HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-30 Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology RESOLUTION NO. 2018-30
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY (2018), PURSUANT TO
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050.
RECITALS:
A. The City adopted a new Transportation Systems Plan on March 19, 2013 through
ordinance 3080 that amended the comprehensive plan.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Resolution 2017-26 is repealed.
SECTION 2. The Draft Methodology Report Transportation Systems Development Charges
dated August 27, 2018, including Discounts and Incentives as presented on page 4-3,
Transportation SDC Project List(Table A-1), and Transportation SDC by Land Use charges per
trip (Table A-2) are hereby adopted in their entirety.
SECTION 3. The Draft Methodology Report Transportation Systems Development Charges
dated August 27, 2018, will be renamed FINAL Methodology Report Transportation Systems
Development Charges dated November 6, 2018.
SECTION 4. The Transportation Systems Development Charges and phased $/trip attached to
this resolution and marked"Exhibit A"will be effective January 1, 2019 (year 1) and will adjust
for year 2 and year 3.
SECTION 5. The Transportation Systems Development Charges will adjust for inflation with
the Engineering News Record(ENR) construction cost index on July 1st each year as described
on page 4-3 of the methodology report.
SECTION 6. The Transportation Systems Development Charges will adjust on January 1, 2020,
for year 2 increases, and on January 1, 2021, for year 3 increases.
SECTION 7. One copy of this Resolution along with the Transportation Systems Development
Charges Methodology Report, Transportation SDC Project List(Table A-1), and Transportation
SDC by Land Use (Table A-2) shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be
available for public inspection during regular business hours.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
METHODOLOGY,PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
4.20.040 AND 4.20.050.
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 8. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of
Section 1 lb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution(Ballot Measure No. 5).
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 2018.
—YA4JA5C-
Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this(q 'day of Id ckre , 2018.
4
• n Stromberg, Mayor
Rev.- d as to off■:
ilm, A.
+ v id Lo Wan, Ci ' Attorney
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
METHODOLOGY,PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050.
Page 2 of 2
Draft Methodology Report
Transportation System
Development Charges
Pr AllFMK
CITY OF
ASHLAND
August 27, 2018
Pli
GALARI)I
RO'I'HS I'k:IN
GROUP
in association with
K&ITTELSON
I +. ASSOCIATES
Executive Summary
Background
The City of Ashland(the City) last updated its transportation system development charges
(TSDCs)in 2016(effective July 1,2017). However,concerns over the impact of the new
TSDCs on certain development types led to the fees being repealed in November 2017.
Since that time,the City has been charging TSDCs based on its prior methodology and fee
schedule adopted in 1999. In January 2018,the City embarked on an effort to update its
TSDC methodology and project list. The objectives of the study were to:
• Develop a new project list based on the 2013 Transportation System Plan and more
current(2018)project costs.
• Work with a SDC Advisory Committee(SAC)to develop a methodology that was
consistent with industry standards and Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS)223.297
through 223.314 guidelines.
• Consider potential TSDC discounts and incentives related to broader City policy
objectives.
The SAC met three times over the course of the project and reached consensus on
methodological and policy recommendations.
The Ashland City Council intends on holding a public hearing to hear comments on the
proposed Transportation SDC methodology on November 6,2018,at its regularly scheduled
business meeting. Subject to comments,first reading of the ordinance to impose these fees
will be the same night,with second reading on November 20,2018. The fees are intended to
be enacted on January 1,2019.
Overview of Proposed Methodology
Table ES-1 presents the key components of the recommended methodology,and provides
comparison to the current(1999)and prior(2016)methodologies.
Table ES-1
TSDC Methodology Comparison
Methodology Current(1999) Recommended(2018)
Element Methodology Prior(2016)Methodology Methodology
Project List Improvement only Improvement only Improvement&Reimbursement
Growth share Population-based Population based Mode-specific planning criteria
Estimated from Estimated from population Based on travel demand model
Growth in trips population and and employment data forecast that recognizes growth
employment data in land use by area(e.g., by
system-wide system-wide TAZ)
Trip Rate Type Average Daily Trips PM Peak Trips Average Daily Trips
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018
Trip Rate Pass-by and trip length None Pass-by and diverted trips
Adjustments
Trip Rate Data ITE 5th edition ITE 9'"Edition ITE current edition(10th edition
by Land Use most recent;2017)
TAZ=Transportation Analysis Zone
As shown in Table ES-1,the recommended methodology differs from the current
methodology in that it includes both an improvement and reimbursement element. The
addition of a reimbursement element provides a more flexible capital funding source,and
ensures that new development contributes an equitable share to existing roadway capacity.
The new methodology also includes a more rigorous approach to both the determination of
the growth share of project costs,and the projected growth in trips system-wide. The new
methodology is based on data from the regional travel demand model.
Like the existing methodology,the recommended methodology is assessed based on
average daily trips,and it maintains trip rate adjustments(a key difference from the 2016
methodology). However,the type of adjustments have changed somewhat from the current
methodology and the adjustment factors along with the trip rates have been updated to
reflect current data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation
Manual.
Major Findings •
TSDC Costs
A summary of the SDC improvement project costs by project type is provided in Table ES-2,
and the detailed project list is provided in Appendix A-1. As shown in Table ES-2,the
TSDC improvement project list includes about$56.3 million in planned improvements and
related studies. The improvements include new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities
in order to increase capacity and improve the level of performance of the transportation
system. Approximately$23.9 million of project costs are assumed to be funded by other
(external)funds,including grants,developer contributions,and state funding.When the
project costs are reduced by projected external funding sources,the net project costs
allocated to growth are about$16.8 million(about 52 percent of total project costs.)
Table ES-2
City of Ashland
Summary of Improvement Project List
Project Type Total Cost Other % TSDC Cost2
Funding Growth1
Studies $153,400 $0 11% $16,430
Transit $4,425,000 $0 11% $473,937
Pedestrian . $16,359,225 $10,763,813 97% $5,486,026
Bike $5,943,660 $594,366 34% $1,969,374
Intersection Studies $330,400 $0 24% $80,406
Intersection&Roadway Improvements $27,884,972 $11,728,161 52% $8,323,813
Crossing $1,180,000 $767,000 100% $413,000
Total $56,276,657 $23,853,340 52% $16,762,985
1 Growth portion before other funds applied
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 II
2 Other funding applied first to non-growth share of cost;any remaining funds reduce TSDC cost
The reimbursement fee is calculated based on the actual cost of reserve capacity from
roadway improvements constructed over the past 20 years,exclusive of grants and
contributions.A total value of$7.5 million was identified for reimbursement projects,of
which about$3.4 million represents the estimated City-funded cost. Growth is allocated
approximately$1.2 million(35 percent)of the net existing system value,based on individual
project cost allocations.
