City Council Packet - 02/18/2003TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
February 1 8, 2003
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
H-.MeannieWocS%ccpkt2
Mayor's Agenda.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting date by calling:
503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices
for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 18, 2003 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items
6:35 PM
2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Discussion Topics:
• Annexation
• System development charges or local improvement districts for the
urban services area
Vehicular/pedestrian access across the Tualatin River
7:05 PM
3. UPDATE ON PARK PROJECTS
a. Staff Report: Public Works Staff
b. Council Discussion
7:20 PM
4. REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff
b. Council Discussion
7:50 PM
5. DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC FINANCIAL PLAN
a. Staff Report: Finance Staff
b. Council Discussion
8:20 PM
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
8:30 PM
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 18, 2003
page 2
8:40 PM
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If
an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be
announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and
those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news
media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3),
but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held
for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive
Sessions are closed to the public.
9:00 PM
9. ADJOURNMENT
\\TI G333\U S R\D E PTS\AD M\CATHY\CCA\030218. D OC
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 18, 2003 page 3
AGENDA ITEM # y
FOR AGENDA OF February 18, 2003
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting with Planni Commission
PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK/
This is the regularly scheduled, annual joint meeting between City Council and the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council and Planning Commission meet annually to share information and discuss matters of interest.
The Planning Commission would like to discuss the following at this joint meeting:
1. Annexation
2. System Development Charges or Local Improvement Districts for the Urban Services Area
3. Vehicular/pedestrian access across the Tualatin River to Tualatin
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community Character and Quality of Life, Volunteerism - Goal #1, City will maximize the effectiveness of the
volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community; and Goal #2, Citizen involvement opportunities
will be maximized by providing educational programs on process, assuring accessibility to information, providing
opportunities for input and establishing and maintaining a program of effective communication.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 2/18/03
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park Projects Update Y 02-03 thru FYI-08
DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Park projects update, covering FY 02-03 to FY 07-08, will be presented to Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
n/a, presentation only
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In 1999, Council adopted a ten-year Park System Master Plan. Each year Council sets agency goals which
pertain to the acquisition and development of park and recreation facilities and programs. The Park System
Master Plan, along with Council goals drive the Parks Division's CIP. In the current FY 02-03 there are ten
(10) projects which have either been completed or are on-going, with completion dates projected for 6/30/03
or sooner. This years projects are (project cost):
1) Cook Park Phases I & II-Grant, Loan, & Donation Received (completed) $1,900,000
2) Potso Dog Park (completed) $7,130
3) Woodard Park Playgrounds -Tot-lot & Elementary Age (completed) $43,200
4) Woodard Park Picnic Shelter-Grant Received (currently underway) $35,000
5) Summerlake Park Off-Leash Area (currently underway) $40,000
6) Summerlake Park Master Plan (approved by Council) $7,500
7) Fanno Creek Park Extension Master Plan (currently underway) $26,396
8) Bonita Park Development-Grant Received (currently underway) $205,000
9) Bonita Park Master Plan (approved by Council) $9,100
10) Skate Park Design (approved by Council) $11,300
Sub-total, FY 02-03 = $2,284,626
The following ten (10) projects (FY 03-04 thru FY 07-08) are also identified in the Park System Master Plan.
The anticipated park projects are dynamic in nature and are placed in the CIP depending on funding, and/or
the ability of the Parks Division to maintain additional projects, (projects cost).
1) Summerlake Park Development-2 New Playgrounds, Upgrade Existing Playgrounds, Water Play
Feature, Landscaping, Infrastructure, Utilities & Earthwork, Picnic Shelter, Shade
Structures, Irrigation, Earthwork, Toilets, & Renovate LL Field $445,000
2) Jack Park-Install Picnic Shelter & Irrigation System $31,000
3) Fanno Creek Park Trail Acquistion & Development (Grant Street to Main Street) $100,000
4) Fanno Creek Park Trail Extension (Hall Blvd. to new Library Bldg.) $100,000
5) Skate Park Development (15K sq. ft.) $642,000.
7) Northview Park-Install Playground, Picnic Shelter & Soccer Field $90,000
8) Fanno Creek Park Trail Acquisition $100,000
9) Ash Creek Trail Acquisition $100,000
10) Englewood Park Playground $58,000
Sub-total, FY 03-04 thru FY 07-08 = $1,666,000
Grand-total, FY 02-03 thru FY 07-08 = $3,950,626.
OTHER ALTERNATNES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
'03 Council Goal #4-Parks and Recreation, and'03 Visioning Goal # 2-Acquire & Develop Park Land
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
Park projects are appropriated for in the Parks Capital Fund.
~ s
1
U
00
L
W
0
t
0
M
0
e
C~6
0
LL
L
Cu
n
L.
cu
(1)
1
(L)
A-a
KID]
_G)
LID.
O
C6
.u
O
C.)
C3'
C~
L
O
E
CCU
m
O O
U L
~ U
CD
L-
C: C=
m m
L
cn m
U O
4-5
:3 cn
O C=
L
CIS 4)
a)
U .V
CU
W
0 0
L
Cu
CD.
O
lr~
L
L
Q,
-1--a
co
O
1
N
O
lL
c
L
0
0
C.6
N
Co
Co
C
N
61!.:~
C~
-i~
U
O
L
Cz
Pic T
"
1 1
f.
V
5
7
74
.
.
~v it
.•V t
~tr rf 1 17 ~ 1,
' /
I} i
71•'S i
I.i~ ~ ~ 11
IYY~ 4~R•T•
~ A.I .
.._mw
-,a
VIA
Ica';r.
r r
w
t~
•r
r
r
i
,.0
~ti .
X: V
1
I ,
;j
F_,.
r;
~i
,,.v,
~
o
r"
s'
Ste. ~
_J
_mn
V
J
y~~3 A:1
k~A i
El)
o_~
N
L
La
t
a
'
i9fti ~
C Ok
Yv Sa ~ ~
a
: as
-
~
W
!Y
L
v
'
J
1 '
4
ti
' , t
O
V
OCL
C.
Q
i
L
.a+
L
A~
W
•1~
0
I
(
I
1=
S
ti
1 1
, 11
e
r-
I'
LI_
<:r
T
4
i
'r
U ~t 1 k. (I
, 14
i
L'L
i
r,
i J h
i
rye.
L.L
O
C O 00
cu cu -
4-j O
O 0
E c:)
~ o
U. CU ~
® a. 5
a) ~o CO
CD C:)
Jc:
. ® U.
010 OD C
4- CU ■e
W
O
i W a)
m
t-
N
F-
m
w
J
• ~c4
F
t
r
t
kff 1
,
•'frN
V
!I
Adik
loll(,
F r77
FT-1 I
= L
(1
II ~
1 ` n
II
r
W
~i-- -'c.L
I~
FL
-i
(a_
i .
CL
W
J
N
ct'
00
N
N
60-
O
Ca
O
U
)
O
CL
C6
4)
S.
0
M
O
LL
L.
y-
N
O
V
O
O
CL
O
O
O
CO
C~
Ct3
0
00
O
O
0
S.
4-
cn
0
S_
4-
O
cn
0
V
C~
0
O
C:
E
O
V
O
1
N
O
O~
M
cn
00
O
ti
O
U.
co
0
1
N
0
AGENDA ITEM # 4-
FOR AGENDA OF February 18, 2003
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
PREPARED BY: Julia Haiduk DEPT HEAD OK i Y MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE QPUNCIL
Receive a brief update/review of the major points in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) adopted by Council in
January 2002.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None- information session only
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Tigard TSP was adopted in January, 2002 along with Comprehensive Plan amendments, and became
effective in February, 2002. Development Code amendments to reflect changes to the TSP were adopted in
September 2002. The orientation is designed to familiarize new Council members with the TSP. At the work
session, the following will be reviewed:
• The purpose of the TSP
• The steps taken in Tigard's adoption of the TSP
• Transportation elements covered in the TSP
• Key transportation capacity and circulation issues raised in the TSP
• Additional issues and impacts resulting from the adopted TSP
• An update and recent activity to implement key aspects in the TSP
Staff is not planning on providing detailed comparison of the previous policies and the new policies under the
TSP, however, since the TSP has been fully in effect for several months, a few examples will be provided to
illustrate differences.
N/A
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachments: 1 Powerpoint presentation
2 Transportation System Plan (electronic only) (All Council members have a copy of
the TSP, therefore an additional hard copy is not being provided. If a hard copy is
needed, please contact Julia Hajduk)
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I:Irplan/Julia/rSP/2003 orientation ais.doc
Tigard Transportation System Plan
(TSP)
1-18-03 ReviewPnesentatiOn tO
City Council
Why Do A Plan?
• To get ready for the future - Now
• Growth
- Forecasts call for 6,000 more Dwelling Units and 15,000
more employees in the next 20 years
• Metro RTP completed in 2000
- Local plans must be consistent
• State Requirements (new highway plan)
• New Funding Opportunities
Transportation Goals
• Livability
• Balanced Transportation System
• Safety
• Performance
• Accessibility
• Goods Movement
• Coordination
What Is A TSP?
• Blueprint for Transportation Investment
• Enables City to make prudent and
effective choices regarding land use
• Coordination tool with regional and
nearby agencies
• Fulfills State mandate (Goal 12) &
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
• Addresses Existing and Future needs
Steps Taken In Adoption Process
• TSP Task Force Approved TSP
- Spring 2000
• Planning Commission Recommended
Approval of TSP
- Winter 2000
• CIT & Public Open Houses
- November 2000
• City Council Workshops
- November 2000, March 2001, November 2001
• City Council Adoption
- January 2002
The TSP Provides Goals And Policies For
The Following Transportation Modes:
• Pedestrians
• Bicycles
• Transit
• Motor Vehicles
• Other Modes (Rail, Air, Water, etc.)
1
Capacity and Circulation
Key Issues
• ORE 217 and 1-5 are over capacity
• Tigard serves more ORE 99W through
traffic in future
• ORE 99W fails in future
• Half of the traffic signalized
intersections fail in 20 years assuming
no improvements are made
Additional Issues and Impacts
• Walnut Extension
• Scholls Ferry Road Widening
- 7 lanes, south of Hall (122 fool right-of-way)
• Hall Boulevard Widening
- up to 5 lanes (98 foot right-of-way)
• Changes in Functional C!,-,s,>il1cation
- New classification - Neighborhood Route
• 35roadsfrommkw ccllector-nelghbort*odl ,ta
• U roads from local street - nelghborhood route
- 7 roads went from major collector to arterial
steps Taken to implement Since
Adoption of the TSP
• Adopted Development Code amendments
- September 2002
• Developed and adopted local service
transit action plan to implement one piece
of transit element
- December 2002
Key Solution Concepts for Tigard
• Connectivity/Circulation Enhancement
- Washington Square
- Tigard Triangle
- Western Tigard
- East/West
• Traffic operational improvements
- Street Improvement Plan
- Intersection capacity upgrades
Examples...
cascadian Place
• Tigard Street - Minor Collector to
Neighborhood Route
- Narrower ROW
• Planter strips provided along all streets
within subdivision.
Several Ways To Make TSP
Recommendations A Reality:
Developments may be required to
contribute to improvements.
- Roads, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, intersection improvements, etc.
• Improvements programmed into the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
• Apply for state or federal grant funds for
road, pedestrian or bicycle projects.
2
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF February 18, 2003
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Strategic Financial Plan Discussion
PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK l
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discussion of future financial needs of the City, possible new or increased revenue sources, and possible timelines.
This discussion will be the first step in putting together a Strategic Financial Plan for the City in accordance with
Council's Goal #1 for 2003.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss issues presented by staff, add or delete issues as needed, develop a preliminary timeline, and develop an
action plan for next steps.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the 2003 Goal Setting session, Council identified a Strategic Finance Plan as its number one goal.
The City is facing a number of financial challenges over the next several years. This discussion will attempt to
identify all upcoming issues so that they may be placed in context, identify inter-relationships between the various
issues, develop a preliminary timeline, and provide preliminary direction to staff on issues to be pursued and issues
not to consider.
This discussion will focus primarily on the revenue side of the issue. The other element of a Strategic Financial
Plan is the expenditure side. That portion will be addressed in the annual Budget Process which is currently
underway.
In 2002, the City Council held a workshop session to develop a list of Strategic Financial issues. In that workshop,
the Council developed a list of issues to pursue in Fiscal Years 2001-02 through 2003-04. The number one issue on
that list was to win voter approval for a general obligation bond to build a new library. That goal was successfully
attained in May 2002. The results of that Council Workshop session are attached to this Agenda Summary Report
as Attachment A.
The Executive Staff of the City met in an all-day retreat on January 24. As part of that retreat, Executive Staff
developed an initial brainstorm list of upcoming issues and identified a preliminary timeline for these issues. That
list is included as Attachment B to this summary.
Following the Executive Staff Retreat, Departments prepared short summaries (no more than two pages) of each
City and County issue on the list. These summaries are not intended to be exhaustive; rather they are intended to
briefly frame each issue to aid Council's discussion or to remind Council of any work done to date. If Council
chooses to pursue any of these issues, more thorough research and analyses will be prepared. All issues summaries
are included as Attachment C to this Agenda Summary.
The Executive Staff's brainstorm list includes three statewide or regional issues for which no summaries have been
prepared. These three issues - PERS, Measure 28, and Tri-Met Payroll Tax - do not have direct impacts on the
City or have been fully discussed and analyzed in the media recently. Staff has no additional information on these
issues at this time. These issues do, however, need to be considered when building a Strategic Financial Plan for the
City.
Finally, Attachment D to this Agenda Summary contains a list of known or potential financial measures which may
be presented to voters in 2004. This information is based on a survey of all jurisdictions in the metropolitan region.
