HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-21 Adopting SDC Charges
RESOLUTION NO. 91-~
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4.20.050 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4, "MethOdology", of the "Report On Systems
Development Charges For the City of Ashland, Oregon" aut~hored by
Moore Breithaupt & Associates of Salem, Oregon, attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit "A" is adopted as the methodology for
calculating Systems Development Charges with the following
amendments:
A. All water and sanitary sewer reimbursement fee Systems
Development Charges will be computed on the actual number of
fixture units within the development. Any alterations to a
development which adds new fixture units will require an
additional Systems Development Charge to be made. 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.
B. All water and sanitary sewer improvement charge Systems
Development Charges will be computed as in Section A.
SECTION 2. Three (3) copies of this Resolution and Exhilbit "A"
shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall
be available for public inspection during regular business hours.
SECTION 3. The Methodology described in Exhibit "A" shall be in
effect when Chapter 4.20.050 is amended on or after July 1, 1991
in accordance with Oregon Law.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on thE~ 5th Day
of June, 1991.
~L~_
Nan E. anklln, Clty Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~~ day of June, 1991.
..~ - . -
~'t.-C/L-.~ ~ L/~r-('~_
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Encl: Exhibit "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 4
METHODOLOGY
Introduction and General Infonnation
This chapter contains recommendations for the methodology to be used in calculating the
system development charge for each of the five types of SDC permitted in the statutes.
Where appropriate, there may be two or more components within one type of SDC. For
example, the City's water SDC consists of water supply, water treatment and water
distribution. Each of these components has its own separate methodology and calculations
which together create the total water SDC. The City may wish to account for revenues of
these components separately, but it is only required to account for them under the one type
- water SDe.
The water SDC also presents an example of a SDC which contains both a reimbursement
fee and a public improvement element within it. The water treatment plant, having unused
capacity available to serve new development generates a reimbursement fee, while the
projects for new main and pump stations to expand the distribution system capability
generate a public improvement charge.
The recommended methodologies and calculations are based upon the current status of
each system vis-a-vis its capabilities to respond to added demands of new development. As
technology changes, as projects are constructed, as growth projections are affected by future
events and as experience is gained in applying the methodologies, inevitable revisions in the
methodologies will be-necessary or desirable. Under the recommended code language, the
City Administrator, will be forwarding any such recommended changes to the Council for
its consideration and change through adoption of resolutions. So that the statutory
provision of a 60-day challenge period of the methodology is properly complied with, the
recommended methodologies and the resulting SDC amounts should receive the proper
public notice.
-
Definitions.
As used in the descriptions of methodologies, the following words and phrases shall have
the specific meanings as set forth below.
Components - term used to describe the subsystems within a specific SDC, e.g. the
sewer SDC contains a collection system component and a treatment plant
component.
Development - Residential - means structures containing single family or multi-
family dwelling units and mobile home sites/spaces.
4-1
Development - Commercial - structures or improvements used in conducting a
business, trade, service, occupation or manufacture of products and not a residential
use.
Dwelling Unit - a unit of residential development as defined III the Uniform
Building Code.
Elements - refers to the two "elements" of the total SDC, namely the reimbursement
fee and the public improvement charge.
ENR Index - the Engineering News Record Construction Index for Seattle,
Washington which is used in updating costs.
Fixture Unit - is the value for each plumbing unit in a commercial dev1elopment as
defined in the most recent version of the Uniform Plumbing Code as adopted by the
State of Oregon.
Impervious Area - that portion of a development site taken up by buildings or paved
areas which prevents precipitation from directly entering the ground.
Room - for tourist accommodations, whether hotel, motel or bed and breakfast.
Type - refers to one of the five "types" of SDCs permitted under state statute.
The recommended methodologies and the results of their application to produce the
development charge for each type of system are set forth under the following chapter sub-
headings.
A.
B.
C.
Water SDC
Sewer SDC
Storm Drainage SDC
D.
E.
Transportation SDC
Parks & Recreation SDC
4-2
A. WATER SYSTEM SDC METHODOLOGY
Introduction and General Information
Following is the methodology used to calculate the Water System Development Charges
required to cover the full costs of water facilities to serve new residential, commercial, and
other water users in Ashland. There are three Components covered: Water Supply, Water
Distribution, and Water Treatment. The methodology for each component varies. In the
case of Supply, the reimbursement fee is based on the proportionate share of the City's
investment in its water supply dam, reservoir, and related facilities. For Water Distribution,
the improvement charge is the proportionate share of a list of water distribution projects
designed to meet future growth in the City. For Water Treatment there is a reimbursement
fee since there is considerable unused capacity which has already been built at the City's
Water Treatment Plant.
The methodology for each component uses several factors in common. These include the
percentage of consumption by each customer sector.
Water consumption for four sectors of customers has been compiled for th(~ 1980-1988
period. The four customer sectors are Residential, Commercial, Governmental, and
Irrigation. Residential consumption includes only single family water accounts, because
multi-family accounts were recorded as Commercial. The last year for Irrigation water sales
was 1986.
The consumption by Residential, Commercial, and Governmental sectors was (~xamined in
three different views. First we examined the Annual Average of Water Sales. This view is
useful for determining the total demand on the system placed by the various sectors. The
second view is the peak usage analysis for the months of June, July and August - months
chosen because they represent the highest demand on the water system. The third view is
the non-peak usage analysis - all months except June, July and August. This view is most
useful for determining average per capita use excluding the effects of irrigation.
Average water sales -
1980 through 1989
Residential (Single Family)
Daily per capita SF resid.
Commercial
Governmental
54.86%
16.1 Cu. Ft.
37.36%
7.78%
A-I
Average water sales -
June, July, August 1980 through 1988
Residential (Single Family)
Daily Per capita SF Resid.
Commercial
Governmental
61.02%
28.0 Cu. Ft.
32.93%
6.05%
Average water sales -
Sept. through May 1980 through 1988
Residential (Single Family)
Daily Per capita SF Resid.
Commercial
Governmental
50.99%
12.4 Cu. Ft.
40.14%
8.87%
These per capita and percentage of consumption figures are used in the methodology when
determining the proper allocation of costs and benefits for water supply, treatment, and
distribution. The City has been refining its computerized record system over the past year,
and will be able to accurately determine any shifts in the percentage of water consumption
by the various sectors. This capability should be used annually to insure that any significant
changes in the allocation of consumption are reflected in the resulting SDC's.
For purposes of this analysis an adjustment to the City's consumption record reports was
made to account for the water use of Tourist Accommodation Rooms. Five p(~rcent (5%)
of total water consumption was subtracted from the Commercial use percentage to obtain
this amount. Tourist Accommodation Rooms account for 5% of total water sales as
reported in the 1989 R.W. Beck and Associates Report on Water Supply.
These distributions of consumption are used to determine and represent the relative burden
on existing and proposed water facilities throughout the methodology.
Uniform Plumbing Code Fixture Units
The Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) contains a standardization for variollls types of
plumbing fixtures to account for their load on the drain system in a building. There are
somewhat different standards used for commercial development and for one and two family
homes (COBA). Both however, use a unit of measurement called a "Fixture Unit". For
example, under the Uniform Plumbing Code, a drinking fountain equals 1 fixture unit, a
public water closet equals 6 units, and a single stall shower equals 2 fixture units.
Based upon interviews with the United Sewerage Agency in Washington County, Oregon,
and the Lane Council of Governments, both of whom have examined the issue" a standard
of sixteen (16) UPC fixture units is substantially equal to one single-family dwe~lling unit. -
A - 2
This considers the fact that there will be a mix of older and newer homes in the
community. Washington County's United Sewerage Agency uses the standard to determine
the monthly sanitary sewer bill for commercial accounts. Lane Council of Governments has
recommended it to both Springfield and Eugene as an equivalent for sanitary sewer as well.
Given the close relationship between the flow of water into a home or commercial
enterprise and the outflow into the sanitary sewer, we will employ the 16 fixture unit
standard in calculating parts of the Water and Wastewater SDC's for Commercial uses.
Service Standard
For the Water Supply and Treatment Plant components of the water systems d1evelopment
charge, the currently existing service standard has been assumed. For the Distribution
system there is some improvement in service level included in the projects identified as
required to serve future growth. However, this is the same improvement in service level that
comes from the completion of the non-growth related portion of the projects identified.
Thus new growth is not being asked to make up any deficiency in the current service level.
Other revenues will be used to complete that portion of the projects which raises the
standard of service in the City.
Methodology
Facility Type - Water
Facility Component - Supply
The current water supply for the City of Ashland has little unused water supply capacity.
The current sources of supply are Reeder Reservoir, direct intake from Ashlandl Creek and
contracts for water from the Talent Irrigation District (TID). Of greatest concern to the
City is the fact that contracts for TID deliveries of up to 795 acre feet per year are
expected to terminate by 1997. While new growth and development is currently being
served, the prospects for the future are poor without a new source or sources of supply
being made available. The situation is made all the more critical by the drought conditions
prevailing in the past few years.