TSDC Schedule
The growth-related improvement and reimbursement costs are divided by the projected
future growth in trips(as measured by average daily trip ends)to determine the system-
wide cost per trip. The regional travel demand model projects a growth in daily trips of
38,066,which results in a total cost per trip of about$472:
$440.36(improvement fee) +$31.19(reimbursement fee) =$471.55 combined fee
In addition,local governments are entitled to include in the SDCs,a charge to recover costs
associated with complying with the SDC law. Compliance costs include costs related to
developing and administering the TSDC methodology,project list,as well as annual
accounting costs. The compliance charge is estimated to be about$16 per trip,or about
three percent of the combined TSDC per trip($488).
The TSDC for an individual development is based on the cost per trip,and the number of
trips attributable to a particular development,where the number of development trips is
computed as follows:
Number of Development Trips = Trip Generation Rate X Adjustment Factors X Development Units
The standard practice in the transportation industry is to use PTE trip generation rates to
determine the TSDCs for individual developments.Adjustment factors applied to base trip
rates reflect pass-by and diverted linked trip factors for some land uses.Pass-by trips refer
to trips that occur when a motorist is already on the roadway,as in the case of a traveler
stopping by a fast-food restaurant on the way home from work. In this case,the motorist
making a stop while"passing by" is counted as a trip generated by the restaurant,but it
does not represent a new(or primary) trip on the roadway. A diverted linked trip is a
P ( p rY) p Y P
similar type of non-primary trip but in this case the motorist will divert from a primary
route to access a nearby use(e.g.,a vehicle may turn off a major roadway onto an
intersecting street to access a land use),and then return to the original route to complete the
trip.
Based on the TSDCs presented in this report,and the most current version of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual(10th edition),the TSDC for a single family dwelling unit(with an
average trip rate of 9.44)is$4,603. The full TSDC schedule is shown in Appendix Table A-2.
T
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018
TSDC Implementation
In addition to the updated methodology and project list,the SAC made a number of
recommendations related to the implementation of the TSDCs,aimed primarily at
addressing revenue adequacy and affordability objectives.
Inflationary Adjustments
In order to keep pace with inflation,and avoid significant future TSDC adjustments,the
SAC recommends that the City's fees increase with the Engineering News Record (ENR)
construction cost index July 1st each year.
Phase-In
As a result of the updated cost per trip,as well as changes to ITE trip rates since the 1999
methodology,the TSDCs for many land use categories increase significantly compared with
current fees. The SAC has recommended a 3-year phase in of the updated cost per trip,with
the first year including 50 percent of the increase,and approximately 25 percent increases in
years 2 and 3. Table A-2 shows the projected TSDCs (before future inflation adjustments)
during the recommended 3-year phase-in period. The City Council has the final
determination on the phasing option.
Discounts and Incentives
The SAC discussed incentives and discounts for certain development types,and
recommends the following:
• 50 percent discount for new homes(including Accessory Dwelling Units)that are
500 square feet or smaller
• 25 percent discount for homes(including cottage housing)that are 501-800 square
feet
• Maintain the existing affordable housing 100 percent discount;qualified as
affordable housing by the City of Ashland Housing Program and deed restricted to
remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years.
• Provide a 20 percent discount for developers planning to employ Transportation
Demand Management(measures aimed at reducing single occupancy vehicle use);
as an example this credit recognizes developing near transit(e.g.,Transit Triangle);
eligible projects must demonstrate achievable transportation impact reductions and
parking reductions.
Report Contents
This methodology report is organized as follows:
• Executive Summary-Provides background information on TSDCs in Ashland,and
a summary of the recommended TSDC methodology and major findings.
• Section 1-Introduction-Provides a summary of SDC statutory requirements.
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 IV
• Section 2-Growth Requirements-Presents the approaches used to determine
future growth in trips and the growth share of project costs.
• Section 3-TSDC Cost-Summarizes the reimbursement and improvement project
costs,based on the approaches and assumptions presented in Section 2 and the
updated Project List.
• Section 4-TSDC Schedule-Provides information on system-wide unit costs,the
process for assessing TSDCs to individual developments,and method for updating
for future cost escalation.
Appendix A provides the detailed Improvement Project List, as well as the TSDC Schedule.
V
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018
SECTION 1
Introduction
Oregon SDC Law
Oregon Revised Statutes 223.297-223.314 authorize local governments to assess System
Development Charges(SDCs) for the following types of capital improvements:
• Drainage and flood control(i.e.,storm water)
• Water supply,treatment,and distribution
• Wastewater collection,transmission,treatment,and disposal
• Transportation
• Parks and recreation
In addition to specifying the infrastructure systems for which SDCs may be assessed,the
SDC legislation provides guidelines on the calculation and modification of SDCs,
accounting requirements to track SDC revenues,and the adoption of administrative review
procedures. A summary of key provisions is provided below.
SDC Structure
Oregon law allows that an SDC may include a reimbursement fee,an improvement fee,or a
combination of the two.
Reimbursement Fee
The reimbursement fee is based on the value of available reserve capacity associated with
capital improvements already constructed or under construction. The methodology used to
calculate the reimbursement fee must consider the cost of existing facilities,prior
contributions by existing users,the value of unused capacity,grants,and other relevant
factors. The objective of the reimbursement fee methodology is to require new users to
contribute an equitable share of the capital costs of existing facilities. When new users pay
for their share of the available reserve capacity through the SDC reimbursement fee,the
money received can be used to fund other capital needs(e.g.,system replacements).
Improvement Fee
The improvement fee is designed to recover all or a portion of the costs of planned capital
improvements that add system capacity to serve future users. An increase in system capacity
may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service
provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements
funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for increased capacity to provide
service for future users.
1-1
Credits
The legislation requires that a credit be provided against the improvement fee for the
construction of"qualified public improvements." Qualified public improvements are
improvements that are required as a condition of development approval,identified in the
system's capital improvement program,and either(1)not located on or contiguous to the
property being developed,or(2) located in whole or in part,on or contiguous to,property
that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater
capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement
fee is related.
Review and Notification Requirements
The methodology for establishing or modifying improvement or reimbursement fees shall
be available for public inspection.The local government must maintain a list of persons who
have made a written request for notification prior to the adoption or amendment of such
fees. The notification requirements for changes to the fees that represent a modification to
the methodology are 90-day written notice prior to first public hearing,with the SDC
methodology available for review 60 days prior to public hearing.
