HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-36 Water SDCs Repealing 2006-27
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-36
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW WATER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.20 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2006-27.
RECITALS:
A. The current Water SDC was approved on 18 October 2006.
B. The City adopted a new water master plan April 17, 2012 that updates the previous master
plan with new capital improvements and updated construction costs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Water System Development Charges report update and project list marked
as Exhibit C, is adopted effective immediately.
SECTION 2. The methodology for Water System Development charges, marked as
exhibit B, is adopted, effective immediately.
SECTION 3. The System Development Charges Summary per exhibit A, is effective July
I, 2017.
SECTION 4. The existing System Development Charges project list & fee schedule for
Wastewater adopted by Resolution 2006-27 is repealed, effective July 1, 2017.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this o10 day of OU-A.rr bar ,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this oZ U day of 1~ a GR.r+.v~~,~ , 2016.
o n Strom erg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2016-3 6 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC
Residential
$/habitable sf $0.93 $1.68 $2.61
Commercial and Industrial (by meter size)
% x 3/4 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877
3/4 $25989 $5,140 $8,1.29
1 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257
11/2 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010
2 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901
3 $35,858 $6105 $97,543
4 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213
6 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627
Source: City of Ashland, Water System Development Charge Update [Economic & Financial Analysis,
July 2016], Table 1.
2- Y02-Water SDC Resolution.dOCXG:\legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd
City of Ashland
Wastewater and Water - System Development Charge Update
Methodology Summary
August 14, 2006
Exhibit `B'
Prepared by
Shaun Pigott Associates, LLC
CITY OF ASHLAND
WASTEWATER AND WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
Process
This update of Ashland's system development charges (SDC) for wastewater and water was
done in order to revise the SDCs based on recently completed facility plans for both utility
systems. Also, as part of this update process; issues related to the current SDC structure were
addressed through Ashland's SDC Committee. The Committee includes Darrel Boldt, Jac
Nickels, Greg Williams, Larry Medinger, Russ Silbiger, Kerry KenCairn, and Connie Saldana.
The SDC Committee has worked directly with staff and the City's consultant over the course of
6 meetings held between April 2005 through July 2006. The proposed revisions to the
wastewater and water SDCs reflect the Committee's unanimous recommendations to the
Ashland City Council.
For this update, the City and Committee had a number of objectives:
• Review the basis for the SDCs to ensure a consistent methodology;
• Develop a rationale and documentation for the reimbursement element of the SDC;
• Consider possible revisions to the structure or basis of the charge that might improve equity
or proportionality to demand; and
• Provide clear, orderly documentation of the assumptions, methodology, and results, so that
City staff can, by reference, respond to questions or concerns from the public
Background
The City's SDC Ordinance No. 4.20 was originally adopted in 1992 and amended in 1996. The
ordinance was designed for compliance with ORS 223.297-.314 (Oregon SDC statute) which
mandates that all jurisdictions having SDCs adopt ordinances consistent with this Oregon law.
Actual SDC calculations have been adopted through a series of resolutions including Resolution
No. 2000-29 "A Resolution Adopting New Water, Wastewater and Parks System Development
Charge Schedules." This also served to repeal the SDCs set in 1996. For water and wastewater,
the 1996 SDCs were based on fixture counts with a single-family home (17 fixtures) paying
$2,716 for water and $2,255 for wastewater.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 1
Wastewater and Water
In 2000, this methodology was reviewed by the City through the SDC Committee for purposes of
simplifying the calculation and eliminating the perceived or real inequity of a 1200 sq ft home
paying the same SDC as a 3000 sq ft home. The objective was to simplify and make the
calculation more predictable, easier to administer and to ensure that larger homes paid a
proportionately larger SDC over smaller homes. The staff recommendation was to replace, for
single family and multi family properties, the use of fixture counts with "habitable square
footage" which equals the heated square footage of a house. This figure would be submitted as
part of the plan review process and would be clear, easy to administer and charge larger houses
proportionately more for their SDC. In order to achieve this last objective, the City developed a
series of SDC brackets based on ranges of habitable square footage and assigned to these
brackets a specific cost per square foot, with the cost per square foot within each bracket going
up as the overall square footage increased. This calculation and the resulting brackets were
designed to be "revenue neutral" in terms of the overall SDC revenue generated with this
calculation vs. the 1996 fixture count approach. Under this 2000 revised approach, a "typical"
average sized home would be charged a water SDC of $3,362 ($2,716 under old SDC) and a
wastewater SDC of $2,482 ($2,255 under old SDC).
The City's revenue status for its water and wastewater SDC accounts, of which there are 5, is as
follows:
• Overall SDC revenues for water in 2005 are budgeted at $525,000; wastewater SDC
revenues are budgeted in 2005 at $438,000.
• Water SDCs are collected and tracked under distribution, treatment and supply. '05 fund
balances are ($1,442,000) for supply, $776,000 for treatment and $2,643,000 for
distribution.
• Wastewater SDCs are collected and tracked under two categories; collection and
treatment. The adopted 2005 budget shows a fund balance of $1,439,000 for collection
and ($77,000) for treatment.
Specific SDC Committee Recommendations
The City's use of "habitable square footage" for wastewater and water SDC calculation
differs from the generally accepted approach used in Oregon which is either meter size
and/or fixture counts. However, ORS 223 does not mandate any specific calculation
approach so long as the allocation methodology selected "promotes that future system
users contribute no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities" AND
"the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the
systems" is the basis for the charge. The SDC Committee did feel the use of habitable
square footage was consistent with the City's objectives for promoting smaller home
construction in the City and recommended that it be continued. However, the use of
numerous brackets in applying habitable square footage was considered
counterproductive and the Committee recommended a uniform cost per habitable square
foot.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 2
Wastewater and Water
i
• The City has funded the construction of its new wastewater treatment plant through food
and beverage tax receipts. This source of funding is not affected by existing wastewater
customers nor can an SDC designed to reimburse the utility (and its customers) for its
costs in providing capacity be applied when the treatment facilities are paid through a
food and beverage tax. Accordingly, the reimbursement portion of the wastewater SDC
does not include the treatment costs paid through the food and beverage tax.
• The City currently maintains 5 distinct SDC funds for wastewater and water. Under
wastewater there are SDC funds for treatment and collection. Under water, there are
separate SDC funds for distribution, treatment and supply. The Committee recommends
that these 5 funds be reduced to 2, one for wastewater and one for water. Any concerns
about loss of accountability by reducing the number of funds can be offset by annually
reconvening the SDC Committee to review the City's year-end report on SDC receipts,
expenditures and capital project list. The SDC Committee did volunteer their time for
these annual meetings.
• Ashland's 2000 water and wastewater SDCs are based on projects that were updated
from the 1996 SDC study. The City now has updated facility plans and CIPs for both
utilities. For this SDC update, each of these projects has been reviewed in terms of
purpose, cost, and allocation between existing ratepayers and SDC eligibility. The SDC
Committee spent the majority of its time reviewing the capital project lists and capacity
allocations for each of the wastewater and water projects. These individual projects and
their allocation to growth are now part of the City's SDC methodology.
SDC Methodology and Calculation
The City's uses distinct allocators for future commercial water and wastewater connections to
the systems. These allocators are meter equivalents and fixture counts respectively. The capital
costs determined to be SDC eligible were divided between the commercial and single family
residential users based on the total current meter equivalents in service for water; 78.4% are
single family residential (SFR) and 21.6% are commercial. For wastewater, the basis for
allocation was the average dry weather flow from these two customer groups; 73.64% is SFR
and 26.36% is commercial.
Under ORS 223, there are two elements to an SDC:
The reimbursement fee considers the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing
users of those facilities, the value of the unused/available capacity, and generally accepted
ratemaking principles. The objective is that "future system users contribute no more than an
equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." The reimbursement fee can be spent on capital
costs or debt service related to the systems for which the SDC is applied.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 3
Wastewater and Water
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes:
Current Equivalent Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Available to Serve Growth:
Original Cost 25,859,286.21 7,124,571.41 32,983,857.62
less: Accumulated Depreciation (7,398,192.23) (2,038,298.68) (9,436,490.91)
less: Book Value of the Hosier Dam (59,779.87) (16,470.13) (76,250.00)
less: Grants -
less: Developer Contributions -
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt
Series 1977 Water General Obligation Bonds (78,399.82) (21,600.18) (100,000.00)
Series 1997 Flood and Refunding Bonds (944,717.88) (260,282.12) (1,205,000.00)
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds (4,139,510.69) (1,140,489.31) (5,280,000.00)
Net Rate Payer Investment in Capacity Available to Serve Growth 13,238,685.73 3,647,430.98 16,886,116.71
Calculation of Future Demand.
