HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - PH on MWMC Reg. SDCsEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Public Hearing: Proposed Modifications to Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission Regional Wastewater System Development Charge 3dethodology and Rates
Resolution 4791 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodology For
Regional Wastewater System; Amending Resolution No. 4740; and Repealing Resolution
No. 4776; and
Resolution 4792 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Rates For Regional
Wastewater System and Amending Resolution No. 4740
Meeting Date: June 14, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Fred McVey
www. ci. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5216
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This is a public hearing to consider proposed adoption by resolutions of the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission's (MWMC) requested modifications to the regional wastewater system
development charge (SDC) methodology and rates. The proposed resolutions implement modifications
to the regional wastewater SDC methodology and rates by incorporating changes in Eugene's SDC
Methodologies document.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
On April 8, 2002, the council adopted Ordinance 20248 which, consistent with current requirements of
state statutes, requires that modifications of Eugene's SDC methodologies be adopted by council
resolution or ordinance. Prior to this, revisions to regional wastewater SDCs were adopted by
administrative order of the City Manager, with the council notified of and provided opportunity to
review proposed administrative orders. In September 2002, the MWMC requested that the cities of
Eugene and Springfield adopt a modified regional wastewater SDC methodology and rate. On January
27, 2003, the council adopted the requested regional wastewater methodology by Resolution No. 4748.
Prior to Resolution No. 4748, the last adjustment of the regional wastewater SDC was an update to a
credit table which was adopted by Administrative Order 58-02-18- F, effective July 1, 2002.
The council was notified by memorandum (February 2003) that implementation of the SDC rates
resulting from Resolution No. 4748 had been delayed pending the City of Springfield's adoption of the
modified regional wastewater methodology and rates as requested by the MWMC. On July 14, 2003,
staff presented the council with a proposed resolution formally extending the effective date Resolution
4748 until the City of Springfield adopted the same methodology and rate. The council declined to
approve the resolution extending the effective date, but acknowledged that in recognition of provisions
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040614\S0406144.doc
of the MWMC intergovernmental agreement (IGA) requiring the uniform implementation of regional
wastewater connection charges (SDCs) the implementation of a new rate would not be effective until
both cities approved such charges. In a City Council work session on September 22, 2003, staff
presented a proposed Resolution 4776 adopting adjusted regional wastewater SDC rates based on a
settlement agreement between Home Builders Association of Lane County (HBA) and MWMC; the
council adopted Resolution 4776 on September 24, 2003. The council held a work session on the
currently proposed amendments to the MWMC regional wastewater SDC methodology and rates on
May 19, 2004.
Policy Issues
The policy issue before the council is whether to adopt by resolution a modified regional wastewater
SDC which updates the regional wastewater SDC methodology and rates as requested by the MWMC.
Attachment A is a proposed resolution that adopts revisions to the City's SDC Methodologies document
to reflect adjustments to the regional wastewater SDC methodology as revised and recommended by the
MWMC. Attachment B is a proposed resolution that adopts a revised schedule of regional wastewater
SDC rates as calculated based on application of the proposed methodology to the 20-year project list
proposed for adoption in conjunction with the MWMC Facilities Plan.
The currently proposed changes to the regional wastewater SDC as requested by the MWMC are a result
of a comprehensive review of the methodology which involved a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC).
The proposed SDC rates are reflective of the proposed MWMC Facilities Plan which is the subject of
the public hearing immediately preceding this item. The proposed SDC methodology modifications are
intended to ensure the equitable recovery of costs of system capacity related to the demands of growth,
while ensuring consistency with statutory requirements related to SDCs. The proposed methodology
change, in-and-of itself, does not cause a significant increase in SDC rates. However, the costs and
timing of capacity-related projects in the proposed MWMC Facilities Plan, upon which the improvement
fee portion of the SDC is based, result in an approximate 79 percent increase in the regional wastewater
SDC rates.
The essential issue before the council is whether it concurs with the MWMC that the proposed
methodology and rates appropriately recover infrastructure costs related to new development in a fair
and equitable manner.
Council Goals
This agenda item relates to the following Council Goal from the 2003-2004 Vision and Goals
Statements:
FAIR, STABLE AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES - A local government whose
ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of taxation and other revenue
sources and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services. The proposed SDC rate
adjustment provides needed additiona/ financia/ resources for improvements to the regional
wastewater system while incorporating adjustments to provide fairness and equity in the rate.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
The proposed regional SDC rates reflect future capacity-related capital improvement needs of the
regional wastewater treatment system. The proposed resolution adopts a modified regional wastewater
SDC rate which increases from a current rate of $528.86 per typical single family dwelling unit (SFD) to
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040614\S0406144.doc
$947.34 per SFD, or an approximate 79% increase. The adjustment would bring Eugene's total
wastewater SDC (local and regional combined) to $1,389.66 per typical SFD from the current combined
wastewater SDC of $971.18.
This adjustment would not substantially change Eugene's ranking of total SDC charges in relation to
other Oregon communities for comparable development types. A comparison of the proposed
wastewater SDC rates to those of other Oregon communities, for five example development types, is
included in Attachment D to the AlS. The comparison indicates that the proposed combined wastewater
SDC rate for residential development would be among the lowest in the state for comparable
communities while SDCs for other development types rank variably in comparison to other
communities, from mid-range to among the highest in the state.
Other Background Information
The City of Eugene entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the City of Springfield and
Lane County in 1978 which established the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. The
commission subsequently adopted the MWMC wastewater SDC methodology and rates. In the IGA, the
cities of Eugene and Springfield agreed to charge SDCs uniformly throughout the regional wastewater
service area. By agreement, City of Springfield staff provide administrative, financial and rate-setting
support to the MWMC. Attachment C includes two resolutions of the MWMC recommending adoption
of the proposed SDC methodology and SDC rates. In order for these adjustments to be effective within
the cities of Eugene and Springfield, both cities must incorporate the modifications into locally adopted
SDC methodologies and rates.
In its work session of May 19, 2004, the council requested additional information on the calculation of
the proposed SDC. A memorandum providing the requested supplementation information is included as
Attachment D to the AlS.
If the council chooses not to adopt the proposed revisions to the regional wastewater SDC rates, the
MWMC intergovernmental agreement specifies that the City request in writing that the commission
reconsider the proposed revisions. The commission would then put action for reconsideration on its
agenda within 45 days of receipt of request. If the council objects to the commission's action after
reconsideration, it may then refer the issue to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for mediation.
The MPC would provide an advisory and non-binding written recommendation for resolution of the
matter within 45 days of referral. The MWMC's ultimate action shall only take effect after the
governing bodies are in agreement.
Timing
Staff provided notification of intent to modify the SDC methodology by resolution on March 15, 2004,
and made proposed changes available for public review on April 15, 2004, to enable sufficient time to
conduct this public hearing on June 14, 2004, with action to adopt tentatively scheduled for June 28,
2004. Any revisions to the proposed regional wastewater SDC rates or the methodology will require
review by the MWMC and may require re-notification of interested persons, extending the period of
public review by a minimum of 60 days from the time of notice. If the council proceeds with the
scheduled public hearing and adopts the resolution as proposed, the modified SDC rates will be effective
as early as July 1, 2004. Should the council decline to adopt the proposed revisions to the proposed
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040614\S0406144.doc
regional wastewater SDC rates, reconsideration by the MWMC and potential review by MPC could
extend timing of rate revisions significantly, or indefinitely. Delays in modifying the SDC may result in
delay of needed improvements to the regional wastewater facilities.
OPTIONS
The options available to the council include the following:
1. Receive public testimony, affirm the proposed resolutions and direct the City Manager to proceed
with the scheduled action to adopt proposed modifications; or,
2. Direct the City Manager to prepare a written request to the MWMC for reconsideration and return to
Council at a future date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Option 1: Receive public testimony, affirm the proposed resolutions and direct the
City Manager to proceed with the scheduled action to adopt proposed modifications.
SUGGESTED MOTION
None; this is a public hearing only.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Proposed Resolution Adopting SDC Methodology Modifications
B. Draft Proposed Resolution Adopting SDC Schedule of Rates
C. MWMC Resolutions 04-03 adopting SDC Methodology and 04-07 adopting SDC Schedule of Rates
D. Supplemental Information on MWMC SDC Rate Calculation
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Fred McVey
Telephone: 682-5216
Staff E-Mail: fred.mcvey~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040614\S0406144.doc
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY FOR
REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM; AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 4740; AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 4776.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A. On September 23, 2002, the System Development Charges (SDC)
Methodologies were adopted by Resolution No. 4740.
B. Resolution No. 4740 has subsequently been amended by Resolution Nos.
4748, 4767, 4768, 4770 and 4776. In addition, inflationary adjustments of Systems
Development Charges for Local Wastewater System, Stormwater System, and
Transportation System were adopted by Administrative Order No. 58-04-04-F, effective
April 5, 2004.
C. Amendments to the SDC Methodology for Regional Wastewater are
needed to reflect the adjustments to the Regional Wastewater SDC Methodology as
revised and recommended by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the above findings,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. The Systems Development Charge Methodology for Regional
Wastewater is amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
Section 2. Resolution No. 4740 is amended as described in Section 1, and
Resolution No. 4776 is repealed, as of the effective date of this Resolution.
Section 3. The City Recorder is requested to append a copy of this Resolution to
Resolution No. 4740.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2004.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the day of ., 2004.
City Recorder
Exhibit A to Attachment A
CITY OF EUGENE
ENGINEERING DIVISION
o£ the
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Systems Development Charge
Methodologies
July 12, 2004
Adopted by Resolution No. 4740 except as amended by
Resolution Nos. 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4776,
Administrative Order No. 58-04-04-F, and Resolution No. XXXX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Eugene Systems Development Charges
General
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 1
Table 1 ........... Summary of Systems Development Charges ................................................ 5
Figure 1 .......... Rate Setting Methodology .............................................................................. 6
Table 2 .......... Potential Impact Reduction and Credits ........................................................ 18
Appendix A ..... Definitions of General Terms and Use Codes .............................................. A-1
Appendix F ..... Local System Formulas and General Fee Schedule .................................... F-1
Transportation
Appendix B ..... Transportation System Charge Detail ......................................................... B-1
Figure 2 .......... Transportation System, Streets ................................................................. B-9
Figure 3 .......... Transportation System, Off-Street Bicycle Paths ...................................... B-10
Table 3 ........... Transportation Trip Rates .................................................................... B-11, 12
Table 4 ........... Transportation System Valuation Assumptions .......................................... B-13
Table 5 ........... Transportation System Development Charge Analysis .............................. B-14
Wastewater
Local Appendix C1 - Local Wastewater System Charge Detail .......................... C1-1
Table 6 ... Local Wastewater System Development Charge Analysis ......................... Cl-4
Table 7 ... Local Wastewater Plumbing Fixture Unit Rates ......................................... C1-5
Figure 4 .. Local Wastewater System .......................................................................... C1-6
Table 8 ... SDC / HUD BPR Use Codes .............................................................. C1-14-24
Regional Appendix C2 ~ Regional Wastewater System Charge Detail ..................... C2-1
Stormwater
Appendix D ..... Stormwater System Charge Detail .............................................................. D-1
Figure 5 .......... Stormwater System ..................................................................................... D-4
Table 9 ........... Stormwater System Development Charge Analysis ..................................... D-5
Table 10 ......... Stormwater SDC-Eligible Project List .......................................................... D-6
Parks
Appendix E ..... Parks System Charge Detail ....................................................................... E-1
Table 11 .......... Parks System Development Charge Analysis .............................................. E-2
Figure 6 .......... Parks System ............................................................................................. E-3
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Table of Contents
METHODOLOGY
City of Eugene Systems Development Charges
1.0 Introduction
The City's authority to establish and adopt system development charges (SDCs) is granted by
the Eugene Charter of 1976 and by ORS 223.297 - 223.314. By virtue of that authority the City
adopted Eugene Code, 1971 sections 7.700 - 7.740 and related provisions.
For the purpose of interpreting Eugene Code, 1971 sections 7.700 through 7.740 and this
document, the public record before the Council shall constitute the legislative history.
In addition to the methodologies for each system contained herein, the following appendices are
adopted and made a part hereof:
A: Definitions of General Terms and Use Codes
B: Transportation System Charge Detail
C1: Local Wastewater System Charge Detail
C2: Regional Wastewater System Charge Detail
D: Stormwater System Charge Detail
E: Parks System Charge Detail
F: Local System Formulas and General Fee Schedule
1.1 Basis for Charge
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) have been collected and used by the City of
Eugene since 1978. They are presently collected on all new development in the City
and are used to fund that portion of the construction of infrastructure (i.e., transportation,
wastewater, stormwater and parks system components) required to support new
development. These SDCs help the City provide for increased capacity needs, and
recoup a portion of the community's investment in specific infrastructure reserve capacity
that is already in place.
Sound planning requires future demands on each system be anticipated, and that
reserve capacity needed to serve future users be built in. By preparing for this growth,
standards for community infrastructure are maintained and the community can prosper
with new development.
The Metropolitan Area General Plan and amendments provide a basis for planning of
growth and development and includes the following goals and policies related to the
financing of new development:
· Generally reduce public subsidy for utilities and facilities in new development
(#5, p. III-G-5).
· In general, the amount of public subsidy for public utilities, services and facilities,
including schools in new development, shall be reduced (#1, p. III-G-5).
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
In addition, City Council adopted Growth Management Study (GMS) policies to provide
direction for provision of infrastructure services related to new development:
GMS Policy #14: Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending
infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize the costs
of providing infrastructure or offer other incentives that support higher-density, in-fill,
mixed-use, and redevelopment.
1.2 SDC Charges
The SDCs and the associated administrative charges and credits imposed by Eugene
Code, 1971 sections 7.700 through 7.740 shall be determined as set forth in these
methodologies. The current rates of charge for each system are listed in the adopted
SDC fee schedule in Appendix F. The methods of calculating administrative charges are
noted within section 2.3.1 Administrative Costs and the methods of calculating credits
are noted within section 7.2 Credits.
2.0 Exemptions and General Approach
This section outlines the general approach taken in calculating the City's development charges
and in determining and specifying appropriate expenditures of SDC revenue. For the purposes
of this document, the definitions in the Eugene Code, 1971 shall apply unless expressly
provided to the contrary. Appendix A contains definitions of words and phrases, which are used
throughout these methodologies.
2.1 Assignment of Use Classifications
Developments will be assigned use classifications that best reflect the developments'
use per system (transportation, wastewater, stormwater, parks) as set forth in these
methodologies. In the case of multiple uses that are proposed and/or exist within one
development, as determined by Staff, more than one use classification may be assigned
by which the SDC fees and credits will be calculated.
2.2 Exemptions
To simplify the administration of the SDC, no development involving then-existing
improvements on a site will be deemed to increase usage of or create the need for
additional capital improvements until one of the following occurs:
· For property improved with a residential use (e.g. single family dwelling, duplex
or other multiple-family use), when:
an additional dwelling unit is created,
there is an increase in square footage of living area, or
all or part of any structure on the site is changed to a use not permitted
outright in an any residential zoning district as noted in Eugene Code,
1971 section 9.2740.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies _
· For all property improved with a nonresidential use (e.g. recreation center,
convenience market) when:
an additional dwelling unit is created,
there is an increase in square footage of gross floor space or living area,
there is an increase in the number of nonresidential plumbing fixture units
on the site,
~- 60 square feet of impervious surface is added to the site (for the purpose
of calculating the stormwater SDC), or
either 3,000 or more square feet of floor space in a building changes use
or 50% or more of the gross floor space of the building changes use
· An additional connection to, or an increase in the size of, an existing connection
to the public wastewater or stormwater system is to be made.
· A property previously granted an exemption for housing for Iow-income persons
is subsequently used for other than housing for Iow income persons, subject to
the limitations and/or conditions imposed in Eugene Code, 1971 section 7.725(c).
2.3 General Method for City of Eugene SDC Rates
Table 1 provides an overview of the basis of the rate setting methodology; outlining the
basic rates, cost basis, service standards and means of implementation for each system
charge.
The intent of the methodology is that new development should not be charged for a
higher level of service than that currently provided to the community or to which the
community has committed future resources. Therefore, additional capacity needs are
determined using the City's existing level of service or the City's funded level of service.
In a similar manner, new development should be credited for past and future bond
payments on infrastructure related existing debt as well as for future estimated user
charge payments used to fund capital projects included on the regional SDC project list
(Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission [MWMC]) and past trunk sewer
levies.
The general approach used to calculate the development charge for various systems is
based on requirements set forth in ORS 223.304:
· Reimbursement fees shall be established or modified considering "the cost of the
existing facility or facilities, prior contributions by existing uses, gift or grants from
federal or state government or private persons, the value of unused capacity
available to future system users, rate-making principles employed to finance
publicly owned capital improvements and other relevant factors identified by the
local government imposing the fee."
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
· Improvement fees shall be established considering "the cost of projected capital
improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is
related."
· Credits are required for "qualified public improvements."
This general approach is illustrated in Figure 1 and can be outlined in the following
steps:
· Determine System Service Characteristics.
>- System consists of several components (e.g., lines, pump stations, force
mains, manholes are components of the wastewater system).
Establish impact measure - that feature of development that best reflects
use of system capacity (e.g., trips for the transportation system,
impervious surface for the stormwater system, etc.).
· Determine System Value, including associated costs such as design,
construction, right-of-way acquisition and project administration.
Use replacement cost (current construction costs).
Determine capacity-oriented cost of system, net of assessments and
grants.
Determine ratio of Improvement and Reimbursement portions of charge, if
any.
· Allocate the system value to the unit of impact (e.g., cost per unit of impervious
area for stormwater system).
· Determine the service impact of specific development types (e.g., single-family
dwelling, motel, convenience market).
2.3.1 Administrative Costs
Administrative costs are estimated annually and include the periodic and on-going
direct and indirect costs associated with complying with the requirements of state
law and the cost of administering the SDCs. An administrative charge shall be
incurred when one of the following occurs:
When a redevelopment occurs that changes the use of a building in its
entirety and it is determined that usage of any capital improvement is
increased or there is need of additional capital improvements.
The administrative fee will be calculated either as a percentage rate of the
net charge after credits are applied or at a flat rate, whichever is higher, as
listed in the SDC fee schedule in Appendix F.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LOCAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
(See Appendix C-2 for information regarding the Regional Wastewater SDC)
Transportation Wastewater Local (Cit~/) Stormwater Parks
Cost per trip = $1,363.66 Cost per new residential units Total stormwater unit cost per Cost per Dwelling Unit =
(e.g., single-family, mobile home sq.ft, of impervious surface Area = $1,344.65
~arks, duplexes, apartments) = a $0.148. Charges are based on
base rate of $297.92 plus $0.0722 use. 1-2 Family development
per square foot of living area. under 3,000 sq.ft have tiered rates
Residential additions will be based on est. imp. surface areas.
,~ charged $0.0722 per square foot 1-2 Family over 3,000 sq.ft, and
~ of increased living area. Multi-Family & Nonresidential are
n, Nonresidential uses = $2.2572 per based on actual imp. surface area.
gallon of daily flow/discharge. Charges for Mfg. Home Parks are
based on est. imp. surface area
per space plus actual impervious
surface area of additional common
area.
Estimated costs of arterial/collector Estimated non-assessable cost of Estimated non-assessable cost of Unit costs for vadous components.
Street system (non assessable cost ~xisting system using costs from system-wide capacity from future
~er lane-mile, costs of intersections, 'Gravity Sewer Lines System Valuation capacity-enhancing projects as
--~ traffic signals, street lights, structures) Model" developed by CH2M Hill. contained in the Stormwater SDC
~ and off street bicycle paths. Charges are net of all federal grants Project List and available existing
a3 and outstanding debt. stormwater system capacity.
o
~ Existing levels of service for Design flow standards currently Design standards currently used Existing levels of service for
~ various components as used by the city for various land by the City to handle a Five-year various components, as
-o established by current City use types. PFUs equivalents are storm, established in Eugene Parks &
~ transportation design standards, determined per Oregon adopted Recreation Plan.
~ Plumbing Code.
c Street Component: Reimbursement fee Reimbursement fee Improvement fee
o ~ · 40%lmpr. Fee · 84% · 47%
~ ~ · 60% Reim. Fee Bike
~ ~ Component: Improvement fee Improvement fee
~ "- · 100%lmpr. Fee · 16% · 53%
_~ o
Charges for new or expanding New or expanding residential uses Charges for new (all) or expanding Charges are based on a fiat rate
development are based on the are charged based on a per (Multi-family, Nonresidential) per dwelling unit for all types of
cost per trip times the tdp rate dwelling unit cost plus a rate per development are based on residential development. There is
assigned for a specific square foot of living area. Non- estimated or actual impervious no charge for commercial
c development type times the residential uses are charged i surface areas and the total development.
~, number of units of measurement based on the number of PFUs at a stormwater unit cost per square
~ proposed, rate for the specific development foot. Stormwater impact not
· c type. Credit for past trunk sewer attributable to impervious surface
E levy payments will be applied to area will be charged based on
~- the local charge, equivalent surface area and the
_E total stormwater unit cost per
square foot.
Note: Administration costs are not included in the figures above, see section 2.3.1 for more information.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
FIGURE 1
Rate Setting Methodology
System Value
Replacement costs for
Level of Service existing reserve capacity
Impact Measurement (plus)
expenditures
(minus)
Assessable costs & Grants
(equals)
SDC eligible costs
Formula
Cost of Service
SDC Eliqible Costs = SDC
Impact Measurement (PER UNIT OF SERVICE)
Apply SDC to
specific types
of development
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
>- When a redevelopment permit application (other than for redevelopment that
changes the use of a building in its entirety) requires a detailed review to
determine that there will be no increased usage of any capital improvement
and no additional capital improvements will be needed.
The administrative fee will be applied at a flat rate as listed in the SDC fee
schedule in Appendix F.
~,- When an SDC is imposed for all other development:
The administrative fee will be calculated as a percentage rate of the net
charge after credits for previous use and impact reduction are applied or at a
flat rate, whichever is higher, as listed in the SDC fee schedule in
Appendix F.
In no case will administrative fees be refunded, unless necessary as a result of City
error.
2,3,2 Maximum Administrative Charge
An administrative charge calculated shall not exceed a maximum amount of
$30,000.00 for a single permit issued. If multiple permits are issued for different
phases of the same development, the maximum administrative charge shall be
applied to each permit independently.
2.4 Adjustment to the SDC Methodology and Fees
Modifications to the methodologies for the systems development charge shall be established
by resolution of the council. A change in the amount of a reimbursement fee or an
improvement fee is not a modification of the SDC if the change in amount is based on the
periodic application of an adopted specific cost index or on a modification to any of the
factors related to rate that are incorporated in these adopted methodologies. The city
manager may adopt fee changes, based on such a cost index or rate factors by
administrative order pursuant to section 2.020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, so long as the
fees are not revised administratively in an amount greater than five (5) percent within any
12-month period. Revisions to fees by more than five percent shall be established by
resolution of the council.
2,4.1 Adopted Cost Index
SDC fees and credits may be periodically adjusted to account for changes in
construction costs and system valuation. The 20-city national average
construction cost index, as published by Engineering News-Record (ENR)
shall be used when preparing periodic cost index adjustments.
2.4.2 Rate Factors Subject to Administrative Revision
SDC fees and credits may be periodically adjusted to account foe changes in
rate factors incorporated in the established SDC methodologies. Changes in
rate factors may occur to account for changes in the systems' characteristics
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
and related factors as noted in the methodologies document specific to the
systems' fees and credit rates as reflected in supporting analyses and
formulas.
2.5 Expending City of Eugene SDCs
The City of Eugene's SDC revenue, except for administrative fees, is comprised of two
components: an improvement fee and a reimbursement fee as defined in Eugene Code,
1971 section 7.010. Improvement fee revenue may be spent only on capacity increasing
capital improvements or debt related to such improvements. Reimbursement fee revenue
may be spent only on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees
are assessed and debt related to such improvements. Revenue from both types of fees
may be expended on direct costs of complying with related state statutes.
Major capacity-increasing capital improvements to be constructed using SDC revenue
appear in the City's long range plans. The City's long-range plans reflect the anticipated
facility needs required to support new development. The needs identified in the long-range
plans are generally included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The ClP also contains
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation projects which may be funded in part with SDCs.
Given the limits on certain funding sources and the need to address existing as well as
future needs, the CIP does not necessarily reflect all the facility needs of new development
occurring within the six-year period covered by the CIP. Therefore, the planned
expenditures of SDC revenue include both the expenditures detailed in the CIP and the
needs identified in the long-range plans.
3.0 Transportation System
The Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC) is made up of several components. The
costs of these components include the total cost of design, construction, right-of-way acquisition,
purchasing, testing, and project administration. The components included in this analysis are:
· Collector and arterial streets
> Non-assessable linear section construction costs
>-Intersection construction costs
Traffic signal costs
>-Street light costs
Bridge and other structure construction costs
· Off-street bicycle paths
> Bicycle path construction costs
>- Bicycle path light costs
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
The cost impacts of new development on these components are allocated on the basis of p.m.
peak hour traffic on adjacent streets using either the trips specified in the Standard Calculation or
based upon an Alternate Calculation as set forth in Appendix B.
The detailed Cost of Service formula as well as the cost per trip for each component of the
transportation system is set forth in Appendix B. The cost per trip is the sum of all transportation
system components identified in Appendix B.
The transportation SDC for a proposed development is determined by multiplying the units which
describe the impact by the trip rate (to determine the number of trips assigned to the proposed
development) using the Transportation Trip Rates table in Appendix B and the cost per trip in the
current adopted SDC fee schedule in Appendix F.
4.0 Local (City) and Regional Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) Regional Wastewater Systems
Collection of the wastewater SDC includes both a local (City) and regional (MWMC) system
charge.
