HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Review of Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Proposed Fees and Implementation Options AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/24/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard/DPW Staff Phone No: X3697
Estimated Time: 15 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and
Innovative Government Services
ITEM TITLE: REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) PROPOSED FEES AND IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide direction to staff on effective date and implementation of proposed fees.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
On December 1, 2014 Council is scheduled to continue the public hearing that
opened on October 20, 2014 and adopt resolutions to implement the City’s
Transportation SDC methodology, project list, and fees. Council’s direction is requested at this work session for the effective date and amount of the new fee in
order for staff to prepare the appropriate resolution language for the December 1,
2014 public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum 2. Transportation SDC Methodology
3. Transportation SDC Project List 4. Example of current and proposed Transportation SDC charge 5. League of Oregon Cities Transportation SDC Comparison
6. Draft Resolution – Adopting Methodology 7. Draft Resolution – Adopting Project List 8. Draft Resolution – Adopting a Charge
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff has completed an update to the City’s Transportation SDC methodology,
project list and proposed fee using the Transportation System Plan, the recommendations made by the council-appointed citizen’s advisory committee and
the direction received from Council on May 19, 2014 and June 16, 2014. The
methodology, project list and proposed fee have been available for public inspection, both in hard copy and on the City’s website, since August 20, 2014.
Interested parties have been notified of the methodology update per ORS 223.304(6). To date no formal comments have been received by staff. Council opened a public hearing on October 20, 2014 and is scheduled to continue that
hearing and a vote to adopt resolutions to implement the methodology, project list, and fees at the December 1, 2014 regular session.
The maximum allowable fee derived from the new methodology and project list is $340.38 per trip end. The current fee is $268.35 per trip end. This equates to a
$72.03, or 26.8%, increase. The citizen’s advisory committee recommended a
maximum increase of 15% which equates to a $40.25 increase. Staff proposes the following implementation strategies as options for Council to consider:
1. Implement the full fee of $340.38 effective January 1, 2015
2. Implement the full fee of $340.38 effective July 1, 2015 3. Implement a 15% increase to $308.60 effective January 1, 2015 and the full
fee of $340.38 on July 1, 2015.
4. Implement a 15% increase to $308.60 effective January 1, 2015. 5. Implement a 5% increase to $281.77 effective January 1 2015 and consider
additional increases at a later time.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 11/24/2014
To: Gino Grimaldi
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
From: Len Goodwin, DPW Director
Anette Spickard, DPW Deputy Director
Subject: REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) PROPOSED
FEES AND IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
ISSUE: Council is scheduled to continue the public hearing opened on October 20, 2014 and
adopt resolutions to implement the City’s Transportation SDC methodology, project list, and fees at the December 1, 2014 regular session. Council’s direction is requested for the effective date and amount of the new fee in order for staff to prepare the appropriate resolution language
for the December 1, 2014 public hearing.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services
BACKGROUND:
City staff has completed the process of updating the System Development Charge methodology
for the Transportation System. Transportation System SDC’s were last reviewed and updated by Council in 2008. The Council adopted the city’s new Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) on
March 11, 2014. Projects from the TSP form the new project list used in the SDC methodology
as part of the process to set SDC fee levels. The TSP project list was rigorously reviewed by staff and only a subset of the TSP projects is included on the Transportation SDC project list.
As part of the public process to review and evaluate the proposed methodology for the SDC the Council appointed a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) which met monthly with city staff
and the city’s consultant, Deb Galardi of Galardi Rothstein Group, between October 2013 and
April 2014. In addition to the work of the CAC, staff reviewed statutory and technical components of the methodology with the City’s consultant. The CAC reached consensus on all
policy issue recommendations and presented its report, including a recommendation to increase the fee by up to 15%, to Council on May 19, 2014. Council provided further direction to staff for changes to the methodology at the June 16, 2014 work session.
The project list and methodology were finalized and published for public review and comment beginning on August 20, 2014. Interested parties were provided notice of the proposed
methodology and project list update on July 7, 2014 per ORS 2223.304(6). To date no comments have been received regarding the proposed methodology, project list or fee. Staff is aware that this has been a topic on the agenda of the Local Government Affairs committee of the
Home Builders Association of Lane County and anticipates comments may be provided at the December 1, 2014 public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
Oregon law allows cities to assess systems development charges to pay for planned
infrastructure improvements that create the capacity that is needed to serve future growth. In
this way, the cost of expanding infrastructure to service new development is fairly apportioned between the current and future residents and businesses. When establishing the methodology
and the fee the City applies the following principles:
• Equity – is the fee in proportion to the system impact
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
11/17/2014 Page 2
• Defensibility – is the methodology consistent with the law and other communities
• Administrative Feasibility – is the data available to support the methodology
• Public Understanding/Acceptance – is the methodology simple to understand and fair
The formula for determining the Transportation SDC and the resulting charge to the developer is illustrated in Figure 1. The project costs and developer share are found in Figure 2.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Project Category Project Cost Estimate $ Developer Share $ Developer Share %
State Facilities
Intersections $90,000,000 $9,000,000 10%
Roadways $11,600,000 $392,400 3%
Local Roadway Improvements $306,700,000 $29,424,496 10%
Local Intersection Improvements $10,070,000 $5,150,843 51%
Bike Facilities $660,000 $44,681 7%
Multi Use Paths $32,167,000 $2,578,422 8%
Pedestrian Improvements
Sidewalks $790,000 $723,468 92%
Crossings $6,090,000 $1,198,047 20%
Signage Only $70,000 $0 0%
Multimodal Improvements $5,130,000 $3,007,285 59%
Studies $1,650,000 $288,750 18%
Other Projects $600,000 $400,000 67%
SubTotal $465,527,000 $52,208,393 11%
Add Existing System
Reimbursement Cost
$26,000,000 $2,600,000 10%
Grand Total $491,527,000 $54,808,393 11%
The detailed project list is found on Attachment 3 and represents those projects from the TSP
Developer Share($)
from TSP Project List plus Reimbursement Cost
$54.8 Million
(1)
System-wide 20 Year Projected Growth in trips from traffic model
161,016
(2)
Cost ($) per Trip End
$340.38
(3)
Estimated Number of Trips for specific development type per Institute of Traffic Engineers
(4)
SDC paid by Developer
(5)
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
11/17/2014 Page 3
anticipated to occur within the next twenty years to accommodate growth. The project list has been revised since the version that the Council received for their June 16 work session, as
follows:
• Four projects were moved from the State Projects category to the Roadway and
Intersection Projects categories. These changes were made to reflect that ODOT has
transferred ownership of Franklin Blvd and McVay Highway to the City, making the projects on these streets subject to the methodologies for Roadway and Intersection
Projects, rather than the methodology for State Projects.
• One project was removed from the 20 year Project List – R37 – Commercial Avenue from 42nd St. to 48th St. because staff considers that this project is unlikely to be built
within the 20-year planning horizon.
• Staff applied the Council’s SDC methodology direction for Bike/Pedestrian Projects to
the projects in this category, thereby generating the SDC Cost Basis for each of these projects and the associated SDC Improvement rate.
• A new category was added to the list, Other Projects, with three projects that provide
support for citywide planning and support for the Transportation system and SDC o Aerial Mapping – Citywide
o Master Planning o City Participation in minor private capacity projects
The ability of the city to collect an appropriate and adequate amount of SDC’s will impact our ability to construct the projects on the SDC Project List. Based on the consultant’s analysis 11% of the overall cost of the future planned improvements is attributable to growth and eligible to be
included in the SDC fee. Other sources of funding will have to be obtained to pay for the remaining 89% of the project costs.
The updated methodology results in a maximum allowable SDC fee of $340.38 per trip end and meets the four principles of equity, defensibility, administrative feasibility and public
understanding/acceptance. The fee represents a 26.8% increase over the current fee. Examples
of the current fee and the maximum allowable fee applied to different development scenarios are included in Attachment 4.
The Council has the discretion to determine the amount of the new Transportation SDC the City will charge (up to the maximum allowable amount) and the effective date of the new SDC. Staff
presents the following options for the Council’s consideration. In considering of these options it
is important to note that the City’s recently adopted Transportation System Plan contains a number of projects funded in whole or in part by SDCs. It is likely that the amount of SDC
funding that would be required to implement the plan fully within the next 20 years is greater
than what can reasonably expected to be collected even at the maximum rate. Accordingly, it is likely that any delays or reductions in the SDC amounts may lead to delays in implementing the
Transportation System Plan, or in reprioritizing projects to make the most efficient use of available funds.
Option 1: Implement full SDC of $340.38 per trip end effective January 1, 2015. This option allows the City to put the new rate in place prior to the next construction season and gives
adequate notice to developers of the rate change. This option positions the City to support the
construction of infrastructure needed for new development projects anticipated to occur. The City’s overall SDC charges will continue to be higher than those of the City of Eugene, but they
remain in line with other communities along the I5 corridor such as Corvallis.
Option 2: Delay the implementation of the full SDC of $340.38 per trip end until July 1,
2015. This option aligns the effective date with that of other City SDC’s which simplifies the
administration of the fee. This also gives substantial notice of the fee change to developers so they can plan their construction financing accordingly. However, by waiting until July 1 the
City forgoes the additional $72.03 per trip end from all construction permits issued prior to July
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
11/17/2014 Page 4
1, in effect missing the 2015 construction season. It also hampers the City’s ability to participate in infrastructure construction to support anticipated 2015 developments in areas of the City such
as Glenwood.
Option 3: Phase in the SDC by implementing the CAC’s recommended SDC of $308.60 per
trip end (15% rate increase) effective January 1, 2015 and implement the full SDC of $340.38
per trip end on July 1, 2015. This option is responsive to the CAC’s recommendation and allows the City to partially capture additional SDC revenues. By phasing it in over six months
developers would save $31 per trip end on permits issued in the first half of 2015 and it is
unknown if that is enough of an incentive that the City would see a flurry of permit activity prior to July 1.
Option 4: Adopt the CAC Recommendation. This would increase the rate to $308.60 per trip end as of January 1, 2015
Option 5: Adopt a rate increase of 5%. This would increase the rate to $281.77 per trip end as of January 1, 2015
Impact of the options. If the Council chooses to implement Option 1, the City could reasonably
expect to raise about $54.6 million over the next 20 years. This would fully fund the SDC
portion of the projects on the Project list. While timing is always highly variable in predicting SDC revenues, this could provide a reasonable expectation that as projects reached the stage
where they were needed, the City would be able to accommodate at least the SDC eligible share.
Under Options 2 or 3, the City would probably experience some delay in raising the necessary
funds. This delay might be relatively short term. If, for purposes of estimating the impact, we
assume a steady rate of trip growth over the 20-year period, we could project growth of 8050 trips per year. Using that assumption, option 2 would suggest that the City might forego about
$285,000 in revenue. Under option 3, the City might forego about $125,000 in revenue. In each case this calculation assumes no timing shifts by developers to avoid paying higher SDCs. These impacts might result in project delays, but would probably not result in long term adverse
impacts.
By contrast, Option 4, by simply setting the rate at a lower level, would result in the City
potentially foregoing about $5 million over the 20-year period. By the same measure Option 5 would result in the city potentially foregoing $9.5 million over the 20-year period. This could
significantly increase the likelihood that adequate SDC funds will not be available in the time
frames consistent with project readiness. In some cases this might mean that projects are delayed beyond the 20 planning horizon. This is most likely to occur with projects that are already
contemplated to be near the horizon, rather than short-term projects. However, should major
development activity occur in the near term, the challenges might become more immediate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Option 1 and requests Council direction on
the preparation of the fee resolution for the December 1, 2014 public hearing.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
Methodology Report
Transportation System
Development Charges
Prepared For
Prepared By
August 20, 2014
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 22
I
Executive Summary
Background
The City of Springfield (the City) embarked on an effort to update its transportation system
development charges (SDCs) in October 2013. The objectives of the SDC update were to
develop a new project list and SDC fees that reflected the recently adopted Transportation
System Plan (TSP), and to work with a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to review certain
SDC-related policy issues. This methodology report presents the recommended SDC
methodology and updated fees based on the revised project list. A separate report was
prepared by City staff for the CAC policy recommendations.
