HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4.14 SDC Review Committee Agenda Packet
City of Ashland, Oregon
ANALYSIS & UPDATE OF THE
WASTEWATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
Fiscal Year 2011-12
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1409 Franklin Street Suite 201 Vancouver, WA 98660
June 2012
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Present SDC Methodology ................................................................................................................... 1 Alternative SDC Methodology ............................................................................................................. 2 PRESENT METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________________________________ 3 SDC UPDATE BY METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________________________ 5
Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Calculation of Base Fees .......................................................................................................................... 6 Reimbursement Fee .............................................................................................................................. 6
Improvement Fee.................................................................................................................................. 8
Calculation of SDC Schedules ............................................................................................................... 10 Present Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 10
Alternative Methodology ................................................................................................................... 11 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION _______________________________________________________ 15 APPENDICES ______________________________________________________________________________________ 17
Appendix A: Comparison of Ashland’s Wastewater SDCs with Select Oregon Municipalities ........... 17
Appendix B: Fixed Assets of the Wastewater System ........................................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Current & Proposed Wastewater SDC by Development Type—Present Methodology ............... 2
Table 2 Proposed Wastewater SDC by Meter Capacity—Alternative Methodology ................................ 2
Table 3 Current Wastewater SDC ............................................................................................................. 4
Table 4 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities & Sewage Flows .................................................................... 6
Table 5 Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee ............................................................................................... 7
Table 6 Allocation of Future Capital Improvements to Growth ................................................................ 8
Table 7 Cost Basis for Improvement Fee ................................................................................................ 10
Table 8 Proposed SDC — Present Methodology .................................................................................... 11
Table 9 Meter Capacities & Equivalencies .............................................................................................. 12
Table 10 Average Winter Water Usage—Single-Family vs. Multi-Family Residence ............................. 13
Table 11 Proposed SDC—Alternative Methodology ................................................................................ 15
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Ashland contracted with Keller & Associates, Inc. to develop a comprehensive master plan
for the wastewater utility. As part of that planning effort, Keller & Associates retained Economic & Financial Analysis to update the City’s wastewater system development charge. Keller's final
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the City of Ashland was adopted by City Council on May 15, 2012.1
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 to 223.314, as amended). This SDC update relies on Keller's
2012 Master Plan to update both fees.
SUMMARY
In this report, EFA provides two options for updating the wastewater SDC—one based on the present 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 single-family residence, which is the same for both methodologies.
The current SDC per average single-family residence is $1,620. The proposed SDC under both methodologies is $4,054—an increase of 150%. A comparison of these SDCs with other Oregon
communities is attached as Appendix A.
Present SDC Methodology
The present methodology assesses the SDC by type of development—residential or commercial. Both SDCs are based on an average residence assumed to have 2,000 square feet of habitable (heated) area and 13 plumbing fixture units. The residential SDC is based on square feet, and the commercial SDC is based
on the number of fixture units. By this standard, the SDC for a commercial development with 13 fixture
units is the same as the SDC for a 2,000 square foot residence. Due to rounding of the fixture-unit SDC, it is $5.66 less than the residential SDC.
Table 1 shows how the average residential SDC is applied to residential development using a fee per square foot ($0.81/square foot), while the SDC for a commercial development is calculated using an
equivalent fee per fixture unit ($123.18/fixture unit). The result is the same SDC for both types of development—a 2,000 square foot house and a 13 fixture unit commercial development, except for
rounding.
1 Further references to the Keller master plan appear in this report as the 2012 Master Plan.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 2
Table 1 Current & Proposed Wastewater SDC by Development Type—Present Methodology
Current SDC Proposed SDC Change
Measurement
Reimburse-
ment
Improve-
ment Total
Reimburse
-ment
Improve-
ment Total $ % ∆
Residential^ Square feet $0.40 $0.41 $0.81 $0.195 $1.833 $2.028 $1.22 150% Commercial* Plumbing fixtures $60.79 $63.39 $124.18 $29.92 $282.00 $311.92 $187.74 151%
Average Residential SDC^ $800 $820 $1,620 $389 $3,665 $4,054 $2,435 150%
^ Assumes 2,000 square feet and 13 plumbing fixture units: Residential SDC = $/Square Foot x 2,000, Commercial SDC = $/Fixture Unit x 13. For simplicity we rounded the current reimbursement and improvement fees from $0.3949 and $0.4118,
respectively.
Alternative SDC Methodology
Table 2 is a schedule of SDCs using an alternative methodology that is based on meter capacity by size
(inches in diameter) and type (displacement or turbine) of meter. In general, turbine meters have greater
water flow capacity than displacement meters. The City currently installs displacement meters up to 1-inch in diameter. Meters greater than 1 inch in diameter may be either displacement or turbine.
This SDC methodology is applied to both residential and commercial development. The SDC for multi-family residential developments, however, is the greater of (a) the size meter serving the residences, or (b)
a flat rate per residence based on a usage factor described below.
Table 2 Proposed Wastewater SDC by Meter Capacity—Alternative Methodology
Displacement Meters Turbine Meters
Meter Size Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement
Total
SDC
⅝ x ¾ $389 $3,665 $4,054 - - NA ¾ 650 6,121 6,771 - - NA
1 1,039 9,786 10,825 $1,295 $12,204 $13,499 1 ½ 1,295 12,204 13,499 2,595 24,446 $27,041
2 2,595 24,446 27,041 4,151 39,106 $43,257 3 3,890 36,650 40,540 9,075 85,504 $94,579
4 5,185 48,854 54,039 15,560 146,600 $162,160 6 12,965 122,154 135,119 32,415 305,404 $337,819
8 - - - 46,680 439,800 $486,480
Average SFR^ $389 $3,665 $4,054
Multi-family† $272 $2,566 $2,838 $272 $2,566 $2,838
^ Single-family residence on a ⅝ x ¾-inch meter
† The City's historical billing records show that a multi-family residence with a shared meter uses about 70% as much water as a single-family residence on a ⅝ x ¾-inch water meter. The SDC per multi-family residence is therefore 70% of the SDC for a single-family residence with a ⅝ x ¾-inch meter (e.g., the SDC for a duplex is $5,676—or $4,054 x 70% x 2 residences.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 3
Our report consists of 3 sections:
(1) A description of the present methodology and SDC;
(2) An update of the SDC using both the present methodology and an alternative methodology;
and
(3) A formal method for updating the SDC annually for inflation.
PRESENT METHODOLOGY
The current schedule of SDCs was last updated in 2006. The present methodology relies on separate forecasts of wastewater flows for residential and commercial uses, and assumes:
(a) For residential development, a relationship between sewage flow and the size of the residence, as measured by square feet of habitable (heated) area.
(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 13 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 multi-family residences. For example, a 1,000 sf 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.
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 1 fixture unit, while a modern flush toilet in a residence is rated as 2
fixture units.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 4
Table 3 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 1,000 1,025 $2,025
3,000 1,200 1,230 $2,430
3,500 1,400 1,435 $2,835
Commercial
$/Fixture Unit $61 $63 $124
^ Residential SDCs are assessed in increments of 1 square foot. This schedule
includes only a few examples of residential SDCs based on a range of dwelling sizes.
† Average single-family residence
This method of assessing SDCs raises several issues:
1. The 2012 Master Plan provides a forecast of sewage flows and determines the capacity of the wastewater system. It does not provide a forecast of habitable square feet, nor does it separate
capacity by residential and commercial use—both of which are key components of the present 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.
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.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 5
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.
SDC UPDATE BY METHODOLOGY
Overview
The City's sewer system is comprised of two primary components—a collection system and a treatment
system. The collection system was built in part by private land developers and contributed to the City, and in part by the City and financed with sewer rate revenues. The City’s fixed asset records (Appendix
B) show that the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) comprises nearly 76% of the total book value of the sewer system. The remaining 24% is composed of the land the WWTP occupies and portions of the collection system that were publicly financed. Most of the public’s investment in the sewer system is in
the WWTP, and about 83% of the cost of the projects listed in the 2012 Master Plan are for the WWTP. The measure of sewage service capacity we use to develop this update of the SDC is based on capacities
at the WWTP.
Table 4 shows the 5 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 4 flow
conditions: Peak Hour, Maximum Month, Peak Day, and Maximum Dry Month flows. Together these 5 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 snow melt.3
These flows are at a low during the maximum dry month
period.
3 2012 Master Plan, page 4-6
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 6
Table 4 2012 and 2030 Design Capacities & Sewage Flows
Flow (mgd) Capacity (mgd)
2012 2030 2012 2030
Plant Process Design Condition Current Flow Future Flow Current Capacity Excess Capacity Future Capacity Increased Capacity
Headworks Peak Hour 10.5 11.81 13.50 3.00 13.50 - Oxidation Ditch Max Month 3.6 4.24 3.76 0.16 5.64 1.88
Clarifiers Peak Day 7.1 8.03 11.87 4.77 11.87 - UV Disinfection Peak Day 7.1 8.03 11.00 3.90 11.00 -
Membranes Max Dry Month 2.7 3.18 2.87 0.17 3.18 0.31
In the next two sections we describe the two-step process used to update the SDC. (1) In step one, we calculate the base reimbursement fee and base improvement fee. Both fees are expressed in dollars per gallon ($/gallon) of sewage treatment capacity.
(2) In step two, we assess the SDC using two methodologies: the present methodology, which is based on the type of development; and an alternative methodology that is based on water
meter size and average residential usage.
Calculation of Base Fees
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: (1) the value of the fixed asset, and (2) 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 present methodology to value the existing fixed assets summarized in Table 5. This method uses the depreciated the original cost of the assets (book value), which is used as the cost
basis for calculating the reimbursement fee. This is the most conservative method used by Oregon
municipalities to determine a cost basis.
In 2002 and 2003 the City made major improvements to the WWTP. These assets are not included in
the reimbursement fee because the City borrowed money to construct these assets and elected to repay the loan with revenues from its Food & 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.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 7
Excess Capacity of Existing Assets
Engineers design the sewage collection system to carry the maximum flow of sewage for each sub-
basin the system serves. The capacity of the WWTP is the upper limit on how much sewage can flow
through the collection system. The 2012 Master Plan lists this capacity as 2.87 mgd, while sewage flows are about 2.7 mgd on average (a net reduction over the 5-year study period).4
The excess
capacity of the existing system is therefore 0.17 mgd, or about 6% of the total capacity.
As shown in Table 5, the base reimbursement fee is calculated by dividing the book value of the existing
assets ($8.87 million) by the capacity of the assets (2.87 mgd). The result is a base reimbursement fee of $3.09/gallon. This will be applied to all future development based on the development’s expected sewage
flow, which we discuss following discussion of the base improvement fee.
Table 5 Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee
As of June 30, 2011
Original Accumulated
Depreciated Original Cost5 Cost Basis Depreciation Book Value
Total Existing Fixed Assets† $49,410,520 ($12,911,740) $36,498,781 less 2002-2003 WWTP Assets^ $34,231,375 ($6,604,878) $27,626,497
Balance of Assets $15,179,145 ($6,306,862) $8,872,284
Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee
$8,872,284
Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd) 2,870,000
Base Reimbursement Fee ($/gallon) $3.09
Source: City of Ashland fixed assets records (Appendix B) †Assets placed in service before 1970 were discounted to zero. Land values are at their original purchase price. ^ The 2002-2003 improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant were financed by the City's Food & Beverage Tax. These assets are not included in the reimbursement fee.
4 2012 Master Plan, Table 4.3 (page 4-3)
5 In addition to depreciated original cost, the cost basis for the reimbursement fee can also be determined using (a) the current estimated replacement cost, or (b) the current replacement cost adjusted for depreciation. These alternatives would increase the cost basis from $8.87 million to $27.96 million or to $14.87 million, respectively.
Alternative Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee 2011 $
Depreciated Replacement Cost 2011 Cost Basis Inflated Accum Depreciation Net Inflated Book Value
Value of Existing Fixed Assets $75,388,238 ($22,242,700) $53,145,538 less 2002-2003 WWTP assets $47,427,300 ($9,150,500) $38,276,800
Balance of Assets $27,960,938 ($13,092,200) $14,868,738
Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee $27,960,938
$14,868,738
Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd) 2,870,000 2,870,000
Cost per Gallon $9.74 $5.18
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 8
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 20 years (Table 6), assuming a growth rate of 0.7% per year. Priority 3
projects that are scheduled for completion after 2030 are deemed to be too speculative to include in this SDC update.
In the 2012 Master Plan, the engineer allocated the cost of capital improvements to growth and to the current City’s sewer customers. Of the $23.369 million of planned improvements (2012 dollars),
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 either to fail during
the 20 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 gallons per day. The base improvement fee is the cost of this new capacity—or $29.09 per gallon (Table 7).
