HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.4.21 SDC Review Committee AgendaENGINEERING DIVISION Tel: 541/488-5587 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541/488-6006 Ashland OR 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.or.us
SDC Advisory Committee
MEETING #2 AGENDA
Wednesday, August 4th, 2021
4:00-6:00 p.m.
Meeting Held Virtually via Zoom
Webinar Link: https://zoom.us/j/91299934350
1. Approval of minutes June 2, 2021
2. Single Family Water Consumption Analysis Update
3. SDC Project List Growth Share
a. Preliminary Growth Calculations (water and storm) b. SDC Fee Phasing Options 4. Next Steps (meetings) a. Proposed September 1st, 2021 (4-6pm virtually). Attachments: 1. Meeting Minutes 6-2-2021
2. Committee Presentation 6-2-2021
3. Water and Storm Drain Project List with SDC 4. Revised Single Family Water Consumption Analysis
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee DRAFT MINUTES June 2, 2021
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee June 26, 2018 Page 1 of 4
CALL TO ORDER Fleury meeting began at 4:05 PM Members Present: George Kramer, Gil Livni, David Runkel, Bob Kendrick, Gary Blake, and Shaun Moran Members Absent: Steve Russo Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Brandon Goldman Consultant Present: Deb Galardi, Galardi Rothstein Group Guests: None 1. Introductions Each individual member introduces themselves to the group. Deb Galardi introduces herself and provides the group with some background on previous work done for the City, including the recently updated Transportation System Charge (SDC) updates completed in 2019. 2. Project Background and Objectives Fleury provides group brief background about project and the objectives for the Committee moving forward. The Water and Storm Drain Master Plans were recently updated generating new “project lists” of which some provide additional capacity for the system to support growth. In addition, the Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) intertie master plan was recently completed as well, adding more water projects to the master plan list. The master plans forecast system demand based on growth within the community over the 20-year planning period. Some of the defined capital projects within the project list have growth allocation shares assigned to them. This percentage share is the estimated cost of the project required to meet the projected growth requirements within the planning period. Updating System Development Charges (SDCs) when master plans are updated with new project lists represents an optimal time to review and update SDCs. The charge and objective of the SDC Committee is to review the project lists, review the methodology calculations for updating the SDCs, review the existing municipal code requirements and make recommendations on changes and updates to the City Council for formal adoption. 3. Water and Storm Drain SDC Fundamentals Galardi goes through PowerPoint presentation on SDC fundamentals and covers specific details for the water and storm drain SDCs. The water SDCs were last updated in 2016 and the Storm Drain SDCs were last updated in the early 2000’s. System Development Charges represent a onetime charge at the time of connection or upon issuance of a building permit. SDCs are regulated by Oregon Revised Statues (223.297-223.314) and Ashland Municipal Code. SDC updates are comprised of updating the “project list” (% eligible), developing the SDC methodology which includes growth cost basis and the basis for charging different development types and finally updating the fee levels with any associating phasing. All elements can be modified in conjunction or separately as needed.
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee DRAFT MINUTES June 2, 2021
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee June 26, 2018 Page 2 of 4
SDC cost components are broken into three categories: existing facilities, future improvements and compliance costs. Existing facility SDCs equate prior capital construction costs incurred by the City that still have growth capacity associated with them. Future improvements equate to updating capital project lists that provide capacity for future growth. Compliances costs are associating with ensuring compliance of the program itself and can include updating the SDC methodology, updating master plans and compliance accounting. Moran questions the compliance cost and how it reconciles with the Ashland Municipal Code section 4.20.060 Authorized Expenditures. Galardi explains that reasonable estimates associated with accounting and administration costs can be used in development of the compliance cost with administrative fees usually ranging from the 3 to 8% generally. Kramer questions if future growth (capacity) is directly associated with population growth, demand growth or both. Galardi explains that it is generally a combination of both as there are cases where non-residential uses can have a significant impact on demand, while single family residential growth can provide a smaller impact on demand as plumbing fixtures become more efficient. Kendrick questions the SDC growth calculation and how it is associated with low growth and high growth. Galardi explains that the growth percentage is calculated over the complete planning period itself which provides a system average cost over the planning period itself. Fleury explains this is part of the reason why it is good business practice to update your master plans on a 7-10 year timestep along with the SDCs as you can account for changes in growth, demand and associated project list. Galardi and Fleury provide high level details on the project lists for the water and storm drain systems including the new information brought forth from development of the TAP Master Plan. More details on the project list and growth share will be presented at the next meeting. Projects are prioritized themselves into
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee DRAFT MINUTES June 2, 2021
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee June 26, 2018 Page 3 of 4
high (0-5) years, medium (5-10 years) and low (10-20 years+). Livni questions if long term maintenance is accounted for in the project costs themselves. Fleury states the costs do not include long term maintenance, but this is generally vetted in the engineering and alternative analysis phase of a project along with green house gas (GHG) emissions that can be generated in order to minimize the impacts of both. Galardi also informs group that SDCs cannot be used for operations and maintenance costs. SDC assessment options and scaling factors along with the current SDC schedule are discussed. The assessment options need to provide a balance equity among customer classes and be defensible. Typical scaling factors for water include water meter size and fixture units and impervious area for stormwater. Currently the City uses habitable space for residential water ($/sq-ft) SDCs, meter size for commercial space and impervious area for stormwater. Moran questions the commercial SDC costs for Ashland in comparison to Medford and what could represent the difference between them. Galardi explains there is huge variability across jurisdictions on how the fees are calculated as some do not adopt the full fee, there could be significant time lag between SDC updates, received grants can reduce impact and regional systems like Medford have greater economies of scale generally reducing costs. As part of the assessment options Galardi worked on a regression analysis looking at water use versus residential development size in order to recalibrate cost per square footage as demand has changed over the past few years and see if the theory holds that a bigger house provides more demand on the system. What the data shows is there is a general breakpoint around 3000-3500 sq-foot sizing that the water demand tapers off. Below the breakpoint water demand is linear. With this being the case, the rate structure could potentially be tiered with a rate for up to the 3000 square foot range and rate for habitable space above the 3000 square foot range. Kendrick questions if the analysis included lot size as well. Galardi explains that lot size was used in the analysis but based on the complete data set house size and water use provide better alignment within the analysis. Livni questions if the analysis included multi-family developments (high density). Galardi explains the analysis only included single family residence types. Livni states as a community we need to encourage higher density development and having an analysis include multi-family development square footage comparison to water use would be beneficial. Staff will work with Galardi to obtain multi-family data and run the same analysis. This information will be brought before the group at the next meeting. 4. SDC Advisory Committee Issues As part of the Committees process for reviewing and recommending SDC updates, the Committee will also address policies related to affordable and low income house incentives and deferrals along with the potential to recommend step adjustments over a period of time to the SDC rate structure. The SDCs can be designed to promote and/or not dis-incentivize certain activities and development types.
