HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1220 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Importan : 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 20, 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. Business Meeting of December 6, 2016
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's statement to the community
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. Assistance to firefighters grant application
3. Appointment of Ashland School District representative to the Conservation
Commission
4. Request for sewer connection to a property located outside the City limits and
within the Urban Growth Boundary
5. Appointment of Tina Gray as the Director of Human Resources
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
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 the release of interest in an easement for
construction and maintenance of iron pipes and flumes
2. 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. Agreement with ORHA for Emergency Shelter
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to
provide a city building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April,
2017 and repealing Resolution No. 2016-28"
2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC
2.50.070 and AMC 2.28.045 public contracting delegated officer authority for
intergovernmental agreements" and move on to second reading
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
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 (549) 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 l).
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 Business Meeting
December 6, 2016
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 6, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. Councilor Lemhouse was absent.
City Attorney Dave Lohman recommended Council postpone indefinitely agenda item #1. Second reading
by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 14.04.060 Water Connections
Outside City the Limits" under Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts due the complexity of how
water was used. He suggested Council discuss the varying aspects in a future Study Session then bring it
back as a new first and second reading.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to postpone indefinitely the Second reading by title only of an
ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 14.04.060 Water Connections Outside City the
Limits." DISCUSSION: Mr. Lohman clarified for Councilor Morris there was no conflict of interest for
him on this item as previously stated. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Public Works Director Mike Faught requested Council to move agenda item #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," under Public Hearings to the
December 20, 2016 Council meeting. The consultant on the item was unable to attend this meeting.
Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to move the Public Hearing regarding SDCs of various kinds to the
meeting of December 20, 2016. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Airport, Housing & Human Services, and Tree
Commissions.
Councilor Seffinger announced Firefighter/Paramedic Ashley Manning was the first female in the history
of the Ashland Fire and Rescue Department to successfully test and make the Captain's list.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of November 14, 2016, Business Meeting of November 15, 2016,
Executive Session of November 21, 2016 and Special Meeting of November 21, 2016 were approved as
presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Annual presentation by the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Chair Melanie Mindlin noted several projects the Planning Commission worked on
over the past year. The Commission was working the Fire Department on expanding the designated wildfire
City Council Business Meeting
December 6, 2016
Page 2 of 4
lands to incorporate the entire city. The Commission also met with the Housing and Human Services
Commission on housing needs. The Planning Commission would update the Housing element in the
Comprehensive Plan next year. The Commission was working on infill strategies, smaller affordable
homes, and a cottage-housing ordinance that would come to Council spring 2017.
One project was the Transit Triangle Infill Strategies Project. The Commission was looking at a new
method regarding cottage housing and density in the Transit Triangle Project called the form-based
approach. Rather than having a specific residential density per acre, it employed a combination of building
height and site planning requirements for parking, landscaping, and lot coverage to control the size of the
building or buildings. Using total density numbers was preventing the construction of more affordable
units because developers were building the largest homes they could within the allowed numbers. The
form-based approach allowed developers to meet their bottom lines through a greater number of smaller
more affordable units.
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
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the resolution declared the canvass of the vote from the
November election along with the proclamation. Mayor Stromberg read the proclamation aloud.
Councilor Rosenthal/Seffinger m/s to approve Resolution #2016-30. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Rosenthal thanked everyone who participated in the election. Councilor Seffinger acknowledged Councilor
Voisin's ideas and thought they were well received by many of the voters and was sure Council would
incorporate some of them in future meetings. She thanked everyone and congratulated Mayor Stromberg
on his reelection. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Rosenthal, Morris, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES.
Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Noted approximately 650 institutions and facilities divested from form
fossil fuel and oil companies worldwide removing 3.5 trillion dollars from those industries. During the
C40 Mayors Summit, several larger cities proposed a total diesel fuel ban by 2025. New offshore windmills
were producing 11 megawatts. LEED buildings were not as carbon reducing as planned due to the lack of
solar panels on rooftops. He explained the Planning Commission stated Ashland could not have solar roofs
on new buildings and houses because it detracted from the "Ashland look" and thought that should change.
Allie Rosenbluth/40 North Mountain/Explained the new City Administrator's priorities should include
low-income, communities of color, disabled individuals, the homeless, and ensure actions taken by the City
were uplifting and did not burden these groups. Additionally, the new City Administrator should focus on
low-income housing. This position also needed to support a science based climate change and administer
the Climate Action Plan. The community also wanted to be involved in the hiring of the new City
Administrator.
James Pizor/251 Otis Street/Addressed the resignation of the former City Administrator Dave Kanner and
expressed concern there was not enough notice regarding the meeting for public input. He took issue with
the process, the cost to the taxpayers, and the risk to the city and challenged eliminating the contract when
Council had said only good things about Mr. Kanner.
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 of tax-exempt obligations"
City Council Business Meeting
December 6, 2016
Page 3 of 4
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 germ of the reward fund for David
Michael Grubbs for and additional five years and repealing Resolution 2012-02"
Councilor Rosenthal and Voisin pulled Consent Agenda items 42, 45, and #8 for discussion.
Councilor Rosenthal addressed item 92 and thanked Fire Chief John Karns for his willingness to serve as
Acting City Administrator. Councilor Seffinger added Chief Karns had done a good job building leadership
in the Fire Department and it would function well until a new City Administrator was hired.
IT/Electric Director Mark Holden clarified agenda item #5 and explained the total was $75,000 per year,
as needed. It was an adhoc contract where staff reserved the rights to use up to that amount with that
contract service. OS Engineering had a thorough understanding of the City's hydro system. If they did not
have the expertise for specific issues, they found and contracted other companies to handle the work. One
of the engineers the City worked with had seven years oil 'renewable energy experience. He went on to
explain the consensus portion of the evaluation.
City Attorney Dave Lohman addressed item #8 and verified the Reward Fund for the David Grubbs case
was $21,000. Mr. Grubbs' murder remained a concern in the community and was an ongoing investigation.
Councilor Morris/Rosenthal m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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"
Item moved to the December 20, 2016 Council meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
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
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the advertising process. There were two current Budget
Committee members seeking reappointment, and three applications submitted to her office for Council
consideration. She received one application after the deadline. Additionally, there was an inquiry but no
application submitted. Council could decide to postpone the item. Mayor Stromberg wanted more time so
Council could meet with the three new applicants. Council majority agreed.
Councilor Seffinger/Morris m/s the appointment of the Budget Committee members be held in the
first meeting of January. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger thought it was important that everyone
City Council Business Meeting
December 6, 2016
Page 4 of 4
had a chance to talk with the applicants. It was also important to have the new Councilor be part of the
decision making process. Councilor Morris did not think he could meet with the applicants by December
20, 2016. Councilor Marsh was not comfortable moving the item to January and preferred moving it to
December 20, 2016. Having new councilors participate in the selection process was not standard practice.
Councilor Rosenthal questioned whether two weeks provided enough time and thought January was more
realistic. Councilor Voisin would not support the motion and thought delaying because Council would not
have enough time to meet the applicants was presumptuous. It was important to keep the precedent and not
make exceptions. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Seffinger, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Marsh
and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
Council majority did not want additional advertising and would meet with the current five applicants.
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to approve reappointment of Roberta Stebbins to the Municipal
Audit Commission with a term ending December 31, 2021. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to appoint Dennis Slattery as the liaison to the Audit Committee. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
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"
Item postponed indefinitely.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Look Ahead review
Acting City Administrator Chief John Karns reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
Councilor Rosenthal announced the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad Hoc Committee would host the
third and final Open House regarding the Climate Energy Action Plan December 7, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. at
the Southern Oregon University Stevenson Union in the Rogue River Room. The draft plan was posted on
the City website.
Councilor Marsh announced Saturday, December 10, 2016 was the Ashland Food Project's December Food
Drive.
Chief Karns thanked the Mayor and Council for giving him the opportunity to serve as Acting City
Administrator. He was impressed with City staff and looked forward to working with Council.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
TO: City Council
FROM: John Stromberg, Mayor
DATE: December 14, 2016
RE: Statement to the Community
Recently, a number of community members have approached me expressing the desire to have
myself and the Council issue a statement regarding the election of Donald Trump as president.
They have expressed their fears for the direction of our nation and their desire for Ashland to
make a clear statement on our collective principles and community values. I asked Councilor
Marsh to draft a statement and I think she did a great job. The statement is below and will be
posted on the City's website, and our social media accounts and published in the Council Corner
of the Ashland Daily Tidings. Thank you to all community members who requested this
statement. I am proud to be Mayor of a community so committed to upholding compassion,
inclusion, and diversity.
STATEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
Two thousand sixteen has been a challenging year for many. On the national level, dissension
has emphasized our differences and undermined our confidence in common values. Within our
own city, we've struggled with direct and unconscious acts that have generated fear, fomented
conflict and caused us to assess the standards that underlie our community.
Democratic government is dependent on adherence to fundamental principles. Therefore, as we
look toward the new year, the City Council and Mayor of the City of Ashland affirm:
• Our commitment to defend the civil and human rights of every person regardless of race,
country of origin, religion, gender or sexuality;
• Our condemnation of hate speech and or crimes targeted at individuals or a class of people;
• Our commitment to maintain and defend the city's status as a sanctuary city;
• Our determination to pursue a policy agenda that ensures that individuals can turn to
government for protection without fear of recrimination;
• Our belief in the founding principle of religious freedom and every individual's inalienable
right to practice his/her own faith; and,
• Our commitment to foster a community predicated on inclusion rather than division.
As individuals and as an elected body, we pledge to work to make Ashland a city that reflects
these values in word and deed in the months and years ahead.
ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 ALL
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee
January 29, 2016
Page 1 of 2
MINUTES FOR THE ad hoc AFN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Monday, January 29, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Committee members Dennis Slattery, Vicki Griesinger, Brian Almquist, and Rich Rosenthal
were present. Staff members Dave Kanner and Mark Holden were present. Committee member
Susan Alderson and Mathew Beers were absent.
2. Public Input
None.
3. Approval of Minutes
Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve both the regular meeting and the executive session
minutes of December 21, 2015. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Marsh reviewed the actions taken at the last meeting.
4. Strategy Discussion
Report from Mark Holden - Holden stated he met with each of the ISPs and gave the group an
overview of each discussion. Computer Country serves businesses only. They have loyal
customers and like being able to do business with AFN. They would not be interested in
divesting themselves of AFN customers - they would instead move those customers to other
providers. Similarly, Infostructure, who recently purchased Rio Communications to expand their
reach, are mostly a business customers only telecommunications company. They use AFN for
expanded services if businesses require it. They are also uninterested in divesting themselves of
AFN customers. Neither Computer Country or Infostructure are interested in expanding their
residential customer base (they will keep the few they already have but no new ones).
On the residential customer side there is Jeffnet, Ashland Home Net and AFN itself. Jeffnet
primarily serves the JPR membership community - people who are willing to possibly pay more
to help fund JPR - and is also not interested in divesting AFN customers. They are looking to
market more with AFN's new product and pricing. Ashland Home Net is the only ISP with its
feet in both business and residential customers. Like Jeffnet, they think the new products will
help increase customer base.
Holden stated that all the ISPs were willing to work with the City on a joint marketing plan.
Group discussed ways to motivate or encourage ISPs to increase their customer base. They
discussed the need to have performance standards as part of any new ISP contracts.
Marketing Campaign Update - Group discussed messaging and marketing possibilities. Kanner
stated the City will soon go out for an RFP for marketing expertise, which should give better
ideas on how to market AFN as a whole so all ISPs (including AFN's own retail operation) are
Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee
January 29, 2016
Page 2 of 2
most successful against Charter. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter whether a customer is buying
from Jeffnet, AFN, Infosource, etc. What matters is that they are buying the AFN product.
Group discussed the challenges in getting customers to understand the differences between the
product and the providers. They considered whether having AFN leave the retail side of the
business entirely would be helpful in lessening customer confusion. They determined that too
much of the necessary revenue comes from AFN's retail business to have it made up for by only
the ISPs.
Next Steps - The group determined that their general recommendations to Council are:
• Work to simplify the market perception in the community (it's one product that can be
purchased from any of these providers) with guidance by the marketing professional
we're soon to hire.
• Add performance standards and incentives for growth to future contracts with the ISPs
(encourage ISPs to choose to only provide AFN or market AFN more).
• Revisit the idea of ending the retail side of AFN in a year.
• Consider assisting Ashland Home Net and Jeffnet to increase customer counts via
marketing, but don't directly market AFN retail to limit customer confusion.
5. Development of AFN Commission
Group determined that while they still think a commission is a good idea, most governance
changes they have considered seem to lead to dead ends. They are now looking at keeping the
current model, with a focus on how to improve customer counts. This means, essentially, we're
working on a good marketing plan and working on ways to help strengthen the ISPs ability to
compete with Charter. Marsh suggested that Kanner and Holden use this committee, as they are
already fairly knowledgeable about AFN, to help with the development of the marketing plan.
The group were all willing to assist as needed.
Group discussed the likelihood of needing to revisit whether or not AFN should remain in the
retail business in, approximately, 18 months.
Group discussed public meeting laws in relation to marketing and sales efforts of individual
ISPs.
6. Adjournment
Group agreed that a progress report to Council is needed, even though there isn't a governance
change recommendation. Group further agreed to meet again in rnid-March, once the marketing
company is on-board.
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Assistant
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 2, 2016
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE
Wednesday, November 2, 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 Louise Shawkat, Jim Hartman, Stuart Green, Greg Jones, Cindy Bernard,
James McGinnis, and Marni Koopman were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present.
Committee member Roxane Beigel-Coryell arrived late.
2. Public Input
Allie Rosenbluth - thanked the group for their hard work. Urged the group to include equity in
the vision statement. It is important to say at the beginning so that equity is always at the top of
everyone's mind. She stated that it is confusing in the proposed composition of the commission
whether the representatives listed for specific areas are in addition to the citizen members, or are
included in the total of citizen member numbers [Hanks clarified it is in addition to]. She
questioned the need for a chamber of commerce representative on the commission. She also
highlighted a few things that currently aren't matching between the implementation plan and the
ordinance.
Robert Block-Brown - (see attached statement) stated the group needs to listen to and follow the
science. This process will require a strong cultural shift. He described an e-mail he had sent to
Hanks regarding the need for an administrator-level position to lead the plan. He believes that if
a cost/benefit analysis was done it would show that this level of a position is as valuable as it is
important. This is the most difficult plan the city has ever undertaken and we need a high
authority level with management skills. He is also concerned about not having this staff member
be the chair of the future commission and is concerned with current policy that staff members
can only be ex-officio, non-voting members of commissions.
James Stephens - stated that at last night's Council meeting he was encouraged by the Mayor's
positive statements regarding the 10x20 ordinance. He stated there seems to be some confusion
as to how to define the 10% in the 10x20 ordinance. The definition to him is 10% of all power
consumed by Ashland, annualized over a year. As for the definition of clean power, the group
intended that this be any renewable energy source. He did an internet search and, unfortunately,
the natural gas consortium has managed to label themselves as a renewable energy source and
was the first resource to pop up in the search. He wants to make sure the group understands this
was not the intention of 10x20. The intention was any non-greenhouse gas producing renewable
source.
Roy Mollett - stated as we look into the amount of solar energy production, it's increasing
rapidly. Even Tesla is doing a new solar project. With all the new ways to integrate solar panels
with roofing, this seems to the be away we will be going in the future. He believes that using this
technology makes everything look more plausible.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 2, 2016
Page 2 of 4
Dave Helmich - stated it is important to understand that the cost of solar installations has to
come from somewhere and some people in town do not have roofs to install panels. His idea for
10x20 has always been an industrial solar farm. There is currently a source of money for this
project from rate payers and it is time to build this project.
3. Icebreaker Question
Group did an icebreaker question regarding their favorite Halloween candy.
4. Vision Statement
Rosenthal explained how he came to create the draft, "Ashland is a sustainable, resilient, carbon-
neutral community that embraces equity, protects healthy ecosystems and creates opportunities
for future generations."
Roxane Biegel-Coryell arreived 3: 50 p.m.
Group discussed whether they wanted the statement to be related to a specific time ("In 2050 we
are..."). They determined it may be useful as a narrative point of view, but they want parts of the
statement to be true far before 2050 (like equity, for example). Group discussed whether using
the term 'carbon-neutral' was appropriate when the term `greenhouse gases' can be used as a
teaching tool. Most agreed that carbon-neutral is an effective short-hand to grasp the more
complex terms surrounding greenhouse gases.
HartmanBiegel-Coryell m/s to approve the vision statement, "Ashland is a resilient
community that strives for zero-net greenhouse gas emissions, that embraces equity,
protects healthy ecosystems and creates opportunities for future generations."
Discussion: Green stated that he still like's the version Marni presented in the packet. McGinnis
stated he thinks that the term, "strives for" waters down the intent.
HartmanBiegel-Coryell agreed to change the term "strives for" to "has" in their motion.
Voice Vote: 6 ayes, 2 nayes. Motion Passes.
5. Implementation Plan
Hanks requested feedback on the proposed commission ordinance. He stated that none of the
proposed members are set in stone, they are just suggestions based on previous group
discussions. Group discussed the total number preferred to have a functional group. There was
concern that nine voting members was too large a number but also concern that at a lower
number not all the necessary groups would be represented with enough citizen members. Group
also discussed whether a chamber of commerce representative was necessary. Most of the group
agreed that as the plan calls for actions relating to consumption a business connection is vital.
Group discussed ways to have the broadest cross-section of the Ashland population represented,
including low-income, youth, seniors, etc. Hanks stated that those desires could be included in
the citizen representative descriptions. Group discussed both the desire to have lots of youth
representation and the challenges of keeping students engaged in the long-term.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 2, 2016
Page 3 of 4
Hartman/Green m/s to have two of the nine voting members under the age of 25 at the time
of appointment.
Discussion: None.
Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Group continued to discuss the proposed representative organizations. They generally felt
comfortable with the organizations listed.
Group discussed the role of the commission. Rosenthal stated that, "and Council" is missing in
the statement, "Assist and provide recommendations to City staff [and Council] in the review
and analysis..." Group agreed this needs to be added.
Group discussed whether the new commission would have a role in the process for hiring the
staff member who will handle the action plan. Due to timing, this probably isn't likely, but there
has been precident for a community member to participate on an interview panel (depending on
the level of the staff member - i.e. department heads have had citizens on panels, lower on org
chart staff have not).
6. Overarching Strategy
Hanks informed the group he started doing stakeholder interviews and has received good
comments and feedback on the strategies so far. Group discussed potential edits to the strategies
including:
• Removing numbers so that people don't automatically think they are ranked
• Separating water from energy section to lessen confusion
• Add "callout" boxes for definitions of terms
• Edit so that it doesn't sound like this is a plan to increase diversity and equity but rather
the plan will take into considerations the ways in which it may have an effect or may be
effected by diversity and equity
• Add a clear introduction paragraph/summary of how we are filtering the options to help
decision making by Council, staff, and future committee members
Bernard raised concerns that the scope of work for this group stated it was to focus on
"measurable actions" but by continuing to include consumption as part of our goals and
strategies we're introducing things not measurable.
7. Open House Plan
Group discussed the proposed outreach plan and proposed some ways to reach more residents.
McGinnis expressed the desire to have a time in the program where people interact/have round-
table discussions of the plan. Group generally agreed this would be a good addition to the open
house. Koopman expressed the desire for a few members of the group to explain the difficulty in
choosing the goals - that the decision was not made lightly. Group agreed this would be
important.
8. Next Meeting
Topics for discussion at upcoming meetings include the December 7 open house, and
Conservation Commission responsibilities overlap with proposed new commission.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 2, 2016
Page 4 of 4
The upcoming meeting schedule is as follows:
November 16, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Open House December 7, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m., Stevenson Union at SOU
January 4, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. - tentative meeting, if next phase of plan document is ready.
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant
As I have stated before, I come at this issue from a position of stewardship moving
us to a Right relationship with the earth and living organisms. To get there we need
to listen to and follow the science. This is a bold action for the City and in turn will
require strong value based leadership by the City to redirect the community to a
culture of regeneration.
There seem to be 3 main concerns with the proposed concept and ordinance
language that I sent to each of you.
1) While cost /benefit is always an important consideration when we spend the
peoples money, this may be the most difficult challenge we have ever taken on as a
community. We need the best leadership we can afford to guide us through this
cultural change.
2) If the right duty statement is developed and the right person is selected, the
placement of this position in the office of the City Administrator gives it the level of
authority needed in oversight of all department directors and gives this position a
place at the table with the existing decision makers. It is not necessary to also
establish a new staff level position, although that would be best for the work load all
the current staff carry.
3) There apparently is current practice/requirement that City staff may only be
appointed as ex-officio members of citizen's commissions and a chair must be
appointed as voting member. If this is the case the position could serve as ex-officio
on the Commission and chair the City staff team.
Robert Block-Brown
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 16, 2016
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Committee members Bryan Sohl, Louise Shawkat, Claire Pryor, James McGinnis, Roxanne
Biegel-Coryell, Claudia Alick, Cindy Bernard, Marni Koopman, Jim Hartman and Stuart Green
were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present.
Group did an icebreaker regarding the question, "Given the election results, how do you think
this will effect/amplify the needs of this effort?"
Rosenthal gave an update on the recent City Council meeting regarding the 10x20 ordinance.
2. Approval of Minutes
McGinnis/Koopman m/s to approve the minutes of October 5 and 15 as presented.
Discussion: None. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
3. Public Input
Ken Crocker - stated he had missed the last couple of meetings but it appears the group has been
discussing important topics. He was hoping to see more of the draft plan process. It seems the
strategies and actions are just a list of stuff from the committee with some prioritization from the
community. What's missing is a look at the vision of what the community would be like with no
greenhouse emissions. The group hasn't looked at any cost/benefit analysis of any of the
strategies to see if they are the correct ones. He believes the group needs to ask Council to step
back and do an in depth look at the strategies presented. In particular, he's concerned with ones
which effect low-income people and with potential for working on transportation programs for
the whole valley.
Allie Rosenbluth - listed some ideas for getting more attendance at the next open house
including flyers in Spanish, offering babysitting, offering food. She stated it is better to get a
broader range of voices to represent the entire community, especially as the plan talks about
equity. Plan equity needs to be more than just a part of the vision statement but needs to be
considered throughout the plan. She gave some examples of areas of the plan needing more
equity considerations. She stated that the draft plan is lacking quanititative goals, too many of
them have nothing to be measured by or against. Additionally there is no structure layed out in
the plan for how the future commission will evolve after the plan is approved.
Robert Block-Brown - stated he is concerned that the plan doesn't reference the Ordinance with
the goals/targets. The plan also doesn't talk about how it will be sheparded - no talk of the
commission, staff members, etc. He liked Ken's comment regarding needing to decide what our
vision of the future will be inorder to get into specifics of what we want to be accountable for.
With no clear vision there can be no specifics of how to get there so we never will.
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 16, 2016
Page 2 of 3
James Stephens - stated he is encouraged by the recent Council meeting and it's 10x20
discussion. It is clear there is support by the Mayor. He stated that he appreciates that the plan
references the 10x20 ordinance. Those who were involved in getting the ordinance approved
would appreciate a chance to get involved with the creation of the RFP and with the Open House
on December 7th. He stated the 10x20 supporters would like to staff an information table at the
open house to give information. This could also get a higher turnout at the event.
Huelz - state that 10x20 is just a power purchasing agreement. This type of agreement has been
on the table since the Bush era and we almost used it for the Solar Pioneer II project but instead
did a bond. Another option is the third-party pass-through and he's been watching all these years
to see if that would be used. Now we can do a double-bundle program to make this a cutting
edge project. He is excited about the lawsuits from Our Childrens Trust and is glad anyone can
sue regarding climate issues now. He stated that last night's Council meeting was great. He
encouraged the group to read his double-bundle e-mails.
4. Open House Plan Update
Hanks gave an update on the event plans. He stated that based on the previous discussions they
have added a few things including; a story by Tonya Graham, individual tables set up and time
for one-on-one dialogue with community members. He gave an overview of the promotions
already done and those which will be undertaken closer to the event date. Group discussed
additional ways to increase and diversify participation.
5. Draft Plan Review
Rosenthal gave an overview of the plan as presented. He reminded the group that it's currently
unformatted and missing both the executive summary, the graphics, and the more detailed
implementation plan. Group discussed the plan and suggested the following be incorporated or
considered:
• Two versions - the long (highly detailed for future commission and Council) and the
short (for easy discussion and distribution in the community)
• More global context
• A matrix of all the actions listed together
• Need more co-benefits listed (even if negative)
• Need more review of this versus other plans of the City as some call-outs go directly
against or are in conflict with other plan requirements/actions
• Remove the tree analogy - it's confusing
• Add a roadmap to the rest of the plan
• Need more explicit reference to how this process/plan will continue
• Equity needs to be positioned and framed more as important throughout, not just on one
page
• The proposed ordinance needs to be referenced in the plan
The group mostly agreed that the plan is readable and a good framework, though it's hard to
judge too indepth without the implementation plan. Hanks stated he and Cascadia understand the
challenge of not seeing the implementation plan at this time but before they can fully do that
Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
November 16, 2016
Page 3 of 3
portion they need to know if the actions we've identified are the top ones to be analyzed. Group
discussed some of the actions and how to connect them to real risks and real results.
6. Consumption Emissions/Carbon Offsets
Hartman gave an overview of why he believes offsets must be included in the plan in order to
achieve the 8% goal each year.
Pryor departed meeting at 7: 05 p.m.
Hartman stated he would like a small group to do research into options regarding offsets and
present that information at a future meeting. Group discussed options for how research could be
done and also discussed some of the drawbacks of spending money on projects outside of the
city instead of taking that same money for projects within the city (which won't count in ghg
reduction numbers in the same way but could result in longer-term success and other co-benefits
like living-wage jobs). Hartman stated he doesn't want offsets as the only solution but does want
them to remain a long-term option. He agreed to do some research and make a presentation on
ways offsets could be incorporated into the plan at a future meeting.
7. Next Meeting
The upcoming meeting schedule is as follows:
Open House December 7, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m., Stevenson Union at SOU
November 14, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
January 4, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. - tentative meeting, if next phase of plan document is ready.
8. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
October 26, 2016
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Chair Bryan Sohl called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners Mark Weir, Jaime Rosenthal, Risa Buck, Roxane Beigel-Coryell, Marni
Koopman, Cara Cruickshank, and James McGinnis were present. Staff member Adam Hanks
was present. Council liaison Rich Rosenthal was absent.
2. Consent Agenda
Weir/Buck m/s to approve the minutes of September 28, 2016 as presented. Voice Vote: All
Ayes. Motion Passes.
3. Announcements
The next commission meeting will be December 14, 2016.
Sohl stated he e-mailed the Ashland School District Superintendent, who replied she would be
appointing a representative to the commission soon.
November 9, 2016, from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. will be the next Low-Impact Living class at North
Mountain Park. This class is regarding waste prevention and costs $5.
McGinnis encouraged the group to listen to the Tom Ashbrook episode of the On Point podcast
regarding the future of electric cars.
This year's annual leaf drop-off will occur on November 6 and December 1 I from 9:00 a.m. -
4:00 p.m. at the Ashland Recycle Center. Talent's leaf drop off day is November 13th
Additionally, leaf-bags can be purchased at Recology until November 4th
4. Public Forum
Jeff Sharpe - observed that the CEAP is doing great work but seems overwhelmed. He thinks its
too overwhelmed to do anything about implementing the 10x20 ordinance and so he would like
this Commission to take on that role.
Group discussed the status of the l 0x20 ordinance - that it is currently in the hands of the City
Council and until such time as Council decides to assign work to either staff, or a commission or
committee, this group has no role. Hanks suggested the group attend or watch the Council
discussion of on November 2nd . He additionally agreed to send links to the agenda packet for
Council's discussion when it has been posted.
5. Reports/ Presentations/ Updates
City Conservation Programs and Operations - Hanks showed the group the new residential
conservation program and new construction handouts. Commercial conservation and solar
information handouts are in the process of being created.
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
October 26, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Downtown Recycling Pilot Program Update - Beigel-Coryell stated they are looking at a "soft"
expansion of the program while still looking into ways to do a permanent program through the
City, Recology, or Parks & Recreation. Hanks informed the group there will be an ad in
December's Sneak Preview thanking the current basket sponsors and encouraging others to join
in.
SOU Quarterly Update - Beigel-Coryell gave a list of acknowledgements recently received by
SOU, including (but not limited to): Sierra Magazine's list of "cool schools", the Princeton
Review's list of green schools (SOU scored 97 out of a possible 99 points), and an honorable
mention in the Climate Leadership awards. The SOU Sustainability program has a new website -
sustainability.sou.edu. The site contains lots of news and information. She updated the group on
the current progress of new construction and/or remodeling occurring on campus and the LEED
certifications each building is seeking. Beigel-Coryell handed out information on SOU's
greenhouse gas emissions tracking and discussed the challenges they have encountered in
obtaining accurate information. Group asked some questions for clarification on the numbers
presented.
Grey Water Subcommittee - the subcommittee members requested that the name of this group be
changed to the Water Subcommittee, as it more accurately reflects the variety of topics they wish
to cover. They met on the 20th of October and came up with a list of goals they want the group to
approve, alter or add to. The goals are as follows:
1) start discussion/engagement with Public Works staff (Mike Faught and Julie Smitherman)
about existing programs related to water conservation (grey water, catchment, etc.)
2) set a goal for doubling the number of grey water systems in town by October of 2017
3) update/refresh the grey water information page on the city's website with the assistance of
Public Works staff
4) add a grey water information class to next year's list of Low Impact Living classes
5) add a water catchment information class to next year's list of Low Impact Living classes
Cruickshank stated she is also interested in adding a goal of finding ways to incentivize new grey
water systems. Beigel-Coryell stated this seems to be a natural part of the discussion with staff
regarding existing programs.
Beigel-Coryell/Koopman m/s to approve the five goals of the subcommittee as presented.
Discussion: Beigel-Coryell stated she is glad the subcommittee started this process. Sohl
wondered how their efforts will tie into the CEAP process, particularly as water has been
discussed so little in that process. Buck gave an overview of the previous grey water class and
how it resulted in many of the current systems in Ashland. Cruickshank reiterated her desire to
include finding incentives in the list of goals.
Cruickshank moved to include incentives discussion to the list of goals. Motion failed for
lack of a second.
Voice Vote on original motion: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
6. Old Business
Sneak Preview Column - Group praised Rosenthal for her well-written article.
Beigel-Coryell/McGinnis m/s to approve the article for the December edition of the Sneak
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
October 26, 2016
Page 3 of 3
Preview as presented in the packet. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Group discussed the schedule of articles for the next several months. They would prefer to see a
January article regarding the science-based targets CEAP just approved, a February article
regarding Energy Efficiency Programs by Weir and Hanks, and a March article regarding the
final plan presented to Council in February.
Beigel-Coryell/McGinnis m/s to donate the January and March Conservation Commission
Sneak Preview space to the Climate and Energy Action Plan Committee. Discussion: Buck
asked the group how it knows the CEAP will use the spots? Sohl stated that since a good number
of CEAP members are also Conservation Commission members, he's comfortable that the CEAP
will use the space. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
Climate & Energy Action Plan - McGinnis gave an overview of the October 15th meeting, which
included discussions on the 10x20 ordinance, an approval of science-based goals and targets. He
stated that the group ran out of time to discuss a Vision Statement so Councilor Rosenthal is
drafting one by compiling all the suggested statements from committee members. Koopman
stated the targets discussion was a particularly difficult decision and the group did not make its
decision lightly. McGinnis stated the group also recognized that it won't be possible to achieve
the targets without either purchasing offsets or coming up with some creative thinking outside
the box options. Group discussed ways in which the CEAP may affect the Conservation
Commission (or, at the very least, the Commission's Powers and Duties).
Earth Bowl - Weir stated he reached out to Rogue Climate, who informed him they are unable to
assist in this project. He is meeting with SOCAN on October 28, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. to see if they
are interested in assisting with the event. He will update the group at the next meeting with any
progress.
7. New Business
Electric Department Cost of Service Study - Hanks informed the group that this will be
presented and discussed at the Council Study Session of October 31St. He gave an overview of
the process leading up to the study and how it will likely set the table for rate designs in the next
few years. Group raised concerns that there is no information regarding the CEAP and Hanks
stated that the CEAP started after this study was contracted, so it hasn't been taken into
consideration.
8. Wrap Up
Group requested that the following topics be on the upcoming agenda:
• Water Subcommittee update
• Biomass change to the Boardman power plant
Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Assistant
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 2, 2016
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Commission Chair, Shostrom called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
Shostrom Carol Voisin
Skibby
Leonard Staff Present:
Whitford Mark Schexna der; Staff Liaison
Emery Regan Trapp; Secretary
Swink
Von Chamier
Commissioners Absent: Giordano
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Swink motioned to approve minutes from October 5, 2016. Leonard seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion
passed
PUBLIC FORUM:
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Voisin gave the Council Liaison report. Items discussed were:
• The City Hall discussion is coming back to City Council meeting on Dec 20th. Voisin stated that she
will ask if this discussion can be moved to a later date.