Table 6 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
6 years of O&M Compliance $1,646,000 15% $246,900 $1,399,100
3 UVT Monitor Compliance Completed 0% $0 $0
4 Backup (Portable) Pump Capacity $60,000 0% $0 $60,000
5 Membrane Replacement (2 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
1A 18" & 24" Parallel Trunkline along creek Capacity $1,248,000 70% $873,600 $374,400
1B 15" Main Along Mountain Ave Capacity $118,000 25% $29,500 $88,500
1C Oak St. 24" Trunkline Capacity $40,000 15% $6,000 $34,000
1D A St 15" Main Capacity $522,000 10% $52,200 $469,800
1E 12" Main along railroad Capacity $275,000 57% $156,750 $118,250
6 2012 Master Plan, Table 14.1 (p. 14-4)
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 9
Primary Total Growth Apportionment City's
Project Description Purpose Estimated Cost % Cost Est. Portion
1F 12" Siskiyou Blvd Main Capacity $73,000 46% $33,580 $39,420
1G Miscellaneous Upgrades Various $335,000 10% $33,500 $301,500
1H Portable Flow Meters Operations $60,000 0% $0 $60,000
1J Storm Water Inflow Study (2012-13) Capacity $60,000 0% $0 $60,000
Total Priority 1 Improvements $10,756,000 $3,263,430 $7,492,570
Priority 2 Improvements (2020 - 2030)
Wastewater Treatment
1 Membrane Replacement
(Larger Membranes)
Capacity/
Replacement $4,659,000 40% $1,863,600 $2,795,400
2 Membrane Feed Pumps & Piping Replacement Capacity $507,000 80% $405,600 $101,400
3 Additional UV Reactors & Upgrade Control Panels Capacity $351,000 100% $351,000 $0
4 Mechanical Bar Screen Replacement Replacement $496,000 20% $99,200 $396,800
5 Grit Removal System Replacement Replacement $801,000 20% $160,200 $640,800
6 Oxidation Ditch Internals Capacity $2,150,000 100% $2,150,000 $0
7 Existing Oxidation Ditch Equipment Replacement Replacement $1,551,000 0% $0 $1,551,000
8 Clarifier Mechanism Replacement Replacement $324,000 0% $0 $324,000
9 Replace Ashland Creek Lift Station 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 Street Capacity $217,000 38% $82,460 $134,540
2B 8" Slope Correction on Walker Ave. Operations $168,000 28% $47,040 $120,960
2C 12” Pipeline on Wightman St. Capacity $172,000 66% $113,520 $58,480
2D Miscellaneous Upgrades Various $739,000 10% $73,900 $665,100
Total Priority 2 Improvements $12,613,000 $5,753,920 $6,859,080
TOTAL ALL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS $23,369,000 $9,017,350 $14,351,650
Source: 2012 Master Plan, Table 14.1. Priority 3 projects are not included in this update of the SDC and are therefore omitted from this Table.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 10
Table 7 Cost Basis for Improvement Fee
Cost Basis
Cost Basis, Priority 1 & 2 Projects $9,017,350
Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd)
Current 2,870,000
Growth 310,000
Future Design, Priority 1 & 2 Projects 3,180,000
Base Improvement Fee ($/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 either the present
methodology or the alternative methodology.
Calculation of SDC Schedules
Present 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 13 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 ($4,054
divided by 13).
According to the City's 2011 wastewater utility billing records, the average winter usage for a single-
family household on a ⅝ x ¾-inch meter is 3,780 gallons per month. At an average of 2.1 persons per household (2010 U.S. Census), sewage production is approximately 60 gallons per capita per day.
The present methodology uses this residential average to calculate both the residential base fee (per square foot) and the commercial base fee (per plumbing fixture unit).
Residential Base Fee ($/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 13 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.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 11
Table 8 shows the schedule of SDCs for the present 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 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 8 Proposed SDC — Present Methodology
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC
Residential SDC
$/Square Foot $0.195 $1.832 $2.027
# Square Feet 1,000 $195 $1,833 $2,027
1,500 $292 $2,749 $3,041
2,000^ $389 $3,665 $4,054
3,000 $584 $5,498 $6,081
3,500 $681 $6,414 $7,095
Commercial
$/Fixture Unit $30 $282 $312
^ Average single-family residence
Alternative Methodology
The alternative methodology uses meter size (which determines a user’s access to the City’s water and
sewer systems) as the basis for calculating the SDC, and residential usage is adjusted by type of residence—single- or multi-family. Housing type is distinguished by the number of residences on a meter—e.g., one residence per meter (single-family, condominium) versus multiple-family 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, ⅝ x ¾-inch. The equivalent number of ⅝ x ¾-inch 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 first discuss the capacities of various types and sizes of water
meters, and the relationship between single and multiple family housing and meter sizes.
Water Meter Size & Type
The City currently installs a combination of positive displacement and turbine type meters. In general, meters 1-inch and less in diameter are displacement meters, while those larger than 1-inch are turbine
meters. All ⅝ x ¾-inch meters are positive displacement meters.
Table 9 shows the capacity of each meter size in gallons per minute (gpm), and the equivalent number of
⅝ x ¾-inch meters. For example, a 1-inch displacement meter has 2.67 times the capacity of an equivalent
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 12
⅝ x ¾-inch displacement meter. The 1-inch turbine meter has even more capacity—3.33 times that of a ⅝
x ¾- inch displacement meter. These meter equivalencies are used to determine the SDC by meter size.
Table 9 Meter Capacities & Equivalencies
Safe Maximum Operating Capacity
(gallons/minute)
Displacement Turbine
Meter Size
Safe Maximum Operating
Capacity
Equivalent
⅝ x ¾" Meters
Safe Maximum Operating
Capacity
Equivalent
⅝ x ¾" Meters†
⅝ x ¾ 15 1.00 N/A 1.00 ¾ 25 1.67 30 2.00
1 40 2.67 50 3.33 1 ½ 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
8 N/A 1,800 120.00
Source: American Water Works Association, Table 5-3: Test Requirements for New, Rebuilt, and Repaired Cold-Water, Water Meters-Selection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance (AWWA 4th Ed., 1999). The basic residential meter (the smallest and most commonly installed) is a ⅝"x ¾" diameter meter (i.e., ⅝" inlet from the main water line and 3/4" outlet to the building).
About 90% of the City's installed meters are ⅝ x ¾-inch displacement meters,7
and at present the most frequently installed residential meter is a ⅝ x ¾-inch displacement meter. The next available size is a 1-
inch 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 ⅝ x ¾-inch meters.
The City does not currently offer a ¾-inch displacement or turbine meter. It may be an appropriate option, however, for customers who need more capacity than a ⅝ x ¾-inch meter, but less than a 1-inch
meter. For this reason, we include the ¾-inch meter size in this SDC analysis and update.
7 According to the City's 2011 billing records, only 1 residential customer has a 2-inch meter, and only 2 commercial customers have 4-inch 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
Customer Class ⅝ x ¾" 1" 1 ½" 2" 3" 4" Total Meters
Residential (single-family) 2,917 138 6 1 0 0 3,062 Commercial 299 96 59 48 6 2 510
Total Customers 3,216 234 65 49 6 2 3,572
% of Total 90% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 100%
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 13
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 meter that will serve the development. For the City, it means minimizing future capital improvements to increase capacity.
Residential Water Usage
Multiple-family residences on a single meter present a special problem because the selection of water
meter size can either over or under charge the development for sewer service. We therefore develop a hybrid SDC for multiple family developments.
Table 10 and Figure 1 compare single-family and multi-family usage in winter. For residential uses, we
are most concerned with average winter usage. In summer, water usage by single-family residences nearly doubles due to outdoor usage, and that water does not enter the sewer system.8
On average, a
multi-family residence uses about 70% of the water used by a single-family residence—or 2,330 gallon/month versus 3,330 gallons/month.
Table 10 Average Winter Water Usage—Single-Family vs. Multi-Family Residence
Water Usage By Meter Size (winter average)
⅝ x ¾" 1" 1 ½" 2" 3" 4" Average^
Single Family Residence
g/month/residence 3,325 3,483 3,894 5,086
3,330
Avg. g/day/capita 53 56 62 81
60
Multiple Family Residence
g/month/residence 1,882 1,787 2,214 3,103 2,263 2,841 2,330
% of Single-Family 57% 51% 57% 61%
70%
Source: City of Ashland, 2011 billing records
^Weighted by number of residences per meter size.
8 5,746 gallons/month in summer vs. 3,330 in winter.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 14
Figure 1 Average Single-family & Multiple-family Water Usage per Residence, Gallons/Winter Month
Source: City of Ashland, 2011 billing records for January, February, and March
SDC by Meter Size
To apply the SDC by meter size, we begin by presenting the methodology used to establish the average
usage per single-family residence on a ⅝ x ¾-inch meter. As shown in Table 10, the average winter water
consumption for a single-family residence assuming 2.1 persons per household (2010 U.S. Census), is 60 gallons per capita per day (gcpd). The proposed SDC for a single-family residence on a ⅝ x ¾-inch 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 multiple-family residential developments. Table 11 shows the
schedule of SDCs by meter size and meter type, and for multiple family residences. The SDC for multi-family residences is assessed based on meter size or equivalent number of residences. .
Multi-family 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 AM peak when people are preparing to leave
home for work or school, and PM when they return. For this reason, we recommend the City charge multi-family developments the higher of (a) the SDC by meter size, or (b) the rate per multi-family residence ($2,838) multiplied by the number of residences in the development.
For example, an 8-residence apartment on a 1 ½-inch turbine meter would be charged for the 1 ½-inch
turbine meter because the SDC by meter size ($27,041) is greater than the SDC for 8 residences
multiplied by $2,838 ($22,704). If the developer would have selected a 1 ½-inch displacement meter the
⅝ x ¾" 1" 1 ½" 2" 3" 4" Average
Single-Family 3,325 3,483 3,894 5,086 3,330
Multi-Family (per residence) 1,882 1,787 2,214 3,103 2,263 2,841 2,330
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
Gallons/Month/Residence
(Winter Average)
Single-family
Single-family
Multi-family
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 15
opposite would be charged—i.e., 8 residences x $2,838 is greater than $13,499 for the 1 ½-inch
displacement meter. The difference in cost is proportionate to the difference in service between the two
meter types. Those on the 1 ½ inch displacement meter likely will suffer from lower water pressure during peak AM and PM usage than had they installed a turbine meter.
Table 11 Proposed SDC—Alternative Methodology
Displacement Turbine
Meter Size† Reimbursement Improvement Total Reimbursement Improvement Total
⅝ x ¾ $389 $3,665 $4,054 N/A N/A N/A ¾ 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 ½ 1,295 12,204 13,499 2,595 24,446 27,041
2 2,595 24,446 27,041 4,151 39,106 43,257 3 3,890 36,650 40,540 9,075 85,504 94,579
4 5,185 48,854 54,039 15,560 146,600 162,160 6 12,965 122,154 135,119 32,415 305,404 337,819
8 - - - 46,680 439,800 486,480
Average SFR $389 $3,665 $4,054 Multi-family^ $272 $2,566 $2,838 $272 $2,566 $2,838
^ The SDC per multi-family development is either (a) the amount per residence ($2,432) multiplied by the number of residences, or (b) 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, ENR. This publisher’s construction (and building) cost index is widely accepted in the engineering and construction industry. ENR updates the CCI monthly and provides annual summaries in the July edition.
EFA recommends the City update the SDC annually, effective July 1 of each year to correspond with the City’s fiscal year.
The formula for updating the SDC is as follows:
SDCcurrent year = SDClast year x (CCIcurrent year / CCIlast year)
where:
CCIcurrent year = Construction Cost Index for the current year
CCIlast year = Construction Cost Index for the last year the SDCs were updated SDCcurrent year = the SDC updated by the CCI SDClast year = the SDC to be updated
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 16
The construction costs listed in Table 6 above are based on January 2012 costs. These costs equate to ENR’s construction cost index of 9176, the index for January 2012. The next adjustment for inflation
will use this value as the CCIlast year.
