Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 Adoption of Transportation System Development Charge Methodology, Project List, and Charges AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard DPW Staff Phone No: X3697 Estimated Time: 10 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: ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY, PROJECT LIST, AND CHARGES ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a Public Hearing and adopt or reject the following three resolutions: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL MODIFYING A METHODOLOGY FOR THE CALCULATION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED BY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff has completed a proposed modification to the Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology, and a Project List of activities eligible for funding from SDC’s, and a proposed Charge resulting from the application of the Methodology to the Project List. The Methodology and Project List have been available for public review and comment since August 20, 2014. All of these items are now ready for Council review and formal action. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum 2. Proposed Transportation SDC Methodology 3. Proposed Transportation System Project List 4. Example SDC Worksheet (Existing and Proposed) 5. League of Cities Rate Comparison Chart 6. Residential SDC Comparison Chart 7. Proposed Resolution – Adopting Transportation SDC Methodology 8. Proposed Resolution - Adopting Transportation System Project List 9. Proposed Resolution – Adopting a Transportation System SDC Charge DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has completed the process, which commenced in October 2013, of reviewing and updating the Transportation System SDC methodology. A council-appointed Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) met six times between October 2013 and April 2014 with city staff and SDC consultant Deb Galardi from the Galardi Rothstein Group to review and make recommendations to Council on updates to the methodology. Council received the CAC’s recommendations on June 9, 2014 and gave direction to staff on final changes to incorporate into the methodology on June 16, 2014 along with direction to schedule a Public Hearing. The Public Hearing was opened on October 20, 2014 and continued to December 1, 2014. The proposed Methodology was published and made available for public review and comment on August 20, 2014. Interested parties were notified as required under ORS 223-304(7)(a). The proposed fee resolution reflects direction received from Council at the November 24, 2014 work session. M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: 11/19/2014 To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL From: Len Goodwin, Director DPW Anette Spickard, Deputy Director DPW BRIEFING Subject: ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY, PROJECT LIST, AND CHARGES MEMORANDUM ISSUE: Staff has completed a proposed modification to the Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology, and a Project List of activities eligible for funding from SDC’s, and a proposed Charge resulting from the application of the Methodology to the Project List. The Methodology and Project List have been available for public review and comment since August 20, 2014. All of these items are now ready for Council review and formal action. COUNCIL GOALS/ MANDATE: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services BACKGROUND: Staff has completed the process, which commenced in October 2013, of reviewing and updating the Transportation System SDC methodology. A council-appointed Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) met six times between October 2013 and April 2014 with city staff and SDC consultant Deb Galardi from the Galardi Rothstein Group to review and make recommendations to Council on updates to the methodology. Council received the CAC’s recommendations at a work session on May 19, 2014 and held a subsequent work session on June 16, 2014 to give direction to staff on final changes to incorporate into the methodology along with direction to schedule a Public Hearing. Interested parties were notified on July 7, 2014 as required under ORS 223-304(7)(a). The proposed Methodology was published and made available for public review and comment on August 20, 2014. The Council opened the Public Hearing on October 20, 2014 and held it open until December 1, 2014. The Council held another work session on November 24, 2014 and discussed implementation of the charges. DISCUSSION: The proposed fee resolution (Attachment 9) reflects direction received from Council at the November 24, 2014 work session to increase the improvement fee portion of the SDC by15%. The resolution has an effective date for the new SDC of January 1, 2015. Attachment 5 compares Springfield’s current SDC, the SDC with the proposed 15% increase, and the maximum allowable SDC to other Oregon cities. Council also asked staff at the work session to describe an option for implementing the 15% increase over three years, which is illustrated in Figure 1 below. The estimated SDC revenue differential (assuming an even growth in trip rates) that will occur if the increase is spread over three years is $318,500. Due to compounding, the actual percentage increase needed to achieve a $308.60 trip rate in year three is less than five percent. Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM 11/26/2014 Page 2 Figure 1: Example of staggering SDC increase to $308.60 per trip end over three years Effective Date % increase SDC Single Family Residential SDC $ increase Current $268.35 $2,568.11 January 1, 2015 5% $281.77 $2,696.54 $128.43 January 1, 2016 5% $295.86 $2,831.38 $134.84 January 1, 2017 4.3% $308.60 $2,953.30 $121.92 According to statute, Council must conduct a public hearing prior to adopting the methodology, project list and fee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a Public Hearing and adopt or reject the following three resolutions: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL MODIFYING A METHODOLOGY FOR THE CALCULATION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A LIST OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED BY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2 Methodology Report Transportation System Development Charges Prepared For Prepared By August 20, 2014 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 22 I Executive Summary Background The City of Springfield (the City) embarked on an effort to update its transportation system development charges (SDCs) in October 2013. The objectives of the SDC update were to develop a new project list and SDC fees that reflected the recently adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP), and to work with a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to review certain SDC-related policy issues. This methodology report presents the recommended SDC methodology and updated fees based on the revised project list. A separate report was prepared by City staff for the CAC policy recommendations. The updated SDC methodology follows the same basic approach as the current SDCs, and is based on a combined reimbursement and improvement structure. This structure, which is shown graphically in Figure 1, consists of the following three elements: 1. Determine capacity needs 2. Develop cost basis 3. Develop SDC unit costs FIGURE 1—OVERVIEW OF SDC METHODOLOGY New Capacity for Growth ($) 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 mber  of  new  person ‐trip ‐  en d s  expected  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 t e 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. According  to  the  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 $0 $1 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 $7 , 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 Re s i d e n t i a l  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  SD C  Co m p a r i s o n   (O t h e r  Ci t i e s  as  of  7/ 2 0 1 3 ) At t a c h m e n t 6, Pa g e 1 of 1 Attachment 7, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 7, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 8, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 8, 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 Attachment 9, 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 $292.46 per trip, for a total Transportation System Development Charge of $308.60 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 9, Page 2 of 2