4.1 Local Wastewater System
The local wastewater SDC is based upon estimated wastewater flow discharge (impact on
and/or use of system capacity) from various development types. A unit cost of capacity in
terms of cost per gallon per day is established and used to determine SDC rates. For
residential development the rate is based on number of dwelling units and area of living
space. For nonresidential development the rate is based on number of PFUs and the
proposed development type. The detailed analysis, methods for calculating, and the Cost
of Service formula for the local wastewater system can be found in Appendix C. The local
wastewater SDC rates can be found in the current adopted fee schedule in Appendix F.
The local wastewater SDC for a proposed development is determined by:
Number of Residential Dwelling Units (RDU) and area of living space for single-
family, duplex, multiple-family, and other residential development
· Plumbing Fixture Units (PFU) and proposed development type for other than
Residential Dwelling Units (e.g., recreation center, convenience market).
4.2 Regional Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Wastewater System
The City of Eugene entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of
Springfield and Lane County in 1978, which established the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. On May 15, 1997, the Commission adopted the MWMC
wastewater Systems Development Charge which includes a regional administrative
charge. On April 1, 2004 the Commission adopted a modified MWMC regional wastewater
SDC methodology. The regional MWMC wastewater SDC methodology is located in
Appendix C2. Current regional rates are also summarized in the Appendix F fee schedule.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies : -
5.0 Stormwater System
The stormwater SDC is based upon impervious surface area (e.g., rooftops, driveways, sidewalks,
parking lots, patios, and other non-porous surfaces). The detailed formulas for calculating the
stormwater SDC unit cost (rate) per square foot of impervious surface area is set forth in
Appendix D. The stormwater SDC is determined by multiplying the applicable rate by the unit of
measure for the proposed development type. The costs per unit of measure and resulting rates
can be found in Table 9 and the fee schedule in Appendix F.
Where the stormwater SDC is a fixed amount per dwelling unit or space, it shall be determined by
multiplying the applicable rate per dwelling unit or space times the number of units or spaces plus,
for manufactured home park development, the SDC is based upon the impervious surface area of
all additional common areas times the stormwater unit cost per square foot of impervious surface
area. Where the stormwater SDC is not a fixed amount per dwelling unit or space, it shall be
determined by multiplying the rate per square foot of impervious surface area times the total
impervious surface area of the proposed development. Where a development creates impact not
attributable to impervious surface area, the stormwater SDC shall be determined by evaluating
equivalent impervious surface area, multiplied by the rate per square foot of impervious surface
area.
6.0 Parks System
The parks system components that are identified in the adopted 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan
and the parks system components identified in Table 11, which are used to calculate the parks
SDC, are generally described as parks (neighborhood and community) and facilities which are
more particularly described in Appendix E. The current community standard or level of service, for
parks infrastructure is the determining factor in calculating the impact of new development on the
system. New development can be charged the costs of providing parks infrastructure for the
development at the same level of service as the existing community as a whole.
The detailed calculation for each component of the parks SDC and the Cost of Service formula are
set forth in Appendix E. The parks SDC rate can be found in the current adopted fee schedule in
Appendix F. The rate per dwelling unit is determined based on equivalent dwelling units (EDU).
The parks SDC for a proposed development is determined by multiplying the rate per dwelling unit
(EDU) by the number of dwelling units in the proposed development. The cost per EDU is the
sum of all parks system components identified in Appendix E. There is currently no parks SDC for
nonresidential development.
7.0 Credits and Impact Reductions
This section provides detail on the City's administration of SDC credits and impact reductions.
Potential sources, criteria for eligibility, and the basis for calculation of credit and impact
reductions are defined, in this Methodology and in Eugene Code, 1971 section 7.730. A list of
examples of facilities and programs which are potentially eligible for credit and impact reduction
appears in Table 2 of this section. (Note: As development standards change some examples
may no longer be considered eligible for reduction but may influence future rates.)
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
SDCs may be reduced by one or more of the following processes:
· Impact Reduction, based on quantified mitigation of demand generated by the
development for new identifiable capital improvements;
· Credit, based on the specific costs for privately engineered construction of certain
public improvements as part of the development;
· Credit based on previous payment or use.
Adjustment of SDCs due to credits and impact reductions:
· Shall not be given for improvements constructed or programs instituted prior to City
approval.
· Shall be applied up to the maximum SDC fee for each system.
· Shall reduce the SDCs paid on building permits at the time of issuance; credit or
impact reduction amounts applied will not be greater than the SDC fees.
· Shall be applied to a particular system (e.g., Transportation, Stormwater,
Wastewater, Parks); credits or reductions approved for a particular system can not
be transferred or applied to any other system charges.
· Shall be applied to the SDCs for the particular development, may only be further
applied to subsequent phases of the same development for which the improvement
was constructed or program instituted, and can not be transferred or applied to
other properties or developments.
7.1 Impact Reductions or Mitigation
Impact reduction will be based on private physical improvements (as defined in
Appendix A) constructed as part of the development or based on programs instituted in
connection with development, which will reduce the demand from that development for
future construction of identifiable capital improvements. Such programs and physical
improvements must be privately financed and are intended to be permanent. The
anticipated reduction in demand must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City
Transportation Engineer (for Transportation system impact reductions) or to the City
Engineer (for all other system impact reductions). Calculation of impact reduction shall be
based on the ratio of the system impact with the program or facility in place, to the system
impact if the program or facility did not exist.
Prior to application of the impact reduction to the SDCs for the development, the City shall
receive assurances that will bind the developer, owner, and the owner's successors as is
necessary to ensure that the program or facility will function as planned for the agreed
upon time period. Such agreements may include, but are not limited to performance
bonds, maintenance programs, annual reports, monitoring and inspections, or other
pertinent items to document proper functioning as determined by the City Engineer.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
7.1.1 Transportation System Impact Reduction
For the transportation system, an impact reduction may be granted if the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineer, that the
improvement or program to be instituted in connection with the development will
materially reduce the number of automobile trips the development will generate and
that it will continue for at least twenty years after the development is occupied.
7.1.2 Stormwater System Impact Reduction or Mitigation
For the stormwater system, an impact reduction may be granted based on physical
improvements which are privately constructed as part of the development. The
applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
improvements will materially reduce the demand the development will place upon
the public stormwater drainage system and the improvements will remain in use
and functional for at least twenty years after the development is occupied. (Note:
Qualification for SDC stormwater reduction does not necessarily qualify customers
for a reduction of the monthly stormwater user service charges which are governed
by the Stormwater Service Charge Methodology.)
7.1.2.1 Stormwater System Impact Reduction Criteria
Criteria for stormwater SDC impact reduction for development can be found
in Appendix D, section 6.0. A development that meets the required criteria
will be eligible to receive a reduction against stormwater SDCs at the time of
permit issuance as follows:
SFD and Duplex Residential development:
100% fiat rate stormwater SDC impact reduction for complete
containment of all on-site stormwater, with no direct or indirect
connection to the public system; or
50% flat rate stormwater SDC impact reduction for any amount of
partial containment of runoff on-site.
Multi-family Residential, Commercial, Industrial, other development using a
common or shared facility:
The stormwater SDC will be reduced in the same proportion that the
mitigating facility reduces runoff leaving the fully developed site.
7.2 Credits
City approval of credits shall be given based on one or more of the following:
7.2.1 Qualified Public Improvement Credit
For any qualified public improvement (as defined in Eugene Code) to be
constructed in connection with the development for which an SDC is collected.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
7.2.2 Capital Improvement Credit
For any capital improvement (as defined in Eugene Code) to be constructed as part
of a development to the extent:
that it reduces the need for construction of specific, identifiable public
improvements; or
that it would otherwise have to be constructed or acquired at public
expense and is eligible for funding with Systems Development Charge
funds under the current policies of the City Council; or
that the City can recover credits through collection of an equivalent
assessment from benefited properties, or for which the City Council has
formed a Local Improvement District in accordance with provisions in
Eugene Code, 1971 section 6.610 (6) or 7.407 (3).
7.2.3 Previous Payment or Use
SDC fees paid are not refundable and, in the case of an agreement to pay SDCs in
installments, the terms of the agreement may not be modified. A partial refund of
SDC fees will be made or a modification of an installment agreement will be
allowed when an active development permit is canceled or expires without being
used, a change of design of an active development permit is approved that results
in a less intense use of the property, or property previously developed as a
manufactured home park is partitioned and redeveloped. No portion of the
administrative fees will be refunded, and an additional administrative charge may
be imposed to cover the cost of calculating and processing the partial refund.
Credits for other types of previous payment or use may, however, be provided. In
calculating the credits given under this section, the City Engineer shall apply credit
for previous payment or use only to developments (e.g. structure, impervious area)
for which the previous use, including that for which developments have been
demolished, or payment can be verified and for which a credit has not been
previously given. The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide adequate
documentation (e.g. tax records, utility billing / water usage records, building permit
records). Credits for previous payment or use are provided in the following manner
when:
~- Redevelopment occurs that does not change the use of a building in its
entirety. The credit will be based on the most previous verifiable use; or
Redevelopment occurs that will change the use of a building in its entirety,
the credit for previous use will be based on the previous most intense
verifiable use per system. In this case, the credit calculation will be
performed independently for each system which may result in different
periods of the use of the site being the basis of comparison.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
7.2.4 City Cost of Construction Credit
In calculating the credits given under section 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, the City Engineer
shall estimate the cost of the capital improvement based upon what the City would
pay were it to construct such improvements.
7.2.5 Revenue Collection for Equivalent Assessment or Special Benefit
Credit
When an equivalent assessment or a special benefit assessment is collected when
property connects to a public improvement for which the City has granted a credit
under 7.2.2 (3) above, the revenue collected (net of the costs of collection) shall be
deposited in the SDC fund for the system to which connection was made and for
which the credit was given unless the SDC fund has been reimbursed for the credit
from other City funds. If the SDC fund has been reimbursed in advance from other
City funds, the revenue collected will be deposited to the City fund which
reimbursed the SDC fund.
7.3 Revocation of Credit and Impact Reduction
A credit or impact reduction which has been applied to reduce SDC fees may be revoked
and the unpaid portion of the SDC reimposed as a lien against the property, within the time
required by these Methodologies, if:
· The associated capital improvement for which SDC credit has been given is not
constructed or completed as required, or fails to function as designed; or
· The associated reduction program for which an impact reduction has been
approved is not instituted or is modified without the approval of the City Engineer,
or ceases to function as designed.
Such revocation shall not occur until ten days prior written notice has been given to and an
opportunity to be heard afforded the applicant and property owner. If the credit or impact
reduction is revoked, the City Manager may add to the amount due, the cost of the
revocation proceedings.
7.4 Application for Credit and Impact Reduction
An application for a credit or impact reduction, including related documentation and
information, shall be submitted by the applicant in the manner prescribed by the City,
together with any fee set by the City Engineer pursuant to Eugene Code, 1971 section
2.020. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating the eligibility for a credit. No
credit or impact reduction shall be granted for an SDC that has already been imposed,
collected or agreed to be paid in installments unless resulting from cancellation of an
active permit, expiration of a permit without being used, or an approved change of design
of an active permit.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
7.4.1 Application for Impact Reduction
Applicants must submit their request for an impact reduction in writing,
accompanied by documentation that supports the basic function and design
criteria for estimated impact reduction such as calculations as outlined in
Appendix F.
For commercial development, impact reduction will be applied uniformly for all
lots or building sites in the development phase approved. Impact reductions
granted under this methodology document may be used in subsequent phases of
a development when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that the program or improvements continue to provide the anticipated
reduction in demand, and the City has received assurances or agreements from
the developer, owner, and owners successors, as approved by the City Engineer
as is necessary to ensure that the program or facility will continue to function as
planned for the agreed upon time period. Changes to the mitigated program or
facility attributable to the connection of an additional phase which results in any
deviation from the previously determined impact reduction will be adjusted
proportionately.
7.4.2 Application for Credit Based on Construction of Public
Improvements
For credits derived from the construction of public improvements, the property
owner(s) will be notified in writing about potential credit availability, subsequent to
the approval and bonding of the construction plans. The property owner(s) will
have 60 days from the date of written notification to submit the SDC Credit
Application and complete the approval process. Applications that include
disbursement instructions for ineligible lots or which contain requests in conflict
with City code, state law, or current City policies/practices will be considered
incomplete applications.
7.4.3 Credit Distribution in the Absence of Directions from an Approved
SDC Credit Application
With the exception of cases where the recovery of credit through an equivalent
assessment is uncertain, if the owner does not comply with the requirements of
section 7.4.2, the credit will be distributed by the "equal lot" method. All eligible
lots or building sites will be identified, and the credit will be distributed in an equal
amount to each of these eligible lots or building sites. Credit applied under this
policy will not be eligible to be appealed. Development for which a building
permit is issued prior to administration of credit disbursal or approval by City staff
will not be considered eligible for credit distribution.
7.4.4 Changes to an Approved Credit Application
Whether established by the City using the "equal lot" method or by the property
owner(s)/applicant(s), any modifications to the distribution of credits will require a
new completed application, must be approved by the City Engineer, and will be
effective only upon approval by the City Engineer of the revised credit
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies _
application. The revised distribution will apply only to the remaining credit
balances and undeveloped lots or building sites to which the credit originally
applied.
7.5 Decision on Application for Credit
The City Engineer shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application in writing,
setting forth the reason for the decision. Such a decision shall be mailed or personally
delivered to the applicant.
7.6 Credit and Impact Reduction Duration
Credits granted under this methodology document may be applied to SDC fees for a
development up to a maximum of 10 years from the date of the original written
notification.
Impact reductions granted under this methodology document may be applied to SDC
fees for a development until such time as the program or improvements no longer
continue to provide the anticipated reduction in demand and the City has determined
that assurances or agreements from the developer, owner, or owners successors, are
no longer adequate to ensure that the program or facility will continue to function as
planned for the agreed upon time period.
8.0 Appeals
An appeal by an applicant or a permittee of any decision of the City Manager under these
Methodologies shall be governed by Eugene Code, 1971 section 7.735 and must be filed and
the appeal fee paid within 15 working days of the date of the decision. Such appeals shall be in
writing and filed at the City Manager's office. A separate appeal must be filed for each decision
being appealed. The appeal fee, as established under Eugene Code, 1971 section 2.020, can
be found in the current adopted SDC Fee schedule in Appendix F.
A person objecting to the City's final decision under Eugene Code, 1971 section 7.735
concerning the calculation of a systems development charge may seek judicial review of the
decision pursuant to ORS 34.010 to 34.100.
9.0 Interested Persons Notification
The City shall maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to
adoption or modification of a methodology for any SDC. The City shall mail written notification
to persons on the list at least 90 days prior to the first hearing to adopt or modify a system
development charge. The methodology supporting the adoption or modification will be available
60 days prior to the first hearing to adopt or amend a systems development charge. The failure
of a person on the list to receive a notice that was mailed will not invalidate the action of the
City. The City may periodically delete names from the Interested Persons List or require a new
written request for notification be made if the person wishes to remain on the list. At least thirty
(30) days prior to removal of the name from the Interested Persons List, the City will send
notification to the person whose name is to be deleted. It is the responsibility of the person
requesting to maintain a current address with the City for the purposes of being included on the
Interested Persons List.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
TABLE 2
Potential Impact Reduction and Credits for Systems Development Charges
NOTE: These are possible examples only; eligibility is established at time of review
of plans which approve the proposed improvements.
1. Transportation System
REDUCTIONS:
Successful bus pass program for employees
CREDITS:
Street width in excess of assessable width
Off-site, non-contiguous arterial or collector intersection
Street light on arterial or collector street
Off-site arterial or collector right of way and easement acquisition
Traffic signal on arterial or collector street
Off-street bicycle paths identified in adopted City plan
Off-site eligible public improvements where equivalent assessments can be collected
2. Wastewater System
CREDITS:
Public Wastewater collection lines > 8-inch diameter
Public pump stations and pressure lines that serve more than the development
Off-site public improvements, where equivalent assessments can be collected
Prior payment of Metropolitan Wastewater Service District debt service
3. Stormwater System
REDUCTIONS:
Retention system (e.g. drywell, infiltration trench)
CREDITS:
Stormwater collection lines > 24-inches in diameter
Major drainage channels: construction and off-site easement
Off-site public improvements where equivalent assessments can be collected or that
benefit existing developments
4. Parks System
CREDITS:
Land dedication (for sites accepted by City, consistent with adopted City plans)
On-site park facility dedication (for improvements accepted by City, consistent with
adopted City plans)
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies
Appendix C1
Local Wastewater System Charge Detail
1.0 Local Wastewater System Methodology
1.1 Local Wastewater SDC Formula
The general methodology used to develop SDCs includes the following four steps:
· Determine value of growth-related capacity
· Define system capacity
· Calculate unit cost of growth-related capacity
· Develop SDC rate schedule
Each step is discussed below and related information is displayed in Table 6.
1.1.1 Step 1 -- Determine Value of Growth-Related Capacity (In 1998 dollars -- see current values in Table 6)
In Eugene, as in most communities, a portion of the capacity needed to serve
new development will be met through a combination of existing available system
capacity, and additional capacity added by planned system improvements. The
reimbursement fee is intended to recover the costs associated with the growth-
related (or available) capacity in the existing system, and the improvement fee is
based on the costs of capacity-increasing future improvements needed to meet
the demands of growth.
Reimbursement Fee
Calculation of the reimbursement fee begins with a review of utility fixed asset
records to determine the value of the existing local wastewater system. The
system value is based on Replacement Cost New which is a method that
involves assigning asset values on the basis of what it would cost in current
dollars to construct an equivalent set of infrastructure assets subject to current
market conditions, regulatory requirements, and technological advances. The
total value of the existing local wastewater system, including gravity lines (net of
assessments), force mains (or pressure lines), and pump stations was estimated
to be $96.1 million. Approximately $8.9 million of assets were funded from
grants. Like assessments, grant funds are deducted from the system value in
the SDC analysis because general system users did not fund these assets. Net
of grants, the total value of the existing system is approximately $87.2 million.
Because reimbursement fees are intended to recover the value of the system's
unused or available capacity, the total equity in the system is split between
existing customers and new development based on the estimated proportionate
use of capacity. The reimbursement cost basis is equal to the system equity
associated with the capacity available to serve new customers. App.roximately
52% of the existing system is available to meet the demands of new customers.
Therefore, the value of available (or growth-related) capacity in the existing
system is $45.3 million (net of grants).
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater,
Improvement Fee
Calculation of the improvement fee begins with a review of the utility's
wastewater master plan to determine which, or what portion of, improvements
are needed to provide capacity for new development. System capacity may be
expanded through the upgrade of existing facilities or the construction of new
facilities. The costs of the capacity-increasing improvements are projected
based on standard cost-estimating techniques. The planned capacity-increasing
improvements are projected to total $8.6 million (in 1998 dollars). These
improvement costs are also net of assessments.
Combined, the reimbursement fee cost basis and the improvement fee cost basis
represent the value of growth-related capacity, which is $53.9 million.
1.1.2 Step 2 -- Define System Capacity
As mentioned previously, the total growth-related capacity includes available
capacity in the existing system, and future capacity added by planned system
improvements. Wastewater system capacity is measured in terms of the amount
of flow that can be collected. Flow is measured in millions of gallons per day
(mgd).
The City's Wastewater Master Plan identifies build-out capacity as 48.9 mgd. In
order to reach that capacity, the City must construct an additional $8.6 million of
improvements. Assuming that the unit cost of existing and future capacity is the
same (in terms of replacement value), then the existing capacity of the system
can be estimated as 44.5 mgd (in proportion to the system value that has been
constructed.) The available capacity of 23.1 mgd (52%) is simply the difference
between the estimated existing capacity and existing flows.
The additional capacity added by the improvements is estimated to be 4.4 mgd
(the difference between build-out capacity and existing capacity.) Therefore, the
total growth-related capacity is 27.5 mgd.
1.1.3 Step 3 m Calculate Unit Cost of Growth-Related Capacity (In 1998 dollars -- see current values in Table 6)
The unit cost of growth-related capacity is determined by dividing the growth-
related costs identified in Step 1, by the growth-related capacity defined in Step
2. The unit cost is stated in terms of dollars per mgd. The total growth-related
costs are $53.9 and the growth-related capacity is 27.5 mgd. Therefore, the unit
cost of growth-related capacity is approximately $2 million per mgd.
1.1.4 Step 4 m Develop SDC Rate Schedule
The SDC rate schedule uses scaling measures that are designed with the intent
that customers who are larger, or use infrastructure systems more intensively,
pay the associated costs of capacity required to serve them. Fees for residential
customers are computed by multiplying the unit costs of capacity by the capacity
requirements of a typical user. Residential customers are then charged
differential fees based on the attribute of square feet of living space of the
development. Non-residential customers are assessed based on plumbing
fixture units and land use type.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater.
For more detailed information on the local wastewater rate schedule, see
Table 7. For formula and calculation details, see Appendix F.
1,2 Residential Development Rates
An analysis based upon 1997 Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) residential
account data indicated a correlation between water usage and square feet of living area.
The resultant SDC rate structure, applies a charge for every residential dwelling unit (be
it a single-family home, a single-family accessory unit, each space of a mobile home
park, each unit of a duplex, or each unit of an apartment complex) of a base rate plus
the total living area in square feet multiplied by a rate factor. Additions to residential
units that increase the living area will be charged per square foot of increased living area
by the same rate factor. For current rates, see Appendix F.
1,3 Non-Residential Development Rates
The SDC rate structure for non-residential development applies a land use factor to the
number of Plumbing Fixture Units (PFUs) for a development. This factor is intended to
capture different intensities of use of plumbing fixtures by different types of non-
residential customers. The factors were developed based on an analysis of actual water
usage by land use category, correlated to PFUs. The number of PFUs for a particular
development is determined using the PFU tables and calculation methods contained in
the applicable Plumbing Code at the time of permit application.
The local wastewater rate schedule shown in Table 7 reflects rates per PFU for various
development types indicated by an SDC use code. Developments are assigned an SDC
use code based on the HUD/BPR land use code assigned at the time of permit
application. For development types that are not included in the HUD/BPR land use
codes a default PFU flow assignment, based on the average flow per PFU of all records
in the data sample used to determine flow per PFU by land use category, will be used to
calculate the SDC charge. When, due to extraordinary wastewater discharge flow, it has
been determined by the City Engineer that PFU flow assignment as reflected in the rate
table is not a reliable measure of the development's claim on system capacity, the SDC
charge will be based on the development's estimated daily wastewater flow when in full
use or production. The City Engineer may require that the owner(s) enter into an
agreement with the City to review water usage or wastewater discharge at such time that
the development is in full use or production.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
TABLE 6
Local Wastewater System Development Charge Analysis
I1. Analysis of System Value
Total Replacement Cost - Pipe $415,212,33(~
Total Replacement Cost - Pumping Stations $15,850,693
City Cost of future proiects within UGB $9,925,332
Other Wastewater Components $3,253,455
1
2. Analysis of Assessable Amount
Size Total Cost
6-inch $9,434,085
8 to 48-inch $313,928,688
Ils-CapacityInformationII
4. Calculation of Wastewater SDC II
Total System Valuation, existing and planned I $444,241,816111
Cost per unit of capacityl~er ~allon ~ I $2.2572 II
5. Calculation of Reimbursement Percentage I
City System Capacity (EDUs) in mgd 49.0 100.00%
Existing Use in mgd 21.4 43.7%
Percent Available for New Development in mgd 27.6 56.3%
Total Value of Reserve Capacity/value of system} $62,122,254 100.00%
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater.
TABLE 7
Local Wastewater Plumbing Fixture Unit Rates
1F Single-Family/Duplex Housing $297.92 + (Sq Ft Living Area x $0.0722)
1X Mixed Use with Residential $297.92 + (Sq Ft Living Area x $0.0722)
11 Multi-Family Housing $297.92 + (Sq Ft Living Area x $0.0722)
12 A, B, & C Elderly Housing Attach, Detach, & Group/Retirement Home $297.92 + (Sq Ft Living Area x $0.0722)
13 Residential Hotel $297.92 + (Sq Ft Living Area x $0.0722)
14 Mobile Home Park $297.92 + (Sq Ft Living Area x $0.0722)
15 Hotels, Motels, Lodging 19.05 $43.00
21 Beverage/Food Mfg 39.87 $89.99
24 Wood Products 47.93 $108.19
2X Light Mfg./Printing 56.62 $127.80
3X Manufacturing 58.65 $132.38
4X Transportation & Utilities 18.22 $41.13
41 Fire Station 7.75 $17.49
51 Wholesale Trade 21.37 $48.24
54 Retail Trade / Grocery 55.46 $125.18
55 Retail Trade Automotive 7.83 $17.67
59 Retail Trade Other 39.91 $90.08
5A Restaurant - Fast Food 25.44 $57.42
5B Restaurant- Low to Med Turnover 62.47 $141.01
5(3 Restaurant - Higher Turnover 22.45 $50.67
5D Drinking Establishments 54.98 $124.10
5E Take/Bake & Pick Up/Delivery Establishments 26.49 $59.79
5X Retail Trade / Clothing & Dry Goods 12.35 $27.88
61 Financial Offices / Banks 16.99 $38.35
62 Other Services 28.51 $64.35
63 Rental/Storage Services 6.49 $14.65
64 Automotive & Other Repair Services 16.17 $36.50
65 Medical Services 28.75= $64.89
66 Construction Trade Services 13.69 $30.90
67 Government Services, Office/Business Parks Based on specific use of development
68 ~ Education / Cultural 15.66 $35.35
69 Churches/Clubs/Organizations 15.70 $35.44
6A1 Laundry Services (Linen, Uniform) 538.96 $1,216.54
6A2. Laundry, Self-Service 299.64 $676.35
6A3 Dry Cleaning Service (with or w/out laundry services) 36.30 $81.94
6B (3ar Wash 264.54 $597.12
6X Professional/Real Estate/Insurance 67.76 $152.95
7X Entertainment, Recreation & Sports 88.42 $199.58
82 Veterinarian Service 24.79 $55.96
*The unit cost of capacity for the local wastewater system is $2.2572 per gallon per day.