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 17
A PPENDICES
Appendix A: Comparison of Ashland’s Wastewater SDCs with
Select Oregon Municipalities
SDC per Single-family Residence, rounded to the nearest $1.00
Jurisdiction SDC/DU Rank
Ashland, current $1,620 7 Ashland, proposed $4,054 2
Eugene^ $2,099 5 Grants Pass $2,605 3
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) $1,523 8 RVSS—Rogue Valley Sanitary Service (RVSS)† $2,337 4
Roseburg Urban Sanitary Authority (RUSA) $2,007 6 Springfield^ $5,553 1
Average $2,883 Source: Economic & Financial Analysis, 2011-12 Survey
^ City plus Regional SDC (MWMC)
† RVSS serves the following communities: Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, N. Ashland, N. Medford, N. Phoenix, NW Medford, Phoenix, Talent, W. Medford, Whetstone, & White City
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
Springfield Ashland, proposed Grants Pass Rogue Valley Sanitary
Service
Eugene Roseburg Urban
Sanitary Authority
Ashland, current MWMC
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 18
Appendix B: Fixed Assets of the Wastewater System
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011 Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
Land (non-depreciable assets)
00031964 IMPERATRICE PROPERTY Apr-96 950,338.00 950,338 950,338 0 950,338 Total Land 950,338.00 950,338
Buildings AEROBIC PROCESSOR Jun-74 36,974.00 (28,080) 8,894
00025720 AERATION BASIN #2 Jun-74 86,272.00 (65,523) 20,749 2,020 387,800 (294,500) 93,300
00025728 SECONDARY CLARIFIER #1(40 Jun-64 30,458.00 (28,986) 1,472 #N/A 0 0 0
00025729 SECONDARY CLARIFIER #2(60 Jun-74 190,620.00 (144,777) 45,843 2,020 856,800 (650,800) 206,000 00031608 ROOF ANAROBIC DIGESTER Jan-94 347,374.00 (159,813) 187,561 5,336 591,100 (271,900) 319,200
WWTP 00033040 RAS\WAS BUILDING Jun-02 950,927.35 (182,602) 768,325 6,532 1,321,900 (253,800) 1,068,100
WWTP 00033041 PUMP STATION Jun-02 2,028,645.02 (389,551) 1,639,094 6,532 2,820,000 (541,500) 2,278,500 WWTP 00033042 UV BUILDING Jun-02 3,532,649.08 (678,358) 2,854,291 6,532 4,910,700 (943,000) 3,967,700
WWTP 00033043 MEMBRANE FILTER BUILDING Jun-02 10,955,874.93 (2,049,966) 8,905,909 6,532 15,229,500 (2,849,600) 12,379,900
WWTP 00033310 DE WATERING BUILDING May-03 3,312,643.36 (563,663) 2,748,981 6,642 4,528,600 (770,600) 3,758,000 Total Buildings 21,472,437.74 (4,291,320) 17,181,117 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0
00025715 AROBIC MIXER (30 hp) Jun-74 6,162.00 (6,162) 0 2,020 27,700 (27,700) 0 00025716 AROBIC MIXER (30 hp) Jun-74 6,162.00 (6,162) 0 2,020 27,700 (27,700) 0
00025717 AROBIC MIXER (30 hp) Jun-74 6,162.00 (6,162) 0 2,020 27,700 (27,700) 0
00025718 AROBIC MIXER (30 hp) Jun-74 6,162.00 (6,162) 0 2,020 27,700 (27,700) 0 00040066 CLORINATOR (MANUAL) Jun-90 81,802.00 (81,802) 0 4,732 157,000 (157,000) 0
00040068 CLORINATOR (ELECTRONIC) Jun-90 96,238.00 (96,238) 0 4,732 184,700 (184,700) 0
00025747 FLOW CONTROL TELEMETRY SY Jun-74 14,379.00 (14,379) 0 2,020 64,600 (64,600) 0 00031751 TRANSPORT VEHICLE Feb-95 7,860.00 (7,860) 0 5,444 13,100 (13,100) 0 00031752 DEISEL GENERATOR Apr-95 16,830.00 (16,830) 0 5,432 28,100 (28,100) 0
00032911 CAMERA equip Nov-00 28,991.80 (28,992) 0 6,266 42,000 (42,000) 0
00033035 EASY CAN DATA SYSTEM & OMNII 2 CAMERA May-02 20,738.00 (20,738) 0 6,512 28,900 (28,900) 0
00040077 ITRON Field Collector Computer w/ docking Oct-06 11,927.50 (5,533) 6,394 7,883 13,700 (6,400) 7,300
00040080 T130 Infrared Imager Sep-06 7,430.48 (3,481) 3,949 7,763 8,700 (4,100) 4,600
00041928 Wastewater Sewage Pump (2010) Jun-10 33,787.16 (3,379) 30,408 8,805 34,800 (3,500) 31,300
00041957 Wastewater Bareshaft Pump (2011) Jun-11 43,385.00 (1,446) 41,939 9,053 43,500 (1,500) 42,000 Total Equipment 388,016.94 (305,326) 82,691
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 19
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011
Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
Improvements 00025562 SEWER MAINS Jul-45 228,081.00 (228,081) 0 N/A 0 0 0 00025579 SEWER MAINS Jul-45 43,397.00 (43,397) 0 N/A 0 0 0
00025601 SEWER MAINS Jul-45 38,272.00 (38,272) 0 N/A 0 0 0
00025607 SEWER MAINS Jul-45 15,840.00 (15,840) 0 N/A 0 0 0 00025619 SEWER MAINS Jul-45 16,516.00 (16,516) 0 N/A 0 0 0
00025555 PUMP STATION Jun-50 8,646.00 (8,646) 0 N/A 0 0 0
00025557 PUMP STATION Jun-50 8,646.00 (8,646) 0 N/A 0 0 0 00025621 SEWER LIFT STATION Jun-50 8,646.00 (8,646) 0 N/A 0 0 0
00025623 SEWER LIFT STATION Jun-50 8,646.00 (8,646) 0 N/A 0 0 0
00025563 SEWER MAINS Jun-68 18,814.00 (16,257) 2,557 N/A 0 0 0
00025753 YARD PIPING Jun-68 314,530.00 (271,801) 42,729 N/A 0 0 0 00025564 SEWER MAINS Jun-69 9,401.00 (7,932) 1,469 N/A 0 0 0
00025581 SEWER MAINS Jun-69 10,073.00 (8,498) 1,575 N/A 0 0 0
00025602 SEWER MAINS Jun-69 7,594.00 (6,408) 1,186 N/A 0 0 0 00025565 SEWER MAINS Jun-70 10,794.00 (8,889) 1,905 1,381 71,000 (58,400) 12,600
00025582 SEWER MAINS Jun-70 11,565.00 (9,522) 2,043 1,381 76,000 (62,600) 13,400
00025566 SEWER MAINS Jun-71 9,746.00 (7,828) 1,918 1,581 56,000 (45,000) 11,000 00025583 SEWER MAINS Jun-71 10,442.00 (8,388) 2,054 1,581 60,000 (48,200) 11,800 00025584 SEWER MAINS Jun-71 10,442.00 (8,388) 2,054 1,581 60,000 (48,200) 11,800
00025559 PUMP STATION Jun-72 54,889.00 (42,979) 11,910 1,753 284,300 (222,600) 61,700
00025585 SEWER MAINS Jun-72 16,434.00 (12,869) 3,565 1,753 85,100 (66,700) 18,400 00025625 SEWER LIFT STATION Jun-72 54,889.00 (42,979) 11,910 1,753 284,300 (222,600) 61,700
00025489 SUB. BRIGGS #2 Jun-73 13,607.00 (10,379) 3,228 1,895 65,200 (49,700) 15,500
00025558 PUMP STATION Jun-73 37,500.00 (28,605) 8,895 1,895 179,700 (137,100) 42,600 00025586 SEWER MAINS Jun-73 17,632.00 (13,452) 4,180 1,895 84,500 (64,500) 20,000
00025624 SEWER LIFT STATION Jun-73 37,500.00 (28,605) 8,895 1,895 179,700 (137,100) 42,600
00025490 SUB. BLACK OAK TERRACE Jun-74 23,924.00 (17,764) 6,160 2,020 107,500 (79,900) 27,600 00025491 SUB. BLACK OAK TERRACE Jun-74 83,162.00 (61,757) 21,405 2,020 373,800 (277,600) 96,200 00025492 SUB. BRIGGS #3 Jun-74 41,898.00 (31,115) 10,783 2,020 188,300 (139,900) 48,400
00025493 SUB. THUNDERBIRD HEIGHTS Jun-74 98,819.00 (73,383) 25,436 2,020 444,200 (329,900) 114,300 00025702 CONCRETE HEADWORKS Jun-74 20,541.00 (15,255) 5,286 2,020 92,300 (68,600) 23,700 00025494 SUB. MANN Jun-75 46,615.00 (33,677) 12,938 2,212 191,300 (138,200) 53,100
00025603 SEWER MAINS Jun-75 9,537.00 (6,892) 2,645 2,212 39,100 (28,300) 10,800
00025495 SUB. MAIDSON Jun-76 59,676.00 (41,916) 17,760 2,401 225,700 (158,500) 67,200 00025496 SUB. MOUNTAIN RANCH Jun-76 26,449.00 (18,576) 7,873 2,401 100,000 (70,300) 29,700
00025497 SUB. MOUNTAIN RANCH Jun-76 113,150.00 (79,470) 33,680 2,401 427,900 (300,500) 127,400
00025589 SEWER MAINS Jun-76 12,012.00 (8,435) 3,577 2,401 45,400 (31,900) 13,500 00025498 SUB. GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL PARK Jun-77 82,734.00 (56,445) 26,289 2,576 291,600 (199,000) 92,600
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 20
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011
Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
00025590 SEWER MAINS Jun-77 67,237.00 (45,872) 21,365 2,576 237,000 (161,700) 75,300
00025499 SUB. BENNER Jun-78 33,707.00 (22,317) 11,390 2,776 110,300 (73,000) 37,300 00025500 SUB. OLD HELMAN RANCH Jun-78 34,281.00 (22,700) 11,581 2,776 112,100 (74,200) 37,900
00025501 SUB. OLD HELMAN RANCH Jun-78 66,047.00 (43,731) 22,316 2,776 216,000 (143,000) 73,000
00025502 SUB. SLEEPY HALLOW Jun-78 36,386.00 (24,093) 12,293 2,776 119,000 (78,800) 40,200 00025591 SEWER MAINS Jun-78 49,414.00 (49,414) 0 2,776 161,600 (161,600) 0
00025503 SUB. AGAPE Jun-79 21,821.00 (14,007) 7,814 3,003 66,000 (42,400) 23,600
00025504 SUB. AGAPE Jun-79 68,451.00 (43,946) 24,505 3,003 207,000 (132,900) 74,100 00025505 SUB. DEER RIDGE TERRACE Jun-79 44,197.00 (28,375) 15,822 3,003 133,600 (85,800) 47,800
00025506 SUB. MEADOWBROOK Jun-79 15,107.00 (9,698) 5,409 3,003 45,700 (29,300) 16,400
00025507 SUB. MEADOWBROOK Jun-79 36,651.00 (23,530) 13,121 3,003 110,800 (71,100) 39,700
00025508 SUB. SUNNYVIEW HEIGHTS Jun-79 22,660.00 (14,547) 8,113 3,003 68,500 (44,000) 24,500 00025509 SUB. SUNNYVIEW HEIGHTS Jun-79 38,484.00 (24,709) 13,775 3,003 116,400 (74,700) 41,700
00025510 SUB. C & C Jun-80 18,528.00 (11,526) 7,003 3,237 52,000 (32,300) 19,700
00025511 SUB. GROSS HEIGHTS Jun-80 25,354.00 (15,768) 9,586 3,237 71,100 (44,200) 26,900 00025512 SUB. CEDAR WAY Jun-81 29,074.00 (17,495) 11,579 3,535 74,700 (44,900) 29,800
00025513 SUB. CEDAR WAY Jun-81 55,269.00 (33,261) 22,008 3,535 142,000 (85,400) 56,600
00025593 SEWER MAINS Jun-81 37,205.00 (22,391) 14,814 3,535 95,600 (57,500) 38,100 00025514 SUB. JESSICA LANE Jun-82 139,036.00 (80,888) 58,148 3,825 330,100 (192,000) 138,100 00025595 SEWER MAINS Jun-83 37,981.00 (21,336) 16,645 4,066 84,800 (47,600) 37,200
00025617 SEWER MAINS Jun-83 25,560.00 (14,356) 11,204 4,066 57,100 (32,100) 25,000
00025515 SUB. APPLEWOOD Jun-84 99,982.00 (54,155) 45,827 4,146 219,000 (118,600) 100,400 00025516 SUB. APPLEWOOD Jun-84 114,027.00 (61,764) 52,263 4,146 249,700 (135,300) 114,400
00025575 SEWER MAINS Jun-84 18,805.00 (10,185) 8,620 4,146 41,200 (22,300) 18,900
00025596 SEWER MAINS Jun-84 23,234.00 (12,586) 10,648 4,146 50,900 (27,600) 23,300 00025618 SEWER MAINS Jun-84 31,740.00 (17,193) 14,547 4,146 69,500 (37,700) 31,800
00025597 SEWER MAINS Jun-85 54,261.00 (28,299) 25,962 4,195 117,400 (61,300) 56,100
00025598 SEWER MAINS Jun-86 23,833.00 (11,955) 11,878 4,295 50,400 (25,300) 25,100 00025611 SEWER MAINS Jun-86 27,044.00 (12,928) 14,116 4,295 57,200 (27,300) 29,900 00025517 SUB. Y.M.C.A. P.U.D. Jun-87 100,711.00 (48,488) 52,223 4,406 207,500 (99,900) 107,600
00025599 SEWER MAINS Jun-87 14,705.00 (7,079) 7,626 4,406 30,300 (14,600) 15,700 00025612 SEWER MAINS Jul-87 11,774.00 (5,665) 6,109 4,406 24,300 (11,700) 12,600 00025518 SUB. HALMA VILLAGE Jun-88 34,209.00 (15,784) 18,425 4,519 68,700 (31,700) 37,000
00025519 SUB. ROYAL OAKS ESTATES Jun-88 209,445.00 (96,643) 112,802 4,519 420,800 (194,200) 226,600
00025520 SUB. TOLMAN CREEK MEADOWS Jun-88 331,743.00 (153,074) 178,669 4,519 666,600 (307,600) 359,000 00025521 SUB. VANDERLIND HOMES Jun-88 55,114.00 (25,429) 29,685 4,519 110,700 (51,100) 59,600
00025522 SUB. VANDERLIND HOMES Jun-88 100,817.00 (46,517) 54,300 4,519 202,600 (93,500) 109,100
00025523 SUB. WELLER LANE Jun-88 292,106.00 (134,782) 157,324 4,519 586,900 (270,800) 316,100 00025524 SUB. WELLER LANE Jun-88 63,468.00 (29,283) 34,185 4,519 127,500 (58,800) 68,700
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 21
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011
Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
00025525 SUB. CANYON PARK P.U.D. PHASE Jun-89 44,597.00 (19,684) 24,913 4,615 87,700 (38,700) 49,000
00025526 SUB. CANYON PARK P.U.D. PHASE Jun-89 117,111.00 (51,688) 65,423 4,615 230,400 (101,700) 128,700
00025527 SUB. GLENNVISTA ESTATES P.U.D. Jun-89 75,518.00 (33,329) 42,189 4,615 148,600 (65,600) 83,000
