HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1206 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 6, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of November 14, 2016
2. Business Meeting of November 15, 2016
3. Executive Session of November 21, 2016
4. Special Meeting of November 21, 2016
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Annual presentation by the Planning Commission
2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution declaring the canvass of the vote of
the election held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon on November 8, 2016"
and Mayoral proclamation
VII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total
time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable
all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Confirmation of Mayoral appointment of Fire Chief John Karns as interim City
Administrator
3. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council of the City of
Ashland, Oregon declaring its intention to reimburse expenditures from proceeds
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
of tax-exempt obligations"
4. Intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of Revenue for
marijuana tax collection
5. Approval of a public contract with OS Engineering exceeding $75,000 for
engineering services (municipal electric utility)
6. Annual review of Investment Policy for the City of Ashland
7. Acceptance of FY 2015-2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
8. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution extending the term of the reward fund
for David Michael Grubbs for and additional five years and repealing Resolution
2012-02"
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request
form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall
conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council,
unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until
up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall
proceed with the balance of the agenda.)
1. Public hearing and approval of three resolutions titled, "A resolution adopting new
Transportation Systems Development Charges, pursuant to Section 4.20 of the
Ashland Municipal Code, and repealing Resolution 1999-42"; "A resolution
adopting new Wastewater Systems Development Charges, pursuant to Section
4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code, and repealing Resolution 2006-27"; and
"A resolution adopting new Water Systems Development Charges, pursuant to
Section 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code, and repealing Resolution 2006-
27"
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Annual appointments to the Citizen Budget Committee and Municipal Audit
Commission, and appointment of a Council Liaison to the Municipal Audit
Commission
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC
14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City The Limits"
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
1. Look Ahead review
XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
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 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
City Council Study Session
November 14, 2016
Page I of 3
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday November 14, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, Morris, and Voisin were present. Councilor Marsh was absent.
1. Public Input
Doug Stewart/1310 China Gulch Road/Represented Mercy Flights and noted the City's recent request
for proposal (RFP), and wanted Mercy Flights considered in the feasibility study for emergency transport
and ambulance services. He provided background on Mercy Flights and described services.
Ashland Fire Chief John Karns clarified the RFP was for fire service but a future RFP would entail
transportation services.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Shared the growth in homes with solar roofs, the solar potential for
Ashland and double bundling finances to fund solar energy. The Our Children's Trust won their lawsuit
against the federal government regarding climate change. He offered classes on double bundle financing.
2. Look Ahead review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
3. Update on the consolidation discussion between Jackson County Fire District 5 and Ashland Fire
and Rescue
Ashland Fire Chief John Karns explained the challenges Ashland Fire and Rescue encountered due to the
increase in call volume. Staff formed a task force to investigate forming a special district that consolidated
both jurisdictions. The task force included the Jackson County Fire District 5 (JCFD5) board, both fire
chiefs and deputy fire chiefs, City Administrator Dave Kanner, two Councilors, bargaining unit presidents,
and a citizen representative. They drafted a request for proposal (RFP) to hire a consultant who would
analyze issues involving consolidating and forming a new special district. AFR and JCFD5 would split the
cost for the consultant that was approximately $45,000 in total.
Differences between AFR and JCFD5 were small. The overall compensation package was similar with
JCFD5 having more time off and AFR having better benefits. JCFD5 did not have platoon commanders so
there were some seniority issues. AFR provided more services than JCFD5 who was interested in having
a larger inventory to offer.
If a special district formed, the City would lose direct control of the Fire Department. Instead, a six-member
board of elected officials would manage the special district. There would also be only one fire chief and
one deputy fire chief. The board would determine the suite of services to offer as well.
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained Council was only approving to issue the RFP and could choose
to do this in the next budget cycle since current finances were tight.
4. System Development Charge committee update
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the System Development Charge (SDC) update would
ensure the development community paid for their share of projects. Currently staff was updating the Water
Master Plan. SDC information was based on the 2012 Water Master Plan. Mr. Faught did not recommend
waiting, it was important to get the rates in place before the Water Master Plan update was completed. He
City Council Study Session
November 14, 2016
Page 2 of 3
did not anticipate any significant updates to the plan. Staff added costs to the Transportation Master Plan
to cover the Normal Neighborhood Plan projects that included East Main Street and the railroad crossing.
Ray Bartlett of Economic & Financial Analysis explained municipalities were not required to update SDCs
but state laws regarding SDCs were strict with specific methodologies for setting SDCs and using the funds
collected. Typically, cities adjusted SDCs only after completing or updating master plans. There were
extenuating circumstances that occurred occasionally. The law permitted cities to adjust SDCs for inflation
each year without a public hearing as long as they had an established methodology.
Mr. Bartlett would focus on the reimbursement fee and improvement fee for each SDC. The reimbursement
fee captured the value of unused capacity in whatever system that had an SDC. The improvement fee was
for capital improvements needed in the future to meet the demands of growth and generally involved a 20-
year horizon.
Developers paid the reimbursement fee as part of the SDC A city could spend the reimbursement fee on
nearly any capital improvement project and debt service. However, cities could only spend improvement
fees on future capital improvements.
Mr. Bartlett addressed the Wastewater SDC and explained the reimbursement fee had decreased from .40
cents per square foot for residence to approximately .19 cents. The improvement fee would increase from
.41 cents per square foot to $2.03 per square foot for a total increase of 150% for residences and similarly
for commercial and industrial customers. The wastewater SDC currently in place was formulated 13 to 14
years before with the Food and Beverage Tax. Part of the Food and Beverage tax would divert to
transportation.
The Wastewater Treatment Plant was approaching capacity and the City would need to replace the
membranes and expand treatment capacity. The existing SDC did not do much with the sewer collection
system. The master plan had several projects to expand the collection system and was included in the
proposed update to the sewer SDC. This was the primary reason it was increasing 150%. Mr. Faught
added in order to meet new shading treatment requirements for fir field and near field temperature
standards, the City needed to relocate the outfall from Bear Creek. Membrane replacement had already
occurred. The oxidation shell was a high priority from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
and staff recently secured a low interest loan. Also noted were the Bear Creek trunkline and other pressure
system projects.
The outcome of a recent court case challenging near field shading was an agreement to study some of the
issues. Concerns regarding far field shading were not substantial enough to delay moving forward on the
project.
Mr. Bartlett explained the Water SDC was adjusted to include the "Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) line
construction that consequently reduced the size of the Crowson water reservoir. The old SDC used an
outdated meter capacity and now went on meter size. Mr. Faught noted larger projects under this SDC
included the 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) water plant, the Crowson II reservoir, and piping the Talent
Irrigation District (TID) canal.
The Transportation SDC had the most changes and did not have reimbursement fees, only improvement
fees.
Since 1997, the key document for measuring trips was the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual that had used the average daily trips to calculate the SDC while transportation system
City Council Study Session
November 14, 2016
Page 3 of 3
plans used p.m. peak hour trip rates instead. The City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) used p.m. peak
hour trip rates to measure and design intersections, roadways, left turn lanes, and road width.
The average daily trip for a household was 9.5 trips a day and p.m. peak hour was 1.02 trip per day. The
existing rate was $214 per average daily trip for a total of $2,043.71). Using the p.m. peak hour trip at
$2,112 multiplied by 1.02 totaled $2,154.35 and was roughly 5% more than the 9.5 average trips a day per
household. Making the shift to p.m. peak hour trips did not have a large effect on residential. Big impacts
were service stations, shopping centers, fast food places, and restaurants where p.m. peak hour was heavy.
Those rates could increase up to 1900% in some cases. The City had approximately $60,000,000 in projects
and used a financially constrained method plus adjustments mentioned earlier with $20,000,000 going into
the SDC. The balance would come out of the transportation user fee, state shared ground use, federal grants,
and general tax revenues.
Mr. Faught explained the SDC Committee approved all the changes and mostly focused on the
Transportation SDC. Projects added to the Transportation SDC included the East Main Street project form
the Normal Neighborhood Plan, the increased cost for the East Nevada Bridge, the extension for
Washington Street and several railroad crossings. The City would pay for 50% of the projects using the
transportation SDC. The City and residents would pay for the rest. If the City removed a project, staff
would recalculate the SDC. However, SDCs would not decrease over time due to growth.
A Public Hearing would occur during the December 6, 2016 Council meeting for further discussion and
public input.
5. Discussion of letters from Guanajuato (request of Mayor Stromberg)
Mayor Stromberg would meet with Senora Chela separately for clarification.
Councilor Voisin left at 7:05 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
City Council Business Meeting
November 15, 2016
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 15, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, and Rosenthal were present. Councilor Seffinger arrived at 6:04 p.m.
Councilor Marsh was absent.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2016
1. Discussion of policy questions to be addressed regarding the 10:x20 ordinance
Mayor Stromberg explained there were three kinds of clean power, solar, wind, and hydro. Management
Analyst Adam Hanks would provide the best case for each during the discussion. Complex resolutions or
topics that could not be resolved during the meeting would go on a list for further review and action at the next
Council meeting.
Wind
Mr. Hanks explained part of using wind power was getting inventories where there were enough flows. A
renewal energy assessment from 2011 indicated one location of scale on the backside of Shale City due to its
close proximity to connect to larger lines. There was talk regarding Mt. Ashland but wind volume and how it
would connect were unknown at this time. Wind was most likely not viable. Mayor Stromberg moved it to
the list.
Hydro
Hydro required the right flow, head, and diameter pipe. There were a few locations in the City's system that
had potential but the scale of production would not meet the 10x20 ordinance requirements. The item moved
to the list.
Mayor Stromberg explained the City defined the 10% clean energy as 10% of the annual electric power usage
of the City of Ashland. Mr. Hanks clarified 10% of the 170,000,000 kilowatt hours used per year would mean
17,000,000-kilowatt hours coming from a clean energy source. It equated to .017 gigawatts. A solar industrial
plant would have be a 12 to 15 megawatt facility to produce that annually.
Solar
There were three options for solar power. Option 1 would put a solar farm on the Imperatrice property. The
second option would add solar panels to City owned facilities like rooftops, parking lots, and covering the
reservoir. Staff was currently conducting a site inventory. Option 3 would place community solar on
commercial and residential buildings. It would require new incentive packages to form various utility City
partnerships.
Mayor Stromberg added the following concerns regarding solar to the list for future discussion:
• Potential issues with tree shading to cool the affluent may affect the use of the Imperatrice property
• Environmental concerns on using 150 acres for a 12-15 megawatt facility
• Ordinance requiring local energy - the City defined local as wherever the facility was located it
connected directly into an Ashland electric utilities distribution grid
There were two ways to fund a solar power system. One way was determine the cost to build a facility and
recoup the expense through user rates. Another way was entering into a power purchase agreement (PPA)
City Council Business Meeting
November 15, 2016
Page 2 of 5
with an entity or organization that would build the facility, operate it, and sell the electricity to the City with
the city assuming ownership after a 20-year period.
Mr. Hanks explained the carbon mitigation component was indirect regarding a solar power system in that the
less hydro purchased left more available in the grid and offset the need for other generation opportunities
regionally. However, the way the greenhouse gas inventory was calculated worked to the City's advantage
from a climate action planning perspective because it calculated it on the regional grid. Alternately, if it was
just a carbon concern then a PPA from a facility within the grid itself either locally or regionally was more
feasible.
The City was committed to purchasing a certain amount of electricity from the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA). If the City was generating some of their own through the 10x20 ordinance it could
drop total usage with BPA and cause the City to pay for both. Mayor Stromberg acknowledged this as a
potential issue and set it aside for future review.
Mr. Hanks addressed having a solar farm system on the Imperatrice property. The City could send out a request
for proposal (RFP) for a 12-megawatt solar installation on the Imperatrice property. The RFP could include a
request for a PPA estimate but was not necessary. It would take staff 3 045 days to develop the RFP. It/Electric
Director Mark Holden added the RFP would include connection to the distribution site at the Mountain Avenue
station. It would need a substantial transformer and lead to purchasing the Mountain Avenue station from BPA
prior to updating the equipment.
Council majority directed staff to create an RFP with a review by Council prior to sending it out for bid.
Council went on to discuss postponing agenda item #2 Discussion of removing public art review and
approval requirements from Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code under New and Miscellaneous
Business to the January 17, 2017 Council meeting.
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to postpone this item until January 17, 2017, or a date that
accommodates both the Historic and the Public Arts Commission.. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Housing & Human Services, Public Arts, and Tree
Commissions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of October 31, 2016, the Executive Session of October 31, 2016, and the
Business Meeting of November 1, 2016 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Annual presentation by the Housing and Human Services Commission
Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC) vice Chair Rich Rohde and Commissioner Tom Buechele
provided the annual update for the HHSC. Vice Chair Rohde commented on the housing emergency crisis in
Ashland. Medford and Ashland had become the fastest growing unaffordable housing cities in the country.
This year the HHSC worked on the Housing Trust Fund, developing a funding strategy chart, student fair
housing, and recommendations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. HHSC created
nine goals that included donation boxes, affordable housing, inclusionary zoning, diversity, more Porta-Potties,
developing resources for middle-income work force housing, increase shelter nights, ongoing rental research,
and housing solutions that included the aging community.
City Council Business Meeting
November 15, 2016
Page 3 of 5
PUBLIC FORUM
Michael Molitch-Hou/1151 Tolman Creek Road/Recently spoke 'with Unite Oregon in Medford who
reported there were 70 counts of hate speeches and acts following the election directed towards Latino and
Muslim Americans. He wanted to know if any similar acts had occurred in Ashland, if the City had a process
in place to deal with racial harassment, and if there was a specific group a person could contact. He suggested
Ashland become a Sanctuary City.
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Ashland was already a sanctuary city and Oregon was a sanctuary state.
City Administrator Dave Kanner encouraged anyone experiencing any form of hate speech to call the police.
Police Chief Tighe O'Meara was not aware of any hate speech since the election and reiterated anyone
experiencing that behavior should call the police.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Spoke on solar energy.
Shane Elder/830 Carol Rae, Medford OR/Asked Council to amend the ordinance that prohibited address
number painting on curbs. Ashland allowed this form of painting until two years ago. He went on to note the
benefits of having addresses painted on curbs.
City Attorney Dave Lohman confirmed the issue came up two years prior where it was determined prohibitive.
Council could change the ordinance. Mr. Lohman would follow up with Mr. Elder.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting guidelines for the creation and installation of
murals"
3. Medford Water Commission water delivery contract
Councilor Voisin pulled Consent Agenda item 43 for further discussion. Public Works Director Mike Faught
explained the only change to the agreement removed using Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) water for emergency
purposes under Article 3. The new agreement would last five years wiith three five-year extensions. Talent,
Ashland, and Phoenix could sell excess water to each other if a city exceeded their allotment. Each city had
their own meter.
Councilor Seffinger/Rosenthal m/s to approve the Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury provided an update on the Grandview Drive shared road project.
Public Works and Electric department staff determined a strategy to install the storm drain, the electrical
conduit, the new transformer, paving, and cleanup regarding the retaining wall. The location of the new
transformer required extending the guardrail 20-feet and partial relocation of the old guardrail to accommodate
the radius. Mr. Fleury confirmed the City did not require an encroachment permit since it was a City contract
and staff did the work. They would install the electrical conduit that week followed by paving and cleanup
work. Once that was completed, they would set up speed limit and share the roadway signs. They targeted
the second week of December for completion of the first phase. Council expressed concern they were not
notified of the guardrail extension prior to it happening. Public Works Director Mike Faught took
responsibility for the oversight. Staff followed policy regarding notifying neighbors within the project site.
After the project finished, staff would itemize the expenditures, determine overall costs, and forward that
information to Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
City Council Business Meeting
November 15, 2016
Page 4 of 5
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council review of questions for downtown behavior study
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained the City contracted with Southern Oregon University Research
Center (SOURCE) to conduct a survey of downtown businesses to determine the effectiveness of the
ordinances that went into effect over the summer. Director of SOURCE, Dr. Eva Skuratowicz explained the
process in measuring downtown activities involved people who were in that area consistently over time. She
decided to focus on the 194 businesses in the downtown, primarily street level businesses. It was also important
to be clear on activities that took place in the front, side and back of the business. SOURCE would mail out
the survey twice with research assistants calling businesses to get an accurate sense of how these behaviors
have shifted, changed, reduced, or increased. Dr. Skuratowicz would i;ollow up with any business in person
who failed to respond to all of SOURCE's attempts to gather information. She may talk to the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival (OSF) separately.
Council discussed the question regarding the occurrence of ATM users solicited for money. Dr. Skuratowicz
would remove the question, call the banks instead, and replace it with another question relating to smoking in
the alley or sidewalk areas.
2. Discussion of removing public art review and approval requirements from Chapter 18 of the
Ashland Municipal Code
Item delayed to the January 17, 2017 meeting.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 14.04.060 Water
Connections Outside City The Limits" and move to second reading.
City Attorney Dave Lohman noted the ordinance currently stated no premises located outside the City of
Ashland may be connected to the City water system with some provisions for Council to make specific
approvals. The wording, "may be" could be misunderstood. He proposed changing the language to read, "no
premises located outside the City of Ashland may be connected to the city water system or make use of
water obtained through a direct or indirect connection to the city water system." Exceptions were
narrowly defined but lacked clarity. For 14.04.060(C)(3)(i-v), the punctuation did not make it clear that all
five criteria needed to be met. Mr. Lohman proposed changing 14,.04.060(C)(3) to read, "Connections
authorized under subsection (13)(3) above shall be made only after all the criteria in subsection (13)(3)
and the following have been met."
Under 14.04.060(E), Mr. Lohman suggested removing the current language and adding, "Any person who
violates any provision of this Chapter shall be punished as set forth in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland
Municipal Code, in addition to other legal and equitable remedies to the City of Ashland, including
restriction or termination of service." Termination of service was already in 14.05.070 where the City could
disconnect service connection from the water supply line if the equipment using the water did not comply with
all city, state, and federal laws or standards. He reiterated this was not a change in policy or direction, just
clarification.
John Benson/1120 South Mountain/Questioned whether premises had to have a structure on the property.
Oregon state law said he could water a half acre from a city connection into a county lot. Last Thursday, Mike
Faught and Steve Wilson came to his mother's house who had recently come home from the hospital, and
informed her she needed to cut the line extending to county property. He claimed the City had given them
approval to use city water in 1970, 1990 and in 2009. His neighbor below him had the same zoning and the
City had not talked to them. The Oregon state law he referred to was on the Oregon Medical Marijuana
Program (OMMP) website. He could get a pump from Talent Irrigation District (TID), or drill a well but that
actually violated OMMP rules. He went on to talk about the complaint process, traffic to neighbor's homes
and false statements that he had armed guards and vicious dogs. He confirmed he had two lots, one county,
City Council Business Meeting
November 15, 2016
Page 5 of 5
and the other had the city limits boundary running through the lot.
Council confirmed the proposed changes clarified the ordinance and that Mr. Benson had brought up points he
wanted Council to consider. Mr. Lohman added Council could make changes to the ordinance and Mr. Benson
could appeal his water issues through the appeals process.
The term premise did not mean a structure or building. Councilor Morris noted a situation on his property that
meant he too was violating the ordinance. His lot was half in the City and half in the county.
Mr. Lohman clarified they had researched the claims the Benson's received permission to use city water three
times in the past and did not find anything indicating there was an agreement to that effect. Nor had the City
received any documentation from the Benson's confirming permission. The ordinance did not provide for an
exception. Mr. Benson's family could have received a verbal ok but that still did not comply with the
ordinance.
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to approve the first reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Amending AMC 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside the City Limits."
DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse did not think Council could make a value judgment on what
occurred on someone's property to determine whether to enforce or clarify the code. He did not want the
trees to die but the code was therefor a reason. Making an exception set a precedence of value judgments.
The code did not provide water outside the city unless the request matched the exceptions criteria.
Councilor Rosenthal expressed concern about wading into a neighborhood relations issue and that Council
was potentially revising an ordinance that may have unintended consequences. He did not know if
clarifying the language clarified the implementation of the ordinance.
Councilor Morris recused himself from the matter.
Councilor Voisin did not think it was a water supply issue because the City supplied water to the Welcome
Center and would supply water to the 550 residential units in the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The issue
was accommodating residents living on the edge of town who may bring their properties into city limits
in the future. She suggested extending the ordinance to include the urban growth boundary. Councilor
Seffinger was not comfortable with the possible unintended consequences of changing the ordinance at
this point. She wanted a different way to address the neighborhood concerns regarding the use of the
property. It was unknown how the clarifications would affect other properties. Mayor Stromberg noted
the ordinance was not changing and questioned how it would affect anyone differently.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Seffinger and Voisin, NO.
Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 3-2.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Councilor Seffinger announced the Red Cross had a program that provided smoke detectors for citizens that
may need financial assistance or help with installation.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting
November 21, 2016
Pagel of 2
MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 21, 2016
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 8:40 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. Councilor Seffinger was present via
phone.
Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to allow Councilor Seffinger to participate in the meeting via phone.
Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Stromberg explained there were two agenda items. The first pertained to the Mayor's recommendation
to terminate the City Administrator's employment contract and accept his resignation. The second gave
guidance to staff on recruitment processes for the Finance Director and new City Administrator depending on
the outcome of the first agenda item.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Outcomes of City Administrator performance evaluation
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s that the Council consent to the Mayor's recommendation to terminate
the City Administrator's February 2012 employment contract and accept Dave Kanner's resignation
with the understanding that such termination invokes the Severance Pay provision of the contract.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal explained the City Charter sited the Mayor's judgment determination
under Article 4, Section 2 and Article 13, Section'). He supported the Charter, the motion and appreciated the
years Dave Kanner gave to the City. Councilor Marsh added the City had a newly reelected mayor chosen by
voters with a significant affirmation. With a Mayor-Council form of government, while the Council did affirm
the Mayor's decisions there was a great deal of trust invested in the position of mayor. While she was not
privy to everything he knew about the circumstances, she had trust and confidence in the Mayor's
recommendation. It was clear that Dave Kanner had done some great work for the City but it was time to move
on to a different style of management for the fixture.
Councilor Seffinger appreciated the role the City Administrator had played in the City and her interactions with
Mr. Kanner had been helpful. She understood it was time for him to move on in terms of the direction the City
would be taking and the Mayor's ability to move the City in a direction that was positive for the City.
Councilor Morris would not support the motion. The City Administrator had done everything Council asked
him to do, and had acted professionally and appropriately. He appreciated what Mr. Kanner had accomplished
and how he operated. Councilor Voisin would vote against the motion as well. This was a flawed process in
the sense that it put every Councilor in the position of either trusting the Mayor or a process. Mr. Kanner had
kept the City on target, did the work asked of him and that was why she thought the process was flawed. She
needed more information that was not forthcoming and based on that could not put her trust in the Mayor.
Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion and the Mayor. It was important to recognize the community
overwhelmingly supported the Mayor for a third term. That was significant and pointed to his judgement as
the chief executive of the City per the City Charter. The Mayor followed the process outlined in the Charter.
City Council Special Meeting
November 21, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Councilor Lemhouse had enjoyed his interactions with Mr. Kanner., thought he was very talented, and
appreciated all his hard work. He understood the Mayor's desire to move in a different direction with a
different vision that matched the present times. He supported and trusted the Mayor knowing he was making
an informed decision for the best of the community. Mayor Stromberg added he had a prepared joint statement
with Mr. Kanner for release the following day. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Seffinger,
and Marsh, YES; Councilor Morris and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s approval of the proposed City contract with Dave Kanner titled
"Resignation Agreement and Full Release." DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought it was a fair
agreement and contractually bound to the original employment agreement with Mr. Kanner.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Rosenthal, Seffinger, and Lemlouse, YES. Councilor Morris and
Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Guidance to staff regarding the recruitment process
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the recruitment process for Finance Director was closed and the
recruiter was vetting applications. The original notion was to have interviews with a narrow group of
candidates in mid December. Council could decide to go ahead with those interviews or delay for the short or
long term. Mayor Stromberg spoke to Resource Manager Tina Gray earlier and she informed him the recruiter
had some promising candidates and thought they could time the interviews to have a new director hired just at
the end of the budget process. The current Interim Finance Director Bev Adams agreed to stay on through the
budget process. She would also act as the Budget Officer.
Mayor Stromberg wanted to appoint Fire Chief John Karns as Actin; City Administrator from the end of
November to December 6, 2016. Council would vote on making Chief Karns the Interim City Administrator
at the December 6, 2016 Council meeting. Chief Karns was willing to serve as interim until a new City
Administrator was hired. The Mayor was interested in going forward with the recruitment process for the new
City Administrator immediately.
Council supported Chief Karns as Acting City Administrator, and making a decision to appoint him as the
interim at the December 6, 2016 meeting. They also supported the proposed recruitment process for the
Financial Director and moving forward with the City Administrator recruitment process.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
CITY OF
^AS H LA N D
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the
City of Ashland, Oregon on November 8, 2016, and Mayoral Proclamation
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Approval of a Resolution declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the election held in and for the City of
Ashland, Oregon on November 8, 2016 and Mayoral Proclamation..
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Article VII, Section 6, of the Ashland City Charter requires that the Canvass of the Vote for all city
elections be made, and the results of the election "shall be entered in the record of the proceedings of the
council." The Resolution sets forth the vote for each position and -the proclamation sets forth the name
of each person elected to office, all as required by this chapter section.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
None.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION
Approve Resolution with the Mayor reading aloud the Proclamation.
MOTION
Motion to approve the Resolution declaring the Canvass of the Vote
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Proclamation
Abstract of the Vote
Page 1 of 1
~r
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and
for the City of Ashland, Oregon on November 8, 2016
Recitals:
ASHLAND MAYOR
John Stomberg 6449
Carol Voisin 4920
Biome Michael Erickson 191
John Green 283
Write-Ins 43
COUNCIL MEMBER - POSITION T10. 1
Dennis Slattery 5889
Debra Neiswander 1485
Doug Burns 2737
Write-Ins 49
COUNCIL MEMBER - POSITION NO. 3
Greg Lemhouse 6953
Theo White 1128
Martin Kamernski 2061
Write-Ins 64
COUNCIL MEMBER - POSITION r10. 5
Rich Rosenthal 7337
Write-Ins 176
PARKS COMMISSIONER - POSITION NO. 1
Joel Heller 6704
Write-Ins 111
PARKS COMMISSIONER - POSITION NO. 2
Jim Lewis 6771
Write-Ins 65
MEASURE 15-149
Yes 9551
No 3187
MEASURE 15-154
Yes 10696
No 1474
MEASURE 15-156
Yes 9616
No 2590
Page 1 of 2
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. John Stromberg is declared to be the duly elected Ashland Mayor.
SECTION 2. Dennis Slattery is declared to be the duly elected council member for Position No. 1.
SECTION 3. Greg Lemhouse is declared to be the duly elected council member for Position No. 3.
SECTION 4. Rich Rosenthal is declared to be the duly elected council member for Position No. 5.
SECTION 5. Joel Heller is declared to be the duly elected parks commissioner for Position No. 1.
SECTION 6. Jim Lewis is declared to be the duly elected parks commissioner for Position No. 2.
SECTION 7. Measure 15-149 is declared to be approved by the voters.
SECTION 8. Measure 15-154 is declared to be approved by the voters
SECTION 9. Measure 15-156 is declared to be approved by the voters
SECTION 10. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of December,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of December, 2016:
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 2 of.?
~V,j
_ C.+ , ~ f lj ,f~ ly ! cJ . i) (.r~ s^'~ ~ ~ rY F'.~ ) ~ /~'~l ~i~ \ t I- 'i YS.~~ ; 1 i' 7~ c~ ~ (~j~ l.~-'i`•~ ~ f t-.. t {i:,, 'r l!•
tLt 1) j
~v`.:% t.f'~-~ U 7 a ,C./,',J i; .:`,-S gj J-3 t.~ ` ~J ;''l :.-.s ✓'~~7 sI-i±'n r ~ .91. ✓ r ~ s a'A
C\~ F ~.~`"d° - "T>-.~✓~i t Cv a ~ 1 7 r l Gt 'L' ~s ~ ~ ~ : ,~1 ~t l~
IIIJJJ 1 r rt) c t £t, G t °f ( G
, l \
~"`.✓J~j S L l;~ 1 ~ ~ j ~ & j ~ ~ ~ ice-' _~s....i, _ _s.~~_ ~ ' _ r ..r ~ . _ _ ~ . _ _ _ . _ . ~1 J
wtl rs=;S
s ~'s PROCLAMATION
I, John Stromberg, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that at the
1 \ f
election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 8"' day of November, 2016, there
was submitted to the voters the question of the elections of persons to various
mot(( elective offices in the City.
It is hereby declared that the following persons were elected to the positions set forth L!
next to their names:
, ,rte
r rz Ashland Mayor, John Stromberg
Council Member, Position #1 Dennis Slattez-y
Council Member, Position #3 Greg Lemhouse
Council Member Position #5 Rich Rosenthal
j (~ti,Zo
r ' Pl'
I
Park Commissioner, Position #1 Joel Heller
Park Commissioner, Position #2 Jim Lewis
rr
Ballot Measure 15-149 Shall Ashland voters enact a Council-approved ordinance
establishing a 3% tax on recreational marijuana sold by a licensed marijuana retailer?"
Ballot Measure 15-154 "Shall Ashland voters encourage the 2017 Oregon Legislature to
r C ~
' design an improved comprehensive healthcare system for Oregon?
Ballot Measure 15-156 "Shall Ashland voters enact a Council -approved ordinance to use ,
e- ti ~ \ y l ~r r./
` food and beverage tax revenue for street repair and rehabilitation?" 1 JS"~~~`
Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this 6t" day of December, 2016.
t 7i tll~e
John Stromberg Mayor {'~tt
J ys % N ~ 4
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder H
u ~ ~ -:t"-J h.✓ ^ ~ t dy. i- w,) ~~o f ty K ~ a - r•~, t g.. ~ ~ ~'~\t-
°{a*,~
G
f f. ) \ ' L G b y U. F ,.,,-J t+, t t!=n t' R I-y,
333~~~ -<_J C'-~ rj~> ~ ~ QO ~ ✓ ~ Y~ -..ice ~ ~ rc.:I p 11 ~ F..r-
0,~ ,.~y n~ °\~J ~..:\a r'l h:- rt ;,-=c:.:,y ~ r1 F'~ ice; = ~ c.:~ ~/:~~7~~Y" ~L„"''- G rvC •~.1;
'--•a
r` (c? ~f3~~.~ f7 T1l } t lI~!i \ 3 l{*1 g,d t~ aka V ft trC <-U
Jackson County, Oregon
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY CLERK Christine D. Walker
(549) 774-6147
ELECTIONS
(541) 774-6148
November 25, 2016
Barbara Christensen
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ms. Christensen,
Enclosed you will find the certified results for the November 8, 2016 General
Election.
I have enclosed only the races and/or measures that are specific to your District.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely, _
Christine Walker
Jackson County Clerk
Fax (541) 774-6140 Elections 1101 W. Main St, Suite 201 Medford, Oregon 97501
Statement of Votes Cast by Geography Page: 1
November 8, 2016 General Election 2016-11-23
Jackson County, Oregon 14:59:03
All Precincts, All Districts, Ashland Parks & Rec Commissioner, Pos 1, City of Ashland,
Councilmember, Pos 3, City of Ashland, Councilmember, Pos 1, City of Ashland, Mayor, Ashland
Parks & Rec Commissioner, Pos 2, City of Ashland Councilmember, Pos 5, Measure 15-149,
Measure 15-154, Measure 15-156
Official Results
Total Ballots Cast: 13483, Registered Voters: 143301, Overall Turnout: 9.41 %
54 precincts reported out of 54 total
NNNEINNV~
Choice Votes Vote %
All District Categories
All Districts
City of Ashland, Mayor (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (10 over voted, 1585 blank voted), 6332 registered voters„ turnout 82.54%
John Greene 283 2.38%
Biome Erickson 191 1.61%
John Stromberg 6449 54.26%
Carol Voisin 4920 41.39%
Write-in 43 0.36%
Total 11886 100.00%
City of Ashland, Councilmember, Pas 1 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (7 over voted, 3314 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Doug Burns 2737 26.94%
Debra Neisewander 1485 14.62%,
Dennis Slattery 5889 57.96%
Write-in 49 0.48%
Total 10160 100.00%
City of Ashland, Councilmember, Pas 3 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (7 over voted, 3268 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Theo White 1128 11.05%
Martin Kamenski 2061 20.19%
Greg Lemhouse 6953 68.13%
Write-in 64 0.63%
Total 10206 100.00%
City of Ashland Councilmember, Pas 5 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (0 over voted 5968 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Rick Rosenthal 7337 97.66%
Write-in 176 2.34%
Total 7513 100.00%
Ashland Parks & Rec Commissioner, Pas 1 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (1 over voted, 6665 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Joel Heller 6704 98.37%
Write-in 111 1.63%
Total 6815 100.00%
Ashland Parks & Rec Commissioner, Pas 2 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (1 over voted, 6644 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, tumout 82.54%
Jim Lewis 6771 99.05%
Write-in 65 0.95%
Total 6836 100.00%
Measure 15449 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (0 over voted, 743 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Yes 9551 74.98%
No 3187 25.02%
Total 12738 100.00%
Statement of Votes Cast by Geography Page: 2
November 8, 2016 General Election 2016-11-23
Jackson County, Oregon 14:59:03
All Precincts, All Districts, Ashland Parks & Rec Commissioner, Pos '9, City of Ashland,
Councilmember, Pos 3, City of Ashland, Councilmember, Pos. 1, City of Ashland, Mayor, Ashland
Parks & Rec Commissioner, Pos 2, City of Ashland Councilmember, Pos 5, Measure 15-149,
Measure 15-154, Measure 15-156
Official Results
Total Ballots Cast: 13483, Registered Voters: 143301, Overall Turnout: 9.41%
54 precincts reported out of 54 total
Choice Votes Vote %
Measure 15-154 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (1 over voted, 1310 blank voted), 16332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Yes . 10696 87.89%
No 1474 12.11%
Total 12170 100.00%
Measure 15-156 (Vote for 1)
13481 ballots (5 over voted, 1270 blank voted), 1 332 registered voters, turnout 82.54%
Yes 9616 78.78%
No 2590 21.22%
Total 12206 100.00%
State of Oregon
ABSTRACT OF VOTERS
1 certify the votes recorded on this abstract
correctly summarizes the tally of votes
ast at the election indicated.
Christine D. Walker
County Clerk & Recorder
Jackson County, Oregon
/6
Date
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 5, 2016
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
Committee members Jim Hartman, Roxane Biegel-Coryell, Stuart Green, Isaac Bevers, Greg
Jones, Louise Shawkat, Bryan Sohl, Cindy Bernard, and Marni Koopman were present. Staff
member Adam Hanks and consultant Jeff Golden were present. Committee members Claudi
Alick and James McGinnis arrived late.
2. Around the Room
Group did an around the room team building answering the question, `if you had to pick a color
to describe the open house what would it be and why`?' In general, the group was concerned with
low turnout but pleased with the discussions had by participants.
Claudia Alick arrived 3: 35 p.m.
3. Public Input
Huelz Gutchen - stated he had recently send e-mails regarding double-bundle financing and
asked the group to read them. He stated that the potential for carbon offsets to be used in order to
make us 100% carbon neutral is obsolete, we need to have more creative ways to solve the
problem.
Ray Mollett - thanked the group for the recent open house. He stated that he shares the concerns
the group expressed regarding the low turnout and wondered if this was due to the nice weather,
the day of the week it was held, or some other factor. He wondered if the committee has thought
about what number of citizen participants is necessary to gain community consensus.
Joanne Eggers - stated that Tanya Graham of Geos Institute asked her to read a statement [the
full statement is attached to these minutes].
Andrew Cubic - stated he attended the first open house in May and that it scared him into being
part of the 10x20 supporters. He learned recently about the state's electric proportionality of
renewable mix and is asking the group to look at a standard mix. We shouldn't allow the state to
limit our use of or production of renewable energy. He stated that John Kennedy said that we
choose to go to the moon and then we did. He hopes the committee chooses to aim high and then
achieve it.
Robert Block-Brown - stated he agrees with the sentiments stated about the open house, there
was good information and good organization but poor attendance. He talked with many people
who just didn't know about it. There was a poor job of advertising and outreach. He is hoping
the group has a good way to collect information between now and the end of the process. He has
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 5, 2016
Page 2 of 3
been working with Adam Hanks on parts of the draft ordinance. He recommends that the group
propose creation of a position in the final ordinance. That position needs to be directly under the
City Administrator. It needs to be that high level of a position so they can monitor all City
operations. The plan and position don't work if the position isn't at a high enough level.
Allie Rosenbluth - stated that she is with Rogue Climate. She too is sad about the lack of
attendance at the last open house. This may have been due to a communication error with who
was in charge of outreach. She stated that she has concerns with the draft vision statement. There
is nothing in the statement about social equity. She read aloud Rogue Climate's vision statement
as an example of how to include social equity.
Michael Shore - stated he is scared by the lack of open house attendance and is concerned about
how our Police and Fire departments would handle climate-related emergencies like a mega-fire.
He stated that putting a chamber under your home to be safe from mega fires is important. He
wonders if the City of Ashland has a plan in place to handle employee (in addition to
community) safety during mega fires. He also wondered if there is an ability to change land use
rules to include the ability to build structures to be safe and shelter in place in emergencies.
Jeff Sharpe - stated that the City is honored to have such a diverse and intelligent group working
on the plan.
4. Public Input Summary
Jeff Golden, representing Cascadia Consulting Group, gave an overview of the public input
received at and after the recent open house. Group discussed what Cascadia will be doing with
the information received and whether Cascadia need anything additional from the group. Golden
stated that Cascadia will continue to use the public input to prioritize actions and strategies.
Group expressed concerns with using the input too greatly, as it there was such a small number
of Ashland residents in attendance. Group discussed what might: be missing from the public
input. They agreed that social equity issues were likely underrepresented as most attendees
seemed to be older, white, and relatively affluent.
Group discussed options for additional public input including discussions with specifically
targeted groups, a "road show" to service organizations like Rotary, Elks, etc. or to local
religious congregations, articles in the newspaper, and additional information on the City's web
and social media pages.
Committee member McGinnis arrived 4:27 p. m.
Group requested that Rosenthal and/or staff member flanks draft questions to aid in the October
15th discussion. Rosenthal agreed to this request.
Group discussed whether a statistically valid number of residents giving public input was
necessary. Group determined that while getting input on the plan is still important, it is more
important now to get support for the plan before going to Council. The plan is just the start of
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 5, 2016
Page 3 of 3
this process, there is no way to make everyone happy but the group (and whomever continues
this process) need to continue the conversation with the community. They need to continue to get
input and support even after the plan is approved. McGinnis stated that it is the responsibility of
this committee to make decisions in the best interest of the community. Koopman stated that at
this point the group needs more targeted responses from those who have not yet been involved.
Group agreed there has been input and discussion from those who already support doing a plan
but what is lacking is hearing from those who are opposed or unsure about the need for a plan.
Rosenthal requested that the group continue to offer suggestions, on how to get the plan
information out to those who have not yet been involved and staff will continue the already
started process of targeting specific community representatives/sectors for input.
Jones requested that Cascadia inform the group as to their plans for advertising and future public
input as agreed upon in their contract.
5. Vision Statement
McGinnis stated that during his small group discussion of actions and strategies they were
concerned that the vision statement lacked specific focus. Hartman stated he would like to see
the vision statement broken into simple action statements to motivate people and keep educating
the public simple. Green stated that vision statements shouldn't include specifics - it should only
be a zoomed-out view. Bevers stated any reference to social equity is missing from the current
vision statement.
Group discussed ways to potentially word-smith the current statement but determined they did
not have enough time for a full discussion at this meeting. Group agreed to send draft statement
options to staff for inclusion in the next packet and to have this discussion at the October 15th
meeting.
6. Next Meeting
The upcoming meeting schedule is as follows:
October 15, 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
October 19, 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
November 2, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
10. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant
My name is JoAnne Eggers and I am a member of the Board of Directors of
the Geos Institute, which helps local leaders make decisions about climate
change that are good for people and nature. Tonya Graham, our Executive
Director, was planning to talk with you today, but has been called out of
town for a family situation and has asked me to delliver this message in her
place.
This committee and the City Council are facing some very important
questions - the answers to which will set the trajectory for our local efforts
to address climate change for many years to come.
The primary question at this point is how aggressive do we want to be in
reducing greenhouse gas pollution in Ashland? On one hand it's a very
simple question. Leading scientists tell us we need -to get the atmospheric
concentration of carbon down to 350 parts per million. That means initially
becoming carbon neutral so we can stop the rise of: that number. But that's
not enough. Collectively we need to become a carbon sink, taking up more
carbon than we emit. That is the global context within which this decision is
being made.
Ashland citizens understand the danger of climate change and clearly are up
for doing something serious about it. We can tell by how many people
showed up at the Ashland Climate Challenge kickoff last November and the
enthusiasm with which citizens are providing input to this process. As our
ClimateWise team has traveled around the country helping communities
address climate change, we have not often seen thi's level of local
commitment and energy.
Few communities have set the goal of being carbon neutral in the U.S. To
our knowledge, none have set the goal of being a carbon sink. Ashland could
help anchor the bold side of this spectrum by setting either of these goals.
We know there are concerns that we don't know exactly how to reach either
of these goals or how to measure them. But someone has to figure it out.
And Ashland ought to be part of that early scouting contingent brave
enough to go into uncharted territory and send word back to those who will
follow. It's simply who we are.
Fortunately, human beings are good at the impossible. We have traveled to
the moon. We jet around town in personal road rockets, some of which now
pretty much drive themselves. We communicate with people all around the
world in real time.
In the early 1900s, the Wright Brothers decided to build a flying machine
that many people thought was simply not possible. But they set a goal and
kept at it - even though keeping at it meant hurling; themselves into the sky
in a contraption that they knew they couldn't really control. They risked
crashing many times to reach their goal. And then they shared what they
learned so that those coming behind them could build on their success.
Fortunately, we don't have to be that brave. We don't have to put our lives
on the line to reach this goal. But we should understand that their success
was due to their courage in setting a make or break: goal and their
commitment to making it happen. They didn't say that in their spare time
they would tinker around and see if they could build a flying machine. They
said that they WOULD BUILD a flying machine. That's the kind of courage
Ashland needs to exhibit in this decision.
Since not all communities will commit or be able to deliver on a bold goal,
those with strong community support like Ashland need to set the pace.
Let's set a bold, meaningful goal and show our commitment to it by passing
an ordinance to make the Climate and Energy Action Plan fly.
That way, when our grandchildren ask us what we (lid once we knew about
climate change, we can look them in the eye and honestly say that we
simply did what needed to be done to protect their future.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
Committee members Stuart Green, Louise Shawkat, Roxane Beigel-Coryell, Jim Hartman, Greg
Jones, Marni Koopman and Claudia Alick were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present.
Committee members James McGinnis and Isaac Bevers arrived late. City Administrator Dave
Kanner was in the audience.
Rosenthal outlined the agenda for the day. He stated there would be public input specific to each
agenda item at the start of the item in addition to the regular public input time for items not on
the agenda.
2. Public Input
Joanne Egag_rs - stated she was at the last open house and was struck by the greenhouse gas rates
produced by consumer goods. She believes this should be among; the top concerns for the group.
She understands the challenges involved with taking on consumer goods but stated that we can't
get where we need to go without addressing those issues.
Caren Caldwell - stated that there is a lack of social equity in the plan so far. The proposed
solutions disproportionatly effect low income. Transportation, heating and energy efficiency
upgrades are all more costly for low income residents. She asked, the group look at the GEOS
report for assistance and guidance on how to address disadvantaged sectors who are rarely
addressed. She stated there needs to be equity in participation by disadvantaged groups and there
needs to be greater assistance in home upgrades for both low income residents and landlords.
Lastly, there needs to be equity in green jobs - the group should encourage local training for job
and family wages for new green jobs. [see attached testimony]
Hannah Sohl - stated she was recently at an energy conference and it was clear there that
Ashland is looked to as a leader in solar power. She stated that this process is an important one
and the group needs to take more time to consider how to get information to and from the
community. The group needs to focus on how to get information regarding the next open house
to more than just those people who are already involved. She encouraged the group to
recommend the new position requested in the plan be an assistant city administrator, not just a
staff level, position. Lastly, she asked the group take a greater focus on low income or
disadvantaged groups while developing the plan.
James McGinnis arrived 9:12 a. m.
3. "10x20" Ordinance
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Page 2 of 6
Group discussed whether a cost benefit analysis of the ordinance is (or could be) part of the
current Cascadia contract. Hanks stated no, it's not in their current contract and probably isn't
entirely in their realm of expertize. The challenge at this point is that there are many ways to
achieve the 10% reduction - Council needs better clarity in order to create an acuare RFP for a
cost benefit analysis.
10x20 Public Input
Dave Helmich - stated he was one of the primary petitioners of the ordinance but there is not a
unanimously held view of how to do the project. He believes the I Ox20 ordinance does not
entirely fall into the LEAP, that it should be managed separately. If the I Ox20 ordinance is part
of the CEAP and the IOx20 project fails, the CEAP plan fails too. Keeping them separate works
better for the progress of both.
Jeff Sharpe - stated the ordinance was crafted to be achievable and it could be a vital resource to
make the CEAP active and not just words on paper. There needs to be an FRP to organize the
10x20 plan with a direct connection to the city's grid (he described the PPA involved plan). In
order to achieve the goals of the CEAP, the group should encourage immediate action on I Ox20
and inclusion of it in the CEAP. [see attached testimony]
Isaac Bevers arrived 9:25 a. m.
Andrew Cubic - stated he has 25 years of experience in infrastructure implementation in
California. The I Ox20 project is significant and may take many years, but time is still of the
essence. He is surprised that there is no dedicated project manager being hired yet for it. He
asked the group to use whatever influence they have on the City for that position to be created.
James Stephens - stated he concurs with most of the statements so far. He thinks 10x20 and
CEAP should be parallel efforts. The 10x20 project helps the group meet plan goals because
local, renewable energy production will automatically lower our greenhouse gas emmissions. He
believes the future will be based in electricity and that it should be generated from renewable
resources that don't increase greenhouse gas numbers. He stated that this is not just solar or
hydro production but will be from unknown technologies which should fit into the CEAP.
Tom Marvin - stated that one factor the group can't forget is the business of renewable
electricity. We buy from BPA and 85% of is it hydro based but there is no direct line from the
hydro power plant to us. BPA puts energy into the Northwest power grid with lots of other
groups and sources. Our electricity can come from any of those sources. With population
increases, our electric use over the next several years the demand for electricity will only go up.
He believes that other groups will demand any electricity we produce. [see attached testimony]
Huelz Gutchen - stated there are two kinds of PPAs possible, one across the freeway (solar-
farm) and one in town (solar on rooftops/brownfieIds). There is a double-bundle financing
method for the version in-town. Most of this would be paid for by the Federal government. He
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Page 3 of 6
believes the City needs to hire two experts in this field right now. The City needs to get more
creative with it financing. It's better to hire these two people now and learn about all the details
necessary later. He believes that the job of managing the 10x20 ordinance belongs in the
Planning Department since that department adds more greenhouse gases with new buildings than
we will every make up for with 10x20.
Group discussed two questions; 1) In addition to the questions/topics in the packet, what more
does Council need to consider? and 2) Where/how should 10x20 be incorporated in the CEAP?
Some topics for consideration the group discussed included:
1) The effect of I Ox20 on low-income community members
2) Have increases in electric demand (such as those from an increased number of electric
vehicles) been considered?
3) Will (or how will) creation of our own power effect our current BPA contract? In what ways
will it effect our costs from BPA?
4) 10% of what? Based on when? 2016? Do the calculations re-set each year?
Group determined that as this started as a parallel process, it can't be completely incorporated
into the CEAP. It needs to be mentioned in the plan, and maybe should be listed as one of the
first (or in-process) actions, but 10x20 can't be handled entirely i;n the CEAP process.
McGinnis asked Dave Kanner where he thinks the 10x20 ordinance would fit in and what
resources are likely to be allocated? Kanner stated he would like the 10x20 in the CEAP so that it
can be prioritized by the group along with any other proposed action. Discussions regarding how
much city residents (including low income) can handle (increases to electric rates will inevitably
come with 10x20 and other CEAP-related projects) need to occur in the CEAP process.
Rosenthal asked Kanner what next steps he invasions for the I Ox20 ordinance? Kanner stated that
the first step is to get ordinance clarification. There are many options for how to calculate and
how to implement, so what is the end target? What are the resources necessary (and what
resources do we have available)? He ultimately invasions a single, management-level position to
handle both CEAP actions and 10x20 implementation. The challenge is providing enough
resources to handle both.
Group raised concerns about one staff member handling both C;AP and 10x20, as they are two
very different skill sets. They also expreseed concerns that focus on 10x20 will slow down
implementation of the CEAP.
Alick/McGinnis m/s that the "10x20" ordinance be referenced in some way in the final
Climate and Energy Action Plan. Discussion: Group discussed ways in which it might be
referenced and why there should be no reason for the City to hold off on 10x20 action before the
CEAP is finalized.
Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
4. Goals and Targets Ordinance
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Page 4 of 6
Rosenthal reviewed the changes to the ordinance made by the Legal Department. Group
discussed the timeline - with legal review, publication requirements, and Council agenda
availability the Ordinance likely won't have first reading until January. They discussed whether
because that is so close to the CEAP going to Council if they shouldn't just go on the same
agenda. There wasn't group consensus as to if having them together was a good idea.
Goals/Targets Ordinance Public Input
Collin Ellis - urged the group to take the most aggressive goal/target they can take. Stated that if
they don't they aren't really addressing the problem. He stated that he wants this city to be a
leader in the country on this issue and without an aggressive goal, the group isn't doing its job.
Hannah Sohl - Thanked Hanks for his work on the draft ordinance and stated that it doesn't have
to be an either/or situation for carbon neutral/science based targets. The most recent version of
the Eugene ordinance (which has been updated since the version in the packet) has a robust
public accountability built in. It is important to include consumption in the goals. The first focus
can and should be on sector based emmissions but later focus can shift to consumption. She
encouraged the group to have annual, sector-based updates and to follow Eugene's model by
having a goal of carbon neutral by 2047 with 8% reductions eacl-i year based on best-available
science.
Group discussed ways to combine an 8% reduction with consumption, which still can't
accurately be tracked. They discussed the possibility of having the reductions measured on a
three-year average, to account for typical fluctuations in project timelines, financing, etc.
Group discussed how to adapt the plan as science-based targets change so frequently (what's an
appropriate target today may be wildly different than one 5-, 10-,, 20-years from now.) How to
we keep the debate reasonable, and effective?
Hartman/Koopman m/s to propose an ordinance with a goal consistent with achieving a
350 parts/million reduction by 2100. This means an 8% average annual reduction of all
greenhouse gas emissions, including those from consumption of goods and food. Discussion:
Hartman stated that all three greenhouse gases are accelerating - we need to decelerate now. He
acknowledges that this is a big goal but thinks it can be achieved in small chunks. Koopman
stated that using the Eugene ordinance as a model we know that we can include lots of other
goals, not just an 8% reduction goal. We need to embrace that this is going to be very hard.
Green stated that the goal should probably call out a baseline date to prevent future ambiguity.
We also nee to acknowledge that no matter how well we do here, we can't solve the entire
world's problems.
Green/Hartman m/s to amend the motion to include a baseline date in-line with the
greenhouse gas inventory of 2015.
Voice Vote: all ayes. Amendment to motion passes.
Group discussed if "moving average" needed to be in the reduction requirements, determined
that this can will likely happen naturally, especially if the plan is reviewed annually.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Page 5 of 6
Beigel-Coryell raised concerns over including consumption in the goal - not only will this
require major policy changes but will require the entire community to buy into lifestyle changes.
She also raised concerns over whether or not cities with action plans will be sued for not being
able to reduce in areas with no measurement ability (consumption has no real measurement
ability other than general regional data). Rosenthal stated that he isn't really sure how from a
policy standpoint this will work but he still thinks that it is important to recognize the importance
of the goal to the group.
Group acknowledged that much of the ability to meet this goal requires State and Federal actions
or actions by other entities that we have no control over. Group still felt it was an important
statement goal nonetheless.
Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion (with amendments) Passes.
Hanks asked the group what the city operations goal should be? He stated that he left as a
placeholder the city operations goal from the originally proposed''. ordinance from Rogue Climate.
Group discussed whether any city operations goal needs to be in--line with the year (2028) the
BPA contract is up. They determined it wasn't entirely necessary to do so.
GreenBeigel-Coryell m/s to adopt the city operations goal as written in section 9.40.030 of
the draft ordinance. Discussion: Hartman would prefer to have a more aggressive goal.
Hartman moved to amend the years in the goal to 2025 and 2045. Amendment to motion
died for lack of a second.
Disccussion continued: Group discussed whether the goal needs to be more clearly stated as to
how it relates to the 8% reduction goal just approved. Jones wondered if there needs to be
verbage limiting the amount of reductions achieved through offsets but group determined that
they can't limit that as we can't yet track consumption.
Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Koopman stated that she would like to see the minimum reporting schedule lowered from 5-year
to 3-year milestones. Group determined that they need to make a clear distinction between
reporting and milestones. They reiterated the desire for annual reporting, and determined there
needs to be a different timeline for potentially course-correcting milestones.
Koopman/Alick m/s to replace five-year target milestones with three-year target milestones
in section 9.40.040 of the draft ordinance and accept the plan sections as presented to
include accountability with implementation plan. Discussion;; Koopman stated that Eugene's
newest ordinance has a section with triple-bottom-line considerations. Group discussed whether
having annual targets every three years is necessary or would this just be used to do larger course
corrections. They agreed that this means a Greenhouse Gas Inventory every three years with the
understanding that an 8% average reduction will vary from year-to-year but should average out
over a three-year timeframe.
Voice Votes: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Page 6 of 6
5. Next Meeting
Group agreed that a continued discussion of the implementation plan and the vision statement
should be on the next agenda. They also discussed the possibility of keeping a list of questions or
topics needing to be discussed. The first items on that list include: social equity and the effect of
the plan on tourism.
The upcoming meeting schedule is as follows:
October 19, 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
November 2, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
10. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant
1
Testimony before CEAP Ad Hoc Committee
October 15, 2016
Caren Caldwell
124 Ohio Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-621-0663
Reference: Geos Institute, Ashland. "Climate Change Vulnerability in Ashland
and the Rogue Valley", September 2016
Topic: Urgency of incorporating Vulnerability Report into Climate Plan
Highlight: Equity findings in Vulnerability Report
ry
Comments:
Good morning. Thanks for this opportunity to address your committee, the very
existence of which is a game changer in this era of climate change. Local
communities doing climate planning is awesome and exciting! Thank you for
taking on the job!
I want to talk about the social equity aspects of climate planning.
Impacts from climate change as well as proposed solutions disproportionately
affect Ashland's low-income residents and workers of-AsHan
te,
Low-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on transportation
in the form of older, less efficient cars, and on housing and energy in the form of
older, less energy-saving houses and appliances. They also have fewer resources
to invest in energy saving measures. They are living in a precarious state made
more precarious by climate change.
2
Rogue Climate supports the development of a climate and energy action plan that
will not exacerbate these impacts, but will prioritize social equity for low income
people on a par with other goals like climate mitigation and adaption,
environmentally sound public policy, clean air and water, public health, and
economic vitality.
I draw your attention to the report of the Geos Institute, Ashland. "Climate
Change Vulnerability in Ashland and the Rogue Valley", September 2016.
The report concludes by noting that a recent review of climate change plans
(Leos Institute, In Review) showed that some topics are not receiving adequate
attention in Ashland's climate planning process. Even though climate change
affects all sectors of our communities, disadvantaged populations are one of the
sectors rarely addressed.
Who are we talking about?
• Elders, who are sensitive to heat, and especially low-income without
family nearby
• Outdoor workers and seasonal workers, most of whom have low
incomes
• Seasonal and service industry workers (forest, ski area, restaurant,
theater, hotel, etc.)
• Homeless populations, people lacking in transportation options
• Low income populations and families/single parents with young children
• People with respiratory illness, heart conditions or mental illness
The Geos Vulnerability report found that low income is a common stressor among
all socioeconomic groups that were vulnerable to climate change. Having a low
income in addition to health problems, racial biases, job type, and age greatly
exacerbates the impacts of climate change.
3
To meet the challenge faced by our low income residents and workers, Rogue
Climate urges your team to incorporate three kinds of equity planning into the
overall Climate and Energy Action Plan.
One, equity in participation by disadvantaged populations.
We must proactively discuss equity and disadvantaged populations in all City
planning processes. Measure the impacts of climate adaptation and mitigation on
the most vulnerable. The City of Eugene accomplishes this goal by establishing a
social equity committee.
We can also train people with relationships in different communities (Latino
communities or churches for example) to do outreach on energy, water, heat
impacts, and other issues; and provide opportunities for people with low incomes
to become educators and leaders.
Two, equity in home energy upgrades.
We need to implement financial strategies for low income home owners to
upgrade energy systems; and provide incentives for landlords to invest in energy
upgrades, air conditioning, comfort, and air quality in rental units.
Three, equity in green jobs.
As mitigation plans are implemented, we can expect new green jobs to be created
locally. We need to leverage public and private funding to create those green
jobs and provide training opportunities that benefit local residents and workers,
including low income people and underserved groups; and we need to uphold
high road standards for new jobs that provide secure family wages.
Thank you.
10.15.16 CEAP ad hoc committee public input- Jeff Sharpe, 557 Fordyce 97520
Good morning, and thanks again to each of you for your work on this important pla.
o-
ur
The 10x20 ordinance has been crafted to be a truly impacting first step for city, achieva le if quickly started,
and showcase once completed. I'`, + IE t)
Lffl%amtkwrof vital sections addressing renewable
The ordinance could also prove a great benefit to CEAPrfor
p
energy production. It is hoped CEAP will be remembered as the Climate and Energy ACTION plan, not just an
ned-
Academic Plan, and at this point in time, this committee appears to be in a unique position for stimulating
action.
Today I am asking you consider recommending that the Mayor and Council direct immediate development and
publishing of an RFP soliciting proposals for the installation of a 10 to 15M'Al renewable energy utility, with
direct connect to the city distribution system, to be completed and on-line by the end of 2020.
A Dec.1 Response may be desired to assure our CEAP has opportunity to integrate this valuable information, and
to give a realistic baseline to measure other options against.
This RFP can be easily, and inexpensively produced, and will in no way obligate the city to any additional
investment, time or commitment. What it will do is garner some incredibly valuable information, providing real-
world for ordinance fulfillment, as well as strong validation of cost and timing information I'm sure
we want to be part of the finished plan.
Our communication with larger EPCs (Engineering, Procurement, Construction contractors) thiat-mteukIAbe yosS j
interested in responding to such an RFP have suggested that there are PPA flips approaches t4at-n~~e L V$bk,~(
workable for the city, without requiring city investment beyond a PPA (Power Purchase Agreement), likely with
all power produced being sold to the city (PPA directly with Ashland).
One of the primary deciding factors for the City will likely be the PPA kWh cost, and possible timing of
flip to the City, proposed by the respondents.
A common theme in those discussions was the need for them to see the City was truly interested in
pursuing a project, and not just political broadcasting.
Current solar plant size recommendations vary from 15MW for fixed, down to 10MW for tracking PV
installations.
We have been investigating Ashland's industry-proven renewable energy options for many years, with
wind and irradiation monitoring, system pilot projecting, and estimating full project development and
construction for specific area wind and solar options.
All of this work has been provided open-source to encourage innovation, and will be considered
beneficial to responding EPCs. We know of several respected EPCs that will be interested in responding to such
an RFP.
In order to achieve the goals of this admirable energy security and community impacting ordinance, we urge
immediate and effective gathering of current, relevant information; which requires immediate, meaningful
action. Here's hoping we motivate the citizenry to make CEAP an effective instrument for change, and not just a
bookend in the city archives. 10x20 has the potential to be a robust, impacting showcase project for our City.
Apr
Thank you! Upward and Onward! J#
DOW-
~ i ~ ;4 l
r
Ashland's Energy Sources
1. The City of Ashland Electric Utility (The City) purchases 98-99% of the community's net
electricity consumption from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).
2. The City generates 1-2% of the community's net electricity consumption from a City owned
and operated hydro generator located near Reeder Reservoir.
3. The electricity that is purchased from BPA is predominantly from hydroelectric generation
(85% hydro, 10% nuclear, 5% undetermined (open market purchases- most recent
calendar year predominately wind).
t i ~ ~ z i z i r'ti ~ t) j t , _ , i i _ _ . t. , , . ;i✓ _ t 1 r..... : i _ ~ _ . _r . -
i C-;
; {}r art -+~a s'+_}` .~..t .t..t r _.S _,,;ti. ..t_; Pi_~.'
r F f r, jt c -`t l'• Jl~r ;mot _ ~l~rr C r r: r CjFt t _ l
At if,- , its
;L; ;1~; .~'t!~_1 ..fi!,,' '-'IBC,' ti' ,!!~1;:_. 1!~` rlt.?`-. :.:1,;,.~.~ _it ?E. j! _ _:l.. ,ii.~~ ~_i_._.~ r•; _s- . ,...!~l~;1~U:j.1
~ri! t ?
~1.??,
l
4. Large scale hydroelectric generation is defined as a clean and renewable energy source by
the US Department of Energy, US Energy Information Administration, us Environmental
Protection Agency, and Oregon Department of Energy.
5. The current contract with BPA expires Sept 30,2028.
6. The current total cost of wholesale power, including delivery and demand charges, is just
over four cents per kWh.
.,ti •.t%.~, :ir:i.- f.ritjt=F.'-°d , r _ic;o
a
--ti r Y ,.rt 3t 3i J '7 jil ?t _ r 11_
V7T of D t }rer;1Y.a t~.~J._ f r i:,
.
Ashland's Renewable Energy Requirements
1. The State of Oregon requires that all electric utilities comply with renewable portfolio standards
(RPS) that impose specific portions of the total power generation or purchases by utilities to be
from renewable sources.
tar"
` f l
~..r;i ur_i L?!f-!~"1; icy f ✓fi;
2. RPS levels are different for investor-owned utilities (Pacific Power and PGE) and consumer owned
utilities (includes municipal utilities, public utility districts and cooperatives).
3. As a municipal utility, the City has no additional RPS requirement unti12025 when the requirement
is 5% (see future section for ORS exclusions)
4. The RPS regulations exclude "existing hydro" (prior to 1995} as a qualifying resource in meeting a
utilities RPS requirement. The RPS allows upgrades to existing hydro as a qualifying resource in
meeting the RPS requirement.
Ashland's Renewable Energy Acquisition
1. Efficiency improvements to existing hydro are RPS qualifying and the City receives its proportionate
share through the issuance and transfer of RECs from BPA hydro system efficiency improvements.
2. The City has a supplemental contract with BPA for the purchase of an equivalent of 6% of its total
electricity needs through BPA's Environmentally Preferred Power (E:PP) program as renewable energy
credits (RECs).
3. The current BPA EPP contract expires Sept 30, 2016.
4. Customer-owned solar systems are not RPS qualifying because the customer owns the associated
RECs, not the City.
f-- !_~e+~~.ItSs
5. The City's local hydroelectric generation is not RPS qualifying as it is "existing hydro" (in use prior to
1995). Efficiency improvements to the hydro generator could qualify.
Ashland's Future Renewable Energy Requirements
1 . The City's state-mandated RPS requirement increases to 5% by the end of 2025.
1.The City has "banked" RECs in anticipation of future RPS needs.
lr~ r A; /-F~ F_S.J~~I,'.' 7e of the t-A
So, V 111 .~1 L,! ~ 7li j. l 4 1 Ii f4~ r i. l lr,
3. The City will have acquired enough RECs by 2025 to meet the 5% requirement through the
year 2039. During the years post 2025,the City will continue to acquire enough RECs to meet the
RPS requirement through 2048.
4. The Council has adopted a local ordinance (dubbed 10 by 20) that requires the
generation or acquisition of new, local and clean electricity equivalent to 10% of the
community's electric consumption by 2020 (individual terms not yet defined).
5. The Oregon RPS recognizes certain exceptions to the RPS (exemption from 5% requirement).
The exceptions that apply to the City are:
a. "Acquiring the additional electricity would require the electric utility to substitute
qualifying electricity for electricity from an enE,~rgy source other than coal, natural
gas or petroleum." ORS 469A.060 (1) (b), amended {HB 1547)
10 b.1 %0
6. "A consumer-owned utility is not required to comply with a renewable portfolio standard
to the extent that compliance would require the consumer-owned utility to reduce...
purchases of the lowest priced electricity from Bonneville Power Administration..." and
"applies only to firm commitments for BPA electricity that the Bonneville Power
Administration has assured will be available to a consumer-owned utility to meet agreed
portions of the consumer-owned utility's load requirements..."
ORS 469A.060 {3), amended {HB 1547)
7-Nis i o.op or the 1 .a-scnis H-le i?^ T) 1 trl;`t=.'15, !OI r tie _ric ~G io,,o k rl•_il,-i :im oT 'Lit
%ltl. !i 's !1 t::)J?{ l t,tt`? _i rycr`/l Ili b t
egM , ?c
. 1. II JI, vl lC)r t.J7 i=y.t C. 0 ;'C c ifo/+(C! i%..
l-'_,' 1`o
Policy Questions
1. What are the primary objectives of the ordinance and in what order of priority?
a. Independence from the regional electricity grid?
11 r ' Tlt_i riit✓ eta#t. :Wt10 1.`, 0,F ` t~_'•1~' t,G.:` i1'i ir i rlrl,c t(~ rl•:'~ Tor
lra!,J e i? 3 -y t.??c,-i1
' l-r/Fs.
byy. Emergency access to electricity due to regional chid failure?
rI sti+cill /??i~?%L' ioor fvtiflfn/?~ lij('a 0)o ,~F_.'1 a!!.,tr11!. t!?Zi1lii.l iiCl 1,'1 ii7
c. Carbon mitigation locally?
t
A,-r, t".srf~,:1.11~ cj , lit 710i,
r YO
d. Carbon mitigation regionally?
2. Should the ordinance be developed to utilize the State of Oregon RPS structure as defined in
Oregon Revised Statutes {ORS) as the template and model to implement the 10 by 20
ordinance?
3. Should the ordinance be developed with its own set of definitions, standards and eligible
resources separate from the State RPS structure?
-f 7-
4. If separate from the State RPS,should the local supplemental RPS include or exclude the
state RPS mandates,i.e. cumulative or additive?
5. Should the clarified goals and intent of the ordinance be incorporated into the Climate
and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) or remain as a stand-along ordinance?
~ ( , _ a ,a ,•til: i 7 : , . ~ Ltr t.?r t > . a i . . . i . : ; ? - , J c ti! lr i3. ~tt . -1;1: 1,._ t.}." tt• 3':?1] t"~,y~
6. How does the ordinance fit in with the other goals of the CEAP? Should it take
precedence both financially and in priority or should it be reviewed and evaluated
equally with the other strategies and actions within the plan?
f It'~~ :.°i f' ?t;s. ~ , _ _ _ ..r r rll, ir} ,1;. ,i~'. _ ~J; _
Ordinance Content Questions
1. What are the definitions of the following:
a. New
i. As of what date?
...+.ri t_ tr- ,7~r, i II .•'1tl tits, _f C`Z_ ;J! I .s 4_1 ~ .s< ~iG- s,r if1~._..av r'1,~1 ~i~
ti. New generation or newly acquired by the City Electric Utility?
I -7
b. Clean Resources
I. Renewable energy as defined in ORS?
O
li. City specific definition?
; -
Does that include energy efficiency, demand response?
3-
ifr}° Effii.l'c
,J.
C. Cause to be produced
i. Limited to City owned/operated generation facility?
,'~i~. t/~-'°_''"l;tf. _~3'#: t"„_ t C.t, ~~tr ~`c'11 ~i-"; ..x t+?rt~l t)~~J'; 11 i, 1
r'
ii. Purchase of qualifying electricity from others?
~ T f~~ c~ r ; ~-s.! : t i~ ! ~+i'_ -t',i • 17'jt 1'' ~~~i.•.,~1 / =
O/, 0-^S (on
PR4.
Purchase of RECs
t Tr 1 ,F•_ r r 1l, ! ' ff
Af.?St]lL 12il1l ! i%oc
'7 i °j l r t o E, ! G l f iL t!_ r! j t 1( f r'? C! 1 1 i j ~r
f L• = t l fFi;. _ ( < J'' ( 'f I 1 j~eej`
2C_ 1'
/7 8,
d. Local
s
any 1.vay
1 ~:9 L~ r:.l,ltLl t,
cl
.l
- / r ! 'ter J l a`' is for i'lr
r` ~^-~t.~'
77
°=C to
" I 1t 7=`1!'7 rL (71 ,T t rr ~tjt
i. Within City limits?
ii. Within Rogue Valley?
Within Ashland's regional balancing authority (PACW)?
iv. Within Northwest Power Pool territory?
e. 10% of electricity used in the City
i` j'oif4-,W. Sclai t "la S-u,r lll;? 1, !.vilwi 1'?'111p,n 1i o10-, V-s, ffo v..1;1c)n 11
! 1 t
i'h;?1~'~ 3Li ~,r h t 1 t; U /
C v a3~ou CCC~.
1.1 :L/ ,f -i. 7. 1 •~ii ! r t ly: l/ r' I I - = i-.T`~!'1 !'~1'.' ~ t <~Y,/1r=.i! is mcn,l .ineasI es
i. Annual consumption (as defined by state RPS standard)?
ii. Peak day demand?
iii. Average daily demand?
iv. Peak day consumption?
v, Average daily consumption?
vi. Other benchmark of electricity use?
2. What does "from and by 2020" mean?
rj, )t t
i. L !I f t. c r f Of i .l Il?
lei' tt / !i t!;~?1I i 1! / i. ! I!•,i l+?fit _1? _L J - _ l1 t It it c. 1
L.,:Elnje in;; 11 t j ? 1, 1. r irllily 7N," c' 1J Ji'lT:
tn;
a. Is that January 1, 2020 or December
31, 2020?
3. Should the ordinance contain any financial caps or limits relating/compared to the
acquisition cost of other wholesale electricity products?
cost C71 417 vi-
~VJL Over a lT.l o~. . 1 V/f~' 1 f!._ i 1
i'-
:t; C. 1~J 1 :{:_Jt (r C!::_J;11',r'frl 1-1i ) l`!_f l 1 Iv:.:
i! 1 1, t;. 7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission
Minutes September 22, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and
Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison
Gina DuQuenne Rich Rosenthal
Rich Rohde
Joshua Boettiger SOU Liaison
Tom Gunderson Megan Mercier, ;absent
Sharon Harris
Sue Crader Staff Present:
Heidi Parker Linda Reid, Housin Specialist
Michelle Linley
Commissioners Absent: Carolyn Schwendener, Staff Secretary
Tom Buechele
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Two corrections were made to last month's minutes. (Council Liaison report - Not the Chamber Board)
Rohde/Gunderson m/s to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2016 Housing and Human Services Commission
meeting with corrections. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved with corrections.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one was present to speak.
The Commissioners welcomed new member Michelle Linley and City Councilor Rich Rosenthal who was subbing
for Pam Marsh.
