HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-47 Set SDC CalulationsP, SO 7 ON NO. 96-//7
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND ADOPTING SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4.20.050 AND
4.20.040 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING
RESOLUTIONS 92-12, 92-13 and 96-11.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The "Report and Update of System Development Charges for the City of
Ashland, Oregon," authored by Moore Breithaupt & Associates of Salem, and Wes L.
Reynolds of Ashland, Oregon, and mended by the SDC committee is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit "A." It is adopted as the methodology for calculating Systems
Development Charges.
All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted
number of fixture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to
have a base number of fLxture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one
sink for calculation purposes. Up to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for
calculation purposes. Should a home have fewer than 16 fixture units, 16 fixture units shall
be used to calculate water and wastewater SDCs. For remodel permits no water or
wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the proposed increase in fixture units is two or less.
Fixture units shall be calculated from the table included in the resolution adopting systems
development charges which will be based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units.
Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial buildings will be charged on total
fixture units.
SECTION 2. The "Systems Development Charges Schedule," marked Exhibit "B" and
attached to this Resolution is adopted as the systems development charges. The Engineering
News Record April 1 value is 5550.
SECTION 3. Three copies of this Resolution and Exhibits "A" and "B" and shall be
maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection
during regular business hours.
SECTION 4. A review committee composed of two representatives of the homebuilders, two
representatives from the public at large, two members of the City Council, one member to
represent the Chamber of Commerce, and two ex-officio members of the City staff shall be
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. An ex-officio member
representing multi-family housing shall also be invited to attend. The committee shall review
the method of computing the system developmere charges and recommend such changes as
they deem necessary to the City Council.
SECTION 5. The Methodology described in Exhibit "A" shall be effective January 1, 1997.
The charges described in Exhibit "B" shall be effective January 1, 1997. The charges
described in Exhibit "C" shall be effective July 1, 1997.
SECTION 6. Resolutions 92-12, 92-13 and 96-11 are repealed upon the effective date of this
resolution.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.1M.090
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this __~day of ~(1996.
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
(g:\jill\vrg\aaehdc~r~o.nov)
WATER
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 1
Water Supply Physically, water supply includes all pipes, dam.% ditches, and reservoirs
above the water treatment plant.
The water supply SDC was changed from a reimbursement fee to an improvement fee.
Previously the fee was based on the unused capacity of Hosler Dam restated into current
dollars. The committee requested that this fee be changed to an improvement fee based on a
project list. The projects consist of purchasing TID water rights and updating the pipeline
from Hosler Dam to the water treatment plant. The amount allocated to growth using an
average cost approach is $708,440,000. That amount is then divided by the future
population of 21,130 winch is allocated into customer classes. This results in a per capita
cost of $173 for a single family construction and $103 for multifamily.
Changes made to the Water Supply SDC by the committee are as follows:
The reimbursement fee for Hosler Dam was replaced with an improvement fee based
on a project list.
The Medford/Talent intertie water line project was dropped.
The cost of the water line between Hosler Dam and the water treatment plant was
recalculated based on an incremental cost. Previously costs were allocated based on
the capacity of the pipe.
The water flow was updated. It is now three year average use data and is
consistently applied to all water SDCs.
The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996.
Changes made by City Council are as follows:
The cost of the waterline between Hosler Dam and the water treatment plant was
recalculated using a cost based on average capacity.
System Development Charge Resolution ~ Exhibit A Page 2
TABLE A1. City of AshLand Water System Development Charge
contents:
SectiemWeter $ul~Ly
Section Water Distribution
Section Water Treatment
Section CaLcuLation of water FaciLities SDC
Section I. water Suppiy
$?08,440
Improvement Fee
Improvement Projecta Attecated to Gro,th $708,z~,0
Assumed PofNtatlon 21,130
Usageby customer class
Residential SingLe Femity
MuLtifamily
Commercial
Tourist Accom
Total
CCF Percent Cost
lG4,630 51.10% 362,013
190,192 15.30% 108,391
360,504 29,00'4 205,t~8
57,000 4.~0% 32,588
1,242,325 100.00% 708,440
Assumed Grouth Populetion:
Per Capita SF Coat
Per Capita NF Coat
Growth Pop SF Pop. NF Pop.
3,145 2,096 1,048
$173
S103
Reimbursement Fee
None CaLcuLate
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 3
Water Distribution Physically, water distribution includes all pipes, reservoirs, fittings and
valves from the water treatment plant to the customer. Both an improvement fee on future
improvements and a reimbursement fee on the northwest Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline
are proposed.
Improvement fee This fee is an improvement fee that includes eligible capacity increasing
improvement projects identified on the project list found on pages 54-55 of the System
Development Charges report. The previous list (1991) included the Strawbeny Reservoir
and pipeline project which has been constructed. This portion was converted to a
reimbursement fee. Some of the projects will benefit residential customers only and are
identified separately. The amount allocated to growth using an average cost based on
capacity approach is $3,231,022. The cost is then divided by the future population of 21,130
and allocated into customer classes. This results in a per capita cost of $808 for a single
family consUuction and $484 for multifamily.
Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the committee are as follows:
The Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline was removed from the list and changed to a
reimbursement fee. Although this has been constructed it was financed over thne.
The cost of the waterlines was recalculated based on an incremental cost from a
capacity charge.
The water flow data was updated. It is now three year average use data and is
consistently applied to all water SDCs.
The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996.
Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the committee are as follows:
The cost of the water lines was recalculated based on an average capacity charge, not
on incremental costs.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 4
Section 2. Hater Distribution
Improvement Fee
Project Costs to Serve Growth Shown Below:
shared Growth
Ashland-Terrace to Sisklyou $ 480,000
Airport tJaterLi~ 136,920
Weter-N Hain to Van Ness 68,250
Stskiyou-AshLend to Faith ~45,750
Faith/Ctey-Siskiyou to Railroad 253,500
Railroad RiN-Ctey to Mitt-40% to do 0
Fork-with Pressure Relief Valve 20,880
Reader Res Rd-WTP to Crowson Res 713,333
Mountsin-E Main to Hersay 0
Vrights Cr/Gndv~-Ash Mine/City Lim 242,222
Asht Mine-city Limit to FOX 97,778
N Main-Fox to Granite 100,528
Nevada, Cambridge to Oak 75,167
Wlmer-Prim to Hersay 114,444
CLay-H~y 66 to E Main/PRY BeL 45% remains 22,222
E Main Hwy66- Mt Ave to Crowson 393,333
Distribution Total $3,064,328
Residential
Only
$ 0
0
0
0
0
52,250
0
0
114,Z~.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$166,694 $3,231,022
Usage Percentages
Percent Residential
Residontiat 51.10% 76.90%
Multifamily 15.30% 2L10%
Comercast 29.00%
Tourist Accom 4.~0%
Total 100.00% 100.00~
ALLocation of Costs to Customer CLasses
Cost
Residential $1,565,871
Hut t i fami ty ~68,842
Commercial 888,655
Tourist Accom 140,959
Total $3,064,328
Assumed Growth Population:
Res Only Per
Costs Total Capita
$128,188 $1,694,060 $808
38,506 507,3/4.9 $~,84
0 $88,655
0 140,959
S166,694 $3,231,022
Growth Pop SF Pop. MF Pop.
