City Council Packet - 02/17/2015 • City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 17,2015 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for
Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171,ext. 2410
(voice) or 503-684-2772 (11)D -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead
time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by
calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (1'DD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE:
http://live.ti2ard-or.gov
Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows:
Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings-Channel 28
•Every Sunday at 12 a.m.
'Every Monday at 1 p.m.
•Every Thursday at 12 p.m.
•Every Friday at 10:30 a.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
Ili ■ • City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 17,2015-6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
6:30 PM
•EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order,the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute.All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS
192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the
purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the
public.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
A. Call to Order- City Council
B. Roll Call
C. Pledge of Allegiance
D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. RECEIVE AN ANNUAL REPORT FROM MUNICIPAL COURT-6:35 p.m. estimated time
3. RECEIVE AN ANNUAL REPORT FROM TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE -6:55
p.m. estimated time
4. DISCUSSION ON PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES -7:10 p.m. estimated time
5. DISCUSSION ON THE PACIFIC HIGHWAY/GAARDE/MCDONALD WATERLINE
CONTRACT-8:10 p.m.estimated time
6. BRIEFING ON AN AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE GOVERNANCE OF THE
WILLAME1"1'E RIVER WATER SUPPLY-8:20 p.m. estimated time
7. BRIEFING ON AN AGREEMENT WITH CLEAN WATER SERVICES REGARDING
THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE SOUTHERN END OF 85TH AVENUE- 8:30 p.m.
estimated time
8. BRIEFING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS - 8:40 p.m. estimated time
9. DISCUSSION ON THE CITY MANAGER'S 2015 EVALUATION FORM AND CRITERIA
-8:55 p.m. estimated time
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS- 9:25 p.m. estimated time
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order,the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute.All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS
192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for
the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to
the public.
12. ADJOURNMENT- 9:30 p.m. estimated time
AI S-2005 2.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes
Agenda Title: Tigard Municipal Court Annual Report to City Council
Prepared For: Nadine Robinson, Administrative Services
Submitted By: Nadine Robinson, Administrative Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Judge O'Brien and Nadine Robinson, Administrative Services Manager, will provide an update
on the status of the municipal court's programs and caseload. Direction will be requested on
expanding the court's diversion programs or leaving them as they currently exist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
N/A
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
As in years past, the court's 2014 caseload was predominantly minor traffic offenses arising
under the Oregon Revised Statutes. For many citizens resolving a citation is the only contact
they will have with the judicial system. We recognize that the experience they have in the city's
court can leave a lasting impression. To encourage a positive experience the court is
committed to:
• Resolving cases in a manner that is fair and impartial.
• Treating those whom we interact with respectfully as we provide services that are efficient,
timely and accurate.
• Listening carefully so members of the public will feel that their unique situations have been
addressed.
• Providing education about Oregon law and traffic safety concerns within Tigard with the
goal of helping to make our community safer.
In 2014, 6,675 violations were filed in municipal court. Of those, convictions were entered in
84% of the cases. During this time period, the court imposed $1,209,617 in fines and
assessments. The court collected over $1,000,000 in fines and assessments that were imposed
over multiple years. Of the money collected, $373,696 in statutory assessments were remitted
to state and local agencies.
This year's annual report contains information on Tigard Municipal Court's current traffic
safety diversion. Traffic safety diversion usually consists of attending a traffic safety program
and paying a fee to the program and the court. If the elements are completed, the citation is
dismissed. Since the court's policy towards diversions is one component of the city's
interactions with citizens, the court is seeking the assistance of City Council in evaluating its
programs and their contribution to enhancing public safety in Tigard. Depending on the city's
broad goals,Tigard's diversion programs can be expanded or left in their present form.
The court continues to give high priority to providing information in person, in print and
online about Oregon law, court operations and public safety. Approximately 90 of the judge's
monthly "Rules of the Road" columns have appeared in Cityscape since 2007. Over the last
year, the court participated in the City's upgrade of its website by providing content that gives
the public access to more information about court rules and procedures.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS
The court supports the strategic plan by providing information to the public, through
brochures, Cityscape articles and the website, that promote safety.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The 2013 annual report was presented February 18, 2104.
Attachments
Annual Court Report
Annual Court Report PPT
UI
•
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM Michael J. O'Brien,Presiding Judge
Nadine Robinson, Court Manager
RE: 16th Annual Report from Tigard Municipal Court
DATE: February 17, 2015
We are pleased to present our 16th annual review of Tigard Municipal Court (TMG)
operations and policies to Council and the City Manager.In addition to our annual review of
caseload and other court activities,this year's report will focus on our continuing evaluation of
court-supervised diversion programs and their possible expansion.
1. 2014 Caseload(Table 1): Last year the court adjudicated 6,675 violations,about 16%
less than the average of the previous four years.
Table 1- Annual Court Caseloads CY
2010-14
2014 6,675
2013 7,180
2012 9,105
2011 8,349
2010 7,028
Monthly fluctuations in court filings,from a high of 707 in July to a low of 426 in
February,can have substantial impacts on case processing and scheduling by court staff.