HOUSING CRISIS FORUM NEXT STEPS UPDATE
Rohde reported the materials that came out of the forum have been summarized and the next step is to prioritize
the direction in which to take. The Committee has recently done an exercise in strategic mapping looking at all the
players in affordable housing in Ashland and the decision makers. Some of the priorities outlined are, funding of the
Housing Trust Fund, removing barriers for tiny houses, renter's rights including a ninety day notice and looking at
some of the homeless issues. Reid commented the committee recognizes some organizations are going to want
to put all their energy into priorities locally while other organizations are needing to serve in a larger more regional
effort. If anyone is interested in attending the meetings they are held every Wednesday at 1:30 pm at the Pony
Espresso cafe located in the Washington Federal Building on Lithia Way.
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
Reid gave an overview of what the CAPER report is. This is a document required from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund program. In the
City's five year consolidated plan for the use of CDBG funds the City sets goals for what type of projects they would
like to fund. The CAPER reports the accomplishments generated by the activities funded in program year 2015 and
how those activities allow the City of make progress in meeting the outcomes and goals identified in the 2015-2019
Consolidated Plan. Reid brought attention to the fact that the City actually funded four projects in the 2015 year
grant cycle; The Maslow Project, St. Vincent DePaul, Ashland Supportive Housing and Habitat for Humanity.
Habitat for Humanity was not able to expend their funding as they did not find enough home owners to participate
in their program. The money was given back to the City. That money can be re-awarded mid-stream but would
need to go through award process again.
The Commissioners discussed the CAPER making some grammatical changes.
Harris/DuQuenne m/s to approve the CAPER with changes. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed unanimously.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Porta Potty Sub-committee update - Harris spoke with Parks Director Michael Black regarding the placing of a
porta potty on the Bear Creek Greenway/Bike path. The sub-committee is interested in placing a porta potty in the
downtown area somewhere around Ace Hardware/Food Co-op area. They would also like to see one at the south
end of town by Shop-n-Kart. Mr. Black has no problem with locating one on the bike path and offered to meet with
someone from the sub-committee to discuss the best possible place to put it. The HHS commission agreed they
still need to get approval from the Council as well as a funding source. Harris and DuQuenne will arrange a time
to meet with Mr. Black and do a site visit.
Joint H&HS & Planning Commission meeting - At a prior H&HS meeting it was suggested to have a joint meeting
with the Planning Commission at one of their study sessions. There are a lot of land use pieces to some of the
priorities that this group has, stated Reid. It was decided to meet with the Planning Commission at their October
25, 2016 Study Session at 7:00 pm at the Council Chambers. Reid will type up a brief summary of the Planning
land use activities this group has been working on and email it to the Commissioners. It was also decided it is still
necessary to have the regular H&HS Commission meeting in October.
Council - Rosenthal reported that the resolution for the winter shelter is on the City Council agenda for their
Tuesday October 18, 2016 meeting. The emergency shelter was a discussion item at their Study Session and
Council directed staff to look into the concept of contracting with an outside organization to help with the program.
This coming Sunday from 3:00 to 5:00pm is the second climate and energy action plan public open house at SOU
Stevenson Union. Potential strategies will be outlined on how to reduce our carbon footprint.
Staff - Parker and Reid attended the Homeless Task Force meeting on Tuesday in which local law enforcement
spoke to the group regarding the homeless populations. Medford, Central Point and Ashland were represented.
Each community pointed out they see very different populations of homeless in their communities. Chief O'Meara
acknowledged that Ashland has a larger population of transients who do not necessarily want services orjobs; they
are living here as a choice. Central Point police Chief Allison pointed out the population in Central Point is very
different. It tends to be transitional families who are going from housing to homelessness for one reason or another.
They see a large number of families sleeping in their cars and often experience issues of domestic violence.
Medford Chief Sparacino emphasized they primarily see peoples with mental illness and/or drug addiction and
homeless veterans.
Parker conveyed that she disagreed with Chief O'Meara's description of the homeless in Ashland. As a volunteer
if you go to the homeless shelter in the winter you will find people with mental illness as well as some who have
been abused, stated Parker. None of those people in the shelter are opposed to having shelter. Parker commented
that mischaracterization of who the homeless are makes it difficult to have compassion for people who are choosing
homelessness rather than people who are there for other reasons; bad choices through no fault of their own, poverty
or abuse. Everyone agreed they all need to work together.
Reid announced that Assistance Chief Warren Hensman is putting together a mental health training for the
Community. It is currently scheduled for October 19, 2016 at the Presbyterian Church. The date may change.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 METTING AGENDA ITEMS
Quorum Check - Everyone should be present
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Next Housing Commission Meeting - 4:30-6:30 PM; October 27, 2016 in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development & Engineering Department located at 51 Winburn Way.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
CITY OF
^ASHLAND
Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission
Minutes October 27, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and
Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison
Gina DuQuenne Pam Marsh
Rich Rohde
Joshua Boettiger SOU Liaison
Tom Gunderson Megan Mercier, absent
Sharon Harris
Tom Buechele Staff Present:
Heidi Parker Linda Reid, Housing Specialist
Michelle Linley
Commissionrs Absent: Carolyn Schwendener, Clerk
Sue Crader
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Harris/Rohde m/s to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2016 Hosing and Human Services Commission
meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one was present to speak.
DEBRIEF ON JOINT PLANNING/HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES MEETING
The Commissioners who attended the joint meeting gave an overview of what they took away from that meeting.
Commissioner Buechele remarked the meeting was very helpful acknowledging he especially like reviewing the
report from Guy Tauer, the Regional Economist from the Employment Department. Linley also said how much
she learned from that report. She appreciated the breakdown of the demographics in the Rogue Valley including
the income levels in Ashland. Rohde said the best thing the meeting accomplished was a good working
relationship with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission seemed very positive about the issues
addressed by this Commission, i.e.; Tiny houses and Accessory Residential Units.
City staff would like the Planning and HHS Commissions to select two representatives to serve on a public
participation advisory group to advise on the development and implementation of a citizen engagement plan as
part of the Comprehensive Plan Element update process.
City Senior Planner, Brandon Goldman, gave a background report on the Comprehensive Plan Element Update
Housing Element. Goldman explained the City is getting ready to update the Comprehensive Plan Housing
element. Both the HHS Commission and the Planning Commission will have an active role in making
recommendations to the City Council. Another component of that is Citizen Participation to engage everyone
affected by housing to see what they think are the priority goals. An advisory group composed of both
Commissions will help staff develop an engagement plan to take before the Planning Commission then start the
process of the Citizen Engagement part, explained Goldman. The Planning Commission has identified two
members of that group and it was encouraged that this group choose two volunteers.
Goldman went on to explain what the Comprehensive Plan is. The Comprehensive Planning is an attempt to
establish guidelines for the future growth of a Community. The document is official in nature meaning that it is
designed to be adopted into law by some form of local government. The document then serves as a policy guide
to decisions about community development.
Throughout the entire Comprehensive Planning process, citizen input should be obtained, stated Goldman.
Some suggested ways of doing this were;
• Hold a series of open forums or meetings
• Distribute news releases explaining what is being worked on and inviting written comments.
• Public adoption process citizen input helps to determine the goals and objective of the plan.
After a discussion Commissioners Harris and Linley volunteered to be on the advisory committee.
DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE HOUSING TRUST FUND
Councilor Marsh explained that she is concerned the Council is lacking an understanding of what various funding
levels for the Housing Trust Fund could produce. Marsh expressed the importance of making extremely tangible
recommendations to the Council. Marsh proposed the question, What are the various levels of funding and how
would we use those to produce housing? It's important to show the Council what they could actually attain. One
concern is that when affordable housing is offered how can it be reassured it will remain affordable. Marijuana
and potentially the excise tax are two opportunities for funding. Marsh explained this Commission's job is to give
a clear blue print of what they can accomplish. It was suggested to enclage some housing developers and see
what would attract them to Ashland.
Commissioners Buechele, Gunderson and Rohde agreed to be part of a subcommittee to put together a menu of
funding levels and projects. The subcommittee will work with Reid.
PRESENTATION BY 90 DAYS SOUTHERN OREGON
Evan Lasley, Regional organizer for the Oregon AFL-CIO and prior Housing Commission liaison spoke. Mr.
Lasley shared he was here today to talk about the campaign to establish the ninety day notice for no cause
evictions for rent increases. As the housing rental crisis worsens it affects everyone from workers to lower
income workers, stated Lasley. Families are on the edge of homelessness due to the cost of housing which is
pricing them out of their community. This is not a problem specific to Ashland but a state wide crisis, said Lasley.
It was inquired as to why landlords might give a no cause eviction to their tenants. Linley commented in her
experience a history of bad behavior can often be the reason a landlord wants to evict especially if they are
disrupting the peaceful enjoyment of the other residences. Parker mentioned she had been a mediator for
landlord tenant disputes in the courts. She explained there is a legal mechanism that can be used. If a tenant is
misbehaving for any reason a landlord can file an eviction for cause. If the tenant disputes the right of the
landlord to evict them it goes to mediation. The mediator sits with the tenant and landlord and develops very
specific language on how the tenant has to behave. The document is totally and legally enforceable. It is clearly
written and a judge must sign it. Some of the commissioners stated that though this process is well intention, it
does not always work as designed.
In conclusion Lasley would like to move the notification from thirty days to ninety days for the vast majority facing
the situation when it occurs through no fault of their own. Lasley distributed an ordinance adopted by the City of
Milwaukee relating to renters protection. See exhibit A at end of minutes. For working families this is the
compassionate thing to do, said Lasley.
The commissioners agreed to support this as a direction and leave the development of it to those who are
currently working on it.
Rohde/Buechele m/s that the Housing Commission supports the development of a ninety day notice to address
the critical rental issues we have in Ashland. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Porta Potty Sub-committee update - DeQuenne and Harris met with Jason from the Parks and Recreation
Department and spoke with Mike Morrison on the phone regarding the placement of the porta potty. They will be
meeting with Mr. Morrison tomorrow at 1:00 pm to discuss some possible sites. Possible locations are Ace
Hardware or the railroad park at the north end of town and Bimart/Shop-N-Kart at the south end. Harris said they
need to do the ground work and come up with possible sites before presenting to the Council. Funding also needs
to be addressed.
Reid reminded the Commission that Mr. Morris does not have the authority to authorize the funding for the porta
potties. She encouraged the Commission to seek direction from the Council before moving forward, put together
proposal to bring before the council.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 METTING AGENDA ITEMS
Quorum Check - Everyone should be present
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Next Housing Commission Meeting - 4:30-6:30 PM; October 17, 2016 in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development & Engineering Department located at 51 Winburn Way.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment of an Interim City Administrator
FROM:
John Stromberg, Mayor, john@council.ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This item confirms the appointment of Fire Chief John Karns as Interim City Administrator.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the November 21, 2016 special meeting, Council agreed to accept Dave Kanner's resignation as the
City Administrator and to consider Chief John Karns as the Interim City Administrator until such time
as a recruitment process can be completed.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
n/a
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION :
None
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval of the appointment of Fire Chief John Karns as Interim City Administrator for the
City of Ashland
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Expenditures from Proceeds of Tax-Exempt Obligations
FROM:
Beverly Adams, Interim Administrative Services/Finance Director. bev.adamsAashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
This is a resolution stating the City's intention to reimburse operating budget expenses incurred on the
water reservoir project prior to issuance of financing.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The 2015-17 adopted biennial budget includes plans to install a new reservoir serving the Crowson and
Granite service areas to meet storage deficiencies. This project includes a pre-design study to confirm
storage requirements and evaluate piping to the reservoir.
Prior to the issuance of tax-exempt debt, there will be certain expenditures incurred on the project.
These are direct expenses of the project for which the City finds it necessary to be reimbursed from the
proceeds of the obligations. In order to seek reimbursement on expenses incurred prior to financing,
the Council must first declare the "intent" to do so in resolution form.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
This project is not specifically identified as a goal; but Council goals do include improvements to City
infrastructure and completion of projects.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The planning and financing of this capital project fit within the City's capital improvement practices
and the current budget. The intent to reimburse does not increase nor change the cost of the project. It
does protect the operating/services budget of the originating department by providing for the
reimbursement of upfront costs (which often includes staff time and other expenses) that may have
been incurred by the department leading up to construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION::
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland,
Oregon declaring its intention to reimburse expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt obligations."
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Page 1 of 1
1 LAC I
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND,
OREGON DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF TAX-F',XEMPT OBLIGATIONS
RECITALS:
A. The City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon (the "Issuer") desires to finance the costs of
a new reservoir expected to service the Crowson and Granite service areas, including a pre-
design study to confirm storage requirements and evaluation of the piping to the Crowson
reservoir (the "Project"); and
B. The Issuer intends to finance costs of the Project or portions thereof with the proceeds of the
sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from. gross income for federal income
tax purposes (the "Obligations"); and
C. Prior to the issuance of the Obligations the Issuer desires to incur certain capital expenditures
(the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of the Issuer; and
D. The City Council of the Issuer has determined that those moneys advanced to pay the
Expenditures prior to the issuance of the Obligations are available only for a temporary period
and it is necessary to reimburse the Issuer for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the
Obligations.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Issuer hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse
Expenditures of the Project paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations with proceeds of the
Obligations.
SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Obligations is
$9,000,000.
SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the
Issuer paid its first Expenditure on the Project to be reimbursed from proceeds of the Obligations
(excluding certain preliminary expenditures which may have been paid before that date).
SECTION 4. The Issuer will make a reimbursement allocation., which is a written allocation that
evidences the Issuer's use of proceeds of the Obligations to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than
18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in
service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure
is paid.
SECTION 5. This resolution is adopted as official action of the Issuer in order to comply with
Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service
relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Expenditures of the Issuer incurred prior to the
date of issue of the Obligations.
SECTION 6. The Finance Director of the Issuer is hereby authorized to make future declarations
of intent to reimburse under Section 1.150-2 of the Federal Income Tax Regulations, on behalf of
the Issuer and without further action by the City Council. All such future declarations shall be in
writing and the original or a certified copy of each declaration shall be maintained in the public
records of the Issuer.
SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of December, 2016.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of December, 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Revenue for
Marijuana Tax Collection
FROM:
City Administration, administration@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR) under which
the DOR will collect and remit to the City our local marijuana tax revenues. The DOR will also be
responsible for auditing taxpayers for the accuracy of payment. For administration purposes, the DOR
will withhold 4% of the total local tax revenue to pay its costs of collection and auditing. Actual costs
will be assessed and "trued up" annually using a formula that takes into account the number of
taxpayers in the locality, an administrative services fee and a business fee.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In the November 8, 2016, election, Ashland voters approved a 3% tax on the retail sale of recreational
marijuana by state-licensed retailers in the City. This tax is assessed on top of a 17% tax imposed by
the state. In anticipation of this tax, which becomes effective January 1, Finance staff created a set of
administrative rules governing tax collection. The rules were intended to address staff concerns about
large amounts of cash coming in to City Hall and were based in some measure on draft rules that had
been promulgated by the DOR for the collection of the state tax.
In early November, the DOR announced that it would collect local marijuana taxes on behalf of cities
and counties assessing such a tax if those local jurisdictions signed and returned the attached
intergovernmental agreement by January 15, 2017. Staff believes it is in the city's best interest to allow
the state to collect and remit the tax not only because of the cash handling issue, but because the city's
auditors have made it clear that they will not audit marijuana-related businesses on our behalf. The
DOR agreement provides not only for collection and remittance but also for auditing.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is difficult to predict how much revenue Ashland 3% marijuana tax will generate. Staff had
previously estimated $20-30,000 annually based on an extrapolation of state projections for its
marijuana tax. If the 4% estimate of administrative cost holds, the cost to the city at the high end of the
estimate would be $1,200 per year.
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the intergovernmental agreement and allowing the DOR to collect
marijuana taxes on our behalf.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval of a Marijuana Tax Collection Agreement with the Oregon Department of Revenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
Marijuana Tax Collection Agreement
Page 2 of 2
~r
MARIJUANA TAX COLLECTION AGREEMENT
This Marijuana Tax Collection Agreement ("Agreement') is entered into between the
State of Oregon, acting by and through its Department of Revenue (the "Department") and the
City of Ashland ("City"), under the authority of ORS 305.620.
In consideration of the conditions and promises hereinafi er contained, it is mutually
agreed by the parties that the Department shall supervise and administer, according to the terms
and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Local Tax on sales of marijuana items by
Marijuana Retailers authorized under ORS 47513.345 and approved by the voters of Ashland.
(1) Definitions. As used in this Agreement the following terms have the meanings
ascribed to them:
(a) "Confidential Information" means the information on Local Tax returns administered
pursuant to ORS 305.620, any information in the reports required under Sections 8 and 9 of this
Agreement from which information about a particular Local Taxpayer is discernable from the
report due to a small number of Local Taxpayers in City or similar factors, and any other
information exchanged between the Department and City related to this Agreement, that is
confidential under ORS 314.835.
(b) "Fees" means collectively the Administrative Services Fee, the Business Fee and the
Core Systems Replacement Fee described in Section 5 of this Agreement.
(c) "Local Government" means a city or county that has entered into a form of this
agreement with the Department under the authority of ORS 305.620 for the Department to
collect Local Taxes authorized under ORS 47513.345.
(d) "Local Tax" or "Local Taxes" means the Marijuana Tax imposed by City, together
with any additional interest or penalties provided for by statute or the Department's rules; it does
not include any additional penalties or fees that City may assess against its Local Taxpayers.
(e) "Local Taxpayer" means a licensed Marijuana Retailer located in the taxing
jurisdiction of City.
(f) "Marijuana Retailer" has the meaning given in ORS 475B.015.
(g) "Marijuana Tax" means the tax imposed on sales of marijuana items by Marijuana
Retailers pursuant to ORS 475B.345.
(h) "Marijuana Taxpayer" means a licensed Marijuana Retailer that is subject to the
Marijuana Tax imposed by a Local Government.
7777588-v1
Page 1of14
(1) "Ordinance" means the ordinance adopted by the governing body of City and
approved by the voters of City on November 8, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein.
(2) General Administration. The Department shall be responsible for all aspects of
Local Tax administration, including, but not limited to, adopting; administrative rules; auditing
returns; assessing deficiencies and collecting the Local Tax and penalties and interest under
applicable statutes, including but not limited to ORS 305.265, ORS 305.220, and ORS 314.400;
making refunds; holding conferences with Local Taxpayers; handling appeals to the Oregon Tax
Court; issuing warrants for the collection of unpaid taxes; determining the minimum amount of
Local Tax economically collectible; and taking any other action necessary to administer and
collect the Local Taxes. The Department has adopted rules addressing the requirements for
paying taxes with currency and other matters related to the taxation of marijuana under ORS
chapter 475B. City understands and agrees that such rules will be applied to Local Taxpayers.
(3) Level of Service. In performing its duties, the Department may in its sole discretion
determine what action shall be taken to enforce provisions of the law and to collect the Local
Tax. In exercising its discretion, the Department shall. provide a level of services that are
comparable to the level of services it provides in the administration of the State of Oregon
marijuana tax laws and the collection of such taxes owed to the State of Oregon. If the
Department deems it necessary to vary substantially from this standard, the Department shall
first notify City of the need and obtain City's consent. The Department shall provide all forms
necessary for implementation of the Local Tax, including forms for Marijuana Tax returns,
exemptions and refunds.
(4) Transfer of Taxes to City/County. Beginning at the end of the first full quarter
after execution of this Agreement, the Department shall remit to City the amount of Local Taxes
collected in the preceding quarter less amounts withheld to pay the Department's Fees and other
costs as described in this Agreement within 60 days of the return due date for the quarter. The
Department shall notify City if, because of inability to move funds electronically or otherwise
through the banking system, a force majeure event described in Section 26 of this Agreement or
other exigent circumstance, the Department is unable to transfer the Local Tax collected to City
as provided in this Section. In that event, the Department shall provide an estimate, if possible,
of when it expects to be able to transfer the Local Taxes collected to City. The Department may
enter into an agreement with another state government agency to fulfill the requirements of this
Section 4, provided that said government agency can comply with the requirements of this
section.
(5) Costs. In order to recover its costs to collect and transfer the Local Tax as provided
in this Agreement the Department shall be paid the following three fees:
7777588-v1
Page 2of14
(a) "Administrative Services Fee": Pays for the establishment and maintenance of
financial systems needed to administer and distribute Local Taxes. The fee shall be calculated
annually as a percentage of the equivalent of 60 hours of work conducted for the Department of
Revenue by the Department of Administrative Services, divided among the Local Governments
in proportion to the number of Marijuana Taxpayers in each Local Government.
(b) "Business Fee": Pays for the Local Tax administration activities set forth in this
Agreement. The fee shall be calculated as a percentage of the Department's Business Division
annual expenses for the administration of all marijuana taxes, with the total fee increasing in
direct proportion to the number of Local Taxpayers. The total amount per Local Taxpayer billed
to City under the Business Fee shall not exceed 0.05 percent of the Department's Business
Division expenses for the administration of all marijuana taxes;
(c) "Core Systems Replacement fee": Charged only one time after execution of this
Agreement and calculated as a flat fee per Local Taxpayer. The total Core Systems Replacement
Fee shall not exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00) per Local Taxpayer in the first full quarter
following execution of this Agreement.
FOR EXAMPLE, in a hypothetical with the following assumptions:
250 Marijuana Taxpayers
50 Local Taxpayers in the City of Mainville
2 Local Taxpayers in the City of Middletown
Business Division's Marijuana Expenses: $500,000 per year
Hourly DAS rate: $99/hour
The fees would be calculated as follows:
Administrative Services Fee = ($99/hour * 60 hours) / 250 Marijuana Taxpayer =
$23.76 per Local Taxpayer per year
Business Fee = $500,000 in marijuana expenses per year * 0.05% _ $250 per
Local Taxpayer per year
Core Systems Replacement Fee = $200 per Local Taxpayer, one time
City of Mainville, year 1: ($23.76 Administrative Services Fee + $250 Business
Fee + $200 Core Systems Replacement Fee) * 50 Local Taxpayers = $23,688 in
costs
City of Mainville, subsequent years: ($23.76 Administrative Services Fee + $250
Business Fee) * 50 Local Taxpayers = $13,688 in costs
7777588-v1
Page 3 of 14
City of Middletown, year 1: ($23.76 Administrative Services Fee + $250 Business
Fee + $200 Core Systems Replacement Fee) * 2 Local Taxpayers = $947.52 in
costs
City of Middletown, subsequent years: ($23.76 Administrative Services Fee +
$250 Business Fee) * 2 Local Taxpayers = $547.52 in costs
(e) In addition to the Fees described above, the Department may withhold or invoice City
for the Department's costs to administer extraordinary services not described in this Agreement
related to the Local Tax; such extraordinary costs may include, without limitation, requests for
audits from City that exceed the scope of the Department's normal audit procedures, requests for
research or advice from the Department or the Oregon Department of Justice attorneys, or
specially appointed counsel, regarding the Local Tax.
(f) If the Department determines that its costs cannot be covered by the maximum fees
outlined in this Section 5, the Department will notify City of the amount by which the
Department has determined the Fees must increase. If the Department and City do not agree
upon a Fee increase and related amendment to this Agreement, then this Agreement may be
terminated by either party in accordance with Section 16 of this Agreement.
(g) The Department shall not collect more in fees than its costs to administer the Local
Tax, per ORS 305.620(5). It is using the above formula in the interests of producing its best
estimate of costs.
(6) Withholding for Fees and Rebate. The Department shall withhold from the Local
Taxes collected and each transfer to City an amount equal to four percent (4%) of the Local
Taxes collected. In the first quarter of each calendar year the Department will reconcile the
amounts withheld in the previous year with the total fees assessed, and provide such
reconciliation in the Department's annual report described in Section 10 of this Agreement. If
the amount withheld in a calendar year exceeds the amount of the Department's Fees, the
Department will rebate the balance of the Local Taxes withheld to City by the end of the first
quarter following the year of withholding. If the amount withheld does not cover the
Department's Fees for the preceding year, the amount of the shortfall will be withhold from
subsequent transfers of Local Taxes collected until the Department's Fees are fully paid, or in its
discretion the Department may invoice City for the unpaid amount of the Department's Fees.
(7) Recovery of Overpayments. If the amount of Local Taxes paid to City under this
Agreement, exceed the amount to which City is entitled, the Department may, after notifying
City in writing, withhold from later payments due City under this Agreement, such amounts,
over such periods of time, as are necessary to recover the amount of the overpayment.
(8) Department Quarterly Reports. Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after
the execution of this Agreement and continuing each calendar quarter thereafter, within sixty
7777588-v1
Page 4 of 14
(60) days after the due date for quarterly Local Tax returns, the ]Department shall provide City
with a report indicating the amount of Local Taxes collected, any extraordinary costs assessed,
the amount withheld under Section 6 of this Agreement and the cumulative amount of delinquent
Local Taxes for each Marijuana Retailer in City's jurisdiction. The information in this report
must be treated as potentially revealing Confidential Information, and shall be protected as
described in Section 15. City should make all efforts to prevent Confidential Information from
being released. The Department and City shall disclose any non-. confidential information in a
report when required to do so by law, including the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410
to 192.505.
(9) Department Annual Reports. In the first calendar quarter of each year, the
Department shall make a written annual report of the preceding calendar year to City showing
the total amount of Local Taxes collected, refunds paid, the expenses of administering and
collecting the Local Tax, and other pertinent information. The report shall show the total amount
withheld by the Department under Section 6 of this Agreement, and shall show the Department's
expenses by its Fee categories. In such report, the Department shall also make recommendations
concerning changes in Local Tax Ordinances, procedures, policies, Local Tax administration and
related matters, as the Department deems necessary and appropriate. The information in this
report must be treated as potentially Confidential Information, and shall be protected as
described in Section 15. City should make all efforts to prevent Confidential Information from
being released. The Department and City shall disclose any non-confidential information in the
report when required to do so by law, including the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410
to 192.505.
(10) City Reports. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Agreement, City
shall provide the Department with a list of Local Taxpayers in its jurisdiction and a list of zip
code areas that are within its jurisdiction for purposes of imposing the Local Tax. City shall
provide an updated list of Local Taxpayers to the Department each calendar quarter thereafter.
City shall review all reports and reconciliations provided by the Department and promptly notify
the Department of any perceived errors or omission in such reports.
(11) Records Maintenance and Access. Each party shall maintain its records relevant
to this Agreement, the Local Taxes and Local Taxpayers for the period of time specified and in
the manner required under the document retention and archiving; requirements applicable to it
that are established under ORS 192.005 to 192.170. Upon written request, each party may
examine the records of the other party at a time and location that is convenient and without extra
cost to the holder to the records; provided, however, any requests for records made in connection
with litigation or other efforts to collect the Local Tax shall be immediately provided in the time
and manner requested.
(12) Ordinance and Notification of Changes. Contemporaneous with the execution of
this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of the Ordinance to Department for incorporation into
7777588-v1
Page 5 of 14
this Agreement as Exhibit B. In order to insure consistency in administration of the Local Tax,
each party shall notify the other of any change in the Ordinance and any state or local regulations
or rulings interpreting the Local Tax or the Ordinance, any changes in rates or changes in the
City's boundary at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective change, unless it is not legally
possible to provide ninety (90) days' notice or both parties mutually agree to effect such changes
in less than ninety (90) days. Each party shall notify the other of any change in administration of
the Local Tax under this Agreement. The parties shall cooperate in amending the Ordinance or
in seeking amendments to ORS 47513.345 or ORS 305.620 which they deem necessary.
(13) Information. The parties will cooperate in the exchange of information and
making public announcements to facilitate effective administration of the Local Tax and
maintain consistency in public announcements and information. Policy announcements,
announcement of changes in the Ordinance, and all correspondence relating to public relations
will be handled by City. The Department shall promptly notify City of any matter arising in the
administration of the Marijuana Tax that would require any legislative change or affect City's
policy, including any policy that relates to the amount of Local 'Fax collected. Nothing in this
section shall prohibit the Department from conducting its own outreach activities to increase
awareness and knowledge of local tax obligations.
(14) Limits and Conditions. To the extent limited by applicable provisions of Article
XI of the Oregon Constitution or other governing law, and within the limits of the Oregon Tort
Claims Act applicable respectively to the Department and City, each party shall indemnify the
other for damage to life or property arising from their respective! duties and obligations under this
Agreement, provided neither party shall be required to indemnify the other for any such liability
arising out of a party's own negligent or wrongful acts.
(15) Confidentiality.
(a) Confidential Information may be disclosed only to City as principal, by the
Department as its agency, for purposes of carrying out the administration of the Local Tax
imposed by City. Requests for Confidential Information shall be made by City by giving not less
than ten (10) days' notice to the Department, stating the information desired, the purposes of the
request, and the use to be made of such information. If the compilation of information is not
feasible, the Department shall so advise City.
(b) ORS 314.840(3) requires that employees and representatives of City who receive
Confidential Information must be advised in writing of the provisions of ORS 314.835 and
314.991(3), relating to the penalties for unlawful disclosure. Prior to being given access to
Confidential Information, all City employees involved in the performance of this Agreement
must review the DOR Secrecy Clause and sign the DOR Secrecy Laws Certificate (substantially
in the form of Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein) certifying the
employee understands the confidentiality laws and the penalties for violating them. Annually
7777588-v1
Page 6 of 14
thereafter, (on or before a date specified by the Department), such City employees must review
and sign the latest versions of the Secrecy Clause and the Secrecy Laws Certificate. All signed
Secrecy Laws Certificates must be immediately emailed to both the designated Department
Authorized Representative (indicated below) and the Department's Disclosure Office
(disclosure. office@oregon.gov). When the employee terminates, City will forward the certificate
to the Department's Disclosure Officer. A listing of every person authorized to request and
receive Confidential Information identified in this Agreement will be sent to the following
designated representative:
John Galvin, Marijuana Tax Program Manager, marijuaiiatax.DOR@oregon.gov
(c) Upon request and pursuant to the instructions of DOR, City shall return or destroy all
copies of Confidential Information provided by DOR to City, and City shall certify in writing the
return or destruction of all such Confidential Information.
(d) The administrative rules implementing ORS 314.835 and ORS 314.840 as amended
from time to time during the term of this Agreement, shall apply to this Agreement.
(16) Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date it is executed by all
parties and until it is terminated by operation of law or by either party at its discretion upon at
least ninety (90) days prior written notice. Prior to the termination date specified in written
notice provided under this section or Section 17 below, City and the Department will continue to
perform their respective duties and obligations of under this Agreement. After the termination
date, the Department will cease all collection and other activities under this Agreement, unless
prior to the termination date the Department and City agree in writing that the Department may
continue actions that are pending before the Oregon Tax Court or the Oregon Supreme Court, or
are being collected after j udgment or stipulation. In addition, after the termination date the
Department will continue to remit to City any Local Taxes received by the Department, after
deduction of the Department's actual costs, until all matters pending on the date of termination
have been resolved or collected. The Department will administer the Local Tax for City for each
calendar quarter commencing after this Agreement is executed; provided, however, if this
Agreement is fully executed on or before the 15th day of the calendar quarter, the Department
will administer the Local Tax for the quarter in which this Agreement is executed.
(17) Default and Remedies. A party shall be in default under this Agreement if it fails
to perform any of its duties and obligations under this Agreement, and fails to cure such
nonperformance within ninety (90) days after the other party provides written notice specifying
the nature of the nonperformance. If the nonperforming party does not cure its nonperformance,
or provide a satisfactory explanation to the other party of its performance under this Agreement,
the other party may terminate this Agreement immediately or at a later date specified in written
notice provided to the nonperforming party. In addition to termination of this Agreement, in the
7777588-v1
Page 7of14
event of default by a nonperforming party, the other party may pursue any remedies available in
law or equity, including an action for specific performance.
(18) Notices. All notices, documents, and information shall be sent as follows:
City of Ashland Oregon Department of Revenue
Attn. Accounts Receivable Marijuana Tax Program
20 E. Main St. PO Box 14630
Ashland, OR 97520 Salem, OR 97309
(19) Amendments. The provisions of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered,
modified, supplemented, or amended, in any manner whatsoever, except by written instrument
signed by both parties.
(20) Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding and inure to the benefit
of the parties, their assigns, and successors.
(21) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement s'hall be held invalid or
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.
(22) Representations. Each party represents to the other that the making and
performance of this Agreement: (a) have been duly authorized by its governing body or official,
(b) does not and will not violate any provision of any applicable law, rule, regulation, or order of
any court, regulatory commission, board or other administrative agency or any provision of any
applicable local charter or other organizational document, and (c) do not and will not result in the
breach of, or constitute a default or require any consent under any other agreement or instrument
to which the party is bound.
(23) Governing Law, Consent to Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of
conflicts of law. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively "Claim") between the
Department and City regarding the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement shall be
brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for the
State of Oregon. The parties understand and agree that any action brought to determine the
amount of Local Tax owed by a Local Taxpayer, whether brought solely by the Department or in
conjunction with City shall be brought solely in the Oregon Tax Court.
(24) Nonappropriation. The obligation of each party to perform its duties under this
Agreement is conditioned upon the party receiving funding, appropriations, limitation, allotment,
or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow the party, in the exercise of its reasonable
administrative discretion, to meet its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing in this
7777588-v1
Page 8 of 14
Agreement may be construed as permitting any violation of Article XI, sections 7 or 10 of the
Oregon Constitution or any other law limiting the activities, liabilities or monetary obligations of
each party.
(25) Survival. All rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement will cease
upon termination of the Agreement, other than the rights and obligations arising under Sections
141 16 and 17, and those rights and obligations that by their express terms survive termination of
this Agreement; provided, however, that termination of this Agreement will not prejudice any
rights or obligations accruing to a party prior to termination.
(26) Force Maieure. Neither party is responsible for any failure to perform or any delay
in performance of an obligation under this Agreement caused by fire, civil unrest, labor unrest,
natural causes, or war, which is beyond that party's reasonable control. Each party shall,
however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such cause of failure to perform or
delay in performance and shall, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of
its obligation under this Agreement.
(27) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which
when taken together shall constitute one agreement, notwithstanding that all parties are not
signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed constitutes an
original.
(28) Merger. This Agreement and any exhibits constitute the entire agreement between
the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements or
presentations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement.
Each party represents that this Agreement, when fully executed and delivered will
constitute a legal, valid and binding obligation of the party in accordance with its terms, and that
the person signing below is the authorized representative of the party with full power and
authority to bind his/her principal to this Agreement.
Oregon Department of Revenue City/County:
Name/Title: Name/Title:
Signature: Signature:
Date signed: Date signed:
EXHIBIT A
7777588-v1
Page 9 of 14
DOR
SECRECY CLAUSE
and
SECRECY LAWS CERTIFICATE
This page intentionally left blank
7777588-v1
Page 10 of 14
0 R E G O N
DEPARTMENT SECRECY CLAUSE
+4W 0F REVENUE
Taxpayer infori-nation is confidential and protected by Oregon law. (Drily authorized persons may have
access to taxpayer information, or(to secure buildings where taxpayer information is handled. Oregon
lavv requires that you sign a Secrecy Certificate before bc-ing allo Yved access to this 4.onfi dential informa-
tion or secure areas. BN' signing the certificate, you certify that you understand the confidentiality lag's
and the penalties for violating them.
This applies to evciA'one %vith access to trasxpayer information, inClUdini.":
• Department of Revenue employees
• Employees of other government agencies
• Vc3ndors and contractors
• Business partners
'Penalties i unauthorized disclosure of state tax infonnation
• Income tax'- _la s C felony; Lip to Sl25,O(X) fine, LIP to f'id'e years ii2 prisonment; dismissal from state
employment; no public office for five tears. [ORS )14.c=)1(?)j
• Inlleritance tax---Class C teIOII , LIP to fide; Lip to fis't' vears imprisonment; dismissal f1*0111
state employ meat; no public office for fire tears. [ORS 118.(40O(_))]
• Industrial property tax--Up to find; Lila to one vcar imprisonment. [C_)RS "08. 0 5j]
• Timber tax-Up to 55,000 fine; dismissal from state employment. (ORS ?l .ti*
• Emplo~-ineiat Departmetlt-Nlza\ result in dismissal from state c~iZ1~. loN meat, or caller discipline.
Ti i(-)R`' _ 13,.}.x.31. 1,411- hiA fORs
t't#,t'#wt t1 t:~##,##a7 # :.a it7_ = t_ ~ ~ i f y.? :>tlt, i+## s71111 "I'l- JULth #7 hi (()R,`+ ?2-:x.1,' ' }t}dmli
#:S )t'd rP!'i{tit. t`' A i CIt\`+ )1 7
Penalties i unauthorized disclosure i federal tax infoffnation
• IRC Sect. 721 y-Feloiw; Lip to S:,,(X)O fine; imprisonment of Lip to five vears, cost cat PrOSeCLition,
damages".
• IRC Sect. 7213A-L:p to Sl,O(K fine, imprisonnient of up to one gear, cast of prosecution, damages".
t» ~ J
, -t -.4'4 # 1 19} 1 t,:#, ~3, t I 1r4 ;;d, #t7i , 'I7 . :i ,z , f~ .1.73#t.a,c:: 11t 31i>7.icr. e T `d' # jt:#, r~i r#Id;s r' ai #a
_t 7. i
7777588-v1
Page 11 of 14
+ Transient loll ing tali
• ORS .2t)..
+ Cigarette taa iti RS 23.41;13
I'lease• read the following la-,vs, They explain the types of
+ Tobacco products tax O1Z5 " T
information that are confidential, If you have que-,tions
during vour emplot'n-tent or perforn-iance of dutitti, a'_+1<: * Em rgencv communications tax ORS ~s 5~~
.
your supervisor or a DlsClosure officer before acCc +l i1 L; or ; tlil and gas production tax ORS 1.1;
disclosing information. + Hazardous stli.tstances tax ORS 4; } 11i)
After reading this information, fill out the last page and re- + l'• troleLim product-, tax ORS --65."124
turn it to the Department of Revenue. Keep the ether pages
for your records, Oregon Inheritance Tax Laws
ORS 118,?2~
Oregon •
ORS 314.835 { 1) It shall be unlav,-ful for the Department of Revenue or
any of its officers, or employees to divulge or make- krim"-11
(1) Except as otherwise specificallY provided in rules ad- in any manne=r any particulars disclosed in any return or
opted under ORS .34)5,19 3 or in ether law, it shall be unlawful supporting data rIegUired Under this chapter. Except for
for the Department of Revenue or any officer or em lovee of executors or beneficiaries and their authorized representa-
the department to divulge or make k.ncwn in any planner the tires, it shell be unlawful for any person or entity who has
amount of income, e, expense, deduction, exclusion or creditor acylltred information pursuant to sub`icction'+ and (4)
aily particulars set forth or disclosed in any report or return
of this section to divulge or make known such information
required in the administration of ORS 3110.6 30 to 10,70(1,
for : nv- purpose ether than that vpecified in the provisions
required in the administration of any local tax pur-:uant to
Ott l
ORS . i5.(,2i), or required tinder a law imposing a tax upon or :tt authorizing the use or disclosure. No subpoena or
ui,_Ial order shall be issued compelling the department,
pleasured bt- net income. It shall be Unlawful for any person i
persons described In subsec-
,t officers or of crnplot'ees,
c}r entity to tyhonl information is disclosed or gIl`eI1 the or it
department pursuant to ORS 31.1.840 (2) or anv other proyi- ti on,, ( and (1) , ~f thi=; secti or on, pto dit_ulge or make kno%Vn
any particulars disclosed in any such return or supporting
-ion of stake la« to diyiilge or use such information for ant
purpose other than that specified in the provisions of late data except where the liability for inheritance taxes is to be
adjudicated bv the t ~regt~p Tax Court. Nothing in this sec-
authlri ing the use or disclosure. goo subp~ na or judicial
order shall be issued compelling the department or any of its tion shall prohibit t11e publication of statistics so classified
. lars in any return
officers or employees, or ant` person who has acquired infor- as to prevent the identification of particl.I
mation pursuant to ORS 3314.810 (2) or any other provision of or supporting data covered by this -action.
titan late to divulge or make knoivn the amount of income, 12 used in this section:
expe nse', deduction, excltlsi(tn or credit or ant- particulars set
forth or disclosed in any report or return except .-here the ta) "Officer," -employee" or "person" includes an autho-
taxpaver`s liability for income tax is to be' adjudicated by the ri/ed representative of the officer, employee or person,
court from which such process issues. or former officer, employee or person, or an authorized
rL'presentatiye of such former officer, employee or person.
As used in this section: a) "Officer," "`employee" or "person" includes an autho- [b) "Particulars' includes, but is not limited to, a tax-
payer's name', address, telephone number, 5cxial' e irity
rued representative of the officer, emplo%ce or person, or
number and the amount cif refund claimed by or granted
any former officer, employee or person, or an authorized
to a taxpayer
representative of such former officer, employee or person.
ib) "Particulars" includes, but is not limited to, a tax- OR', I18.c)'10
paver's name, address, telephone number, 'Sxx.ial Seca- i Violation of ORS 11'S,.5'S Is a Class L felony. If the offencl-
rity number, employer identification number or other er is an officer or employee of the state the offender shall be
taxpayer identification number and the amount of refund dismissed from office and shall be incapable of holding any
claimed by granted to a taxpayer. public office in thi . state for a period of five years thereafter.
ORS 114.901
(2) Violation of ORS 31483; is a Class C f€>lonv. It the offender Oregon Prop" Tax Laws
is an officer or employee of the state the offender shall beORS 8.29t1
dismissed from office and shall be incapable of holding any
public office in this state for a period of five years thereafter, { 11)(ii) All returns filed under the provisions of this section
and ORS _108,525 and }'08,810 are confidential records of the
applicability to other tax progranis Department of Revenue or the count-v assessor's office in
The above provisions of ORft.1. 1. concerning the confiden- which the returns are filed or of the office to %vhich the re-
tialitv of returns and penalties, also apply to: turns are fonvarded under paragraph (b) of this subsection.
7777588-v1
Page 12 of 14
CARS 308.413 or judicial order shell be issued compelling; the department
or ,an%- of its officers or employees, or any person v,-ho has
(1) .any information furnished to the counh assessor or to
aLA:,uired information pursuant to ORS 3'11,f,84 (2') or any
the Department of Revenue under ORS 308.411 which is
rather prof Isle>n of stake late", to dI~"Lll;;e or make known the
obtained upon the condition that it b kept confidential shell
amount of tax or any particulars set forth or disclosed in
be confidential records of the office in %%-hiich the information
ant" report or return except where the taxpayer's liability-
Is kept, except as follot's;
for timber tax i , to be adjudicated by the court from ,vhich
(a) All information furnished to the counh- as-A_tisor shall Lie such process issues.
available to the department and all information furnished
to the department shall Lv available to the count- assessor, S used in this section, "officer," "employee" or "per-
(b) All information furnished to the counhassessor or soil 3 includes in authorized representative of the officer,
department shall be available to any reviewing authority employee or person, or any former officer, employee or per-
m any Subsequent =appeal, Son, or in authorized representative of such farmer officer,
enlplc~vee or l'am' CsOn.
{c) The department may publish statistics bated on the
information furnished if the statistics are so classified as to ORS 321.681
prevent the identification of the particular industrial plant. Viol=ation of ORS 321.682 is subject to a fine not exceeding
i2 -he Department of Revenue shall make rules governing SD., "Ot or, if ccananlitttti bv an officer or employee of the state,
the cc~nhdentialih• of information under this section, dismissal or removal from office or employment, or both
fine and dismissal or removal front office or employment.
(:5) Each officer or employee of the Department of Revenue
or the office of the county assessor to whom dI--_-losure or ac-
cess of the information made confidential under subsection Oregon Employment Department
1) of this :section is given, prior to beginning; employment ORS 6771.665
or the performance of duties involving such disclosure. shall
be advised in writing of the provisions of this Section and (4) Che Employment Department may; (1) Disclose in-
ORS 318.0140 (5) relating to penalties for the violation of this formation to the Dep=artment of Revenue for the purpose
section, and shall as a condition of employment or perto r- of performing its duties under ORS 2(43.25;O or tinder the
mance of duties execute a certificate for the department or revenue and tax laxvs of this state. The information disclosed
the assessor in a form prescribed by the department, stating may include the names and addresses of employers and
in substance that the person has read this section and ORS employees and payroll data of emplo%ers and eniployces.
308,000 (5), that these sectioits have been explained to the The infornaation disclosed is confidential and may not be
person and that the person is aware of the penalties for vio- disclosed by the Department of Revenue in any manner that
attic">n of this section. Would identify an employing unit or employee except to the
ORS 308.490 extent necessarv to carry out the department's duties Linder
CSR`, 20 3.2150 or in auditing or revielving ally report or return
(5) Subject to ORS 15111221, anv willful violation of ORS required or permitted to be filed Linder the revenue and tax
>f)t` Ala or of any rules adopted under ORS 308,413 Is pun- law, administered by the department. T7ae Department of
ishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding 510,().) Revenue may not disclose any information received to any
or by imprisonment in the count' (ail for not more than one private collection agency or for any other purpose. If the
year. or bt both. Information disclosed under this paragraph is not prepared
for the tine of the Employment Department, the costs of
• - • Tax Laws disclosing the information shall be paid by the Department
of Revenue.
ORS 3' 1.682
16) .any person or any officer or employee, of in entity to
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided by lace, it shall xvhom information is disclosed by the Employment De-
be unlawful for the Department of Revenue or any officer partmelat under this section who divulges or uses the in-
or employee, of the department to divLilge or make knocvia formation for anti- purpose other than that specified in the
in an v manner the amount of the tax or any particulars Set rcnlion caf lac, ar a ~rec>ment authiiri in the use c7r clisclo
forth or disclosed in any report or return required to Lie filed T ~ 1'
under ORS 321.1)45 or 321.; 41 or any appraisal data collected Sure may tat: disqualified from performing any servCe under
to make determinations of specialIv assessed value of forest contract or disqualified from holding any appointment or
l employment ivith the state agency that engaged or em-
} - '1.2111 to 32' l.'?', It shall be finite, fti
land pursuant to ORS 5~
for ant- person or entih, to whom information is disclosed or plo%ed that person, officer or employee. The Employment
given b~ the ciepartnaent pLlrsuant tea t?R 3?I.h81Q) or anti Department may immediately cancel or nwclifv any infor-
other provision of state lacv to divulge or use such informa_ oration sharing agreement with an entity when a person or
tion for any purpose other than that Specified in the provi- all officer or eniplovee of that entity discloses confidential
signs of lac, authorizing the use or disclosure, No subpoena information, other than as specified in laxv or agreement.
7777588-v1
Page 13 of 14
SECRECY LAWS CERTIFICATE
O R E G O N
' DEPARTMENT Required by ORS 314,840(3), ORS 118.525(6).
OF REVENUE ®RS308.413(3),ORS321.684
I have read the laws pro1 ibiting disclosure of confidential information for the tax programs below.
The laws have been explained to nee.
I have been furnished with a copy of the laws.
I Understand Oregon'ti dl-SClOsure laws tend the penalties for violating then.
Income tax ORS 314.8 }5; ORS )14.001(")
Inheritance tax ORS 118.5250); ORS 118.0140(11)
Industrial property tax ORS 08.20oll); ORS -108.413; ORS 08.0(0;5)
Forestland tax ORS 3'1.682; ORS 21.1" t'kl
Employment Department tax ORS 6-57.66-.1(4)(1) and (6)
Transient lodging tax CARS "."2.0.330
Cigarette tax ORS' 32)"340'
Tobacco products tax CARS
EmergencV communications tax ORS 403 23.
Oil and has production tax ORS "°'4,1-70
Hazardous substances tax 0RS 4-11.41
Petroleum products tax 0RS 465.1214
Federal tax laws IRC Section,; 72)135, 72-1 "A, 7431
VENDORS, CONTRACTORS, BUSINESS PARTNERS
N- von u' ful: ^3r
rrt `i ; rc r f t _ -4SS or _°rgar zno i "*.f-T:# rtin 3 it a w•ffIcial pact,
32ws
SignaturA-
it
REVENUE EMPLOYEES
-u, ful ram-3
I 1
AGENCY USE
F] in Go p €ance o in Compliance
7777588-v1
Page 14 of 14
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Approval of a public contract exceeding $75,000 -for Engineering Services
(Municipal Electric Utility)
FROM
Mark Holden, director of IT and electric utility, Mark.holden ash~land. or.us
Thomas McBartlett, electric distribution systems manager, Thomas.mcbartlett(a~ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This public contract is for Engineering Services. The department's intent is to award the public
contract to highest ranked proposer, OS Engineering. If approved by the Council, the contract will be
awarded for a two-year term with the option of extending the contract annually for up to three (3)
additional years for a maximum term of five (5) years.
The Electric Department requires expert engineering services for occasional system analysis and on an
ad hoc project basis. Due to the irregular need for engineering services, it is not cost effective to
maintain the required, licensed electrical engineering, expertise within the Department. This contract
provides the Department with electrical engineering resources as required.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The sourcing method used to acquire these services is a formal Competitive Sealed Proposal (Request
for Proposal). The City received six (6) proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were
evaluated and scored by a three-person evaluation committee in accordance with the requirements and
evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Upon the completion of the evaluation process, OS
Engineering was declared the highest ranked proposer. The evaluation summary is attached for your
review.
Section 2.50.080 Formal Processes - Competitive Sealed Bidding and Proposals
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, in addition to the requirements of the Model Rules and
the Oregon Public Contracting Code:
C. The Local Contract Review Board shall approve the award of all contracts for which the Ashland
Municipal Code or the Oregon Public Contracting Code require formal competitive solicitations
or formal competitive bids.
Section 2.50.070 Public Contracting Officer Authority
A. Except as otherwise provided by this code, the Public Contracti 1ing Officer shall have authority to:
2. Contract for all personal services as long as the contract price does not exceed $75,000;
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization.
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Electric Department's estimated budget for these services is currently $75,000 per fiscal year
and a maximum amount of $160,000 for the current 2016-2017 biennium budget. The cost of services
beyond the current biennium budget will be dependent on actual need and funds budgeted per each
biennium budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends the public contract for Engineering Services be awarded to the highest ranked
proposer, OS Engineering.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the public contract award
to OS Engineering.
ATTACHMENTS:
RFP - Evaluation Summary
Page 2 of 2
susuasuoD - o
c
n N a o0 00 O O
y It
d
C
W ~ in ~ N Q1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q\
Q
4t N
M O O V v
snsuasuoj n N O° ° - - -
an
c
a~ M 7t L/'~ Cl) oo Q O O V
C
O O
(z] N i M O O O
con Zt n ~
Q
~ Ln Ln N I~ O o0 00 O N
l~ O O M N
't 00
F. E snsuasuoD ^
lot
a
r L
U
W W Ln a a a o o
~w
snsuasuoD
s p,,, U o c~i
p" y Ln LI) N as 00 °
u
w w cc O
V Z d - n n a a °O
oo oo
Gz7 ~
wa
N
00
snsuasuo3 n O° 00
a
z
N 00 a o0 0 0
w
CD Ln CD C)
c~ W
w ~n 00 00
~t N a, oo N d'
~c snsuasuoD 00 10 Oc
00 Oc 00
O
Ln V) cc Oc 00 00
CA CY,
C
r
O
v, o
Points ~n v N o 0 o N o o c r~
o -o •a
.L G p C y O O bO w
7O ¢ G Qi>j O i. 3 N GJ rn C U > C1. y N X CA E"
c n U° a~ a~ Q o si °
X ~ 0f1 U rn Q O y~ U N
G .o O
ca
CC U U O N U U "U .fl V] S U. u
y 0 a. ' U [1. Y 'D 7 k U Q. y CL r > U w C C w in
W U O X U X' O O y X X GJ S,~i N U o 0 G
a U a J. W a~ W 3 3 tr w 3 W 3 bD < y a! U U U
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Annual Review of Investment Policy for the City of Ashland
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christebkashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Annual review by City Council of the current City of Ashland Investment Policy.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This policy was previously reviewed and approved by the City Council in December 2015 to meet current
Oregon Revised Statutes pertaining to investment of municipal funds.
There have been no changes since the 2015 review of the Investment Policy.
The policy states that it shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the Investment Officer and the City
Council.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION::
Approve City of Ashland Investment Policy.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval of the City of Ashland Investment Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
Investment Policy
Page 1 of 1
~r
City of Ashland Investment Policy
2016 Current
Page I of 6
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
INVESTMENT POLICY
1. POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the City of Ashland to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the
highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the daily cash flow demands
of the entity and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public
funds.
II. SCOPE
This investment policy applies to activities of the City of AsWand in regard to investing the
financial assets of all funds except for funds held in trust for deferred compensation funds for the
employees of the City of Ashland. In addition, funds held by trustees or fiscal agents are
excluded from these rules; however, all funds are subject to regulations established by the State of
Oregon. Other than bond proceeds or other unusual situations, the estimated portfolio size ranges
from $15,000,000 to $24,000,000.
These funds are accounted for in the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
and include:
General Fund
Reserve Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Projects Funds
Debt Service Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Trust & Agency Funds
Funds of the City will be invested in compliance with the provisions of all applicable Oregon
Revised Statutes. Investments of any tax-exempt borrowing proceeds and any related Debt
Service funds will comply with the arbitrage restrictions in all applicable Internal Revenue Codes.
III. OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY
The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City of Ashland's investment activities shall be:
1. Legality. This Investment Policy will be in conformance with federal laws, state statutes,
local ordinances, and internal policies and procedures.
2. Liquidity. The City of Ashland's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to
enable the City of Ashland to meet all operating requiremerits which might be reasonably
anticipated.
3. Diversification. Diversification of the portfolio will include diversification by maturity and
market sector and will include the use of multiple broker/dealers for diversification and
market coverage.
4. Yield. The City of Ashland's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of
attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate
with the City of Ashland's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the
portfolio. "Market rate of return" may be defined as the average yield of the current three-
City of Ashland Investment Policy
2016 Current
Page 2 of 6
month U.S. Treasury bill or any other index that most closely :matches the average maturity of
the portfolio.
Effective cash management is recognized as essential to good fiscal management. Cash
management is defined as the process of managing monies in order to ensure maximum cash
availability. The City shall maintain a comprehensiv,° cash management program that includes
collection of accounts receivable, and the management of banking services.
Large and small financial institutions in the Ashland area are a vital part of our economic,
philanthropic, and civic infrastructure, and many bank leaders in this region strive together with
government to create a more vibrant community. When financial institutions tailor their decision
making, lending policies, and practices to the needs of the local community, they are better
positioned to help sustain the local economy and local employment.
IV. STANDARDS OF CARE
1. Delegation of Authority. Authority to manage the City of Ashland's investment program is
delegated to the City Recorder/Treasurer and Administrative Services Director who are the
designated investment officers of the City and are responsible for investment decisions and
activities, under the review of City Council. The day to (Jay administration of the cash
management program is handled by the City Recorder/Treasurer or by, the Administrative
Services Director in the absence of the City Recorder/Treasurer.
Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the City
Recorder/Treasurer and Administrative Services Director, who shall establish written
procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy
and subject to review and adoption by City Council. Procedures should include reference to:
safekeeping, PSA repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, banking service contracts
and collateral/depository agreements. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of
authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an
investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures
established by the City Recorder/Treasurer and Administrative Services Director. The City
Recorder/Treasurer and Administrative Services Director shall be responsible for all
transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of
subordinate officials.
2. Prudence. The standard of prudence to be used by the Investment Officers shall be the
"prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall
portfolio. These standards states: "Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under
circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence
exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment,
considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived."
3. Limitation of Personal Liability. The Investment Officers acting in accordance with written
procedures, the investment policy and in accord with the Prudent Person Rule shall not be
held personally liable in the management of the portfolio.
4. Ethics and Conflict of Interest. Investment Officers involved in the investment process
shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the
investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment
decisions. Investment Officers shall disclose any material financial interests in financial
institutions that conduct business within this jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any
large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the
City of Ashland Investment Policy
2016 Current
Page 3 of 6
investment portfolio. Investment Officers and their families shall refrain from undertaking
personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted
on behalf of the City, Investment Officers shall, at all times, comply with the State of
Oregon, Government Standards and Practices Commission, code of ethics set forth in ORS
Chapter 244.
V. AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS.
1. Authorized Investments. All investments of the City shall be diversified by type, maturity
and issuer. Before any transaction is concluded. to the extent practicable, the Investment
Officer shall solicit and document competitive and offers on comparable securities. When
not practicable, the reasons should be similarly documented. At all times the Investment
Officers will strive for best execution of all transactions. Additionally, if reasonably
unanticipated events cause the portfolio limits to be exceeded, the Investment Officers will
take the steps necessary to correct the situation as soon as practicable. Investments may be
sold at a loss when the Investment Officers deems that such a decision is prudent.
2. Suitable Investments.
a. U.S. Treasuries
b. Agencies and Instrumentalities of the United States.
c. Savings and Demand Accounts (Oregon depositories only)
d. Time Certificates of Deposit (Oregon depositories only)
f. Banker's Acceptances (Oregon issued)
g. Corporate Debt
h. Municipal Debt (States of Oregon, California, Idaho and Washington only)
i. Oregon Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP)
The specific permitted securities are defined under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters 294.035,
294.040, 294.046 and 294.810. (See Addendum A) Collateral requirements are bank deposits,
time deposits, certificates of deposit and savings accounts are defined in ORS Chapter 295. (See
Addendum B)
VI. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS
1. Diversification. The City will diversify the investment portfolio to avoid incurring
unreasonable risks, both credit and interest rate risk, inherent in over investing in specific
instruments, individual financial institutions or maturities.
Diversification Constraints on Total Holdings:
ISSUER TYPE % of portfolio
U.S. Treasury Obligations Up to 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities and
Instrumentalities of Government Sponsored Corp. Up to 75% and 25% per issuer
Bankers' Acceptances (BA's) Up to 25% and 15% per issuer
Certificates of Deposit (CD) Up to 35% and 5% of deposits per
institution
Municipal Debt Up to 35% and 10% per issuer
Corporate Debt (AA, A 1, P 1) Up to 25% and 5% per issuer
State of Oregon Investment Pool Securities ORS Limit 294.810
The Investment Officers will routinely monitor the contents of the portfolio comparing the
holdings to the markets, relative values of competing instruments, changes in credit quality, and
City of Ashland Investment Policy
2016 Current
Page 4 of 6
benchmarks. If there are advantageous transactions, the portfolio may be adjusted accordingly,
but not to exceed % as stated.
2. Investment Maturities. The City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than
three (3) years from the date of purchase.
a. The maximum weighted maturity of the total portfolio shall not exceed 1.5 years. This
maximum is established to limit the portfolio to excessive price change exposure.
b. Liquidity funds will be held in the State Pool or in money market instruments maturing
six months and shorter. The liquidity portfolio shall, at a minimum, represent six month
budgeted outflow.
c. Core funds will be the defined as the funds in excess of liquidity requirements. The
investments in this portion of the portfolio will have maturities between 1 day and 5 years
and will be only invested in high quality and liquid securities.
Total Portfolio Maturity Constraints:
Under 30 days 10% minimum
Under 90 days 25% minimum
Under 270 days 50% minimum
Under 1 year 75% minimum
Under 18 months 80% minimum
Under 3 years 100% minimum
Exception to 3 year maturity maximum: Reserve or Capital Improvement Project monies may be
invested in securities exceeding three (3) years if the maturities of such investments are made to
coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds.
Due to fluctuations in the aggregate surplus funds balance, maximum percentages for a particular
issuer or investment type may be exceeded at a point in time subsequent to the purchase of a
particular issuer or investment type may be exceeded. Securities do not need to be liquidated to
realign the portfolio; however, consideration will be given to this matter when future
reinvestments occur.
VII. SAFEKEEPING, CUSTODY AND AUTHORIZED DEALERS
1. Safekeeping and Custody of Securities. The laws of the state and prudent treasury
management require that all purchased securities be bought on a delivery versus payment
basis and be held in safekeeping by the City, or the City's designated depository.
All safekeeping arrangements shall be designated by the Investment Officers and shall list
each specific security, rate, description, maturity, and cusiip number. Each safekeeping
receipt will clearly state that the security is held for the City or pledged to the City. In
addition, repurchase requirements including Master Repurchase Agreements shall be in place
prior to any business being conducted.
2. Authorized Financial Dealers. The Investment Officers shall maintain a list of all Qualified
Depositories for Public Funds per ORS 295.002. An Oregon public official may deposit
public funds up to the amount insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
or the national Credit Union share Insurance Fund (NCUA) in any insured financial
institution with a head office or branch in Oregon. Public funds deposits that exceed these
City of Ashland Investment Policy
2016 Current
Page 5 of 6
insurance limits, currently set at $250,000, may only be held in a depository qualified by the
Oregon Public Funds Collateral ization Program (PFCP).
At the request of the City of Ashland, the firms performing investment services shall provide
their most recent financial statements or Consolidated Report of Conditions for review.
All dealers with whom the City transacts business will be provided a copy of this Investment
Policy to ensure that they are familiar with the goals and objectives of the investment
program.
If the City hires an investment advisor to provide investment management services, the
advisor will follow the same procedure as outlined in VII Section 2.
3. Competitive Transactions. The Investment Officers will obtain telephone, faxed or emailed
quotes before purchasing or selling an investment. The Investment Officer will select the
quote which best satisfies the investment objectives of the investment portfolio within the
parameters of this policy. The Investment Officers will maintain a written record of each
bidding process including the name and prices offered by each participating financial
institution.
The investment advisor must provide documentation of competitive pricing execution on
each transaction. The advisor will retain documentation and provide upon request.
VIII. CONTROLS
1. Accounting Method. The City shall comply with all required legal provisions and Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The accounting principles are those contained in
the pronouncements of authoritative bodies including but not necessarily limited to, the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB); the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA); and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).
Pooling of Funds: Except for cash in certain restricted and special funds, the City will
consolidate balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings. Investment income
will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective participation and in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
2. Internal Controls. The City will maintain a structure of internal controls sufficient to assure
the safekeeping and security of all investments.
The Investment Officers shall develop and maintain written administrative procedures for the
operation of the investment program that are consistent with this investment policy.
Procedures will include reference to safekeeping, wire transfers; banking services contracts,
and other investment related activities.
The Investment Officers shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken.
No officer or designee may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the
terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Investment Officers and approved
by the Council.
3. External Controls. The City of Ashland may enter into contracts with external investment
management firms on a non-discretionary basis. These services will apply to the investment
of the City's short-term operating funds and capital funds including bond proceeds and bond
reserve funds.
City of Ashland Investment Policy
2016 Current
Page 6 of 6
If an investment advisor is hired, the advisor will comply with all requirements of this
Investment Policy. The investment advisor will provide return comparisons of the portfolio
to the benchmark on a monthly basis. Exceptions to the Investment Policy must be disclosed
and agreed upon in writing by both parties. The Investment Officers remains the person
ultimately responsible for the prudent management of the portfolio.
Factors to be considered when hiring an investment advisory firm may include, but are not
limited to:
a. The firm's major business
b. Ownership and organization of the firm
c. The background and experience of key members of the firm, including the portfolio
manager expected to be responsible for the City's account
d. The size of the firm's assets base, and the portion of that base which would be made up
by the City's portfolio if the firm were hired
e. Management Fees
f. Cost Analysis of advisor
g. Performance of the investment advisory firm, net of all fees, versus the Local
Government Investment Pool or other benchmarks over a given period of time
IX. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REPORTING
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of return
throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints
and the cash flow needs.
The city's investment strategy is active. Preservation of capital and maintenance of sufficient
liquidity will be considered prior to attainment of market return performance. A market
benchmark will be determined that is appropriate for longer term investments based on the City's
risk and return profile. When comparing the performance of the City's portfolio, all fees and
expenses involved with managing the portfolio shall be included in the computation of the
portfolio's total rate of return. This would include any outside management and identifiable in-
house management.
The Investment Officers shall prepare monthly and quarterly compliance summary reports that
provide details of the investment portfolio, as well as transaction details for the reporting period.
Details shall be sufficient to document conformity with the provisions of the statutes and this
investment policy and shall include a listing of individual securities held at the end of the period.
All investments owned will be marked-to-market monthly by the City's third-party custodian.
The performance (total return) of the City's portfolio will be measured against the performance of
the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) and the yield of the 91-day U.S. Treasury Bill.
X. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION BY GOVERNING BODY
This investment policy will be formally adopted by the City Council. The policy shall be
reviewed on an annual basis by the Investment Officers and the City Council. Material revisions
to this policy will require a review by the Oregon Short Term Fund Board, pursuant to current
Oregon Revised Statutes.
CITY OF
^,S H LA N D
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Acceptance of FY 2015-2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
FROM:
Beverly Adams, Interim Administrative Services/Finance Director, bev.adams(a.~ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
On November 16th the Audit Commission met with the auditor, Kenny Allen (Pauly, Rogers & Co.,
CPA's) and city staff to review the annual audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2016.
The City's audit received an "unmodified opinion", which is the auditor's judgment that the financial
records and statements are fairly and appropriately presented in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The Audit Commission's report and recommendation to accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) can be found in the report on page 16.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The CAFR is prepared each year as part of the state-required audit by an independent, certified and
municipally licensed auditor. The City is responsible for completeness and accuracy of the annual
report.
In Ashland, the auditor reports to the Audit Commission established by the Council. The Audit
Commission receives the auditor opinion, management letter and annual financial reports (including
Ashland Parks Commission Component Unit Financial Report) prepared by staff. When satisfied with
the reports and related information, the Audit Commission forwards the report to Council with a
recommendation to accept.
The Independent Auditors report is included in the document and presented on their letterhead. These
reports attest to the City's compliance with Oregon Budget Law and federal reporting requirements
(Pg.24). The auditor reports on legal and regulatory matters in accordance with Government Audit
Standards (Pg.165) and that the CAFR conforms to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
and Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements (GASBS). The audit also included a
review of federal financial assistance funds received through the Community Development Block
Grant Program where no issues of noncompliance were found.
City staff prepares a comprehensive annual report for both the City and Parks. Parks' report is referred
to as a component unit financial report (CUFR) by the City. The CUFR is submitted to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for acceptance after review by the Audit Commission. In the City's financial
report the Parks' activities are included per GAAP as a "blended" component unit. Thus, Parks funds
Page 1 of 2
PwAlilq
CITY OF
^ASH LAN D
are named and presented separately and its financial information is blended with city financial
information.
Both City and Parks are prepared to submit the annual report to the Government Finance Officers
Association for the "Certificate of Achievement" award, which is the highest national award attainable
for excellence in financial reporting. It is commendable that the City of Ashland has earned the GFOA
award for 27 years.
Financial Overview:
On June 30, 2016 the City's total net position was $103,724,443; a $10.4 million (9.1 decrease from
the previous year.
The reduction is due to the implementation of GASB 68 which required the addition of the City's
portion of assets and accrued liabilities in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). The
estimated net unfunded liability will change annually with PERS investments, actuarial assumptions
and contributions by the City. Positive variances include an increase in operating cash of $3.6 million
(11.7%) and a $1.8 million reduction (4.9%) in total outstanding debt from the previous year.
Key informational items within the annual report include the Transmittal Letter (Pg.9), Management's
Discussion and Analysis (Pg.26), and Notes to the Financial Statements (Pg.46); all which are intended
to provide the reader with a general understanding of the financial condition and changes that may
have occurred during the audited period.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
The Audit Commission recommends acceptance of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
FY 2015/16 and staff concurs.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to accept the Audit Commission Report and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
2015-16 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Page 2 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
for the year ended June 30, 2016
Prepared by the Administrative Services Department
Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services and F=inance Director
Pg 2 - city of ashland
2016 table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Letter of Transmittal 9
City Council Goals ...................................................................................................................................................11
Municipal Audit Commission Report .......................................................................................................................16
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ..........................................................................17
Elected City Officials ................................................................................................................................................18
Appointed City Officials ...........................................................................................................................................19
Organization Chart ..................................................................................................................................................20
Map of City of Ashland ............................................................................................................................................21
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditors Report ..................................................................................................................................24
Management's Discussion and Analysis (required supplementary information) ....................................................26
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Government - Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position 34
Statement of Activities 36
Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds .....................................................................................................................38
Reconciliation of Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to Statement of Net Position 39
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Governmental Funds .............................40
Reconciliation of Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of
Governmental Funds to Statement of Activities .......................................................................................................41
Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds ........................................................................................................42
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position - Proprietary Funds .........................................43
Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds .........................................................................................................44
Notes to Basic Financial Statements .......................................................................................................................46
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Schedule of Funding Progress .................................................................................................................................75
Schedule of the Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability .................................................................................76
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual - General Fund 77
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - Street Fund ..................78
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, Changes in Fund Balance-Parks and Recreation ....................................79
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Combining Balance Sheet - All Non-Major Funds 81
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Non-Major Funds 82
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual:
CDBG Fund 83
Airport Fund 84
Capital Improvements Fund ....................................................................................................................................85
Parks and Capital Improvement Fund .....................................................................................................................86
Debt Service Fund ...................................................................................................................................................87
Cemetery Trust Fund ...............................................................................................................................................88
Reserve Fund 89
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 3
2016 table of contents
Paqe
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Net Position - Budget and Actual:
Water Fund 90
Wastewater Fund 91
Electric Fund 92
Telecommunications Fund 93
Consolidating Balance Sheet - Internal Service Fund 94
Consolidating Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position - Internal Service Funds 95
Combining Internal Service Fund Statement of Cash Flows 96
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Net Position - Budget and Actual:
Central Services Fund 97
Insurance Services Fund 98
Health Benefits Fund 99
Equipment Fund ....................................................................................................................................................100
OTHER INFORMATION
Capital Assets Used in the Operation of Governmental Funds by Source ...........................................................101
Schedule of Assets Used in the Operation of Governmental Funds by Function/Activity 102
Schedule of Bond Principal and Interest Transactions 104
Schedule of Property Tax Transactions Collected and Uncollected for the City .................................................106
Schedule of Property Tax Transactions and Balances of Taxes Uncollected for the City 107
Schedule of Receipts, Disbursements and Balances-Elected Officials 108
STATISTICAL SECTION - TOTAL REPORTING ENTITY (UNAUDITED)
Financial Trends:
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................111
Statement of Net Position - Governmental Activities 112
Statement of Net Position - Business Type Activities 114
Changes in Net Position - Governmental Activities 116
Changes in Net Position - Business Type Activities 118
Fund Balances - Governmental Funds 120
Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds 122
Fund Balance Comparison 124
Revenue Capacity:
Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property 126
Property Tax Rates- Direct and Overlapping Governments 127
Property Value and New Construction History 128
Food and Beverage Tax Revenues by Fund 129
Principal Property Tax Payers 130
General Governmental Tax Revenues by Source 132
Property Tax Levies and Collections 133
Electric Utility Usage 134
Debt Capacity:
Ratio of Net General Obligation Bonded Debt to Assessed Value and Net General Obligation Bonded Debt Per
Capita 136
Ratio of Annual Debt Service Expenditures for General Bonded Debt to Total General Expenditures 138
Pledged Revenue Coverage - Water Fund ...........................................................................................................139
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type 141
Legal Debt Margin 142
Computation of Legal Debt Margin 144
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt - General Obligation Bonds 145
Pg 4 - city of ashland
2016 table of contents
Page
Economic and Demographic Information:
Principal Employers ...............................................................................................................................................146
Demographic Statistics ..........................................................................................................................................147
Operating Information:
Schedule of Major Insurance in Force ...................................................................................................................148
City Employee by Function/Program ......................................................................................................................149
Operating Indicators by Function/Program ............................................................................................................150
Capital Assets and Infrastructure Statistics by Function/Program .........................................................................152
AUDIT COMMENTS AND DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS
Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations .......................................................................158
Report of Independent Auditors ............................................................................................................................159
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARD COMPLIANCE REPORTS
Report of Independent Auditors ............................................................................................................................165
Schedule of Federal Financial ..............................................................................................................................167
Summary of Auditors Results ................................................................................................................................168
Financial Statement Findings ................................................................................................................................168
Federal Award Findings and Question Costs ........................................................................................................169
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ..................................................................................169
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 5
Return to Table of Contents
2016 comprehensive annual financial report
Pg 6 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
1
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 7
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
Pg 8 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October 24, 2016
RE: City of Ashland Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
To the Citizens of the City of Ashland:
We are pleased to submit the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Ashland for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2016, as mandated by state statutes. These statutes require that the City of Ashland
issue an annual report on its financial position and activity, and that this report be audited by an independent
firm of certified public accountants licensed by the State of Oregon to conduct municipal audits. This report
must be published within six months of the end of each fiscal year. Management holds responsibility for the
accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures. To the
best of our knowledge and belief, the enclosed data is accurate in all material aspects and is reported in a
manner designed to fairly present the financial position and the results of operations of the various funds and
component unit of the City of Ashland. All disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understand-
ing of the City of Ashland's activities have been included.
