City Council Packet - 03/13/1989
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
STUDY AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,
MARCH 13, 1989, 5:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are
t 13125 SW HALL BLVD. asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters
TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting
either the Mayor or City Administrator.
o STUDY AGENDA
5:30 1. REGULAR MEETING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call _
1.2 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items
2. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOND DISCUSSION
3. FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS DISCUSSION
4. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY AS REGIONAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
DISCUSSION
5. CITY CENTER PLAN WORKSHOP
6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and
pending litigation issues.
8. ADJOURNMENT
cw/9228D
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 13, 1989 - PAGE 1
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 7-6852
Legal Notice Advertising
• ❑ Tearsheet Notice
CITY OF TIGARD
PO BOX 23397 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
TIGARD, OR 97223
Th¢ following selected agenda rterns:a~ p food r your infprmation;
l'tuther lniorrmahon and fuu!agendas 4 titperom the;City Rec~oir:
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION der,13125 StV 1611 Blvd;ard, Ore9T3, oY bxaYtling 6394171
"3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,1989 w> 3
STATE OF OREGON, 4a~530 PM Stud Yj nda
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss ~ t z s Ys
TIGARD CYVIC CEff - ~O~NNrw
413125 SV~ SALI±;BOULEVAR>TIGARb; bREG~N
1. EEAII+IE PTROGEORGE
• Transportation Safety Bond Discussion
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising 1. granchLse Agreement Discusstonr 'wirx P
Director, or his principal clerk, of the TIGARD TIMES
Regidnatswice WaterlManagement Auth&jlty, scusslon
~
it newspaper of general ciregl tiQnD as defined in ORS 193.010 ~ Q
I City Canter Plan Workshop ~ r y fi ' 3i s
send 193.020; published at T AR ~n the . r
Esedutive Session "under the provisions oIbRS 192 860 1 Id) (e ya h
Ftforesaid county and state; that the re
~rz to sdlscass labor,ei ti ns.al propertp transaetonsd cun~ent?and
gHBUG NOTICE `pendtng~lttlgationis u
g Y ti~-N 5 f 1 L l,k,; sly
it printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the NOTICE 07;'MEETIVG AND 1'UBLTCd[IitJ~G P~YTIGARmY:;
r G)TY COUNCIL;CIfiY 4 ENTElf1DEV>:.L PI►liE~t:.NCY yar .
1. S T Y '7 3 1 Alt i'.t k'3'
emtire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and I s h{ "154ND P1:A~!T1 G COMI lISSIO T+ ,~~,a- ~yy~-~yyyyt ti
F j h ..,.y~.P Y 5f, ..~y CK*~• F 4 sv ~d•'ti ff~1 s!3w
consecutive in the following issues: K~at rid{x7~rm~ r'^
WHY
1
3~ven t x t io G and
Agy will lte m_ tWg$n:
MARCH Tht y, March:~6,,
auru 9 1989City Ceati r beveto pmeat enc
(1989, d 7 pm at the,Ti~rd`G1, c Center, Town Hali Room, `S,W SHaiIY
Boulevard, Tigard, OFegon 7 urf ier iatormabon y be Q~ Lthe
City of Tigard community I)eyefopirient Director r Glt Rr"3! t the
` same' locaSontoryCailing 63941 1 ar~vitedtb snitii 1 en
a
p wiiT:
tten and oralA
testuno in advance o the pub *b~nn R-2 ~
be cons d ed a~ ttt ` " _
- r'• City Centec Developfent-Agency/fit Cguncii,wtit fdrypa~n
1 tc w tii f c~ a +
f Subscribe¢'sworn , before me this MARCH 10, 9R9 1terDeve"lopmentInnfhndReporttp,, ePIaaningComrit bra m
mendatioa,The Planning Cdnmissionrwill issue a recommeri tionto;the
RIF
to
i °i CityCen Developme t`Agency)Clty o1I on,the~P d3tep
a:pablic haaring`~~¢;~ IN~
N Public for Oregon " a tt~' s~+y z~w~ #
. ~ ~ ~Tize dty`~ me Development P1anLStudy, area borde~ct„ _ ule-
My Commission Expires: 9/20/92vardyn theeastHw*9 oar Ces n1ara:
on the nth;;and lV~ max. tsynt
AFFIDAVIT.-
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: March 13. 1989 D TE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Review of REVIOUS ACTION:
Proposal for USA to become the %
Regional SWM Axithority PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: Councillor Schwartz
P LICY ISSUE
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On March 9th, the Steering Committee for Surface Water Management (SWM) is
expected to endorse the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) as the regional authority
for SWM. The proposal will be subject to approval by the Boundary Commission
and the cities within the USA boundary.
Attached for your review is a copy of the draft Boundary Commission submittal.
The Steering Committee has directed some minor amendments to be made to the
draft; these amendments will be available at the Council's March 13th
discussion.
Councillor Schwartz is the Tigard representative on the Steering Committee.
The March 13th workshop meeting is an opportunity for the Council to discuss
the Steering Committee's recommendations with Councillor Schwartz. USA staff
will also be available to answer questions.
On March 27th, we expect to request Council approval of resolutions formally
endorsing -USA as the regional SWM authority. SWM review is moving on the fast
track previously agreed to by the Council. The "fast track" approach was
deemed necessary to assure that the region can meet the new regulations for
water quality in the Tualatin River basin by the 1990 deadline.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
March 13th is a workshop meeting for discussion. Formal action will be
recommended for March 27th.
/br
i
l
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
A PARTNERSHIP FOR
REGIONAL SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT
In the
Urbanized Area of Washington County, Oregon
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
ftrire: Portland Metropolitan Area Local
Government Boundary Commission
April 1989'"
by: The uni Sewerape A ,y of Wast*VM Cauncy
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1989
TO: STORMWATER COMMITTEES
FROM: UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE REGIONAL STORMWATER PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
YOUR INFORMATION PACKET FOR THE FEBRUARY 15 AND 16 MEETINGS OF THE
CITIZENS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND STEERING COMMITTEES INCLUDES A
PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION SUBMITTAL. THIS IS A
DRAFT DOCUMENT WHICH WILL BE REVISED PRIOR TO FINAL BOUNDARY
COMMISSION SUBMITTAL IN APRIL 1989. THE AGENCY FELT THAT AN EARLY
DRAFT OF THE DOCUMENT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE CITIES TO ACT
UPON THE CONSENT RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP. THE DRAFT BOUNDARY COMMISSION SUBMITTAL IS BASED UPON
THE FIVE ISSUE PAPERS ALONG WITH THE TECHNICAL MEMORANDA AND
DISCUSSION PAPERS REVIEWED WITH THE COMMITTEES. THE FIRST THREE
ISSUE PAPERS WERE APPROVED AT THE STEERING COMMITTEE'S JANUARY
MEETING. ISSUE PAPERS NUMBERED FOUR AND FIVE WERE NOT ACTED UPON
BY THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR THE
FEBRUARY 2, 1989 MEETING. AN INFORMAL TELEPHONE POLL OF STEERING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WAS CONDUCTED WHICH INDICATED GENERAL APPROVAL
.OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ISSUE PAPERS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT BOUNDARY COMMISSION SUBMITTAL ASSUMES
STEERING COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF ISSUE PAPERS FOUR AND FIVE. FORMAL
COMMITTEE ACTION ON THESE ISSUES WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE
FEBRUARY 16, 1989 MEETING.
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document represents the combined efforts and ideas of the many persons
willing to contribute their time toward designing a regional stormwater
program for Washington County. Three Committee groups were particularly
instrumental in providing guidance to the Project Team as this feasibility
analysis was prepared:
Stormwa er Stegring_Committee
Honorable Larry Cole, Mayor
Forrest C. Soth, City Council City of Beaverton
Honorable Linda Finley, Mayor
Jerry Taylor, City Manager City of Cornelius
Jeanne Percy, City Manager City of Durham
Kip Kujala, City Council
Connie Fessler, City Manager City of Forest Grove
Honorable Shirley Huffman, Mayor
Eldon Mills, City Manager City of Hillsboro
Fred Clagett, City Council
Lenore Akerson, City Manager City of King City
Mary Lou Fults, City Council City of North Plains
Walt Hitchcock, City Council
Jim Rapp, City Manager City of Sherwood
John Schwartz, City Council
Randy Wooley, City Engineer City of Tigard
Bill Gleason, City Council
Mike McKillip, City Engineer City of Tualatin
John Meek, Board of Commissioners
John Junkin, County Counsel Washington County
I
Stormwater Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee
Environmental Protection Agency Ralph Rogers
DEQ Bob Baumgartner
Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Gene Herb
Division of State Lands Bill Parks
LCDC Jim Sitzman
District Corps of Engineers Bill Akre
FEMA George Currin
THPRD Bruce Muller
Water Resources Department Tom Paul
Clackamas County Bruce Erickson
Unified Sewerage Agency Stan LeSieur
Wolf Creek Hwy Water District Gene Seibel
WCSWCD/TVID Cal Krahmer
City of Portland Bill Gaffi
City of Lake Oswego Paul Haines
City of Beaverton Steve Baker
City of Beaverton Dave Winship (alt.)
City of Cornelius Frank Neyes
City of Forest Grove John Burdett
City of Hillsboro Roy Gibson
City of King City Lenore Akerson
City of Sherwood Tad Milburn
City of Tigard Randy Wooley
City of Tualatin Mike McKillip
DLUT, Washington County Bruce Warner
DLUT, Washington County Jerry Parmenter
Oregon Dept. of Transportation Jeff Kaiser
US Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Carol Schuler
Oregon Dept. of Agriculture Allen Youse
Oregon Economic Development Dept. Henry Marcus
US Soil Conservation Service Robert K. App
Oregon Dept. of Forestry Dave Degenhardt
Oregon Dept. of Forestry Lee Oman (alt.)
NW Oregon RC & D Area Dave Dickens
i
i
f
Stormwater Citizen's Advisory Committee
t
I
Dennis Standfill Citizens for Community Involvement, CPO 6
Rosalie Morrison Lower Tualatin Homeowners Association
Mike Houck Audubon Society
Ethan Seltzer Oregon Environmental Council
Jack Broom Wetlands Conservancy
Jack Schwab I-5 Corridor Association, Tualatin Valley Economic
Development Commission
Charles Hales Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland
George Sturm Sunset Corridor Association
Doug Krahmer Farm Bureau
Gerd Hoeron Lake Oswego Corporation
Bob Alexander Forest Grove-Cornelius Economic Development Council
. Forrest Soth Steering Committee Liaison
The authors of this analysis are particularly grateful to staff of
Washington County and the municipalities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham,
Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard and
Tualatin for their time and commitment to the process of constructing a
viable approach toward stormwater management within the urbanized area of
the County.
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
i
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
II. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA
IV. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
V. ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE
VI. IMPACTS ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS
VII. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUNDING OPTIONS
VIII. FISCAL ANALYSIS
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH BOUNDARY COMMISSION POLICY
X. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDICES
A. Exhibits
1. Current Conditions - Storm Drainage Maintenance
2. Planned Crew Configurations and Performance Standards
3. Drainage Maintenance Worksheet
4. Funding Options Matrix
S. Accelerated Program Schedule
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMARY
f
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. Boundary Commission Policy
OAR 193-05-010 states in part that:
"The Commission and its staff will attempt to
be a catalyst in exploring better ways to
provide public services-this will emphasize
positive-innovative approaches."
A stormwater system is a unique feature of the public
infrastructure in that the more the natural stormwater conveyance
system is left unaltered, the better it performs. However, as the
public demand for goods, services and employment opportunities
increases so does urbanization and the corresponding alteration of
natural drainages to compensate for this development. As
municipalities manage their individual stormwater systems there is
a growing recognition that in order to effectively incorporate
development into manmade and natural drainage features, impacts
beyond jurisdictional boundaries must be considered. A broader
watershed perspective on stormwater must evolve in order to
effectively address the needs of both the cities and the overall.
system.
While many areas of the Country have implemented or are moving
toward regional management of stormwater, the approach remains
innovative as a partnership among jurisdictions must be the basis
for a viable regional program. The Unified Sewerage Agency
(U.S.A.), Washington County, Oregon, and the municipalities within
the urbanized area of the County have jointly constructed the
institutional, financial and technical framework for this
partnership. This feasibility analysis presents the logic
supporting the framework. The approach is a positive step toward
establishing a partnership and service delivery system which
addresses the stormwater quantity/quality issues challenging the
effective management of growth within the Tualatin River basin.
B. The Approach
There is no shortage of stormwater plans and technical analyses in
Washington County. These investigations of stormwater problems
have been carried out by various federal, state and local
agencies. As valuable as these studies have been in providing
data, engineering plans and funding strategies to meet individual
requirements, they have not been successful in designing and
implementing strategies to integrate the technical, institutional
I-1
and financial systems necessary to establish an overall stormwater
management program. This feasibility analysis is designed to step
back from the historical focus on individual jurisdictions and
evaluate the feasibility/credibility of a regional approach toward
managing stormwater quantity and quality in the urbanized areas of
Washington County.
Comprehensive stormwater management considers the development of
policies and programs on a watershed level to promote coordinated
measures for mitigating flooding, drainage and water quality
problems. The objective is to take stormwater concerns beyond
jurisdictional boundaries and undertake activities such as stream
channel maintenance, wetlands management, floodplain protection,
water quality enhancement and design criteria development within
the context of the entire hydrologic system. It logically follows
that stormwater planning, regulations, maintenance, capital
improvements and financing also be undertaken within this context.
The approach toward development of the initial program framework
has also emphasized the need for public input to the process by
identifying stormwater issues and establishing the public's role
in mitigating problems. The three Committees (Steering,
Intergovernmental, Citizen) formed to guide development of the
initial program have provided valuable direction in the area of
program goal and objectives formation, special interest issues and
problem identification. The numerous committee meetings, 2 public
workshops and 22 individual discussions with affected
jurisdictions have all been essential toward reaching agreement on
an initial stormwater program framework that is viable, affordable
and implementable. This public information process will continue
throughout implementation of the stormwater authority and, as seen
in the functional requirements discussion, will be an on-going
element of the program.
C. The Problem and Opportunity
The current management structure for stormwater in Washington
County is complex due to the hydrologic conditions, varied terrain
and the multiple land use activities which impact, modify or
directly divert the natural flow of runoff. The physical system
itself, described in later sections of this report, is comprised
of drains, culverts, structures, channels, streams, rivers and
lakes. Some of these systems are designed to convey runoff while
others are designed to protect adjacent land. As a result of the
hydraulic complexity of the system and the sometimes conflicting
needs and purposes of the system, the overall coordination and
management of the total drainage system infrastructure is
complicated, and to some extent confusing, relative to
responsibility and authority. In addition, numerous federal and
state agencies have regulatory authority regarding stormwater
quantity and quality. The complexity of current stormwater roles
and responsibilities is illustrated on the next page.
I-2
Unified Sewerage Agency
RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
(Partial) -
Local CountyiRegionat State Feaeral Other
CC 2
y
C
PROGRAM ELEMENT` N
ADM IN ISTRATION/MANAGEMENT
Public InfonnatiorvRecuesuComolaints
Department Administration
Budcet PreoaratiorvAdministration
rant Administration
Permit Management
Flood Plain Mana ement
Emeroency PreoarednessrDisaster Coor
Leaal-
~4 c
c Q= o
Channel (P i Private)
Catch eacin
Detention Basin
Roadside Ditch/Culvert
Maintenance Management System
.a
urwv
Erosion ControUStabilization
mail ect Constniction
uitiole Use maintenance
amolairn nvesn anon
ENGINEERING
Proiect Management
PS&E Contract Documents
orttract Administration
Inspection
c t
c'
7
a
'Other program elements (not shown here) would include
PfarminglDevelopment Review Complaint/Emergency Response
Monitoring/Evaluation Enforcement
10, fl~ Capital Improvement Program Public EducatienlInvolvement
Inspection Intergovenurrental Cdoydination
Land Management BudgetlFinancing
Data Base Management Regulations/Standards
There are currently three special drainage districts within
Washington County and about 150 operating drainage local
improvement districts (DLID's) with an additional 175 "non-formed"
DLID's which are currently not being assessed but may come on-
line. Ten municipalities are participating in this project, two
of which have established stormwater utilities.