3,145 2,096 1,0/,8
Per Capita SF Residential Only Cost
Per Capita SF Shared Cost
Total SF Per Capita Distribution Cost
Per Capita MF Residential Only Cost
Per Capita NF Shared Cost
Total NF Per Capita Distribution Cost
$747
$808
$37
~47
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 5
Water Distribution Physically, water distribution includes all pipes, reservoirs, fittings and
valves from the water treatment plant to the customer. Both an improvement fee on future
improvements and a reimbursement fee on the northwest Strawberry Reservoir and pipeline
are propseal.
Water Reimbursement fee A new reimbursement fee was calculated on the cost of the NW
Reservoir/Strawberry Lane pipeline project. This was calculated by determining the equity
in the project including principal and interest paid to date. According to the 1991 SDC
report 527o of this project was allocated to residential growth. The growth portion was then
divided by current population to calculate a per capita single family and multifamily charge.
Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the COmmittee are as follows:
An entire new reimbursement SDC was calculated.
The water flow was corrected. We had updated the data for some of the SDCs but
not for all. It is now three year average use data and is consistently applied to all
water SDCs.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 6
Water Distribution Reinfouraemnt Fee
Strobetry Project (Equity + Interest) 646,588
Growth Portion of Strawberry ProJeot 52.69X 3~,0,687
CetcuLation of Per Capita Reimbursement Cost
1 Asaigment of VaLue to Type of User:
Customer Type X of Current Use Vatue of Unused Capacity
SingLe FernfLy 76.90X $261,988
MuLti famiLy 23.10% S78,699
Coeamrciet/lnd. 0.00% $0
Tourist Accam. O.OOX $0
Totat 100.00~
Reptocement Vet us of Current ty Unused Capacity 340,687
2 Single FamiLy Per Capita VaLue of Used Capacity
Single FamiLy Unused Capacity Vatue $261,988
SingLe FamiLy Residential PopuLation 12,590
Per capita SingLe Famity Capacity Vatue $21
Nuttifamfty Per Capita vetue of Used Capacity
Nuttifamity Uouaed Capacity VaLue $78,699
NuttifamiLy Reaidentiat Poputation 5,396
PeP Capita NF Capacity VaLue $15
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 7
Water Treatment SDC This is a reimbursement fee. The net value of the water treatment
plant was determined. This was calculated by using the total value plus interest paid, less
outstanding debt. Currently 64% of the plant is being used by residents. The value of
current used capacity was determined by multiplying the net value by 64 %. This was
divided by current population to calculate the total per capita single family and multifamily
charge.
Changes made to the Water Distribution SDC by the committee are as follows:
The water flow data was updated. It is now three year average use data and is
consistently applied to all water SDCs.
The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996.
Outstanding debt was recognized.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 8
Reimbursement Fee (Staff/ConsuLtant suggested methodology)
Unused Capacity in Water Treatment PLant
Design Capacity after 1~5 upgrede 10.00 NGD
Peak Day FLow - Average of test 6 years 6.38 NGD
Percent Used 6/+X
RepLacement Vetue of Water Treatment PLant
The 1~1 value of the WTP sea estimated at = $9,000,000
Updated to April 11~6 replacement value $10,190,000
Less debt owLstanding (3,67g,000)
PLus value of Interest paid 377,616
Net value of PLant 6,888,616
VaLue of CurrentLy Used Capacity $6,395,625
CaLcuLation of Per Capita Reimbursement Cost
1 Assignment of VaLue to Type of User:
Customr Type ~ of Current Use VaLue of Used
SingLe FamiLy 51.10X $2,266,164,
MuLtifamiLy 15.30~ $672~531
CometriaL/ind. 29.00X $1,276,731
Tourist Accom. 6.60X $202#19f
RepLacement VaLue of CurrentLy Used Capacity $6,395,625
2 SingLe FamiLy Per Capita VaLue of Used Capacity
SingLe FamiLy Used Capacity VaLue $2,266,16/,
single FamiLy Residential PopuLation 12,590
Per Capita SingLe FamiLy Capacity VaLue S17g
MuLti FamiLy Per Capita VaLue of Used Capacity
MuLti FamiLy Used Capacity VaLue $672,531
MuLti FamiLy Residential PopuLation 5,396
Per Capita MF Capacity VaLue S125
Capacity FuLL Capacity
3,520,082
1,053,~58
1,~7,698
316,876
$6,R88,616
Capacity
$3,520,082
19,671
S179
$1,053,958
8,630
S125
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 9
Section 4. CALCULATION OF IIATER FACILITIES SOC
SingLe FamiLy Unit t 2.3 persons per unit
SuppLy (%mprovement 2.3
Distribution (llllpPovefl~Bt Fee}
Distribution (ReimbJrseme~t Fee)
Treatment (Reimbursement Fee)
Total Per Unit
DNeLLtng Fixture Unit
.........................