Based upon their audit, the independent auditor concluded that there was a reasonable basis for rendering
an unmodified opinion and that the City's financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2016, are pre-
sented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The independent auditor's re-
port is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report. It is followed by a Management
Discussion and Analysis report on pages 26 through 31. The reader is encouraged to review these pages for
a better understanding of the City, its financial condition, and its activities for the year.
The financial reporting entity includes all the funds of the City of Ashland, as well as those of the component
unit, the Parks and Recreation Commission. Component units are legally autonomous entities for which the
primary government is financially accountable. The City provides a full range of services including police pro-
tection, fire protection, building inspection, planning services, economic development, social services, senior
program, ambulance, electric, internet access, water, streets, storm drain, wastewater treatment, airport,
cemetery, band, parks and recreation activities.
The Parks and Recreation Commission activities are reported as a blended component unit. The blended
component unit information is included within the government-wide financial statements emphasizing that it
is operated autonomously and accounted for separately from the primary government but significantly relies
upon the oversight, policies and financial resources of the primary government.
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK
The City, incorporated in 1874, is located in the southwest part of the state and currently has a land area of
6.52 square miles with a population of 20,405. The government has all powers necessary or convenient for
the conduct of its municipal affairs, including the power to levy a property tax on both real and personal prop-
erty located within its boundaries. The City also has the power, by state statute, to extend its corporate limits
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 9
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
by annexation, which is done periodically when deemed appropriate by the City Council.
The City operates under the council-administrator form of government. Policymaking and legislative authority
are vested in the Mayor and City Council. The governing Mayor and Council are responsible for, among oth-
er things, passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees, and hiring the City Administrator
and the City Attorney. The City Council consists of a mayor and six-member Council. The Mayor, who pre-
sides at the Council meetings, is elected at-large for a four-year term, Six Council members are elected at-
large for four-year staggered terms with three Council members elected every two years. Other elected offi-
cials are the City Recorder/Treasurer, Municipal Judge, and the five-member Parks and Recreation Commis-
sion.
The City Administrator is charged with general oversight of all operational and management functions, with
the exception of the Parks Commission. The City Administrator recommends the appointment or dismissal of
department heads (Fire Chief, Police Chief, Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Ad-
ministrative Services/Finance Director, Electric/Information Technology Director). The Mayor, with confirma-
tion of the City Council, appoints the City Administrator, the City Attorney, department heads, and the City
boards and commissions with the exception of the Budget Committee, which, by state law is appointed by
the full Council. The City Administrator is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the City
Council and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the City.
In addition to the help they receive from their appointed staff and employees, 21 standing advisory boards
and commissions and various ad hoc committees assist the City Council. Over 150 Ashland citizens serve
on these boards and commissions and make a valuable contribution to the City of Ashland.
The City of Ashland's economic base depends primarily on higher education and tourism. In addition, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Forensics Laboratory is located in Ashland. It is the only crime lab in the
world dedicated entirely to wildlife and serves both the national and international communities. Ashland's
downtown business district has a relatively high occupancy rate with a variety of shops, restaurants, hotels,
commercial businesses, and financial institutions. The state has a major economic presence in the area in
Southern Oregon University (SOU), which is located on a 175 acre campus within the city limits approxi-
mately one mile from the city center.
According to the 2010-14 American Communities Survey, Ashland has an employed work force of approxi-
mately 9,252 with an average annual pay of $20,184 and representing over 13.72 percent of Jackson Coun-
ty's labor force. A stabilization of some parts of the economy is appearing with early reports on better ticket
sales, local tax revenues and university enrollments. Examples are the Transient Occupancy Tax and Food
and Beverage Tax revenues (for all business activities as presented in tables in the Statistical section).
Transient Occupancy Tax revenue increased 3.6 percent from FY 2015 to 2016 while Food & Beverage tax
revenue increased 25 percent. It is not uncommon to have local taxes, especially those relating to tourism, to
"lead" the tax revenues from other tax revenues relating to constructiori.
The Oregon Employment Division reports the larger sectors for payroll in Ashland to be 21 % in accommoda-
tions & Food, 14% in retail trade and 13% in health care services. Government (all sectors) represents ap-
proximately 7% of total payroll paid in Ashland.
In 2015-16, the City issued 243 building permits (two less than the prior year) but resulting in just under $27
million in total estimated valuation. This is approximately 30% higher than an average year but a 39% de-
crease compared to 2014-2015 which included significant improvements to the Southern Oregon Universi-
ty. Residential home starts and corresponding valuation decreased by approximately 7% from the previous
year, while the commercial activity decreased by nearly 65%.
The Ashland Chamber of Commerce publication, Living and Doing Business Guide 2016 provides a host of
current information relevant to the city's economy. Based on data frorn the Oregon Economic development
Department, the guide reports that Ashland's consumer expenditures were over $1 billion in 2015, with near-
ly $207 million for housing, $189 million for transportation and $149 million for food and beverage services.
Additionally, the median price of a home was $359,000, consistent with 2014 and nearly 26% above that of
Pg 10 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
2011, Ashland's low point in the recession. The guide also noted that over 57 percent of Ashland's residents
have a bachelor's or higher degree, contributing to a highly educated workforce and an engaged and knowl-
edgeable citizenry.
Much of this can be attributed to tourism generated by cultural attractions, the largest of which is the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival Association (OSFA), a nationally renowned theater company presenting 780 perfor-
mances over a season from February through October, to an estimated attendance of over 400,000. OSFA
employs approximately 522 (112 are actors) and has nearly 500 volunteers. Southern Oregon University
reports over 6,200 students, over 750 faculty and administration members and over $125 million in annual
revenue. The Ashland Independent Film Festival, Ski Ashland, local galleries, museums and many more
also play key roles in the economic impacts identified above.
The City Council has adopted the following strategic planning goals and objectives.
MISSION STATEMENT
To support a resilient, sustainable community that lives within its means and maintains the distinctive
quality of life for which it has become known in the face of external change and internal development -
via direct delivery of basic services and leveraged enablement of enhanced services.
http://NN ~~vc.ashlit nd.or.us/SI B/files/201;%20Strateaic%20PIannin2%20Goa1s%20110414.pdf
City Council Goals
2015
GOVERNMENT
1. Leverage our regional and state relationships to increase effectiveness in relevant policy are-
nas.
2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement.
3. Support and empower our community partners.
ORGANIZATION
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically supportcity mission and goals.
4.1 Identify and evaluate underperforming assets.
4.2 Cultivate external funding opportunities.
4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs.
4.4 Examine long term use of Imperatrice property.
PEOPLE
5. Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs.
6. Develop supports to enable citizens to age in Ashland.
7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community.
ENVIRONMENT
8. Protect the integrity and safety of the watershed.
9. Enhance and expand natural and recreational resources.
10. Support local micro-agriculture and food production.
11. Prepare the community for natural and human-made disasters.
12. Update the Comprehensive Plan.
13. Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable develop-
ment.
14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 11
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
ECONOMY
15. Seek opportunities to diversify the economy in coordination with the Economic Development
Strategy.
16. Nurture emerging new technologies.
17. Market and further develop the Ashland Fiber Network.
18. Diversify transportation and shipping options.
19. Ensure that commercial and industrial areas are available for development.
20. Embrace and plan ahead for emerging social trends that might impact the economy and vitali-
ty of the community.
ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization.
22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community.
PUBLIC SAFETY
23. Support innovative programs that protect the community.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure
that assets of the City are protected from loss or theft and to ensure that adequate accounting data is com-
piled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable assurances that: (1) the cost of a
control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) management must use its best judgment
to value the costs and benefits as it relates to cost of internal control.
The City's system of internal accounting controls is designed to provide reasonable, although not absolute,
assurance regarding the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition.
As a frequent recipient of federal, state and local financial assistance, the City must also have an adequate
internal control structure in place to ensure and document compliance with applicable laws and regulations
related to these programs. This internal control structure is subject to periodic evaluation by management
and staff.
Tests were made of the government's internal control structure and of its compliance with applicable laws
and regulations, including those related to federal financial assistance programs. Although this testing was
not sufficient to support an opinion on the City's internal control system or its compliance with laws and regu-
lation related to non-major federal financial assistance programs, the audit for the year ended June 30, 2016,
disclosed no material internal control weaknesses or material violations of laws and regulations.
In addition, the City maintains budgetary controls. The objective of these budgetary controls is to ensure
compliance with legal provisions embodied in the biennium appropriations budget resolution adopted by the
City Council. All funds are included in the biennium appropriated budget. The biennium 2015-17 budget was
prepared on a fund basis with department, program, and line item detail.
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that management provide a
discussion and analysis to accompany the financial statements. This letter of transmittal compliments man-
agement's discussion and analysis, and should be read in conjunction with it. The City's Management's Dis-
cussion and Analysis can be found on pages 26-31, immediately following the independent auditors report.
Legal level of Budgetary Control:
Management cannot overspend the budget without the approval of the governing body, management must
request change to the appropriation level.
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the budget is adopted.
Pg 12 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest
budget change allowed under Oregon Budget Law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is
approved by a City Council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a
process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in a newspaper of record
prior to Council taking action.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This
process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the Council taking action.
Significant Impacts. The City's investment policy objectives are to preserve capital, maintain liquidi-
ty and diversification, and to attain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles. In-
vestments are valued at fair value, as required by GASBS 31. Changes in the economy and investment
market are prompting a review of the City's policy. As of June 30, 2016, the fair market value of the invest-
ment in the Local Government Investment Pool was 100 percent of the pool shares, as reported in Oregon
Short Term Fund audited financial statements.
The City provides life and health coverage to its employees and their dependents. The City pays 95 percent
of premiums for employees, with management and all five bargaining units paying the remaining five per-
cent. Other optional supplemental insurances are available to employees and are paid entirely by the indi-
viduals electing to carry them. The rising cost of employee benefits, especially health care and retirement,
prompted the City to change providers in FY 2010-2011, to hold costs flat and provide a tracking system to
support cost containment options in the future. During 2012-2013 the City laid the foundation to become
"self insured" for employee health benefits and that was established beginning July 1, 2013.
An actuarial review of other post employment benefit programs was performed during the year, and the re-
sults from the study are incorporated within this report on pages 63 through 66, in the Notes to Basic Finan-
cial Statements section.
OTHER INFORMATION
Tax Limitation. Article IX of the Oregon Constitution contains various limitations of property taxes
levied by local jurisdictions. The Constitution calls for taxes imposed upon property to be segregated into two
categories: one to fund the public school system and community colleges and the other for local govern-
ments. The citizens of the State of Oregon approved a property tax limitation, commonly referred to as
Measure 5, in November 1991. This constitutional amendment divides property taxes into an education cate-
gory and an "all other" local government category.
The education category property taxes were limited to $15.00 per thousand of real market value (RMV) ini-
tially, and have been lowered to $5.00 per thousand. The local government category is limited to $10.00 per
thousand. The 2013-2014 local net general government tax rate in the City of Ashland, all agencies, was
$6.67, well within the limitation. Voter approved general obligation debt is not subject to the $10.00 limitation.
In November 1996, the citizens of the State of Oregon approved another property tax limitation, commonly
referred to as Measure 47. Prior to enactment, this measure was repealed and replaced by Measure 50, by
special election on May 20, 1997. Measure 50 changed the property tax limitation on levies, rates assess-
ment, and equalization, after the 1996-1997 fiscal year. Measure 50 includes a reduction of property tax to
previous levels and a limit on the growth in assessed valuation, which will result in a limit on a tax increase in
subsequent years. Specifically, Measure 50 rolled the assessed value of each unit of property for the tax
year 1997-98 back to its 1995-96 "real market value" less ten percent. The measure limited increases in as-
sessed value in future years to three percent per year. The measure also establishes a new permanent tax
rate for each taxing district. Ashland's permanent rate for the operating levies is set at $4.2865, although the
City chose to levy only $4.1972 of this amount in fiscal year 2015-2016. The measure also provides for voter
approved "Local Option Levies" for levies outside the limits. No local option levies were included in the bien-
nium budget.
Awards. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 13
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City for its Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. This was the twenty seventh year the City had
submitted its report for review. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must pub-
lish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report satisfied
both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. This award is valid for a
period of one year. We believe that our current Comprehensive Annual Financial Report continues to meet
the Certificate of Achievement Program's requirements, and we intend to submit it to the GFOA to determine
its eligibility for another certificate.
In addition, the City of Ashland received the GFOA's Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation for its bi-
ennial 2015-2017 budget. In order to qualify for the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award, the City's
budget document was judged to be proficient in several categories, including policy documentation, as an
operational guide, as a financial plan, and as a communication device.
Acknowledgments. The timely preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was made
possible by the dedicated service of the entire staff of the City of Ashland Administrative Services/Finance
Department, all other departments and the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission staff. Each member
has our sincere appreciation for the contribution made, with special thanks to the Accounting Division and
Finance Administration staff for their dedicated efforts in maintaining the accounting systems, audit prepara-
tion and report writing.
Sincerely,
Dave Kanner
City Administrator
Pg 14 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 comprehensive annual financial report
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 15
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
C I T Y O F
ASHLAND
October 24, 2016
The City Council and
The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
City of Ashland, Oregon
The Municipal Audit Commission was established by the City Council to perform certain tasks relating to the annual
audit. The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, a component unit of the City of Ashland, has delegated
similar responsibilities to the Audit Commission for their annual audit process.
In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Commission participates in selecting the City's auditor on a regular basis. The
Commission interviews qualified, independent certified public accountants and discusses the overall scope and
specific plans for the audit. The Commission also recommends which municiloally-certified individual or firm is to be
engaged as the City's auditor by the City Council.
At the conclusion of the annual audit, the Commission meets with the City's auditor to discuss the results of their
audit and their evaluation of the City and Parks financial reporting. The Commission also discusses the financial
accounting and reporting processes with the City's auditor, including the preparation of the financial statements for
the City and Parks Commission, safeguarding of assets and other resources against unauthorized acquisition, use
or disposition, and other required accounting issues.
After receiving the annual reports and related documentation from the auditor and staff, evaluating the information,
and considering the potential for changes, the Commission makes recommendations to both elected bodies on
acceptance of the respective annual reports and changes deemed appropriate through the process.
Based upon the above, we accept the 2015-2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the related
audit reports of the independent certified public accountants for the City of Ashland and the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Commission and recommend that the respective CAFR and auditor's reports be accepted by the Council
and the Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
The Municipal Audit Commission
Thomas Hepford, Roberta Stebbins,
Member at Large Member at Large
C 4 F~.Mary Cody, Budget Liais, Rich Rosenthal, Barbara Christensen,
Representing Budget Committee City Council Liaison/Member City Recorder/Treasurer
Ex-Officio Member
Administrative Services Department Tel: 541.488.5300
Bev Adams, Director of Administrative Services & Finance Fax: 541.552.2059
20 East Main Street TTY: 800.735.2900
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Pg 16 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
Government Finance Officers Association
Certificate of
Achievement
for Excellence
in Financial
Reporting
Presented to
City of Ashland
Oregon
For its Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report
for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2015
Executive Director/CEO
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 17
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
CITY OF ASHLAND
ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS
as of June 30, 2016
Name Position Term Expires
John Stromberg Mayor December 2016
252 Ridge Road
Ashland OR 97520
Carol Voisin Council Member December 2016
908 Fox Street
Ashland OR 97520
Michael Morris Council Member December 2018
720 S. Mountain Avenue
Ashland OR 97520
Greg Lemhouse Council Member December 2016
2850 Wedgewood
Ashland OR 97520
Stefani Seffinger Council Member December 2018
488 Taylor Street
Ashland OR 97520
Rich Rosenthal Council Member December 2016
1228 Rose Lane
Ashland OR 97520
Pam Marsh Council Member December 2018
696 Siskiyou Blvd
Ashland OR 97520
Barbara Christensen Recorder Treasurer December 2018
759 Willow Street
Ashland OR 97520
Pam B. Turner Municipal Judge December 2016
PO Box 1299
Ashland OR 97520
Pg 18 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
CITY OF ASHLAND
APPOINTED CITY OFFICIALS
as of June 30, 2016
Name Position
Dave Kanner City Administrator
PO Box 831
Ashland, OR 97520
Darlow "Lee" Tuneberg Administrative Services/Finance Director/
327 Starflower Lane Acting Assistant: City Administrator
Ashland, OR 97520
David H. Lohman City Attorney
1327 Reddy Avenue
Medford, OR 97504
Mike Faught Public Works Director
3685 Coleman Creek Road
Medford, OR 97501
Mark Holden Information Technology Director/Electric Director
PO Box 786
Ashland, OR 97520
William Molnar Community Development Director
155 Hillcrest Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Tighe O'Meara Police Chief
1155 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
John Karns Fire Chief
440 Wiley Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Michael Black Parks and Recreation Director
711 NW Amelia Drive
Grants Pass, OR 97526
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 19
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
City of Ashland
261.55 FTE
Adopted
July 1, 2015
(shown as budget 2015-2017)
Citizens of Ashland
Population - 20,340
Cite Recorder N-funieipal Judge
Elected - 4 Year Term Elected - 4 Year Term
(2.0 FTE) (Included in Administration)
Parks Commission Mayor (1)
Elected Board Members City Council (6)
Elected - 4 Year Terms
Parks Department
appointed Director
(44.50 FTE)
J F77
Boards & Commissions City Administrator Citv Attorney
Standing Commissions (17) Appointed Appointed
Ad Hoc (4i (Included in Administration) (Included in Administration)
Citizens Committees
- 11. F -1/
"N or '14
Administrative Services Public Works Information Technolofy
Appointed Director Appointed Director Administration Appointed Director
(16.7- FTE) (67.(i FTE} (1.1.1; FTE) (Shared)
(14.0 FTEI
-do
Police Community Development
Appointed Director Appointed Director Electric
(36.75 FTE) (14.0 FTE) Appointed Director
00 (Shared')
(17.0 FTE)
Fire S7 Rescue
Appointed Director
(34.60 FTE)
Pg 20 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 introductory section
CITY of
ASHLAND
LAI P }
F
i
r t
t
c u
OREGON
Vicinity Map 2016
ASHLAND
,r4
,y
f
N
i E O
I
6
f
WIMER ST.
c3 -
r -
r
a
r t j t Z I
AsNUr,o
0
`J Y
7}f.
d i
comprehensive annual financial report - Pig 21
Return to Table of Contents
2016 comprehensive annual financial report
Pg 22 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
FINANCIAL SECTION
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 23
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
PALLY, ROGERS, A D CO., P.C.
lqhlm~ 12700 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard. OR 97223
(503) 620-2632 (503) 684-7523 FAX
,,i,Avw.paulyrogersandcocpas.com
October 6, 2016
To the Chair and Commissioners of the
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, and each major fiend, of Ash-
land Parks and Recreation Commission (a blended component unit of the City of Ashland), as of and for the year June
30, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements as
listed in the table of contents.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and
maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free
from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditors' Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from ma-
terial misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' j udgment, including the assessment of the risks of material
misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor
considers internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design
audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the ef-
fectiveness of the internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the ap-
propriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by manage-
ment, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opin-
ions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial
position of the governmental activities, and each major fund, of Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, as of June
30, 2016, thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
Other Matters
Emphasis of-Matter
The Commission adopted the provisions of GASB Statement No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application, for the
year ended June 30, 2016. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Pg 24 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management's discussion
and analysis and required supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the
basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing
the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain
limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accept-
ed in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic
financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not
express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with
sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
The budgetary comparison schedules presented as Required Supplementary Information, as listed in the table of con-
tents, have been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain
additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting
records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional proce-
dures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and in our opinion are
fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the
basic financial statements. The supplementary and other information, as listed in the table of contents, are presented
for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, is the responsibility of management and was derived
from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.
Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements
and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements them-
selves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States
of America. In our opinion, the supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, is fairly stated, in all mate-
rial respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The listing of board members containing their term expiration dates, located before the table of contents, and the other
information, as listed in the table of contents, have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of
the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.
Report on Other Legal and Regulatory Requirements
In accordance with Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations, we have issued our report dat-
ed October 6, 2016, on our consideration of compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations, including the
provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules. The purpose of that report is to
describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compli-
ance.
Kenneth Allen, CPA
PAULY, ROGERS AND CO., P.C.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 25
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
City of Ashland management offers this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the
City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, for our citizens. Certain information has been provided for
the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (APRC) which qualifies as a blended component unit
of the City.
Please read Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) in conjunction with the transmittal letter
included in the introductory section of this report and the City's Financial Statements, which follow.
Overview of the Report
The City's annual financial report consists of several sections and used together provide a comprehen-
sive financial look at the City. The components of the report includE~ the following:
• Management's Discussion and Analysis. This section of the report provides financial highlights and
overviews.
• Basic Financial Statements. Includes Statements of Net Position, Statement of Activities, Fund Fi-
nancial Statements and the Notes of the Financial Statements. Statements of Net Position and Ac-
tivities focus on an entity-wide presentation using the accrual basis of accounting. They are de-
signed to be more corporate-like in that all activities are consolidated into a total for the City.
o The Statement of Net Position focuses on resources available for future operations. In sim-
ple terms, this statement presents a snapshot view of the assets the community owns, the
liabilities it owes and the net difference.
o The Statement of Activities focuses on gross and net costs of city programs and the extent
to which such programs rely upon general tax and other revenues. This statement summa-
rizes and simplifies the user's analysis to determine the extent to which programs are self-
supporting and/or subsidized by general revenues.
o Fund Financial Statements focus separately on major governmental funds and proprietary
funds. Governmental fund statements follow the more traditional presentation of financial
statements. The City's major governmental funds are presented in their own column and the
remaining funds are combined into a column titled "Other Governmental Funds".
o The Notes to Basic Financial Statements provide additional disclosures required by govern-
mental accounting standards and provide information to assist the reader in understanding
the City's financial condition.
o Required Supplementary Information contains budgetary comparison statements for the ma-
jor governmental fund types, presented in a biennium format.
• Supplementary Information. Readers desiring additional information can find it in the Supplementary
Information section of this report. Components within this section include:
o Major Fund Budgetary Schedules
o Special Revenues Funds (non major)
o Debt Service Funds (non major)
o Capital Projects Fund (non major)
o Enterprise Fund (non major)
o Internal Service Funds
o Schedule of Property Tax Transactions
o Schedule of Receipts, Disbursements and Balances by E=lected Officials.
• Statistical Section. This section includes trend information and demographics.
Pg 26 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
• Audit Comments and Disclosures Required by State Regulations. Supplemental communication on
the City's compliance and internal controls as required by Oregon statues and the Single Audit Act.
Financial Highlights
The City's annual financial report has changed from the past reports. This report now includes the im-
plementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statement 68, Accounting and Fi-
nancial reporting for Pension. There are noticeable changes throughout the report from the 2015 Com-
prehensive Annual Financial Report.
Net Position. The City's total net position is $103,724,443 at June 30, 2016. Governmental ac-
tivities' net position is down $8.9 million while the Business-type activities are down by $1.5 million be-
tween fiscal years. The total of $10.4 million is less than the previous year, equivalent to a 9.1% de-
crease total net position due to the implementation of GASB 68.
Changes in Net Position. Overall the City's net position decreased by 9.1% mainly due to the
Pension Expense of $14,665,846.
Table A
City of Ashland's Net Position
(in thousands of dollars)
Total
Governmental Business-type Percentage
Activities Activities Total Change
2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016.2015
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 21,840 $ 20,251 $ 12,463 $ 10,455 $ 34,303 $ 30,706 11.7%
Receivables, net 3,338 4,172 3,537 2,781 6,875 6,953 -1.1%
Inventories - supplies and materials 65 188 1,116 1,054 1,181 1,242 -4.9%
Deferred charges 179 289 179 289 -38.1%
Internal balances (114) (1,949) 114 1,949 - - n/a
Restricted assets:
Cash and cash equivalents 943 856 - - 943 856 10.2%
Total current assets: 26,072 23,518 17,409 16,528 43,481 40,046 8.6%
Non-current Assets:
Proportional share of net pension assets - 4,350 1,148 - 5,498 n/a
Capital assets 123,699 121,965 117,112 115,347 240,811 237,312 1.5%
Less accumulated depreciation (65,662) (61,946) (53,728) (51,317) (119,390) (113,263) 5.4%
Total non-current assets 58,037 64,369 63,384 65,178 121,421 129,547 -6.3%
Total assets 84,109 87,887 80,793 81,706 164,902 169,593 -2.8%
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred Inflows - Pensions 3,088 - 815 - 3,903 - n/a
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable and
accrued liabilities 8,318 7,294 3,022 2,603 11,340 9,897 14.6%
Total current liabilities 8,318 7,294 3,022 2,603 11,340 9,897 14.6%
Long-term liabilities:
Proportional Share of Net Pensions Assets 11,796 - 3,114 - 14,910 - n/a
Claims payable 16,149 16,926 19,219 20,392 35,368 37,318 -5.2%
Total liabilities 36,263 24,220 25,355 22,995 61,618 47,215 30.5%
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Net deferred pension assets 2,741 6,504 723 1,717 3,464 8,221 -57.9%
Net Position:
Invested in capital assets 41,905 43,215 44,165 43,637 86,070 86,852 -0.9%
Restricted 5,341 5,040 3,860 4,599 9,201 9,639 -4.5%
Unrestricted 947 8,908 7,505 8,758 8,452 17,666 -52.2%
Total net position $ 48,193 $ 57,163 $ 55,530 $ 56,994 $ 103,723 $ 114,157 -9.1%
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 27
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
Table B
Changes in City of Ashland's Net Position
(in thousands of dollars)
Total
Governmental Business-type Percentage
Activities Activities Total Change
2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016-2015
Program revenues:
Charges for services $ 6,604 $ 6,980 $ 29,027 $ 27,035 $ 35,631 $ 34,015 4.8%
Operating grants and contributions 600 1,090 410 228 1,010 1,318 -23.4%
General revenues:
Property taxes 10,453 10,203 - - 10,453 10,203 2.5%
Other taxes 8,108 7,155 2,260 2,080 10,368 9,235 12.3%
Interest 110 138 77 55 187 193 -3.1%
Other 5,781 5,722 138 133 5,919 5,855 1.1%
Total revenues 31,656 31,288 31,912 29,531 63,568 60,819 4.5%
Program expenses:
General government 6,915 4,010 - - 6,915 4,010 72.4%
Public safety 19,474 11,272 - - 19,474 11,272 72.8%
Highways and streets 5,491 4,537 - - 5,491 4,537 21.0%
Parks and Recreation 8,802 5,453 - - 8,802 5,453 61.4%
Interest on long-term debt 294 322 - - 294 322 -8.7%
Water - - 7,271 7,832 7,271 7,832 -7.2%
Wastewater - - 6,839 5,359 6,839 5,359 27.6%
Electric - - "6,709 13,521 16,709 13,521 23.6%
Telecommunications - - 2,557 1,945 2,557 1,945 31.5%
Total expenses 40,976 25,594 33,376 28,657 74,352 54,251 37.1%
Increase (decrease) in net position
before transfers and disposals (9,320) 5,694 (1,464) 874 (10,784) 6,568 -264.2%
Interfund transfer 350 - - 350 - N/A
Increase (decrease) in net positions (8,970) 5,694 (1,464) 874 (10,434) 6,568 -258.9%
Net position - Beginning 57,163 51,469 56,994 E~6,120 114,157 107,589 6.1%
Net position - Ending $ 48,193 $ 57,163 $ 55,530 $ 56,994 $ 103,723 $ 114,157 -9.1%
Financial Analysis.
Governmental Funds. As of the end of the current year the City's governmental funds reported
a combined ending fund balance of $16,482,980, an increase from the prior year of $1,340,250, or 9%.
The Park's Capital Improvement Fund has the largest increase due to receipting Food and Beverage
receipts directly into that fund.
The General Fund (page 77) ended the year with revenues slightly lower than expenditures. Revenues
are tracking at 50% for the first half of the Biennium. Departments in this fund used between 46% to
50% of budgeted appropriations. Also note that on a GAAP Basis the Reserve Fund must roll into the
General Fund at this point.
The Street Fund (page 78) ended the year with - revenues higher than expenditures. The Street Fund
is facing challenges as the infrastructure continues to age and is in need of replacement. The fund bal-
ance includes $2.6 million restricted for System Development.
The Parks and Recreation Fund (page 79) expenditures exceed revenues for the fiscal year. This is
due in part to spending slightly higher than 50% for the first half of the Biennium.
Pg 28 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
The Non-Major funds remain on target. The most significant change is the Parks Capital Improvements
fund balance which has increased due to Food and Beverage tax receipts.This money is from the re-
ceipts of food and beverage revenue restricted for the parks capital improvement projects outlined in
Ordinance #2991
The Reserve Fund was established by Resolution #2010-18. This fund must be rolled into the General
Fund on a GAAP basis until a stabilization policy is adopted by Council. This year's ending fund bal-
ance decreased due to two interfund loans; one to the Health Benefits Fund and the other to the Tele-
communication Fund.
Business-type Funds. The City has four enterprise funds; Water Fund, Wastewater Fund, Elec-
tric Fund and Telecommunications Fund.
The Water Fund (page 90) ended the year with approximately a $.8 million dollar excess of revenues
over expenditures. This fund is gearing up to work on a large project, the water treatment plant. This
fund also is now transferring $250,000 a year to the General Fund's division of Forest Interface Divi-
sion.
The Wastewater Fund (page 91) ended the year with higher revenues than expenditures. This is main-
ly due to budgeted appropriations at 27% spent to date.
Shown on page 92, the Electric Fund ended the year just below the 50% level for revenues than antici-
pated. Expense are also tracking below the 50% mark. This fund will struggle to cover costs of pur-
chased power and updated old infrastructure.
The Telecommunications Fund (page 93) is experiencing a decline in revenues - due to completion of
similar services that are offered by AFN. This fund -incurred an interfund loan this year to help rebuild
outdated infrastructure.
Internal Service Funds. The City has four internal service funds: Central Service, Insurance Ser-
vices, Health Benefits and Equipment Funds.
The Central Service Fund, in which expenditures are kept to a minimum ended the year with a negative
net change of $320,721 in fund balance. This decrease is mainly attribute do the purchase of a new
financial software for which half of the expense was due upfront.
The Insurance Service Fund ended the year with a negative net change, the result of higher expenses
than revenues this fund may continue to struggle with rising insurance costs in the coming years
Health Benefits Fund continues to see higher cost than payments coming in as premiums. Hopefully,
this fund will see lower claims in the coming years to help reimburse an interfund loan of $525,000.
The Equipment Fund continues to stay on track based on future equipment needs.
General Fund Budgetary Highlights. The City's final budget differs from the original budget in
that it contains three supplemental appropriation approved during the first fiscal year of the biennium.
Below are authorized changes in the General Fund:
General Fund
Police Department: Recognized grant money for three grants in total of $80,191 for body cams, You
Have Options Program (YHOP) and forfeiture money.
Fire Department: Recognized grant money for three grants in total of $193,784 FEMA firefighter Assis-
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 29
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
tance, Firewise, and Title III Community Wildfire.
Fire Department: Recognized reimbursement money for $37,203 for FEMA reimbursements for the
Canyon Creek and Stouts Fire.
The general fund ended the first year of the Biennium budget with actual revenues close to 50% of
budgeted revenues.
The general fund expenditures were at 47% of budgeted expenditures. The largest savings is in the
administration division mainly due to uncompleted budgeted projects for Public Art and Tourism dollars.
Capital Assets and Debt Administration
o Capital Assets. As of June 30, 2016, the City had $122 million in capital assets. In
the Governmental Activities, the most notable increases is construction in progress such a
network upgrades. In the Business-type Activities, the largest constructions in progress is
the TAP (Talent, Ashland & Phoenix pipeline) project, this project is not yet completed.
Table C
City of Ashland's Capital Assets
(in thousands dollars)
Total
Governmental Business-type Percentage
Activities Activities Total Change
2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016-2015
Land $ 12,466 $ 12,466 $ 1,907 $ 1,907 $ 14,373 $ 14,373 0.0%
Buildings and improvements 35,982 35,850 22,089 22,089 58,071 57,939 0.2%
Equipment 18,115 17,117 1,290 1,272 19,405 18,389 5.5%
Infrastructure 55,746 54,917 84,406 84,2530 140,152 139,207 0.7%
Construction in progress 1,390 1,614 7,420 5,789 8,810 7,403 19.0%
Totals at historical cost 123,699 121,964 117,112 115,347 240,811 237,311 1.5%
Total accumulated depreciation 65,662 61,946 53,728 51,317 119,390 113,263 5.4%
Net capital assets $ 58,037 $ 60,018 $ 63,384 $ 64,030 $ 121,421 $ 124,048 -2.1%
o Debt Administration. At end of year, the City has $35.3 million in debt outstanding.
The City did incur new debts of $1.5 million. $870,000 is for new construction at Garfield
Park. Water Fund and Wastewater Fund incurred $595,879. These two new debts are with
the state of Oregon at 1% interest. All other changes to debt were payments reducing the
principal outstanding. For more specific data please refer to the notes sections of Capital
Assets (section C, starting on page 55) and Long-Term Debt (section E, starting on page 57)
Table D
City of Ashland's General Obligation Long Term Debt
(in thousands dollars)
Tota I
Governmental Business-type Percentage
Activities Activities Total Change
2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016-2015
Bonds payable $ 14,880 $ 16,325 $ 12,778 $ 14,440 $ 27,658 $ 30,765 -10.10%
Notes payable 1,252 479 1,252 479 161.38%
Revenue payable 6,441 5,952 6,441 5,952 8.22%
Total bonds and notes $ 16,132 $ 16,804 $ 19,219 $ 20,392 $ 35,351 $ 37,196 -4.96%
Pg 30 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 financial section
o Debt limitation. Oregon Revised Statues provide a limit on non-self-supporting general
obligation debt of 3 percent of the real market value of all taxable property within the City's
boundaries. Based on the City's FY 2014-15 real market value, this debt limitation is
$97,758,553. The amount of outstanding City debt subject to this limitation is $16,325,000.
Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget and Rates
The City of Ashland has adopted its second Biennium for 2015-2017 budget of $224,057,972 for
total appropriations.
o Property Taxes. This budget includes no change in the levy of the city's permanent
tax rate. The maximum the city is permitted to levy is approximately $4.29 per $1,000 of as-
sessed valuation. This budget levies about $4.20 per $1,000, with the entire levy going into
the General Fund. Operating property taxes, excludincl prior year tax collections, are pro-
jected to increase by 4% in each year of the biennium.
o Enterprise Fund revenues. In the second year of the biennial budget, a rate increase
of 4% is expected for the Electric Utility. This budget is balanced with a 10% increase in both
water and wastewater rates. These rate increases have been anticipated to cover the cost
of the significant capital improvements called for in the master plans for the enterprises, as
well as basic operations and maintenance. Some of the most notable projects for the Water
fund are Water Treatment Plant ($7,726,600), Crowson II Reservoir ($4,447,000). For the
Wastewater fund, Outfall relocation and shading ($2,094,610) and Bear Creek parallel truck
line ($1,382,920).
Other Utilities. This biennium has a 3% rate increase in both the Transportation Utility
Fee and n the Storm Water Utility Fee.
Financial Contact:
This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers, customers, and investors and credi-
tors with a general overview of the City's finances and to demonstrate the City's accountability for the
money it receives. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, con-
tact the City's Administrative Services Department at 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon, 97520,
(541) 488-5300.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 31
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
Pg 32 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
:2016 basic financial statements
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 33
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2016
Primary Government
Governmental Business-type
Activities _ Activities Total
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 21,839,880 12,462,639 $ 34,302,519
Receivables (net of allowance for uncollectible) 3,338,266 3,537,442 6,875,708
Inventories 65,010 1,116,114 1,181,124
Startup costs 178,703 178,703
Internal balances (113,519) 113,519 -
Restricted assets:
Temporarily restricted:
Cash and cash equivalents 943,355 - 943,355
Capital assets:
Land 12,466,348 1,906,925 14,373,273
Buildings 35,982,031 22,089,253 58,071,284
Machinery and equipment 18,115,158 1,289,590 19,404,748
Infrastructure 55,745,615 84,406,415 140,152,030
Construction in progress 1,390,232 7,420,192 8,810,424
Accumulated depreciation (65,662,055) _ (53,727,757) (119,389,812)
Total assets 84,110,321 80,793,035 164,903,356
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred outlows - pensions 3,088,480 815,302 3,903,782
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and other current liabilities 6,921,351 2,462,792 9,384,143
Accrued interest payable 121,564 83,205 204,769
Non-current liabilities:
Proportional Share of net pension assets 11,796,223 3,113,992 14,910,215
OPEB Net Pension Obligations 1,276,128 475,352 1,751,480
Claims and judgment - Due within one year 17,247 17,247
Bonds - Due within one year 730,000 2,976,477 3,706,477
Bonds - Due in more than one year 15,401,707 _ 16,242,695 31,644,402
Total liabilities 36,264,220 25,354,513 61,618,733
Deferred Inflows of Resources: _
Deferred inflows - pensions 2,740,515 _ 723,447 3,463,962
Net Position:
Net investment in capital assets 41,905,622 44,165,446 86,071,068
Restricted for:
Asset forfeiture 25,784 25,784
Transient Occupancy Tax - tourism 129,763 129,763
Library levy - -
System development 3,226,398 3,859,800 7,086,198
The Community Development Block Grant restriction 33,804 - 33,804
Perpetual care: non-expendable 895,931 - 895,931
Debt service 1,028,912 - 1,028,912
Unrestricted 947,852 7,505,131 8,452,983
Total Net Position $ 48,194,066 55,530,377 $ 103,724,443
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements.
Pg 34 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
:2016 basic financial statements
This page left blank intentionally
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 35
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016
Program Revenues
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and
Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions
Primary Government:
Governmental Activities:
General government $ 6,914,541 $ 1,041,323 $ 162,143 $ -
Public safety 19,474,413 1563,986 438,074 -
Highways and streets 5,490,894 2,845,870 -
Parks and recreation 8,802,091 1,153,455 92 -
Interest on long-term debt 293,944 - _ - -
Total governmental activities 40,975,883 6604,634 _ 600,309 -
Business-type Activities:
Water 7,271,424 7214,898 14,898 -
Wastewater 6,838,563 5201,264 -
Electric 16,708,504 14 600,751 395,149 -
Telecommunications 2,557,101 21010,444 _ - -
Total business-type activities 33,375,592 29,027,357 _ 410,047 -
Total primary government $ 74,351,475 $ 35,631,991 $ 1,010,356 $ -
General Revenues:
Property taxes
Utility users tax
Users taxes
Unrestricted interest earnings
Miscellaneous
Transfers
Total general revenues and
transfers
Change in net position
Net position - beginning
Net position - ending
Pg 36 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016 (continued)
Net (Expense) Revenue and
Changes in Net Position
Primary Government
Governmental Business-type
Activities Activities Total
$ (5,711,075) $ - $ (5,711,075)
(17,472,353) - (17,472,353)
(2,645,024) - (2,645,024)
(7,648,544) - (7,648,544)
(293,944) - (293,944)
(33,770,940) - (33,770,940)
- (41,628) (41,628)
- (1,637,299) (1,637,299)
- (1,712,604) (1,712,604)
- (546,657) (546,657)
- (3,938,188) (3,938,188)
$ (33,770,940) $ (3,938,188) $ (37,709,128)
10,452,785 - 10,452,785
4,763,832 4,763,832
3,343,859 2,259,787 5,603,646
110,363 77,084 187,447
5,781,258 138,071 5,919,329
350,000 - 350,000
24,802,097 2,474,942 27,277,039
(8,968,843) (1,463,246) (10,432,089)
57,162,909 56,993,623 114,156,532
$ 48,194,066 $ 55,530,377 $ 103,724,443
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 37
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON.
BALANCE SHEET
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
June 30, 2016
Other Total
Governmental Governmental
General Street Parks Funds Funds
ASSETS
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 4,038,202 $ 5,415,058 $ 702,095 $ 5,243,486 $ 15,398,841
Receivables (net of allowance for uncollectible) 2,179,164 '720,220 16,885 345,775 3,262,044
Due from other funds 690,544 - - - 690,544
Cash - restricted - - - 943,355 943,355
Total assets 6,907,910 6,135,278 718,980 6,532,616 20,294,784
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 1,475,170 179,260 405,840 111,362 2,171,632
Unearned revenue 336,443 313,309 - 94,029 743,781
Due to other agencies - - - - -
Interfund loans payable - - - - -
Liabilities payable from restricted assets - - - - -
Total liabilities 1,811,613 492,569 405,840 205,391 2,915,413
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 635,614 - 33,031 668,645
Unavailable revenue - special assessments 227,742 - - 227,742
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 635,614 227,742 - 33,031 896,387
Fund Balances:
Restricted for:
Asset forfeiture 25,784 - - - 25,784
Transient Occupancy Tax - tourism 129,763 - - - 129,763
System development charges - 2,619,729 - 606,669 3,226,398
Community Development Block Grant - - - 33,804 33,804
Perpetual care - - - 944,552 944,552
Debt commitment 1,028,912 1,028,912
Committed for: -
General fund 668,609 - - - 668,609
Special revenue funds - 2,795,238 138,905 2,934,143
Parks activities 313,140 1,536,623 1,849,763
Capital projects funds - - - 2,004,725 2,004,725
Unassigned 3,636,527 - - 3,636,527
Total fund balances 4,460,683 5,414,967 313,140 6,294,190 16,482,980
Total liabilities and fund balances $ 6,907,910 $ 6,135,278 $ 718,980 $ 6,532,612 $ 20,294,780
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements.
Pg 38 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
;2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
RECONCILIATION OF BALANCE SHEET OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
TO STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2016
Explanation of certain differences between the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and the Government-wide
Statement of Net Position.
Fund Balances $ 16,482,980
The cost of capital assets (land, buildings, improvements, machinery and equipment, infrastructure, and
construction in progress) is reported as an expenditure in governmental funds. The Statement of Net Position
includes those capital assets among the assets of the City as a whole.
Net capital assets 55,141,972
Long-term liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are not due and payable in the current
period and, accordingly, are not reported as fund liabilities. All liabilities, both current and long-term, are
reported in the Statement of Net Position.
Long-term liabilities (16,131,707)
Accrued interest on liabilities (121,564)
The net pension assets (Liability), and deferred inflows and outflows related to the Net Pension Asset
is the difference between the total pension liability and the assets set aside to pay benefits
earned to the past and current employees and beneficiaries. (8,383,437)
Accrued compensated absences are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported
in the funds.
Other Post Employment Benefits implicit liability (837,147)
Accrued vacation and sick leave (925,591)
Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current-period expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in
the funds.
Deferred revenue 1,640,166
Internal Service Funds are used by the City to account for the fleet operations, support services, and
administrative and insurance services that are provided to the other departments and agencies on a cost
reimbursement basis. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Funds are included in governmental
activities in the Statement of Net Position.
Internal Service Fund net position 1,328,394
Total net position $ 48,194,066
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements,
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 39
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Other
General Street Parks Governmental Total Primary
Fund Fund Fund Funds Government
Revenues:
Taxes $ 19,343,205 $ 58,782 $ - $ 1,071,812 $ 20,473,799
Fees, licenses and permits 835,278 - - - 835,278
Intergovernmental 921,946 1,307,742 92 164,879 2,394,661
Charges for services 1,645,847 2,156,082 5,872,818 3,874,211 13,548,958
System development charges 183,380 - 49,372 232,752
Assessments 32,831 - - 32,831
Fines and forfeitures 180,638 - - - 180,638
Interest on investments 40,564 33,135 3,772 32,892 110,363
Miscellaneous 113,065 77,727 17,204 359 208,355
Total revenues 23,080,543 3,849,681 5,893,886 5,193,525 38,017,635
Expenditures:
General government 8,398,936 - - 2,089,782 10,488,718
Public safety 14,846,892 - - - 14,846,892
Highways and streets - 3,067,591 - - 3,067,591
Parks and Recreation - - 5,854,414 360,137 6,214,551
Debt service - - 1,844,645 1,844,645
Capital outlay 645,353 229,958 559,675 1,434,986
Total expenditures 23,245,828 3,712,944 6,084,372 4,854,239 37,897,383
Excess (Deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (165,285) 136,737 (190,486) 339,286 120,252
Other financing sources (uses)
Bond proceeds - - - 870,000 870,000
Transfer in 255,935 80,000 276,227 612,162
Transfers out (96,510) (80,000) (85,652) (262,162)
Interfund loan - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) 159,425 - 1,060,575 1,220,000
Net change in fund balance (5,860) 136,737 (190,486) 1,399,861 1,340,252
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 4,466,543 5,278,230 503,626 4,894,330 15,142,729
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 4,460,683 $ 5,414,967 $ 313,140 $ 6,294,191 $ 16,482,981
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements.
Pg 40 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
;2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
RECONCILIATION OF STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
TO STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Explanation of certain differences between the Net Changes in Fund Balance and the Government-wide
Statement of Activities.
Changes in net fund balance $ 1,340,252
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities, the cost of
those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the
amount by which capital outlays exceeded depreiation in the current period.
Capital outlay expenditures capitalized 1,139,673
Depreciation expense (2,987,355)
The Pension Expense and the changes in the deferred inflows and outflows related to the Net
Pension Assets represents the changes in the Net Pension Assets (Liability) from year
to year due to changes in total pmesion liablitiy and the fair value of pension plan net position
available to pay pension benefits. (6,806,502)
Under the modified accrual basis of accounting used in the governmental funds, expenditures are not
recognized for transitions that are not normally paid with expendable available financial resources. However,
in the Statement of Activities (which is presented on the accrual basis of accounting) expenses and liabilities
are reported, regardless of when financial resources are available. This adjustment combines the net changes
in liability balances.
Compensated absences (80,348)
Other Post Employment Benefits implicit libility (40,551)
Accrued interest 8,865
General obligation bonds and notes payable 671,836
Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resourses are not reported as
revenues in the governmental funds.
Property taxes (55,491)
Special assessments (28,909)
Other (65,925)
Internal Service Funds are used by the City to account for the fleet operations and
support/administrative/insurance services that are provided to other departments and agencies on a cost
reimbursement basis. The revenues and expenses of the internal service funds are included in governmental
activites in the Statement of Activities.
Internal Service Fund change in net position (2,064,388)
Change in net position $ (8,968,843)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 41
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
June 30, 2016
Governmental
Tele- Activities
Water Wastewater Electric communications Internal Service
Fund Fund Fund Fund Total Funds
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments $ 4,971,518 $ 5,590,373 S 1,676,115 $ 224,633 $ 12,462,639 $ 6,441,039
Interest and accounts receivable, net 1,184,351 1,051,383 987,172 190,760 3,413,666 45,670
Notes and contracts receivable 123,776 - 123,776 30,552
Interfund receivable - - -
Inventories 421,787 13,452 680,875 - 1,116,114 65,010
Total current assets 6,577,656 6,655,208 3,467,938 415,393 17,116,195 6,582,271
Non Current Capital assets: 38,944,914 53,238,712 15,266,578 9,662,171 117,112,375 12,679,035
Accumulated depreciation (17,438,057) (18,902,419) (8,348,052) (9,039,229) (53,727,757) (9,783,679)
Capital assets, net 21,506,857 34,336,293 6,918,526 622,942 63,384,618 2,895,356
Non-current assets:
Start up costs (net of amortization) - - - 178,703 178,703 -
Total non-current assets 21,506,857 34,336,293 6,918,526 801,645 63,563,321 2,895,356
Total assets 28,084,513 40,991,501 10,386,464 1,217,038 80,679,516 9,477,627
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred Outflows 270,232 158,147 298,637 88,286 815,302 826,819
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS AND NET POSITION
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable 388,256 114,231 1,151,411 27,065 1,680,963 526,982
Accrued salaries, vacation and payroll taxes 341,901 200,033 369,222 104,577 1,015,733 890,718
Accrued interest payable 24,432 58,706 67 83,205
Interfund payable - - - 165,544 165,544 525,000
Other liabilities - - 241,447 - 241,447 2,862,649
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability 1,032,133 604,032 1,140,624 337,203 3,113,992 3,157,975
Notes/bonds payable, current portion 1,620,202 1,334,561 21,714 - 2,976,477 -
Total current liabilities 3,406,924 2,311,563 2,924,485 634,389 9,277,361 7,963,324
Long-term liabilities:
Revenue bonds payable, net 2,878,067 1,812,746 108,572 - 4,799,385 -
General obligation bonds payable, net 3,741,010 7,702,300 - 11,443,310
Total long-term liabilities 6,619,077 9,515,046 108,572 - 16,242,695 -
Total liabilities 10,026,001 11,826,609 3,033,057 634,389 25,520,056 7,963,324
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Deferred inflows - pensions 239,787 140,330 264,991 78,339 723,447 733,665
Net Position:
Net Position (deficit):
Net Investment in capital assets 13,267,578 23,486,686 6,788,240 622,942 44,165,446 2,895,356
Restricted for system development 1,985,482 1,874,318 - - 3,859,800 -
Restricted for debt service - - - -
Unrestricted 2,835,897 3,821,705 598,813 (30,346) 7,226,069 (1,287,899)
Total Net Position 18,088,957 29,182,709 7,387,053 592,596 55,251,315 1,607,457
Total liabilities, Deferred Inflows and Net Position $ 28,354,745 $ 41,149,648 $ 10,685,101 $ 1,305,324 $ 81,494,818 $ 10,304,446
Total Net Position $ 55,251,315
Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds 279,062
Net Position of business-type activities $ 55,530,377
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements.
Pg 42 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Governmental
Tele- Activities
Water Wastewater Electric communications Internal Service
Fund Fund Fund Fund Total Funds
Operating revenues:
Charges for services $ 7,214,898 $ 5,201,264 $ 14,600,751 $ 2,010,444 $ 29,027,357 $ 14,268,089
Miscellaneous 27,287 1,619 '08,469 696 138,071 190,141
Total operating revenues 7,242,185 5,202,883 14,709,220 2,011,140 29,165,428 14,458,230
Operating expenses:
Cost of sales and services 4,595,711 4,275,240 14,361,301 2,362,637 25,594,889 17,492,868
Depreciation and amortization 827,106 1,242,246 283,850 57,518 2,410,720 725,064
Total operating expenses 5,422,817 5,517,486 14,645,151 2,420,155 28,005,609 18,217,932
Operating income (loss) 1,819,368 (314,603) 64,069 (409,015) 1,159,819 (3,759,702)
Non-operating income (expenses):
Taxes 2 2,259,785 - 2,259,787 85,523
Intergovernmental 14,898 - 395,149 - 410,047 -
Interest income 32,633 34,769 8,338 1,344 77,084 39,721
Transfer Out (250,000) - - (250,000) (100,000)
Tax equivalents (418,922) (410,399) (1,465,385) - (2,294,706)
Interest expense (713,735) (439,718) (1,753) - (1,155,206) -
Total non-operating income (expenses) (1,335,124) 1,444,437 (1,063,651) 1,344 (952,994) 25,244
Change in net position 484,244 1,129,834 (999,582) (407,671) 206,825 (3,734,458)
Total Net Position - beginning 17,604,713 28,052,875 8,386,635 1,000,267 55,044,490 5,341,915
Total Net Position - ending $ 18,088,957 $ 29,182,709 $ 7,387,053 $ 592,596 $ 55,251,315 $ 1,607,457
Change in Net Position $ 206,825
Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds (1,670,071)
Change in Net Position of business-type activities - Statement of Activities $ (1,463,246)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of 'he basic financial statements.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 43
Return to Table of Contents
2016 basic financial statements
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Governmental
Tele- Activities
Water Wastewater Electric communications Internal Service
Fund Fund Fund Fund Total Funds
Cash flows from operating activities:
Receipts from customers and users $ 6,698,491 $ 5,105 538 $ 14,623,488 $ 1,981,309 $ 28,408,826 $ 14,499,200
Payments to suppliers (2,115,668) (2,624.855) (10,647,587) (1,352,381) (16,740,491) (8,813,080)
Payments to employees (1,640,427) (1,202..279) (2,460,432) (631,578) (5,934,716) (5,809,033)
Net cash from operating activities 2,942,396 1,278.404 1,515,469 (2,650) 5,733,619 (122,913)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Taxes collected 2 2,259 785 - - 2,259,787 85,523
Transfers Out (250,000) (517,000)
Interfund Loan - - - 165,544 165,544 417,000
Intergovernmental 14,898 395,149
Net cash from noncapital financing activities (235,100) 2,259 785 395,149 165,544 2,425,331 (14,477)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (1,359,936) (194,395) (74,001) (137,511) (1,765,843) (591,491)
Proceeds from issuance of debt 542,455 53 423 - 595,878
Principal paid on bonds, contracts and notes (443,716) (1,303.627) (21,714) (1,769,057)
Interest paid on debt (713,735) (439,718) (1,753) (1,155,206)
Tax equivalents (418,922) (410,399) (1,465,385) (2,294,706)
Net cash from capital and related financing activities (2,393,854) (2,294.716) (1,562,853) (137,511) (6,388,934) (591,491)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest from investments and other income 32,633 34,769 8,338 1,344 77,084 39,721
Net increase (decrease) in cash and investments 346,075 1,278,242 356,103 26,727 2,007,147 (689,160)
Cash and investments, beginning of year 4,625,443 4,312129 1,320,012 197,906 10,455,490 7,130,199
Cash and investments, end of year 4,971,518 5,590.371 1,676,115 224,633 12,462,637 6,441,039
Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided by
opertating activities:
Operating income (loss) 1,819,368 (314.603) 64,069 (409,015) 1,159,819 (3,759,702)
Depreciation and amortization 827,106 1,242,246 283,850 57,517 2,410,719 725,065
Change in assets and liabilities:
(Increase) decrease in:
Receivables (543,694) (97,345) (85,732) (29,831) (756,602) 40,970
Net Pension Assets 813,270 475,947 898,754 265,699 2,453,670 2,488,324
Inventories (59,899) 5,913 (8,067) - (62,053) 122,501
Start up costs - - - 109,969 109,969 -
Increase (decrease) in:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 22,562 (44,524) 310,957 (9,157) 279,838 107,077
Other liabilities 63,683 10,771 51,638 12,168 138,260 152,852
Net cash from operating activities $ 2,942,396 $ 1,278,405 $ 1,515,469 $ (2,650) $ 5,733,620 $ (122,913)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the basic financial statements.
Pg 44 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
NOTES TO BASIC
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 45
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
The City of Ashland, Oregon (the City) is a municipal corporation, (governed by an elected mayor and a six
-member council. The accompanying financial statements present the City and its component unit, an en-
tity for which the City is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component units, although le-
gally separate entities, are, in substance, part of the City's operations.
Blended Component Unit. The Parks and Recreation Commission (the Commission) was created
by vote of qualified electors of the City of Ashland at a special election on December 15, 1908. By City
Charter, the Commission has control over all park designated lands within the City. By City Charter, the
Commission may not own any park lands within the City, but has responsibility for maintenance of parks
and certain other facilities. The members of the Commission's governing board are elected by the voters.
However, the Commission is fiscally dependent upon the City because, by state law and City Charter, the
Commission budget and tax levy must be included as part of the City's. The City must also approve any
debt issuance. Additionally, the City has ultimate financial responsibility for the Commission. The Commis-
sion is presented as a governmental fund type. Due to the funding change at the end of the year for 2015,
the financial statements are now reported as a blended component unit.
B. Government-wide and Fund Financial Statements
Governmental Accounting Standards Boards Statement No. 34 (GASBS 34)
The presentation of financial information required by GASBS 34 for Basic Financial Statements and Sup-
plementary Information are described below and in the Management's Discussion and Analysis located
earlier in this document. The government-wide financial statements (i.e. the Statement of Net Position
and the Statement of Changes in Net Position) report information on the activities of the primary govern-
ment and its component unit. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from
these statements. Governmental activities, which are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental
revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely, to a significant extent, on fees
and charges for support. Likewise, the primary government is reported separately from certain legally sep-
arate component units for which the primary government is financially accountable
The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or
segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a
specific function or segment. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who pur-
chase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges by a given function or segment, and 2)
grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particu-
lar function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are report-
ed as general revenues.
Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual
governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund
financial statements.
C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Basis of Presentation
The government-wide financial statements are reported using thE~ economic resources measurement fo-
cus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary funds financial statements. Revenues are
recorded when earned and expenses are reported when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of
related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenue in the year for which they are levied. Grants
and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provid-
er have been met.
Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement
focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. The budgetary basis of accounting is the same as
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both
measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collected within the
Pg 46 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City consid-
ers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Ex-
penditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt
service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judg-
ments, are recorded only when the payment is due.
Property taxes, franchise taxes, licenses, and interest associated with the current fiscal period are accrua-
ble and so have been recognized as revenues of the current periiod. All other revenue items are consid-
ered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City.
The City reports the following major governmental funds:
o The General Fund is the City's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the
general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
o The Street Fund accounts for the resources and operating expenditures related to the maintenance,
operation and construction of the City's streets and storm water collection infrastructure. While a sub-
stantial portion of revenues come from user fees, the primary source is state-shared highway funds.
o The Parks Fund accounts for the resources and operating expenditures related to the Parks opera-
tions, recreational and the golf course. The parks fund is the general fund for the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Commission (ARPC). The ARPC receives all the majority of its funding directly from the
City of Ashland, due to the funding change it is now a blended component unit.
The City reports the following major proprietary funds:
o The Water Fund accounts for the resources and expenses related to supply, treatment and distribu-
tion of water throughout the City. The primary source of revenue is user fees.
o The Wastewater Fund accounts for the resources and expenses related to collection and treatment of
wastewater throughout the City. The primary source of revenue is user fees.
o The Electric Fund accounts for the resources and expenses related to distribution of electricity
throughout the City. The primary source of revenue is user fees.
o The Telecommunications Fund accounts for the resources and expenses related to broadband and
high-speed data transmission services throughout the City. 'The primary source of revenue is user
fees.
Additionally, the City reports the following fund types:
Internal Service Funds account for general and public works administration, finance, information ser-
vices, and fleet management services primarily provided to other departments or agencies of the City,
or to other governments, on a cost reimbursement basis.
As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial
statements. Exceptions to this rule are payment-in-lieu of taxes and other charges between the City's vari-
ous utility funds and the other functions of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct
costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned.
Amounts reported as program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, ser-
vices, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contribu-
tions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues
rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distin-
guish operating revenues and expenses from non-operating items. Operating revenues and expenses
result from providing, producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal on-
going operations. The enterprise and internal service funds are charges to customers for sales and ser-
vices.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 47
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Where applicable, enterprises also recognize the portion of System Development Charges intended to
recover the cost of connecting new customers to the system as operating revenue. Operating expenses
for enterprise and internal service funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses,
and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as
non-operating revenues and expenses.
When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restrict-
ed resources to the limits of the policies and statutes governing them first, then unrestricted resources as
they are needed.
D. Assets, Liabilities and Net Position or Equity
1. Cash and Investments
The City's cash and cash equivalents are comprised of cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term
investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition.
State statutes authorize the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, commercial paper, corporate
bonds and the State Treasurer's Investment Pool.
Investments for the City, as well as for its component unit, are reported at fair value. The State Treasur-
er's Investment Pool operates in accordance with appropriate state laws and regulations. The reported
value of the pool is the same as the fair value of pool shares.
2. Receivables and Payables
Activity between funds that are representative of lending and borrowing arrangements outstanding at the
end of the fiscal year are referred to as "due to\from other funds." Any residual balances outstanding be-
tween the governmental and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial state-
ments as "internal balances."
Advances between funds, as reported in the fund financial statements, are offset by a fund balance re-
serve account in applicable governmental funds to indicate that they are not expendable available finan-
cial resources.
All trade and property taxes receivable are shown at net of an allowance for uncollectibles. Trade ac-
counts receivable in excess of 120 days comprise the trade accounts receivable allowance for uncollecti-
bles.
Property taxes are levied as of July 1 on property assessed as of the same date. The tax levy is due No-
vember 15, with an optional payment method of 1/3 due November 15, 1/3 due January 15, and 1/3 due
March 15. Taxes paid in full November 15 are provided a 3 percent discount. The billings are considered
delinquent after the appropriate due date, at which time the applicable property is subject to lien, and pen-
alties and interest are assessed.
Notes and contracts receivable are recorded at par. Interest assessed is recorded as revenue when the
payment becomes due.
3. Inventories and Prepaid Items
All inventories are stated at moving average cost. Inventories are recorded as expenditures when con-
sumed rather than when purchased.
Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as
prepaid items in both the government-wide and fund financial statements.
Pg 48 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
4. Restricted Assets
Certain proceeds of the water enterprise fund revenue bonds, as well as certain resources set aside for
their repayment, are classified as restricted assets on the Statement of Net Position because they are
maintained in separate bank accounts (not in the City's control) and their use is limited by applicable bond
covenants. The "cash in transit" and "cash with escrow agent" arE! used to segregate resources for provi-
sion of current and non-current debt service obligations.
5. Capital Assets
Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, and infrastructure (e.g. streets, roads, bridges,
sidewalks and similar public domain items) are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type
activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined in the City's
capitalization policy (dated 2010) as having a historic cost or market value in excess of $5,000. Such as-
sets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed.
Donated assets are valued at their estimated fair market value at the date of the donation.
The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend
asset lives are not capitalized.
Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest
incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as a part of
the capitalized value of the asset constructed. No interest was capitalized in the current accounting peri-
od.
The City of Ashland amended the capitalization policy to meet Governmental Accounting Standards Board
Statement (GASBS) No. 51 requirements. GASBS 51 relates to recognizing intangible assets. The pro-
nouncement defines intangible assets as easements, water rights, timber rights, patents, trademarks and
computer software.
The policy update states that any asset that is internally development will be capitalized if the actual or
estimated cost is $25,000 or more. The useful life of the assets will be determined by the developing de-
partment, the Administrative Services Department and the City Administrator.
Property, plant and equipment of the primary government, as well as the component unit, is depreciated
using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives of the related assets:
Buildings and improvements 33 to 50 years
Electric power generation and distribution systems 40 to 70 years
Water, wastewater and storm water systems 15 to 50 years
Public domain infrastructure 15 to 25 years
Equipment 2 to 20 years
6. Compensated Absences
It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation and sick pay bene-
fits. Since the City does not have a policy to pay any amounts when employees separate from service
with the City, there is no liability for unpaid accumulated sick leave. All vacation pay is accrued when in-
curred in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is
reported in the governmental funds only if they have matured, or are taken and paid from current re-
sources.
7. Long-Term Obligations
In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements,
long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental
activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type Statement of Net Position.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 49
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bond using the effective
interest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bonding premium or discount.
In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as
well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as oth-
er financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuance are reported as other financing uses. Issuance
costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service ex-
penditures.
8. Reservations of Fund Equity
In March 2009, the GASB issued Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund-
type Definitions. The objective of this statement is to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information
by providing clear fund balance classifications that can be consistently applied and by clarifying the exist-
ing governmental fund-type definitions. This statement establishers fund balance classifications that com-
prise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints
imposed on the use of the resources reported in governmental funds. Under this standard, the fund bal-
ance classifications of reserved, designated, and unreserved/undesignated were replaced with five new
classifications - non-spendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned.
Non-spendable fund balance represents amounts that are not in a spendable form. The non-spendable
fund balance represents inventories and prepaid items.
Restricted fund balance represents amounts that are legally restricted by outside parties for a specific pur-
pose (such as debt covenants, grant requirements, donor requirements, or other governments) or are re-
stricted by law (constitutionally or by enabling legislation).
Committed fund balance represents funds formally set aside by the governing body for a particular pur-
pose. The use of committed funds would be approved by City Council resolution.
Assigned fund balance represents amounts that are constrained by the expressed intent to use resources
for specific purposes that do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. Intent can be
stipulated by the governing body or by an official to whom that authority has been given by the governing
body. Currently, management does not have authority to assign fund balance.
Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification of the General Fund. Only the General Fund may
report a positive unassigned fund balance. Other governmental funds would report any negative residual
fund balance as unassigned.
The governing body has approved the following order of spending regarding fund balance categories: re-
stricted resources are spent first when both restricted and unrestricted (committed, assigned or unas-
signed) resources are available for expenditures. When unrestricted resources are spent, the order of
spending is: committed (if applicable), assigned (if applicable) and unassigned.
To preserve a sound financial system and to provide a stable financial base, the governing body has
adopted a minimum fund balance policy. Resolution No. 2010-05 was established February 9, 2010. The
targets for fund balances are generally a function of estimated annual operating revenue and are intended
to help maintain financial viability of each fund. They vary based on how susceptible a fund is to revenue
fluctuations and based on the riskiness of the activities in each different fund.
9. Deferred Outflows/Inflow of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will somE'times report a separate section for de-
ferred outflow of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a consumption of net
position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources
(expense/expenditure) until then.
Pg 50 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for de-
ferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents an acquisition of net
position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue)
until that time.
Fair Value Inputs and Methodologies and Hierarchy
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an
orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Observable inputs are devel-
oped based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity. Unobservable in-
puts are developed based on the best information available about the assumptions market participants
would use in pricing the asset. The classification of securities within the fair value hierarchy is based up
on the activity level in the market for the security type and the inputs used to determine their fair value, as
follows:
Level 1 - unadjusted price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets or liabilities that
each Fund has the ability to access
Level 2 - other observable inputs (including, but not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities
in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not
active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest
rates, yield curves, volatilities, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated
inputs)
Level 3 - unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent
observable inputs are not available (including each Fund's own assumptions used in determining the fair
value of investments)
The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets
or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measure-
ments). Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised in determining fair value is greatest for instruments
categorized in Level 3. The inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value
hierarchy. In such cases, for disclosure purposes, the fair value hierarchy classification is determined
based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.
II. STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A. Budgetary Information
The City has adopted a biennial budget for all funds on a basis consistent with generally accepted ac-
counting principles for governmental funds. The City Council resolution adopting the budget and authoriz-
ing appropriations for each fund sets the level by which expenditures cannot legally exceed appropria-
tions.
Appropriations are at the department (organizational unit) level for funds with more than one department
and by total personal services, materials and services, capital outlay, debt service, transfers, and contin-
gency for those funds with only one department or function. The detail budget document, however, is re-
quired to contain more specific, detailed information for the above-mentioned expenditure categories. The
City budgets debt service principal and interest on a cash basis and does not budget depreciation ex-
pense or amortizations done on the balance sheet.
Unexpected additional resources may be added to the budget through the use of a supplemental budget.
The supplemental budget process requires hearings before the public, publications in newspapers, and
approval by the City Council. Original and supplemental budgets may be modified only by the City Council
through the use of appropriation transfers between the levels of control. In addition, Oregon Local Budget
Law provides certain specific exceptions to the supplemental budget process to increase appropriations.
Such transfers and increases require approval by the City Council by adoption of a resolution. Budget ap-
propriation amounts shown in the financial statements include the original and revised budget appropria-
tions as approved by the City Council. Appropriations are limited to a biennium budget period of 2015-
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 51
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
2017; therefore, all spending authority of the City lapses at the end of the biennial period. During 2015-
2016 the City made one appropriation transfer, as well as three supplemental budget adjustments, all
adopted by resolution.
Expenditures of the various funds were within authorized appropriations for the year ended June 30,
2016.
III. DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS
A. Deposits and Investments
Component
Unit
Total Primary Parks and
Government Recreation Total
Petty cash $ 5,440 $ 750 $ 6,190
Deposits with financial institutions 1,305,051 - 1,305,051
Imprest Cash 358,000 10,000 368,000
Investments 31,500,259 2,066,374 33,566,633
$ 33,168, 750 $ 2,077,124 $ 35, 245, 874
Governmental - unrestricted $ 34,302,519
Governmental - restricted:
Debt service 943,355
$ 35,245,874
1. Deposits
Deposits with financial institutions include bank demand deposits. Oregon Revised Statutes require de-
posits to be adequately covered by federal depository insurance or deposited at an approved depository
as identified by the Treasury.
2. Credit Risk Deposits
In the case of deposits, this is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the government's deposits may
not be returned to it. The government does not have a deposit policy for custodial credit risk. As of June
30, 2016, the bank balance of deposits was $ 2,172,351. Of those deposits, $547,318 was covered by
federal depository insurance, and the remaining is collateralized by the Oregon Public Funds Collaterali-
zation Program.
The remainder is collateralized per the Oregon Public Funds Collateral ization Program (PFCP). Oregon
Revised Statutes and City policy require depository institutions to maintain on deposit, with the collateral
pool manager, securities having a value not less than ten percent of their quarter-end public fund deposits
if they are adequately capitalized, 25 percent of their quarter-end public fund deposits if they are well capi-
talized, or 110 percent of their quarter-end public fund deposits if they are undercapitalized or assigned to
pledge 110 percent by the Office of the State Treasurer.
3. Investments
Policies officially adopted by the City's board allows the entity to invest in: U.S. Treasury Obligations (bills,
notes and bonds), U.S. Government Agency Securities and Instrumentalities of Government Sponsored
Corporations, Banker's Acceptances, Certificates of Deposit (at commercial banks that have a branch in
Oregon and Savings & Loan Associations that have a branch in Oregon), State and Local Government
Securities, Commercial Paper (Al, AA,P1), State of Oregon Investment Pool, and Repurchase Transac-
tions.
Pg 52 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Cash and Investment Note
Investments in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) are included in the Oregon Short-Term
Fund, which is an external investment pool that is not a 2a-7-like external investment pool, and is not reg-
istered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment company. Fair value of the
LGIP is calculated at the same value as the number of pool shares owned. The unit of account is each
share held, and the value of the position would be the fair value of the pool's share price multiplied by the
number of shares held. Investments in the Short-Term Fund are governed by ORS 294.135, Oregon In-
vestment Council, and portfolio guidelines issued by the Oregon Short-Term Fund Board, which establish
diversification percentages and specify the types and maturities of investments. The portfolio guidelines
permit securities lending transactions as well as investments in repurchase agreements and reverse re-
purchase agreements. The fund appears to be in compliance with all portfolio guidelines at June 30,
2016. The LGIP seeks to exchange shares at $1.00 per share; an investment in the LGIP is neither in-
sured nor guaranteed by the FDIC or any other government agency. Although the LGIP seeks to maintain
the value of share investments at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in the pool.