Not all jurisdictions responded to this survey, so this list cannot be considered complete. It does, however, provide
an indication of issues likely to be presented to voters in the near future.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None. This discussion will identify all known alternatives.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
This discussion supports Council Goal #1, Develop a long Range Financial Strategy. In addition, many of the
items encompassed within this discussion relate directly to Vision Goals.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment A - 2002 - 2004 Strategic Planning List
Attachment B - Executive Staff Retreat - Long Term Financial Issues
Attachment C - Strategic Financial Plan Issues Summaries
Attachment D - Potential Upcoming Ballot Measures in the Region
FISCAL NOTES
The potential costs of each issue, if known, are shown on Attachment B to this Agenda Summary.
Attachment A
2002 - 2004 Strategic Planning List
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
2002
♦ May - November, Library, $17 million, City
♦ Water Revenue Bond, City or IWB participants (Referred by voters)
♦ Transportation User Fee - Creating fee/ maintenance, City
♦ November Youth Activities/ Operating Funds (Facility and/or Program),
City, Recreation District, or other
Horizon:
♦ Discussion of Funding for Washington Square Infrastructure
cp Options: Tax Increment Financing
Private Financing through Impact Fee
♦ General Fund Condition
cp Evaluate fees on a regular basis
cp Consider a local option levy to supplement general fund revenues to
continue providing service at established levels (see 2004)
♦ Additional Water Supply - (Studies, agreements, infrastructure
connections, major capital)
♦ Plan for and make decisions on reuse of library, remodeling of office space
in library and City Hall
♦ Annexation of Bull Mountain Study
♦ Parks - Acquisition, development, maintenance
♦ Property Sale - Sell Ash Avenue parcels to help offset library costs
2004
♦ Transportation.Bond $12 million
♦ General Fund concern - Operating Levy? Include consideration of library
staffing and programs for the new library.
♦ Youth Activity - Capital Funding Request?
♦ Water $4 million for improvements (Estimated by Ed Wegner)
♦ Renovate City Facilities:
T Using up to $3 million set aside in the capital facilities account over
four budget years.
♦ Buy Water Building (Remaining portions from our partners)
♦ Moving Expenses
♦ Washington Square Funding
Horizon:
♦ Recreation Programs/ Facilities
%ADKM1LL%STRATEGI%STRATEGIC PLAN LISTAOC
ta
^C
W
U
co
Q
N
a)
N
U
(Lf
U
C
co
C
E
E
L
-1-a
a)
N
DC
cn
U
N
X
W
CL
O
vs
.y
0
L
LL
co
O
d
m
W
a
0
z
CL
O
■ Iwaftw
I
V
LL
LL
Q
M
O
N
N
03
f6
Q.
N
d
r
O N
Z
O O
_ 0.
^N
W
N
.U
C
C
iz
O O
C: 0
O A
J 'L
I ~
N
as O
OC
ca
U)
x
w
H
d1
H
O
CL
W
V
.y
0
LL
I
dft.
LL
ct
O 4;
r+ O
Onto >
O O d v
mam~
Q c.
E U) cn
v
L-
CD
o
o
c
°
°
co o
L-.
O
o
a~
E
i a)
p j O
Q
C)
>
a.CD a)
E O fl
EA
,to
Lo CV
W
d
CA
N
E
P
fT
C
co
CD
0-
>1
C O d
N
M
CL co
F`-
M I2~1 MIM
C) o O
N m N N
M
O
M
m
QI
N
a
Attachment C
Strategic Financial Plan
Issues Summaries
February 18, 2003
Table of Contents
City of Tigard Issues
e Fee
t
i
3
enanc
n
Street Ma
Bond
5
Water Revenue
s Fee
ti
. 7
on
Parks Reserva
. 9
Room Rental Fees
11
Traffic Citation Assessment Fee
sident Police/Fire Service Fee
R
N
12
e
on-
13
F
i
ees
se
Franch
15
nd Use Fees
L
a
16
Mechanical Building Fees
i
.
17
on
Bull Mountain Annexat
.
9
tion Property Tax Levy
cal O
L
p
o
2
New Revenue Source(s)
.
23
Urban Renewal
d
B
ti
25
on
on
Transporta
Recreation District Creation, or Annexation to TH
PRD
27
Parks and Open Spaces Acquisition Bond
.
29
Long Term Water Supply and Water Rates
31
i
33
ces
Urban Serv
City Buildings - Maintenance, Repair, Expansion
ti
36
on
Skate Park Construc
Other Jurisdictions' Issues
WCCLS Local Option Levy 39
2
Street Maintenance Fee
Issue Summary
Definition: The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly fee based on use of the
transportation system, and is typically based on trip generation rates. The fee would be
charged to each household and business in the City and would be collected through the
City's regular monthly sewer and water bill. The intent is to have the users of the road
system share the costs of the corrective and preventative maintenance needed to keep
the street system operating at an adequate level. The revenue received through the fee
would be dedicated to maintenance of the street system.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Approximately $1,605,000 is needed for the
following: $800,000 for street maintenance, $445,000 for street light and traffic signal
system energy and maintenance costs, $270,000 for rights-of-way maintenance on
collectors and arterials, and $90,000 for sidewalk maintenance on collectors and
arterials. The proposed charge for single family residential structures is $2.54 per
month, and for multi-family units $1.76 per month per unit.
Work Completed to date: The implementation of this fee was recommended to the
City Council over a year and a half ago by the City's Transportation Financing
Strategies Task Force, a citizen task force formed to evaluate and recommend to
Council feasible alternative funding sources for street maintenance and street
expansion needs. The Task Force conducted an extensive public process to enhance
citizen awareness of the need for the proposed fee and to receive input from citizens
and businesses. The proposed fee has been discussed with Council several times and
is again scheduled for further Council discussion at the March 18, 2003 workshop
meeting. Council direction on the possibility of adoption will be requested at that
meeting.
Implementation Action Required: Council has the authority to establish the Street
Maintenance fee. The proposed fee would be adopted by ordinance and the rates to be
charged would be established by resolution.
Timing: If Council does approve implementation, the effective date for the fee would be
set several months after Council adoption of the ordinance and resolution. This would
give the City of Tigard staff sufficient time to set up the fund and do the necessary work
to ensure that the amounts can be incorporated on the utility bills without a glitch in the
billing process.
Advantages: The following are the reasons for adopting the fee:
Would provide a new, stable source of revenue for street system maintenance.
3
• The gas tax revenues are not restricted to maintenance, but can be used for a.
wide variety of needed street improvements. However, these funds have been
used primarily for maintenance because of the large maintenance backlog and
the inadequacy of the current gas tax rate to address anything beyond that. The
proposed Street Maintenance Fee would supplement the gas tax and would be
used in the maintenance of the street system. This would allow use of some gas
tax revenues to address reconstruction, installation of crucial pedestrian
connections, and other street improvement needs.
• Would allow the City to establish a long-term plan to address the $4 million
backlog in street maintenance needs.
• Early adoption of the fee could establish that new revenue source before the
state legislature proposes any preemptive action directed against implementation
of street utility fees.
Disadvantages: The following are the drawbacks to adoption of the fee:
• The fee would have residential land uses pay 28% of the total amount with the
rest coming from non-residential land uses. Some businesses oppose it because
of its heavy charges to the commercial sector.
• Some opponents are labeling the fee as a tax. Depending upon how the fee is
structured, it could be construed as a tax.
• The Oregon Grocery Industry Association has threatened to take legal action to
stop implementation of the fee.
• It could be referred to the voters through the initiative process.
• The implementation of the fee could interfere with other City initiatives, such as a
possible operating levy and a transportation bond issue.
Recommendation:
The recommendation is that City Council adopt the fee and direct implementation. This
would raise new revenue for urgently needed maintenance of the street system. Many
cities have either taken action or are seriously contemplating initiation of a similar fee.
Future legislative action could affect the fee adoption, if delayed.
4
Water Revenue Bond
Issue Summary
Definition: A water revenue bond is a type of bond backed by future water revenues
(as compared to a general obligation bond which pledges property taxes as repayment).
Tigard is considering this type of bond to finance capital improvements and possibly the
up front or "buy in "costs the City would incur to secure a long term water supply.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The City will be considering the use of water
revenue bonds to finance all or a portion of the upcoming water reservoir/pump
station/transmission piping project package, named the 550 ft Service Zone Water
Supply System Improvements. This group of projects is currently estimated to cost
$8.84 million dollars.
In addition to the above, the City has been invited to enter into negotiations to become a
partner in the Joint Water Commission (JWC). The City hopes to negotiate an
ownership percentage that would allow the City to obtain up to 4 million gallons per day
(MGD), and to allow the costs to Tigard to be paid over time as a component of water
purchase costs. The JWC could require this to be a cash arrangement. Staff anticipates
completing this negotiation by April, 2003. Buy in costs could range from $2 to $3 per
gallon. Assuming the most expensive, where the City would be successful in obtaining
4MGD at a cost of $3 per gallon and the current JWC owners demanded cash, Tigard
would need to raise an additional $12 million dollars via revenue bonds.
In summary, Tigard could be looking to issue up to $20 million dollars of revenue bonds
within the next two years. Both of these projects are consistent with and addressed
specifically in the City's visioning documents.
Work Completed to date: The City has currently done two things in anticipation of
these expenses: the Council passed a resolution that sets water rates for the next three
fiscal years, and the City has retained a consultant to develop a water financial planning
and rate model to better evaluate out options and scenarios. This rate model also will
be important in the issuance of water revenue bonds.
Implementation Action Required: The Intergovernmental Water Board will initially
produce a recommendation to the City Council. Following that, the City Council may
authorize the issuance of revenue bonds by ordinance.
Timing: Staff work will begin soon, with the actual issuance of the bonds anticipated
late in 2003 or early 2004
Advantages: Revenue bonds are excellent funding mechanisms for utility capital
improvements for three reasons: (1) they do not compete with other public funding
5
based on general revenues and they do not require voter approval, (2) they extend the
concept of "cost of service" principles where a user of a utility pays their proportional
share of the cost to provide that specific service, and (3) they spread the cost of an
improvement to future users of that improvement (intergenerational equity). Revenue
bond repayment periods are generally also shorter than the useful life of the project they
fund. In addition the current costs of borrowing money are very favorable.
Disadvantages: Not using bonding of some type puts our utilities into the business
model of pay cash as you go which is not viable where such large amounts of capital
are needed. In addition, revenue bonds carry have a higher interest rate than general
obligation bonds, because their repayment is based on the financial stability of the
system and not on an unlimited power to tax.
Recommendation: Staff will continue to update Council on options and costs, with a
future recommendation probably being to. authorize issuance of one or more water
revenue bond issuances.
6
Parks Reservations Fees
Issue Summary
Definition: Resident and Non-Resident fees and charges for the use of park facilities,
primarily shelter rentals, have been in effective for many years. The City currently
charges non-resident's double the resident fee. Although funds derived from fees and
charges are nominal, they help defray maintenance costs.
Revenue Potential: It is possible to increase the amount of revenue derived from fees
and charges, thereby recovering a larger proportion of the cost of taking reservations
and providing services to groups.
Current Park Reservation Fees
Application Fee
$10.00
Covered Picnic Area Rental
Tigard Based Rental Rate
Groups up to 50
$6.00/hour
51 to 100
$8.00/hour
101 to 150
$15.00/hour
151 to 200
$20.00/hour
201 to 250
$25.00/hour
Non-Tigard Based Rental Rate
Groups up to 50
$12.00/hour
51 to 100
$16.00/hour
101 to 150
$30.00/hour
151 to 200
$40.00/hour
201 to 250
$50.00/hour
Soccer/Ballfields
Tigard Based Rental Rate
$4.00/hour
Non-Tigard Based Rental
Rate
$8.00/hour
Work Completed to date: A study of local area 2002 fees and charges has been
completed. Public Works staff is currently preparing a recommendation to increase fees
and charges. A substantial fee increase will be necessary if the City is to have fees and
charges comparable to surrounding jurisdictions.
Implementation Action Required: Increased fees and charges must be approved by
City Council.
Timing: It anticipated that a recommendation to increase fees and charges will be
made during the budget approval process.
7
Advantages:
• Increased revenues will help to defray increasing maintenance costs
• Tigard fees will be more in-line with neighboring jurisdictions.
Disadvantages:
• Even though a substantial rate increase may be approved, the yield will
remain nominal
• Residents will not like increase
Recommendation: Continue with analysis and make recommendation that puts
Tigard's fees more in-line with neighboring jurisdictions.
8
Room Rental Fees
Issue Summary
Definition:
Room rental fees are currently charged for using the Tigard Senior Center and in limited
circumstances the Town Hall and Water Auditorium. A fee could be charged to users
for use of all City rooms.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential:
At this time, the revenue potential is unknown. Room use fees will be set at a rate that
covers the cost of staff time, utilities, and wear on the facilities.
With the completion of the new Library there will be additional revenue potential through
that complex. In addition to the community room, there are two rooms within the Library
that may be made available for renting during the Library's business hours.
Also, the proposed re-model configuration for the current Library building allows for two
meeting rooms that could be rented by the public during non-business hours.
Current Meeting Room Reservation Fees & Deposits
Cleaning Deposit (Non-Senior Center)
Groups of 80 or less
$150.00
Groups of more than 80
$250.00
Cleaning Deposit (Senior Center)
Groups of 80 or less - no food/bev
$50.00
Groups of 80 or less - food/bev
$150.00
Groups of more than 80 - no food/bev
$100.00
Groups of more than 80 - food/bev
$250.00
Red Rock Creek Conference Room
$0
00
Class 1 and 2
.
$10.00/hr
Class 3
Class 4
$15.00/hr
Richard M. Brown Auditorium
$0
00
00
Class 1 and 2
.
$30.0 .