S 397 S 24,81
1,859 116,19
48 3.00
412 25.75
S2,716 $169.75
Huttf FamiLy Unit i 1.8 persons per unit
SuppLy (Improvement 1.8 $ 186 $ 15.50
Distribution Clmprovement Fee) 871 72,60
Distribution (Reimbursement Fee) 26 2.19
Treatment (Reimbursement Fee) 223 18,75
Total Per Unit $1,308 $10~.0t~
Tourist Accommodation Room (IO&X of SF Per Capita)
Supply (Improvelent IO&X $ 18~ $~.60
Distribution (Improvement Fee) Nixed 7~4 158.80
Distribution (Reimbursement Fee) 0 0.00
Treatment (Reinfourst~ent Fee) 190 38,00
Total Per Unit $1,167 $233,39
Com~erctaL/Lndustrlat/Other Non-ResidentiaL
Based on 16 Fixture Units per EquivaLent SingLe
ExcLudes residential only portion of
CalcuLation per 18 Fixture Units
supply (improvement Fee)
Distribution (Improvement Fee)
Distribution (Reimbursement Fee)
Treatment (Reimbursement Fee)
Total For 16 Fixture Units
Amount For One Fixture Unit
FamiLy Unit
SingLe-FamiLy Adjust
RUnit VaLue Factor
S 397 0,89
1,718 0.89
0 0.89
612 0.89
$2,527
Non-residentiaL
16 F.U.
$ 353.33
1,528.93
0.00
S2,249
S140.56
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 10
Future Water SDC Considerations:
Consider basis of calculation that takes irrigation into consideration.
Consider a method where retainage of TID water on an individual basis is eligible for
a credit.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 11
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 12
WASTEWATER
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 13
Wastewater Treatment SDC
This fee was changed from a reimbursement fee based on the value of the existing plant to an
improvement fee based on the value of the approved WWTP improvement plan. The WWTP
project coordinator allocated portions of Phase H and Phase HI costs to growth. These costs
were then restated in todays dollars. The additional capacity was then allocated among the
three major customer classes based on flow factors. From this a per capita residential charge
was determined.
Changes made to the Wastewater Treatment SDC by the committee are as follows:
This was changed from a reimbursement charge based on what is curren~y in place to
a improvement fee based on the new WWTP upgrade. Included are new capacity and
cost numbers.
The flow by customer classes was updated to agree with the most recent ram model.
The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. The project was restated to current dollars
since a future ENR was used on the plan.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 14
TABLE 81. Ashland Wastewater System Development Charge
Contents:
section Wastewater Treatment Plant
Section Sewer Collection System
section Catcutatio~ of ~astewater Facilities $DC
SECTION 1, WASTEWATER TREATWENT PLANT
improvement Fee
Cost of WTP Upgrade (ENR 6,100)
COSt asseclated with Growth
Converted to todays ENR 5550
Flow HGI) (Dry weather)
Single Family Residents
Huttifemity Residents
Total populatio~
Single Family Units
NuLtifemily Units
Total Units
City FLow factors
Residential Users
Nuttifemiiy Users
Non-Residential Users
total
Flow attributed to Residential
FLow attributed to Multifamily
Fio~ attributedto NOn-Residential
Total
$27,086,000
4,466,000
$
Additional
Current DesiGn Capacity
1.72 2.17 0.45
12,590 15,266 2,676
5,395 6,734 1,339
17,985 22,000 4,015
5,474 6,638 1,16/*
2,998 3,7/,1 743
8,/*72 10,379 1,907
48.85X 1,98~,~61
19.71X 800,810
31.~4X 1,2T/,557
100.00~ 4,063,328
0.8~ 1.06 0.22
0.3/* 0.43 0.09
0.54 0.68 0.14
1.72 2.17 0.45
Per Capita Residential cost
Per Capita Multifamily
Single Family Unit Cost
Nultifamity Unit Cost
Reimbursement Fee
None calculated
$742.00
S598.00
$1,705.00
$1,078.00
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 15
Wastewater Collection SDC This SDC is an improvement fee. It was calculated by first
developing a list of future projects based on the Sewer Collection Study. These projects
were then reviewed and a growth percentage was determined. As noted on the opposite
page, some of these projects will serve only a residential COmm~lity while others will serve
both residents and businesses alike. The future population to be served was determined by
taking the design population of the WWTP upgrade less current population. The project
costs wer~ then divided by population to arrive at a per capita residential collection system
cost.
Changes made to the Wastewater Collection SDC by the committee are as follows:
The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996. The project was restated to current dollars
since a future ENR was used on the plan.
The flow by customer classes was updated to agree with the most recent rate model.
The design population was changed to the design population of the wastewater
treatment plant upgrade.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 16
SECTION 2. MASTE WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Ir~orove~t Fee
Projects
1. Upgrade Bear Creek Trunk Projects
2. AshLand Creek Pump Stetion - Phase Ill
3. Airport to E. Main + pump Station
PROJECTS AND PROJECT COSTS:
SaNer CoLLection Projects
Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Oak st to Puapstation
Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Nevada*Caro|-MT
Upgrade Bear Cr Trunk Mt to WaLker
Ash Cr Pmlp Sta-punlps/bLdg# Ph Ill
UpSride Bear Cr Trunk WaLker to CLay
Airport- Airport to E Main+Pump Station'
GroNth Population:
Cost to Serve Cost to Serve
Non Res. Growth RaBid. Growth
S 36,780 $ 59,220
59,960 1020060
19,240 32,760
130,610 222,390
65,510 77,490
65~120 110o880
Totets B355#200 36CI60800
6,015 design capacity
Per Capita Residential OnLy Cost
Per Capita MuLtifamiLy OnLy Cost
Per capita Non-Reei~mtiaL COSt
TotaL Per Capita CoLLection system co~t
Reimbursement Fee
None CaLcuLated
S151
$88
$239
63.00%
37,00%
IO0.OOX
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 17
SECTION 3. CALCULAT/ON OF WASTEtJATER FACILZHES SDC
Singie FamiLy Unit i 2.3 persons per unit
Treatment (Improvement Fee) $1,705
CoLLection (Improvement Fee) 550
TotaL Per Unit $2,255
HuLtifamiLy Unit i 1.8 persons per unit adjusted to non-peak use
Treatment (Improvement Fee) $1,078
CoLLection (improvement Fee) 430
TotaL Per Unit $1,508
Tourist Accomgodation Room (11;X of S,F. per Capita)
Treatment (improvement Fee) $ 879
CoLLection (Improvement Fee) 283
Total Per Unit $1,162
Conmerciat/zndustriaL/Other
Based on 16 Fixture Units per EquivaLent
SingLe Fomi/y Unit
CaLcuLation per 16 Fixture Units
(SingLe FamiLy Treatment Fee +
Non-residentiaL Costs of SF CoLLection Fee )
Treatment (Reimburselent Fee) $1,705
CoLLection (%mproveraent Fee) 203
Total Per 16 Fixture Units $1,908
Amount for one fixture unit $119.28
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 18
STORM DRAINS
System Developmere Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 19
Storm Drains This is an improvement fee. The steps taken to develop this fee follow. The
first step was to determine the square footage of impervious area that will result from full
development within the Ashland storm drainage/urban growth boundary. Second was the
calculation of total project costs and the allocation of costs to new growth. The project list
was developed in the Drainage Master Plan by KCM engineering in 1985. In 1991 the
Public Works department estimated that 15% of all of these projects accommodate new
growth. This fee is stated as 0.1325 per square foot of impervious area.