00025528 SUB. GLENNVISTA ESTATES P.U.D. Jun-89 91,398.00 (40,341) 51,057 4,615 179,800 (79,400) 100,400
00025529 SUB. GRIZZLY MEADOWS P.U.D. Jun-89 36,074.00 (16,234) 19,840 4,615 71,000 (31,900) 39,100 00025530 SUB. GRIZZLY MEADOWS P.U.D. Jun-89 93,944.00 (41,465) 52,479 4,615 184,800 (81,600) 103,200
00025531 SUB. MEADOWHAWK Jun-89 154,281.00 (68,098) 86,183 4,615 303,500 (134,000) 169,500
00025532 SUB. MILL POND (PHASE 1-5) Jun-89 191,128.00 (84,362) 106,766 4,615 376,000 (166,000) 210,000 00025533 SUB. MILL POND (PHASE 1-5) Jun-89 645,548.00 (284,928) 360,620 4,615 1,270,100 (560,600) 709,500
00025534 SUB. VIEWPOINTE TERRACE Jun-89 45,588.00 (20,123) 25,465 4,615 89,700 (39,600) 50,100
00025535 SUB. VIEWPOINTE TERRACE Jun-89 99,290.00 (43,826) 55,464 4,615 195,400 (86,200) 109,200 00025536 SUB. WOODSIDE P.U.D. Jun-89 87,411.00 (38,579) 48,832 4,615 172,000 (75,900) 96,100
00025537 SUB. WOODSIDE P.U.D. Jun-89 134,933.00 (59,558) 75,375 4,615 265,500 (117,200) 148,300
00025538 SUB. LAUREL STREET Jun-90 129,548.00 (54,583) 74,965 4,732 248,600 (104,700) 143,900 00025539 SUB. OAK KNOLL MEADOWS Jun-90 229,226.00 (96,584) 132,642 4,732 439,900 (185,300) 254,600 00025541 SUB. PARK ESTATES Jun-90 279,239.00 (117,654) 161,585 4,732 535,800 (225,800) 310,000
00025543 SUB. PATTERSON ST Jun-90 45,012.00 (18,963) 26,049 4,732 86,400 (36,400) 50,000 00025544 SUB. PATTERSON ST Jun-90 70,663.00 (29,771) 40,892 4,732 135,600 (57,100) 78,500 00025556 PUMP STATION Jun-90 37,000.00 (15,589) 21,411 4,732 71,000 (29,900) 41,100
00025622 SEWER LIFT STATION Jun-90 37,000.00 (15,589) 21,411 4,732 71,000 (29,900) 41,100
00025545 SUB. ASHLAND MEADOWS VILLAGE Jun-91 214,331.00 (86,012) 128,319 4,818 403,900 (162,100) 241,800
00025546 SUB. CLAY CREEK ESTATES Jun-91 104,645.00 (46,060) 58,585 4,818 197,200 (86,800) 110,400 00025547 SUB. CLAY CREEK ESTATES Jun-91 109,261.00 (43,844) 65,417 4,818 205,900 (82,600) 123,300
00025548 SUB. OAK CREEK P.C. Jun-91 142,515.00 (57,188) 85,327 4,818 268,600 (107,800) 160,800
00025549 SUB. THOMAS P.C. Jun-91 114,291.00 (45,865) 68,426 4,818 215,400 (86,400) 129,000 00025487 PROJECT 90-15 Aug-91 80,811.00 (30,872) 49,939 4,892 150,000 (57,300) 92,700
00025484 PEACHEY\PARADISE Jun-92 33,083.00 (12,615) 20,468 4,973 60,400 (23,000) 37,400
00025485 PEACHEY\PARADISE Jun-92 8,838.00 (3,371) 5,467 4,973 16,100 (6,200) 9,900 00025486 PEACHEY\PARADISE Jun-92 8,316.00 (3,169) 5,147 4,973 15,200 (5,800) 9,400
00025550 SUB. BARRINGTON PLACE Jun-92 72,828.00 (27,769) 45,059 4,973 133,000 (50,700) 82,300
00025551 SUB. CLAY CREEK PHASE II Jun-92 158,083.00 (60,272) 97,811 4,973 288,600 (110,000) 178,600
00025552 SUB. GREENSPRINGS PHASE III Jun-92 60,690.00 (23,140) 37,551 4,973 110,800 (42,200) 68,600 00025553 SUB. MILL POND PHASE VI Jun-92 53,775.00 (20,505) 33,270 4,973 98,200 (37,400) 60,800
00025554 SUB. OAK CREEK Jun-92 146,812.00 (55,971) 90,841 4,973 268,100 (102,200) 165,900
00031585 SUB. CLEAR CREEK Jun-94 15,915.00 (5,429) 10,486 5,408 26,700 (9,100) 17,600
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 22
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011
Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
00031586 SUB. SOUTH VALLEY BUS. PARK Jun-94 26,895.00 (9,177) 17,718 5,408 45,200 (15,400) 29,800
00031617 14 4" SERVICES Jun-94 7,966.00 (7,966) 0 5,408 13,400 (13,400) 0 00031744 PROJECT 93-20 Aug-94 198,038.00 (79,839) 118,199 5,424 331,500 (133,700) 197,800
00031746 NORTH MOUNTAIN SEWER LID Apr-95 33,556.00 (13,497) 20,059 5,432 56,100 (22,600) 33,500
00031747 NORTH MOUNTAIN SEWER LID Apr-95 16,394.00 (6,594) 9,800 5,432 27,400 (11,000) 16,400 00031748 NORTH MOUNTAIN SEWER LID Apr-95 9,122.00 (3,669) 5,453 5,432 15,200 (6,100) 9,100
00031749 NORTH MOUNTAIN SEWER LID Apr-95 155,560.00 (100,726) 54,834 5,432 260,000 (168,400) 91,600
00031745 NORTH MOUNTAIN SEWER LID Apr-95 107,114.00 (43,082) 64,032 5,432 179,000 (72,000) 107,000 00031750 PROJECT 95-01A Jun-95 57,690.00 (23,189) 34,501 5,432 96,400 (38,800) 57,600
00031738 SUB-ASHLAND AUDUBON Jun-95 14,295.00 (5,745) 8,550 5,432 23,900 (9,600) 14,300
00031739 SUB-ASHLAND PARKVIEW Jun-95 13,425.00 (5,398) 8,027 5,432 22,400 (9,000) 13,400
00032049 LID - STRAWBERRY \ WESTWOOD Sep-95 87,800.00 (26,496) 61,304 5,491 145,200 (43,800) 101,400
00031989 N. MAIN TO WALNUT Feb-96 38,153.00 (11,500) 26,653 5,532 62,600 (18,900) 43,700
00031990 SEVENTH TO MORTON Apr-96 49,320.00 (14,857) 34,463 5,550 80,700 (24,300) 56,400
00031889 SUB-ASHLAND AUDOBON PH II Jun-96 14,170.00 (5,340) 8,830 5,597 23,000 (8,700) 14,300
00031891 SUB-MOUNTAIN MEADOWS PH I Jun-96 30,342.00 (11,437) 18,905 5,597 49,200 (18,600) 30,600
00031892 SUB-OAK KNOLL MEADOWS PH IV Jun-96 9,683.00 (3,649) 6,034 5,597 15,700 (5,900) 9,800
00031893 SUB-SCENIC HEIGHTS Jun-96 11,076.00 (4,175) 6,901 5,597 18,000 (6,800) 11,200
00031895 SUB-WEST BELLVIEW Jun-96 8,554.00 (3,224) 5,330 5,597 13,900 (5,200) 8,700
00032234 SUB-MTN. MEADOWS PH. II Jul-96 42,458.00 (12,643) 29,815 5,617 68,600 (20,400) 48,200 00032236 SUB-SKYCREST HILLS PH. I Jul-96 14,964.00 (4,456) 10,508 5,617 24,200 (7,200) 17,000
00032233 SUB-ASHLAND VILLAGE Dec-96 52,858.00 (15,731) 37,127 5,744 83,600 (24,900) 58,700
00032235 SUB-MTN. MEADOWS PH III Jun-97 32,916.00 (9,789) 23,128 5,860 51,000 (15,200) 35,800 00032248 N. MTN LIFT STATION - FLOOD Jun-97 106,560.00 (52,461) 54,099 5,860 165,100 (81,300) 83,800
00032475 SUB - MOUNTAIN CREEK ESTATES Sep-97 57,668.00 (15,060) 42,608 5,851 89,500 (23,400) 66,100
00032470 SUB - ASHLAND WILLOWS Sep-97 13,078.00 (3,416) 9,662 5,851 20,300 (5,300) 15,000
00032474 SUB - EAGLE CREEK Nov-97 10,660.00 (2,783) 7,877 5,838 16,600 (4,300) 12,300 00032473 SUB - CHATAQUA TRACE PH I Mar-98 70,044.00 (18,278) 51,766 5,875 108,300 (28,200) 80,100
00032472 SUB - BLOSSOM VIEW ESTATES May-98 59,566.00 (15,539) 44,027 5,881 92,000 (24,000) 68,000
00032469 SUB - ASHLAND MEADOWS VILLAGE Jun-98 5,888.00 (1,536) 4,352 5,895 9,100 (2,400) 6,700
00032476 SUB-LITHIA PARK VILLAGE PUD Jun-98 47,034.00 (12,269) 34,765 5,895 72,400 (18,900) 53,500 00032477 SUB-LITHAI PARK VILLAGE PUD Jun-98 10,695.00 (2,790) 7,905 5,895 16,500 (4,300) 12,200
00032625 SUB - GREAT OAKS Aug-98 22,655.00 (5,921) 16,734 5,929 34,700 (9,100) 25,600
00032627 SUB - SISKIYOU SOUTH Oct-98 19,021.00 (4,961) 14,060 5,986 28,900 (7,500) 21,400 00032628 SUB - SKYCREST HILLS PH II Oct-98 23,140.00 (6,036) 17,104 5,986 35,100 (9,200) 25,900
00032754 ROCK WALL - WATERLINE ROAD Feb-99 21,400.00 (2,993) 18,407 5,992 32,400 (4,500) 27,900
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 23
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011
Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
00032626 SUB - PINEVIEW ESTATES Feb-99 9,828.00 (2,554) 7,274 5,992 14,900 (3,900) 11,000
00032695 UNION ST. - SISKIYOU TO AUBURN Apr-99 58,404.00 (15,147) 43,257 6,008 88,300 (22,900) 65,400
00032740 BERM WALL Apr-99 6,480.00 (1,288) 5,192 6,008 9,800 (1,900) 7,900 00032865 SUB- BIRCHWOOD Jul-99 11,224.00 (2,881) 8,343 6,076 16,800 (4,300) 12,500
00032867 SUB- PARK RIDGE Jul-99 11,822.00 (2,826) 8,996 6,076 17,700 (4,200) 13,500 00032851 AIRPORT SANITARY SEWER LINE Nov-99 133,080.00 (31,689) 101,391 6,127 197,200 (47,000) 150,200 00032812 WINBURN PUMP STATION Mar-00 18,740.00 (18,740) 0 6,202 27,400 (27,400) 0
00032866 SUB- CLAY CREEK GARDENS Jun-00 38,142.00 (9,020) 29,122 6,238 55,500 (13,100) 42,400
00032942 SUBDIVISION - PLUM RIDGE Jul-00 7,912.00 (1,869) 6,043 6,225 11,500 (2,700) 8,800
00032941 SUBDIVISION - HAL\MILTON CREEK Aug-00 8,740.00 (2,063) 6,677 6,233 12,700 (3,000) 9,700
00032943 SUBDIVISION - ROCA PONDS Sep-00 8,280.00 (1,952) 6,328 6,224 12,100 (2,800) 9,300
00032972 SISKIYOU BV PROJECT #99-23 Oct-00 102,532.73 (24,152) 78,380 6,259 148,700 (35,000) 113,700
00032940 SUBDIVISION - EASTFIELD Dec-00 9,152.00 (2,152) 7,000 6,283 13,200 (3,100) 10,100 00032931 WIGHTMAN - LEE TO IOWA Feb-01 32,089.98 (6,904) 25,186 6,272 46,500 (10,000) 36,500
00032939 SUBDIVISION - ASHLAND MEADOWS Mar-01 30,544.00 (6,008) 24,536 6,279 44,200 (8,700) 35,500
00032930 SERVICE INSTALLATIONS Jun-01 35,537.62 (7,619) 27,919 6,318 51,100 (10,900) 40,200
00032973 BEAR CREEK TRUNK LINE Jun-01 107,665.57 (23,062) 84,604 6,318 154,700 (33,100) 121,600 00033062 SUB - OAK LAWN PHASE V Sep-01 7,751.00 (1,655) 6,096 6,391 11,000 (2,400) 8,600
00033021 SOUTH MOUNTAIN TO SISKIYOU Sep-01 24,959.21 (5,330) 19,630 6,391 35,500 (7,600) 27,900
00033060 SUB - CLAY CREEK GARDENS PH II Nov-01 29,348.00 (6,254) 23,094 6,410 41,600 (8,900) 32,700
00033061 SUB - THE OAKS OF ASHLAND Jan-02 67,652.00 (13,064) 54,588 6,462 95,100 (18,400) 76,700 00033017 7 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES Jun-02 15,488.30 (8,506) 6,982 6,532 21,500 (11,800) 9,700
WWTP 00033038 HEADWORKS Jun-02 127,765.33 (24,534) 103,231 6,532 177,600 (34,100) 143,500
WWTP 00033039 OXIDATION DITCHES Jun-02 3,233,153.00 (620,848) 2,612,305 6,532 4,494,300 (863,000) 3,631,300
WWTP 00033044 YARD PIPING & MISC
CONSTRUCTION Jun-02 7,836,835.24 (1,457,741) 6,379,094 6,532 10,893,800 (2,026,400) 8,867,400
WWTP 00033122 BELT PRESS Aug-02 241,484.56 (76,272) 165,213 6,592 332,600 (105,100) 227,500
00033296 STRAWBERRY LANE Dec-02 428.19 (61) 367 6,563 600 (100) 500
00033315 GRANITE STREET SEWER LINE Dec-02 162,721.55 (31,041) 131,680 6,563 225,100 (42,900) 182,200 00033316 BEAR CREEK TRUNK PHASE IV Dec-02 88,458.00 (16,875) 71,583 6,563 122,400 (23,300) 99,100
00033302 VISTA ST. STORM DRAIN Apr-03 0 0 6,635 0 0 0
WWTP 00033311 OXIDATION DITCH #2 May-03 1,792,979.91 (533,806) 1,259,174 6,642 2,451,100 (729,700) 1,721,400
00033297 8 MANHOLE INSTALLATIONS Jun-03 25,947.37 (12,407) 13,540 6,694 35,200 (16,800) 18,400 00033298 20 SERVICE INSTALLATIONS Jun-03 36,837.40 (7,960) 28,877 6,694 50,000 (10,800) 39,200
00034236 SUB - QUINN Oct-03 13,754.00 (2,326) 11,428 6,771 18,400 (3,100) 15,300
00034239 SUB - STRAWBERRY MEADOWS Nov-03 19,838.00 (3,351) 16,487 6,794 26,500 (4,500) 22,000
Wastewater Utility: SDC Analysis & Update June 2012
Page 24
Original Cost Replacement Cost (2011)
WWTP Asset # Description Depreciation Date Basis
June 30, 2011
Accumulated Depreciation Book Value ENR 1913=100 Appreciated Basis 2011 Accm. Depreciation 2011 Book Value
00034215 BEACH STREET Apr-04 18,378.28 (2,550) 15,828 7,017 23,800 (3,300) 20,500
00034234 SUB - BILLINGS RANCH Apr-04 145,756.00 (20,225) 125,531 7,017 188,600 (26,200) 162,400 00034237 SUB - RIVERWALK Jun-04 72,420.00 (10,020) 62,400 7,109 92,500 (12,800) 79,700
00034238 SUB - RIVERWALK Jun-04 38,974.00 (5,393) 33,581 7,109 49,800 (6,900) 42,900
00034235 SUB - BUD'S DAIRY Jun-04 35,620.00 (4,929) 30,691 7,109 45,500 (6,300) 39,200 00034216 20 SERVICE INSTALLATIONS Jun-04 19,289.72 (2,669) 16,621 7,109 24,600 (3,400) 21,200
00034217 9 MANHOLE INSTALLATIONS Jun-04 19,880.09 (2,751) 17,129 7,109 25,400 (3,500) 21,900
00034342 SUBDIVISON - HAMILTON PLACE Dec-04 8,671.00 (1,189) 7,482 7,308 10,800 (1,500) 9,300 00034343 SUBDIVISON - HAMILTON PLACE Dec-04 7,669.26 (1,052) 6,617 7,308 9,500 (1,300) 8,200
00034349 SUBDIVISON - DEERFIELD ESTATES Apr-05 12,896.00 (1,632) 11,264 7,355 15,900 (2,000) 13,900