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee DRAFT MINUTES June 2, 2021
Ashland System Development Charge Review Committee June 26, 2018 Page 4 of 4
Runkel asks about other potential incentives outside of affordable housing. Galardi explains there are other incentives. Examples include development in a transit corridor could be incentivized with respect to transportation SDCs or a policy could be set to incentive economic development that brings a high number of jobs to the community.
5. Next Steps Galardi and staff explain the next steps of the process include continued evaluation of the master plans and associated project list to determine appropriate capacity shares. The next meetings with the Committee will cover the growth costs, design of the SDC and how to weave affordable housing into the design process. The scope of work also includes the necessary steps through the City Council to formally adopt the updated SDCs after the Committee makes functional recommendations on changes. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday August 4th, 2021 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting Adjourned 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Fleury PE Director of Public Works Meeting Video
WATER AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
SDC COMMITTEE MEETING #1JUNE 2, 2021
DISCUSSION ITEMS
•Background
•Committee Issues
–Project lists
–SDC assessment options
–Affordable housing
•Next Steps
OVERVIEW OF SDCS
PROJECT BACKGROUND
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
•One-time charge:
–At time of connection to water system*
–When building permit is issued
•Oregon Revised Statutes 223.297-223.314
–Determination of System Development Charges (SDCs)
–Authorized expenditures
–Adoption procedures
–Developer credits
–Administrative requirements
*SDC-eligible systems include water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, transportation and parks
SDCS IN ASHLAND
•Most recent SDC update (transportation in 2019)
–Included some modification to SDC policies to address
affordable housing.
•Existing SDCs developed:
–Water (2016)
–Storm Drain (prior to 2016)
•Master plan updates completed in 2020
–Included preliminary estimation of growth costs
WATER & STORM SDC PROJECT
OBJECTIVES
•Update SDCs to reflect Master
Plans
–Existing system capacity
–Projections of growth
–Capital improvements
•Build on SDC policy framework
from transportation SDC update
(2019)
–Affordable housing incentives.
–Basis for charging different
development types.
SDC PROGRAM ELEMENTS
•Project
description, costs
and timing
•Percent eligible
for improvement
SDC funding
Project List
•Growth cost basis
•Basis for charging
different
development types
SDC
Methodology •Updated fee levels
and any
recommended
phase-in
SDC Schedule
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (e.g., affordable housing)
Current meeting topic
BASIC SDC EQUATION
Growth Costs
($)
System-wide
Growth units*Cost ($) per
Unit
Estimated
Number of
Development
Units
SDC
*Units vary by system (e.g., water = peak water demand
and drainage = impervious area)
OVERVIEW OF SDCS
SDC COST COMPONENTS & PROJECT
LISTS
SDC COST COMPONENTS
Existing
Facilities
•Prior costs incurred
by the City
•Available capacity
for growth
Future
Improvements
•Projects included
on an adopted list
•Provide increased
capacity for growth
Compliance
Costs
•SDC methodology
•Master planning
•SDC accounting
ROLE OF PROJECT LIST
Cr
e
d
i
t
s
f
o
r
Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Improvements required as a
condition of development
approval and on Project List
Built offsite or onsite and
required to be built larger
than development needs
Credit for improvement
portion of SDC SDC
Project
List
Improvement
Fee
Development
Improvement
Fee
Expenditures
Credits for
Qualified
Public
Improvements
PROJECT LIST SUMMARY –WATER (CITY)
•Supply includes $37.8 m water treatment plant
•Most improvements benefit both existing customers and future growth
*Meeting packet has detailed project lists
2021 Developer 2021
Project Type/Description
Cost Funded City Cost
Supply $51,551,808 $51,551,808
New 0.85-MG Granite Zone Reservoir $2,989,470 $2,989,470
Pump Stations $2,646,749 $2,646,749
Annual Pipe Replacement $9,609,011 $9,609,011
Distribution Pipes $20,556,877 $4,007,491 $16,549,386
Transmission Pipes $9,579,116 $9,579,116
Operations and Maintenance Projects $2,994,808 $2,994,808
Recommended Studies $1,014,284 $1,014,284
Project List TOTAL $100,942,123 $4,007,491 $96,934,632
City of Ashland Water Master Plan Update, RH2 Engineering, Summer 2020
PROJECT LIST SUMMARY –WATER (TAP)
•Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Project costs updated to 2021 $
Project Type/Description Option 1 Option 2
Regional Booster (RBPS)$38,591 $38,591
Talent Booster (TBPS)
$565,418 $6,315
New Ashland Booster Pump Station [1]$0 $1,977,093
N. Phoenix Rd
$2,491,785 $2,491,785
Seismic Upgrades Segment 2 $249,178 $249,178
Adjust for Creel Road Pipe (HWY 99 to Talent Ave) [1]$0 -$81,620
ODOT Bridge Pipe Relocation $61,223 $61,223
Talent to Ashland Improvements
$2,144,563 $0