20 Year Forecast... Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,889
20 Year Forecast... Commercial Equivalent Meters 2640
Calculated Water Reimbursement Fees
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Reimbursement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes`
20-Year Plan (Year 2023) Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (MGD)* 1.90 0.68 2.58
Average Dry Weather Flow Percentages 74% 26% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capecify Available to Serve Growth:
Original Cost $ 36,643,246 $ 13,114,425 $ 49,757,671
less: Accumulated Depreciation (4,050,653) (1,449,707) (5,500,360)
less: Grants "
less: Contributed Capital (City food and beverage tax receipts) (8,785,659) (3,144,341) (11,930,000)
less: Principal Outstanding on Long Term Debt: "
EPA/DEQ State Revolving Loan Program (fed. CFDA No. 66.458) (16,632,189) (5,952,573) (22,584,762)
Net Rate Payer Investment in Capacity Available to Serve Growth $ 7,174,745 $ 2,567,804 $ 9,742,549
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecast... Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 18,167,889
20 Yeat Forecast... Commercial Fixture Counts 42,237
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Fee:
Tr-
A .4i . Cif -ni ' ,}+t1'~iT l.? m~!a.. lei y.: ~ e..v : i•.ta3:..1...Cf..t
M-s-
a.
City of Ashland SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 4
Wastewater and Water
The improvement fee portion of the SDC is based on the cost of planned future facilities that
expand the system's capacity to accommodate growth or increase its level of performance. In
developing an analysis of the improvement portion of the fee, each project in the City's capital
improvement plan was reviewed to exclude costs related to correcting existing system
deficiencies or upgrading for historical lack of capacity. The improvement SDC is calculated as a
function of the estimated number of additional units to be served by the City's facilities over the
planning period.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Water System Development Charges
Improvement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basis for Allocation To Customer Classes:
Current Equivalent Y4" Meters in Service 7,114 1,960 9,074
Percentages 78.40% 21.60% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Available to Serve Growth:
Future Project Costs Attributable to Growth:
TAP beyond Talent $ 3,189,893 $ 878,857 $ 4,068,750
Transmission Line (Reeder to Plant) 771,216 212,480 983,696
Hosler Dam Stability Analysis - - -
Lost Creek Water Rights (additional) 391,999 108,001 500,000
Hosler Dam Security and Telemetry 29,400 8,100 37,500
Sludge Lagoon Improvements 9,408 2,592 12,000
Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements 47,040 12,960 60,000
Review Chlorine-Hypochloride 58,800 16,200 75,000
Plant and Process Improvements 188,160 51,840 240,000
Filters 7 and 8 New 343,979 94,771 438,750
Waterline Replacement - Granite 108,388 29,862 138,250
Fire Flow Distribution Reservoir 194,040 53,460 247,500
Crowson-Airport-E. Main Loop 38,416 10,584 49,000
Replace Steel Line Terrace; Irrigation Ditch to Lowe 27,440 7,560 35,000
Upsize Lines at Maple, Scenic & Chestnut 49,000 13,500 62,500
Replace Line Strawberry to Grandview 19,600 5,400 25,000
Upsize Mains on Wimer-Sunnyview 49,000 13,500 62,500
New Line Benson Loop 38,416 10,584 49,000
Upsize Lines - Euclid, Prospect, Fem, Roca 53,900 14,850 68,750
Upsize Mains on Tolman Creek 73,500 20,250 93,750
Replace Steel Line on Siskiyou 31,360 8,640 40,000
Internal 4" Line Upsizing 137,200 37,800 175,000
Other Line Upsizing 147,000 40,500 187,500
Engineering Cost 1,045,187 287,963 1,333,150
Construction Mgmt Contingency 1,352,757 372,702 1,725,459
Total Growth Related Costs $ 8,395,096 $ 2,312,959 $ 10,708,055
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 4,476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Equivalent Meters 650
Calculated Water lm rovementFee. _
""cYWX~S'=1A:~. T ; 9'~Y~t rc~:sa~-rr _ rte. r'~
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Pages
Wastewater and Water
e •
City of Ashland, Oregon
Calculation of Wastewater System Development Charges
Improvement Fee Derivation
Commercial &
Residential Institutional Total
Basfs for Allocation To Customer Classes.
20-Year Plan (Year 2023) Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (MGD)* 1.90 0.68 2.58
Average Dry Weather Flow Percentages 73.64% 26-36% 100%
Calculation of the Value of Capacity Available to Serve Growth:
Future Project Costs Attributable to Growth:
New Membrane Sections $ 32,219 $ 11,531 $ 43,750
Process Improvements 36,822 13,178 50,000
Thermal Improvements 92,054 32,946 125,000
North Mountain Park 231,977 83,023 315,000
Wightman to Tolman 187,791 67,209 255,000
Collection System Master Plan Update 84,690 30,310 115,000
Granite Street 12,151 4,349 16,500
North Main Pump Station Replacement 24,855 8,895 33,750
Walnut: Grant - Wimer 17,453 6,247 23,700
Street Line Upsize/Repiacement 100,523 35,977 136,500
Oak Street Lithla to A 30,930 11,070 42,000
Mountain Ave. Upsize 42,345 15,155 57,500
Willow Street Upsize and Replace 19,147 6,853 26,000
Hersey Street Upsize and Replace 16,938 6,062 23,000
In-House Line Replace and Upsize 88,372 31,628 120,000
Collection System Improvements 110,465 39,535 150,000
Engineering Cost 317,403 113,597 431,000
Construction Mgmnt & Contingency 397,251 142,174 539,425
Total Growth Related Costs $ 1,843,387, $ 659,738 2,503,125
Calculation of Future Demand:
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Residential Habitable Area (Square Feet) 4,476,432
20 Year Forecasted Growth in Commercial Fixture Counts 10,407
Calculated Sanitary Sewer Improvement Fee:
* Source: City of Ashland, Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan, Final Report, January, 2005, Table 2.5 - Summary of
Population and Flow Projections
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 6
Wastewater and Water
Based on the SDC Committee's review of the water and wastewater project lists and the
allocation methods felt to be most consistent with the City's policy objectives, the following are
the Committee's SDC recommendations:
Wastewater SDC
Current - SDC is $2,707 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
Proposed - SDC would be $1,613 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
This reduction of the SDC for wastewater is due to a significantly downsized allocation of
capital facility costs to growth and the removal of the treatment plant funded through food and
beverage tax receipts from the reimbursement element of the SDC. It should be highlighted
that the food and beverage tax is due to sunset in 2010. If these tax revenues are no longer
available to fund the wastewater treatment plant, the debt service for this facility would need to
be paid through a combination of increased wastewater rates and increased SDCs.
The SDC for commercial properties will be based on fixture counts (number of toilets, sinks,
etc) at a rate of $124 per fixture. A commercial property having, as an example, 16 fixtures
would pay a wastewater SDC of $1,984.
Water SDC
Current - SDC is $3,667 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
Proposed - SDC would be $5,208 for a "typical" 2,000 habitable square foot home
This increase in the SDC results from evaluation of each project identified in City's water CIP
and a more accurate allocation of these project costs between growth and current water utility
customers.
The SDC for commercial properties will be based on meter size and flow factor/meter
equivalence as established by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard for
cold water meters - displacement type. As an example a meter will pay $4,940; 1" meter
$8,250; 1.5" meter; 1.5" meter $16,450.
City of Ashland - SDC Update Methodology Summary Page 7
Wastewater and Water
RESOLUTION NO. 2006- • /
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
The City of Ashland resolves that the 2006-2007 Fiscal Year Budget,
now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006, and for the purposes shown
below are hereby appropriated as follows:
SECTION 1.
