HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-29 Pks Development ChgsNo. zoo0- q
A RESOLUTION REPEALING THE EXISTING WATER,
WASTEWATER, AND PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
SCHEDULES AND ADOPTING NEW WATER, WASTEWATER, AND
PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SCHEDULES,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.20 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The System Development Charges Schedule for Residential Water and
Wastewater Users, marked as Exhibit "A", is adopted. The new schedule is based upon
the gross habitable floor area of the residential uses. Commercial SDC's shall continue to
be based upon the number of plumbing fixture units.
SECTION 2. The System Development Charges Schedule for Parks, marked as Exhibit
"B", is adopted.
SECTION 3. The new System Development Charge Schedules shall become effective
January 1, 2001.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
B~b~ff~~Ciff~~rryRcOd ~2.C 4 ~a.n.d d; PASStEDeandrAe/~ D~O~ day of November, 2000.
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~(~ day of ~~ 2000.
EXHIBIT "A"
System Development Charges Schedule for Residential Water and
Wastewater Users
effective 01.01.01
0.1457 0.6826 0.01669 0.1551
TOtal
Water SDC Water SDC Water SDC Water SDC
House Size Supply Dist. Imp. Diet. Reimb. Treat. Water SDC
0-1000 $223 S1.043 S26 $237 $ ! 52;
1oo1-125o $289 $1.356 833 $308 Sl.986
SFR 1251-~500 $378 S1.773 S43 $403 S2 598
WATER ~5o1-175o $445 S2.086 S51 $474 $3.056
:7sl-~ooo $490 $2.295 S56 $521 53.362
~oo~-225o $534 S2.503 S61 $569 S3.657
2251-250o $623 S2.920 S71 $664 S4.278
2so~-~oco $712 S3.338 582 $758 54.89C
300~ooo $801 S3,755 S92 $853 55.501
4oo~-5o0o $891 S4.172 S102 $948 56.112
5oo~ooo S1.113 S5.215 $128 S1.185 S764C
~.sooo S1.336 S6.258 S153 Sl.422 S9.166
0.7263 0.2737
Total
Sewer SDC Sewer SDC Proposed
House Size Treatment Collection Sewer SDC
0-1ooo 8819 S309 :51.128
~oo'.-~25o 51.065 S401 SI.466
I ~'5'-1500 $1.393 S525 $1.918
~50~-~750 $1.639 S617 $2.256
~ 75 ~-2ooo $1.802 S679 $2.,~82
2001-2250 $1,966 5741 $2,707
225~-2500 $2.294 $864 $3.155
250~-3000 $2.622 $988 $3.610
:~00~-4000 $2.949 $1.111 $4,061
~001-S000 S3.277 $1.235 $4,512
5oo~-.3coo S4.096 S1.544 55.640
~,0ooo S4.916 S 1.852 S6.768
IMulti-Family Water/Wastewater S..DC's
{attached apartments and accessory residential un ts)
effective 01.01.01
0.1422 0.6638 0.0188 0.1752
Total
Apartment Water SDC Water SDC Water SDC Water SDC Proposed
Size Supply Dist. Imp. Dist. Reimb. Treat. Water sDC
o.soo S148 S690 $20 S 182
5o~-65o $168 S782 $22 S206 $1.178
s5~-soo S197 6920 $26 $243 $1 386
85'-moo 5246 $1.150 $33 $304 61,733
~ oo ~-~ 250 $266 S1.242 S35 6328 $ I. 871
1250-1500 $296 S 1.380 S39 $364 $2,0
~50~-~750 $355 $1,656 $47 6437 62.491
~75o S394 $1.840 $52 6486 S2.772
0.6816 0.3184
Total
Apartment Sewer SDC Sewer SDC Propoaed
Size Treatment Collection S~wer SDC
o-5oo $731 S341 · $1.072
50 ~ ~35o S828 S387 S 1.21 §
651-soo S974 6455 $1.42!
85~-moo $1.218 $569 $1.785
1001-1250 $1.315 $614 ' $1 929
~250-~ 50O S 1,461 $682 $2.144
~50~-1750 61.753 S819 62.572
> ~ .~,'~o $1.948 6910 $2,858
effective 01.01.01
0.1457 '0.6826 .0.01669 0.1551
Total '
Water SDC Water SDC Water SDC Water SDC Proposed.
Additions Supply Dist. Imp. Dist. Reimb. Treat. Water SDC
Per Sq. Ft S0 27 $1.26 S0.03 S0.29 $1.85
0.7263 0.2737
Total
Sewer SDC Sewer SDC Proposed
Additions Treatment Collection Sewer SDC
PerSq Ft S1.00 $037 $1,37
EXHIBIT "B"
System Development Charges Schedule for Parks
Previous Parks SDC New Parks SDC
(since 1997) (effective Jan.1, 2001)
Single Family $1,199 $1041.20
Multi-Family $938 $814.86
Tourist Room $748 $487.76
SDC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, August t6th, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT
Cathy Shaw, Carole Wheeldon, Larry Medinger, Dennis Sweet, and Darrell Boldt were present.
STAFF PRESENT
Director of Community Development John McLaughlin and Parks Director Ken Mickelsen were present.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m.
PRESENTATION OF PARKS SDC UPDATE
Parks Director Ken Mickelsen noted that the Parks Commission has already seen this presentation and
approved the proposal. He explained that prior to taking this to the Council, he wanted to present it to the
SDC Committee.
Consultant Wes Reynolds (AICP) explained his report on updating the Parks and Recreation SDC. He
noted that the figures in the chart would be slightly different due to adjustments for inflation, but stated
that the changes would be only a few dollars in each category.
Reynolds further explained that population projections had been used in reaching his conclusions. He
pointed out that currently, growth Js outpacing projections, and suggested that if growth continues the
projections may need to be reviewed. Reynolds pointed out that while the city's park land inventory has
increased, in terms of land owned by the city it is still not quite up to the standards identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that these shortfalls are addressed by leasing or shadng land from the
Ashland School Distdct and Southern Oregon University. He explained that these lands are taken into
account in the methodology used here.
It was noted that the population assumptions used here were based on the 1990 census. It was also
explained that residential growth is outpacing the growth in tourist accommodation rooms at this time.
Medinger questioned what difference it would make if the Lithia Springs Hotel renovation were completed
and the Hotel were in operation. Reynolds stated that this would affect the "Tourist Accommodation
Factor'' and briefly explained the methodology.
Wheeldon questioned whether Ashland's regional destination status is taken into consideration here. She
suggested that day tdps should also be considered as having an impact. Reynolds explained that
Ashland is the only city in the region now charging toudst rooms SDCs, and explained that this was based
on a known relationship be[ween tourism and impacts on the city's systems. He suggested that the
relationship between day trips and system impacts is a little less clear~ Reynolds also noted that in
addition to SDCs, property taxes and the food and beverage tax provide additional fonds for parks in
Ashland.
Director of Community Development John McLaughlin explained that other cities do not charge SDCs
against businesses, and rely instead on the SDCs from housing, which are paid when business owners
and employees build in the community.
Boldt questioned average growth factor used. Reynolds confirmed that the factor used in from the city's
Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin noted that over the last two years, growth has been higher than
projected. He explained that staff is waiting for new census figures before looking at revising these
numbers. He noted that recent growth has been closer to 3%, but emphasized that historically growth
has tended to even out and the projections have been accurate over the long-term. Reynolds also noted
that growth does not have a big impact on the Parks and Recreation SDC.
Wheeldon questioned the role of SDC charges in reaching an ideal amount of park land for the city.
Reynolds suggested that the city needs to buy more park land in the particular categories where
deficiencies have been identified, and referred the committee members to Table 4 of his report. Reynolds
emphasized that historically, the city has done very well in making acquisitions to address identified
needs.
Discussion of whether the city needs to purchase additional park lands, or if it could continue to rely on
leases from the schools or shared park lands. Shaw suggested that the leased and shared lands be
counted as part of the inventory. Reynolds explained that there are no assurances that many of these
lands will be available in perpetuity. He emphasized that in some cases, the city does not even have
agreements ten years down the road, and suggested that this would need to be addressed. He also
noted that in some cases, these lands could be needed to allow for the building of new facilities for the
schools.
W~eeldon emphasized that the schools are also using city park lands, and noted the North Mountain Park
fields as an example. She suggested that it was necessary to ensure that no one is being short-changed,
and questioned whether "double duty" lands could put the city's park land inventory farther in arrears in
the future if not addressed now.
Medinger questioned whether the School District's purchase of the Waldorf School property would make
additional playing fields available. He suggested that this site would be an excellent opportunity for
another partnership between the city and the schools. Medinger emphasized that he feels the sharing of
lands goes both ways, and suggested that there is a lot of room to cooperate. He noted that this should
be particularly true with new purchases to be made over the coming years.