Changes made to the Storm Drain SDC by the committee are as follows:
Corrected the project costs. The engineering and overhead were included twice.
Modified the project list.
Straightened out the Walker drainage projects to align with CIP.
Removed portions of the Normal projects that were completed this spring.
Put in the latest estimate on the E Main - Railroad Track Projects (agrees with
current Bid Document)
Removed project H3 which has been completed.
The ENR was updated to April 1, 1996.
Future Considerations Include:
Prepare a new study that includes the latest standards and ecology. This should
include zones related to steepness of pnopeny, as well as the differences in costs
between dumping into a natural channel versus a pipe.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 20
TABLE C1. ASHLAND STO~N DRAIN SYSTEN DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Contents of Worksheet:
Section 1. AvaiLable Acres for Devetopment
Section E. Project Needs and Costs
Section 3, CaLcuLation of Improvemnt Fee
Note References to CIP Morksheet in Section
Section 1.
AVAILABLE ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT
STORM DRAIN ASSUMPTIONS
AvaiL. Acres AvaiL. Acres Coverage Impervious
ZONE w/in City Limits w/in UGB TotaL Acres Factor Area
~ 42.55 0,00 42.55 0.35 14.89
RR 208,00 128,10 336,10 0.35 117.6z~
R1-10 53.30 51.02 104.32 0.35 36.51
R1-7.5 91.00 0.00 91.00 0.35 31.85
R1-5 76.73 83.36 160.09 0.35 56.03
R1-3.5 8.24 67.63 73.87 0.35 25.85
R2 10.53 21.46 31.99 0.70 22.39
R3 11.93 0.00 11.93 0.70 8.35
C1 24.66 0.00 24.66 0.80 19.73
Cl-D 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.80 0.32
E1 56.29 60.75 117.04 0.80 ~r5.63
M1 21.89 13.38 35.27 0.80 28.23
TOTAL 603.52 425.70 1,029.22 455.42
SUNMARY OF IMPERVZOUS AREA:
Land Use Category
SingLe FamiLy 282.78
MuLtifamiLy 30.74
CommerciaL/IndustriaL 161.~)
TotaL Acres 455.42
TotaL Acres times 43,560 sq 19,838,095
Notes:
1. AvaiLabLe Iand data from City of AshLand records.
2. KCN Engineering applied these three coverage factors to singLe-famiLy,
MuLtifamiLy and cometriaL Land uses. The product of the factor times
the avaiLabLe acres for each category of use yields the projected
impervious area upon build out.
(See: Drainage Master PLan, Nov. 1985, KCN engineering)
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 21
Section 2,
ASffiJkMD STORM DRAIN PROJECT NEEDS FOR SDC IMPROVEMENT FEE
Data from KCN Drainage Master Plan, July, 1985
Summary of Capital Cnata:
1985 Dollars based on ENR Zndex of ~600 Seattle ~/A.
Current Dollars based on ENR Index of 5550 (April 1, 1996)
Current Dollar
Basin Capital Cost
UaLker $ 3,8~0,100
Hospital 1,095,000
Laurel 1,396,000
Cambridge ~Ot.,O00
AShland Creek 1,~69,000
Railroad ~33,000
Mountain Ave 1,727,000
Beach 2,062,000
Urights Creek 28,000
E Main 441,000
Psrk 1,614,000
Clay 1,11~,000
Hamilton ~2,000
I'5 Basin 1,873,000
Project Capital Costs
$17,528,100
Notes:
* Ditching cost is included in Beech St. basin estimate.
** Capital Cast is KCN estimate in 1985 dollars; does include
engineering & design, contingencies or overheed.
These ere estimeted at 45X of Capital Cost.
section3.
Calculation of Cost per Impervious Square Ft of MeN Development
Total Cost of Projects $17,528,100
SDC Eligible Portion of Cost $2,629,215
(15~ of project cost attributable to
NeH Develoflent)
Cost per Impervious Square FOOt of NeN Development
Calculation
formula of SDC - S2,629,215
Improverent Fee = 0.1325
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 22
TRANSPORTATION
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 23
Trgn~portation Fee The City of Ashland Transportation SDC consists of an improvement
fee. The steps in calculation and a sample calculation follow:
Attribute new travel in Miles per Day
{(9.55 daily trips X 2.2 mile trip length)/2 '100 % new trips)}
New Facility Miles required =
(10,505/5,500 vehicles (or persons) per mile daily
: .00191 new family miles
Construction Costs =
.00191 X 160,670.40 Cost per facility mile
= $306.88
Changes made to the Transportation SDC by the committee are as follows:
The features or facilities for travel were defined as being travel lanes and bike lanes
only, which is shown as option C on the following page. The consultant had
recommended that traffic signals, transit stops, curbs, gutters and sidewalks be
included, as found on the following page.
Future considerations include:
Develop a Master Tran.~portation Financing plan.
Consider basing the SDCs on a transportation corridor system.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 24
TABLE D-2. ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION $DC FACILITY COSTS
LANE AND FRONTAGE NILE COST ESTINATES FOR ALL NODES IN STREET SECT/OR OF ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR STREETS
+ .................. + ...................... + ........................ + ............... +
~TRANSPORTATIOR }FACILITY ~ CONTRACT UNIT COSTS i FRONTAGE
~MOOE(S) ~FEATURE { PER LANE OR FRONTAGE ~CONT PER NiLE
~ i ~ optiof~ A
AUTO/BUS/TRUCK TRAVEL LANES $19.63 PER LINEAL FOOT(l) $103#6z,6.40 $103o&~6.40
BICYCLE BIKE LANES $10,80 PER LINEAL FOOT(2) $57,024,00 57,024,00
PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKS S21.60 PER LINEAL FOOT(3) $114,0/,8.00 114,048.00
ALL ON STREET CURB AND GUTTER $3.40 PER LINEAL FOOT(/,) $/+/,,352,00 44,352.00
TRANSIT USERS NAJON & URBAN STOPS FOUR PER NILE(S) $59,1&0.00 0.00
ALL ON STREET TRAFFIC SIGNALS ORE-HALF PER RILE(6) $~5,000.00 0.00
AUTO/BUS/TRUCK TURN LANES SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUOED 0,00
PEDESTRIAN STREET TREES SPECiFiC TO PROJECT(7) NOT iNCLUDED 0.00
ALL ON STREET ILLUNINATION SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUDED 0,00
ALL ON STREET RIGHT-OF°WAY SPECIFIC TO PROJECT(7) NOT INCLUDED 0.00
TOTAL CITY COST OF FACILITIES PER LANE AND FRONTAGE NILE $/,43,230.40 S319,070.40
NOTES AND ASSUNPTIONS AS OF OCTOBER 19~5:ALLN(X)95.~Q2
COST ESTINATES FRON ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTNENT AND ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT.
