Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 1078-: . RESOLUTION NO. 10'1 ~ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER, TRANSPORTATION, PARIS, AND STORMWATER SxSTEM 1)EVELOPIVIENT CHARGES, INCLUDING 1VIETHODOI.OGIES THEREFOR ..:WHEREAS, .Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 223. and Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 11.12 authorize collection of system development charges for water supply, treatment and distribution; transportation; parks and recreation; and drainage and flood control, and the City has heretofore retained Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. (FCS Group) to make recommendations regarding system development chazges; and WHEREAS, FCS Group has reviewed its preliminary findings with the City Council- and the City Council has determined that new development will be served by such capital improvements and should pay a proportionate shaze of the cost thereof, as determined by the methodology incorporated herein; now, therefore, BE TT RESOLVED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ,. "IMPROVEMENT PLAN. The City Council hereby adopts, as its improvement plans required by ORS 223.309 and Central Point Municipal Code Section 11.12.080, the project lists contained in Exhibit A -System Development Chazge Methodology. Said exhibit defines the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of each system to which the improvement fee is related and lists the estimated cost, time, and percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the improvement fee for each improvement. The improvement plan adopted herein may be modified from time to time by resolution of the Council, as provided in Central Point Municipal Code Section 11.12.080. Section 2. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. Effective November 14, 2005, the water, transportation, parks, and stormwater system development chazges contained in Exhibit A shall be required. Section 3. METHODOLOGY. The methodology for the water, transportation, pazks, and stormwater system development charges is set forth in .Exhibit A, and such methodology is hereby adopted. ,~ ~ _` Y ~i ~..T. t_' Section 4. COLLECTION OF CHARGE. Effective November 14, 2005, the wafer, transportation, parks," and stormwater system development charges are payable to the City of Central Point as provided in Central Point Municipal Code Section 11.12. 090. Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ~~ day of October , 2005. ~. Mayor Hank Williams -(k Approved by me this ~ 7 day of l~c~~~; 2005. Mayor Hank Williams Resolution No. ~~~ ~ (101305) I. ~ ~.~ ~ .s •. EXI3I~IT A Contents: 1. Packet summarizing Iindings - 2. Issue papers 1-5 3. SDC Advisory Committee meeting summaries x ,:, Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. . 8201 164th Ave. NE, Suite 300, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 867-1802 .% ~- 1 -~ , '~-, ~~~~ ~..~, -~ ~ ` ~~ `,.~ \\ ~~~ J: i /'', i ~~ . ~~ ~ ~ /~' . to K ~ ` ~~ 41 r ;[r' „ ~~ ® x{: .~ ''~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ f ._r ~" ~ ~,"'. u 3 a' ,. ® ~'~~ `~, ~ ~,~ `, o •V• U ti ~. W .® 1~.~ ~. N O ti CO N N Lf) O ~2 J ~ ~ ~ c. 0 ~. ~ ~ o ~ No c° O ch +_• N ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ LLl Z ~ N N ~ c Q 0 U L c~ ~ ~U r- C ~ ~ O ~ N LL ~ ,~^ ~; ~. ,,~_ P: ~. ^~ W W ~ ~ >' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~U :~ O (~ . ~ ~ O ~~ ~ O ~ Q. ~ ~ ® p ~ r1 .~ L • ~ ~--~ ~ Q, O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ M~- ~..~ L 0 ~ ,~ ~. ~ ~ L V ~ ~ ~ L (n U.Q U.~ ~ ,~~., -~ , ;N ~ ~ O ~ ~- O ~ ~ O N U ~ ~ ~ o U U .~ ~ U~ ~ 'X (n N :a ~. w +-+ L O ~:U += N ~ ~~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ D a~ o t~ ~, N fU C fl. O 1Y, a ~~. i_ M ~ ~ o ~ ~ . -~ V O ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ U •- > ~ ~ ' ~ ® ~ _ / ~ ~ ~~ V 1 ~ w w ® ~~ ° ~ ® ~ ~ ~~ ~~ J\ ~` o ° ~ ' V ~+ ~ ~ V/ ~ w ~ M ~- ® Ai ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ O t~ M V 0 6Atl, ~ \ ` A W A N T v w _ ` •~ ~ '^ += O ® ~ T O ~ V/ ~. 3 U C a 0 C7 '' I ~ r ~ ~. i._ ',i ~~ ~ ~ !?~~ ® ~ 7~ ~~ I~ o P~yq Pad bV ~~dd Vd ~~ !v1 n~n, ~N ^~ ~1 r ~i ~9 'n .~.' `~ U C fl. O /rL~n 'V vJ U ~.~. Z ,: F ,, • ~, v~ ~ ~ ~ 4, ~ ~ A~A~~ e p~ !b0 ~ • P~ Fab o Py • Pe) U C~ C~ G~ +., 0~ ... h 4~ O __ ~, U C ~. O rL^ V U ~°'~ • ~ (~ ry • r-1 -.~ .---a ~ ~ •~ ~ v O ~~-d . p...~ ~® ~ ~ C/~ . ,r...j ~ y.,~ ~ wJ C/~ V ~~ -~ ~~ V 4~ 0 ~--~ O ~--~ CC3 C~ ~-1 . ,r..i ~-1 4, .'...~ -E--~ .~ .~ 4-~ r--a . r..~ C~ U CC3 C~ .~ ~~~~ `-F~-~I .~ .~ .~~- i6 ~ ~ ~~ ,~.., ~ .~ ~ ~ •~ v ~ ~ O B ~ ~ o n ~ 0 +, Q .~ o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~..~ ~ CC3 ~ ~ C~ .~--~ • .~~ ~--I ~--~ .o •~ -,. v c a 0 C~ v. r~ ci C a 0 U ~`"" O •~ U ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ '~ G U ,--, .~ v1 .+r ~ U .,.., '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~, :=~ w • O ~ O ~' ~ CUB U ~ U bA ~ 'T~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ W ~ a~ .,.., J..""-~( N ~ ~ l:; ~ v ~.~~ '~ 0 C~ -, ~ I::., l~ 1 ~~ /\~® •~ V ~1/ ~~/~AJ, _ V L.L M ^ N w I ^ a~ \AL`yT `~MJ I V C(`~AJr I `r~ ~A ® I (\w,,~1J ~a~~AJ\ I w ~' I • ® • i `I; V C i.~i. //Q /L/ V/ .. ,e.~ ~: rn U C a 0 C~ U .; ~ 19. / -~ ~; -F-J ••~,, ~J .E-+ . ~ ~_ ,~~~xx W VJ • ~~ .® U ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ C6 ~ ~ ® (~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ = f° U 0® ~] ~ U 00 ~ 0 U C Q O U ... v 2 0 .,_ ~: ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ O ~ .-+ U . ~ O O OU ~ N 'y..~ i-r ~'" . ~ ~ U Qy ~ O U U N a~ b ~ ~ 4.~r Oy '~ ~ v O ~ ~ ^~ ~ t+., b O ~ ~ O U ~ U ~ O O ~ U U ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ o ~~~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o v ~ o o a~ ~ ~ .~ o~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o '~ > o ' ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q • ~ ~~~ ~ ~ o °~ a .~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ s ~ ~, v~ ca.., ; ~ O ca..~ •~ s~ . ~ • ~ o V ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ O ~, ~" ~ o ~,~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ °' o O ~ ~ c~ cd ~ U • •~ b ~n y ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~" ~,,, X ~ ~ cC3 ~ N U N ~n c~ ^' `i' U ~.~ ~~,, ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ O ~ O vUi ~ ~ .,~ ~ O ~ c~ i ..~ U ~ r y ~ a~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ,-~ ~ .., 21 v a O LL ,. ~'~' N r .~ ~ ~I ~~ U U ~ U ~ H~ .--r C~ V V~ h ~ ~N ~ T U ~ H 0 ~ ,V ~ O ~ ~ .a ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~,, ~ ~ N •~-i U ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^, ~ 4~ `~ cd a~ ~ ~' . a: O ~ ~ U p + -' yam, •~ ~'' ~ o ~ ~ U U U ~ ,.~ bA ~ .G ~ '~ ° ' w ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~' ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ° '~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~" ~ "'~ ~ . c~ ~ ~ O O ~.. r--+ • ~ Qa v ~ ~ ..-+ ~ v~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~v q ~ ~ ~ O 1~1 h+~l C ~ .~ ~ ~ N ~ 22 ,. U C ~. O ~~, i y~~ M r i ; ~ y +~~; "~" ~' r { ~,}~ ip,^ f ~ ~J r ,i "r I~ ~ 1 --'-~ - ~ .~ ~ ~ U -v .b ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 U~~ 3 o c~ o~ o~ 3 a~~~ ~~a ... N °~' ~ ~ a ~ .~ ~ •~ O v .~ ~ ~0 'V L7~~~~anU~aa.~~:b~~ .~ -d ~ a~ ~ .~ o a O ' ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ,~' o a ,~ ~ a~ ~, ,~ ~"' ' o ° ~ .~ a~ ~ ~ '~ ~' a, ~ 3 4--,~~~o o o a, ~ ~ ~ .~ ... ~ ~ 'o '"a'-"3~a i o ~ ~ a~ o, b A an on 3 .•.b o ab .~.~?,~• ~' ~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ .~ ~ ~ O •`~' ~~ Q. ~ ~ o v '~ ~ .~ ~ a~i .O a~ ' r.., . , .. > ~, ~~a~ ~ v .~ U e _ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~; a~ r• ~ ~ ~ .b a i v '~' ~ ,~, ~ ~ ~ b ~ o 'N ~ ~ o a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ o ~ 4, ' 'd a ~ ° ~ o o ~ a i : ~ ~ •~ ° U ~ ~ .a? ~ ~ as 0 a N ~ ~ ~ ~ o .. ~ p 6" ~ ~ .~~' v ~ V ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ ~ .s : .^ a~ :-. ~ p ~ ... ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o.,,~ ~ x .., ~.., o ~ o a~ ~ ~ C/1 ~ n v r~ e • s ~ H M ~ U C a 0 J J /. J .~ a ~ , ~ ~ ~' ~, ~ ~, ° ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ... ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 3 0 ~ v a ' ° ~ o ~ ~ ~ A .~ ~, p ~ a~ o y on ~ , • ~ ~ ° ~ ~ a~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ . ~ , a ~w ~ ~C7A ~ a 3 ~ ~ wa , ~ E~ ~ . . v~ . . . ~ w . ~ ~ . . a o ~,byn ,~ '~° O ~ ~ ~ •~ CC ~ ~•(~N ~ ..d •~ i ~. ~ ~ ~ ° C, ~ cd ~ ,--~ ~ . ~ ~ U ...+ ~ ~ d ~,~A ~'~cn a, 3 ~ ° a, ~ ~ ~, ~ '" i°3~3 ~ o ~.~ a~ a ~ ~ ~ c a~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a o~ U ~ o ~ P~ o ~~'' ~~O ~ O, ~'0 ~ v ~,., ~ a ~ ~ ~~ C ~. ~ cd ~~. ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ H ~~~~ ~~~a, ~ b~ 3 ~ ~~ • • • e a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o °' x ~ ~ U ~ A ~ ~-v4..a ~ o .~•~.~ ~ ~ a~A ~ ;; b a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O cd ~; ~; ^ ~, s . ~ ~ ~~ , 3~~0 3 .,,, ~0 •? a~ ~ A vz ~~.., C7~o .~~~,~ ~ ~~°~ 0 ~ -d .o ~w . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, t. i . +- 1 ¢ j~ I '-1, ~. ,. i a~ b a ~ y o '~ ~~ b ,r ,-' U 3 3 A b o `~ 3 U ~ o~ ~~ .~ o ,~ ~~ ~ U ~ y ~ a ~zs ~ ~ ~ ~~ O b 'd °°.~ U CC ~J ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ x O k U 'p ~ oU o .n ~ `~ a a . ~ 3 3 r. ed .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ •~ .~ U ~ ~ .~ y ti a~ >, ~ ~ ~, b ~ .y o y ~ ~ U ~ ~ w ~. ~ on ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ 3 3 ~ -~ ~ .~ `~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, c. v r~ a ~ ~ .~ .~ .~ ~ ~ .~r RS U N M 7 ~`~, U C Q 0 C~ ,~ ;. ~ ~ ~ ® U • ^' o ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~~ ~Q U ~ -d vi ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ A ~ a , , ~ ~ aA ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~' o 3 °' '~ ~ ~ ~ i o ~ . ~ '~~°a~' ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ o ~ ~' °' o a ~ ~ ~ o ~-' o `~ .~ '~ ~~~ ~ .b o ~ ~ ' ~U 0 o~~~ o ~ ~ b ~A A a~ ~ ~ ~ o a . ~ U N O a ~ N ~ i. ~ C yy ~ O Q U ~ ' C. Q., ~ ICI ~ ~ v c ri. 0 2~ i (Cf U 2 6~ ti (U C Q O U C C C oo W ~ a n . M O M ~ 00 ch 1~ M ~ ~ N -~ ~ ~ o c c~ ~ ~+ a~C7 ~ e Q ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~O i a ~O Q ~ ~ a c~ V y~ c 0 ~+ ~, V ~C d ~i c E E OC C N Q a o ~n ~ ~ N ~ c1' O d4 H9~ ~A O U ~U (~ Q U a~ ~ ~ ~ c c ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ .ten U Q ~ 2'7 C O a+ ~' v V t~ c E O o. ,- C L N Q N a ~- u~ O N CO CO O M N ~ ~ N O U U N ~O rn c ~ c ~ .,?~ a~i ~~ o ~ a U ~ r' ~•z co t V c a~ ~. O a~ a~ c~' V) V) V) V) VJ Q~ ~ Q Q Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. Q. Q ~ Q ~ N ~ ~ M ~ C~ I` 00 bF} a~ ~i ~ c a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o bg 0 .n {f} 0 '~ C~ N O U ~i 0 U a~ .~ .~ Q a 6F} U c}a U C .Q O LL 2~ ~: ;: U C ^. O U i. V C d O r~~ E m iii (~ ® (~ ~ ® ~ a d' d' N N {f} M 00 Cfl ~- 6~9~ r 1` ~ ~ ff} A d7 N 00 ~ Cfl O 00 ~ N N r N i ~ ~ O 2 A ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ LL O ~ ~ ~ 29 ~1 , ~ i~ :'>>s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N O V ~ ~ ® L1') lI) Q ~ ~ A •a+ •~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N V N ~ ~ N _ ,~ ~ V ~ O ® (v ~} N N L +-~ A $ ~U C N ~ Q Q ~ U ~ a i u- ~ ~ ~' c ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ > ~ O ~ U Q O ~ Q N (V C Q O 'Ln V U c7 M N N ~ ~ (O CO CO O e V C Q V CO ~ CO ' O r N O r N (O 1,() M Q N N H9~ Efl Ef} Eft ~' C a U .