Mickelsen noted that there is some difficulty because the School District has limited funding and limited
lands. He also noted that in the case of the Waldorf School property, the playing field potential is limited
by the location in the flood plain. He staled that he does not feel this is a solution for the city, and noted
that the Parks Department is currently looking at the Taylor property to expand YMCA Park on Clay Street
and a site across from North Mountain Park, as major parcels are what is needed currently.
Shaw suggested looking further at the Waldorf site, as the School District is already acquiring the
property. Shaw emphasized that this location is perfect for its proximity to several schools, and
suggested that playing fields are a good use of lands that are in the flood plain. Shaw reiterated her
belief that "cooperative lands" should be considered in park lands inventory, with obvious caveats kept in
mind.
Mickelsen stated that the lands shared with the School District are less of a concern that those shared
with SOU. He emphasized that the loss of use of the fields on SOU property at Iowa Street could create
big problems. Mickelsen emphasized that this is a more.fregile situation than with the School District. He
concluded that there needs to be a "hub" developed, rather than trying to meet parks needs one playing
field at a time.
Medinger questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan assumptions as true reflections of usage needs
for the city. Mickelsen stated that the city is definitely short in the category of large playing fields.
Reynolds noted that the City of Medford has considerably more lands per 1,000 citizens for parks than
Ashland, as do some other nearby cities, but he emphasized that Ashland is getting good use of its park
system through intensive management.
Reynolds noted that the dollar figures used reflect past experience in acquiring park lands, and suggested
that this may be a weakness given the rapidly changing value of land in Ashland. Reynolds also noted
that the new fees would represent a 12% reduction over previous SDCs. He stated that it is difficult to
quanti~ specifically because growth is such a variable.
Wheeldon questioned lessening SDC charged if there is a need for more lands, and also inquired as to
whether the changing market values of land was taken into consideration. Reynolds rei~rated that his
conclusions were based on past experiences, but recognized that two years down the line property could
cost more than projected. He emphasized that all that is calculated here is the "proportional share."
Reynolds also noted that there has been a history of some generous donation to the city in the past, and
stated that the Food and Beverage Tax income is a back up source of funds.
McLaughlin questioned whether there is a way to review this report where the current SDCs could remain
valid. Shaw concurred. Medinger explained that the methodology must be followed, and Reynolds
emphasized that these reductions are what the methodology yields. Medinger stated that if more park
land were purchased, it would have an effect on these figures. Reynolds concurred that the acquisition of
more acres to meat the city's needs would raise these numbers.
Sweet clarified that the figures would change if land were bought tomorrow, depending on the cost and
acreage, and confirmed that the methodology used is driving the changes here. Reynolds stated that the
City will do best if it meets the standards it has set.
Medinger and McLaughlin clarified that SDC monies cannot be saved, and can only be charged for
projects that have been identified over a time period. Reynolds agreed, and noted that while it would be
possible to alter the goals or the timeline, the methodology must be followed.
Reynolds concluded that SDCs are a fee, not a tax, and their use is laid out very specifically, with little
reom for discretionary spendingl Boldt concurred, noting that there has to be verifiable cost data.
Medinger noted that there is property in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which will be dedicated to
the City, on the east side of Bear Creek. He noted that this land is all in the floodplain but stated that it
will be donated.
PRESENTATION: MODIFICATION TO WATER AND WASTEWATER SDC CALCULATION METHOD
McLaughlin noted that this proposal is revenue neutral, and stated that it is only intended to address
single family residences. He stated that SDC calculation methodology for commemial and multi-family
projects will remain the same. He stated that Ashland is unique in using fixture units to calculate SDCs,
and stated that other municipalities base their fees almost exclusively on meter size. He further explained
that while Ashland's methodology is more refined in better addressing impacts, it is a nightmare from the
administration side.
McLaughlin explained that the proposed change would calculate SDCs based on square footage, and
noted that smaller homes would likely have fewer fixture units and thus would use less water and have
less of an impact. McLaughlin noted that he had reached this proposal by looking at nine years worth of
building permits based on square footage. He emphasized that he did not believe the last two years
would be significantly different from the sample period.
McLaughlin explained the proposed methodology, with incremental charges being based on square
footage. He noted that the figures are based on a sample, and represent fairly hard data. He
emphasized that the proposal would generate the same revenue.
McLaughlin noted that four potential options are included in his report, and explained that they differ
mainly in how the committee members make assumptions as to the impacts of larger houses.
McLaughlin noted that proposal three is the one he began with, and pointed out that the square footages
used are for habitable space and do not include garages.
McLaughlin explained that for additions, those beyond 200 square feet would be charged by the square
foot charge. He also stated that remodels would not pay SDCs. Shaw suggested that this is much more
fair, as it encourages upgrades and improvements of existing homes. McLaughlin also stated that he felt
it would expedite the permit process for remodels.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
McLaughlin asked the committee members to indicate their preference as to a specific proposal.
There was discussion that both house size and yard size could be factors in water usage. Medinger
noted that water use is also recovered through utility rates. Sweet recognized that property taxes provide
a disincentive to constructing larger houses.
Medinger and Shaw noted that they preferred option 4. Sweet indicated his preference for option 2.
Medinger suggested using 1650 square feet as a breaking point, as houses beyond that size get into
ostentation or larger families. He suggested that this would be a nice encouragement point. Shaw
stated that she believes that the current 1500 to 1750 square foot category is about right.
Sweet suggested that fees could be simplified, with one fee for those houses below 1250 square feet,
one fee for 1250-2200, and one for all those above 2200 square feet.
Medinger emphasized that thero is a need to encourage smaller houses. Wheeldon suggested that the
idea of three fee groups might work, with slightly different tiers.
McLaughlin suggested that consolidating the tiers raises issues of equity having to do with paying for
actual impacts. Medinger agreed that the range of steps McLaughlin had presented in the report was
appropriate.
Sweet suggested that option 3 had cleaner numbers. McLaughlin explained that option three addressed
the impact of larger homes and tdes to provide an incentive to build smaller homes. He also noted that
some members of the City Council may be concerned with attempts at social engineering.
Sweet suggested that the top step in option 4 is only a small increase over option 3, and reiterated that
the numbers in 3 are cleaner and flow better. Wheeldon noted that the fee differences are significant
toward the middle levels.
Medinger suggested adding categories for 5000-6000 square feet with a factor of 2.5 and for 6000
square feet and above with a factor of 3.0 to discourage larger houses. Shaw and Sweet concurred.
Medinger stated that these incentives will make a difference in the design process, by appealing to the
budget conscious.
Shaw summarized that the group preference was for option number 3, with the addition of three
categories. McLaughlin stated that he would add 4000-5000, 5000-6000 and 6000+ with the factors
discussed. Those present expressed a general consensus that this was {heir preference.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE
McLaughlin suggested that this could be put into ordinance form and brought back for one last meeting
before going' to Council. It was suggested that the document be prepared and distributed, with any
comments fo be forwarded to McLaughlin. Shaw suggested taking this before the Council at its next
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY
Derek Severson
City of Ashland, Planning Division
To: SDC Committee
From: John McLaughiin, Director of Community Development
CC:
Da~.' 08/16/00
Re: Additional Information on Water/Sewer SDC calculation methods
Options are presented for changing the method used for calculating the water and sewer SDC's,
switching from a "fixture unit" based system to one utilizing the gross habitable floor area of a structure.
Four options have been presented, giving the Committee several alternatives to consider.
In the following examples, a small home is one less than 1000 sq. ft. and a large home is ene in excess
of 4000 sq. ft. These examples show the complete range of proposed SDC's.
Range of Total SDC's (Water/Sewer Combined)
Small Home Large Home
(< 1000 sq. ft.) (> 4000 sq. ft.)
Proposal One $4,515 $ 7,702
Proposal Two $3,984 $ 8,234
Proposal Three $2,656 $10,624
Proposal Four $2,390 $11,155
Similar to fixture units, the methodology is based upon the assumption that the larger the home, the
greater the potential for water usage. The challenge for the Committee to assist staff in determining the
"range" to be utilized. The options presented provide opportunities for the committee to consider
different approaches to this idea.
· Page 1
Proposal One provides the most conservative, that is, the smallest range of charges. In this example,
the basic assumption is that while there is a difference in water usage based on the size of the home,
the basic water usage by a family in a single family home is relatively consistent, independent-of size.
Proposal Four is the opposite end of the spectrum, clearly recognizing that amount of water used by a
residence is closely related to it's size, with larger homes paying substantially more than the smaller
homes.
Each of the proposals has very valid points, and each would provide a sound basis as a calucating
methodology.
ADDITIONS AND REMODELS
Should the Committee choose to modify the method to one utilizing square footage, Staff would
recommend the following approach be taken for additions and remodels:
For additions of less than 200 sq. ft., no additional water/sewer SDCIs would be necessary, even if new
fixture units were included with the addition. For addilions greater than 200 sq. ft., for each square foot
in excess of 200, a water SDC of $1.85/sq. ft and a sewer SDC of $1.37/sq. ft. would be assessed.