We intend to measure these investments at book value since it approximates fair value. The pool is com-
prised of a variety of investments. These investments are characterized as a level 2 fair value measure-
ment in the Oregon Short Term Fund's audited financial report. As of June 30, 2016, the fair value of the
position in the LGIP is 100.6% of the value of the pool shares as reported in the Oregon Short Term Fund
audited financial statements. Amounts in the State Treasurer's Local Government Investment Pool are not
required to be collateralized.
As of June 30, 2016, the City had the following investments and maturities:
Investment Maturities (in months)
Investment Type Fair Value Less than 3 3-17 18-59
State Treasurer's
investment pool 33,566,633 33,566,633 - -
$ 33,566,633 $ 33,566,633 $ - $ -
Interest Rate Risk
As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses resulting from rising interest rates, the City's in-
vestment policy allows only the purchase of investments that can be held to maturity. Investments cannot
be made predicated upon selling the security prior to maturity.
Oregon Revised Statutes require that investments do not exceed a maturity of 18 months, except when
the local government has adopted a written investment policy that was submitted to and reviewed by the
OSTFB.
The City limits investment maturities as follows:
1. Under 30 days 10% minimum
2. Under 90 days 25% minimum
3. Under 270 days 50% minimum
4. Under 1 year 75% minimum
5. Under 18 months 80% minimum
6. Under 3 years 100% minimum
Credit Risk
Neither the Oregon Revised Statutes nor the City's investment policy limits investments as to credit rating
for securities purchased from U.S. Government Agencies. The City's investments in U.S. Government
Agencies were rated AAA by Standard & Poor's and AAA by Moody's Investor Service. The state pool is
unrated. Oregon Revised Statutes require Banker's Acceptances to be guaranteed by and carried on the
books of, a qualified financial institution, eligible for discount by the Federal Reserve System, and issued
by a qualified financial institution whose short-term letter of credit rating is rated in the highest category by
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 53
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.
Concentration of Credit Risk
To avoid incurring unreasonable risks inherent to over-investing in specific instruments or in individual
financial institutions, the City's investment policy sets maximum limits on the percentage of the portfolio
that can be invested in any one type of security. At June 30, 2016, the City was in compliance with all per-
centage restrictions.
Oregon Revised Statutes require that no more than 25 percent of the monies of local government to be
invested in Bankers Acceptances of any singular qualified financial institution. Amounts in the State
Treasurer's LGIP are not required by law to be collateralized.
No more than the stated percentage of the overall portfolio will be invested in each of the following cate-
gories of securities:
U.S. Treasury Obligations 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities and
Instrumentalities of Government Sponsored Corp. 100%
Bankers' Acceptances 50%
Certificates of Deposit 35%
State and Local Government Securities 35%
Repurchase Transactions 25%
Commercial Paper (AA,A1,P1) 10%
State of Oregon Investment Pool Securities 100%
B. Receivables
As of year end, Receivables for the government's individual major funds and non-major, internal service in
aggregate, including the applicable allowances for uncollectable accounts, are as follows:
Governmental funds report unearned and unavailable revenue in connection with receivables for reve-
nues that are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Governmental
funds also defer revenue recognition in connection with resourcE:s that have been received, but not yet
earned. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of unavailable revenue and un-
earned revenue reported in all funds were as follows:
Components of unavailable revenue and unearned revenue reported
in all funds at current fiscal year end:
Unavailable
Delinquent property taxes receivable:
General fund $ 663,135
Debt service fund 34,902
Business Licenses 146,960
Rehabilitation loans 61,467
Ambulance billing 232,576
Notes receivable 343,860
SDC receivable 94,029
Special assessments not yet due:
Unbonded-street fund 227,741
Utility Receivables 2,354,492
Food and Beverage Receivables 681,348
Misc. Receivables 1,389,680
Hotel/Motel Receivables _ 722,426
$ 6,952,616
Pg 54 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
C. Capital Assets
Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2016, was as follows:
Balance Additions Retirements Balance
June 30, 2015 and Reclasses and Reclasses June 30, 2016
Governmental activities:
Capital assets, not being depreciated
Land $ 12,466,348 $ - $ 12,466,348
Construction in progress 1,614,352 1,390,232 1,614,352 1,390,232
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 14,080,700 1,390,232 1,614,352 13,856,580
Buildings 35,855,873 126,158 35,982,031
Improvements other than buildings 54,917,222 828,394 55,745,616
Machinery and equipment 17,114,424 1,000,734 18,115,158
Total capital assets, being depreciated 107,887,519 1,955,286 - 109,842,805
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings (13,966,356) (1,002,704) - (14,969,060)
Improvements other than buildings (31,941,278) (1,701,909) (33,643,187)
Machinery and equipment (16,042,001) 1,007,807 (17,049,808)
Total accumulated depreciation (61,949,635) (3,712,420) - (65,662,055)
Total capital assets being depreciated, net 45,937,884 1,757,134) - 44,180,750
Governmental activities capital assets, net $ 60,018,584 $ 366,902 $ 1,614,352 $ 58,037,330
Balance Additions Retirements Balance
June 30, 2015 and Reclasses and Reclasses June 30, 2016
Business-type activities:
Capital assets, not being depreciated - - - -
Land $ 1,906,925 $ - $ 1,906,925
Construction in progress 5,788,805 1,748,593 117,206 7,420,192
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 7,695,730 1,748,593 117,206 9,327,117
Buildings 22,089,254 - - 22,089,254
Machinery and equipment 1,271,975 17,614 1,289,589
Improvements other than buildings 84,289,573 116,845 84,406,418
Total capital assets, being depreciated 107,650,802 134,459 - 107,785,261
Less accumulated depreciation:
Buildings (6,429,486) (435,007) - (6,864,493)
Machinery and equipment (876,060) (96,520) (972,580)
Improvements other than buildings (44,011,493) (1,879,194) (45,890,687)
Total accumulated depreciation (51,317,039) (2,410,721) - (53,727,760)
Total capital assets being depreciated, net 56,333,763 (2,276,262) - 54,057,501
Business-type activities capital assets, net $ 64,029,493 $ 527,669 $ 117,206 $ 63,384,618
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 55
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the primary government as
follows:
General government $ 1,000,214
Public safety 246,318
Highways and streets 1,656,710
Parks and Rec 809,178
Total $ 3,712,420
Construction Commitments
The government has active construction projects as of June 30, 2016. The projects include construction
of various infrastructure improvements and additions to the transportation, storm water, water, wastewater
and telecommunications systems. The City has remaining commitments under construction contracts of
approximately $14,093,411 at June 30, 2016.
D. Interfund Receivable, Payable and Transfers
The internal transfers are budgeted and recorded to show legal and operational commitments between
funds such as cost sharing or debt service. Interfund loans are used to assure adequate fund balances in
funds where operations do not currently (on a short term basis) generate enough support through reve-
nues.
The composition of interfund balances as of June 30, 2016, is as follows:
Transfers 'Transfers
Fund In Out
General fund $ 255,935 $ 96,510
Street fund - -
Parks fund 80,000 80,000
Non-major governmental 276,227 85,652
Central Service 417,000
Insurance Services 517,000
Water Fund 250,000
Total $ 1,029,162 $ 1,029,162
Interfund Receivable Interfund Receivable
Fund and Payable In _ and Payable Out
General Fund $ 690,544 $ -
Other Governmental Funds -
Telecommunications Fund 165,544
Insurance Fund -
Health Benefits Fund - _ 525,000
Total $ 690,544 $ 690,544
The interfund loan in the amount of $525,000 is for the Health E3enefits fund to help the shortage. This
fund is now $525,000 in debt. The second interfund loan is for $165,544 to fund AFN capital projects.
Pg 56 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
E. Long-term Debt
1. Unbonded Long-term Debt (Notes and Contracts)
The government entered into promissory note agreements for financing the acquisition of several land
parcels, construction of a three-level parking structure, federally/-mandated construction of wastewater
treatment facilities, and startup construction and operation of the fiber optic network. The original amount
of all promissory notes issued in prior years was $38,720,613.
The promissory notes are funded by various sources: open space land acquisition by prepared food and
beverage tax; the parking structure by revenue generated from parking fees; and the wastewater treat-
ment facility by prepared food and beverage tax, system development charges and user rates.
Promissory notes outstanding at year end are as follows,
Purpose Interest Rates _ Amount
Government activities 2.12% $ 8373000
Government activities 3.77% 309,895
Government activities 5.75% 1043812
$ 1,251,707
Promissory note debt service requirement to maturity is as follows:
Year ending Governmental Activities
June 30, Principal Interest
2017 146,885 34,563
2018 152,085 29,655
2019 157,451 24,543
2020 123,890 19,775
2021 127,319 16,513
2022-2026 544,076 32,077
2027-2031
$ 1,251,707 $ 157,126
The City issued debt in the amount of $870,000 for the upgrade of the water feature at Garfield Park. The
note will be funded by the food and beverage tax.
2. General Obligation Bonds
The City issues general obligation bonds to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major
capital facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued for both governmental and business-type
activities. The original amount of general obligation bonds issued in prior years was $24,201,000.
The City issued GO Bonds in November 2011 for the construction of Fire Station #2 in the amount of
$2,960,000.
General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the government.
These bonds consist of a 30-year serial bond with equal amount of principal maturing each year, and four
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 57
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
issues with varying principal payments due over 12 to 20 years. General obligation bonds currently out-
standing are as follows.
Purpose Interest Rates Amount
Government activities 2.0-4.C,0% $ 2,335,000
Government activities 3.5-5.0% 975,000
Government activities 2-2.8% 10,195,000
Government activities 2-2.5% 1,375,000
Business-type activities 2-4% 8,370,000
Business-type activities 4.H% 622,872
Business-type activities 2.CO% 1,235,000
Business-type activities 2-2.5% 2,550,000
$ 27,657,872
The above table includes $14.3 million in full faith-and-credit. This is a refinancing of the Department of
Environmental Quality loan that was used to help pay the costs of the wastewater treatment plant project.
The original debt was under promissory notes. This refinancing generated approximately $1.34 million in
Net Present Value savings on the total debt.
Future maturities of bond principal and interest at June 30, 2016, are as follows-
Year Ending 2004 Full Faith and Credit 2005 GO Bonds _ 2009 GO Bonds
June 30, Principal Interest Principal Interest _ Principal Interest
2017 225,000 48,750 65,202 30,035
2018 240,000 37,500 68,469 26,768
2019 250,000 25,500 71,901 23,337
2020 260,000 13,000 75,504 19,733
2021 79,287 15,950
2022-2026 262,509 23,203
2027-2031
2032-2036
$ - $ - $ 975,000 $ 124,750 $ 622,872 $ 139,026
Year Ending 2010 GO Bonds 2011 GO Bonds Fire Station #2 _ 2013 AFN Debt
June 30, Principal Interest Principal Interest _ Principal Interest
2017 1,280,000 334,800 125,000 78,388 1,035,000 219,860
2018 1,325,000 283,600 125,000 74,638 1,060,000 198,910
2019 1,370,000 230,600 130,000 70,888 - 1,080,000 177,510
2020 1,415,000 175,800 135,000 66,988 1,100,000 155,710
2021 1,465,000 119,200 140,000 62,938 1,130,000 133,410
2022-2026 1,515,000 60,600 765,000 249,038 4,790,000 256,660
2027-2031 915,000 112,150
2032-2036
$ 8,370,000 $ 1,204,600 $ 2,335,000 $ 715,028 $ 10,195,000 $ 1,142,060
Year Ending 2013 Water Debt GO Bonds 2013 GO Bonds New Construction- Total
June 30, Principal Interest Principal Interest _ Principal Interest
2017 165,000 23,050 290,000 80,125 3,185,202 815,008
2018 170,000 19,700 295,000 74,275 3,283,469 715,391
2019 175,000 16,250 300,000 68,325 3,376,901 612,409
2020 180,000 12,700 310,000 62,225 3,475,504 506,156
2021 180,000 9,100 320,000 55,925 3,314,287 396,523
2022-2026 365,000 7,350 1,675,000 180,000 9,372,509 776,851
2027-2031 735,000 18,338 1,650,000 130,488
2032-2036 -
$ 1,235,000 $ 88,150 $ 3,925,000 $ 539,213 $ 27,657,872 $ 3,952,826
Pg 58 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
3. Revenue Bonds
The government also issues bonds on which the government pledges income derived from the acquired
or constructed assets to pay debt service. The original issue in 1994 was for construction of a 3.5 million
gallon reservoir and addition of and upgrade to existing distribution infrastructure.
In 2003, the remaining $2.75 million of these bonds were decreased with the issuance of $5.625 million
for infrastructure construction and re-funding of the original issue. On June 20, 2008, the Government is-
sued $304,000 in tax exempt, low-interest (1.25 percent) Clean Renewable Energy Bonds authorized by
U.S. Treasury to construct a renewable resource photovoltaic system to generate "green power" for the
city's electrical system. Electric rate revenue is pledged to pay the related debt service.
The City has obtained two loans from the State of Oregon - Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
The first loan is for the wastewater treatment plant, the membrane system upgrade in the amount of
$4,549,691. This is a reimbursement loan and to date $1,645,280 has been requested. The interest rate
is 1 The second DEQ loan is for water projects, such as the TAP project. The total is $ 2,970,000 at
1% interest. The total of the drawdown at June 30, 2016 is $979,630.
Purpose Interest Rates Amount
Water & Wastewater 1.00% $ 4,07:9,748
Water 3.42% 2,231,269
Electric 3.8-6.01% 130,284
$ 6,441,301
Revenue bond debt service requirements to maturity are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30, Principal Interest
2017 439,908 172,055
2018 442,950 168,741
2019 446,097 16:5,323
2020 449,352 161,796
2021 474,434 158,293
2022-2026 2,209,756 734,022
2027-2031 1,442,934 335,592
2032-2036 535,870 37,275
$ 6,441,301 $ 1,933,097
4. Advance and Current Re-fundings
The Government issued general obligation re-funding bonds in amounts of $2,040,000 in 1992 and
$1,720,010 in 1997, to provide resources to purchase U.S. Government State and Local Government Se-
ries securities, that were placed in an irrevocable trust for the purpose of generating resources for all fu-
ture debt service payments of $1,870,000 and $1,625,000 of general obligation bonds.
As a result, the re-funded bonds are considered to be defeased, and the liability has been removed from
the business-type activities column of the Statement of Net Position. The reacquisition price exceeded the
net carrying amount of the old debt by $265,010. This amount was, netted against the new debt and amor-
tized over the life of the re-funded debt, which was shorter than the life of the new debt issued. These ad-
vance re-fundings were undertaken to reduce total debt service payments by $363,644 and $266,087,
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 59
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
respectively, over the term of the bonds and resulted in an economic gain of $364,741.
The government issued $2,952,833 of revenue bonds in June 2003, to provide resources to purchase US
Government, state and local securities that were placed in trust for the purpose of generating resources
for all future debt service payments of $2,750,000 in revenue bond issued in 1984. As a result, the re-
funded bonds are considered to be defeased, and the liability has been removed from the business-type
activities column of the Statement of Net Position. The reacqulisition price exceeded the net carrying
amount of the old debt by $202,833. This amount was netted against the new debt and amortized over the
life of the re-funded debt, which was shorter than the life of the nE!w debt issued. This advance re-funding
was undertaken to reduce total debt service payments by $386,048 over the term of the bonds and result-
ed in an economic gain of $738,505.
On August 11, 2004, the government issued $15,500,000 in taxable general obligation revenue bonds
backed by the full faith and credit of the City. The proceeds were used to pay off existing bank loans of
$4,286,000 and $2,532,000 that was borrowed to construct the Ashland Fiber Network (AFN). The loans'
interest rates were 5.14 percent and 7.01 percent, respectively. Taxable bonds with a longer life than the
loans were issued to consolidate the bank loans. The average interest rate of the bonds allocable to the
loan refunding was 5.38 percent. The re-funding of the loans resulted in an economic loss of $1,631. In
addition to re-funding the bank loans, the bonds also provided $8.44 million to payoff internal borrowing
related to AFN.
On December 1, 2005, the City issued $2,560,000 in general obligation bonds with an interest rate rang-
ing from 3.5 percent to 5.0 percent over the fifteen year life, re-funding a portion of the City's General Obli-
gation Bonds, Series 1997 and Series 2000 bonds. The re-funding resulted in a $121,962 (4.41 percent)
net present value savings. The City's GO Bond Series 2000 was originally insured by the Financial Guar-
anty Insurance Company . On February 14, 2008, Moody's downgraded FGIC's rating to A3. As a conse-
quence, the City's GO Bonds Series 2000 have been downgraded to A2 (which is equal to the City's un-
derlying rating of A2 - higher than FGIC's A3 rating).
On February 7, 2013, the City issued $6,345,000 in new debt and refinanced two existing issues, one Tax
-Exempt and the other one Federally Taxable.
o The new debt of $6,345,000 is Full Faith and Credit Bonds with an interest rate of 2.00 percent to 2.50
percent over the fifteen year life. The purpose for these bonds are for projects in the Street, Water and
Wastewater funds and a small portion for the component unit projects.
Moody's Investors Services assigned an "Al" rating to both the Tax-Exempt Bonds and the Taxable
Bonds. The following table on page 61 shows the activities for both Governmental and Business type as
they relate to long term liabilities.
5. Changes in Long-term Liabilities
Pg 60 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Long-term liability activity for the year ended June 30, 2016, was as follows:
Beginning Additions and Ending Due within
Balance Adjustments Reductions _ Balance One Year
Governmental Activities:
Bonds payable:
General obligation $ 16,325,000 $ - $ 1,445,000 $ 14,880,000 $ 730,000
Total bonds payable 16,325,000 - 1,445,000 14,880,000 730,000
Notes and contracts 478,543 870,000 96,836 1,251,706 146,885
Claims and judgements 122,107 104,860 17,247 17,247
Government Activities:
Long-term liabilities $ 16,925,650 $ 870,000 $ 1,646,696 $ 16,148,953 $ 894,132
Business-type Activities:
Bonds Payable:
General obligation $ 14,439,962 $ - $ 1,662,091 $ 12,777,871 $ 1,700,202
Revenue 5,952,389 595,879 106,968 6,441,300 109,908
Total bonds payable 20,392,351 595,879 1,769,059 19,219,171 1,810,110
Business-type Activities:
Long-term liabilities $ 20,392,351 $ 595,879 $ 1,769,059 $ 19,219,171 $ 1,810,110
F. Restricted Cash Assets
All cash in the debt service fund is restricted for debt payment. The balances of the restricted asset ac-
counts in the governmental and business-type are as follows,
G. Compensated Absences
General
Government
Restricted Cash:
Debt service for GO Debt $ 943,355
$ 943,355
Internal service funds predominantly serve governmental funds. Accordingly, long-term liabilities for them
are included as part of the above totals for governmental activities. At year end, $213,288 of the Internal
Service Fund was compensated absences.
The General Fund is typically used to liquidate the compensated absences for governmental funds. The
balances of the compensated absences accounts in the governmental and business-type are as follows:
IV. OTHER INFORMATION
Beginning Ending Due within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance a Year
Governmental Activities: $ 845,243 $ 925,591 $ 845,243 $ 925,591 $ 231,398
Business-type Activities: 491,586 518,864 491,586 518,864 129,716
Total compensated absences payable $ 1,336,829 $ 1,444,455 $ 1,336,829 $ 1,444,455 $ 361,114
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 61
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
A. Risk Management
The government is exposed to various risks of loss related to: torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of
assets; errors and omissions; natural disasters; workers' compensation; and post retirement benefits for
which the government is self-insured to defined levels. The government has established limited risk man-
agement programs for liability and workers' compensation.
The government purchases re-insurance above defined loss levels in each program. Premiums are paid
into the Insurance Services internal service fund by all other funds, component units, and potential com-
ponent units, and are available to pay claims, claim reserves, and administrative costs of the programs.
These interfund and agency premiums are used to offset the amount of claims expenditures reported. As
of June 30, 2016, such premiums did not exceed paid claims and reserves.
Effective April 1, 2004, Ashland Community Health Care (ACH), established a separate workers' compen-
sation self-insurance fund and their potential liability has been removed.
Liabilities of the fund are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss
can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not re-
ported (IBNRs). The result of the process to estimate the claims liability is not an exact amount as it de-
pends on many complex factors, such as inflation, change in legal doctrines, and damage awards.
Accordingly, claims are re-evaluated periodically to consider the effects of inflation, recent claim settle-
ment trends (including frequency and amount of pay-outs), and other economic and social factors. Liability
claims have a seven year statute of limitations and open claims, not in litigation, are frozen. An excess
insurance policy covers claims after an aggregate annual settlement of $50,000.
Settlements have not exceeded coverage's in each of the last three fiscal years. Workers' compensation
claims are carried and reviewed from the date of self-insurance, July 1, 1989. An excess insurance policy
covers individual claims in excess of $300,000. Changes in the balances of claims liability during the past
two years are as follows:
Year ended June 30, 2016 Year ended June 30, 2015
Unpaid claims, beginning of fiscal year $ 122,107 $ 122,235
Incurred claims (including IBNRs) (104,860) _ (128)
Unpaid claims, end of fiscal year $ 17,247 $ 122,107
The City has established an internal service fund to account for self insurance of Health care. Beginning
July 1, 2013, the city implemented a self-insured health benefit program that provides medical, dental and
vision coverage to all regular full and part-time employees and their dependents as well as non-Medicare
eligible retirees and their dependents. The City has established a self-insurance reserve to pay medical,
dental, and vision claims up to the self-insurance retention limit of $ 100,000 per covered individual.
B. Contingent Liabilities
June 30, 2016
Accrued claim liability, July 1 $ 439,379
Incurred claims 4,793,330
Claims payment (4,311,653)
Accrued Claim liability, June 30 $ 481,677
In August 2011 Ashland City Council approved Ashland Community Hospital (ACH) seeking an affilia-
tion with a larger hospital group to address financial impacts relating to operations of a small, stand-
Pg 62 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
alone hospital in a difficult economy. On April 9, 2012, a formal report was made to the Council on the
decision by ACH to enter into a 90-day period of exclusive negotiations with Dignity Health. City of
Ashland retains ownership of the hospital property consistent with prior years and Council must ap-
prove of the terms of any merger.
On June 4, 2013 Council approved the affiliation agreement between ACH and Asante. Under this af-
filiation agreement, the City transferred its sole corporate membership in ACH to Asante. Asante will
agree to operate ACH as a general hospital for at least 15 years. If it fails to do so within the first three
years of the agreement, sole corporate membership will revert to the City including the debt. If it fails
to operate ACH as a general hospital in years four through 15 of the agreement, Asante will pay the
City $4 million in what is the equivalent of liquidated damages. In addition, should Asante fail to oper-
ate ACH as a general hospital in the first three years of the agreement, thus causing reversion to the
City, Asante will pay the City $8 million; reduced by an amount equal to payment into the ACH defined
benefit retirement plan in excess of$900,000 averaged annually. Asante has the right to exercise a
reversionary interest in the first three years of the agreement if total pension liability exceeds $16 mil-
lion or if previously unknown liabilities arise after closing that exceed $4 million. In the event of a
reversion from Asante to the City in the first three years of the agreement, caused by Asante's fail-
ure to operate ACH as a general hospital, Asante must pay to ACH $8 million, reduced by no more
than $2 million for higher-than-expected contributions to the ACH defined benefit pension plan.
As of June 30, 2016 Asante has paid their debt in full.
C. Other Post Employment Benefits
Post Employment Stipend
The post employment stipend is administrated by the City of Ashland. The City has elected to use the
project Unit Credit cost method.
Plan Description - In addition to providing pension benefits, the City provides certain benefits for 19
retired City employees from the management, unrepresented group who completed a minimum of 15
years employment with the City. The City pays a monthly stipend from the retiree's 60th birthday or
date of retirement, whichever is later, until the retiree's death. These benefit obligations are required
by labor bargaining agreements and the exempt employee ordinance. The cost of retiree benefits is
recognized as an expense in the Insurance Services Fund (an intE)rnal service fund) when eligible em-
ployees retire. The amount advance funded at retirement is based solely on the City's estimate. On
July 16, 2008 a Resolution was passed which states that any employee hired on or after July 1, 2008,
or hired into management on or after July 1, 2008 will not be eligible to receive retiree benefits under
this provision.
Funding Policy - The benefits from this program are paid by the Insurance Fund. There is no obligation
on the part of the City to fund these benefits in advance.
Annual Benefit Cost and Net Benefit Obligation - The City's annual Other Post Employment Benefit
(OPEB) cost is calculated based on the annual required contribution (ARC) of the employer and an
amount actuarially determined in accordance and within the parameters of GASBS 45. The ARC repre-
sents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and
amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed thirty years. The
following table shows the components of the OPEB obligation at the end of the year. The remaining
amortization period is thirteen years.
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions - The ARC for the current year was determined as part of the August
1, 2016, actuarial valuation, using the present value of projected benefits discounted at the valuation inter-
est rate (4.50 percent). The assumed health costs will increase 5.75 percent in the first year (August 1,
2016, premiums compared with August 1, 2015, premiums), In future years, the medical and vision cost
trend varies from 6.75 percent to 5.00 percent depending upon the timing of the excise tax scheduled to
affect health care benefits beginning in 2018. The demographic; assumptions, such as mortality rates,
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 63
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
disability incidence rates, retirement rates and withdrawal rates, are the same as those used by Oregon
PERS for cities.
Funding Status and Funding Progress - As of June 30 2013, the most recent actuarial valuation date,
the plan was zero percent funded. The actuarial accrued liability for benefits was $3,912,886 and the actu-
arial value of assets was zero, resulting in an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of $3,912,886.
Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial UAAL as a
Valuation Value of Accrued Unfunded Funded Covered % of Covered
Date Assets Liability AAL Ratio_ Payroll Payroll
08/01/2010 $ - $ 2,802,196 $ 2,802,196 0% N/A N/A
08/01/2012 $ - $ 2,764,065 $ 2,764,065 0% N/A N/A
08/01/2014 $ - $ 2,044,116 $ 2, 044,116 0% N/A N/A
Year ended Year ended
June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015
Annual required contribution (medical) $ 112,826 $ 156,771
Amortization of UAAL 253,661 348,373
Annual required contribution 336,487 505,144
Interest on prior year $ 57,975 $ 51,021
Adjustment to ARC 199,170 175,282
Implicit benefit payments 135,231 182,220
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligation 90,061 198,663
Net OPEB obligation - beginning of fiscal year $ 1,656,418 $ 1,457,755
Net OPEB obligation - end of fiscal year $ 1,746,479 $ 1,656,418
Fiscal Annual Percentage Net
Year OPEB of annual OPEB OPEB
Ending Cost Cost Contributed__ Obligation
6/30/2016 $ 225,292 60% $ 1,746,479
6/30/2015 380,883 480/0 1,656,418
6/30/2014 382,000 52°ij 1,457,755
Post Employment Health Insurance Subsidy
The post employment Health Insurance Subsidy is administrated by the City of Ashland. The City has
elected to use the project Unit Credit cost method.
Plan Description - The City operates a single-employer retiree benefit plan that provides post employment
health, dental, vision and life insurance benefits to eligible employees and their spouses. There are active
and retired members in the plan. Benefits and eligibility for members are established through the collec-
tive bargaining agreements. The City's post-retirement healthcare plan was established in accordance
with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 243.303. ORS stipulated that for the purpose of establishing health
care premiums, the rate must be based on all plan members, including both active employees and retir-
ees.
The difference between retiree claims cost (which is generally higher in comparison to all plan members
because of the effect of age) and the amount of retiree healthcarE! premiums represents the City's implicit
employer contribution.
Pg 64 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
The City did not establish an irrevocable trust (or equivalent arrangement) to account for the plan.
Funding Policy - The benefits from this program are paid by the retired employees on a self-pay basis
and the required contribution is based on projected pay-as-you go financing requirements. There is no
obligation on the part of the City to fund these benefits in advance.
Annual Pension Cost and Net Pension Obligation - The City's annual Other Post Employment Benefit
(OPEB) cost is calculated based on the annual required contribution (ARC) of the employer and an
amount actuarially determined in accordance within the parameters of GASBS 45. The ARC represents a
level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and amortize
any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed thirty years. The follow-
ing table shows the components of the OPEB obligation at the end of the year.
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions - The ARC for the current year was determined as part of the August
1, 2016, actuarial valuation, using the present value of projected benefits discounted at the valuation inter-
est rate (4.50 percent). The assumed health costs will increase 5.75 percent in the first year (August 1,
2016, premiums compared with August 1, 2015, premiums), In future years, the medical and vision cost
trend varies from 6.75 percent to 5.00 percent depending upon the timing of the excise tax scheduled to
affect health care benefits beginning in 2018. The demographic; assumptions, such as mortality rates,
disability incidence rates, retirement rates and withdrawal rates, are the same as those used by Oregon
PERS for cities.
Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial PUC Unfunded
Valuation Value of Accrued Unfunded Funded Accrued AAL Funded
Date Plan Assets Liability AAL Ratio Liability (UAAL) Ratio
06/30/2015 $ - $ 3,659,015 $ 3,659,015 0% 11> 3,328 $ 3,325 0%
06/30/2013 $ - $ 3,716,191 $ 3,716,191 0% 113 4,812 $ 4,812 0%
06/30/2011 $ - $ 2,707,203 $ 2,704,203 0% 1) 5,139 $ 5,139 0%
Year ended Year ended
June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015
Annual required contribution (medical) $ 437,520 $ 423,650
Interest on net OPEB obligation (BOY) 68,394 59,045
Adjustment to ARC for net OPEB obligation - -
Annual OPEB costs 505,914 482,695
Expected contributions (246,317) (215,580)
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligation 259,597 267,115
Net OPEB obligation - beginning of fiscal year $ 1,954,128 $ 1,687,013
Net OPEB obligation - end of fiscal year, $ 2,213,725 $ 1,954,128
Annual % of Annual OPE6. Net
Fiscal Year Ending OPEB Cost Cost Contributed _ OPEB Obligation
6/30/2016 $ 336,247 22.80% $ 2,213,725
6/30/2015 336,220 20.55% 1,954,128
6/30/2014 371,007 18.22% 1,687,013
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 65
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
D. Employee Retirement System and Pension Plan
Plan Description - The Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) consists of a sin-
gle cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit plan. All benefits of the system are estab-
lished by the legislature pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapters 238 and 238A.
Oregon PERS produces an independently audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
which can be found at, http://www.oregon.gov/pers/Pages/section/financial reports/financials.aspx. If
the link is expired please contact Oregon PERS for this information.
a) PERS Pension (Chapter 238). The ORS Chapter 238 Defined Benefit Plan is closed to new
members hired on or after August 29, 2003.
i) Pension Benefits. The PERS retirement allowance is payable monthly for life. It
may be selected from 13 retirement benefit options. These options include survivorship
benefits and lump-sum refunds. The basic benefit is based on years of service and final
average salary. A percent age (2.0 percent for police and fire employees, and 1.67 per-
cent for general service employees) is multiplied by the number of years of service and
the final average salary. Benefits may also be calculated under either a formula plus an-
nuity (for members who were contributing before August 21, 1981) or a money match
computation if a greater benefits results.
ii) Death Benefits. Upon the death of a non-retired member, the beneficiary receives a
lump-sum refund of the member's account balance (accumulated contributions and inter-
est). In addition, the beneficiary will receive a lump-sum payment from employer funds
equal to the account balance, provided one or more of the following contributions are met:
• member was employed by PERS employer at the time of death,
• member died within 120 days after termination of PERS covered employment,
• member died as a result of injury sustained while employed in a PERS-covered
job, or
• member was on an official leave of absence from a PERS-covered job at the time
of death.
iii) Disability Benefits. A member with 10 or more years of creditable service who be-
comes disable from other than duty-connected causes may receive a non-duty disability
benefit. A disability resulting from a job-incurred injury or illness qualifies a member
(including PERS judge members) for disability benefits regardless of the length of PERS-
covered service. Upon qualifying for either a non-duty or duty disability, service time is
computed to age 58 (55 for police and fire members) when determining the monthly bene-
fit.
iv) Benefit Changes After Retirement. Members may choose to continue participation
in a variable equities investment account after retiring and may experience annual benefit
fluctuations due to changes in the market value equity investments. Under ORS 238.360
monthly benefits are adjusted annually through cost-of-living changes. The cap on the
COLA will vary based on the amount of the annual benefit.
b) OPSRP Pension Program (OPSRP DB). The ORS Chapter 238A Defined Benefit Pension
Program provides benefits to members hired on or after August 29, 2003.
i) Pension Benefits. This portion of OPSRP provides a life pension funded by em-
ployer contributions. Benefits are calculated with the following formula for members who
attain normal retirement age:
Police and fire: 1.8 percent is multiplied by the number of years of service and the
final average salary. Normal retirement age for police and fire members is age 60 or age
53 with 25 years of retirement credit. To be classified as a police and fire member, the
individual must have been employed continuously as a police and fire member for
at least five years immediately preceding retirement.
General service: 1.5 percent is multiplied by the number of years of service and the
final average salary. Normal retirement age for general service members is age 65, or
age 58 with 30 years of retirement credit. A member of the pension program becomes
vested on the earliest of the following dates: the date the member completes 600 hours
of service in each of five calendar years, the date the member reaches normal retirement
Pg 66 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
age, and, if the pension program is terminated, thE; date on which termination becomes
effective.
ii) Death Benefits. Upon the death of a non-retired member, the spouse or other person
who is constitutionally required to be treated in the! same manner as the spouse receives
for life 50 percent of the pension that would otherwise have been paid to the deceased
member.
iii) Disability Benefits. A member who has accrued 10 or more years of retirement
credits before the member becomes disabled or a member who becomes disabled due to
job-related injury shall receive a disability benefit of 45 percent of the member's salary
determined as of the last full month of employment before the disability occurred.
iv) Benefit Changes After Retirement. Under ORS 238A.210 monthly benefits are ad-
justed annually through cost-of-living changes. The cap on the COLA will vary based on
the amount of the annual benefit.
Contributions - PERS funding policy provides for monthly employer contributions at actuarially
determined rates. These contributions, expressed as a percentage of covered payroll, are in-
tended to accumulate sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. The funding policy applies to
the PERS Defined Benefit Plan and the Other Postemployrrient Benefit Plans. Employer contri-
bution rates during the period were based on the December 31, 2013 actuarial valuation, which
became effective July 1, 2015. The state of Oregon and certain schools, community colleges,
and political subdivision have made unfunded actuarial liability payments and their rates have
been reduced. Employer contributions for the year ended June 30, 2016 were $2,552,663 ex-
cluding amounts to fund employer specific liabilities. In addition approximately $2,805,936 in
employee contributions were paid or picked up by the City in fiscal 2016.
Pension Asset or Liability - At June 30, 2016, the City reported a net pension asset of
$14,910,215 for its proportionate share of the net pension asset. The pension asset was meas-
ured as of December 31, 2013, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension
liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City's proportion of the net
pension liability was based on a projection of the City's long-term share of contributions to the
pension plan relative to the projected contributions of all participating employers, actuarially de-
termined. At December 31, 2013, the City's proportion was .26 percent per GASB 68 valuation.
Deferred Outflow Deferred Inflow
of Resources Of Resources
Difference between expected and actual experience $ 804,034 $ -
Changes in assumptions - -
Net difference between projected and actual - -
earnings on pension plan investments 3,125,519
Net changes in proportionate share and
Difference between the City contributions
and proportionate share of contributions 293,813 338,443
Subtotal - Amortized Deferrals (below) 1,097,847 3,463,962
City Contributions subsequent to measuring date 2,805,936
Net Deferred outflow (inflow) of resources $ 3,903,783 $ 3,463,962
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 67
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Amounts reported as deferred outflows or inflow of resources related to pension will be recognized in pen-
sion expense as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Amount
2017 $ (1,319,363)
2018 (1,319,363)
2019 (1,319,363)
2020 1,521,742
2021 70,231
Thereafter
Total $ (2,366,116)
All assumptions, methods and plan provisions used in these calculations are described in the
Oregon PERS system-wide GASB 68 reporting summary dated May 23, 2016. Oregon PERS
produces an independently audited CAFR which can be found at-
http://www.ore_qon.gov/pers/Pages/section/financ,al reports/financial.aspx.
Actuarial Valuations -The employer contribution rates effective July 1, 2015 through June 30,
2017, were set using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. For the Tier One/Tier Two
component of the PERS Defined Benefit Plan, this method produced an employer contribution
rate consisting of (1) an amount for normal cost (estimated amount necessary to finance bene-
fits earned by employees during the current service year), (2) an amount for the amortization
unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities, which are being amortized over a fixed period with new
unfunded actuarial liabilities being amortized over 20 years.
For the OPSRP Pension Program component of the PERS Defined Benefit Plan, this method
produced an employer rate consisting of (a) an amount for normal cost (the estimated amount
necessary to finance benefits earned by the employees during the current service year), (b) an
actuarially determined amount for funding a disability beneflit component, and (c) an amount for
the amortization of unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities, which are being amortized over a fixed
period with new unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities being amortized over 16 years.
Pg 68 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
Valuation date December 31, 2013 rolled forward to June 30, 2015
Experience Study 2014, Published September 2015
Report
Actuarial cost method Entry Age Normal
Amortization method Amortized as a level percentage of payroll as layered amortization bases
over a closed period; Tier One/Tier Two UAL is amortized over 20 years
and OPSRP pension UAL is amortized over 16 years
Asset valuation method Market value of assets
Inflation rate 2.75 percent
Investment rate of 7.75 percent
return
Projected salary 3.75 percent overall payroll growth; salaries for individuals are assumed
increase to grow at 3.75 percent plus assumed rates of merit/longevity increases
based on service. For COLA, a blend of 2% COLA and graded COLA
(1.25%/0.15%) in accordance with Moro decision, blend based on service.
Mortality Healthy retirees and beneficiaries:
RP-2000 Sex-distinct, generational per Scale AA, with collar adjustments
and set-backs as described in the valuation. Active members: Mortality
rates are a percentage of healthy retiree rates that vary by group, as
described in the valuation. Disabled retirees: Mortality rates are a
percentage (65% for males and 90% for females) of the RP-2000 static
combined disabled mortality sex-distinct table.
Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of value of reported amounts and as-
sumptions about the probability of events far into the future. Actuarially determined amounts are
subject to continual revision as actual results are compared to past expectations and new esti-
mates are made about the future. Experience studies are performed as of December 31 of even
numbered years. The method and assumptions shown are based on the 2014 Experience
Study which is reviewed for the four-year period ending December 31, 2013.
Discount Rate - The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.75 percent
for the Defined Benefit Pension Plan. The projection of cash flows used to determine the dis-
count rate assumed that contributions from the plan members and those of the contributing em-
ployers are made at the contractually required rates, as actuarially determined. Based on those
assumptions, the pension plan's fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all
projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected
rate of return on pension plan investments for the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was applied to
all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability.
Sensitivity of the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability to changes in the discount
rate - The following presents the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability calculated
using the discount rate of 7.75 percent, as well as what the City's proportionate share of the net
pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage-point
lower (6.75 percent) or 1-perentage-point higher (8.75 percent) than the current rate.
Decrease Rate Increase
(6.75%) (7.75%) (8.75%)
City's proportionate share of
the net pension liability $ (35,985,249) $ (14,910,215) $ 2,850,502
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 69
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
Since the December 31, 2013 actuarial valuation, the system-wide actuarial accrued liability has
increased primarily due to the Moro decision and assumption changes, along with interest on
the liability as current active members get closer to retirement. The Oregon Supreme Court de-
cision in Moro v. State of Oregon, issued on April 30, 2015, reversed a significant portion of the
reductions the 2013 Oregon Legislature made to future :system Cost of Living Adjustments
(COLA) through Senate Bills 822 and 861. This reversal increased the benefits projected to be
paid by Employers compared to those developed in the prior actuarial valuation, and conse-
quently increased plan liabilities. The employers' projected long-term contribution effort has
been adjusted for the estimated impact of the Moro Decision. In accordance with statute, a bi-
ennial review of actuarial methods and assumptions was completed in 2015 to be used for the
December 31, 2014 actuarial valuation. After completion of this review and subsequent to the
measurement date, the PERS Board adopted several assumption changes, including lowering
the investment return assumption to 7.50%, which will be effective January 1, 2016 and will be
included in the next update.
A deferred compensation plan is available to employees wherein they may execute an individual
agreement with the City for amounts earned by them to not be paid until a future date when cer-
tain circumstances are met. These circumstances are: termination by reason of death, disabil-
ity, resignation, or retirement. Payment to the employee will be made over a period not to ex-
ceed 15 years. The deferred compensation plan is one which is authorized under IRC Section
457 and has been approved in its specifics by a private ruling from the Internal Revenue Ser-
vice. The assets of the plan are held by the administrator for the sole benefit of the plan partici-
pants and are not considered assets or liabilities of the City.
Individual Account Program - In the 2003 legislative session, the Oregon Legislative Assem-
bly created a successor plan for OPERS. The Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan (OPSRP)
is effective for all new employees hired on or after August 29, 2003, and applies to any inactive
OPERS members who return to employment following a six month or greater break in ser-
vice. The new plan consists of the defined benefit pension plans and a defined contribution pen-
sion plan (the Individual Account Program or IAP). Beginning January 1, 2004, all OPERS
member contributions go into the IAP portion of OPSRP. OPERS' members retain their exist-
ing OPERS accounts, but any future member contributions are deposited into the member's
IAP, not the member's OPERS account. Those employees who had established an OPERS
membership prior to the creation of OPSRP will be members of both the OPERS and OPSRP
system as long as they remain in covered employment. Members of OPERS and OPSRP are
required to contribute six percent of their salary covered under the plan which is invested in the
IAP. The City makes this contribution on behalf of its employees.
Additional disclosures related to Oregon PERS not applicable to specific employers are availa-
ble online, or by contacting PERS at the following address: PO BOX 23700 Tigard, OR 97281-
3700.
E. Deferred Charges
Deferred Charges resulted from the start-up cost associated with the Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) under
FAS 51. The development stage revenues and expenses have been deferred and will be amortized over
the estimated life of the system infrastructure.
The balance at June 30, 2016, is as follows:
Startup costs $ 1,861,076
Less accumulated amortization 1,682,373
$ 178,703
Pg 70 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to basic financial statements
F. Fund Balance Constraints
The specific purposes for each of the categories of the fund balance as of June 30, 2016, are as follows:
Non Major
Fund Balances: General Fund Street Fund Parks Funds Total
Restricted for:
Asset forfeiture 25,784 - - - 25,784
TOT tourism 129,763 - - - 129,763
CDBG restriction - - - 33,804 33,804
SDC - Transportation - 2,619,729 - - 2,619,729
SDC - Parks - - - 606,669 606,669
Perpetual care - - - 944,552 944,552
Debt commitment - - - 1,028,912 1,028,912
Committed for:
Parking surcharge 370,085 - - - 370,085
Public art 109,938 - - - 109,938
Affordable housing 166,351 - - - 166,351
Grubbs Case 22,235 - - - 22,235
Street activities - 2,795,238 - - 2,795,238
Parks activities - - 313,140 1,346,001 1,659,141
Airport activities - - - 138,905 138,905
Food and beverage tax - - - 190,623 190,623
CIP - Facilities - - - 2,004,725 2,004,725
Assigned for:
N/A
Unassigned: 3,636,527 - - - 3,636,527
Total fund balances: $ 4,460,683 $ 5,414,967 $ 313,140 $ 6,294,190 $ 16,482,980
G. Service Concession Agreement
The City of Ashland contracts with the Skinner Aviation to operate the City owned airport. Skinner Aviation
has been the airport's Fixed Base Operator since 1993 and is responsible for all oversight of the airport
facilities including radio control, fuel facility, aircraft maintenance, hangar rental collection, flight training
and facility maintenance. They collect the income for the City and remit the City's revenue on a monthly
basis, they keep 25% of the monthly revenue and receive a credit for Water and Garbage services. No
upfront monies were exchanged by either party when the contract was executed, so thus there is not an
asset or liability to recognize in the financial statements.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 71
Return to Table of Contents
2016 comprehensive annual financial report
Pg 72 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 required supplementary information
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 73
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to required supplementary information
NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The budgetary basis differs from GAAP when the City has interfund loan transactions. For the budgetary
basis, it is considered another financing source; for GAAP it is purely a balance sheet transaction
Pg 74 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to required supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Post Employment Benefits
Health Care
Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial UAAL as a
Valuation Value of Accrued Unfunded Funded Covered % of Covered
Date Assets Liability AAL Ratio Payroll Payroll
08/01/2008 $ - $ 2,923,625 $ 2,923,625 0% $ 12,757,206 23%
08/01/2010 $ - $ 2,802,196 $ 2,802,196 0% $ 12,889,661 22%
08/01/2012 $ - $ 2,764,065 $ 2,764,065 0% $ 13,988,043 20%
08/01/2014 $ - $ 2,044,116 $ 2,044,116 0% $ 14,005,178 15%
Actuarial Annual Net
Valuation OPEB Funded OPEB
Date Costs Ratio Obligation
6/30/2013 $ 363,984 48% $ 1,274,279
6/30/2014 $ 382,000 52% $ 1,457,755
6/30/2015 $ 380,883 48% $ 1,656,418
6/30/2016 $ 225,292 60% $ 1,746,479
OPEB
Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial UAAL as a
Valuation Value of Accrued Unfunded Funded Covered % of Covered
Date Assets Liability AAL Ratio Payroll Payroll
6/30/2009 $ - $ 1,882,214 $ 1,882,214 0% $ 12,757,206 15%
6/30/2011 $ - $ 2,704,203 $ 2,704,203 0% $ 12,889,661 21%
6/30/2013 $ - $ 3,912,886 $ 3,912,886 0% $ 13,988,043 28%
6/30/2015 $ - $ 3,821,285 $ 3,821,285 0% $ 14,005,178 27%
Actuarial Annual Net
Valuation OPEB Funded OPEB
Date Costs Contributions Ratio Obligation
6/30/2013 $ 387,045 $ 58,990 15% $ 1,383,606
6/30/2014 $ 371,007 $ 67,601 18% $ 1,687,013
6/30/2015 $ 336,220 $ 69,105 21% $ 1,954,128
6/30/2016 $ 336,247 $ 76,650 23% $ 2,213,725
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 75
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to required supplementary information
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016
SCHEDULE OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET PENSION LIABILITY
(a) (b) (b/c) Plan fiduciary
Employer's Employer's (c) NPL as a net position as
Year proportion of proportionate share percentage a percentage of
Ended the net pension of the net pension covered of covered the total pension
June 30, liability (NPL) liability (NPL) payroll payroll liability
2016 0.04% $ 14,910,215 $ 14,948,474 % 91.9 %
2015 0.04% 5,498,618 17,016,281 32.3 103.6
2014 0,04% (12,379,260) 16,753,124 (73.9) 92.0
The amounts presented for each fiscal year were actuarial determined at 12/31 and rolled forward to the measurement date.
These schedules are presented to illustrate the requirements to show information for 10 years. However until a full
10 year trend has been compiled, information is presented only for the years for wh'ch the required supplementary
information is available.
SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS
Contributions in Contributions
Year Statutorily relation to the Contribution Employer's as a percent
Ended required statutorily required deficiency covered of covered
June 30, contribution contribution (excess) _ payroll payroll
2016 $ 2,805,936 $ 2,805,936 $ - $ 15,571,834 18.0 %
2015 2,389,586 2,389,586 - 14,948,474 16.0
2014 2,604,925 2,604,925 - 17,016,281 15.3
The amounts presented for each fiscal year were actuarial determined at 12/31 and rolled forward to the measurement date.
These schedules are presented to illustrate the requirements to show information for 10 years. However until a full
10 year trend has been compiled, information is presented only for the years for wh'ch the required supplementary
information is available.
Pg 76 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to required supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
GENERALFUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Revenues: Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Taxes $ 38,746,990 $ 38,746,990 $ 19,343,205 $ 19,343,205 $ (19,403,785)
Fees, licenses and permits 1,910,425 1,910,425 835;278 835,278 (1,075,147)
Intergovernmental 1,379,795 1,684,373 921,946 921,946 (762,427)
Charges for services 3,331,350 3,331,350 1,645,847 1,645,847 (1,685,503)
Fines and forfeitures 410,000 410,000 180,638 180,638 (229,362)
Interest on investments 60,000 60,000 29,834 29,834 (30,166)
Miscellaneous 73,000 79,600 113,065 113,065 33,465
Total revenues 45,911,560 46,222,738 23,069,813 23,069,813 (23,152,925)
Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 1,009,197 1,018,127 345,676 345,676 672,451
Administrative Services:
Band 130,550 130,550 65,186 65,186 65,364
Social services 267,933 267,933 131,113 131,113 136,820
Economic development 1,695,033 1,695,033 741,608 741,608 953,425
Parks Services 9,560,000 9,560,000 4,680,000 4,680,000 4,880,000
Public Works:
Cemetery 755,365 755,365 335,763 335,763 419,602
Community Development:
Planning 2,886,423 2,886,423 1,309,888 1,309,888 1,576,535
Building 1,459,230 1,459,230 724,797 724,797 734,433
Miscellaneous 269,000 269,000 64,905 64,905 204,095
Total general government 18,032,731 18,041,661 8,398,936 8,398,936 9,642,725
Public Safety:
Police 13,544,844 13,637,535 6,690,677 6,690,677 6,946,858
Municipal court 1,056,830 1,056,830 489;250 489,250 567,580
Fire and rescue 15,780,502 16,011,489 7,666;965 7,666,965 8,344,524
Total public safety 30,382,176 30,705,854 14,846,892 14,846,892 15,858,962
Contingency 697,000 675,570 675,570
Total expenditures 49,111,907 49,423,085 23,245 828 23,245,828 26,177,257
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (3,200,347) (3,200,347) (176V5) (176,015) 3,024,332
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 510,800 510,800 255 935 255,935 (254,865)
Transfers out (518,570) (518,570) (96510) (96,510) 422,060
Interfund loan 126,200 126,200 - - (126,200)
Interfund loan (66,000) (66,000) - - 66,000
Total other financing sources (uses) 52,430 52,430 159 425 159,425 106,995
Net change in fund balance (3,147,917) (3,147,917) (16590) (16,590) 3,131,327
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 3,400,277 3,400,277 3,620 264 3,620,264 219,987
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 252,360 $ 252,360 $ 3,603,674 $ 3,603,674 $ 3,351,314
Reconciliation to GAAP fund balance
Interfund loan 690,544
Reserve fund balance: 166 465
$ 4,460 683
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 77
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to required supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
STREET FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 96,700 $ 96,700 $ 58,782 $ 58,782 $ (37,918)
Intergovernmental 7,422,136 7,422,136 1,307,744 1,307,744 (6,114,392)
Charges for services 4,219,700 4,219,700 2,156,082 2,156,082 (2,063,618)
System development charges (SDC) 133,000 133,000 183,380 183,380 50,380
Assessments 120,000 120,000 32,831 32,831 (87,169)
Interest on investments 48,000 48,000 33,135 33,135 (14,865)
Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 77,727 77,727 (22,273)
Total revenues 12,139,536 12,139,536 3,849,681 3,849,681 (8,289,855)
Expenditures:
Highways and streets:
Operations and maintenance 13,486,170 13,486,170 2,981,650 2,981,650 10,504,520
Storm water 1,312,700 1,312,700 593,152 593,152 719,548
Transportation SDCs 2,674,754 2,674,754 1,438 1,438 2,673,316
Storm water SDCs 282,100 282,100 - - 282,100
Local improvement districts - - - - -
Total highways and streets 17,755,724 17,755,724 3,576,240 3,576,240 14,179,484
Debt Service: - - - - -
Operations and maintenance Debt 246,710 246,710 123,954 123,954 122,756
Storm water Debt 25,300 25,300 12,750 12,750 12,550
Total Debt 272,010 272,010 136,704 136,704 135,306
Contingency 99,000 99,000 99,000
Total expenditures 18,126,734 18,126,734 3,712,944 3,712,944 14,413,790
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (5,987,198) (5,987,198) 136,737 136,737 6,123,935
Otherfinancing sources (uses):
Bond proceeds 3,306,854 3,306,854 (3,306,854)
Transfers out -
Total other financing sources (uses) 3,306,854 3,306,854 - - (3,306,854)
Net change in fund balance (2,680,344) (2,680,344) 136,737 136,737 2,817,081
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 4,702,624 4,702,624 5,278,230 5,278,230 575,606
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 2,022,280 $ 2,022,280 $ 5,414,967 $ 5,414,967 $ 3,392,687
Pg 78 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 notes to required supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First'Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ 92 $ 92 $ 92
Charges for services - External 1,805,000 1,805,000 931,776 931,776 (873,224)
Charges for services - Internal 9,560,000 9,560,000 4,732,500 4,732,500 (4,827,500)
Interest on investments 14,000 14,000 3,522 3,522 (10,478)
Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 17,204 17,204 (82,796)
Total revenues 11,479,000 11,479,000 5,6815,094 5,685,094 (5,793,906)
Expenditures:
Parks and Recreation:
Operations and maintenance 8,127,847 7,529,390 3,897,926 3,897,926 3,631,464
Recreation 2,828,630 2,828,630 1,409,208 1,409,208 1,419,422
Golf Course 1,104,650 1,052,880 5471280 547,280 505,600
Total Parks and Recreation 12,061,127 11,410,900 5,854,414 (1) 5,854,414 (1) 5,556,486
Contingency 100,000 - -
Total expenditures 12,161,127 11,410,900 5,854,414 5,854,414 5,556,486
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (682,127) 68,100 (169,320) (169,320) (237,420)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfer in 3733500 373,500 - (373,500)
Transfers out (80,000) (80,000) (8(),000 (80,000) -
Total other financing sources (uses) 293,500 293,500 (80,000) (80,000) (373,500)
Net change in fund balance (388,627) 361,600 (249,320) (249,320) (610,920)
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 392,641 392,641 503,626 503,626 110,985
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 4,014 $ 754,241 $ 254,306 $ 254,306 $ (499,935)
(1) Appropriation level
Reconciliation to GAAP fund balance
Equipment fund balance: 58,834
Total GAAP fund balance $ 313,140
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 79
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Combining Individual Fund Statements
and Other Financial Schedules
Pg 80 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2,016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
ALL NON-MAJOR FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Governmental Fund Types Permanent
Parks Fund Type Total Other
Capital Capital Debt Cemetery Governmental
CDBG Airport Improvements Improvements Service Trust (Compilation
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Only)
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents $ 5,703 $ 135,342 $ 2,734,289 $ 1,375,029 $ 993,123 $ - $ 5,243,486
Receivables (net of allowance for uncollectible) 34,735 10,257 228,001 2,765 68,820 1,197 345,775
Cash - restricted - - 943,355 943,355
Total assets 40,438 145,599 2,962,290 1,377,794 1,061,943 944,552 6,532,616
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Accounts payable 6,634 6,694 66,245 31,793 - 111,366
Interfund loan payable - -
Due to other funds - - - - -
Liabilities payable from restricted assets - - - - - -
Total liabilities 6,634 6,694 66,245 31,793 - - 111,366
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred Outflows 94,029 33,031 - 127,060
Fund Balances:
Restricted for:
CDBG restriction 33,804 - - - - - 33,804
Systems development charges - - 606,669 - - - 606,669
Open Space (Food & Bev) 190,622 1,346,001 1,536,623
Perperture care - - - - - 944,552 944,552
Committed for: -
Special revenue funds - 138,905 - - 138,905
Debt service - - - 1,028,912 1,028,912
Parks Improvements - - - -
Capital projects funds - - 2,004,725 - - 2,004,725
Total fund balances 33,804 138,905 2,802,016 1,346,001 1,028,912 944,552 6,294,190
Total liabilities, deferred outflows and fund
balances $ 40,438 $ 145,599 $ 2,962,290 $ 1,377,794 $ 1,061,943 $ 944,552 $ 6,532,616
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 81
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
ALL NON-MAJOR FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Governmental Fund Types Permanent
Parks Fund Type Total Other
Capital Capital Debt Cemetery Governmental
CDBG Airport Improvements Improvements Service Nonexpendable (Compilation
Fund Fund Fund Fund _ Fund Trust Fund Only)
Revenues:
Taxes $ - $ - $ 564,947 $ $ 506,865 $ - $ 1,071,812
Intergovernmental 162,147 - 2,732 - - 164,879
Charges for services - 125,406 950,170 1,490,908 1,286,341 21,386 3,874,211
System development charges - 49,372 - - 49,372
Interest on investments - 790 15,712 5,928 4,527 5,935 32,892
Miscellaneous - - 359 - - - 359
Total revenues 162,147 126,196 1,583,292 1,496,836 1,797,733 27,321 5,193,525
Expenditures:
General government 162,140 66,271 2,421,047 360,137 - - 3,009,595
Debt service - 38,536 - 1,806,109 - 1,844,645
Total expenditures 162,140 104,807 2,421,047 360,137 1,806,109 - 4,854,240
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over(under)expenditures 7 21,389 (837,755) 1,136,699 (8,376) 27,321 339,285
Other financing sources (uses):
Bond proceeds 870,000 870,000
Transfers in - - 100,000 - 175,727 500 276,227
Transfers out - - (79,717) - (5,935) (85,652)
Interfund loan - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - 890,283 _ 175,727 (5,435) 1,060,575
Net change in fund balance 7 21,389 52,528 1,136,699 167,351 21,886 1,399,860
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 33,797 117,516 2,749,488 209,302 861,561 922,666 4,894,330
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 33,804 $ 138,905 $ 2,802,016 $ 1,346,001 $ 1,028,912 $ 944,551 $ 6,294,190
Pg 82 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPEND11-URES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Second Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 439,798 $ 439,798 $ 162,143 $ 162,143 $ (277,655)
Total revenues 439,798 439,798 162,143 - 162,143 (277,655)
Expenditures:
General government:
Personal services 65,420 65,420 32,510 32,510 32,910
Material and services 374,378 374,378 129,630 129,630 244,748
Total general government 439,798 439,798 162,140 162,140 277,658
Total expenditures 439,798 439,798 162,140 162,140 277,658
Net change in fund balance - - 3 3 3
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 1 1 33,801 33,801 33,800
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 1 $ 1 $ 33,804 $ - $ 33,804 $ 33,803
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 83
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
AIRPORT FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First 'fear Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 276,000 $ 276,000 $ 125,406 $ 125,406 $ (150,594)
Interest on investments 500 500 790 790 290
Total revenues 276,500 276,500 126,196 126,196 (150,304)
Expenditures:
General government:
Materials and services 460,943 460,943 39,314 39,314 421,629
Capital outlay 40,000 40,000 26,957 26,957 13,043
Total general government 500,943 500,943 66,271 66,271 434,672
Debt service 77,072 77,072 38,536 38,536 38,536
Contingency 13,000 13,000 - - 13,000
Total expenditures 591,015 591,015 104,807 104,807 486,208
Other financing sources (uses):
Loan proceeds 270,000 270,000 270,000
Interfund loan - - (19,000) 19,000
Total other financing sources (uses) 270,000 270,000 - (19,000) 289,000
Net change in fund balance (44,515) (44,515) 21,389 2,389 46,904
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 114,751 114,751 117,516 116,697 1,946
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 70,236 $ 70,236 $ 138,905 $ 119,086 $ 48,850
Pg 84 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 1,093,400 $ 1,093,400 $ 564,947 $ 564,947 $ (528,453)
Intergovernmental - - 2,732 2,732 2,732
Charges for services 2,205,600 2,205,600 950,170 950,170 (1,255,430)
System development charges 129,416 129,416 49,372 49,372 (80,044)
Interest on investments 22,600 22,600 15,712 15,712 (6,888)
Miscellaneous 22,100 22,100 359 359 (21,741)
Total revenues 3,473,116 3,473,116 1,583,292 1,583,292 (1,889,824)
Expenditures:
General government:
Public works - facilities 1,710,650 1,710,650 867,196 867,196 843,454
Admin services - parks open space 3,707,182 3,707,182 1,481,271 1,481,271 2,225,911
Capital outlay 1,110,000 1,110,000 72,580 72,580 1,037,420
Total cost of service 6,527,832 6,527,832 .2,421,047 (1) 2,421,047 4,106,785
Contingency 200,000 200,000 - - 200,000
Total expenditures 6,727,832 6,727,832 :2,421,047 2,421,047 4,306,785
Excess (Deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (3,254,716) (3,254,716) (837,755) (837,755) 2,416,961
Other financing sources (uses):
Bond proceeds 3,050,045 3,050,045 870,000 870,000 2,180,045
Transfers in 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 -
Transfers out (277,370) (277,370) (79,717) (79,717) (197,653)
Interfund loan - -
Total other financing sources (uses): 2,872,675 2,872,675 890,283 890,283 1,982,392
Net change in fund balance (382,041) (382,041) 52,528 52,528 434,569
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 1,918,994 1,918,994 2,749,488 2,749,488 830,494
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 1,536,953 $ 1,536,953 $ 2,802,016 $ 2,802,016 $ 1,265,063
(1) Appropriation level
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 85
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
for the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 3,517,252 $ 3,517,252 $ - $ - $ (3,517,252)
Charges for services 212,930 212,930 1,490,908 1,490,908 1,277,978
Interest on investments 4,000 4,000 5,928 5,928 1,928
Miscellaneous - - -
Total revenues 3,734,182 3,734,182 1,496,836 1,496,836 (2,237,346)
Expenditures:
General government:
Personal Services 189,930 189,930 64,041 64,041 125,889
Material and Services - 85,052 23,840 23,840 61,212
Capital outlay 3,817,889 3,732,837 272,256 272,256 3,460,581
Total cost of service 4,007,819 4,007,819 360,137 360,137 3,647,682
Contingency - - - - -
Total expenditures 4,007,819 4,007,819 360,137 360,137 3,647,682
Excess (Deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (273,637) (273,637) 1,136,699 1,136,699 1,410,336
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in - -
Total other financing sources (uses): - - - -
Net change in fund balance (273,637) (273,637) 1,136,699 1,136,699 1,410,336
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 582,254 582,254 209,302 209,302 (372,952)
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 308,617 $ 308,617 $ 1,346,001 $ 1,346,001 $ 1,037,384
Pg 86 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2,016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
DEBT SERVICE FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 955,426 $ 955,426 $ 506,865 $ 506,865 $ (448,561)
Charges for services 2,457,636 2,457,636 1,286,341 1,286,341 (1,171,295)
Assessments 400,000 400,000 - - (400,000)
Interest on investments 20,000 20,000 4,527 4,527 (15,473)
Miscellaneous 58,604 58,604 - - (58,604)
Total revenues 3,891,666 3,891,666 1,797,733 1,797,733 (2,093,933)
Expenditures:
Materials and services - - - - -
Debt service: -
Bancroft 400,000 400,000 - - 400,000
General obligation 3,457,596 3,457,596 1,764,573 1,764,573 1,693,023
Notes and contracts 412,604 412,604 41,536 41,536 371,068
Total expenditures 4,270,200 4,270,200 1,806,109 (1) 1,806,109 (1) 2,464,091
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (378,534) (378,534) (8,376) (8,376) 370,158
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 473,940 473,940 175,727 175,727 298,213
Interfund Loan - - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses): 473,940 473,940 175,727 175,727 298,213
Net change in fund balance 95,406 95,46 167,351 167,351 71,945
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 753,948 753,948 861,561 861,561 107,613
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 849,354 $ 849,354 $ 1,028,912 $ 1,028,912 $ 179,558
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 87
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16_ period (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 21,386 $ 21,386 $ (28,614)
Interest on investments 10,800 10,800 5,935 5,935 (4,865)
Miscellaneous _ - -
Total revenues 60,800 60,800 27,321 27,321 (33,479)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 1,000 1,000 500 500 (500)
Transfers out (10,800) (10,800) (5,935) (5,935) 4,865
Total other financing sources (uses): (9,800) (9,800) (5,435) (5,435) 4,365
Net change in fund balance 51,000 51,000 21,886 21,886 (29,114)
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 923,046 923,046 922,667 874,045 (12,699)
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 974,046 $ 974,046 $ 944,553 $ 895,931 $ (41,813)
Pg 88 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
RESERVE FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Interest on investments 34,000 34,000 10,730 10,730 (23,270)
Total revenues 34,000 34,000 10,730 10,730 (23,270)
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 34,000 34,000 10,730 10,730 (23,270)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfer in - - - - -
Interfund loan 650,000 650,000 325,000 325,000 (325,000)
Transfer out - - -
Interfund loan (850,000) (850,000) (365,544 (365,544) (484,456)
Total other financing sources (uses) (200,000) (200,000) 40,544 (40,544) (809,456)
Net change in fund balance (166,000) (166,000) (29,814) (29,814) 136,186
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 204,580 204,580 '196,279 1,019,580 815,000
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 38,580 $ 38,580 $ '166,465 $ 989,766 $ 951,186
Reconciliation to GAAP fund balance
Reserve fund $ (166,465)
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 89
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
WATER FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ - $ - $ 2 $ 2 $ 2
Intergovernmental 14,000 14,000 14,897 14,897 897
Charges for services 13,954,600 13,954,6CO 6,937,651 6,937,651 (7,016,949)
System developments charges 200,000 200,000 277,247 277,247 77,247
Interest on investments 40,800 40,8CO 32,632 32,632 (8,168)
Miscellaneous 24,000 24,000 27,286 27,286 3,286
Total revenues 14,233,400 14,233,400 7,289,715 7,289,715 (6,943,685)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Administration: Water conservation 696,025 696,025 249,276 249,276 446,749
Public works water supply 2,557,935 2,557,935 1,821,173 1,821,173 736,762
Public works water treatment 13,941,884 13,941,884 1,121,878 1,121,878 12,820,006
Public works water distribution 9,595,707 9,595,707 2,879,829 2,879,829 6,715,878
Public works reimbursement SDCs - - - - -
Public works improvements SDCs 3,170,335 3,170,335 20,021 20,021 3,150,314
Total Cost of Service 29,961,886 29,961,886 6,092,177 6,092,177 23,869,709
Debt service 2,581,317 2,581,317 617,047 617,047 1,964,270
Contingency 170,000 170,000 - - 170,000
Total expenditures 32,713,203 32,713,203 6,709,224 6,709,224 26,003,979
Excess (Deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (18,479,803) (18,479,803) 580,491 580,491 (32,947,664)
Other financing sources (uses):
Loan proceeds 14,990,125 14,990,125 5,12,455 542,455 (14,447,670)
Transfer Out (500,000) (500,000) (250,000) (250,000) (250,000)
Total other financing sources (uses) 14,490,125 14,490,125 2:2,455 292,455 (14,697,670)
Net change in fund balance (3,989,678) (3,989,678) 872,946 872,946 4,862,624
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 6,061,702 6,061,702 5,208,591 5,208,591 (853,111)
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 2,072,024 $ 2,072,024 $ 6,081,537 $ 6,081,537 $ 4,009,513
Reconciliation to Net Position:
Deferred Outflow $ 270,232
Capital assets, net 21,506,857
Compensated absences (34,077)
OPEB implicit rate liability (149,966)
Net Pension liability (1,032,133)
Deferred Inflow (239,787)
Accrued interest (24,432)
GO bonds payable (3,741,010)
Revenue bonds payable (4,498,269)
5
$ 18,088,957
Pg 90 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2116 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
WASTEWATER FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 4,264,260 $ 4,264,260 $ 2,259,785 $ 2,259,785 $ (2,004,475)
Charges for services 10,787,000 10,787,000 5,093,609 5,093,609 (5,693,391)
System developments charges 130,000 130,000 107,655 107,655 (22,345)
Interest on investments 30,000 30,000 34,765 34,765 4,765
Miscellaneous - - 1,619 1,619 1,619
Total revenues 15,211,260 15,211,260 7,497,433 7,497,433 (7,713,827)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Public works wastewater collection 5,349,514 5,349,514 1,936,069 11936,069 3,413,445
Public works wastewater treatment 10,183,710 10,183,710 2,501,279 21501,279 7,682,431
Public works reimbursement SDC's 3,691,644 3,691,644 13,039 13,039 3,678,605
Public works improvements SDC's - - - -
Total cost of service 19,224,868 19,224,868 4,450,387 4,450,387 14,774,481
Debt service 3,384,757 3,384,757 1,696,374 1,696,374 1,688,383
Contingency 192,000 192,000 192,000
Total expenditures 22,801,625 22,801,625 6,146,761 6,146,761 16,654,864
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (7,590,365) (7,590,365) 1,350,672 1,350,672 8,941,037
Uther tinancing sources (uses):
Loan proceeds 5,318,700 5,318,700 53,424 53,424 (5,265,276)
Total other financing sources (uses) 5,318,700 5,318,700 53,424 53,424 (5,265,276)
Net change in fund balance (2,271,665) (2,271,665) 1,404,096 1,404,096 3,675,761
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 4,464,697 4,464,697 5,095,342 5,095,342 630,645
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 2,193,032 $ 2,193,032 $ 6,499,438 $ 6,499,438 $ 4,306,406
Reconciliation to Net Position:
Deferred Outflow $ 158,147
Capital assets, net 34,336,292
Compensated absences (62,546)
OPEB implicit rate liability (95,950)
Net Pension liability (604,032)
Deferred Inflow (140,330)
Accrued interest (58,706)
GO bonds payable (9,036,861)
Revenue bonds payable (1,812,747)
Rounding 4
$ 29,182,709
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 91
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
ELECTRIC FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget -
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 323,000 $ 323,000 $ 395,149 $ 395,149 $ 72,149
Charges for services 29,993,044 29,993,044 14,600,751 14,600,751 (15,392,293)
Interest on investments 14,715 14,715 8,338 8,338 (6,377)
Miscellaneous 322,974 322,974 99,394 99,394 (223,580)
Total revenues 30,653,733 30,653,733 15,103,632 15,103,632 (15,550,101)
Expenditures:
Cost of Services:
Administration - Conservation 1,420,030 1,420,030 747,689 747,689 672,341
Electric - supply 13,751,887 13,751,887 6,847,528 6,847,528 6,904,359
Electric distribution 14,041,211 14,041,211 6,467,679 63467,679 7,573,532
Electric transmission 2,225,945 2,225,945 909,289 909,289 1,316,656
Total cost of service 31,439,073 31,439,073 14,972,185 14,972,185 16,466,888
Debt service 46,688 46,688 23,478 23,478 23,210
Contingency 279,000 279,000 - - 279,000
Total expenditures 31,764,761 31,764,761 14,995,663 14,995,663 16,769,098
Net change in fund balance (1,111,028) (1,111,028) 107,969 107,969 1,218,997
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 1,479,265 1,479,265 1,755,162 1,755,162 275,897
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 368,237 $ 368,237 $ 1,863,131 $ 1,863,131 $ 1,494,894
Reconciliation to Net Position:
Deferred Outflow $ 298,637
Capital assets, net 6,918,526
Compensated absences (110,451)
OPEB implicit rate liability (170,599)
Net Pension liability (1,140,624)
Deferred Inflow (264,991)
Accrued interest (67)
Revenue bonds payable (130,286)
Deferred revenue 123,776
Rounding 1
$ 7,387,053
Pg 92 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015.16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 4,363,565 $ 4,363,565 $ 2,010,444 $ 2,010,444 $ (2,353,121)
Interest on investments 1,943 1,943 1,344 1,344 (599)
Miscellaneous - - 696 696 696
Total revenues 4,365,508 4,365,508 2,012,484 2,012,484 (2,353,024)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Personal services 1,343,230 1,343,230 613,746 643,746 699,484
Materials and services 2,846,504 2,846,504 1,283,499 1,283,499 1,563,005
Capital outlay 250,000 250,000 1:90,204 190,204 59,796
Total cost of service 4,439,734 4,439,734 2,117,449 2,117,449 2,322,285
Contingency 250,000 250,000 250,000
Total expenditures 4,689,734 4,689,734 2,117,449 2,117,449 2,572,285
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (324,226) (324,226) (104,965) (104,965) 219,261
Other financing sources (uses):
Interfund Loan 400,000 400,000 165,544 165,544 (234,456)
Total other financing sources (uses) 400,000 400,000 165,544 165,544 (234,456)
Net change in fund balance 75,774 75,774 30,579 60,579 (15,195)
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 251,528 251,528 305,058 305,058 53,530
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 327,302 $ 327,302 $ 335,637 $ 365,637 $ 38,335
Reconciliation to net position:
Deferred Outflow $ 88,286
Capital assets, net 622,941
Amortized start up costs 178,703
Compensated absences (28,049)
OPEB implicit rate liability (53,836)
Net pension liability (337,203)
Deferred Inflow (78,339)
Interfund Loan (165,544)
$ 592,596
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 93
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Central Insurance Health
Services Services Benefits Equipment
Fund Fund _ Fund Fund Totals
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments $ 941,003 $ 1,487,403 $ 771,669 $ 3,240,964 $ 6,441,039
Interest and accounts receivable, net 12,433 1,385 27,406 4,446 45,670
Notes receivable 30,552 30,552
Interfund loan - -
Inventories 44,900 2,623 _ - 17,487 65,010
Total current assets 998,336 1,521,963 799,075 3,262,897 6,582,271
Non-Current assets:
Non-Current capital assets 780,440 - - 11,898,595 12,679,035
Accumulated depreciation (539,945) - (9,243,734) (9,783,679)
Capital assets, net 240,495 - - 2,654,861 2,895,356
Total Assets 1,238,831 1,521,963 799,075 5,917,758 9,477,627
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred Outflows 750,048 76,771 826,819
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS AND FUND EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable 223,261 18,031 176,634 109,056 526,982
Accrued salaries, vacation and payroll taxes 811,725 3,562 75,431 890,718
Other liabilities 525,000 - 525,000
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability 2,864,755 293,220 3,157,975
Accrued claims and adjustments - 2,380,972 _ 481,677 - 2,862,649
Total current liabilities 3,899,741 2,402,565 1,183,311 477,707 7,963,324
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Deferred inflows - pensions 665,544 68,121 733,665
Net Position:
Net Investment in Capital Assets 240,495 - - 2,654,861 2,895,356
Unreserved (2,816,901) (880,602) _ (384,236) 2,793,840 (1,287,899)
Total net position: (2,576,406) (880,602) _ (384,236) 5,448,701 1,607,457
Total liabilities, deferred inflows and net position $ 1,988,879 $ 1,521,963 g 799,075 $ 5,994,529 $ 10,304,446
Pg 94 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES
AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Central Insurance Health
Service Service Benefits Equipment
Fund Fund Fund Fund Totals
Operating revenues:
Service charges and fees $ 6,567,583 $ 735,580 $ 4,848,409 $ 2,116,517 $ 14,268,089
Miscellaneous 127,957 37,961 12,886 11,337 190,141
Total revenues 6,695,540 773,541 4,861,295 2,127,854 14,458,230
Operating expenses:
Cost of service 9,637,201 1,024,488 5,073,134 1,758,045 17,492,868
Depreciation 68,831 - 656,233 725,064
Total operating expenses 9,706,032 1,024,488 5,073,134 2,414,278 18,217,932
Operating income (loss) (3,010,492) (250,947) (211,839) (286,424) (3,759,702)
Nonoperating income (expense):
Taxes 85,523 - - 85,523
Interest income 8,483 7,884 3,877 19,477 39,721
Gain/(loss) on disposal of assets -
Transfers In 417,000 (517,000) (100,000)
Total nonoperating income (expense) 511,006 (509,116) 3,877 19,477 25,244
Change in Net Position (2,499,486) (760,063) (207,962) (266,947) (3,734,458)
Total Net Position - beginning (76,920) (120,539) _(176,274) 5,715,648 5,341,915
Total Net Position - ending $ (2,576,406) $ (880,602) $ (384,236) $ 5,448,701 $ 1,607,457
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 95
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
COMBINING INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
for the year ended June 30, 20,16
Central Insurance Health
Service Service Benefits Equipment
Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
Cash flows from operating activities:
Receipts from customers and users $ 6,695,670 $ 808,056 $ 4,851,952 $ 2,143,522 $ 14,499,200
Payments to suppliers (2,048,896) (734,610) (5,072,130) (957,444) (8,813,080)
Payments to employees (5,229,792) (98,329) - (480,912) (51809,033)
Net cash from operating activities (583,018) (24,883) (220,178) 705,166 (122,913)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfer Out (517,000) (517,000)
Transfers in 417,000 - - 417,000
Taxes collected 85,523 - - - 85,523
Net cash from noncapital financing activities 502,523 (517,000) - - (14,477)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (162,737) - - (428,754) (591,491)
Net cash from capital and related financing activities (162,737) - - (428,754) (591,491)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest from investments and other income 8,483 7,884 3,877 19,477 39,721
Net increase (decrease) in cash and investments (234,749) (533,999) (216,301) 295,889 (689,160)
Cash and investments, beginning of year 1,175,752 2,021,402 987,970 2,945,075 7,130,199
Cash and investments, end of year 941,003 1,487,403 771,669 3,240,964 6,441,039
Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided
by operating activities:
Operating income (loss) (3,010,492) (250,947) (211,839) (286,424) (3,759,702)
Depreciation and amortization 68,831 - - 656,234 725,065
Change in assets and liabilities:
(Increase) decrease in:
Receivables 130 34,515 (9,343) 15,668 40,970
Net Pension Assets, Outflows/Inflows 2,257,282 231,042 2,488,324
Inventories (8,294) 66,561 44,651 19,583 122,501
Deferred charges
Increase (decrease) in:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 38,154 (27,134) 39,055 57,002 107,077
Other liabilities 71,371 152,122 (82,702) 12,061 152,852
Net cash from operating activities $ (583,018) $ (24,883). $ (220,178) $ 705,166 $ (122,913)
Pg 96 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 148,800 $ 148,800 $ 85,523 $ 85,523 $ (63,277)
Intergovernmental revenues - - - - -
Charges for services 13,640,765 13,640,765 6,567,583 6,567,583 (7,073,182)
Interest on investments 10,000 10,000 8,483 8,483 (1,517)
Miscellaneous 250,000 250,000 127,957 127,957 (122,043)
Total revenues 14,049,565 14,049,565 6,789,546 6,789,546 (7,260,019)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Administration department 3,314,520 3,314,520 1,652,395 1,652,395 1,662,125
IT - Information Services 2,907,638 2,907,638 1,372,561 1,372,561 1,535,077
Administrative Services department 4,292,097 41867,097 2,405,788 2,405,788 2,461,309
City Recorder department 912,590 912,590 498,254 498,254 414,336
Public Works department 3,621,822 3,621,822 1,598,269 1,598,269 2,023,553
Contingency 125,000 125,000 - - 125,000
Total expenditures 15,173,667 15,748,667 7,527,267 7,527,267 8,221,400
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfer In 417,000 417,000 417,000 417,000 -
Interfund loan - 400,000 - - (400,000)
Total other financing sources (uses) 417,000 817,000 417,000 417,000 (400,000)
Net change in fund balance (707,102) (882,102) (320,721) (320,721) 561,381
Fund Balance, July 1, 2015 723,651 898,651 900,609 900,609 1,958
Fund Balance, June 30, 2016 $ 16,549 $ 16,549 $ 579,888 $ 579,888 $ 563,339
Reconciliation to Net Position:
Deferred Outflow $ 750,048
Capital assets, net 240,495
Accrued compensated absences (213,288)
OPEB implicit rate liability (403,251)
Net Pension liability (2,864,755)
Deferred Inflow (665,544)
Rounding 1
$ (2,576,406)
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 97
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 20115-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 1,560,000 $ 1,560,000 $ 735,580 $ 735,580 $ (824,420)
Interest on investments 13,000 13,000 7,884 7,884 (5,116)
Miscellaneous 80,000 80,000 37,961 37,961 (42,039)
Total revenues 1,653,000 1,653,000 781,425 781,425 (871,575)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Personal services 204,960 204,960 98,329 98,329 106,631
Materials and services 1,814,790 1,814,790 771,422 771,422 1,043,368
Total cost of services 2,019,750 2,019,750 869,751 869,751 1,149,999
Contingency 390,000 390,000 - - 390,000
Total expenditures 2,409,750 2,409,750 869,751 869,751 1,539,999
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfer In - - - -
Transfer out 1,069,500 1,069,500 (517,000) (517,000) 1,586,500
Total other financing sources (uses) 1,069,500 1,069,500 _ 517,000 (517,000) 1,586,500
Net change in fund balance (1,826,250) (1,826,250) (605,326) 428,674 2,254,924
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 1,962,888 1,962,888 1,766,283 1,766,283 (196,605)
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 136,638 $ 136,638 $ 1,160,957 $ 2,194,957 $ 2,058,319
Reconciliation to net position:
Accrued claims and judgments $ (2,041,559)
$ (880,602)
Pg 98 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
HEALTH BENEFITS FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015.16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 9,730,000 $ 9,730,000 $ 4,848,409 $ 4,848,409 $ (4,881,591)
Interest on investments 10,000 10,000 3,877 3,877 (6,123)
Miscellaneous - 12,886 12,886 12,886
Total revenues 9,740,000 9,740,000 4,865,172 4,865,172 (4,874,828)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Materials and services 9,580,000 95580,000 5,073,134 5,073,134 4,506,866
Total cost of services 9,580,000 9,580,000 5,073,134 5,073,134 4,506,866
Contingency 500,000 500,000 500,000
Total expenditures 10,080,000 10,080,000 5,073,134 5,073,134 5,006,866
Other financing sources (uses):
Interfund loan 450,000 450,000 200,000 200,000 250,000
Transfer In 500,000 500,000 - - 500,000
Interfund loan (650,000) (650,000) (325,000) (325,000) 325,000
Total other financing sources (uses) 300,000 300,000 _ (125,000 (125)000) 1,075,000
Net change in fund balance (40,000) (40,000) (332,962) (332,962) 1,207,038
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 73,370 73,370 473,726 473,726 400,356
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 33,370 $ 33,370 $ 140,764 $ 140,764 $ 1,607,394
Reconciliation to GAAP:
Interfund Loan (525,000)
Accrued claims and judgments
$ (384,236)
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 99
Return to Table of Contents
2016 suppiementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN NET POSITION - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
EQUIPMENT FUND
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Variance with
BN 2015-2017 First Year Total Actual Final Budget
Biennium Budget Amounts Actual for budget Positive
Original Final FY 2015-16 period (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 4,098,460.00 $ 4,538,460 $ 2,116,517 $ 2,116,517 $ (2,421,943)
Interest on investments 35,000 35,000 19,477 19,477 (15,523)
Miscellaneous 170,000 170,000 11,337 11,337 (158,663)
Total revenues 4,303,460 4,743,460 2,147,331 2,147,331 (2,596,129)
Expenditures:
Cost of services:
Public works maintenance 2,521,860 2,961,860 1,305,026 1,305,026 1,656,834
Total cost of service 2,521,860 2,961,860 1,305,026 1,305,026 1,656,834
Capital outlay 1,330,500 1,330,500 644,818 644,818 685,682
Contingency 70,000 70,000 70,000
Total expenditures 3,922,360 4,362,360 1,949,844 1,949,844 2,412,516
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 381,100 381,100 197,487 197,487 183,613
utner tinancing sources (uses):
Interfund loan 106,000 106,000 (106,000)
Interfund loan (565,200) (965,200) (965,200)
Total other financing sources (uses) (459,200) (859,200) - - (1,071,200)
Net change in fund balance (78,100) (478,100) 197,487 197,487 (1,254,813)
Fund balance, July 1, 2015 2,046,794 2,446,794 2,937,106 2,937,106 490,312
Fund balance, June 30, 2016 $ 1,968,694 $ 1,968,694 $ 3,134,593 $ 3,134,593 $ (764,501)
Reconciliation to Net Position:
Deferred Outflow $ 76,771
Capital assets, net 2,654,862
Accrued compensated absences (20,454)
OPEB implicit rate liability (35,730)
Net Pension liability (293,220)
Deferred Inflow (68,121)
$ 5,448,701
Pg 100 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CAPITAL ASSETS USED
IN THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
BY SOURCE
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Governmental funds capital assets:
Land $ 12,367,578
Buildings and improvements 35,657,855
Improvements other than buildings 55,301,209
Machinery and equipment 6,456,194
Construction in progress 1,767,233
Total capital assets 111,550,069
Investments in governmental funds capital assets by source:
General and capital projects funds 54,844,934
Special revenue funds 42,140,388
Leased to other agencies 14,564,747
Total investments in governmental funds capital assets $ 111,550,069
This schedule represents only the capital asset balances related to governmental funds before
accumulated depreciation, Accordingly, the capital assets reported in Internal Service Funds are excluded
from the above amounts. Generally, the capital assets of internal service funds are included as the
appropriate business activity or governmental activity in the Statement of Net Assets .
