Ord 2438 - Transportation SDCCOUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
BASED UPON AN ESTABLISHED METHODOLOGY; PROVIDING PROCESSES FOR
ALTERNATIVE CALCULATIONS; AND REQUIRING THAT FUNDS BE ACCOUNTED FOR
AND USED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW; AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 2248
WHEREAS, the City authorized the preparation of the City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study dated March 2008 ("the
Methodology"), which is attached to this Ordinance and incorporated as Exhibit
"A"; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with ORS 223.297-223.314, the City provided
notice and an opportunity to be heard to all persons who requested written
notice; and
WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the Methodology to all persons
requesting one; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 11, 2008 to
receive input on the Methodology; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive additional input, the February 11, 2008 public
hearing was continued until March 10, 2008 and notice of the hearing was
mailed to all property owners within the Interchange Development Charge
boundary; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to use Transportation System Development
Charges ("Transportation SDCs") as a way to balance the capital funding
needed for improved transportation facilities between existing residents and
future residents of Woodburn; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to impose the Interchange Development
Charge ("the IDC") to equitably fund the improvement of the Woodburn
Interchange; and
WHEREAS, in adopting Transportation SDCs and the IDC, the City intends
to comply with state law and include in this Ordinance all mandatory provisions
required by ORS 223.297- 223.314, NOW, THEREFORE,
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. General Findings. The City Council makes the following
General Findings regarding Transportation SDCs.
A. Development within the City contributes to the need for capacity
increases for roads, multi -modal transportation and related transportation
improvements.
B. Development should pay its fair share for the cost of these
improvements and additions to transportation facilities necessary to
accommodate the capacity needs created by growth.
C. ORS 223.297 et. seq. grants to the City the authority to impose
Transportation SDCs to equitably spread the costs of essential capacity
increasing Capital Improvements.
D. Transportation SDCs are incurred upon application to develop
property for a specific use or at a specific density and are collected by the City
when a building permit is issued. The decision regarding uses, densities, and/or
intensities causes direct and proportional changes in the amount of the incurred
charge.
E. Transportation SDCs are separate from other fees provided by law
or imposed as a condition of development.
F. Transportation SDCs are fees for service because they contemplate
a development's receipt of transportation services based upon the nature of
that development.
G. Transportation SDCs are imposed by this Ordinance not as a tax on
property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of
property within the meaning of Article XI, Section 11 b of the Oregon Constitution
or legislation implementing that section.
Section 2. Findings for Interchange Development Charge. The City
Council makes the following Findings regarding the IDC:
A. In 2005, the cost of the needed improvements to the Woodburn
Interchange was estimated to be $50 million.
B. Pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement No. 23,240, which serves
as a funding plan for completion of the Woodburn Interchange modernization,
the City must provide a total of $8 million towards completion of this project.
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
C. The IDC is established under this Ordinance under the authority of
ORS 223.297-223.314.
D. The City Council finds that developing properties within the IDC
boundary will create a greater impact on the Woodburn Interchange than
similarly zoned developing properties located in the City but outside of the IDC
boundary.
E. The City Council finds that developing properties within the IDC
boundary will receive greater benefit by an improved Woodburn Interchange
than similarly zoned developing properties located in the City but outside of the
IDC boundary.
F. Based upon their greater developmental impact on the Woodburn
Interchange and the greater benefit that they will receive when the Woodburn
Interchange is improved, the City Council, consistent with ORS 223.297-223.314,
makes the determination that it is fair and equitable to impose the IDC.
G. The IDC is an "improvement fee" as defined in ORS 223.299 since the
charge to the developer is for costs associated with Capital Improvements yet
to be constructed.
H. An argument was raised before the City Council that the IDC is
unlawful because it "represents the effective establishment of a transportation
special district without undergoing the adoption methods required by ORS
Chapter 267.510 et seq." The City Council finds that this argument is not well
founded in law because the City is asserting no jurisdictional authority outside of
its corporate boundary.
I. Pursuant to ORS Chapter 267.510 et seq , a transportation district ,
like other special districts, exercises jurisdictional authority within the area of its
boundary. By establishing the IDC boundary, the City Council, consistent with
ORS 223.297-223.314, is merely establishing a charge that is collectible within the
City. A Transportation SDC must be paid only: (1) if the involved property is
annexed to the City, and (2) if the involved property develops. This is legal and
within the City's jurisdiction.
J. Another argument was raised before the City Council that the IDC
charge is inequitable. As stated above, the City Council finds that this is not the
case because developing properties within the IDC boundary will create a
greater developmental impact and also will receive a greater benefit by an
improved Woodburn Interchange.
Page 3- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
K. Finally, an argument was raised before the City Council that the IDC
charge violates constitutional principles. The City Council finds that this
argument is also not well founded in law. In Roger's Machinery v. Washington
County, 181 Or.App 369, 45 P.3d 966 (2002), the Court addressed the argument
that traffic impact fees imposed under ORS 223.297-223.314 constituted an
unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that
the traffic impact fees were not physical exactions and were not subject to
Dolan's heightened scrutiny test, which is used to determine whether a property
development condition constitutes an improper taking under the Fifth
Amendment. The Court stated that no individualized determination was
required before assessing the fee against a particular property in compliance
with the Oregon SDC statutes.
Section 3 Definitions. The following definitions apply:
A. APPLICANT. A person seeking to obtain a Building Permit or to
develop property within the City.
B. BUILDING. Any structure, either temporary or permanent, built for
the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. This
term shall include tents, trailers, mobile homes or any vehicles serving in any way
the function of a building. This term shall not include temporary construction
sheds or trailers erected to assist in construction and maintained during the term
of a Building Permit.
C. BUILDING PERMIT. A permit issued by the Building Department for
the construction, alteration, repair or placement of any Building under the state
building code.
D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. A plan prepared by the City
pursuant to ORS 223.309.
E. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. Public facilities or assets used for
transportation.
F. CITY. The City of Woodburn, Oregon.
G. CREDIT. The amount of money by which the charge for a specific
development may be reduced because of construction of eligible capital
facilities as outlined in this Ordinance.
H. DEVELOPMENT. Any man-made change to improved or
unimproved real estate which has the effect of generating additional weekday
or weekend trips.
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
DIRECTOR. The Woodburn Public Works Director or designee.
J. DWELLING UNIT. A Building or a portion of a Building designed for
residential occupancy, consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged,
designed or used as living quarters for one family only.
K. IMPROVEMENT FEE. A fee for costs associated with Capital
Improvements to be constructed after the date the fee is adopted pursuant to
this Ordinance.
L. INTERESTED PERSON. Any person who is a legal resident of the City
of Woodburn as evidenced by registration as a voter in the City, or by other
proof of residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest
in real property which is located within the city limits or is otherwise subject to the
imposition of charges under this Ordinance.
M. OWNER. The owner or owners of record title or the purchaser or
purchasers under a recorded land sale agreement.
N. PERSON. Any natural person, firm, partnership, association or
corporation.
O. QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. A Capital Improvement that is:
Required as a condition of development approval;
2. Identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and is either:
a. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval; or
b. 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.
P. REIMBURSEMENT FEE. A fee for costs associated with Capital
Improvements already constructed or under construction when the fee is
adopted pursuant to this Ordinance for which the City determines that capacity
exists.
Q. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ("Transportation
SDC") or SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ("SDC"). An improvement fee and/or
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
a reimbursement fee and/or the IDC assessed or collected at the time of
increased usage of a Capital Improvement or issuance of a Building Permit.
System Development Charges are separate from and in addition to any
applicable tax, assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge
provided by law or imposed as a condition of development.
Section 4. Imposition of Transportation System Development Charges.
A. Unless otherwise exempted by this Ordinance or state law, a
Transportation SDC is hereby imposed on all Development within the City.
B. Unless otherwise exempted by this Ordinance or state law, an
Interchange Development Charge is hereby imposed on all Development within
the City and located within the Interchange Development Charge boundary.
The Interchange Development Charge boundary is depicted on Exhibit B, which
is attached to this Ordinance and incorporated.
Section 5. Methodology.
A. The methodology used to calculate Transportation System
Development Charges and the Interchange Development Charge is set forth in
the "Transportation System Development Charge Study" ("the Methodology")
dated March 2008, which is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance and
incorporated.
Section 6. System Development Charge Rate Schedule.
A. A Rate Schedule for Transportation System Development Charges
and the Interchange Development Charge shall be adopted by resolution
based on the Methodology attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated into this
Ordinance.
B. The Rate Schedule may on January l st of each year, after the first
year that the resolution adopting it is effective, be adjusted by the Director to
account for changes in the costs of acquiring and constructing facilities. The
adjustment factor shall be based on the change in construction costs according
to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington)
Construction Cost Index.
Section 7. Collection.
A. System Development Charges are due and payable at the time
that the City issues the Building Permit. No Building Permit shall be issued for
Development subject to this charge unless the System Development Charge is
Page 6 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
first paid in full. The Applicant may request that payment be made pursuant to
ORS 223.205-223.785, the Bancroft Bonding Act.
Section 8. Exemptions.
A. The following development is exempt from System Development
Charges:
1. Remodeling or replacement of any single family structure,
including mobile homes.
2. Multifamily structure remodeling or replacement if no
additional Dwelling Units are added.
3. Remodeling or replacement of office, business and
commercial, industrial or institutional structures if such remodeling or
replacement does not result in additional peak hour trips.
Section 9. Credits for Qualified Public Improvements.
A. The City shall grant a credit, not to exceed 100% of the applicable
System Development Charges for the construction of any Qualified Public
Improvements.
B. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit to
the Director a proposed plan and estimate of cost for contributions of Qualified
Public Improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include:
1. A designation of the Development for which the proposed
plan is being submitted.
2. A list of the contemplated Capital Improvements contained
within the plan;
3. An estimate of proposed construction costs certified by a
professional architect or engineer; and
4. A proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed
plan.