These rates are based on converting thecurrent SDC's for an average home to square feet.
Intemal remodels that add no square footage would not be assessed any additonal water or sewer
SDC's even if new fixture units are installed.
· Page 2
Number of Houses
179.75 3056
132.69 2256
Percent Current Proposed Current .Proposed
House Size Category FU Water SDC ~ Water SDC Differellce Revenue Revenue
· ,:~u, 4 a .. 16 [,2 87'8 0.,~51 $,'..o9~ .$278 .12~ $: 12
,¢':;'-'2.":: 13 9% 1~. $2,876 O0; $2.75C · -$126 $400 5382
~,...-~,~,,'. 19 15;. 113 $2,876 :~ ~! $2,90:~ $27 S549 $555
u,(:~-~"~C 176% 17 $3 05,~ '~0~ S3.056 $0 5538 ~;. 5,'~5" '
~-'J'-20,.',~ 15 1°.' 1,8 $3,236 1.1: $3,362 $126 ~4.. 89 S508
;'co~.;'~o 8. ,,, 2(~ $3.595 ~ 1.. $3.514 -$8':, $..'13 $305
:~23~-25,:,,: /' 4% 20 $3.595 1.)r $3.667 $72 S2661 S271
;,'.~.c:.3o:o 6 5% 22 S3,955 ~ fi: $3 973 $18 5257 S258
',!co; 4;:.::(:,'-~ 5 1%1 24 S4.314 '~4-~ S4,278 '-"-'{~ $220 $218
'..:o:"~ 2 2% 24 $4 314 '~..", $4.431 5117,'.-.95 $97
$3,2501 $3,2451 99.85%1
Percent FU Current Proposed Current Proposed
House Size Category Sewer SDC ~ Sewer SDC Difference Revenue Revenue
c-~,~c,,: 4.3% 16 $2.123 ~ ~.~ $1.918 -S20,5 $91 S82
· o,"., ~;!~:~ '139% 16 $2 123 o.ea $2,030 -$93 $295 S282
~."5'.,~:,:, 19 1% 16 $2 1231 o~ S2,143 ~ $406 S409
lSO~-~Tso 17 6% 17 S2.25E 1 ~o $2,256 .~,~ S397 $397
~?!~1-2o,:,~ 15 1% 18 $2.38~ 1.1o $2,482 '.$93 $361 $3751
~e:'.~:."=o 8 7% 20 $2 654 t.,m $2,594 -$5.'9, $231 $226
22.r, 1-2E,'l(' 7 4% 20 $2.65'~ 1 2a S2,707 $~ $196 $200
25,.',~ ~'.I,',~:. 6.5'}, 22 $2.91c. 1.3o $2,93." $'~4 $190 $191
3oo~ 4oo:: 5 1% 24 $3.18.r' ~.4,J $3,15~ -$'16 $162 S161
· .'.c~, 22% 24 $3 185 1.45 $3.271 $87 S70 $72
$2,399 $2,3961 99.85%I
Percent Current Proposed CUcrent Proposed
House Size Category FU Total SDC ~ Total SDC Difference Revenue Revenue
,.,. t ,,~c,~ 4.3% 16 $4999 o.~; $4.515 -$464 S215 S194
'::' ';":o 13 9% '~6 S4.99~ e.e: $4 781 -$716 $895 S6'35
t;'!,' ,;:co 19 1% 16 $4.999 0!.'.,' $5 046 $~'~' $955 $964
t,;,n,. :~f,.: 1.,' 6% 17 S5.311 ~ .',,( S5.312 S1 .,3. $93a
·. ~,t .,-,:.:,~ .... '5.1'h:i 18 $5624 1T.~ $5843 $219' $84~ $882
..',v ;'.~:.:: 8 7%I 20 $5 249 2 ~= $6 109 -$14'0 554~ ~.~..,.', I"m'
.~;':. ;,,: '.' 7 4% 20 $6 249 1 ~:' S6.374 $126 $462 5472
':!,o' ";','.,~ 6 5%, 22 S6.874 1.~: S6.906 $32 $44; $449
:~.::..::.~ ~.ro;: 5 1%. 24 $7.4¢,,9 l.~f, $7.43" .$$2' S352 $37,(:
-' ~, .: ::. ,__. . .- 2.,..~.c.[._2."~ ..... $7499 r,:. $7.702 ~2~ $165 5'~`()
$5'6491 $5'5411 99-85%l
179.75 3056
132.69 2256
Percent Current Proposed Current PrOposed
House Size Category FU Water SDC ' ~ Water SDC Difference Revenue Revenue
o-looo 4.3% 16 $2,876 m $2,29~ ~ $!24 $99
,~!o~-i ~s~! 139% 16 S2.876 o8.~ S2.59~ -S278 S,100 $361
~;'5,45oc 19 1% 16 $2,87( o.~ $2.903 ~:2.7 $549 $555
15o~47~_ 17 6'.',_.~ 171 $3.056" 1 ~r. $3.05~ ...... S0 $538 S5~
1751-200i~ 15 1% 18] $3.2361 ~O; $3.20~ -$27 $489 $465
200].22~0 8 7~,',20 S3.59( 1.1[ $3.514 -$~1 $31~ S306
~25~-25..~' 7 4% 20 $3 595 1.2'. $3.82¢ S225 S266 $283
~0'-3oo,~ 6 5% 22 $3.951 1.3.~ $4.12~ $171 $25; $268
24 '~"
3oo~-'.o,~;. 5 1~/~ 24 $4.31, 1.4.~ S4.431 $111 S~~( $226
:, ~o31 2.2~.: $4 31~ ~ $4.737 , $42~ $9.r' $104
I $3,25°1 $3,2231 99.18%1
I Percent Current Proposed Current Proposed
H0useSize Category FU SewerSDC ~ $ewerSDC Difference Revenue Revenue
o-~ooo 4.3~ 16 $2,12~ ~ $1,692 ~ $91 $73
~oo~-125o 13.9°,.i 10 S2 12.'. ~ $1,918 .$?0£' $."9.· $267
1251-1500 191~; 16 $2.12.' OS~ $2.143 S2t' $40~ $409
15o~-~75o 17 6~4 17 S2.25( 1 c,~ S2,256 ' ~(; $397 $397;
~751-2ooo 15.1~4 18 $2 38~ I,¢ $2,36~ -S?.( $361 $358
2OOl-225o 8 7~'.. 20 S2,65~ ~.~ $2.594 -$5~ S231 $226
2251-25oo 7.4,;'. 20i $2.65~ 1.7.~ $2.820 $18,~ 519~ $20c.
25o~-3ooo 6 5'~ 22 $2.91~ 1.3~ $3.046 S12( $19C $198
3o0~-4ooo 5.1~.~ 24 S3.18( ~4.~ $3.271
>4oo~ 22~ 24, S3,18{ ~ S3.497 $31; $7C $77
I $2,3991 $2,3801 99'19%1
Percent Current Proposed Current Proposed
~ouse Size Category FUi Total SDC ~ Total SDC DifferenCe Revenue RevenUe
,o:,1-125o 139~[ 16 S4.99(, ,~.~, $4.515 ...5482 $69~
125~-¶~("? ~.9 10,: 16 $4 99(` 0.~,': $5.046 $4) $95~ S96~
· ?=' ;'.;~0:: 15 1°.; 18 $5.62z l.O.~i $5 578 -$4~. $84,c. S84~
2Y~.25.:O 7 a':: 2C $6.,--. I ~.,i $C%640 S462 $49
.... · 0' 6 5:h.[ 22 S6.872 13r S7 171 529E $447 ....