• The Schaeffer case has been settled.
• The removal of trees at Lithia Way/Pioneer moved to Dec 2011 meeting.
• Council will review removing public art from Chapter 18 on Nov 151h at 7PM. Historic Commission is
encouraged to come.
• Winter shelter for the homeless has been approved for Tue/Thurs evenings (Pioneer Hall) and Sunday
may be added as well.
• Council considered and passed a motion to purchase land necessary for the Washington Street
extension. It's been offered at $60,000 over the appraised value and would cost $331,000. This is an
800 foot street that comes out on Tolman Creek Rd and will come to a cost of about 2 million dollars.
Council wanted to rush this through without public notice as they don't want the property owner to
change their mind.
• Electricity will increase 7% for rates and 1.50 for the base charge to eventually reach 14,00. This is
called cost of service for the operations of the electric department and the Council will have to vote on
this.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
• Continued discussion of proposed ordinance amendments for public art installations on historic
contributing buildings.
Shostrom gave a brief history on the relationship of the PAC and the Historic Commission and what has
happened in the past year.
The Historic Commission (HC) had a lengthy discussion Which included many positive comments including 1)
appreciation that the draft ordinance include HC review both early (call for artists) and later in the public art
process (public art concepts) for proposals in the historic districts, 2) that Section f reflects suggestion 4 of
Mayor's Report to City Council dated April 17, 2016 "When concepts for public art in or near a historic district
are being considered for final approval HC written input should be requested by the PAC and linked to online
representations of the concepts.", and 3) appreciation of the adjustments made to date in the Earthly Goods
corridor public art process including the Public Arts Commission Chair presenting the RFP and the opportunity
for the HC to review and comment on the RFP
Draft AMC 2.29.165
Section A: Call for artists (call for entries, RFQ, RFP) - use language in suggestion 1 of Mayor's
Report to City Council dated April 17, 2016 "Have the PAC appear before the HC when an RFQ for
new public art is being created and seek HC input for that RFQ." Thus, include HC review for call for
artist to all public art in historic districts rather than limiting to listed or contributing structures.
Sections B - E - change to public art installations on structures in historic districts permitted on
noncontributing structures using process and standards outlined in sections B thru E. Prohibit public
art installations on individually listed or historic contributing structures.
• The HC concern is that painting or attaching public art to a historic contributing building
permanently alters the building materials, structure and/or architectural features. Additionally,
the HC discussed that public art, like buildings, can be in place for long periods of time and
therefore a change to a historic contributing structure can last a generation or more. Cities in
Oregon such as Portland, Salem and Milwaukie prohibit public art installations on historic
contributing g buildings to address potential damage to buildings, changes to architectural
features, and broader concerns regarding degree of change in nature or character of the historic
districts as a whole.
B.3 - allow historic murals to be restored, "Historically significant murals (including historic
advertisements) may be professionally restored but shall not be painted over, even if faded.
Section C
• Item 1: Scale - replace with criteria from AMC 2.29.130.13.6 - "Public art should not be placed
in a site where it is overwhelmed or competing with the scale of the site, adjacent architecture,
large signage, bill boards, etc."
• Items 5-7 - move items 5-7 to section B.
Section E - increase notice are to 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject site.
Section F
• Public art concepts (public art proposals) - Add "Commission recommendations to the Public
Art Commission shall be provided with 45 days of delivery of the artists concepts to the
Commission."
Other
Historic Commission Powers and Duties - Add review of public art to list of items the Historic
Commission reviews (2.24.040) Clarify that public art sited or installed on structures includes murals
and pieces affixed to a structure.
There was a straw vote (4-3 to not allow public art installations on any buildings in historic district)
• The following Commissioners were in favor:
o Shostrom, Skibby, Leonard, and Swink.
• The following Commissioners were against:
o Whitford, Von Chamier, and Emery.
5-2 only allow public art installations on noncontributing buildings.
• The following Commissioners were in favor:
o Shostrom, Swink, Emery, Von Chamier, and Whitford.
• The following Commissioners were against:
o Skibby and Leonard.
Ms. Harris interjected and let the Commission know that in the Downtown Historic District 28% of the buildings
are noncontributing and 72% are contributing (section B-E). There were some questions from Leonard about
increasing the noticing area to 300 feet (Section E). Ms. Harris explained that 200 feet would be consistent
with land use application notices.
NEW ITEMS:
• Review board schedule - Commission adjourned before this item could get done, Trapp will send
the schedule through email.
• Project assignments for planning actions - This item did not get taken care of and will be pushed to
the next meeting.
• Historic Preservation Week: May 141h-201h 2017 was the date decided for this event.
OLD BUSINESS:
No old business to discuss.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
There were no items to discuss.
Review Board Schedule
Nov 3rd Terry, Keith, Bill
Nov 10th Terry, Taylor, Sam
Nov 17th Terry, Taylor, Sam
Weds Nov 23rd Ter
December 1 st Terry, Bill, Piper
December 8th Terry, Bill, Keith
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All
PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Shostrom
PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2015-01769 860 C NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2015-01517 209 Oak Shostrom
PA-2015-02203 868 A Street Whitford
PA-2016-00073 151 Pioneer Swink
PA-2016-00275 574 Allison Emery
PA-2016-00387 95 N. Main Shostrom
PA-2016-00763 5 N. Main Swink
PA-2016-00209 25 N. Main NEED ASSIGNED
PA-2016-00818 175 Pioneer Shostrom & Skibby
PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford
PA-2016-00587 872 Siskiyou Blvd Skibby
PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard
PA-2016-01641 221 Oak Street Shostrom
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled December 7, 2016 at 6:00 pm
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8: 05pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016 Business Meeting
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application
FROM:
David Roselip, engineer/paramedic, david.roselip@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
Ashland Fire & Rescue (AF&R) is requesting permission to seek Federal funding through the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG) which would, if successful, require matching funds from the City.
AF&R would be requesting grants for a Vehicle Exhaust Capture System and an assortment of wildland
firefighting Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
If successful, both of these grant funded projects are aimed at improving the safety and health of all
personnel who work at AF&R.
-The Vehicle Exhaust Capture System would put in place a vacuum capable of isolating and expelling
diesel exhaust from each piece of apparatus in the engine bay at Station 1. This exhaust is a known
carcinogen and also contains harmful gasses capable of penetrating the breathable air in the engine
bay, offices and living quarters. Exhaust capture systems became a standard code requirement for new
structures containing engine bays the year after Station 1 was constructed. These systems are heavily
supported by OSHA, NIOSH and the NFPA for their ability to reduce the risk of contact with
carcinogens and other hazardous products. The department is seeking a grant up to $100,000 to add the
exhaust capture system at Station 1. AF&R Station 2 is already equipped with such a system.
-The PPE request would consist of wildland firefighting coats, pants, boots, helmets, fire shelters,
goggles, gloves and web gear needed to ensure firefighter safety during wildfire operations. Current
safety gear has aged beyond acceptable industry standards. This equipment would directly and
positively affect our ability to safely defend our watershed, homes, property, infrastructure and lives
across the City. The department is seeking a grant up to $52,000 for this needed PPE.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
-Protect the Safety and Integrity of the Watershed.
-Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community (The occurrence of wildfire in Southern
Oregon is expected to rise 300-400%, making safety equipment all the more important).
-Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support City mission and goals.
-Support innovative programs that protect the community.
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
^AS H LAN D
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The AFG Program requires that agencies receiving funding pay 10% of the overall costs associated
with award(s). Therefore, staff is looking at matching funds that could range from $5,200 to $15,200,
dependent upon whether we are awarded funding for one or both projects. In the event that neither
project is funded there would be no financial cost to the City.
Any allowable overhead and fees will be applied to the grant budget and if grants are awarded the
department will approach the Council at a later date with a Supplemental Budget request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff requests the approval of these grant applications.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve Ashland Fire & Rescue's application to FEMA's Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program for the purpose of funding the purchase of personal protective equipment and/or a vehicle
exhaust capture system.
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
Page 2 of 2
kV4
CITY OF
^AS H LA N D
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Appointment of Ashland School District Representative to the Conservation
Commission
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb kashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Confirm Mayor's appointment of David Sommer as Ashland School District representative to the
Conservation Commission.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment of David Sommer as Ashland
School District representative to the Conservation Commission.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.13
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Approve appointment of David Sommer as Ashland School District representative to the Conservation
Commission.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to approve appointment of David Sommer as Ashland School District representative to the
Conservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
Recommendation letter
Page 1 of 1
ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 45
Suzanne Cusick
Superintendent
JORDAN ELY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Business Services Director
EVA SKURATOWICZ PATTY MICHIELS
ERIC STRONG Director of Human Resources & Instruction
JIM WESTRICK SAMUEL BOGDANOVE
JOHN WILLIAMS Inspiring Learning for Life Director of Student Services
DENEICE COVERT ZEVE
November 28, 2016
Mr. Adam Hanks
Management Analyst
City of Ashland - Administration and Conservation
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Adam,
Please let this letter serve as my recommendation of David Sommer to serve on the City of Ashland's
Conservation Commission. David is the Director of our Facilities and Maintenance Team. He has a
background in environmental and conservation issues and would be an asset to your commission, as well
as a strong liaison between the City and the School District.
Please feel free to call me if you have questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
r
L.
S C u~i c~
S perintendent
Ashland School District
ADNIINISTRATION BUILDING 885 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD, ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 541-482-2811 FAX 541-482-2185
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Request for Sewer Connection to a Property Located Outside the City Limits and
within the Urban Growth Boundary
FROM:
Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, scott.fleury@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is an approval for connection to the City's sewer system for a property located outside of the city
limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ren Kolar, the owner of 2995 Highway 66 has
requested a sewer hookup for the property in question due to a failing septic system. The Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has informed Mrs. Kolar they will be required to hook into city sewer
as they are within 300 feet of service and there is no usable area for replacement of the existing system.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Section 14.08.030 lists the conditions and requirements for
connection of properties located outside the City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
This application currently meets or will meet all conditions of the code for connection to the City
sewer system.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Property Use:
The property is zoned General Commercial (GC), is 1.76 acres and currently supports a mini storage
facility.
Current System Description:
The current sanitary sewer situation at 2995 Highway 66 requires a prompt resolution to avoid possible
environmental pollution. The septic system that supports the property is no longer functioning
properly. The DEQ has requested the property be connected to city sewer after review of inspection
information provided by A-Affordable Royal Flush. DEQ will not issue a permit for repair or
replacement of the existing system if an option to connect to the public system exists within 300 feet.
Impact to the City System:
The future connection of the property will have minimal impact on. the City's sewage system. The
property contains minimal fixtures. The sewer main in this section of Highway 66 is a 10 inch concrete
pipeline and can handle the additional flow from property without negative impact. This section of
mainline was modeled during the sewer master plan process. The modeling shows adequate capacity
for additional hookups along Highway 66. The system development charges (SDC) for a commercial
property is determined by the total of fixture units. The total number of fixture units for the property
generate an SDC fee of $4,035.85
Page 1 of 3
tyr
Will
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Adherence to Ashland Municipal Code 14.08.030
An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth
boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland
City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's
sewerage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions:
A. The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development
charges established by the City Council.
B. In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is subsequently replaced for
any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may connected to the sewer system of
the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the
Director of Public Works.
C. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of extending the City of Ashland sewer main
or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested.
D. The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County Health Department
(now DEQ that the existing sewage system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the
City of Ashland does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan support
documents, rules, or regulations.
E. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners
of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of
the land.
F. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of
annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness
previously contracted by a public service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5,
multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be
withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or
future expense to the City.
G. The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land
prior to annexation to the City.
H. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
This application can and/or does meet all of the above listed criteria. The owner has been provided
signed copies of the consent to annexation and the restrictive covenant restricting subdividing or
partitioning the property until such time as it is annexed into the city. The property owner is prepared
to record these documents if Council approves the request.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Property owners with properties located outside the city limits, who connect to the City sewer system,
are required to pay sewer system development fees (SDC). In this instance the property is commercial
Page 2 of 3
IF '
r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
and is assessed by total number of fixture units. The property owner will also be required to pay for
recording of the consent to annexation and consent not to subdivide. In addition, this location will pay
an established monthly service fee for the sewer connection that is 1.5 times that of a property inside
city limits.
COUNCIL GOALS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of Mrs. Kolar's request to connect the property at 2995 Highway 66 to the
City sewer system. The application meets all requirements set forth in AMC 14.08.030; there is
adequate capacity in the sewer system; and there is a financial benefit to the City for the connection.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve the request to connect the property at 2995 Highway 66 to the City's sewer system.
ATTACHMENTS:
System Inspection Letter
Communication from DEQ
Page 3 of 3
A Royal Flush Beats
- A--Affordable Royal Flush
PO Box 2868
White City, OR 97583
(541) 772-3389 or (541) 479-6935
Fax (541) 830-0617
DEQ #36399
O
A Full House Anytime
10/07/2016
Re: 2995 Hwy 66, Ashland
Dear Ren:
On 09/22/2016 we pumped the three septic tanks and camera the tanks to verify condition.
Results showed the drainfield is no longer accepting effluent adequately and is need of
replacement. Repairs are insufficient at this point.
After review of the systems we feel you would be best suited to connect to city services.
Thank you,
Joshua Graves
A-Affordable Royal Flush
Department of Environmental Quality
Western Region Medford Office
I)regon
221 Stewart Avenue, Suite 202
Kate Brown, Governor Medford, OR 97501
(541) 776-6010
FAX (541) 776-6262
TTY 711
October 10, 2016
RENDEVCO LLC
2995 Hwy 66
Ashland OR 97520
Re: Failing system at 2995 Hwy 66, Ashland OR. 97520
The Medford office of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality recently received a call
stating that the septic system at the above property is in failure. Due to the facts that there is
no usable area for a replacement drainfield and that there is a municipal sewerage system hook
up within 300 feet, DEQ will require that this system be hooked into the municipal sewerage
system.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (541) 776.6289 or email me @
easter.martv@dea.state.or.us
Sincerely,
Marty Easter, REHS
Onsite Wastewater Specialist
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Appointment of Tina Gray as Director of Human Resources
FROM:
John Karns, Interim City Administrator, john.karns@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This agenda item concerns the appointment of Tina Gray to the position of City of Ashland Director of
Human Resources.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Tina Gray has served as the City's Human Resources Manager for the past fourteen years. Her work
involves providing guidance to all of the directors of City departments on general personnel matters;
working with individual employees and managers on performance, benefits, and retirement issues;
developing personnel policies and training programs; recruiting for open positions; participating in
labor negotiations and employee benefits and compensation decision-making; and keeping staff aware
of and in compliance with evolving employer legal obligations. Ms. Gray also manages the work unit
at Municipal Court. She currently serves on the City executive leadership team.
The attached proposed position description portrays in greater detail Ms. Gray's roles in City
administration.
Ms. Gray has served these various functions with distinction, displaying a high degree of both
professionalism and sensitivity.
In most Oregon cities larger than Ashland and in many Oregon cities smaller than Ashland, the person
responsible for managing personnel issues is designated as a department director, and compensated
accordingly.
Under Ashland Municipal Code 2.28.040, the City Administrator may recommend to the Mayor
appointment "of any principal officer or Department head." The appointment recommended herein
would elevate the current position of Human Resources Manager to Human Resources Director and
take effect upon assent by the Mayor and confirmation by the Council.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The total impact of this recommended action on the City's personnel budget would approximately
amount to an additional $4,500 through June 30, 2017 and twice that amount for the subsequent full
fiscal year, assuming no step increases.
Page I of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Tina Gray as Director of Human
Resources.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval of the appointment of Tina Gray as Director of Human Resources.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Position Description for Director of Human Resources
Page 2 of 2
ILI
CITY OF
ASHLAND
JOB DESCRIPTION
OVERTIME: x Exempt -Non-Exempt
JOB TITLE: Human Resources Director
JOB GROUP: Executive Management
DEPARTMENT: Administration
DATE: 12/8/2016
PURPOSE:
Plans, directs, and supervises human resources functions and activities for the City including, but not limited to, those
related to recruitment, retention, employee relations, training, employee recognition, benefits administration, employee
safety, classification, compensation, legal compliance, and labor negotiations. Develops and administers the
department budget; formulates, implements, and interprets policy in areas such as personnel management, recruitment,
compensation, legal compliance, employee benefits, and employee relations; Monitors organizational culture and
wellness; provides advice and support to the City Administrator and executive directors in managing problems and
change. Investigates or supervises investigations; develops and maintains cooperation and communication between
bargaining units and management; directs personnel; counsels/provides technical assistance to staff and management;
serves on the City executive leadership team; performs tasks and assigned projects to assist the City Administrator.
Supervises department personnel in the performance of their duties; communicates with the public and others on matters
of concern pertaining to the Department; manages court-related staff and activities and/or may manage other specialized
administrative areas as assigned.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:
The Human Resources Director is a single position classification. The incumbent manages all City human resources
functions and provides staff support to management as a key advisor to the executive team. The incumbent also
manages the court services work unit and/or may manage other specialized administrative areas if assigned.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED:
Receives administrative direction from the City Administrator.
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES:
The employee in this classification will have direct supervisory responsibility over subordinate supervisory and clerical
employees, and indirect supervisory responsibility over professional, technical, clerical, and/or other employees.
ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS:
The duties listed below are only intended as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific
statements of duties does not exclude them from the classification if the work is similar, related and/or a logical assignment to the
classification.
Direct and administer the City's employee benefits program, including health, welfare and retirement benefit programs.
Provide oversight and staff support to the Employee Health Benefits Advisory Committee (EHBAC) in the management
of the City's self-insured health benefits program.
Direct recruitment and retention activities such as advertising, application processing, candidate notifications, background
checks, hiring and orientation; assist management with interviewing/selection activities.
Direct and coordinate the City's self-insured Worker's Compensation program; collect and process forms; track lost time;
retain appropriate documentation regarding medical status; make decisions regarding the validity of claims; coordinate
with supervisors and managers to arrange modified duty when appropriate.
Human Resources Director Page 2
Manage recruitment and employee on-boarding process, respond to questions from employees, managers and citizens
in a professional and courteous manner. Administer City leave policies and procedures in compliance with state and
federal law.
Serve as an internal resource to management and the City Administrator regarding employment laws, disciplinary
process, human resources documentation, and general policy issues; provide advice and support for management on
labor relations issues; serve as a liaison between management and labor representatives.
Participate as a member or lead negotiator on the City's Labor Negotiation Team; research issues and provide data;
communicate with the City Administrator and City Council regarding management objectives and bargaining strategies;
administer labor contracts on an ongoing basis.
Prepare and administer assigned budgets; initiate, review, and approve expenditures; monitor budget progress and make
necessary modifications.
Supervise and evaluate the work of subordinates, including subordinate supervisors; interview, select, assign, direct, and
evaluate employees; effectively recommend disciplinary actions as needed; hear grievances and resolve complaints;
ensure that subordinates receive adequate training.
Participate on Citywide multi-disciplinary committees such as the Risk Management Team and the Safety Committee.
Manage other specialized administrative areas as assigned, e.g., Municipal Court; supervise staff and provide
management input regarding policies, procedures, and day-to-day activities.
Research, analyze, and compile information and reports; develop and update policies and procedures relating to areas
of expertise; attend City Council and various other meetings; draft and/or recommend resolutions and ordinances and
prepare and present reports for Council action or information.
Follow all safety rules and procedures established for work areas.
AUXILIARY JOB FUNCTIONS:
Maintain proficiency by attending training conferences and meetings, reading materials, and meeting with others in areas
of responsibility.
Perform other work as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Education & Experience: Possession of a bachelor's degree with major coursework in human resources, public
administration, business administration, or a related field. A minimum of five (5) years of professional public sector human
resources experience, including a minimum of three (3) years in a management or supervisory capacity. Any satisfactory
equivalent combination of education, training and experience that demonstrates the knowledge, skills and abilities to
perform the duties of the job proficiently may substitute for the above requirements.
Desirable Qualifications: A master's degree in public administration or a related field is desirable; experience in a
municipal government that is similar to or larger than the City of Ashland is desirable.
License: Possession of, or the ability to obtain and retain, an Oregon driver license by the time of appointment.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Knowledge of:
• Principles and practices of modern public administration, including planning, organizing, directing, staffing,
and controlling.
• Principles and practices of human resources management, including recruitment, retention, employee
relations, training, employee recognition, benefits administration, employee safety, classification,
compensation, and labor negotiations.
• Applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENTIPERSONNEL Tel: 541-552-2110
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Human Resources Director Page 3
• Organizational planning techniques, including staffing, goals, objectives, and work standards development.
• Principles and practices of employee selection, supervision, training, and professional development.
• Principles and practices of program and budget administration, including development, goal setting, and
implementation.
• Current literature, laws, regulations, and developments, as well as various agencies that impact municipal
human resources and administrative services.
• Research methods, report writing techniques, statistical concepts and methods, and principles and
techniques of project management.
• Common word processing, spreadsheet, and database software.
Ability to:
• Plan, organize, and direct a wide variety of public sector human resources programs and activities.
• Plan, organize, assign, direct, review, and evaluate the work of assigned staff, including supervisory staff.
• Develop, recommend, and administer sound human resources strategies for a municipal government.
• Research and analyze administrative and policy matters in a public sector environment.
• Interpret, explain, and apply federal, state and local laws regulating municipal human resources
management.
• Prepare and administer a budget.
• Exercise sound independent judgment within general policy guidelines.
• Communicate with the public and staff, often in stressful situations.
• Represent the City effectively in consults, counsel, business and professional groups.
• Assist and support team performance and work cooperatively with other team members.
• Provide positive support to internal and external customers.
• Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing.
• Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS:
The physical and mental demands described here are representative of those that must be met by employees to successfully perform the
essential functions of this classification. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the
essential functions.
(1) Mobilit : frequent sitting for long periods of time; occasional bending or squatting. (2) Liftin : frequently up to 10
pounds; occasionally up to 25 pounds. (3) Vision: constant use of overall vision; frequent reading and close-up
work; occasional color and depth vision. (4) Dexterity: frequent use of keyboard; frequent repetitive motion; frequent
writing; frequent grasping, holding, and reaching. (5) Hearing/Talking: frequent hearing and talking, in person and
on the phone. (6) Emotional/Psycholo iq cal: frequent decision-making and concentration; frequent public and/or
coworker contact; occasional working alone.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential
functions of this classification. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential
functions.
Work is performed in a typical office environment and is subject to moderate noise.
DEPT. HEAD SIGNATURE CITY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL DATE
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT/PERSONNEL Tel: 541-552-2110
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us rM
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Resolution Designating the City's Finance Director as the Budget Officer
FROM:
David Lohman, City Attorney, david.lohman@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
This agenda item requests designation of the City's Finance Director (or the Interim Finance Director)
as the Budget Officer for the City.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Under Oregon Local Budget Law, the governing body is responsible for designating one person to act
as the City's Budget Officer. From March 2003 to October 2012 the Finance Director served as the
Budget Director. In October 2012, at the request of the then-Interim City Administrator, the Council
designated the Interim City Administrator as Budget Director. The current Interim City Administrator
believes it to be in the City's best interest for the Finance Director (or the Interim Finance Director),
whose financial expertise the City depends upon for related functions, to serve as the Budget Officer
for the upcoming 2017-2019 Biennium Budget process, and for subsequent budgets.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council approve the following motion.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the resolution appointing the City's Finance Director (or Interim Finance Director)
as the Budget Officer for City of Ashland.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Page 1 of 1
~r
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY'S FINANCE
DIRECTOR AS THE BUDGET OFFICER PER ORS 294.3319
AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2012-31
RECITALS:
A. The City of Ashland follows the Oregon Local Budget Law, ORS 294, in preparing its
budget. ORS 294.331 requires the governing body to designate one person to act as the
Budget Officer.
B. The Budget Officer is responsible for publishing all of the notices required by Local Budget
Law. The Budget Officer is also responsible for monitoring budget expenditures during the
budget year and notifying the governing body of the need to make any budget changes
required after adoption.
C. For some time prior to October 2012, the designated Budget Officer for the City was its
Finance Director.
D. In October 2012, the City Council passed and the Mayor signed Resolution No. 2012-31,
designating the then-Interim City Administrator as the City's Budget Officer.
E. The City Council now wishes to designate the City's Finance Director as the Budget Officer
for the City of Ashland.
THE CITY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Budget Officer, acting under the direction of the executive officer, shall
prepare or supervise the preparation of the budget document. The Budget Officer must present a
balanced budget to the budget committee. To be in balance, the resources in each fund must be
equal to the expenditures and other requirements in that fund. The estimates of resources and
expenditures must be made in "good faith". That is, they should be reasonable and reasonably
likely to prove correct, based upon known facts at the time.
SECTION 3. With this resolution, Council designates the City Finance Director (or the person
serving as Interim City Finance Director) as the Budget Officer.
SECTION 4. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED THIS day of , 2016,
and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Resolution No. 2016- Page 1 of 2
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2016- Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Public Hearing and Approval of the Release of Interest in an Easement for
Construction and Maintenance of Iron Pipes and Flumes
FROM:
Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works, fleurys@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council is asked to approve the release of interest in an easement for installation and maintenance
of iron pipes or flumes across a residential property located at 540 Maple Way. As required by Oregon
Revised Statue (ORS) 221.725 the City Council must approve relinquishment of any deed restrictions
in favor of the public. Staff has advertised the public hearing as required by the ORS.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Legal Department was contacted by the property owner of 540 Maple Way to consider terminating
an iron pipe and flume easement across the property. The easement was formally dedicated in 1890
and is described in Jackson County official records in Volume 20, page 400, reference attachment one.
The easement was dedicated to the City in order to develop and maintain a water distribution system.
The Legal Department worked directly with Public Works staff to both draft a release of interest
document and confirm the easement was no longer needed as part of the City's water distribution
system.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications of this action other than expended staff time. All document recording
fees will be borne by the property owner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached release of interest document which would remove the iron
pipe and flume easement from the property owner's current deed record.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve the release of interest document for an easement dedicated in Jackson County official
records in Volume 20, page 400, for parcel #2 of partition plat P-54-2000.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Release of Interest Document
2. Partition Plat P-54-2000 (parcel 92)
Page 1 of 1
1%r I
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:
Barbara Christensen
Ashland City Recorder
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Until a Change is Requested, All Tax Statements
shall be sent to the following name & address:
Alan Levine
540 Maple Way
Ashland, OR 97520
RELEASE OF INTEREST
A deed described in the Jackson County Records department as a statutory deed, Jackson County
official records No. 2015-014679 is the last known and previous deed recorded for the property
described therein and said property is affected by an easement further described in Jackson County
official records in Volume 20 Page 400, Property is Parcel Two of Partition Plat No. P-54-2000 of
the Records of Jackson County Index Volume 11, Page 54, Jackson County, as follows:
Exhibit A, herein attached and incorporated.
City Council of the Grantee has determined that the public interest will be best served by releasing
any and all interest Grantee has in the easement described above and to vacate the same. Council
further gives authority to its City administrator to execute this and any other instruments necessary
to effectuate this transaction.
The true consideration for this conveyance stated in terms of dollars is $0.00 and other
consideration Grantee deems satisfactory.
CITY OF ASHLAND
EXHIBIT "A"
.iii •.K>I.• ':t' li •t )L[~} ~.r,..f
. c: ,•`l' . J . r ,w. '4.`' ,=T.. -'•~....-ivr i : t-'~<:;;T ^y • '-Y .:!~i~,1'.~` ~ " .~~:t; ~-:R, at - r ~h~-~ _
'.1~: J.~P,~I~~.f, j~''R~•i- r ~•~i•• ~.1~+. I~V~~ S N^': ~ 1~ fj(~~/.1}`,R~{y;i,':.r _ -~,'Y `!~~J~.. 'i`"(1~0 (!J].••~ .t.f~~p~i
. ~ ...~ri~ ~~~~JJ~ ~1 ~.•S_11•.~ U.: (i.~f. :~!.l!a~6Y- Y2:' [)~V~
PA.
ev-
7-77
. - G~-'"-""`.•': =~1- -,~fn~'JAaa.F! - ~ " " JSLVCC•C r~/,{.~ ; ~ •,J•~'7`?ly~..Z~?Z~J`~[6_~• •J`(o' _ _
- - - - -
- . -
Jet U
~''~jA' ✓Gf-fi 1 • r~
o!
v~
o • r t r t
w O o o c o ~ ~
O C J N O« J•• v• rn O I v x
o z a w N n; o o ae E JO o
N O e • Z N O~ E O y
[L O N O 4 OL < O Z 01()Z^U = C ° e O<} 8
C > < ` u c t F` p U ZN=« e O. e v; O W wO> Z~Z O
O w .Y O t O_ _w v 1- S Oet I\.
T O U O O° O r o [l' VI .-O E V O ; w W j Z S• J' .p
J w 61 ~OC C; J=. O [LOP' Ye e2 <e£ wW V1
J r0~
c x Naoow ow p 1~ ?rc iiv•i o nu ~z N
• O U F}
O M° w L e O (Y•U C 03 N`om' 1Z
o v Q r
Y Of a E-0 o e « yW <`f > n~ F ° E
O x V 1 1 f w 0 D C rWY m e o ; W e G F$~•
_ V wL LC O <310 J C C> tl i OZ 'V
Z O V o O ` l O v v O N ZO U O Y O O« N ; Y v U O < C
0 O •r K~ C Q t N C N W°~ r C °M OH _wN O U Zd C
O ` TzEO t5: NWn YjCO aN Nv0 °
v a P- Z N d ] T o w V O O O N^ < c e v • N N = • u H T
c o v„vco zm0 .1d - <o~o IuE
O O d • Z W OT J a e N ° w7- O V c rJ J N 3 2
7 W ' • L h C N a.J N C v • ~vs
• 2 • - l~ N m WY ° 0 0 C J C ONvk ZN ° e xY < ° 0 • G O
« W W d FU Q.~ vd 0 mY U OU v M4 E 0 >0
ca I
N > <]a• O C<~ WU Ju,•O~ oV vO OwOT S m
-<i Toz nx .may c c ewgc
`o O UxeEc O o
w Y = w~• °e v,~ x _i M10-c>o p ] c°i`ou °
}
e W vi N ~_ta « ° > E 0v i°a°
Q' W O U`v U..O 3.Ni] We C O OZ a
p _ M
O O V T w N O p p 0O O: 4• S h
c V) vi m ~O°~E~o OUt o, 11 II II II II =4<u$ a
u,I D, ]0 } W N O_PO~Cf C]JN«4 Uw uoSo
v IT " C j o a o o s mNmin°i 1]n O ® Q • i
• v \ U a m o O v m t
W O ` C
F- 0 y
i 9
• v ~ z of s
'LS InN1S3HO w o ► m
IW°°I ~~N W
w • „ I i
W"e ss~
a<
o I I~° I 2 I
o
~ °d
3 I _ ,L6'r8l 3.0Y,05A05 - - - - - - - - - 1/11-1
/i ,586'£6
~W O O I w 31; I WAN
< 0
V) C to V) bn I ~W? ofo ag
dm
Z 0) ~~u W og r---- ----1 e•, an` I I
M
~i ? C Ur Ckf Z I n S 3 ws~ O° I w °uc~~ =n<u -
F-s Lr O Q•' W a r _s_ - ~r\idr u ♦ I I 3 ~v~i~°_z `<~ii~ I I _ _
1-4 p W Q
u
0 U Q' 3 ; ° q I I I \Y W W O
Er H U v ,'L W s'rz s'tz -h s3~ I y. I n
3
-Oj Lee
w C (f1 O - ° r < 29.0' 29.0 -
o I I m I 1
~Q1+ o-2 o o CIO
1--i H H N W I n
L-~ ~ ,L6'r6 dd ,rZ'tiS .l8'Of
Q 0 ,l0'S6 M_tO,Ss.WM ,rZ'161 M.vosszom
d W n n (ONOIr38 3o sm")
Ul ft-
kVM 3-1ddw
t
I ~ N
N
O I ~ ~ I I
IN '
- o v e t• ° _ e • a
0o i iE iv«
wt ot- gg
c~vovi o ='-o t°nc N~¢~d NEE ~ R
n oa c o > • c e~Y~ t g=~
L.j
O wct Oa i~N ° i Utz a w e c x~Yp
Z ' J eL o nc~ e~ Y v• r ~Ui o i N '6agw
> >
< e EtNU E~ E `02 U
y~wF I''1 °~a °c ci ~g
.00
< 00
r N N C> O Z • Y v • w 00
W a
d. m a os ao c v ° w °v
> W U° C C•• t • C O O pl °
v O` yNj°°'O OLj w°•00 w•~OC O
CL 0 o 2 • e ~ Y C 2 A ivy 0 0 ivy a. O S
Q T ~ v ~ 0 SOP Pp. c c at ° C a C-0
moc~ t e• w ac t w p
o p f ° °ajCY
C 7 Z. ~O~ N ° 6 X O w
p LM W~v L
L a= QO C ' C O
J•. pA wow O °a. 0-60 LL :E
OO j 0 G £ X
• -
(L• w O N~ w° i • co
O O>~~ve ° •,a of as C~ ° O~ aOL ? s°
W YStw O O` , O u O ~ NU O.°. N m V1U Om
c o
0 e a
wo«oc
10 < < u U o
h
sUR : NU. 6644 s
SURVEY NARRATIVE TO COWLY `VTH PARAGRAPH 209.250 3
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
SURVEYFOR: Joseph Sargenti 2
2298 Gene Cameron Way
Medford, Oregon 9751-4
F
LOCA270N.- In the Southeast One-Quarter of Section 5, Township 39 South, Range I 1
East, Willamette Meridian, Cite of Ashland, Jackson Co»n y Oregon.