35008 Wetlands Jul-05 466,903.00 (58,863) 408,040 7,422 571,200 (72,000) 499,200
35009 Capitalized interest Jul-05 419,359.00 (52,869) 366,490 7,422 513,000 (64,700) 448,300 WWTP 35010 2002 Sewer Project Jul-05 218,417.00 (27,536) 190,881 7,422 267,200 (33,700) 233,500
40045 2005 Utility Construction Project 04-07 Constr. Oct-06 192,501.15 (60,042) 132,459 7,883 221,700 (69,200) 152,500
40036 Zee Weed Membrane Filters Mar-07 261,435.00 (76,356) 185,079 7,856 302,200 (88,300) 213,900
40049 Bear Creek Sanitary Sewer 2003-05 Dec-06 269,395.08 (24,658) 244,737 7,888 310,100 (28,400) 281,700
41880 Ashland Creek Sanitary Sewer Support
Repair Jun-08 7,337.50 (1,712) 5,625 8,185 8,100 (1,900) 6,200
41879 N. Mian St. Pump Station Jun-08 390,750.25 (27,353) 363,398 8,185 433,500 (30,300) 403,200
41930 Geotechnical study Hosler Dam Stability Jun-10 5,634.25 (338) 5,296 8,805 5,800 (300) 5,500
41931 Grand View Drive Sewer Pump Station Jun-10 13,878.20 (833) 13,046 8,805 14,300 (900) 13,400
Total Improvements 26,599,728 (8,315,093) 18,284,635 43,041,500 (15,021,100) 28,020,400
Total Wastewater System 49,410,520 (12,911,740) 36,498,781 75,388,238 (22,242,700) 53,145,538
WWTP WWTP, (2002-03 Assets) 34,231,375 (6,604,878) 27,626,497 47,427,300 (9,150,500) 38,276,800 Balance Balance of System (collection) 15,179,146 (6,306,862) 8,872,284 27,960,938 (13,092,200) 14,868,738
Total Wastewater System 49,410,520 (12,911,740) 36,498,781 75,388,238 (22,242,700) 53,145,538
City of Ashland, Oregon
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION:
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
1409 Franklin Street, Suite 201 Vancouver, WA 98660
March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________________________________________ 1
OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STATUTES ____________________________________________ 2
Use of SDC Revenues _______________________________________________________________________ 2
Reimbursement Fee ________________________________________________________________________ 2
Improvement Fee __________________________________________________________________________ 2
Adjustments for Inflation ____________________________________________________________________ 3
Credit Policy ______________________________________________________________________________ 3
FORECAST NUMBER OF TRIPS ____________________________________________________________________ 4
ALLOCATION OF CIP LIST TO DEVELOPMENT ________________________________________________________ 6
IMPROVEMENT FEE ___________________________________________________________________________ 18
OTHER ISSUES ________________________________________________________________________________ 19
CREDIT POLICY _______________________________________________________________________________ 19
FINANCING OPTIONS ___________________________________________________________________________ 19
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ___________________________________________________________________________ 19
APPENDIX ___________________________________________________________________________________ 20
TABLES & FIGURES
Table 1 Population and Employment Growth ........................................................................................ 4
Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth ............................................................... 4
Table 3 Calculation of PM Peak-Hour Trips ......................................................................................... 5
Table 4 Summary of TSP Projects ......................................................................................................... 6
Table 5 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee ......................................................................... 7
Table 6 Transportation Capital Improvements Plan .............................................................................. 8
Table 7 SDC Basis for Calculation ...................................................................................................... 13
Page i
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
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.
In addition to this introduction, the next chapter presents an overview of the System Development Charge statutes, the following three sections present the calculation of the transportation SDC, and a section on
other SDC related issues to be developed with the City and its SDC advisory committee. The Appendix
contains a summary of the ITE Trip Generation manual that provides the basis for assessing the SDC on specific types of development. Due to the large number of transportation projects, summary tables provide a useful overview of the SDC calculations followed by multi-pages tables that show individual
projects and their contribution to the SDC calculation.
Page 1
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STATUTES
Oregon’s SDC law is governed by Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 223 (ORS 223), which authorizes cities to assess system development charges (SDCs) on new real estate developments for capital improvements to water, sewer, stormwater, parks, and transportation systems. This review includes
amendments through the legislative session ending June 30, 2013 (FY 2013).
ORS 223.299(4) defines the SDC as follows:
(a) “System development charge” means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a
combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement. “System development charge” includes that portion of a sewer or water system
connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the local government for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities.
(b) “System development charge” does not include any fees assessed or collected as part of a local
improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a land use decision, expedited
land division or limited land use decision. [1989 c.449 §2; 1991 c.817 §29; 1991 c.902 §26;
1995 c.595 §28; 2003 c.765 §2a; 2003 c.802 §18]
Use of SDC Revenues
The use of SDC revenues is restricted to capital improvements and may consist of a reimbursement fee,
an improvement fee, or both. SDC revenues may not be used for operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements.
Reimbursement Fee
The reimbursement fee is a capital charge for existing excess capacity, and is used to offset costs
associated with capital improvements that have already been completed or are under construction. In general terms, this fee equals the capital value of the system components that have excess capacity,
divided by their physical capacities. The revenue from reimbursement fees may be used on any
transportation-related capital improvement, including replacement of existing components such as sidewalks.
Improvement Fee
The improvement fee is a capital charge for future capacity, or improvements that are necessary to meet future demand. The planned improvements must be on a list of capital improvements adopted by the City
Council that may be modified in the future by City Council resolution.
In general terms, the improvement fee equals the expected cost of capital improvements needed to meet forecast demands, divided by the capacity of the planned improvements. Note that this fee cannot be used
simply to replace or repair existing improvements. However, if a specific capital improvement both fixes
Page 2
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
an existing problem and adds capacity, then the cost and capacity of the project is prorated so that the improvement fee includes only the cost of increased capacity.
Adjustments for Inflation
The SDC may be adjusted annually for inflation. The methodology spells out the timing and index to be
used to adjust the SDC to keep pace with inflation, and the City can make the adjustment automatically without having to amend the methodology and without public hearing.
Credit Policy
Finally, the SDC statutes require the City to have a credit policy for the improvement fee (but not for the reimbursement fee). Usually, when a developer builds an improvement on the list of capital
improvements used to create the improvement fee, then the City must credit the developer for the cost of
excess capacity of the improvement. The credit reduces the amount of the systems development charges owing on the development.
To qualify for a credit, a capital improvement must meet three conditions:
(1) The improvement must be on the list of capital improvements. If a project proposed for credit by a developer is not on the list then the project does NOT qualify for a credit. The City
Council may amend the list of capital improvements by resolution.
(2) The City must require the public improvement to be built as a condition of development approval. That is, the city must specifically state to the developer that unless the developer
builds the improvement, the city will deny the proposed development permits to build.
(3) The public improvement (or portions of it) must either be off-site of the proposed development, or on-site and with more capacity than the development itself will utilize.
In the following analysis we develop the methodology for the transportation reimbursement and
improvement fees, and present the list of capital improvements that becomes the basis for charging the fees, spending the fee revenues, and crediting developers for completed qualifying public improvements.
Page 3
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
FORECAST NUMBER OF TRIPS
Ashland’s TSP contains the following population and employment forecasts to determine the need for capital improvements. The expected growth reflects an aging population with fewer people in the workforce resulting in an increasing population/employment ratio. The planned improvements will
accommodate this level of growth in population and employment.
Table 1 Population and Employment Growth
2009 2034 Growth
Population 21,505 25,464 3,959
% Growth 18.4%
% Growth/Year 0.68%
Employment 13,284 15,496 2,212
% Growth 16.7%
% Growth/Year 0.62%
Population/Employment 1.62 1.64
Source: Ibid., pp 60, 61.
To determine the numbers of trips now and in the future, we use trip generation data, jobs by type, and the current (2009) and forecast (2034) population and employment shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 Calculation of Residential and Employment Growth
2009 2034 Growth
Households by Building Type^ Single Family 9,271 10,535 1,264
Multiple Family 3,813 4,958 1,145
Total 13,084 15,493 2,409
Population 21,505 25,464 3,959 % Growth
18.4%
% Growth/Year
0.68%
Persons/Household 1.64 1.64 1.64
Employment* 13,284 17,220 3,936 % Growth 29.6% % Growth/Year
1.04%
Population/Employment 1.62 1.48 1.01
^Ashland’s utility billing system shows 9,271 single family residences and 3,813 multiple family residences and we assume the
SF/MF split will remain constant through 2034. *Employment growth derived from the TSP, page ___.