Each of these programs was developed to respond to a specific set
of stormwater related needs. In the case of drainage local
improvement districts, the needs are primarily maintenance. In
cities the needs are focused on capital improvements, development
review and maintenance. However as urbanization increases, the
hydraulics/hydrology of the system are affected more as a function
of actions/inaction in the watershed as opposed to the actions of
a specific jurisdiction. It is for this reason that a regional
approach toward management of the problem must evolve.
D. The Non-Point Source Element of the Problem
The 1987 Federal Clean Water Act, including the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) provisions of that Act and
Oregon Revised Statute 488.730 all pertain to the control of non-
point source pollution (defined as pollution which does not result
from a discharge at a specific or single point, but occurs from
land runoff, precipitation and percolation). These laws directly
and immediately impact the management of stormwater within the
basins of Washington County. The state of Oregon's Environmental
Quality Commission (EQC), acting through the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), has established specific stormwater
pollutant load allocations for the Tualatin River and disseminated
guidelines for preparation of "Non-Point Source Management Plans"
to comply with these requirements. Among the required elements to
be presented in this management plan are the institutional,
financial and technical approaches necessary to affect non-point
source pollutant loadings. Not coincidentally, key provisions of
the Boundary Review Commission's criteria for evaluating the
feasibility of alternative methods for governmental service
delivery reflect very similar considerations regarding structure,
financial integrity and quality/quantity of service. All of these
issues are addressed in following sections of this report.
The field of non-point source water quality management is in its
infancy and much of the technology necessary to reduce non-point
source impacts will be developed as part of the management
planning process. Two factors, however, are currently known and
generally accepted as critical to a successful/implementable non-
point source program. These factors are:
o Non-point source pollutant control is, in large part, a
function of managing the auanti of stormwater;
I-4
i
i
c
o Regional approaches toward stormwater management, which are
based on hydrologic rather than political boundaries, are
generally more effective in mitigating stormwater quantity
and quality problems.
Therefore, in order to develop the technologies necessary to
manage Washington County's stormwater quantity and quality issues,
the institutional and financial structures to support development
of technical solutions must be established. Accordingly, the
approval of the proposed management and funding structure for
regional stormwater management by the Boundary Review Commission
is essential to gaining compliance with current and future non-
point source pollutant mandates.
Lacking a regional approach toward these stormwater quantity and
quality issues, management of stormwater in Washington County will
continue on a piecemeal basis with each Jurisdiction responsible
for compliance with DEQ requirements. As stated, this approach
toward the problem is no longer consistent with the nature/scope
of stormwater challenges which confront Washington County and its
political subdivisions.
I-5
II. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Y
E
II. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. Profile of Stormwater Management in Washington County
Stormwater in Washington County has historically been dealt with
as a problem/priority only after a major storm event. As a
nuisance level problem, management of stormwater has been focused
at the specific site (or within a jurisdictional boundary) with
the emphasis on moving the runoff from the area as quickly and
economically as possible. However, as urbanization increases in
Washington County, the key to comprehensive management of
stormwater quantity and quality will be a function of more
regionally-focused control strategies that are geared to both
react effectively, and establish the means to plan for and
mitigate the impacts of runoff. Just as urbanizing areas in the
late 1950's and early 1960's were compelled to move away from on-
site septic systems to more regional management of sanitary
sewage, the situation in stormwater during the 1980's and 1990's
is facing a similar evolution. Focusing control/management
strategies at the site, without understanding the watershed-wide
impacts on water quantity and quality, can be both counter-
productive and cost j_effective. This is the logic supporting the
regional approach being sponsored by the Unified Sewerage Agency
(U.S.A.), Washington County, and the municipalities within the
proposed service area.
As depicted in Exhibit 1 (Appendix A), the municipalities and
County have independently developed stormwater programs consistent
with their specific priorities and resources. This has resulted
in lack of coordination regarding design criteria, regulation,
system maintenance and capital improvement programming. Attempts
have been made to undertake stormwater management in Washington
County from a watershed perspective. In most cases, these studies
offered technically viable alternatives to improved stormwater
quantity management. Nevertheless, the majority of these
technical approaches have not been implemented because the
institutional and financial structure has not been developed in
tandem with technical/engineering alternatives. This "three-
prong" approach (institutional-financial-technical) is essential
for comprehensive management of stormwater and provides the basis
for this feasibility analysis.
B. Urbanization in Washington County
Growth and resulting urbanization has occurred rapidly in
Washington County over the last decade. Land development
activities are migrating away from the greater Portland area out
II-1
through the Sunset and Highway 217 corridors. This has changed
land use within the Washington County portion of the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) from largely agricultural to commercial, industrial
and residential uses. This transition creates complex problems
for the drainage infrastructure due to its historical reliance on
the natural system for conveying runoff. Floodpiains, wetlands
and other vegetated areas, which once absorbed and buffered
stormwater runoff, have often been replaced with manmade
structures which do not fully compensate for the loss of these
naturally occurring drainage features. This increases the flows
which must be handled by a system typically not designed to manage
the additional runoff or be maintained at a level that allows the
system to operate at design capacity. The loss of "pervious"
areas also has significant impacts on the quality of surface
waters. Soil loss from construction sites and the transportation
of pollutants to the Tualatin River via these sediments is a
variable in the degradation of the river's overall water quality.
YIp2
III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA
F
i
f
i
E
i
f
t
III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA
A. Boundaries for the Service Area
The service area to be covered by the Stormwater Management (SWM)
District is exactly the same as that area currently within the
boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency (U.S.A.). Within
Washington County this boundary approximates the Urban Growth
Boundary (U.G.B.), however it is not exactly the same in many
areas.
The map on the next page depicts the area of the SWM District
(U.S.A. Boundary) and shows its relationship with Washington and
adjacent county boundaries, city limits, the U.G.B., major
highways, and the Tualatin River watershed and its sub-drainage
basins. Generally the proposed service area is urban in nature
and lies toward the southeastern segment of the County.
The map also shows the overall physical relationship between the
locations and sizes of the service district as compared, for
example, with the boundaries of Washington County and the Tualatin
River watershed. It is interesting to note the latter two
boundaries follow each other quite closely; that is to say the
boundaries of Washington County, which encompass about 715 square
miles, fairly closely match the boundaries of the Tualatin River
watershed, which envelops about 711 square miles.
B. The Tualatin River and Its Valley
The Tualatin River originates in the Coast Range at an elevation
of 3,400 feet. The watershed has an area of 711 square miles and
is oval in shape, being about 40 miles long and 25 miles.wide.
The main valley floor is centrally located and occupies an area of
about 370 square miles, or about one-half the area of the overall
basin. Many valley areas have the appearance of old lakebeds.
The major portion of the flood plain lies between River Mile 7 and
River Mile 70. A few areas in the upstream (westerly) reaches of
the Tualatin River are subject to flooding.
The upstream reaches have narrow valleys and steep ridges. The
slope of the stream.averages 12 feet per mile in the upper part of
the watershed. Where the river emerges from the foothills, the
topography changes abruptly to a very flat valley and wide flood
plain. Near Gaston, the river gradient levels out to about 3 feet
per mile. Between Gaston and the mouth of Dairy Creek (River Mile
44.8), the river traverses an irregular flood plain averaging
about 1.3 miles in width and having an average slope of 1 foot per
III-1 -
i
off' _
1 1
e e
1 1ow,, CO-V
11 1
1
a
cow
ti
UATS
use efa+doo
cam' ® u+ GFOOM
TwLA
sow
;f ~ t o t
r ® _ 55
r ~
Leo
R } tp~
z
101
COON"
MEN pRUJECT
GE
AVER MpNA
S-f CR
- SEWE,lpGE AGf C"
mile. In the reach from Dairy Creek to Interstate Highway 5 the
average slope is 0.2 feet per mile. For the final 6.5 miles from
the mouth (at the Willamette River near West Linn, Oregon), the
river flows through a narrow gorge. This constriction at the
lower end of the flood plain, in addition to a number of natural
reef dams and the flat slopes, seriously limits the existing
channel capacity. Flood runoff from headwater areas is therefore
temporarily retarded causing large areas along the Tualatin River
and its major tributaries to be inundated after each major storm.
The sub-basins within the proposed service area make-up a very
complex network of stormwater drainages. Managing upstream
impacts, in addition to the cumulative effects on the Tualatin
receiving waters, are the dual focus for the regional stormwater
program.
C. Drainage Conditions
The premise supporting comprehensive and regional stormwater
management is the recognized need to plan for and manage
conversion of undeveloped property to a developed state. The key
is to understand the impacts of this development on the hydraulics
and hydrology of the entire watershed. In this way, impacts can
be understood and decisions regarding mitigation, land use and
financing effectively made. Such land use conversion results in
impervious surfaces, such as streets, parking lots and roofs,
covering what were formerly pervious soils and vegetation. This
reduces the amount of precipitation which can infiltrate into the
soils and geologic strata, thereby decreasing groundwater storage
and increasing the volume of surface runoff. The rate of runoff
is also increased by the impervious surfaces. These changes
result in higher peak flows and consequently more flood damage and
water quality impacts downstream. Although this phenomenon is not
unique to Washington County, it is compounded in the County due to
a number of factors.
Two of the most important intrinsic characteristics of Washington
County relative to drainage problems are: (1) the relatively flat
slopes in the central and southeasterly areas, as mentioned
earlier, and also (2) the impervious soils which predominate.
These soils are also highly erodible, and when combined with the
increase in peak flows associated with urbanization, the result is
more erosion and downstream sedimentation. The sediment deposited
downstream significantly decreases the channel capacities which
may have been adequate before urbanization.
The encroachment by development on flood plains and channel
overbank areas has compounded the problems. Accordingly, access
has been limited on many drainageways and maintenance has
consequently been very difficult even when funds were available.
Vegetation has been allowed to grow over long periods in many
drainageways which retards flow, reduces channel capacities, and
III-2
thereby increases flood damage potential due to higher water
levels during flood stage.
The implications of such drainage conditions are most apparent
during periodic flooding which occurs throughout the County. Such
flooding may involve nothing more than inconvenience for short or
long periods of time, or may result in damage to private or public
property. Although Washington County has not experience any loss
of life in recent times attributable to drainage problems, such
loss can occur.
The next section of this document focuses on development of an
initial enhanced maintenance program. Such an effort is felt to
be vital to beginning an comprehensive program for the management
of stormwaters within Washington County, and more specifically
within the proposed service area.
III®3
IV. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
}
IV. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
A. Introduction
This section summarizes recent observations regarding current
stormwater maintenance programs in Washington County and its
political subdivisions. This information is presented as both a
status check and planning mechanism for stormwater maintenance
operations within the County. As is the case with technical
design criteria and regulations, stormwater maintenance activities
within the 715 square miles of Washington County and its 12
incorporated cities vary significantly. Based on interviews, a
few jurisdictions described somewhat progressive systems for
stormwater maintenance, however most municipalities described
stormwater maintenance as a priority "only after it rains." This
level of service is the norm in most cities/counties across the
United States where, due to resource restrictions and lack of
problem recognition, no on-going formal system of stormwater
maintenance has been established. However, as stormwater
management programs are implemented, many jurisdictions focus
their initial resources on moving from an emergency
response/reactive level of maintenance to a preventive service
level, with the ultimate objective of establishing a stormwater
maintenance management program.
There is good reason to support an initial emphasis on stormwater
maintenance from both the technical and public involvement
perspectives. As public awareness regarding the characteristics
of stormwater increases, and the focus of attention migrates from
jurisdictional boundaries to watershed boundaries, stormwater
conveyances will be viewed as an interdependent system. Just as
with domestic water supplies, unless the overall stormwater
conveyance network is maintained at a level that allows it to
operate at design capacity, water quantity/quality problems will
continue. On a more practical level, when persons are asked to
pay for stormwater management, there will be heightened service
expectations. In many cases, the services requested will be
maintenance-oriented and a program will have to be established
which anticipates and responds to these requests.
B. Terminology
Reference is made herein to "Washington County", "U.S.A." (Unified
Sewerage Agency), and the "Stormwater Program". In very general
terms, these three terms can be used interchangeably; however it
is important to note key distinctions between these as well as
other relevant entities. Table 1 summarizes these differences:
j
IV-1 r
i
f
• F
f
B
P,
TABLE 1
FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT ENTITIES
Entity Functional Description
Washington County Washington County, Oregon; its physical area and/or its
political/governing body.
Unified Sewerage The governmental agency which is currently responsible for
Agency [ U.S.A. ] planning, constructing, operating and maintaining the
wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the
majority of the urbanized area of Washington County, as well
as small adjacent areas in Multnomah and Clackamas Counties.
Stormwater The proposed regional stormwater drainage program which would
Program be administered by U.S.A.; the program for which this
Feasibility Analysis is being prepared.
Special Drainage Districts formed within Washington County for maintenance of
Districts drainage facilities in accordance with ORS 547.
Drainage L.I.D.s Drainage Local Improvement Districts formed in developed
[ D.L.I.D. ) areas of unincorporated Washington County. There are about
150 assessed D.L.I.D.s and about 175 others yet to be formed.
Tualatin River The geographical area which is drained by the Tualatin River
Watershed and all of its major creeks and minor tributaries. The
majority of this watershed happens to closely follow the
jurisdictional boundaries of Washington County. Ultimately
the Tualatin River drains into the Willamette River in
northwestern Clackamas County.
Stormwater System The network of depressions, swales, ditches, ponds, channels,
pipes, culverts, creeks, rivers and other natural or
constructed features that retain, detain or discharge
stormwater.
Urban Growth The boundary within which all urban growth must take place.
Boundary The U.G.B. and the U.S.A. boundaries follow each other fairly
[ U.G.B. ] closely within Washington County, however they are not
exactly the same in many areas.
C. Objectives
This.analysis for stormwater maintenance management deals primarily
with the following issues: (a) description of current status, and (b)
long-term planning considerations.
(a) In the current status category the following topics are reviewed:
IV-2
o Current stormwater maintenance operations among the jurisdictions
in Washington County, and
o Operational strengths and weaknesses of the current programs.
(b) The more long-term/strategic considerations include:
o System design and implementation strategy for preventive
maintenance planning and a stormwater maintenance management
program, and
o Planning values (workload standards), together with estimation of
revenue requirements for stormwater maintenance operations.
0. Background
The Project Team, through this maintenance analysis, is attempting to
apply its experience with other large-scale stormwater programs to
Washington County's current operating conditions, and to provide a
framework for Washington County's eventual movement into a stormwater
maintenance management system. This "maintenance management" planning
should be considered a priority for the reasons outlined above. The
most critical element of a maintenance management system is
establishing and maintaining the physical system inventory. The
watershed and basin planning anticipated in future phases will likely
include detailed inventories of the existing storm and surface water
infrastructure. This base inventory data will need to be collected and
maintained; the inventory forms which the Stormwater Program may wish
' to use to collect this information should be formatted considering the
parameters/requirements of the manual or automated mapping system that
might be used.
E. Current Conditions and Funding Profiles
As stated earlier, many jurisdictions within Washington County are in
the stormwater maintenance business and all have made varying levels of
resource commitments to this effort. While a detailed individual
analysis of the 12 cities is not practical, it is worthwhile to
establish a basic awareness of the stormwater maintenance activities
being undertaken by not only municipalities but also the County,
Special Drainage Districts, and Drainage Local Improvement Districts.