The flow per Plumbing Fixture Unit (PFU) is stated as gallons per day based on the size of development and b/pe of land use.
Land use types that do not fit into the above categories will receive a default flow assignment based on the sample average.
The default flow is 47.93 gal/day x $2.2572 = a cost per PFU of $108.19.
rate per PFU may be assigned by the City Engineer should a proposed use not be represented by one of the published SDC use
codes and for which a default flow assignment is not representative of the proposed flow. In the case of those proposed
developments that are determined to have a potential for exceptional water usage, the City Engineer may require that the Owner(s)
enter into an agreement with the City to review water usage or wastewater discharge at such time the development is in full use or
production as the final basis of the local wastewater SDC. A complete list of wastewater SDC/HUD BPR use codes is provided in
Table 8.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater~
FIGURE 4
Local Wastewater System
Level of Service System Value
Impact Measurement Build-out replacement costs
- Assessable cost
Daily flow, wastewater discharge = SCD eligible cost
Formula
Cost of Service (Per unit of capacity)
System valuation
(Value of existin,q + Value of planned) = Unit of capacity
Build-out capacity (mgd)
Non-Residential Formula: Residential Formula:
Cost of Service Cost of Service
(per flow estimation units [FEU] (per residential dwelling unit [DU])
(Cost per Gallon per Day / PFU (varies by (Cost per Gallon per Day x base flow for P, DU)
development type)) x number of PFUs + (Cost per square foot x square feet of living area)
= charge for non-residential development = charge for residential development
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater,
TABLE 8
Wastewater SDC / HUD BPR* Use Codes
* Bureau of Public Records, Housing and Urban Development
HUD BPR
Eugene Wastewater SDC Land Use Land Use Description
Use Code Codes
1F 1111 Single Family Housing
1F 1119 Common or Open Area - Typically In Single Family Area
1F 1120 Two Family Housing Unit-Duplex
1F 1129 Common or Open Area - Typically In Duplex Structure Area
11 1130 Apartment Under Construction
11 1131 Quad
11 1132 Apartment With 1 To 4 Units
11 1133 Apartment With 5To 19 Units
11 1134 Apartment With 20 Units or More
11 1139 Common or Open Area - Typically In Multi-Unit Structure Area
1F 1150 Mobile Home - Not In Mobile Home Park
1F 1151 Mobile Home - Temporary
1F 1159 Common or Open Area - Typically In Mobile Home Area
1F 1160 Houseboat-Separate
12C 1210 Boarding & Rooming Houses
12C 1221 Fraternity & Sorority Houses
12C 1231 Nurses Home
12C 1232 College Dormitory
12C 1239 Other Residence Halls or Dormitories
12A, B, or C 1241 Retirement Home
12C 1251 Convents
12C 1252 Monasteries
12C 1253 Rectories
12C 1259 Religious Quarters
12C 1290 Group Quarters (Military, Forest Service)
13 1300 Residential Hotel or Motel With 75% or More Permanently Occupied
14 1400 Mobile Home Park or Court
15 1510 Hotels, Motels, Lodges, Cabins, Resorts
15 1520 Mobile Home, Temporary Weekly Lodging
15 1590 Other Transient Lodgings (YMCA or YWCA)
15 1900 Moorages, Houseboat, Commercial
15 1910 Seasonally Occupied Family Quarters
21 2111 Meat Packing Establishments or Slaughtering Plants
21 2113 Poultry & Small Game Dressing & Packing
21 2120 Creamery Multi-Dairy Products
21 2121 Butter, Creamery & Whey / Mfg
21 2122 Cheese Natural & Processed
21 2123 Condensed & Evaporated Milk/Mfg
21 2124 Ice Cream & Frozen Desserts / Mfg
21 2125 Milk Processing & Distribution
21 2131 Canning & Preserving Of Sea foods / Mfg
21 2132 Canning Specialty Foods
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater; _
21 2133 Canning Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves / Mfg
21 2134 Drying & Deh~,drating Fruits & Vegetables / Mfg
21 2135 Pickling Of Fruits & Vegetables
21 2137 Frozen Food Processing (Fruits, Vegetables, Specialties) / Mfg
21 2140 Grain Mill Products (Prepared, Concentrated, Supplemented Feeds)
21 2150 Bakery Products / Mfg
21 2171 Candy & Other Confectionery Products / Mfg
21 2185 Beverages, Nonalcoholic, Bottled or Canned / Mfg
21 2195 Roasting Coffee & Coffee Products / Mfg
21 2190 Other Food Preparations & Kindred Products / Mfg
2X 2220 Knit Goods / Mfg
2X 2330 Women's, Misses, Girl's, Children's, Infant's Outerwear / Mfg
2X 2361 Leather Tanning & Finishing / Mfg
2X 2369 'Other Leather Products / Mfg
2X 2392 House Furnishings (Except Curtains & Draperies) / Mfg
2X 2393 Textile Bags / Mfg
2X 2394 Canvas Products / Mfg
2X 2395 Pleating, Tucking, Decorative & Novelty Stitching For Trade
24 2400 Lumber & Paper Co.-Multi-Products
66 2410 Logging Camps & Logging Contractors
24 2421 Sawmills & Planning Mills, General / Mfg
24 2422 Hardwood Dimension & Flooring / Mfg
24 2429 Special Sawmill Products (Shingles, Hoops, Staves) / Mfg
24 2431 Millwork / Mfg
24 2432 Veneer & Plywood / Mfg
24 2433 Prefabricated Wooden Buildings & Structural Members / Mfg
24 2440 Wooden Containers / Mfg
24 2491 Wood Preserving
24 2499 Other Lumber & Wood Products (Except Furniture) / Mfg
2X 2510 Household Furniture / Mfg
2X 2520 Office Furniture / Mfg
2X 2540 Partitions, Shelving, Lockers & Store Fixtures / Mfg
2X 2599 Other Furniture & Fixtures (Cabinets, Carts, Stools) / Mfg
2X 2620 Paper / Mfg
2X 2642 Envelopes, Printed or Unprinted, Paper, Glassine, Cello / Mfg
2X 2646 Pressed & Molded Pulp Goods / Mfg
2X 2647 Sanitary Paper Products/Mfg
2X 2649 Other Converted Paper & Paper Products (Except Containers)/Mfg
2X 2650 Paperboard Containers & Boxes / Mfg
2X 2660 Building Paper & Building Board (Fiber, Siding, Felt) / Mfg
2X 2710 Newspapers, Publishing & Printing or Publishing Only / Mfg
2X 2720 Periodicals, Publishing & Printing or Publishing Only / Mfg
2X 2730 Books, Publishing & Printing, or Publishing Only/Mfg
2X 2740 Commercial Printing / Mfg
2X 2750 Business Forms, Manifold / Mfg
2X 2760 Cards, Greeting, Except Hand Painted / Mfg
2X 2781 'Typesetting For The Printing Trade
2X 2789 Other Printing Trade Service Industries (Decals)
2X 2790 Other Printing & Publishing (Maps, Directories) / Mfg
3X 2810 Industrial Inorganic & Organic Chemicals / Mfg
3X 2820 Plastics, Synthetic Resins, Rubbers & Other Manmade Fibers / Mfg
3X 2860 Gum & Wood Chemicals / Mfg
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
3X 2850 Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels & Allied Products / Mfg
3X 2870 Agricultural Chemicals (Fertilizers, Herbicides) / Mfg
3X 2899 Other Chemicals & Allied Products / Mfg
3X 3140 Miscellaneous Plastic Products / Mfg
3X 3190 Other Fabricated Rubber Products / Mfg
3X 3200 Stone, Clay & Glass Products / Mfg
3X 3229 Other Glass & Glassware Products (Pressed or Blown) / Mfg
3X 3230 Cement, Hydraulic, Portland, Natural, Masonry, Puzzolan / Mfcj
3X 3249 Structural Clay Products / Mfg
3X 3259 Potter7 & Related Products / Mfg
3X 3261 Blocks, Concrete & Cinder / Mfcj
3X 3262 Concrete Products (Excluding Brick & Block) / Mfg
3X 3263 Concrete (Ready Mixed) / Mfg
3X 3270 Cut Stone Products For Building, Ornamental, Paving, / Mfg
3X 3280 Abrasive, Asbestos & Misc. Nonmetallic Mineral Products / Mfg
3X 3311 Blast Furnace, Steel Works & Rolling / Mfcj
3X 3320 Iron & Steel Foundries / Mfg
3X 3360 Nonferrous Foundries (Aluminum, Bronze, Copper, Brass) / Mfg
3X 3390 Other Primar~ Metal Industries / Mfg
3X 3421 Engines & Turbines / Mfg
3X 3423 Construction, Mining & Materials Handling Machiner~ & Equipment / Mfg
3X 3424 Metalworking Machine~ & Equipment / Mfg
3X 3425 Special Industry Machiner7 (Sawmill MachinerT) / Mfg
3X 3426 General Industrial Machiner~ & Equipment / Mfg
3X 3429 Other Machiner7 Manufacturincj (Pistons, Valves)
3X 3433 .Household Electrical Appliances / Mfg
3X 3435 Radio & Television Receiving Sets / Mfg
3X 3437 Electronic Components & Accessories / Mfg
3X 3439 Other Electrical Machinery, Equip. & Supplies Manufacturing
3X 3441 Motor Vehicles & Equipment / Mfg
3X 3443 Ship & Boat Building
3X 3449 Other Transportation Equip. (Campers, Trailers) / Mfg
3X 3491 Metal Cans / Mfg
3X 3492 Cutler)/, H& Tools & Hardware / Mfg
3X 3493 Heating Apparatus & Plumbing Fixtures / Mfg
3X 3494 Fabricated Structural Metal Products (Awnings, Boilers) / Mfg
3X 3496 Metal Stamping / Mf~]
3X 3497 Coating, Engraving & Allied Services
3X 3498 Fabricated Wire Products (Misc.) / Mfg
3X 3499 Other Fabricated Metal Products (Irrigation Equipment, Industrial Patterns).
3X 3521 Mechanical Measuring & Controlling Instruments / Mfg
3X 3542 Orthopedic, Prosthetic & Surgical Appliances & Supplies / Mfg
3X 3913 Lapidar7 Work, Contract & Other Stone Polishing
3X 3930 Toys, Amusement, Sporting & Athletic Goods / Mf~
3X 3950 Costume Jewelr7, Novelties, Buttons & Misc. Notions / Mfg
3X 3997 Signs & Advertisin~ Displays / Mfg
3X 3999 Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
4X 4111 Railroad Right-of-Way
4X 4112 Railroad Switchincj & Marshalin9 Yard
4X 4113 Railroad Terminals, Passen~]er
4X 4114 Railroad Terminals, Freicjht
4X 4115 Railroad Terminals, Passenger & Freight
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater.
4X 4116 Railroad Equipment & Maintenance
4X 4119 Other Railroad Transportation
4X 4211 Terminal, Bus Passenger, Intercit¥
4X 4214 Maintenance Facilities For Passenger Bus Vehicles
4X 4219 Bus Stops
4X 4221 Freight Trucking Terminals, With or Without Maintenance Facility
4X 4222 Motor Freight Garaging & Maintenance Facility
4X 4223 Moving & Storage, Household
4X 4229 Other Motor Freight Transportation
4X 4291 Taxicab Transportation
4X 4311 Airport & Flying Field Landing/Takeoff Fields
4X 4312 Airport & Flying Field Terminals (Passenger)
4X 4313 Airport & Flying Field Terminals (Freight)
4X 4314 Airport & Flying Field Terminals (Passenger & Freight)
4X 4315 Aircraft Storage & Equipment Maintenance
4X 4319 Other Airports & Flying Fields Necessar7
4X 4391 Heliport Landing/Takeoff Pads
4X 4399 Other Aircraft Transportation
4X 4500 Highway & Street Rights-of-Way
4X 4508 Bridges - Railroad, Vehicular or Pedestrian
4X 4510 Freeways, (i.e., Routes With No At-Grade Intersections)
4X 4520 Expressways, (i.e. Routes With Grade Intersect Only At Maior Streets)
4X 4550 CollectodDistributor Streets
4X 4570 Alleys, Public
4X 4571 Bicycle Path
4X 4575 Pedestrian Walkway, Stairway, Etc.
4X 4580 Rights-Of-Way, Roads-Proposed Roadway
4X 4590 Private Roads
4X 4599 Other Rights-of-Way Related
4X 4600 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Retail)
4X 4601 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Service)
4X 4602 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Government)
4X 4603 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Education)
4X 4604 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Transportation)
4X 4605 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Recreation)
4X 4606 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Industrial)
4X 4607 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Utility)
4X 4608 Automobile Parking (Non-Structure/Religious)
4X 4610 Automobile Parking (Structure/Retail)
4X 4611 Automobile Parking (Structure/Service)
4X 4612 Automobile Parking (Structure/Government)
4X 4613 Automobile Parking (Structure/Education)
4X 4614 Automobile Parking (Structure/Transportation)
4X 4615 Automobile Parking (Structure/Recreation)
4X 4616 Automobile Parking (Structure/Industrial)
4X 4711 Telephone Exchange Stations
4X 4719 Telephone Equipment Repair & Servicing
4X 4721 Radio Telegraph Message Center
4X 4731 Radio Broadcasting Studios, Commercial & Public Educational
4X 4732 Radio Broadcasting Transmitters & Towers, Commercial & Public Education
4X 4739 Other Radio Communication
4X 4741 Television Broadcasting Studio, Commercial & Public Educational
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
4X 4742 Television Transmitters & Towers, Commercial & Public Educational
4X 4749 Other Television Communication
4X 4759 Radio & Television Transmitter, Combined, Commercial or Public Education
4X 4810 Electric & Power Companies
4X 4811 Electric Transmission Right-of-Way
4X 4812 Electric Generation Plant
4X 4813 Electricity Regulating Substations
4X 4819 Other Electric Utility
4X 4823 Gas Storage Tanks & Distribution Facilities, Mfg or Natural
4X 4824 Gas Pressure Control Stations
4X 4831 Water Pipeline Right-of-Way (EWEB Canal)
4X 4832 Water, Domestic Supply, Treatment Plant
4X 4833 Water Storage (Flood Control Dam, Water Tower)
4X 4835 Pumping Station, Domestic Water
4X 4839 Water, Domestic Supply, Aqueduct
4X 4841 Sewage Treatment Plant
4X 4842 Sewage Sludge Drying Beds
4X 4843 Sewage Pressure Control Station
4X 4852 Garbage Grinding Station, Central
4X 4853 Composting Plants
4X 4854 Sanitary Land Fill
4X 4855 Refuse Disposal, Except Industrial Wastes
4X 4856 Industrial Waste Disposal
4X 4859 Other Solid Waste Disposal
4X 4911 Petroleum Pipeline Right Of Way
4X 4921 Freight Forwarding Service
4X 4922 Crating & Packing Service
4X 4923 Travel Arranging Services (Information, Freight Agencies)
4X 4924 Transportation Ticket Services (Travel Agency, Ticket Office)
4X 4990 Other Transportation, Communication & Utilities
51 5111 Automobiles & Other Motor Vehicles / Whsle
51 5112 Automotive Equipment / Whsle
51 5113 Tires & Tubes / Whsle
51 5121 Drugs, Drug Proprietaries & Druggist's Sundries / Whsle
51 5122 Paints & Varnishes (Shellac, Lacquers, Enamels) / Whsle
51 5129 'Other Drugs, Chemicals & Allied Products / Whsle
51 5131 Dry Goods, Piece Goods & Notions / Whsle
51 5132 Apparel & Accessories, Hosiery & Lingerie / Whsle
51 5133 Footwear / Whsle
51 5141 Groceries, General Line / Whsle
51 5142 Dairy Products / Whsle
51 5143 Poultry Products / Whsle
51 5144 Confectionery / Whsle
51 5145 Fish, Fresh / Whsle
51 5146 Meat & Meat Products / Whsle
51 5147 Fruits & Vegetables / Whsle
51 5149 Other Groceries & Related Products / Whsle
51 5151 Cotton, Raw / Whsle
51 5152 Grain / Whsle
51 5153 Hides, Skins & Pelts / Whsle
51 5154 Exporters Of Leaf Tobacco
51 5155 Wool, Raw / Whsle
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater.
51 5156 Livestock / Whsle
51 5157 Horses / Whsle
51 5159 Farm Products, Raw (Except Cotton, Grain or Livestock) / Whsle
51 5161 Electrical Apparatus & Equipment; Wiring Supplies & Construction Equipment
51 5162 Electrical Appliances, TV & Radio Sets / Whsle
51 5163 Electronic Parts & Equipment / Whsle
51 5171 Hardware / Whsle
51 5172 Plumbing & Heating Equipment & Supplies / Whsle
51 5173 Air Conditioning, Refrigerated Equipment & Supplies / Whsle
51 5181 Commercial & Industrial Machinery, Equipment & Supplies/Whsle
51 5182 Farm Machinery & Equipment / Whsle
51 5183 Professional Equipment & Supplies / Whsle
51 5184 Equipment & Supplies For Service Establishments / Whsle
51 5185 Transportation Equipment & Supplies (Except Motor Vehicles)/Whsle
51 5189 Other Machinery, Equipment & Supplies / Whsle
51 5191 Metals & Minerals (Except Petroleum Products & Scrap) / Whsle
51 5192 Petroleum Bulk Stations & Terminals ! Whsle
51 5193 Scrap & Waste Materials / Whsle
51 5194 Tobacco & Tobacco Products / Whsle
51 5195 Beer, Wine & Distilled Alcoholic Beverages / Whsle
51 5196 Paper & Paper Products / Whsle
51 5197 Furniture & Home Furnishings / Whsle
51 5198 Lumber & Construction Materials / Whsle
51 5199 Other Wholesale Trade
5X 5211 Lumber Yards / Ret
5X 5212 Building Materials / Ret
5X 5220 Plumbing & Heating Equipment / Ret
5X 5230 Paint, Glass & Wallpaper / Ret
5X 5240 Electrical Supplies / Ret
5X 5251 Hardware Stores / Ret
5X 5252 Farm Equipment / Ret
5X 5310 Department Stores / Ret
5X 5320 Mail Order Houses / Ret
5X 5330 Limited Price Variety Stores / Ret
5X 5340 Merchandise Vending Machine Operators / Ret
5X 5350 Selling Organizations, Direct, Headquarters of Door-To-Door
5X 5391 Dr~ Goods & General Merchandise / Ret
5X 5392 General Stores / Ret
54 5410 Grocery Stores, With or Without Fresh Meat / Ret
54 5421 Meat Markets / Ret
54 5422 Sea Food Markets / Ret
54 5430 Fruit & Vegetable Stands / Ret
54 5440 Candy, Nut & Confectionery / Ret
54 5450 Dairy Products Stores / Ret
54 5461 Retail Bakeries / Mfg
54 5462 Bakeries, Nonmfg, Retail
54 5491 Egg & Poultry Dealers / Ret
54 5499 Other Retail Trade - Food
55 5511 New & Used Cars & Trucks / Ret
55 5512 Automobiles, Used Cars & Trucks Only/Ret
55 5520 Tires, Batteries & Accessories / Ret
55 5530 Automobile Service Stations, With or Without Minor Repair Service
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
55 5591 Marine Craft & Accessories / Ret
55 5592 Aircraft Dealers / Ret
55 5599 Other Retail Trade - Auto trailers, Mobile Homes, Motorcycles
5X 5610 Clothing Stores, Men's & Boy's / Ret
5X 5620 Clothing Stores, Women's Read)/To Wear / Ret
5X 5630 Women's Accessories & Specialties / Ret
5X 5640 Children's & Infant's Wear / Ret
5X 5650 Family Clothing Stores / Ret
5X 5660 Shoe Stores, Famil)/, Men's, Women's or Children's / Ret
5X 5670 Custom Tailors / Ret
5X 5680 Furriers / Retail
5X 5690 Other Retail Trade-Apparel & Accessories
5X 5711 Furniture / Ret
5X 5712 Floor Covering Stores / Ret
5X 5713 Draperies, Curtains & Upholstery/Ret
5X 5714 China, Glassware & Metalware Stores / Ret
5X 5719 Other Furniture, Home Furnishings & Equipment / Ret
5X 5720 Household Appliances / Ret
5X 5731 Radios, TV's, Stereos / Ret
5X 5732 Music Supplies / Ret
5X 5733 Calculators, Computers & Other Office Machines / Ret
5A/B/C 5810 Eating Places {Food & Both Food & Alcoholic Beverages)
5D 5820 Bars, Drinking Establishments
59 5910 Drug & Proprietary/Ret
59 5920 Liquor, Wine & Beer (Packaged) / Ret
59 5931 Antique Stores / Ret
59 5932 Secondhand Merchandise / Ret
59 5941 Book Stores, New / Ret
59 5942 Stationery Stores / Ret
59 5951 Sporting Goods / Ret
59 5952 Bicycle & Bic)/cle Pads Dealers / Ret
59 5961 Feed Grain & Ha)/Stores / Ret
59 5969 Other Farm & Garden Supplies (Nurseries) / Ret
59 5970 Jewelry, Precious & Precious Metals, Including Custom Made/Ret
59 5981 Fuel Dealers, Coal, Wood, Ice / Ret
59 5982 Fuel Oil Dealers / Ret
59 5983 Bottled Gas / Ret
59 5991 Florists / Retail
59 5992 Cigars & Cigarettes / Ret
59 5993 Magazines & Newspapers / Ret
59 5994 Camera Shops & Photographic Supply Stores / Ret
59 5995 Gift, Novelty & Souvenir Shops (Ceramic Shop) / Ret
59 5996 Optical Goods Stores / Ret
59 5999 Other Retail Trade-Artist Supply, Luggage Shop, Pet Shop
61 6111 Banking Services
61 6112 Bank-Related Functions
61 6121 Savings & Loan Associations
61 6122 Agriculture, Business & Personal Credit Services (Credit Union)
61 6129 Other Credit Services (Loan Co.)
61 6131 Securit)/Brokers, Dealer & Flotation Services
61 6132 Commodit)/Contracts Brokers & Dealers Services
61 6133 Securit)/& Commodit)/Exchange
City of Eugene SDC M thodologi s Wastewater
6X 6141 Insurance Carriers
6X 6142 Insurance Agents, Brokers & Services
6X 6151 Real Estate Operators (Except Developers) & Lessors
6X 6152 Real Estate Agents, Brokers & Management Services
6X 6153 Title & Trust Companies
6X 6154 Real Estate Subdividing & Developing Services
6X 6155 Real Estate Operative Builders
6X 6159 Other Real Estate & Related Services
6X 6160 Holding & Investment Services
6X 6190 Other Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services
6A3 6211 Laundering, Dry Cleaning & Dyeing Services (Except Rug Cleaning)
6A1 6212 Linen Supply & Industrial Laund~ Services
6A1 6213 Diaper Service
6A2 6214 Laundries, Self-Service
6A3 6215 Rug Cleaning & Repairing Plants
62 6220 Photographic Services (Including Commercial)
62 6231 Beauty Services
62 6232 Barber Services
62 6241 Funeral & Cremato~ Services
62 6242 Cemeteries
62 6251 Pressing & Alteration, & Clothing Repair Shops
62 6252 Fur Garments, Cleaning, Repairing, & Storage
62 6253 Shoe Repair Shops
62 6290 Other Personal Services
62 6311 Advertisin~l Agencies
62 6312 Outdoor Advertising Services
62 6319 Other Advertising Services, NEC
62 6320 Collection Agencies, Accounts (Except Real Estate)
62 6332 Blueprinting & Photocopying Services
62 6339 Stenographic Services & Other Duplicating & Mailing Services
62 6341 Window Cleaning Services
62 6342 Disinfecting & Exterminatincg Service
62 6349 Building Maintenance, Janitorial, & Similar Services
62 6350 News Syndicate Services
62 6360 Commercial Employment Agencies
63 6371 Farm Product Warehousing & Storage (Barns, Livestock Shelters)
63 6372 Stockyards (Not Exclusively For Fattening Livestock)
63 6373 Refrigerated Warehousing, Except Food Lockers
63 6374 Rental Of Cold Storage Lockers
63 6375 Commercial Warehousing & Storable
63 6379 Industrial Warehousing & Storage
62 6391 Research Development & Testing Services
62 6392 Business & Management Consulting Services
62 6393 Detective & Protective Services
62 6394 Equipment Rental & Leasing Services
62 6395 Photographic Laboratories, Not Manufacturing
62 6396 Trading Stamp Redemption Store
62 6397 Automobile & Truck Rental Services
62 6398 Motion Picture Distribution & Services
62 6399 Other Business Svc (Garbage Collctn; Sewer or Answering Svc)
6B 6412 Car Wash
64 6411 Automobile Repair Shops, General
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
64 6419 'Other Automobile Services
64 6491 Electric Appliance Repair (Except Radio, TV, or Refrigeration)
64 6492 Television & Radio Repair Services
64 6493 Watch, Clock & Jewelry Repair Services
64 6494 Re-upholstery & Furniture Repair Services
64 6499 Other Repair Services (Tool, Locksmith, Musical Instrument, Hydraulic)
6X 6500 Professional Office Building
65 6511 Physicians Services
65 6512 Dental Services
65 6513 Hospital Services
65 6514 Medical Laboratory Services
65 6515 Dental Laboratories
65 6516 Convalescent Homes, Sanitariums, Nursing Homes
65 6517 Medical Clinic, Out- Patient Service
65 6519 Other Medical & Health Services
6X 6520 Legal Services
6X 6591 Architectural & Engineering Services
6X 6592 Scientific & Educational Research Services
6X 6593 Accounting, Auditin~J & Bookkeeping Services
6X 6599 Other Professional Services
66 6611 Building Construction--General Contractor Services
66 6619 Other General Construction Contractor Services
66 6621 Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Services
66 6622 Painting, Paper Hanging & Decorating Services
66 6623 Electrical Work / Contractors
66 6624 Masonry, Stonework, Tile Setting & Plastering Services
66 6625 Carpentry Work / Contractors
66 6626 Roofing & Sheet Metal Services
66 6627 Concrete Construction, Other Than Paving, Foundation & Excavation
66 6628 Water Well Drilling / Contractors
66 6629 Other Special Construction Trade Services
67 6710 Executive, Legislative & Judicial Functions (Offices, Courts)
67 6719 Other Publicly Owned Property
67 6721 Police Protection & Related Activities
67 6722 Fire Stations, Community Fire Protection
67 6729 Other Protective Functions & Their Related Activities
67 6730 Post Offices & Related Facilities
67 6741 Prisons, State, Federal or Other Civil Government
67 6749 Other Correctional Institutions
67 6755 Recruiting Station, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, etc.