Due to this situation, the City has begun examination of various water supply alternatives.
(See for example: City of Ashland Water Supply Report, R.W. Beck and Assodates, May
1989.) There are a number of possible supply and demand reduction alternatives presented
in the Beck Report, and the City has identified some additional prospects for increasing
future supply. However, no one water supply scheme has yet emerged as the approach the
City will follow.
A - 3
Because the City is temporarily seIVing, however tenuously, new growth and development
from existing water sources, the City should be charging a reimbursement fee for this
component of its Water System SDC. In other words, the current supply is virtually at
capacity and new growth is able to be accomodated only by virtue of the uncertain TID
contracts. As soon as a plan for a permanent solution to the water supply expansion is
adopted, this component should be recomputed as an improvement fee based upon the
costs of the adopted approach.
In order to establish a reasonable value for the existing water supply capacity wbich is being
made available to new users the full replacement value of the City's water supply system
should be calculated. The major components of that system include: Hosler Dam (1928 &
1948), the Ashland Creek water rights owned by the City, the value of TID contracts (1924,
1926 & 1935) which provide up to 769 acre feet per year in perpetuity to the City and
various intake, transmission, and storage facilities. This value would be discounted by a
"percentage of use" amount to acknowledge the value of the stored water to the City's
electrical utility.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of adequate records fully documenting historica.l City costs
in developing these water sources. This lack of fully reliable historical data coupled with
the improbability of ever being able to duplicate the supply sources precludes developing
a complete replacement value for what can only be described as an irreplacl~able asset.
However, the 1985 R.W. Beck report does include a proposal and cost estimate for a new
water supply dam and reservoir at the Winburn site upstream from Reeder Reservoir. This
information can be used to develop a reasonable estimate of the replacement value of the
existing dam and reservoir.
The potential dam and reservoir referred to in the report is estimated to be able to store
some 630 acre feet of water. This compares to the 840 acre feet which Reeder Reservoir
is capable of storing. (See: R.W. Beck report). Such a reservoir, when combined with other
existing sources, is projected to be able to meet the water needs associated with a
population growth to 23,600 as well as the commercial and industrial dl~velopment
associated with such growth in population. The projected total cost is $10,000,000. With a
storage capacity of 630 acre feet per year, the capital cost per acre foot of water stored is
$15,873 ($10,000,000 divided by 630 acre feet).
Were this computed cost of $15,873 per acre foot applied to Hosler Dam a.nd Reeder
Reservoir the value would be $13,333 million (840 acre feet X $15,873). Howev(~r, included
in the cost per acre foot of the proposed new dam are certain fixed costs which would need
to be incurred no matter what capacity of storage was contemplated. To be conservative,
we have assumed a fixed cost component in the Winburn Dam of 75% or $7,500,000. The
remaining $2,500,000 of variable costs when divided by the projected capacity of 630 acre
feet produces a variable acre foot cost of approximately $4,000. Extending this cost to 840
acre feet, the value is about $3,360,000. Thus, when the fixed costs are added to the
variable cost, the conservatively estimated replacement value of Hosler Dam and Reeder
A - 4
Reservoir is $10,860,000 ($3,360,000 plus $7,500,000). Again, to insure a c:onservative
calculation, no added replacement value is placed on water rights or other facilities
associated with supply other than the transmission capability assumed for the Winburn dam
project. To the extent water is available and not required for the Water Utility from Reeder
Reservoir, it is used to produce electricity for the City's Electrical Utility. For purposes of
this analysis, the City's Department of Public Works has suggested that as much as 25%
of the value of the dam and reservoir might be attributed to the Electrical Utility.
Based upon the foregoing conditions, the following represents the general M[ethodology
used to calculate the unit costs of providing the supply of water required to meet the
demands of growth for the following types of development: Residential Single-family unit,
Residential Multi-family unit (including mobile home dwelling unit), Tourist
Accommodation Room, and Commercial development. Government uses should be
classified according to their equivalent private sector use.
STEPS IN CALCULATING
1. Determine the value to the Water Utility of the existing water supply system based upon a $10,860,000
replacement value for Hosler Dam and Reeder Reservoir:
TOTAL VALUE OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY X PERCENTAGE BENEFIT TO WATER
UTILITY = VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY COMPONENT TO WATER UTILITY.
$10,860,000 X 75% = $8,145,000
2. Allocate share of value to single family residential sector, develop a per capita value and calculate a Single
Family Residence SDC amount and a Multi-family Residence SDC amount:
(a) PERCENTAGE OF WATER CONSUMPTION ESTIMATED TO COME FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR X VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY COMPONENT = VALUE TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTOR OF PROJECT.
54.86% X $8,145,000 = $4,468,350
(b) VALUE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTOR / ESTIMATED S.F. POPULATION
SERVED = PER CAPITA VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY TO S.F. RESIDENTIAL WATER USERS.
Population and Residency Assumptions
The U.S. Census estimates residential development Based on the foregoing assumptions, the population
consists of 70% single family residences and 30% served by the City's water supply consists of:
multi-family or mobile home residences. The City 5,100 S.F. units = 11,727 persons
also estimates 2.3 persons per single family 2,785 M.F. units = 5.013 persons
residence and 1.8 persons per multi-family (or 16,740 persons
mobile home park unit) residence.
PER CAPITA S.F. RESIDENTIAL VALUE = $4,468,350/11,727 persons = $381
A - 5
(c) SINGLE-FAMILY PER CAPITA VALUE X AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE =
COST TO PROVIDE WATER SUPPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
....... .COS'fr€Rs~JJ Iti)Sll).lJN}1':::. $381X~.:3pets()QSlbouseho14:::$876
II
(d) DETERMINE COST TO PROVIDE WATER SUPPLY TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Multi-family residential units typically do not show the same level of increased summer month water usage
as is do Single-family Residential Units. Therefore, the Sept. through May per capita consumption of
Single-family units better represents per capita consumption of Multi-family Units than the annual average.
The ratio of Single-family per capita non-summer to annual consumption = 12.4/16.1 or .77
Apply the ratio to Single-family per capita to derive Multi-family per capita values.
Per capita value (Single-family) X ratio = Multi- $381 X .77 = $293
family per capita value.
PER CAPITA MULTI-FAMILY VALUE X AVERAGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE =
COST TO PROVIDE WATER SUPPLY TO MULTI FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
CQS'rl?EllM.F. ImSll).1JNl'l'=$Z93 X 1.8perSQJ1s!ho\1sehold =$527
:=]
3. Calculate water use relationship between Single Family per capita and Tourist Accommodation Rooms; allocate
cost to Tourist Accommodation Room as a per capita equivalent:
(a) DETERMINE VALUE TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM OF WATER SUPPLY
Tourist Accommodation Rooms typically show a seasonal variation in consumption as do Single-family
Units. While the reasons for increased seasonal consumption are different, the net result is the same.
Therefore, the calculated Single-family per capita calculations are used when developing the value to
Tourist Accommodation Rooms.
TOTAL TOURIST ACCOMMODATION CONSUMPTION/NUMBER OF ROOMS = PER ROOM
AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTION BY TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS
5% of total city water use (R.W. Beck Study, 1989, pg.II-3) X total water consumption in 1989/number
of rooms.
7,024,122 cubic ft.t916 rooms = 7,668 cubic ft./ room
(b) AVERAGE TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM CONSUMPTION I PER CAPITA SINGLE-
FAMILY CONSUMPTION = PER CAPITA EQUIVALENT CONSUMPTION
A - 6
Single Family Residential Consumption in 1989 = 65,950,000 cu. ft.
Single Family Residence Population in 1989 = 11,727 = 5.624 cubic ft.
Per Capita Equiv. Consumption = 7,668 Cu. Ft./5,624 Cu.Ft. = 1.36
( c) SINGLE-FAMILY PER CAPITA VALUE (STEP 2b) X AVERAGE TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
ROOM PER CAPITA EQUIVALENT (STEP 3b) = COST TO PROVIDE NEW SUPPLY TO
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM.
COST ~ltT()tJrdST ,ACCOM. R,OOM #$381X 1.Yi=$S18
II
4. Determine an equivalent dwelling unit cost for all other commercial uses.
Sixteen (16) Fixture Units as defmed in the Uniform Plumbing Code for commercial development is the
estimated equivalent of one Single-family Dwelling Unit. The Commercial sector does not generally show
the same pattern of peak summer use as the Single-family sector. Therefor to equate a O)mmercial use
with Single-family use, the adjustment factor calculated in Step 3a above needs to be applied. The SDC
component for Commercial developments other than Tourist Accommodation Rooms is calculated as:
NUMBER OF FIXTURE UNITS ACCORDING TO THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
AS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF OREGON DIVIDED BY 16 TIMES
THE CHARGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT TIMES THE ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR (77%) TO DISCOUNT FOR PEAK SUMMER USE IN THE SINGLE-FAM:ILY
SECTOR.