The maintenance objectives for each reflect the focus of the respective
organizations. As an example, one of the County Land Use and
Transportation Department's main objectives in stormwater and roadside
ditch/bridge maintenance is protection of the transportation system,
where its other objective is maintenance of the Drainage L.I.D.s
scattered throughout the County. With the exception of the Special
Drainage Districts and a minority of the municipalities, stormwater is
a secondary responsibility which is geared to respond to site-specific
complaints and/or storm events rather than provide a year-around system
of stormwater maintenance.
IV-3
Current Storm-water Maintenance Programs
Exhibit 1 (in Appendix A) is a spreadsheet which summarizes the current
stormwater maintenance programs for the major jurisdictions in
Washington County. This summary represents a "snapshot view" of
current programs based upon interviews with municipal representatives
and local engineering consultants, as well as review of available
reports and related literature. Table 2 below lists the jurisdictions
and the primary contacts for each.
TABLE 2
REVIEW OF MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS: CONTACTS
Jurisdiction Contact Phone #
Banks * Andy Klein 359-5956
Beaverton Tom Horton 526-2224
Cornelius Frank Neys 357-9112
Durham * Jeanne Percy 639-6851
Forest Grove John Burdett 359-3225
Gaston * Roger Smith 985-7911
Hillsboro Roy Gibson 681-6148
King City * Betty Scurry 639-4082
North Plains * Jim Gilmer 639-4914
Sherwood Tad Milburn 625-6522
Tigard Randy Wooley 639-4171
Tualatin Mike McKillip 692-2000
Washington County LID's Ed Marsoun 648-8678
Washington County R/W Dean Frazier 681-7021
* - Jurisdiction has no public works department, staff or
equipment. Necessary stormwater-related maintenance is contracted
out to local contractor(s) and/or neighboring jurisdiction(s).
The URS Project team specifically addressed stormwater maintenance
during interviews with these jurisdictions and was able to identify
some of the most common concerns regarding maintenance of present
stormwater systems.
02erational Concerns
o Stormwater system maintenance equipment is becoming more
specialized and expensive. For example, while smaller
jurisdictions could use specialized cleaning equipment (Vactor, j
Ditchmaster, Drott-type units), they cannot justify its full-time
IV-4
use nor purchase price. Opportunities for interlocal equipment
sharing should be explored.
t o Since the County does little if any stormwater maintenance outside
its road rights-of-way, except work contracted with the 150 formed
Drainage L.I.D.s, how much of an effect can system maintenance
within the neighboring jurisdictions have if the stormwater system
in the unincorporated areas is not thoroughly maintained?
o Even though monies may be appropriated in the general fund for
stormwater activities, they are often one of the first funds to be
"tapped" when other more visible infrastructure problems occur.
o It is difficult to sell the need for on-going stormwater
maintenance to decision-makers and citizens when the problem or
need is invisible until a storm event occurs.
o Due to the low priorty of stormwater maintenance (relative to
other jurisdictional functions), limited manpower and equipment
resources are only able to "maintain" their systems with few if
any capital improvements. Past neglect/deferral of maintenance
and/or capital improvements have left most stormwater systems
playing "catch-up".
Physical Features Concerns
o Based on interviews with representatives of County and municipal
jurisdictions, and also from Project Team report review and other
observations, a list of stormwater system features which are the
sources of most stormwater maintenance problems was developed.
The list is not prioritized; individual responses from each
jurisdiction varied.
1. Filling or diverting of wetlands/ditches/channels on private
property
2. Inadequate capacities in channels and culverts due to
vegetative growth and sedimentation
-3. Inadequate or complete lack of maintenance of detention
facilities and channels
4. Erosion and resulting sedimentation which fills culverts,
ditches and catch basins
5. Lack of accurate/complete stormwater system inventories
6. Leaves and other debris covering catch basin inlets
7. Vandalism and littering in drainage facilities
8. Inadequate capacities of culverts/channels due to increased
runoff rates and lack of implementation of C.I.P. facilities.
Municipalities
As stated above, a "snapshot view" of each municipality's present
stormwater program is shown in Exhibit 1. The following review of the
IV-5
Oil
Exhibit summarizes the variation in the status of each jurisdiction's
program:
Planning-/ Mapping Status
Most jurisdictions have prepared drainage master planning
documents. Usually each municipality's storm drainage system has
been mapped as an integral part of this planning process. Thus, a
mapped overview of most city storm systems within Washington
County exists. It appears that the majority of these system maps
has been regularly updated and would be reasonably complete.
Conversely, most cities have not attempted to prepare a detailed
inventory of their storm drainage facilities. In fact, only two
jurisdictions (King City and Hillsboro) appear to have this data
in a fairly complete state. It seems that most on-going
maintenance within Washington County municipalities are relying,
by necessity, upon their general system mapping and "local
knowledge" of their system's deficiencies.
Maintenance Levels
For various reasons, most municipal jurisdictions are currently in
a reactive / emergency response level of drainage maintenance.
This typically represents a storm drainage-related staffing level
ranging from a few persons (3-8) doing mostly drainage work, to a
city-wide maintenance crew (4-7) handling all utility and roadway
work. Several of the smaller cities have no public works
department or maintenance staff; most provide maintenance service
on an "as-needed" contract basis with local utility contractors.
Several cities do, however, attempt to perform some preventive
maintenance activities to minimize their "emergencies". These
activities include leaf/debris pickup, catch basin cleaning,
street sweeping, some vegetation control in ditches & channels
and, in a few cases, pipe inspection/flushing. Those
municipalities attempting preventive work report localized
effectiveness (e.g. known problem areas) but that the work is
generally not comprehensive enough to aid the total drainage
system. It was expressed that the "root of the problem" was not
always being remedied.
Hence, the majority of present maintenance programs are structured
to direct most of the available resources (staff $ equipment) to
handle the worst problems "when it rains" and perform some
preventive maintenance on a mostly non-priority basis. It is
apparent that stormwater maintenance programs are subject to a
high degree of seasonality.
IV-6
Funding Profile
r" Jurisdictions which are performing maintenance activities fund
this work in several ways. A few (four), have in-place system
development charges which assist in funding large drainage
projects and/or maintenance work. Two cities have implemented a
stormwater service charge which is typically related to the amount
of runoff contributed to the system. These funds are normally
used to provide for maintenance work.
The annual revenue currently being generated by these drainage-
specific charges is approximately $750,000. It is clear that the
communities which have drainage charges in-place are better able
to keep their systems "maintained" with little or no catching up
with past deferred maintenance or needed improvements possible.
Many jurisdictions reported the amount of revenue received from
in-place charges only supplements other revenue sources and are
definitely not sufficient to support even the present maintenance
levels.
Special Drainage Districts
There are three Special Drainage Districts in Washington County
with a cumulative tax assessment-based revenue for FY '88 of about
$12,500 (only two of the Districts have been assessing their
property owners). Based on interviews and assessment data, the
bulk of this revenue is expended on major channel maintenance /
restoration and complaint response. Table 3 contains an
individual profile for each of the Special Drainage Districts.
TABLE 3
SPECIAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS
Special Drainage District FY 188 Assessments
No. 2 - Washington Square $ 0 [Unassessed]
No. 7 - Forest Grove area 2,471
No. 8 - Commonwealth Park 10.000
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS $ 12,471
The Special Drainage'Districts recognize that current revenues do
not allow a comprehensive program for stormwater maintenance and
that combining their localized efforts with a regional Stormwater
Program could possibly enhance the overall system. Specifically,
allocating responsibility for major drainageway maintenance to
this regional program, while retaining maintenance responsi-
bilities within their tributary areas may be a practical approach.
IV-7
Drainage Local Improvement Districts
Historically, the problem of stormwater runoff and flood control
became an urgent issue with the Washington County Board of
Commissioners in the early 1970's. Consultants presented the
Board with a report recommending several options for future flood
control. Some of these options included on-site detention of
stormwater and the development of.a stormwater "utility". In
August 1975, the Board adopted "a policy concerning stormwater
drainage as it relates to existing and future County roads and to
future subdivisions". By Resolution and Order No. 75-221 the
Board created the foundation for the Drainage Master Plan and the
requirement of stormwater detention and the Drainage Local
Improvement District formation for maintenance. Later,
construction standards and administrative policy were set.
Delays in the formation of the D.L.I.D.s were many. The first 50
D.L.I.D.s formed were invalidated due to improper wording in the t.
public hearing notice. Changing policies, modifications to design
and construction standards, and interim prohibition of formation
of D.L.I.D.s have all contributed to a slow process over the
years; in unincorporated Washington County, this has lead to both
formed D.L.I.D.s, as well as developments without D.L.I.D.s.
Currently there is renewed interest to form and assess those 4
previously non-formed developments.
There are about 150 formed (and assessed) Drainage Local:
Improvement Districts (D.L.I.D.s) in the unincorporated area of
Washington County. These districts have been formed in urbanized
areas of Washington County in accordance with Resolution and Order
No. 82-114, as amended by No. 82-212. The cumulative tax
assessment-based revenue budgeted for FY 88/89, for the 150
D.L.I.O.s, is about $129,000. [There are 4,200+ total lots; r
yearly assessments range from about $10 to $90 per year; the 4
average assessment is about $30 per lot per year; maintenance is
performed by County crews].
Furthermore, there about 175 non-formed (non-assessed)
developments that can be formed upon the County's request, since
the developer signed a waiver which is filed at the County.
Currently Washington County is forming these into assessed
D.L.I.D.s, a few at a time, based upon recent flooding problems or
complaints, property owner requests, and/or availability of staff
time to process the formation documents.
F. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AND COST ANALYSIS
One of the objectives of this analysis was to develop planning i
values (workload standards) for stormwater maintenance operations,
and then to calculate related costs for performance of the
IV-8
recommended maintenance activities (and quantities) to be
accomplished. The performance standards and frequencies shown in
Exhibit 2 are proposed for this feasibility study, based upon our
experience with similar programs. These standards, and the cost
analyses subsequently discussed, are key components of a more
comprehensive program; this overall Maintenance Program / Cost
Development approach is shown on the next page.
Drainage Maintenance Worksheet
A spreadsheet (Exhibit 3) was prepared to incorporate these
performance standards with facilities inventory data obtained for
areas within the U.S.A. boundary of Washington County. Backup
calculations to this spreadsheet analyzed the "density" of known
existing storm drainage piping, catch basins, channels and
detention facilities (such as for King City and Beaverton), and
extrapolated these values for each jurisdiction and ultimately
over the total acreage within the U.S.A. boundary. The
maintenance frequencies and performance standards were then
combined with quantities and cost data to account for labor,
equipment and materials estimates which are needed to accomplish
the scheduled types of maintenance activities.
In addition to scheduled maintenance activities for the stormwater
facilities, costs and staffing have also been added for four other
work functions, including:
t
o Non-Scheduled (non-routine) Maintenance
o Administration / Supervision
o Emergency Response, and
o Hazard Mitigation. t:
The breakdown and totals for all recommended drainage maintenance
activities are listed on Exhibit 3. Also listed on the Exhibit
are the related annual full-time-equivalent (F.T.E.) staff
requirements. It is estimated that a staff of 49 field personnel,
together with 4 administrative and supervisory personnel, will be
required to execute the maintenance management component of the
overall program.
G. Summary
The present stormwater maintenance and funding profile for
Washington County is typical of most urbanizing and multi-
Jurisdictional areas of the United States. The maintenance needs
are widespread and local-agencies attempt to meet the needs based
on local resource availability and priorities. In most cases this
means a reactive level of service. This creates obvious problems
as runoff moves through the watershed and encounters restricted
conveyances which are not maintained to design capacity. As with
design criteria and regulation of development, maintenance of
Id-9
i
i
1
i
p, AInterlocal
greement
eSi:igia~rFSwoAT MANAGEMENT Jurisdiction
Inventory p Activity % $
Data Validation ch"'
(by jurisdiction and USA) cwch
I e..u,.
$ Subtotal
e Total WO
e $ Total
e Activities Level of
Service
i e Jurisdiction Jurisdiction [~H
e L/E/M $ Quantities Cost Me
• Water Qua Aty
s
I
e I
e Evaluation and Revision SWM Service Charges
Revenue Fee-In-lieu
VSluatlprt Criteria Analysis
Ad Valorem
1. Water Quality
e---- System
2. Major System Development
3. Minor System A roac
Sur Ius $
Short
Fall
$
(Maintenance Program/Cost Development
stormwater systems must be viewed in terms of the watershed
hydraulics and hydrology. While there is a growing recognition of
watershed impacts, funding restrictions and local needs mandate
the numerous jurisdictions within the County focus stormwater
maintenance on their individual priorities.
In reviewing the current condition of stormwater maintenance in
Washington County, it must be pointed out that while significant
lapses in maintenance of the system exist, many elements of a
comprehensive maintenance program are in place. The program and
the organizational strategies contained in this memorandum are
designed to complement these active and effective maintenance
efforts, while moving the overall program toward a stormwater
maintenance management program that considers the bigger picture.
While the initial program emphasis will be directed toward
enhanced system maintenance, the Project Team also recognizes the
need for structural stormwater management measures. However, in
order to establish the viability of the regional program and
establish rates at a level acceptable to the public, a full-scale
capital improvement program has not been developed for the initial
program. Where smaller facility improvements and opportunities to
purchase regional detention sites are identified, the initial
program is designed to address these needs/opportunities.
j.
i
IV-10
i
I'
V. AD14INISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE
i
V. ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE OF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Institutional Framework
As partners in this regional approach toward stormwater
management, the municipalities and County were asked to establish
the preferred institutional framework for the program. This
decision revolved around the following issues:
o whether the provisions of Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 451
will be the overall institutional framework within which the
stormwater management program is developed;
o whether the Unified Sewerage Agency's (U.S.A.) present
sanitary sewer authority will be expanded to include
stormwater services;
o whether U.S.A.'s current sanitary sewer service area will
also provide the boundary for stormwater management services;
ORS 451 provides the current basis for U.S.A. sanitary sewer
operations. In evaluating the application of ORS 451 to
stormwater management services, it was detenfiined that the statute
contains the financial and organizational tools necessary to
address Washington County's stormwater quantity and quality
problems. Similar conclusions have been reached in both of the
previous drainage studies for Washington County.
B. Options
Four basic institutional approaches were considered. These
approaches were: expansion of U.S.A.'s current authority to
include stormwater management; creation of another ORS 451 service
district for stormwater; formation of a stormwater management
network based on inter-jurisdictional operating agreements; and,
addition of stormwater to another agency's current
responsibilities.
The criteria used to evaluate these approaches first of all
assessed their relative ability to effectively and efficiently
provide necessary stormwater management services. Secondary
considerations addressed issues related to schedule,.priority and
public perception.
U.S.A.'s current role as a regional wastewater management entity,
its existing relationships with Washington County municipalities,
and the logical extension of service delivery to include both
V-1
sanitary sewer and stormwater collection, established its
viability as an effective and efficient stormwater manager. In
terms of schedule and implementation timing, the use of U.S.A.'s
current service delivery and administrative support system was
determined to be more cost/time effective than designing and
establishing a new organization structure for stormwater.
Institutionally, the national trend in regional stormwater
management is to look first at expanding the role of regional
sanitary service providers. This strategy is enhanced where the
regional provider has the service delivery track record to justify
an expansion of its authority. U.S.A.'s credibility with the
municipalities presently served strengthens the argument for
expansion of its current authority.
Regarding priority, the immediate stormwater management need will
be preparation of the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ)
"Non-point Source Management Plan" for the urbanized areas in
Washington County. This plan will provide the direction for
mitigative measures necessary to achieve compliance with DEQ
pollutant load allocations. A regional approach toward non-point
source pollution management is generally accepted as more
effective than having jurisdictions within the urban area develop
individual management strategies. Given this priority and the
need for regionally-based management of both point and non-point
source pollution, expansion of U.S.A.'s role was considered to be
a logical and necessary response to this immediate need.