67 6759 Other Military Bases & Reservation
6X 6810 School District Administration Office
68 6811 Nursery Schools
68 6812 Elementary Schools
68 6813 Junior High Schools
68 6814 Senior High Schools
68 6815 Private Handicap Schools
68 6816 Parochial Schools
68 6821 Universities & Colleges
68 6822 Junior Colleges
68 6823 Theological Seminaries
68 6831 Vocational or Trade Schools
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
68 6832 Business & Stenographic Schools
68 6833 Barber & Beauty Schools
68 6834 Art & Music Schools
68 6835 Dance Studios & Schools
68 6836 :Driving Schools
68 6839 iOther Special Training & Schooling (Language, Modeling)
69 6911 Churches, Temples, Sunday School Facilities
69 6919 Other Religious Activities (Retreats, Camps, Diocesan Offices)
69 6920 Welfare & Charitable Services (Red Cross, Salvation Army)
69 6991 Business Associations, (Grange Halls, Trade or Farm Assn.)
69 6992 Professional Membership Organizations
69 6993 Labor Unions & Similar Labor Organizations
69 6994 Civic, Social & Fraternal Associations
69 6999 Misc. Services (Historical Clubs, City Clubs, Youth Projects)
68 7111 Libraries
68 7112 Museum, Historical Exhibit
68 7113 Art Galleries
68 7119 Other Cultural Activities
68 7123 Arboreta & Botanical Gardens
7X 7212 Theater, Motion Picture, Indoor
7X 7213 Drive-In Motion Picture Theater
7X 7214 Theater, Legitimate Stage
7X 7219 Other Entertainment Assembly
7X 7221 Stadium, Football, Baseball, Track & Field or Other
7X 7223 Race Track Operation, Horse, Dog, Automobile
7X 7231 Auditorium
7X 7232 Exhibition Hall
7X 7239 Other Miscellaneous Assembly
7X 7290 Other Public Assembly
7X 7311 Fairground
7X 7312 Amusement Park
7X 7391 Penny Arcades
7X 7393 Golf Driving Ranges
7X 7399 Other Amusements (Pool Hall, Shooting Range)
7X 7411 Golf Course, Without Countr7 Club
7X 7412 Golf Course, With Count~ Club
7X 7413 Tennis Courts
7X 7414 Ice Skating Rinks
7X 7415 Roller Skating Rinks
7X 7416 Riding Stable
7X 7417 Bowling Alleys
7X 7419 Other Sports Activities
7X 7421 Play Lot or Tot Lot (Preschool or Elementa~ School-Aged Children)
7X 7422 Playground, Equipped (Not Part of Another Facility)
7X 7423 Play Fields or Athletic Fields
7X 7424 Recreation Center, General
7X 7425 Gymnasiums & Athletic Clubs
7X 7429 Other Playground & Athletic Areas
7X 7431 Swimming Beach, Designated
7X 7432 Swimming Pool, Indoor or Covered (Not Part of Residential Use)
7X 7442 Boat Rentals & Boat Access Sites
7X 7449 Other Marinas
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater _
7X 7491 Camping & Picnicking Areas
7X 7499 Other Recreation Not Elsewhere Classified
7X 7520 Group or Organized Camps (Girl Scout & Boy Scout, etc.)
7X 7620 Park, Ornamental (Plaza or Monument or Traffic Circle, etc.)
7X 7625 Park, Private Leisure
7X 7630 Open Space, Natural Area, Wetland
7X 7690 Other Parks
7X 7900 Other Cultural, Entertainment & Recreational Activities
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8010 Orchards, Tree Fruit or Nut
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8020 Intensive Grain or Field Crop
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8030 Bush, Fruit, Berries
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8040 Pasture, Cows, Sheep, Cattle
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8120 Farm, Predominant Crop - Cash Grain (Wheat, Corn, etc.)
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8130 Farm, Predominant Crop - Field Crop Except Cash Grain or Fiber
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8141 Farm, Predominant Crop - Tree Fruits (Pear, Date, Lemon, etc.)
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8142 Farm, Predominant Crop - Tree Nuts
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8143 Farm, Predominant Crop - Vegetables, Ground Fruits
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8150 Farm, Predominant Product - Dairy Goods (Milk, Cheese, etc.)
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8161 Farm, Predominant Activity - Cattle Raising
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8170 Farm, Predominant Activity - Poultry Raising (Incl. Egg Products)
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8180 Farm, General, No Predominant Crop or Activity
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8192 Farm, Predominant Activity - Nursery or Flower Stock
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8194 Farm, Predominant Activity - Horse Raising
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8199 Other Agricultural & Related Activities
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8213 Grist Milling Services
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8219 Other Agricultural Processing Services
82 8221 Veterinarian Service
82 8222 Animal Hospitals & Other Veterinary Service
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8223 Poultry Hatcheries
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8229 Animal Breeding & Other Husbandry Services (Worm Hatchery)
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8310 Timberlands
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8321 Forest Nurseries
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8390 Guard Station, Game Management Area & Other Forestry Activities
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8542 Quarrying - Crushed & Broken Stone Including Riprap
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8543 Quarrying - Sand & Gravel
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8553 Crude Petroleum & Gas Field Services
No SDC Use Code Assigned 8900 Other Resource Production & Extraction
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9100 Vacant, Unused, Undeveloped Land
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9101 Broadleaf Brush
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9102 Stump Land, Cutover Land
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9103 Sand Dunes
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9220 Non-reserve Forests
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9310 Rivers, Creeks, Streams
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9320 Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9390 Other Water Areas (Swamps)
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9395 Sand Bars
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9400 Unused Building or Structure
No SDC Use Code Assigned 9410 Vacant Shop or Office
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater
Appendix C2
Regional Wastewater System Charge Detail
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Wastewater~ ~'
System Development Charge
Methodology
Prepared for
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
partners in wastewater management
March 26, 2004*
*As updated with minor technical corrections and nonsubstantive revisions through April 15, 2004
Contents
System Development Charge Methodology ........................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
System Development Charge Methodology ................................................................ 2
Overview .............................................................................................................. 2
Methodology Element One: Determine Growth Capacity Needs ............... 4
Step One - Capacity Parameters ................................................................. 4
Step Two - Growth Capacity Requirements ............................................. 6
Methodology Element Two: Develop Cost Basis ........................................... 6
Step One - System Valuation ...................................................................... 7
Step Two - Existing System Allocation ..................................................... 7
Step Three - Project Cost Allocation .......................................................... 8
Step Four - Adjustments ............................................................................ 11
Methodology Element Three: Develop SDC Schedule ................................ 12
Methodology Element Four: Calculate Revenue Offsets and Credits ....... 12
Past Payments ............................................................................................. 13
Future Payments ........................................................................................ 13
Appendixes
A System Component Definitions
B Capacity Parameter Allocation
C Growth Capacity Allocation Documentation
D User Capacity Requirements
E GO Bond Credit Calculation
Tables
1 Summary of Key Methodological Requirements .................................................................... 1
2 Example Calculation for Single (Average Flow) Capacity Parameter .................................3
3 Summary of Facility Process Component Allocation to System Capacity Parameters ..... 6
4 Existing System Available Capacity by Parameter ................................................................. 8
5 Summary of Project Type Allocation Criteria ........................................................................ 10
6 Growth Allocation Percentages by Project Type ................................................................... 11
B-1 Design Criteria Basis For Unit Processes Driven By Peak Flow ....................................... B-1
C-1 Capacity Summary of MWMC Liquids Facilities .............................................................. C-1
C-2 Projected 2025 Peak Flow Breakdown ................................................................................. C-3
C-3 Capacity Summary of MWMC Biosolids Facilities (annual average dry tons per
year) .......................................................................................................................................... C-5
E-1 GO Bond Credit per $1,000 Assessed Value By Annexation Year .................................... E-1
SEA31003271388(dg).doc
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
Figures
I Overview of MWMC SDC Methodology ............................................................................ 2
2 Existing System Allocation ................................................................................................... 3
3 Project Cost Allocation .......................................................................................................... 9
4 SDC Schedule Development ............................................................................................... 12
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
System Development Charge Methodology
Introduction
This document serves as the system development charge (SDC) methodology for the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Regional Wastewater
System. The MWMC is the regional wastewater treatment agency for the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area. System development charges may be collected from all
development that connects to the Regional Wastewater System, including development that
changes the use of existing development, when the change of use results in a greater impact
on the system.
The methodology contained in this document was developed in accordance with Oregon
SDC legislation (ORS 223.297-223.314), and with the guidance of a Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC) appointed by MWMC. Table 1 provides a comparison of key
methodological requirements from the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) to elements of the
MWMC methodology.
TABLE 1
Summary of Key Methodological Requirements
Oregon Law Requirement MWMC Methodology
Reimbursement Fee
Determine that existing capacity exists Explicitly calculates the portion of existing capacity available to
new users based on rated design capacities.
Methodology based on, when applicable: Methodology includes:
(a) Rate-making principles employed to finance (a) Consideration of capital financing costs
publicly-owned capital improvements (b) Adjustment for grant-funded facilities
(b) Prior contributions by existing users (c) Valuation based on appreciated cost (i.e., adjusted for
(c) Gift orgrants inflation)
(d) Value of unused capacity or cost of existing (d) Determination of unused capacity
facilities
(e) Other relevant factors
Promote objective of future system users (1) Includes a credit against SDCs for properties subject to
contributing no more than an equitable share of past general obligation bond debt service charges through
existing system costs property tax payments.
(2) Provides guidance to calculate a credit against SDCs for
future estimated user charge payments used to fund capital
included on the SDC project list.
Improvement Fee
Methodology demonstrates consideration of Provides a structured process for allocation of capital project
projected costs of capital improvements identified costs that is to be applied to an adopted project li§t
in an adopted plan or list
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
TABLE 1
Summary of Key Methodological Requirements
Oregon Law Requirement MWMC Methodology
Methodology demonstrates consideration of the Allocates future improvement costs to growth in proportion to
need for increased capacity in the system to meet capacity requirements
future users' demands
Combined Fee
Demonstrate that charge is not based on Determines total growth capacity requirements and the portion
providing the same capacity of capacity to be met through existing system available
capacity and future capacity expansion. Calculates a weighted
average cost of capacity.
System Development Charge Methodology
Overview
The SDC methodology for MWMC is based on a combined reimbursement and
improvement structure, as shown in Figure 1. The methodology consists of the following
elements:
· Determine capacity needs
· Develop cost basis
· Develop SDC schedule
· Calculate revenue offsets and credits
FIGURE 1--OVERVIEW OF MWMC SDC METHODOLOGY
:1 Determine capac,~ Needs
· '1 Existing Demand I Growth Demand
!o] Existing Facilities. I New facilities
Existing
~ Capacity ($) New Capacity ($)
~ : Growth units (Avg. Flow, Peak Flow, BeD, TSS)
Average Flow (gal.) Peak Flow (gal.) BeD (lbs)
Calculate O~e~ Credi~ :
Past payments I Future Payments
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
The reimbursement fee is based on the value of available capacity in the system that will
serve growth. The improvement fee is based on future facility costs associated with
providing growth's additional capacity needs (above what is already available in the
system). Together, the reimbursement and improvement fees recover costs equal to
growth's capacity needs.
Existing system available capacity and future improvement costs needed to expand capacity
for growth are distributed to capacity parameters (average flow, peak flow, biochemical
oxygen demand [BOD], and total suspended solids [TSS]), and spread over the total growth
units projected for the period to determine weighted average reimbursement and
improvement unit costs. The SDCs for individual developments are then determined by
applying the unit costs (by fee element and capacity parameter) to the individual
development estimated capacity requirements, and summing the results. The total SDC for
each development is then reduced by any applicable credits for past and future capital
payments.
Table 2 provides an example calculation for a single capacity parameter. The numbers
included in the table are intended to illustrate the methodology only (when applied to the
single capacity parameter of average flow); the numbers do not represent MWMC planning
criteria or cost data. Furthermore, the total SDC would include similar calculations for other
capacity parameters (i.e., peak flow, BOD, and TSS). In the example provided, total system
capacity needs at the end of the planning period are 60 million gallons per day (mgd).
Existing users are estimated to require 45 mgd (90 percent) of existing capacity, leaving
5 mgd (10 percent) available for growth. However, growth's total needs are 15 mgd,
meaning that additional investment will be required to expand system capacity by 10 mgd.
TABLE 2
Example Calculation for Single (Average Flow) Capacity Parameter*
Existing Future
Element Total System Expansion
Determine Capacity Needs
Systemwide Capacity (mgd) 60 50 10
Existing Users (mgd) 45 45 0
Growth (mgd) 15 5 10
Determine Cost Basis Needs 10% 100%
Systemwide Cost $50,000,000 $12,000,000
Growth Cost $17,000,000 $5,000,000 $12,000,000
Determine SDC Schedule
Weighted Average Unit Cost ($/mgd) $1,133,333 $333,333 $800,000
User Capacity Requirement (mgd) 0.00035 0.00035 0.00035
Total SDC $396.67 $116.67 $280.00
*Example only; not MWMC specific
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC~41040034 3
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
The example reimbursement fee cost basis includes 10 percent ($5 million) of existing
system value, associated with providing 5 mgd of capacity. The improvement fee cost basis
includes the costs to expand the facilities by 10 mgd, in this case estimated to be $12 million.
The total costs allocated to growth are equal to the total capacity required by growth (5 mgd
existing +10 mgd expansion) = 15 mgd total.
At this point the SDC schedule can be developed. First, the weighted average unit costs are
developed. This is accomplished by dividing the reimbursement fee and improvement fee
cost bases by the total growth capacity units (15 mgd in this case). By dividing the individual
fee elements by the total growth units, the combined fee is based on a weighted average cost
per unit. This is demonstrated in Table 2 where the individual unit costs are $333,000 per
mgd ($5 million/15 mgd) and $800,000 per mgd ($12 million/15 mgd), respectively, for
reimbursement and improvement elements; and $1.1 million per mgd ($17 million/15 mgd)
overall. The SDC for a user who requires 350 gallons per day (.000350 mgd) would equal
$116.67 reimbursement ($333,333 X 0.000350) + $280 improvement ($800,000 X 0.00035) for a
total of $396.67. The same fee would result from using the total cost per unit ($1.13 per
gallon per day) multiplied by the 350-gallon-per-day user requirements.
As the example demonstrates, the methodology meets the key requirements of the law, as
identified in Table 1:
· Determines the amount of available capacity that exists and allocates costs to growth
accordingly.
· Allocates improvement costs to growth in proportion to future capacity needs.
· Does not recover the costs of the same capacity through the reimbursement and
improvement fees. Recovers cost associated with existing capacity through the
reimbursement fee, and recovers costs associated with new capacity through the
improvement fee. The charges to individual developments are based on a weighted
average cost of capacity.
Each element of the methodology is discussed in more detail below.
Methodology Element One: Determine Growth Capacity Needs
The Oregon SDC law requires explicit analysis of capacity required to serve growth-and
demonstration of how those capacity needs will be met through existing and future
facilities. Therefore, it is necessary to first determine the appropriate capacity parameter(s),
and growth's capacity requirements.
Step One- Capacity Parameters
The appropriate capacity measure relates to the sizing criteria of the wastewater system, and
may, to improve equity, require consideration of multiple parameters to assess the impact of
the utility's various types of users. As wastewater systems must be sized to meet all of their
customers' demands, flows and strength loadings are important sizing criteria. MWMC
provides service to a diverse customer base, so consideration of varying flow and load
requirements of different customer types is one facet that ensures the equity of the SDCs.
The four capacity measures or parameters used in the methodology are:
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
· Average flow
· Peak flow
· BOD
· TSS
These parameters are defined as follows:
· Average Flow-The average daily flow in the dry season as defined in the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Because the NPDES permit
requires the Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) to meet permit
discharge limits on a monthly basis, the average flow is presented in terms of dry season
maximum month values when discussing "capacity." The dry season maximum month
flow includes base flow (customer flow) and the baseline or dry season infiltration and
h qow (I/I).
· Peak Flow--The peak hour flow in the wet season associated with the 5-year, 24-hour
storm event. Peak flow includes average flow and the additional increment of wet
weather I/I.
· Biochemical Oxygen Demand-The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical
oxidation of organic matter in a specified time and at a specified temperature. BOD is a
measurement of wastewater strength.
· Total Suspended Solids--Solids in the wastewater that are removable by laboratory
filtering and approximate the quantity of solids that are available to be removed from
the wastewater through sedimentation. TSS is a measurement of wastewater strength.
Table 3 provides the allocations of existing and future facility process components to the
system capacity parameters: average flow, peak flow, BOD, and TSS. A description of
process components is provided in Appendix A. The rationale for the allocation percentages
is provided in Appendix B. These allocations are used to determine the projected costs of
capacity to be used by new development that establish the reimbursement fee and
improvement fee cost bases. The underlying approach is to evaluate the following criteria
for each facility process component:
· Functional performance
· Design basis
The functional performance criterion considers the actual purpose of the facility on a daily
basis. Is the purpose of the facility to remove BOD or TSS from the wastewater? Or is the
purpose of the facility to simply pass the flow (average and/or peak) and remove some
other parameter not represented by BOD or TSS such as screenings, grit, or pathogens?
These questions are answered by the functional performance component. The design basis
considers what system capacity parameter or combination of parameters drives the sizing of
the facility and, therefore, the constructed cost. The allocation basis for each facility
component presented in Table 3 combines both the functional performance and design basis
considerations. In addition to these system parameters, because there can be projec.ts that
provide overall support for the wastewater system, a separate category of "indirect"
support facilities is used to provide for reallocation of these support-type costs across all of
the system capacity parameters.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC~041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
TABLE 3
Summary of Facility Process Component Allocation to System Capacity Parameters
System Capacity Parameter
Average Peak
Facility Process Component Flow Flow BOD TSS Indirect Total
Collection system pipeline ¼ % ...... 1
Collection system pump stations ¼ % ...... 1
Preliminary treatment ¼ % ...... 1
Primary treatment ¼ -- ¼ '~ -- 1
Secondary treatment ¼ -- Y2 1/. __ 1
Disinfection/ouffall ¼ % ...... 1
Biosolids (same for all three subcomponents) .... Y2 ~ -- 1
Tertiary filters ¼ -- ¼ Y2 -- 1
Reuse facilities 1 ........ 1
Odor control .... ~ ¼ -- 1
Peak flow management -- 1 ...... 1
Support facilities (Indirects) ........ 1 1
Step Two - Growth Capacity Requirements
In developing SDCs, costs related to growth (see 'Cost Basis' below) are spread over
growth's total capacity requirements over the study period to determine the overall cost per
unit of growth by capacity measure. The study period is defined as a 20-year period,
consistent with facility planning requirements. The Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) stipulates that entities that own and operate wastewater facilities assume a 20-year
planning horizon when developing facility plans (see DEQ Guidance for Development of
Wastewater Facilities Plans, 2000).
To determine the capacity required by growth, the capacity required by existing users is
subtracted from the capacity projected in the facility plan to be required at the end of the
planning period. For peak flow estimates, existing users' current capacity requirements are
adjusted for anticipated I/I reductions (see Guidelines for the Preparation of Facilities Plans
and Environmental Reports for Community Wastewater Projects, 1999).
Methodology Element Two: Develop Cost Basis
The cost basis represents the total costs that the SDCs are intended to recover. The following
methodological issues were addressed in developing the reimbursement and improvement
fee cost bases:
· System Valuation (Reimbursement Fee)-The method for valuing existing facilities
with capacity to serve growth.
· Existing System Allocation (Reimbursement Fee) -The method for allocating existing
system facility value to growth.
S EA31003271388(DG). DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
· Project Cost Allocation (Improvement Fee)--The method for allocating future projects
to growth.
· Adjustments- Deductions or additions to the cost basis to recognize past or future
capital funding methods.
Each issue is discussed below.
Step One - System Valuation
Calculation of the reimbursement fee begins with a review of MWMC's fixed asset records
to determine the value of the existing system. The system is valued based on the inflation
adjusted original cost approach. Under this approach, the original cost of existing system
assets is adjusted by the Engineering News-Record national 20-city average Construction Cost
Index from the time of construction to estimate current values. The inflation adjusted cost
approach recognizes appreciation in the system since assets were constructed and assumes
that the wastewater system is maintained in perpetuity.
Step Two. Existing System Allocation
The existing system allocation methodology, for use in determining the reimbursement fee
cost basis, is a three-step allocation process1 comprised of the following steps, as illustrated
in Figure 2:
R-1. Allocate existing facility costs to facility process components (e.g., primary treatment,
secondary treatment).
R-2. Allocate costs by component to system capacity parameters (e.g., average flow, peak
flow).
R-3. Allocate costs to growth based on estimated available capacity by service parameter.
The allocation of existing facility costs to facility process components is fairly straight-
forward, as most projects relate directly to an individual component (e.g., secondary
clarifiers are a part of secondary treatment); or support the entire treatment system (e.g.,
control systems). Existing facility costs (valued in terms of inflation-adjusted costs) by
process component are then allocated to capacity parameters based on the allocation
fractions in Table 3.
The final step in the allocation process is to multiply the costs by capacity parameter by the
percent of capacity available by parameter. To determine the available capacity for a
parameter, the amount of capacity that is currently being used (or required for existing
users) is subtracted from the current rated capacity. If the current capacity requirement is
equal to or greater than the existing capacity, then there is no available capacity, and none of
the costs related to that parameter is included in the reimbursement fee cost basis. Table 4
shows existing system available capacity by parameter based on system planning criteria.
The documentation for these figures is provided in Appendix C.
1 The numbering of the steps for the existing system allocation process is preceded by an "R" to identify these steps as relating
to the Reimbursement Fee calculation. Later processes relating to the Improvement Fee calculation are indicated by an "1" in
the number sequence.
SEA31003271388(DG). DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
FIGURE 2--EXISTING SYSTEM ALLOCATION
YES
Reimbursement
Fee Cost Basis
TABLE 4
Existing System Available Capacity by Parameter
Average Flow Peak Flow BOD TSS
Variable (mgd) (mgd) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Existing capacity 49.0 175 66,000 71,600
Current loading (current capacity required) 43.8 264 54,800 64,700
Available capacity (value) 5.2 None 11,200 6,900
Available capacity (%) 10.5% 0% 17% 9.6%
Source: 2004 Facilities Plan
Step Three- Project Cost Allocation
The project cost allocation methodology, for use in determining the improvement fee cost
basis, is a four-step allocation process consisting of the following steps:
I-1. Allocate project costs to facility process components (e.g., primary treatment, secondary
treatment).
I-2. Allocate costs by components to system capacity parameters (e.g., average flow, peak
flow).
I-3. Allocate project costs to type (capacity improvement, per[ormance upgrade, or
rehabilitation).
I-4. Allocate costs to user type (existing customers or projected growth).
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
The project cost allocation methodology provides an equitable basis for determining the
projects or portions of projects that are related to growth capacity needs and are, thereby,
included in the improvement fee portion of the SDC calculation. The methodology is not
tied to a specific list of projects intended to be funded by SDCs (20-year project list), but is
intended to provide a consistent framework for allocation of future projects to growth.
Each step of the methodology is described below. The general allocation process is also
presented graphically in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3--PROJECT COST ALLCOATION
20.¥e ProjeCt List
·
STEP M ..
STEPI-2
STEP I-4 · ·
% of Total Future % of Capacity
Allocation Basis Load 0O/o Expansion
The allocation of future projects to facility process components is generally fairly
straightforward, as most projects relate directly to an individual component or support the
entire treatment system. The refinement of the facility component allocation process for
MWMC relates to recognition of peak flow management costs. While it is likely that future
project lists will include projects entirely related to peak flow management, it is also likely
that portions of projects relating to various aspects of the treatment process (e.g., secondary
treatment) will also play a role in future peak flow management.
The following question needs to be answered when allocating project costs to facility
components: "Which specific facility component does the project expand or improve?" If the
project expands or improves more than one facility component, then project costs should be
apportioned relative to the expansion or improvement of each applicable component.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
The allocation fractions from Table 3 are used to distribute costs by facility component to
capacity parameter, as was done for the existing system cost allocations. The basis for these
allocations is described in Appendix B.
Step I-3 of the project cost allocation methodology is to allocate costs to project types. The
three project types, which are intended to be representative of the complete project list, are:
1. Capacity-Projects or portions of projects that are related to increasing liquids and/or
biosolids conveyance, treatment, and disposition capacity beyond existing design
standards (i.e., projects that provide the next capacity increment within the planning
period).
2. Performance Improvements- Projects that increase system capacity by increasing the
level of performance provided by facilities. Unlike 'capacity' projects that relate only to
the next increment of capacity, performance upgrades are generally sized based on total
projected capacity needs at the end of the planning period (existing and future).
3. Rehabilitation-Projects designed to remedy an existing system deficiency and do not
enhance system capacity.