SooeellFi#lIR Units = $876 X .71 =$67~
=:J
A - 7
Methodology
Facility Type . Water
Facility Component . Distribution
The City of Ashland water distribution system consists of large diameter transmission lines
that connect to the water supply reservoir, the treatment plant and other parts of the City
and the major lines that distribute the water to the customers. Under the City's land use
regulations, developers and customers are responsible for the cost of installing most of the
smaller diameter lines (6" and less) in the system. Therefor, the Distribution Component
of the Water System Development Charge is for those lines and appurtenances which are
not the direct financial responsibility of the developer or customer.
A Comprehensive Water Plan for the City of Ashland was completed by the firm of R. W.
Beck and Associates in 1980. The study identified the major projects to be undertaken in
a phased plan of improvements and expansion of the Distribution System. lbe projects
were designed to serve a future population of 21,130 (growth of 4,390 persons) plus
attendant commercial, industrial and other growth.
Many elements of the water distribution plan have been completed. The remammg
elements are itemized in Schedule 1.1.2. The remaining elements consist of projects which
will serve both the existing customers and will provide for the expansion of the distribution
system capacity required to serve the demands of new growth and development. The City's
Public Works Department has categorized the extent to which each project is required to
serve the existing customers of the system or new development. In addition to this
distinction, projects designed to serve new growth were further categorized as s.erving only
Residential or Commercial growth or both general sectors. No projects were identified as
solely serving Commercial growth.
Of the $7,970,200 total project costs, $4,272,644 are allocated to improving the level of
service in the existing distribution system and $3,697,556 to serve growth. Of the amount
to serve growth, $471,876 is solely for Single-Family Residential Sector benefit and the
remaining $3,225,680 is of general benefit and serves all types of future growth. (See
Schedule 1.1 following this subsection).
Based upon the foregoing conditions, the following represents the general Methodology
used to calculate the unit costs of providing the increased capacity in the distribution
system required to meet the demands of growth for the following types of development:
Residential Single-family unit, Residential Multi-family unit, Tourist Accommodation
Room, and Commercial use. Government uses should be classified according to their
equivalent private sector use.
A - 8
1. Determine cost to serve residential growth
(a) PROJECT COSTS TO SERVE PROJECTED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GROWfH /
PLANNED GROWTH IN SINGLE-FAMILY POPULATION TO BE SERVED = PER CAPITA
COST OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROJECTS.
Population and Residency Assumptions
The City of Ashland estimates residential Based on the foregoing assumptions, th€: population
development in the future will consist of two single projected to be served by the City's wat€:r
family residences for each multi-family or mobile distribution projects consists of:
home residence. The City also estimates 2.3 persons 1,374 S.F. units = 3,161 persons
per single family residence and 1.8 persons per 683 M.F. units = 1.229 persons
multi-family (or mobile home park unit) residence. 4,390 persons
Of aU new re,idential population growth, It "e,timatcd that 72% will remdc In Single-Family Vol". (See I
discussion above. Supply Methodology Step 3a).
$471,876/3,161 (4,390 x .72) persons = $149 per capita
(b) PERCENTAGE OF WATER CONSUMPTION PROJECTED TO COME FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR X VALUE OF WATER DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT SERVING ALL
GROWfH / PROJECTED GROWfH IN POPULATION = SINGLE-FAMILY PER CAPITA COST
OF SHARED DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT COSTS
54.86% X $3,225,680 / 3,161 persons = $560 per capita
(c) PER CAPITA COSTS OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS + PER CAPITA COSTS
OF SHARED DISTRIBUTION COSTS = SINGLE-FAMILY PER CAPITA VALUE OF
DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS TO RESIDENTIAL WATER USERS.
$149 + $560 = $709
2. Calculate SDC amounts for Single-family and Multi-family units based on per capita value:
(a) AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE X PER CAPITA VALUE := COST TO
PROVIDE EXPANDED CAPACITY OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING UNIT.
CPSl'PER S~'RESlp.1JNlT ;::.$709 X2.3. personS/hQlisebold;::$l,631
~
(b) AVERAGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE X ADJUSTED PER CAPITA VALUE = COST
TO PROVIDE EXPANDED CAPACITY OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO MULTI FAMILY
HOUSING UNIT.
A - 9
C()STPEk Mj\ H$SID.UNtT ::: l.8p~t$()uS/lt<>usehold X $431 ($560 X.11*) =$776
*: ..1'adjp.$tntenthasedQlllOwerpeFcapitause(StediscussiQuiliWa:tet$uppIy Methtld()lQgy
Step 3<:); . .
..
3. Determine cost to serve tourist accommodation room based on a per capital equivalent value::
(a) AVERAGE TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM PER CAPITA EQUIVALENT X SINGLE-
FAMILY PER CAPITA VALUE = COST TO PROVIDE EXPANDED CAPACITY OF
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM. (See disclllssion in Water
Supply Methodology Step 4 for assumptions).
COST PER T()trJ:tIST ACCOM. f<OQM uNIT == $560 X lS6=$762
.11
4. Determine cost to serve commercial uses:
Sixteen (16) Fixture Units as dermed ili the Uniform Plumbing Code for commercial development is the
estimated equivalent of one Single-family Dwelling Unit. The Commercial sector does not generally show
the same pattern of peak summer use as the Single-family sector. Therefor to equate a Commercial use
with Single-family use, the adjustment factor calculated in the methodology for Water Supply, Step 2d
needs to be applied. The SDC for Commercial developments other than Tourist Accommodation Rooms
is calculated as:
NUMBER OF FIXTURE UNITS ACCORDING TO THE UNIFORM PLUMBING
CODE AS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF OREGON
DIVIDED BY 16 TIMES THE CHARGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNIT FOR THE FACILITIES IDENTIFIED AS SHARED BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. TIMES THE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
(77%) TO DISCOUNT FOR PEAK SUMMER USE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY
SECTOR.
16Fooure Ullits = $392 ($S60X.11) X2.3 =$992
A - 10
'-
.....
'"
Cl
-C
e
co
.....
e
<11
E
.....
co
<11
'-
-C....
e
co ,
~~ >-
..c ~
~"'a.
<a.
<11 ~
~ '+- Ul
~ 0
-c '-
<11 >- <11
.c ..... .....
u.- CO
UlU3
,
, .....
-ce.c
<11<11.....
<11 U 3
2'-0
<11 '-
eQ.<..:J
o
.....
U
~
;;"9-
c ~ ~
8~~
, 0 Ul
,~
~ III
<
-c
<11
Ll'\a..~"""
CO-E'"
~ U 'Z 8
'"
w
'" -c
<11 <11
......c............
:.:~~~
......o...,::;u
U '"
~ w
'"
.....
U
<11
'0'
'-
Q.
e
o
.....
~
.0
-c
<11
.....<11
co '-
U co
O.c
~ Ul
000
0.....0
-0 co co
~-oo
-o~~
11I11I11I
<~
~~~
000
000
0.....0
CO.....~
000
01'-0
~~N
ll'l~-o
~M~
11I11I11I
.....Cl
e.~
<11.....
~ '"
<11'-
Q.x
w
~a-e~
000
000
o~o
N-o-o
000
000
000
.................,..........
I'-ll'lN
11I11I11I
'-
co
<11.....
e <11
<11
-' u..
O~-o
I2CiS~
3
o '+-
o
~.....
O<1l-C
""<1Ie
'-<11
>-.....
a.Ul .
<11 W
<11'+-
~oo
Ul .....
-c
oe-c
.....we
N
CO,
0..... .
..... .....
e-cUl
'- '-
cou
U .c
u..
,,-Cl
oe
e
o
.....
a.
'- , e
Cl
-Cco
~OE
~O<1l
3'-
.>< .....
CJjtJ)~
.....(1)0
C03N
U
<11 <11
<1Iee
e,-._
'-
U
'"
<11
Cl
.....
U
<11
'0'
'-
Q.
_ NO
co~~
Q.
u'U:
~~
NN
~::)
Q.Q.
M
ll'll'-~
, , ,
CO coco
, , ,
o~~
CO coco
''U:
e
U co
co~
u.. Q.
.....
Ul
0-0
00-
ll'lCO
, ,
NO-
CO~
N III
III
00000
001.1'\00
OOI'-~co
~'co'~' o-'~'
I.I'\....._U"\_
11I11I11I11I11I
~~
00
00
OM
ll'lM
N~N~~
00000
00000
OLnLl'\OO
ONN-oN
~
O~
00
ll'lM
N~
CO 0
N~
11I11I
00000
tAOLt'\C)C)
ON-oN
~'~' 0-' 0-'
Ll'\.......""'Ln
~1Il1ll1ll
~~
00
00
01'-
ll'l-o
NNNNN
00000
00000
OLt'\Ll'\OO
I'-I'-~co
00
00
ON
ll'l~
-oll'l
ll'l~
11I11I
00
00
oco
0'-0'
1'-0-
ll'llll
III
00000
00000
00000
.. ... ... .. ..