.~eo~ .q),~:' ' 5 i %J "" $7.49(` ,4.~ S7.702 ;, $2(1/, $382 S39~
· . 2 2% 2.1 $7 49E 1.b5 $6.234 S/3'-" -$165 518!:
$5,6491 $5,6031 99.16%1
132.69 2256
Pement Cu~nt Proposed Current Proposed
House Size Ca,gory FU Water SDC ~ Wa~r SDC Differonce Revenue Revenue
~ ~i:.,'o 4 3% 16 52.876 ~ o.s; $'~.o,'8 i -$1.34E S12,~
mo~l 1;;.~ 13 9% 16m S2.876 o.~5 .... $1.986 ~ S400 $~
~.~' 19 1% 16 ~.87E o. SS $2.598 . -$278, S549
~5o~-~;5c 17 6% 17 $3.05~ '-~39 $3.056 S(' --- $538 S53E
,;h'.~oop 15 1% 18 S3.236 ~.~0 S3.362 $!2{ ~89,
~(,~--2=~o 8 7% 20, S3.59~ ~'~ S3.C~7 S7~ S313 $31~
· , '~' , 7 4% 20~ S3 595 14o S4.278 $683
2501 5{N),~ 6.50~, 22~ $3.955 . 1.6o S4.890 $935 $257 $318
:m~,-4~o3 5 1% 24 S4.31a ~,~ S5.501 $1,187 S2201 S281~
>4<.," 22% 24 S4.3~4 '~c= S6.112 $1./g~ S95~ S134~
$3'2501 $3'2521 100'06°/"1
Percent · Current Proposed Currant Propo~d
HouseSize Categow FUi SewerSDC ~ SewerSDC DifferencelRevenue Revenue
1oo~ '~sl~ 13.9% 16 $2.123 oii~ $1.466 -$657 S295 $204
· .25! '5o:1 19 1% 16 $2.123 0.St, Sl.g18 -$?0[ S406 $36E
~ ~5o~.~,~<, 17 6% 17, S2.25(~ :ICa $2.255 $[ $397 $397
1751-2o,~0 15 1% 18l S2.388 :1.1o $2.482 S9~ ,361, S37~
:,e;,.:,>>c 8.7% 20i S2.654 . ~ )., S2.707 ~ S231 523E
725~-=~c 7.4% 20 S2 654 ' ~,~ S3,158 ~505, SI9~ ~234
zsc~ .~c.a 6.5% 22 $2,glS ~.e= S3,610 ~69[ ~190 $235,
,~(:.:. 22% 24, S3.185 "?'~ $4.512 ~ $~.3~ $70~ s9gI
I $2,3991 $2,4011 ~00.07°/01
Percent Current Proposed Current Proposed
House Size Category FU Total SDC ~ Total SDC Diffe~ce Revenue Revenue
o-tooo 4.3% 15 $4 ggc, 'o ~ $2 656 ,-$2.343 $215 Sl14
~ '~ $480
1001-125:: 13.9% 16 $4.g9~ U.6~ ~3.4,3 -S1,~6 5695
t2S~-15C;= 19 1~,~' 16 $4 99c. '0SS $4.515 , -~84 $955 $862
~o.,~ 1 IC3 S5.312 S1, $g35
15o1-175~ 176% ;7 ~c ~1 $935
1751-2oc.:! 15 1'.,, 18 $,).6.,4 1 ~:I S5.8~-3 $21gi $849 S682
' . $ ~20 $55',;
2001-225,: 6 7',~, 20 o~4c~'~ '4¢,. 170 ~ 374 "~' $5~4
~45~ $550
2251-25o~; : 4';., ~01 ~5 24c, __1_4o ...... ,97.437 ....
25Ol-3OO3 5.5% 221 ,~ 8/4 1.~ S8..199 $1,626 $447 $~52'~"
5,",, s7.:9,. ,,,.-.s9.552 $,66
>4001 '' 2,),,°~4 S-'~--'9~ ..... 2.C3 S10.624 $3.;25
I $5,6491 $5,6521 100.06%]
179.75 3056
132.6 2256
Percent Current Proposed Current ! Pro~oose~l
House Size Category FU Wa~er SDC ~ Water SDC Differenc~ Revenue Revenue
,,. lO;~:: 4 .~'.~ 15 $2,876 t).4:~ $1 375 -S:1,501 S124 S5c.
loo'h',;~o 13.9% 18 $2,876 o.~';( S1,526 -$1,348 $400 S212
,~,45oo lg 1% 16 $2,876 ~/~ $2.292 -.$584 $549 S438
~ATER ~,;o1475o 17 6% 17 $3.0~r~ 1.o=~, $3.056 $C S538 $53~
ffs~-=cco 15 1% 18 S3.236 ~.a~ S3,667 ~S432 $489 S55~
2oc~-2~5o 8 7% 2~ $3,595 ~.~5 $4,126 S531 S313 $359i
2~51-25o3 7 4% Z0 S3,595 ~ so~ $4,584 $g8~ S2~ $339
250,-3ooo 6 5% 22 $3,955 1.6~1 $5,042 "~'~,088 $257 S328
~:o~-~ooc 5 1% 24 ~4,314 ~.~5 $5,654 51,34E 5220 $288~
.400~ 2 2% 24 $4.314 2.~01 S6 418 S2,~04 $95 S141~
[ $3,2501 $3,2561 100.20%I
Percent Current Proposed Current I Proposed
Hous· Size Category FU Sewer 8DC ~ Sewer SDC Difference Revenue Revenue
o .~c~, 4 3% i6 S2, i23 ~ $1,015 ~E S91 $44;
1001.17"0 139% 16 $2.123 :U'OI S1,128 -$§9[: $295 $157
,;,~,4soo 19 1% 16 $2,123 ~75 $1,692 '"'-'~431 $406 $323
15o~ ¢:!o 17 6~, 17 $2,2~3 '~'~3 $2 255 $1; S397 ~a-
1,!u =coo 15 1% 18 $2.385 ~ ~Ol S2,707 $31.c, $301 $40c.
~;3'.2.~'.,:) 8 7% 20 $2,654 1,3t' 63.046 $39.~ $231 S265
z~:51.2~,".3 7 4% 20 $2,654 ~ no; $3.384 '"~:.z3[ S196 5250
:!~o~-.~cc.o 6 5% 22 $2,919 1 ~51 $3,722 .c;80~,....
;~o='.=o¢;, 5 1% 24 $3,185 ~ e5 $4,174 S98c $162 S213
>.;co' 2 2% 24 S3,185 2.1< $4 738 S1.552 $70 S104
$2,3991 $2,4°41 1°°'2°°/°1
Percent Current Proposed Current PropOsed
House Size Category FU Total SDC ~ TOtal SDC Difference Revenue Revenue
O-lOOO 4.3% 16 $4,999 ~ $2,390 ~ $215 $103
· ~,:~. ~;,!~o 13 9% 15 $4,999 oi~'= $2.658 -$2,343 $695 S36~.
~~,. 1-1.*"." 19.1% 16 $4.999 ~ ,"!~ S3,984 -~1'~1 $955 5761
,,o, 1;- 176% 17 $5.311 :¢,n $5,31;': .;.. ...
'~ :~:._~,x,::. 15 I'.., 1~ S5,624 ~ z;. $6.374 $/.'3(: .F.,§4""~. $963
:c...~2:.:' 8 7'?: 20 S6.249 ~ 3.-", 57,171 $92; S,.-,4'~'~'~ .... ~,624
.... ~ .... ~,590
~:.'.'.1 ."!,~',, , 4% 20 ~& .~4,. '~.Sii 57,968
.~¢..~o,:r~ 6 5'.', ;.~ S6,874 1 ,~ $8.765 S1;59~ ~:,.. [ $5?,)
-.
'~ :: :r.;:' 5 1% 24 S7.4gg ~.es 59.827 $2 ."!2E 838 550'
'. 4::.:)' 2 2%[ 24 $7 49g 2.~0 $11.155 $3.657 5.65l
I $5,6491 $5,66°1 1°°'20%1
CurFent I Proposed Current Proposed
] Percent '~U Total SDC Fa¢,-tol Total S~ DifforellCO -~?["~[u~?
C.::)~ 4 3%1 16] ~4.~9~ ~8~ ~4.51~ -S4~4
,,~,..,~.~.~ -- ~ 9~'.,; W~ s;.;~ --~%= s4.rSl .~R~ --"~;~I ...... ~5
~.~, ~-"-1~t%~ 10 S4.99; " ~.~ SS.O~ ...... ~7 ~9551 $964
~ t ~01-1~;~ ; 17 6%~ S5.311 !;x ~5.31; $1 S935
;c;~:-z:5::. 8 7~; 20 S~ 24~ ~ 1~ S6.10~ . -5140
-";'4~:~ .... 2 2'~: ~ S7.49~ -' '~'.4~ ~7.702 5234 ~165
I Percent Current Proposed Current Proposed
House Size Category FU ..T.o_tal S_.._D~C~ Total SDC .D fference Re.y~en.~u~..R.?enue'
0" '~' 13 g~ 1(~. $4.999 -- .~.~! $4.91,5 ,$484
;,!,:~1 .~: .~ ~ G 5% !'~ $G.874 .....:'3~ $7.17t ........
.~(:-,1,.:!1~:~ I .5 I%1 24["' S7.499 "':..;~, S7.702 ........ ~2"(~ S352 $393
I $5,6491 $5,6031 99.18%{
Percent Current Proposed Current Proposed
House Size I Catagor~ FU Total SDC ~ Total SDC Diffe~eRce Revenue Revenue
c , ', i 4 3% 19 $4.99.o, c.'~.'. $2.656 $2.34~ S215j $114
1(~1t.I?t'' I ~?19% 16 54.999 ~.'.05 $3 453 ~1,541~ $(."9.R.I S48',)
.':,'-?.:.'_.. . '~-'~' S5.624 "'":'~ $5 843 $21~J $649 $88:
............................ .'.'~::?.L.... ':: ~'
I $~,6491 $5,6521 1°°'°6%1
Percent Current Proposed .Current I Proposed
House Size Category FIJ Total ~DC ~ Total SDC Difference Re~,~nueI _R.e.v~.nue
...... ~ 1 lr' ~''' 'i'(":,!'-' s~,ae,,a "-?"~: ':,',3984 -- $1.C1~ ---'~9'-~''~'- ..........