PURPOSE: To survey and monument a land partit=ion of property described in
Instrument No. 93-25971 of the O racial Records of Jackson Courrty, t
Oregon. F
t
PROCEDURE: Utilizing a one second theodolite and electronic measuring equipment, a ~
control traverse was run, tying found monuments as shown on the attached
map. The south boundary of the property being partitioned was previously
established by property line adjustment and was monumented per Survey s
No. 10354. The north boundary was computed by proration of the Maple
Subdivicinn lot r, ime-TI,.$i0;+,$_ Th&_ partition !in-- `tics cornp-ated according tv
client's directions and monuments were set as shown-
BASIS OF
BEAR~WG: N.O.A.A. True Bearing at the north-south centerline of Section 5, as '
derived from the 1968 N.O.A.A survey net on file in the office of the
Jackson County Surveyor, and as referenced on Survey No. 10354.
DATE: August 25, 2000
REGISTERI
L
ECEIVED
QREGOIV {
.7'a 10 'UAFY 19e3
Date J.S f 0 - A- UARREl1 tfi3U F~3RLL H j
rK
20]3
This Survey Consists of.
L sheet(s) Map Darrell L. Huck
p8ge(s) ftrratwe L.S_ 2023 -Oregon
Expires 6/30/01
t'~1tlY1Y Horauhr associates, inc.
1062 East Jackson Street
Medford, Oregon 97504
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Public Hearing and Approval of three Resolutions for New Water, Wastewater
and Transportation System Development Charges
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, michael.fauQht ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is an update on the System Development Charge (SDC) Committee recommended SDC
adjustments based on the updated Water, Sewer and Transportation Master Plans. System
Development Charges are paid by developers to reimburse the City for the cost of capital
improvements necessary to expand infrastructure to accommodate new growth and development.
If approved, 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-modal transportation projects.
On February 4, 2014, a System Development Committee was established to work with City staff and to
develop the following System Development Charge updates based on the Water, Wastewater and
Transportation Master Plans.
Page I of 7
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The members of the committee are as follows:
• Troy Brown, Jr.
• Allen Douma
• Dan Jovick
• Jac Nickels
• Carlos Reichenshammer (Chair)
• Russ Silbiger
• Rich Rosenthal - Council Liaison
The Committee met eight times from March 4, 2014 to February 17, 2015 (see attached minutes). The
Committee recommended some adjustments to the consultant's recommendations, which are included
into proposed SDC updates.
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 $ % 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%
Commercial -'t $/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.
''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 2of7
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'/2 $26,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20%
2 $57,654 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30%
3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30%
4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -1.30%
6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30%
Transportation
The Single family residential Transpiration SDCs would increase fi-om $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 S /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
OFF111
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 (5607.80) -26%
Bus Depot 1,000 sf GFA 25.00 5350 NA
Park 411 Acres 2.01 429.5 4.50 $9,504.50 $9,075.00 2113%
City Acres 45.00 9630 4.50 $9.504.50 (5125.50) -1%
Neighborhood Acres 4.50 963 4.50 $9,504.50 $8.541.50 887%
Amusement Acres 72.00 15,408 4.50 $9,504.50 ($5.903.50) -38%
Golf Course 430 Holes 34.21 7,320.28 3.56 $7,519.11 $198.83 3%
Movie Theatre 443 Seats 0.81 173.25 0.32 $675.88 $502.63 290%
Racquet Club 492 1,000 sf GFA 8.74 1,870.66 0.84 $1,774.17 ($96.49) -5%
Military Base 501 Employee 1.78 380.92 0.30 $633.63 $252.71 66%
Elementary School 520 Student 1.18 252.08 0.28 $591.39 $339.31 135%
Junior High School Student 1.30 277.34 0.30 $633.63 $356.29 128%
High School 530 Student 1.49 318.95 0.29 $612.51 $293.56 92%
Junior/Community
College 540 Student 1.44 307.39 0.12 $253.45 ($53.94) -18%
Church 560 1,000 sf GFA 10.07 2151.04 0.94 $1,985.38 ($165.66) -8%
Day Care
Center/Preschool 565 Student 1.06 229.00 0.84 $1,774.17 $1,545.17 675%
Library 590 1,000 sf GFA 22.30 4,763.00 7.20 $15,207.19 $10,444.19 219%
Hospital 610 1,000 sf GFA 15.94 3,406.00 1.16 $2,450.05 ($955.95) -28%
Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 2.47 528.58 0.37 $781.48 $252.90 48%
BUSINESS &
COMMERCIAL
Hotel/Motel 310 Occupied Room 4.50 963.48 0.74 $1,562.96 $599.48 62%
Building
Materials/Lumber 812 1,000 sf GFA 11.23 2,403.39 5.56 $11,743.33 $9,339.94 389%
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
LA11
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 1,000 sf GFA 14.55 3,113.02 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,124.21 165%
(50,000 - 99,999 sf
GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.12 3,236.16 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,001.07 155%
(100,000 - 199,999
sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 17.24 3,690.10 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,547.13 123%
(200,000 - 299,999
sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 17.89 3,828.96 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,408.27 115%
(300,000 - 399,999
sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 16.29 3,485.03 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,752.20 136%
(400,000 - 499,999
sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.03 3,216.54 3.90 $8,237.23 $5,020.69 156%
(500,000 - 599,999
sf GFA) 820 1,000 sf GFA 15.15 3,242.27 3.90 $8,237.23 $4,994.96 154%
High Turnover Sit-
Down Restaurant 832 1,000 sf GFA 29.26 6,262.45 18.49 $39,052.91 $32,790.46 524%
Fast Food Restaurant 833 1,000 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 .
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
GFA) 710 1,000 sf GFA 9.12 1,951.57 1.49 $3,147.04 $1,195.47 61%
(200,000 sf GFA and 1,648.34
over) 710 1,000 sfGFA 7.70 1.49 $3,147.04 $1,498.70 91%
Medical Office
Building 720 1,000 sf GFA 18.11 3,875.56 4.27 $9,018.71 $5,143.15 133%
Government Office 14,160.98
Bldg. 730 1,000sfGFA 66.17 1.49 $3,147.04 ($11.013.94) -78%
State Motor Vehicles
Dept 731 1,000 sf GFA 159.38 34,107.15 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 0
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 1,000sfGFA 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 6219.19) -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
1ALL'
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) I 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
P.
~r
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 S. 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 Updates July 2016
SUMMARY F SSE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATES
Over the past few years, the City's System Development Charge (SDC) Task Force and Transportation
Advisory Board have worked with the City's staff and consultants to update the Wastewater, Water, And
Transportation System Development Charges. All three updates are based on recently completed master
plans. Table 1 compares the current and updated SDCs for selected land uses.
• The current and updated Water SDC are measured according to the livable square footage of
residences and by meter size for non-residential developments.
• The current and updated Wastewater SDC is based on livable square footage for residential
developments and on the number of fixture units for commercial developments.
• The updated Transportation SDC is based on PM Peak-Hour Trips rather than the current Average
Daily Trips.
The examples in Table 1 are typical but not unique examples of SDCs by development type and size. The
following sections show the current and proposed schedules of the three systems development charges.
Attached to this summary are the detailed findings for the Wastewater, Water, And Transportation SDC
updates.
Table 1. Impact of Updated SDCs on Selected Developments
Development Wastewater' Water Transportation Total
2,000 square foot single family home
Average daily trips (ADT) 9.55
PM peak-hour trips 1.02
Current $1,620 $5,200 $2,044 $8,864
Update $4,056 $5,214 $2,154 $11,424
$ change $2,436 $14 $111 $2,560
% change 150% 0.3% 5.4% 28.9%
60-unit apartment (1,000 sf/unit)
Meter size, inches of diameter 4
Average daily trips (ADT) 6.28
PM peak-hour trips 0.67
Current $48,600 $156,000 $80,635 $285,235
Update $121,680 $156,408 $84,902 $362,990
$ change $73,080 $408 $4,267 $77,755
% change 150% 0.3% 5.3% 27.3%
100,000 square foot retail business with 50 plumbing fixtures
Meter size, inches of diameter 2
Average daily trips (ADT) 17.24
PM peak-hour trips 3.9
Current $6,209 $57,654 $368,936 $432,799
Update $15,596 $56,901 $823,680 $896,177
$ change $9,387 ($753) $454,744 $463,378
% change 151% -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 $ % A
Residential $/Square feet $0.40 $0.41 $0.81 $0.195 $1.833 $2.028 $1.22 150%
Average Residential SDC^ $800 $820 $1,620 $389 $3,665 $4,054 $2,435 150%
Commercial 't $/Plumbing $60.79 $63.39 $124.18 $2992 $282.00 $311.92 $187.74 151%
fixture
/'Assumes 2,000 square feet and thirteen plumbing fixture units.
i Commercial SDC = $/fixture unit.
~w■ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALY5IE Page 2
City of Ashland - Summary of Wastewater, Water and Transportation SDC Updates July 2016
WATER
The current and updated Water SDC for residential developments is assessed based on square footage of
livable area. The Water SDC for residential developments increases from $2.60/square foot to
$2.6069/square 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)A
% x 3/4 $4,940 $1,793 53,084 $4,877 -130%
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 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30%
3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30%
4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -1.30%
6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30%
Table 4. Updated Non-Residential Water SDC Based on Meter Capacities
Meter Size Turbine Displacement
(inches) Reimbursement Improvement Total Reimbursement Improvement Total
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 - - -
III 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 ANALYSI_° Page 4
o , ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
to to O N c `O M 0000 °r M ~ V-1 V') 00 C-A coo M N ~ 00 Ln
lD N 00 N ^ ^ QJ
O b.
N U
ci
i. to ^ ^
C N
`p O (l 00
O O CO `O ~ CIO
69 c!3 69 6~ Fyn 69 69 69 69 63 64
z, try O to to O O O O ^ 00 t- M C~ M tr) 00
M M N t- O to try to to 00 M try M
O N tr) 00 M ~t ~t Q~ M M N M to
x p r, to GN ~ tr, tr, O o O o ^ t-- t-- M QN M to 00
C+ i ^ It O N ~ r_~ n to tr) ~o t~ "O V) "D "O N O,
•y N ~j 69 ON G1 cl~ C r 69 Gn 64 64 64 69
64 69 4q 64 64 CA 64 69 64 6o? 64 64 64
~
ct
.a I~t
N O °O O C O O" N t O 00 O C, N
L O ~O kl~ l M O '7t to tr) V) Ln M 00 M N M N ^ O
O 0 0 O d M O O O C), O O O
GL CC
a= z
O N W) O to O M 00 00 to N oo 1:t to O~
O ~i d N 00 to M ,O O N N ~O ~ o Ma-, c') o
l~
F" M M ~O 00 ~O O M N"D Q', 't o M o O N 00,
Q t 'dt ^ a1 ~t N 00 000 N N M C Ln
O M N Q~ ~D N M
6N4 N N
6R
C
ci
tr) 00 00 t- 110 M O ^ O O
trn N ~O ~O O O C O trn O ~t 00 oo O C~ d l~
U G\ to M to N trn l7t C N o0 t- r- M d O
N ~ N d• O DD r.. p
:a Q a, E~ CC
Q 3
N
Q1
~ Q Q Q
to o O Q Q Q Q Z r~ o o
cc', 0 0 0 v4 v~ to o
U p ^
o
L C O O O O O O M N --C C O C
I- Cr 'C O N M ~O M d G1 O N M d ~O
p U N N N N N 7t It It 't v) try try to try
°J A
O
41
7 UJ
4- O cn
N ~"t J
~ CC Q
> O
(D ~ Li. O U U ~
O O >1 Z
~ ~ ~ Q a cn O ~ C 4'
GC Q 7, U cCi Q O C~ O G]
-ct
C~ 4.1
rs, c u u z 72
o - ia: U z Q o a a, c bn c J
u a z
o o \ 0 0 0 o l o o o o o o o
kr) 01 00 00 N ^M 00 M 'n kr) M V1 `O d 00 O
A N N t oo - ~ ~ V) N~: M a1 N ~p
QJ
O ~
2~- C
Oj
00 d O 00 O M O G1 ~10 `0 00 00 00
N O- N N V Q\ O M O
Ln d N a1 a\ Lr;^ l~ oo N O O O O O o0
Q -t 'n a\ M O "Zt r` Lr) N O O Lr) N al\ a, 00 O
kr) 7 N V,) M N N O O ^ M
O ~3 6g a1 Zt ,I- t lzt N N \O
69 69 69 4&q f} 69 6f3 69 69 69 64 M 69 c'1
bR y9 EA 64 6~} 69
41 V') 00 M V7 O M M M M M M M - O
O ^ O av M d' d N N N N N N NC~ 0o a1 M
O N O^ N M N It ^ M r- r- r- N N M
\p O \O ^ G1 M M M M M M O
00 N
Lr)
p,,, "T~' • ~ r` N ~ ~ O O N N N N N N N O ~ ~ O ~O
L,~ N 69 O O 01 00 00 08, 00 Oo 00 00 C1 01 V') M
b4 r 69 6R3 6g 69 --i9 69 64 69 Ef3 bH 64 M C*~ 69 M ^
+G+ a 64 69 64 69 69 69 6H 69 69 69
.O
~ O `O ~ ~ N ~ ~t ~ O O O O O O 41 O O ~ ~
r 00 N M l~ Vl O O T CT 0~ n C1 CT C1 M 00 ~O M
4.4 a' O l~ O O V") N V") ~t '1 M M M M M co-) 00 ~ N ~r) 00
O
O O O o0 DD D\ O N ~O O M d N M d O
O O O d' M d' M Lr~ O O O v1 N - M
A a\ M 00 M M 00 V) M r` O 00 V'~ \1O N N N M O
N ~O O N ~D O 01 - M M M N 00 I- ~O N-
Q N N 01 't V) O 00 N I'0 00 ~t N N N \10 N
r,6 Tt M N M Lr) N M M M M M M M `O I~
6f3
C
L
L
O ~10 O ~ ~ O M Lr) r- kr) 110 L N qzt GN 0l~ M ~O 0~ ~O 00 `O
O M Q\ N Q\ r` 00 N Lf-) N 00 N O Cl O
Q 3
Ln
Q
O C "0 cn cn vl cn v) CA cn cn rn cn cn ~A cn CA CA ~n
N O O p O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O cG C,
U1 O O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W
ro
i
O
Q
Lr) O O O O N -t Lr) ~,o t` O 0 0 O O O O O N M- O
F" .O O `p C1 -N - ^ ^ ^ - ^ N N N N N N N N M M ~ ~ ~
u7 M 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
t~ W
i
Q1
i
4J
> cz Ul
O
N N
V) Q
0 o U ~ ~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 ~ a
W 4,
q, C~ C1 C', V1 O t;
cn N O a1 C1 a, a, a, ct
4- Ln "U "C"n
U O 0~ a/ GL, N U O i O O O O O O ct
E
p
u Ln O O O O O O O O
'a bJ) 'O
~ O O O O O E^ O O 0
Q ~ U• n. W= m 0 3 ~ c o 0 0 0 0 o rte, U n
CA Vi O ~ s7. u
Ca x 2 Cn to Q Z w Z J' Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p ^ 00 N `o M DD M M cn Gl ~ ~ N
\O M 7 N M ~-c C M N t-- O N M N
QJ
N U co
y o0 ^ M O M ~O O cn O N M G~ O
00 N ^ 00 v~ O ~ 00 M l~ v~ O O ~O M ^
C, c-, cam; o0 00 Vn O
O N ~t r- O 00 O O^ "o "o O
C4 coq E~q
r- (r) 69 V) 69 Cft n 6R - 6F3 b9
69 69 64 64
N V N N ,zt ^ Ln v) "n ~,c 00 M r- 00
~ `p ~ 00 ~ (V O O G O M 'O Q1 N O N O
~ ~ 00 Lr) 00 M l~ o0
~o N ~Y l~ ~n
O N
^ . ,
Cly ^ ~n o0 M O -
N ~p (y 00 M M M 01 M N O N N N ^ ^
6l4 GC b4 - 6q 69 Ln 64 69 Vf b9 69 M 69 64 69 b9 69 64
a 69 69 69 69 y4
00 O M a ¢ C1 C', C t~ 01, M t- t~ "o 00 00 't V7
r L y N a, Nkf) z z ~ ~t N d C ''o c) N O 00 r--
110 O O Q\ d O O O
3 ~ M
O
~ Z
~ ~n M N ~ ~ ~D oo ~ ~o 0o V7 M M N l~
O o0 N M ~n ~n N N cn M ~n a1 O M V) 47
E'" N O~ ^ ~O ~O 00 ~o DD U1 O l~ d' O O O~ O N
Q N N~~ cn O O~ O ~n ~t r- ~ O O O Ln r- N
d N 41 M 00 M M 41 00 00 , O M QA
6H N N c~ Ln N N M ~h tr N r-
ya '--M .-r
C
OW
L
L
~ ~O 00 G~ a\ M O 00 N O t~ DD ~ ~ M 00
V \O \O V 1 O 00
N N ^
:a d a E~ cG ^
d 3
O
¢ a a¢ a a a a ¢ a Q a
Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w w~ w
C.) 4. 4- 4. 4- 4-. 4-. 4-. 4- 4-. 4. 4. 4.. 4.. 4-
0 C cn O a CA cn cn CA n CA v: cn C/~ C4 CA cn cn cn cn CA CA
N 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 G: O O O O O O O O O O
0 O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
ca
L
O
Q
L ~ M O O -•N O 0 0 0 0 0 ^ N O O 0 0 0 0
F U V'1 L!
00 00 00 00 a\ " ^ M N M M M \O N M
ce
L
L
4-
w
4- Ln
N J
a ^ d
cn Q U 2
> Q
v- cz
O
Ci-~ O bJ) ~ ~ ~ d
3 O Q U
r U O cc' 'a O z
N ~ ~ U N ~ ~ ~ U ~ U U rU•, ~ ,1 bA ctl
CA 'A
y a~ U s. O OA bA 4, O cn r+ O aa.) a c>C L v
N to W o o s c' a~ E~ o
Q ce > > ct O V • U O o :.a cz CA
~ w
ct 03 cz -a C13
~ U U ¢ G~. Cq ~ ~ U C7 ~ C7 v~ ~ ~ W Z U" C7 ~ ~
0 0 0
00
LO \ O
-I
O ~
v O~
kr)
4.. -r
CIA (,A
64 N bN9
Z, v) ~O O
T a ° I a,
ON 't
N bg 6F? O
Es9 ct 6/3 b 4
'a
a,
~ ~ O O O
0
W) 00 r-
F" O~ N kn
Q N
6R
C
G~
L
O M `J O
U ~ ~ cy o r~
bA 'C G7, Lrl M
:a d a E~ ~C
Q 3
Ln
(L)
+1
D
U O 4.
0 _
V) 0 0 0- o
~ o o ~ o
0 0 o w o
L
Q
Ul)
r
E. Z7 O o Gi.
C
f6 ci
L ~
Q~ ZT
1 cr
co 11
Q~
4-
y~
ui
(D
0
z
O J
Ll
M
F Q Z
E Z
Ln
O ~ G7
C- i N th Q
V) 3 o
as Q
rn
o 0 0 0 .-,a o o 0 0 0Ol o 0 0 0 0
O
\p ^ CO) 00 M M to Q\ C~ C~, Vr N Q\ ~ `o
M O\ M I~ N
a
0
°
41
C
O tf) O N M O,
U d C N C\ oo M^
O ~ DD M ~o V1 0 O~ M^ N N
lzt Cl Q1 d M 00 00 Lr) O C O ~o O 01
yg 00 1 N M
bq 64 b4 ^ 69 64 b4 64 64
69 6f3 69 6F? '--64 64
69
N V) Ln ~ ~lc oo M r- 00 un \O O
r-~ O O O O M \O G\ N C) N - O d "o M
N C} O\ 00 V'1 00 (n t~ oo V) ~,c G\
yg O O o, N ~o N -t Ln c\ lzt O
M M M O\ M N O N N N ^ Go) ^
M 6~} 69 Fit} 6f3 E,g 6f3 69
6F? 64 6F} 64 69 "t 69
'C
G~
00 oo 't V) V N N
Z ~t N ~t Q\ ~o O N O 14~ o0 r- N ¢
00 o0 V) M M
N N M V) Q, C, O M V) Ln Ln Ln 00 l~
N o0 \O 00 V) O d O O C, O N Q\ N ~o
U O\ O d ~o O Q, O ~o N N O
A M a, oo r- oo O "o M ~,o C1 N N r-
fi3 E/3 69 b4 64 m ~ 69 ~ 6~4 69 6q 6Eo H~? 64 69 69
lco I o
G' (aj
oo N O
U \p ^ M `o `0 00 00 M N O M
a N O oo kn, kn. M.
w w w~ w w w w w w w~~~~~~~
Q < C7 C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 a) O
4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. °
v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c- o
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o
cn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o
0
L
O
Q.
N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0
M N M M M I~ N M Ll) V") r- \o cl~
(a ~
L
L ~
L
4-1
3 ui
o
N J
fB
¢ U Z
O Q
O b1) Q a
z
O ~ U U
C: Ll
coo Q °o °o Q ° O U a d ° Cl. 'D
Q C W ~ ~ ~ OO OO .v ~ ~ Q. ~ r% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 o D
(A Con uj
cz It
L, U C7 ~ C7 v~ ~ G~ ~ Z ~ 3 ~ ~ '3 Q
~ rIT
- O ~
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 $0.195 $1.833
Commercial! $/Plumbing fixture $29.92 $282.00 $311.92
Source: City of Ashland, Wastewater System Developinent Charge Update [Economic & Financial
Analysis, July 20161, Table 1.
2- Y02-Wastewater SDC Resolution. doCXGAIegaIXPAUDFORMSVeso[ution formmpd
City of Ashland
Wastewater and Water ~ System Development Charge Update
Methodology Summary
August 14, 2006
Exh i bit `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 $21482 ($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 $435,000.
• 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 - 8UC 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 fluids 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.
o 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 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
i
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation ro Customer Classes
Current Equivalent'/," Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capac►tyAvallable to Servo Growth:
Original Cost 25,859,286.21 7,124,571.41 32,983,857.62
less: Accumulated Depreciation (7,398,192.23) (2,036,298.68) (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 Remand:
20 Year Forecast-Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,899
20 Year Forecast.., Commercial Equivalent Meters 2640
Calculated Water Reimbursement Fee y
~;g7 st, . a . v z 1 > Y~~ g7.JS, R Fe'
t 04
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation ro 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) (8,785,658) (3,144,341) (91,930,000)
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt: -
EPA/DEQ 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) 18,167,899
20 Yeat Forecast... Commercial Fixture Counts 42,237
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Fee _ _
~ y- a x Fy f r 1a~ r ~ c4 ° .st ~ r $
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 8
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 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) 771,216 212,480 983,696
Hoster Dam Stability Analysis - -
Lost Creek Water Rights (additional) 391,999 108,001 500,000
Hosler 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 Chtorine-Hypochloride 58,800 16,200 75,000
Plant and Process Improvements 188,160 51,840 240,000
Filters 7 and 8 New 343,979 94,774 438,750
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 35,004
Upsize lines at Maple, Scenic & Chestnut 49,000 13,500 62,500
Replace Line Strawberry to Grandview 18,600 5,404 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, Fern, Roca 53,900 14,850 68,750
Upsize Mains on Tolman Creek 73,500 20,250 93,750
Replace Steel Line on Siskiyou 31,380 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 Wafer ImprovemenfFee: yy
t,. y-.. }GY.1 ...1 ur E="x$i• .n F£F tA~j~. Y .~`-U ~
.!~l c
°~,R. ,-l'{, k rt~x}.•3'z>~ r t F~4 v* u?~, r; $ ~3r- ifs j':
3,t., at v cr~a} Yy 44T t Ssr i (~y"p~~r~.'S
WNYts:~~sz~`-rT.r
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page-5
Wastewater and Water
c
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 32,945 125,000
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/Replacement 100,523 35,977 136,500
Oafs 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 2$,000
Hersey Street Upsize and Replace 16,938 6,062 23,000
In-House Line 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 $ 1,843,387 1 $ 659,7381$ 2,503,125
Calculation of Future Demand.
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square fleet) 4,476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Commercial Fixture Counts 10,407
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Improvement Fee:
~rr.:f. . r a c a. %Sa
- 0-1
!3'!, wf:~1f . .~`.~.e......
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 3/4" 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. 2008-
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.
GENERALFUNA
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
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
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 SDC's 47,500
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 343,486
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 805,434
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 198,000
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 467,670
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 2,022,260
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 976,645
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 Relations\Promotions 223,608
IT - Cabie, Television 478,746
IT - Internet 776,310
IT - High Speed 301,179
Contingency 100,000
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,678,843
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Adminlstratlon Department 998,925
Administrative Services Department 1,919,524
IT - Computer Servlces Division 982,388
City Recorder Division 269,768
Public Works - Admin€strat€on and Engineering 1,488,463
Coningency 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 1,093,291
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Services 266,476
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 Muncipial Code
§ 2.04. 0 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __SO day of 1Q~, 2006. iot~
dL- Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Signed and Approved on this day of June, 2006.
John . Morrison, Mayor
Appro d as o
fchael ra If, C Attorney
EXHIBIT C
City of Ashland, Oregon
mra
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Vancouver, WA
July 2016
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 1
CURRENT WASTEWATER SDC 1
UPDATED WASTEWATER SDC 3
Reimbursement Fee 4
Improvement Fee 5
Calculation of SDC Schedules 8
Current Methodology 8
Alternative Methodology 9
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION 13
APPENDICES 14
Appendix A: Comparison of Ashland's Wastewater SDCs with Select Oregon Municipalities 14
Appendix B: Fixed Assets of the Wastewater System 15
TABLES
Table 1 Current and updated Wastewater SDC ........................................................................................1
Table 2. Current Wastewater SDC 2
Table 3. 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities and Sewage Flows 3
Table 4. Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee ...............................................................................................5
Table 5. Allocation of Future Capital Improvements to Growth 6
Table 6. Cost Basis for Improvement Fee ...................................................................................................8
Table 7. Proposed SDC-Current Methodology .........................................................................................9
Table 8. Meter Capacities and Equivalencies ...........................................................................................10
Table 9. Average Winter Water Usage-Single Family vs. Multifamily Residence ..................................11
Table 10. Proposed SDC-Alternative Methodology........... ......................................................................13
r
■w~ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page i
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
INTRO . N
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 Sanitai~l 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.
M _7 :417
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 commnercial developments.
Table 1 Current and updated Wastewater SDC
Current SDC updated SDC Change
Reimburse- Improve- Reimburse- Improve-
Measurement merit ment Total ment ment Total $ % A
Residential $/Square feet $0.40 $0.41 $0.8 $0.195 $1.833 $2.028 $1.22 150%
Average Residential SDC^ $800 $820 $1,620 $389 $3,665 $4,054 $2,435 150%
Conunercial $/Plumbing 560.79 $63.39 $124.18 $29.92 $282.00 $31192 S187.74 151%
t fixture
CURRENT WASTEWATER SDC
The current schedule of SDCs was last updated in 2006. The current methodology relies on separate
forecasts of wastewater flows for residential and commercial uses, and it assumes the following:
(a) For residential development, a relationship between sewage flow and the size of the residence
as measured by square feet of habitable (heated) area.
Further references to the Keller master plan appear in this report as the 2012 Master Man.
ECEIN13MIC & 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 table 3, this average is maintained
proportionately throughout the schedule of SDCs. This method does not distinguish between single-family
and multifamily residences. For example, a 1,000-square-foot apartment pays the same SDC as a 1,000-
square-foot single-family residence, and both pay one-half as much as a 2,000-square-foot residence.
Table 2. Current Wastewater SDC
Current SDC
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC
Residential
$/square foot $0.40 $0.41 $0.81
square feet/,
1,000 $400 $410 $810
1,500 600 615 $1,215
2,000- 800 820 $1,620
2,500 15000 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 hased on a range of dwelling sizes.
j Average single-family residence.
This method of assessing SDCs raises several issues:
1. The 2012 Masten Plan provides a forecast of sewage flows and determines the capacity of the
wastewater system. It does not provide a forecast of habitable square feet or separate capacity by
residential and commercial use-both of which are key components of the current methodology.
2. Although a rough correlation likely exists between housing size and the number of fixture units, an
exact correlation has not been established.
3. As we show later in the report, apartments produce significantly less sewage flow than single-
family residences; however, the SDC per size of residence is the same for all types of residences.
2 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.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
4. SDCs are assessed when a property owner or developer applies for a building permit. Permits are
taken for new construction and major remodels. This may not capture the change in fixture types
and numbers for commercial uses and may miss some residential remodels that increase the square
footage of habitable area (e.g., converting a garage or storage space to living space).
5. It is difficult to track installation of additional fixture units and livable square footage, and changes
in the type of development-e.g., residential to commercial, or mixed residential/commercial
developments.
These issues are acceptable limitations on the City's ability to equitably assess the SDC. Using fixture units
is a common method used by Oregon municipalities. Size of residences is also commonly used. However,
we present an alternative that is easier to apply and maintains a similar degree of equity among customer
classes by using the capacity of the water meter to be installed at the development.
UPDATED WASTEWATER SDC
The City's sewer system is comprised of two prunary 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 hued the WWTP occupies and portions of the
collection system that were publicly financed. Most of the public's investment in the sewer system is in the
WWTP, and about 83% of the cost of the projects listed in the 2012 Master Plan are for the WWTP. The
measure of sewage service capacity we use to develop this update of the SDC is based on capacities at the
WWTP.
Table 4 shows the five major components of the WWTP, their current (2012) and future (2030) capacities,
and current and future sewage flows. Each of these components is designed to meet one of four flow
conditions: peak hour, maximum month, peak day, and maximum dry month flows. Together these five
components will meet the forecast sewage flows in all seasons of the year for a forecast population of
24,716 in 2030. The flows and capacities are measured in millions of gallons per day (mgd).
The sewer system is fundamentally designed to carry the sewage load from customers' plumbing systems,
which is most accurately measured by the maximum dry month flow. The maximum dry month capacities
are therefore used as the basis for calculating the SDC. Peak flows correlate with peak periods of
precipitation (inflow) and high ground water (infiltration) that usually occur in winter during periods of
heavy rain or runoff caused by snowmelt.3 These flows are at a low during the maximum dry month period.
Table 3. 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities and Sewage Flows
Flow (mgd) Capacity (mgd)
2012 2030 201.2 2030
Design Current Future Current Excess Future Increased
Plant process Condition Flow Flow Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
3 2012 Muster Plan, pp. 4-6.
~r ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3
~l~
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
Headworks Peak Hour 10.5 11.81 13.50 3.00 13.50 -
Oxidation ditch Max Month 3.6 4.24 3.76 0.16 5.64 1.88
Clarifiers Peak Day 7.1 8.03 11.87 4.77 11.87 -
UV disinfection Peak Day 7.1 8.03 11.00 3.90 11.00 -
Menlbranes 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 reimburseme it 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 ro 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 mad, while sewage
flows are about 2.7 mgd on average (a net reduction over the five-year study period).' The excess
capacity of the existing system is therefore 0.17 mgd or about 6% of the total capacity.
As shown in table 5, the base reimbursement fee is calculated by dividing the book value of the existing
assets ($8.87 nullion) by the capacity of the assets (2.87 mad). The result is a base reimbursement fee of
a 2012 Master Plan, Table 4.3, pp. 4-3.
A ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4
Ifili~
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 S 1191 1,740) $36,498,781
less 2002-2003 WIMP assetst $34,231,375 (`6,604,878) $27,626,497
Balance of Assets (Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee) $15,179,145 f~86.306.S62 $8,872,284
Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd) 2,870,000
Base Reimbursement Fee ($/gallon) $3.09
Source: City of Ashland fixed assets records (see appendix B).
^ Assets placed in service before 1970 were discounted to zero. Land values are at their original purchase price.
t The 2002-2003 improvements to the wastewater treatment plant were financed by the City's food and beverage tax. These assets
are not included in the reimbursement fee.
Improvement Fee
The base improvement fee is derived from the schedule of capital improvements listed in the 2012 Master
Plan6 and the resulting increase in capacity. For purposes of this update, the fee is based on projects that
will be needed over the next twenty years (see table 6), assuming a growth rate of 0.7% per year. Priority 3
projects that are scheduled for completion after 2030 are deemed too speculative to include in this SDC
update.