C. The Director shall determine if the proposed Qualified Public
Improvement is:
1. Required as a condition of development approval;
Page 7 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
2. Identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and is either:
a. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval; or
b. 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
D. The decision of the Director as to whether to accept the proposed
plan of contribution and the value of such contribution shall be in writing and
issued by the Director within 30 days after the Applicant submits the proposed
plan.
E. Any Applicant who submits a proposed plan pursuant to this Section
and desires the immediate issuance of a Building Permit, shall pay the
applicable System Development Charges. Said payment shall be deemed paid
under "protest" and shall not be construed as a waiver of any review rights. Any
difference between the amount paid and the amount due, as determined by
the Director, shall be refunded to the Applicant. In no event shall a refund by
City under this subsection exceed the amount originally paid by the Applicant.
Section 10. Alternative Calculation for SDC Rate, Creditor Exemption.
A. Pursuant to this Ordinance, an Applicant may request an
alternative SDC calculation, alternative SDC credit determination or alternative
SDC exemption, but only under the following circumstances:
1. The Applicant believes the number of vehicle trips resulting
from the development is, or will be, less than the number of trips established in
the Methodology, and for that reason the Applicant's SDC should be lower than
that calculated by the City.
2. The Applicant believes the City improperly excluded from
consideration a Qualified Public Improvement that would qualify for credit, or
the City accepted for credit a Qualified Public Improvement, but undervalued
that improvement and therefore undervalued the credit.
3. The Applicant believes the City improperly rejected a request
for an exemption for which the Applicant believes it is eligible.
B. Alternative SDC Rate Request:
Page 8 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
I . If an Applicant believes the number of trips resulting from the
Development is less than the number of trips established in the Methodology,
the Applicant must request an alternative SDC rate calculation, under this
Section, within 90 days after Building Permit issuance for the Development. The
City shall not consider such a request filed after 90 days after Building Permit
issuance for the Development. Upon the timely request for an alternative SDC
rate calculation, the Director shall review the Applicant's calculations and
supporting evidence and make a determination within 30 days of submittal as
to whether the Applicant's request satisfies the requirements of this Section.
2. In support of the Alternative SDC rate request, the Applicant
must provide complete and detailed documentation, including verifiable trip
generation data, analyzed and certified to by a Professional Traffic Engineer.
The Applicant's supporting documentation must rely upon generally accepted
sampling methods, sources of information, cost analysis, traffic and growth
projections and techniques of analysis as a means of supporting the proposed
alternative SDC rate. The proposed Alternative SDC Rate calculation shall
include an explanation by a registered engineer explaining with particularity
why the rate established in the City methodology does not accurately reflect
the Development's impact on the City's Capital Improvements
3. The Director shall apply the Alternative SDC Rate if, in the
Director's opinion, the following are found:
a. The evidence and assumptions underlying the
Alternative SDC Rate are reasonable, correct and credible and were gathered
and analyzed by a suitable, competent professional in compliance with
generally accepted engineering principles and methodologies and consistent
with this Section, and
b. The calculation of the proposed Alternative SDC rate
was by a generally accepted methodology, and
C. The proposed alternative SDC rate better or more
realistically reflects the actual traffic impact of the Development than the rate
set forth in the Methodology.
4. If, in the Director's opinion, all of the above criteria are not
met, the Director shall provide to the Applicant by certified mail, return receipt
requested, a written decision explaining the basis for rejecting the proposed
alternative SDC rate.
C. Alternative SDC Credit Request:
Page 9 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
I . If an Applicant has requested an SDC Credit and that request
has either been denied by the City or approved but at a lower value than
desired, the Applicant may request an Alternative SDC Credit calculation, under
this Section. Any request for an Alternative SDC Credit calculation must be filed
with the Director in writing within 10 calendar days of the written decision on the
initial credit request. The City shall not consider such a request filed after 10
calendar days of the written decision on the initial credit request. Upon the
timely request for an Alternative SDC Credit calculation, the Director shall review
the Applicant's calculations and supporting evidence and make a
determination within 30 days of submittal as to whether the Applicant's request
satisfies the requirements of this Section.
2. In support of the Alternative SDC credit request, the Applicant
must provide complete and detailed documentation, including appraisals, cost
analysis or other estimates of value, analyzed and certified to by an appropriate
professional, for the improvements for which the Applicant is seeking credit. The
Applicant's supporting documentation must rely upon generally accepted
sources of information, cost analysis and techniques of analysis as a means of
supporting the proposed Alternative SDC credit.
3. The Director shall grant the Alternative SDC Credit if, in the
Director's opinion, the following are found:
a. The improvement(s) for which the SDC Credit is sought
are Qualified Public Improvement(s), and
b. The evidence and assumptions underlying the
Applicant's Alternative SDC Credit request are reasonable, correct and credible
and were gathered and analyzed by an appropriate, competent professional in
compliance with generally accepted principles and methodologies, and
C. The proposed alternative SDC Credit is based on
realistic, credible valuation or benefit analysis.
4. If, in the Director's opinion, any one or more of the above
criteria is not met, the Director shall deny the request and provide to the
Applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested, a written decision
explaining the basis for rejecting the Alternative SDC Credit proposal.
D. Alternative SDC Exemption Request:
1. If an Applicant has requested a full or partial exemption
under this Ordinance, and that request has been denied, the Applicant may
Page 10 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
request an Alternative SDC Exemption under this Section. Any request for an
Alternative SDC Exemption calculation must be filed with the Director in writing
within 10 calendar days of the written decision on the initial credit request. The
City shall not consider such a request filed after 10 calendar days of the written
decision on the initial credit request. Upon the timely request for an Alternative
SDC Exemption, the Director shall review the Applicant's request and supporting
evidence and make a determination within 30 days of submittal as to whether
the Applicant's request satisfies the requirements under this Ordinance for
exemptions.
2. In support of the Alternative SDC Exemption request, the
Applicant must provide complete and detailed documentation demonstrating
that the Applicant is entitled to one of the exemptions described in this
Ordinance.
3. The Director shall grant the exemption if, in the Director's
opinion, the Applicant has demonstrated with credible, relevant evidence that
it meets the pertinent criteria.
4. If, in the Director's opinion, any one or more of the above
criteria is not met, the Director shall deny the request and provide to the
Applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested, a written decision
explaining the basis for rejecting the Alternative SDC Exemption proposal.
Section 11. Review of Methodology and Rates.
A. This Ordinance and the Methodology shall be reviewed at least
once every five (5) years. The purpose of this review is to evaluate and revise, if
necessary, the rates of the System Development Charges to assure that they do
not exceed the reasonably anticipated costs of the City's Capital
Improvements.
Section 12. Authorized Expenditure of System Development Charges.
A. Reimbursement fees may be spent only on capital improvements
associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed including
expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness.
B. Improvement fees may be spent only on capacity increasing
capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of debt for
such improvements. 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
Page 1 1 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
capacity to provide service for future users.
C. System development charges may not be expended for costs
associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more
than an incidental part of other capital improvements or for the expenses of the
operation or maintenance of the facilities constructed with system development
charge revenues.
D. Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system
development charge revenues must be included in the Capital Improvement
Plan.
E. System Development Charge revenues may be expended on the
costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297-223.314, including the costs
of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an
annual accounting of system development charge expenditures.
Section 13. Deposit of System Development Charge Revenues: Annual
Accounting.
A. System development charge revenues must be deposited in
accounts designated for such moneys. The City shall provide an annual
accounting, to be completed by January 1 of each year, for system
development charges showing the total amount of system development
charge revenues collected for each system and the projects that were funded
in the previous fiscal year.
B. The annual accounting shall include:
1. A list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole
or in part, with system development charge revenues; and
2. The amount of revenue collected by the local government
from system development charges and attributed to the costs of complying with
the provisions of ORS 223.297-223.314, as described in ORS 223.307.
Section 14. Challenge of Expenditures. In accordance with ORS 223.302,
any interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues.
A. Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing, to the Director for
review within two years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the
following information:
Page 12 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
The name and address of the interested person challenging
the expenditure;
2. The amount of the expenditure, the project, payee or
purpose, and the approximate date on which it was made; and
3. The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
B. If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and other relevant laws, a
reimbursement of System Development Charges trust account revenues from
other revenue sources shall be made within one year following the
determination that the expenditures were not appropriate.
C. The Director shall make written notification of the results of the
expenditure review to the interested person who requested the review with ten
(10) days of completion of the review.
Section 15. Institution of Legal Proceedings. The City Attorney, acting in
the name of the City, may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of
competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction the
violation of any provision of this Ordinance as an additional remedy.
Section 16. Exclusive Review in Marion County Circuit Court. All
determinations made under this Ordinance shall be final and subject only to Writ
of Review in the Marion County Circuit Court pursuant to ORS Chapter 34.
Section 17. Effect on Monies Previously Collected. The provisions of this
Ordinance do not apply to System Development Charges collected prior to its
effective date. SDCs previously collected shall be governed by the law in effect
at the time of collection.
Section 18. Severability. If any clause, section, or provision of this
Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause,
the remaining portion shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such
invalid portion thereof had not been incorporate herein.
Section 19. Repeal. Ordinance 2248 is hereby repealed.
Approved as to form: _� 20`0
City Attorney Dat
Page 13 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
ApprovE
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:'
Mary nant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 14 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 2438
April 28, 2008 _
April 30 2008
April 30, 2008
April 30, 2008
Exhibit A
.a�W.bmr
0,
rv'
I" A� A --a *1%
v m ht
"IT -ran
spo- Oubo P 0
i v
Charge'/'°
—Final Report
March 008
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development
Charge Study
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
Introduction / Background
II. System Development Charge Methodology
III. SDC Calculation
IV. IDC Calculation
2
11
Technical Analysis Appendix A
•';>FCS (;14)('I
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
I. Introduction / Background
In January 2007, the City of Woodburn contracted with Financial Consulting Solutions Group,
Inc. (FCS GROUP) to update its transportation system development charge (SDC) and develop a
separate interchange development charge (IDC). The City of Woodburn is a growing city with a
population nearing 23,000. Its objectives for this study were as follows: first, incorporate the
improvements identified in its latest Transportation System Plan into its SDC, and second,
separately recover an appropriate share of the planned new interchange at Interstate 5 in an IDC.
