The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/23/2014 • III ■ City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: September 23,2014- 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less.Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be beard in any order after 7:30 p.m. 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 (IDD-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 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS:The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m.Monday 6:00 a.m. • City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: September 23,2014- 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM •STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION ON UPCOMING CONTRACTS 6:30 p.m. estimated time •EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations,and litigation or litigation likely to be filed,under ORS 192.660(2) (d) and (h). 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. 6:35 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 2. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications &Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet B. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion.Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •July 8,2014 •August 12,2014 B. ADOPT RIVER TERRACE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN C. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY(WCCCA) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT(IGA) AMENDMENT •Consent Aienda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center Development Agenry has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. CONSIDER A HERITAGE TREE NOMINATION 7:35 p.m. estimated time 6. RECEIVE UPDATE ON RIVER TERRACE DRAFT FUNDING STRATEGY PLAN 7:45 p.m. estimated time 7. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TAXING THE SALE OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA-INFUSED ITEMS 8:45 p.m. estimated time 8. APPOINT NORMA AIJ.F.Y AS DEPUTY RECORDER 9:05 p.m. estimated time 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:10 p.m. estimated time 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m. estimated time City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda i 1( ; A I' i ) September 23, 2014 6:30 PM STUDY SESSION • 1. Discussion on Upcoming Contracts—Finance Department Staff. 6:30 p.m. estimated time • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations, and litigation or litigation likely to be filed,under ORS 192.660(2)(d) and (h). 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. 6:35 p.m. estimated time • ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: 7:15 p.m. estimated time o Washington County Vehicle Registration Fee—Assistant City Manager Newton o Council Calendar October 7 CCDA Cancelled,Council Community Meetings 14 Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 21 Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22 Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall November 4 CCDA Cancelled,Election Day 11 Council Business Meeting Cancelled,Veterans Day 18 Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 25 Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall December 2 CCDA —6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 9 Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 16 Council Workshop Meeting— 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 23 Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall AIS-1914 1. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Discussion on Upcoming Contracts Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett,Financial and Information Services Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Local Contract Review Board Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Discussion of contracts coming before the Local Contract Review Board in coming weeks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff is asking Council to provide direction and inform staff of any additional information they would like to have presented during the contract award for upcoming contracts The Local Contract Review Board will be presented with a contract award motion for this contract at their October 28th Business Meeting. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Automated Materials Handling System The Tigard Public Library (Library) currently has the fourth highest circulation,in amount of materials, among Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) member libraries.The Library currently circulates over 1,325,000 items annually and it is projected that circulation will increase in coming years. Roughly two-thirds of that number are first-time checkout and the remaining one-third are renewals. Library staff checks in approximately 2,860 items on an average day. This number includes items that arrive each day from the WCCLS courier and need to be checked in via a staff induction process. Roughly 600/0 of the Library's check-ins are returned by patrons inside the Library while the remaining are returned outside via book drops. These circulation and return numbers have led the Library to look for efficient ways to best serve the patrons while efficiently handling the volume. An automated materials handling(AMH) system will serve to achieve this efficiency.The AMH would allow staff or patron to induct materials into the system via inside location or book drop build into an outside location. On July 2,2014 the city issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an AMH system for the Library.The objective of the RFP was to solicit proposals from qualified and experienced firms to determine what system they would suggest,and the total cost of the recommended system. In order to insure the objective was met, the RFP was issued with three evaluation criteria (with overall weight): •Firm Qualifications (40°/o); •Project Understanding&Approach (30%); and •Cost Structure (30%) The city received proposal responses from four firms.The city reviewed these responses and felt additional information was required to make the best decision.The city issued a request for additional information on August 13th and received the information from all submitting proposers the next week. A selection team of five staff members reviewed this information along with the original submitting information and scored the proposals.The results of the selection teams review is as follows: 1.Lyngsoe Systems,Inc. -435 points (average of 87) 2.3M Library Systems - 380 points (average of 76) 3.Bibliotheca - 377 points (average of 75.4) 4 P.V. Supa,Inc. - 285 points (average of 57) Based on the selection teams review and the firm meeting the requirements of the RFP,staff will be recommending the city award a contract for the Library's AMH project to Lyngsoe Systems,Inc. in the amount not to exceed $325,000 at the Local Contract Review Board's (LCRB) October 28th business meeting. Staff is seeking the LCRB's direction on any additional information they would like to best make an award decision. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this contract has been discussed with the Local Contract Review Board. Fiscal Impact Cost: $325,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Partially Where budgeted?: Library Administration Additional Fiscal Notes: The Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2015 includes $300,000 in appropriations for buying AMH. The not to exceed bid of$325,000 exceeds the budget by $25,000. Should the contract be awarded,staff will request that Council appropriate the additional $25,000 from General Fund Contingency at a future supplemental. • Attachments No file(s)attached Study Sessi on R OA ' D , '4411. Maintain Today. Save Tomorrow. • SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR 144TE a A4FF TING) - MEASURE 34-221 Maintaining Our Roads: VRF Tool Kit ~� , • Roads are a lifeline, community connector and economic driver. p Maintaining our roads in good and safe condition is becoming more '4 difficult. Funding is not keeping pace with our needs, and costs keep climbing. Washington County's road network has grown, and it's ROAD aging. Preventive maintenance is needed before more costly repairs WORK are required. It could cost up to 10 times more to repair our roads in the future. AHEAD? This November, Washington County voters will decide on a Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) as a potential local solution to funding road maintenance. IF approved, the projected revenue of about $12.8 million a year would be split 60% for Washington County and 40% - - for cities (based on population). This tool kit contains information about the VRF, plus a variety of go''grab and go content for websites, newsletters, Facebook and other Tool Kit Contents: communications. Contact us anytime if you have questions, or need assistance tailoring information. VRF Overview — Pg.2 Newsletter Articles — Pg.5 11444€44/ Facts & Statics — Pg.7 Website Content — Pg.9 Director of Land Use and Transportation FAQs — Pg.10 Project Contact: Stephen Roberts, Communications Coordinator Photos/Graphics — Pg. 15 Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation Social Media — Pg.16 503-846-4963; Stephen_Roberts @co.washington.or.us Editorials — Pg.17 TJ'1`J�J�1.rfJ.}J�1��rjjl 1 ROAD WISE Vehicle Registration Fee 0 \ i `Jv Our Road Maintenance Challenger- ' Roads are a vital part of Washington County. Our population and economy continue to grow and so does our transportation . ' L, . - system. Maintaining our roads in good and safe condition is -' ; ,1 -m.- -. becoming more difficult. Simply put, the challenge comes _ Y.`--_,T down to rising costs, managing a larger road network that's ,, aging and dealing with a growing backlog of deferred road maintenance. .. -- : __. , The primary funding for roads, the gas tax,has not kept pace with our growing maintenance needs. Gas tax revenue is projected to decline as drivers continue switching to more fuel efficient cars and driving less. The cost of asphalt and other _-'r" materials is climbing at a rate faster than inflation. As a result, - the county's road maintenance backlog has reached $10.5 million to date, and cities also have their own road maintenance backlogs. The good news is that getting ahead of this problem should keep future costs to our taxpayers down. It's important that we maintain our roads in a timely manner. One dollar spent on preventive maintenance now can save $5 to $10 in repair or reconstruction costs later. It could cost millions of dollars more to fix our roads in the future than to do preventive road maintenance today. And, while our roads are generally in good condition now, they are steadily declining and that trend is expected to continue over time. Businesses and drivers could also end up paying extra costs in vehicle repairs due to bad roads. It is critical to avoid the "tipping point" where maintenance is no longer an option and rebuilding roads is required. r - NAP LEGEND r~.7 ---.1 NAP LEGEND Par . ... C..M......r. L. r.N....crw..nMk. I 4. ' shx..-,. 1 rw.N Nr IA..r�r...n 1 .■..00Y..M [M. CM. . . ..1- eh 1.1,-,,, , r- ■ ,...1' - ' -Li_ 101:0114 1 irradi 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY 11 •WASHINGTON COUNTY L' -I�' OIIEOON 1 / ~.ri aim L , �_- 2113 Prawn CsMltlWn IMer -1 2112 PC wdh Cmna t Fouling hums t L . Above:Road conditions across Washington County are projected to continue declining over the next 15-20 years at current funding levels. Note the increase in yellow, red, purple and black lines which indicate road deterioration. Page 2 Vehicle Registration Fee Overview A Local Solution-The Vehicle Road Maintenance Cost Savings Registration Fee A range of options were explored to help close our Washington County is committed to continually road maintenance funding gap, including cost- improving its operations and maximizing the use cutting measures at the county level. Washington of limited funding. We're using a variety of best County has employed more cost-effective best practices to keep the county's road maintenance practices in recent years to realize greater costs down: operational efficiencies and maximize dollars spent. • Using more cost-effective pavement All projects are prioritized based on a thorough preservation and maintenance needs assessment that involves community techniques stakeholders and state and local jurisdictions. The • Developing target service levels for all county has also increased the amount of its contracted maintenance work to reduce overhead assets to facilitate prioritization of funds costs. But, cost-cutting measures alone are not • Independent assessment of operational enough to close the road maintenance funding gap. practices • Continuous evaluation and improvement One of the first steps in addressing our road of operations maintenance funding issues was looking at existing revenue sources. The long and short of it is that we • Project prioritization based on needs have different pots of money. Each one is tailored to assessments and stakeholder input a specific need and has restrictions on how funds • Increased contracted maintenance can be spent. For example, the county's Major • Oversight from urban and rural citizen Streets Transportation Improvement Program advisory committees (MSTIP) funds can only be used for safety and capacity improvements on major roadways. Increasing our primary funding source—the gas -7 tax—will not reliably produce stable future funding since revenues are projected to decline as more ROAD WISE drivers switch to fuel efficient vehicles and drive less. A vehicle registration fee, or VRF, offers a number of key advantages as a proactive local solution to getting ahead of Washington County's road maintenance issues. The fee is user-based. It's similar to a utility base charge where all users—in this case drivers—would pay a base fee to keep the system maintained. And, unlike the gas tax, funding from the VRF would be relatively stable over time. Plus, the VRF can be cost-effectively administered through the DMV. No new billing system or administrative staffing would be required (which would be necessary if a monthly street fee was adopted). The funds would be added to what is currently collected from the gas tax, as well as a weight-mile tax on heavy vehicles. Furthermore, this locally generated funding would stay in Washington County under local control and would be split 60-40 between the county and cities. Much of the funding would be returned to the local economy through payment of road maintenance suppliers and private contractors that compete for road maintenance projects. Page 3 Vehicle Registration Fee Overview State law allows counties to adopt a fee of up to$43 per year. A $30 per year fee has been proposed in Total Revenue: $12,830,000 Washington County on most vehicles owned by residents and businesses and a $17 per year fee for County Revenue $7,700,000 motorcycles. Per state law, exemptions would include farm, school, government, antique and special interest City Revenue $5,130,000 vehicles; motor homes, campers and travel trailers; and y large trucks (over 26,000 pounds), which already pay a Banks $30,000 state weight-mile tax. For most vehicles, fees would be Beaverton $1,460,000 collected every two years by the DMV. Cornelius $190,000 Durham $20,000 If adopted, Washington County's VRF would generate Forest Grove $340,000 an estimated $12.8 million countywide each year— Gaston $10,000 approximately$7.7 million for the county and $5.1 Hillsboro $1,480,000 million for cities (distributed based on population). State law requires VRF funds be used exclusively on King City $50,000 public roads. Washington County would use its share North Plains $30,000 of the funding only on road maintenance, which would Sherwood $290,000 keep future repair costs down. Cities could select their Tigard $780,000 own priorities for road maintenance, operations or Tualatin $370,000 improvements. The potential exists for county-city and Wilsonville $40,000 city-city collaboration on projects. Projects would be prioritized and undertaken using cost-effective best practices to maximize dollars spent. Why fa roads now? Roads are important. Washington County's expanding economy and . population depend on roads as a lifeline to jobs and all the other places we need to be. Our roads help drive a healthy and growing economy. • Local businesses rely on roads to deliver the goods and services we enjoy. Managing our roads in good condition also helps reduce traffic - congestion and protects our quality of life. Good roads are also critical for emergency response—fire, ambulance and police—when seconds count. Plus, more cars on the road and poor road conditions can result in more traffic accidents. TVF&R responded to more than 3,000 motor vehicle collisions in Washington County last year alone. Taking care of our roads proactively is about keeping future costs down. Keeping roads maintained prevents costly repairs later. Every dollar spent on preventive road maintenance can save $5 to $10 in repair and reconstruction costs later. We want to avoid the tipping point where preventative road maintenance is no longer an option. This fall, Washington County residents will vote on a proposed local vehicle registration fee (Measure 34-221). if approved, the VRF would take effect January 1, 2016. Page 4 Articles Article — Short Version (Approx. 305 words) Local Roads. Local Solutions. Measure 34-221. This November, Washington County voters will decide on a proposed vehicle registration fee, or VRF to help keep county and city roads maintained Roads are important. Washington County's expanding population depends on roads to get to jobs and the other places we need to be. Our roads drive a healthy and growing economy. Managing roads in good condition reduces traffic congestion and protects our excellent quality of life. Well- maintained roads are also critical for emergency response—fire, ambulance and police—when seconds count. Maintaining roads in good and safe condition is a challenge today. Funding, which comes mostly from the gas tax, is not keeping up with growing maintenance needs and increasing costs. As people switch to more fuel efficient cars and drive less, funding from the gas tax is projected to decline. Our road network is expanding to accommodate a growing population, and the system is aging. Costs for asphalt and other materials are also climbing. Timely cost-effective preventive maintenance can avoid more expensive repairs in the future. Each dollar spent on preventive road maintenance can save $5 to $10 in future repair and reconstruction costs. This November, Washington County voters will decide on a proposed vehicle registration fee, Measure 34-221, as a local solution to funding road maintenance. The proposed user-based fee would be $30 per year for most passenger vehicles and $17 per year for motorcycles/ mopeds. If approved,the fee would take effect on January 1, 2016. Road users—drivers—would pay this "base fee" to help keep the system maintained, similar to a utility base charge. The projected revenue, roughly $12.8 million a year, would be split, with 60 percent dedicated to county road maintenance and 40 percent for city streets. Per state law, funds could only be used for roads. Taking care of our roads can keep future costs down. If approved by voters, the proposed vehicle registration fee would provide additional funds to help keep county and city roads maintained in good condition. Visit www.co.washington.or.us/VRF and <CITY WEBSITE> for more details. This information was reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's Office. Page 5 Articles Article — Long version (Approx. 430-440 words) Local Roads. Local Solutions. Measure 34-221. This November, Washington County voters will decide on a proposed vehicle registration fee, or VRF as a local solution to maintaining county and city roads Roads are important. Washington County's expanding population depends on roads to get to jobs and the other places we need to be.Our roads drive a healthy and growing economy. Managing roads in good condition reduces traffic congestion and protects our excellent quality of life. Well-maintained roads are also critical for emergency response—fire,ambulance and police—when seconds count. Maintaining roads in good and safe condition is a challenge today. Funding,which comes mostly from the gas tax,is not keeping up with growing maintenance needs and increasing costs.As people switch to more fuel efficient cars and drive less, funding from the gas tax is projected to decline.Our road network is expanding to accommodate a growing population,and the system is aging.Costs for asphalt and other materials are also climbing. Timely cost-effective preventive maintenance can avoid more expensive repairs in the future. Each dollar spent on preventive road maintenance can save$5 to$10 in future repair and reconstruction costs. Cities,including<CITY NAME>and the County have had to put off needed road maintenance. The county's funding gap alone is over$7.5 million a year and growing.<CITY NAME> is also facing a shortfall of<$XXX.> This November, Washington County voters will decide on a vehicle registration fee(VRF),Measure 34- 221, as a local solution to funding road maintenance. State law allows counties to adopt a vehicle registration fee of up to$43 dollars per year.The proposed user-based VRF would be$30 per year for most passenger vehicles and$17 per year for motorcycles/mopeds. If approved,the fee would take effect on January 1,2016. The proposed fee would be user based. If adopted,all road users—drivers—would pay this"base fee"to help keep the system maintained, similar to a utility base charge. Unlike the gas tax, funding from the VRF is projected to be stable and reliable over time.The VRF can also be cost-effectively administered through the DMV.Furthermore,this locally generated funding would stay in Washington County under local control. Washington County's VRF would generate an estimated $12.8 million annually countywide. If adopted, the county would use its share of the funding only for county road maintenance,which can keep future repair costs down.<CITY>would use its share<DESCRIBE INTENDED CITY USE.> Taking care of our roads can keep future costs down.If approved by voters,the proposed countywide vehicle registration fee would provide additional funds to help keep county and city roads maintained in good condition. Visit www.co.washington.or.us/VRF and<CITY WEBSITE>for more details. This information was reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's Office. Page 6 Facts & Statistics Maintaining roads is becoming more difficult • Current funding is not keeping pace with maintenance needs • Gas tax revenues are projected to decline • Costs keep climbing • Bigger and older system • Growing maintenance backlog Why Roads? • Roads are a lifeline, community connector and economic driver • Support our local economy • Protect our quality of life • Critical for emergency response when seconds count Why Now? • Every dollar spent on road maintenance now saves $5 to $10 in repair costs later. • It could cost up to 10 times more—in the millions of dollars—to repair neglected roads. • The county's road maintenance backlog has reached $10.5 million to date. • It is critical to avoid the "tipping point" where maintenance is no longer an option and rebuilding is required. A Local Solution — Vehicle Registration Fee Washington County residents will decide this November on Measure 34-221, a local VRF, as a solution to funding road maintenance. Y Proposed Fee • $30 per year for most passenger cars and trucks owned by residents and businesses ($2.50 a month) • $17 per year for motorcycles and mopeds ➢ Use of Funds • The VRF would generate about $12.8 million annually to be split between the county(60%) and the cities (40%) • State law requires funds to be used exclusively for public roads • County funds for maintenance only; city funds for maintenance or improvement Why a VRF? • User-based • Complements existing sources • Stable over time • Practical and cost-effective to administer • It's a local solution—funds stay in Washington County Page 7 Facts & Statistics Total Revenue: $12,830,000 County Revenue $7,700,000 City Revenue $5,130,000 Banks $30,000 Beaverton $1,460,000 Cornelius $190,000 Durham $20,000 Forest Grove $340,000 Gaston $10,000 Hillsboro $1,480,000 King City $50,000 North Plains $30,000 Sherwood $290,000 Tigard $780,000 Tualatin $370,000 Wilsonville $40,000 Page 8 Website Content Landing Page Copy Measure 34-221 —Vehicle Registration Fee Local Roads. Local Solutions. Roads are a lifeline, community connector and economic driver. Maintaining roads in good and safe condition is a challenge today. Funding is not keeping pace with increasing needs. Costs are climbing, and our road network is now bigger and it is aging. Maintenance is needed now before more expensive repairs are needed later. This November, Washington County voters will decide on a vehicle registration fee, Measure 34- 221, as a local solution to funding road maintenance. The fee, $30 for most passenger vehicles and $17 for motorcycles/mopeds, is user-based. Similar to a utility base charge, all users- drivers—pay a base fee to keep the system maintained. The projected revenue is roughly$12.8 million a year. All funds would stay in Washington County and be split 60% for county road maintenance and 40% for city streets. <ADD CITY SPECIFIC DETAILS.> Taking care of our roads now can keep future costs down. Every dollar spent on preventative road maintenance now can save $5 to $10 in repair and reconstruction costs later. For more information, visit www.co.washington.or.us/VRF <AND CITY WEBSITE IF APPLICABLE> Our Challenge • Current funding is not keeping pace with needs • Gas tax revenues are projected to decline • Costs keep climbing • Bigger and older system • Growing maintenance backlog Why Roads? • Roads are a lifeline, community connector and economic driver • Support our local economy • Protect our quality of life • Critical for emergency response when seconds count Why a VRF? • User-based • Complements existing sources • Stable over time Page 9 FAQs Ballot Measure 34-221 Proposed Vehicle Registration Fee Frequently Asked Questions This information was reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's Office. Roads are a lifeline, community connector and economic driver. Maintaining our roads in good and safe condition is a challenge today. Funding is not keeping pace with our needs. Costs are climbing, and our road network is now bigger and it is aging. Maintenance is needed now before more expensive repairs are needed. This November, Washington County voters will decide on Ballot Measure 34-221—a proposed countywide vehicle registration fee, or VRF, to provide additional funds for road maintenance. What's the need? • Current road maintenance funding—primarily the gas tax—is not keeping up with increasing costs and the needs of an expanding and increasingly complex road system— which includes pavement,bridges, culverts, traffic signals, lighting, signs and landscaping. • The county's current road maintenance funding shortfall is estimated at more than $7.5 million per year. • The average pavement condition of county roads has fallen more than 10 points in the past decade(on a 0-100 scale). It is projected to fall 20 additional points over the next 20 years. As pavement deteriorates more costly repairs or rehabilitation will be needed to restore roads to good condition. • Preventive maintenance is cost effective. Spending more on preventive maintenance now can help avoid future rehabilitation or reconstruction at 5 to 10 times the cost. • Cities within the county also maintain certain roads within their boundaries. Preventive maintenance needs also exist on these city streets. • Poor road maintenance costs drivers more. The American Society of Civil Engineers' 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure found that driving on bad roads costs Oregon motorists $495 million each year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs– $173 per motorist. (continued) Page 10 FAQs Why a Registration Fee? • State law limits the road maintenance revenue options available to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board considered several potential funding sources, and a countywide vehicle registration fee is the preferred option for five reasons: • It is user based. • Vehicle registrations are relatively stable over time. While road maintenance costs continue to increase, gas taxes have stagnated as people drive less and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. • Revenues would be shared between the county(60%) and cities (40%); • A vehicle registration fee is cost-effective to administer; and • Timely preventive road maintenance with a dedicated vehicle registration fee would help save taxpayer dollars from being spent on more expensive repairs in the future. • Funds would be generated locally and would only be used on roads in Washington County. • A registration fee would complement the existing gas tax. As with most public utilities, a combination of funding sources is needed for the long term sustainability of our road system. A vehicle registration fee would be similar to a utility "base charge" that all users pay regardless of how much they actually use the system. Those funds would help ensure that the system is kept in good working order for all users. In addition to the "base charge" utility users also pay for their actual use of the system—in the case of roads, that is the gas tax, which is linked to how much we drive. How much would it cost? Are there exemptions? • State law allows counties to adopt a registration fee of up to $43 per year (equal to the current state registration fee for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks). • The proposed Washington County Vehicle Registration Fee is $30 per year for most vehicles and $17 per year for motorcycles and mopeds. $30 per year is equivalent to $2.50 per month. • If adopted by Washington County voters, this fee would be collected by Oregon DMV at the same time motorists obtain or renew their state vehicle registration. Most new vehicles are registered for a four-year period; subsequent renewals typically occur every two years. • Disabled veteran, government, school, farm, antique, special interest and recreational vehicles and heavy vehicles paying the weight-mile tax would be exempt from the fee under state law. (continued) Page 11 FAQs How much would the fee generate? • If adopted, the proposed fee would generate approximately$12.8 million countywide each year to help keep our roads maintained. • Both the county and our cities would benefit from this additional funding. Approximately $7.7 million would go to the county and$5.1 million to cities based on population. • The six largest cities and projected funding amounts are: Hillsboro and Beaverton (about $1.5 million each); Tigard (about $780,000); Tualatin (about $370,000); Forest Grove (about $340,000); and Sherwood (about $300,000). How would the funds be used? • Oregon's Constitution requires taxes and fees on motor vehicle fuel and use, including vehicle registration fees, to be used exclusively for"the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance and operation or use of public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas" in Oregon. • If adopted by voters, the County's share of the revenues could only be used for maintenance and operation of county roads. • With the additional revenue from the proposed $30 annual fee, the county anticipates being able to bring most county roads up to adopted pavement standards and keep them there for 15 to 20 years plus resolving our current deferred maintenance backlog. • Cities would be able to choose how to best allocate their share of the funding for road maintenance and improvement within the constitutional limits noted above. • By paying for more preventive road maintenance now, taxpayers would be saved from having to pay for more expensive repairs later. When would the fee take effect? • If adopted by Washington County voters, the fee would take effect for vehicles obtaining initial registration or renewing registrations on or after January 1, 2016. How would the fee be collected? • The county fee would be collected by Oregon DMV at the same time motorists obtain or renew their state vehicle registration. Most new vehicles are registered for a four-year period; subsequent renewals typically occur every two years. • DMV would distribute funds to the county monthly. The county would distribute funds to the cities. (continued) Page 12 FAQs Do other Oregon counties have a registration fee? • So far, only Multnomah County has adopted a registration fee. It is $19 per year and funds are dedicated solely to paying debt service for replacement of the Sellwood Bridge. • Several other counties are considering registration fees. How do Oregon's auto fees compare to other states? • A 2011 study by the Idaho Department of Transportation(IDOT)found that Oregon's registration fees ranked 39th out of the 50 states. • A January 2013 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) analysis found that Oregonians pay the lowest automobile related taxes and fees in these seven western states (listed lowest cost to highest cost): Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Utah,Washington,Nevada and California). • A 2013 Bankrate.com survey indicated that Oregon residents have the lowest overall cost of vehicle ownership in the US; driven largely by the lack of a sales tax and low registration fees. Large trucks and studded tires damage roads... are they paying? • Under state law, large trucks would be exempt from the county registration fee. However, they do pay a state weight-mile tax. Weight-mile taxes generated by large trucks (less than 3%of vehicles registered in Washington County)provide nearly 25% of our total road maintenance revenues. • State law does not currently allow the state or counties to charge fees on studded tire users. People commute here from other counties to work... would they pay the fee? • No. However, an equal number of Washington County residents commute to work in other counties. Washington County residents would not pay registration fees in other counties. • Out-of-county residents who buy gas here do help maintain our roads through gas taxes. Can you require bicycles to register and pay a fee for maintaining the roads? • State law does not allow registration of bicycles. • However, most cyclists also own cars. Those who live in Washington County would pay the registration fee. They also pay gas taxes when filling up their vehicles. (continued) Page 13 FAQs I own multiple vehicles... will I have to pay the fee for each one, even if I can only drive one at a time? • Yes. This is also true for the state registration fee, DEQ fees, insurance, and other"fixed" costs associated with owning multiple vehicles. • Each vehicle used on our roadways contributes to road wear and tear. Vehicle registration fee funds would help maintain our roads now,before it will cost more in the future. This benefits all road users. Have questions? Want more information? • For more information or to submit a comment regarding the proposed vehicle registration fee, please visit www.co.washinfton.or.us/VRF • Contact Stephen Roberts in the Department of Land Use&Transportation, at 503-846- 4963 or Stephen roberts1aJco.washington.or.us Page 14 Photos/Graphics Photo & Graphics Access A variety of local road and road maintenance photos and royalty-free graphics,plus charts and tables on the vehicle registration fee, can be accessed online using Flickr. For access to RoadWise pictures and graphics go to www.flickr.com/photos/I27270350 @N04/ • You can also go to www.flickr.com/search/people and type in"Roadwise"in the search bar • All photos on the RoadWise profile will be shown on the"Photostream"tab • Click on the"Albums"tab to access pictures by grouping How to download pictures: • Click on any photo(In Photostream or albums)to enlarge • Click on the arrow pointing down with a line underneath in the bottom right • Choose what size you want and the picture will be automatically downloaded on your computer Page 15 Social Media Content Washington County's population continues to grow. We now have a larger road network, but it's steadily aging. Maintenance is needed before more expensive repairs are required in the future. Visit www.co.washington.or.us/VRF to learn more. Washington County residents will be voting this November on Measure 34-221, a local vehicle registration fee that would be used for proactively maintaining local roads. Learn more at www.co.washington.or.us/VRF Every dollar spent on preventative road maintenance now can save$5 to $10 in repair and reconstruction costs later. A vehicle registration fee in Washington County is a local solution to taking care of our roads and keeping future costs down. Learn more at www.co.washington.or.us/VRF Washington County residents will decide this November on a local solution to funding road maintenance, a vehicle registration fee. The fee is user-based, so people who use the roads—drivers—pay to keep the system maintained. Learn more at www.co.washington.or.us/VRF Roads are essential to the health of our economy and quality of life. They transport goods and get us to work, school, entertainment, and visits with family and friends. Learn how and why we need to maintain them at www.co.washington.or.us/VRF It's become increasingly difficult to maintain our roads in good and safe condition. Costs for asphalt and other materials keep climbing. And, as people use more fuel efficient cars and drive less, funding from the gas tax is projected to decline. We need a stable, local funding source to keep our roads maintained. Visit www.co.washington.or.us/VRF to learn more. Just like house upkeep, keeping roads maintained prevents costly repairs later. Learn more at www.co.washington.or.us/VRF Current funding options for maintaining our roads are limited. Future funding from the gas tax is uncertain and projected to decline. Other local funds are tied to different needs and can't be used. A vehicle registration fee is proposed as a local funding source to keep our roads safe and usable. Visit www.co.washington.or.us/VRF to learn more. Page 16 Editorial Endorsements Oregonian Washington County voters should back vehicle-registration fee: Editorial endorsement http://nww.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ss//2014/09/washington county voters shouLhtml September 6, 2014 It is easy to nitpick transportation-funding decisions. Taxpayers' priorities naturally differ based on where they live and what modes of transportation they use. Personal circumstances also influence your view of how to pay for necessary improvements. And transportation infrastructure is too expensive for government officials to ever satisfy everyone. No wonder putting transportation measures up for a vote makes elected officials as nervous as a cat in traffic. But declining road quality is forcing road-maintenance decisions throughout the metro area— including a heated debate in Portland. TheWashington County Board of Commissioners deserves credit for doing the right thing and submitting a proposed new vehicle registration fee to voters, even when some of the county's mayors urged the board to impose the fee without a vote—which it had the legal authority to do. The board trusted voters. Now, voters should reward that trust by carefully considering the measure. An objective analysis should lead to the conclusion that this fee is necessary and deserves a yes vote. Here are some of the things voters should consider. Details of the fee: The county proposes a$30-per-year fee for each four-wheel vehicle, and $17 for each motorcycle. Sixty percent of the money generated by the fee will go to the county, with 40 percent divided among cities in the county. The county estimates the fee would generate $7.7 million annually for the county and $5.1 million for cities. Large trucks, which pay a weight-mile tax, and a handful of public-use vehicles (school buses and police cars, for example) are exempt. Need for repairs: Few who drive regularly in Washington County would deny the need for repairs. Though roads have not reached nightmare levels, potholes and ruts can be found on major arterials such as Southwest Murray Boulevard and Southwest Scholls Ferry Road. Even roads with less visible issues have pavement that is beginning to degrade. Delaying repair increases the cost. Declining revenue for repairs: The county estimates that it is currently $10.5 million short of annual funding needed to keep pace with repairs, a gap that grows each year. About 35 percent of the county's road fund goes toward surfacing and another 19 percent toward traffic operations and management—the two budget categories that would most directly benefit from the registration fee. (continued) Page 17 Editorial Endorsements Half of the county's road fund comes from the fuel tax. Most of that money comes from the state, although the county also levies a tax of 1 cent per gallon. The money raised by both county and state taxes are declining as people drive less and the fuel efficiency of vehicles increases. The use of the money: The ballot measure limits the county to using vehicle-registration money on road maintenance. The measure does not designate how cities can use their share,beyond limits spelled out in state statutes. But the county's largest city, Hillsboro,has pledged to direct its share into the city's Pavement Management Program. Beaverton,the second-largest city, is still considering how it would use the money, city spokesman Jordan Imlah said. The reason for a registration fee: Commission Chairman Andy Duyck acknowledges that the decision to raise maintenance funds through a vehicle registration fee was driven in part by expediency. Neither the state nor county are technologically ready for a vehicle-miles tax. DMV did not want to phase in the registration fee because of limitations of its computer system. And raising the county gas tax would put more emphasis on a taxing method that is becoming outdated. The lack of other options aside,the registration fee is modest in size and mostly fair in its application. Though the fee is the same for expensive and inexpensive vehicles, higher-income households are more likely to have two or three automobiles—or more. The fee does not have a sunset date, but Duyck said the current board of commissioners is open to reconsidering it should the state develop a new source of revenue for road maintenance that would funnel additional money to counties. As is the case with any tax, supporting it requires some trust. And trust is a finite resource among voters today. Commissioners should have earned some credibility by putting this measure on the ballot when they had authority to create the fee without a vote. But the best reason to support the fee is a financial one: If voters reject this measure, either they or the commission eventually will have to approve a more expensive solution. Page 18 Editorial Endorsements Pamplin Media Group County's road plan is wise approach (Beaverton Valley Times/Hillsboro Tribune, The Times of Tigard- Tualatin-Sherwood) County's ballot measure deserves support of voters (Forest Grove News-Times) h►tp://www.pumplinmedia.com/hvt/I 6-opinion/23321 6-97508-countis-roud plun-is-wise- approach September 11, 2014 There's a wise old philosophy about maintaining your automobile: "Pay now, or pay more later." In short, it means if you try to save a few dollars in forgoing oil changes, for example, you'll face a much bigger bill later when your car's engine blows a rod. The apt adage also applies to the roads that hum beneath our wheels as we commute to work, school or the neighborhood grocery store. In about a month, when ballots for the Nov. 4 general election arrive in the mail, voters in Washington County will notice Measure 34-221. If approved, the measure would allow county officials to charge an additional $30 per year when drivers apply to renew their vehicle registrations. The extra money would be used to maintain roads within the county. Officials estimate that the county is already facing$10.5 million in deferred road maintenance — a number likely to climb much higher if basic maintenance is not taken care of and roads deteriorate to the point where major rehabilitation and reconstruction is needed. It would be foolish to let our roads get to that crisis level. Roads are not just a luxury we can choose to neglect to save money. As the ballot measure's proponents point out, roads connect communities and are essential to the local economy. Good roads are important for commerce and for efficient response times by emergency vehicles, as well as for everyday motorists. Poorly maintained roads exacerbate congestion because they tend to slow traffic, and ruts and potholes can sometimes create serious traffic safety hazards as well. The current vehicle registration fee, imposed by the state, is $43 per year. Measure 34-221 would add another $30 to the total, with all the money earmarked for road projects inside Washington County. Those who own motorcycles or mopeds would pay an additional $17 per year(they now pay$24 a year). Antique cars, school vehicles, farm vehicles, travel trailers and vehicles owned by disabled veterans would be exempt from the new fee. (continued) Page 19 Editorial Endorsements No one likes to pay more fees,but this would be money very well spent. Repairing roads before they deteriorate to the point where the foundation of the road itself needs to be fixed is projected to save the county and its taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in the long run. Some may wonder if it would be better to increase the gas tax, so those who use the roads the most bear more of the financial burden. The problem is that gas tax funds are not keeping up with the level of maintenance county roadways need. In one sense,that's good news: the shortfall comes, in part, from increased use of fuel-efficient cars and electric vehicles. That's because the gas tax is based on the number of gallons sold,not the cost of a gallon of gas. In fact, higher gas prices tend to decrease the number of gallons sold as people turn to mass transit, carpooling or bike commuting. In addition, it's tough to budget maintenance projects on a revenue source that fluctuates with the price of gas. Another concern is that the county would divert this money into other pet projects. It can't: State law restricts this money to transportation projects. Multnomah County's vehicle registration fee, for example, is funding the new Sellwood Bridge costs. For its part, Washington County has pledged that all the money it brings in from the registration fee increase would go entirely for maintenance. In other words,no new roads, sidewalks or bike paths would be built with this money; it would go exclusively for repair of existing roads. Is the county asking for too much? There's no evidence of that, either. County officials estimate the registration fee would generate an extra$12.8 million a year, which would be split between Washington County(60 percent) and the incorporated cities within the county(40 percent divided among the cities, with allocations based on each city's population). That means the county's first-year receipts would fund only 75 percent of the work needed immediately. What's more, the Washington County Board of Commissioners had the authority to boost the vehicle registration fee by as much as $43 per year without a public vote,but instead decided to put the $30 proposal on the ballot and ask for taxpayers' support. Some local officials were unhappy about that strategy. "Mayors pushed for us to enact this at the board level because the need is there," said Washington County Chairman Andy Duyck. "But we wanted to make the case (to the public) rather than defend a unilateral decision." The commissioners are to be commended for bringing the issue to the voters rather than simply imposing it. We believe they did so because they are confident they can make a strong, common sense case to the public that it will actually cost less in the long run to go this route. A decision on this measure is pretty simple: Roads are a major investment, and that investment needs to be maintained now,rather than waiting for more costly fixes down the road. Boosting the vehicle registration fee makes sense as an effective and fair way to accomplish that. We urge county voters to support Measure 34-221. Page 20 1 tu.y ess wn41° ' t 40 ., . iiip, ilk A.... ........vollir Maintain Today. ave Tomorrow. , .'wll .. SUPPLEM NTAL PACKET - .. -5 ':'"" " FOR `> 3 , v t `= 4! ~ (DATE of MEETING MEASURE 34-221 _ Our Challenge -: ...,.. . ,. W.