111 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),
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 $2796 million or to $14.87 million, respectively.
Alternative Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee 2011$
2011 Tnflated Accum. Net Inflated
Depreciated Replacement Cost Cost basis Depreciation Book Value
Value of existing fixed assets $75,388,238 (`322,242,7001 $53,145,538
less 2002-2003 WWTP assets $47,427,300 (59,150,500) $38,276,800
Balance of assets (Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee) $27,960,938 1 3.092.200) $14,868,738
Average dry weather flow (pp) 2,870,000 2,870,000
Cost per gallon $9.74 $5.18
tThe 2002-2003 improvements to the wastewater treatment plant were financed by the City's food and beverage tax. These
assets are not included in the reimbursement fee.
6 2012 Master Plan, table 14. 1, pp. 14-4.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5
City of Ashland -Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
approximately $9.017 million is to expand capacity for future residential and commercial growth, which is
the cost basis for the improvement fee. The remaining approximately $14.352 million is to repair and
replace existing components of the treatment and collection systems that are expected to fail during the
twenty-year forecast period or to be necessary to meet compliance with federal and state water quality
standards. These improvements will be paid from sewer rates and taxes.
Once all the improvements are completed over the forecast period, the wastewater system will have a total
capacity of 3.18 mgd-an increase of 310,000 mad. 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
t, ;i
(;urz,riialu,e ::`_~ilr~l-tecl t>`
1_' 'T %lo, ;.or
4 Backup (portable) pump Capacity $60,000 0% $0 $60,000
5 Membrane replacement (two trains) Replacement $1,248,000 0% $0 $1,248,000
6 Oxidation ditch shell Capacity $4,000,000 39% $1,560,000 $2,440,000
7 RAS pump replacement Capacity $90,000 20% $18,000 $72,000
8 Wastewater master plan update Update $125,000 100% $125,000 $0
Wastewater Collection System
IA 18" and 24" parallel trunkline along creek Capacity $1,248,000 70% $873,600 $374,400
I B 15" main along Mountain Ave. Capacity $118,000 25% $29,500 $88,500
IC Oak St. 24" tnmkline Capacity $40,000 15% $6,000 $34,000
1D A St. 15" main Capacity $522,000 10% $52,200 $469,800
I E 12" main along railroad Capacity $275,000 57% $156,750 $118,250
IF 12" Siskiyou Blvd. main Capacity $73,000 46% 533,580 $39,420
1G Miscellaneous upgrades Various $335,000 10% $33,500 $301,500
114 Portable flow meters Operations $60,000 0% $0 $60,000
1J Storm water inflow study (2012-2013) Capacity - $60,000 0% $0 560,000
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 internals Capacity $2,150,000 100% 52,150,000 $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 5217,000 38% $82,460 $134,540
2B 8" slope correction on Walker Ave. Operations S168,000 28% $47,040 $120,960
2C 12" pipeline on Wightman St. Capacity $172,000 66% $113,520 $58,480
2D Miscellaneous upgrades Various 5739,000 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 $9,0171350 $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 SDIC 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 ($4,054 divided
by thirteen).
According to the City's 2011 wastewater utility billing records, the average winter usage for a single-family
household on a W, x 3/4" meter is 3,780 gallons per month. At an average of 2.1 persons per household (2010
US Census), sewage production is approximately 60 gallons per capita per day.
The current methodology uses this residential average to calculate both the residential base fee (per- square
foot) and the commercial base fee (per plumbing fixture unit).
Residential Base Fee ($/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-
11=1111 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 8
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
foot residence pays half as much as a 2,000-square-foot residence. For commercial uses, the SDC varies
with the number and type of fixture units installed in the development.
Table 7. Proposed SDC-Current Methodology
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC
Residential SDC
$/square foot $0.195 $1.832 $2.027
# square feet
1,000 $195 $1,833 $2,027
1,500 $292 $2,749 $3,041
2,000^ $389 $35665 $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, W, x'/4 The equivalent number of W, x
3/a" 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 P, and less in diameter are displacement meters, while those larger than P are turbine meters.
All W 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 P displacement meter has 2.67 times the capacity of an equivalent x 3/4" displacement
meter. The P turbine meter has even more capacity-3.33 times that of a W x 3/4" displacement meter.
These meter equivalencies are used to determine the SDC by meter size.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 9
City of Ashland - Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
Table 8. Meter Capacities and Equivalencies
Safe Maximum Operating Capacity
(gpm)
Displacement Turbine
Safe Maximum Safe Maximum
Operating Equivalent Operating Equivalent
Meter Size Capacity x 3/a" meters Capacity 5/8" 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'/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 Requireruents 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 x 3/4" diameter meter (i.e., V inlet from the main water line and 3/4" outlet to the building).
About 90% of the City's installed meters are 5/s" x 3/4" displacement meters, and at present, the most
frequently installed residential meter is a 5/8" 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 5/s" 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 S/a x'/4 1" 1 '/z" 2" 3" 4" Meters
Residential (single-family) 2,917 138 6 1 0 0 3,062
Commercial 299 96 59 a 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
r!
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 4" 1 " 1 1/2" 2" 3 " 4" Average'
Single-Family Residence
Gal/mo per Residence 3,325 3,483 3,89z- 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 2,21,- 3,103 2,263 2,841 2,330
% of Single-Family 57% 51% 570/I 61% 70%
Source- City of Ashland, 2011 billing records
^Weighted by number of residences per meter size.
s 5,746 gallons/month in summer vs. 3,330 in winter.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 11
1~
City of Ashland -Wastewater SDC Update July 2016
Figure 1. Average single-family and multifamily water usage per residence, gallons/winter month
6,000
Single-family 5,000 i
+ Multifamily
4,000
3,000
4-
2,000
- + +
I ~
1,000
j Gallons/month/residence
(winter average)
0
5/8 x 3/4" 1 1" 1 1/z" i 2" i 3" 4" Average i
I Single Family s 3,325 3,483 ; 3,894 5,086 1 1 3,330 1
Multi-Family (per residence) 1 1,882 1,787 j 2,214 j 3,103 I 2,263 I 2,841 2,330
Source: City of Ashland, 2011 billing records for January, February, anc 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 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 would be charged for the 1/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 11/2" displacement meter, the opposite
would be charged-i.e., eight residences x $2,838 is greater than $13,499 for the 11/z" 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'/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 Size-1- Reimbursement Improvement Total Reimbursement Improvement Total
5/g x 3/4 $389 $3,665 $4,054 N/A N/A N/A
3/4 650 6,121 6,771 N/A N/A N/A
1 1;039 9,786 10,825 1,295 12,204 13,499
1 '/2 11295 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, effeceive July 1 of each year to correspond with the
City's fiscal year.
The formula for updating the SDC is as follows:
SDCculrent year = SDCIastyear x (CCIcurrenl year/CClIast year)
where:
CCIl,,,rewyear = CCI for the current year
Culasryea = CCI for the last year the SDCs were updated
SDGI„renl year = the SDC updated by the CCI
SDClustyea, = 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 CChcst,;eu,-.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 13
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis and Update July 2016
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Comparison of Ashland's Wastewater SDCs with Select
Oregon Municipalities
SDC per single-family residence, rounded to the nearest dollar.
Jurisdiction SDC/DU Rank
Ashland, current $1,620 7
Ashland, proposed $4,054 2
Eugene' S2,099 5
Grants Pass $2,605 3
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) S 1,523 8
Rogue Valley Sanitary Service (RVSS)t 52,337 4
Roseburg Urban Sanitary Authority (RUSA) $2,007 6
Springfield' 55,553 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,
NTT Medford, Phoenix, Talent, W. Medford, Whetstone, and White City.
56,000
i
55,000
I 1.
S4 000
I rA~
r 1
i
$3,000
f
$2,000 p rv
$1,000 ~1----
r,~
1 7.~~ t L # Y n
$0 Springfield Ashland, Grants Pass Rogue Valley Eugene Roseburg Ashland, MWMC
proposed Sanitary Urban current
Service Sanitary
Authority
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 14
c ooc c Ln
CIO o0 ocOOOOO ooloCD CD CD CD ooooc C o c
,x M O O^ 0 0 0 0 0 M y7 M C
O O a7 c M O N lr C1 C N
M V
N n - o a o~~r~r-~ v--'r tm
N M O N CT m t-- m
O O OI _ _ :7 O
O N 'C
U
U (A O C O C O O C C O O OI C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C O C O
E ^O M ^ O C O O O C O C O O O O C O O O C C O O O C
U U M 00 y C1 O C- V1 V' C~ O ['v7 O C, t~ 00 v1
r o ( o C C\ x r- L- r- t- n "t It m oo N oc m x ff
In A In C1. N (,I ^ N N Cam- N N N V) ✓J 47 - N
U C M corn M00o,
C~ a, N ~t d
d
O O d O 10 <V N N (V N C O O O N N C d' N 10 Cl rn M v7 M d
N N M m M Cl) m V' C';. N N N rn M r'l z' rn ~n "Yo V C In 2
O O. Z O M n v1 u, C O O O C' C- O V;, d t~1 'n ~ r r N."k N V) 'o ~oV r, 'o c. C1-7 h1N"r 31 CA r) Ins ~ ~ r- 30 G;
W
U 00 00 ;1' c> N M v1 ~t CT ' C C C C O O O O O O O It C1 24 C1 C
M M o, -r t` cY ~c G, ' l CD 00 C\ f C) m a
M M 00 t- rt 00 In M O N C\ G, +•r M C~ 7 G,
O O 01, o t-- 0o C~ 'r V) ao ,-i M O ONO
> V1 to N cc 10 m V) O CT x
O N 00 (`l t-
O ~
CA
C •r r r..~ _ r f c. N :r
U b ti r✓I T
n G U N
O ti d b
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 V'1 C11 OO M O 7 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C oc 10 C [t O
O O O O O C O M O O C, m r- G: O O C O O O O O 00 O Vl d; C QN O
^
00 06 It N oC O 7 V> cr~ 't m r N N N N N o0 a\ O O U o h kn
O m M v N t` N j- j- t` M ~O ~O~C O M C- 1,0 m n N M 00 oC r. m
m M Q> N V lO M 0< lo 10 00 110 'IT 00 N rn W 00 CN r-- a t-- m O O
O O 1.0 1C O O r- C m N N Cl 1.0 .0 "o C ~o <t r- 1~0 N o r- M MM 00 N
4--j p vl V1 M co M d' N N M .r) ^ r- 0 0% O rr M N
Q. n, M 'S. V1 C1 M
N M O m
N
L
N
}a d' t r3' d' N N N N M <7' '~t' V' '7' O d' `n O O O Vl
~ O O O O [t t i I~ Q~ C. C~ G~ O~ O O It
U "O c,7 O .3 O O O O 'J]
R.
N Q
Ln
ti5
3
C O
d' ~ 2 U ~ N O ~
cv q - H ocvl
H a 0 Z w o CA
o
o a C
7D CD Z ~ rX R: cn ~ ~ d ~ ~ H
41 ~Q ON U Q'-~ ~UWUO ° 1.c
cn w U U U Q z x a: x W O> 13
W OQ O OC~ts W W W W W ~Q U u c.) z y
U N U G p~W HZC' ~ooz~ W ~Zd~ bap G >j
N ¢ ~E- -a z
uC-)uu ZrJ~ ~a~U~_r= n 3 3 C r~
Q L ❑c7 o~OO~ 3c, c cacow~c~32~W~ p ~ 0 > d
(a aW UUOv~~W COOOOOOQ~~~
c o G~ W W O W W° U U W d0F o o W
X Q H ~r~v rnaw~Ca H d d = HC~U W O ~CA
IXI
I.l.
C 00 Ol. CC O N m O C o r- 00 c 00 ~ N In C c0 tom . N
I'D 10 :t V~ V1 m r- 00 N v1
G~ V
M tm ~~OOOOM rr r t~OOI I t~G1 O O C- G1
W C In V1 kn M M M rn m 'n In In In O O in - N rn C O C
N (V N M M M M M M " N N N ~t d' N rri M m m 'Ct It It " N
O O O C 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O C O C ~C
c ❑
C a~ a0 0 0 o c o o C
cl o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o o o o o o 0 0 Z
cl o ~ ocoC ooooc o0ooooocoo 0 o coc c
s= d W 0
Q ~ W
fl. H ~ 3~3~
Q
L GGGC GcGCD OGOCD CD OCD OCCD CD GOGCD CCD GGCD CD C)CD GCD CD CD O G LOCO t~
CD CD c-I ~Y O o00 CD CD CD CD C~l CD O CD CD C) CD CD O O O O O
h ,-CIO ~O O O ~ CD r-{ lc~ cl~' C, In O O U N M^ ^ OC - In N O N t- ID w V' c^, M O tl- C7` Cl) N Ln 11-1
N ..o N a~ V N kn `0 N N C, r- m m rl ao
^ j ~
O
N
O C O C-D 0 C) O 'J O o O C O _
~ " t-1 r.l r ti fl •-r~ rl
U t~'3 1_- r l f l J C i c' J "1' E J J l 0 - r.
a 7 c C 1 r i r- f7
in O U~
O N -0
U
O C C C O C 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 C O O O O O O G O O
C O G O O C O O C G O G O C C O G O C Cl O C C O O O O O
U U O O O O O M cal ^1 t~ lrt- v1 o0 m C 'l M O C71 rt llO C M O
U
cC cu .--it- 110C CD It Inco nr-`0^[`M cc d'N^0~ G In mON^ `.0 Icl t~ t- V1 CA oG co .G 00 G I-- C/.. G\ C M. N O N It CT M ^
zs CJ (11 M - t - N V N N - ^ N
d
G dddQdQdddd~d¢ - mMm nV)In V)GOOCD CD NN C ~o~o D10
y ~i ~yi ~i ~i cG CA Gc ca cA v1 In 1 C>\ G1 Cn N N N N N ^ O O O C t~ l~ t~
O f- z z z H z H z z 2i z z M M N V A v1 t C~ C~ C oo GC Co O O O O O N N '7 ' Y ~Y d I!1 irl l~
z - - ^ CV CV CV N Cl N C11 C•7 N N N N N N N N
'W
CT
C C O C O C O C rl- C,+ GN V1 'D In m oc d' O In O ,Y- In C Vl (n Vi m W ~O w In G cl"1 O Gl\ V) O ~
U VI) N .D r` CIO O ~Y V, In .-I "C "V C~ U G, ~D O CC M CC cn ~O ~ CA r oc "D C, G-d ^
V'1 N V In ^ G1 O G1 O C O•. v1 ^ ^1 o0 oc ' ' r- cY N C 01 ~D Vl N M M 'n m
C.j C7 N N M 00 00 I~p N O N ~n Cl N t- t^ cl) r1 n1 N ^ ^ N
0
O
O
r
,--i r ' ! C7 d .S l` f f Wit, f f t -
u "t 'r I 1 r 1 .J t t
:x r r r-~ r :r L r r- - r r ^r _ r-
N i
E L)
G U U r r' r
O -a-I d 'C7
O C O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O O O O C C O O CD O C O C 0 0 O C O C C
O O O C O C CD C= CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O O t~ 'IT 7t GM O r- G'1 C, ID "t t d' 00 M oo G O M O N 'D C>1 - -t In m r- C}' O N M M O 00 'CY
m N o0 In lD I-(i lc~ 0a it O to n t ^'7 C1' 00 09, `D n '-D V1 17 CA o0 v1 ~O V1 C- N N O
~ c!1 cc In :A 00 00 oG ch t` c M In 00 O 10 G, (31 M N N tl- m 'cY ~o
m In M M N 00 d' O N V' Vl N ~ OO 1D M M 10
d M
~ M
G
O
00 w
to In y-1 O O O O C OC Ol C\ 00 O O ~ ^ ^ N r`7 N M M M M It d" It 't d" V) 10 U' "D r- r- W
t-- r- ~~~i ~I I ~~r
d-Inv11n v1 0 \0 1.0 C .o~~~~~r r- r- r-
'U ~ i i 1 I 1 1 1 1 i I I ~ i 1 1 i I
c1 .=C C C G r~ C G~ G~ C~ d G K t~ C A G K G G C p~ G G G C G~
7 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a r a a a a a a a a a a a a a
q
zn
H
Uv cx~7~ ~ UU
zz z z xa zz ~
° °"T~3 Q
CL ul
C/)U1C/)C/) ~~tr v)cncncncncntncnztn~ ztn~Oo wW mz¢¢~y ~ 1 a N
p ¢ Q w¢zQ¢¢ dddUUQaad~ dzxx a
oz~~a~zzz5z~~za~a~~ ¢z¢ooxwaQ d
v wxxc~ P4 a'x x~rxxa:r4xa! C;P4 c4C~ a.>aoac4F- 0 00 ~
~ ~w~awaa w *lgww w wwwa.Ww ~ ww ~ w w ~w
m ~33~333~333333~a33mc~oar~zi3caaai3a~d~3crioaa d
wwwwa~www wwwwwwwwaww~~wwaDDD wa~~w~ wawa
a Q C/) cn Cn m 0. Cn U) to C/D cn cn v] U) C/) V) R to U) v1 C/1 Ul cn C/1 CIO C/1 U v] Cn C/) C/) u) CA C/) CL~ CA cn Cn Cn z
[n 2
In M M ^ 4
O C) N In M "D 00 N In N b m 't O In I n 1 n 00 .D 00 N ~ O ~ N m c-4 d' Cn In D a, O 00 O C , ^
r C ^ n In N In In 00 O I'D In 00 V) 00 cA V1 00 N x In G1 C1 G1 (311 O CT O 'T G, a, 00 Lti CT "T O O
O Ll
V'1 ~ In Ii In V In In In to Vl In In V"1 V1 In In In m In V) I 1" n In In V) d' ) rh V) In ll1' r) 'T Ln 111) V V) V1 I- In V In In
v1 1n In Vl V) In In C I" I" In N Cq I" If11f1 Cq IN V1 V1 V-) V1 1f1 V(11 N I" V' I" In Cq C1 I" V1 v1 V1 'In V1N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C-1 N CD C= O 7 O N h7 O N O O N CV C'4 N N N N CV N N N N N i
C v C G C C O C O C O O C O C C O C C O C O O O O G C O O O O C C O O O O O
O O O C O O O C O O O O O O C O O G C O C G O O G C O O O C O C C O C C O O C O O ❑
rn O C O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C O O Cl z
C Q ❑
~ U
Q w
~ 3
to C c o c o c o 0 0 0 O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f--
ri .~4 0 o c o c 0 0 d 0 c o 0 d 0 0 o d 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 c d 0 0 0 0 o d 0 o O
O C) t.) N 'D.-'OOrtt- tot-- ~aoc'o c,iO~t~YC,C-~C~ Cr~C`~0' c t`0r- OT (-I
N CD O Mt'~ C)i Q)6C)'.DGo:'O r- V) CD V ocM.-~'o I1Q` r- ~N[-~ID (h CT) 0, V( Cc C\ COM O Q,M CU
bA
^ IT N r- d- M C`1 V N N I) M M M N O- (11 M I) N N CD M CV In 'n C - 10 V N OO O M C)
(A
N M rn
~ N
O J 1. N, l rr { t f r I I C f
C~j -Z~ 71
- r r( c{ arv f i - I_~ r_, -
O ¢ U r _t '7' F t.t r1 I r r. _ _ ..,E C~ J
^ Cl
O 0 U
N 'O
U
O O O C C O C O O O C C O C O C O O O C C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O C O O
S•'+ 'U C O C C O C C O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O C C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C C O
N rJ O i0 O C ~D OG {n 'ct O [1 O ~O O N C1 In d d: N V) M M OC `C C'-- ~ C1~ LrC n : GO O v0
cS G.l -+~D t~M I;Co 110 V' N'nOIr r- C, C) OC)hO~1`O d'w(n "o (Ij 'D C`r- CI 00 C) It
M t 1,0 In r- t-- It C) M C0 I) ~ It V) ~D ^ V-I V) O M N ~D N ~D O o0 N C/J M d" t- r-- T. M N N N ~t )D N In r. N
f1.
O ~10 ~D M M M M Cl M M h Vl V) I7 V-) ~ ~ In I) V-1 110 )D ~o C) Q). G1 C) (al ol Ql I) V) In In V) In
O V- C O O CC C O M M M M M (-q V TIT T `T C)Q)C)O O O- -
_ t- t~ C C C C O C CD (-,C`i Vl V1 V) :!J C C ^I I? V) V) n n n Vl ',D 'O )D m 'C )O
z N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M Ct V CY' d' V' d' "t t7 V mil' ~t ~Y' ~t Ct' ~ ~7' d' ~ ~ ~ Ct ~ ~
w~
MCd-I)NON m kr,M VC)W tWIn 't~MCD CO t-NaCIDM,~o 11N C1 I)0d''nMM(D) r- CD G,
O O ^ C 0 Cc r- C) IT ~t O (11 )G N "`t `t )D t~ N N C N O )D Cq O C-A 00 N CO 'n d' t--
C N 00 v) 00 ~t ^ C~ O V) Vl O CA.--)D N N 112lp In Q\ CA N I'D ^ d' OC )C 10 M --Gam. It O 00 ~t
> In M OG M t~ C) ^ N rJ" Oc )G Vi N CC O `t V) N I` 10 00 N OC C1 dC I` tY v'i N ^ C; N
N cq ^ N cn V) ~ V) cn 00 ^ oc N 'n V) M N C ^ rq
O
O
Lrl
'(-j "j` - I ':1: t'- I ~f 1' t 'n f ;f I !f: t N." r :r,
r• N "t t' i- [-.7 I t r: r l f u' J J' C I' tom! -CI_ "f I r a
t^..J
~7 -7
in G v C1
A
C C O O O C O C C C O C O O C O C O O C O -D O C C O O C O C C C O O C O O O O C C
_ O C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C O Cl O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O
F-i \0 It ~ G d Oc - Ct C) I1 l0 - O N r- In d• :D - M d' V, d' CT In M ~ "D Oc r 00 OO d' d'
OC N V) C) O to ~C 00 N In t- )D O M 00 ~D CC N C M 't 110 M V' O C` ON V- d"
d C~ t N d' Oo--: ~t v1 ut M O O
M d' oo d' ~D ~D d' V7 M O N N C G, n O O O0 N N OC
lD c oc d' V) .D- N 00 00 V) C) I1 r- ON ~ U-, C, CG M d' M r- C 't d' C) ^ V1 C N M d' r- It) --~D M
M M N M- N N 'n M M M N O N rn I1 N N cD M N M cn c )C ~t ^ r ON M
G
O
W CO G, L, C7) CT C) C. C1 O O r• N M M V' d' ~t V 't v) \D ID l-• ~ 00 OC OC GD 07 00 CC ON Ct q). Q) a\ 01
r` I i ~ C/ 00 OC CO OC OC CC OO~~ I OF OC 00 CO c0 GC 00 00 OC OG W CG OO ~ 0x 00 iA CO 00 C? CO OC 00 00 Cl?
'V ~ i I i I I I J I i i I i i i t~ I ~ i I
G G K G G~ G G G G G G C G G G G G G G G C G G G G G ~ Q~ G~ C G O~ a~
7 Q Q O Q G~ G G~~~ G G C G G G G Q G G G~ 7 ~ s
a>
as
v ~N H ww Qgfw-`~~~
Do c~a~F 0o
v oooWw N ~wc~a x-4wwUwcaGa
x x
oo x
¢
QZdQ~~d¢ww
CL ¢ C7m W "¢Q 00 a QU 7 l aaa mclc 7n
xu) 33cn~CnCn0OrnCnt-uoV) ) CnCn>OZ m
u zwW~00 ? z3z F dzz¢~¢ wwwwoozz.~
o w d Q Q z~ o Q z w a 5 3 QQ~ Q z z w w N z
LOO
a t~7UU~'W a c~~~w~r~ wc~~ a~w 00 >J 3vUCa7cw7
a C`i1~dQQ C/) CA
W wW W Wwwww wFil G
3 cri as ai cci ai 3 33cScri333333~33criaimWa~aioaaaoac~aaiaiaica
3 ~w~a a ~ a~~~w~ww~awwwwww~wwwaa awaD~D ~D D a
Q) Q v) v) Cl) m m C/~ v rlo V) c U) M U~ cn U) l vl :n Cl) Cn CIO to rn v1 cn C/~ cn v3 vl Cn U) v) rn cn CIO Cn En vI cn Cn cn zz
4--l 4
Lo z
m N O0 Q) C N M M In In ICS )O crr ~ OC C- cT N OC C C N M 'a' Io ~ GG a, C k
O G1 C VD) C VD) O O O to G, N N N N N N N N N N r(1 W
1 V"1 V) Il V) I1 II V1 V1 I) In to N to Vl I; V1 V) Vl V7 V) )D I) Vl ~D If) V) ~o V) In I1 In In In In In I) In In V) 1n
V) In nv)In I1v,I nv1 nNI I V) I) InIJInI)V) Inv,Inv I, In InI)In In In In I1 In In In In I)In'n ti
N N N N CV N N N N CV N N N N N CV 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
C C O C O C J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O C O 0 0 0 C O O C C 0 C O O O O O C O O O C
vUi O O C C O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O C C 0 0 O O O C O O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In O C O C O C O C O O C O O O C O C O C O O C O O O O C C C O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z
Ln ¢ n
(n
❑
Q w
(J 3
o c o 0 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o C c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00
O C O C O C O O O O O C O C O O C O C o=) o 0 0 0 0 'J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C>
O O U Ifl C In .-N M a O O V1 00 V M CIO O rl t7 a't M to CC a ~o 00 co In V ,o O ,C M V
N 0 G1cC cc;~ S-0 Mv~oocc oMOC, (-A r` a c,N000aCD In ~ci ~c) oGN C-r--7
\C ^ O 'n O a V 'T In In r- V' CJ' V N ,D N O, m m r- ~o "o "D Cl Q, M O, O In ^
~
~ O
~ N
O U~
O N "U
U
C
U O C C C O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C"'). O C O O O
rG -O O C O C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O C O C O O C O O O C O O O O C O C O
U U C (n d; O rn a 00 d' O C a N G1 IJ] V O d' N O- cO N N d v; ^ ~r N O O d a d'
cU3 c3 M I-0 O CIn N In oc Q, vi 1,0 In -m r- VI) cc n C ~ 1:J In cn x O cc oo ~o In rn ^ 110 r- In O C~ ~O ri N
' j • O r-- t-- 01- c), r-- Ic d' M M CID M l~ t~ O Q, O ~O r) •G M 0G a, '\D N d' - M V) N N
Q M m N ^ --I N N In ct' ^ N N N (N N M N^
a
d
Ii 1 vl vl If 1 rn N N c'J N N N N 00 co CIO cc C/l N -(I cfI M M m M M M Co Oc oG V' N N N N N N N N
O M M m m M M M - -I C> r- r tl- r- t` I- r- C O C cV m M m M M cn m M
O o :cllc~ .c\4:~ r~r`t~rlr r- r- Oo clcccOOccOO rnaac~~G~c^vv 7rvvvvlzrd;<rvlt
r
z j V 44 T-4 T'r4 ,zr T'T 4 v v~Yd < T -,r4 T 4 r 4 4 4 In In In v-) nIn In In In In
a
M ,O C in It N In In N v-I a N r+ a r: a %o r- C- a O \D Oc C a a O M V' N C
U OO ,LJ N ,c ,C m h ,C '7 Oc d' a OC N N M •o ~o V" VI In r- Oc ^ a In C) V) M M O In N
~o d' O's M a ~o In O w It d' m V : ~Y M a 't O CO V) N co It O CIO V 00 O In In O
',D O Vl v'r OC V1 N ,C O oo oc In to 00 crO V, Lr tr ~ r~ r, O O r-- 00 o a rn zz' 'd" v OO Oo
00 N N N In ,G 00 ,c I- :V d' CT M M a ^ N ICI M
.x M
C
O
r r r; r r
wG. t i' r J r 9 f' , - C ! I J `Y I r ? rC C' J t.- rte: r i J "t.
C5 c, 'U .l_ ~c J r v r, v ri r ~ ~ i~- t l
m i
U U C1
to ~r U U
O Q b
U s
cd
G C C O C C O O O C C C C O O C C C O O O O CD C C O O C) O C O C C C) O C 0 0 0
O C O C O C O O Cl O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O C C O 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0
4i 00 00 OO O M OG IC G, N M O O vi m 00 00 M C VI N In In ,C 00 ,o c!' N C d' O In In
O 00 N dt 00 a M It N M \C O O M d' ,o a x M N OO a r- a Io m In a N ,o a s N
N In In N cJ• a In N N O ,C C o M ~o N In N co o c M 00 O ,C r~ on a oo G1 C In M^ I!I ^ ,C N
as ~i VI Lr C cra a V1 O C~ r o 'n Oo oc N 00 O M ~.s In ,o r-- 00 M ,O a In ~ r-- d' m
I!'I a T a oc m N N r-- :t t` M m ^ O 00 m r` n ,O In N a M In O In N N N
C
O
a s O, a Cr, a Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ N N N N N N N C-4 -,t 03 -,t In In In V) In V)
' c, ~ G
_U aC 00 OO 00 OO 0? G, C, G, CT a a Q, Q, O, a Oi. O, ..1 a a a Gi a a a a a
'U r~ ti 4. I i i i i
~ G g G C C G C G g G G G 'I" G G G~~ 1~ G~ G~ G K G K~ i. F. s-. G G G
C1. ti ti ti '--I '--I ti ¢ -I --I ti ti ^I ti Q' I-I ti
Q
N-1 gQQQCI
~n In C:U W Cl) U)
ww Wc= CIO> wwr`4= 04 w z3
cn C/) o HH ad~C,' www w M>
~ W Fl QQ W WcnHE z4 W WO WwW W a~E cn CA CnU)V] Q~
avw Wr-1c~~w W V]U] ~W ~xa ~~4z~2c W~ z~zzz ~2
d HH xaE"zz F wW~v Ow- Qwa ddd¢d Qc
QqQ wW E .aQpp Q wtC~r~Wa Hwy W a c HE^HH¢ w
zzzgq"'ocF„v~tnZ~Q t~cwUJ " s>' c7~~awc)7GW°zzzzzagp
p0000cnCaWW Ww~HQ OU oc eQwzUZO ~D aaW Q
v
QQ~ HH a a~~~ } W QE ~rnco0coc;,
o W-1 a H E- a x w¢¢ o H¢ w w x H H x x Z
»OO¢a0o a¢maw¢dUUOwx.wxalUUG~CvwiwHHExExFW ~dQ
+J W q W CQ W oa~ ~0. WfrlaaOUaOdWMCritCngcAvO~'~R:c~aSppaxJ Q
a Z) W a a~D p4 w W W ~D n~:) ~D a v O O O O O x a ❑
q v~ rr Cn v) C/) U] Ul cn Cn Cn UI Un a, cn Cn > U) CA Cn C/3 a, c a. C- bo cn cr, cn r- CA C/~ PL, z z 7-. c, cr. U) zz
rn z
M
N crl d" vl ,O OC a M 7f ,O N In I-0 r- m a c- d' V) ~c C ^ N M V In ,C r` d' ,O r- Oc a In O co a
M M m m m m m cn M ~Y It J- In N ~r ~t Vt It d' oo C.s m oc In v"I V) In In oc 00 'U' It "t In M M kS
In In In In N V) In In V) In In In In 1,0 v, In kr) In vl lzzr Ct v It In V) Vi In In In v'; r- rl U
In In vl In In In N v, In In In In In In In IrI In In In In n In In In In In In In .-N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cV N N N cV h1 N N cV N N cV rn m M M m m Cn M m cc1
M m f
C C o 0 0 0 0 c C C C C o 0 O O O C O O O O C O C O O O Cl C C C C O C C O C o 0
fII O O O C C o C O 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O C O O O C O O C C O C O o C O O c C ❑
o c o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 o c o o c o 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 z
vI U
Q W
0 H
U 3
~D CD O C O O CD 0 CD CD 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C O O C o O O O O O Ql
H O O C O O O C G O C O G O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C. O O O
O O U V C M D / N C N O C 00 ^ O M O l~ V N O d CT Q. O Cf C~ It) In N c4
N p J ri c oc oc V.) M "o v; C l o Ci `n 'n cV In v, r ^ vi C` r l M G N %O fll
O cf In M d' ^ Vl M oc ~o cc "D In ^ Cl N N N Ln V C1A
~ O
N
~ U OJ :f r 1 r I r.i r+ rF r r.. i r r• r r i '-i' C~. ,
r
x T~ r t -t - ' rl
O ¢ u J
U c-t-
in O U
O N b
U
1~
C O O O C O O O O G O O O O 0 0 0 0 O C O G O O C O O O C O O O O O
C O G O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O CD 0 0 0 0 C O O 0 0 0 O O G O
U y N "D r- O N C-- O D1 c N I'D O v1 M "D C") O Vl C~ C> rJ' O, M Cq 0 t- N I; V'1 ul
U
v, N O M G\ In co M Oo M vl C1 O ~O d' N G, N ~O d' 00 Vl N G1 vl U d' cc CJ d" ^ yr N oo V1 10 Co N ^ O a, C'1 N Cl) M GO G1
N In ^
C1,
d
O N O t- t- C` C" 47' O C ^ ^ oo cn cn In cn 01 ~o ~o N N oo o ~O N co v1
O O, M v} a\ C', ^ Q`. 1 - V ,C O In v1 M r- 00 G, G1 C, N oc CIC G', rn C O h t` N O M N
Cpl N c' )
7l- v) vl cn V) c('^ V1 In GC 30 CO GO 00 GC CO CO CO 00 C~ 001 Cl P O .'7 O CD
vt vl Vl cn Vl vl r1 vi Vl Vl v-i Lr v'1 Ir V'1 vl vl tr tr in v'i r Vl Lr Vl vl C ~c Vo ~D llc IC\O
M
KJ ^ O N M
U M cri O In ~t ^ O cn or C-- oa O.. co N t-- ~C C- N vl In zt O N cn
O vl H M O M O M O N N ON O ~O I- ~c N cn ~a O m ~D O O t- vl a, ~t C. C1 N
O ^ ~F' N Cpl ^ M G, M O
M lD 00 G'1 O Q\ M CO vl ^ ^ O ~D ~O GO O M I~ O w t--
d' 00 cr 10 In Cal O ~ Cl) d' N C, E- d' cf rY t~ ~O <t t, cc l~ M In 00 cA
~D N M ^ N^ m N V) d' Ln V• m N
O
O
W
v
.