Capacity and performance upgrade projects can be new facilities, or upgrade/expansion of
existing facilities. Rehabilitation projects are the replacement of outdated or worn out
equipment or facilities.
The majority of the projects will typically fall completely into one project type. However,
some projects may be split between capacity and performance types. The general criteria for
allocating projects to the above categories are shown in Table 5. These criteria should be
applied in the development of specific projects for inclusion in the appropriate planning .
document or project list and should be considered and evaluated as part of the process of
adoption of such a plan or project list.
TABLE 5
Summary of Project Type Allocation Criteria
Project Type Potential Criteria
Capacity Adds new facilities/expands existing facilities
Provides new liquids treatment or biosolids capacity beyond existing
system design standard or beyond the current permitted capacity
Performance Improvements Adds new facilities/improves existing facilities
Provides capacity/enhanced capability sized for total future capacity
needs
Driven by new regulatory requirement
Driven by increase in community performance standard
Technological efficiencies
Rehabilitation Replaces existing facility or portion of facility
Does not serve growth either through existing available or new
capacity
Preserves existing facility performance/capacity
SEA31003271388(DG).OOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
Once project costs have been allocated to system component and project type categories,
and the costs have been distributed to the system capacity parameters, the final step in the
project cost allocation process is to assign costs to user types. For the purposes of the SDC
methodology, there are two user types: 1) existing customers, and 2) new customers or
growth. Costs that are allocated to growth are incorporated into the SDC improvement fee
calculation. Costs allocated to existing customers must be paid through some other funding
sources (e.g., existing reserves or future user rates).
As indicated in Figure 3, the allocation of project costs to growth is a function of the type of
project and a detailed capacity analysis that identifies growth's share of: 1) planned capacity
expansion, and 2) total future load.
Costs by capacity parameter are allocated to growth as follows:
Capacity Projects: Growth's share of capacity expansion (%) X project cost ($)
Performance Upgrades: Growth' s share of total future system capacity (%) X project cost ($)
Rehabilitation Projects: Allocation to growth = 0%
Where:
1. Growth's share of capacity expansion = Projected growth capacity requirement (not met
by existing available capacity) divided by additional capacity to be added to the system
by planned improvements.
2. Growth's share of total future system capacity = Projected growth capacity requirement
(total) divided by total future system capacity requirement.
Table 6 summarizes the growth allocation percentages by project type. The documentation
for these figures is provided in Appendix C.
TABLE 6
Growth Allocation Percentages by Project Type
Project Type Average Flow Peak Flow BOD TSS
Capacity (growth's sham of capacity 100% 29.4% 100% 100%
expansion)
Performance (growths sham of total 26.1% 10.8% 25.9% 26.1%
future system capacity)
Rehabilitation 0% 0% 0% 0%
Source: 2004 Facilities Plan
Step Four- Adjustments
The methodology includes the following adjustments to the reimbursement and
improvement fee cost bases:
· Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons. Existing (and if
applicable in the future, planned) asset costs are reduced by the percent of the asset that
is funded by grants.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
· Ratemaking principles employed to finance the capital improvements. Projected
capital financing cost (i.e., interest expense) is added to the cost basis, based on the
recommended project phasing and the need to borrow funds.
Methodology Element Three: Develop SDC Schedule
Unit costs for each capacity parameter are determined by dividing the adjusted cost basis by
the projected growth capacity requirements. The unit costs are then multiplied by the
estimated capacity requirements of different types of users, as determined from industry
reference data. Figure 4 illustrates this process.
FIGURE 4--SDC SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT
Capacity
Unit Costs Requirement / SDC / Unit
X ~
X --
X =
Using industry reference data for charging SDCs is consistent with the approach MWMC
has previously used to Charge SDCs. This type of approach uses flow and strength
assumptions that are consistent with the system capacity parameters described previously.
For example, average flow is defined as dry season maximum month flow. This capacity
measure is used in estimating user capacity requirements. The peak-to-average flow ratio
reflects the system planning assumptions. The flow and strength assumptions for various
land uses (development types) are presented in Appendix D. If information for a particular
development is not found in Appendix D, the SDC will be formulated using average data of
like or similar development as determined by the City Engineer.
Methodology Element Four: Calculate Revenue Offsets and Credits
To comply with Oregon SDC law, the SDC methodology must ensure that future system users
contribute no more than an "equitable share" of the capital costs of existing facilities: Before
real property is developed, it may have been subject to taxes that supported capital funding of
some of the Regional Wastewater System. After a development connects to the system, it will
pay rates and, possibly taxes as well, that may also support some level of capital funding. The
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
SDC methodology therefore considers past and future payments to be made by new
developments, which may partially fund the same facilities for which the SDCs were paid.
Past Payments
A portion of MWMC's existing facility costs were funded through general obligation (GO)
bonds. The debt service on the bonds was retired through property taxes. Undeveloped land
in the cities of Eugene and Springfield was subject to property taxes, and therefore a GO
bond credit is included in the methodology. The credit is equal to the present value of past
payments on bond principal, expressed in dollars per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The
credit shall accrue from the year of annexation, and be based upon the assessed value of the
real property at the time of application for connection to the system.
Appendix E shows the calculation of the GO bond credit.
Future Payments
The methodology considers whether growth will provide a net contribution through
wastewater user fee rates to the cost of capital improvements that benefit existing
customers. If such a contribution is indicated, a credit is provided. The credit is based on a
present-worth analysis, structured as follows:
1. Annual capital costs (adjusted for inflation) associated with 'existing customers' share of
the project list costs (net of rehabilitation costs) are estimated based on the
recommended phasing schedule.
2. The annual capital expenditures are reduced by revenues from reserves and
reimbursement fees to estimate required debt funding
3. Debt services costs are estimated for repayment of borrowed funds
4. Future billing units (average flow and pounds of BOD and TSS) are estimated for the
planning period based on system planning criteria
5. The annual user rate supported debt service per billing unit is determined for the life of
the debt.
6. The present value of the future stream of rate payments is determined for each year of
the planning period.
A credit amount per unit of capacity is determined based on the year of development and
the projected length of future payments.
At the time of adoption of the project list upon which SDCs are to be based, or any periodic
modification to such list, an estimate of project financing costs will be made, based upon the
assumed timing of projects and other available funding sources. The proportion of this debt
financing to be funded by user rates attributable to users estimated to connect in each year is
calculated, and the net present value for each year of the planning period of this series of
cash flows is applied as a credit against the improvement SDC generated by the
methodology.
SEA31003271388(DG). DOC/041040034
Appendixes
APPENDIX A
System Component Definitions
The below facility process components were selected because they represent existing
distinct processes/components, as well as new processes/components anticipated in the
future (e.g., tertiary filters and effluent reuse). These facility components also relate
differently to system capacity parameters (discussed in Methodology Element Two), so the
initial allocation of project costs to facility components facilitates the next step of allocating
costs to capacity parameters, and ultimately to user type. As regulatory requirements
change in the future, MWMC should review the facility component categories, and update
as appropriate.
Collection System Pipeline--The pipelines owned and operated by MWMC that collect
sewage from individual customers and deliver it to the treatment plant.
Collection System Pump Stations-MWMC pump stations that impart energy into the
wastewater so that it flows through the collection system pipes or is lifted to a higher
elevation. The influent screw pumps at the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) are included in this component.
Preliminary Treatment--Screenings and grit removal facilities. Preliminary treatment
facilities are sometimes referred to as headworks facilities because they are located at the
front or head end of treatment plants.
Primary Treatment-The sedimentation process intended to remove suspended solids from
the wastewater. This component includes the primary sedimentation settling tanks and
associated pumping systems for material that is removed from the top (scum/skimmings)
and bottom (primary sludge) of the settling tanks.
Secondary Treatment--A biological process to remove the soluble and colloidal organic
matter that remains after primary treatment. Facilities typically include aeration basins and
the associated blowers that provide air to the basins, and secondary clarification settling
tanks and the associated pumping facilities that transport the settled biological sludge to
subsequent biosolids processing facilities.
Disinfection/Outfall- Process elements at the downstream end of the treatment process.
Disinfection kills or inactivates remaining pathogens contained in the treated wastewater,
and the ouffall conveys the treated wastewater to the Willamette River where it can be
distributed through a diffuser in an environmentally sound manner.
Biosolids- Management and disposal of the organic and inorganic suspended solids that
have been removed from the wastewater through the treatment processes. This facility
component is divided into three subcomponents because of differences in available and
future required capacity. The three subcomponents are as follows:
· General--The general subcomponent consists of biosolids thickening and anaerobic
digestion at the WPCF; the biosolids pump station/force main system that conveys
SEA31003271388(DG). DO C/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
digested biosolids from the WPCF to the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF); and
facultative sludge storage lagoons and drying beds at the remote BMF. The majority of
the infrastructure associated with this "General" subcomponent were constructed in the
1980s and early 1990s.
· Dewatering- MWMC-installed mechanical biosolids dewatering at the remote BMF for
the purpose of removing water from the biosolids so that the remaining biosolids
volume is reduced. This dewatering facility was designed to accommodate 7,000 dry
tons of biosolids on an annual average basis.
· Biocycle Farm - MWMC is in the process of expanding the capability of the biosolids
management program by constructing a poplar plantation or biocycle farm (BF) that can
accept non-dewatered biosolids, therefore limiting dependence on the cooperative farms
land application program that typically uses dewatered biosolids.
Tertiary Filters- Filters to remove TSS and to a lesser degree BOD/ammonia from the
secondary effluent.
Reuse Facilities- These facilities enable reuse of effluent and include UV disinfection;
pumping of filtered, disinfected effluent; pipelines to convey the water to the end use site;
and irrigation distribution/application systems.
Odor Control - Facilities that collect and treat odorous air generated by the treatment of
wastewater and biosolids.
Peak Flow Management - A new facility component that functions to convey, treat, and
discharge wet season peak flow (based on the 5-year, 24-hour rainfall event). Facilities must
be provided so that the peak flow can reach and pass through the WPCF without
overtopping structures so that untreated/partially treated sewage does not spill onto the
ground and/or into waterways.
Support Facilities (Indirects)- These facilities serve MWMC's overall mission as opposed
to one specific facility component. Examples include control systems, civil infrastructure
such as roads within the WPCF site, and equipment storage facilities.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
APPENDIX B
Capacity Parameter Allocation Basis
System Capacity Parameters are based on permitting requirements. Facility process
components (defined in Appendix A) are allocated to each of the system capacity
parameters, as described below.
Collection System Pipelines
This category consists of major gravity sewer pipelines and force mains (pressure lines) that
convey flow for the regional wastewater collection system. Since the primary function of the
pipelines is to convey flow, the allocation is assigned to either average or peak flow and
none to wastewater strength parameters (i.e., BOD and TSS). The majority of the time the
conveyance system is carrying average flows. However, the limiting design criteria when
sizing pipelines is based on peak flows.
An assessment of the wet season I/I, which is the key driver in determining the peak flows,
can be used as a guide in determining the average/peak allocation breakdown. Table B-1
presents the wet season I/I as a percentage of total peak flow for existing capacity, current
loading, and future required capacity.
TABLE B-I
Design Criteria Basis For Unit Processes Driven By Peak Flow
Average Wet Weather I/I as a
Flow Wet Weather I/I Total Peak Flow Percentage of Total Peak
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Flow, %
Existing capacity 49 126 175 72%
Current loading (current 43.8 220.2 264 83%
capacity required)
Projected 2025 loading 59.3 218.7a 277 79%
(future capacity required)
Notes:
a) Net reduction in total I/I occurs between now and 2025 as a result of I/I reduction efforts by the cities.
The range of wet weather I/I as a percentage of total peak flow for these three scenarios
ranges from 72 to 84 percent. The arithmetic average of these three values is 78 percent.
Therefore, a reasonable approach is to allocate a quarter to functional use basis, or average
flow; and three quarters to the design criteria sizing basis, or peak flow.
· Average Flow - 1/4
· Peak Flow-3/4
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
Collection System Pump Stations
The category collection system pump stations consist of pump stations that impart
additional head or pressure to the wastewater so that the flow is conveyed to the WPCF. An
example of such a facility is the Wilakenzie Pump Station. These regional pump stations
have the same functional and design criteria basis as the regional collection system
pipelines, and, therefore, the allocations are:
· Average Flow - 1/4
· Peak Flow - 3/4
Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary treatment facilities are located between the pump stations and primary
treatment, consisting of screenings and grit removal facilities. Minimal organic matter
(BOD) is removed during preliminary treatment. Also, solid materials removed during
preliminary treatment tend to be large and heavy in nature; these materials are not typically
considered a "suspended" material (or TSS). Consequently, the loading parameters of BOD
and TSS generally do not apply to preliminary treatment, and the unit process category is
entirely flow based. The functional and design criteria basis for preliminary treatment are
very similar to that of the collection system facilities, and, therefore, the allocation is
identical to the preceding categories. The split between average and peak flow is as follows:
· Average Flow - 1/4
· Peak Flow - 3/4
Primary Treatment
Primary treatment consists of the four, large, circular concrete basins (primary clarifiers) and
the associated equipment used to remove solids that settle to the bottom of the basins. The
purpose of primary treatment from a functional basis is to remove TSS and to a lesser
degree BOD. Typical percent removal across primary treatment for TSS and BOD are 60 and
30 percent, respectively. In other words, twice as much TSS is removed relative to BOD.
For the design criteria basis, typical primary clarifiers sizing is governed by both average
and peak flow, but for MWMC, where the parallel primary/secondary approach is
proposed for peak flow management, the peak flow will be split between primary treatment
and secondary treatment. Likewise, if the high-rate clarification peak flow management is
ultimately implemented (because regulatory approval is not obtained for the parallel
primary/secondary approach), the peak flow will be split between the primary treatment
and the high-rate clarification. Therefore, only average flow is considered in the cost
allocation.
Combining the functional basis with the design criteria basis, the following allocation is for
primary treatment:
· Average Flow - 1/4
· BOD-1/4
· TSS- 1/2
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment consists of two trains of aeration basins, eight secondary clarifiers, and
the associated blowers and pumps that function to treat and remove organic loading (BOD)
and to a lesser extent TSS from the wastewater. On a functional basis, secondary treatment
is regarded as removing roughly twice as much BOD relative to TSS.
For the design criteria basis, typical secondary treatment sizing is governed by both average
and peak flow, but for MWMC, where the parallel primary/secondary approach (or high-
rate clarification approach as a second choice) is proposed for peak flow management, the
peak flows will be split between primary treatment and secondary treatment. Therefore,
only average flow is considered in the cost allocation.
Combining the functional basis with the design criteria basis, the following allocation is for
secondary treatment:
· Average Flow - 1/4
· BOD - 1/2
· TSS - 1/4
DisinfectionlOutfall
Following secondary treatment, the wastewater is disinfected (chlorinated and
dechlorinated) and discharged to the Willamette River through an outfall pipe. Both the
function and sizing of these facilities are entirely based on flow. The relationship between
the functional basis and design criteria is identical to that for the collection system facilities
and, therefore, the following allocation is for disinfection/outfall:
· Average Flow - 1/4
· Peak Flow - 3/4
Biosolids
Biosolids are a byproduct of wastewater treatment and are produced during the primary
treatment, secondary treatment, and to a lesser degree tertiary treatment processes. The
three subcomponents used to allocate biosolids treatment, handling, and disposal/reuse
costs for purposes of SDC calculations are:
· General
· Dewatering
· Biocycle Farm
The definitions of these subcomponents are presented in Appendix C, Growth Capacity
Allocation Documentation. The three subcomponents were developed for the SDC update
because of the differing available capacities and growth percentages associated with
facilities in the subcomponents. However, in terms of allocating the facility components to
the wastewater parameters, the methodology is identical- independent of which
subcomponent is being considered.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
Biosolids facilities at the WPCF and the BMF are both sized and function to treat the BOD
and TSS removed during the treatment process; therefore, their allocation is split equally
between BOD and TSS.
· BOD-1/2
· TSS- 1/2
Tertiary Filters
The existing WPCF does not have tertiary filters. The 20-year project list recommends that
tertiary filters be installed to enable the WPCF to consistently meet the NPDES permit
discharge requirements. The permit includes mass limits for BOD and TSS. As influent
flows to the WPCF increase in the future, the effluent concentration required to meet the
mass limits decreases. Addition of the filters will assist with meeting these more stringent
effluent concentrations. From a functional basis, the main purpose of the filters is to remove
TSS, and to a lesser degree BOD. From a design criteria sizing basis, average flow is used to
determine the size of the facilities. In the wet weather season, a portion of the peak flow
may be routed to the filters for additional treatment. However, the associated peak flow
loading rate onto the filters will not be the limiting factor in terms of design criteria sizing.
Following is the allocation for the tertiary filter treatment category:
· Average Flow - 1/4
· BOD- 1/4
· TSS- 1/2
Reuse Facilities
Reuse facilities may be constructed to comply with more stringent regulatory requirements
related to temperature and/or thermal load restrictions of Willamette River discharges.
Reuse facilities would allow flow to be diverted from the river by reusing plant effluent for
irrigation. The basic design criterion used to size reuse facilities is average flow; so this
parameter receives 100 percent of the allocation.
· Average Flow - 100 percent
Odor Control
Odor control facilities function by collecting odorous air from preliminary/primary liquids
treatment processes and biosolids treatment/handling processes and treating the air to
remove the odors. Odor generation is dependent on the influent loading levels and,
therefore, the allocation is split equally between BOD and TSS because both parameters
contribute to the sizing and function of the odor control systems.
· BOD - 1/2
· TSS- 1/2
Peak Flow Management
There are a number of future capital improvement projects that specifically function to
convey, treat, and discharge the wet season peak flow. For example, the parallel
primary/secondary peak flow management approach is proposed solely to address peak
SEA31003271388(DG). DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
flows. Also, there are facilities such as the dry weather headworks where a portion of their
function or design criteria sizing is based on peak flow.
The peak flow management category is allocated entirely to peak flow, as both the ongoing
function and the sizing design criteria sizing are based solely on peak flow.
· Peak Flow - 100 percent
Support Facilities (Indirects)
The support facilities or indirect category captures certain types of treatment plant facilities
that serve multiple functions, such as the laboratory, land acquisition, and instrumentation
and control systems. Costs of these types of facilities are allocated across the other
11 components in'proportion to the weighted average allocation percentages. For the
reimbursement fee, the weighted average reflects the direct allocation of existing asset costs
to the 11 facility components. For the improvement fee, the weighted average reflects the
allocation of the 20-year project list to the 11 facility components.
· Support facilities allocated proportionally to the other 11 facility components.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOCT041040034 B-5
APPENDIX C
Growth Capacity Allocation Documentation
Liquids Treatment
A summary of the MWMC liquids treatment capacity is presented in Table C-1.
TABLE C-1
Capacity Summary of MWMC Liquids Facilities
Average Flow Peak Flow BOD TSS
Population (mgd) (mgd) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Existing capacity -- 49 175 66,000 71,600
Current loading (current 217,737 43.8 264 54,800 64,700
capacity required)
Available capacity (value) -- 5.2 None 11,200 6,900
Available capacity (%) 10.5% 0% 17.0% 9.6%
Projected 2025 loading 297,585 59 277 74,000 87,600
(future capacity required)
Growth loading 79,848 15.5 30a 19,200 22,900
Required Capacity 10 102 8,000 16,000
Expansion
Growth share of 2025 load 26.8 26.1% 10.8% 25.9% 26.1%
Growth share of capacity 100% 100% 29.4% 100% 100%
expansion
Notes:
A The 30-mgd peak flow attributed to growth consists of 15.5 mgd of average flow and 14.5 mgd of wet season I/I
flow. See the following discussion for a detailed derivation of these values.
The rationale for these values is presented in the following paragraphs.
Average Flow
The existing capacity is stated in the current NPDES permit as 49 mgd that represents the
dry season design rating for the WPCF. The current loading or current required capacity is
43.8 mgd (presented in DSMM terms). The DSMM value is used to compare to the dry
season design rating of the WPCF because the NPDES discharge permit stipulates that the
WPCF meet monthly average permit requirements. Therefore, discharge permit
requirements must be met on a dry season, maximum-month influent condition. This
43.8~mgd value is determined as follows:
SEA31003271388(DG).DOCT041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
Current average flow (presented as DSMM) = ((129 x 217,737 x 1.5)/1,000,000) + 1.7i = 43.8
Where:
129 is the average gallons per capita per day (gpcd) of the dry season values from
1990 to 2002
217,737 is the population served in 2002
1.5 is the selected peaking factor to convert average dry season flow to maximum
month dry season flow (based on 1990 to 2002 data)
1.7i is the current industrial flow in mgd
The available capacity in terms of average flow is 5.2 mgd (49 - 43.8).
The projected 2025 average flow is determined as follows:
Projected 2025 average flow (presented DSMM) = ((129 x 297,585 x 1.5)/1,000,000) + 1.7 =
59.3 mgd
Where:
- 129 is the average gpcd of the dry season values from 1990 to 2002
- 297,585 is the projected population to be served in 2025
- 1.5 is the selected peaking factor to convert average dry season flow to maximum
month dry season flow (based on 1990 to 2002 data)
- 1.7 is the projected industrial flow in mgd (it has been assumed that the
industrial flow will remain constant over the study period)
The total required capacity to meet the needs of growth in terms of average flow is 15.5 mgd
(59.3 - 43.8).
Peak Flow
A summary of the peak flow breakdown is presented in Table C-2. The existing capacity in
terms of peak flow is not defined in the NPDES permit, but the plant was originally
designed for a peak flow of 175 mgd, and therefore that is defined as the existing capacity.
MWMC does not currently have the collection and treatment capabilities to accommodate
the existing peak flow (which is greater than 175 mgd), and therefore the current peak flow
loading (required capacity) cannot be explicitly measured at the WPCF. Using a computer
model of the collection system MWMC is able to estimate the current peak flow. DEQ
defines the peak flow as the peak hour or peak instantaneous flow that occurs during the
5-year, 24-hour storm (3.9 inches of rainfall). Under these rainfall conditions, the model
predicts a current flow of 264 mgd. Therefore, there is no available capacity in terms of peak
flow. Since the current average flow is 43.8 mgd, the current wet season I/I is 220.2 mgd
(264 less 43.8).
Using the projected future 2025 population and land use, the model predicts peak flows of
294 mgd without I/I reduction efforts outlined in the 2000 WWFMP and 277 mgd with I/I
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
reduction efforts outlined in the 2000 WWFMP. Therefore, it is estimated that the I/I
reduction efforts will reduce I/I by approximately 17 mgd.
Wet season I/I in 2025 attributed to existing users is determined by subtracting the
anticipated reduction in wet season I/I (17 mgd) from the current wet season I/I
(220.2 mgd) yielding 203.2 mgd.
Finally, wet season I/I attributed to growth in 2025 is 14.5 mgd and is determined by taking
the 2025 total peak flow projection of 277 mgd and subtracting both the 2025 average flow
(59.3 mgd) and the 2025 wet season I/I attributed to existing users (203.2 mgd). Therefore,
the peak flow in 2025 attributed to growth is 30 mgd (15.5 mgd of average flow plus 14.5 of
wet season I/I flow).
TABLE C-2
Projected 2025 Peak Flow Breakdown
Average flow attributed to existing users (includes dry 43.5 mgd
season I/I)
Average flow attributed to future users (includes dry 15.5 mgd (59.3 - 43.8)
season I/I)
Wet season I/I attributed to existing users 203.2 mgd (220.2 - 17)
Wet season I/I attributed to future users 14.5 mgd (277 - 59.3 - 203.2
Total peak flow 277 mgd
Total peak flow attributed to growth 30 mgd (15.5 + 14.5)
BOD
The methodology for BOD is similar to that of average flow. The existing capacity, although
not explicitly stated in the current NPDES permit, is 66,000 lbs/day, which was the value
used for the original WPCF design. The current loading~or current required capacity in
presented in DSMM terms is 54,800 lbs/day and is determined as follows:
Current BOD = (0.185 x 217,737 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 54,800 lbs/day (actual calculated value of
54,756 lbs/day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds).
Where:
0.185 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season
values from 1990 to 2002
217,737 is the population served in 2002
1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM load
(based on 1990 to 2002 data)
2,402 is the current industrial BOD load in lbs/day
The available capacity in terms of BOD is 11,200 lbs/day (66,000 - 54,800).
S£A310032Y1388(DG).DOC~041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
The projected 2025 average load is determined as follows:
Projected 2025 BOD = (0.185 x 297,585 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 74,000 mgd (actual calculated value of
73,971 lbs/day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds)
Where:
0.185 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season
values from 1990 to 2002
297,585 is the projected population to be served in 2025
1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM load
(based on 1990 to 2002 data)
2,402 is the projected industrial flow in lbs/day (it has been assumed that the
industrial load will remain constant over the study period)
The required capacity to meet the needs of growth in terms of BOD is 19,200 lbs/day
(74,000 - 54,800).
T$$
The methodology for TSS is identical to that of BOD. The existing capacity, although not
explicitly stated in the current NPDES permit, is 71,600 lbs/day, which was the value used
for the original WPCF design. The current loading or current required, presented in DSMM
terms, is 64,700 lbs/day and is determined as follows:
Current TSS = (0.205 x 217,737 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 64,700 lbs/day (actual calculated value of
64,715 lbs/day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds)
Where:
0.205 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season
values from 1990 to 2002
217,737 is the population served in 2002
- 1.4 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season flow to maximum
month dry season flow (based on 1990 to 2002 data)
- 2,224 is the current industrial TSS load in lbs/day
The available capacity in terms of TSS is 6,900 lbs/day (71,600 - 64,700).