Finally, and possibly most important, is the public's demand for
efficient service delivery without "creating another bureaucracy".
This concern is particularly acute when a viable management
structure is already in place within U.S.A.
C. Institutional Conclusions
When applying the primary evaluation criteria of efficiency and
effectiveness, the expansion of U.S.A.'s authority to include
stormwater management services is the optimal approach. This
institutional direction is also consistent with implementation
schedules, water quality planning requirements and public
expectations for streamlining government services.
The singlemost limiting factor in expanding U.S.A.'s current
authority to include stormwater would appear to be the service
area boundary. By statutory definition, if the stormwater program
were to use any service area other than U.S.A.'s current sanitary
sewer boundary, a new service district under ORS 451 would be
created. However, when viewing this factor in relation to
immediate program priorities for non-point source management
planning within the urbanized areas, the existing service area
boundary is consistent with immediate program needs. It is
important to reiterate that U.S.A.'s current service area boundary
closely approximates the urban growth boundary. Therefore, in
V-2
terms of authority, U.S.A's stormwater boundary will enable the
regional program to address the urbanizing area of the County. In
addition, the service district would be authorized to contract
with areas outside the urban growth boundary in order to provide a
truly regional management strategy. Therefore, although the
stormwater boundary is restricted to the sanitary sewer service
area, the areas included are an appropriate focus for the initial
stormwater management program.
Based on these factors, the Stormwater Steering Committee
determined that the regional program for surface water management
in Washington County be established as an ORS 451 service district
through expansion of U.S.A.'s current sanitary sewer authority,
thereby employing the same service area boundary. Resolutions
from each jurisdiction within the service area are being drafted
which establish and expand U.S.A.'s authority as a special service
district for stormwater management within the urban areas of
Washington County.
k
i
s
i
i
Y-3 ~
i
i
k
VI. IMPACTS ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS
VI. IMPACTS ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS
A. Overview
As illustrated in Exhibit 1, there are numerous agencies either
directly or indirectly involved with stormwater. As new
regulations or public needs are identified, new agencies or
authorities are established to address these needs. The regional
stormwater proposal before the Boundary Commission is an attempt
to step out of this need-specific focus through consolidating
stormwater roles/responsibilities under a single authority which
operates for and with the jurisdictions in the service area. This
formation process is designed to offset the current fragmentation
of stormwater responsibilities by authorizing a commitment to
regional and comprehensive stormwater management.
As this consolidation occurs, jurisdictions will be impacted. For
this reason, the interlocal agreement framework presently used by
U.S.A. and the municipalities, regarding sanitary sewer services,
will be employed for stormwater. This mechanism will clearly
establish responsibilities under the regional program and assure
that each municipality understands and agrees with the provisions
of the interlocal agreement.
B. Roles and Responsibilities
One of the most important issues that will need to be addressed is
how the responsibilities for various programs will be divided
between the Agency, the Cities, and the County. Although this
issue can be discussed at this point, it cannot be formally
adopted until after the Agency is given the expanded authority.
This is because the Board will not have such authority until after
formation.
Currently under the sanitary program, the division of
responsibility between the Agency and cities is relatively simple.
There Rre only two options:
(1) For cities wi"h no public works staff, the Agency is
responsible for all functions. In these cases, the Agency
retains 95% of the monthly service charge revenue.
(2) For the larger Cities with a public works staff, they
maintain the local system and issue permits. In these
cities, the Agency generally maintains the collection system
24" and larger, and the major pumping stations. Monthly
service charge revenue is divided 70% to the Agency and 30%
to the City.
VI-1
In the surface water management program, the division of
responsibilities will not be as easily determined because of the
larger variety of facilities and programs. These include
underground storm piping, catch basins, inlets, outlets, road
culverts, detention ponds and pipes, roadside ditches, open
channels, major creek systems, street sweeping, water quality
systems, engineering, administration, and the non-point source
management program. As with the sanitary sewer program, it is not
necessary that all cities adopt the same division of
responsibilities. However, it is hoped there will be some
consistency, with perhaps two or three options being available.
The following are some of the possible methods of dividing the
responsibilities. They are only intended as a place to a in
discussion. The final responsibilities will involve overtime and
should be chosen based on the shared goal of jurisdictions within
the service area effectively working together toward developing a
comprehensive storm and surface water management program. The
discussion is divided into maintenance programs and administrative
programs. Some possible methods of dividing responsibility are:
Maintenance Programs
o City retains all responsibility within city. This allows the
local public works staff the maximum control and visibility
within the ci~y limits and eliminates any problem clarifying
the division of responsibility.
o Agency retains all responsibility within city. As with the
sanitary sewer program, this will be an option that cities
without public works staffs may favor.
o Everything below a specific size, for example 36", will be
the responsibility of the city. This is the method used in
sanitary sewers, but can only be used for underground systems
in the storm water program. This method would have to be
combined with methods that address the other types of
facilities.
o Everything that carries less than a specific flow, such as 50
cfs, would be the responsibility of the city. This method
would apply to open systems as well as underground pipes.
However, it will be difficult for field personnel to easily
know their responsibility by looking at the facility. A
separate and specific set of responsibility maps would have
to be available.
o Everything that serves less than a certain size basin, such
as 100 acres, would by the responsibility of the city. As
with the method above, this requires a separate set of
responsibility maps.
VI-2
o Everything that does not flow between jurisdictions would be
the responsibility of the city. This would transfer to the
regional authority only the responsibility for facilities
that affect more than one jurisdiction. As with the two
previous methods, this may require a set of responsibility
maps.
o Responsibility to be individually negotiated with each city.
This is possible, but would not necessarily provide
consistency between jurisdictions. It would be more
difficult to administer.
o Divide responsibility on a functional basis rather than a
facility basis. In other words, the city would be
responsible for certain functions covering all facilities in
the city, and the Agency would do the remaining functions.
Examples of functions would be street seeping, catch basin
cleaning, or detention pond mowing. This would allow the
Agency to purchase and operate large, specialized pieces of
equipment that could not otherwise be justified with a local
program.
o Use a combination of methods.
Administrative Programs
Administrative programs for surface water management are very
similar to the sanitary sewer program. This includes engineering,
billing, planning, adoption of standards, plan review, issuing
construction permits, and inspection. It is felt that the
responsibility for these administrative programs can be divided as
they are for sanitary sewers. In addition to the standard
administrative programs, the watershed management program (non-
point source plan and implementation) is unique to surface water
management. The responsibilities for this program could be shared
with the cities, or the entire program responsibility could be
given to the Agency. It appears that it would be more efficient
and effective if the responsibility was with the regional
authority.
In addition to the partner cities, jurisdictional impacts will
extend to other federal and state agencies dealing with
stormwater. Their concerns and ideas were the catalyst behind
formation of the Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee. Each
key decision point was reviewed with this committee prior to
asking for Steering Committee direction on the issue. This process
has resulted in impacted agencies understanding where the regional
program is heading and has provided a forum for stating their
concerns. In terms of the formation decisions on institutional,
financial and technical issues, the intergovernment membership is
in concurrence with the directions established by the Stormwater
Steering Committee.
VI-3
i
t
i
t
t
i
FUNDING OPTIONS .y
STOwATER M GEMENT 4
VII. ~i~
e.
i
I
~t
I
VII. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUNDING OPTIONS
A. Overview
There are three important points to be made regarding initial
funding strategies for newly formed stormwater programs:
(a) initial revenues will not be sufficient to meet all
expectations for the stormwater program, (b) initial program
priorities should be developed based on the broadest identified
need, and (c) initial program priorities should be coordinated
with anticipated revenue levels. These points are reflected in
the program approach adopted by the Stormwater Steering Committee.
Although the options outlined in Exhibit 4 and discussed in this
section of the report will be presented individually, none of them
should be considered mutually exclusive. In fact, one financial
characteristic common to virtually all self-supported stormwater
programs is that each employs a combination of financing
techniques. The funding mix that is most appropriate for the
program in Washington County will be a function of the
organizational structure, field operations priorities, public
expectations, legislated authority, and service levels established
by the Stormwater Steering Committee through this planning
process.
B. Funding Mechanisms
State/Federal Grants and Loans - Historically, both local and
county governments have experienced significant infrastructure
funding support from state and federal government agencies in the
form of block grants, direct grants in aid, interagency loans, and
general revenue sharing. Federal deficit reduction pressures and
virtual elimination of federal revenue sharing dollars are clear
indicators that local government will be left to its own devices
regarding infrastructure finance in general and stormwater funding
in particular. Presently, the primary sources of assistance in
the areas of stormwater are the federally funded grants provided
by the Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program. The Unified Sewerage Agency has enjoyed
success in winning these funds to provide minor support for its ?
sanitary sewer program. However, access to this funding mechanism
becomes much more difficult in relation to stormwater facilities.
Numerous applicants compete for a very limited resource pool
making this a questionable funding source and one that cannot be
credibly relied upon as a consistent element of this program's on-
VII-1
i
i
{i
4
going revenue base. Our experience indicates that even when
jurisdictions secure grants for their programs, the revenue rarely
provides for a fully funded capital improvement program. The
typical scenario is to apply these grant monies to a master
planning process which often does not address the long term
funding issues necessary to sustain the program. The result: one
or a series of outdated watershed master plans which meet an
immediate informational void, but are never implemented due to
lack of consideration for long term financing.
It is also important to assess likely trends regarding federal /
state assistance in infrastructure financing. Where EPA's mandate
for sanitary sewer improvements in the 1960's was accompanied by a
very generous and available grant program, future trends indicate
that grants will be replaced by loans through a public works
revolving fund. Local governments can expect to access these
revolving funds based on criteria that includes both the need for
and ability to repay the borrowed monies, with interest.
Therefore, the ability of infrastructure programs to control their
own financial destinies will be a key element in evaluating
whether many secondary funding sources, such as federal/state
loans, will be available to the regional stormwater management
program.
Debt Financing
General Obligation Bonds - ORS 451 enables the regional stormwater
management program to issue general obligation bonds for "the
purpose of paying the cost of acquisition or construction of
service facilities." General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds are debt
instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing
jurisdiction which, under the provisions of ORS 451, the bonds are
secured by an unconditional pledge of the District to levy the
necessary assessments, charges or ad valorem taxes necessary to
retire the bonds. G.O. bonds are the lowest-cost form of debt
financing available to local governments and can be combined with
other revenue sources such as specific fees, grants/loans, or
special assessment charges to form a dual security through the
District's revenue generating authority. These bonds are
supported by the District as a whole, so the amount of debt issued
for stormwater management purposes will be a function of the
District's overall debt capacity. G.O. bond financing requires
voter approval.
Revenue Bonds - This form of debt financing is also available to a
service district for stormwater management. Unlike G.O. bonds,
revenue bonds are not backed by the District as a whole, but
constitute a lien against the operating revenues of the District.
Revenue bonds present a greater risk to the investor than do G.O.
bonds, since repayment of debt depends on an adequate revenue
structure and sound fiscal management by the issuing jurisdiction.
Due to this increased risk, revenue bonds generally command a
VII-2
i
i
higher interest rate than G.O. bonds. This type of debt also has
very specific coverage requirements in the form of a reserve fund
specifying an amount, usually expressed in terms of average or
maximum debt service due in any future year. This debt service is
required to be held as a cash reserve for annual debt service
payment to the benefit of bondholders. Typically, voter approval
is not required when issuing revenue bonds.
System Development Charges - These charges are designed to provide
a mechanism by which owners of properties to be developed in the
future will share in the current cost of constructing drainage
improvements. Stormwater and flood control improvements are
characteristically designed to last twenty years or more into the
future. This charge offsets the inequity which results when
owners of developed properties bear the entire cost of the
stormwater improvements while owners of property developing in the
future enjoy the benefits of these improvements at no incremental
cost.
As the Committee begins its analysis of funding options and
methods for allocating stormwater management costs, the use of
system development charges will provide important flexibility.
Questions regarding who should pay for required upsizing of the
stormwater system due to new development, or how historical payers
into the system can recover their costs in oversizing facilities
that enable future growth, are exactly the types of equity issues
that system development charges can be designed to accommodate.
Areas within Washington County have successfully employed system
development charges for traffic/street, sanitary sewer and water
distribution system improvements.
Fee-in-lieu-of On-site Detention - In-lieu-of fees can either be a
regulatory requirement or a development option that enables the
stormwater management program to offer developers the opportunity
to construct on-site detention facilities in accordance with the
established design criteria, or pay a fee into a fund dedicated to
the construction of an off-site (regional) detention facility
serving multiple properties. While this approach is not
specifically authorized in ORS 451, it could be implied within the
definition of service or user charges within the District. This
approach can be effective within the context of promoting the
siting and construction of more regional versus on-site
detention/retention facilities. This objective is consistent with
the intent of fee-in-lieu-of ordinances which have proven
practical as a vehicle to guide development patterns within a
watershed and as a tool to encourage comprehensive stormwater
planning.
The shortcomings associated with fee-in-lieu-of construction
revolve around cash flow and construction timing. The customary
fee for a single property or development is rarely large enough to
VII-3
fund the construction of a regional facility. Therefore, either
multiple developments must occur simultaneously in a given area to
generate enough revenue to fund the construction of a regional
facility, or more realistically, the project must be initially
funded from alternative sources. Many stormwater programs are
finding it necessary to provide seed monies in order to
successfully establish fee-in-lieu-of structures. It is also
important to note that monies collected for fee-in-lieu-of
purposes be "earmarked" for use in constructing the specific
facility identified. Courts have generally held that commingling
these funds and allocating them to unrelated stormwater projects
is illegal. Oregon statute does specifically authorize
establishment of a revolving fund (ORS 451.500) which could be
accessed for purposes of providing seed monies to initiate a fee-
in-lieu-of funding mechanism. This revolving fund could then be
reimbursed as the fees are collected.
Improvement Districts and Special Assessments - Washington County
is currently administering and performing contract maintenance for
about 150 Drainage Local Improvement Districts (maintenance only).
In addition, there are 3 special districts for drainage formed
under the provisions of ORS 547. These districts are:
o Beaverdam Drainage District #8
o Drainage District #7
o Drainage District #2 (Washington Square area)
These special drainage districts were formed more for purposes of
farm irrigation than stormwater management. Those which continue
to exercise levies (currently 2 districts with total assessments
of about $13,000 annually) have oriented their services mainly to
stormwater maintenance, channel improvements and complaint
response. Further provisions of ORS 451 (sections 573 through
577) delineate the protections available to special districts when
an "overlapping" service district is formed and the procedures for
"automatic" dissolution of these districts if no protection is
sought.
The use of special drainage districts for funding stormwater
programs has decreased significantly due, in part, to the
difficulty in quantifying the benefit to individual properties.
In water, street, or sewer special assessments the benefit is
normally determined as a function of the total area benefited.
The situation in stormwater differs in that upstream or hillside
properties that are major runoff contributors may not be specific
recipients of project/maintenance benefits. Because the level of
benefit could not be quantified, these properties would not be
required to participate in the assessment base. In addition, the
concept of local improvement or special assessment districts
creating facilities or systems to mitigate stormwater problems
within narrowly defined areas can be counter-productive to a
comprehensive approach to stormwater management.
VII-4
t
s
r
While some of the special drainage districts within Washington
County perform a valuable service, there is potential for
institutional and functional overlap/inefficiency between these
districts and the efforts toward implementing a regional program
strategy. It is also important to point out that the acceptance
of regional stormwater programs is often a function of
consolidation of existing authorities rather than creating a new
"layer of bureaucracy."
Plan Review and Inspection fees - These fees are intended to
recoup the expense of examining development plans to ensure
consistency with comprehensive or master plans, and to insure that
construction standards and regulations are met in the field.