Ashland Dedicated Pipe [1]$0 $3,435,311
New IGA $17,542 $17,542
TAP Master Plan Updates (every 10 yrs)$157,873 $157,873
Telemetry Summary Report $5,262 $5,262
Total Estimated Costs $5,731,435 $8,358,553
Source: TAP Water Master Plan, RH2 Engineering, Summer 2020 (Appendix Table A-3)
2021 Project $
*Meeting packet has detailed project lists
Project Type/DescriptionOption 1 Option 2Regional Booster (RBPS)$38,591 $38,591Talent Booster (TBPS) $565,418 $6,315New Ashland Booster Pump Station [1]$0 $1,977,093N. Phoenix Rd $2,491,785 $2,491,785Seismic Upgrades Segment 2$249,178 $249,178Adjust for Creel Road Pipe (HWY 99 to Talent Ave) [1]$0 -$81,620ODOT Bridge Pipe Relocation$61,223 $61,223Talent to Ashland Improvements $2,144,563$0Ashland Dedicated Pipe [1]$0 $3,435,311New IGA $17,542 $17,542TAP Master Plan Updates (every 10 yrs)$157,873 $157,873Telemetry Summary Report $5,262 $5,262Total Estimated Costs $5,731,435 $8,358,553Source: TAP Water Master Plan, RH2 Engineering, Summer 2020 (Appendix Table A-3)2021 Project $
PROJECT LIST SUMMARY –DRAINAGE
•High (5 years), Medium (5-10 years)
•Many improvements address deficiencies or otherwise benefit existing customers
Project Time 2021
#Project Type/Description Period
Cost
1 Gresham Street at Beach Avenue High $411,522
2 Dewey Street at East Main Street High $259,964
3 Siskiyou Boulevard and University Way High $135,771
4 Morton Street from Pennsylvania Street to Iowa Street High $456,779
5 Liberty Street from Ashland Street to Iowa Street Medium $892,507
6 Holly Street and Harrison Street Medium $828,306
7 East Main Street at Emerick Street High $247,334
8 North Mountain Avenue Medium $197,867
9 3rd Street at B Street Medium $755,684
10 Manzanita Street at Almond Street Medium $580,972
11 Highway 66 at Oak Knoll Drive Medium $244,177
12 Dewey Street at East Main Street Medium $73,674
13 Van Ness Avenue at Water Street Medium $625,176
14 West Nevada Street east of Alameda Drive Medium $738,845
15 Cemetery Creek Basin Stormwater Quality Improvement High $7,894
Project List TOTAL $6,456,470
Source: City of Ashland Stormwater Drainage and Master Plan, Kennedy Jenks, November 2020
*Meeting packet has detailed project lists
SDC-ELIGIBILITY BASIS
•Water treatments plant,
reservoir, etc.
•<100% SDC eligibility if
replacing existing capacity,
provide redundancy, or
correct deficiency
New Facilities
•Distribution upsizing for fire
flow
•Regulatory-driven upgrades
Performance
Improvement •SDC methodology
development
•Annual accounting,
reporting, etc.
•Master planning
SDC Law
Compliance
SDCS & INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING
OVERVIEW OF SDCS
SDC ASSESSMENT OPTIONS
CONSIDERATIONS
•SDC is a charge for system capacity, not a usage
fee.
•Charge occurs before individual impact is
established or system use occurs.
•Intensity of use may change over time within same
class or type of use (business cycle, occupancy
changes, etc.)
BALANCING OBJECTIVES
Program
Administration
and Impacts
Equity &
Defensibility
Supported by local
or regional data
Based on system
impact
Standard application
Administrative costs
Redevelopment
Impacts
Information
collected in
permitting process
TYPICAL SCALING FACTORS
•Water meter size
•Plumbing fixture units
•Development characteristics
–Building size
–Equivalent dwelling units
–Impervious area (stormwater)
CURRENT SDC SCHEDULE -RESIDENTIAL
CURRENT SDC SCHEDULE -COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL WATER USE ANALYSIS
•Data supports relationship between house size water use
•Peak (summer) demand drives system of water system components
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Square Footage Range
Average Actual Use (Summer)
SLOPE IS NON-LINEAR
•Slope flattens as break-point extended
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(
S
u
m
m
e
r
)
Living Area (Square Feet)
Exploring Slope Changes for Larger Living Areas
3000 3500 3700 No BreakpointBreakpoints at(square feet):
HOUSE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
•Based on 5 years of permit data -% of permits > 3,000 sq. ft. = 6-8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 500 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 More
PR
O
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
S
A
M
P
L
E
SQUARE FOOTAGE, HIGH END OF EACH CATEGORY
HABITABLE SPACE (ALL PERMITTED DATA, 201 ACTUAL OR ESTIMATE VALUES)HABITABLE SQFT (ALL USE DATA, 6,896 ACTUAL VALUES)
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLES
•Water use uniform <3,000 sq. ft.
•Lower breakpoint = higher use for larger homes
Breakpoint (SQFT) 3,000 3,500 3,700
Base Use (gpd)72 71 72
Use (gpd) / SQ FT under
breakpoint 0.157 0.157 0.157
Use (gpd) / additional SQ
FT > breakpoint 0.099 0.074 0.05
House size Examples 2,500 4,100 6,000
Breakpoint 3000 465 652 840
Breakpoint 3500 464 665 806
Breakpoint 3700 465 673 791
SDC AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDING TOOLS
SDC POLICIES –AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CURRENT POLICY
•Exemptions
–Housing for low income or elderly persons which is
exempt from real property taxes under state law.