For the City, these charges — determined in a defensible manner — will serve to accommodate the
demands of growth and urbanizing areas without unduly burdening current residents and
business owners in the community.
We approached the project in three major steps:
Review Current SDC Methodology. In this step, we reviewed the current methodology for
the City's SDC and worked with City staff to identify, analyze, and agree on key policy
issues for the proposed SDC and IDC.
Conduct Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with City staff to isolate the
recoverable portion of existing and planned facility costs and calculate proposed charges.
The technical analysis is included as Appendix A.
Documentation and Presentation. In this step, we wrote the report describing the
recommended policies and resulting charges, and participated in Council workshop.
•::>FCS 04)t'('
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
System Development Charge Methodology
A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed on new development or some types of
re -development at the time of development. The fee is intended to recover a fair share of the
costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth.
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297 - 223.314 defines SDCs and specifies how they shall be
calculated, applied, and accounted for. By statute, a SDC is the sum of two components:
• a reimbursement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements
already constructed or under construction, and
• an improvement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed in the future.
The reimbursement fee methodology must be based on "the value of unused capacity available to
future system users or the cost of the existing facilities", and must further consider prior
contributions by existing users and gifted and grant -funded facilities. The calculation must also
"promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the
cost of existing facilities." Reimbursement fee proceeds may be spent on any capital
improvements related to the systems for which the SDC applied — e.g., transportation SDCs must
be spent on transportation improvements.
The improvement fee methodology must include only the cost of projected capital improvements
needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words, the costs of planned projects
that correct existing deficiencies, or do not otherwise increase capacity for future users, may not
be included in the improvement fee calculation. Improvement fee proceeds may be spent only on
capital improvements, or portions thereof, which increase the capacity of the systems for which
they were applied.
A. Reimbursement Fee Methodology
The calculation of the reimbursement fee, described in detail in Section III, is fairly
straightforward under the approach taken. In short, it is the dollar cost of unused, available,
system capacity divided by the capacity it will serve. The unit of capacity used becomes the basis
of the fee. In addition to the cost or value of the system, Oregon law (ORS 223.304) requires that
the reimbursement fee methodology also incorporate the following:
• "Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements", taken to
mean that the fees must be calculated to equitably recover appropriate costs;
• "Prior contributions by existing users", taken to mean that the cost of contributed assets
should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis;
• "Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons", taken to mean that
gifted or grant -funded assets should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis; and
• "Other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee".
Finally, the methodology must promote the objective of future system users contributing no more
than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.
2 •*4. FCS ( 114 ) t. ' I'
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
Construction of the City's existing transportation system has been funded largely from
contributions, general tax sources such as property taxes and state gas taxes, and previously paid
SDCs. Contributed assets clearly may not be included in the fee basis. Regarding general tax
sources, the owner of a developing property can effectively argue that they have already paid for
a share of the existing system through the taxes they have paid over time.
Conversely, a strong argument can be made that the cost of assets funded by previously paid
SDC improvement fees provides a valid reimbursement fee cost basis. If the previously paid
charges have funded facilities that still have unused capacity available for growth, then the cost
of that capacity may be included in the cost basis for new customers to pay for a full share of the
capacity that will serve them. We recommend that the City include in the fee basis the cost of
unused capacity in facilities funded by previously paid improvement fees.
B. Improvement Fee Methodology
The improvement fee calculation, like that of the reimbursement fee, is straightforward. In short,
it is the eligible dollar cost of capacity -increasing capital projects divided by the capacity they
will serve. Again, the unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the fee. The overriding issue to
consider in the improvement fee calculation is the identification and separation of capacity -
increasing capital costs.
We recommend that the City utilize the "capacity" method to allocate costs to the improvement
fee basis. Under the capacity approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth
proportionately by the capacity made available for growth. As an example, assume we are
allocating the $1 million cost of adding a lane to an existing road to meet existing demand as
well as the needs of growth. If the new lane provides capacity for 500 trips and 200 meet an
existing deficiency and 300 are for growth, then the allocation to the improvement fee basis
would be 300 / 500 = 60% of $1 million, or $600,000.
C. Calculation Summary
In general, a SDC is calculated by adding the applicable reimbursement fee component to the
applicable improvement fee component. Each separate component is calculated by dividing the
eligible cost by the appropriate measure of growth in capacity. The unit of capacity used
becomes the basis of the charge. A sample calculation is shown below.
Reimbursement Fee Improvement Fee SDC
Eligible cost
of capacity in
existing facilities
Growth in system
capacity demand
Eligible cost of planned
capacity -increasing
+ capital improvements
Growth in system
capacity demand
D. SDC (Improvement Fee) Credits
= SDC ($ / unit)
The law requires that credits be provided against the improvement fee, for the construction of
qualified public improvements. Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that, at a minimum,
credits be provided against the improvement fee for
3 :t> FCS t Itit 7 i' 1'
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
"the construction of a qualified public improvement. A `qualified public improvement' means a capital
improvement that is required as a condition of development approval, identified in the plan and list
adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or
(b) 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."
The law further states that credits
"may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the local
government's minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development
project or property."
The City's current SDC credit policy exceeds statutory requirements in two ways. First, the
City's stated policy is to limit credits for qualified public improvements to the amount of a
development's SDC, rather than the amount of its "improvement fee." Since the City does
not currently have a reimbursement fee, the City's credit policy is functionally equivalent to
statutory requirements. However, given the proposed SDC, which does have a
reimbursement fee component, the City's credit policy will exceed requirements unless it is
modified.
Second, the City's current policy allows for credits to be granted even in those cases where a
developer constructs an improvement that does not meet statutory qualifications for credit. In
such instances, the policy limits credits to 50% of the SDC.
We recommend that the City revise its credit policy to continue to meet minimum legal
requirements. We believe that it is important for the City to retain as much control as
possible over the prioritization and implementation of its transportation capital plans by
retaining SDC revenues. These plans are created to address total system needs — not just the
needs of growth. Without control over how and when those needs are addressed, the re -
prioritization of projects over time can leave important City needs unmet. To avoid this
outcome, credits should:
■ be for the portion of the actual, estimated, or agreed-upon cost of capacity in excess
of that needed to serve the particular development, up to the amount of the
improvement fee;
■ provide cash reimbursement of credits only when funded by SDCs paid by
subsequent development on the site;
■ be for planned projects only; and
■ be provided only upon completion of a "qualified public improvement".
E. Indexing
Oregon law (ORS 223.304) allows for the periodic indexing of system development charges for
inflation, as long as the index used is
"(A) A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time period for
materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three;
4 •:;> FCS t ; R( ) I f'
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
(B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for
reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and
(C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate
ordinance, resolution or order."
We propose that the City of Woodburn index its charges to the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the City of Seattle, and adjust the charges annually as per that
index. There is no comparable index for the Portland area.
5 -:;>FCS (,ROt'1'
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
III. SDC Calculation
The City's existing transportation SDC is based on projected trip generation by land use.
Specifically, new development is charged by added average daily trips (ADTs).
Existing Transportation SDC
SDC Component
Charge
Basis
Reimbursement Fee
$ 0
N/A
Improvement Fee
$ 343.32
Per Average Daily Trip
Based on the above transportation SDC schedule, a single-family residential home would be
charged a SDC of $3,286 — corresponding to 9.57 average daily trips. Commercial charges vary
by specific land use type.
Both the existing and the proposed charges are based on trip generation statistics provided in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual for each land use type and
development size. However, the proposed charges are based on peak -hour trips (P-HTs), instead
of average daily trips. Peak -hour trips are defined as the average trip rate for the peak hour of
adjacent street traffic, usually during the traditional commuting peak periods of 7 am to 9 am
and/or 4 pm to 6 pm. Transportation engineers commonly use peak -hour trip estimates to assess
transportation performance and determine system needs. Average daily trips, as measures of total
traffic volume, are not generally used to size a system. We recommend that the City move to a
peak -hour basis for its transportation SDC (and proposed new IDC).
Finally, there is documentation presented in the ITE Trip Generation manual that a significant
percentage of trip ends associated with specific land uses are a result of linked, or pass -by, trips.
Accordingly, the proposed charges are adjusted for linked, or pass -by, trips — as shown at the end
of this section.
The calculation of the proposed transportation SDC is summarized below and provided in detail
in Appendix A.
A. Capacity Basis
In order to estimate the number of peak -hour trips to be generated by growth over the planning
period (ending in 2020) — the denominator in both the reimbursement and improvement fee
calculations — the following approach was taken:
• Previous study had found that the City's development generated 71,228 average daily trips in
1999. At the same time, it was forecasted that future development would generate 104,060
average daily trips in 2020. This forecast represented average trip growth of 1.82% per year.
• Current trip levels were estimated by applying the average annual growth rate of 1.82% to
the 1999 trip total. This resulted in an estimate of 82,294 average daily trips in 2007.
Accordingly, Citywide trip growth during the study period was estimated to be 21,766
average daily trips, based on growth from 82,294 in 2007 to 104,060 in 2020.
6 ;> FCS t o l\( ) t_' l'
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
• The forecast of 2,177 new peak -hour trips within the existing City limits during the study
period was derived from the standard assumption of a 1:10 ratio between peak -hour trips and
average daily trips.
• Additionally, during the study period, a portion of the urban growth area called the
Interchange Management Area (IMA) is expected to be annexed into the City. This area is
expected to generate, and development will be limited to, 2,500 new peak -hour trips.
• Therefore, in total, new development was expected to generate 4,677 peak -hour trips.
B. Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
In order to estimate the cost of unused capacity in the existing transportation system — the
numerator in the reimbursement fee calculation — it is important to recall that the transportation
infrastructure has been funded largely by general tax sources, leaving unused capacity in SDC -
funded infrastructure eligible for inclusion in the reimbursement fee. The City reported
$2,937,550 of historical transportation SDC (improvement fee only) expenditures from FY 2004
through FY 2006. Current unused capacity was estimated by reducing the SDC expenditure total
for each year proportionally by the population growth that had occurred since that year. The
resulting total of unused capacity in the existing system was $2,459,662.
