Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution No. 14-66
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-4/ A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE RIVER TERRACE FUNDING STRATEGY, aj � hteLd� WHEREAS, the City of Tigard annexed the River Terrace area west of Bull Mountain in 2011 and 2012;and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has adopted an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to include the River Terrace Community Plan,and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has amended the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designations Map to include the River Terrace Community Plan,and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has completed planning for the public facilities necessary for the implementation of these amendments related to River Terrace,and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has adopted the master plan addenda for the water, sewer, stormwater, parks and transportation systems,and WHEREAS,these projects are appropriate to be added to the City of Tigard Master Plans, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The River Terrace Funding Strategy (Exhibit A) is hereby approved as the master funding strategy for River Terrace. SECTION 2: The projects on this master lists shall be funded based on the funding strategy unless changes are made to this resolution by Council. SECTION 3: Staff will bring forward all financing mechanisms contained in the strategy for Council consideration in a public hearing. SECTION 4: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of d e-ee-m ZP r 2014. %0 11 Ma -City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 14-6 Page 1 City of Tigard RIVER TERRACE FUNDING STRATEGY December, 2014 (final report) FCS GROUP 4000 Kruse Way Place, Bldg.1, Ste. 220 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 T: 503.841.6543 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. City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2012, the City of Tigard("city") annexed more than 500 acres of territory known as River Terrace. At build-out, up to 2,587 dwellings, a commercial center of 40,000 gross square feet, and at least one new public school are expected to be located in 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 the capital and operating costs of these facilities. FCS GROUP worked with the city to develop and analyze funding options for water, sewer, parks, stormwater, and transportation. The output of our analysis is a recommended funding strategy for these five systems. The subsections below briefly describe the recommended funding strategy. A detailed analysis of the funding options for each system—including the criteria by which they were evaluated—can be found in the body of this report. This Funding Strategy provides a course of action as of the date of its adoption. Given its long-term nature, however, elements of it could change as the development of River Terrace moves forward. Potential changes include the rate of development absorption, number and scope of projects, and the cost of those projects. In addition, new funding sources could become available and/or existing funding sources could become limited. The city should re-evaluate and revise this Funding Strategy every five years in order to ensure that it remains relevant and useful in guiding public investment in River Terrace over the next two decades. Water The recommended funding strategy for water infrastructure shown in Exhibit i is generally consistent with the city's existing funding sources. This includes utility fees, citywide system development charges (SDCs), and developer dedications of local transmission lines. Both the utility fee and SDCs will likely be adjusted in January of 2015 because of a new study. Exhibit is Water Funding Strategy Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it • • • Payment Base Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? Increase? Utility Fees Customers Avg.monthly waterYes,through planned utility rates=$38 per account $ 5,295,000 $ $ 5.295,000 increases SDC Developers Water SDCs=$7,580 per 2,000,000 10 278 500 12,278.500 [3 Yes,through planned utility SFDincreases Total $ 7,295,000 $ 10,278,500 $ 17,573.500 Source:FCS GROUP. Sewer The recommended funding strategy for sanitary sewer infrastructure shown in Exhibit ii utilizes funding sources already used by the city and Clean Water Services (CWS). This includes CWS capital funds, SDCs, developer dedications of local gravity feeds, and a new citywide utility fee surcharge. The city is enacting the surcharge regardless of River Terrace development. City of rgard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 ii Exhibit ii: Sewer Funding Strategy Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it Payment Base Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase? CWS • Customers $ 10,130,300 $ - $ 10,130,300 ❑ N/A Utility Fee Surcharge Customers 609,150 494,000 1,103,150 Q SDC Developers Sewer SDCs=$4,900 per 609,150 SFD - 609,150 ❑ No Source:FCS GROUP. Total $ 11,348,600 $ 494,000 $ 11,842,600 Parks The recommended funding strategy for parks shown in Exhibit iii includes several new funding sources for River Terrace infrastructure, such as an SDC overlay for River Terrace and a citywide utility fee surcharge. In addition, this strategy relies on General Fund monies, existing citywide SDCs, a new general obligation bond, and grants. Exhibit ill: Parks Funding Strategy Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase? e n Citizens $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 ❑ N/A SDC-Citywide Developers per SF SDCs.avg.)$6,45 per SFD(est.avg.) $ 2.000.000 $ 9,263,400 $ 11,263,400 ❑ No tDC-RT Developers Parks SDCs=$1,200 $ - $ 2794000 per SFD(est.avg.) , , $ 2,794,000 0 Utility Fee Customers '/-$1.11 per month (est.avg.) $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 0 Bond costs$63/year G.O.Bond Citizens for$311,000 median $ $ 9,100,000 $ 9,100,000 0 home(est.) Grants Other entities $ - $ 1,024,000 $ 1,024,000 0 Source:FCS GROUP. Total $ 2,250,000 $ 25,181,400 $ 27,431,400 Stormwater The recommended funding strategy for stormwater shown in Exhibit iv includes existing General Fund monies, utility fees, SDC revenue from across the city, and developer contributions. The General Fund is not a new source of funding for the city; however, it is a new source of monies for stormwater capital projects. New funding mechanisms include a River Terrace utility fee surcharge and a River Terrace reimbursement district. Exhibit iv: Stormwater Funding Strategy Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it • ment Base Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase? General Fund 1111111111111111111111111CItizens Avg.of$42,000 per year $ 250,000 $ 832,500 $ 1,082,500 ❑ N/A Utility Fees Customers Current fee of$500 per 250,000 832 500 1,082,500 ❑ Existing SDCs may be dwellingadjusted SDC Developers Avg.monthly storm p utility rates=$8.75 200,000 - 200,000 ❑ Existing rales may be Utility Fee Surcharge River Terrace adjusted Customers $12/month surcharge 750,000 5,750,000 6,500,000 0 Reimbursement Districts Developers Assumes$1-2M per district(every 6years) 500• 1,665,000 2,165,000 0 Developers Developers - - 11,022000* ❑ N/A Total $ 1,950,000 $ 9,080,000 $ 22,052,000 *Developer funded stormwater improvements are uncertain timing. Source:FCS GROUP. Transportation *4:-O>FC S GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 iii The recommended funding strategy for transportation shown in Exhibit v includes the following existing funding sources: • Fund transfers, • Transportation Development Tax (TDT) revenue, • Developer dedications, • Washington County cost sharing, and • ODOT/Metro grants. The new funding mechanisms for transportation include a citywide SDC, an SDC overlay for River Terrace, and a River Terrace utility fee surcharge. Exhibit v: Transportation Funding Strategy If existing Near Term Long Term fee,does it Payment Base Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase? ®rms Citizens Avg.$150=a year contributions $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 ❑ N/A TDT Revenue" Developers TDT=ingfaper dwelling(avg) $ $ 3,040.000 $ 3.040.000 ❑ No $5,000 per dwelling SDC-Citywide Developers lavgl $ 2,025,000 $ 6,705,000 $ 8,730,000 Subdistrict SDC-RT °. Developers Transport don SDCs= $467 per dwelling $ 252,000 $ 835,000 $ 1,087,000 (-g) Transportation Utility Fee Surcharg Cltizenswithin $5/monthsurcharge $ 100.000 $ 1,300.000 $ 1.400,000 RT Private Cost"' Developers $ 3,700,000 $ 13,820,000 $ 17,520,000 ❑ N/A Developers— Developers $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 8,000,000 ❑ N/A County WA County(cost share) property to be determined tbd tbd tbd ❑ N/A owners/citizens State/Metro N/A ODOT/Metro rants cost share g ( ( , citizens $ $ 900.000 $ 900,000 ❑ Total $ 11,077,000 $ 32,600.000 $ 43,677,000 Net after credits. Non-credit eligible;excludes Roy Rogers Road improvements. Includes TDT credits for Roy Rogers Road improvements. Source:FCS GROUP. 44:'FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 iv Infrastructure Totals Overall, the infrastructure funding strategy in River Terrace addresses revenue requirements of$ $33,920,600 in the near term and $77,633,900 in the long term, as shown in Exhibit vi. Exhibit vi: Funding Strategy Summary Near Term Long Term Total • �• - . e Funding Funding Revenue Water $ 7,295,000 $ 10,278,500 $ 17,573,500 Sewer 11,348,600 494,000 11,842,600 Parks 2,250,000 25,181,400 27,431,400 Stormwater 1,950,000 9,080,000 22,052,000 Transportation 11,077,000 32,600,000 43,677,000 Total $33,920,600 $77,633,900 $122,576,500 Source: FCS GROUP. **4 FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 v 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 members, 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 Councilor Buehner recused herself from River Terrace work sessions and decisions citing a potential conflict of interest. •v*4 FC S GROUP „„ r,•::�,,,,,�.,,,,,, City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 vi 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 Michael Stone, City of Tigard �•.> [ C'S G ROU 1' City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 vii River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), continued 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, LEEDAP, Senior Project Manager John Ghilarducci, Principal Doug Gabbard, Senior Consultant Timothy Wood, Analyst Anthony Martin, Analyst •:;> FCS GROUP ,,,,".r«�„►�,�,,�.�„�„ City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1 ........................ II. METHODOLOGY......................................................................... 2 A. Process and Approach.......................................................................................................................2 B. Funding Sources ...................................................................................................................................3 B.1 System Development Charges.................................................................................................3 B.2 Local Transportation System Development Charges...........................................................4 B.3 Transportation Development Tax (TDT)....................................................................................4 B.4 Local Improvement Districts (LID) .............................................................................................4 B.5 Reimbursement Districts..............................................................................................................5 B.6 Utility Rates ....................................................................................................................................5 B.7 Urban Renewal District (URD) ....................................................................................................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.................................................................................................................... 7 B.9.c Full Faith and Credit Obligations (FFCOs).......................................................................7 B.10 Loans and Grants.........................................................................................................................7 B.IO.a Bank and State Loans.........................................................................................................7 B.l O.b Grants and Low-Interest Financing..................................................................................7 B.1 1 General Fund................................................................................................................................8 B.12 Developer Dedications...............................................................................................................8 C. Funding Source Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................8 C.l 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 •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 C.6 Ability to Address Long-Term Costs...........................................................................................9 C.7 Total Evaluation Score.................................................................................................................9 D. Development Absorption Forecast..................................................................................................9 III. FUNDING STRATEGY ............................................................................................................... 1 1 A. Water.................................................................................................................................................... 11 A.l Overall Findings.......................................................................................................................... 1 1 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..................................................................................................................................... 14 B.1 Overall Findings.......................................................................................................................... 14 B.2 Public Facility Costs.................................................................................................................... 14 B.3 Funding Scenario....................................................................................................................... 15 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.................................................................................................................... 17 C.3 Funding Scenarios...................................................................................................................... 17 CAEvaluation.................................................................................................................................... 17 C.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario................................................................................. 18 D. Stormwater.......................................................................................................................................... 19 D.1 Overall Findings.......................................................................................................................... 19 D.2 Public Facility Costs....................................................................................................................20 D.3 Funding Scenarios......................................................................................................................20 DAEvaluation....................................................................................................................................21 D.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario.................................................................................21 E. Transportation.....................................................................................................................................23 E.1 Overall Findings..........................................................................................................................23 E.2 Public Facility Costs....................................................................................................................23 E.3 Funding Scenarios......................................................................................................................28 EAEvaluation....................................................................................................................................28 E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios................................................................................29 IV. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................................32 A. General Considerations....................................................................................................................32 B. Water System ......................................................................................................................................32 **4 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 C. Sanitary Sewer System.......................................................................................................................33 D. Parks and Trails System ......................................................................................................................33 E. Stormwater System.............................................................................................................................33 F. Transportation System........................................................................................................................33 V. APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ 35 10-Year Forecast of Selected City Funds...........................................................................................35 WaterUtility Fund................................................................................................................................36 WaterCIP Fund...................................................................................................................................37 WaterSDC Fund.................................................................................................................................38 Water Utility Fund Assumptions........................................................................................................39 SanitarySewer Fund ..........................................................................................................................40 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions...................................................................................................41 ParksFunds ..........................................................................................................................................43 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions...................................................................................................44 StormwaterFunds...............................................................................................................................45 StormwaterFund Assumptions.........................................................................................................46 TransportationFunds..........................................................................................................................47 Transportation Fund Assumptions....................................................................................................49 e*:�FCS GROUP �i�+��.fcsruup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 1 1 . INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard (population 49,135) is currently the 12`h 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 development of 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). This plan provides a course of action as of the date of this document. Given its long term nature, however, elements of this plan could change as the development of River Terrace moves forward. Some things that could change include the rate of development absorption, number and scope of projects, and the cost of those projects. In addition, new funding sources could become available and/or existing funding sources could become limited. %4 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 2 II . METHODOLOGY A collaborative approach was used 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 (including design, permitting, land acquisition 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 the Appendix). A. PROCESS AND APPROACH The process used to develop this Funding Strategy involved consultants, city staff, regional and state service providers, 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 were made available on the River Terrace website: • 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 memoranda, 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 addenda 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 addenda for adoption by the Tigard City Council and to provide feedback regarding the assumptions contained in the funding strategy. Additional public and stakeholder meetings were conducted in fall 2014 to discuss and refine the recommended funding strategies that are contained in this document. •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 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 net fiscal impacts from development in 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, included in a development agreement or funded 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 Oregon Revised Statute (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: • System Development Charges (SDC) • Transportation Development Tax (TDT) • Local Improvement Districts (LID) • Reimbursement Districts • Utility Rates • Urban Renewal Districts (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 options techniques is provided below. B.l 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 •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 4 or under construction; and (2) an improvement fee, intended to recover a fair share of future, planned, 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 capital 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 currently 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. In addition to the SDCs that can be imposed by local governments, school districts can impose local construction taxes under the provisions of ORS 320.170 to 320.189. These taxes play no role in the funding of city facilities and are not addressed further in this report. B.2 Local Transportation System Development Charges The city is in the process of considering a local Transportation SDC for transportation facilities (including streets, transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities) that would be in addition to 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) 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 decide to use Washington County Transportation Development Tax(TDT) revenues for roadway improvements that add capacity, such as improvements to Roy Rogers Road, Bull Mountain Road, and other eligible collector and arterial facilities. B.4 Local Improvement Districts (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. •*4 FCS GROUP c,",m1p.c„m City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 5 B.5 Reimbursement Districts 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 reimbursement districts have been successfully utilized in the city 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. B.7 Urban Renewal District (URD) The city currently has a Downtown urban renewal district(URD) in place, and there may be an opportunity for to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace 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 area) • 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 urban 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) allowed in urban renewal plans 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. *v**> FCS GROUP w1Ni .Asgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 6 • Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the 11`h year after the initial plan was adopted, or when Tax Increment Financing (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 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 revenue 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 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 levies 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 intended purpose of the bond funds. Z Special districts in Oregon may be formed by local governments without a vote if the district foregoes the ability to levy a property tax. 44 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 7 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. 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 in 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, have been 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.1 O.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.l O.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. •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 8 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 dedicated purposes. Since General Funds are relied upon to fund essential city administrative services (including police services), 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 rights-of-way and/or build public improvements as a condition of 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. Each funding "bundle"or scenario was then evaluated using the evaluation criteria below. C.1 Equity Equity is defined herein as the equitable distribution of cost/risk among three categories: existing city residents, new residents within River Terrace, and River Terrace developers/property owners. A score was assigned to each funding scenario 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. A score of 1 (low)to 5 (high)was assigned to each funding scenario based on how reliable the funds were in each scenario. 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 '6*:'FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 9 accommodate new private development is an important consideration and should be viewed from each of their perspectives. 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 invest in these facilities until adequate capital reserves are established which could take many years. A score of 1 (low)to 5 (high) was assigned to each funding scenario, based on the relative potential it would have to facility development within the near-term(next six years). CA 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) was 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, other major service providers (e.g. CWS, Washington County, etc.), or developers. A score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) was 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 to 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 providers (e.g. CWS, Washington County, etc.), or developers. A score of 1 (low)to 5 (high) was 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 was 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 then used to rank each funding scenario. The scenarios with the highest scores are identified as the preferred funding scenario for each public facility type. 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 4*:, FCS GROUP w"%s.