•Deferrals
–Qualified affordable housing deferred until the transfer
of ownership to an ineligible buyer occurs.
•Secured by a 2nd mortgage with interest not less than 5%.
•Terminates 30 years after issuance of certificate of occupancy if
requirements met during the entire period.
LOW-INCOME ELIGIBILITY
•Rental housing: persons with an income at or below 60
percent of the area median income (AMI) as
determined by the State Housing Council.
•Home ownership housing and lease to purchase home
ownership housing: persons with an income at or
below 80 percent of the AMI as determined by the
State Housing Council.
18.2.5.050 Affordable Housing Standards
(Ashland Land Use Ordinance)
DISCUSSION
NEXT STEPS
UPDATE PROCESS
•Incorporate information from Master Plans
•Meetings with SDC Advisory Committee (3-4)
–Growth costs
–SDC design
–Affordable housing
•Additional meetings with Council
–Work session
–Public hearing
Preliminary Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
Total Contributions Net
Category/Improvement Cost1 /Reductions Cost %$
TAP
TAP Intertie $1,298,500 $1,298,500 11.2%$145,200
TAP Pump Station $92,262 $92,262 11.2%$10,317
TAP Waterline $5,348,184 $5,348,184 11.2%$598,040
Subtotal $6,738,946 $0 $6,738,946 $753,556
Supply
Hosler Dam/Reeder Reservoir $1,216,683 $1,216,683 16.6%$201,622
Main Feeder/Raw Water Line $5,499,760 $5,499,760 16.6%$911,389
TID Intertie $577,000 $577,000 16.6%$95,617
Tie In $86,837 $86,837 16.6%$14,390
Water Rights $956,587 $956,587 11.2%$106,967
WTP $6,170,690 $1,500,000 $4,670,690 16.6%$774,000
Subtotal $14,507,558 $1,500,000 $13,007,558 $2,103,985
Pumping
Park Estate Pump Station $2,413,062 $2,413,062 11.1%$268,118
Pump Stations - Other $26,269 $26,269 $0 0.0%$0Hillview Pump Station $76,146 $76,146 $0 0.0%$0
Strawberry/Westwood $83,932 $83,932 15.8%$13,252Terrace St Pump Station $1,277,890 $1,277,890 16.6%$211,765
Subtotal $3,877,299 $102,415 $3,774,884 $493,135
Storage
AA Asling Reservoir $649,518 $649,518 25.0%$162,380
Crowson Reservoir $888,759 $888,759 18.6%$165,055
Granite Street Reservoir $99,000 $99,000 $0 0.0%$0
Reservoir - Other $29,199 $29,199 0.0%$0
Subtotal $1,666,476 $99,000 $1,567,476 $327,435
Distribution
PRV $92,179 $92,179 0.0%$0
Subdivision $9,469,664 $9,469,664 $0 0.0%$0
Water Mains $1,589,963 $1,589,963 0.0%$0
Water Lines $4,465,578 $780,793 $3,684,785 0.0%$0
Subtotal $15,617,384 $10,250,457 $5,366,927 $0
Other
Hydrants $40,433 $40,433 0%$0
Other $211,376 $211,376 0%$0
Growth Share
Service and Meters $76,989 $76,989 0%$0
Services $175,850 $175,850 0%$0
Subtotal $504,647 $0 $504,647 $0
Blank
Blank $287,549
Subtotal $287,549 $0 $0 $0
Total $43,199,860 $11,951,872 $30,960,439 $3,678,111
Table 2
City of Ashland
TAP Water Master Plan Costs by Phase for Ashland
Project Type/Description Phase Option 1 Option 2 %Option 1 Option 2
Regional Booster (RBPS)
Replace (1) 50 hp pump with 125 hp 1 $26,312 $26,312 11.2%$2,942 $2,942
Programming Updates 1 $12,279 $12,279 11.2%$1,373 $1,373
Subtotal RBPS $38,591 $38,591 $4,315 $4,315
Talent Booster (TBPS)
Generator Upgrade $166,433 $0 11.2%$18,611 $0
Additional Hydraulic Analysis 1 $6,315 $6,315 11.2%$706 $706
Seismic Upgrades 2 $33,287 $0 11.2%$3,722 $0
Expansion 1 $359,384 $0 11.2%$40,187 $0
Subtotal TBPS $565,418 $6,315 $63,226 $706
New Ashland Booster Pump Station [1]$0 $2,157,594 11.2%$0 $241,265
Adjust for Previous Improvements to TBPS [5]$0 -$180,501 11.2%$0 -$20,184
N. Phoenix Rd
MWC Study 1 $18,069 $18,069 11.2%$2,021 $2,021
Master Meter Connection 1 $117,450 $117,450 11.2%$13,133 $13,133
Pipe Improvements to 2030 1 $1,948,987 $1,948,987 11.2%$217,938 $217,938
Pipe Improvements through Buildout 3 $407,279 $407,279 11.2%$45,542 $45,542
Total N. Phoenix Rd Supply Project $2,491,785 $2,491,785 $278,634 $278,634
Seismic Upgrades Segment 2 3 $249,178 $249,178 11.2%$27,863 $27,863
Adjust for Creel Road Pipe (HWY 99 to Talent Ave) [1]$0 -$81,620 11.2%$0 -$9,127
ODOT Bridge Pipe Relocation 1 $61,223 $61,223 11.2%$6,846 $6,846
Talent to Ashland Improvements
Pipe along Irrigation Canal 1 $706,612 $0 11.2%$79,014 $0
Talent BPS Suction and Discharge 2 $652,879 $0 11.2%$73,006 $0
Hwy 99 (Anjou Club to Rapp)3 $785,072 $0 11.2%$87,788 $0
Subtotal Talent to Ashland Improvements $2,144,563 $0 $239,807 $0
Ashland Dedicated Pipe [1]$0 $3,435,311 11.2%$0 $384,140
New IGA 1 $17,542 $17,542 0.0%$0 $0
TAP Master Plan Updates (every 10 yrs)1-3 $157,873 $157,873 0.0%$0 $0
Telemetry Summary Report 1 $5,262 $5,262 0.0%$0 $0
Total Estimated Costs $5,731,435 $8,358,553 $620,692 $914,459
Source: TAP Water Master Plan, RH2 Engineering, Summer 2020 (Appendix Table A-3)
[1] Dedicated facilities for the City of Ashland. Not a TAP asset.