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 101
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF ASSETS USED
IN THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Machinery Improvements
and other than Construction
Function and Activity Land Buildings Equipment _ Buildings in Progress Total
General government:
Community development $ 985,235 $ 1,120,947 $ 378,138 $ - $ - $ 2,484,320
Public buildings 460,200 1,021,882 145,916 435,335 48,692 2,112,025
Leased to other agencies 253,000 8,744,018 1,609,780 3,957,949 - 14,564,747
Other - unclassified 2,660,200 2,809,244 553,922 1,317,784 7,341,150
Total general government 4,358,635 13,696,091 2,687,756 _ 5,711,068 48,692 26,502,242
Public safety:
Police 80,000 614,700 520,085 1,515,652 - 2,730,437
Fire 998,400 6,094,861 343,777 300,000 7,737,038
Total public safety 1,078,400 6,709,561 863,862 _ 1,815,652 - 10,467,475
Highway and streets:
Public thoroughfares 589,276 630,075 628,530 _ 40,703,601 355,957 42,907,439
Total highways and streets 589,276 630,075 628,530 _ 40,703,601 355,957 42,907,439
Airports 176,566 1,029,780 - 4,173,243 578,044 5,957,633
Culture and recreation 6,164,701 13,592,348 2,276,046 2,897,645 784,540 25,715,280
Total governmental funds capital assets $ 12,367,578 $ 35,657,855 $ 6,456,194 $ 55,301,209 $ 1,767,233 $ 111,550,069
This schedule represents only the capital asset balances related to governmental funds. Accordingly, the capital assets reported in Internal Service Funds are
excluded from the above amounts. Generally, the capital assets of internal service funds are included as the appropriate business activity or governmental
activity in the Statement of Net Assets.
Pg 102 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2,016 supplementary information
This page left blank intentionally
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 103
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF BOND PRINCIPAL
AND BOND INTEREST TRANSACTIONS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Bond Principal Transactions
Original Outstanding
Issue June 30, 2015 Issued
General Obligation Bonds
"Re-funding Bonds, issued December 1, 2005 2,560,000 1,190,000 -
interest variable
Water and Wastewater, Series 2009, issued May 15, 2009 1,000,000 684,962 -
interest at 4.95%
Wastewater, issued October 13, 2010 15,440,000 9,620,000 -
interest at 2.00% to 4.00%
"Fire Station #2, issued November 1, 2011 2,960,000 2,455,000 -
interest at 2.00% to 4.00%
"Ashland Fiber Network Bonds, (Refinanced 2004) issued March 7, 2013 11,675,000 11,205,000 -
interest at 2.00% to 2.80%
Water debt (Refinanced 2003), issued March 7, 2013 1,580,000 1,400,000 -
interest at 2.00%
New Construction for Street, CIP,Water and Wastewater, issued March 7, 2013 4,765,000 4,210,000 -
interest at 2.00% to 2.50%
Revenue Bonds
Electric, Series 2008, issued June 20, 2008 304,000 152,000 -
interest at 3.8% to 6.01 %
Water, DEQ loan 979,630 1,724,546 542,455
interest at 1.00%
Wastewater, DEQ Loan 1,645,280 1,759,323 53,424
interest at 1.00%
Medford Water Commission - Duff Treatment Plant - Issued 3/26/2014 - 2,316,522 -
interest at 3.42%
$ 42,908,910 $ 36,717,353 $ 595,879
Paid by Property Taxes
Pg 104 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF BOND PRINCIPAL
AND BOND INTEREST TRANSACTIONS
For the year ended June 30, 2016 (continued)
Bond Principal Transactions Interest Transactions
Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding
Matured Paid June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Matured Paid June 30, 2016
$ 215,000 $ 215,000 $ 975,000 $ - $ 59,500 $ 59,500 $ -
62,090 62,090 622,872 - 33,147 33,147 -
1,250,000 1,250,000 8,370,000 - 372,300 372,300 -
120,000 120,000 2,335,000 - 80,788 80,788 -
1,010,000 1,010,000 10,195,000 - 240,310 240,310 -
165,000 165,000 1,235,000 - 26,3ri0 26,350 -
285,000 285,000 3,925,000 - 85,875 85,875 -
21,714 21,714 130,286 - 1,764 1,764 -
- - 2,267,001 - - - -
- - 1,812,747 - - - -
85,253 85,253 2,231,268 78,502 78,502 -
$ 3,214,058 $ 3,214,058 $ 34,099,173 $ - $ 978,536 $ 978,536 $ -
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 105
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY TAX TRANSACTIONS
COLLECTED AND UNCOLLECTED
FOR THE CITY
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Add (Deduct)
Discounts Deduct
Taxes Add Levy Interest Interest and Taxes
Uncollected Extended by Cancellations Tax Uncollected
July 1, 2015 Assessor Adjustments Collections June 30, 2016
2015-16 $ - $ 10,782,252 $ (290,138) $ 10,205,957 $ 286,157
2014-15 358,916 (46,782) 145,901 166,233
2013-14 175,635 - (900) 62,207 112,528
2012-13 112,988 - 3,289 57,336 58,941
2011-12 68,867 - (7,660) 23,616 37,591
Prior years 52,479 - (2,627) 13,261 36,588
$ 768,885 $ 10,782,252 $ (344,818) $ 10,508,278 $ 698,038
Taxes
Collections to Uncollected
June 30, 2016 June 30, 2016
Taxes receivable and tax collections classified by fund:
Primary government:
General Fund $ 10,001,411 $ 663,136
Debt Service Fund 506,865 34,902
Enterprise Funds:
Water Fund 2
$ 10,508,278 $ 698,038
Pg 106 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY TAX TRANSACTIONS
AND BALANCES OF TAXES UNCOLLECTED
FOR THE CITY
for the year ended June 30, 2016
Reconciliation of tax collections by fund to tax revenues on the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
Tax Revenues
Collections Other Taxes GAAP Basis
Primary government:
General Fund $ 10,001,411 $ 9,341,794 $ 19,343,205
Special Revenue Funds:
Street Fund - 58,782 58,782
Debt Service Funds:
Debt Service Fund 506,865 - 506,865
Capital Projects Fund:
Capital Improvement Fund - 564,947 564,947
Enterprise Funds:
Water Fund 2 - 2
Wastewater Fund - 2,259,785 2,259,785
$ 10,508,278 $ 12,225,308 $ 22,733,586
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 107
Return to Table of Contents
2016 supplementary information
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND BALANCES
ELECTED OFFICIALS
For the year ended June 30, 2016
Cash Cash
Balance Turnovers to Balance
July 1, 2015 Receipts Treasurer State Other June 30, 2016
City Recorder/Treasurer $ 31,562,210 $ 217,074,400 $ - $ - $ 213,390,736 $ 35,245,874
Judge - 236,590 161;807 74,783 - -
$ 31,562,210 $ 217,310,990 $ 161.807 $ 74,783 $ 213,390,736 $ 35,245,874
5
Pg 108 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
STATISTICAL SECTION
Total Reporting Entity
(Unaudited)
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 109
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
Pg 110 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATISTICAL SECTION
Unaudited
This part of the City of Ashland's comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding this
year's financial statements, notes, and supplementary information. This information has not been audited by the independent auditors.
Financial Trends Page
These tables contain trend information that may assist the reader in assessing the City's current 112-125
financial performance by placing it in historical perspective.
Revenue Capacity
These tables contain information that may assist the reader is assessing the viability of the City's 126-135
revenue sources.
Debt Capacity
These tables present information that may assist the reader in analyzing the affordability of the 136-145
City's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future.
Economic and Demographic Information
These tables offer economic and demographic indicators that are commonly used for financial 146-147
analysis that can help the reader understand the City's present and ongoing financial status.
Operating Information
These tables contain service and infrastructure indicators that can help the reader understand
how the information in the City's financial statements relate to the services the City provides and 148-155
the activities it performs.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 111
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
ASSETS 2016 2015 2014 2013
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 21,839,880 $ 20,251,17 $ 19,534,572 $ 17,585,953
Receivables (net of allowance for
uncollectibles) 3,338,266 4,167,77 3,471,767 3,688,713
Inventories 65,010 187,511 73,094 74,943
Internal balances (113,519) (1,945,133) (1,392,782) (1,122,695)
Restricted assets:
Temporarily restricted:
Cash and cash equivalents 943,355 855,54E 1,149,616 1,140,881
Proportional Share of Net Pension Asset: - 4,350,234 - -
Capital assets:
Land 12,466,348 12,466,348 12,466,348 12,466,348
Buildings and improvements 35,982,031 35,850,207 35,739,298 22,389,683
Machinery and equipment 18,115,158 17,116,629 16,653,654 13,169,274
Infrastructure 55,745,615 54,917,223 53,668,418 49,724,924
Construction in progress 1,390,232 1,614,351 1,620,133 3,541,161
Accumulated depreciation (65,662,055) (61,946,174) 58,028,592 (48,437,198)
Total assets $ 84,110,321 $ 87,885,691 $ 84,955,526 $ 74,221,987
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred outflows - pensions 3,088,480
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and other current liabilities $ 6,921,351 $ 7,163,036 $ 7,116,594 $ 5,271,651
Accrued interest payable 121,564 130,429 155,091 130,897
Noncurrent liabilities:
Proportional share of net pension assets 11,796,223
OPEB Net Pension Obligations 1,276,128
Claims and judgment - Due within one year 17,247 122,107
Bonds: Due within one year 730,000 793,836 1,555,932 1,452,982
Bonds: Due in more than one year 15,401,707 16,009,707 16,925,776 18,337,270
Total liabilities 36,264,220 24,219,115 25,753,393 25,192,800
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Deferred inflows - pensions 2,740,515
Net position:
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 41,905,622 43,215,041 43,637,551 33,063,940
Restricted for:
Asset forfeiture 25,784 29,678 28,897 14,579
TOT tourism 129,763 99,108 116,131
Library Levy - 56,587 142,497
System development 3,226,398 3,036,906 2,924,188 2,835,567
Debt service 1,028,912 861,561 794,695 785,823
CDBG restriction 33,804 33,797 33,801 33,801
Perpetual care: nonexpendable 895,931 922,667 896,572 874,045
Unrestricted 947,852 8,907,564 10,627,801 11,421,432
Total net position $ 48,194,066 $ 57,162,909 $ 59,202,133 $ 49,029,187
Pg 112 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 18,062,202 $ 12,769,637 $ 11,832,259 $ 9,453,086 $ 9,845,351 $ 10,922,900
3,462,383 4,085,185 2,647,744 2,668,694 2,444,054 2,530,776
61,605 54,579 32,325 36,193 59,984 36,173
(690,129) (354,295) (534,894) (640,731) (1,304,641) (1,587,111)
976,265 802,870 755,885 1,066,850 1,240,543 542,190
12,261,807 12,400,610 12,400,610 12,400,610 9,829,360 9,829,360
19, 563, 238 19, 563, 238 19, 563, 238 19, 563, 238 19, 563, 238 19, 563, 238
12,890,582 13,487,439 13,278,430 13,130,505 14,380,378 13,183,769
48,193,897 44,589,519 44,299,409 43,579,697 42,249,665 42,121,600
2,692,359 3,510,539 484,590 340,422 673,643 143,017
(46,093,174) (44,589,333) (42,260,637) (39,728,339) (38,631L (35,789,232)
$ 71,381,035 $ 66,319,988 $ 62,498,959 $ 61,870,225 $ 60,350,351 $ 61,496,680
$ 4,811,345 $ 5,715,843 $ 3,190,369 $ 3,153,914 $ 2,672,369 $ 2,683,604
382,895 393,592 417,042 430,105 449,038 396,208
1,127,229 1,067,338 1,276,871 1,183,044 1,327,360 925,973
17,779,689 15,781,372 17,330,191 18,316,590 19,263,447 20,341,095
24,101,158 22,958,145 22,214,473 23,083,653 23,712,214 24,346,880
30,601,791 32,113,302 29,449,210 29,786,499 27,577,843 27,969,339
224,361 187,864 129,510 140,974 233,514 329,180
102,786 105,063 - - - -
2,763,714 2,345,201 2,469,667 2,363,441 2,145,609 1,930,458
982,650 762,199 1,072,785 1,245,509 479,262
33,798 34,424 - - - -
861,244 831,603 807,797 788,753 771,948 749,918
11,709,533 7,744,386 6,666,013 4,634,120 4,658,714 5,691,643
$ 47,279,877 $ 43,361,843 $ 40,284,396 $ 38,786,572 $ 36,638,137 $ 37,149,800
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 113
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
ASSETS 2016 2015 _ 2014 2013
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 12,462,639 $ 10,455,490 $ 10,760,319 $ 9,732,516
Receivables (net of allowance for uncollectibles) 3,537,442 2,780,841 3,493,316 5,255,513
Inventories 1,116,114 1,054,059 1,024,111 880,651
Deferred charges 178,703 288,672 488,135 607,054
Internal balances 113,519 1,949,133 1,392,782 1,122,695
Restricted assets: -
Proportional Share of Net Pension Assets - 1,148,384 - -
Capital assets:
Land 1,906,925 1,906,925 1,880,637 1,880,637
Buildings and improvements 22,089,253 22,089,254 22,089,254 22,089,254
Machinery and equipment 1,289,590 1,271,975 1,169,663 1,059,798
Infrastructure 84,406,415 84,289,573 83,671,768 89,768,372
Construction in progress 7,420,192 5,788,805 3,069,144 4,033,297
Accumulated depreciation (53,727,757) (51,317,039) (48,811,228) (53,721,485)
Total assets $ 80,793,035 $ 81,706,072 $ 80,227,901 $ 82,708,302
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred outflows - pensions 815,302
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and other current liabilities $ 2,938,144 $ 2,511,527 $ 2,865,087 $ 2,798,666
Accrued interest payable 83,205 91,720 98,772 107,357
Noncurrent liabilities:
Proportional Share of net pension assets 3,113,992
Claims and judgment - Due within one year -
Bonds: Due within one year 2,976,477 1,769,057 1,885,841 1,843,020
Bonds: Due in more than one year 16,242,695 18,623,294 17,216,872 16,477,803
Total liabilities 25,354,513 22,995,598 22,066,572 21,226,846
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Deferred inflows - pensions 723,447
Net position:
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 44,165,446 43,637,142 43,966,525 46,789,050
Restricted for:
System development 3,859,800 3,723,378 3,786,696 3,606,339
Debt service - 875,490 875,490 875,490
Unrestricted 7,505,131 8,757,613 9,532,618 10,210,577
Total net position $ 55,530,377 $ 56,993,623 $ 58,161,329 $ 61,481,456
Pg 114 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 6,155,621 $ 6,743,304 $ 6,959,037 $ 6,993,295 $ 6,437,889 $ 9,836,733
2,545,430 2,408,196 2,307,864 2,227,713 2,190,239 2,105,403
899,374 740,438 732,821 810,073 881,530 806,047
725,973 844,892 966,228 1,098,448 1,215,668 1,340,389
690,129 354,295 534,984 640,731 1,304,641 1,587,111
1,880,637 1,880,637 1,880,637 1,880,637 1,880,638 1,880,638
22, 089, 254 22, 089, 254 22, 089, 254 22, 089, 254 21, 782,187 21, 782,187
894,352 1,072,204 875,928 823,580 823,581 673,607
88,885,630 87,809,652 87,809,652 84,636,277 84,636,278 81,141,248
3,453,267 3,335,467 2,538,176 4,620,579 3,981,724 5,156,412
(49,710,027) (46,028,522) (42,247,672) (38,584,771) (35,041,272) (31,502,402)
$ 78,509,640 $ 81,249,817 $ 84,446,909 $ 87,235,816 $ 90,093,103 $ 94,807,373
$ 1,407,377 $ 1,591,542 $ 1,769,929 $ 1,467,227 $ 1,571,810 $ 1,554,049
105,621 113,296 121,211 130,104 144,127 153,639
1,610,333 1,757,774 1,735,032 1,669,770 1,595,081 1,379,209
15, 210, 823 16, 821,156 19, 654, 652 21,389,683 _ 22, 056,168 23,497, 674
18,334,154 20,283,768 23,280,824 24,656,784 25,367,186 26,584,571
50,671,957 51,579,762 51,556,291 52,406,103 54,411,887 54,264,807
3,621,447 3,395,974 3,646,949 3,800,824 3,838,867 4,315,088
875,490 875,490 875,490 875,490 1,751,369 -
5,006,592 5,114,823 5,087,355 5,496,615 4,723,794 9,642,907
$ 60,175,486 $ 60,966,049 $ 61,166,085 $ 62,579,032 $ 64,725,917 $ 68,222,802
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 115
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
Program Revenues: 2016 2015 2014 2013
General government:
Charges for services $ 1,041,323 $ 1,777,397 $ 2,022,814 $ 6,054,232
Operating grants and contributions 162,143 611,864 252,742 199,701
Capital grants and contributions - - -
Capital system development charges - - -
Public safety:
Charges for services 1,563,986 1,805,092 1,412,785 1,722,410
Operating grants and contributions 438,074 132,061 180,422 77,257
Capital grants and contributions - - -
Highways and streets:
Charges for services 2,845,870 2,248,027 2,093,705 2,090,907
Operating grants and contributions - 25,712 - 620,913
Capital grants and contributions - - - -
Capital system development charges - - - -
Parks and Recreation :
Charges for Services 1,153,455 1,149,154 1,578,123 -
Operating Grants and Contributions 92 320,539 - -
Capital Grants and Contributions - - - -
Capital System Development Charges - - - -
7,204,943 8,069,846 7,540,591 10,765,420
Program Expenses:
General government 6,914,541 4,010,499 4,921,674 7,269,820
Public safety 19,474,413 11,271,574 14,677,285 10,352,003
Highways and streets 5,490,894 4,536,755 5,420,004 3,080,513
Parks and Recreation 8,802,091 5,452,550 5,881,480 -
Interest on long-term debt 293,944 322,330 435,790 1,618,065
40,975,883 25,593,708 31,336,233 22,320,401
Net (Expense) Revenue:
General government (5,711,075) (1,621,238) (2,646,118) (1,015,887)
Public safety (17,472,353) (9,334,421) (13,084,078) (8,552,336)
Highways and streets (2,645,024) (2,263,016) (3,326,299) (368,693)
Parks and Recreation (7,648,544) (3,982,857) (4,303,357) -
Interest on long-term debt (293,944) (322,330) (435,790) (1,618,065)
(33,770,940) (17,523,862) (23,795,642) (11,554,981)
General Revenues:
Property taxes 10,452,785 10,203,218 10,216,080 5,783,168
Utility users tax 4,763,832 4,607,586 4,572,352 4,306,761
Users taxes 3,343,859 2,547,514 2,784,842 2,688,525
State subventions - unrestricted - - - -
Unrestricted interest earnings 110,363 137,558 186,146 179,794
Capital assets transfers - - - -
Miscellaneous 5,781,258 5,721,728 4,877,216 346,043
Gain (loss) on disposal of assets - - - -
Transfers: 350,000 - 90,000
Total general revenues and transfers 24,802,097 23,217,604 22,546,636 13,304,291
Change in net position (8,968,843) 5,693,742 (1,249,006) 1,749,310
Net position - beginning, restated 57,162,909 59,292,133 50,451,139 47,279,877
Recognition of prior infrastructure - - - -
Net position - ending $ 48,194,066 $ 64,985,875 $ 59,202,133 $ 49,029,187
Pg 116 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 6,915,050 $ 6,946,410 $ 6,336,870 $ 5,084,158 $ 5,786,031 $ 5,058,193
290,097 19,793 18,890 3,641 2,122 35,144
99,591 1,428,253 196,058 3,991 178,186 17,377
- 22,701 16,377 18,375 48,308 67,014
1,525,601 1,551,370 1,551,370 1,487,673 1,524,229 1,600,538
37,537 189,248 95,570 114,188 98,302 182,281
3,060,434 - - - - 312,000
3,024,262 2,006,385 2,027,116 1,842,187 1,807,939 1,662,360
868,543 - - - - 366,549
- - 76,101 72,643 167,486 269,338
15,821,115 12,164,160 10,318,352 8,626,856 9,612,603 9,570,794
6,086,034 5,963,977 4,813,802 3,856,719 4,876,071 4,287,280
13,893,641 10,457,134 11,410,483 10,312,721 11,555,693 10,082,938
3,923,526 3,650,817 2,893,462 2,505,897 4,000,048 2,583,641
966,063 976,011 1,033,451 442,168 1,178,388 1,139,346
24,869,264 21,047,939 20,151,198 17,117,505 21,610,200 18,093,205
1,218,704 2,453,180 1,721,639 1,253,446 1,138,576 890,448
(9,270,609) (8,716,516) (9,763,543) (8,710,860) (9,933,162) (7,988,119)
(30,721) (1,644,432) (942,447) (591,067) (2,024,623) (285,394)
(966,063) (976,011) (1,033,451) (442,168) (1,178,388) _ (1,139,346)
(9,048,689) (8,883,779) (10,017,802) (8,490,649) (11,997,597) _ (8,522,411)
5,416,909 5,093,848 4,821,809 4,391,088 4,170,062 3,557,262
4,209,696 4,170,896 3,989,351 3,888,747 3,945,382 2,345,323
2,547,854 2,315,909 2,276,353 2,013,026 1,899,320 1,952,810
- - - - 247,357 1,486,776
173,648 117,112 134,142 127,224 444,557 406,964
- - - - - (15,896,208)
618,616 263,461 293,971 218,999 779,133 1,085,266
12,966,723 11,961,226 11,515,626 10,639,084 11,485,811 (5,061,807)
3,918,034 3,077,447 1,497,824 2,148,435 (511,786) (13,584,218)
43,361,843 40,284,396 38,786,572 36,638,137 37,149,923 50,734,018
$ 47,279,877 $ 43,361,843 $ 40,284,396 $ 38,786,572 $ 36,638,137 $ 37,149,800
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 117
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
Program Revenues: 2016 2015 _ 2014 2013
Water:
Charges for services $ 7,214,898 $ 6,163,924 $ 5,913,633 $ 5,547,560
Capital grants and contributions 14,898 70,473 89,747 1,969,979
Capital system development charges 277,247 328,414 269,029 266,196
Wastewater:
Charges for services 5,201,264 4,651,836 4,171,230 3,928,342
Capital system development charges 107,655 112,980 80,570 95,132
Electric:
Charges for services 14,600,751 13,817,822 13,671,443 12,938,039
Operating grants and contributions 395,149 157,698 178,002 148,642
Telecommunications:
Charges for services 2,010,444 1,960,462 1,929,101 1,896,106
29,822,306 27,263,618 26,302,755 26,789,996
Program Expenses:
Water 7,271,424 7,832,250 6,852,085 7,581,708
Wastewater 6,838,563 5,359,111) 7,475,207 3,846,640
Electric 16,708,504 13,521,810 15,825,968 13,613,715
Telecommunications 2,557,101 1,945,371) 2,240,951 3,233,961
33,375,592 28,658,559 32,394,211 28,276,024
Net (Expense) Revenue:
Water 235,619 (1,269,439) (579,676) 202,027
Wastewater (1,529,644) (594,290) (3,223,407) 176,834
Electric (1,712,604) 453,701 (1,976,523) (527,034)
Telecommunications (546,657) 15,087 (311,850) (1,337,855)
(3,553,286) (1,394,941) (6,091,456) (1,486,028)
General Revenues:
Property taxes - - -
Users taxes 2,259,787 2,080,616 1,891,730 1,839,711
Unrestricted interest earnings 77,084 55,019 156,492 166,290
Capital assets transfers - - -
Miscellaneous 138,071 132,966 723,106 785,997
Gain (loss) on disposal of assets - - - -
Transfers: - - - -
Total general revenues and transfers 2,474,942 2,268,601 2,771,328 2,791,998
Change in net position (1,463,246) 873,660 (3,320,128) 1,305,970
Net position - beginning, Restated 56,993,623 56,119,963 61,481,457 60,175,486
Net position - ending $ 55,530,377 $ 56,993,623 $ 58,161,329 $ 61,481,457
Pg 118 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 4,891,233 $ 4,250,255 $ 4,146,730 $ 4,067,377 $ 3,780,193 $ 3,829,222
461,964 344,396 99,928 55,628 48,096 135,828
491,612 180,604 151,864 125,389 340,835 367,839
3,601,900 3,385,748 3,148,850 2,734,001 2,607,275 2,432,868
81,998 68,956 55,945 75,843 127,224 208,554
12,402,857 12,238,716 12,144,279 11,688,967 12,260,230 12,163,467
125,123 187,436 267,850 47,121 67,620 32,233
1,931,126 1,944,758 1,818,789 1,805,746 1,709,706 2,029,467
23,987,813 22,600,869 21,834,235 20,600,072 20,941,179 21,199,478
5,256,110 5,260,907 4,599,205 4,969,862 4,959,525 4,955,737
5,035,171 4,300,986 5,223,619 4,675,433 5,261,713 4,895,541
13,673,739 12,516,992 12,585,218 12,823,006 13,876,456 12,904,663
3,308,448 3,535,592 2,931,512 2,845,198 2,756,528 2,682,968
27,273,468 25,614,477 25,339,554 25,313,499 26,854,222 25,438,909
588,699 (485,652) (200,683) (721,468) (790,401) (622,848)
(1,351,273) (846,282) (2,018,824) (1,865,589) (2,527,214) (2,254,119)
(1,145,759) (90,840) (173,089) (1,086,918) (1,548,606) (708,963)
(1,377,322) (1,590,834) (1,112,723) (1,039,452) (1,046,823) (653,501)
(3,285,655) (3,013,608) (3,505,319) (4,713,427) (5,913,044) (4,239,431)
- - - - - 322
1,707,079 1,592,942 1,583,908 1,495,488 1,568,385 1,619,849
155,478 106,904 114,266 108,066 459,073 1,194,688
- - - - - 15,896,208
632,532 1,113,726 394,199 962,989 388,701
2,495,089 2,813,572 2,092,373 2,566,543 2,416,159 18,711,067
(790,566) (200,036) (1,412,946) (2,146,884) (3,496,885) 14,471,636
60,966,052 61,166,088 62,579,034 64,725,918 68,222,803 53,751,167
$ 60,175,486 $ 60,966,052 $ 61,166,088 $ 62,579,034 $ 64,725,918 $ 68,222,803
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 119
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
General Fund: 2016 2015 2014 2013
Restricted for:
Asset forfeiture $ 25,784 29,678 $ 28,897 $ 14,579
Transient Occupancy Tax - tourism 129,763 99,108 116,131 -
Library services - 56,587 142,497
Committed for:
Parking surcharge 370,085 334,949 287,725 273,965
Public art 109,938 85,667 78,154 82,849
Affortable housing 166,351 166,351 148,426 148,426
Grubbs case 22,235 22,235 22,230 22,230
Unassigned, reported in:
General fund 3,636,527 3,671,4369 3,731,916 3,863,212
Total general fund 4,460,683 4,466,544 4,555,976 4,405,261
Street Fund:
Restricted for:
System development charges 2,619,729 2,479,609 2,415,789 2,376,109
Unassigned, reported in:
Special revenue funds 2,795,238 2,798,621 2,321,834 2,041,013
Total street fund 5,414,967 5,278, 230 4,737,623 4,417,122
Parks Fund:
Unassigned, reported in:
Special revenue funds 313,140 503,626 583,394 -
Total parks fund 313,140 503,626 583,394 -
All Other Governmental Funds:
Restricted for:
System development charges 606,669 557,297 508,399 459,458
Community Development Grant Block funding 33,804 33,797 33,801 33,801
Cemetery perpetual care 944,552 922,667 896,572 874,045
Committed for:
Committed for parks activities 1,536,623 209,302 332,482
Committed for airport activities 138,905 117,516 80,488 97,697
Committed for food and beverage 524,663 470,422 365,466
Committed for facilities 2,004,725 1,667,528 944,553 1,268,783
Committed for debt service 1,028,912 861,560 794,695 785,823
Unassigned, reported in:
Special revenue funds - - -
Capital projects funds - - -
Total all other governmental funds 6,294,190 4,894,330 4,061,412 3,885,073
Total governmental funds $ 16,482,980 $ 15,142,730 $ 13,938,405 $ 8,290,334
Fund Balance Comparison
Governmental Funds
$12,000,000 Last Ten Years
$10,000,000 oAll Other
$8,000,000
Governmental
$6,000,000 Funds.
$4,000,000 o General Fund.
i,
$2,000,000
,
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20151 2016
Pg 120 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Last ten years (continued)
For the year ended June 30
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 224,361 $ 187,864 $ 129,510 $ 140,974 $ 236,514 $ 329,180
102,786 100,563 - - -
247,725 232,497 - - -
73,011 28,113 - - -
148,426 23,367 - - - -
21,230
3,692,190 2,875,653 2,345,060 2,044,482 2,060,152 2,038,534
4,509,729 3,448,057 2,474,570 2,185,456 2,296,666 2,367,714
2,352,315 1,980,292 2,115,971 2,085,259 2,049,977 1,761,561
690,977 256,008 704,546 316,999 120,493 615,659
3,043,292 2,236,300 2,820,517 2,402,258 2,170,470 2,377,220
411,399 364,909 353,696 348,746 96,632 168,896
33,798 34,424 - - -
861,244 831,603 807,796 788,752 771,948 749,918
83,711 60,083 - - -
365,466 526,148 - - -
3,463,420 1,241,604 - - -
982,650 809,249 762,199 1,072,785 1,246,509 559,263
- - 32,160 19,979 6,891 (24,661)
- - 1,969,977 1,154,776 951,989 714,329
6,201,688 3,868,020 3,925,828 3,385,038 3,073,969 2,167,745
$ 10,711,417 $ 7,316,077 $ 6,400,398 $ 5,570,494 $ 5,370,635 $ 4,535,459
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 121
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
Revenues: 2016 2015 2014 2013
Taxes $ 20,473,799 $ 19,210,392 $ 18,850,869 $ 13,661,986
Fees, licenses and permits 835,278 1,205,381 667,416 583,679
Intergovernmental 2,394,661 2,774,500 2,847,336 2,500,297
Special assessments 32,831 67,508 59,483 41,048
Charges for services 13,548,958 12,358,624 10,835,737 6,319,508
System development charges 232,752
Fines and forfeitures 180,638 178,455 183,732 196,535
Interest on investments 110,363 79,831-) 86,025 72,312
Miscellaneous 208,355 221,2913 410,589 559,195
Total revenues 38,017,635 36,095,988 33,941,187 23,934,560
Expenditures:
General government 10,488,718 9,346,850 9,381,555 4,820,740
Public safety 14,846,892 13,328,400 13,102,433 11,868,980
Highways and streets 3,067,591 2,762,562 1,974,219 2,529,333
Parks and recreation 6,214,551 6,591,386 6,854,314
Capital outlay 1,434,986 959,542 1,636,407 4,984,031
Debt service 1,844,645 1,902,924 1,842,374 2,754,188
Principal 1,541,836 1,454,442 1,320,000 1,732,744
Interest 302,016 447,689 522,374 1,021,444
Total expenditures 37,897,383 34,891,663 34,791,302 26,957,272
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenditures 120,252 1,204,325 (850,115) (3,022,712)
Other financing sources (uses):
Proceeds from debt issuance 870,000 - 1,767,459
Interfund loans - - 208,000
Transfers in 612,162 556,511) 750,927 41,461
Transfers out (262,162) (556,5115) (840,927) (41,461)
Total other financing sources (uses) 1,220,000 - (90,000) 1,975,459
Net change in fund balance $ 1,340,252 $ 1,204,321-) $ (940,115) $ (1,047,253)
Non-capital exenditures:
Total expenditures (Debt excluded) $ 36,052,738 $ 32,988,739 $ 32,948,928 $ 24,203,084
Less: capital assets expenditures (1,434,986) (959,542) (1,636,407) (4,984,031)
Non-capital exenditures: $ 34,617,752 $ 32,029,197 $ 31,312,521 $ 19,219,053
Ratio of debt service to noncapital expenditures 5.33% 5.94% 5.88% 14.33%
Pg 122 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 13,270,221 $ 12,978,142 $ 12,636,896 $ 11,790,772 $ 11,204,876 $ 10,620,715
1,340,102 482,275 474,379 768,451 886,644 847,665
2,878,726 3,642,108 2,1033165 1,630,055 1,848,914 2,606,832
43,542 17,867 3,292 25,587 67,195 108,864
6,520,263 6,315,976 5,799,929 5,732,687 5,594,106 4,564,898
168,305 183,239 183,266 156,092 150,346 169,558
87,553 62,062 102,302 97,379 330,413 310,478
262,858 272,814 190,732 164,995 _ 787,159 719,478
24,571,570 23,954,483 21,493,961 20,366,018 20,869,653 19,948,488
4,631,724 4,300,262 4,278,859 3,982,889 4,114,305 3,423,269
11, 411, 045 10, 914,166 10, 896, 098 10,701,354 10, 578, 525 10, 227,177
2,422,483 3,778,610 2,361,523 2,298,680 2,341,178 2,245,609
2,374,574 1,859,097 479,600 1,502,763 1,355,293 1,359,308
2,172,846 2,562,886 2,229,718 2,363,685 1,852,049 1,622,412
1,196,086 1,563,425 1,183,203 1,277,584 725,753 533,630
976,760 999,461 1,046,515 1,086,101 _ 1,126,296 1,088,782
23,012,672 23,415,021 20,245,798 20,849,371 20,241,350 18,877,775
1,558,898 539,462 1,248,163 (483,353) 628,303 1,070,713
- - - 915,000 - -
- (208,000) - - - 89,818
203,105 997,349 469,360 328,173 336,253 936,934
(203,105) (997,349) (469,360) (328,173) _ (336,253) (936,934)
- (208,000) - 915,000 _ - 89,818
$ 1,558,898 $ 331,462 $ 1,248,163 $ 431,647 $ 628,303 $ 1,160,531
$ 20,839,826 $ 20,852,135 $ 18,016,080 $ 18,485,686 $ 18,389,301 $ 17,255,363
(2,374,574) (1,859,097) (479,600) (1,502,763) _ (1,355,293) (1,359,308)
$ 18,465,252 $ 18,993,038 $ 17,536,480 $ 16,982,923 $ 17,034,008 $ 15,896,055
11.77% 13.49% 12.71% 13.92% 10.87% 10,21%
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 123
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
FUND BALANCE COMPARISON
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
2016 2015 2014 2013
Fund Balances Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted
City Component
General Fund $ 1,646,957 $ 777,434 $ 2,594,256 $ 1,563,870
Community Development Block Grant Fund 1 - - (34,424)
Reserve Fund 221,580 454,910 336,910 1,018,502
Street Fund 3,694,376 1,059,860 1,403,337 1,669,993
Airport Fund 71,735 64,468 34,564 99,276
Capital Improvements Fund 1,363,411 1,890,308 1,858,486 545,638
Debt Service Fund 803,151 606,593 637,043 949,626
Water Fund 4,711,984 3,559,316 3,575,115 2,383,044
Wastewater Fund 2,803,471 2,305,611 2,415,670 2,235,859
Electric Fund 537,900 590,117 1,012,411 1,077,114
Telecommunications Fund 172,269 30,968 210,594 153,998
Central Services Fund 232,353 392,031 754,268 32,508
Insurance Services Fund 318,938 429,287 622,602 477,568
Health Benefits Fund (291,630) 86,718 348,359
Equipment Fund 1,657,459 1,280,781 1,233,835 2,553,013
Cemetery Trust Fund 948,546 937,744 912,244 892,603
Total city component 18,892,501 14,466,146 17,949,694 15,618,188
Parks Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 184,915 666,289 583,396 1,290,439
Youth Activities Levy Fund - - - -
Parks Capital Improvements Fund (674,924) 302,132 270,032 242,067
Parks Equipment Fund 192,000
Total parks component (298,009) 968,421 853,428 1,532,506
Total budget $ 18,594,492 $ 15,434,567 $ 18,803,122 $ 17,150,694
2016 2015 2014 2013
Fund Balances Actual Actual Actual Actual
City Component
General Fund $ 3,603,674 $ 3,620,264 $ 3,719,809 $ 3,385,681
Community Development Block Grant Fund 33,804 33,797 33,801 33,801
Reserve Fund 166,465 196,279 336,167 1,019,580
Street Fund 5,414,967 5,278,231 4,737,524 4,417,121
Airport Fund 138,905 117,516 80,488 116,697
Capital Improvements Fund 2,802,016 2,749,488 1,923,374 2,094,707
Debt Service Fund 1,028,912 861,560 1,159,490 1,150,618
Water Fund 6,081,537 5,208,592 6,273,413 6,437,576
Wastewater Fund 6,499,438 5,095,342 4,271,386 4,290,774
Electric Fund 1,863,131 900,609 1,899,104 2,327,540
Telecommunications Fund 365,637 305,058 479,997 587,624
Central Services Fund 579,888 870,190 870,190 853,280
Insurance Services Fund 1,160,957 1,766,284 1,584,721 848,857
Health Benefits Fund 140,764 473,726 169,366
Equipment Fund 3,134,593 2,937,105 2,540,413 3,357,663
Cemetery Trust Fund 944,553 922,667 896,572 874,045
Total city component 33,959,241 31,336,708 30,975,915 31,795,564
Parks Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 254,306 503,628 583,396 1,783,433
Youth Activities Levy Fund - - - -
Parks Capital Improvements Fund 1,346,001 209,302 332,482 387,632
Parks Equipment Fund
Total parks component 1,600,307 712,930 915,878 2,171,065
Pg 124 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
FUND BALANCE COMPARISON
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted
$ 1,729,188 $ 1,484,490 $ 1,332,508 $ 1,190,469 $ 1,127,520 $ 1,047,023
- - - 11,799 - -
869,172 151,500 215,000 - - -
2,205,420 2,199,998 1,447,363 3,634,173 1,223,241 6,308,766
44,387 10,804 9,024 31,727 2,942 12,382
1,828,450 1,493,676 2,137,061 1,753,706 807,222 1,680,528
1,020,546 790,646 1,149,113 1,166,758 601,085 148,902
1,121,531 4,302,000 836,814 3,041,343 2,804,328 5,401,307
233,204 2,328,958 3,020,769 4,069,588 5,539,312 3,035,439
1,091,591 1,387,036 649,494 2,067,545 1,677,245 1,185,892
339,464 281,732 325,135 396,498 362,716 217,611
10,026 70,593 12,531 106,614 82,987 92,793
646,302 394,466 543,266 977,803 908,275 492,028
1,124,500 88,202 1,322,161 1,252,898 508,357 618,799
852,797 826,753 812,948 790,918 774,453 735,212
13,116,578 15,810,854 13,813,187 20,491,839 16,419,683 20,976,682
1,703,840 1,409,225 1,450,910 1,190,614 877,245 667,250
- - 10,591 - 216,893 -
193,504 195,991 287,239 107,590 26,926 44,866
1,897,344 1,605,216 1,748,740 1,298,204 1,121,064 712,116
$ 15,013,922 $ 17,416,070 $ 15,561,927 $ 21,790,043 $ 17,540,747 $ 21,688,798
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
$ 3,495,819 $ 2,938,556 $ 2,474,570 $ 2,185,456 $ 2,296,666 5 2,367,714
33,798 34,424 37,424 69,618 44,705 12,033
1,013,910 509,502 148,072 - - -
3,043,292 2,236,300 2,820,517 2,402,258 2,170,470 2,377,220
83,710 60,083 32,160 99,978 86,891 55,339
4,449,285 2,132,661 2,138,176 1,433,904 1,003,916 656,315
982,649 809,248 762,199 1,072,785 1,246,509 559,263
2,708,910 2,212,401 1,851,885 2,323,768 1,865,418 3,241,590
2,794,806 3,250,111 3,496,009 3,710,771 3,764,972 4,862,001
2,418,099 2,476,294 2,054,733 1,642,543 1,469,744 2,178,995
586,943 517,916 953,315 929,945 869,719 963,896
0 491,546 266,820 161,163 368,086 726,743
761,552 605,943 640,110 696,071 1,138, 699 974,450
2,479,905 1,858,969 1,760,305 844,150 1,329,672 1,750,852
861,243 831,602 870,797 788,753 771,948 749,918
25,713,921 20,965,556 20,307,092 18,361,163 18,427,415 21,476,329
2,242,227 2,214,031 1,787,781 1,379,752 1,201,443 1,180,912
20,326 9,899 22,534 27,356 160,591 72,671
449,131 432,866 252,864 166,991 263,343 195,390
2,711,684 2,656,796 2,063,179 1,574,099 1,625,377 1,448,973
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 125
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
ASSESSED AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL
VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY
Last ten years - Unaudited
Taxable ratio
Fiscal Year (True Cash
Ended Property Value to
June 30, Real Property Mobile Home Personal (1) Utilities Total Tax Rate Assessed)
2016 $ 2,367,355,356 $ 6,526,881 $ 40,417,280 $ 31,573,600 g 2,445,873,117 $ 4.49 70.0%
2015 2,274,534,883 6,445,605 38,438,560 29,027,740 2,348,446,788 4.61 72.1%
2014 2,154,231,164 6,060,576 36,756,490 24,858,300 2,221,906,530 4.61 72.3%
2013 2,079,286,927 6,060,300 36,739,550 26,166,700 2,148,253,477 4.63 73.3%
2012 2,055,111,118 6,318,010 40,939,090 26,290,929 2,128,659,147 4.71 67.7%
2011 2,000,563,826 5,956,110 41,057,580 24,422,710 2,072,000,226 4.60 61.0%
2010 1,937,303,620 5,881,825 40,133,110 24,860,300 2,008,178,855 4.59 53.0%
2009 1,871,896,544 5,744,350 44,282,840 21,243,990 1,943,167,724 4.42 48.4%
2008 1,802,639,910 5,762,080 44,536,050 22,372,000 1,875,310,040 5.73 46.9%
2007 1,700,020,579 5,498,040 40,468,280 20,509,400 1,766,496,299 5.56 46.6%
All property is evaluated once every six years as required by state statute
(1) Includes non-profit housing
Source- Jackson County Assessor tax roll property values
Real Property Value and Taxable Ratio
Last Ten Years
$3,000,000,000 80.0%
70.0%
$2,500,000,000
60.0%
$2,000,000,000
- 50.0%
$1,500,000,000 40.0%
30.0%
$1,000,000,000
20.0%
$500,000,000
10.0%
0.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
oTotal Property ~-Taxable Ratio
Pg 126 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
PROPERTY TAX RATES
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS
(Per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation;)
Last ten years - Unaudited
City of
City of Ashland City of City of City of
Fiscal Year Ashland Local Ashland Ashland Ashland Net General Net School
Ended Permanent Option Bonded Component Total Tax Government Support Tax
June 30, rate Levies Debt Unit Rate Tax Rate Rate Total
2016 $ 4.20 $ 0.21 $ 4.41 $ 6.69 $ 8.41 $ 15.10
2015 4.20 0.22 4.43 6.90 8.33 15.22
2014 4.20 0.19 0.22 4.62 7.09 834 15.42
2013 210 0.19 0.24 2.09 4.62 7.16 8.38 15.54
2012 2.10 0.19 0.24 2.09 4.63 7.18 8.38 15.56
2011 2.10 0.19 0.32 2.09 4.70 7.25 7.14 14.39
2010 2.10 0.19 0.20 2.09 4.59 7.17 7.14 14.31
2009 1.99 0.13 0.21 2.09 4.42 6.90 8.42 15.31
2008 1.85 0.20 0.20 3.47 5.72 8.12 6.90 15.01
2007 1.88 - 0.21 3.47 5.56 8.30 6.37 14.67
(1) Oregon Measure 47 combined with Jackson County tax rate since 1997-98
(2) Rogue Community College
Source: Jackson County Assessor and Tax Collector
City of Ashland Property Tax Rate
Compared to Total Rate per Thousand
$16.00
$8.00
$4.00_
$2.00 _ .
$1.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-4--Total -11-CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
comprehensive annual tinancial report - Pg 127
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
PROPERTY VALUE AND NEW CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
Last ten years - Unaudited
Commercial Construction Residential Construction
Fiscal Year Property Number Number
Ended June 30, Value (1) of Units Value of Units Value
2016 $ 2,445,873,117 6 $ 6,513,734 57 $ 12,204,836
2015 2,348,446,788 8 18,530,998 62 13,371,460
2014 2,262,503,440 9 4,770,334 50 10,032,795
2013 2,079,286,927 8 1,632,075 56 11,568,784
2012 2,128,659,147 10 34,221,808 33 6,123,270
2011 2,072,000,226 11 1,989,421 47 7,531,926
2010 1,937,303,620 4 611,406 89 14,985,434
2009 1,943,167,724 15 1,812,635 21 5,108,099
2008 1,875,310,040 23 16,269,379 82 8,258,031
2007 1,766,496,299 26 8,086,124 98 15,270,781
(1) Property value is assessed valuation
Source: City of Ashland, Community Development Department
Jackson County Assessor
Commercial and Residential Construction
Last Ten Years
$40,000,000 d
f
$30,000,000
I
$20,000,000
$10,000,000 I
i
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Commercial Construction ❑ Residential Construction
Pg 128 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX REVENUES BY FUND
(amounts expressed in thousands)
Last ten years - Unaudited
Fiscal Year Capital Central
Ended June 30, Improvement (1) Wastewater (2) Service Total (3) Cumulative
2016 $ 432 $ 1,726 $ 44 $ 2,202 40,389
2015 520 2,080 53 $ 2,653 38,187
2014 473 1,892 48 2,413 35,534
2013 460 1,840 47 2,347 33,121
2012 427 1,707 47 2,181 30,774
2011 398 1,593 31 2,022 28,593
2010 396 1,584 - 1,980 26,571
2009 374 1,495 - 1,869 24,591
2008 392 1,567 - 1,959 22,722
2007 395 1,594 - 1,989 20,763
(1) Dedicated to acquisition of open space parkland
(2) Derived from wastewater enterprise operations
(3) Tax enacted July 1, 1993
Food and Beverage Tax Revenues by Fund
Last Ten Years
$2,500 ,
$2,000
10$1,500
c
0$1,000
I
~ I
$500
I
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Capital Improvement (1) ❑ Wastewater (2)
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 129
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
Current and ten years ago
Percentage
2016 of Total
Assessed Assessed
Taxpayers Type of Business Valuation Valuation
Avista Corp Utility $ 12,182,000 0.50%
Deluca Ronald L Trustee Housing 11,378,910 0.47%
Ashland Community Hoppital Hospital 9,275,350 0.38%
Financial Pacific INC Financial 7,213,180 0.29%
Deluca Ronald L Trustee Housing 6,774,890 0.28%
Charter Communication Utility 6,425,600 0.26%
Ashland Hills Hotel LLC Motel 6,730,250 0.28%
Ashland Shopping Center LLC Retail 5,989,840 0.24%
Mark Antony Hist Prop LLC Motel 5,973,790 0.24%
Ashland Assisted Living LLC Assisted Care 5,887,620 0.24%
All other 2,368,041,687 96.82%
Total $ 2,445,873,117 100.00%
2007 of Total
Assessed Assessed
Taxpayers Type of Business Valuation Valuation
Qwest Corporation Utility $ 10,347,600 0.59%
Windmill Inns of America, Inc Motels 10,072,980 0.57%
Ronald L. Deluca Housing 8,722,189 0.49%
Avista Corp. Utility 7,224,300 0.41%
Pacific Financial, Inc. Financial 5,528,460 0.31%
Michael E & Beverly Rydbom Retail 4,590,790 0.26%
Skylark Assisted Living Assisted Care 4,532,670 0.26%
Bard's Inn Limited Motels 4,319,770 0.24%
Summit Investment Retail 4,229,050 0.24%
IPCO Development Corporation Printing 3,141,440 0.18%
All other 1,703,787,050 96.45%
Total $ 1,766,496,299 100.00%
Source: Jackson County Assessor
Pg 130 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
2016 Principal Property Tax Payers
Financial
Motel 90/6 Assisted Care
16% 8%
Retail
E E 1 t :.,5{, .
E E T
1' E 1 E E t `E.:..
E
E 1 1 1 1 1 1 t f~.',t
Hospital Housing
12% 23%
Utility
24%
2007 Principal Property Tax Payers
Assisted Care Printing Utility
7% 5% 28%
Financial
9%
Hou ng
k i l l ,
E~ 1 1 1 t 1
Retail
14%
Motels
23%
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 131
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL TAX REVENUES
BY SOURCE
(amounts expressed in thousands)
Last ten years - Unaudited
Other
Franchise
Fiscal Year Combined Electric Utility and Transient Food and Business
Ended Property Utility Users Privilege Occupancy Beverage License
June 30, Taxes Franchise (1) Tax (1) Taxes Tax Tax (2) Tax Total
2016 $ 9,731 $ 1,466 $ 3,077 $ 1,604 $ 2,055 $ 432 $ 384 $ 18,748
2015 9,781 1,390 2,923 1,513 2,460 520 209 18,796
2014 10,268 1,373 2,895 1,530 2,091 473 208 18,838
2013 9,874 1,311 2,704 1,518 2,009 460 208 18,084
2012 9,759 1,251 2,627 1,436 1,911 427 202 17,613
2011 9,246 1,228 2,603 1,591 ,918 398 197 17,181
2010 8,896 1,232 2,557 1,552 ,880 396 197 16,710
2009 8,313 1,207 2,468 1,567 ,639 374 201 15,769
2008 10,573 1,170 2,375 1,362 ',508 392 201 17,581
2007 9,378 1,119 2,345 1,544 ",559 395 129 16,469
(1) Derived from city-owned electric utility operations
(2) Tax enacted July 1, 1993
GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL TAX REVENUES
BY SOURCE
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000 _ _ _ .
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
-----------i------------ a------------ - . -
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Electric Utility and Utility Users Tax
City Property Tax
Transient Occupancy and Food and Beverage Tax
Other Taxes
Pg 132 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS
Last ten years - Unaudited
Fiscal Delinquent Percent of Percent of
Year Percent of Tax Total Tax Outstanding Delinquent
Ended Total Tax Levy Current Tax Levy Collections Total Tax Collections to Delinquent Taxes to Tax
June 30, (1) Collections (2) Collected (2)(3) Collections Tax Levy Taxes Levy
2016 $ 10,782,252 $ 10,204,495 94.6% $ 303,781 $ 10,508,276 97.5% $ 698,038 6.5%
2015 9,780,890 9,301,056 95.1% 346,208 9,647,264 98.6% 768,885 7.9%
2014 10,453,597 9,799,116 93.7% 468,669 10,267,785 98.2% 704,806 6.7%
2013 10,119,532 9,440,360 93.3% 394,679 9,835,039 97.2% 785,377 7.8%
2012 9,997,229 9,322,678 93.3% 436,198 9,758,876 97.6% 755,098 7.6%
2011 9,470,164 8,885,987 93.8% 359,767 9,245,754 97.6% 773,714 8.2%
2010 9,176,778 8,511,729 92.8% 384,362 8,896,091 96.9% 699,122 7.6%
2009 8,616,000 7,981,337 92.6% 331,445 8,312,782 96.5% 684,345 7.9%
2008 10,609,706 10,273,879 96.8% 298,774 10,572,653 99.7% 636,512 6.0%
2007 9,797,262 9,142,734 93.3% 235,560 9,378,294 95.7% 609,308 6.2%
(1) Includes levy within the tax base, levy for bonded indebtedness, miscellaneous assessment payments in lieu of tax,
and tax levy shared offsets
(2) Includes adjustments, rounding and discounts
(3) Delinquent taxes collected represent accumulative amounts for the specific fiscal year
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
.l
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
I
$2,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.013 2014 2015 2016
® Total Tax Levy El Total Tax Collection
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 133
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
ELECTRIC UTILITY USAGE
IN KILOWATT HOURS (kWh)
Last ten years - Unaudited
2016 2015 2014 2013
Electric:
Commercial 55,434,978 57,241,622 57,351,533 58,984,152
Governmental 17,084,620 18,894,191 19,552,546 19,934,831
Municipal 7,607,560 6,439,200 6,410,372 5,978,193
Residential 86,749,323 85,448,299 91,309,827 89,637,162
Electric usage total 166,876,481 168,023,312 174,624,278 174,534,338
Total electric revenue $ 14,338,555 $ 13,700,057 $ 13,536,923 $ 12,575,449
Average consumption rate per kWh $ 0.086 $ 0.082 $ 0.078 $ 0.072
BPA surcharge revenue NA NA NA NA
Average surcharge per consumed kWh (1) NA NA NA NA
Electric Utility
Average Rate History
$0.10, per kWh„
$0.09
$0.08 ■
$0.07 ■
■
$0.06
j
$0.05 -
$0.04
$0.03
$0.02
$0.01
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
--Average consumption rate per kWh
(1) Council implemented the surcharge due to increasing costs and changes in the wholesale power industry in FY 2002
2016 2015 2014 2013
Demand:
Commercial 159,344 209,020 158,829 175,675
Governmental/Municipal 67,850 66,037 _ 67,481 67,388
Demand usage total 227,194 275,057 226,310 243,063
Total demand revenue $ 722,904 $ 691,225 $ 519,458 $ 614,862
Average demand rate per kWh $ 3.182 $ 2.513 $ 2.295 $ 2.530
Pg 134 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
ELECTRIC UTILITY USAGE
IN KILOWATT HOURS (kWh)
Last ten years - Unaudited (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
55,628,874 55,617,369 56,996,490 56,893,914 59,730,031 59,796,009
20,136,246 20,539,286 19,467,344 18,283,476 18,328,996 16,771,812
6,164,885 6,107,945 6,407,172 6,288,095 6,231,719 5,911,482
91,550,691 94,402,343 93,634,626 91,638,620 _ 95,853,685 91,324,747
173,480,696 176,666,943 176,505,632 173,104,105 180,144,431 173,804,050
$ 12,305,176 $ 12,126,401 $ 11,931,379 $ 11,028,224 $ 11,638,234 $ 10,118,284
$ 0.071 $ 0.069 $ 0.068 $ 0.064 $ 0.065 $ 0.058
NA NA NA NA $ 1,016,152 $ 1,123,490
NA NA NA NA $ 0.006 $ 0.006
Average Demand Rate per kwh
$3.500
♦3
$3.000
$2.500 - - - - - - ♦ f
$2.000
$1.500
$1.000
$0.500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-Average demand rate per kWh
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
164,566 162,175 151,072 147,155 159,430 164,228
71,111 68,480 63,445 70,242 65,931 69,856
235,677 230,655 214,517 217,397 225,361 234,084
$ 533,947 $ 515,481 $ 475,273 $ 476,024 $ 473,565 $ 490,039
$ 2.266 $ 2.235 $ 2.216 $ 2.190 $ 2.101 $ 2.093
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 135
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
RATIO OF NET GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT
TO ASSESSED VALUE AND
NET GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA
Last ten years - Unaudited
Fiscal Year Ended Percentage Gross Bonded Debt Service Fund
June 30, Population (1) Change Assessed Value (2) Debt (3) Monies Available
2016 20,405 0.32% $ 2,445,873,117 $ 35,350,879 $ 855,545
2015 20,340 0.22% 2,348,446,788 37,195,894 861,561
2014 20,295 -0.15% 2,262,503,440 37,462,187 794,695
2013 20,325 -5.29% 2,186,388,026 38,111,076 785,823
2012 21,460 6.79% 2,128,659,147 35,728,075 976,265
2011 20,095 -6.56% 2,072,000,226 35,331,935 804,633
2010 21,505 0.09% 2,008,178,855 39,708,269 762,199
2009 21,485 -1.44% 1,943,167,724 42,560,804 1,072,785
2008 21,800 1.73% 1,875,310,040 44,138,466 1,246,509
2007 21,430 2.63% 1,766,496,299 46,090,591 479,262
Source:
(1) Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University
(2) Jackson County Assessor tax roll property value records
(3) City of Ashland financial records - includes all long-term general obligation debt, including general
obligation special assessments, general obligation bonds, and general obligation warrants.
(4) Includes general obligation debt paid from Hospital Enterprise Fund operations, Utility ~')ervices Revenue,
fund operations, and special assessment payments from benefited property owners.
(5) Includes Gross Bonded Debt reduced by Debt Service Fund and Enterprise Fund monies available to pay
General Obligation Bonded Debt.
