to Bartlett that on the water SDC he has it listed at $700,000 but at Douma's request during the last meeting they looked it up and it is only showing $300,000 for the Water Master Plan updates (project D2). Bartlett is going to check into that and see why there is a difference. SEWER SDC Bartlett explained that the cost basis for the Sewer SDC is primarily the improvement fee portion-$1.833/sq. ft. The reimbursement fee portion is relatively small at $0.195/sq. ft. The improvement fee is based on the Sewer Master Plan that has 3 sets of priority projects: Rate Payers Priority Time Line 2012 $'s SDC qualified % Included in Update Other 1 2012 - 2020 $10,791,000 $3,263,430 30% Yes $3,263,430 $7,527,570 2 2020 -2030 $16,713,000 $5,753,920 34% Yes $5,753,920 $10,959,080 3 Beyond 2030 $5,799,000 $5,153,000 89% No $5,799,000 Totals $33,303,000 $14,170,350 43% $9,017,350 $24,285,650 % 100% 43% 27% 73% Of the $33.3 million of planned improvements about $14.2 million (43%) is attributable to expanding capacity to accommodate growth. Because of the uncertainty of growth and the associated Priority 3 capital improvements, these improvements were excluded from the proposed update of the SDC. This reduced the cost basis for the improvement fee from $14.2 million to $9.0 million. The remaining $24.3 million will have to be paid by rate payers and from the Food & Beverage Tax. In Table 14.1 the annual debt service exceeds the expected amount of revenue from the Food & Beverage Tax in each year of the forecast except the first year, leaving nothing to off-set the amount of the proposed SDC. The current debt of approximately $11 million will be fully repaid in FY 2023. However, over the next five years, the City plans to issue an additional $8 million for Priority 1 capital improvements. That leaves approximately $19.5 million of Priority 1 and 2 projects that will be paid from additional borrowing, or from the accumulation of sewer rates, SDC, and Food & Beverage Tax revenues. Table 14.1 ends in FY 2020 but capital improvements are schedules out beyond 2020. These projects will require more revenue than the Food & Beverage Tax alone will produce. Faught added if we think the SDC's are too high the only way to adjust that is to have the rate payer pay more. What we have now is the master plan which lines out what should be allocated to growth versus what should go to the rate payer which is how they got to that distribution. Douma said the allocation percentage is determined by a group of Engineers and he wonders what additional information can they use to analyze whether they were right or wrong. Faught answered; really the only way to do SDC Committee August 5, 2014 Page 1 of 2 that would be to hire new Engineers to challenge the premise and that isn't a general rule. The Engineers basically model the system to determine the proper allocations. Douma questions what influence they have on any of this. Faught mentioned he had told everyone to read through the master plans to see if there were any flaws but the big question is whether we need the projects or not and these projects were vetted long before they came before this committee. He thinks it really comes down to what are the strategies for increasing the SDC's to meet the growth side of it. Faught stated he thinks Sewer is the easiest to figure out because it is primarily regulatory driven. As we grow we are going to have to build the facilities and the proportional share for the developer is outlined in the master plan. Silbiger/Reichenshammer m/s to recommend Council adopt the proposed sewer SDC increase. All ayes. Motion passes. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:18 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant SDC Committee August 5, 2014 Page 2 of 2 ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES October 7, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:29 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels (non participating due to having a project on the SDC list) Committee Members Absent: Troy Brown Jr. Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) Council Liaison Present: Rich Rosenthal TRANSPORTATION SDC Douma asked about the memo dated 1016114. He thinks there may be a mistake in the calculations shown. The cost basis on both of the lines is almost equal to each other but the calculated SDC is quite a bit different between the two. It is also missing the current cost basis. Bartlett stated he will go through the calculations and make sure everything is calculating correctly. There were several projects listed at 100% when calculating the $2,455 SDC. The last time we looked at this list the SDC was actually $2,196 which is almost the same as the SDC being proposed. He stated he will go back through and verify these numbers. Faught pointed out that since the committee last visited the SDC list in March he went through the list of projects and asked himself if each of them could arguably be completed within the next 20 years. He proposed eliminating some of the projects and then that list was taken to the Transportation Commission for their approval. The Transportation Commission approved the list at the September meeting. The projects are still active projects in the Transportation System Plan (TSP); they have just been eliminated from the SDC list. Also, project R17 has been updated to reflect the accurate estimated project cost. He then went down the list of excluded projects. Douma asked what the role of the SDC committee is. Faught stated he is looking for Douma and Silbiger to be representative of those that have to pay the SDC fees and then Reichenshammer and Jovick represent the opposite side. As a developer they get to collect the listed SDC as a reimbursement. The SDC's haven't been adjusted since 2006. Given that, he asked the committee to consider if a 7.2% increase