Phase 1 = Next 10 Years
Phase 2 = 10-20 Years
Phase 3 = 20-40 Years
2021 Project $SDC-Eligible
Preliminary
Table 1
City of Ashland
Water SDC Project List
Project Time 2021 Developer 2021
#Project Type/Description Period
Cost Funded City Cost %$
Supply
S-1 Dam Safety Improvements Short $5,124,806 $5,124,806 16.6%$849,254
S-2 Ashland (TID) Canal Piping Project Short $3,736,837 $3,736,837 16.6%$619,247
S-3 East and West Forks Transmission Line Rehabilitation Short $2,266,659 $2,266,659 16.6%$375,618
S-4 Reeder Reservoir Intake Repairs Short $140,398 $140,398 0.0%$0
S-5 Reeder Reservoir Sediment Removal Short/Med/Long $1,793,682 $1,793,682 16.6%$297,239
S-6 Water Treatment Plant1 Short $40,700,000 $40,700,000 16.6%$6,744,571
S-7 WTP Backwash Recovery System Medium $2,989,470 $2,989,470 16.6%$495,398
S-8 TAP System Improvements Short $53,383 $53,383 11.2%$5,969
S-9 Deferred/Ancillary WTP Improvements Medium $2,669,170 $2,669,170 16.6%$442,320
Supply Subtotal $59,474,405 $0 $59,474,405 16.5%$9,829,616
Storage
ST-1 New 0.85-MG Granite Zone Reservoir Medium $2,989,470 $2,989,470 20.9%$624,175
Storage Subtotal $2,989,470 $0 $2,989,470 20.9%$624,175
Pump Stations
PS-1 TAP BPS Backup Power Short $437,744 $437,744 11.2%$48,949
PS-2 Hillview BPS Replacement $1,601,502 $1,601,502 17.8%$285,762
PS-3 Granite to WTP BPS Medium $607,503 $607,503 7.6%$46,170
Pump Station Subtotal $2,646,749 $0 $2,646,749 14.4%$380,881
Pipes
AP-1 to
AP-25 Annual Pipe Replacement Short/Med/Long $9,609,011 $9,609,011 16.6%$1,592,350
Distribution Pipe Projects
P-1 Oak St Waterline (WWTP to E Nevada St)Short $427,067 $427,067 16.6%$70,771
P-2 Grandview Drive Waterline (Ditch Road to Sunnyview St)Short $382,225 $382,225 16.6%$63,340
P-3 Morton to Ivy Street New Pipe Connection Short $707,864 $707,864 16.6%$117,303
P-4 Parker St Pipe Replacement (Walker Ave to Lit Way)Short $258,376 $258,376 16.6%$42,817
P-5 Siskiyou Blvd (Beach St to Wightman St)Short $531,699 $531,699 16.6%$88,110
P-6
Ashland Loop Rd (Park Estates PS to Morton St) and Morton St
(Ashland Loop Rd to Waterline Rd)Short $1,241,698 $1,241,698 16.6%$205,767
P-7 Maple St and Maple Way (N Main to end of Maple Way)Short $366,210 $366,210 16.6%$60,686
P-8 Harmony Lane, Lit Way, Ray Lane Line Upsizing Short $521,022 $521,022 16.6%$86,341
P-9 A St Pipe Replacement (1st St to 8th St)Short $1,080,480 $1,080,480 16.6%$179,051
P-10 Tolman Creek Rd (Morada to Siskiyou Blvd)Short $582,947 $582,947 16.6%$96,603
P-11
Normal Ave Pipe Replacement (400 north of Siskiyou Blvd to
Homes Ave)Medium $746,300 $746,300 16.6%$123,673
P-12 Interstate 5 Crossing (Ashland St)Medium $533,834 $533,834 16.6%$88,464
P-13
Rezoning Study, Reconnection of Pipes and Pipe Upsizing in
Elkader St, Ivy Lane, Emma St, and South Mountain Avenue. Medium $576,541 $576,541 16.6%$95,541
P-14 AHS Property Pipe Replacement (Fire hydrant in school property)Medium $187,910 $187,910 16.6%$31,139
P-15 Pinecrest Ter Pipe Replacement (Walker Ave to Starlight Pl)Medium $747,367 $747,367 16.6%$123,849
P-15 Ponderosa Dr (Pinecrest Ter to west end)Medium $251,970 $251,970 16.6%$41,755
P-15 Timberline Ter (Ponderosa Dr to south end)Medium $232,752 $232,752 16.6%$38,570
P-15
Hiawatha Pl Pipe Replacement (Walker Ave to end of Hiawatha
Pl)Medium $117,443 $117,443 16.6%$19,462
P-16 Nutley and Scenic Dr (Granite St to Grandview St)Medium $705,728 $705,728 16.6%$116,949
P-17 Oak Knoll Dr (Ashland St to Twin Pines Creek Drive and Loop)Medium $1,568,404 $1,568,404 16.6%$259,907
P-18 Vista St Pipe Replacement (Fork St to Hillcrest St)Medium $222,075 $222,075 16.6%$36,801
P-18
Vista St Pipe Replacement (Intersection of Vista St, Hillcrest St,
and Glenview Dr)Medium $6,406 $6,406 16.6%$1,062
P-18 Meade St Pipe Replacement (Vista St/Hillcrest St to Iowa St)Medium $352,330 $352,330 16.6%$58,386
P-19
Black Oak Way Pipe Replacement (Tolman Creek Rd to Bellview
Ave)Medium $109,970 $109,970 16.6%$18,224
P-20
Lakota Way extension to Ashland Mine Rd; Extend piping to new
Granite Reservoir Medium $1,043,111 $521,556 $521,556 0.0%$0
P-21 Schofield St extension to Fox St Medium $148,406 $148,406 16.6%$24,593P-22 Fox St extension to Lakota Way Medium $232,752 $232,752 16.6%$38,570
P-23
Highway 66 Pipe Replacement (Oak Knoll Dr to Dead Indian
Memorial Rd)Medium $1,029,232 $1,029,232 16.6%$170,558
P-24 Dead Indian Mem Rd (Hwy 66 to Airport) and extended to Airport Long $1,226,750 $1,226,750 16.6%$203,290
