HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2014-38 12/01/2014CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
RESOLUTIONS 2014- 38
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
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 5 for
and 0 against, this 1st day of December, 2014. (1 abs - Ralston)
ATTEST:
City Recorde
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
Methodology Report
Transportation System
Development Charges
Prepared For
OREGON
Prepared By
August 20, 2014
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reserve
_ Capacity ($) New Capacity for Growth ($)
Growth Trip Ends
• TOTAL SDC $ per — REIMBURSEMENT IMPROVEMENT ($rrdp End)
• Trip End (Wrip End) ;
........................
.....................................................................
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
needed to meet growth's additional capacity needs (above what is already available in the
system).
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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
Roadways
Roadway Improvements
Intersection Improvements
Bike Facilities
Multi Use Paths
Pedestrian Improvements
$90,000,000
$9,000,000
10%
$11,600,000
$392,400
3%
$306,700,000
$29,424,496
10%
$10,070,000
$5,150,843
51%
$660,000
$44,681
7%
$29,597,000
$2,445,093
8%
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
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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:
• 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
• 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.
IV
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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.
HE
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
• Continue to base default estimates of trip rates for individual developments on data
from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manuals.
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
factors. The objective of the reimbursement fee methodology is to require new users to
1 The City will continue its policy to allow developers to submit project -specific trip data for consideration in establishing SDCs.
1-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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
systems 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.
1-3
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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.
1-4
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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.
2-1
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
Table 2-1
Model Vehicle Average Daily Trip Ends (Within the City's currently acknowledged UGB)
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.
2-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
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 11
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.
2-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
IW:cll 3119_1
Table 2-2
Summary of Project Capacity Cost Allocations — Future Improvements
Project Type
Existing Share
Future Development
Share
Roadway projects, crossings other
Existing development trips as a
Future development trips as a
improvements
percent of total future 2035 tris
percent of total future 2035 trips
Intersection Facilities
Limited to existing deficiency
100% - Existing Deficiency
(e.g., v/c ratio > 1.0 .
Limited to existing deficiency
Multimodal Facilities
(i.e., increase in level of service
100% - Existing Deficiency
defined by linear feet per capita)
Studies
Existing development trips as a
Future development trips as a
percent of total future 2035 tris
I 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:
ExistingQ + PlannedQ
= PlannedLOS
FuturePopulationServed
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
2-3
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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 Road (Miles)
Projects Projects
Multi Use Path' 4.0 11.0 0 15.0
Bike Lanesz 37.8 10.4 45.2 93.4
Sidewalks 3 93.4 2.9 45.2 141.5
'City -owned paved shared use paths
2Bike lanes only; does not include bike shoulders
3 O 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)
2-4
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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.
2-5
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
Table 2-7
Allocation of Additional Facilities
Miles Added for
% Allocation
Existing'
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 Projectsz
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
' Existing need assumed to be met first by current facilities
z 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.
2-6
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
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.
3-1
RESOLUTION -NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
Table 3-1
City of Springfield SDC Analysis
Summary of Improvement Fee Cost Basis
Project Category Total $ Growth $ Growth %
State Facilities
Intersections
Roadways
Roadway Improvements
Intersection Improvements
Bike Facilities
Multi Use Paths
Pedestrian Improvement
Sidewalks
Crossings
Signage
Multimodal Improvements
Studies
Other Projects
$90,000,000
$9,000,000
10%
$11,600,000
$392,400
3%
$306,700,000
$29,424;496
10%
$10,070,000
$5,150,843
51%
$660,000
$44,681
7%
$29,597,000
$2,445,093
8%
$790,000
$723,468
92%
$6,090,000
$1,198,047
20%
$70,000
$0
0%
$5,130,000
$3,007,285
59%
$1,650,000
$288,750
18%
$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.
Local Growth Capacity Share
3-2
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
EXHIBIT A
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).
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
3-3
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
Wmm 11:3111_1
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.
3-4
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
" Q)
75
U N
Q) 0
0
Q)
Q
a�
+, o
o�
Ch O U *O C
U v O 's v
m +�9
QN b�'A C)
m a
N U
N N +�+ U ,.
En rl
A. O (3) Q v
Q) o � o .o
a� a? � S1, U M O
O "C� S M � M —1 >
C)b�A O CY
" Lr); -4
N (�
+ O U
4' 3 ��-qr Mo
O O O ECA
CO
�� co 9
aV �
�. o ��
a E,�
p CA (1 W m
-tJ CD
O> O 04 0 � cfl M
cli
0-- ca U U >
Q E--+ o o L- .1..r
O •0
Qi Uv , �375
� N
Q o O
= Q m � o �� Vi Q v
cu
cq
c N
W ¢, /O� s m v n coo cm Q P. cz
�� '� V .Q N 'C Fes-
U Zt m = m = m No pLL
0 OJot U
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
0)3 141
x
Ud
14-4
uC u U
r,,
.4 w¢ 3 vi
s c� O O v: v u O 7 o
t (3) 0 u O Ntj
O 0O p �° 'r O° ro [W-1 O u
a-+ o
bA u N '-I mcqO O in O
0) O v ucz O
vi =, +�+tom-
iv
v c�C .S]i 'm71 u O u f� � �O u .�
+, 4J
o oma° a, � v Q,.� X
W O d, O cn vi
� •� � � +, � y, � aJ ccs •+-' '—' a~ .� cn
(n O v rA `
o p v � .Q .� CA
b,0b�A
C) 'd O v O 7,,.,W
S1, bA Q, O ct cz '� m aJ v v,
c�ct u
O p N O O a � N
+�
0 3 cz
noo v bA cZ N b.0 aO y� Ub�u0s� 5 m o O
u�
O _ S' �� O N U O cn U Q
MO r m t3 "' bA v Q, N O M O �, u ":s c�
L u O� LL U H �O O M U" V U V
-14Ct cz
_ami °' P -4v o c �' a °�' a� U) 4,
O O .O s 9 m Q v .o C u O N
V V O m s 75 cz m N of c� - O N
2
N
Q
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38
Q
M
2
X
W
F-�
U
"- Jam' ;M4 p Z3 Q
+ N
4-1
P, u w
uo
CU .1 u
N O v ;m -q M .m
p ;m-4 A. u
O N
H � �" Q
Ou') O
CA CZ s- "o
U
o
w cq
;-,
o U 3 U
�42v U U
O O u O N N
444 v M ;--4 f+ UN
O m W
M +' caM
ri ct r, MZ 4V3 ° M N
.� bA u
v CO
cz U C)
p v Qi p `^ 5
u
v�
'W + L O 4-0 �i
O Ss, / 1 0+
0°3 u bA V �.� cMC U
M +�J _� Q N
C)
u O V bA 4`
u p v
Q,
Mbo m u
CL c)M O
x ° U cn U
cu
H u °u ct'5 V H Q o Q H
M
Q
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-38