The updated SDC methodology follows the same basic approach as the current SDCs, and is
based on a combined reimbursement and improvement structure. This structure, which is
shown graphically in Figure 1, consists of the following three elements:
1. Determine capacity needs
2. Develop cost basis
3. Develop SDC unit costs
FIGURE 1—OVERVIEW OF SDC METHODOLOGY
New Capacity for Growth ($)
Additional Growth DemandExisting System Demand
Reserve
Capacity ($)
Existing Facilities New facilities
Determine System Capacity Needs
Develop Cost Basis and SDC Unit Costs
IMPROVEMENT ($/Trip End) REIMBURSEMENT ($/Trip End)TOTAL SDC $ per Trip End
Growth Trip Ends÷
=
Existing system demand is evaluated against existing system capacity to determine
available (or reserve) capacity in the system for future growth. Planned improvements from
the TSP are evaluated to determine the portion of new capacity that is needed for future
growth, as opposed to capacity that enhances the level of service for existing development.
The reimbursement fee cost basis is equal to the value of available (reserve) capacity in the
system, and the improvement fee cost basis is equal to the portion of future capital costs
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 22
II
needed to meet growth’s additional capacity needs (above what is already available in the
system).
The cost bases are divided by the forecast growth in trip ends to determine the
reimbursement and improvement costs per trip end. The reimbursement fee and
improvement fees for individual developments are determined by multiplying the fees per
trip end by the number of trips attributed to that development. Consistent with Oregon SDC
statutes, a compliance charge is added that reflects the city’s administration of the SDC
program. The three components together determine the total SDC payable (reimbursement
fee plus improvement fee plus compliance charge).
Major Findings
Improvement Fee Cost Basis
A summary of the SDC improvement project costs by project type is provided in Table ES-1.
As shown in Table ES-1, the SDC Project list includes $463 million of planned improvements
and related studies within the 20-year planning period. The planned improvements
include new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities in order to increase capacity and
improve the level of performance of the transportation system. When the project costs are
reduced by projected external funding sources, as well as existing deficiency costs, the net
project costs allocated to growth are about $52 million (about 11 percent of total project
costs.)
Table ES-1
City of Springfield SDC Analysis
Summary Transportation System Project Costs
Project Category Total $ Growth $ Growth %
State Facilities
Intersections $90,000,000 $9,000,000 10%
Roadways $11,600,000 $392,400 3%
Roadway Improvements $306,700,000 $29,424,496 10%
Intersection Improvements $10,070,000 $5,150,843 51%
Bike Facilities $660,000 $44,681 7%
Multi Use Paths $29,597,000 $2,445,093 8%
Pedestrian Improvements
Sidewalks $790,000 $723,468 92%
Crossings $6,090,000 $1,198,047 20%
Signage Only $70,000 $0 0%
Multimodal Improvements $5,130,000 $3,007,285 59%
Studies $1,650,000 $288,750 18%
Other Projects $600,000 $400,000 67%
Total $462,957,000 $52,075,064 11%
Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
The reimbursement fee is calculated based on the estimated replacement cost of reserve
capacity from arterial and collector streets, exclusive of grants and contributions. Existing
system value reflects improved and partially improved City funded facilities only. Costs
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 22
III
include street surfacing and curb and gutter costs only; sidewalks, bike lanes, and
intersection facilities (signals and roundabouts) costs are excluded, as existing bike and
pedestrian facilities are assumed to meet existing development need under the proposed
methodology. Existing intersection facilities are assumed to meet existing mobility
standards. The total value of the existing arterial and collector roadway system included in
the reimbursement fee is estimated to be $105.8 million, of which about $26.6 million
represents the estimated City-funded cost. Growth is allocated approximately $2.6 million
(10 percent) of existing system value, based on the estimated reserve capacity for in-City
development.
Maximum-Allowable SDC Schedule
Based on the updated improvement and reimbursement SDC cost bases, the maximum-
allowable cost per average weekday trip is equal to $339.55, and is comprised of the
following components:
$323.42 (improvement fee) + $16.14 (reimbursement fee) = $339.55 combined fee
In addition, local governments are entitled to include in the SDCs, a charge to recover costs
associated with complying with the SDC law. Compliance costs include costs related to
developing and administering the SDC methodology, project list, and credit system, as well
as annual accounting costs. The compliance charge is five percent, and is assessed on a
customer’s total SDC bill.
The transportation SDC for an individual development is based on the cost per trip, and the
number of trips attributable to a particular development, where the number of development
trips is computed as follows:
Number of Development Trips = Trip Generation Rate X Adjustment Factors X Development Units
The standard practice in the transportation industry is to use Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates to determine the SDCs for individual developments.
Adjustment factors applied to base trip rates reflect pass-by and diverted linked trip factors
for some land uses. Pass-by trips refer to trips that occur when a motorist is already on the
roadway, as in the case of a traveler stopping by a fast-food restaurant on the way home
from work. In this case, the motorist making a stop while “passing by” is counted as a trip
generated by the restaurant, but it does not represent a new (or primary) trip on the
roadway. A diverted linked trip is a similar type of non-primary trip but in this case the
motorist will divert from a primary route to access a nearby use (e.g., a vehicle may turn off
a major roadway onto an intersecting street to access a land use), and then return to the
original route to complete the trip.
Based on the SDCs presented in this report, and the most current version of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, the SDC for a single family dwelling unit (with an average trip rate of
9.57) is $3,250 (excluding the compliance charge).
Report Contents
This methodology report is organized as follows:
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 22
IV
• Executive Summary – Provides a summary of the SDC methodology and major
project findings.
• Section 1 – Introduction – Provides background on transportation SDCs in
Springfield, and summarizes the project objectives and SDC statutory requirements.
• Section 2 – Capacity Analysis – Presents the approaches used to allocate future
project costs and existing system value between existing development and growth.
• Section 3 – Cost Basis – Summarizes the reimbursement and improvement costs,
based on the approaches and assumptions presented in Section 2 and the project list.
• Section 4 – System Development Charges – Provides information on system-wide
unit costs, the process for assessing SDCs to individual developments, and method
for updating for future cost escalation.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 22
1-1
SECTION 1 Introduction
Background
The City of Springfield (City) last updated its transportation system development charges
(SDC) in 2008, following the methodology established in a comprehensive review and
update in 2000. In March 2014, the City adopted a new Transportation System Plan (TSP)
that identifies system improvements needed to meet current and future development needs.
The objectives of the current SDC review process (which began in October 2013), included:
• Develop a revised SDC methodology that is consistent with current industry
standards, Oregon SDC statutes and the City’s current policy framework.
• Develop updated SDC rates that recover the estimated growth-related project costs
from the recently adopted TSP.
• Work with a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to evaluate selected policies and
procedures related to the SDC methodology and administration.
This report describes the updated SDC methodology and calculations for the City’s
transportation system. The revised methodology and calculations are consistent with the
framework set forth by Oregon SDC legislation (ORS 223.297-314), and the
recommendations of the Springfield Transportation SDC CAC, both of which are discussed
below.
Citizen Advisory Committee
In September 2013, the City engaged a group of stakeholders to review specific policy issues
related to the Transportation SDCs. The CAC met six times between October 2013 and April
2014. Feedback collected through these meetings helped formulate the SDC methodology
and calculations presented in this report.
Specific CAC recommendations (documented in greater detail in a memorandum to the City
Council dated April 16, 2014) are summarized below:
• Assume 10 percent local funding match on State and Federal TSP projects.
Recommendation accepted by City Council.
• Do not include debt service cost in the methodology until such time as the City
issues debt for system improvements that is backed by transportation-specific fees
and charges (e.g. revenue bonds). Recommendation accepted by City Council.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 22
1-2
• Continue to base default estimates of trip rates for individual developments on data
from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual1.
Recommendation accepted by City Council.
• Do not include a mechanism in the methodology to provide specific incentives for
mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Recommendation accepted by City
Council.
• Continue to adjust SDCs annually based on the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (20-City average). Recommendation accepted by City
Council.
• Limit interim SDC adjustments to inflationary changes; do not reconcile and update
SDCs as individual projects are completed. Recommendation accepted by City
Council.
• Expand the City’s SDC financing program to support commercial/industrial
development. Program should include provisions for interest charges and securing
repayment through lien. Recommendation not accepted by City Council. The City
will continue with its current policy.
Oregon SDC Law
Oregon Revised Statutes 223.297-223.314 authorize local governments to assess SDCs for the
following types of capital improvements:
• Drainage and flood control (i.e., storm water)
• Water supply, treatment, and distribution
• Wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal
• Transportation
• Parks and recreation
In addition to specifying the infrastructure systems for which SDCs may be assessed, the
SDC legislation provides guidelines on the calculation and modification of SDCs,
accounting requirements to track SDC revenues, and the adoption of administrative review
procedures. A summary of key provisions is provided below.
SDC Structure
Oregon law allows that an SDC may include a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a
combination of the two.
Reimbursement Fee
The reimbursement fee is based on the value of available reserve capacity associated with
capital improvements already constructed or under construction. The methodology used to
calculate the reimbursement fee must consider the cost of existing facilities, prior
contributions by existing users, the value of unused capacity, grants, and other relevant
1 The City will continue its policy to allow developers to submit project-specific trip data for consideration in establishing SDCs.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 22
1-3
factors. The objective of the reimbursement fee methodology is to require new users to
contribute an equitable share of the capital costs of existing facilities. When new users pay
for their share of the available reserve capacity through the SDC reimbursement fee, the
money received can be used to fund other capital needs (e.g., system replacements).
Improvement Fee
The improvement fee is designed to recover all or a portion of the costs of planned capital
improvements that add system capacity to serve future users.
An increase in system capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the
level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. The
portion of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for
increased capacity to provide service for future users. [ORS 223.307(2)]
Credits
The legislation requires that a credit be provided against the improvement fee for the
construction of “qualified public improvements.” Qualified public improvements are
improvements that are required as a condition of development approval, identified in the
system’s capital improvement program, and either (1) not located on or contiguous to the
property being developed, or (2) located in whole or in part, on or contiguous to, property
that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater
capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement
fee is related.
Review and Notification Requirements
The methodology for establishing or modifying improvement or reimbursement fees shall
be available for public inspection. The local government must maintain a list of persons who
have made a written request for notification prior to the adoption or amendment of such
fees. The notification requirements for changes to the fees that represent a modification to
the methodology are 90-day written notice prior to first public hearing, with the SDC
methodology available for review 60 days prior to public hearing.
Other Provisions
Other provisions of the legislation require:
• Preparation of a capital improvement program or comparable plan (prior to the
establishment of a SDC), that includes a list of the improvements that the jurisdiction
intends to fund with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing, cost, and
eligible portion of each improvement.
• Deposit of SDC revenues into dedicated accounts and annual accounting of revenues
and expenditures, including a list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole
or in part, by SDC revenues.
• Creation of an administrative appeals procedure, in accordance with the legislation,
whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC
revenues.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 22
1-4
The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if they are construed to impair the local
government’s bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or
other financing.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 22
2-1
SECTION 2 Determine Capacity Needs
Introduction
The capacity analysis forms the basis for determining the costs that will be recovered from
growth through the SDCs. To comply with Oregon SDC law and industry standard
practices, new development cannot be charged for costs associated with capacity needed to
serve existing development– either in the form of used capacity on existing facilities or
future expansion needed to remedy existing deficiencies. To be defensible, the
methodology must:
• Specify how capacity will be defined (e.g., volume, volume/capacity ratio, etc.)