COSTS ARE INCLUSIVE OF RDNZNiSTRATIVE AND ENGINEERING COSTS AT 20 PERCENT,
1. TRAVEL LANES ARE 12 FEET WIDE (NAXINUN CAPACITY).
2. BICYCLE LANES ARE 6 FEET WIDE (NAXIItN CAPACITY),
3. SIDEWALKS ARE 6 FEET WIDE (UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH),
4, CURB AND BUTTER TO CITY STANDARDS,
5, THANSIT STOP COSTS CONSIST OF $48,000 FOR A NAJOR STOP (ONE PER FRONT NILE),
$9,200 FOR AN URBAN STOP WITH SHELTER (ONE PER FRONT NILE), AND $980 FOR AN URBAN
STOP WITH BENCH (TWO PER FRONT NILE) THE COST iS $48,000+9,E00+$980+$980 = $59,160,
6, TRAFFIC SIGNALS ESTINATED AT S130,000 INCLUOING INSTALLATION, FRONTAGE NILE
COST ZS $&5,000 SINCE THERE ARE TWO FRONTAGE NILES IN A FACILITY (ON CENTERLINE) NILE,
7. FACILITY FEATURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST ESTIRATE SUCH AS STREET TREES AND ILLUNINATION ARE
FEATURES ELIGIBLE FOR $DC SPENDING BUT SITE SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN PROJECTS NEAN THESE FEATURES
RAY NOT APPLY IN ALL CASES SO THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED,
FRONTAGES INCLUDE FROB CENTERLINE TO EDGE OF RIGHT-OF-HAY.
Option C
$103,646.40
57,024.00
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$160,670.40
AttributabLe ne~ travel in mites per day
(9.55 daily trips ends 2.2 mile Trip Length )/2 100 X ne, trips
= 10,505 new travel miles
new FaciLity mites require -
10,505/5500 vehicles ( or persorm) per mite deity
= ,00191 he, facility mites
OptionA Options Option C
Construction Costs S~3,230.40 $319,070.40 S160,670.40
tans mites 0,00191 0,00191 0,00191
Cost per SFR $846.57 $~09.42 $306.88
Percent of Option A IO0,OOX 71.~,C 36,25X
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 25
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 26
PARKS
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 27
Parks Parks are classified into three major categories: Large Active Parks, Passive Parks
and Small active (neighborhood parks). The general methodology for calculating appropriate
levels of Park and Recreation Facility SDCs follows these steps:
1. Identify the amount of park acreage Coy type of park) currently in use and owned by the
city; divide by current population served to derive current standard of use.
2. Calculate amount of acreage required to provide equivalent acres of developed parks to
projected population.
3. Quantify the amount of park development required to serve the projected population at
the current standard of use.
4. Apply current avenge per acre acquisition and development costs to number of acres
required to meet needs for projected additional population. Derive total cost of
acquisition and development while excluding land costs paid by food and beverage tax
from reimbursement fees.
5. Divide total cost by projected additional population to obtain per capita cost. Reduce per
capita cost by "tourist accommodation room factor.
6. Multiply adjusted per capita cost times avenge number of persons per single-family unit,
multifamily unit, and tourist accommodation room to obtain each SDC.
7. Recalculate new SDC amounts as in steps 1-6 as park acreage is added to the system.
* "Tourist Room Accommodation Room Factor" = Number of Persons in all Tourist
Accommodation Rooms/(Total Resident Population + Number of Persons in all Tourist
Accommodation Rooms)
Changes made to the Parks SDC are as follows:
Established a current land inventory.
Updated the land acreage allocation on Mountain Ave. park to agree with the newly
established allocation between large active and passive parks.
The active parks basis was adjusted based on consumer price index and not to the price
inflation of land within Ashland.
Changes made by the City Counc'~ are as follows:
Future large and small active park land was valued based on recent purchases adjusted by
the increased assessed value of land in Ashland.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 28
CITY OF ASHLAND
PARK NEEDS pROJECTIONS - (revised Nay f&)
To Accoem)date PopuLation Projected for Year 2000
Contents:
sectfonPopuLationAssumptions
SectionActive Parks - Standards and Costs
SectionPassive Parks - Standards end Costs
SectionCaLcuLation of Parks and Recreation Imp. SO(
SECTION 1.
POPULATION A$SUI4PTIONS:
Projected Year 2005 PopaLe
tess: Base PopuLation
Projected Growth to 2005
Persons per Unit StngLe-F
Persons per Unit HuLti-Fa
No, of T~Jrtst Accomodatio
Avg. Persons per Occupied
NO. of Persons in Tourstat
TouristAcconemdatfon Fa
19,995 (Comprehensive PLan)
(17,700)(3 yr. population avg.)
2,295 persons
2.3
1.8
1,06/, (1if5 data)
2.00 (seasonaL peak)
2,128 (seasonaL peek)
10.73X
(Peak No. of Persons in aLL Tourist Accomodation Ravens
Percentage of Resident PopuLation including Tourist Roo
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 29
SECT/ON 2.