However,relatively slow months allow staff to catch up with trial dockets and case processing.
As in past years,the vast majority of the court's caseload consists of minor traffic
violations under Chapter 811 of the Oregon Revised Statutes and Tigard ordinances.
However,2014 saw a significant shift in the three most common categories of violations
compared to previous years:
i
Table 2 —Three most common violations (2013-14)
Violation 2013 (%) 2014(%)
Speeding 3,048 (43) 2,369 (36)
Cellphone 545 (8) 1,044 (16)
Traffic control devices 860 (12) 712 (11)
While the number of speeding citations declined markedly in 2014,and the number of
citations for traffic control devices remained roughly the same;cellphone violations nearly
doubled. Other common violations included: Following too closely,Careless driving,
Obstructing cross traffic,Safety belts,Turn and Passing lane violations, Expired registration,
Insurance violations and Driver's License offenses.
The large increase in cellphone violations appears to reflect evolving enforcement
priorities and a growing focus on the impacts of distracted driving in Tigard and elsewhere,
though statewide caseload data for 2014 is not currently available.
3. Disposition of cases by percentage in 2014:
Guilty by judge: 33%
Guilty by clerk 35
Guilty by default: 14
Acquitted or dismissed: 5
Bond forfeiture: 2
Deferred/diversion: 9
Other. 2
4. Distracted Driver Diversion Program (DDDP):As stated in last year's annual report, a
major court goal for CY 2014 was to work with the Tigard Police Department in establishing
and administering the DDDP to provide safety education for defendants who plead no contest
or are convicted of cellphone violations and other offenses arising from inattentive driving.
The DDD program has been in operation for approximately six months and appears
to be making a positive contribution to safety education.With a doubling in the number of
cellphone violations during CY 2014,court referrals to the new program began and continued
at a brisk pace through the last months of the year.
The court requirements for successful completion of the DDD program are strictly
enforced. They include:
• A personal appearance at either arraignment or at the court counter to verify
eligibility;the program is not offered by mail.
• No convictions for any moving violations for the previous two years.
2
• Payment of a court diversion fee of$120 (an amount equal to the minimum fine
under court rules) within 90 days.
• Proof of attendance at one of the monthly classes,taught by Tigard police officers,
within 90 days.
• Payment of the police department's $25 class fee within 90 days.
Upon completion of all requirements,the citation is dismissed and the record of a
conviction is not forwarded to DMV.The two-year"lookback" rule was requested by TPD;it
reflects a substantial reduction below our usual five-year lookback for diversion eligibility.
As of December 2014,223 drivers had attended Tigard's DDDP. Of those, 83% were
referred by the court. The attendance rate (95%) was impressively high. Based on our
attendance at a recent class,the presentation by two Traffic Safety officers was quite effective
and the large audience was attentive.
5. Existing diversion programs: In last year's report,we addressed the policy basis for
diversion programs that have been offered to a small percentage (7% in 2014) of defendants
who meet strict requirements similar to those described above.[Background information on
policy issues from last year's report is provided in the attachment.]Before the creation of the
DDDP last summer,diversion programs were aimed at those who could most clearly benefit
from traffic safety education:teens,seniors,and safety-belt offenders. Classes for teens may
reduce some of the effects of inexperience,while classes for seniors can enhance awareness of
the effects of aging.
Unfortunately,we could find no recent large-scale studies that assess the long-term
effectiveness of traffic safety programs in reducing recidivism and the overall number of
collisions.
6. Diversion expansion option:Based on the success of the DDDP's expansion of
eligibility standards and the policy considerations set forth in the attachment,the court
recommends that Council consider a resolution formally adopting an expanded diversion
program effective July 1,2015.The program could have the following features:
• Any licensed driver with no moving violations or participation in a court diversion
program for the previous five years would be eligible to participate. The criterion
for the existing DDDP would remain unchanged at two years.Please note that
holders of a commercial drivers'license are ineligible for diversion under state and
federal law.
• Defendants would be required to appear at the scheduled arraignment and enter a
"no contest" plea but the court would not enter a conviction or judgment unless
the defendant failed to complete all diversion requirements within 90 days.
• Court diversion fee:Equal to 75% of the Presumptive Fine (the amount on the
front of a citation) established by statute.
• Class: The court will refer defendants to a suitable program in its sole discretion,
and the fee for that program must be timely paid to the provider.
• If a defendant fails to satisfy all requirements,the court will enter a"guilty" finding
3
and enter a judgment equal to the 75% of the Presumptive Fine.Any court
diversion fee paid by the defendant will be converted into a judgment when a
"guilty" finding is entered and the $61 statutory assessment'will be forwarded to
the Oregon Department of Revenue (ODR) as it is under existing practices.
S. Fiscal impact of expanded diversion programs: Based on a recent sampling,we assume that
about 35-40% of our current traffic caseload will be eligible for an offer of diversion. Since
fines are based on the four classes of violations (A D) under Oregon law,the fiscal impacts
will depend on the proportions of those classes in our caseload.