These fees are not designed to be primary revenue generating
sources. Specific tasks are usually limited to engineering review
and field inspection/certifications. In theory, a detailed cost
accounting system can determine the actual costs of providing
these services to developers. However, in practice most
stormwater authorities monitor the accumulated cost of providing
this service so that the resulting fee is based on an average of
the total cost. Four fee structures are commonly applied to this
process. These four approaches are as follows:
o fees based on a flat or fixed rate for all projects reviewed
and inspected, regardless of size, complexity, or actual
costs incurred;
o a variable or sliding scale fee based on the size of the
development (i.e., acres, square feet, etc.);
o a variable or sliding scale fee based on a percentage of the
permitted construction cost of the development or project;
o fees based on the fixed and variable costs to provide the
review and inspection service. The fixed portion is usually
a statistical estimation of the administrative costs required
to provide the service while the variable portion reflects
the actual time and materials required to perform the plan
reviews and inspections,
One of the major concerns municipalities have regarding current
stormwater development review operations in the County is the lack
of regulatory enforcement in the field. Plan review and
inspection fees are designed to allocate direct costs back to
those receiving service. These services are typified by the code
enforcement work done by field inspection personnel. By
implementing a plan review/inspection charge based on the true
cost of providing an adequate level of service, the stormwater
program could enhance the development/construction review process
(timeliness and predictability) and avoid passing the costs of
these direct services back to the general rate or tax payers.
VII-5
General. Street. Sewer Fund Support - These funding sources have
historically been accessed by local governments to pay for minor
drainage improvements and complaint/emergency response.
Washington County does allocate a portion of its general operating
revenues to roadside ditch maintenance in order to protect the
integrity of the roadway network and for stormwater emergency
response activities. U.S.A.'s infrastructure authority is limited
to sanitary sewer operations, and revenue generated from sewer
rates cannot be allocated to stormwater activities. (Note:
Current planning efforts are funded through grant arrangements
with participating municipalities and the County.) Access to the
County's general operating fund for stormwater management support
has been limited due to the numerous programs competing for
revenue from this source. While all three funding areas can be
important elements of a funding mix, they cannot generate the
revenue necessary to fund a comprehensive, on-going program for
stormwater management in Washington County.
Stormwater Service Charges - As conventional funding sources for
stormwater management become more difficult to access and as
federal (Environmental Protection Agency - National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) and state (Department of
Environmental Quality - Non=point Source Management Plan)
stormwater quality requirements become mandatory, the utility
approach toward stormwater funding is becoming generally accepted.
There are numerous combinations and variations for stormwater
service charges. The generally accepted characteristics of a
stormwater service charge or rate are described below:
o Amount of Impervious Surface - rates under this approach are
set in direct proportion to the measured, estimated, or
assumed extent of impervious area for each parcel of land.
Impervious surface is that land occupied by building
footprints, pavement or other non-permeable surfaces.
o Density of Deveiooment - under this approach rates are
determined by a runoff coefficient which is deemed to be
appropriate for the type of land and the nature of the
improvements on each parcel.
o Flat Fee - this mechanism utilizes a constant or uniform fee
for each property within pre-existing classes or can be
applied on a community-wide basis.
A service charge for stormwater management reflects a rationale
that those who contribute runoff to the stormwater system should
pay in relation to the amount of runoff conveyed by the systems
and facilities operated by the stormwater management entity. This
approach is consistent with U.S.A.'s current volume charge for
sanitary sewer. As in the sanitary rate structure, stormwater
service charges are based on an equivalent service/residential
VII-6
unit. Typically, the equivalent service unit represents the
average amount of impervious surface on a single family
residential lot. This average or equivalent service unit (ESU) is
the basis for non-single family rates as illustrated in the
following example:
Property = convenience store with 11,800 square feet of
impervious surface
ESU a the average amount of impervious surface on a
single family residential property or 2,950 sq. ft.
Rate/ESU $3.50
(example only)
Calculation 11.800 square feet of impervious surface = 4 ESUs
for Monthly 2,950 sq. ft.
Service Charge
(example only) 4 ESUs x $3.50 = $14.00 per month
Courts have consistently held that this type of approach toward a
stormwater service charge is reasonable and logical. The key test
is whether the rate methodology relates the service charge with a
measurable factor causing runoff. Impervious surface or other
density of development factors are typically used as the basis for
the rate structure. Locally, Tigard, Cornelius, Corvallis and
Portland are examples of municipalities having stormwater
utilities in place. Clark County, Washington's stormwater utility
was one of the first established in the Northwest and was tested
and upheld in the Washington State Supreme Court as a reasonable
and appropriate application of the County's police powers (Teeter
v. Clark County, 1985). It is expected that within the next five
years stormwater utilities in western Washington and Oregon will
be the rule rather than the exception. ORS 451 does identify
"service or user charges" as an option for financing the
district's construction, operations or maintenance. The statute
goes on to state in 451.500 that such user charges can be applied
to "properties served by the service facilities" and that such
charges must be based on the cost of providing these service
facilities. It should be noted that the term service facilities
is defined as meaning "public service installations, works or
services provided within a county or counties..." Associated with
application of stormwater management service charges is the
development of policies which address the rate philosophy of the
jurisdiction as well as the mechanical constraints/considerations
of developing and maintaining a stormwater billing system.
Property Taxes - The application of ad valorem taxes is also
specifically provided for in the service district statute for
establishment of a revolving fund (ORS 451.540) or as a general
operating tax base (ORS 451.547). The revolving fund levy cannot
VII-7
exceed $.50 per $1,000 of true cash value of taxable property. It
is also important to point out that the ad valorem tax and service
charge approach are not necessarily mutually exclusive funding
mechanisms. Numerous large scale stormwater programs are
supporting capital improvements through a tax base while
maintenance/operations are funded through a service charge.
However, there is some inconsistency in using both mechanisms
since tax exempt properties (schools, churches) would typically
pay the service charge, but be excluded from paying the tax
element. The property tax approach, while administratively
straightforward, is flawed in relation to stormwater because use
or contribution of runoff to the system is not closely correlated
with the value,of the property. It is the increased emphasis on
equity in allocating stormwater costs to those contributors of
runoff to the system that is the basis for moving away from taxes
as the primary revenue source.
B. Financial Evaluation Criteria
In analyzing the funding options presented in this report, it is
important to establish financial evaluation criteria consistent
with the overall goals and objectives of the program. Some
possible criteria are listed below:
o Timing/Ease of Implementation - How long will it take to
implement the option(s) and is it flexible enough for use in
the District's operating and political environment?
o Responsiveness - Will the option(s) be responsive/accountable
to municipalities within the District?
o Start-up Costs - Can the funding option be merged into
existing data bases and accounting systems or will it require
a separate process?
o Equity - Does the option produce an equitable allocation of
stormwater service costs?
o Legal Framework - Is the funding option consistent with
local, state, or federal laws?
o Revenue Capacity - Can the option(s) produce the revenue
necessary to meet the anticipated cost of service?
These criteria are offered-as a starting point from which the
Committee can begin the process of discussing optional approaches
toward funding the District's stormwater management program.
VII-8
VIII. FISCAL ANALYSIS
VIII. FISCAL ANALYSIS
A. Stormwater Funding Overview
The flexibility established in ORS 451 allows for development of
most generally acceptad methods of stormwater finance. While it
is essential that this program develop a funding mix to support
operations, it is also true that the elements of this mix will be
designed and implemented over time. The key at this stage of the
program's evolution is to establish the form of the primary
revenue source while assuring that funding flexibility is
preserved for future program needs. While financing techniques
such as developer charges, plan review fees and grants/loans can
serve to offset new facility or direct service costs, they cannot
provide the revenue stream necessary to support a full-time,
comprehensive stormwater management program. There-are two
options for primary revenue source: (1) ad valorem/property
taxes, and (2) stormwater utility service charges.
B. Criteria for Evaluation
The following information generally compares the primary revenue
sources on the basis of 3 specific criteria:
Equity The optimal approach for funding any infrastructure program is to
allocate the cost of service/facilities based on levels of use.
The stronger the correlation between use of the system and
individual level of payment, the greater the equity of the cost
allocation methodology. Jurisdictions employing stormwater
service charges (based on a measure of impervious surface for an
individual property) have done so because, as a public utility,
there must be a relationship between stormwater rates and use of
the stormwater system.
Where a stormwater rate has the advantage of relating level of
payment to a known contributing factor such as impervious surface,
the ad valorem approach bases the cost allocation logic on the
cash value of the property. In relation to equity, the stormwater
service charge is generally considered to be a fairer method of
allocating stormwater costs than the true and fair market value of
a property.
Cost of Given the fact that U.S.A. has a sanitary sewer billing system in
Imple- place, some economies of scale can be realized if a stormwater
menting service charge were to be added. This assumes that U.S.A. will
continue its current practice of billing some accounts annually
(through tax statements) and others through municipal billing
VIII-1
systems. However, these economies will not include the cost of
developing an impervious surface related data base for stormwater
billing. Conversely, the ad valorem tax method would offer a more
timely implementation process and at a lesser cost because the
mechanism is established and requires only the levy rate in order
to implement.
Flexi- As the stormwater program develops, the need to adjust the funding
bility/ plan to meet identified needs will be critical. The service
Revenue charge can be adjusted to meet these requirements and the rate
Capacity structure altered to most equitably allocate cost. As an example,
some programs have involved stormwater rate structures that
consider the unique maintenance and capital requirements for each
basin. Property taxes will not provide this kind of flexibility.
Another disadvantage of the ad valorem approach as it relates to
non-single family residential revenue is that tax exempt
properties would not be required to pay where under a service
charge approach they would be part of the customer base.
While the implementation costs of an ad valorem supported
stormwater program would be less than the service charge approach,
it is significantly less equitable and cannot provide the
financial flexibility necessary to sustain a full time stormwater
quantity and quality program. The service charge approach is the
optimal direction if stormwater services are to be viewed as a
utility and if the Committee desires to allocate costs based on
contribution of runoff to the stormwater system.
' Therefore, based on equity, flexibility and overall revenue
capacity, the stormwater service charge was endorsed by the
Stormwater Steering Committee as the primary revenue source. The
Committee also determined that secondary funding sources be
evaluated to further refine the equity of the revenue base.
C. Estimated Program Costs and Primary Revenue Source Analysis
Revenue requirements for the stormwater program have been prepared
which estimated an initial annual program cost of $5.36 million
dollars. Chapter IV (and Appendix A) presents a detailed analysis
of the maintenance requirements for the service area and the
estimated costs for the other functional elements making up the
overall stormwater management program. Estimated costs for the
program elements are summarized below:
o Maintenance $3,521,400
o Watershed Program $357,382
o Engineering $504,985
o Public Information $62,090
o Administration $300,000
o Financial Management $401,620
o Indirect Allocation & Legal Support $215,000
VIII-2
The maintenance cost component of this analysis included a
detailed evaluation of 22 individual field activities and
developed cost projections based on crew requirements, service
levels and equipment needs. The intent is to establish an "order
of magnitude" estimate of likely maintenance program requirements.
It is expected that these estimates will be refined and adjusted
to accommodate local factors as the final program is developed.
The costs for the remaining functional areas identified above were
developed based on a best estimate of likely program priorities
and staffing/equipment/outside service requirements. The Steering
Committee directed that the i-nitial program focus be on non-
structural approaches. Accordingly, the initial revenue
requirements do not include a capital improvement program.
A projection of revenue from a stormwater service charge was
prepared based on an update of land use data contained in the 1985
Drainage Master Plan. The land use classifications were
individually evaluated in terms of the equivalent service units
(ESU) each classification represented. An equivalent service unit
is estimated to be 3,000 square feet of impervious area. This
factor will be refined through statistical analysis of single
family residential properties within the service area as the final
rate structure is prepared. The following table illustrates the
results of the impervious area estimate:
Land Use Designation Total Acres Runoff Factor Imperv.*Acres
Residential 18,137 .23 acres/lot 78,856(ESU)
Commercial 1,694 60% 1,016
Industrial 2,884 60% 1,730
Public 3,429 30% 11028
Multi-Family 2,004 50% 1,002
Agriculture 476 10% 48
Transportation 7,581
Open Space 1,730
Undeveloped 31,725
TOTAL ACRES 69,660
* For purposes of estimating revenue, these areas
are not part of the stormwater customer base
After incorporating a 7.5% reduction to accommodate land use
conversion error and a conservative estimate, the total number of
equivalent service units is forecast to be 137,733 which results
in the following revenue profile:
ANNUAL REVENUE
$3.001rd 53.35/mo $3.75/mo
137,733 $4,958,388 $5,536,866 $6,197,985
VIII-3
Based on the number of estimated ESU's and an estimated program
cost of $5,362,477 for initial operations, a rate of $3.24 per ESU
would be required. However, unlike rate setting for existing
sanitary or water utilities which is often a mathematical process,
establishing an initial rate for a new stormwater program must
balance program needs with the public's understanding of the
problems and willingness to pay for solutions. The Project Team's
experience with stormwater rates is that a when an initial service
charge of $3.00 per ESU per month is exceeded, the level of
resistance to that rate escalates. Therefore, it is believed that
initial program costs should be reduced to match the revenue from
a rate of $3.00 per ESU per month. The following examples
illustrate how this service charge would impact specific
properties:
Property Description Monthly Charge Yearly Charge
Single Family Home (flat rate) $3.00 $36.00
Apartment with 25,000
square feet of impervious $24.00 $288.00
Store with 1 acre impervious $45.00 $540.00
Given existing information regarding stormwater program costs, the
rate for each equivalent service unit has been calculated at $3.24
per month. However, based on considerations of public awareness
and willingness to pay, it is recommended that initial program
costs be reduced and a rate of $3.00 per ESU be used for program
formation and initial forecasting. It is expected that this rate
will be refined as the program moves into the implementation
planning phase.
VIII-4
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH BOUNDARY COMaIISSION POLICY
R
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH BOUNDARY COMMISSION POLICY
A. Criteria
The Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary
Commission is charged with the responsibility to critically assess
whether changes to existing service delivery boundaries are
warranted and consistent with local comprehensive planning. More
specifically, the Commission employs specific criteria for
assessing whether a boundary commission change is truly warranted
and in the public interest. These criteria, along with a summary
of how the regional stormwater management program addresses these
criteria, are discussed below:
o Fragmentation How does the proposed district relate to the
Commission's concern regarding fragmentation and
layering of public service delivery?
A regional approach toward stormwater management in the urbanized
areas of Washington County is necessary to stem the current
fragmentation of stormwater roles and responsibilities within the
Tualatin River sub-basin. The basic premise of this feasibility
analysis is that coordination and consistency among the urban
jurisdictions regarding stormwater regulations, design criteria,
development review and maintenance are essential to effectively
manage quantity and quality issues. The stormwater system within
the proposed service area must be treated as an interrelated
network requiring a coordinated and regional focus. At the same
time, the integral role of the cities in managing their own system
is maintained through the interlocal agreements which codify
system responsibilities. Lacking a regional authority, the
current piecemeal approach toward stormwater management will
escalate and opportunities to cost effectively respond to non-
point source mandates and drainage system problems will be lost.
o Ripple Does this formation have impacts on other
Effects governmental jurisdictions?
Clearly, a regional stormwater authority will impact the
stormwater operations of the urban area jurisdictions. However,
it is believed that these impacts will be positive in promoting.a
comprehensive and coordinated approach toward sto.~mater
management. It is also important to reiterate that the affected
jurisdictions have been an integral part of developing the
structure for this regional program. Their interest in seeing
this program succeed is based on the fact that efficiencies can be
realized through:
IX-1
o regional management of non-point source issues,
o better control of stormwater flows between jurisdictions,
o identifying and exploiting opportunities for siting regional
stormwater facilities in undeveloped portions of the service
area, and
o consistency in stormwater regulations, design criteria and
development review.
These provisions and other implementation issues will be
documented in interlocal agreements with each of the
jurisdictions. These agreements are designed to detail the
impacts, roles and responsibilities for stormwater management in
order to assure a clear understanding of each jurisdiction's role
in the regional program.
o Structure Is the proposed structure for delivering
and regional stormwater services the best available,
Timing and is the timing for implementation appropriate?
The structure selected for the regional stormwater management
authority provides the most cost effective option available for
service delivery. As an expansion of U.S.A's present sanitary
sewer authority, the stormwater program can utilize the
administrative support and field service systems already in place.
The public concern regarding creation of "another layer of
bureaucracy" is also addressed through this expanded authority.
U.S.A.'s current point source pollution control responsibilities
can and should be extended to include non-point source
responsibilities in order to consolidate responsibility for
overall Tualatin River water pollution management within the
U.G.B. Perhaps most important is the fact that U.S.A. has a
proven track record as an effective sanitary service provider with
the jurisdictions. This credibility has been and will continue to
be the cornerstone for development of the regional stormwater
program.
Timing for implementation of this program is of the essence. As
urbanization continues opportunities to set aside undeveloped
areas for regional stormwater storage are lost. This results in
siting facilities in less advantageous locations or buying
developed properties at a much higher cost. In terms of non-point
source management planning, it is essential that institutional and
financial elements of the plan be well down the road toward
implementation by the submittal date for the DEQ Non-point Source
Management Plan (March 1990). As specified in their guidelines
for plan development, two key components for compliance focus on
(1) the authority for the program, and (2) how it will be
financed. Failing the establishment of a regional authority, each
IX-2
i
i
jurisdiction would be required to develop their own plan which
would further fragment non-point source management and decrease
" the efficiency/effectiveness of a compliance strategy that must
ultimately consider the entire urbanized area. A regional
authority to manage implementation of this strategy is essential.
o Logical Does expansion of U.S.A.'s authority to include
Extension stormwater management make sense, and is the
proposed service area boundary the best available?
The proposed extension of U.S.A.'s authority to include stormwater
management is a logical extension of its existing sanitary sewer
authority. Both services involve the collection and treatment of
wastewater. In both cases, this wastewater is returned to
receiving waters. While the conveyances for sanitary and
stormwater differ significantly, there are many similarities
regarding collection system engineering, regulation and field
operations. As point and non-point source pollution control
become more interconnected, so grows the national trend toward
combining sanitary and stormwater responsibilities. For example,
the city of Seattle's wastewater utility now includes both
systems, which are supported by individual service charges. The
Metropolitan Sewer District of Louisville/Jefferson County,
Kentucky has the largest sanitary/stormwater utility supported by
individual service charges. In both cases, exhaustive studies
were undertaken to evaluate the best structural fit for an
emphasized and comprehensive stormwater program. These analyses
reached the same conclusion as the Stormwater Steering Committee,
that incorporating the stormwater program with a regional sanitary
sewer service provider operation was the most logical, timely and
cost-effective approach.
The fact that the U.S.A. boundary closely coincides with the urban
growth boundary will enable the stormwater program to focus on the
areas most prone to water quantity and quality problems. These
presently developed and urbanizing areas are a primary concern in
the overall management of non-point source pollution. It is
expected that U.S.A. will be in a position to effectively
coordinate the urban area non-point source program with those of
the agricultural (Soil Conservation Service) and silvaculture
(Forestry Department) designated management authorities.
o Impact on Individuals How does the financing plan
and Businesses economically impact residents and
businesses within the service area
boundary?
The financial logic supporting the stormwater utility approach is
to base rates on contribution of runoff to the system. Again,
this rate methodology is consistent with the volume basis for
sanitary service charges. Under the proposed stormwater rate
IX-3
structure, all, or distinct classes of, single family residences
within the service area would be treated as one equivalent service
unit (ESU). A single equivalent service unit would pay
approximately $3.00 per month for stormwater services. Non-single
family properties would pay a multiple of this equivalent service
unit primarily based on the measured amount of impervious surface
(rooflines, paved areas) within the property boundary. Assuming
an equivalent service unit equaled 3,000 square feet of impervious
area and the monthly rate was $3.00, the non single family
property would know exactly what their monthly service charge
would be. For example, a fast food business with 65,340 square
feet of impervious area (1.5 acres) would be responsible for 22
equivalent service units (65,340 / 3,000). These twenty-two
equivalent service units are then multiplied by the base rate of
$3.00 to determine the monthly service charge of $66.00.
This rate methodology is similar to the structures presently used
for stormwater utilities in Portland, Corvallis, Tigard,
Cornelius, Lake Oswego, and Eugene, Oregon, and Tacoma, Seattle,
Bellevue, and Clark County, Washington.
B. Conclusion
Based on the Boundary Commission criteria discussed above, the
Project Team and partner cities feel that a U.S.A.-managed
regional stormwater authority within the present sanitary sewer
service area is a management approach whose time has come.
Expansion of U.S.A.'s current authority is the optimal approach
because it:
o exploits U.S.A.'s sound track record of service delivery to
the partner cities;
_o recognizes that drainages within the service area are
interconnected and that regional coordination of stormwater
activities is necessary and cost effective;
o utilizes existing administrative support and field service
delivery system;
o expands existing authority rather than creating another
"layer of government";
o is a logical extension of the technical disciplines necessary
to operate and manage wastewater collection;
o consolidates stormwater roles and responsibilities into a
comprehensive regional program; and
o will enable a single agency within the U.G.B. to manage both
point and non-point source pollution affecting the Tualatin
River.
IX-4
X. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
X. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The original stormwater program development schedule extended over
an 18 month timeframe. The need to accelerate this schedule was
identified in early November 1988 to coordinate the timing for
development of the program with the non-point source management
plan deadlines established by DEQ. The Stormwater Steering
Committee was presented with a number of options during its
November 1988 meeting and selected "Option 2" as the accelerated
project schedule. Exhibit 5 illustrates this schedule.
A major impetus behind this schedule revision was the fact that
the DEQ management plan is due in March of 1990. In addition to
the control strategies for non-point source pollution required as
part of this plan, the DEQ guidelines highlight the need for
establishing an institutional and financing structure. Both of
these elements are also essential to the Boundary Commission
submittal. There is general acceptance among the County,
municipalities, U.S.A. and DEQ that a regional (urbanized area)
strategy for non-point source management is a more effective and
preferred approach over each jurisdiction submitting an individual
management plan. However, without establishing the authority for
the regional program through the Boundary Commission process, the
C foundation for the approach is removed. It is therefore essential
that the regional stormwater authority be established prior to the
DEQ management plan in order to assure that the program and
financing structure is viable.
X-1
APPENDICES
A. Exhibits
1. Current Conditions - Storm Drainage Maintenance
2. Planned Crew Configurations and Performance Standards
3. Drainage Maintenance Worksheet
4. Funding Options Matrix
5. Accelerated Program Schedule
AIMS
INIF1E1 KKRNIE RAW aaaa=
pM1E11T CMIDITION BIWA 011((41161 MINTENNIM
Imtn February 2, INT ..am=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Fileaau: USACONDLaki
tl I1- - MINTER M[E LEVEL( - ---)t< PLNMIIN STATUS N Store t
tt System I Tabulated I 1 Egdt-t I I Preventive I Aster I Latest I Plat C.I.P. I Current I Drainage I
7t iniclin 1 1 Mapping 1 Inventory 1 Itaffitl I Muds 1 Budgets I Activities I Flat I Update 1 lepluettatioo t C.I.F. 1 Avenues 1 C O M M E N T S I F O O T N O T E S
aaaaaaaaaf iam.a.iaaaaa,{aaaa.,{a.aaaa ia..,ml.aaaaa.af aaaa.;aa..a.{avaaaaaa .aa.={.aaaaaaj.era.aa.aaaaaas............aa...........
If t !Js emstly 1 swpe►) 1 I t petite 1 I yes{ I I l11 City F.
to coplett individual basic muter plats in
Deaverten 11 yes 1 sou t atom I buhhoe 1 12271( I very littls I full. 1 1911 1 am sub you t ra►liag 1 cone I near future for Seaverton Crook Basin and Fanno Creek Basic.
it t I related I u/ mate. leaistial I Ipla lit llp.f.p.) ! Myr. list! : (Beaverton Crank lisle drains to Rock Crak.1
-i! --l- I---------- 1------- t------------- i-------
:5: fcr at If 1 ditch-br.cat ! public :Seri. charge !
Cornelius It yn t so • :city-wide 1 flesh I $25K I pipes-none 1 full. t 1987 1 - I no s17.5K 1 121 City does not have public corks ee,artsent, staff or equip-
III I ' t saint. I track Wistfsl t fall Pill lpla U► f(p.f.p.l I I :(0.501ESUlsolI seat. Contracts (C) with lout contractors to in required
_ -_tl- - --I--___-1-____! - t------- t-----°1----» 1»-------1-------1 ! maintenance work on •u-needed' basis (@.I.-eaargucin costly)
11 1 I I 1 1 t I I I I I
Dohan It To 1 so 1 (2) 1 121 1 121 1 very little I Van I IM 1 moue I Tax 1 Done
II t i I i 1 (2) 1 t 1 1 1 1 (3) A topographic mapping exists and accuracy of mapped S.D.
_ °-tl----I- - 1---1 ^---t - --t---------- 1°----- I---- ----I-------I-------- *Insists Is unknown. Foil sydu analysis has not been done.
it i !7a for all[ t I leaf Pig i I I
Font Steve if yen I a lcity-wide I vuua I S20K 1 CI cleating I yes 1 1975 t l ono I none t
It I I "lat. I truck Imaistiel (pipe fleabite I I I I 1 f 111 City currently working an S.D. mapping - 6 to 12 ons. III
coplote.
If 1 t I ditch 1 I I I I I I
Nillsterm 11 yet t yea t - 1 saint. I SM I very little [ yen I Ito 1 mode f yes leevolp. Fees)
11 I 1 1 type laistial I I I 1 I t 127K 1 lit Daskimgtom Co. program has to major components:
11 I 1 1 1 1 1 I ton bold lading I M Co. is ceder 'contract' to maintain 150 misting
Kip City It In I In 121 I (2) 1 121 t very little I yes t IM Iusk-vm ranlte,l yes I moat LIDt; there are 177 others which have dot been formed
It 1 f 1 1 1 121 1 I flock ad". fonds{ I but are planned to he forced is the (near?) future.
i -_--I ------t -I-°-l- --I i i
it 1 141 for all) 1 1171 t ditcMr.cat I I 1 lyaf but I t b) Co. also maintains drainage facilities within the
><twow 11 yes 1 a Ickty-oide I - Iaistingltpipe flusbiel I yn 1 19111 1701#1- complatedta recattOevelp. fees! Co. RIO except for city and state roads.
11 1 1 "let. 1 1 s2K now I leaf Pill 1 1 1701#1- focompl. I update 1 $159 1
it t only t Oa for I ditch 1 Witch cleaniall I I very little, t yes; I SC-4410K I (I) Presently not participating is regional approach.
Tigard It soon 1 color I sanitary I saint. 1 - Iheav. du ran.) yes f 1981 IS areas of city I yearly Ift.501ESUlall
11 (91 Ifullitin I S store t type 1 I leaf Fla I lpt east avails: list Ivan.- $100K 1
---11 -1------1- ---^i'^- -^I - -1-- -----1---t ---I---- -t - -i-----------1 (7) City consultant unavailable to provide information.
11 1 1 7s seal- 1 oftck t put of I 1 1 Sorbs rem. area leaf only !
Tualatin ll In I ea 1 regular I Diet. I strait Mr. sweep Wit yon 1 1975 tabout 907 copl.lis airmail Div. fees
It I Ifo store 1 type I fund i leaf Pill I I tether arans-foo : CIP . I4OK 1 (8) Co. has master plans for a 'Prototype' Basin (portion of
I Risk Crook lasidl and Ash Creek Basin (portion of Fanoo Creek
If t 1 1 I ditch,pips, t I i :LIBs-variable: Basin). A Co. Drainage Master Plea war done in to phases
Askialtoo 11 In I am 1 ism Llls I some I1129K Lilt street A CB ! (1) t 1982 I I mate 1 am# I assessunts 1 is 1982 ad 1985.
County 151 11 1 arias 1 51 Rik lasticipatedls 7 Ilk I cleafsl 1 1 I995 1 1 1 RIB-gas tax I
aura..era=our.{{aaaa,lma,.a.l:==:era.=paura..a{.aaaa{.era.:.o.ayaa..a.{.a......:.=.=a..:a... - .....:a.
it I I 1 t
We 161 It so I a I 121 1 121 t 121 not t no i no none
It ! t f i 1 121 I i t t
_11---t---- t----1- I ____i ---I - - _i- --------l--------
!i t I 1 1 ► [ i i t t M
Boston 111 If yon t so 1 121 t l - Istr. stamping 1 yes 1 1986 1 none t S Boar ! >e
11 1 1 1 1 1 CI clemout 1 t I I S
--t i------1--'---5----i--------i-----:------- -----i--------- : 1------ 1------- 1---------
li I l 1 t 1 I 1 1 I 1 i
Artk Plaits 171 - i - I S t - t - t - c+
S I I 2 t t I t a-+
!
----------------::-------1- - ----------i----- ! - - i---------I--------- :---------c-------------
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PLANNED CRLV CONFIGURATIONS & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance Standard /
Activity Crew Configuration Recommended Frequency
1. Clean Catch Basin 1 Maintenance Worker 1 40 per day
1 Maintenance Worker III 1.25 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
,y
2. Clean Inlets and 1 Maintenance Worker 1 15 per day
Sumps 1 Maintenance Worker III 1.00 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
1 Dump Truck
3. Detention Basins 2 Maintenance Workers I 4 per day
- Underground Cleaning 1 Maintenance Worker II 0.50 x per year
1 Maintenance Worker III
1 Vacuum Truck
1 Pickup
4. Detention Basins 2 Maintenance Workers I 2 per day
- Vegetation Control 1 Pickup 1.50 x per year
S. Detention Basins 2 Maintenance Workers I 2 per day
- Remove Sedimentation 1 Maintenance Worker II 0.50 x per year
1 Dump Truck
1 Loader
6. Clean Oil Separators 1 Maintenance Worker I 10 per day
1 Pickup 1.00 x per year
7. Clean Outfal1s 1 Maintenance Worker II 5 per day
1 Maintenance Worker III 1.50 x per year
1 Backhoe
1 Dump Truck
8. Inspect/Check Pump- 1 Maintenance Worker I 3 per day
stations 1 Pickup 12.0 x per year
9. Annual Maintenance 1 Maintenance Worker I 1 per day
of Pumpstations 1 Maintenance Worker III 1.00 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
10. Roadside Ditches 1 Maintenance Worker III 10,000 L.F. per day
- Vegetation Control 1 Mower 1.00 x per year
11. Roadside Ditches 1 Maintenance Worker II 2,000 L.F. per day
- Clean, reshape, and 1 Maintenance Worker III 0.33 x per year
remove sedimentation 1 Backhoe
1 Dump Truck
Exhibit 2 Page 1 February 2 1989
PI NNF CREW CONFIGURATIONS & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (cont'd )
Performance Standard /
Activity Crew Configuration Recommended Freguency
12. Open Channels / Creeks 1 Maintenance Worker III 3,000 L.F. per day
- Vegetation Control 1 Mower 3.00 x per year
13. Open Channels / Creeks 2 Maintenance Workers II 1,500 L.F. per day
- Clean, reshape, and 1 Maintenance Worker III 1.00 x per year
remove sedimentation 1 Backhoe
1 Dump Truck
14. Clean/Flush Culverts 1 Maintenance Worker I 10 per day
- under 18" 1 Maintenance Worker III 0.50 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
15. Clean/Flush Culverts 1 Maintenance Worker 1 10 per day
- 18" and larger 1 Maintenance Worker III 0.50 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
16. Clean Pipe 1 Maintenance Worker I 2,500 L.F. per day
- under 18" 1 Maintenance Worker III 0.25 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
AV'
17. Clean Pipe 1 Maintenance Worker I 1,500 L.F. per.day
- 18" and larger 1 Maintenance Worker III 0.33 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
18. Inspection with T.V. 1 Maintenance Worker I 5,000 L.F. per day
1 Maintenance Worker III 0.10 x per year
1 Vacuum Truck
1 . Pi ckup
1 T.V. Truck & Crew
19. Repair, replace 1 Maintenance Worker I 2 per day
Catch Basin 1 Maintenance Worker II 1.00 x per year
1 Maintenance Worker III
1 Backhoe
1 Pickup
1 Dump Truck
20. Repair, replace I Maintenance Worker I 1 per day
Manholes 1 Maintenance Worker II 1.00 x per year
1 Maintenance Worker III
1 Backhoe
1 Pickup
1 Dump Truck
21. Street Sweeping 1 Pickup 60,000 L.F. per day
I Sweeper Truck 6.00 x per year
Exhibit 2 Page 2 February 2, 1989
INS
4~
hi41FLE6 iihe W i6EHCY
KAINA6E MAlIfENAIICE YOAKlRIEET
later February 2, ifii Filwawr USAMINC4.ukl
I a Gy Mar Quality Elueots I labor lequirnwts Anaual Via-Bays f r a) I a I a a r y C a s t E a t t a a t e a
It 1 11 Annual
HIS N6lateuue Usits to be Aecoaewd perfrsuce II Naint. Equip. I Wiot. Equip. II Marken igaraton Equip. k Cost 1 of F.T.E. Itw
b. Gtgery IWetaiaed Frequency Standard 11 Mar Operator : Harker Operator II $1251day 01601day Mils 11001 Totals Progras Reqat. No.