N _ -
i . r ' J C~7 ~r. 1 r•i =G
v i.C l (^i rJ!
rte,
U ~ ~
C U U~
O ¢ ^1
r
G
' C O O G C O O C O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 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 C O O O O Cl O C O O O O O C O O O O O O 0 0 0
O cn ON M ~O 406436 6 06 cGG~QD 30 ~'~vl O C 06 d' 64 CN O ONN
G O V N d 00 ~ vl V, `O cn 10 ~rl I- ~o 1,0 00 m a, V1 N d C N O co N N OC d" t
00 m m ~o oLr) 71- x01) In I'D ''m GIn 00 G~o ~oC) 00 IT ~rlCc CD C- ^a,
r t` cocy~d'C 0, C44 NN\ C--MOOcr ~ ~ON0~ri T.-•^ M oo co
GO M V m ^ V' - vl M O V) ^ t, V"1 ^ N N N V) M Cl)
O
Vl ~ I.C ~ ~ 1-0 t- C~ C` ~ oG C'o GO oC GD GC W oC a, co, O, G,. O O
O O, C1 G1 0, rn rn rn rn C\ C, , ON G, C', G, C1 C, c, Oi O
U i0 C. .fl s.. C G G q aUi G C N N O R G f.. G U U o. i~. O
o s~ a a z= ti ff O G w w¢ d 2
xa0. O ._.H wG.. x Zw
aCnU ^ ~O F EQ > u0
0 0 1 a w x w ~G Uwe d¢ P- Z (D ZO g Q
E ZpWOda v 3c~i3~Qrwi~zW 3~ a~ E~an'a vW E~o'•
d~ww » aw Fo dc~
a' > ~HQww F w~ ~a30-
Cx7j0 DOE- G > W¢>z co Q W x c~i~.~a
Q aOdz W aq~>qd ~a Ca u~d~~3 ~53 ul
w 3~QO xwwW wdw~H¢° wa~~~~ ~3xzo",z in
Sao°Q~ ~~xwz ~H~ -~¢¢~c~a u>,
why ¢ E dJ z cn a
cn¢wa n ~nz x P4
C~ dWU W d ~1~C7oocn a ~ C>ac ry~MCJ/'',
E.. ¢ W Q G 3~"~ ~ i i I 1 Q 1 , 1~4 Q 1 O a~ i O W W H
z mw~ aamF aaoaa ~aaa r~ma ma aaaga m~¢m• m mmxz~~a
m QUA>~p~ pa
o
[n a a O O a w a D a
Z~
a3i La l~Cwnv Encrr. rncnEnc')mul En wUnboEn boCnJv;cnCn[nrnPP r~vz ¢CO nc~ 11 CIOC/~
4-1
to Z_
ra
d> C. C O, N M vt d' V^+ M v1 Cb Ln O Cf' M N C- v1 t- OC ~D v1 O In r-
cf' GO G, oc Gam. O> Q, C, M M M M d' CC- r- C- 0 r` t- N N N In N rn d' ~o ~o V)
G G, ~ x w Go Oo GC N N N N N ~t 'cY 'cT t d' dT j- 'D "D 'o V( ,o t- GC tb cc CO OO rn
N ^ N N N N C-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cl N N C, N N N U
M M M M M M M M M M rl M M M M M m m M M M M M M,, m M M M M M C,1 M M M
C U O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O C O O O O O O O O C O O O G O
O C O C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O G O O O O O Q
vii O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O Cl O O C O O C O O C Cl 0 0 z
Q Q
N
Q W
u ~
QO 0 CD C) CD C-- o C) 0 0 C) 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p
O C CD OO o 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 00000000000000 o O N
O U 7" M]"^ N IC r- Cl ~'t rt N M O ~t t~ G~ N N O~ M N O~. hl
O
N .c a c,, M O ~c v7 C ;a r- CJ ~,o O,. M r- cV C\ ^ oo Ci ~ NO N ar N Cl G~ ~ M G~ QJ
^ M M rr N N M v M ~D N CA rn N M N N ~O V' M N N ~ t)LO m 00
Z3 O
N
~ f f I_ O( x r r r- fi f- r r
O N 'O
U
d
CJ O 0 0 0 0 O O CD 0 C O O O O C) O O C O O O O O O O O 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O O o
G: T7 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 O O C O O CD O
U N t~ ^ t N v'1 N ^ O ~n ~O V1 \O M oc~C N O "zt n co 1D v1 Co n \O zt C, n N
N N 00 Cn ~c kn v'7 4 M N Vt N ^ ) O Co tD M N C, V: V' Vl O cr, ^
t 1r)
U .N V --'ct "t V] In o N ~ C7, 0~ M N N ~ M vi .-r N N GC C~ It d N N
U N C
R.
d
O M ~Y C~ M N C, :o Cl- ^ O N N N N N N M Crl M In N V ~f' fit' t- C~ (0` Gl C) C` Cc cc `rt CJ
o m N V) co I~ ^^Q\1 - 10 M MM M a ~10 11fn V"a\ t- C,^ OCOCOOO If) N
C"1 C-(-I N N (IlM M M M d V'1 Vl V; Ili l r^ v') Vl Vl r- t^ O C r-. M M M Ct
U r CO O O ',O ',O CD) dt \O O V' :4 N v1 v- M O M O It O r- 00 :.o O ^ 1 O
N oC CD 0.; M O 0, M ON 010 CC M O 1 10 00 oll CC N M O GO O~. N CV 00 ^ V7 't
M M O V) a\ O O Vl G1 N M O N M V~ u, Vl GG V d CO Vl ~t vt ~G ~O --d N
~p 17 CC v7 Gl M d' ~O M N C~ h G, M CA V v1 N N M O rV z
[l- N N N oc ^N V1 O V1 ^ N ^ N ~O to M ^ ^
O N ^
c
[n G ~ 0.
O ti ¢ 'O
O O M C C6 O N r- O O O O M O V) O O C C 00 O C O^ N C. O ~O O O
O O O C, O V-q Vt O N O O M M O N vl v') O C, M"t 0 0 N o 0 0 0 O O N O O
O N N C, 4 Vi - a, 00 N CO vi m vi 4 GC 00 Cr h r- d' cc CC lD O d' O Gl O 01 ~O Cn
1 O
O d' 00 MIn 00 ~t MSC In kn d" V100 ~v, m 00N IN In M V1 Cn ~ v, N ~ N 00 Ooh 1.0
N vl ^ C n n C,; 1-1 Cl W CC M cr ll:~ N o0 ~O ~O 07 C~
`n co 00 NON O v,r It a V, l M 10 NCG Nu> MGl0o v,N00 V>CNC,cc ~ N
O M m m O N N N M M ~t ~O CC Ul N m ^ - m M
C17 N 00 N r-
M ^
G
0 0 0 0^ N N N N N N N N N M rn M rn M cn d ~t ~i ~t ~t d u v
U 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O C O O O O C O O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
n ¢ CnOQtL CnC/] z dI~C~L~d~^ - OZdd~ tiC1Ca d
G
O W w
m J^ cn Q cn W > ~ C/)
W coo O Cn -1 .7
E Z Q 3 Q w' W j G~i d O p Q O O 2 2 Q
OWOZ ZZCwIO~ Wx F"H [L F F OOW
C. E
4l dUEu"Oa O~ F,d dCn -u [aC317 Wl¢ > u
~Od~ n aza ;Z~,4 pww xDO ~v'Z~xd~a~ddw
Q x x~wwd -w~ (r3 ~ z ~w Cn¢d¢MU C:) u,
U z>Z~ Z c~na` d~CnC~~~~CaZ W Z33C~i]~ Z ~z r
O Om0_z0_ w OJ~~zzU~~wCoozaWzQc~ ww Ww11000
04 0w~W~W E:-0 cEi~a>>~~~cn z
H~3¢~(~na 3~v¢QZ CYC/) ~ cnC4 z J
+ Caw~l~Qlaqq>~ H~ E~E qdw U w¢la~lCad~ a
r>s ~ ww ~ ~ d~ a ~ z~ zJ ~nmt~dmmwAav] a~cnmH
Q Can C/)cncr3cn Cf) U)c Ul C/) r-- O~UMcnUcQ ooONCrC/) M CrCO cnCrN0,CnCnM W Q
v] 2
m Nor. rn Om N~ C [oooc d N\0 ~~N*-t- x~GlIn 00v;~[-NM CN
d' 7 t- 'll M Cl) M 1 N 10 ~O M m It N ON O^ 1 Q\ M cn M m m M 'j- V 0C
a\ Cl G", 0, G1 a, 01) '1 C O C 0 0 0 0 O N M M M M. N N (V (V N N N N N N N M m M O U
N N N N N N N N M m M M M M M m M In m In M M, M Cn 'd' 't d' V' -t Cf' ~t "t 1- ~t O
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m In m M M M; M m m M M M m m m M M fn Cn M ul
CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 0 o c a o 0
C) C~ CD CD o°co °o 0CD CD 000 0 0oCCZ) °o o° CD CD o o ° 00CD CD KZ) I:> oC°o00000CD CD Cl C:~ C) CD CD C) CD 00oC°o°oo°o 00 0 000 Co Cn 0
2
° o
-C d 0
( U
Q W
T
~ 33 3 3 3
o o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo
t o c o 0 0 o p o 0 o M p 00 oc N
O C c-1 N C~ I' N N It') ~t V1 O M cat
U
N j :JJ M N M - V' M In M O V oo h V,
bl) CD ~r
O 1J V
r3 T N CV CA 't' O '"i C~ ~O rt
> a0 M N 00 tl
N In c0 cY M
M V1
v o v N
U N O
U
C
~N O C O C C O O C C O a C co oc
G 'D O C O C C O O O O O M O M M
U U O N C; N --Vl OC M t!1 N M N
U _
O O ~ M N O 00 M V1 d' 00 O OC
n, ~ N C M d' oc N ~o cc
U s V) N N M M V' O M d' G'. M
N U U
x O O
d N r
r
'I
0.
O N N M OC V) Vl I, In
O N N cC Vl GC OO OO O O
OC :A oC . o0 CC
r- CIO 0~0 DO CC
M
G\
CD C, C, In oc ~c I'D Ln
OG t^ M N C, d M 00 C oc
oc 1 C r M N O ~O [ cY N t~
N In ,}t 'n M V1 M !F x In N OO
> 'C C M oc d" V.7 00 C, N r- (
,x M N M N lccl d
O JO ~ 00 1~0
O rti M N M
N In
~ U ¢ s t`7 fl
ryi~ G U U 'r
O
c3
G
~p O O N O 04 O In VI) O CO O In ~o O
C C O C ~ N N N N N r et N
In r- CD 't 06 V~ n
In O M Cl M In Cl) t-- ON O --GZ O
cr. C7N C-- CS ~O O
c V1 M Q+ V V1 C>
V' N N N M N d' M d'
C
O
,n I,,, 'M C~ ~C OO x O C
U O C O O C C O
a~
Q
~ o
I 0
It In
c e
0 0 0
a' ~ cJ ~ G
c cq 1 o
a" c ~
aJ o 3 0 ~
ra o 3 a~
o
~ U G
> r o w N
U p O C N T J
p a o a
o C) I Y U Cn a v o Q
G> C^ N N a
can ~ N In 3 U S . o v~ h? r d
ao o a~ a N
a~, Q Joo oN M ~z0 ;(03 zz
4-1
z
U ?
~o V o o; 3 3
C) C) C:) CD c= oo CIO ca~ G'.
F F+ p
Q w
O
~ H H H
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)
5/g x 3/4 $1,793 $31084 $45877
3/4 $2,989 $55140 $8,129
1 $55976 $10,281 $165257
11/2 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010
2 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901
3 $35,858 $6105 $97,543
4 $74,704 $1285509 $203,213
6 $107,573 $1855054 $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 f1 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 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 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 Capacity Available 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 Sense 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
fan r .~,Cs"~,"~.' ~'J.. {•+ri: F>;i~n;:~-<~i, -~"°•~fS
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Reimbursement 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 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 faod 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 421237
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Fee:
J ^K3;=9"f l ~~~2 4'^~a"~-!`F u~ _ en r ~ .Y •~~`~('}~cE'X.ar 2f' r 10;
}.i
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'/." Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
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) 771,216 212,480 983,696
Hosler Dam Stability Analysis - - -
Lost Creek Water Rights (additional) 391,999 108,001 500,000
Hosler 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-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 38,416 10,584 49,000
Upsize Lines - Euclid, Prospect, rem, 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 147,000 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 fTprovemenfFee:
y Fz ~*.v #>7 s 1 lIa ti dY 4 L f 5}L F k ~t ? r 3tr T r
3 W-ffitn-,. ..s.._._ c....... .~.w _ _
City of Ashland a SDC Update Methodology Summary Page'5
Wastewater and Water
g.
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/Replacement 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 5,853 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 $ 659,7381$ 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 Fee:
_ .T...:-a ti, _-:~L~r~~~r -.ems.,-•~."~:.~#- "•_7`y„ a."~a,11f''. -
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 3/a" 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.
GENERALFUND
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
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
STREETFUND
Public Works - Street Operations 4,060,266
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 739,870
Public Works - Tra nspo rtatlon SDC's 274,850
Public Works - Storm Water SOC'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 I
Contingency 5,000
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 151,705
I
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 j
1
I
3
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 467,670
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 2,022,260
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 976,645
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 Relations\Promobons 223,608
IT - Cable Television 478,746
IT - Intemet 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 661,291
Contingency 32,000
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,093,291
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Services 266,476
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 Muncipial Code
§ 2.04. 0 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _TQ. day of 4XLAP,z, 2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Signed and Approved on this -7 day of June, 2006.
John . Morrison, Mayor
Appro d as fo
chael ra Il, C Attorney
EXH I BIT C
City of Ashland, Oregon
ad g - - _ €
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Vancouver, OVA
July 2016
w
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 1
CURRENT WATER SDC 1
UPDATED WATER SDC 2
Reimbursement Fee 2
Improvement Fee 3
TABLES
Table 1. Summary Water SDC, Displacement Type 3/4-inch Meter 1
Table 2. Schedule of Water Meter SDCs by Meter Type and Size 2
Table 3. Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 3
Table 4. Original Capital Improvements List and Percent SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s 4
Table 5. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s 6
Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 7
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL 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 Coinprehensive Water
Muster- Plan (WMP). Since then, the TAP water line project has been completed, which reduced the size
of the Crowson II water storage project. An updated schedule of water meter sizes and technologies has
also been added. These changes affect the calculations of the reimbursement and improvement fees. The
basic SDC methodology remains the same: residential developments are assessed based on square footage
of habitable floor area and all others are assessed based on the size water meter serving the development.
These adjustments to the 2012 Master Plan SDC are presented in the following sections of this report. This
update relies on the forecasts of water usage and land use development contained in the 2012 WMP.
SUMMARY
"liable 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 cormercial and industrial SDC
decreased due to an apparent error in the 2012 Master Plan calculations which is explained below in Table
5.
Table 1. Summary Water SDC, Displacement Type 3/4-inch Meter
Current 2014 2012 Master Plan Update with TAP & Crowson II
SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC % A
Residential
$/habitable sf $2.60 $0.93 $1.68 $2.61 0.30%
Commercial and Industrial (by meter size)^
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 S16,452 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257 -1.20%
1'/2 526,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20%
2 557,654 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30%
3 598,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30%
4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -130%
6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30%
^Rounded to the nearest dollar
CURRENT WATER 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 x3/4 " (i.e., s/s" from
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
the water line in the right-of-way by 3/4-inch into the property). A true 3/4" x 3/4" will pass substantially more
water than a x 3/4" as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Schedule of Water Meter SDCs by Meter Type and Size
Turbine Displacement
Safe Safe
Maximum Equivalent Maximum Equivalent
Operating Number Operating Number
Capacity of 5/8 x Capacity of 5/8 x Reimburse- Improve- Total Reimburse- Improve- Total
(gpm)A 3/4 Meters (gpm) 3/4 Meters ment ment SDC ment ment SDC
% x 3/4 15 1.00 15 1.00 $1,793 S3,084 $4,877 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877
3/, 30 2.00 25 1.67 3,586 6,168 9,754 2,994 5,151 8,145
l 50 3.33 40 2.67 5,971 10,270 16,240 4,787 8,235 13,022
1 `/2 t00 6.67 50 3.33 11,959 20,572 32,531 5,970 10,270 16,240
2 160 10.67 100 6.67 19,130 32,909 52,039 11,959 20,572 32,531
3 350 23.33 150 10.00 41,828 71,955 113,783 17,929 30,842 48,771
4 600 40.00 200 13.33 71,716 123,369 195,085 23,899 41,113 65,012
6 1250 83.33 500 33.33 149,402 257,008 406,410 59,757 102,797 162,554
8 1800 120.00 - - 215,147 370,106 585,253 - - -
^gallons per minute
UPDATE 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- Playa 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 Plana, 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 2301% to commercial & industrial users.
r ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
r
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
Table 3. Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee
2011 2013 Allocation % A
Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7%
Accumulated Depreciation (S15')` Y.3 74) (S l 7.2 54,657) 13.3%
.L r Book Value ofHosler Dam (S5 5,741) -100.0%
Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2%
Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds l S 1 7 > 000) -100.0%
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds r S'194 0.000) { I 1 ,86 ? 1 59.7%
Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) tS63 5> 1) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding (;3 4 551)S 1 t'7 a, 82) 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 r950.000)
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
1r■~ 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. Becaus-_ of this change in scope the City was able to
reduce the amount of storage needed at the Crowson II reservoir which reduced the cost by $1.3 million (in
2012 $'s). Table 5 shows these calculations.
Table 4. Original Capital Improvements List and Percent SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost %
Supply
FERC Dam Security & Telemetry Improvement (50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Structural Stability Analysis(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection(50% Electric, 50% Water) 160,000 25.00% 40,000
Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 120,000 75.00% 90,000
Sediment TMDLin Reeder Resv. 600,000 75.00% 450,000
Reeder Resv Study Implementation 30,000 75.00% 22,500
Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 100,000 75.00% 75,000
Reeder Resv Variable Depth Intake 100,000 0.00% -
TID Terrace St Pump Station Improvements 220,000 0.00% -
TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 100.00% 1,100,000
Test existing high capacity wells 50,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project 50,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) ~~~~0 100.000%~~ -
-
L7 TAD Pipeline R. Pump 2,000,000 0.000%
-r
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 11") 6,746,000 10.00% 6745600
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% -
1♦ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4
S
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% -
r ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Terrace Street 350,000 0.00% -
Totals 44,006,000 4,352,100
100% 9.89%
Source: City of Ashland Comprehensive Water Master Plan, Carollo Engineers, Dec-2012
Table 6 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original 2012
Master Plan projects as of this year. The Crowson II reservoir can be reduced in size at a cost savings of
$1.3 million. Ten percent of the cost and of the cost reduction are incorporated into the revisions along
with an adjustment for inflation. According the ENR Construction Cost Index, construction costs increased
5.45% between June 2012 and June 2014.
Table 5. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s
SDC 10%
Capital Project Eligible Adjustment^ 2012 $'s 2014 $'s
supply
FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection (50% Electric, 50% Water) 40,000 40,000 $42,000
Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 90,000 90,000 $95,000
Sediment TMDL in Reeder Resv. 450,000 450,000 $475,000
Reeder Resv Study Implementation 22,500 22,500 $24,000
Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 75,000 75,000 $79,000
TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 1,100,000 $1,160,000
Treatment & Storage - -
2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 6741600 -$130,000 5441600 $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 eligibl-- 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 metiers 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.
r ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALY5IE Page 6
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee
3/a 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 9,802 100% $4,452,000
Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 $/SF $1.6751
Forecast Growth 3/a" Equivalent Meters 332 $/EM $3,084.22
Compared to the current SDC, the updated residential SDC (reimbursement plus improvement fees) will
increase 0.3%, and the updated commercial & industrial SDC will decrease about 1.3%. The decrease in
the commercial & industrial SDC is due to an apparent error in the calculations of the 2012 Master Plan.
The 2012 Master Plan forecast the number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters will increases by 332 (from 2229
in 2012 to 2559 in 2032); however, the 2012 calculation of the SDC was based on only 318 new 3/4-inch
equivalent meters.' Table 6 above is based on 332 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.
The updated SDC uses the same criteria as the 2012 Master Plan and the current methodology. The current
and 2012 Master Plan methodology divides the cost between single-family residences, and commercial and
industrial based on the equivalent numbers of 3/4-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch
equivalency is based on the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass
instantaneously relative to the amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times
more water than a 3/4-inch meter). Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable
(heated) floor area; and, the commercial and industrial is based on metier size which varies by the meters'
abilities to provide water instantaneously-gallons per minute.
1 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 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 Alien 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 ChairNice Chair but the Committee would
come back to that after introductions. He stated that Ray Bartlett who is the Financial Analyst that did all the work on
the SDC recommendations is here to present the information. All of the SDC's that are being presented have been
recommended, with the exception of a couple of projects that have been added, out of the Water, Sewer and
Transportation master plans so these are all recommendations based on those adopted documents.
INTRODUCTIONS
The Committee did a round table introduction.
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); `0% 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, $Isf
$ 0.81 Current
$2.03 Proposed (150% increase to end user)
(See attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee and improvement fee)
ASSESSING WATER/SEWER SDC'S
*Currently:
Residential based on size of house
Commercial based on number of fixture units
*Alternatively:
Residential-
Single family: Meter size
Multi-family: Greater of meter size or number of housing units x Rate
Mike pointed out that SDC's really should be based on the demand on the system. Russ brought to the attention of
the committee that he was involved in a big discussion about 10 years or so ago regarding this. The one size fits all
method is only theoretically correct. The size of the meter gives you the maximum capacity which is far greater than
any household could actually use. Some are forced into having a bigger meter size due to simply having a sprinkler
system which has little to do with the actual maximum capacity rather than your theoretical maximum. Lawn size is
probably the best way of determining. Meter size is simple and convenient; the fixture method gives you a slightly
clearer picture of real amount of use. Ray pointed out that it isn't how much you use in the month; it's what you use
instantaneously. You also have to consider the long term picture and the amount of owners that the home may go
through. Each family will have a different amount of users. At least with the meter size method it practically limits how
much can be pulled out of the water system instantaneously. Meter size makes a big difference in demand on the
system. With the fixture method you may have a home with three bathrooms but only two people living there which
means they are likely to not be using all three bathrooms. Also, on the Commercial side of things it is almost always
easier to install fixtures after the building is completed so you may not know if fixtures have been installed. It also
incentivizes the contractor to choose the meter size which will best fit the demand of that building. From a
conservation standpoint meter size is generally the best way.
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Bill explained to the committee that as the department that collects the fees he's had to meet with unhappy
customers who were increasing fixtures or making some improvements and their argument was that they were
increasing fixtures but they weren't increasing demand.
Russ feels we should orient these towards our capacity problems since that's what we are building out for.
TRANSPORTATION
Additional TSP project-
*East Main Street improvement between Walker and Clay Street
*2014 cost $2.559 million
*Would add $258 to SDC at 100% eligible
Transportation improvement fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) -
*Current $2,043
*Proposed $2,196
Proposed w/Main Street $2,454
Mike added that the Normal Avenue railroad crossing is the only crossing through that area and it would also be an
East Main connection which is why they had shown it as 50%. Russ feels that the railroad crossing is primarily
growth related and should be as close to 100% SDC as possible. Mike said that once the connection is made there
will be pass-through traffic created. There is also a nexus to what is required to be paid for by the builders. On a City
wide perspective it creates a North/South connection. He pointed out that this initial meeting is really just to bring the
information to the committee and then come back and go through these things.
SUMMARY
*Water SDC 2% increase
*Wastewater 150% increase
*Transportation 7.5% increase
Mike asked the committee how they would like to proceed now having all of the background data. The committee
decided to go home and go through all of the projects/data and come back and tackle everything, likely starting with
Water/Sewer and then Transportation last.
Ray spoke to the credit policy which is a part of the statute.
The Committee agreed to meet every other Tuesday at 1:00 pm. Next meeting March 18tH
Mike/Troy m/s to nominate Jac as Vice Chair. All in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 3 of 5
System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee
March 18, 2014
Present: Troy Brown, Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels, (vice-chair) Rich Rosenthal, and Russ Silbiger.
Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer (Chair)
Staff: Mike Faught, Bill Molnar, Mary McCiary
Vice-chair Nickels called the meeting to order at I : l Opm.
Introductions
The members introduced their name and affiliations.
Troy Brown Jr.---Planning Commission
Allen Dourna Citizen
Mike Faught---Public Works Director
Jac Nickels (vice-chair)---Architect
Russ Silbiger---Citizen
Rich Rosenthal---Council Liaison
Ray Bartlett---Consultant (by phone)
Jac Nickels announced the Committee would approve two sets of minutes at the next meeting.
Troy Brown requested the agenda be sent as a pdf file.
Minute approval
Set aside.
Public Forum
No one present.
Water System Development Charges (SDC)
Mike Faught introduced the consultant Ray Bartlett on the phone. Mike spoke and presented a PowerPoint
presentation regarding the current SDC charges and proposed changes. The water SDC charges were $2.60. The
2012 update reduced it to $2.45, then TAP allocation (SDC to Medford) brought the charge to $2.65.
Ray Bartlett went through the details for the changes of the proposed changes for residential and commercial water
and the members discussed the recommendations. Residential SDC is based on the square footage of the residential
structure, commercial rates for water would be based on meter size, and commercial sewer would be based on
plumbing fixtures. Ray would work on an example for the Committee to review at the next meeting to clearly see
the current charges and the proposed charges.
Sewer SDC
The commercial sewer charges would be based on fixture units currently at S124.18, 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.
Respec ffully 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 sewe- projects that are being paid for with food and
beverage tax have been included. Those are not being included and they have removed those facilities that are
financed and being repaid out of the food and beverage tax. The net is the facilities paid for with user fees and
SDC's. There have been major improvements to the wastewater treatment plant since the last master plan was
updated and the capital improvements list has had additions made to it related to regulatory requirements.
The engineers evaluate what percentages are due to growth. It is required as part of the master planning process
and all of the projects have different growth projections.
Mike pointed out the master plans calculate the estimated population growth, and they then figure out what that
impact is to the system. After reviewing the master plans/transportation system plan, the goal for the SDC committee
is to make a recommendation which will be forwarded to Council for approval. Once the committee has made their
recommendation a required 90-day notice would be sent out to the homebuilders association and after that it would
be presented to Council along with a public hearing.
The committee agreed to skip the April 29th meeting in order to have time to go through all of the material. The next
meeting will be held on May 13, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:15 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
SDC Committee
April 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE
INFORMATIONAL ONLY **NO QUORUM**
June 10, 2014
Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal
Transportation Commissioner Present: Joseph Graf
Mike pointed out that we did not have a quorum so the committee couldn't take action on anything during the
meeting but the meeting could continue due to the scheduling of the conference call with our consultant, Ray Bartlett.
Informational notes will be taken for submission to the full committee at its next meeting.
WATER SDC
Ray provided an example of the current sdc and the proposed sdc based on a 2,000 square foot home. Bill asked if
the committee wondered where Ashland's SDC's stack up with other cities around Oregon. He said he had
remembered seeing an email, possibly from the League of Oregon Cities, which showed that Ashland was sort of in
the middle. Bill didn't recall the details of the document. Mike asked Ray if that was something that he could take a
look at (as long as it wouldn't exceed 25% of the contract amount). Ray agreed that he could look into that.
Ray then stepped through the "Update - water system development charge" document (see attached). The tables
discussed in the document show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and compares
the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP, Final December
2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012.
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial & industrial users
on a 3/4-inch water meter.
Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users.
Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee.
Table 4 is from the WMP (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted.
Table 5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP projects
as of this year.
Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial & industrial users
based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use.
SEWER SDC
Ray noted there weren't any new changes to what was proposed at the April 4th, 2014 meeting. It is pretty much the
same as what came out of the master plan. The calculations were increased based on the change in asset value
from 2011 to 2013. The proposed improvement fee resulted in a slight increase, adjusting for inflation. Ray pointed
out when the SDC was put together originally for the current sdc there were pretty large reductions made in the
calculation of the sdc, in part because the City was charging a tax on food and beverage, much of which was going
towards paying for improvements to the sewer system. Those corrections have still been made but the current sdc
was based on an artificially low sdc. The capital projects have increased due mostly to a pretty dramatic increase in
sewage treatment requirements.
SDC Committee
June 10, 2014
Page 1 of 2
The committee would like to see a summary of the current and proposed, in addition to the rates. Staff will provide
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
UPD.'.1
l s
~R I
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
a~
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSTS Page i
r
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
SUMMARY
The following 5 tables show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and
compares the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP,
Final December 2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012.
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial &
industrial users on a 3/4-inch water meter. Compared to the current water- SDC, the 2012 WMP proposed a
decrease of about 6%, and with the current changes since 2012, a 0.3% increase for the residential SDC and
a 1.3% decrease for commercial & industrial. The commercial & industrial SDC decreased due to an
apparent error in the WMP calculations which is explained below in Table 5.
Table 1 Summary Water SDC
ResidentizI Commercial&Industrial 1% 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
2012 W M P
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.8040 $1.6436 $2.4476 -5.9%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,522.18 $3,111.76 $4,633.94 -6.2%
2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1,6751 $2.6069 0.3%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,792.89 $3,084.22 $4,877.11 -1.3%
r 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
3 $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. D0 $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. DO $62,235.00 $92,679.00 -6.2%
6 $63,424.00 $129,657.00 $193,081.00 -6.2%
g $91,331.00 $186,706.00 $278,037.00 -6.2%
2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson If
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.651 $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 -13%
4 $35,857.80 $61,685.21 $97,543.01 -1.3%
6 $74,704.35 $128,508.83 $203,213.18 -1.3%
g $107,573.401 $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 WMF' and the current methodology. The current and
WMP methodology divides the cost between single-family residences and commercial & industrial based
on the equivalent numbers of 3/4-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch equivalency is based on
the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass instantaneously relative to the
amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times more water than a 3/4-inch meter).
Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable (heated) floor area; and, the
commercial & industrial is based on meter size which varies by the meters' abilities to provide water
instantaneously-gallons per minute. Seventy-seven percent of the 3/4-inch meters are in single-family
residences; therefore, 77% of the eligible reimbursement fee costs are allocated to residences and 23% to
commercial & industrial users.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee
2011 2013 Allocation % A
Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7%
Accumulated Depreciation ($]-4,,218,374) ($17,154,65-7) 13.3°%
Book Value of Hosler Dam ($55,741) -100.0%
Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2%
Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds ( I-5,000' -100.0%
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds 940,000,1 x;54,695,8;62) 59.7%
Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) X633;551) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding ($-,;,748,5)51) j5-4,695,862) 25.3%
Investment in Capacity $17,147,990 $14,484,761 -15.5%
Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump
MWC's SDC $2,620,084
Construction $4,400,000
Less: IFA Forgivable Loan .5950,000)
Net cost of TAP $6,070,084
% Allocation to future development 90.00'%
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 S 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, SO% 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 _30,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) 0 100.00~%~~ -
Emergency TAD Pipeline & D Hrvmp 0.00YQ
Treatment & Storage -
Raw Water Bypass Measurement 25,000 0.00% -
SCADA Radio Frequency FCC Compliance 45,000 0.00% -
Final CT Disinfection Improvements 85,000 0.00% -
Permanganate Feed Facility Study & Implementation 265,000 0.00% -
WTP Security Upgrades 50,000 0.00% -
Existing Plant Mech. Elec. & Scada Upgrades 1,500,000 0.00% -
Ozone /UV Analysis & Disinfection 1,750,000 0.00% -
Bear Creek Cu WLA Source Control Study & Implementation 50,000 0.00% -
2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 6,746,000 10.00% 674,600
2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 12,000,000 10.00% 1,200,000
Distribution
Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse 50,000 0.00% -
Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 100.00% 700,000
Park Estates Pump Station/Loop Road Reservoir Alternatives 2,000,000 0.00% -
Lit Way New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
Tolman Creek Road New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
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
r
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
i
I
III
I
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6
0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0
Q o n o 0 o 0 o a 0
O t!? N Ln Ln d' M O -ct - Ln 00 N
N Izi' Ql r- N lD r~ l0 m
I u"t th tl} ct t/} t!} rH 6A N I~ u i
Lfl O O ih c--i 'N' r1 i!}
QJ tr} th
C
-Z
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O C) O
4j)- O O O M O O 4D O O ~
N O O O N Lf - O : o O N
r-1 Ct' rn Ln N r O N o - O Ln
O N r m
0
O
O O
N M
~n ~ a-I
v O ~
U
E
Q
0
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O L, O O ' tD O ' O --I
O O O N Lr o i!' O O N
th T m to N n O N O O un
d' c-i lD N M
L11 o o o \ o a o o o
O O O O O O O O O O
U
Q O O O O O O O O O O
N ul u1 m Ln u1 O O O O O N
N r- r- r~ r- O e-1 H O 'C
cci
N
O
N
" O O O O O O O O O O O G"
O O O O O O O O O O O O
U O O O O O O O O O O O
o o '0 0 0 o m C 0 0 ~0 3
o
M N O M O C o• Lon
4.1
C CD
O O
N v
O ~
ai
O q)
cn U
N
h0 C V }
L W 0
r N
-C W o U C (U L
v O 41 UI
C Lr cn fl_ : N
Q C C O : O O
O C u I- s
F- 0 J
u U3
Q 1 O U V 4.1 Z
U L C >C d
-Q01 c~ a L'I 40
W - O O_ L i^ d
a~ p, c co E- 3 4 ~4~
D CLS o} (JJ IC C [0 F Z
C L U ro
E Q d
U 4~- 0 w a 0 Qj C L 3.1 CL Z
cu 41 Wcu E m (a 41
> E a) a~i co L E- c o
L m ~ U O •O L O O_ U V
fl
+QJ w U 0 (D cr) Q 'p 4- ra
r6 C..7 0l c-i h I CL DDS Ln Z
U T n
A v-
c!] L -p c c O + O v
N o `6 aj 0 (7 41 a) ~ U W
N Q)
~ F roo = ~ Q N N N L F~ Q' 0
U V) f 0 a 1- W
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% $4,452,000
Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 '$/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.
1 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
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 12016.
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 $2,112
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 sf GFA 0.94 $1,985.38
Day Care Center/Preschool 565 Student 0.84 $1,774.17
Library 590 1,000 sf GFA 7.20 $15,207.19
Hospital 610 1,000 sf GFA 1.16 $2,450.05
Nursing Home 620 Occupied Bed 0.37 $781.48
BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL
Hotel/Motel 310 Occupied 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 sf 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 : leganPAU1-TORIVISVesoiution 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 sf 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 sf 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 sf 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:\legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd
EXHIBIT B
City of Ashland, Oregon
s a f a
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Vancouver, WA
July 2016
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
SUMMARY 3
CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SDC 5
FORECAST NUMBER OF PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS 6
ALLOCATION OF CIP LIST TO DEVELOPMENT 11
IMPROVEMENT FEE 13
APPENDIX TABLES 25
TABLES FIGURES
Table 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
IIIIIIIIIIN
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 Mainial 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.
S A
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 number of land uses with high-volume
trip generation (e.g_, fast-food, service stations) that effectively discounts the TSDC charged to them. This
update eliminates these discounts which will have a significant impact on the TSDC for these select land
uses.
The TSDC increases from $214 per ADT to $2,112 per PM peak-hour trip, a 887% increase. These TSDC
rates are applied based on the number of trips by a specific land use. A single family residence produces
9.55 ADTs but only 1.02 PM peak-hour trips per day which results in a current TSDC of $2,043 ($214 x
9.55 ADT) and an updated TSDC of $2,154 ($2,112 x 1.02 PM peak-hour trips), a 5% increase. For high-
volume land uses such as service stations, the TSDC will increase from $1,164 per pump to $33,054, a
1910% increase. Table 8 below compares the cut-rent and updated TSDC for a wide range of land uses.
Discussions with the Systems Development Charge Review Conirnittee 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"i Street, X2 at Washington Street, and X3 at Normal
Avenue) should be allocated 100% to growth. The committee concluded that these projects are
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
essential to improving access on both sides of the railroad rights of way. Together these projects
amount to $283.62 of the total $2,112 per trip SDC.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
CURRENT TRANSPORTATION S DC
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 5t' 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 5
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
,'CAST NUMBER P M1 PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
Ashland's TSP contains the following population and employment forecasts to determine the need for
capital improvements. The expected growth reflects ar 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
0
% Growth 18.40
% Growth/Year 0.68%
Employment 13,284 15,496 2,212
% Growth 16.7%
a
% Growth/Year 0.62%
Population/Employment 1.62 1.64
Source: Ibid., pp 60, 61.
To determine the numbers of trips now and in the future, we use trip generation data, jobs by type, and the
current (2009) and forecast (2034) population and employment shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth
2009 2034 Growth
Households by Building Type'
Single Family 9,271 10,535 1,264
Multiple Family 3,813 4,958 1,145
Total 13,084 15,493 2,409
Population 21,505 25,464 3,959
% Growth 18.4%
% Growth/Year 0.68%
Persons/Household 1.64 1.64 1.64
Employinent* 13,284 17,220 3,936
% Growth 29.6%
% Growth/Year 1.04%
Poputation/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
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 Peal: Hour trips. Employees average 2 PM Peak-
Hour Trips per employee.' The Appendix contains the Trip Generation Manual detailed list of the PM
Peak-Hour trip rates for various uses.
Table 3 Calculation of PM Peak-Hour Trips
2009 2034 Growth
PM Peak-Hour Trips
Residential
Single Family-1.02 trips 9,456 10,746 1,290
Multiple Family-0.68 trips 2,555 3,322 767
Total Residential PM P-H Trips 12,011 14,068 2,057
Employment 13,284 17,220 3,936
PM P-H Trips/Employee 2.00 2.00 2.00
Total PM P-H Trips 26,568 34,440 7,872
Total PM P-H Trips 38,579 48,508 9,929
Source: Compiled by EFA from City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
This update uses PMpeak-hour trips to both determine the aggregate number of these trips within the
boundaries of the TSP and to apply the transportation SDC to specific developments. The current SDC is
based on total average daily trips and is applied to specific developments based on total average daily
trips with adjustments for equivalent length new daily trips (ELNDT) for selected land uses.' Table 4
shows the schedule of the current SDC by broad categories of land uses. The list in Table 4 is a subset of
land uses in the appendix to this report. The appendix to this report should be used to apply this updated
SDC.
The PM Peak-hour trip rates were used to better reflect the demands placed on the roadways. The TSP is
based on peak-hour vehicle movements through intersections. The update also drops the use of ELNDT.
Since the current SDC was developed in 1999, the ITE Trip Generation Manual has been expanded to
more uses and several categories of uses have been updated or changed with newer data.
' EFA compiled employment data from the City's utility billing system and business licenses, and from the US Census
Bureau's survey of business. We matched trip generation data from the ITE manual with the employment by type of
business to calculate the average.
ITE defines the average weekday trip rate as the weighted weekday (Monday through Friday) average vehicle
trip generation rate during a 24-hour period." ITE defines the average PM Peak-Hour trip rates as the peak hour of
the generator between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. [ITE, Trip Generation Manual Volume I User's Guide and Handbook,
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 N l~ N O M Q' O ~O N V' O GD O al N O ~ ~ V' ~
O '-p to '-0 M o0 Vl V7 M o0 M N M N 13, 010 N M C~ v?
O A O O O O O M 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0~- O O Vl
CID
N 6) F" ~ .ai
4" a a
m o
a
t1r) 00 00 r- M O O 00 00 O Ql 1~ lp O r O M
N
C) C) ONoot~r- M ~d OOM~d. tn
O, ~D Vl d M t,, v. 4 O oo 1 .-4 O ~ N ~ N 4 ~
N d M
,W
W ca
d
O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kf-) V)
O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~
~ O
W
Z 5~ o
w
~Q\
O~t-- 1~0 NO ooocoo0oooooMO, Vn V')
00,0,o" 0 ~O o, 0', lrnoCD CD o00N:T o,o) ~v
6~ tr r O O O< O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0
vii U W A
V'I "o V) O CD col ~.Od ooa,000MNMO00O OHO
00 00 00 O (D V) l- O N M M M ~10 Ln I'D V7
V) M a, Vl O ~ .-i r-, dl ~ V, \,O N oo O
b1J C~ N l! M d ' + M
(t~ .d
v Er
a~
a~
u c0
p" ww w w "wLw7= o
E~ can cao 4(J4 ? ' w o'o v -d'd `CA v in
En M
a o boo u,o
3 3 3 3 00 0v) rnCA ocn C) CD ° o
O O O W O O O U U ~
a
(3)
m •c
-c 'C o
u U
O O O O O O C M N r O O O O Vi 0 0 0 Oc"I
N M d- ~-o M O, O N M d ~D ~O o, N
NNNNN M d d'tn V) V)V)V)VIV,M00
a F~ ^d
O >
> a
x
E
O N
in _ W Z
O U ° H 'O Q
. 41 O bn
m ~ U Q
> y A
4- ° O M U
0 0 ~r ~ w U _ U ~ W a z
fOB vV) a O W U U r. i, ti
~Cj
A j Ga' Q +U ~l
cd C)
C'd
Q V z ~bUO d r`~ U Q U ° ° l co i. W t
- a
Ju
O W a v cd O F O O cd a t cd D_ O Z O W
G1 C/~ R; Ri H W ti x ti U Q W x Z x
V N t~ O O O O 0 0 0 O\ O O v) r- N 00 0 Cl) Q ON Q n O\ <0-,
i O v1 t` O a1 C", C", O~ C, al d' M 00 ~o M N Gl~ N z d d d
viLn a, cnMMcnM00~cj oo~oll It
N - .
o
N y ai
.N a
~ o
a
V) v). N . 0\ a1 M v) 1.0 Oll 00 ~ "o oo -a' c~ M a r--f GO N O
O\ C~ 00 N v1 N 00 N O N O v) \o \o "o "o [i v1 rn 00 to r+
oo m d t~ ~-D kf~ cn O, V) O m 1 - t` d' N O a> t`
d a~iE-+a
vl V) cn Y1 oo O m O cn v) t` ~,q Ln N Lr) Ln kr) kr) O O O O
a1 v C~ t~ N Ln lD ~O t- 00 [ N t-- t~ ct m N t- t-- t-- v) O O O O
j' O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O - tiJ
a z E zy
W
01 G1 G1 D1 M O O~ 01 Q1 01 O~ C)'N G t~ zt DD N Qt O~ L- M kr) v1 v)
A ~ C. d' C1' ~ M M d' ~ C1' d' O ~o O ~ O M V' r-' vl ~O \O ~O
d x. O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 O O O O
t-- M a, 00 O\ v) r- C N v) ~,o N N 01 dt t- ~t •-Cl) oo M v)
o- N O v1 ~,o "o v) W C) 1,0 m N a, v, 00 a, M N m ~D N t` tn O coo
O O I o 4 '.6 N 00, V) r- O Cl) 1,6 1 ~
cI y ~t~cnM a~t~ V) 7t dtmN00 17t• oomcl, m N N -
a~
¢Qdd d¢¢ddd¢ddC~ ¢~¢¢d¢ ¢
wwww wwwwwwwwww uw ~wG144.G=. w 41 4-4
C7 C7 C7 C7 C~C7C7C~C7C~C7C7L7C7p.a ~,C7~C7L7C7C7 C7 C7 C7 C7
„ 41 4+ 4. 4- 4+ 4~ 4. 4. 4-4 4. 4-+ 4-a 4-+ 4- ° 4~ 4--4 4--4 4. 4. 4-4 4-4 4.
v~ cn cn cn rn n In cn ul rn cn cn :n cry cn w cn M cn cn cn cn
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o" O C) 0 O O O O O
O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O cn 0 0 0 0 O O O O
QJ
co "=3
L p
v U
~ W G 1 d V) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (V m ~h O- M O O N O O O O
a1 N N N N N N N N m M v) v) V) t~ O~N
00 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 00 0o ON o~ ~10
0 z3
o r~
c~
v
o a T
In
Ll
ddd¢¢
a ^wwwww ~Q > a
wL7~7C7C7~7~ a w~ ° Q
o C~~ 4-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ _U C7 ~ G a
o 4~~a~o~a,a) o,Q o~w z
Q 'ri O c o", rn a; ~ a; c= ,t ° C', 0 z
C U U' s. O N m~ v) cd ca ~ Q O, , a
a cd N A_ O U U O U 4 v U. a O O CD CD EW, ~ a ~ - °o o ooo o ~ moo
U n
c ~ N by O O O O O O t7 F. C/] U O O
d CJ
I-, A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O E / O N CD 0
p
~
L H :n Ln N M d v) E{ w U U N N H U Z
~ tnQx2~ ~.,,w,~v]rJ]UU¢wO~C~ ~UC7
0 111
t~ rn m ~ -D 00 0o It vl Ln N d N
l0 A C4 N d" O\ O N O "D o0 I- d' N Vl
C) 'ZT O O O O O O
O L!~ L.
,
N .zz <U H
iA+
cC O
a
00 m 00 -4 ~,o CD P,
,~,D oollc~ oom~ NOS?
00 I'D O~ m V) Q1 C` Cf' V) m b
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p
r~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
. r. N
ti0
RS Z y H O ~
'x z7
CIS
m ~D ~D D N N N N N~ O cn ¢
V1 Ol O Q\ lD ~D - d' O r1-
it 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O n
~ WAS H
M N N O r-
Q\ C r+ C~ m r- O V) 00 - m
GA Gf m ~ 00 d (31, V) rn 00 00 `O O C
M ~t N
~ A
O
a~
a
H
d d d d d d d d d d d d~ d w
wwwwww wwwwww ~w
cl. 4-4 4-1 4-4 4-1 4--l ~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 C7 C7 C7 C7 L7 ~,C~ G
w rA m cn cn
O O C O O O O O O O O O ¢ O G
O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O O C O O O O O O O O O W O v
Q
p.
O
en 4 H
L 41
t~
~ p c3 b
u U 6 Y
O O - N O O O O O O O r O O v
C
rA N m m m ~lD t- N m d- Lr) vl ~ ~,o II ~
Q z~ d
O C
Ctl ~
a N
Q cd
O
E O
a~ o °J N
> ~ d
cn m C13 ~ z
ru bb C3
a~ b-0 D I o Q
o d u s4 w -o z
0- r7. o d
b ~n U U ci 3 2
4-4 cn
a i Cs ~
H W 4-4 cC cd C7 U
E..~ O U p a r~i G1 t H ril F
'n Qj
C', ct
cd C/)
4-- 0
111
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
ALLOCATION SIP .,T T ' PAN A
Table 4 is a summary of capital improvements from the 2012 Transportation System Plan. A frill list of the
projects is included at the end of this chapter. The projects are categorised as: General Policies & Studies,
Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit, Intersection & Roadway, and Raih-oad Crossing. Each project is identified by
its priority. High priority projects are planned for implementation in the next five years; Medium priority
in the following ten years, and Low priority for some time after fifteen years. Development Driven projects
will be built only if and when private development occurs in the area to be served by these improvements.
Table 5 Summary of TSP Projects
Priority
(in years)
High Medium Low Development Total
Project Type 0-5 5-15 15-25 Driven Improvements
General Policies & Studies 100,000 30,000 0 0 130,000
Pedestrian 8,550,000 4,050,000 2,975,000 0 15,575,000
Bicycle 3,230,000 1,150,000 570,000 330,000 5,280,000
Transit 1,000,000 2,750,000 3,500,000 0 7,250,000
Intersection & Roadway 8,948,000 7,078,000 3,725,000 23,555,000 43,306,000
Improvements
Railroad Crossing 2,816,000 0 0 2,816,253 5,632,253
2012 CIP Totals $24,644,000 $15,058,000 $10,770,000 $26,701,253 $773173,253
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 c+rikeettts or bold in Table 7 below.
In sum, Table 6 shows only $20.971 million of the $77.173 million of project costs are allocated to growth,
which is the cost basis for the SDC improvement fee.
r ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 11
r
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
Table 6 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee
Total High, Medium % Benefit Allocation
Project Type Improvements :Development Driven Growth to Growth
General Policies & Studies 130,000 130,000 18.5% 24,000
Pedestrian 15,575,000 11,200,000 18.4% 2,061,000
Bicycle 5,280,000 3,940,000 18.4% 725,000
Transit 7,250,000 3,750,000 18.4% 690,000
Intersection & Roadway Improvements 43,306,000 38,481,000 38.1% 14,655,000
Railroad Crossing 5,632,253 2,816,253 100.0% 2,816,000
2012 CIP Totals $77,173,253 $60,317,253 34.8% $20,971,000
I♦ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 12
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
IMPROVEMENT FEE
The improvement fee is simply the allocation of cost to growth divided by the number of new PM Peak-
Hour trips, $20.971 million - 9,929 PM Peak-Hour trips = $2,112/PM Peak-Hour trip. The transportation
SDC improvement fee for a new single-family house will be $2,154 ($2,112 x 1.02 PM Peak-hour
trips)-$110.65 (5%) more than the current $2,043.70.
Table 7 shows each project, its priority, and cost contribution the improvement fee system development
charge. Table 8 compares the current and updated SDC for a cross-section of land uses.
Table 8 shows that residential land uses are only modestly impacted by the updated SDC. The updated
SDC for commercial land uses increase more, particularly those that have high trip rates such as service
stations and fast food restaurants, and convenience markets. These large increases are due to two factors.
First the current SDC relies on total average daily trip rates which are generally greater than PM
peak-hour trip rates, but the SDC itself increased from $214/average daily trips to $2,112/PM
Peak-hour trips.
Second, the current SDC relies on equivalent length new daily trip (ELNDT) adjustments that
reduce the number of trips charged by a significant number. For example, Service Stations have
an ADT of 142.54 trips per gas pump; however, these are discounted by ELNDT to only 7.68
trips per day which results in an SDC of $1,644.14/pump. Had ELNDT not been applied the
current SDC would have been $30,503.56 per pump. The updated SDC uses 15.65 PM peak-
hour trips per gas pump at $2,154/PM peak-hour trip or $31,410.38/pump.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 13
O -4 M O M M ~o O M Lo d ~O
-i 00 ~o d• ~D CN 00 ~ ~ M a r M Ln 00 00 rn 00
O C~ O N ~t M d d oo c n* 06 Vl d O
N -
z„ as
as
p O O O O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O O O O O CD O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O 00 I'0 110 00 Cfo ~D ~o M 00 r- M Ln 00 00 01 00
pA
W U [6
Cw d
•o A o
W a
M-4
~ ~ o \ \ o c n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d d d v
O co oc o0 00 00 CIO oc oc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co co
W
C O O O 0 0 'D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
o c o O c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
o 0 o O o d O d o c O CD O o o d O
o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 c vi o o kn
c M M kn tf1 0 kn Vl Vn V1 O kn O N O vl V•
A ...4 N t~ - N N mot r- N dt m 't
66
C,
.C
w ~
C3
A
o to
a~
cd cd
U 3 ~
-0 °
o
cj~ 4-
-14 bD
0 ~ o ~
LM Q 3 H
c W o o a
Q A bn
co cd cri ° t4 o cis W
c 0 o cz o o > Q vy o
o o
f-I
l ~
pip N Q '
] C-d
C/I 4.
b
y O C/l Q Q/ G Q o ff'
Q .7l cd 0 CC.3r1
•-Cry--++ Y UD un ion L
(ZD 0 o3 C)
4-4 cl, [A In
Q va w o• Z F U O° a O x Z E~ a
n.
o
a) a~
a o
E
o u~
Ln x .r,
a~
e •N ~ a~ ~ a~ e~ a~ C a
p V1 > s > U C%] Q
~ 2 Z E~ O ~ ~ va ti ~ ~ ~ ~ U H ~ Z Z z
00 N ~n u u T-,
to ttS r1 ~Q O , N N 00 00 ~ 00
N N M ~n ~n ❑
f.
Q n x w
O
H C1) C/] a s as a, a, a as as a s a. a a.
H 111
l0 V) Cl) O~10 r- 01\ Ln O O N rn r` M - I Cpl .-a I I I i i i ` i
r-I 4+ t~ O> m N o IT mot' N oo O N Ln oo 00
O v r~ M O M 00 C3,\ N \O O O N N Q oc ~i
r+ - - r
N C)
> U o
~ w
0 o O o 0 0 0 o O C) O O o 0 0 0 0 `
a) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o c o 0 0
o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O c o 0 0
d t-- 0; 00 M N O d ~t N 00 C:) N , oo H
O
bA U m M oo a,\ N110 N N 0)
r-+ - r a r
tic
a
U W U
a~ U •o
U a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0
A ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ o \ o o \ o 0 0 o a o o
00 OO 00 00 00 00 DO 00 00 00 00 00 00 oc o0 o0 00 00
W o
CD o O CD O o O O o o O O O C- O O O `
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O o
> o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c, 0 0 0
t C) C) c o 0 0 o C) C) o 0 0 0 0 o C) CD
A O O W) cn O Ln V) N Ln vl O C O N O
'CS y d N t- Lr) \.D M - ~,o Vl C Oo N
y
E
bn o
A
z
>
W
o 0
c o
-d -d D a~ - "
Lr) ~ ~ Gq ~ W ~ a ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ W ~ 3
'13 O z bn W r1' o o N o 3
° Q -0 0 10,
71
c3 c3 cd ti
Z N a~ a a~
C4
o ° o U ° O C7
E °z~r~irTiuicn~Ui5sa~zwE- c~~wti
0-
0
a~
a~
D °
aEi m
4) Q °
' ~ct+ -a 8l C/D
rig o U 3 Q
g-, r
> a) C3 (D Cd
C) C13 cd 72 C6 0
~ t7 as U a U w Q w U a a U O U A~ rw max CA z
LL
L
m a> O - m V) oo O C~ N ~t N cn d I-n oo O ❑
o0 00 O
r0 r ❑
2
tLn ❑
- .n 0
0 W
o H a~
a, w w a; P. a w a w P. a w P-4 a4 w a a•. w o, a•a a, w w a c~ a.
U F"
to > I i I i i i i I p O M N - M - lc r-.
i ~t N Vl O vl Ln Cn O C'\
O
O U O d N N M O CD, r-
N U O M
U O N
' O C> O O C C C O C O C O O
U O C> O O O O O O C O O O O
~ O C% O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O r--~ cf d N ~ Ln O V) Vl CT 00 a
V C d N - r N _ M (3)
tin
v W y _
U a_
U
.o A 'o•
a
~ d' d- ~t d' ~t d' ~t GO,' v-
00 00 co 00 C✓ 00 00 00 0o CC 00 00 o0 o0 00 00 DO oG o0 00 00
W
[ i ' O G O O O C O O O O O C O
U p C> O O O O O O O O C O O
O C> O O O O O O C C O O O
y~ O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q O N N N ~O 00 r 00 Cr d V, CC Vl
v 65
.4
j
t)
Q
~ Q?
c~ a~ G y O E o cc a cs > (D O
n O C1,
A CZ y p O O bl) O C',
p O H 4
cct i W CC Z Cn
O O v
u .4
-d O c3 cc3 U T :Ci U1 C!a cd
-Z ~n vi E- " W O O z W c~ O c
U
p O
Q1 ~ N ul
as
C/D to U ~ ~ ~ w.-+ ~ J
O O U Q +J Z
C/) cd
3 0 cn
(i) A C11 C/] CZ a C/) r U G n
U 03~ cl 3 3 n, o o Q
U r° H O H ° v~ 3 W. a Z z z z_
N N N N N O - M D ~D CT U
76
oo w d ~ 00 d 1
G U 2
Q
O E-I w
cl, P- cw P, w P, a~ a q W m p W W Ra W al CA O
E 111
l0 O O .--i M O- O M ' i [ i i i i i i i I I i I i
c i O <t d N ~O oo d 00 ~D
ON y N O O O d O -4 O ct d 0
U O
C~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d
y v~ O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
a C O d ~t r-- N 00 It 00 ~D
c-i
U N 7t a,
W v M
•o A o
a
U
A ~ a o o a a a o 0 0
~ a o 0 0 o Q o 0 o a~ o o a o o a
a~ d ~r d It It d d d ~t d ~t ~r d d
p 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 00 o0 00, 00' 00
W o
p O O O O O O O O O O O
y O O O O O O O O O O O
c ~ O O O O O O d O O O O
G Lam" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 n O O
A N N d m M O N ~10 M
a> p
s
s
x ;
A
0
U cd Cn Cn Cn 'd o
p «i G cn Y Z p A p
o p Z p o o x Cf) R4 GL p p
o rs x o ° Z Z W o o W C7 o U o
w ? o o> o o ° ~ of W p o°
Z rn Cn CA ti O x O Z w a m U w Z
a
0
v
v
0
E
_ zs u,
L/I
(/1 w + J
r H a~ O O C/] cC C!1 Q
C/) cl CA (z
00 O Z H U Z O D U C7 U Z z
cc~~ m
m 00 Oo C) 00
rh ~t N N N N rV)i d oo N M M u
M M N m
M M
0
L y z
Q
Q
4- RS -k V
W
0 di
m ~Q m m al m m G4 al A~ W G~ A~ al W W W P~ W W G~1
:Ll
v
QD C)
O Vl G1 V \D d <t d N ~D vl G1 C
O M o0 O G O- C V) d O - M
N C J 00 ~ 55 O -
> O Gr' ~
~ A L
O p p O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
O O O O C C C C C O O O O O O
O O O O O O C> O O O O C C C O O
00
.y C V7 d ~O o ~O d d ~t d N Q~ d G~ O
y y~ Ln ~O tan
f1 M
U a~i a
m
Ca 'o
o ~ o 0 0 .o O o 0 0 0 0 0
V d d d d: d d ~ O d d' C d d
o Oc cc o pp CIO aD oo co 00 co pp 0a oc o 00 00 00
.r c
W
O O C ' O O C C C O O 0 0 ' O O O
y O O C O O C C O O O C C C O O
O C O O O C C O O O C C O O O
L~. O O C O to v. t!1 V1 O O C O ~p
Q rt O V~ kn N GO 00 oc L,, D O
O~ O ~ Ft}
N M
can
G
O
►rti G
A
_ O
t7. SD
c3
N
j' s C 'J U]
V C/~ J~ u O bD
O
o ~ 'C7 cf) U O -s4 ~
an H ` O crt x1 > cry Q
i
U U y cl
O O O ai c3 O
C bn ^ .1 s m F Y
E wciv xx¢v~n ~a3za~o
n
0
v
con
E v
o
a
110 I'D ° X w
m
a py N c W cG
O O - O
> > cn > > a
C/) DO
a o
i E" O ccs O > v cC > > C
>
co m
m
~ H 2 Z Z F rn ~ c% ~ ~ xi ~ W ~ Z ~ ~ d z
r~
F w
d G t I Cwt V ~D Ql I~ d M V LO oo U
f
z
Q a Q
o H w
111
~D
c-i oo N O V) ~ V) w N O N M O~
y O M ~D l Vl ~/1 ~ r--~ d' ~,O 00 ~
O O V
N oo 1-n m N N Q\ Lr)
U O - M
as
O O O ' ' O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o
W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O C) O O O O O O
;n Ol
v; 00 O rn N c d O N O M \,O Lr r i
CA U M rn m o M t m n Vn ~ r- -zl- kf) r`
0p M N N ~ N N a, p
biO
w W U r. M m
v U a~ a
•a A •o
U
A o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o 0 0 810 0
O ~f O d O o ~t O d ~t O (D O ~t
p O 00 00 00 00 06 Vi 00 V), 6 00 6 00 00 00 O C, V1 00
W
C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '
W 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
} vl v, O Cl) O N oc 110 O O ~10 Ln ('4 V)
00 ~ N O, O N r` 01 O o O, O N O N
O A m
+r M M I N Ln V-, m N Vn z' M
y p N - M - N N- M
ID-C Oi
x ;
A
ct W
(D cn
E' W W Z K ~O+ cn
bA N G7r x Q L: N R H C-n L` Z O O O Q Q N
r- CA
m 4-,
4- Cd ZZ$ -l
C: En ',4 Ln C/I
Cd 14
E Z O O as H Z Cis H O rst U ti
Q
0
v
^
p ~ a o rn ~
Z a, rn rn W
4-1
+x w W O O O W Q W U Q w
4.1 rn O> C/] C+j C!] co ca m C!) Uj W W z3 0 o
cd RS R3 l 4 - N Q N a
E C's Ll
p cry e~ a~ O .1 a
M ~zz C/ C/o UZZt~ z
L IL
76 LZ
o¢) - n o', m M N N d d o N M t- 00 O U
N rh N O~ a ~t M d - ~f ~t r, N N N M N N N N N M i
Q
Z
LI)
O
Q
4- c~ w
F 111
r, oo N N N
L.D
c-I yd, G1 cYl ~ ~ ~ e-~
N O Vl D O N M .--I
Q U
N U vl O M 00 N
U o Golt
v, a vq Goa
as
' ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0
0 0 0 0 o O o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p~ U o v~ o o
d~ ~o kn o r~ 00 0~ aj
bn
u W y 69 N 12L
a~ U •O 64 EH
•o A
a ~ a
A o a o ~ o a ~ o
O N 0 0 0
00
O O pp 00 O O O O
In m O O O O M
0
W ~
O. ' O O O O O M M M
y O O O O O ~n lfl in
O O O O O N (`i N
y^ 00 r-1 O O ` ~O i-
cli 00 CD -
0 N d- ON O M oo M
A 0
DD N O
06'
a~ C
U M M rA ~
64
is
t1~ O
A
a~
ct o
o
.r r Y 7:~ O l cl,
pq~
C'l
vU O O bO U
a> t U
A u U •H v
Z o bO - s
~ 'A y ca cd
A > bO bO bO
0 0 0 0
o
1-4
Q C~ W l~ U A o U U U o b
O p ~ bA a~
C
Ln
U
U QJ J
C 4.. 7' O K Q X &0~ 3 U r~+ C~ 7 Q
O O d
. 41 O V1 P1 W N W U1 Cd
c! +.O~ J
04 r. , 0
4-1
O i ~ 4
Q U, O O QJ Z
d) cd O s O O O O d
ru w U W H H 71- z H C~ z
cq cc 01) cq rn Li
_ U
z
Q ❑
G q U
0 •k cd O w
u ~'z
0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0
1/) 141) O t~ M 110 M t-- 00 M O Ld-) v to 00 N W
w M O\ I'D m N C ~ ,
00 N
~ N
r G3
o ej
N O
2- kn
w ~D O r! 00 O = Vl i^ 00 ~o t-- M N V'I
O N CC tn ¢ 00 N r N O~ "o m
by --N C! p r.,.! V1 tr1 N M M N
~ ~ :T Ef3 Ef- ~ 6~° 6-~ 69 6° ~ 69 64 G9 69
6. N v> O t` V, V) O O O O r-+ 00 ~ M C, M In
ry c*1 M N C` O Vl Vl Vl Vl - oc - m In d N
U-) oa r d M ~t ~t d d G\ tn V M M N m
.C ¢ V•1 Q\ ~o Vl Ln O O O O M V,
6F3 do N ~D t~ ~n ~n Vl V7 ~ ~ ~ v N
a
y m 64 r cT OV 61 C~ 6~? 64 64 64 69 69
V 69 69 69 64 69 vl E/~ ff} 69 G} 6F?
b
oo ° O O O 1-0 N It O oG O o, N
' No o cn n ~n ~n cn 0o M N M N
au + o 0 o c ~f d d m o 0 0 o C) o c
a .0 z
O d N ~10 171 Vl (D V) O m 00 00 'n "D N 00 in o\
t~ O d ~1 N 00 In O~, M "D O N N tic a, O M C,\ M
~D 0C) ~D O M N It O M O O N r- 00 o
O M N C, \,o m M T" 00 m N N M M
~ ry N N
6n Q! b5
A
63
O
U 00 oc t` ~,c O m O O O O 00 00 OC~ "t
'O ~ N ~ ~ O O O O O Vl O N 00 ~ t~ M mot'
In 1: M O Vl N e d N d O 00 r
bJ X N rt l~ M
CA
a~
uo y
to ~ to sD to Ln C1 ~ ~ a 4- ~ p chi ~ ~ O
~ J U U V o U3
c 'd B
3 3 3 3 3 0 to °o W zn
to
0
tw LA
L
~ A
U W O C O 0 0 O -a O M N O O O
Ln
C H O N M m M Q O N M
u>
~ ~ l,,,y ~ U N N N N N ~t d' d' ~ V7 V7
a ~
O ~
a.!