-1 re Main1'.ajr�iril r�=ds is beco ltirrs ory t jilt; 1 • r;'.iff :f,[ FIfl'IIrIrJ 1", f,(:'. i' ..`,J'r:r J p:`_ ;i. f rJt r ROAD 41 11 • fa.l� �l, f./ f!'_; :: iiry J )J: '^-'.I rJ (.1.C1;ri� WORK 1 t T; s • ,;f ) AHEAD? - • %i�jar :ir.rl ()ld r �j':.._,In err A Local Solution — Vehicle Registration Fee ° Washington County residents will decide this fall on Measure 34-221. a local VRF, as a solution to funding road maintenance. Proposed Fee 111111001111M1111011.• $30 per year for most passenger cars and trucks owned by residents and businesses ($2.50 a month) • $17 per year for motorcycles and mopeds Why Roads? Why Now? • Roads are a lifeline, community Use of Funds connector and economic driver • Support our local economy The VRF would generate about $12.8 million annually to be split • Protect our quality of life between the county (60%) and the cities (40%) • Critical for emergency response when seconds count • State law requires funds to be used exclusively for roads Why a VRF? `1.00N co • User-based 4 (, • Complements existing sources 2� Every dollar spent on road • Stable over time 3 '` maintenance now saves $5 • Practical and cost-effective to administer to $10 in repair costs later. • • Its a local solution-funds stay in Washington County C)REGOt4 PT/JjJ. ✓.J.I�.�riiliTir Ji.f.. . ��/ J; i- !+•� This information was reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's Office. P( limo.fl \ `!I S F r 11 1147 tik ler aintain Today. ave Tomorr . kaiwassilk ---* • • - - MEASURE 34-221 Our Challeng= Maintaining roads is becoming mo •r- ''' • Current funding is not keeping pace with our n ROAD �f • IIP Gas tax revenues are projected to decline '° - " � WORK • Costs keep climbing AHEAD? ~ • Bigger and older system 1 A . • Growing maintenance backlog • Com 0 1 4 A Local Solution — Vehicle Registration Fee Washington County residents will decide this fall on Measure 34-221, a local VRF, as a solution to funding road maintenance. Proposed Fee • $30 per year for most passenger cars and trucks owned by residents and businesses ($2.50 a month) Why Roads? Why Now? • $17 per year for motorcycles and mopeds • Roads are a lifeline, community Use of Funds connector and economic driver • Support our local economy The VRF would generate about $12.8 million annually to be split • Protect our quality of life between the county (60%) and the cities (40%) • Critical for emergency response when seconds count • State law requires funds to be used exclusively for roads Why a VRF? `�GTON eo • User-based G • Complements existing sources 1-�, Every dollar spent on road • Stable over time 3 1 ` '` maintenance now saves $5 • Practical and cost-effective to administer to $10 in repair costs later. • It's a local solution —funds stay in Washington County OREGON 111l''11, . .).V1, ,it111 11J1' _)1.1. )ft ):i11,r This information was reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's Office. ROAD WISE Dd .w OM air City] Supports Local Roads , ii. . . • . .... , -......,„ - . , . • . ,,,,,.. . .. . _. - --- - -- - - MEASURE 34-221 - • ' • . s . ' •' . - • i . • ,r ta;'n�la [INSERT Ci T YJ s roads in � condition, and sa`e condition is becoming . il i. �- I— -. a _ al"eng ng. Funding is not keeping pace tie. .,, - . liu . „ l v,fth our needs, and costs keep climbing. . 417/180, isiowit: ji(4 ' 'al` , 1r`RF �Aii`i: y,' Generate [SXXX] for our city 0 . • Help keep our roads maintained rth IMP . 7.-duce more costly repairs in the \N 4* 1 : ' : - ` '`=nefit only roads in [CITY] and --- -- - - Washington County � ; Keeping Costs Down ti `•^�^ [Insert bullets on how [CITY] - `s takes care of their local roads] • Best practices... Use of [INSERT CITY] Funds: • Effective pavement • XXX techniques... • XXX • Evaluation process... • XXX • Keeping operational costs • XXX down... • Recycling materials. .. ? • Etc... [INSERT CITY LOGO] It could cost up to 10 times more in the future to repair neglected roads. J I 'II '1.I. J, Ili ,',i-l J I J .r J 1)1 ], ) _. '.J// I1:, `r..)1'. 1EJ_ J r_ y _ I AL' L;91-T''.J ROA) WISF Appendix G - Ballot Title Notice of Measure Election )J (j� SEL 801 County l ! as/ my DI/11 ORS MO'S nUOr,. noun.MI03.rS.1us Notice Date of Notice I Name of County or Counties I Date of Election 7/16/2014 Washington 11/4/2014 The following is the final ballot title of the measure to be submitted to the county's voters. Final Ballot Title Notice of receipt of ballot title has been published and the ballot title challenge process has been completed. Caption 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure Washington County Vehicle Registration Fee for Road Maintenance and Operations ,111i 1'7'1"l P145:011: Question 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure Shall countywide vehicle registration fee fund road maintenance and operations in Washington County and some road improvements in cities? Summary 37S words which concisely and Impartially summarizes the measure and its major effect Proposed foe would bo$30 per yore for most vehicles owned by Washington County residents and businesses,$17 per year for molorcycloglmo ods. Under slate law,heavy trucks paying state weight-mile lea,disabled veterans,government,school,farm,antique.special Interest and recreational vehicles would be exempt.Fee would start January 1,2016,for Initial registrations(lour years for most new vehicles)and renewals(every two years for most vehicles). Fee would generate approximately$12.8 million annually to: •Dedicate to mad maintenance and operations In Washington County and sore.mead Improvements in cities.Much of this work would be performed by private companies Itveugh competitive contracts. •Share funds between county(60%)end cities(40%).County share for only county road mulntanonce and operations and cities'share for only road maintenance,operations or Improvement per slate law. •rlalp maintain roads In good and sale condltlorr to support the local economy end omorgonoy response limes for fire.lotce and ambulance services. This locally generated funding would be used for roads In Washington County only. Explanatory Statement 500 words that impartially explains the measure and Its effect,if required attach to this form if the county Is producing a voters'pamphlet an explanatory statement must be submitted for any measure referred by the county governing body and if required by local ordinance,for any Initiative or referendum. Measure Type 1 County producing voters'pamphlet I Local ordinance requiring submission I Explanatory statement required ®Referral ❑Yes ❑No Not applicable ❑Yes ❑No ❑Initiative ❑Yes []No 0 Yes ❑Nu ❑Yes 0 No ❑Referendum ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No Authorized County Official Not required to be notarised -,By signing this document,I hereby state that I am authorized by the county to submit this Notice of Measure Election and I certify that notice of receipt of ballot title has been published and the ballot title challenge process for this measure completed. "k I Work Phone P(L r " l— Cedn4 Cdvnse / soy 8-1/6- key? X Signed --- 2/3!/i k - Signature // /✓ j Date Signed 64 JUL 3()'1P4418 wcfD-VP2 WASHINGTON COUNTY MEASURE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT (mas 251.345 (Rev 011/I3) FOR COUNTY VOTERS'PAMPHLET ELECTION DATE:November 4 20 14 _Ballot Measure #: 34- ID.\ Ballot Title Caption: Washington County Vehicle Registration Fee for Road Maintenance and Operations Name of Person responsible for content of'Explanatory Statement': Washington County Board of Commisslonsers Name of Jurisdiction/Organization Person is authorized to represent: Washington County Home Phone: Work Phone:(503) 846-8605 Cell Phone: FAX Phone; E-mail Address: Neese use the spare below or attach sep.rate/roper(300%o&/nunrber hnn!) See Attached. X Signed �1 A. 'f/leeI-1 1 ) ply Slcnature of Person f1sponsrble for content of`Explanatory State ent' ate Sl�jne FOR OFFICE USE ONLY / Page word count total(500 word/number Ilmlt): I of 2(WCED•VP2) 65 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT Why Is this measure proposed? Washington County maintains approximately 3,000 lane-miles of roads,Including major roads and rural roads throughout the county.Many roads are in good condition today,but the average pavement condition is declining and is projected to continue declining with current funding sources.As people drive less and switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles,traditional maintenance funding is not keeping pace with increasing costs and needs.The county's existing road maintenance backlog is estimated at approximately$10.5 million and is projected to double in the next decade. Cities In Washington County also maintain hundreds of miles of roads.Cities face similar funding challenges on city road systems. Washington County residents ranked road maintenance a high transportation funding priority and supported a local vehicle registration fee to address this Issue in recent surveys.Survey respondents specifically supported maintaining roads to: • support the overall health and growth of our economy; • ensure the best emergency response times for fire,police and ambulance services;and • invest now before road maintenance will cost more in the future. Isn't transportation and road maintenance already paid for? • Funding for countywide road maintenance is primarily generated from the state gas tax, state registration fees and weight-mile taxes paid by heavy truck operators. • As people drive less and use more fuel-efficient vehicles,traditional maintenance funding is not keeping pace with increasing costs and needs. • Other countywide transportation funds including Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program(MSTIP)and Transportation Development Tax(TDT)are dedicated to safety and capacity Improvements. • Some maintenance funds,such as city fees,are dedicated only to specific areas and do not address all current maintenance needs. What would this measure do? Preventive maintenance costs less than major repair or reconstruction.By the time streets are cracking and potholes are forming,It's too late for cost-effective preventive maintenance.This measure is projected to provide additional funding to address the county's current road maintenance backlog and ongoing preventive maintenance needs.City road systems would also benefit. How can the funds be used? If approved,the fee would generate approximately$12.8 million annually.Funds would be shared between the county(60%)and cities(40%).In accordance with state law: 66 • The county's share would only be used for maintenance and operation of county roads, and • The cities'share would only be used for road maintenance,operations or improvements within cities. What roads would benefit? State taxes and fees help fund highways and roads throughout Oregon.This proposed user- based countywide vehicle registration fee would provide funding only for maintenance and operation of county roads and for maintenance,operations,or improvements on city streets within Washington County. What happens If this measure does not pass? Vehicle registration fees would not be increased. Without additional resources,the county's average pavement rating is projected to decline further and the current backlog of deferred county road maintenance is projected to grow.The future cost of deferring road maintenance could be 5 to 10 times higher. ,Tf it.30'14 FM4:1O 67 AIS-1924 4.A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes):Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Carol Krager,City Management Item Type: I1Iotion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval: •July 8,2014 •)my 22,2014 •August 12,2014 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments No files)attached V AGENDA ITEM NO. 3-A CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: September 23, 2014 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, to the State of Ore g on's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes,which is a public record. 1 NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: - ‘1/4"• e-t_S API L -- — — {\tr (W - Also,please spell your name as it so nds,if it will K 1 help the presiding officer pronounce: '�J SI Address`1350 cam- Tiacc S OOpp►� City T,csti #$ AT Vw" State B?..._ Zip_ 9i2_23 NOct zS Phone No. 503 5/2-'L_o�C)2 53 CY1QEE - Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address 1 City State - Zip Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I,\ADM\CATHY\000 City Recorder-Record.Resorrrer.•od Pobcir.\CeSSigoup\ciiiuo commuoici,rroo.do. i AIS-1776 4. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Adopt River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Submitted By: Debbie Smith-Wagar Financial and Information Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Resolution Agenda Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the City Council approve a resolution accepting the attached River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On July 22,2014 the project team presented the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan to Council.During that briefing, the project team summarized public comment on the plan and recommended changes based on those comments and staffs final review. The two bullet points below describe those changes. Other changes for clarity,consistency,and completeness were also made throughout,but all were minor in nature and did not change the meaning or intent of the plan previously reviewed by Council. • High-flow conveyance improvements—Various sections were revised to clarify that the high-flow conveyance improvements (e.g. bypass pipe and/or stream restoration) that are needed in the south have yet to be determined and that further analysis is required. Additional text was added to explain the rationale for recommending a high-flow bypass pipe north of Beef Bend Road at this time. • Implementation—This entire section was reorganized for clarity and readability. Additional text was added to clarify the city's approaches to plan implementation flexibility,including the use of stormwater re-use facilities throughout River Terrace and stormwater detention facilities in the high-flow conveyance area. Additional text was also added to describe the circumstances under which the city might approve an alternate stormwater facility. The implementation timeline tables were deleted,as this information is more appropriately included in the River Terrace Funding Strategy. This master plan includes a list of stormwater projects and planning level project costs,but it does not include a specific funding strategy.The River Terrace Funding Strategy is currently under development. It will be presented to Council on September 23 for preliminary review and comment,reviewed by the public during the month of October, and then finalized and presented for adoption with the River Terrace Community Plan later this year. As a reminder,the city needs to adopt a Stormwater Master Plan for River Terrace in order to meet the requirements of Metro Functional Plan Title 11 for infrastructure planning. Adoption of this plan also contributes to the city's broader goal of completing the River Terrace community planning process. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could choose to not approve the resolution. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS River Terrace Community Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The project team presented Council with the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan and preliminary stormwater funding strategies on July 22,2014. Council approved the contract for the River Terrace Community Plan (which includes funding strategies) on June 25,2013. Fiscal Impact Cost: 20,630,000 Budgeted (yes or no): NO Where Budgeted (department/program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: This plan will be part of the comprehensive funding strategy for River Terrace. Attachments River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Resolution River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (c._- Xhi t A River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Otak Project No. 1 6851 Prepared for: 1 & (:its• r,f'l i arc] ,� .. _�..4't ■■ • • • Ai-to,'-.:.: tdil . .. •. '. ''S , ■ ',h'„,* 1 4 _:� $ 'rL.�.a vj.• f at:i .� •`.� ►dry,. ^ `�' •/ -- 1 +44.r. ., m`i;iltaillillif ' • �,• , +kill* 1 E September 5, 21,14 • 4.. Acknowledgements RIVER TERRACE Stormwater Master Plan Otak Project No. 16851 Prepared for: City of Tigard Prepared by: Kevin Timmins, P.E. Project Manager Ashley Cantlon, P.E. Stormwater Engineer Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 September 2014 0 . Table of Contents Section I—Introduction and Background Introduction 1 Goals and Objectives 2 Design Standards 3 Background Information 4 Existing Conditions and Key Findings 4 Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy 7 Water Quality Strategies 7 Site Scale LIDA 8 Street Scale LIDA 8 Neighborhood Scale LIDA 9 Regional Stormwater Facilities 10 Water Quantity Strategies 11 Regional Detention 11 High-Flow Conveyance 12 Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs I3 Strategy Area A 13 Strategy Area B 13 Strategy Area C 14 Estimated Costs 15 Implementation 17 Maintenance 22 Section 4—Stormwater Calculations 23 Impervious Area 23 Downstream Analysis 24 Regional Stormwater Facilities for Water Quality 25 Regional Stormwater Facilities for Water Quantity 26 High-Flow Conveyance 27 River Terrace Slormivater Master Plan otak L:\Project\1 6800\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-2(I14_Septcmber\I IN AL.RiverTerrace_SWMP_090514.ducx Table of Contents Continued Tables Table 2.1: Recommended Strategies for Different Areas of River Terrace 7 Table 2.2: Examples of Site Scale LIDA 8 Table 2.3: Examples of Street S cale LIDA 9 Table 2.4: Examples of Neighborhood Scale LIDA 10 Table 2.5: Examples of Multi-Functional Regional Stormwater Facilities 11 Table 3.1: Stormwater Infrastructure Total Cost Summary 16 Table 4.1: Summary of Impervious Area Reference Calculations 24 Table 4.2: Impervious Percentage by Land Use 24 Table 4.3: Summary of Water Quality Calculations for Regional Water Quality Facilities 25 Table 4.4: 25-yr Peak Flow(cfs)Discharges from Regional Detention Facilities 26 Table 4.5: Summary of Regional Detention Facility Sizes 27 Table 4.6: 25-yr Peak Flows (cfs) at Site Discharge Locations to 17,T8,&T9 28 Figures Figure 1: Proposed Zoning(assumed for runoff calculations) Figure 2: Existing Drainage Basin Diagram Figure 3: Stormwater Management Strategy Areas Figure 4A: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Strategy Area A) Figure 4A1: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Strategy Area A: South) Figure 4B: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram(Strategy Area B) Figure 4C: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram(Strategy Area C) Figure 5: West Bull Mountain Soil Infiltration (GeoDesign,2009) Attachments Attachment A: Background Information Attachment B: Cost Estimate Attachment C: XP-SWMM Model Schematic and Input Data Attachment D: West Bull Mountain Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Figures (HDR,2008) Attachment E: Drawings from Roy Rogers Road Improvement Project River Terrace Slormwaler Master Plait ii otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\SrormwaterN1asterPlan\Final-2014_Septcmbcr\FIN AL-RivcrTcrrace_SWAIP_O9O514.docx Section I—Introduction and Background Introduction The\Vest Bull Mountain Concept Plan was completed by Washington County in October 2010. Subsequently,the City of Tigard annexed the area and renamed it River Terrace. The city is working to complete the required planning process to allow development to begin. Part of the planning process involves master planning of utilities,including stormwater management infrastructure. This master plan contributes to the city's broader goal of completing a River Terrace Community Plan. River Terrace Study Area (outlined in yellow) a: n } tiNla sh ? y<<<. • s 9W WEIR RD 7 5,t N d JeRRI w � vWM1 Mt, u ' f De GAARDL St 4RU e,ill 9WNCDONALDST 41 LADOWSR 9W BONITA R: 5VI ULLI BI Rt'R SW DURHAM RD x • r 1 JEANNO tiff SW TUALATIN RO RD Y SWN`•Bt R/,;`, The River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) includes and refines the strategies and ( ) g best management practices previously developed in the West Bull Mountain Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (SWIP) in response to stakeholder input and discussions with the project design team. The purpose of the River Terrace SMP is to: • Describe the stormwater management strategy for River Terrace. • Show how the strategy is to be applied during development of River Terrace. • Provide a cost estimate for the regional (i.e. public) stormwater management infrastructure. • Provide recommendations for implementation. • Provide recommendations for maintenance. • Document supporting calculations. River Terrace S1orviwaler Mailer Plan 1 otak 1.:\Project\1680(l\16851\Reports\StormwstcrMastcrPlan\Final-2014_Septembcr\FIN AL-River cerracc_S WMP_1190514.doex Section I—Introduction and Background Continued The study area for the SMP is based on the River Terrace area annexed by the City of Tigard in 2011 and 2013.The assumptions about land use, road locations,and site layout used to perform supporting calculations for this document reflect the adopted land use and proposed zoning in place at the time the calculations were performed (May 2014).The proposed land use and zoning assumed in development of the River Terrace SMP is provided in the attached Figure 1. Goals and Objectives The following stormwater management goals were developed during the West Bull Mountain SWIP and were carried forward into the development of the River Terrace SMP. • Restore/enhance vegetated corridors • Protect water quality • Preserve existing hydrology • Promote safe and long-lasting stormwater facilities • Balance the use of regional and on-site stormwater management • Preserve existing mature vegetation • Maximize use of multi-benefit facilities to create community amenities • Promote partnership with other public service providers The following stormwater management objectives support these goals and have been incorporated into the River Terrace SMP based upon the needs and characteristics of each drainage basin in the study area. • Regional facilities should be developed wherever possible to minimize the total number of facilities needed in the area.Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) for water quality and existing wetland areas for water quantity should be proposed wherever practicable. • Regional facilities should be dispersed to contribute to stream flow at multiple locations. • Regional facilities should be well-defined and accessible to maintenance crews to ensure longevity. • Regional facilities should be designed as community amenities that provide aesthetic, educational, and/or recreational benefits in addition to stormwater management. • Open conveyance elements should be used to enhance "key"pedestrian routes along streets or stream corridors. • Increased conveyance between the River Terrace study area and the Tualatin River should be utilized to minimize erosion and slope instability in steeper areas (e.g. high- flow bypass pipe and/or stream restoration). River Terrace Slormwaler Marler Plan 2 otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\StormwatcrMasterP Ian\Final-2014_tieptember\f INAL-RiverPerracc_SWi■I1,_090514.docx Section I—Introduction and Background Continued • LIDA (e.g. eco-roofs, flow-through planters,etc.) should be limited to flow-through type facilities unless geotechnical evaluations can demonstrate that infiltration is not expected to contribute to slope instability. • Impervious area should be minimized wherever practicable to minimize stormwater runoff(e.g. clustered development,"skinny" streets, reduced parking,etc.). • Regional water quantity/water quality facilities should be located along Roy Rogers Road,the proposed interior street parallel to Roy Rogers Road,or in/along existing drainages or wetlands whenever possible. Design Standards The stormwater infrastructure strategies recommended in this plan are based upon Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards and the CWS Low Impact Development Approaches(LIDA)Handbook. In addition, this plan reflects the City of Tigard's intention to adopt new design standards for the River Terrace study area in collaboration with CWS.The need for these new standards is based upon the following: • The city's recent experiences dealing with channel stability problems elsewhere on Bull Mountain,and the presence of similar drainage channel conditions in the River Terrace study area. • The city's decision to develop a new continuous simulation model for the River Terrace study area. • Anticipated changes to CWS's Design and Construction Standards to address pending requirements under their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. • The community's desire to preserve and protect existing natural resources in the River Terrace and Bull Mountain area. At a minimum, the new design standards will include the following: • Requirement to minimize stormwater impacts caused by development through use of best practices for water quantity management, even when a downstream analysis shows that the downstream system has adequate conveyance capacity. A new continuous simulation model will be developed to aid in the implementation of a flow-duration based design standard for design of water quantity management facilities. • Development of a minimum facility size standard for regional water quality and quantity (i.e. detention) facilities to allow flexibility in the implementation of this plan. • Allowance for smaller regional facilities in locations not anticipated by this plan where it can be shown that development of the recommended regional facility is either not timely or feasible and the proposed facility meets the minimum facility size standard. River Terrace Storm/ water Bailer Plan 3 otak 1.:\Project\168110\16851\Report s\StormwaterMasterPlan\1,final-21114_Scptember\F 1 NAL-River Cerrace_S WMP_090514.dcxs • Section I—Introduction and Background Continued • Allowance for interim facilities where regional facilities are recommended in instances where it can be shown that development of a regional facility is not timely and the proposed interim facility meets the minimum facility size standard. • Requirement to design regional stormwater management facilities as community amenities that provide aesthetic,educational,and/or recreational benefits. Background Information As part of this SMP, the project team reviewed seven key documents prepared for the River Terrace study area that provided background information about site conditions.A complete review of the data and relevant conclusions for each of the seven documents are provided in Attachment A of this SMP. These documents are as follows: 1) West Bull Mountain Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis(HDR Inc.,March 2008) 2) West Bull Mountain Natural Resources Inventory Technical Report(Pacific Habitat Services, April 23,2008.) 3) Regional Landslide Hazard Mapping, West Bull Mountain Planning Area,Washington County, Oregon (Draft DOGAMI,March 31,2008) and ADDENDUM to Regional Landslide Hazard Mapping, West Bull Mountain Planning Area,Washington County,Oregon (DOGAMI,April 21,2008). 4) Report of Preliminary Geological Evaluation West Bull Mountain Planning Area(GeoDesign,Inc., April 21,2009) 5) Roy Rogers Road Improvements S.W. Beef Bend/Elsner/Scholls-Sherwood Roads(CH2MHill, November 1999) 6) Roshak Pond Overview— West Bull Mountain Planning(Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning Division,November 5,2008) 7) West Bull Mountain Stormwater Infrastructure Plan(Otak, February 2010). Existing Conditions and Key Findings A basic understanding of existing conditions was useful in developing this SMP and as a starting point for future development of the River Terrace study area. Key findings regarding existing study area conditions are as follows: • The River Terrace study area is drained by nine small drainage channels. Figure 2 shows the existing drainage basins.A small area at the north end drains towards Scholls Ferry Road. • Culverts under Roy Rogers Road have capacity for existing flows. • Culverts under Beef Bend Road for drainages T8 and T9 are under-capacity for existing flow rates. Conveyance improvements are needed to handle future flow rates from new development. River Terrace Stormu' ater Master Plan 4 otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\Stornm ater\dasterPlan\Final-2014_tieptember\FINAL-Pavel ferrace_SWMP_09 0514.docx Section I—Introduction and Background Continued • Fish passage requirements to modify existing culverts for fish passage will need to be evaluated at the time of design and implementation of improvements to Roy Rogers Road and Beef Bend Road. • The natural resources identified were used as a constraint to define buildable lands during formation of the concept plan for West Bull Mountain and was carried forward into the River Terrace SMP. Several culvert barriers and enhancement opportunities were identified for consideration during development of River Terrace. • The existing drainage channels in and downstream of the River Terrace study area are steep and have a high potential for channel erosion due to the fine sediment characteristics of the area and the velocity conditions that exist in these steep drainages. • The infiltration potential is poor in the River Terrace study area. The results of geotechnical drilling and laboratory testing confirmed that the area is underlain by clayey residual soils derived from the underlying basalt bedrock. • The effects of infiltration on slope stability for developed conditions are expected to be problematic given the steep terrain and proximity to shallow bedrock. Therefore, infiltration of stormwater is not recommended. LIDA facilities called for in this SMP shall be flow-through type facilities that are constructed with an under drain and do not rely on infiltration of stormwater. • Site specific geologic and geotechnical conditions will be important to evaluate during the design and construction of stormwater management facilities in the River Terrace study area. The Roshak irrigation pond,located in the northern part of the River Terrace study area along the T2 drainage,has a capacity of approximately 20 acre-feet. • Pond levels are maintained seasonally by pumping groundwater.The berm that forms the pond is comprised of a layer of soft to medium stiff silt Missoula Flood deposits and a layer of soft to medium stiff clay and silt derived from the basaltic residual soil. The pond is not identified in the County's acknowledged 1983 Goal 5 Program;however,it is identified in the County's 2005 Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Program as Class I and II Riparian and Riparian Impact Area. • The natural resource inventory for West Bull Mountain (Pacific Habitat Services,2008) identifies the pond as a jurisdictional water body by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and/or Corps of Engineers and would,therefore,be treated by CWS as a water quality sensitive area requiring a vegetated corridor. • The actual location of the vegetated corridor is determined when a development application is submitted,and depending on slope may be between 50 and 200 feet. Therefore, only a vegetated corridor proxy has been mapped around the perimeter of the pond at this time. The vegetated corridor proxy is an estimated location of the vegetated River Terrace Starmwater Master Plan 5 otak L:\Project\168(1\16851\Reports\StormwatcrMasterPlan\Final-2014_September\FINAL-RiverTerrace_Sw111P_090514.doc' Section I—Introduction and Background Continued corridor based upon the wetland inventory and the adjacent slopes (Pacific Habitat Services,2008). • Modifications to the pond,including its removal,are expected to require permits from Oregon DSL and/or Corps of Engineers. • Change in water rights or use of the existing water rights associated with the pond would require coordination with Oregon Water Resources Department. Ricer Terrace StorO/ n' ater Master Plan 6 otak 1.:\Project\168(01\16851\Reports\StormwateriIasterP Ian\Final-21114_3cptember\FINAL-River fcrrace_SWMP_090514.docx Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy Stormwater management infrastructure is needed to protect the water quality of downstream natural resource areas,the downstream receiving waters from increased rates of erosion caused by additional water quantity,and the built environment from flood damage during large storm events.The recommended Stormwater Management Strategy takes a comprehensive approach to incorporating stormwater management into the landscape of River Terrace. The SIP makes use of existing site topography,natural systems, and site design to efficiently and effectively manage stormwater quantity and quality. There are three combinations of water quality and quantity management strategies applied to the River Terrace study area,as shown in the attached Figure 3 and summarized in Table 2.1. The water quality and water quantity tools that are recommended for each of the strategies are the focus of this section of the River Terrace SMP. Table 2.1: Recommended Strategies for Different Areas of River Terrace Strategy Water Quality Water Quantity Area A Combined Regional Water Quality Treatment and Water Quantity Detention Facilities B Street,Site and Neighborhood Scale Regional Water Quantity Detention Facilities Low Impact Development Approaches Street,Site,and Neighborhood Scale Downstream Conveyance Improvements Low Impact Development Approaches (High-Flow Bypass/Stream Restoration) Water Quality Strategies Best management practices (BMPs) are required to manage the transport of stormwater pollutants from River Terrace development to downstream receiving waters. Source control measures (i.e. proper management and disposal of household and animal waste) that reduce or eliminate the possibility of stormwater contact with pollutants are the most effective BMPs. However, not all contact with pollutants can be eliminated with source control BMPs and other management practices to meet water quality requirements are needed. It is recommended that water quality treatment in River Terrace is managed using Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) at a variety of scales (i.e. site, street,and neighborhood) and multi-purpose regional stormwater facilities that offer community benefits in addition to stormwater management. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 7 otak L:\Proiect\16800\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\l'inal-2014_Scptember\FINAL-River ferrace_SWMP_090514.ducx Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy Continued LIDA,as described in the LIDA Handbook (CWS,2009),includes such things as infiltration planters,vegetated swales,and eco-roofs. LIDA facilities can be engineered to treat stormwater runoff and reduce stormwater volume from smaller, frequent rain events by encouraging retention within the facilities. It is recommended that the use of LIDA in River Terrace is limited to treating stormwater runoff and not retaining it due to poor soil infiltration and the potential for slope instability.All LIDA facilities should be sized per CWS Design and Construction Standards in combination with the LIDA Handbook (CWS,2009) and designed to manage site runoff from all impervious surfaces generated by the water quality event. Site Scale LIDA Site scale refers to parcel by parcel LIDA on the buildable land shown in the River Terrace study area that is not planned for public right-of-way. Photographs of examples are shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Examples of Site Scale LIDA � . . Y aid ` I s_ --._ { 111111 i. Eco-roof Infiltration Basin Flow-Through Planter Site LIDA facilities should be designed as flow-through type facilities with an underdrain to minimize the occurrence of infiltration' and an overflow to direct larger storm flows to a safe location,such as an open space area, the street gutter,or some other engineered stormwater conveyance feature. Street Scale LIDA Streets are a major source of urban stormwater pollution. Street LIDA refers to facilities located within the public right-of-way designed to treat runoff from streets,sidewalks,and trails. Street LIDA facilities can be located in many different places,including but not limited to sidewalk furnishing zones,planter strips,or curb extensions.These facilities can be I Infiltration potential is poor due to clayey soils.Infiltration is also potentially problematic for slope stability given the steep terrain and proximity to shallow bedrock. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 8 otak I.:\Project\168011\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-21114_September\FINA1.River ferrace_SWMP_O90514.docx Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy Continued located adjacent to the street with curb inlets that allow runoff to pass through the curb into the LIDA facility. Photographs of examples are shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.3: Examples of Street Scale LIDA *a' i • • Wirt Planter Box Curb Extension Linear Swale Public rights-of-way can also operate as a collection and conveyance system to transport stormwater from both streets and adjacent sites to a downstream destination.The conveyance facilities need to be capable of managing large storm events that exceed the capacity of LIDA facilities and route them to a safe location for discharge to the natural drainage system. The conveyance system will be a combination of street gutters,pipes,culverts and open channels.The use of street gutters and open channel conveyances should be maximized. Flow splitter manholes are recommended for portions of the River Terrace SMP, to maintain low flow contributions to the small natural streams near their headwaters and direct high flows to a bypass conveyance system,described later as part of the water quantity management strategy for River Terrace. Neighborhood Scale LIDA Neighborhood scale refers to LIDA applied to a collection of parcels and/or portions of right-of-way that cannot,or are not proposed to,be managed using Site or Street LIDA. Stormwater runoff in these situations is collected and routed to a LIDA facility down the block. This type of LIDA might occur at the end of a street,at a street corner,or adjacent to a neighborhood park. Photographs of examples are shown in Table 2.4. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 9 otak L:\Project\16H110\16851\Reports\StormwatcrAlasterP Ian\I inal-21114_September\FIN AL-ItivcrTerracc_SWMP_11911514.docx Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy Continued Table 2.4: Examples of Neighborhood Scale LIDA It 400 4.,: :otr*,,,r,:vt. - ,....k, ..,,, .,t_ ,. . ,, .7 ... ... .. ... . . . . ... -.. ,, . , . .. _ .. ,,,.„..,,. . :;.,..... k;, . ' Infiltration Basin Vegetated Swale Extended Detention Pond Neighborhood LIDA facilities should be designed to make efficient use of the landscape, enhance site design,and be a neighborhood amenity (not an isolated eye-sore hidden in the corner) and have an overflow to direct larger storm flows to a safe location,such as an open space area,the street gutter,or some other engineered stormwater conveyance feature. Regional Stormwater Facilities Regional stormwater facilities collect runoff from large areas,often under different ownership,are located at a low point,and are the last line of defense before stormwater is discharged to a natural drainage system. Regional stormwater facilities reduce the overall number of facilities that need to be maintained and can be a large enough feature in the landscape that they can provide additional benefits beyond just stormwater management. Regional facilities can provide water quantity,water quality,or a combination of both. Regional facilities recommended for River Terrace provide water quantity,or they provide a combination of both water quantity and water quality. Regional stormwater facilities use LIDA principles (i.e. bio-retention) applied at a larger scale. Regional stormwater facilities for water quality in River Terrace are required to be vegetated facilities and integrated with the area as a community amenity. Examples of community amenities that could be provided by a regional facility include aesthetics, education,recreation,and habitat. Stormwater facilities and open water can enhance parks and recreational areas. Some facilities are only needed during heavy and infrequent storm events,and can be designed to have other uses at other times (as seen in the basketball court photo below). The placement of regional stormwater facilities along Roy Rogers Road can also function as a buffer between traffic and River Terrace development,and as a transitional landscape along the urban/rural interface. Riper Terrace Storms aier Alas / er Plan 10 otak 1.:\Project\1681N1\16851\Reports\Stormwater\1asterPlan\Final-2D14_September\FINAL-River'1'errace_SWMP_1%)514.docx Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy Continued Photographs of examples of multi-functional regional facilities are shown in Table 2.5. Table 2.5: Examples of Multi-Functional Regional Stormwater Facilities • • • L. •••• • Mimic Natural System:Wetland Passive recreation:Outdoor Seating Active Recreation: Basketball Court Water Quantity Strategies A stormwater water quantity management strategy is required everywhere in River Terrace to mitigate for potential flooding and erosion impacts that would otherwise result from increases in stormwater runoff volume,rate,and duration due to development in River Terrace. There are two water quantity strategies recommended in the River Terrace study area: regional stormwater detention and high-flow conveyance improvements extending downstream to the Tualatin River.The location for application of each strategy in River Terrace is described previously in Table 2.1 and on the attached Figure 3. Regional Detention Regional stormwater facilities for water quantity in River Terrace are required to be vegetated facilities and be integrated with the site as a community amenity,just like the regional facilities for water quality. Regional detention facilities shall be combined with the regional water quality facilities whenever possible. However,there are two locations where existing wetland areas are recommended to be modified to provide regional water quantity benefits,in which case water quality requirements have to be achieved before stormwater is discharged to these wetland areas. Regional detention facilities will need to be sized per the design standards described in Section 1 of this plan once they are adopted by the city. However, these standards could be superseded by future changes to the CWS Design and Construction Standards that are more stringent than those described by this plan and subsequently adopted by the city. Riper Terrace S / o rmnia / e r Master Plan 11 otak L:\Project\1681)1\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-2014_September\FINAL-Ri\'erTerrace_SWMP_(19O514.docx Section 2—Stormwater Management Strategy Continued High-Flow Conveyance The southern part of the River Terrace study area is located on steep terrain,along small drainages with small drainage basins,and where regional water quantity (i.e. detention) facilities would be difficult to construct.'As a result,the water quantity strategy for the southern portion of the area includes the use of flow splitters at stream crossings to continue low flow discharges to the stream channels and a high-flow bypass conveyance system to safely convey the additional stormwater runoff down the south side of Bull Mountain and beneath Beef Bend Road. On the south side of Beef Bend Road,it is a short distance to a nearby Tualatin River meander bend. The high-flow conveyance system could either be in the form of a bypass pipe, stream restoration,or a combination of both.Any high-flow conveyance system utilizing a restored stream channel should be designed to handle and remain stable under future flow rates. 