Class 3
Class 4
$35.00/hr
Senior Center Activity Room
$0
00
00
Class 1 and 2
.
$10.0 .
Class 3
Class 4
$20.00/hr
Class 5
$25.00/hr
9
Senior Center Classroom or Craft Room
Class 1 and 2
$0.00
.00
Class 3
$5.0
Class 4
$10.00/hr
Class 5
$15.00/hr
Town Hall
$0
00
Class 1 and 2
.
Class 3
$20,00/hr
Class 4
$25.00/hr
Water Lobby Conference Room
$0
00
00
Class 1 and 2
.
.
Class 3
$10.0
Class 4
$15.00/hr
Work Completed to date:
No significant work has been done to date.
Implementation Action Required:
Room use fees are part of the City's Room Use Policy which was adopted by City
Council. Policy changes, including the classification of room users and room rental
fees, will need to be approved by City Council.
Timing:
Present the changes to the Room Use Policy to City Council by the end of May. If City
Council approves the changes to the Room Use Policy, the changes in classification
and fee amounts will become effective for reservations made from July 1, 2003 forward.
Advantages:
The City will recover a larger portion of the cost of operating the program.
It is a benefit-related fee. In other words, only those who use the rooms will incur
the cost.
The City will be providing citizen's with a low cost alternative for their personal
room use.
Disadvantages:
Current room users will perceive the fee as a reduction in services. This will be
especially true of non-profit groups.
Recommendation:
Proceed with updating the City's Room Use Policy.
10
Traffic Citation Assessment Fee
Issue Summary
Definition: A Traffic Citation Assessment Fee is an additional charge levied on all
persons who plead or are found guilty of committing a.traffic violation. This charge is in
addition to any fine or assessment levied by the municipal court.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The current base fine for a traffic violation is
$50. In addition, the court collects additional charges for the Oregon Court System
(unitary assessment) and Washington County. These additional costs total $49. The
total to the offender is therefore $99. (A portion of this may be waived by the judge.) A
Traffic Citation Assessment Fee would be $10 per ticket, raising the total cost to the
offender to $109.
Based on 6,700 citations issued per year, this charge would raise $67,000.
Work Completed to date: Information on a similar charge imposed by the City of
Milwaukie has been collected. Tigard's charge could be modeled on the City of
Milwaukie ordinance.
Implementation Action h ' assessment. The Council would then have to add this
the
Code to create authority for
charge to the Master Fee Resolution.
Timing: To be determined. This charge could be implemented by June 2003.
Advantages:
■ The charge would help pay for police programs, including traffic enforcement,
training, education, and community programs.
■ The charge is targeted to those who generate costs in the Police department
through violation of traffic codes.
Disadvantages:
■ The addition of this charge would raise total costs charged to traffic offenders to
an amount greater than the base fine ($59 vs. $50)
■ Unless otherwise specified in Code, the municipal judge could waive this charge,
thereby reducing collections
Recommendation: Consider adopting a Traffic Citation Assessment Fee by June
2003.
11
Non-Resident Police/Fire Service Fee
issue Summary
Definition: A Non-Resident Police/Fire Service Fee is a special fee charged to non-
City, adult residents each time they receive service from the City. This type of fee is
charged by several fire departments, including the City of McMinnville, for a variety of
services, including traffic accidents.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined
Work Completed to date: None. Some minimal research has been done by the
Police Department, but no in depth work has been done.
Implementation Action Required: Council would adopt an ordinance authorizing a
fee and would then adopt a resolution amending the City's Master Fee Resolution
Timing: The Police Department reports that it could have research completed in about
one month. Following that, Council could adopt this fee by June 2003.
Advantages:
■ Non-residents would pay for services they receive that they do not currently pay
for through payment of taxes or other means.
■ This would help off-set Tigard taxpayers' costs for providing services to major
regional attractors, such as Washington Square and Highway 99.
■ Money raised would help pay for services in the Police Department which might
otherwise have to be scaled back.
Disadvantages:
■ Collection could be difficult since, by definition, all payers would be out-of-town
residents.
■ Other communities could feel that the reciprocity by which they provide services
to Tigard residents while they are in other communities may be compromised.
Recommendation: Continue to research this proposal, with particular emphasis on the
collection mechanism. Prepare a report for Council consideration within the next two
months.
12
Franchise Fees
Issue Summary
Definition: The City charges private utility companies a fee for use of public rights-of-
way to string their wires, or lay pipes and conduit. The fee is calculated as a
percentage of the utility's gross revenues collected within the City of Tigard. State law
limits the maximum fess and taxes to no more than 5% for gas and electric and 7% for
telecommunications. The City currently charges the electric utility 3.5%, the natural gas
utility 3%, and telecommunications companies 5%. The City does not charge its water
and sewer utilities any fee, though many cities do.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Raising electric and natural gas franchise
fees to 5% (the same as telecommunications) would raise approximately $720,000 per
year for the General Fund. Raising telecommunication franchise fees from 5% to 7%
would raise approximately $134,000. Charging a 5% franchise fee to the City's water
utility would raise approximately $135,000 per year.
Work Completed to date: No work has been done on this issue to date.
Implementation Action Required: Council resolution or ordinance.
Timing: The Northwest Natural Gas franchise agreement and many
telecommunications franchise agreements require 180 days notice before any increase
in the franchise fee.
Advantages:
■ Builds off an existing collection that is in place and well established
■ Broad based - it affects a wide variety of payers (though utility bills)
■ Relatively stable revenue source
■ Electric and natural gas utility rates have recently been lowered (following large
increases last year). This will minimize impact on utility customers.
■ Increasing gas and electric franchise fees to 5% would achieve equity among the
private utilities.
Disadvantages:
■ Increased fees will be passed on to utility customers, thereby increasing their
bills
■ Under state law, the incremental increase suggested would be itemized on
customer bills
■ Telecommunications companies are challenging local franchise authority
nationally and in Oregon. Increasing franchise fees could add to this push.
Recommendation:
■ Consider raising gas and electric franchise fees to 5%
13
Do not increase telecommunications franchise fees. Maintain those at 5% to
achieve equity among the private utilities
Explore options for charging a franchise fee of no more than 5% on public utilities
(water and sewer.) If options are feasible, consider instituting water and sewer
franchise fees.
14
Land Use Fees
Issue Summary
Definition: The City charges applicants for land use actions a variety of fees to recover
costs associated with those applications. Fees were last increased in 2002, but that fee
increase did not include any costs incurred by Engineering and Public Works in
reviewing and processing applications. Support for Long Range Planning activities
directly relating to development activity was also not recognized. Revisions to land use
and building fees are necessary to capture costs associated with processing of land use
applications.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. This issue will be studied
to develop a fee structure that will include recovery of costs for time worked by
Engineering, Public Works, and Long Range Planning, in addition to time worked by
Current Planning. The total revenue potential cannot be accurately determined until
that study takes place.
Work Completed to date: Limited work has occurred to date. Time tracking
procedures will be in place shortly.
Implementation Action Required: Council approval
Timing: Revised fees could be acted upon by Council by July 2003
Advantages:
Development pays proportionate share of direct and indirect costs associated
with processing land use and building applications.
General Fund support of development activities would be reduced.
Disadvantages:
Land use fees increase.
Development-related fees could be higher in Tigard than in surrounding
jurisdictions.
Development-related fees supporting Long Range Planning activities are not
common.
Recommendation:
Proceed with analysis; include time tracking to determine costs.
Develop a fee proposal to present to Council by July 2003
15
Mechanical Building Fees
Issue Summary
Definition: Mechanical Building fee increase to recover costs. Fees for building and
plumbing are not proposed for increase. These fee increases will not affect the General
Fund.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Unknown at this point. Mechanical fees are
budgeted in the Building Fund. Overall, the Building Fund is in good condition due to
cost recovery of the other specialty fees for other trades (building, plumbing, etc.), but
fees from the other trades are subsidizing the mechanical trades. Policy established by
state law discourages (but does not prohibit) subsidies between the trades.
Work Completed to date: All building fees were increased in 1999 and 2000 after 20
or more years of no increases. These increases were accomplished following a building
study and several public hearings. No work has been done since 2000 on any building
fee increases.
Implementation Action Required: Adoption of resolution establishing revised fees
following a public review process mandated by state law.
Timing: Fee increase should be coordinated with yearly fee updates in June 2003.
Advantages:
Mechanical permit fees will be made current and will pay for the cost of providing
service.
A mechanical fee increase will decrease the subsidy from other building specialty
trades for the cost of mechanical inspections and plans checks.
Disadvantages:
Any increase will increase costs for builders and remodelers and could be
passed on the purchasers of new and remodeled buildings.
The building industry has traditionally opposed Tigard building fee increases.
Recommendation: Proceed with fee study and consider increasing fees by June 2003.
16
Bull Mountain Annexation
Issue Summary
Definition: Annexation of approximately 1,400 acres and 7,300 residents in the Bull
Mountain area to the southwest of Tigard.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: As of November 2001, General Fund
Operating costs to serve the Bull Mountain area were estimated at $2.2 million per year.
General Fund operating revenues were estimated at $3.8 million per year, so the area
would more than pay for operating costs. Several capital funds, however, were
projected to experience significant deficits in providing needed capital improvements to
the area: Gas Tax - ($345,000), Traffic Impact Fee - ($7.6 million), and Parks CIP
$18.3 million).
Staff is currently reviewing this previous analysis to refine and update this information.
Work Completed to date: This annexation has received extensive review by staff and
public discussion. Staff prepared a preliminary annexation report which identified
potential operating and capital costs and revenues. Staff is currently updating that
study. Council has discussed this annexation on several occasions. In addition, the
City has conducted two open houses in the Bull Mountain area to solicit residents'
issues and concerns.
Implementation Action Required: State law allows several methods for
accomplishing an annexation:
1. Double Majority - petition from and majority of residents with a majority of the
land value of the area. Annexation would be approved by the City Council.
2. Vote of the subject area - a vote of all residents in the affected area, with a
majority deciding the question.
3. Vote of the subject area and the City, with a majority deciding the question.
Timing: The timing of further discussion of this issue is not yet determined. Timing of
the annexation itself is critical. If the annexation becomes effective after March, the City
will be responsible for providing services for up to a year and a half before residents
start paying for those services.
Advantages:
• Improved services to residents of the Bull Mountain area, including police patrol,
road maintenance, and other city services. Revenues are projected to more than
cover the cost of those services.
• Residents obtain a voice in the governing and direction of the City of Tigard.
• Residents of the Bull Mountain area would start paying for those services that
they currently use, including parks, library, and arterial roads outside of the area.
17
Disadvantages:
The City of Tigard would assume responsibility for major capital needs oft the
area, primarily parks and roads. Revenues will not cover the costs of these
facilities.
Strong resident opposition could create hard feelings which could jeopardize
other City initiatives.
Recommendation:
Continue working with residents and Washington County to analyze the benefits
and costs of annexation.
Update the annexation study to refine cost, revenue and service needs analyses.
Work to educate Bull Mountain and City residents of the issues surrounding
annexation of this area.
18
Local Option Property Tax Levy
Issue Summary
Definition: A Local Option Property Tax Levy is allowed under the Oregon Constitution
(Measure 50) to increase the local property tax rate to pay for needed services. It
cannot exceed a period longer than 5 years, after which, it must be re-approved by
voters. It can be used for any purpose (i.e. General Fund support) or it can be
dedicated to specific services (i.e. Library, Parks, Police, etc.)
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: It is not yet known how much the City would
require from a Local Option Property Tax Levy. That is dependent upon what
combination (if any) of additional revenues or cuts in expenditures the Council wishes to
pursue. A tax rate of 27¢1$1,000 of assessed valuation will raise $1,000,000 per year.
Work Completed to date: No work on a Local Option Property Tax Levy has been
done to date. Departments have preliminarily forecasted funding needs, but those
forecasts have not yet been reviewed by the Budget Committee.
Implementation Action Required: A Local Option Property Tax Levy must be
approved by Council and placed on the ballot for approval by Tigard voters. It may only
be voted on at one of the following elections:
1. May, subject to double-majority requirement
2. November of an odd-numbered year, subject to double majority requirement
3. November of even numbered year, subject to simple majority.
Timing: If a Local Option Levy is approved by voters in May 2004, the first revenues
would be received by the City in November 2004. If the Levy is approved by voters in
November 2004, the first revenues would be received by the City on November 2005.
Advantages:
■ Broad based revenue source
■ Easily understandable (traditional funding source, familiar to voters)
■ Stable
■ If approved as a rate per $1,000, it will grow with growth in assessed values
■ Well-established collection mechanism in place
Disadvantages:
■ Short term solution - it expires after 5 years, and then must be renewed by
J
voters
■ Oregon voters have been limiting property taxes for the last 10 years. Tigard
voters may not choose to increase their property taxes.
■ Competition on the ballot from other jurisdictions requesting voters to approve
funding measures
19
■ Competition and confusion with WCCLS measure likely to be on the ballot in
2004
Recommendation: Continue to research and explore options with the goal of placing
this issue before voters in May or November 2004.
20
New Revenue Source(s)
Issue Summary
Definition: There are many potential sources of revenue used to varying degrees by
other jurisdictions within Oregon and nationally. It may be to the City's advantage to
consider one or more of these sources to supplement other General Fund revenues. A
partial list of potential sources includes such items as:
■ Construction Excise Tax
■ Local Gas Tax
■ Local Hotel/Motel Tax
■ Local Sales Tax
■ Off-Street Parking Tax
■ Payroll Tax
■ Renter Service Fee
■ Utility Account Tax
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Revenue potential of various options has not
been determined. Potential candidates (if any) need to be identified before revenue
potentials can be researched.
Work Completed to date: None
Implementation Action Required: Most of these types of revenue sources could be
implemented by Council action. They would all be subject to referral, and some are
more likely to generate interest in referral than others.