The projected 2025 average TSS is determined as follows:
Projected 2025 TSS = (0.205 * 297,585 * 1.4) + 2,224 = 87,600 mgd (actual calculated value of
87,631 lbs/day) rounded to the nearest hundred pounds)
Where:
0.205 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season
values from 1990 to 2002
297,585 is the projected population to be served in 2025
SEA31003271388(DG).D0Od041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
1.4 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM load
(based on 1990 to 2002 data)
2,224 is the projected industrial TSS load in lbs/day (it has been assumed that the
industrial load will remain constant over the study period)
The required capacity to meet the needs of growth in terms of TSS is 22,900 lbs/day
(87,600 - 64,700).
Biosolids Treatment
The three subcategories used to allocate biosolids treatment, handling, and disposal/reuse
costs for purposes of SDC calculations are:
· General
· Dewatering
· Biocycle farm
Table C-3 presents a capacity summary of the MWMC biosolids facilities.
TABLE C-3
Capacity Summary of MWMC Biosolids Facilities (annual average dry tons per year)
Subcomponents
General Dewatering Biocycle Farm
Existing capacity 5,869 7,000 2,811
Current loading (current capacity required) 5,869 5,869 2,811
Available capacity None 1,131 None
Available capacity (%) 0% 16.2% 0%
Projected 2025 loading (future capacity required) 8,600 7,000 3,612
Growth loading 2,731 1,131 801
Required Capacity Expansion 2,731 None 801
Growth share of 2025 load 31.8% 16.2% 22.2%
Growth share of capacity expansion 100% 0% 100%
The definition and capacity assessment development for these three subcomponents are
presented in the following paragraphs.
General
The general subcomponent consists of biosolids thickening and anaerobic digestion at the
WPCF; the biosolids pump station/force main system that conveys digested biosolids from
the WPCF to the BMF; and facultative sludge storage lagoons and drying beds at the remote
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
BMF. The majority of the infrastructure associated with this "General" component was
constructed in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The current loading or current required capacity is presented as annual average dry tons of
digested biosolids.
Current biosolids loading = 4,962 x 1.183 = 5,869 tons per year
Where:
- 4,962 dry tons per year (actual 2002 value)
- 1.183 factor to convert actual value to a value that can be directly compared to
the projected 2025 capacity value when a ~reater biosolids load will be generated
by changes in the treatment process, and is calculated as follows:
= {(60 x 1.23) + (40 x 1.11)}/100= 1.183
o '~fhere:
60 is the weighting given to BOlD for biosolids produc~on
1.23 is the BOD ppcd raQo (selected/actual) calculated as follows:
- = 0.185/0.15 = 1.23
Where:
0.185 is the selected annual average BOD ppcd for proiected
influent BOD values
- 0.15 is the actual BOlD ppcd (annual average over 12-year
period)
- 40 is the weighffng given to TSS for biosolids producQon
- 1.11 is the TSS ppcd raQo (selected/actual) calculated as follows:
= 0.233/0.21 = 1.11
Where:
0.233 is the selected annual average TSS ppcd for projected
influent TSS values (average of dry (0.205) and wet (0.26)
seasonal values)
0.21 is the actual TSS ppcd (annua] average over 12-year
period)
Some existing biosolids facilities in the "general" subcomponent have more than 5,869 dry
tons per year of processing capacity wh~le other existing facilities have less. However, in
aggregate there is no available capacity and the existing capacity is assumed to be 5,869 dry
tons per year as well.
The proiected 2025 biosolids is 8,600 dry tons per year on an average annual basis. This
value is esQmated based on a computer model of the WPCF that predicts bioso]ids
$EA31003271388(DG). DOC/0410400~4
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
production among many other parameters. The projected biosolids production in 2025 is
anticipated to increase at a slightly greater rate than the rate of population growth because
of the addition of tertiary filters that will remove additional solids from the wastewater. The
additional capacity needed to accommodate growth is 2,731 dry tons per year (8,600 -5,869).
Dewatering
MWMC recently installed mechanical biosolids dewatering at the BMF for the purpose of
removing water from the biosolids so that the remaining biosolids volume is reduced. This
dewatering facility was designed to accommodate 7,000 dry tons of biosolids on an annual
average basis. Therefore, the available capacity is 1,131 (7,000 less 5,869). The additional
capacity needed to accommodate growth is 1,131 dry tons per year (7,000 - 5,869).
Biocycle Farm
MWMC is in the process of expanding the capability of the biosolids management program
by constructing a poplar plantation or biocycle farm (BF) that can accept non-dewatered
biosolids, therefore limiting dependence on the cooperative farms land application program.
Phase 1 is currently under construction and is slated to be online spring 2004, and it is
assumed that the added flexibility that the Phase 1 BF provides will benefit existing users
only. Phase 1 has a capacity to accept 2,811 dry tons per year. For the purpose of
determining "available capacity" for the purpose of SDC development, it is assumed that
there is no existing available capacity associated with the Phase 1 Biocycle Farm. Phase 2
and 3 will expand the capacity to 3,612 dry tons per year
The additional capacity to meet the needs of growth is 801 dry tons per year (3,612 -2,811).
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034
Afl']~qD[X D
User Capacity Requirements
T/~LE D-1
¢~-:t~: Requirements by User Class
Springfield Dry Season
Tralfid Eugene Flow Base Row Average Row Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak
Wastewater BPR/HUD Waatewater Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact BOD/TSS BOD TBS
Code Code Use Code Type of F,~,Hishment Unit (FEI J) (gel/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day~ Strength (mg/I) Strength (Ib/FEUlday) * (Ib/FEU/day) *
30' 4111-4990 4X TRUCK TERMINAL TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
151 6371-6379 63 MINI WAREHOUSE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051
170 4111-4990 4X UTILITIES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
200 1111-1139 IX OTHER RESIDENTIAL (SFD W/OTHER USES) DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0.299 0.299
220 1130-1139 11 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MUTI FAMILY DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256
200 1300 13 OTHER RESIDENTIAL- RESIDENTIAL HOTEl/MOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 798 150 Low 0.342 0.342
240 1400 14 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME PARK DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256
210 1111-1129 1F SFD / DUPLEX DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0.299 0.299
300 1510-1590 15 MOTEL/HOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 798 300 Medium 0.684 0.684
400 7212.7g00 7X PUBLIC PARK TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
435 7X MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION FACILITY(Indoor) TGSF 180 219 328 836 150 Low 0.274 0.274
443 7212-7900 7X THEATER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
488 7X OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COMPLEX TGSF 180 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
491 7212-7900 7X TENNIS COURT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
492 7212-7900 7X RACQUET CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
493 7212-7900 7X HEALTH CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
494 7212-7900 7X BOWLING ALLEY TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
495 7212-7900 7X RECREATIONAL CENTER TGSF 180 219 328 635 150 Low 0.274 0.274
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS LOW STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 150 Low 1.710 1.710
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MEDIUM STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 300 Medium 3.419 3.419
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 High 5.699 5.699
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS VERY HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 700 Very High 7.979 7.979
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS SUPER HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 900 Super High 10.258 10.256
520 6812 68 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
522 522 68 MIDDLE SCHOOL TGSF 50 88 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
530 6813 68 HIGH SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
540 6821 . 68 COMMUNITY'COLLEGE TGSF 50 68 102. 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
,.560 6821 68 UNIVERSITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
'560 6911 69 CHURCH TGSF 50 88 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
565 6811-6839, 68 DAY CARE CENTER TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 ' 0.085
7111-7123
590 7111 68 LIBRARY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
591 6994 69 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Low 0.308 0.308
9-1
SE~I~03~713~DG).DO ~4 I040~34
SYSTEId DEVEOP&~NT CHARGE FEll~ODOLOGY
T~I.E D-1
Capacity Requirements by User Class
Springfield Dry Season
Traffid Eugene Row Base Row Average Flow D~ Season Max Wet Season Peak
Wasteweter BPR/HUD Waetowater Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact BOD/TSS BOD TSS
Code Code Use Cede Type of Eetabllshmect Unit (FEU) (gal/FEU/day) (gel/FEU/day) (gaVFELVday) (gal/FELVday) Strength (mg/I) Strength (Ib/FEU/day) * (Ib/FEUlday) *
600 541 0.5499 54 SERVICE STATION / MARKET TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.250
610 6511-6S19 65 HOSPITAL TOSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256
620 6511-65`19 65 NURSING HOME TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256
630 6511-65`119 65 CLINIC, MEDICAL OFFICE TGSF 720 983 1,475 2,864 500 High 4.`103 4.103
700 5810 5A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TGSF 200 273 410 706 150 Low 0.342 0.342
720 8221,8222 82 , VETRINAR]AN SERV1CES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
750 6710-67519 67 OFFICE PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
770 6710-6759 67 BUSINESS PARK TGSF 100 `137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
730 6710-6759 67 GOVERNUENT BULDING TGSF 100 137 205 3g8 150 Low 0.171 0.171
732 6710-6759 67 US POST OFFICE TGSF 50 68 102 11919 150 Low 0.085 0.055
800 991 0-59(39 59 RETAIL TGSF 720 983 1,475 2,864 500 High 4.103 4.1 03
831 5610 5B QUALIFY RESTAURANT TGSF 720 983 1,475 2,864 500 High 4,103 4.103
832 5810 5C HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT TOSF 340 464 697 '1,353 150 Low 0,581 0.501
835 5820 5D DRINKING PLACE TOSF 40 55 82 159 150 Low 0.068 0.068
840 6411,5419- 54 AUTO CARE TGSF 50 68 102 '199 150 Low 0.055 0.085
841 5511-55919 56 NEW CAR SALES TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 150 Low 0,855 0.855
847 6412 6B CARWASH TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
848 5511-5699 55 TIRE STORE TGSF 180 246 369 716 300 Medium 0.615 0.615
850 5410-5499 54 SUPERUARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Low 0.308 0.308
551 5410-5499 54 CONVENIENCE MARKET TGSF 30 41 61 119 '150 Low 0.051 0.051
854 52'11-5392, 5X DISCOUNT MARKET TGS,c 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051
5610-5733
890 52'11-.5392, 5X FURNITURE STORE TGSF 160 2119 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274
5610-5733
8~ 7212-7990 7X VIDEO ARCADE / OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 110 150 225 438 150 Low 0,188 0.188
~0 6111-6133 61 FINANCIAL. INSTITUTION TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171
251 1210-12~0 12 B ELDERLY HOUSING - DETACHED TGSF 100 137 205 3198 150 Low 0.171 0.171
252 1210-1290 12A ELDERLY HOUSING - ATrACHED T(3SF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
253 1210-1290 12C CONGREGATE ELDERLY CARE FACILITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.055
120 2111-2'190 21 HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.055 0.085
120 2220-2395, 2X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.055
2510-2799
120 2400,2421- .24 HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
2499
'1'20 2810-3999 3X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TOSF 50 68 '102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
120 2810-3999 3X HEAVY INDUSTRY/1NDUSTRIAU WHOLESALE' TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
710 6141-6199, 6X GENERAL OFFICE BLDG TGSF 50 68 102 '199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
6599, 6810
SF. A310032753~8~G).DO C~4104(X)'34 D-2
SYSTEM DEVI~OPMENT CHARGE MEIHOOOLOGY
TABLE D.1
Capacity Requirements by User Class
Springfield Dry .Season
TraffirY Eugene Flow Ba~e Row Average Flow Ory,Season Max Wet Season Peak
Wastewater BPR/HUD Wastewater Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impa~t BODR'SS BOO i'S8
Code Code Use Code Type of Establishment Unit (FEU) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FELl/day) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) Strength (mg/1) Strength (Ib/FEUlday) * (Ib/FEU/day) *
860 5111-5199 51 WHOLESALE TRADE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051
870 5211-5392 5X CLOTHING / DRYGOOOS I HOUSEWARES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.'171
820 6211-6215 6A LAUNDRY TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
900 6212-6290 62 OTHER SERVICES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171
110 6611-6629 66 CONSTRUCTION TRADE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085
440 6811-6839 68 OTHER EDUCATIONAL/CULTURAL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.986 0.086
450 7212-7900 7X OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.276 0.276
820 SHOPPING CENTER TGSF 100 137 205 398 1 50 Low 0.171 0.171
ABBREVIATIONS
TGSF- THOUSAND GROSS SQUARE FEET
TSFGLA- THOUSAND SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASABLE
AREA
DU - DWELLING UNIT
TGALEF - THOUSAND GALLONS ESTIMATED FLOW
VFP -VEHICLE FUEUNG POSITIONS
Notes:
· Calculated as average flow (gat/unit/day¥1,000,000 X 8.345 X strength (rng/l~
· *Process flow is in addition to other flow.
SEA)10032713B~DO).DO C~41040034
APPENDIX E
Bond Credit Calculation
Credit per $1,000 Assessed Value By Annexation Year
Annexation by Year Cumulative Credit (per $1,000 AV)
1979 $0.09 $5.29
1980 $0.07 $5.19
1981 $0.14 $5.12
1982 $0.18 $4.98
1983 $0.17 $4.80
1984 $0.22 $4.63
1985 $0.33 $4.40
1986 $0.40 $4.07
1987 $0.45 $3.67
1988 $0.49 $3.22
1989 $0.48 $2.73
1990 $0.45 $2.25
1991 $0.21 $1.80
1992 $0.15 $1.59
1993 $0.19 $1.45
1994 $0.17 $1.25
1995 $0.16 $1.09
1996 $0.20 $0.92
1997 $0.24 $0.72
1998 $0.20 $0.48
1999 $0.19 $0.28
2000 $0.05 $0.09
2001 $0.05 $0.05
2002 $0.00 $0.00
2003 $0.00 $0.00
2004 $0.00 $0.00
Pmpe~ies annexed subsequentto debtretimment(2001)noteligible ~rcredit.
SEA31003271388(DG).DOC/041040034 -
Appendix D
Stormwater System Charge Detail
1.0 Formula
The impact analysis for the stormwater system is based on square footage of impervious
surface, which creates an impact on the stormwater system by land use type. Impervious
surface is defined in section 6.406 Eugene code, 1971 as "any hard surface area which causes
water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from conditions
pre-existing to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to,
rooftops, walkways, driveways, parking lots, or concrete or asphalt surfaces." The estimated
non-assessable cost of the system-wide capacity from future capacity-enhancing projects, as
contained in the Stormwater SDC-Eligible Project List, and the estimated available capacity in
the existing stormwater system projected to be used by new development is used as the basis
for determining the stormwater SDC.
The stormwater SDC is comprised of an improvement fee and a reimbursement fee, as new
development will require the construction of additional system capacity as well as the use of
available capacity in the existing system. The per unit cost of additional capacity for the
improvement fee is based on the value of the system-wide capacity of future capacity-
enhancing projects (current planned projects are listed in the Stormwater SDC-Eligible Project
List, Table 10) divided by the total projected impervious surface area that will be added by new
development at build-out within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The per unit cost of
existing capacity for the reimbursement fee is based on the value of available system-wide
capacity within the existing system projected to be used by new development divided by the
total projected impervious surface area that will be added by new development at build-out
within the UGB.
The value of the future stormwater system is based on the estimated costs of planned future
capacity-enhancing stormwater projects contained within stormwater plans and the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Of that total value, the SDC-eligible component is attributable to those
portions of future projects that are non-assessable and capacity-enhancing and related to the
demands of future development; i.e. add new capacity for new users.
The total value of the existing system is estimated based on the replacement cost of the
stormwater system components, which include both piped system and open channel system
components. Assessable costs are excluded from the SDC-eligible existing system costs.
Assessable costs are determined using the approach specified in the City Code. The city
assesses up to and including the first 24 inches of pipe diameter or equivalent capacity. The
non-assessable portion of stormwater system costs (SDC eligible costs) is based on
replacement costs minus assessable costs. The portion of non-assessable existing system
value allocated to new development (SDC-eligible value) is established by determining the
percent of piped system and open channel system capacity projected to be used by new
development. The use of capacity of the existing system is estimated with use of. hydraulic
modeling to identify existing available capacity (based on existing land use and flow data) and
expected future conditions (based on Metro Plan designations).
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Stormwater ~'
The total unit cost per square foot of impervious surface area is the sum of the per unit costs of
additional capacity of the improvement fee and reimbursement fees. Table 9 provides a
detailed breakdown of the calculation and numerical supporting data of the stormwater SDC.
Figure 6 illustrates the calculation formula of the stormwater SDC. The stormwater SDC rates
per unit of capacity can be found in Appendix F in the current adopted SDC fee schedule.
2.0 Single Family Dwelling and Duplex Rates
The stormwater SDC for single family residential development is comprised of three rate
categories: Small residential with a building footprint of 1,000 square feet or less; Medium
residential with a building footprint of greater than 1,000 but less that 3,000 square feet; and
Large residential with a building footprint of 3,000 square feet or more. Building footprint is
defined as the first floor area plus attached or detached garage or carport. For the Small and
Medium residential rate categories, an estimated average impervious surface area (square feet)
specific to each category is multiplied by the current total stormwater SDC rate per square foot
to determine the appropriate single-family residential stormwater SDC flat rate per dwelling unit.
For the Large residential category, the stormwater SDC is determined by multiplying the actual
impervious surface of the total proposed building site by the current total stormwater SDC unit
cost per square foot. The stormwater SDC for a duplex is calculated as two times the
appropriate stormwater SDC flat rate of either a Small or Medium residential category. Duplex
units equal to or over 3,000 square feet each are treated as Large residential. Details of the
stormwater SDC analysis are provided in Table 9. Rate formulas, calculations, and fee
schedule are provided in Appendix F.
3.0 Manufactured Home Park Rates
Manufactured home developments are charged a flat rate per individual space based on the
estimated average impervious area for a doublewide manufactured home, plus any additional
common area impervious surface (e.g., clubhouse, private streets). To determine the amount of
stormwater SDC attributable to the proposed spaces in the park, the total number of proposed
spaces is first multiplied by the estimated average impervious surface area (square feet) per
space, the results of which are then multiplied by the current total stormwater SDC unit cost per
square foot. To determine the amount of stormwater SDC attributable to all additional common
area impervious surfaces within the park, these areas will be measured separately and the sum
of this additional actual impervious surface area (square feet) will be multiplied by the current
total stormwater SDC rate per square foot. Details of the stormwater SDC analysis are provided
in Table 9. Rate formulas, calculations, and fee schedules are provided in Appendix F.
4.0 Multi-Family and Non-Residential Rate
For all uses not listed in sections 2.0 and 3.0 above (e.g. multi-family, commercial, industrial) or
whenever this Appendix D makes reference to a rate per square foot of impervious surface area,
the stormwater SDC collected is determined to be the current stormwater SDC rate per square
foot of impervious surface area as adopted in the SDC fee schedule located in Appendix F.
5.0 Stormwater Impacts Not Attributable to Impervious Surface Area
For all uses not listed in sections 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 above, where any development type creates
an impact through discharges to the public stormwater system (as allowed by EC 6.610) which
are not attributable to creation or modification of impervious surface area, will have stormwater
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Stormwater ~' -
FIGURE 5
Stormwater System
System Value
Capital Project- (SDC-Eligible Costs)
Based Methodology
· Improvement Fee
Impact Measurement Future capacity-enhancing cost - non SDC
Impervious Service eligible cost
· Reimbursement Fee
Replacement cost - non SDC-eligible cost
Formula:
Cost of Service
(Unit cost per square foot)
SDC - Eligible Cost Cost per square
Additional impervious = foot of impervious
surface area within UGB surface area
Formula:
Total Cost of Service
(Unit cost per square foot)
Improvement Unit Cost = Reimbursement Unit Cost
NOTE: The costs per unit of measure, can be found in Table 12 and the SDC fee schedule in Appendix F.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Stormwater,
TABLE 9
Stormwater Drainage Systems Development Charge Analysis
I. Existing Stormwater Drainage System Value & SDC-Eligible Costs (Reimbursement Fee)l
Total Replacement Cost - Existing Pipe System $222,748,229 II
Total Replacement Cost - Existing Open Channel Systems $63,671,322
Percent of Existing Pipe System to be Used by New Development 4.27%
Percent of Existing Open Channel system to Used by New Development 2.34%
Total SDC-Eligible Cost - Existing Pipe* $9,511,350
Total SDC-Eligible Cost - Existing Open Channel Systems*
L Futur Stormwater System SDC-Eligible Project Costs (Improvement Fee)iI
i. Stormwater System Calculation Details
Sin$1e-Famil7 Dwelling (SFD), estimated averase imperious sudace area
Small Residential (building footprint ~1,000 sq. ff.) 1,800 Sq. ff.
Medium Residential (building f~tp~nt >1,000 sq. ff. and < 3,000 sq.ff.) 2,$00 Sq. ff.
Mf~. Home Park Space, estimated averase imperious sudace area 1,780 s~. ff.
l. Calculation of SDC*
Unit Cost per Square Foot, Improvement Fee [$12,113,585 / 155,770,56011 $0.0778
(53%)
i
Unit Cost per Square Foot, Reimbursement Fee [$11 001 258 / 155 770 56011 $0 0706 (47%)
~i~i'~'~ ......... ~
Small Residential SDC (building footprint ~ 1,000 sq. ff.) [1,800 sq. ff. x $0.148 $266.40
Medium Residential SDC (building footprint >1,000 sq. ff. and < 3,000 sq.ff.) [2,900 sq.ff x $0.148 $429.20
Small Duplex SDC (unit building footprints ~ 1,000 sq. ff.) [$a66.4o x 2 $532.80
Medium Duplex SDC (unit building footprints >1,000 sq. ff. and < 3,000 sq.ff.) [$429.20 x 2 $858.40
Mfg. Home Park SDC per Space (podion of total charge) [1,684 sq. ff. x $o.148] $249.23
See Appendix F for complete rate schedule.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Stormwater,
TABLE 10
City of Eugene
2003 Stormwater SDC-Eligible Project List
I
Martin Drive Pipe Improvements (02-07 CIP) $96,999 $96,999
Mt. Cavalry Pipe Improvements $796,018 $193,626
Frederick Court Pipe Daylight $123,387 $56,758
43rd Avenue Pipe Improvements $2,248,187 $719,420
Morse Park Ranch Park Pipe Improvements $1,099,844 $120,983
Laurelwood Flood Control Fac/Pipe Imps $2,094,761 $314,214
Jackson Street Pipe Improvements $80,728 $20,182
Windsor Circle Pipe Improvements $958,517 $616,190
West Hawkins Lane Water Quality Facility $652,188 $527,962
Bell Avenue (Increase Pipe Sizes Along) $828,768 $381,233
Empire Park Pond Retrofit $401,555 $80,311
Royal Node Stormwater Infrastructure $1,460,200 $1,460,200
Greenhill Tributary Storm Improvements Ph 2 $390,082 $132,983
Greenhill Tributary Water Quality Facility $780,998 $234,300
Roosevelt Channel - Culvert Improvement $141,744 $44,761
~.-1 Main Channel Culvert & Open Waterway Improvements $536,936 $85,910
Lynnbrook Drive Open Waterway & Culvery Improvements $503,143 $150,943
Spring Creek Bridge Construction & Waterway Improvements $145,290 $33,417
Sanders Street Water Quality Facility $779,434 $38,972
Spring Creek Drive Water Quality Facility $246,774 $49,355
Kirsten Street Pipe Improvements $399,469 $115,846
Hunsacker- Open Channel Improvements (02-07 ClP) $415,114 $249,277
Lenox/Salty - Culvert Replacement (02-07 Cl P) $179,396 $107,429
Hunsacker Culvert Replacement (02-07 ClP) $27,118 $16,688
Division Avenue Tip-Up Pipe Replacement $11,369 $2,615
Irvington Ddve Water Quality Facility $681,913 $95,468
St. Peter School Culvert Replacement $56,948 $17,084
River Point Pond Outlet Channel $389,352 $159,634
Gilham Road System Culvert Replacement $28,161 $28,161
Gilham Road System Water Quality Facility $682,018 $68,202
~.scot Park Open Waterway Modification $75,305 $49,701
3rd-4th Connector Stormwater Improvements (02-07 ClP) $125,160 $125,160
Beaver St & Hunsaker Ln Stormwater Improvements $52,150 $52,150
Greenhill Rd Stormwater Improvements $104,300 $104,300
Irvington Drive - Stormwater (02-07 ClP) $104,300 $104,300
Kinney Park Flow Diversion & Restoration $646,660 $478,528
River Road - Stormwater (02-07 CIP) $52,150 $52,150
Royal Ave., Terry to Greenhill $104,300 $104,300
Services for New Development ($100,000/year) $3,546,200 $3,546,200
Streambank Stabilization ($ varies/year) $5,110,700 $1,277,675
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Stormwater.
Appendix E
Parks System Charge Detail
1.0 Formula
The parks SDC is determined based on the level of service and the cost for each component
listed in Table 11. These components are identified in the 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan.
Included are neighborhood and community parks, and special facility areas which encompass
facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, softball diamonds and soccer fields. A parks
SDC is collected from residential development only. The basis of the charge is equivalent
dwelling units (EDUs).
Table 11 contains the current Eugene planning area standards for neighborhood and community
parks. Standards for special facility areas, also shown in Table 11, were developed by dividing
the current planning area facility count by the current population to arrive at the current level of
service per thousand population.
This standard was then multiplied by the per-acre cost for land acquisition/development or the
per unit cost of each component to get the cost per 1,000 population. Then the per capita
amounts were derived by dividing by 1,000. The per capita component costs were then
summed to arrive at a cost impact per capita.