Other Provisions
Other provisions of the legislation require:
• Preparation of a capital improvement program or comparable plan(prior to the
establishment of a SDC),that includes a list of the improvements that the jurisdiction
intends to fund with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing,cost,and
eligible portion of each improvement.
• Deposit of SDC revenues into dedicated accounts and annual accounting of revenues
and expenditures,including a list of the amount spent on each project funded,in whole
or in part,by SDC revenues.
• Creation of an administrative appeals procedure,in accordance with the legislation,
whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC
revenues.
The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if they are construed to impair the local
government's bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or
other financing.
1-2
SECTION 2
Growth Requirements
Introduction
This section presents the projected future growth needs,and the bases for determining the
costs that will be recovered from growth through the TSDCs ("growth share"). To comply
with Oregon SDC law and industry standard practices,new development cannot be
charged for costs associated with capacity needed to serve existing development-either in
the form of used capacity on existing facilities or future expansion needed to remedy
existing deficiencies. To be defensible,the methodology must:
• Specify how growth needs will be evaluated(e.g.,volume,volume/capacity ratio,
level of service,etc.)
• Identify the list of existing facilities and future projects needed to address growth
needs.
• Allocate project costs between growth and existing development,based on the
portion of each project that relates to providing capacity for growth vs.addressing
an existing deficiency or increase the level of performance for existing development.
s
System-Wide Growth in Trips
p
To evaluate the roadway capacity needs and the amount of vehicle trips that are generated
the regional existing and future development,th ion g1 al travel demand model was utilized.
Specifically,the model was utilized to approximate the existing number of trips(base year)
using the City street network. The model then considers forecast population and
employment increases by transportation analysis zone (TAZ)to project future year(2037)
trips generated within the City's currently acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Table 2-1 lists the total number of trip ends for the base year and future year scenarios. As
listed, the total number of trip ends is forecasted to grow from 134,944 to 173,010. The
growth in average daily trip ends (38,066) represents about 22 percent of the future
projections.
Table 2-1
Model Vehicle Average Daily Trip Ends(Within the City's currently acknowledged UGB)'
Base Year Trips Future Trips Growth Trips
Trip Ends 134,944 173,010 38,066
1 ODOT TPAU(May 16,2018);excludes external-external trips
Growth Share
The system-wide growth in trips will be accommodated by existing roadway reserve
capacity,as well as planned future system expansion for all modes of travel(auto,transit,
bike and pedestrian). According to SDC statutory requirements: "An increase in system
capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or
service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities." A key component of the
SDC methodology is allocation of existing facility and planned future facility costs to
growth,in proportion to estimated capacity requirements.
For purposes of determining growth share,individual projects are analyzed to determine
the portion of capacity costs needed for future growth requirements versus existing
development.Two general methods are used for determining the growth share:
1. Standards-Based approach-where the allocation of project costs to existing
development is limited to correcting any existing deficiency. Existing deficiencies
are evaluated based on current performance relative to the appropriate
planning/design standard for the particular improvement. For intersections,the
standard is a"volume-capacity ratio (v/c ratio)"1. For multimodal improvements,
the standard is miles per capita of bikeways and pedestrian ways.
2. Capacity Utilization approach-Improvements to existing facilities to address
safety,modernization,and other performance considerations provide capacity for
growth and enhanced performance for existing development,so the costs are
allocated in proportion to the utilization of the facilities,as determined for each
improvement individually.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of the allocation basis for existing and future development by
major project type.
Table 2-2
Summary of Growth Sham Methods
Project Type Existing Share Future Development Share
Roadway and Intersection Level of Existing development trips as a Future development trips as a
Performance Improvements(e.g., percent of total future 2037 trips percent of total future 2037 trips
safety and modernization)
0 0
New roadways and extensions 0% 100/o
Intersection capacity and Bike and Limited to existing deficiency(as 100%-Existing Deficiency
Pedestrian Improvements defined by v/c or level of service)
Studies Share of future population(89%)
Share of future population
(11%)
1 Volume-to-capacity ratio is defined as motor vehicle trips divided by the hourly capacity of the facility to serve those trips.
3-2
The recommended methodology is based on a mode-specific analysis for determining
growth share of project costs,which takes into consideration the different travel
characteristics of pedestrians,cyclists and motorists,as described below.
Roadways and Intersections (Improved Level of Performance)
For upgrade of existing facilities (i.e., realignments,modernization, and other
improvements),the growth share analysis for each roadway and intersection project was
based on information from the travel demand model. These projects were evaluated using
existing and future traffic volumes at each location. These volumes reflect the relationship
between land use and transportation and rely upon estimates of household and
employment growth by area of city(i.e.,TAZ). This means that each new roadway or
intersection project will have a different growth related proportion,as shown in Table A-1
(appendix).
New Roadway and Intersection Facilities; Existing Facility Expansion (Capacity Only)
New roadways and expansions driven by future development capacity requirements are
allocated 100%to growth, since the capacity is needed entirely for new development.
Similarly, intersection improvements that are not needed to meet existing mobility standards,
but are needed once the growth trips are added to the intersection, are assumed to be 100%
funded by growth, since there is no existing deficiency. Data was compiled from the TSP to
determine if facilities were operating with a volume/capacity ratio less than the required
standard.
Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
Unlike roadway and intersection projects,trip data for bike and pedestrian improvements is
not available. Therefore,the growth share for bike and pedestrian facilities is based on the
planned level of service(LOS). The planned LOS is defined as the quantity of future
facilities per 1,000 population served.
The following equation shows the calculation of the planned LOS:
ExistingQ+ Planned Q
= Planned LOS
Future PopulationServed
Where:
Q =quantity(miles of bike or pedestrian facilities),and
Future Population Served(within the UGB) =23,183
The existing and future miles of bike and pedestrian facilities are shown in Table 2-3.
3-3
Table 2-3
Existing and Future Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Current Additional(miles) Future
Facility Type (Miles) Stand-Alone Road (Miles)
Projects Projects
Multi Use Path 3.93 1.9 0 5.8
Bike Lanese 22.0 9.6 2.4 34.0
Sidewalks 3 80.0 9.8 2.5 92.3
'City-owned paved shared use paths
2Bike lanes only;does not include bike shoulders
30n improved and partially improved arterials and collectors
The City's population forecast for existing and future(2038)conditions are presented in
Table 24. Growth during the planning period is estimated to be 2,483 people.