~~~8:j::!
11I11I11I11I11I
00
00
1'--0
ll'l~
00000
OOOOLl'\
ll'l-oMN-o
-..........-
Cl
e
e
3
o
CIJ ~
.....
~
<11
'-
N
~O
O~
>-
'- ,
.><
"'~
e
CO
'-
<1I<..:J
>
~-c
coe
>CO "'Ul
~ '"
'+->-0<110
<11 <11 >- 2.....
....-.....
-.....~c~
<1I~"'COCO
0< 2 '- > 0
Ul
CLIO o.
'-......0....,
~ .....
"'CO e,-
'" N >-.- Cl
<11 CO U CO
'--C::E:-
0..0....... .-
~
.r::.ICJ:Z~
..... '"
..... >- I......
:J: ctJ I ro
3 'U
..... .....
.....C(I)(I)ol:S
Ul'-
.><~5~~
~"Et:~~
u...... 0 3: Q)
3:IE: 2
<11 <11
e <11 <11 e <11
'- e e '- e
Ul._
:IE:
o
.....0
.....
<11
U>-
COCO
'- ~
'-U
CIJ
.... .
'3
'0
.....0<
Ul
-c
-cco
CO
CO '-
.c '_
"'CO
<0<
<11 CIJ
ee
ON
N~
O=_~=
-coco-co
M~
~~
::)::)
Q. Q.
MM N
NN N
" ,
::J::J ::J
Q.Q. Q.
~N
~~
ll'lll'l
coco
-NLI'\I'-o..
I t I I I
CO co co coco
I I I I I
1.l'\Ll'\Ll'\LI'\LI'\
CO co co coco
000
000
o-CON
, , ,
~CON
CO 1'-0
N~~
11I11I11I
NNN
000
000
000
I'--ON
000
000
~NCO
N' 0-' co'
N~O
~~~
11I11I11I
NNN
000
000
000
M~CO
00
00
00
1'-' co'
00-
~N
11I11I
000
000
000
, , ,
OO~
~o~
~Mll'l
11I11I11I
000
000
~oo
~M~
o
""
-c
co
o
'-Q.
~ ....
'-3
CO
0<0
.....
.cO
..........'-
CO~O
u..o>
>-'-
0._ <11
......>< '"
"'<11
"EinO<
CO ,
~
<11
<11
.c
"'.....-c
<UlO<
, >- '-
co.-
.~ 0
-CU>
> '-
~, <11
CO '"
<11<11
~>O<
0<
>- '-
......s:::. Q)
~.';"'5l
..... CO <IJ
Ulu..o<
<1I<1ICIJ
eee
000
NNM
ll'l-o
~~
, .
::J::J
Q.Q.
~NM
<<<
~~~
0000
0011I11I
ll'lll'l
COM
11I11I
NNNN
0000
0000
LnLt'\oc>
NN
0000
0000
I.l'\Lt'\OO
ll'\"" 0'" Lon" 0.-
N--tR-
11I11I11I
NNNN
0000
0000
1.t'\l.1'\00
1'-1'-00
~~
0000
0000
0000
~'~' ll'l' 0-'
t'l--fA
1Il~1Il
0000
ll'l00ll'l
I'-M~N
<11
e
CO
e e E'-
CDCOCDQ
EE.c
-......"'0
OJ.r::. Q) ......
"" Cl '-
'- <..:J CO
03 '-
..... oco
0......0
.><..... '-
CO ClJCO
O<1l-CCO
ClCO
I "'0 (I) I
'- :IE:
. '- .
......1:0.......
Ul Ul
'" .....e
en . (I) >-
<11.....
2(1)_(1)
'-'><
e <11 CO U
CO <11 <11 CO
>-Io..~
<11 <11 <11 <11
eeee
..... 'r- ..... .....
----
a:,a:,~~
~O
NN
::)::)
Q.Q.= =
M~ll'l-o
I I I I
COCO COCO
~~~~
00
ll'lCO
M CO
ll'lN
~-o
MM
11I11I
NN
00
00
ll'lN
MM
00
ll'lN
-o~
ll'l~
CO I'-
ll'll'-
11I11I
NN
00
00
ll'lCO
-0-0
o
o
o
,
~
o
0-
III
00
00
00
CO~
OM
o-~
~ ,
;;;;
00
00
~ll'l
I'-ll'l
000
00ll'l
ll'll'-CO
O~N
-oll'lCO
M ~ I'-
11I11I11I
NNN
000
000
Oll'lll'l
ll'lCOCO
000
00ll'l
ll'lM~
0' 1'-' CO'
-oNM
MIIl~
III III
NNN
000
000
Oll'lll'l
ll'l~~
00000
00000
00000
1'-' O'~' N'~'
~~-oCON
-"""'--0..
11I11I11I11I11I
0'
o
CO
N
, 00
00
ON
Mll'l
~
o
ll'l
M
1'-'
I'-
III
N
o
o
ll'l
CO
o
ll'l
-0
M
III
N
o
o
ll'l
o
o
o
0:
III
o
o
ll'l
~
-0
'-0
~>-
3
e""
o
'" 0
>-3.....
<110
"''-<11
'-uo -c
<11 ..... . e
""0<11 -cco
.....~ 0<
o ......" ~
.....C(l).....,QJe'O
'- '- N e 0 >-
e CO :IE: ". '- <11
.... ...... ('.::e::: 0 tf)
roc,...... .....L
:IE: ~ -c <11
OO-Cle.""
.....:lE:o-eco'-
'" '- ~ Cl 0
rei >-C.r::. ......
LU :J:..... cn ~
-o""CO<<1IE
I '\Q 0 ID 0') ~ 't:
.>......LCUa..
<11 3
. '1:J >::z:::. 0.. "'0 en I
"'E<1I < -Co-~.....
<11<11> olIO<~.c
0:::......0 C >-00)......
CJ) c... C C:J: C..... (J)
'- >- a. co.- 0 "" '- 3
.Q)CI)E .....ctlCI) L-
IS 5 al <1I'C e 5:IE: ~ 2 g-"E ~
'- <11 '- ::J 0 0 '- 0 co'-
'+- >- c::: :J ..... ::E w U ...... ....J :J:
L (/'J..t......... Q):J:
.. L CI) QJ..... CD .. QJ QJ
<11 <11 <11 <11 co..... <11 <11 <11'+- <11._ <11
coo e '- '- > Ul e e e e > e
...... :J:..... 0.. --' L. ..... ..... ..... 0 '..... "0 ,.....
- CD - C1J 0.--' - _ 0 _ c-
= ~ = -B,~ ~ 5 = = = U"\..= ~ =
-..:t (I) ..0 ...... ...- ~ Q.. N N N ...- N CI N
N,.,..:z: ...-...-_......,_...-
'-
o
.....
o ;::0
>.....>
'-'..... '-
(l)U<1I
'" '"
<11 '+- <11
0<00<
ceo
00.....
"'.-
3.....<11
o '- e
'-OCO
U 0.-,
0"'>-
.....~'-
~ '-
Q.'~ <11
"""".0
3 3
.....CO
, "''-
<11.....
. 3 Ul
-c
0< e ,
'-
o
>
'-
<11
'"
<11
0<
.....
Ul
<11
.....
e
CO
'-
<..:J
o
.....
>-
a.
a.
~
Ul
N CO
~ ~
, ,
::J ::J
Q. Q.
~ NM
, "
~ ~~
0: 0:0:
'-
~ll'l-o
~;C;C
0:0:0::
I'-
,
<f-
0:
00
ll'l0
CO I'-
N~
ll'lll'l
t;;t;;
~~
00
00
ll'lll'l
~ CO
00
ll'l0
~M
-0' 1'-'
-ON
COlli
III
~~
00
00
ll'lll'l
CO ~
00
00
00
o-N
~ CO
o~
'Ill
;;;;
N
o
o
o
ll'l
o
o
o
~
-0
III
N
o
o
o
ll'l
o
o
o
CO
N
~
III
o
o
o
~
-0
III
(::>
(::>
-0
"
0-0-00
1Illl'lI'-CO
ll'lCO-o
,...........-..U"\..
o-I'-N
-o~N
''-' ,
M M
III
.-
tf'l
...
o
o
M
M
CO
III
C3.e
c::>
c::>
c::>
-:t
N
o
o
~
o
o
o
ll'l
CO
e::>
o
':t
o
o
I'-
~
III
O~
1Il~
-0 .....
.........,.....
N......'+-
1'-'+-<11
N<1Ie
, e <11
~<1ICO
III CO
-c
~ -C1J
o -c'-
o '- CO
"'.c
o <11 Ul
0<
'" CO
"'.....
<11 0
-' ....
~,
_T
~~
~3
e::>
e::>
~::>
~
o
o
ll'l
~
Ul
-'
<
....
o
....
o
e::>
e,
C.