The City did not have any related grant contributions or outstanding debt principal that would
reduce the existing unused capacity cost eligible for SDC recovery.
C. Reimbursement Fee Calculation
The reimbursement fee was then calculated as the reimbursement fee cost basis, $2,459,662,
divided by forecasted growth in peak -hour trips, 4,677. The result of this calculation was a base
reimbursement fee of $525.95 per peak -hour trip.
D. Improvement Fee Cost Basis
The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity -increasing capital
improvements for inclusion in the improvement fee cost basis.
The City's 2005 Woodburn Transportation System Plan and 2007 Transportation Impact Fee
Project List provided a list of needed capital projects. The sum of this list of project costs in
current dollars was $123,066,269, of which $48,180,311 was identified as the City's cost
share after accounting for participation from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and other outside sources. Other outside sources included primarily anticipated
developer responsibilities as portions of each project.
• To allocate the project costs to growth, City staff provided either existing and future peak -
hour trip volumes and/or current and future peak -hour roadway capacities for each project.
The capacity -increasing allocation for projects that improved roadway capacity beyond 2020
needs were reduced to account for only the demands of growth to the end of the study period.
• Additionally, previous study had found that 49% of City trip volumes were due to pass-
through trips that neither originate nor end within City limits. Despite the fact that these trips
utilize increased roadway capacity, they are not generated by development within the City.
Accordingly, SDC eligible cost allocations for nearly all projects were reduced by 49% to
• > FCS t 1'() 11'
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
account for pass-through trips — with the exceptions being improvements that would not
provide capacity for pass-through trips (i.e., pedestrian/bicycle facilities and park and ride
improvements).
• Therefore, after accounting for the City's share of improvement costs, each project's
capacity -increasing percentage, and pass-through trips, an initial total of eligible costs for the
improvement fee was $17,557,672.
• Next, in order to account for the use of the increased capacity of the new I-5 interchange by
Citywide development, 50% of the City's cost share for the interchange was added to the
improvement fee. This amounted to $2,750,000 and increased the unadjusted improvement
fee cost total to $20,307,672.
• Finally, the ending FY 2007 improvement fee fund balance, $6,535,765, was deducted to (1)
recognize that the fund balance is available for spending on the project list and (2) prevent
new users from paying for those project costs twice. The resulting net total of $13,771,907
was the improvement fee cost basis.
E. Improvement Fee Calculation
The improvement fee was then calculated as follows. The improvement fee cost basis of
$13,771,907 was divided by total forecasted growth in peak -hour trips, 4,677, to establish the
base improvement fee of $2,944.85 per peak -hour trip.
F. Recommended System Development Charge
The recommended transportation SDC of $3,497 per peak -hour trip is the sum of the
reimbursement fee and the improvement fee, adjusted by an administrative cost recovery factor
of 0.75%. The administrative cost recovery factor was derived by dividing projected annual SDC
and IDC accounting and administrative costs, including the amortized cost of this study, by
forecasted annual SDC and IDC revenues. The resulting recommended SDCs for a
comprehensive list of land uses are provided below.
8 •`,> FCS (. i.(l P
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
TIF / SDC S 3,497 per P -HT
ITE
Code
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Peak -Hour
Tris
Pass -By
Trip Factor
Adjusted
P -H Ts
TIF / SDC
Units
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single use.
110
General Light Industrial
Examples: Printing plants, material testing laboratories, data processing
0.98
1
0.98
$ 3,427
KSF
equipment assembl ower stations.
Industrial Park areas that contain a number of industrial and/or related
086
1
0.86
$ 3,007
KSF
130
Industrial Park
facilities mix of man facturing, serviceand warehouse).
Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products. Typically
0.74
1
0.74
$ 2,588
KSF
140
Manufacturing
have related officewarehouse research and associated functions.
1
Storage Units or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physically
151
Mini -Warehouse
separate and access through an overhead door or other common
0.26
1
0.26
$ 909
KSF
access Point. Exam le: U -Store -It.
210
SF Detached
Single family detached housing.
1.01
1
1.01
$ 3,632
DU
Rental Dwelling Units within the same building. Al least 4 units in the
220
Apartment
same building. Examples: Quadplexes and all types of apartment
0.62
1
0.62
$ 2,168
DU
buitdin s.
Residential Condominium/Townhouses under single-family ownership.
230
Condo/Townhouse
Minimum of two single family units in the same building structure.
0.52
1
0.52
$ 1,818
DU
Trailers or Manufactured homes that are sited on permanent
240
Mobile Home
foundations. Typically the parks have community facilities (laundry,
0.59
1
0.59
$ 2,063
DU
recreation rooms, ooIs).
Restricted to senior citizens. Contains residential units similar to
apartments or condos. Sometimes in self-contained villages. May also
0.17
1
0.17
$ 594
DU
253
Elderly Housing
contain medical facilities, dining, and some limited, supporting retail.
Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms,
310
Hotel
and/or convention facilities. Can include a large motel with these
0.59
1
0.59
$ 2,063
Room
facilities.
Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free on-site parking
0.47
1
0.47
$ 1,644
Room
320
Motel
and little or no meeting space.
City -owned parks, varying widely as to location, type, and number of
411 '
Local Park
facilities, including boating / swimming facilities, ball fields, and picnic
0.09
1
0.09
$ 315
Acre
facilities.
Includes 9, 18, 27, and 36 hole municipal and private country clubs.
430
Golf Course
Some have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro shops, restaurants,
2.74
1
2.74
$ 9,582
Hole
lounges. Many of the muni courses do not include such facilities.
Multi-purpose recreational facilities contain two or more of the following
435
Multipurpose Recreation Facility
land uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper
5.77
1
5.77
$ 20,178
Acre
boats o -carts and driving ranges.
437
Bowling Alley
Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small
3.54
1
3.54
$ 12,379
Lane
lounge, restaurant or snack bar.
Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities often including
493
Athletic Club
swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash, and handball
5.76
1
5.76
$ 20,143
KSF
courts.
Recreational community centers are facilities similar to and including
495
Recreational Community Center
YMCAs, often including classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming
1.64
1
1.64
$ 5,735
KSF
pools, tennis racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker
rooms & food service.
520
Elementary School
Public. Typically serves K-6 grades.
0.28
1
0.28
$ 979
Student
522
Middle School
Public. Serves students that completed elementary and have not yet
0.15
1
0.15
$ 525
Student
entered hi h school.
530
High School
Public. Serves students that completed middle or Lnior high school.
0.14
1
0.14
$ 490
Student
540
Junior/Comm unity College
Two - ear Lnior colleges or community colleges.
0.12
1
0.12
$ 420
Student
560
Church
Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms, classrooms,
0.66
1
0.66
$ 2,308
KSF
dining area and facilities.
565 •
Day Care
Facility for pre-school children care primarily during daytime hours. May
13.18
0.33
4.35
$ 15,212
KSF
include classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds.
0.82
0.33
0.27
$ 944
Student
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or areas,
7.09
1
7.09
$ 24,794
KSF
sometimes meeting rooms.
691
Lodge/Fratemal Organization
Includes a club house with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and
0.03
1
0.03
$ 106
Member
entertainment areas and meeting rooms.
Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can include
710
General Office
professional services, bank and Loan institutions, restaurants, snack
1 49
1
1.49
$ 5,211
KSF
barsand service retail facilities.
Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices, meeting rooms,
715
Single Tenant Office Building
file storage areas, data processing, restaurant or cafeteria, and other
1.73
1
1 73
$ 6,050
KSF
service functions.
720
Medical -Dental Office
Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically
3.72
1
3.72
$ 13,009
KSF
operated by one or more private physicians or dentists.
Park or campus -like planned unit development that contains office
760
Office Park
buildings and support services such as banks & loan institutions,
1.5
1
1.5
$ 5,246
KSF
restaurants service stations.
760
Research & Development Center
Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research &
1.08
1
1.08
$ 3,777
KSF
development, May contain offices and light fabrication facilities.
Group of flex -type or incubator 1 - 2 story buildings served by a common
770
Business Park
roadway system. Tenant space is flexible to accommodate a variety of
1.29
1
1.29
$ 4,511
KSF
uses. Rear of building usually served by a garage door. Typically
includes a mix of offices retail & wholesale.
•"�> FCS ('I'() 1 /
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
ITE
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Peak -Hour
Pass -By
Adjusted
TIF / SDC
Units
Code
Tris
Trip Factor
P -H Ts
Small, free standing building that sells hardware, building materials, and
812
Building Materials &Lumber
lumber. May include yard storage and shed storage areas. The storage
4.49
1
4.49
$ 15,702
KSF
areas are not included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates.
813
Discount Super Store
A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery
3.87
0.718
2.78
$ 9,722
KSF
dept. under one roof.
Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops that
814
Specialty Retail
typically specialize in apparel, hard goods, serves such as real estate,
2.71
1
2.71
$ 9,477
KSF
investment dance studios florists and small restaurants.
A free-standing discount store that offers a variety of customer services,
815
Discount Store
centralized cashiering, and a wide range of products under one roof.
5.06
0.475
2.4
$ 8,393
KSF
Does not include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-
standing Discount Su erstore.
816
Hardware/Paint Store
Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell paints
4.84
0.450
2.18
$ 7,623
KSF
and hardware.
Free-standing building with yard containing planting or landscape stock.
817
Nursery/Garden Center
May have large green houses and offer landscape services. Typically
3.8
1
3.8
$ 13,289
KSF
have office, storage, and shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not
and and store a GLA.
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned,
developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Provides enough on-site
820
Shopping Center
parking to serve its own parking demand. May include non-
3.75
0.393
1.47
$ 5,141
KSF
merchandising facilities such as office buildings, movie theatres,
Leasable
restaurants, post offices, health dubs, and recreation like skating rinks
and amusements.