2 Infiltration potential is poor due to clayey soils.Infiltration is also potentially problematic for slope stability given the steep terrain and proximity to shallow bedrock. Riper Terrace Stormwaler Master Plan 12 otak l.:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\StormwaterMastcrPlan\Final-2014_September\FINAL-RivcrTerrace_SWM P_090514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs A Stormwater Concept Plan was prepared for each of the three recommended stormwater strategy areas.The recommended stormwater strategy areas are described below, summarized in Table 2.1,and shown in the attached Figures 4A,4A.1,4B,and 4C.The Stormwater Concept Plan schematically represents the specific stormwater infrastructure needs for River Terrace. It also includes the recommended drainage basin boundaries and stormwater conveyance assumptions used in the calculation of stormwater flows and facility sizes. Calculations performed to estimate facility sizes are presented later in Section 4 of this plan. In general,the conveyance of stormwater runoff throughout the River Terrace study area is assumed to follow closely with the street, trail,and public right-of-way network. Strategy Area A • Water Quality = Regional Water Quality Treatment Facility • Water Quantity = Regional Water Quantity Detention Facility The Stormwater Concept Plan for Strategy Area A is shown in the attached Figures 4A and 4A.1.There are a total of 11 regional stormwater management facilities recommended to meet both water quality and quantity requirements for 253 acres (49%) of the River Terrace study area. Stormwater in this area will be collected and conveyed in storm pipes that are typically located within the road network to the low points in their respective basins.These pipes will discharge to regional facilities located along Roy Rogers Road and existing local drainages. Strategy Area A is recommended for one small area on the south side of the River Terrace study area, next to SW 150th Avenue,because it cannot be conveyed across the slope to connect to the high-flow conveyance system recommended for Strategy Area C. Strategy Area B • Water Quality = Street,Site,and Neighborhood Scale LIDA • Water Quantity = Regional Water Quantity Detention Facility The Stormwater Concept Plan for Strategy Area B is shown in the attached Figure 4B. LIDA facilities are recommended for water quality treatment in this area. LIDA facilities will be constructed and paid for by development as streets and neighborhoods are built.Two regional stormwater management facilities are recommended to meet water quantity requirements for 72 acres (14%) of the River Terrace study area.These two facilities are recommended within existing wetland areas and shall be designed to provide for enhancement and restoration of these areas. Riper Terrace Stormwater Mailer Plan 13 otak L:\Project\168181\16851\Reports\Storm%ate/Alas tcrPlan\Final-20 14_tieptcmber\FIN ALRirer 1'crrace_SWM P_t 19 1514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued Strategy Area C • Water Quality = Street,Site,and Neighborhood Scale LIDA • Water Quantity = Downstream Conveyance Improvements (High-Flow Bypass/Stream Restoration) The Stormwater Concept Plan for Strategy Area C is shown in the attached Figure 4C. LIDA facilities are recommended for water quality treatment in this area. LIDA facilities will be constructed and paid for as streets and neighborhoods are built. No infiltration or detention facilities are recommended in this area.Water quantity requirements will be met through downstream conveyance improvements. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed in storm pipes that are typically located within the road network where it will be routed through two flow splitter manholes along the T8 and T9 drainages. The flow splitters will be designed to allow low flows to continue into each drainage channel and to route high flows into a high-flow conveyance system to a single off-site improvement along the T8 drainage.A single off-site improvement is recommended in order to limit the amount of stormwater infrastructure outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Stormwater must receive treatment for water quality before reaching the flow splitters or entering the conveyance system. The T8 high-flow conveyance system will bring stormwater down the hill and beneath Beef Bend Road.A high-flow bypass pipe is recommended from the T8 flow splitter to Beef Bend Road for the following reasons: • the presence of steep terrain and erodable soils • the ability of piping to handle the combined runoff from both drainage basins more safely than a restored stream at this location • the proximity of future right-of-way adjacent to the T8 drainage channel that could readily accommodate piping,thus eliminating the need,expense,and challenge of acquiring additional land or easements for conveyance outside the UGB. Once the bypass pipe is beneath Beef Bend Road,stream enhancement and restoration of the T8 drainage is recommended all the way to the Tualatin River to accommodate future stormwater runoff from River Terrace and the urban reserve area south of River Terrace. Alternatively,a high-flow bypass pipe could be constructed adjacent to the T8 drainage all the way to the Tualatin River. These high-flow conveyance improvements are recommended to meet quantity requirements for 191 acres (37%) of the River Terrace study area. A conceptual design and alternatives analysis is needed for each conveyance proposal to determine the preferred alternative. River Terrace Stormwater Mailer Plan 14 otak 1.:\Project\165(X1\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterP Ian\Final-2014_Scptember\FIN AIAtiver 1'errace_SWMP_091514.duc Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued While on-site detention was considered in this area,downstream conveyance improvements in the form of a pipe and/or stream restoration are recommended by this plan for the following reasons: • Geologic conditions strongly suggest it is better to convey the water to the Tualatin River than hold it higher up on the mountain. Piped conveyance would provide the most direct route for water to the Tualatin River. • Until such time as the UGB is expanded to the south,piped conveyance would allow farm land to remain in agricultural use. • When considering land costs,piped and/or stream conveyance may be less expensive than on-site detention. Estimated Costs LIDA facilities applied at the site,street,and neighborhood scale are not illustrated on the Stormwater Concept Plans and are not included in the Stormwater Cost Estimate. It is expected that these water quality facilities will be constructed and paid for by development as individual sites are developed. An analysis of cost to implement LIDA facilities was performed for Clean Water Services (WRG,December 2008) and concluded that costs to implement LIDA are often site-specific,and may or may not result in lower construction costs when compared to the cost of a conventional design approach. Costs associated with stormwater management for Arterial and Collector Streets are included in the transportation infrastructure cost estimate. Costs associated with stormwater management for Neighborhood Routes and Local Streets are assumed to be part of the costs to develop individual sites. Costs for regional stormwater facilities were determined according to estimates for facility size (footprint and volume). Assumptions and calculations used to estimate facility sizes are presented later in Section 4 of this plan.The following assumptions were made about the size,geometry,and needs of the regional stormwater management facilities to derive planning level cost estimates. • Regional stormwater facilities for detention and water quality were based upon meeting the detention standard. Excavation volume estimates assumed 5.5 feet of storage depth with 3H:1 V side slopes plus an additional one foot for freeboard. • Regional water quality facilities were assumed to fit within the space required for meeting the detention standard. • Land area required to locate a regional facility was assumed to be 110 percent of the facility footprint to construct.This extra space is for extra land area needed to match surrounding grades and to provide for facility access. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 15 otak L:\Project\168(X1\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-2(114_tieptember\FINAL:RiverIcrracc_SWM1'_119O514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued • Sizing of regional stormwater facilities for detention where combined with wetland enhancement was based upon an estimate to construct a similarly sized detention facility outside of a wetland area,but spread out over a larger footprint to minimize inundation depths (1.5 feet) that would be tolerable in a wetland enhancement design and shallower side slopes (5H:1 V). • Facilities sized to meet the new detention standard may result in a larger detention storage volume.Volumes calculated for the River Terrace SMP were increased by 25% to account for the potential increase. Costs for inlet/outlet pipes,manholes,inlets, flow splitters,and flow control devices in the right-of-way were based on recent bid tabulations. The total estimated cost for stormwater infrastructure for the River Terrace study area is summarized.below in Table 3.1. A construction contingency was included in the cost estimates to account for uncertainties that are inherent in the planning stages for stormwater infrastructure.The contingency includes,but is not limited to variability in actual quantities, miscellaneous items such as fencing or signage, and unknown phasing for implementation. The estimate for land acquisition costs assumes purchase of land or easements for regional stormwater facilities and for high-flow conveyance improvements.The high-flow bypass pipe recommended between River Terrace and Beef Bend Road is assumed to be located within a future right-of-way, the cost of which is included in the transportation infrastructure costs. High-flow conveyance cost estimates are based upon a high-flow bypass pipe.An alternatives analysis is needed to determine the feasibility of stream restoration versus high- flow bypass pipe and should include a cost comparison. Table 3.1: Stormwater Infrastructure Total Cost Summary Construction $9,910,000 Engineering/Permitting $5,160,000 Land Acquisition $5,560,nnn Total $20,630,000 A detailed breakdown of the Stormwater Infrastructure Total Cost Summary is provided in Attachment B. Riper Terrace Storniwa / er Master P /an 16 otak 1 \Proicct\16818)\16851\Reports\Stonnwaten\lasterPlan\Final-21114_September\FINMARiver rerrace_SWMP_090514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued Implementation It is anticipated that implementation of this SMP will begin shortly after its adoption but will occur over time as development occurs. It is also anticipated that certain aspects of this SNIP will be challenging to implement due to existing conditions, facility costs,and the regional approach to stormwater management recommended by this plan. Implementation challenges and strategies for the whole of River Terrace and each of the three Strategy Areas,to the degree that they can be anticipated and described,are included below. Pursuant to the recommendations and intentions described in this SMP,implementation of this plan hinges on the city developing and adopting new stormwater design standards and a continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool. New stormwater design standards for the River Terrace study area would amend the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards and be applied during the city's development review process. These amendments are more fully described in Section 1 of this plan.The new continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool would be made available to the development community and city review staff to ensure that the new flow duration based design standard was being met. Once developed,it would also be used to confirm or revise the sizes of the regional facilities recommended in this plan. In addition to this SMP,the following documents will serve to guide the implementation of stormwater facilities in River Terrace: CWS Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook, CWS Design and Construction Standards,and City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. Additionally,the West Bull Mountain Natural Resources Inventory Technical Report(Pacific Habitat Services,2008) should be consulted for natural resource enhancement and restoration opportunities that could be implemented with the required stormwater facilities. River Terrace Existing Conditions • Geology: River Terrace has some challenging site topography and potential geologic constraints, such as shallow bedrock and landslide hazards. • Soils: River Terrace soils are poorly drained.The introduction of stormwater could contribute to an increased risk of landslides. Challenges and Strategies During the course of developing this plan, the development community expressed concerns about the recommended regional stormwater management approach based on their experiences in North Bethany. These concerns include: River Terrace Slormn' ater Master Plan 17 otak 1.:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\Storms aterllasterPlan\Final-2014_September\FINAL-Rivet'Perracc_SWMP_090514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued • More coordination and cooperation:Several regional facilities serve more than one property owner. If a property owner is ready to develop but does not have a regional facility located on their site and adjacent property owners are not ready to develop or are otherwise uncooperative,development can be delayed if the property owner ready to develop has to: (1) wait for an adjacent property owner or the city to build the facility, and/or(2) obtain permission from an adjacent property owner to cross their property to connect to the facility. • Prevailing wage: Because regional facilities are publicly funded, they must be constructed using"prevailing wage rates."As a result,publicly funded projects can be more expensive to build than privately funded projects. • Timing of and access to funds:Regional facilities are expected to serve more than one development,yet they will be needed when the first development occurs.This means that someone needs to provide upfront funding,with the expectation that subsequent development would reimburse the original funder. However,subsequent development may not occur in a timely manner,and developer stakeholders reported that it is difficult for them to obtain funding from lenders for a facility that serves more than one development. • Size and location:While regional facilities may require fewer acres overall, they require large,consolidated acres of land as compared to the traditional site-specific approach. This land is then unavailable for private development. With the traditional approach, stormwater facilities could be smaller and tucked away on otherwise unusable portions of a site. The following existing conditions and strategies have been identified to address these and other concerns raised by stakeholders. • Less coordination and cooperation: The River Terrace study area is topographically different from North Bethany. It is bisected by several small drainage channels and roads,resulting in the creation of numerous small drainage subbasins. North Bethany has only three drainage channels by comparison. This translates into potentially fewer coordination challenges because there are fewer parcels of land that drain to each of the recommended regional facilities. Moreover,of the 13 recommended regional facilities outside of the high flow conveyance area,6 serve subbasins under the control of a single property owner. • Implementation flexibility (smaller facilities):The city is committed to developing a minimum facility size standard as part of the package of new stormwater standards it intends to adopt for this area.The purpose of the minimum facility size standard is to provide facilities that will function without greater than typical maintenance and to allow for flexibility in the implementation of this plan.As long as a facility meets the minimum size standard and associated community amenity design guidelines,the city intends to River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 18 otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\Storm%aterMasterPlan\ffinal-2014_September\t INAI-RiverTcrrace_SW1\1P_090514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued allow multiple smaller facilities in lieu of any of the recommended regional facilities in this plan provided that: o their location meets with city approval; o they meet the City Stormwater Design Standards;and, o they do not prevent or otherwise make it more difficult for properties owned by others to implement the recommended regional stormwater solution. • Implementation flexibility (interim facilities):The city is open to the installation of interim facilities that do not meet the minimum facility size standard in instances where it can be shown that development of a regional facility is not timely or practical provided that: o its design and location meets with city approval; o appropriate provisions and safeguards are put in place so that it will be properly maintained over time; o downstream piping from the interim facility is designed and located such that a connection to the future regional facility is practicable. o it is designed to meet the City Stormwater Design Standards;and, o it does not prevent or otherwise make it more difficult for other development to implement the recommended regional stormwater solution. In addition to constructing the interim facility,the property owner would be required to contribute its fair share toward the construction of the future regional facility. The interim facility would need to be removed once the regional facility was operational, which would free up the land upon which it was located for development. • Implementation flexibility (re-use facilities):The city will consider allowing stormwater re-use facilities,e.g. cisterns, that capture and re-use stormwater on site provided that: o their design and location meets with city approval; o appropriate provisions and safeguards are put in place so that they will be properly maintained over time; o they meet the City Stormwater Design Standards and applicable building/plumbing codes;and, o they do not prevent or otherwise make it more difficult for other development to implement the recommended regional stormwater solution. Stormwater re-use facilities could either be proposed as an interim or a permanent solution and,where approved as a permanent solution,could serve to reduce the size of the downstream regional facility. • Funding strategy: The River Terrace Funding Strategy for stormwater is being developed with the goal of mitigating some of the funding challenges inherent in the regional stormwater management approach. Near term funding priorities will likely focus Riper Terrace Slormn' ater Master P /au 19 otak 1.:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-2014_ticptember\FINAL-RirerTerracc_SWMP_090514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued on those regional facilities that serve more than one property owner and that are in areas anticipated to develop in the near term. • Integrated design: Through the city's development review process,property owners will be encouraged to coordinate the design of the regional stormwater facilities with the design and construction of other required or needed improvements,such as roads,parks, and natural resource mitigation,in order to reduce overall costs. Strategy Area A Challenges and Strategies Strategy Area A does not have any specific challenges or strategies beyond those described above for the whole of River Terrace. Additional Studies/Actions Needed The following additional studies and/or actions are needed to advance the implementation of stormwater infrastructure in Strategy Area A. • City: A full package of new stormwater design standards and guidelines. • City:A new continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool. • City:A life cycle cost comparison study that evaluates the cost of constructing and operating a few regional stormwater facilities versus many smaller facilities. This study will help the city develop a minimum facility size standard. • City and/or Developer:Geotechnical analysis of specific site conditions by an engineer, including depth to bedrock to inform the grading plan and recommendations for design, such as whether a liner is needed to discourage infiltration.There is potential that some regional facilities located along Roy Rogers Road may need to be relocated to the west side of the road due to proximity to bedrock. Strategy Area B Challenges and Strategies In addition to the challenges and strategies described above for the whole of River Terrace, the following challenges and strategies apply specifically to Strategy Area B. • Infiltration: Pending further detailed study by a geologist or geotechnical engineer,it should be assumed that site conditions are not good for stormwater infiltration. LIDA facilities should be limited to flow-through types with an under drain and not rely upon stormwater infiltration. • Existing wetlands:There are extra permitting challenges associated with stormwater detention facilities located within existing wetlands. However,wetland restoration for Riper Terrace Stormuater Mailer Plan 20 otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-2014_tieptembcr\FINAL-Rivcr Perrace_SWMP_090514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued water quantity management enhances a natural resource and occupies property that would be otherwise undevelopable or very expensive to mitigate. Additional Studies/Actions Needed The following additional studies and/or actions are needed to advance the implementation of stormwater infrastructure in Strategy Area B. • City: A full package of new stormwater design standards and guidelines. • City: A new continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool. • City: A life cycle cost comparison study that evaluates the cost of constructing and operating a few regional stormwater facilities versus several smaller facilities. This study will help in the development of the city's minimum facility size standard. • City and/or Developer:A conceptual design and alternatives analysis,including an • improved cost estimate,that evaluates the advantages,disadvantages,and permitting challenges related to the implementation of regional detention facility T2_6 as a wetland enhancement and restoration effort. The West Bull Mountain Natural Resources Inventory Technical Report(Pacific Habitat Services,2008) describes four opportunities along the T2 drainage,east of Roy Rogers Road, to restore and enhance the natural resources in this area. • City and/or Developer: Geotechnical analysis of specific site conditions by an engineer, including depth to bedrock to inform the grading plan and recommendations for design, such as whether a liner is needed to discourage infiltration. Strategy Area C Challenges and Strategies In addition to the challenges and strategies described above for the whole of River Terrace, the following challenges and strategies apply specifically to Strategy Area C. • Off-site improvements:Downstream conveyance improvements that are located outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) shall address land use regulations from the Washington County Community Development Code Sections 340-4.1 and 430-105.3 through 430-105.7;Oregon Revised Statute 215.275;and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-33. • Integrated design:Design of high-flow conveyance improvements should be coordinated with the design and construction of other required or needed improvements,such as the proposed road connection to Beef Bend Road parallel to the T8 drainage in order to reduce overall costs and streamline the permitting process for improvements outside the UGB. River Terrace Storiiiwater Master P /au 21 otak L:\Project\168(81\16851\Reports\SturmwaterMastcrPlan\Final-2(114_September\FINAL.RicerTerrace_SWMP_190514.docx Section 3—Stormwater Concept Plan and Estimated Costs Continued • Detention and/or discharge: It may be possible on certain properties within the high- flow conveyance area to detain water in an existing wetland and/or discharge runoff directly into one of the existing drainage channels upstream of the high-flow conveyance system. Such proposals will be considered by the city provided that: o their design and location are approved by all applicable authorities; o they meet the City Stormwater Design Standards;and, o they do not prevent or otherwise make it more difficult for other development to implement the recommended regional stormwater solution. Additional Studies/Actions Needed The following additional studies and/or actions are needed to advance the implementation of stormwater infrastructure in Strategy Area C. • City:A new continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool. • City: A conceptual design and alternatives analysis for the recommended high-flow conveyance system that evaluates the advantages,disadvantages,and permitting challenges of restoring and enhancing the T8 drainage versus installing a bypass pipe.A more detailed conceptual design and alternatives analysis will eventually be needed to support the land use process for construction of a public facility outside the UGB and for environmental permitting if work within a jurisdictional water or wetland is proposed. • City and/or Developer:A geologic evaluation of all potential high-flow conveyance alignments that identifies specific conditions, such as depth of bedrock, that could affect the construction or construction costs of the high-flow conveyance system. • City and/or Developer: Property owner outreach to acquire easements,land,and right- of-way for the recommended high-flow conveyance improvements. Maintenance The city will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all regional,Neighborhood LIDA,and Street LIDA facilities.The city will also be responsible for inspecting and enforcing maintenance on all Site LIDA facilities.The city currently maintains neighborhood and street facilities throughout the city and will continue to refine its operation and maintenance procedures. The maintenance of Site LIDA facilities will be the responsibility of the property owner or homeowner's association. The city should expand its existing stormwater education and enforcement program to include residential property owners to ensure that all affected property owners are notified of proper operation and maintenance procedures for LIDA facilities,especially when properties change ownership.The city could require that operation and maintenance procedures are recorded with the property title. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 22 otak L:\Project\16800\1 6851\Reports\StormwaterNiasterPlan\Final-2014_September\FINAl.ltiver l'errace_SWMP_090514.docx Section 4—Stormwater Calculations There is a strong correlation between impervious area and stormwater runoff.The first step toward sizing water quality facilities and estimating site runoff is to estimate the amount of impervious area associated with the various types of development planned for the River Terrace study area.Actual imperviousness will vary throughout the River Terrace study area and will need to be recalculated as development occurs. Assumptions about impervious area used for this SMP are documented in this section. Several calculations were made when developing this plan and the cost estimates. Calculations include: • Sizing of Regional Stormwater Facilities for Water Quality • Sizing of Regional Stormwater Facilities for Water Quantity • Use of High-Flow Bypass Conveyance Pipes The engineering analysis and calculations completed for this stormwater management plan should be considered preliminary.Additional engineering analyses will be required during future detailed design phases of either public infrastructure or private development projects to verify the assumptions made in this planning level analysis. Impervious Area There are four types of residential land uses being mapped for the River Terrace study area: low-density,two levels of medium-density,and high-density with a small amount of neighborhood commercial. Non-residential development such as schools,a fire station, various parks,greenways,and other open space areas are likely to have a different impervious area than was assumed for this plan,and will result in a different runoff volume and rate than rates calculated during this analysis. After expected densities were determined for the various development zones in the River Terrace study area,two sources were consulted to determine appropriate assumptions for percent impervious area relative to development densities. The multiple sources include: • An impervious area study from Clackamas County. • Measurements based on aerial photographs for recently completed Tigard and Bull Mountain neighborhoods in proximity to River Terrace study area. Clackamas County Water and Environment Services (WES) published a study of impervious surfaces as part of the Damascus area Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) expansion. The WES study analyzed the impervious area percentages of a number of neighborhoods representative of current and future development in the Damascus area.Three of the neighborhoods studied are comparable to the 7 and 12 unit/acre figures assumed for River Terrace medium-density residential zones,with densities ranging from 9.6 to 14.8 units/acre. Ri ,' er Terrace Stormwater Master Plait 23 otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\StormwaterMasterPlan\Final-2014_Scptember\1+INAL-River Terrace_SWI\1P_090514.docx Section 4—Stormwater Calculations Continued These neighborhoods have a total average density of 10.9 units/acre and are 54 percent impervious. Only one neighborhood in the study had a comparable high-density residential zone,with a density of 25.5 units/acre and 62 percent impervious.Two neighborhoods in the study seem to correspond to the mixed-use designation,although with much lower residential density than identified for the River Terrace study area. These had an average density of 13.6 units/acre and 62 percent impervious area.Three areas were designated as schools,with an average of 31 percent impervious area. A summary of these findings are presented below in Table 4.1. Table 4.I: Summary of Impervious Area Reference Calculations Reference Source Description Density Impervious Area (units/acre) (%u) Medium Density Residential 10.9 } Clackamas County WES High Density Residential 25.5 62 Schools N/A 31 Mixed-Use 13.6 62 The complete list of proposed land uses in the River Terrace study area is shown in Table 4.2 alongside the impervious percentage assumed for stormwater calculations in this plan. The proposed land uses for River Terrace are mapped in the attached Figure 1. Table 4.2: Impervious Percentage by Land Use Land Use Impervious Percentage Community Commercial District 70 Future Right-of-way 70 Existing Right-of-way 70 Low Density Residential (4.5 Dwelling Units/Acre) 45 Medium Density Residential (7 Dwelling Units/Acre) 50 Medium Density Residential (12 Dwelling Units/Acre) 55 High Density Residential(25 Dwelling Units/Acre) 65 Downstream Analysis Stormwater from the River Terrace study area drains to eight small drainages.A small area at the north end of the site flows to (drainage basin T1) SW Scholls Ferry Road and east to SW Barrows Road. The rest of the site drains to one of the other seven small tributaries to the Tualatin River. Tributaries T6 and T7 are not expected to receive additional flows from the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 24 otak L:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\Stormwaterh fasterPlan\Final-2(114_September\FINA1.Rivcr Terrace_SWMIP_090514.doec Section 4-Stormwater Calculations Continued River Terrace study area,and are therefore not included in the analysis for this plan. The need for water quantity management in the West Bull Mountain SWIP was based upon a preliminary downstream analysis.Subsequently,the City of Tigard intends to adopt new water quantity standards for River Terrace. (See Section 1 for more detail.) New standards will require that stormwater facilities be designed to match post-development flow durations to mitigate downstream flooding and erosion from new development in the River Terrace study area. Regional Stormwater Facilities for Water Quality This SMP calls for the treatment of site runoff to be handled using a combination of regional water quality facilities, and LIDA. Site,Street,and Neighborhood LIDA will be sized as part of future public or private development projects. Regional stormwater facilities that are recommended to provide water quality treatment are assumed to fit within the footprint of the facilities sized to meet water quantity requirements. Water quality volume and flows were calculated for the regional facilities that will provide water quality treatment. The water quality volume and flow were calculated based upon current Design and Construction Standards. The current standards use impervious area draining to the facility. Impervious area requiring treatment was calculated for each of the subbasins based on land use assumptions within each drainage basin. The calculation of impervious area,water quality volume and water quality flow are reported below in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: Summary of Water Quality Calculations for Regional Water Quality Facilities Facility Contributing Impervious Water Quality ID Area Area Area (acres) Volume (cf) Water Quality Flow (cfs) (acres) WQSMB 10.41 6.45 8,426 0.59 WQ2_5ac 32.89 18.71 24,447 1.70 WQ2_5b 31.51 17.29 22,595 1.57 WQ2_7a 37.67 22.09 28,869 2.00 WQ2_7b 16.76 11.09 14,491 1.01 WQ3_2a 33.42 18.05 23,588 1.64 WQ3_2b 7.27 3.80 4,964 0.34 WQ4_4a 28.82 15.35 20,063 1.39 WQ4_4b 14.95 7.55 9,860 0.68 WQ5_6c 25.49 13.98 18,268 1.27 WQ10_3a 4.5 2.25 2,940 0.20 River Terrace Slormrvaler Master Plan 25 otak L:\Project\168(0)\16851\Reports\titormwaterMastcrl Ian\Final-2u14_Siptcmber\FINAI.-Rivci ferracc_SWAMP_090514.docx Section 4-Stormwater Calculations Continued Regional Stormwater Facilities for Water Quantity An XP-SWMM model was developed for the River Terrace study area to predict existing condition runoff rates.The model was then modified to simulate future flow rates due to build-out of the River Terrace study area based upon proposed land uses. Regional stormwater facility volumes were estimated for each of the recommended locations based upon current CWS Design and Construction Standards that require peak flow matching. The estimated facility designs were tested using the XP-SWMM model to demonstrate that the current standard was being satisfied.Application of the new design standard is assumed to require some additional storage volume in each facility. An additional 25 percent was assumed for cost estimating purposes.A new hydrologic modeling tool will be needed to perform continuous simulation calculations and complete the design of the regional water quantity facilities under the new standard. Table 4.4 summarizes 25-year peak flows for select discharge points (or nodes),under existing,developed without detention,and developed with detention conditions as predicted by the XP-SWMM model. Table 4.4: 25-yr Peak Flow(cfs) Discharges from Regional Detention Facilities Facility ID Existing Future Future W/Detention WQSMB 5.7 10.1 5.6 WQ2_5ac 77.1 143.0 67.7 WQ2_5b 75.67 170.8 74.7 WQ2_7a 10.4 35.7 9.3 WQ2_7b 10.8 16.6 10.8 T2_6 50.5 75.2 49.1 WQ3_2a WQ3_2b 44.1 49.0 44.0 WQ4_4a WQ4_4b 69.1 91.4 68.5 T5_6b 7.9 26.7 7.0 WQ5_6c 32.8 37.0 24.0 WQ10_3a 33.8 39.3 33.3 A schematic of the XP-SWMM model along with supporting background information is provided in Attachment C. Depending on implementation sequencing,the regional facility T2_6 should be designed to provide maximum stormwater storage. Storage above and beyond what is required of this SMP could be used to reduce the size of the regional stormwater facilities located downstream or to manage flow durations from offsite upstream areas that were previously River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 26 otak 1.:\Project\16800\16851\Reports\StormwatcrMasterPlan\l.final-2014_Septe mber\FI NAL-RiverTerrace_SWMP_O90514.docx • Section 4-Stormwater Calculations Continued developed under past standards. Table 4.5 summarizes contributing basin,peak inflow and outflow estimates,and peak storage and estimated required storage volumes for each regional detention facility. Table 4.5: Summary of Regional Detention Facility Sizes Peak Storage Contributing Peak Peak Storage Volume w/ Facility Peak Inflow Basin Area Outflow Volume Correction for ID (acres) (cfS1 (cfs) (cubic yards) New Standard (cubic yards) WQSMB 10.41 10.1 5.6 1,257 1,571 WQ2_5ac 32.89 39.1 5.0 7,928 9,910 WQ2_5b 31.51 29.3 8.4 4,190 5,238 WQ2_7a 37.67 35.8 9.3 4,508 5,635 WQ2_7b 16.76 16.6 10.8 918 1,148 T2_6 97.0 77.9 49.1 5,364 6,705 WQ3_2a 33.42 30.9 13.3 2,938 3,672 WQ3_2b 7.27 6.7 3.5 579 724 WQ4_4a 28.82 26.6 16.0 2,430 3,038 WQ4_4b 14.95 13.6 6.6 1,593 1,992 T5_6b 29.59 27.2 7.1 3,731 4,664 WQ5_6c 25.49 23.7 21.2 534 667 WQ10_3a 4.50 4.1 0.6 25876 Recommended LIDA facilities are not expected to have a significant effect on detention sizes and were therefore not included in the model.The use of LIDA is only proposed upstream of two of the regional water quantity facilities.The effects of LIDA on these two facilities could be performed as part of the design phase to account for any reduction in the size of the regional stormwater facilities that might result. High-Flow Conveyance Regional water quantity for development in the portion of the River Terrace study area draining to the T7,T8,and T9 drainages are recommended to use downstream conveyance improvements to manage water quantity.The XP-SWMM model was used to predict existing and future stormwater runoff for these drainage basins and to estimate the size of the required high-flow conveyance pipes. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 27 otak 1.:\Project\161300\16851\Reports\StormwaterAlasterPlan\Final-2014_September\1,1NAL-ltiver rerraee_SWMP_090514.docx Section 4—Stormwater Calculations Continued Figure 4C shows flow from T7 will be conveyed to T8. Figure 4C shows that flow-splitter devices will be necessary at T9 to divert high flows from their existing drainage course to the discharge point into T8. 2,100 feet of 36-inch storm sewer pipe is estimated to provide this bypass between T9 and T8. Approximately 3,800 feet of 48-inch storm sewer shall convey increased flows from T7,T8 and T9 to the Tualatin River. The high flow bypass pipes were sized using the XP-SWMM model and the following set of assumptions: • Flow from 17 was sent to T8. • Flow splitter in T8 and T9 were assumed to engage during flows higher than the 2-year, 24-hour storm event at their respective reach locations. • Bypass pipes sized to convey the future 25-year flows. Table 4.6 summarizes the 25-year peak flow rates predicted by XP-SWMM under existing conditions and for future conditions in the drainage channels that drain the southern portions of the River Terrace study area.The Existing Conditions column in the table below is the calculated flow rate in the drainage channel where it leaves the River Terrace study area boundary. The Future Conditions column is the flow rate at the same location in the drainage channel after the upstream area is fully developed.The Future with Bypass Pipe column is the flow rate at the same location in the drainage channel after the upstream area is fully developed and after the high flows have been diverted to the bypass pipe. The Flows in Bypass Pipe column are the combined flows in the bypass pipe. Table 4.6: 25-yr Peak Flows (cfs) at Site Discharge Locations to T7, T8, &T9 Drainage Existing Future Future with Flows in Bypass Channel Conditions Conditions Bypass Pipe Pipe 17 4.7 12.8 0 N/A T8 (north) 91.6 158.9 83.0 118.4 T8 (south) 99.7 149.8 93.7 118.4 T9 28.5 65.0 28.4 37.0 Alternatively to piped conveyances, open channel conveyance improvements could be constructed. For example,restoration of the T8 drainage between Beef Bend Road and the Tualatin River could be designed in a manner that accommodates the increased flows from the River Terrace study area. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 28 otak L:\Project\1681K1\16851\Reports\StormwatcrMastcrl'lan\Final-2014_September\FINAL-RiverTerrace_SWMP_090514.docx Figures oa SW SCROLLS FERRY RO .....r�� • ._-r ~. ~' J y �"'�' r , it ' ///'` T �j G y, ! ,, �� Zvi/ . , •r" a ! �/ ■ I ■ t f` `.'r •••: '!., a9 ir� 1'{ 4 1,5. fir. ,r, s mi�ll! W •` ++ r'` •�. •�'• _ • rr r }/ !« o _ 3 8W BULL MOUNTAIN RO■'. . r'if - , , t 3 ,. 1 .i 1.....:.. , frl- ...* .mss,, a too ' r• ,, *,......,,.....,..,.„ ..",, N, ", ..? ..,,.. . ;.., 4 ,„,, , 1 . • ...., ..., .•, . . , , ,T6 I ..�/. •SW SE 1;10 RD ,r• ' r rr L Y • y\�y r.. w C°1 / •;4.te,.,e , 6, • .,,,,,•.•• v • : f' x F/C��yrig •2023 �':i-cubed:GeoE ye' Legend N River Terrace Sturrnwater Master Plan ,1 n jRiver Terrace Study Area Urban Reserves A Figure 1: Existing or Future Street Proposed Zoning Proposed Zoning Sensitive Areas Community Commercial District for Runt) Significant Wetlands - High Density Residential(R-25) Feel Inventoried Wetlands - Medium Density Residential(R-12) ...,.,.cw.,...e v.•,., Calculations) -j Natural Resource Buffers Medium Density Residential(R-7) .a.•....a.M..«...,..,..,a...,....., Low Density Residential(R-4 5) .I• Existing Drainageway nw sn --4 Tualatin River B i�-0).,,i-.0. -'— �rr . i: _ _ - -.--,..„-, , _ , i.. r. ti r !r— Will L-:_-412,,-J--.41, T.,-,40%--.14.-00 ..,..----:-______—.), .. , 7... ..„f...., N--.),---„--_- ,,, , • 1. a� „ , r y,4(„ , ref``r 'f' -1----/- • a `. i o �^- ` • �. Jy.1^t 1 , ^-.x `, � : -V 41 /.. ` I. frti' raj,�`% v A. :• ,,,,,e,., „„0 litopp, . 1 , 40 7,., ,. ,,,,, • 0/ A 'It .... 44.0 1,, , -,: r..., ,fif :,p, iiiti,1,1100%J� , OUNTAIN i' �� 1 _ %,:,r. i fib qy S LIVV. r ' ''— 4 1. '-. f - lillpiliw•wevercs _, 4,,,,,,,,. et., x , ,irPlA i _........„ T_ elk "-. iir lif,„ r 'Pr '''''' f , ,.. , ., , --,.._.--1 7-Sti:1/41, Si pro ,..,4,,, ,,,mmill ,,, 1,,i., ' _ ,........19 (/ 441114PA'L. # :i?:(±4 Ill if,-4,..':*'''l._:1--'71r..''.,'-,?:':;:fre'.:>;- 44,7 Ar., „,,...., „„„...„._...# 1 ► A$11, '� * , t Ier ,,. . ; dill wit if0A4A44,1ors ' t‘,.1 ,. :%4c,r- # : A it 4:fot *„. . -Jo? 4- 1 .If 7,i,...,,..,:.4 j;%_,1,4:11- 404,4 1:;,,,ii,../f Ire'Iff rt! �' \�''4~ A` '� r +lI�i.' I,F 1/,, 'TJ �1•tip,i+ " :::r. `I,/' ,std'.-'�.6 ~ i t' 4 y / iti : .c elf ..t •1' �;6. .., . ..,, . _ al e ,r r= t� l • ¢.„ , 6.N., -- ?_>)-/ —?-,, il -A, : ; 4 t4ii ' -.1\-2_,_-_,_—_-----_-:_--- t , rh. 1•,,,,;,s/ ...6 ...--- ILBENRAG--.--. •• ------€ �2 °11''1” ` . .. _.0.` T8 1 Rf.k T7 Y IT! ` l'.'I, "?-1i,-4, ,t , ■ iL.' 1 A i#0 Y. ',, ' r p;-,:il River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Figure 2: Legend IIC zRiver Terrace Study Area Sensitive Areas N Existing Drainage =ExistingSubbasle Significant Wetlands vfn/a Inventoried Wetlands o 1 600 Overland Flow Direction Basin Diagram —,on Contour Line I I Natural Resource Buffers Feet —Existing Dranageway Ei El '4,++Tualatin River =... i 1= tR• , [ 7 ;.44 f.,g — ., -`�, — "e•.,,, 2. x `•a ..* t< ! �r ��" - :Y. ♦ .• . .,r.+at4 w.. ,4•✓t SW 9CH01 L►TERRY RDI. , .v- - . ii C ic •mss :•• f, •r}rr • t - .c. 7 fir .+•• xce � ff.1 I .:µres. w es,< +- `Y"�5,.. t _ rt—M, aa ) „t.,� � ,Lj t t -;t'' • '.,, ,y*'••••- ..x • i.. !�-� �' i rSv fit„ �a , p d g ..';:',..4::,44-%!.:14_:-..Z.6.f"1L• `,S' .w�++.., W sw IUL .towarI RD V• . .S.-. [, • • a it . •1 , . • • t Ce , ■ .;tom `• -;,•'..;+,;..* • ��•.7 y ! ,•.. r*44,• '•••••4 - .e • k ` :.'+xU s .••• ••••• .� 7 r M�• ,s•••••••♦ •••••❖.{ •...*:•••:::,. 2 � �• .. � t •-• ♦•••• J• fir .1.♦*, i. t • o, ,t • ' `F '$ I J T6 ; :i T,..... ii,,,:,,, ___. .,tri :0 .. _...._ • . ., r..„: , - .- * E-- 1 $ 4 Z River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan N A �t Legend Figure 3: ill rimer Terrace Study Area Recommended Strategy 0 1,800 Existing or Future Street r Strategy Area A Stormwater Management SenslEreAreas OStrategy Area Feet Strategy Areas 'Inventoried Wetlands 1.7O,,�Strategy Area C 7/.InveNcant Wetlands VII A. E la ■Natural Resource Buffers Existing Drainageway IMIll Tualatin River y sin WQSM B• SW SCHO LS FERRY Inv , :, I• rcm:Y.r/ , . 41 , ., -d ' B .� 1 / ,. -. M :440 -y - z 1 ail, / `? 11• ' Basin 1 sin • • Ban l':11.... �` , T2 6b ek` T2 5a .,1 T2_s7a` �1 76.1ac 2.9ac pi 1, r" IT.,. pa t�+{• YLb.. _L_*mil t' *� • L 2Sin - :6 • s ti r. +;r,r"�-. 2 t'_` 5ac WQ2_5b I ' 1sYr AA t: ,WQ2__7b i Basin O'?a+.r - .,. 4. I+.;;fit. 26ac , , - Basin v% e . 1. 14 act.4" f ,\. 641 s I .411 heiWQQ33 2b ,Ba'Vin.... ....1 3 T3 2b WQ3_2A Ar1"4, 1 r...7.„ r r I , / BIsln/..'•..y.../ T 2 I . l (-r..'I / / / 1 , l ' T•.:�'- I -4,../ / 4•..