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 10 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. Exhibit 1: River Terrace Development Absorption Forecast(Dwelling Units Absorption - . Scenario - 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 HE 2021. FYE= fiscal year ending. Note:this assumes 10%under-build factor. Excludes: 40,000 sq. commercial and school developments. •:;> FCS GROUP nw�N.fcsaroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 1 1 III . FUNDING STRATEGY FCS GROUP relied upon the River Terrace master plan addenda and the current adopted Tigard five- year CIP 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 the 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 550 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 are planned in the near-term to serve city-wide needs within the 550 zone. See Exhibit 2 for details. *4*:' FC S GROUP r www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 12 Exhibit 2:Water Infrastructure Needs Near Facilities by Pressure Zone Capital Cost Term Potential Funding Source 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 L.1 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs None - 16-inch Transmission Mains through River $2,800.000 E] Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) Terrace 3.0 mgd Cach Reservoir $5,400,000 21 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs 16-inch Transmission from Reservoir to 550B $595.000 ® Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs 1,400 gpm(firm capacity)Pump Station $1,100,000 ® Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs Totot Cost $17,578,500 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, and it 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 Funding Scenario Scenario Source A(status quo) Notes Utility Fee (existing) RI Existing city-wide water rates may be increased to address costs SDC (City wide) LTJ 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 26 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 revenue sources (Exhibit 4). •v*4 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 13 Exhibit 4: Water Funding Evaluation Criteria in ,M. ,_ Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Cost Equity 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) 6 * denotes relative variance from "uniform"equity (wherein developers, 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. The recommended funding strategy for water systems (see Exhibit 6) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard, including utility fees (water rates) and SDCs. Exhibit 5: Water Funding Strategy, Scenario A Scenario A New Funding Near Term Long Term Funcling Mechanism Source? Funding Funding Notes Utility Fees(Water Fund) ❑ $5,295,000 - Reflects portion of Water Fund Balance by FYE 2021 SDC (Citywide, Water SDC Fund) ❑ $2,000,000 $10,276,500 Existing SDCs(after inflation adjustment), $7,580 per SFD Total Revenue $7,295,000 $10,278,500 Total Capital Cost $7,295,000 $10,278,500 Exhibit 6: Recommended Water Fundin Strate , Scenario A ,Funding Mechanism New Funding Source? Who Pays? How Much$? Notes Utility Fees(Water Customers Avg. monthly Planned water Fund) ❑ water utility utility rate rates=$38 increases SDC (Citywide, Developers Water SDCs= Developers pay Water SDC Fund) ❑ $7,580 per SDCs and provide SFD* local water lines these rates/SDCs are to be adjusted as part of citywide rate/SDC analysis for water by Jan.2015. •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 14 B. SANITARY SEWER B.l 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 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. B.2 Public Facility Costs Sewer infrastructure upgrades for River Terrace are estimated to cost just under$12 million. Facilities in the River Terrace North(RTN) area include a new pump station, a force main, a Scholls Ferry trunk pipe extension, and upsizing the Barrows Road trunk line. River Terrace South (RTS) facilities include a force main, a pump stations, and a pipe upsizing on Beef Bend Road. See Exhibit 7 for details. Exhibit 7: Sewer Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding Potential Funding North River Terrace Facilities Capital Cost Near Term Lead Source Notes RTN Force Main $650,000 CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTN Pump Station $5,666,400 CWS CWS Sewer Fund Scholls Ferry Trunk Extension, Phase 1 ter (city share) $942,000 Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Barrows Rd.Trunk Ups¢ing (city share) $276,300 Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Total Cost(north) $7.534.700 SouthPotential Funding Potential Funding .. . . Source Notes RTS Force Main $2,461,900 EZ CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTS Pump Station $1,352,000 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 •4*4 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 15 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 8). As mentioned above, the city is also in the process of enacting a new local sewer rate surcharge that is needed with or without River Terrace development. Exhibit 8: Sewer Funding Scenario OptionsPotential Funding Funding Source A Notes New local surcharge needed with Utility Fees (Citywide surcharge) or without River Terrace SDC (Citywide) EZ Existing sewer SDCs CWS (Capital Fund) [Z CWS funds Developer [Z Developers to provide/construct local system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 13.4 Evaluation The preferred funding scenario received a total score of 25 (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 9). Exhibit 9: Sewer Funding Evaluation Criteria :Evaluation - Equity (1: lower cost burden - 5: higher cost . - Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation Criteria(1: worst - 5: . - Cost Equity * Reliability of Funds Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ability to Address Near-Term Costs Ability to Address Long-Term Costs Average Rating Total Score (sum of Evaluation Criteria) 5 * denotes relative variance from "uniform" equity (wherein developers, 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 4%4 FCS GROUP ,,,,,N 1(,"1 fill1).oml City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 16 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 10). Developers will be responsible for constructing local gravity feeds into sewer mainlines, the cost of which is not listed. Exhibit 10: Sewer Funding Strategy, Scenario A Scenario A New Funding Near Term Long Term ':Funding Mechanism Source? Funding Funding Total Notes CWS(capital fund) ❑ $10,130,300 $10,130,300 CWS Capital Imp. Progam funds Utility Fee (City surcharge) ® $609,150 $494,000 $1,103,150 City surcharge on fixed monthly rate SDC (Citywide) ❑ $609,150 $609,150 Sewer connection fees Total Revenue $11,348,600 $494,000 $11,842,600 Total Cost $11,348,600 $494,000 $11,842,600 The recommended funding strategy for sanitary sewer systems (see Exhibit 11) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by Clean Water Services (CWS) and the City of Tigard, including utility fees (sewer rates) and SDCs. Exhibit 11: Recommended Sewer Funding Strategy, Scenario A Funding Mechanism New Funding Who Pays? How Much $? Notes Utility Fees (Sewer Fund) Customers Avg. monthly Additional citywide (within city sewer utility rates = sewer rate surcharge service district) $54 per account required with or (existing) without River Terrace SDC (Citywide, Sewer Developers Sewer SDCs: $4,900 Developers provide SDC Fund) 0 per SFD local lines and pay sewer SDCs CWS Capital Fund Customers in CWS (capital fund) CWS district C. PARKS C. I 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, such as through 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). •:;> FCS GROUP ,,,,,,.ir,�ri�u1�., viii City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 17 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 12). Exhibit 12: Parks Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding CapitalFacility . Community parks $15,894,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants,and voter approved GO bonds Neighborhood parks $6,727,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Linear parks $3,356,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Trails $1,454,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants,and voter approved GO bonds Total Costs $27,431,000 Source:Tigard Park System Master Plan Addendum,Table 5. Near-term investment primarily 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 Four funding scenarios were evaluated for funding parks in River Terrace. All involve the General Fund, SDC revenues, grants, and developer dedications that would be eligible for SDC credits (see Exhibit 13). Exhibit 13: Parks Funding Scenarios Funding Scenado Funding Source A(status quo) IS c D Notes City General Fund IJ ® ¢J c0 City currently allocates General Funds to parks Utility Fee(new) 11 0 110 Cit can consider a new monthly y parks utility fee SDC(City wide) 0 0 0 [0 Existing citywide Parks SDCs to be updated SDC(Subdistrict) 1:1 1:1 11 LTJ District SDC could focus on neighborhood parks&trails Urban Renewal District ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Urban Renewal District may be formed with voter approval G.O.Bond ❑ ® ❑ 0 G.O.Bonds may be issued with voter approval Grants 0 0 0 0 Grants from state or Metro may be available Developer 0 0 0 0 Developers can receive SDC credits for constructing eligible public facility improvements. Pmlimirwry Ranking 4 2 3 1 CA Evaluation The rankings for the four scenarios indicate that scenario D has the highest score and is the preferred funding scenario. While scenario D maybe somewhat 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 C or D. And Scenario C is most difficult to implement since it would require a favorable public vote for the formation of a new Urban Renewal District as well as a G.O. Bond (see Exhibit 14). *%4 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 18 Exhibit 14: Parks Evaluation Criteria ScenariosEvaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Equity(1: lower cost burden -5: higher cost burden) A (status quo) B C D Citywide Resident Cost Burden W Citizens in Subd'Istrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden M Cost Equity' 11111111111111E] NMI= Reliability of Funds Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation © lu Ability to Address Near-Term Costs 111110 01=1 ME] Ability to Address Long-Term Costs l Total Score(sum of EvoludFion Wada) E= 12 19 N[=] 17 21 'denotes relative variance from"uniform"equity (wherein developers,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 15. For the preferred parks funding scenario (Scenario D), 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 in the near-term. 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 $13 million in bonds, the levy amount would equate to $0.20 per $1,000 in assessed valuation(AV), which would cost the average homeowner about $63 per year. Exhibit 15: Parks Funding Strategy, Scenario D Recommended Scenario D New Funding Near Term Long Term Funding Mechanism Source? Funding Funding Total Notes City General Fund ❑ $250,000 $250,000 Includes portion of unallocated existing parks GO bond SDC (Citywide) ❑ $2,000,000 $9,263,400 $11,263,400 Assumes$6,451 per dwelling unit (75%allotted to RT) SDC (RT District) ® - $2,794,000 $2,794,000 Assumes$1,200 per dwelling unit (100%allotted to RT) Utility Fee(new Citywide) ® - $3,000,000 , $3,000,000 New monthly parks utility fee of+/- $1.11 /month(75%allotted to RT) Assumes Voter Approved$13 M G.O. Bond (Citywide) $9,100,000 $9,100,000 bond'(70%allotted to RT) Grants Grants(Metro,State,Foundations, ® $1,024,000 $1,024,000 etc.) Total Revenue $2,250,000 $25,181,400 $27,431,400 Total Cost $2,250,000 $25,181,400 $27,431,400 'assumes voter-approved levy of$0.20 per$1,000 AV;results in average cost to$311,100 median home of$63/year. The recommended funding strategy for parks (see Exhibit 16) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund and parks SDCs. •:!) FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 19 The recommended strategy also relies on new sources of funding through a local River Terrace parks SDC, citywide parks utility fee, and non-local grants. If public support for a new G.O. bond for parks is not forthcoming, the city may opt to delay implementation of planned parks capital projects, or may need to increase the local parks SDC that is charged on new development. Exhibit 16: Recommended Parks Funding Strategy, Scenario D New Funding 'Funding Mechanism Source? Who Pays? How Much Notes City General Fund ❑ Citizens $250,000 Fund Transfers Parks SDCs = Developer SDCs; SDC (City wide) ❑ Developers $6,451 per SFD 75%alotted to (est. avg) RT Parks SDCs = Developer SDCs; SDC (RT District) Developers $1,200 per SFD 100%alotted to (est. avg) RT per New citywide Utility Fee (new city wide) [Jf Customers month (est. parks utility fee avg) (75%alloted to RT) Bond costs New citywide G.O. Bond $63/year for $13 M G.O. Citizens $311,100 bond; $0.20 per median home $1,000 AV (70% alotted to RT) Grants Elf Other entities +/_$996,000 Metro, state or federal grants D. STORMWATER D. l Overall Findings The city is focused on ensuring that development is environmentally sustainable through low impact stormwater design standards and construction of new stormwater water quality and quantity 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, builders 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. •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 20 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-term stormwater infrastructure requirements include development of a new stormwater model, high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis, and new design standards for River Terrace. Future stormwater system improvements include 11 water quality/detention ponds, two detention ponds, and potentially two high-flow conveyance facilities (Exhibit 17). Exhibit 17: Stormwater Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding Facility Needs Capif all Cost Near Term Lead Potential Funding Source Notes Stormwater Modeling r� Analysis $50,000 IJ City City Stormwater Fund River Terrace Stormwater Design Standards $150,000 City City Stormwater Fund Water Quality and Deveopers and reimbursement Detention Ponds (11) $12,349,000 ❑ Developers districts Deveopers and SWQQ Detention Ponds (2) $4,265,000 ❑ Developers reimbursement districts High Flow Conveyance Deveopers and SWQQ Facilities(3) $5,238,000 ❑ Developers reimbursement districts Told Cost $22,053,000 Source: River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan,July 2014 Attachment B;and city staff input;compiled by FCS Group D.3 Funding Scenarios Four scenarios were evaluated 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 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 18 for details). 3 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. *v*:'FC S GROUP ww"Jesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 21 Exhibit 18: Stormwater Funding Scenarios Funding Scenario Funding Source A(status quo) 5 D Notes City General Fund ® ® ® City to allocate portion of General Fund to Stormwater needs Utility Fee(existing Citywide fee) 0 0 ® Existing Citywide fee may be increased Utility Fee(new RT ® New RT subdistrict fee is needed under subdistrict fee) Scenario D SDC(existing citywide) 1_J 0 H El Existing Citywide SDC may be increased Special Taxing District RT voters may establish special district for (New RT subdistrict) 0 El their needs Reimbursement Districts �f City or Developers may advance financing or LIDS(new) 0 ® El ® and recoup investment using LID or Reimbursement Districts Developer ® ® Developers to construct facilities to handle runoff from new development Preliminary Ranking 4 3 2 1 DA Evaluation As indicated in Exhibit 19, 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 placed second since it would be harder to implement because of the public vote requirement (from affected voters in River Terrace). It would also 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 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-term funding to facilitate development in River Terrace. Exhibit 19: Stormwater 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 D Citywide Resident Cost Burden N � Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Develo er/Pro a Owner Cost Burden Cost Equity Reliability of Funds ID 0001�� Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ability to Address Near-Term Costs m Ability to Address Long-Term Costs Average Rating Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) K= 1209= 14 17 19 'denotes relative variance from'uniform"equity(whereas developers,future residents,and existing residents would split costs equally) D.S 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 stormwater modeling, high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis, and Stormwater design standards in the near-term using available stormwater funds. Most of the funding for stormwater facilities would need to come from •:;> FCS GROUP ,,,,,,.icti�frru)t,crrlll City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 22 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 River Terrace district stormwater utility fee surcharge(equates to+/- $12 per household per month) and dedicate up to $250,000 in General Funds every 6 years to form new reimbursement districts in River Terrace. New reimbursement districts could fund approximately$9.7 million in regional stormwater facilities over the long-term and could be focused on facilities that benefit or involve multiple property owners (see Exhibit 20). The city or developers that participate in the advance financing used to form reimbursement districts would be compensated(paid back)over time though special assessments on benefiting property owners that opt to participate in new development over time. Exhibit 20: Stormwater FungLinq Analysis, Scenario D Scenario D Developer New Funding Funding Source? Near Term City Long Term City Total City (Timing Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Funcfing Uncertain) Total Notes General Fund ❑ $250,000 $832,500 $1,082.500 $1,082,500 Assumes$250,000 every 6 Years Utility Fee(city wide) ❑ $250,000 $832,500 $1,082,500 $1,082500 Existing stormwater rate(acipsted for inflation) SDC)City wide) ❑ $200,000 $200.000 $200A00 Existing SDC Utility Fee)RT subdistrict) a $750.000 $5,750,000 $6,500,000 _ $6,500,000 Assumes$12/month rate surcharge to RT households Reimbursement Districts 0 $500,000 $1,665,000 $2,165,000 $2,165,000 City contributes funds or"credff"to reimbursement districts Developers ❑ $11,022,000 $11,022,000 Developer to provide or,-s0e stormwater facilities Total Revenue $1,950,000 $9,080,000 $11,030,000 $11,022,000 $22,052,000 Total Cost $1,950,000 $9,080,000 $11,030,000 $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. The recommended funding strategy for stormwater facilities (see Exhibit 21) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund, stormwater SDCs, and developer dedications of on-site facilities. Potential new sources of funding include a River Terrace subdistrict stormwater utility fee and city or developer-established reimbursement districts. 4*:4 FCS GROUP ����lIJCSgroup.coln City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 23 Exhibit 21: Recommended Stormwater Funding Strategy, Scenario D New Funding Funding Mechanism Source? Who Pays? How Much Notes Avg.of$42,000 General Fund ❑ Citizens per year to seed Discretionary fund reimbursement transfers district(s) SDC (City wide) ❑ Developers Current fee of Existing storm SDCs $500 per dwelling may be adjusted rates maybe r Customers(city Avg.monthly Utility Fee(city wide) 11Customersstorm utility rates adjusted Existing tingr _$8.75 New fee surcharge for River Terrace RT subdistrict,could Utility Fee(RT subdistrict) ® Customers(new $12/month be used to help paysurcharge 08,M or for residents) reimbursement district debt payment Developers or City Focus maybe on advances Assumes$1-2M facilities involving Reimbursement Districts ® financing;with per district(every multiple property future payments by 6 years) owners with off site builders impacts Developers ❑ Developers Developer dedications(on site) E. TRANSPORTATION E.I Overall Findings Transportation infrastructure for River Terrace is required for new vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. Traditionally,the city has worked in partnership with ODOT(responsible for state facilities) and Washington County(responsible for county facilities). The city is responsible for upgrades to local routes within the city's municipal service area,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's existing transportation funds are generally committed and not available for investing in new transportation improvements in River Terrace over the next five years. The city 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. 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. Total transportation capital costs (for collector improvements, arterial improvements, and selected trails) are estimated at $149.6 million(see Exhibit 22). The location of the recommended transportation projects included in the River Terrace Transportation System Plan(TSP) Addendum is depicted by the map in Exhibit 23. *v*4 FC S GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 24 Within the next 20-years, the recommended transportation facilities are expected to cost approximately $42.68 million. $25.15 million of this amount is considered to be public cost, including $8 million in Roy Rogers Road improvements. The remaining $17.5 million represents the estimated value of public improvements that development will be required to build that are not credit eligible. Near-term transportation needs include: the first phase of River Terrace Boulevard; a traffic signal at Roy Rogers Road/Bull Mountain Road intersection; a roundabout at the Bull Mountain Road/River Terrace Boulevard intersection; and upgrades to various Washington County facilities.4 The long term needs include all other road extensions, intersection improvements, and selected multi-use trails. 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. Exhibit 22: Transportation Infrastructure Costs Included in Funding S rategy Not in Funding rate Non- Outside Near Long River Planning Term Term Terrace Area or Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Public Horizon Cost Estimate' capital Costz 1-6) 7-20) Cost Costa 20+yrs)4 Project ID Neighborhood Route ✓ 1 (west of Roy Rogers Rd) $7,000,000 Project ID Lorenzo Ln Collector 2 Extension(west of Roy ✓ Rogers $2,500,000 $120,000 Project ID Lorenzo Ln Collector 3 Extension(east of Roy / Rogers $3,500,000 V Project ID Neighborhood Route / 4 (east of Roy Rogers Rd) $4,000,000 V Project ID River Terrace Blvd 5 (Scholls Ferry Rd to Lorenzo Ln $9,000,000 • Phase 1:North ✓ (679/6) $6,030,000 $2,613,000 • Phase 2:South ✓ (33%) $2,970,000 Project ID River Terrace Blvd 6 (Lorenzo Ln to Bull Mtn $6,500,000 • Phase 1:South (750/6) $4,875,000 $2,325,000 • Phase 2:North ✓ (250/6) $1,625,000 Project ID River Terrace Blvd 7 (Bull Mtn Rd to South UGB) $12,500,000 4 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. *%4 FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 25 Inc uded in Fun n Strate Not to Fundingrategy Non- Outside Near Long River Planning Term Term Terrace Area or Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Public Horizon « ► Cost Estimate' Capital Costz 1-6) 7-20) Cost Costa 20+yrs)4 • Phase 1:North / (33%) $4,125,000 $1,881,000 V • Phase 2:South VI/ $6,250,000 $2,850,000 Phase 3:Middle ✓ (170/6) $2,125,000 Project ID E W Collector Street 8 (Roy Rogers Rd to River / TenaceBly $2,500,000 $120,000 V Project ID E-W Neighborhood Route 9 (River Terrace Blvd to ✓ 161st Extension) $2,500,000 Project ID N-S Neighborhood Route 10 (Hazeltine Ln to Woodhue ✓ Extension $5,000,000 Project ID N-S Neighborhood Route 11 (Woodhue Extension to ✓ / Beef Bend $3,500,000 V Project ID E-W Neighborhood Route 12 (161st Extension to 150th / Ave $6,000,000 V Project ID Intersection Improvement: 13 Signal (Roy Rogers Rd& New E-W Collector $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement: 14 Signal(Roy Rogers Rd& ✓ Bull Mtn $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement: 15 Signal(Roy Rogers Rd& ✓ Lorenzo Ln Extension $1,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement: 16 Signal(Scholls Ferry Rd& ✓ River Ten-ace Blvd) $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Intersection Improvement: Project ID Roundabout (River 17 Terrace Blvd&New ✓ Neighborhood Route) $1,500,000 Intersection Improvement: Project ID Roundabout (River 18 Ten-ace Blvd&Bull Mtn $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Intersection Improvement: Project ID Roundabout (River 19 Ten-ace Blvd&New E-W / Collector) $2,000,000 V Intersection Improvement: Project ID Roundabout (Woodhue 20 Extension&1615' ✓ Extension) $2,000,000 Bull Mountain Road: Project ID Upgrade to Urban 21 Standards(Roshak Rd to Roy Rogers $4,000,000 • Phase 1:West / (30%) $1,200,000 $350,000 V • Phase 2:East ✓ ✓ (70%) $2,800,000 ���> FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 26 Included in Funding S rategy Not In fundingategy 4 Non- Outside Near Long River Planning Term Term Terrace Area or Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Public Horizon Cost Estimate' Capital Cost2 1-6) 7-20) Cost Costa 20+yrs)4 _ . ... Roy Rogers Road:Upgrade Project ID to Urban Standards 22 (Scholls Ferry Rd to Beef Bend $35,000,000 • Phase 1:Inside / UGB(17%) $4,000,000 $4,000,000 V Phase 2:Inside / UGB(179/6) $4,000,000 $4,000,000 V • Phase 3:Outside / / UGB(66%) $27,000,000 V V Project ID 150th Avenue:Upgrade to 23 Urban Standards (Bull Mtn Rd to Beef Bend $4,000,000 • Phase 1:North ✓ (10%) $400,000 $94,000 • Phase 2:South& ✓ V/ Outside RT 90% $3,600,000 Project ID Highway99W/Walnut 24 Street Intersection / / Improvement $10,000,000 V V Project ID f-Lghway99W/Bull 25 Mountain Intersection ✓ ✓ Improvement $5,000,000 Project ID FLghway99W/Durham 26 Road Intersection ✓ ✓ Improvement $10,000,000 Project ID East-West River Terrace N/A Trail(River Terrace Blvd to 150 Ave) $3,600,000 • Phase 1:West / (50%) $1,800,000 $1,800,000 V • Phase 2:East ✓ (500/6) $1,800,000 Project ID Improvements where new N/A streets meet existing streets $2,500,000 Phase 1:Local ✓ Streets(20%) $500,000 $500,000 Phase 2:Local& Collector Streets / 80% $2,000,000 V TOTAL $149,600,000 $25,153,000 Notes: ' Capital cost estimates and projects derived from River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum,Nov.2014. Costs are in 2014 dollars. 2 Public capital cost includes only the"oversized" portion of the project. This"oversized" portion reflects those costs for which a developer could expect reimbursement in the form of SDC credits.Assumes non-creditable value of dedications equals$1,700 per LF(new collector projects);and$567/LF for street retrofits. 3 Potential non-River Terrace funding sources include base TSDC and TDT collected outside River Terrace,WA County TDT for projects on County roads in unincorporated areas,County MSTIP for regional capacity and safety projects on County roads,and ODOT STIP funding for state highways. 4 Includes projects outside the River Terrace planning area either elsewhere in the city or in unincorporated county areas; or projects needed beyond year 20.Of those projects in unincorporated areas,some are located outside the urban growth boundary. i�*) FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 27 Exhibit 23: Recommended Transportation Projects in River Terrace Area Sdmr ■ ! s■ no r a &a' y imd ■ • ■ ■ ♦® •0 Irrrr• • Street functional Classification .• r r —Arterial Street - - — - • �irrrr —Collector Street r —Neighborhood Route —Local Street - 1 - — - — _ ---- Future Collector Street 'U ' - (Conceptual Alignment) ----Future Neighborhood Route ■ (Conceptual Alignment) ■ • Intersection Improvement 1 r! Project ID(see Table 5 or 6) Final street alignments may change and are subject to final design,engineering, and permitting. Future Connection to Existing or Future Street Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection River Terrace Community Plan Area i._._Urban Growth Boundary *%4- FCS GROUP ININ,N fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 28 E.3 Funding Scenarios Five scenarios were evaluated for funding the transportation infrastructure in River Terrace, as shown in Exhibit 24. 