• Evaluate existing facility capacity to determine whether existing mobility standards
are being met, or if there are existing deficiencies.
• Identify the list of projects needed to address growth needs and remedy existing
deficiencies.
• Allocate project costs between growth and existing development, based on the
portion of each project that relates to providing capacity for growth vs. addressing
an existing deficiency or future service level enhancement related to existing
development.
This section describes the approach to determining growth capacity needs in general, and
the methodologies used to determine growth’s share of costs for different types of
improvements.
System-Wide Growth Capacity Requirements
To evaluate the roadway capacity needs and the amount of vehicle trips that are generated
by existing and future development, the regional travel demand model was utilized.
Specifically, the base year travel demand model was utilized to approximate the existing
number of trips using the City street network. The future year (2035) travel demand model
was utilized to determine the growth in trips generated within the City’s currently
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), as well as to evaluate how the “growth
trips” would utilize the roadway network within the City.
Table 2-1 lists the total number of trip ends for the base year and future year scenarios,
broken down by trip ends that stay within the City’s UGB and trip ends that have one end
outside of the City’s UGB. As listed, the total number of trip ends is forecasted to grow
from 657,472 to 818,488. The growth in average daily trip ends (161,016) represents about 20
percent of the total year 2035 projections.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 22
2-2
Table 2-1 Model Vehicle Average Daily Trip Ends (Within the City’s currently acknowledged UGB)
Internal-Internal Internal-External & External-Internal Total
Existing Trip Ends 271,968 385,504 657,472
Projected Trip Ends 353,816 464,672 818,488
Growth Trip Ends 81,848 79,168 161,016
Project Cost Allocations
The system-wide growth in trips will be accommodated by existing roadway reserve
capacity, as well as planned future capacity expansion. Capacity expansion comes in the
form of both new facilities and expansion of existing facilities. According to SDC statutory
requirements: “An increase in system capacity may be established if a capital improvement
increases the level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provides new
facilities.” A key component of the SDC methodology is allocation of existing facility and
planned future facility costs to growth, in proportion to estimated capacity requirements.
For purposes of determining potential SDC-eligibility, individual projects are analyzed to
determine: 1) the portion of project costs that expand capacity versus replace existing
capacity, and 2) the portion of capacity costs needed for future growth requirements versus
existing development deficiencies.
The portion of project costs that are associated with rehabilitation or replacement of existing
capacity are not SDC-eligible. Two general methods are used for determining the growth
portion of capacity costs for each project:
1. Standards-Based approach – where the allocation of capacity costs to existing
development is limited to correcting any existing deficiency. Existing deficiencies
are evaluated based on current performance relative to the appropriate
planning/design standard for the particular improvement. For intersections, the
standard is a “volume-capacity ratio (v/c ratio)”2. For multimodal improvements,
the standard is linear feet per capita of bikeways and pedestrian ways.
2. Capacity Utilization approach – Improvements to existing facilities to address
safety, modernization, and other performance considerations provide capacity for
growth and enhanced performance for existing development, so the costs are
allocated in proportion to the utilization of the facilities, as determined for each
improvement individually.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of the allocation basis for existing and future development by
major project type.
2 Volume-to-capacity ratio is defined as motor vehicle trips divided by the hourly capacity of the facility to serve those trips.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 22
2-3
Table 2-2 Summary of Project Capacity Cost Allocations – Future Improvements
Project Type Existing Share Future Development Share
Roadway projects, crossings other improvements Existing development trips as a percent of total future 2035 trips Future development trips as a percent of total future 2035 trips
Intersection Facilities Limited to existing deficiency (e.g., v/c ratio > 1.0) 100% - Existing Deficiency
Multimodal Facilities
Limited to existing deficiency
(i.e., increase in level of service defined by linear feet per capita) 100% - Existing Deficiency
Studies Existing development trips as a percent of total future 2035 trips Future development trips as a percent of total future 2035 trips
The cost allocation approaches that form the basis of this methodology are described below.
Roadway Improvements
For expansion/upgrade of existing facilities (i.e., road widening and extension and urban
upgrades), daily traffic volumes by roadway link (from the City’s travel demand model)
were used to quantify growth’s utilization of future roadway capacity. Growth capacity
utilization is estimated based on the growth in trips over the planning period, as a
percentage of total future trips for individual roadway links.
Intersection Improvements
Existing operating conditions were evaluated to determine if facilities were meeting City
and State operational requirements. This information was compiled from the City’s recently
completed TSP. Based on this analysis none of the intersections included on the project list
were failing to meet required standards based on existing conditions.
Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
Unlike roadway and intersection projects, trip data for bike and pedestrian improvements is
not available. Therefore, a defensible basis for determining growth capacity needs for bike
and pedestrian facilities is a planned level of service (LOS) basis. The planned LOS is
defined as the quantity of future facilities per 1,000 population served.
The following equation shows the calculation of the planned LOS:
LOSPlannedServedPopulationFuture
Q PlannedQExisting=+
Where:
Q = quantity (miles of bike or pedestrian facilities), and
Future Population Served (within the UGB) = 84,830
The existing and future miles of bike and pedestrian facilities are shown in Table 2-3. The
current inventory was provided by City staff, and is adjusted for facilities owned by the
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 22
2-4
Willamalane Park & Recreation District. The additional miles are based on the project list
(excluding Willamalane Park & Recreation District facilities).
Table 2-3
Existing and Future Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Current Additional (miles) Future
Facility Type (Miles) Ped/Bike
Projects
Road
Projects
(Miles)
Multi Use Path1 4.0 11.0 0 15.0
Bike Lanes2 37.8 10.4 45.2 93.4
Sidewalks 3 93.4 2.9 45.2 141.5
1City-owned paved shared use paths
2Bike lanes only; does not include bike shoulders
3On improved and partially improved arterials and collectors
The City’s population forecasts for existing and 2035 conditions are presented in Table 2-4.
Growth during the planning period is estimated to be 17,147 people.
Table 2-4
Current and Future Population
Current Future Growth
Population 67,683 84,830 17,147
Table 2-5 presents the existing and future LOS for bike and pedestrian facilities, based on
the existing and planned future facilities presented in Table 2-3 divided by the existing and
projected 2035 population presented in Table 2-4. In all cases, the planned LOS is higher
than the existing LOS, which means that there are existing deficiencies for bike and
pedestrian improvements, so a portion of future improvements are needed by existing
development.
Table 2-5
Existing and Future Bike and Pedestrian LOS
Miles/1,000 People
Facility Type Current Future
Multi Use Path 0.059 0.176
Bike Lanes 0.558 1.102
Sidewalks 1.380 1.668
The capacity requirements, or miles, needed for the existing population and for growth are
shown in Table 2-6 and estimated by multiplying the planned (future) LOS for each facility
type (from Table 2-5) by the population of each group (from Table 2-4)
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 22
2-5
Table 2-6
Existing and Growth Capacity Needs
Total Miles Needed
Facility Type Current Growth Total
Multi Use Path 11.9 3.0 15.0
Bike Lanes 74.6 18.9 93.4
Sidewalks 112.9 28.6 141.5
Existing users’ needs are assumed to be met first by the existing inventory of facilities; any
shortfall is assumed to be provided from planned improvements. Therefore, the additional
need for facilities by the existing population is equal to the total inventory needed (from
Table 2-6) less the existing inventory (from Table 2-3). For example, the planned LOS results
in a total need of 11.9 miles of multi-use paths for existing development. The current
inventory of 3.98 miles is deducted from the total need to yield an additional need of 7.9
miles.
Table 2-7 shows the existing and growth allocation for the planned improvements by project
type. For the multi-use paths, the growth need is equal to 3.0 miles, so the additional 11.0
miles of path are allocated 72 percent and 28 percent, respectively to existing and growth.
For bike projects, the overall growth need is 34 percent (18.9 miles) of the planned
additional bike lanes; however, the majority of improvements are in conjunction with
roadway projects, and as such are allocated in proportion to future auto trip volumes. As
shown in Table 2-7, the roadway project allocations result in 17.8 miles of bike lane costs
allocated to growth, so there is an additional need of 1.0 miles (10 percent) from the stand-
alone bike projects. Similarly for sidewalk improvements, the roadway allocations result in
17.8 miles of new sidewalks allocated to growth. However, the total growth need is 28.6
miles, so 100 percent of the stand-alone sidewalk costs on the project list are allocated to
growth.
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 22
2-6
Table 2-7
Allocation of Additional Facilities
Miles Added for % Allocation
Existing1 Growth Total Existing Growth
Multi Use Path 7.9 3.0 11.0 72% 28%
Bike Lanes 36.8 18.9 55.6 66% 34%
Road Projects2 27.3 17.8 45.1 60% 40%
Bike Projects 9.5 1.0 10.5 90% 10%
Subtotal 36.8 18.9 55.6
Sidewalks 19.5 28.6 48.1
Road Projects 27.3 17.8 45.1 60% 40%
Pedestrian Projects 0.0 2.9 2.9 0% 100%
Subtotal 27.3 20.7 48.0
1 Existing need assumed to be met first by current facilities
2 Road project allocations reflect each group’s share of future auto trip volumes
Existing System Reserve Capacity
The regional travel model was used to determine the portion of the existing roadway
network that has reserve capacity for growth. The reserve capacity of the roadway system
was determined by comparing the traffic volume on each roadway to the capacity of that
roadway. If the total volume in 2035 exceeded the capacity, the amount of capacity available
for growth was calculated as a ratio of the capacity less the existing daily traffic volume to
the capacity. If the future volume was less than capacity, the amount available for growth
was calculated as a simple ratio of the future volume less the existing volume to the capacity
of the particular roadway. The results of this analysis indicate a reserve capacity of 11.7
percent system-wide.
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 22
3-1
SECTION 3 Cost Basis
Introduction
The improvement and reimbursement cost bases represent the total costs of growth related
capacity through 2035, as determined by the cost allocation analysis described in Section 2.
The value of existing system capacity is referred to as the reimbursement fee cost basis,
while the value of future growth-related improvement costs is referred to as the
improvement fee cost basis.
The development of the cost basis generally involves the following key steps:
1. The portion of total project costs related to increasing system capacity is determined.
2. Capacity costs are reduced by projected external funding amounts (assessments,
grants, contributions by other agencies) to determine local share of costs.
3. Local capacity costs are reduced by the portion of capacity for through trips (trips
with neither an origin nor destination within the planning area).
4. Net capacity costs are allocated between growth and existing development, based on
the portion of each project that relates to providing capacity for growth vs.
addressing an existing deficiency or future service level enhancement related to
existing development (as described in Section 2).
The development of the improvement and reimbursement cost bases are summarized
below.
Improvement Fee
The improvement fee cost basis is summarized by major project component in Table 3-1.
The total cost of improvements on the project list is about $463 million. The growth portion
(i.e., the improvement fee cost basis) is about $52 million. The following subsections
describe the methodology related to the development of the cost basis for each major
category of projects.
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 22
3-2
Table 3-1
City of Springfield SDC Analysis
Summary of Improvement Fee Cost Basis
Project Category Total $ Growth $ Growth %
State Facilities
Intersections $90,000,000 $9,000,000 10%
Roadways $11,600,000 $392,400 3%
Roadway Improvements $306,700,000 $29,424,496 10%
Intersection Improvements $10,070,000 $5,150,843 51%
Bike Facilities $660,000 $44,681 7%
Multi Use Paths $29,597,000 $2,445,093 8%
Pedestrian Improvement
Sidewalks $790,000 $723,468 92%
Crossings $6,090,000 $1,198,047 20%
Signage $70,000 $0 0%
Multimodal Improvements $5,130,000 $3,007,285 59%
Studies $1,650,000 $288,750 18%
Other Projects $600,000 $400,000 67%
Total $462,957,000 $52,075,064 11%
Roadway Projects
New Capacity Share
For roadway projects, non-capacity costs include overlay and restriping of existing
roadways, and reconstruction of existing facility costs as identified in the detailed project
costs developed for the TSP.