- SW BULL WOUNTAat RD — __ I i::"---4,5411 - I88S41_: _ o I . T4 a w � 28:8 -7." i /:•-sin/! I i• t)' G"++ T4 4b. ; y ,'a Sac: » 3 i. » WQw4b'" r. j-'IT, ti . P� i fin ... Basin I. \ •�`, _. �, T5 6b I ' t .Basin 29.Sac h •� T5 6a ' Basin-- -1 26✓� �� - .5ac�`/a- T5_6b i6.1-ac 1 asin !NE T8 4a wILMw+a 9.9ac lBasin-., Basin / ' T7 3a '• T8 3f ` WQ�6c .� / - -I43ac. . .._....+a72ac Legend Ricer Terrace Stormwater Management Plan ii.....V.; River Terrace Study Area Sensitive Areas Stormwater Conveyance Mrr..r+ Existing or Future Street ) Significant Wetlands Pipes Figure 4A: I:YIII�] Inventoried Wetlands Q Proposed Subbaslns � With Street LIDA Stormwater Concept Plan '.•....- Overland Flow Direction ual Natural Resource Buffers No Street LIDA ^ 70 ft.Contour Line Existing Drainageway Swales/Ditches Diagram (Strategy Area A) I. With Street LIDA Regional StormwaNr Facility N No Street LIDA g: Water Quality and Quantity A r iRi I■ Water Quantity Only n - t, ■ I_ Feet .a..w.....,............,�..M h. I 1 a I 1• Basin a • T9 3b a Basin .' 18.6ac _ ; • T9_3a 1 :awn 25.4ac 1 8_4b a • '8 lac SW Woodhue Street a a• FS9 3a 1 . a r e / 1 i •▪ V Basin ; •• ;' T9_4 13.3ac e 3 to • ■ I 1 • Basin 1 T8_3b a tam 11 5ac i a 8_3. a I •6ac , _ Eaistin•Ddwwa _ _ a I I Y'Ie yyFF Y.'-' • T10_3b� , — 4.. SWRosadoLam�. 45ecs�N— '�7 _ ',a • i it Cr) H O SW Beef Send Road (.1 River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan Legend Figure 4A.1 4:-.1 River Terrace Study Area Sensitive Areas Stormwater Conveyance O' g-'O Inventoried Wetlands p �� _- Existing or Future Street Pipes Stormwater Concept Plan t--1 Proposed Subbasins I I Natural Resource Buffers With Street LIDA -.4..°•°•• Overiand Flow Direction Existing Drainageway No Street LIDA Diagram (Strategy Area A) 10 k.Contour Line N A Regional Stormwater Facility n Flow Splitter Device .1 =MN Water Quality and Quantity n N o. ..,- eef •400 r .....�.�.....K....'..-.-.. • A Bin WQSUB 1 4 SMB 1 *' 1 : . ry • . 1 ;;i' �.-- • 1 1 :..,8�3ing11 4. i Basin Basin 1 T2 7a T2 5a/ 1 / 37.7ac :/,7161. '2.9ac ; Basin %. .• T T2 5c ♦. ~. V. 9ac �I , WQ2 7a/ - . WQ2_5ac W02_5b ., ‘ A Ilk 1 WQ2_7b G,s a • Basin "fiat Basin i T.2 7b �' �T.2■5by •� 6 'e / 31.5ac 1�^ �. v. 1 To t. f rww. -— W03_2b Basin 3 --T3 2b WQ3_2A • .. • ... 1 7'3 2 .........e 33.4ac I r...... • 1 • SW BULL alou■TAM RD -_ r�eea��1 l ft Bas, i 1 T4_•e;'+• # to 28.:: r WQ4_4a • Basin i T4 4b .( pl i A , 14.9ac A WQ4_tl Y i L .s8t yl , t �sln .,.,.a. b: T5_5.1--. 4,3 i i' .' It'l,.'' `40 ;'s -0''`_ti� `� .Basis Basfn� 11 r , Basin lc) `6.tac T8 ,� TS6c y . -'•� �� 1'9.9ac Basin-. 1 - i:;l`t y.. 38 lac Basin •. 4ik T9 3a Basin Basin r 25.4k WQ5_6c T7_3a- T8_3i 14.3ec �172ac j Legend Ricer Terrace Stormwater Management Plan River Terrace Study Area Sensitive Areas Stormwater Conveyance "°�.i Significant Wetlands ~mew Existing or Future Street '� 19 Pipes Figure 4B: = Proposed Subbasins 1,22= Inventoried Wetlands 1 With Street LIDA Stormwater Concept Plan 1.°°^^- Overland Flow Direction f "` 'I Natural Resource Buffers Na Street LIDA ---- 10 H.Contour Line Existing Dralnageway SwalesfDitches Diagram (Strategy Area B) I� With Street LIDA IT Regional Stormwater Facility N No Street LIDA Water Quality and Quantity _ n m1 _ Water Quantity Only /� 0 1,000 _.�._,. C r eat l ......a k. ,..... ...,.. -.1` $ / j Basin T4 4b . IS• 14.9ac r - ..- _ • rri r , • ••T$_6; _f- - • • Basin ' . ♦ T5_613 r' f ./ • 29.6ac . ° r / • 55'68 t Basin6 lac Basin i > ' _ 75_6c y T5_6b T6_4a y,.: e.; 25.5ac ...i..,___ 199 c s e Basin p er •• — ,Yi{;� / 19_38 4 1 F - ✓ I ( -_—'r iii��rJ. .1 5.4as/ e4 Bash;,• T 1 • f r� l`. ` .. _- isi ! T@3p Basin r 18 kic �_,, , f '�, 38'2ac f` '��, z `Basin i 3�� L`+ ',t4/,- r.`fi I. Basin J i y. r \ \ ;. a� L� `,9 4�� Basin i ' BeSin r %'.3b` \, t1.9ac \Tak3a.' 4!SSac 'is!�\�.:r \ \ - \ 5'6ac 4 f / 1FSei3b Basin -- _ 4'( T10 3b 4 [ill 5ac WQ16_3a \\ v e Appros 2.500 feet of high flow bypass pipe between T8 and 1.9 drainages. it l Appros.3.800 feel of high flow pipe between JBeef Bend Rd and the Tualatin River Stream .� estoration to also be evaluated as an option END RD �j 0 H H Lir —-—— ----- Proposed Outfall to Tualatin River I River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan Legend River Terrace Study Area Sensitive Areas Stormwater Conveyance Figure 4C: 0 Proposed Subbasins ':?Z2/ Inventoried Wetlands Rpes Existing or Future Street l 1 Natural Resource Buffers V with Street LIDA Stormwater Concept Plan • .....,,,,, Overland Flow Direction siame Tualatin River no Street LIDA Diagram (Strategy Area C) loft Contour Line Existing Drainageway Swales/Ditches Regional Stormwater Facility N ■ with Street LIDA M far^_ Water Quality and Quantity A A Flow Sputter Device - Water Quantity Only n 1,000 niNC- - - - reef 1 .rw w.u....,.,o„•,w..w„P."'..y; Q S 6. 0 AGAR,D•SW SCHOLLS FERRY'' •WHEE R SW ON:IL S RD SW FRJENDLY LN Q W F*OUI 111141; 11%411111 SW LUKE N I- �1N1111 S FIRAAEE,R 1 e 3 S BRISTL CONE WAY i co LEEDJ G L r • SUNDEW DR co S n•HL DR SW TUSCA Y ST Q 2 S M A M- W V) 1 t6 S BAKER LN 2 Co p 9, rcl co U) to t sw t OLON .R Q 0 0 Cr ' W A Q / O SW B LL MOUNTAI RD k Co O P to / to kS co W SW :RAYL� S 0 k _ to DEKALB•r SW BURGUNDY ST MI SW CABERNET+'R 3 I co SW s QPHI4I L Z J Z tr. 3 co 2 I r. Z' J i o) SW LASICH LN 2 / O 1 0 SW BEEF BEND RD AiiI4 — ) DRAFT t,-- LEGEND N West Bull Mountain Planning.N tea West Bull Mountain Study Area n 2000 FIGURE 5 Soil Infiltration N Feel SOIL INFILTRATION Good Potential 1 INCH EQUALS B00 FEET Fair Potential Poor Potential Dais on Ina map is Iron,Wasnmgion Co,rmy and Mano's - -a.a.•;:�:.-�oce.n�c.v,,. «•s•.�.a,� ,� HL ISdalaoete This idormanbn waseeveoped al multiple •'�^i,9 ua e« r r�» Waler wad/1 an 0U d acra0as.NO warranty re made nab the map. A t t a c h m e n t A — Background Information oa As part of this SMP,Otak reviewed multiple data sets and reports prepared for the River Terrace study area. Our review of the data and relevant conclusions are summarized for the following seven items. DOCUMENT 1: West Bull Mountain Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis(HDR Inc.,March 2008) The purpose of this study was to describe existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions for the basins within the West Bull Mountain Study Area.The scope of work included creation of existing conditions hydrologic model (HEC-HMS) and Hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) and an evaluation of the conveyance capacity of streams and culverts under existing flow conditions,as well as the general potential for erosion in the streams. 1) Capacity of existing culverts was evaluated. Figure 4-1 from the HDR report shows the location of culverts considered to be under-sized in terms of capacity. 2) Flooding is most prominent along reaches T2A,T8,and T9 with localized flooding at several other locations,as shown in Figure 4-2 from the same report. 3) The report shows that the culverts modeled within the study area violate hydraulic criteria for fish passage crossings. However,most of the streams are steep and should be expected to have high velocities.According to Washington County (correspondence with Rick Raetz, former Washington County),culverts beneath Roy Rogers Road that were constructed circa 2001 during the most recent road improvement project were designed for fish passage. See discussion under DOCUMENT 5 for Otak's review of construction drawings provided by Washington County for Roy Rogers Road. The need to modify existing culverts for fish passage will need to be evaluated at the time of design and implementation of improvements to Roy Rogers and compared against fish passage requirements in place at the time. 4) The potential for channel erosion may be significant due to the fine sediment characteristics of the area and the velocity conditions that exist in these steep drainages. 5) Attachment D of this River Terrace SMP provides copies of both Figure 4-1 &Figure 4-2 from the HDR report. DOCUMENT 2: West Bull Mountain Natural Resources Inventory Technical Report(Pacific Habitat Services,April 23,2008.)A natural resources inventory was completed for the 712 acre West Bull Mountain Planning Area and the Stream Resources Study Area consisting of approximately 27,500 linear feet of designated streams and stream corridors in West Bull Mountain.The scope of services included the following: 1) Stream and buffer assessment using the Tualatin Basin Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) to evaluate creek and riparian conditions; • 2) Wetlands assessment including mapping all wetlands within the study area,assessing approximate size,Cowardin and Hydrogeomporphic (HGM) classifications,and Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology(OFWAM) analysis; 3) Wildlife habitat assessment by on-site and windshield surveys to determine the approximate size and type of all habitat features and use of the Wildlife Habitat Assessment(WHA) technique;and 4) Identification of potential stream enhancement,wetland enhancement/mitigation,and aquatic species barrier/passage projection. 5) Inventory data was compiled and stored in a GIS database for easy mapping. The natural resources identified were used as a constraint to define buildable lands during formation of the preliminary concept plans assumed for this SWIP. Several culvert barriers and enhancement opportunities were identified for consideration during development of West Bull Mountain.The findings of the Report were used to identify suitable context sensitive infrastructure placements. DOCUMENT 3: Regional Landslide Hazard Mapping, West Bull Mountain Planning Area,Washington County,Oregon (DOGAMI,Draft-March 31,2008) and ADDENDUM to Regional Landslide Hazard Mapping, West Bull Mountain Planning Area,Washington County,Oregon (DOGAMI,April 21,2008). These reports indicate that: • Forty-seven landslide deposits are located within the West Bull Mountain Planning Area (WBMPA) and 93 total landslide deposits within the approximately 13 square miles southwest quarter of the Beaverton quadrangle. • Eighty-three of these were classified as shallow, nine as deep,and six as debris flow deposits. • The average landslide area is approximately 20,000 square feet. • The average depth of failure for the shallow-seated landslides is 8.5 feet.Two square miles of the 13 are classified as highly susceptible, 6.5 square miles as moderately susceptible,and 4.7 square miles as low susceptibility to shallow-seated landslides. • The average depth of failure for the deep-seated landslides is 26 feet. 0.03 square miles are classified as highly susceptible,2.5 square miles as moderately susceptible,and 10.5 square miles as low susceptibility to deep-seated landslides. These results suggest site specific geologic and geotechnical conditions will be important to evaluate during the design and construction of stormwater management facilities in the River Terrace study area. In addition,an assessment of the effects of infiltration on slope stability for developed conditions will need to be performed. . DOCUMENT 4:The Report of Preliminary Geological Evaluation West Bull Mountain Planning Area (GeoDesign,Inc.,April 21,2009) included the following discussion on soil properties and the use of Low Impact Stormwater Management. The NRCS SSUGRO database provides a mean value of the saturated hydraulic conductivity for all of the soil series mapped in the planning area. Unfortunately,the saturated hydraulic conductivity cannot be used as a direct measure of the infiltration rate used in stormwater infiltration facility design.The saturated hydraulic conductivity is measured using a laboratory apparatus that allows only unidirectional flow.Field-measured infiltration rates used in facility design allow for lateral flow of the infiltrating water. Consequently, the saturated hydraulic conductivity typically underestimates the actual infiltration rates measured in the field. However,measurements of saturated hydraulic conductivity were available throughout the planning area and could be used to provide a relative comparison of infiltration potential for the purpose of this planning evaluation. The soil properties (e.g.,liquid limit,plasticity index,ratio of sand fraction to fines fraction,and saturated hydraulic conductivity) and interpretive characterizations (depths to the impervious layer and groundwater) were used to evaluate the relative potential of each soil series for utilization in low impact stormwater management. The relative rating methodology assigns a low,medium,or high potential for each soil series based on these characterizations. Saturated hydraulic conductivity published in SSUGRO was used as a proxy for the long-term infiltration rate,and the primary factor considered in assigning the soil infiltration potential. Soil series with a reported saturated hydraulic conductivity below 0.1 inch per hour was considered to have a poor infiltration potential. Rates ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 inch per hour were assigned a fair infiltration potential, and conductivities exceeding 1.0 inch per hour were assigned a good infiltration potential. No soil series in the study area reported saturated hydraulic conductivity that fell within the range of greater than 0.1 and less than 0.4,and greater than 0.7 and less than 1.0. For all good potential soil series, the depths to the restrictive layer and groundwater exceeded 6.6 feet. The depth to the restrictive layer exceeded 6.6 feet for the soil series rated as fair infiltration potential,but groundwater depths were less than 6.6 feet.The potential was decreased by one range (for example,a good infiltration potential becomes a fair infiltration potential) for soil series where the reported slope exceeds 12 percent. It is the geotech's opinion that the issues of constructability and directivity to the groundwater flow paths for infiltration ponds constructed on sloping ground justified downgrading the potential for these areas. A copy of the GeoDesign map of the Bull Mountain Planning Area showing areas having poor, fair, and good potential for infiltration determined using this methodology is provided in the attachments as Figure 5. The City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual sets a minimum infiltration rate of 2-inches per hour for all surface infiltration facilities. A field-measured infiltration rate may be a factor of two or greater than the saturated hydraulic conductivity. Consequently,rates of 0.4 to 0.7 inch per hour and 1.0 inch per hour were used to delineate areas of fair and good infiltration potential for planning purposes. Figure 5 shows that the infiltration potential is poor in most of the planning area except for the southern portion where there are areas having a fair infiltration potential.Areas of good infiltration potential are limited to one large area at the southern boundary of the planning area along SW Beef Bend Road. The results of geotechnical drilling and laboratory testing performed for this project confirmed that the areas having a poor infiltration potential are underlain by clayey residual soils derived from the underlying basalt bedrock and that the areas having fair to good infiltration potential are underlain by fine-grained Missoula Flood deposits.There was no explanation for the overall poor infiltration potential within the Missoula Flood deposits located in the northern portion of the planning area. DOCUMENT 5: Roy Rogers Road Improvements S.W. Beef Bend/Elsner'Scholls-Sherwood Roads (CH2MHill,November 1999). The construction drawings for this project provide inventory and detailed information for the drainage structures under Roy Rogers Road that drain the River Terrace area towards the west. Relevant drawings from the plan set are included in Attachment E for future reference. A summary of the useful information provided on these drawings is as follows: • Ditches are used to route storm runoff down embankment slopes to the stream crossings. • Drainage T-2 crosses Roy Rogers Road under a bridge approximately 79 feet long and 43.3 feet wide. High water elevations shown on the detail sheets differ by 2.4 feet (0.75 meters).The greatest elevation shown is 236.3 feet(72.01 meters),and provides approximately 12.4 feet of clearance. • Three 18-inch diameter culverts 250.3 feet in length with a slope of 0.26 percent are used to pass drainage T-3 under Roy Rogers Road. • A 6'x6' concrete box-culvert 115.5 feet in length with a slope of 5.0 percent provides the crossing for drainage T-4.The box culvert is counter sunk two feet with concrete baffles to simulate a streambed for fish passage. • Drainage T-5 crosses Roy Rogers Road in a 160 foot long 48-inch culvert with a 9.8 percent slope and a 156.5 foot long 24-inch culvert with an 8.8 percent slope. DOCUMENT 6:The Roshak Pond Overview— West Bull Mountain Planning(Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning Division,November 5,2008) memorandum summarizes the known information regarding the Roshak Pond. The pond was enlarged from a smaller spring fed pond and now stores water for irrigation.The pond has a capacity of approximately 20 acre-feet,which is the maximum allowed per the water right certificate. During the irrigation season when the pond level decreases, the Roshak family pumps water from a well into the pond. A soil boring located in the berm of the pond in March 2009 as a part of the previously mentioned geotechnical report consisted of a layer of soft to medium stiff silt Missoula Flood deposits and a layer of soft to medium stiff clay and silt derived from the basaltic residual soil.The ground water in the boring was found at a depth of 3 feet which corresponded approximately to the water level in the pond. The pond is not identified in the County's acknowledged 1983 Goal 5 Program;however,it is identified in the County's 2005 Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Program as Class I and II Riparian and Riparian Impact Area. The natural resource inventory for West Bull Mountain (PHS,2008) identifies the pond as a jurisdictional waterbody by the Oregon DSL and/or Corps of Engineers and would therefore,be treated by CWS as a water quality sensitive area requiring a vegetated corridor. The actual location of the vegetated corridor is determined when a development application is submitted,and depending on slope may be between 50 and 200 feet.Therefore, only a Vegetated Corridor Proxy has been mapped around the perimeter of the pond at this time. The Vegetated Corridor Proxy is an estimated location of the Vegetated Corridor based upon the wetland inventory prepared for this project and the adjacent slopes. Modifications to the pond are expected to require permits from Oregon DSL and/or Corps of Engineers. Change in water rights or use of the existing water rights associated with the pond would require coordination with Oregon Water Resources Department. DOCUMENT 7:The West Bull Mountain Stormwater Infrastructure Plan(Otak,February,2010) describes the stormwater management needs for the River Terrace study area,and includes a portion of Urban Reserve Area 6D.The West Bull Mountain Stormwater Infrastructure Plan(WBM SWIP) also documents the guiding input from project stakeholders that were considered in developing the recommended stormwater management concept that will be carried forward into the River Terrace SMP. The West Bull Mountain Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) put forth two Planning Goals relevant to the planning for West Bull Mountain stormwater management: • Equitable and Feasible Infrastructure Financing—Creation of an urban infrastructure financing plan will begin early in the process in order to ensure infrastructure is provided and financed in an equitable and feasible manner. • A Green Community—The West Bull Mountain Community Plan will endeavor to protect significant natural resources,preserve open spaces and habitat corridors,protect water quality by using a watershed approach,respect existing topography,and use sustainable planning practices to create a green community that is practical to develop. The West Bull Mountain SWG drafted and approved Planning Principles to guide the Concept Plan. Four of the principles are relevant to stormwater management: #5. Infrastructure Finance Certainty and Equity—Financing plans for infrastructure (water, sanitary sewer,stormwater, transportation,and parks) should begin early in the planning process and should create certainty for all parties. It should be equitably distributed according to the benefits of urbanization, proportionality of use,and based on a public/private collaboration that explores creative financing tools. #8. Preserve/Protect Natural Resource Corridors and View Corridors—The community plan will endeavor to preserve and protect existing natural resource corridors and minimize impact on habitat connectivity as well as protect the scenic views and natural beauty of the area. #9. Parks and Open Spaces in the Community—The plan should consider a range of parks, from tot-lots and ball fields to natural areas and community gardens, distributed within West Bull Mountain's neighborhoods. Conservation areas and open lands should be used to define and connect different neighborhoods,districts, and natural resource areas such as the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. #15. Sustainability—Design and implementation strategies should allow the community to meet the needs of the present without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.The community plan should strive to achieve an ecological look and feel by integrating sustainable planning practices which may include Low Impact Development Applications. The following list of stormwater management strategies were put forth and considered while developing the SWIP and are carried forward in this Plan. • Restore/Enhance Vegetated Corridors • Protect Water Quality • Preserve Existing Hydrology • Promote Safe&Long Lasting Stormwater Facilities • Balance the use of Regional and On-site Stormwater Management • Preserve Existing Mature Vegetation • Maximize use of Multi-benefit facilities to create community amenities • Promote Partnership with Other Public Service Providers The following list of specific ideas and concepts were generated to accomplish the identified goals, principles,and stormwater strategies. They were considered part of the stormwater approach for West Bull Mountain and guided the stormwater management strategies applied throughout West Bull Mountain in the SWIP.The Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook and the Design and Construction Standards provide additional detail about each of the stormwater concepts considered. • Open conveyance elements to enhance "key" pedestrian routes along streets or along stream corridors. • Low Impact Development Approaches (e.g.,eco-roofs,, flow-through planters,etc.). It is assumed that these would be limited to flow-through type facilities unless geotechnical evaluations can demonstrate that infiltration is not expected to contribute to slope instability. • Minimize Impervious Area (e.g.,clustered development,"skinny" streets, reduced parking, pervious pavement,etc.). • Regional Detention/Water Quality facilities parallel to Roy Rogers and/or a new interior street that is also parallel to Roy Rogers. • Re-use for irrigation. • Increased conveyance between site and the Tualatin River(e.g.,High flow by-pass pipe or stream restoration) Two alternative stormwater management concepts were developed for the study area and compared using a set of qualitative criteria.The final strategy was a hybrid,which made use of portions of each alternative. One alternative made use of regional facilities and was more applicable in some of the drainage basins,while the other was a better solution in other drainage basins that could make use of LIDA. The final strategy applies the best of both alternatives to match the characteristics and needs of each drainage basin.The WBM SWIP document should be consulted for further details on the alternatives analysis. A t t a c h m e n t B — Cost Estimate oa • • RIVER TERRACESTORMWATER MASTER PLAN Stormwater Management InfrastructurtCost Estimate lorenared in 20141 I1w DUC$IPrm. I,11 S`ill PR1au 11361w.uun..l0n 11...10'1 POND 1/815,rro4 PO,D NICO15O1 138.1E84%(4 10519. 3635141 ,]_S7 aQ._5 PQl_13 nQ5_31 903_`3 904,a _ ail o: �.w:3.5 r L 19 6L "BC,...) 1.5"x,121 r ,, 15•'4' 11..:15 w'19' ',U.'S 13314 1130' S3',-8 55°.5.1 19,901 53111'' 3=,440 195,43 $41,"6 $'$,1'.:• $1301 $'5938 - 5991,114 851172*V4V7ILVni0'6, 7, 10.1. 521943 5120.3^ 51',.•21 55,665 110,722 S7.556 3-91M1 19.213 94,619 9{4+415. $194'' {j60-'5 19430 121922 915,188 $1933 36.141 321)+1 III"30 $11."31 1665 {11\;22 3',556 5:916 55.013 8759 91,409 110347 $16.-13 31.145\. 321.922 515,188 3196= �l151,.0 ,...0 9mN0 n , 516 f 54..2-9 5220140 51153+1 1121614 32'.486 592,153 93',366 5-1:.51 $034' 31".663 110.-l2 1212,43' 199.010 Y, 5,' Y' 51.0199 0O_,SED fog ,5 T3' 18:53 150.99 371!1- 3,..3 36,+5+ $15333 5270 11'315 3:. 2 $■,14 $5.6- $0 9' Y. Y• f: 11.,1401 EI . a 4 1150.•• III0x' 53..1.. 55, ' 3151••. $4 4 1114.45I. $3'.5131 1122.401 5 IV:,I,6 519!^ 53,.15., f. L' 5145.: Y 17654:- IlnlIEGIVIDA111.1‘110...1-111 ' II 101111 539,312_ 51"' S-1.•6 5,22 47 1.7 31,84. 112_,991 1 13.9-2 58,581 5335"4 131.14 5,. $ f•, 121.:791 . 01 ., u5' r..., 52.1.3 $2.. y_ .. 1171,, $2,01. 1_ 1_11.. 126.. $1,116 41n1 s s.• y. $1;1,.. Mt 7111A751£71 ot5,.6 ., sl.: u.'1,a 17)3..6 $,. II''' c $0'n.. $1050. Slgo.• SW,1:n Y• 1■ 5 S s• 57. .. ' , ' . . S 1 10.8 ENUr 1, 52.:2 55306 15116 3511 52.9, 5_y• I .. VNN990a060:En 663D .4 1• 116r., 124,11. ` II:. y1 5. Ii'. 5145110 31•x.... 51. 512,5105 Rawu'N6lm.aw1692 8, SI • 5331. f3:511. $.�. 5,:••. 1. f` •• 11,5,1. $3,241• 35"•' 33.■2.1 $1;,36 51":15:, 13.,•• 3 5 9• 3•' '4,151650564011139 I. f .. 3',5,. S1, $,. S 5 ... 5.. $21316 N• 1, 9. 9. 9. 16:1 51.,. S. y, 5.. 1. 5' $0 39 Y, 3,: 0. 9. 908 50.1\490 I e In1P01I5na15173-Pill.art 1 5'. S. 1. 5. s".'' a 5. 5:4'" y, 9, Y• Y 311 3•• S. 5 S 70. af0,sl55139. r 128 -. 9' y. 5,. 5. - y. $.. Y' 5!5 y. Sr, f.4,. m S. f. L Y' 5.' - - 5' S L S' N• Y• 5 5 4.4: • -1 5" 5.' 9' y. f- S 5 Y Y• Y• Y, Y• 544;:. -. S - 55,51+ I1 S S. Y 5 Y• S 1 10 5 4,1,8.7.4,1,8.7.517.3.. f• $15':r..: 5 3 118051 RV N987,6a,n54 5, 5'1 5:223•. 5141,55 5 , 5 f8 50' 551.• $91,311 5464'. 5 30 1 €9951,_153.. . 5"'',$, 1235.185 5135110 503306 5676-1 ..- S 11.5'1' 56'.1,1 S.I. 08.225 9',355 7 ., 5'2.343 30535l S'_'c, 4252, fl' FOTALCONISTRULTION COPT ' /447,415 $1417,125 585,868 5851,44 319,291 $136491 817,,77 5395,31' 1495453 $306,972 320■,157 1995428 3957,1332 061,411 34,698,879 175+366 19,111,139 8 . c 5.5 317, 5..:•. 593 5.,, 5,. $:,5'1 $ 5'",.,. 5.3, 3'. 212. s".' $y: $y 5:,, $.. TEl.erveevw _. 5-6x4 504.2. 1,C.,4"2 ' 1411- 0-535 0115_ 51,444 51.1 00,11 1-,2• $50122 11_16, - $1.,411 32,5.1'5 52-1 1185.5 .- 5. 3153-5 5.456 1.5• 542352 51464, $x,6.4 519809 5. 11,:81 $15:41 511_4 1-,'11 14111 $...:5 55+114 91'-c" ■.,111I■71158V 40840.141¢13 3". 191.+1 $219.63 5),.., 5I'...,, $19.04. 98:219 5'5.535 $1.153 10..114 344.8, 31•:916 316'55* 11963.1, 111,215 31116-6 0: •--. 613TOIY.1N114 M81gN 9633,162 11411,68 011,991 11,2843/1 3146464 1010,551 1571A IA 1601445 3162,671 518,452 1,341,,36 - 11,18,212 /14654/5 11,112,119 $1,411,114 51.118479 1.15313,'19 .04991,41239D5 9 9• 511,36 5'-,551.5' 3+..123 50112+, 1 51,9891 558:110 _ 53,5,;., 1119:-1 1-B2• 1 S6"-,i 150:'. 1 -. - 1116.4 9 S,• 5•• 3' f" 1• Y, F• S„ 5 5' f• $ Y• $240;•.,. 51-" 5: VE115,T,4[,3'n 5 '31490044xD 34,5•• 1 55 545,., Sc 5- SS,;n. Ss.u18 \4.516 [w ,. 5• .,� }:. .. f5-,,5.., f'. $15 r.. 535„� 315,.. 5...: 5. 3598,5x0.113 1. 5t,..: $5 i.,. $1,,, 5:.... 55:.•• 551,4' 55:.,. 90189 3695,519 32,261.741 31,571,197 51:'13.15 903",711 $5411432 5714414 1410,7/1 ■96;151 5 , , 5;2.,1115 12479,846 1151501, 11357,249 31,945,111 - $1387370 926,626.621 Attachment B I • RIVER TERRACE STORMWATI1:R MASTER PLAN Stormwater Manaaement Infrastru,ture Quantity Estimate ITEM IIMO3LIPTION IMP} 46101 61 WATER QUALITY MODDEIEM70N POND DETENTION POND HIDE-MOM CONSONANCE 557J5516 355.22_SAC 59Q2_18 3122_75 0.522_78 317,43_2_15 16123_26 01,31 4A 8(734_48 11135 67 1C'L10_5.1 T2_6 73_6h TS(Nooh) TS(S0,01. T9 ENC55-0000601L10)60 'l' 70091 2517 14137 7208 7601 1710 5760 1287 4441 2960 1116 1920 13290 6126 6,51.1330601L l 9563 418 2985 1492 1593 323 776 139 867 510 157 292 L{ND9C{pE P1AhTNOA n 0.410 2028 1.031 1 10 0.27 1,04.3 11.250 0.671 0.III 0.200 0.330 1.734 1.350 E6TABU61i/ENT 11000.171.714 {r' 16100E00.165810 0E.T1ETTILE IV 52,746 1984 9816 4990 5324 1411 5048 1210 1248 212J 968 1597 6191 6514 DP 64P1MTPALLPRO77)T.1'. F_ 29 - _ 2 2 2 _ 2 _ _ 2 2 4 2 PRE TRE{TMIENTGEorF E. II 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I ` I17.:11161ET _ 24 _ 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 2 I I 44NIENA:.F..63:C5S WAD SF 68169 Pik 6X10 5500 4600 4010 40161 2500 2500 2_511) MMp 1000 ` 0701141 930 FLOW C 7ND1o4I ANH17l. F_ 26 2 2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 .3376:1ETE MANHOLE 49 ES 31 I I I 3 0 0 c 1 'Lam'SPILT H601*4 s ES 1 24INCH SUMO SEP PIP1L),FT LF 1,431 110 1040 P.166313T1MHSE%PIPE. I9 FT 535 •1- NIN:H311MaMW APE TFT Li 1.39 I_- 44 IIA-H STOhll sea-PIPE SIFT IS 3,910 - 1.76) _ _ NlRETT MIN.:I1.3'ERTOS LF 100 1011 COUNTEFLSLINEI T50140I6•6FV:L)ES133AS1111N Ac 36 1.2 11 -.-S9P1N5EVANCE LF _ 4,777 100 1174 991 L'9 1,711) L P,•ya W9.'1569 0.,...,..L.1,,,1.1..M61.rH∎17...ul14,„sewn.-.„14,.m 4,079 Qum...0 8 s14 Attachment B Attachment C — XPSWMM Model Schematic oa . r 1 F SMB_Out -- -- ""I ae - `� . �..... ...,,..,°skis . . ' : • .:�: ir 9WSCHOLLS`f!RRyRD .. 'I ,j b t•','X '_,lc i ks•°{ • �f•• •'� css1H, it 4 . 4,41110 ie4 � M1. t�.�r.th.�+fit ',•� 4• ,�• �Atts ,v iv T2_4 '' 11 1' . 41 1 , p4 •fl� Y ,' 't� . ''!fhz. I,. Losp ; K+' T2_6,, Node.)1' i[ k. .. ,.rjnt i. - ./P.e. , 4 _ .• .I`s t r - � C 4 de Node9 •1 1 v°"1 C- `[�(S 1� - O ,�i i,- ice.-.• 4'• !�Y 1 11 ,// Lin 1 �e A'� _�T2 6a - _ dd a IL �h• 1 4.t ` ! f �, .n •f- 1 Nat,i nkt ov- Node ii r t • ..t ..1 ^••N e18 ode18 . fy '• ^P. NodeP3 n Nodal?; •~j,«:�- t,�,1 R' • 1 � ` • 'y • . I b A it Ix.N , •A "' e 1.,i a . . • • - - - _ • fiv#t kC. .if �,`T,. "- li�„iP/01 Node38 � _• � '..1,4 . 0th a 1>4 g A 8►« R ..• `r ode33,Node31.• • nQ ,�t • �1q� - -s.,• :tie Unk2 tY • • •14 '.l'%.� Uoi3 Li"3 No28 73 , • `, hY Node388,M e T3_2 Node28 • ..t • ,hl • t � ' 1.: •t Node'37.,� . >4,� r:w , w� Node39 n':7:v,okr, ' g r •. � 4 4 . 'k =1.-44 ,"y �„'r4ti ; t.4041,040 7" •y o it t dd1 t . t'•.1 1. • so 'T4 2. ..•.' Vil. .:f'a'1 -. i ` t w �,`a`O O �( • �,pweB NodeSt 6 i �a i.. c T4 3 4tI, ' Node54 Node53 VoMe9 * �� LmkSU tv sti;y, 17444 - '' " _ * , 40 . River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Legend XPSWMM O XPSWMM Node Street(Future) • S•n•a..Ar••• Existing Schematic XPSWMM Runoff Node Sgnd'rcanl Wetlands N T2,T3,T4,and SMB N XPSWMM Link Inventoned Wetlands //�\VV r.7,Rrver Terrace Study Area Existing Drainageway —NEC RAS XS D Natural Resource Buffers 0 1,000 gl IRl OExleting Sub Basin '......,..«.......ww .u.o..o..-,....eet .w..,.,,n...r.a.._.. ti �� 1,450 Nodesa v^J`. f I -7 1. • JT.._._1...,,...-...;..i...._ ♦ „ 1. -1.16........._•NedN� • 11 If � , `sue,, . "*."/"."1" / • N I -- ~rNode40 r - -,o' .4A- f/ -• Iii �'- A• ' watt r t. • 1 TB .li r • . ! Al 1�„" ,+ 'ilk }. a ..A • jam]`.yy River Terrace Srorm,c:ter Master flan legend XPSWMM DnmDoomed*e B.sn q O Node aPSWM No Existing Schematic •XPSWMM Runoff Nod. S"."'''''T5 w.d.w. A ■.XPSWMM Lai Swealw Anse Inrenbn.d Wetlands 0 B0e —ricerTrrsesSbdVAra. N.krs Drsnpawsv n..w...•.a..s..e®«....... 1 Ail —NEC RAS XS =N.Iuri R.soorce Buffos Feet ••`•.L 1/M Tuslaen Row T4/4 .•••-.••r -. ` . J• .. jam'__ '4 'r • ' r 1• ."� , "" - ` "" ' r r-rr -a-. :: 'zr" . •• i ',. Yr +• r'+ r.ii, s�r'>...1�._ - r r u ST.7. r- .- TE_5 . ,.. . R r;;rvir---t'•• � lassdrsiiir . i. ,,, M S R , r rr rrr. r,ir. • ♦ .. �.:i. `.•. = Trr-r'r.l — ' :i„,..,.., 'It i. '{' � NN !•C4. +. / i .?R`• r~,, ' i.;i •4 Nod _;� j• ..r•,P✓ - ( T9_•,' -� -� A �,,s .`";� x ''ter ' r + 1: �Pyb� °"r..- j i- + k'110_4 ^+•.• --w • ti •r Ni T9-3 t b�/ ..�.5'♦• ♦ 'T. IC try, ,,,, i _�. r� T,'1 Node109 Node93 _ • a k: 1J-a �! �Y .•-t ��Node69 tj 3 Pi 1 a Node70' f k ,bit• ^ode71 • i Node94 •' ~ 4x At { Nor,1•no }�r�• �` 0 /), 1. /''�Node95 Y ;:Y 'r1 4 N 0, Node96 p'^ • 103 �r .. Y,•.75. , c i 1 � • 1. t-it.: artt4�>� T9.2 :s t r 1 Apr I •/ �('•_dc,tz �, +r Node98 I ,-, 1, 'rf. +,1f , ,♦� \b NoAelt 1, •, __ �+ Od ° 0 1- •• _ n>'.- Node99 ^ / Link 299 rr a° od Node1146 0110 '� t j NI,de115 y o• 7/ S Node101 •�lv( '� 9,X 4: •r v sT INode116• '• Re e F BEND RD ■ - d' No`de79 'A }} •- 1 I �Notle81, •f' r w Node80 ir i River Terrace titrlrmwatcr I(X) 0 Ai 4, T T \laster Plan �' 3'' • XPSWMM iz 1' Existing Schematic z ! 7`- -�J I ' g m Node83 �F„ Sir r i /s T8,T9,and Tb iJ ' . ' 3'r'e r # .-. �, :s r Node84 ep if i • 0•: r 1 1 • e . nc,.0 Node BS ��. Ir y ( i• N• ,'�, )T84t t .1 ... Legend f / .1V. ". S p>< t 41„r . O XPSWMM Node / ode0, r• 4 s 'r• f i .` �"I ! , ®XPSWMM Runoff Node 0'•� t *F. .4 • •'v,•.Y W"t.•s :! ▪ -:r" .• • C•1`r -� IIM XPSWMM link . ( s; A �� 11.4;,� i 7�1N rm jRiver Terrace Study Area w iSt" y!► j 'ft.;' • •��;�r"• 4 i• HEC RAS XS ��` 1"• • 1 J f f ,�j[y grt Y,•�i . Exisli Drain Basin r Ali � .,' � 4, . 7 1 ∎ n9 Drainage �BL1 NoAe88 ?ea' � ,�F'..A,r ♦ / Street(Future) ,1 eoe,%:{, Y •4 _,`� �. 'T T sir •"‘"I•.• •�. 'Jr. yf:'t r 1 i Wetlands �J •• ♦F: {•4, 7 r ,t• rr , Y:.}ro,..'.; •y!• .I Sensitive Ana ETC ( j .1 f• ��1-. .7. i invenloned Wetlands ~ ifs LInk84 •w It�►`� ` �•T -;+ `j•''14 1',r•Existing Dramagewey ,+ f, I�,p y*.�y. ff i V t v r. i 0 Natural Resource Butlers q 91 tv '`�11.'�., 1,C „'1_,• ,,^'H,r` •/`(7`•-.r. 'i Tualatin River �. ( .A •fir T . t 0. • . "j t' ..._1:.x tr p r r .1 N _ii 4 A 10`0 ' �• (' Feet `'� . XPSWMM NODE INPUT:EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL (Cont.) Curve Time of Curve Time of Node Impervious Number Concentration Node Impervious Number Concentration Name Area(ac) % (CN) (min) Name Area(ac) % (CN) (min) SMB 0.5 100 98 5 T45 12.075 100 98 5 10.62 0 83 16.5 31.407 0 82 20.4 I T102 3.286 100 98 5 T4_6 13.267 100 98 5 9.491. 0 91 20 24.966 0 83 20.4 T10_3 6.56 100 98 5 T5_4 1.02 100 98 5 37.792 0 81 20 30.56 0 78 25.6 T10_4 5.465 100 98 5 T5_5 2.015 100 98 5 12.937 0 83 20.4 42.964 0 87 20.6 T24 9.957 100 98 5 15_6 0.523 100 98 5 108.014 0 78 27.2 25.892 0 76 20 12 5 3.72 100 98 5 18. 1 2.13 100 98 5 26.136 0 74 20 37.464 0 86 25 T2_6a 3.08 100 98 5 T8__2 1.595 100 98 5 11.45 0 85 20 35.661 0 85 25 T2_6b 22.563 0 77 24.9 T8_3 1.782 100 98 5 T2_7a 31.171 0 80 24.9 78.482 0 83 38.8 T2_7b 2.39 100 98 5 T84 4.026 100 98 5 17.38 0 84 20, 51.429 0 78 20 T28 19.658 100 98 5 T8_5 4.109 100 98 5 35.099 0 84 20.4 23.879 0 74 20.4 T3.1 1.301 100 98 5 T8_6 0.398 100 98 5 88.417 0 76 26.3 9.185 0 70 20 T3_2 2.541 100 98 5 T8_7 22.14 100 98 5 30.757 0 82 20 62.463 0 83 20.4 T3_3 20.006 100 98 5 T92 0.841 100 98 5 45.502 0 83 20.4 21.473 0 82 20 14.2 1.789 100 98 5 T9_3 0.974 100 98 5 51.93 0 80 25.2 36.632 0 76 10 14 .3 1.948 100 98 5 19_4 0.298 100 98 5 25.531 0 73 18.4 14.161 0 83 20 '14 4 1.574 100 98 5 45.7 0 78 20 vti r .. r + 149 . ��.iii r Nodo399«. t:#v:e ...t''_ . ' r+. r .eNnue�ERln•ko .. �• s►' • Not.l c. t r,....- �� Tr I-r 1 7 id •1'4 i•9 ;,1 s r ,..At. ,' 2�}I J4�1 ,., kr� nit I 1(,i <e• I?,1" r •eft , •r r r�. 4r i T2_6b S 1-44,01:■,?,''' ii.,'IC f • t T2 H ' �`, ` ,; '�/o' l .11•:;; .1:1‘2:41.11:''k". ;1•••301 � S hhh �i,t)•'r,.r` ? r •wti{ Flt i r t �f=t1 ', • _ I' .,41I yytii:i■ y ' y,/ ` ,J 1 •intt ! L• tc'•. SYtGC■; : _ 1 I • ,,r w I,' l Cf. �i.t Nods w�jff;r€ `Y�. 5.�, ,,•K tf �Y T2 SecDit � •1 � �fc�f• 1; � 'yy ,1 �C 0 Notti396 (t, - 1r ,� 1, ` ,.�•`. �, ''k'A,. `i. , _22 - •a77• t.1}.Atk 'ill ••••Node23 •`, T_2_SbD.t r�, a T2_7bD ,,,;999G ,' C ,{t, _� - t... tt .,. , ,y!'• ,�i'�- 4 :, r,�.� trr. . � lik •it, . le � ',0,t e4'14i Os yr + ' • A r`.,441,.. - ti o' Node3 93 T3-2bDel p '' .t1, ids, `• ,9,_N-•e39 .' � 111-i.•4 ►.i_ ..c�►•n v.,=-a . r x. 1 4 li\ '� � , r , Node33 Nods28 110' n •-'4 r a k33 • IP A 11nk24 Unk2, : 3� '• T-2aDet,�• •• T_c Node308,, t� � • ! tt!_'V ,: •.• 'T3t•i 8. Y _ �i 3 od ? • ',Node39 te:' , a • � • 0 /4" . sly..a V e • _.•••. ) ti . ... Z:dit _ II „ ,eY ,... . ,, -y. ' i .• ,�4. e �1 •e l 1. N ... MayRrurr rtoV T4 5 — • ... - t •N•tle45 lb 7t �= 1..,./0,e,11 T4_6"" +-•.-4,- 1 481361 •.mt.r�� • TI Ie i't T4 2 'Nod "i,..1 L•111:. I rBYY., • 'al F'It t y'S .crCri- ,E.,. Qt ,.. ; -to....-t • i. 3i•j•'t A. '.•.::,., :k .. ••c�.ac.4H+T• :.`1 7 M o• Vii' �. . :.u '1-' to'r 'F '`1. a ti ♦14 .', ': "fa TS'Ba TS 6cDet , • Node389 4 Node3 - 7:'-t..,.t - •-�-•N '''4'.... :tir.111'. 'els Rtrcr'lcrracc Stormwater Master Plan Legend XPSWMM 0 XPSWMM Node Street(Future) Sensitive Areas Proposed Schematic •XPSWMM Runoff Node Sgnificant Wetlands " T2,T3,T4,and SMB —XPSWMM Link Invenkrned Wetlands A III"..jRtver Terrace Sandy Area—,Existing Drainageway —NEC RAS XS Natural Resource Buffers 0 1.000 OProposed Sub-Basin Feet .a.. r ..e.•.,,...., 1i, - rl 1 nvso Nodes] L�f _ No°e61y O +" r .77.. t At SI • r1 .• Tt- • n_.. a 4 00,16% .-.ra!! " tsrt.., 0. . - i• llllTT 1 r }d"�Q n...rr"156 1� of 'R TS]1 y/� X`Notl� !MSS ,s lddm2IT TS 1 Q. N de69 y . O, 'Id •.fF•� f,51.h 1 e .' 4 10 '1 '.:,,,,‘- (‘;.;.k t1 �;t 1 ' `"�"4. iin." n�• urr, al• mpae.ofi r •Y NSi � r . 1 n f ' „a t • rip •� ,; t � t •. s ar au e Asa M1 ,; t .41111P r •t•• h : . • b; tr � I kikW, . , l;1.f• 9 ; it . r Y L � 1% t i a Ricer la trace storm,art\Iparr Plan Legend XPSWMM 0 XPSwuU Node sve.t(Futw.) Proposed Schematic •XPSW1.11.1 Runoff Node Witlin°' TS a.n.::a... N A N ∎XPSWMMLnk Invenloned Welands Proposal Sub Sown —E"rny Oran pevay 0 sou r•R^rTr,.c.SVdv Area Nr,vel Resource B,dlera ,.-.��.�»�.. I ».... EC 11111 —MEC RAS XS MN%A.an Rve F 1 • f - `: r ' ♦,n 4. r r r—r ' r(r i1 r r � ` ea., r - irlt.''M f�' Ity� ` 78 6 { =rY_ ' r _ c . ,r 11 - b , ! 0 .,.; g.)- �rrF. r r, '� '�.p.4(+ .4 v-ti9_ r%{ , Cr-t't-rr r . tt i,.ly� w Nbde6 vJP' • •`y . r A.•5�r .. A r. ...TI LOS - T8 4a � • • •a A` • I •► . _ NO,Ti _'wA A. I . Noda399 5, .��Ni ,�-" - •p)r0!- T ., .,r .r - $• :AO� ��s t r r ,`4. V T 2. •q'1y#-: -+.*• .;.nay •* !";N,,,„ ,„ '314i .19-38 �• .`r !!++. 47.fir in -s, '0 9.1s ., t t '[ <•A yei .sue, � J vw d,t 1 (rct r.L 111. ,' ; 1.1*. c�' a,� nom '. c No.- 9 'tra +•� Node93 PY' .. ' .'e: P„R. • .1 'S >r 7'�.t. -j- No_d • !•..t 0 o. • e + - odti70 x .•, T7 3a NoAM07 ` a. • �:� r• = LInk317 - -F, •NodM�S T8 3b•� - ' I . 4111) t- Noide94 X Ow�� p3 t . r 5 s Y w f 4 '. �- T8_3g tiT °n f 1?Trf .• ' ^ vim` Noda402 lte. Node95 710 3a rArr ' r BYPUnIa362 BYPLInk361 « ,,- 0 L.I:,a • No'de40.1 Node96 I ,rLin 1 ` f R ,:► q :. 7 •Cc. '1"+„7�^ ,'`Noode413 Node36�ok346 •� ,-I r1� I 1. .-L�T6_3t tiw. I.•• . - 'J �. - � T'U,3 1 `•,� • ' i f -44; .v j i -� . ' }.-:c tko of d•, , . i t • ( ■ p- H•da Y+ • • �. :' . . t b Node113 •+w Noda99 ) • 4 Y pi; r {S.• ' 1 •Nod -r1” raft T10_2 -_- EA . ' ' 1 t „ ., i rBENO at1 - .. _. -.- -- 4• Ndde79 - A IP Node80 • • .rw is [i Idler lerrace.lurttt��.11 I °Node82 F� / ti Master Plan J JO:.• 4 •r F i • XPSWMM l. " ti• .� ; a ■;. �r Existing Schematic af.,':': r ` er f i' r • T8,T9,and T10 Node83 r'''' ,1, ♦.o .. '•, • J Node84 �4 a • J. 1 .`:. km Legend - ::-: (, ! le+T8r2f • r •Il' r ` " r- -'1)`,1°• O XPSWMM Node 2 J/ •-1St: ,1. ,• r w P - Q XPSWMM Runoff Node Node87 y ; ,I. • •,L^ ▪ w =t [40 t re+.--XPSWMM Link ? w 4 .�. r,F ►t.•►�! ��r - -.7" rd[ l'-'7 . 'w ta.High ROW Bypass �t� , �- f, ' Tr ,p, w r. IRrver Terrace Study Area - �M1 s `:�r7 1`+I , • I - 0 irj. —HEC RAS XS '...,,j•v '1 r- •�• Y1�--{:#ti �' i• .• 1.T ( e>r•• Q Proposed Sub-Basin r5 •�t M Fg l'. 0• Street(Future) TS t1..i, - y{) -. '.• ▪ 1 ! .^1�S. r w + (, Wetlands 7'14'-•. J/ I' t, r.'. .J � 7 Sensitive Areas p' _,. •w S , 1{. .i } r r/11•' •vite Inventoried Wetlands •y f'o .) �! •_7' `i • f + 1...ie.*,,. F .T _ Esisfing Dreinageway J ,L"InX84 � . r;• }=Natural Resource Buffers } ` �'t %I 'd- f T4�• • r;'+ 1 'ua+Tualatin River { Node891 /P is 1 ; F , y�1,•* �u n,.J i. Y!7 0 ,,000 • 4t. J «• [(� y 1 ' ' Feel i M.-.o" .,.., .. ..,,..... ,fit, '' 1 ; XPSWMM NODE INPUT:PROPOSED CONDITIONS MODEL (Cont.) Curve Time of Curve Time of Node Area Number Concentration Node Area Impervious Number Concentration Name (ac) Impervious% (CN) (min) Name (ac) % (CN) (min) SMB_Det 6.45 100 98 5 T4 6 13.267 100 98 5 3.96 0 85 10 24.966 0 83 20 4 T10_2 3.286 100 98 5 T54 0.874 100 98 5 9.491 0 91 20 26.171 0 78 25.6 T10_3 13.38 100 98 5 T5_5 0.166 100 87 5 16.75 0 81 20 4.972 0 87 10 T10_3a 3.35 100 98 5 TS 6a 3.06 100 98 5 3.35 0 85 10 3.06 0 85 10 T10_4 5.465 100 98 5 T5_6bDet 15.57 100 98 5 12.94 0 83 20.4 14.02 0 85 10 T2_4 7.119 100 98 5 T5_6cDet 13.98 100 98 5 77.31 0 78 27.2 11.51 0 85 10 T2_5 0 0 98 5 T7_3a 7.2 100 98 5 T2_5a 18.71 100 98 5 7.07 0 85 10 14.18 0 85 10 T8_1 2.13 100 98 5 T2 SbDet 17.29 100 98 5 37.464 0 86 25 14.22 0 85 10 T8_2 1.595 100 98 5 T2_5c 4.5 100 98 5 35.661 0 85 25 4.49 0 85 10 T8_3 1.4 100 98 5 T2_6a 14.51 100 98 5 61.696 0 83 38.8 11.58 0 85 10 T8_3a 2.81 100 98 5 T2_6b 7.58 100 98 5 2 8 0 85 10 8.58 0 85 10 T8_3b 5.74 100 98 5 T2_7aDet 22.09 100 98 5 5.74 0 85 10 15.58 0 85 10 T8_3f 8.61 100 98 5 T2 7bDet 11.09 100 98 5 8.55 0 85 10 5.67 0 85 10 T8_3g 5.95 100 98 5 --a T2_8 19.66 100 98 5 5.91 0 85 10 35.1 0 84 20.4 T8 4a 9.54 100 98 5 T3_1 1.16 100 98 5 10.33 0 85 10 79.21 0 76 26.3 T8 4b 18.13 100 98 5 13_2 0 0 98 5 20.04 0 85 10 T3_2aDet 18.05 100 98 5 T85 1.861 100 98 5 15.37 0 85 10 10.813 0 74 20 4 T3_2bDet 3.8 100 98 5 T8_6 3.69 100 98 5 3.47 0 85 10 4.51 0 85 10 13_3 20.01 100 98 5 T8_7 22.14 100 98 5 45.5 0 83 20.4 62.463 0 83 20.4 T4_2 1.438 100 98 5 19_2 0 453 100 98 5 41.74 0 80 25.2 11.56 0 82 16.5 T4 3 1.948 100 98 5 T9_3a 11.75 100 98 5 25.53 0 73 18.4 13.61 0 85 10 T4_4 0 0 98 5 T9_3b 8.88 100 98 5 T4 4aDet 15.35 100 98 5 9.72 0 85 10 13.47 0 85 10 T9_4 5.56 100 98 5 T4 4bDet 7.55 100 98 5 5.56 0 85 10 7.4 0 85 10 T4_; 12.08 100 98 5 31.41 0 82 20.4 Attachment D — Figures from West Bull Mountain Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (HDR, 2008) oa Legend r Fish Barrier Capacity& Fish Barrier — tiCH0119FERRY \ * Bridges Cross-Sections Planning Area Boundary i0 Watershed Boundary -- 14 �* I 1 e J --L Stream Reaches J , - /\/ Roads \ / I ✓ NMr. ! 1 1 inch equals 1.500 feet 0 i '1 (1''' ,rit''''' ---' I — L.,/- 4 , t30. t• e I i -..._.. . / NIA. 8�•�•� �.....• & 'r UNTAIN -rte A 11.. C1IP , I.,0,4 / i/ e►�c 14 I 1 ..<.- ht. / I IEEF We ;�i I r t, tt 1't o 1 I I J ' / / 70 1 • I 1 Summary of Problem Areas }Dz FIGURE 4-1 %A:0.1 NA Miriam Ilph k tJy NO Ilya ailir.Ap.lyau I I: n Walei Senuw. ltNI•.l.1IMPANVIAin- Voi ,ton. L:\Project\14500\14588\Reports\Stormwater\DRAFT-StormwaterinirastructurePtan\Attachments\H DRFigure4-1.doc Legend ChannelFlooding SCNOLLSFERRY Planning Area Boundary ------—' 0 Watershed Boundary -__. Stream Reaches \/ Roads "�,, 1 -- 1 inch equals 1,500 feet N f — Iti, h. ' i r _ . But Aw \s„ y H [,....----- , A., ,. .---, i.. . , ) f..._.._ . . .. --0;1.04 _ . t S BEEF BEND k (---- /17-2. H 41\'ti 3•to )41:1\ ■—_ Flooding and Under Capacity Channels I-D a FIGURE 4.2 (1�l li C(lA1PANY�,Sy,rroa Wit fin nl west B II Mountain Hydrology and Hydrae'¢Analyst,I Clean Vale,Sernces I.:\Project\14500\14588\Reports\Stomrwa ter\DRAFF-SromiwaterInfrastructurcPlan\Attachments\old\HDRPigurc4-2cx.doc Attachment E — Drawings from Roy Rogers Road Improvement Project oa a. l • yo Sec.6. T. 2 S.,R. 1 W..W.M. 1 ! o :w--mac I . c. 0 0 • © rte.-0 , O/! f. . 0 O ,, 0° g S 8•x • '�' , (i 0', a 0 I0 q Y - 5 o z .S. QR - O _ £ t i• o r O i 1. ^ !N G& 1 { :-.(,:k.10 O 0;1 00 ....0 w , © $ OAS ,, in v, ' 6 I I, nte..4.,, '; - 0 ti m rn JI V 4 ��gg""1 R HsDpO a J Tv 11 16111111. in m r sl. , i -4 d 1 I r a a1 a, V r F 76 . 79 6W.I 4 ?, - 7a. s/dl.E44 aswfrRO a I I nr a, 1� I » i i I { i "f III 011!4l �� t�.pc — � 1 IS � t c 8764�raal u , ■ ` vca as r /u , AS BUILT DRAWINGS w° tal r.s yar7r r i I' a■, r �� .......�.o-...... ■..t., mN b.•, z 0 h is Y 7rf. - ---` T- ..U.:u,mums..n. na...�...I I fl.Ew.7n r 1.7 i 1 .� ' I I NK w6 a Notaa taws n 9(K.LiR,L.ies W ./ ��id-Ht +... __ I it_._ 73 r .em+sa,ndi w'.mue+ailsirai m wruws nt \I f 5 pr,,,,' •9-/ 111 nR 0....an KU.KP.r..I0•w 14 0 7z ss.Es-s \\.._ I. `a?rs`r` ' 7t ., w rn R t 1 J 71 \, ' tt 0.e.z,.W,1.11,1a..8,J A..BN. TAm I\ m.,1 1 1 I f -.113J .. I I _._ 71 ya. I.:_ WO i 0 10 YO 30 A 50 mN - -- -_— I -. _._. _ 70 I F.aMEN.AM 1a7.■Na sm.I.O.nn --.... Cott NO se, E se. N101n p i �•_.__. .-_ + I am N -..- 00 sziag 20 !O 40 50 1!r . i 0 800 I r ! 1 1 0.900 m r I.000 , r Vortical So*I.Donn ./ ✓ • • Q Sat 5..4.Not 5 ©5K'l•0.102 ro S1a-1 0.613 11rn.6. *8 rr0•.8b. Cop.G /.1-311 a 1r..21 4W.Q•rya&rYr'n,.!Prue Off„.ANA.6ed•'7 8.122.s2.04• SW: Cast6w-6r.Rlr r+ Q1 Ms.300+CutoorI RN-KA-w Q aW Mq PLOW �# Q• can.S..M T1.8 2 QQ N.Y.Saar ryas c Q I•,.Sly.r9Yln.SWPV,-2 9 I!s NW..SR Lea 28-5028-61 0Iw.1410 y n mu Swovr ©SIe-L'O./e2 1<s 01.•%S.s 5M.26-21 ■ 1 CP.'.bAeor-24•• Q SK"I.0.697210 1 _ Ry7.w19 - 50 • IPM.W wunl 9v ! Nn Ifs& 055..SM.26-6 6-101.M' I O M.1.GaM Coln.- 1111 C Q q � -. O SK 1.tom 22/7 12 MM. Awes E, !•.a Cowl.rya.-v .7 MM.7403774 5 1 .F� Grote 44.£M..7550 pN IM.Try 2 CO,.-65• X1.3 V.1.- 41.for.7 p Oast(pm'p ww/nM.IMnlip 0 Soo"1.'0.6341 16.3 R,. +pp 1 Gra•!1.Ea..8 p�yq4t.•� aw.75 ora•,:n - +3i.e1 Iasi.300 5 Slaw Sr..Noe-l'94w I+.N5 5•••S4•3 I IA IV D.A.SR SM.28-91 'not.RF•54.502.2. ! Q IIN,v.E.19.Ci/NI �Ks Pram SR W.213-91 QQ Ifs Grail•9 Rla..5M SM.20-61 \%SK 0.6564.68 tr. Q sK'l'0.6804 034.A. **-Off.6-P.-1..C... . 510 0 0.196QLI. FN..-07•••••666-5 a Cons/.Igo'D•rote f•H,ltl//ia! my omonale/1 61.010/5.04 . Grw 42,fM.1675 -F,aa-K-8.-1..01 r / MO.300+Slam Sp.Rp 26.9• i sv-f•-£sr-JbN Li 5K'L'0859 r.558'L-0851 IMoO..3 L0i0+51�vo--SS..•P iy• 13 164- CaW.itra•a- 11.13•n1p 241 IS..0007 9.074 b 703361 -361 a 171p•31 = Caw.Corr,.r.r..r,!bp, G3)51.0.662.1.164 PT. t)A 8.122.s£.06 a Iw.300+u,Rom 5•w.Piy- 113 al e 5 cbul.6wa,l rra.Rla I.W.P31t 5.q.e o... -3 ls.0001 3M.fail e1i 8A£OD Q ®or S+PST P1H.••Ca Mon. ! p Q J 5h.1'5.661 Is S1••L-O.tl3 5'6Na.5.3u Bs..lob•1 r.or 1. Q e 2! 00.00 Gdrs/- 11.43•nil DP -121 a Rep 31 ®/.116/04 144-Poe Cnn&3..,re Co P61.61440.111 7•5188.8.(pow Strove fa P..a.r Erp:m 8.122•£•06a Co n.6wao.I1,10. mm =m O' r CO r m LP Z In 0 2 mm Ar- >E'''' O Z °o z AS BUILT DRAWINGS • •.