GENERALFUND
Administration Department $ 253,780
Administrative Services - Municipal Court 395,035
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 115,360
Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 504,650
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 7,000
Administrative Services - Band 61,554
Police Department 5,325,774
Fire and Rescue Department 5,262,372
Public Works - Cemetery Division 355,375
Community Development - Planning Division 2,313,591
Community Development - Building Division 801,756
Transfers 500
Contingency 400,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,796,747
_ I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
Personal Services 35,485
Materials and Services 385,765
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) 215,000
TOTAL CDBG FUND 636,250
I
STREETFUND
Public Works - Street Operations 4,060,268
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 739,870
Public Works -Transportation SDC's 274,850 +
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 47,500
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 343,498
Contingency 153,000
TOTAL STREET FUND 5,618,986
AIRPORT FUND
Materials and Services 111,532
Debt Service 35,173
Contingency 5,000
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 151,705
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Personal Services 152,407
Materials and Services 394,750
Capital Outlay 3,056,000
Transfers 905,434
Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) 530,000
Contingency 50,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5,088,591
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service 1,656,170
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,656,170
I
i
1
WATER FUND
Electric - Conservation Division 172,005
Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division 196,000
Public Works - Water Supply 3,020,679
Public Works - Water Treatment 1,400,354
Public Works - Water Distribution 3,264,112
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 467,670
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 702,580
Public Works - Debt SDC's 123,932
Debt Services 544,457
Contingency 152,000
TOTAL WATER FUND 10,043,989
WASTEWATER FUND
Public Works - Wastewater Collection 2,240,657
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 2,022,260
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 192,160
Public Works - Improvement SDC's 108,090
Debt Services 1,793,196
Contingency 149,000
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 6,505,363
ELECTRIC FUND
Electric - Conservation Division 976,645
Electric - Supply 6,557,504
Electric - Distribution 5,189,851
Electric - Transmission 1,048,600
Contingency 381,000
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 14,153,600
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND
IT - Customer RelationsWromotions 223,608
IT - Cable Television 478,746
IT - Internet 776,310
IT- High Speed 301,179
Contingency 100,000
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,879,843
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Administration Department 998,925
Administrative Services Department 1,919,524
IT - Computer Services Division 982,388
City Recorder Division 269,768
Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,488,463
Contingency 171,000
TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 5,830,068
INSURANCE SERVICES FUND
Personal Services 400,000
Materials and Services 661,291
Contingency 32,000
TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,093,291
EQUIPMENT FUND
Personal Services 266,476
Materials and Services 519,955
Capital Outlay 1,415,000
Contingency 42,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,243,431
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
Transfers 19,000
TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 19,000
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Parks Division 3,868,250
Recreation Division 962,200
Golf Division 416,000
Transfers 110,000
Contingency 35,000
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 5,391,450
YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND
Personal Services 96,000
Materials and Services 2,335,361
TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 2,431,361
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Capital Outlay 331,000
TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 331,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 78,870,845
SECTION 2. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Muncipial Code
§ 2.04. 0 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _%~:p day of 1XL1ftR1,, 2006.
i
i,
V
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Signed and Approved on this day of June, 2006.
John . Morrison, Mayor
j Appro d as fo
chael ra Il, C Attorney
EXH I BIT C
City of Ashland, Oregon
`ATE
SYSTEM Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Vancouver, WA
July 2016
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 1
CURRENT WATER SDC 1
UPDATED WATER SDC 2
Reimbursement Fee 2
Improvement Fee 3
TABLES
Table 1. Summary Water SDC, Displacement Type 3/4-inch Meter 1
Table 2. Schedule of Water Meter SDCs by Meter Type and Size 2
Table 3. Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 3
Table 4. Original Capital Improvements List and Percent SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s 4
Table S. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s 6
Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 7
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page i
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
INTRODUCTION
An update to the water system development charge was presented in the final 2012 Comprehensive Water
Master Plan (WMP). Since then, the TAP water line project has been completed, which reduced the size
of the Crowson II water storage project. An updated schedule of water meter sizes and technologies has
also been added. These changes affect the calculations of the reimbursement and improvement fees. The
basic SDC methodology remains the same: residential developments are assessed based on square footage
of habitable floor area and all others are assessed based on the size water meter serving the development.
These adjustments to the 2012 Master- Plan SDC are presented in the following sections of this report. This
update relies on the forecasts of water usage and land use development contained in the 2012 WMP.
SUMMARY
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential, commercial, and industrial
users. Compared to the current water SDC, the updated water SDC increases 0.3% for the residential land
uses and decreases 1.3% for commercial and industrial land uses. The commercial and industrial SDC
decreased due to an apparent error in the 2012 Master Plan calculations which is explained below in Table
5.
Table 1. Summary Water SDC, Displacement Type 3/4-inch Meter
Current 2014 2012 Master Plata Update with TAP & Crowson II
SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC % A
Residential
$/habitable sf $2.60 $0.93 $1.68 $2.61 0.30%
Commercial and Industrial (by meter size)"
%X3 4 $4,940 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 -1.30%
3/4 $8,250 $2,989 $5,140 $8,129 -1.50%
1 $16,452 $5,976 $10,281 $16,257 -1.20%
l'/i S26,332 $9,561 $16,449 $26,010 -1.20%
2 $57,654 $20,918 $35,983 $56,901 -1.30%
3 $98,808 $35,858 $61,685 $97,543 -1.30%
4 $205,866 $74,704 $128,509 $203,213 -1.30%
6 $296,424 $107,573 $185,054 $292,627 -1.30%
^Rounded to the nearest dollar
CURRENT WATER SDC
Currently the City's water customers use displacement type meters, though more recent technology uses
turbine type meters. In general, turbine meters have a higher capacity to pass water than the current
displacement meters. Table 2 shows both the capacities and SDCs for the two types of meters by meter
size (inches of diameter). Also, the City has been defining the 3/4-inch meter as a 5/s" x 3/4" (i.e., 5/a" from
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
the water line in the right-of-way by 3/4-inch into the property). A true 3/4" x 1/4" will pass substantially more
water than a 5/8" x 3/4" as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Schedule of Water Meter SDCs by Meter Type and Size
Turbine Displacement
Safe Safe
Maximum Equivalent Maximum Equivalent
Operating Number Operating Number
Capacity of 5/8 x Capacity of 5/8 x Reimburse- Improve- Total Reimburse- Improve- Total
(gpm)/' 3/4 Meters m 3/4 Meters ment ment SDC ment ment SDC
5/8 x 3/4 15 1.00 15 1.00 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877 $1,793 $3,084 $4,877
3/4 30 2.00 25 1.67 3,586 6,168 9,754 2,994 5,151 8,145
1 50 3.33 40 2.67 5,970 10,270 16,240 4,787 8,235 13,022
1 %i 100 6.67 50 3.33 11,959 20,572 32,531 5,970 10,270 16,240
2 160 10.67 100 6.67 19,130 32,909 52,039 11,959 20,572 32,531
3 350 23.33 150 10.00 41,828 71,955 113,783 17,929 30,842 48,771
4 600 40.00 200 13.33 71,716 123,369 195,085 23,899 41,113 65,012
6 1250 83.33 500 33.33 149,402 257,008 406,410 59,757 102,797 162,554
8 1800 120.00 - - 215,147 370,106 585,253 - - -
^gallons per minute
UPDATED WATER SDC
Reimbursement Fee
Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee. The reimbursement fee is based on
the depreciated value of existing fixed assets and the recent addition of the TAP water line.
The proposed SDC in the 2012 Master Plan was based on the fiscal year 2011 (July 1, 2012 through June
30, 2011) audit. The update is based on the audit ending June 30, 2013, and on the current cost of
constructing the TAP water line and the Medford Water Commission SDC for water in 2014 dollars. This
project was deleted from the list of capital improvements that was is to calculate the improvement fee.
Since this project has been constructed, it can be counted as an existing asset with excess capacity to serve
future development. In the 2012 Master Plan, the project was to serve only emergency water needs and
was excluded from the calculation of the improvement fee. Since then, the scope of this project has made
it a source of water to Ashland and it will be available to serve future development. In this analysis, 90%
of the TAP line cost is included because it will primarily serve growth and 10% is assumed to be used for
emergency use by existing development.
Seventy-seven percent of the 3/4-inch meters are in single-family residences; therefore, 77% of the eligible
reimbursement fee costs are allocated to residences and 23% to commercial & industrial users.