Table 2-4
Current and Future Population
Current Future Growth
(2018) (2038)
Population 20,700 23,183 2,483
Table 2-5 presents the existing and future LOS for bike and pedestrian facilities,based on
the existing and planned future facilities presented in Table 2-3 divided by the existing and
projected future population presented in Table 2-4. In all cases,the planned LOS is higher
than the existing LOS,which means that there are existing deficiencies for bike and
a portion of future improvements are needed by existing
improvements,so p p y g
development.
Table 2-5
Existing and Future Bike and Pedestrian LOS
Milesl1,000 People
Facility Type Current Future
Multi Use Path 0.19 0.25
Bike Lanes 1.06 1.47
Sidewalks 3.86 3.98
The capacity requirements,or miles,needed for the existing population and for growth are
shown in Table 2-6 and estimated by multiplying the planned(future)LOS for each facility
type(from Table 2-5) by the population of each group(from Table 24).
3-4
Table 2-6
Existing and Growth Capacity Needs
Total Miles Needed
Facility Type Current Growth Total
Multi Use Path 5.2 0.6 5.8
Bike Lanes 30.4 3.6 34.0
Sidewalks 82.4 9.9 92.3
Existing development's needs are assumed to be met first by the existing inventory of
facilities;any shortfall is assumed to be provided from planned improvements.Therefore,
the additional need for facilities by the existing population is equal to the total inventory
needed (from Table 2-6)less the existing inventory(from Table 2-3). For example,the
planned LOS results in a total need of 5.18 miles of multi-use paths for existing
development The current inventory of 3.93 miles is deducted from the total need to yield
an additional need of 1.25 miles.
Table 2-7 shows the existing and growth allocation for the planned improvements by project
type. For the multi-use paths,the growth need is equal to 0.6 miles,so the additional 1.9
miles of path are allocated 67 percent and 33 percent,respectively to existing and growth.
For bike projects,the overall growth need is 30 percent(3.6 miles) of the planned additional
bike lanes;however,improvements are in conjunction with roadway projects,and as such
are allocated in proportion to future auto trip volumes. As shown in Table 2-7,the roadway
project allocations result in 0.38 miles of bike lane costs allocated to growth,so there is an
additional need of 3.3 miles (34 percent)from the stand-alone bike projects. Similarly,for
sidewalk improvements,the roadway allocations result in 0.41 miles of new sidewalks
allocated to growth. However,the total growth need is 9.9 miles,so 97 percent of the stand-
alone sidewalk costs on the project list are allocated to growth.
Table 2-7
Allocation of Additional Facilities
Miles Added %Allocation
Existing' Growth Total Existing Growth Total
Multi Use Path 1.25 0.6 1.9 67% 33% 100%
Bike Lanes
Road Projects2 2.0 0.38 2.4 84% 16% 100%
Bike Projects 6.4 3.3 9.6 66% 34% 100%
Subtotal 8.4 3.6 12.0 70% 30% 100%
Sidewalks
Road Projects 2.1 0.41 2.5 84% 16% 100%
Pedestrian Projects 0.3 9.5 9.8 3% 97% 100%
Subtotal 2.42 9.9 12.3 20% 80% 100%
Existing need assumed to be met first by current facilities
2 Numbers in bold used for growth share of stand-alone bike&pedestrian projects in Table A-1
Studies
Growth share for corridor studies are based on the average of growth trips on facilities with
future planned improvements.
3-5
SECTION 3
TSDC Cost
Introduction
The development of the TSDC cost generally involves the following key steps:
1. The TSDC project list is updated to reflect projects and costs related to current and
future system needs.
2. Project costs are reduced by projected external funding amounts (assessments, grants,
contributions by other agencies).
3. Net project costs are allocated between growth and existing development, as
described in Section 2.
As allowed by Oregon SDC law,the TSDC costs include both completed(reimbursement)
and planned future (improvement)projects costs. Both components of the TSDC cost are
summarized below.
Project List and Costs
City staff reviewed the financially constrained transportation project list developed as a result
of the adopted 2013 TSP. All projects were updated to 2018 costs based upon the Oregon
Department of Transportation(ODOT)unit costs of construction. Costs were updated to
include the new Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) standards for crossings. Completed
projects were moved to a list considered for the reimbursement fee based on actual
construction costs and City funding sources.
Improvement Costs
The improvement TSDC cost is summarized by major project component in Table 3-1. A
detailed list of projects is provided in Table A-1 (appendix). The TSP was adopted in 2013
and placed a priority on sidewalks, especially school routes. As a result, the project list has
over$16M in sidewalk projects that will most likely be completed through Safe Routes to
School or other grant programs. Based on Council's prior direction,the Nevada Street
Bridge extension (Council action June 20,2017)was removed from the eligible projects for
funding and will be reviewed again during the TSP update. City staff added the Ashland
Street, Oak Knoll, and E. Main/Hwy 66 intersection potential roundabout project(R9)to the
list to reflect higher priority needs in the city.
Developer-driven projects expected to be constructed within the next 5-7 years are also
included on the list shown in Table A-1. In most cases these new projects will provide
benefits not only to the new development area,but also to the community at large. If the City
3-6
will be giving TSDC credits for work being done by the developer,funds must be accounted
for and collected through the TSDC.Many developer driven projects are constructed to
include more pavement and sidewalk width to be consistent with City standards for a certain
type of street in lieu of a reflecting the minimum width that would be required just to serve
development.For those development driven projects,the City's share to "upsize"the
roadway was estimated to be 35%. The costs will be adjusted as the project is built to ensure
equitable credits for the development completed above the general standard(similar to water
and sewer pipeline up-sizing).
As shown in Table 3-1,the total cost of improvements on the project list is about$56
million. Future improvement costs were adjusted for expected external funding totaling
almost$24 million, as follows:
• Sidewalk projects potentially eligible for Safe Routes to School or other grant
programs are assumed to be grant funded at 75 percent
• New bikeways assume 10 percent grant funding
• Improvements on ODOT facilities include 90 percent external funding
• Roadway safety projects assume other funding of 25 percent
• Development driven projects assume 65 percent developer funded
The growth portion (i.e., TSDC cost) is about$16.7 million.
Table 3-1
City of Ashland TSDC Methodology
Summary of Improvement Project Costs
Project Type Total Cost Other % TSDC Cost'
Funding Growth1
Studies $153,400 $0 11% $16,430
Transit $4,425,000 $0 11% $473,937
Pedestrian $16,359,225 $10,763,813 97% $5,486,026
Bike $5,943,660 $594,366 34% $1,969,374
Intersection Studies $330,400 $0 24% $80,406
Intersection&Roadway Improvements $27,884,972 $11,728,161 52% $8,323,813
Crossing $1,180,000 $767,000 100% $413,000
Total $56,276,657 $23,853,340 52% $16,762,985
1 Growth portion before other funds applied
2 Other funding applied first to non-growth share of cost;any remaining funds reduce TSDC cost
Reimbursement Costs
The reimbursement project lists and costs are shown in Table 3-2. Project costs reflect
actual construction costs,adjusted for other funding sources. The growth share represents
the portion of roadway capacity reserved for future development trips,as estimated from
the travel demand model. The total reimbursement growth cost is almost$1.2 million.