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 and portions of new collector streets). Scenario B adds citywide and sub-district transportation system development charges (TSDCs) to the mix of funding sources. Scenario C includes a citywide TSDC and a new River Terrace Urban Renewal District. Scenario D includes a citywide TSDC, sub- district TSDC, LIDs, and G.O. Bonds, but does not include an urban renewal district. After reviewing these scenarios, the Tigard City Council requested that an additional scenario, Scenario E, be developed and evaluated. This new scenario includes a new sub-district transportation utility fee along with a citywide TSDC,and a sub-district TSDC, street funds, grants, and developer dedications. Exhibit 24: Transportation Funding Scenarios Funding Scenarios Capital Funding Source A(Status Quo) a C 0 E Notes City may transfer local or state fuel tax Fund Transfers ® ® ® ® ® revenue to transportation projects Transportation Utility Fee Funds are dedicated to street maintenance (e)isting city wide) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ not capital construction Transportation Utility Fee City may establish new utlity fee surcharge Surcharge(new RT with funds to be dedicated to capital subdistrict) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® construction within River Terrace Transportation System Development Charge ❑ ® ® ® City may establish new TSDC on new (Citywide TSDC) development citywide River Terrace(RT)-TSDC(new13 ® ❑ ® ® City may establish new RT-TSDC on new Subdistrict) development in RTsubdistrict TDT(existing) ® ® ® ® El Existing TDT is charged to new development LID or Reimbursement Dist. LI Ds may provide Important"gap"funding; (new) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requires Sl%+property owner approval Urban Renewal District(new) 11 11 ® ❑ 11 subdistrict voters may establish new URD in RT subdistrict Tax Levy(new citywide GO Citywide voters may establish GO bonds for bond) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ selected transportation improvements Grants ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El Developers to provide neighborhood Developers ® ® ® transportation facilities and can receive TDT/SDC credits for constructing eligible public facilities Preliminary Ronking 5 4 Z 3 1 E.4 Evaluation Scenario E received the highest average rating because of high marks for equity, facilitating development, reliability of funds, ease of implementation, and ability to address near-term and long- term costs. Scenario C placed second in the evaluation, but since it relies on the creation of a voter-approved urban renewal district, it is very complex and difficult to implement and may not generate adequate funding which could delay facility construction and development for many years. Scenario D would also be difficult to implement since it would rely upon a voter-approved G.O. Bond, and would not facilitate development, since it would rely on relatively high TSDC and LID costs per dwelling unit. Scenarios A and B are not likely to generate adequate long-term funding to implement the planned transportation facilities (see Exhibit 25). •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 29 Exhibit 25: Transportation Funding Evaluation Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria :Equity(1:lower cost burden-5:higher cost burden) A(Status Quo) 8 C D E Citywide Resident Cost Burden lilll ME--] MEL= Moll= liii Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden liiiii M17] iliii Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Cost Equity` ME[--:] lilii= � Illlllll Reliability of Funds lil] Ill Facilitates Development Ill � Illii Ease of Implementation 001= liiii= ID Ability to Address Near-Term Costs ILI liiiiil1 Illll= Illlll Ability to Address Long-Term Costs iii Average Rating Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) K:= 12 15 19 17 22 `denotes relative variance from'uniform"equity(wherein developers,future residents,and existing residents would split costs equally E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios Scenario E assumes that the city provides approximately $150,000 per year in street funds (state or local fuel tax revenue) to River Terrace projects, and TDT funds that would otherwise be collected from River Terrace development are exchanged for credits to developers that construct credit-eligible projects, such as frontage improvements along Roy Rogers Road. Additionally, it is assumed that a new local citywide TSDC is created(average cost per dwelling unit estimated at $5,000 with 75% of the funds collected in River Terrace allotted to River Terrace projects) and a new River Terrace district TSDC is created(average cost per dwelling unit estimated at $467 with 100% of the funds collected in River Terrace allotted to River Terrace projects).5 The recommended funding strategy also includes a new transportation utility fee surcharge within River Terrace (at an average cost of$5 dollars per month per dwelling unit or equivalent dwelling unit). Cost sharing among developers, Washington County, and MOT is expected to result in additional funding for selected facilities listed above. See Exhibit 26 for details. While the transportation funding strategy tends to balance out over the long-term (with anticipated revenues equal or greater to expected costs), there is a significant near-term funding gap (during years 1-6) that would need to be bridged through advance financing in some form. This potential near-term issue is identified as a policy issue in the next section of this report. 5 All allotment percentages are intended as targets and not absolute requirements. %*4FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 20)4 page 30 Exhibit 26: Transportation Funding Strategy, Scenario E Scenario E Now Funding Total Funding Mechanism Source? Near Term Long Term (years 1-20) Notes Fund Transfers $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 Assumes avg.of+/-$150,000 per year Assumes$6,323 per avg.dwelling unit(75176 TDT Revenue(net after credits) $0 $3,040,000 $3,040,000 of funds collected in RT allotted to RT projects Including$8M in TDT credits for Roy Rogers Road) Transportation System Assumes$5,000 per avg.dwelling unit(75% Development Charge(Citywide ® $2,025,000 $6,705.000 $8,730,000 of funds collected in RT allotted to RT TSDC) district) River Terrace(Rn TSDC(new Assumes$467 per avg.dwelling unit(10017. Subdistrict) ® $252'000 $835'000 $1'087'000 dedicated to RT district) Transportation Utility Fee Surcharge , Assumes$5/month transportation utility fee (new RT subdistrict) ® $100,000 $1'300"000 $1•400•000 surcharge(10011 dedicated to RT district) Private Cost(noncredit eligible: Includes on-site and adjacent(half street) excludes Roy Rogers Road $3,700,000 $13,820,000 $17,520,000 improvements to collector or arterial improvements) facilities Developers (includes TDT credits for Assumes(half street)improvements to Roy Roy Rogers Road improvements) $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $8,000,000 Rogers Road are TDT credit eligible WA County(cost share) tbd tad tbd Selected County roadway improvements ODOT/Metrogrants(cost shore) $0 $900,000 $900,000 Hwy 99 and pathway improvements Total Revenue $11,080,000 $32,600,000 $43,680,000 Public Cost $9,770,000 $15,400,000 $25.170,000 Private Cott(Noncredit eligible) $3,700,000 $13,820,000 $17,520,000 Total Cod $13,470,000 $29,220,000 $42,690,000 Potential Funding Gap* ($2,390,000) $3,380,000 $990,000 'Funding gap could be"bridged"through:debt financing;additional fund transfers by the City,grants/contributions from County/Metro:and/or deferral or phase in of future projects.tbd=to be determined. The recommended funding strategy for transportation facilities (see Exhibit 27) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund, TDT charges/credits, grants, and developer dedications of on-site facilities. Potential new sources of funding include a River Terrace district transportation utility fee and a local citywide and River Terrace district TSDC. +*4 FCS GROUP 1%.1'csgroup.cuni City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 31 Exhibit 27: Recommended Scenario, Scenario E New Funding Funding Mechanism Source? Who Pays? How Much $? Notes Fund Transfers Citizens Avg.$150,000 a Funding from local or year contributions state gas tax funds Existing TDT(assumes TDT=$6,323 per 75%of funds collected TDT Revenue Developers(citywide) dwelling(avg) in RT are allotted to RT projects or developer credits) Transportation System New citywide SDC; Development Charge(Citywide Developers(citywide) $5,000 per assumes 75%of funds TSDC) dwelling(avg) collected in RT are allotted to RTdistrict Subdistrict River Terrace(RT)TSDC (new Developers(within RT Transportaion New subdistrict SDC Subdistrict) district) SDCs=$467 per (100%dedicated to RT dwelling(avg) district) Transportation Utility Fee Surcharge Property Owners $5/month 100%dedicated to RT (new RT subdistrict) (within RT district) surcharge projects Private Cost (non-credit eligible: ROW and street excludes Roy Rogers Road Developers(within RT dedications for Focus is usually for on district) site improvements improvements) new routes Grants State/Metro citizens $900,000 focus on trails WA County(cost share) County property tbd County roadway owners/citizens improvements ODOT(cost share) 0 State citizens tbd Hwy 99 improvements *All allotment percentages are intended as targets and not absolute requirements. 'Note,funding sources that are not"new"to Tigard may be potentially relied upon in the future. •%*) FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 32 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-jurisdictional coordination will also be required between the city, Washington County, ODOT, CWS, and other agencies to ensure that cost sharing agreements are consistent with each agency's 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 2015 to take these recommendations into account. 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 Funding 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. •*4 FCS GROUP ,,,,l City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 33 C. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM • Existing funding sources, planned rate increases by CWS, and a new sanitary sewer surcharge by the city 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 elsewhere in 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 quantity facilities, 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 six years. • The city is in the process of considering a new local city-wide TSDC and/or subdistrict(s) TSDC to supplement the funds it receives from the TDT. It is recommended that the city consider %*4 FCS GROUP City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 34 policies to allocate a portion of TSDC/TDT revenues generated by new development within River Terrace to projects within River Terrace. • The city will need to work with Washington County and ODOT to discuss potential cost sharing responsibilities for County and State facilities. • The city should continue to work with Washington County and other local governments to identify potential sources of advance financing for improvements to major County facilities such as Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road, and ODOT facilities including Hwy. 99W. • 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 TSDC/TDT credits). These policy considerations serve as a starting point for ensuring that the city has the ability to fund necessary public facilities in River Terrace as development occurs. The actual timing of public facility investments will depend on many factors. While the city has control over local utility rates and SDCs, the city cannot predict development market timing or the future cost of financing. 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. It is also advised that the city should re-evaluate and revise this Funding Strategy every five years in order to ensure that it remains relevant and useful in guiding public investment in River Terrace over the next two decades. 44 K S GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 35 V . APPENDIX 10-Year Forecast of Selected City Funds 44FCS GROUP „.t�,,:,� ►�» City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 36 Water Utility Fund FCS t;ROI T 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 Budpet Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Water Fund Resources: _---�-` Beginning fund balance $ 12,520,630 $ 6,104,977 $ 4,944,428 $ 4,788,614 $ 4,832,714 $ 4,921,639 $ 5.019,045 5,113,576 Revenue: $ $ 5,201,114 ; 5,288,088 43126 Developer overhead 9,663 7.440 7,440 7,440 7,440 7,440 7,440 7,440 7,440 7,440 43128 Fire service reimbursement 1,470 - _ 43130 Miscelianous fees and charges 3,267 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 43301 SDC reimbursement 45100 Utility sales 18,057.552 18,645,801 18,989,939 19,358,488 19,752,088 20,151,966 20,528,654 20,872,712 21,220,821 21,523,867 45101 Other utility sales 4,456 4.456 4,456 4,456 4.456 4,456 4,456 4,456 4.456 4.456 45102 Leaks/misreads credits (22,984) (21,988) (22,053) (22,123) (22,198) (22,273) (22,345) (72,410) (22,476) (22,533) 45104 Meter sales 27,762 35,805 70,373 81,586 93,499 96,959 100,547 104,269 108,129 112,133 45105 Fire hydrant flow testing service 6.006 6,006 6,006 6,006 6,006 6,006 6.006 6,006 6,006 6.006 45150 Late penalties/charges 121,136 125,185 125,561 125,963 126,392 126,829 127,240 127,616 127,995 128,326 45151 Returned check fees 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1.290 45199 Bad debt M,544) 124,9331 (25,281) (25,654) (26,052) (26,457) (26,838) (27,186) (27,538) (27,844) 45319 Miscellanous fees and charges 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 45320 Rental income 372 37233,234 33,234 33,234 33,234 33.234 33,234 33,234 33,234 33.234 33,234 47000 Interest earnings 67,611 32,967 26,700 25,859 26,097 26,577 27,103 27.613 28,086 28,556 48000 Other revenue 48001 Recovered expenditures 10,825 _ - - - 49100 Transfer in from General Fund 27,460 27.460 27.460 27,460 27,460 27,460 27,460 27.460 27,460 27.460 49500 Transfer in from Sanitary Sewer Fund 13,413 13,413 13,413 13,413 13,413 13,413 13,413 13,413 13,413 13.413 49510 Transfer in from Stormwater 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 19,656,460 20,062,168 20,465,943 20,846,704 21,194,956 21.547,360 21,854,846 Total resources $ 30,880,497 $ 25,010,154 24,222,008 ; 24,445,074 ; z4,89a,Ba2 $ 2s.3B7,sa2 $ zs,abs,74s Requirements: $ 26,308,533 $ 26,748,473 $ 27,142,934 Expenditures: Personnel services: Salaries $ 893,506 $ 935,614 $ 979,707 $ 1,025,877 $ 1,074,224 $ 1,124,849 $ 1,177,859 $ 1,233,368 $ 1,291,493 Benefits 437,142 458,999 481,949 506,047 531,349 557,916 585,812 615,103 645,858 $ 1,678,151 Total personnel services 1,330,648 1,394,613 1,461,656 1,531,924 1,605,573 1,682,765 1,763,671 1,848,471 1,937,351 2,000,508 Materials and services: Supplies 3,869,952 4,005,400 2,005,400' 2,075,589 2148,235 2,223,423 2301,243 2,381,786 2,465,149 2,551,429 Franchise fee 508,000' 672,961 685,382' 698,684' 712,889' 727,322 740,917' 753,335' 765,899' 776,836 Other service 1,120,611 1,159,832 1,20D,427 1,242,441 1,285,927 1,330,934 1,377,517 1,425,730 1,475,631 1.527,278 Total materials and services 5,498,563 5,838,194 3,891,209 4,016,714 4,147,051 4,281,679 4,419,677 4,560,851 4,706,678 4,855,543 Capital outlay 3,300 3,416 3,535 3,659 3,787 3,919 4,057 4,199 4,345 4,498 Transfers out and indirect cost allocations 1,543,771 1,611,269 1,681,719 1,755,249 1,831,994 1,912,094 1,995,697 2,082,955 2,174.028 Non-program expenditures 2.269,083 Transfers out to Wafer C IP Fund 7,639,391 2,467,150 1,671,982 1,408,009 1,308,561 1,396,004 1,463,089 1,488,918 1,502,845 1,464,662 Transfers out to Water Debt Service Fund 8,490,141 8,469,584 10,429,485 10,590,152 10,756,216 10,758,020 10757,320 10,758,120 10,755,320 10,756,145 Transfers out to other funds 269,707 281,499 293,807 306,654 320,061 334,055 348,661 363,906 379,817 396,424 Total non-program expenditures 16,399,239 11,218,234 12,395,275 12,304,814 12,384,838 12,488,080 12569,070 12610,943 12,637,982 12,617,230 Total expenditures 24,775,521 20,065,726 19,433,394 19,612,360 19,973,242 20,368,538 20,752,172 21,107,419 21,460,385 21,776,862 Ending fund balance 6,104,977 4,944,428 4,788,614 4,832,714 4,921,639 5,019,045 5,113,576 5,201,114 5,288,088 5,366,072 Total requirements $ 30,880,497 $ 25,010,154 $ 24,222,008 ; 24,445,074 $ 24,894,882 $ 25,387,582 25,865,748 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 90 90 $ 26,308,533 $ 26,748,473 $ ?7,142,934 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 *Oti:�FC S GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 37 Water CIP Fund FCS ( 'I,( �l 6/70/7015 6/0/2014 6/0/2017 4M/2018 6r30r211111 6/30/M 6/30/2021 6/0/2022 6/30/2123 6/30/2M4 City of Tigard Water Utility Budget Projoc Pf0j* Projected Prof 4t- Project PraJ4r- Projected Prol d- Projected Wafer CIP fund Resources: Beginning fund balance E 43.726,812 E 17,974,151 j (31,102) j (38,23DI E (25,709) E 5,980 E 1,134.916 E 2,325,353 E 3,535,859 $ 4,754,107 Revenue: 43300 System development charges - - - - 44800 Federal grants - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earrings 236,125 97,060 (1681 (2061 (139) 32 6.129 12,557 19,094 25,672 48001 Recovered expenditures 5,265 - - - - - - - 49001 Debt proceeds 46,894,542 1,425,529 1,952,010 1,967,930 0 0 0 0 0 49100 Transfer in from General Fund - - - - - - - - - 49425 Transfer In from Parks SDC Fund 49500 Transfer in from Sanitary Sewer Fund - - - 49530 Transfer in from Water Fund 888,104 2,467,150 1,671,982 1,408,009 1,308,561 1,396.004 1,463,089 1,488,918 1,502,845 1,464,662 49531 Transfer 1n from Water SDC Fund 345,000 - - - - - - - Total revenue 48,369,036 2,564,211 3,097,343 3,359,813 3,276,351 1,396.037 1,469,217 1,501,475 1,521,939 1,490,334 Totalresources E 92,095,848 E 20.538,362 j 3,066,241 E 3.321,582 j 3,250,642 j 1,402,017 j 2,604,133 E 3,826,828 E 5,057,798 E 6,244,441 Requirements: Expenditures: Capital outlay E 73,906,047 $ 20,344.385 E 2,869,551 $ 3,102,100 j 2,988,750 E - E - E $ - E - Debt service - - - - - Transfers out 215.650 225,079 234,920 245,191 255,912 267,101 278,780 290,969 303,691 316,969 Other Total expenditures 74,121,697 20,569,464 3,104,471 3.347,291 3,244,662 267,101 278,780 290,969 303,691 316,969 Ending fund balance 17,974,151 (31,102) (38,2301 (25,7091 5,980 1,134,916 2,325,353 3,535,859 4,754,107 5,927,472 Total requirements E 92,095,848 $ 20.538,362 E 3,066,241 $ 3,321,582 E 3,250,642 j 1,402017 j 2,604,133 $ 3,826,828 E 5,057,798 $ 6.244,441 Days of wpendtures in ending fund balance 89 (1) (41 (3) 1 1,552 3,047 4,438 5,718 6,830 Water Debt S"ce fend Resources: Beginning fund balance j 6,766,983 $ 10,573,816 E 10,573,816 $ 10,691,767 j 10,854,820 j 11,020,765 j 11,020,765 E 11,020,765 $ 11,020,765 $ 11,020,765 Revenue: 47000 Interest earrings 36,542 57,099 57,099 57,736 58,616 59,512 59,512 59,512 59,512 59,512 49001 Debt proceeds 3,806,833 - 117,951 163,053 165,945 0 0 0 0 0 49530 Transfer in from Water Fund 8,490,141 8,469,584 10,429,485 10,590,152 10,756,216 10,758,020 10,757,320 10,758,120 10,755,320 10,756,145 Total revenue 12333,515 8,526,683 10,604,535 10,810,941 10,980,776 10,817,532 10,816,832 10,817,632 10,814,832 10,815,657 Totairesources E 19,100,498 $ 19,100,498 E 21,178,351 $ 21,502,708 $ 21,835,597 j 21,838,297 j 21,837,597 $ 21,838,397 j 21,835,597 $ 21,836,422 Requirements: Debt service Existing debt service j 4,719,850 $ 4,719,850 E 6,561,800 $ 6,560,050 E 6,561,050 E 6,563,750 j 6,563,050 $ 6,563,850 $ 6,561,050 E 6,561,875 New debt service 3,806,833 3,806,833 3,924,784 4,087,837 4,253,782 4,253,782 4,253,782 4,253,782 4,253,782 4,253,782 Total debt service 8,526,683 8,526,683 10,486,584 10,647,887 10,814,832 10,817,532 10,816,832 10,817,632 10,814,832 111815,657 Ending fund balance 10,573,816' 10,573,816' 10,691,767' 10,854,820' 11,020,765' 11,020,765' 11,020,765' 11,020,765' 11,020,765' 11,020,765 Total requirements j 19,100,498 $ 19,100,498 j 21,178,351 $ 21,502,708 $ 21,835,597 E 21,838,297 j 21,837,597 $ 21,838,397 $ 21,835,597 $ 21,836,422 Days of expenditures In ending fund balance 453 453 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 ���>FCS GROUP wwls.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 38 Water SDC Fund FCS � ;�>c �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 Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Watm SDC Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 2,860,840 $ 4.149,831 : 5,066,575 $ 6,851,719 $ 8,926,597 $ 11,310,247 $ 13,793,190 $ 16,379,172 $ 19.072,081 $ 21,875,947 Revenue: 43300 System development charges SDCi 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 925,359 - - - - - 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 $ 5,066,575 $ 6,851,719 $ 8,926,597 $ 11,310,247 $ 13,793,190 $ 16,379,172 $ 19,072,081 $ 21,875,947 $ 24,794,954 Requirements: Transfers out Transfers out to Water CIP Fund $ 345,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - Transfers out to other funds 263 Total transfers out 345,263 - - - - - Ending fund balance 4,149,831 5.066,575 6,851,719 8,926,597 11,310,247 13,793,190 16,379,172 19,072,081 21,875,947 24,794,954 Total requirements $ 4,840,357 $ 5.066,575 $ 6,851,719 $ 8.926,597 $ 11,310,24/ $ 13,/93,190 $ 16,379,172 $ 19,072,081 $ 21,875,947 $ 24,794,954 Revenue Assumptions Interestrate 0.547. ,4 n 54": 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.547 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 2,924 89 170 190 211 211 211 212 212 213 Customer account growth in existing service area 0.457. 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 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% Rate revenue per account,fust half of fiscal year $ 499 $ 521 $ 526 $ 531 $ 536 $ 542 $ 547 $ 551 $ 554 $ 558 Rate revenue per account,second half of fiscal year $ 409 $ 413 $ 417 $ 421 $ 426 $ 430 $ 433 $ 435 $ 438 $ 439 Annual rate adjustment on January 1 4.28% U' 0.99% 0.99% 0.99% 0.99% 0.66% 0.66% 0.66% 0.146 Share of revenue in first half of fiscal year 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% 56.00% Franchise fee as percentage of total rate 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 $ 9,662 $ 10,000 $ 10,350 $ 10,712 $ 11,087 $ 11,475 $ 11,877 $ 12,292 $ 12,723 $ 13,168 ���> FCS GROUP wwK.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 39 Water Utility Fund Assumptions •:;>FCS C ROt_TP Si,luti 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 City of Tigard Water Utility Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Assumptions _,_x,, ,. Full-time equivalent(FTE)positions 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Salaries per FTE $ 68,731 $ 71,970 $ 75,362 $ 78,914 $ 82,633 $ 86,527 $ 90,605 $ 94,874 $ 99,346 $ 104,027 Growth in salaries per HE 10.52% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.71% 4.719 4.71% Benefits per FTE $ 33,626 $ 35,308 $ 37,073 $ 38,927 $ 40,873 $ 42,917 $ 45,062 $ 47,316 $ 49,681 $ 52,165 Growth in benefits per FTE 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% 3.509/. 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of capital outlay 3.50% 3.509 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 204nch transmission mains in 410 zone(Design) - 20-inch transmission mains in 410 zone(Construction) 164nch transmission mains in 550 zone(Design) 164nch transmission mains in 550 zone(Construction) 3.0 MG Cach Reservoir Design 1,050,000 3.0 MG Cach Reservoir Construction - 164nch transmission from reservoir to 5508 1,400 gpm(firm capacity)pump station - - - - Total projects for River Terrace 1106%000 - - Projects for existing service area 73,906,047 20,344,385 2,869,551 IML Total capital projects $ 73,906,047 $ 20,344,385 $ 2,869,551 $ 3,102,100 $ 2,988,750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Debt Issuance cost percentage 2.00% 2.003'0 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Interest rate 4.001Y. 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 $ 46,894,542 $ - $ 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 $ $ 1,574,980 $ 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 •:;>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 40 Sanitary Sewer Fund >FCS GROUP u..,�nmd c r,n�ultrn� 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 • - - Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,449,654 $ 1,320.471 $ 6,837 $ 601,969 $ 671,891 $ 913,444 $ 2,200,096 $ 3,506,954 $ 4.833.058 $ 6,177,370 Revenue: 43120 Sewer connection fees 74,506 16,738 34,359 40,030 46,057 47,757 49,519 51,347 53,243 55,208 43130 Miscellaneous fees/charges 256,314 256.314 256,314 256,314 256,314 256,314 256,314 256.314 256,314 256,314 45100 Utility sales 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 45199 Bad debt (50,500) (50,500) (50,500) (50.500) (50.500) (50,500) (50.500) (50,500) (50,500) (50,500) 45319 Ivfscellanous fees and charges - - - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earnings 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 Transfer in from Gas Tax Fund 45,400 - - - - - - - - - 49421 Transfer in from Parks Bond Fund 21.800 49425 Transfer in from Parks SDC Fund 375,450 49510 Transfer in from Stormwater Fund 272,400 49511 Transfer in from Water Quality/Quantity Fund 439,200' - - - - - - 49532 Transfer in from Water CIP Fund 215,650 Proceeds from new debt - - - - - - - - Total revenue 4,726,449 3,345,071 3,213,370 3,313,307 3.410,465 3,499,456 3,604,179 3,711.190 3,820,534 3,932,259 Total resources $ 6,176,103 $ 4,665,542 $ 3,220.207 $ 3,915,275 $ 4.082,357 $ 4,412,900 $ 5,804,275 $ 7,218.143 $ 8,653,592 $10,109,630 Requirements: Expenditures: Personnel services: Salaries $ 381.237 $ 374,171 $ 390,800 $ 408,584 $ 427,599 $ 447,456 $ 468,191 $ 489.841 $ 512,445 $ 536,045 Benefits 165,637 183,817 192,006 200,766 210,132 219,914 230.129 240,797 251,936 263,566 Total personnel services 546,874 557,988 582,806 609,349 637,731 667,370 698.320 730,638 764,381 799,611 Materials and services: Supplies 35,907 37,164 38.465 39.811 41,204 42,646 44,139 45,684 47,283 48,938 Service 614,361 635,864 658.119 681,153 704,994 729,668 755,207 781,639 808,996 837,311 Total materials and services 650,268 673,028 696,584 720,964 746,198 772,315 799,346 827,323 856,279 886,249 Capital outlay 36,500 37,778 39,100 40,468 41,885 43,351 44,868 46,438 48,064 49,746 Debt service: Existing debt service New debt service - - - - - - Total debt service - - - - - - - - - - Transfers out and indirect cost allocations 598.130 619,176 640.963 663,516 686,864 711,032 736,052 761,951 788,762 816,516 Non-program expenditures Loan to CCDA - - - - - - - Transfers out 79,849 18.736 18.736 18.736 18,736 18.736 18.736 18,736 18,736 18,736 Capital projects 2.944,011 2,752,000 640,050 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 Total expenditures 4,855,632 4,658,705 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 fund balance 1,320,471 6,837 601,969 671,891 913,444 2,200,096 3,506,954 4,833,058 6,177,370 7,538,772 Total requirements $ 6.176,103 $ 4,665,542 $ 3,220,207 $ 3,915,275 $ 4,062,357 $ 4,412,900 $ 5,804,275 $ 7,218,143 $ 8,653,592 $10,109,630 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 99 1 84 76 105 363 558 740 911 1,071 ���>FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 41 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions •:;>FCS G ROU P 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 City of • • Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue Assumptions Interest rate 0.547o 0.547o 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.547. 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% 0.459.' 