ECONOMIC S FINANCIAL ANALYST= Page 2
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
Table 3. Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee
2011 2013 Allocation % o
Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7%
Accumulated Depreciation (S15,22,~,374) (S17,254,657) 13.3%
Book Value of Hosler Dam (S-55,741) -100.0%
Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2%
Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds (S 17 5,000) -100.0%
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds ($2,940,000) ($4,695,862) 59.7%
Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) (5633,551) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding ($3,74,551) (54,695,862) 25.3%
Investment in Capacity $17,147,990 $14,484,761 -15.5%
Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump
MWC's SDC 52,620,084
Construction $4,400,000
Less: IFA Forgivable Loan (5950,000)
Net Cost of "TAP $6,070,084
Allocation to Future Development $5,463,076
% Allocation to Future Development 90%
Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee $19,947,837
Current 3/4" Equivalents Meters # % $
Residential 7,575 77% $15,359,834
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $4,588,002
Totals 9,802 100% $19,947,836
Year 2032 Projections # Unit^ $ / Unit
Residential - sf habitable area 16,483,431 SF $0.9318
Commercial and Industrial - equivalent 3/4" meters 2,559 EM $1,792.89
ASF = square feet; EM = equivalent 3/4" meter
Improvement Fee
The following two tables show the lists of capital improvements used to calculate the improvement fee.
Since the Water Master Plan was completed the City changed the purpose of the TAP water line from an
emergency source to a daily source of water. In so doing the planned capital improvements changed. Also,
EFA updated the original project costs to 2014 dollars.
Table 5 is from the 2012 Master- Plan (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is
deleted. This project is under construction and qualifies as a reimbursement fee. Only 9 projects qualify to
i♦ ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
be improvement fee projects; of the $44 million of capital improvements only $4.3 million is included in
the SDC improvement fee. The majority of the projects have only a local impact and are not eligible for
the improvement fee.
The Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump project has been deleted from the list of capital improvements and
added to the list of existing capital improvements. Because of this change in scope the City was able to
reduce the amount of storage needed at the Crowson II reservoir which reduced the cost by $1.3 million (in
2012 $'s). Table 5 shows these calculations.
Table 4. Original Capital Improvements List and Percent SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Supply
FERC Darn Security & Telemetry Improvement (50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Structural Stability Analysis(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection(50% Electric, 50% Water) 160,000 25.00% 40,000
Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 120,000 75.00% 90,000
Sediment TMDLin Reeder Resv. 600,000 75.00% 450,000
Reeder Resv Study Implementation 30,000 75.00% 22,500
Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 100,000 75.00% 75,000
Reeder Resv Variable Depth Intake 100,000 0.00% -
TID Terrace St Pump Station Improvements 220,000 0.00% -
TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 100.00% 1,100,000
Test existing high capacity wells 50,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project 50,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) 0 100.00%
X888;888 .000% -
Treatment & Storage -
Raw Water Bypass Measurement 25,000 0.00% -
SCADA Radio Frequency FCC Compliance 45,000 0.00% -
Final CT Disinfection Improvements 85,000 0.00% -
Permanganate Feed Facility Study & Implementation 265,000 0.00% -
WTP Security Upgrades 50,000 0.00% -
Existing Plant Mech. Elec. & Scada Upgrades 1,500,000 0.00% -
Ozone /UV Analysis & Disinfection 1,750,000 0.00% -
Bear Creek Cu WLA Source Control Study & Implementation 50,000 0.00% -
2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson 1111) 6,746,000 10.00% 674,600
2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 12,000,000 10.00% 1,200,000
Distribution
Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse 50,000 0.00% -
Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 100.00% 700,000
Park Estates Pump Station/Loop Road Reservoir Alternatives 2,000,000 0.00% -
Lit Way New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
Tolman Creek Road New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
Pipe Replacement Program 3,700,000 0.00% -
Radio Read Meter Program 1,351,000 0.00% -
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIE Page 4
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Hydrant Replacement 616,000 0.00% -
Emergency Response Plan Update 20,000 0.00% -
Cross Connection Control Plan Update 15,000 0.00% -
Safety Plan Update 20,000 0.00% -
Granite Reservoir Valving 100,000 0.00% -
Piping
Ivy Lane 346,000 0.00% -
Ivy Lane 94,000 0.00% -
Normal Ave 517,000 0.00% -
Walker Ave 784,000 0.00% -
Parker Street 162,000 0.00% -
Harmony Lane 65,000 0.00%p -
Lit Way 35,000 0.00% -
Ray Lane 54,000 0.00% -
Beach Street 91,000 0.00% -
AHS Property 90,000 0.00% -
Vista Street 149,000 0.00% -
Vista Street 5,000 0.00% -
Meade Street 235,000 0.00% -
Elkader Street 72,000 0.00% -
Ivy Lane 64,000 0.00% -
South Mountain Ave 6,000 0.00% -
South Mountain Ave 17,000 0.00% -
Pinecrest Trail 178,000 0.00% -
Pinecrest Trail 396,000 0.00% -
Penny Drive 83,000 0.00%
Woodland Drive 52,000 0.00% -
Hiawatha Place 58,000 0.00% -
Morton Street 130,000 0.00% -
Ashland Mine Road 115,000 0.00% -
Fox Street 54,000 0.00% -
Almeda Drive 35,000 0.00% -
Skycrest Drive 162,000 0.00% -
Crispin Street 131,000 0.00% -
Oak Lawn Ave 29,000 0.00% -
Sylvia Street 64,000 0.00% -
Black Oak Way 85,000 0.00% -
Oak Knoll Dr 287,000 0.00% -
Ashland Street 432,000 0.00% -
I-5 Crossing 794,000 0.00% -
Ditch Road 225,000 0.00% -
Lithia 70,000 0.00%
Iowa Street 640,000 0.00% -
Granite Street 300,000 0.00% -
B Street 250,000 0.00% -
ECONOMIC a FINANCIAL ANALYSIe Page 5
City of Ashland - Water SDC Update July 2016
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Terrace Street 350,000 0.00% -
Totals 44,006,000 42352,100
100% 9.89%
Source: City of Ashland Comprehensive Water Master Plan, Carollo Engineers, Dec-2012
Table 6 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original 2012
Master Plan projects as of this year. The Crowson II reservoir can be reduced in size at a cost savings of
$1.3 million. Ten percent of the cost and of the cost reduction are incorporated into the revisions along
with an adjustment for inflation. According the ENR Construction Cost Index, construction costs increased
5.45% between June 2012 and June 2014.
Table S. SDC Eligible Capital Improvements With Modifications, 2014 $'s
SDC 10%
Capital Project Eligible Adjustment," 2012 $'s 2014 $'s
Supply
FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection (50% Electric, 50% Water) 40,000 40,000 $42,000
Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 90,000 90,000 $95,000
Sediment TMDL in Reeder Resv. 450,000 450,000 $475,000
Reeder Resv Study Implementation 22,500 22,500 $24,000
Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 75,000 75,000 $79,000
TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 1,100,000 $1,160,000
Treatment & Storage -
2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 674,600 -$130,000 544,600 $574,000
2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 1,200,000 1,200,000 $1,265,000
Distribution
Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse - -
Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 700,000 $738,000
Piping - -
Totals 4,352,100 4,222,100 4,452,000
"Ten percent of the cost reduction ($1,300,000) is deducted from the eligible SDC costs.
Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial &
industrial users based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected
to use. The improvement fee is the allocated cost divided by the forecast square footage of habitable space
residences are expected to develop; and, the allocated cost divided by the forecast number of 3/4-inch
equivalent meters commercial & industrial customers are expected to develop.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6
City of Ashland -Water SDC` Update July 2016
Table 6. Calculation of Water Improvement Fee
3/4 Inch % $
Meter Equivalents Total Allocation
Total Cost Allocation to Improvement Fee, 2014 $'s $4,452,000
Residential 7,575 77% $3,428,040
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $1,023,960
Total 9,802 100% $4,452,000
Forecast Growth Square Feet of Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 $/SF $1.6751
Forecast Growth 3/" Equivalent Meters 332 $/EM $3,084.22
Compared to the current SDC, the updated residential SDC (reimbursement plus improvement fees) will
increase 0.3%, and the updated commercial & industrial SDC will decrease about 1.3%. The decrease in
the commercial & industrial SDC is due to an apparent error in the calculations of the 2012 Master Plan.