Page 4
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
The ITE Trip Manual (8th ed.) manual shows single-family residences produce 1.02 PM Peak-Hour trips and multiple family residences produce 0.67 PM Peak-Hour trips. Employees average 2 PM Peak-Hour
Trips per.1
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.
1 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.
Page 5
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
ALLOCATION OF CIP LIST TO DEVELOPMENT
Table 4 is a summary of capital improvements from the 2012 Transportation System Plan. A full list of the projects is included at the end of this chapter. The projects are categorized as: General Policies & Studies, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit, Intersection & Roadway, and Railroad Crossing. Each project is
identified by its priority. High priority projects are planned for implementation in the next five years; Medium priority in the following ten years, and Low priority for some time after fifteen years.
Development Driven projects will be built only if and when private development occurs in the area to be
served by these improvements. 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. As a result, $55.968 million of the $66.738 million of projects is considered for the SDC improvement fee.
Table 4 Summary of TSP Projects
Each project in each category was evaluated for its benefit to growth. As a general rule, projects were
considered to provide about 18.4% which is the expected 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.
In sum, only $21.801 million of the $66.738 million of project costs are allocated to growth, which is the
cost basis for the SDC improvement fee. Table 6 shows each project, its priority and cost in 2012 dollars. Table 7 shows the calculation of the SDC by project. Tables 6 and 7 are expansions of Tables 4 and 5.
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 Improvements 4,948,000 4,250,000 3,725,000 23,555,000 36,478,000
Railroad Crossing 0 0 0 2,025,000 2,025,000
2012 CIP Totals $17,828,000 $12,230,000 $10,770,000 $25,910,000 $66,738,000
-
(in years)
Priority
Page 6
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Table 5 Cost Allocation to the SDC Improvement Fee
High, Medium % Benefit Allocation
Project Type Dvlpmt. Driven Growth to Growth
General Policies & Studies 130,000 18.4%24,000
Pedestrian 12,600,000 18.4%2,317,000
Bicycle 4,710,000 18.4%866,000
Transit 3,750,000 18.4%690,000
Intersection & Roadway Improvements 32,753,000 51.6%16,891,000
Railroad Crossing 2,025,000 50.0%1,013,000
2012 CIP Totals $55,968,000 $2 $21,801,000
Page 7
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Table 6 Transportation Capital Improvements Plan
Priority (in years)
High Medium Low DD Total # Street/Project Description Classification 0-5 5-15 15-25 Dev't Driven Improvements
GENERAL POLICIES & STUDIES
Table 6-1 (p. 90) 1 Study Funding Sources Feasibility Study NA 30,000 $30,000
2 Study Downtown Parking / Multi-Modal Circulation Boulevard 100,000 $100,000
Total Policies & Studies Projects $100,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $130,000
PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Table 7-1 (p. 96) 4 Laurel St Nevada St to Orange Ave Avenue 500,000 $500,000
6 Orange Ave N. Main St to Oak St Avenue 250,000 $250,000
7 Hersey St Thornton Way to N. Main St Avenue 750,000
$750,000
9 Maple St Chestnut St to 150' E of Rock St Avenue 100,000 $100,000
10(1) Scenic Dr Maple St to Wimer St Avenue 250,000 $250,000
10(2) Scenic Dr Wimer St to Grandview Dr Avenue 300,000 $300,000
18 A St Oak St to 100' W of 6th St Avenue 250,000 $250,000
22 N. Mountain Ave 100' S of Village Green Way to Iowa St Avenue 450,000 $450,000
25 Walker Ave 950' N of Iowa St to Ashland St Avenue 750,000
$750,000
27(1) Walker Ave Oregon St to Woodland Dr Avenue 200,000 $200,000
27(2) Walker Ave Woodland Dr to Peachey Rd Avenue
150,000
$150,000
28(1) Ashland St S. Mountain Ave to Morton St Avenue 450,000 $450,000
28(2) Ashland St Morton St to Guthrie St Avenue 500,000 $500,000
37 Clay St Faith Ave to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue
1,000,000
$1,000,000
38(1) Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 300,000 $300,000
38(2) Clay St Mohawk St to Southern Terminus Avenue 300,000 $300,000
42 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to Prospect St Avenue
400,000
$400,000
54 Iowa St Terrace St to Auburn St Avenue 350,000 $350,000
57(1) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to west side City Limits Avenue 425,000 $425,000
57(2) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to east side City Limits Avenue
425,000
$425,000
58(1) Helman St Hersey St to Van Ness Ave Avenue 100,000 $100,000
58(2) Helman St 1500' N of Orange Ave to Orange Ave Avenue 200,000 $200,000
1 N. Main St/Hwy 99 N. Main St to Schofield St Boulevard 50,000
$50,000
1 Travel Smart Educ Targeted Marketing Program NA 45,000 $45,000
Page 8
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Priority (in years)
High Medium Low DD Total # Street/Project Description Classification 0-5 5-15 15-25 Dev't Driven Improvements
23 Wightman St 200' N of E. Main St to 625' S of E. Main St N'hood Collect 400,000
$400,000
5 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to 175' E of Willow St N'hood Street 200,000 $200,000
8 Wimer St Thornton Way to N. Main St N'hood Street 800,000 $800,000
17 Beaver Slide Water St to Lithia Way N'hood Street 50,000
$50,000
40 Hillview Dr Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd N'hood Street 250,000 $250,000
59 Garfield St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 750,000 $750,000
60 Lincoln St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 450,000
$450,000
61 California St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 500,000 $500,000
62 Quincy St Garfield St to Wightman St N'hood Street 150,000 $150,000
63 Liberty St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St N'hood Street 650,000
$650,000
64 Water St Van Ness Ave to B St N'hood Street 250,000 $250,000
65 Faith Ave Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 350,000 $350,000
66 Diane St Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 20,000
$20,000
67 Frances Lane Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 10,000 $10,000
68 Carol St Patterson St to Hersey St N'hood Street 150,000 $150,000
70 Park St Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 650,000
$650,000
71 Orchard St Sunnyview Dr to Westwood St N'hood Street 100,000 $100,000
72 C St Fourth St to Fifth St N'hood Street 100,000 $100,000
73 Barbara St Jaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 100,000 $100,000
74 Roca St Ashland St to Prospect St N'hood Street 250,000 $250,000
75 Blaine St Morton St to Morse Ave N'hood Street 100,000 $100,000
78 Patterson St Crispin St to Carol St N'hood Street
100,000
$100,000
79 Harrison St Iowa St to Holly St N'hood Street 100,000 $100,000
80 Spring Creek Dr Oak Knoll Dr to Road End N'hood Street
350,000
$350,000
81 Bellview Ave Green Meadows Way to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 250,000 $250,000
Total Pedestrian Projects
$8,550,000 $4,050,000 $2,975,000 $0 $15,575,000
BICYCLE PROJECTS
Table 8-1 (p. 105)
2 Wimer St Scenic Dr to N. Main St Avenue 20,000
$20,000
3 Nevada St Vansant St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 230,000 $230,000
7 Iowa St Terrace to Road Terminus; S. Mountain to Walker Avenue 240,000 $240,000
9 Ashland St Morton St to University Way Avenue
30,000
$30,000
10 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to E. Main St Avenue 120,000 $120,000
11 Wightman St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 60,000 $60,000
13 B St Oak St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 80,000
$80,000
Page 9
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Priority (in years)
High Medium Low DD Total # Street/Project Description Classification 0-5 5-15 15-25 Dev't Driven Improvements
14 A St Oak St to 6th St Avenue
50,000
$50,000
16 Lithia Way Oak St to Helman St Avenue 110,000 $110,000
19 Helman St Nevada St to N. Main St Avenue 80,000 $80,000
21 Oak St Nevada St to E. Main St Avenue
100,000
$100,000
22 Clay St E. Main St to Ashland St Avenue 60,000 $60,000
24 Clover Lane Ashland St to Proposed Bike Path Avenue 40,000 $40,000
25 Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to Green Meadows Way Avenue
100,000
$100,000
26 Normal Ave E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 190,000 $190,000
29 Walker Ave Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd Avenue 40,000 $40,000
37 Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue
20,000
$20,000
17 Main St Helman St to Siskiyou Blvd Boulevard 50,000 $50,000
18 N. Main St Jackson Rd to Helman St Boulevard 260,000 $260,000
30 Ashland St I-5 Exit 14 SB to Hwy 66 Boulevard
100,000
$100,000
35 Railroad Property Proposed Bike Path to N. Mountain Ave MultiUse Path 40,000 $40,000
1 Northside Trail Orchid Ave to Tolman Creek Rd MultiUse Path 2,000,000 $2,000,000
2 New Trail Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd MultiUse Path
400,000
$400,000
3 New Trail New Trail to Hersey St MultiUse Path 220,000 $220,000
4 New Trail A St to Clear Creek Dr Extension MultiUse Path 110,000 $110,000
4 NA Retrofit Bicycle Program NA 50,000 $50,000
5 Maple/Scenic/Nutley N. Main St to Winburn Way N'hood Collect 110,000 $110,000
39 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to Proposed Trail N'hood Collect
40,000
$40,000
40 Laurel St Orange St to Nevada St N'hood Collect 40,000 $40,000
4 Glendower St Bear Creek Greenway to Nevada St N'hood Street
20,000
$20,000
6 Winburn Way Calle Guanjuato to Nutley St N'hood Street 10,000 $10,000
8 Morton St E. Main St to Ashland St N'hood Street 60,000 $60,000
12 Wightman St Road End to E. Main St N'hood Street
20,000
$20,000
20 Water St Hersey St to N. Main St N'hood Street 30,000 $30,000
28 Clay St Rail Line to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 50,000 $50,000
31 Indiana St Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 20,000
$20,000
33 8th St A St to E. Main St N'hood Street 20,000 $20,000
34 1st St A St to E. Main St N'hood Street 20,000 $20,000
38 Oregon/Clark St Indiana St to Harmony Lane N'hood Street 40,000
$40,000
Total Bicycle Projects
$3,230,000 $1,150,000 $570,000 $330,000 $5,280,000
Page 10
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Priority (in years)
High Medium Low DD Total # Street/Project Description Classification 0-5 5-15 15-25 Dev't Driven Improvements
TRANSIT PROJECTS
Transit Service Program Funds (p. 118)
14
-19
NA Establish Transit Hubs NA 1,000,000 $1,000,000
NA Support Circulator Svc NA
2,750,000
$2,750,000
NA Support SOU Svc NA 3,500,000 $3,500,000
Total Transit Projects
$1,000,000 $2,750,000 $3,500,000 $0 $7,250,000
INTERSECTION & ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Refinement Plan Studies, Table 10-2 (p. 133)
7 E. Main St Siskiyou Blvd to Wightman St Avenue
75,000
$75,000
3 N. Main St (OR 99) Helman St to Sheridan St Boulevard 75,000 $75,000
5 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland St to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 75,000 $75,000
6 Ashland St (OR 66) Siskiyou Blvd to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard
75,000
$75,000
9 Ashland St (OR 66) Clay St to Washington St Boulevard/Ave 20,000 $20,000
10 Siskiyou Blvd Highway 66 to Beach St Blvd/N'hood Coll 35,000 $35,000
Subtotal Refinement Plan Studies $35,000 $245,000 $75,000 $0 $355,000
Intersection & Roadway Projects, Table 10-3 (p. 136) 17 E. Nevada St Ext Bear Creek to Kestrel Pkwy Avenue 2,261,000 $2,261,000
19 Normal Ave Ext Normal Ave to E. Main St Avenue
2,705,000
$2,705,000
40 Walker Ave/Festival St Walker Ave to Normal St Avenue 780,000 $780,000
45 New Roadway (F) Washington St to New Roadway (E) Avenue 1,199,000 $1,199,000
35 N. Main St N. Main St Temporary Diet Boulevard $0
36 N. Main St N. Main St Permanent Diet Boulevard 200,000 $200,000
38 Ashland St Siskiyou Blvd to Walker Ave Streetscape Boulevard
1,100,000
$1,100,000
39 Ashland St Walker Ave to Normal Ave Streetscape Boulevard 1,300,000 $1,300,000
43 New Roadway (E) Mistletoe Rd to Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Boulevard 4,322,000 $4,322,000
44 Tolman Creek Mistletoe Rd Streetscape Boulevard
3,478,000 $3,478,000
2 N. Main St Wimer St / Hersey St Boulevard/Ave 300,000 $300,000
5 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Lithia Way (OR 99 NB) / E. Main St Boulevard/Ave 50,000 $50,000
6 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard/Ave 61,000
$61,000
8 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (realignment) Boulevard/Ave 706,000 $706,000
9 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (roundabout) Boulevard/Ave 3,150,000 $3,150,000
11 LithiaWay (OR 99NB) Oak Street Boulevard/Ave
200,000
$200,000
13 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Park St Boulevard/Ave 296,000 $296,000
41 Ashland St Tolman Creek Rd Streetscape Boulevard/Ave 1,500,000 $1,500,000
Page 11
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Priority (in years)
High Medium Low DD Total # Street/Project Description Classification 0-5 5-15 15-25 Dev't Driven Improvements
42 E. Main St N. Mountain Ave Streetscape Boulevard/Ave
1,500,000 $1,500,000
12 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Sherman St Blvd/N'hood 391,000 $391,000