~ c 0 ~ M O U M N M ti ti 0 ~ U tQ a ~ ~ > c N ~ ~ ~ N ,,,, ~ ~ U ~ m '~ C ~ LL U ~ ~ ~ . ~ U C .~ ~U ~ a fl- ~ U ~ ~ U ~ m ~ ~' 0 U (~ U ~ a ~ ~ ~ - Q N U C a 0 L ~. tVi. ~w ~~ .~ :'~ N N U C j~, ~~~~ ,v. t` ~rtc :, d (~ ~~ pp X73 ~ V <D N N 00 t~ ~ ~ O N ~ M 00 t0 e}' M N ~ '7 (O t0 ~- M E ~ O M O N r- M r O N ~-- M CO t0 V' M N f~ oD M O OD t0 ~ M N M ~ O O ~- d' O tD V' O) N r- M CD M tD ~ ~ (O ~ t~ CO ~ to ~ (O O ~ N M O ~ N OD ~ N <O O W tO r ~ 00 tp N (O ~' O (O ~ W N ~ M ~ O (D ~ O O ~- N O N ~ M LO ~ tD ~ r" M ~ O O e ~ ~ Q r n ~ U ~ 00 r 00 (O ~ O ~ O ti op M A O O) f~ (O M 00 r Op ~ O ~ O O (O M r.+ ~„~ N W ~ ~ . (D N O r OD r O d' N to M ~ M to ~- In [f N d' N N ~' O M I~ N 1~ .- 00 O N I~ O I~ N O O O> f~ E N O a> O O O to I~ O c- N .i O ~ . O to ~ O N OD ~ l(') ~ M ~ "' O - N Op M M N 00 ~ M t0 ~ - GO GO l[') 00 N ~ ' ' N O ~ fD ti ~ ~ ~ O M .~ O 0 w1 N ~ ~ ~ • a ~ r ~ M d~ O M 1A 00 N V N ~ ~ ~ ~ N a v v e~; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 C v ~ ~ O O ~A O u7 O O ~O O ~n 0 N 0 ~ 0 O 0 o0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 ao 0 O 0 to 0 0 to 1~ O O N ~ ~ O 47 N O f~ to N ~ O h M I~ M .- ~ 0 0 ~ 00 N M N r- r- ~ ~- ~ M ' .` V ~ ~ r M O ' O a "' ~. 'a N ~" d `~ `~ *' _ i ~ 3 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d ` N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6'Q Q J \ ~ °~ ~ ~ 'C ~+ L ', r ~~'~3 7 C C C Q ~ 0 fA N y ` N C W ~ ~ y ~ O '"' C ~ U fC O_ N V ~ +r .-. C O ~ O ~ N p ~ ~ ~ 4I O d C U fA N 'O ~ >+ C N ~ d _ N 7 U U ~ ~ 7 U ~ E d . aJ U U U N O ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ _ .U U N O. ._ ~ ~ ~- ~ y C .O V1 N E ~ bl 7 O QQ ~S ~ N ~ U N ~ C "' _- N O ~- ~ Q ~ +' C _ YN N 'p U d ~ U C O ~0 ~ O E IQ ,a ~ N ~ U ~ d N ~ f~ LO ~ O_ 4-. N _4 O 3 -_ lC a >, O p C U '~S U d O ~ T C ~ N > a "~S V _ C. O ~ '-~ ~' ~ N ,~ ~ V ~ O fl. U _ d ~ U . ~ Q ~ ' tq c ~ v N ~ U o N bi iri iii i/i ~ ° ~ ° ~ ° ~ O O O ~ O Q. ~ O. ~ C O C O C O : ~ 'm a ~ o ~ v c o c ~ 3 3 3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ > Y '~ ~ L ~ ~ _ ~v _ tv ,~ ~ o $ ~ ~ 'n. a °: ~ v° 0 ~ov vo vo .~ ' ~' ~` ' '~ -~ ~ a a a ~° a r1S riS ~ d iri iri iii iri iri iri iri iri 'vi i a a0i N N c C G ~° d ~ 'o -G -6 v N N N 0 ~ Y N Y N Y Y Y O Y N Y N Y N Y O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 7 ~ 7 ~ C C C N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ O ~~~ 3 ~ ~+ N d ~ ~ N N N N ~ N N N O N N N N N m m m j V U U U U U U U U U ~ ~ ~ 'O E E E D) O1 ~ ~ O c c c c c c c c c ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 a ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ U V V ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a r c c a a a o o s .E ~,~ ~; ;_ ~, ~:,"_ - J a ;.< ,~ -`ti;a~ . ~~ y~~ ~~ ~ '' t~~, ,r ,`,~ ~~t , ,`'~ ~~' ~~ ;~ ~y'~ ~i`r~l~. .~,1.r-,.,,~:- ';~ ~~ a ~- ~d ;~ , ,, ~'~ ` F ~ r> ' i ::'~ ~ ~- ~ ;.'. ~ a'{ ~~~' _, i nY A 1 ~ B O O to 'd' O O M O ~ 01 cr r N N I~ M O M M ~- M M . ;~ :, ~ ~ ~ rn N " ~ ~ O N ~ ~ N c0 ' N rn M ao ao c0 a0 N N r- N ao ~ i , ~ ~ „ p fl, Vi d co ~ ' N c0 (D ~- N N ~ tt ) ~ c0 t~ 00 aD f~ N N N rn N a0 ~ a? y~°z C i+ ~ ~ ~ .Q ~ ~ M 1~ ~ 'CC M h (D M ~ M ~h O (O CO N ~! t1') ~ O ~ (D ~~ ~, , ;~ 3 ~?~ p p 'p~ ~ i M ~- v D m cp 2~ ~- ~ ~ ~~Fsz ~ ~ i t ~`~ ~~+~~' ® ~~ ~` ~ , ~ ~ O O (O ~' O O OD O ~ O d' O O O O t0 d' V' I~ (D ~' r ~' ; ~„~ ~ N (D ~ ~' N f0 ~ N r' N ~' O O O O In t~ h t7 1~ O ~ ~ ~1+ ~ ~ ~ O (O ~ In 0 CO O O t1') O lf) O O O O lA O O ~ h ~ `y, ~ „ ' ~ O (D ~ O M f0 ~ O N ~- ~ •- t0 O O O ~ aD o0 ap CO N ~ ' O .O ~ r r (O e r r (~ N r r r O r r V N M M ti r It r; N ~ r• av ~ ~ r ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~~' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o c ® ';~ " O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~~; A ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-O C .' , 5 = d~ ui o Sri O u'i O ui o o ui o ui o 0 o ui 0 0 0 0 0 0 " .~ ~ r 1n In ~ r lA N ~ ~ r (p M M ~ M ~ ~ OO tly O N ~ ~ L . .' ~ , O V o .- r- ~ co c1 ~ _ . ~~~~i ~ ® ~. N!h ~ f j'1 1 ~ .~ ~y~ 'fl N C ..r ~, ® 11b~~ y ... . ~ = O a d ~ ~' ~ ~ }~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q , 9 . ~ 3 ~ ~ c o0 00 00 0o . ao o ao 0 ao 0 ao 0 00 0 0o 0 ao o O ao 00 O 00 o 0o o ao p ~ L N N N _N N N N N N N N N N N N N C ~ ~ Ih ~~; ',;, ~ d ~Y^ I i r:; ~~,;.~ \ .0 ~ ~ ... y d v t ~ r ~„ ~ ~ 3 0 .o ~ o 0 0 a ~~ " ~ ~ ° ° o ~ ° , ~ ` v v ~ a cQ ~" ~ ~' \ ~ b ~~~ ~~~, r ,~ ~.. 1I h ,~ i~ ® } d W ~ ,+ yf ~ i~i'^ ~ ~ cy0 g fr r ' N ~ W n~~' ~-i ~, "GaNC, , ~~~~ ~- V ~C to ~ f0 U (II ~ c ~ Y a , a1 ~~ , r~ ~. ~ ,a~ A~, } '~ V fl N N~ c v~ o ~ ' ~ c6 ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ , , .~~u ~; ~~ . ~ m .: a~ .~ n n co ~ 'c o v 0 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v, ~, ~ i l~ „. ~' ~ > V ' ~ C N ~ Y ~ ~ .O .~ ~ O ~ ° w O .o C O a ~f° i p v n S a o o . a m 3 ~ ca a '~ ~ ' ~ v °~ ~ ~ o ~ E 'c °> tb ~~:E ~ w ~' ~ ~ +r C c c c v ~ ~ ~ tL m o o O . rho{ J~ , ~,, _ . ~ O O O C C C C C N a 0 U ~ C C O '1'n ~ ` tT Z v r- ~ ~ ~ ri:~ "1 ~! ~ ~ m ~ ycw~ v y~~v tIS 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O a~ Q >, N Y Y Y Y c N v . a~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 'i a ~ v Q r e `` is ~ d N J N N 0 0 ~ 0 O °- N N ~i N Ci ~ V ~ m C~ ~ O c ~ m O Y S ~ ~~ ~ ( ~ y U ~ ~ ,_ y ~"j 7 7 7 tq ~ v1 ~ ~ ~ ° U U y C ~ ~ C O N r l~ ~, ~ . ~ ., x v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c c c ~ ~ `~ C7 rn r~ ~, ~ ti~~ ,,,, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U o. c c mac ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 a~ a> a~ a~ m ~ ~ ~ . '~ {' ` ~ ~ ~ m m m ~ ~, ~ , ,''~ ,,> d 15 3 3 m U U o. n. a ~ U ~ m ~ ri F- m C~ E ~.~..~ 3 M N O N ~U EA (O O ~ O C~ r ~ ~ ~ 00 N M~ N ~~ U.. i 1 r ~ c ~ o V } (q ~ c U ~U R5 m C_ C ~ ~ ~ U ~ O ~ ~a"~ ~ Q- U °o U U N ~ C •"' ~ u.. a iii iC ~ ' ~ o - a~i- N V C fl.' O U ."' ,u, -~ '~' H .~ Ri C .~' .~ a V ~ ~I~ N ~- ~ M N ~ ~ M ti ~ CO ~- ~ N C?~ ~ O N C7 .C W c 0 v '~ (~ N ~ -D C N ~ N L ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ E~4 O U '~ o U ~ ~ V ,~ ~ ~ C ~ C ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~. U ~ ; O , Q ~ a E ~ O d' 00 d7 M N N (f} dg .~; ~ N ~ f7i ~ U ~ ~' $ 0 ~ ~ N ~ C ~ .~ LL C N > ~ ~ ~ ~- O U ~ o z J~ 1 L(') N V C fl. O U :~ r~l~ L .C V c E o wW W a~i d~' ~~~ L L L a a a 0 0 00 00 ' M M E~ IEf-~ ^C W ~ C ~ ~ -° o L 0 .n C1~ ~~ L L a a co ti N O d' ER 69~ 0 d' O CO N O O U a~ m L .C ~ U Q iii ~ o. I-° ~-; - 35 '-~ ;. d ~ d' N ~ V ~ Q 'N ~ ~i ,C •~ ~ o V C ~ 00 ti O N M ~ ~ U ~ ~ t~f m. '~ C LL ~ U N ~ ~ o Q ~ ~ ~ ~ c E ~ ~ (n '~"~ L '~ U U U ~ E ~ ~ ~ i a O N ~ d ~ _. J ~ ~ N rn N 6~9~ 6F? rt7S U c .~ U C >+ ~-+ ~U Q U a~ O U O Q ~.. 36 c~ N fV C a 0 ~, i, d V ~ ~i m U ~ ~ ~ N •~ a v !E ~+ ,` ~~ V O a v v oa ` c~ ~° i a c~ ~ ~- ~ ~ r ~ o C Q ~ o ,O ,a O a ~ ~ 00 I~ d' ~ 00 O CO N (O 1~ ~ 00 to GO r'- ~ c~ O h f~ d' ti N O f~ N O to ti CO ~- M ti O ~ ~ ~ ~ h 00 Ln I~ N O GO In Ln d• M ~ ~- '~ h O r- (D OD r O In ~ f~ O N 00 ~ 00 O (~ I~ O 00 00 O f~ M ~ M d' st 1~ M to ~- c- O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ r- ~ 0o ~n ti cD ao ao ao co c~ o ti ~t o ~n ~ ao rn OD ,~ (O M Cp M ~- ~ O 00 O (O I~ O 00 (D N N d0 In N I~ M ~ M l17 ~ ~ ~ r d_ r O r ~ ~ 0 0 0 O O o o n o ~ o 0 0 r~ In co M ~ t,() ti 6() ~ f~ ~ 00 o h Y aoi `- ~. (q E •~ c c c 'w m N ~ ~ •~ ~ cNC c ~ ~ •~ N c ~ cB a N ~ ~ rn ~ co ~ ~ ~ o N a •~ c rn ~ N ~ c c o o c c ~ ~ ~ c c ` -a ~ ~ -a a ~ '~ ~ °~ ~' ~ t rn Y a~ N ~ Y N ~ 'O Y 'Y ~ Y m ~ U > _ ~ ~ U U ~ U ~ ~ U a~ V o voi m c`v ~ m c_ ~ U N ~ cYi ~ U m ~ C~ W ~ ~ f° W O O ~ d' ~} 64I 'C~' ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ N N ci 1~ ~ c o> 00 O ti M U ~ ~ ao 00 ti ti O o~ .-. ~ ~ ~ O_ ~ U 00 U ~ U c ~i rn ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~UU ~ N ~O ~ ~ ~ O` ~ ,~ Q "~ U U ~ V ~ U ~i ~ 'vi c~ H ~ ~ H _: - - 3'7 ' i W N .~ E-- L 2 1 N O ti N ~_ N o ` L Q U ~O ~ 0 U c 0 _~ V d ti E OTC 2 I..L L Q ~' O ti ~ (D M 00 O 6~} 6~ O U .~ .~ U a~ ~ ~ ~ c C L .~ O Q ~ O 7 d u. d O 2 I..L L ~ O N O (D O 00 M (O M 69~ 6F} O U U N ~O rn c ~ •~ L ~ C ;. O ~ ~ U ~ V C fl. O U r a _. 3 ~ +y r~ N d t8 S V c as 0 d as ~' 1 1 1 2 = _ ~.. ~ L L L a a a a~ oo t~ ~n o cfl M O M M M E{-} m u°~ ~ c a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .n ~ o L 0 .n I"' 2 L a M N 0 d' O C~ N O U O U a~ L c Q a J / 1 2 L a O CO M 69~ U c~ H 39 (V C ~. O rrL^^ vJ U ~, ,, d ~ (~ Q ~ ~ •A. C ~ ~ V d' d' ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ H9' Ef3 6F} (~} 0 0 0 O O O O Cfl t~ Cfl C ~ ~LA O ~ .L ~ ~ 0 r N N C a~ a a~ c a~ E 0 a E i ~i C C N ~ C a_ ~ 'v c .n .` .` ~~ }, c 0 ~ U N D ''-' c Z (~ ~ ~ a~ a~ 0 .Q _A U (~ Q c~ U c a~ .fl ca 0 Q J~ ~e 0 ch U C fl. O LL. '1 ~ d V O O (~ Q ~ ~ V ~ ~ v V C a.+ V ~O 0. O ~ V O O N N GO M O O O N N C N C a~ 0 a i ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ U C C ~ m ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ U ~ ~ U U ~ ~ d' (f-} 0 r CO M QO 6A~ O U C .~ N U C _~ U c~ a c~ U ca U O Q V y '7C r M ci C Q O p - G~ 0 0 O 0 0 a0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 a0 0 0 O 0 0 c0 o o O rn v LL') o o O o o N cn r` I~ 0 0 O 0 0 LO 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 o0 0 0 a0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O r~ .--T-~^*^ ' ;; ` (~ ~ ~ O ~ 00 0 0 0 CV ' 0 0 tD O ~ (O ~ ~ LA M O O O tD 00 0 0 0 N O ~ - ; }. i Q '~ O In O M sf' O tt N 'ct• ~ LL y N (70 ~ N ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ti N Ln ti r M O M n L'7 O M In h O M N h (O N O ~ LO ~ N N ~ VJ VJ m ~~' -~ ~ ',' ~~ i O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r` o o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . e 4' x X M ~"~ 0 O 0 N 0 O 0 Ln 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 N ' 0 O 0 fV 0 O Lb M 0 O o pD O) (O LL) f~ 0 tt 0 O. 0 Ln 0 O 0 h 0 N 0 0 0 0 ' 0 LC1 0 r 0 ~> c ® r ~ Ln c0 N N O Ln L'7 L1 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M Ln h Ln r 1~ O l( ) h t 1 O 1f ~'' ~~' ~; •^ ~ N ~ V N .- h i- N O M (O tt M r r N r (O 00 ~ ti ~ ~ O ti G0 ~- N ~ 00 .- (O O ~ M ~ > ~; ;~, .i < . _ ~~' O. O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~© ~,~; o' o ' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ,, o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 o v Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ s '_ C y Qi ~ ~ O ~' N ~D O N LA N O O O ~A O M N Ln O O N O O O M O O O 00 O~ tD a0 I~ a0 ~ M O Ln L1) h O Lfl h ~ N 1~ O O O u") LD I~ O M O O ' ~' d^ 4 ~ -+ N ti ~ N t0 M t0 ~ M ~ ~ ~ <D O h m O) M O N O t0 O ~ M ti Ll ) ~r. .~ ~ ~. r N r r ~ ~ ~ r `i } O ® ~' C ;~ " ~ '"' ,~~', 9 1. +• •~ s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 n_ a o v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 ~r 0 v 0 v 0 st 0 v 0 v 0 v o v v v o v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 v ~ ~ ,,: ®~ o a (9 o 4-, ~ . ,1 r. ... ~ ~ t ~' ~ ~ ti, ~ a ~ y ~ ® ~ _: ~ r 3 3 r~ v ` , ~ ~ ~ :>~~;~ a rn O t ~:;:a~ ~ ; y Y v ~ ~ ' ~ c n,. k ~`' Y 3 ~ m y a~ LA c ~ r ~` N~ -pp ~ O c ~ U r~F~~' ~ N ~ H Y ~ s~'~.,' .. ~ '~ p N .O O rk w ~ Y ~ .Q ~ L + a s ,t Y L C f0 'D C ~ ry , ti ~ . '3 N C Y ~ N C O .% ~ ~i y ~ ~ f9 d ~ ,~ C y Y fn s~` ® ~ ~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ 3 ~ 1 ~ ' ca ~ ~ ~ i a O ' ..i .. ~>> ~~)) N O O ~ ~ C O U ~ ~ ": ~N ,. :d N L ++ N w N f0 otS Q1 to ~ ` tT ~ ~ y C LC (A ~ r ~ ,~` rv ~ tb~ ~ O .