ACHVE PARKS
LARGE
CurrentLy Provided:
Ratios/Standards
Acres to
33.07 Acres in use
24.04 acres (City Use -SchooLs/S
57.11 acres in Use including H Rt
3.23 acres/I,000 in use
1.87 acres/I,000 current City St
2.50 acres/I,000 - CORO.. PLan G
4.29 (at Lesser of Current
or Comp. PLan Standard)
Cost to Meet Growth Requirement: I Current Standard
Acquisition Cost - $~0,500 (cost/acre=S250000
DeveLopment Cost - S343,000 (cost/acPe=$80,O00
Total COSt $433,500
Cost Per Acre $101,100
Cost Per Capita $189 Improvement Fee
21100
ACTIVE PARKS
SI4ALL
17.85 acres (City ONned)
22.86 acres (City Use - SchooLs)
40.71 acres in USe
Ratios/Standards
Acres to
2.30 acres/loO00 in use
1.01 acres/I,000 current City St
1.75 acres/I,000 - CoeXo.. PLan G
2.31 (at Lesser of Current
or CORD. PLan Standard)
Cost to Meet Groleth Requirement: t Current Standard
Acquisition Cost - $224,000 (cost/acre= 46,000 ~800
DeveLopment Cost - $138,~00 (cost/ecre--$&O,O00
TotaL Cost $362,900
Cost Per Acre $156,800
Cost Per Capita $158 Improvement Fee
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 30
SECTION 3,
LARGE PASSIVE PARKS Regional and Open Space Parks
102.36
CurrentLy Provided: 501.15 acres (City ONned)
Less: ExcLuded Acres (250.57) Percent
TotaL $DC eligible 250.57 acres
50.OOX
Ratios/Standards
28.31 acres/I,000 in use
14.16 acres/I,000 SDC ELigibLe
10.00 acres/I,000 - romp.. PLan G
Acres to
Excess A
PopuLati
22.~5 (at Lesser of Current
or Coep. PLan Standard)
?3.57
7,357 (at Comp.. PLan Standard)
Cost of Land 2,309,920
Less amount oNed (1,085,891)
PLu~ Interest Paid 85,658
Basis for reimbursement 1,309,&87
Cost of SDC ELigibLe Land end DeveLopment
Lend RepLacement Cost $1,309,687 (cost/acre = $2,613)
DeveLopment RepLacement $367,900 (cost/acre - $5,000)
Total Cost Requir $1,677,587
Cost Per Acre
Cost Per Capita $228 Reimbursement Fee
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 3 1
SECTION 4.
CALCULATION OF TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION II4PROVENENT SDC
Park Type
Large Active
TotaL Coat $/,33,500
Adjusted Per Capita Cost $169
Cost Per Unit:
SingLe FamiLy S388
HuLtifamiLy $304
Touriat Accommodation Room $337
Small Active
TotaL Cost S362,900
Per Capita Cost $158
Cost Per Unit:
SingLe FamiLy $364
MuLtifamiLy $285
Tourtat Accomnodation Roam $0
Large Passive
TotaL Cost $1,677,587
Adjusted Per Capita Cost $204
Cost Per Unit:
SingLe FamiLy $468
MuLtifamiLy $366
Tourist Accoenodation Room $407
TOTAL CALCULATED PARK AND RECREATION SDC - BY TYPE
Improvement Fee
SingLe FamiLy $752
Nuttifamity $588
Tourist AccoamodatjonRoom $337
Reimbursement Fee
SingLe FamiLy $/+68
Nuttifamity $3(~
Tourist Accomaodetion Room $407
Total Park and Recreation SDC
SingLe FamiLy $1,220
HuLtifamity $954
Tourist Accomq~dation Room $7/,/,
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit A Page 32
F_~a~ibit B
Page 2
TRANSPORTATION Systems Development Charges
LAND USE ITE AVERAGE UNIT ADJUSTED ~ ADJUSTED NEg CONST COST
DESCRIPTION CQOE DALLY NEASURENENT TRIP OF NEU TRIP LANE PER UNIT
TRIPS LENGTH TRIPS RATE RILES 141,400.00
General Light Industrial 110 6.97 1,000 sf gfa 1,90 100.00 6,967 0.00120 170.16
General Heavy Industrial 120 1.50 1,000 sf gf8 1.90 100.00 1.496 0.00026 36.54
Ranufacturing 140 3.85 1,000 8f gfa 1.90 100.00 3.8~6 0.00066 93.93
barehousing 150 4.88 1,000 sf gfe 1.90 100.00 4.882 0.00084 119.24
Nini-~arehouse 151 2.61 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 2.606 0.00045 63.65
Utilities 170 0.79 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 0.792 0.00016 19.36
Single Family Detached Re 210 lO.O& per unit 2.0~ 100.00 10.062 0.00191 270.07
Apartment/Attached Res. 220 6.10 per unit 2.0~ 100.00 6.103 0.00116 163.81
Residential Condominit~n 2]0 5.59 per unit 2.0~ 100.00 5.587 0.00106 149.96
MobiLe Home Park 240 4.81 par unit 2.0~ 100.00 4.814 0.00091 129.21
Retirement Community 250 3.30 per unit 1.90 100.00 3.300 0.00057 80.60
Co~regate Care FaciLity 252 2.15 par unit 1.~0 100.00 2.145 0.00037 52.39
Hotel 310 8.70 per unit 1.~0 75.00 6.528 0.00113 159.44
Hotel 320 10.19 per unit I.~0 ?5.00 7.642 0.00132 18~.64
GoLf Course 430 8.33 per acre 1.~0 100.00 8.325 0.00144 203.33
Theater t~3 1.76 per seat 1.90 100.00 1.762 0.00030 43.03
Tennis CLub 491 32.93 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 32.933 0.00569 80434
Racquet CLub 4{75 15.94 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 100.00 15.939 0.00275 389.29
University/CoLLege 550 2.41 per student 1.~) 100.00 2.410 0.00042 58.86
Church/Synagogue 560 ?.6? 1,000 sf gfa 1.~) 100.00 7.669 0.00132 187.30
Nursing Home 620 2.60 per bed 1.~0 100.00 2.597 0.000/+5 63.43
CLinic 630 2~.7~ 1,000 sf gfe 1.~0 100.00 2L789 0.00411 581.01
General Office BuiLding 710
Less than 50,000 sf gfe 24.39 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 25.00 6.098 0.00105 148.92
50,000 to ~,~ sf gfa 16.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 25.00 4.078 0.00070 ~.59
100,000 to 149,~ ef gfa 13.72 1,000 sf gfe 1.90 25.00 3.430 0.00059 8~.77
over 150,000 sf gfa 12.40 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 25.00 3.100 0.00054 75.71
Medical Office BuiLding 720 34.17 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 25.00 8.543 0.00148 208.6/,
U.S. Post office T~2 86.78 1.000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 86.780 0.014~ 2,119.48