Pg 136 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
RATIO OF NET GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT
TO ASSESSED VALUE AND
NET GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA
Last ten years - Unaudited (continued)
Enterprise Fund Debt Payable for Enterprise Net General Obligation Ratio of Net Bonded Debt Net Bonded Debt
Monies Available Revenues (4) Bonded Debt (5) to Assessed Value per Capita
$ 875,490 $ 19,219,172 $ 27,657,871 1.13% $ 1,355.45
875,490 20,392,351 30,764,962 1.31% 1,513
875,490 19,102,713 35,792,002 1.58% 1,763.59
875,490 18,320,823 36,449,763 1.67% 1,793.35
875,490 16,821,156 33,876,320 1.59% 1,578.58
875,490 18,578,931 33,651,812 1.62% 1,674.64
875,490 21,389,684 38,070,580 1.90% 1,770.31
875,490 23,059,454 40,612,529 2.09% 1,890.27
1,751,369 38,652,249 18,840,000 1.00% 864.22
- 40,456,883 19,425,000 1.10% 906.44
Net Bonded Debt Per Capita
Last Ten Years
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 137
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR
GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO TOTAL GENERAL EXPENDITURES
Last ten years - Unaudited
Total General Ratio of Debt Service to
Fiscal Year Ended Total Debt Governmental General Governmental
June 30, Principal Interest Service (1) Expenditures Expenditures
2016 $ 1,445,000 $ 418,422 $ 1,863,422 $ 36,033,961 5.2%
2015 1,495,000 415,879 1,902,924 32,988,739 5.8%
2014 1,320,000 522,374 1,842,374 32,948,928 5.6%
2013 1,000,000 906,689 1,906,689 26,957,272 7.1%
2012 1,105,000 916,434 2,021,434 23,012,672 8.8%
2011 905,000 904,149 1,809,149 23,415,021 7.7%
2010 865,000 943,917 1,808,917 20,245,798 8.9%
2009 695,000 976,738 1,671,738 20,849,371 8.0%
2008 415,000 885,470 1,300,470 20,241,350 6.4%
2007 205,000 34,836 239,836 18,877,775 1.3%
(1) Includes General, Special Revenue Funds, and Debt Service Funds
Ratio of Debt Service
to General Governmental Expenditures
Last Ten Years
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%_
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Pg 138 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE
WATER FUND
Last ten years - Unaudited
Debt Service Requirements (4)
Fiscal Year Future Rate Net Revenues
Ended June Gross Operating Stabilization Available for
30, Revenues (1) Expenses (2) Offset (3) Debt Service Principal Interest Total Coverage
2016 $ 7,289,715 $ 4,225,107 - $ 3,064,608 $ 443,717 $ 173,330 $ 617,046 4.97
2015 6,604,339 4,256,299 - 2,348,040 899,952 147,300 1,047,251 2.24
2014 6,322,142 4,244,890 - 2,077,252 584,414 129,093 713,507 2.91
2013 8,280,514 5,776,098 - 2,504,416 412,533 82,471 495,004 5.06
2012 5,745,624 3,597,970 - 2,147,654 580,742 127,436 708,178 3.03
2011 4,806,603 3,597,701 - 1,208,902 394,036 135,574 529,610 2.28
2010 4,455,767 3,439,267 - 1,016,500 345,000 112,206 457,206 2.22
2009 4,543,609 3,451,254 - 1,092,355 335,000 120,288 455,288 2.40
2008 4,321,582 3,089,546 - 1,232,036 335,000 127,406 462,406 2.66
2007 4,651,122 3,321,176 - 1,329,946 325,000 133,191 458,191 3.34
(1) Total Operating Revenues, including System Development Charges
(2) Total operating expenses, not including Interfund Loan, Capital Outlay, Existing Debt, and Franchise Taxes paid
(3) Gross revenues in excess of those necessary to meet current debt service obligations by covenant available
to assure coverage in future fiscal periods
(4) Includes Revenue Bond principal and interest amounts transferred to registered paying agent irrespective of actual bond maturities
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 139
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
This page left blank intentionally
Pg 140 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT
BY TYPE
Last ten years
Governmental Activities Notes and Contracts
Fiscal Year General Percent of
Ended Obligation Assessed Promissory OECDD (1) Per
June 30, Bonds Value Notes Loans Capita (2)
2016 $ 14,880,000 0.61% $ 1,251,707 $ 790.58
2015 16,325,000 0.70% 478,543 812.39
2014 17,820,000 0.79% 539,474 901.48
2013 19,140,000 0.88% 650,253 - 973.69
2012 17,550,000 0.82% 681,780 675,138 853.51
2011 15,695,000 0.76% 354,502 703,502 833.69
2010 16,600,000 0.83% 488,197 1,230,388 851.83
2009 17,465,000 0.90% 622,313 1,412,321 907.59
2008 18,160,000 0.97% 740,079 1,587,138 939.78
2007 18,575,000 1.05% 883,775 1,754,932 989.91
Business - Type Activities
Fiscal Year General Percent of
Ended Obligation Assessed Revenue Bonds DEQ (3) Per
June 30, Bonds Value and Notes Loan Capita (2)
2016 $ 12,777,871 0.52% $ 4,628,555 $ 1,812,747 $ 941.89
2015 14,439,962 0.61% 4,193,067 1,759,323 985.90
2014 16,054,089 0.71% 3,048,624 - 937.97
2013 17,490,395 0.80% 830,429 - 901.39
2012 14,034,014 0.66% 2,787,143 - 783.84
2011 15,400,074 0.74% 3,178,857 - 924.55
2010 1,298,697 0.06% 3,560,571 16,530,415 994.64
2009 1,505,000 0.08% 3,927,286 17,627,168 1,073.28
2008 680,000 0.04% 4,284,000 18,687,249 1,084.92
2007 850,000 0.05% 4,315,000 19,711,883 1160.84
Total Outstanding Debt
Fiscal Year Total Debt as a
Ended Outstanding Percentage of
June 30, Debt Personal Income (4) Personal Income
2016 $ 35,350,879 unavailable NA
2015 37,195,894 unavailable NA
2014 37,462,187 unavailable NA
2013 38,111,077 unavailable NA
2012 35,728,075 unavailable NA
2011 35,331,935 unavailable NA
2010 39,708,269 unavailable NA
2009 42,559,088 391,431,000 10.87%
2008 44,138,466 430,978,000 10.24%
2007 46,090,591 463,652,000 9.94%
(1) OECDD - Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
(2) Per Capita is calculated using the total debt for the category divided by population shown on Ratio of Net
General Obligation Bonded Debt to Assessed Value Schedule
(3) DEQ - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(4) Oregon Department of Revenue Personal Income Tax Statistics
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 141
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
True Cash Value $ 3,493,732,448 $ 3,258,618,439 $ 3,072,079,759 $ 2,931,862,235 $ 3,145,655,451
Legal Debt Margin
Debt limit (3% of true cash value) 104,811,973 97,758,553 92,162,393 87,955,867 94,369,664
Net Bonded Debt:
Gross bonded debt 16,131,707 16,325,000 34,295,413 36,630,395 31,584,014
Less amounts exempted:
Water - - -
Special assessment - -
Re-funding - -
Water re-funding - - (250,000) (375,000) (370,000)
Total debt applicable to margin 16,131,707 16,325,000 34,045,413 36,255,395 31,214,014
Legal Debt Margin $ 88,680,267 $ 81,433,553 $ 58,116,980 $ 51,700,472 $ 63,155,650
Legal Debt Margin
Compared to Debt Limit
Last Ten Years
140,000,000 -
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000 000
40,000,000
f
20,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
El Debt Limit (3% of true cash value) ■ Legal Debt Margin
Pg 142 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30 (continued)
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
$ 3,394,416,254 $ 3,790,236,802 $ 4,011,032,636 $ 4,000,418984 $ 3,788,568,503
101,832,488 113, 707,104 120,330,979 120,012.570 113,657,055
31,095,074 17,898,697 18,970,000 18,840 000 19,425,000
- - - (25.000) (50,000)
(360,000) (345,000) (505,000) (655.000) (800,000)
30,735,074 17,553,697 18,465,000 18,160,000 18,575,000
$ 71,097,414 $ 96,153,407 $ 101,865,979 $ 101,852.570 $ 95,082,055
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 143
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN
June 30, 2016 - Unaudited
True cash value $ 3,493,732,448
3% of true cash value 0.03
$ 104,811,973
NET BONDED DEBT:
Gross bonded debt 16,131,707
Less amounts exempted:
Water
Water re-funding -
Total debt applicable to margin 16,131,707
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN $ 88,680,267
ORS 287.004 provides a debt limit of three percent of the true cash value of all taxable property within the
Municipality's boundaries. According to ORS 287.004, the three percent limitation does not apply to
bonds issued for water, sanitary or storm sewers, sewage disposal plants, hospitals, power or lighting
purposes, nor to bonds issued pursuant to applications to pay assessments for improvements or
installments for benefited property owners.
Source: Jackson County Assessor's Office
Audited Financial Statements
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 287.004
Pg 144 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING BONDED DEBT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
June 30, 2016 - Unaudited
Net General Obligation
Bonded Debt Percentage Applicable Amount Applicable
Jurisdiction Outstanding to City (1) to City
Direct:
City of Ashland - Governmental Activities only $ 16,131,707 100.00% $ 16,131,707
Overlapping:
Jackson County 2,213,654 14.53% 321,644
School District No. 5 13,243,688 79.93% 10,585,680
Rogue Community College 2,411,976 14.53% 350,460
Jackson County Housing Authority 49,455 14.53% 7,186
Rogue Valley Transit District 47,250 19.08% 9,015
$ 17,966,023 $ 11,273,985
$ 34,097,730 $ 27,405,692
(1) Percentage of overlap is calculated on real market value.
Source: State of Oregon, Office of Treasurer - overlapping debt report, debt for governmental activities only
City of Ashland
Direct Bonded Debt for Governmental
Activities and Applicable Overlapping Debt
Overlapping
Direct
' $16,r13117071
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 145
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS
Current and ten years ago
2016
Percentage of Total City
Employer Employees Employment
Southern Oregon University 896 9.03%
Oregon Shakespeare Festival 522 5.26%
Ashland Public Schools 300 3.02%
Asante Ashland Community Hospital 278 2.80%
City of Ashland 245 2.47%
Subtotal 2,241 22.59%
Estimated total city employment 9,922
2007
Percentage of Total City
Employer Employees Employment
Southern Oregon University 750 8.33%
Ashland Community Hospital 410 4.56%
Ashland Shakespeare Festival 398 4.42%
Ashland Public Schools 350 3.89%
City of Ashland 229 2.54%
Subtotal 2,137 23.74%
Butler Ford 160 1.78%
Pathway Enterprises 140 1.56%
Ashland Food Cooperative 130 1.44%
Professional Tool Mfg. LLC 100 1.11%
Prestige Care (dba Linda Vista) 75 0.83%
Total 2,742 30.46%
Estimated total city employment 9,000
Source: Ashland Chamber of Commerce
Note: Ashland Chamber of Commerce has changed their reporting
method and now only tracks the top four employers in the city
Pg 146 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS
Last ten years - Unaudited
Fiscal Year Total Jackson County
Ended June Percentage Per Capita Personal School Enrollment Unemployment Rate
30, Population (1) Change Income Income (2) (3) (4)
2016 20,405 0.32% unavailable 2,775 6.2%
2015 20,340 0.22% - unavailable 2,735 6.6%
2014 20,295 -0.15% - unavailable 2,800 8.4%
2013 20,325 -5.29% - unavailable 2,700 8.3%
2012 21,460 6.79% - unavailable 2,720 8.3%
2011 20,095 -6.56% - unavailable 2,737 11.9%
2010 21,505 0.09% - unavailable 2,819 12.1%
2009 21,485 -1.44% 18,219 391,431 2,767 13.6%
2008 21,800 1.73% 19,770 430,978 2,846 6.7%
2007 21,430 2.63% 21,636 463,652 2,909 5.6%
Sources:
(1) Center for Population and Research and Census, Portland State University
(2) State of Oregon Employment Division, Department of Human Resources
(3) Ashland School District
(4) US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Population Growth
Last Ten Years
22,000
21,000
20,000
19,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 147
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SCHEDULE OF MAJOR INSURANCE IN FORCE
June 30, 2016
Company Coverage Policy Period Annual Aggregate/Each Occurrence Premium
Citycounty Insurance Services General Liability $ 211,293
Commercial General Liability 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 $ 15,000,000 I $5,000,000
Public Officials Liability 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 $ 15,000,000 I $ 5,000,000
Employment Practices 07/01/201,1-)-07/01/2016 $ 15,000,000 / $ 5,000,000
Automobile Liability 38,050
Scheduled Autos 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 None / $ 5,000,000
Hired Autos/Non Owned 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 None / $ 5,000,000
Uninsured Motorist 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 None / $ 5,000,000
Auto Physical Damage 17,453
Scheduled Autos 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Filed Value
Rented or Leased 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Filed Value
Newly Acquired Autos 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Filed Value
Property 93,562
Buildings 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Filed Value
Mobile Equipment 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Filed Value
Boiler and Machinery 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Replacement Cost of Machinery & Included
Equipment not covered elsewhere above
Excess Crime 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Loss/ $250,000 1,195
Excess Cyber Liability 07/01/2015/07-01/2016 $100,000 / $100,000 5,166
ACE Group Airport Liability 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 $4,000,000/$4,000,000 2,441
Wright National Flood Ins. Co. Flood 10/23/2015-10/23/2016 $65,800 1,726
Safety National Casualty Corp. Workers' Compensation Self- 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 6,000
Insured Bond
Midwest Employers Casualty Co. Excess Workers' 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Statutory / $ 1,000,000 66,743
Compensation
AIG/Chartis Volunteer Accident Ins 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 Per Schedule of Benefits 1,788
ACE Group Underground Storage Tank 07/01/2015-07/01/2016 $1,000,000/$1,000,000 730
Pg 148 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CITY EMPLOYEE BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last ten years
For the year ended June 30
Function/Program 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 21011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Administration 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.06 3.00
Human Resources 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
Legal 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50
Information Technology 8.75 8.80 8.80 8.80 8.80 8.80 7.95 7.95 7.60 7.60
Finance 16.75 16.25 16.25 16.25 16.25 16.25 17.25 17.25 15.75 15.50
Municipal Court 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 3.15 3.65 3.65 3.65 4.15 4.15
City Recorder/Treasurer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Police 36.75 36.75 36.75 36.30 35.30 34.80 34.80 36.80 39.30 40.30
Fire 37.60 34.75 34.75 34.75 33.75 32.00 32.40 33.40 35.40 35.40
Streets 10.70 10.70 10.70 10.95 9.90 9.90 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20
Water 15.00 14.50 14.50 14.50 14.50 14.50 16.30 16.30 16.30 16.30
Wastewater 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 10.30 10.30 12.80 12.80 11.80 11.80
Public Works Administration 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.50 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00
Engineering 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Facilities Maintenance / Cemetery 5.50 4.00 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Fleet Maintenance 4.00 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 5.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50
Planning 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.90 8.90 8.70 8.70 10.65 11.75
Building 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.70 3.60 3.85 3.85 5.75 6.05
Electric 17.00 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.75 1775 18.50 18.50 18.10 18.10
Telecommunication 5.75 5.70 5.70 5.70 6.70 6.20 7.55 7.55 7.55 7.55
Conservation 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Program
Subtotal 214.25 210.45 210.45 210.75 205.30 2132.65 208.45 211.45 218.61 220.70
Parks 44.80 43.80 43.80 43.80 43.80 43.45 45.65 48.55 50.55 48.45
Total 259.05 254.25 254.25 254.55 249.10 246.10 254.10 260.00 269.16 269.15
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 149
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
OPERATING INDICATORS
BY FUNCTION / PROGRAM
Last ten years
Function/Program 2016 2015 2014 2013
Police
Physical arrests, juvenile and adult 2,042 2,591 2,509 2,868
Traffic violations 2,065 2,969 3,461 3,061
Fire
Fire alarm responses 819 462 398 390
Emergency medical responses 2718 3144 3,098 2,927
Non-emergency public service responses 248 261 155 97
Code enforcement plans review 507 499 404 380
Total calls for service 4063 3867 3,533 3,414
Total ambulance patient transports 1942 1895 1,600 1,523
Water
Service connections 8,810 8,738 8,870 93038
Daily average consumption in millions of gallons 4.1 3 3 2.7
Maximum daily capacity of plant in million gallons 8 8 8 8
Sewer
Service connections 8,414 8,308 8,295 83181
Daily average treatment in million of gallons 2.2 2.4 2 2.2
Maximum daily capacity in millions of gallons 4 4 4 4
Electric
Service connections 12,706 12,678 12,662 115914
Telecommunications
Cable TV 1350 1306 1,400 1,840
Cable modem 3,962 35800 3,961 4,082
Potential station capacity 140 140 140 140
Identifies correction to capacity
z Identifies the implementation of new software that correctly accounts for crimes
3 Cable TV outsourced
4 Cable TV analog channels
Pg 150 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
OPERATING INDICATORS
BY FUNCTION 1 PROGRAM
Last ten years (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
2,670 2,343 2,073 2,098 2,489 2,748
2,679 2,868 3,160 2,784 2,600 3,036
379 291 359 363 500 457
3,105 2,694 2,705 2,761 3,022 2,955
94 79 75 46 76 87
246 215 293 262 440 495
3,577 3,327 3,128 3,170 3,590 3,534
1,635 1,611 1,456 1,476 1,700 1,616
9,071 8,678 8,433 8,126 8,291 8,281
2.7 4.6 2.7 3.3 3.4 4
8 8 8 8 8 8
7,850 8,181 7,995 8,008 8,153 8,129
2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2
3 4 4 4 4 4
12,148 11,985 11,275 11,944 11,979 11,780
4,066 4,454 4,094 4,160 4,153 3,988
140 140 140 80 80 80
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 151
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CAPITAL ASSETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE STATISTICS
BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last ten years
Function/Program 2016 2015 2014 2013
Police
Stations 1 1 1 1
Contact station 1 1 1 1
Patrol units (vehicles) 8 8 8 8
Sworn officers 28 28 28 28
Fire
Stations 2 2 2 2
Fire fighters 26 27 27 27
Streets
Miles of paved streets 93 92 92 92
Miles of gravel streets 10 9 9 9
Miles of storm sewers 94 93 93 93
Water
Miles of water mains 132.76 130 130 130
Hydrants 1263 1267 1,266 1,262
Water treatment plant 1 1 1 1
Sewer
Miles of sanitary sewers 110 110 110 110
Treatment plant 1 1 1 1
Identifies integration of Cartegraph System with GIS that has provided more
accurate figures.
Pg 152 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CAPITAL ASSETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE STATISTICS
BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last ten years (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 NA
8 8 8 8 8 8
25 25 26.5 26.5 27 27
2 2 2 2 2 2
26 26 26 29 31 31
92 92 92 92 100 100
9 9 14 14 11 10
93 93 93 90 89 85
130 130 130 130 124 124
1,248 1,248 1,245 1,237 1,154 1,115
1 1 1 1 1 1
110 110 110 110 110 110
1 1 1 1 1 1
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 153
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CAPITAL ASSETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last ten years (continued)
Function/Program 2016 2015 2014 2013
Electric
Street lights 1865 1864 1864 1,858
Electrical transformers 2049 2040 2032 2,025
Poles 3600 3602 3605 3,600
Substations 3 3 3 3
Telecommunications
Miles of fiber 25 25 25 25
Miles of coax 119 119 119 119
Parks and Recreation
Community centers 3 3 3 3
Parks 19 19 19 16
Park acreage 728 642 642 642
Golf courses 1 1 1 1
Swimming pools 1 1 1 1
Ice skating rinks 1 1 1 1
Skateboard parks 1 1 1 1
Tennis courts 12 12 12 12
Trails (miles) 47 41 29 29
Health Care
Hospital 1 1 1 1
Hospital beds 49 49 49 49
Education
Elementary schools 4 4 4 4
Elementary school instructors 78 75 69 69
Secondary schools 2 2 2 2
Secondary school instructors 105 103 91 91
State universities 1 1 1 1
Pg 154 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 statistical section
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
CAPITAL ASSETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last ten years (continued)
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
1,827 1,827 1,832 1,811 1,802 1,802
2,007 2,007 2,002 1,996 1,982 1,982
3,506 3,506 3,560 3,557 3,453 2,551
3 3 3 3 3 3
25 25 25 25 25 25
119 119 119 118 117 117
3 3 3 3 3 3
16 16 19 19 19 19
642 642 642 640 640 640
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
12 12 12 12 12 12
29 29 29 29 29 29
1 1 1 1 1 1
49 49 49 49 49 49
4 4 4 4 4 4
69 69 59 59 59 59
2 2 2 2 2 2
91 91 106 106 106 106
1 1 1 1 1 1
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 155
Return to Table of Contents
2016 comprehensive annual financial report
Pg 156 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 audit comments and disclosures required by state regulations
AUDIT COMMENTS AND DISCLOSURES
Required by State Regulations
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 157
Return to Table of Contents
2016 audit comments and disclosures required by state regulations
Oregon Administrative Rules 162-10-050 through 162-10-320 incorporated in
the Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations, prescribed
by the Secretary of State in cooperation with the Oregon State Board of
Accountancy, enumerate the financial statements, schedules, and comments
and disclosures required in audit reports. The required statements and
schedules are set forth in the preceding sections of this <report. Required
comments and disclosures related to the audit of such statements and
schedules are set forth in the following pages.
Pg 158 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 audit comments and disclosures required by state regulations
PAULY. ROGERS AND CO... P.C.
12700 StiN,' 72ndAve. f Tigard. OR 97223
(503) 620-2632. (503) 684-7523 FAX
v-wR~.paulyro4ersandcospas.c om
Independent Auditor's Report Required by Oregon State Regulations
We have audited the basic financial statements of the City of Ashland as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016,
and have issued our report thereon dated October 14, 2016. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards.
Compliance
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of Ashland's financial statements are free of ma-
terial misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts,
and grants, including the provisions of Oregon Revised Statues as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules 162-
10-000 through 162-10-320 of the Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations, noncompli-
ance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statements amounts.
However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and ac-
cordingly, we do not express such an opinion.
We performed procedures to the extent we considered necessary to address the required comments and disclosures
which included, but were not limited to the following:
• Deposit of public funds with financial institutions (ORS Chapter 2'95)
• Indebtedness limitations, restrictions and repayment.
• Budgets legally required (ORS Chapter 294).
• Insurance and fidelity bonds in force or required by law.
• Programs funded from outside sources.
• Highway revenues used for public highways, roads, and streets.
• Authorized investment of surplus funds (ORS Chapter 294).
• Public contracts and purchasing (ORS Chapters 279A, 279B, 2790).
In connection with our testing nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe the City of Ashland was not
in substantial compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants, including the provi-
sions of Oregon Revised Statutes as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules 162-10-000 through 162-10-320 of
the Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations.
OAR 162-10-0230 Internal Control
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the internal controls over financial reporting as a basis for
designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting. Ac-
cordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 159
Return to Table of Contents
2016 audit comments and disclosures required by state regulations
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Council, Audit Committee, management and the
Oregon Secretary of State and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these parties.
Kenneth Allen, CPA
PAUL Y, ROGERS AND CO., P.C.
Pg 160 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
COMPLIANCE REPORTS
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 161
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
Pg 162 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
s~ PAULY. ROGERS AND CO., F.C.
12 700 SW 72nd Ave. ♦ Tigard. OR 9 7223
At or- At (503) 620-26321(503) 684-7523 FAX
v~rv~-"-.paulyrogersandcoepas.c om
October 14, 2016
To the Mayor and City Council
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Independent Auditors' Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other
Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing
Standards
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America
and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comp-
troller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type ac-
tivities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Ashland as of and for the
year ended June 30, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the basic
financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 14, 2016.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the internal control over financial
reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the pur-
pose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on
the effectiveness of internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of internal
control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or
employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstate-
ments on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control,
such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be pre-
vented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe
than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section
and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, signifi-
cant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control
that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identi-
fied.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 163
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstate-
ment, we performed tests of compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agree-
ments, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial state-
ment amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our
audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of non-
compliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the
results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal control or on compliance.
This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in consid-
ering the internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
z
4 C00 ee
Kenneth Allen, CPA
PAULY, ROGERS AND CO., P.C.
Pg 164 - city of ashiand
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
PAULY. ROGERS AND CO., P.C.
12700 SQ'L' 72nd Ave. + Tigard. OR 9 7223
(503) 620-2632 4 (503) 684-7523 FAX
-vvR--. p au l,vr oge rs an do o epa s. c om
October 14, 2016
To the Mayor and City Council
City of Ashland
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund,
and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Ashland as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the related notes
to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Manazement's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting prin-
ciples generally accepted in the United States of America, this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal con-
trol relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to
fraud or error.
Auditors' Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The
financial statements of the Ashland Parks and Recreation District (a component unit) were not audited in accordance with Govern-
ment Auditing Standards.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The
procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial
statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the
preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circum-
stances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal control. Accordingly, we express no such
opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant ac-
counting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the
governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fiend, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Ash-
land, as of June 30, 2016, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting prin-
ciples generally accepted in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
The City adopted the provisions of GASB Statement No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application, for the year ended June 30,
2016. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management's discussion and analysis and
the required supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 165
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required. by the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate opera-
tional, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in ac-
cordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management
about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our
inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do
not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
The budgetary comparison schedules presented as Required Supplementary Information, as listed in the table of contents, have been
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including
comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or
to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America, and in our opinion are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial
statements. The supplementary and other information, as listed in the table of contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis
and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. The schedule of expenditures of federal expenditures is presented for
purposes of additional analysis as required by Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Adminis-
trative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and is not a required part of the basic
financial statements.
The supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents and the schedule of expenditures of federal expenditures are
the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records
used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the
audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, inclucing comparing and reconciling such infor-
mation directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic
financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America. In our opinion, the supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents and the sched-
ule of federal expenditures, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The introductory, statistical and the other information, as listed in the table of contents have not been subjected to the audit-
ing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or pro-
vide any assurance on them.
Reports on Other Legal and Reeulatory Requirements
In accordance with Government A uditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 14, 2016 on our consideration of
the internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial
reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or
on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance witli Government A uditing Stajdcnds in consider-
ing internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
In accordance with Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations, we have issued our report dated Oc-
tober 14, 2016, on our consideration of compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations, including the provisions
of Oregon Revised Statutes as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope
of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on compliance.
Kenneth Allen, CPA
PAULV, ROGERS AND CO., P.C.
Pg 166 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
CITY OF ASHLAND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016
Federal Year to Date Passed Through
CFDA Identifying Disbursements / to
Program Title Number Pass-Through Organization Number Expenditures Subrecipients
GRANTS
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Promoting Ecosystem Resiliency via Collaboration (PERC) 3/12/2012-12/3112015 10.664 The Nature Conservancy FIRE_CITY OF ASHLAND_11.16.11 4,375.00
Schools and Roads - Grants to States
Title III - Community Wildfire Grant 07/01/2014-06/30/2016 Project#000442 10.665 Jackson County Oregon 3240 16,494.28
Schools and Roads - Grants to States
Title III - FY15 Firewise Grant 07/01/2014-12/31/2015 Project#000443 10.665 Jackson County Oregon 3232 15,176.63
Schools and Roads - Grants to States
Title III - FY15/FY16 Firewise Grant 07/01/2014-12/31/2016 Project#000444 10.665 Jackson County Oregon 3235 25,437.41
$ 57,108.32 $
Total Department of Agriculture $ 61,483.32 $
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FY2014 Assistance to Firefighters Grant 5/12/2015-5/11/2016 Project# 000472 97.044 Direct 1=MW-2014-FO-05859 255,517.40
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FY2014 Assistance to Firefighters Grant 816/2015-8/5/2016 Project# 000460 97.044 Direct -MW-2014-FP-00609 -
$ 255,517.40 $
State Homeland Security Program Grant
Oregon Military Department
CERT Grant 10/01/2015-09/30/2016 97.067 Oregon Military Department 15-201 4,958.60
Total Department of Homeland Security $ 260,476.00 $
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
07/01/2014-06/30/2015-Grant Award 14.218 Direct BI 4MC41 D008 30, 303.66
07/01/2015-06/30/2016-Grant Award 14.218 Direct B 15 MC410008 131, 835.92
Total Department of Housing and Urban Development $ 162,139.58 $
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
04/01/2014-08/31/2016 16.607 Direct ASHLAND CITY 3,509.50 -
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
Community Policing Development Program
COPS Grant 09/01/2015-8/31/2017 Project#000519 16.710 Direct 2015CKWXK019 38,686,05 29,102.13
Total Department of Justice $ 42,195.55 $ 29,102.13
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Airport Improvement Program
Federal Aviation Administration
Ashland Municipal Airport Grant 7/3/2014-not specific Project# 201312 20.106 Direct 3-41-0002-010-2014 $ 3,035.90
Total of Department of Transportation $ 3,035.90 $
TOTAL GRANTS EXPENDED or PASSED THROUGH to SUBRECIPIENTS $ 529,330.35 $ 29,102.13
Federal Year to Date Loan Balance
CFDA Identifying Disbursements I at End
Program Title Number Pass-Through Organization Number Expenditures of Period
LOANS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
Loop Road Reservoir, PS and TAP Intertie 7/19/2014 - 7/19/2017 Project # 200808 66468 Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority S14005 577,231.60 (1) 1,786,480.74
TOTAL FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE $ 1,106,561.95
(1) Major Program
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 167
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITORS' RESULTS
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FEDERAL AWARDS
Type of auditors' report issued Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es) identified? ❑ yes ® no
Significant deficiency(s) identified that are not considered
to be material weaknesses? yes ® none reported
Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? ❑ yes ® no
Any GAGAS audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in
accordance with section 515 (d)(2) of the Uniform Guidance'? ❑ yes ® no
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR PROGRAMS
CFDA NUMBER NAME OF FEDERAL PROGRAM CLUSTER
66.468 Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: 5750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? Yes
SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
None
SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONS COSTS_
None
NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION
Pg 168 - city of ashland
Return to Table of Contents
2016 government auditing standards compliance reports
The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards includes federal grant activity under programs of the federal
government. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations, it is not intended to and
does not present the net position, changes in net position, or cash flows of the entity.
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Expenditures reported on the schedule are reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are
recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not
allowed or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the schedule represent adjustments or credits made in
the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. The entity has elected to use the ten percent
de minimus indirect cost rate as allowed under Uniform Guidance, although it was not used in FY 15-16.
3. FEDERAL LOAN PROGRAMS
The federal loan programs listed subsequently are administered directly by the entity and balances and transactions relating to
the programs are included in the entity's basic financial statements. Loans outstanding at the beginning of the year and loans
made during the year are included in the federal expenditures presented in the schedule. The balance of loans outstanding are
clearly stated on the face of the schedule of federal award.
comprehensive annual financial report - Pg 169
Return to Table of Contents
Pg 170 - city of ashiand
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
A Resolution Extending the Terms of the Reward Fund for David Michael Grubbs
for an Additional Five Years and Repealing Resolution 2012-02
FROM:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney, david.lohman@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
This resolution is to extend the termination date of the reward fund to encourage and reward persons
who provide law enforcement officials critical information leading to the capture and conviction of
whomever was responsible for the murder of David Grubbs.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The David Michael Grubbs Reward Fund was first established by the City's adoption of Resolution
2012-02 with a termination date of January 1, 2017. The City wishes to maintain and extend the terms
of the David Michael Grubbs Reward Fund for an additional five years to January 1, 2022, as follows:
• Reward claimant(s) must provide information determinative to the capture and conviction (or
equivalent disposition) of the perpetrator
• City employees and law enforcement officers are not be eligible.
• The reward may be split, if appropriate.
• As required by ORS 131.895, the decision on whether a reward claimant is entitled to a reward
would be made by the Jackson County Commission. APD would make recommendations to
the County Commission.
• Interest would be paid to the City for administrative costs, instead of being added to the reward
account.
• The Council may terminate the reward account and reward offer upon determining that the
original purpose is no longer being served. If not terminated earlier, the reward account and
reward offer would terminate automatically on January 1, 2022, unless renewed.
• Upon termination, refunds of donations of $50 or more would be made upon request. No
refunds would be issued for donations under $50. Funds not returned after termination would
be allocated for use by the Ashland Police Department.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Public Safety: 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION::
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval and adoption of a resolution titled, "A Resolution Extending the Terms of the Reward
Fund for David Michael Grubbs for an Additional Five Years and Repealing Resolution 2012-02."
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 2012-02
Draft Resolution 2016-
Page 2 of 2
~r
J
RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 04-:~
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REWARD FUND FOR
INFORMATION RESULTING IN THE APPREHENSION AND
CONVICTION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF
DAVID MICHAEL GRUBBS
RECITALS:
A. The recent violent death of David Michael Grubbs has profoundly saddened the citizens
of Ashland; challenged their normal confidence in the security of the City's environs; and
increased their determination to keep Ashland a city where one feels safe and is safe.
B. The City of Ashland fully supports law enforcement officials' efforts to apprehend and
bring to justice anyone involved in perpetrating this heinous attack.
C. Concerned citizens have expressed a desire to contribute to a publicly-managed fund to
reward those who provide to law enforcement officials information that results in the
arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the death of David Grubbs.
D. Pursuant to independent criteria, the family of the victim is establishing a separate,
privately-administered reward fund to supplement the public reward fund authorized
herein.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Reward Account. The City hereby establishes a committed account within its
general fund for the deposit of money contributed by persons who wish to reward persons
providing new information essential to the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for
the fatal attack on David Grubbs on November 19, 2011. The account shall be the City's David
Grubbs Reward Account and shall be used exclusively for such reward, except as specifically
provided below. Any interest accrued on funds in this committed account will be paid to the
City as partial reimbursement for the costs of administering the account and the issuance of
rewards from it.
SECTION 2. Issuance of Rewards. The City shall pay all funds deposited in this reward
account to the person or persons who submit to law enforcement officials information
determinatively resulting in the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for the murder
of David Grubbs. Issuance of rewards from this account shall be subject to the following
conditions:
A. No reward shall be paid until the perpetrator(s) is legally convicted under a judgment
which is final, or, if for any reason the case is not tried or is otherwise disposed of,
upon proof the perpetrator(s) committed or participated in the commission of the
aforesaid crime.
B. In no event shall the reward or combination of rewards exceed the amount deposited in
the account established -for such purpose, regardless of the number of perpetrators
involved in the act and regardless of the number of persons who supply information
leading to the apprehension and conviction of such perpetrators.
Page 1 of 2
C. Officers and employees of the City of Ashland, officers of state and local police forces
and officers of the federal government shall not be eligible to receive any reward from
this account.
D. A reward may be apportioned between two or more persons who give information
leading to the apprehension and conviction of the perpetrator(s).
E. Unless the City and Jackson County agree otherwise, the County Commission of
Jackson County shall be the sole and final judge of the right of any claimant to a
reward, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the Chief of the Ashland Police Department
shall prepare recommendations for such reward claims, and rewards shall be
determined in accordance with such recommendations in the event the County
Commission chooses not to take action on reward claims within 60 days after
documentation supporting any such claims-have been submitted to the City and the
County.
F. In the event a person(s) is convicted in this matter, to the extent allowed under ORS
131.897, any reimbursement the convicted person(s) is required to make to the City for
funds paid out of reward accounts will be used to first pay back rewards issued by
family members of David Grubbs from their separate account, and thereafter the
remaining reimbursements, if any, will be paid to donors to the City's reward account
in the proportionate share of their individual donations., and finally to the City for its
costs to administer the account and issuance of rewards from it.
SECTION 3. Termination and Refund. This account may be terminated.at any time upon
determination in a City Council resolution that continuation of the account and reward offer are
not likely to serve the purposes for which they were established. If not terminated earlier, this
account and reward offer shall terminate on January 1, 2017. If for any reason rewards are not
made, the money in the account shall be refunded, upon request, to those who donated fifty
dollars or more. All money not refunded shall be deposited in the City's general fund for use by
the Ashland Police Department.
This res lution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,
2012, and takes effect, u n signing by-t ayor.
arbara Christensen, City Recorder
a
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012
o n Strom] rg, Mayor
Revie as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE TERMS OF THE
REWARD FUND FOR DAVID MICHAEL GRUBBS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2012-02
RECITALS:
A. On January 17, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-02, establishing a
committed account within its general fund for the deposit of money contributed by
persons who wish to reward persons providing new information essential to the
apprehension and conviction of those responsible for the fatal attack on David Michael
Grubbs on November 19, 2011.
B. The City of Ashland continues to support law enforcement officials in their ongoing
efforts to apprehend and bring to justice anyone involved in perpetrating this heinous
attack.
C. As the scheduled termination date of January 1, 2017 of the Michael Grubbs Reward
Fund approaches, the City of Ashland, the Victim's family and concerned citizens, wish
to extend the termination date for an additional five years and maintain the publicly-
managed fund to encourage and reward persons who provide law enforcement officials
information that results in the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the
death of David Michael Grubbs.
D. To maintain this committed account and extend its date to January 1, 2022, the City
repeals Resolution 2012-02 and adopts the Resolution herein.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Reward Account. The City's David Michael Grubbs Reward account shall be
maintained and extended for an additional five years to terminate on January 1, 2022. The
account is the City's David Michael Grubbs Reward Account and is to be used exclusively for
such reward, except as specifically provided below. Any interest accrued on funds in this
committed account will be paid to the City as partial reimbursement for the costs of
administering the account and the issuance of rewards from it.
SECTION 2. Issuance of Rewards. The City shall pay all funds deposited in this reward
account to the person or persons who submit information to law enforcement officials
determinatively resulting in the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for the murder
of David Michael Grubbs. Issuance of rewards from this accoulZt shall be subject to the
following conditions:
A. No reward shall be paid until the perpetrator(s) is legally convicted under a judgment
which is final, or, if for any reason the case is not tried or is otherwise disposed of, upon
proof the perpetrator(s) committed or participated in the commission of the aforesaid
crime.
Page 1 of 2
B. In no event shall the reward or combination of rewards exceed the amount deposited in
the account established for such purpose, regardless of the number of perpetrators
involved in the act and regardless of the number of persons who supply information
leading to the apprehension and conviction of such perpetrators.
C. Officers and employees of the City of Ashland, officers of state and local police forces
and officers of the federal government shall not be eligible to receive any reward from
this account.
D. A reward may be apportioned between two or more persons who give information
leading to the apprehension and conviction of the perpetrator(s).
E. The County Commission of Jackson County shall be the sole and final judge of the
right of any claimant to a reward.
F. In the event a person(s) is convicted in this matter, to the extent allowed under ORS
131.897, any reimbursement the convicted person(s) is required to make to the City for
funds paid out of reward accounts will be used to first pay back rewards issued by
family members of David Michael Grubbs from their separate account, and thereafter
the remaining reimbursements, if any, will be paid to donors to the City's reward
account in the proportionate share of their individual donations, and finally to the City
for its costs to administer the account and issuance of rewards from it.
SECTION 3. Termination Extension and Refund. This account may be terminated at any time
upon determination in a City Council resolution that continuation of the account and reward offer
are not likely to serve the purposes for which they were established. By repealing Resolution
2012-02 and adopting the Resolution herein, this account and reward fund shall be maintained
and extended for an additional five years to terminate on January 1, 2022. If for any reason
rewards are not made, the money in the account shall be refunded, upon request, to those who
donated fifty dollars or more. All money not refunded shall be deposited in the City's general
fund for use by the Ashland Police Department.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Public Hearing: - Resolutions for New Water, Wastewater and Transportation
System Development Charges
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, michael.faught ashlartd.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, the capital improvement projects in all three SDC's will be effective immediately and the
new Transportation SDC methodology and SDC rates would be effective July 1, 2017.
A summary of the proposed SDC impacts are 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:
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-mtodal 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
I ALL'
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 1 17, 2015 (see attached minutes). The
Committee recommended some adjustments to the consultant's recommendations, which are included
into proposed SDC updates.
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%
Commercial' $/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.
i 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.
Table 2 Current and updated Water SDC (displacement meters)
Current 2014 2012 Master Plan Update with TAP & Crowson II
Page 2 of 7
P.
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
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 (S'128,509 $203,213 -1.30%
6 $296,424 $107,573 5185,054 $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 $ /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%
Recreational
Home/Condo 260 DU 3.16 676.24 0.31 $654.75 ($21.49) -3%
Page 3 of 7
ILVI
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 $ %
INSTITUTIONAL
Truck Terminals 30 1,000 sf GFA 11.03 2360.85 0.83 $1,753.05 ($607.80) -26°io
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 sfGFA 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%
Specialty Retail Center 814 1,000 sf GFA 14.95 3,198.49 5.02 $10,602.79 $7,404.30 231%
Page 4 of 7
~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 $ %
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 1,000sfGFA 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 sf GFA 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
(Under 100,000 sf 2,306.28
GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 10.78 1.49 $3,147.04 $840.76 36%
Page 5 of 7
1.
,7r
11
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 $ %
s 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 1,000 sf GFA 18.11 4.27 $9,018.71 $5,143.15 133%
Government Office 14,160.98
Bldg. 730 1,000 sf GFA 66.17 1.49 $3,147.04 ($11.0 13.94) -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 sf GFA 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 5.47 1,169.64 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 new capital improvement projects in all three SDC's will be effective immediately and
the new Transportation SDC methodology and SDC rates would be effective July 1, 2017.
COUNCIL GOALS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of three Resolutions for new Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC.
Page 6 of 7
1WV
IFr
CITY OF
ASHLAND
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
(1) I move approval of a resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting New Transportation Systems
Development Charges, Pursuant To Section 4.20 Of The Ashland Municipal Code, And Repealing
Resolution 1999-42;
(2) 1 move approval of a resolution titles, "A Resolution Adopting; New Wastewater Systems
Development Charges, Pursuant To Section 4.20 Of The Ashland Municipal Code, And
Repealing Resolution 2006-27;
(3) I move approval of a resolution titles, "A Resolution Adopting; New Water Systems Development
Charges, Pursuant To Section 4.20 Of The Ashland Municipal Code, And Repealing Resolution
2006-27.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Economic & Financial Analysis Summary
2. Wastewater Resolution
3. Water SDC Resolution
4. Transportation Resolution
5. SDC Committee Minutes
Page 7 of 7
1L411
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 ANALYSIS Page ii
City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC IJpdates 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% 0.30/o 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°/o 5.3% 27.3%
100,000 square foot retail business with 50 plumbing fixtures
Meter size, inches of diameter
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% -1.3% 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 $ % 4
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 i $/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.
tCommercial SDC = $/fixture unit.
I♦ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC IJpdates 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 foot-a 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)^
% 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 % $26,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20%
2 $57,654 $20,918 $35,98 3 $56,901 -1.30%
3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -130%
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
s/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 `/z 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 ANALYST= Page 4
O o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c~
kn kn O C~ M ~O M l~ 00 c~ O kr) \J kf) 00 N 00 00
c N ' N ' 00 c G1 ' `o M N O~ '
00 Lr)
rl N N QJ
O
N U
- U d
O
: U
~o O ~'I o0 C C 00 `O t~ M N C
Q OC `p t` ty-, d c T O ` M Ln C~ c^,
Go~ 6q - N ~'I O C N L C - yr N M N to
64 6a 69 O 6a C,, fA &6 69 66 b'? 66 bq
i 6c- 6q V ,
6q
Ln O r- Ln Lr) C O O O 00 r- M Q~ cr) Ln 00
O M M N C V v~ Ln Vl 00 M M
O N 'Zt Vn 00 r- "t m "t -'t t t CT kn d M M N re) V-)
to G1 \p Ln V) C O O O r- r- M G M^ V) 00
A. , ~t O N `o r-- v V) V) V 'n t^ b110 Ln I'D c CIA q bq 6q 6S 64 ~
NEf? (V 6q O o, cr C I~ 6q
64 6q 6q 60 64 160~ Gq b4 69 (A 6q 64
di C1.
M C It
N I-- N O O O O `zo N O 00 C., N_
CC i, y O ~o ~n ~o m O ~t Ln V) Lr) in M oo M N M N O
U 4-'" O O O O ~t M O O O O O O O
G. ~ CC
O
a= z
O d N \o tn O v~ O M Oo 00 v) ~o N 00 It Ln G~ 't
00 Ln M "o O N N `O a\ O M B c~ O
E"" M M `O oo ~o O M N M O O N 00
Q N O M N cl~ 00 M Cl N M M
6q j N I~ N
6q
O
U
L
i. Ln 00 00 M O O O
O Ln N O O O O Ln O 00 oc O C d' r-
kf) O N oo r- r- M O
N d N O oo O
M
Q 3
D C7 C7 C7 j, c c
o Q O Q D o o Q Q Q¢ ;L o cis v~ v~ o°
r,
U O O O CLl O
L U
o
c
Gzl O O O O O O M N C O O O O
O U N N N N N kf) Q) V)
L
Q~
L ~
Q~
N
~ Q
ice. ~ Z
Q
.O J
L rn ~ _O C Q
co t," Ci, C U O Z
i.
U O O Q
O O ~ 'a r^, ~ ' O k
cn E O O Z
Q CC O r-+ U U U W
A O -a T O O O i .fl U Cl~ U
4m 4 z U U z
can W c~C N O U N 4- o
F w~~~ C2 zE-aaa,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V") Cl o0 00 N o~ - M 00 M V7 kn m V') \O \o 'd' 00 O
c N N 00 N r- N Mkr) V) C\l C,~ N ~O
O to
N V ~
~ C
Lam,
~ O 00 It O 00 O ~o l~ M O G~ ~O ~o 00 00 00 \O
.-P Q1 ~ M O Q~ N O N N V O~ ~ O M O
~ ~ N d\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 N O O O O O 00
Q ~t t M O V) N O t O V, N ol~ a~ 00 O ^ ~D
G6 U' N V) M~ N~ N O O Cr M d
~ ll~ lr~ V; d t r• d- N N ^ ~
64 ^ ` 64 6F? 69 69 69 69 69 b9 6F} 64 64 M C', (A c~ ^
b9 64 69 69 69 64
z„ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~o M a1 ~ O c~ M M M M M M O N `o
7T ' N N Cl N ("1 N N a\ 00 7N kr) M
O N O N M N ~t ~ M l~ I~ l~ l~ N N M 00
Q, O t-r) oo I'D zt O \o ~ a1 M M M M M M M t.1) O Vl r-
Or N lzt l~ V) l- `o r O O N N N N N N N O C a\ O~10
N Vj N 69 O ~ O C'o0 00 00 00 00 00 06 Q1 C L M
E14 C bA 69 64 69 ^ ~ - c,5 6~ 69 69 Eta 69 69 M O\ 69 Cl) i~+ a 64 69 f>9 6c} Gq 69 69 64 64 69
L 00 N ^ M O Vl r-~ O C\ C~ C\ C~ C1 G1 O~ d' M o0 \O M
O ^O O V) kn O~ M M M M M M M 00 N kr) o0
O
o. S
O O O 00 00 ~ G~ I~ O ^-N ~o O ~o M ~ ~ N M ~t O
O O O ~ ~ M ~ M v7 O Q~ O V7 N ~ ~ ^ M
F M ~D 06 M M 00 Vl M M ~o O 00 Lr~ \o N N N M O
Q N E O N ~c OC~~ M M ~ M O, N 00 N~
O oo N ~o GD N N N `O ~o N
Q N CIA t-- Ln C tr)
f14 IZT M N M u7 d' N M M M M M M M \p l~ d
6F3
O
L
S.
U O M 7t N Q1 00 N ^ N 00 N O N O~ ~
ran b-0 1 N V') (,A ~Y 00 M ~t Ll~ Lr) M N
~ N ^ N
Q 3
O
n rs. pa o rte. rs. w [z. rte, rs. rs, Gi. fs. rs. rs, r~ a
~ < ~ C7 C7 ~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U C7 C7 C7 ~ a.
4. 4. 4,
C "O cn U cn n cn cn n O J Q..
N O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C4
0 0 0 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 W
O ~ ~ ~ _ ~
L
Q
Q
kn O O O O N N 1,0 r- O O O O O 0 0 O N M O
7t Lr)
f- E,. p -N N N N N N (,,I N N M M d'
C U \O M 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a0 00 DD a0 00 00 00 00 00 00
L
Q)
4-1
L
4-
(U ni
4-1
N (71
o ~°o U ~ ~ C'7 C7 C~ C7 C7 ~ ~
~ L-5 C, GCS C Q c z
4- CZ
cif O ~ oo G` N o
cci G~
a~ cd O N i i i U U
U a C4 a~ U o I o o O o 0 o C4
C4 C) CD C) -0
" i o 0 0 0 0 0 o z
Q CC U L1 V Z N U U Q O N N M 3 U W
O ct O O O N ct O bA cz a.) s t~.
W L1 2 T W Q z 2Lr Lt. Z cr
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O oo N ~D M o0 M c~ ~n O~ O ~ N
M ~ ~ N ~O M ~D G1 M N O N M G1 ~ ~
CD ciA
~ C
00 M O M `O t~ O 'n O N M C, O -
cn ~D ~D l~ C N C~ oo cn l- lD M
00 N 00 V) O Pn 00 M V' Vn O O `O M
A t~ t~ ~D ~ ~ ~ f^ 00 00 (n c) o
O N d l~ O 00 O ~,D
M 63 V~ 69 6/3 64 69 69 b9
69 64 b4 64
L N ~O ~D N N ~ ~ ~t ~h ~n cn \O \D oo M t~ o0
O ~D ~ 00 mot' N O O O O M ~D O~ N O N O
O N O ON O ~ N ~ r- t'- 00 ~ t t- ~ - `J -
O DV r- l~ "t mot' ct O', 00 Vn ~,D 00 M r- 00
Ch n oo M O -O 17 N ~ N d r- cn
~,p N 00 AO M M M O~ M N O N N N ^
6~3 69 n Goq 69 69 G4~ 6o4 t rn GI3 Gq b9 b9 69 64
C.0 69 64
r.. am
~ . fl. N 00 O M Q ~ ~ d1 ~ C\ ~ M ~ \O 00 00 ~ V'1
N a1 N z Z ~t N O~ ~J O N O~.o 00 r-
L G~ O N It O O O
O M
O
4 Z
v~ M N 01 00 - `O 00 Ln m M r N r- r-
O DD N M V) kn N N Ln M V) a1 - a O M kn V') V) ~
F" N r- G1 I'D `O oo oo Ln O l~ ~t O O O~ O N
Q ^ N N v) It M O O O ~n ~t l~ `O O~ O 1 V) r- N
d N O M oo M \O M c~ 1.000 00 - O M "o a,
N
f!4 ~t N N M kn N N M ~t 1' r-
C
i.
~ `D 00 ~ O~ M O •--00 N O 00 ~ ~ M 00 •--U '(21 ~ `D \D 'Ct' V1 O\ oo ~D - ^M `D `D oo \p oo M
4-~ a -0 0. ~ N M ~ ~ N ri o o~ r- V)*
:a d ~ E- CG
d ~
a~
~ d Q Q d Q d d Q d d Q d Q d Q Q Q Q
Q w U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
< V C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 C7 C7 C7 C7 ~7
O O O CA ~n cn CA ~A cn CA cn C/) cn cn cn cn cn n cn CA C/~
cn O p, 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O
co
i
O
Q
N 40
C: co~
41
M
- M O O - N O 0 0 0 O O-- N O O O 0 0 O
M N M M M ~D l~ N M ~t
F 'a C V) V'1 r- cl,
00 00 oc oc
i
N
CB
1.:
fB
a w_
(ij
N N
!6 ~ J
z
a
o 4
i j O O ~ TJ ~ 'O Q c~ a
+U 4. O cd t5 can O z
O
(iI
y U N z.„ O tip bq ~ O i cn t+=• U ~ ~ • O U
~ ~ U U O C 4-. O O 4- O ~ « 3 Cp U Q. s.
lD N U > > N O O O O C a Q U
cn C U N C"z W L. C U s., Q. F" sr t +
Q CC > r. U U O N 'L7 U N U O U U W
O O O L~. cOG U 0O m 'a cd
o z
0 0 0
c 00
QJ
O w
N V d
~ C
Q,
G o
64 N M
~ 6S 69
v~ ~O O
C 7t ~10 M
O N
O 4 ~
d Ln ~.O Q~
C~ 7t
~ r..~ N 69 69
6F? ~ 6l4
~J 4
'C
~ . ~n N ¢ N
CC L ~ N z ~
C~ i O O O
4 s- cc
,zt
F"
64
C
C~
i,
L
O M `J O
U ~ ~ ~ N O M
Lr)
Q Z a
Q
Lr)
aj
a
co
< C7 C7 C7
U
r C CA Q
V) o o ~ o
0 0 o W o
L
Q.
N ~
<D CD
L J
L
Q~
~ N
N
( J
a
2
O ~ Q
J
U Q
fL0 U
Z
N cn
C ct
z
un O
O Q w
~3~~3 ~ 111
rn
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o ,0 0 0 0 0 0
N c ~ oo M M Q, t-- O N o r--
\ M `o CT M~ N m O N M N r- ~ (n
'('no
c
N a1 00 C~ `O M
,o C7 O 00 M ~D O O M N N
~ ~ all 7t 00 00 tf) O r- o ~.c o a1
y~ 00 o ~,c - N M
b9 O M 69 69 - 69 b9 G 69 69
69 64 64 64 GA,
N ~t t Lr) Ln `J 00 c~ O ~1 ~ OM
O O r O M d\ N O N
O
N r d' d- t o\ 00 k `O 00 M 00 V~ ~.o a,
6/3 O O a1 N N ~ kn oll 't O
A 69 69 64 64 E,q d- OM 6O4 69 ~ 64 69 6A 69 Ham? 6o9
69 64
a\ G~ G1 l~ a~ M ~O o0 00 ~ ~ ~ N N
~ `p o0 l~ d' ~O o0 V") M M N l~ l~ d'
N N Ln M V) CN a- O M V) V,) Vl l~ \J N 00
N o0 ~O 00 Lr~ C; O N C~ N ~ Lr)
U 6I3 d1 O V) O~ C) I'D V,) t-- N~~.c N O
A M a~ oo oo O ~O M"D C1i N N
69 69 64 E,g 1j bT 9 6~4 Go!} 69 6N F? 64 64 En ff? b9 6H fzn
1 - 00 N O o0 lZt \J M 00 t~ M \O O
M \p o0 10 00 M lzt N O M
N O a1 ~ 00 `O C1 M V-~ a\ - - M
N
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
Q C7 C7 C7 C~ C7 C7 C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 T C7
4. 4. 4. 4, 4. 4. (4- 4. 0 4,
C/) 'A un C/~ C4 cn cn C/) C4 C/) cn V) V) C/) CA CA
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q- o
N o 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 o W o
0
L
0
N o 0 0 0 0 0 -N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p M N M M M t- N M kr) V)
C cd
CD ~
L 6'
Qj L
m d
m
N o m
fD J
Z
d o
CT- by b1l U cC q
L ~ -p C Q L, I I
cD C7
4. 'o CE Z
~ d\ y U cn ~ Q
Z O d d U U : Z_
y
y o o o pC `~l ~ o `z Z
C,3 ct 14-
y Cr N U 'Z:; cd cd
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.20 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION
2006-27.
RECITALS:
A. The current Wastewater System Development Charge was approved on 18 October 2006.
B. The City adopted a new Comprehensive Sewer Master Plan April 17, 2012 that updates the
previous master plan with new capital improvements and updated construction costs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Wastewater System Development Charges report update and project list
marked as Exhibit C, is adopted effective immediately.
SECTION 2. The methodology for Wastewater System Development charges, marked as
exhibit B, is adopted, effective immediately.
SECTION 3. The System Development Charges Summary per exhibit A, is effective July
1, 2017.
SECTION 4. The existing System Development Charges project list & fee schedule for
Wastewater adopted by Resolution 2006-27 is repealed, effective July 1, 2017.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2016- Page 1 of 2
EXIBIT A
Measurement Reimbursement Improvement Total
Residential $/Square feet $0.19`> $1.833 $2:028.
Commercial -l'. $/Plumbing fixture $29.92 $282.00 $311.92 :
Source: City of Ashland, Wastewater System Development Charge Update [Economic & Financial
Analysis, July 20161, Table 1.
2- Y02-Wastewater SDC Resolution.dOCXG:1legaltPAULUFoRMSlresolution iorm.wpd
City of Ashland
Wastewater and Water - System Development Charge Update
Methodology Summary
August 14, 2006
Exhibit `B'
Prepared by
Shaun Pigott Associates, LLC
CITY OF ASHLAND
WASTEWATER AND WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
Process
This update of Ashland's system development charges (SDC) for wastewater and water was
done in order to revise the SDCs based on recently completed facility plans for both utility
systems. Also, as part of this update process; issues related to the current SDC structure were
addressed through Ashland's SDC Committee. The Committee includes Darrel Boldt, Jac
Nickels, Greg Williams, Larry Medinger, Russ Silbiger, Kerry KenCairn, and Connie Saldana.
The SDC Committee has worked directly with staff and the City's consultant over the course of
6 meetings held between April 2005 through July 2006. The proposed revisions to the
wastewater and water SDCs reflect the Committee's unanimous recommendations to the
Ashland City Council.
For this update, the City and Committee had a number of objectives:
• Review the basis for the SDCs to ensure a consistent methodology;
• Develop a rationale and documentation for the reimbursement element of the SDC;
• Consider possible revisions to the structure or basis of the charge that might improve equity
or proportionality to demand; and
• Provide clear, orderly documentation of the assumptions, methodology, and results, so that
City staff can, by reference, respond to questions or concerns from the public
Background
The City's SDC Ordinance No. 4.20 was originally adopted in 1992 and amended in 1996. The
ordinance was designed for compliance with ORS 223.297-.314 (Oregon SDC statute) which
mandates that all jurisdictions having SDCs adopt ordinances consistent with this Oregon law.
Actual SDC calculations have been adopted through a series of resolutions including Resolution
No. 2000-29 "A Resolution Adopting New Water, Wastewater and Parks System Development
Charge Schedules." This also served to repeal the SDCs set in 1996. For water and wastewater,
the 1996 SDCs were based on fixture counts with a single-family home (17 fixtures) paying
$2,716 for water and $2,255 for wastewater.
City of Ashland SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 1
Wastewater and Water
In 2000, this methodology was reviewed by the City through the SDC Committee for purposes of
simplifying the calculation and eliminating the perceived or real inequity of a 1200 sq #1 home
paying the same SDC as a 3000 sq R home. The objective was to simplify and make the
calculation more predictable, easier to administer and to ensure that larger homes paid a
proportionately larger SDC over smaller homes. The staff recommendation was to replace, for
single family and multi family properties, the use of fixture counts with "habitable square
footage" which equals the heated square footage of a house. This figure would be submitted as
part of the plan review process and would be clear, easy to administer and charge larger houses
proportionately more for their SDC. In order to achieve this last objective, the City developed a
series of SDC brackets based on ranges of habitable square footage and assigned to these
brackets a specific cost per square foot, with the cost per square foot within each bracket going
up as the overall square footage increased. This calculation and the resulting brackets were
designed to be "revenue neutral" in terms of the overall SDC revenue generated with this
calculation vs. the 1996 fixture count approach. Under this 2000 revised approach, a "typical"
average sized home would be charged a water SDC of $3,362 ($2,716 under old SDC) and a
wastewater SDC of $2,482 ($2,255 under old SDC).
The City's revenue status for its water and wastewater SDC accounts, of which there are 5, is as
follows:
e Overall SDC revenues for water in 2005 are budgeted at $525,000; wastewater SDC
revenues are budgeted in 2005 at $438,000.
• Water SDCs are collected and tracked under distribution, treatment and supply. '05 fund
balances are ($1,442,000) for supply, $776,000 for treatment and $2,643,000 for
distribution.
• Wastewater SDCs are collected and tracked under two categories; collection and
treatment. The adopted 2005 budget shows a fund balance of $1,439,000 for collection
and ($77,000) for treatment.
Specific SDC Committee Recommendations
• The City's use of "habitable square footage" for wastewater and water SDC calculation
differs from the generally accepted approach used in Oregon which is either meter size
and/or fixture counts. However, ORS 223 does not mandate any specific calculation
approach so long as the allocation methodology selected "promotes that future system
users contribute no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities" AND
"the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the
systems" is the basis for the charge. The SDC Committee did feel the use of habitable
square footage was consistent with the City's objectives for promoting smaller home
construction in the City and recommended that it be continued. However, the use of
numerous brackets in applying habitable square footage was considered
counterproductive and the Committee recommended a uniform cost per habitable square
foot.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 2
Wastewater and Water
The City has funded the construction of its new wastewater treatment plant through food
and beverage tax receipts. This source of funding is not affected by existing wastewater
customers nor can an SDC designed to reimburse the utility (and its customers) for its
costs in providing capacity be applied when the treatment facilities are paid through a
food and beverage tax. Accordingly, the reimbursement portion of the wastewater SDC
does not include the treatment costs paid through the food and beverage tax.
• The City currently maintains 5 distinct SDC funds for wastewater and water. Under
wastewater there are SDC funds for treatment and collection. Under water, there are
separate SDC funds for distribution, treatment and supply. The Committee recommends
that these 5 funds be reduced to 2, one for wastewater and one for water. Any concerns
about loss of accountability by reducing the number of funds can be offset by annually
reconvening the SDC Committee to review the City's year-end report on SDC receipts,
expenditures and capital project list. The SDC Committee did volunteer their time for
these annual meetings.
• Ashland's 2000 water and wastewater SDCs are based on projects that were updated
from the 1996 SDC study. The City now has updated facility plans and CIPs for both
utilities. For this SDC update, each of these projects has been reviewed in terms of
purpose, cost, and allocation between existing ratepayers and SDC eligibility. The SDC
Committee spent the majority of its time reviewing the capital project lists and capacity
allocations for each of the wastewater and water projects. These individual projects and
their allocation to growth are now part of the City's SDC methodology.
SDC Methodology and Calculation
The City's uses distinct allocators for future commercial water and wastewater connections to
the systems. These allocatons are meter equivalents and fixture counts respectively. The capital
costs determined to be SDC eligible were divided between the commercial and single family
residential users based on the total current meter equivalents in service for water; 78.4% are
single family residential (SFR) and 21.6% are commercial. 'For wastewater, the basis for
allocation was the average dry weather flow from these two customer groups; 73.64% is SFR
and 26.36% is commercial.
Under ORS 223, there are two elements to an SDC:
The reimbursement fee considers the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing
users of those facilities, the value of the unused/available capacity, and generally accepted
ratemaking principles. The objective is that "future system users contribute no more than an
equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." The reimbursement fee can be spent on capital
costs or debt service related to the systems for which the SDC is applied.
City of Ashland SDC Update Methodology Summary Rage 3
Wastewater and water
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Bests for Allocation To Customer Classes
Current Equivalent V4" Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Avallable to Serve Growth:
Original Cost 25,859,286.21 7,124,571.41 32,983,857.62
less: Accumulated Depreciation (7,398,192.23) (2,038,298.68) (9,436,490.91)
less: Book Value of the Hosler Dam (59,779.87) (16,470.13) (76,250.40)
less: Grants - -
less: Developer Contributions - - -
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt
Series 1977 Water General Obligation Bonds (78,399.82) (21,600.18) (100,000.00)
Series 1997 Flood and Refunding Bonds (944,717.88) (260,282,12) (1,205,000.00)
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds (4,139,510.69) (1,140,489.31) (5,280,000.00)
Net Rate Payer Investment in Capacity Available to Serve Growth 13,238„685.73 3,647,430.98 16,886,116.71
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecast... Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,889
20 Year Forecast... Commercial Equivalent Meters 2640
Calculated Water Reimbursement Fee: _
i WOO
f. , r~rrQ(!?ll[LUYf~t'r?t~.!;ltl$: iri S+2}i!ic r
1' - v...
4
Ai.+~~.-..7•!~ • . v. ~ r. rG WIVA.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
ftds for Allocation To Customer Classes
20-Year Plan (Year 2423) Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (MGD)" 1.90 4.88 2.58
Average Dry Weather Flow Percentages 74% 26% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Avafiable to Serve Growth:
Original Cost $ 36,643,246 $ 13,114,425 $ 49,757,671
less: Accumulated Depreciation (4,050,653) (1,449,707) (5,500,360)
less: Grants - -
less: Contributed Capital (City food and beverage tax receipts) (8,785,659) (3,144,341) (11,930,000)
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt: -
EPAIDEQ State Revolving Loan Program (fed. CFDA No. 66.458) (16,632,189) (5,952,573) (22,584,762)
Net Rate Payer Investment in Capacity Available to Serve Growth $ •7,174,745 $ 2,567,804 $ 9,742,549
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecast... Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,889
20 Yeat Forecast... Commercial Fixture Counts 42,237
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Fee: _
le,
r > ri - ~ .r 'x~~'C. y {Cps .:'~h,~,,~ F~ • H ~ 1g~ :.-~^,.,~-:i r; f': yy~
x3t_.,?~'
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 4
Wastewater and Water
i
,
The improvement fee portion of the SDC is based on the cost of planned future facilities that
expand the system's capacity to accommodate growth or increase its level of performance. In
developing an analysis of the improvement portion of the fee, each project in the City's capital
improvement plan was reviewed to exclude costs related to correcting existing system
deficiencies or upgrading for historical lack of capacity. The improvement SDC is calculated as a
function of the estimated number of additional units to be served by the City's facilities over the
planning period.
City of Ash#and, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Improvement Fee Derivation
Commercial 8
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes:
Current Equivalent 3/4" Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 1009A
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Available to Serve Growth.,
Future Project Costs Attributable to Growth:
TAP beyond Talent $ 3,189,893 $ 878,857 $ 4,068,750
Transmission Line (Reeder to Plant) 771,215 212,480 983,696
Hosier Dam Stability Analysis - - -
Lost Creek Water Rights (additional) 391,999 108,001 500,000
Hosler Dam Security and Telemetry 29,400 81100 37,500
Sludge Lagoon Improvements 9,408 2,592 12,000
Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements 47,040 12,960 60,000
Review Chlorine-Hypochloride 58,800 16,200 75,000
Plant and Process Improvements 188,160 51,840 240,000
Filters 7 and 8 New 343,979 94,771 438,750
Waterline Replacement - Granite 108,388 29,862 138,250
Fire Flow Distribution Reservoir 194,040 53,460 247,500
Crowson-Airport-E. Main Loop 38,416 10,584 49,000
Replace Steel Line Terrace; Irrigation Ditch to Lowe 27,440 7,560 35,000
Upsize Lines at Maple, Scenic & Chestnut 49,000 13,500 62,500
Replace Line Strawberry to Grandview 19,600 5,400 25,000
Upsize Mains on Wimer-Sunnyview 49,000 13,500 62,500
New Line Benson Loop 38,418 10,584 49,000
Upsize Unes - Euclid, Prospect, Fem, Roca 53,900 14,850 68,750
Upsize Mains on Tolman Creek 73,500 20,250 93,750
Replace Steel Line on Siskiyou 31,36-0 8,640 40,000
Internal 4" Line Upsizing 137,200 37,800 175,000
Other Line Upsizing 147,000 40,500 187,500
Engineering Cost 1,045,187 287,963 1,333,150
Construction Mgmt Contingency 1,352,757 372,702 1,725,459
Total Growth Related Costs $ 8,395,096 ] $ 2,312,959 $ 10,708,055
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 4,476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Equivalent Meters 650
Calculated Water /mprovementFee.
,'t.~-~' Y..:f. ; . .`r_ Li.. I_.<. ia• . ...:a.n. a .f 73r:~~n•;4
~ ~;'~fv_ ,c ,.i'~ Hyta[[___-.. 1cy 'ss' :'ri•. t
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page's
Wastewater and Water
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Improvement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes:
20-Year Plan (Year 2023) Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (MGD)* 1.90 0.68 2.58
Average Dry Weather Flow Percentages 73.64% 26.36% 100%
Calculation of the Wide of Capaclty Available to Serve Growth:
Future Project Costs Attributable to Growth:
New Membrane Sections $ 32,219 $ 11,531 $ 43,750
Process Improvements 36,822 13,178 50,000
Thermal improvements 92,054 32,946 125,000
North Mountain Park 231,977 83,023 315,000
Wightman to Tolman 187,791 67,209 255,000
Collection System Master Plan Update 84,690 30,310 115,000
Granite Street 12,151 4,349 16,500
North Main Pump Station Replacement 24,855 8,895 33,750
Walnut- Grant- Wimer 17,453 6,247 23,700
Street Line UpsizelReplacement 100,523 35,977 136,500
Oak Street Lithia to A 30,938 11,070 42,800
Mountain Ave. Upsize 42,345 15,155 57,500
Willow Street Upsize and Replace 19,147 6,853 26,000
Hersey Street Upsize and Replace 16,938 6,062 23,000
in-House Une Replace and Upsize 68,372 31,628 120,000
Collection System Improvements '110,465 39,535 150,000
Engineering Cost 317,403 113,597 431,000
Construction Mgmnt & Contingency 397,251 142,174 539,425
Total Growth Related Costs $ 1,1343,387 $ 659,738 $ 2,543,125
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 4,476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Commercial Fixture Counts 18,407
Calculated Sanitary Sewer lm vemsnt Fee: U
1~2a~.r../..4...: t..'•
Soume: City of Ashland, Sanitary Sewer Gollecdon System Master Plan, Final Report, January, 2005, Table 2.5 - Summary of
Population and Flow Projections
i
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 6
Wastewater and Water
Based on the SDC Committee's review of the water and wastewater project lists and the
allocation methods felt to be most consistent with the City's policy objectives, the following are
the Committee's SDC recommendations:
Wastewater SDC
Current - SDC is $2,707 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
Proposed - SDC would be $1,613 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
This reduction of the SDC for wastewater is due to a significantly downsized allocation of
capital facility costs to growth and the removal of the treatment plant funded through food and
beverage tax receipts from the reimbursement element of the SDC. It should be highlighted
that the food and beverage tax is due to sunset in 2010. If these tax revenues are no longer
available to fund the wastewater treatment plant, the debt service for this facility would need to
be paid through a combination of increased wastewater rates and increased SDCs.
The SDC for commercial properties will be based on fixture counts (number of toilets, sinks,
etc) at a rate of $124 per fixture. A commercial property having, as an example, 16 fixtures
would pay a wastewater SDC of $1,984.
Water SDC
Current - SDC is $3,667 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
Proposed SDC would be $5,208 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
This increase in the SDC results from evaluation of each project identified in City's water CIP
and a more accurate allocation of these project costs between &rowth and current water utility
customers.
The SDC for commercial properties will be based on meter size and flow factor/meter
equivalence as established by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard for
cold water meters - displacement type. As an example a V meter will pay $4,940; 1" meter
$8,250; 1.5" meter; 1.5" meter $16,450.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 7
Wastewater and Water
RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 1/
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
The City of Ashland resolves that the 2006-2007 Fiscal Year Budget,
now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006, and for the purposes shown
below are hereby appropriated as follows:
SECTION 1.
GENERAL FUND
Administration Department $ 253,780
Administrative Services - Municipal Court 395,035
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 155,360
Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 504.650
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 7,000
Administrative Services - Band 61,554
Police Department 5.325,774
Fire and Rescue Department 5,262,372
Public Works - Cemetery Division 355,375
Community Development - Planning Division 2,313,591
Community Development- Building Division 801,756
Transfers 500
Contingency 400,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,796,747
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
Personal Services 35,485
Materials and Services 985,765
Other Financing Uses (lnterfund Loans) 215,000
TOTAL CDBG FUND 636,250
STREET FUND
Public Works - Street Operations 4,060,268
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 739,870
Public Works - Transportation SDC's 274,850
Public Works - Storm Water SOC's 47,540
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 343,498
Contingency 153,000
TOTAL STREET FUND 5,618,986
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services "111,532
Debt Service 35.173
Contingency 5,000
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 151,705
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Personal Services 152,407
Materials and Services 384,750
Capital outlay 3,056,000
Transfers 905.434
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) 530,000
Contingency 50,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5,088,591
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service 1,656,170
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,656,170
WATER FUND
Electric - Conservation Division 172,005
Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division 1198,000
Public Works - Water Supply 3,020,879
Public Works - Water Treatment 1,400,354
Public Works - Water Distribution 3,264,112
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 4157,670
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 702,580
Public Works - Debt SDC's 123,932
Debt Services 544,457
Contingency 152,000
TOTAL WATER FUND 10,043,989
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works - Wastewater Collection 2,240,657
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 2,022,280
Public Works - Reimbursement SOC's 1192,160
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 1138,090
Debt Services 1,7'93,196
Contingency 149,000
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 6,505,363
ELECTRIC FUND
Electric - Conservation Division 976,e45
Electric - Supply 6,5.57,504
Electric - Distribution 5.189,851
Electric - Transmission 1,048,600
Contingency 361,000
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 14,153,600
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
IT - Customer RelationstPromotions 223,608
IT - Cable Television 478,746
IT - Internet 776,310
IT - High Speed 301,179
Contingency 100,000
TOTAL. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,879,843
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department 998,925
Administrative Services Department 1,919,524
IT - Computer Services Division 982,388
City Recorder Division 269,768
Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,488,463
Contingency 171,000
TOTAL CENTRAL. SERVICES FUND 5,830,068
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal Services 400,000
Materials and Services 6111,291
Contingency 32,000
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,04,33,291
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Services 2136,476
Materials and Services 5'i 9,955
Capital Outlay 1,4'15,000
Contingency 42,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,243,431
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers 19,000
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND '19,000
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division 3,868,250
Recreation Division 962,200
Golf Division 416,000
Transfers 110,000
Contingency '35,000
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 5,391,450
YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Personal Services 96,E
Materials and Services 2,335,361
TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 2,431,361
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay 331,000
TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP, FUND 331,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 78,870,846
SECTION 2. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Muncipial Code
g 2.04. 0 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of C, 2006.
d44 v
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Signed and Approved on this -7 day of .tune, 2006.