Timing: Generally speaking, development of a new revenue source is quite time
consuming. In addition to the time required to research identified options and to
structure a proposal, it is also generally advisable to develop an extensive public
involvement process, which can also be time consuming. Most likely the earliest a new
revenue proposal could be brought to Council would be in late 2004.
Advantages: Advantages of new revenue source will vary by the specific source
developed. In general, however, new revenue sources will help to diversify the City's
revenue base. This will help to insulate the City from fluctuations in the economy and
will spread the burden of paying for City services. If constructed properly, new
revenues can also increase equity within the City's revenue structure.
Disadvantages: New revenue sources are rarely popular. Specific sources may
generate high levels of opposition form specific interest groups. This opposition could
affect other City initiatives
21
If the source chosen is entirely new, there may not be a readily available collection
mechanism. If it is necessary to set up a revenue collection mechanism, administration
of the new revenue source could be expensive.
Recommendation: Direct staff to identify a preliminary list of potential revenue sources
and to research issues related to those sources. Schedule a Council (or Budget
Committee) workshop to present the results of that preliminary research. Make a
determination following this workshop session whether or not to proceed with any new
revenue sources.
22
Urban Renewal
Issue Summary
Definition: Creation of one or more urban renewal districts to generate dedicated
revenues to pay for needed improvements in the Washington Square Regional Center,
Downtown Tigard, and/or Commuter Rail Line. The Tigard Charter currently prohibits
any renewal districts without an approving vote of the people.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. The Washington Square
regional Center Plan identifies substantial improvements needed in that area, with costs
to match. These costs can only be partially covered by existing revenues and fund
sources.
Work Completed to date: Council has received three informational briefings of the
mechanics of urban renewal and urban renewal financing.
Council has approved the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the
Washington Square Regional Center financing plan, which identify needed
improvements and potential costs.
Washington County is actively pursuing funding for the Commuter Rail Line and is
exploring urban renewal as a means of providing funding for a portion of the
improvements required, particularly in the area of Commuter Line Stations, of which
Tigard will have two.
The Central Business District has discussed plans for needed improvements, but to
date, not central vision or plan has emerged.
Implementation Action Required: City Charter prohibits the formation of any urban
renewal district without an affirmative citywide vote. Council could refer one of two
measures to the people:
1. An amendment of City Charter to remove the requirement for a citywide vote, or
2. Approval of one or more urban renewal districts.
Timing: To be determined
Advantages:
Creation of a dedicated funding source, that grows with growth in assessed
values in the urban renewal district, that can be used to pay for needed
improvements.
Public improvements paid for by urban renewal will spur private investment that
will further increase values in the district, and will accommodate job and housing
growth
23
• Once the urban renewal plan is accomplished and all costs are paid for, the
assessed value is returned to the general tax roles and help pay for citywide
service.
Disadvantages:
• Urban renewal "locks up" growth in assessed values during the life of the urban
renewal plan, thereby limiting growth in tax revenues for all overlapping taxing
jurisdictions.
• Urban renewal mechanics are complicated and difficult to explain to the public in
an election setting.
• Creation of an urban renewal district requires the active support of major property
owners within the proposed district.
Recommendation:
• Continue to explore urban renewal as an option for Tigard
• Work with property owners in the Washington Square Regional Center and the
Tigard Central Business district, and with Washington County to assess the level
of interest and support for urban renewal.
• Develop a proposed timeline for resolution of this question.
24
Transportation Bond
Issue Summary
itywidteon
emp ovemechanism
Definition: A Transportation Bond ifunding
ments. eteequires alocal
rtation-related
can sell bonds to perform transpo
typical 10 or 20 year period would come
over a
vote and the repayment of the bonds
x rate.
from an increase in the local property
ta
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Approximately $25 million is the revenue
transportation-related improvements needed
k
ey
this
needed to address some of the
improve local circulation in the City. The increase in the tax rate needed to support
and on
amount would be uet on the interest rate, on A bond issue for $25 million at an assumed interest
the length of the band ond iss iss period 000 of assessed value. At a
rate of 4.75% over a 10 year period would be 90¢ per $1, 550 per
1,000
d with an interest rate of 4.50%,
een
t
i
b
$
w
o
e
be
20-year per
2006 would
election year
assessed value. Hence, the expected range in
d issue in the amount of $25
b
on
50¢ and $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed value for a
million.
Council-appointed
Work Completed to date:
and pedestrian b k path projects to
idewalk
,
safet
selected a list of transportation, Y, s
enhancing meet the City's goals im
osed list of pr jects an d
ro
d th
p
e p
Council approve
pedestrian and bike transportation.
$16 million as
y
0
issue did
submitted a Proposed be 7200
proposed bond
0 general election.
Measure 34-20 in the November 7, he Cit
y
t
s
not pass. The need to address the
Tiga d
the
thenr In January 2002, Counc l adopted
n more urgent since
cessar
y
has grown eve
Transportation System Plan. This plan provides an extensive list of projects ne
rovides the basis for project selection for a
It
ffi
p
c.
to accommodate current and future tra
future transportation bond issue.
proval is Implementation Action Required Citywide
pbut requires addouble majo~ty
ti
on,
elec
issue. This requires simple majority in a 9
~
oc
in any other election.
ca
Timing: The earliest that a bond issue could be submitted is in the 2006 general
ballot issues that need to be submitted in the
th
J
er
election. This is in recognition of the o
co
2004 election year.
W
J
Advantages: The reasons for proposing a Transportation Bond are as follows:
Accelerates the design and construction of major transportation projects to
e of these improvements are
S
om
increase capacity and enhance traffic flow.
ddress current traffic problems.
needed now to a
25
• Improves traffic and pedestrian safety through intersection improvements and
separation of various modes of travel (bike lanes and sidewalks) as part of the
improvements.
Disadvantages: The drawbacks to the Transportation Bond are:
It requires a vote of the citizens to increase their property tax. The voters have
not shown an inclination to favor such an increase.
• Competition on the ballot from other jurisdictions may work against passage.
• May conflict with other City initiatives, depending upon what happens in election
year 2004.
Recommendation:
The recommendation is that the City plan for a Transportation Bond issue in the amount
of $25 million to be submitted to the voters in election year 2006. This would require
creation of a committee or task force to select projects that voters would deem as
essential. It would also require a concerted effort by the City, City Council, and the
community to conduct a public awareness campaign to convince the voters to approve
the bond issue.
26
Recreation District Creation, or
Annexation to Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District
Issue Summary
Definition: Creation of a new Recreation District to service the Tigard/Tualatin area, or
requesting annexation of this area to the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District
(THPRD). Such an action would be designed to improve parks and recreation services
to area residents and to provide services not currently available. This issue, if
implemented could help to address the Skate park Construction issue and the Parks
and Open Spaces Bond issue, listed separately in this report.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined
Work Completed to date: Two years ago, a proposal was placed before area voters to
create and fund the Atfalati Recreation District. The proposal was rejected by voters.
No further action has been taken. Area residents have begun discussing this option
again.
Implementation Action Required: For creation of a new district, cities in the proposed
area would have to pass resolutions of support, followed by action by the Washington
County Commission to place the proposal on the ballot. An approving vote by residents
of the proposed district would be required.
For annexation to THPRD, it is not yet known what initiating action would be required.
Presumably either cities within the area to be annexed and citizens could petition the
THPRD Board for annexation.
Timing: Unknown. Discussions in the community are at a very preliminary stage.
Advantages: Creation of a new special district would provide additional parks and
recreation opportunities to area residents if the measure also creates a sufficient
funding base (presumably through a new permanent property tax rate for the new
district.) Annexation to THPRD would accomplish the same end, by extending
THPRD's existing tax rate to the newly annexed area. THPRD's permanent operating
tax rate is $1.3073 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
Disadvantages:
■ Either option will increase property taxes to area residents
■ Creation of a new district will multiply the number of overlapping jurisdictions,
which could cause some confusion among residents and coordination issues
between jurisdictions.
■ Annexation to THPRD could also cause some confusion among residents and
coordination issues between jurisdictions.
27
Recommendation: Take no action at this time. Monitor developments to see how this
issue develops.
28
Parks and Open Spaces Acquisition Bond
Issue Summary
Definition: A Parks and Open Spaces Acquisition Bond is allowed u roved, authorize a
Statutes. General Obligation bonds require a citywide vote, and if app
special debt service property tax levy. The City could also issue other types of bonds,
which do not require voter approval, but ldThhave to e City currently does not have such a
be pledged to annual debt service payments.
source of revenue.
In 1999 the City adopted a 10-year Park System Master Plan. This Park System Master
Plan was the result of a comprehensive, collaborative effort between the citizens of
Tigard, Tigard staff, and consultants. Tigard's Park System Master Plan is a
comprehensive needs assessment and long range plan for meeting the community's
parks and recreation needs over a ten-year period. The plan identifies many projects
totaling over $21,000,000. The plan examines the impacts of the community's growing
demand for services, the effects of related planning efforts, the implications of
demographic changes, and the contributions made by the park system in providing relief
from high density urban development. Further, the plan sets forth a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) which functions as a framework plan or tentative list of
projects for a ten-year period. The CIP is reviewed and updated annually to reflect the ng for
financin
park changing needs of the communi~yd'nndchanges
ual expendi uavailable
ref of fulnds for individual park
capital projects. Decisions rega g he ac
capital projects are incorporated into the City's annual budget process.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The revenue required to accomplish the
projects identified for the next 5-years (FY 03-04 thru FY 07-08) is approximately
$4,000,000. SDC generated revenue, easeAs long astthe eclonomytlema nseasht isa it
few years (approximately $350K p year).
is projected that SDC funds will continue to remain flat during the next few years. A
successful park and open space bond measure would provide the necessary revenues
to acquire and development parks. A tax rate of debt service 27¢ per $1,000 of assessed valuation
will raise $1,000,000 toward annual
Work Completed to date: No work on a Parks and Open Spaces Bond Measure has
been done to date.
Implementation Action Required: A bond measure must be approved by Council and
placed on the ballot for approval by Tigard residents.
Timing: To be determined
29
Advantages:
A bond measure would provide the funds necessary to supplement SDC
funds for the acquisition and development of parks and open spaces
Easily understandable (known funding source, familiar to voters)
Disadvantages:
• Tigard residents have been asked to increase taxes on several occasions
over the past several years. Specifically, the successful passage of the new
Library Bond and the School District Bond.
Although additional bond funds would be advantageous, the projections show
limited funding for parks operations and maintenance. The City may not be
able to adequately maintain new facilities.
Recommendation: Do not consider a bond measure until the City is able to fund
operating costs.
30
Long Term Water Suppiy and Water Rates
Issue Summary
Definition: Tigard's vision document and Council goals both identify securing a long
term water supply as an essential objective of the City.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Tigard is currently participating in two efforts
to secure its long term water supply: the regionalization of the Bull Run system with a
collection of approximately 12 agencies, and joining the Joint ater Commission (JWC)
and expanding the Scoggins Dam / Henry Hagg Lake complex.
The Bull Run regionalization proposal has developed a range of ownership models aand nd
scenarios that all hinge on the City of Portland regionalizing its water supply system
establishing a sale price. This option will cost the City of Tigard between $67 and $88
million dollars over the next 20 years.
The JWC proposal hinges on the ability to secure permits and approvals to modify
Scoggins Dam. The JWC proposal would cost the City of Tigard between $91 and $93
million dollars over the next 40 years.
In summary, Tigard could be faced with making financial commitments with costs that
best current estimates average approximately $80 to $90 million dollars over the next
20 to 40 year period. Both of these projects are consistent with and addressed
specifically in the City's visioning documents. To help put these numbers in
perspective, a $5 dollar per month increase in each monthly water bill in the Tigard
Water Service area would raise approximately $1 million dollars annually.
Work Completed to date:
The City has completed two phases of study on the Bull Run regional process and is
awaiting the City of Portland's determination of its interest and a sale price. The JWC
project is proceeding through feasibility and environmental impact, and it will be
approximately two years until staff can confidently say the project will move ahead.
Implementation Action Required:
The Intergovernmental Water Board will initially produce a recommendation to the City
Council. Following that, the City Council will need to indicate its approval. The cost of
the preferred option erod. Council would approve issuance of tthe Water Revenue Bo ds by
20 to 30 year p
ordinance.
Timing:
31
Staff is currently beginning the negotiation process with the JWC staff to allow for a
limited partnership arrangement for Tigard, hopefully as early as FY 2003/04. This "first
increment" of investment could cost up to $12 million dollars. Decisions by Portland on
sale price and continuing the regionalization decision are currently on hold, and
Portland's schedule is unknown. The next major decision for the Scoggins Dam project
is approximately two years away.
Advantages:
The advantages of securing a permanent supply source are many: control, financial
stability, adequate future supply, and quality control top the list.
Disadvantages:
Cost. Because the Tigard Water Service Area is so late in securing its source the costs
are high, and Tigard will not have the benefit of time to spread costs over a long period.
Recommendation:
Staff will continue to update Council on options and costs, with a future
recommendation to authorize issuance of one or more water revenue bond to purchase
some portion of future supply as options finalize.
32
Urban Services
Issue Summary
Definition: Services for areas outside existing City limits, but within the City's urban
services boundary (other than Bull Mountain). This includes the areas to the south and
west of Bull Mountain soon to be brought into the urban growth boundary.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Unknown at this point.
Work Completed to date: No work has been completed to date on this issue.
Implementation Action Required: At some point, the City will be required to provide
public services to areas outside the existing City limits but within the City's urban
and revenues l haafter those areas are s been done to annexed. No work to
services boundary. ial This
Public Facilities and
identify those potent
Service Plans are needed to assess existing and future needs.
Timing: To be determined. Considerable resources will be necessary to complete
necessary studies.