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% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.007o 5.00% 5.007. 5.00% 5.00% Rates: Total CWS fixed monthly rate per EDU $ 25.85 $ 26.62 $ 27.42 $ 28.24 $ 29.09 $ 29.96 $ 30.85 $ 31.77 $ 32.73 $ 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 $ 5.54 City portion of CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCF $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 City surcharge on fixed monthly rate $ 6.50 $ 6.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 City surcharge on volumetric monthly rate $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - City portion of CWS system development charge per EDL $ 197.87 $ 204.80 $ 211.96 $ 219.38 $ 227.06 $ 235.01 $ 243.23 $ 251.75 $ 260.56 $ 269.68 Rafe 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 $16,949,666 $17,546,215 $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% 0.007. 0.009. 0.00% 0.001Y. 0.00% 0.007. 0.007. 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 HE $ 65,421 $ 67,726 $ 70,113 $ 72,584 $ 75,142 $ 77,791 $ 80,532 $ 83,370 $ 86,309 $ 89,351 Growth in salaries per FIE 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52%' 3.52%' 3.527. 3.52%' 3.527.' 3.527. Benefits per FfE $ 32,135 $ 33,271 $ 34,448 $ 35,666 $ 36,927 $ 38,232 $ 39,584 $ 40,983 $ 42,432 $ 43,933 Growth in benefits per HE 3.5417. 3.54% 3.54% 3.5417o 3.54% 3.54% 3.547. 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% 3.5017. 3.50% 3.5017. Annual escalation of capital outlay 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.507. Annual escalation of transfers 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% •:;>FCS GROUP www.fcs�roup.conl City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 42 > FCS 6130/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/90/2019 6/30/2040 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2021 6/30/2024 ;City of Tigard Sanitary Sewer Utility Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Capital projects _ - Projects for River Terrace: North Gravity Segment 1 $ $ - f - Y' - $ - $ North Gravity Segment 2 North Gravity Segment 3 North Gravity Segment 4 South Gravity Segment I 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 - - - Projectsforexistingservicearea 2,912,500 2,752,000 640,050 1,190,350 1,037,500 Total capital projects $ 2,912,500 $ 2,752,000 $ 640,050 $ 1,190,350 $ 1,037,500 - $ - $ - $ - $ Debt h Issuance cost percentage 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Interest rate 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 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance costs - - Debt reserve - - - - Total principal $ $ Ilei •:;>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 43 Parks Funds •:;>FCS 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/3W= 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 4/3W2M 6/3W2026 6/30/21125 sudgel Projected Projeeled Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projeand Projected fpe"Remnue/raid-Parks Bwsd Resources: Beginting fund balance S 2.344.697 $ 351.574 S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ Revenue: 47000 Interest earnings 4.020 1.898 - - - - - - - - - 48001 Recovered expenditures - - - Total revenue 4,020 1.898 Total resources ; 2348.717 $ 353.472 j - $ - $ - S - ; - S - $ - $ - S Requirements: Expenditures jtransfers out) $ 1.997.143 f 353.472 Ending fund balance 351,574 - - - - - - - Total requirements $ 351,574 $ - S - $ - ; - $ - $ - f - $ - S - $ Copllol Ir Ills lNrM fwrd-Pam b Capital Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 174,509 $ 163.149 S 316,117 $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - f - Revenue: 44501 Intergovernmental Revenue 41,506 - - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earnings 3,015 881 1,707 48001 Revoered Expenditures - - Transfers in 49100 Transfer in from General Fund 49200 Transfer in from Gas Tax Fund - 49260 Transfer in from Tree Replacement Fund 250,000 - - - - - - - - 49421 Transfer in from Parks Bond Fund 1,975,343 353,472 - - - - - - - - - 49425 Transfer in from Parks SDC Fund 750,606 1,308,945 723,997 749,073 775,017 801,859 829,632 858,366 888,096 918,855 950,679 49500 Transfer in from Sanitary Sewer Fund 32,500 - - - - - - - - - - 49510 Transfer In from Stormwater Fund 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - 49530 Transfer In from Water Fund 24,500 Total transfers in 3.042,949 1.662.417 723,997 749,073 775,017 801,859 829.632 858.366 888,096 918.855 950,679 Total resources S 3,261,979 1,826,447 $ 1,041,821 $ 749,073 $ 775.017 S 801,859 $ 829,632 S 85&366 S 8811096 S 918.855 $ 950,679 Requirements: Expenditures: Work in progress $ 3,042,949 S 1,510,330 $ 1,041,821 $ 749,073 $ 775,017 $ 801,859 $ 829.632 S 85&366 S 888,096 $ 91&855 $ 950.679 Total Transfers Out 55,881 Total expenditures 3.098.830 1,510,330 1.041,821 749.073 775.017 801.859 829.632 8511366 888,096 91&855 950,679 Ending fund balance 163,149 316.117 Total requirements $ 3,261,979 $ 1,826.447 $ 1,041,821 $ 749,073 $ 775.017 $ 801,859 $ 829,632 S 858.366 $ 888.096 $ 9111855 $ 950,679 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 19 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *v*4TCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 44 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions >FCS 6/30/2015 6/30/1016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2071 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 Budget ProfecNd Projected Projected Projected Projected ProJacted Projected Projected Projected Prejected Parks IDC Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,049,011 $ 605,912 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Revenue: 43300 Parks SDCs 676,336 699,761 723,997 749,073 775,017 801,859 829,632 858,366 888.096 918,855 950,679 47000 Interest Earnings 19,782 3.272 - - - - - - -Total revenue 696,118 703,033 723,997 749,073 775,017 801,859 829,632 858,366 888,096 918,855 950,679 Total resources $ 1,745,129 $ 1,308,945 $ 723,997 $ 749,073 $ 775,017 $ 801,859 $ 829,632 $ 858,366 $ 888.096 $ 918,855 $ 950,679 Requirements: Expenditures: Debt service $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ M $ Work in progress 12,000 - - - - - - - - - - Total transfers out 1,127,217 1,308,945 723,997 749,073 775,017 801,859 829.632 858,366 888,096 918,855 950,679 Total expenditures 1,139,217 1,308,945 723,997 749,073 775,017 801,859 829,632 858,366 888,096 918,855 950,679 Ending fund balance 605,912 - - - - - - - - -Total requirements $ 1,745,129 $ 1,308.945 $ 723,997 $ 749,073 $ 775,017 $ 801,859 $ 829,632 $ 858.366 $ 888,096 $ 918,855 $ 950,679 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue Assumptions Interest rate 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% Q54% 0.549. 0.54% Customer accounts: EDUs In existing service area 23.402 23,507 23.613 23,719 23,826 23.933 24,041 24,149 24,258 24,367 24,476 EDUs in new service area Total EDUs 23,402 23,507 23,613 23,719 23,826 23,933 24,041 24,149 24,258 24,367 24,476 New EDUs 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 109 110 Customer account growth in existing service area 0.45% 0.457. 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% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0-45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% Parks System Development Charge SDC per EDU $ 6.451 $ 6,645 $ 6,844 $ 7,050 $ 7,261 $ 7,479 $ 7,703 $ 7,934 $ 8,172 $ 8,418 $ 8,670 Annual increase in SDC per EDU 7.58% 3.00% 3.009 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.009 Capital projects Existing capital improvement plan $ 1,510,330 $ 3,967,000 $ 2,544,628 $ 810.000 $ 801,859 $ 829,632 $ 858.366 $ 888,096 $ 918,855 $ 950,679 Parks projects in River Terrace (2,925,179) (1,795,5551 (34,983) - - - - :;> FCS GROUP N'R N.fCStar011p.00111 City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 45 Stormwater Funds FCS ( I R 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 City of Tigard Stormwater Utility BudyN Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Prej�eted Prejected Shwnr o6w Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 3,078,705 $ 3,875,260 $ 3,616,044 $ 3,964,139 $ 4,551,452 $ 5,389,013 $ 6,366,481 $ 7,485,343 $ 8,747,042 $10,152,971 $11,704,474 Revenue: Local SDCI 1,032,755 1,514,382 1,622,089 1,736,746 1,738,936 1,741,134 1,743,339 1,745,552 1,747,772 1,750.000 45100 Utllitysales 2170,387 2,341,647 2,520,331 2,702,866 2,889,548 3,078,904 3,270,946 3,465,682 3,663,125 3,863,284 4,066.169 45103 Tigard SWM Surcharge 863,904 810.751 816,320 822,385 828,946 835,524 842,118 848,729 855,357 862,002 868,664 45199 Bad debt - - - - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earnings 7,936 20,926 19,527 21,406 24,578 29,101 34,379 40,421 47,234 54,826 63,204 47100 Gain or loss on Investments - - - - - - - - - - - 48001 Recovered expenditures 3,069 Total revenue 3,045,296 4,206,079 4,870,560 5,168,746 5,479,818 5,682,465 5,888,576 6,098,171 6,311,268 6,527,884 6,748,037 Total resources $ 6,124,001 $ 8,081,339 $ 8,486,604 $ 9,132,885 $10,031,269 $11,071,477 $12255,057 $13,583,515 $15,058,310 $1600,855 $18,452,511 Requirements: Expenditures: Personnel services: Salaries $ 393,762 $ 407,201 $ 421,098 $ 435,469 $ 450,331 $ 465,701 $ 481,594 $ 498,031 $ 515,026 $ 532,605 $ 550,782 Benefits 202865 204,166 205,476 206,793 208,120 209,454 210,798 212,150 213,510 214,880 216,258 Total personnel services 596,627 611,367 626,573 642,263 658,451 675,155 692,392 710,18) 728,538 747,485 767,040 Materials and services: Supplies 33,245 34,409 35,613 36,859 38,149 39,485 40,867 42,297 43,777 45,310 46,895 Service 488,165 505,251 522,935 541,237 560,181 579,787 600,079 621,082 642820 665,319 688,605 Total materials and services 521,410 539,659 558,547 578,097 598,330 619,272 640,946 663,379 686,597 710,628 735,500 Capital outlay 9,100 9,419 9,748 10,089 10,442 10,808 11,186 11,578 11,983 12402 12836 Transfers out and indirect cost allocations 431,775 443,977 456,524 469,425 482.691 496,332 510,359 524,782 539,612 554,862 570,542 Healthy Streams program Non-program expenditures Transfers out 350,956 360,874 371,072 381,559 392,342 403,430 414,831 426,554 438,608 451,004 463,749 Capital projects 338,873 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Total non-program expenditures 689,829 2,860,874 2,871,072 2,881,559 2,892,342 2,903,430 2,914,831 2926,554 2,938.608 2,951,004 2,963,749 Total expenditures 2,248,741 4,465,296 4,522,465 4,581,433 4,642,257 4,704,997 4,769,714 4,836,473 4,905,339 4,976,381 5,049,668 Ending fund balance 3,875,260 3,616,044 3,964,139 4,551,452 5,389,013 6,366,481 7,485,343 8,747,042 10,152971 11,704,474 13,402843 Total requirements $ 6,124,001 $ 8,081,339 $ 8,486,604 $ 9,132,885 $10,031,269 $11,071,477 $12,255,057 $13.583,515 $15,058,310 $16,680,855 $18,452511 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 629 296 320 363 424 494 573 661 756 859 969 Wdet agow1awarAM ibsld Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,202,483 $ 788,098 $ 8D2,110 $ 821,400 $ 842,128 $ 864,301 $ 886,638 $ 909,140 $ 931,809 $ 954,646 $ 977,651 Revenue: 43122 FIL Water Quantity 9,240 9,282 14,230 15,498 16,767 16,810 16,852 16,895 16,938 16,981 17,024 43123 FIL Water Quality 473 475 728 793 858 860 863 865 867 869 871 47000 Interest earnings 15,102 4,256 4,331 4,436 4,547 4,667 4,788 4,909 5,032 5,155 5,279 Total revenue 24,815 14,012 19,290 20,727 22,173 22,337 22,503 22,669 22837 23,005 23,175 Total resources $ 1,227,298 $ 802110 $ 821,400 $ 842,128 $ 864,301 $ 886,638 $ 909,140 $ 931,809 $ 954,646 $ 977,651 $ 1,000,826 Requirements: Expenditures $ 439,200 $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - Ending fund balance 788,098 802,110 821,400 842,128 864,301 886,638 909,140 931,809 954,646 977,651 1,000,826 Total requirements $ 788,098 $ 802,110 $ 821,400 $ 842,128 $ 864,301 $ 886,638 $ 909,140 $ 931,809 $ 954,646 $ 977,651 $ 1,000,826 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 655 •:;>FCS GROUP ,.l,l,.fcs�rt111,).Clltl► on C v (D ° � Q LD A AO9Rdf)z U131 �• S_ o_ g3� a 1.4.a02� ' gRo" ° oss@� sof � K3m �'° n O ° � Q`a ° � ° ? E� � Sr Ri �. �A 000m� � $ � 030 S`R� ° � �-+ � 91 R m g m s 000D Ro - D ° D 03 0 2 p S 0 0 R o 7 o S m - R° 3 o o E f a 3 =o a 0 3 _ s g4'gm$ aofo: g � gas a NY W, t-s• YY a � }4}5� �ISfS � mmP+�, � H v ... ►N�,Pi� m Yi Yi lS ZS�$�$ 25 mru o°iN� oo Y' ,�+' o M M M Mpp M M M M « « « M M N ««N N — ♦ CD 2 Y s M«N M ««« M « •«. ««« =:t (D Y o vii 7 4 P P Y Li•ta 75 m ,�S�5'i5 iSO� 75 NymPBy,a . . . f,Pp P OM N M N M M M M M M M M M N M M M N fvi GLi m 8$ S$ Nuupf.P, coop18* Y Y P «M» «M « ««« M M M « N « «M« GSG25 .m E5 by 25 LS�� 25 uwPNwa N9P Y P $ M ML M M M M88 M M M c n u r M8 M�j c n f n M8 tM M N N uy vOr — V OOO P r O5�o! OOO OOO O W Of.. �— —_ ym�O tD tr S' gog t. M M M M M N M N N N N M •M M N M f5 t5 -- •ZQS lS f$525 a w m FS}5 LS i3•FS SZS� 353 9�}YG�yf�+P.{"'p u n� 5.o fP 8 8 a i� lllm i-N City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 47 Transportation Funds :J FCS (,1:()1:'1' 6/30/1015 6/30/1016 6/30/2017 6/311/1,018 6/30/209 6/30/1020 6130/2021 6/3W2022 6/30/2023 6730/202/ 6730/2025 Badgeh hoJeefed Prefecled Projected RoJeded Pr j.-0/ PI-1-ded Freleeled Pl j-d d Pl j-.Wd ItioJ«bd MY Ga.Te:NM Resources: Beginning fund balance ; 1,014,922 j 772,190 ; 1,235,733 ; 705,957 j (323,927) j 145,481 ; 620,852 ; 1,395,844 j 2,175,068 ; 2,958,547 ; 3,746,304 Revenue: 44200 Gostox 739,620 739,667 739,715 739,762 739,809 739,857 739,904 739.951 739,999 740,046 740,094 44801 State grants 314 - - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earrings 34,584 4,170 6,673 3,812 (1,749) 786 3,353 7,538 11,745 15,976 20,230 48001 Recovered expenditures 31.735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,735 Total revenue 806,253 775,572 778,123 775,309 769,795 772,377 774,992 779,224 783,479 787,757 792,059 Total resources ; 1,821,175 ; 1,547.762 ; 2,013,856 j 1,481,266 j 445,868 j 917,858 j 1,395,844 ; 2175,068 ; 2,958,547 ; 3,746.304 j 4,538,363 Requirements: Expenditures: Program expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ $ j ; - j - ; - $ - j - Nonprogram expenditures Debt service 315.860 312,029 307,899 305,193 300,387 297,006 Work in progress - 1,000,000 1,500,000 - - - - - Transfers out To Transportation CIP Fund 733,125 - - - - - - - - Other Transfers out Total non-progrom expenditures 1.048.985 312,029 1,307,899 1,805.193 300,387 297.006 - -Total expenditures 1,048,985 312029 1,307,899 1,805,193 300,387 297,006 - - - - - Ending fund balance 772,190 1.235,733 705.957 (323,927) 145,481 620,852 1,395.844 2175,068 2958,547 3,746,304 4,538,363 Total requirements j 1,821,175 ; 1,547,762 ; 2,013,856 ; 1.481,266 ; 445.868 j 917,858 j 1,395,844 ; 2175,068 ; 2958,547 ; 3,746,304 ; 1,538.363 Om Trssr Ihred Resources: Beginntrg fund balance ; 460,463 ; 287,648 j 733,087 $ 684.117 ; 425,706 j 229,049 j 659,321 ; 1,639,156 ; 2606.227 ; 3.558.979 ; 4,495,776 Revenue: 43119 Street fighting fees 225 156 108 75 52 36 25 17 12 8 6 43125 Feein-feu bicycle striping - - - - - - - - - - - 44200 Gas tax 2809.993 2873,368 2938.172 3.004,437 3,072197 3.141,486 3.212,337 3,284,785 3,3511868 3.434,622 3.512084 44201 Other gas Tax 180,450 178,864 177,291 175.733 174,188 172,656 171.139 169,634 168143 166,665 165,199 44501 Intergovernmental revenue - - - - - - - - - - - 45319 Mscefianeousfew and charges - - - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest earrings 55.732 1,553 3,959 3.694 2299 1,237 3,560 8,851 14,074 19,218 24,277 48001 Recovered expenditures 61,345 62370 63,413 64.473 65,550 66,646 67,760 68,893 70,044 71,215 72,40.5 49001 Debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - 49412 Transfer in from Street Maintenance Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.ODO 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 100,000 Total revenue 3,207,745 3,216,311 3,282,942 3,348,412 3,414.286 3,482,061 3,554.820 3,632.181 3,711,141 3,791,726 3,873,971 Total resources ; 3,668,208 ; 3,503,958 ; 4.016.029 ; 4,032,529 ; 3,839,992 ; 3,711,110 ; 1.214.141 j 5,271,337 j 6.317.368 ; 7,350,707 ; 8,369,717 Requirements: Expenditures: Program expenditures j 2,094,752 ; 2168,068 ; 2243.951 ; 2,322.489 ; 2,403.776 j 2,487,908 j 2574,985 j 2665.109 ; 2,758.388 ; 2.854,932 ; 2954,854 Non-progrom expenditures Debt service,existing 599,676 592,403 584.561 579,424 570,300 563,881 Debt service,new - - - - - - - - - - Work in progress 10,400 503,400 704,910 636,866 Transfers out to Transportation CIP Fund 613,388 - - - - - - - - - Other transfers out 72,745 Total non-progrom expenditures 1.285.809 602,803 1,087,961 1,284.334 1.207,166 563,881 Total expenditures 3380,561 2770,872 3,331,912 3.606,823 3,610.942 3,051,789 2574,985 2665,109 2,758.388 2854.932 2954,854 Ending fund balance 287,648 733,087 684,117 425.706 229.049 659,321 1,639,156 2606,227 3,558979 4,495,776 5,414,893 Total requirements ; 1668,208 ; 3,503,958 ; 4,016,029 j 4,032529 ; 3,839,992 ; 3.711,110 j 4,214.141 ; 5,271,337 j 6,317.368 j 7,350,707 j 8,369,747 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 31 97 75 43 23 79 233 357 471 575 669 •:;> FCS GROUP 1,ll,l.tl tirrl'f111,1.Cf1f11 City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 48 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 Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected StrNtr MaIri0mance FN Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,298,606 $ 1,193,753 $ 1,164,894 $ 1,153,092 $ 1,163,962 $ 1,208,479 $ 1,287,952 $ 1,404,672 $ 1,560.758 $ 1,758.643 $ 2,000,557 Revenue: 43130 Miscelloneousfees and charges 2,004,673 2.152,878 2,270.738 2,396,655 2,531,215 2,673,230 2,823,108 2,981,281 3,148,202 3,324,351 3,510,232 45199 Bad debt (5,050( (9,204) (11,519) (13,992) (16,635) (19,425) (22,368) (25,475) (28,754) (32,213) (35,864) 45319 Miscellaneous fees and charges - - - - - - - - - - - 47000 Interest eamings 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 - - - Total revenue 2002,952 2,150,120 2,265,510 2,388,890 2,520.866 2,660.331 2,807,695 2,963.391 3.127,876 3.301.634 3,485.171 Total resources $ 3,301,558 $ 3,343,873 $ 3,430,403 $ 3,541,982 $ 3,684,828 $ 3.868.811 $ 4,095,647 $ 4,368,013 $ 4,688,635 $ 5.060,277 $ 5,485,727 Requirements: Expenditures: Program expenditures $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ $ $ Non-program expenditures Debt service - - Work in progress 1,900,000 1,950,000 2,025,000 2,100.000 2.170,000 2,243,294 2,319,064 2,397,394 2,478,368 2,562,078 2,648,616 Total transfers out 207,805 228,979 252,311 278,020 306,349 337.564 371,960 409.861 451,624 497,642 548,349 Total non-program expenditures 2.107.805 2,178,979 2,277,311 2.378.020 2,476.349 2,580,859 2,691,025 2,807,254 2,929,992 3,059,720 3,196,964 Total expenditures 2,107,805 2,178.979 2277.311 2,378.020 2,476.349 2.580,859 2.691,025 2,807,254 2,929,992 3,059,720 3,196,964 Ending fund balance 1,193,753 1,164,894 1,153,092 1,163.962 1,208.479 1,287,952 1,404,622 1,560,758 1,758,643 2,000,557 2,288,763 Total requirements $ 3,301,558 $ 3,343,873 $ 3,430,403 $ 3,541,982 $ 3,684,828 $ 3,868,811 $ 4.095,647 $ 4.368,013 $ 4,688.635 $ 5,060,277 $ 5,485,727 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 207 195 185 179 178 182 191 203 219 239 261 Transportation Development Tax Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,234,890 $ 1,010,045 $ 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 Revenue: 43320 TDTfees 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 11,279 5.454 6.889 5,123 8,097 17.157 26,284 35,476 44,736 54,064 63,459 Total revenue 568,279 705,639 1,350,224 1,511,624 1,677,777 1,690,031 1,702,365 1,714,780 1,727.277 1,739,856 1,752.517 Total resources $ 1,803,169 $ 1,715.684 $ 2,625,909 $ 2,460,332 $ 3.177.310 $ 4,867.341 $ 6.569,706 $ 8,284,486 $10.011.763 $11.751.619 $13,504,136 Requirements: Expenditures: Program expenditures $ $ - $ $ $ Non-program expenditures Debt service - - - Work in progress 12,000 440,000 1.677,200 960,800 Transfers out to Transportation CIP Fund 780,927 - - - Other transfers out 197 - - - Total non-program expenditures 793.124 440,000 1.677,200 960.800 Total expenditures 793,124 440,000 1,677,200 960,800 Ending fund balance 1,010,045 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 $ 1,803,169 $ 1,715,684 $ 2625,909 $ 2,460,332 $ 3,177.310 $ 4.867,341 $ 6,569,706 $ 8.284.486 $10,011.763 $11,751,619 $13.504.136 �i�>FCS GROUP 1vwH.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 49 Transportation Fund Assumptions >FCS 1/3117m16 439/2074 6/0070017 4/39/011 6/11( 19 61WAM 673010071 6731772022 6/30/2021 4/3972024 6731172023 YedgN hgechd hgeclM Rg4cfW RgeetW M191Mb hg4c4w hgMetl hq.cted hgecled ngMw TreeFpsM9n p9 hod Resources: 6e0indrq ford boi- j 72566 j 30.262 f (3697311)j 136973/11 f 13419,73111 j 13,419,7361 $(3.419.7381 j 13.419.738)j 13.419,7381$13419.7361 f 13,419.7361 Ravavre: 41600 Federal grmis - - - - - 44802 Ganls,o1fsR 2m,1m - - - - 451 T=.In Yom Gm tot Fund 613,386 - - - - - - - - 49005 um,la m tom ciry Gm 1a.)0031 733.175 - - - - - - - 0 trarnla in kom rot Ftrsd 700,927 - - - - - - - 0410 T, M,in Or..vomc irnpodee Kind 355,923 - - - 0411 TrOreta In Yom lfrdaground 018ity Furl 204.882 - - 0500 irmsbr In kon,Wr9fory Sewer Fud 15.200 - - 0510 '-f.in tom Stormwda foal 15,200 - OS Tr to in from W ata Fund 91,796 told re.anue 3.010,463 told rasos4ms j 3111,011 11 30.262 0. 1369.738)f 1369.7381 j(3419,738) 0.13.419.73111 S 10.419,7'./0)0.13419.736]0.10.419,7381$13,419,738)S 13,419.7381 R.qt*-enh: ESlperici 9ropan-P-lit.. j f $ - j - f j f f It $ j Nonyrogram egsasd8ues oeht-k. wort In w greu 31706 00 .136 4000 3 100 050, "dh-I-out ",613 Lotti nonprogram etpendrux 3,052.749 400.000 3,050.000 Told etpenditues 3091.10 400,!00 - 3050.® - - - - . -in,lord hol- 30.262 1769.7781 1369.736) 13419,738) (3419.736) (3419.738) 1941 9,73,4 13.419736) 13419.734 13419.73181 (3119,7310. lofd requbemenh 0.308381.11 0. 30,262 130,7381 0. 1369.7381 S 13419,790. 0.13419.778){13419,7361 Z 13479,738]$ 13419,736]3 I3419,73t,0.f I3419,73M1 Day,of agw dltue.in ending turd bdonce 4 13361 9070701 14101 #M10 #MM SM/al 9Dri 91XV/0 9DfVfg 9DNM R-Ar-It,I w merest rate 0.54% 0,54% 0.54% as^ 0.54% 0.54% a54111 au% 0154% 0.54% Ca.toma oo:omh: EDU,In""Ming.avlce ueo R"dii 19,450 19,537 19,625 19,713 19,802 19,691 19,961 20,071 20,161 20,252 20343 Commerdd and In lrld 94113 9,113 91113 9,113 9.113 9,113 9,113 9,113 9,113 9,113 9,113 Told EDU%In e1-1ce area 26,563 21 1 26738 28.827 28,915 29,005 29,094 29,164 29.274 29.365 29,456 EDU%In 11601 servf-aea 0 80 18D 300 427 540 "a 760 900 1,020 Total EDU% 26,563 29651 23816 29,007 29,215 29,425 29.634 29.844 30.054 30.265 30,476 New EDM 64 BB 166 188 209 209 210 210 210 211 211 Resldenflul mmmt growth in etislklg savlce ores 043% 0.45% 0.15% 0.451 0.45% a45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% Non"dmtid 0-rd growth in ausling savlce 0610 0.00% 0.00% O.0/% 0.00% 0.009[ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0,"% T,krl-loma-nt growth 0.29% 0.31% 039% 0.65% 0.70L 0.72% 0.71% 0.71% 0.7M (170% 070% street mdnfalanoe lee: A4oni11 tee pa EW,A6y through December f S.B3 f 6.1 I j 6.41 j 6.72 f 1.05 j 7.39 S 7.75 f 8.13 3 6.52 j 6.94 3 9.37 MoniNy tee pa EDU,Ji-,rry through Ane E 6.11 f 6.41 s 6.12 f 7.05 f 7.39 3 7.15 f 8.13 j 6.52 j 8.94 f 9.37 f 9.83 Avwoge moniNy Irse pa EDU j 5.97 $ 6.26 1 6.57 $ 687 $ 7.22 3 7.57 f 7.94 $ 8.32 f 8.73 f 9.15 f 9.60 A=sole haepse 486% 4.86% 4.86% 4.66% 4.66% 4.66s 4.66% 4.86% 1.86% 4.66% 4.86% 6areporatlon development Im JIDT): TDT pa EDU $ 6,665 $ 9000 $ 9mD f 90130 S Som s gam f gam f a," f 9tm j gam j It Amos--n MT pa EDU 01011116 1009% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% atm 0.00% 0.00% 0.170% ODDS 0.00116 GMMllal prgech Copocity forµgect spending bykvd: City cas ra.Fursd j $ - f I,"a000 f 1.500.000 $ - $ - f f - j - II G.T-F,. 1 - 10.400 503,400 704.910 63x666 - - - - Stn-t A ntenpsce fee Wnd 1,90D,"0 1950,000 2025.000 2100,000 2170,000 2,243294 2319064 2397,394 2,493611 2562,078 2,618,616 T,oreportation Developminl I=fud 12000 440,000 1,677." 9608" Ronsporfotbn CP Fund 3,"9136 4 fxio 305a0D Total copar:Ity lo,poled wi-ling by 1-1 j 4,920.1% j 2600.400 j 5,205,600 j 9315,710 0.2049966 0.220,294 $2319i 0.2,397,394 j 2.478,368 j 2562078 j 2.646.616 ONI hsuarlca-'percentage 2 m% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 200% 200% 2.00% 200% Idae4t rate 4. A 4.00% 4.00% 4(111% 4,1701[ 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 400% 4.00% Tam 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Poncipd: Raceed, It--t - - - - - - - - - - 1Debl racer.e Told pars pd $ s s s $ s $ $ s j ���>FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com �xH bt i A Shows GGA a n9e.� City of Tigard ■ RIVER TERRACE FUNDING STRATEGY December,2014 FCS GROUP 4000 Kruse Way Place,Bldg.1,Ste.220 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 T:503.841.6543 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. City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2012,the City of Tigard("city")annexed more than 500 acres of territory known as River Terrace.At build-out,up to 2,587 dwellings,a commercial center of 40,000 gross square feet,and at least one new public school are expected to be located in 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 the capital and operating costs of these facilities. FCS GROUP worked with the city to develop and analyze funding options for water,sewer,parks, stonmwater,and transportation.The output of our analysis is a recommended funding strategy for these five systems.The subsections below briefly describe the recommended funding strategy. A detailed analysis of the funding options for each system—including the criteria by which they were evaluated—can be found in the body of this report. This Funding Strategy provides a course of action as of the date of its adoption.Given its long-term nature,however,elements of it could change as the development of River Terrace moves forward. Potential changes include the rate of development absorption,number and scope of projects,and the cost of those projects.In addition,new funding sources could become available and/or existing funding sources could become limited.The city should re-evaluate and revise this Funding Strategy every five years in order to ensure that it remains relevant and useful in guiding public investment in River Terrace over the next two decades. Water The recommended funding strategy for water infrastructure shown in Exhibit i is generally consistent with the city's existing funding sources. This includes utility fees,citywide system development charges (SDCs),and developer dedications of local transmission lines.Both the utility fee and SDCs will likely be adjusted in January of 2015 because of a new study. Exhibit is Water Funding Strategy Near Term long Term It existing fee,does it Payment Base Rate Fur d V Funding Total Revenue Nay? inoreose3 Utiity Fees Customers Avg,monthly water $ 5.295.000 S E 5,295,oD0 Ei Yes,through planned utaity rates=SM per account Increases Water SDCs=17,580 per Yes,}Hough planned unify SDC Developers SFD 2.