841
New Car Sales
New Car dealership with sales, service, parts, and used vehicles
2.64
1
2.64
$ 9,232
KSF
848
Tire Store
Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does not have a
4.15
1
4.15
$ 14,513
KSF
larae store a or warehouse area.
850
Supermarket
Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo centers,
10.45
0.265
2.76
$ 9,652
KSF
pharmacies, video rental areas.
851
Convenience Market
Sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often Beer &
52.41
0.282
14.8
$ 51,756
KSF
Wine. Does not have gas pumps.
880
Pharmacy w/o drive through
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
8.42
0.327
2.75
$ 9,617
KSF
881
Pharmacyw/ drive through
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
8.62
0.383
3.3
$ 11,540
KSF
890
Furniture Store
Sells furniture, accessories, and often carpet/floor coverings.
0.46
0.157
0.07
$ 245
KSF
911 '
Walk -In Bank
Usually a Free-standing building with a parking lot. Does not have drive-
33.15
0.270
8.95
$ 31,298
KSF
up windows. May have ATMs.
912
Drive -In Bank
Provides Dirive-up and walk-in bank services. May have ATMs.
45.74
0.270
12.35
$ 43,188
KSF
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates (more than
7.49
0.288
2.15
$ 7,519
KSF
one hour).
932
High Turnover Sit -Down Rest.
Sit -Down eating establishment with turnover rates of less than one hour.
10.92
0.315
3.44
$ 12,030
KSF
933 `
Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru
Fast Food but no drive-through window
26.15
0.265
6.94
$ 24,269
KSF
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Fast Food with drive-through window
34.64
0.265
9.2
$ 32,172
KSF
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are serviced and
936 •
Drinking Place
possibly some type of entertainment such as music, games, or pool
11.34
0.315
3.58
$ 12,519
KSF
tables
944
Gas Station
Sell gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Does not
13.86
0.235
3.26
$ 11,400
Fueling
have Convenience Market and/or Car Wash.
Position
Gas/ServiSelling
ce Station with
gas and Convenience Market are the primary business. May
Fueling
945
Market
also contain facilities for service and repair. Does not include Car
13.38
0.123
1.65
$ 5,770
Position
Convenience
Convenience
Wash
`
Gas/Service Station with
Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the primary
13.33
0.382
5.09
S 17,800
Fueling
946
Convenience Market, Car Wash
business. May also contain facilities for service and repair.
Position
947
Self -Service Car Wash
Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for the driver to
..,373
554
1
5 54
S 19
Wash
ark and wash.
Stall
NOTES:
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
Peak -Hour Trips: Weekday, peak -hour of adjacent street traffic. Most often, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
Pass -By Trip Factor reflects diverted linked trips in addition to pass -by trips.
ITE codes identified with asterisks (') include information derived from the ITE manual (e.g., the pass -by factor is derived from pass -by counts for a similar land use or are as
estimated by traffic engineers).
Land Use Units:
KSF = 1,000 gross square feet building area
DU = dwelling unit
Room = number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions = maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously
Student = number of full-time equivalent students enrolled
Hole = number of individual putting holes that are paired with driving tees
Acre = 43,560 square feet of park space
Lane = number of bowling lanes
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
IV. IDC Calculation
An interchange development charge (IDC) is simply a separate SDC designated to recover the
cost of the growth -related portion of the City's share of an interchange project. Since the
interchange is a planned, future project, the IDC is made up entirely by an improvement fee. It
was structured similarly to the proposed SDC — applied on a basis of peak -hour trips.
The calculation of the proposed transportation IDC is summarized below and provided in detail
in Appendix A.
A. Capacity Basis
As noted previously, during the study period, the Interchange Management Area (IMA) is
expected to be annexed into the City. By agreement with the State, development in this area will
be limited to the generation of 2,500 new peak -hour trips.
B. IDC Cost Basis
The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity -increasing capital
improvements for inclusion in the IDC cost basis.
• The total cost of the interchange project was estimated to be $50,000,000 in 2005. Of that,
the remaining City share of the project cost is $5,500,000.
• As a pro -rata share of the interchange project cost based on trip growth would result in an
IDC cost basis that would be greater than the City's funding responsibility, 100% of the
City's share of the project cost was instead allocated to growth. Accordingly, the initial IDC
cost basis was $5,500,000.
• Since the City will recover half of this cost through its Citywide SDC, the IDC cost basis
became $2,750,000.
C. IDC Calculation
The IDC was then calculated as follows. The IDC cost basis of $2,750,000 was divided by the
total growth in peak -hour trips in the IMA, 2,500, to establish the base IDC of $1,100.00 per
peak -hour trip.
D. Recommended Interchange Development Charge
The recommended IDC of $1,108 per peak -hour trip is the base IDC adjusted by an
administrative cost recovery factor of 0.75°/x. The administrative cost recovery factor was
derived by dividing projected annual SDC and IDC accounting and administrative costs,
including the amortized cost of this study, by forecasted annual SDC and IDC revenues. The
resulting recommended IDCs for a comprehensive list of land uses are provided below.
11 y> FCS c 1 !\� %(1 1
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
IDC S 1,108 per P -HT
ITE
Code
Customer Type
Land Use Description
P
Peak -Hour
Tris
Pass -By
Trip Factor
Adjusted
P -H Ts
TIF I SDC
Units
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single use.
110
General Light Industrial
Examples: Printing plants, material testing laboratories, data processing
0.98
1
0.98
$ 1,086
KSF
equipment assemblower stations.
Industrial Park areas that contain a number of industrial and/or related
0.86
1
0.86
$ 953
KSF
130
Industrial Park
facilities mix of man facturing, serviceand warehouse).
Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products. Typically
0.74
1
0.74
$ 820
KSF
140
Manufacturing
have related office warehouse research and associated functions.
Storage Units or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physically
151
Mini -Warehouse
separate and access through an overhead door or other common
0.26
1
0.26
$ 288
KSF
access point. Exam le: U -Store -It.
210
SF Detached
Single family detached housing.
1.01
1
1.01
$ 1,119
DU
Rental Dwelling Units within the same building. At least 4 units in the
220
Apartment
same building. Examples: Quadplexes and all types of apartment
0.62
1
0.62
$ 687
DU
buildings.
Residential Condominium/rownhouses under single-family ownership.
230
Condo/Townhouse
Minimum of two single family units in the same building structure.
0.52
1
0.52
$ 576
DU
Trailers or Manufactured homes that are sited on permanent
240
Mobile Home
foundations. Typically the parks have community facilities (laundry,
0.59
1
0.59
$ 654
DU
recreation rooms, ooIs).
Restricted to senior citizens. Contains residential units similar to
253
Elderly Housing
apartments or condos. Sometimes in self-contained villages. May also
0.17
1
0.17
$ 188
DU
contain medical facilities, dining, and some limited, supporting retail.
Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms,
310
Hotel
and/or convention facilities. Can include a large motel with these
0.59
1
0.59
$ 654
Room
facilities.
320
Motel
Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free on-site parking
0.47
1
0.47
$ 521
Room
and little or no meeting space.
City -owned parks, varying widely as to location, type, and number of
411 •
Local Park
facilities, including boating / swimming facilities, ball fields, and picnic
0.09
1
0.09
$ 100
Acre
facilities.
Includes 9, 18, 27, and 36 hole municipal and private country clubs.
430
Golf Course
Some have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro shops, restaurants,
2.74
1
2.74
$ 3,036
Hole
lounges. Many of the muni courses do not include such facilities.
Multi-purpose recreational facilities contain two or more of the following
435
Multipurpose Recreation Facility
land uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper
5.77
1
5.77
$ 6,393
Acre
boatsgo-carts, and driving ranges.
437
Bowling Alley
Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small
3.54
1
3.54
$ 3,922
Lane
lounge, restaurant or snack bar.
Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilifies often including
493
Athletic Club
swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash, and handball
5.76
1
5.76
$ 6,382
KSF
courts.
Recreational community centers are facilities similar to and including
495
Recreational Community Center
YMCAs, often including Gasses, day care, meeting rooms, swimming
1,64
1
1.64
$ 1,817
KSF
pools, tennis racquetball, handball, weigh8ifting equipment, locker
rooms & food service.
520 •
Elements School
Public. Typically serves K-6 grades.
0.28
1
0.28
$
Student
522
Middle School
Public. Serves students that completed elementary and have not yet
0.15
1
0.15
Student
entered high school.
530
Hiah School
Public. Serves students that completed middle orjunior high school.
0.14
1
0.14
$
Student
540
Junior/CommunityCollege
Two- ear Lnior colleges or communitycolleges
0.12
1
0.12
Student
560
Church
Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms, classrooms,
0.66
1
0.66
$
KSF
diningarea and facilities.
565'
Day Care
Facility for pre-school children care primarily during daytime hours. May
13.18
0.33
4.35
$144,820
KSF
include classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds.
0.82
0.33
1 0.27
$ 299
Student
590
Library
Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or areas,
7,09
1
7.09
$ 7,856
KSF
sometimes meetingrooms.
591
Lodge/Fratemal Organization
Includes a dub house with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and
0.03
1
0.03
$ 33
Member
entertainment areas and meeting rooms.
Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can include
710
General Office
professional services, bank and Loan institutions, restaurants, snack
1.49
1
1.49
$ 1,651
KSF
barsand service retail fadlities.
Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices, meeting rooms,
715
Single Tenant Office Building
file storage areas, data processing, restaurant or cafeteria, and other
1.73
1
1.73
$ 1,917
KSF
service functions.
720
Medical -Dental Office
Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically
3.72
1
3.72
$ 4,122
KSF
operated by one or more private physicians or dentists.
Park or campus -like planned unit development that contains office
750
Office Park
buildings and support services such as banks & loan institutions,
1.5
1
1.5
$ 1,662
KSF
restaurants service stations.
760
Research & Development Center
Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research &
1 08
1
1.08
$ 1,197
KSF
develo ment. May contain offices and light fabrication facilities.
Group of flex -type or incubator 1 - 2 story buildings served by a common
770
Business Park
roadway system. Tenant space is flexible to accommodate a variety of
129
1
1.29
$ 1,429
KSF
uses. Rear of building usually served by a garage door Typically
includes a mix of offices retail & wholesale.