Advantages:
• Improved services to residents of the urban services area, including police patrol,
road maintenance, and other city services.
• Residents obtain a voice in the governing and direction of the City of Tigard.
• Residents of the urban services area would start paying for those services that
they currently use, including parks, library, and arterial roads outside of the area.
Disadvantages:
• The City of Tigard would assume responsibility for capital needs of the areas.
These needs could be substantial.
• Resident opposition could create hard feelings which could jeopardize other City
initiatives.
Recommendation:
Conduct a preliminary, high-level survey to attempt to define major service issues
within these areas.
Identify logical areas of opportunity /need.
• Prepare a preliminary timeline for additional work, consistent with existing staff
resources and workload.
33
City Buildings - Maintenance, Repair, Expansion
Issue Summary
Definition: The City owns and operates several buildings, including Public City aWohe
old Library, the Police Department, the Niche, the Senior Center, the Building and annex, and Canterbury Water facility. In addition, the City operates the
Water Building, which is owned by the Tigard Water District. The City does not have
a dedicated source of funding to provide for the maintenance, repair or expansion of
these facilities. The City has traditionally set aside General Funds in anticipation of
future building needs.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential:
Projects identified to date include:
FY03/04 Projects
o HVAC Replacement Project for the Senior Center - $50,000
o Seismic Upgrade Project for the Police Dept. - $40,000
o Access Control for Water Building Facility & Canterbury Water Facility
security - $90,000
o Space Planning for the Water Building - $30,000
o Construction Drawings & Construction Administration for Old Library/City
Hall Remodel - $136,050
o Office Renovations Old Library/City Hall - $500,000
FY04/05 Projects
o Office Renovations Old Library/City Hall - $600,000
FY05/06 Projects
o Water Building Renovations - $500,000
FY06/07 Projects Upgrade - $45,000
o Senior Center Seismic In addition to identified projects, there is a need for contingency funds for needs that
may arise during the planning period.
The total cost of remodeling and upgrading the old library and City Hall for new uses is
estimated to cost $1.16 million. The City currently has a set aside of $1 million for this
project.
No set aside exists for other identified needs.
Work Completed to date: A seismic study of city facilities was performed in 2000 to
out of the
identify the seismic current gand future space needs for the City and to provide this fiscal
year to identitif
34
space usage of the old library and the City Hall based on those needs. This study is
near completion.
Implementation Action Required: Projects will be identified and approved
of the
City's Capital Improvement Plan. Annual funding is provided through approval
City Budget.
Timing: It is anticipated that t indicated 1ftnecessary 'lfunding is available. to the
budget approval of the fiscal years
Advantages:
Provides for greater security of facilities
Meets the long term growth needs of the City
Provides for a safe and effective work environment for staff and the public
Improved use of facilities to provide better customer service
Provides for more meeting rooms for public use
Disadvantages:
No dedicated funding source. Capital funding need must compete with operating
funding needs.
Delaying projects would result in increased cost of projects and increased safety
and or security risks
Recommendation:
v Develop a capital plan for all City facilities, including identifying renewal and
replacement and upgrade needs.
Develop a policies and a plan for funding renewal and replacement needs during
the annual budget process.
Present recommendations to the City Budget Committee and the City Council for
their review and approval.
35
Skate Park Construction
Issue Summary
Definition: A local Skate Park Task Force recommended to Council that the City
provide funding for the design of a potential skate park facility in Tigard. The council
approved up to $20,000 to design a facility. The design was approved by Council on
November 26, 2002. The design can be built in three phases (15K, 20K & 25K square
feet). Currently the Task Force has not been able to find a site for the skate park.
Locations at a City park and on School District property have run into strong opposition
due primarily because of locations close to neighboring homes. Further, fundraising
efforts have not gotten off the ground, having been delayed by the inability to secure a
site location.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The following revenues are required for
construction of a skate park in Tigard.
15K sq. ft. $642,000, fundraising = $392,000 and $250,000 - funding source
undetermined at this time (auxiliary costs such as parking, infrastructure,
street improvements, restrooms, etc.)
20K sq. ft. $769,000, fundraising = $519,000 and $250,000 - funding source
undetermined
25K sq. ft. $877,000, fundraising = $627,000 and $250,000 - funding source
undetermined
Potential revenues for the construction of the Skate Park and auxiliary costs are 1)
dependent on any fundraising efforts by the Task Force, and 2) making a determination
as to who will pay for the auxiliary costs estimated at $250,000. With the economy
being what it is right now, and into the foreseeable future as well, it will undoubtedly be
000.
a daunting task for the Task Force to raise anywhere from $392,000 to $877,000.
Further, operational funds are decreasing significantly, making it difficult, if not
impossible, to keep up with the expanding maintenance workload. New facilities would
only exacerbate this condition.
Work Completed to date: A skate park design has been approved by Council. A
comprehensive site location process continues. Fundraising has not begun.
Implementation Action Required: If a site is secured, Council, along with the Task
Force leadership must decide how the $250,000 in auxiliary costs, construction drawing
and specifications, etc. will be funded. Construction drawings and specifications must
be completed. Either the Task Force or the City will seek bids for the construction of the
skate park. This also must be determined.
36
Timing: Two major processes remain incomplete at the present time. Securing a site
has proven as daunting a task as is a fundraising campaign in the current economy.
Reductions in funding for operational costs to adequately cover current and upcoming
increases in maintenance, services, and capital outlay, create a heavy burden on the
existing staff to handle the parks division workload.
Advantages:
• Building a skate park now would be well received by the kids in Tigard.
• Building now would, more than likely, cost less than building in the future.
Disadvantages:
• A huge fundraising campaign would be difficult in any economic condition.
However, during current economic conditions, the Task Force's fundraising
process will not only daunting, but probably unattainable at the present time.
A site has not been secured.
• At the present time, and in the foreseeable future, increased operational
funds are not available to cover the additional workload created by a new
facility of this magnitude.
Recommendation:
1) Continue looking for a location for the skate park.
2) Before the City contribute funds (if Council decides to do so) to the construction of
the Skate Park, the following issues must be resolved:
A site must be secured
Economic conditions must improve
A decision must be made regarding who will be responsible for the auxiliary
costs associated with the construction of the skate park
• Long term funding for Parks operations and maintenance must be secured
A successful fundraising campaign must be completed or be well-on-its-way
37
Other Jurisdictions' Issues
38
WCCLS Local Option Levy
Issue Summary
Definition: A countywide Local Option Property Tax Levy for library services is allowed
under the Oregon Constitution (Measure 50) to increase the local property tax rate for
needed services. It cannot exceed a period longer than 5 years, after which it must be
re-approved by voters. Funding from a countywide levy would be distributed to all
member libraries through a formula based on circulation and a variety of other factors.
Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: It is projected that the tax rate of this levy will
be approximately 26¢/$1,000 of assessed valuation. This will raise approximately
$10,000,000 per year.
Work Completed to Date: A countywide levy for library operational funding was placed
before voters in November 2002. The measure failed by approximately 600 votes. A
Needs Analysis for the levy was completed in 2002, as was a phone survey. A citizens'
group was formed in 2002 to provide information to Washington County voters
concerning the benefits of the levy. Significant background information has been
compiled concerning this issue.
Tigard has been actively working with WCCLS staff and other member libraries to revise
and update the existing funding distribution formula.
Implementation Action Required: A WCCLS Local Option Property Tax Levy must be
approved by the County Board of Commissioners and placed on the ballot for approval
by Washington County voters. It may only be voted on at one of the following elections:
1. May, subject to double-majority requirement
2. November of an odd-numbered year, subject to double-majority requirement
3. November of an even-numbered year, subject to simple majority.
Timing: If the WCCLS Local Option Levy is approved by county voters in May 2004,
the first revenues would be received by the County in November 2004. If the Levy is
approved by the voters in November 2004, the-first revenues would be received by the
County in November 2005.
Advantages:
• Easily understandable--will be used to restore cuts to library service countywide.
• Well-established collection mechanism in place
• Broad-based revenue source
• Historically, Washington County voters have supported library levies
39
Disadvantages:
• Short-term solution--it expires after 5 years, and then must be renewed by the
voters
• Competition on the ballot from other jurisdictions requesting voters to approve
funding measures
• Competition and confusion with the Tigard local option levy likely to be on the
ballot in 2004
• Washington County voters have been reluctant to vote for tax levies in the recent
past. Successful passage may be related to factors outside government control
Recommendation:
• Continue to research and explore options to create stable library revenue
sources.
• Support the information campaign about the WCCLS levy if it is placed before
voters in May or November 2004.
• Continue to work with Washington County and other WCCLS libraries to
develop an equitable formula for distribution of WCCLS revenues.
40
C
O
.y
i
O
h
cc
O
MM~
W
VI
V
cc
y.r
CL
V
Q
a~
is
0
o
c
0
C C C C
C
p
C C C C
C: c
O O
O
Z
w
O O O
Z Z Z Z
Z Z Z Z
z z
Z Z Z Z
Z
c o
0
0
N
~
N b9
6
v
u
i
C p E
u
C
N O O O
O O
a
C C C C
p O O O
z z z Z
Z Z Z Z
Z Z
1 EA
U)
Z Z Z Z
z
06
O
N w
C
C
O N
> C
C 0
L
3
O
4
E E
° Z o
m c U
CD
U
c
v >
m o
O
'0 N
0 0 C C C
C C C C
O 0 0
N N N N
O
CCo
0
cn
0
0
° ° °
Z
z
Z Z O..
U
O O O O
z Z Z
z
~
N
U
f9
a Z Z Z
Z Z
Z
04
°
o
0 o
c
>
o z
o
Z
N N O N O
7
N O O O
Y C C C
O O
C
>O
C C N O
w
'
C
O O Z O O
Z Z
Z
C O
Z Z Z
z
z
z z a z
c
0
fA
U
C
C
N
C
O N N
O 3:
N N N
C
0
C
C
• N N N O
C C C C
•
C
Y
C C C C
-Y.
C O O O
Z z Z
0
z
_
Z Z Z Z
Z z z Z
D
O
n
Y
V
U fl_
7
e
•n
'd
N
c N
n
C d
cca
m
m c E
a, m
m
CD a) N N
o a>
C O (D N
a)
0
o
N L c
rn
N O O O
N T
C C C C
1 T C C C
C N O
o
O (0 0`
Z Z Z Z
E° Z Z z
a.
Z
rn
a o
Z Z Z Z
CL J
U
N
w
od
N
a
o
N
CD
CD
A)
2~
U 0
0 f E
>
°
0
o°
o
a~i N C
n
° m
U)
3 Co
o
m
m N
>
ca a)
Q
Y 0)
2
Z O a cn
F-
co li ti C7
=
2
N
O
d
Q1
Cl.
I110
SFr
V
w
Q
C
O'
ct
v..
L
c~
C
w
.O
V
.Y
y~
a
(1)
i~
0
c
O
U
(1)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
W
O
O
O
O
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
~
r
C
c
c
c
c
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
CD
a)
O
a)
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
m
~
j
O
C)
Z
_
C)
U
a)
N N
O
r
W
(1)
W
Z
Z
N
Z
Z
O O
O
O O
O
ti
O E9
EA
1
L C
C N
c
•
C
c
Z
N c
U 0
Z
Z
N^: tl
co
a
L
~rv
cu
V! N
c 0)
(d C
i
a)
U
U
c)
O
c
c
o
Z
U 7
D
o n.
d O
O
Z
O
Z
Mn
c
c
o
CD
U
(1)
c
j
c
0
a)
0)
co
U
c
>
>
-
5
in
a
°
Fc-
co
3:
3'.
o
~
~
N
O
N
a)
O)
m
d
City of Tigard
Recent Election Results
Votes
Percenta
ge
Measure
Measure #
Yes
No
Yes
No
Measure 28 (Statewide Income Tax)
28
7,017
8,064
47%
53%
WCCLS Local Option Levy
34-54
6,335
8,220
44%
56%
Washington County Exhibition Center
34-56
3,853
10,391
27%
73%
Tigard Library Bond
34-47
6,720
4,557
60%
40%
Tigard-Tualatin School Bond
34-49
6,536
3,204
67%
33%
Atfalati Park & Rec. District
34-23
7,322
8,540
46%
54%
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY ON
JANUARY 28, 2003
STATE MEASURE 28
Page
Number 1.001.001
R
T
T
S Y
S N
E
U
U
T E
T O
G
R
R
A S
A
I
N
N
T
T
S
0
0
E
E
T
U
U
E
T
T
M
M
R
E
E
E
P
A
A
D
E
S
S
R
U
U
V
C
R
R
0
E
E
E
T
N
E
T
2
2
R
A
8
8
S
G
E
391
PORTLAND CITY
246
132
53.6%
84
48
392
PORTLAND CITY COM 2
209
127
60.7W
72
55
393
MONTCLAIR
519
384
73.9%
230
153
394
CORNELIUS EAST
9
6
66.6%
3
3
395
MURRAYHILL
2099
1353
64.4%
635
712
396
DURHAM
728
507
69.6%
235
271
397
BULL MOUNTAIN
2228
1550
69.5%
616
930
398
COOPER MOUNTAIN
674
506
75.0%
189
314
399
METZGER
1847
1208
65.4%
556
645
400
WASHINGTON SQUARE
2296
1451
63.1%
667
776
401
MAYO STREET
1496
1081
72.2
611
466
402
TIGARD/WALNUT ST
674
475
70.4%
220
252
403
TIGARD/GAARDE ST
3337
2311
69.2%
988
1316
404
FOWLER SCHOOL
2265
1524
67.2%
664
857
405
TWALITY SCHOOL
3386
2302
67.9%
1117
1173
406
TIGARD CITY HALL
2828
1784
63.0%
772
1005
407
NORTH BARNES
746
527
70.6%
283
242
408
SUMMERFIELD
4098
3049
74.4%
1550
1474
409
SUMMERLAKE-WEST
1975
1252
63.3%
570
677
410
BEEF BEND RD
1460
1038
71.0
456
579
411
SCHOLLS HEIGHTS
1026
544
53.0%
244
298
412
COOPER MT SCHOOL
1686
1163
68.9W
527
634
413
FISCHER\PACIFIC HWY
29
21
72.4%
5
16
414
BARROWS RD
1118
707
63.2%
313
392
415
BEEF BEND/131ST
443
380
85.7%
183
195
416
SUMMERLAKE-EAST
1534
1008
65.7%
469
534
417
ELDORADO
1361
873
64.1%
400
468
418
HART ROAD
288
198
68.7%
79
118
419
KING CITY
1728
1397
80.8%
703
678
420
TUALATIN CITY
3047
2078
68.1%
1003
1063
Tigard Precincts:
400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 416
NOV-26-2002 01:03PM FROM-WASHINGTON COUNTY ELECTIONS +5038465810 T-206 P-002/003 F-158
- OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER
34-54 COUNTY LIBRARY LOL
Page Number 136.084.001
R
G
T
S
R
D
v
O
T
R
S
T
R
0
U
T
T
R
0
U
T
R
C
N
A
G
E
3 Y
-S
4
0
T
Y
L
B
R
R
Y
L
0
3 N
40
4
0
Y
T
L
B
R
R
Y
L
0
361 MILLIKAN
41
52.8%
22
15
-
_
62 CEDAR HILLS
334
242
72.4
13
90
63 BARNES RD
302
20
68.