•Ya bwe p,, ...._ r..•a l.p, --. ,uM M:.=OK l0V.a aw M1M O F.• .0,• oe...PRIM•Irma va Cu.0R.,a • N O argon• WiO V Loarnsrw la T. 8 01410..rWI Q KM OCe..6 MO PP O \__-_,\.._- _- _ As MI 81 V,„. Wrn<W� rsrra- TIIHWIR go .a.lresura, n�.a�i � : fl.0 lww.0 a 000M213HS-SIIOHJS 9 iiiiiiiii�. i1^^ ,,,.•i0.7 4CI?FarSn /213NS13/ON39 3339 �so=�? S9ZZ / dad '3'-1- __ . a A ” meta g S -g ;pj� 7 i N �YJp 4 I -N a z s!.-it. V i y e ..a•; ,g d N a�W rto1 < s $ T ;;mi _ °- 00 000(7 00 0®0 O O {r°_.- : F_!Q-_t. MATCH LINE STA "L" 1+340 SEE SHEET 7 --g - a- g; a--�• ' - - - i i - ° -} 1+300 1 ill o _..1 _ ti �- ! _ i N torzeo'1741 N A b + S. i . -----) ■ O S 1+[ Pi 15,t MI747 w2 N f ° Ur(QN 7.1.4 ..._ 1d 200 II 1 "L"/•m4Se1 c . , • • — 4 ..S - p9 51,7,1.1 7.01 1-_- 1d i O a r 'ma `„O `2 �o r IP •-• -4-- ° iii In ° --- i /' ----J— �- --- n _ F . 11.1 r I 7 $ © o .g - 1.l00 " '" q W f. r o F • r G .. •0/••TJA .._ .. 4 l 9 rYM3 . 141. B i . . a e p :' x r: MATCH LINE STA 'L" 1+060 SEE SHEET 5 ! ~ .., . r . I a a K 9 133NS 33S Otf.I ,7 VLS 3N17 Haan .10 0 Fr 7 BEEF BEND/ELSNER/ SCHOLLS-SHERWOOD MISHIG 1113.111CMY COUNT■ 01,MILIMI co LAM uSf re TIIMPOMIIIM m POKLICC 1 Male sa • nr ...."‘ 2265 t'r.-:.174 moan= cnrolo s.hun J • 4 f s !� 0••■.6, ®s,..r 1.4001202( SKY"1.5512([ 2 Q lna.300 w Caw,Pip- 396. I4/.Abna..Y/v A 0 1.0 V 28•Br Q Pr..e 0.4 * (A444,(A444,F(a 4 C6 Q Cc..406.Awa.-• ®Area.Apr..rrs.- 1 AI 0 2.0.4nCa..-2 Al R'.l6A Br 3.2,AB 9 ©JAW.760 r I 450. 1 SOS 64I 0I .ae And B..ad 2.1020.ry rev. PALM co..Aaa66 N.-2 Cr a.C.idw.,L%a-440...102 N. A rs..OOCr sa.Crp r r.nr, r i:!;-; QQ !w.sw..r SOS..1 SOS.. is P?5I,arnr/1 n 606+.6 y N Pr..a C.,IA..1.w au-2 Cnp.w n r5.MOT 510.6'60.60T.07, �l 0 Ina.AAwa 50 a ;.,.,1,� U MI.FA.rL 3S 4 rip 2 Fern Al Tom Cave Cw...1. Eurlr;ryC6S, Arr.Yn Lae.(660aI rr...Bepm Iy 1.0.2..15153 bur 6),C;7/.4.4.1.111,:.-T- Iwl1,! Il CAaV/WWsC..AO 00.lq Cal V!9 1206 1B1 19 ©CS.S+m.rip B 20l 1'`rj; {I ®SN.-L-1.«Ta lax Br. In,.450. 666'(se..vwn-P!'>9w e' 947.1.16(4 IL l/. Coat.lea.S?., Cav l00. ` CIA.Ar.Ale.'0.AIM INS? 'I.e .:sure-I•3 . Grew ii.CNA Btl3 IN.450 an W.5e..2.-522. ®S/e"('1.520.IOd w L�. QC SK'L'1• nae.a ta,Or I v>s la Try S.W. 5914 sns M. It,.lr Prow..Pee, 26.6.rn.'0 Aro 124x..00/ie M novas40 Y.. 4.F2.0.'42= F 1.r.450 6.5w.5e..Pip-900• 5.-(--1•300.20.5 At Ca,-rl a'0'A/p II.Y...04.d 4w,AA.CAa.91.4 Pp 46' Pro..Aror Yin 03.Caw b i" @,Pro.G.And 64 Aye ee �p Ina.5,.e.YY,Boa 5..-2 G Q y (5N,Coeur.4oM1 C.rn.-2 1 6 c�Abeam law,4x440 1 ID 15145P6 lYi 60(464 NCD I =m Q T I I- I I—CD V,Z S r.rr' pr • *(n oz °oA AS BUILT DRAWINGS M4(•3..I rs am 6..,...s..OWL. .1p9l.[IR 1N L. 6 Bo a'ew viwv.1°.(/•n:w0644n _ 2 `�- -_ _ n awl Onsai J • i i I ■ - i 1 4 I- I f + . us ;II eF • t imiralor e1 I u ---- • I� .ag€� _ V y ,j r aI k�yt �_ _'=-.97c=- � T, i1 a ex11S1 L F &' O - . 8 •L'1 9_ _E�15( __ -I-!536 100.1814 MJ ;so 1 il 1 ~� ; 8 l.0 27 M, 2107.30 Fl.!.711. ... » a _--_ 4•4560 40401400 114.1 » .0 i 1y wE a v7o . 71 _ n ,r G P;L! 1 I Q I. i.500 1 ! eoo AS MALT DR AWI NGS 1ww.x v q n."w• a••v xm N3 W W - —.1 -- _. • - _ ...._. NY PS O MOMS NM Ott.RrY1144 PO1.Y1 \2 I Q CO.RIO 1.•11(x.1 t..MC O[;' NTT ---r.— -_ _. �_- —_ .�_- -. . 1(i MO.,MOR UMW CP CCORIRS1oa.11t1� WVx•! - OP Pt•pM•B/1r IOW [••06 a J 5Pl.tn C*w O M.tOSYUrC•.1w OP i m0 i 1 ! 1 --.. ._. _r_�_-_�.._...t- -_ -_ WU .. t _..._-_- F t ' I- 03x/1 i i I i j _,-J _ S m l + 1 t i -f- ' _- � • I OD 10 PO 10 50 egNirl 00040 Sash 74 YYn pp J ` __ fJ • s Sec. 7, T.2 5., R. I W.. W.M. - - ; n a? r-s•+c -a YQ n w. t L rl 2 !A - ,yY 2 : `+ Z 51n"L-1K9r1/OS Lr. .+. • ,,,..Z. ___.... ______T Mrs r Owl'1•611.0 Ll. a y IIt1f 9 m 1 10� la.r ff3-: Ia. _ __ aw.4:.....r• �}— Lc;ciir+- . ..-. I G coot•q.rL to..-3 ; i "L"Line 6 In ate t13 \ ; J/sw old .O•P•.bi135.7 3 sr,r,r \ �l 1 6 t \ 1 V3N-1-11111 r.L.1-van fr AJ _ .. • _ .,�r,.,T...r.-.«.�e tb);_%. fsw.OUreroO•91.M.Aq,tAr !AC1 a.. Frras-1 f t•2P [Wi N.y C)sro.'L 1•Ima 112 uVeo f 0-- �" ':- �, \• 0 " Lsw.rro.-v rw eervr:.e r. 6 l i 1,1 I ,a1\, r.l fiats FL.Vv.7933 f T .n� %., QQ C. .3...rrp■ g` a 'Oa C9 c«,.z.ar rA.c 1�! -9{1�' rtl r r l QQ s«s•r.A.■./a♦ 1i 1A 11 ; r_.+ 377 r-794 w 1 CO 0 Rom.two MO rbINI. •• ro Coo.,SAW I . I °— I i sr.r rsaa+t se I /•.I.r.w.•a.r Am p -.rJ. •119 I - - - - l7 wLerlr•..rr.r'C" 1AnM11.Lora r.. II aL lue o- c I _ _ CwQO c ` ---- .•t3/ o w.. . ----+-- - - _ _ [9pj� I-- Q S.a'L'1•620 ra Coal-roe 101, Y n, I I '. _ —_ .. _. ._._K .__�_ I 300�.11t-r w'9A Aa,wa 3rYr 7 er wlLFw6...Ya.• 1 e3 1raw.e tlw 11 I Lehi.rr;.,u.w F. ■ -4.___.;:- 1 II �._. /Ma LaovM A+f t):...oY.v,rasa .yrf.•aru M 13•ro Awn.0,....q 0 y 1 ~ 1.1.17310 1•. AU ,[- ^ y�3 q t.•• It 1 71 Y'1411741.08f I• LU - II cr 0 rb fl IflO _ _ j ` AS BUILT DRAWINGS 'J^� e. -. _-.. �� 1`r� _. /s I+..,rw>r.r aaw �e An La mot W V1 OM • MOMS w Qe..vrs.al ram.Oa N � .sri::,17.1117:471.111g:ay m .•,aR,r.w � [a.[r.Qat.l • . .-.. . "L'1• " 7° - it rLVll. DOT pr,[tNS(rV 1 L.r,O�•ars W 77 FL 1{,75.!2! 1\ ' '7 I i K wutee.o. w Q OKSO«r.a.....a m0 I .. I L 1.11000,1.&1122 L.1. 0 l0 10 30 40 30 ml/1 1 ..... .__ —_ 1 FA x3.70 S/. . -. ._ __. eGriiil�—,_ p r•''f.c HIw7 v , _ y ,.wrwrw f w./.aYr�. J3-_-- __ ♦ OD ID 10 3a 40 3O yy4 CO i� I (AA 3b N W/rar 3s.r d WWI L ■ 1.700 1 ■ . . 1�s00 \. I I i l /' J - a S1a 4.1.9560.169 Po. \ Sec. T. T.2 S. R I W..W.M. n/ t,,,,l.rAe•P 491 rm.! cdw.swl.rr9.A t J ;ant Cool. 5D I'A''',. ' '� I�, /yrrrpr,l+d O = 40.10 F.L.E1w.71.50 Q pet - y it Ea9lYI00 O E.77.1 O L 5W 375 as Slaw Sew Pip-28.3 a i CandL SmfY 7 `•1 P1/110.11M U99y O IQ I y Sla"L•1.9560.[1. QS Sfa"L'1.8912 v n Ee ,y 0 - r7 foal.T OO'P 491/MY.lb9ry/ Co../.1000,151/0 Box CWV1-352 a a . 0 p ® I I1 = Vat f.L.E1w. nm (Far wwar.4 59.e-25 n.,e 8-2e1 - r t �_ �• I ! r 6m..w-n Lpd NO P/NV• 's,pp .._ .....14__ p 1 O s.1LT i• r ..z j 1 i warted ._ __ ! ®Cor-L•7•I62Aos I O Law F l 1447460 9 .•-_ -- f MY mal.TryO"p'491 IMO /nal.375 w0 Sbn Sar.P o-709 w : - -. � 440 f L.E/w.73.40 7d6 Yard 9dllnKrO ' y •• •• •• -"• 5..- • %• LL y 1000.375 as Storm 5y..Pp-!Id w Y - _ ` "L"Line -I- s 5. (Fa dreras..sd.2ae1 sQsro.•L•1.e77a{> a. s 1 5 c.o.7).•r 471 revel.CL-i - I 51•fY19'M f^ .T Cool f}MR Aa M000 Fence I,W 00058.[.Sba'S...Plp-re.!w e \ `� __ AN Aprareas..r0 b fWAq !Fd O1wrJ.SN 56724-81 91 CD 5 Br Ora NM eOM,Mnp ∎4 - �� _\_\am_� � Paw Ala.Was-179. �61 Cope.AeaA.Agar.-2 •-`" / :fl g ^y ....- • 01007 SM. 809151 3 E o D rse Cj eow.4or cw.-z I§ ID �ij. T ...•..... .-- --.. I' last 541140.0.1 l91os At 264. 19125 • ! I(99�,� la I © ® l� - 1-.' '''' O 0 ala+d CM.-3 ( �e Sla 4"8.110 7o Sla"l'2.009 ,RY{!j{ i/{i m '"""-I ®� m .� 7 T OFd0490/4.As5d.28-211 7. ' 1{1661.6A94981-rri ,._. 0 O EO0a�1I rn 300 M!!['119)5 haaeyre SMl Ca 00 Pd. N S 7onin00.FbN 2A1 • VI VI M blvd0p WA. Pd 0.22 41,06 w Z pA9.0y LbSN 74 516.10821 AS BUILT DRAWINGS 1� ®Pb,.Pile 4 May Infr Lanka. �9 7402.A5Y/W nyp 1 Mai 11004 { hl ...1YV.M1a.n fly P.LW a 0.151 im 2'0.3 �I had Reacated 2 n TO SE. J �I 4.004.f awr 0a�a x.K KO rRr..O.s rue.00 �+ 1Q Yoy i UAW J • CZ 10.4 449 a...MI COMMAS R 05.0,5...Mt ®Sr.-L"1.852.150 1 F. S or Ka90•0,00..500 1,1154 iK Lust 1.0C,. Ion era07 .ea a Cdawa0 0 r0. O 11001591 wetted ryp"P 5.8 ri Y;ny. 0091 Sd.0.Yla 5 • rrMFe w, R RPM..o 0080 r0 ur 000.10 w 110001!10 50 w CUP-159 0 0.�OVSa KEN 170.00,4,40 00,a 60122 41.0 Tr e442.72747 1 _ _ 0o.aeA0.a S0..70 Sae. 1.122 w 1.09 rfI ®510-1.10927.040 LI. ®5la'L-19198.7.2!9 a. Dl, .. ' 91 (*4000 wOdW Typo 17-MM/OW 7.00.!75 ee Skis Se..Plp-22.9 w Ir 2.1 a 55,64 161.P64 SAW Aar/00,-4 15,419191 SOD w CYP-!ODs !Fd 0•4814 5.4 58.28 91 p 0.0 ' p [lambda MVll4rly re 5vesa ®SS L frSOI .215 a. a i LI 79 1 --- , w- • 1.6.775 darn S2..P:p- 109 a S -8191F901 79 1500.Pip,.le 4War--2 !•1- --__ ,,AL �.-_ (Fd MaeA Sp SN.28-91 llCCYC!! g-. Y rl L IC - )1 ©SAL 1 ryp 18 Arm 2/0.0.., 40.91 81.2446330 _ i7 • (0.p�Ilj 0JH _ I 77 Ind.11S Stara Soy.Pla-232 s ig ' __ ■ I 50..21 05 4.28 8• 40 !Fd 011aig.5p SM.28-91 I it 7!10 I 4 :, 8 1549.90.117 YO90ar S.PPI'f x. QYOSee l.1 4 t 1 ®tats,.r.K,rn9 WaS 5 �---- ' _ I _ y rs (For d5s.5e SM.8-29 Tau 8.311 ¢O 1 . 71 " I 14 r OK SK 7'79100,/00 f Z O '� C' 1•9360./N.l 1169149,1 --1-- 11a7.Y....ik. V a: j 7. �II b A 7.140,1008 -�_ 1 - -.I,. , .. ; 0 70.51.0.000.5-702 a Oyp 2A0 w S 7t -U7,lk r'�1 11111)''1, - j. .- --- erat•r2p8 E I+NI 2 Qv1 I PY.I.1.9190,! ` •971A/911 .- •_y_�� -_.-- 72 -- ®s �7 ffY•40.RI. 0,400 t�J �L• 1.9.4.7.14181(1911'PoJ 71 100 7IbBQ , _1 - I 3J 449 F(.Eb.72.95 rt2.•200* / - 1 1.0.315 ow Sba Seed Pp-22.5 a lv= !d 014900.0.91 SA728-81 U I >b Fa�.ual s.•.2B-s{ T�� q0.,s.0+.24 m _ o to zD ,D a so ` I, , I 7...1...4 Mor:nr5l2.0 710 Wars ' I 1 ,f 1 ELI I / f /ItlIN N _... �..... _. 0.0 ID 2.0 JD ID SD 4•1 1 t/ 1 f L 2+000 I vrraalSOW In 550.00 V l � J .— "p TuN,IIIIWID ...,.w.., 1 : -: IDmu,';n 0 000Md3HS-S110HDS u.no,,n,a.rsi /a3NSl3/ON39 3338 il \ w 91Q>Y M i1M I fir al LM/ s2u1 O .iMI. . � it 1 p Q r 9 , 61- p. :7a:- R - S a J' ,Iii : Q . s 1 ,41 Hs rYifity T7 MATCH LINE STA "L"2+590 SEE SHEET 12 2 2 2 2 2L_ S 3 t.. 3. S.- ffi 1 ' i •J Jilsi.d lR �iX x ! ._ i• ; dal — r s e Fc� # O . t h 2+500 " Vi I:1' . I i "'ri� W _ I .__.. 'n. ' e ° r ' i.`.3 1 O J r 0 girt i ems• \� Y"11!7.MI _ ._._--.` - I gA 0 ! 9 • 11: C I �i1! .. `� g Y tam ry - .._ , 777 r I 2+400 ti v a w All 11 1■a W 1a W ,,, i_ r ___,1 • 0 0 g.,, )4.11...°‘N MATCH LINE STA " '2*310 SEE SHEET 10 R 2 3f °I 1 8 3 2 a� l • � . Y g • • 0 Cow.5.81.rep.• O51.•t•2.5452.1)9It. s3. • Iw.300 r 94/0 Sr.2.•-al. . } v Cow S..1.row a Iw-Rpe 5••••1,42.21-2 Y Caw.t mr.... 24•f04 i..-2 yr 1 _ ce.•.sere r1.c � 11Hyp4 /HI , I6 Q 51.'1.2.4251.146 L 1. l"•CMM..1 gat.LL �� pyy� 1081.300.n SIr.Sas.P/p-hU-. b.1411.fIR6l2S SS: '1 F 13 N 702.431.3.02 A.pOo-2 1.1.!00 eP Sr.S...P:p.-SS: P Y 3 Lau..L eau 149r02951.8 700.6.I9A1-4 Yp gag'244136I.. 0 10. '��1 f 51.1.2KS2A L I. COC,000.1'1N755 �1 s G Gr.L...2i.vx F,f` '` ravl.repo•1 .07.rw:r .4-rte, Grote F..[.112.80 O p....,.- u. n•l e I U/rNy.l+O. •/ As LbeG Mfrpa Aeons-!2 0*0.Lear L�ne1 1.0.3As Sl.10 *,6.. 411111111111_ 70•.10.1_51••54r.R'p-ii -♦ MY.AM Ent Votes M'.p t I.-Id 42 {I, { Sra 1"Y•SyS2y4,��. 150 e.e 5a.40 ler:00,w ROC-4.17 er j1 1 f �e Cew,71p' yre fN0 ©Cast.450 Cmn h °' arms 24.26x.61.0 0 7.•.114•00 1•'..s 5.•p•, CO S41.'20431.1 To 21460.8 4g.8,0 Q S4'L•2.3!1.153( r 1081.1200 246.x114*-498-. 541'2.431508 Co.0.l.q 24••••24••100.'•a.r• !eye,54.545 fhb IPSO Ap 000- 19.0 Gan.#•.!LA.5.9.0.A►}�L rte�-��22.2 ®M1s.O.W Lbw-3 co/.1.300..s 0.15.4 R00 321. C Pt•K,71m A•WPM F C CO..'.AA•t A .-4 s me 1•4..• 2 0 54-L'2.4211 r.541-2.561 ®%no.C.gCw1 Caul. -0106.1 261 ill I6• ®rut reP 2 Iq-Mom.170. v d j g .122*1•06.P�i4'N 2 FLT AMPS/Wro..7:. Q ^x ®s4.-s'.21403 r.54'•2.456 8 541.2.590 R Ceal.M1Vra-3052.A C•.•4ar•r•l r•re.1 iAI f5*[Pra[.rt Mp-ISd• *0122 0.1.04• 8-540-L4{.952..4.. 4) 0 541"245052 T.2.53/. -00.00,,4741-.-mw• 102.100 r[4x0124• -4ii-. 111.5* Ca.1./rs..e..:u C1MI-2 -1.1499-.•-6*0 6..444 -44'.. C•.IL4est 00..0.[4*100.640. IaM Am 0061•-7 110 Mat.Povse 2.4 500.0.00.•V.-62 1.2 ,,,,CO 71m =In O" rCO r PI N Z tnO 2 N mm Ar 6 m z 0.°A AS BUILT DRAWINGS •..W.y mew.h .1.81. Pm..•0.... t st 0.e 0 1 WP.{MR PI.0PI0..•.,00. = 10 1104 01 .11•Cs.0011 3r 0.l•IP.0 1.0{ITS c __.._ swain 116011EHO ioiarar�m Wl: aw tso ein ..... r M. A INJWIMy 000M83K-SII0HOS £ 59Z2 aS uriw iasisr� /213NS 13/ON39 3339 rr d].E woos _ •wrr asau 'S'•�r owaw r & R ! a 1 h d6 h. k) ti{:{i 3 I '_ e i `' W lii III I! -a ,4 Igo @! 3! Sikh 3! ? aaI l S / J 112 i:g 81 WWI 000000 O O O QD 000 n0EDED a J ® EA geed HATCH LINE STA z xnTs SEE SHE r •Pa Pose ' 1 �,.! a 3 i2: •egg-ES 1 — J ;� ilr u " m o,-r � 5 f, Al ,., O t- ter," :'irbilii 3.100:I7i u 'h �� w w --11 a t S S!s 666 7 •3 • a^1k A vi jat3 O t W I '� I I c '© f Ir 3.000 I 1 i :-' I i J N i `�i ZJ j I 11 11 x - 2.900 b HATCH LINE STA 'L"2.880 SEE SHEET 12 • IIIIIIINI ' . 111111111111 I 111111IIIY , , i t I' _ , , IHIb I. �I, ,uumu . . • , . ,, N, i{ !j I Lil ,agl 1444 / i EE r I . W -1 i 6 4 , - • - ` • • r u ) r- 1 I I u I• .° }_ r w3.M• t — ■ — { — I le-- 6 — 1- if -t I,----- iAYA ST _.--_ . .. 1 ) �� 1`....t. . _ .. .. i7 • • fl swiw.t� OW 5 I I 1 301'-3.410/+IMnss,top i fl Sr I =m F2.133 Tr • r m i sao w.-)3.n.. �' --- AS BUILT DRAWINGS rIn 12Th sun.-303313.1)7 to aL... aamm•to Zo >r [t v F '�r. S[ I MY n..:...e,a.MU U"`....M".RIM OS S._ I 1 'tat">°'a..1po a3..,a:r RI IRO OURS m 3.w .'O r Mvws.t 1a r..nMO. * [r 0a ) 1 I [r�m v INM w MR f!.M.'D.O.IR.R NI ORl 2 900 t.- --1.— ..____.---.-i— ,.._ �� 1 a--.._..__...—_.• .n O� J.000 _._-. 1 • 3.100'. — _.___ I } --_.—� I 00 In 10 JD 1n SD • I i '. - L— -- .± 1 1.�,3..,..a. ol A Onirelfis 1 I NO 1 (MW NJ 14100 I. 7 Ins,KINN.116111.,SLAW, I C52.Gras C.5.. 2 028.2.AA* 2 0 IRA gig Am 0.4er,25-29.6 @ S's a- 1.132274 J•1•7/13 31a1 .1.152.01 N. Ma 80 J�35.199 1.2.AttmovAI f1/2d..2geoo AAA AI Oa"fir 1,033.299 Ana Al Pe-00-1•I00.000. 0 Co?PAro 0 R....x0 E./0.Von. A,9• 0 hott, S..5a 12.52.8 @ Sow 5..UMW.6-9 911.6.6,Aficanon, Soneis at Cant,0.60.0 To 499. Coe,055. ROA 01 Saari.6909. C5lacI 55,485 25 25 (4•54. AI 94'Or 1.033.99 Am 1•100P ;9 ; INE z0 03g AS BUILT DRAWINGS awe.. 0.. LOW \X ty..INA 1 11•1.4.4•M•110•112.•.1.a MI II.0,.00.0.(00.01 h•••••MT an CI 01 a.=to 015935*1•Olth Mt Oat itiM01. Z .1.•1.11011,1•11 N./0 C.W.O..Mt ..., .r...:.1....1 Mt•'WNW..MOM M. 0.19115 0.14R KM KO•O•no.T.7.( 0—.' ■I 14.0 I l 1 0 0 2 20 30 40 00 V' L. ISZIEWal In Mr/MN 596/9 19 8154r• 0.0 ID 20 10 ID SD CO X ftrekof SAWA IA raraneco ,......., -■ Aorco 41,06-111 000M83HS-S110H3S 38 J338 /83NS13/0N tri , S9Z2 :MEET: ,..:..., a uvcr wortmu Tor ., Naomi 0.u.,• / \ af i y : a I 1 1 11 ‘' •f6422 1 A tg t% 4.1. ell 14- CI• i`ql 1 4 ; 01! Pi ;M 4t. Hi 1 1-- 1 ''' 1 I CI 1 1 1 .41,0,1 qt..; pa 4 An , A 4... A ,. .to .tii.,livo c - II , ',..;• r S A :..-ti !Ai; 2-.: it Ili i i# An WI hi CD C)8 C)8 C) 8 8 CD CD CD j aPili :!rirgi: 1 MATCH LINE STA "L"34460 SEE SHEET 15 ii I 1 1 ,11 1 k I kil,Mt ' VS 3+400 '-, i ti. ! : 1 f C -1 I i II 1 , vi - 11 1 1 , (.., Li P.7 ill I 1 0 VI I , ) 3+300 II i I • . ‘‘..."•..! I 1 ; 1 It4 w = , a Z. i.,..; 44, .2. "1:111C. 1 f . r ! . 1 I ,i'... H I' i f r. 4 4 ,-.N.,, i 1 0 4 ' ''l ft III'? ,III 1 If , ! :**`:k. '• . / MATCH Li 57.4 . .. ! SEE SHEEr 1133.170 ..- - - -- - AIS-1856 4. C. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Amendment Prepared For: Jim DeSully, Police Submitted By: Julia Jewett, Police Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall council authorize the city manager to sign the subject Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends council authorize the city manager to sign the subject Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) presented to council on September 9, 2014. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Changes 1. Several sections address authority for decisions, language added to allow for inclusion of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) when appropriate in the customary chain of authority for WCCCA (look for this language) "... as approved through the normal chain of authority for the Agency." 2. Section 3b. Old language specific to Forest Grove removed as Forest Grove structure is defined generally in other areas of the IGA as current status and practice dictate. 3. Section 5 - Language updated to ensure that TAC is the reflected tide throughout this section (and other sections), to address alternates, eliminate each individual jurisdiction in this section so if changes develop in the future, the IGA does not have to be reopened specifically for that, define the appropriate participants, ensure that the duties of TAC are appropriately represented and define quorum and the vote process for TAC. 4. Section 7 - Added the current 3% cap language (it had been in the former Appendix A) and is written here as it is written in WCCCA by-laws. 5. Section 10 and Appendix A - Update language to reflect the currently used "member fee" and eliminating the term "user." 6. Appendix A - Revision of the following language: a. Eliminate the former "black box" process and language in favor of the member fee sub-committee recommendations for new elements of a fee formula, outlined generally with the understanding there may be change in the future b. Encourages monitoring of the efficacy of costing ratios c. Member involvement in review of the formula by convening member fee sub-committees in the future d. Fee formula can be modified without reopening the IGA 7. In general, changes primarily address the member fee formula and the current function of TAC. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 9/9/2014. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: No fiscal impact is anticipated. Current Police Department budget includes the financial obligation to WCCCA. Attachments WCCCA IGA AI S-1848 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Heritage Tree Nomination Prepared For: Agnes Kowacz, Community Development Submitted By: Carol Krager,City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting -Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE The City Council will vote on whether a Black Walnut Tree,located at 10525 SVi'Tigard Street,shall be designated as a Heritage Tree. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) find that the tree meets the criteria for Heritage Tree designation and recommends that the Council approve the Heritage Tree designation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 1,2012, the city received a Heritage Tree nomination application and supporting materials from Joel and DeAnn Vermillion for a black walnut tree (juglans nigra) located on their property at 10525 SW Tigard Street in Tigard. As required by Chapter 9.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code,Todd Prager, the City's arborist at the time,visually inspected the tree and determined that the tree met the minimum requirements for Heritage Tree nomination. On May 12,2014, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) found that the tree met the designation criteria in Section 9.08.030(3) of the code and recommended approval of the heritage tree nomination. Council is now being asked to consider this nomination. According to the code,after considering this report, any testimony by interested persons,and the recommendation of the PRAB, the Council shall vote on the nomination. The vote shall be based on the approval criteria listed in Section 9.08.030(3) of the code. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Council may deny the request for Heritage Tree status. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: The heritage tree fund is budgeted annually as part of the Parks Division budget. According to Steve Martin,Parks and Facilities Manager,the City spends between $1,000 to$2,000 a year on heritage trees. Attachments Staff Memo Exhibit A:Nomination Form Exhibit B:Ground Level Photos Exhibit C:Aerial Photo Exhibit D:PRAB Minutes ' City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Tigard City Council From:Agnes Kowacz,Associate Planner Re: Heritage Tree Nomination Date: September 23, 2014 I. Introduction and Summary On May 1, 2012, the city received a Heritage Tree nomination application and supporting materials from Joel and DeAnn Vermillion for a black walnut tree (Juglans nigra) located on their property at 10525 SW Tigard Street in Tigard (see Exhibit A). As required by Chapter 9.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code,Todd Prager, the City's arborist at the time,visually inspected the tree and determined that the tree complies with the requirements for Heritage Tree designation. On May 12, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) found that the tree met the criteria listed in Section 9.08.030(3) of the code and recommended approval of the heritage tree nomination. Council is now being asked to consider this nomination. According to the code, after considering this report, any testimony by interested persons, and the recommendation of the PRAB, the Council shall vote on the nomination. The vote shall be based on the approval criteria listed in Section 9.08.030(3) of the code. If the heritage tree nomination is approved the tree is eligible for the following incentives, subject to available city funding and approval: 1. Plaques which may be placed on or near the tree; and 2. Maintenance of heritage trees including, but not limited to: a. Pruning, b. Pest control, c. Unwanted planted removal, d. Fertilization, e. Soil amendment,and f. Cabling and bracing. II. Analysis The Heritage Tree approval criteria listed in Section 9.08.030(3) consists of two main components,which are addressed below: "(A) The tree or stand of trees is of landmark importance due to age, site, species, horticultural quality or historic importance" In Mr. Prager's opinion, the black walnut tree rises to landmark importance due to its age and historic importance (see Exhibit B). The nomination materials provided by the applicant document that the tree is over 75 years old. While black walnuts can live to be much older (up to 250 years), its age is significant for Tigard since many older trees were removed with development since the city's incorporation in 1961. The current size of the tree is approximately 68 feet tall, 70 feet wide and 32 inches in trunk diameter,which is consistent with its documented age. In addition to being of significant age,the nomination materials provided by the applicant document that the tree is of historic significance. The tree was grown from seed collected from the battlefields of Gettysburg through the "National Nut Tree Planting Project": a partnership between the American Forestry Association and Boy Scouts of America to propagate nut trees from seeds collected from historic places. The tree is also currently part of a historically significant site. The site was designated with a historic overly by the city in 1986. The residence was built circa 1910 and is one of the few remaining examples of a bungalow farmhouse with its water tower still intact. The black walnut tree is situated between the residence and the water tower, and has become an important contributor to the history of the site (see Exhibit C). The tree is clearly visible from Tigard Street, so it can be enjoyed by neighbors,the community and traveling members of the public. "(B) The tree is not irreparably damaged, diseased, hazardous, or unsafe, or the applicant is willing to have the tree treated by an arborist and the treatment will alleviate the damage, disease or hazard." The tree is not damaged or diseased although it does have moderate branch dieback, and would benefit from pruning by an arborist. While it has multiple leaders, there are no signs of cracking or decay at the points of divergence that make it hazardous or unsafe at this time. These minor defects do not outweigh the landmark importance of the tree, and could be alleviated with pruning and periodic monitoring by the owner's arborist in the future to determine if there are Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources.2012.Virginia Big Tree Program.Accessed via the World Wide Web: < http://www.cnr.vt.edu/4h/bigtree/TreeAge.htm>on June 11,2012. any changes in condition. The city has funds available to assist the property owner with an initial pruning of the tree should the City Council vote to grant Heritage status. III. Conclusion and Recommendation The black walnut tree located at 10525 SW Tigard Street is of landmark importance due to its relatively old age, historical lineage and placement within a historical site. Staff and the PRAB find that the tree meets the criteria for Heritage Tree designation and recommends approval of Heritage Tree designation. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A: Heritage Tree Nomination Form and Supporting Documentation EXHIBIT B: Ground Level Photos of the Black Walnut Tree EXHIBIT C: Aerial Photo of the Black Walnut Tree and Site EXHIBIT D: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes-May 12, 2014 Exhibit A MISCity of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ‘.1.1 gin.` Heritage Tree Nomination Form (Please supply as much information as possible) NEIGHBORHOOD: ' ! t . l Person nominating the tree: Property Owner(if other than nominator): C � EI i)t?i h i rl V i'h» I I , C11'}1 C, Name Name IC' JL5 i 1 ( n_f (.{ �t Address Address T► c;t.r cl (42 `( 7 2 1 3 3y5/ 316- Phone (day) (eve) Phone (day) (eve) k)ca.,,,, Signature of Nominator Date Signature of Property Owner Date TREE DESCRIPTION //I"l t tt,t:1 �,, .'b '4 _56 401 s . �,- _ -7 c-01-11w r,ldr�t I nG�►�a� ,rn Tl ftt, 1) Location (street address): I C' , 2 5 ]6,. (� ( / 41 �fi ' in In Grlryn[�) 2) Private Property ye J Public Property(park,parking strip,median,etc.) 3) Single Tree y L j More than one(give number) 4) Species or variety(scientific and/or common name): L I `l c k iti . e 1 r 1(,' t G t'rC� 5tttf eel i'91 >)J f•lrn 1/'it elc� t f City:, , Olt• 5) Historical Facts: _Hie IvcZil.i,it, ti�� ` f 'r t; et 4 j� 'l 6e. eel h/ `tI�r 1 r ,LLl. 6) Height (approx): yS- 5c) ft. Canopy Width(measure from one edge to opposite edge): 55 —CO ft. rraiipfrlkd Trunk Diameter (in inches) at 54 Inches Above Ground Level (D.B.H)RI-oX 2U 0 6c" c{�1'e��1,'- rot,.�r,1 7) Approximate Age: years ' 31G 8) Condition: 9 U C' 9) Noteworthy Features: Beauty X Shade ) Size X, Kind X History x 10) Please include a photo and narrative explaining why you feel the criteria for Heritage'frees has been met: Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 9.08.030(3) No pscivre at -ho►te We a#1 -Izake one (41,r_t- ;{ je-is ! IS leavt',J Return Nomination Form to: City of Tigard I Attn: City Arborist 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I Tigard, OR 97223 Exhibit A .7.2 N7 T IO6, N-t..AA „.,.i...l..e.N. Uw• T TR E FE R o m t. A NT MOAN FoRrov R INn. .,P•- RO J ECT y ASSOCIATION . ,p. - ps,,, ,I:-.-,..-...7;,,,_,,..,1•1' ,.--,.. - , ',-..44 ,,•• .• .* ',. ON . WAS •1- : Tck ' ' -ff..— , ji* ,:E., • C. ”" . ■41.1.Via 1....1 . - ' , ... . - • .. , . e.' . , '•I. . -- Par t.2,-al1772112.0 4 2 :• -, ,... . - ._ re, . . . \\"'",.P....py.-3.-•-&-"' . . ,. . sire .0w ., . . ., .,.. . . .v.4. . _,..„ .,, ... .. . . 44644, -,. . .... ..._ ...... . ‘10 I *. 411'41 . 51ft 0 . : . - -. ' F . • • • • , . • i.- . ,. • , . - , . . . • - , . • to • ,4' --- .,....,-;;;,;;':.:.,1:,...: --.:-... -::-'.-.".,''",--:-:'-.--- k ':'-'-'''''---- -.---,:-• ' ''',--i.-7,t,1:4:3-.1 ,....ef-,......... : - ...:::',,,,,,--, . -,:: -, :-,- ,i, !-6.-6-1. '... • -:' ",', ..•••‘ ...::••,'=• , • ........" -:-.7 , .,--- .,, ----..-,--.-....-• -,...7...y.:,:..,: :7s. - .4, '.., ,:,-.:....- ,..„,„ •,: s..t.,....- .4..i.- ,,,, ., ....,), , .: -..,-... 7,..7.-;-. , -- i.:4----wc-.•; .4, :-,:',•:_;- '' ...7-...I.'.'':• 1111.f6i, tiot.6 .An,-wikyou- '_. -:- ' .•:; - ,5, - - ,-:: '' ,,,,,-..--• , ::_,--, irmr ,..i.:--,....--.,... 'o . "/"--;---.--:;-t,...,....,...... .•,.... - - .' '-, ‘z,--.:= .--•=..- • . , .,,.4.47-7f-f. :-..i.:„..- -,: :--,2,-„;:•-"_.. -.,..,,..'''',7'; ', - --- • -fl.:;,,',..,,.. .„..--,-1.,:.;,-..,-,-Attl:'5"'J,,,NN '.' --:-.,:"....,f.„,:-._'...*;.i.;;;-,-' ---..„1 Y.--,-..,:-.. .;,- .:.-.-.-,o.....-:__.=..,..,: . .,,-.• -3.-.,.,,_.2.. ,,..,,_:, 1..,..... .2..:.4,.. . .,,,_,,...,.- -,,y. .„,, • .;,.. ..,,.,. , ....--.,_ ='=::„.,-.--,z, .:,'-. --„:,!..=''-',.:-,`..,-,..;-,-.,zii!:-.H..t''',,,-:1-.434----:,--1 ,. .-.,.....,.,,...,,,,..-;.;...,,=-;=,,,.e.- ..,,.;-..4-4;•..,;,.-,=.--..-4-!-.-Ps 4,.'.:4,,,---':'.=4.-z•i,-... ---74:,.''--: --' 74-7,..-"<,-,-;---.;---.A4.4,--, 't"'"--:---'4'''':''''',.." . ... '.11. ''', r;i,%:0 ; l;-...-'0:i.ieV4 1 -7' -,,,6 :: ;,„:: "; ---6 ,.., , ---..-. 6:„ ,6 :,,6,,,,,, --6, -...- - ? -...- .- - -.., . *-.--z-,.--...,=.,- -;.;,t‘""-::".--- .,,"':'2^.7:-." 4.- :. 66::: . 'f• :1.-` ,:.' '' ',:::--s-'",.:*.i.:..' '''1*"..--- "--, • "-''''' '= -::114EE's ;66':r" '- ::''. '- "-- ..V...4.6. . .,,.As.77.T.7::::....:i : _-..-;;.- • _. ..t z.7:'_.-..t.,:l.';',.;-.` - '--.-‘. .:,.,.....„ ,,f.:.•,-;•---'...-: -.!-:::,:t.•_...-;L:-it.,42,r,,A.,;;:,:.1.."......!••... ' 011-0J-in Tr\1727-:it..:q-%:". 1.: '.-... ' ..7.,. 11.--rtf ,,...,..., -,,--„ ' ..- ,::-- '- ...,' -,-,-,:- sent to BOY scours -f7- . .r“the nation. *444 Exhibit A Historic Black Walnut from the Field of Gettysburg When driving along Tigard street, it's difficult not to notice the beautiful Black Walnut tree in the front yard of the historic Cowgill House. With it's large, strong branches adorned with moss and ferns, the tree provides a home for many animals, as well as shade and beauty for all to enjoy. When my husband and I purchased the historic home last year, we were excited to receive a newspaper clipping about the tree, and the seed packet in which the Black Walnut seed was mailed way back in 1933. The American Forestry Association, along with the Boy Scouts of America, conducted a project to plant nut trees from historic grounds. The project was called the "National Nut Tree Planting Project". An article in the Gettysburg Times from November 1 , 1933 records that the scouts set a record of gathering 90 bushels of walnuts on their Gettysburg outing. Not only did the boys collect the nuts and send them all over the United States, but they had the opportunity to spend time visiting and learning about the historical sites and monuments. It's fun to realize that this beautiful tree in our front yard is the result of a boy scout who gathered nuts one fall day in Pennsylvania and sent one of the seeds to the Cowgill family in Portland. According to the newspaper article from The Oregonian on January 20, 1984, the seed was first planted at Cowgill's home in Portland, but when the family moved to Tigard in 1936, they transplanted the young tree. They later placed a small plaque on the tree to mark its significance. . f .1 . .-.. lois I P4 ., A. .. lack walnut tre , ,..... v'A * i,.*:%r.,... , 000 t 0 field , ,(:V.s•J r- , ;.,4../- „ - , % -• ' ' ----) . , ,,...4.; t , at Gettysburg .. ..., , _ T , , , • ,-,'..:''., ,Nii, Fie JAHN MITCHELL Manufacturers Association. - E ens open stiff - "1 know we planted some in St • ., TIGARD — The old black walnut Johns,"the retired barrier recalled. "It . i . i , , ,ft , shakes arthritic fingers at the robins couldn't have grown enough to get ); ‘,.. ..' ''-'- 4.' ., resting in its top. seeds from it when we moved in 1936, . , , / The rough crotches that used to cra- so it was probably transplanted." die tree-climbing children are empty Cowgill can't remember when his '. now, the cushions of moss unworn, dad attached the Illaque, but he does . From one branch sprouts a fern, blow- recall climbing-the tree with his broth- -,-, c o.) - itig in the winter wind. ers,playing in the barn lost in the 1962 . At its feet,the fall fruit—still in its Columbus Day storm and raising cattle i C3 husks -- rattles across the frozen for 4-H. .. ground. His father died a couple of weeks -s .411010111/0- Just an old tree, as lonely as the after the storm;his mother died in 1980. r !:, • '. ; ' vacant house and the useless windmill A"For Sale"sign tilts in front of the old . . framed by its branches. four-bedroom home,and Cowgill says it . . , But 59-year-old Forrest L. Cowgill will be sad to see the house-- and the --- . • -11% - 0- It knows better. . ' tree—go. _ -. "It had significance -- we aistufge "Of course it's deteriorating," he ._ • .io ' , knew what it was," said Cowgill. He, said, "We didn't really want to sell It, 1 4111141411k"." • •-. _ - grew up in the house beneath the tree but we can't afford to hang onto it, •--..,„,., /40 . - with the plaque declaring it a descend- either.,, . .. ant of the famous field at Gettysburg, When a new owner is found, Cow- where Lincoln delivered his memorable gill will turn over the plaque with the - • - -• address. tree,as well as the papers. The Scbolls resident sat in the chilly "Mom really kept them. I went 1 i; "F '41, ' t • • - . -t '.,.4 .,'' — house.on Tigard Street vacant these through her papers and thought rd keep -three years aurae his mother died, and them too and give them to-whoever „eAtefullv unfolded the yellowing papers buys the house. It doesn t seem very - she had saved. significant, but when somebody's kept , • These are the tree's papers, corn- them that long. I'd hate to throw them plete with the seed envelope addressed away,"Cowgill said. to Cowgill and his older brother, the And the plaque,of course,"ought to late Ervhs R.Brother Paul N.„who lives stay with the tree." •-- . . -'—-- •'''..X,l'..- •• - •le Bellevue Wash..was born later. Did his mother ever register-the — • %,lee-. ..., •:.r..1 .. 4 At. i , e S Li, ,t_ ..-,4 . ,4 4 f, •, .4•.3.4.,4. •.*-----• • , May 033,tie idittai were ordered by "Knowing Mom,-it's likely she did. ' • • the.boys'parents, Hal E. and Francis S. She was a fantastic mother,that's about •Cowgill, from the National Nut Tree all you can say." . . , Planting Project. Cowgill has taken a piece of home • 'With nuts collected from historic —and the pedigreed tree—to his'Tull- SiteS iniCh as Mount Vernon,Arlington, lath River property in Scholls, where _ 1 Vicksburg and the Shenandoah Valley, five of ih . 1 . the nuts have grown into fine ,• the proieet Itteludect suggestions for ap- _____ new tiees. Ai propriate plejithig ceremonies and sug- ,. . gested that recipients send nuts from As Lincoln said at Gettysburg,there - their own yards for planting elsewhere, are things that "shall not pe.rish from • The sponsors included the Boy the earth." Scouts of America, American Forestry 'From the place Where North met • '-- - • •, .,. - • ..— • - Association, the U.S. Department of south,a free and its offspring gve on in I; Agriculture and the American Walnut the West. , s-:-■''' ,p.g,'.....,. .' \t-' I . --' —41,...:•i`;'4'..17,'I'-,-::- 1..'4!- '1/4, ... , ,. , ',..f.'i. '. , . ' t1•• ;;;?*:, , . f..;.;-. •Pl A ,",".....! . . -,.-7... - ..1.1- • - ' ''-'—., ..',' •' "- ". -,-4,,,, -- '..0;,,e4"- 11-...,' 4, ' I-4 if,, . t'' . ''' Ilr' % ' • r,., k.,,.• 'fi,‘ 4x 'ti I 9'itt `g 4{}'1.'j .�,J " `=t�'..:<: ..: ' *�!H !"dry t'4''' .s'.r .?. \ j'1 + WV,. ,Ili 9e'., j; + ' /• j,-! �r_IS� Ltf;cry i•1 i 0. . ,1' 1 �tl7rAt t ` 4i +jq; c , 1. ..v ,• r^ • •i• ♦ . i,I,, r-•,..y -6. t 4. . '4 ' ' ' � ? ^ :C\] .• .., 4. ct i ._ , r 1 ` v �e ,.�•.l' ,� ► , ' 3r , . CD i .d YMj "Q r .s ;. r _, td Y a. ' • . -I ) + ^ CZ! ' ♦ kL ' , N _ gi ., • .� Ai..rc'. + .•,__ , ' ,,' ' 4 .• .1. . ...1' -..'....,''.''','. ', ''''. ' ' '' . it U1:'t • {4+15 ' p • 4 1•Y .% F >v rill•Cf'�Z'!� �� 1 W' ' e ♦ s4' ;•-•. 't '• fi PC; i ft� ! 1 T+ 4 d,,' !' /F jj• 140-#1', .fir :7`'- '....et,.." ��. ',':' �:', ‘"441t L : ;° ,• ;tom 94 ?t L{`2;- ,. •.. . ' i •^ ,ate l Exhibit B Black Walnut at 10525 SW Tigard . t . k is 'I .� . . . 7 ";� ..^ . --k-- 11'Mr• v , . r_.. y �. 70 '�,� C'� -rte r _" ` `', .—::.• II '1 �-1,s. Historic Cowgill k; _ y., Residence in — st ,�. ;• ;,,..-t ' Background ..+sue � � i F. ww Exhibit B Black Walnut at 10525 SW Tigard• 3,,,,, s.... Ai . . . ,, Y•Ai •,.. *r.q•- ,4,;61 .a a ,f. ✓j .r. .•.'� 1fa 'N�',} 11 91''IA' `' }'r l_ tee. r .41*.....#it ••,- ' .11k. ., •`• ...,.. ,, 5. 4 , i *7 ;11 Mk • 0 OliiiiiillYicic. ,14:; ,a4. e %aft , wimitk. t •'. 131 te 444u...4, , ' � �+ d`' 1,r �h• „ ' ;q. ,. � ' • 4. ..4 . _i,„ At - . .1 ,.. .. i j K ?� : ,� ,, . .o .. ., L �,� . Historic Cowgill -re,' �a. ;v4-144.-,,- L k .,, . *:- Water Tower in T am' ' • +t,' r „'� Background ` +'.�r jam T +: _ I S., i. II, 's,' . . ‘.4:� t ' w , 4". ........„__- _ Ili ..„.., _ !._ .. . ....._ ..., ..;.:_, ., , ,, .. vs- ,. • - I '.ter •... . „agojilLl'' .:::_.,_ w i �iJI AIL u C � ► , ' .` . rw _ Exhibit B Black Walnut at 10525 SW Tigard ., _ �y ,, • f«, AR ` ■.• 4._A 1 i • . : - ."., _ , * ' w. �1► ,i sir i.t...4' '- . < I .� �i «• :; ;. BLACK WALNUT FROM THE FIELD OF tilt . s_ - - : GETTYSBURG 7 N; ,, • • ) THE COWGILL'S , #400.,, 4 •f.r7 .A y-�r. ,`,\} 'i.f b _ • , 4 `mow h1! • •r •...T -'ice {t 4. ., r) is 7.� �y "! 3 ' Zr •). - •if h..- - .• -.1 !- - L t Exhibit C of• �R .I ', 10551 r •.- .: Black Walnut Tree at • i 10553 10525 Tigard Street r ' �.-'x •kt(Ili,.c_' +,w , ' ! . - '.�' ' F -- S° = r•rsA is r 14 _ -- • t•'AEOT i ',,, .__ -f ` . ! i ., . / 10543 .fr t'at", ' e e `It- �+�'yi_ 1 ^w y r 10543 t r.1_I ` • -,- #10........ -. 1.#11'ri:•• } Ni ,.J L�r � � • Residence aft - ' ..- F7 • 1153 r a� . ,, ;.Pit �` 10539 ' { i ' 0525e aikAt 10539 5 - . i.• l• 10539 I '4� I �. �y I I • Black walnut tree ILL Map printed at 0224 PM on 11-Jun-12 . - 1._g_ta-gfir, DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARD Al- MANES NO WARRANTY REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE• . THE DATA T ACCURACY TIMELINESS OR COMGLETENEAL OF ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS.OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. Qty of Tlgard 13125SWHaIIBlvd Feet 1IGAR1 p$ Tlgard,OR 97223 • C Eo 503639-417i WWW.tigardor.gov �IL:ARD Exhibit D • City of Tigard Park & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Meeting Minutes TIGARD MEETING DATE: May 12, 2014 7 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Building, Auditorium, 8777 SW Burnham Street The purpose of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board is to advise and advocate for park and recreation opportunities for a growing Tigard. 1. Roll Call: .\t p.m. the meeting was called to order by Chairman Troy Mears. Members: Present Dave Brown No Claudia Ciobanu Yes Peggy Faber Yes Marshall Henry Yes Troy Mears Yes Holly Polivka Yes Note: There is one current vacancy on the board. Other: Barry Albertson No Tigard-Tualatin School District Liaison Paul Drechsler No Alternate Gary Romans Yes Alternate Marland Henderson Yes Council Liaison City of Tigard Staff Present: Brian Rager Interim Public Works Director Steve Martin Public Works Division Manager Martin McKnight Parks Supervisor Marissa Grass Associate Planner Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director Susan Shanks Senior Planner Renee' Ferguson PRAB Recorder PARK & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES—May 12, 2014 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-718-2591 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 5 Audience: Neal Brown, Carine Arendes and Tim Pepper. 2. Approval of Minutes: April 14, 2014 Holly Polivka moved to approve the April 14, 2014, meeting minutes. Marshall Henry seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a majority vote of the board members present with Claudia Ciobanu, Marshall Henry, Troy Mears and Holly Polivka voting yes. Peggy Faber abstained. 3. Comments from the Audience Neal Brown, 13853 SW Boxelder St., spoke to the board about his desire for the city and YMCA to collaborate on the development of a recreation center in Tigard. Carine Arendes, 9524 SW North Dakota St., a member of City Center Advisory Committee (CCAC), said the first Downtown Art Walk will be June 2 through June 22, 2014. Tim Pepper, 14550 SW 120'" Pl., a representative of the Friends of East Bull Mountain Park, reported on volunteer group's efforts in trail building and removal of non-native plants. 4. Memorial Wall Richard Shavey spoke to the board about his desire for the city to build a memorial honoring military personnel. He suggested the memorial be sited along the newly leased property for the Tigard Street Trail. Troy Mears commented due to the property being leased from the railroad, placing a permanent structure would not be allowed. Brian Rager replied the lease is for 99 years and at the railroad's request, the city would have 180 days to remove any structures placed on the property. 5. Heritage Tree Proposal Associate Planner Marissa Grass asked the board to consider giving special designation to two trees under the city's Heritage and Significant Tree programs. She provided a handout that is on file in the PRAB record. Some of the highlights include: • A black walnut tree is located on SW Tigard Street and is approximately 75 years old. • A European birch tree is located on SW O'Mara Street and is approximately 77 years old. • The birch tree is listed on the City of Tigard Nuisance Species List because of its ability to spread into natural areas and out-compete native species. PARK& RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES—May 12, 2014 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2591 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 5 Claudia Ciobanu moved to recommend the black walnut tree on SW Tigard Street to be listed as a Heritage Tree. Holly Polivka seconded the motion. The recommendation was approved by a unanimous vote of the board members present with Claudia Ciobanu, Marshall Henry, Troy Mears, Peggy Faber and Holly Polivka voting yes. The board decided to not give special designation to the European birch tree. 6. River Terrace Parks Plan Review Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire and Senior Planner Susan Shanks spoke to the board and provided a handout for the future development of River Terrace; this handout is on file in the PRAB record. Some of the highlights include: • 19.25 acres of land is recommended for community parks. • 9.62 acres of land is recommended for neighborhood parks. • 8.02 acres of land is recommended for linear parks. • 3.01 miles are proposed for trails. • 65 acres are under natural resource protection. Holly Polivka asked why the plan will include several neighborhood and community parks for the planned population of the area. Tom McGuire replied that River Terrace is an undeveloped area and will accommodate multiple park locations. Susan Shanks asked the board for comments on the city's plan of removing the Roy Rogers Greenway Trail and keeping the River Terrace trail, formally known as the 300 Foot Trail. Marshall Henry expressed his desire for walking trails to be included in the River Terrace planning. Troy Mears asked if the current proposal would separate the trail along Roy Rogers Road. Mr. McGuire responded two trails were proposed in a large greenway along both sides of Roy Rogers Road and one trail will remain in a smaller corridor. Ms. Shanks said the council will be updated on the progress of River Terrace at its June 17, 2014, city council meeting. 7. Park Updates Martin McKnight provided the following updates: • Construction of community gardens at Jack Park has been completed. • Invasive plants are being removed at the Steve Street property. PARK& RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES—May 12, 2014 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2591 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 5 • Basketball court improvements at Jack Park and Cook Park are being reviewed. • Due to an increase of vandalism at Woodard Park, a security camera has been installed. 8. Westside Trail Planning Steve Martin provided handouts and spoke to the board on the Westside Trail planning; these handouts are on file in the PRAB record. Some of the highlights include: • The trail will connect areas of Tigard, unincorporated Bull Mountain and King City. • Due to the steep terrain, a section going over Bull Mountain will not be rated as an American with Disabilities Act trail section. Marshall Henry moved to approve the concept plan to include the Westside Trail through River Terrace. Peggy Faber seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the board members present with Claudia Ciobanu, Marshall Henry, Troy Mears, Peggy Faber and Holly Polivka voting yes. Holly Polivka moved to approve the recommendation for the PRAB to review the trails in the future. Claudia Ciobanu seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the board members present with Claudia Ciobanu, Marshall Henry, Troy Mears, Peggy Faber and Holly Polivka voting yes. 9. Non-Agenda Items Steve Martin asked the board to move next month's PRAB meeting location to Town Hall. The board agreed to move its next meeting to Town Hall. Mr. Martin updated the board that executive session training will be held during a future meeting. Mr. Martin updated the board on the progress of the recreation program consultant. The consultant will be researching options in Tigard. 8. Executive Session No executive session was held. PARK& RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES —May 12, 2014 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2591 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 5 11. Adjourn At 8:40 p.m., the PRAB adjourned. Next Meeting • June 9, 2014—Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. /s/ Renee Ferguson Renee Ferguson, PRAB Recorder Attest: /s/ Troy Mears Chairman Troy Mears Date: June 9, 2014 PARK& RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES—May 12, 2014 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2591 www.ugard-or.gov I Page 5 of 5 AIS-1674 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Plan Prepared For: Debbie Smith-Wagar, Financial and Information Services Submitted By: Debbie Smith-Wagar Financial and Information Services Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Update Council on the progress of the River Terrace Funding Strategy STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff will present the draft funding strategy for River Terrace. Staff is seeking input from Council. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY All of the needed infrastructure improvements in River Terrace for water, sewer, transportation, parks and stormwater have been identified in their respective master plans and provided to Council at previous briefings. The project lists and cost estimates from these master plans were then used to develop preliminary funding information on each infrastructure system, which was also shared with Council at previous briefings. The draft River Terrace Funding Strategy, which is attached to this AIS and the focus of this briefing, consolidates all of that information into one comprehensive strategy that considers the funding impact of all the systems together. Key components of the strategy are as follows: -- It includes a funding recommendation for each infrastructure system. -- It identifies at least one and sometimes several viable funding packages for each system and then scores them using evaluation criteria to demonstrate, for example, how equitable or financially sustainable a particular funding package is relative to another funding package. -- It identifies which projects are likely to be needed in the near-term (0—6 years) and long-term (7 - ? years). The near term project list was developed by staff through a series of workshops using available information about each system and future development patterns. This list and the assumptions upon which it was based was then vetted by developers and other service providers. See the attached document entitled Key Infrastructure Information by System for more information. The purpose of this briefing is to: -- Provide background on the development of the strategy --Walk Council through the key recommendations in the attached report -- Seek feedback from Council on the financing strategies in the report -- Discuss next steps If there are no significant changes requested, Council will be asked on December 16, 2014 to approve a resolution adopting a final River Terrace Funding Strategy. That resolution will not be binding, but will be a tool to guide how needed projects will be funded over time and provide a workplan for staff bring implementation issues forward for Council consideration, where it is needed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council can choose not to provide direction on the River Terrace Funding Strategy. Council can instruct staff and consultants to make significant changes to the River Terrace Funding Strategy. This will likely require an additional Council meeting prior to approval of the resolution. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Successfully complete River Terrace Community Plan Growth and Annexation DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The project team presented Council with the stormwater master plan and funding strategies on July 22, 2014. The project team presented Council with the parks and transportation master plan addenda and funding strategies on June 17, 2014. Council approved the sewer master plan addendum on June 10, 2014 and the water master plan addendum on June 24, 2014. The project team presented Council with the water and sewer master plan addenda and funding strategies on May 20, 2014. The project team updated Council on the project on January 21, 2014. Council approved the contract for the River Terrace Community Plan (which includes the funding strategies) on June 25, 2013. Attachments TRT Funding Strategy Report Key Infrastructure Information by System City of Tigard River Terrace 1,1 n TIGARD TIGARD RIVER TERRACE FUNDING STRATEGY DRAFT REPORT September, 2014 FCS GROUP 4380 SW Macadam Ave. Suite 220 Portland, OR 97239 T: 503.841.6543 I F: 503.841.6573 This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials, including the bronze wire binding and the front and back cover,which are made from post-consumer recycled plastic bottles. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was made possible through funding provided by the City of Tigard, a Metro Construction Excise Tax grant, and Washington County. The findings and conclusions of this report were formulated by the consultant team using input from City staff, River Terrace Stakeholder Workgroup and Technical Advisory Committee members, and the Tigard City Council. We sincerely appreciate the time and energy devoted by all that participated in the: River Terrace Community Plan; River Terrace public facility master plans for water, sewer, parks, stormwater and transportation; and the River Terrace Funding Strategy. Tigard City Council John L. Cook, Mayor Marland Henderson, Council President Gretchen Buehner, Councilor Jason Snider, Councilor Marc Woodard, Councilor Tigard City Staff Marty Wine, City Manager Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director Debbie Smith-Wagar, Assistant Finance Director Kenny Asher, Community Development Director Susan P. Shanks, Senior Planner Brian Rager, Interim Public Works Director Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director John Goodrich, Interim Assistant Public Works Director Mike McCarthy, Senior Project Engineer Steve Martin, Parks and Facilities Manager Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner Carrie Pak, Interim City Engineer Marissa Grass, Associate Planner Acknowledgements River Terrace Funding Strategy River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) Jim Beardsley, Property Owner Ernie Brown,Tigard-Tualatin School District Joanne Criscione, Property Owner Nora Curtis, Clean Water Services Michael Freudenthal, Neighborhood Representative Fred Gast, Developer Dan Grimberg, Developer/Property Owner Lisa Hamilton, Friends of Bull Mountain Jerry Hanford,Neighborhood Representative Steve Jacobson, Property Owner Marsha Lancaster, Property Owner Yolanda McVicker, Community Planning Organization - CPO 4B Kathy Stallkamp, Community Planning Organization- CPO 4B Jamie Stasny, Developer John Weathers, Neighborhood Representative Marc Woodard, Tigard City Council River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Alan Kennedy,Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Andrew Barrett, City of Beaverton Andy Braun, Clean Water Services Anne Debbaut, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Carrie Pak, Clean Water Services Dave Wells, King City David Winship, City of Beaverton Jabra Khasho,City of Beaverton John Wolff, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Julie Russell,Tigard Water District Kelly Hossaini, Miller Nash/Tigard-Tualatin School District Kim McMillan, City of Tigard Lidwien Rahman, Oregon Department of Transportation 4)FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com • Acknowledgements River Terrace Funding Strategy Michael Stone, City of Tigard Paul Shaefer, Washington County Paul Witney,Tualatin River Keepers Peter Arellano,City of Beaverton Gerry Uba, Metro Richard Steinbrugge, Beaverton Schools Steve L. Kelley, Washington County Steve Martin, City of Tigard Valerie Sutton, City of Beaverton FCS GROUP Consultants Todd Chase, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Project Manager John Ghilarducci, Principal Doug Gabbard, Senior Consultant Timothy Wood, Analyst Anthony Martin, Analyst 4>FC S GROUP www.icsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 Tigard City Council 1 Tigard City Staff 1 River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) 2 River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 2 FCS GROUP Consultants 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODOLOGY 2 A. process and approach 2 B. Funding Sources 3 B.1 System Development Charges 3 B.2 Supplemental Transportation System Development Charges 4 B.3 Transportation Development Tax (TDT); Washington County 4 B.4 Local Improvement District (LID) 4 B.5 Reimbursement District 4 B.6 Utility Rates 5 B.7 Urban Renewal District 5 B.7.a URD Requirements 5 B.7.b Maximum Indebtedness Requirements 5 B.7.c Revenue Sharing Possibilities 5 B.7.d Concurrence Waivers 6 B.8 Special Taxing Districts 6 B.9 Bonds 6 B.9.a General Obligation Bonds 6 B.9.b Revenue Bonds 6 B.9.c Full Faith and Credit Obligations (FFCOs) 7 B.10 Loans and Grants 7 B.10.a Bank and State Loans 7 B.l 1.b Grants and Low-Interest Financing 7 B.11 General Fund 7 B.12 Developer Dedications 8 4>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page ii C. Funding Source Evaluation criteria 8 C.1 Equity 8 C.2 Reliability of Funds 8 C.3 Facilitates Development 8 C.4 Ease of Implementation 9 C.5 Ability to Address Near-Term Costs 9 C.6 Ability to Address Long-Term Costs 9 C.7 Total Evaluation Score 9 D. Development absorption forecast 9 III. FUNDING STRATEGY 11 A. Water 11 A.1 Overall Findings 11 A.2 Public Facility Costs 11 A.3 Funding Scenarios 12 A.4 Evaluation 12 A.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 13 B. Sanitary sewer 13 B1. Overall Findings 13 B2. Public Facility Costs 14 B.3 Funding Scenario 14 B.4 Evaluation 15 B.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 15 C. Parks 16 C.1 Overall Findings 16 C.2 Public Facility Costs 16 C.3 Funding Scenarios 16 C.4 Evaluation 17 C.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 17 D. Stormwater 18 D.1 Overall Findings 18 D.2 Public Facility Costs 18 D.3 Funding Scenarios 19 D.3 Evaluation 19 D.4 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 20 E. Transportation 21 E.1 Overall Findings 21 E.2 Public Facility Costs 21 E.3 Funding Scenarios 23 •:4 FC S GROUP www.fcsgroupcom City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page iii E.4 Evaluation 23 E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios 24 IV. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 26 A. General Considerations 26 B. Water System 26 C. Sanitary Sewer System 27 D. Parks and Trails System 27 E. Stormwater System 27 F. Transportation System 27 V. APPENDIX 29 10-year forecast of selected city funds 29 Water Utility Fund 30 Water CIP Fund 31 Water SDC Fund 32 Water Utility Fund Assumptions 33 Sanitary Sewer Fund 34 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions 35 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions 36 Parks Funds 37 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions 38 Stormwater Funds 39 Stormwater Fund Assumptions 40 Transportation Funds 41 Transportation Funds 42 Transportation Fund Assumptions 43 •:;>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroupcom City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 1 I . INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard (population 49,135) is currently the 12th largest city in Oregon(third largest in Washington County). In 2002, the Metro Council approved a 500+ acre urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion and authorized conceptual planning for the area now named River Terrace(RT) along with adjacent rural lands. The West Bull Mountain Concept Plan was developed from about 2005 to 2010 by Washington County in partnership with Metro. In 2011,the Metro Council voted to add the 49-acre"Roy Rogers West" area into the UGB. In 2012, the City of Tigard("City")annexed these areas and initiated the River Terrace Community Plan to implement the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan. At build-out,the River Terrace area will be zoned to accommodate up to 2,587 dwellings, a commercial center of 40,000 gross square feet,and at least one new public school. As part of the Community Plan, the City has responsibility for: • Establishing land-use designations,regulations and design standards • Applying natural resource protections and abiding by the environmental standards of Clean Water Services,Washington County,Metro, state government, and federal government. These include new standards for stormwater quantity and quality. • Ensuring that the City's master plans and regulatory maps are updated to address River Terrace infrastructure requirements including: • Parks,recreation and trails • Storm/surface water quality • Water • Sanitary sewer • Transportation • Preparing a River Terrace funding strategy to comply with Metro Title 11 Functional Plan that requires areas added to the UGB to include "provision(s) for financing of local and state public facilities and services." The City of Tigard selected FCS GROUP in 2013 (as subcontractor to Otak, Inc.) to prepare the River Terrace funding strategy. This effort included coordinating with City staff, SWG and TAC members, and the Tigard City Council to evaluate and select a preferred funding strategy for the required public facilities. This report is a plan for funding major capital facilities in the River Terrace Community Plan area over defined periods of six years(near-term) and build-out (long-term). •:;>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroap.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 2 II . METHODOLOGY We used a collaborative approach to identify and evaluate funding sources for the major capital facility improvements required to serve future development within River Terrace. As the long-term "owner" of public facilities (including local roads, water reservoirs,pump stations, local transmission lines for water and sewer,parks, trails and stormwater facilities), the City must consider how to fund capital costs (includes design,permitting,land and facility construction) and operating/maintenance (O&M) costs in all areas of the City. While this Funding Strategy is primarily focused on funding for capital improvements, FCS GROUP also worked with City finance staff to prepare 10-year forecasts for related O&M costs,and included the findings in the recommendations(see Appendix A). A. PROCESS AND APPROACH The process used to develop this Funding Strategy involved consultants,City staff, regional and state "service providers",and private property owners and developers. The City formed a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG), a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),conducted open public community meetings,and held on-line forums to obtain feedback on interim findings for the funding strategy and public facility master plan updates. As part of this process,FCS GROUP initially prepared a series of Technical Memoranda to discuss and identify funding options related to key facilities and issues of importance. These Memoranda were provided in November and December 2013 and are available on the River Terrace website (http://www.riverterracetigard.com): • Funding Considerations for River Terrace in Comparison with North Bethany • Parks,Trails, and Open Space Funding Options for River Terrace • Stormwater Funding Options for River Terrace • Transportation Funding Options for River Terrace • Wastewater Funding Options for River Terrace • Water Funding Options for River Terrace In addition to these technical documents,City staff prepared informational documents regarding funding strategy policy options to inform the community about how various groups (i.e., existing City residents, future residents in River Terrace,developers and property owners in River Terrace) could help pay for essential public infrastructure. In the spring and summer of 2014 FCS GROUP, City staff, and other consultant team members presented draft public facility master plan amendments and preliminary funding strategies to the Tigard City Council during work sessions open to the public. Input received at these meetings and subsequent meetings with the TAC and SWG was used to finalize the master plan amendments for adoption by the Tigard City Council and to provide feedback regarding the assumptions contained in the funding strategy. 4) FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 3 Underlying the alternatives and recommendations in this report is the assumption that the City desires and intends to develop River Terrace in the manner that it has planned. This report is not a cost-benefit analysis, and it provides no evaluation of the City's plan to develop River Terrace. B. FUNDING SOURCES There is a hierarchy of public facilities needed to serve new developing areas. Local infrastructure facilities such as: neighborhood streets,sidewalks, water and sewer line connections to the trunk system, and storm drainage systems may be required as a condition of development approval (per development agreements); or included as part of adopted system development charges (SDCs) that must be paid by developers in lieu of constructing a facility. Development agreements between developers and local service providers are often used to advance or expedite the financing for specific public facility improvements. In addition to specifying the capital projects to be constructed, development agreements help clarify project delivery timelines, funding responsibilities, and developer investment reimbursement levels. If the required public facilities are included as a"qualified public improvement"per ORS 223.309, then the local government must have an ordinance or resolution that establishes or modifies an improvement fee to provide credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified public improvement. Capital improvements to major public facilities are often constructed by local governments or utility service providers through some form of debt financing or "pay-as-you-go" fund allocations for capital projects that are included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). When capital improvements are funded or financed by the local jurisdiction(s), service provider(s) or through development agreement(s), the funding options that are used in Washington County include: • Local System Development Charges (SDC) • Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) • Local Improvement Districts (LID) • Reimbursement District • Utility Rates • Urban Renewal Program(Tax Increment Financing) • Special Taxing Districts • Bonds • Loans and Grants • General Funds (with a mix of funding sources) • Developer Dedications A summary of these local funding techniques is provided below. B.1 System Development Charges ORS 223.297—223.314 provides"a uniform framework for the imposition of system development charges by governmental units" and establishes "that the charges may be used only for capital improvements."An SDC can be formulated to include one or both of the following components: (1) a reimbursement fee, intended to recover an equitable share of the cost of facilities already constructed or under construction and (2) an improvement fee, intended to recover a fair share of future,planned, ••�>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 4 capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the system. SDCs may include an improvement fee for new facilities and a reimbursement fee associated with capita 1 improvements already constructed. SDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. ORS 223.299 defines "capital improvements" as facilities or assets used for: • Water supply, treatment and distribution; • Waste water collection,transmission,treatment and disposal; • Drainage and flood control; • Transportation; and • Parks and recreation. The City already collects SDCs for sanitary sewer,stormwater and parks facilities and is updating these SDCs. The City is also considering a new local SDC for transportation. B.2 Supplemental Transportation System Development Charges Tigard is in process of considering a local Transportation SDC for transportation facilities (including streets, transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities) that would be separate from the existing Washington County TDT. The local Transportation SDC would represent an impact fee on new development and could be considered citywide or within defined sub-districts within the City. B.3 Transportation Development Tax (TDT); Washington County Approved by Washington County voters on November 4, 2008 (Measure No. 34-164),the TDT replaced the previous tax, known as the Traffic Impact Fee. The TDT went into effect on July 1, 2009 and is levied countywide in all cities. Since River Terrace is located within Washington County,the city may explore the use of Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) revenues for roadway improvements that add capacity, such as improvements to Roy Rodgers Road, Bull Mountain Road, and other eligible collector and arterial facilities. B.4 Local Improvement District (LID) Cities in Oregon have the statutory authority to establish local improvement districts and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. These 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 primary advantage of LIDs from the city's perspective is the ability to attain a consistent level of revenue generation early in the development process. Financial intermediaries such as banks now view LIDs as a more reliable funding source than others (such as SDCs) and are more apt to provide loans based on future LID revenue streams. However,the financing terms for"raw land" LIDs have become far more stringent since the 2007 financial crisis and are now far less favorable than financing terms given to municipal bond issues or state infrastructure loans. B.5 Reimbursement District Similar to LIDs, cities can negotiate public/private advance financing arrangements with developers, where a developer agrees to front capital improvements/investment within a designated zone of benefit. The developer is then partially reimbursed as new land use development approvals are granted within the reimbursement district over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. While +>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September.2014 page 5 reimbursement districts have been successfully utilized in Tigard in the past, there is no guarantee that future revenues will be steady and reliable as with the LID or property tax assessments. B.6 Utility Rates Utility rates are a common way to raise local revenues to pay for required infrastructure facilities and operations. However, they require approval and adoption by the City or service district and must meet state and local regulations. Utility fees are paid for by customers within the service area,and typically are included in monthly or bi-monthly utility bills for streets, water, sewer, stormwater, and parks. Tigard currently charges utility fees for water, sewer, transportation,and stormwater costs. B.7 Urban Renewal District Tigard currently has a downtown urban renewal district in place, and there may be an opportunity for to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace Urban Renewal District (URD). In many cases, URD funds are combined with other local funding sources(e.g. SDCs) to leverage non-local grants or loans. B.7.a URD Requirements The requirements for preparing an urban renewal plan and establishing an URD are contained in ORS 457. In general, the most pertinent elements of the legal requirements of ORS 457 include: • Does the area within the proposed boundary contain blighting conditions as defined in ORS 457? (this includes "inadequate streets and other rights of way, open space and utilities" among other factors that seem to exist in River Terrace) • Does the area(along with other URDs in the city) constitute less than 25%of the city's acreage and assessed valuation level? (this seems to be the case when considering River Terrace and the current Downtown URD areas) • Do the proposed urban renewal plan and project activities address and help treat blighting conditions? • Are the proposed project activities eligible as urban renewal activities? • Have renewal project costs and revenues been estimated? B.7.b 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 is the case in River Terrace), the total MI may not exceed $50 million. B.7.c 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 11'h year after the initial plan was adopted, or when TIF collections equal or exceed 10%of the initial MI. • For any year when TIF collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI,but are less than 12.5% of the initial MI, the urban renewal agency receives the 10%, plus 25% of the tax increment 4>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 6 between 10% and 12.5%. Overlapping tax districts receive 75% of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. • For any year when TIF 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. B.7.d Concurrence Waivers Variations in the MI 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 URD. In light of these and other URD provisions, the city of Tigard may consider the creation of a new district. Revenue generation potential from urban renewal tax increment collections within a district that coincides with River Terrace is further analyzed in the next section. B.8 Special Taxing Districts Special districts with taxing authority may be formed by voters within the district for specific purposes, such as providing sanitary service, water improvements,or surface water control.2 For example,a Water Control District (ORS Chapter 553) may be formed to construct, improve,operate, and maintain surface water control works that improve public health, welfare,and safety as well as enhance pollution control and increase water quality. The district would have a separate board of directors and may levy taxes, fees, and assessments. If the district levy's a property tax,the tax rate is limited to a portion of the real market value of all taxable property in the district. B.9 Bonds Cities may finance public facilities using several types of debt known as bonds or certificates of participation. B.9.a General Obligation Bonds In Oregon, general obligation (G.O.)bonds must be approved by voters. G.O. bonds provide their own debt service in the form of a property tax levy that is exempt from the Measure 5 (compression) limits. G.O. bonds offer slightly lower interest rates than revenue bonds,being backed by the City's tax base. From the investor's perspective,tax backed debt is more secure. These bonds also carry no additional coverage requirement, allowing the City to collect revenues necessary to meet annual debt service with no additional financial consequences. G.O.bonds can be politically unpalatable if the municipality's constituency doesn't support the project purpose. B.9.b Revenue Bonds Revenue Bonds are,by definition,backed by the revenue of a utility or enterprise fund,or some other dedicated revenue source. Because the payment stream is less secured than tax backed bonds, revenue bonds carry higher interest rates than G.O. bonds.This differential,however,may be minimal. 2 Special districts in Oregon may be formed by local governments without a vote if the district foregoes the ability to levy a property tax. 4>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 7 Revenue bonds are perhaps the most common source of funding for construction of major public facility or utility projects. To issue revenue bonds the City must commit to certain security conditions related to repayment,specifically reserve and coverage requirements for annual rate revenues. These conditions are included in the bond resolution to be adopted by the City and essentially impose certain conservative financial practices on the City as a way of making the bonds more secure. Revenue bond coverage is a contractual requirement binding a utility to demonstrate that annual revenues exceed expenses by a multiple of the debt service payment. This factor is usually at least 1.25 and is higher for agencies with unrated bonds or low bond ratings. Revenue bond coverage requirements can result higher utility rates than would otherwise be necessary to meet the cash needs of the utility. B.9.c Full Faith and Credit Obligations (FFCOs) This last type is a hybrid of the first two. Like revenue bonds, FFCOs require no vote, and they trigger no property tax levy. Like general obligation bonds, FFCO's do not figure into debt coverage ratio calculations for municipalities that have outstanding revenue bonds. Like G.O. bonds, which are issued against the taxing authority of the City, these bonds may be repaid by other dedicated revenues. This arrangement takes advantage of the more favorable terms,while still requiring system users to repay the debt. The General Fund would ultimately remain responsible for debt repayment should rate revenues prove insufficient. Debt limits for public borrowing through the use of FFCOs and G.O. Bonds is described in ORS chapter 287.A. B.10 Loans and Grants Federal and state grant programs,once readily available for financial assistance, were mostly eliminated or replaced by low-cost loan programs. Remaining grant programs are generally limited in application, lightly funded, and heavily subscribed.Nonetheless, the economic benefit of grants and low-interest loans can make the effort of applying worthwhile. B.10.a Bank and State Loans 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 Fund and the Oregon Bond Bank. Special Public Works funds are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to $3 million in size,but require well-secured loan guarantees from the applicants. 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. B.1 1.b Grants and Low-Interest Financing Grants offer some potential for the capital improvement projects and initiatives that the city is considering. The city may be able to leverage non-local dollars using dedicated local funding. There are several regional, state and federal grant and loan programs that may be available for transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater improvements. Please refer to Metro and Business Oregon contacts for current grant and loan funding opportunities. B.1 1 General Fund The General Fund includes revenues (primarily property tax revenues and franchise fee revenues) the city receives that are not associated with"enterprise funds" and can be used to fund activities or projects associated with local governance. As part of the annual budgeting process,Tigard City Council has the discretion to allocate a portion of General Funds to enterprise activities or other 4>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 8 dedicated purposes. Since General Funds are relied upon to fund essential city administrative expenses services (including police and fire protection), they do not represent a very reliable funding source for funding public infrastructure. However, General Funds can serve as an important credit mechanism for issuing bonds, as noted above. B.12 Developer Dedications Jurisdictions can require developers to dedicate right-of-way or public improvements (such as trail easements or street improvements) as a condition of future development approval if those public facilities are identified in an adopted subarea development plan, transportation system plan or public facility plan, and the value of the real estate and improvements is commensurate with the level of impact generated by the proposed development. In cases where dedicated public facilities are eligible for SDC or TDT credits, the developer may be entitled to an amount of credit based on the amount of the improvement charge and the value of the land and/or capital facility provided based on the credit terms/methods adopted per local ordinance. C. FUNDING SOURCE EVALUATION CRITERIA An evaluation of funding options for each public facility type was conducted to ascertain the relative potential for implementing the potential funding measures identified above. FCS GROUP worked with City staff to identify potential "bundles"of funding based on the status quo (existing practice within the City of Tigard) and scenarios that would entail new funding sources. C.1 Equity Equity has been defined herein as the equitable distribution of cost/risk among four categories: existing city residents,new residents within River Terrace, River Terrace developers/property owners, and the City's General Fund. A score for each funding source has been assigned to each category ranging from low cost/risk(1)to high cost/risk (5). The overall equity score for each funding scenario was determined based upon the relative standard deviation from "uniform equity" (which represents a case where each group shares costs/risks equally). A relatively low equity score depicts a large standard deviation, and a relatively high score depicts a small standard deviation from uniform equity. C.2 Reliability of Funds Reliability of funds is an important consideration, especially if debt is used to advance funding for improvements. Funding sources, such as SDCs, Reimbursement Districts, and General Fund allocations do not generate revenue in a predictable manner, and have poor reliability. In comparison,G.O. Bonds, special districts, and LIDs tend to be far more reliable and less risky to the agency that takes on debt. C.3 Facilitates Development Adequate public facilities must be provided(and funded)before major private development can occur in River Terrace. The ability for the public or private sector to fund necessary infrastructure to accommodate new private development is an important consideration and should be viewed from each of their perspective. If there is an over reliance on private developers/property owners within River Terrace to fund all necessary public infrastructure,the development costs per unit of net development (housing units or commercial floor area) may drive up costs to a level that exceeds supportable market prices(e.g. lot or home sales prices). On the other hand, if new public facilities are to be funded primarily using SDCs or General Funds, then it is likely that the City would not 4) FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 9 invest in these facilities until adequate capital reserves are established which could take many years. A score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) is assigned to each funding scenario, based on the relative potential it would have to facility development within the near-term(next six years). C.4 Ease of Implementation Ease of Implementation refers to the process that is required to adopt or implement the funding sources identified within each funding scenario. Some funding sources, such as utility rates and SDCs do not require public votes to enact and therefore are relatively easier to implement (these are not without inherent political or market risks) than funding sources that require a public vote or legal formation steps (such as Urban Renewal Districts, Local Improvement Districts, Reimbursement Districts, and Special Taxing Districts). A score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) is assigned to each funding scenario, based on the relative ease of implementation to enact the relevant funding options. C.5 Ability to Address Near-Term Costs Using the adopted facility master plans and CIP, City staff was able to identify a preliminary list of facility improvements necessary to get development underway in River Terrace. Each improvement entails additional capital costs that are to be incurred by the City, or other major service provider (e.g.,CWS,Washington County,etc.),or developer. A score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) is assigned to each funding scenario,based on the anticipated level of funds it would generate in comparison to the expected near-term capital cost requirements. C.6 Ability to Address Long-Term Costs The adopted public facility plans for River Terrace were used to identify specific facility improvements necessary serve River Terrace (and the surrounding area) at build-out. Each improvement entails additional capital costs that are to be incurred by the City, or other major service provider(e.g., CWS, Washington County,etc.), or developer. A score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) is assigned to each funding scenario,based on the anticipated level of funds it would generate in comparison to the expected long-term capital cost requirements. C.7 Total Evaluation Score A total score is computed for each funding scenario using the overall equity score, and the scores assigned for the ability to: facilitate development; implement the funding scenario; address near-term cost; and address long-term cost. The total score was also used to rank or prioritize funding scenarios. D. DEVELOPMENT ABSORPTION FORECAST City staff and consultants worked with SWG/TAC members to estimate available public facility infrastructure capacity and the timing of near-term improvements and developments within River Terrace. The development absorption forecast takes into account land uses planned as part of the adopted River Terrace Community Plan. To keep the funding revenue forecasts conservative, it is assumed that the fees generated will occur approximately one year after development approvals are granted by the City. It is also assumed that the amount of total net new development realized in River Terrace will be 10% less than the zoned capacity and no commercial or school development is counted in the City's revenue forecast. The near-term and long-term development absorption assumptions are provided in Exhibit 1. 4>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 10 Exhibit 1: River Terrace Develo•ment Absor•tion Forecast Dwellin• Units Absorption Years Until Scenario Near Term* Lon• Term Total Build-out Low 440 1,888 2,328 24 Medium 540 1,788 2,328 20 High 640 1,688 2,328 18 * Near term is assumed to extend from FYE 2015 to FYE 2021. FYE=fiscal year ending. Note:this assumes 10%under-build factor. Excludes:40,000 sq.commercial and school developments. ••�>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 11 III . FUNDING STRATEGY FCS GROUP relied upon the River Terrace master plan amendments and the current adopted Tigard five-year Capital Improvement Program to identify specific improvements and their associated capital costs for public facilities related to River Terrace. This section highlights the overall findings,public facility capital costs,near-term project assumptions, funding scenario evaluation, and preliminary preferred scenarios for each infrastructure type if River Terrace develops as planned. Funding revenue forecasts are based on medium absorption forecast depicted in the preceding table. A. WATER A.l Overall Findings The service provider for water in River Terrace is the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard's Water Fund is being programmed to make major investments per the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership. Prior and planned rate increases should adequately address local revenue requirements and enable the city to proactively construct capital projects that benefit existing and future customers,including those in River Terrace. Development Agreements could be utilized to allow private(developer) construction of water lines (eligible for SDC credits). There are three zones in River Terrace with different water pressures in the water system: a 410 zone, a 550 zone, and a 713 zone. Adequate water capacity is currently available to serve future River Terrace development within the 410 and 713 zones. However, there is a city-wide need for additional water storage capacity in the 550 zone. City staff estimates that only 72 additional homes can be built in River Terrace within the 550 zone before the new 3.0 million gallon per day (gpd) Cach Reservoir is constructed. A.2 Public Facility Costs Near-term water facility improvements include capacity-related facilities in the 410 and 500 zones. The 410 zone will require two transmission mains and a water pressure reducing valve (PRV), the only upgrade required in the near term. The new Cach Reservoir and a new pump station and transmission main is planned in the near-term to serve city-wide needs within the 550 zone. See Exhibit 2 for details. 4) FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 12 Exhibit 2:Water Infrastructure Needs Near Facilities by Pressure Zone Capital Cost Term Potential Funding Source Notes 410 Zone: 18-inch Transmission Mains $1,398,500 ❑ Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) 20-inch Transmission Mains $6,080,000 ❑ Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) 550 Zone to 410 Zone PRV $200,000 0 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs 713 Zone: None - 550 Zone: 16-inch Transmission Mains through River Terrace $2,800,000 ❑ Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) 3.0 mgd Cach Reservoir $5,400,000 0 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs 16-inch Transmission from Reservoir to 5508 $595,000 ® Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs 1,400 gpm (firm capacity)Pump Station $1,100,000 0 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs Total Cost $17,573,500 Source:River Terrace Water System Master Plan Addendum June 2014,compiled by FCS Group A.3 Funding Scenarios There is one funding scenario for water infrastructure which is generally consistent with the existing funding sources utilized by the City of Tigard. This includes utility fees, citywide SDCs, and developer dedications of local transmission lines (Exhibit 3). Exhibit 3: Water Fundin• Scenario Scenario Funding Source A(status Notes quo) Utility Fee(existing) ® Existing city-wide water rates may be increased to address costs SDC (City wide) e® Existing city-wide water SDCs should be sufficient to address costs Developer ¢J Developers to provide/construct local water system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 A.4 Evaluation Overall, the water funding scenario received a total score of 24 points (out of a possible 30 points). The scenario has good marks for equity, reliability, ability to facilitate development, and can be implemented without the need to establish new sources (Exhibit 4). 4)FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 13 Exhibit 4: Water Fundin! Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria A (status Equity(1: over cost burden-5:11 g'et cost burden) quo) General Fund Cost Burden i) Citywide Resident Cost Burden '1♦ Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden al Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation Criteria (1: worst -5: best) Equity(Standard Deviation of cost burden)* Reliability of Funds Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ability to Address Near-Term Costs Ability to Address Long-Term Costs Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) =24 *denotes relative variance from "uniform"equity(whereas developers, city, future residents and existing residents would split costs equally) A.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario Total water system infrastructure costs, excluding local connections to main transmission lines, are estimated at $17.6 million. Estimated near-term costs for water infrastructure total $7,295,000 (FYE 2014 dollars), most of which will be paid for using rate revenues from the water fund. The rest of the near term and long term funding will be paid through SDC and water rate revenue (see Exhibit 5). Developers will be responsible for constructing local connections, the cost of which is not listed. Exhibit 5: Water Funding Strategy, Scenario A Scenario A Near Term long Term Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Notes Utility Fees(Water Fund) $5,295,000 Reflects portion of Water Fund Balance by FYE 2021 SDC (City wide,Water SDC Fund) $2000,000 $10,278,500 Existing SDCs (after inflation adjustment), $7,930 per SFD Total Revenue $7,295,000 $10,278,500 Total Cost $7,295,000 $10,278,500 B. SANITARY SEWER B 1 . Overall Findings Clean Water Services (CWS) is the sanitary sewer service provider for the River Terrace area and the City has responsibility for maintaining gravity lines below 12 inches in diameter. The City's Sanitary Sewer Fund is financially challenged regardless of River Terrace and a local city-wide sewer surcharge is recommended. Most areas within River Terrace will require new pump stations before development can occur unless CWS allows for interim facilities for sewer. The North Pump station is scheduled for construction in summer 2015 and completion in January 2016. The South Pump station is scheduled for construction in summer 2018 and completion in January 2019. The City will need to coordinate with CWS to ensure that planned pump stations and force mains serving River Terrace are constructed in a timely manner. The city's limited financial resources may •::>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 14 be focused on coordination with CWS and review of developer engineering designs of gravity main lines. Development Agreements can be utilized to allow private (developer) construction of gravity lines (eligible for SDC credits). B2. Public Facility Costs Sewer infrastructure upgrades for River Terrace are estimated to cost just under $12 million. Facilities in the North River Terrace area include a new pump station, a force main, a Scholls Ferry trunk pipe extension, and upsizing the Barrows Road trunk line. South River Terrace facilities include a force main, a pump stations, and a pipe upsizing on Beef Bend Road. See Exhibit 6 for details. Exhibit 6: Sewer Infrastructure Costs Near Potential North River Terrace Facilities Capital Cost Term Funding lead Potential Funding Source Notes RTN Force Main $650,000 B. CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTN Pump Station $5,666,400 0 CWS CWS Sewer Fund Scholls Ferry Trunk Extension,Phase 1 (city share) $942,000 ® Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Borrows Rd.Trunk Upsizing(city share) $276,300 I1 Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Total Cost(north) $7,534,700 Near Potential South River Terrace Facilities Capital Cost Term funding Lead Potential Funding Source Notes RTS Force Main $2,461,900 ¢J CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTS Pump Station $1.352,000 0 CWS CWS Sewer Fund Beef Bend Rd. 8"line upsizing to 10"(city share) $494,000 ❑ Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Total Cost(south) $4,307,900 Grand Total Cost $11,842,600 Source: River Terrace Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Addendum,June 2014;Tigard Capital Improvement Program; compiled by FCS Group B.3 Funding Scenario The preferred funding scenario for sanitary sewer infrastructure is generally consistent with the existing funding sources utilized by the City of Tigard and CWS. This includes CWS capital funds, SDCs, and developer dedications of local gravity feeds (Exhibit 7). As mentioned above, this City is also in the process of enacting a new local sewer rate surcharge that is needed with or without River Terrace development. Exhibit 7: Sewer Funding Scenario Potential Funding Options Scenario Funding Source A Notes New local surcharge needed with or Utility Fees (Citywide surcharge) ® without River Terrace SDC (Citywide) El Existing sewer SDCs CWS (Capital Fund) CWS funds Developer ® Developers to provide/construct local system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 •:;>FC S GROUP IN IN NN l'c sgroup.e(r►n City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 15 B.4 Evaluation The preferred funding scenario received a total score of 23 (out of a possible 30 points). The preferred scenario for sanitary sewer funding received a relatively favorable equity score and is expected to facilitate development and not entail overly complicated new funding sources, other than the planned citywide sewer rate surcharge(Exhibit 8). Exhibit 8: Sewer Funding Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Scenario Equity (1: lower cost burden -5: higher cost burden A General Fund Cost Burden ❑ Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation Criteria (1:worst -5:best) Cost Equity AIN Reliability of Funds Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation 1 Ability to Address Near-Term Costs Ability to Address Long-Term Costs r_ Average Rating Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) 1111. 