Local Cost Share
Roadway projects are assumed to have an external funding share consistent with the
historical system average.
Local Growth Capacity Share
All local roadway capacity costs are reduced by 16.4 percent for through trips. As described
in Section 2, the growth share of the net capacity costs is determined by traffic volumes on
the specific roadway, or nearby intersection (where the specific segment was not modeled).
Intersection Projects
New Capacity Share
For intersection projects, non-capacity costs are assumed to be limited to reconstruction of
existing facility costs (e.g., rebuilding signals and islands) as identified in the detailed
project costs developed for the TSP
Local Cost Share
Intersection projects are assumed to have external funding consistent with the historical
average.
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 22
3-3
Local Growth Capacity Share
All intersection capacity costs are reduced by 16.4 percent for through trips. The growth
share of local capacity cost is equal to the 100 percent minus any existing deficiency cost.
State Facilities
New Capacity Share
An individual determination of capacity share was not determined for each State facility
because it is assumed that the external funding (assumed to be 90 percent of the project cost)
will fund any non-capacity costs and capacity associated with through trips.
Local Cost Share
All State facilities are assumed to have 90 percent external funding (10 percent local match).
Local Growth Capacity Share
State facilities include both roadway and intersection projects. For roadway projects, the
local growth capacity share is based on projected volume of growth trips relative to the total
2035 volumes. For intersections, the growth share is equal to 100 percent less any current
operational deficiency.
Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
New Capacity Share
The following costs are excluded from the SDC cost basis:
• Projects that are limited to signage and pavement markings for bike routes
• Projects that improve intersection visibility only
• Striping/signage improvements only
• The portion of pedestrian projects that relate to bike route signage
• Costs associated with overlaying existing roadways
Local Cost Share
The cost basis calculations reflect external funding assumptions by project type, based on
the City’s projections.
Local Growth Capacity Share
Regional projects funded by Willamalane Park & Recreation District are excluded from the
SDC cost basis. Other projects are assumed to have 100 percent local capacity, and the
growth portion is based on the LOS analysis presented in Section 2, with the exception of
pedestrian crossings which are allocated to growth in proportion to system-wide share of
2035 auto trips (20 percent).
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 22
3-4
Reimbursement Fee
The reimbursement fee was developed using the same methodology as the City’s prior
update. As shown in Table 3-2, the replacement cost of the existing arterial and collector
network3 is estimated, and external funding is deducted from the total, along with
remaining outstanding bond principal associated with the transportation system.
Table 3-2 City of Springfield Transportation SDC Methodology
Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
Component Replacement $
Improved Arterials $56,242,385
Improved Collectors $49,539,939
Less Outstanding Debt Principal -$952,500
Less External Funding 74.0% -$78,263,072
Net Project Cost $26,566,752
Available Capacity Cost 11.7% $3,108,310
Local Growth Cost Basis 83.6% $2,598,370
The net project cost is then multiplied by the estimated available capacity in the existing
system and the “local” growth cost (net of through trips), to determine the SDC cost basis of
$2.6 million.
3 Reflects improved and partially improved City funded facilities. Costs include street surfacing and curb and gutter costs only; sidewalks, bike lanes, and intersection facilities (signals and roundabouts) costs are excluded, as existing bike and pedestrian facilities assumed to meet existing development need under the LOS approach.
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 22
SECTION 4 System Development Charges
Introduction
The transportation SDC for an individual development is based on a unit cost per trip – the SDC cost basis divided by the system-
wide growth in trips -- and the number of trips attributable to a particular development. This section presents the unit costs per trip,
based on the approaches described previously, and the growth in trips estimated in the City’s traffic model.
Unit Costs ($/Trip)
Based on the SDC project list, and the cost allocation approaches outlined in Sections 2 and 3, the total cost per average daily trip is
equal to $339.55, as shown in Table 4-1, and is comprised of the following components:
$323.42 (improvement fee) + $16.14 (reimbursement fee)
Table 4-1
City of Springfield Transportation SDC Methodology
Transportation System Unit Costs of Capacity ($/Trip)
Improvement SDC Reimbursement SDC Combined SDC
Cost Basis (1) $52,075,064 $2,598,370 $54,673,434 Growth Trip Ends (2) 161,016 161,016 161,016
SDC per Trip End $323.42 $16.14 $339.55
(1) From Tables 3-1 and 3-2
(2) From Table 2-1
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 22
A-2
SDC Assessment
The transportation SDC for an individual development is based on the cost per trip (including the reimbursement and improvement
fees) and the number of trips (average daily) attributable to a particular development, where the number of development trips is
computed as follows:
Number of Development Trips = Trip Generation Rate X Adjustment Factors X Development Units
Trip Generation Rates
The City will continue to use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) average daily trip generation rates to determine the
SDCs for individual developments. Use of ITE trip generation data is standard in the transportation industry. ITE trip rates by land
use are based on studies from around the country, and in the absence of local data, represent the best available source of trip data for
specific land uses.
Adjustment Factors
An adjustment factor for trip-length has been applied by some other jurisdictions. However, the available data to reasonably
estimate average trip length for a given land use type in comparison to other uses is extremely limited. Furthermore, trip length may
be more directly attributable to location within an area and the availability of other similar uses in the area than it is to simply the
type of use. Therefore, trip-length adjustments are not included in this methodology.
Pass-by trip adjustments are applied to the ITE trip rates for certain land use types. Pass-by trips refer to trips that occur when a
motorist is already on the roadway, as in the case of a traveler stopping by a fast-food restaurant on the way home from work. In this
case, the motorist making a stop while “passing by” is counted as a trip generated by the restaurant, but it does not represent a new
(or primary) trip on the roadway. Pass-by adjustments are included in the methodology based on ITE rates.
A diverted linked trip is another type of non-primary trip but in this case the motorist will divert from a primary route to access a
nearby use (e.g., a vehicle may turn off a major roadway onto an intersecting street to access a land use), and then return to the
original route to complete the trip. Diverted linked trip adjustments are included in the methodology based on ITE rates.
Exceptional Users
By necessity, an SDC calculation methodology must employ a variety of assumptions about the nature of demands placed by future
system users, the costs and timing of growth-related capital improvements, and system capacity use. There are limits to how precise
these assumptions may be because of data availability to address all development types. For most new developments, the margin of
error in predicting system impact is within an acceptable range. However, it is possible that one or a few exceptional prospective
users alone may have sufficient impact on future system use and capital improvements to invalidate certain basic assumptions of a
particular SDC calculation.
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 22
A-3
It is recommended that for developments determined during staff review, to exhibit trip characteristics significantly different from
those on which the existing rate is based, the City Traffic Engineer will assign a trip rate based on the best available information at
the time of actual SDC calculations.
Alternative Trip Generation Calculation
The City’s local land use code contains provisions to require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be submitted and approved for
certain types of developments. Developments that must comply with the TIA requirements are provided with an opportunity to
combine that process with a request for an optional alternate trip rate calculation. The data requirements for each process are similar,
and taking this into account helps facilitate the establishment of data needed for the alternate trip rate calculation earlier in the
development planning process.
Compliance Charges
The City applies a 5 percent compliance charge on the total SDC for a particular development (including the revised transportation
SDCs presented in this report), to recover the costs associated with complying with the SDC statutes. The analysis related to the
compliance charge was conducted and adopted as part of the City’s prior SDC analysis.
Annual Inflationary Adjustments
The City’s current SDC policies, adopted by separate City Council action, provide for annual adjustments to SDC rates based upon
an inflationary index. The City currently uses the ENR 20-City Construction Cost Index as the basis for adjusting all of its SDCs.
Attachment 2, Page 22 of 22
City of Springfield Transportation SDC Project List
No.Project Name Total Cost Capacity %
Other
Funding %
Local Trips
%Growth %
R01 Extension From Royal Caribbean Way to International Way $4,300,000 100%70%84%40%$433,440 10%
R02 Gateway Street/International Way to UGB $950,000 69%70%84%40%$65,945 7%
R03 New collector; Game farm Rd. east to International Way $6,300,000 100%70%84%40%$635,040 10%
R04 Maple Island Road Ext. Deadmond Ferry to Beltline $3,100,000 100%70%84%40%$312,480 10%
R05 Riverbend Drive Extension $1,600,000 100%70%84%40%$161,280 10%
R06 Improvements to Baldy View Ln & New McKenzie Loop Roadway $10,200,000 100%70%84%40%$1,028,160 10%
R08 Mallard Avenue - Gateway Street to Game Farm Road $4,530,000 100%70%84%40%$456,624 10%
R09 Connectivity from Laura St. to Pioneer Pkwy $3,300,000 100%70%84%22%$182,952 6%
R12 Franklin Riverfront Collector $7,700,000 100%70%84%27%$523,908 7%
R13 Franklin Blvd Multi-Modal $35,000,000 96%70%84%31%$2,618,667 7%
R16 E 17th Ave: Glenwood to Henderson $1,900,000 100%70%84%27%$129,276 7%
R17 Henderson, East19th Ave to Franklin $3,400,000 92%70%84%27%$211,685 6%
R18 E. 19th Street, Henderson to McVay $3,500,000 95%70%84%27%$226,125 6%
R20 Multimodal Improvements McVay Blvd; 19th Ave to CORP RR (includes R19)$37,000,000 99%70%84%33%$3,034,908 8%
R24 19th Street; Hayden Bridge Road to Yolanda Avenue $2,400,000 100%70%84%28%$169,344 7%
R25 Hayden Bridge Road $12,000,000 96%70%84%28%$809,544 7%
R26 Yolanda Avenue; 23rd Street to 31st Street $460,000 92%70%84%28%$29,871 6%
R27 31st St to 34th St $9,400,000 100%70%84%28%$663,264 7%
R28 New 3-L Collector; Marcola Road to 31st Street $9,000,000 100%70%84%28%$635,040 7%
R29 31st Street; Hayden Bridge Road to U Street $3,800,000 93%70%84%28%$248,419 7%
R34 Centennial Blvd Extension; 28th Street to 31st Street $9,500,000 100%70%84%30%$718,200 8%