122
72
64 NCOANIEL RD
3167AI
23
75.1%
132
93
365 LEAHY RD
284
2251
79.0
132
81
-
-
~
66 HEST TUALATIN VIEW
144
92
64.0
53
3
i
_
367 RD
368 SOMERSET
204-
30
-1 521
211
74.3%
69.1%
75
10
6814
93
_
VE
69 COLUMBIA A
16
12
72.2%
6731
4631
_
ROCK CREEK M'~
~7'
1891
13
951
73.
7121
61
71 OAK HILLS
194
145
74.6
87
49
72 RIDGEWOOD SCHOOL
160
12621
78.8%
72
471
Tigard Precincts:
71 CORNELIUS PASS
360
26CI
72.2'
101
14
4 JACOBSON RD
A
19
50.0'
1
5 PORTLAND CITY
21
13
650
71
6
416
409
406
408
404
405
402
403
400
6 WESTVIEW
1741
1231
70.
681
48
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
V.~
7 BETHANY
425
3U
72.5
144
144
8 CANYON LN
9349
75
80.1
40
294
1
9 HALL BLVD
29461
19961
67_
94
921
0 HIGHLAND PARK
20221
140
69.6
681
64
1 BEAVERTON/CENTER ST
187
11371
60.6%
58
4721
2 CREENWAY
267
1664
62.3%
8391
71
3 BEAVERTON-HILLSDALE
4 GARDEN HONE
1
1215
2252
1 877
1 1677
1 72.1
1 74.
4961
921
32
65
5 PORTLAND GOLF CLUB
26
2011
74.6
1169
1 6921
1
6 RALEIGH PARK
310
246E
I 79.3
1571
75
7 SUNSET CORRIDOR
84
86.8°
3
42
1
8 WHITFORD
8
61
168.54
3
2
9 SEXTON MOUNTAIN
2720
1 185
68.1'
82
900
1
0 SOUTHRIDGE
317
22
69.5
tOb
01
1 PORTLAND CITY
233
1 1
58.3'
3
2 PORTLAND CITY COM 2
2
12
58.3°
7
3
3 MONTCLAIR
521
39
75.4
23
V
3
CORNELIUS EAST
94
4
1 44.4'
95 MURRAYHILL
2097
1 1407
1 67.
61
81
96 DURHAM
722
1 534
1 73.0
1 24
5
5
ULL MOUNTAIN
97 B
21
1587
1 72.1
604
88
98 COOPER MOUNTAIN
99 METZGER
1
67
1845
3 517
1 118
1 76.8
63.8
20
5
26
58
00 WASHINGTON SQUARE
226
1491
1 66.2
62
791
01 -MAYO STREET
1489
1 110
9 74.0
61
1 43
02 TIGARO WALNUT ST
657
1 463
1 70.4'
1
25
03 TIGARD GAARDE ST
329
1 7-36
41 71.8
8
136
1
04 FOWLER SCHOOL
226
51 152
61 67-31
4
1 59
85
31
05 TWALITY SCHOOL
337-
4 239
4 70.9
'
101
21 124
1
06 TIGARD CITY HALL
283
:_j 70•
- 62.8
'
77
90
07 NORTH BARNES
75
5
76.2
32
1 22
ELD
410
0 315
76
6
'
126
21 168
1
OS SUMMERFl
09 SUMMERLAKE-WEST
197
128
.
1 64.8
56
62
10 BEEF BEND RD
11 SCHOLLS HEIGHTS
144
99
10
53
73.8
53.8
%
42
26
57
4
23
12 COOPER MT SCHOOL
166
91 11
68.5
14
53
55
4
1
13 FISCHER VACIFIC HWY
2
2
21 75.8
'
1
21
1
14 BARROWS RD
111
14 68
1 61.1
28
34
71
15 BEEF BEND/131ST
1
44
51 39
1 87.8
'
14
20
1
16 SUMMERLAKE-EAST
152
51 100
4 65.8
74
43
50
1
17 ELDORADO
136
91
66.8'
4
42
1
18 HART ROAD
27
41 17
64.
6
9
Ll
19 KING CITY
1
142
82.
56 7
20 TUALATIN CITY
5 02
213
70.6
101 49
NOV-26-2002 04:10PM FROWWASHINGTON COUNTY ELECTIONS +5038465810 T-208 P.003/004 F-162
OFFIC AL STATENE
N7 OF THE GFNERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, LuUt.
34-56 COUNTY EXHIBITI
ON
ese Number 139.085.001
R
U
U
4 E
4 0
$
6
S
0
0
6
E
T
T
U
R
U
P
U
U
D
E
N
N
R
7
Y
E
Y
Y
I
O
7
N
E
E
S
B
B
E
'
I
I
T
T
I
i
N
N
78
41
52
8%
13
2
61 MILLMAN
62 CEDAR HILLS
334
242
.
72.4
75
14
-•'•I
63 BARNES RD
302
2
68.2
67
121
- -
64 MCOANIEL RD
1
316
237
75.1
_ 65
_155
; - -
65 LEAHY RD
284
2251
79.0
139
66 WEST TUALATIN VIEW
144
92
64.0
2
52
i
r
67 THOMPSON RD
204
1521
74.3%
3
104
68 SOMERSET
3
211
69.1%
61
133
69 COLUMBIA AVE
16
120
72.
40
71
70 ROCK CREEK
1891
13
73.
45
85
Tigard Precincts:
_
71 OAK HILLS
194
.
1ti5
746
49
SSL
72 RIDGEWOOD SCHOOL 'J
.
160
126
78.8'
3
76
416
73 CORN EL IUS PASS
36
26
72.
s6
16
402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409,
400
74 JAC08SON RD
50.0
_
1
,
75 PORTLAND CITY
21
1
65.0
3
9
76 WESTVIEW
1741
1231
70.
38
751
1 1
77 BETHANY
425
3
72.5
771
206
78 CANYON LN
9
75
80.1
20
46
i
79 HALL BLVD
294
199
67.
63
119q
I
-
- -
80 HIGHLAND PARK
202
14
69.6
395
891
81 BEAVERTON/CENTER ST
187
113
60.6
65
-
-
82 GREENWAY
26
1
62.3
51
102
83 BEAVERTON-HILLSDALE
121
8
72.1
27
49
-
HOME
84 GARDEN
225
16
74.
48
105
-
-
-
D 6 LF CLUB
C
5
26
2011
74
6
63
115
-
- -
LAN
P
8
~
.
'
RALEIGH PARK
86
31 _
2
79.3
72
150
-
87 SUNSET CORRIDOR
9
86.8'
2
5
-
-
-
88 NHiIFRU - -
_
61
68.5
2
3
89 SEXTON NOUNTAIN
272
185
68.1'
50
119
90 SOUTHRIDGE
317
220
69.5
64
13
91 PORTLAND CITY
23
13
58.3
4
-
92 PORTLAND CITY ED-M2
20
12
58.3
3
s
-
-
93 MONTCLAIR
52
1 39
75.4
11
23
-
94 CORNELIUS EAST
44.4
1
209
140
0
67
35
92
-
95 MURRAYHILL
_
72
53
.
9
73
%
13
361
96 DURHAM
21
158
-
72
1'
~32
•
113
97 BULL MOUNTAIN
.
98 COOPER MOUNYATN
6
51
76.
14
33
99 METZGER
184
118
63.
29
781
00 WASHINGTON SQUARE
226
149
66.
35
102
_
O1 MAYO STREET
148
110
74.4
29
72
02 TIGARD/WALNUT ST
65
46
70.4'
12
,
3O
03 TIGARD/GAARDE ST
3291
23
71.8
1
47
177
04 FOWLER SCHOOL
226
15
67.3
38
104
_
05 TWALITY SCHOOL
33
239
70.
63
157
06 TIGARD CITY HALL
283
17
62.8
4
117
07 NORTH BARNES
75
_5
76.2
'
16
36
08 SUKMERFIELD
41
315
76.6
77
209
-
09 SUMMERLAKE-HEST
197
128
1 64.8
82
10 BEEF SEND RD~ -
_
_
14
1
73.8
2
71
-
11 SCROLLS HEIGHTS
99
53
53.8
1501
334
1
12 COOPER MT SCHOOL
166
11
68.5
Z7
78
13 FISCHER\PACIFIC HWY
2
75.8
1
14 BARROMIS RD
111
68
1 61.1
'
14
47
-
15 BEEF' BEND 137ST
44
39
I 87.8
9
25
• _
-
16 SUMMERLAKE-EAST
1525
1 100
65.8
291
6Z
17 ELDORADO
36
1
91
.8
66
25
5
_
ROAD
18 HART
27
1
64
.
19 K1NG CITY
173
142
11 82_ 2
'A
I 34
86
20 TUALATIN CITY
302
213
81 70.6
50
14
• OFFI
MEASURE 3
CIAL S
4-47 T
TATEMENT 0
IGARD CITY G
R R MAY 21
08
Page Number 111.858.001
E
S
R
E
0
V
T
E
S
U
O
T
U
O
T
P
E
R
C
N
T
G
E
4 E
S
t
G
A
R
D
C
I
Y
G
0
0
4 0
7
1
G
A
R
D '
C
1
Y
G
0
8
.00 WASHINGTON SQUARE
217
105
48.6
59
02 TIGARO LNUT ST
59
3241
54.8
1
14
03 TIGARD GAARDE ST
315
1834
58.1
100
75
- Ti
ard Precincts:
04 FOWLER SCHOOL.
224
117
S2.1%
63
48
g
05 TWALITY SCHOOL
323
181
56.
110
64
06 TIGARO CITY NALL
283
139
49.2A
W
53
409
416
405
406
408
400
403
404
402
08 SUMMERFIELD
401
269
67.1
1591
95
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
09 SUMNERLAKE-PEST
194
80
41.414
401
35
_
16 SUMMERLAKE-EAST
149
6
45.04
3
25
T 0 T A L S
2170
11
54.221
672
453
-47
.
- -
'
JUN-12-2002 10:1TAM FRO*-WASHINGTON COUNTY ELECTIONS +5036465810 T-300 P.002/002 F-068
OFFICIAL S
MEASURE 34-49 T
TATEME
IGARD
N OF T
TUALATI
HE PR
N SCH
IMARY ELECTION ON MAY Al. Z1107.w.ww
OOL O08
age Number 119.862.001
URHAM
E
G
S
R
D
Y
1E
S
68
R
U
0
T
:
U
R
O
T
R
M
T
E
54_ Em
4 E
- S
9
I
U
T
L
H
0
B
2
4 0
9
I
T
U
L
H
a
B
9
97 BULL MOUNTAIN
99 METZGER
00 WASHIMITON SQUARE
21091
1
217
12051
85
105
57.7
48.3
48.
75
5
40
34
02 TIGARD/WALNUT ST
59
32
54-
1
10
Tigard Precincts:
TIGARD/GAARDE ST
315
1
58.1
11
59
FOWLER SCHOOL
22
11
52.1
72
3
05 TUALITY SCHOOL
TIGARD CITY HALL
D6
323
283
181
139
56.
49.
11
52
400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 416
08 SUMNERFIELD
10 BEEF BEND RD
407
269
67.1
1719
3531
Z"
23
13 FISCHERWACIFIC HWY
21
14 BARROWS RD
3
1
15 BEEF BEND/131ST
4
77
1
17 ELDORADO
13
M
1'
4311
1
79 KING CITY
1
6571
39
20 TUALATIN CITY
5
104
40
23 TUALATIN-NORTH
698
2
28 TUALATIN-WEST
3
33
0
10351
57.
704
TUALATIN CITY
69
39
57.
25
12
37 HAZELBROOK
551
-71.4%
7
38 SE COUNTY
5
2461
45.
3
2
1 PORTLAND CITY
:1
2
48.22
2
1
A
T O T A L S
2
54.2
12721
6126
1
n
N.