w - ° it I - - - - - - - -
• i! l !I
k a Uaaa Eatch Was 32,000 EA 12311111 40 EA1M 11 2 i ! 2,000 1,000 it 4250,000 ii60,000 0410,000 1820,000 23.71 12.0 1
2 a am Islets i lays 1,50011 1011Y8 15 ER/M 11 2 2 I 200 200 11 123,000 132,000 151,000 1111,000 3.31 1.6 2
3 e Clan 1/0 Out. Autos 200 EA 30VIR 4 EA/M 11 5 k 1 125 25 II 115,600 ii,60v ili,60 139,200 1.11 0.6 3
4 e Clan Out. Iasias - Val. 230 EA 150118 2 EA/M 1! 3 0 1 563 0 1i 170,300 f0 170,300 1140,600 4.11 2.3 4
5 a Cleo let. kilns - Bad. 50 EA 3011118 2 EA/M I I 3 i I 50 33 it $6,300 i3,360 i11,60 123,200 0.71 0.3 5
i a Um Ill syarstrs 10 EA 1003118 10 MINI II 2 0 1 2 1 It 1300 40 1300 1600 0.01 0.0 6
7 Clear Cattails 330 EA 1501/'M 5 ENIA 11 2 2 1 210 210 It 026,300 133,606 459,900 1119,100 3.51 1.7 1
1 Isyect/Quck Puy Eta. 3 EA 120VIR 3 EUM 2 0 ! 40 0 i 15,000 10 15,000 110,000 0.31 0.2 1
9 IMintai■ Puy Stations 5 EA 101/YR I EA/IA 11 2 r 10 5 it 11,300 im 12,100 14,200 0.11 0.1 9
W ioadskds hisses - Val. 956,000 LF IwiirR 10,000 LF/M i! 1 1 t 95 % I1 111,900 415,200 $27,100 154,200 1.61 0.8 10
11 Roadside Nissan - laskape 1,250,000 LF SWU 2,600 LF/ii !1 2 2 1 413 413 11 $51,600 166,000 1117,800 1235,200 6.81 3.3 11
12 OF" Channels - Val. 10,000 LF 3001/YR 3,000 LF1M I t 1 1 1 10 10 I! 110,000 112,800 122,100 115,600 1.31 0.8 12
13 %aan Channels - &skaps 400,000 LF 101ITR 1,500 LF/OA It 3 2 1 100 533 11 110,000 ia.360 /165,30 1370,600 10.11 5.3 I3
14 Cleu/Flask Culverts 1014 2i500 EA 5011U 10 EA/0 1! 2 1 1 250 125 11 $31,300 120,000 151,300 $102,600 3.01 1.5 14
13 maulFluek Culverts !11`61 1,000 EA 5011VI 10 EA/OA It 2 1 1 t0 50 11 112,500 41,000 $20,500 141,000 1.21 0.6 15
16 Clear Floe fili`i 3,3x),000 LF 251/7! 2,500 LFIM 11 2 1 1 676 331 11 181,500 454,100 1138,600 1277,200 1.01 4.1 16
17 men pips (ll`.) 1,270,000 LF 3311YA 1,500 LF/M 11 2 1 1 559 219 11 169,930 144,700 1114,600 4229,200 6.61 3.4 I)
18 layactiou aiik T.V. 251,000 LF MITI 5,000 LF/M It 3 2 1 15 10 II 11,900 $I,ioo 13,500 17,000 0.21 0.1 to
It iyair/iyiacs CAtck kiln l50 EA 1001/T1 2 EAIM it 3 3 1 225 225 It i2i,106 136,000 464,100 1121,200 3.71 1.6 19
20 Repairiiapisce dukales 20 EA 1001111 l EAIM 11 4 2 1 10 40 it 110,000 16,400 116,400 132,800 0.91 0.5 20
21 a strut 6wyt4j 1,50,000 LF 60011YA 40000 LF/M 11 I 1 1 750 750 11 113,100 ii20,666 iw,80 1127,600 12.n 6.0 21
22 Boo-bckodukod Wtstewce It 7.5 1 of Ilene 1 - 21i it 1 543 331 it 161,900 1152,90 1120,10 1241,60 7.01 3.5 22
6 U 1- T I T A L i A L L I A I N T E N A N C E C A T E i 1 A I E 6 7,715 Q42 _1973,50 $758,100 $1,732,20 $3,461,40 10.01 50.1
OTHER AETIVITIE6t
idsiaistratlni5yervistw • 5.42 1173,20 4.0
Eurleacy 1140011 . 2.51 186,60 1.5
Huard Hitklatin . 2.51 186,60 1.5
T01iLr i L L HAIiIEHiII CE C A I E 6 9 R I E 5 13,810,80 57.1
F i 5 i i ) 0 i i i i M iE fill F6i 8r i640 ki SUM FUNDS I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1289,40) -4.1 m
X
J.
Q
I6ThL STOkMNATER MAINTENANCE REVENUE NEEDS ) > > > > ) i ) i ! > ) : i i ) : : > ))63,521,400 53.0
r+
W
WIF1ED SEIEBd6E AGENCY SUMRABy UATAIS OF SIBRiWAIER MOMS UPIIdwS
Fuediog options locOmical kwamdaa ..:a.:s:..a::a..:a:.aaaaa..a.....:a:a.ra:
lip
Probability
byte" Application Ramer Pro and Can of
6aerce CIP a" Piaui" Capacity Use Characteristics taplexentat:aa
- -
1. Grants I Lout I YES YO YES I Subject to limits Grant foods uy be available for iofrastructure Federal or State pants and loans will require a comeitust from : La.
I t specified is pant construction iecludiag storsuater tysteas. the grantee of staff time and arterials regarding monitoring i
t gaidelimn{ also a Loans say be used for flood prevention, draioage, and accounting far expenditures. Staraaater iaprevetents have
function of federal later quality unagemeat and public information. historically been a lam priority fcr such griefs. Usually these
1 mad slate appropriations type of grants case is the fora of a perceacrge catching forest.
I Thart it very limited opportuaity for on-going and
I I predictable access to state and/or federal greats.
uunrnanuaasaz.. rupee. ...a......... pram........ sunsava.aaaaa.zsa...aa.au......... pas.:mz.a=zzsaa:r.zr_nszr::x:xzzrnz:s::rrszz:az:::_z....::=:z_............
:zsz:zzzeezz
t
it. Debt t
general Obligation load 1 YES NO YES I Subject to the debt loads for which the full faith and credit of the Requires voter approval. Ray create cited to raise tares. feasible
I : capacity of the District issuing jurisdiction act pledged. The bonds are Credit analysis is ceples. Subject to debt coiling. I
secured by in ncuditional pledge of the issuer It paid by property taxes, cost of facilities may not be paid for 1
I to levy the taxes required to retire the bonds. by those actually benefiting. Interest rates are generally the
lowest available. Aare marketable due to higher security. OIR
I I annual costs mould aced to cast from son other source.
Rev"" lords 1 YES YES YES I Limited to debt lad goods whose principal and interest ue 6entrally higher interest costs. Bonds usually contain restrictive: Feasible
1 coverage requireenti{ payable enlesively free eirsiogs of covenants which affect their uselapplication.
1 I ability to increase the utilitylenterprist food. USA Counsel has faced that under ORS 151 a revenue
1 1 rates to cover debt bond election is not required. Proceeds of revenue bonds can
I service be used to fund 'service facility' related costs.
s..:+m..a..stns.:na.ssar...msa.a.ass.ameaasaaaaa.ampszee:avxr:asassua.us~ee~s.ezzau:asszz.azapas::r:zze:szss::::zzzse:::::zz::a::sa::::a::sazz:::::z zazzz
Ill. Fen I
I 1
lovinllespectia Fen t 10 BD YES I lased a the cost of Fen paid for reviam of plans and permit Fee lay be based an revisor requirements. Inspections lay be Very San!
t 1 the public services administration. based am actual costs. Detailed accounting lay be necessary
1 provided. for accurate cost recovery.
la-lieu-of Fns I YE$ 10 YES I Based as the storage re- fees paid by developers as a condition Preserve dam development's front end financial participation Very Good
1 quiremnti for the prep- of property davelopment{ complements a while enhancing the District's ability to build regional detention:
: arty{ the fee is a t of regional detention strategy. systems. this approach requires up-froat seed monies
I capacity or on-site cost. to establish the fee-in-lino fund.
System levtfopumt pen I YES SO YES 1 Based me capital ChArgas through which future development shares Offers a means for sore equitable balancing of facility casts Vtry Send
I costs pad benefits. in costs of system built today. balance current and future development.
arsssa:z.zrxas..n............ pas:..z.-:z...:..aa........aaaa.ae.naz:z:asee...... z.....sass:eaa:maazmz::es:s:zr:r
IV. Improvement Districts : YES YES YES Istepayers are assassin A levy side against certain Restricted to capital improvements and GR costs;
S I based on levels of properties to defray put or all at the Ray not be consistent with comprehensive s:cr a.ater :currrtly in ry I
Special Assessuots : benefit received cost of an improvement or service planning. Quantifying benefit to specific properties use by the ?
deemed to primarily beaefit is often difficult in relation to storawater fac:::t:es or Chanty)
: specific properties. esiattnance services. ;
.......:......sass:errs~aa:r..:eservz.ez:z.......arsr_::ra:nee:rrz:::aszr:::::r:erz::asrecce.e:zrzxz.::zazx:r------------:veeaec:e:z:r:::m:e:::::::::....r_e:::z::::____:ex.°._._a.z..... °_'•_._.z....ee.'="
r'*
b
WIFIEB MUM AIEKY SWMWY MAIgI OF 31=010 UMiN OPTIMS list.)
Funding 91tiees Tacbaical Maeradas ..a..ws.ww.....awwww........nnw........
1159
Probability
ksvaue ipplrutia Mevaa Pro and Can of
Bnerxe CT' an planning Capacity the Characteristics Ipleerntation
- - -
9. fiaual operating i YES YES YES I Based a budget limits Can be applied to all operating (imoeral fend allows expenditure flexibility. lacreasieg t tcurrcatly in I
Fuld t I and storewter's relative requirements of the program pressure on general operating fund fro a graving anchor of I use by the 1
1 1 priority special and social service prograss lacking alternative County)
1 1 rental sources.
wnw(agwnwnwuitataimow~a(saaaansssas:xxs............ z:.saw:[:a(a...wasa.a:Lawsz......asaazascxsxaazsa:wx:..s::aaxrzawaaswswzssw:actsaa:a:a:sx:a::::a::c:rx::---Zen::aaz ~zasaz:av--:xxraa:evaa
111. Stammer Utility Charge: YES YES YES I Subject to fees paid by residatsloeners an a per parcel Promotes equity wad is similar Very hood
1 I ratparmr llelt$ ad basis which relates the service charge amoant to administration to water and inner charges.
I 1 deacestratd program with in iapervioas surface factor. Service ckarga can support planning, design, maiateaance mod
t I weds capital fproveseat activities. Process his ban upkeld in 1
i I Saprese Court (Teter v Clark Co, It 1903). Exaples of
t local operating storeeater utilities include Portland,
t i tareslius, Tigard, Eugene and Corvallis.
tlwasw[tat..aswnwww..wanwawwawsnwtsa.w(a.caw.cww.am(wwn.wen.w[t(..wt.z:sztzaaa:zwa:zz::(azzseazawawww.arw:zwaa:r.::mz:za :a:zx.:ss:nassr_(sw::rasc_z
I 2 i
1111. Ad 0alermmitraparty In 1 YES YES YES 1 011 131 limit of 1.30 Ike ad valorem tax use established in BAS 171 Viable source of said monies to establish special projects 1 finned
I I per $1000 cast valuel as a liaited deratia 13 years) source of ream revolving fade revenue capacity roughly the wen as service i
t I tax sunset within 3 pars for supporting specific projects ad servicesl charge approach for single fesily propertlesl tax except nap-
s 1 revolving fad structure. single foully proportion would oat pay under ad valarts approach.
tl.w(want((...ann...ta ...(nw(a.awnawwnw... at.mow..n..w...aw(n...w aw:............ .a.want[......w.[........((w............z...... :tan......... --..:z-a:..
m
X
S
J.
)T
J•
C+
N
~'101'i ~ ~rri~a~n
-1;~a0 ~nd~ry
daq
Bcara
mission ~Y~e►~
~ Cc
Bounda~
~~y Gornmissior► Near'►r~
~ Nearing
6oa~rd ~
Ordr Meeded
a
~ Elegy ~
~10011
C140(042rect f 417
Cc,4-~) Cc_)(.k~n Ci
3/13/ r
ADDENDA FOR THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
"SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBANIZED
AREA OF WASHINGTON COUNTY"
The following additions and clarifications will be included in the final
feasibility report submitted to the Boundary Review Commission in April. These
addenda were identified during the Steering, Intergovernmental and Citizen's
Committee meetings in February.
o Add to Chapter I -,Introduction
Three primary tasks are being accomplished through the regional surface
water management planning process. These are:
00 Establish an urban area surface water authority;
00 Prepare a Non-Point Source Management Plan for the urban area:
00 Develop an on-going program for managing urban area stormwater quality
and quantity
These tasks are supported by eleven specific program objectives developed
through the public involvement process and described in a later section of
this feasibility analysis.
o Add to Chapter IV - Services to be Provided
A key element of the program's initial non-structural approach toward
surface water management will be development of consistent regulations
affecting. stormwater quantity and quality. The comprehensive surface water
program being developed for the urban areas recognizes that many of the
issues affecting stormwater are integrally linked to land use policies.