�•� 10,278.500 12278,500 O increases Totd S 7,295,000 S 10,278,51DD $ 17,573,500 Source FCS GROUP_ Sewer The recommended funding strategy for sanitary sewer infrastructure shown in Exhibit ii utilizes funding sources already used by the city and Clean Water Services(CWS). This includes CWS capital funds, SDCs,developer dedications of local gravity feeds,and a new citywide utility fee surcharge.The city is enacting the surcharge regardless of River Terrace development. City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 ii Exhibit ill:Sewer Funding Strategy Near Term Long Term if existing fee,does H Payment Base Rate Fundinq Fundinq Total Revenue New? increase@ GWS Customers b 10,130,300 $ - $ 10,130,300 ❑ N/A Utility FeeSurchorge Customers 609,150 494,000 1,103,150 0 SDC Developers SFDer SDCs=$4,900 per 609,150 609150 E3 No Total $ 11,348,600 $ 494,000 $ 11,842,600 Source.FCS GROUP. Parks The recommended funding strategy for parks shown in Exhibit iii includes several new funding sources for River Terrace infrastructure,such as an SDC overlay for River Terrace and a citywide utility fee surcharge.In addition,this strategy relies on General Fund monies,existing citywide SDCs,a new general obligation bond,and grants. Exhibit iii: Parks Funding Strategyl_ Comment til:Make consistent with Changes in Exhibit 15&16 ME'Payment Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it .Base Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? inaease? Batik City General Fund Citizens $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 ❑ N/A arty General Fund Citizens Parks SDCs=$6,451 $DC-Citywide Developers SDC-Citywide +Developers persfD(est.avg.) $ 2000'000 $ 9'263'400 $ 11.263.400 Q No Parks$DCs-$1=0 xDC-RT Developers SDC ART , = Developers per SFD(est.avg.) $ - $ 2794,000 $ 2794,000 0 +/-$1.11 per monthUtility Fee Customers Utility customers (est.avg.j $ - $ 3,000,000•$ 3.000,000 0 G.O.Bond Gt¢ens Bond costs$63/year G.O.Bond atizens far$311,000 median $ - $ 9.100,000 $ 9,100,000 0 Grants Other entities Total home(est) Grants Other entities $ - $ 1,024,000 $ 1,024,000 ® Deleted: Source:FCS GROUP. Total $ 2,250,OOD $ 25,181,400 $ 27,431,400 Source:FCS GROUP. Stormwater The recommended funding strategy for stormwater shown in Exhibit iv includes existing General Fund monies,utility fees,SDC revenue from across the city,and developer contributions.The General Fund is not a new source of funding for the city;however,it is a new source of monies for stormwater capital projects.New funding mechanisms include a River Terrace utility fee surcharge and a River Terrace reimbursement district. Exhibit iv: Stormwater Funding Strategy Near Terrn Long Term If existing fee,does it Payment Base Rate Fundinq Fundinq Total Revenue New? increase? General Fund Citizens Avg.of$42,000 per year $ 250,000 $ 832,500 $ 1,082,500 ❑ N/A Utility Fees Customers Current fee of$500 per 250000 832500 1 082 500 ❑ Existing SDCs may be dwel linq adjusted SDC Developers Avg.monthly storm 200000 - 200000 ❑ Existing rates may be utility rates=$8.75 adjusted Utility Fee Surcharge River Terrace $12/month surcharge 750,000 5,750,000 6,500.ODO 0 Customers Reimbursement Districts Developers Assumes$1-2M per 500000 1 665000 2165000 0 district(every 6 years) Developers Developers Iimzow ❑ N/A Total $ 1,950,000 $ 9,080,000 $ 22,052,000 'Developer funded stormwater improvements are uncertain timing. Source:FCS GROUP. Transportation 4% FCS GROUP www.feitgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 iii The recommended funding strategy for transportation shown in Exhibit v includes the following existing funding sources: • Fund transfers, • Transportation Development Tax(TDT)revenue, • Developer dedications, • Washington County cost sharing,and • ODOT/Metro grants. The new funding mechanisms for transportation include a citywide SDC,an SDC overlay for River Terrace,and a River Terrace utility fee surcharge. Exhibit v:Transportation Funding Strategy Comment[t2]:Make consistent with changes in Exhibit 26&27 K te,do Poyment am* Noor Term Lore Term fes,dow If Fund Transfers Citizens tR4}mwlf Ome:RoN hmdYp FurldNg Totd Revetsue Nwyt kscreais9 Avg.$150.000 a year TDT Revenue" Developers Fund Transfers Otizens contributions $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Q N/A SDC-Citywide Developers TDT Revenue•' Developers TDT=$6,323 per $ $ 3.040.00 $ 3.040.000 Na cwelling(Mg) -RT Developers Developers '$5'�Per dwelling SDC-Citywide h'g) $ 2025,000 $ 6.705,000 $ 8,730,000 Subdistrict Tronsportation Utility Fee Citizens within R Troreportaon SDCs' ® Surchar e SDC-RT Developers $467perdwellirp $ 252.000 $ 835.000 $ 1.087.000 Private Cost"' Developers Citizens witHIovg1n Developers"" Developers Transportation Utility Fee Surcharge RT $5/month—charge $ 100,0oo $ 1,300,000 $ 1,400,000 ® W A County(cost share) County propert owners/citizens Private Cast**, Developers $ 3.700,000 $ 13.820.000 $ 17,520.000 0 N/A ODOT/Metro grants(cast State/Metro Developers*'* Developers $ 4.000.000 $ 4.000.000 $ 8,000.000 Q N/A share) Citizens r Totd Cously "Net after credits WA County(cost share) M propedy to be delermined tbd tbd tbd Q N/A :::.Non-credit eligible:excludes Roy Rogers owners/citizens "Includes TDT credits for Roy Rogers Roar Dom•Source:FCS GROUP. State/Metro N/A ODOT/Metro grants(cast shame) cltizens $$ $ 900.000 $ 900.000 O Tat • f. oomm S "Net after credits. ••••"Noncredit eligible:excludes Roy Rogers Road improvements. • Includes TDT credits for Roy Rogers Road improvements. Sossrce:FCS GROUP. Deleted:34,145,600 Deleted:$77,404,300 Infrastructure Totals Overall,the infrastructure funding strategy in River Terrace addresses revenue requirements of$, $33,920,600 in the near term and,$77,633,900 in the long term,as shown in Exhibit vi. :Funding Mechanism Exhibit vi: Funding Strategy Summary, Water Sewer Parks Stormwater Transportation Total Deleted: Source:FCS GROUP. --*4 i'CS GROUP wwmJcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 iv Near Term Long Term Total Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Revenue Water $ 7,295,000 $ 10,278,500 $ 17,573,500 Sewer 11,348,600 494,000 11,842,600 Parks 2,250,000 25,181,400 27,431,400 Stormwater 1,950,000 9,080,000 22,052,000 Transportation 11,077,000 32,600,000 43,677,000 Total $33,920,600 $77,633,900 $122,576,500 Source: FCS GROUP. -%4TCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 v 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 members,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 Councilor Buehner recused herself from River Terrace work sessions and decisions citing a potential conflict of interest. �v>FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 vi 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 Michael Stone,City of Tigard IN' FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 vii River Terrace Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), continued 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,LEEDAP,Senior Project Manager John Ghilarducci,Principal Doug Gabbard,Senior Consultant Timothy Wood,Analyst Anthony Martin,Analyst �i�>FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 II.METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................2 A. Process and Approach.............................................................................................................................2 B. Funding Sources..........................................................................................................................................3 B.1 System Development Charges......................................................................................................3 B.2 Local Transportation System Development Charges..............................................................4 B.3 Transportation Development Tax(TDT)........................................................................................4 B.4 Local Improvement Districts(LID)..................................................................................................4 B.5 Reimbursement Districts....................................................................................................................5 B.6 Utility Rates...........................................................................................................................................5 B.7 Urban Renewal District(URD)..........................................................................................................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..........................................................................................................................7 B.9.c Full Faith and Credit Obligations(FFCOs)...........................................................................7 B.10 Loans and Grants...............................................................................................................................7 B.1 O.a Bank and State Loans..............................................................................................................7 B.10.b Grants and Low-Interest Financing......................................................................................7 B.1 1 General Fund......................................................................................................................................8 B.12 Developer Dedications....................................................................................................................8 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 -*__>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 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...........................................................................................................................................14 B.l Overall Findings.................................................................................................................................14 B.2 Public Facility Costs..........................................................................................................................14 B.3 Funding Scenario.............................................................................................................................15 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..........................................................................................................................17 C.3 Funding Scenarios............................................................................................................................17 CAEvaluation...........................................................................................................................................17 C.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario......................................................................................18 D. Storrnwater.................................................................................................................................................19 D.1 Overall Findings.................................................................................................................................19 D.2 Public Facility Costs..........................................................................................................................2g, Deleted:19 D.3 Funding Scenarios............................................................................................................................20 DAEvaluation...........................................................................................................................................21 ._ - Deleted:20 D.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario......................................................................................21 E. Transportation............................................................................................................................................2-4 Deleted:22 E.1 Overall Findings.................................................................................................................................23. Deleted:22 E.2 Public Facility Costs..........................................................................................................................23 E.3 Funding Scenarios............................................................................................................................29 C Deleted:28 EAEvaluation...........................................................................................................................................29 � Deleted:28 E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios....................................................................................3g Deleted:29 IV.POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................3a Deleted:32 A. General Considerations..........................................................................................................................3 l Deleted:32 B. Water System............................................................................................................................................. ( Deleted:32 *#*i>FCS GROUP www.resgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 C. Sanitary Sewer System.............................................................................................................................3A [Deleted: i, D. Parks and Trails System............................................................................................................................3A Deleted:33 E. Stormwater System...................................................................................................................................3A C Deleted:33 F. Transportation System..............................................................................................................................3A F Deleted: V.APPENDIX 366 Deleted:.+5 1 0-Year Forecast of Selected City Funds................................................................................................3!�, Deleted:35 WaterUtility Fund......................................................................................................................................37 Deleted:36 WaterCIP Fund..........................................................................................................................................M C Deleted:37 WaterSDC Fund........................................................................................................................................39 EDeleted:38 Water Utility Fund Assumptions..............................................................................................................AQ Delleted.39 SanitarySewer Fund.................................................................................................................................441 Deleted:40 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions........................................................................................................3 Deleted:41 ParksFunds..................................................................................................................................................44, Deleted:43 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions........................................................................................................4�, -{ Deleted:44 StormwaterFunds.....................................................................................................................................41 Deleted:45 Stormwater Fund Assumptions..............................................................................................................4L- - Deleted:46 TransportationFunds................................................................................................................................4� .---C—Deleted:47 Transportation Fund Assumptions.........................................................................................................�_ .- Mdeted:49 -41->FCS GROUP ��NN.fcsgroup.cum City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 1 I . INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard(population 49,135)is currently the 12`"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 development of 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/surfaoe water quality ■ Wow , • Sanitary sewer • Transportation • Preparing a River Terrace funding strategy to comply with Metro Title i l 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). This plan provides a course of action as of the date of this document.Given its long term nature, however,elements of this plan could change as the development of River Terrace moves forward. Some things that could change include the rate of development absorption,number and scope of projects,and the cost of those projects. In addition,new funding sources could become available and/or existing funding sources could become limited. •:;4FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 2 II . METHODOLOGY A collaborative approach was used to identify and evaluate funding sources for the major capital facility improvements required to serve future development within River Terrace. As the long-tern 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(including design,permitting,land acquisition 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 staffto prepare 10-year forecasts for related O&M costs,and included the findings in the recommendations (see the Appendix). A. PROCESS AND APPROACH The process used to develop this Funding Strategy involved consultants,city staff,regional and state service providers,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 were made available on the River Terrace website: • Funding Considerations for River Terrace in Comparison with North Bethany • Parks,Trails,and Open Space Funding Options for River Terrace • Stormwater Funding Options for Riven Terrace • Transportation Funding Options for River Terrace • Wastewater Funding Options for River Terrace • Water Funding Options for River Terrace In addition to these technical memoranda,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 addenda 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 addenda for adoption by the Tigard City Council and to provide feedback regarding the assumptions contained in the funding strategy.Additional public and stakeholder meetings were conducted in fall 2014 to discuss and refine the recommended funding strategies that are contained in this document. ••4 FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,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 net fiscal impacts from development in 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, included in a development agreement or funded 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 Oregon Revised Statute(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 cotlsttucted by local governments or utility service providers through some form of debt financing or"pay-wyou-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: • System Development Charges(SDC) • Transportation Development Tax(TDT) • Local Improvement Districts(LID) • Reimbursement Districts • Utility Rates • Urban Renewal Districts(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 options 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 •i:7FCS GROUP www.fcagroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 4 or under construction;and(2)an improvement fee,intended to recover a fair share of future, planned,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 capital 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 currently 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. In addition to the SDCs that can be imposed by local governments,school districts can impose local construction taxes under the provisions of ORS 320.170 to 320.189. These taxes play no role in the funding of city facilities and are not addressed further in this report. B.2 Local Transportation System Development Charges The city is in the process of considering a local Transportation SDC for transportation facilities (including streets,transit facilities,pedestrian and bicycle facilities)that would be in addition to 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) 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 decide to use Washington County Transportation Development Tax(TDT)revenues for roadway improvements that add capacity,such as improvements to Roy Rogers Road,Bull Mountain Road,and other eligible collector and arterial facilities. B.4 Local Improvement Districts (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. -41�>FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 5 B.5 Reimbursement Districts 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 reimbursement districts have been successfully utilized in the city 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. B.7 Urban Renewal District (URD) The city currently has a Downtown urban renewal district(URD)in place,and there may be an opportunity for to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace 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 area) • 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 urban 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)allowed in urban renewal plans 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. •i_-?FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 6 • Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the I Ib year after the initial plan was adopted,or when Tax Increment Financing(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 101/0,plus 25%of the tax increment between 10%and 12.5%.Overlapping tax districts receive 75%of the tax increment between 10%and 12.5%. • For any year when 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 revenue 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 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 tho next section. B.8 Special Taxing Districts Special districts with taxing authority may be fortued 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.T1w district would have a separate board of directors and may levy taxes,fees,and assessments.If the district levies 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.o 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 intended purpose of the bond funds. 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. ••) FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 7 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 cavy higher interest rates than G.O.bonds.This differential,however,may be minimal. 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 in 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 more favorable terns,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 URS chapter 287.A. B.10 Loans and Grants Federal and state grant programs,once readily available for financial assistance,have been mostly eliminated or replaced by low-cost loan programs.Remaining grant programs are generally limited in application,lightly funded,and heavily subscribeilL Nonetheless,the economic benefit of grants and low-interest loans can make the effort of applying worthwhile. B.1 O.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 prcjects•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 O.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. IN�FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 8 13.11 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 dedicated purposes. Since General Funds are relied upon to fund essential city administrative services(including police services),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 rights-of-way and/or build public improvements as a condition of 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.Each funding "bundle"or scenario was then evaluated using the evaluation criteria below. C.1 Equity Equity is defined herein as the equitable distribution of cost/risk among three categories:existing city residents,new residents within River Terrace,and River Terrace developers/property owners. A score was assigned to each funding scenario 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.A score of I (low)to 5(high)was assigned to each funding scenario based on how reliable the funds were in each scenario. 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 *v*A>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 9 accommodate new private development is an important consideration and should be viewed from each of their perspectives. 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 invest in these facilities until adequate capital reserves are established which could take many years. A score of 1 (low)to 5(high)was assigned to each funding scenario,based on the relative potential it would have to facility development within the near-term(next six years). CA 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)was 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,other major service providers(e.g. CWS,Washington County,etc.),or developers. A score of 1 (low)to 5(high)was 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 to serve River Terrace(and the surrounding area)at build-out. Each improvernad entails additional capital costs that are to be incurred by the city,or other major service providers(e.g.CWS,Washington County,etc.),or developers.A score of 1 (low)to 5(high)was 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 was 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 then used to rank each funding scenario.The scenarios with the highest scores are identified as the preferred funding scenario for each public facility type. 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 44TCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 10 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. Exhibit 1:River Terrace Develoi2ment Absor Hon Forecast fDwellin I Units) TotalAbsorption Years Until Scenario NearTerm- Long Term 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. 44TCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 11 III . FUNDING STRATEGY FCS GROUP relied upon the River Terrace master plan addenda and the current adopted Tigard five- year CIP 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 the medium absorption forecast depicted in the preceding table. A. WATER A.1 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 maize 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 558 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 550 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 are planned in the near-term to serve city-wide needs within the 550 zone. See Exhibit 2 for details. -i;) l CSk GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 12 Exhibit 2:Water Infrastructure Needs FacilitiesNear r lone 18-inch Trommssion Mains ;1,398,500 [3 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 ® Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs None 16-inch Transmission Mains through River $2,800,000 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) Terrace 3.0 mgd Cach Reservoir $5,400,000 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—in—ity)Pump Station $1,100.000 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs Total Cost $17,573,500 Source:River Terrace Water System Naster Plan Addendum June 2014,compiled by FCS Group A.3 Funding Scenarios There is one funding scenario for water infrastructure,and it 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 Funding Scenario Scenario A(status quo) Notes Utility Fee(existing) Q Exisling city-wide water rates may be increased to address costs SDC(City wide) Q Existing city-wide water SDCs should be sufficient to address costs Developer Developers to provide/construct local water system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 A.4 Evaluation Overall,the water funding scenario received a total score of 26 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 revenue sources(Exhibit 4). ���>FCS GROUP A,w*.fcsgroup.corn City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December, 2014 page 50 This page intentionally left blank 44 FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 13 Exhibit 4: Water Funding Evaluation Criteria ,Evaluation . iEquity(11. lower cost burden - 5: higher cost burden) A(status quo) Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation .- Cost Equity 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) 6 denotes relative variance from"uniform"equity (wherein developers,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. The recommended funding strategy for water systems(see Exhibit 6)relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard,including utility fees(water rates)and SDCs. Exhibit 5:Water Funding Strategy, Scenario A New Funding Near Term Long Term Funding M—h—isn, S.wc.? 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) ❑ $2.000,000 $10,278.500 Existing SDCs(after inflation adjustment).