The 2012 Master Plan forecast the number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters will increases by 332 (from 2229
in 2012 to 2559 in 2032); however, the 2012 calculation of the SDC was based on only 318 new 3/4-inch
equivalent meters.' Table 6 above is based on 332 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.
The updated SDC uses the same criteria as the 2012 Master Plan and the current methodology. The current
and 2012 Master Plan methodology divides the cost between single-family residences, and commercial and
industrial based on the equivalent numbers of %-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch
equivalency is based on the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass
instantaneously relative to the amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times
more water than a 3/-inch meter). Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable
(heated) floor area; and, the commercial and industrial is based on meter size which varies by the meters'
abilities to provide water instantaneously-gallons per minute.
I Comprehensive Water Master Plan, page 9-29 Table 9.15 shows the current and forecast numbers of 3/4-inch EM for
commercial & industrial at 332; page 9-32 shows only 318 EM were included in the calculation of the improvement
fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the correct number of 3/4-inch EM, 2559 (page 9-29).
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 7
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 4, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Mike Faught called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way.
Committee Members Present: Dan Jovick, Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Present: Rich Rosenthal
Mike mentioned that at some point the committee will need to select a Chair/Vice Chair but the Committee would
come back to that after introductions. He stated that Ray Bartlett who is the Financial Analyst that did all the work on
the SDC recommendations is here to present the information. All of the SDC's that are being presented have been
recommended, with the exception of a couple of projects that have been added, out of the Water, Sewer and
Transportation master plans so these are all recommendations based on those adopted documents.
INTRODUCTIONS
The Committee did a round table introduction.
Jac/Dan mis to nominate Carlos as chair. All in favor.
OVERVIEW
Ray stepped through each of the documents which were all drafted in 2012 which now requires changes in all three
areas. He pointed out that
WATER SDC
Issues-
*Drafted in 2012
*Update all costs to 2014 dollars
*Add a portion of the TAP project which was originally planned to only be used in the event of an emergency. Since
then the project has changed and the cost has gone up by roughly 3 milllion dollars. At the time it was planned the
City hadn't anticipated having to pay the Medford Water Commission's SDC which is fairly large.
Mike pointed out that is a supply option for us in 2060. The facility is going to be constructed as a temporary facility
but at some point it will likely become a permanent facility which means we need to start collecting SDC's on that
now.
*Reduce the Crowson II Reservoir project which saves about 1.3 million dollars
*Review methods of assessment along with the sewer SDC
Reimbursement Fee (see attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee) -
*Value of Existing excess capacity
*Original cost:
Less accumulated depreciation
Balance of outstanding water debts
No change in capacity
The reimbursement fee was based on 2011 dollars. Ray pointed out that SDC's are usually reset annually or at
certain trigger points, such as:
*A master plan being updated
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 1 of 5
*A large increase on a project included in a master plan or
*Inflation
Water Improvement Fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) -
*Only 4.352 million of $44 million included (2011 $'s)
*Changes since 2011 -
Medford Water Commission/TAP SDC cost ($2 million emergency service only to future source
& reduces the size of Crowson II).
Cost increased by $3.7 million now will be used as a mainline supply; provides benefit to future
users.
*Reduces cost of Crowson II reservoir by $1.3 million (2011 $'s); 10% allocated to improvement fee
Residential SDC, $/sf
$ 2.60 Current
$2.45 2012 Update (not implemented)
$2.65 Proposed (2% increase to end user)
SEWER SDC
The capital improvement projects fall into two categories; priority one and priority two. The current SDC rate did not
include a number of the projects with are now on the capital improvements list. The system itself is fairly expensive to
build/operate.
Residential SDC, $/sf
$ 0.81 Current
$2.03 Proposed (150% increase to end user)
(See attachments for the cost basis for reimbursement fee and improvement fee)
ASSESSING WATERISEWER SDC'S
*Currently:
Residential based on size of house
Commercial based on number of fixture units
*Alternatively:
Residential-
Single family: Meter size
Multi-family: Greater of meter size or number of housing units x Rate
Mike pointed out that SDC's really should be based on the demand on the system. Russ brought to the attention of
the committee that he was involved in a big discussion about 10 years or so ago regarding this. The one size fits all
method is only theoretically correct. The size of the meter gives you the maximum capacity which is far greater than
any household could actually use. Some are forced into having a bigger meter size due to simply having a sprinkler
system which has little to do with the actual maximum capacity rather than your theoretical maximum. Lawn size is
probably the best way of determining. Meter size is simple and convenient; the fixture method gives you a slightly
clearer picture of real amount of use. Ray pointed out that it isn't how much you use in the month; it's what you use
instantaneously. You also have to consider the long term picture and the amount of owners that the home may go
through. Each family will have a different amount of users. At least with the meter size method it practically limits how
much can be pulled out of the water system instantaneously. Meter size makes a big difference in demand on the
system. With the fixture method you may have a home with three bathrooms but only two people living there which
means they are likely to not be using all three bathrooms. Also, on the Commercial side of things it is almost always
easier to install fixtures after the building is completed so you may not know if fixtures have been installed. It also
incentivizes the contractor to choose the meter size which will best fit the demand of that building. From a
conservation standpoint meter size is generally the best way.
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Bill explained to the committee that as the department that collects the fees he's had to meet with unhappy
customers who were increasing fixtures or making some improvements and their argument was that they were
increasing fixtures but they weren't increasing demand.
Russ feels we should orient these towards our capacity problems since that's what we are building out for.
TRANSPORTATION
Additional TSP project-
*East Main Street improvement between Walker and Clay Street
*2014 cost $2.559 million
*Would add $258 to SDC at 100% eligible
Transportation improvement fee (see attachments for the cost basis for the improvement fee) -
*Current $2,043
*Proposed $2,196
Proposed w/Main Street $2,454
Mike added that the Normal Avenue railroad crossing is the only crossing through that area and it would also be an
East Main connection which is why they had shown it as 50%. Russ feels that the railroad crossing is primarily
growth related and should be as close to 100% SDC as possible. Mike said that once the connection is made there
will be pass-through traffic created. There is also a nexus to what is required to be paid for by the builders. On a City
wide perspective it creates a North/South connection. He pointed out that this initial meeting is really just to bring the
information to the committee and then come back and go through these things.
SUMMARY
*Water SDC 2% increase
*Wastewater 150% increase
*Transportation 7.5% increase
Mike asked the committee how they would like to proceed now having all of the background data. The committee
decided to go home and go through all of the projects/data and come back and tackle everything, likely starting with
Water/Sewer and then Transportation last.
Ray spoke to the credit policy which is a part of the statute.
The Committee agreed to meet every other Tuesday at 1:00 pm. Next meeting March 1801.
Mike/Troy m/s to nominate Jac as Vice Chair. All in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
Transportation Commission
January 23, 2014
Page 3 of 5
System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee
March 18, 2014
Present: Troy Brown, Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels, (vice-chair) Rich Rosenthal, and Russ Silbiger.
Absent: Carlos Reichenshammer (Chair)
Staff Mike Faught, Bill Molnar, Mary McClary
Vice-chair Nickels called the meeting to order at 1: l Opm.
Introductions
The members introduced their name and affiliations.
Troy Brown Jr.---Planning Commission
Allen Douma---Citizen
Mike Faught---Public Works Director
Jac Nickels (vice-chair)---Architect
Russ Silbiger---Citizen
Rich Rosenthal---Council Liaison
Ray Bartlett---Consultant (by phone)
Jac Nickels announced the Committee would approve two sets of minutes at the next meeting.
Troy Brown requested the agenda be sent as a pdf file.
Minute approval
Set aside.
Public Forum
No one present.
Water System Development Charges (SDC)
Mike Faught introduced the consultant Ray Bartlett on the phone. Mike spoke and presented a PowerPoint
presentation regarding the current SDC charges and proposed changes. The water SDC charges were $2.60. The
2012 update reduced it to $2.45, then TAP allocation (SDC to Medford) brought the charge to $2.65.
Ray Bartlett went through the details for the changes of the proposed changes for residential and commercial water
and the members discussed the recommendations. Residential SDC is based on the square footage of the residential
structure, commercial rates for water would be based on meter size, and commercial sewer would be based on
plumbing fixtures. Ray would work on an example for the Committee to review at the next meeting to clearly see
the current charges and the proposed charges.