To calculate the cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), the Total Charge per Person is
multiplied by the average number of persons per household, for the city. The population
records serve as the basis for deriving the average number of persons per dwelling unit, used in
the parks SDC analysis.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Parks
TABLE 11
Parks System Development Charge Analysis
COmPonent
PARKS (acres) (acres)
Neighborhood, developed (1) 87.18 0.620 Per 1,000 population $222,037 Per acre $137.72
Neighborhood, land acquisition onl~ 40.78 0.290 Per 1,000 population $180,000 Per acre $52.22
Neighborhood, natural (2) 61.76 0.439 Per 1,000 population $203,499 Per acre $89.42
Community, developed (1) 158.81 1.130 Per 1,000 population $111,787 Per acre $126.31
Community, land acquisition only 23.35 0.166 Per 1,000 population $45,000 Per acre $7.48
Community, natural (2) 46.38 0.330 Per 1,000 population $59,478 Per acre $19.63
FACILITIES (number) (number)
Softball Diamonds (3) 31.00 0.221 Per 1,000 population $359,156 Per diamond $79.22
Restrooms (4) 11.23 0.080 Per 1,000 population $192,667 Per 2 pair unit $15.40;
Tennis Courts (5) 27.00 0.192 Per 1,000 population $96,096 Per court $18.46
Basketball Courts (6) 19.35 0.138 Per 1,000 population $62,898 Percourt $8.66
Miscellaneous Courts/Courses (7) 10.23 0.073 Per 1,000 population $28,694 Each $2.09
Soccer Fields (8) 4.08 0.029 Per 1,000 population $197,246 Per field $5.72
Soft Jogging Paths (miles) 10.94 0.078 Per 1,000 population $97,416 Per mile $7.58
Parking spaces, fields and facilities 531.74 3.783 Per 1,000 population $3,598 Per space $13.61
Horseshoe Courts (9) 20.00 0.142 Per 1,000 population $3,414 Per court $0.49
Volleyball Courts, sand (9) 4.00 0.028 Per 1,000 population $22,140 Per court $0.63
(1) Includes land acquisition and full development, with utility connections, excluding restroom facilities.
(2) Includes all land that is not intended to be developed.
(3) Note that the unit cost is per softball diamond, when constructed in pairs. May include utility connections, multi-purpose playing fields, lights, special drainage for year-round
service use, seating, fences, fountains, and landscaping; excludes restroom and parking facilities.
(4) Excludes most metro-scale (regional) facilities.
(5) Note that the unit cost is per court when constructed in groups of four courts, and are lighted. No parking included.
(6) Full court, high school dimensions.
[7) Includes 7 wading pools, 1 skate board bowls, 1 bocci ball court, I amphitheater, and I disk golf course.
(8) Excludes lights and parking.
(9) Note that the unit cost is per court, when constructed in groups of two or more.
*The inventory is adjusted to reflect the portion of existing bond-funded parks and facilities which have been paid for by the existing community.
FIGURE 6
PARKS SYSTEM
Level of Service System Value
Components Unit construction
· Parks cost per component
· Facilities
(As provided by Parks Planning)
Impact Measuement
Per EDU (Residential)
Formula
Cost of Service
(Per equivalent dwelling unit [EDU])
(Residential)
Cost per X Persons per = Cost per
person household EDU
NOTE: The cost per EDU can be found in the current adopted SDC fee schedule in F.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologi s Parks,
Appendix F
Local System Formulas & General Fee Schedule
1.0 Formula and Calculation Details
1.1 General Rate Setting, Cost of Service Formula
SDC eligible costs
= SDC per unit of service
Impact measurement
1.2 Transportation System Cost of Service consists of non-assessable arterial
and collector street system cost of service plus off-street bicycle cost of service.
1.2.1 Non-Assessable Arterial & Collector Street System Cost of Service
General Formula
Non-Assessable Cost per Lane Mile X Lane Miles per trip = Cost per trip
Calculation
Street System Cost per Trip
Reimbursement: $851,355 X (0.8888 / 675) -- $1,121.01 -- Cost per Trip
Improvement: $1,013,386 X (0.8888/675) -- $1,334.37 '- Cost per Trip
Total Allocated Cost per Trip -' $1,121.01 (0.4) + $1,334.37 (0.6) -- $1,363.66
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Fee Schedule & Formulas
1.2.2 Off-Street Bicycle path Cost of Service
General Formulas
Miles of bicycle paths
per person X Cost per miles = Cost per person
Cost per person, Bicycle Paths
= Cost per trip
# of Trips per person
Calculations
Path Lighting + Path Section
($13.32) + ($89.28) = $102.60 (per person)
$102.60
= $114.63 (per trip)
0.895
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Fee Schedule & Formulas.
1.3 Wastewater System Cost of Service:
1.3.1 Local Wastewater System Cost of Service
Determination of Flow Estimation Formula for Residential Development
Graphical comparison of water consumption per month to square foot of living area results in a
slope of 0.951 gallons per month per square foot and a base flow per dwelling unit of 3,946
gallons per month.
7000
2°°°1 II
4000
0 8~ ~ ~ 585 2382 3280
To.lAma Uving Space
~ Projected
~ Sampl~ Actual Data
Base Flow
Intercept, 3,946 Slope 0.951 gal/mo/sq ft
Gal. / Month
Gal. / Day (GPD)
.-30 day month-- 132 Days per Month 30
Cost per Gal~Day $2.2572 Slope / 30 Days 0.032
Base Charge =
$297.92 Cost per Gal~Day $2.2572
GPD x Cost per Gal.
Cost per sq ft =
Daily usage factor x Cost per $0.0722
Gal.
The implementation of this rate structure results in each new single family dwelling being
charged a local wastewater SDC that is comprised of a base rate of $297.92 plus an additional
charge of $0.0722 applied to the total proposed living space area of the dwelling.
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Fee Schedule & Formulas,
Formulas for Non-Residential Development
Non-Assessable System Valuation
(Value of existinq + Value of planned) = Cost per unit of capacity
Build-out capacity (mgd)
Per unit of capacity X flow per PFU for development type X number of PFUs
for development = SDC for development
Calculations for Non-Residential Development
$100,676M + 9,925M
= $2.2572 per gallon per day
49.0 mgd
$2.2572 X Gallon per PFU (varies by development type) X
Number of PFUs = SDC for development
1.4 Stormwater System Cost of Service:
General Formulas
SDC eligible costs
= Unit cost per square foot of
Total additional impervious impervious surface area
surface area within UGB (sq. ft)
Reimbursement:
$11,001,258
= $0.0706 per sq. ft.
155,770,560 sq. ft. impervious surface area
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Fee Schedule & Formulas
Improvement:
$12,113,585
= $0.0778 per sq. ft.
155,770,560 sq. ft. impervious surface area
Total Unit Cost per Sq. Ft. Impervious Surface Area =
(Reimbursement + Improvement) = $0.0778 + $0.0706 = $0.148
1.5 Parks System Cost of Service:
General Formula:
Cost per person X Persons per household = Cost per EDU
Calculation:
$584.63 X 2.3 = $1,344.65
(per EDU)
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Fee Schedule & Formulas.
2.0 Adopted SDC Fee Schedule: Current Rates
2.1 Transportation System:
Cost per trip $1,363.66
2.2 Local Wastewater System:
Residential dwelling unit base fee $297.92
Residential dwelling unit total living area multiplication factor $0.0722
Non-Residential rate per gal/day per land use type per PFU Varies
2.3 Regional (MWMC) Wastewater System:
Residential dwelling unit $947.34
Non-Residential rate per gal/day per land use type per FEU Varies
Unit Cost by Component
Average Daily Flow (per gallon) $0.449
Peak Wet Weather Flow (per gallon) $0.467
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (per pound) $876.610
Suspended Solids (per pound) $665.753
2.4 Stormwater System:
Small Residential (building footprint_< 1,000 sq. ft.) $266.40
Medium Residential (building footprint > 1,000 sq.ft, and < 3,000 sq. ft.) $429.20
Small Duplex (unit building footprints < 1,000 sq. ft.) $532.80
Medium Duplex (unit building footprints >1,000 sq. ft. and < 3,000 sq. ft.) $858.40
Manufactured Home Park
Per space (assumes 1,684 sq. ft. per space) $249.23
plus
Per sq. ft. actual impervious surface area, addt'l common areas $0.148
All Other Development
Per sq.ft, actual impervious surface area and/or equivalent $0.148
2.5 Parks System:
Total charge per person $584.63
Total charge per Dwelling Unit (2.3 persons x $584.63) $1,344.65
2.6 Administration Fees:
City of Eugene if based on percentage 5.0%
City of Eugene if based on flat rate $60.00
MWMC per permit application $10.00
2.7 Appeal Fee: City of Eugene per SDC appeal $100.00
City of Eugene SDC Methodologies Fee Schedule & Formulas '-
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES FOR
REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4740.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A. On September 23, 2002, the System Development Charges (SDC)
Methodologies were adopted by Resolution No. 4740.
B. Resolution No. 4740 has subsequently been amended by Resolution Nos.
4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4776 and, the most recent amendment, Resolution No.
which adopted an amended SDC Methodology for Regional Wastewater System and
repealed Resolution No. 4776. In addition, inflationary adjustments of Systems
Development Charges for Local Wastewater System, Stormwater System, and
Transportation System were adopted by Administrative Order No. 58-04-04-F, effective
April 5, 2004.
C. Resolution No. dated , adopted the MWMC
Facilities Plan 20-year project list.
D. Based on Resolution No. __ and Resolution No. __, it is necessary
to adopt amended Regional Wastewater SDC rates calculated based on application of the
Methodology to the 20-year project list.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the above findings,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. The Systems Development Charge rates for Regional Wastewater are
amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
Section 2. Resolution No. 4740 is amended as described in Section 1 as of the
effective date of this Resolution.
Section 3. The City Recorder is requested to append a copy of this Resolution to
Resolution No. 4740.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2004.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the day of ., 2004.
City Recorder
TableS-I j I
Me~oplitan Wastewater Manasement Commission
Proposed Wastewater SDC Analysis
;DC Schedule
Dry Season
Sprin~eld Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak Reimburse- Improve- Improvement
TratficMaste Wasteweter Use Eslimafion Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact BOD/TSS BOD TSS Total Cost
water Code Code Type of Estabr~shment Unit (FEU) (gal/FEUIday) (galEEUIday) (gel/FEUlday) (galFEU/day) ~ (rog/I) Strength (ths/FEUlday)* (Ir~/FEUlday)* mentFEuCOSt pe~ mentper FEuC°StRateCreditsupportf°rper FEU
30 4x TRUCK TERMINAL TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $46,88 $675.32 $180.86 $541.34
151 63 MINI WAREHOUSE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.O51 0.O51 $14.0~ $202.60 $54.26 $182.40
170 4X UTILmES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $46.88 $675.32 $180.86 $541.34
200 lX OTHER RESIDENTIAL (SFO W/OTHER USES) DU 175 239 359 69~ 150 Low 0.299 0.299 $82.03 $1,181.81 $316.50 $947.34
220 11 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MUTI FAMILY DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $70.31 $1,012.98 $27129 $812.01
200 13 OTHER RESIDENTIAL- RESIDENTIAL HOTEL/MOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0.342 0.342 $93.75 $1,350.64 $361.71 $1,082.67
240 14 OTHER RESIDENTIAL- MOBILE HOME PARK DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $70.31 $1,012.98 $271.29 $812.01
210 IF SFD I DUPLEX DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0.299 0.299 $82.03 $1,181.81 $316.50 $947.34
300 15 MOTEL/HOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 300 Medium 0.684 0.684 $156.56 $1,911.18 $456.67 $1,610.07!
400 7X PUBLIC PARK TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.14!
435 7X MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION FACILITY (Indoor) TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.1,~
443 7X THEATER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.1,~
488 7X OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COMPt. EX TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.1,~
491 7X TENNIS COURT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $686.1,~
492 7X RACQUET CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $868.1,~
493 7X HEALTH CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.1~
494 7X BOWLING ALLEY TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.1,~
495 7X RECREATIONAL CENTER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0.274 $75.00 $1,080.51 $289.37 $866.1,~
500 3X ~NDUSTRIAL PROCESS LOW STRENG~.t TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 150 Low 1.710 t.710 $468.75 $6,753.19 $1,808.57 $5,413.37
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MEDIUM STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 300 Medium 3.419 3.419 $777.79 $9,555.90 $2,283.33 $6,050.3(~
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 5O0 High 5.699 5.699 $1,189.84 $13,292.83 $2,916.33 $11,566.3~
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS VERY HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,949 3,978 700 Very High 7.979 7.979 $1,601.90 $17,029.77 $3,549.34 $15,082.33
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS SUPER HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 900 Super High 10.258 10.258 $2,013.95 $20,766.71 $4,182.34 $18,598.32
520 68 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.68 $90.43 $270.67
522 68 MIDDLE SCHOOi_ TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
530 68 HIGH SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
540 68 COMMUNITY COLLEGE TGSF 50 68 102 199 1 50 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
550 68 UNIVERSITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
560 69 CHURCH TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
565 68 DAY CARE CENTER TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
5~0 68 LIBRARY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
591 69 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 LOW 0.085 0.085 $23.44 $337.66 $90.43 $270.67
600 54 SERVICE STATION / MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Low 0.308 0.308 $84.38 $1,215.58 $325.54 $974.41
610 65 HOSPrTAL TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $70.31 $1,012.98 $271.29 $812.01
620 85 NURSING HOME TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0256 0.256 $70.31 $1,012.98 $271.29 $812.01
630 65 CUN~C, MEDICAL OFFICE TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $70.31 $1,012.98 $271.29 $812.01
700 5A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TGSF 720 983 1,475 2,864 500 High 4.103 4.103 $856.69 $9,570.84 $2,099.76 $8,327.77
720 82 VETERINARIAN SERVICES TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0.342 0.342 $93.7~ $1,350.64 $361.71 $1,082.67
750, 61 OFFICE PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 LOW 0.171 0.171 $46.88 $675.32 $180.86 $541.34
770 , 67 BUSINESS PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $46.88 $675.32 $180.86 $541.34
730 67 GOVERNMENT BUILDING TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $46.88 $675.32 $180.86 $541.3~
732 67 US POST OFFICE TGSF 100 137 205: 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $46.88 $675.32 $180.86 $541.3~
Row BaseFIow AverageFIow D~SeaseaMax Wet Seaso~ Peak BOD/TSS Reimburse- .11 Improve- Improvement .....
BOP TSS , lO[al t.,OS[
Moeth Impact Flow Impact, I Streng~ (mg/i) Strength , ,ment Cost peril ment Cost Credit for
it Establishment I UnitEstimati°n(FEU) I (gal/FEUIpay)~pact I (gal/FEUIday) lImpact (gal/FEUlday) (gal/FEUIdayl / I (bslFEUlday) (Ibs/i:EUlday) FEU per FEU Rate Support per FEU
RETAIL 102 199 Low
QUALITY RESTAURANT 1,475 2,864 High
HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT 1,475 2,864 Higfl
697 1,353 Low
82 159 Low
NEW CAR SALES 102 199 Low
CAR WASH 1,024 1,989 Low
102 199 Low
SUPERMARKET 369 716 Medium
369 716 Low
DISCOUNT MARKET 61 119 Low
FURNITURE STORE 61 119 Low
~ ARCADE 328 636 Low
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 225 438 Low
ELDERLY HOUSING - DETACHED 205 398 Low
ELDERLY HOUSING - ATTACHEB 205 398 Low
CONGREGATE ELBERLY CARE FACILITY 205 398 Low
HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** 102 199 Low
102 199 Low
HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** 102 199 Low
HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** 102 199 Lov~
102 199 Low
E BLDG 205 398 Low
102 199 Low
; / ORYGOODS / HOUSEWARES 61 119 Low
LAUNDRY 205 398 Low
205 398 Low
205 398 Low
3THER EDUCATIONAUCULTURAL 102 199 Low
RTAINMENT 328 636 Low
SHOPPING CENTER 205 398 Low
ABBREVIATIONS
TGSF - THOUSAND GROSS SQUARE FEET
TSFGLA - THOUSAND SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASABLE AREA
- DWELLING UNIT
· THOUSAND GALLONS ESTIMATED R.OW
. VEHICLE FUELING POSITIONS
' Calculated as average flow X 8.345 X strength Process flow is in additio~ 1o otha' ~
ATTACHMENT C
METROPOLITIAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 04-03 ) In the Matter of Adopting the
) MWMC Regional Wastewater
) System Development Charge (SDC)
) Methodology and Forwarding it to the
) Governing Bodies for Adoption Pursuant
) to ORS 223.304
WHEREAS, the existing Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology (1997 Methodology) was
approved by MWMC on May 15, 1997, common council of the City of Springfield on
June 16, 1997, and common council of the City of Eugene on July 2, 1997; and
WHEREAS, in June of 2003, MWMC undertook a comprehensive review of the
1997 Methodology, which utilized the expertise of a SDC consultant and the formation
of a citizens advisory committee (CAC) to recommend whether changes should be
made to the 1997 Methodology; and
WHEREAS, the CAC and consultant have recommended changes to the 1997
Methodology and MWMC has considered these recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing and following additional discussion
and deliberation, MWMC approves the attached Exhibit A as the MWMC Regional
Wastewater SDC Methodology and directs that it be forwarded to the goveming bodies
for adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission that the attached Regional Wastewater SDC Methodology is
hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission of the
Springfield/Eugene metropolitan area on this day of April 2004.
President
ATTEST:
Approved as to Form
G. David Jewett
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 04-07 ) IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING A
) SCHEDULE OF REGIONAL WASTEWATER
) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND
) FORWARDING IT TO THE GOVERNING
) BODIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION PER THE
) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC),
pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the cities of Springfield and
Eugene, and Lane County, is responsible for administration and operation of the regional
wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires the MWMC to adopt and recommend to the appropriate
goveming bodies a system of connection fees that considers different types of usage and that
is based on obtaining equality between newly connecting and previously connected users for
their contributions toward the regional wastewater system facilities; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 et. seq. sets forth requirements for the imposition of systems
development charges by local govemments; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC appointed a citizen advisory committee (CAC) to consider and
recommend system development charge ($DC) methodology altematives; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2004, after a public hearing, MWMC approved the MWMC
Regional Wastewater SDC Methodology (Methodology) and directed that the Methodology be
forwarded to the governing bodies for adoption; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2004, after a public headng, MWMC appraoved Resolution 04-
04 adoptiong the Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List (Plan and 20-Year Project List) as
part of a process leading to the establishment of regional wastewater system develoment
charges; and
WHEREAS, the regional wastewater System Development Charge Schedule that is
attached as Attachment 1 was developed by applying the Methodology to the Plan and 20-
Year Project List.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION THAT:
1. The regional wastewater System Development Charge Schedule that is attached
as Attachment 1 is approved.
2. The General Manager is directed to refer the approved System Development
Charge Schedule to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield with MWMC's recommendation that
the cities implement the Systems Development Charges as set forth in Attachment 1 effective
July 1, 2004.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE DAY OF MAY,
2004.
PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
/...!
Approved as to form: /~
G. David Jewett
ATTACHMENT D
(~ Public Works
Engineering
City of Eugene
MEMORANDUM 8,8 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5291
(541) 682-5032 FAX
Date: June 7, 2004
To: Mayor Torrey and City Council
From: Fred McVey, 682-5216
Engineering Data Services Manager
Subject: Supplemental Information on MWMC SDC Rate Calculation
This memorandum provides two pieces of supplemental information as requested by Council in
a work session on May 19, 2004 on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) proposed regional wastewater system development charge (SDC) methodology and
rates. Provided are a detailed illustration of the calculation of proposed SDC rates for example
development types and a comparison of the effects of proposed SDC rates on these
development types in relation to wastewater SDCs in other Oregon communities.
Calculation of Proposed SDC Rates
In the May 19, 2004 work session, Councilors commented that follow-up information was
needed to clarify the calculation of proposed charges (rates) prior to the public hearing on
resolutions adopting modifications to the SDC methodology and rates (scheduled for June 14,
2004). While the proposed methodology describes the charge calculation in concept, it does so
without referencing the specific numbers for future project costs since these costs are subject to
change independent of the methods for calculation of the SDC. As a result, it was unclear to
Councilors how the SDC for a particular development, as reflected in the proposed SDC
Schedule, was derived.
This section of the memorandum presents the results of the application of the SDC methodology
to MWMC's existing asset value and proposed 20-year project list. SDC calculations are
presented from the proposed rate schedule backwards into the methodology - working from the
end (the SDC schedule for various development types) to the beginning (growth capacity
analysis and development of the SDC cost basis).
SDC Schedule
The SDC for regional wastewater is based on a development's estimated claim or demand on
treatment system capacity. Demand on treatment system capacity can be estimated by the
volume and strength of wastewater discharge from various types of development. In order to
determine the SDC for a particular development, the amount of discharge and pollutant loading
of the discharge is estimated based on the size and type of development. The size of
development is expressed in Flow Estimation Units, or FEUs. The loading placed on system
capacity by a particular development type is reflected in the cost per FEU contained in the SDC
rate schedule. The proposed SDC Schedule (Table S-l, included as Exhibit A to Attachment B of
the AlS for the City Council work session of May 19, 2004, Agenda page 129), provides SDC
rates for various development types as calculated following the proposed SDC methodology.
To increase the accuracy of estimating a development's demand on system capacity and thereby
improving the equity of the SDC rate structure, capacity in the treatment system is measured
across four capacity types, or parameters. The four capacity parameters are Average Flow, Peak
Flow, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The SDC
schedule is developed by multiplying system-wide unit costs for each capacity parameter by the
projected capacity requirement for each development category. Table 1 of this memorandum
presents this calculation for five example development categories:
1. Single-family residential dwelling
2. Apartment building (60-unit)
3. General office building (20,000 square feet)
4. Low turnover restaurant (4,900 square feet)
5. Home improvement superstore (190,000 square feet)
For each development type, and for each capacity parameter, the five steps taken to calculate the
total cost per unit of development (size) include the following (with the corresponding line from
Table 1 referenced):
1. User capacity x Unit capacity costs associated with = Reimbursement cost per FEU
requirements (line 1) existing facilities (line 2) (line 3)
2. User capacity x Unit capacity costs associated with = Improvement cost per FEU
requirements (line 1) new/future facilities (line 4) (line 5)
3. User capacity x Unit capacity costs associated with = Improvement credit for rate
requirements (line 1) credit for rate support (line 6) support per FEU (line 7)
4. Add the results of steps I and 2, subtract the results of step 3 = total cost per unit of development (line 8)
5. Multiply the total cost per unit of development (line 8) x the size of the development = SDC for example
development (line 9)
For steps one through three in the SDC calculation process, the user capacity requirements of
four capacity parameters (average flow, peak flow, BOD and TSS strengths) are multiplied by
the associated unit costs to determine the total SDC. As each development type is assumed to
contribute equal concentration of BOD and TSS, these are combined into a single strength
category in Table 1. Appendix D of the proposed SDC Methodology (included in materials for
the City Council work session of May 19, 2004, Agenda page 103), provides user capacity
requirements for each of the development types included in the SDC Schedule. Appendix A of
this memorandum provides further details on classes of strength of discharge used in user
capacity requirements calculations.
Table 1
Develop SDC Schedule - Multiply Capacity Requirements by Unit Capacity Costs
AVERAGE FLOW PEAK FLOW STRENGTH
Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak Dry Season Average
Month Impact Flow Impact Flow Impact BOD/TSS Strength
line Development Type (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) Ibs/day/FEU Total Cost
1 User Capacity Requirements 359 696 239 0.299 Low
4 Unit Capacity Cost - New/Future Facilities $1.02 $0.47 $1,639.29
5 Improvement Cost per FEU $366.29 $325.05 $490.47 $1,181.81
8 Total Cost per Unit of Development per FEU $947.34
$947.34
9 SDC for example development: 1 Dwelling Unit (FEU) x $947.34 (Total Cost per FEU) =
1 User Capacity Requirements 307 597 205 0.256 Low
i $o. oa $0.~
4 Unit Capacity Cost - New/Future Facilities $1.02 $0.47 $f, 639.29
5 Improvement Cost per FEU $313.96 $278.61 $420.41 $1,012.98
8 Total Cost per Unit of Development per FEU $812.01
$48.720.35
9 SDC for example development: 60 Dwelling Units (FEUs) x $812.01 (Total Cost per FEU) =
1 User Capacity Requirements 205 398 137 0.171 Low
4 Unit Capacity Cost- New/Future Facilities $f.02 $0.47 $1,639.29
5 Improvement Cost per FEU $209,31 $185.74 $280.27 $675,32
~i I~111 i i ,;, :?~::::: :: :: :::::::: r "'"" i
8 Total Cost per Unit of Development per FEU $541.34
g SDC for example development: 20 Thousand Gross Square Feet (FEUs) x $541.34 (Total Cost per FEU) ~ $10,826.74
1 User Capacity Requirements 1475 2864 g83 4.103 High
4 Unit Capacity Cost - New/Future Facilities $~.02 $0.47 $1,639.29
5 Improvement Cost per FEU $1,507.02 $1,337.33 $6,726.49 $9,570.84
($~:: : :~
8 Total Cost per Unit of Development per FEU $8,327.77
9 SDC for example development: 4.9 Thousand Gross Square Feet (FEUs) x $8,327.77 (Total Cost per FEU) = $40,806.07
1 User Capacity Requirements 102 199 68 0.085 Low
~:~, ,,
4 Unit Capacity Cost - New/Future Facilities $1.02 $0.47 $~,639.29
5 Improvement Cost per FEU $104.65 $92.87 $140.14 $337.66
8 Total Cost per Unit of Development per FEU $270.67
9 SDC for example development: 190 Thousand Gross Square Feet (FEUs) x $270.67 (To~l Cost per FEU) = $51,427.03
Unit Costs of Capacity
As illustrated in Table 1, a central factor in the SDC fee calculation is the system-wide unit cost
of capacity, for each of the four capacity parameters (lines 2, 4, and 6 of Table 1). Tables 2 and 3
below show the calculation of system-wide reimbursement and improvement unit costs by
capacity parameter. The system-wide unit costs are calculated by dividing the total projected
costs of providing capacity for new development (Growth Costs) by the total projected amount
of capacity required by new development (Growth Units). The reimbursement unit costs
(indicated in bold in Table 2) are used on line 2 of Table 1.