~-
..~
o
o
o
CO
0-
III
o
o
o
0-
CO
;;;;
00
00
:t;~
~
CO
o C).......O 0
o OUl-o N
,...., CI\ U"\ U"\
~ > N
0<
Q.
.c
.....
'-
a.
U) c '- 0
c "'0.......
C1J I 0').......
<11 e CO <11
'- '-~
....... CI '-C<IJ--'
U) 01 '..... C CD
<11 CO <11 >
3 3:ECl
<1I<1IO-C
C C ....... c: '..... '- '- c
OOUle.> -cco
o.'Z >0',;:;"2 t ~...,
o CD ctJ <<I ctJ <IJ U)
o ....... - ....1 '- '""""'10 0 0
....J(/)UClIClO......U
'-
..>..;:.... a...,+-
Q) ~ C1J 0::: <IJ <IJ 0
eQ.eo..e'+-e
...... o......~
-.J::--'..c.:- ....JO
....... ..,J ~ U"\
~ 'i ~ '3; 2, ~ b ......,
- ...-.......1""'")
CO
-c
co
>
<11
2
-g
o
3:
.....
'"
<11
3
o
.....
>-
'-
'-
<11
.0
3:
CO
'-
.....
Ul
<11
-c
Ul
CO
,
<
,
0:
N M ~
, , ,
CO CO CO
, , ,
0: 0- 0:
e
CO
:IE:
.....
'"
CO
W
o
.....
>-
3
""
'"
Cl
e
3
'-
Cl
U
e
<11
U
Ul
o
.....
"
<11
'-
<11
...c
Cl
e-c
<11
e-c
'- ~
co~
E U
<1Ie
,-.-
-c
0<
~'-
0<11
-0.....
CO
'3
.c
U
.....
o
~
,
::J
Q.
Methodology
Facility Type - Water
Facility Component - Water Treatment Plant
From City records and a recent study of the City's water supply, it was determined that the
water treatment facility has considerable unused capacity (Water Supply Report, R.W. Beck
and Associates, May 1989.) Thus, new development should pay a reimbursement fee which
reflects the demand being placed upon this unused capacity.
Size of Unused Capacity. Design capacity of the current water treatment plant is 12.5
million gallons of water per day (MGD). Current use, based upon average daily water
processed in the peak month, is calculated at 7.5 MGD. This indicates the plant is being
used a 60% of capacity, with 40% unused capacity.
Value of Unused Capacity Using comparative cost information derived from inte~rviews with
City Department of Public Works staff, Eugene Water and Electric Board staff, and staff
from R. W. Beck and Associates, a conservative replacement value for the Ashland plant
is established at $9,000,000. This value should be reviewed periodically and illlcreased as
needed.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conditions, the following represents the general
Methodology used to calculate the unit costs of providing the unused capacity in the Water
Treatment Plant available to meet the demands of growth for the following types of
development: Residential Single-family unit, Residential Multi-family unit, Tourist
Accommodation Room, and Commercial USE. Government uses should be classified
according to their equivalent private sector use.
STEPS IN CALCULATION
1. ASSIGNMENT OF VALUE TO lYPE OF USER:
Customer Qass % of Current Use
Residential 54.86%
Commercial 32.36%
Tourist Accom. 5.00%
Governmental 7.78%
Value of 60%
of Capacity Used
$2,962,440
$1,747,440
$ 270,000
$ 420.120
$5,400,000
A - 12
2. Calculate per capita Single-family residential value and apply to Single-family and Multi-family residential
units to calculate SDC's:
(a) COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY USED/CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY
POPULATION = PER CAPITA SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COST.
$2,962,440/11,727 persons = $253 per capita
(b) AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE X PER CAPITA VALUE = REIMBURSEMENT
FEE TO PROVIDE UNUSED CAPACITY OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
<';081' PER s~t1Nrr:::$2~3 X 2,3 pets()ns/hollseh()l4: == $582
(c) AVERAGE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE X ADJUSTED PER CAPITA VALUE* =
REIMBURSEMENT FEE TO PROVIDE UNUSED CAPAOTY OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT
TO MULTI FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
COST PERM.J"'UN1T.:= J.Spets()Jls!h<>llsehold X $195 ($253 X .77*) :=.$$51 ;]
',Adj.~4m;.t<>f17% toSiu,,)e.~......am. 0.... unt to..... .ceo..t t<>_.~ ...<!iIt,,",.\>C, (s.. .......
diSCUSSlOn l1l Water Supply Methodology Step 3C.
...........--------.----..-,..""" "",....,................,..""" ...".... ....._---------......
3. Apply Single-family per capita equivalent factor to Tourist Accommodation Rooms to calculatt~ SDC:
(a) AVERAGE TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM PER CAPITA EQUIVALENT X SINGLE-
FAMILY PER CAPITA VALUE = COST TO PROVIDE UNUSED CAPACITY OF WATER
TREATMENT PLANT TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM. (See discussion in Water Supply
Methodology Step 3 for assumptions).
COST 'PER TOmuST ACCOM.aOOM =1,36 XS253 == $344
~
4. Calculate Commercial Use SDC equivalent.
Sixteen (16) Fixture Units as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code for commercial development is the
estimated equivalent of one Single-family Dwelling Unit. The Commercial sector does not generally show
the same pattern of peak summer use as the Single-family sector. Therefor to equate a Qlmmercial use
with Single-family use, the adjustment factor calculated in the methodology for Water Supply, Step 2d
needs to be applied. The SDC for Commercial developments other than Tourist Accommodation Rooms
is calculated as:
NUMBER OF FIXTURE UNITS ACCORDING TO THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
AS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF OREGON DIVIDED BY 16 TIMES
THE CHARGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT TIMES THE ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR (77%) TO DISCOUNT FOR PEAK SUMMER USE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY
SECTOR.
II
16 FixtDre Units =$582 X.71 = $448
=:J..
.. .
................ . ....
A-13
B. SANITARY SEWER SDC METHODOLOGY
In developing the methodology by which the City's sewer SDC is calculated~1 the sewer
system is viewed as having two separate components - the sewerage treatment plant and
the collection system. A separate methodology for each of these SDC components is thus
recommended and described.
Sewerage Treatment Plant Component. The City's treatment plant has undergone a
number of improvements over the past 40 years to accommodate the increasing demands
placed upon it by a growing city and to comply with higher standards for trleated flows
discharged from the plant as imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The current plant's designed capacity was
brought to this higher level of treatment and geared to process the considerable effluent
burden from a food processing plant which is no longer operating. The result is that the
treatment plan has unused capacity that can handle a significant amount of effluent
generated over the next 10 to 20 years by new development. The methodology for
determining the reimbursement fee which assigns new development its equitable and
proportionate share of the value of this excess capacity consists of the following steps.
1. Detennine amount of unused treatment plant capacity.
Based upon City information on dry weather water consumption (hence dry weather
discharge to the sewerage treatment plant), the current demand upon the plant was
determined as follows:
User category
Plant Use (MGD) (in millions
Measurement of gallons per day)
Residential
(4,370 accts x 105 x 2.4) 1.101
Commercial
Governmental
(@ 48% of Residential) .528
(@ 10% of Residential) .110
SOSC
(@ 65 gpcd x 4,400 stu) .286
TOTAL AMOUNT PROCESSED
2.025 MGD
(say 2.0 MGD)
Data from Sewerage Studv. pg. 8 by CRS Sirrine of September 1986, updated to 1990
population.
B-1
The ratio of use to design capacity is 2.0 MGD/3.1 MGD = 65% used. Thus the
plant shows an unused capacity of approximately 1.1 MGD.
2. Detennine present value of plant and the unit value of the unused capacity.
The historic cost of the current plant was determined through a review of Public
Works records which were used as follows:
Sewage Treatment Plant Value
Plant Construction Year Local Costl 1991 Value2
Initial construction 1936 $ 55,780 $1,100,000
Addition/upgrade 1960 280,000 1,622,000
Addition/upgrade 1978 299,326 505.000
Current value $3,227,000
1 The local cost figures total construction costs less federal and state grants; thus local
cost is just that plant value paid for by Ashland's sewer utility users.
2 The 1991 value was determined by applying the percentage increase in the ENR
Construction Index from the year of construction to the last week of February 1991.
The unit value (the unit being 1,000 gallons of sewage per day) of the unused plant
capacity is calculated by dividing the present value by its present design capacity.
$3,227,000 divided by 3.1 MGD divided by 1,000 = $1,041/1,000 GPD
3. Detennine the reimbursement fee for "buying in" to the plant capacity
With the unit value of each 1,000 gallons of daily processing capacity determined,
the reimbursement fee for different categories of development can be: calculated
when the average daily demand for each such category of development is known.
The formulas and calculation for the various categories of development follow.