Sewer SDC
The commercial sewer charges would be based on fixture units currently at $124.18, changing to $311.19. The
current rate for residential is .81 sq ft and would change to 2.03 sq ft, an 150% increase. Ray explained the old
methodology left out the value of the capital improvements made. Going forward the improvements would not be
funded with tax but user fees which drove up the cost of the user fees. The tax revenue pays for the debt service on
the current system until 2024, approximately 1.6 million per year. None of the tax revenues are included in the SDC
calculations. After that time Council had already approved the tax monies to be used for Public Works capital
projects.
Allen asked for an outline of how the projected costs went up 150% to both residential and commercial and
wondered what this would do to an average home (2,000 sq ft).
The food and beverage tax monies used to pay for the treatment plant, would become a revenue stream for the
sewer fund to pay debt service for capital projects and the engineers would allocate how much should go to growth
in the SDC. Each project has a growth indication and drives the SDCs. SDC funds can only be used for projects
identified in the master plan. The increase is needed now to pay for growth. If the SDC's do not cover most of the
costs then rates increase. Ashland's growth has been less than 1 % for the past 10 years. The master plan projects
are based on that growth.
The members discussed capacity versus rates increase, projects coming up in the future, replacement costs,
percentage of sewer costs paid by SDC and rates, growth paying for itself, and limitation because of urban growth
boundaries.
Ashland was in the middle to low range for SDC charges when compared to similar communities mainly because
other communities adjust annually. We do comprehensive master plans every 5 years and the SDC rates are re-
evaluated. Water and Sewer growth was calculated by engineers.
The committee asked for a rate impact comparison for several commercial buildings (10,000 sq ft) and an average
residential structure (1700 sq ft). The criteria used are based on the American Water Works Association for meter
capacity for meter size and manufactures. The committee would like to see the comparisons with the sewer SDC
proposals also.
Mike suggested the Committee pick up the Transportation discussion at the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30.
Next meeting: April 1, at lpm in the Siskiyou Room.
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary McClary
Administrative Assistant for Electric, IT and
Telecommunication Departments
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 15, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51
Winburn Way.
Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, and Jac Nickels
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal
Mike mentioned that at some point the committee will need to select a Chair/Vice Chair but the Committee would
come back to that after introductions. He stated that Ray Bartlett who is the Financial Analyst that did all the work on
the SDC recommendations is here to present the information. All of the SDC's that are being presented have been
recommended, with the exception of a couple of projects that have been added, out of the Water, Sewer and
Transportation master plans so these are all recommendations based on those adopted documents.
INTRODUCTIONS
The Committee did a round table introduction.
Minutes approval - March 18th. Unanimous consent
WATER SDC
Ray stated the SDC statutes in Oregon have two portions of the SDC; reimbursement fee & improvement fee. The
reimbursement fee is based on the value of excess capacity that is currently in the system, drought notwithstanding.
The City in the past has used original cost depreciated for the length of time it's been in use to calculate the cost
basis for the reimbursement fee. There are two other commonly used methods in practice; replacement cost or
replacement cost depreciated for the length of time it's been in use; both of which produce a much higher SDC than
what the City of Ashland has chosen to use. Ray pointed out that you are allowed to include projects that are
financed or under construction. One of the issues that will be looked at is whether or not to take the TAP line & add
that to the reimbursement fee.
The improvement fee is the value of capacity that hasn't yet been built; they are projects to be built in the future
which in the planning process have been identified as necessary to meet population & employment growth that's
expected. Although the future can't be precisely forecasted, the master plan is based on a reasonable forecast of
population & employment. The current water master plan is designed to go out to the year 2030. The TAP waterline
is likely to meet demand to 2060.
Ray pointed out that they are simply updating the figures in the 2012 master plan to 2013 dollars, which is the last
year in which there are audited financials for capital values and using the same measurements that they had for
capacity for the existing system and the growth.
One of the issues that came up at the previous committee meeting was how the SDC is applied to new development.
What the City has been using for sewer & water for residences is to calculate what the SDC would be for a 2,000
square foot house. The City then applies that SDC to the actual square footage of the house that is being built. The
theory is the larger the house, the higher the demand for water and is a pretty commonly applied method.
For non-residential uses, the water SDC is applied based on the size of the water meter that is installed. The sewer
system is based on the number of fixture units that are installed.
SDC Committee
April 15, 2014
Page 1 of 2
The TAP project was originally left entirely out of the SDC calculation because it was considered to be satisfying only
emergency demands of the current population & would only be used on a temporary basis. Based on climate change
it is estimated that it would be used every 4 years or during an emergency (flood, fire etc). A discussion was had
between Ray and Mike regarding whether or not the TAP project meets the SDC requirements. Mike stated if Council
approves the TAP project as proposed then the original SDC proposal is what they would continue to recommend, if
it does change they would recalculate it and bring it back to the committee.
SEWER SDC
The sewer SDC hasn't changed since the previous meeting, except for addressing a few of the issues that came up
at the last meeting. One of those issues was whether or not sewer projects that are being paid for with food and
beverage tax have been included. Those are not being included and they have removed those facilities that are
financed and being repaid out of the food and beverage tax. The net is the facilities paid for with user fees and
SDC's. There have been major improvements to the wastewater treatment plant since the last master plan was
updated and the capital improvements list has had additions made to it related to regulatory requirements.
The engineers evaluate what percentages are due to growth. It is required as part of the master planning process
and all of the projects have different growth projections.
Mike pointed out the master plans calculate the estimated population growth, and they then figure out what that
impact is to the system. After reviewing the master plans/transportation system plan, the goal for the SDC committee
is to make a recommendation which will be forwarded to Council for approval. Once the committee has made their
recommendation a required 90-day notice would be sent out to the homebuilders association and after that it would
be presented to Council along with a public hearing.
The committee agreed to skip the April 29th meeting in order to have time to go through all of the material. The next
meeting will be held on May 13, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:15 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
SDC Committee
April 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW COMMITTEE
INFORMATIONAL ONLY **NO QUORUM**
June 10, 2014
Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Jac Nickels, and Troy Brown Jr.
Committee Members Absent: Dan Jovick, Carlos Reichenshammer, and Allen Douma
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Absent: Rich Rosenthal
Transportation Commissioner Present: Joseph Graf
Mike pointed out that we did not have a quorum so the committee couldn't take action on anything during the
meeting but the meeting could continue due to the scheduling of the conference call with our consultant, Ray Bartlett.
Informational notes will be taken for submission to the full committee at its next meeting. I
WATER SDC
Ray provided an example of the current sdc and the proposed sdc based on a 2,000 square foot home. Bill asked if
the committee wondered where Ashland's SDC's stack up with other cities around Oregon. He said he had
remembered seeing an email, possibly from the League of Oregon Cities, which showed that Ashland was sort of in
the middle. Bill didn't recall the details of the document. Mike asked Ray if that was something that he could take a
look at (as long as it wouldn't exceed 25% of the contract amount). Ray agreed that he could look into that.
i
i
Ray then stepped through the "Update - water system development charge" document (see attached). The tables
discussed in the document show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and compares
the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP, Final December
2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012. f
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial & industrial users
on a 3/-inch water meter.
Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users.
Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee.
Table 4 is from the WMP (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted.
Table 5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP projects
as of this year.
I
Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial & industrial users
based on the expected number of 3%-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected to use.
i
SEWER SDC '
Ray noted there weren't any new changes to what was proposed at the April 4th, 2014 meeting. It is pretty much the
same as what came out of the master plan. The calculations were increased based on the change in asset value
from 2011 to 2013. The proposed improvement fee resulted in a slight increase, adjusting for inflation. Ray pointed 1
out when the SDC was put together originally for the current sdc there were pretty large reductions made in the
f
calculation of the sdc, in part because the City was charging a tax on food and beverage, much of which was going
towards paying for improvements to the sewer system. Those corrections have still been made but the current sdc
was based on an artificially low sdc. The capital projects have increased due mostly to a pretty dramatic increase in
sewage treatment requirements.
f
SDC Committee
June 10, 2014
Page 1 of 2
1
The committee would like to see a summary of the current and proposed, in addition to the rates. Staff will provide
that.