John . Morrison, Mayor
Appro Waso
ttorney
ha
EXHIBIT C
City of Ashland, Oregon
WASTEWATER:
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Vancouver, WA
July 2016
w
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 S. 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 I Current and updated Wastewater SDC
Current SDC updated SDC Change
Reimburse- Improve- Reimburse- Improve-
Measurement ment ment Total ment ment Total $ % 0
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%
lumbing $60.79 $63.39 S124.18 $29.92 $282.00 $311.92 $187.74 151%
Conunercialt 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.
I Further references to the Keller master plan appear in this report as the 2012 Master Plan.
1=11. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
(b) For commercial developments, the number and type of plumbing fixture units2 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 gable 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
$/square foot $0.40 $0.41 $0.81
square feet^
1,000 $400 $410 $810
1,500 600 615 $1,215
2,000f 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
$/fixture 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.
t 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 now 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.
EC13NOMIC & FINANCIAL. ANALYSIS Page 2
rr~
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 (mud).
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.3 These flows are at a low during the maximum dry month period.
Table 3. 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities and Sewage Flows
Flow (rngd) Capacity (mgd)
2012 2030 2012 2030
Design Current Future Current Excess Future Increased
Plant rocess Condition Flow Flow Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
3 2012 Master Plart, pp. 4-6.
ECONOMIC 6 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 -
LV 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 constrict 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 rngd 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 6 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 (512,911,740) $36,498,781
less 2002-2003 WTUP assetst $34,231,375 (56,604,878) $27,6261497
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
Plan' 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 deetned 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 (522,242,700) $53,145,538
less 2002-2003 97VTP assets $47,427,300 ($9,150,500) $38,276,800
Balance of assets (Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee) $27,960,938 (S'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 Plat, 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 1 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
1r: )0 S(l
1 1(.?!"111oi C US":.S{?i1:ii.1+ {1°1
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
1 A 18" and 24" parallel trunkline along creek Capacity $1,248,000 70% $873,600 $374,400
113 15" main along Mountain Ave. Capacity $118,000 25% $29,500 $88,500
I C Oak St. 24" trunkline Capacity $40,000 15% $6,000 $34,000
1D A St. IS" main Capacity $522,000 10% $52,200 $469,800
lE 12" main along railroad Capacity $275,000 57% $156,750 $118,250
1F 12" Siskiyou Blvd. main Capacity $73,000 46% $33,580 $39,420
1G 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
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 intemals 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 $9,017,350
Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd)
Current 2,870,000
Growth 310,000
Future Design, Priority I and 2 Projects 3,180,000
Base Improvement Fee ($/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 ($4,054 divided
by thirteen).
According to the City's 2011 wastewater utility billing records, the average winter usage for a single-family
household on a %11 x 3/4" meter is 3,780 gallons per month. At an average of 2.1 persons per household (2010
US Census), sewage production is approximately 60 gallons per capita per day.
The current methodology uses this residential average to calculate both the residential base fee (per square
foot) and the commercial base fee (per plumbing fixture unit).
Residential Base Fee ($/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
i
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 '%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 1" are turbine meters.
All %1, x 3/4" meters are positive displacement meters.
Table 9 shows the capacity of each meter size in gpm and the equivalent number of W, x 3/4" meters.
For example, a 1" displacement meter has 2.67 times the capacity of an equivalent %11 x 3/4" displacement
meter. The 1" turbine meter has even more capacity-3.33 times that of a W, x 3/a" 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 Ca acity x 3/4" meters Capacity 5/s" x 3/4" meters'
% 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 I/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 5-3: 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 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 W, x 3/4" displacement meters,' and at present, the most
frequently installed residential meter is a 5/s" x 3/4" displacement meter. The next available size is a 1"
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 5/s" 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 %1, x 3/4" meter but less than a 1" 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%
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 10
i~
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.' 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)
%X3 ' 1 '/2" 211 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.
8 5,746 gallons/month in summer vs. 3,330 in winter.
>s
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
i
i
1 '
Single-family 5,000 i
i
i
+ Multifamily
4,000 j
I j
I
3,000 _ t
2,000 + +
I
i
1,000
Gallons/month/residence
(winter average)
0 ; - - -
5X3 x 3/4" E 1 1 '//211 j 2" ! 3" i 4" Average
Single-Family I 3,325 1 3,483 i 3,894 ( 5,086 i 3,330
!Multi-Family (per residence) i 1,882 I 1,787 2,214 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 W, 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 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'/z" turbine meter viould be charged for the 11/z" 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 t/Z" 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 Im rovement Total Reimbursement Improvement Total
5/s x 3/4 5389 $3,665 $4,054 N/A NIA N/A
3/4 650 6,121 6,771 N/A N/A N/A
1 1,039 9,786 10,85 1,295 12,204 13,499
1 % 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
8 - - - 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 = SDCIast year X (CCLurrent year/CCIlast year)
where:
CCil„rrent year = CCI for the current year
Culast year = CCI for the last year the SDCs were updated
SDCcurreru year = the SDC updated by the CCI
SDClastyear = 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 CCIiwlvear.
tttilti ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 13
ti
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) S1,523 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 Cit}'.
S6,000 _ -
S5,000
i
4
I
S4,000
i
53,000
i'
52,000
I
$1,000 - -
$0
Springfield Ashland, Grants Pass Rogue Valley Eugene Roseburg Ashland, MWMC
proposed Sanitary Urban current
Service unitary
Authority
~I ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 14
00 OCCCOO00CD OOIOCOOCCO000 O C CCC C Ln
C M \G M C
O O ~ll M O (=5 O O C) C:~ a) CD
h ^ N
tan
N n - o Cl) o ON ~ r- 'o t- tnn CIO
m C. N M C CC' Mr-~
C > N M N M
~
i N
rc
-F -r "t' t~ r• ! r^7 f 7 r t :C v t' { 7 f!
rn O y `O N 'C
C
U O C C 0 0 0 0 C) O GI O O O O O O C) C C O C O C C C
m G C O O
~ M O C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C O C
U ) M N~ OG C\ C C vl IC~ t- t-- t~ t O l~ O - O CN l~ I 00 vn
G c3 U C h \c ^ (D C o W h h h h 'ch M 00, N or-, m or, d' M
to x v i C\ N N^ N N N N N N VI 00 IZ) ^ N ~t N ^ M
U O Q\ M OC In M OC (3N n
~ 0.'O N ~i' ~
L`.
Q
O ¢ M M M M M O° N GN C) M f`7 V• M \O ••-'1 cc \G O V
C O 7r-- C M vi v1 O O O O [ O V;, N V) cc t- Oo C z
~I N N 'n ~c "c o C.-1 C- C- N zt "i t`! V1 v'S ~O ~G h h C~
w~
C,
ae 00 d C N M^ .n d C1 ^ t^ C C O O O O C) a) C V C\ C
N M M C\ ~r t~v" Z N C, C,O W.+ G1 dCM a
M M OO r' ll~ >D n M C N G\ cl M C\ d C\ \D
> O oco---(nh000\V v)oo _ so MO V ~
> (n to N V oc \O M to O V' 00
~E C1 aN •-t`\G 00 C% ~
O O - N oc N h
Ca.
^ h r^: ^,•7 L C. ^ O OI r2 N r•1 r.2 ^7 ~ C.' C j `^.%'f
V" ~r, v: N C-. e•rY, r^. '3
N cy'S X v'~ JC 7 r1"~ :+C tom. V V.. fxf p~1 G• l7
-'t GC Y ~ 7 ~ _..e► r~i
- n rt
C _ -r
5 G U a1
o Q a
R
O O COCOCtrl NOOM VC !I' C OCCD CD CCOCC Cl O OC.CC v C
0 0 oococ~oC aC M r coooooC:oCD oo o v? rc o 0
4' 00 pp ~tC4Or- t- (nON M r; NNNNN0OC',CD OC c- Ch VI `C ^
o" m M hr- tn Ntf N V V hcF M IC ~c \O`OO cM r- IC Mc', m N M00 OC OC
M M C\ Cl d^ \D M a^ \G 10 o,c b ~ 00 N ri OO OC G\ r- C\ V t ^ C+) O C
W O O \O ;0 C O t- O OC N vn N N \C 10 \O Ic - 10 Ch t- IO OO O C-- M M GO 00
to V7 M m M^ V N M u) h 00 z ^ N N M y 00 N
N C\ C\ M C\ O n C% M 7 M N
N M O M N
L
O
~ N
\O s3' 'ch V V N N N N M d' O O ~t 'n O O \O \C O v)
, a c ^ d
cu C^ h \C h C\ C O O C O C~ r- C\ C• C- C\ O\ C?
= Cc' T acs
a a o cc r o o o s o .3 v o O .=3
t1 Q * rz ^ -a ti U. Q z L
C7 Ca
L
f~ ~V
GQ 3 _
~ ~ Z C} cd X23 y ° c
N w Q _ o
t z ca a. C
wuaw A QaEd F
m „w ~N^~C7 aA ~.c~U~~-wIC~ j U ~a
u0 vz ~G1~ t~t~ oooo~wE?UO °
w a Q~ A Fl w W .7 j C~ m R to m
a cn ~a Uv~UU~s.-~z O cs;040~04v,-0 c, ~w o E 3
a w OQ ~ wwwwC~ tz1'~ a~ ~ r,
0-00" C4 g4 >U z }
wQzcs' XXppw ~zU o ~znq a Q
to CA 0 "F D U0 A¢w a ~ QQO00 QN i co 0 Q
c ~a AAQQzn~F UUUUZc- ZUaU me 3 3 oG
Q v c F-z z
~ 3d~ ~Q c wwmC~"4 mz p•
°J oa- OO
° ~gOO~a'ac~~wH-°~sE33H W n
ai X A F F z
i
I.L
C Vl \D h co \O OO t- N Vl t- C 00 h N
\1O (n N N N C I V ;p •S .n M h oc N tn y1 ~
M O\ U hh\COOOOM CCt~t~[~hOOhh~G1 O O CC~G\ >t t]
(n •--M O C^^ C
W G to In to ^ M M M M M F 'n (n ~n v) C O N
N N CV M M M M cn m N N N CV ~t ,t N M M C+) M It It It V y N
v V M Cl C O C C O C O C •p C C C C C C (D O C C C C O C C C
X ~y CO OO OCCC CO z
w GCO O C O OO C O O O C O O OO O<CO CD C-- O C O O C C
L Q W U
Q W
Q- 3 33333
3
u 4
lD C C Cl C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 C O O O C lD
r•,1 O O CO O O O O C C O O O O O O O CD C O O C 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
IG 'T O 00 x r- V; t- In 110 Cl ~O 110 N "1- cn r- ^ to rJ C V n ~G M C, (3, O
U U N M^ ^ oC ^r N O N r` '.6 ccc!' M C) O r` c" r- M Cl In t` r-• M
110 ID N ~r N CI V - N N - N N ^ G1 h M M r- bD
^ r.
CIS
75
N
C C C CD C C C O C O C O C G _ C C C C
_ O OC' 5 O
M V, r- f 1 r4 r
O Q 'v r: ✓ T rl r-i T r 1 lZ r: r i
C,l
_ ti f~l r l _ v r_1 V y `v
uI O U
O N 'D ,
U
U O C O C O C O C O O C O C O O O O O O C O C O C O O O C O O C O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
'p O O O O O O O O C O O O C O O O C O C O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
U U O O C O O M- M N r- n r in o0 M N M M r^ O OI " IO C M -O
R - CICCOIt In 'ctIn CTIt C.hMOC V'N -GInOr`VI r- CN^
U r-- In IO IG N oc N~ r` x 1- C M x 4 C,~ M N C) (11
U It N N^-N
I O
a
Q
00 ¢dQQQddQdQQ¢Q - - MMMIn W) In V,ocoooNrl.. _ r .c o~~.o
oo00InInIn0(710) NNNNN - 0000 r` r^r- r r`
zZ -ZZZ, ZZ- Z ~ -ZZ- ZzZ . n -r - r" r xoo~oooooooc-I-I-, vvv V, un~r~
-
Z ^ ^ N CV N CV r l N (,I r-l N N N N " Cl Cl N
w~
C+
O C O O I= 0 c r- , a) In 10 In M x ~t rt O In O_ x In 0 In O In m IC o x In 0 M O r- C, It'1 O^ Io
U In NIO r- cO V'--+In --I 'o r40, C1i Ia Ox Mx MCY'm 1-xr- oc 'o G" 00^
Vl ct in ^ O C1 O O 01 v C1 N o0 O0 ^ ~t r' N C~ ~O C, O0 ~D vl N M M In M
In In N N
N O t~ l- M M ~O
N - N- N N M M 00 00 ~O
> N N
O
O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r'rJ C_ 4r- O Z r rl ~X CC C- N X CC X ^ G, ^ V, N ~r. r- Vi N, In r- r.l Z ^ In In r`i r- ^
`7 '-r r-, ^ r-1 r-l 0c X r'- rV; C ~C, - n h S - r- r-
O T N C f i OC rt X I!. tr, rte. C X ^ V:. 7 h t'- - N, r l iC ^ ~n Te` "1' <i' J' rte. tom- rN id r. 'x V. x Dc .a s - r ..c a r-
cc ✓ ri r; ri oc rr, - - x V, ri ri
O" T K, L r_ v ri rv! r i r` v ~r' r....1 r_1
U
~ G U Cam]
O :3 d~
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 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl 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
r~NOIO I6 ~6 16 ~-6 V 6 cl 44 Ill IO N N C: d' ON r~ O N O 4 N OC C~ ~r-: IDC~ ON_ 4 r`r`^r-:
ON -"t -rtIt It V' - M O TC,G1~o v 't xM00 CI OMONIOC,-d'--~Mt`It In M MOx'IT
tj C 'j IG IO IO IC Oln '11~ O In r' W t n 'ZJ~ x 7 x Vi IC n G', x oo In IO In IC 7 ^ O N r~ N o
Cc M a V) IO 00 o0 00 or, 00 CI C r- O ^ C, O O ~ IC 'IT M n 1` t` M M 00 O ID O, a; ~ M N N r` M d' ~
cC M ^ In - Vl ^ M - Cl) N 00 d' a\ N d In N ^ x Io M M In
G
O
In In In In O O C O 00 OC rn C, CI O O ^ N N N M M M M IT V 7 IT V) In I'D ~c IZ Io n r~ x x x
1~ r 1~ 1 t~ t-- r-
U rt 'ct d' In vl h ' ;1 IO IO IO .o t 1 i [ l~ c r~ c- (i r r- r- r- r- r- r.- t i r- r-
U C C C C C g C q C q c s~ F G l; o C ci r. C C O K g C C C C C C C t: C>: C
s. 'O ti ti ti ^Ji 0 7 7 C C 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 a 0 0 7 7 0 7 7 r O
q
F
W X U U a
c o!
0 0 oW Q° z7-
FF 3 q z
Q ¢xx~~ z Q~
c~jnrnrncn00Ncn v~Ov7~zcncncncnztn0c7ncn 0r'7n~cn C/)
U pp~W zOFd•EQZ~ ZxWw N
C7 Cr~►-, A•-+~~..C-I E-+ is q Cn w J
0 o Qd¢¢QQ~wQZ¢d¢ ¢Q¢ ¢Qct.~Qd UUu H ¢qOQ~ Qzxx a
C) 0
a 1:4 0404 xc;G4C?. 04040404 04W~Jr~9WCO a1F°" `x C7 U ~X4 00
+.I waa w w w wwwaWw wW w w ~w
f6 w3W333 33~3~w33~33~3333 33~i 33 a~C6 zC6 od P; C6 30cd06 a
3 wwww ~www wwwWwwwW~wwq~D WW~aD~OZ) wa~aw:¢wgaq n
q rncncnmCL.c.r inC/ >.cnoorncnrnrnC/3 rnarrlrncna.mcncn rncncnUCA cnC-0cnCnon C4a. nVncncn z
4-1
L11
m
t- _ W
- GZ In M M M N
In N IC M 'It C~ In x In In O OO 00~ O --I N M N ~ M In C x o c C
O 41
1` o O In In In N N ~ VI In 00 O In In oC w oC In r4 x In x N 01 a\ C ~ O a\ O O\ C\ Oi oO Gam . In 01 O
In I In IO In In `D An In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In ~ In In Ln It In In In ~ ~ ~ In ~
In In n In vi In In In vi In In In In In In In In In In V; In In In In In v-I In vl vi It'1 In In In v-l vi It'I In In VII In In vl~ U
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 N N fV N " N N N
C tYj O O C C C O C O O C O O Cl O o 0 0 0 C O C O C 0 0 C O o 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 O Cl C O O f
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 0 0 0 0 0 p
o c o 0 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o z
0
Q ti
W
U
LO c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o Co o 0 0 0 0 c o o O CD O o 0 0 0 0
IH -14 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o o c r o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 o C 0 0
U r~ ^ x v r h l w Q n x .O N o V v C ri co C o .o c n o r o v^
O 00 N
O M V'[~~D C~ 'd" C~c c1cx~c r- Vi O4 cc en ~,c v7Cr-In Nr- . O\ CC~~D 00 C00M c) 0, M N
N 'D IT N rl- 1:1' ^ M N 'cr ^ N N Vl M M M N O^ N M Vl N N O^ M N rn In O 10 "T N 00 O M O OA
CC N M M (0
^ > Q
75 O
N
r' r+ r^' G C rC'C 2 ` - e~ f tom: f~
[,1 O :G I rr•. r- Cr 11 _ C^rr Zr
- r l r v. -f r ' i -t v i _
C Q •o r- x tai r -t r C -Y In It 11 el -l
0.
0 O U
O N b
U
C
U O O O C O C O O O C O O O O O O O C C O O= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O C O O C O O
b O C O C O C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 c O O O O O O O c 0 0
N N O~q OO~Aq r-00hC U1tt ztC-Vrnn u~D r'~Drn'nr~~xOx
U
R C ~O M vl O x 'D N ~t N v1 O d' r"- C C r~ CO 1 l- O t~ r- O 1~1- 00 O "C O N 1~0 O x C ^ ~t
^ ~O "D C M d' ^ 'D ^ 'n I~ C d• c" M x rn ^ ~t Vt rn M N ~r, N ~D ^ O 00 N x M r'- x
In. U rn N ^ M N N ^ N ~'r N 'n ^ N ^ ^
G-'
a
Q
~D ~o M M M M M M M r C` In Vl In V1 'r, \D ~c ~o "C \O '•C Vl rn In ~.O ~ tC C C Ql C C 0) C N W-) Vj V) In V)
nr-000COOOMen MMMNIO\DV [1'ctR'IT000COO.-.
c:l _ r- r- O O O O O O O N rl In In In 0 O O ^ ^ - N C`1 Cr -zY Q' In V1 In 'n V) 'n In 1D lD tO ~O ~D ',O
N N M M r1 M M r1 (n r1 r1 M CIA M M V V IT IT - Ct dr VT V 'z7' Cr' V• 'V' V It V 1~r 'T IT V T
w~2
C
U M O et V) N C~ M In M110 C1 00 It 00 In It r- M (M x r, N x SO M 110 C, V) N C V1 O Ch V1 M M C r- O C
O C ^C (N CN^• ~ O Co r- C) - I* It O N %C (11 -1- ~.D tom --'n4 NO ~C xONx--N00 An ztr-
N x Vt 00 rr ^ r~ O Vi O x ^ 14N x C''C ~O 'n Cr00 N ~O d x rn M - C, ^ O M ~r
N r- d' V1 V1M00Mt,C\^N,T W1^viNOcOV1.-. tNt~~OxN x C; r1"(- 7~tVlN ^0;N
> N Vz .-r ~ In N In r- N rn V) M N ~c V 'n ^ 'n
O
O
r- v: x C r- X V, - ~c .y V; r! u x Y- V: ^ r. -r r- r-1 r. '7 X - 't
^ N 0 7 r c r _r C N ~ ^ ^ x M r, eG % C4 rl :e i- z :.C -r r~ rl ti :;I_ x 'I_ 11 7 r-.
O - C r. 'n v: r- rrp r~ 'r r.1 cl, x ry r. - r: r l C, C, -r C ~L r- Z N . r: r. r t -r
N - cc In r_d r! 'u - rJ ✓ r- 'r, r!~ a r- v, '1 N,
77- 7-
y C U 'U0.
U
c3
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 C O C 0 C 0 0 0 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 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 164 .~~r~ Ov00d'14 Crn~o CCNr~Ln M'o---vid~In M vr~~OCr- 0000lzt4
0 x NIn a,Oln~c xNAnr'- 'DOMW~cW NOM'S~DMd' Or- O:t V' --0Iccr, - Cr11
m ~t x It ^ 1.0 "C' 7 Vt m O N N O C~ In C: O x N r- N x O r^ r- t- N V r- ^ x- I* In ^ V M O 0~
6 oo6 NOOxhcVirZCSyrC,:tc M^;ztMt-OV' -,IC SON r- Yr- In^z M
CQ M'1' N1D'-"MNM^NN An M M M NC,^---~N MIn NNC ^ rM0 M VIOC~C v r- C\MC
^ ^ N M ^ N
C
O
xx CCCC.C CCOO •--'N MM~r I- 111' d' V)"D\O to r- r- xx x 00 x 00 x a, G1 C, C C, a,
ev r rt`rrrrr r~xxxxxxOCxocxxxxxxaoocooxocx a xxxxxxxxxx
•V 1Z 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 I 1 1 1 1
ti :3 a a r :3 z
a~
Q
~ ~ A Q
¢¢aaQ~
~ x~rncna.F.
xx ~ W W QQH Ew--'cnrn
v0 wF' 00 C0
000 F C7WW xxww~~WWCaO
a 0 0 w w GQ a wa' ;7 la ~ Ed w Lu
a ¢ c~`'7m`~W3 w o0 a a¢v C-0. Ul
x~ ~33j xW 33L" Cl) cnzc~rnrnC &n (A Z l4x04 04 zz>>
u ~ > > a
x~ ~ ?:I ¢a¢ wwwwooz a~
Lij
-1~ z~~~U~~~}~3~~'-i~'~~W~N~ Z
~ o w< ¢¢wQA v
.a ~x a
2 w
0 0 www 04wwc~WCbc~ a~a04c'.C4:4 a:a:¢0O x
~a J
w w wwwwww ww a
a~3 ai szi ai oa cS 3 3aioa333333~33~~1:6¢~. . . . . . . . .
flu M
3 awDD ~
W q cnv)cncn nrnrnrnCA rnU)UnU~oomcnrnrnrncnvlcncnEn rn cncnrncnrnv) rnrnm ncncnrncnV)cn z
+J a
N z
N ~ M d' O ^ N M M n V1 Cu> ~ Vl 1D x t~ x t~ C N 00 C, O N M d' In 'o r- x C O
1.0 r-
0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 O C) O O ^ C^ C ^ t'~ C C C ^ C N N N N N N N N N C-4 r1 4!
V) In Vl Vl to V1 Vl V1 In Vl V7 V1 N V1 Vl Vl "O In In Vl Vl ~D Vl In "D rn In ~O V) V1 Ln V) V1 cn to In Vl to V) VI In
Vl In In In An In to rn 1n to V~ In tn tn V-1 tn tn An In I„ Vj In In Q11 Vj In In V) vl In v, to 'n V'I In 'n In N Ln In 'n V
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 U O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £ CD C~ C> O C O O O CD (D O O O O O O O O O OO O O C O O O O O O O O O O O
C O O G O O O O O O O O D
N <
Q W
`0 Q
u 3
w o c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Q 0 o O c 0 o C o 0 0 Oo
e o c o c o c G o 0 0 Cl c o c o G o 0 o C o Cl 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G O o o
O C U v1 O Vl N to Cn lc~ O O Vl ^ 00 M GO O r; lzf~ O' [Y M 1.0 00 C1 lO w o0 vl ^ ~D O V' M V^
00 ~
G1O C+C C, 11C ~ en ~O Oa ^ OmO Cl N r a, Cl cll aoO Vi [-a1 rM~O Cl r rd'M
N .i7~ ~c Ov, OC, V'v v: In rl N IO ci C'. r'l 00 r V' ~o I'D ^N C1M ~G~ GA
cu r- N r N M N ^ cc
75 C) > a
~ N
v : r ) r4 t-. r%- :f - W 't r 1 r- ! I T f' 1 - -r T r- G
O Q 7 G v' r'S' ~n .r, r~ v r 1 ^ "I r- c r ~ ^n c I r- ! i v M N Z ✓ rl v
U r, ~ r, 0C h X r I v, r f r.F X ~ J v'. ~.I 7 r'f": r 1 t~
77-
in O W
O N C7
C
O O c 0 0 0 0 C O o 0 C 0 0 0 O O O O O O G O O Cl C O 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O C O O C O O C O 0 0 0
N U V'1 O C : V: O to lG C~ OC ',t ~O O O O~ N G~ %O V O ~t N O ~C OO N ^ r- Cl d v1 ~ N O O rt C1+ 'It
cUd K' m ~c G C1+ v i N v1 oc C1 In ~o In ^ M r v1 CO 2 O O \0 v1 Cl) oC O oc oo .o In m \O r In Ca ol 1 M N
r Orr cc a r~ C'MM00 Mrr O C,O110 hIx" ^ MOc^G1 ~o IN ^M V1N Ora, NN
M N^
a
` U M m N ^ N N [r In ^ V ^ N N N^ N IN
e>
R.
Q
O vi v'i ut ~r1 vl vl N N N N N cV Cl) 00 co Oc 00 cc IN M In m m m m m m cc oO cc N N N N N !V N N
O n ^ rn M rn C1 fn M rn - - C1 r r r r r r r r O C O N m M M M m m M M
llc lc ~ \C r-:. t ^ t- t~ r%, rt ' Oo of oc Oo cc co Qrn C a c C~ C~ C' v ~Y ~t v ~t v ~t v v v ll ~t
lo~ z R V V" v ~t v v v ~t ~t v ~t d rf V d ~ IT I ~ V It ' 7 It V C In In In in M N In in In In In In
M_
m10O Vt V'NIn InIN In ol Nr G, In rrIC 0 "Y-'rrC\- O ~000ON C10In TN Or
U 2c 'o N'o 'c Mr lO V oc g C~ - ^ OO- IN m 'r, "D V'In In t- V'cC^ O, WI) O In MMOIn N
r ~O It dt x M C. 10 v1 O o0 -r m "I It m ~t Q1 Ir It ^ O o0 v1 r'l 00 V t - O o0 V~ Oc C v'I v! O
O r 00 m In Vl OG Ci In vi In r r M O C r 00 O ON In Ch T o0 00
10
.o ~G O In In -Y, In et N
00 C~0 N In *r r M~GNd'NN N v)1O 00 ~C'ct N II Cl M M O` ^N In tom
O
O
07
X rl X r. Z ^X r: -r -r f'. ^ : n rI = -t :C t l n ^ C r,l ~r, ^ ~ r- ~C C r ^ C1 ^ ~r, :r-
g- Y 'L rl rJ r'I r- r l % -t f r• - r-- r- C r-, r•4 r- ~G r, L rJ I_ T '7
O O G r. - 0C :n v1 ~P~ C r~!: ~i'. G O' iC X ✓ v r: 1'- N C "r - ''C
N
W. 'A r-l
Vf C U U o f
o ~ ¢ 21
ti
O O O C O C O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0
O O O C O C O O O O O O C C O O O O O O C O O O O O O Q O O O Cl O C O C Cl O O C
or oow = moc ~c G1 NMOO In VlM oO ~o OO m O In N In In 10 o0 ~o v N Od O In v,
O 00Nd ocC~ md'NM _ "o OO M ~T I-C ^C,~xen -N oc C%r-- --0110 m In a, N to C+GNN
N ul n N d C~ vt N cO 10 C O M "O N v1 C 't = CC M CC O "0 r- OC C1 co C~ O n n - vl ^ 10 N '1:
N ^v1v1O1r-It- C\CN C%InCD rr ~r ~rC1N~f OM0000No0CMICIn\Or00M\0C, v1rrItm
tJ v'f C1 V 'cr O, OC M N N C-- V r M M O O 00 M r n ~O In V N O~ M^ In O v)
~C N N N
C
O d v)
G1 C1 Q\ C`. U ON O O O O O O O ^ ^ ^ N N N N N N N N 'y' d' In In In In vn W') W')
C1 C1 ~ 01 C C\ C C,
O U 00 00 00 00 00 OC a0 Cl 1 C~ Q1 C1 C1 11 O1 C1 C~. 01 O~ - C~ 9~ C1 C~ 9, O 01 C~ Ol
y~ C g C~ C C C C C C C C A A C~ t; q~ t~ G~ i~ G O K O C~~~ R. F. C CL A C q
ILI
Q
~ QgC,QQ
In In CIO C/~
UU 3 ww - Do 04 C4 gy, 04
3
o 33333 mW
¢ Q a: a: F ~ z Q
F c C/) n cn Q cwi) Ln L-1i C/) CA
~'xxw AwwcnFF _pQ ww0 wwwaa zz 22 Q
F cncn w a; ~4 4 c7 aGw a!
ru aaw a. ~~C QQ gZ~2a Wa y a~
¢ F~ a Zz F"~ wwx ° d ¢°w ~w-a ¢QQ¢¢ ¢a
Q Q aC'Oo 00 ¢ Wcr.~ Wa E-wa:Qw~¢~ FFFFFd uI
~ z~z4 W Q cFi~~~zai u:w'wcii ~C7~,!a,zw >woz zz z -CaG] T
UOOpOQQw7 W W W~F UU~G~o ODU[x- UrnOOOOrn~d Q
~aa~3300 ~GFFd a
L ° W~N-1 w ~ OOd
0 ~ddcFil~~C~ QaU.Uado F xUxxxpjU 0 0UOv)w F F F
d¢
a, a>33aa,a.a. dw xxxxx
,
W 07 [A Ra Ca 3 ~mmxalOQd¢0.10.1C4Qa'~'a=a'a-'OCAG7
w
3 ~~aZ:)D p w~~aao:www~aaW~aCgS~~ Oa:oooooa;oa
Q v~rorncnEn rnmmcncncncna.cncn>En cncnma.,aaaCntncnU)CnrnCn -a Z,ZZZZc vim z
Jn z_
r+N m-t tn.c rx C1 M,t~0N v1 1D r oc Cl r ,t v, ~O O N M d' In l0 r rt \~o r or C1 V') O 0001 4
M M M M m m m m m ~t -Y It v1 N It 'Zj- d' d' d 00 00 00 CC to to to In In 00 00 V It d' V' V V' In m m
In N V-1 V) vitoV") v In W'I In In In In \0 In W)In In In ~ -:I- It It v In In In In In In ~rrrrrrrrr U
h In N In In In In In In In In In ~ In In In In v-, In h In In In In In In In In ^
NIN NNNNNNNCA CA NIN N N cVNNIN NNNNNIN NNlJmMmmMmmMIn mIn M
o 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q o 0 0 o G o Q o o G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 G c o
0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o G o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G O
o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o c o 0 0 0 0 G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q 0 o G 0 0 0 0 0 z
a
a W
U
w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Cl 0 c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rH
O 00 U v [~vM110 Oo Nr- FiCr- ccoo ^ OM.-•O F- VlN,o V:G; GR O ;r c, to v, N IT 00
N .o O ^ M ~D ~t o 06 Co t` co kr rl 16 vi N o ao O M N V; Vi r V1 N r,o r! GO Q1
Q t10
O zj- Vl ^ M V kn m CA ~C ^ ^ CO V' Vl ^ N N C`4 N ~D ^ ^
~ o
N
U 6 I rr, r`• ~C CI r t rd r. rrC C r. ir', r,~ t: rte: T r'.
✓r 7 ri J^ 7 1-` 't r^~ r1 rCr', ri
O d r4 in O U
O N 'O
U G O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O C O O O O
'O O C C O C O 0 0 0 00 o0 0 0000 O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O (CD
N U N ~C O N O C1 lO N I O v1 M ~ M C " vl r- C~ ^ d Q\ M o0 00 r, N V' vl
cUa cs ,n N O M O\ N 00 M 00 Rte M kn 0 O "o 00 N C N I'D rr 00 Vi N d y Ci %.0 r- r- r, v',
'Q V o oc N V ^ ~o N oO c 00 N^ O Q ^ M N M M 00 C1 N V)
U
~ ry .c
a
d
N O r- c- r- r- h r V o o ^ 00 vt ^ W) v1 ~n a,"-- 110 N N 0c oo '10 +0 r` N 00 Vl
M vlC~ CN ol tT C, Tr 110 110 V, v,Mr`-c0 C, O. O,NOC OC C1 0, O Ohr- N oMCA
W) V-^ If) vi v' h k 14~, r^ cC cC Go 0c 0, 0G cO o0 00 00 C ^ G ^ C\ O ^ C O O O ^ (•J N N
z p Vl %n kn vi vti to V> Vl vl V) vi V) to W') V') V1 W) W) vi vi Vl vi vi V) V) v .o 110 Io IC 11C \D \C \o
CU
U ~t M M O v'i V' ^ O Vl or- C` 00 ON OO N r- ~c r` N VI V) It O IT r- '-t r- N M 1.0 ^ O N M
O v, 11C M C M O M C) CTN O ~C r- Vl AG O Cl) \o O C r- vi C1, r ON G, N It
rq C4
M ~O V' 00 G1 O CT M V1 ^ O ~C 00 t~ O M C~ G, O ^ d' N N ^ M C+ M O
,t 00 oc Lr c, O r- M 4 N G, t- lzt cr d' r` ~o ct t- OC r- M Vi 00 00 G,
> ~O N M ^ N ^ M N v> In cl' M ^ ^ 7 O N
C
O
•p - r" r C v, '-r r, - - rte,-.X - vy r- 0c
e> _ C .y r. 't r r l rr: uc t`- r^, r, N -,r r X r. -r_ =t ^t
O V•. X r: T - rt "t rh - r` r.l V, v,-i h - rt
N ^ :O ` - V'1 ^ r~r'- rl 't = r l r l :r- Ir, - r t C4 V ; v r-1 r t ~r, ^ r 1 r : - oc f'•,
U
~ C U CL
'C t O O COC O 0000000 O C= O O O O O O OO C O O C O O O G O O
~ C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O
O MOON c l), O 06 CC64 6 00 crte IW ^6 O OO 4 6 4N O ONN
O v, Nt- ~t 00 ~ V1 Vl110 W) 110 ~c r- 11C ~t ~o 00 MON VlN V C N O 00NN Off' Cr Rt^
oo M ^ t+l ~D O V'i lq~ G w 00 G, V! ~C O ~O O v1 OO O ~O O ^ rr o0 N 00 O ^ a1
ai t- 00C\vO a, ^ocN~r NN~.o t- MOOON V, r- ONONM ^ a; 00 lZ M 0000r-
00 M V M ^ 'T to m O Vl ^ ^ r- Vl "T ^ N ^ N N V') M ^ M
G
O
v, 1o lc .o \c ~o ~o ~o o t- r r- t~ c- 0c co 00 or, oo or 00 00 rn rn c, a o ON 0 0 0
a U C~ G,c, Q, C; a, c, G-, C~C~Q'C~U C~ d; 9 G; 91 C1 9, Cl Q1 Q` C,1G1 c COO
" R a s r- c a s; c a a> g a K.. o o > c~
v c a o o a c c a~ o o v o „ o a a o o 0 (3 Q
_ A A
a s
~cn H
z33 G^ a' a~3 Cw7~ xw w zwv
ooQ aawxw~ 3 Uwe a~ w~ 3 o A
Oa, w zoQ¢ O a.~ xrn
C/) Cn C,zy a ~3~ as Hax ¢A cn ¢O
a' OF-Aww xw3~aa30v ww :D W E- O E. a
a zxz~~ O>oQ do H 3w¢> ae cn w o~Q
a w 134 w.`a¢F>qaF. A AAA ~oacn3 oAF7 w
O x A (n d w~ z 2 a
~
U A3o~Hz c~~ wzwF F" wQO as F0 u' ~w > a3C14 ~.v0
o oo~E- azae zE~zva~ r .aNv~~ Q -c~.~ ax?~r„ > .
~ wwE x aor~i„Q °r i ~wEx-~HC)4cn w zrV)nz3 0a
o o O Fx UO
a c ~3 Z Q U, ~G~EwdwUxa d~~ - tJrnrn a zu: pgc O qU~
U
Ca a3zrncncnCA v)cornrnU)cn En wrnEn En En in >En r)En En V)040:En Q WCA m rncn z
(A Z
co O, C, O C N M V1 Tt 10 M V) cc Vl O M N C1 10 t- in r oc It ~ Vi O ~ r- ^ N \C N 4
,1- ooCl00Gt C ~C,MMMMIt r-C r- r- ~C r- r- NNN v) N rn ~t11O~C Irl CTr W
O ON C% 00 oc 00 00 0o N N N N N It V' V' V' V d' V• r1' ~ ~ ~.c r- vo 10 00 Oo oc 00 00 C~
N ^ ^ N N N N N N N N rt N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U
M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M M M M, m M M M M M M M M M
C O 0 0 0 0 C O O C O O O C C O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 C O o C E
r0 v, 0 0000 o 6600000 o 0000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 Ooo G oG0 p
Q o 0 0 0 o G o o O G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z
d
V)
Q w
4 a
ili
u 3
w o 0 0 0 c 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 00 p 0 00 0 0 00 000 o CD C~ 0
c-r ~e 0 0 000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0 000 0oooCD o0CD 0CD OOO o p N
O U r- Cl) ^ In v1 N IC 10 C\ fl- r- In rn V In In N V' V N M O n V r- O~ N rV O M N G1 N
O
N o crc c^O~ o^^.O~ N ~G,M r- r` NG; ooG;v1NOC-JCTNc, ^•-•(7, 00 c QJ
^ M M Cf' N N M h V' M \O N 00 C1 N^ M^ N N ~o r- V• Cl) r1l CV o
iC O0 N l~
C > M 00 a
^
N
~ U R r, r.: r' ~ M. Cvl h v '.G - T r• ~G ~t V CI O ~ K• rl ~ ~ ~f - ;
O N O
U
O O
U O O C O C O O O C C O C O C O O O C O C O C C C O O C O O C C O C C C)
^O O OCCC O CD CD CI O O 0000 0 OOCO 00000000000000 0 C
O N ^ N vi C 't r- C "I b M 00 ~c d• N O ~t v'1 oo lc n oc v, lc " co vl Cl N
"y h ,n In ri d M N In CN N C Oa ~O M Or N C\ ,n '7 In C) ON ^
lmm S4 , • N vim) M d' CT N C, M N N M in N N oc C` d' N N ^ ^
V ~Ra) M It ^ O N
a
M Cr Cl. M N 01 CO oC N N N N N N M M M I.) N IT V rt n r- ON C.. 01. Cl 01. 00 OO k N
M N,n 00 r, r- ^^~.T MMMM M aIc 110 110 M VC,o r-O,^^COCOOCD O tr) N
CJ N N N Cll N M f^r n M v) Y) v) V1 V) lr n Vl Vr \O ~ llc r- r-; O O ^ ^ ^ ^ M M M "
z j~ ~O 140 ~O ~C IC 1, 10 ~C .O ~D V ~O ~c ~D IO ~o ~c ~D ID ~O 1.0110 140 V' \-O r- r- t`- r- r- r` r- r- r-- r~ r-
w
O~
U r- 00 C O "o ,D O` It \O O OO N ^ V) Itt M r`- O M O It 0 r- CC r'- OO ^ 0 ^ ^ O~ N d• C
r, N oc O 00 M O C~ M rn 00 Or., M O Cr ~c 00 00 d• r- N CC N M O C40 a` N N 00 ^ 1~0 t7
M M C ^ ~n G~ '-C C ~C C C) N M O N M LC? V'i ^ 'r1 of 'V Vt 00 'n 'tz Y' lc~ ^ Ic ~D N C
~O !.'~00 r- V1 dt "T '40 CT M V''~DMN CT In ol.MW.-. ~O Vl In IN MC\O r-r-1O cG
tl- N N N OC N V-1 O ^ t~ ~O M In N N 10 M M - ^ OV
.x O M N
O N ^
_ N. r1 C 1 -T x r•.1 ~r. G -T `"r :l
_ - N O U f• = r v. C N N r'r~ O N r. Ir, V. G r. 't 7 r- v; ^_r r- C r'1 'n Ir, r; rl ^1 Z v; :c
r1 Ir. U: x r- r1 :i - r', r^: ,r, r•.J *r; a, r- -
N c0 N r- C.1 r. ri C-7 c 1
VJ 09 U C0.J
O :3 ¢ L
R
G
O O M O m O N t~ C O O O M O mot' \,O G1 In O ^ 0 0 0 00 O O O C N C\ O\0 O C
O C O C) O lD V) O N O C M rn O N W~ v; O 17, Cl! I: O O N O O CC~ t` O O N O O
O ONNC, ~v)^a\ 00 NOC V) M In ~x OC C, r~~d'OC 00%0 -.)GIO oll ~O M
o 00 M rn CC M ~c u> In d• V) 00 w In m 00 N N V) r- It M rn M r- V1 N r- N o0 00 ~o C) O
r F N v1 O V'1 V) lO r- Cl M lD 1~t V- ^ OO '11~ Ir t- V :T C) OC r- oc M r- CZ \O N 00 10 \.O Oo C:
Oo 00NO,N O V'it- r-~T as r- In r`-M ~o N00 IN In ~o MON 00 In 00 in C~a,00 r~ N lZ
C M rn M O N N ~D ^ N M M ct 00 CN N M^^^ ~t r M M
N 00 N C~
C
O _
O O C O N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M ~t V 6 V V V 6 V)
R U O O O C O C O O O O C O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p
V t0 Nl p•, V~ w C G 0. 0. > ~ Q G~ G bD U V V >
41 a a ~ a~ ~ a s a~ a~ o R a a a a a~ rJ a~ a s a a ~ o a a a a a a a~ U a.
¢ rnOAw ►~-~v1v~ z ti ¢qQQ¢~-~nOZ¢¢- AQ ¢
Q
a0a 3 UU
q tW
O ~NqQ aCW QU CA Ozz Q zoa~
H o,a3A zzwv, xu: wxz F=E w E..,FOOw
¢Uwo¢ O.a¢O Q ITJ
~O 3a ¢¢t-E~.,
ca Z
v ¢ 0 0¢w~ aa~ ww~ o ~~H¢ .~a~¢Ha¢w
C's a W a d d H w w HO F w~ W x
C7 q q u,
Zw 3~Z~~~ uazzz
u O OHO O rnWwW.¢~~~ O~~4ZZ ~ t`x,wv~i Ll~ 0
o 4 MA~43wu:d¢aO0aaw~wE- GOUE+xcHn~>QU0 00~ Z
L Y O O_OU t- E"o cC~< E- UrnF-x>Ornxcria'a W>~~»w c Q
AwA~AxAQ >c~ F. Av)E.3~ HQ¢w v wAAA¢ Q
C/) PW oaoaoaoavs cacowE
3 ww o rnwx~owH w..x CD aaw aQao AAaIn v
in cnU n C-AC4 n Cw/i 5CAm ~ror- :Z 0 ~U07vo0 m>OooNrnLnMU)mEn cr,Nrn.rnv,rnw3 z
!n Z_
tII
MNO^ a\ OMN O ^~O0O\ ~t N\C In \DN^hOC\OO V~~t t- 00 In \Oh_NM C,
C' 'IT t` Vr M M M r- `O N ~O I= M M V' N o\ ^ C CN o\ M M M M M M -t dt -t &d
ON o\C\C~C1 C) rnCNOO O 0000 O - IN rnM,NNNNNIN IN NNNNMM M O V
N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M In m M M M ~t 't `:t Ct 't ,t d' - 'd' V' d p
M M Cl) M M M M M M M M Cl. M M M M r+) r+) M C) M M M M en m M M In M M M cn M cM M
C U O COO C O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O Cl O O O O O O C O O O C O O O C O C
O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O C 0 O O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 O O C O 0 0 0 C. C M O
O C O O C O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 C O O C O C C O z
L ¢ 0
Q W
CLI C- 91, C-I
~ 3 33 3 3~ 3
v 3 33 3 3 3
CO o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 00 i--1
ri .19 C C CD C C CD O C C o M O 00 00 N
O O U M V) V, C. t-- N N V1 ~ Nr in O M M
CO M r•i r- M VS M O W 00 t- Ln
r-4 :3 A
v C')t r+ (Z) "T bD
c
74
O > N N oo en _ a
N 00 M
M --V1
U ~ h h r! M "'Y rte. M, C h r•1 ~~1U. C N ri
r-F
N M. r.i
y o N - r l
N ej
O
T7~
U
C
y O C O O C O O C O O 00 O 00 00
'O O O O O C O O O 0 0 M O fn cn
u ai O N t- N +n o0 <"i V•^ N M c N
N O O oo en M V) `7' 000 0 N ~ CG
0.
U rn vt hi N M M ~ O M d01 M
"MN in
0.
Q
O N N M Ic oc V, V, V, Vl
O N N or V, oC cc 00 O O
Q V of ;.O oC 00 OC
z C40 00 CIO oc
a,
o c r x
cl M N c1 a Iovteo+t + cr v
oc vi h a 0o.- o0 oc
O ~ OG d: O t~ ~O r'' N O ~O l r ~ N ~
> ~O C N V, ~ vn m ~n ri of 00 ~o N 00
> •c \ M x d• 00 ON N h G1
cn N M N Q' %C~ OO d
O x V h00~
O M N M
p C v r t . x r! Jc M. r x f ,-,l
C r3 h C t~ R .C -O ~ .U y rvi ~ r- rvt _t
tYn ~ U U
cc
V1
0 0 O oc O Vl O x O
- "O O
O C _ O C Vi N N N N N d• N
O c% h V1 V1 t~ O 4 oc t ~ W' n ~
Vt C M C1 M W) M t'- as O G1 O
M u~ dr M M r 10 o0 av
h rn M \,o CN Vr vi Gl
~N NN M ~ N M
C
O
v vi h IC 00 00 0 0
~ o 0 0 0~ o o
'O ~ U G C C
N
C
p O O
O C d cn
i N
U M toil ~ 0. ~
•O O U Q ~ O
to N 3 ~
r EJ U
Q1 ¢ N N y ~ N
4~ o 3 o 3
CO ~ Y •Y T as
Cl O U 2 ~a r3 > e~ M
UI
L n E F- UJ
0 0 G K e~ I V }
Q .r..7 a U N L1. CC Q O to Q
• U 3 0 0
L N y to w •L3 G A ,0. U
to rn U G U' to U rn Q
N n o o c a+ i ea o n to to 0
3 c o o o a~ a~ to
U N Q N a0.i Z V ` C7 H ,L", Q
v Q NCq¢ E
tail m m Z
t0
>1 i m I~
ON O V1 ~o G1 O ON o R R
1= C~ CD C-- 00 00 ON CN
~ v m M V v v ~ rt v v ~ p
In
Q w
O
v 3 3 3m
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW WATER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.20 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2006-27.
RECITALS:
A. The current Water SDC was approved on 18 October 2006.
B. The City adopted a new water master plan April 17, 2012 that updates the previous master
plan with new capital improvements and updated construction costs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Water System Development Charges report update and project list marked
as Exhibit C, is adopted effective immediately.
SECTION 2. The methodology for Water System Development charges, marked as
exhibit B, is adopted, effective immediately.
SECTION 3. The System Development Charges Summary per exhibit A, is effective July
1, 2017.
SECTION 4. The existing System Development Charges project list & fee schedule for
Wastewater adopted by Resolution 2006-27 is repealed, effective July 1, 2017.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2016- Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC
Residential
$/habitable sf $0.93 $1.68 $2.61
Commercial and Industrial (by meter size)
%X3
4 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877
3/4 $2,989 $5,140 $8,129
1 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257
11/2 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010
2 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901
3 $353,858 $61,685 $97,543
4 $74,704 $128,509 $2031213
6 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627
Source: City of Ashland, Water System Development Charge Update [Economic & Financial Analysis,
July 2016], Table 1.
2- Y02-Water SDC Resolution.dOCXG:\legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd
City of Ashland
Wastewater and Water - System Development Charge Update
Methodology Summary
August 14, 2006
Exhibit `B'
Prepared by
Shaun Pigott Associates, LLC
CITY OF ASHLAND
WASTEWATER AND WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
Process
This update of Ashland's system development charges (SDC) for wastewater and water was
done in order to revise the SDCs based on recently completed facility plans for both utility
systems. Also, as part of this update process; issues related to the current SDC structure were
addressed through Ashland's SDC Committee. The Committee includes Darrel Boldt, Jac
Nickels, Greg Williams, Larry Medinger, Russ Silbiger, Kerry KenCairn, and Connie Saldana.
The SDC Committee has worked directly with staff and the City's consultant over the course of
6 meetings held between April 2005 through July 2006. The proposed revisions to the
wastewater and water SDCs reflect the Committee's unanimous recommendations to the
Ashland City Council.
For this update, the City and Committee had a number of objectives:
• Review the basis for the SDCs to ensure a consistent methodology;
• Develop a rationale and documentation for the reimbursement: element of the SDC;
• Consider possible revisions to the structure or basis of the charge that might improve equity
or proportionality to demand; and
• Provide clear, orderly documentation of the assumptions, methodology, and results, so that
City staff can, by reference, respond to questions or concerns from the public
Background
The City's SDC Ordinance No. 4.20 was originally adopted in 1992 and amended in 1996. The
ordinance was designed for compliance with ORS 223.297-.314 (Oregon SDC statute) which
mandates that all jurisdictions having SDCs adopt ordinances consistent with this Oregon law.
Actual SDC calculations have been adopted through a series of resolutions including Resolution
No. 2000-29 "A Resolution Adopting New Water, Wastewater and Parks System Development
Charge Schedules." This also served to repeal the SDCs set in 1996. For water and wastewater,
the 1996 SDCs were based on fixture counts with a single-family home (17 fixtures) paying
$2,716 for water and $2,255 for wastewater.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 1
Wastewater and Water
In 2000, this methodology was reviewed by the City through the SDC Committee for purposes of
simplifying the calculation and eliminating the perceived or real inequity of a 1200 sq ft home
paying the same SDC as a 3000 sq ft home. The objective was to simplify and make the
calculation more predictable, easier to administer and to ensure that larger homes paid a
proportionately larger SDC over smaller homes. The staff recommendation was to replace, for
single family and multi family properties, the use of fixture counts with "habitable square
footage" which equals the heated square footage of a house. This figure would be submitted as
part of the plan review process and would be clear, easy to administer and charge larger houses
proportionately more for their SDC. In order to achieve this last objective, the City developed a
series of SDC brackets based on ranges of habitable square footage and assigned to these
brackets a specific cost per square foot, with the cost per square foot within each bracket going
up as the overall square footage increased. This calculation and the resulting brackets were
designed to be "revenue neutral" in terms of the overall SDC revenue generated with this
calculation vs. the 1996 fixture count approach. Under this 2000 revised approach, a "typical"
average sized home would be charged a water SDC of $3,362 ($2,716 under old SDC) and a
wastewater SDC of $2,482 ($2,255 under old SDC).
The City's revenue status for its water and wastewater SDC accounts, of which there are 5, is as
follows:
• Overall SDC revenues for water in 2005 are budgeted at $525,000; wastewater SDC
revenues are budgeted in 2005 at $438,000.
• Water SDCs are collected and tracked under distribution, treatment and supply. '05 fiznd
balances are ($1,442,000) for supply, $776,000 for treatment and $2,643,000 for
distribution.
• Wastewater SDCs are collected and tracked under two categories; collection and
treatment. The adopted 2005 budget shows a fund balance of $1,439,000 for collection
and ($77,000) for treatment.
Specific SDC Committee Recommendations
• The City's use of "habitable square footage" for wastewater and water SDC calculation
differs from the generally accepted approach used in Oregon which is either meter size
and/or fixture counts. However, ORS 223 does not mandate any specific calculation
approach so long as the allocation methodology selected "promotes that future system
users contribute no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities" AND
"the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the
systems" is the basis for the charge. The SDC Committee did feel the use of habitable
square footage was consistent with the City's objectives for promoting smaller home
construction in the City and recommended that it be continued. However, the use of
numerous brackets in applying habitable square footage was considered
counterproductive and the Committee recommended a uniform cost per habitable square
foot.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 2
Wastewater and Water
i
• The City has funded the construction of its new wastewater treatment plant through food
and beverage tax receipts. This source of funding is not affected by existing wastewater
customers nor can an SDC designed to reimburse the utility (and its customers) for its
costs in providing capacity be applied when the treatment facilities are paid through a
food and beverage tax. Accordingly, the reimbursement portion of the wastewater SDC
does not include the treatment costs paid through the food and beverage tax.
• The City currently maintains 5 distinct SDC funds for wastewater and water. Under
wastewater there are SDC funds for treatment and collection. Under water, there are
separate SDC funds for distribution, treatment and supply. The Committee recommends
that these 5 funds be reduced to 2, one for wastewater and one for water. Any concerns
about loss of accountability by reducing the number of funds can be offset by annually
reconvening the SDC Committee to review the City's year-end report on SDC receipts,
expenditures and capital project list. The SDC Committee did volunteer their time for
these annual meetings.
• Ashland's 2000 water and wastewater SDCs are based on projects that were updated
from the 1996 SDC study. The City now has updated facility plans and CIPs for both
utilities. For this SDC update, each of these projects has been reviewed in terms of
purpose, cost, and allocation between existing ratepayers and SDC eligibility. The SDC
Committee spent the majority of its time reviewing the capital project lists and capacity
allocations for each of the wastewater and water projects. These individual projects and
their allocation to growth are now part of the City's SDC methodology.
SDC Methodology and Calculation
The City's uses distinct allocatons for future commercial water and wastewater connections to
the systems. These allocators are meter equivalents and fixture counts respectively. The capital
costs determined to be SDC eligible were divided between the commercial and single family
residential users based on the total current meter equivalents in service for water; 78.4% are
single family residential (SFR) and 21.6% are commercial. For wastewater, the basis for
allocation was the average dry weather flow from these two customer groups; 73.64% is SFR
and 26.36% is commercial.
Under ORS 223, there are two elements to an SDC:
The reimbursement fee considers the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing
users of those facilities, the value of the unused/available capacity, and generally accepted
ratemaking principles. The objective is that "future system users contribute no more than an
equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." The reimbursement fee can be spent on capital
costs or debt service related to the systems for which the SDC is applied.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 3
Wastewater and Water
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation)
Commercial &
Residential institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes
Current Equivalent Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
Calculation of the Value of CapadtyAvallable to Serve Growth:
Original Cost 25,859,286.21 7,124,571.41 32,983,857.62
less: Accumulated Depreciation (7,398,192.23) (2,038,298.68) (9,436,490.91)
less: Book Value of the Hosler Dam (59,779.87) (16,470.13) (76,250.00)
less: Grants - - -
less: Developer Contributions - -
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt
Series 1977 Water General Obligation Bonds (78,399.82) (21,600.18) (100,000.00)
Series 1997 Flood and Refunding Bonds (944,717.88) (260,282.12) (1,205,000.00)
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds (4,139,510.69) (1,140,489.31) (5,280,000.00)
Net Rate Payer Investment in Capacity Available to Serve Growth 13,238,685.73 3,647,430.98 16,886,116.71
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecast... Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,889
20 Year Forecast... Commercial Equ'nralent Meters 2640
Calculated Water Reimbursement Fee:
>}r
'~1 ~.ti. +~r-A'm7?+ri! fea:i+e
N, ...°...~a 10
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis forAl/ocatlon To Customer Classes
20-Year Plan (Year 2023) Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (MGD)* 1.90 0.68 2.58
Average Dry Weather Flow Percentages 74% 26% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Available to Serve Growth:
Original Cost $ 36,643,246 $ 13,114,425 $ 49,757,671
less: Accumulated Depreciation (4,050,653) (1,449,707) (5,500,360)
less: Grants - -
less: Contributed Capital (City food and beverage tax receipts) (8,785,659) (3,144,341) (11,930,000)
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt: -
EPA/DEQ State Rewhing Loan Program (fed. CFDA No. 66.458) (15,632,189) (5,952,573) (22,584,762)
Net Rate Payer Investment in Capacity Available to Serve Growth $ '7,174,745 $ 2,567,804 $ 9,742,549
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecast... Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,889
20 Yeat Forecast... Commercial Fixture Counts 42,237
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Fee:
s.
~ ~ 1 • •r .'tom' '35+1 p?
~'7l
` r~'`TS.yTi~ y } ti~4 er v'r 71-;, ,.4iY'!iJfitf f.•ri!'';.T's`<T,- ,.a
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 4
Wastewater and Water
The improvement fee portion of the SDC is based on the cost of planned future facilities that
expand the system's capacity to accommodate growth or increase its level of performance. In
developing an analysis of the improvement portion of the fee, each project in the City's capital
improvement plan was reviewed to exclude costs related to correcting existing system
deficiencies or upgrading for historical lack of capacity. The improvement SDC is calculated as a
function of the estimated number of additional units to be served by the City's facilities over the
planning period.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Improvement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes.
Current Equivalent'/a" Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
Calculation of the Value of CapacityAvallable to Serve Growth:
Future Project Costs Attributable to Growth:
TAP beyond Talent $ 3,189,893 $ 878,857 $ 4,068,750
Transmission Line (Reeder to Plant) 771,216 212,480 983,696
Hosler Dam Stability Analysis - - -
Lost Creek Water Rights (additional) 391,999 108,001 500,000
Hosier Dam Security and Telemetry 29,400 8,100 37,500
Sludge Lagoon Improvements 9,408 2,592 12,000
Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements 47,040 12,960 60,000
Review Chlorine-Hypochioride 58,800 16,200 75,000
Plant and Process Improvements 188,160 51,840 240,000
Filters 7 and 8 New 343,979 94,771 438,750
Waterline Replacement - Granite 108,388 29,862 138,250
Fire Flow Distribution Reservoir 194,040 53,460 247,500
Crowson Alrport-E. Main Loop 38,416 10,584 49,000
Replace Steel Line Terrace; Irrigation Ditch to Lowe 27,440 7,560 35,000
Upsize Lines at Maple, Scenic & Chestnut 49,000 13,500 62,500
Replace Line Strawberry to Grandview 19,600 5,400 25,000
Upsize Mains on Wimer-Sunnyview 49,000 13,500 62,500
New Line Benson Loop 38,416 10,584 49,000
Upsize Lines - Euclid, Prospect, Fem, Roca 53,900 14,850 68,750
Upsize Mains on Tolman Creek 73,500 20,250 93,750
Replace Steel Line on Siskiyou 31,360 8,640 40,000
Internal 4" Line Upsizing 137,200 37,800 175,000
Other Line Upsizing 147,040 40,500 187,500
Engineering Cost 1,045,187 287,963 1,333,150
Construction Mgmt Contingency 1,352,757 372,702 1,725,459
Total Growth Related Costs $ 8,395,096 $ 2,312,959 $ 10,708,055
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 4;476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Equivalent Meters 650
Calculated Water lm rovementFee.
NOW . 0.0 INic._;.i.r. ei s~3i~F ~ yzy liti"n1..~a.••i. iG~"Lt .,~,v..1."
rC..~.~ •r:..": J:r.a`:: r_•y mnaw.a.iM~cYi' .x ru _P.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page,5
Wastewater and Water
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Improvement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes:
20-Year Plan (Year 2023) Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (MGD)* 1.90 0.68 2.58
Average Dry Weather Flow Percentages 73.64% 26.36% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Available to Serve Growth:
Future Project Costs Attributable to Growth:
New Membrane Sections $ 32,219 $ 11,531 $ 43,750
Process Improvements 36,822 13,178 50,000
Thermal Improvements 92,054 32,946 125,000
North Mountain Park 231,977 83,023 315,000
Wightman to Tolman 187,791 67,209 255,000
Collection System Master Plan Update 84,690 30,310 115,000
Granite Street 12,151 4,349 16,500
North Main Pump Station Replacement 24,855 8,895 33,750
Walnut: Grant - Wimer 17,453 6,247 23,700
Street Line Upsize/Repiacement 100,523 35,977 136,500
Oak Street Lithia to A 30,930 11,070 42,000
Mountain Ave. Upsize 42,345 15,155 57,500
Willow Street Upsize and Replace 19,147 6,853 26,000
Hersey Street Upsize and Replace 16,938 6,062 23,000
In-House Line Replace and Upsize 88,372 31,628 120,000
Collection System Improvements 110,465 39,535 150,000
Engineering Cost 317,403 113,597 431,000
Construction Mgmnt & Contingency 397,251 142,174 539,425
Total Growth Related Costs $ 1,843,387 $ 659,738 $ 2,503,125
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 4,476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Commercial Fixture Counts 10,407
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Improvement Fes:
sbil
2"Si H'i-11
* Source: City of Ashland, Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan, Final Report, January, 2005, Table 2.5 - Summary of
Population and Flow Projections
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 6
Wastewater and Water
Based on the SDC Committee's review of the water and wastewater project lists and the
allocation methods felt to be most consistent with the City's policy objectives, the following are
the Committee's SDC recommendations:
Wastewater SDC
Current - SDC is $2,707 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
Proposed - SDC would be $1,613 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
This reduction of the SDC for wastewater is due to a significantly downsized allocation of
capital facility costs to growth and the removal of the treatment: plant funded through food and
beverage tax receipts from the reimbursement element of the SDC. It should be highlighted
that the food and beverage tax is due to sunset in 2010. If these tax revenues are no longer
available to fund the wastewater treatment plant, the debt service for this facility would need to
be paid through a combination of increased wastewater rates and increased SDCs.
The SDC for commercial properties will be based on fixture counts (number of toilets, sinks,
etc) at a rate of $124 per fixture. A commercial property having, as an example, 16 fixtures
would pay a wastewater SDC of $1,984.
Water SDC
Current - SDC is $3,667 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
Proposed - SDC would be $5,208 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
This increase in the SDC results from evaluation of each project identified in City's water CIP
and a more accurate allocation of these project costs between growth and current water utility
customers.
The SDC for commercial properties will be based on meter size and flow factor/meter
equivalence as established by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard for
cold water meters - displacement type. As an example a V meter will pay $4,940; 1" meter
$8,250; 1.5" meter; 1.5" meter $16,450.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 7
Wastewater and Water
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
The City of Ashland resolves that the 2006-2007 Fiscal Year Budget,
now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006, and for the purposes shown
below are hereby appropriated as follows:
SECTION 1.
GENERAL FUND
Administration Department $ 253,780
Administrative Services - Municipal Court 395,035
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 115,360
Administrative Services -Economic & Cultural Grants 504,650
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 7,000
Administrative Services - Band 61,554
Police Department 5,325,774
Fire and Rescue Department 5,262,372
Public Works - Cemetery Division 355,375
Community Development - Planning Division 2,313,591
Community Development - Building Division 801,756
Transfers 500
Contingency 400,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,796,747
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
Personal Services 35,485
Materials and Services 385,765
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) 215,000
TOTAL CDBG FUND 636,250
i
STREET FUND
Public Works - Street Operations 4,060,268
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 739,870
Public Works -Transportation SDC's 274,850 r
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 47,500
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 343,498
Contingency 153,000
TOTAL STREET FUND 5,618,986
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services 111,532
Debt Service 35,173
Contingency 5,000
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 151,705
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Personal Services 152,407
Materials and Services 394,750
Capital Outlay 3,056,000
Transfers 905,434
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) 530,000
Contingency 50,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5,088,591
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service 1,656,170
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,656,170
I
I
a
r
3
1
i
i
I
i
WATER FUND
Electric - Conservation Division 172,005
Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division 196,000
Public Works - Water Supply 3,020,879
Public Works - Water Treatment 1,400,354
Public Works - Water Distribution 3,264,112
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 457,670
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 7102,580
Public Works - Debt SDC's 123,932
Debt Services 544,457
Contingency 1,52,000
TOTAL WATER FUND 10,043,989
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works - Wastewater Collection 2,240,657
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 2,022,260
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 192,160
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 108,090
Debt Services 1,793,196
Contingency 149,000
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 6,505,363
ELECTRIC FUND
Electric - Conservation Division 9.76,645
Electric - Supply 6,557,504
Electric - Distribution 5,189,851
Electric - Transmission 1,048,600
Contingency 381,000
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 14,153,600
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
IT - Customer RelationslPromotions 223,608
IT - Cable Television 478,746
IT - Internet 7.76,310
IT- High Speed 301,179
Contingency 100,000
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,879,843
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department 998,925
Administrative Services Department 1,919,524
IT - Computer Services Division 982,388
City Recorder Division 269,768
Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,488,463
Contingency 171,000
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 5,830,068
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal Services 400,000
Materials and Services 661,291
Contingency ,32,000
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,0133,291
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Services 2136,476
Materials and Services 519,955
Capital Outlay 1,415,000
Contingency 42,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,243,431
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers '19,000
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 19,000
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division 3,868,250
Recreation Division 962,200
Golf Division 416,000
Transfers 110,000
Contingency 35,000
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 5,391,450
YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Personal Services 96,000
Materials and Services 2,335,361
TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 2,431,361
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay 331,000
TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 331,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 78,870,845
SECTION 2. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland ,M,u•n_cipial Code
§ 2.04. 0 and duty PASSED and ADOPTED this k.0 day of 1Q,. 2006.
V
I
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Signed and Approved on this day of June, 2006.
John . Morrison, Mayor
i
Appro d as fo
chael 46 Y it, C Attorney
EXH I BIT C
City of Ashland, Oregon
ATE:
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 S. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s 6
Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 7
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 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 WP.
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 witli TAP & Crowson II
SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC % 0
Residential
$/habitable sf $2.60 $0.93 $1.68 $2.61 0.30%
Commercial and Industrial (by meter size)^
5/8x3/4 $4,940 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 -1.30%
3/4 $8,250 $2,989 $5,140 $8,129 -1.50%
1 S16,452 $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%
^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 5/s" x'/4" (i.e., V 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 truex 3/4" will pass substantially more
water than a 5/8" x 3/4" as sho~m 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
(g m)^ 3/4 Meters m) 3/4 Meters ment ment SDC ment ment SDC
% 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'/z 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 - - -
Agallons 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 % o
Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7%
Accumulated Depreciation (S 15,2`8,374) (S 1 "7,254,657) 13.3%
Book Value of Hosler Dam (555,741) -100.0%
Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2%
Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds (S 175,000) -100.0%
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds (52,9=10,000) ($4,695,862) 59.7%
Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) (S633,551) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding ($3,748,551) (S21,695,862) 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 (s950,000)
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 Darn 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) n0 100.~0~0~%
TAD Q, Pump 2,000, t 0.000%
Enzcrb'cuaT Tra-Pipeline Pump
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 H") 61746,000 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% -
~11■ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4
1!
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 'T'otal 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 H") 6749600 -$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
'/'4 Inch % $
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 91,802 100% $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 rneter (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).
EC13NOMIC & 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
buildloperate.
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 WATERISEWER 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 18".
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, 2094
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 Douma---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 1 % 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 lpm 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 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.
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 290' 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 j
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 j
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/-inch water meter.
i
i
Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users. j
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%-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use. i
I
SEWER SDC
Ray noted there weren't any new changes to what was proposed at the April 421, 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 j
was based on an artificially low sdc. The capital projects have increased due mostly to a pretty dramatic increase in i
sewage treatment requirements.
SDC Committee
June 10, 2014
Page 1 of 2
i
The committee would like to see a summary of the current and proposed, in addition to the rates. Staff will provide
that.
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 81h, 2014.
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
SDC Comiftee
June 10, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
UPDATE:
TER 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 1
Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 3
Table 4 Original List of Capital Improvements & SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s
Table 5 SDC Eligible Capital Improvements with Modifications, 2014 $'s
Table 6 Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 8
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page i
Update, Water System Development Charge June S, 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 WMP
$/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 11
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069 0.3%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,79189 $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 .
11/2; . $16,451.53
2 $26,332.33
g $57,654.47
4 $98,808.00,
6 $205,866.47
8 $296,424.00
2012 WMP
$/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%
11/2 $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%j
8 $91,331.00 $186,706.00 $279,037.00 -6.2%
2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069 0.3%
$/Meter Size
3J4 $1,792.89. $3,084.22 $4,871.11 -1.3%
1 $2,988.75, $5,140.43 $8,129.18 -1.5%
11/2 $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 -L3%
4 $35,857.80 $61,685.21 $97,543.01 -1.3%
6 $74,704.35 $128,508.83 $203,213.18 -13%
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
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 ANALYWE Page 2
is
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) ($1],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) (54,695,862) 59.7%
Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) ($633,551) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding ($3,748,551) (54,695,862) 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 $1.9,947,837
Current 3/4" Equivalents Meters (EM) Number %
Residential 7,575 77% $15,359,834
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 2316 $4,588,002
Total 9,802 1009/6 $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 1:!0,000 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 `.-)0,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project `-)0,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) 0 100.00%
EFA r n y TAD Pipeline Q. Pump 24, m),go 7 9.001Q
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 26S,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 & Clearwel) ("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 .`-)0,000 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% -
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4
1•
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 734,000 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 !31,000 0.00% -
AHS Property !30,000 0.00% -
Vista Street 149,000 0.00% -
Vista Street 5,000 0.00% -
Meade Street 2:35,000 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 1.78,000 0.00% -
Pinecrest Trail 396,000 0.00% -
Penny Drive 33,000 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 35,000 0.00% -
Oak Knoll Dr 237,000 0.00% -
Ashland Street 432,000 0.00% -
1-5 Crossing 7:34,000 0.00% -
Ditch Road 2:25,000 0.00% -
Lithia '70,000 0.00%
Iowa Street 640,000 0.00% -
Granite Street 300,000 0.00°% -
~■I 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
Table5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP
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.
I
l` ECONOMIC A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 0. 0
0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 _0 0 0
O 4-0- Ln o o C o 0 0 , o'o 0 0
N : N Ln Ln th M : O in 00 rl
1-i Ln a m p N r- W n to CO Ln
Lr O O VY th ~r t/} V! - r4 Ln N r IT
Ql N `1 ~ v
H O O O O O 0 0 0 O O
O O O O O O 0 0 O O
to O O O Ln O O Lo, O O ri
N O O O N Ln o 4*, O O N
-i ~r a, Ln N t~ : O N O O Ln
p ci ! cO N I~ In
N : c-I : ci d•
Ln , o -
v► 0 N
d CO
0 0 t1
N M
E
0 0 0 0 0 0: o' o' o 0
o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O
0 o 0 Ln o o w- o o r-4
O O O N Lr) O tt O O; N
tl1 4 a) Ln N N O .0 O Ln
U O O O
O O O " O O O O
Ln Ln Ln ! Ln Ln O 0 0! 0 0 N
e N n n t\ n O e•I c-4 O 'C1
tl
N
O
N
N O O O O O O 0 0! O O O f,
O O O O O O. O 0- 0 O" O O GJ
U O 0 0 O O O: O O O O O
y O O O O O O t0. O O O LO
z N O m o- O 4* O LO O O 47
r-4 .-i LO r-I " c-L 1 O t~ O
a1 a0 _ N En
O! O
N' v
.V. rn
O
v - U
O c~
• ! U
y v
N v
ao s w o
cLB o 41 u ~ ~
U p m a~i Cd
1 Ln N N H ,n ~ Ln
Q. 3 3 3 m
41 M E O1 }
: O O O
J
11 U O U V N Q
i L Z
> (a Z-v c: fu
a) Ln 41
(D C:
v Cl m L
F- 4' 3 4 O v
E CU
a) 4~ tz (U
U m_ ai E a o Q
M 41 Wa) E
1 p U') Ln - Ln : N w oif afIIi m c O LL
to d c ~ : L H W
41
ra U LL L F V) kn : a Ln 0) C3
Ln u
,
0 4' U 41
d LL N L L f0 Vc V L U W
L4 U rU E a U E G ~ pp Ln
m (D
cz to = LL La Ln c F- a N : N 'n F- O W
I-. U Ln F- D d F- <
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 7,575 77% $3,428,040
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $1,023,960
Total 9,802 100% $4,452,000
Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 i$/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).
ECCNCMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. 2016--
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.20 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION
1999-42.
RECITALS:
A. The current Transportation System Development Charge was approved on July 6, 1999.
B. The City adopted a new Transportation Systems Plan March 19, 2013 through ordinance that
amends the comprehensive plan. The plan updates the previous master plan with new
forecasts of trip generation, capital improvements, and updated construction costs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Transportation System Development Charges project list marked as Exhibit B,
is adopted effective immediately.
SECTION 2. The existing System Development Charges and project list for
Transportation adopted by Resolution 1992-42 is repealed, effective July 1, 2017.
SECTION 3. The Transportation System Development Charges Methodology and Fee Schedule
marked as Exhibits A and B, are adopted effective July 1, 2017.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2016- Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
$ /PM
Peak-hour
ITE PM Peak- trip
Land Use hour trips
ITE Land Use Code Unit * per unit $21112
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Multi-Family 210 Dwelling Unit 1.02 $2,154.35
Multi-Family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.67 $1,415.11
Residential Condominium 230 Dwelling Unit 0.52 $1,098.30
Manufactured 240 Dwelling Unit 0.60 $1,267.27
Recreational Home/Condo 260 Dwelling Unit 0.31 $654.75
INSTITUTIONAL
Truck Terminals 30 1,000 sf GFA 0.83 $1,753.05
Park 411 Acres 4.50 $9,504.50
City Acres 4.50 $9,504.50
Neighborhood Acres 4.50 $9,504.50
Amusement Acres 4.50 $9,504.50
Golf Course 430 Holes 3.56 $7,519.11
Movie Theatre 443 Seats 0.32 $675.88
Racquet Club 492 1,000 sf GFA 0.84 $1,774.17
Military Base 501 Employee 0.30 $633.63
Elementary School 520 Student 0.28 $591.39
Junior High School Student 0.30 $633.63
High School 530 Student 0.29 $612.51
Junior/Community College 540 Student 0.12 $253.45
Church 560 1,000!3f GFA 0.94 $1,985.38
Day Care Center/Preschool 565 Student 0.84 $1,774.17
Library 590 1,000!3f GFA 7.20 $15,207.19
Hospital 610 1,000!3f GFA 1.16 $2,450.05
Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 0.37 $781.48
BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL
Hotel/Motel 310 Occupie+d Room 0.74 $1,562.96
Building Materials/Lumber 812 1,000 sf GFA 5.56 $11,743.33
Specialty Retail Center 814 1,000 sf GFA 5.02 $10,602.79
Discount Stores 815 1,000 sf GFA 5.57 $11,764.45
Hardware/Paint Stores 816 1,000 sf GFA 4.74 $10,011.40
Nursery-Retail 817 1,000 sf GFA 9.04 $19,093.47
Shopping Center 820
(under 50,000 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
(50,000 - 99,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
(100,000 - 199,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
(200,000 - 299,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000!3f GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
2- 12.6.16 Public Hearing - Resolutions for New Water, Wastewater and Transportation System
Development Charges Atch 4.docxG:\legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd
$ /PM
Peak-hour
ITE PM Peak- trip
Land Use hour trips
ITE Land Use Code Unit * per unit $2,112
(300,000 - 399,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
(400,000 - 499,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
(500,000 - 599,999 sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 3.90 $8,237.23
High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 832 1,000 sf GFA 18.49 $39,052.91
Fast Food Restaurant 833 1,000 sf GFA 47.30 $99,902.80
New Car Sales 841 1,000 sf GFA 2.80 $5,913.91
Service Station 844 Gasoline Pump 15.65 $33,054.52
Supermarket 850 Employee 8.37 $17,678.36
Convenience Market 851 1,000 sf GFA 36.22 $76,500.62
Convenience Market w/ Gas Pump 853 Gasoline Pump 19.98 $42,199.96
Apparel Store 870 1,000 sf GFA 4.20 $8,870.86
Furniture Store 890 1,000 sf GFA 0.53 $1,119.42
Bank/Savings: Walk-in 911 1,000:3f GFA NA
Bank/Savings: Drive-in 912 1,000 sf GFA 26.69 $56,372.22
OFFICE
Clinic 630 1,000 sf GFA NA
General Office
(Under 100,000 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04
(100,000-199,999 sf GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04
(200,000 sf GFA and over) 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04
Medical Office Building 720 1,000 sf GFA 4.27 $9,018.71
Government Office Bldg. 730 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $3,147.04
State Motor Vehicles Dept 731 1,000 sf GFA 19.93 $42,094.35
U.S. Post Office 732 1,000!3f GFA 14.67 $30,984.65
Research Center 760 1,000 sf GFA 1.07 $2,259.96
Business Park 770 1,000 sf GFA 1.26 $2,661.26
INDUSTRIAL
General Light Industrial 110 1,000 sf GFA 1.08 $2,281.08
General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 sf GFA 0.68 $1,436.23
Industrial Park 130 1,000 sf GFA 0.84 $1,774.17
Manufacturing 140 1,000 sf GFA 0.75 $1,584.08
Warehouse 150 1,000!3f GFA 0.45 $950.45
Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 sf GFA 0.22 $464.66
Utilities 170 Employees NA
Wholesale 860 1,000 sf GFA 0.52 $1,098.30
Source: City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge Update, [Economic & Financial
Analysis, July 2016] Table 8.
3- 12.6.16 Public Hearing - Resolutions for New Water, Wastewater and Transportation System
Development Charges Atch 4.docxG:\Iegai\PAUUFORMS\resolution form.wpd
EXHIBIT B
City of Ashland, Oregon
TRANSPORTATION:
CHARGE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Vancouver, WA
July 2016
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYEIE
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 I 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 Manual 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 5"' edition of the Trip Generation Manual to the
most currently available 9" 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 nuinber 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 4"' Street, X2 at Washington Street, and X3 at Normal
Avenue) should be allocated 100% to growth. The conunittee 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.
I~r 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"'
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`' 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 S
1•
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%
PopulatiomTmployment 1.62 1.64
Source: Tbid., 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
0
% Growth 18.4%
% Growth/Year 0.68%
Persons/Household 1.64 1.64 1.64
Employment* 13,284 17,220 3,936
0
% Growth 29.6 a
% 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
I
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
i
I
The ITE Trip Generation Manual (9' 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 9,4_56 10,746 1,290
Multiple Family-468 trips 2,5_55 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.
I 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 rnanual 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 1 User's Guide and Handbook,
91h 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
U Nt-NO••-~ MQ OI'DN"t OO0t:~rnN~It O~~ ~t~
t 0. O `O "D M 00 z v1 M M N t r1 N•- all 00 N M W)
0 O O O t7 M 0 0 0 O C= O O O O O O t/
r 0
O A cl 6.
N w H "j,
a v a ~d
CIS o
ax
a
O M
v1 00 00 n ~O M O O r- , 00 00 a, r. 40
Vn N IC ko . O: O O N 00 r- - th d d O O M a It W) N
Q Cr d c~1 -4 u, V•i 4 O 00 -4 -4 O N V; (V 4
N N' M N
D ~
00000 Coo C)ooooocDCD CD CD oCD oC) tr) tr)
00000 00 oooooOc°oo0o00o
cu L,
CL
aba
Ot-- t-- r- C) NO C) ,p--+O0000000000M0',In ) C1 Cn
Q •R yam", O O1 CJ~ CJ~ O O Cr 01 V v1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N d- of a', kD d
di O O O ' i O O O O r+ .-i r+ 0 0 0 0 O O
tom" ~ a
~ ~ W A •ir
in
U H
V) t~ ~,D I'0 W) O O CS . %,D ~t DD Cn O 00 M N M O w O O ~D
to ll: 00 00 r-+ 00 O O V i r-~ l` O N M M M t/1 t- "D C~
Q1 ~D W) m C31 N O M Q~ \O N 06 O
H
cu
w
to to to to to 44- 44.4 a)(1)+ 4) 0 ~414i-4~ 4..
b to to U O N cn 'a b "C3 'b rn 'a to to CA
c~~~ oo ~xrno a) P- oo o
x 3 3 3 3 3 00 oWC/)cnC/) CA ocn o°a ~o
a,
a
t
a
u 'C3 a
cl OOOOO OMN - O OOOv7OOO O N
R EW .~NM \~D O M CnON Md \~D"o CN•-+N -
NNNNN M V d d tntn v7tnv7v147~~ M00
m td «t
b a
o x
E W
4 3
J
d
V) to
z
C Lam,
NOA a
O ~ ~ a
O
Q) Cd :J 0
CA i~ C)
o a t,
0 0 w U U W a z
c o 0 ° ° z
cSi W ~D~ d vii O~ O V i u
c iFi
U O 0 a)G O .O U M d O o `x o~ ° txU O
as cd
-c O H w a~i H U cd x Ln L) U
Q V W to V r~ V Q .~G U ai O O H W [aj
a~ ~~n c 04 =P. C7 o (L) c wax vAaxZ xa~1 W
z 111
Nr- It 0 000CD 000\CD CD W,t- NooOMdOll Q CT CT CT
`~p1 Q a, O Wl t- O O~ O\ ON Q\ C~ Nt M oo %~O M N O'% N kn z ~O Z d d ~fi
f
O cn --q 1 V 1 V) d CT M M M M M M M 00 ' N 00 M d O N
N
~ ax
a
vl t- vl ~0o V)' N rn M Ln I'D ON 110 00 I'0 0o Q1 ON M O •-y oo N O
~~oON ~,--+NooNO~NOin',D%.O\0\DO inCo0 rr''
~i vjOOM d W) t- v7kl~ vjQ\~ +[-4 Vj6M Oa1r--
.--i
-q N r-i .--4 ' .--4 r-I ,•-w r+ .---t ...-i -4 N -M N N r-. "IN
G
t;r
v~ v i v1 oo O - t- M O W) to t` ID L N W) W) to vl O O CD O
t-- N V1 1-0 I~O r-: [l- 00 t-- V7 [ . IT . . [ . 6 6 V - O O O O ~
Q i" 0000 000000000000000000 -
N
R Z d H b
ON o,a~ON r+MCD O,o~rnQ.o,\ a\ o~ql- 00NrnQ,tl- c-- M v7 W) V)
Q p It Ct"t T MMct T't,:t •-'O~,o O OMd
~ O O O O O O O 66666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 O 666
~ R
~ W A
M0)00 N~O~N V) In N~d- NO,d ~ tj- (31, 00MVn
~O N O Vl IO \1O V1 o0 O 110 M N vl 00 a, M N M ~O N t- to O 00
W w OO ~ ~ Od•1,ONW kOr- N~~d- rrO V7 M
C4 R R V1 M ~D a, v7 d d M O oo "t d' 00 M C~ M d ~O N
N c- r` N
a '4w
R
>
d 3 H
dddd dddddddddd ~ ~w ~wwrdL.w w www
wwww wwc=.wwwwwww ~
C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 C7 C7 a C7 a t~ C7 c7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7
44 4r 4 + 4. 4+ 4-1 4a 4. 4-4 4. 4-+ 4-4 4-4 4, y O 4 i y 4r 4., 4. 4. 4. 4-4 4-4 4-4
y' cn cn w cn CA co CA rn w M CIO vn vl cn m vl Un vn M cn un a) vI
0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a'o 0 0 0 0 o O O C)
Q 0 0 0 0 O o 0 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 0 0 o O W O c 0 0 0 o O O O O
14 r-+ ' q r-+ .--i .•ti Ur r-+ r•-+
d.1
h
L p
u U
Gu tt vl \O r- O O O O O O O O N M O M O O N O O O O
W - - N N N N N N N N M M dt d' vl kn W) t- (:1 ^ M r.. ' --I
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C\ C) ~c r- C
CL o 0
cl
> .a
Q)
o ,r
N
41 @
Lr) 'En
Lw7~0Cw7C4-4 7 d dC7 °
41(
t4-4 4-4 4-4 4~ U
o d C7
J
41 y mrnrnrnrn(7~ 4-4
0 01% (ON (31) Cr% C\ cl~ (D ON tj
C1 C~rnCT~CrC, cd X.SG cd•~ O w d
O 01 01 CT 01 O\ G. i. O (:rU Z
c .n R U U) O CT - N M ~i vl En cc al 4, 4
O O O o O O N U .0 N O un U O O ~2!
C I ioo
°U ~ooo°oooo 0P"tn.x G °bz to
c
00 0
X000000 ° Icy cd (z
ccnd U yti j O O a;j cd cC U W
xwZv~v~UUdw0.lpa~UC7
111
U Ql M r- ~ ~ 00 Oo d' kn v1 N Q' N
e~-t A a N O~ lD O N O llO 00 d' N zLl~
O c} O O O O O O
a
~ ax
a
r- 00 lD m 00 ' i y M O
,--1 *-i M -I so 00 ~c 00 M It N O M
1
00 ~O 0~ M i!1 41 - { V Lr; m 'd
"C V) 00 O
41
c~d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O
r,
000000 00000000 %
v
Z CU C- c~a
a b M
Mn 0,~ (3) 0" N N N N N 00 t^.
000000 -ar•o~o F"
U W A F, .
r.,
r- MNNOC-
bDea GAS I'D I'D 00 V) rno000~zO r-
Lw
d d CL~/ O
a
H
¢dd¢dd~,d w
wwwwww wwwwww~,w
~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 C7 ~
44 44 4.4 4-+ 44 4-( 4-o 4.4 44 4--4 4-+ 4~ ° 4
[ 000000 O o 0000 ¢+o b
0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C) O W 0 U
A
Q
A,
O
4) cn
L-
C13 O
t4 "O w 4.
C W O O O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 6 c~
NmMm~1o rl- - Nm~t~r~vnt-"o
E Fy V- r- t- t-- t- t~ r ,--i - + rr 00 4+ Cdd
O A Q ~
ES cd U.
a
E o~ tn
0 O a? N
a w-am a
cn v a t~ Q
0 Z
a~
J
41 47 C) 0 is Q
u Q
LA
W 4-4 ca U C7
$-4 Q3
03 M a)
U 1=
r. V4 42
v ,o
a~ ca C/1 S
°L7tn~aC~t7,~3~
A T
111
u H .o
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 $2637015253 $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 str' ts or bold in Table 7 below.
In sum, Table 6 shows only $20.971 million of the 577.173 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 5632,253 2,816,253 100.0% 2,816,000
2012 CIP Totals $775173,253 $60,317,253 34.8% $20,971,000
w
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 12
r
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 = S2,112/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-secuon 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 $31,410.38/pump.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 13
lD O M O - M M ~,O O M "o ~t "C
r1 y 00 \C C1 00 \O ~c M a% r- M kn 00 00 C1i 00
O O d d 00M M 00 V1 O O
U 'o
~ A L
U, a
ca
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 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0
W) 0 0 0
V 00 110 cr ~O of 00 ~,O ~,O M oo m M Lr~ 00 06 G; GD
00 M M CO to Vl t-
E/4 • r O
CLO
~ W V m
u C. d
~ a
A.,
u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p 00 oc 06 o0 00 00 oc Cc 0G oo co 00 00 o0 00 00' 00
W o
C) 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
o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 a
o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 vi o o vi
C) M M to U, ckr) to Vn kn o V) O N O
P" CA r- N N E C` N It M dt
'L3 ~ f~4
a~ q
.t:
Mpp _O
W ~
A
O
U ca
o b
) o
cd
4- 0
L; C/) 3 Ca 3 Q u H
iy., y, .Q cC 4, a A ~ b O ~ in b ~
p a> m 10 (1) 4•. O- O O a~
A z O t7 3 z o
A w ~ o a~
40 =
_ ~ G7
O c p t4 A p cn O O A O O C'n
y}.~
a r T a; C/] U] Z O CD
4.1 a)
c O O c O
4-0 a)
E Q Cn w o Z U O vi cn to x Z H a
O °
aiaai
ai o
E Q' rn
a) a
.0 d x 3 a
o p" vs > > > :z
U o d Ci) q d d U J
a>1i cOc cS ' ai Q
r z Z E~ c:1 i z33dUE-~x4 z z
-°c O\ u 00 N N
t6 RS o N N 00 00 oo
N N M 41 vl p
Q
v- CC k U
W
a Cn C!) a. as w ca a4 w a O.4 a.. CL. w w a O
111
ri C) ',C t-- CaN to O O N 01 t-- M- M I i I a i i ' i
O~ O\ M N O d N 00 O N E 00 ~ 00
y t~ M O 00 01 N 116 O O N N a1 00 NT
> U 'o
~ A 'cn a
0.~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '
w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:a O t~ o~ 00 M N O d1 ~t N 00 O N -f r- ~10 co eV)-I
U t~ M M 00 rn N~ N N ON 00 It 't ~
bD
to
u a' n.
'o A rr
A o a o~ o 0 0 0 0 o a~ o ~ o 0 0 o 0 0 o a o a
~a ~ v. ~ ~
06
1 p 00 00 00 00 00' 00 o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 co
4 L. rr .-i ~ ri ~ r + ,--1 r♦ -4 .-r r+ .--4 .-r -4
o
W
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '
C O
y O O o o O O O O O C) O O O O C) O
> o o O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O
" 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A C) N `n W) kn OCD ~ M N Ln~ ON O 000 N Cy
.f:
4)
A
rn
A
-u
cc
>
~ o "o C
4- 14
cn 4., 4)
c A
Vl a> W _o
A ;n d A O ; 1 Z o o U) o o a 3
a) o 04 0 0 o b o o y o 0 0 cd o> o° 0 0 0 o C7
_ Q -0 0
tin W F-, cl +w
rn 4- 4-
F) -
cn
p LA O H
L o C/1
_5 cz
~ c°~t Z ~ tzl tW W v~ ~ U ~n a d Z w H C7 ~ G~ ti d ~ U O C7
CL
0
N
aJ
0 0
ul
41 d
}
o C/)
.6 cn .1 tYh ~ ~ Q ~ z 4.1 m
to
4- o A U 3 A J
70~ >1
0 40, U) cd
0) -Cl 4.1
3~ w t~ a U a w Q w U a 1--l U ~ pa w c~ a x to oa vl z
4
M N 00 O t` C14 "It N M It W) 00 ~ O - C3
C N 00 ~ Ic I'D ~ \D ID ~O IC t- M 110 \o I~ ~ t- t~ t~ r- w 0o C
(0 t` ,--4 O
t d ~
Q ~ U
O W W
> C14 w a w a. a w w a a a a a a P. a fsa Jar P•a a•a a.a 41 as 0-4 w P.
V H
I'D , , , , , , , , , p O M N M to -
O d N N- M O O t- O
N
O
U 66
~ A 4
CC
O O O O O O C O C) O O C O
O O C C 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p -4 ~t d N Vj O vi v r` CT 00 0T ~
N
V d N - M M CU
0o
u W a~i a
O A ,L
cry a,
U o o o 0 0 0 o a o 0 o a o a o 0 o a o 0
A Go~
. p 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co 00 oo 00 oo ca o0 00 00 00 00 06 co oc
W
[ O O O O C O C O C O O C C
O O O O O Co O C O O O O C C
> O O O O C~ O O O C O O O O
O O O O f~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A N N N C4 "D c0 - 00 C" d V~ C Ln
O
N
p b4
x
A
,Y a
• ~i d
F" v~ 'O 3 Y U, CA d v, W G> F4 U ca
u V] +to m O n a> c G o o o
U a~ v Y U O o O' O Y • r- o RS o m to
Cd m ca m >1 (L)
C4 0
Y
tLo Z C!1 z O v
Q a°° o a 0 a Q o o o o o? ° v
Y Y~(y Y Cd zx Y
cry o cn o o v~ Cl) Q
m -S4
-o a Y o A
ca a, cs o
4" (z C43 Ctl E
c o 0 0 x °o x ai T s~ .x a
cri M v cn .11, 'n
E 3 2 2 d F- cn Q cz~ O O Z W to x O a
a
0
y
cu +.r
> V
a1
D O
C
N U1
Q)
> >
v in
i d d
c
O a ccz V]
Uj Q CIS ^O Y C~ Y ¢ O Z
a/ +fV Q
d Y y C/] G
o Y b
C~l
:z CA CIO
z C,3 C/) o :5
u as
0 3-1 E
Co C,3
LA 3 d C's
x x o H 3° 3 w a x z 3 z z z
L LL
F-
c ~ ~ N r- O M ~ O U r-4 Cq
r-- 00 00 00 r-
N N M to Ln
Q .0 u
v- 0 ~ U
W
F1 a s a4 w a a a, a. a. q C~ c~ W R1 W W t~ tit Fes- O
111
y N O O O O O V O O
> U •o
O O O O O O O O O O O
y~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
y O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C)
O O ~f ~F t~ N 00 ~r oc t; ~
bA U N d O
'Iwo W v °D
rz
f-) U
•o A t°,
u
0 0 0 o a a o a o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o a a o 0
3 ~d v ~v~~r It d- It 1:11 It "t I~J- It It 1:11
p 06 06 W, 00 06 00 oa 00' 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0
W 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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C
A N N d- N M O N N ~t M
a~ p
O
S
s
x>
4
A
Q
3 mEll)
3 4 .Cd
> °
>
> G ¢ Cd 0 ~
'O
COO :3 C', cn
Cdd
C) Cd
° Z o o d a
C;j x O z Z W O A m W o x
to 4-1
L ' L+i ai as ~..w G.1 ~'"i
r
° 'd tom. W H
U O c~i O O O o cd
, on to ca o U
+
n m cd j 3
N .SC > cri
E z rn ' to ti O x O z a) cn W Q ~~a -u Gil a d z
CL
O
N
(D
0
E
4~ *5
Ln 4. Ur
R;
N X Q, n c 1
to cd 2
a b cv rn O Cd ; a . to CA i ai
O
to ~A m - 7 +0 > bi) ~ Cn is
CL 4
'b cn O 0 C/)
c~G ui Co ~O Z
m .G oo O Z Q E-+ U Z ~-1?r d O D U a p~ C7 3 U -Z z
U.
~ M oo W) t- 00 O O ~t N d' O W) N 00 It n ci4 m r N M M m M N M 'h N N N N eel M N M M
e
4- c~ V
w
~~amasa~aaataaaa~a~asaaaaaomasa~oaasas~aaaaaa~
H
lD ' 1" M~c i CT O . - O ' M N O I 0',
e-i +W O v) c, V 110 V. lqr It ct' N ~D vl C~ O
N cu t` v1 ~O EA O -
> U O 6l9
Qa
O O O ' O 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O ' O O O
rn 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
00
o
y tu U N oo O kn C) It (V
y W V r. b
Q U a~ o
'o A L
A ~ o 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0.o a o 0 0 o
C~ et d V v d ~t 'd `p lzr It O Nt d
O 00 o0 oG 00 00 00 cC 00 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 00 00
W
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 0 0 O O O
y: O O O O W) O O O O ~O
A ti O v1 N M t'- t~ t` N 00 00 00 ~ ~ O
01 O t N
.C
bD O
x
A
cn E
on
d) cu
C/) cto Q a1 a
o
A x aCdi ~ z~ ° ° a\ o
a o cri Z5 ° O
dp~D
H O W c~
U s . ° U ccS xCy
c cad a s M :x i x
as Lt
~ A, 0. bA a> rn
W cn C/) x x¢ rn U in ~a 3 z O
fl.
0
a~
~ Y
iOr L C1 ~O O O W_
41
V) w a~ O a O O ° w z~ ~s O a
c v, > > .Q to a~
o y, ° ~4 Cq O > v~ A za a
c~ to rn ~ s~
~4 9-11
H ZZz H Zcnd¢Iiiun W3Zin~Q z_
L IL
76
U I V I M V1 ~O Q1 I~ M N 00
C z
Q Z O
4- m U
° W
cn r/] zn En C/) In 04 P4 0~ 04
111
i
4- o0 t- N O V) d V) 00 N O N M m
ON Q ~ O M 64 \O V) V) V) t-- r- ~ ~O 06 t-
00 V'1 m N N t- t~ N N (O\ ke)
U 'o m
cn a
a~
O O O ' ' ' O O O O O O G O 0 0 ' O
y 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 C o
~ rn
.r O V) oo t- O N a; O \D N O M ~10 to r{
b!! M 01 M O M It M V) Vl t-- r- V) t- t-
oc m N N t t` cN N a, k a~
W v m
U " a
A a
a
o a o 0 P.
U
o o 0 0 0 0 o o a
o v ~t d o ~t o o ~t o IT ~ 0 0 o v
°2 a o 00 00 00 00 00 to 0o Vi o 00 0 o0 00 00 0 o Vi 00
W o
q O O O t r ' O O O O O O G O O O O O O
y O O p O O O O O O C O O O O O O
> O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O
' Vi Vi O O; O N oo ~O O O v7 Vi cv tr
M O O ON O N r- rn O C O, O N O N
A 00 t- N M M N to %rl m N V) -I M
N N - M
y L" r, N .-i [Y M 14,
U
x
A
o I:L~ ate,
^ U
cad
U O U
cd
c 0 3Con C. cd o >
6) cA
4) d) cn
L- t: > cad, U A g o
A Cn Z
W W ° Z cn 9 o 'G' ° ZCd u x
8n o
H ° O
/O
o> o> c~ c~ ; H ra „ o Y Q o Q U
c ~'n o aoi ~n d U d) U > n cn r Q U
c M cd O cs U cd
1 U U N v1
m v U cad U a' N
con
E as z °z 003~.i°Z~How33~ti~x
CL
O
as
E Z rn o rn W
rn
twit X r ON W w p U Q UJ
V) W O •v b -o Q cs + k k }
o v~ ~o± ¢ rrn vI v) c v U A rrn A 0 ~o-± W W 0 A a~ i
(U cd q •2 Cd o + o o U p3 cam. Q a Q
0 04 rn N N
CL B
O yy cn Z to Z 0 ~rn1 r, rA
C: ~r 1-4
- 4
C V) Q\ m N• m N N d d \4) O1 O N M t-- 00 O tl
N~ M c~h N a1 ~ ~f' M~ d' ~t d' '--i N N N M N N N N N M ~
t~ p
L y Z
O
Q a
cQ U
F " P a~ a: w 9 04 P4 cw c4 a; w c4 04 w w p, a., w' a! P4 P4 a w' 0 w
u h I I I
i i i i i i - W) o0 N et N N
O u N O to O O N M ~
N O ~ vl O M N
A a &J 1~ 6R
s9
O o O O o 0 0 0
4 O o CD
°o po ° °O °
H
bA V O 0 0 ON
cf ~O Lei a M oo O~
U d 6f? N6R a
'o Cos
A
w a
~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 o
O rq O O O p Op
M M 0 0 0 0 M
W \
0
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O M M M
d O O O C) C) V) tn
O O N N N
_
i~ >
N O oo 0 0
00 N O M 00 M
~yI G N 00 ao N O
b
A
co
z o
U
cd O
i cn Cl)
L~ A
d l d U
ul En 00 rA
A z
o bq
bl)
-a cts
CA CA rA 4w lei
Ri W t~ U P~ U U a
b
O U
p.
IC21 ,c
a~
W o oZj U F~ ul
cn W a~ 43 Q r
C' O Q' Kam. 4 O U J
O V1 `4 a4 W N W Uo y cd d
t0 P-W N O bq H w
as `4 .4~ Cd a A Q
cn C3
E 4
O cd O $ O O 4 O O 1.0
i O cad
00 C~ ru M M Cr O ' N M O U
fII U~•' a
Q ca
tLii z
Q U
4- RIk cc O C/I
W
Ri R~ N. Fri LLi U O
oc o o 0 0 0 c~ o o -.10 c o o~ o c o
V1 V) O t M %C M t- Ca M O V7 00 N OO
N co M o, 1 ~ M N C, -
~p N
W
O ci
N C
d
O v O v M M - O
4ai c O ~'1 DD ,C.t C O ir'• ` CO ~C M N Vl C:
DD 00 (mil N 0, %C M
OC 1` ~ ~n N
r- 110 t- It c, c) rn W) c~
A O N
N O r'1 C v F N M M N
64 Eft f OG C6 IE s f~ 69 64 6-
Ell, CA
Fi? tf, tr
Efy N N O r- N 0 0 0 0 00 r- M 0, M - Le) N
M r M N O to V) N Lr, 00 - ~,C M ~,C V) Ifi
M N M
~ Tl• Ul 00 l`- V• M ~1• ~ G1 V'1 V' M
,Q C1, N ~/t ON 1,0 V) v1 O O O C - c~ r- M (O1 tf) V) f
0. i 6A O N ~O t~ kn kn v,, to in to ~o ~c N
O
c a Gf E!3 64 69 V) E~ H? V) Ef• h? 6F?
cs
N V- N O 00 kn O O C LC N (D 00 0, N
o ~o M o ~n ~n M oo M N M N
W ice. 0 0 0 0 d d M O 6 6 0 6 0 0
O V N 110 d V) O V) O M Oo 00 kn \0 N W d Ln 0)
O d N 00 N A M 1,0 O N N ~o O~ O M 01 M
M M 00 1~0 O M cV 110 a, I~r O M O O N w` w r-
F d d - Q1 r- w v1 - (01) W) N t~ oo V) r- - O
d O M N 01 \O M M 0o M N N M M
Ge A N N N
d 66
C
L
L
U tr) N 00 C-- w O M O ^-O O O 00 0o O 0, ~
O O O O O V) O N 00 M Tt d
y b4 Q O\ 1~6 kf i t7 M O N N tn* d• ~ M O 00
4.1 .~i
d ~ F cx
d 3
rA
a)
N d
co coo a i a Y 4~ 0 O
G4 h0 ~A hA OA ~
a~
s.
w
4J
L U
03 cu
.C O
a~
U
C) O ON 0 0
a-+ "C W C N ~ V• ~ M d' 1 O 0 N M d•
N N N - I:t V~ kn Vn V)
N a+4 rFy C V N N M
E
0- 'Q
O
N
co
co
E
° a, ul
N J
C 4
m rA
r" a
o w 0 0
p b U U o
c o o ' o° a CC3 F z
Q v W w ~ F Q w o 0 0
A ►-y ° U 2 d a o o w
0. ~ W v3 ~ ~ ~ ate' Z H ~ as C7 ~ a ~ W
111
o a o ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 ~ o
00 'n Q_1 00 OC N o` M 00 M V1 V'1 M V1 110 ~10 CY d' C1'
O v
N =
d
y O 00 -r O o0 C .D t` M r- O 01 I'D 110 00
ya `r' a1 M O t-- 101 N O N N c ON " O
`r1 d ~r N a` a, d' G1 t-- to t- 00 N O lzl- O O
'r " a, M O dt t-- V) N O Nt kn N 0, rn w
601 ` vl N V) M N N O vl d' r- O Ol\ t
O v<• 69 69 ~ l~ \p ~ ~ v'i Vl d' ct ~t V) N N
64 6° 614 600 69 64 6'3 64 6° 69 M ON
~ f~ 69 64
~y 00 r- CT t!1 00 M 01 Ln O t~ M M M M M M M C N
D ri M O ct 01 M~~ tt d: N N N N N N N Qt OG N
O ''i v1 d O N M N cf
N 00 t- Okf) 00 I'D V' O I'D a1 M M M M M M M V1 O
6R ~ N It t- V, t` 110 t, C O N N N N N N N O 01
x L ^ ^
Vj N ~ O O 01 00 CO 00 00 00 GO OO 01 Q`
y 69 611, 69 64 69 69 ~ 69 64 64 64 M ON
pr 64 69 64 6° 64 64 6° 69
a .Ct, CN 't• O \0 r- V ~D N t-- V ~t C O C O 0 0 0 G1 O
al it 6J 0 o0 C'l - M t` V) O vi t` O G1 ON O. O1 G1 ON a, It M
O t-- C C kr~ V) Vl :t 6~ M M M M M M M 00 r--:
o
d O O O 00 00 G1 01 t- O N ~D O \D M d' t-- ul N
Cl O O Oll~ V M It Cl) t- kr) O - 01 O N N tt t-
01 C+'1 \0 Oo c+1 M 06 V) M cn M 001 N W tr) ~ CV 4 ~ N
V) N 110 O N ~D O a` M M
H e! . - N r- ~t Ln ON d; 1") O 00 N ID W 'rr N N N t
t- A N N M N M Vl d N M M M M M M M ~D
a
U t- 1.0 C It t- 0 M tn r- vi ~D W) C14 "t 01 01 M tr) 110 01
;0-1 O O M G1 dT V, N G, t` 00 N V) - N OO N O N O
03
o N vi N tri 00 Mi ~t W) r- V; a` ~
'o 4) 1.4 4~ - C14 - C11 (1)
a E~ a
a 3
~ o d d d d d d d¢ d d d d d d
GdL w Gt pa o w w w w w w w [z. LL, w w L=. PL. c:
4~ N 44 4+ N 'O 4. 4. 4-. 4. t:4 4. 4. 4-4 4. 4. 44 4-+ 4~ 4.
cn cn O COO cn cn CA W cn rn ti m :n cn cn En cn
o C o ¢ o 0 o O o 0 0 o O o 0 o O o
C) o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o C o 0 0 0
0 0 0 C-) O o o O C CD, CD C) C o 0 o C C)
O
a
to
L
U
O V) O O O O N It V) 110 t- C O o 0 0 0 C O N M
W p ~.O k0 01 ~ N • -r N N N N N N N N M M
(U .F.r v) Ln (n 110 ~D M 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 OO oO
E
n.
0
a~
a)
0
E P
ca
N
i-. - In
Q d d d d
o w l z. w 4-0 40 0 z
a~ U d C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 a
c6 pool ,j 41 4a 4~ 4r 4 ~ J
~ W y., I/ cn v1 cn to v.S Q
Q. N r-~ i0., V 0\ 01 Ol Q1 C1 Q
N i- 0 O 4 01 01 01 O1 al 01 Z
O a 0. 3 U C/1 F, O; O1 01 O1 01 :z z
• cn Y O O a1 01 01 01 01 0
F- W N O tct 0 + O G\ N M kn
E..1 U + + w O d1 i II i , , N W
C) oC~l
2 2 0 0 00 0 0 c~ n
0 CD CD CD C) C) CD 0
Cj o W a 0 3 i 0 0 oO oO 00 oC w a
4- o s~ cn Z _O 0 V -0 &n sy o v, - N M W) U
O cd O O o O v cn O` to w w
C) Q a Z x p cam" Q x z x w
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0
07 C O 00 N ~ M 00 M M V7 G\
o ("I \O c+) V \O N \G M \o O, m t~ N O N
O~ M M N N O\ ~
O U
21- c-i 4]
N ~
00 CA "o o0 M O M O O N M O\
A O O w 0o N ^ oo O vi 00 M ~n O
O ^ \p r- t- r- d- O\ O\ d 00 00 v1 O
y3 M d d^ O N rt r O co [t Q\ O \o
bF? M [1 M 6° v) EP VR 69 64 61
69 64 6H 64 VI 69
EA-
y, N N \C N \D \C N N ~t V in "o I N
O1 V) M \O ON 00 It N O O O r- O M"D rn N
N
M d o0 O G\ O ON N t~ 00 r-~
bb
a .a' r j V J tom- O G, r- N O\ N~ 110 fu
y: 69 G\ O \O V) . + oo M
Lr Mr- `O N w^ M M M a\ M N O N N
U w f!3 M •--i r- ct tf 64 V) 69 69 69 69 69 M 69 64
y+ 69 64 69 64 64 64 64
CC
O V) r- N oo O M G\ G\. rn O\ r- G1 M r- ~
as 1~0 M N G\ N V) 140 d' d' N d' O1 llc~ O N
Cd 1. y
y r+ N N 00 ~c C~ d O ~ ^ C\ d
Qr L CC M N
a, ~ a z z
re) It O Iti' V) M N V rn oo r- d- \o 00 V) M M t`
C~ ^ M O 00 N M V) V) N N A M W) O1 O1 O M
M d O N r- O> ~ I'D 00 W vi O t- r- d' O
E d N N N d M O C31\ O v) d~ \O O C\ O~10
yy Qd N V' ^ ~t N N M V-J N N - M d' d' t~ N
A
J.r
L
R
U lp oo 110 110 00 O1 O\ M O 00 N O t- 00 d- 1,0 M
bD "Z7 Qr N N N . , \0 V) 00
d ~
Q ~ Q~ ~ Q~ Q~ Q Q Q ~ Q~ Q~ Q~ ~ Q Q Q Q~
,,1 w ~ Vic.., ~wwww c.>:. wwwwwwwww
C~ a C7 a Z7 L7 C7 C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 C7 C7
r`-, N O 4-4 N 4.. 4 , 4-1 4. 4+ 4. 4-. 4. 4~ 4+ 4-+ c.. 4-+
rn rn M m ti rn M 0 v, &n ti ti 0 cn
O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O
O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O w W 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O C O
a,
tw
L -
cu
y
d d O^ M O O N O O O O O O - N O O
E" O d d V) V) t~ Q1 M N M M M \o
(V „y U 00 o0 00 00 00 00 00 G\ O\ \o t- r- r t- t- t r-
CL a
O
Q1
E
~ cl~
UJ
o }
Ln Q. ^ J
O cn _ Q Q
O
41
y O bq Q
00 3 a b Q a
Q z1 +J 4. 'C3 ~1 v, n
V) x> rn a) a) z
C 0 v3 N C o, ~ v ~ Q
a ftJ ca 3 q o w as a~ z
H o L
4- v O
r-+ as v o A A o 0 4-. p C2
c ~ ~ O a, o U a d
p . o
~
b ::s Q U">> c3 v' C/) 03
py Z E~ z 1.) Z
1z u C,4 'o
6 a)
o ai Z o o a z w a, o to w
Z cn cn U U d G~. q m U C7 C7 cn G~ CA z
111
o ~ ~ o 0 0 0
h a, .o N C, h
M o. h - h u,
i
lD ~
O
N ~
> L ^ O .-a N 0.
N N
A ~ O ^ O c~
(-~j ~O C ~D N M
Eft _ E,4 ES (A C6 Ef?
L ~y oo M h 00 V) ~O O N
ti O N O IT ~,o M
O
00 0 O ~ ~ C06 , fa
a .L' C. ~.j 00 M
0
Goa N ~t r- v') G~ I;t O p.
~y 69 EA Efq EA ER
c~
00 00 tr) V') r1l
O \.O 0000 h It N U1
O O O O O
a L CQ
a~ a z
h N h h
h \11 V, 00 h
O O\ O N ON N IC N
~1 h N I'O ~o N C)
~O M N N h
~d 46
C
L
L
U - 00 h M "o 0
'C 00 .O 00 M '~t N O M
^cs a. ~ ~ ~n ~ M
Rio x . ~ h
d 3
d d ¢ Q Q ¢ ¢
Cw7 C~7 ~7 C7 C7 Cw7 ~ Cw7
w w 4~ w 4+ 4+- o
w C4 Ln tn Cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 o
o 0 0 0 0 0 o
O o 0 o c o W o
v
on
m H
°3 a C 0 o c o Cu w ~ ,a
E
o.. a
0
a~
a
E
~ w_
to N
J
C Q
O Z
4~ c Q co~
t cd Q
w
3-i
O
U
b
P, ~4
c x o n o
cl
Q Cd 't 1 O
O 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 I 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 CasinoNideo 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 ANALYSIS Page 25
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips
ITE
Code Land Use Unit' 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 Parka 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 L57 - 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 1,0.00 SF GFA 0.52
861 Sporting Goods Superstore 1,000 SF GFA
8621, 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' 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 1,060 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 iindoorseating) 11000 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 Intermodal 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' 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, 039 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 10141
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
Bed ` 0.37 0.21 0.51
620- Nursing Home;
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
~w
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 035 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 1.1-7
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 32A0
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 PrivateSchool'(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 512 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 6.78 113 12.73
591 Lodge/FraternalOrganization 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 13 8
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 Employee0.64
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/Fraternal-Organization 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 j
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 1
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 3
413 State Park Picnic Site
2
7
S
ECONOMIC nNANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 31 i
~ a
i
f
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
933Fast-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 Uriit 0.03 0.02 0.05
520 Elementary School Student 0.28 0.09 0.50
522 Middle School/Junior High School Student 030 0.12 0.63 !
530 High School Student 0.29 0.10 0.74 9
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
3
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 l
a
s
3
1
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 32
i
f
i
9i
4
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 Employee1 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
i
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 MilitaryBase 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
i~ 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 5 039 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 I l 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
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'Nhat 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 1:1 Opm.
Introductions
The members introduced their name and affiliations.
Troy Brown Jr.---Planning Commission
Allen Douma---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
proj ects.
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 1 % 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 lpm in the Siskiyou Room.
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary Mc Clary
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 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.
Minutes approval - March 181h. 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 WIMP 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
that.
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 8th, 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 1
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 wager 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 WIMP 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 %A from
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
11/2 $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%
11/2 $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%
11/2 $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
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.
t! ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee
2011 2013 Allocation % o
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 11114,484,761 -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. (-)00,000 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) 0 100.00% -
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,'-)00,000 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% -
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 287,000 0.00% -
Ashland Street 432,000 0.00% -
1-5 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% -
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
Table5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP
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.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6
CD (D CD CD 0 CD a C) CD
N o O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O , O O O ,
r14 N Ln Ln It m O a' t!1 00 N
KZT m r` N r` l0 ^ t0 ('n Lr)
r ON 0 0 4j,)'
a
i
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
c/} O O O Ln O O LO O O
N O O O N Ln O CF O O N
,-1 ct rn Ln r-4 r, O r. O O Ln
O ci w N t~ m
N rj rj Cf
v> O f\
O
O co
O O a
N M
O
E U
O v
0
Q
QJ
0
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O Ln O O w O O
O O O N Ln O O O N
y/} 4 m Ln N r` O n O O Ln
'Ct c-i CO N I~ (n
aj
LU o o o 6 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O
U d
O O O O O O O O O O
Ul) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O O O O
N ~ ~ r` t~ O e-1 r-I O
~ c-t 'II
C
cz
N
O
N
N O O O O O O O O O O O c
O O O O O O O O O O O O U
U O O O O O a O O O O O U
y - O O O O O O Lc d O O & 3
EA m l0 N O m O O T' O Ln O O 4-
0 rI ri O ri n O O
~ c--I w r
O p
N U
~ O
O ~
4-1
c~
U
Cam, ~
O
U
U
ccz
~ U
3 ~
y U
Q)
V O
LL O ~
(B
U O D ( a:
O Ln ; - + „ ui
c s. a V)
3 3 cn
v
}
0 0 o U
Q U ~ 0 U m V v~ Z
Q7 ca Q -O "1 +f6 o F~
(ii 2E > = f0 U J
N L
ai p, c m v ° 3 a L v Q
L E L U -0 W a,
m
M (3j -0
y v0- L° CJ Q O V OL O Z CA 4
4-1 4-1 4
Ln (n cu
L
N (o U O L O o_~ U
U 41 L- 4-1 ai W N Ln Q a. N L im + QJ
4..J 4-1 ro >
L/) Ln 06 V) Ln 4- z 0' 4.1 - U M
Q
N L ca 4+ 2 L O U
OJ N 0_ m C W L L c W c~ (.7 1 4J L U w
-0 w
Li- < F- r14 0
E., U Ln H a
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 7,575 77% $3,428,040
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $1,023,960
Tota 1 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 calcilate 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 $2.5 million of ISDC 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
Parameter 2006 2014 %
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 mgd.
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
C) C:
-C v
4~ rli
a a o o +c~ o a ~o a
4 mow, o. Qw, a ;e
cn rl r-I 00 00 ch CYl 00 O U7
m m s7 o r-
° Lin U-)
~ Ln O O r` N O d 4-1 Q) I- M
= V) V-4 00 0 Q CD N N U7 Ca 0) O O Lf I O Ul
CL m
O ° O +-I m O( m mt O d
> E V} M, V} m US Ln N V)- N.
O 4CJ t!i s--I r-~ 00 00
Vk V]
C -tn 1.
t ~
O 3 O M LO r- O O r~ 0) 4D
a~ W w N C31 N N tD l6 00 4 m
U (n En
4- - Q r< 0) r-4 r-I 00 rl_ U"i
cu = m
a) 0
(U V } to V5- s •i s~-I m
(3) W C > 00 00 O O O O 00 It N
co O cri 00 m llD 00 O O ri Cat s-I
0 -c E r_
o 0 N It' m m d CJl
u ,0 0 N ICT m M
u N 440
Ln r C V-J- t!} r` C1 d C) r-I CD
O m w O 00 O O CTl rv r•
cD L m CJ7 N N d r• N
° 3 t v} V-J- tri- r-1 r-i m
o U ca V~ V)- O Q
~ a vii
~ o a o a o a o a
. L- a
max. o'. o
+-J M e--I e- 00 00 (3) 0) O 0)
a U) U) m m rz d' Kr O r-
vbO 1-4 T-4
O O r~ r~ O O m
O C m r-i
3 t r d CD 0 O Q O O O
E 14 N O lr m m O O O
iI VJ- O V4 N if i Ln 00 V)- 00
(U (U 3: L- 0 t4 V-1
t1 rv M
aJ L m 4,.4
4-1
(U L L rm+ o o m m er 0) m
0 0~ 0 00 0 N O o O lD r-
41 N U; N. C1'1 tD lD U1 1,4 6
Q- ca Q 01 ~ r-I ~ lD LD N
CLO Q u d' lD N N rr7 N lD
• tJ +J} t1'~ V tom!} t{J
QJ 0 0 O o r-{ CJ) O
Q 00 d w tD C] O o tD r•
=3 r- IUD LO
d e~,+ CD m N 00 m m U~ 1° LD'
'tl} CY, V-)- C37 4t qi m m 0 ~
~ 0) m Ca Ca w O ~
O tI} tJ~ tJ~ Vi i t~ v
O Q)
4-J 4-J
3 a~ V)
CL c
_0 ~ O L.L Q m r~
Q Q" t~' sue" u W O
U (U V) Ln V) up tJ7 tJ} Q~ M L. M p
IL - 4-0 (U cm Q) 0
W (U W Q) 4--J Q) M
.O • Q) C M Q) 40 L.
m a' a Li- LL m ry, LL 0
O~~ Z ch
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 10/6/14. 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., AIIE~n 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 17, 2015
Page loft
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, 4/15/14, 6110114,
7/8/14, 8/5114 and 1017/14. 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 oft
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Annual Appointments to the Citizen Budget Committee and Municipal
Audit Commission, and Appointment of a Council Liaison to the
Municipal Audit Commission
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Annual appointment of two positions on the Citizen Budget Committee with 4-year terms ending
December 31, 2023.
Annual appointment of one position on the Municipal Audit Commission with 3-year term ending of
December 31, 2021 and appointment of 1-year term for Council Liaison.
Annual appointment of council liaison to the Municipal Audit Commission with term ending
12/31/2017. Councilor Rosenthal is the current liaison.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The deadline for submission of applications ended on November 11, 2016 and notice of these vacancies
were published in the local newspaper and placed on the city website.
Budget Committee member William Gates and David Runkel whose terms are ending have requested
reappointment. New applications were received from Paula Hyatt, Saladin Amery and Sharon Harris.
Municipal Audit Commission member Roberta Stebbins has requested reappointment. No new
applications were received.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
None
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to appoint/reappoint and to the Citizen
Budget Committee with term ending of December 31, 2023.
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
and
I move to appoint/reappoint to the Municipal Audit Commission with term
ending of December 31, 2021.
and
I move to appoint Councilor as the liaison to the Audit Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
Applications
Page 2 of 2
1'
~r
City Recorder's Office
c/o Barbara Christensen
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
November 9, 2016
Subject: Letter of Intent, Applying for Citizen's Budget Committee
Dear Ms. Christensen,
I am writing to express my interest, and request consideration for, the vacancy on the Ashland Citizen's
Budget Committee. My professional experience in budgeting, valuation modeling, and project
management, combined with my enjoyment of community involvement, lend themse-fv-es well to the
Citizen's Budget Committee.
My family and I moved to Ashland six months ago, and currently I stay home with my young daughter.
Subsequently I am in a unique position to draw from over 15 years of business experience and advanced
education, while bringing a fresh perspective and flexible schedule availability to the committee.
Additionally, Ashland's model of citizen inclusivity in the budget process, and provisions for soliciting
feedback from the community appeals greatly to me. In my experience, collaborative processes yield
strong comprehensive plans and I would welcome the opportunity to contribute.
Please find my application form and resume attached and thank you for your consideration of my
qualifications for the position. It would be a privilege to lend my time and professional knowledge in
support of a community my family and I have quickly come to love.
Sincerely,
Paula M. Hyatt
BY:..
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITE' COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email chn'ste, 0-,-.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Name ,1'aula ~VfHvatt
Requesting to serve on: - -'1' ens Budget ('(,)mm Wee_ (Corn mission/Committee)
Address -625 Vern Sant Street Ashland, OR 97520
Occupation: h'inancial Analyst Account Algr. Phone:
Home:__ 518-2?3-2719
Work: _
Email: paulamanny@hotmail. eom
Fax
1. Education Background
What schools have you attended? the George Washington University (Graduated 2000)
State Universitj> of New York at Albanv (Graduated 2007) _
What degrees do you hold? Bachelors in Business Administration and Masters in
Business Administration
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
Please see attached resume
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
Please see attached resume
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? My finance education and business
experience will help me contribute to the committee immediately however I alwavs
welcome educational opportunities. I would especially be interested in city budget and
governance specafic training.
Y~ ~
I LALI
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position? Ashland's model of citizen inclusivity in the
budget process, and provisions for soliciting feedhack from the community appeals
greatly to me. This process lends itself well to my professional skill set and desire to
serve my community.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes, I am available to attend
special meetings. 1l~Iy preference for meetings would be evening but I have daytime
flexibility as well.
5. Additional Information
How long have you lived in this community? _6 Allonths
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
n r\
Date Signature
Paula M. Myatt
• 625 Van Sant Street, Ashland, OR 97520 • (518) 253-2749 • paulamarmynhotinail.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Senior Account Manager Aceredo Health Croup, Inc., Memphis, TN Jan. 2012- May 2014
- Actively managed and grew key accounts, across a diverse suite of services, generating revenue greater than $25M annually
- Responsible for creating new products and services in support of key client needs resulting in upselling opportunities of $3M
- Coordinated and conducted orientation of new Account Managers to job roles, responsibilities and expectations
- Developed curriculum, and facilitated comprehensive training sessions, educating peers and senior management on Accredo Intake,
Clearance and Pharmacy Processes
Product Development Analyst Nov. 2011 -Jan. 2012
- Provided project management leadership required to execute on client-focused products and associated marketing strategies
- Responsible for financial modeling necessary to articulate economic benefits, across all stakeholders, for new products and services
- Developed a standardized initiation and diligence process to efficiently examine product development requests and opportunities
Project Manager Sept. 2010 - Oct. 2011
- Successfully met project milestones and completion dates due to excellent organization and time management skills, as well as
timely initiation of troubleshooting measures when warranted
- Managed the vendor relationship with consulting services inclusive of deliverable prioritization and contract administration
- Provided Executive Management with key success factors for growth initiatives including project plan development, status updates,
financial reporting, successful on-time completion of three site closures, and direct communication with stakeholders
Business Development Senior Financial Analyst May 2008- Sept. 2010
- Conducted valuation modeling and due diligence in support of over twenty Business Development project initiatives
- Facilitated deal closings, drove team to achieve an aggressive close dates, and aided in integration of business functions
- Supplied comprehensive analysis on capital projects to determine the project benefits and return on investment of proposed projects
Senior Multi Function Financial Analyst Lockheed Martin, San Diego, CA 2006-2008
- Selected for, and graduated from, the elite three year Lockheed Martin, Financial Leadership and Development Program (FLDP)
- Successfully implemented and maintained Earned Value Management on programs with combined assets greater then $100M
- Composed, executed and revised actionable sales, orders and profit forecasts contributing to overall corporate performance
Financial Analyst Lockheed Martin, Schenectady, NY 2005-2006
Clearance: Department of Energy
- Coordinated, prepared and presented monthly financial reviews and analysis for use by the CFO and key management
- Demonstrated skill for quantitative analysis and forecasting necessary for execution of overhead functions and facilities work plans
- Team lead responsible for coordination and composition of the Finance Department 2007 Strategic Business Plan
Accounting Operations Analyst 2003-2005
- Chaired the Laboratory's Travel Council responsible for management, execution and reporting of a S3.0M travel budget
- Accountable for cash ledger and banking activities including ledger entries, transfers, cash deposits, draw downs and reconciliations
2000-2002
Senior Analyst Lehman Brothers, New York, NY
- Promoted to Senior Analyst of the Retail Account desk after nine months in the Operations Analyst role
- Coordinated settlement instruction data clean-up project and created cost savings by improving information efficiencies
EDUCATION:
Masters Business Administration State University of /Ven, Fork atAlhany, Albany, New York Fall 2007
Bachelors Business Administration The George Wwvhington Universi(r, Washington, DC Spring 2000
- Graduated Summa Cum Laude from the School of Business with concentrations in Finance and International Business
- Recipient of the John Henry Cowels award for outstanding academic achievement in the International Business Program
Study Abroad 0_vford university, Oxford, England 1998
- Studied business practices of Great Britain through interactive case studies with top international firms
VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE:
- Treasurer, Billings Ranch Home Owners Association, Ashland, OR Sept. 2016 - Present
- Group Coordinator, Strolling Moms, Charleston, SC 2014 - 2015
2011 - 2013
- Liturgy Committee Chair and Pastoral Council Member, St. Peter's Church, Memphis, T ini
BY: .
CITY OF .ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following, questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb{a?ashland.orms. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Narne Saladin Amery _
Requesting to serve on: Citizen Budget Committee (Commission/Committee)
419 Waterline Road Ashland OR 97520
Address
Occupation self employed Phone: Home 970-274-6967
`Mork
Email samery26@gmaii.com
Fax
1. Education Background Ithaca College NY
What schools have you attended`?
What degrees do you hold? BA English Literature
Minor in Psychology
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
I worked in finance for over 20 years in various managerial capacities, building trading,
sales and structureing platforms that required producing and managing business plans and
budget allocations
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
I have held the position of President of Bank of America Securities Japan, along with
Managing Director positions responsible for a multitude of people and business lines
that had to deliver a return on investment each year. These positions requried that I
not only produce sound business plans, but also the ability to understand and
decipher the budgets necessary to accomplish them, in delivering to the bottom line.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further- training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Yes if the training makes sense and my
schedule permits then I would be happy to
attend
B Y:
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position:'
I feel I have the necessary skill set and the time to allow me to make myself
avai a e o e comma ee. can imagine e respond it"fy tfial-~ e commit tee-
bears and wish to be a part of that process and contribute to the community
_
that have chosen to ive in an raise my children.
4. Availability
Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings
Yes I can be available, evening meetings would likely be best
Additional Information
flow long have you lived in this community? I moved to Ashland in November 2014
Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position
I hold financial licenses as per the following, US Series License 3, UK
Financial License FSA (Equivalent to the US Series 7), JSDA Financial
License for Japan, HKMA License 1 for Hong Kong and the STMA Financial
License for Singapore and Australasia. I have lived, worked and traveled in
multiple contries across the world and I believe along with my work
experience, I would be a strong addition to the committee
Oct 28th, 2016
Date Si{)nature
R~
3. Interests
Why are you applying for this position?
I feel I have the necessary skill set and the time to allow me to make myself
avaj a to the committee. can imagine the responcibility a the committee
bears and wish to be a part of that process and contribute to the community
that I have chosen to live in an raise my children.
E ' ..4. AvailAbilit
Are-you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled
w meetings? `Do you prefer day or evening meetings?
Yes I can be available, evening meetings would likely be best
5, Additi661 Information
How long have you lived in this community? I moved to Ashland in November 2014
please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this
position '
I hold financial licenses as per the following, US Series license 3, UK
Financial License FSA (Equivalent to the US Series 7), JSDA Financial
License for Japan, HKMA License I for Hogg Kong and the STMA Financial
License for Singapore and Australasia. I have lived, worked and traveled in
multiple contsies across the world and l believe along with my work
experience, I would be a strong addition to the committee
Oct 26th, 2016
r, Date Signature
r
fi
SALADIN AMERY
~tl tiE, 7
Saladin Ainery
PERSONAL
Name SALADIN AMERY
Date of Birth/(Age) February 24, 1966
Nationality British
Marital Status/Children Married /Two children
Address 419 Waterline Road
Ashland OR 97520 USA
Telephone (mobile) US 970-274-6937
EDUCATION & QUALIFICATIONS
Ithaca College, Ithaca NY B.A. English Literature 1987
Minor: Psychology
Licenses SFA
JSDA
Series 3
IIKMA License 1
Languages English, Fars' & some Japanese
Interests: Skiing, squash, golf, tennis, mountain biking, writing,
politics, arts and adventure
Saladin Amery
CAREER SUMMARY
Peris Capital Advisors Pte, Ltd.
Managing Director. Established the company, Peris Capital
Sept 2008 Present Advisors, in Singapore. The Company engages in advisory
work, origination and capital raising out of Asia, for third
party funds and individual projects.
Aug 2004 -Jan 2008 Bank of America Asia Ltd,
Managing Director, Head of Global Structured.Products &
Principal Finance for all of Asia. Managing and pailicipating
in, and actively marketing, originating and structuring, while
overseeing the groups, originating, marketing, structuring and
trading of GSP products, which included, credit cash &
synthetic, loans, ABSIMBS, project finance etc .Also a
member of the Asia Senior Management Committee
Sep 2001 -,dug 2004 BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES JAPAN, INC
President and board member of. Banc of America Securities
Japan and Managing Director, Head of Global Structured
Products for all of Asia, and member of Global Management
Committee for GSP.
As President and board member of Banc of America
Securities Japan, I oversaw all individuals and managed all
the activities under the Banc of America Securities umbrella,
ranging from trading, sales, marketing, structuring,
compliance, risk, administration, licencing, regulatory, etc
within Japan.
As Head of GSP & Principal Finance for all of Asia, I
managed and participated in and acted as a marketer,
originator and structurer, while overseeing and managing the
groups, marketing, origination, structuring, and trading of the
products, which included, credit cash & synthetic, loans,
ABSIMBS, project finance etc throughout Asia. While at the
same time, overseeing the overall activities of the companies
securities business in Japan.
Pti-e 4
Saladin Amery
UBS Warburg Japan Ltd,
Oct 2000 Sep 2001 Director, responsibly; for building Structured Credit Products
team to focus on CDO/CLO. ABS and Structured Funds,
throughout Asia.
PaineWebber Asia (Japan) Inc
Jan 1995 Sep 2000 Senior Vice President, responsible for Structured Products for
all of Asia. CBOICLO/ABS, Structured Funds, Credit
Derivatives, Securitization, Rates, Equity & FX Derivatives,
etc. Including trading the US Corp book during Asia hours.
[odder Peabody International (Japan)
Mar 1993 Dec 199 Vice President, focussed on building a Structured Products
Group in Asia, on all aspects of derivatives, from structured
notes and repackaged derivative instruments, credit, tax,
interest rates, equity and FX related.
Kidder Peabody International (London)
Sep 1987 Feb 1993 Sr Trader &.1-lead of the US Government trading desk.
Responsible for all ('ash, Strips, OTC Options and Agency
products. Running a proprietary book, that also serviced
institutional and retail clients.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/CONINUTTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email cht~acbri;a:~hlai~~a.ur.t2,ti. if you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach :additional sheets if
necessary.
Name gk8y
Requesting to serve on;21-i i ZGqS bAOL~ LCaU,►~TrG (Commission/Committec)
Address SS E Y , `lcm~l rp, "i
Occupation,~p -C 1)~e-A Phone: Home G p ' Z 1 l ZZ ,
Work
Email S} pk X15 Ob -Y AOOL' "M
Fax
1. Education BackEround _
What schools have you attended? ~?izhq- ltn1 s t~ + J) V ! , rtF, x~1~ rooiAK e--c, j
What degrees do you hold? C r-tAalv~--t--
at additional training or education have you had t at would apply to this position?
o z5ck 1~wot. ~n~t -
~ ~ 5~.. f~ti+w-~c. ~ tt /41~c Mrrn~
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
~NVV
w 1-
as attending conferences or seminars? Why?
Scanned by CamScanner
3, interests
Why are you applvL2 fa- thi:
-s" i..1rla~ s i
V
4. Availabillty
Are you available to anted sue: alin ads^>
meetings?
f
5. Additional Information
How long have y ou lived in this con n ninv? Please use the spare below to summ ariz : any a dd:uor.31 ~:aliti;:~t t~..• ~~>ia 1~:~~ i~~r N
positions
KL Ivy n- ~k, '1
t
Q,k i~
kv- F74+ kle E r -Au~k~
h,
Date Signattire
Scanned by CamScanner
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 6, 2016, Business Meeting
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 14.04.060
Water Connections Outside City the Limits
FROM:
Dave Lohman, City Attorney, david.lohman@ashland.onus
SUMMARY:
The City's water supply and water conservation continue as ever-present concerns. AMC 14.04.060
has been routinely interpreted to have addressed these concerns by prohibiting the connection of
premises outside the City to the City water system, with a few clearly-defined exceptions. The
amendment to AMC 14.04.060 proposed in this agenda item is intended to unambiguously confirm
that routine interpretation.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At its November 15, 2016 regular session, the City Council approved first reading of an ordinance
amending AMC 14.04.060 as presented.
AMC 14.04.060A currently says, "no premises located outside the City of Ashland may be connected
to the city water system except as provided herein." To avoid possible misinterpretation of the word
connected in this limitation, staff proposes amending the provision to make clear that using water from
the City water system on premises outside the City - whether the water is obtained by direct
connection or otherwise - is disallowed except upon Council approval, in the narrow circumstances
already set forth in AMC 14.04.060B and C.
This proposed amendment does not change City policy as it apparently has been interpreted ever since
the enactment of AMC 14.04.060. The amendment simply clarifies and confirms that interpretation.
Past enforcement of this provision may have been sporadic as a result of necessarily being complaint-
driven, but enforcement that has occurred has been consistent with that broad interpretation.
An additional change in language in AMC 14.04.060C is intended to clarify that all of the requirements
in subsections B.3 and C.1-4 must be met before Council can approve use of water on premises outside
the City, except in the case of connections authorized by the Council for City or other governmental
facilities or those authorized prior to June 18, 1997.
Lastly, the proposed amendment modifies existing AMC 14.04.060E to make clear that violation of
Chapter 14.04 could result in restriction or termination of service, in addition to a fine of up to $325
per day for individual and $500 per day for a business entity. The current provision makes $500 per
day the maximum penalty for violation.
Page I of 2
111
CITY OF
ASHLAND
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the second reading of this ordinance.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the second reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC
14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the Limits" as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance
Page 2 of 2
~r
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 14.04.060
WATER CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE CITY THE LIMITS
Annotated to show de et o„ and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, water provided through the city water system is a precious, limited resource;
WHEREAS, transporting and treating water delivered through the city water system are services
provided for the benefit of premises within the City of Ashland;
WHEREAS, the current Chapter 14.04.060 of the Ashland Municipal Code evidently is
intended to preclude the use of water from the city water system on premises located outside the
City of Ashland except under clearly specified conditions; and
WHEREAS, the addition of clarifying language in Chapter 14.04.060 to set forth more
explicitly the limitation on using water from the city water system on premises located outside
the city would be beneficial for purposes of public understanding and enforcement.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Ashland Municipal Code 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the Limits is
amended to read as follows:
14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the Limits
A. Except as provided herein, lino premises located outside the City of Ashland may be
connected to the city water system exeept as provided herein or make use of water obtained
through a direct or indirect connection to the city water system.
B. Premises outside the city may be connected to the city water system only as follows:
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
1. Connections authorized by the council prior to June 18, 1997.
2. Connections authorized by the council for city or other governmental facilities.
3. Connections authorized by resolution of the council where the council finds:
i. The connection is determined to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to
not be detrimental to the City's water facilities or resources.
ii. The applicant secures, in writing, a statement from the Environmental Health
Division, Health Department, Jackson County, Oregon, that the existing water system
for the premises has failed.
ill. The failed water system cannot feasibly be repaired or improved and there is no
other feasible source of water for the premises.
iv. An Ashland water main or line exists within 100 feet of the premises.
v. The connection is to premises within the city's urban growth boundary.
C. Connections authorized under subsection B.3.above shall be made only after all the criteria
in subsection B.3. and upon the following conditions have been met:
1. The applicant for water service pays the water connection fee for connections outside the
city and the systems development charges established by the City.
2. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the water system are subsequently
replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be
connected to the water system of the City as long as the use of the water system will not be
increased as determined by the Director of Public Works.
3. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the premises and a deed
restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the
City, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City
and binding on future owners of the premises. The cost of recording the deed restriction
shall be paid by the property owner.
4. The property owner shall execute a contract with the City of Ashland which provides
for: payment of all charges connected with the provision of water service to the property;
compliance with all ordinances of the city related to water service and use; termination of
service for failure to comply with such ordinances and that failure to pay for charges when
due shall automatically become a lien upon the property. A memorandum of the contract
shall be recorded in the county deed records with the cost of recording to be paid by the
property owner.
D. The requirements of this Section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, land use approvals and
authorizations necessary for extra-territorial extension of water service required by Oregon law.
E. A violation of an, 'L . . Bn of this ehapter- shall be punishable as a Class 1 Violation as
t forth it AMC 1.08. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be
punished as set forth in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code, in addition to
other lel4al and equitable remedies available to the City of Ashland, including restriction or
termination of service.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
ordinances or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation
that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued
under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i. e., Sections 2-4] need not be codified, and the City
Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2016,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2016.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
N N N N N (O Du v W Ln A W N N N
W N O W O OJ ~I m Ln V ? W N O W N O (D
OO~C)D npp` DOpOODmcn DO o cn
v p cD O Fn' N. ; Q ~ ~ Q 0 c (D (D (D
0 0 0 < DCQ c o o 3 Q< Q _o o cD 3 Q C7 _Q cn
n cn < cn < D= c 0 0 c 0 w 0 r c o cD 0
0 0 (p' (D cD W v - :3 n. cn 0 ~ v 0 v v m e
n r m 0 w cn cn r M 0 3 D' . 0 3
0 0 m° Q 3 °v . m coD m (D 3' Ui m v n° v
C7 o 73 :3 0 Oc C7 ° D 0 o 0 0 0 O v 0 C 0 :3 :3
41 :3 cn 0 0 C/) cn (D CD :3 o- m (D s O . N' U) c (n F D o m cD
0 p CO ~ 0 o Q
(D CL COML. U) Z3 n ci) c)' 0_ C (Q
5, cn ca (D :3 (D 0- W (D
m o m CD (Q m C) ° cc o 0
M.0 (n (n a' F- 3 o
:3 -0 (n -0 -0 0 0 Z3 ;a M cn l<
m o
O 3=„A w o C0 :D o (D CD - cn. 0 o D Ca- (D :3 D. v -o.
(D (D
N o 0- C
n n Q n 0 0 0 n o~ Q n
:3 (D
o < 7-0 O cD • 0. Q < 0 cD O Q m G) 0 o O-
0 w p (D 0 c 0 CD L. w p cn c s~ o c cQ -
w O L Q. 0 0 Q m O(D m - m N = cn
Z3 0 ° CD 0 o cD 3(D m cD o CA
v m N N 0 a ° o n. O.
~ - 0 0 (n Z n w- (D Q v 3 w
w 0 D F- = Z' c (D (D _ r cD cn co Q -0 0 x
C: (D CD C: 77 cn (D 0- -
d D O o (Q cn O _0 m Z3 (D O o O
O O (D u) Sll (D Gt Q (D v :T
0 CL CL 0
o O < n
c cD w -0 to (D
D D (D m 0
v, c m cn w cn :3
r 3'
p n O O M Q (n
O 0 _
< n o n 7-7, ~ m
CD 3
0 con w
(D 0 C7
m D D D rc'DD r rrDD~7 ~o Q
Q Q_ Q. m m Q_ Q_ c(D m 0_ Q_ (D D
73 :3 :3 (D
0
a Q_ v
3 cD r
(D ;u
3' m D
-n a o
D
zc
N v
cn cn 0
c
N = OOz O°z x _ co C
cn cn c~ o S.
--I cc
p O
° ° ° 0 ° n
0 0 o z O x w o = D
N , (n C) G) N D =r
Zz CD
w
a
cn cn m
X X m z O 3
° °g7z~
N N z (n
cn C/)
(n cn w
cn cn O)
r~
N
N
O_
O)
N
N N . N N
rn Ui ~ .A V
CDX?~c0 0000 Oz0cnDDKTC~ C)D D~
_0 Z3 0 0 ::3 0- (D
m - n 6 Cp" C v
C o v c c c c N (~D O
0 LP S~I. 00
D or 0-
o z3 cn cn o O O 5. cr
(D (D 1 I I 1 I CD }
C= I N y Q i
(D C O (D U7 -n CO
O O (D
(n ,A
(D -0 M- 0 Cn O CD Q Q O j 0' O Q O
O 7 0 (D O (D (D (D
Sv
(D 0 n 0) CD (n ED
0 0 CD CL
(n zT m c ° :3 o rn M M C7 ° (n Q-
o ° m ° FD' D (on Q n o ° to v
m ° o ((D cn c (D ° ~ m (n - ° N O CD
07 _0
O o (D
3 -0 O (n p" fl; 3. 0 ccnn v (D 3 n n~ C7 0 o o (a'„ v v ;p N O
0 :3 zT O o 3 a° (°D Z 3* o 3 o 3 ° o =3 O m cD _ v cA
3 3 3.
o ° Z o 1 c E-' cn 3 (n 3 O v v sv of
(D (n =3 T. cn 3 0 (D
70 Fn' u
< CD CD coal Cl) (n. • _ CL
_ C
Cr N' N -
cn (D z a n = d ~C n
C
En 0 (D (n Z3
c C)- (n O Q m
SD (D o ° o ; Q
C: 3 q -n
O 3 o O CD 73
v n
n
a O o. Z (n =3 3 ch. L2 (D
-
91. (D (D
o 0 0 = 7 O
Cf)
D
(D < N n
v n x O
cn ( v 0
3 cn (D
Q
(D _
cfl c(D
N 0 ~
CD v
-i n
CD (D
o =
DD
v3
-n a
D o
z=
v
v~
N cn
O C
N co m
L m
M
n
--I cQ
-i r
00
0
2
zm
0 as
ma
77
I
•
CZ N_ •
G ~
N
N
O
C ~ N
m 3
z ~