+ + 'O 'O . ~ C ~ ~ , p ~ 7 N i C ~ + . ® y .3 3 ~ ~ t3 0 L c ca i ~ n X tJ .~ 'D c~ C N ~ ` a~ Y O c i ~ OI u Y c f0 a i Ql c a.~ Q ~ ~- o o a~ ~ c rn v ~ m ~ ~ U > ~ ~ U ~ ~ N C o ~ U ~ ~ N ~~ ,~ N Y 'p C f 0 ~ C fl. m ~ ~ .. ~'. ~~ -.r-. ' c i ~ -o ~'= a~ m `' ~ Y o f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a i a E a o ,~~ ~+ aci cou c' i 'c ~ s a ; }s o c i c u ~ > ~ 2 fA 3 0 ~ m ~ f i O ~ U ~ ~ ~ 2 > f6 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ p ) fn 0 ~ ~ i rr{{ ~' ~ O C` ~ O ~ H J V1 (n ~ Y t6 >' Y ~ > (n C N Z ' "p N ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ N c6 d N m C w ~ (C ~ N N m ~ M C ~ N a (0 O ~ N U 'c C O lNC 2 L x y a O In N ~ C tC to ~ _ d 2 : ~ Ln m o a ~ U v La °' .-. 1 '~~ ~ ~~ _ .a v~ i~ ~ c > c a~ •, ~ d a Lu o ~ ~ ~ (n v o v ~ ~ o ~ m v a i m ~ m i e i , ~ o o Lu c a~ c ~- d ~ Q m rn ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ d . .a T o ~ O ~ m c_ F fA ~ c ~ ~ ~ rn 2 ~ rn ~ (~ c y ~ m a~ a~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ d. < ~ -_ ' •1 1 O L O N +. to ~ ` ~ C d ~' ~ d ~ ~ - O O () U N d N w C X f"' ~ fU Y N ~ L +r . C L ~ 'O ~ > X ' F.. to in fll L L . . ~ l3 M C _ Z ' ~ Z ~ 2 W W 2 Z (n 2 2 ~ (n ~ ~ e,7. m S S H U m F- W G N r 0~0 M 00 U M ~ M fl. O ~ ~ ~ N C7 ~ U~ M' LJ.. M O O O N N N 'a- 0 0 ~~' 42 M M U C a o. C~ U N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ I` M CO O I` I` M O r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ c c~ ~ ~• a~ C~ ~ ~ Q ~ c ~ ~ a. U Q i ~ d~} d} O U ~ O , ~ ~U 3 a v ca ~ U a~ V ~ i ~ ~ l c ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ o ~ . ~ a ~ OC ., 4 3 A v V ti 0 a E Q. N O O (O ~ N ti ~ O 00 M Efl~ d~} N O U U N 'O rn c ~ c ~ ~ ~ 0 a a U ~ • 7 d' M tV C a 0 rrLnn 'V V/ U L .~ V c m ~. O d a~i t~ ~i' ~ ~ ~ L L L Q ~ Q 0 0 ' N N ~ r m a~ c N +r ~ c ~ ~ -° o L 0 J J L Q ti E,F} \° 0 d' CO L U U a~ L *n 'c Q a ~~ L a ti M r bF} UQQ ~5 c~ F°- .~~, , M U C ~. O ,,Lnn /V VJ U { ` d O d d V f~ M r-- Ei~} O CO Nd' N~ d~} d~} ~ ~ f~ Ef} ~.O Md~' d'N ~ N 6~}' 6F} d' O ~G~O d'~ ~ I` Ef} 6F} O ti M M f` f` M M 3 C~ M M CO CO M M ~ L e- ~ M Ln 0 CO M M ~ p ~ ~- M ~ s. v ~.+ d' i M d ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~- ~- - CV - M - 'd' - CO - 00 J-'J-' ~~ :~' i -~ ~~ .~ Y. r~~ t e a 1n O (j Q EA Eft EF ~ V ~ o 0 0 C ~ O O O ~ V N C ~ i i .~ ~ ~ ~ N (f} ER O C_ .0 C (~ N ~ ~ ~ N C ~x~ Q O W C ~ a~ ~ '~ ~i ~. c ~ o ~ U ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ o Z C7 Q ~ ~ ~ 6~ _A U tC d U v c O U „p O Q ~~ 46 co M V C fl. O. ,,Lnn ,V vJ U i ;a ~.. .,, ~, "'~` d ~ O ti N ~ O O . V Q ~ ~ (O N fF? bF} ~' C .Q .d O ~ V G ~i M N ~A O M (O CO 6~? rn ~ C U ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ a--' ~ 0 ~ - ~ C N m .a C LL U o U °- ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ _ d N U N ~ a ~ .-. f` N O O ~-- r- I~ 000 N M ~ ~ O U O C .~ N U C .~ a c~ U a~ O U p O Q ti M ci c a. 0 ~~ ,` 1 d', (,~ B O ® CO ~ O O ~- lf) CD O d' O ~ tfi ~ '~t ~ O O tt~ 00 ~ N M (O CO N M (D CO O ~ O O t~ ti M M e- 00 M f~ O A ~ ti l1') O N M 00 117 ~ N N O I~ O r- N N 00 M M M I~ l1') M O O 00 00 M ti t1~ ~ 00 f~ N V' N CO GO ~ ti 'fit 1~ N d' O CD ~ O ti d' (D CO CO O 'V' ti N 1` e- N Ln ~ O N ~ O O t[1 f~ (O O M M M to O CO M O ~ 0 0 0 (O (D N N ~ M I~ to 00 ~ lA M ti N N O ~ ti ~ M ~ N M N ti 0 O CD ~ N' N r1' ~„~ ~ ~ f~ i ~ M N M M CD h M f~ 00 O N M O M N O (D (~ 00 h O:' ~ V v O O O ~ rn cD cD Oi M h ui ~ ti O ti O r M N N st ~ op sty Q~ ' ~ Ln In M r ~ Ln N •- CO CO (~ M e- tf) ~ O N ~ N O ~ M l1~ 00 In ~ f~ M ~t 'Q' 00 M O A N N ~- CO ~- N O O p N ~ a v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C ~~ to 0, ~O ~ ' -p O O N O O ' M N (D ~' ~ O O ' N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 •~" ' Q ~ N M O ~- t1 ) .- ~ ltd In (p r ~ e} ~ 00 e- O e- O M In 00 d ~ M M O M M N ~ ~ O N st 00 O o ~ ~ ` V (~ o ~- r r r d v s ~~ c c oa C7 0 0 ~- X W ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ = ~ .'. ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O CO tt ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M M M M O O y', O rn m 3 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ri ri ri ai ri Sri ui ` '^ C~ N ~ r' ~ r r ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M M M M (D (O ~! O o .ir O > ' ~ ~ ~' c N 'Op .4; w N Y ~ ~ N > N N ~ .x O ++ N fC ~ ~ o c o C O O ~ E ~ d Q y O O N o N a~ O w% Y ~ ` U c C N 'p ~ . + C j ~ O ~ N ~ .M n' _ ~ l C U o m a~ a~ a~ m a~ m a~ a~ a n a c a? m °' E L1.1 0 ~ ~ > _a _a ~ a 'o n 'a a 'a n 'a a 'a a 'a n 'n 'a . 'a 'o. _ N ~ is ~ m ~ n a ' ~ - o- 3 iri °- °- . . ~ ~ ~ c o 3 co 'a ~ ° c o ~ a~ +. ~ a~ .~ ~ m ... ~ a~ +. ~ a~ ~-. ~ a~ .. ~ a~ ~. ~ a~ ~ ~ a~ .~ m ~' ° a~ ..r o a~ .~ o ~ rn ~ o c o o _ c iii o o M m O U Q ~ V O O N O N N N N N ~ ~ .~ C .II :.~ ~ cp r- _ N . cv CO N C c ~ m c E E E ~ E E E E E cv m m ' w ' o- ° `- > p ~ . w- ' rn m c_v cu cu iv ca m m cv ~ =a v x c rn °' 3 x ~ •X ~ ° U - ~ - ~ - ~ - m - ~ - ~ - m - ~ - ~ E E E ~ o ~ ° .. 'x c ° o `~ . ~„ m o ~ N a i m V ~ ~ E ~ ~ E E a ~ ~ N N N ?i v N ~ x ~C m U ~~ ~ N N N N ~ N N (A N N N (n N (A ~ ~ ~ N y N N > N ~ C N E i ~ ' V O V O O U U O ~ N U N U O V O U O U N U O U O U N V U N U (0 U (3 v O ~ ~ j N N 'L7 ~ :r:, ~ j c c co c ° ca co cv ca ca m ca co c~ a n a c °- ~ a~ > c c ~ rn . j v c c n c ~ n a a a a a a n n a~ a~ ° c 0 c . E ;,_, ~ .- o U o U a~ ~ o U ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ a~ ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o U 0 U ~ o U x W N a , ~ - o o ~ N - 3 ~ ~ a t m N m ~t m to m ~ a ~ Q N Q M Q ~f' a l17 Q CO a f~ Q 00 Q O Q ~ Q ~ Q .- Q r ~ N ~ M ~ c}' ~ ~ ~ O z C'7 U c n 7 O U) LL 4~ ~. • d (~ ~~ ^ m^ ~- 1` N ~ 0 r- f~ N ~ 0 ~- f~ N ~ 0 ~ t~ N O 0 ~ I~ N d) 0 ~ I` N O 0 N N I~ O 0 I` ti O ti ~- M ~ (D ~ M N h Qi ~ ' O O O .- (O (O ~ O O N In O (O ti M In O E O t!) ~' M N N l1') M O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- o 0 0 ~ ti o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In In O O O ~ N N N N N N O ~h ~ 0 0 ~ (O G0 O O O ~ v M M M M M M ~ ~f' O O O h M ~ 0 In ~- t~ ti ti ti ti ti O ~ r- M lC) ~ 'Cr 00 O (fl M 0 •O ~ Cfl t0 CO (O (fl (O l1) r 00 M O N ~ N ~ a U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 o r~ r~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 ~n ~n o 0 0 ~ N N N N N N O ~t r' 0 0 ~ (O GO 0 0 0 ~ C • M 1~ M ti M ti M ti cM -~ M ti In O ~ O ~ O M O ~ ~ r M d' ~ O O O ~ (O ~ M ~ '~ ~ (O (O (O (O (O (O 1n r 00 M O N V' 'C M ... ~ •+ + + t ~ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ ~ O "~ O O) O O O O O O O O O 0 '~ Ln .N Lf) L(') L() Ln L() In to In Ln In Ln Q ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d' ~' '~ 'Cp ti' ~ } i v ~ L R ~ a o to °O O tf' O ao o ~ ti C a t9 M M u~ o ~ a •+ C a~ E o c m o o ` C N N N ~ N ~ +~. C N ~ ~« N N ~ O ~ (0 t0 (G . N lC N ~ ' ~` ~ ~ C ~ C ~ U L L L L L L ~ O L y., O L ~ O J ~` ~ ~ a a a a a a o ' ~ m ~ .o ~ ~ ~ a -o ~ a~ o m c~ 0 L L L L L L Y O ~ Q O M ~ Q1 ~ O O) ~ O) V ' (~ ~ //~ VJ -p Vl ~/ ~ VJ L ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; J > > Q N ~ Q O ~ ~ . L L L L L L ~ CC ~ O ~C Q ~ ~ c"~a ~ c"~a coo c+-u ~ ' c N Q V o ~ Q U 3 0 ~ ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ', 'z ~ c i~ ~ c~ c n z m C7 a O O ti N O EA O O N e- ~- tG 1~ 00 ~G N M ~ ~ ~ M N N O M t0 m ao L{~ tC ti N r d' 00 N N M tC M Ef} .-. .N.~ N V m ,D V O C ~ c ~ .O ~ U m ~ ~ LL ~`~'' ~ m ~ ~ d U °o ~ U N O. ~ i/i ~ N Fes- a ~ 1-~- M U c a O LJ.. 49 ~ ~} . N V W `' , ~_ `V ~ ~ r® L M ® ® ® `', M ~ y ~"r ~ A `V ~ ~ ~ a ~ V ~ , ^ V , .. L ~; ~' .. ~ ~ ^, W p~ `v ^® ^^•• L ~ ~ ~ ~ V! vJ ,~, 5 0 J y V V ~a:x• ~.~ ~i ~, H V N i+ C d H d R{ ~ +-' ~ (fl 07 O O M N I` tD r O O N to In N M O O H O M '~T CD (O M O a0 ~ ~- (~ O h N to O I` O (~ N. I~ to O (fl M o0 N N ~- B O O In O~ M ~ O _ _ - _ - _ _ _ M ~ r O O O DD OD O O ti ti t0 (~ to ll') Lf) lf) l() N r ~- r ~{} 69 Ef} EA ~{} 6F) E!? lfl Efl EA EA !f} EA Ef? ~} EA EA tf~ d4 O N O ~t ~t •- O ~- (~ O l0 N ~ ~ 00 ~t CO ~ O N O to d' ~D ~t to O O M~ O ti d' O O O d' O ~ O ~!' 00 N O O a0 O (O (O t~ (D ~ M I~ X 0 0 t!') ` to 00 ~- "N N M I N r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d4 O ~-- N r M~~~ lC) In I~ (O N O t0 O H O ~ ""' NNM(D•-Or-OCDf~(~(OM`~i'aoOO ' N ~ ~ M r M M N ~ N ~ ~ r r ~ ~ CV r ~- O a c t!7 to In (~ ~ N ~ M O O O N O ~ ~ ~ O M A O O N ~~ M O ' ' ' ' L fit N t* ~ NOD ~ O N tt ~ ' M ' ' ~ O r r r N N !D N W ~D N (O N O ~' N O to N (O N i~ O . ~ In (p O (~ O to (p r O M ti O LI') O (D O ~~ In 3 (D ~?' 1n 'c1' O N ~ O (~ 00 O d' O M ~f' O (D o0 ~ ~ ~NNN~NNMNN~-NM~N~~r-~- M CD N O (~ (D (~ f~ O O O d' O M ~ M r O ~ ~ M f~ M In t1') M r o0 O M e- (O O N O N O ,d o0 ~}' a0 r M O~ O ~ (~ N M ' O ti O ti N~ ~ ~ M M N N M M ~ N ~ N N ~- N ~-- > N N TJ N u ~ ~~ ~ ~' ^ N C ~ u ~ O ~ ~ C~ O M 7 _C - mo o ~ LL O L n- Ja o 'n V ~ ~a o ~U ~ ~ • a~ x c •+ C E a - ca C A N ca (~ U ' O~ O v N N C O '~ V O N ca a N m o3 O t6 O~ a L ~ L ~~~ O ~i-cnUm¢i-Uwa~Ucnwa.c~~Y~ 5~ r- ~t c,i c a 0 LL .C v . 'o ~ o > o a N1 ~ ~ y O N 00 ~ oD ~ N d ti c ~ w ~ o ,~ c O N t N N ~ ~ ~ E D. ~ N E N '`o U ~ o w ~ N ~ ~ A ~ N U ~ U c : ~ ~ ~ v ~ v. y ~ ~ ~' d t0 O N _ fa ~ ~~ ' N ~ ' N o ° u> w.. y O rn O w o t ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 i y fV w V - "' U a n ~ p p C ~ ~ C C ~ N ~ y 7 M y Q '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 3 N x ~ ~' m ti a x ~ E ~ ~ in c ~ N ~ V c~ ~ ai N ;a N o o ~ o L 6 U C ~ ~ o ~ n ~ n ~ o . ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 w aka n a n ~ H 0 z ~"" ~ " ~ t f ~ ~ CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 ISSUE PAPER #1 SDC Reimbursement Fee Cost basis ' ue'~;' ~ f; :A. ~4 ~ ~: Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that the reimbursement fee calculation methodology must be based on: (A) "Ratemaking principles employed to fmance publicly owned capital improvements; (B) Prior contributions by existing users; (C) Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons; (D) The value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of the existing facilities; and (E) Other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee." This issue paper addresses two questions regarding the application of this language to reimbursement fees for the services considered. First, what is an appropriate measure of the "cost of the existing facilities" -- or the related "value of unused capacity" available for growth? Second, how should one consider in the calculation prior contributions by existing users, and gifts or grants? Regarding the first question of considering the cost and related value of (unused capacity in) the system, there are several alternative approaches for establishing the initial reimbursement fee cost basis: • Original cost less depreciation. Use the original cost of existing facilities less the accumulated depreciation on those. facilities as a measure of value. • Original cost. Use the original cost of existing facilities at the time they were constructed. a Replacement cost less depreciation. Use the replacement cost of existing facilities less the accumulated depreciation on those facilities as a measure of value. e Replacement cost. Use the escalated cost of existing facilities as a measure of what they would currently cost to construct. ' ' ' ~""'~ In considering these alternatives, it is important to note that the purpose nalysts :~> of the reimbursement fee is not to fund the replacement of the system. System