Accordingly, a key role for the regional surface water program will be to
coordinate preparation of consistent regulations in such areas as
clearing/filling/grading, erosion/sedimentation, floodplain, sensitive area
management and stormwater management. Development of regulatory consistency
will utilize the same process employed in developing a response to the DEQ's
"interim regulations" which relied on direct input from the municipalities
in order to produce a.n impiementable result.
o Add to Chapter III - Description of Service Area
Expansion of U.S.A.'s existing sanitary sewer authority to include surface
water management - without creating a new special service district -
requires that current service area boundaries not be altered. This boundary
overlays the urbanized areas of Washington County. This area is consistent
with the "designated management agency" (DMA) methodology established by DEQ
which segregates the Tualatin basin into 3 DMA's: urban (that area within
the stormwater service area), agricultural and silviculture. While U.S.A.'s
urban area focus is consistent with DEQ non-point source planning
requirements, a truly regional approach must assure program consistency
throughout the watershed and among the 3 DMA's.
Mechanisms are now being developed to coordinate the surface water
management efforts of the urban, agricultural and forestry areas. It is
expected that this coordination will be informal initially, but as
experience with the respective programs increases, interlocal agreements can
be developed to integrate the stormwater activities of the Tualatin Basin as
a whole.
o Add to Chapter I - On-going Role of Municipalities in the Development of
the Surface Water Program
Under the provisions of ORS 451, the Washington County Commissioners must
function as the policy setting body for the surface water program. However,
the success of these policies is a function of municipal commitment to their
implementation. Therefore, it will be valuable to continue the operations of
either the Steering Committee or "Core Group" of the Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committee (city representatives) in an advisory capacity.
o Add to Chapter IV - Water Quality Impacts Resulting from Maintenance of
Facilities Designed for Stormwater Quantity Control
The urbanized area of Washington County has a stormwater problem which
results in both localized flooding and non-point source pollutant loadings.
A basic operating premise for development of the surface water program has
been the link between stormwater quantity and quality management.
Historically, the stormwater system in the urbanized areas of Washington
County has been designed to effectively and efficiently convey runoff to
receiving waters. The non-point source control mandates now in place are re-
orienting this historical focus on quantity and conveyance to also address
water quality. Maintenance of the stormwater system can affect both runoff
quantity and quality by assuring that existing facilities operate at or near
design capacity, increasing the understanding of the system through field
operations and reducing emergency situations through a systematic
maintenance program. This maintenance process, in tandem with more specific
information on non-point source "hotspots", will put the program in a
position to better understand those situations where closed systems should
be replaced or augmented with conveyances designed to also control non-point
source pollutants.
o Add to Chapter VI - The Role of the State in Surface Water Problem Solving
The stormwater issues now being addressed in Washington County and the
Tualatin Basin must also be dealt with in many other areas of Oregon. While
the state is charged with regulation of non-point source pollution, the
process of developing this surface water program has clearly established the
need for the state to take an active role in designing solutions.
Specifically, the state can function as an information clearinghouse on
stormwater issues, research non-point source control strategies which may be
effective in Oregon, monitor and affect congressional legislation impacting
stormwater, assess the fiscal impact of stormwater regulations and ensure
that regulations stipulate these impacts and available sources of funding.
It is considered essential that the partnership driving formation of.this
surface water program in Washington County also include the state.
0
o General Additions/Corrections
In order to establish consistent terminology, the final document will refer
to the overall program as the "surface water program." The term "stormwater"
will be used when referring to specific elements of the program or the
physical system.
Committee member name misspellings and affiliation references will be
corrected in the final submittal.
March 10, 1989
On March 9, 1989, the Steering Committee for Surface Water }
Management in Urban Washington County made the following change to
the second item on the first page of the document titled ADDENDA
FOR THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMISSION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, "SURFACE
WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBANIZED AREA OF WASHINGTON COUNTY":
The last sentence of the second item (titled, "Add to Chapter IV
Services to be Provided") was amended to read:
Development of regulatory consistency will utilize a
Technical Advisory Committee comprised of one representative from
each city an the county or Lthe same process employed in
eveloping a respons- e to 'lrNe DEQ's "interim regulations" which
relied on] direct input from the municipalities in order to
produce an implementable result.
,dW , (NOTE: the added portion of the text is shown in underlining while s
the deleted portion is enclosed in brackets.)
Thus, the final sentence, as amended, reads as follows:
Development of regulatory consistency will utilize a
Technical Advisory Committee comprised of one representative from
each city and the county for direct input from the municipalities .G
in order to produce an implementable result.
s
Portland General Electric
1-0537-1280-1
121053712801800000489700000489708
**CR02
Portland General Electric
3930 SW GREENLEAF DR P.O. BOX 4403
PORTLAND OR 97221-3221 PORTLAND, OREGON 97254-0003
❑ ~1
"I. Mw
2 02/25/88 48.97
CHECK FOR NAME I ADDRESS
CORRECTION. (SEE REVERSE SIDE)
PLEASE FOLD BEFORE TEARING STUB ~
When making inquiries contact - • • = 3;1'di
our office at: ~~SS99
121 SW SALMON ST 1-0537-1280-1
PORTLAND OR 97204 393'0 S!% GREENL EAF DR
TELEPHONE 228-6322 PORTLAND OR 97221 YEAR 1988
••METER"'•`KT 'RA1Ei -SERVICE PEriio'o METER REAWN(iS" METER - KILOWATT HOURS`-- •
NUMBER FROM TO PREVIOUS PRESENT MULTIPLIER USED (KWH)
4899 `25896 997
0520 .E X01/0? 10av-
ON 1 2.
7
~rRESIDENTIA<
~ r~USTOMER CHARGE 5.00
00 KWHrx x 3 789 CENTS' = 11.37
" w6 `697 KWiH x 4,548 CENTS _ 31.70
,,~(-,+y d METER ,TOTAL 48.07
i 1 5f yri'.+C t-;•~[ KT Ayf\+i't'FYT•?'T'~.-ir ' .:y" F! C\i Y`y
U~i`,----CITY OF PORTLAND TAX .72
.ULTNOMAH COUNTY TAX .18
.l:.ci ~ ~l• w[ 'ram .:.,A. we•F)~ 'li!a C '
• i~t
-ACTIYITa!.SINOE L ST.BILtING ~ir" RiI'f\•
lPREVIWS' S PAYMENTS AND-- CHARGES AND " CURRENT ~ •
AMOUNT DUE CREDITS DEBITS (f) WILLING
47.03 47.03 10 04 448.97 48.97
CUSTOMER
k k IOCA=LL fartsYy~~ p~JS 60
ENDING;*,"..', 'TE! PERANRE ri~ER A PER . DAY
487
FEB 1988 39 ,.34 =01.66
FEB 1987 40 43 H 427
W 36
H 30-
4
2
18
I2
6
D86J FMAMMON AS0NDJ F
THS
i Portland General Electric YOUR AVERAGE DAILY KWH BY MONTHS
F.
now-
. - - pN,b-Page 1
- eii-- ..248_g3b6 336 ZZ E
t We't 8 1968 jO'T OV
-r-paci~'ic 140v t JAN 14t
@ DAtE of BILL E FEB 05► 1.90 ~t7 •75
d service UAtE 4AY«ENT DU
,billing An-_ Call Charge is greater, will
,billing
tlo8 No
-
24 ercent, whlcheev pay the total
urge of ^ • of 43 the late more; yn'ent charges
t 0, A late pa me unpaid abill to avoid N `E
apply t on this I btE
_ du as shown , 03C
GCpUMT ~UMMpRY ,o3c
A /06 32.7 IAA ` , ,
01 3
C M fi
2,76
].9.55 12.44
13.33
MONTHLY RA f- CHARGES
LGOG LDIST ANCE RGES .34
A ATAxvFEE
1AD 5~~
TAXES
✓ ETgtC ONMU 80 ,08
LTNO~pH
6 EPWT 0~ ,49071 ON .42 .37
y CONNV A 3'1. ON 100 47
41.6.45
EXCISE AT TOTA4
41G•l2AT 32 ON X12 k~ 5 l L ~yll6 y7.75
U•S' AT 3,1. ONT PgOGRAM 3 g IOTA
U•S• CE S PER
AS 2 L1NE
SERVI RGE
SNgCNA
t y _'t t
J~tc,vt
Ct C°w~Gi
313A-t
street Iconcel) plan
~Ng
G9C
RQ
s ar}
C
r~GARD S7. C,c~rNs
i •eea sr
_ + C
~j ee C~1t,~ e+
eeeee
t ~ p`ay~ es !at eea HUN21k~R Sr
~`o ~ ee ees
ee
e
gLNUT St Q~4` oeeee ~sr
eee®.~ 1
ese.ses++++e+0~eee
e
sr P
OMASp ST-
'i I i f
- ~
~e l~= n
J
(t
f'
~
_i
- r,
Ilsrrrrilriarrtlili
f~l ICI f 1 1 I I t~ t,Tt,ll it it rrlili,ir t
~ ~ s ! a ` .l { n ~ a PI~~~~mG + ~ f~~ + 1-+-i J ~ t ~ 1tj~`I IU~ilf~i,l~llr Iltpu1tp~Ii~ rl,lgi ilr~rp tp]ife q~Etii ilr~r,i ryl t "
IP 2 3 7 ~ 0 ~ ~ ( e
NJTE: IF THIS NICAOFIlNEO ~ _ 5 b 7 8 8 !J 1+.... t
o~awlNC Is L£ss CLEAR 1HAN ~
TRIS NOTICE, r Is asE Ta I -
' ,FE QUALITY Of Tff ORIGINAL ! ~ ~ .
6
_ _
- _ _
DRANING. I
OFE 6Z 8Z 1tZ 9Z SZ 4Z Ei ZZ 1Z OZ 61 81 LI 8i S'fY bl EI ZI II DI 6 B L 8 S 4 E 2 I ~ f
~~'INIIIIN~illllllll+llllllOllrN~xxla
.usilwflnn ,
% el i-.~ ~ _
_ ;
- _,.r,~ 6~--- - _ 9 r.
~ _
i N ~ ~ _
_,t,
~
_ i! ,
-
_,f,?zy
r,' •
i
I
i
f"1
rI •
1.
;t'
i 11
1
, I
f
. \ • il,
I
~ ~4
i
,
,
. r
. c. ,.mac ....~.=w v~..,.,.
r
IIXrTsltlttll III Ip gl {i Ip rli qt ryt rll i iTt I t Yt ~ t I I I I ilI iC iji t I I { I I
l I ~-P I i 1 J~ ~ L_ I f I I
_ _ . ~I ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ' I ~ n r~~ .L~ I , ~ ~ ~ 117 f ~ I IIII'Ilr(rpllltlln~{Illq{ Ijfltplllllgl IIIIIII~III+►
•2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 I
NOTE: 1F 1HI5 MICRDFIIMEp I
9 0 II
DRWIIS IS LESS CLEAR THAN - . ~
I TNIS NOTICE, IT IS DpE TO
~ ~ llf QUALITY OF TfE OR1GlNAL
f
_ _ _ ,
DRAWING.
OE 6Z BZ d1I2 9Z SZ td 6Z Z2 12 OZ BI BI LI ~ 91 Sf bl ~¢I - ZI II' 01 a ~ p- y'-' S _ ti _ E _ .i _ hur I
' ~dNtlllllllll~IIIIIIIII~I{u~I11NIp IMI
,
y
i
~ + 7 -
i
< 1,:...,,,..«,
• C i ~ Cu~,m r~'t ~ ,.~1i31~y
• • ~ ~ its
HOBSON PLAN
i
FF
tiB
G,p
c
x
QP yti• ~
0
Sc0
'cots
S
Ctq
B ~
G,p
~y4
si
~i
P
ya
.vvorv1~
~k
~'by
00
Sk~.YyooS yam` `',aa
~o
m ,
"No
w►
low
MOW
OWN-
P~
000001*
D
® TRAFFIC SIGNAL
r
4 y,~, s o
T'CgR~ `~P\~ coe~~'s
C' HUNZIKER
G,P
N
sob9
P
MAIN STREET COUPLET
o~
. F~
G,P
x
D
r
y
y~• S o
r
KER
C~
E, pC/q`
goy
i
1 y~•
i P
i
1
1
,
,
1
.t
t
194PO21
Olt'
GAR,) S-MEET
COI)PLET
• FF
'PC
. s
F
0
~ o
QP` yam.
P S
tIGgRA
gGR
at
ham.
P
II
aP0?!~
will
XRKW AY
LIGHT IL.
7-1
~G
z
F
0
-l
4 q
G ~
QP ~
P
~ S
TtgAR~ cOFfij'1'S R
gGR~~q~
P
ISAP029
{ UP I-ET
FH
G
' 'QC Z
r
r
100
G
G ~
Q,~G~ yam.
rcA ~P s~o~fi`HS R
Rp
Cp
~r
fpCj~t
8~R
H~y4
M
yam,
P
A4P02"
•l
i
NORTH END OF MAIN STREET
i I
7
1
TRAFFIC
Capacity
Circulation Fy
Separation R9
G1 r
STREET PAT'T'ERN ~ c
Clarity
Usability
ALTERNATE MODES
Transit ! QP
Bicycle
Pedestrian
RESOURCE PRESERV.
Open space i~
Wetlands
Historic buildings
Residential areas sco~~/
194P002
.~s~c-s~eArrs:•arxesaam:.~. ..v.. ;vas:.n:.
i
ASH STREET
AT RAILROAD CROSSING;
I
TRAFFIC
Capacity
Circulation i c°
Separation
q~
STREET PATTERN i
Clarity
Usability tiy4~
I
ALTERNATE MODES
Transit i
Bicycle i
Pedestrian
RESOURCE PRESERV. !
Open space
Wetlands
Historic buildings
Residential areas
SOOOT"
I ~C}M
~ " - Joh`HSO
' H
TRAFFIC
Capacity.
Circulation
separation ,ET PATTERN 1 ~ ~
SIRE ~ s ~
Clarity U Q
Ij sability
C U t
NA1~(O~EyJ Q~ ~^~ftrlu.'S
ALTER t E 1N1 f I
Tr ansl
Bicycle
Pedestrian
0een pRESEgV
CE
p'ESO~Rspace
~ -
V tlands ildings -
l~istoric bu
areas
Residential L.,= _
J
o o'N N Eon
~ CNN
!N 1 0
~ CIA
~P
Oti
TRAFFIC
Capacity n
CircnTa ion
Sepa
P ATT ;RN z
Z h
STREET
Q
Clarity
U s ability
ERN ATE MCl}ES
IT
Transit
Ricyclerian
1, edest
RCE PRESERV -
RESQU
Space
p en
V etlands uildings -
torlc b
Isis , de~tial areas ~ -
p esl
i
SOUTH DOWNTOWN
AREA
TRAFFIC
Capacity ; s0 yq
Circulation
Separation
STREET PATTERN 3Q
Clarity
Usability
ALTERNATE MODES ! QP
Transit
Bicycle Q~
Pedestrian
i
RESOURCE PRESERV. ~
Open space j
Wetlands i
Historic buildings
Residential areas
194P004
.J
---Now 01:, -IN OU
iptA VEr'i VAO
(2005
Np{tiN
00
Q
4f~ 30
Ab.
`1 P~'~v~ NUNZ! o
1 kER
r
S`N ~cppNAA-D
w
o a.
y
Ul moo
J
SIS GotA~~~s1ONs
p,N Nil, ~aosswG
ONE ►~~RE aA"~OA~
' pE~Ek.OP AT ~'~AST NTO DOWOwN AT
ORT ASS ~
W ~N-~aY P
• ~REAT~Nw
jg9W
pUNUS
IMAIN
~ TIGARD
H~NZrKERoHA~'~ GRASSING
0000 NIL~o E, BETWEFtSEGT~
AD
MpW NEAaEg~_ MA~OR iNTE p
AGI'CY
~ p THE GA
W E IN
SIGNIFICANS ~NGRTERM~NUS
~ A~OIA NY gTREE~ AT ESHER
M
of
RR~
. FE
S0~ ,
J
J
a
15 X
I Ln
i
LLI
►.yq~ a
cy-
z
MCDONALD