B-2
(a) Residential Uses .PReilllbtirsement Fee
Daily
Development Volume
Daily Plant
. Capacity Used
Reimbursement
PDue for Unit
Single-familY>
.105 gpd x 2.3
241.5 gpd
189.0
Multi- family
105 gpd x 1.8
105 gpd x 1.36
142.8
$251
$197
$149
Tourist. room
Note: Daily volume, based upon average dry weather flow of 105 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd) and population factors of2.3 per single family home, 1.8 per multi-
family unit and 1.36 per tourist room. See Water SDC Methodology in this Ichapter
for discussion of Tourist Accommodation Room equivalent calculation.
(b) Commercial Development - Reimbursement Fee
The Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by the State of Oregon, cOlltains
data for various plumbing fixtures for commercial uses and the "fixtUre unit"
amount for each. A typical single family home will have the equivalent of 16
fixture units. (See: Water System SDC Methodology for fuller discussion). For
every 16 UPC Fixture Units, each commercial use, other than Tourist
Accommodation Rooms, will pay the equivalent of one (1) Single-family
Residential SDC or fraction thereof, for the Wastewater Treatment I)lant
charge;
(c) Governmental and Institutional Development
Government and Institutional uses are classified and calculated according to
their equivalent private sector use, e.g. Residential Single-family, Multifamily,
Tourist Accommodation Room, or Commercial.
4. Credits Granted
If property tax-supported bonds had been used to help pay for the l()(~al share of
plant construction, the present value of that stream of payments from a development
property could equitably be credited against the STP reimbursement fee. If
outstanding debt was still requiring debt service payments through property taxes or
a portion of the sewer service rates, the present value of that stream of future
payments by a particular development could also be equitably credited. Since neither
of these situation exists in Ashland, the methodology includes no such credit
proVISIon.
B-3
Sewer Collection System Component.
The portion of the sewer collection system which is considered for SDC support consists
of the major parts not assessed through local improvement districts nor installled directly
as a condition of land use development. These include the trunk sewers, interceptors and
any related lift stations. The 1986 Sewer Study by CRS Sirrine indicated that there was
essentially no excess capacity which existed in the collection system and that capital projects
were needed to correct existing deficiencies and to meet the future demands of expected
new development.
The City's Public Works Department has identified the projects yet to be built to
accomplish the planned system expansion and has indicated that all of these future projects
are 100% related to serving new development. The methodology for determining the
appropriate public improvement charge for the collection system part of the Sewer SDC
consists of the following steps.
1. Determine present value for projects needed to serve expected new development.
The Schedule on the following page calculates the total current value of needed
sewer collection system projects at $817,000.
B-4
"'0 v ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ :a
Ol..c:: ....- v) .... a; v) g r-:
gon ~ ~ co l'l ~ ....
-~ .... ~ .... ~ .... co
< ~ ~ ~ .... ....
-..c:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5~
~ 0
V .. g g g g g g
I~c:l
"'0 .... .... .... .... .... ....
V
V
Z
c::
0
.Q
g
b"O V 0 0 0 0 0 0
c:: v .. ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~
8-Ol
Ol..c::
11l~
1<
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c:: c::
v ._ 8 8 8 8 8 8
u -
~ .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
~Ul
~B8f6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
81l.g~ .... v) .... a; v) 8- r---
--....11 ~ ~ co l'l ~ ....
UOl~~ .... ~ .... ~ .... co
.~ "8..... z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~::J Ul
on
~
B 0
U U
::l ] ~
,!: co
<IJ
"'0 c:: ti
1>0 0 V") 0
8 u l'l E-<
N N c'<1 S +
v N v v 8 ~ ~
<IJ B <IJ 1>0 ....
<J:l Ol Ol :a + + B
..c:: ..c:: l'l
.... ~ "1 ~ ~ "2 ~
u co
il) .... 8 Ul 0
I 8 1 B B V")
.0 c:: c:: ::l c'<1 8 +
l-< .g .g .Q c. 0 \C
p... C. v V") + ....
~ '<;; ..c:: <IJ + ....
.... Ol Ol ....
d Vi .~ Vi I ..c:: .... co ~
~ ~ V")
il) c. c. ~ ~ 8
S 8 c. 8 I
Ol 0 ~ +
il) ::l U ::l ! ..\oIl ~ 0 N
6 ~ 1;l ~ c:: V") +
::l + + ....
..\oIl ..\oIl .... ....
l-< V Ol V ] ~ 0 r-- r--
v ~ B
c.. v t) V <IJ N B
S U U .5 ..\oIl B B N
c:: .5 v
v .... V")
...... .g "'0 B "'0 C U I 0 ~ N +
S c:: c:: .Q ~ V") + r--
.e Ol c. Ol IS + + r-- 0
il) :a 8 :a :a .;; V") .... \C ....
.... ~ ~ ~ <IJ V C. c:: l'l c:: c::
~ ::l
V C. c. i!l Ol .Q c:: .Q .Q
Cl u 0
en v v v 8 v v e;; .;; e;; e;;
d U "'0 U "'0 ::l "'0 <IJ Vi Vi Vi Vi
Ol Ol Ol C. Ol Ol
.9 v 51, c.. 51, 51, v
.... 0 c. v C. ~ c. tl ~ IJ:i <.5 0
u .. ::J ~ ::J v ::J .5
~ ~ c::
'0
'0 U
l-< ~ ~
d ~
C'oJ '" I 1
,...; :a ~ ::J ::J
~ < en thl' ~ ~
;:l ..... e-
'0 0 '" .'*1:
....
il) >. .2
fj .... :::: c::
U '" ~ Ol
en en ~s:
2. Allocate costs among categories of development.
Using data on effluent contributions from each type of development as shown in
Step 1 of Wastewater Treatment Plant methodology, the proportioning of use is as
follows:
Residential
Commercial
Governmental
SOSC
54.0%
26.0%
5.4%
14.6%
3. Detennine per capita residential cost of new projects.
The 1986 Sewer Study indicates its recommended improvements to th~~ collection
system are geared to serve a population of 22,700 - approximately 6,000 more
population than the 1990 figure. Thus total project costs of $817,000 are 54%
residential or $441,200. Divided among 6,000 new residents equals $74 per capita.
4. Detennine Single-family and Multi-family improvement charge.
=:J
:=J
H .
SiJ1gle~familyH@$74Htillles 2.3 petsOhlhOtlsehold.::::$1'70
Nlll1ti-faJIiily ..<gt. .$74 . {iIll e$~.~p~rs(:)n.s/hotlsehold.= .$133
5. Detennine improvement charge cost for Tourist Accommodation development.
Tourist accommodation development is to be charged an improvement charge on
a per tourist accommodation room basis equal to 1.36 times the per capita cost of
$74.
.
Tourist toomequivalentfactofof 1.36 tillles$74 .~$1()1
6. Detennine improvement charge cost for Commercial Development.
The Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by the State of Oregon, contains data for
various plumbing fixtures for commercial uses and the "fixture unit" amount for
each. A typical single family home will have the equivalent of 16 fixture units. (See:
Water System SDC Methodology for fuller discussion).
For every 16 UPCFixture Ullit$, eacb commercial use, othet tl1anTouri$t
Acco1I1moda.tion Roo1I1s,will paytbeequivalelltofon.eH (1) Single..fatllily Residential
SDCo( fra~ti()))t~~reof,J()rt~~~~we( Collection System~harge.
B - 6
C. STORM DRAINAGE SDC METHODOLOGY
Introduction and General Information
The City's storm drainage system was the subject of a thorough master facilities plan study
by KCM Engineering in 19851. The study mapped and described both the existing storm
drain facilities and made recommendations for improving and expanding the system to meet
demands of full build-out within each of the 15 drainage basins within the Ashlland Urban
Growth Boundary. It stated that (with the exception of six major drainage channels -
Ashland, Clayton, Hamilton, Tolman, Wrights and Bear Creeks) all storm runoff is planned
and designed to be handled by conduit. A minimum size of 10-inch diameter concrete pipe
was used for future pipe installations in order to facilitate maintenance.
METHODOLOGY - Steps followed in calculating a Stonn Drainage SDC are:
1. Detennine the square footage of impervious area that will result from full d1evelopment
within the Ashland stonn drainage/urban growth area.
The Master Plan indicates that the existing system is essentially at or beyond capacity and
that construction projects to install conduit, eliminate bottlenecks and improve some open
drainage channels are necessary to handle the increase in storm water runoff and to
accommodate existing and future runoff. The method used to develop the design and
location of these capital improvement projects used a computer to model both (~xisting and
increased flows from full development of currently undeveloped land within leach of the
drainage basins. Four categories of land were used based upon the City's Comprehensive
Plan: single family, multi-family, commercial/industrial and parks and open space. Certain
ratios of impervious area to total land area were used to develop total impervious area to
be added in each basin and, using Ashland rainfall data, translating the increased runoff
from development into the appropriately designed storm drain system necessary to handle
that increased storm water flow.