Transportation SDC
Russ questioned how they can determine the Transportation sdc based on a list of capital improvements that may or
may not be completed. Faught stated that is something that the committee will have to decide. Ray pointed out the
master plan eliminated the low priority and developer driven projects. The question is whether the committee wants
to trim back any of the high and medium projects. Transportation is harder to predict. Russ commented that maybe
the Transportation sdc is something that the sdc committee needs to revisit more often than every ten years. Mike
said he actually recommends that all master plans be updated every five years.
The next meeting will be held at 1:00 pm on July 8th, 2014.
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
SDC Committee
June 10, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
UPDATE:
WATER DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
1409 Franklin Street, Suite 201
Vancouver, WA98660
June 5, 2014
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Tables
Table 1 Summary Water SDC I
Table 2 Schedule of Current and Proposed Water SDC 1
Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee 3
Table 4 Original List of Capital Improvements & SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s 4
Table 5 SDC Eligible Capital Improvements with Modifications, 2014 $'s 7
Table 6 Calculation of Water Improvement Fee 8
IMI ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page i
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
SUMMARY
The following 5 tables show the changes to the current water system development charge (SDC) and
compares the current water SDC to that proposed in the 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan (WMP,
Final December 2012), and to this proposed SDC based on changes that have occurred since 2012.
Table 1 summarizes these three calculations of the water SDC for residential and for commercial &
industrial users on a 3/-inch water meter. Compared to the current water SDC, the 2012 WMP proposed a
decrease of about 6%, and with the current changes since 2012, a 0.3% increase for the residential SDC and
a 1.3% decrease for commercial & industrial. The commercial & industrial SDC decreased due to an
apparent error in the WMP calculations which is explained below in Table 5.
Table 1 Summary Water SDC
Residential Commercial & Industrial %Afrom
Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Current
Current
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $2.60
$/Mete r Si ze
3/4 $4,940.40
2012 W M P
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.8040 $1.6436 $2.4476 -5.9%
$/Meter Size
314 $1,522.18 $3,111.76 $4,633.94 -6.2%
2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $16069 0.3°x6
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,792.89 $3,084.22 $4,877.11 -1.3%
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 1
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 2 shows the entire schedule of changes by meter size for commercial & industrial users.
Table 2 Schedule of Current and Proposed Water SDC
Residential Commercial & Industrial %Afrom
Reimbursement Improvement.. Total SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total SDC Current
Current
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $2•60
$/Meter Size
3/4' $4,940.40
1 $8,250.47
11/2 $16,451.53
2 $26,332.33
3 $57,654.47
4 $98,808.00
6 $205,866.47
8 $296,424.00
2012 WMP
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.8040 $1.6436 $2.4476 -5.9%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,522.18 $3,111.76 $4,633.914 -6.2%z
1 $2,537.00 $5,186.00 $7,723.0.0 -6.4%
11/2. $5,074.00 $10,373:00 $15,447.00:.. -6.1%'
2 $8,118.00 $16,596.00_ $24,714.00 -6.1%
3 $17,759.00 $36,304.00. $54,063.00 -6.2%
q $30,444.00 $62,235.00 $92,679.00 -6.2%
6 $63,424.00 $129,657.00 $193,081.00: -6.2%!
8 $91,331.00 $186,706.00 $278,037.00 -6.2%'
2014 WMP Update with TAP & Crowson II
$/Square Foot of Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069 0.3%
$/Meter Size
3/4 $1,792.89. $3,084.22 $4,877.11 -1.3%
1 $2,988.75 $5,140.43 $8,129.18 -1.5%
11/2 $5,975.70 $10,280.87 $16,256.57 -1.2%
2 $9,561.48 $16,448.58, $26,010.06. -1.2%
g $20,917.65 $35,983.04 $56,900.69 -1.3°.6
4 $35,857.80 $61,685.21 $97,543.01 1.3%
6 $74,704.35,_ $128,508.83 $203,213.18 -1.3%
g $107,573.40 $185,053.61 $292,627.01 -1.3°h
Table 3 shows the changes in the cost basis of the reimbursement fee. The proposed SDC in the WMP was
based on the fiscal year 2011 (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 20111) audit. The update is based on the most
recently completed audit ending June 30, 2013, and on the current cost of constructing the TAP water line
and the Medford Water Commission SDC for water in 2014 dollars. This project was deleted from the list
of capital improvements that was used to calculate the improvement fee. Since this project has been
financed and is under construction, it can be counted as an existing asset with excess capacity to serve future
development. In the 2012 WMP, the project was to serve only emergency water needs and was excluded
from the calculation of the improvement fee. Since then, the scope of this project has made it a source of
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIH Page 1
fib
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
water to Ashland and it will be available to serve future development. In this analysis, 90% of the TAP
line cost is included because it will primarily serve growth and 10% is assumed to be used for emergency
use by existing development.
The proposed SDC uses the same criteria as the 2012 WMP and the current methodology. The current and
WMP methodology divides the cost between single-family residences and commercial & industrial based
on the equivalent numbers of 3/4-inch water meters in service currently. A 3/4-inch equivalency is based on
the amount of water that a certain size meter (e.g., 2-inch meter) can pass instantaneously relative to the
amount a 3/4-inch meter can pass (e.g., a 2-inch meter can pass 5.33 times more water than a 3/4-inch meter).
Single-family residences' SDCs are based on square footage of habitable (heated) floor area; and, the
commercial & industrial is based on meter size which varies by the meters' abilities to provide water
instantaneously-gallons per minute. Seventy-seven percent of the 3/4-inch meters are in single-family
residences; therefore, 77% of the eligible reimbursement fee costs are allocated to residences and 23% to
commercial & industrial users.
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 2
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 3 Calculation of Water Reimbursement Fee
2011 2013 Allocation % A
Original Cost $36,180,656 $36,435,280 0.7%
Accumulated Depreciation ($15,228,374) ($17,254,657) 13.3%
Book Value of Hosler Dam ($55,741) -100.0%
Book Value $20,896,541 $19,180,623 -8.2%
Series 1997 Flood & Refunding Bonds ($175,00 -100.0%
Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds ($2,940,00 (54,695,862) 59.7%
Series 2009 Water & WW Bonds (FF&C) ($633,551) -100.0%
Principal Outstanding ($3,748,5S!) ($4,695,862) 25.3%
Investment in Capacity $17,147,990 $14,484,761 -15.5%
Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump
MWC's SDC $2,620,084
Construction $4,400,000
Less: IFA Forgivable Loan ($950,000)
Net cost of TAP $6,070,084
% Allocation to future development 90.00•%
Allocation to future development $5,463,076
Cost Basis for Reimbursement Fee $19,947,837
Current 3/4" Equivalents Meters (EM) Number %
Residential 7,575 77•/6 $15,359,834
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $4,588,002
Total 9,802 100% $19,947,836
Square Feet (SF) of Residential Habitable Area, 2032 16,483,431 $/SF $0.9318
3/4" Commercial & Industrial Equivalents Meters (EM), 2032 2,559 $/EM $1,792.89
11w
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 3
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 4 is from the WMP (Table 9-16) and shows that the Emergency TAP line project is deleted. This
project is under construction and qualifies as a reimbursement fee. Only 9 projects qualify to be
improvement fee projects; of the $44 million of capital improvements only $4.3 million is included in the
SDC improvement fee. The Emergency TAP Pipeline & Pump project has been deleted from the list of
capital improvements and added to the list of existing capital improvements. Because of this change in
scope the City was able to reduce the amount of storage needed at the Crowson II reservoir which reduced
the cost by $1.3 million (in 2012 $'s). Table 5 shows these calculations.