12 •»;> FCS (;14) (T
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
ITE
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Peak -Hour
Pass -By
Adjusted
TIF I SDC
Units
Code
Tris
Trip Factor
P -H Ta
Small, free standing building that sells hardware, building materials, and
812
Building Materials & Lumber
lumber. May include yard storage and shed storage areas. The storage
4.49
1
4.49
$ 4,975
KSF
areas are not included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates.
813
Discount Super Store
A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery
3.87
0.718
2.78
$ 3,080
KSF
dept. under one roof.
Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops that
814
Specialty Retail
typically specialize in apparel, hard goods, serves such as real estate,
2.71
1
2.71
$ 3,003
KSF
investment dance studios florists and small restaurants.
A free-standing discount store that offers a variety of customer services,
815
Discount Store
centralized cashiering, and a wide range of products under one roof.
5.06
0.475
2.4
$ 2,659
KSF
Does not include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-
standing Discount Su erstore.
816
Hardware/Paint Store
Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell paints
4.84
0.450
2.18
$ 2,415
KSF
and hardware.
Free-standing building with yard containing planting or landscape stock.
817
Nursery/Garden Center
May have large green houses and offer landscape services. Typically
3.8
1
3.8
$ 4,210
KSF
have office, storage, and shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not
and and storage GLA.
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned,
developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Provides enough on-site
820
Shopping Center
parking to serve its own parking demand. May include non-
3.75
0.393
1.47
$ 1,629
KSF
merchandising facilities such as office buildings, movie theatres,
Leasable
restaurants, post offices, health clubs, and recreation like skating rinks
and amusements.
841
New Car Sales
New Car dealership with sales, service, parts, and used vehicles
2.64
1
2.64
$ 2,925
KSF
848
Tire Store
Primary business is fire sales and repair. Generally does not have a
4.15
1
4.15
$ 4,598
KSF
large story a or warehouse area.
850
Supermarket
Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo centers,
10.45
0.265
2.76
$ 3,058
KSF
pharmacies, video rental areas.
851
Convenience Market
Sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often Beer &
52.41
0.282
14.8
$ 16,398
KSF
Wine. Does not have gas pumps.
880
Pharmacy w/o drive through
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
8.42
0.327
2.75
$ 3,047
KSF
881
Pharmacy w/ drive through
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
8.62
0.383
3.3
$ 3,666
KSF
890
Furniture Store
Sells furniture, accessories, and often carpet/floor coverings.
0.46
0.157
0.07
$ 78
KSF
911 '
Walk -In Bank
Usually a Free-standing building with a parking lot. Does not have drive-
33.15
0.270
8.95
$ 9,917
KSF
up windows. May have ATMs.
912
Drive -In Bank
Provides Drive -up and walk-in bank services. May have ATMs.
45.74
0.270
12.35
$ 13,684
KSF
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates (more than
7.49
0.288
2.15
$ 2,382
KSF
one hour).
932
High Turnover Sit -Down Rest.
Sit -Down eating establishment with turnover rates of less than one hour.
10.92
0.315
3.44
$ 3,812
KSF
933
Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru
Fast Food but no drive-through window
26.15
0.265
6.94
$ 7,690
KSF
934
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Fast Food with drive-through window
34.64
0.265
9.2
$ 10,194
KSF
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are serviced and
936 `
Drinking Place
possibly some type of entertainment such as music, games, or pool
11.34
0.315
3.58
$ 3,967
KSF
tables
944
Gas Station
Sell gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Does not
13.86
0.235
3.26
$ 3,612
Fueling
have Convenience Market and/or Car Wash.
Position
Gas/Service Station with
Selling gas and Convenience Market are the primary business. May
Fueling
945
Convenience Market
also contain facilities for service and repair. Does not include Car
13.38
0.123
1.65
$ 1,828
Position
Wash.
Gas/Service Station with
Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the primary
Fueling
946'
Convenience Market, Car Wash
business. May also contain facilities for service and repair
13.33
0.382
5.09
$ 5,640
Position
947
Self -Service Car Wash
Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for the driver to
..54
5 54
1
5
S 6,138
Wash
ark and wash.
Stall
NOTES:
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
Peak -Hour Trips: Weekday, peak -hour of adjacent street traffic. Most often, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
Pass -By Trip Factor reflects diverted linked trips in addition to pass -by trips.
ITE codes identified with asterisks (') include information derived from the ITE manual (e.g., the pass -by factor is derived from pass -by counts for a similar land use or are as
estimated by traffic engineers).
Land Use Units:
KSF = 1,000 gross square feel building area
DU = dwelling unit
Room = number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions = maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously
Student = number of full-time equivalent students enrolled
Hole = number of individual putting holes that are paired with driving tees
Acre = 43,560 square feet of park space
Lane = number of bowling lanes
Appendix A
Technical Analysis
Appendix •:;4 FCS t I1ZO i.' P
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Alternative Fee Calculation: 50.0% of Interchange Cost in SDC
Table 1: Citywide SDC
Reimbursement Fee
Cost of Net Unused Capacity
Citywide Growth to End of Planning Period
Reimbursement Fee
Improvement Fee
Capacity Expanding CIP
Citywide Growth to End of Planning Period
Improvement Fee
Cha
Reimbursement Fee
Improvement Fee
TIF / SDC Subtotal
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery
Total TIF / SDC
$ 2,459,662
4,677 Peak -Hour Trips
$ 525.95 per P -HT
$ 13,771,907
4,677 Peak -Hour Trips
$ 2,944.85 per P -HT
$ 525.95 per P -HT
$ 2.944.85 per P -HT
$ 3,470.81 per P -HT
0.75% $ 26.06 per P -HT
$ 3.497 Der P -HT
Table 1: Interchange Development Charge
Tri
$ 2,459,662
46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 52.60 per ADT
$ 13,771,907
46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 294.49 per ADT
$ 52.60 per ADT
$ 294.49 per ADT
$ 347.08 per ADT
$ 2.61 per ADT 0.40%
$ 350 Der ADT
Improvement Fee
Peak -Hour Tris
Average Daily Trips
$ 2,459,662
Capacity Expanding CIP
IMA Growth to End of Planning Period
Interchange Development Charge Subtotal
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery 0.75%
Total Interchange Development Charge
$ 2,750,000
2,500 Peak -Hour Trips
$ 1,100.00 per P -HT
$ 8.26 per P -HT
$ 1,108 per P -HT
$ 2,750,000
25,000 Average Daily Trips
$ 110.00 per ADT
$ 0.83 per ADT
$ 111 per ADT
$ 525.95 per P -HT
0.40%
$ 30,300,364
$ 30,300,364
Total Charge for UGA Development $ 4,605 per P -HT $ 461 per ADT
Full -Cost SDC -- Grants First Apply to Existing Needs
Peak -Hour Tris
Average Daily Trips
$ 2,459,662
$ 2,459,662
4,677 Peak -Hour Trips
46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 525.95 per P -HT
$ 52.60 per ADT
$ 30,300,364
$ 30,300,364
4,677 Peak -Hour Trips
46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 6,479.14 per P -HT
$ 647.91 per ADT
$ 525.95 per P -HT
$ 52.60 per ADT
$ 6,479.14 per P -HT
$ 647.91 per ADT
$ 7,005.09 per P -HT
$ 700.51 per ADT
$ 28.12 per P -HT
$ 2.81 per ADT
$ 7,033 per P -HT
$ 703 per ADT
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
Peak -Hour Tris
Average Daily Trips
$
2,750,000
$ 2,750,000
2,500 Peak -Hour Trips
25,000 Average Daily Trips
$
1,100.00 per P -HT
$ 110.00 per ADT
$ 4.41 per P -HT
$ 0.44 per ADT
$
1,104 per P -HT
$ 110 per ADT
$
8,137 per P -HT
$ 813 per ADT
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Customer Data: Trip Growth
Table 2
Trip Data
Within City Limits
#
Year
Note
Initial Average Daily Trips
71,228
1999
(1)
Future Average Daily Trips
104,060
2020
(1)
Average Annual Daily Trip Growth
1.82%
(2)
Current Average Daily Trips
82,294 2007
(3)
Future Average Daily Trips at End of Period
104,060
2020
(3) and (4)
ADT Growth During Study Period
21,766
Peak -Hour Trip Growth During Study Period
2,177
(5)
Within Interchange Management Area (IMA)
P -HT Growth Within (IMA)
2,500
(6)
Trip Growth Summary
P-HTs
ADTs
Citywide Trip Growth, 2007 - 2020
4,677
46,766
(7)
IMA Trip Growth, 2007 - 2020
2,500
25,000
(8)
NOTES
(1) Source: Traffic modeling performed by Kittleson and Associates. 1999 TIF Update. Pass-through trips which neither begin nor end within the City are excluded.
(2) Annual compounded rate of growth from 1999-2020.
(3) Based on projected average daily trip growth from 1999-2020.
(4) The 2005 Transportation System Plan establishes "transportation facilities and services adequate to meet the City's transportation needs to the planning horizon year of
2020" (page 1-2).
(5) Peak -hour trips are estimated based on the assumption of a 1:10 ratio with average daily trips.
(6) Limited to 2,500 P-HTs per ODOT agreement. Resulting Citywide ADT growth equals 46,766 ADTs.
(7) Citywide trip growth consists of the existing ADT growth forecast plus the IMA peak -hour trip growth quota, assuming a 1:10 ratio with average daily trips.