The table following shows the results of this process in terms of the amount of projected
impervious area by each type of land use zone. The summary data shows the following
amount of new impervious area by major type of use:
Single- Family
Multi- Family
Comm'l/Industrial
TOTAL
378.7 acres
35.7 acres
175.2 acres
589.6 acres
Converting impervious acres from new development to square footage (589.6 X 43,560)
equals 25,683,000 square feet.
1 City of Ashland Drainage Master Plan, KCM Engineering, Tlgard Oregon, November, 1985
C-1
2. Calculate project costs and allocate to new growth.
ASHLAND STORM DRAIN PROJECT NEEDS -
Data from KCM Drainage Master Plan, July, 1985
Summary of Capital Costs - (1985 Dollars based on ENR Index of 4600 Seattle
WA.)
Projects
Done Since Current Valut~
Capital 1985$ of Remaininl~
Basin Cost Amount Date Projects
Wrights Creek $ 16,200 $ 16,808
Hospital 904,500 938,448
Cambridge St. 230,400 239,048
Laurel St. 798,750 828,729
Ashland Creek 952,200 987,939
Railroad Yard 495,900 25,000 1991 434,512
55,000 bid
1991192
Mountain Ave. 1,058,550 1,098,280
Beach St. * 1,687,900 89,000 1990 1,662,251
Fordyce St. none
Walker Ave. 41,000 42,539
East Main St. 2,628,950 2,727,621
Park St. 252,000 261,458
Gay Creek 922,950 957,591
Hamilton Creek 24,450 25,368
Interstate 5 basins 1.070.100 1.110.264
$11,083,850 $11,330,856
Plus Engineering, Overhead, Contingencies @ 30% 3.399.25'~
Total Cost
$14,700,113
Notes:
1. Capital Cost is KCM estimate in 1985 dollars; does NOT include engineering &
design, contingencies or overhead.
2. Current value of projects remaining translated to current dollars based on ENR
of 4772.65 (2125191)
* Ditching cost is included in Beach St. estimate.
C-2
The City of Ashland Public Works Department has estimated the allocation of costs related
to correction of existing system deficiencies versus costs attributable to new development
to be 85% correction to 15% new development. Thus costs to be allocated to new growth
are $2,205,000 (15% of 14,700,000).
C-3
3. Calculate the cost per impervious square foot of new development.
Total project costs to serve new development are divided by the squar,e footage of
impervious area of future full development within the Ashland urban area.
COST PER SQUARE FOOT =
Project Costs/ Impervious Area in Sq. Ft.
$2,205,000/25,683,000 sq. ft. = $0.085
4. Calculate the SDC amount.
From the building and site plans submitted with each development application, the square
footage of impervious area will be determined. The COST PER SQUARE FOOT will then
be applied to that calculated square footage to determine the amount of the Storm
Drainage SDC for that specific development. For example, a single family homesite with
a 1,500 sq. Ft. house, a two-car garage of 450 sq. Ft. and walks and driveways covering 700
sq. ft. would cover a total of 2,650 sq. ft. The Storm Drain SDC would thus be 2,650 X
$0.085 = $225.25.
C-4
3. Calculate the cost per impervious square foot of new development.
Total project costs to serve new development are divided by the square footage of
impervious area of future full development within the Ashland urban area.
COST PER SQUARE FOOT =
Project Costs/ Impervious Area in Sq. Ft.
$2,205,000/25,683,000 sq. ft. = $0.085
4. Calculate the SDC amount.
From the building and site plans submitted with each development application, the square
footage of impervious area will be determined. The COST PER SQUARE FOOT will then
be applied to that calculated square footage to determine the amount of the Storm
Drainage SDC for that specific development. For example, a single family homesite with
a 1,500 sq. Ft. house, a two-car garage of 450 sq. Ft. and walks and driveways covering 700
sq. ft. would cover a total of 2,650 sq. ft. The Storm Drain SDC would thus be 2,650 X
$0.085 = $225.25.
C-5
D. TRANSPORTATION SDC METHODOLOGY
Introduction and General Information
The City of Ashland has a system of streets and roadways which at various points have
become saturated especially during periods of peak use. The City has determined that
automobile use has grown more rapidly than population growth. While the City seeks to
promote alternatives to single-driver automobile use, continued growth and development
will require additional capacity to the City's collector and arterial street system. While
developers are required to provide residential streets within subdivisions, the added load
on the non-local portion of the system caused by both residential new subdivisions and in-
filling will need to be met. Furthermore, as new commercial development occurs it creates
additional trips which translate directly to the need for increased street capacity.
Under the Oregon statute, the transportation SDC is a broad category that can include
expenditures for a variety of projects that increase the capacity of the City's transportation
system. Consequently, when the cost of providing increased capacity is calculat4~d, the City
includes such diverse elements as such expenditures as new street construction itself plus
required signalization, signing, curbing, sidewalks, widening, channelization and right of way
acquisition. Similarly, expenditures to increase capacity even on existing arterials and
collectors can appropriately be made as long as the SDC funding portion of the project is
increasing the capacity of the system.
Standard of Use
The standard of use proposed is the existing standard provided to the current residents of
the City. Were the standard of service increased, the change would result in the need to
recompute the cost per unit of growth (New Lane Miles Required). The leve:l of service
relates directly to the capacity of the street system, i.e., the greater the number of vehicles
(lane capacity) the lower the standard and hence the lower the cost of an SDC.
The Transportation System Development Charge is an improvement fee because there is
no unused capacity for which the City seeks reimbursement. Thus the charges will be used
for expansions in the capacity of the City's arterials and collectors.
D-l
STEPS IN CALCULATION
The Transportation SDC formula is:
ATTRIBUTABLE NEW TRAVEL IN VEHICULAR MILES PER DAY =
[(No. Trips/day by land use type x Trip Length)f2 · % New Trips]
NEW LANE MILES REQUIRED =
Attributable New TraveV Capacity per Lane Mile in Vehicles per day
CONSTRUCTION COST. =
New Lane Miles Required X Construction Cost per Lane Mile
CREDITS =
Present Value of required or allowed developer contribution
TRANSPORTATION SDC =
Construction Cost - Credits
ASSUMPTIONS AND SOURCES:
The individual factors in the calculation formula are derived from:
1. Trips/day or Trip Rate is average number of trip ends per weekday from Trip Generation: An Infonnation
Report (4th ed.),1987, published by Institute of Transportation Engineers, and Average Trip Lengths is
from "Trip Lengths, Survey Data Tabulations, conducted by National Personal Transportation Study"
1983-84.
2. Percentage of New Trips is judgement based on surveys reported in "Factoring Passer..By Trips Into
Traffic Impact AnalysesjJ.82, Public Works, May 1984; ITE's Trip Generation and discussion of
methodology with City of Medford and Jackson County Public Works Department staff.
3. New Lane Miles Required is calculated by dividing the attributable new miles of daily travel by the
capacity of a lane of roadway at the City's standard of service at 5,500 vehicles per day at average
weekday volumes.
4. Costs of Construction from City of Ashland Public Works Dept. staff.
5. Credits may include Real Market Value (as last determined by the County Assessor) ofland for Collector
or Arterial streets or rights of way, or additional Collector or Arterial street capacity pJrOvided by the
developer and not required by the development itself. Developer provided lane miles that quilify for
credit will be based on the then existing City value for calculating the SDC.
D-2
DAILY TRIP ENDS AND TRIP LENGTH PER UNIT BY LAND USE TYPE
Land-Use Type (Unit) Trip Rate Adjusted * Percentage Adjusted *
Trip New Trips * Trip
Length Rate
Residential Use
Detached Single Family Unit 10.1 2.2 100% 10.10
Multi-family Unit - each unit 6.6 2.2 100 6.60
Mobile Home in Park, - unit 4.8 2.2 100 4.80
Hotel/MotellB&B, per room 10.2 1.9 75
7.65
Other Residential, each unit 10.1 2.2 100 10.10
Industrial & Warehouse, per
1,000 sq. ft. gross bldg. area
Industrial, light 7.0 1.9 100 7.00
Warehouse/Wholesale 4.9 1.9 100 4.90
Storage 2.6 1.9 100 2.60
General Office, per 1,000 sq.
ft. gross bldg. area 16.3 1.9 25 4.08
Retail/Commercial per 1,000
sq. ft. gross bldg. area 94.7 1.9 50 47.35
* Trip lengths are derived from national averages and then reduced by .666 to acoount for compact geography of the City.
** Trip Rates are adjusted by multiplying unadjusted national average Trip Rates times Percentage New Trips.
Notes to: Daily Trip Ends and Trip Length per Unit by Land Use Type
1. These formulas and calculations are based upon averages and typical conditions. As
such, the impact of individual new developments could be overestimated. Thus provision
is provided under the City's SDC Ordinance to permit the developer to submit on a case
by case basis a professionally prepared site and development specific analysis for review
by the City to determine if an adjustment is warranted. Similarly, the SDC Ordinance
permits the City to initiate a site and development specific analysis to dete:rmine if an
adjustment is appropriate.