3-7
Table 3-2
City of Ashland Transportation SDC Methodology
Reimbursement Project Costs
Actual Other GROWTH
Description Project Cost Funding NET CITY$ % SDC$
Siskiyou Blvd, Gresham,3rd, Lithia Way $5,128,571 $2,900,000 $2,228,571 $802,657
Intersection 36%
N. Main/Hersey/Wimer Intersection $1,049,051 $662,696 $366,356 $60,802
Realignment 17%
Walker Ave @ E Main-Install right turn $701,351 $418,920 $282,431 $114,005
lane 40%
Railroad Crossing Imp; E Main(07) $443,002 $100,000 $343,002 30% $103,287
Railroad Crossing Improvements;Oak $115,960 $115,960 71% $82,481
Will Dodge Way reconstruction $27,909 $27,909 51% $14,192
N. Main Road Diet $108,657 $32,597 $76,060 13% $9,726
$7,574,501 $1,234,213 $3,440,288 35% $1,187,150
� I
3-8
SECTION 4
TSDC Schedule
Introduction
The TSDC for an individual development is based on the system-wide unit cost per trip and
the number of trips attributable to a particular development.
System-Wide Unit Costs ($ITrip)
Based on the growth trips and TSDC costs summarized in Sections 2 and 3,the total cost per
average daily trip is equal to$471.55,as shown in Table 4-1,and is comprised of the
following components:
$440.36(improvement fee)+ $31.19(reimbursement fee)
Table 4-1
City of Ashland Transportation SDC Methodology
Transportation System Unit Costs of Capacity($/Trip)
Improvement SDC Reimbursement Combined SDC
SDC
Cost Basis(1) $16,762,985 $1,187,150 $17,950135
Growth Trip Ends(2) 38,066 38,066 38,066
SDC per Trip End $440.36 $31.19 $471.55
(1) From Tables 3-1 and 3-2
(2)From Table 2-1
Compliance Charge
Local governments are entitled to include in the TSDCs,a charge to recover costs associated
with complying with the SDC statutes. Compliance costs include costs related to
developing and administering the SDC methodology,project list(including but not limited
to TSP and other studies),and credit system;as well as annual accounting and other City
administration costs.
Table 4-2 shows the calculation of the compliance charge per trip,which is$16.05,or about
3.3 percent of the total cost per trip($488).
4-1
Table 4-2
Estimated Compliance Costs
Amortize
Total$ (Years) Annual$ Growth% Growth$
SDC Study $50,000 5 $10,000 100% $10,000
TSP $225,000 10 $22,500 52% $11,633
Accounting, Legal, Planning $1,000 1 $1,000 100% $1,000
Total Cost $22,633
Annual Trips 1,410
Compliance$!Trip $16.05
TSDC Schedule
The TSDC for an individual development is based on the cost per trip(including the
reimbursement,improvement,and compliance fees)and the number of trips (average daily)
attributable to a particular development,where the number of development trips is
computed as follows:
Number of Development Trips=Trip Generation Rate X Adjustment Factors X Development Units
Table A-2(in Appendix A)includes the updated TSDC rates and traffic impact assumptions
for typical land use categories.
Trip Generation Rates
In recognition of Ashland's character and its residents' travel behaviors,the SAC reviewed
the differences between basing the TSDC on average daily versus PM peak hour(4-6 pm)
trip generation. After significant debate,the SAC recommended the use of average daily
trips as more proportional and equitable for TSDC assessment purposes.Average daily trips
recognize the overall capacity utilization of the system,not just capacity used by trips
generated during the PM peak.
The City will continue to use the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)average daily
trip generation rates to determine the TSDCs for individual developments.Use of ITE trip
generation data is standard in the transportation industry.ITE trip rates by land use are
based on studies from around the country,and in the absence of local data,represent the
best available source of trip data for specific land uses.
Trip Rate Adjustments
The updated methodology includes pass-by and diverted linked trip adjustments. The
current methodology adjustments for trip length are eliminated,as available data to
reasonably estimate average trip length for a given land use type in comparison to other
uses is extremely limited.Furthermore,trip length may be more directly attributable to
location within an area and the availability of other similar uses in the area than it is to
simply the type of use.
4-2
The updated methodology adjustments are discussed in more detail below.
Pass-by Trips
Pass-by trips refer to trips that occur when a motorist is already on the roadway,as in the
case of a traveler stopping by a fast-food restaurant on the way home from work. In this
case,the motorist making a stop while"passing by" is counted as a trip generated by the
restaurant,but it does not represent a new(or primary) trip on the roadway. Pass-by trip
adjustments in the updated methodology are based on published data by land use from the
ITE.
Diverted Link Trips
The updated methodology also adjusts traffic impact based on"diverted link" trips,which
is another type of non-primary trip. In this case,the motorist will divert from a primary
route to access a nearby use (e.g.,a vehicle may turn off a major roadway onto an
intersecting street to access a land use),and then return to the original route to complete the
trip. As with the pass-by trip adjustments,the diverted link trip adjustments included in
the updated methodology are based on reported ITE data.
TSDC Implementation
The SAC made a number of recommendations related to the implementation of the TSDCs,
aimed primarily at addressing revenue adequacy and affordability objectives.
Inflationary Adjustments
In order to keep pace with inflation,and avoid significant future TSDC adjustments,the
SAC recommends that the City's fees increase with the Engineering News Record(ENR)
construction cost index July 1st each year.
Phase-In
As a result of the updated cost per trip,as well as changes to ITE trip rates since the 1999
methodology,the TSDCs for many land use categories increase significantly compared with
current fees. The SAC has recommended a 3-year phase in of the updated cost per trip,with
the first year including 50 percent of the increase,and approximately 25 percent increases in
years 2 and 3. Table A-2 shows the projected TSDCs (before future inflation adjustments)
during the recommended 3-year phase-in period.
Discounts and Incentives
The SAC discussed incentives and discounts for certain development types,and
recommends the following:
• 50 percent discount for new homes(including Accessory Dwelling Units) that are
500 square feet or smaller
• 25 percent discount for homes(including cottage housing)that are 501-800 square
feet
4-3
• Maintain the existing affordable housing 100 percent discount;qualified as
affordable housing by the City of Ashland Housing Program and deed restricted to
remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years.