R36 42nd Street Improvements, Marcola to RR Crossing $6,000,000 100%70%84%25%$378,000 6%
R39 S. 48th Street Extension; Aster to Daisy Street $3,200,000 100%70%84%32%$258,048 8%
R41 S 54th Street, Main to Daisy Street $960,000 100%70%84%13%$31,450 3%
R42 Glacier Street; Holly Street to S. 55th Street $6,300,000 100%70%84%60%$952,560 15%
R45 Jasper-Natron Area Improvements $67,000,000 100%70%84%60%$10,130,400 15%
R46 Mt Vernon, Bob Straub Pkwy to Mountain gate Dr.$2,500,000 100%70%84%60%$378,000 15%
R47 Haul Road Green Street, Mt Vernon Road to UGB $11,000,000 62%70%84%60%$1,023,501 9%
R49 79th Street Extension; Thurston Road to Main Street $8,200,000 100%70%84%28%$578,592 7%
R50 Gateway/Beltline Phase 2 Project $12,000,000 98%70%84%40%$1,183,071 10%
US03 Aspen St. from Centennial Blvd. to West D St.$2,800,000 93%70%84%26%$170,275 6%
US04 Urban standards, 21st St. from D St. to Main St.$2,300,000 67%70%84%28%$108,424 5%
US05 28th Street: Centennial Boulevard to Main Street $4,300,000 93%70%84%28%$281,743 7%
US06 South 28th from Main St. to South F street $6,000,000 83%70%84%28%$350,381 6%
US14 Thurston from Weaver Rd. to UGB $4,800,000 90%70%84%28%$305,880 6%
Subtotal Roadways $306,700,000 $29,424,496 10%
R10 Q Street Improvements, 5th Street to Laura Street $1,600,000 90%39%$62,400 4%
R20 Multimodal Improvements McVay Blvd; CORP RR to I-5 $10,000,000 90%33%$330,000 3%
R40 Interchange at OR126/52nd St $40,000,000 90%100%$4,000,000 10%
R43 Interchange at OR126/Main St $50,000,000 90%100%$5,000,000 10%
Subtotal State $101,600,000 $9,392,400 9%
R11 Intersection Improvements at 5th Street and Q Street $550,000 46%30%84%100%$148,309 27%
R30 Intersection Improvements at Marcola Rd/19th St.$320,000 54%30%84%100%$100,482 31%
R31 Intersection Improvements 31st St and Marcola Rd $1,900,000 97%30%84%100%$1,081,794 57%
R32 Intersection Improvements at 42nd Street and Marcola Road $2,800,000 100%30%84%100%$1,638,448 59%
R33 Intersection Improvements at Centennial Blvd and 28th St.$1,800,000 100%30%84%100%$1,053,288 59%
R38 Intersection Improvements at S. 42nd Street and Daisy Street $1,800,000 100%30%84%100%$1,053,288 59%
R48 Intersection Improvements at Main Street and Mountaingate Drive $900,000 100%90%84%100%$75,235 8%
Subtotal Intersections $10,070,000 $5,150,843 51%
S-1 Phase 2 of Beltline/Gateway Improvements $225,000 0%40%$90,000 40%
S-2 OR 126 Expressway Management Plan (ODOT)$80,000 0%10%$8,000 10%
S-3 Pioneer Parkway/Q Street/Laura Street (ODOT)$125,000 0%10%$12,500 10%
S-4 New Crossing of OR 126 betw. 5th & 15th Streets $100,000 0%0%$0 0%
S-5 Centennial Blvd. - Prescott Lane to Mill St.$100,000 0%0%$0 0%
S-6 Pioneer Parkway/Centennial Blvd. Intersection $100,000 0%0%$0 0%
S-7 Centennial Blvd. - Pioneer Parkway to Mohawk $100,000 0%0%$0 0%
S-8 Mohawk/Olympic/18th/Centennial Triangle $100,000 0%15%$15,000 15%
S-9 New Bridge - Walnut Rd/W. D to Glenwood/Franklin $150,000 0%20%$30,000 20%
S-10 Main St./S. A St. Improvements - Mill Street to 21st Street (ODOT)$20,000 0%10%$2,000 10%
S-11 Glenwood Industrial Areas $75,000 0%30%$22,500 30%
S-12 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge betw. Glenwood & Dorris Ranch $100,000 0%30%$30,000 30%
S-13 Access on Main St. betw. 28th Street and 32nd Street (ODOT)$100,000 0%10%$10,000 10%
S-14 East-West Connectivity betw. 28th Street & 32nd Street $125,000 0%15%$18,750 15%
S-15 New Crossing of OR 126 near Thurston High School $100,000 0%10%$10,000 10%
S-16 Connectivity South of OR 126 and Jessica Street $50,000 0%80%$40,000 80%
Subtotal Studies $1,650,000 $288,750 18%
Aerial Mapping - Citywide $200,000 0%50%$100,000 50%
Master Planning $200,000 0%50%$100,000 50%
City Participation in minor private capacity projects $200,000 0%100%$200,000 100%
Subtotal Other $600,000 $400,000 67%
PB01 McKenzie River Path; Existing Terminus to Maple Island Road $3,000,000 100%70%100%27%$240,547 8%
PB02 Multiuse Path Between Flamingo Ave and Gateway St $70,000 100%70%100%27%$5,613 8%
SDC Cost Basis
Roadway Projects
State Projects
Study Projects
Bike/Pedestrian Projects
Intersection Projects
Other Projects
Attachment 3 Page 1 of 2
City of Springfield Transportation SDC Project List
No.Project Name Total Cost Capacity %
Other
Funding %
Local Trips
%Growth %SDC Cost Basis
PB03 Ped/Bike Improvements from Game Farm Road to Gateway Loop $80,000 100%0%100%10%$7,943 10%
PB04 MUP; Riverbend Trail to Ann Ct./Wayside Loop $80,000 100%70%100%27%$6,415 8%
PB05 Hartman Ln. and Don St; Harlow Road to OR126 $180,000 93%0%100%100%$167,575 93%
PB08 Intersection Improvements Along Hayden Bridge Way $260,000 100%0%100%20%$51,148 20%
PB09 EWEB Path Crossing $50,000 100%0%100%20%$9,836 20%
PB10 Intersection Improvements at 2nd Street and Q Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB13 By-Gully Path at Anderson Road to Centennial Blvd $90,000 100%70%100%27%$7,216 8%
PB14 Rainbow Dr., Centennial to W. D St.$60,000 0%0%100%0%$0 0%
PB15 W. D St; D St. Path to Mills St.$10,000 0%0%100%0%$0 0%
PB16 W. D St; Aspen to D St. Path $190,000 92%0%100%100%$174,422 92%
PB17 Multiuse Path; I-5 to Willamette River Bridges (Glenwood)$2,500,000 100%70%100%27%$200,456 8%
PB18 Multiuse Path; Willamette River Bridges in Glenwood South to UGB $2,900,000 100%70%100%27%$232,529 8%
PB19 New Bridge Over Willamette River Betweek Glenwood and Downtown $10,300,000 100%70%100%27%$825,879 8%
PB20 Mill Street, Centennial to Main $90,000 100%0%100%10%$8,936 10%
PB21 Intersection Improvements at Pioneer Parkway and D/E/F Streets $80,000 100%0%100%20%$15,738 20%
PB22 Intersection Improvements at 5th St. and Centennial Blvd.$560,000 100%0%100%35%$193,872 35%
PB23 5th Street; Centennial Blvd to A Street $50,000 100%0%100%10%$4,965 10%
PB24 D, E or F Street; 5th St. to 28th St.; Bike Route Improvements $190,000 100%0%100%10%$18,865 10%
PB25 Visibility Improvements, 5th Street and D Street $10,000 0%0%100%0%$0 0%
PB26 A Street from W. A Street to 10th Street $40,000 100%0%100%10%$3,972 10%
PB27 MUP, South 2nd Street to Mill Street $3,100,000 100%70%100%27%$248,566 8%
PB30 33rd Street from V Street to Bike Path $10,000 0%70%100%27%$0 0%
PB32 Multiuse Path Between Willamette River and OR126, 42nd to 52nd $3,700,000 100%70%100%27%$296,675 8%
PB33 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing between 34th and 35th Streets $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB34 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing at 38th Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB35 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing at 41st Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB36 Bike Route on Virginia and Daisy Streets, S 32nd to Bob Straub $130,000 0%0%100%0%$0 0%
PB37 Booth Kelly Rd $2,817,000 100%70%100%27%$225,874 8%
PB39 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing between 48th/49th Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB40 Ped Improvements at 51st/Main Streets $10,000 100%0%100%20%$1,967 20%
PB41 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing at Chapman Lane $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB42 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing at 57th Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB43 Bob Straub Parkway/Daisy Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB44 Mountain Gate Drive from 57th Pl to Dogwood Street $260,000 90%0%100%100%$233,586 90%
PB45 Ped Crossing Improvements at Bob Straub Prkwy and Mt Vernon Road $390,000 100%0%100%20%$76,722 20%
PB46 Haul Road Path South 49th to UGB $3,600,000 100%70%100%27%$288,657 8%
PB47 Intersection Improvements at Thurston Road and 66th Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB48 Intersection Improvements at Thurston Road and 69th Street $90,000 100%0%100%20%$17,705 20%
PB49 67th Street, Main St. to Ivy St.$160,000 92%0%100%100%$147,884 92%
PB50 Ivy Street; 67th Street to Main Street $20,000 0%0%100%100%$0 0%
PB51 70th Street, Main St. to Ivy St.$50,000 0%0%100%100%$0 0%
PB52 City Wide RRFB Installations $4,400,000 100%0%100%20%$865,584 20%
US01 Game Farm Road South Mallard Ave to Harlow Road $4,100,000 95%0%100%49%$2,598,513 63%
US11 Clearwater Lane; Jasper Road to UGB $470,000 92%0%100%67%$214,900 46%
Subtotal Bike & Pedestrian $44,907,000 $7,551,904
Total $465,527,000 $52,208,393
Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2
Storm Drainage - 3000 SF Roof Footprint, 500 SF Driveway
2 Lavatories, 2 Water Closets, 2 Bathtubs, 1 Washer, 1 Kitchen Sink = 20 Drainage Fixture Units (DFU)
1 Dwelling Unit (DU) Trip Rate = 9.57; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 1
x =
x =
x x x 1 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
Storm Drainage - 25000 SF Roof Footprint, 100000 SF Parking Lot/Sidewalk = 125000 SF Impervious Area
200 Drainage Fixture Units (DFU)
22500 SF Building Area where Trip Rate = 111.51 / 1000 SF of Building Area; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 0.48
x =
x =
x x x 0.48 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
Storm Drainage - 2000 SF Roof Footprint, 3000 SF Parking Lot = 5000 SF Impervious Area
40 Drainage Fixture Units (DFU)
1800 SF Building Area where Trip Rate = 738 / 1000 SF of Building Area; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 0.3
x =
x =
x x x 0.3 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
Storm Drainage - 100,000 SF Roof Footprint, 200,000 SF Parking Lot = 300,000 SF Impervious Area
1360 Plumbing Fixture Units
100,000 SF Building Area where Trip Rate = 0.98 / 1000 SF of Building Area; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 1
x =
x =
x x x 0.95 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
CURRENT RATES
EXAMPLES OF TOTAL SDC FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TYPES - Effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015
A) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT (I.T.E.LANDUSE #210)
1. Storm Drainage: 3500 SF $ 0.633 $2,215.50
268.35$ $2,568.11
10.00$ ADM FEE 1 DU 1,624.39$ 1,624.39$
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:20 DFU 218.05$ $4,361.00
3. Transportation: *9.57 (TRIP RATE)1 DU
TOTAL SDC $11,307.45
B) SUPERMARKET (I.T.E. LANDUSE #850)
1. Storm Drainage: 125000 SF $ 0.633 $79,125.00
SUBTOTAL $10,769.00
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$538.45
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:200 DFU 218.05$ $43,610.00
3. Transportation:102.24 (TRIP RATE)25 TGSF 268.35$ $329,233.25
10.00$ 25 TGSF 3,406.46$ $85,171.50
TOTAL SDC $563,996.74
C) CONVENIENCE STORE (I.T.E.LANDUSE #851)
1. Storm Drainage: 5000 SF $ 0.633 $3,165.00
SUBTOTAL $537,139.75
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$26,856.99
268.35$ $118,825.38
10.00$ 2 TGSF 1,665.51$ $3,341.02
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:40 DFU 218.05$ $8,722.00
3. Transportation:738 (TRIP RATE)2 TGSF
TOTAL SDC $140,756.07
D) GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (NO PROCESS WASTEWATER) (I.T.E.LANDUSE #110)
1. Storm Drainage: 300000 SF $ 0.633 189900
SUBTOTAL $134,053.40
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$6,702.67
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:1360 DFU 218.05$ 296548
3. Transportation:6.97 (TRIP RATE)100 TGSF
TOTAL SDC $794,228.35
SUBTOTAL $756,407.95
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$37,820.40
268.35$ 177,687.95$
10.00$ 100 TGSF 922.62$ $92,272.00
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2
Storm Drainage - 3000 SF Roof Footprint, 500 SF Driveway
2 Lavatories, 2 Water Closets, 2 Bathtubs, 1 Washer, 1 Kitchen Sink = 20 Drainage Fixture Units (DFU)
1 Dwelling Unit (DU) Trip Rate = 9.57; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 1
x =
x =
x x x 1 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
Storm Drainage - 25000 SF Roof Footprint, 100000 SF Parking Lot/Sidewalk = 125000 SF Impervious Area