P-25 E Nevada St (Helman St to Oak St)Long $320,300 $320,300 16.6%$53,078
P-26 WWTP loop (part 1 of 2)Long $370,481 $370,481 16.6%$61,394
P-27 WWTP loop (part 2 of 2)Long $241,293 $241,293 16.6%$39,986
P-28 Crowson Rd north of I-5 to serve new Welcome Center $1,393,307 $1,393,307 $0 0.0%$0P-29 Wimer St extension to Ashland Mine Rd $730,285 $730,285 $0 0.0%$0
SDC-Eligible
Preliminary
Table 1
City of Ashland
Water SDC Project List
Project Time 2021 Developer 2021
#Project Type/Description Period
Cost Funded City Cost %$SDC-Eligible
Preliminary
P-30 Normal Ave (Homes St to Creek Dr to serve new development)$412,120 $412,120 $0 0.0%$0
P-31 Creek Dr (west to Normal Ave between taxlots)$380,090 $380,090 $0 0.0%$0
P-32 Normal Ave (Creek Dr to E Main St to serve new development)$570,135 $570,135 $0 0.0%$0
Transmission Pipe Projects
T-1
Walker Ave Pipe Replacement (Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland Middle
School)Short $623,518 $623,518 16.6%$103,326
T-2 Granite Street Pipe Replacement (New WTP to Strawberry Ln)Medium $2,385,170 $2,385,170 16.6%$395,257
T-3 East Main Street (Siskiyou Blvd to Walker)Long $2,501,546 $2,501,546 16.6%$414,542
T-4 East Main Street (Walker Road to East of I-5)Long $2,819,711 $2,819,711 16.6%$467,266
T-5 New Pipe East Main St to Ashland St Long $1,249,171 $1,249,171 16.6%$207,006
Pipes Subtotal $39,745,004 $4,007,491 $35,737,512 16.3%$5,835,787
Operations and MaintenanceOM-1 Tolman Creek Road PRV Station $80,075 $80,075 17.8%$14,288
OM-2 Hydrant Replacement Program Short/Med $2,391,576 $2,391,576 0.0%$0OM-3 Telemetry Upgrades Short $85,413 $85,413 16.6%$14,154
OM-4 AMI/AMR Evaluation $64,060 $64,060 0.0%$0OM-5 Pipe Connection/PRV Adjustments from Rezone Studies Med $213,534 $213,534 0.0%$0
OM-6 Clay St and Tolman Creek Road PRV Stations Med $160,150 $160,150 18.6%$29,742
OM-7 Pressure Relief Valves TBD $0 $0
Operations and Maintenance Subtotal $2,994,808 $0 $2,994,808 1.9%$58,185
Recommended Studies
RS-1 TAP Water Master Plan & Future Updates Short/Med/Long $160,150 $160,150 $0
RS-2 Risk and Resilience Assessment and Emergency Response Plan Short $160,150 $160,150 $0
RS-3 Rezoning Study $53,383 $53,383 $0
RS-4 Water Master Plan Updates Med/Long $640,601 $640,601 $0
Recommended Studies Subtotal $1,014,284 $0 $1,014,284 0.0%$0
Project List TOTAL $108,864,720 $4,007,491 $104,857,229 16.0%$16,728,644
Source: City of Ashland Water Master Plan Update, RH2 Engineering, Summer 2020
1 Cost has been updated from Master Plan based on revised plant sizing requirements.
Table 3
City of Ashland
Storm SDC Project List
Project Time 2021
#Project Type/Description Period
Cost %$
1 Gresham Street at Beach Avenue High $411,522 11.8%$48,395
2 Dewey Street at East Main Street High $259,964 11.8%$30,572
3 Siskiyou Boulevard and University Way High $135,771 11.8%$15,967
4 Morton Street from Pennsylvania Street to Iowa Street High $456,779 11.8%$53,717
5 Liberty Street from Ashland Street to Iowa Street Medium $892,507 11.8%$104,959
6 Holly Street and Harrison Street Medium $828,306 11.8%$97,409
7 East Main Street at Emerick Street High $247,334 11.8%$29,086
8 North Mountain Avenue Medium $197,867 11.8%$23,269
9 3rd Street at B Street Medium $755,684 11.8%$88,868
10 Manzanita Street at Almond Street Medium $580,972 11.8%$68,322
11 Highway 66 at Oak Knoll Drive Medium $244,177 11.8%$28,715
12 Dewey Street at East Main Street Medium $73,674 11.8%$8,664
13 Van Ness Avenue at Water Street Medium $625,176 11.8%$73,521
14 West Nevada Street east of Alameda Drive Medium $738,845 11.8%$86,888
15 Cemetery Creek Basin Stormwater Quality Improvement High $7,894 11.8%$928
Project List TOTAL $6,456,470 $759,281
Source: City of Ashland Stormwater Drainage and Master Plan, Kennedy Jenks, November 2020
High = Within 5 Years
Medium = 5-10 Years
SDC-Eligible
1
MEMORANDUM
PREPARED FOR: Scott Fleury, Public Works Director, City of Ashland
PREPARED BY: Deb Galardi, Galardi Rothstein Group
Kristi Currans, Clifton-Currans, LLC
SUBJECT: Revised Single-Family Residential Water Use Analysis
DATE: July 27, 2021
Introduction
The City of Ashland (City) currently assesses water System Development Charges (SDCs) for single-family
residential homes based on house size, as measured by habitable area (excluding garage and other non-
living areas). The current charge for the water SDCs is $2.6069 for each square foot (SQ FT) of habitable
space created by the development. SDCs for all other uses are charged based on water meter size.