replacement is commonly funded through rates. Rather, the purpose of the fee is to pay back the rate (or tax) payer for their investment in available capacity. The reimbursement fee represents a "buy-in" to the cost of unused capacity in the existing system, to catch up with the rate /tax payers who funded the existing system. The original cost less depreciation approach recognizes that the value of ~~((~' FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 1 ~b Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point & Talent\P,dvisory Co~m~ttee\Issue Paper#1 -Reimbursement Fee CosCBasis.dot 52 ~; ..;, CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 the system to the new user may be better reflected by depreciated cost, because the new user is connecting to assets of diminishing useful lives. However, this approach discounts the investment made by existing system users. Existing customers have borne the full cost burden of building excess capacity for future needs, with little benefit to themselves, and should recover those costs. If depreciated cost is used, then existing customers are not fully reimbursed for their investments in excess capacity. The original cost approach simply requires the new user to reimburse existing rate /tax payers for their investment in the system - in terms of the invested cost. This "buy-in" puts them at par with the existing rate / tax payer. Further, by using unadjusted original cost, it protects the new user from paying both a full share of the existing system plus a full share of the cost of expanding the system. It is clearly an approach that considers the "cost" of the existing system. A perhaps valid alternative would be to use- replacement cost less depreciation. In order to address the issue of value, both to a rate /tax payer and to a connecting customer, replacement cost provides a valid measure. The current replacement cost of the system must be appropriately discounted for depreciation in order to incorporate the concurrent reduced useful life of the asset. This approach clearly considers the "value" of the existing system. The replacement cost approach (unadjusted for depreciation), while an adequate measure of the cost of replacing the system, certainly overstates the value of the system to the new user. We do not recommend this approach, because it does not "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities" - as also required by Oregon Revised Statute. Rather, it ignores the fact that users of the system pay for the replacement of the system as needed in ongoing rates /taxes. It should not be new development's responsibility to pay for the replacement value of a system if rates /taxes also are being used for system replacement. Once the system valuation approach is chosen, it is next necessary to consider in the calculation prior contributions by existing users, and gifts or grants. It seems clear that gifted or grant-funded facilities were provided at generally no direct cost to rate /tax payers. As such, their costs should be deducted from the reimbursement fee cost basis. Prior contributions by existing users are a more complicated issue. Prior contributions by existing users of the transportation system consist primarily of gas taxes and previously paid SDCs. For parks, these contributions have likely been made through general tax sources and previously paid SDCs. When considering deducting taxes from the fee basis, it is most important to acknowledge that all parks and transportation system users pay taxes -whether or not their properties are developed. Hence, a developer can argue that he /she has already paid for a share of that portion of the system that has been constructed with tax ,- ~l FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 "~ Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point & Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #1 -Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis.dot J J CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 revenues. This is unlike a water, sewer, or stormwater service, in which there are usually ratepayers to catch up with and reimburse, and is a strong argument for reducing the reimbursement fee cost basis by the corresponding portion of system value that has been funded by tax sources. On the other hand, a strong argument can be made that previously paid SDCs need not be deducted from the reimbursement fee cost basis. If the previously paid charges have resulted in a fund balance, that balance is earmarked for future projects and has nothing to do with the amount that should be reimbursed to existing users. If the previously paid charges have funded facilities that still have unused capacity available for growth, then the value of that capacity must be included in the cost basis in order for new customers to pay for a full share of the capacity that will serve them. We recommend that the Cities use unadjusted original cost as the measure of the cost of existing facilities -- and the related "value of unused capacity" available for growth. We further recommend that the Cities deduct from the reimbursement fee basis the cost of gifted or grant- funded facilities, as well as the cost of those facilities or portions of facilities funded with tax revenues. Finally, we recommend that the Cities include in the fee basis the cost of facilities funded by previously paid SDCs. FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 3 i1 ~ Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point & Talent\Advisory Coo rmittee\Issue Paper #1 -Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis.dot 54 a. , ~~ ~ ~,, .,_ __ CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT >3< TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 ISSUE PAPER #2 SDC Improvement Fee Cost Basis Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that the improvement fee calculation methodology must consider the cost of projected capital improvements "needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related." The law further requires that the fee "be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available system capacity for future users." In this issue paper, we evaluate a number of approaches that can be used to identify and allocate the growth-related portion of a project cost to the fee basis. Three alternative approaches to determining the capacity-increasing, growth-related, portion of planned project costs are provided below: • The "capacity" method. The cost of a given project is allocated to the fee basis proportionately by the capacity made available for growth. • The "incremental cost" method. The cost of the project being considered is first estimated as if it were to be constructed to meet existing needs only, then the difference between that amount and the project total is allocated to the fee basis. e The "causation" method. If construction of a project is "caused" by growth, then the entire project cost is allocated to the 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 (transportation) example, assume we are allocating the $1 million cost of adding a lane to an existing street to meet existing demand as well as the needs of growth. If the new lane provides capacity for 500 trips and 200 meet the existing deficiency and 300 are for growth, then the allocation to the fee basis would be 300 / 500 = 60% of $1 million, or $600,000. Ideally, the most directly applicable measure of capacity demand would be used as the basis for allocation. For example, estimated growth in daily or peak-hour trips is commonly used to allocate transportation projects. Projected population growth (and resulting dwelling units) is commonly used to allocate parks projects. As an aside, it is also acceptable to use a reasonable and understandable substitute for such information, if the demand measure is not readily available in a complete, accurate, and usable form. Under the "incremental cost' approach, the cost of the project being considered is first estimated as if it were to be constructed to meet existing needs only. The estimated added cost of sizing it to meet the needs of growth is the portion of the project cost allocated to the improvement fee basis. Using the example above, it might be that the cost of adding the lane would be $800,000, if it were needed only to meet If ~ FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 1 `:_ >`1 Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point 8 Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #2 -Improvement Fee Cost Basis.dot 5 r~ .> ,. CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 the existing deficiency. In that case, the added cost to meet the needs of growth would be only $200,000. Using the incremental cost approach, only $200,000 would be allocated to growth as part of the improvement fee basis. Under the "causation" approach, a second step is added to the allocation process, after first determining that the project(s) being considered has a capacity-increasing element. In the second step, we ask the question "would the project be necessary if not for growth?" If the answer to this question is "no", then we would allocate 100% of the project cost to growth and the improvement fee cost basis under the rationale that growth is causing the project to be constructed. If the answer is "yes", then we would use either the incremental cost or the capacity method to allocate the project cost between existing development and growth to determine the project cost share to be included in the improvement fee cost basis. Of the three allocation methods, the causation method most aggressively allocates costs to growth. It is potentially the most difficult to defend because it, in essence, allocates the cost ofnon-capacity increasing portions of projects to the improvement fee cost basis if growth causes them to be constructed. While a logical approach, it may be open to challenge due to the specific language contained in ORS 223. The incremental cost approach, while easily defensible, very conservatively assigns costs to growth. It will usually result in the smallest allocation to the improvement fee cost basis. The capacity approach, easily defensible and commonly used, is easy to understand and apply. While less aggressive than the causation method, it usually results in an appropriately higher allocation to the improvement fee basis than the incremental cost approach. Capacity Approach Sample Project Total Cost $1,000,000 Percent of project addressing existing deficiencies 40% Percent of project required to meet growth needs 60% - o 0 Improvement fee-eligible cost $600,000 The improvement fee-eligible share is determined by relative Incremental Cost Approach Sample Project . FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 •' t~ Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point & Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #2 -Improvement Fee Cost Basis.dot ~ n J •s .' _ ~ ~~ ;,, CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined ~SDC Study August 21, 2005 Cost to build for existing needs $800,000 Improvement fee-eligible cost $200,000 It should be noted that estimating the improvement fee-eligible share of any project using the incremental cost approach may be difficult, due to the requirement that project costs be estimated not only in total, but also to meef only existing needs. Also, if it could be applied, growth would pay only the marginal cost of constructing each eligible project as a result. Causation Auproach Sample Project 1 Project Cost $1,000,000 Would project be built if no further growth? No Improvement fee-eligible cost $1,000,000 Sample Project 2 Project Cost $1,000,000 Would project be built if no further growth? Yes Percent of project addressing existing deficiencies 40% Percent of project required to meet growth needs 60% Improvement fee-eligible % 60% Improvement fee-eligible cost $600,000 We recommend that the City utilize the "capacity" method to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Although many communities in Oregon have considered the causation approach, most use the capacity approach or a variation to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. -, i ti FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 3 'r {~ Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point & Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #2 -Improvement Fee Cost Basis.dot f ~ CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 ISSUE PAPER #3 SDC Credits ~~?