200 Drainage Fixture Units (DFU)
22500 SF Building Area where Trip Rate = 111.51 / 1000 SF of Building Area; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 0.48
x =
x =
x x x 0.48 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
Storm Drainage - 2000 SF Roof Footprint, 3000 SF Parking Lot = 5000 SF Impervious Area
40 Drainage Fixture Units (DFU)
1800 SF Building Area where Trip Rate = 738 / 1000 SF of Building Area; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 0.3
x =
x =
x x x 0.3 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=
Storm Drainage - 100,000 SF Roof Footprint, 200,000 SF Parking Lot = 300,000 SF Impervious Area
1360 Plumbing Fixture Units
100,000 SF Building Area where Trip Rate = 0.98 / 1000 SF of Building Area; New Trip Factor (NTF) = 1
x =
x =
x x x 0.95 (NTF)=
4. Sanitary Sewer-MWMC:+x =
=
x =
=TOTAL SDC $844,307.75
SUBTOTAL $804,102.62
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$40,205.13
340.38$ 225,382.62$
10.00$ 100 TGSF 922.62$ $92,272.00
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:1360 DFU 218.05$ 296,548.00$
3. Transportation:6.97 (TRIP RATE)100 TGSF
TOTAL SDC $174,245.69
D) GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (NO PROCESS WASTEWATER) (I.T.E.LANDUSE #110)
1. Storm Drainage: 300000 SF $ 0.633 189,900.00$
SUBTOTAL $165,948.28
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$8,297.41
340.38$ $150,720.26
10.00$ 2 TGSF 1,665.51$ $3,341.02
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:40 DFU 218.05$ $8,722.00
3. Transportation:738 (TRIP RATE)2 TGSF
C) CONVENIENCE STORE (I.T.E.LANDUSE #851)
1. Storm Drainage: 5000 SF $ 0.633 $3,165.00
SUBTOTAL $625,511.91
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$31,275.60
10.00$ 25 TGSF 3,406.46$ $85,171.50
TOTAL SDC $656,787.51
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:200 DFU 218.05$ $43,610.00
3. Transportation:102.24 (TRIP RATE)25 TGSF 340.38$ $417,605.41
TOTAL SDC $12,031.25
B) SUPERMARKET (I.T.E. LANDUSE #850)
1. Storm Drainage: 125000 SF $ 0.633 $79,125.00
SUBTOTAL $11,458.33
Administration Fee:SUBTOTAL 5%$572.92
340.38$ $3,257.44
10.00$ ADM FEE 1 DU 1,624.39$ 1,624.39$
2. Sanitary Sewer-City:20 DFU 218.05$ $4,361.00
3. Transportation: *9.57 (TRIP RATE)1 DU
PROPOSED RATE
EXAMPLES OF TOTAL SDC FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TYPES - Effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015
A) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT (I.T.E.LANDUSE #210)
1. Storm Drainage: 3500 SF $ 0.633 $2,215.50
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2
2013 SDC Report | 43
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SD
C
s
Da
t
a
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Nu
m
b
e
r
o f
Ci
t
i
e
s
Ha
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SD
C
:
66
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SD
C
ra
t
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
:
60
Ha
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
SD
C
s
:
60
10
0
%
Ha
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
no
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
SD
C
s
:
58
97
%
Ha
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
fe
e
s
:
58
97
%
Ha
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
fe
e
s
:
29
48
%
Ha
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
ot
h
e
r
fe
e
s
:
13
22
%
Ci
t
y
co
l
l
e
c
t
s
an
d
re
t
a
i
n
s
re
v
e
n
u
e
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SD
C
s
:
58
97
%
Co
l
l
e
c
t
s
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SD
C
re
v
e
n
u
e
fo
r
an
o
t
h
e
r
en
t
i
t
y
:
2
3%
Ha
s
ad
o
p
t
e
d
an
SD
C
lo
w
e
r
th
a
n
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
th
e
i
r
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
:
18
30
%
Ta
b
l
e
6:
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
Ra
t
e
s
fo
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SD
C
s
Bl
u
e
hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
ci
t
i
e
s
co
l
l
e
c
t
re
v
e
n
u
e
fo
r
an
o
t
h
e
r
en
t
i
t
y
(s
e
e
fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
s
fo
r
de
t
a
i
l
s
)
.
Gr
e
e
n
hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
ci
t
i
e
s
ha
v
e
an
ad
o
p
t
e
d
SD
C
lo
w
e
r
th
a
n
th
e
fe
e
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
th
e
i
r
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
No
t
e
:
Al
l
am
o
u
n
t
s
ro
u
n
d
e
d
to
th
e
ne
a
r
e
s
t
do
l
l
a
r
.
Ba
s
i
s
of
fe
e
an
d
fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
s
ar
e
as
re
p
o
r
t
e
d
by
ci
t
i
e
s
.
So
m
e
ha
v
e
be
e
n
ed
i
t
e
d
fo
r
sp
e
l
l
i
n
g
an
d
pu
n
c
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
CI
T
Y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
Se
v
e
n
primary projects.
Ad
a
i
r
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
$9
3
4
$9
3
4
20
0
8
20
1
3
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
based on estimated
tr
i
p
s
per day with 9.67 trips from a
si
n
g
l
e
‐family detached housing.
Al
b
a
n
y
$1
,
6
8
7
$4
6
1
$2
,
2
9
0
$6
2
5
20
1
2
20
1
3
P.
M
.
peak trip rate * pass by factor
* ba
s
e
fee for single trip
Am
i
t
y
No
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
SD
C
ra
t
e
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Au
m
s
v
i
l
l
e
1
$3
,
7
0
1
pe
r
ED
U
$3
,
7
0
1
pe
r
ED
U
20
1
3
20
1
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
1 equivalent dwelling
un
i
t
(EDU) equals the average
ve
h
i
c
l
e
trip ends of one detached
si
n
g
l
e
family dwelling. All other
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
types, trip counts are
1
Th
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
D
C
i
s
$
.
0
0
u
n
t
i
l
7
/
1
/
13
.
A
s
o
f
7
/
1
/
1
3
i
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
$
1
,
0
0
0
p
e
r
E
D
U
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
1
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 44
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
co
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
to the appropriate
nu
m
b
e
r
of EDUs based on a
co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
of the average vehicle
tr
i
p
ends of a single family
de
t
a
c
h
e
d
dwelling and the average
ve
h
i
c
l
e
trip ends of the proposed
us
e
.
Ba
n
d
o
n
$1
,
1
4
0
$6
0
6
$3
4
,
3
0
6
$1
8
,
3
0
2
20
0
4
un
k
n
o
w
n
Sq
u
a
r
e
footage
Be
a
v
e
r
t
o
n
2
$6
,
6
6
5
$1
3
7
,
3
8
0
20
1
2
20
1
5
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
per dwelling unit (DU)
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
per sq.ft.
Be
n
d
3
$3
,
4
3
2
$1
,
1
4
2
$0
$4
9
,
7
0
3
$1
6
,
5
4
3
$0
20
1
1
20
1
3
$4
,
5
7
4
per DU /$3,312 per 1000
sq
.
ft
.
for general office commercial
Bo
n
a
n
z
a
4
$1
,
1
1
2
$2
7
3
$2
8
$2
2
,
4
8
7
$5
,
5
1
2
$5
6
0
20
0
6
un
k
n
o
w
n
Sq
u
a
r
e
footage and use of building
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Po
i
n
t
$2
,
1
0
0
$1
8
2
$8
5
$6
2
,
5
6
8
$5
,
4
4
0
$2
,
5
3
2
20
1
0
20
1
3
A
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
office is charged
un
d
e
r
general office in the Institute
of
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Engineers (ITE)
an
d
is 1.49 peak hour trips per each
10
0
0
sq. ft. of building. The
ex
a
m
p
l
e
building is 20,000 sq. ft. so
wa
s
charged the normal rate x 20.
Co
l
u
m
b
i
a
Ci
t
y
5
$4
,
5
7
5
$4
,
5
7
5
20
0
2
an
d
20
0
8
no
n
e
pl
a
n
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
hybrid approach ‐a
li
s
t
of planned motor vehicle and
bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
capital
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
projects was
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
to identify the capacity ‐
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
portion, the modal split
(m
o
t
o
r
vehicle and/or
bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
)
for new
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
the future growth benefit
(v
e
r
s
u
s
current capacity needs),
an
d
the SDC ‐eligible portion. The
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
SDC ‐eligible project costs
we
r
e
then divided by the estimated
to
t
a
l
nu mb er of new person ‐trip ‐
en
d
s
expecte d during the planning
pe
r
i
o
d
,
yielding the cost per new
pe
r
s
o
n
‐trip ‐end.
2
Th
e
r
a
t
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
k
e
p
t
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
s
a
n
o
d
t
o
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
3
Th
e
c
i
t
y
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
i
n
g
6
0
%
o
f
S
D
C
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
f
i
s
c
a
l
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
S
D
C
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
4
Au
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
y
e
a
r
l
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
N
e
w
s
R
e
c
o
r
d
(
E
N
R
)
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
i
n
d
e
x
.
5
St
u
d
y
w
a
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
2
;
c
o
s
t
o
f
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
d
o
n
e
i
n
2
0
0
8
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
2
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 45
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
Co
q
u
i
l
l
e
$0
$2
8
0
$0
$0
$0
20
1
2
no
t
pl
a
n
n
e
d
/
an
y
t
i
m
e
as
ne
e
d
e
d
28
0
per EDU.1.0 EDU is associated
wi
t
h
1.0 transportation demand
un
i
t
(TDU) trip ends per peak hour.
Pe
a
k
hour trip end figures defined
in
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
1 through 3 of Trip
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
7th Edition by the ITE
an
d
as published by other local
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
jurisdictions for the
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of similar
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Co
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
6
$2
,
1
2
4
$3
4
7
$0
$
2
,
4
6
1
$4
0
2
$0
20
0
0
TB
D
Tr
i
p
ends
Co
t
t
a
g
e
Gr
o
v
e
$1
,
5
5
7
$9
7
$2
6
$4
5
,
9
2
7
$2
,
8
4
8
$7
7
9
20
1
3
20
1
4
$1
,
6
6
2
.
8
8
per PM peak hour trip
(I
T
E
)
Cr
e
s
w
e
l
l
$2
6
7
$3
3
0
$3
0
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by usage,trip
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
square footage as
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
De
p
o
e
Ba
y
7
$2
,
6
9
9
$4
9
,
6
4
0
20
1
2
20
1
3
Fe
e
includes improvement and
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
.
Trip cost X trip rate
(I
T
E
,
or modified), residential per
un
i
t
,
nonresidential on square
fo
o
t
a
g
e
,
or per room (tourist
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
per student
(s
c
h
o
o
l
)
De
t
r
o
i
t
No
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
SD
C
ra
t
e
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Ea
g
l
e
Po
i
n
t
8
$2
,
8
6
6
$2
8
8
$4
8
$8
4
,
5
4
3
$8
,
5
0
1
$1
,
4
1
6
20
0
9
un
k
n
o
w
n
Sq
u
a
r
e
footage and/or use by ITE
co
d
e
,
some uses are based on
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
dwelling units, rooms,
ac
r
e
s
,
holes, students, members,
fu
e
l
i
n
g
positions or wash stalls
Es
t
a
c
a
d
a
$2
,
0
6
5
$2
9
$4
7
,
5
1
7
$6
5
8
20
1
2
20
1
3
EL
N
D
T
‐equivalent length new
da
i
l
y
trips
Eu
g
e
n
e
9
$1
,
2
0
1
$5
9
1
$3
5
,
9
0
5
$1
7
,
6
8
5
20
1
1
20
1
3
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
Cost per trip multiplied
by
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
trip rate for
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
type and then
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by number of DU
(d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
units).