• Provide a 20 percent discount for developers planning to employ Transportation
Demand Management(measures aimed at reducing single occupancy vehicle use);
as an example this credit recognizes developing near transit(e.g.,Transit Triangle);
eligible projects must demonstrate achievable transportation impact reductions and
parking reductions.
4-4
Table A-1
City of Ashland,Oregon
TRANSPORTATION SDC Project List
Type/ Street Description Classification Priority 2018 Cost Other % TSDC Cost'
# Funding Growth
P GENERAL POLICIES&STUDIES
S1 NA Funding Sources Feasibility Study NA 2 $35,400 11% $3,791
52 NA Downtown Parking&Multi-Modal Circulation Study 1 $118,000 11% $12,638
ST Total Policies&Studies Projects $153,400 $16,430
( PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS A
01 NA Travel Smart Education,Targeted Marketing Program $53,100 0% $0
P1 N. Main St/Hwy 99 N. Main St to Schofield St Boulevard 1 $73,750 97% $71,626
P4 Laurel St Nevada St to Orange Ave Avenue 2 $737,500 $553,125 97% $184,375
P5 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to 175'E of Willow St N'hood Street 1 $295,000 $221,250 97% $73,750
P6 Orange Ave 175'west of Drager St to Heiman St Avenue 1 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P8 Wimer St Thornton Way to N. Main St N'hood Street 2 $1,180,000 $885,000 97% $295,000
P9 Maple St Chestnut St to 150'E of Rock St Avenue 1 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P10(1) Scenic Dr Maple St to Wimer St Avenue 1 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P17 Beaver Slide Water St to Lithia Way N'hood Street 1 $73,750 97% $71,626
P18 A St Oak St to 100'W of 6th St Avenue 1 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P22 N.Mountain Ave 100'S of Village Green Way to Iowa St Avenue 1 $663,750 97% $644,634
P23 Wightman St 200' N of E.Main St to 625'5 of E.Main N'hood Collector 1 $590,000 $442,500 97% $147,500
St
P27(1) Walker Ave Oregon St to Woodland Dr Avenue 1 $295,000 $221,250 97% $73,750
P28(1) Ashland St S. Mountain Ave to Morton St Avenue 1 $663,750 $497,813 97% $165,938
P38(1) Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 1 $442,500 $331,875 97% $110,625
P57(1) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to west side City Limits Avenue 1 $626,875 97% $608,821
P58(1) Helman St Hersey St to Van Ness Ave Avenue 1 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P59 Garfield St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 1 $1,106,250 $829,688 97% $276,563
P60 Lincoln St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 1 $663,750 $497,813 97% $165,938
P61 California St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 1 $737,500 $553,125 97% $184,375
P62 Quincy St Garfield St to Wightman St N'hood Street 2 $221,250 $165,938 97% $55,313
P63 Liberty St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St N'hood Street 1 $958,750 $719,063 97% $239,688
P64 Water St Van Ness Ave to B St N'hood Street 2 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P65 Faith Ave Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 1 $516,250 $387,188 97% $129,063
P66 Diane St Jaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 1 $29,500 $22,125 97% $7,375
P67 Frances Lane Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 1 $14,750 $11,063 97% $3,688
P68 Carol St Patterson St to Hersey St N'hood Street 1 $221,250 $165,938 97% $55,313
P70 Park St Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 1 $958,750 $719,063 97% $239,688
P72 C St Fourth St to Fifth St N'hood Street 2 $147,500 97% $143,252
Table A-1
City of Ashland,Oregon
TRANSPORTATION SDC Project List
Type/ Street Description Classification Priority 2018 Cost Other % TSDC Cost 1
# Funding Growth
P73 Barbara St Jaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P74 Roca St Ashland St to Prospect St N'hood Street 2 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P75 Blaine St Morton St to Morse Ave N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P78 Patterson St Crispin St to Carol St N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P79 Harrison St Iowa St to Holly St N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P80 Spring Creek Dr Oak Knoll Dr to Road End N'hood Street 2 $516,250 $387,188 97% $129,063
P81 Bellview Ave Green Meadows Way to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 2 $368,750 97% $358,130
P37 Clay St Faith Ave to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 2 $1,475,000 $1,106,250 97% $368,750
ST Total Pedestrian Projects $16,359,225 $10,763,813 $5,486,026
BICYCLE PROJECTS
B2 Wimer St Scenic Dr to N. Main St Avenue 1 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B3 Nevada St Vansant St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 2 $312,110 $31,211 34% $105,806
B5 Maple/Scenic/Nutley N. Main St to Winburn Way N'hood Collector 1 $149,270 $14,927 34% $50,603
B7 Iowa St Terrace St;S. Mountain to Walker Ave Avenue 1 $325,680 $32,568 34% $110,406
B9 Ashland St Morton St to University Way Avenue 2 $40,710 $4,071 34% $13,801
B10 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to E. Main St Avenue 1 $162,840 $16,284 34% $55,203
B11 Wightman St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 1 $81,420 $8,142 34% $27,602
B13 B St Oak St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 1 $108,560 $10,856 34% $36,802
B16 Lithia Way Oak St to Helman St Avenue 1 $149,270 $14,927 34% $50,603
B17 Main St Helman St to Siskiyou Blvd Boulevard 1 $67,850 $6,785 34% $23,001
B18 N. Main St Jackson Rd to Helman St Boulevard 2 $352,820 $35,282 34% $119,607
B19 Helman St Nevada St to N. Main St Avenue 1 $108,560 $10,856 34% $36,802
B20 Water St Hersey St to N. Main St N'hood Street 2 $40,710 $4,071 34% $13,801
B25 Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to Green Meadows Way Avenue 2 $135,700 $13,570 34% $46,003
B26 Normal Ave E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 1 $257,830 $25,783 34% $87,405
B29 Walker Ave Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd Avenue 1 $54,280 $5,428 34% $18,401
B31 Indiana St Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 1 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B33 8th St A St to E. Main St N'hood Street 1 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B37 Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 2 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B39 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to Proposed Trail N'hood Collector 2 $54,280 $5,428 34% $18,401
B40 Laurel St Orange St to Nevada St N'hood Collector 2 $54,280 $5,428 34% $18,401
TR2 New Trail Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd Multi-Use Path 2 $542,800 $54,280 33% $180,316
TR1 Northside Trail Orchid Ave to Tolman Creek Rd Multi-Use Path 1 $2,714,000 $271,400 33% $901,578
B38 Oregon/Clark St Indiana St to Harmony Lane NS 1 $54,280 $5,428 33% $18,032
ST Total Bicycle Projects $5,943,660 $594,366 $1,969,374
A-2
Table A-1
City of Ashland,Oregon
TRANSPORTATION SDC Project List
Type/ Street Description Classification Priority 2018 Cost Other % TSDC Cost 1
# Funding Growth
TRANSIT PROJECTS
05 Transit Service Provides funds&allocation guidance to $3,245,000 11% $347,554
Program improve transit svc
05 Transit Service Provides funds&allocation guidance to $1,180,000 11% $126,383
Program improve transit svc
ST Total Transit Projects $4,425,000 $0 $473,937
INTERSECTION&ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
S3 N. Main St(OR 99) Heiman St to Sheridan St Boulevard 2 $88,500 21% $18,891
S5 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland St to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 2 $88,500 20% $17,467
S6 Ashland St(OR 66) Siskiyou Blvd to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 2 $88,500 28% $25,185
S9 Ashland St(OR 66) Clay St to Washington St Boulevard/Ave 2 $23,600 31% $7,210
S10 Siskiyou Blvd Highway 66 to Beach St Blvd/N'hood Coll 1 $41,300 28% $11,653
ST Studies Subtotal $330,400 $0 $80,406
Intersection&Roadway Projects
R5 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Lithia Way(OR 99 NB)/E. Main St Boulevard/Ave 1 $73,750 $66,375 100% $7,375
R6 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard/Ave 1 $118,273 $106,445 14% $11,827
R8 Ashland St(OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr/E. Main St(realignment) Boulevard/Ave 1 $602,851 $542,566 24% $60,285
R19 Normal Ave Ext Normal Ave to E. Main St Avenue 2 $3,630,499 31% $1,133,777
R25 Washington St Ext Washington St Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Collector 1 $1,584,169 $1,029,945 17% $267,855
R29 Washington St Ext Washington St to Benson Way N'hood Collector $1,535,180 $997,867 100% $537,313
R36 N. Main St N. Main St Permanent Diet Boulevard 2 $295,000 13% $37,722
R38 Ashland St Siskiyou Blvd to Walker Ave Streetscape Boulevard 2 $1,298,000 $843,700 40% $454,300
R39 Ashland St Walker Ave to Normal Ave Streetscape Boulevard $1,534,000 $997,100 39% $536,900
R40 Walker Ave Festival St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St Avenue 1 $1,150,500 36% $416,717
R9 Ashland St(OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr/E. Main St(roundabout) Boulevard/Ave 3 $4,646,250 $1,161,563 24% $1,123,342
R43 New Roadway(E) Mistletoe Rd to Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Boulevard $5,099,960 $3,314,974 100% $1,784,986
R44 Tolman Creek Mistletoe Rd Streetscape Boulevard $4,104,040 $2,667,626 28% $1,164,086
R41 Ashland St Tolman Creek Rd Streetscape Boulevard/Ave 4 $2,212,500 36% $787,328
ST Total Intersection&Roadway Improvements $27,884,972 $11,728,161 52% $8,323,813
RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECTS
X3 Normal Ave Crossing Upgrade Planned Avenue 4 $1,180,000 $767,000 100% $413,000
ST Total Railroad Crossing Projects $1,180,000 $767,000 $413,000
Total $56,276,657 $23,853,340 52% $16,762,985
1 Grants&contributions applied first to non-growth share of cost;any remaining funds reduce growth cost for TSDC calculation purposes
A-3
Table A31__ _) ---F
City of Ashland,0 n New$/TriP` ______ __ -_ _ ___J__ �__ _ _ P_h_aed$/114
I TSOCby land Use(Updated and 3-Year Phase In) $488 Updated llElOth Edition LL $3201 $39]1' $4881 ,
Updated Daily Trip Linked Adjusted ITECOde Description Unit of Measure 1SOC Per Rate
Pass-by Trip Daily Trip
Unit Factor' Rate
Yearn Year2 Year3
-
90 PARK&RIDE LOTWITH BUS SERVICE PER PARKING SPACE $ 1,370 281 0% 0% 2.81 $ 899 $ 1,116 $ 1,370
110 GENERAL UGHT INDUSTRIAL PERTGSF $ 2,419 4.96 0% 0% 1.00 496 $ 15871$ 1,969 $ 2,419