BuiLding Hatefiats and Lm 812 30.56 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 15.27~ 0.00264 37'~.16
specialty Retail 814 40.68 1,000 af gfa 1.90 50.00 20.338 0.00351 496.72
Discount Store 815 71.16 1.000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 35.580 0.00615 868.~
Hard~are/Peint Store 816 51.29 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 50.00 25.645 0.00443 626.33
Nursery Or Garden Center 817 ~&.17 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 18.08~ 0.00312 441.&4
Shopping Center 820
Less than 10,000 sf gfa 166.35 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 8L175 0.01437 2,031.~
10,000 to 49,~sf gfa ~4.71 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 50.00 4?.355 0.00818 1,156.58
50,000 to ~,~ sf gfa 74.31 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 37.155 0.00642 907.46
100,000 to 1~,~ sf gfa 58.~ 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 29.~65 0.00509 719.6/,
over 200,000 sf gfa 48.31 1,000 sf gfe 1.90 50.00 24.155 0.00~17 589.95
Low Turnever Restaurant 831 95.62 1,000 sf gfs 1.90 50.00 47.810 0.00826 1,167.69
High Turnever Restaurant 8]2 200.90 1,000 sf gfe 1.90 50.00 100.~8 0.01755 2.453.29
Car SaLes 841 47.52 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 50.00 23.762 0.00410 58034
Service Station 84~ 133.00 Pumps 1.~0 50.00 66.500 0.01149 1.624.17
Car Uash 8/,6 108.00 Wash StaLls 1.90 50.00 54.000 0.00~3 1,318.88
Supermarket 850 125.50 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 62.?50 0.0108/, 1,532.58
VhoLesate Narket 860 6.73 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 3.~4 0.00058 82.16
Furniture Store 8~0 4.35 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 2.173 0.00038 53.06
waLk-ln Bank,S&L,Credit U 911 189.~5 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 50.00 94.976 0.01640 2,319.65
Drive-in Oank. S&L,Credit 912 291.11 1,000 sf gfa 1.~0 50.00 145.554 0.02514 3,554.~6
Insurance BuiLding 930 11.45 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 50.00 5.724 0.000~ 139.80
sf gfa - square foot gross floor area
* Institute of Traneportatinn Engineers, Trip Generatinn, 4th Edition
** Trip Lengths are derived frm national averages and then reduced by two-thirds to account for the compact
geography of AshLand.
*** Trip Rates ere adjusted by mULtipLying unedjusted netienat average Trip Rates time Percentage Neu Trips.
**** [Adjusted Trip Rate x Trip Length]/[2 * 5,500 vehicles per Lane mile per day]
***** NaN Lane Hires X $141,400.00 per Land mile i ENR = 5550
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit B Page 34
Exhibit B
Page 3
City of Ashland Deparunent of Public Works
Fees, CIP, ENR, CIP Information
Fixture Units to be used for Water and Sanitary Sewer Calculations
Description of Fixture Fixture Units Fixture Units
Private Use Public Use
Bar Sink
Bathtub w or w/o Shower
Bidet
Dental Unit or Cuspidor
Drink Fountain-Each head
Laundry Tub/Clotheswasher
(per pair of faucets)
Lavatory
Lavatory (dental)
Shower (each head)
Sittic (bar)
Sink or Dishwasher
Sink-Flushing Rim-Clinic
Sink-Washup,per set faucets
Sinlc-Washup,circular spray
Urinal (.pedestal or similar)
Urinal (stall)
Urinal (wall)
Urinal (flush tank)
Water Closet-Flush Tank
Water Closet-
(flushometer valve)
0.375 inch, 9.5 millimeter
0.:5 inch, 12.7 millimeter
0.75 inch, 19.1 millimeter
1.00 inch, 25.4 millimeter
1 2
2 4
2 4
1
1 2
2 4
1 2
1 1
2 4
1 2
2 4
10
2
4
10
5
5
3
3 5
10
1 2
2 4
3 6
6 10
All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted number of
fixture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to have a base number of
fkxture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one sink for calculation purposes. Up
to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for calculation purposes. Should a home have
fewer than 16 f~xture units, 16 f~xture units shall be used to calculate water and wastewater SDCs. For
remodel permits, no water or wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the proposed increase in fncture units
is two or less. Fixture units shall be calculated from the table included in the resolution adopting
systems development charges which will be based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units.
Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial buildings will be charged on total fkxture units.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit B Page 35
TRANSPORTATION Systems Development Charges
Exhibit C
Page 2
LAND USE ITE AVERAGE UNIT ADJUSTED X ADJUSTED NEW CONST COST
General Light IndustriaI 110 6.97 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 6.96? 0.00120 193.35
General Heavy Industrial 120 1.50 1,000 sf gfa 1.90 100.00 1.496 0.00026 41.52
Ranufacturing 140 3.85 1,000 sf gfa
Warehousing 150 4.88 1.000 sf gfa
14ini-Warehouse 151 2.61 1,000 af gfa
UtiLities 170 0.79 1,000 sf gfa
SingLe FamiLy Detached Re 210 10.06 par unit
Apartment/Attached Res. 220 6.10 par unit
Residential Corldominjum 230 5.59 par unit
Nobit, Home Park 240 4.81 par unit
Retirement Cotanunity 250 3.30 par unit
Congregate care FaciLity 252 2.15 par unit
Hotel 310 8.70 par unit
NoteL 320 10.19 par unit
GoLf Course 430 8.33 par acre
Theater /~3 1.78 par seat
Tennis Club 491 32.93 1,000 sf gfa