6
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
m
a
d
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
l
i
s
t
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
7
Fe
e
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
o
n
J
u
l
y
1
st
.
8
St
a
r
t
e
d
a
t
$
2
,
3
7
0
i
n
2
0
0
9
;
u
p
t
o
$
3
,
1
7
0
i
n
2
0
1
3
.
9
Up
d
a
t
e
s
t
o
S
D
C
s
i
n
2
0
1
1
a
n
d
2
0
1
3
a
r
e
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
3
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 46
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
Cost per trip
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by assigned trip rate for
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
type and then
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by TGSF (thousand gross
sq
u
a
r
e
feet).
Fl
o
r
e
n
c
e
10
$8
6
5
$1
6
,
3
0
1
19
9
8
20
1
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
9.55 trips per dwelling.
Of
f
i
c
e
9 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
area
Gr
a
n
t
s
Pa
s
s
11
$1
,
4
6
9
$3
3
,
8
0
1
20
1
1
20
1
4
$1
5
3
.
5
0
per trip based on ITE
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Ha
p
p
y
Va
l
l
e
y
12
An
s
w
e
r
s
would need to come from
th
e
Clackamas County Department
of
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
& Development
(D
T
D
)
.
Ha
r
r
i
s
b
u
r
g
No
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
SD
C
ra
t
e
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Ho
o
d
Ri
v
e
r
$1
,
8
0
2
pe
r
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
Ba
s
e
d
on
IT
E
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
20
1
3
20
1
8
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
is based on square
fo
o
t
a
g
e
In
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
$3
,
2
3
1
$2
0
4
,
8
2
0
20
1
2
20
1
3
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
per single family unit.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
:
per 1,000 sq. ft.
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
size.
Ki
n
g
Ci
t
y
No
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
SD
C
ra
t
e
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Kl
a
m
a
t
h
Fa
l
l
s
13
$2
,
4
6
7
/
$1
,
5
0
0
20
0
8
Th
e
$2,467 SDC is based on 10 trips
pe
r
residence or $246.70/trip and is
to
be
used for numerous
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
in the Stewart Lenox
ar
e
a
.
The $1,500 SDC is a per lot
SD
C
and is being charged for a
fu
t
u
r
e
traffic signal in the county.
Th
e
per lot fee is on several
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
in the city that would
im
p
a
c
t
this intersection.
La
f
a
y
e
t
t
e
$5
,
5
1
3
$0
$4
4
,
3
8
0
$0
20
0
7
20
1
3
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
per dwelling unit
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
based on trips
10
Ci
t
y
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
to
t
h
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
.
11
20
1
4
S
D
C
u
p
d
a
t
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
o
r
a
n
n
u
a
l
C
P
I
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
.
12
Ci
t
y
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
s
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
o
r
C
l
a
c
k
a
m
a
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
13
Th
e
s
e
t
w
o
S
D
C
s
a
r
e
a
r
e
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
o
r
c
o
u
n
t
y
h
a
v
e
a
c
i
t
y
o
r
c
o
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
D
C
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
b
u
t
f
o
r
o
n
e
t
h
e
ci
t
y
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
i
s
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
th
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
4
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 47
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
La
k
e
Os
w
e
g
o
$4
,
1
9
5
$8
5
,
3
8
4
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
fees are calculated
ba
s
e
d
on the SDC rate per basic
un
i
t
s
,
which are set by the
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
'
s
land use.
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
No
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
SD
C
ra
t
e
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Li
n
c
o
l
n
Ci
t
y
14
$6
4
3
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
and use
Lo
w
e
l
l
$5
0
0
$1
2
5
20
1
0
2
0
1
4
‐15
Ma
d
r
a
s
$2
,
8
2
3
$3
8
5
$8
4
,
1
2
7
$1
1
,
4
7
2
20
1
0
(f
e
e
am
o
u
n
t
wa
s
re
d
u
c
e
d
)
do
no
t
kn
o
w
wh
e
n
it
wi
l
l
be
ra
i
s
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SDC is based on the
av
e
r
a
g
e
trip generation per 1,000
sq
.
ft
.
of gross floor area during the
p.
m
.
peak hour of adjacent street
tr
a
f
f
i
c
between the hours of 4 ‐6
p.
m
.
This is calculated using the
mo
s
t
current edition of the ITE
ma
n
u
a
l
.
In this case it would be the
8t
h
edition. Residential is al ways
ca
l
c
u
l
a
te d as one trip so $3,208 is
th
e
charge based on current fee
ra
t
e
resolution of $3,208 per peak
ho
u
r
trip. In the case of the
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
office space the ITE does
no
t
define an adjacent street traffic
co
u
n
t
so the p.m. peak hour would
be
us
e
d. Ac cording to th e 8th
ed
i
t
i
o
n
of the ITE manual that is
1.
4
9
average trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
of
gr
o
s
s
floor. 20,000/1,000 = 20 x
1.
4
9
x 3,208 =$95,598.40.
Me
d
f
o
r
d
15
$3
,
6
6
4
$1
0
8
,
2
2
9
20
1
1
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
of use X unit (each or
1,
0
0
0
sq. ft.) X chargeable daily trip
en
d
s
per unit X average trip length
(r
e
d
u
c
e
d
trip length if no access to
ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
or collector) X rate
(c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
cost + right ‐of ‐way
co
s
t
)
.
With no direct access to
ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
or collector street the SFR
SD
C
would be $2,931 and the office
14
Fe
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
o
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
st
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
.
15
IT
E
C
o
d
e
7
1
0
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
b
o
t
h
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
.
T
h
e
f
e
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
a
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
"
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
"
c
at
e
g
o
r
y
.
T
h
e
s
a
m
e
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
t
"
R
e
t
a
i
l
"
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
w
o
u
l
d
be
$
2
6
7
,
5
6
6
,
o
r
$
2
1
4
,
0
5
3
i
f
n
o
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
o
r
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
5
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 48
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
would be $89,030.
Mi
l
w
a
u
k
i
e
$1
,
5
9
6
$8
0
$4
7
,
5
6
0
$2
,
3
8
4
20
0
4
Th
e
transportation SDC is based on
p.
m
.
peak hour trips as outlined by
th
e
Institute of Transportation Trip
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
report (7th Edition,
20
0
3
)
One transportation SDC is on
p.
m
.
peak hour trip. Nonresidential
is
ba
s
e
d
on the square footage of
th
e
building and residential is based
on
th
e
number of dwelling units.
Mo
n
m
o
u
t
h
$3
9
4
19
9
4
20
1
3
0.
3
9
4
X gross building square
fo
o
t
a
g
e
X single family equivalency
fa
c
t
o
r
Mt
.
An
g
e
l
$1
,
2
7
0
$0
$4
0
$1
,
2
7
0
$0
$4
0
19
9
9
TB
D
$1
2
7
per average daily traffic (AD T )
x ru
r
a
l
single family residence
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
of 10 (per Trip
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Manual)
Ne
w
b
e
r
g
$2
,
9
0
9
$6
9
,
1
6
6
20
1
3
20
1
4
Th
e
fee is based on trip generation
fo
r
all new development
No
r
t
h
Pl
a
i
n
s
$5
1
8
$5
1
8
un
k
n
o
w
n
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
Pe
r
peak hour trip
On
t
a
r
i
o
16
$1
,
2
8
8
$0
$0
$1
4
,
7
5
8
20
0
8
20
1
4
On
t
a
r
i
o
is broken down into three
ar
e
a
s
(low, medium and high SDCs)
to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
development in one
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
side of town. SDCs for a
ne
w
general office building would
be
$1
,
2
5
6
/
T
S
F
G
F
A
in Area 1,
$4
7
1
/
T
S
F
G
F
A
in Area 2, and
$3
1
4
/
T
S
F
G
F
A
in Area 3. These
ad
o
p
t
e
d
transportation fees are
40
%
,
15% and 10% of the fees
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
in the methodology study
be
c
a
u
s
e
of the economy.
Pe
n
d
l
e
t
o
n
$1
,
0
5
0
$1
1
,
9
2
6
19
9
6
/
19
9
8
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
SDCs are calculated
ba
s
e
d
on a formula: square footage
pe
r
use
(o
f
f
i
c
e
/
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
/
a
u
t
o
re
p
a
i
r
)
x rate as calculated in trip
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
manual (7th Edition),
16
TS
F
G
F
A
=
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
g
r
o
s
s
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
D
C
c
o
s
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
$
1
4
,
7
5
8
i
s
i
n
A
r
e
a
1
,
i
n
A
r
e
a
2
t
h
e
S
D
C
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
$
2
2
,
1
3
7
an
d
i
n
A
r
e
a
3
t
h
e
S
D
C
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
$
5
9
,
0
3
2
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
6
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 49
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
wh
i
c
h
gives the gross floor area.
Th
i
s
is multiplied by the trip length
an
d
link trip as designated in our
SD
C
ordinance and multiplied by
$1
1
0
SDC fee as per ordinance.
Ph
i
l
o
m
a
t
h
$2
,
7
5
5
$1
,
3
6
9
$1
3
,
7
7
5
$6
,
8
4
5
20
1
3
20
1
4
Ba
s
e
d
on EDU for residential.
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
based on type of
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
and the trips generated by
th
e
business.
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
17
$1
,
5
1
0
$5
2
8
$6
2
$4
4
,
5
4
0
$1
5
,
5
9
2
$1
,
8
2
1
20
1
0
Fe
e
is based on land use,building
si
z
e
and peak hour trips. In addition
to
th
e
transportation SDCs (TSDC),
th
e
r
e
are also interchange
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
charges (IDCs) for
ce
r
t
a
i
n
areas of the town.
TS
D
C
base rate=$2,079 ‐
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
:
Peak hour
tr
i
p
s
*
$
2
,
0
7
9
*
u
n
i
t
s
(square
fe
e
t
/
r
o
o
m
s
/
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
units, etc.) IDC
ba
s
e
rate=$1,044.55 ‐ Calculation:
Pe
a
k
hour trips*1,044.55*units
Re
d
m
o
n
d
18
$3
,
4
8
0
$3
9
6
$1
0
4
,
4
0
0
$1
1
,
8
8
0
20
1
0
20
1
4
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SDC based on
we
e
k
d
a
y
PM peak hour trip rate as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by the ITE Trip
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Manual 9th Edition (or
la
t
e
s
t
)
.
Residential single family
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
(SFD) trip rate per dwelling
un
i
t
.
Professional office trip rate
pe
r
building size. Total
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
SDC = $3,876 per
p.
m
.
peak hour trip.
Ro
g
u
e
Ri
v
e
r
No
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
SD
C
ra
t
e
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Ro
s
e
b
u
r
g
19
$2
,
8
4
0
$0
$1
1
4
$5
8
,
3
4
4
$0
$2
,
3
3
4
20
0
9
20
1
3
Fo
r
nonresidential,it is average
we
e
k
d
a
y
trips based on square
fo
o
t
a
g
e
Sa
l
e
m
$1
,
9
5
4
$2
9
,
1
9
4
20
0
8
no
t
su
r
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
is based on an average
of
9 daily trips. Commercial is
17
Ad
o
p
t
e
d
p
e
r
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
6
5
(
T
S
D
C
&
I
D
C
)
,
I
D
C
'
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
pe
r
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
7
3
;
n
o
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
F
e
e
f
o
r
I
D
C
'
s
.
18
In
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
y
a
l
s
o
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
s
a
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
D
C
.
19
Ci
t
y
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
c
h
a
r
g
i
n
g
o
n
l
y
2
5
%
o
f
t
h
i
s
S
D
C
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
7
of
9
2013 SDC Report | 50
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
$2
0
4
.