$~, G ~ ;; ~~ Oregon Revised. Statute 223.304 states that, at a minimum, credits be provided against the improvement fee for "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." [SDC law as it pertains to credits is provided as Exhibit A to this issue paper.] Given these legal guidelines, what is a reasonable SDC credit approach that meets statutory requirements and cities' general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of capital projects, and orderly but sustained development? q ~?~' ~ Oregon law effectively establishes the minimum that a public agency must do with regard to SDC credits. However, the following language in ORS 223.304(5)(c) has opened the door for cities to offer more than the legal minimum. "This subsection does not prohibit a local government from providing a greater credit, or from establishing a system providing for the transferability of credits, or from providing a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, or from providing a share of the cost of such improvement by other means, if a local government so chooses." Issues and alternatives surrounding credits typically revolve around the following questions. Common alternatives include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. How much should be credited? • The amount of the current project improvement fee; • The full actual cost of excess capacity even if greater than the improvement fee; ~~-~'~. FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 1 t, Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point 8 TalentWdvisory Committee\Issue Paper #3 -SDC Credits.doc . _, .__ . ~~ 5~ .;. s~,. ,, ~:< -. °CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 • The full cost of excess capacity even if greater than the improvement fee as a portion of the planned project cost. 2. Should credits be redeemable for cash? • Allow for credits granted to be redeemed for cash, if fund balances allow; • Grant only non-cash credits; • Provide cash credit redemptions for a portion of credit issued; • Provide cash redemption at a fraction of full value. 3. Howe should the cities handle requests for credits for the construction of public improvements that are not in the adopted capital improvement plan and list? • Do not provide credits for construction of improvements that are not in the adopted capital improvement plan and list; • Provide credits for the excess capacity in improvements constructed that are not in the adopted capital plan and list; • Provide credits for the excess capacity in improvements constructed that are not in the adopted capital plan and list, but only in special circumstances. 4. How can the cities create incentives for developers to construct needed improvements as needed rather that wait for credit opportunities? °' " a Credits for develo ment make sense as the encoura a rivate ente rise i~iahksl ,~:'G~ i,, ~~,~ p Y g P rP to solve, on a prospective basis, community needs. However, to the extent that a city cash reimburses developers or provides credits in excess of minimum legal requirements, the practice may lead to a loss of institutional control over the construction of projects in the capital plan. By constructing projects for credits (and/or cash reimbursement), a developer is imposing a construction schedule on a city, which may be in conflict with the city's established priorities. Due to such credit practices, SDC funds may not accrue as expected and the schedule of the CIP. may be inverted or shuffled. This may be acceptable in some cases however it may not be acceptable in others. It may result in the equivalent of building floors before pouring a foundation. The fundamental choice the cities face into either grant full credit or reimbursement, potentially in excess of the legal minimum and acknowledge that this will lead to occasional re-ordering of CIP projects or to constrain the credit policy to the legal minimum. In this context, analysis on the specific questions raised above is provided below. 1. How much should be credited? It is our interpretation that the legal minimum would require a city only to grant a credit up to -the amount of the improvement fee that would have been paid, while the extra ~' ' FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 " f ~"'d Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point ~ TalentWdvisory Committee\Issue Paper #3 -SDC Credits.doc ~ ~ ., ..~ 9 ~~ ~ CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 capacity portion of the cost of constructing a qualified public improvement might be substantially more than that. In this case, the full cost of that extra capacity is truly a saved cost to the city in question. One way to prevent cost over-runs from impacting city resources for other projects would be to credit the over-sizing cost - but as determined by the lesser of the actual cost and the city-planned cost. The credit amount could also be set through mutual agreement between a city and developer in order to protect a developer from being held to outdated project cost estimates. 2. Should credits be redeemable for cash? Cash redemption of credits diminishes city cash flows, and limits. a city's ability to prioritize and construct capital projects as scheduled. A compromise could be to provide cash redemptions but at a fractional value. This would largely compensate the developer for the costs of the improvements while also providing some relief to the City for costs that are created when projects are built out of preferred order. A cost for disruption of the plan might be another way to characterize this offset. How should the cities handle requests for credits for. the construction of public improvements that are not on the adopted plan and list? Granting credits for the construction of projects that are not on the project list used to calculate the SDC seriously jeopardizes the ability of a city to fully recover remaining SDC-eligible project costs. Done on a routine basis, this practice would make it almost impossible for a city to construct its planned projects with SDC receipts. How can the cities create incentives for developers to construct needed improvements as needed rather that wait for credit opportunities? It is our understanding that in some cases, developers have constructed portions of "qualified public improvements" on a piecemeal basis to accompany small or portions of developments. In so doing, they have been able to provide "extra capacity" without triggering the required construction of an additional increment of capacity (that would use up the "extra" capacity and disallow it for credit). For example, by providing a segment of a four-lane road, fronting a development, a developer may be providing extra capacity that is credit-eligible. There are two ways to address this issue. First, by ensuring that needed improvements are thoroughly planned, then credits may apply even in the case of the developer who constructs a needed improvement that is "triggered" by the size of the development. Second, one could issue credits for segmented construction of qualified public improvements only upon completion of the entire improvement. R tn~et;d~troli We recommend that the cities maintain / establish a credit policy that meets minimum legal requirements, except in the case of granting credits in excess of the improvement fee when warranted. We believe that it is FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 3 Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point 8 Tal~t\~Ivisory Committee\Issue Paper #3 -SDC Credits.doc ~;, V .o, ~, _ ; ~:;, - ., a` ;' -~ CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT 8~ TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 important for a city to retain as much control as possible over the prioritization and implementation of its capital plan(s). 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; ^ include no cash reimbursement; ^ be for planned projects only; and ^ be provided only upon completion of a "qualified public improvement". ~~' FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 4 t. Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point & Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #3 -SDC Credits.doc J V ,.. , ;; CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 Exhibit A Oregon Revised Statute 223.304, regarding SDC credits, provides the following guidance. "(4) The ordinance or resolution that establishes or modifies an improvement fee shall also provide for a credit against such fee for 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. (5)(a) The credit provided for in subsection (4) of this section is only for the improvement fee chazged for the type of improvement being constructed, and credit for qualified public improvements under subsection (4)(b) of this section 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 applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit under subsection (4)(b) of this section. (b) A local government may deny the credit provided for in subsection (4) of this section if the local government demonstrates: (A) That the application does not meet the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; or (B) By reference to the list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, that the improvement for which credit is sought was not included in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309. (c) When the construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount greater than the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving development approval, the excess credit may be applied against improvement fees that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. This subsection-does not prohibit a local government from providing a greater credit, or from establishing a system providing for the transferability of credits, or from providing a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, or from providing a shaze of the cost of such improvement by other means, if a local government so chooses. (d) Credits must be used in the time specified in the ordinance but not later than 10 years from the date the credit is given." ' FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 5 Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point & Tale~\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #3 -SDC Credits.doc ~~ 1 ~ ~ . - `~ :1 • CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT 8~ TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 ISSUE PAPER #4 SDC Unit Bases _~e 4,~"~' ~":~; ~~ There are a number of different, valid, bases for each service's system development charge (SDC). For example, transportation SDCs are often based on either peak-hour or average daily trip generation. Given the data available and the objectives of the cities, what is the best basis to use for each of the transportation, stormwater, parks, and water (Central Point only) SDCs? Transportation ~. ~~ The following are the most commonly used and accepted bases for transportation SDCs: ® Average daily vehicle trips. Average daily vehicle trips are defined as -the average 24-hour total of all vehicle trips to and from a site. ® Peak-hour 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. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes a detailed compilation of trip generation estimates by land use derived from survey data. It is possible from this information to calculate average daily and peak-hour trip generation projections by customer using available information such as customer type (land use) and building square footage. 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. The number of average daily trips might determine the need for road maintenance, but the peak-hour estimates more directly determine the needed size of the system. Pass-By or Linked Trip Adjustments There is documentation presented in ITE Trip Generation, 6th Edition, that a significant percentage of trip ends associated with specific land uses are a result of linked, or pass-by, trips. Linked trips are interim stops between the trip origin and the final destination. Such stops count as trip ends for each interim destination, but the impact on the system is as a single trip from the trip origin to the final destination. It would be reasonable to incorporate linked-trip adjustments into the revised SDC structure -particularly for retail land uses. The strongest ITE information on pass-by trips is for retail land uses. Stormwater The following are the most commonly used and accepted bases for I~(~ FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 1 i ?"t`f Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point & Talent A~lv~~ory Committee\Issue Paper #4 -SDC Unit Bases.doc J lV - n ~ CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT 8 TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 t stormwater SDCs: e Impervious surface area. Impervious surface area is developed area that retards the absorption of water into the ground. In communities where measurement data on impervious surface area is not available, or is not used, storm drainage SDCs are often based on the following: ^ Gross parcel size ® A combination of gross parcel size and assumed density of development, as determined by land use. Measured or estimated impervious surface area is often used to approximate contribution of runoff, and is an accepted measure of that contribution. Approaches based on gross parcel size or a combination of gross parcel size and assumed density of development, do not generally provide the same level of accuracy or controllability as the impervious surface area approach. They can serve as good interim bases until measurement data is obtained. Parks Parks SDCs are most commonly charged on a per dwelling unit basis. Some parks charge structures distinguish among types. of dwelling units, e.g., single family residences, multi-family dwelling units, etc., based on their differing occupant densities. [Single family residences typically have more residents per unit than multi-family units.] Some parks SDC structures essentially treat all dwelling units the same, featuring a single SDC per dwelling unit, regardless of the type. The argument most often made for structuring the parks SDC without distinguishing among types of residential development is that multi- family dwelling units do not have access to yards and play areas on their premises as do single family residences. Therefore, even though there are fewer people per dwelling unit in multi-family units, the argument is that they use parks as much or more than single family residences. While perhaps true on an anecdotal basis, it is also true that many multi-family dwelling units have access to common areas that may include swimming pools and play areas. The number of occupants per dwelling unit (density) is a quantifiable and reasonable distinction among residential types. Water (Central Point only) The following are the most commonly used and accepted bases for water SDCs: ® Estimated demand. Charges based on estimated demand often take in to account such factors as industry standards by business type to project future usage -usually expressed as a number of equivalent ~" ~ FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 I~t~ Telephone 1425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point & Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #4 -SDC Unit Bases.doc W W ~. 64 ~,~~ j w , {' '.. CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT 8 TALENT ..Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 residential units (ERUs). ^ Potential demand. Charges based on potential demand often are based on measures of capacity, such as meter size and associated flow capacity and/or fixture units. These measures serve as estimates of potential demand, as opposed to demand estimated using non-physical characteristics. Meter flow capacity is directly linked to each customer's potential water demand not just average use. As meter sizes increase, flow capacity increases exponentially. Therefore, associated charges increase significantly from meter size to meter size -with the exponential- change in potential demand. Charges based on meter size are generally easier to calculate and administer than fixture unit charges -also measures of potential demand. Charges based on estimated demand may not adequately represent a true capacity share. Even if the charge approach includes a policy for subsequent adjustments (increased charges) if actual demand exceeds estimated demand, such adjustments, if done, at a minimum require staff tracking and administration. ~~.Y.nr~~n System development charges are intended to recover from growth the share of the capacity needed to serve it. Based on this general understanding, we recommend the following: ^ Transportation. We recommend the use of peak-hour trips, with a linked-trip adjustment, as the basis for transportation SDCs. ^ Stormwater. We recommend the use of impervious surface area as the basis for the stormwater SDCs: ^ Parks. We recommend the "per dwelling unit" approach, with distinctions for the type of residential development. ^ Water. We recommend an approach based on meter flow capacity as a measure of potential demand. ~' FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 3 II( 'a Telephone (425) 867-1802 F:\Central Point &Talent\AdvisorycCto~mmittee\Issue Paper #4 -SDC Unit Bases.doc .- -' - V h ~~ r CITIES OF CENTRAL POINT 8~ TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 ISSUE PAPER #5 Nonresidential Parks SDCs et~~~ Is it appropriate to charge nonresidential development a parks system development charge (SDC)? mauves` `~~~r~r -~ The following bases are used for charging parks SDCs to nonresidential ~r~~'~ ~~ ~ +°`~ ~ ~- _" development. It is important to note that Oregon law prohibits the use of A al ~~f f ~~~~ ~ ~, number of employees as a basis for charging. ^ Parking spaces. The number of parking spaces can be used as a measure of employee and customer traffic, and associated use of parks. A disadvantage of this approach is that parking spaces are often provided for customers -retail or otherwise. Many of those customers would have already paid for a share of parks in their residential SDC and perhaps in their nonresidential SDC. ^ Square footage of commercial /industrial space. This approach carries similar disadvantages as the parking space approach. One advantage is that the square footage of a building will not change without new construction and is part of the design of the building. It is therefore a good measure of "potential demand" if it can be accurately applied. These alternatives aside, the larger question concerning nonresidential parks SDCs is developing a rational linkage between needed parks and nonresidential development. The purpose of the parks SDC is to ensure that developments that create the need for park and recreational facilities or increase the demand on existing park and recreational facilities pay a portion of the cost of the park and recreational capital improvements needed to serve them. Parks standards in both cities (and in most cities for that matter) are based on residential development - a number of acres of parks for every 1,000 in population. Resulting parks project lists are established to meet these standards for the existing population and/or for growth -without documented regard for nonresidential development. This can be addressed through the parks plans themselves. The cities could shift their planning criteria from acreage of park per population to acreage of park per 1,000. population and square feet of office space and industrial space, for example. This planning criterion could be used to justify the allocation of capital costs to non-residential customers. The cities would need to calculate that a certain sum of office space generates park traffic equivalent to 1,000 residents. The cities could then calculate an office space to residential unit ratio. t -:. -~-,-~---~-----z~-- We recommend that the cities continue to base their arks SDCs on X12 ~„omrtl~lntla on`~..1~ P residential dwelling units, and forego, at this time, extending the charge to nonresidential development without a clear linkage between required parks and commercial development. It seems apparent that this linkage °<`~ FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 1 Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point 8 Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #5 -Nonresidential Parks SDCs.doc '~, ' - ~ t9 V CITIES OF CENTRAL POIMT & TALENT Combined SDC Study August 21, 2005 exists, and that parks and recreation facilities serve both residential and non-residential development. We recommend that the cities develop and document that linkage as part of their comprehensive planning and / or park system master planning in order to better establish the basis for a nonresidential parks SDC. +` ~ FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 Telephone (425) 867-1802F:\Central Point 8 Talent\Advisory Committee\Issue Paper #5 -Nonresidential Parks SDCs.doc 1 .