~ 'CS
D ct
UI
.a; cu
? N
c U ~ ~ d
Z
,q W
w w w ° c
0- EJ
t°n 7~ ° z
i .r 07 G
al C) (D L)
C(J C)
o A r F+ U Z d o o w
(n c~ tr a C7 c~ W ti x ti
E=
0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 . o 0 0 0
o ~ o ~ o c o o ~ 0 0 0~ ~ o
oc O O W N r M W M m tl-~ 0~
c N G "D r M N N 110 M 110 C1, cn r N r O N
i
UJ -
ci aj
O U
N ~
i" W W oo M O c~ r O O Cl C,-) (a%
cH M o in \o ~o r V' r N r C1 W
4- "
O O W W N - 00 V) O Vl W M [ D V) O
00 00 Lr) C)
yg 't It O N d' r O oc <t a, O ~J
f/? EJ3 E!? 6/ Ef E 59
-i N N N N d ~t V) Ln ~o ~O M
.N-r C1 tf) cf) \o C. W d N O O o r O M N N
~ M ~t oo O Gl O ~ N r r co r d' a1 ~
V) r O (n,) r r It 7t ct 7f G) W V-) \-O
G.r ff3 Cl O N - 00 N
N GO ^ ~o M M M Cl M N O N N
M r 116
N F/) M r Ct Ef' Eta V3 64 Ff} 69 ff3 Ct M 69 69
69 Ef? F~ 6Fi ff-) Gq
r
.c~
O Vl r N 00 O M CT G1 C~ ~ r G, M r r ~G
W ll~ M N C\ N u> 1-1~ d ~f ~t N ct C~ O N
w .F+ N Ln oc ~ C1 ~t O \O .-r r. r-+ cf• .--a C1, • Ct'
a ~ F~-i z z
M C7 O ~n M N V C, 00 r d' ~B Wt-r) M M r
r - M O W (-I M V 1 V) N N V') M Ln d\ 01 O M
M 4 O N r Cl to W J 00 kn O r r d O
- ~t r-+ N N ~t M O C1 O V d r ~o O C31\ O ~o
~F to I'D N Ct C N fit M W M M a, w 00 O
- M ~t d r N
yg A N ~ c1' C -T Mkr
Gn
s.
U ~o W :o ~o W C, o" M O CON O -r--w "t ~o M
Ln lD V) C, 00 r r M ~O
r crl O M r ~t N O C, r 00 "o o, M C
b>A .a N N - - - fy r Vl W
w~ d~ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
-x C7 a > C7 a~ C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 t~ C~ C7
N 4+ 4-+ 4-+ 4- 4- 44 4a 4
cn r (n C/) cn cn 1./3 co cn CIO cn vn C6 cn rn cn
O gyp" 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O W O n 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
QO
L
(Q ~
S ~
r ~t O M O O - N O 0 0 0 0 0 N O O
C LS o d t Ln V-) V) r Cl •--a M N M M M \D r
q U 00 0c 00 W cq 00 00 oll of a r r t- r r
.a
0
v
v
0
aj ¢ u~
4.1
Ln to
cn n
Q r w > Z
41
O c3 ' 3 - cn v
0- CO LA CA C~ - a)
r~ Ld .~i Cd O r-l U U d
c!S cad 03 O C\ w M s Z
Q) $-4 C) tio bl) CD 4,
cn U v cl) C/] 'O O O U P O Z
-E Cu W , rl o O :6 v a~ a~
Q
¢ " C" t1 tip" 0-.4 i , U >O 0
z c/3 U d L. a~ w w U ~7 t7 cn Cn z
111
0 0 o c c c o
CT Vr N G1 ~J
i
lD
O u
N ~
y
v'
j \O O-+ rV r N M
bg ~ 64 64 E.`? Ef7
64
N
a "C •C" ~ oNO^ ~ ~ ~ ~ dam- o ate.
Gn M
W Co- u; 69 Ef3
„y Go Co d' ~n vl N N
w 4-1 r O O O O O O
00
O a" O NC~ N
t~ Vl N ~ LO N O
rt' ~ M Vr ~ ~ N N C~
G6
m
V oC ~ ~ M ~O O
00 "C 00 M N O M
C7 C7 C7 U C7 C~ ~7
44
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 CD
C 0 0 0 0 0 O
N
tL0
L
O O O p 0 0 0
C-11 m .-y m ~ Ln V)
- .r-~
U 00
E
0-
-0
a~
v
0
E
a) m
L
Cn J
C a
o Z
LO)
C6 m a
a A n Z
c cC =
a cn z
t- W o tz
tFa is Cd
a~ ci
rCO P CA a?
C's cc5 v 0 ccs ❑
o
d z
Ln
Q y cn N O U
O `IS cq3
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 100 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 11000 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* 13000 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 Park 1,000 SF GFA 1.26 0.55 2.97
810 Tractor Supply Store* 1,000 SF GFA
811 Construction Equipment Rental Store* 1,000 SF GFA
812 Building Materials & Lumber Store 1,000 SF GFA 5.56 4.33 7.18
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 1;000 SF GFA 4.40 2.05 7.40
814 Variety Store* 1,000 SF GFA 6.99 3.52 13.94
815 Free-Standing` Discount Store 1,000 SF GFA 5.57 3.17 9.44
816 Hardware/Paint Store 1,000 SF GFA 4.74 3.98 8.27
817 Nursery (Garden Center) 1,000 SF GFA 9.04 2.46 30.25
818 Nursery (Wholesale) 1,000 SF GFA 5.00 1.05 29.00
823 Factory Outlet Center 1,000 SF GFA 1.94 1.57 3.20
841 Automobile Sales 1,000 SF GFA 2.80 0.89 5.41
842 Recreational Vehicle Sales* 1,000 SF GFA
843 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SF GFA 6.44 4.33 7.60
848 Tire Store 1,000 SF GFA 3.26 1.62 8.14
849 Tire Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 2.58 1.63 3.41
850 Supermarket 1,000 SF GFA 8.37 4.55 18.62
851 Convenience Mart, 24 hour 1,000 SF GFA 53.42 20.83 79.00
852 Convenience Mart, 15-16 hour 1,000 SF GFA 36.22 15.83 56.67
853 Convenience Mart + Gas Pumps 1,000 SF GFA 62.57 19.54 292.89
854 Discount Supermarket 1,000 SF GFA 8.13 5.67 10.85
857 Discount Club 1,000 SF GFA 4.63 2.42 9.67
860 Wholesale Market 1,000 SF GFA 0.52
861 Sporting Goods Superstore 1,000 SF GFA
862 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 3.17 1.96 5.89
863 Electronics Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 4.50 3.45 5.78
864 Toy/Children's Superstore 1,000 SF GFA
865 Baby Superstore 1,000 SF GFA
866 Pet Supply Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 2.19
867 Office Supply Superstore 1,000 SF GFA
868 Book Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 10.66
869 Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 1,000 SF GFA
EcnNOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 26
it
i
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 Stare 1,000 SF GFA 1.78 6.84
1,000 SF GFA 4,20 8. 1.68 4.70
876 Apparel Store
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-Thin 1,000 SF GFA 9.72 6.50 13.48
890 Furniture Store 1,000 SF GFA 0.53 0.09 1.70
896 DVDNideo 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,C00 SF GFA 12.27
925 Drinking Place 1,000 SF GFA 15.49 3.73 29.98
931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 9.42 3.24 15.89
932 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 1,600 SF GFA 18.49 5.60 69.20
933 Fast-Food Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 52.40 29.05 112.00
934 Fast--Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 47.30 13.33 158.46
935 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA
936 Coffee/Donut Shop 1,000 SF GFA 25.81 18.19 39.10
937 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 36.16 2.08 60.50
938 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA 96.00 50.00 150.00
939 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop 1,000 SF GFA
940 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA
943 Automobile Parts & Service Center 1,000 SF GFA
945 Gasoline/Service Station + Convenience Mart 1,000 SF GFA 97.14 27.86 451.28
948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 SF, GFA
950 Truck Stop* 1,000 SF GFA
820 Shopping Center 1,000 SF GLA
826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) 1,000 SF GLA 5.02 4.59 6.18
942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF GLA (occupied) 3.51 2.75 7.14
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF Net Rentable Area 0.22 0.14 0.33
10 Waterport/Marine Terminal Acre
30 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
I~
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSI£ Page 27
1•
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 0.39 0.30 0.63
435 Multipurpose Recreational Facility Acre 11.54
452 Horse Racetrack Acre 0.22
460 Arena Acre
481 Zoo Acre
490 Tennis Courts Acre 1.79
566 Cemetery Acre 1.64
750 Office Park Acre 28.28 15.25 88.40
760 Research & Development Center Acre 15.44 2.42 284.62
770 Business Park Acre 16.84 2.31 32.54
811 Construction Equipment Rental Store* Acre
816 Hardware/Paint Store Acre 55.64 45.71 101.11
817 Nursery (Garden Center) Acre 10.49 2.40 41.67
818 Nursery (Wholesale) Acre 0.53 0.16 2.50
860 Wholesale Market Acre 9.94
480 Amusement Park Acres 4.11
452 Horse Racetrack Attendee 0.22
453 Automobile Racetrack Attendee
454 Dog Racetrack Attendee 0.41
21 Commercial Airport Avg Flights / Day 6.96 5.12 7.82
22 General Aviation Airport Avg Flights / Day 0.30 0.17 0.33
22 General Aviation Airport Based Aircraft 0.52 0.31 0.67
254 Assisted Living Bed -0.35 0.16 0.87
610 Hospital Bed 1.60 0.80 5.74
620 Nursing Home Bed 0.37 0.21 0.51
420 Marina Berth 0.21 0.18 0.30
433 Batting Cages Cage
21 Commercial Airport Commercial Flights / Day 8.20 6.93 8.83
490 Tennis Courts court 3.67
491 Racquet/Tennis Club Court 4.38 1.73 7.21
912 Drive-in Bank Drive-In Lane 29.05 8.50 68.50
210 Single-Family Detached Housing Dwelling Unit 1.02 0.42 2.98
220 Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.67 0.10 1.64
222 High-Rise Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.40 0.30 0.59
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 28
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips
ITE
Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High
223 Mid-Rise Apartment Dwelling Unit ' 0.44 0.19 0.60
224 Rental Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.73
230 Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.52 0.18 1.24
231 Low-Rise Residential Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.64 0.46 0.79
232 High-Rise Residential Condo/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 0.38 0.33 0.50
251 Senior Adult Housing - Detached Dwelling Unit 0.34 0.20 1.01
252 Senior Adult Housing -Attached Dwelling Unit 0.35 0.24 0.53
253 Congregate Care Facility Dwelling Unit 0.20 0.16 0.21
260 Recreational Homes Dwelling Unit 0.31 0.25 1.33
265 Timeshare Dwelling Unit
270 Residential Planned Unit Development Dwelling Unit 0.72 0.59 1.17
21 Commercial Airport Employee 1.00 0.90 1.60
22 General Aviation Airport Employee 1.46 0.99 2.27
30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Employee 164.00 0.62 0.35
110 General Light Industrial Employee 0.51 0.36 1.18
120 General Heavy Industrial Employee 0.40 0.22 1.10
130 Industrial Park Employee 0.45 0.26 1.36
140 Manufacturing Employee 0.40 0.24 1.11
150 Warehousing Employee 0.58 0.37 2.22
152 High-Cube Warehouse Employee 0.35
170 Utilities Employee
254 Assisted Living Employee 0.55 0.30 1.09
310 Hotel Employee 0.90 0.51 1.96
312 Business Hotel Employee 7.60 6.58 9.50
320 Motel Employee 1.24 0.48 4.00
330 Resort Hotel Employee 0.31 0.20 0.82
417 Regional Park Employee 12.77 7.41 32.00
418 National Monument Employee 5.58
430 Golf Course Employee 2.08 1.92 2.56
432 Golf Driving Range Employee 6.71
443 Movie Theater no Matinee Employee 9.56
452 Horse Racetrack Employee
460 Arena Employee
480 Amusement Park Employee 0.52
481 Zoo Employee
490 Tennis Courts Employee 7.33
491 Racquet/Tennis Club Employee 3.40 1.65 8.00
493 Athletic Club Employee 8.33
495 Recreational Community Center Employee 3.16
501 Military Base Employee 0.37 0.30 0.49
520 Elementary School Employee 3.41 1.03 6.68
522 Middle School/Junior High School Employee 2.97 1.23 4.61
530 High School Employee 3.23 1.13 6.98
111101111111 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 29
1•
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips
ITE
Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High
534 Private School (K-8) Employee 5.72 1.85 9.69
536 Private School (K-12) Employee' 3.82 3.18 4.56
540 Junior/Community College Employee 1.49 0.83 3.29
550 University/College Employee' 0.85 0.49 3.08
561 Synagogue Employee 3.27
565 Day Care Center Employee 5.12 1.13 14.00
566 Cemetery Employee 13.57
571 Prison Employee 0.68 0.50 1.88
580 Museum* Employee 0.58
590 Library Employee 6.78 3.13 12.73
591 Lodge/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 1.38
710 General Office Building Employee 0.46 0.16 3.12
714 Corporate Headquarters Building Employee 0.38 0.20 1.00
715 Single Tenant Office Building Employee 0.51 0.29 1.14
720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 0.97 0.58 2.06
730 Government Office Building Employee 1.91
731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 5.35 3.24 7.58
732 United States Post Office Employee 3.11 0.97 40.40
733 Government Office Complex Employee
750 Office Park Employee 0.39 0.31 0.51
760 Research & Development Center Employee 0.41 0.18 1.39
770 Business Park Employee 0.39 0.24 1.01
812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 3.83 3.19 5.75
815 Free-Standing Discount Store Erriployee 3.52 2.24 6.93
816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee ` 5.43 4.83 6.50
817 Nursery (Garden Center) Employee 2.55 1.03 7.43
818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 0.67 0.47 3.00
826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) Employee
841 Automobile Sales Employee 0.96 0.48 1.93
848 Tire Store Employee
854 Discount Supermarket Employee 3.24 2.57 3.86
857 Discount Club Employee 3.36 2.41 4.98
860 Wholesale Market Employee 0.64
890 Furniture Store Employee 1.27 0.55 3.50
912 Drive-in Bank Employee 4.71 3.10 6.18
920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store Employee 6.63
942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1.43
561 Synagogue Family Member 0.07
488 Soccer Complex Field 18.36 9.71 26.50
853 Convenience Mart + Gas Pumps Fueling Position 19.98 7.60 75.50
w
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 Ho:.e 3.56 3.42 3.83
431 Miniature Golf Course Hole
437 Bowling Alley Lane 4.50
466 Snow Ski Area* Lift: 32.50
493 Athletic Club Member 0.17
495 Recreational Community Center Member 0.02
591 Lodge/FraternalOrganization Member 0.03
443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Movie Screen 37.83
444 Movie Theater+ Matinee Movie Screen 37.83
445 Multiplex Movie Theater Movie Screen 25.84 13.33 69.45 l
i
254 Assisted Living Occupied Bed 0.37 0.28 0.53
571 Prison Occupied Bed 1.22
i
416 Campground/RV Park Occupied Camp Site 0.41 0.38 0.57 !
221 Low-Rise Apartment Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.38 1.23
233 Luxury` Condo/Townhouse Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.65 0.60 0.72
240 Mobile Home Park Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.60 0.39 1.07
252 Senior Adult Housing Attached Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.31 0.25 0.46
253 Congregate Care Facility Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.21 0.21 0.21
265 Timeshare Occupied Dwelling Unit
90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Occupied Parking Space
93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking Occupied Parking Space
310 Hotel Occupied Room 0.74 0.25 1.23
311 All Suites Hotel Occupied Room 0.55 0.40 0.87
312 Business Hotel Occupied Room 0.57 0.41 0.75
320 Motel Occupied Room 0.69 0.29 1.33
330 Resort Hotel Occupied Room 0.59 0.36 1.06
151 Mini-Warehouse Occupied Storage Unit 0.02 0.02 0.03
255 Continuing Care Retirement Community' Occupied Unit
90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Parking Space
93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking Parking Space
414 Water Slide Park Parking Space 0.28
210 Single-Family Detached Housing Person 0.27 0.12 0.68
220 Apartment Persons 0.40 0.19 0.77
a
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
i
240 Mobile Home Park Persons 0.27 0.14 0.47
i
411 City Park Picnic Site
413 State Park Picnic Site
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 31
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
Appendix Table PM Peak-hour Trips
ITE
Code Land Use Unit' Average Low High
417 Regional Park Picnic Site
310 Hotel Room 0.61 0.20 1.23
311 All Suites Hotel Room 0.40 0.32 0.47
320 Motel Room 0.56 0.24 1.83
330 Resort Hotel Room 0.51 0.35 0.69
441 Live Theater Seat
443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Seat 0.32
445 Multiplex Movie Theater Seat - 0.28
452 Horse Racetrack Seat 0.11
465 Ice Skating Rink Seat
560 Church Seat
931 Quality Restaurant Seat 0.30 0.18 0.44
932 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant Seat 0.72 0.27 2.09
933 Fast-Food Restaurant Seat 6.59
934 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru Seat 1.62 0.26 4.79 ~
937 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru Seat 0.90 0.31 1.88
848 Tire Store Service Bay 5.65 3.33 8.00
849 Tire Superstore Service Bay 3.87 2.38 6.17
941 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Bay 4.60 3.25 6.00
151 Mini-Warehouse Storage Unit 0.03 0.02 0.05
520 Elementary School Student 0.28 0.09 0.50
522 Middle School/Junior High School Student 0.30 0.12 0.63
530 High School Student 0.29 0.10 0.74
534 Private School (K-8) Student 0.60 0.42 0.75
536 Private School (K-12) Student 0.58 0.46 0.79
540 Junior/Community College Student 0.12 0.08 0.20
550 University/College Student 0.15 0.11 0.44
565 Day Care Center Student 0.84 0.29 1.72
432 Golf Driving Range Tee/Driving Position 1.65
30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Truck Berth 0.57
255 Continuing Care Retirement Community Unit 0.25 0.22 0.28
210 Single-Family Detached Housing Vehicle 0.67 0.24 1.37
220 Apartment Vehicle 0.61 0.32 1.19
230 Condo/Townhouse Vehicle 0.31 0.17 0.66
240 Mobile Home Park Vehicle 0.37 0.28 0.75
501 Military Base Vehicle
947 Self-Service Car Wash Wash Stall 8.00
i
3
i
l~
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 32
i
i
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
# TRIPS Standard
ITE Low High
Code Land Use Unit' Studies2 Avg3 4 5 Deviation6
21 Commercial Airport Employee 2 1.00 0.90 1.60
22 General Aviation Airport Employee 5 1.46 0.99 2.27 1.24
164.0
30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Employee 2 0 0.62 0.35 4.48
110 General Light Industrial Employee 21 0.51 0.36 1.18 0.75
120 General Heavy Industrial Employee 3 0.40 0.22 1.10 0.69
130 Industrial Park Employee 37 0.45 0.26 1.36 0.70
140 Manufacturing Employee 51 0.40 0.24 1.11 0.65
150 Warehousing Employee 14 0.58 0.37 2.22 0.80
152 High-Cube Warehouse Employee 1 0.35
170 Utilities Employee
254 Assisted Living Employee 17 0.55 0.30 1.09 0.76
310 Hotel Employee 13 0.90 0.51 1.96 1.03
312 Business Hotel Employee 3 7.60 6.58 9.50 2.99
320 Motel Employee 13 1.24 0.48 4.00 1.37
330 Resort Hotel Employee 4 0.31 0.20 0.82 0.58
417 Regional Park Employee 3 12.77 7.41 32.00 9.07
418 National Monument Employee 1 5.58
430 Golf Course Employee 3 2.08 1.92 2.56 1.45
432 Golf Driving Range Employee 1 6.71
443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Employee 1 9.56
452 Horse Racetrack Employee
460 Arena Employee
480 Amusement Park Employee 1 0.52
481 Zoo Employee
490 Tennis Courts Employee 1 7.33
491 Racquet/Tennis Club Employee 6 3.40 1.65 8.00 2.68
493 Athletic Club Employee 1 8.33
495 Recreational Community Center Employee 1 3.16
501 Military Base Employee 8 0.37 0.30 0.49 0.61
520 Elementary School Employee 33 3.41 1.03 6.68 2.24
522 Middle School/Junior High School Employee 18 2.97 1.23 4.61 2.04
530 High School Employee 53 3.23 1.13 6.98 2.08
534 Private School (K-8) Employee 6 5.72 1.85 9.69 3.54
536 Private School (K-12) Employee 3 3.82 3.18 4.56 2.05
540 Junior/Community College Employee 4 1.49 0.83 3.29 1.36
550 University/College Employee 7 0.85 0.49 3.08 1.00
561 Synagogue Employee- 1 3.27
565 Day Care Center Employee 60 5.12 1.13 14.00 3.24
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 33
City of Ashland, Transportation System Development Charge July 2016
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
# TRIPS Standard
ITE Low High
Code Land Use Unit' Studies2 Av 3 4 5 Deviation6
566 Cemetery Employee 1 13.57
571 Prison Employee 2 0.68 0.50 1.88
580 Museum* Employee 1 0.58
590 Library Employee 10 6.78 3.13 12.73 3.82
591 Lodge/FraternalOrganization Employee 1 4.05
610 Hospital Employee 18 0.41 0.21 1.19 0.67
620 Nursing Home Employee 4 0.47 0.41 0.94 0.70
630 Clinic Employee 3 0.86 0.78 1.38 0.95
710 General Office Building Employee 173 0.46 0.16 3.12 0.70
714 Corporate Headquarters Building Employee 20 0.38 0.20 1.00 0.63
715 Single Tenant Office Building Employee 39 0.51 0.29 1.14 0.73
720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 16 0.97 0.58 2.06 1.06
730 Government Office Building Employee 1 1.91
731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 8 5.35 3.24 7.58 2.55
732 United States Post Office Employee 11 3.11 0.97 40.40 4.70
733 Government Office Complex Employee
750 Office Park Employee 5 0.39 0.31 0.51 0.63
760 Research & Development Center Employee 29 0.41 0.18 1.39 0.66
770 Business Park Employee 13 0.39 0.24 1.01 0.64
812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 4 3.83 3.19 5.75 2.11
815 Free-Standing Discount Store Employee 7 3.52 2.24 6.93 2.35
816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee 3 5.43 4.83 6.50 2.36
817 Nursery (Garden Center) Employee 11 2.55 1.03 7.43 2.10
818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 8 0.67 0.47 3.00 0.91
Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code
826 814) Employee
841 Automobile Sales Employee 7 0.96 0.48 1.93 1.06
848 Tire Store Employee
854 Discount Supermarket Employee 4 3.24 2.57 3.86 1.87
857 Discount Club Employee 10 3.36 2.41 4.98 1.94
860 Wholesale Market Employee 1 0.64
890 Furniture Store Employee 8 1.27 0.55 3.50 1.32
912 Drive-in Bank Employee 2 4.71 3.10 6.18
920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store Employee 1 6.63
942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1 1.43
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 34
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 4, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Mike Faught called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way.
Committee Members Present: Dan Jovick, Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Present: Rich Rosenthal
Mike mentioned that at some point the committee will need to select a Chair/Vice Chair but the Committee would
come back to that after introductions. He stated that Ray Bartlett who is the Financial Analyst that did all the work on
the SDC recommendations is here to present the information. All of the SDC's that are being presented have been
recommended, with the exception of a couple of projects that have been added, out of the Water, Sewer and
Transportation master plans so these are all recommendations based on those adopted documents.
INTRODUCTIONS
The Committee did a round table introduction.
Jac/Dan m/s to nominate Carlos as chair. All in favor.
OVERVIEW
Ray stepped through each of the documents which were all drafted in 2012 which now requires changes in all three
areas. He pointed out that
WATER SDC
Issues-
*Drafted in 2012
*Update all costs to 2014 dollars
*Add a portion of the TAP project which was originally planned to only be used in the event of an emergency. Since
then the project has changed and the cost has gone up by roughly 3 milllion dollars. At the time it was planned the
City hadn't anticipated having to pay the Medford Water Commission's SDC which is fairly large.
Mike pointed out that is a supply option for us in 2060. The facility is going to be constructed as a temporary facility
but at some point it will likely become a permanent facility which means we need to start collecting SDC's on that
now.
*Reduce the Crowson II Reservoir project which saves about 1.3 million dollars
*Review methods of assessment along with the sewer SDC
Reimbursement Fee (see attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee) -
*Value of Existing excess capacity
*Original cost:
Less accumulated depreciation
Balance of outstanding water debts
No change in capacity
The reimbursement fee was based on 2011 dollars. Ray pointed out that SDC's are usually reset annually or at
certain trigger points, such as:
*A master plan being updated
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 1 of 5
*A large increase on a project included in a master plan or
*Inflation
Water Improvement Fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) -
*Only 4.352 million of $44 million included (2011 $'s)
*Changes since 2011 -
Medford Water Commission/TAP SDC cost ($2 million emergency service only to future source
& reduces the size of Crowson II).
Cost increased by $3.7 million now will be used as a mainline supply; provides benefit to future
users.
*Reduces cost of Crowson II reservoir by $1.3 million (2011 $'s); 10% allocated to improvement fee
Residential SDC, $/sf
$ 2.60 Current
$2.45 2012 Update (not implemented)
$2.65 Proposed (2% increase to end user)
SEWER SDC
The capital improvement projects fall into two categories; priority one and priority two. The current SDC rate did not
include a number of the projects with are now on the capital improvements list. The system itself is fairly expensive to
build/operate.
Residential SDC, $/sf
$ 0.81 Current
$2.03 Proposed (150% increase to end user)
(See attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee and improvement fee)
ASSESSING WATER/SEWER SDC'S
*Currently:
Residential based on size of house
Commercial based on number of fixture units
*Alternatively:
Residential-
Single family: Meter size
Multi-family: Greater of meter size or number of housing units x Rate
Mike pointed out that SDC's really should be based on the demand on the system. Russ brought to the attention of
the committee that he was involved in a big discussion about 10 years or so ago regarding this. The one size fits all
method is only theoretically correct. The size of the meter gives you the maximum capacity which is far greater than
any household could actually use. Some are forced into having a bigger meter size due to simply having a sprinkler
system which has little to do with the actual maximum capacity rather than your theoretical maximum. Lawn size is
probably the best way of determining. Meter size is simple and convenient; the fixture method gives you a slightly
clearer picture of real amount of use. Ray pointed out that it isn't how much you use in the month; it's what you use
instantaneously. You also have to consider the long term picture and the amount of owners that the home may go
through. Each family will have a different amount of users. At least with the meter size method it practically limits how
much can be pulled out of the water system instantaneously. Meter size makes a big difference in demand on the
system. With the fixture method you may have a home with three bathrooms but only two people living there which
means they are likely to not be using all three bathrooms. Also, on the Commercial side of things it is almost always
easier to install fixtures after the building is completed so you may not know if fixtures have been installed, It also
incentivizes the contractor to choose the meter size which will best fit the demand of that building. From a
conservation standpoint meter size is generally the best way.
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Bill explained to the committee that as the department that collects the fees he's had to meet with unhappy
customers who were increasing fixtures or making some improvements and their argument was that they were
increasing fixtures but they weren't increasing demand.
Russ feels we should orient these towards our capacity problems since that's what we are building out for.
TRANSPORTATION
Additional TSP project-
*East Main Street improvement between Walker and Clay Street
*2014 cost $2,559 million
*Would add $258 to SDC at 100% eligible
Transportation improvement fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) -
*Current $2,043
*Proposed $2,196
Proposed w/Main Street $2,454
Mike added that the Normal Avenue railroad crossing is the only crossing through that area and it would also be an
East Main connection which is why they had shown it as 50%. Russ feels that the railroad crossing is primarily
growth related and should be as close to 100% SDC as possible. Mike said that once the connection is made there
will be pass-through traffic created. There is also a nexus to what is required to be paid for by the builders. On a City
wide perspective it creates a North/South connection. He pointed out that this initial meeting is really just to bring the
information to the committee and then come back and go through these things.
SUMMARY
*Water SDC 2% increase
*Wastewater 150% increase
*Transportation 7.5% increase
Mike asked the committee how they would like to proceed now having all of the background data. The committee
decided to go home and go through all of the projects/data and come back and tackle everything, likely starting with
Water/Sewer and then Transportation last.
Ray spoke to the credit policy which is a part of the statute.
The Committee agreed to meet every other Tuesday at 1:00 pm. Next meeting March 18tH
Mike/Troy m/s to nominate Jac as Vice Chair. All in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 3 of 5
System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee
March 18, 2014
Present: Troy Brown, Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels, (vice-chair) Rich Rosenthal, and Russ Silbiger.
Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer (Chair)
Staff. Mike Faught, Bill Molnar, Mary McClary
Vice-chair Nickels called the meeting to order at 1:1 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
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 1 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
Respectfidly 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 291h meeting in order to have time to go through all of the material. The next
meeting will be held on May 13, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:15 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
SDC Committee
April 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE
INFORMATIONAL ONLY **NO QUORUM**
June 10, 2014
Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal
Transportation Commissioner Present: Joseph Graf
Mike pointed out that we did not have a quorum so the committee couldn't take action on anything during the
meeting but the meeting could continue due to the scheduling of the conference call with our consultant, Ray Bartlett.
Informational notes will be taken for submission to the full committee at its next meeting,
WATER SDC
Ray provided an example of the current sdc and the proposed sdc based on a 2,000 square foot home. Bill asked if
the committee wondered where Ashland's SDC's stack up with other cities around Oregon. He said he had
remembered seeing an email, possibly from the League of Oregon Cities, which showed that Ashland was sort of in
the middle. Bill didn't recall the details of the document. Mike asked Ray if that was something that he could take a
look at (as long as it wouldn't exceed 25% of the contract amount). Ray agreed that he could look into that.
Ray then stepped through the "Update - water system development charge" document (see attached). The tables
discussed in the document show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and compares
the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP, Final December
2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012.
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial & industrial users
on a 3/4-inch water meter.
Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users.
Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee.
Table 4 is from the WMP (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted.
Table 5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP projects
as of this year.
Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial & industrial users
based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use.
SEWER SDC
Ray noted there weren't any new changes to what was proposed at the April 4th, 2014 meeting. It is pretty much the
same as what came out of the master plan. The calculations were increased based on the change in asset value
from 2011 to 2013. The proposed improvement fee resulted in a slight increase, adjusting for inflation. Ray pointed
out when the SDC was put together originally for the current sdc there were pretty large reductions made in the
calculation of the sdc, in part because the City was charging a tax on food and beverage, much of which was going
towards paying for improvements to the sewer system. Those corrections have still been made but the current sdc
was based on an artificially low sdc. The capital projects have increased due mostly to a pretty dramatic increase in
sewage treatment requirements.
SDC Committee
June 10, 2014
Page 1 of 2
The committee would like to see a summary of the current and proposed, in addition to the rates. Staff will provide
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 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 I 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 ANALYST= Page i
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
SUMMARY
The following 5 tables show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and
compares the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP,
Final December 2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012.
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial &
industrial users on a 3/4-inch water meter. Compared to the current water SDC, the 2012 WMP proposed a
decrease of about 6%, and with the current changes since 2012, a 0.3% increase for the residential SDC and
a 1.3% decrease for commercial & industrial. The commercial & industrial SDC decreased due to an
apparent error in the WMP calculations which is explained below in Table 5.
Table 1 Summary Water SDC
Residential Commercial&Industrial %Afrom
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Current
Current
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $2.60
$/Meter Size
3/4 $4,940.40
2012 W M P
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.8040 $1.6436 $2.4476 -5.9%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,522.18 $3,111.76 $4,633.94 -6.2%
2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069 0.3%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,792.89 $3,084.22 $4,877.11 -1.3%
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users.
Table 2 Schedule of Current and Proposed Water SDC
Residential Commercial & Industrial %Afrom
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Current
Current
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $2.60
$/Meter Size
3/4 $4,940.40
1 $8,250.47
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%
$/Mete r 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 $1.6151 $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
III ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
water to Ashland and it will be available to serve future development. In this analysis, 90% of the TAP
line cost is included because it will primarily serve growth and 10% is assumed to be used for emergency
use by existing development.
The proposed SDC uses the same criteria as the 2012 WMP and the current methodology. The current and
WMP methodology divides the cost between single-family residences and commercial & industrial based
on the equivalent numbers of 3/4-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch equivalency is based on
the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass instantaneously relative to the
amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times more water than a 3/4-inch meter).
Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable (heated) floor area; and, the
commercial & industrial is based on meter size which varies by the meters' abilities to provide water
instantaneously-gallons per minute. Seventy-seven percent of the 3/4-inch meters are in single-family
residences; therefore, 77% of the eligible reimbursement fee costs are allocated to residences and 23% to
commercial & industrial users.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee
2011 2013 Allocation % 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) 1$633,551) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding ($3,748,551) ($4,695,862) 25.3%
Investment in Capacity $17,147,990 $14,484,761 -15.5%
Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump
MWC's SDC $2,620,084
Construction $4,400,000
Less: IFA Forgivable Loan ($950,000)
Net cost of TAP $6,070,084
% Allocation to future development 90.00•/o
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 It reservoir which reduced
the cost by $1.3 million (in 2012 $'s). Table 5 shows these calculations.