23 * denotes relative variance from "uniform"equity(whereas developers, city, future residents and existing residents would split costs equally) B.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario Most of the sewer infrastructure required to serve River Terrace requires major near-term investments (primarily by CWS). In addition to funding provided by CWS, the planned new citywide sewer utility fee surcharge is expected to generate about $1 million in long-term funding, based on a fixed monthly rate. Local sewer SDCs are expected to generate an additional $610,000 in near-term funding (see Exhibit 9). Developers will be responsible for constructing local gravity feeds into sewer mainlines, the cost of which is not listed. Exhibit 9: Sewer Fundin• Strafe•y, Scenario A Anal sis of Prelimine Preferred Fundln• Scenario Scenario A Near Term Law Term Fundln• Mechanism Fundln• Fundin• Total CWS(capital fund,from utility rates) $ 10,130,300 $ 10,130,300 Utility Fee (City surcharge) 609,150 494.000 1,103,150 SDC (City wide) 609,150 609,150 Developer Total Revenue $ 11,348,600 $ 494,000 $ 11,842,600 Total Cost $ 11,348,600 $ 494,000 $ 11,842,600 •4�>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 16 C. PARKS C.1 Overall Findings The City of Tigard is the parks service provider for River Terrace, City of Tigard residents voted to support a Parks G.O. Bond in recent years,but the existing parks capital funds are mostly committed. The City must now rely upon SDC funds,user fees, General Funds and grants to pay for its parks. In addition to updating the citywide parks SDC, it is recommended that the City consider ways to enhance parks operating revenues using a citywide parks utility fee,and consider a future G.O. Bond to help bridge parks funding gaps. Development Agreements could also be utilized to allow private developers to construct neighborhood parks or dedicate land or easements for future parks and trails (eligible for SDC credits and reimbursement). C.2 Public Facility Costs The total cost for parks and trails in River Terrace is over$27 million. Community and neighborhood parks are expected to make up the vast majority of the costs, while trails and linear parks cost $4.9 million combined (see Exhibit 10). Exhibit 10: Parks Infrastructure Costs Facility Capital Cost Potential Funding Sources Community parks $15,893,943 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants,and voter approved GO bonds Neighborhood parks $6,726,525 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Linear parks $3,355,950 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Trails $1,454,097 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants,and voter approved GO bonds Total Costs $27,430,515 Source:Tigard Park System Master Plan Addendum,Table 5. Near-term investment primarly includes land acqusition. Land acquisition is a near term funding priority because the City does not have a mechanism for exacting park land aside from the voluntary planned development process. Early land acquisition is likely critical to ensure land availability for park use in the future. C.3 Funding Scenarios Three funding scenarios have been evaluated for funding parks in River Terrace. All involve the City General Fund, SDC revenues, grants, and developer dedications that would be eligible for SDC credits (see Exhibit 11). 4>FCS GROUP www.tcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 17 Exhibit 11: Parks Funding Scenarios Funding Scenario A(status Funding Source quo) B C Notes City General Fund ❑ 0 City currently allocates General Funds to parks Utility Fee (new) ❑ ® ❑ Scenario B requires new monthly parks utility fee SDC (City wide) 0 0 0 Existing citywide Parks SDCs to be updated Urban Renewal District ❑ ❑ 0 Urban Renewal District may be formed with voter approval GO Bond ❑ 0 ❑ GO Bonds may be issued with voter approval Grants 0 ® 0 Grants from state or Metro may be available Developers can receive SDC credits for constructing eligible Developer public facility improvements. Preliminary Ranking 3 1 2 C.4 Evaluation The rankings for the three scenarios indicate that scenario B has the highest score and is the preferred funding scenario. While scenario B is difficult to implement because it relies on a future G.O. Bond, it would generate reliable future revenues that could be used to construct attractive parks and recreation amenities that would help facilitate development. Scenario A does not have very reliable funding sources since the City would have to leverage far more grant funding. Scenario C has a very high equity score, but the funding sources are not as reliable as scenario B since the assessed value in an Urban Renewal District may not rise as projected (see Exhibit 12). Exhibit 12: Parks Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Funding Scenario Equity(1:lower cost burden-5:higher cost burden) A(status quo) B C General Fund Cost Burden MEM 4111.= Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation Criteria(1:worst-5:best) Cost Equity il>♦ Reliability of Funds �- Facilitates Development 110 1 i Ease of Implementation 1111.1 I 1 Ability to Address Near-Term Costs AMIN Ability to Address Long-Term Costs __ Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) I 11 111. 19 I 17 denotes relative variance from"uniform'equity(whereas developers,city,future residents and existing residents would split costs equally) C.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario Parks and trails in River Terrace are estimated to cost approximately $27.4 million, as indicated in Exhibit 13. For the preferred parks funding scenario (Scenario B), it is estimated that the City would fund approximately $2.25 million in near-term land acquisition for parks in River Terrace. This assumes $250,000 in General Funds and about $2 million in parks SDC funds. •:;>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 18 The long term funding requirements of$25.2 million can be funded through the parks SDC, a potential new G.O. Bond, a potential new citywide parks utility fee, and grants from such entities as Metro, the State, and non-profit foundations(such as the Meyer Memorial Trust). The potential new G.O. Bond would require voter approval. It could be part of a larger citywide parks and trails construction program. It is estimated that for every$10 million in bonds, the levy amount would equate to $0.15 per $1,000 in assessed valuation (AV), which would cost the average homeowner about $47 per year. Exhibit 13: Parks Fundin. Strafe! , Scenario B Scenario B Near Term Long Term Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Total Notes City General Fund $250,000 $250,000 Includes portion of unallocated existing parks GO bond SDC (City wide) $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 Based on current Parks SDC Utility Fee(new city wide) $3,000,000 $3,000,000 new monthly parks utility fee of+/-$1.00 per month assumed G.O.Bond $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Assumes Voter Approved j10 M bond' Grants $180,515 $180,515 Grants(Metro,State,Foundations,etc.) Total Revenue $2,250,000 $25,180,515 $27,430,515 Total Cost $2,250,000 $25,180,515 $27,430,515 'assumes voter-approved levy of$0.15 per$1,000 AV;results in average cost to$311,100 median home of$47/year. D. STORMWATER D.1 Overall Findings The City of Tigard is focused on ensuring that development is environmentally sustainable through low impact stormwater design standards and construction of new stormwater water quality and quantify facilities. Recent federal water quality regulations mandate local investments in stormwater facilities and maintenance activities. While planned rate increases by CWS will increase Stormwater Funds for the City, additional local funding sources should be considered to finance, construct, and maintain stormwater facilities in River Terrace. Stormwater systems within River Terrace are expected to be primarily funded by developers and maintained by the City of Tigard. The City may also consider dedicating funds to form stormwater facility reimbursement districts, which could function as a bank used to advance funding for regional facilities, with payments provided to the City(by developers,buildings or homeowners) after development occurs. Development Agreements could be utilized to allow private developer construction of regional (drainage basin)facilities, with similar reimbursement payback provisions. D.2 Public Facility Costs Total permitting, land and capital cost for stormwater facility improvements and planning/modeling work is estimated at $22 million.3 Near-tern stormwater infrastructure requirements include stormwater modeling of high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis and new design standards for River Terrace. Future stormwater system improvements include 11 water quality/detention ponds,2 detention ponds, and potentially 2 high-flow conveyance facilities (Exhibit 14). Note,these draft cost estimates were prepared by Otak,Inc.as part of the draft Tigard River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan(August 2014).These costs are considered to be on the high-end of what may be realized if developers construct stormwater facilities on-site and avoid public contracting and related prevailing wage requirements. 4) FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 19 Exhibit 14: Stormwater infrastructure Costs Potential Capitol funding Facility Needs Cost Near Term Lead Potential Funding Source Notes VIP Modeling Analysis $50,000 'A City City Stormwater Fund River Terrace Stormwater Design Standards $150,000 ® City City Stormwater Fund Water Quality and Detention Ponds(11) $12,349,000 ❑ Developers Deveopers and reimbursement districts Deveopers and SWQQ reimbursement Detention Ponds(2) $4,265,000 ❑ Developers districts Deveopers and SWQQ reimbursement High Flow Conveyance Facilities(3) $5,238,000 ❑ Developers districts Total Cost $22,052,000 Source: River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan,July 2014 Attachment B;and city staff input. D.3 Funding Scenarios Four scenarios are considered for funding the stormwater infrastructure systems to serve River Terrace. All scenarios include some level of General Fund commitment, utility fees, citywide SDCs, and developer on-site improvements to address stormwater discharge. Scenario A reflects current practices used by the City. Scenario B includes relies upon reimbursement districts or LIDs within River Terrace. Scenario C includes the formation of a new stormwater taxing district and reimbursement districts within River Terrace. Scenario D includes a new River Terrace district utility fee and reimbursement districts in River Terrace (see Exhibit 15 for details). Exhibit 15: Stormwater Fundin• Scenarios Funding Scenario A(status Funding Source quo) D Notes City General Fund ® El ® ® City to allocate portion of General Fund to stormwater needs Utility Fee(existing citywide fee) ® ® ® ® Existing Citywide fee may be increased Utility Fee(new RT subdistrict fee 0 0 0 ® New RT subdistrict fee is needed under Scenario B SDC(existing citywide) ® ® E fisting Citywide SDC may be increased Special Taxing District(New RT RT voters may establish special distict for their subdistrict) I ® needs Reimbursement Districts or LIDs City or Developers may advance financing and (new) ❑ ® ® ® recoup investment using LID or Reimbursement Districts Developer Developers to construct facilities to handle runoff from new development Preliminary Ranking 4 3 2 1 D.3 Evaluation As indicated in Exhibit 16, Scenario D received the highest total score of 19 points(out of a possible 30 points). Scenario D received the highest equity score and,while it will be difficult to implement (because of the administrative cost to create and manage reimbursement districts or LIDs),it would result in fairly reliable funding that could help facilitate development. Scenario C was the second place funding scenario since it would be harder to implement because of the public vote requirement (from affected voters in River Terrace). It would entail administrative costs associated with managing LIDs or reimbursement districts. While Scenario A is the easiest to implement, it would be completely dependent upon the private development community to construct both on and off-site stormwater infrastructure, which would likely delay development for many •::> FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 20 years. Scenario B, which would rely upon formation of several reimbursement districts or LIDs would be very complicated and expensive for the city to administer, and would not likely generate enough near-teen funding to facilitate development in River Terrace. Exhibit 16: Stormwater Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Funding Scenario Equity(1:lower cost burden-5:higher cost burden) Y atus quo) B C D General Fund Cost Burden [ I 1 iri dill Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation Criteria(1:worst-5:best) Equity(Standard Deviation of cost burden) I I I I I=Tem. Reliability of Funds Facilitates Development ❑ 1 I Ease of Implementation 1 I Ability to Address Near-Term Costs I ❑ I Ability to Address Long-Term Costs I � 1 1 Average Rating Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) E:=1 12 ' 14 L. 17 in 19 'denotes relative variance from'uniform"equity(whereas developers,city,future residents and existing residents would split costs equally) D.4 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario Stormwater system improvements within River Terrace are estimated to cost $22 million. For the preferred stormwater funding scenario (Scenario D), the City would pay for storm water modeling of the high-flow conveyance options and prepare stormwater design standards in the near-term using available stormwater funds. Most of the funding for stonnwater facilities will need to come from developer construction of on-site facilities required to address the stormwater runoff attributed to their planned developments. To help facilitate development to the extent possible, it is recommended that the City work with affected property owners and developers to implement a new subdistrict stormwater utility fee (equates to+/- $12/household per month) and dedicate some General Funds to form nearly$9.8 million in funding new reimbursement districts in River Terrace. New reimbursement districts could fund approximately $1.5 million in near-term facilities and could be used (with an equal upfront match made by developers) in development agreements to facilitate projects involving multiple property owners (see Exhibit 17). +>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 21 Exhibit 17: Stormwater Fundin! Anal sis, Scenario D Scenario 0 Developer Near Term Long Term Funding City City Total City (Timing Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Funding Uncertain) Total Notes General Fund $250,000 5832.500 $1,082,500 $1,082,500 Assumes$250,000 every 6 years Utility Fee(city wide) $250,000 $832,500 $1,082.500 $1,082.500 Existing stormwater rate(adjusted for inflation) SDC(City wide) $200.000 $200,000 5200,000 Existing SDC Assumes$12/month rate surcharge Utility Fee(RT subdistrict) $750,000 55 750.000 $6.500.000 $6.500.000 to RT households City contributes funds or"credit"to Reimbursement Districts $500,000 $1,665.000 $2.165,000 $2.165.000 reimbursement districts Developers • $11.022.000 $11.022000 Developer to provide on-site stormwater fadllties Total Revenue $1,950,000 $9,080,000 $11,030,000 $11,022,000 $22,052,000 Total Cost $1,950,000 59,080,000 511,030,000 $11,022,000 $22.052,000 Reimbursement District Funding $1,500,000 $8,247,500 $9,747,500 Note:potential stormwater reimbursement district contributions shown in bold italics. •development costs would incur as development proceeds over the buildout of River Terrace. E. TRANSPORTATION E.1 Overall Findings Transportation infrastructure for River Terrace is required for new vehicle, pedestrian,and bicycle facilities. Traditionally,Tigard has worked in partnership with ODOT(responsible for upgrades to state facilities) and Washington County(responsible for county facilities). Tigard is responsible for upgrades to local routes, which include neighborhood routes and collector roads. Typically, developer construction/dedications are required for new neighborhood routes, and a mix of local funding sources are used to fund new collector routes and capacity expansion. The City of Tigard's existing transportation funds are generally committed and not available for investing in new transportation improvements in River Terrace over the next five years. Tigard is in the process of considering a new local city-wide and/or sub-district transportation SDC (TSDC) to supplement the funds it receives from the Washington County TDT. The City will need to work closely with Washington County to design/construct intersection connections with Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road. In addition to developer funding of neighborhood routes, Development Agreements could be utilized to allow private developers to advance financing for road segments and intersection improvements (may be eligible for SDC credits and reimbursement). E.2 Public Facility Costs Transportation infrastructure needs and costs are significant and often contingent on when and where new development occurs. As indicated in Exhibit 18, total transportation capital costs (for collector and arterial improvements and selected local neighborhood roads and trails) are estimated at $139.1 million. The near term needs tentatively include: the first phase of River Terrace Boulevard; a traffic signal at Roy Rogers Road/Bull Mountain road intersection; and a traffic signal at the Scholls Ferry 4>FCS GROUP www.Tcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 22 Road/River Terrace Boulevard intersection,l The long term needs include all other road extensions, intersection improvements, and selected multi-use trails. Exhibit 18: Trans•ortation infrastructure Costs Potential Faclltly Capital Cost Near Term Funding Lead Potential Funding Source Notes Project ID 2 Extend Lorenzo Ln.from West UGB to Roy Rodgers Rd. $ 2,500,000 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC,street fund and LID Project ID 3 Extend Lorenzo Ln.from Roshak Rd.to Roy Rodgers Rd. $ 3,500,000 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC,street fund and LID Project ID 5 Slane N-S collector from Scholls Ferry to Lorenzo Ln.extension $ 14,250'000 Near Term $9,262,500 ® City of Tigard Local TSDC.TDT,street fund and LID Long Term 54,987,500 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC,TDT.street fund and LID Project ID 6 3 lane N-S collector from Lorenzo Ln"extension to Bull Mountain $ 11,000,(100 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC,street fund and LID Project ID 7 3 lane N-S collector from Bull Mountain Rd.to the south UGB $ 18,750,000 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC,street fund and LID Project ID 8 2 lane E-W collector between Roy Rodgers Rd.and N-S collector $ 2"500.000 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC,street fund and LID Project ID 11 Extend 161st Ave.from Woodhue St,extension to Beef Bend Rd. $ 3.500.000 ❑ Developers Project is outside City and UGB. Project ID NA River Terrace Trail from Roy Local TSDC.street fund.Metro/Slate Rodgers Rd.to 150th Ave. $ 3,600,000 ❑ City of Tigard grants and/or GO bond Project ID 13 Roy Rogers Road/E•W collector $ 1 000 000 ❑ WA County.C County street fund(TDT)and City TSDC traffic signal Project ID 14 Roy Rogers Road/Bull Mountain Rd traffic signal $ 1.000.000 ® WA County.C County street fund(TDT)and City TSDC Project ID 15 Roy Rogers Road/Lorenzo Ln. extension traffic signal $ 1.000.00C ❑ WA County.C County street fund(TDT)and City TSDC Project ID 16 Scholls Ferry Road/N-S collector traffic signal $ 1.000,00;, ® WA County.C County street fund(TDT)and City TSDC Project ID 18 Bull Mountain Rd./N-S collector intersection or roundabout $ I'500'00.' ® WA County,C County street fund(TDT)and City TSDC Project ID 19 E-W collector/N-S collector intersection or roundabout $ 2.000.000 El City of Tigard Local 1SDC.street fund and LID Project ID 20 Woodhue St./161st Ave. extension intersection or $ 2,000.000 ❑ City of Tigard Local TSDC.street fund and LID Project ID 21 Improve Bull Mountain Rd.from Roy Rodgers Rd.to Roshak Rd. $ 4,000.000 ❑ WA County County street Lund(TDT) Project 1D22 Widen Roy Rogers Rd.to5Ln. from N of Scholls Ferry Rd.to S.of $ 35.000.000 ❑ WA County County street fund(TDT) Project ID 23 Improve 150th Ave.from Bull Mountain Rd.to Beef Bend Rd. $ 4.000.000 ❑ WA County County street fund(TDTI Project ID NA Improvements where new City/ streets meet existing streets $ 500"� Local TSDC.street fund ❑ Developers Project ID NA Improvements where new streets meet existing streets $ "000 ® City Street fund Project ID NA Improvements where new streets meet existing streets $ 1.500.000 ❑ City Street fund Project ID 24 improvements(additional turn ODOT/County TDT,local TSDC.street fund,and ODOT $ 10,000.000 ❑ lanes) /City STIP Project ID 25 intersection improvements(NB ❑ ODOT/County TOT,City TSDC/street fund,and ODOT 5.000.000 left tumlane) /City STIP Project ID 26 improvements(additional turn ODOT/County TDT,City TSDC/street fund,and ODOT lanes) $ 10"000000 ❑ /City STIP total Cost $139,600,000 ''It should be noted that the timing of signalized intersections on Washington County facilities and local cost sharing funding responsibilities are unknown at this time and will depend upon subsequent county signal warrant analysis and full funding agreements. +>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 23 While River Terrace has many transportation infrastructure needs, the larger region has far more needs and very limited funding. The City needs to negotiate a cost sharing scenario with the County for the planned improvements, especially those impacting County facilities such as Roy Rogers Road, Scholls Ferry Road, and Bull Mountain Road. Additionally, existing Bull Mountain residents have indicated to Tigard City staff that they desire a signal installed at Scholls Ferry Road before development occurs in the Tigard's River Terrace or in Beaverton's South Cooper Mountain plan districts. E.3 Funding Scenarios Four scenarios have been evaluated for funding the transportation infrastructure in River Terrace, as shown Exhibit 19. Each scenario includes some allocation of the city's street fund (which utilizes local and state fuel tax), the Washington County TDT,and developer dedications (for neighborhood streets). Scenario B adds citywide and subdistrict SDCs to the mix of funding sources. Scenario C includes a citywide SDC and a new River Terrace Urban Renewal District. Scenario D includes a citywide SDC,subdistrict SDC, LIDs, and G.O. Bonds, and does not include a urban renewal district Exhibit 19: Transportation Funding Scenarios Iundiny Scenario Funding Source A(status quo) B C D Notes City Street Fund(exisitng) ® ® ® ® City may allocate local or state gas tax proceed! SDC(new City wide) ® ® ® City may establish new SDC on new development citywide SDC(new Subdistrict) ® ® City may establish new SDC on new development in RTsubdistrict TDT(existing) ® ® ® ® Existing TDT is charged to new development LIDs(new) ® LIDs may provide important"gap"funding; requires 51%+property owner approval Urban Renewal District(new) D 0 ® 0 City voters may establish new URD in RTsubdistric G.O.Bond(new) ® Citywide voters may establish GO bonds for selected transportation improvements Developers to provide neighborhood transportation Dev eloper' ® ® ® ® facilities and can receive TDT/SDC credits for constructing eligible public facilities hNlmtnary Ranking 4 3 I 2 •Developers to provide neighborhood transportal ion toc vihes and con receive tDi,SDC credits for constructing eligible public facility improvements. E.4 Evaluation Scenario C received the highest average rating because of high marks for equity, facilitating development, reliability of funds, and ability to address near-term and long-term costs. Scenario C, however, is not very easy to implement because it requires favorable citywide vote for the formation of a new urban renewal district (URD)and significant staff time required to form the URD. Scenario D placed second in the evaluation,but since it relies on SDCs and LIDs and G.O. Bonds it too is very complex and difficult to implement,and may result in high cost burdens to developers and future home buyers that could delay development for many years. Scenarios A and B are not likely to generate adequate long-term funding to implement the planned transportation facilities (see Exhibit 20). o::)FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 24 Exhibit 20: Transportation Fundin• Evaluation Funding Scenario Equity(1:lower cost burden•5:higher cost burden) A(status qu D General Fund Cost Burden L I I I I Citywide Resident Cost Burden © I I 1 Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden ® L_—_ I Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden r I 1 imp- Equity(Standard Deviation of cost burden) Reliability of Funds El I 1 1 Facilitates Development ❑ II Ease of Implementation I I_ I Ability to Address Near-Term Costs I I E1 L I Ability to Address Long-Term Costs [ I Average Rating I I Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) © 12"MI 15 1 19 J 16 denotes relative variance from"uniform"equity(whereas developers,city,future residents and existing residents would split costs equally) E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios The River Terrace Funding Strategy includes two potential scenarios: Scenario C and Scenario D. Both scenarios assume that $139.6 million is required for the collector/arterial transportation facilities and selected multi-use pathways that serve River Terrace. In Scenario C, it is assumed that the City provides approximately $1 million each year in street funds to projects in River Terrace. Additionally, it is assumed that a new local citywide TSDC generates $6,000 in dedicated revenue per dwelling unit in River Terrace, and 100% of the TDT revenue collected in River Terrace stays in River Terrace. It is also assumed that a new urban renewal district is formed with a planned 20-year sunset date. Cost sharing among developers, Washington County and ODOT would result in additional funding for selected facilities listed above. Please see Exhibit 21 for details. Exhibit 21: Trans•ortation Fundin• Strafe• , Scenario C Scenario C Near Term Long Funding Mechanism Funding Fund � of Notes Street Fund $4,262,500 $20,595,386 $24,857,886 Assumes avg.of+/-$1M per year SDC(City wide) $3,000,000 $10,969,800 $13.969,800 Assumes$6,000 per avg.dwelling unit(dedicated to RT subdistrict) TDT $3,000,000 $11,722,314 $14,722,314 Assumes$6,323 per avg.dwelling unit(dedicated to RT subdistrict) Urban Renewal District $3,000,000 $34,000,000 $37,000,000 Assumes 20 year sunset Developers $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Includes project 11 and some local street connections WA County cost share) $38,800,000 $38,800,000 80%of costs for projects: 13-18.21-23:road fund,MST1P sources ODOT/Metro(cost share) $6,250,000 $6,250,000 25%of costs for projects:24,25,26;SIP sources Total Revenue $13,262,500 S126,337,500 $139,600,000 Total Cost $13,262,500 $126,337,500 $139,600,000 Scenario D also assumes that the City provides approximately$1 million/year in street funds to projects in River Terrace. Additionally, it is assumed that a new local citywide TSDC generates $6,000 in dedicated revenue per dwelling unit in River Terrace, a new River Terrace district TSDC generates an additional $7,946 per average dwelling unit,and 100%of the TDT revenue collected in River Terrace stays in River Terrace. Cost sharing among developers, Washington County and ODOT would result in additional funding for selected facilities listed above. It is assumed that new LIDs are used as the source of gap financing for collector facilities in River Terrace (estimated to fund $13,500,000). See Exhibit 22 for details. 4 FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 25 Exhibit 22: Transportation Fundin! Strafe, , Scenario D Scenario D Near Term Long Term Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Total Notes Street Fund $4,262,500 $20,595,386 $24,857,886 Assumes avg.of+/-$1M per year SDC(City wide) $3,000,000 $10,969,800 $13,969,800 Assumes$6,000 per avg.dwelling unit(dedicated to RT subdistrict) TDT(existing) $3,000,000 $11,722,314 $14,722,314 Assumes$6,323 per avg.dwelling unit (dedicated to RT subdistrict) SDC(RT Subdistrict) $1,500,000 $17,000.000 $18,500,000 Assumes$7,946 per avg.dwelling unit (dedicated to RT subdistrict) LIDs(RT Subdistrict) $1.500.000 $12,000.000 $13,500,000 Gap funding source(dedicated to RT subdistrict) Developer $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Includes project I 1 and misc.local street connections Local Tax Levy(citywide) $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Assumes Voter Approved$5 M bond' WA County(cost share) $38,800,000 $38,800,000 80%of costs for projects: 13-18,21-23:road fund,MSTIP sources ODOT/Metro(cost share) $6,250.000 $6,250,000 25%of costs for projects:24,25,26;STIP sources Total Revenue $13,262,500 $126.337,500 $139,600,000 Total Cost $13,262,500 $126,337,500 $139,600,000 assumes voter-approved levy of$0.076 per$1,000 AV:results in average cost to$311.100 median home of$24/year. ••�>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 26 IV . POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The River Terrace funding strategy includes a plan for funding required public facilities using existing and new funding sources as well as partnerships with service providers and developers. The funding strategy recognizes the limitations of current financial resources that are available to the City and other service providers, and provides a plan for funding infrastructure required to support planned development. A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS • It is recommended that local City policies be adopted to clarify the relationship between the provision and funding of public facilities and when new development can be permitted in River Terrace(and possibly elsewhere in the City). This may entail adoption of an adequate public facilities ordinance that addresses the process for determining when and how public facilities are considered reasonably funded so that development can be permitted in River Terrace. • Ongoing inter jurisdiction coordination will also be required among the City, Washington County, ODOT, CWS, and other agencies to ensure that cost sharing agreements are consistent with each agencies expectations. • The City may desire to extend its Capital Improvement Program from five years to six years to provide additional time for River Terrace SDCs and fund balances to accumulate to ensure that adequate funds are in place to complete the highest priority projects. • The City should update its SDCs for water, sewer, stormwater,transportation and parks by FYE 2014 to take into account these recommendations. As part of this update, the City may also consider updating its SDC policies regarding how revenues are to be allocated to River Terrace and other citywide needs. The City's SDC credit policies should also be updated to clarify how SDC credits are calculated and applied to eligible public facilities. The findings and recommendations contained in this Financial Strategy also include the following issues and considerations for each public facility type. B. WATER SYSTEM • Existing funding sources and planned rate increases should be adequate for addressing water system requirements needed citywide and for River Terrace. • Adequate water capacity is currently available to serve future River Terrace development within the 410 and 713 zones. However, there is a city-wide need for additional water storage capacity in the 550 zone. City staff estimates that only 72 additional homes can be built in River Terrace within the 550 zone before the new 3.0 million gallon per day(gpd) Cach Reservoir is constructed. • The City may consider other interim water system improvements that could be provided, such as pressure reducing valves from the 713 zone to serve the 550 zone, to increase the amount of development that can occur in the 550 zone, in advance of the new Cach Reservoir. •:;>FCS GROUP wwv .fcsgroup.conr City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September, 2014 page 27 C. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM • Existing funding sources,planned rate increases by CWS, and a new sanitary sewer surcharge by the City of Tigard should be adequate for addressing sanitary sewer requirements needed citywide and for River Terrace. • The City will need to coordinate closely with CWS and interested developers to ensure that planned sewer pump stations in River Terrace north and south areas advance to construction in the near term. D. PARKS AND TRAILS SYSTEM • City funding for parks and trails is generally limited to parks SDC revenues and General Fund allocations, which can vary widely each year. • The City's parks SDC is in process of being updated to take into account planned facility improvements needed in River Terrace, as well as recent investments made by the City. • The City should consider new funding resources (such as a citywide parks utility fee) to make parks funding more independent from the General Fund and help accumulate reserves for parks improvements citywide and in River Terrace. • Public support for a future citywide parks and trails G.O. bond should also be considered after the current G.O.bond for parks sunsets. E. STORMWATER SYSTEM • City funding for stormwater facilities and maintenance activities is very limited and inadequate for addressing future River Terrace or citywide needs. • The high-flow conveyance facilities require additional alternatives analysis, special permitting, and land or easement acquisition because of the unique nature of this condition and the fact that there are downstream impacts outside the City and Urban Growth Boundary. This could be problematic since the City may not be able to acquire land or fund regional facilities needed at the pace of development. • The City is in process of considering increases in local stormwater SDCs to take into account planned facility improvements citywide and in River Terrace. • The City should consider new funding resources (such as a River Terrace stormwater district and district utility fee) and public-private partnerships to generate a funds for advance financing regional water quality and quantify improvements, detention ponds, and high-flow conveyance facilities in River Terrace. • The City may utilize full faith and credit obligations for advance financing of reimbursement districts to pay for 1-2 regional facilities every 6 years in River Terrace. F. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM • The City's existing transportation funds are generally committed and not available for investing in new transportation improvements in River Terrace over the next five years. • Tigard is in the process of considering a new local city-wide and/or sub-district TSDC to supplement the funds it receives from the Washington County TDT. +>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 28 • The City will need to work closely with Washington County to design/construct intersection connections with Scholls Ferry Road and Roy Rogers Road. • The City will need to work with Washington County and ODOT to discuss potential cost sharing responsibilities for County and State facilities. • In addition to developer funding of neighborhood routes, Development Agreements could be utilized to allow private(developer) to advance financing for road segments and intersection improvements (may be eligible for SDC credits and reimbursement). • The City should evaluate the potential for forming a new urban renewal district in River Terrace and gauge public interest in doing so. • The City should also work with its citizens to consider new projects that could be included as part of a future citywide G.O. bond for transportation. The policy considerations are considered to serve as a starting point in how the City can ensure that necessary public facilities are funded as River Terrace development occurs. The actual timing of public facility investments will depend on many factors. While the City has control over local utility rates, local SDCs, the City cannot predict development market timing or the future cost of financing (i.e., interest rates). It should be recognized that for any Funding Strategy to be successful, the City will need to continue to follow sound public financing principles that should not waiver in spite of changing market conditions. 4>FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 29 V. APPENDIX 10-year forecast of selected city funds • >FCS GROUP "I\N.fcsgruup.cum City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September.2014 page 30 Water Utility Fund 3 I r 6/30/2015 4/30!2016 6/30/2017 4/30/2018 4/30/2019 430/2020 1/30/2021 1/30/2012 430/2023 4/3032024 EMERTOMMEMIUMI Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Pr ol4cled Projected Projected Projected Water Ned vescv,ces Beginning fund balance $ 12.52163T $ 6.104.977 5 4.944.422 5 4.788614 5 4.832714 $ 4.921,639 $ 5.019.045 $ 5113576 5 5,201,114 5 5.339.038 Revenue: 43126 Developer overhead 9.663 7,440 7,40 7.44) 4440 7.40 7.440 7.440 7,440 7.440 43128 Fie service reimbursement 1,470 - - - - - - - - 43130 A4scellanous fees and charges 1267 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 43331 SOC reimbursement - - . _ - • 45100 Wail sales 18057.552 18645.801 18989.939 19.358488 19.7 52088 20.151.966 20.528.654 21.872712 21.2221821 221.523.867 45101 Other ulilily soles 4456 4.456 4456 4456 4.456 4456 4.456 4,456 4456 4.456 45102 Leaks/misre055 Credits 122984) 1219881 1220531 1221231 (221981 122273 (22345) 1224101 1224761 1225331 45104 Meier sales 27.762 35805 70.373 81.586 93499 96.959 100.547 104269 109129 112133 45105 Fie hydrant flow testing Service 6.036 6.006 6m6 4E06 6.006 6.036 6.006 636 6.006 4006 45150 Talepe00Iliesl000rges 121.136 125.185 125.561 125.963 126.392 126829 127.240 127.616 127.995 128326 45151 Returned check fees 1.290 1.290 1.290 1.290 1.290 1.290 1.290 1.290 1,290 1.29D 45199 Bad debt 124544) (249331 125,3311 125654) (260521 (26.4571 126.8301 127.186) 127.5381 127,8441 45319 /iKCeltonovs fees and Charges 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 45320 Rental income 33,234 33.214 33234 33.221 31234 31234 33231 33234 33,234 33234 47000 Inleresl earnings 67,611 32.967 26.700 25.859 21097 26.577 27.103 27.613 28086 28556 48000 Other revenue - - - - - - - 4E001 Recovered expenditures 14825 • • - - - - 49100 Transfer in from General Fund 27.460 27,40 27.460 27.460 17,460 27,460 27,460 27.460 24460 27,4(0 49500 Transfer in from Sanitary Sewer Fund 13.413 11413 13413 13.113 13,413 13413 13413 13413 13,4)3 13413 49510 Transfer in horn Slormwater fund 17.878 17.878 17,878 17,878 17,878 17,878 17,878 17,878 17,878 17,878 Total revenue 18.359.867 18.905.178 19.277.579 19656.460 20062168 21.465.943 20.846.704 21,194.956 21,547.360 21.851.846 Told resources $ 30.880.497 $25.010,154 5 24,222003 5 24.445.074 $24.894.882 3 25.387,582 $25,865,748 5 26.308.533 $26748473 $27.142934 Requirernenl5: Expenditures. Personnel services. Salaries $ 893506 $ 935.614 $ 979.707 $ 1,025877 $ 1.074.224 $ 1.124849 $ 1.177.859 $ 1.233368 5 1.291.493 $ 1.352357 Benefits 437,142 458999 481,949 505047 531,369 557,916 585.812 615103 64858 678151 Total personnel services 1.330.648 1.394.613 1.461,656 1,531,924 1,605.573 1,692765 1.763671 1.818471 1,937.351 2030506 Materials and services'. Supplies 3869.952 4.005.03 0 2005433' 2075,589 2.148215 2.221423 2321.243 2381.786 2465149 2551 429 Franchise fee 508m0' 672961 685.382' 698484' 712889' 727.322' 740917' 753335' 765.899' 776836 Other service 1.121611 1.159,832 1.2X1427 1,742441 1,285,927 1,330934 1,377,517 1.425,730 1 475.631 1.527,278 Total materials and services 5498563 5838194 1891,219 4.016.714 4,147,051 4,281,679 4,419,677 4,560.851 4,706,678 4855543 Capital outlay 3.303 3.4(6 3.535 1659 3.787 3.919 4.057 4,199 4,345 4.498 Transfers out and indirect cost allocations 1,543771 1,611.349 1.681.719 1.755249 1,831.994 1.912094 1.995,697 2082955 2174028 2269.233 tlornprogrom expenditures Transfers out to Water CIP Fund 7639.391 2467.150 1,671.982 1.408009 1.303561 1.396004 1.463009 1499.918 1.502845 1.464.662 Transfers Out to Water Debt Service Fun•1 5 44 t4'. P 49.584 10.429.485 10.590152 10.756,216 107511020 10.757,320 10.758.127 10.755,333 10,756.145 transfers out to olhe funds - - 9)499 295807 336.654 320,061 334055 348.661 363906 379,817 396.424 Total non-program e,pena4ures , '-- '. .17.234 12395275 12304.814 12384.820 12488.0E0 12569.070 12610,943 12637.982 12617,233 tole!erpendilures .. ,S:1 _0.065726 19,433394 19.612.360 19.973.242 20.368.538 20.752172 21.107.419 21.460.385 21.776,862 Ending fund balance - ':4.977 4.944423 4.788614 4.832714 4,921.639 5,019,045 5.113.576 5.211.114 5.288098 5,364072 fatal requirements 1 --2'49' 5 25.010.1'_4 $24 2V.006 $24445074 $24094,802 $25,387.582 5 25.865.748 $26,308.533 5 26,74..473 $27,142934 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 40 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 4>FCS GROUP Nl6w.fccgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 31 Water CIP Fund '> II ti 6/30/2015 4/30/2016 4/30/2017 4/30/2018 6/30/2011 4/30/2020 6/30/2021 0/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 Ci of Ti ald Wafer Ulili Wdget Protected Protected Projected P.otecled Protected Protected Projected Projected Projected Wenn C1/field Resources- Beginning fundbalance § 43.726.812 5 17.974 151 $ 131.102) $ 138,2301 $ 125,7091 $ 5.980 $ 1.134.916 $ 2.325353 § 3.535.859 § 4.754.107 Revenue: 43300 System development charges - - - - - . 44807 Federal grants - - - - • - • - - 47000 nleresl eornings 236.125 97,060 17681 12061 11391 32 6.129 12557 19.094 25.67." 48001 Recovered expendtures 5.265 - - - 49001 Debt proceeds 46.894.542 - 1.425,529 1.952010 1 967.930 0 0 0 0 49100 8ansfer in from General Fund - - - • • - 49425 Transfer in from Parks SOC Fund - • - - • - - - 49500 Transfer in horn Sanitary Sewer Fund - - - - - - - 49530 Transfer in from Water fund 888.104 2467,150 1.671,982 1,408.009 I.308.56I 1.396.004 1,463,089 1.488.918 1.502.845 I,464.66_ 49531 Transfer in horn Wore SDC Fund 345000 - - - - - -Total revenue 48369,036 2.564,211 3.097.343 3.359,813 3,276,351 1,396037 1.469.217 1.501.475 1.521,939 1,490,334 10101 resources $ 92.095.848 5 20.538,362 5 3.066,241 $ 3,321,582 $ 3.250,642 $ 1.402.017 § 2604.133 5 3.826,828 5 5.057.798 $ 6244.441 Requirements: Expendtures. Copilot oulloy $ 73.908.047 §20.344.385 $ 2.869.551 5 3,102100 5 :988.750 $ - $ . $ - 5 . $ . Debt service - - - - • . 1,0810e74 out 215.650 223079 234920 245.191 '.5 912 267.101 278.780 290.969 331691 316.949 Other Total expendlure, .:- .. 278.780 290.969 .:.', 316.969 Endng fund bolonce . . 7.325.353 3535.8,9 4 .. - •427,472 Toto1 requirements f ___n_. 1 ,-.9... _:404.133 $ 3.8:4 _ - - - ,.44,461 Dan of expenditures in endng fund balance 89 .III - 3.047 ... - 6.830' NWaWWliY16ibied Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 6.766983 $ 10574 c- I .. 5 ;.bs1.FS 5 3_..o_ 5 _3.,a. $ 1 U_,..c_ ,..::o. -o.. Revenue: 47000 nterest earnings 36.542 57.099 57.099 57.736 58.616 59 f 59.512 59.512 59.512 59.512 e 49001 Debt proceeds 3,806.833 117.951 165.945 0 0 0 0 e 49530 Transfer in From Water Fund 8.490.141 8.469.584 10.429.485 10:= 10.756.216 10:".• -7.337 10 708 IT 10 755.323 10.756,145 Total revenue 12,333.515 8.526,683 10.60453: r 1r.<Fn''t _ .a nP14,832 10.815.657 Total resources $ 19,100,498 $ 19.100.498 $21.144 . • - /35.597 5 21.836,422 Requirements. Debt service Existing debt service $ 4,719.850 $ 4.719,850 5 6.561.800 5 6.560.050 $ 6.561,050 $ 6.563,750 5 6563.050 $ 6.563.850 $ 6,561.050 § 6.561.875 New debt service 3806.833 3806.833 3.924,784 4.4137.837 4.253.782 4,253.782 4.253.782 4.253.782 4.253.782 4,253.782 Total deb'service 8.526.683 8526.683 10.486.584 10,647,887 10814.832 10.817532 10,816832 10817.632 10814.832 10,815.657 Ending fund balonce a 10,573.8(6 a 10.573816 a 10.691.767 a 10.854.820 a 17.021765 r 11,011.765 a 11,020.765 a 11.020.765' 11,020,765 r 11.020.765 Toto'requirements $ 19.100,498 § 19100498 5 21.178,351 $21.502708 5 21.835,597 $21.838.297 $21.837.597 $21.838397 $21.635597 4 21.836.422 Days of expenditures in endng fund baance 453 453 372 372 372 372 377 372 372 372 4>FCS GROUP woe N.1Csgr011p.c4)m City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 32 Water SDC Fund 1 ( ti 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30;2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 a aril•and Water UMtt Budget Projected Protected Projected Projected Projected Protected Projected Projected Protected Water SDC fund Resources: Beginning fund balance 5 2860.840 $ 4.149.831 f 5.066.575 3 6.851.719 $ 8,926,597 $ 11.310,247 $ 13.791190 S 16.379.172 $ 19.072.081 $21,875,947 Revenue: 43300 System development charges 5130 693.446 894.335 1.757,785 2.037.879 2.335.446 2.421.867 2.511.499 2,604.461 2.700.877 2.800,877 43301 SDC reimbursement SDCr 925359 - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earnings 15,449 22.409 27,360 36,999 48,204 61.075 74.483 88,448 102.989 118.130 Total revenue 1.634.254 916.744 1.785,145 2,074,878 2.383,650 2 482 943 2.585.982 2 692 909 2 803,867 2.919 007 Total resources $ 4.495.094 S 5,066.575 5 6851,719 5 8.926,597 5 11.310.247 5 13.793.190 3 16.379.172 3 19.072.081 $21.875,947 $24.794.954 Requirements: Transfers out Transfers out to Wafer CIP Fund $ 345.000 $ - 3 - 5 - $ • $ . $ . $ - $ - $ - Transfers out to other funds 263 - - - - - - - - Total transfers oul 345,263 • . - - - - - - • Ending fund balance 4.149831 5,066.575 6.851.719 8,926.597 11.310.247 13.791190 16.379.172 19,072,081 21.875947 24.794.954 Total requirements $ 4.840.357 5 5.066.575 3 6.851.719 $ 8.926,597 3 11,310.247 5 11791190 5 16.379.172 5 19,072,081 $21 875.947 5 24,794954 84twnue Assumptions Interest rate 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% Customer accounts Customer accounts in existing service area 19.875 19.964 20.054 20.144 20.235 20.326 20.417 20.509 20.601 20,694 Customer accounts in new service area 0 80 180 300 420 540 660 780 900 Total customer accounts 19,875 19,964 20,134 20.324 20.535 20,746 20.957 21.169 21.381 21.594 New customers 2924 89 170 190 211 211 211 212 212 213 Customer account growth In existing service area 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 045% 0.45% Total customer account growth 17.25% 0.45% 0.85% 0.94% 1.04% 1.03% 1.02% 1.01% 1.00% 0.99% Role revenue per account.first hall of fiscal year 5 499 5 521 5 526 $ 531 $ 536 $ 542 3 547 5 551 $ 554 $ 558 Rote revenue per account,second hall of fiscal year $ 409 $ 413 $ 417 $ 421 3 426 5 430 $ 433 3 435 5 438 f 439 Annual rote adjustment on January 1 4.28% 0.99% 0.99% 099% 0.99% 0 99% 066% 0.66% 066% 0.14% Share of revenue in first half of fiscal year 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 5600% 56.00% 56011% 56.00% 56.00% 56,00% Franchise fee as percentage of total rote revenue 2.81% 3.61% 3.61% 3.61% 3.61% 3.61% 3.61% 3.61% 3,61% 3.61% SDC revenue per new account 5 9.662 5 10.000 5 10.350 3 10,712 $ 11.087 f 11,475 f 11.877 3 12,292 f 12.723 $ 13,168 ■ 4)FCS GROUP NsS.•fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 33 Water Utility Fund Assumptions .,I.C5 ,I I 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 Ci of Ti.and Wafer Will _ Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Protected Projected Projected Cwt Aµumptions Full-time equivalent(PIE)positions 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Salaries per FIE $ 68.731 $ 71,970 $ 75,362 $ 78,914 $ 82,633 $ 86.527 $ 90.605 $ 94,874 $ 99.346 $ 104,027 Growth in salaries per FTE 10.52% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% Benefits per HE $ 33.626 $ 35.308 $ 37,073 $ 38.927 $ 40,873 $ 42.917 $ 45,062 $ 47,316 $ 49,681 $ 52.165 Growth in benefits per FIE 4.47% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Annual escalation of materials and services 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of capital outlay 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of transfers 6.84% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% Capital projects Projects for River Terrace: Pressure Reducing Value Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Pressure Reducing Valve Construction - - - - - - - - - - 20-inch transmission mains in 410 zone(Design) • - - - - - - - - - 20-inch transmission mains in 410 zone(Construction) - . • - - - - - - - 16-inch transmission mains in 550 zone(Design) - - - - - - - - - - 16-inch transmission mains in 550 zone(Construction) - . - - - - - - - - 3.0 MG Coch Reservoir Design - • - 1,050000 - • - - - - 3.0 MG Cach Reservoir Construction - - - - - - - - - - 16-inch transmission from reservoir to 5508 - - - - - - - - - - 1.400 gpm(firm capacity)pump station - - - - - - - - - - Total projects for River Terrace - - - 1,050,000 - - - - - - Projects for misting service area 73.906,047 20.344.385 2,869,551 2,052.102 2.988.750 - - - - - Total capital projects $ 73,906.047 $20,344.385 $ 2,869,551 $ 3.102,100 $ 2.988.750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Debt Issuance cost percentage 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Interest rote 4.00% 4.10% 4.20% 4.30% 4.40% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Term 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Principal: Proceeds $ 46.894,5.42 $ - $ 1.425.529 $ 1.952.010 $ 1.967.930 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Issuance costs 1,034,722 - 31,500 43,165 43.548 0 0 0 0 0 Debt reserve 3,806,833 - 117,951 163,053 165,945 0 0 0 0 0 Total principal $ 51,736,097 $ - $ 1,574980 $ 2,158.228 $ 2.177.423 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Debt service coverage ratio(minimum 1.15) 1.17 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.17 4•FCS GROUP »ww.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 34 Sanitary Sewer Fund > I ( 6;30/2015 6,/30/2014 4/30/2017 4/30/2018 4/30/2019 8/30/2020 4/30/2021 4/30/2022 4/30/2023 4/30/2024 CI o4 TI.ofd Sonita Sower Will Err mole Projected Pro)ecled Projected Projected F9gected Prolecled Prolecled Projected Pro)ecled Sanitary Sew..Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1.449.654 $ 1.320.471 $ 6.837 1 601,969 $ 671.891 3 913.444 1 2.200.096 1 3.506.954 1 4,833.058 1 6.177.370 Revenue: 43120 Sewer connection lees 74.506 16.738 34.359 40.030 46.057 47,757 49.519 51.347 53,243 55.2013 43130 Miscellaneous lees/charges 256.314 256.314 256314 256.314 256.314 256.314 256,314 256.314 756.314 756,314 45100 Utility sales 2.926.727 2.995,967 2.869.395 2.955.650 3,046.976 1140.298 3.235.663 3.333.115 3.432.703 1534.478 45199 Bad debt 1505001 150500) 150.5001 1505001 150.500) 150.500) (50.500) (50.500) (50.500) (50.5001 45.319 Wirceltanous lees and charges - - - 47000 Interest eoinings 7,828 7.131 37 3.251 3.628 4,933 11.881 18.938 26.099 33.358 48001 Recovered expenditures 141.674 119.422 103.766 108.562 107.991 100.655 101.303 101.977 102.676 103.402 ' 49200 Iransler in horn Gas lax fund 45,400 - - . . - ' 49421 Irander in horn Pads Bond Fund 21.800 • - - • • ' 49425 Iransler in horn Pods SDC Fund 375,450 - - • • ' 49510 transfer in from Stormwaler Fund 272.400 - - - 49511 lsanster in horn Water Guakty/Quantity fund 439200' - - ' 49532 Transfer in from Wale,CIP fund 215650 Proceeds horn new debt - - • - • -Total revenue 4.726.449 3.345071 1111370 3.313.307 1410.465 3.499.456 3.604.179 3.711.190 1820 534 3,932.259 !old resources $ 6 176.103 1 4 665 547 1 1220.207 1 3 915.275 $ 4.082.357 1 4.412 900 1 5.804 775 1 7 218 143 1 8653.59/ 1 10,109,630 Requirements: Expenditures: Personnel services: Salaries $ 381.237 S 374 171 1 390,800 1 408.584 $ 427.599 1 447.456 1 468.191 $ 489.841 $ 512.445 $ 536.045 Benefits 165,63/ 183.817 192.006 200.766 210.132 219.914 230.129 240.797 251.936 263,566 total personnel services 546,874 557.988 582.806 609,349 637.731 647.370 698.320 730.638 764.381 799,611 Materials and services' Supplies 35.907 37.164 38.465 39811 41.204 42.646 44.139 45684 47.283 48.938 Service 614.361 635861 658.119 681.153 704.994 729,668 755,207 781639 808.996 837,311 total materials and services 650,268 673.028 696.584 720.964 746198 772.315 799.346 827.323 856.279 886,249 Capitol oullay 36.500 37 778 39.100 40.468 41.885 41351 44868 46.438 48.064 49.746 Debt service: Foisting debl service - - - - - • New debt service • • -• •lofol debt service • - - - - - • Transfers out and indirect cost allocations 598.130 619.176 640.963 663.516 686.864 711,032 736052 761.951 788.762 816.516 Non-program expenditures loan to CCDA - - Iranslers out 79.849 18./36 18/36 18.736 18.736 18,736 18 736 18.736 18.736 18.736 Capitol projects 2.944,011 2.752.030 640,050 1.190,350 1.037,500 . - - . Total non-program expenditures 3,023.860 2,770 736 658,786 1.209,086 1.056,236 18,736 18,736 18.736 18.736 18.736 lotol expenditures 4,855,632 4658.705 2.618.239 3.243 384 3.168.913 2.212.804 2.297,321 2.385.086 2.476,221 2.570.858 Ending land balance 1.320,471 6.837 601.969 671.891 911444 2.200.096 1506.954 4.831058 6.177.370 7.538,772 total requirements 1 6176103 $ 4665.542 1 1220.207 $ 1915 275 1 4082.357 1 4.411900 1 5.804,275 1 7,218 143 1 8653597 110.109.630 Days of experrdilwes In ending fund balance 99 I 84 76 105 363 558 740 911 1.071 •.,>FCS GROUP s„s N.fesgro.p.eo III City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 35 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions > H 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 CI of T1•and SanIla Sewer U*II Estimate Projected Projected Protected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue Assumptions Interest rale 0.54% 0.54% 0 54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% Customer accounts: Customer accounts In existing service area 18,162 18.244 18.326 18,409 18.492 18.575 18,658 18.742 18,827 18.911 Customer accounts In new service area 0 80 180 300 420 540 660 780 900 Total customer accounts 18.162 18.244 18,406 18,589 18,792 18,995 19,198 19,402 19,607 19,811 New customers 81 82 162 182 203 203 204 204 204 205 Customer account growth in existing service area 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% Total customer account growth 0.45% 0.45% 0.89% 0.99% 1.09% 1.08% 1.07% 1.06% 1.05% 1,04% Franchise fee as percentage of total rate revenue 5.00% 5,00% 500% 5.00% 5,00% 5.00% 500% 5.00% 5.00% 5,00% Rates: Total CWS fixed monthly rote per EDU $ 25.85 $ 26.62 $ 27.42 8 28.24 $ 29.09 $ 29.96 $ 30.85 $ 31.77 $ 32.73 8 33.70 Total CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCF $ 1.44 $ 1.48 $ 1.52 $ 1.56 $ 1.60 $ 1.64 $ 1.68 $ 1.72 $ 1.76 $ 1.80 City portion of CWS fixed monthly rate per EDU $ 4.25 $ 4.38 $ 4.51 $ 4.65 $ 4.78 $ 4.93 $ 5,08 $ 5.23 $ 5.38 S 5.54 City portion of CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCF $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 8 0.33 $ 0-34 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 City surcharge on fl red monthly rote $ 6.50 $ 6._0 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 5 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 City surcharge on volumetric monthly rate $ - $ - $ • $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ City portion of CWS system development charge per EDL$ 197.87 $ 20410 $ 211.96 $ 219.38 $ 227.06 $ 235.01 $ 243.23 $ 251.75 $ 260.56 $ 269.68 Rate revenue: CWS portion $ 9.929.435 $10.250.723 $10,625,647 $11.022,085 $11.441.259 $11.871 933 $12,314,426 $12,769,068 $13,236,201 $13,716,180 City franchise fee 676,640 697,194 710,265 735,670 762,539 790.117 818.426 847,483 877,311 907.929 City utility revenue 2,926.727 2,995,967 2.869,395 2,955,650 3,046,976 3,140,298 3,235,663 3,333.115 3,432,703 3.534.478 Total rate revenue $13.532,803 $13,943,885 $14,205,308 $14,713,405 $15.250.774 $15,802,349 $16,368,514 5 16,949,666 $17,546,215 5 18.158,587 Consumption Average annual consumption per account in CCF 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 Growth in average annual consumption per account 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 000% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Cost Assumptions Miles of sanitary sewer system 166.9 167.7 169.1 170.8 172.7 174.5 176.4 178.3 180.2 182.1 Full-time equivalent)FTE)positions 5.50 5.52 5.57 5.63 5.69 5.75 5.81 5.88 5.94 6.00 Salaries per FTE $ 65.421 $ 67,726 $ 70,113 $ 72,584 $ 75,142 $ 77.791 $ 80.532 $ 83,370 $ 86,309 $ 89,351 Growth In salaries per FTE • 3.52%' 3.52%' 3,52%' 3.52%' 3,52%' 3.52%' 3.52%' 3,52%' 3.5296' 3,52% Benefits per FTE $ 32.135 $ 33,271 $ 34.448 $ 35,666 $ 36,927 $ 33232 $ 39,584 $ 40,983 $ 42.432 $ 43.933 Growth In benefits per FTE 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 3,54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% Annual escalation of materials and services 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3,50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of capital outlay 3,50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3,50% Annual escalation of transfers 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3,52% 3.52% 4)FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 36 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 Ci of 11.and Sanity Sewer Uttll Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Capital projects Projects for River Terrace: North Gravity Segment I I - $ - £ - I - $ • S £ £ £ £ North Gravity Segment 2 - - -North Gravity Segment 3 - - - - - - North Gravity Segment 4 SouthGravitySegment 1 - - - - - - - - South Gravity Segment 2 - • - - - South Gravity Segment 3 - - - - - - - - South Gravity Segment 4 - • - - - - South Gravity Segment 5 - - - - - • - - - - South Gravity Segment 6 - - - - - - - - South Gravity Segment 7 - - - - - - - - South Gravity Segment 8A - - - - - - - - South Gravity Segment 9A - - - - - - - - - Total projects for River Terrace - - - - - - - - - - Projects for existing service area 2.912.500 2752000 640.050 1.190.350 1.037.500 - - - - Total capital projects $ 2.912.500 $ 2.752,030 S 640050 $ 1.190.350 $ 1.037.500 $ - $ - $ - 4 - $ - Debt Issuance cost percentage 200% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Interest rote 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Term 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Principal: Proceeds 5 - 3 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 - $ - s - Issuance costs - - - - - - - - - - Debt reserve - - - - - - - - - - Total principal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ • $ - $ - 3 - - 4 FCS GROUP wvsw.fcsgroup.com• City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 37 Parks Funds >15 • 4'30/2011 4/30/2014 4:'3012017 6/30/2011 4/30/2019 1.30.2020 4'30'2021 4/30,2022 4;30/2023 4/30/2024 4/30/2025 Cl olti•acct Packs Pundln• B9dpd Projected Protected Protected ngected PI denied Pi dented Pr dected /Iodide! 0/09.0130 Protected &pedal Revenue fund•Paths Bend `Begav-2ng t.rta 650038 $ 21.344 667 $ 351.`.'6 1 - Revenue: 47000 0/104.11 earrings - 108) 1.898 48031 Recovered elpendl/5es - 10101 rever.oe 4.020 1.098 - Iotd resources s 1348.717 $ 353.27 $ 1 5 1 1 1 5 S - _ Regarements: Elpenallures'frontless out) 5 1.997.143 $ 353477 Ending rued balance 351.574 - - - - - Told recedembn11 1 351.574 $ - 5 - $ r $ •1 Capitol Improvement lund-Parks Copilot 1 174.509 $ 1c 5 .'.. - . 1 1 5 . Revenue 44501 Intngoverrmenlol Revntue 41.506 - 47030 lnteresl earning, 3.015 801 48001 Revoned Expenditures - - handers in 49100 Ranee in from General Fund - - - 19200 Transfer In from 001100 Find • - - 19760 Ronde!in from Tree ReplaCernenl Fund 250000 - . - - 49471 i3Onsfn In from Parks Bond Fund 1.970343 353.472 • . - - - - 49425 Transfer in from Pods SDC Fuld 750406 1.1-4,945 __ 749 973 '75 r:" if1 059 224.63: 856.304 808.096 918.859 950,679 49500 Transfer In from SaNtory Sewn Fund 32,103 - - 49510 Transfer in horn Stormwaln Fund 10.000' - - - • 49530 Tron,fn In horn Water Fund 24.00 . • Told lranstels In 3042949 1.602.0 7 775 • . 8:-.<7. On,'-. ,e 855 -..,.679 Iota resources $ 3261.979 $ 1,820.417 5 . . . 775 7 ' 841 - - 1 88,,. 0858 . --!679 RecsArements: Egpendture,: Wort In progress $ 0043949 $ I.5)0 530 $ 1.041,871 $ 740 073 $ 775.017 $ 801859 5 829.632 5 058.366 $ 838 906 5 918655 1 450679 told transfers Out 55.001 - - - told ex0endlse. 3.098.830 1.510330 1.041,021 749.073 775017 101659 829632 558.387 888.016 918.855 9502679 Endrg find bdarsce 163.149 316.117 • - - - - bold req..iremen1s $ 0261.979 $ 1,826.447 $ 1,041.821 $ 749.073 $ 775.017 3 831659 $ 829.632 $ 8558366 $ 888096 $ 918.855 1 950.679 Day of erpendlurel in endng 1/500 balance 19 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •i•>FCS GROUP 9 599c.(csgroop.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,201 4 page 38 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions '.:>I'( ' 8/30)2015 6/30/2014 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/7010 6/30/2070 6/30/7071 6/30.,2022 8/30/2803 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 C' 0111•and Parks Fundin• S.,O.t hgecwd holed., holeded besecIed ',elected hnle0led holey led bosecled 11 el.led nq•v led Folks SDC Fund Pes/,,ces Beginning hind 01804044 $ 1,049.011 5 6-.7•. - - 9 - 9 - $ 1 Revenue: 43300 Parks SDCS 676.336 399 7ci 733.4i 749 073 775.017 801,859 829 632 858.366 888.090 918.055 9X:679 47000 Interest Earrings 19.787 3,272 - - - - - - Total revenue 696.118 703.033 723.997 749.073 775,017 801,859 829,632 858.366 888.096 918.055 950,679 told/8100 4001 $ 1.745.129 9 1.308.945 $ 723.917 $ 749.073 $ 775,017 $ 871859 $ 829.632 $ 858.366 $ 888.096 $ 918.855 $ 950,679 Req,eremenls' 6pendfures: • Debt senAce $ • $ $ - s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Work in progress 12.000 - - - - Told transfer out 1.127.217 1.388,945 723.997 749.073 775.017 801,859 829.632 858.366 888.096 918,855 950,679 fold 0,83e718540e4 1.139.217 1.308945 723997 749073 775.017 801.859 829.632 858,366 888096 918.855 950679 Endng fund balance 605.912 - - - - - Tatdm01010ments $ 1,745.129 $ 1.308.945 $ 723.997 $ 749.073 $ 17`.017 $ 801,859 $ 829.637 $ 858364 3 888,096 9 918.855 9 950.679 Don of e,pendlures in endng fund balance 194 0 0 0 G C 0 0 0 0 0 ii9idia AstiniMM6 interest,056 0.54% 0.54% 054% 0.54% 0 54% 054% 0 54% 054% 0 54% 054% Customer ac0ovnls: FDIIS in editing SPIVICO 0re0 23.402 23.507 23,013 23719 23,024 23.933 24.041 24.149 24,758 74.347 24.476 EDUS In new service area Told EDUS 23,407 23,507 23,613 23,719 23,826 23.933 74,041 24149 24.258 24.367 24.476 r3e04 EDUS 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 109 110 Customer ac000nl wowth In e0sling service area 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.63% 0.45% OA5% 0.45% 10118 customer account growth 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 005% 0.45% 045% 0.45% 0.45% 045% Poks System Development Charge SDC per EDU $ 6,451 $ 6.645 $ 6,844 5 7.050 $ 7.261 $ 7.479 9 7.703 $ 7.934 $ 8.172 $ 8.418 $ 8.670 Annual Indeese in SDC per ECM 7.58% 3.00% 3.00% 303% 3.00% 3510% 3.00% 300% 3.00% 3.00% 300% Edsling capital lmprovemenl plan $ 1.510.330 $ 3.967.000 $ 2.544.628 1 810000 $ 801.059 1 029.632 8 058,366 $ 888.096 $ 910,855 $ 950.679 Parks p,olecls in River 10,1000 - (2925.179( (1.795,5551 1349831 - •:;>FCS GROUP s so o(csgroup.con$ City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 39 Stormwater Funds 4/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 4/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/31/2029 C of TI•old Slormwaler UM ledges hgected ProOrchid PI ojecled hgec led Pr elected h91«led hgected hgecled hgected 001ec1.4 Si000 oim Fund Begnning tuna balance 5 4078705 3 3875.260 $ 3.8■6004 $ 3.904./39 $ 4.551452 5 5,389,013 5 6.!66.481 $ 7.485.343 5 8.747042 510.157.971 511.704.474 Revenue' Loco SOCi 1.032.755 1,514.387 1,627489 1.736,746 1.738.936 1.741,134 1.743.339 1.745.552 1.747.772 1.750.000 45100 Utility soles 2,170.387 2341.647 2.520.331 2.702.866 2.889.548 3.078.904 3.270.946 3.465.682 3.663.125 3.863.204 4.066,169 • 15103 Tigard 539M Surcl osge 863.904 810.751 816.320 822385 828.946 835,524 842.118 818.729 855.357 862.032 868.664 45199 Boa debt 47000 Interest earnings 7,936 20,926 19.527 21406 24,578 29,101 34.379 40.421 47.234 54826 63.204 • 47100 Gain or loss on Investments - - - - - 48001 Recovered egxndMes 3.069 - - -Told revenue 3,045.276 4.206279 4.870,56/ •- 5,682.465 5,888,576 6.098.171 6,311.268 6.527.884 6.748.037 Told resources 5 6.124.201 5 8.081 339 5 8.486,604 $ 9,132.88$ $''0.03'.209 $11.071,477 $12.255,057 $13,583.515 $15,058,310 3 16,680.855 3 18.452.511 Reggdremenls: 6pendlues: Personnel services: 590985 5 393,762 $ 407.201 $ 471.098 $ 435.469 1 450,331 3 465.701 $ 481.594 3 498,031 1 515,028 3 532.605 5 550.782 Benefits 202865 204.166 205,476 206,793 208.120 209,454 210.798 212.150 213.510 214.880 216,258 Told personnel services 596,677 611.367 626,573 642.263 658,451 675,155 692,392 710,180 728.538 747.485 767.040 Materials and sere/Cel: Supplies 33,245 34,409 35,613 36.859 38.149 39.485 40.867 42.297 43,777 45.370 46.895 5el0ice 488.165 505.251 522935 541,237 560.181 579,787 600,079 621.082 647,8.0 665,319 688405 Total 090)0009 and services 521,410 539.659 558547 578,097 598.330 619.272 640,946 663.379 686.597 710.628 735.500 Capital outlay 9,100 9.419 9.748 10.089 10,442 10,808 11.186 11.578 11,983 12.402 12836 ironclad Out and indlecl cost 01/0001/00s 431,775 443.977 456.524 469.475 482.691 496.332 510.359 574,782 539,612 554,862 570.542 080116y 11,80ms program Non-program expenditures 0,00090,500t 350,956 360.874 371.072 381.559 392.342 403.430 414.831 426,554 438408 453004 463,749 Capital projects 338.873 2500.000 2.500.000 2500000 2,500,000 2.500400 2.500.000 2,500.000 2.500,000 2.504033 2.500000 Total nonprogram egvendlures 689.829 2.860.874 2.871.072 7.881 559 2.892,342 2903.430 2.914.831 2.926.554 2938.608 2.951.004 2963.749 Told 0,00eOldes 2,248.741 4.465.296 4.522.465 4`,'2.-• 4 s42.757 _ 9 •- 69.714 4836.473 4.905.339 4.976 381 5.049.668 Endrp fund balance 3.875.260 3.616,044 3.964139 !89.013 - '- . •1.343 8,747.042 10.152.971 11,704,474 13,402,843 10Id rec.,irements $ 6,124,001 1 8.081,339 $ 8,486,604 5 9.'/.__ . 2i 1 / n57 5 I7 59'+515 115.058.310 §16.680.855 $18452.511 - =i^g lsGalante 629 296 320 .v.• 494 756 859 969 Wale,oeality/Ouanllty Fend .. - 3 1.202.483 5 786 078 5 802.110 1 821 420 1 842 128 5 664301 1 886638 3 909.140 5 931.809 3 954,046 3 977-65i c • 43122 Fe Water Ouar3,', 9.240 9 282 14.230 15.498 16.761 16.810 16,852 16.895 16938 16.98/ 17.074 • 43123 796 Water 000/I, 473 475 728 793 858 860 863 865 467 869 871 47000 Merest earnings 15.102 4.256 4,331 4.436 4.547 4.667 4,788 4.909 5,032 5.155 5.279 Totd revenue 24815 14012 19,290 20.727 22.173 22.337 22,503 22.669 22.837 23.005 23.175 Told resources $ 1,227.278 $ 807.110 $ 821,403 $ 842.128 1 864.301 1 686.638 5 909,140 $ 931.809 $ 954,646 $ 977.651 5 1.000,826 Requirements! Expendlures $ 439,2E0 $ ' •$ � $ •1 $ 5 - 1 . 1 ' $ - 3 • Endrg fund balance 788,098 802110 821.400 842.120 804,301 886.038 906140 931.031 954646 977.651 1.000.826 Told requirement. $ 788,098 $ 802110 $ 821.400 $ 847.128 1 864301 5 886.638 $ 909.140 $ 931.809 $ 954,646 $ 977.651 5 1.000.826 •ays of evens t 3os m ena• ••3 t0rnce 655- - - - - - .4.>FCS GROUP r sosss.fcsgroup.cam City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 40 Stormwater Fund Assumptions >j1 ' 6130/2015 6/30/2014 3130/2017 6/30/2013 6/30/2011 6/30/2030 6/30/3021 6/]0/30]2 6/20/2021 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 6841001 044.6168 naiad* 80.184368 80.1413* ■68a3.8 PrR1.9668 80441«111 14q.c3.45 Projected 80.1.cled 109.0■.Assunwi1 6 0.26% 0.54% 054% 0.54% 054% 0.54% 056 0.520 0.54% 054% 054% Eau valent service carer ESUS in ellsling service area 33,630 33781 33.933 34.056 34.739 34.343 34.518 34.704 34.660 35017 35174 IOUs fin River Terrace 0 80 167 000 420 540 660 763 900 1020 Total 23122 33,630 33781 34,013 34,266 34,539 34,813 35,086 35,364 35,640 35,917 36194 New ESU4 151 151 232 253 273 274 275 275 276 277 278 Custom.account vow th inen00ng service aeo 040% 0.45% 045% 0.45% 045% 0.41% 045% 045% 00% 045% 0.45% Totdc6ntomer account growth 045% 0453 069% 074% 0.80% 0.79% 079% 0.79% 078% 0756 0.77% 6anclise lee aspercenloge of lotdroferevenue 3.00% 5.08% 500% 3.001 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 5.03% 503% Rates: Told COS fixed monthly tote per EDU $ 675 $ 725'$ 7.75 $ 625 $ 8.75 $ 9.23 1 9.75 $ 1025 $ 10.75 $ 11.25 3 11.15 Rivet Terrace 64,304101 On 7400mon114yta7e $ 200$ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 3 2.00 $ 200 1 200 Existing urvice yea surcharge on fixed monthly rale $ 208 3 200$ 2.00 $ 200 $ 200 3 200 3 200 $ 200 3 200 $ 200 3 200 0494141e.e48P84911 Full-lien,equivalent/FFE)posit iont 650 630 6.50 6.50 550 650 650 650 650 650 6.50 500ies per 71E 3 60,579 $ 62.646 $ 64.764 $ 66995 $ 66282 $ 71.696 $ 74.251 $ 76620 $ 79.235 3 81939 $ 64,736 Growth in 6414,.015 P.0E 1665%' 341%' 141%' 341%' 341%' 341%' 341%' 341%' 141%' 341%' 341% 61019T1 per FIE '3 31 210 $ 31.410 $ 31.612 $ 31.614 $ 32016 $ 32224 1 32430 $ 32.639 5 32848 3 33.058 3 33270 61906 th 19 benefits per FTE 7.87% 064% 0.68 064% 064% 064% 065 064% 054% 0.64% 0.64% 2080,234 esca/0l ion of mde/ds and 6104 ice 15/76 350% 3506 350% 350% 150% 33016 150% 3503 151% 150% 01808701x7007 ion of capita/outlay 76.20% 350% 05% 308% 150% 3.50% 150% 350% 05B 350% 350% Annul escdah07,of hm6lm 263% 283% 283% 263% 263% 2.03% 283% 263% 2.63% 2833 Capild 0408•814 Project e000739lures Plolec76 for River Thrace.growth+elated $ 1003,000 $ 1003.000 $ 1.000.000 $ 1.000.000 3 1.000.600 $ 1,004.000 $ 1 000.000 $ 1002000 $ 1000003 $ 1.030,030 6101416 tar River Terrace.0.40,6w 020104111. . Projects 100 existing service area.growth related 750.0011 750.000 750.000 750,000 750.000 750.000 750000 750.00D 750,000 150,000 PrOl6616 for eu6trng shvice area 861 grow IF.Waled 750.00/ 75070013 750,010 750,000 750,000 750,000 750.000 7512000 1500% 750,002 Told 0/31871 e0e77014107 $ 25000. 1 2.500.030 1 25002000 1-2500 5_22.30000 1 2540080 3 2500000 2 2508.083 $2500.083 $2500.000 SOCO cost basis 68.a18na6e 3 1.03,400 $ 1000000 3 1,000.000 $ 1000.000 $ 1.000,100 1 100.00 1 1001000 3 1.000.000 1 1.000,030 3 1.IX33080 001707073 750.0300 753,030 750.003 750003 750.000 750,000 750.00 750.0120 750.008 750.008 10115 DC.cod 1072) 3 1,750..0 $ 1750,000 3 1.750030 $1.750.030 $ 1.750.000 3 1.150.000 $ 1.750.000 1 1750.008 $1.756000 $1,150000 Growth/47601 - - - -- - Rivh 7.7000 0 00 100 110 120 120 120 120 120 120 Rest 07053 151 152 153 153 154 155 155 156 157 158 Total growth in ESUs 151 232 253 273 274 275 275 276 277 278 Calculate SOCi - Pseo.specificlnRiver1enace $ 0803.92 5 1624 $ 8.511 $ 0333 $ 0333 3 0313 3 8,333 1 8.333 3 6333 $ 6333 10101400 in rest of city 5 4.8`6 3 1646 $ 4635 $ 4824 $ 4.813 3 4,802 1 4.792 $ 4781 $ 4770 $ 4,760 Uniform 5 6,824 3 6,527 3 6.419 3 6.353 $ 6.345 $ 6.337 $ 6329 5 6321 $ 0.313 $ 6305 SDC.rev 0701 Ned-speafic SOCi revenue Rive Terme 5 _ $ 705.882 5 851 064 5 1,000,000 $ 1.000.810 $ 1 000.000 3 1063.000 5 1.000 008 .030 3 10 . 3 $ 1000300 Rest d 0y 734938 736.101 136.267 739,936 741,607 743.280 744.956 746.635 748316 750,060 Told 07e3-90e000 MCI revenue 5 7334933 $ 1,142483 $ 1.569.331 3 1.739936 $ 1,741,607 $174280 $ 1744,956 $ 1746.635 $ 1,746316 $ 1,750,000 Uniform 5600 revenue 1 1032,755 3 1,514,362 5 1,622085 5 1,735746 $ 1.738.936 $ 1741.134 $ 1.743339 5 1745.552 $1,747.772 5 1.750,000 MI In 311048lame* 806000801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tow a 60 140 240 340 440 540 641 140 840 0.0047, 0 80 160 303 420 540 660 700 900 1 020 14,11 5 100 220 360 500 643 783 920 1.020 1.203 Typed Waal $ 8 s s 3 $ $ $ 8 - 3 eespeci66 3 734.9% 5 1,442463 5 1.507331 $ 1,739936 $ 1.741.607 5 1743.280 $ 1.744.956 1 1746635 $ 17463,0 $ 1.750000 00800140. $ 1.032,705 $ 1.514.382 $ 1.622069 $ 1.736.746 5 1738,936 $ 1741.134 $ 1.743339 $ 1.745552 $ 1.745.772 $ 3750000 • >FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September.2014 page 41 Transportation Funds .)1 ( , 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 CIj of§I,and Iran'•artation tondln•. 3udgel Protected Projected Projected Projects Projected Projected Projected Protected Projected Projected CIPO Gas lac Fund Beginning fund•50ur,no 1 1004922 1 772,190 1 1.235.733 1 705.957 5 1323927) 1 145,481 { 623.852 § 1.395.844 § 2.175,068 § 2.958,547 3 3.746.304 Revenue: 44200 Gas tax 739.620 739,667 739.715 739.762 739,809 739.857 739,904 739,951 739,999 740.046 740.094 44801 Slate grants 314 47000 tnlerest eanings 34.584 4,170 6.673 3.812 11.7491 786 3.353 7.538 11.745 15.976 20230 4E001 Recovered mpendlures 31 133 31735 31.735 31,735 31,735 _ _31,735 31735____ 31,735 31,735 5,735 31,735 !old revenue ''2 778,123 775,309 769.795 772,377 774,992 779,224 7734 - 79 Told resources 2 $ 2.013656 5 1,481,266 $ 445,868 1 917.858 $ 1.395.844 $2.175.068 1 2.969 i - - Rectiremenls: Bu7endlures: • Program 743/endives t 7 - I • 1 - 1 • 1 - $ $ - $ bonprogrom expenditures Debt service 315,860 312.029 307,899 335.193 302397 797,006 Work in Progress - • 1.00903) 1,500000 - transfers out to transportal ion CIF Fund 733,125 - - - - 01h6rlranslers out - . . - . - lord nonprogram expenditures 1,048,985 312,029 1,307.899 1.835,193 300,387 297.006 totale>pendlues 7048,9E5 312029 1,337.899 1,805.193 300387 297.036 - - - Endngfundbdarce 772,190 1,231733 706,957 (323,927) 145,481 6208..52 1]95,844 2.175.058 2.958,547 3,746,304 4,538.363 told requirements 1 1,821.175 1 1,547,762 1 2013,056 1 1,487,266 1 445.869 1 917,858 1 1395.844 1 2175.068 1 2,958547 $ 3.746304 1 4.538.363 Gat Tate fund Resources: Beginning fund balance 1 460.463 1 287.648 1 733.087 5 684.117 1 425.706 1 229.049 1 659,321 1 1,639,156 1 2.606.227 $ 3,558.979 1 4.495.776 Revenue: 43119 Street lighting tees 225 156 108 75 52 36 25 17 12 8 6 43125 Fee-in-lieu bic9de striping - - - - - - - • 44200 Gas lox 2809,993 2.873.368 2.938,172 3,033,437 3,072,197 3,141.486 3,212,337 3284,785 3,358.868 3.434.622 3.512.084 44201 Other gas lax 180450 178,864 177,291 175,733 174.188 172656 171.139 169.634 168.143 166.665 165.199 44501 Intergovernmentd revenue 45319 Mscellcnenus fees and Uages - - - - - .• - - 47000 Interest eanings 55,732 1.553 3.959 3,694 2,299 1.237 3,560 8.851 14,074 19.218 24,277 49107 Recovered eq endtures 61,345 62370 63,413 64,473 65550 66.646 67.760 68893 70.044 71,215 72.405 49001 Debt Proceeds - - - - 49412 Transfer in from Street N4inlerance fund __100930 103030_ -)M.0D .130.000 _ .100023 I8OW 100,000 Im,00g 100003 100.000 130,000 laid revenue 3.207,745 3,216,311 3.282,942 3.348.472 3,414,286 3.482,061 3.554.820 3,632.181 3,711.141 3.791,7M 3,873,971 lotd resources 1 3.648.208 1 3.503,958 1 4,016029 1 4.032.529 3 3,839,992 1 3711.110 1 4,214.141 1 5.271,337 1 6317.369 3 7.350.707 3 8,369.747 Requirements: EN3endtures: Program expenditures 1 2014,752 1 2.168,068 1 2.243,951 1 2.322.489 8 2403.776 1 2.687908 1 2574.985 1 2.665109 § 2.758.388 1 2.854.932 1 2.954.854 bon-program erpendlures Debt service.eastirsg 599.676 592.403 584.561 579,424 570,300 563,881 Debt service.new - W ork in progress - 10,400 593,403 704.910 636.866 - - - TransfersouttoiransportafionOPFund 613,388 - - - - - . • • • 018cr transfers out 72745 - - - - •- . Iota!nonprogrom expenditures 7.255.809 602,833 1,087,961 7,294.334 1.207.166 563881 - . • - rotolexpcndlures 3.390,561 2.770.872 3,331912 3.606.823 3.610942 3,051.789 2576.9855 2.8-011rn 2.854.932 2954854 Endng fund balance 287,648 733,087 684,117 426,706 227,049 659,321 1,639,156 2.61':.. ---- 4495.776 5.414.893 fold requirements 1 3,668.238 1 3.503958 $ 4.016,029 $4,032,529 1 3,839,992 1 3,711,110 1 4,214,141 1 51 $ 7350,707 3 8,369,747 Days of expenditures in endrg fund baance 31 97 75 43 23 79 233 _-. _I 575 669 •:•.>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com • City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 42 Transportation Funds > 1r '', . 6/3012015 6/30/2016 4/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2011 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 a of TI•aid Iran-•orfation Fundln• Budget Projected Pro)ecbd Projected Proj.cled Projected Projected Projected Protected Projected Pro!«I.d Street Matnl.neno.P. Fund Rex Beginning fund balance 1 1.298,606 1 1.193,753 $ 1.164.894 $ 1.153.092 1 1,163.962 1 1.208.479 1 1.287.952 $ 1.404.622 1 1.560,758 $ 1.758.643 1 2000,557 Revenue: 43130 A6scelloneous lees and charges 2.004.673 2.152.878 2.270.738 2,396455 2.531.215 2.673.230 2.823.108 2.981.281 3,148,202 3,324.351 3,510.737 45199 Bad debt 15,0501 19.2041 111.5191 113,9921 116.6351 119.4751 122.368) (25.475) 128.754) 132.213) 135.8641 45319 Miscellaneous lees and charges - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earnings 2.043 6.446 6.290 6.227 6.285 6.526 6,955 7.585 8.428 9.497 10.803 48001 Recovered expenditures 1.286 - - - - - - Tolol revenue 2,002.952 2.1511.120 2265510 2.388.890 2.520.866 2.660.331 2807.695 2.963.391 3.127.876 1301,634 3,485.171 Total resources 1 1301.558 1 1343.873 $ 3.430 403 1 3.541.982 1 3,684,828 1 7868811 3 4.095,647 1 4.368.013 1 4688.635 1 5.060.277 1 5,485.777 Requiremenls: Expenditures: Program expenditures 1 - I - 1 1 I • 1 1 1 $ - 1 • I Non-program expenditures Debt service - • • Work in progress 1.900.000 1.950.000 2025.000 2.100001 2.170000 1.243.294 2.319,064 7397.394 7.478,368 2.562.078 2,648,616 Iota!(roosters oul 707.805 228.979 252.311 778,020 306.349 337,564 371,960 409,861 451.624 497.642 548.349 Iola!non-program expenditures 2.107.805 2.178.979 2.277,311 2,378.020 2,476349 2.580,859 2.691.025 2.807.254 2.929.992 3.059,720 1196.964 Iola)experrdilures 2.107.805 7.178,979 2.277.311 2.378.020 2.476,349 1.580.859 2691.025 2807.254 2.929.992 3.059.720 3,196,964 Endkrg fund balance 1,191753 1.164,894 1.153.092 1,163.962 1.208.479 1.787.952 1.404.622 1.560 758 1.758.643 2100,557 2,288,763 10101 requirements 1 3,301.558 1 3.343.873 1 1430.403 1 3.541.982 1 3684.828 1 3868,811 1 4095647 $ 4,368.013 1 4.688635 1 5,060.277 1 5.485.727 Days of expendilures in ending lund balance 707 195 185 179 178 182 191 201 219 239 261 Trdmpotk$6n D4w.loprooM tea Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance 1 1,234.890 $ 1.010.045 $ 1.275.684 1 948,709 $ 1.499.532 1 3,177,310 S 4.867.341 1 6.569 706 1 8.284,486 $10,011.763 1 11,751.619 Revenue: 43320 101 lees 557.000' 700.185 1.343.336 1.506.501 1.669.680 1.672,874 1,676.081 1.679.304 1.682.541 1.685.792 1.689.058 47000 Interest earnings 11.7/9 5.454 6 889 5123 8.097 17,157 26,284 35.476 44.736 54.064 63.459 blot revenue 568.279 705,639 I I-d i 624 1,677 777 1.690,031 1.702,365 1.714.780 1.727.277 1.739.856 1.752.517 Iola'resources 1 1,803,169 1 1,715,684 $ t + ,.132 1 3.177,310 $ 4.867,341 $ 6,569,706 1 8.284.486 110.011,763 $11.751,619 113,504,136 Requkements: Expenditures: Program expenditures 1 1 1 1 $ $ 1 $ $ - 1 - 1 - Non-program expenditures Debi service - - • • Work in progress 12,000 440.000 1.677.2001 960800 - - Iransters 001 to Transporlation CIP Fund 780.927 - Other Boosters out 19/ - 10101 non-progrom expendilures 793,174 440.000 1.677.200 960.800 - - . 10101 expendilures 793.124 440.000 1.677.200 960,8010 - - - Ending fund balance 1.010045 1.275.684 948.709 1.499.532 3,177.310 4.867,341 6.569,706 8.284.486 10,011.763 11,751.619 13.504.136 total requirements 1 1.803.169 $ 1.715.684 $ 2625.909 $ 2.460137 $ 3.177.310 1 4.867,341 1 6.569.706 1 8.284,486 110.011,763 111,751.619 111504,136 4•FCS GROUP wssss.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 43 Transportation Fund Assumptions ->Il , 4330130411 43,0/24111 4,08,301. taamm osorm21 ...pm 202400.0 20.4031.. 0923.0.. 8,.7131.. 20ry.a.. 938710.0 13.300.31 9327144.. 9387144.0 1.8302444.. M..1..30118,CV Pow f94,09m.41..d 0020478 $ 72.8 1 33742 s 130873,1$ 1x.3211113.418.939111381.9381 113 412 3x1113814.7301 313.21.33!1111.81!]301 31381.311/ 44002 Counts...9s 700 OW • 49405 Etat.In 1404,1D1,90 .0•29 49410 Tron..Rom Iron.1,7041 8 0.n Underground U.D4M140 3434.02 13 AO 49301 Dans.In Itam Sontroar Sewell king 13 200 • 48 water Fund a 91.A3 - -_ ___. 0...4 2 3880011 2 00.203 1 1339%301 1 i .728/$/3.110,333)$114107x1 f 112193u1113419.:DI 2134133931 513410.3x1$11 411 430/ 1 - 1 1 - 3 - 1 '1 - 1 1 - 1 -1 3 Non-pregram 447..111.1 794444 In.07.49 3000 130 630000 3040020 u«a,x.,.44 _ - - _311:«b. 030.400 .0 3^^B 130/ 133'330) 13 . 1 13.810.3301 72812.3391 !3307 130127321 13.81!3x3 13 419 3111 134183131 1 3 003 011 3 30232 3 13693x3 0 13.83x)2230183121 213.2123x412141.3321 07.3/0 7x111381 15553 113819 3381 110.416_755), Intr.rote 0330 03870 0.300 004. 034. 034. 030 034. OM 03190 Customer oczount7. 20.D eatlting...De Dea 1.41414.ro1 14 430 41517 40 1,13 14 713 ..2 11211 14.1 .0. 20 lit 20.252 213343 9.120.1n e.ang 04 m8, 28543 ] MIx 32373 22 1. MOOS 79 004 29 124 39 VI 29.6 29.656 30 . . r.. . 305_ _. 11. _113#1-_29x1 - _39 40 _b. ffi 34..N 310 mew 030s RestlenlIal account growth In wa.,,3 3.x..4 area 0 43. 0 4312 0.20 1931 144 11.40 cos DAIS W.. Donlesklen.accoun1 grow. .00930 2..34..43. 00011 ma b0. O. 0. �I1944..004.1.72.#,0020.7.7.2. 3 3 1 1 1 1 s 2 s .3 5 5 1 3 $ 3 1 4 $..711.39.4 „0721.. 1 3 1 1 440 t 1 1 3 1 1 2 4 s 3 s mennM 4222232DU1nro 3 { a2e 1 4.39 2 4.114 3 7.22 2 7.59 1 744 3 1 $ 873 2 913 2 IronsporaDdn ..001..310.303030: 41141 4uw 41197 4.1 424 48.497 4.4. .i0. 4.0. u4. 3..44 1010er 02.1 1 4 291 t 6070 1 3 003$ 11070 1 2 cm s 4 009 7 20M 1 8 MD 1 8 ODE 1 1000 1 Annual 1noease In 1134 per EDU a nOlt 20 9317 0.2 0.00. 0,2017 0. 0.04112 00011 02012. O. 00312 00.11+Jbb-. rot 0.a«,..wo014.20: 001 s • 3 3 - s wte0w32nIennce 412.1 0.w 1033 5,30 ..]4-.244 5 110 .3.144 2 4903 .s6.36 53.31613 tenuaorkr.n CD mm 4apaa611a fund pa00.444017321 fund 3.020132 s 2222,404 2 1103.031 3 33130 $].01.40 $33.330. 1 3319.34. 1.303». 3 3452231 3 333x078 1 23x.310 NO awancecoslpercentog• 743011 70342 2.2 E. 1.1 2 00% 700. 300. 9 9010 7004 term 40 20 20 70 70 20 3.7 40 90 1 - $ , 1 , 1 , s - s 1 Deelreveve • - • 20709347, 2 2 2 - 2 2 - 1 2 - I 1 -1 •i•>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy September,2014 page 44 This page intentionally left blank AFC'S GROUP 1%1%N%.1csg 01i1).cOrn Key Infrastructure Information by System River Terrace Funding Strategy Council Briefing I September 23,2014 Sewer I Service Provider=CWS • North pump station scheduled for construction Summer 2015&completion January 2016. South pump station scheduled for construction Summer 2018&completion January 2019. • Most areas need a pump station to develop. CWS has indicated they will not allow temporary or interim facilities. Transportation I Service Provider=City& County • The River Terrace transportation system intersects with and utilizes the regional network. Regional transportation needs are large and funding is limited. Need to negotiate a reasonable cost share scenario with the County for the proposed signals and work with the County and adjoining cities to prioritize the widening of Roy Rogers Road. • Existing Bull Mountain residents want the Scholls Ferry Rd signal installed with development instead of waiting for it to meet volume warrants later. If we wait and/or if the County does not allow us to use system warrants,this signal and the other three signals on Roy Rogers Rd may never meet volume warrants. • River Terrace Blvd is a unique street that will require a coordinated and concerted effort to fund and implement. Water I Service Provider=City • Only 72 additional homes can be built in the 550-Zone until the new reservoir is online unless it can be determined that there is extra capacity in the 710-Zone. [This also includes new infill homes in the 550-Zone within the existing service area and 410-Zone development in River Terrace served via a pressure reducing valve(PRV)connection.] Stormwater I Service Provider=City • High-flow conveyance area requires additional alternatives analysis, special permitting, and land or easement acquisition. • City may not be able to acquire land and/or fund regional facilities at the rate that development needs them. However,of the 13 regional facilities outside of the high-flow conveyance area, 6 serve sub-basins under the control of a single property owner. Also,flexible siting and size standards should generally help with the implementation of the regional facility approach. • City needs to develop and adopt new model and standards to implement the master plan. Parks I Service Provider=City • City does not have a mechanism for exacting park land except through the voluntary Planned Development process. Early land acquisition may be critical to ensure availability of land for future park and/or trail use. AIS-1885 7. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes):20 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider an Ordinance Taxing the Sale of Marijuana and Marijuana-Infused Items Prepared For: Toby LaFrance,Financial and Information Services Submitted By: Toby LaFrance,Financial and Information Services Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting Public Hearing- Legislative - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Consider an ordinance taxing the sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused items. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff requests Council act on the proposed ordinance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY SUMMARY Oregon cities currently have the authority to tax the sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused products. If the City Council desires to impose a tax on marijuana,it would need to be heard and adopted by the City Council by its last meeting in September,prior to the timing of marijuana legalization initiative before state voters on the November ballot. At the September 9,2014 meeting,Council directed staff to bring an ordinance forward for consideration. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Oregon voters legalized medical marijuana via initiative petition in 1999,after which medical marijuana dispensaries began operation. Dispensaries essentially serve as intermediaries between marijuana growers and medical marijuana patients. While these dispensaries were legal, they were unregulated and the source of controversy in many communities.The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed HB 3460,which created a regulatory and licensing regimen for medical marijuana dispensaries.To date,there are 198 approved and 115 provisionally approved dispensaries in Oregon. Tigard has limited siting dispensaries by city ordinance, to be reconsidered before May,2015. In addition,Oregon Ballot Measure 91 was proposed by citizen initiative that would legalize the sale of recreational marijuana in Oregon. The measure asks voters whether or not to enact a state law"legalizing the recreational use of marijuana,based on regulation and taxation to be determined by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission." The measure will appear on the November,2014 ballot and is similar to a measure approved by Washington voters in 2012. The ordinance presented for Council consideration is a gross receipts tax on the sale of marijuana,medical marijuana and marijuana-infused products. The tax is levied on the seller,who is responsible for maintaining records. There is nothing in current Oregon law that prohibits the City from taxing marijuana,but it should be noted that the marijuana initiative most likely to be considered by the voters in November contains the following language: SECTION 42. State has exclusive right to tax marijuana.No county or city of this state shall impose any fee or tax, including occupation taxes,privilege taxes and inspection fees, in connection with the purchase, sale, production,processing, transportation, and delivery of marijuana items. Because this language does not specifically repeal a local marijuana tax in effect at the time of the measure's passage,and because this language can be interpreted to read"No county or city of this state shall [after the effective date of this measure] impose any fee or tax..."it can be argued that this language would not pre-empt this taxation ordinance if it is adopted by the Council. Alternatively, the language can be read as "No county or city of this state shall [be allowed at any time to] impose any fee or tax..."As such,absent adjudication in a state court, there is no guarantee that a local tax imposed prior to passage of this initiative would survive beyond the effective date of the initiative, unless this language is modified by the Legislature. At the September 9 discussion,direction was given to staff to research options in addition to the proposed sales tax which would capture revenue in situations where a grower was in Tigard,but the sale was outside the City. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The city could choose not to tax marijuana or marijuana-infused products. It could also elect to structure the tax differently,with associated legal and other risks. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the second consideration of a tax on marijuana since first discussion on September 9,2014.The City Council received an update on the options for development code amendments regarding siting medical marijuana dispensaries on July 22,2014. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: At this time, the fiscal impacts of this ordinance are unknown. Even if the Council proceeds to consider the ordinance,it will be difficult to estimate the local fiscal impacts of taxation since the statewide measure has not been considered by voters,and Tigard's consideration of regulating dispensaries is unlikely to be known until 2015 or later. Attachments Proposed Ordinance AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: September 23, 2014 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Legislative Public Hearing — CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TAXING THE SALE OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA-INFUSED ITEMS This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes,which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I:\ADM\CATHY\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\Legis PH.doc AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: September 23, 2014 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&PV No. Name,Address&Phone No. C \N Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. AIS-1923 8. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 09/23/2014 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: APPOINT NORMA ALLEY AS DEPUTY RECORDER Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Norma Alley be appointed as Deputy City Recorder? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST In order to assure continuity of the job functions and services provided by the office of the City Recorder, Deputy Recorders are appointed to serve in the absence or unavailability of the City Recorder. Carol Krager was promoted from the position of Deputy Recorder to City Recorder after Cathy Wheatley retired. Ms. Alley will be scheduled to attend and take minutes periodically at council and City Center Development Agency meetings. In addition, she will assist with council packet preparation,meeting follow-up and local election support. She will also provide backup for the Records Management Specialist and assist in court as bailiff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION n/a Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: This position is budgeted full-time and supports the City Recorder and Records functions. Attachments Resolution