(8) Average daily trips are estimated based on the assumption of a 10:1 ratio with peak -hour trips.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Existing Infrastructure Costs for TIF / SDC
Table 3
Capacity Unused Used
Description Related Capacity Capacity
Historical TIF / SDC Expenditures (1) $ 2,937,550 $ 2,459,662 $ 477,888
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding
less: Grant Contributions
Allocable Plant -in -Service
$ 2,937,550 $ 2,459,662 $ 477,888
NOTES
(1) Unused Capacity of Assets Funded by TIF / SDC Expenditures. To date, the charge has not had a reimbursement fee component (source: 1999 TIF
Unused Capacity of Assets Funded by TIF / SDC Expenditures
Construction Year FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Improvement Fee Expenditures [Note A]
Percentage For Capacity Increasing Projects
$ 2,786,050
100%
$ 96,500
100%
$ 55,000
100%
Applicable TIF / SDC Expenditures
Beginning Trip Total [Note B]
Current Trip Total (FY 2007) [Note B]
Ending Trip Total for Study Period (FY 2020) [Note E
$ 2,786,050
$ 96,500 $ 55,000
7,938 8,082
8,229 8,229
10,406 10,406
7,796
8,229
10,406
of Capacity Used by Growth to FY 2007
16.6%
11.8%
6.3%
Cost of Unused Capacity
$ 2,323,054
$ 85,092
$ 51,516
Note [A]. Source: FY2004 - FY2006 Street SDC report of resources and expenditures (Fund 376).
Note [B]. Source: Peak -hour trips derived from 1999-2020 ADT trip forecast.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
TIF / SDC Project List: Citywide SDC
Table 4
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
Project
Yr of Cost
2002 2007 v 2020
Current Future
Capacity
Existing
Serves
% Local
% City
Initial Project
2007 Project Minimal SDC
Full SDC
#
Source (1)
Estimate
Project Title
Trips Trips w/ Project
Trips
Trips
Increasing %
Deficiency
Growth To Trips (4)
Funding (5)
Cost (1)
Cost (6) Eligible Cost Eligible Cost
2005 TSP
Proposed Transportation Improvements
1
2005 TSP
2005
OR 214 widening from west of Broughton Way
to Park Avenue
1,425 1,535 3,000
48.8%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
11,400,000
$ 11,758,912 $
1,171,319 $
2,928,298
2
2005 TSP
2005
Park-and-ride near OR 214/1-5 interchange
0
650
100,0%
0.0%
2020
75.0%
15.0%
1,750,000
1,805,096
203,073
270,764
3
2005 TSP
2005
Upgrade of Parr Road to service collector
standards
200
500
60.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
30.0%
7,500,000
7,736,126
710,176
2,320,838
4
2005 TSP
2005
Upgrade Butteville Road south of Highway 219
to minor arterial standards
275 296 1,500
80.2%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
30.0%
7,500,000
7,736,126
949,858
2,320,838
5
2005 TSP
2005
Ext. Evergreen Road to Parr Road
700
1,600
56.3%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
25.0%
3,080,000
3,176,969
227,848
794,242
6
2005 TSP
2005
Ext Stubb to Evergreen
5
200
97.5%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
3,900,000
4,022,786
800,132
1,609,114
7
2005 TSP
2005
Ext Ben Brown to Evergreen Extension
0
300
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
25.0%
4,700,000
4,847,972
618,116
1,211,993
8
2005 TSP
2005
Service class facility between Evergreen Road
and Stacy Allison Drive extensions
0
250
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
25.0%
2,260,000
2,331,153
297,222
582,788
9
2005 TSP
2005
Ext. Stacey Allison Drive to Parr Road
0
300
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
25.0%
3,950,000
4,074,360
519,481
1,018,590
11
2005 TSP
2005
Upgrade of Crosby Road to service collector
standards
200
500
60.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
30.0%
3,300,000
3,403,895
312,478
1,021,169
12
2005 TSP
2005
Upgrade Butteville Road north of Highway 219
to minor arterial standards
1,125
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
30.0%
4,900,000
5,054,269
773,303
1,516,281
13
2005 TSP
2005
OR 99E widening between Lincoln Street and
south city limits
1.275 1,373 1,800
23.7%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
5,750,000
5,931,030
107,633
717,556
14
2005 TSP
2005
51h Street upgrade to access street standards
60
350
82.9%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
70.0%
1,400,000
1,444,077
427,158
610,226
Add northbound right, southbound left.
15
2005 TSP
2005
eastbound right turn lanes and eastbound
2,275 2,451 4,750
48.4%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
60.0%
900,000
928,335
137,501
229,168
throw h4ane to Boones Fe /OR 214
16
2005 TSP
2005
Signalize Meridian Drive/5th Street/OR214
1,425 1,535 3,000
48.8%
0.0%
2020
51.0% 1
40.0%
500,000
515,742
51,374
128,434
17
2005 TSP
2005
Signalize Park Avenue/OR 214
1,475 1,589 2,625
39.5%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
500,000
515,742
41,524
103,809
18
2005 TSP
2005
Add eastbound right -tum lane to Parr
Road/Settlemier Road
125
250
50.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
100.0%
380,000
391,964
99,951
99,951
19
2005 TSP
2005
Signalize Front/OR 214 ramps
1,450 1,562 2,950
47.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
--too-.0%
40.0%
600,000
_ _ 618,890
59,401
148,502
20
2005 TSP
2005
Increase service frequency on transit routes
110
150
26.7%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
180,000
185,667
49,511
49,511
22
2005 TSP
2005
Upgrade Front Street between Hazelnut and
Harrison to minor arterial standards
200
500
60.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
70.0%
4,150,000
4,280,656
916,917
1,309,881
23
2005 TSP
2005
Upgrade Boone, Feny and Front to provide
50
200
2.1%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
70.0%
975,000
1,005,696
14,725
21,036
continuous sidewalks and bi cle lanes
24
2005 TSP
2005
Add loop ramp in southwest quadrant of OR
214/Front Street intersection
1,825 1,966 3,250
39.5%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
1,800,000
1,856,670
149,635
374,086
25
2005 TSP
2005
Add southbound right -tum and westbound left-
turn lane to OR 99E/OR 214
1,725 1,858 2,275
18.3%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
580,000
598,260
8,383
55,884
26
2005 TSP
2005
Convert transit route to two-way operations
110
200
45.0%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
100.0%
180,000
185,667
83,550
83,550
27
2005 TSP
2005
Off-street pathway along Mill and Goose Creek
Corridors
0
200
50.0%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
100.0%
750,000
773,613
386,806
386,806
28
2005 TSP
2005
OR 99E widening between south city limits
and south UGB
1,400
2,500
44.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
2,900,000
2,991,302
100,687
448,695
29
2005 TSP
2005
Signalize southern Butteville Road/OR 214
600 646 1,927
66.5%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
650,000
670,464
34,085
100,570
intersection and add northbound right -tum lane
Signalize northern Butteville Road/OR 214
30
2005 TSP
2005
intersection and add southbound right -turn
1,400
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
750,000
773,613
59,181
116,042
lane
31
2005 TSP
2005
Signalize Cleveland Street/OR 214
2,000
2,500
20.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
500,000
515,742
7,891
52,606
32
2005 TSP
2005
South Arterial between Parr (or Butteville)
Road and OR 99E
0
2,000
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
70.0%
11,780,000
12,150,875
4,337,862
6,196,946
33
2005 TSP
2005
Exl./Upgrade of Brown to South Arterial
5
300
98.3%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
30.0%
1,780,000
1,836,041
276,232
550,812
35
2005 TSP
2005
Sidewalks on existing service collectors,
access and local streets
0
100
2.1%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
70.0%
540,000
557,001
8,155
11,651
36
2005 TSP
2005
Bicycle lanes on Garfield, Hardcastle, Young
30
100
70.0%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
70.0%
700,000
722,038
353,799
505,427
38
2005 TSP
Proposed Transit Improvements
0.0%
2020
51.0%
-
41
2005 TSP
2005
Two Routes with One -Way Operations
(alternative 3
110
400
72.5%
0.0%
2020
100.0%
100.0%
360,000
371,334
269,217
269,217
42
2005 TSP
2005
OR 219 widening from Woodland Avenue to
500 539 1,725
68.8%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
9,850,000
10,160,112
534,548
1,524,017
west c limits
0.0%
2020
51.0%
-
-
-
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
c Gni Aln I 111 Q. -inn 111 Dmine}
Total
less: Ending FY2007 TIF / SDC Fund Balance (7)
Total Future Capital Projects for TIF / SDC Calculation
68.9% 0.0% 2020 Avg 52.9% $ 48,180,311 $ 119,545,000 $ 123,066,269 $ 17,557,672 $ 34,086,129
6,535,765 6,535,765
$ 11,021,907 $ 27,550,364
(1) 2005 TSP = Woodburn Transportation System Plan. Proposed Transportation and Transit Improvements. In 2005 dollars.
2007 TIF List = TIF Project List provided by the City in February 2007. Capacity -increasing percentages identified for all projects.
TSP states "With these improvements, all intersections are projected to operate acceptably during the weekday p.m. peak hour.' Accordingly, future deficiencies from the no -build scenario form the basis of our capacity -increasing calculation.
(2) The majority of projects were allocated based on growth's share of total future peak -hour trips at each project location, as provided in figures (3-7 and 5-5) and tables (5-1 - aaemative 2 volumes) in the 2005 TSP. Current trips were estimated based on 1.5 % annual growth.
Remaining projects were allocated based on growth's share of the increased capacity provided by each project.
All allocations to growth were reduced to the extent that any project corrected an existing deficiency or served development beyond 2020.
10% of sidewalk project costs were assumed to increase capacity. Project costs with both bicycle and sidewalk components were evenly split between the two, to which the corresponding growth allocations were applied.
(3) Current and post -improvement capacities, and existing deficiencies and years of capacity, as estimated by City staff. Reported roadway capacities were converted from average daily to peak -hour trips by applying the standard 10:1 ratio.
(4) The share of costs corresponding to pass-through trip capacity (49%) is removed from the improvement fee cost basis due to the fact that pass-through trips have been removed from the average daily trip forecast.
(5) Non -City funding (i.e., State, County, and grant funding) is identified in the 2005 TSP. Note: City staff reported a City share of 40% for the "OR 214 widening from west of Broughton Way to Park Avenue" project.
The 2007 TIF Project List identified the City's cost share for certain projects (including projects on the 2005 TSP).
(6) Based on 20 -city, average construction cost index (CCI). Source: Engineering News Review, December 16, 2006 issue.