~ ~ •~ ~ r., Cities of Central Point and Talent Combined System Development Charge (SDC) Study SDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MEETING #1 The first meeting of the SDC Advisory Committee (SDCAC) was held at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers) on March 3, 2005 at 4 pm. The following were in attendance: Name Organization Contact Terry Buntin Buntin Construction terry@buntinconstruction.com Herb Farber Farber Surveying hafarber@charter.net Jim North Goings Home jimnorth@ashlandrealestate.com Chris Clayton City of Central Point chrisc@ci.central-point.or.us Tom Humphrey City of Central Point tomb@ci.central-point.or.us Bob Pierce City of Central Point bobp@ci.central-point.or.us Jill Turner City of Central Point jturner@ci.central-point.or.us Betty Wheeler City of Talent betty@cityoftalent.org Joe Strahl Public Works Management joe@pwmanagers.com John Ghilarducci FCS Group johng@fcsgroup.com Names of other members of the Committee, and their contact information, are provided below. Name Organization Contact Becca Croft CP City Council beccacroft@yahoo.com Rob Hernandez S & B James Construction robhernandez@sbjames.com Tommy Malot Malot Construction tmmy@malotconstruction.com Chuck Nagel Talent Planning Commission nagelnet@yuiknet:com Chuck Piland CP Planning Commission clpiland@charter.net The first order of business was self-introductions by those in attendance. Each committee member stated their name and their organization, if applicable. Next, the consultant summarized the scope of the study and its three main parts: (1) development of a policy framework for the charges, (2) the technical analysis, and (3) documentation and presentation. We then talked about the committee's role in the project, and agreed on some basic ground rules. In its role, the committee's authority will be limited to reviewing /collecting information regarding system development charges, reviewing Project Team policy papers and analyses, and assessing impacts on affected stakeholders. We will try to agree on policy recommendations by consensus. Where the SDCAC does not reach consensus on an issue, the majority present at the meeting will determine the SDCAC recommendation; provided that the issue paper communicate any dissenting opinions. It was suggested that the Committee could use a chairperson. After some discussion, Herb Farber was selected to chair the committee. FCS Group ~~ '~°-~.~~~ E. i' r^ r The consultant then presented a packet on SDC Basics, describing the legal framework for the charges, a typical charge calculation, the existing charges for each of the cities, and a list of key policy issues to be addressed by the committee in this study. The following issues were identified for later discussion: 1. Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis 2. Improvement Fee Cost Basis 3. Bases for Charges (e.g:; peak-hour vs. average daily trips; meter equivalents vs. ERUs) 4. SDC Credit Approaches 5. Park SDCs for nonresidential development The consultant then walked through the first two issue papers in the time remaining. There was some clarifying discussion, but the committee agreed to digest the papers further before making a recommendation at the next meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for March 17~' at 4 pm again at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers). 2 FCS Group 69~~ ~ ~ 4 it r ~ ~ ,~ ~ S Cities of Central Point and Talent Combined System Development Charge (SDC) Study SDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MEETING #2 The second meeting of the SDC Advisory Committee (SDCAC) was held at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers) on March 17, 2005 at 4 pm. The following were in attendance: Name Organization Terry Buntin Buntin Construction Becca Croft CP City Council Herb Farber Farber Surveying Chuck Nagel Talent Planning Commission Chuck Piland CP Planning Commission Bill Stuffs Citizen Committee Member Chris Clayton City of Central Point Tom Humphrey City of Central Point Bob Pierce City of Central Point Karen Roeber City of Central Point Jill Turner City of Central Point Joe Strahl Public Works Management John Ghilarducci FCS Group Contact terry@buntinconstruction.com beccacroft@yahoo.com hafarber@charter.net nagelnet@quiknet.com clpiland@charter.net chrisc@ci.central-point.or.us tomb@ci.central-point.or.us bobp@ci.central-point.or.us karenr@ci.central-point.or.us j illt@ci.central-point. onus joe@pwmanagers.com johng@fcsgroup.com The following were not in attendance: Name Organization Contact Rob Hernandez S & B James Construction robhernandez@sbjames.com Tommy Malot Malot Construction tommy@malotconstruction.com Jim North Goings Home jimnorth@ashlandrealestate.com Betty Wheeler City of Talent betty@cityoftalent.org Committee Chairperson Herb Farber called the meeting to order shortly after 4 pm. Hearing no comments or additions to the summary of the previous meeting, Mr. Farber turned the meeting over to the consultant. For the benefit of those Committee members who missed the first meeting, the consultant summarized the project scope, some SDC basics, and the role of the Committee in the process. The Committee then discussed Issue Paper #1 on the reimbursement fee cost basis. Both cities shared some concern about the availability of asset records needed to document the "cost" or "value" of existing facilities -the initial basis (before adjustments) of the reimbursement fee. The consultant and city representatives talked about approaches that could be used to estimate existing facilities costs. It was agreed that the project team would first assess which services would likely have a material reimbursement fee, then target their efforts to estimate valid fee FCS Group ~, ~ '~ 0 ,,,. ; ,~ , ~' ,~ `. bases on those services. Their efforts could include approximations of cost or value. made by engineering judgment. Contingent on the numerical results, the Committee recommended that "original cost" be used as the reimbursement fee basis, adjusted to account for gifted or grant- funded facilities, as well as for tax-funded infrastructure. Issue Paper #2 on the improvement fee basis also generated much discussion. In general, the Committee agreed to recommend that the capacity method, in which project costs are allocated to growth proportionally by the capacity needed to serve growth, be used to determine the improvement fee-eligible share of planned projects. Concern was expressed that the capacity approach could burden existing customers in specific instances in which growth needs triggered the replacement and upsizing of a working facility. The consultant stated that, while such instances are possible, Oregon statute seems to preclude the inclusion of the costs of projects and portions of projects that are not "required to serve the demands placed on the system by future users." The consultant then introduced Issue Paper #3 on SDC credits. Full discussion of the credit issue was deferred until the next meeting, set for 4 pm on March 31st again at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers). 2 FCS Group '~ ~_~. . r ~~ ~ ~ ~ y ~'` ~ •. l Cities of Central Point and Talent Combined System Development Charge (SDC) Study SDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MEETING #3 The third meeting of the SDC Advisory Committee (SDCAC) was held at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers) on March 31S`, 2005 at 4 pm. The following were in attendance: Name Organization Contact Becca Croft CP City Council beccacroft@yahoo.com Herb Farber Farber Surveying hafarber@charter.net Chuck Nagel Talent Planning Commission nagelnet@quiknet.com Chuck Piland CP Planning Commission clpiland@charter.net Bill Stults Citizen Committee Member Bret Moore Homebuilders of Jackson County bretm@twncrks.com Chris Clayton City of Central Point chrisc@ci.central-point.or.us Katherine Boxer City of Central. Point katherineb@ci.central-point.or.us Tom Humphrey City of Central Point tomb@ci.central-point.or.us Karen Roeber City of Central Point karenr@ci.central-point.or.us Matt Samitore City of Central Point malts@ci.central-point.or.us Jill Turner City of Central Point jillt@ci.central-point.or.us Betty Wheeler City of Talent betty@cityoftalent.org Joe Strahl Public Works Management joe@pwmanagers.com John Ghilarducci FCS Group johng@fcsgroup.com The following were not in attendance: Name Organization Contact Terry Buntin Buntin Construction terry@buntinconstruction.com Rob Hernandez S & B James Construction robhernandez@sbjames.com Tommy Malot Malot Construction tmmy@malotconstructioncom Jim North Goings Home jimnorth@ashlandrealestate.com Bob Pierce City of Central Point bobp@ci.central-point.or.us Committee Chairperson Herb Farber called the meeting to order shortly after 4 pm. Hearing no comments or additions to the summary of the previous meeting, Mr. Farber turned the meeting over to the consultant. The Committee them discussed Issue Paper #3 on SDC credits. Oregon law requires that credits be provided against the improvement fee for the construction of a qualified public. improvement. Specifically, the Committee addressed four basic questions regarding these credits: 1. How much should be credited? 2. Should credits be redeemable for cash? FCS Group 7~ - >~~'~~ A ~~ ,, f. 3. How should the cities handle requests for credits for the construction of public improvements that are not on the adopted plan and list? 4. How can the cities eliminate unintended incentives for developers to construct needed improvements on a piecemeal basis in order to take advantage of credit opportunities? Discussion on the first question centered on the issue of who should shoulder the risk that actual construction costs could far exceed .the costs identif ed in a City plan. It was noted that the City of Talent works with the developer to agree upon an updated project cost estimate, and the resulting maximum credit, before project construction. The Committee agreed that the credit amount should be based on the actual cost of oversizing, as agreed before construction of a qualified public improvement, even if the actual cost of oversizing exceeds the amount of the improvement fee and even if the cost after construction can be shown to be less or more than the agreed-upon amount. There was much discussion on the second question, and the potential impacts of cash redemption of credits on City cash flows. The Committee agreed that a city could redeem SDC credits for cash without materially impacting that city's ability to construct other needed improvements if the qualified public improvements constructed for credit were included on the city's adopted capital improvement plan and planned for construction within three years. This approach allows for cash:redemption of credits, but only for projects planned for near-term construction -high priority. projects. It was additionally noted that credits should be exhausted first and cash- redeemable in the year planned (within the three-year window) for project construction. On the third question, the Committee agreed that the cities should not provide credits for construction of improvements that are not in the adopted capital plan that served as the basis of the'improvement fee calculations. On the fourth question, several approaches were discussed, and there was no agreed-upon recommendation. The discussion centered on a transportation example, in which a developer is staging the development in order to construct only segments of the needed collector street(s). Each individual segment has been assumed to provide capacity in excess of that needed "to serve the particular development project or property" as required by statute and has been credit- eligible. It was left to the consultant to suggest a solution to this issue. For further discussion at the next meeting, we therefore propose the following policy.. First, consistent with the third question, credits should not be granted for construction of improvements that are not in the adopted capital plan that serves as the improvement fee basis. Each project on that list will have a percentage identified as "improvement fee eligible ", that represents the growth-related extra capacity portion of the project. While it is true that a segment of the planned improvement may provide capacity in excess of that needed by, an individual stage of the development, in that case the qualified public improvement has not been constructed - only a portion of it has. We believe it would be well within a city's authorization to credit only the excess capacity percentage identified for the whole project. After all, in the case of transportation particularly, until the whole project is constructed, there is no additional capacity because a road segment is not useable for through traffrc without being linked to the rest of the system. This approach also protects a city from over-crediting for capacity in a qualified public improvement that will be quickly exhausted by subsequent development stages. Discussion on issue papers #4 and #5 was deferred until the next meeting, set for 4 pm on April 21st again at Central Point Ciry Hall (Council Chambers). 