At the last meeting of the SDC Committee, the preliminary analysis of single-family residential water was
presented for purposes of determining the relationship between summer (peak) water use and house
size. Subsequent to that analysis, the City provided an updated data set of single-family households that
addressed prior data inconsistencies. The revised analysis is summarized below, along with follow-up
information on base and acreage variables. Information on the distribution of house sizes based on five
years of building permit data that is included in the memo is unchanged from the prior version but
included again for completeness. Information on water use and building size for multifamily
developments will be provided at the final SDC Committee meeting in September.
Updated Regression Analysis
The technical team conducted a regression analysis to determine the functional relationship between
summer water use (a consideration in water system facility sizing) and both the size of the lot and size of
dwelling unit (in SQ FT).
While our analysis supports a relationship between amount of summer water use and house size, we
found the variation to be reduced (functional relationship stronger) when two adjustments are made to
the regression equation:
1. Base use quantity is added – Our analysis indicates adding a base use of 96-97 gallons per day
(gpd) as a constant for all development improves the regression results.
2. Breakpoint added above 3,000 SQ FT - Our analysis shows a non-linear relationship between
living area and average gpd at a point somewhere above 2,500 SQ. Ft. In other words, as the
living area of a house increases, there is a point in which larger households use less water per
SQ FT, and the slope of that relationship decreases. Based on the statistical analysis, the point at
which the slope changes fall between roughly 2,500 and 3,700 SQ FT).
Figure 1 shows the updated base use and slopes of the regression based on three breakpoint examples.
2
Figure 1: Revised Single-Family Regression
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(
S
u
m
m
e
r
)
Living Area (Square Feet)
Exploring Slope Changes for Larger Living Areas
3000 3500 3700 No BreakpointBreakpoints at (square feet):
3
Based on the revised regression analysis, the key variables for estimating water use based on house size
are provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Water use variables for three upper breakpoints
Breakpoint (SQFT) 3000 3500 3700
Base Use (gpd) 96 97 96
+ Use (gpd) / SQ FT under breakpoint 0.126 0.126 0.127
+ Use (gpd) / additional SQ FT > breakpoint 0.118 0.088 0.067
Gpd = gallons per day
Examples of what this would look like in practice for a breakpoint at 3,500 SQ FT are provided below
based on the following equation:
Total Use = Base Use (97 gpd) +Living area (<3,500sqft) * 0.126 + Living area (>=3,500sqft) * 0.088
Example 1: For a house that is 2,500 SQ FT, the calculation would be:
• Total Use = 97 + 2500 SQ FT * 0.126 + 0 SQ FT * 0.088 = 412 in gallons per day
Example 2: For a house that is 4,100 SQ FT, the calculation would be:
• Total Use = 97 + 3500 SQ FT * 0.126 + 600 SQ FT * 0.088 = 591 in gallons per day
Response to Committee Questions
Consider with and without the baseline value
The purpose of the baseline value is to account for the minimum level of use for even the smallest area.
Assuming all new residential properties intend to be occupied, even the smallest living areas will include
at least one individual. This baseline value is the average estimate for the smallest homes possible. A
baseline value of 97 gallons per day (as shown in Table 1), represents the minimum amount of use for
single-family residential properties, even if the living area is very small. This provides a strong practical
reasoning for including a baseline, minimum value.
However, we can also consider the influence of the baseline in our model regressions. In Table 2, we
compare the 3,500 SQ FT break-point model with (model A) and without (model B) the baseline value.
We then plot both models as they would be applied to living area (see Figure 2). While the (B) model
starts at zero, the initial slope for houses less than 3,500 SQ FT (in this example) increase at a steeper
rate than those in model (A) with the baseline. After the breakpoint at 3,500 SQ FT, the slopes are
similar for both models (similar charge per square foot), but because the initial slope was steeper for the
first 3,500 SQ FT, the larger home rates start at a higher value after 3,500 SQ FT.
4
Table 2 Comparing models with and without baseline values
Breakpoint (SQFT) (a) 3,500 SQFT with baseline (b) 3,500 SQFT break point without baseline Base Use (gpd) 97 0
+ Use (gpd) / SQ FT under breakpoint 0.126 0.174
+ Use (gpd) / additional SQ FT > breakpoint 0.088 0.088
These translate to the following two equations:
Total Use (with baseline) = Base Use (97) +Living area (<3,500sqft) * 0.126 + Living area (>=3,500sqft) *
0.088
Total Use (without baseline) =Living area (<3,500sqft) * 0.174 + Living area (>=3,500sqft) * 0.088
Figure 1: Comparing Baseline Model to Model without Baseline Value
Consider Models with and without Acreage
Based on our analysis, acreage was not a significant factor for controlling for variation in the regression
results, which means that the significance is largely dominated by the living area of the structure,
consistent with the City’s existing basis for charges.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(
S
u
m
m
e
r
)
Living Area (Square Feet)
Exploring the Role of the Baseline Value in Models (with 3,500 sq.ft.
breakpoint)
With Baseline Without Baseline
5
Adjusted R2 is a statistical metric that tells us how well the models are performing. This indicator tells us
how much variation in the data (e.g., noise) can be controlled with the variables we have at hand
(mainly living area and acreage).