$7.580 per SFD Total Rev*nuo $7,295,000 $10,27x,500 Total Capital Cod $7,295,000 $10,278.500 Exhibit 6: Recommended Water FundingLr_ateqy, Scenario A Funding Mechanism New Funding Source? Who Pays? How Much$? N otes Utility Fees(Water Customers Avg.monthly Planned water Fund) ❑ water utility utility rate rates=$38 Increases SDC(City wide, Developers Water SDCs=Developers pay Water SDC Fund) ❑ $7,580 per SDCs and provide SFD' local water lines •these rates/SDCs are to be adjusted as part of citywide rate/SDC analysis for water by Jan.2015. -*:'FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 14 B. SANITARY SEWER B.l 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 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. B.2 Public Facility Costs Sewer infrastructure upgrades for River Terrace are estimated to cost just under$12 million. Facilities in the River Terrace North(RTN)area include a new pump station,a force main,a Scholls Ferry trunk pipe extension,and upsizing the Barrows Road trunk line. River Terrace South(RTS) facilities include a force main,a pump stations,and a pipe upsizing on Beef Bend Road.See Exhibit 7 for details. Exhibff 7:Sewer Infrastructure Costs CapitalPotential Funding Potential Funding North River Terrace Facilities RTN Force Main $650,000 tZl CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTN Pump Station $5,666,400 ® CWS CWS Sewer Fund Scholls Ferry Trunk Extension,Phase 1 (city share) $942,000 Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Barrows Rd.Trunk Ups¢ing(city share) $276,300 Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Total Cost(north) $7,534,700 Potential Funding Potential Funding South River Terrace facilities Capitol Cost Near Term Lead Source Notes RTS Force Main $2,461,900 ® CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTS Pump Station $1,352.000 ® 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 *:�FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com v City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 15 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 8). As mentioned above,the city is also in the process of enacting a new local sewer rate surcharge that is needed with or without River Terrace development. Exhibit 8: Sewer Funding Scenario FundingOptions Funding_Source A Notes I New local surcharge needed with Utility Fees (Citywide surcharge) Q or without River Terrace SDC (Citywide) Q Existing sewer SDCs CWS (Capital Fund) CWS funds Developer Developers to provide/construct local system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 B.4 Evaluation The preferred funding scenario received a total score of 25(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 9). Exhibit 9: Sewer Funding Evaluation Criteria 'Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Equity(1: lower cost burden - 5: higher cost burden) A Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Develo er/Pro rt Owner Cost Burden fm . Cost Equity' Reliability of Funds Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ability to Address Near-Term Costs Ability to Address Long-Term Costs Average Rating Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) _J25 denotes relative variance from"uniform"equity (wherein developers,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 44 FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 16 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 10). Developers will be responsible for constructing local gravity feeds into sewer mainlines,the cost of which is not listed. Exhibit 10: Sewer Funding Strategy, Scenario A Scenario A New funding Neoi term Long Tetrn -ImndinqMochonism __ __ Source? Funding Funding total Notes CWS(capital fund) ❑ $10,130,300 $10,130,300 CWS Capital Imp.Progam funds Utility Fee(City surcharge) ® $609,150 $494,000 $1,103,150 City surcharge on fixed monthly rate SDC(City wide) ❑ $609,150 $609,150 Sewer connection fees Total Revenue $11,348,600 $494,000 $11,942,600 Total Cost $11,348,600 $494,000 $11,842,600 The recommended funding strategy for sanitary sewer systems(see Exhibit 11)relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by Clean Water Services(CWS)and the City of Tigard, including utility fees(sewer rates)and SDCs. Exhibit 11: Recommended Sewer Funding Strategy, Scenario A funding Mechanism New funding Who Pays? How Much$? Notes Utility Fees(Sewer Fund) Customers Avg.monthly Additional citywide (within city sewer utility rates= sewer rate surcharge service district)$54 per account required with or (existing) without River Terrace SDC (Citywide,Sewer Developers Sewer SDCs:$4,900 Developers provide SDC Fund) per SFD local lines and pay sewer SDCs CWS Capital Fund Customers in CWS(capital fund) CWS district 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,such as through 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). '%. FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 17 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 12). Exhibit 12: Parks Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding Facility Capital Cost Sources Community parks $15,894,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants,and voter approved GO bonds Neighborhood parks $6,727,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Linear parks $3,356,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Trails $1,454,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants,and voter approved GO bonds Total Costs $27,431,000 Source:Tigard Park System Master Plan Addendum,Table 5. Near-term investment primarily includes land acclusition. 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 Four funding scenarios were evaluated for funding parks in River Terrace.All involve the General Fund,SDC revenues,grants,and developer dedications that would be eligible for SDC credits(see Exhibit 13). Exhibit 13: Parks Funding Scenarios Fundinci Scenario City General Fund 0 0 0 RI City currently allocates General Funds to parks Utility Fee(new) ❑ 0 ❑ City can consider a new monthly parks utility tae SDC(City wide) 0 0 0 ® Existing citywide Parks SDCs to be updated SDC(Subdistrict) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® District SDC could focus on neighborhood parks 8 trans Urban Renewal District ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Urban Renewal District may be fanned with voter approval G.O.Bond ❑ 0 ❑ 0 G.O.Bonds may be issued with voter approval Grants 0 0 0 0 Grants from state or fdetro may be ovaiable Developer 0 0 0 0 Developers can receive SDC cred8s for constructing eligible PJU-{foC11',rir,.eme^]5 kanidnp 4 2 3 1 . C.4 Evaluation The rankings for the four scenarios indicate that scenario D has the highest score and is the preferred funding scenario. While scenario D maybe somewhat 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 C or D. And Scenario C is most difficult to implement since it would require a favorable public vote for the formation of a new Urban Renewal District as well as a G.O. Bond(see Exhibit 14). 444 PCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 18 Exhibit 14: Parks Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Scenarios [qi1ity(I lowei cost i- 5 higher cost burden) A(slotu%cluo) 8 C D Citywide Resident Cost Burden IM EW7 Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Develo er/Pro erty Owner Cost Burden Cost Equity' Reliability of Funds Q Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ability to Address Near-Term Costs Ability to Address Long-Term Costs Total Score(stun of Evaluation Criteria) ® 1211C] 19 1700= 21 'denotes relative variance from"uniform"equity(wherein developers,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 15. For the preferred parks funding scenario(Scenario D),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 in the near-term. 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$13 million in bonds,the levy amount would equate to$0.20 per$1,000 in assessed valuation(AV),which would cost the average homeowner about$63 per year. Comment[til:Adjust this table per amendment made by Council during the Exhibit15: Parks Funding Strategy, Scenario D, hearing on December 16,2014.Total amount funded by the two Parks SDCs is$14,084,800. Recommended Scenario D This does not change.Correct the Citywide SDC New Funding Near Term Long Term fee per dwelling unit to represent the current Parks SDC. Use your study absorption rates Fufing M—i Source? Funding Funding Total Notes and 75%allotted to RT to determine the amount City General Fund ❑ $250 000 - $250 000 Includes portion of unallocated generated by the Citywide Parks SDC for RT existing parts GO bond infrastructure in Near and Long Term. Assumes$6.451 per dwelling unit Determine the remainder that needs to be SDC(Citywide) ❑ $2,000,000 $9,263,400 $11.263.400 (75%allotted to covered by the RT Parks SDC.Based on the Assumes$1,200 per dwelling unit study's absorption rate,determine the RT SDC SDC(IRT District) 13 $2,794,000 $2,794,000 per dwelling unit w/t00%allotted to RT. (100%allotted to RT) Utility Fee(new citywide) _ $3 Oi�000, $3000000 New monthly parks utility fee of+/- ;1.11/month(75%allottedto RT) New i G.O.Bond(citywide) 0 - $9,100,000 $9100,000 Assumes Voter Approved$13MMechanism bond'(70%allotted to RT) Cfly General Fund 13 Grants El - $1,024,000 $1,024,000 Grants(Metro,State,Foundations, ❑ etc.) SDC(Ctlywide) Total Ili $2,250,000 $25,181,400 $27,431,400 SDC IRT District) Total Cost $$250,000 $25,181,400 $27,431,400 ' EZ assumes voter-approved levy of$0.20 per$1,000 AV;results in average cost to$311.100 median home of$63/year. Unity Fee(new citywide) G.O.Bond(citywide) EZ Grants EZ The recommended funding strategy for parks(see Exhibit 16)relies upon existing funding / mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund and parks SDCs. Del : .assumes voter-approved levy of$0.20 e�:'FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 19 The recommended strategy also relies on new sources of funding through a local River Terrace parks SDC,citywide parks utility fee,and non-local grants.If public support for a new G.O.bond for parks is not forthcoming,the city may opt to delay implementation of planned parks capital projects,or may need to increase the local parks SDC that is charged on new development. Exhibit 16: Recommended Parks Funding Strategy, Scenario q comment[0]:Adjust to match changes in Exhibit is. New Funding Funding Mechanism SourceT INew Fundi ' Pays? Notes City General Fund ❑ City General Fund ❑ Citizens $250,000 Fund Transfers SDC(City wide( ❑ Parks SDCs= Developer SDCs; SDC (Citywide) ❑ Developers $6,451 per SFD 75%alottedto (est.avg) RT SDC(RT District) Parks SDCs= Developer SDCs; SDC (RT District) ® Developers $1,200 per SFD 100%slotted to Utility Fee(new city (est.avg) RT wide) +/-$1.11 per New citywide Utility Fee(new citywide) ® Customers month(est. parks utility fee G.O.Bond avg) to avg) RT) Grants Bond costs New citywide pelma: $63/yearfor $13 M G.O. G.O. Bond ® Citizens $311,10bond;$0.20 per median home$1,000 AV(70% medialotted to RT) Grants ® Other entities +/ $996,000 Metro,state or federal grants D. STORMWATER D.l Overall Findings The city is focused on ensuring that development is environmentally sustainable through low impact stormwater design standards and construction of new stormwater water quality and quantity 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,builders 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. -i->FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 20 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-term stormwater infrastructure requirements include development of a new stormwater model,high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis,and new design standards for River Terrace. Future stormwater system improvements include 11 water quality/detention ponds,two detention ponds,and potentially two high-flow conveyance facilities (Exhibit 17). Exhibit 17:Stormwater Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding Facility Needs Capital Cost Near Term lead Potential Funding Source Notes st«mwafer Mrxlelirg Analysis $50,000 11 City City Stomiwater Fund River Terrace Stormwater Design Standards $150,000 10 City City Stormwater Fund Water Quality and Deveopers and reimbursement Detention Ponds(11) $12,349,000 ❑ Developers districts Deveopers and SWQQ Detention Ponds(2) $4.265.000 ❑ Developers reimbursement districts High Flow Conveyance Deveopers and SVVQQ Facilities(3) $5,238,000 ❑ Developers reimbursement districts Told Cost $22,052,000 Source: River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan,July 2014 Attachment B;and city staff input;compiled by FCS Group D.3 Funding Scenarios Four scenarios were evaluated for funding the stormwater infrastructure systems to serve River Terrace.All scenarios include some level of General Fuad 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 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 18 for details). 3 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. %1-11FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 21 Exhibit 18: Stormwater funding Scenarios �9� - M City General Fund City to allocate porton of General Fund to stamwater needs Utility Fee(existing citywide fee) a Exkthg Citywide fee may be Increased surlbdistr�kt fee)RT 1:1 El ❑t ❑r 0 New ec subdistrict fee k needed under SDC(existing citywide) 0 IJ IJ [J Existing Cltywirte SDC may be increased Special Taxing District11 ❑ Cl their voters may establish special district for (New RT subdistrict) their needs Reimbursement Districts City a Developers may advance financing or uDs(new) ❑ 0 0 0 and recoup investment using UD or Reimbursement Districts i)P V P l o ver Developers to Construct facilities to handle ►n4minaY Ranl[kp 4 3 2 1 n�n917 Ea 2 fi�� Q9vPlcpt_. s D.4 Evaluation As indicated in Exhibit 19,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 placed second since it would be harder to implement because of the public vote requirement(from affected voters in River Terrace).It would also 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 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-term funding to facilitate development in River Terrace. Exhibit 19: Stormwater Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria funding Scenario ,Equity(1lower cost burden 5higher cost burden) tus qH21__ J Citywide Resident Cost Burden C8¢ens in Subdistrict Cost Burden v I er Pro ert mer os}Burden Cost Equity `- Reliability of Funds t0 � W Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ability to Address Near-Tei Average Rating Total Score(sum of Evaluation Cdteria) W7 12 14 171V 19 'denotes relative variance from"uniform'equity(whereas developers,future residents,and existing residents would split costs equally) D.5 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 stormwater modeling, high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis,and stormwater design standards in the near-term using available stormwater funds. Most of the funding for stormwater facilities would need to come from *vDFCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 22 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 River Terrace district stormwater utility fee surcharge(equates to+/-S12 per household per month)and dedicate up to$250,000 in General Funds every 6 years to form new reimbursement districts in River Terrace. New reimbursement districts could fund approximately$9.7 million in regional stormwater facilities over the long-term and could be focused on facilities that benefit or involve multiple property owners(see Exhibit 20). The city or developers that participate in the advance financing used to form reimbursement districts would be compensated(paid back)over time though special assessments on benefiting property owners that opt to participate in new development over time. Exhibit 20: Stormwater Funding Analysis, Scenario D NFundi g Funding Source? Near Term City Long Term City Total City (Timing • General Fund ❑ $250,000 $932'500 $1.002500 - $1.092.500 Assumes$250,000 every 6 years Utiity Fee(city wide) ❑ $250.000 $932.500 $1,092.500 - $1,082,500 Existing stamnvater rate(adj.Med lar nflotbri) SDC(City wide) ❑ $200.000 M000 - $200.000 Existing SDC Utility fee(RT subdshici) ® $770,000 $5,750,000 $6,500,000 _ $6500000 Assumes$12/month rate surcharge to RT households Reimbursement Dstricis is $500.000 $1,665.000 $2.165.000 $2,165,000 CM contrbvles funds or'credir to reimbursement districts Developers 11 - $11.022.000$11.022,000 Developer to provide on-s0e Stormwater facilites TOW 11,11,106ilsu9 $1,950,000 $9,000,900 $11,030,000 $11,022,009 $22052000 Tolid coo $1,950,000 $9,090,000 $11,030,000 $11,022.000 $22.052,000 R6Msbitt"Mi ob"d►undnp $1,5001000 $4267,500 $9.717.500 Note:potential Stormwater ren�bursemenf d Oct confrbutp shown n bola ital�s. 'development costs would incur as development proceeds over the buidaut of River terrace. The recommended funding strategy for stormwater facilities(see Exhibit 21)relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund, stormwater SDCs,and developer dedications of oft-site facilities. Potential new sources of funding include a River Terrace subdistrict stormwater utility fee and city or developer-established reimbursement districts. 44TCSGROUP %ww.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 23 Exhibit 21: Recommended Stormwater Funding Strategy, Scenario D Avg.of$32,000 General FundPer year to seed Discretionary fund ❑ Citizens reimbursement transfers district(s) SDC(City wide) 0 Developers Current fee of EAsting storm SDCs $500 per dwelling may be adjusted Customers(city Avg.monthly EAsting rates may be Utility Fee(city wide) I] wide) storm utility rates adjusted _$8.75 New fee surcharge for RT subdistrict,could River Terrace $12/month be used to help pay Utility Fee(RT subdistrict) ® Customers(new residents) surcharge 08M or for reimbursement district debt payment Developers or City Focus may be on advances Assumes$1-2M facilities involving Reimbursement Districts ® financing;with per district(every multiple property future payments by 6 years) owners with off site builders impacts Developers ❑ Developers Developer dedications(on site) E. TRANSPORTATION E.1 Overall Findings Transportation infrastructure for River Terrace is required for new vehicle,pedestrian,and bicycle facilities. Traditionally,the city has worked in partnership with ODOT(responsible for state facilities)and AraSbiatgton County(responsible for county facilities). The city is responsible for upgrades to local routes within the city's municipal service area,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's existing transportation funds are generally committed and not available for investing in new transportation improvements in River Terrace over the next five years.The city is in the process of considering a new focal city-wide and/or sub-district transportation SDC(TSDQ to supplement the funds it receives from the Washington County TDT.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.Total transportation capital costs(for collector improvements,arterial improvements,and selected trails)are estimated at 5149.6 million(see Exhibit 22). The location of the recommended transportation projects included in the River Terrace Transportation System Plan(TSP)Addendum is depicted by the map in Exhibit 23. -DFCS GROUP wwwAsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 24 Within the next 20-years,the recommended transportation facilities are expected to cost approximately$42.68 million.$25.15 million of this amount is considered to be public cost, including$8 million in Roy Rogers Road improvements.The remaining$17.5 million represents the estimated value of public improvements that development will be required to build that are not credit eligible. Near-term transportation needs include:the first phase of River Terrace Boulevard;a traffic signal at Roy Rogers Road/Bull Mountain Road intersection;a roundabout at the Bull Mountain Road/River Terrace Boulevard intersection;and upgrades to various Washington County facilities.°The long term needs include all other road extensions,intersection improvements,and selected multi-use trails. 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. Exhibit 22: Transportation Infrastructure Costs Included In Funding S ategy Not In Funding Strategy Non- Outside Near Long River Planning Term Term Terrace Area or Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Public Horizon Cost Estimate' Capitol Cosh 1-6) 7-20 Cost Costa 20+ rs 4 Project ID Neighborhood Route 1 (west of Roy Rogers Rd) $7,000,000 V/ Project ID Lorenzo Ln Collector 2 Extension(west of Roy / Ro rs R 2,500,000 120,000 Y Project ID Lorenzo Ln Collector 3 Extension(east of Roy ✓ Rogers 500,000 Project ID Neighborhood Route 4 (east of Roy Rogers Rd) $4,000,000 Project ID River Terrace Blvd 5 (Scholls Ferry Rd to Lorenzo Ln) $91000,000 • Phase 1:North ✓ 67% 6,030,000 2,613,000 • Phase 2:South / (33% ($2,970,000) V Project ID River'Cerraee Blvd 6 (Lorenzo Ln to Bull Mtn R 6,500,000 • Phase 1:South ✓ (7540) 4,875,000 2,325,000 • Phase 2:North v/ 25% 1,625,000 Project Ill River Terrace Blvd 7 (Bull Mtn Rd to South UGB 12,500,000 4 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. *V,>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.coni City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 25 Included in Funding S rategy Not in Fundi S Non- Outside Near Long River Planning Term Term Terrace Area or Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Pubic Horizon Cost Estimate' Ca Ral Cosa 1-6 7-20 Cost Costa 20+yrs), q1-KIN.nh / (33%) 4,125,000 1,881,000 V • Phase 2:South / 50% 6,250,000 2,850,000 V • Phase 3:Middle ✓ (17%)6 2,125,000 Project ID EW Collector Street 8 (Roy Rogers Rd to River ✓ Terrace Blvd) $2,500,000 $120,000 Project ID I,W Neighborhood Route (River Terrace Blvd to / 161st Extension) $2,500,000 V Project ID N-S Neighborhood Route 10 0lazeltine I to IX'oodhue / Extension $5,000,000 V Project ID N-S Neighborhood Route 11 (Woodhue Extension to V/ ✓ Beef Bend R $3,500,000 Project ID E-W Neighborhood Route 12 (161st Extension to 150th ✓ Ave) $6,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement 13 Signal (Roy Rogers Rd& V/New EAX'Collector 1,000,000 1,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement: 14 Signal(Roy Rogers Rd& ✓ Bull Mtn Rd) $1,000,0001,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement: 15 Signal(Roy Rogers Rd& ✓ Lorenzo Ln Extension __ 1,000,000 Project ID Intersection Improvement: 16 Signal(Scholls Ferry Rd& V/River Terrace Blv 1,000,000 1,000,000 Intersection Improvement Project ID Roundabout (River 17 Terrace Blvd&New ✓ Neighborhood Route) $1,500,000 Intersection Improvement Project ID Roundabout (River 18 Terrace Blvd&Bull Mm V"Rd 1,500,000 1,500,000 Intersection Improvement Project ID Roundabout (River 19 Terrace Blvd&New IW / Collector) $2,000,000 V Intersection Improvement: Project ID Roundabout (Woodhue 20 Extension&161" ✓ Extension) $2,000,000 Bull Mountain Road: Project ID Upgrade to Urban 21 Standards(Roshak Rd to Roy Rogers Rd) $4,000,000 • Phase 1:West / (30&0) 1,200,000 350,000 V • Phase East ✓ ✓ $2,800,000 --1.)iFCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com C'ry or'gara River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2, page 26 Included In IF nding Strate_ Not In Funding Strategy Non- Outside Near long River Planning Term Term Terrace Area or Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Pubic Horizon Cost Estimate' Capital Costr 1-6 7-20 Cost Costa 20+ Roy Rogers Road:Upgrade Project ID to Urban Standards 22 (Scholls Ferry Rd to Beef Bend Rd) $35,000,000 • Phase 1:Inside / L11 GB 17°o) 4,000,000 4,000,000 V • Phase 2:Inside / UGB 17 4,000,000 $4,000,000 V • Phase 3:Outside UGB 66%) 27,000,000 V V Project ID 150th Avenue:Upgrade to 3 Urban Standards (Bull Mtn Rd to Beef Bend K 4,000,000 • Phase 1:North / (tog%o) ,000 94,000 V • Phase 2:South& V/ ✓ Outside RT 90% ,600,000 Project ID Highway 99W/Walnut 24 Street Intersection / / Im roccment 10,000,000 V V Project ID Highway 99W/Bull 25 Mountain Intersection ✓ ✓ Improvement 000,000 Project ID Highway 99W/Durham 26 Road Intersection ✓ ✓ Improvement $10,000,000 Project ID Fast-West River Terrace N/A Trail(River Terrace Blvd to 15011 Ave) $3,600,000 • Phase 1:West / 5o°a 1,800,000 1,800,000 V • Phase Z East / 5m,'. 1,800,000 V Project ID Improvements where new N/A streets meet existing streets $2,500.000 • Phase 1:Local ✓ Streets 20°0 500,000 1000 • Phase 2:Local& Collector Streets ✓ 80% 2,000,000 TOTAL $149,600,000 $25,153,000 Notes: I Capital cost estimates and projects derived from River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum,Nov.2014. Costs are in 2014 dollars. 2 Public capital cost includes only the`oversized"portion of the project This`oversized"portion refects those costs for which a developer could expect reimbursement in the form of SDC credits.Assumes non-creditable value of dedications equals$1,700 per LF(crew collector projects);and$567/LF for street retrofits. 7 Potential non-River Terrace funding sources include base TSDC and TDT collected outside River Terrace,WA County TDT for projects on County roads in unincorporated areas,County MSTIP for regional capacity and safety projects on County roads,and ODOT STIP funding for state highways. 4 Includes projects outside the River Terrace planning area either elsewhere in the city or in unincorporated county areas; or projects needed beyond year 20.Of those projects in unincorporated areas,some are located outside the urban growth boundary. :4FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 27 •:;>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 28 Exhibit 23: Recommended Transportation Projects in River Terrace Area off wii M� ■ /. ■ ■ r ■ / r ■ ■ ii ♦ ii r�4- ■ 1 ~ r id t —Arterial ■ ■ ■ ti 5tnet Functronar CNssNkatbn ■ �� �• Collector Street t s • • • —Neighborhood Route _ —Local Street ■ t_—-—-—- --•• Future Collector Street (Conceptual Alignment) ■ -•••Future Neighborhood Route / (Conceptual Augnment) / f Intersection improvement / 0 Project ID left Table S at 6) Final street alignments may change and aro subject to final design,engineering, and permitting, e Future Connection to!Misting or Future Street Future Pedestrian and BIWIs Connection River Terrace Community Plan Area Urban Growth Mundary -N.i FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 29 E.3 Funding Scenarios Five scenarios were evaluated for funding the transportation infrastructure in River Terrace,as shown in Exhibit 24.