2 FCS Group tJ ~ II ~4 ~1,.~ ~ •1 ) Cities of Central Point and Talent Combined System Development Charge (SDC) Study SDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MEETING #4 The fourth meeting- of the SDC Advisory Committee (SDCAC) was held at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers) on April 21S`, 2005 at 4 pm. The following were in attendance: Name Organization Contact Terry Buntin Buntin Construction terry@buntinconstruction.com Herb Farber Farber Surveying hafarber@charter.net Chuck Nagel Talent Planning Commission nagelnet@quiknet.com Bret Moore Homebuilders of Jackson County bretm@twncrks.com Mike Montero Montero Associates ,mike@montero-associates.com Chris Clayton City of Central Point chrisc@ci.central-point.or.us Karen Roeber City of Central Point karenr@ci.central-point.or.us Matt Samitore City of Central Point malts@ci.central-point.or.us Jill Turner City of Central Point jillt@ci.central-point.or.us Betty Wheeler City of Talent betty@cityoftalent.org Joe Strahl .Public Works Management joe@pwmanagers.com John Ghilarducci FCS Group johng@fcsgroup.com The following were not in attendance: Name Becca Croft Tommy Malot Jim North Chuck Piland Bill Stults Katherine Boxer Tom Humphrey Bob Pierce Organization CP City Council Malot Construction Goings Home CP Planning Commission Citizen Committee Member City of Central Point City of Central Point City of Central Point Contact beccacroft@yahoo.com tommy@malotconstruction.com j imnorth@ashlandrealestate.com clpiland@charter.net katherineb@ci.central-point.or.us tomb@ci.central-point.or.us bobp@ci.central-point.or.us Committee Chairperson Herb Farber called the meeting to order shortly after 4 pm. Hearing no comments on the summary of the previous meeting, he turned the meeting over to the consultant. The Committee-then resumed its discussion of Issue Paper #3 on SDC credits. Specifically, they addressed the question of how unintended incentives for developers to construct needed improvements on a piecemeal basis in order to take advantage of credit opportunities can be eliminated. The consultant proposed the following approach for discussion: First, credits would not be granted for construction of improvements that are not in the adopted capital plan that serves as the improvement fee basis. Each project that is on that list will have a percentage identified as "improvement-fee eligible", that represents the growth-related extra ~ FCS Group ~.,; (~t `';. ! .. ~'P` ~ - i~ • capacity portion of the project. While it is true that a segment of the planned improvement may provide capacity in excess of that needed by an individual stage of the development, in that case the qualified public improvement has not been constructed - only a portion of it has. We believe it would be well within a city's authorization to credit only up to the excess capacity percentage identified for the whole project. ABer all, in the case of transportation particularly, until the whole project is constructed, there is no additional capacity because a road segment is not useable for through traffic without being linked to the rest of the system. This approach also protects a city from over-crediting for capacity in a qualified public improvement that will be quickly exhausted by subsequent development stages. It was noted in the course of the. discussion that such an approach will require careful planning to identify the capacity of each project, the growth-related capacity, and the portion of each project to be consumed by the entire development in question. The credit would be for only the over- sizing portion of the qualified public improvement -that not used by the development and available for the benefit of others. It was also noted that the cities can still pursue other means of partnering with developers to get projects not on the list constructed outside of the SDC program. After thoroughly discussing the suggested approach, and its strengths and weaknesses, the Committee agreed to recommend it as the final piece of the credit recommendation. The Committee then moved on to discuss Issue Paper #4 on SDC unit bases. The Committee quickly agreed on the following recommendations: • Transportation. Use peak-hour trips, with clinked-trip adjustment, as the basis for transportation SDCs. This represents a change from the existing basis of average daily trips used by both cities, and would drop the additional trip-length factor used by Central Point. It was agreed as part of this discussion that accessory dwelling units should be charged as apartments. • Stormwater. Use impervious surface area as the basis for the storrnwater SDCs. This is the current basis for Talent's stormwater charges. [CP does not yet have a stormwater SDC.] • Parks. Use a "per dwelling unit" approach, with distinctions for the type of residential development. This is consistent with the existing structures in both cities. • Water (Central Point only). Use an approach based on meter flow capacity as a measure of potential demand. This is consistent with the City's existing approach. The final issue paper, on nonresidential parks SDCs, was introduced, but not fully discussed. Instead, the Committee spent some time talking about a related issue. The City of Central Point requires developers to provide parks, to serve larger developments, granting SDC credits for the oversizing portion of those parks -which are frequently not on existing City project lists. If continued, .this practice will diminish cash flow from parks SDCs and prohibit the City from completing the City prioritized parks project list. Developing a parks plan that identifies needed parks in areas or zones of the City based on existing and projected future needs in those areas (against adopted City standards), would allow the City to approach this issue as proposed previously (for transportation). The credit amount would be the oversizing portion of the park as determined by the improvement fee eligible portion of parks in that zone and the capacity used by the development. Discussion on issue paper #5 was deferred until the next meeting, set for 4 pm on May 25th to allow time to complete the draft analyses. The meeting will again be held at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers). FCS Group •~ ~ L .1~,.. r •, ~- Cities of Central Point and Talent Combined System Development Charge (SDC) Study SDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MEETING #5 The fifth meeting of the SDC Advisory Committee (SDCAC) was held at Central Point City Hall (Council Chambers) on May 25th, 2005 at 4 pm. The following were in attendance: Name Organization Contact Terry Buntin Buntin Construction terry@buntinconstruction.com Becca Croft CP City Council beccacroft@yahoo.com Herb Farber Farber Surveying hafazber@charter.net Chuck Nagel Talent Planning Commission nagelnet@quiknet.com Bret Moore Homebuilders of Jackson County bretm@twncrks.com Mike Montero Montero Associates mike@montero-associates.com Jim North Goings Home jimnorth@ashlandrealestate.com Chuck Piland CP Planning Commission clpiland@charter.net Katherine Boxer City of Central Point katherineb@ci.central-point.or.us Chris Clayton City of Central, Point chrisc@ci.central-point.or.us Bob Pierce City of Central Point bobp@ci.central-point.or.us Kazen Roeber. City of Central Point kazenr@ci.central-point.or.us Matt Samitore City of Central Point mans@ci.central-point.or.us Jill Turner City of Central Point jillt@ci.central-point.or.us Betty Wheeler City of Talent betty@cityoftalent.org Joe Strahl Public Works Management joe@pwmanagers.com John Ghilarducci FCS Group johng@fcsgroup.com The following were not in attendance: Name Organization Contact Bill Stults Citizen Committee Member Tom Humphrey City of Central Point tomb@ci.central-point.or.us Joe Strahl called the meeting to order for Committee Chairperson Herb Farber shortly after 4 pm. The summary of the previous meeting did generate some discussion on the issue of SDC credits for parks. The consultant recommended in the meeting summary that the City (of CP in this case) should cease to grant credits to developers for over-sizing parks that are not on existing. City project lists. Instead, it was proposed that the City develop a parks plan that identifies needed parks in areas or zones of the City based on existing and projected future needs in those areas (against adopted City standards), thereby allowing the City to approach this issue as proposed previously (for transportation). The credit amount would be for the over-sizing portion of the -park as determined by the improvement-fee eligible portion of parks in that zone less the capacity used by the development. FCS Group v .' t P _. ;'. ~• <~ The discussion centered on a number of important issues, the following among them: the importance of striking a balance between the needs of the City (e.g., cash flow, full cost recovery, equity) and the developers (e.g., certainty, consistency, cost effectiveness); the lack of a consistent relationship between adopted City park standards (10 acres per 1,000 in population) and what the City requires of its developers in the way of parks as conditions of development; • the need to meet community expectations for parks; • the existence of other funding options like general obligation debt; • the need to better plan for parks, even undesignated parks by zone; and • .ongoing maintenance of parks after construction. It was acknowledged that some of these issues fall outside of the SDC study, and generally, that many revolve around a need for comprehensive planning, and consistency between city standards. and city requirements of developer. The Committee ultimately agreed with the approach provided above. The Committee then moved on to discuss Issue Paper #5 on nonresidential parks SDCs, quickly agreeing that the cities should demonstrate in their parks plans the need for parks to serve both residential and nonresidential development before a defensible nonresidential parks SDC can be developed. Finally, the consultant presented a summary of the technical findings to date. It was noted that the numbers presented would likely change somewhat, with refinement. The group established a tentative meeting date of June 9 (subsequently cancelled) to review any substantial changes. 2 FCS Group ~~ ~+ v