.......... a,. 5751
I
._:~-: ~_ I ~' ~Sa,": "*~ ' ' '~' . .. s~',
$5,649 $5.660 100.20%
To.' SDC Committee Members
Front: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development[Click here and type name]
CC.. Paula Brown, Public Works Director; Ken Mickelsen, Parks Director
Date: 08/11100
Systems Development Charge update for Parks, and modified calculation method for water
and wastewater SDC's.
Parks SDC ,
Attached is a report,from Wes Reynolds, AICP with recommendations regarding updating the current
System Development Charges for parks and recreation in Ashland. The initial recommendation is to
slightly reduce the amount charged to single family and multi-family residential units, and a relatively
substantial reduction in the SDC charged to new teudst rooms. Wes will be at the meeting to explain
the update process and answer questions.
Current Parks SDC Recommended
(since 1997) Parks SDC
Single Family $1,199 $1,041.20
Multi-Family $ 938 $ 814.86
Toudst Room $ 748 $ 487.76
Residential Water and Wastewater SDC
Currently, water and sewer SDC's are charged based upon the number of "fixture units" within the
residential structure. Fixture units are a measure used in the Uniform Plumbing Code to regulate
plumbing permits, and to determine'water line and service sizes. For example, a bathroom sink is
equal to one tixture unit, while a toilet is equal to three. On average, a single family home has
approximately 17 fixture units. The greater the number of fixture units, the greater the SDC. At
· Page 1
present; the SDC, for a single family home, for water is $179.75 per fixture unit, while tile SDC for
wastewater is $132.69.
There have been difficulties in administering this program, primarily related to the equities of the
process. For example, a small home (1200 sq. ft.) with two bathrooms essentially pays essentially the
same SDC as a home twice as large (2400 sq. ft.) who also chooses to have two bathrooms.
Further, the Uniform Plumbing Code has recently been modified, and the calculations of fixture units
has changed dramatically. This is forcing the Building Inspectors to calculate the number of fixture
units one way for SDC calculations, and another way to ensure compliance with the Plumbing Code.
Finally, there has been substantial interest, since the inception of SDC's, to attempt to create a way to
assess water and wastewater fees based upon square footage of the residential structure. Staff is
finalizing an approach that will provide several options for the committee to consider regarding the use
of gross floor area of a residential structure as the means for assessment of water and wastewater
SDC's. The basic premise is that the larger the home, the greater the SDC. Options will be provided
that address the level of difference between smaller and larger homes.
The goal is to provide a more equitable approach to assessing SDC's for water and wastewater that
recognize the benef~s to the community of smaller homes while maintaining the projected revenue
based upon the projected needs of the community. The changes would be revenue-neutral.
Materials regarding the options will be handed out at the meeting and a presentation by staff will follow.
· Page 2
PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES UPDATE
FOR CITY OF ASHLAND~ OREOON
Prepared for the
City of Ashland, Oregon
Prepared by
Wes L. Reynolds, AICP
1265 Munson Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 482-4927
Draft of June 2000
2.
3,
5,
6.
2.
3.
4.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASHLAND PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES UPDATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................
BACKGROUND ON SDCS ........................
GROWTH AND PARK NEEDS .....................
PARK PLANS AND PROGRAMS ....................
PARK STANDARDS .............................
PARK SDC METHODOLOGY .......................
RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................
REFERENCES ....................................
ASHLAND PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SINCE 1991 ....... 1
PROJECTED POPULATION OF ASHLAND, OREGON TO 2010 .......... 3
CITY OF ASHLAND PARK LAND INVENTORY ...................... 7
CITY OF ASHLAND PARK SDC CALCULATION ................... 12
APPENDIXES TO BE INCLUDED IN FINAL REPORT
ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHAROES ~PDATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a methodology and calculation of a current fee for the Park SDC's applied
to single family residences, multi-family residences (including mobile homes), and tourist
accommodations. This report reviews the City of Ashiand's Parks and Recreation system
development charges in terms of conformance with ordinance and statutory requirements governing
Park SDCs on new developmem.
Overall, the major factors that change the calculated amoums of SDCs are; changes in the
cost of land acquisition or the cost of construction for park facilities; changes in household size;
changes in the public's priorities for the park system as reflected in park system standards and planned
park projects purchases. In several areas more up-to-date information was available about other
relevant factors as described in the following text.
Each section of the Park SDC calculation revises figures used in the methodology to bring
the amounts calculated for each type of charge up-to-date for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. The
methodology folldws the same steps as previously used in the calculation of Park SDCs within the
· City of Ashland. The parks and recreation SDC is updated for an expended area of park land acquired
· since the last update as well as on new population assumptions that recognize the most recent official
population estimate. The portion of the park SDC for large passive parks is again calculated as a
reimbursement fee, since the City of Ashland now its exceeds its Comprehensive Plan standard for
such parks. ;
The report provides a preliminary update for the 2000-2001 fiscal year of System
Development Charges (SDC%) for Parks and Recreation as those SDC's are applied to: Single Family
Residential Units; Multi-family Residential Units (including Mobile Home units); and Tourist
Accommodations - per Room units.
Table 1. AshlandI Oregon Parks S,~stems Development Charge since 1~91
SDC per Unit By Year
Park SDC Park SDC Park SDC Park SDC Park SDC
Development in 1991 in 1993 in 1995 since 7/1997 Preliminary
T},pe in 2000
Single Family $ 636.51 $1113.38 $1231 $1,199 $1041.20
Multi-Family $ 498.14 $871.34 $ 963 $ 938 $ 814.86
Tourist Room $ 637.05 $1141.77 $1262 $ 748 $ 487.76
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000
BACKGROUND ON SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Population growth increases the demand and need for many services and facilities including
parks and recreation. To help provide the facilities required by a growing population the City of
Ashland has had park and recreation system development charges (SDCs) since July 1, 1991. These
charges were adopted in the spring of 1991 to conform with the requirements of an Oregon statute
(ORS 223.297 to 223.314) that took effect July 1, 1991. Subsequent reviews have confirmed that
Ashland's park SDCs are not more than an equitable share to new development, which is a
requirement of state statute. Ashland has not to date collected funds to cover compliance costs for
SDCs, rather the city has covered those costs under general administrative overhead.
Passed by the 1989 legislature, HB3224 (now ORS 223.297 to 223.314) authorized local
government system development charges (SDCs) for capital improvements in these public facility
systems: 1) water supply, treatment and distribution; 2) waste water collection, transmission,
treatment and disposal; 3) drainage and flood control; 4) transportation; or 5) parks and recreation.
System development charges are limited by the statute in several ways:
* SDC revenues can only be spent on capital improvements, not maintenance. SDC
expenditures must be accounted for annually. Capital improvements funded by SDC
revenues shall be included in a capital improvements plan or program (CLX). SDC-funded
capital improvements need to increase capacity in the future or should have already increased
capacity to produce unused capacity.
* SDC revenues can cover costs of administration of system development charges and
planning for capital improvements.
* SDCs must have a methodology, available for public inspection, to consider cost of
facilities, contributions by existing users, value of unused capacity, rate-making principles for
financing, increase in capacity, and other relevant factors (such as administrative compliance
costs).
* SDCs are for offsite improvements (those not located on or wholly contiguous to the
propemj). SDCs do not include any local improvement 5tistrict assessments nor do land use
conditions and requirements constitute SDCs.
* SDCs must be earmarked, that is accounted for separately from other local government
funds.
The full text of the law is contained in ORS223.297 to 223.314, the Oregon law that both authorizes
and limits SDCs.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 2
Purpose of System Development Charges
Localities that have new development need supplemental resources to the existing property
tax to provide new facilities. This need matches the purpose of system development charges (SDCs),
which is to help ensure adequate public facilities.
This point about system development charges or impact fees was expressed in more detail by
James C. Nicholas in his publication: "The Calculation of Proportionate-Share Impact Fees"
"The adequacy of capital facilities is critically important to the entire system of land
development regulation ...... Therefore, a requirement that development proceed only when
such adequacy is either attained or ensured is an act protecting the public fi.om harm that
would occur in the absence of these facilities .... The issue then is who should be financially
responsible for such adequacy?
Three possible candidates for fiscal responsibility are: the local govenunent; the property
owner; or "someone else." The latter category would include entities like the state and federal
government. In general, local governments and property owners can readily agree that
"someone else" should bear the cost of roads and other capital fac'ff~ties. But their agreement
has not resulted in funding ....