D-3
2. The Land Use Types are categories derived from Trip Generation, 4th. ed., 1987
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The City will develop a
table of building permit types that correspond to the above Land Use Types and
descriptions and use the table as a guide in assigning proposed developments to the
proper category.
3. There will not be a Transportation SDC charged for construction requiring building
permits for miscellaneous structures that do not increase the level of demand on the
transportation system, e.g. carport, sheds, garages, etc.
4. Trip Rates are from lTE's Trip Generation calculations for Average Weekday Trip
Ends.
Cost per lane mile -
The City of Ashland, Department of Public Works, has estimated the cost of constructing
a new lane mile of Arterial or Collector roadway in the City. The estimated cost is $110,000
per lane mile.
The City may revise the cost estimate from time to time in accordance with the provisions
of the City's SDC Ordianance as new information is developed or as costs change.
SAMPLE CALCULATION:
Single Family House -
ATTRIBUTABLE NEW TRAVEL IN VEHICULAR MILES PER DAY =
[(10.1 daily trip ends x 2.2 mile Trip Length)/2 * 100% new trips]
= 11.11 vehicular miles
NEW LANE MILES REQUIRED =
11.11 / 5,500 vehicles per lane mile daily
= 0.00202 new lane miles
CONSTRUCTION COST* =
0.00202 lane miles X $110,000 Cost per Lane Mile
= $222.20
CREDITS =
Present Value of required or allowed developer contribution
.
.
~...............................................
. ..
. .
d..
1"RANS'PORTATtON S])O=
Construction Cost -Credits
==$222.20persingle familyh()llse
D-4
E. PARK AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY
Introduction and General Information
Following is the methodology used to calculate the Park and Recreation Systems
Development Charges required to cover the full costs of park and recreation facilities to
serve new residential growth to the year 2005 in Ashland. There are three Components
covered: Large Active Parks, Small Active Parks and Large Passive Parks. The methodology
for each component is basically the same.
For Park and Recreation Improvement fees the methodology looks only to the Residential
Sector. While it is true 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 therefor attributable to thdr role as a
resident 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 a.rea picnics.
Park user fees established by the Parks and Recreation Commission should be s,et 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 regard to Lithia Park, 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 is currently being conducted by Rebecca L.
Reid of the Southern Oregon Regional Services Institute (SORSI) for the Southwestern
Oregon Visitors Association (SOV A) and funded by the Oregon Department of Economic
Development through the Regional Strategies program. As part of this study interviews
were conducted 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% bad stayed in
a Hotel/Motel or Bed & Breakfast accommodation. About 16% reported staying with
friends or relatives and the remainder had other accommodations including eamping.
When the 434 visitors were asked the size of their party the responses rang(~d 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.
E -1
As these early results show, the tourist industry does place a heavy demand on Lithia Park.
While no study has been conducted to determine the use of other City of Ashland Park and
Recreation Facilities, the Parks Director reports that his observation over the years is that
there is strong tourist use of other facilities such as tennis courts. Based on these survey
data and the professional observations of City staff, there is ample evidence 1to 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, 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 oriented facilities
to Tourist Accommodation Rooms expansion.
Standard of Service
The City of Ashland comprehensive plan identifies a standard of 2.5 acres of active large
parks per 1,000 persons, 1.75 acres/1,000 for small active parks and 10 acres/1,OOO for large
passive parks. However, the City falls short of these service standards fOJr each park
category. Some of the City's park and recreation facility needs are being met through
cooperative agreements with the School District and with Southern Oregon State College -
both of which have made land available for park and recreation facilities.
Land made available by Southern Oregon State College may be required at a future date
for college purposes, thereby diminishing the supply of available park land. ThlllS as the City
looks to increase its inventory of developed parks with the goal of meeting the adopted
standards, the target may move if some land now in park use becomes unavailable.
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 - not up to the Comprehensive Plan Standards or to the
standard which includes the land currently provided by the School District and Southern
Oregon State College. The lowest standard (the current service level) is used because using
a higher standard would result in new development paying twice - once in the form of a
Systems Development Charge and then again in property taxes levied to increase the supply
of park facilities required to serve the existing population. By limiting the Systems
Development Charge to the existing standard, new development will share in the cost of
improving to the adopted standard through taxes over time as expansion of the Park and
Recreation System occurs.
Methodology
E -2
Park and Recreation Component
The general methodology for calculating appropriate levels of Park and Recreation Facility
SDC is as follows:
1. 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.
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.
5. 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.
6. DIVIDE TOTAL COST BY PROJECTED ADDITIONAL POPULATION TO
OBTAIN PER CAPITA COST. REDUCE PER CAPITA COST BY "TOURIST
ACCOMMODATION ROOM FACTOR"*
7. MULTIPLY ADJUSTED PER CAPITA COST TIMES AVERAGE NUMBER OF
PERSONS PER SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY UNIT, AND
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ROOM TO OBTAIN EACH SDC.
8. 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 illl all Tourist
Accommodation Rooms / (Total Resident Population + Number of Persons in all Tourist
Accommodation Rooms)
On the following pages the Methodology is applied to the City of Ashland.
E -3
ASHlAND PARK NEEDS PROJECTIONS
To Accommodate Population Projected for year 2005
ACfIVE PARKS:
LARGE -
Currently Operate: 17.50 acres (City Owned)
15.20 acres (City Use - sase Fields)
6.50 acres (City Use - Walker School)
39.20 acres in use
RatioslStandards 16,740 population
2.34 acresl1,ooo in use
1.05 acresl1,ooo current City Owned Standard
2.50 acresl1.ooo - Comp. Plan Goal
Projected Pop. Growth 3,000 by year 2010
Acres for growth pop. 3.14 at Current Standard of 1.05 acresl1.ooo
Acres for existing pop. 24.35 at Comp. Plan Standard of 2.5 acresl1,ooo
Cost To Meet Growth Requirement
Acquisition Cost 78.400 @ $25,ooo/acre
Development Cost 125,450 @ $4O,ooo/acre
$203,850
Current Cost To Improve to Comp. Plan Standard
Acquisition Cost 608,750 @ $25,ooo/acre
Development Cost 974,000 @ $40,ooo/acre
$1.582,750
SMALL-
Currently Operate: 8.50 acres (City Owned)
18.15 acres (City Use - School Dist.)
26.65 acres in use
16.740 population
1.59 acresl1.ooo in use
0.51 acresl1,ooo current City Owned Standard
1.75 acresl1,ooo - Comp. Plan Goal
Projected Pop. Growth 3,000 by year 2010
Acres for growth pop. 1.53 at Current Standard of 0.51 acresl1,ooo
Acres for exis ting pop. 2.68 at Compo Plan Standard of 1.75 acresl1,ooo
E -4
Cost To Meet Growth Requirement
Acquisition Cost 91,800 @ $6O,OOO/acre
Development Cost 30,600 @ $2O,OOO/acre
$122,400
Cost To Improve to Standard
Acquisition Cost 160,800 @ $6O,OOO/acre
Development Cost 53,600 @ $2O,OOO/acre
$214,400
Passive:
Lithia and Bear Creek Parks 136.05 acres (City Owned)
16,740 population
8.13 acresll,OOO in use
8.13 acresll,OOO current City Owned Standard
10.00 acresll,OOO is Comp. Plan Goal
Projected Pop. Growth 3,000 by year 2010
Acres for growth pop. 24.38 at Current Standard of 8.13 acresll,OOO
Acres for existing pop. 31.30 at Comp. Plan Standard of 10 acresll,OOO
Cost To Meet Growth Requirement
Acquisition Cost 487,634 @ $20,OOO/acre
Development Cost 121,909 @ $5,OOO/acre
$609,543
Cost To Improve to Standard
Acquisition Cost 626,000 @ $2O,OOO/acre
Development Cost 156,500 @ $5,OOO/acre
$782,500
E -5
PROJECTED POPULATION
GROWfH TO 2010 3,000
PERSONS PER UNIT:
SINGLE-F AMIL Y 2.3
MULTI-FAMILY 1.8
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
ROOM 2.7
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
FACTOR 13%
FULL COST PER UNIT TO MEET EXISTING USE STANDARD
ACTIVE PARKS:
LARGE- TOTAL COST $203,850.00
ADJ. PER CAPItA $59.12
COST:
SINGLE-FAMILY $135.98
MULTI-FAMILY $106.42
TOURIST ACe. ROOM $159.62
SMALL- TOTAL COST $122,400.00
PER CAPITA $40.80
COST:
SINGLE-FAMILY $93.84
MULTI-FAMILY $73.44
P ASSIVE- TOTAL COST $609,000.00
ADJ. PER CAPITA $176.61
COST:
SINGLE-F AMIL Y $406.20
MULTI-FAMILY $317.90
TOURIST ACe. ROOM $476.85
TOT AL- SINGLE-F AMIL Y $636.02
MULTI-FAMILY $497.76
TOURIST ACe. ROOM $636.47
E -6