Table 2
Reimbursement Unit Cost Calculations
Component Amount
Growth Costs
Average Flow $1,204,444
Peak Flow $0
BOD $2,293,819
TSS $1,403,456
Total $4,901,719
Projected Growth Units
Average Flow (mgd)
15.5
Peak Flow (mgd) 30
BOD (lbs) 19,200
TSS (lbs) 22,900
Cost per Unit
Average Flow ($/gpd) $0.78
Peak Flow ($/gpd) $0.00
BOD (S/lb) $119.47
TSS (S/lb) $61.29
Combined BOD/TSS (S/lb) $180.76
Table 3 I [ I
[m?rovement Unit Cost Calculations
Component Amount W/Financing*
Growth Costs
Average Flow $14,260,171
Peak Flow $12,654,487
BOD $15,653,765
TSS $15,243,603
Total $57,812,027
Projected Growth Units
Average Flow (mgd) 15.5
Peak Flow (mgd) 30
BOD (lbs) 19,200
TSS (lbs) 22,900
Cost per Unit
Average Flow ($/gpd) $0.92 $1.02
Peak Flow (S/gpd) $0.42 $0.47
BOD (S/lb) $815 $902
TSS (S/lb) $666 $737
Combined BOD/TSS (S/lb) $1,480.96 $1,639.29
*Financing cost adjustment: I 10.7%
The improvement unit costs (as adjusted for anticipated financing costs and shown in bold in
Table 3) are used on line 4 of Table 1. Financing costs are estimated based on the 20-year project
list, adjusted for inflation. Projected growth-related capital project costs in excess of available
revenues (i.e., improvement fees, interest earnings and existing fund balances) are assumed to
be financed with interest accruing at a rate of 5 percent. When financing costs are included, the
improvement fee unit costs increase about 10.7 percent, as shown in Table 3.
The unit costs shown in Table 2 and 3 are the result of a comprehensive analysis that
determines: 1) growth's capacity needs, and 2) existing and future facility costs needed to meet
those needs (i.e., development of the SDC 'Cost Basis'). An example of this analysis is
illustrated in the proposed SDC Methodology within Table 2 included in Exhibit A to
Attachment A of the AIS for the City Council work session of May 19, 2004 (Agenda page 73).
The specific analysis related to these methodological elements used in deriving the proposed
SDC rates is summarized below.
Determine Growth Capacity Needs
In order to determine growth-related capacity needs, and how these will be met, Table 4 of this
memorandum presents a summary of existing and future improvements capacity. The table
shows the capacity requirements of existing users and users associated with new development
(growth), along with the percentage of the existing system capacity available to future users and
the percentage of the future-improvements capacity that will be associated with growth. The
derivation of these numbers is described in detail in the SDC Methodology Appendix C (and
summarized in Table C-l).
The numbers in bold in Table 4 are used in Tables 2 and 3 to determine the unit costs of
capacity. The italicized numbers in Table 4 form the basis for allocation of existing and future
facility costs to growth to develop the cost basis (described below).
Table 4
Summary of Growth Capacity Needs by Parameter
Element (a) (b) (c)
Total Future Existing System Future
Improvements
Avera~le Flow
Systemwide Capacity (mgd) 59.3 49.0 10.3
Existing Users (mgd) 43.8 43.8 0.0
Growth (m~ld) 15.5 5.2 10.3
Growth's Capacity Share 26% 10.5% 100%
Peak Flow
Systemwide Capacity (mgd) 277 175 102
Existing Users (mgd) 264 175 89
Growth (m~ld) 30 0 30
Growth's Capacity Share 11% 0.0% 29%
BCD
Systemwide Capacity (mgd) 74,000 66,000 8,000
Existing Users (mgd) 54,800 54,800
Growth (mod) 19,200 11,200 8,000
Growth's Capacity Share 26% 17. 0% 100%
TSS
Systemwide Capacity (mgd) 87,600 71,600 16,000
Existing Users (mgd) 64,700 64,700
Growth (m~ld) 22,900 6,900 16,000
Growth's Capacity Share 26% 9.6% 100%
Determine Cost Basis - Existing System
The second methodological element in determining the system-wide unit costs shown in Tables
2 and 3 is to establish the SDC cost basis, or the total costs associated with serving growth. For
the existing system, this requires an analysis of the value of the existing system and, specifically,
the portion of the system that is associated with each capacity parameter. A portion of existing
system value is then allocated to growth based on the current available capacity projected to be
used by new development. Figure 2 shows schematically how this allocation process is
undertaken (as described in the SDC Methodology, also Figure 2).
Table 5 presents an allocation of existing system facility value to facility components and
capacity parameters. Breaking the system into facility components enables a structured basis
for analysis of facilities and allocation to system capacity parameters. Included in Table 5 are:
1. The inflated original cost of existing assets, classified by asset type or "facility
components"
2. The allocation, by percentage, of these assets to the four capacity parameters (and to a
support or indirect cost category, which is then allocated across the four parameters)
3. The allocation, in dollars, of current assets to the four capacity parameters
FIGURE 2--EXISTING SYSTEM ALLOCATION
NO YES
Reimbursement
Fee Cosf Basis
Table 5
Allocation o ' Assets to Facilit >onents and Ca , Parameters
........... ~,/ ........ ~ ......... Capacity Parameter Allocation $
Flow Flow
Facility Component Avg. Peak BeD TSS Support Average Peak BeD TSS Support Total
Collection System Pipeline 25% 75% $4,451,279 $13,353,837 $0 $0 $0 $17,805,116
Collection System Pump 25% 75% $784,002 $2,352,006 $0 $0 $0 $3,136,008
Stations
Preliminary Treatment 25% 75% $897,288 $2,691,865 $0 $0 $0 $3,589,153
Primary Treatment 25% 25% 50% $450,611 $0 $450,611 $901,222 $0 $1,802,443
Secondary Treatment 25% 50% 25% $2,260,604 $0 $4,521,208 $2,260,604 $0 $9,042,415
Disinfection/Ouffall 25% 75% $522,292 $1,566,875 $0 $0 $0 $2,089,166
Biosolids 50% 50% $0 $0 $14,498,841 $14,498,841 $0 $28,997,682
Tertiary Filters 25% 25% 50% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Reuse Facilities 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Odor Control 50% 50% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Peak Flow Management 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Support Facilities 100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,575,309 $14,575,309
Total $9,366,075 $19,964,582 $19,470,659 $17,660,666 $14,575,309 $81,037,292
Direct allocation %% 14% 30% 29% 27% 100%
Allocation of Support Facilities $2,054,008 $4,378,292 $4,269,973 $3,873,036 $14,575,309
Fully Allocated Costs $11,420,083 $24,342,874 $23,740,632 $21,533,702 $81,037,292
*Net of Grants
Once the value of existing assets is allocated across the four capacity parameters, the next step is to
determine the value of available capacity. Table 6 presents this calculation, showing the allocation of
existing system asset value to growth - based on the percentage of available capacity shown in Table 4
(column b). The Table 6 allocation takes an additional step of classifying available capacity into liquid
stream and biosolids (a line item in Table 5), due to the different availability of capacity for biosolids
processing relative to that of other processes. Table 4 shows available capacity percentages for liquid
stream processing; a similar process was undertaken to derive the available capacity for biosolids
processing, the results of which are summarized in Table 6 (with more details shown in SDC
Methodology Appendix C, Table C-3). Table 2 consolidates the growth costs by parameter (with BOD
and TSS each receiving 50 percent of the biosolids costs shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Value of Available Capacity
Asset Type Total Cost Growth % Growth $
Liquid Stream
Average Flow $11,420,083 10.5% $1,204,444
Peak Flow $24,342,874 0% $0
BOD $9,241,791 17% $1,568,304
TSS $7,034,861 9.6% $677,941
Subtotal $52,039,610 $3,450,688
Biosolids
General $13,760,968 0% $0
Dewatering $8,983,417 16% $1,451,031
Land application $6,253,297 0% $0
Subtotal $28,997,682 $1,451,031
Total $81,037,292 $4,901,719
Determine Cost Basis - Future Facilities
The process for calculating the improvement fee cost basis is methodologically similar to determining
the cost basis for the existing system, with the additional steps of allocation to project type
(performance, rehabilitation, capacity) and associated project users. This process is shown
schematically in Figure 3 (as described in the SDC Methodology). As the figure shows, the process
begins with an analysis of the 20-year project list.
FIGURE 3--PROJECT COST ALLCOATION
STEP I-1 · ·
STEPI-4
% of Total FUture % of Capacity
Load Expansion
Allocation Basis 0%
Table 7 shows project costs from the proposed 20-year project list allocated to facility components and
capacity parameters by project type (performance, capacity, and rehabilitation). Table 8 shows the
allocation of project costs to growth by project type and capacity parameter. For liquids capacity
expansion, the growth percentages are derived from column (c) of Table 4. For liquids performance
upgrades, the percentages of costs allocated to growth are derived from column (a) of Table 4. (It
should be noted that rehabilitation costs are associated with a few specific line items from the 20-year
project list.) For biosolids upgrades (both capacity and performance type projects), the percentages of
costs allocated to growth are derived from the subcategories as presented in Appendix C (Table C-3) of
the SDC Methodology.
Table 7
All~cation of CIP Costs to Process Cotr, i >acity Parameters
Capacity Parameter Allocation % Capacity Parameter Allocation $ Capacity Parameter Allocation $
Total Flow Caoacitv Flow Perl~rma~tce Flow
Facilit,y Component Cost Averal~e Peak BOD TSS Support Cost Average Peak BOD TSS Cost Average Peak BOD TSS Support
Collection System Pipeline $0 25% 75% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Collection System Pump Stations $4,100,000 25% 75% $4,100,000 $1,025,000 $3,075,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Preliminary Treatment $6,400,000 25% 75% $6,400,000 $1,600,000 $4,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary Treatment $2,400,000 25% 25% 50% $2,400,000 $600,000 $0 $600,000 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Secondary Treatment $17,590,00025% 50% 25% $10,370,000$2,592,500 $0 $5,185,000 $2,592,500 $7,220,000$1,805,000 $0 $3,610,000 $1,805,000 $0
Disin fection/Out fall $2,950,000 25% 75% $1,775,000 $443,750 $1,331,250 $0 $0 $1,175,000$293,750 $881,250 $0 $0 $0
Biosolids $25,310,00050% 50% $8,054,000 $0 $0 $4,027,000 $4,027,000 $11,756,000 $0 $0 $5,878,000 $5,878,000 $0
Tertia~ Filters $18,180,00025% 25% 50% $4,545,000 $1,136,250 $0 $1,136,250 $2,272,500 $13,635,000 $3,408,750 $0 $3,408,750 $6,817,500 $0
Reuse Facilities $20,000,000100% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Odor Control $6,900,000 50% 50% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,900,000$0 $0 $3,450,000 $3,450,000 $0
Peak Flow Management/Disin fection $36,330,000100% $31,310,000$0 $31,310,000 $0 $0 $4,770,000$0 $4,770,000 $0 $0 $0
Support Facilities $3,840,000 I00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$3,510,000$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,510,000
Total $144,000,000 $68,954,000$7,397,500 $40,516,250 $10,948,250 $10,092,000 $68,966,000 $25,507,500 $5,651,250 $16,346,750 $17,950,500 $3,5101000
Direct allocation %'s 11% 59% 16% 15% 48% 23% 33% 21% 22%
Allocation of Support Facility Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $824,034 $1,162,425 $752,411 $771,131
Fully Allocated Costs $7,397,500 $40,516,250 $10,948,250 $10,092,000 $26,331,534 $6,813,675 $17,099,161 $18,721,631
Table 8
A/location of 20-Year Project List Costs to Growth
Project Total Cost Growth % Growth $
Average Flow $26,331,534 26% $6,862,671
Peak Flow $6,813,675 11% $737,943
BOD $11,221,161 26% $2,911,436
TSS $12,843,631 26% $3,357,524
Biosolids
BS - General $10,246,000 32% $3,253,299
BS - Dewatering $0 16% $0
BS - Bio Cycle Farm $1,510,000 22% $334,859
Subtotal $68,966,000 25% $17,457,733
Average Flow $7,397,500 100% $7,397,500
Peak Flow $40,516,250 29% $11,916,544
BOD $6,921,250 100% $6,921,250
TSS $6,065,000 100% $6,065,000
Biosolids
BS - General $8,054,000 100% $8,054,000
BS - Dewatering $0 na na
BS - Bio Cycle Farm $0 100% $0
Subtotal $68,954,000 59% $40,354,294
Subtotal $6,080,000 0% $0
Total $144,000,000 40% $57,812,027
The total future project costs allocated to growth from Table 8 are used to determine the unit costs of
capacity reflected in Table 3. Table 3, like Table 2, consolidates the growth costs by parameter and
summarizes the cost per unit of capacity (derived by dividing the total cost per parameter by the
projected growth units).
Tables 7 and 8 summarize the results of individual project cost allocation. To illustrate the application
of the methodological steps, as shown in Figure 3, to individual projects from the proposed 20-year
project list, several examples are provided bellow.
Project Allocation Example A: Collection System, Screw Pump Station Expansion
Total cost of the project is $1.7 million. Basis of improvement fee for this project is:
$650,000 or approximately 38% of the total project cost, derived as follows:
Step 1: Allocation of project to facility components
· 1/2 to Collection System Pump Stations = 50% x $1,700,000 = $850,000
· 1/2 to Peak Flow Management -- 50% x $1,700,000 = $850,000
Step 2: Allocation of facility components to capacity parameters
· Collection System Pump Stations: 1/4 average flow = 25% x $850,000 = $212,500; 3/4 peak flow
= 75% x $850,000 = $637,500
· Peak Flow Management facility component is allocated 100% to Peak Flow capacity parameter =
100% x $850,000 = $850,000
Step 3: Allocation of project to project type
· 100% of project (both Collection System Pump Stations and Peak Flow Management) is Capacity
project type
Step 4: Allocation of project to user type
· Growth's share of expansion (for Capacity type projects) for Collection System Pumps: 100%
average flow = $212,500 x 100% x 100% = $212,500; 29.4% peak flow = $637,500 x 100% x 29.4%
= $187,425
· Growth's share of expansion (Capacity type projects) for Peak Flow Management: 29.4% peak
flow = $850,000 x 100% x 29.4% = $249,900
Total of project allocation to growth:
Growth's share = $212,500 + $187,425 + $249,900 = $649,825 rounded to $650,000
Project Allocation Example B: Liquids Treatment, Odor Control Project (Additional Odorous Air
Treatment)
Total cost of the project is $6.9 million. Basis of improvement fee for this project is:
$1.79 million or approximately 26% of the total project cost, derived as follows:
Step 1: Allocation of project to facility components
· 100% to Odor Control = 100% x $6,900,000 = $6,900,000
Step 2: Allocation of facility components to capacity parameters
· Odor Control: 1/2 to BOD = 50% x 6,900,000 = $3,450,000; 1/2 to TSS = 50% x $6,900,000 =
$3,450,000
Step 3: Allocation of project to project type
· 100% of project is Performance project type
Step 4: Allocation of project to user type
· Growth's share of total future load for Performance type project: 25.9% for BOD and 26.1% for
TSS: BOD = $3,450,000 x 100% x 25.9% = $893,550; TSS = $3,450,000 x 100% x 26.1% = $900,450
Total of project allocation to growth:
Growth's share = $893,550 + $900,450 = $1,794,000
Project Allocation Example C: Digestion Expansion/Class A Capability
Total cost of the project is $13.8 million. Basis of improvement fee for this project is:
$7.49 million or approximately 54% of the total project cost, derived as follows:
Step 1: Allocation of project to facility components
· 100% to Biosolids - General facility sub-component = 100% x $13,800,000 = $13,800,000
Step 2: Allocation of facility components to capacity parameters
· 100% allocated to Biosolids - General capacity analysis = 100% x $13,800,000 = $13,800,000
Step 3: Allocation of project to project type
· 1/3 to Capacity project type (Digestion Expansion) = 33% x $13,800,000 = $4,554,000
· 2/3 to Performance project type (Class A upgrade) = 67% x $13,800,000 = $9,246,000
Step 4: Allocation of project to user type
· Growth's share of total future load for Capacity type project: 100% for Biosolids = $4,554,000 x
100% x 100% = $4,554,000
· Growth's share of total future load for Performance type project: 31.8% for Biosolids =
$9,246,000 x 31.8% = $2,940,228
Total of project allocation to growth:
Growth's share = $4,554,000 + $2,940,228 = $7,494,228
Determine SDC Credit
At this point, the derivation of each element used to determine the SDCs for individual developments
has been described, with the exception of the SDC credit (line 6 of Table 1). A credit is provided to
ensure that future users don't double pay for system capacity - both through the SDC and through user
fee rates which will be used to pay for a portion of 20-year project list costs.
Table 9 presents the improvement fee credit calculation, in summary format (10 years instead of 20).
The credit is based on a present-worth analysis, structured as follows:
1. Annual capital costs (adjusted for inflation) associated with 'existing customers' share of the project
list costs (net of rehabilitation costs) are estimated based on the recommended phasing schedule.
2. The annual capital expenditures are reduced by revenues from reserves and reimbursement fees to
estimate required debt funding
3. Debt services costs are estimated for repayment of borrowed funds (assuming 5 percent interest)
4. Future billing units (average flow and pounds of BOD and TSS) are estimated for the planning
period based on system planning criteria
5. The annual user rate supported debt service per billing unit is determined for the life of the debt.
6. The present value of the future stream of rate payments is determined for each year of the planning
period.
The unit costs of BOD and TSS are consolidated into a single strength parameter for the credit, as noted
above for the reimbursement and improvement fee components. The credit per unit for 2005 (used in
Table 1) is indicated in bold in Table 9.
Table 9
Calculation of Improvement Fee Credit for Rate Supported Project Costs
Input
Variables 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sources of Funds
Beginning Fund Balance 12,600,000 12,600,000 10,796,450 4,369,448 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reimbursement Fee Revenue $245,086 $251,948 $259,003 $266,255 $273,710 $281,374 $289,252 $297,352 $305,677 $314,236
Interest Earnings 3.00%
Existing Customer Fund $378,000 $323,893 $131,083 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Sources of Funds $13,223,086 $11,372,292 $4,759,534 $266,255 $273,710 $281,374 $289,252 $297,352 $305,677 $314,236
Uses of Funds
Capital Projects $2,426,636 $7,002,844 $6,458,199 $8,816,609 $14,543,417 $15,391,328 $5,007,0913 $3,102,216 $5,017,004 $2,940,930
Ending Balance $10,796,450 $4,369,448 ($1,698,664) ($8,550,354) ($14,269,707) ($15,109,954) ($4,717,837) ($2,804,865) ($4,711,326) ($2,626,694)
Rate Funded Contribution $0 $0 $1,698,664 $8,550,354 $14,269,707 $15,109,954 $4,717,837 $2,804,865 $4,711,326 $2,626,694
Debt Service Payment $0 $0 $136,305 $686,103 $1,145,038 $1,212,462 $378,571 $225,070 $378,049 $210,773
Cumulative Debt Service Payment $0 $0 $136,305 $822,408 $1,967,446 $3,179,908 $3,558,479 $3,783,549 $4,161,598 $4,372,371
Rate Funding by Capacity Parameter $ $ $ 136,305 $ 822,408 $ 1,967,446 $ 3,179,908 $ 3,558,479 $ 3,783,549 $ 4,161,598 $ 4,372,371
Average Flow ($/gallon) 63% $ $ $ 86,319 $ 520,814 $ 1,245,943 $ 2,013,770 $ 2,253,511 $ 2,396,043 $ 2,635,454 $ 2,768,932
Peak Flow 0% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
BOD 18% $ $ $ 24,061 $ 145,176 $ 347,305 $ 561,335 $ 628,163 $ 667,893 $ 734,629 $ 771,835
TSS 19% $ $ $ 25,925 $ 156,418 $ 374,199 $ 604,803 $ 676,805 $ 719,612 $ 791,515 $ 831,603
100%
Billing Units by Capacity Parameter
Average Flow (S/gallon) 43,832,110 44,604,639 45,377,168 46,149,698 46,922,227 47,694,757 48,467,286 49,239,815 50,012,345 50,784,874 51,557,404
Peak Flow 247,000,000 248,500,000 250,000,000 251,500,000 253,000,000 254,500,000 256,000,000 257,500,000 259,000,000 260,500,000 262,000,000
BOD 54,800 55,760 56,720 57,680 58,640 59,600 60,560 61,520 62,480 63,440 64,400
TSS 64,700 65,845 66,990 68,135 69,280 70,425 71,570 72,715 73,860 75,005 76,150
Rate Funding portion per Unit
Average Flow (S/gallon) $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05
Peak Flow $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
BOD $ $ $ 0.42 $ 2.48 $ 5.83 $ 9.27 $ 10.21 $ 10.69 $ 11.58 $ 11.99
TSS $ $ $ 0.38 $ 2.26 $ 5.31 $ 8.45 $ 9.31 $ 9.74 $ 10.55 $ 10.92
Effects of Proposed SDC Rates on Various Development Types
In the work session of May 19, 2004, Councilors requested a comparison of the effects of proposed SDC
rates for development types beyond single family residential. A comparison of the proposed
wastewater SDC rates to those of 16 other Oregon communities is provided for each of the example
development types listed in Table 1 of this memorandum. The rate comparisons provided reflect both
local and proposed regional wastewater SDCs.
For a single-family residential dwelling, the comparison in Chart 1 shows that Eugene would have the
second lowest SDC of comparable Oregon communities.
For a 60-unit apartment building, the comparison in Chart 2 shows that Eugene would have the sixth
lowest SDC of comparable Oregon communities.
A comparison of SDCs for a general office building of 20,000 square feet) as reflected in Chart 3
indicates that Eugene would have the fourth highest SDC of comparable Oregon communities.
Chart 4 compares SDCs for a low turnover restaurant (4,900 square feet). In this example the proposed
SDC in Eugene would be the highest of comparable Oregon communities. This is largely due to the
SDC rate structure in Eugene accounting for both strength and volume of discharge and the relatively
high demand placed on treatment system capacity by restaurants. On the whole, other communities'
SDC rate structures do not account for all of the capacity parameters accounted for in Eugene's SDC.
For the home improvement superstore example (190,000 square feet), the comparison in Chart 5 shows
proposed rates in Eugene would be the seventh highest of comparable Oregon communities.
Wastewater SDCs for 2,000 sq. ft. Single - Family Dwelling
I
Roseburg
Medford
SPRINGFIELD, PROPOSED
I I I t D Total Wastewater SDC I
Gresham
I ! ii;i !i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! I SDCsforcities otherthan
I I I Eugene & Springfield are
I
WestLinn
I I
Woodburn.
Corvallis
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500
Chart # 1
Wastewater SDCs for 60-Unit Apartment Building
Lake Oswego
SPRINGFIELD, EXISTING ~ ~ ~..~.~
Bend '~ ~i~
EUGENE, EXISTING [.:~
SPRINGFIELD, PROPOSED ~
Wilsonville ~: ~ ~~:
Gresham SaCs for cities other than
~ / Eugene & Springfield are
' based on November 2002 da~
Roseburg ~ ~ ~': ~ ~ :~ 8~1
~hland
I
West CInn
$0 $20,000 ~0,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $~20,000 $140,000 $~60,000 $~80,000
Chart # 2
Wastewater SDCs for 20,000 sq. ft. G neral Office Building
Hillsboro
r
Wilsonville
Medford
Roseburg I,~::i~ i~,~l
SPRINGFIELD, EXISTING
Washington Coun~
Albany
Bend ~. ~
co.alus
~ke Oswego ~'~ ~'~ ~ ~ SDCs for cities other than
Eugene & Spdn~eld are
SPRINGFIELD, PROPOSED ~.~ ~:~ ~ ~ based on November 2002 da~
EUGENE, ~ISTING
~l~m
Gresham
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 MO,O00 $50,000
Chart # 3
Wastewater SDCs for 4,900 sq. ft. Low r Turnov r Restaurant
Roseburg
Lake Oswego
HIIIsboro
Bend
Medford
Salem
~h~and
Washington CounW
Cowallis
SPRINGFIELD, EXISTING
Eugene & Springfield am
~bany ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~1 based on November 2002 da~
West Llnn
I
I
EUGENE, PROPOSED
$0 $10,000 $20 BO0 $30,000 $40,000 $50 300 $60 300
Chart # 4
Wastewater SDCs for 190,000 sq. ft. Home Improvement Superstortore
HIIIsboro
Medford
Wilsonville
Ashland
Albany
Washington County
Corvallis
Lake Oswego ~.:::-~:~:~::1
SPRINGFIELD, EXISTING
EUGENE, EXISTING
Gresham
~ ............. ~ ::~ ............ ~ SDCs for cities other than
Eugene & Springfield are
!i~ /~ based on November 2002 data
SPRINGFIELD, PROPOSED
EUGENE, PROPOSED
/
Portland
Bend
~ I
$0 $5(~ 000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
Chart # 5
Appendix A
BOD and TSS are categorized into five strength classes, as shown in Table A-1.
Table A-I
Wastewater Strenoth Classes
Strength Class BOD SS
(mg/I) (mg/I)
Low Strength & Residential L 150 150
Medium Strength M 300 300
High Strength H 500 500
Very High Strength VH 700 700
Super High Strength SH 900 900
For each development type, the contributed pounds per unit is determined based on the dry season
average flow requirement and the assigned strength class, as demonstrated below for a single family
dwelling unit.
Strength Dry Season Concentration Pounds/I Pounds per Unit
Class Average Flow (mg/I) (lbs/unit)
Requirement
(mgd)
L 239/1,000,000 X 150 x 8.345 = .299 pounds/unit
The resulting 0.299 is shown in Table 1, as the BOD and TSS capacity requirements for a single family
dwelling unit. Appendix D in the SDC methodology provides the estimated pounds per unit for
various development types, based on similar calculations. The assignment of strength classification to
each development type is based on industry reference data.