I
.L
12
NOV-28-2000 10:56 FRON-®ASH, COUNTY ELECTIONS
5038464854 T-701 P.003/003 F-916
iR OFF1. STATEMENI ur l "r- urmrt t. C4.F11 gun nvoa.. • •
ATFALATI PmNER 34-23
age N+.arber 193.108.00
CcAQO
~i1El1NGT$
R
E
G
I
S
T
R
E
D
y
p
T
R
S
T
U
R
N
o
U
T
T
U
R
N
0
U
T
P
R
C
E
N
A
E
A Y
T E
FS
A
L
A
I
A
R
T
N
R
4
2
3
A N
T O
F
A
L
T
1
A
R
T
N
R
4
2
3
- IV
<
_
vw
'mac
+
-
~
9
yt
±
v
97 BULL MOUNTAIN
21
J
18G
84.5
99 NETZGER
1
1
78.
4
WASHINGTON SQUARE
24
189
77.
64
1 MAYO STREET
1
131
.
85
ard Precincts:
Ti
2 WALNUT ISLAND
03 TIGARD/GAARDE ST
FOULER'SCNOOL
05 TWALITY•SCHOOL
48
331
23
354
40
198
82.
84.4
62.
81,
15
114
71
1
18
1
11
g
400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 416
_
06 TICARD CITY HALL
31
238
76.1
9
1
-
07 DEERCREEK
08 SUMrERFIELD
09 SUMNERLAKE-{TEST
10 BEEF BEND RD
14 BARROWS RD
63
42S91
21
9
131
50
366
169
81
1
79.
86.6
79.
86.5
80.
21
1
5
35
21
15
82
42
52
15 TUALATIN CITY /RIVER
16 SUMIERLAKE-EAST
40111
166
33
1
82.5
78.
81
4
1
62
17 ELDORADO
20 TUALATIN CITY
1
3271
123
79.
80.
3
112
61
121
22•TUALATIN-.UNINCORP
89.4
1
1
23 TUALATIN-NORTH
28 TUALATIN-HEST
291
210
63
72.
75.5
94
32
85
22
33 ED BYRON SCHOOL
212
1
84.1
77
36 TUALATIN CITY
53
89.
211
2
371NAMLBRODIC
4
80.
38 SE COUNTY
54
81.5
35
1 5
T 0 T A I. S
444
359
81.
1333
1563
1 /Jpstsi d eCc Or(yl <
Lion Investment
Transports
Task Force
Adopted by the Task Force
December 17, 2002
METRO
Trans ortation Investment Task Force Members:
Chair:
Williamson & Wyatt
Schwabe
Jay Waldron
,
President, Port of Portland Commission
Members.
Ken Baker
Citizen
Len Bergstein
Northwest Strategies
Rob Boley
Fred Meyer, Inc.
Bernie Bottomly
PacifiCorp
Steve Clark
Community Newspapers
Steven Corey
Chair, Oregon Transportation Commission
Hal Dengerink
Washington State University, Vancouver
Larry Haverkamp
Gresham City Councilor
Henry Hewitt
Stoel Rives
Carl Hosticka
Metro Councilor
Mike Jordan
Clackamas County Commissioner
Alan Kirk
OrePac, Inc.
Bill Maris
Market Transport, Inc.
Rod Monroe
Metro Councilor
Jim Osterman
Blount, Inc.
Well Fargo Bank, Tri-Met Board Chair
George Passadore
Tim Raphael
Citizen
Washington County Commissioner
o-
Roy Rogers
y
Gail Shibley
Citizen
Bob Short
Glacier Northwest
®
Ed Washington
Citizen
Building Owners and Managers Association
Robin White
w
J
Mike Burton
Metro Executive Officer
Sta
Mike Hoglund Metro
Richard Brandman Metro Renee Castilla Metro
Ted Leybold
Metro
Mark Ford HDR, Inc.
Charlie Hales
HDR, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
In July 2002, Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton appointed a task force of business and
community leaders from Clackamas, Clark, Multnomah and Washington Counties (the Portland
Metropolitan area), asking them to address a critical problem in our region: the need to fund key
transportation improvements which meet the demand of commuters and businesses in order to
maintain livability and support economic health. He charged the Task Force with recommending
a package of highest-priority projects, along with revenue measures sufficient to pay for them.
The Task Force reviewed the adopted capital investment plan for the region's transportation
infrastructure, and the nearly $4 billion shortfall in expected federal, state and local
transportation funding that will flow to these projects. Discussions were held with state agencies
and local governments that have responsibility for portions of the transportation system. The
group also investigated a broad spectrum of revenue options. Public opinion polling and other
mechanisms were used to assess the feasibility of these revenue options and the level of support
for various transportation projects being considered.
Recommendations:
The Task Force recommends that the Metro Council adopt its action plan as follows:
(1) Approve a package of highest-priority transportation projects that is balanced
among transportation modes in its approach and in meeting critical transportation
needs throughout the region. The selected projects should be those that can be
implemented quickly and provide the most immediate value to the region's citizens.
The recommended package includes three components-a highway portion, a
community streets and sidewalks portion, and a transit portion. The total cost will
be $521 million.
This package addresses only part of a $4 billion shortfall in capital funds for the area's
transportation needs. More effort - and other new funding - will be required to build,
a operate and maintain the transportation infrastructure needed for a livable metropolitan
area. The impact of these projects, and the other funds leveraged by this regional
y commitment, will be significant.
In addition to its transportation impacts, this infrastructure investment will have a
beneficial impact on our economy. Over 12,900 person-years of employment in family-
)
® wage jobs will be created, at a time when they are badly needed.
C9
~ Highway Proiects. The highway package of projects is intended to help alleviate traffic
congestion, move freight, and support the economic growth and livability of the region.
The package includes widening four sections of the regional highway system from a
current four-lane configuration to six lanes: Highway 26 to 185th Avenue, I-5 in the
Delta Park area of North Portland, Highway 217 from Highway 26 to 1-5 in Washington
County, and I-205 from West Linn to its interchange with I-5. The Task Force also
recommends building two new planned facilities, the "Sunrise Corridor" in Clackamas
County and a connector road between 1-5 and Highway 99W near Tualatin.
Community Projects. A series of neighborhood-scale community livability and
congestion relief transportation projects is included in the package. Here, the emphasis is
on building missing sidewalk connections, addressing congestion "hot spots" and
improving neighborhood main streets to create better pedestrian environments and
support local business districts.
Transit Projects. To provide access to key employment and residential centers, supply
more transportation alternatives and support the livability of the metropolitan area, the
Task Force recommends a package of transit improvements, which includes building
light rail from downtown Portland through Southeast Portland neighborhoods to
Milwaukie, a "bus rapid transit" corridor along 99WBarbur Blvd., connecting the
planned Washington County Commuter Rail project to the Washington Square mall and
assisting in the funding of the planned light rail project along I-205 from the Gateway
district to the Clackamas Town Center.
Funding. The Task Force recommends a regional vehicle registration fee increase of $15
per year that would generate approximately $270 million for highway and community
transportation projects and a General Obligation bond measure that would raise $251
million for transit investments.
(2) Create an Accountability Committee.
This committee would be composed of non-governmental representatives of the
community to oversee the implementation of these recommendations and to help assure
on time/on budget project delivery.
(3) Ask the 'T'ask Force members to consider further service in the next phase of this
effort.
The Transportation Investment Task Force has brought the perspective and the credibility
of nongovernmental leadership to this critical community need. This resource should not
be lost.
(4) Actively participate in the legislative process during the 2003 session of the Oregon
Legislative Assembly and congressional deliberations.
The recommendation of the Task Force can only be fully accomplished if there are
additional state and federal funds available to leverage the proposed local resources. The
Task Force should take an active role in advocating at the state and federal level for
additional funding for these projects.
(5) Refine the list of projects and the selected revenue measures once new information
is obtained.
Federal transportation authorization and appropriation measures will be considered next
year, at the same time that the Oregon Legislature will be considering transportation
funding issues. The outcome of these deliberations will affect the Task Force's
recommendations.
2
COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Issue
This metropolitan area has been growing at historic rates, but investment in the transportation
system to accommodate that growth has not occurred. During the 1990s, the area's population
increased by more than 250,000, and the daily vehicle miles traveled by that growing population
increased by more than 6.8 million to approximately 26 million miles per day.
Meanwhile, there has not been an increase in revenues to adequately finance expansion of the
transportation system to meet the needs of a growing population nor even to maintain the system
that exists today. The end result is the following:
• Without new effort and improvements, highway congestion will be widespread and will
increase to more than 38 percent of the region's freeways by 2020.
• The hours of delay on the road system due to congestion will cost the freight industry
more than $35 million every year and motorists more than $255 million.
• Roadways and bridges are failing. More than $100 million per year is required to bring
the backlog of necessary repair projects to a tolerable level.
• While transit ridership is increasing, it cannot grow at a rate that would achieve the
region's transportation goals without increases in revenues for more buses and expansion
of the light rail system.
• The total requirement to achieve the region's goals is $7.6 Billion over 20 years, or more
than $380 million per year. Less than half that amount is estimated to be generated given
currently available revenue sources.
• Cars stuck in traffic are a threat to our air quality, wasting energy resources, and eroding
our quality of life.
• Neighborhoods without sidewalks lack a basic ingredient of safe and livable
communities.
The Charge
On July 16, 2002, Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton convened the Task Force with this
charge:
"The Metro Executive Officer's charge to the Transportation Investment Task Force is to
propose a package of transportation projects, programs and matching funding proposals
for critical elements of Metro's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The projects may
include road, transit, bicycle or pedestrian components separated into packages that have
different funding sources or mechanisms. This may result in a recommendation to the
Council or other governments to place a measure on the ballot. It would also include
recommendations for a strategy for the next legislative session as well as identifying local
public or public/private initiatives to enhance transportation funding.
Using the RTP as its framework, the Task Force will have sole responsibility for
recommending the list of projects and funding mechanisms. The Task Force will also
decide whether to develop a strategy for funding the entire shortfall contained in the RTP
3
or the most critical elements of the plan. Metro's staff and an independent consultant will
provide technical and administrative support for the Task Force."
Task Force Membership:
The Task Force was structured to include:
• One chair from the private sector appointed by the Metro Executive Officer
• Approximately 15 members from the private sector
• One Metro Councilor
• One representative from Clark County
• Two members of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT)
• One member of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC)
• Metro Executive Officer (ex-officio)
Task Force Approach
The members of the Task Force have considerable experience as community leaders on
transportation issues, and relied on that experience and their research to shape their approach.
Although the Task Force was empowered to make its findings outside of the official
governmental structure, it conferred with the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation
(JPACT), local governments and state agencies throughout its deliberations, allowing local
expertise to inform its choices, but relying on a strategic approach to the four basic questions
facing it:
1. What are the most needed and publicly supported transportation projects in the Portland
metropolitan area?
2. What is the cost of an aggregation of the most critical of these projects?
3. How would this package of projects be funded?
4. How quickly can proposed projects be implemented?
The Task Force began its work by reviewing the Regional Transportation Plan, the 2040 Growth
Concept and other regional policies. Initial presentations also reviewed the significant financial
shortfall in funding for the planned improvements under the Regional Transportation Plan.
National trends in transportation finance, recent polling data on public attitudes about
transportation funding and projects, and recent efforts to pass transportation funding measures by
referendum were also summarized and discussed.
Policy Background
Oregon now ranks among the lowest states for transportation funding. The region has
historically relied on federal and state funds to pay for large capital projects in the Regional
Transportation Plan, with some exceptions. The voters of the region approved General
4
Obligation Bond funding for the local portion of the cost of the Westside Light Rail project, and
Washington County voters have approved a series of property-tax-funded measures in the
county's Major Streets Transportation Improvement Initiative (MSTIP). By and large, though, a
combination of federal and state funds, allocated regionally or distributed by formula to local
governments, and city and county general fund capital dollars have built the region's
transportation infrastructure. This strategy is not keeping up with the region's needs. Only once
in the last decade has the Oregon Legislature approved new transportation funding, the exception
being the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA), a $500 million statewide program
approved in 2001.
In addition, the region is also in a prolonged economic recession. Transportation investment to
support key economic sectors should be one part of the recovery effort. Finally, in all surveys
conducted by Metro and others, traffic congestion continues to be the number one growth-related
issue for citizens in the region.
Policy Objectives
The Task Force determined that projects selected for funding consideration should maximize to
the degree possible the following objectives:
• Enhance the regional economy (Projects that move freight, provide access to terminals, or
leverage commercial, industrial, or mixed use development)
• Relieve congestion (Projects that address key bottlenecks or relieve existing traffic
congestion)
• Enhance community livability (Projects that assist in creating notable places)
• Provide a funding connection with other public or private investment and enhance the
function and operation of the overall system
• Ensure construction begins within three years with full implementation within six years
from the time of voter approval
• Provide for a multi-modal system
• Ensure geographic balance
• Leverage other transportation dollars, whether federal, state, regional, private or local
Project Identification
The Task Force next began to sort projects and develop a "short list" of key projects which fit the
criteria and which would be easily understood by the larger public. Based on its adopted policy
objectives for regional livability, economic health, relieving congestion, etc., the Task Force
decided to adopt a working model of three project categories, and to look for the most critical
investments in each category:
Highway nro'eegts - move freight, relieve congestion, and support economic health by making
improvements and additions to the regional system of major highways, regardless of whether
these were state highways or part of the interstate system. This category is focused on limited-
access, regional highways and their interchanges.
Transit projects - improve transportation choices, the environment and support complete
communities by making capital investments in the transit system, including light rail, streetcars,
5
buses, park-and-ride facilities or other capital facilities (shelters, "Bus Rapid Transit"
improvements, etc.)
Community projects - support neighborhood quality of life and remedy unsafe conditions by
funding improvements to local major streets and to bike, pedestrian and trail systems. Although
local in scale, the effect of these projects is felt regionally in providing transportation choices and
in reinforcing local districts or neighborhoods.
State agencies and local governments were interviewed by the Task Force and by a Projects
Subcommittee, which, in the middle portion of the group's six-month effort, focused on a
possible project list. An initial project list for each of the three categories was drafted by the
subcommittee and reviewed and approved for further research by the full Task Force.