Clearly, a community may pay for needed facilities. But must it? Increasingly the answer is
that a community need not absorb all costs but may impose a proportionate, or fair, share of
such costs upon new development."
The Oregon statute (ORS 223.297-.314) follows reasoning very similar to this when it allows a
system development charge for new development to be "no more than a proportional share" of the
cost of capital facilities.
Use of Park SDCS
The collection of SDCs for parks has enabled the City 0f Ashland to significantly expand its
park system since 1991, when the city began collecting an SDC roi' parks. Park SDCs have been one
of several funding sources used to expand and improve the City park system. Unbudgeted resources
have included gifts of money and land from citizens in the community in some years. Budgeted
sources of funds have included federal grants for flood repairs, food and beverage tax revenues,
interest, and property taxes.
The City of Ashland's Park SDCs are collected and expended on a citywide basis for three
major types of parks: passive parks, large active parks, and small active parks. All of the Park SDCs
expended during the last ten fiscal years, including the current fiscal year were used for capacity-
increasing land acquisition or park improvements. The actual cost experience of the city has been
used in the calculation of Park SDCs in this report.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 3
GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEED FOR PARKS
SDCs require new residents to "buy-in" to the park and recreation system for both existing
parks with available capacity and fi~ture parks that will add capacity to the system since new residents
can be expected to use both kinds of facilities. As can be seen in Table 2 the City of Ashland projects
growth through the year 2010 with an additional 1,490 persons for a total resident population of
20,980. With an equal number of people added per year there would be annual growth at a rate of
0.6 percent. The actual growth was not tapering off and therefore running somewhat ahead of the
City's official projection through the summer of 1999 when the population was estimated at 19,490.
Actual growth from 1990 to 1999 averaged 362 people per year.
In the event that population growth remains faster than projected, the Parks SDC
methodology is linked to population per acre standards that will still result in a proportionate share
being collected to acquire new park system capacity.
Table 2. PROJECTED POPULATION OF ASHLAND, OREGON TO 2010
interpolated from official projection in Comprehensive Plan and latest estimate.
Year Population Added Persons
1999 19,490 124
2000 19,614 124
2001 19,738 124
2002 19,862 124
2003 19,986 124
2004 20,110 124
2005 20,234 124
2006 66,278 124
2007 67,486 124
2008 68,694 124
2009 69,902 124
2010 20,98,0 124
Projected new Ashland residents 1,490
Sources: Population Element of Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Buildable Lands Inventory
with current projections, 1998. PSU Population Estimate for 1999.
Another way to think of the additional 124 people per year is that it will take an additional
one-half acre of active park land each year to remain at the City of Ashland's current minimum
standard for parks and recreation. At 124 people per year there is a need to acquire and develop 6.33
acres in the next ten years to remain at the large and small active parks standards ora combined 4.25
acres per 1,000 people.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 4
Housing Characteristics and Household Size
Among the many characteristics of Ashland's housing stock and population documented by
the US Census Bureau those of greatest concern for parks system development charges are the
number of persons per housing unit. These figures allow the consideration of costs per person and
maintaining a general equivalency per residential unit for various types of housing. The SDC
methodology is based on the assumption that the demand for parks and recreation is derived from
each person residing (including those who visit as tourists) in the City of Ashland. Based on the 1990
census and local records, there are 2.3 persons per single-family housing unit, and 1.8 persons per
multiple-family housing unit.
A 1995 update for the city found an average occupancy of 2.0 persons per tourist
accommodation room. As of March 30, 2000 there were 1,032 tourist accommodation rooms in the
City of Ashland.
A category to consider adding is assisted living units for the elderly. These are a special type
of apartment unit with special licensing by the State of Oregon and which generally have just one
person living in each unit. The few cases of more than one person occupying these units result in an
average occupancy of only 1.1 persons per unit in the Rogue Valley region. The City has previously
made allowances for assisted living projects on a case-by-case basis. This case-by-caso review could
still be done or a new housing,type included in a new SDC resolution.
Ashland Parks SDC, Update: 2000 5
PARK PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The long range Open Space and Park Plan of the City of Ashland supplemented by a shorter-
range Capital Improvements Program has guided Park SDC spending as well as the City's spending
of food and beverage tax funds for land acquisition and property taxes used to improve, parks and add
new facilities.
There have been substantial additions to Ashland's Park and Recreation system pursuant to
the Open Space Parks program. Passive park and open space land acquired in the 1990s included
more than 300 acres of land. This includes such parcels onthe Open Space and Parks Plan as the
Siskiyou Mountain Park, North Mountain Park, Strawberry Hill, and Railroad Park. Parcels still to
be acquired include areas along Bear Creek and its tributaries as well as new active parks at sites near
Ashland Middle School, along lower Clay Street, and west of North Mountain Avenue. To meet a
goal of parks near each Ashland residents several sites at "infill" locations would be desirable such
as in the vicinity of the comer of Oak and Hersey Streets, the upper Clay Street area, and east of
Interstate 5.
Any amendments to update the Open Space and Parks Plan should be considered in a final
Park SDC calculation since they may entail costs not considered in this preliminary report.
Park Land Inventory
Table 3 lists the current inventory of land in the Ashland park system. The Park SDCs are
based on the parks inventory in the upper part of the table; a total of 567.11 acres at present, There
are some 514.32 acres in the passive park category which includes Lithia Park, the Bear Creek
Greenway parks, and Siskiyou Mountain Park. There are 33.07 acres in large active parks which
include Hunter Park, YMCA City Park, and part of North Mountain Park. The large active parks are
those with enough room for playing fields. There are 19.73 acres of small active or neighborhood
parks including Garden Way Park, Glenwood Park, Clay Street Park, Garfield Park, and Railroad
Park.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 6
Table 3. CITY OF ASHLAND PARK LAND INVENTORY
Park '
Date Acres Small Active
Ded cared Park Land and Areas
Scenic-NMain +99-00 1.88 1.88
Todd-Oredson Woods +99-00 9,02
Granite St. Qua~y +98-99 4.15
CottlelPhillips +95-96 3.96 3.96
Strawberry +95-96 5.67
Strawberry +94-95 19.82
NoAh Mountain Pad( +94-95 0.79
NoAh Mountain Pad( +94-95 7.64
NoAh Mountain Park +93-94 24.92
Strawberry +93-94 0.68
Railroad Park +91-92 1.71 1.71
Siskiyou Mt Park +91-92 271.50
Granite +90-91 31.79
Strawberry 9.26
Garfield 1977 3.25 3.25
Grandview Dr 0.76
Trangle Park 0.35 0.35
Blue Bird 73-74+- 0.14 0.14
Clay Street 1970's 3.54 3.54
Garden Way 1950's 1.66 1.66
Qlenwood 1980's ' 2.31 2.3t
Sherwood 1940's 0.93 0.93
YMCA 1980's 6.67
Hunter 1978 9.72
Bear Creek Greenway Late 70's. 48.85
Lithia Pad( Smay 1,95
Lithia Park Calle 1979 1.09
Lithia Park 1916 93.10
TOTALS
Passive I Large ActiveI
9.02
4.15
5.67
19.82
0,79
7,64
8.25 16.68
0.68
271.50
31
9.26
0.76
6;67
9,72
48.85
1.95
1.09
93.10
567.11 19.73 514.32 33.07
INon Dedicated Park Land and Areas
$OSC Land 6.00
Middle School 14,50
Walker School 5.80 2.26
Bdscoe School 1.80 1.80
Helman School 10.10 10.10
Bellevue School 5.00 5.00
Lincoln School 3.70 3.70
46.90 22.86
6.00
14.50
3.54
0.00 24.04
Other Dedicated Park Land
Golf Course 1946
Lithia Spdngs 1916
Shakespeare Area
Water Street-Recycle 1973
C:WlyFiles~Ashland~PARKLAN DAcres.wb3
70.06
66.00
0.26 0.26
70.06
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000
Updated June 2000
PARK AND RECREATION STANDARDS
The City of Ashland comprehensive plan identifies a standard of 2.5 acres of active large parks
per 1,000 persons, 1.75 acres/l,000 for small active parks and 10 acres/l,000 for large passive parks.
The City falls short of these service standards for the smaller park categories. The City of Ashland
acquired enough land in the 1990s to exceed its ten acres per thousand standard for passive parks for
the foreseeable future. Some of the City's park and recreation facility needs are being met through
cooperative agreements'with the Ashland School District and with Southern Oregon University - both
of which have made land available to the public for park and recreation facilities.
The agreements that make this land available for public use provide enough area available for
public use so that the Comprehensive Plan standards for all three park categories are actually met.