Table 4 Original List of Capital Improvements & SDC Eligible, 2012 $'s
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Supply
FERC Dam Security & Telemetry Impr. - 25.00% -
FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Structural Stability Analysis(50% Electric, 50% Water) - 25.00% -
FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection(50% Electric, 50% Water) 160,000 25.00% 40,000
Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction 120,000 75.00% 90,000
Sediment TMDLin Reeder Resv. 600,000 75.00% 450,000
Reeder Resv Study Implementation 30,000 75.00% 22,500
Reeder Resv Access Road TMDL Compliance 100,000 75.00% 75,000
Reeder Resv Variable Depth Intake 100,000 0.00% -
TID Terrace St Pump Station Improvements 220,000 0.00% -
TID Canal Piping: Starlite to Terrace Street 1,100,000 100.00% 1,100,000
Test existing high capacity wells 50,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project 50,000 0.00% -
Water Conservation Management Plan (due April 2012) 0 100.00~00~p%~~ -
C r nee TAP Pipeline O. Pump 0 0.09 'c
Y
Treatment & Storage -
Raw Water Bypass Measurement 25,000 0.00% -
SCADA Radio Frequency FCC Compliance 45,000 0.00% -
Final CT Disinfection Improvements 85,000 0.00% -
Permanganate Feed Facility Study & Implementation 265,000 0.00% -
WTP Security Upgrades 50,000 0.00% -
Existing Plant Mech. Elec. & Scada Upgrades 1,500,000 0.00% -
Ozone /UV Analysis & Disinfection 1,750,000 0.00% -
Bear Creek Cu WLA Source Control Study & Implementation 50,000 0.00% -
2.6-MG Reservoir & Clearwell ("Crowson II") 6,746,000 10.00% 674,600
2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant 12,000,000 10.00% 1,200,000
Distribution
Telemetry Station at Water Warehouse 50,000 0.00% -
Water Master Plan Updates 700,000 100.00% 700,000
Park Estates Pump Station/Loop Road Reservoir Alternatives 2,000,000 0.00% -
Lit Way New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
Tolman Creek Road New PRV 341,000 0.00% -
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 4
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
Pipe Replacement Program 3,700,000 0.00% -
Radio Read Meter Program 1,351,000 0.00% -
Hydrant Replacement 616,000 0.00% -
Emergency Response Plan Update 20,000 0.00% -
Cross Connection Control Plan Update 15,000 0.00% -
Safety Plan Update 20,000 0.00% -
Granite Reservoir Valving 100,000 0.00% -
Piping
Ivy Lane 346,000 0.00%
Ivy Lane 94,000 0.00% -
Normal Ave 517,000 0.00% -
Walker Ave 784,000 0.00% -
Parker Street 162,000 0.00% -
Harmony Lane 65,000 0.00% -
Lit Way 35,000 0.00% -
Ray Lane 54,000 0.00% -
Beach Street 91,000 0.00% -
AHS Property 90,000 0.00% -
Vista Street 149,000 0.00% -
Vista Street 5,000 0.00% -
Meade Street 235,000 0.00%
Elkader Street 72,000 0.00% -
Ivy Lane 64,000 0.00% -
South Mountain Ave 6,000 0.00% -
South Mountain Ave 17,000 0.00% -
Pinecrest Trail 178,000 0.00% -
Pinecrest Trail 396,000 0.00%
Penny Drive 83,000 0.00%
Woodland Drive 52,000 0.00% -
Hiawatha Place 58,000 0.00% -
Morton Street 130,000 0.00% -
Ashland Mine Road 115,000 0.00% -
Fox Street 54,000 0.00% -
Almeda Drive 35,000 0.00% -
Skycrest Drive 162,000 0.00% -
Crispin Street 131,000 0.00% -
Oak Lawn Ave 29,000 0.00% -
Sylvia Street 64,000 0.00% -
Black Oak Way 85,000 0.00% -
Oak Knoll Dr 287,000 0.00% -
Ashland Street 432,000 0.00% -
-
1-5 Crossing 794,000 0.00%
Ditch Road 225,000 0.00% -
Lithia 70,000 0.00% -
Iowa Street 640,000 0.00% -
Granite Street 300,000 0.00% -
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 5
r
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
SDC Eligible
Capital Project Total Cost % $
B Street 250,000 0.00% -
Terrace Street 350,000 0.00% -
Totals $44,006,000 $4,352,100
Table5 shows the list of qualified improvement fee projects and the adjustments made to the original WMP
projects as of this year. The Crowson II reservoir can be reduced in size at a cost savings of $1.3 million.
Ten percent of the cost and of the cost reduction are incorporated into the revisions along with an adjustment
for inflation. According the ENR Construction Cost Index, construction costs increased 5.45% between
June 2012 and June 2014.
I
i
I
ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 6
d N o O O O O O: O 0 O O' 0
O O O O p O , O C i C o
O d' N Ln L n -zr M' 0 v L cc - ~i
N t m 1\ N ~ cn I~ LO m
r, L11 L} V1 VS rf Ln - N
Ln In
O O ih r..{ ih. rl N
a1
G
t
O O O O O O O O O O
N O O O 0 O O 0.0 O O
t!} O O O Ln O :O W O ' 0 '
N O O O N Ln O of O O N
m m N t- : O N O O Ln
p rl LO N 1~ M
0
tJ~ O GU
r~1 p fu
O 0 O.
N fY1 :
L/)
O U
E
N
rl
Q ~ 0
v
O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O
O O 0 O O O O 0 O O
O O O m O O ' W 0 ' O
O 66 N Lr O -4 O. O N
m Ln N I~ O 1\ O O' Ln
LLI
V O O 00:0 C) O O
O tt1 Ln Ln : ~ : ' ~ O
N in Ln O o O O O
O e-1 ri O
N t\ t\ ' N
cl
N
O
N
(A O O! 0 O O O O O O 0 O C:
O O O O O O: 0 O 0 O O O
u O O O O O O O C O C O
cm m o 6'0 0 0;0 0' 0 0 tD
4~ o N o m O : o 4* - p Lo o' 0 4)
O r, ri n o r` C ,n
ri to N _ co
c o
N ~
V) + O
O;
i+ O
'Ci a U
4 Q
U
rn
~ O N
•~r Ln
u
C LPl
tto
W O
L cu \ 3 C ~ 0
41 Vl
4~ 41
0 O- L H N
C Lr to
a1 A+." c O E QJ O O O J
~i O U p U m (j y z
-0 43 (a -j
aJ C in a) 3
41
! 01 Z
E aJ O W L7. O _ E Q O Z
~ N 1 LL (3j W : am~ aJ U ca a.+ U i%
a C Ln o?j . Fa CU C
o ~t!
Ln a:
L- J U C 0 d O
4-1 u W: 1 N; a~ Q: aN Y o
ca V a v, a! C V' to CA z
A o L v a) a) „ c L o
~ m C7'L ~ ° L U/ w
N UJ U E ~ : a) 41 En W
y
rQ U o o0
a a! (D D co ko Ln L. mm c ro z
PC 0)
H > Q.' ~
m N LL LI) OG tY F- L! N - N - Xn
t- o a <
Update, Water System Development Charge June 5, 2014
Table 6 shows the allocation of the eligible improvement fee projects to residential and commercial &
industrial users based on the expected number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters each customer class is expected
to use. The improvement fee is the allocated cost divided by the forecast square footage of habitable space
residences are expected to develop; and, the allocated cost divided by the forecast number of 3/4-inch
equivalent meters commercial & industrial customers are expected to develop.
Table 6 Calculation of Water Improvement Fee
Total Cost Allocation to Improvement Fee, 2014 $'s $4,452,000
3/4" Meter Equivalents
Residential 7,575 77% $3,428,040
Commercial & Industrial 2,227 23% $1,023,960
Total 9,802 100% $4,452,000
Forecast Growth Square Feetof Residential Habitable Area 2,046,408 $/SF $1.6751
Forecast Growth 3/4" equivalent meters 332 $/EM $3,084.22
Compared to the current SDC, the proposed residential SDC (reimbursement plus improvement fees) will
increase 0.3%, and the proposed commercial & industrial SDC will decrease about 1.3%. The decrease in
the commercial & industrial SDC is due to an apparent error in the calculations of the WMP. The WW
forecast the number of 3/4-inch equivalent meters will increases by 332 (from 2229 in 2012 to 2559 in 2032);
however, the 2012 calculation of the SDC was based on only 318 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.' Table 6
above is based on 332 new 3/4-inch equivalent meters.
' Comprehensive Water Master Plan, page 9-29 Table 9.15 shows the current and forecast numbers of 3/4-inch EM for
commercial & industrial at 332; page 9-32 shows only 318 EM were included in the calculation of the improvement
fee. The reimbursement fee is based on the correct number of 3/4-inch EM, 2559 (page 9-29).
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Page 8