Revenue Measures Considered
The Revenue subcommittee examined a variety of potential revenue sources for the three project
categories, including:
• Tolls and other direct user charges
• Tax Increment Financing
• System Development Charges
• Transportation Utility Fees
• Vehicle Registration Fees
• Fuel taxes
• Parking taxes (levied on parking spaces for business and commercial uses)
• General Obligation Bonds supported by property taxes
• Payroll taxes
• Vehicle excise taxes (levied as a percentage of vehicle sales price)
• General retail sales taxes
The subcommittee ultimately recommended that the Task Force test the feasibility of five
funding mechanisms, three for highway and community projects and two for transit projects.
This segregated approach to revenue measures is necessitated by Oregon's Constitutional
limitation on the expenditure of vehicle-related revenues.
During its deliberations on possible revenue measures, the Task Force met with Representative
Bruce Starr, who led transportation funding efforts in the 2001 session, and who is developing
legislative concepts for the 2003 Legislature Assembly. Rep. Starr indicated that he plans to
seek an increase in the state gas tax and the vehicle registration fee, with the proceeds to be
directed into bridge repair, maintenance and capital improvements.
Public Opinion Polling
The Task Force contracted with Davis, Hibbitts & McCaig, Inc. (DHM) to conduct a survey of
preferences and priorities for transportation projects and funding proposals among motivated
voters in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. This telephone survey was
conducted during November 2002.
6
The sample size for the survey was 500 registered voters voting in at least two of the past four
elections. Respondents were 18 and over and proportionately selected to reflect the population
of the metropolitan area. The survey tested individual projects and revenue sources, and a
variety of packages which combined them.
A package approach. All of the packages of transportation improvements described to poll
respondents received very high levels of support, and every specific project tested in this survey
received majority support from these respondents. However, each of the three packages - as
well as the full package encompassing all three of the strategies - generally fared better than
individual projects. This indicates that the traveling public perceives transportation solutions
from a regional perspective.
An appeal to balance. The citizens of the region strongly support the proposed projects, as well
as an approach to transportation investment, which provides a choice of modes, as shown by the
following table:
Transportation Packages
Support
Oppose
Transit Projects
74%
25%
Highway Projects
80%
20%
Community Transportation
76%
24%
Total Package
78%
19%
The support for each package was very strong and comparable (74-80%), for the transit, highway
and community projects. The general public appears to recognize the value of multiple strategies
to address the region's transportation demands.
Geographic differences are not as pronounced as initially anticipated. All of the respondents,
regardless of where they lived, had an overarching preference for a balanced approach
incorporating each of the three approaches. Multnomah County and Portland respondents
expressed very strong (approximately 80%) support for the transit package, while still supporting
the road package by more than 70%. Citizens in Washington and Clackamas Counties reflected
the opposite dynamic, supporting the road package by 85%, while still supporting the transit
package by more than 70%.
Though survey respondents were more likely to support projects near where they lived, the
support level was generally not that much greater than the community at large. This may reflect
a growing sense of connectedness citizens feel in the region based on commuting patterns or
other factors.
Funding options. The poll suggests that the vehicle registration fee is a promising revenue source
for the road-related needs. Because of the restrictions of the state Constitution, road-related
funds are not available for transit. Among the sources tested for transit investments, none
currently have majority support. The Task Force believes that the General Obligation bond has
the highest likelihood of voter approval.
Overall guidance and conclusions from the poll. While the survey suggests that there is not a
clear majority which supports any given revenue measure, the data suggest that a successful
measure can be crafted. The combination measure of a General Obligation bond for transit
projects and a Vehicle Registration Fee increase for highway and community projects polled
higher than any of the other options to fund the package.
Deliberation and Decision
The Task Force reviewed its proposed projects and revenue measures. They did this considering
their charge, the region's policies and capital project needs as described in the Regional
Transportation Plan, the Task Force's own objectives and criteria, and the findings of the public
opinion poll. Recommendations were discussed, drafted and approved as follows:
Recommendations
The Transportation Investment Task Force submits the following recommendations to the Metro
Council:
RECOMMENDATION #1: ADOPT THE TASK FORCE'S PROPOSED PACKAGE OF
PROJECTS AND REVENUE SOURCES, AND MOVE IT TO VOTER APPROVAL AS A
PACKAGE.
Following the charge given by the Metro Executive Officer, the Task Force has developed, and
recommends that the Metro Council support a package of highest-priority transportation projects
consisting of $270 million in highway and community transportation investments and $251
million in transit improvements. The recommended package is modally balanced in its approach
and supports the livability of the region's communities in meeting critical transportation needs
throughout the region.
The package includes three components-a highway portion, a transit portion, and a more
localized, community-level set of projects. These projects are all found in the adopted Regional
Transportation Plan, but merit particular attention because they enjoy high levels of public
support and will significantly and visibly make progress in improving the region's transportation
system. The Task Force believes that the public will be more inclined to support a package that
includes a combination of highway, transit and local improvements which distributes its benefits
across many areas of the region.
Recommended Highway Proiects
The Task Force recommends a combination of highway investments which are intended to move
regional freight, help alleviate traffic congestion, and support the livability and economic growth
of the region. The package includes widening four sections of the regional highway system from
a current four-lane configuration to six lanes: Highway 26 to 185th Avenue, I-5 in the Delta Park
area of North Portland, Highway 217 from Highway 26 to I-5 in Washington County, and I-205
from West Linn to its interchange with I-5. The Task Force also recommends building two new
planned facilities, the "Sunrise Corridor" in Clackamas County and a connector road between I-5
and Highway 99W near Tualatin. The recommended highway package assumes funding from
state, federal, and regional sources - some of it new revenue - to match the regional
commitment:
Project:
New Task Force Fundin :
I-5 North
$41 million
Highway 217
$30 million
Sunset Highway
$20 million
Sunrise Corridor
$40 million
I-205
$29 million
I-5/99W Connector
$30 million
TOTAL
$190 million
he ew regional funding is expected to levera a $60 mi on in federal funding and more than
$400 million in new state funding.
commended Community Proiects
rao
6
This component of the package helps ensure that transportation investments are made not just in
large, regional facilities, but also "close to home," building projects which improve safety,
relieve congestion "hot spots" and support neighborhood commercial districts. Examples are
provided below, but the community projects portion of the package will require additional
definition, since the Task Force has recommended a total amount and general categories without
selecting each individual project. This process should be completed prior to sending measures to
the voters.
New Task Force Fu
Neighborhood congestion "hot spots"
"Main Street" boulevard improvements
Sidewalks where lacking
TOTAL,
$30 million
$35 million
$15 million
$80 million
Examples of community projects:
• Construct sidewalks on Capitol Highway in Southwest Portland
• Improve the intersection of Murray Blvd. and Tualatin Valley Highway
• Redesign Hwy. 8 in downtown Forest Grove as a community Main Street
~b
0~
• Construct sidewalks on Railroad Avenue in Milwaukie
• Redesign Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and McLoughlin Boulevard as a
community main street
• Improve the intersection of Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Scholls Ferry Rd. and Oleson
Road
9
• Improve the intersection of Sandy Boulevard, Burnside and 12`h Avenue
• Construct sidewalks on 92nd Avenue between Powell and Foster Roads.
• Reconstruct Grand Avenue and MLK Boulevard in the Central Eastside as a community
main street
• Construct sidewalks on Murray Boulevard between Scholls Ferry Road and Tualatin
Valley Highway
• Improve the intersection of Macadam Avenue and the Sellwood Bridge
• Construct sidewalks on First Avenue from downtown Hillsboro to Glencoe High School
• Redesign NE 102d Avenue in the Gateway district as a community main street
• Construct sidewalks on Fuller Road between Canyon and Harmony Roads
The Community Projects portion of the package is expected to leverage almost $40 million of
federal funds and $40 million in other local contributions.
The Task Force recommends funding the highway and community projects in this package by a
regional vehicle registration fee of $15 per year.
Recommended transit proiects:
The Task Force recommends a package of transit improvements, which includes building light
rail from downtown Portland through Southeast Portland neighborhoods to Milwaukie, a "bus
rapid transit" corridor along 99WBarbur Blvd., and connecting the planned Washington County
Commuter Rail project to the Washington Square mall and assisting in the funding of light rail
along I-205 from the Gateway district to Clackamas Town Center mall. We have assumed a
combination of federal and local funding sources to pay for the full capital cost of these projects,
with new funding coming in the form of a General Obligation bond meas e supported by a
property tax rate of approximately $0.25 per thousand of assessed value. his commitmen
new regional funding to transit projects is expected to leverage approxima ly $900 million in
other federal and local funds. The light rail projects assume federal projects ort at a 60%
level. The Task Force also recognizes the need to increase the amount of revenu or
operation of the transit system due to the growing population and capital projects expansion.
Frolect: New Task Force Fundin :
Downtown Portland/SE Portland/Milwaukie Light Rail $185 million
Bus Rapid Transit on Baurbur/99W $ 20 million
Washington County Commuter Rail - Washington Sq. Connect. $ 10 million
Assist in Funding I-205 Light Rail $ 36 million
TOTAL $251 million
~~l
10
RECOMMENDATION #2: CREATE AN ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE OF TASK
FORCE MEMBERS AND OTHER INTERESTED CITIZENS TO MAINTAIN THE
BASIS OF THE TASK FORCE'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND
TO THUS IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE.
Numerous surveys have shown, and recent experience has confirmed, that one problem facing
transportation funding measures is a "credibility problem" of public agencies. Warranted or not,
many citizens perceive that transportation agencies do not use current funds efficiently and
therefore are wary of approving any additional funding. Providing oversight by a body of
citizens could help ameliorate this concern and improve the package's chances of success. This
nongovernmental oversight group should also assist in explaining the projects' benefits to the
public and in assuring that the projects are delivered on time and on budget.
RECOMMENDATION #3: ASK THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS TO CONSIDER
FURTHER SERVICE IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS EFFORT.
Although the Transportation Investment Task Force's members were asked to make a six-month
commitment, the level of involvement and interest in this project by Task Force members is
notable. This is a citizen resource that the Metro Council should continue to utilize. Many
Task Force members would be willing to further assist the Metro Council and help implement
these recommendations.
The unique value of the Task Force as a primarily volunteer and private sector-based group
working outside of the customary governmental process should be retained as well. This effort
has been a successful example of a new approach.
RECOMMENDATION #4: ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS DURING THE 2003 SESSION OF THE OREGON LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY AND IN CONGRESSIONAL DELIBERATIONS.
The recommendations of the Task Force can only be fully accomplished if there are additional
state and federal funds available to leverage the proposed local resources. The Task Force
should take an active role in advocating at the state and federal level for additional funding for
these projects.
The Task Force recommends that a dialogue be continued with state legislative leaders and other
interests who are planning a transportation funding effort in the next session. The Task Force
believes that a coordinated effort is possible and mutually advantageous, and that the funding
measures proposed for the metropolitan area are compatible with the measures currently being
discussed for statewide application.
The Task Force also recognizes the need for the 2003 Oregon Legislature to authorize an
increase in the Tri-Met payroll tax, which will be needed to meet growing capital and operating
needs in the transit system.
I1
RECOMMENDATION #5: REFINE THE LIST OF PROJECTS AND THE SELECTED
REVENUE MEASURES ONCE NEW INFORMATION IS OBTAINED.
Federal transportation authorization and appropriation measures will be considered next year, at
the same time that the Oregon Legislature will be considering transportation funding issues. The
outcome of these deliberations will affect the Task Force's recommendations.
In addition to questions about state and federal funding which should become clearer over the
next six months, the Task Force believes that further research will be needed to refine the
package, to better understand public attitudes about transportation generally, the proposed
projects in particular, and the types and amounts of revenue measures being proposed.
12
TUALATIN Riverkeepers ~(t
16507 SW Roy Rogers Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140
(503) 590-5813 fax: (503) S90-6702 • www.tualatinriverkeepers.org
email: info@tualatinriverkeepers.org
Copies to:
February 14, 2003 Mayor/Council lX Other: .
14
City Manager ✓ Sm
r'~ r`'~•
Mayor Jim Griffith Council File
r EB 1 0 • .
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd All 04t7 jj~c it
Tigard, OR 97223 at',0T"i
Dear Mayor Griffith and City Council Members,
Tigard is a community richly blessed with natural resources including our parks, streams,
wetlands, and wildlife. As Tigard grows, there is a constant threat to these natural
resources and a diminishing number of opportunities to preserve them. In response to
concerns raised by Tigard citizens about the protection of natural spaces, a coalition of
local conservation organizations has organized a Community Conservation Forum. The
forum will be held at 6:30 pm on March 10 at the Tigard Water District Auditorium.
We would very much like to include Tigard's City Council and staff in a dialog on
protecting Tigard's greenspaces.
The format we have set up will include three presentations by local conservation groups
followed by a dialog with public officials. Jayne Cronlund of the Three Rivers Land
Conservancy will be speaking on Strategies for Protecting Greenspaces. I will be
representing the Tualatin Riverkeepers and speak Wall Street and other public facilities
development decisions that could impact greenspaces. Sue Beilke of the Tigard
Biodiversity Project will be speaking on Tigard's diverse wildlife and their habitats.
We would like to follow these presentations with an open dialog between City Council
members, City Staff, and the public on strategies for greenspace protection. We believe
by working together, Tigard can become a model for urban natural resource protection.
To RSVP or if you have any questions, please contact me at (503)590-5813 or by e-mail:
brian(atualatinriverkeepers.ora.
Sincerely,
Brian Wegener
Watershed Watch Coordinator
Tualatin Riverkeepers
The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a community-based organization working to protect and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system.
The Tualatin Riverkeepers builds watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy.