The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 01/21/2014 114 • • City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 21,2014 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. 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 (IUD -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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (1'DD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tiaard-or.gov Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings-Channel 28 •Every Sunday at 7 a.m. •Every Monday at 1 p.m. •Every Wednesday at 2 p.m. •Every Thursday at 12 p.m. •Every Friday at 3 p.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA • City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 21,2014-6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM •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(4),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. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING A. Call to Order- City Council B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications&Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. SECOND QUARTER MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE 6:40 pm est. time 3. RIVER TERRACE FINANCE PROGRESS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION 7:55 pm est. time 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 8:40 pm est. time 5. NON AGENDA ITEMS 8:50 pm est. time 6. 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 disdose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disdose 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. 7. ADJOURNMENT 8:55 pm est. time AIS-1506 2. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 01/21/2014 Length (in minutes): 75 Minutes Agenda Title: Second Quarter Budget Committee meeting Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Liz Lutz,Financial and Information Services Item Type: Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: a a Information ISSUE This meeting is to inform the Budget Committee of the city's financial status for the second quarter of FY 2014,as well as hear reports from citizen committees regarding the Capital Improvement Plan prioritization process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action is required. Staff will be presenting a status report. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The FY 2014 budget was approved by the Budget Committee on May 6,2013.The budget was adopted by City Council with technical adjustments on June 11,2013. At this meeting,staff will provide the following: 1. Receive reports pertaining to the CIP prioritization process from citizen committees,TTAC,CCAC,PRAB. 2. Present the second quarter financial report for FY 2014. 3. Outline the preliminary General Fund five year forecast and budget guidelines provided to departments as they develop their FY 2015 budget requests. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Financial Stability DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/ J Fiscal Impact Cost: N/A Budgeted (yes or no): N/A Where Budgeted (department/program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: Not applicable Attachments CIP Memo FY 2015-19 CIP Rankings 71 City of Tigard -TICARl) Memorandum To: Marty Wine,City Manager From: Carissa Collins, Sr. Management Analyst Re: FY 2015-19 CIP Rankings Date: December 17,2013 Attached are the final rankings for the FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) along with comments provided by citizen members. Based on council direction,a list of projects for both the transportation and parks system was submitted to the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC), Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), and the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC). TTAC prioritized all street projects. PRAB ranked the parks projects and the CCAC provided input on those transportation and parks projects related to downtown. Each citizen board was given the opportunity to rank projects that were on the original project list but were not recommended by staff. The Main Street Bridge Painting/Rehabilitation project was the only project that was added by CCAC and was ranked by this group. Water and stormwater projects were only ranked by staff. No sewer projects were submitted. A generic River Terrace project was added to each system as a placeholder for projects that are being identified as part of the community plan. The attached matrix shows each group score in green. The weighted scores are in yellow, and the red column shows the final ranking for each project. Scores provided by citizen boards were given equal weight as staff scores. Each system includes those projects in the current five-year CIP. Projects that were prioritized are in bold. Those projects that were not prioritized are considered unfunded and are grayed out. The final list of projects will be presented to City Council and discussed at the January 21,2014 workshop. The chair from TTAC,PRAB, and CCAC will be at this meeting to discuss their group's recommendations of the top five projects. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at x2643. Thank you. cc: Kenny Asher Mike Stone Brian Rager Kim McMillan John Goodrich Toby LaFrance FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Priority Rankings ki IN IIIIF - _ 4.„ � 'ii m� � "� yuor �Ui� yua4 �iaa4 `r tr v c 4 4` 4' .4 System Project Nam Streets Current Pavement Management Program Current Walnut St Improvements-116th Ave to Tiedeman&135th Ave Intersection Current Citywide Pedestrian&Cyclist Improvements 1 Current Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street Improvements Current 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street Intersection Improvement Current 92nd Avenue Sidewalk(Waverly Dr.to Cook Park) Current Main Street/Green Street Retrofit Current Main Street/Green Street Improvements-Phase 2 Current Tiedeman Avenue Sidewalk(Tigard St.to Greenburg Rd.) Current Update Transportation System Plan for River Terrace Current Tigard Transportation SDC Current Upper Boones Ferry Rd/Durham Adaptive Signal Coordination LARGE PROJECTS Unfunded Hall/McDonald Intersection Improvements Left-Turn Lane;Right-Turn onto 27,0 41.4 0.0 13.5 20.7 0.0 34.2 1 westbound McDonald;Extend left-turn lane northbound McDonald St.) Unfunded Tiedeman/Greenburg Rd./N.Dakota Intersection Improvements 27.0 36.0 0.0 13.5 18.0 0.0 31.5 2 Unfunded 72nd Avenue Improvements(Dartmouth St.to Pacific Hwy) 31.0 30.6 0.0 15.5 15.3 0.0 30.8 3 Unfunded Tiedeman/N.Dakota/Tigard St.Realignment 21.0 39.6 0.0 10.5 19.8 0.0 30.3 4 Unfunded Walnut Street (Tiedeman to Pacific Hwy) 26.0_ 32.4 0.0 13.0 16.2 0.0 29.2 5 Unfunded 121st Avenue(Walnut to Gaarde)&Complete 121st(Whistler to TIppitt St.) 27.0 30.6 0.0 13.5 15.3 0.0 28.8 6 Unfunded N.Dakota St.Bridge Replacement 25.0 30.6 0.0 12.5 15.3 0.0 27.8 7 Unfunded Wall Street-Hunziker to Tech Center Drive _ 26.0 18.0 0.0 13.0 9.0 0.0 22.0 8 New Ash St.crossing of the WES Rail Une 25.0 14.4 18.8 8.3 4.8 6.2 19.3 9 Unfunded Main Street Bridge Painting/Rehabilitation 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 10 SMALL PROJECTS New Commercial Street Extension(Lincoln to 95th)-Phase 2 24.0 32.4 40.5 8.0 10.8 13.5 32.3 1 Unfunded Hall Blvd Sidewalks(Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd.) 27.0 37.8 31.5 9.0 12.6 10.5 32.1 2 Unfunded Commercial St.Sidewalk(Lincoln to Main)-Phase 1 25.0 37.8 0.0 12.5 18.9 0.0 31.4 3 New Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St-New Traffic Signal 23.0 37.8 0.0 11.5 18.9 0.0 30.4 4 New Murdock St.Sidewalk(103rd to Tuality Middle School) 27.0 32.4 0.0 13.5 16.2 0.0 29.7 5 New Hall Blvd Sidewalk(Burnham St.to South of Bonita) 23.0 32.4 31.5 7.7 10.8 10.5 29.0 6 New 98th Avenue(Commercial to Greenburg Rd) 24.0 30.6 0.0 12.0 15.3 0.0 27.3 7 New Hunziker St.Sidewalk(Hall Blvd to 72nd Ave) 23.0 30.6 0.0 11.5 15.3 0.0 26.8 8 New 98th Avenue Sidewalk(Murdock to Settler) 27.0 30.6 18.0 9.0 10.2 6.0 25.2 9 New 100th Avenue Sidewalk and/or Speed Humps(McDonald to Murdock) 24.0 25.2 0.0 _ 12.0 12.6 0.0 24.6 10 New North Dakota St.Sidewalk(Greenburg Rd to Fanno Creek Trail) 26.0 21.6 0.0 13.0 10.8 0.0 23.8 11 Unfunded Tiedeman Avenue Sidewalk(Tigard St.to Greenburg Rd.) 26.0 21.6 0.0 13.0 10.8 0.0 23.8 11 New (Tigard Street(Gallo Ave.to Fanno Creek Trail) 24.0 23.4 0.0 12.0 11.7 0.0 23.7 12 Page 1 of 13 L FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Priority Rankings 11T /1171,1 v �u°�III 111,1.I/.1 =r McDonald)New Ash Ave.Sidewalk(Fanno Creek to 23.0 23.4 18.0 7.7 7.8 6.0 21.5 New 78th Avenue Sidewalk(Prattle to Spruce St) 23.0 19.8 0.0 11.5 9.9 0.0 21.4 14 Unfunded River Terrace Capital Improvement Projects-Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 Hail Boulevard Sidewalk I rovements(Pacific Hwy to Durham) Tigard Street Bicycle/Sidewalk Improvements(Downtown to Dirksen Nature Park) Orw Tigard Street(Dirksen Nature Park frontage) New 72nd Avenue Sidewalks on eastside(Gonzaga to Hampton) New Bonita Road/Sequoia Parkway Intersection Improvements New Greenburg Road(Tiedeman to Hwy 217) New McDonald St.Widening(Pacific Hwy to Hall Blvd) New Upper Boones Ferry Road and Carman Drive(Durham to Sequoia) New 72nd Ave./Hwy 217 Interchange New Pacific Hwy/Walnut St.Intersection Improvements New Pacific Hwy/Durham Rd.Intersection Improvements New Durham Road Widening(Upper Boones Ferry Rd to Pacific Hwy) New Durham Road Widening(Upper Boones Ferry to Hall Blvd.) New Bonita Road Widening (72nd Ave.to Hall Blvd.) Unfunded Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker Realignment Unfunded 72nd Ave.Improvements(Hwy 217 to Elmhurst St.) Unfunded 72nd Ave.Sidewalks(Hwy 217 to Bonita Rd) Unfunded Bull Mountain/Benchview/139th Roundabout Unfunded Greenfield Dr(North of Bull Mtn.Road and across Unfunded Park St Sidewalk(Pacific Hwy to Watkins) Unfunded Improve Warner Street(Pacific Hwy North to end) Unfunded W Parks Current East Butte Heritage Park Development Current Fanno Creek House Current _Dirksen Nature Park(formerly Summer Creek Park) Current Tree Canopy Replacement Program Current Jock Park Current Fonno Creek Trail-Main Street to Grant Ave Current Park Land Acquisition Current Park Land Development Current Downtown Land Acquisition Current Downtown Park Improvements Current Tigard Street Trail&Community Plaza Current COT-TTSD Park Development Partnership Page 2 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Priority Rankings y r U " U " " tie =i i 41No.. ti�•o C ` V i c Z aa, e Qo AN V CC y e� ear ev g°' .., Current Damaged Tree Replacement Program Current Fanno Creek Trail(Grant Ave to Woodard Park) Current Update the Parks Master Plan for River Terrace Current Parks System Development Charge Update Current Senn Park Current East Bull Mountain • Current Potso Dog Park Current Summer Lake Park Unfunded Fanno Creek Trail Bridge Replacement(CWS Re-meander) 27.0 n/a 39.0 36.0 9.0 n/a 13.0 12.0 34.0 1 New Fanno Creek Trail(Library to Bonita Rd.) 22.0 n/a 30.0 40.5 7.3 n/a 10.0 13.5 30.8 2 New Fanno Creek Trail(Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd.) 22.0 n/a 30.0 40.5 7.3 n/a 10.0 13.5 30.8 3 Unfunded Tigard Street Trail&Community Plaza 0.0 n/a 42.0 29.3 0.0 n/a 14.0 9.7 23.7 4 Unfunded River Terrace Capital Improvement Projects-Parks 0.0 n/a 0.0 31.5 0.0 n/a 0.0 15.8 15.8 5 Unfunded Bonneville Power/Westside Trail-(Barrows to Bull Mountain Road) 0.0 n/a 0.0 29.3 0.0 n/a 0.0 14.6 14.6 6 New Area 64 Community Park 28.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 14.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 14.0 7 Unfunded Downtown Clock Tower 17.0 n/a 7.5 11.3 5.7 n/a 2.5 3.8 12.0 8 Unfunded Turf Fields at Community Parks 0.0 n/a 0.0 18.0 0.0 n/a 0.0 9.0 9.0 9 Unfunded Pacific Hwy at Hall Blvd.Gateway(Flagpole) 0.0 n/a 0.0 15.8 0.0 n/a 0.0 7.9 7.9 10 New Expand the Tigard Trail System into the Tigard Triangle 0.0 n/a 0.0 6.8 0.0 n/a 0.0 3.4 3.4 11 Unfunded 'Tigard Triangle Area(P3) 0.0 n/a 0.0 6.8 0.0 n/a 0.0 3.4 3.4 11 General Capital Facilities Current Permit Center/Police/City Hall Exterior Walls Unfunded Decommission Ash St.Yard(Interim)-Relocation of Public Works Fadlity 29.0 n/a n/a n/a 29.0 n/a n/a n/a 29.0 1 New Remodel Red Rock Creek conference room 16.0 n/a n/a n/a 16.0 n/a n/a n/a 16.0 2 New Expansion of CR-4 including closets and external entrance 16.0 n/a n/a n/a 16.0 n/a n/a n/a 16.0 2 • Library Soil Removal Library,A41100a4.ted_: igterials Ha.Rdji� 4 tor.,... -. Water - Current Water Meter Replacement Program Current Water Main Line Oversizing Current Aquifer Storage&Recovery Well#3 Current Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership Current Water Line Replacement Program Current Fire Hydrant Replacements Program Current Main Street Waterline Replacement Current Pipeline Connecting 550 Zone to 530 Zone Current Annual Fire Flow Improvement Program Current Johnson Street Waterline Replacement Current New Water Source Systemwide Improvements Page 3 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Priority Rankings �� tiU �U Cyr s/ 1¼ 'c' :`i g gg' g g a b., Current Barrows/Scholls Ferry 18"Water Line Extensions(River Road) _ Current Pacific Highway/Gaarde Utility Casing Bore Crossing Current Water Master Plan Update for River Terrace Current Tigard High School Well Abandonment Current Waterline Restoration-Black Bull Property New Red Rock Creek Relocation 12"Waterline 24.0 -" r- 1 Unfunded River Terrace Capital Improvement Projects-Water 0.0 2 Stormwater Current _Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Current Copper Creek Bank Stabilization Current Stormwater Master Plan Update for River Terrace Current Slope Stabilization(Derry Dell Creek at 118th Avenue) _ Current Walnut St.Culver improvement(Derry Dell/Fanno Creek) Unfunded Storm Rehabilitation(South of Main Street Bridge) 32.0 'imp 32.0 1 Unfunded Storm Facility Replacement(Greenfield Drive near Pine View) 28.0 28.0 2 Unfunded Ridgefield WQ Facility Repair/Stabilization 25.0 25.0 3 Unfunded Canterbury Storm Drain Upgrade(106th to Pacific Hwy) 23.0 . 23.0 4 Unfunded Burlcrest Dr.(Summer Crest to 121st Ave.) 210 210 4 Unfunded River Terrace Capital Improvement Projects-Stormwater 0.0a. `_ 0.0 5 Sanitary Sewer Current Citywide Sanitary Sewer Extension Program Current Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance Program Current Fanno Creek Slope Stabilization(Arthur Court) Current Derry Dell Creek&Sewer Interceptor Relocation . Current Main Street Sewer/Fanno Creek Crossing Elimination Current 128th Ave/Shore Dr Sewer Replacement Current East Tigard Sewer Replacement Current Benchview Creek Sewer Stabilization Current Dartmouth Street Sewer Repair Current Sewer Rehabilitation Program Current 72nd Ave Sewer Replacement at Bonita Rd Current Sewer Master Plan Update for River Terrace Current Community Tree Planting Current Barrows/Scholls Ferry 21"to 24"Sanitary Sewer Line Extensions(River Road) Current Red Rock Creek/Slope Stabilization Unfunded River Terrace Capital Improvement Projects-Sanitary Sewer Page 4 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Transportation Priority Rankings . _ E-' c) l- Project Name i Commen , Streets _ LARGEPROJEC - •Traffic volume and crashes are high here. *Major contributor to Hall Blvd congestion The City of Tigard Hall/McDonald Intersection Improvements Left-Turn Lane;Right-Turn onto westbound 23 1 and local residents would really benefit with this so McDonald;Extend left-turn lane northbound McDonald St.) close to library... •1 drive this often and I see the back- up that occurs.It would improve traffic on Hall as well. •Some solution to the North Dakota Bridge must be done,there is no safe way for pedestrian or bikes to get Tiedeman/N.Dakota/Tigard St.Realignment 22 2 through this area.Car crashes are too high. This would be a great place to fix.But needs to be a comprehensive plan and not a bandaid. *Clear need,response to public concerns. *Major 121st Avenue(Walnut to Gaarde &Complete 121st(Whistler to Ti connector with some sharp curves which are dangerous ( ) p ( Tippitt St.) 21 3 for foot traffic.The area would definitely benefit from this improvement. Some solution to the North Dakota Bridge must be done,there is no safe way for pedestrian or bikes to get Tiedeman/Greenburg Rd./N.Dakota Intersection Improvements 20 4 through this area.Car crashes are too high. •Large number of crashes,Greenburg road a major connector This would be a great place to fix.But needs to be a comprehensive plan and not a bandaid. *Both Fowler and Charles F.Tigard school kids walk and cross this part of Walnut.I'm not sure if the 99& Walnut St.intersection needs an upgrade but bike land Walnut Street (Tiedeman to Pacific Hwy) 18 5 and sidewalks surely are. 'Sensible to complete what is already started,increase safety for cyclists/peds. •Is an interesting idea but for me,it requires too much right-of way of properties. *Area already committed to development which will increase traffic,project fits well with others in this area. 72nd Avenue Improvements(Dartmouth St.to Pacific Hwy) 17 6 Safety for peds and cyclists a critical issue. "Low housing density;not a lot of foot traffic;mostly used as a route to get somewhere else. *Some solution to the North Dakota Bridge must be done,there is no safe way for pedestrian or bikes to get N.Dakota St.Bridge Replacement 17 7 through this area.Car crashes are too high. *Significant safety issues for cycle/ped traffic. *This would be a great place to fix.But needs to be a comprehensive plan and not a bandaid. Page 5 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Transportation Priority Rankings Sc d' F "The city should not do this without a developer commitment. `Facilitate new infill,relieve stress on Wall Street-Hunziker to Tech Center Drive 10 8 217/72nd interchange. 'I like this idea.I feel it would increase circulation in the area for citizens and businesses. *Mostly industrial so street isn't as needed as other areas. *Probably a desirable change,but unclear what impact it will have,given current state of planning for downtown area.Could this project be revisited in future when direction of development is clearer? 'Should Ash St.crossing of the WES Rail Line 8 9 have happened a long time ago.Now the ship has sailed and is of little use without impacting local businesses negatively. Not justifiable at this time.I don't see as big of a need for it as other projects. SMALL PROJECTS `Congruent with work on downtown revitalization.Ease of access for peds,plus looks tacky now;poor gateway Commercial St.Sidewalk(Lincoln to Main)-Phase 1 21 1 to downtown area.*Extremely important.Opening up Commercial would really increase the circulation of downtown and walkability for neighbors in the area. 'Major safety issue,response to citizen concerns. 'I see the need for this now and in the near future when Westside Christian opens.It will be even more Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St-New Traffic Signal 21 1 important. With the Walmart addition,this intersection will only get worse.These improvements are needed. 'lots of traffic and crashes.Plus lots of kids walking to high school. 'Critical safety issue-major arterial,bus Hall Blvd Sidewalks(Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd.) 21 1 line This important to me because of the increased connectivity to the library,high school,neighborhoods, and Cook Park. `Connected to downtown revitalization,essentially part Commercial Street Extension(Lincoln to 95th)-Phase 2 18 4 of previous project. 'Extremely important.Opening up Commercial would really increase the circulation of downtown and walkability for neighbors in the area. 'Critical safety issue-major arterial,bus line *This important to me because of the increased connectivity Hall Blvd Sidewalk(Burnham St.to South of Bonita) 18 4 to the library,high school,neighborhoods,and Cook Park. Page 6 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Transportation Priority Rankings U a F - d *Lot of kids walk this to and from Tuality&Templeton. Street is very narrow. *Proximity to schools *Close to Murdock St.Sidewalk(103rd to Tuality Middle School) 18 4 schools and has some benefit for getting kids on a safe sidewalk. *School Traffic.Needed to improve safety around the schools. *Important link for pedestrian traffic to schools. *close 98th Avenue Sidewalk(Murdock to Settler) 17 7 to schools.Elevation creates some sight issues.This area would benefit from construction. `Lots of school traffic.Walkers and bikers.Needed for safety. `Bus line,high speed traffic,connector street for Hunziker St.Sidewalk(Hall Blvd to 72nd Ave) 17 7 pedestrians. *There seems to be quite a bit of foot traffic here between the bus stop and housing. 100th Avenue Sidewalk and/or Humps(McDonald Murdock) `100th has"S"curve-no shoulder for walkers on blind / Speed Hum McDonald to Murdock 14 9 corner. `Close to schools •Low/slow traffic volume-wide walkable street Ash Ave.Sidewalk(Fanno Creek to McDonald) 13 10 `Sensible to connect existing sidewalk. This is a good walking and cycling route.Many would benefit. Tigard Street(Gallo Ave.to Fanno Creek Trail) 13 10 •I like the trail connectivity aspect of this one.The Summer Lake area has a lot of home that would benefit. *Recommend further consideration pending decisions North Dakota St.Sidewalk(Greenburg Rd to Fanno Creek Trail) 12 11 on related projects This would be great and beneficial as part of a comprehensive plan. *Recommend further consideration pending decisions Tiedeman Avenue Sidewalk(Tigard St.to Greenburg Rd.) 12 11 on related projects This would be great and beneficial as part of a comprehensive plan. May get done with other projects in the area. *Desirable, but not critical to safety The unfinished sidewalks are a slowing deterent currently and widening the road could be a negative. *With all the Walmart 78th Avenue Sidewalk(Pfaffle to Spruce St) 11 13 construction,around.This is the one area that will be negatively impacted by traffic.This street has more traffic on it than most residential streets because of nearby business.This will make it much safer. •Low/slow traffic volume-flat walkable street 98th Avenue(Commercial to Greenburg Rd) 9 14 *Desirable, but not critical to safety *Leave it alone and let it act as a natural traffic calming,not many cars. Page 7 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program PARKS RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Parks Priority Rankings J v7 Q 1 .t W O x a , Project Name Comments - Parks The connection from the library area to Durham allows for easy entry into Cook Park and onto Tualatin. This would be fantastic for pedestrian traffic. *Personally as a runner/trail user,for years I have wanted the Fanno Creek trail to continue from the library to Fanno Creek Trail(Library to Bonita Rd.) 18 1 Bonita Park.But more importantly,the Tigard Park System Master Plan calls for connectivity in the"trail network that provides multiple opportunities for access to key destinations from home and work." *Finish the damn thing! *The connection from the library area to Durham allows for easy Fanno Creek Trail(Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd.) 18 1 entry into Cook Park and onto Tualatin. This would be fantastic for pedestrian traffic. *Highly eroding banks will lead to major problems if not addressed,reinforced and corrected. This sounds like a maintenance item that needs to happen. *I think it would be nice Fanno Creek Trail Bridge Replacement(CWS Re-meander) 16 2 to eventually re-meander the creek,but not quite as important at this time as some other stuff.I could see increasing my ranking for this if I had more information about the rate of erosion and how much the wildlife are being affected. *Finish the damn thing! *It all starts with a plan! *I have a hard time ranking this one since there are no specific projects yet.In this case,I use the 3 as River Terrace Capital Improvement Projects-Parks 14 3 more of a neutral number than a ranking of importance.I think it will become important,but with no specific projects,I'm not sure it actually belongs in this list yet. *It would be nice,but because we are also aiming to create Tigard Street Trail&Community Plaza 13 4 another downtown plaza,the priority should be to the one that is already being worked on. *Not my priority when there is so much more work that I think needs to be done. Bonneville Power/Westside Trail-(Barrows to Bull Mountain Road) 13 4 The Beaverton section of the Westside Trail is very nice and heavily used. I hate for Tigard to be behind the neighboring cities. _Turf Fields at Community Parks 8 _ 5 Certainly seems to be a need for more fields. Page 8 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program PARKS RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Parks Priority Rankings MA , . . . I = CA Y cQ Q a. a a Pacific Hwy at Hall Blvd.Gateway(Flagpole) 7 6 Flags are great! Seems like this would be fairly inexpensive improvement. *I love clock towers,but feel this is more of an ammenity,not a Downtown Clock Tower 5 7 necessity. *Even though I now consider myself an"artist"-I don't care much for publicly funded art projects. Expand the Tigard Trail System into the Tigard Triangle 3 8 Not a lot of residential out this way,but would be a nice area to extend the trails. Tigard Trian:le Area(P3) 3 8 Page 9 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program City Center Advisory Commission Transportation/Parks Priority Rankings U U Project Name U Streets 'Makes a really ugly area downtown on Main street functional and no longer ugly 'Meets need for civic space in Downtown area&planning process would be opportunity to engage people in Downtown and identify current desires and priorities *That derelict parcel is one of Main Street's worst eyesores. Development as a pocket plaza is the best way to build on the Tigard Street Trail&Community Plaza 28 1 Symposium momentum. *Good programming opportunities and getting people to linger in the downtown more and explore.The more things like this we can offer,the more people will want to spend time meandering Main Street.Foot traffic is important for the survival of those stores. 'Meets need for some small civic space in Downtown area&planning process would be opportunity to engage people in Downtown and identify current desires and priorities. *Ties in with connectivity plan for vehicles *Connectivity, multimodal access,increased safety,would be an asset in an area not receiving much resources Access to Main Street from adjacent neighborhood;leverage Phase 1(Main Street to Commercial Street Extension(Lincoln to 95th)-Phase 2 27 2 Lincoln) *Connectivity,multimodal access,increased safety, would bean asset in an area not receiving much resources `Connectivity to downtown,multimodal access,increased safety,would be an asset in an underserved central neighborhood not receiving many resources Page 10 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program City Center Advisory Commission Transportation/Parks Priority Rankings n d `c-3 U a C *Since we are reworking Main Street into a Green Street,this only makes sense to rehabilitate the bridge that supports part of it! *When Main Street Green Street is finished,the bridge is going to look pretty crappy by comparison. Improving it will enhance both the streetscape and the creek. *1'd like to see Main Street Bridge Painting/Rehabilitation 23 3 cosmetic repairs done after the big important infrastructure projects are complete.Also,I'm unclear as to what "rehabilitation"means.If it means fixing cracks with painting, then this would be a 5 for me.If it means just PR for the bridge, it's less of a concern. *High visibility,investment in existing asset once GreenStreet project is completed!Potential sculptural art location *Heavy use by pedestrians and bikers •Pedestrian safety; improves multi-modal access to downtown *Increased safety for pedestrians in a corridor with a lot of apartments.Also Hall Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements(Pacific Hwy to Durham) 21 4 connects downtown with the schools(elementary,middle,and high school)on the Durham side of town *Connectivity to downtown,multimodal access,increased bike/ped safety on high traffic volume street;contingent on reserve ROW for potential BRT route *Ties in with the connectivity plan for vehicles *Existing barriers-uncertain outcomes *Sure I want it;I also want peace in the Middle East and a cheap effective cure for toenail fungus. Might see one of them in my lifetime,probably not the Ash St.crossing of the WES Rail Line 12.5 5 RR Xing. *Existing barriers-uncertain outcomes *Necessary for future circulation plan.Existing barriers= uncertain outcomes,contingent on N.Dakota/Tiedemann and Grant/Tiedemann redesigns and future budgets Page 11 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program City Center Advisory Commission Transportation/Parks Priority Rankings u U c� Q '=.1 QU V Is ce Project Name U Comments 'Useful because a lot of single home families and apartment users walk from neighborhoods to the libraries or Main Street. Pedestrian Connectivity(Downtown to Cook Park):Segments are Ash Ave.Sidewalk *Provides safe access for local children walking to schools and (Fanno Creek to McDonald)&98th St.(Sattler to Murdock) 12 6 connects neighborhoods to parks and downtown; provides a bike/ped route in neighborhoods not served by existing trail system L Page 12 of 13 FY 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program City Center Advisory Commission Transportation/Parks Priority Rankings Mir • N d c E U U tL' w.. Project N U Cnm Parks *Makes Fanno Creek Bridge and Ash Avenue sidewalk mesh and work together *Opportunity for leverage,integration of nature into built environment,connectivity *Fanno Creek Park is(or can be)downtown's foremost amenity. This will leverage Fanno Creek Trail Bridge Replacement(CWS Re-meander) 26 1 CWS$$-I assume project cannot happen without bridge replacement. *Great timing for it because it's on PRAB's agenda as well *Was a priority over 6 years ago;part of improving connection to downtown neighborhoods; integration of nature into built environment *Makes Fanno Creek more accessible *Connectivity, investment in existing asset *Connectivity,investment in Fanno Creek Trail(Library to Bonita Rd.) 20 2 existing asset*Needs significant improvements; investment in existing asset,improves safety alternatives off of Hall Boulevard,improves connections of Cook Park and HS to library and downtown *Makes Fanno Creek more accessible *Connectivity, investment in existing asset *Connectivity,investment in f Fanno Creek Trail(Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd.) 20 2 existing asset Needs significant improvements; investment in existing asset,improves safety alternatives off of Hall Boulevard,improves connections of Cook Park and HS to library and downtown *Makes the Transportation hub more visible and prominent *Every college campus has a clocktower.I think it's nice,but it's Downtown Clock Tower 5 3 a lot of money to put in right now.I'd rather have a very nice clocktower and not scrimp than to just have a clocktower. *Recommend downsizing to pedestrian level clock pole with directional signage versus a clock tower. Page 13 of 13 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET o� s " City of Tigard FOR ING) (DA EOFM TIGARD Memorandum Agerr ci l 14e 4'14) 2-►n To: City of Tigard Budget Committee From: Toby LaFrance, Tigard Finance and Information Services Director -7-Z. Re: FY 2014 Second Quarter Financial Report Date: January 21, 2014 Introduction I am pleased to provide you with the FY 2014 Second Quarter Financial Report. Please bear in mind that the numbers on the following pages are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard. This means that the amounts represent the current fiscal situation of the City but may change with further accounting review. How to Read the Report The tables on the following pages report the progress against budget through the first half of the fiscal year. Each page contains funds that are grouped to a similar purpose (e.g. transportation funds, water funds, etc). For each fund, the table provides the amount of the budget, the progress against budget and the percent of budget complete. At the top of the page are the resources for each fund. The resources start with the funds' Beginning Fund Balance, which represents the amount of savings in the fund at the beginning of the fiscal year. Next are the revenues of the fund grouped by revenue type. For more information on the particular revenues within a revenue type, see the Revenue Analysis section and the Fund Summaries section of the Adopted FY 2014 Budget Document. The Beginning Fund Balance plus the Revenues make up the Total Resources of the funds. The bottom half of the report shows the fund Requirements. The Requirements start with the Expenditures by type. For more information on the specific expenditures within a type, see the Program Summaries section and the Fund Summaries section of the Adopted FY 2014 Budget Documents. By subtracting the Total Expenditures from the available Total Resources, the Change is Fund Balance is calculated. By combining the Change in Fund Balance and the Beginning Fund Balance at the top of the page, the Ending Fund Balance is derived. Finally, the Ending Fund Balance is added to the Total Expenditures to calculate the Total Requirements. The Total Requirements equals the Total Resources to balance the budget. Summary of Findings This is a brief overall summary. Again, bear in mind that the financials here are not the official audited financials of Tigard, but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1. Through the first half of the fiscal year, all operating programs are below 50% spent. 2. One of the main assumptions in our General Fund forecast is that we spend at, or below, 95% of budget. At this point,we are slightly above this expenditure rate in the General Fund and the Central Service Fund. We will continue to monitor this development. 3. General Fund revenues are well above 50 percent. This is expected since Property Taxes are mostly received in November and December. 4. Property Tax collections are at 94% of budget. This is slightly higher than prior years where collection was at 92% of budget at the end of December. The higher percentage is expected since the FY 2014 budget is based on an assumed assessed value growth of 2.35%. Actual assessed value grew by 3.20% 5. Development activity continues to perform ahead of expectations. The related funds and System Development Charges (SDCs) continue to exceed revenue expectations. 6. The Street Maintenance Fee fund (page 6) has most of the work for the year conducted in the first two months of year and Capital Improvement is 90% spent. 7. The revenue in the Gas Tax and City Gas Tax fund (page 6) is below budget. This is due to the timing in collections from the State. Finance expects to achieve the budgeted revenue in the City Gas Tax and slightly below budgeted revenues in the Gas Tax Fund. Finance will continue to monitor this item and has adjusted the revenue forecast for FY 2015 accordingly. 8. The revenue in the Sanitary Sewer fund (page 9) is below budget. This is due to the timing of utility sales collections where most of the collections in July and August are applied to the prior fiscal year. This is also true for the Stormwater fund, but the budgeted revenue is too low. The budgeted revenue in the Stormwater fund will be corrected for FY 2015. 9. Expenditures in the Water CIP fund (page 10) are below pace due to the timing of invoices from Lake Oswego. Generally, they bill quarterly based on their actual expenditures. We anticipate receiving the second quarter bill soon. Follow-up from Last Quarterly Report of the Fiscal Year 10. In the first quarter, several operating budgets had spent over 25% of their budget. That report lists the reasons, the primary one being that staff is paid every two weeks and there was a seventh paycheck in the first three months. That report stated that operating budgets should be in line by the second quarter. This second quarter report shows that to be the case. 11. The first quarter report stated that we are monitoring the assumption that beginning fund balance is required to be at least 22% of the operating budget in General Fund in order to have sufficient resources to make it to property tax collections. This fiscal year, we used $6.8 million of resources or 23% of operating budget prior to receipt of property taxes. FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) General Fund General Fund - 100 Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 8.156.853 9,710,836 119% Revenues Taxes 13,020,535 12,208,709 94% Franchise Fees 5,601,400 1,182,479 21% Special Assessments - - 0% Licenses&Permits 900,135 826,741 92% Intergovernmental 5,609,024 3,520,472 63% Charges for Services 3,230,653 1,422,880 44% Fines&Forfeitures 1,098,783 411,948 37% Investment Earnings 103,722 52,187 50% Other Revenue 24,902 20,437 82% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen 361,000 - 0% Transfers In - - 0% Total Revenues 29,950,154 19,645,852 Total Resources 38,107,007 29,356,689 77% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration 801,716 337,452 42% Community Development 3,023,948 1,287,916 43% Community Services 20,081,784 9,897,758 49% Public Works 5,467,422 2,507,898 46% Debt Service - - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% Loan to CCDA 361,000 - 0% Transfers Out 916,292 86,849 9% Contingency 1.200.000 - 0°L Change in Fund Balance (1,902,008) 5,527,980 -291% Ending Fund Balance 6,254,045 15,238,816 244% Total Requirements 38,106,207 29,356,689 77% *Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/20145:42 PM 1 of 13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Central Service Funds Central Svc Fund - 600 Fleet/Prop Mngmt Fund - 650 Insurance Fund - 660 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 199,348 218,979 110% 86.512 87.101 101% 776,772 830,267 107% Revenues Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 01)/o Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Licenses&Permits - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Intergovernmental 31,620 - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Charges for Services 5,829,965 2,865,165 49% 1,639,836 819,918 50% - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Investment Earnings 593 - 0% - - 0% 7,810 - 0% Other Revenue - 17 0% 14,868 - 0% 14,000 33,907 242% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers In 861.205 430.602 50% - - _ 926 - - 2'6 Total Revenues Total Resources 6,922,731 3,514,763 51% 1,741,216 907,019 52% 798,582 864,174 108% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration 6,573,845 3,131,289 48% - - 0% 50,000 12,358 25% Community Development - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Public Works - - 0% 1,725,713 759,309 44% - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out - - 0% - - 0% 531 266 50% Contingency 340,000 - 0% 12.868 0% 10.000 - 0% Total Expenditures 6,913,845 313 9 45% 1,738,581 759,309 44% 60,531 _12,624 2W Change in Fund Balance (190,462) 164,495 -86% (83,877) 60,609 -72% (38,721) 21,284 -55% Ending Fund Balance 8,886 383,474 4315% 2,635 147,710 5606% 738,051 851,550 115% Total Requirements 6,922,731 3,514,763 - 51% 1,741,216 907,019 52% 798,582 864,174 108% *Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/20145:42 PM 2of13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Development Funds Building Fund - 230 Elec. Insp. Fund - 220 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 1,220,661 1,586,128 130% 118,014 128,014 108% Revenues Taxes - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% Licenses&Permits 1,233,117 964,030 78% 174,837 101,456 58% Intergovernmental 8,281 4,592 55% - - 0% Charges for Services - 1,622 0% - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% Investment Earnings 19,782 3,576 18% 1,207 - 0% Other Revenue 10,090 - 0% - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - 0% Transfers In 180,000 90,000 50% _- - 0% Total Revenues 1,451,270 1,063,819 73% 176,044 101,456 it 11111 Total Resources 2,671,931 2,649,947 99% 294,058 229,470 78% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - - 0% - - 0% Community Development 1,516,579 685,856 45% - - 0% Community Services - - 0% - - 0% Public Works - - 0% - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out - - 0% 181,795 90,897 50% Contingency 200,000 - 0% 50,000 - 00/0 T _ - --. . 39'!. Change in Fund Balance (265,309) 377,963 -142% (55,751) 10,558 -19% Ending Fund Balance 955,352 1,964,091 206% 62,263 138,572 223% Total Requirements 2,671,931 - 2,649,947 99% 294,058 229,470 78% *Note:Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/2014 5:42 PM 3 of 13 • FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Parks Funds Parks Capital Fund - 420 Parks Bond Fund - 421 Parks SDC Fund - 425 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 139.479 15.630 11% 4.872.068 3,915,258 80% 1.873.432 1.959.296 105% Revenues Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Licenses&Permits - - 0% - - 0% 257,825 275,878 107% Intergovernmental 163,074 - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Investment Earnings 3,015 - 0% 4,020 10,464 260% 19,782 1,235 6% Other Revenue - 13,305 0% - 0% - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymeni - - 0% - 0% - - 0% Transfers In 7.471.573 1.387.224 19% - - - 0% 'A-19i444. A111111.111.111111111111111111111 Total Resources 7,777,141 1,416,159 18% 4,876,088 3,925,722 81% 2,151,039 2,236,409 104% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Development - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Services - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Public Works - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Capital Improvement 7,634,647 1,530,437 20% - - 0% - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out 100,397 50,199 50% 4,876,088 980,724 20% 2,065,005 259,947 13% (;ontingcncv - - Q°f_s - - 0n 75,000 - 0°L Total Expenditures 7,735,044. ,2,140,005 259,947 12% Change in Fund Balance (97,382) (180,106) 185% (4,872,068) (970,260) 20% (1,862,398) 17,166 -1% Ending Fund Balance _ 42,097 (164,477) -391% - 2,944,998 0% 11,034 1,976,462 17912% Total Requirements 7,777,141 1,416,159 - 18% 4,876,088 3,925,722 81% 2,151,039 - 2,236,409 104% *Note:Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/20145:42 PM 4of13 • FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Parks Funds Urban Forestry Fund Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 1,051,549 1,248,469 119% Revenues Taxes - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% Licenses&Permits - - 0% Intergovernmental - - 0% Charges for Services 25,000 115,409 462% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% Investment Earnings 4,060 1,623 40% Other Revenue - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% Transfers In - - 0% 'Total Revenues 29,060 117,032 403% Total Resources 1,080,609 1,365,501 126% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - - 0% Community Development - - 0% Community Services - - 0% Public Works - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% Transfers Out 156,229 23,348 15% Contingency - - 0% Total Ex a iwmmes __ LS'do. Change in Fund Balance (127,169) 93,685 -74% Ending Fund Balance 924,380 1,342,154 145% Total Requirements - 1,080,609 1,365,501 126% *Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. FY 2014 Transportation Funds Gas Tax Fund - 200 City Gas Tax Fund - 205 Street Maint. Fee Fund - 412 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 1,526,663 1,659,936 109% 1,488,999 1,547,753 104% 1.106.917 1,224,213 111% Revenues Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Licenses&Permits 2,602 1,604 62% - - 0% - - 0% Intergovernmental 4,383,452 1,284,184 29% 724,019 220,411 30% - - 0% Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0% 1,941,234 869,265 45% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Investment Earnings 55,732 51,168 92% 34,584 11,151 32% 2,043 - 0% Other Revenue 60,297 1,100 2% 31,735 (1,367) -4% - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymenr - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers In 100,000 50,000 50% - - 0°L - - Q°L Total Revenues 4,602,083 _IMMO 30% 790,338 230495 3,277 Total Resources 6,128,746 3,047,992 50% 2,279,337 1,777,948 78% 3,050,194 2,093,478 69% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - - 0% 0% 0% Community Development - - 0% 0% - 0% Community Services - - 0% - 0% - 0% Public Works 2,244,308 949,542 42% - - 0% - - 0% Debt Service 606,378 75,596 12% 319,390 39,788 12% - - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% 1,660,000 1,494,732 90% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out 2,604,452 1,519,883 58% 1,003,778 1,889 0% 208,883 104,441 50% Contingency 35,000 - 0% 50,000 - 0% 200,000 - 0% Total Expenditures 5,490,138 2,545,022 46% 1,373,168 41,676 3% 2,068,883 _ 1,599,174 _ _ 77% Change in Fund Balance (888,055) (1,156,966) 130% (582,830) 188,519 -32% (125,606) (729,909) 581% Ending Fund Balance 2,008 502,970 25048% 906,169 1,736,272 192% 981,311 494,304 50% Total Requirements 5,492,146 3,047,992 55% 2,279,337 1,777,948 78%_ 3,050,194 2,093,478 69% "Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/2014 5:42 PM 6of13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Transportation Funds (Continued) TDT Fund - 405 TIF Fund - 410 Underground Util. Fund - 411 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 894.189 1,831.451 205% 822.454 831.112 101% 555.182 567,555 102% Revenues Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Licenses&Permits 176,678 324,454 184% - 33,339 0% 15,629 - 0% Intergovernmental - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Investment Earnings 11,279 4,112 36% 4,000 3,104 78% 7,160 563 8% Other Revenue - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers In - - 9.°L - - QL - - Q°L Total Revenues 187,957 Total Resources 1,082,146 2,160,017 200% 826,454 867,555 105% 577,971 568,118 98% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Development - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Public Works - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Capital Improvement - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out 779,724 61,464 8% 818,307 84,362 10% 2,089 1,044 50% Contingency 250,000 _ - 0% 8.147 - 0% 50.000 - 0% Total ditures _ ,61,464 6% r/a eusvitiomi 029,�?s4 Change in Fund Balance (841,767) 267,102 -32% (822,454) (47,919) 6% (29,300) (481) 2% Ending Fund Balance 52,422 2,098,554 4003% - 783,193 0% 275,882 567,074 206% Total Requirements 1,082,146 2,160,017 200% 826,454 _ 867,555 105% 327,971 568,118 173% *Note:Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/20145:42 PM 7of13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Transportation Funds (Continued) Trans Capital Proj Fund - 460 Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 200 369 72,568 36% Revenues Taxes - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% Licenses&Permits Intergovernmental - - 0% Charges for Services - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - 0% Investment Earnings - - 0% Other Revenue - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0% Transfers In 3,42,,081 1,8-4,-16 35% Total Revenues 5,427,081 1,874,716 3564 Total Resources 5,627,450 1,947,284 35% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - - 0% Community Development - - 0% Community Services - - 0% Public Works - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% Capital Improvement 5,677,081 1,855,006 33% Loan to CCDA - - 0% Transfers Out - - 0% Contingency - 0% Total Expenditures 5,677,081 1,855,006 33% Change in Fund Balance (250,000) 19,710 -8% Ending Fund Balance 200,369 92,278 46% Total Requirements 5,877,450 1,947,284 33% *Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Sani / Stormwater Funds Sanitary Sewer Fund - 500 Stormwater Fund - 510 Water Qual/Quant Fund - 511 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 6,197,119 6,275393 101% 2,516,647 2,881,278 114% 1,242,369 1.291,132 104% Revenues Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - 0% Licenses&Permits 25,750 5,513 21% - - 0% 4,250 4,400 104% Intergovernmental 408,050 - 0% - 0% - - 0% Charges for Services 1,484,277 498,552 34% 2,053,830 1,226,561 60% - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Investment Earnings 100,333 2,957 3% 7,936 4,756 60% 15,102 721 5% Other Revenue 128,788 26,089 20% - - 0% - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers In 1,391,000 18,880 1% - 856 00 - - 0% Total Revenues 3,538,198 551,992 16% 2,061,766 1,232,173 60% 19,352 5,121 26% Total Resources 9,735,317 6,827,384 70% 4,578,413 4,113,452 90% 1,261,721 1,296,253 103% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Development - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Public Works 1,973,373 653,617 33% 1,442,387 677,556 47% - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Capital Improvement 5,924,653 323,837 5% 1,165,375 100,281 9% - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out 214,149 70,479 33% 598,916 148,865 25% 943,659 22,916 2% Contingency - - 0% 320,000 - 0% - - 0% ,Total Expenditures 8,112,175 1,047,934 13% 3,526,678 926,702 26% 943,659 22,916 2% Change in Fund Balance (4,573,977) (495,942) 11% (1,464,912) 305,471 -21% (924,307) (17,795) 2% Ending Fund Balance 1,387,142 5,779,451 417% 1,271,735 3,186,749 251% 318,062 1,273,337 400% Total Requirements 9,499,317 6,827,384 72% 4,798,413 4,113,452 86% 1,261,721 1,296,253 103% *Note:Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/20145:42 PM 9of13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Water Funds Water Fund - 530 Water SDC Fund - 531 Water CIP Fund - 532 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 9.701.503 12,707,093 131% 2.652,904 3.078,053 116% 84.231.728 83.276.923 99% Revenues Taxes 0% 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees 0% - 0% - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Development - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Public Works 8,239,852 3,544,551 43% - - 0% - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% 76,254,443 6,267,609 8% Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% Transfers Out 5,785,926 2,868,650 50% 1,027,165 83 0% 831,672 273,336 33% Contingency 350.000 P°,, _ 100.000 4 • 0% Total Expenditures 14,375,718 6,41.3,201 45% 1,127,165 1 _ 83 dX 77,086,115 6,540,945 8% Change in Fund Balance (33,012) 1,053,543 -3191% (765,357) 401,697 -52% (75,293,576) (6,109,826) 8% Ending Fund Balance 9,668,491 13,760,636 142% 1,887,547 3,479,750 184% 8,938,152 77,167,097 863% Total Requirements 24,044,269 20,173,837 84% 3,014,712 3,479,833 115% 86,024,267 83,708,043 97% *Note:Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,`nu represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. 1/21/20145:42 PM 10of13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Water Funds Water Debt Svc Fund - 533 Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 6.763.142 6,605,802 98% Revenues Taxes - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% Licenses&Permits - - 0% Intergovernmental - - 0% Charges for Services - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% Investment Earnings - 17,943 0% Other Revenue - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - 0% Transfers In _ 4,881.034 2,521,108 52% Total Revenues 4 X51 Total Resources 11,644,1 76 9,144.852 79% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - - 0% Community Development - - 0% Community Services - - 0% Public Works - - 0% Debt Service 4,881,034 2,521,108 52% Capital Improvement - - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% Transfers Out - - 0% Contingency _ - - 0% Total Expenditures 4,881,034 2,521,108 52% Change in Fund Balance - 17,943 0% Ending Fund Balance 6,763,142 6,623,744 98% Total Requirements 11,644,176 _ 9,144,852 79% *Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Debt Service and Other Funds GO Debt Svc Fund-350 Bancroft Debt Svc Fund -300 Libr. Donations/Bequests - 98(Criminal Forfeiture Fund- 240 Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget Budget YTD* %of Budget\ Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance _ 459.866 394.756 102_2 411-392 323.472 2 474 398 474,648 100`!Q 41569 135 489 302'4 Revenues Taxes 2,317,508 2,123,510 92°o - - 0% - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0°'0 - - 0% - - 0% - 0' Special Assessments - 0°0 120,000 38,069 32% - - 0% - n° Licenses&Permits - 0% - - 0°'0 - - 0°o - (1' Intergovernmental - - 0% - - 00 o - - 0°o - U Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0°0 - - 0 Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0°0 - - (l"0 43,000 16,590 39°o Investment Earnings 4,6122 7,819 170% 37,468 38,830 104°o - - 0°0 1,892 4 0°o Other Revenue - - 0°'o - - 0°o - (1°o - 0°o Proceeds from Loan Repayment - 0°0 - - 0°0 - - 0°o - 0"„ Transfers In _- - 0°'. --- - - 4°0 - - 0°'o Total Revenues 2,322,120 2,131,329 42'/. 587,468 76,899 49% - - 0'/. 44,892 16,594 37'/. Total Resources 2,781,986 2,526,085 91% 568,860 400,371 70% 474,398 474,648 100°'o 86,461 142,083 164°" Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - 0% - - 0% - - 0% - 0°o Community Development - 0% - - 0°`o - - (1% - - 00'0 Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% 50,000 3,5(0 7% Public Works - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% - 0°."o Debt Service 2,193,701 1,101,688 50% 499,997 450,527 90% - - 0% - 0% Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% 0% Loan to CCDA - - 00o - - 0% - - 0% - - 0°.o Transfers Out - - 0% 3,821 1,911 50% 100,000 - 0% 4151 201 50% _smmgcncx.. - - SL°s ills .' '�, i-4-:-','.. 6 .:1, x31§ ,r.--5,', 1 i1 - v. Change in Fund Balance 128,419 1,029,641 802% (346,350) (375,539) 108% (100,000) - 0°0 (5,509) 12,894 -234% Ending Fund Balance 588,285 1,424,397 242% 65,042 (52,067) -80°o 374,398 474,648 127°,0 36,060 138,383 384°0 Total Requirements 2,781,986 2,526,085 91% 568,860 400,371 70% 474,398 474,648_ 100% 86,461 142,083 164% *Note:Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. • 1/21/20145:42 PM 12of13 FY 2014 -January Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year) Capital Projects Funds Facilities Cap Proj Fund - 400 Budget YTD* %of Budget Resources Beginning Fund Balance 751.957 670.223 89% Revenues Taxes - - 0% Franchise Fees - - 0% Special Assessments - - 0% Licenses&Permits - - 0% Intergovernmental - - 0% Charges for Services - - 0% Fines&Forfeitures - - 0% Investment Earnings 3,212 1,388 43% Other Revenue - - 0% Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% Transfers In 1,104,576 128,496 1 Total Revenues 1,107,788 120 12+1 Total Resources 1,859,745 800,106 43% Requirements Expenditures Policy&Administration - 0% Community Development - - 0% Community Services - - 0% Public Works - - 0% Debt Service - - 0% Capital Improvement 747,585 - 0% Loan to CCDA - - 0% Transfers Out 19,384 9,692 50% Contingency 50,000 - 0% Total Expenditures 816,969 9,692 1% Change in Fund Balance 290,819 120,191 41% Ending Fund Balance 1,042,776 790,414 76% Total Requirements 1,859,745 800,106 43% *Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard,but represent the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review. AIS-1547 3, Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 01/21/2014 Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: River Terrace Finance Progress and Discussion Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Liz Lutz,Financial and Information Services Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Provide council with a River Terrace Community Plan Financial Strategies update. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss financial concepts and not specific projects or funding or financing options.The Community Plan is still being developed,and specifics on the actual projects that need to be funded and/or financed are still too preliminary to discuss. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff requests that council provide feedback on the approach and general direction that staff is taking to develop a financial strategies report for River Terrace. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city will need to finance the design and construction of many different major public facilities in the River Terrace area. Collectively,we refer to these facilities as infrastructure,and we often talk about them in terms of systems, e.g. the water system,transportation system,etc. Major public facilities generally include: collector and arterial streets (and related pedestrian,bicycle,and transit facilities); sewer trunk lines,pump stations,and treatment facilities;water trunk lines and water supply and storage facilities (e.g. reservoirs);community parks and regional trails;and stormwater collection,detention,and treatment facilities. Other parts of the system, which are often constructed by developers to city standards,generally include local streets,local parks,and lateral water and sewer lines that serve individual properties. In addition to the system master plans that will be developed as part of the River Terrace Community Plan, the project team will also develop an infrastructure financial strategies report. This report will provide a framework for making funding and financing decisions regarding River Terrace infrastructure improvements. It will also identify when specific infrastructure projects will be needed and how much they will cost. Needs will be matched with recommendations on who should pay and how they should pay. At a minimum,the report will include the following: 1•Executive Summary 2.Framework and Methodology 3.Funding Analysis 4.Estimated Infrastructure Costs COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS River Terrace Planning DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Council approved the contract for the River Terrace Community Plan (which includes the financing strategy) on June 25,2013. Attachments Attachment A-Financial Strategies Process Overview Attachment B-North Bethany Funding Scenario Attachment C-Parks and Trails Funding Options Attachment D-Water Utility Funding Options Attachment E-Transportation Funding Options Attachment F-Wastewater Utility Funding Options Attachment G-Stormwater Utility Funding Options AgendaQuick©2005-2014 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved 5.Evaluation of Funding Sources 6.Infrastructure Funding Plan(s) 7.Implications and Next Steps Attachment A outlines the process we will use to create the financial strategies report. Efforts to Date: •Public Outreach •Listsery •Website/Blog •Consider.It •Public and Agency meetings •6 Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) meetings (two of which included financial strategies information) •6 Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) meetings (one of which included financial strategies information) •3 community meetings (one of which included financial strategies information) •Briefings to various groups,e.g. CPO-4B,Tualatin River Watershed Council •Neighbor meetings •Capital Projects Workshop •Funding Memos from FCS Group •Attachment B-Funding Considerations for River Terrace ala "North Bethany Funding Scenario" •Attachment C -Parks and Trails Funding Options •Attachment D -Water Utility Funding Options •Attachment E-Transportation Funding Options •Attachment F-Wastewater Utility Funding Options •Attachment G -Stormwater Utility Funding Options Next Steps: Continue to work with project partners,service providers,and the community to develop near-term (0 - 5 years) and long-term (6+) project lists. •For near-term projects: •determine sequence and costs •prioritize those needed to jump-start development •identify possible funding sources and financing means •For long-term projects,determine general funding sources and financing means. Upcoming Council Actions: •Spring 2014-Update on financing strategies progress. Guidance on method of update (e.g.Workshop, Study Session,document,etc.) is requested. •Summer 2014- Hearing(s) on,and adoption of,Community Plan,including financial strategies. •Post Adoption- Implementation of Community Plan,including financial strategies,which may include: •SDC studies and fee adoption •Hearings and adoption of new fees or changes in existing fees •Hearings and authorization of financing mechanisms such as bonds. OTHER ALTERNATIVES River Terrace Financin g Strategies STEP ONE: Understanding the Basics STEP THREE:Understanding the Options Malin infrastructure investmamts usually require a 111166.1 list of protects needed to support mix of private,city and other funding.It is important River Terrace will be developed. to keep in mind that not all funding sources can be used for new development,and some are specific to a certain t• or types of infrastructure. Staff determines the availability of Project consultants,with staff,outlines type yPes current funding sources. what sources can be increased,or where FOR EXAMPLE: new sources may be available. Utility Rates 1 SEWER s Connection Fee General Fund 1 PROJECTS a Revenue Bonds NEW l\/NNEEEW INCREASE INCREASE STEP TWO: Asking the Questions CURRENT CURRINT For each infrastructure element,the city must 4 determine what projects are needed in River Terrace, and then decide how Tigard will pay for this increased and also,what the implications of each choice may be. demand. FOR EXAMPLE: OPTIONS INCLUDE: OPTION OPTION A NEW 4 Add new funding sources COST TO: INCREASE 4 Increase current funding sources Developers ► • Developers 1 • • • • Tigard Residents 1 • • • Tigard Residents► • • C` P Future RT Residents F • • Future RT Residents► • k k T, CURRENT s Use current funding sources AVAILABLE FUNDING: SOURCES now A LATER NOW LATER STEP FOUR: Providing the Recommendations STEP FIVE: City Council Decision The community will have an opportunity to provide input on important protects City Council will consider input from the Stakeholder and potential funding options. Working Group,Technical Advisory Committee, community,etc.,when choosing the final financing FOR EXAMPLE: strategies and projects to be incorporated in the report. PUBLIC FACILITY A Potential Project List -vs- Available Funding Options DeG`S••n F Project X 1 Option A s\ 1 Project Y 1 Option B \\ 1 Project Z Project Y is I like option A the most important because the cost is less to developers This input will be used by the Stakeholder Working Group and'lechnteal Advisory Committee to finalize their recommendation to Council on a financing strategy. © © 0 Alternative 1 -vs- Alternative 2 The element.to he balanced include: 1 The project list 1 Timing g •1 Funding options: When will the funds •Sources could be be available? cloARt' current,increased 1 Community input: City of Tigard or new •is the strategy ■..,St r iSIT\'OSsrr,,00r.r.r acceptable to project stakeholders? 13124 SW/loll RNA,Tigard,Olt 97213 www.ngard-.,..gov I w.rw.rowlerraccngard.c'rww <>FCSGR Memorandum g To: Susan Shanks and Toby LaFrance,City of Tigard Date: December 16, 2013 From: Todd Chase, FCS GROUP CC: Derek Chisholm, Otak RE: Funding Considerations for River Terrace ala a"North Bethany Funding Scenario" INTRODUCTION This document identifies River Terrace funding options available to Tigard and Washington County if there is a funding approach that is similar to that being used for North Bethany. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide input for discussion by city staff, elected officials and interested stakeholders prior to the formulation of a locally preferred financing and funding strategy. NORTH BETHANY FUNDING SOURCES Brought into the Metro Urban Growth Boundary in 2002 (along with West Cooper Mountain),North Bethany is a 691-acre land area that is planned to accommodate between 3,800 and 4,700 homes over the next 30 years. In addition to up to 10,000 residents, the North Bethany concept plan includes a Main Street area,neighborhood commercial centers, and several parks and trails. After a few years of litigation over the UGB decision and Beaverton's decision not to pursue annexation of North Bethany,Washington County took over the planning process in 2005. Washington County then led the Concept Planning process and coordinated with Metro and state agencies and service providers— including Clean Water Services; Tualatin Valley Fire &Rescue; Tualatin Valley Water District; and Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. North Bethany Transportation Funding Providing adequate transportation facilities became the largest capital funding challenge for North Bethany. Draft capital cost estimates in 2009 included $289 million in transportation projects, including $103 million for on-site arterials and $186 million for off-site improvements.' After refining the transportation facilities plans and cost estimates, the Washington County commission approved an approximately $69 million North Bethany Funding Strategy, with an additional $18 million in unspecified funding for a total of$87 million for 14 specific projects. See Attachment A. Key elements and programs within the North Bethany Funding Strategy are summarized in Exhibit 1. ' Amounts cited in presentation by Washington County staff titled: North Bethany: Planning and Funding Growth in Washington County, Oregon Land Conservation and Development, October 2, 2009. Pagel Exhibit 1 North Bethan Trans•ortation Fundin• Summa Capital Funding Expected Funding Basis Project Focus Source/Notes SDCs from$3,810 Capital cost share of 12 Source:WA County Supplemental SDC $22,466,756 (townhome)to major roads; portion of staff report, Exhibit $6,222 per SFD $69M A, 10/20/2010 Transportation TDT from$3,976 Capital cost share of up Development Tax(TDT) $21,778,574 (townhome)to to 9 major roads; Source: IBID. $6,665 per SFD portion of up to$64M Source: IBID.CSD likely to generate County Service District or CSD=$1.25 per Capital cost share of up about$4.1 million Local Improvement $13,354,670 $1,000 AV in to 12 major roads; and LIDs about$9.3 District(s) district portion of$69M million over 25 years (based on Exhibit A, Note 6) MSTIP 3 (Major Streets Funding now Capital cost share on 5 Transportation Improvement $10,000,000 allocated thru WA major roads;portion of Source: IBID. Program) County Gen. Fund $26M Prior agreements Capital cost share on Trust&Agency with 3 adjacent share of Springville Rd. Agreements(existing) $1,400,000 major developers/ improvements; portion Source: IBID. prop owners of$11M Subtotal $69,000,000 Unspecified(built thru Developer Capital cost share on 2 incremental development) $18,000,000 Agreements or major roads; majority Source: IBID. "half streets" cost share on$18M Total $87,000,000 Source:WA County staff report dated 10/20/2010, Exhibit A "Revised North Bethany Interim Funding Strategy." Note:the amounts shown in this table may be different than current estimates, after voter passage of the North Bethany CSD. While the key funding transportation funding programs include a mix of established programs (such as the Transportation Development Tax and the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program and existing Trust & Agency development agreements), there are new funding programs that were adopted specifically for North Bethany. The new funding programs include a Supplemental Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC) and a North Bethany County Service District(CSD) with a special property tax levy that will help fund planned transportation facilities in the area. The funding analysis summarized above is based on approximately 4,188 dwelling units being constructed over the next 30 years (assumes a 10% under-build factor on 4,653 total planned units). The equivalent amount of average transportation capital funding per future dwelling unit in North Bethany is summarized in Exhibit 2. Note, the non-residential land use elements are expected to account Page 2 for about 10% of the total future transportation funding generated in North Bethany. Exhibit 2 North Bethan Interim Trans•ortation Fundin• b General Pro•ram T •e Capital Funding Percent of Average Funding per Funding Program Expected Total Dwelling Unit Su.elemental TSDC '.22,467,000 26% ',5,365 TDT '21,779,000 25% ',5,200 Develo•er A•reements '19,400,000 22% '4,632 Count MSTIP ',1 0,000,000 11% '.2,388 LIDs '.9,300,000 11% CSD '.4,100,000 5% '.979 Total 87,046,000 100% 20,785 Source: WA County staff report dated 10/20/2010, Exhibit A "Revised North Bethany Interim Funding Strategy."Assumes 4,188 dwelling units built. Compiled by FCS GROUP. Other North Bethany Public Facility Funding The existing system development charges, connection charges, utility rates and tax rates that are levied or assessed by service providers are being used to fund the capital cost of public parks and trails, water, sewer, and stormwater facilities in North Bethany. In addition to addressing funding for public facility needs and services, the North Bethany Subarea Plan also includes an affordable housing program with a voluntary Program Guide aimed at providing up to 838 affordable housing units (18% of the total 4,653 planned housing units). ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR FUNDING IN RIVER TERRACE In order to better understand how these funding techniques could be applied to River Terrace, FCS GROUP applied similar rates and charges to the potential level of development that could be expected within River Terrace. The analysis is based on a similar distribution of funding used in North Bethany, and assumes a 10 percent"under-build" factor(consistent with that used in North Bethany). The findings summarized in Exhibit 3, generally indicate that 2,330 dwelling units would be expected to generate nearly $48.4 million in transportation funding(constant 2013 dollars) using the North Bethany funding approach. Exhibit 3 North Bethany Interim Transportation Funding Strategy Applied to River Terrace Potential Capital Transportation Funding Program Funding Percent of Total Funding per DU Supplemental TSDC $12,498,000 26% $5,365 TDT $12,116,000 25% $5,200 Developer Agreements $10,792,000 22% $4,632 LIDs $5,174,000 11% $2,221 CSD $2,281,000 5% $979 Subtotal (on-site) $42,861,000 89% $18,397 County(MSTIP/off-site) $5,563,000 11% $2,388 Total $48,424,000 100% $20,785 Source:analysis of Exhibit 2,Assumes 2,330 dwelling units built in River Terrace(10% Page 13 underbuild allowance).Corn piled by FCS GROUP. Funding for parks, sewer, water and stormwater capital improvements under the "North Bethany funding scenario" would be primarily derived from developer SDCs and connection charges. The potential levels of funding for these public facilities (before SDC credits are provided) are illustrated in Exhibit 4. In addition to the public facilities listed in Exhibit 4, the Tigard-Tualatin School District charges a School District Construction Excise Tax used exclusively for capital improvements. It is currently $1.11 per square foot for new residential and $0.55 per square foot for new commercial (not to exceed $28,400 per building). It is the same for both the Beaverton and the Tigard/Tualatin School Districts. The City receives 4% as an administrative fee. Exhibit 4 River Terrace Capital Funding Potential(preliminary 2013 dollar estimates) Parks Avg. Existing System Development Charge Revenue Charge Units Revenue Fee per Single Family Unit(SFU) $5,997 2,018 $12,100," Fee per Multi-Family Unit(MFU) $4,793 311 $1,488,000 Fee per Commercial/Industrial(employee) $415 77 MEM Total Parks SDC Revenue $13,620,111 Sewer Avg. Existing Connection Charge(CWS) Charge Units Revenue Fee per Equivalent Service Unit(ESU) 2,328 CWS Share(if applicable)* $4,608.82 -$10,730,71. City of Ti:ard Share $191.18 $445,124 Non-Res.Charge Estimate(@ 2%of total) - $228,160 Total Sewer Revenue $11,404,000 Water Avg. Existing Connection Charge(CWS) Charge Units Revenue Fee per Equivalent Service Unit(ESU,3/4"meter) $7,600 2,328 $17,695,I•• Non-Res.Charge Estimate(@ 2%of total) - $361,000 Total Water Revenue $18,056,000 Existing Stormwater SDC** Avg. Surface Water Quality Fee(collected by City) Charge Units Revenue Fee Per Residential Dwelling Unit $225 2,328 $524,." Non-Res.Charge Estimate(@ 2%of total) - =NM Total Stormwater SDC Revenue $535,111 Avg. Potential Regional Stormwater Mgmt.Charge *** Charge Units Revenue Avg.Fee per Dwelling Unit $1,813.40 2,328 $4,222,000 Non-Res.Fee Estimate(@2%of total revenue) - 5,, Potential Stormwater Mgmt.Charge Revenue $4,233,000 *CWS sewer connection charge only applies to facilities that require new 12"(or larger) conveyance facilities. **assumes on-site mitigation for water quality. This Fee is not being collected in North Bethany but is set by CWS and collected in City of Tigard. ***assumes storm water management charge is structured like the one proposed for North Bethany(with similar rate).Charge shown is weighted avg.based on potential River Terrace dwelling units allowed. Compiled by FCS GROUP,based on current City of Tigard 2013 Master Fees&Charges Schedule; and proposed CWS RSMC Methodology Report,10/3/2013. Page 14 ATTACHMENT A North Bethany interim Funding Strategy 10/202010 EXHIBIT A:REVISED NORTH BETHANY INTERIM FUNDING STRATEGY Wood Cost EFYnrN ROW Supplemsnal Eakins anew Road From To PreIsd 0127/00 Eelbrlet Told USTP TOT' BCCi7 TM' iD4rUD0 r 04490466. 1 Road A western Boundary Joss Build New Road 58.100.000 51 200.000 59.300,000 no maybe yes yes 2 Road A Josa Kaiser Bued New Road 16,900,000 $1.900.000 58,800.000 no maybe yes yes 3 Springville 105111 Joss Improve 510,500,000 5600.000 $11,100,000 yes yes yes 51400.000 maybe 4 Springville Joss Kaiser Improve $3.209000 $400.000 $3800.000 yea yes yes yes s.,w soon no.a... Ewes. ire trek*.real.era 5 Spmpvile Kaiser County Lone Improve 15.200,000 8500.000 $5.700.000 Wu eeoeenw auoudukt 6 Kamer Road A Sprhngville Improve ;0,000,000 !;900.000 17000,000 no Ws yes 7 185111 Springville Wes'Union Mom.* 54,300.000 $200,000 $4,500,000 yes yes yes maybe ns acisar at Tar.owe 8 Road A Kaiser Spwnolte Build Now Road $0,900.000 52.400.000 512,300.000 a.now1wr aw.ewwtery err Swap meow 9 Road A Sodga over Rock Cask Bub Bridge 17.000.000 5300.000 57.300.000 no msya yak yea wnw,w nee ,••••• 40.y,.ee ICI ' 18501 Intersection Improvement M Spnngville Improve $900,000 $0 5900,000 yea yes yes maybe 11 Kaiser Spn.12v1le Bethany Improve S5,900,000 1200,000 56,100.000 yes yes yes maybe x..,6koo.nrwste 12 Bragger Joss Kaiser Improve 53,100.000 5100,000 13,200,000 no no' yes yes trek camp re 13 Joss Road A Arbor Homes Improve 33.800,000 $300,000 $4,100,000 no maybe yes yes .L."...a 14 P15(Oats)) Spnngvdle _ Bngoer Improve 51,800,000 5500.000 52.300.000 l no no yes Yes TOTAL" 562.400.000 56.6000.000 $69.000.000 t$10.800.10 $21,770,574 $22,16,756 81.400.000 013,354.670 NOTES: 'yes.no and maybe describe the approD^Menea of spud%revenue born this source on•PantWar Protect •Facities betow collector d050I((natdn are not eligible for TrwaporlNdn Desoto...I Tax(TOT)protect lost "In 2010 dollars,does not include protects 5 or 8. 1 Carano.W RG Right-of-Way(ROW)Estimate 4202010. 2 Assumes 75%of 4188 ands.'maybe'means pored would need b be edded b TOT 1st,colam n based on ellg6ohty lo spend revenue-credit etgibilily deb 000.4 separately 3 Based on 4.188 ants and 54.800/and average change=56,222 SFR,53,810 SFA.and 54.369 MF(slght increase from 6112010 to all tales to keep same avenge-due to change in me or dwea,ng types assumed) 4 Only rx.nbng costing Trust and Agency(T8A).assumes 51.000.000 from Arbor.S340.000 Saint Joel Diego Cathokc Church and s60.00)Tualarm Mlle Pant and Recreaton Da1nd 5"maybe'means project is off-sne 6 Per May 21"K8R Memo,SI per 51.000 assessed value generaMS 518,500.000 over 25 years 7 Parties 4111 work to good faith to develop Me details or a System Development Charge(SOC).and County Service D it001(CDS)anOKK a LOG*Improvement D,stncl(LID)that is equitable and reasonable 8 Indnncual project costs may vary slightly as more eng.neenng is completed,hawever total 0111 Protects,s net expected t0 change ssgnficantly Under this scenano Portend Commurxty College to pay both TOT and pro/ortxni Supplemental System Development Charge(SOC)based on projected student enrollment(numbers assume 2.582 new students). Discussion at June 7.2010 meeting included posslWdy d some revenue being used tor preliminary ergmeenng(PE)and/or algnment analysis of Road A and Kaiser Road update 7,26 canarned non-resew.land use.ens emo.ea 0.e rime Ian 701 and Srsere enta,S/C raNaawn as scrod 5 stream commeed Op t.1010 we aaa TOT le,.sail 90%of mare..,.eseu,w*nee seer wan 100% Page I 5 •::>FCS GROUP Memorandum Solutions-Oriented Consulting To: Susan Shanks and Toby LaFrance, City of Tigard Date: November 4, 2013 From: Todd Chase, FCS GROUP CC: Derek Chisholm, Otak RE: Parks and Trails Funding Options for River Terrace INTRODUCTION This document identifies River Terrace parks and trail funding options available to Tigard. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide input for discussion by city staff, elected officials and interested stakeholders prior to the formulation of a locally preferred financing and funding strategy. CURRENT GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING SOURCES The City owns and operates 392 acres' of developed parks and open space. The Parks Division of the Public Works Department manages these assets, which fall into the following categories: • Neighborhood/pocket parks • Community parks • Linear parks • Open space • Trails New Construction The Parks Division currently finances its capital needs with a combination of voter-approved general obligation (GO) bond proceeds and parks system development charges (SDCs). In the current fiscal year (2013-14), over half of parks-related capital expenditures will be financed with proceeds of a $17 million bond issue that voters approved in November, 2010. The parks bond referendum included provisions that limited funding amounts for land acquisition (at least 80% of funds with 10% targeted in downtown) and parks facilities development (up to 20% of funding). This is the final year that these bond proceeds will be available for parks acquisition/development. Tigard's parks SDCs were recently updated in 2012 to account for the planned capital improvements in the Park System Master Plan (adopted in 2009) and the Trail System Master Plan (adopted in 2011). The current Tigard parks SDCs for selected land use types (rates effective as of July 1,2013) are as follows: http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/parks/docs/parks brochure.pdf •::>FCS GROUP Page 1 October 31, 2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Existing Tigard Parks SDCs Single Family Unit(per detached residential unit,including duplex units on individual lots, $5,996.87 and attached townhomes) Multi-Family Unit(includes apartments and condominium units) $4,793.04 Commercial/Industrial (per employee—see Permit Coordinator for specifics) $414.71 Operations The Parks Division has current budgeted operational needs of$1.7 million per year. While the City does charge various fees for users of park facilities, revenue from user fees amount to approximately $50,000 per year. Hence, the majority of parks operating revenues are derived from the General Fund (which obtains funding from a variety of sources, including property tax collections). According to city staff, annual capital outlay for replacement of existing parks assets is less than the annual depreciation expense for these assets. This imbalance results in increasing amounts of deferred maintenance. Exhibit 1 summarizes parks-related resources and requirements in recent years: Current Funding of Parks in Tigard Exhibit I Actual Budget Description Fund FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Capital Funding Resources Bond proceeds Parks Bond $ 7,277,499 $2,396,213 $5,877,628 $4,851,205 SDCs Parks SDC 2,278,104 435,366 2,566,0(X) 2,051,808 Fund balance and other 3,683,734 (214,392) 376,000 681,634 Total resources $13,239,337 $2,617,187 $8,819,628 $7,584,647 Requirements Capital projects Parks Capital $12,957,489 $2,334,477 $8,819,628 $7,584,647 Debt service Parks SDC 281,848 282,710 Total requirements $13,239,337 $2,617,187 $8,819,628 $7,584,647 Operational Fundina Resources Park revenue General $ 58,137 $ 67,055 $ 44,923 $ 42,677 Other revenues General 1,372,067 1,442,819 1,583,030 1,654,397 Total resources $ 1,430,204 $1,509,874 $1,627,953 $1,697,074 Requirements General $ 1,430,204 $1,509,874 $1,627,953 $1,697,074 FTE positions 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 Source: FY 2013-14 City budget documents(fund summaries.pdf and public works.pdf) POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the current funding sources for parks and trails that are identified above, the City could consider several potential new means of funding construction and ongoing operation of parks and trails in the River Terrace plan district. At this stage in the planning process, we are listing the potential parks and trails funding sources that have legal precedence in Oregon. Potential sources of capital and operating funding for parks and trails are identified and evaluated in Exhibit 2. New Construction Financing options for capital needs are the same whether the park system is governed by the City or by a park and recreation district. •::)FCS GROUP • Page 2 October 31,2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Specific capital funding options include: • General Fund • Parks User Fees • Parks SDCs (citywide or within River Terrace District) • Multimodal System Development Charges(may include trails/transportation facilities not reflected in current Tigard Parks SDC and be citywide or within River Terrace District) • Special Assessments(such as Local Improvement Districts or Reimbursement Districts) • Urban Renewal Area • Parks and Trails Facility Maintenance and Development Utility Fee (citywide or within River Terrace District) • Bonds(General Obligation Bonds, Full Faith& Credit Bonds, Revenue Bonds, etc.) • Grants and Loans • Developer Land/Easement Dedications and Improvements • Permanent rate property tax collected by a newly formed special district General Fund The General Fund can be used to fund any part of a park system,but these monies tend to be scarce and highly competitive among other functions of local government (such as funding for administration, libraries,parks and police). Within the General Fund are several sources of funding, such as property taxes and franchise fees. Parks User Fees The park system currently generates limited revenue from user fees. The City could review the pricing of these fees for a possible increase. Parks SDCs ORS 223.297 to 223.314 allows local governments to impose SDCs for capital improvements related to parks. SDCs are one-time fees imposed on new development or certain types of major redevelopment. They are intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth. SDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. As mentioned above,the City already has SDCs for parks and trails. These could be updated to include additional capital projects within River Terrace. The process of adopting a new methodology report and Parks SDC citywide may result in a higher parks SDC for any new development in the City. However, the disadvantage with this approach is that there would be no assurance that a parks project within the River Terrace area would receive SDC funding in the near-term as there are dozens of other SDC eligible projects slated for construction. Another SDC option for the City includes adopting a new Supplemental River Terrace Parks SDC, which would only affect future development within River Terrace. An advantage of this approach is that the City could dedicate these supplemental SDC funds to eligible parks and trails projects within River Terrace. A possible disadvantage may include increasing the overall development fees in River Terrace to a level that dissuades private investment activity. Special Assessments Local governments can assess specific property owners that benefit from the construction of a local (i.e., neighborhood)park through local improvement districts(LIDs) or reimbursement districts. 4>FCS GROUP Page 3 October 31,2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options ORS 223.387 to 223.401 provides local governments the statutory authority to establish LIDs and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. LIDs result in upfront or annual payments from affected property owners within a district. LIDs are payable in annual installments for up to 30 years. LIDs are generally used for capital improvement projects that benefit numerous large tenants and/or private property owners. The future revenue stream generated by LIDs can be used by local governments to obtain financing through the use of loans or bonds. Similar to LIDs are reimbursement districts. Local governments can negotiate public/private advance financing arrangements with developers,where a developer agrees to front capital improvements/investment(such as a new local park)within a designated zone of benefit district (ZBD). The local government that adopts a zone of benefit applies a special development impact fee that is charged based on a proportional benefit to properties for the capital infrastructure. The developer is then partially reimbursed when future land use development approvals are granted within the ZBD over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. However, there is no guarantee that future revenues will be as steady and reliable as LID or property tax assessments. Urban Renewal Area There may be opportunities to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace Urban Renewal Area (URA) for eligible economic development improvements in accordance with ORS Chapter 457. In many cases, URA funds are combined with other local funding sources (e.g., LIDs)to leverage non-local grants or loans. Maximum Indebtedness Requirements After the passage of House Bill 3056 (passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009) urban renewal agencies have new limits on the amounts of maximum indebtedness (MI) in an urban renewal plan adopted after January 1, 2010. • If the total "frozen tax base"is $50 million or less(as in the case of River Terrace where existing assessed market valuation was $31.84 million in 2013),the total MI may not exceed$50 million (ORS 457.190(4)(a)). • Under ORS 457.220,increases in MI may not exceed an aggregate of 20% of the original MI of the UR Plan, but with an"indexing"of the original MI from July 1, 1999 or one year after the plan was initially approved,whichever is later. Indexing may only happen once. Revenue Sharing Possibilities There are also new possibilities for revenue sharing with overlapping districts for plans adopted or substantially amended to increase MI after January 1, 2010. Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the later of the 11th year after the initial plan was adopted, or when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI,but are less than 12.5%of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 10%,plus 25% of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. Overlapping tax districts receive 75% of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 12.5% of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 12.5% tax increment,and any tax increment collections greater than 12.5% are distributed to overlapping taxing districts. -:;>FCS GROUP Page 4 October 31, 2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Concurrence Waivers Variations in the maximum indebtedness requirements and the revenues sharing provisions can occur if the municipality obtains the written concurrence of the overlapping tax districts that impose at least 75% of the taxes imposed under the permanent rate limits in the URA. In light of these and other URA provisions,the City may consider the creation of a new River Terrace URA in accordance with requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 457. Parks and Trails Facility Maintenance and Development Utility Fee A parks utility fee is an ongoing fee(often billed monthly) that provides revenue for the needs of the park system. When charged by a city, such a fee can be an additional line item on an existing utility bill. The revenue earned can be used for both operational and capital needs, and it can be pledged to the debt service of revenue bonds. Establishment of a parks utility fee in Oregon requires compliance with legal requirements at both state and local levels. Based on our experience and understanding of statutory requirements, we offer three recommendations when implementing a new parks utility fee: • Design a parks utility fee that is distinct from a property tax. This can be accomplished by(1) distinguishing between utility customers and property owners,(2) not allowing uncollected fees to become a lien on property, and(3) designing a rate structure that is based on cost of service. • Draft an ordinance for adoption into the City's municipal code. Such an ordinance is required to provide local authority to impose a parks utility fee. • Provide a public hearing prior to enactment to comply with ORS 294.160(1). Currently we are aware of three jurisdictions within the State of Oregon that charge a parks utility fee. The cities of West Linn,Medford and Talent charge customers within their city limits a monthly fee that is used primarily for maintaining city-owned parks, recreation facilities and open spaces. The monthly fees per single-family residence are $2.95 in Medford,$3.00 in Talent, and $10.70 in West Linn. Bonds As the City is aware,bonds are a common means of financing park projects whose benefits are not confined to a single local area. General obligation (GO)bonds are advantageous, because their debt service is funded by a property tax levy that is outside the limits of Measure 5. While GO bonds do require voter approval,park measures have had a positive approval record in Tigard. On November 2, 2010,Tigard voters passed a $17 million general obligation bond to fund the purchase of real property for parks and to fund a limited amount of park improvements. This summer the city broke ground on four projects—funded in full or in part by revenue from the Tigard voter-approved $17 million park and open space bond. Projects included: • A new section of the Fanno Creek Trail—connecting Main St.to Grant Ave.—will be built. • Improvements at East Butte Heritage Park,including a playground,picnic shelter, restroom, walking paths and a sidewalk along 103rd Ave. • A wooden bridge to be constructed in Jack Park. The bridge will connect the newly purchased park property to the existing park. • At the Fanno Creek House on Hall Blvd.,parking areas will be improved and bike racks and landscaping will be installed. •::>FCS GROUP Page 5 October 31, 2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Revenue bonds are a form of debt financing that does not require voter approval. However,revenue bonds do require an ongoing source of revenue that can be pledged to payment of debt service. A parks utility fee, whether established by the City or a park and recreation district,could serve this purpose. Revenue bonds are subject to debt service coverage requirements. A hybrid of these two bond types is the full faith and credit obligation (FFCO). This type of bond represents an unsecured claim on all the revenue streams of an agency without the pledge of any particular revenue stream. FFCOs do not require voter approval, and they are not subject to debt service coverage requirements. Grants and Loans Federal and state grant programs,once readily available for financial assistance, are generally limited in size(usually less than $500,000),often require a sizable local match (at least 50% local match is recommended), and very competitive among jurisdictions (often focused on "distressed communities" with high poverty or unemployment levels).Nonetheless,the economic benefit of grants and low-interest loans can make the effort of applying worthwhile. Common special programs identified as potential funding sources are summarized below: Grants: State grants for parks are administered by Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (Local Government Grant Program, RV Campground Funds,etc.).The Metro regional government may also be a source of capital funding through the Nature in the Neighborhoods Grant Program. In May 2013, the Metro Council awarded the sixth round of funding,reaching the halfway mark for the $15 million available from the voter-approved 2006 natural areas bond measure. Bank and State Loans: The City of Tigard may utilize private bank loans or state loans to make strategic capital facility upgrades. State loan funds available from Business Oregon currently include the Special Public Works funds that are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to $3.0 million in size. Crowdfunding: Another innovative sources of financing that is particularly suitable to parks projects is crowdfunding. A local government can use websites like Citizinvestor2 and Neighbor.ly3 to list proposed projects and solicit donations. These websites then serve as an escrow between the government and contributors by ensuring that a contribution is either spent on its intended project or returned(or credited)to the contributor. Not only do these websites serve an important administrative function. They also serve the interests of economic efficiency by allowing contributors (1)to determine how they would benefit from a particular project and then(2) to contribute accordingly. Exactions and Dedications Public jurisdictions may require exactions or dedications from developers as a condition of development approval. This applies to capital projects identified in adopted master plans and identified as"qualified public improvements"per ORS 223.304(4). For smaller"neighborhood"parks or trails that are needed to serve a proposed development,the City can require a developer to dedicate land and construct a neighborhood park or trail segment. If the dedication addresses only the impacts of the development, then the condition is an exaction, and no SDC credits or other compensation is required. If a dedication serves growth both inside and outside the development, then only the portion required by the development can be exacted. If the "oversize" portion of the public improvement is still a condition of development approval it would be eligible for SDC credits. Legal provisions contained in relevant court rulings in particular,Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard would apply. 2 http://www.citizinvestor.com/ 3 http://neighbor.ly/ •FCS GROUP Page 6 October 31, 2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options OPTIONS ENTAILING SPECIAL GOVERNANCE The preceding capital funding options are available to the City of Tigard without any change in local governance. Other governance structures could result in new sources of funding for parks. In Oregon, jurisdictions may consider forming a special service district charged with developing and maintaining qualified public facilities. There are generally two types of service districts that could help fund parks in River Terrace: 1) Parks District or 2)County Service District. Parks District This funding source depends upon the governance of the park system shifting from the City of Tigard to a newly formed Tigard Parks District. A park and recreation district can be viewed as a geographically and financially flexible form of municipal utility because Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 198.720 affords great latitude in setting the district's boundaries. The territory of a park and recreation district can include both incorporated and unincorporated areas. However, including incorporated areas requires the consent of the affected city(in this case it would be limited to the City of Tigard). A park and recreation district is financially flexible because of the variety of revenues that it is allowed to collect. These revenues are enumerated in ORS 266.410,but the two major categories are user charges and property tax. User charges can take many forms,including monthly(i.e.,parks utility) fees, one-time fees,and system development charges. Property tax can take the same forms as those currently available to the City(i.e.,bond levies and local option levies),but a newly-formed district also has the opportunity to set its own permanent rate with voter approval. Formation of park and recreation districts is governed by ORS 198.705 to 198.845 and ORS Chapter 266. The process can be initiated in one of three ways: (1)petition of 15 percent of electors(ORS 198.800), (2)petition of all landowners within the boundaries of the proposed district (ORS 198.830),or(3)county board's own motion(ORS 198.835). However the process is initiated,the next step is a first public hearing held by the county board. If the county board is inclined to form the district after the first public hearing, it will schedule a second public hearing. If the county board both (1)receives written objections from fewer than the lesser of 15 percent or 100 electors within the boundaries of the proposed district by the second public hearing and(2)does not intend to levy any form of property tax,the county board may order the formation of the district without an election. If both conditions are not met,then voter approval would be required. ORS 198.810 allows newly-formed special districts to vote on the establishment of a permanent property tax rate. Though such a funding source may be politically problematic,it would offer the greatest stability and administrative ease of all potential revenues. According to data obtained from the Oregon Department of Revenue,4 43 park and recreation districts have a permanent property tax rate. Among these, the median permanent rate is $0.3861 per$1,000 of assessed value. In Washington County,the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District has a permanent rate of$1.3073 per$1,000 of assessed value. The North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD)is an example of a parks district that has evolved over time. Voters approved the formation of the NCRPD in 1990 because they saw the need for greater parks and recreation services in the north end of the county, with a tax rate of 54 cents per$1,000 in assessed valuation. In 2006,the City of Happy Valley voted to join NCPRD.NCPRD is now the park service provider for the Cities of Happy Valley, Milwaukie and a portion of the City of Damascus. The Tigard-Tualatin Aquatic District is a recently-created special purpose district that includes the cities of Tigard,Tualatin and surrounding portions of unincorporated Washington County and Clackamas 4 http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/Pages/statistics.aspx 4)FCS GROUP Page 7 October 31, 2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options County. Approved by district voters in May 2010,the aquatic district is charged with managing and operating the aquatic centers at Tigard and Tualatin High Schools. Voters within the district agreed to tax themselves at a rate of 9 cents per$1,000 of assessed property value to keep the two pools open. This equates to an assessment of$18 per year for a household with a$200,000 assessed value. If the full amount of the 9 cent levy is assessed it is estimated that it will generate approximately$800,000 annually. Voters also selected 5 out of 8 candidates that serve on the district's board. County Service District It is conceivable that a River Terrace County Service District (CSD) could be created to fund capital and maintenance costs of public facilities in River Terrace,including parks and trails (as well as other public facilities identified in ORS 451),as long as there is no overlapping special purpose district and the CSD is created in accordance with ORS 198 and ORS 451. Because River Terrace is already annexed into the City of Tigard, this approach would require added administrative staff/legal costs with a concurrent approval and adoption effort by Washington County and the City of Tigard to form the district boundary. In accordance with ORS 451.540: "The county court may,for the purpose of establishing a revolving fund to provide money to finance the construction under ORS 451.410 to 451.585 of those service facilities in the county that may be necessary and in implementation of the master plans provided for in ORS 451.120, levy an ad valorem tax of not to exceed 50 cents per year,for a period not to exceed five years,for each $1,000 of real market value of taxable property within all areas of the county, to be served by the facilities included in the master plan. " Please see the following link for additional requirements of this funding option: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors451.html A CSD in North Bethany(all within unincorporated Washington County) was approved in 2011 that included the formation of the North Bethany CSD for the purpose of providing a dedicated source of funding for roads at a maximum levy not to exceed 25 cents per $1,000 in assessed valuation. Potential Funding of Operational Needs Most financing options for operational needs are the same whether the park system is governed by the City or by a park and recreation district. However,a permanent rate property tax that is dedicated to parks is available only in a newly formed special district. Many of the operating funding options listed below are described above. Specific operating funding options include: • City General Fund • Parks User Fees • Parks and Trails Facility Maintenance& Development Utility Fee(citywide or within River Terrace District) • Local Option Operating Levy • Grants and Loans • Donations, Sponsorships,Crowd Sourcing and Volunteer contributions • Parks District formation(citywide plus unincorporated Cooper Mtn. area) • County Service District(River Terrace special purpose district focused on parks and trails) 4)FCS GROUP Page 8 October 31, 2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Local Option Property Tax Although Section 11(3)(b), Article XI of the Oregon Constitution prohibits the City from raising its permanent tax rate to fund parks(or for any other reason),the City can raise operating funds from a local option operating levy under Section 11(4)of the same article. Such levies can be imposed for up to five years for operating expenses or up to ten years for a capital project. Although a local option levy is a form of property tax,the revenue derived is more risky than revenue from a permanent rate. When overlapping tax rates exceed the Measure 5 limits for any individual property, local option levies are the first tax rates to be compressed (to zero, if necessary)before any permanent rates are reduced. NEXT STEPS We look forward to discussion the advantages and disadvantages of these parks funding options with city staff and the River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee and the River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group. Then,will work with city staff to"shortlist"funding options for additional technical analysis. )FCS GROUP • Page 9 Exhibit 2 River Terrace Parks and Trail Fundin! 0•tions Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages City General Fund Citywide City $ $ Flexible funding with local precedence No guaranteed funding level;relies Council on annual budget process • City User Fees Citywide Council $ $ Flexible funding with local precedence Very limited funding potential. Parks System Development Existing citywide Parks SDC can be River Terrace projects would not Charge Update(SDCs) Citywide City $$ updated to include River Terrace have priority over other city projects. Council projects SDCs cannot fund O&M costs Supplemental River Terrace New River Terrace SDC could dedicate River Parks&Trails SDCs Terrace CouCity cil $$$ funds to River Terrace,as SDCS cannot fund O&M costs development occurs Trails&Multimodal Citywide Transportation SDCs or River City New SDC could address multimodal Terrace Council needs that are not addressed in WA SDCS cannot fund O&M costs Dist. County TDT or Parks SDC Special Assessments(LID or Addresses specific capital Reimbursement District) Property improvements with construction River Some risk to city in case of property Terrace Owners $$ timelines;equitable cost allocation owner default on payments &City results in majority support by affected prop.owners Urban Renewal District New URD could generate funds as URDs cannot fund O&M costs; (URD) River City $$$ development occurs;can be used on requires citywide voter approval in Terrace Voters wide range of capital projects Tigard Parks Facility Maintenance Citywide New utility fee would provide While voter approval is not typically &Development Utility Fee or River City $ $$ dedicated source of funding for parks, required,some cities seek voter Terrace trails and other multimodal facilities approval to mitigate political issues •:J FCS GROUP Page 10 October 31,2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Exhibit 2(continued) Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages General Obligation Bonds Project-specific funding source with Public voter referendum has admin (voter approved) Project City dedicated source of stable revenue cost to City with no guaranteed Specific Voters (property tax).Limited risk to City outcome.Cannot be used for 0&M Full Faith&Credit Bonds Risk to City depends on sources of (not voter approved) Project City Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Cannot be used Specific Council dedicated revenues are available for O&M Limited to 5 years(operating)or 10 Local Option Levy Program City $$ $$ Program-specific funding source for years(capital).May be subject to tax Specific Voters voter-approved property tax levy compression under Measures 5 and 50 City Risk to City depends on sources of Revenue Bonds Project Council or Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Interest rates Specific Voters dedicated revenues are available are higher than GO Bonds.Cannot be used for O&M Donations,Sponsorships, Project City Usually results in positive community Volunteers&Crowd sourcing Specific Council involvement,and reduced cost to City Very limited funding potential Loans Project City Project-specific funding source if Risk to City depends on sources of Specific Council dedicated revenues are available dedicated revenues.Interest rates are higher than Bond issues Grants Project City $ $ Project-specific non-local funding Grants are usually very competitive Specific Council J source with limited funding availability •:;>FCS GROUP Page I I October 31,2013 River Terrace Parks and Trails Funding Options Exhibit 2(continued) Considerations Area Annual of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages Exactions City Developer constructs neighborhood Usually limited to subdivisions with Project Specific Council& $ parks/trails to city standard as a "local"neighborhood parks/trail Developer condition of approval improvements Dedications City Developer provides easements for Project Specific Council& $ parks/trails as a condition of approval; City must fund capital improvements Developer can be SDC eligible County Service District WA Formation New County, New service district could be formed Requires significant upfront and District' City and $ $ with dedicated property tax to ongoing administration cost and District specified purpose concurrent city/county approval Voters' Parks District Formation City,WA County New service district could be formed Requires significant administration District' and $$ $$$ with dedicated property tax to cost and creates a new layer of local District specified purpose governance Voters' Notes: Legend: Source:FCS GROUP and city staff. New Service District could extend beyond River $least positive Terrace and could include portions of unincorporated Washington County. SSS most positive ,FCS GROUP Page 12 >FCS GROUP Memorandum Solutions Oriented Consulting To: Susan Shanks and Toby LaFrance, City of Tigard Date: November 6,2013 From: Todd Chase and Doug Gabbard, FCS GROUP CC: Derek Chisholm, Otak RE: Water Utility Funding Options for River Terrace INTRODUCTION This document identifies River Terrace water utility funding options available to the City of Tigard. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide input for discussion by city staff,elected officials and interested stakeholders prior to the formulation of a locally preferred financing and funding strategy. CURRENT WATER SERVICE AND ITS FUNDING SOURCES The City provides water service to the Tigard Water Service Area, which has 57,000 residents and includes the Tigard Water District and the cities of Tigard, Durham, and King City.' By 2016, when the Tigard's water supply contract with the City of Portland expires, the City will be able to distribute water produced in Lake Oswego by the jointly-owned water treatment plant of the Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership. This new partnership will allow Tigard and Lake Oswego to produce up to 38 million gallons of water per day,of which Tigard would receive between 14 and 20 million gallons per day (by year 2040). Tigard's share of the capital costs associated with water treatment, transmission,intake,etc. is estimated to be$81 million. New Construction of Capital Projects The City currently finances the capital needs of its water utility primarily with revenue bonds tied to water rates. Other sources such as system development charges(SDCs) and utility fees have played only a minor role in financing water infrastructure. On June 30, 2012,the Water Fund owed $105.4 million in outstanding revenue bonds.2 This amount represented 93 percent of the Water Fund's total liabilities. Not only must bond debt be repaid from rate revenues,but those Tigard Water SDCs Exhibit 1 rate revenues must be sufficiently greater than both the operating Meter Effective Date needs and debt service payments to provide a cushion known as Size 2/1/2013 2/1/2014 Increase "debt service coverage." 5/8"x 3/4" $ 6,083 $ 7,044 15.8% 3/4"x 3/4" $ 8,757 $10,144 15.8% SDCs will become an important resource for capital spending if 1" $1 6,225 $1 8,791 15.8% new development resurges. Exhibit 1 shows the City's current 1 1/2" $48,645 $56,343 15.8% water SDCs: 2" $78,990 $91,490 15.8% Source: Master Fees A.Charges Schedule I City of Tigard, "Fact Sheet: Water Financial Plan,"page 1. 2 City of Tigard, "Comprehensive Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2012,"page 44. •:;>FCS GROUP Page 1 November 6, 2013 River Terrace Water Utility Funding Options Operations The Water Division of the City's Public Works Department has current budgeted operational needs of $8.1 million per year. These needs are financed with user charges, especially sewer rates. Exhibit 2 summarizes water-related resources and requirements for Tigard in recent years: Current Funding of the Water Utility in Tigard exhibit 2 Actual Budget Description Fund FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Capital Funding Resources Bond proceeds Water CIP $3,100,000 $99,634,079 $ - $ - Bond proceeds Water Debt Service - 12,538,672 - - SDCs Water CIP 107,188 - - - SDCs WaterSDC 339,068 1,164,078 361,575 361,575 Fund balance and other 4,066,418 (97,762,503) 26,306,109 80,381,902 Total resources $7,612,674 $15,574,326 $26,667,684 $80,743,477 Requirements Capital projects Water CIP $7,523,029 $ 9,535,084 $22,706,500 $75,862,443 Debt service Water CIP 89,645 Debt service Water Debt Service 6,039,242 3,961,184 4,881,034 Total requirements $7,612,674 $15,574,326 $26,667,684 $80,743,477 Operational Funding Utility revenue Water $5,065,701 $ 5,331,984 $ 7,950,086 $ 8,139,852 Program expenditures Water $5,065,701 $ 5,331,984 $ 7,950,086 $ 8,139,852 FTE positions 12.00 12.75 12.50 12.00 Source: FY 2013-14 City budget documents(fund sum maries.pdf and public works.pdf) POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the current funding sources for water that are identified above, the City could consider several potential new means of funding construction and ongoing operation of water-related infrastructure in the River Terrace subarea plan district. At this stage in the planning process, we are listing potential funding sources that have legal precedence in Oregon. Potential sources of capital and operating funding for the water utility are identified and evaluated at the end of this memorandum in Exhibit 3. New Construction Options for financing capital needs include the following: • Area-Specific Water Utility Rates • Water SDCs (citywide and/or area-specific) • Special Assessments (such as Local Improvement Districts or Reimbursement Districts) • Urban Renewal Area • Bonds(General Obligation Bonds, Full Faith and Credit Bonds, Revenue Bonds, etc.) • Special Programs • Developer Contributions •:;>FCS GROUP Page 2 November 6,2013 River Terrace Water Utility Funding Options Area-Specific Water Utility Rates To the extent that a specific area imposes costs(whether capital or operating) on a utility that the remainder of the customer base does not impose, area-specific rates can be justified. Implementing area- specific rates can take a couple of different forms. On the one hand,the entire utility service area can be divided into districts, and each district can have its own rate schedule. On the other hand, a base charge could be imposed in the entire utility service area with surcharges imposed only in those areas of higher cost. Water SDCs ORS 223.297 to 223.314 allows local governments to impose SDCs for capital improvements related to water. SDCs are one-time fees imposed on new development or certain types of major redevelopment. They are intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth. SDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. As mentioned above,the City already has SDCs for water. These could be updated to include additional capital projects within River Terrace. The process of adopting a new methodology and water SDCs citywide may result in a higher water SDC for any new development in the City.b However, the disadvantage with this approach is that there would be no assurance that a water project within the River Terrace area would receive SDC funding in the near-term as there are dozens of other SDC-eligible projects slated for construction. Another option is the adoption of a new supplemental River Terrace water SDC, which would affect development only within River Terrace. An advantage of this approach is that the City could dedicate these supplemental SDC funds to eligible water projects within River Terrace. A possible disadvantage is an increase in the overall development fees in River Terrace to a level that dissuades private investment activity. Special Assessments Local governments can assess specific property owners that benefit from the construction of local facilities through local improvement districts (LIDs) or reimbursement districts. ORS 223.387 to 223.401 provides local governments the statutory authority to establish LIDs and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. LIDs result in upfront or annual payments from affected property owners within a district. LIDs are payable in annual installments for up to 30 years. LIDs are generally used for capital improvement projects that benefit numerous large tenants and/or private property owners. The future revenue stream generated by LIDs can be used by local governments to obtain financing through the use of loans or bonds. Similar to LIDs are reimbursement districts. Local governments can negotiate public/private advance financing arrangements with developers,where a developer agrees to front capital improvements/investment within a designated zone of benefit district (ZBD). The local government that adopts a zone of benefit applies a special development impact fee that is charged based on a proportional benefit to properties for the capital infrastructure. The developer is then partially reimbursed when future land use development approvals are granted within the ZBD over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. However,there is no guarantee that future revenues will be as steady and reliable as LID or property tax assessments. Urban Renewal Area There may be opportunities to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace Urban Renewal Area(URA)for eligible economic development improvements in accordance with ORS Chapter 457. In 4>FCS GROUP Page 3 November 6,2013 River Terrace Water Utility Funding Options many cases, URA funds are combined with other local funding sources (e.g., LIDs)to leverage non-local grants or loans. Maximum Indebtedness Requirements After the passage of House Bill 3056(passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009)urban renewal agencies have new limits on the amounts of maximum indebtedness (MI)in an urban renewal plan adopted after January 1, 2010. • If the total "frozen tax base"is $50 million or less(as in the case of River Terrace where existing assessed market valuation was $31.84 million in 2013), the total MI may not exceed$50 million (ORS 457.190(4)(a)). • Under ORS 457.220, increases in MI may not exceed an aggregate of 20%of the original MI of the UR Plan, but with an"indexing"of the original MI from July 1, 1999 or one year after the plan was initially approved,whichever is later. Indexing may only happen once. Revenue Sharing Possibilities There are also new possibilities for revenue sharing with overlapping districts for plans adopted or substantially amended to increase MI after January 1, 2010. Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the later of the 11th year after the initial plan was adopted, or when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10%of the initial MI. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI,but are less than 12.5% of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 10%, plus 25% of the tax increment between 10%and 12.5%. Overlapping tax districts receive 75% of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 12.5% of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 12.5% tax increment, and any tax increment collections greater than 12.5%are distributed to overlapping taxing districts. Concurrence Waivers Variations in the maximum indebtedness requirements and the revenues sharing provisions can occur if the municipality obtains the written concurrence of the overlapping tax districts that impose at least 75% of the taxes imposed under the permanent rate limits in the URA. In light of these and other URA provisions,the City may consider the creation of a new River Terrace URA in accordance with requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 457. Bonds As the City is aware,bonds are a common means of financing water projects whose benefits are not confined to a single local area. General obligation(GO) bonds are advantageous,because their debt service is funded by a property tax levy that is outside the limits of Measure 5. However, GO bonds do require voter approval. Revenue bonds are a form of debt financing that does not require voter approval. However,revenue bonds do require an ongoing source of revenue that can be pledged to payment of debt service. A parks utility fee,whether established by the City or a park and recreation district, could serve this purpose. Revenue bonds are subject to debt service coverage requirements. A hybrid of these two bond types is the full faith and credit obligation(FFCO). This type of bond represents an unsecured claim on all the revenue streams of an agency without the pledge of any particular revenue stream. FFCOs do not require voter approval, and they are not subject to debt service coverage requirements. 4) FCS GROUP Page 4 November 6, 2013 River Terrace Water Utility Funding Options Special Programs The City may utilize private bank loans or state loans to make strategic capital facility upgrades. Given the City's limited operating revenues, bank loans would only be viable for smaller budget improvements that promise rapid return on the investment. State loan funds available from Business Oregon currently include the Special Public Works funds that are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to $3 million in size. Oregon Bond Bank or Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority loan funds may be available if the project is well secured and other funding alternatives are not available. Developer Contributions An indirect way of using SDCs to fund capital improvements is to provide SDC credits to developers who construct"qualified public improvements" as defined in ORS 223.304(4). For smaller facilities that will serve a single development,the City can require a developer to construct the facility as a condition of development approval. In cases where dedicated cost of public facilities are eligible for System Development Charge credits, the developer may be entitled to an amount of SDC credit based on the amount of the SDC improvement charge and the value of the land and/or capital facility provided. Potential Funding of Operational Needs User charges,especially water rates,will continue to be the water utility's primary means of meeting its operational needs. To the extent that a specific area imposes costs(whether capital or operating) on a utility that the remainder of the customer base does not impose,area-specific rates can be justified. Implementing area- specific rates usually occur in two different forms: 1) the entire utility service area can be divided into districts,and each district can have its own rate schedule; or 2) a base charge could be imposed in the entire utility service area with surcharges imposed only in those areas of higher cost. NEXT STEPS Once the city receives input from the River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee and the River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group on the advantages and disadvantages of these water utility funding options, FCS GROUP will work with city staff to "shortlist" funding options for additional consideration. •:;> FCS GROUP Page 5 Exhibit 3 River Terrace Water Facil Fundin• 0•tions Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages Water Utility Rates Citywide Pay-as-you-go funding for capital (including area-specific or River City $ $$$ Flexible funding with local precedence projects may not be available when Terrace Council needed. rates) Dist. Water System Development Existing citywide water SDC can be River Terrace projects would not Charge Update(SDCs) Citywide City $$ updated to include River Terrace have priority over other city projects. Council projects. SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. Supplemental River Terrace New River Terrace SDC could dedicate River City Water SDCS Terrace Council $$$ funds to River Terrace,as SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. development occurs Special Assessments(LIDS Addresses specific capital or Reimbursement District) Property improvements with construction River Owners $$ timelines;equitable cost allocation Some risk to city in case of property Terrace &City results in majority support by affected owner default on payments prop.owners Urban Renewal Area(URA) River Cit ■ New URA could generate funds as URA5 cannot fund O&M costs; y Terrace Voters $$$ development occurs;can be used on requires citywide voter approval in wide range of capital projects Tigard •:•>FCS GROUP Page G November 6,2013 River Terrace Water Utility Funding Options Exhibit 3(continued) Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages General Obligation Bonds Project-specific funding source with Public voter referendum has admin (voter approved) Project City $$$ dedicated source of stable revenue cost to City with no guaranteed Specific Voters J (property tax).Limited risk to City outcome.Cannot be used for O&M Full Faith&Credit Bonds ■ Risk to City depends on sources of used voter approved) Project City $$ Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Cannot be used Specific Council J dedicated revenues are available for O&M Risk to City depends on sources of Revenue Bonds Project City Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Interest rates Specific Council dedicated revenues are available are higher than GO Bonds.Cannot be used for O&M Special Programs Risk to City depends on sources of Project City $$ Project-specific funding source if Specific Council dedicated revenues are available dedicated revenues.Interest rates are higher than Bond issues Developer Contributions Project City ■ Developer constructs facility to city Specific Council& $ standard as a condition of approval; Limited applicability Developer can be eligible for SDC credit. Legend: Source:FCS GROUP and City staff. $least positive SEE most positive •:;>FCS GROUP Page 7 •::>FCS GROUP Memorandum Solutions-Oriented Consulting To: Susan Shanks and Toby LaFrance, City of Tigard Date: December 12, 2013 From: Todd Chase and Doug Gabbard, FCS GROUP CC: Derek Chisholm, Otak RE: Transportation Funding Options for River Terrace INTRODUCTION This document identifies River Terrace transportation funding options available to the City of Tigard. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide input for discussion by city staff, elected officials and interested stakeholders prior to the formulation of a locally preferred financing and funding strategy. CURRENT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING The City's transportation program is managed by the Engineering Division. Street Maintenance Division and Street Lights and Signals Division of the Public Works Department. Several revenue streams support this program. They are summarized below in Exhibit 1 and then reviewed in greater detail. •:•> FCS GROUP Page I December 12, 2013 River Terrace Transportation Funding Options Transportation-Related Revenues Exhibit 1 Budget for FY 2013-14 For Operations For Capital and Debt Projects Description Fund Service Only Total Gas tax Gas Tax $2,910,855 $ - $2,910,855 Street Maintenance Fee Street Maintenance Fee 100,000 1,846,284 1,946,284 Gas tax City Gas Tax - 720,877 720,877 Intergovernmental revenue Gas Tax 636,600 - 636,600 Transfer from Underground Utility Fund Transportation CIP - 250,000 250,000 Transfer from Water Fund Transportation CIP - 209,624 209,624 Other gas tax Gas Tax 199,397 - 199,397 TDT fees Transportation Development Tax - 176,678 176,678 Transfer from Stormwater Fund Transportation CIP - 139,000 139,000 Recovered expenditures Gas Tax 60,297 - 60,297 Interest earnings Gas Tax 55,732 - 55,732 Interest earnings City Gas Tax - 34,584 34,584 Recovered expenditures City Gas Tax - 31,735 31,735 Transfer from Sanitary Sewer Fund Transportation CIP - 16,000 16,0(X) Interest earnings Transportation Development Tax - 11,279 11,279 Interest earnings Traffic Impact Fee - 4,000 4,0(X) State grants City Gas Tax - 3,142 3,142 Street lighting fees Gas Tax 2,186 - 2,186 Interest earnings Street Maintenance Fee - 2,043 2,043 Fee-in-lieu bicycle striping Gas Tax 416 - 416 Bad debt Street Maintenance Fee - (5,050) (5,050) Total $3,965,483 $3,440,196 $7,405,679 54% 46% 100% Source: FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget and City staff New Construction of Capital Projects As shown in Exhibit 1, only 46 percent of the City's transportation-related revenues are restricted (either by law or by practice) to capital projects. These include the following: • Street maintenance fee • City gas tax of three cents per gallon • Transfers from the City's utility funds • Distributions from the county's Transportation Development Tax The remaining 54 percent of the City's transportation-related revenues can be expended on either operations or capital projects. Sources of these revenues are discussed below. Operations The City has a number of transportation-related revenue sources that can be expended on either operational needs or capital needs. These include the following: • Distributions from the State Highway Fund • Distributions from the county gas tax of one cent per gallon 4)FCS GROUP • Page 2 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Transportation Funding Options POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the current funding sources for transportation that are identified above,the City could consider several potential new means of funding construction and ongoing operation of transportation- related infrastructure in the River Terrace subarea plan district. The potential sources of capital and operating funding discussed below are also identified and evaluated at the end of this memorandum in Exhibit 2. New Construction Options for financing capital needs include both revenue sources and financing mechanisms. Ultimately, new expenditures require new revenues. However, financing mechanisms can be used to delay or attenuate the need for additional revenue. Potential revenue sources include the following: • Transportation SDCs(citywide and/or area-specific) • Washington County Transportation Development Tax(TDT) • Special Assessments (such as Local Improvement Districts or Reimbursement Districts) • Urban Renewal Area • Developer Contributions • Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program • County Service District Potential financing mechanisms include the following: • Bonds(General Obligation Bonds, Full Faith and Credit Bonds, Revenue Bonds, etc.) • Special Programs Transportation SDCs ORS 223.297 to 223.314 allows local governments to impose SDCs for capital improvements related to transportation. SDCs are one-time fees imposed on new development or certain types of major redevelopment. They are intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth. SDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. Although the City already receives distributions from the Transportation Development Tax, the City could impose its own transportation SDC. Such an SDC could be citywide, or it could be an area- specific SDC that recovers the cost of growth-related transportation projects within River Terrace. Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Approved by 70 percent of Washington County voters on November 4, 2008 (Measure No. 34-164), the Transportation Development Tax (TDT) replaced the previous tax, known as the Traffic Impact Fee. The TDT went into effect on July 1, 2009, and should have been fully implemented by July 1,2012. When fully implemented,the TDT will fund 28 percent of over$2 billion in projects countywide. Due to actions taken by the Washington County Board of Commissioners, the TDT has yet to be fully implemented. The TDT is levied countywide, including incorporated areas. Since River Terrace is located within Washington County,the city may explore the use of TDT revenues for eligible facilities listed on the TDT project list. Eligibility is limited to collector and arterial streets and designated multiuse pathways. •:;>FCS GROUP Page 3 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Transportation Funding Options Special Assessments Local governments can assess specific property owners that benefit from the construction of local facilities through local improvement districts (LIDs) or reimbursement districts. ORS 223.387 to 223.401 provides local governments the statutory authority to establish LIDs and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. LIDs result in upfront or annual payments from affected property owners within a district. LIDs are payable in annual installments for up to 30 years. LIDs are generally used for capital improvement projects that benefit numerous large tenants and/or private property owners. The future revenue stream generated by LIDs can be used by local governments to obtain financing through the use of loans or bonds. Similar to LIDs are reimbursement districts. Local governments can negotiate public/private advance financing arrangements with developers,where a developer agrees to front capital improvements/investment within a designated zone of benefit district (ZBD). The local government that adopts a zone of benefit applies a special development impact fee that is charged based on a proportional benefit to properties for the capital infrastructure. The developer is then partially reimbursed when future land use development approvals are granted within the ZBD over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. However, there is no guarantee that future revenues will be as steady and reliable as LID or property tax assessments. Urban Renewal Area There may be opportunities to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace Urban Renewal Area (URA)for eligible economic development improvements in accordance with ORS Chapter 457. In many cases, URA funds are combined with other local funding sources (e.g., LIDs)to leverage non-local grants or loans. Maximum Indebtedness Requirements After the passage of House Bill 3056 (passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009)urban renewal agencies have new limits on the amounts of maximum indebtedness (MI)in an urban renewal plan adopted after January 1, 2010. • If the total "frozen tax base" is $50 million or less (as in the case of River Terrace where existing assessed market valuation was $31.84 million in 2013), the total MI may not exceed $50 million (ORS 457.190(4)(a)). • Under ORS 457.220, increases in MI may not exceed an aggregate of 20% of the original MI of the UR Plan, but with an"indexing" of the original MI from July 1, 1999 or one year after the plan was initially approved, whichever is later. Indexing may only happen once. Revenue Sharing Possibilities There are also new possibilities for revenue sharing with overlapping districts for plans adopted or substantially amended to increase MI after January 1, 2010. Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the later of the 11th year after the initial plan was adopted, or when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI,but are less than 12.5% of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 10%, plus 25% of the tax increment between 10%and 12.5%. Overlapping tax districts receive 75% of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 12.5% of the initial MI, the UR agency receives the 12.5% tax increment, and any tax increment collections greater than 12.5% are distributed to overlapping taxing districts. -:;>FCS GROUP Page 4 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Transportation Funding Options Concurrence Waivers Variations in the maximum indebtedness requirements and the revenues sharing provisions can occur if the municipality obtains the written concurrence of the overlapping tax districts that impose at least 75% of the taxes imposed under the permanent rate limits in the URA. In light of these and other URA provisions,the City may consider the creation of a new River Terrace URA in accordance with requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 457. Developer Contributions An indirect way of using SDCs to fund capital improvements is to provide SDC credits to developers who construct"qualified public improvements" as defined in ORS 223.304(4). For smaller facilities that will serve a single development,the City can require a developer to construct the facility as a condition of development approval. In cases where dedicated cost of public facilities are eligible for SDC credits, the developer may be entitled to an amount of SDC credit based on the amount of the SDC improvement charge and the value of the land and/or capital facility provided. Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program The Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) is managed by Washington County in collaboration with city governments. Under this program, the County dedicates a portion of its permanent rate property tax revenue to transportation projects that improve major transportation corridors throughout the county. In fiscal year 2013-14, the County is transferring$32.7 million from its General Fund to MSTIP.' However, most MSTIP funding is "committed" and not available for major transportation improvements in or near River Terrace,unless a new MSTIP program is passed by county voters. County Service District A new River Terrace County Service District (CSD) could be considered to fund both capital and operating costs of eligible public facilities in River Terrace, including roads, as long as the CSD is created in accordance with ORS Chapters 198 and 451. Formation of a CSD is initiated either by the county government or by petition to the county government. To the extent that the proposed territory of the district includes incorporated areas, the governing body of any affected city must consent to the district's formation. Then a majority vote among registered voters within the district would be required to authorize a maximum property tax rate for the stated purpose within the district. A recent example in Washington County is the formation of the North Bethany CSD in 2011 for the purpose of providing a dedicated source of funding for roads at a maximum levy not to exceed 25 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Bonds Bonds are a common means of financing transportation projects whose benefits are not confined to a single local area. General obligation (GO) bonds are advantageous,because their debt service is funded by a property tax levy that is outside the limits of Measure 5. However, GO bonds do require voter approval. Revenue bonds are a form of debt financing that does not require voter approval. However, revenue bonds do require an ongoing source of revenue that can be pledged to payment of debt service. The Washington County, "Adopted Budget Detail: Fiscal Year 2013-2014,"page 560. •::>FC S GROUP Page 5 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Transportation Funding Options street maintenance fee could serve this purpose. Revenue bonds are subject to debt service coverage requirements. A hybrid of these two bond types is the full faith and credit obligation (FFCO). This type of bond represents an unsecured claim on all the revenue streams of an agency without the pledge of any particular revenue stream. FFCOs do not require voter approval, and they are not subject to debt service coverage requirements. Special Programs The City may utilize private bank loans or state loans to make strategic capital facility upgrades. State loan funds available from Business Oregon currently include the Special Public Works funds that are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to $3 million in size. Oregon Bond Bank or Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority loan funds may be available if the project is well secured and other funding alternatives are not available. Potential Funding of Operational Needs Of the potential funding sources discussed above, only property tax provided by the CSD can be expended on operational needs. NEXT STEPS Once the city receives input from the River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee and the River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group on the advantages and disadvantages of these transportation funding options, FCS GROUP will work with city staff to "shortlist" funding options for additional consideration. •:;> FCS GROUP Page 6 Exhibit 2 River Terrace Trans•ortation Fundin• 0•tions Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages Transportation System Citywide New River Terrace SDC could dedicate Development Charge(SDC) or River City Terrace Council funds to River Terrace,as SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. Dist development occurs Transportation Development Citywide Existing TDT project list may be TDT fund allocations to city would Tax(TOT) or River amended to include specified Terrace County $$ collector or arterial projects in River not increase unless city/county Dist. Terrace agreement was adopted Special Assessments(LIDs Addresses specific capital or Reimbursement District) Property improvements with construction River Owners $$ timelines;equitable cost allocation Some risk to city in case of property Terrace &City results in majority support by affected owner default on payments prop.owners Urban Renewal Area(URA) River City ■ New URA could generate funds as URA5 cannot fund O&M costs; Terrace Voters $$$ development occurs;can be used on requires citywide voter approval in wide range of capital projects Tigard 4>FCS GROUP Page 7 December 12,2013 River Terrace Transportation Funding Options Exhibit 2(continued) Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages General Obligation Bonds Project-specific funding source with Public voter referendum has admin (voter approved) Project City $$$ dedicated source of stable revenue cost to City with no guaranteed Specific Voters (property tax).Limited risk to City outcome.Cannot be used for O&M Full Faith&Credit Bonds Project-specific funding source with Risk to City depends on sources of Proj(not voter approved) Spec ct Council $$ no debt service coverage dedicated revenues.Cannot be used requirements for O&M Risk to City depends on sources of Revenue Bonds Project City Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Interest rates Specific Council dedicated revenues are available are higher than GO Bonds.Cannot be used for O&M Special Programs Project City ■ Project-specific funding source if Risk to City depends on sources of Specific Council $$ dedicated revenues are available dedicated revenues.Interest rates are higher than Bond issues Developer Contributions Project City ■ Developer constructs facility to city Limited applicability,may result in Specific Council& $$ standard as a condition of approval; piece meal construction Developer can be eligible for SDC credit. Major Streets Transportation Improvement Project County $$ Projects are funded by County. City is not in control of project Specific selection process. Program(MSTIP) County Service District Requires voter approval and Service County or Reliable source of tax revenue for (CSD) Area Petitioners $$ $$ both capital projects and O&M. separate administrative infrastructure. Legend: Source:FCS GROUP and City staff. $least positive $$$most positive •:;>FCS GROUP Page 8 •::>FCS GROUP Memorandum Solutions-Oriented Consulting To: Susan Shanks and Toby LaFrance, City of Tigard Date: December 12, 2013 From: Todd Chase and Doug Gabbard,FCS GROUP CC: Derek Chisholm, Otak RE: Wastewater Funding Options for River Terrace INTRODUCTION This document identifies River Terrace wastewater funding options available to the City of Tigard. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide input for discussion by city staff,elected officials and interested stakeholders prior to the formulation of a locally preferred financing and funding strategy. CURRENT WASTEWATER SERVICE AND ITS FUNDING Both Tigard and River Terrace are located in the Tualatin River watershed. In this watershed, wastewater treatment is provided by Clean Water Services (CWS), a county service district that provides wastewater and stormwater services to an area with over 542,000 residents.' Within this district,cities have the option of providing services and facilities beyond those provided by CWS. To recover their costs, cities may also charge their own fees in addition to those charged by CWS. New Construction of Capital Projects Both the City and CWS provide funding for the capital needs of wastewater services in Tigard. Based on its current capital improvement plan,the City plans to budget an average of$1.7 million per year for wastewater projects.2 CWS budgets approximately$51 million per year for wastewater projects districtwide.3 The City currently has two revenue sources for capital projects. The first source, a 16 percent share of wastewater rates imposed by CWS, provides approximately $1.5 million per year.4 However, capital needs must compete with operational needs for these revenues. In addition,the City's intergovernmental agreement with CWS provides that the entire five percent franchise fee on all sewer revenues comes out of this 16 percent. As a result,the City's share of wastewater rates is effectively 11 percent. The second Clean Water Services, "Clean Water Services--At a Glance,"page 1. 2 City of Tigard, "Capital Improvement Plan,"fiscal years 2014-2018,page 59. 3 Clean Water Services, "Proposed Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget," page 70. 4 City of Tigard,"FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget,"page 367. (4FCS GROUP Page I December 12, 2013 River Terrace Wastewater Funding Options source, a 4.0 percent share of wastewater system development charges (SDCs) imposed by CWS, provides approximately $26,000 per year.5 Operations The Sanitary Sewer Division of the City's Public Works Department has current budgeted operational needs of$2.0 million per year.6 These needs are financed primarily with a 16 percent share of wastewater rates imposed by CWS. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the current funding sources for wastewater that are identified above, the City could consider several potential new means of funding construction and ongoing operation of wastewater- related infrastructure in the River Terrace subarea plan district. This discussion focuses on revenue sources that the City can implement apart from CWS. These potential sources of capital and operating funding for the wastewater utility are identified and evaluated at the end of this memorandum in Exhibit 1. New Construction Options for financing capital needs include both revenue sources and financing mechanisms. Ultimately, new expenditures require new revenues. However, financing mechanisms can be used to delay or attenuate the need for additional revenue. Potential revenue sources include the following: • Area-Specific Wastewater Utility Rates • Wastewater SDCs (citywide and/or area-specific) • Special Assessments (such as Local Improvement Districts or Reimbursement Districts) • Urban Renewal Area • Developer Contributions Potential financing mechanisms include the following: • Bonds (General Obligation Bonds, Full Faith and Credit Bonds, Revenue Bonds, etc.) • Special Programs Area-Specific Wastewater Utility Rates To the extent that a specific area imposes costs (whether capital or operating) on a utility that the remainder of the customer base does not impose, area-specific rates can be justified. Implementing area- specific rates can take a couple of different forms. On the one hand, the entire utility service area can be divided into districts, and each district can have its own rate schedule. On the other hand, a base charge could be imposed in the entire utility service area with surcharges imposed only in those areas of higher cost. Although CWS charges wastewater utility rates, the City is free to impose its own rates. 'City of Tigard, "FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget." page 367. 6 City of Tigard, "FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget." page 183. •::>FCS GROUP Page 2 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Wastewater Funding Options Wastewater SDCs ORS 223.297 to 223.314 allows local governments to impose SDCs for capital improvements related to water. SDCs are one-time fees imposed on new development or certain types of major redevelopment. They are intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth. SDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. As mentioned above,the City already collects a portion of the wastewater SDC that is imposed by CWS. In addition,the City could impose its own wastewater SDC. Such an SDC could be citywide,or it could be an area-specific SDC that recovers the cost of growth-related wastewater projects within River Terrace. Special Assessments Local governments can assess specific property owners that benefit from the construction of local facilities through local improvement districts (LIDs) or reimbursement districts. ORS 223.387 to 223.401 provides local governments the statutory authority to establish LIDs and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. LIDs result in upfront or annual payments from affected property owners within a district. LIDs are payable in annual installments for up to 30 years. LIDs are generally used for capital improvement projects that benefit numerous large tenants and/or private property owners. The future revenue stream generated by LIDs can be used by local governments to obtain financing through the use of loans or bonds. Similar to LIDs are reimbursement districts. Local governments can negotiate public/private advance financing arrangements with developers,where a developer agrees to front capital improvements/investment within a designated zone of benefit district (ZBD). The local government that adopts a zone of benefit applies a special development impact fee that is charged based on a proportional benefit to properties for the capital infrastructure. The developer is then partially reimbursed when future land use development approvals are granted within the ZBD over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. However, there is no guarantee that future revenues will be as steady and reliable as LID or property tax assessments. Urban Renewal Area There may be opportunities to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace Urban Renewal Area (URA)for eligible economic development improvements in accordance with ORS Chapter 457. In many cases, URA funds are combined with other local funding sources (e.g., LIDs)to leverage non-local grants or loans. Maximum Indebtedness Requirements After the passage of House Bill 3056(passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009) urban renewal agencies have new limits on the amounts of maximum indebtedness (MI) in an urban renewal plan adopted after January 1, 2010. •$,FCS GROUP Page 3 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Wastewater Funding Options • If the total "frozen tax base"is $50 million or less (as in the case of River Terrace where existing assessed market valuation was$31.84 million in 2013),the total MI may not exceed $50 million (ORS 457.190(4)(a)). • Under ORS 457.220, increases in MI may not exceed an aggregate of 20% of the original MI of the UR Plan, but with an"indexing"of the original MI from July 1, 1999 or one year after the plan was initially approved,whichever is later. Indexing may only happen once. Revenue Sharing Possibilities There are also new possibilities for revenue sharing with overlapping districts for plans adopted or substantially amended to increase MI after January 1, 2010. Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the later of the 11th year after the initial plan was adopted, or when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10%of the initial MI. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI,but are less than 12.5% of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 10%, plus 25%of the tax increment between 10%and 12.5%. Overlapping tax districts receive 75% of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. For any year when division of tax collections equal or exceed 12.5% of the initial MI,the UR agency receives the 12.5%tax increment,and any tax increment collections greater than 12.5%are distributed to overlapping taxing districts. Concurrence Waivers Variations in the maximum indebtedness requirements and the revenues sharing provisions can occur if the municipality obtains the written concurrence of the overlapping tax districts that impose at least 75% of the taxes imposed under the permanent rate limits in the URA. In light of these and other URA provisions,the City may consider the creation of a new River Terrace URA in accordance with requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 457. Developer Contributions An indirect way of using SDCs to fund capital improvements is to provide SDC credits to developers who construct"qualified public improvements" as defined in ORS 223.304(4). For smaller facilities that will serve a single development,the City can require a developer to construct the facility as a condition of development approval. In cases where dedicated cost of public facilities are eligible for SDC credits, the developer may be entitled to an amount of SDC credit based on the amount of the SDC improvement charge and the value of the land and/or capital facility provided. Bonds Bonds are a common means of financing wastewater projects whose benefits are not confined to a single local area. General obligation(GO) bonds are advantageous, because their debt service is funded by a property tax levy that is outside the limits of Measure 5. However, GO bonds do require voter approval. Revenue bonds are a form of debt financing that does not require voter approval. However,revenue bonds do require an ongoing source of revenue that can be pledged to payment of debt service. Revenue bonds are subject to debt service coverage requirements. A hybrid of these two bond types is the full faith and credit obligation (FFCO). This type of bond represents an unsecured claim on all the revenue streams of an agency without the pledge of any particular revenue stream. FFCOs do not require voter approval,and they are not subject to debt service coverage requirements. +.>FCS GROUP Page 4 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Wastewater Funding Options Special Programs The City may utilize private bank loans or state loans to make strategic capital facility upgrades. State loan funds available from Business Oregon currently include the Special Public Works funds that are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to$3 million in size. Oregon Bond Bank or Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority loan funds may be available if the project is well secured and other funding alternatives are not available. Potential Funding of Operational Needs User charges will continue to be the City's primary means of meeting the operational needs of its wastewater utility. To the extent that a specific area imposes costs(whether capital or operating) on a utility that the remainder of the customer base does not impose, area-specific rates can be justified. Implementing area- specific rates usually occur in one of two forms: either(1)the entire utility service area is divided into districts with each district having its own rate schedule or(2) a base charge is imposed in the entire utility service area with surcharges imposed only in those areas of higher cost. NEXT STEPS Once the city receives input from the River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee and the River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group on the advantages and disadvantages of these wastewater utility funding options, FCS GROUP will work with city staff to"shortlist" funding options for additional consideration. •:;> FC S GROUP Page 5 Exhibit I River Terrace Wastewater Facil Fundin• 0•tions Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages Citywide Wastewater Utility Rates Pay-as-you-go funding for capital (including area-specific or River City $ $$$ Flexible funding with local precedence projects may not be available when Terrace Council needed. rates) Dist. Wastewater System Existing citywide water SDC can be River Terrace projects would not Development Charge(SDC) Citywide City $$ updated to include River Terrace have priority over other city projects. Update Council projects. SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. Supplemental River Terrace New River Terrace SDC could dedicate River City Wastewater SDCs Terrace Council $$ funds to River Terrace,as SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. development occurs Special Assessments(LIDs Addresses specific capital or Reimbursement District) Property improvements with construction River Owners $$ timelines;equitable cost allocation Some risk to city in case of property Terrace &City results in majority support by affected owner default on payments prop.owners Urban Renewal Area(URA) River Cit ■ New URA could generate funds as URA5 cannot fund O&M costs; y $$ development occurs;can be used on requires citywide voter approval in Terrace Voters wide range of capital projects Tigard •:;>FCS GROUP Page 6 December 12,2013 River Terrace Wastewater Funding Options Exhibit 3(continued) Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages General Obligation Bonds Project-specific funding source with Public voter referendum has admin Project City (voter approved) Specific Voters $$$ dedicated source of stable revenue cost to City with no guaranteed (property tax).Limited risk to City outcome.Cannot be used for O&M Full Faith&Credit Bonds ■ Risk to City depends on sources of used voter approved) Project City $$ Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Cannot be used Specific Council $$ dedicated revenues are available for O&M Risk to City depends on sources of Revenue Bonds Project City $$ Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Interest rates Specific Council $$ dedicated revenues are available are higher than GO Bonds.Cannot be used for O&M Special Programs Project City r Project specific funding source if Risk to City depends on sources of Specific Council $$ dedicated revenues are available dedicated revenues.Interest rates are higher than Bond issues Developer Contributions Project City Developer constructs facility to city Specific Council& $$ standard as a condition of approval; Limited applicability Developer can be eligible for SDC credit. Legend: Source:FCS GROUP and City staff. $least positive SSE most positive ,FCS GROUP Page 7 •::>FCS GROUP Memorandum Solutions-Oriented Consulting To: Susan Shanks and Toby LaFrance, City of Tigard Date: December 12,2013 From: Todd Chase and Doug Gabbard, FCS GROUP CC: Derek Chisholm, Otak RE: Stormwater Utility Funding Options for River Terrace INTRODUCTION This document identifies River Terrace stormwater utility funding options available to the City of Tigard. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide input for discussion by city staff, elected officials and interested stakeholders prior to the formulation of a locally preferred financing and funding strategy. CURRENT STORMWATER SERVICE AND ITS FUNDING Both Tigard and River Terrace are located in the Tualatin River watershed. In this watershed, stormwater management is provided by the City of Tigard (within city limits) and Clean Water Services (CWS), a county service district that provides wastewater and stormwater services to an area with over 542,000 residents.' Within this district,cities have the option of providing services and facilities beyond those provided by CWS. To recover their costs,cities may also charge their own fees in addition to those charged by CWS. New Construction of Capital Projects Based on its current capital improvement plan,the City plans to budget an average of$262,400 per year for stormwater projects.2 CWS budgets approximately$3 million per year for stormwater project district-wide,but does not expect to fund capital stormwater facilities within the River Terrace district.3 The City currently has three revenue sources for capital projects. The first two, a 75 percent share of stormwater rates set by CWS (and collected/retained by the City of Tigard) and a surcharge of$2 per month for stormwater system maintenance,4 provide approximately$2 million per year to the City. However, capital needs must compete with operational needs for these revenues. The third revenue source is a water quality/quantity facility fee of$500 per dwelling unit. This fee, which is a system development charge(SDC) set by CWS (and collected/retained by the City of Tigard),usually provides less than $10,000 per year. 1 Clean Water Services,"Clean Water Services--At a Glance,"page 1. 2 City of Tigard, "Capital Improvement Plan,"fiscal years 2014-2018,page 75. 3 Clean Water Services,"Proposed Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget,"page 71. 4 City of Tigard,"FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget,"page 368. •:;>FCS GROUP Page 1 December 12,2013 River Terrace Stormwater Utility Funding Options Operations The Stormwater Division of the City's Public Works Department has current budgeted operational needs of$1.4 million per year. These needs are financed with a 75 percent share of stormwater rates charged by CWS and a surcharge of$2 per month for stormwater system maintenance. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the current funding sources for stormwater that are identified above,the City could consider several potential new means of funding construction and ongoing operation of stormwater- related infrastructure in the River Terrace subarea plan district. This discussion focuses on revenue sources that the City can implement apart from CWS. These potential sources of capital and operating funding for the water utility are identified and evaluated at the end of this memorandum in Exhibit 1. New Construction Options for financing capital needs include both revenue sources and financing mechanisms. Ultimately, new expenditures require new revenues. However, financing mechanisms can be used to delay or attenuate the need for additional revenue. Potential revenue sources include the following: • Area-Specific Stormwater Utility Rates • Stormwater SDCs (citywide and/or area-specific) • Special Assessments (such as Local Improvement Districts or Reimbursement Districts) • Regional Stormwater Management Charge • Urban Renewal Area • Developer Contributions Potential financing mechanisms include the following: • Bonds(General Obligation Bonds,Full Faith and Credit Bonds,Revenue Bonds, etc.) • Special Programs Area-Specific Stormwater Utility Rates To the extent that a specific area imposes costs(whether capital or operating) on a utility that the remainder of the customer base does not impose, area-specific rates can be justified. Implementing area- specific rates can take a couple of different forms. On the one hand, the entire utility service area can be divided into districts,and each district can have its own rate schedule. On the other hand, a base charge could be imposed in the entire utility service area with surcharges imposed only in those areas of higher cost. Although CWS sets current stormwater utility rates(collected/retained by the City of Tigard),the City is free to impose its own rate(as it has with the $2 surcharge). Stormwater SDCs ORS 223.297 to 223.314 allows local governments to impose SDCs for capital improvements related to water. SDCs are one-time fees imposed on new development or certain types of major redevelopment. They are intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth. SDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. •:;> FCS GROUP Page 2 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Stormwater Utility Funding Options As mentioned above,the City already collects a stormwater SDC that is imposed by CWS. In addition, the City could impose its own stormwater SDC. Such an SDC could be citywide,or it could be an area- specific SDC that recovers the cost of growth-related stormwater projects within River Terrace. Special Assessments Local governments can assess specific property owners that benefit from the construction of local facilities through local improvement districts (LIDs) or reimbursement districts. ORS 223.387 to 223.401 provides local governments the statutory authority to establish LIDs and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. LIDs result in upfront or annual payments from affected property owners within a district. LIDs are payable in annual installments for up to 30 years. LIDs are generally used for capital improvement projects that benefit numerous large tenants and/or private property owners. The future revenue stream generated by LIDs can be used by local governments to obtain financing through the use of loans or bonds. Similar to LIDs are reimbursement districts. Local governments can negotiate public/private advance financing arrangements with developers,where a developer agrees to front capital improvements/investment within a designated zone of benefit district (ZBD). The local government that adopts a zone of benefit applies a special development impact fee that is charged based on a proportional benefit to properties for the capital infrastructure. The developer is then partially reimbursed when future land use development approvals are granted within the ZBD over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. However, there is no guarantee that future revenues will be as steady and reliable as LID or property tax assessments. Regional Stormwater Management Charge CWS is developing a regional stormwater management charge (RSMC)that is a hybrid between an SDC and a reimbursement district. Initial implementation of an RSMC is planned for the North Bethany area in 2014. The RSMC is being designed in North Bethany as a mechanism to address construction of new water quality and quantify facilities for the amount of stormwater that's generated within 23 identified sub-basins. Developers would have the option of providing on-site stormwater facilities or paying the RSMC fee (based on proposed amount of$9.00 per cubic foot of stormwater volume created). As with SDCs and reimbursement districts,an RSMC is a mechanism that is more appropriate for ex post cost recovery rather than ex ante financing. Initial capital outlays for RSMC projects are expected to be financed though capital reserves or though developer contributions(with reimbursement though RSMC revenues). Urban Renewal Area There may be opportunities to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace Urban Renewal Area (URA) for eligible economic development improvements in accordance with ORS Chapter 457. In many cases, URA funds are combined with other local funding sources(e.g., LIDs) to leverage non-local grants or loans. Maximum Indebtedness Requirements After the passage of House Bill 3056 (passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009)urban renewal agencies have new limits on the amounts of maximum indebtedness(MI)in an urban renewal plan adopted after January 1, 2010. •::>FCS GROUP Page 3 December 12,2013 River Terrace Stormwater Utility Funding Options • If the total "frozen tax base"is$50 million or less(as in the case of River Terrace where existing assessed market valuation was$31.84 million in 2013), the total MI may not exceed $50 million (ORS 457.190(4)(a)). • Under ORS 457.220, increases in MI may not exceed an aggregate of 20% of the original MI of the UR Plan, but with an"indexing"of the original MI from July 1, 1999 or one year after the plan was initially approved,whichever is later. Indexing may only happen once. Revenue Sharing Possibilities There are also new possibilities for revenue sharing with overlapping districts for plans adopted or substantially amended to increase MI after January 1, 2010. Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the later of the 11th year after the initial plan was adopted,or when division of tax collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI. Concurrence Waivers Variations in the maximum indebtedness requirements and the revenues sharing provisions can occur if the municipality obtains the written concurrence of the overlapping tax districts that impose at least 75% of the taxes imposed under the permanent rate limits in the URA. In light of these and other URA provisions,the City may consider the creation of a new River Terrace URA in accordance with requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 457. Developer Contributions For smaller facilities that will serve a single development, the City can require a developer to construct the facility as a condition of development approval. In cases where dedicated cost of public facilities are eligible for SDC credits, the developer may be entitled to an amount of SDC credit based on the amount of the SDC improvement charge and the value of the land and/or capital facility provided (assuming the facility is a"qualified public improvement"as defined in ORS 223.304(4)). As mentioned above,developers may also provide advance financing though development agreements with the City,using various means of reimbursement(such as LID or reimbursement district payments). Bonds Bonds are a common means of financing stormwater projects whose benefits are not confined to a single local area. General obligation(GO)bonds are advantageous,because their debt service is funded by a property tax levy that is outside the limits of Measure 5. However,GO bonds do require voter approval. Revenue bonds are a form of debt financing that does not require voter approval. However,revenue bonds do require an ongoing source of revenue that can be pledged to payment of debt service. Revenue bonds are subject to debt service coverage requirements. A hybrid of these two bond types is the full faith and credit obligation(FFCO). This type of bond represents an unsecured claim on all the revenue streams of an agency without the pledge of any particular revenue stream. FFCOs do not require voter approval,and they are not subject to debt service coverage requirements. Special Programs The City may utilize private bank loans or state loans to make strategic capital facility upgrades. State loan funds available from Business Oregon currently include the Special Public Works funds that are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to $3 million in size. 4>FCS GROUP Page 4 December 12, 2013 River Terrace Stormwater Utility Funding Options Oregon Bond Bank or Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority loan funds may be available if the project is well secured and other funding alternatives are not available. Potential Funding of Operational Needs User charges, including the current stormwater rate and the City's own surcharge,will continue to be the City's primary means of meeting the operational needs of its stormwater management program. To the extent that the River Terrace area requires stormwater facilities and costs(whether capital or operating)that the remainder of the customer base does not incur, area-specific rates can be justified. Implementing area-specific rates usually occur in one of two forms: either(1) the entire utility service area is divided into districts(i.e., sub-basins)with each district having its own rate schedule or(2)a base charge is imposed in the entire utility service area with surcharges imposed only in those areas of higher cost. The City may also require Low Impact Development Approaches(LIDA) to mitigate stormwater run-off from new development,require on-site mitigation or impose a regional stormwater management charge to fund facilities that are necessary to meet or exceed CWS standards. NEXT STEPS Once the city receives input from the River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee and the River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group on the advantages and disadvantages of these stormwater utility funding options, FCS GROUP will work with city staff to"shortlist" funding options for additional consideration. 4)FCS GROUP Page 5 Exhibit I River Terrace Stormwater Facil Fundin! 0•tions Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages Citywide Stormwater Utility Rates Pay-as-you-go funding for capital (including area-specific or River City $ $$$ Flexible funding with local precedence projects may not be available when Terrace Council needed. rates) Dist. Stormwater System Development Charge Update City Existing citywide SDC can be updated River Terrace projects would not Citywide Council $$ to include River Terrace projects. have priority over other city projects. (SDCs) SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. Supplemental River Terrace New River Terrace SDC could dedicate River City Stormwater SDCs Terrace Council $$$ funds to River Terrace,as SDCs cannot fund O&M costs. development occurs Special Assessments(LIDS Addresses specific capital or Reimbursement District) Property improvements with construction River Owners $$ timelines;equitable cost allocation Some risk to city in case of property Terrace &City results in majority support by affected owner default on payments prop.owners Regional Stormwater Addresses specific capital As with reimbursement districts, Management Charge(RSMC) River improvements(like reimbursement City $$ initial capital outlays would have to Terrace districts)but has a standardized cost funded from another source. to developers(like SDCs). Urban Renewal Area(URA) River Cit ■ New URA could generate funds as URAs cannot fund O&M costs; y $$$ development occurs;can be used on requires citywide voter approval in Terrace Voters wide range of capital projects Tigard •:;>FCS GROUP Page 6 December I2,2013 River Terrace Stormwater Utility Funding Options Exhibit 3(continued) Considerations Annual Area of Capital O&M Funding Option Benefit Lead Funding Funding Advantages Disadvantages General Obligation Bonds Project-specific funding source with Public voter referendum has admin (voter approved) Project City Specific Voters $$$ dedicated source of stable revenue cost to City with no guaranteed (property tax).Limited risk to City outcome.Cannot be used for O&M Full Faith&Credit Bonds Risk to City depends on sources of (not voter approved) Project City $$ Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Cannot be used Specific Council dedicated revenues are available for O&M Risk to City depends on sources of Revenue Bonds Project City $$ Project-specific funding source if dedicated revenues.Interest rates Specific Council dedicated revenues are available are higher than GO Bonds.Cannot be used for O&M Special Programs Project City Project-specific funding source if Risk to City depends on sources of Specific Council dedicated revenues are available dedicated revenues.Interest rates are higher than Bond issues Developer Contributions Project City ■ Developer constructs facility to city Specific Council& $$ standard as a condition of approval; Limited applicability Developer can be eligible for SDC credit. Legend: Source:FCS GROUP and City staff. S least positive EEE most positive •:.>FCS GROUP Page 7 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FORT 14lf�i- .=?/ aG/e( (D TE OF MEETING) YDiver Terrace / y-e 014_ Hew\ . 3 Community P Timelinc 2012 I 2013 ( 2014 TASK 3r"Qtr 4th Qtr 1"Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4tn Qtr 1st Qtr 2"Qtr 3'd Qtr 46 Qtr Public Involvement/TAC/SWG WBMCP Land Use Adoption Land Use/Zoning Updates Natural Resources Update Parks Master Plan Update Water Master Plan Update Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Stormwater Master Plan Update Transportation System Plan Update Infrastructure Financing Strategy River Terrace Comm. Plan Adoption • Public Facility Plan Updates •Comp Plan/Zoning Code Updates • Finance Strategy Community meetings,stakeholder working group meetings and topic-specific outreach opportunities are planned throughout the process. Expected completion in summer 2014. -f ,a* y>, �: nay ,. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET ' °' 47 ,,. River Terrace Vicini I FOR 97)tLI 'n4 ')-4 u. o (DA3`E OF MEETING) eav� I o �;x y•Limir '' '�""`m' � '= ,. iY ---! Urban Growth Boundary ,. ;� F r tr.►� City of Tigard _ .. r ..YSP4tL.,p I -x �� i •" s „� er r.; fi y / I; !f ! r SW". ,. 7 -e al'a`',- v:• '''411,'''''4,47if'7' ip,-. ..:1 '-,,:,,... At_ ,0,--;:, _ . ,,,41,, I , , . v t. �. �.� - �R. v }• �oa,f.iUV_ AC .',tu �.�'•. - .k- �v-.shy- . :fir _�.. 3 ' 1; : a-, fy, .-;,. _ .- r-.a. in.yf 1' '-'�a ,i'; 5 r :',:a ., 1, w ' ' # �: g .Tigar�d Y ' .._. 4 t' j "►, ... ``7t h �y a d.i. C by ,► si.. SY' I} ' ' c., M YFy • • b y r _ • t Syr •�a M • • !• .,s- .11--- s t !i ,i , '1. t `t s •{ ! ■■ S �i. +i b x ; ut t _L t y tr + ` r r Sy, S;y 5 .. *µ�j ry.� r, ` •r s 1 + $`a j Y ,:� • .• * _fir a .ti , ` • } J 4• ...r t 1 . s" r 4 x4n n ti • I �b " , so, . �i+ »w� w a 'fit t �. :.a:,` r -r ? o- n - z@ . r yV; F .a Q • , : - iy~ a. , , ' ''' - . . '*'",:44::' IX 'i r,• S,3J3 " t E '- ° .a I e ?fit tr.• �' Beef e f B e n "t 0 '-' 4V5r r °2' a�•� _' i. Iffy.- ..-,TT-.5i 1.a r. SUPPLEMENTAL PA�KET FOR (DA E OF MEETING Atd yeanc% / T lver Terrace We'd like to hear from you! Find new and exciting ways to participate and see what others are saying. www.RiverTerraceTigard.com FUND 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund g Mayor and Council YTD Adopted Requested Chg Pkg FY 2012 FY 2013 2014 2014 Budget Resource Summary 2015 Assumptions 0 Approved 83,210 Includes council&mayor's stipend,technology(cell phone Existing Staff Approved and iPad)stipend and vehicle allowance.Per DSW, separate line items can be zeroed out on acct.code 54205- Utilities 31,516 47,526 37,209 83,210 51001-Salaries-Management 83,210 Approved only 31,516 47,526 37,209 83,210 Total Personal Services-Salaries 83,210 - . 0 Approved 999 Existing Staff Approved 221 669 521 1,166 52001-Unemployment 999 Approved only 0 Approved 184 Existing Staff Approved 150 200 215 145 52002-Worker's Compensation 184 Approved only 0 Approved 6,368 Existing Staff Approved 2,445 3,739 2,891 6,364 52003-Social Security/Medicare 6,368 Approved only 0 Approved DT] (n 602 Existing Staff Approved O l 219 337 266 585 52004-Tri-Met Tax 602 Approved only r 3,000 Existing Staff Approv 0 Approve V° •--0 0 0 3,000 52007-VEBA-ER 3,000 Approved only ii j 0 Approv` rlj 2,655 Existing Staff Approv r k 0 0 0 2,655 52008-Life Ins/ADD/LTD 2,655 Approved only • rV 0 Approv 49,247 Existing Staff Approve M 3 63,744 51,289 17,271 48,722 52010-Medical/Dental/Vision 49,247 Approved only 0 Approved `' 6,887 5,958 2,113 0 52011-Dental Benefits 0 Approved only 73,666 62,192 23,277 62,637 Total Personal Services-Benefits 63,055 FUND 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Adopted Ch Pk FY 2012 FY 2013 2014 2014 Budget Resource Summary Re ues ed Assumptions g g 0 Approved 6,500 Consultant fee for coaching and 2 meetings for Council .Base Approved team building 400 lnpterpreter Services for hearing impaired at Council .Base Approved meetings(upon request) 2,640 TVCTV taping of Council workshop meetings .Base Approved 7,111 9,808 8,021 9,550 54001-Professional/Contractual Services 9,540 Approved only 0 Approved 27,651 City Attorney legal support for Council-based on trends .Base Approved savings from reduced line items(ex.LOC dues($2049) added to this line item to keep pace with trend 24,877 32,393 2,436 17,000 54003-Legal Fees 27,651 Approved only 25 Council's use of pool vehicles for close-in travel. .Base Approved 0 0 0 0 54115-Vehicle Usage 25 Approved only 0 Approved 3,524 5,951 764 8,617 54205-Utilites-Phone/Pager/Cells 0 Approved only 0 Approved 152 37 0 0 54300-Advertising&Publicity 0 Approved only 0 Approved 33,936 League of Oregon Cities membership .Base Approved (based on what we paid LOC for 2013/14 dues) 3,813 National League of Cities membership .Base Approved (NLC estimate-population based) 148 Oregon Mayors Assn dues for Mayor Cook(population .Base Approved based) 100 Other publications for Councilors .Base Approved 100 Tigard Downtown Alliance dues .Base Approved (Paid out of City Mgmt budget last year but belongs in Council budget.This is a new group and wasn't budgeted for last year) 3,489 U.S.Conference of Mayors membership .Base Approved 2,500 Vision Action nietwoi(memoeiship(Action Member .Base Approved status) 4,805 Westside Economic Alliance membership .Base Approved (Based on trends since 2006) Run 1/16/2014 11:37:09 AM 1000500 Mayor and Council FUND 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Adopted Ch Pk FY 2012 FY 2013 2014 2014 Budget Resource Summary Requested Assumptions g g 47,694 48,649 10,296 50,940 54302-Dues&Subscriptions 48,891 Approved only 0 Approved 1,100 Business meals that are outside regular council meetings .Base Approved (WEA forums,meetings with Metro and other jurisdictions,regional Mayor's dinner) 1,400 Council meals before regularly scheduled Council meetings .Base Approved 20,000 Councilors training budget-$5,000 per councilor .Base Approved 9,000 Mayor's training budget for conferences and meetings .Base Approved 25,963 27,330 7,276 31,500 54303-Travel and Training 31,500 Approved only 0 Approved 600 Recognition,awards,florist(funeral,illness)from Council. .Base Approved Promotional items for visiting dignitaries and school age visitors. 2,850 444 398 600 54311-Special Department Expenses 600 Approved only 112,171 124,612 29,191 118,207 Total Services 118,207 800 meeting supplies(cups,coffee,filters,clorox wipes,plates) .Base Approved paper,pens,etc. 178 739 93 800 53001-Office Supplies 800 Approved only 178 739 93 800 Total Supplies 800 r v 276,225 235,069 89,770 265,654 Total Mayor and Council 265,272