In Table 3, two regressions are provided. First, we include a simple regression with living area only and a
break point held at 3,500 SQ FT. Second, we provide a similar regression, but we have added back
“acreage”. Statistically speaking, acreage is significantly related to summer water use (p-value < 0.05).
However, it contributes very little to improving model performance, which means that the significance is
largely dominated by the living area information. In other words, without acreage the living area
variables control for about 14.68% of the variation, and with acreage the collection of variations controls
for about 14.72% of the variation in water use. This difference (0.04%) is not a significant improvement
in performance.
Table 3 Comparing Summer Water Use Regression With/Without Acreage
(A) Without Acreage (B) With Acreage
Coefficients (Gal per day per variable-unit)
Significance (p-value) Coefficients (Gal per day per variable-unit)
Significance (p-value)
(Intercept) 97 <0.001 96 <0.001 Total SQ FT (in 1000s) 126 <0.001 124 <0.001 Above the Breakpoint (Dummy variable at 3,500 SQ FT)
186 <0.05 204 <0.05
Total SQ FT, above the Breakpoint (3,500 SQ FT) -38 <0.10 -44 <0.05
Slope above breakpoint 88 NA 80 NA
Acreage1 NA NA 17.7 <0.05
Adjusted R2 0.1468 0.1472
1For every acre, expect roughly 18 gallons per day more in summer water use.
Practically speaking, the size of the coefficient (or slope) estimated for acreage is small as well. In Figure
3, we predict multiple scenarios using the models from Table 3. The dotted green line represents the
model without acreage. The remaining lines represent predictions from model B in the above table,
each line estimated for a different sized plot (e.g., 0.25-, 0.5-, 1-, 5-acres).
6
Figure 2: Predicting Summer Water Use for Different Sized Plots
Keep in mind, the average acreage in our dataset—representing a large sample of Ashland properties—
is 0.26, 49% of the sample has 0.19 acres or less, 94% of the sample has 0.5 acres or less, and 99.9% of
our sample has less than 5 acres of land. From our previous examples, we can estimate the contribution
of acreage for a small house:
Example 1A: For a house that is 2,500 SQ FT without considering acreage (using regression A in Table 3),
the calculation would be:
Total Use = 97 + 2500 sqft * 0.126 + 0 sqft * 0.088 = 412 in gallons per day
Example 1B: For a house that is 2,500 SQ FT with a 0.5-acre plot (using regression B in Table 3), the
calculation would be:
Total Use = 96 + 2500 sqft * 0.124 + 0 sqft * 0.080 + 0.5 acres * 17.7 GPD Per Acre= 414.4 in gallons per
day
A 0.5-acre property would add an average of 8.9 gallons per day of summer water use (0.5 Acres * 17.7
GPD Per Acre). In the context of this example, the additional water use accounts for a 0.7% increase in
use.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
(
S
u
m
m
e
r
)
Living Area (Square Feet)
Exploring the Role of Acreage in Applications
3500 without Acreage 3500 with 1/4 Acre 3500 with 1/2 Acre
3500 with 1 Acre 3500 with 5 Acres
7
Using a larger house as an example, we find:
Example 2A: For a house that is 4,100 SQ FT (3,500 below the breakpoint and 600 sqft above), the
calculation would be (without considering acreage):
• Total Use = 97 + 3500 sqft * 0.126 + 600 sqft * 0.088 = 591 in gallons per day
Example 2A: For a house that is 4,100 SQ FT (3,500 below the breakpoint and 600 sqft above) and on a
0.5 acre plot, the calculation would be (with acreage from model B in 3):
• Total Use = 94 + 3500 sqft * 0.124 + 600 sqft * 0.080 * 0.5 acres * 17.7 GPD per Acre = 586 in
gallons per day
In this larger home example, acreage accounts for a 0.7% decrease. If we look again at the graphic
depiction of these models, we see that the slope for homes above 3,500 square feet decreases for the
models which include acreage (green dotted line compared with all other lines). If we leave out acreage,
the slope of larger homes accounts for the corresponding larger plots often included with larger homes.
To summarize: although acreage is statistically significant, it contributes very little to explaining summer
water use (compared with living area). Given the distribution of acreage in our sample, including
acreage in the calculations would account for an average change of <10 gallons per day of water use for
the majority of properties (94% of the sample with <0.5 acres at 17.7 gallons per day per acre). Based on
the statistical and practical implications of this analysis, we believe it is currently best to focus only on
the living area of the households.
Permit Data
The City provided permit data over five years to determine the distribution of house sizes recently
constructed. The permit data provides total house size (including unfinished spaces); however, of the
201 permits provided, 106 have address information that can be linked directly to water use data (and
corresponding habitable space estimates) from a larger dataset. Habitable space was estimated for the
other 95 homes, based on the average ratio of total SQ FT to habitable space of 1.3.
Figure 4 shows habitable space (both actual and estimated) for the permitting records (gray) and the
distribution of habitable space for the entire water use sample provided by the City (yellow). In both
cases, the data shows that a breakpoint at or above 3000 square feet would apply to only about 6-8% of
single-family dwellings.
8
Figure 4: Habitable Space from Permit Data
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 500 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 More
PR
O
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
S
A
M
P
L
E
SQUARE FOOTAGE, HIGH END OF EACH CATEGORY
HABITABLE SPACE (ALL PERMITTED DATA, 201 ACTUAL OR ESTIMATE VALUES)HABITABLE SQFT (ALL USE DATA, 6,896 ACTUAL VALUES)