Table 4 Original List of Capital Improvements & SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Supply
FERC Dam Security & Telemetry Impr. - 25.00% -
FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Structural Stability Analysis(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection(50% Electric, 50% Water) 160,000 25.00% 40,000
Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 120,000 75.00% 90,000
Sediment TMDLin Reeder Resv. 600,000 75.00% 450,000
Reeder Resv Study Implementation 30,000 75.00% 22,500
Reeder Resv Access Road 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% -
GmeFgeReyTAD Pipeline Q. Pun p ~ p
Treatment & Storage -
Raw Water Bypass Measurement 25,000 0.00% -
SCADA Radio Frequency FCC Compliance 45,000 0.00% -
Final CT Disinfection improvements 85,000 0.00% -
Permanganate Feed Facility Study & Implementation 265,000 0.00% -
WTP Security Upgrades 50,000 0.00% -
Existing Plant Mech. Elec. & Scada Upgrades 1,500,000 0.00% -
Ozone /UV Analysis & Disinfection 1,750,000 0.00% -
Bear Creek Cu WLA Source Control Study & Implementation 50,000 0.00% -
2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 6,746,000 10.00% 674,600
2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 12,000,000 10.00% 1,200,000
Distribution
Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse 50,000 0.00% -
Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 100.00% 700,000
Park Estates Pump Station/Loop Road Reservoir Alternatives 2,000,000 0.00% -
Lit Way New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
Tolman Creek Road New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
III 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 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O o 0 0 O
O t~ N Ln Ln t Ql O Ln DO O
N Ql r- N r lD ^ lD M Lf)
N c-i V)- (/1 cr
~ tl} V}
N O O O O O O 00 O O
000000 O CD O O
t~ O O O Ln O O t0 O O {
N O O O N Ln O O O N
K:T m Ln N 1, O r~ O O Lr1
O Izi- c1 W N t\ M
N c--I c-I ~
v~ ~O r
tJ>• O QJ
~ Q dA
O (13
O O
N M
V) 4
N
a u V1 r
Z3 41
~ O
Q
N
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
t/} m Ln N r- O N O O Ln
c i tG N 1~ M
LU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UQ O O O O O O O O O O
N Ln m m Ln Ln O O O O O ~N
N t\ O r•1 r-i O
o
S;
c~
N
O
N
V) O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O U
U O O O O O O O O O O O U
y - O O O O O O cD O O O lD 3
4- LD N O M O O Tr O Ln O O
} 0 rl ri O .-1 c-1 N O I~ O
r i tD N
C O
N ~
~ O
C U
V ~
O
N U
O (U
75
+'O•+
.3 0
Ln U
L
~d - O
~Sa U
L
W O 4J
4- U
U p 7 v CCS
+ O Ln - H C) U!
C i. Ln fl N U]
QJ O. = O E v O O O J
C O L.
Q
? -r u ~ O U U +r N V Z
O Q 0 ~ f- _ J
> C L
O d v -C Q
c m C F- 4 3 4- Li 4- (U i C L c 4.
4- U- N Q O U +1 Z_
a`°i co c
v cn Ul - > a~ co
fD U v N QJ > > a N can N y ❑
4 - GJ > C > rv O
A p +U ~ W N
L ca 4' O
LM o_ a) v v w O a U w
o y > U `II U n Q1 w n
in 4~
Q j v v m ~p Ln L Ca
- N N H Q- O CZL~
F rB j Q to F
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
Total 9,802 100% $4,452,000
Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 $/SF $1.6751
Forecast Growth 3/4" equivalent meters 332 $/EM $3,084.22
Compared to the current SDC, the proposed residential SDC (reimbursement plus improvement fees) will
increase 0.3%, and the proposed commercial & industrial SDC will decrease about 1.3%. The decrease in
the commercial & industrial SDC is due to an apparent error in the calculations of the WMP. The WMP
forecast the number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters will increases by 332 (from 2229 in 2012 to 2559 in 2032);
however, the 2012 calculation of the SDC was based on only 318 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.' Table 6
above is based on 332 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.
' Comprehensive Water Master Plan, page 9-29 Table 9.15 shows the current and forecast numbers of 3/4-inch EM for
commercial & industrial at 332; page 9-32 shows only 318 EM were included in the calculation of the improvement
fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the correct number of 3/4-inch EM, 2559 (page 9-29).
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 8
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
July 8, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51
Winburn Way.
Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma (arrived at 1:09), Dan Jovick,
Jac Nickels (arrived at 1:08) and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal
WATER SDC
Mike pointed out last month we didn't have a quorum but we did go over some of the documents. At this meeting the
plan is to summarize the water SDC and answer any questions the committee has.
Dan asked whether there has been any consideration given to thcse homes with gray water systems, Mike asked
Bill if they have gotten many questions regarding gray water. Bill said they do get the occasional question regarding
gray water. One of the issues regarding gray water is how to calculate it, as well as tracking whether the system is in
use as it passes from one owner to another.
Ray went over the comparison that was provided by the Commun ty 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 SDC qualified capital improvements.
The 2012 Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) has $9.0 million in SDC qualified capital
improvements-a 260% increase.
• In 2006 the WWMP had a design capacity of 2.58 million gallons per day (mgd) while the 2012
WWMP has a design capacity of 3.18 mgd-a 23% increase.
Current Proposed
2006 2014 %
Parameter SDC SDC Change
Net Asset Value (millions) $9.70 $8.90 -8%
Capital improvements qualified for SDC (millions) $2.50 $9.00 260%
Design Capacity (million gallons per day)' 2.58 3.18 23%
'Average Daily Dry Weather flow. The 2006 SDC projected 2.58 mgd by 2023; however, the 2012
WWMP shows the current flows exceed this flow at 2.85 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
L
. 80 e ccn c°4 00 00 C„ C) 0 CD Ul)
N cn m C f
Lr) (U
Cl)
v co rte! ~o V-i 00 C7! CD CD lzr
O O M ~ r-~ tUl) CD a) CD CD V-1 C) U-,
- co 00
4J 1
t
rn Tzr 00 CD Q N -r ~D
O Q CF, try r'* CD Q r- 1
1- a) w W r~ CFA
O c L 0 0 Cs) CY, V-i c i m
4- t-l V-1 00 fl- U-)
(U CL
QJ di L ~4 r)
m U-) r
> 00 V-4 O0 CD 0 CD CD 00 ~ N
V) m -C r- ~ ~t CT1 Q
N Q 00 o C~ C) r- r`-
0 In i -
m CT7 N rte4 r, r,4
m ~
Q
O Q u +
0- a~
4- 4+ c~ 4 4 00 00 cf) m f- CD C7)
Z3 u ~ Ul) ro n) ~i - 0 r-
r r~ 0 0 nl)
O
(U m
N Q f) C3 CD C) Q Q
m ~1I r-J C ryi rY1 C O C7
0 N Uf) Ul) O clr~ 00
V) v Q M M r-q 0 CD ~ CTil ry) +
O - CD 00 ~o N 0 CD CD ~D r- rn
Q
cn
V)- r-"I G) G) r 1 r~3
vy C5 i
al ~-r T-~ ~D ~o r-q
Q CL ~o rv m rN LJ
r r
4J rn \ ~i e®1 C Q 0 CD 0) CD
(A Lr)
Q 00 ' ~o ~D 0 CD Q ~D r-
Q c l) r~ Ca0 r l) m Lri V-~
IZI" CU (1)
V-J- Cal V)- G) 'I - nl) ryt Lei C~4
N a) G) M, CD CD ~D 0
O Q C k/)- Vy r-4 4-
C: O u a
Q A
m rv r i
Lj- LL-
E Q
u < C7 C7
a) t L.L F-
V'3 0~ O
CL
al (D o E u' r
O cn L
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 primari'y 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 $3,263430 300/'0 Yes $3,263,430 $7,527,570
2 2020- 2030 $16,713,000 $5,753,920 340'0 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., Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Joe Graf (non
voting member)
Committee Members Absent: Russ Silbiger, and Jac Nickels (non participating due to having a project on the SDC
list)
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
TRANSPORTATION SDC
Bill handed out a revised memo to the committee (see attached).
R41/R44 - Bill pointed out he feels projects R41 & R44 are essentially one project. Currently R44 involves realigning
Tolman Creek as it comes into Mistletoe. Bill was suggesting reducing that from 100% to 50% because there is some
developer benefit & R41 be increased to at least 50%. Each project could be constructed individually but for funding
and growth allocation purposes they should be looked at together.
Ray to make the change to 50% on projects R41 & R44.
X2 - Bill said originally he was speaking only to the railroad crossing in which it is listed as 18,4%. He said the only
reason he thought it was put into the plan by Council was that it showed a benefit to that are in terms of trying to get
some south to north connections. It wasn't so much development driven as it was to make those connections. Mike
pointed out that right now it was shown at 18.4% and asked Bill if he was recommending an increase? Bill stated he
feels it should be more than 18.4%. Mike added that he though he and Bill had previously discussed making all of the
railroads crossings 50% and Bill agreed.
R45 - Bill said this project goes with X2 and is part of the block pattern that is largely development driven, He thinks
that could be reduced to 25%.
Troy thought the railroad crossings should be less attributed to development because if the development doesn't
happen the City still benefits from the crossings.
The committee agrees all railroads should be at 100%. The current need of the railroad projects is to move the traffic
around, not necessarily for development purposes.
Mike reminded the committee that they could wrap this up with a motion or come back for one more meeting to see
the final proposal and then vote on it.
Mike informed the committee he would still like to send them a final summary before he presents it to Council. Ray
will put that together and get that sent out to the committee electronically.
Troy/Dan m/s to approve the proposed Transportation SDC with recommended changes (see attached) for a
total SDC of $2,112.00. Voice vote. All AYES. Motion passes.
Carlos asked for a reminder of the final Water and Sewer SDC. Ray said he would like to take the time to review
everything and put together a final SDC list which can then be distributed to the committee electronically along with
the minutes from this meeting.
SDC Committee
February 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, 4115114, 6110114,
718114, 815114 and 1017114. Voice Vote. All AYES. Motion passes.
Carlos asked when these SDC's would go into effect. Mike said he probably wouldn't be able to get in front of the
Council until mid March or early April and he would like Carlos to attend with him as Chair. Mike said he would need
to talk with the Legal department regarding the implementation timeline but he is thinking it would be July 1 so that it
would give people advance notice.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:03 pm
Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
SDC Committee
February 77, 2075
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
^ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
Emergency Shelter Agreement with ORHA
FROM:
John Stromberg, Mayor, john@council.ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This item authorizes the Interim City Administrator to enter into an agreement with ORHA to provide
emergency shelter services.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
As you may recall, the Emergency Shelter is an infrequently-used but critical component of our
community's assistance for our local homeless population.
In discussions this fall involving the City Administrator and Mayor Stromberg
and various citizens who are involved with the overall Winter Shelter Program, certain problems were
identified with the Emergency Shelter effort. In particular, coordinators have been having difficulty
finding volunteers to staff the Emergency Shelter, especially at the last minute and with foul weather
coming in.
Council directed City Administrator, Dave Kanner, to issue an RFP to see if some social service non-
profit organization would be willing to staff the Emergency Shelter if the City paid for this assistance.
This was done, but all the organizations contacted informed the City Administrator that they would be
unable to provide this service. The City Administrator then contacted Options for Homeless Residents
of Ashland ("OHRA") directly to see if an agreement could be worked out with them. This was done,
and consensus was reached on the conceptual terms to be included in an agreement. On December 13,
2016 the OHRA Board approved the preliminary terms that had been discussed with the City
Administrator and directed its Chair to finalize a written agreement.
These are the basic concepts to be incorporated into a formal written agreement:
• When City declares a shelter emergency per Resolution 201.3-04, City will undertake in good
faith reasonable efforts to provide a building in which the shelter can be held. If no suitable
City building is available, OHRA will attempt to secure an alternative building.
• OHRA will be responsible for maintaining a roster of individuals willing to staff emergency
shelters. When a shelter emergency is declared, OHRA will provide at least two trained shelter
workers to staff the Emergency Shelter. OHRA will pay these workers an amount not less than
the City-mandated living wage. (The City-mandated living wage is $14.52 per hour in fiscal
year 2017.)
Page 1 of 3
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• OHRA will also identify an Emergency Shelter coordinator, who will be paid for securing
workers and providing notice on each shelter emergency night. The coordinator will be paid
for 10 hours of work for each shelter emergency night. The coordinator will also receive on-
call pay of $50 for each 48-hour period during which a shelter emergency might be declared
from November through March.
• City will pay a one-time administrative fee to OHRA in the amount of $400 as total
compensation for all overhead, supplies, publicity materials, etc.
• City will pay OHRA the guaranteed minimum of $3,850 in fiscal year 2017 to cover the cost of
five nights of Emergency Shelter, calculated as follows:
o Two shelter workers @ $14.52/hr for 12 hours = $348.48 x 5 shelter nights = $1750
(rounded up)
o Shelter coordinator @ $14.52/hr for 10 hours = $145.20 x 5 shelter nights = $750
(rounded up)
o On-call pay for shelter coordinator @ $50 for 19 48-hour periods = $950
o Total: $3850 (including one-time administrative fee of $400) plus $500 for each shelter
night in excess of five
o OHRA will bill City for cost of shelter workers and coordinator at actual cost for each
night of shelter above five. If there are fewer than five shelter emergency nights, OHRA
will be allowed to keep the unspent balance of the $2~ use for homeless services,
consistent with its mission.
• Emergency Shelter workers must meet the same requirements as volunteer workers in the
Winter Shelter Program, including criminal background checks, training on the emergency
plan, mental health plan and emergency communications for the shelter, and execution of
waivers releasing City from liability for any personal injuries to them.
• The agreement will terminate no later than June 30, 2017, with future arrangements to be
determined subsequently in light of experience gained during fiscal year 2017.
Upon approval by the Council of these conceptual terms and authorization for the Interim City
Administrator to sign an agreement, a final written agreement acceptable to OHRA and the City would
be prepared and executed.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
• Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs.
• Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming.
• Encourage the ongoing effectiveness of the Resource Center.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The anticipated cost to the City would be $3,850 plus $500 for each declared shelter emergency night
in excess of five. Sample calculations of direct costs to the City: (a) $3,850 for three declared shelter
emergency nights; (b) $3,850 for five declared emergency nights; or (c) $5,850 for nine declared
shelter emergency nights.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I move to authorize the Interim City Administrator to enter into an agreement with ORHA to provide
for emergency shelter services fiscal year 2017
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
Page 3 of 3
IrtVI
a
CITY OF
^ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
A Resolution for the City of Ashland to Provide
a City Building Three Nights per Week as a Winter Shelter
FROM:
John Karns, Interim City Administrator, iohn.karns@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
For the past four years, the City has made Pioneer Hall available for a winter shelter for the homeless,
staffed by volunteers from The Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUF) and Temple
Emek Shalom (Temple). Recently, Mayor Stromberg was contacted by Bob Morse representing the
Ashland First Congregational United Church of Christ (U CC) and the South Mountain Friends
Meeting (SMFM) who are requesting an additional night of shelter to be staffed by volunteers from
their two churches.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On October 18, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution allowing the use of Pioneer Hall as a two-
night-a-week winter shelter for the homeless and establishing conditions and policies governing the
use of the building. UCC and SMFM would like to add an additional night of shelter, following the
same conditions and policies. The Ashland Parks and Recreation Department has agreed to adding an
additional day each week for use of Pioneer Hall as a shelter.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City pays roughly $400 per month for general liability insurance for using a city facility as a
winter shelter. Money is not specifically budgeted for this purpose in the biennial budget, however the
cost is absorbed by the Insurance Fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
None.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move approval of a resolution titled, "A Resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a city
building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April, 2017 and repealing Resolution No.
2016-28."
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Resolution No. 2016-28
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO
PROVIDE A CITY BUILDING FOR A WINTER SHELTER THREE
NIGHTS PER WEEK THROUGH APRIL, 2017 AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-28
RECITALS:
A. Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUF) and Temple Emek Shalom
(Temple) wish to partner with the City of Ashland to provide shelter for homeless
community members at a City building two nights per week from November, 2016, through
April, 2017.
B. The First Congregational United Church of Christ (UCC) and the South Mountain Friends
Meeting (SMFM) wish to partner with the City of Ashland to provide shelter for homeless
community members at a City building one night per week from December 25, 2016, through
April, 2017.
C. RVUUF, Temple, UCC, and SMFM will provide volunteers to staff, manage and clean the
shelter.
D. The City is willing to provide a building three nights a week to accommodate this proposal in
accordance with the provisions below.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Provision of a Shelter.
Ashland will provide a City building for use as a shelter for homeless community members three
nights per week under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Terms and Conditions.
a. This building is offered for the period November, 2016, through April, 2017.
b. Prior to staffing a City-owned facility, volunteers must sign a waiver releasing the City
from liability for any personal injuries to them.
c. The shelter will be staffed by volunteers from RVUUF, Temple, UCC, and SMFM who
are certified to staff an overnight shelter. RVUUF, Temple, UCC, and SMFM must
provide to the Parks and Recreation Department written assurance that every volunteer
who will staff the shelter is certified to have completed appropriate training on the
emergency plan, mental health plan and emergency communications for the shelter and
has passed criminal background checks.
d. Each night of operation of the shelter, at least one male volunteer and one female
volunteer will staff the shelter from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. If volunteers of each gender
are not available on a given night, RVUUF or the Temple shall notify the City
Administrator by no later than 3 p.m. of the night of the shelter that the volunteers will be
of the same gender. If the City Administrator is not available, RVUUF or the Temple
shall notify the Director of Ashland Parks and Recreation. If the minimum number or
qualified volunteers are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened
Resolution No. 2016- Page 1 of 3
that night.
e. Shelter occupancy will be limited to 42 guests on a first come, first serve basis.
f. Shelter will open at approximately 7:30 p.m. and close the following morning at 7:30
a.m. Doors will be locked at 10:00 p.m. with no re-entry for any that leave.
g. City insurance requires separate sleeping space be designated for single men, women and
families. Buildings must have separate restroorns for men and women.
h. Ashland Parks & Recreation will identify the building to be used and provide access.
The priority from an operational and safety perspective is Pioneer Hall, the Community
Center and the Grove, in that order.
i. No showers or food service will be made available during the hours of operation.
SECTION 3. Shelter Policies.
Operation of the shelter shall, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with the following
guidelines:
a. Shelter services must be provided with dignity, care, and concern for the individuals
involved.
b. The buildings used as a shelter will comply with City, County and State Building, Fire
and Health Codes, unless exemptions have been obtained from the appropriate agencies,
and must be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at all times.
c. Upon entering the shelter facility each night, each guest must sign in, and sign an
agreement committing to comply with shelter rules, absolving the City and volunteers of
any responsibility for the security of the guest's personal property, releasing the City and
volunteers from all claims of liability for property damage or personal injury arising from
operation of the shelter or use of the City's building and certifying that he or she is
eighteen years of age, or older.
d. No cooking.
e. No drugs, alcohol, or weapons will be allowed in the shelter property at any time.
f. No pets will be allowed in the shelter, except as described in Section 4, below.
g. No disorderly conduct will be tolerated.
h. No threatening or abusive language will be tolerated.
i. No excessive noise will be tolerated, e.g. loud radios, telephone conversations, etc.
j. Smoking will be restricted to the outdoors in designated areas.
k. All guests should maintain their own areas and belongings in an orderly condition.
1. If a volunteer/staff member accepts any item from a guest for safe keeping at least one
other volunteer/staff member will witness the transaction.
in. Failure to comply with shelter policies may disqualify a guest(s) from future stays.
n. The check-in/check-out process shall be maintained by the volunteers sufficient to ensure
a control of the premises and exiting by guests at 7:30 a.m. to allow cleaning and room
set-up by 8:00 a.m.
SECTION 4. Dogs.
Dogs may be permitted in the shelter under the following circumstances:
a. If taken outside for biological needs, dogs must be leashed.
b. Shelter volunteers are to devise and follow procedures to keep dogs away from each other
and other guests as they are being housed for the night and as they exit in the morning.
c. Shelter volunteers must be responsible for cleaning and sanitizing any areas soiled by a
Resolution No. 2016- Page 2 of 3
dog or dogs. Such cleaning is to be done to the satisfaction of City facilities maintenance
staff.
d. Dogs that become threatening to others or are otherwise unmanageable will be required
to leave the shelter.
e. Shelter volunteers must notify the Ashland Police Department in the event a dog bite
breaks the skin of an emergency shelter guest or volunteer.
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
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 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2016- Z
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO
PROVIDE A CITY BUILDING FOR A WINTER SHELTER TWO NIGHTS
PER WEEK THROUGH APRIL, 2017
RECITALS:
A. Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUF) and Temple Emek Shalom
(Temple) wish to partner with the City of Ashland to provide shelter for homeless
community members at a City building two nights per week from November, 2016, through
April, 2017.
B. RVUUF and the Temple will provide volunteers to staff, manage and clean the shelter.
C. The City is willing to provide a building two nights a week to accommodate this proposal in
accordance with the provisions below.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Provision of a Shelter.
Ashland will provide a City building for use as a shelter for homeless community members two
nights per week under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Terms and Conditions.
a. This building is offered for the period November, 2016, through April, 2017.
b. Prior to staffing a City-owned facility, volunteers must sign a waiver releasing the City
from liability for any personal injuries to them.
c. The shelter will be staffed by volunteers from RVUUF and Temple who are certified to
staff an overnight shelter. RVUUF and Temple must provide to the Parks and Recreation
Department written assurance that every volunteer who will staff the shelter is certified to
have completed appropriate training on the emergency plan, mental health plan and
emergency communications for the shelter and has passed criminal background checks.
d. Each night of operation of the shelter, at least one male volunteer and one female
volunteer will staff the shelter from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. If volunteers of each gender
are not available on a given night, RVUUF or the Temple shall notify the City
Administrator by no later than 3 p.m. of the night of the shelter that the volunteers will be
of the same gender. If the City Administrator is not available, RVUUF or the Temple
shall notify the Director of Ashland Parks and Recreation. If the minimum number or
qualified volunteers are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened
that night.
e. Shelter occupancy will be limited to 42 guests on a first come, first serve basis.
f. Shelter will open at approximately 7:30 p.m. and close the following morning at 7:30
a.m. Doors will be locked at 10:00 p.m. with no re-entry for any that leave.
g. City insurance requires separate sleeping space be designated for single men, women and
families. Buildings must have separate restrooms for men and women.
h. Ashland Parks & Recreation will identify the building to be used and provide access.
Resolution No. 2016- Pagel of 3
The priority from an operational and safety perspective is Pioneer Hall, the Community
Center and the Grove, in that order.
i. No showers or food service will be made available during the hours of operation.
SECTION 3. Shelter Policies.
Operation of the shelter shall, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with the following
guidelines:
a. Shelter services must be provided with dignity, care, and concern for the individuals
involved.
b. The buildings used as a shelter will comply with City, County and State Building, Fire
and Health Codes, unless exemptions have been obtained from the appropriate agencies,
and must be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at all times.
c. Upon entering the shelter facility each night, each guest must sign in, and sign an
agreement committing to comply with shelter rules, absolving the City and volunteers of
any responsibility for the security of the guest' s personal property, releasing the City and
volunteers from all claims of liability for property damage or personal injury arising from
operation of the shelter or use of the City's building and certifying that he or she is
eighteen years of age, or older.
d. No cooking.
e. No drugs, alcohol, or weapons will be allowed in the shelter property at any time.
f. No pets will be allowed in the shelter, except as described in Section 4, below.
g. No disorderly conduct will be tolerated.
h. No threatening or abusive language will be tolerated.
i. No excessive noise will be tolerated, e.g. loud radios, telephone conversations, etc.
j. Smoking will be restricted to the outdoors in designated areas.
k. All guests should maintain their own areas and belongings in an orderly condition.
1. If a volunteer/staff member accepts any item from a guest for safe keeping at least one
other volunteer/staff member will witness the transaction.
m. Failure to comply with shelter policies may disqualify a guest(s) from future stays.
n. The check-in/check-out process shall be maintained by the volunteers sufficient to ensure
a control of the premises and exiting by guests at 7:30 a.m. to allow cleaning and room
set-up by 8:00 a.m.
SECTION 4. Dogs.
Dogs may be permitted in the shelter under the following circumstances:
a. If taken outside for biological needs, dogs must be leashed.
b. Shelter volunteers are to devise and follow procedures to keep dogs away from each other
and other guests as they are being housed for the night and as they exit in the morning.
c. Shelter volunteers must be responsible for cleaning and sanitizing any areas soiled by a
dog or dogs. Such cleaning is to be done to the satisfaction of City facilities maintenance
staff.
d. Dogs that become threatening to others or are otherwise unmanageable will be required
to leave the shelter.
e. Shelter volunteers must notify the Ashland Police Department in the event a dog bite
breaks the skin of an emergency shelter guest or volunteer.
Resolution No. 2016- Page 2 of 3
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of0Mhd4e--' 2016, and
take ffect upon signing by the Mayor.
i
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of~ 2016.
J Stro berg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Davi H. Lohman, City orney
Resolution No. 2016- Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 20, 2016, Business Meeting
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 2.50.070 and AMC 2.28.045 Public
Contracting Delegated Officer Authority for Intergovernmental Agreements
FROM:
Dave Lohman, City Attorney, david.lohman@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
To streamline approval of routine intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) and reduce the time Council
and staff spend on them, staff proposes that the City Administrator be delegated authority to approve
new intergovernmental agreements and renewal of intergovernmental agreements that are limited in
scope or that do not require substantial investments, obligations, or risks to be undertaken by the City.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Under the current Ashland Municipal Code:
• Any proposed new intergovernmental agreement that binds the City must be specifically
approved by City Council if it is an intergovernmental agreement, no matter how minor.
• Renewal of any existing intergovernmental agreement must be approved by City Council if it
contains any proposed changes, no matter how small.
• The City Administrator is authorized to approve renewal of an existing intergovernmental
agreement only if it contains no changes.
• The City Administrator is authorized to approve contracts for materials, supplies, equipment,
services and public improvements in an amount up to $100,000 and for personal services in an
amount up to $75,000 and nevertheless has no delegated authority to approve new
intergovernmental agreements and or intergovernmental agreement renewals.
• Substantial time and effort is spent by City staff in preparing for City Council consideration
new intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental renewals, even in the typical cases
where the potential benefits are substantial and the likely financial and other consequences to
the City are minimal.
• Intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental agreement renewals are presently
approved generally by City Council by en bloc voting on the consent agenda, except in rare
cases where financial or other consequences to the City could be substantial.
The proposed changes would delegate authority to the City Administrator to approve routine
intergovernmental agreements of up to $25,000 and renewal of intergovernmental agreements that are
modified in accordance with the agreement or that do not increase annual costs to the City by more
than 25% above those in the initial agreement.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A i
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the proposed ordinance amendments to delegate to
the City Administrator authority to approve new intergovernmental agreements and renewal of
intergovernmental agreements as long as they are limited in scope and do not require substantial
investments, obligations, or risks to be undertaken by the City.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the first reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 2.50.070
and AMC 2.28.045 Public Contracting Delegated Officer Authority for Intergovernmental
Agreements" and schedule the proposed ordinance for second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Page 2 of 2
~r
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 2.50.070 AND AMC 2.28.045
PUBLIC CONTRACTING DELEGATED OFFICER AUTHORITY
FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
Annotated to show de et ons 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, under the current Ashland Municipal Code, any proposed new agreement that
binds the City must be specifically approved by City Council if it is an intergovernmental
agreement, no matter how minor.
WHEREAS, under the current Code, renewal of any existing intergovernmental agreement must
be approved by City Council if it contains any proposed changes, no matter how small.
WHEREAS, under the current Code, the City Administrator is authorized to approve renewal of
an existing intergovernmental agreement only if it contains no changes.
WHEREAS, under the current Code, the City Administrator is authorized to approve contracts
for materials, supplies, equipment, services and public improvements in an amount up to
$100,000 and for personal services in an amount up to $75,000 and nevertheless has no
delegated authority to approve new intergovernmental agreements and or intergovernmental
agreement renewals.
WHEREAS, substantial time and effort is spent by City staff in preparing for City Council
consideration of new intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental renewals, even in the
typical cases where the potential benefits are substantial and the likely financial and other
consequences to the City are minimal.
WHEREAS, intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental agreement renewals are
typically approved by City Council by en bloc voting on the consent agenda, except in rare cases
where financial or other consequences to the City could be substantial.
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to delegate authority to the City Administrator to approve
intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental agreement renewals that are routine or that
do not require substantial investments, obligations, or risks to be undertaken by the City.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Ashland Municipal Code 2.50.070 Public Contracting Officer Authority and
Ashland Municipal Code 2.28.045 City Administrator - Delegated Duties are amended to read as
follows:
2.50.070 Public Contracting Officer Authority
A. Except as otherwise provided by this code, the Public Contracting Officer shall have
authority to:
1. Purchase and contract for all materials, supplies, equipment, services and public
improvements for which funds have been appropriated by the City Council and the
contract price does not exceed $100,000;
2. Contract for all personal services as long as the contract price does not exceed $75,000;
3. Sell or dispose of all personal property of the city in accordance with AMC 2.54; and
4. Enter into any intergovernmental allreement as lonjZ as the annual cost to the City
does not exceed $25,000 and the agreement does not create a new intergovernmental
entity.
Contracts approved under this section require no further approvals by the Local Contract Review
Board.
B. Except when this Chapter, or the Oregon Public Contracting Code and Model Rules,
specifically requires the Local Contract Review Board to take action or exercise its discretion
and delegation is not allowed, any act required or permitted to be performed by an "agency,"
"head of a contracting agency," "local contract review board" or the "director" under the
Model Rules or Oregon Public Contracting Code shall be performed by the Public
Contracting Officer.
C. The Public Contracting Officer may develop such forms that are convenient to the
administration of the City' s contracts and may promulgate procedures reasonably necessary
to accomplish the purposes of this Chapter, the Model Rules, and the Oregon Public
Contracting Code. The City Attorney may promulgate standard forms for use by the Public
Contracting Officer.
Section 2.28.045 City Administrator - Delegated Duties
A. Acceptance of real property, or interest therein. Except when a public hearing before the
governing body is required by state or local law, the City Council hereby authorizes and
delegates to the City Administrator the authority to indicate, for purposes of recording in
Official Deed records, the City of Ashland's acceptance of real property title or an interest in
real property pursuant to ORS 93.808. The City Administrator may execute an instrument
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4
conveying fee title to the City or conveying any interest in real property to the City, after
approval of the form by the City Attorney and approval of the description of the property by
the City Surveyor. City acceptance shall be in substantially the following form:
CITY ACCEPTANCE (ORS 93.808):
CITY OF ASHLAND. Grantee
By:
City Administrator
City of Ashland, Oregon
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
Jackson County )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 ,
by as City Administrator of the City of Ashland.
Notary Public for Oregon
My commission expires:
B. Renewal of intergovernmental agreements. The City Council hereby delegates its authority to
renew intergovernmental agreements to the City Administrator when:
1) state or local law does not require a public hearing before the governing body;--€
2) the terms of the intergovernmental agreement will be modified in accordance with the
initial agreement, or the annual costs to the City will not be more than twenty-five
percent (25%) greater than those in the initial agreement, and other terms will
remain the same or- be modified in accor-danee with the agreement, and
3) the renewal is approved by the City Attorney and the department head that is affected by
the renewal.
C. Execute Real Property Leases. The City Council hereby delegates its authority to enter into
month to month leases of real property to the City Administrator, including but not limited to
airport hangar leases, provided the written order entering into the lease of real property is
approved by the City Attorney and the department head that is affected by the order. The
City Council retains its authority to enter into all other real property leases of any duration.
D. Waiver of Penalties and Interest for Late Tax Payments. The City Council hereby delegates
its authority to waive penalties and interest for certain late tax payments to the City
Administrator under only the following circumstances:
1) the waiver of penalties and interest concerns either a tax owed under AMC 4.24
[Transient Occupancy tax] or under AMC 4.34 [Food and Beverage tax], and
2) the operator submits a report that is complete and paid in full no more than seventy-two
(72) hours or three work days delinquent, whichever is longer, and
3) the operator has reported and paid all monies (including food and beverage and transient
occupancy tax) due to the City on or before the due date for each reporting period for the
each of the prior twenty-four (24) consecutive months or eight (8) consecutive quarters,
and
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4
4) the operator has not been the subject of a Food and Beverage tax or Transient Occupancy
tax audit where the City found the operator' s record keeping, reporting or remitting
deficient, during the prior twenty-four (24) consecutive months or eight (8) consecutive
quarters, and
5) the written order granting the waiver is approved by the City Attorney and the
department head that is affected by the order.
E. The City Administrator shall biannually report to the City Council on the matters executed
pursuant to this Chapter.
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 4 of 4