14 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Terra Ave / Faith Ave Blvd/N’hood 216,000 $216,000
24 Clear Creek Dr Ext Oak St to N. Mountain Ave N’hood Collect
2,505,000 $2,505,000
25 Washington St Ext Washington St Tolman Creek Rd N’hood Collect 1,055,000 $1,055,000
26 New Roadway (D) E. Main St to Ashland St (OR 66) N’hood Collect 2,422,000 $2,422,000
29 Washington St Ext Washington St to Benson Way N’hood Collect
1,301,000 $1,301,000
31 Wimer St Ext Wimer St to Ashland Mine Rd N’hood Collect 3,125,000 $3,125,000
20 Creek Dr Ext Meadow Dr to Normal Ave N'hood Street * $0
22 New Roadway (B) Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street
* $0
23 New Roadway (C) McCall Dr to Engle St N'hood Street * $0
27 Grizzly Dr Ext Jacquelyn St to Clay St N'hood Street * $0
28 Mountain View Dr Ext Parkside Dr to Helman St N'hood Street
* $0
30 Kirk Lane Ext Kirk Lane to N. Mountain Ave N'hood Street * $0
32 Kestrel Pkwy Ext Kestrel Pkwy to N. Mountain Ave (at Nepenthe Rd) N'hood Street * $0
34 Railroad Property Existing Adjacent Streets to End of Property N'hood Street
* $0
46 Ivy Lane Ext Ivy Lane to Waterline Rd N'hood Street * $0
47 Mary Jane Ave Ext Mary Jane Ave to S. UGB then E. to Clay St N'hood Street * $0
48 Forest St Ext Between Existing Segments of Forest St N'hood Street * $0
49 Croman Mill District Croman Mill District Connectivity N'hood Street * $0
Subtotal Intersection & Roadway Projects $4,913,000 $4,005,000 $3,650,000 $23,555,000 $36,123,000
Total Roadway & Intersection Improvements $4,948,000 $4,250,000 $3,725,000 $23,555,000 $36,478,000
RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECTS
Table 10-4 (p. 139)
1 4th St Crossing N'hood Street
275,000 $275,000
2 Washington St Crossing Planned Avenue 1,000,000 $1,000,000
3 Normal Ave Crossing Upgrade Planned Avenue 750,000 $750,000
Total Railroad Crossing Projects $0 $0 $0 $2,025,000 $2,025,000
2012 CIP Totals $17,828,000 $12,230,000 $10,770,000 $25,910,000 $66,738,000
Page 12
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Table 7 SDC Basis for Calculation
Subtotal SDC Eligible SDC
# Street/Project Description Classification High, Med, DD % Growth Project Costs By Project
GENERAL POLICIES & STUDIES
Table 6-1 (p. 90) 1 Study Funding Sources Feasibility Study NA 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60
2 Study Downtown Parking / Multi-Modal Circulation Boulevard 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
Total Policies & Studies Projects
$130,000 18.4% $24,000.00 $2.41
PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Table 7-1 (p. 96) 4 Laurel St Nevada St to Orange Ave Avenue 500,000 18.4% 92,000 9.27
6 Orange Ave N. Main St to Oak St Avenue 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63
7 Hersey St Thornton Way to N. Main St Avenue 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90
9 Maple St Chestnut St to 150' E of Rock St Avenue 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
10(1) Scenic Dr Maple St to Wimer St Avenue 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63
10(2) Scenic Dr Wimer St to Grandview Dr Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
18 A St Oak St to 100' W of 6th St Avenue 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63
22 N. Mountain Ave 100' S of Village Green Way to Iowa St Avenue 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36
25 Walker Ave 950' N of Iowa St to Ashland St Avenue 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90
27(1) Walker Ave Oregon St to Woodland Dr Avenue 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73
27(2) Walker Ave Woodland Dr to Peachey Rd Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
28(1) Ashland St S. Mountain Ave to Morton St Avenue 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36
28(2) Ashland St Morton St to Guthrie St Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
37 Clay St Faith Ave to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 1,000,000 18.4% 184,000 18.53
38(1) Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 300,000 18.4% 55,000 5.54
38(2) Clay St Mohawk St to Southern Terminus Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
42 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to Prospect St Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
54 Iowa St Terrace St to Auburn St Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
57(1) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to west side City Limits Avenue 425,000 18.4% 78,000 7.86
57(2) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to east side City Limits Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
58(1) Helman St Hersey St to Van Ness Ave Avenue 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
58(2) Helman St 1500' N of Orange Ave to Orange Ave Avenue - 18.4% - 0.00
1 N. Main St/Hwy 99 N. Main St to Schofield St Boulevard 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91
1 Travel Smart Educ Targeted Marketing Program NA 45,000 18.4% 8,000 0.81
23 Wightman St 200' N of E. Main St to 625' S of E. Main St N'hood Collect 400,000 18.4% 74,000 7.45
5 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to 175' E of Willow St N'hood Street 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73
Page 13
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Subtotal SDC Eligible SDC
# Street/Project Description Classification High, Med, DD % Growth Project Costs By Project
8 Wimer St Thornton Way to N. Main St N'hood Street 800,000 18.4% 147,000 14.81
17 Beaver Slide Water St to Lithia Way N'hood Street 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91
40 Hillview Dr Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd N'hood Street - 18.4% - 0.00
59 Garfield St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 750,000 18.4% 138,000 13.90
60 Lincoln St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 450,000 18.4% 83,000 8.36
61 California St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 500,000 18.4% 92,000 9.27
62 Quincy St Garfield St to Wightman St N'hood Street 150,000 18.4% 28,000 2.82
63 Liberty St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St N'hood Street 650,000 18.4% 120,000 12.09
64 Water St Van Ness Ave to B St N'hood Street 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63
65 Faith Ave Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 350,000 18.4% 64,000 6.45
66 Diane St Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40
67 Frances Lane Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 10,000 18.4% 2,000 0.20
68 Carol St Patterson St to Hersey St N'hood Street 150,000 18.4% 28,000 2.82
70 Park St Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 650,000 18.4% 120,000 12.09
71 Orchard St Sunnyview Dr to Westwood St N'hood Street - 18.4% - 0.00
72 C St Fourth St to Fifth St N'hood Street 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
73 Barbara St Jaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
74 Roca St Ashland St to Prospect St N'hood Street 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63
75 Blaine St Morton St to Morse Ave N'hood Street 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
78 Patterson St Crispin St to Carol St N'hood Street 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
79 Harrison St Iowa St to Holly St N'hood Street 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
80 Spring Creek Dr Oak Knoll Dr to Road End N'hood Street 350,000 18.4% 64,000 6.45
81 Bellview Ave Green Meadows Way to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 250,000 18.4% 46,000 4.63
Total Pedestrian Projects
$12,600,000 18.4% $2,317,000 $233.37
BICYCLE PROJECTS
Table 8-1 (p. 105) 2 Wimer St Scenic Dr to N. Main St Avenue 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40
3 Nevada St Vansant St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 230,000 18.4% 42,000 4.23
7 Iowa St Terrace to Road Terminus; S. Mountain to Walker Avenue 240,000 18.4% 44,000 4.43
9 Ashland St Morton St to University Way Avenue 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60
10 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to E. Main St Avenue 120,000 18.4% 22,000 2.22
11 Wightman St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 60,000 18.4% 11,000 1.11
13 B St Oak St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 80,000 18.4% 15,000 1.51
14 A St Oak St to 6th St Avenue - 18.4% - -
16 Lithia Way Oak St to Helman St Avenue 110,000 18.4% 20,000 2.01
Page 14
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Subtotal SDC Eligible SDC
# Street/Project Description Classification High, Med, DD % Growth Project Costs By Project
19 Helman St Nevada St to N. Main St Avenue 80,000 18.4% 15,000 1.51
21 Oak St Nevada St to E. Main St Avenue - 18.4% - -
22 Clay St E. Main St to Ashland St Avenue - 18.4% - -
24 Clover Lane Ashland St to Proposed Bike Path Avenue - 18.4% - -
25 Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to Green Meadows Way Avenue 100,000 18.4% 18,000 1.81
26 Normal Ave E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 190,000 18.4% 35,000 3.53
29 Walker Ave Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd Avenue 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71
37 Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40
17 Main St Helman St to Siskiyou Blvd Boulevard 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91
18 N. Main St Jackson Rd to Helman St Boulevard 260,000 18.4% 48,000 4.83
30 Ashland St I-5 Exit 14 SB to Hwy 66 Boulevard - 18.4% - -
35 Railroad Property Proposed Bike Path to N. Mountain Ave MultiUse Path - 18.4% - -
1 Northside Trail Orchid Ave to Tolman Creek Rd MultiUse Path 2,000,000 18.4% 368,000 37.06
2 New Trail Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd MultiUse Path 400,000 18.4% 74,000 7.45
3 New Trail New Trail to Hersey St MultiUse Path 220,000 18.4% 40,000 4.03
4 New Trail A St to Clear Creek Dr Extension MultiUse Path 110,000 18.4% 20,000 2.01
4 NA Retrofit Bicycle Program NA 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91
5 Maple/Scenic/Nutley N. Main St to Winburn Way N'hood Collect 110,000 18.4% 20,000 2.01
39 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to Proposed Trail N'hood Collect 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71
40 Laurel St Orange St to Nevada St N'hood Collect 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71
4 Glendower St Bear Creek Greenway to Nevada St N'hood Street - 18.4% - -
6 Winburn Way Calle Guanjuato to Nutley St N'hood Street - 18.4% - -
8 Morton St E. Main St to Ashland St N'hood Street - 18.4% - -
12 Wightman St Road End to E. Main St N'hood Street - 18.4% - -
20 Water St Hersey St to N. Main St N'hood Street 30,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60
28 Clay St Rail Line to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street - 18.4% - -
31 Indiana St Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40
33 8th St A St to E. Main St N'hood Street 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40
34 1st St A St to E. Main St N'hood Street - 18.4% - -
38 Oregon/Clark St Indiana St to Harmony Lane N'hood Street 40,000 18.4% 7,000 0.71
Total Bicycle Projects $4,710,000 18.4% $866,000 $87.21
TRANSIT PROJECTS
Transit Service Program Funds (p. 118)
14
-
19
NA Establish Transit Hubs NA 1,000,000 18.4% 184,000 18.53
NA Support Circulator Svc NA 2,750,000 18.4% 506,000 50.96
Page 15
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Subtotal SDC Eligible SDC
# Street/Project Description Classification High, Med, DD % Growth Project Costs By Project
NA Support SOU Svc NA - 18.4% - -
Total Transit Projects $3,750,000 18.4% $690,000 $69.49
INTERSECTION & ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Refinement Plan Studies, Table 10-2 (p. 133)
7 E. Main St Siskiyou Blvd to Wightman St Avenue - 18.4% - -
3 N. Main St (OR 99) Helman St to Sheridan St Boulevard 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41
5 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland St to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41
6 Ashland St (OR 66) Siskiyou Blvd to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 75,000 18.4% 14,000 1.41
9 Ashland St (OR 66) Clay St to Washington St Boulevard/Ave 20,000 18.4% 4,000 0.40
10 Siskiyou Blvd Highway 66 to Beach St Blvd/N'hood Coll 35,000 18.4% 6,000 0.60
Subtotal Refinement Plan Studies $280,000 18.4% $52,000 $5.23
Intersection & Roadway Projects, Table 10-3 (p. 136)
17 E. Nevada St Ext Bear Creek to Kestrel Pkwy Avenue 2,261,000 18.4% 416,000 41.90
19 Normal Ave Ext Normal Ave to E. Main St Avenue 2,705,000 18.4% 498,000 50.16
40 Walker Ave/Festival Walker Ave to Normal St Avenue 780,000 18.4% 144,000 14.50
45 New Roadway (F) Washington St to New Roadway (E) Avenue 1,199,000 100.0% 1,199,000 120.76
35 N. Main St N. Main St Temporary Diet Boulevard - 0.0% - -
36 N. Main St N. Main St Permanent Diet Boulevard 200,000 18.4% 37,000 3.73
38 Ashland St Siskiyou Blvd to Walker Ave Streetscape Boulevard 1,100,000 18.4% 202,000 20.34
39 Ashland St Walker Ave to Normal Ave Streetscape Boulevard 1,300,000 18.4% 239,000 24.07
43 New Roadway (E) Mistletoe Rd to Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Boulevard 4,322,000 100.0% 4,322,000 435.29
44 Tolman Creek Mistletoe Rd Streetscape Boulevard 3,478,000 100.0% 3,478,000 350.29