Racquet CLub 493 15.94 1,000 sf gfa
University/CoLLege 550 2,41 par student
Church/Synagogue 560 ?,67 1,000 sf gfa
Nursing Home 620 2.60 par bed
clinic 6S0 23.79 1,000 sf gfa
General Office BuiLding 710
Less than 50,000 sf gfa 24.39 1,000 sf gfa
50,000 to99,999 sf gfa 16.31 1,000 sf gfa
100,000 to 149,999sf gfa 13.72 1,000 sf gfa
over 150,000 sf gfa 12.40 1,000 sf gfa
Nedicat Office BuiLding 720 34.17 1,000 sf gfa
U.S. Post office ?32 86.78 1,000 sf gfa
BuiLding Haterfats and Lm 812 3036 1.000 sf gfa
specialty Retail 814 40.68 1,000 sf gfa
Discount Store 815 71.16 1,000 sf gfa
HardHare/Paint Store 816 51.29 1,000 sf gfa
Nursery or Garden Center 817 36.17 1,000 sf gfa
Shopping Center 820
Less than 10,000 sf gfa 166.35 1,000 sf gfa
10,000 to 49,999 sf gfa 94.71 1,000 sf gfa
50,000 to 99,999 sf gfa 74.31 1,000 sf gfa
100,000 to 199,999 sf gfa 58.93 1,000 sf gfa
over 200,000 sf gfa 48.31 1,000 sf gfa
Lol4 Turnover Restaurant 831 95.62 1,000 sf gf8
High Turnover Restaurant ax2 200.90 1,000 sf gfa
Car Sates 8/,1 47.52 1,000 sf gfa
Service SLatfun 8~4 1~3.00 Pumps
Car Wash 8~6 108.00 Mash Starts
Sup,?market 850 125.50 1,000 sf gfa
~hotesale Narket 860 6.73 1,000 sf gfa
Furniture Store 890 4.35 1,000 sf gfe
watk-ln Bank,S&L,Credit U 911 189.95 1,000 sf gfa
Drive-in Bank,S&L,Credit 912 291.11 1,000 sf gfa
Insurance Building 9~0 11.45 1,000 sf gfa
1.90 100.00 3.846 0.00066 106.73
1.90 100.00 4.882 0.00084 135.49
1.90 100.00 2.606 0.000/,5 72.32
1.90 100.00 0.792 0.00014 21.98
2.09 100.00 10.062 0.00191 306.88
2.09 100.00 6.103 0.00116 186.13
2.09 100.00 5.587 0.00106 170.40
2.09 100.00 4.814 0.00091 146.82
1.90 100.00 3.300 0.00057 91.58
1.90 100.00 2.145 0.00037 59.53
1.90 ?5.00 6.528 0.00113 181.17
1.90 75.00 ?.6/,2 0.00132 212.08
1.90 100.00 8.325 0.00144 231.04
1.90 100.00 1.762 0.00030 48.90
1.90 100.00 32.933 0.00569 913.96
1.90 100.00 15.939 0.002?5 442.34
1.90 100.00 2.410 0.000/,2 66.88
1.90 100.00 ?.669 0.00132 212.83
1.90 100.00 2.597 0.00045 72,07
1.90 100.00 23.789 0.00411 660.20
1.90 25.00 6.098 0.00105 169.22
1.90 25.00 4.078 0.00070 113,16
1.90 25.00 3.430 0.00059 95.19
1.90 25.00 3.100 0.00054 86.03
1.90 25.00 8.543 0.00148 237.07
1.90 100.00 86.780 0.01499 2,408.33
1.90 50.00 15.279 0.00264 424.01
1.90 50.00 20.3~8 0.00351 564.41
1.90 50.00 35.580 0.00615 987.42
1.90 50.00 25.645 O.OOZ~.3 711.69
1.90 50.00 18.08~ 0.00312 501.8~
1.90 50.00 83.175 0.01437 2,308.29
1.90 50.00 47.355 0.00818 1,314.20
1.90 50.00 37.155 0.00642 1,031.13
1.90 50.00 29.465 0.00509 817.72
1.90 50.00 24.155 0.00417 670.35
1.90 50.00 47.810 0.00826 1,326.83
1.90 50.00 100.448 0.01735 2,787.64
1.90 50.00 23.762 0.00410 659.43
1.90 50.00 66.500 0.01149 1,845.52
1.90 50.00 54.000 0.00933 1,498.62
1.90 50.00 62.?50 0.01084 1,741.45
1.90 50.00 3.364 0.00058 93.36
1.90 50.00 2.173 0.00038 60.29
1.90 50.00 94.9?6 0.01640 2,635.78
1.90 50.00 145.554 0.02514 4,039.44
1.90 50.00 5.724 0.00099 158.85
Sf gfa = square foot gross floor area
* Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th Edition
** Trip Lengths are derived from nationaL averages and then reduced by tNo-thirds to account for the compact
geography of AshLand.
*** Trip Rates are adjusted by ,~JttipLying unadjueted national average Trip Rates tim Percentage NeN Trips.
**** [Adjusted Trip Rate x Trip Length]/[2 * 5,500 vehicles par tanemiL, par day]
***** NaN Lane RiLes x $160,670.40 par tan, mile 8 ENR= 5550
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit C Page 37
Exhibit C
Page 3
City of Ashland Department of Public Works
Fees, CIP, ENR, C1P Information
Fixture Units to be used for Water and Sanitary Sewer Calculations
Description of Fixture Fixture Units Fixture Units
Private Use Public Use
Bar Sink
Bathtub w or w/o Shower
Bidet
Dental Unit or Cuspidor
Drink Fountain-Each head
Laundry Tub/Clotheswasber
(per pair of faucets)
Lavatory
Lavatory (dental)
Shower (each head)
Sink (bar)
Sink or Dishwasher
Sink-Flushing Rim-Clinic
Sink-Washup,per set faucets
Sink-Washup,circular spray
Urinal (pedestal or similar)
Urinal (stall)
Urinal (wall)
Urinal (flush tank)
Water Closet-Flush Tank
Water Closet-
(~ushometer valve)
0.375 inch, 9.5 millimeter
0.5 inch, 12.7 millimeter
0.75 inch, 19.1 millimeter
1.00 inch, 25.4 millimeter
1 2
2 4
2 4
1
1 2
2 4
1 2
1 1
2 4
1 2
2 4
10
2
4
10
5
5
3
3 5
10
1 2
2 4
3 6
6 10
All water and wastewater Systems Development Charges will be computed on the adjusted number
of fLxture units within the development. All single family homes are assumed to have a base
number of fLxture units equal to 16. Double bathroom sinks shall count as one sink for calculation
purposes. Up to three outdoor hosebibs shall count for two hosebibs for calculation purposes.
Should a home have fewer than 16 fixture units, 16 fucture units shall be used to calculate water and
wastewater SDCs. For remodel permits, no water or wastewater SDCs shall be charged if the
proposed increase in fixture units is two or less. Fixture twits shall be calculated from the table
included in the resolution adopting systems development Charges which will be based upon the
Uniform Plumbing Code fixture units. Multifamily, tourist accommodations and commercial
buildings will be charged on total fLxture units.
System Development Charge Resolution - Exhibit C Page 38