Land owned by the Ashland School District and Southern Oregon University may be required at a
future date for educational purposes other than parks and recreation, thereby diminishing the supply
of available park land. Thus, as the City looks to increase_its inventory of developed parks with the
goal of meeting the adopted standards, City officials should be aware the target may move if some
land now in park use becomes unavailable. The standard used for Ashland Park SDCs has not
included the land currently provided by the Ashland School District and Southern Oregon University
nor does this update include these lands.
System Development Charge calculations for Parks and Recreation Facilities are based on the
cost of developed parks required to serve new development up to the standard currently provided to
the existing population, but not exceeding the Comprehensive Plan Standards. The lowest standard
(the current service level) is used for active parks to assure that new development doeg not pay twice.
By limiting the Systems Development Charge to the existing standard, new development will buy-in
to the existing system and then share in the cost of improving to the adopted Comprehensive Plan
standard through future taxes along with other residents as Ashland's Park and Recreation System
expands.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000
PARK AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY
Following is the methodology used to calculate the Park and Recreation Systems
Development Charges required to cover the full costs o£park and recreation facilities to serve new
residential growth to the year 2010 in Ashland There are thi'ee Components covered: Large Active
Parks, Small Active Parks and Large Passive Parks. The methodology for each component is similar.
For Park and Recreation SDCs the methodology looks only to the Residential (and Lodging)
Sector. It is tree that employees of Commercial and Industrial establishments use the City's parks and
recreation facilities, however, most demand placed on the facilities by Ashland's employees is on an
individual basis and therefore attributable to their role as a resident or visitor of the City. In cases
where use of the facilities is on a employee group basis, it will most often be for fee-chargeable
activities such as league softball or reserved area picnics. Park user fees established by the Parks and
Recreation Commission should be set at a level sufficient to recover a proportionate share of fixed
asset replacement costs from such users.
The tourism industry places added demand on the City's park and recreation facilities. This
is especially the case in regardt6 Lithia Parlq the tennis facilities and the Municipal Golf Course. The
Municipal Golf Course should have fees set at a level to keep the course self-supporting while setting
aside adequate replacement reserves, if expansion is required, the financing should be based upon
revenues generated by user fees as well. Lithia Park and the tennis facilities on the other hand, are
used quite heavily by visitors to the City but do not generate income.
A study in 1990 by Rebecca L. Reid of the Southern Oregon Regional Services Institute
(SORSI) for the Southwestern Oregon Visitors Association (SOVA) and funded by the Oregon
Department of Economic Development through the Regional Strategies program conducted
interviews in Lithia Park between June and September of 1990. Of some 683 contacts, only 28%
were local persons (lived within 50 miles of Ashland). The rest were visitors from at least 50 miles
away. Of these 434 visitors, 241 or 55.5% had spent the night in Ashland. And of those having spent
the night in Ashland, 68% had stayed in a Hotel/Motel or Bed & Breakfast accommodation. About
16% reported staying with friends or relatives and the remainder had other accommodations including
camping.
When the 434 visitors were asked the size of their party the responses ranged from 1 to 200.
However, when the responses that range from 1 to 6 are examined, approximately 95% of the
responses are accounted for. This reveals an average party size of 2.7 persons. This is in the same
order of magnitude as the 2.8 person average non-tour party size reported by the Shakespearean
Festival. A follow-up study by SORSI for Southern Oregon Economic Development Inc (SOREDD
was conducted in 1996 and results published in April 1997. That study also found significant tourist
use of Lithia Park, in fact a higher percentage of use by tourists (74%) although that may have been
partly a result ora smaller sample size (276 total).
As these studies show, the tourist industry does place a heavy demand on Lithia Park. The
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 9
Parks Director reports his observation over the years of strong tourist use of facilities sttch as tennis
courts. Based on these survey data and the professional observations of City staff, there is ample
evidence to conclude that the addition of Tourist Accommodations in the City will add to the demand
for Park and Recreation capacity.
Based upon the professional observations of City Parks staff, there is little, if any, tourist
impact on the small parks within the City, as these tend to serve the neighborhoods in which they are
located. Therefore, the SDC Methodology attributes a share of the cost to expand the City's Large
Active and Large Passive parks, but not the neighborhood parks, to more Tourist Accommodation
Rooms.
Reimbursement and Improvement Fees
The state statute governing SDCs defines two specific terms in regard to system devclopmem
charges. Reimbursement fees are SDCs for facilities or assets that have already been acquired or
under construction. Cities. are allowed to collect reimbursement fees tied to costs of existing assets
and spend it on the system for which it was collected in accordance with an adopted plan or program.
Improvement fees for projects that have not started at the time an SDC is collected must be spent on
capacity-increasing assets as well as being spent in accordance with a plan or program adopted prior
to the passage of the improvemem fee.
The definitions in state statute of the terms reimbursement fee and improvement fee relate to
the time an SDC is collected. In terms of the City of Ashland's Parks SDC the terms overlap and are
not mutually exclusive. The Park SDCs calculated in this report are all based on costs t>f actual parks
in the City acquired or developed in the 1990s and thus qualify as reimbursement fees. To the extent
Parks SDCs are spent on capacity-increasing land and facilities such as the active parks needed by
the city they also qualify as improvement fees. As a matter of convenience, the City has classified
SDCs for passive parks as reimbursement fees since the city's Comprehensive Plan standard is
exceeded. The SDCs for large and small active parks have been classified as improvement fees with
the funds held for capacity-increasing improvements.
Park SDC Calculation
The general methodology for calculating appropriate levels of Park and Recreation Facility
SDC addresses specific issues in four steps as shown in the ~tccompanying Table 4. The Table
calculates a share of the SDC for each component of the park system. The components are then
summed to arrive' at the Park SDC for the entire system.
The Parks SDC Methodology calculation is for the ten years to 2010. Previous Park SDC
calculations have also looked forward ten years. In this case, 2010 is also when the portion of the
food and beverage tax for park land acquisition sunsets.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: ¢000 10
Park SDC Calculation and Methodology
POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS:
IDENTIFY CITY'S PROJECTED AND CURRENT POPULATION SERVED TO
DERIVE CURRENT STANDARD OF USE AND SHARE OF THE SYSTEM.
DETERMINE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT,
MULTI-FAMILY UNIT, AND TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM.
DETERMINE THE TOURIST ACCOMMODATION FACTOIL
The em'rem population of the City of Ashland in 19,490 was estimated by Portland State
Universiv/as of Suly 1999. The projected 2010 popul~ion is 20,980. "Tourist Room Accommodation
Room Factor" = Number of Persons in all Tourist / (Total Resident Population + Tourists)
STANDARDS AND COSTS FOR ACTIVE PARKS
IDENTIFY AMOUNT OF PARK ACREAGE (BY TYPE OF PARK) CURRENTLY
IN USE AND OWNED BY THE CITY; DIVIDE BY CURRENT POPULATION
SERVED TO DERIVE CURRENT STANDARD OF USE AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN STANDARD. CALCULATE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE EQUIVALENT ACRES OF DEVELOPED PARKS TO PROJECTED
POPULATION. APPLY CURRENT AVERAGE PER ACRE ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT COSTS TO AMOUNT OF ACRES REQUIRED TO MEET NEEDS
FOR PROJECTED ADDITIONAL POPULATION TO DERIVE TOTAL COST OF
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT.
These calculations are made for both the current standard of land in'use, current land owned,
and the Comprehensive Plan Standard for each type of park land. The parks system acreage is
tabulated in Table 3. The current standard for city-owned small active parks is t.75 acres per 1,000.
The current standard for city-owned large active parks is 2.50 acres per 1,000. Costs are from city
records. This uses costs of existing facilities and recognizes contributions by existing users as required
by state statute and city ordinance.
STANDARDS AND COSTS FOR PASSIVE PARKS
IDENTIFY AMOUNT OF PARK ACREAGE (BY TYPE OF PARK) CURRENTLY
IN USE AND OWNED BY THE CITY; DIVIDE ~BY CURRENT pOpULATION
SERVED TO DERIVE CURRENT STANDARD OF USE AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN STANDARD. CALCULATE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE EQUIVALENT ACRES OF DEVELOPED PARKS TO PROJECTED
POPULATION. APPLY CURRENT AVERAGE PER ACRE ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT COSTS TO AMOUNT OF ACRES REQUIRED TO MEET NEEDS
FOR PROJECTED ADDITIONAL POPULATION TO DERIVE TOTAL COST OF
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 11
Section 3. (continued)
These calculations are made for both the current standard of land in use, current land owned,
and the Comprehengive Plan Standard for each type of park land. The parks system acreage is
tabulated in Table 3. The current standard for city-owned passive parks is 10.0 acres per 1,000. Costs
are from city records. This uses costs of existing facilities and recognizes contributions by existing
users as required by state statute and city ordinance.
CALCULATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION SDC
DIVIDE TOTAL COST BY PROJECTED ADDITIONAL POPULATION TO
OBTAIN PER CAPITA COST. REDUCE PER CAPITA COST BY "TOURIST
ACCOMMODATION ROOM FACTOR" MULTIi~LY ADJUSTED PER CAPITA
COST TIMES AVERAGE NUMBER OF PElt. SONS PER SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT,
MULTI-FAMILY UNIT, AND TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM TO OBTAIN
EACH SDC.
The total Parks SDC is the sum of the costs for each park type
and adjusted for the average number of persons using each type of
unit. On the following pages the Methodology is applied to the City
of Ashland's park system for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. The
preliminary calculation uses the information previously noted on
population and parks characteristics.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000
12
TABLE 4. City of Ashland Park SDC Calculation PARKSDC200B.WB3
To Accommodate Population Projected for Year 2010 at Current Standards.
SECTION 1.
Projected Year 2010 Population
less current City Population
Projected Growth
Assumptions o
POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS:
{i~iiiiiiiiiii~:~ after Comp. Plan
~i~iiii~i~!~49~({~ (1999 PSU estimate)
t,490 persons
Persons per Unit Single-Family ...........................
Persons per Unit Multi-Family
Persons per TouriSt Accommodation Room
Tourist Accommodation Factor as of 3/30/2000
(Persons in all Tourist Acc. Rooms as percentage of City population including tourists)
SECTION 2.
ACTIVE PARKS
Currently Provided:
STANDARDS AND*COSTS
LARGE
!i!i~=~iii!ii~!i{~3!i~ acres (City Owned)
i!!iiiii~ii!~iiiiiii~iii acres (City Use - SOSC Fields)
iii[iiiiiiiiii[iii~i~ acres (City Use- AMS & Walker)
53.57 acres in use
Ratios for Standards 2.55 acres/1,000 in use
1.58 acresl1,000 current City Standard
2.50 acres/I,000 - Comp.. Plan Goal
Acres needed to serve growth 2.35 (at Current Standard)
Acres to serve existing residents 52.45 (at Comp. Plan Standard)
Cost to Meet Growth Requirement on per acre & per capita basis
Acquisition Cost - $76,770 (cost/acm= ~=~,!=~~)
Development Cost - $164~404 (cost/acre= ~i~i~.~,_'.~li!)
Total Cost $24t,174
Total Cost Per Acre $102~687
ITotal Cost Per Capita $161.86 {(at CUrrent Standard)
ACTIVE PARKS SMALL
Currently Provided: ii[iii[iiii~:i[ii[iii~i~iil acres (City Owned)
acres (City Use at schools)
42.59 acres in use
Ratios for Standards 2.03 acresl1,000 in use
0.94 acres/l,000 current City Standard
i[iiii[ii!i.i[[!iiiii~[~ acres/l 000: Comp., Plan Goal
Acres needed to serve growth 1.40 (at Current Standard)
Acres to serve existing residents 36.72 (at Comp.. Plan Standard)
Cost to Meet Growth Requirement on per acre & per capita basis
Acquisition CoSt- $216,554 (cost/acre=
Development Cost -
Total Cost
Total CoSt Per Acre
ITotal Cost Per Capita
$94,583 (cost/acre=
$3t1,137
$222,046 ~
$208.82 I(at Current Standard)
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 :1. 3
SECTION 3. STANDARDS AND COSTS
PASSIVE PARKS Includes Llthis and Bear Creek Greenway Parks plus
Siskiyou Mountain, Strawberry-Hald, and part of North Mountain Park
Currently Provided: 514.32 acres (City Owned)
0.00 acres (Other)
514.32 acres in use
Ratios for Standards 24.51 acres/I,000 in use
24.51 acres/1 000 current City Standard
iiili iiil;iii~iii~i~ acres/1,000 - Comp.. Plan Goal
36.53 (at Current Standard)
14.90 (at Comp.. Plan Standard)
209.80 (at Comp.. Plan Standard)
Cost to Meet Growth Requirement on per acre & per capita basis
Acres available to serve growth
Acres available to serve growth
Acres to serve existing residents
Acquisition Cost -
Development Cost -
Total Cost
Total Cost Per Acre
ITotal Cost Per Capita
$86,191 (cost/acre=
$74,500 (cost/acre= ~~i)
$160,691
$10,784.63
$107.85 I(at Comp.. Plan Standard)
SECTION 4.
CALCULATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION SDC
Park Type
Large Active
Cost Per Unit:
Small Active
Cost Per Unit:
Improvement Fee
Total Cost $241,173.79
Adjusted Per Capita Cost $146.36
Single Family $336.63
Multi-Family $263.45
Tourist Accommodation Room $292.72
Impr?vement Fee
Total Cost $311,137.00
Per Capita Cost $208.82
Single Family $480.28
Multi-Family $375.87
Tourist Accommodation Room $0.00
Large Passive Reimbursement Fee
Total 'Cost $160,690.99
Adjusted Per Capita Cost $97.52
Cost Per Unit: Single Family $224.29
Multi-Family $175.53
Tourist Accommodation Room $195.04
TOTAL CALCULATED PARK AND RECREATION SDC - BY TYPE
Single Pamily $1,041.20
Multi-Family $8t 4.86
Tourist Accommodation Room $487.76
(not adjusted)
(Not applicable)
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 14
Not more than an Equitable Share
The methodology and calculation presented above calculate a share to be paid by new
developmem. The Parks SDC could be a higher amoum than that calculated in Table 4, but the
methodology relies on past experience with costs rather than projecting future costs. The City of
Ashland has also not charged compliance costs for SDCs: The City of Ashland has not included
donations in the value of the parks system. The City could classify more of the Parks SDCs as
reimbursement fee than has been done up to now because the SDC uses actual cost experience for
existing facilities. Park capacity at the current standard of use is available to new system users due
to the park land acquired and facilities constructed. For all of these reasons, it is concluded that the
amount of Park SDC calculated in Table 4 is not more than an equitable share to be paid by new
development as required by city ordinance and state statute.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The City of Ashland should complete the review and update of the Parks and Open Space
Program and specify which areas shall be priorities for park land acquisition. The land acquisition
priorities for the Parks and Open Space Program should seek to meet city standards for large and
small active parks within the next ten years, since the prepared food and beverage tax funds
earmarked for park land acquisition sunset in 2010.
2. The City Of Ashland should adopt an updated capital improvements plan or program (CIP) for
park acquisition and improvements consistent with this report or adopt a different program. If a
different CIP is adopted, then review and confirm the Park SDC calculation presented in this report.
3. The City of Ashland should adopt updated Parl~ SDCs after adoption of the updated CIP at the
maximum rate allowed by the City's Parks SDC methodology as shown in Table 4. This report
calculates that Parks SDC fee should be $1,041.20 for a single-family house for the upcoming 2000-
2001 fiscal year.
4. The City of Ashland should continue to use Parks SDCs in conjunction with food and beverage
taxes and property taxes to expand the capacity of Ashland's Park and Recreation system.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 15
LIST OF REFERENCES
(in addition to city budget information and staff interviews)
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for United States All Urban Areas Average.
United States Department of Commerce.
Online at Rp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special/requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
City of Ashland. Buildable Lands Inventor. Department of Community Development, Planning
Division. 1998-99.
City of Ashland System Development Cha~es. Ashland, OR Revised January 1, 1997.
Jackson County, Smartmap GIS file~. GIS Services. 1999 and 2000.
Lancaster, Roger A. Recreation. Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. National
Recreation and Park Association. 1983.
Leithe, Joni L. with Matthew Montavon, Impact Fee Programs: A Survey of Design and
Administration Issues~ Government Finance Research Center of the Government Finance Officers
Association, Washington, D.C. and David M. Griffith & Associates, Northbrook, Illinois, May, 1990.
Moore Breithanpt & Associates, Inc. Report on Systems Development Charges for the City of
Ashland. Oregon. Salem, OR, March 29,199 h
Moore Breithaupt & Associates, Inc. and Wes L. Reynolds. Report and Update of Systems
Development Charges City of Ashland. Oregon. Salem, OR, January, 1996.
Nelson, Arthur C. (Ed.), Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale. Practice. Theory_: and Issues.
Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago and Washington, D.C., 1988.
Government Finance Officers Association, et al. Financing Growth: Tools and Techniques for the
90~, Unpublished conference notebook. June, 1990.
James C. Nicholas, The Calculation of Proportionate Share Impact Fees. American Planning
Association. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 408. Chicago, IL, July 1988.
Southern Oregon Regional Services Institute. Summary_ of Population ~nd Housinc~ Characteristics
from Summary. Tape File 3A Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, OR, 1992.
Southern Oregon Regional Services Institute. Profile of Summer Visitors to Jackson and Josephine
Countries, OR. Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, 1997.
Southern Oregon Regional Services Institute. Jackson/Josephine Visitor Profile. Southern Oregon
University, Ashland, OR, April 1997.
Ashland Parks SDC Update: 2000 1~