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 and portions of new collector streets).Scenario B adds citywide and sub-district transportation system development charges(TSDCs)to the mix of funding sources.Scenario C includes a citywide TSDC and a new River Terrace Urban Renewal District. Scenario D includes a citywide TSDC,sub- district TSDC,LIDS,and G.O.Bonds,but does not include an urban renewal district. After reviewing these scenarios,the Tigard City Council requested that an additional scenario, Scenario E,be developed and evaluated.This new scenario includes a new sub-district transportation utility fee along with a citywide TSDC,and a sub-district TSDC,street funds,grants,and developer dedications. Exhibit 24: Transportation Funding Scenarios Fund Transfers ® 0 ® ® ® City may transfer local or state fuel tax revenue to transportation projects Transportation Utility Fee Funds are dedicated to street maintenance (e)isting city wider ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ not capital construction Transportation Utility Fee City may establish new utrity tee surcharge Surcharge knew RT with funds to be dedicated to capital subdistrict) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 construction W ItNn River Terrace Transportation System Developr nt Charge ❑ ® ® ® ® City may establish new TSDC on new (Citywide TSDC) development citywide River Terrace(RT)-TSDC(new City may establish new RT-TSDC on new Subdistrict) ❑ ® ❑ ® ® development in RT subdistrict TDT(existing) ® ® ® ® ® Existing TDTIs charged to new development LID of Reirnbursernsnt Dist. LI Ds may pfov ide Important"gaptunding; (new) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requires 51%+property owner approval CityUrban Renewal District(new) ❑ Cl ® El 13sub voters may establish new URD in RT subdistrict Tax Levy(new citywide GO Citywide voters may estabmkh GO bonds for bond) 13 13 13 ® C3selectedtransportation iprovements Grants ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Developers to provide neighborhood transportation facilities and can receive Developers ® ® ® ® ® TDT/SDC credits for constructing el'gibie public facilities pNllmlrmy tl - ..1 7 1 1C E.4 Evaluation : Scenario E received the highest average rating because of high marks for equity,facilitating development,reliability of funds,ease of implementation,and ability to address near-term and long- term costs. Scenario C placed second in the evaluation,but since it relies on the creation of a voter-approved urban renewal district,it is very complex and difficult to implement and may not generate adequate funding which could delay facility construction and development for many years. Scenario D would also be difficult to implement since it would rely upon a voter-approved G.O. Bond,and would not facilitate development,since it would rely on relatively high TSDC and LID costs per dwelling unit. Scenarios A and B are not likely to generate adequate long-term funding to implement the planned transportation facilities(see Exhibit 25). *::>FCS GROUP wwe.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 30 Exhibit 25: Trans ortation Funding Evaluation CBywlde Resident Cost Burden CB¢ens in Subdistrict Cost Burden _ v r Pr n Aner Cost Biirden LW Cast Equity' - Rellubiity of Funds aoDevelopment EJ i Easese of f Implementation Avemge Rating F Total Score(sum o1 Evalvaaon CrReria) _._ 12F 15 19 17 22 denotes relative variance from"uniform equity Iwheren developers.future residents.and existing residents would split costs equally) E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios Scenario E assumes that the city provides approximately$150,000 per year in street funds(state or local fuel tax revenue)to River Terrace projects,and TDT funds that would otherwise be collected from River Terrace development are exchanged for credits to developers that construct credit-eligible projects,such as frontage improvements along Roy Rogers Road. Additionally, it is assumed that a new local citywide TSDC is created(average cost per dwelling unit estimated at$5,000 with_%of the funds collected in Rive_r Terrace allotted to River Terrace Deleted:55 projects)and a new River Terrace district TSDC is created(average cost per dwelling unit estimated at$4,67'with 100%of the funds collected in River Terrace allotted to River Terrace projects).s The Comment[1:5]:This will be lowered due to the recommended funding strategy also includes a new transportation utility fee surcharge within River increase in TDT and Citywide TSDC that is Terrace(at an average cost of�5!dollars per month per dwelling unit or equivalent dwelling unit). allotted to RT(from 55%to 75%).The decrease needs to be calculated Per Council Amendment Cost sharing among developers, Washington County,and MOT is expected to result in additional at the Hearing on December 16,2014 as fundingfor selected facilities listed above.See Exhibit 26 for details. outlined inthe and Doug Gabbard senoby t to Todd Chase and Doug Gabbard sent on 12/While the transportation funding strategy tends to balance out over the long-term with anticipated Chase on at/17/1415Pat and received by Todd P g 8Y B' ( P Chase on 12/17/14 at 2:15AM. revenues equal or greater to expected costs),there is a significant near-term funding gap(during Deleted: 1,531 years 1-6)that would need to be bridged through advance financing in some form.This potential near-term issue is identified as a policy issue in the next section of this report. Comment[1:6]:Same comment as above on the RT TSDC. Delebed: 1 5 All allotment percentages are intended as targets and not absolute requirements. -i�>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 31 Exhibit 26: Transportation Funding Strategy, Scenario E, Comment[t7]:Exhibit 26needs tobealtered in the manner described in the email from Toby LaFrance to Todd Chase and Doug Gabbard sent on 12/16/14 at 11:15PM and received by Todd Chase on 12/17/14 at 2:15AM. This includes changing the TDT and Citywide TSDC that is allotted to RT from 55%to 75%. Fund Transfer,, 11 $1,0()0,000 $2,000.000 $3,000.000 Assumes avg.of./-=150,000 per year The increase in revenue from these sources needs to be used to decrease the RT TSDC and Assumes$6.323 per avg.dwelling unit 175% the TUF.The decrease needs to be TDT Revenue(net after credits) ❑ ,$o $3.040,000 x.040.000 or funds collected in RT allotted to RT proportionate. projects including$8M in TDT credits for Roy Rogers Rood) Transportation System Assumes$5,000 per avg.dwelling unit(75% Development Charge(Citywide 10 $2,025.000 $6.70.5.000 $9,730,000 of funds collected in RT allotted to RT NI e TSDC) district) Funding Mechanism So River Terrace(RT)TSDC(new Assumes$467 per avg.dwelling unit(10096 Fund Transfers Subdistrict) $252,000 $835,000 $1,087,000 dedicated to RT district( Transportation Utility Fee Surcharge $100000 $1.=000 $1400 ppg Assumes$5/month transportation utility fee TDT Revenue(net after credits) (new RT subdistrict) . surcharge(100%dedicated to RT district) Private Cost(non-credit eligible: includes on-site and adjacent(half street) excludes Roy Rogers Road ❑ $3,700,000 $13,820,000 $17,520,000 improvements to collector or arterial Transportation System Development improvements) facilities Charge citywide TSDC) Developers (includes TDT credits for Assumes(hal street)improvements to Roy Roy Rogers Road improvements( $4,000,000 $4'0DO'000 '$8'000'000 Rogers Road are TDT credit eligible River Terrace(RT)TSOC(new Subdistrict) WA County(cost share) fact tbd tbd Selected Countyroodwayimprovemerds Transportation Utility Fee Surcharge ODOT/Metro grants(cost share) $0 $000000 $900.000 .-99andoa+hwy (new RT subdistrict) Told ltey w $11,090,000 532,600,000 $"00,000 Prfvate Cost(non-credit eligible: Public Cost 59.770.000 $15.400,000 $25,170,000 excludes Roy Rogers Road Private Cost(Nom-aedi}eligible) 53,700.000 $13,820,000 $17,520,000 inprovements) Total Cost $13,470,000 $29,220,000 $62.690,000 Developers (includes TDT credits for Potential Funding Gap' ($2.390.00 90, 0) 53,390,000 $9000 Roy Rogers Rood improvements) 'Funding gap could be'bridged'through:debt financing:additional fund transfers by the City,grants/contributiom from County/Mako:and/or deferral WA County(cost share) or phase4n of future projects.tad=to be determined. ODOT/Metro grants(cost share) Told Revenue The recommended funding strategy for transportation facilities(see Exhibit 27)relies upon existing Public Cott funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund,TDT Private Cost(Non-credit eligible) charge rants,and developer dedications of on-site facilities. Potential new sources of Tota cow g P> Pe Potential Fusdng Gap- funding include a River Terrace district transportation utility fee and a local citywide and River •Funding gap could be'bridged through: Terrace district TSDC. Dpdeted: deferral or phaseAn or future projects.tbd= ���` 1 S GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 33 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 jurisdictional coordination will also be required between the city,Washington County,ODOT,CWS,and other agencies to ensure that cost sharing agreements are consistent with each agency's 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 2015 to take these recommendations into account. 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 Funding 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. •*S: KS GROUP www.fcsgroup.coni City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 32 Exhibit 27: Recommended Scenario, Scenario E, Comment[t8]:See comment above. Exhibit 27 should be edited per the comments on Exhibit 26. Now funding lFunding Mechanism SOufce? Wh-Pays? How Much 5? Nol�� funding Mechanism Fund Transfers ❑ Citizens Avg.$150,000 a Funding from local or year contributions state gas tax funds Fund Transfers Existing TDT(assumes TDT=$6,323 per 75%of funds collected TDT Revenue Developers(citywide)dwellingav in RT are allotted to RT ( g) projects or developer TDT Revenue credits) New citywide SDC; Transportation System Development Charge(Citywide Developers(citywide)dwelling per assumes 75%of funds TSDC) welling(avg) collected in RT are Transportation System Develo r allortedioRTdisirict � p Charge(Citywide TSDC) Subdistrict River Terrace(RT)TSDC(new Developers(within RT Tronsportaion New subdistrict SDC Subdistrict) district) SDCs=$467 per (100%dedicated to RT dwelling(avg) district) River Terrace(RT)TSDC(new Subdistrict) Transportation Utility Fee Surcharge Property Owners $5/month 100%dedicated t o RT (new RT subdistrict) (wit htnRTdistrict I surcharge projects Private Cost(noncredit eligible: Row and street Transportation Utility Fee Surchar ❑ Developers(withn Rf Focus is usually for on (new RT subdistrict) excludes Roy Rogers Road district) dedications for site improvements improvements) new routes Private Cost(non-credit eligible: Grants State/Metrocitizens $900,000 focus on trails excludes Roy Rogers Road improvements) WA County(cost share) County property tbd Cc ntyroodway owners/citizens improvements Grants ODOT(cost share) 0 State citizens rbd Hwy 99 improvements WA County(cost share) All allotment percentages are intended as targets and not absolute requirements. 'Note,funding sources that are not"new"to Tigard may be potentially relied upon in the future. ODOT(cost share) DelMad: *All allotment percentages are Intel :;>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 34 C. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM • Existing funding sources,planned rate increases by CWS,and a new sanitary sewer surcharge by the city 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 elsewhere in 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 perks 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'casement acquisition because of the unique nature of this condition and the fact that there am downsbum 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 quantity facilities,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 six years. • The city is in the process of considering a new local city-wide TSDC and/or subdistrict(s)TSDC to supplement the funds it receives from the TDT. It is recommended that the city consider 40OKS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 35 policies to allocate a portion of TSDC/TDT revenues generated by new development within River Terrace to projects within River Terrace. • The city will need to work with Washington County and ODOT to discuss potential cost sharing responsibilities for County and State facilities. • The city should continue to work with Washington County and other local governments to identify potential sources of advance financing for improvements to major County facilities such as Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road,and ODOT facilities including Hwy.99W. • 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 TSDC/TDT credits). These policy considerations serve as a starting point for ensuring that the city has the ability to fund necessary public facilities in River Terrace as development occurs.The actual timing of public facility investments will depend on many factors. While the city has control over local utility rates and SDCs,the city cannot predict development market timing or the fixture cost of financing.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.It is also advised that the city should re-evaluate and revise this Funding Strategy every five years in order to ensure that it remains relevant and useful in guiding public investment in River Terrace over the next two decades. ,4FCS GROUP wwwlesgroup.Fom City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 36 V. APPENDIX 10-Year Forecast of Selected City Funds vii>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 37 Water Utility Fund •:;>FCS t i ROt'I' 6/30/1016 6/30/2016 Q33=7 6/3W2 8 6/30/9819 W311=20 6/3W200 &IJWM 6/34002873 6/3W2871 Wdpd Pl*.I d 111101d d haKltd P,*d�d F1.1 -i I 1rO bd ft*.d fir 1 d ft.1 Wdw#Wed Resources: Beginning fund balance j 12520.630 j 6,104,977 j 4944.428 j 4,788,614 ; 4832714 j 4,921,639 $ 5,019,045 j 5,113,576 ; 5,201,114 j 5.288,088 Revenue: 43126 Developer overhead 9.663 7,440 7.440 7440 7.44D 7,440 7,140 7.440 7.440 7.440 43128 Fire service reimbursement 1,470 - - - - - - - - 43130 Miscellanous fees and charges 1267 799 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 793 433D1 SDC reimbursement - 45100 Utility sales 18,057,552 1&615.801 1&989.931 19.358,488 19,752088 21151.966 2D.528,654 20,872,712 21,220,821 21.523.867 45101 Other utility sales 4.456 44% 4456 4.456 4.456 4456 4456 4456 4456 4456 45102 Leaks/misreads credits 172981) 121.988( 122053( 122.1231 (2Z 1981 (222731 1223451 122410) (224761 (72,533( 45104 Mater sales 27.762 35.805 70.373 81,586 93,499 96.959 100,547 104,269 106,129 112133 45105 Fre hydrant flow testing service 6.006 6.006 6.fM16 &006 6,OD6 6006 &006 64106 6.136 6,006 45150 Late pendlles/chargas 121,1136 125,185 125,561 1256963 126,392 126,829 127,2.0 127,616 127,995 128,326 45151 Returned check fees 1,290 1.290 1.290 1.210 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1,290 1.290 45199 Bad debt (:U" 124.9091 125.2811 125,654 (2&052( (26,4511 126,830♦ 127,186) (27338) (27.841) 45319 MlscellQnous teas and charges 372 372 972 372 372 372 972 372 372 372 45320 Rental Income 33,234 -Vic U4 99.294 3MIN 33,254 33,236 33.256 3&234 33,234 31234 47000 Interest earrings 67,611 32.967 26.700 25,559 2&097 26,577 27,103 27,613 2&086 28,556 48000 Other revenue - - _ - - - - _ - - 48001 Recovered empendtunes 10,875 - - - - - - - - 49100 Transfer In from General Fund 27.460 27,460 27.460 7/.161) 27.460 27.460 27,460 27.460 27,460 27.460 49500 Transfer in from Sanitary Sewer Fund 13.413 13.413 13,413 13413 13413 13413 13413 13.413 13,1113 13,413 49510 Transfer In from Stormwater Fund 17,878 1708 1708 17,878 17,878 17JM 1708 17.878 1706 17,878 Total revenue 18.359,867 111,904178 19.277,579 19,656.460 24062168 20.465.943 20,846704 21,194,956 21,547,360 21,851,816 Total resources j 30.880.491 j?5,010.154 j 21,722008 j 21.445,071 j 21,894,882 j 25,387,582 j 25,865,748 j 26,300,533 j 26748,473 j 27.142934 Requirements: 6perdltures: Personnel servi-es: Salaries j 893706 j 935,614 j 979,707 j 1,025,877 j 1,074,714 j 1,124,849 j 1,177,859 j 1,233,368 j 1,291,493 j 1,352.357 Benefits 437,142 458,999 481,949 506,047 531,349 W.916 585,812 615.103 645,858 678,151 Total personnel services 1,330.618 1,394,613 1,461,656 1,531,924 1,605,573 1,682765 1,763,671 1,848,471 1.937,351 2030,508 Materials and services: Supplies 3869.952 4.004/0D a 200SODs 2075.589 214&235 2223.423 2301,243 2.381,786 2465,149 2551.429 Franchise fee 508,400 a 672,961 685.382 n 69&681� 712.889� 727.371� 740,917� 753,335 n 765.899� 776,836 Other service 1,120.611 1,159,832 1,2D0,427 1,242441 1,285.927 1,330,934 1,377,517 1.425,730 1,475,631 1,527,278 Total materials and services %498.563 5,83&194 3891,209 4,016.714 4147.051 4,281.679 4,419,677 4,560,851 4706678 4855,543 Capital outlay 3.300 3.416 3.535 3.659 3,787 3,919 4,057 4,199 4.345 4,498 Transfers out and Indirect cost allocations 11543,771 1,611.269 1,681,719 1,755,249 1,831,994 1,912094 1,995,697 2082,955 2174,0728 2,269,087 Nonprogram apenWtures TrorWers out to Water CP R)nd 7,639,391 2467,150 1.671.982 1,408.009 1,30&561 1,396004 1,461089 1.488,918 1.502845 1,464,662 Trartsfers out to Water Debt Service Fund 8,490.141 &169.584 10,129,485 10,590.152 10,756.216 10,758,020 10,757,320 10,750,120 10,755.320 10,756.145 Trornfers out to other furl 269,707 261,499 293,807 306654 320,061 334,055 348,661 363,906 379,817 396,424 Total nonixogram expenditures 16399.239 11,218,234 12395,275 12304,814 12384,838 1248&OBO 12569.070 1261(1943 12637.982 12617.230 Total expenditures 24,775.521 20.065,726 19.433,394 19,612360 19,973,242 20,368,538 20.752171 21,107,419 21.460,385 21.776,862 Ending fund bakanoe 6104,977 4,944,42E 4788,614 4,832714 4,921.639 5,019,045 5,113,576 5,201,114 5.296.088 5,366,072 TotalregWrernents 30,880,497 25.010.151 24722,008 24,445.074 21,894882 25,387,582 25.865,748 26,308,533 2&718.473 27,142.934 Days of mpenditures In ending fund balance **v4FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 38 Water CIP Fund •>FCS GR(UTP 613VAIS 6/3WM6 6fJIV=7 6/30/Mill 6l60/il9 uagnmo 6fjW=1 6/30!1072 67 WMI 6/3072071 gd81f ft*ocbd h*lard hh*eNd hafhafatiad h41JaeMd haJaeYd h%lectod Resources: Begriming fund balance j 43,716,812 j 17,974,151 j 13),1021 S (38,2301 j (25,7091 $ 5,98D = 1,134,916 S 2,325,353 S 3,53.5,859 S 4,754,107 Revenue: 43300 System development charges 44800 Federal grants _ _ _ _ 47000 Interest earnings 236,125 97.060 11681 (206) (1391 32 6.129 12.557 19.094 25,672 48DD1 Recovered expenditures 5,265 _ _ - _ _ - 49001 Debt proceeds 46,894,542 - 1,425,529 1,952,010 1,967,930 0 0 0 0 0 49100 Transfer In from General Fund - - - - - - - 49425 Transfer In from Parks SDC Fund - - - - - - 49500 Transfer In from Sanitary Sewer Fund - - - - - - - - - - 49530 Transfer In from Water Fund 88&104 2467.150 1,671,982 1.408.009 1,30&561 1,396,061 1,463,089 1,488,918 1,502845 1.464,662 49531 Transfer In from Water SDC Fund 34&000 Total revenue 48,369,036 2564,211 3.097,343 3,359,813 3,276,351 1,396,037 1,469,217 1,501,475 1,521,939 1.490,334 Total resources j 92095,848 j 20,53&362 j 3,066,241 j 3,321,582 j 3,250,642 $ 1,402017 S 2,604,133 j 3,826,828 j 5,057.798 $ 6.244,441 RegWremenk, Expenditures: Capital outlay j 73,906,047 ;20,344,385 S 2869,551 j 3,102100 5 298&750 $ - 5 - $ - j - $ - Debt Transfers out 215,650 215,079 234,920 215,191 255,912 267,101 278,780 290,969 303,691 316,969 Other Total expenditures 74,121,697 20.569,464 1101,471 3,347,291 3,244.662 267.101 27&790 290.969 31)3.691 316,969 Ending fund balance 17,974,151 (31,1021 (3&230) (25,7091 5,980 1,134,916 2325,353 3,535.859 4,754,107 5,927,472 Total requirements S 92095,848 S 20:53&362 S 3,066,241 5 3,321,582 5 3,250,642 S 1,102,017 $ 2604,133 $ 3,826,828 $ 5,057,798 $ 6,244,441 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 89 (1) (4) (3) 1 1,552 3,047 4,438 5.718 6830 1Ir�044111�41p filled Resources: Beginning rued balance S 6,766993 i 1&573.816 3 10,573,816 j 10.691,767 $ 10.854.820 $ 11,021).765 S 11,020.765 $ 11.DM.765 j 11.320,765 $ 11,623.765 Revenue: 47000 Interest earnings 36,542 57,099 57,099 57,736 58,616 59,512 59,512 59,512 59,512 59,512 • 49001 Debt proceeds 3,♦D6,933 - 117,951 163,053 165,945 0 0 0 0 0 • 49530 Transfer In from Water Fund &49Q141 &469,584 10,429,485 10.590,152 10,756.216 10,758,020 10,757,32D 10,758,12(1 10,755,320 10,756,145 Total revenue 12333,515 &526,683 10,604,535 10,810,941 10,98D.776 10,817.532 10,816,832 10,817.632 10,814,832 10.815,657 Total resources j 19,10D,498 S 19.100,498 j 21,178,351 j 21,502708 j 21,835,597 j 21,83&297 j 21,837,597 j 21,838,397 j 21,835,597 $21,836,422 Requirements: Debt service 6dsting debt service j 4,719,850 j 4,719,850 $ 6,561,800 S 6,560,050 S 6,561,050 $ 6,563,750 j 6,563,050 $ 6563,850 j 6,561,050 $ 6,561,875 New debt service 3,806.833 3,806833 3,924,784 4,087,837 4,253,782 4,253,782 4,253,782 4,253.782 4,253,782 4,253,782 Total debt service 8,526,683 8,526,683 10,486,584 10,647,887 10,814,832 10,817,532 10.816,832 IQ817,632 10,814,832 111815,657 Ending fund balance • 10,573,816 10,573,816• 10,691,767• 10,854,821• 11,020,765• 11,02D,765• 11,020,765• 11,02,765 11,02,765 r 11,02(1,765 Total requkements S 19,100.!98 j 19,100,499 S 21,17&351 5 21,502,708 $21,835,597 $21,839,297 $21,837,597 j 21,838,397 j 21,835,597 $21,836,422 Days or expenditures In ending fund balance 453 453 371 371 372 372 372 372 372 372 •:;>FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 39 Water SDC Fund •:;>FCS GROUP duiir,r„-Ur critc C,u..,!Cnq 6J30/2015 413W 17 4130/2018 A/Mm1t 6M= 6/3g1M NJW= 6/M2823 6/3D�2824 frojeeMd Piro! Aed Resources: Beginning fund balance j 2.860,840 $ 4,149.831 j 5,066,575 j 6,851,719 j 8,926,597 $ 11,310,247 j 13,793,190 j 16,379,172 j 19,072.081 $21,875,947 Revenue: 43300 System development charges SDCi 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 2,80D,877 43301 SDC reimbursement SDCr 925,359 - - - - - - 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 2482,943 2,5&5,982 2,692,909 2,803,867 2,919,007 Total resources j 4,495.W4 j 5.066.575 $ 6.851,719 $ 8.926.597 $ 11.310.247 j 13.793190 $ 16,379,172 j 19,072,081 $21,875,947 $24,794,954 Requirements: Transfers out Transfers out to Water CIP Fund j 345.000 j j - j - j - j - $ j - j - j - Transfers out to other funds 263 Total transfers out 345,263 - - - - - - - Ending fund balance 4,149,831 5,066.575 6,851,719 8,926,597 11,310,247 13,793.190 16.379.172 19,072081 21,875.947 24.794.954 Total requirements j 4,840.357 j 5.066.575 $ 6 II.719 j 8,926,597 j 11,310.247 j 13.793.190 j 16.379.172 j 19,072081 j 21,875,947 j 24.794.954 os""d ASM d Interest rate 054 OL50 044 0.54% 0.51% 0.so 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 2,924 89 170 190 211 211 211 212 212 213 Customer account growth in epsting service area 1145e 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 1145% 0.45% Total cuslomer account growth 17.25% 1145% 0.85% 0.94% 1.04% 1.03% 1.02% 1.01% 1.00% 0.99% Rate revenue per account,first halt of fiscal year j 499 j 521 $ 526 j 531 j 536 j 542 $ 547 j 551 j 559 j 558 Rate revenue per account,second half of Ibcal year j 4D9 ; 413 j 417 j 421 j 426 ; 430 j 433 j 435 j 438 j 439 Annual rate adjustment on January 1 4.2B% 0.99% 0.99% 0.99% 0.99% 0.99% 0.66% 0.66% 0.66% 0.14% Share of revenue in first half of fiscal year 56.00% 56.0D% 5600% 56.00% 5600% 56.00% 5600% 5600% 56.00% 56.M Franchise fee as percentage of total rate revenue 281% 3.61% 361% 361% 361% 361% 361% 361% 361% 361% SDC revenue per new account $ 9.662 S 10.000 j 10.350 $ 10,712 j 11,087 j 11.475 $ 11,877 j 12.292 j 12.723 $ 13.168 44TCSGROUP w'w'w.resgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 40 Water Utility Fund Assumptions >FCS GROUT' 4.6nr.,n,unr.:u.1 Larx4ii,r4 6 JNMS 6/3Wm6 6/3 M7 6/313x2018 6/30/701t 6/30/1010 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 Inisded '''� Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Full-time a luivalent(FTE)positions - 19.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Salaries per FTE j 68,731 j 71,970 j 75,362 $ 78,914 j 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 FTE j 33,626 j 35,308 j 37,073 j 38,927 j 40,873 j 42,917 j 45,062 j 47,316 j 49,681 j 52.165 Growth in benefits per FTE 4.47% &OD% SAO% SAD% 5.00%. 5= 5.001% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Annual escalation of materials and services 3.501% 3.M 3.30% 3.30% 3.50% 3.30% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of capital outlay 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 350% 3a0% 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% Capitol projects Projects for River Terrace: Pressure Reducing Value Design j _ j j _ $ j _ $ _ j _ j _ j _ $ _ Pressure Reducing Valve Construction - - - - - - - - - - 204nch transmission mains in 410 zone(DesIgr j - - - - - 204nch transmission mains in 410 zone(Construction) - - - - - - - - - 164nch transmission mains in 550 zone(Design) - - - - - - - - - 164nch transmission mains in 550 zone(Construction) - - - - - - - - - 3.0 MG Cach Reservoir Design - 3.0 MG Cach Reservoir Construction - - - - - - - - - Wnch transmission from reservoir to 5508 - - - - - - - - - - 1,40D gpm(fin capacity)pump station Total projects for River Terrane - - - 1,050,000 - - - - - - Projects for existing service area 73,906,067 2D,344,385 2869,551 2,052,1OD 2,96&750 Total capital projects $ 73,904047 $20.344,3B5 S 2869,551 j 3,102100 $ 2988.750 $ $ $ - $ - $ '; .. issuance cost percentage 2 0% 00% 202OD% 2M% 200% 200% 2.00% .200% ,2.00% 2.00% Interest rate 4.00% 4.10%i 4.20% 4.301% 4.40% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Term 20 20 20 2D 2D 2D 2D 20 20 2D Principal: Proceeds $ 46,894.542 j - j 1,425.529 j 1.952010 j 1,967.930 j 0 j 0 j 0 j 0 j 0 lssuance 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 1,374,980 j 2,158,228 $ 2177.423 S 0 $ 0 $ 0 j 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 *v*:�FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 41 Sanitary Sewer Fund >FCS GROUP 6W21115 6/311/21116 6/311/21117 6/3W2016 6/30/2019 6/311120121) 6/30/2021 6/311/3022 6/30/2023 6/311/3024 Edrslole Projected PrajProjected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected IWANY 3~had Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,449.654 $ 1.320.471 $ 6.837 $ 601,969 S 671,891 $ 913,444 $ 2.200.096 $ 3,506.954 $ 4.833,056 3 6,177,370 Revenue: 43120 Sewer connection Fees 74,506 16,738 34.359 40,030 46,057 47,757 49,519 51,347 53,243 55,208 43130 MsceNoneous fees/charges 256.314 254314 25014 256.314 256,314 256,314 256,314 256.314 256,314 236,314 45100 lAirity sales 2926.727 2995.967 2869,395 2955,650 3.044976 3,140.298 3.235,663 3,333,115 3,432703 3.534,478 45199 Bad debt 15DAIM 1MSM 150.5001 (51114M 11505" Isms 1 15DAM 150.5001 193.58144 150,5001 45319 Mscellarwus fees and charges _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 47000 Interest earnings 7.828 7.131 37 3,251 3,628 4,933 11,881 18.938 26,099 33,356 48001 Recovered expenditures 141,674 119.422 103.766 108.562 107,991 100,655 101.303 101.977 102676 103.402 • 49100 Transfer in from Gas Tax Find 45,400 - - - - - - - - - • 49421 Transfer in from Parks Bond Fund 21.8M - - - - - - - - • 49425 Transfer in from Parks SDC Fund MOD - - - - - - - - • 49510 Transfer in from Stonnwater Fund 2724M - - - - - - - - - 49511 Transfer in from Water Quality/Quantity Fund 439.200 - - - - - - • 49532 Transfer In from Wafer CIP Fund 215,650 Proceeds from new debt Total revenue 4,726.449 3,345,071 3.213.3711 3.313,307 3,410465 3.499,456 3,604,179 3,711,190 3,820,534 3.932259 Total resources $ 6.176.103 $ 4,665,542 $ 3.22D.207 $ 3,915,275 $ 4,082357 $ 4,412900 $ 5.8114,275 $ 7,218.143 ; 8.653.592 $10.109,630 Requirements: Fpendtures: Personnel services: Salaries $ 381,237 $ 374,171 $ 390800 $ 408,584 $ 427,599 $ 447,456 S 468.191 $ 489,841 $ 512445 $ 536,045 Benefits 165,637 181817 192006 200,766 210,132 219,914 230,129 240,797 251,936 263.566 Total personnel services 546.874 557.988 582806 609,349 637,731 667,370 698,320 730,638 764,381 799,611 Materials and services: Supplies 35,907 37.164 38.465 39,811 41,204 42,646 44,139 45,684 47.283 48,938 Service 614,361 635.864 658,119 681,153 704.994 729.668 755,207 781,639 8(18,996 837.311 Total materials and services 650,268 673,028 696,581 720,964 746.198 772.315 799,346 827,323 856,279 886,249 Capital outlay 36.500 37.778 39,100 40,460 41,885 43,351 44,868 46,438 48,064 49,746 Debt service: Existing debt service _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - New debt service Total debt service - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ 59 Transfers out and indirect cost allocations &130 619.176 640.963 663,516 686,864 711,032 736,052 761,951 788,762 816,516 Non-program expenditures Loan to CCDA - - - - - - Transfers out 79.849 I&736 18,736 I&736 18,736 18,736 18,736 1&736 18,736 18,736 coNoi projects Z%C01I 2752000 64D.05D 1.190,350 1,037,500 Total norr-program esperditures 3,023.860 2770.736 658.786 1.209,086 1,056,236 18,736 18,736 18,736 18,736 18,736 Total e>pendtfures 4.859,632 4.658.705 2618.239 3,243,384 3,168,913 22128114 2297,321 2385,086 2474221 2570,858 Ending fund balance 1,320471 6,837 601,969 671,891 913,444 2200.096 3,506,954 4,833,058 6,177.370 7,538.772 Total requirements $ 6.174103 $ 4.665.542 $ 3,220,207 $ 3,915,275 $ 4,082,357 $ 4,412,900 $ 5,804.275 $ 7,218,143 $ 8,653,592 $10.109,630 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 99 1 84 76 105 363 558 740 911 1.071 4*14 FCS GROUP ww•w.