1
6
per daily trip.
Sh
a
d
y
Co
v
e
$3
,
4
0
7
$2
5
1
$2
0
1
20
1
0
Ba
s
e
d
on peak hour trips
Sh
e
r
i
d
a
n
$3
6
5
$1
0
,
9
5
5
20
0
9
20
1
4
Pe
r
dwelling unit for residential;
sq
u
a
r
e
footage for commercial
Si
l
v
e
r
t
o
n
$1
,
6
1
0
$4
6
3
$9
8
4
va
r
i
e
s
va
r
i
e
s
$0
20
1
2
20
1
3
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
other fee related to
sp
e
c
i
a
l
district for Steelhammer
Ro
a
d
.
Does not apply to all
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
properties.
Si
s
t
e
r
s
$1
,
0
1
6
$3
0
,
2
7
7
20
0
7
no
t
su
r
e
$1
,
0
1
6
per pm peak hour.Office
do
e
s
n
'
t
include pass by trips.
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
$9
5
5
$2
6
2
$6
1
$5
,
5
0
0
$1
9
,
8
0
0
$1
,
2
6
0
20
1
2
20
1
3
A
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
fee per trip based on
av
e
r
a
g
e
daily trips from the ITE trip
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
manual
St
.
He
l
e
n
s
20
$3
,
8
4
7
/
$1
,
9
2
3
to
t
a
l
$1
1
5
,
0
8
0
/
$5
7
,
5
4
0
to
t
a
l
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
un
d
e
r
re
v
i
e
w
/
up
d
a
t
e
20
1
3
$4
2
0
ot
h
e
per trip charge I T E manual or r approved
St
.
Pa
u
l
$2
0
0
$2
0
0
19
9
9
un
k
n
o
w
n
Fl
a
t
fee
St
a
y
t
o
n
$2
,
5
1
2
$6
8
,
8
6
9
20
0
7
20
1
4
P.
M
.
peak hour trip based on ITE
Co
d
e
Su
b
l
i
m
i
t
y
$1
,
8
1
0
19
9
7
St
r
e
e
t
SDCs are based on $181.00
pe
r
Trip End
Ta
l
e
n
t
21
$2
,
9
5
9
$2
4
3
$1
6
2
$2
,
9
5
9
$2
4
3
$1
6
2
20
0
8
20
1
4
Pe
r
t rip unit/Peak hour trip
Ta
n
g
e
n
t
$1
,
3
1
5
$0
$0
$8
,
2
1
8
$0
$0
20
1
2
20
1
7
Tr
i
p
end
Th
e
Da
l
l
e
s
$1
,
5
0
0
$3
6
,
6
0
0
20
1
0
un
k
n
o
w
n
Fo
r
residential, number of dwelling
un
i
t
s
;
for nonresidential a variety of
me
t
h
o
d
s
,
most common is type of
us
e
multiplied by area of building
To
l
e
d
o
$8
5
6
$0
$1
0
4
$1
9
,
6
2
4
$0
$2
,
3
9
0
20
1
2
20
1
3
Ba
s
e
d
on an EDU, using the I T E trip
co
u
n
t
s
for the equivalent
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
EDUs
Tu
a
l
a
t
i
n
$6
,
6
6
5
$0
$0
$1
3
7
,
3
8
0
$0
$0
20
1
1
un
k
n
o
w
n
20
,
0
0
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
*
6
8
6
9
(appendix A,
Or
d
746 TDT Revised Rpt, 12/14/11
WA
Co.)
Ve
n
e
t
a
$2
,
0
2
4
$2
,
0
2
4
20
0
5
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
based upon EDU
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
B
a
s
e
d
upon EDU x
20
Fe
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
b
y
5
0
%
t
o
e
n
t
i
c
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
21
By
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
a
s
h
e
l
d
t
o
t
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
D
C
t
o
7
5
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
a
m
o
u
n
t
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
8
of
9
CI
T
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
NO
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
UP
D
A
T
E
S
TO
SD
C
S
BA
S
I
S
OF FEE
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
Fe
e
La
s
t
Ne
x
t
tr
i
p
generation
Ve
r
n
o
n
i
a
$8
5
8
$3
,
4
4
0
20
0
5
20
1
3
4 ED
U
Wi
l
s
o
n
v
i
l
l
e
$6
,
3
4
0
$2
1
7
,
2
0
0
20
0
8
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
fee based on type of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
22
$7
4
6
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
wo
u
l
d
be
$5
,
0
4
2
20
1
2
20
1
3
Us
a
g
e
for nonresidential based on
AD
T
Ya
m
h
i
l
l
$3
0
0
$3
0
0
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5,
Pa
g
e
9
of
9
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
RESOLUTION 14-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL MODIFYING A METHODOLOGY FOR THE CALCULATION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, ORS 223.299 through 223.314 authorizes cities to establish and maintain Systems
Development Charges including a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination
thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance
of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.304 requires that such fees be determined on the basis of a methodology
which establishes how the charge will be determined; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.304(7)(a) requires that a city desiring to adopt or modify such a
methodology give notice of intent to so not less than 90 days before the such action, to those persons who have requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2014, the City of Springfield gave notice of its intent to modify the
existing methodology for the determination of Transportation Systems Development Charges to
those persons who had identified themselves as requesting such information pursuant to ORS 223.304(6); and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.304(7)(a) further requires that a city desiring to adopt or modify such a
methodology shall make a copy of the proposed methodology available not less than 60 days
before adopting the same; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2014, the City gave notice that a copy of such methodology was
available by sending a notice to the list of person who had identified themselves pursuant to ORS
223.304(6) and publishing a copy of such methodology on the City’s website and making copies
publicly available in City Hall; and
WHEREAS, a citizen advisory committee appointed by the Council has considered the
methodology currently in use by the City and has recommended certain changes thereto in a
report presented to City Council on May 19, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendations of the Citizen Advisory
Committee and other information concerning the proposed methodology at work sessions on
May 19, 2014 and June 16, 2014, and recommended that the changes in the methodology
recommended by the Citizen Advisory Committee be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Council has caused the matter of an adoption of a Transportation SDC
Methodology to be scheduled for the first Public Hearing on October 20, 2014; and
1
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the matter did come on for Public Hearing on October 20, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the record was left open for further testimony and public comment at the December 1, 2014, City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Citizen Advisory
Committee, the report and recommendation of the City Manager, and the testimony at the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein shall affect, modify or amend the provisions of Section 3.400
through 3.420 of the Springfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Council having considered all of the testimony and facts, and being well-advised in the premises, finds and determines that it is in the public interest to modify the
methodology for determining Transportation Systems Development Charges:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, that the Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology, as set forth in a draft document dated August 20, 2014, and attached as Exhibit “A” is hereby adopted;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing herein shall affect, modify or amend the
provisions of Section 3.400 through 3.420 of the Springfield Municipal Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect upon adoption by the
Council and approval by the Mayor.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield, Oregon, by a vote of ____
for and ____ against, this 1st day of December, 2014.
ATTEST:
__________________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING
A LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED BY TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, ORS 223.309 (1) and (2) provide that a City shall base an Improvement fee on a
capital improvement plan or project list; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on March 11, 2014, adopted a Local Transportation System Plan
setting forth a list of capital projects required to meet the needs of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also adopted a Capital Improvement Plan which includes
additional projects which are reasonably required to provide transportation service to areas
within the existing urban growth boundary; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended that for purposes of ORS 223.309 (1) and (2)
a list of projects upon which Transportation Systems Development Charges should be based,
derived from all of these sources should be adopted; and
WHEREAS, a citizen advisory committee appointed by the Council has considered the
methodology currently in use by the City and has recommended certain changes thereto and, in
the course of such review, recommended that the Council direct staff to provide more frequent regular updates to capital project lists used to determine Systems Development Charges; and
WHEREAS, the list of Capital Improvements to be funded by Transportation SDCs is attached
as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has provided the Council with such list, a true copy of which,
bearing date of August 20, 2014, is attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the Capital Improvements List, Council will consider
adoption of a resolution modifying the methodology for the calculation of Transportation System
Development Charges and a resolution adopting a Transportation System Development Charge;
and
WHEREAS, the City duly gave notice in accordance with ORS 223.309 (2)(a) that on October
20, 2014, the first public hearing was to be held on the matter of the adoption of the project list
and did, on said date, open and conduct a public hearing; and
2
Attachment 7, Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the hearing and the record were held open for further testimony and public
comment at the December 1, 2014, City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Citizen Advisory
Committee, the report and recommendation of the City Manager, and the testimony at the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein shall affect, modify or amend the provisions of Section 3.400
through 3.420 of the Springfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Council having considered all of the testimony and facts, and being well-advised in the premises, finds and determines that it is in the public interest to modify the project
list upon which Transportation Systems Development Charges should be based:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Transportation System Development
Charge Project List is hereby adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing herein shall affect, modify or amend the provisions of Section 3.400 through 3.420 of the Springfield Municipal Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect upon adoption by the
Council and approval by the Mayor.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield, Oregon, by a vote of ____
for and ____ against, this 1st day of December, 2014.
ATTEST:
__________________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor
Attachment 7, Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING
A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2014, the City adopted a methodology to be used for setting rates
for Transportation Systems Development charges; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2014, the City adopted a Systems Development Charge Project
List which details those projects which are eligible for expenditure of Systems Development
Charge revenues; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised that by application of the SDC methodology, the
maximum permissible Reimbursement Fee would be $16.14 per trip and by application of the
methodology to the adopted project list the improvement component of the Transportation
Systems Development Charge would increase to $324.24 per trip, for a combined Transportation
System Development Charge of $340.38 per trip; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223. 304 (7)(a) requires that a city desiring to adopt or modify such a fee give
notice of intent to so not less than 90 days before the such action, to those persons who have
requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2014, the City of Springfield gave notice of its intent to modify the existing methodology for the determination of Transportation Systems Development Charges
and the Systems Development Charge Improvement Fee and Reimbursement Fee to those
persons who had identified themselves as requesting such information pursuant to ORS
223.304(6); and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.304 (7)(a) further requires that a city desiring to adopt or modify such a
methodology and fee shall make a copy of the proposed methodology available not less than 60
days before adopting the same; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2014, the City gave notice that a copy of such methodology was
available by sending a notice to the list of person who had identified themselves pursuant to ORS
223.304(6) and by posting the methodology on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, a citizen advisory committee appointed by the Council has recommended that the City give recognition to current economic conditions in considering whether to impose the
maximum permissible fee as determined by the methodology; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has considered the recommendations of the Citizen Advisory
Committee and has provided a copy of such recommendation to the Council accompanied by other information concerning the proposed Systems Development Charge, and recommended
3
Attachment 8, Page 1 of 2
that the changes in the methodology recommended by the Citizen Advisory Committee be
adopted; and
WHEREAS, nothing herein shall affect, modify or amend the provisions of Section 3.400 through 3.420 of the Springfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City duly gave notice that on October 20, 2014, the first public hearing was to
be held on the matter of the adoption of the project list and did, on said date, conduct a public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held open for further testimony and public comment at the
December 1, 2014, City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Citizen Advisory
Committee, the report and recommendation of the City Manager, and the testimony at the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that adoption of a modified Reimbursement Fee
and Improvement Fee is in the Public Interest; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the rate of the Transportation System
Development Charge is fixed as follows: the Reimbursement component shall be $16.14 per trip
and the Improvement component shall be $324.24 per trip, for a total Transportation System
Development Charge of $340.38 per trip; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing herein shall affect, modify or amend the
provisions of Section 3.400 through 3.420 of the Springfield Municipal Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect on January 1, 2015 as to
all properties.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield, Oregon, by a vote of ____ for and
____ against, this 1st day of December, 2014.
ATTEST:
__________________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Attachment 8, Page 2 of 2