130 INDUSTRIAL PARK PERTGSF $ 1,643 3.37 0% 0% 1.00 337 $ 1,078 $ 1,338 $ 1,643
140 MANUFACTURING PER TGSF $ 1,916 3.93 0% 0% 1.00 393 $ 1,258 $ 1,5601$ 1,916
150 WAREHOUSING PER TGSF 5 848 1.74 0% 0% 1.00 1.74 $ 557 $ 691 $ 848
151 MINI WAREHOUSE PERTGSF $ 736 151 0% 0% 1.00 151 $ 483 $ 599 1$ _ 736
154 HIGH'CIIBE/SHORT-TERM STO RAGE WAREHOUSE PER TGSF $ 683 1.40 0% 0% 180 1.40 5 448 $ 556 $ 683
160 DATACEMER PER TGSF 5 483 0.99 0% 0% 1.00 0.99 $ 3171$ 393 $ 483
210 SINGLE FAMILYDWEIIING/IOWNHOME PERDU $ 4,603 9.44 0% 0% 180 9.44 $ 3,021 $ 3,748 $ 4,603
220 APARTMENTS/CONDOS PERDU $ 3,569 732 0% 0% 180 732 $ 2 342 $ 29061$ 3,569
225 OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTAPARTMEN1 PER BEDROOM $ 1,536 3.15 0% 0% 1.00 3.15 $ 1,008 $ 1,2511$ 1,536
240 MANUFACTURED HOUSING $ 2,438 5.00 0% 0% 1.00 5.00 $ 1,6001$ 1985 $ 2,438
251 SENIOR HOUSING DETACHED PERDU $ 2,082 4.27 0% 0% 1.00 4.27 $ 1,366 $ 1,695 $ 2,082
252 SENIOR HOUSING ATTACHED PERDU $ 1,804 3.70 0% 0% 1.00 370 $ 1,184 $ 1,469 $ 1,804
253 CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY PER DU $ 985 2.02 0% 0% 1.00 2.02 $ 646 $ 802 $ 985
$ 1
310 HOTEL/MOTEL PER ROOM $ 4,076 836 0% 0% 1.00 836 $ 2675 $ 3,3191$ 4,076
411 CIIY PARK PER ACRE $ 380 0.78 0% 0% 1.00 0.78 $ 250 $ 310 $ 380
430 GOLF COURSE HOLES $ 14,813 3038 0% 0% 1.00 3038 $ 9,722 $12,061 $ 14,813
444 THEATER SEATS $ 858 1.76 0% 0% 1.00 1.76 $ 563 $ 699 1$ 858
492 HEALTH/FITNESSCWB PER TGSF $ 12,205 25.03 0% 0% 1.00 25.03 $ 8,010 $ 9,937 I$ 12,205
491 TENNIS PER COURT $ 13,511 27.71 0% 0% 1.00 27.71 $ 8,867 $11,001 $ 13511
495 COMMUNITYCENTER PER TGSF $ 14,053 2882 0% 0% 1.00 2632 $ 9,222 $11,442 $ 14,053
520 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PER STUDENT $ 922 189 0% 0% 1.00 189 $ 6051$ 750 $ 922
536 PRIVATE SCHOOL 0(-12) PER STUDENT $ 1,209 2.48 0% 0% 1.00 248 $ 7941$ 985 $ 1,209
522 MIDDLESCHOOL/IUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PER STUDENT $ 1,039 2.13 0% 0% 1.00 2.13 $ 682 $ 846 1$ 1,039
530 HIGH SCHOOL PER STUDENT $ 990 2.03 0% 0% 180 2.03 $ 650 $ 806 $ 990
540 IUNIOR/COMMUNITY COLLEGE PER SIUDENT $ 561 1.15 0% 0% 1.00 1.15 $ 368 $ 457 $ 561
550 UNIVERSITY/COUEGE PER STUDENT $ 761 156 ' 0% 0% 1.00 156 $ 499 $ 6191$ 761
560 PLACE OF WORSHIP PER TGSF $ 3,389 6.95 0% 0% 1.00 6.95 $ 2,224 $ 2,7591$ 3,389
565 DAY CARE CENTER PER STUDENT $ 877 4.09 56% 0% 0.44 1.80 $ 576 $ 714 $ 877
590 UBRARY PER TGSF $ 35,132 72.05 0% 0% 1.00 72.05 $23,056 $28,604!Y$ 35,132
610 HOSPITAL PER TGSF $ 5,227 10.72 0% 0% 1.00 1032 $ 3,430 $ 4,256 $ 5,227
1
710 GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING PER TGSF $ 4,749 934 0% 0% 1.00 934 $ 3,117 $ 3,867'$ 4,749 -
720 MEDICAL-DENTAL OFFICE PERTGSF $ 16,969 348 0% 0% 1.00 34.80 $11,136 $13,816($ 16,969
731 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES _ PER TGSF $ 5,466 11.21 0% 0% 1.00 11.21 $ 3,587 $ 45_511y$ 5,466
732 US POST OFFICE $ 50,681 103.94 0% 0% 1.00 103.94 $33,261 $41,264 1 5 50,681
813 FREE-STANDING DISCOUNT SUPERSTORE PER TGSF $ 17.552 50.7 0% 29% 031 36.00 $11,519 $14,291 $ 17,552
816 HMDWARE/PAINTSTORE PER TGSF $ 3,298 9.14 0% 26% 0/4 6/6 $ 2,164 $ 2,685 $3,298
817 NURSERY(GARDEN CENTER) PER TGSF $ 33,206 68.1 0% 0% 1.00 68.10 $21792 $27,036 $ 33,206
820 SHOPPING CENTER/RETAIL PER TSFGLA $ 7,363 37.75 26% 34% 0.40 15.10- $ 4,832 $ 5,995 $ 7,363
841 AUTOMOBILESAIFS PERTGSF $ 13,575 2784 0% 0% 1.00 27.84 $ 8,909 $11,052 $ 13S75
850 SUPERMARKET PER TGSF $ 13,537 106.78 38% 36% 0.26 2736 $8,884 $11,022 $ 13,537
851/853 CONVENIENCEMMKET PER TGSF $ 54,785 624.2 16% 66% 0.18 112.36 $35154 $44,605 $ 54,785
854 DISCOUNT SUPERMARKET PER TGSF $ 22,597 9087 28% 21% 051 4634 $14,830 $18,398 $ 22,597
857 DISCOUNT CLUB PERTGSF $ 12,841 41.8 0% 37% 0.63 2633 $ 8,427 $10,455 $ 12,841
862 HOME IMPROVEMENT SUPERSTORE PER TGSF $ 8,694 30/4 0% 41% 058 17.83 $ 5,705 $ 7,0781$ 8,694
880 PHARMACY/DRUGSTOREW/OUT DRIVETHRU WI PERTGSF $ 14,495 90.08 14% 53% 033 29/3 $14,495 $14,4951$ 14,495
881 PHARMACY/DRUGSTORE WITH DRIVE THRU WIN PER TGSF $ 20,226 109.16 13% 49% 038 41.48 $20,226 $20,2261$ 20,226
_ 911 WALK-IN BANK PER TGSF $ 12,440 5933 22% 35% 043 2551 $ 8,164 $10,129 $ 12,440
912 DRIVE-IN BANK PER TGSF $ 20,973 100.03 22% 35% 043 43.01 $13,764 517,076 $ 20,973
931 DUALITY RESTAURANT PER TGSF $ 11,855 8314 27% 44% 039 2431 $ 7,7801$ 9,652 $ 11,855
932 HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT PER TGSF $ 16,957 112.18 26% 43% 031 34.78 $11,128 $13,806 $ 16957
934 FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU PERTGSF $ 62,002 47095 23% 50% 027 127.16 540,690 550,401 $ 62,002
937 COFFEE/DONUT WITH DRIVE-1HROUGH PER TGSF $ 44A02 820.38 0% 89% 011 90.24 $28,877 $35,826 $ 44,002
936 COFFEE/DONUT WITHOUT DRIVE-THROUGH PERTGSF $ 50,010 93239 0% 89% 011 102.56 $32,820 $40,717 $ 50,010
944 GASOLINE/SERVICE STATION PER VEH.FUELPOS. $ 19,291 172.01 35% 42% 0.23 39.56 $12,660 $15,706 $ 19,291
945 GAS/SERVICE STATIONW/CONVENIENCE MKT PERVEH.FUELPOS. $ 13,017 20536 31% 56% 033 26.70 $ 85431$10,599 $ 13,017
in Discounted by pass-by hips J
1'2D iscounted byyass'by and diverted link trips
t SF_Thousand Gross Square Fret I 1 I ■
Th
A=thousand Square Feet Gross leasable Area
IDU=
IOU Dwelling Unit
I FUEL POS.=Veh I Fueling n8POV0on � __ __-_
•