is justifiable. Faught stated you generally update your master plan first and then you update the SDC. Silbiger added staff is to present a set of projects that they think will have a reasonable chance of being built and then their job is to determine if the set of projects and associated percentage allocated to growth is reasonable. Douma said it kind of feels like the numbers are etched in stone before it even comes to the SDC committee. Silbiger answered that isn't really the case because when they first met the numbers were much higher and changes have been made, so the committee effected the change. Molnar stated the committee could also look at the percentage allocated to growth & recommend changes. He feels there are a few projects that are more developer driven. He is concerned with the projects listed at 100% SDC eligible. The committee went down the list of the 100% projects and Faught/Molnar agreed to meet up after the meeting to further discuss them and recommend any further changes to the SDC list. Ray noted if they make changes, it will lower the total proposed SDC. Douma asked if they have the total current cost basis available for comparison. It is not immediately available but staff will try to locate the information. Next meeting date will be determined and emailed to the committee. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:14 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant SDC Committee October 7, 2014 Page 1 of 1 ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES February 17, 2015 These minutes are pending approval by the Committee. CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Committee Members Present: Carlos Reichenshammer, Troy Brown Jr., Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Joe Graf (non voting member) Committee Members Absent: Russ Silbiger, and Jac Nickels (non participating due to having a project on the SDC list) Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst) TRANSPORTATION SDC Bill handed out a revised memo to the committee (see attached). R41/R44 - Bill pointed out he feels projects R41 & R44 are essentially one project. Currently R44 involves realigning Tolman Creek as it comes into Mistletoe. Bill was suggesting reducing that from 100% to 50% because there is some developer benefit & R41 be increased to at least 50%. Each project could be constructed individually but for funding and growth allocation purposes they should be looked at together. Ray to make the change to 50% on projects R41 & R44. X2 - Bill said originally he was speaking only to the railroad crossing in which it is listed as 18.4%. He said the only reason he thought it was put into the plan by Council was that it showed a benefit to that are in terms of trying to get some south to north connections. It wasn't so much development driven as it was to make those connections. Mike pointed out that right now it was shown at 18.4% and asked Bill if he was recommending an increase? Bill stated he feels it should be more than 18.4%. Mike added that he though he and Bill had previously discussed making all of the railroads crossings 50% and Bill agreed. R45 - Bill said this project goes with X2 and is part of the block pattern that is largely development driven. He thinks that could be reduced to 25%. Troy thought the railroad crossings should be less attributed to development because if the development doesn't happen the City still benefits from the crossings. The committee agrees all railroads should be at 100%. The current need of the railroad projects is to move the traffic around, not necessarily for development purposes. Mike reminded the committee that they could wrap this up with a motion or come back for one more meeting to see the final proposal and then vote on it. Mike informed the committee he would still like to send them a final summary before he presents it to Council. Ray will put that together and get that sent out to the committee electronically. Troy/Dan m/s to approve the proposed Transportation SDC with recommended changes (see attached) for a total SDC of $2,112.00. Voice vote. All AYES. Motion passes. Carlos asked for a reminder of the final Water and Sewer SDC. Ray said he would like to take the time to review everything and put together a final SDC list which can then be distributed to the committee electronically along with the minutes from this meeting. SDC Committee February 77, 2075 Page 1 of 2 Mike added that the storm water SDC will be brought back to this committee when that is ready, probably a year or so from now. The committee members stated they were willing to remain on the committee. He also pointed out that he may come back to this committee when the Downtown parking and muli-modal committee is finishes up. Alan/Troy m/s to approve all previous meeting minutes. Which include: 314114, 3118114, 4115114, 6110114, 718114, 815114 and 1017114. Voice Vote. All AYES. Motion passes. Carlos asked when these SDC's would go into effect. Mike said he probably wouldn't be able to get in front of the Council until mid March or early April and he would like Carlos to attend with him as Chair. Mike said he would need to talk with the Legal department regarding the implementation timeline but he is thinking it would be July 1 so that it would give people advance notice. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:03 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant SDC Committee February 17, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Dear Senora Chela: We are convinced that extra-curricular arts education is critical for the development and training of the residents of our city. In this regard, I have requested that the Mayor of Guanajuato consider paying the salaries of teachers who give diverse dance, theater, music, crafts workshops in rural communities. Knowing the great sensitivity to noble causes of our brothers and sisters from Ashland, we ask you to represent us before the people, service clubs and institutions of said city to support us financially to cover the costs of the cultural center of Santa Rosa de Lima, located in the mountains of Guanajuato that you had the opportunity to see during your recent visit to Guanajuato. Parents, the municipality and the people of Ashland may continue to support this cultural project that requires your support of $500 (five hundred) dollars a month to pay the salary of the teacher of folkloric dance, whose group has the most interest so far. Looking forward to hearing from you, Respectfully yours with sincere gratitude, Ana Gabriela Cardenas Vazquez Councilor of the Municipality of Guanajuato. Respected members of this Commission of Culture wish to take the opportunity of this session to reiterate my proposal to donate to the city of Ashland, Oregon a mural with the image of Santa Fe, which represents the coat of arms of our city. Already in a previous session I presented this idea with the sole purpose of showing our gratitude to a city in which its residents and authorities have shown many times their solidarity and appreciation for ours. Just remember the recent token of solidarity from the city authorities by donating an ambulance which costs between 25,000 and $ 301000. The mural will be made with the traditional majolica of Santa Rosa de Lima, in the Sierra de Guanajuato, measuring two meters (6 ft. 56 inches) by one meter twenty centimeters (3 ft. 94 inches) base and a small plaque identifying the mural. The making and delivery will be approximately 25,000 pesos. Therefore, I would like to request your support to make this an item for agreement of this commission and submit it to the City Council in plenary for approval. If approved, the mural will be inaugurated on November 12 of this year. Guanajuato, Gto., May 6, 2016 C. Liccnciado Edgar Castro Cerrillo Mayor Municipality of Guanajuato Dear Mayor Castro Ccrrillo: The practice of sister cities partnership between two cities and towns is an institution with a long tradition that has its historical roots in the Middle Ages and is then offered as a highly efficient mechanism of integration to better defend the interests of the sister communities. Through sister cities partnership, local exclusivism was overcome, forces were united for managing common goals, disputes were settled and the basis of solidarity actions beneficial for the whole neighborhood communities was set, maintaining their own independent personality. They were integrated in supralocal entities and sometimes became an institutional wrap with economic and political force which converted them in fundamental parts of the kingdom. We simply need to remember, for instance, the great German Hansa, federation of maritime cities that build its historical greatness and economic prosperity since the thirteenth century, from this alliance linking their common business destinations. Or, between us, the famous Brotherhood of Marina de Castilla, which founded in the sixteenth century, is closely associated with booming commercial development of the maritime villas in the Eastern sector of the Cantabrian facade. In recent times we have been witnessing a revival of that old historical practice and many cities, towns or villages, invoking more or less significant reasons, decide to establish interlocal solidarity links with other communities, sometimes from very distant countries or very different cultural orbits of their own. Knowledge of this collective biography which is the history of our cities provides sometimes the discovery of communities of origin, parallels and reciprocal relationships with others who are in revealing stimulus to activate the mechanism of bonding cities which finds its raison d- etre in the evidence of these parallel stories. To the extent that sister cities are based on the existence of strong historical ties and mutual collective will to create bonds that, from that community or affinity historical roots, facilitate a balanced relationship between the two, that may be of very different nature for the bonding communities, it would make total sense opposed to other sister cities which react only to temporary situations without a clear definition of objectives. Therefore, developmental cooperation from local organizations should not be mixed with the bonding between municipalities. It would be necessary to clearly set objectives pursued with the latter, that is, if those relate to a purely economic cooperation and welfare action or mutual loans in the cultural, economic, social, and so on and so forth. There are multiple benefits that the city of Guanajuato has received from the sister city of Ashland, Oregon and in this sense we must remember that it has been not only equipment, ambulances and fire engines, but also houses and diverse social programs that have impacted favorably in our community. Based on the strictest sense of appreciation and identity, we propose to donate a mural with the image of the Coat of Arms of Guanajuato to be placed on Calle Guanajuato of the City of Ashland. Said mural will have a dimension approximately of 1.30 centimeters high by one meter wide, made of mosaics from the Ceramica Mayolica Santa Rosa, which undoubtedly, is one of the most recognized and traditional businesses of our city. The cost of manufacturing and shipping of the mural is 30,000 pesos (Thirty thousand pesos) and its placement would be borne by the authorities of our sister city, to be unveiled on July 4, 2016 during the traditional visit of the Guanajuato dignitaries to Ashland, as part of the festivities of the Independence Day of the United States of America. Looking forward to counting on your support. Respectfully yours, Ana Gabriela Cardenas Vazquez Councilor City Council of Guanajuato