2 N. Main St Wimer St / Hersey St Boulevard/Ave - 18.4% - -
5 Siskiyou Blvd (OR66) Lithia Way (OR 99 NB) / E. Main St Boulevard/Ave 50,000 18.4% 9,000 0.91
6 Siskiyou Blvd (OR66) Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard/Ave 61,000 18.4% 11,000 1.11
8 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (realignment) Boulevard/Ave 706,000 18.4% 130,000 13.09
9 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (roundabout) Boulevard/Ave - 18.4% - -
11
LithiaWay (OR
99NB) Oak Street Boulevard/Ave - 18.4% - -
13 Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) Park St Boulevard/Ave 296,000 18.4% 54,000 5.44
41 Ashland St Tolman Creek Rd Streetscape Boulevard/Ave 1,500,000 18.4% 276,000 27.80
42 E. Main St N. Mountain Ave Streetscape Boulevard/Ave 1,500,000 18.4% 276,000 27.80
12 Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) Sherman St Blvd/N'hood 391,000 18.4% 72,000 7.25
14 Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) Terra Ave / Faith Ave Blvd/N’hood 216,000 18.4% 40,000 4.03
24 Clear Creek Dr Ext Oak St to N. Mountain Ave N’hood Collect 2,505,000 100.0% 2,505,000 252.29
Page 16
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
Subtotal SDC Eligible SDC
# Street/Project Description Classification High, Med, DD % Growth Project Costs By Project
25 Washington St Ext Washington St Tolman Creek Rd N’hood Collect 1,055,000 100.0% 1,055,000 106.25
26 New Roadway (D) E. Main St to Ashland St (OR 66) N’hood Collect 2,422,000 0.0% - -
29 Washington St Ext Washington St to Benson Way N’hood Collect 1,301,000 100.0% 1,301,000 131.03
31 Wimer St Ext Wimer St to Ashland Mine Rd N’hood Collect 3,125,000 18.4% 575,000 57.91
20 Creek Dr Ext Meadow Dr to Normal Ave N'hood Street - - -
22 New Roadway (B) Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street - - -
23 New Roadway (C) McCall Dr to Engle St N'hood Street - - -
27 Grizzly Dr Ext Jacquelyn St to Clay St N'hood Street - - -
28 Mountain View Ext Parkside Dr to Helman St N'hood Street - - -
30 Kirk Lane Ext Kirk Lane to N. Mountain Ave N'hood Street - - -
32 Kestrel Pkwy Ext Kestrel Pkwy to N. Mountain Ave (at Nepenthe Rd) N'hood Street - - -
34 Railroad Property Existing Adjacent Streets to End of Property N'hood Street - - -
46 Ivy Lane Ext Ivy Lane to Waterline Rd N'hood Street - - -
47 Mary Jane Ave Ext Mary Jane Ave to S. UGB then E. to Clay St N'hood Street - - -
48 Forest St Ext Between Existing Segments of Forest St N'hood Street - - -
49 Croman Mill District Croman Mill District Connectivity N'hood Street - - -
Subtotal Intersection & Roadway Projects $32,473,000 51.9% $16,839,000 $1,695.95
Total Roadway & Intersection Improvements $32,753,000 51.6% $16,891,000 $1,701.18
RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECTS
Table 10-4 (p. 139)
1 4th St Crossing N'hood Street 275,000 50% 138,000 13.90
2 Washington St Crossing Planned Avenue 1,000,000 50% 500,000 50.36
3 Normal Ave Crossing Upgrade Planned Avenue 750,000 50% 375,000 37.77
Total Railroad Crossing Projects $2,025,000 50% $1,013,000 $102.03
2012 CIP Totals
$55,968,000 39.0% $21,801,000 $2,196
* No cost estimate; assumes improvements will be paid by developer
Page 17
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
IMPROVEMENT FEE
The improvement fee is simply the allocation of cost to growth divided by the number of new PM Peak-Hour trips, $21.801 million ÷ 9,929 PM Peak-Hour trips = $2,196/PM Peak-Hour trip. The transportation SDC improvement fee for a new single-family house will be $2,240 ($1,296 x 1.02 PM Peak-hour trips
Page 1
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
OTHER ISSUES
Credit Policy
(TBD)
Financing Options
(TBD)
Administrative Fee
(TBD)
Page 19
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
APPENDIX
ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition PM Peak-Hour Trip Rates
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE
Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
30 Intermodal Truck Terminal 1,000 SF GFA 0.83
110 General Light Industrial 1,000 SF GFA 1.08 0.36 4.50
120 General Heavy Industrial 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.49 0.78
130 Industrial Park 1,000 SF GFA 0.84 0.13 2.95
140 Manufacturing 1,000 SF GFA 0.75 0.09 7.85
150 Warehousing 1,000 SF GFA 0.45 0.16 1.65
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.29 0.13 0.50
152 High-Cube Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.16 0.07 0.27
160 Data Center* 1,000 SF GFA 0.14 0.08 0.19
170 Utilities 1,000 SF GFA
435 Multipurpose Recreational Facility 1,000 SF GFA 0.25
437 Bowling Alley 1,000 SF GFA 440 Adult Cabaret 1,000 SF GFA 38.67 443 Movie Theater - no Matinee 1,000 SF GFA 14.05
465 Ice Skating Rink 1,000 SF GFA
473 Casino/Video Lottey Establishment 1,000 SF GFA
491 Racquet/Tennis Club 1,000 SF GFA 0.84 0.70 1.06
492 Health/Fitness Club 1,000 SF GFA 4.06 3.27 4.30
493 Athletic Club 1,000 SF GFA 5.84 3.85 6.36
495 Recreational Community Center 1,000 SF GFA 3.35 2.31 5.37
520 Elementary School 1,000 SF GFA 3.11 0.94 6.06
522 Middle School/Junior High School 1,000 SF GFA 2.52 0.68 10.88
530 High School 1,000 SF GFA 2.12 0.98 5.14
534 Private School (K-8) 1,000 SF GFA 6.53 4.17 9.00
536 Private School (K-12) 1,000 SF GFA
540 Junior/Community College 1,000 SF GFA 2.64 1.06 3.46
560 Church 1,000 SF GFA 0.94 0.38 4.04
561 Synagogue 1,000 SF GFA 1.69 562 Mosque* 1,000 SF GFA 11.02
565 Day Care Center 1,000 SF GFA 13.75 3.95 39.17
571 Prison 1,000 SF GFA 11.39
590 Library 1,000 SF GFA 7.20 4.00 11.75
610 Hospital 1,000 SF GFA 1.16 0.66 7.63
620 Nursing Home 1,000 SF GFA 1.01 0.58 1.20
630 Clinic 1,000 SF GFA
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
Page 20
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
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 872 Bed & Linen Superstore 1,000 SF GFA 875 Department Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.81 1.68 4.70
876 Apparel Store 1,000 SF GFA 4.20 1.78 6.80
Page 21
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
879 Arts & Crafts Store 1,000 SF GFA 6.85 880 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF GFA 11.07 7.47 24.00
881 Pharmacy/Drugstore + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 9.72 6.50 13.48
890 Furniture Store 1,000 SF GFA 0.53 0.09 1.70
896 DVD/Video Rental Store 1,000 SF GFA 31.54 897 Medical Equipment Store* 1,000 SF GFA 1.24 911 Walk-in Bank 1,000 SF GFA
912 Drive-in Bank 1,000 SF GFA 26.69 7.14 68.50
918 Hair Salon^ 1,000 SF GFA 1.93 920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store 1,000 SF GFA 12.27 925 Drinking Place 1,000 SF GFA 15.49 3.73 29.98
931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 9.02 3.24 15.89
932 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 18.49 5.60 69.20
933 Fast-Food Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 52.40 29.05 112.00
934 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 47.30 13.33 158.46
935 Fast-Food Restaurant + Drive-Thru (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA 936 Coffee/Donut Shop 1,000 SF GFA 25.81 18.19 39.10
937 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 36.16 2.08 60.50
938 Coffee/Donut Shop + Drive-Thru (no indoor seating) 1,000 SF GFA 96.00 50.00 150.00
939 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop^ 1,000 SF GFA 940 Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop + Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 943 Automobile Parts & Service Center 1,000 SF GFA
945 Gasoline/Service Station + Convenience Mart 1,000 SF GFA 97.14 27.86 451.28
948 Automated Car Wash 1,000 SF GFA 950 Truck Stop* 1,000 SF GFA 820 Shopping Center 1,000 SF GLA 826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) 1,000 SF GLA 5.02 4.59 6.18
942 Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF GLA (occupied) 3.51 2.75 7.14
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF Net Rentable Area 0.22 0.14 0.33
10 Waterport/Marine Terminal Acre 30 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
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
Page 22
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
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
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
Page 23
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
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
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
Page 24
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
550 University/College Employee 0.85 0.49 3.08
561 Synagogue Employee 3.27
565 Day Care Center Employee 5.12 1.13 14.00
566 Cemetery Employee 13.57 571 Prison Employee 0.68 0.50 1.88
580 Museum* Employee 0.58 590 Library Employee 6.78 3.13 12.73
591 Lodge/Fraternal Organization Employee 4.05
610 Hospital Employee 0.41 0.21 1.19
620 Nursing Home Employee 0.47 0.41 0.94
630 Clinic Employee 0.86 0.78 1.38
710 General Office Building Employee 0.46 0.16 3.12
714 Corporate Headquarters Building Employee 0.38 0.20 1.00
715 Single Tenant Office Building Employee 0.51 0.29 1.14
720 Medical-Dental Office Building Employee 0.97 0.58 2.06
730 Government Office Building Employee 1.91 731 State Motor Vehicles Department Employee 5.35 3.24 7.58
732 United States Post Office Employee 3.11 0.97 40.40
733 Government Office Complex Employee 750 Office Park Employee 0.39 0.31 0.51
760 Research & Development Center Employee 0.41 0.18 1.39
770 Business Park Employee 0.39 0.24 1.01
812 Building Materials & Lumber Store Employee 3.83 3.19 5.75
815 Free-Standing Discount Store Employee 3.52 2.24 6.93
816 Hardware/Paint Store Employee 5.43 4.83 6.50
817 Nursery (Garden Center) Employee 2.55 1.03 7.43
818 Nursery (Wholesale) Employee 0.67 0.47 3.00
826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 814) Employee
841 Automobile Sales Employee 0.96 0.48 1.93
848 Tire Store Employee 854 Discount Supermarket Employee 3.24 2.57 3.86
857 Discount Club Employee 3.36 2.41 4.98
860 Wholesale Market Employee 0.64
890 Furniture Store Employee 1.27 0.55 3.50
912 Drive-in Bank Employee 4.71 3.10 6.18
920 Copy, Print & Express Ship Store Employee 6.63 942 Automobile Care Center Employee 1.43
561 Synagogue Family Member 0.07
488 Soccer Complex Field 18.36 9.71 26.50
853 Convenience Mart + Gas Pumps Fueling Position 19.98 7.60 75.50
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
Page 25
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
630 Clinic Full-time Doctor 4.43 4.40 4.44
430 Golf Course Hole 3.56 3.42 3.83
431 Miniture Golf Course Hole
437 Bowling Alley Lane 4.50 466 Snow Ski Area* Lift 32.50 493 Athletic Club Member 0.17 495 Recreational Community Center Member 0.02
591 Lodge/Fraternal Organization Member 0.03
443 Movie Theater - no Matinee Movie Screen 37.83 444 Movie Theater + Matinee Movie Screen 37.83 445 Multiplex Movie Theater Movie Screen 25.84 13.33 69.45
254 Assisted Living Occupied Bed 0.37 0.28 0.53
571 Prison Occupied Bed 1.22
416 Campground/RV Park Occupied Camp Site 0.41 0.38 0.57
221 Low-Rise Apartment Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.38 1.23
233 Luxury Condo/Townhouse Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.65 0.60 0.72
240 Mobile Home Park Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.60 0.39 1.07
252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.31 0.25 0.46
253 Congregate Care Facility Occupied Dwelling Unit 0.21 0.21 0.21
265 Timeshare Occupied Dwelling Unit 90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Occupied Parking Space 93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking Occupied Parking Space
310 Hotel Occupied Room 0.74 0.25 1.23
311 All Suites Hotel Occupied Room 0.55 0.40 0.87
312 Business Hotel Occupied Room 0.57 0.41 0.75
320 Motel Occupied Room 0.69 0.29 1.33
330 Resort Hotel Occupied Room 0.59 0.36 1.06
151 Mini-Warehouse Occupied Storage Unit 0.02 0.02 0.03
255 Continuing Care Retirement Community^ Occupied Unit 90 Park & Ride Lot + Bus Service Parking Space 93 Light Rail Transit Station + Parking Parking Space 414 Water Slide Park Parking Space 0.28
210 Single-Family Detached Housing Person 0.27 0.12 0.68
220 Apartment Persons 0.40 0.19 0.77
221 Low-Rise Apartment Persons 0.33 0.22 0.65
222 High-Rise Apartment Persons 0.20 0.18 0.26
230 Condo/Townhouse Persons 0.24 0.15 0.57
240 Mobile Home Park Persons 0.27 0.14 0.47
411 City Park Picnic Site 413 State Park Picnic Site 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
Page 26
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK-HOUR TRIPS
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Avg Low High
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
Page 27
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
# TRIPS Standard
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Studies2 Avg3
Low
4
High
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
30 Intermodal Truck Terminal Employee 2
164.0
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
566 Cemetery Employee 1 13.57
Page 28
Transportation System Development Charge March 2014
2/26/2014 Draft
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
# TRIPS Standard
ITE Code Land Use Unit 1 Studies2 Avg3
Low
4
High
5 Deviation6
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/Fraternal Organization 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
826 Specialty Retail Center (formerly Code 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
Page 29