1999 6,126.79
2000 6,282.76
2001 6,390.21
2002 6,562.73
2003 6,781.66
2004 7,308.30
2005 7,646.87
(7) Source: Cay staff.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22!2008
Project
Yr of Cost
raa .ur vo Uruaa a
2002 2007 2020
Current Future
Capacity
Existing
- ---
Serves
% Local
% City
Initial Project
2007 Project
Minimal SDC
Full SDC
#
Source (1)
Estimate
Project Title
Trips Trips w/ Project
Trips
Trips
Increasing %
Deficiency
Growth To Trips (4)
Funding (5)
Cost (1)
Cost (6)
Eligible Cost
Eligible Cost
44
2007 TIF List
2007 TIF Project List
0-0%
2020
51.0%
-
-
-
Upgrade Harrison Street between Front and
210
350
40.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
70.0%
900,000
928,335
132,566
189,380
47
2007 TIF List
2005
Settlemier
48
2007 TIF List
2005
Upgrade Hwy 211 from Hwy 99E to east City
Limas
1,375 1,481E2,2200
32.7%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
15.0%
2,400,000
2,475,560
61,870
371,334
49
2007 TIF List
2005
Upgrade From Street from Hazelnut to the
north City Limas
200
500
60.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
1,900,000
1,959,819
239,882
599,704
51
2007 TIF List
2005
Upgrade Hayes Street from Settlemier to
Evergreen Road
300
500
40.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
80.0%
1,200,000
1,237,780
202,006
252,507
52
2007 TIF List
2005
Upgrade Front Street between Cleveland and
Harrison
250
500
50.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
80.0%
1,200,000
1,237,780
252,507
315,634
Add left tum lanes on Settlemier at Cleveland,
300
600
50.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
100.0%
700,000
722,038
184,120
184,120
53
2007 TIF List
2005
Garfield and Harrison
54
2007 TIF List
_
2005
Highway 214 Environmental Assessment
1,425 1,535 3,000
0
0
48.8%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
20.0%
850,000
876,761
43,668
175,352
0.0%
2020
51.0%
-
Upgrade of Boones Ferry from Hazelnut to
150
450
66.7%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
2,100,000
2,100,000
285,600
714,000
55
2007 TIF List
2006
Crosby
Upgrade of Young Street to minor arterial
300
600
50.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
100.0%
1,100,000
1,100,000
280,500
280,500
56
2007 TIF List
2006
standards
Upgrade of Boones Ferry from Dahliato south
200
500
60.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
40.0%
1,300,000
1,300,000
159,120
397,800
57
2007 TIF List
2006
City Limas
58
2007 TIF List
2006
Extend Woodland to Butteville Road
0
350
100.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
30.0%
1,100,000
1,100,000
168,300
330,000
59
2007 TIF List
2006
Upgrade Cooley road to collector standards
150
300
50.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
60.0%
900,000
900,000
137,700
229,500
Upgrade of Country Club Court to collector
50
300
83.3%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
100.0%
300,000
300,000
127,500
127,500
60
2007 TIF List
2006
standards
Upgrade of Cleveland from Front to Setdemier
250
500
50.0%
0.0%
2020
51.0%
80.0%
900,000
900,000
183,600
229,500
61
2007 TIF List
2006
to collector standards
62
0.0%
2020
51.0%
-
-
63
0.0%
2020
51.0%
-
-
Total
less: Ending FY2007 TIF / SDC Fund Balance (7)
Total Future Capital Projects for TIF / SDC Calculation
68.9% 0.0% 2020 Avg 52.9% $ 48,180,311 $ 119,545,000 $ 123,066,269 $ 17,557,672 $ 34,086,129
6,535,765 6,535,765
$ 11,021,907 $ 27,550,364
(1) 2005 TSP = Woodburn Transportation System Plan. Proposed Transportation and Transit Improvements. In 2005 dollars.
2007 TIF List = TIF Project List provided by the City in February 2007. Capacity -increasing percentages identified for all projects.
TSP states "With these improvements, all intersections are projected to operate acceptably during the weekday p.m. peak hour.' Accordingly, future deficiencies from the no -build scenario form the basis of our capacity -increasing calculation.
(2) The majority of projects were allocated based on growth's share of total future peak -hour trips at each project location, as provided in figures (3-7 and 5-5) and tables (5-1 - aaemative 2 volumes) in the 2005 TSP. Current trips were estimated based on 1.5 % annual growth.
Remaining projects were allocated based on growth's share of the increased capacity provided by each project.
All allocations to growth were reduced to the extent that any project corrected an existing deficiency or served development beyond 2020.
10% of sidewalk project costs were assumed to increase capacity. Project costs with both bicycle and sidewalk components were evenly split between the two, to which the corresponding growth allocations were applied.
(3) Current and post -improvement capacities, and existing deficiencies and years of capacity, as estimated by City staff. Reported roadway capacities were converted from average daily to peak -hour trips by applying the standard 10:1 ratio.
(4) The share of costs corresponding to pass-through trip capacity (49%) is removed from the improvement fee cost basis due to the fact that pass-through trips have been removed from the average daily trip forecast.
(5) Non -City funding (i.e., State, County, and grant funding) is identified in the 2005 TSP. Note: City staff reported a City share of 40% for the "OR 214 widening from west of Broughton Way to Park Avenue" project.
The 2007 TIF Project List identified the City's cost share for certain projects (including projects on the 2005 TSP).
(6) Based on 20 -city, average construction cost index (CCI). Source: Engineering News Review, December 16, 2006 issue.
1999 6,126.79
2000 6,282.76
2001 6,390.21
2002 6,562.73
2003 6,781.66
2004 7,308.30
2005 7,646.87
(7) Source: Cay staff.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22!2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
TIF / SDC Project List: Interchange Management Area
Table 5
Project
Project Yr of Cost
% Capacity
Local % City Initial Project 2007 Project
Minimal IDC
Full IDC
ft Source (1)
Time Frame Estimate Project Title
Increasing (2)
Trips % (3) Funding (4) Cost (1) Cost (5)
Eligible Cost
Eligible Cost
2005 TSP
Proposed Transportation Improvements
2004
7,308.30
2005
7,646.87
2006
Reconstruct 1-5 interchange and Improve OR
1 2005 TSP
2005-2010 2005 214 between Woodland Avenue and Oregon
100.0%
100.0% 10.7% $ 50,000,000 $ 51,574,173
$ 5,500,000
$ 5,500,000
Way
2
20.9%
51.0% -
-
Total 100.0% 100.0% $ 5,500,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 51,574,173 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000
Total Future Capital Projects for Interchange Development Charge (IDC) Calculation $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000
NOTES
(1) 2005 TSP = Woodburn Transportation System Plan. Proposed Transportation and Transit Improvements. In 2005 dollars. List defines time frames as follows: Near Tenn = 0-5 years, Mid -Term = 5-10 years, Long -Term = 10-20 years.
(2) The 2007 TIF Project List identified the capacity -increasing portion of this project.
(3) As the 1-5 interchange improvements are designed to serve development within the Interchange Management Area specifically, pass-through trips do not apply.
(4) The 2007 TIF Project List identified the City funding total for this project. City staff reported that $2.5 million of the City's $8 million project share had already been completed.
(5)
Based on 20 -city
average constru
Dec. of Year
20 -City CCI
1999
6,126.79
2000
6,282.76
2001
6,390.21
2002
6,562.73
2003
6,781.66
2004
7,308.30
2005
7,646.87
2006
7,887.62
ction cost index (CCI). Source: Engineering News Review, December 16, 2006 issue.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Administrative Cost Recovery Calculation
Table 6
Net Annual Administrative Cost related to Transportation SDC (1) $ 5,000
Amortization of SDC Study Cost over 5 years (2): $ 5,963
Net Annual Transportation SDC Administrative Cost:
Estimated Annual Proposed SDC Revenues before Admin. Cost:
Citywide TIF / SDC
Interchange Development Charge (IDC)
Estimated Annual Revenue (Minimal SDC)
Estimated Annual Revenue (Full -Cost SDC)
Admin. Cost / Total Annual Transportation SDC Revenues (Min.):
Admin. Cost / Total Annual Transportation SDC Revenues (Full):
NOTES
(1) Source: City staff.
(2) Cost of: $ 27,310
at: 3.0%
over: 5 years
$ 10,963
$ 1,248,582
211,538
$ 1,460,121
$ 2,731,540
0.75% on all TIFs / SDCs
0.40% on all TIFs / SDCs
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Comparison of Charge Bases
Table 7
Comparison of Charge Bases: Peak -Hour vs. Average Daily Trips
Citywide Within
IMA
Peak -Hour Trip (P -HT) Fee $ 3,497 $ 4,605
Average Daily Trip (ADT) Fee $ 350 $ 461
Office Specialty Fast Food
Single -Family Apartment Building Retail Restaurant Supermarket
Land Use Home (104 units) (67,500 s.f.
(8,000 s.f.) (3,000 s.f.) (47,400 s.f.)
Pass -By Trip Factor for P-HTs (1) 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 64%
Generated Peak -Hour Trips per Unit (1)
1.01
0.62
1.06
1.49
2.71
34.6410.45
0.84
Fee based on Peak -Hour Trips
$ 3,532
$
225,487
$
351,711
$
49,280 $
181,704 $
70,164
Generated Average Daily Trips per Unit (2) 9.57 6.63 11.01 51.67 496.12 111.51
Fee based on ADTs without trip length factor $ 3,350 $ 241,332 $ 260,111 $ 94,039 $ 260,463 $ 74,935
Percent of Fee Based on Peak -Hour Trips 94.8% 107.0% 74.0% 190.8% 143.3% 106.8%
Trip Length Factor (2) ____+$
1.00
1.00 1
1.06
0.84
0.50
0.84
Fee based on ADTs with trip length factor
3,350
$
241,332 $
275,718 $
78,993
$
130,232
$
62,945
rercent of fee &lased on Peak -Hour Trips
94.8% 107.0% 78.4% 160.3% 71.7% 89.7%
NOTES
(1) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
(2) Source: 1999 TIF Study.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008