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 42 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions FCS GROUP G d-n i.,ns nr iontrJ c,anaxm7; MJWJIb 6/MW6 6/3 M7 M3gf S MWMV WW= 6/38/1421 6/3gr= 6/30/= 6/30/2024 h Interest rote 0.511 0151% 0.54% 11545. 0,54% 0,50 0,54% 0.54% 0.54-. 0.54% Customer accounts: Customer accounts in existing service area 18,162 18,244 18,326 M409 T&492 18,575 18,658 18.742 18,827 18,911 Customer accounts in new service area 0 80 180 30D 420 540 660 780 900 Total customer accounts 1&162 18,244 111406 18,589 1&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 0149% 0.49% 0.45% 0.49% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% Total customer account growth OAS% 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% SAO% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% SAW 5.00% Rates: Total CWS fixed monthly rate per EW ; 25AS j 26,62 j 27.02 ; 2824 ; 29A9 j 29.96 j 30.85 ; 31.77 j 32.73 ; 33.70 Total CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCF ; 1.44 ; 1.48 ; 1M $ 1.56 S 1.40 $ 1,64 ; 1.68 $ 1.72 j 1.76 $ 1.8D City portion of CWS fixed monthly rate per EDU ; 4.25 ; 4,38 j 4.S1 ; 465 ; 4.78 ; 4.93 j SM ; 5.23 ; 5,38 ; 5.54 City portion of CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCF ; 0.28 S 0.29 ; 0.3D ; 0.31 ; 0.32 ; 0.33 ; 0.34 ; 0.35 j 1136 ; 0.37 City surchaW on fixed mordt4y raIe $ 6.50 ; 6.50 ; 5.30 $ 5,50 ; 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 ; 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 City surcharge on volumetric monthly rate ; - $ - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; City portion of CWS system development charge per EDL j 197.87 ; 204.80 ; 211.96 $ 219.38 ; 227.06 $ 235.01 j 243.23 ; 251.75 ; 260.56 j 269.68 Rate revenue: CWS portion ; 9,929435 j 10,250.723 ;10,625,647 j 11.022.085 j 11,441,259 ;11.871,933 ;12,314.426 j 12,769,068 j 13,236.201 j 13,716.180 City franchise fee 676,640 697,194 710.265 735.670 762539 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 j 15.802,349 ;16.368,514 ;16,949.666 ;17,546,215 ;18,15&587 Consumption Average annual consumption per account in CCF 248 248 240 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 Growth in average annual consumption per account O.00% 0.00% 0.OD% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% O.OD% 0.00% `1111lAt1taw��s Mles of sanitary sewer system 166.9 167.7 169.1 170.8 172.7 174.5 176.4 178.3 180.2 182.1 KXtime equivalent(FIE)positions 5.50 5.52 5.57 5.63 5.69 5.75 5.81 5.88 5.94 6.00 Salaries per FIE ; 65,421 ; 67,726 ; 70,113 ; 72,584 j 75.142 j 77,791 j 80,532 ; 83.370 j 86,309 j 89.351 Growth in salaries per FTE 352%' 352%' 352%' 3.52%' 352%' 3.52%' 3.52%' 3.52%' 3.52%' 3.52% Benefits per FIE ; 32.135 S 33,271 3 34.448 ; 35,666 ; 36.927 ; 38,232 ; 39,584 ; 40,983 ; 42,432 j 43,933 Growth in benefits per HE 3.54% 354% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 854% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 354% Annual escalation of materials and services 3.5'0% 3.50% 3.50% 350% 350% 35D% 350% 3.50% 3517% 350% Annual excalation of capital outlay 350% 350% 3.50% 350% 3.50% 3.50% 3.SO% 350% 350% 350% Annual escalation of transfers 3.52% 352% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% ,01'#>FCS GROUP www.resgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 43 •:;>FCS GROUP Snluti!m,-C)ricntrrl C onwllir`g 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 Estimate Projected Projected Projected Pr of ecfed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected COp1101 projech , Projects for Riva Terrace: North Gravity Segment I North Gravity Segment 2 North Gravity Segment 3 - - - - - North Gravity Segment 4 South Gravity Segment I - - - - - - - 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 Segm ant 9A - - - - - - - - - - Total projects for Riva Terrace - - - - - - - - - - Projeds for epsting service area 2,912.500 2,752,000 640,050 I,190.350 1,037,500 - - - - Totalcapitalprojects b 2,912,500 $ 2,752,000 $ 640,050 $ 1,190,350 $ 1,037,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ — D@bt Issuance cost percentage 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.007. 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Interest rate 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 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance costs - - - - - - - - - Debt reserve Total principal $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - ���>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 44 Parks Funds .4 FCS c,ROLrP ".;. 6/ams 6/30/216 4/>W=7 AMMIll 6NWsfi9 killw2 00 6/7W=M 1/30/= 6/30MSWm 6/3W2=3 9~ hoMclW heleded f elealDd ha4Kle0 hejecfed ha!ecNd k4wil d hWeciled 9tejecNd haled �11MiWbYrIR11�11�� 1YIYl�w1� Reso-: Beginning hind bolance ; 2344,697 1 351,574 S - $ - $ - $ - 3 - $ - $ - $ - 3 - Revenue: 47000 Interest earnings 4.020 1.898 48001 Recovered experdtures Total revenue 4,020 1.898 Total resources S 2348L717 S 353472 ; - ; - S - ; - ; - S - $ Requirements: Expenditures(transfers oath ; 1.997.143 $ M472 &.*Q hind balance 351,574 Total requirarr-srs $ 351,574 ; - $ 3 S S S ; S 3 $ dOPIMlYMPrw"N"k-0-142CNP@d Resouces: Beginning hind balonce S 174,509 $ 163,14 ; 316.117 S - $ - $ - S - ; - $ Revenue: 44501 Inferpovemmentol Revenue 41,506 - - - - - - - - - - 47000 INanr sf eonrgs 31015 BBI 1,707 - - - - - - - - 48001 Revoemd Expend8ura Transfers in 4100 Tranaer in from General hind 49200 Transfer in from Gas Tox Fund - - - - - - - - - - - 49260 Transfer in from Tree Replacement fund 250000 - - - - - - - - - 49421 Transfer in from Parks Bond Fund 1.975,343 353.472 - - - - - - - - - 49425 Transfer in from Parks SDC Fund 750606 1,30&945 723,997 74,073 775,017 801,859 829,672 85&366 888,096 91&855 950.679 4500 Transfer in from SonitorySewer Fund 32500 - _ _ - _ _ - _ 4510 Transfer in from Sformwoter Fund 10000 - - - - - - - - - - 49530 Transfer in from Water Fund 24,500 Total transIms in 3.01294 1,662417 723,997 74,073 775,017 801,859 829,637 8511366 SM096 91&8S5 950.679 Total roroa S 3,261.979 S 182&x7 S 1,o11,e21 ; 74,073 S 775,017 ; 801,859 $ 829" S &-&366 3 88&096 f 91&855 $ 950,679 Requirements: bWerdit- Work in program S 3.042.94 $ 1,510330 ; 1,041,821 ; 74.073 $ 775.017 $ 801,859 3 829.632 $ 85&366 S 88&096 S 918,855 S 950679 ea Total fronsfOut "Sol Total esPendt- 3,09&830 1.51(1.330 1,041.821 74.073 775.017 801.859 829,632 85&366 888.096 918.655 950679 Ending fund balance 163.14 316,117 Total requkemenfs ; 3.261,979 S 1,82&447 S 1,041.821 ; 74,073 $ 775,017 ; 8DI,859 ; 829,632 ; 858.366 $ 88&096 ; 91&855 S 950.679 OaK of ependifures in ending fund balance 19 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O +v*:)FC S GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 45 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions f 6,130/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2016 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2071 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/3D/2025 Budge! hojected Projected hojected hoj-i d li-i-ed hol-J d hojected Projected hoj-t d hoje4ed Jim SOC hwd R-rces: Beginning fund baance 3 1,049.01 3 605,912 $ - $ - $ - S - $ $ - $ $ E - Revenue: 43300 Parks SDCs 676.336 699,761 723,997 749,073 775,017 801.859 829.632 858,366 888,096 918.855 950.679 47000 Interest Earrings 19,782 3.272 Total revenue 696,118 703.033 713.997 749,073 775,017 801.859 829.632 858,366 888,096 918,855 950,679 Total resources $ 1,745,129 3 1,308,945 $ 723,997 $ 749,1373 $ 775,017 $ 801,859 S 829,632 $ 858,366 $ 888,096 $ 918,855 $ 950,679 Requkements: Expendirures: Debt service f - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - S - $ W ak in progress 12000 - - - - - - - - - Total transfers out 1.127,217 1,308,945 723,997 749,073 775.017 801,859 829.632 858.366 888.096 9180855 950,679 Total expendtures 1,139,217 1,308,945 723,997 749.073 775.017 801,859 829,632 858,366 888,096 918,855 950,679 Ending tund balance 605,912 Total requirements 3 1.745.129 $ 1,308,945 $ 723,997 $ 749.073 $ 775.017 3 801,859 $ 829.632 s 858.366 S 888.096 $ 918.855 $ 950,679 Drys of expenditures in ending fund balance 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reverwe A-rg4lors Interest rate 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.56% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 054% 0.54% 0.54% Customer accounts: EDUs in existing service area 23,402 23,507 23,613 23,719 23,826 23,933 24,041 24,149 24,258 24,36/ 24,476 EDUs In new service area Total EDUs 23.402 23.507 23.613 23.719 23.826 23,933 24,041 24.149 24,258 24.367 24.476 New EDUs 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 Igo 109 109 110 Customer account growth in masting service area 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% (145% 0.49% 0.45% 045% 0.45% Total cuslomer account growth 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% Parks System Development Charge SDC per LDU 3 6.451 3 6,645 S 6.844 $ 7.050 $ 7,261 $ 7.479 $ 7.103 $ 7,934 $ 8.172 $ 8.418 $ 8.670 Annual increase in SDC per EDU 7.58% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 300% 3.00% ca"/941mM b4stmg capitol improvement plan $ 1.510,330 $ 3,967,000 3 2544.628 $ 810,001) $ 801.859 $ 829.632 $ 858,366 $ 888.096 S 918.855 $ 950,679 Parks projects in Riva Terrace 12.925.1791 f 1.795.5551 134.9831 *i*>FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 46 Stormwater Funds FCS r;ROi 11' y, 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 613012017 6/30/2010 6/30/2(119 6/30/2020 6/30/2011 6/3077022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 Budgef Projected Projected Nojecled Projected Projected Pr J—ted Projected projected Projected Projected NamwafFund R- -Beginning fund balance 3 3,078,706 $ 3,875.260 $ 3.616.014 $ 3,961139 3 4,551,452 3 5,389,013 $ 6,366,481 $ 7.4853[1 f &74200 310,152,971 311,704,474 Revenue: Local SDC& 1.032,755 1,514,382 1,622,089 1,736.746 1,738,936 1,741.134 1,743.339 1.745.552 1.747.772 1,750,000 45100 Ulilitysales 2,170,387 2,341,647 2,520,331 2702,866 249.548 3.078.901 3270,946 1465.682 1663,125 3,863,284 4,066.169 45103 Tigard SWM Surcnorge 863.904 810.151 816,320 871.385 821946 835.524 80.118 66729 855,357 862002 868,661 45199 Bad debt - - - - - - - - - - - 47000 Intwest earnings 7,936 20.926 19.577 21.406 24.578 29,101 34,379 40.421 47,231 54,826 63,204 47100 Gain or lass on invmfinenfs - - - - - - - - - - - 48001 Recovered expe ndltures 3.069 Total revenue 3.045.296 4206.079 4.870.560 5.168746 5,479,818 5,682,465 5.888.576 &096171 6,311.266 6.527,881 6,7411037 Total resources $ 6.124,001 $ 8.061,339 $ 8.406.604 $ 9,132,885 $10.031,269 $11,071,477 312,255,057 313561515 $1505&310 31&68&855 $16152511 Requirements: Expendltures: Personnel service& Wo- 3 393.762 $ 403,211 3 42108 3 435.469 $ 450.331 $ 466,701 3 481,594 $ 48&0&1 3 $I&= $ 532605 $ 550,782 Benefits 202.865 24,166 205,476 206,793 20&120 209,154 210,798 212140 213,510 21488D 216,258 Total pasomet services 596.627 611,367 626,573 642.263 658451 675,155 6923P2 7NX182 720" 747,485 767,040 Materials oral services: suppler 33,245 34,409 35.613 36.859 38,149 3P.485 ID.867 0,297 43,777 45,310 46,895 Se lce 488.165 505.251 522,935 541,237 560.181 579,787 60D,079 621,082 642820 665,319 688605 Total materials and services 521,410 539.659 558.547 578.097 596330 619,271 60,946 663379 686.597 710628 735500 Capital outlay 9.100 9,419 9,748 10,089 10,442 laaw 11,166 11,578 11,983 12402 12836 Transfers out ono incirecl cost allocations 431,775 443,977 45&514 469,425 482691 496.332 510.359 524.782 539,612 554862 570,542 Nealt by Streams program Non-program eWenalturm Translers out 350,956 360,874 371,072 381,559 391,341 403,430 414.831 426,564 436603 451,004 4&1749 Capital projects 336873 2.500.0Do 25DD.000 25D0.0D0 2.500.000 2,5DD.DOD 2590,090 2.Sga6DD 2.50000D 2509,000 250D,00D Total—n-progrom rs".dl— 689,829 2860,874 2871,071 2881,599 2,892,30 2,903,430 2914,831 292&564 2936608 2951,004 2963,749 Total ependitures 2.248.741 4,465.2% 4,522,465 4,561,433 4.642,257 4,871,997 4769,714 4,836,473 4,906,339 4,974381 5.049,666 Ending f nd balance 3.875,260 3,616.0" 1964,139 4,561,452 5,389,013 6,366,481 7,4855,30 &74200 IQISZ971 11,704474 1140280 Total requlranenls $ 6.124,ODi $ &081,169 $ 6486.604 $ 9,132885 $10.031,269 $11,071.477 $12256.057 $13583 15 $1505&310 $1&680.856 31&152.511 Days of expendturm:n ending fund bolonce 629 296 320 363 424 494 573 661 756 859 969 Walt Quollty/Quanfity Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1,202.483 $ 788.098 $ 802,110 $ 821,400 3 80.128 $ WWI $ 886.633 $ 903.140 $ 931.WP $ 954,646 $ 977,651 Revenue: 43122 FR waer Quantity 9.20 9,282 14.23D 11498 16,767 16,610 16852 16.895 16.9311 16.981 17.024 43123 FIL Water(Tlality 473 475 728 793 856 Iwo 863 865 867 869 871 47000 Interest earnings 15102 4,256 4,331 11.436 4.547 4,667 4,740 1903 5032 5.155 %279 Total revalue 24,815 14,012 19,290 2172! 22,173 22.337 22503 21,669 22AN 23005 23.175 Total resources $ 1.227.298 $ 802.110 $ 821.400 $ 80,128 $ 864.301 $ 886.638 $ 909.140 3 931.8(19 3 954.646 $ 977.651 $ 1,000,826 Requirements: Expenditures $ 439,200 $ - $ - 3 3 3 $ - $ $ - $ - $ Ending fund balance 788098 SEIM 10 811,400 842,128 864,301 886,636 909140 931.809 954,646 977,651 1,000,826 Total reWhremenls $ 788.098 $ 801.110 $ 821.400 $ 842.128 $ 864.301 $ 886.638 $ 903.140 $ 931.809 $ 954,646 $ 971,651 $ 1.000.826 Days of eViiincltures in mcing fund balance 655 0, FCS GROUP A w.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 47 Stormwater Fund Assumptions rCs(-,ROLTI, 6/f0 Is 6MM6 6NW2W7 40WJ M 0A n" 61/47 *WAn Q71fn@ srJW m 6rJ AN 6r76(mi Ndy.l haj.dad h4 ecbd hhaj.elld h.j.d.d Er*dod FraJ.cYd h9).e3W n41.ded h9pO.d � { M4.W Ria 7.168 0.56! 0.54% 0.54% 0.5196 054% 0.515 051{ 05494 056{ 0.318 F46..d1.•l/Ceu7N9 Mb E.u1N30.wl 33.630 33.]3- 34100 34C6f 3723E 31.393 3¢.518 31.21 34a40 30,017 35.174 E11.E18 WTD 0 10 160 3W 12 510 660 7010 900 1.070 Tpld pi. 33,X M.761 3¢.63 Y2" 3153. 3213 35.Da6 35.364 36610 36.17 36:94 151 237 2511 773 774 775 775 716 777 776 0.0-t -1.pf/7iL1aD 045% 0.4916 0.49% 045% 0.4% 0.43% 045% 0.45% 0.456 0.45% 0.19% Told cwo r QmaN yerlh 0455 0.49% O.7i% 074% 0.85 ^z n% 079% 079% 07M 0.76% 077% RCFN*" 5.00% 5.00% 540% &OD% 5.00% 5.00% 50096 5.00% 300% 5.00% 5.00% ab- TOW cmft a'IIo1.N110 Kft 3l/FOU f 675 S 7.25'1 7.75 $ 8.25 $ 675 3 9.25 S 975 $ 1075 $ 10.75 $ 11,75 3 11.75 O.WTOa.wRMayrda Md mw.9MRM s 2W s 2.6 $ 2m s zW s 2.c s 2.00 s 200 1 200 s 2m s 2.00 E.etrq lOwlu'rnEa wr.%Je oi8 le<irly+Ofe 3 200 1 200 3 700' 3 2.90 S 2.00 1 200 3 700 1 200 $ ]:W 3 2W $ 200 [ed�SA• FW/4F.agWv�am1 I��SI pou1'cm¢ 6.30 650 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 650 ko.d r0l.M 3 60.57. $ 67.616 f 6471:1 1 66.9% 1 6.280' S 7'..646 1 74.091 3 7662 $ 79235 $ 81939 3 81.736 (-3oil%Iry Yyp6tl per FT 1666%¢ 141% 3.41%' 341% 3.41%' 3.41% 341%' 3.11%' 3.41%' 341% 3.11% Oa..W-M '1 31513 3 31.410 S 31612 4 3'.81.4 3 3 Va 3 37.274 3 32.4M 3 32638 1 &.8B S 30056 1 33.770 G10•s•/l¢Its e.-M,per 712 7.W% 0.64% 0.606 0.64% 0.664 0.64% 0164% 0.61% 0.61% 0.64% 064% 4rIRpl-.*A-& )074% 3.50% 150% 150% 3.50% 3.508 350% 3.50% 3.w% 150% 350% %rnA oedbOei o7 c tl ou'bq. 7606% 1.50% 150% 15096 am% 3.50% 150% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 150% Malt/wuYtYloF.of I.om¢R.S 2M 1.63% 7.63% 2.60% 2.60% 283% 2.64% 289% 2.83% 2.83% COW poweA RC1.0 e4pa7dlo.a6 >q.o.aa..r mcRw+%e.c6ed s 1.0,s0 $ 9MM $!MCc 3 1000000 s 1MD.= 1 .OW.CID s 10WOM $ -OW-= s I=OW 3 1000.000 iapda d4.d6e4a1b4E.s ywlA�6iaO 750DW 1X1.00 IS,= 730000 750000 7maw 750000 7x30 750000 750000 Pfti19h3>.dWg-*s--*VOU r6/w1 758000 ROOM 756600 7WCW 750.0W 7XOW 750.00 75c= 13000D 756000 T01d O.OjN.f-0--ska. 1 23m766 S 25MMD 12-MOM 1 73WOW 3 25WWD 1 2500.000 1 25WOW f 2500.OW 1 2500000 1 250D,000 SDCs-0 00.E 9645 Hip. 1 1.W-ow S 10WOW 11AML6W 1 1110000 $ IOWOW S 1.00.000 3 I.ttA® 1 6.00= 1 1=II $ I.�OW 3r'JI a99 7'610 MAW M= 730000 730.00 150000 730.000 MOW 7500W 75D.000 ,6d 9]CS elms 3 .7WM 3 1271100 f T-MAM 1 1583000 3 1.730,0(0 S •.7WDD0 s 1.730.000 1 1M00W 1 1750700 1 I75D,Om Cfw1n'n ESli it a T- 0 60 IM TM 12 I A 120 120 120 120 9mr d43q Is.. ,1. 153 153 154 156 155 156 1 156 - po u¢.1E 651 777 253 7A W. n5 715 776 m 711 Cdn6d.e 100 7...A.016:a-I- 1 9AM92 i 1724 s 6511 s 1333 $ 6333 s 1333 s 6.333 s baa 1 6333 $ 6 .O. ,333 6. p.1166 inR &0, 3 46901 i <W 1 46E 3 47014 3 4.613 S 4.a07 3 4 1.M 4.761 S 4770 S 4760 L.O.- 1 6.974 3 6.'2'7 1 64!9 3 bJ63 1 631'. 3 6.337 f 6129 S 6321 $ 6.313 $ 6.305 IIICI....nla' 7.nM11..ft SM:'.av<w.•e 13.4 T4w.C!' 3 - 3 705862 1 861,067 11506.00 S I00011[0 1 %ODD= 3 1WDOW 1 I.W.= $ 10.DOW 1 9000.000 er0s. 764.4.16 73K60 7112f7 T39936 741600 743781 74.956 7466E 716316 72.00 764 aao AGlf 6c 30C 3 734.9E $ 1.47143 S .5W331 S ISDE.%36 S 1,741AW S 1)43281 3 1.74.956 f 1,7466E S 1.74&316 S 1,750.000 u41R.SOCI'ereri..e s '7.OQ S t3143w 3-.672.79 3 1,736.746 1 tJA1906 S 1,741.131 f 1.74.33E1 1745-:32 3 1.700 1 1 MM 6ae6rc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loo 060 IO 240 310 440 W 610 740 840 • .ft.fi 0 00 181 300 42'- 540 66C 781 9001 /d(S. 0 '00 2X1 30 SOC 640 700 920 1.060 1.200 IEr6d L.00 WC $ s $ s 1 s s $ s s � •� 3 349.! s 14!143 s sWMI s 1.39936 1 174,607 s 1 74 200 s 114956 $ 746.736 1 1.749316 $ 1.750.000 Ln+e.m s •a�.756 1 1614362 s .627.[89 s 1.736>4 $ 1.73/.937 s '.741134 3 1743309 S 1.745,562 3 1.74.777 S 1,7WOW *::'FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.cum City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 48 Transportation Funds •::>FCS c.Pzol'r 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2118 6/30/20t1 6/30/2020 6130/2MI 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 Budg.1 hoj—lrrd ft.]—f d 9tojr ,,d N j-1 d M1of.ctrd ISoj—td MoJMW Aoj-td Nofrcl�d holocled My"LII IMA r Resources: Beginning turd balance f 1,014,922 f 772,190 3 1,235.733 f 705,957 $ (323,927)$ 145.481 f 620.852 f 1,395.844 f 2175,068 f 2,958.547 $ 3,746,304 Revenue 44200 Gas tax 739,620 739,667 739.715 739,762 739,809 739,857 739,906 739,951 739,999 740,046 740,094 44801 State grants 314 - - - - - - - - - 47000 Inten,st earrings 34,564 4,170 &673 3,812 11,7491 786 3,353 7,538 11,745 15,976 20,230 48001 Rx erect expenditues 31,735 31,735 31.735 31.735 31,735 31,738 31,735 31,735 31,735 31,1,15 31,735 Total revenue 806,253 775,572 778,123 775,309 769,795 772377 774,992 779.214 783479 787,757 792059 Total—a— $ 1,821,175 3 1,547,762 3 2013.1156 f 1,481,266 f 445868 $ 917,858 3 1.395.6" f 2175,068 $ 295111567 $ 3746,3136 $ 4,538.363 Requfrem Nn Eqditues: Program expend tarts f f f f E f f S f f 3 Non-program expenditures Debt service 315.860 312029 307.899 305.193 300.387 297,006 Work in Progress - 1,000.000 1,500.000 _ Transfers out to Transportation CIP Fund 733,125 - - - - - - - - Other trarefen out Total ren-program expenditues 1,048,905 312029 1307,899 1.80&193 300.367 297.006 Total expenditures 1,048,985 312029 1,307,899 1.805,193 300,387 297.006 - - - - - Endingtundbalance 772,190 1,235.733 705.957 (323927) 1454481 620,852 1,395.844 2175.068 2.958,547 3,746,304 4,53&363 Total requirements S 1,821,175 S 1,547,762 3 2013.856 f 1,181,266 3 445,868 $ 917,858 $ 1,395.844 $ 2175,068 S 2,958,547 $ 3,746,304 $ 4,53&363 G=T"Fend R— -- Beginning fund balance 3 460,463 f 287.648 3 733.087 3 684.117 3 425,706 3 229.049 $ 659.321 3 1,639.156 3 2606,227 f 3.5511979 $ 4,495,776 Revenue: 43119 Street ighlr g lees 225 156 106 75 52 36 25 17 12 8 6 43125 Fee,Jieu bicycle striping - _ _ _ _ _ _ 44200 Gas too 2809.993 2873.368 2938.172 3,006,437 3.072197 3141,486 1212337 3,264,785 3,356,868 3,434,622 3,512084 44201 Other go,tax 180.450 178,864 177,291 175,733 171,188 172656 171.139 169.634 16&143 166,665 165.199 44501 Integovenmental - 45319 tees and ci ages - - - - - - - 47000 Interest eom, 55.732 1,553 3959 3.694 2,299 1,237 3560 &851 14,074 19,216 24,277 4&701 Recovered expenditures 61,345 62,370 63,413 64.473 65,550 66,646 67.760 6803 70,0" 71,215 724DS 49001 Debt proceeds - _ _ _ 49412 Transfer r in from Street Mintenance fund 100.000 100.000 io"DD 100.000 100000 101000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 10&000 Total revenue 3207,745 3.216.311 3,282,942 3.34&412 3.414,286 3,482,061 3556,621 3632161 3711,141 37914728 3.873,971 Total resouces S 366&208 S 3.503,956 3 4,016.029 3 4,032529 f 3.839.992 f 3.711,110 f t2KI41 f &271,337 3 6,317,368 S 7,350,707 3 &369,747 Requirements: Brio—ditures: Program expenditue: f 2094.752 $ 2168.068 f 2243,951 f 2.371,48 S 2,403,776 f 2.487,908 i 2574,985 f 2665,109 3 2758,388 3 2854,932 $ 2.954.654 Nompogram expenditure: Debt service,existing 599,676 592.403 5114561 579.424 570.300 563661 Debt Work in Progress - 10.400 503400 704.910 63&866 - - - - - Transfers out to transportation CIP Fund 613,388 - - - - - - - - - - Oil-traref—out 72745 Total non swogrom expenditures 1.285,809 602,803 1.087.961 1.284.336 1.207.166 563.881 Total expendity 3,3813,561 2,770,872 3331,912 3.606,823 3610,942 3,051,709 2574.985 2665,109 2758,388 2&54,932 2,954,854 Ending fund balance 287,648 733,087 684,117 425,706 219,049 659.321 1.639.156 260&217 3556.979 4,495,776 5,414,893 Total requkensents f 3.668,208 $ 3.503,958 3 4,016,029 S 1032.519 $ 3,839,992 f 3.711,110 S 4.214,141 f 5271.337 3 6.317,368 $ 7,350,707 3 &369,747 Days o1 expesditeas in ending land bal n 31 97 75 43 23 79 233 357 471 575 669 *:#)ls CS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 49 >FCS (:R0IT 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2013 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/21112 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected SkMf Mai rllwlance fN hold Resources: Beginning fund balance $ 1.298.606 $ 1,193.753 $ 1,164.894 $ 1.153,092 $ 1,163,962 $ 1,208.479 $ 1,287,952 5 1,404,622 $ 1.560,758 $ 1.758.643 $ 2000.557 Revenue: 43130 Mscellaneous fees and charges 2004.673 2152878 2270.738 2396,655 2.531,215 2673,230 2823.108 2981,281 3,148.202 3,324,351 3,510,232 45199 Bad debt (5.050) (9,204) (11,5191 113,9921 (16.635) (19.425) (22368) (25,4751 (28,754) (32,213) (35,8641 45319 Miscellaneous fees and charges - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - 47000 Interest earnings 2,043 6,446 6.290 6,717 6.285 6.526 6,955 7,585 8.428 9.497 10.803 48001 Recovered expenditures 1,286 Total revenue 2,002.952 2150.120 2265.510 2.388,890 2.520.866 2,660.331 2807.695 2963.391 3.127.876 3.301.634 3,485.171 Total resources $ 3.301.558 $ 3.343.873 $ 3,430.403 $ 3.541.982 $ 3.684,828 $ 3,868,811 $ 4,095.647 $ 4,3611013 $ 4.68&635 $ 5.060,277 $ 5.485,727 Requirements: Fipendifures: Program expenditures $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - Non-program emperWlfves Debt service Work in progress 1.900.000 1,950,000 2025.000 2100.000 2170.000 2243.294 2319,064 2397,394 2478,368 2562,078 2648,616 Total tronsfers out 207.805 228,979 252311 278,020 306,349 337,564 371,960 409,861 451,624 497,642 548,349 Total non-program expenditures 2107.805 217&979 2277.311 237&@0 2476349 250D-859 2,691.@5 2800.254 2928992 3059.720 3.196.964 Total expenditures 2107,805 217&979 2277,311 237&020 2,476,349 2580.859 2691,025 2807,254 2929.972 3,059.720 3,196,964 Ending fund balance 1,193,753 1,164,894 1,153,092 1,163,962 1.208.479 1,287.952 1,404,622 1.560,758 1.758,643 2000.557 22811763 Total requirements $ 3,301,558 $ 3,343.873 $ 3.43D.403 $ 3.541,982 $ 3.684.828 $ 3,86&811 $ 4,095,647 $ 4.368,013 $ 4.688.635 $ 5.060.277 $ 5.485.727 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 207 195 185 179 178 182 191 203 219 239 261 Transportation DevelapIMr11 Tax fund Resources: Beginning fund balance. $ I,234,8% E 1.010.045 $ 1,275.684 $ 948,709 $ 1,499.532 $ 3.177.310 $ 4,867,341 $ 6.569,706 $ 8,2B4,486 $10.011.763 $11,751,619 Revenue: 43320 IDT 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 11.279 5.454 6.889 5.123 8.097 17.157 26.284 35.476 44,736 54.064 63,459 Total revenue 568,279 705.639 1,350.724 1,511,624 1.677.777 1,690.031 1,702365 1.714.78D 1,727.277 1,739,856 1,752517 Total resources E 1,803,169 b 1,715.684 $ 7,6?5,909 $ 2.460,33? $ 3,177,310 $ 4,867,341 $ 6,569,706 $ &284,486 $10.011,763 $11.751.619 $13,504.136 Requirements: Expenditures: Program expenditures $ $ E $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ Non-program expenditures Debt service Work in progress 12.000 440.000 1.677.200 960.800 - - - - - - - Transfers out to Transportation CIP Fund 780.927 - - - - - - - - - Other transfers out 197 Total nonIrogrom expenditures 793.124 440,000 1,677,20D 960.800 Total empenditures 793,124 440.000 1.677.200 960.800 - - - - - -Ending fund balance 1,010,045 1,275,684 9413,709 1,499,532 3.177,310 4,867.341 6,569,706 &284,486 10,011,763 11,751,619 13,504,136 Total requirements $ 1,803.169 $ 1,715.684 $ 2625,909 $ 2,460,332 $ 3,177,310 $ 4.867.341 $ 6,569,706 $ 8,284.486 $10,011,763 $11,751.619 $13,504,136 % FCS GROUP www.fesgroup.com City of Tigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 50 Transportation Fund Assumptions a.'.*FC 4;c,aot lr un/nts usws9l• •roroty usuEts •rJasetr •rormE /nro:t uJa2m2 •rEn® u]a2W6 aroro2s r9aaw nq+cba hgcbtl hq+cl+a nq+cr+e hg9ti.e nq.dw hg9cM ngarwa nq«r+a nq+cwa s2..r.f.aw1 vsw� as �mt�.w hauv: s 12.53,., f x.xx s 9n7a1 f 1]12.rA f 11619,3,&s13,419.-1113,619.»111119,T sa419-1 f11n9.T]BI 51].611,," arw lcw�e,.oma aiam - - . - 69A - r - w.io r,�M ro.n I.are9 Mcacr rw Evtl aDaf9 - alatl nu o.ln rw�uneraw�e unnvrva IL3w xsm uawe in roan sewtoY sows 12.13, 1;70D - 6vsao 1,o,nw ti rm�wds r� +1,2w Idd 3,..®..e ;olaao lolv,vovm f;®.011 3 8262 f 1]•+J3"i PW.>A f 1;119,T%313,419,/EI f 1;419.T]4 f I31n.Ta1 i 14619,te1 f 136619,7dsl i 1;419.11L9 r E.plxltf� hna,��w«Inn9� 1 - 1 •f f f f f •f -f f f - on poyam ega�tlXuo - l9�+Dr�as 1®,la• tlY1.W ;mim0 mod MdIJ ulwn goami�ttAn9et aC52.)+9 al emMlve 1052/69 QE® - 3,OSaaU —_ _ __ - n I D 1]i.T]sl 1]n.9De1 11aa.»q 11.19. nv. ;uv. 11aro.re1 ¢dn. ;nr. .f�w9",emw�h f 1oro.oil s m2a2 s un.r.4 s 11.9.v]i$116w.r.4 f I;an,T]y s 13,ny.9E1 f I;aty)]q s wa19,9E1 s 1;alo,rq 313,n9.T]q Din�1.�,an„®mma,q n,.�a make a 1]� rolva Ina roha soma savla sow,v fowls sdvv ronal s.f.w.sw�a� ,,,. o.saa 12565 ¢s6x Ds6x 3,53,5 as6x o.sa ossa 1253,[ ou CfDN ir�vi,liep.vvim vm 19,.50 19.SJ! 19.12511.11319AW 19.93,1 Mn E.11r ET32 Ew vtdd(➢NNeWOna avla mm ffiSV E651 ffi1ffi E92) E915 A.mi A.W6 A.12a ]9.2)6 n.J65 12.191 ED vm 0 W. - JW Cm So 110 >m Rtl I.aE N 1dd Dws� ffiw ffib1 ffielt 29,W9 29.215 2+.3,5 A,6)a xv.Ba6 ]3,¢v A2u R6/1 r3, rr lE TIO 210 210 211 211 w ab..m x,ra,n,v w9xs 3,.o 3,w 3,195 o.]t oas awt sus olx oa+t ¢ass am u,n aovm malnl,y w,¢+awe o.00n naos o.ms aooc o.D¢x 3,3,12E 123,3,E ams ams oa¢a amt wnroAwm a29t gals as9t a1x ant anR Olta 12125 n9oli nl¢t nfox rwmiwlwv,p�n1.,..�r.. f ars s141 s 2 s s s n s T.Ts s ] t ass s ea f myle+v3,.mlf.n�wnrhman rum f 1 S f a s s f ]9 1 ✓•rs f ala s e.]2 f 3,N f v.3,/ L 9.3,+ �mvmwrfaw aarflla 1 / 121 s es9 s e9 T 1.22 1 9.12 s 9.0 s sae 3 an s v.Is s 9.dD bYvemw 13,61 6An aali a]Hf 6.Y]i LIVE 11R la/R at6 aA4t anti Emm1I3,.11D11 1i�T1a[DU� f 6,469 f 4ab f 4am f amD f 4® f 0.® 7 a® 1 4am f 0.® S a0W f 0.0m Amb dame M 1DI pv fDu ¢mt E.mt 0.oat D.00t naR aDm noR nmi nma Dasa amt fit/3,f*r Copoc]y W PgrcE 9dtllnB OYaOC' cMf+v l�funp s s s I.00am0 3 t,�,mp 3 - 3 3 3 - i 1 / GV I,n lvW - 10.m ffim 103,910 1]EW - - - - - 1eahntl 1,faiaL 1,9.b,0pp 2mSOm 21mOm 211q® 2T6;A6 2]1v,¢v 2]+93,96 26)0.]0 T?62mt 216111 �rm�nnar�nn Dwelopm9nrim luw tz® 63,,® 1.6n.2m 96nrm - - - - ramponaf'ionCPWM 1m41Y 6mOW ;maaw ldV wlwlr l�wan.+,wra:owlud i 3,+20.13,5 s x®D.1m s;mem f an;llo zeol.w f z21;2n 3 z]nw i zslaw f z69n]r 3 2s0.Wt f x3,3,611 W _ cedope zms zaix 20ai 2aR 2a0t 2.001[ 2mt 2mt 200[ o mlc lWf a.00t 40Di •(Ot 100[ lDai l0a amt •mt 100[ Mcgd_ n9� s s s i s 1 1 s s s to,�nca mn, - mm ***i:�FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City dTigard River Terrace Funding Strategy December,2014 page 51 This page i intentionally»a blank \�� �� 9 \\ ` x <�\ � 4404-- FCS GROUP www.fcsgroup.com