The administration of an expanded diversion program will require additional staff time
to monitor compliance,though it could also reduce some costs (such as preparation of
conviction abstracts for submission to DMV).The COT may recoup these costs by retaining
the $61 assessment as a court diversion fee. The full state assessment would be imposed and
forwarded to the ODR if the diversion fee is converted to a judgment for noncomplying
defendants.
By retaining the statutory assessment as part of the court diversion fee,the COT will
realize additional revenue beyond the process currently in place.If 2,300 defendants complete
diversion,for example,the court fee may generate about$140,000 in additional revenue
compared to the existing model.
If Council would like to proceed with the expanded diversion program,we can
schedule another meeting to discuss a resolution well in advance of the projected
implementation date of July 1'.The feasibility of continuing such a program from month-to-
month will depend on such factors as caseload, administrative burdens,budgetary
considerations,and any changes in relevant statutes during the current legislative session. The
expanded program could easily be revised or discontinued at any time.
6. 2014 budget highlights: The court imposed fines and assessments totaling$1,209,617;
an 8% increase over 2013.Total collections for the year were $1,083,821 with$373,696 being
paid to the state and county for mandatory assessments.A number of factors affect collection
rates,including continuing installment payments for fines imposed in prior years,and ongoing
monthly payments for fines imposed in 2014.For defendants who fail to appear for
arraignment or trial,the court imposes the full presumptive fine and an additional 25%
surcharge.If a case is sent to a collection agency,an additional 18% is added as permitted by
state statute. Collection rates for defendants who are in default or fail to appear tend to be
relatively low in all courts,distorting collection rates considerably.
7. New legislation: Several legislative measures that could affect municipal courts are
under consideration early in the session,including one (Legislative Concept 2242) that would
impose potentially burdensome reporting and auditing requirements relating to"caseload,fine
revenue and other information." Proposed Senate Bill 363 could limit nonstatutory fees
' The$61 assessment or"replacement fine" appears to be comparable to a"user fee" reflecting an
estimate of the cost of services provided to cities by state agencies such as DMV and the Department of Public
Safety Standards and Training.
4
charged by courts.A third proposal would require all judges to be licensed members of the
Oregon State Bar,but it would affect few jurisdictions because membership is already required
by most city codes or charters (including Tigard's). The Oregon Municipal Judges Association
(OMJA) will propose legislation and present testimony during the session in cooperation with
the League of Oregon Cities and representatives of Oregon cities.
8. Public information programs:The court continues to actively provide public
information on Oregon's legal system,court processes and traffic safety.The court has
participated in the City's recent upgrade of its website by providing greater public access to
extensive information about court rules and procedures.The judge's monthly"Rules of the
Road" column in Cityscape is now in its 9th year,and it is regularly reposted on the court's
website.
9. Staff development:The judge and Court Clerk Brenda Annis attended the Oregon
Department of Transportation's Judicial Education Program in March. The judge also
attended the annual conference of the OMJA in September,where he was elected to serve on
its Board of Directors. Court clerks Chris Snodgrass and Morgan McFadden attended the
annual conference of the Oregon Association for Court Administration.
In closing,we wish to again acknowledge the court staff's hard work and
professionalism during 2014: Chris Snodgrass,Brenda Annis and Morgan McFadden.
Please let us know if you require any additional information.
5
Attachment: Policy basis for diversion programs
A. Overall court goals and judicial philosophy: When complaints are filed with the court by
TPD or Code Enforcement officers,the court's first objective is to provide an impartial forum
for adjudication in a fair,professional and efficient manner,consistently applying relevant
statutes and ordinances.Where an offense has been committed,the court strives to: 1) Enter
appropriate sanctions in order to deter subsequent offenses,taking into account individual
circumstances to the extent allowed bylaw and workload constraints; and,2) Provide
education about public safety,relevant statutes and the legal process.
B. Traffic diversion programs:Oregon law confers broad authority on judges to resolve
cases,including specific statutory authority under ORS 135.755 to dismiss a case "in
furtherance of justice." But the court's policy towards traffic diversions is not, strictly
speaking,just a legal question: it forms one component of the City's interactions with citizens
and community goals in promoting traffic safety.Diversion programs could therefore be
expanded or left in their present limited form.
TMC and many other Oregon courts have traditionally maintained diversion programs
to educate defendants convicted of specified traffic violations.These programs generally allow
citations to be dismissed upon completion of all requirements,with no record of a conviction
transmitted to DMV.
Many defendants,aware of programs in other Oregon courts or other states, request
"traffic school" at arraignment in order to prevent a conviction from appearing on their
driving records. Under current criteria(as described in Section 5),however,the request is
usually denied and the vast majority of TMC convictions are forwarded to DMV.A court offer
of diversion is rarely declined.
C Advantages of limited diversion programs currently in place:
• Complete driving histories are useful to courts in determining future sanctions
and,potentially,to auto insurance companies in setting rates.
• Diversions "mask" convictions so they become,in effect,invisible to DMV's
Driver Improvement Program(DIP) and to judges in other courts. The DIP
restricts or suspends the driving privileges of those who receive multiple
violations over an 18- to 24-month period. "Masking" convictions through
multiple diversions could undermine the DIP's impact and prevent other
judges from having access to a defendant's full driving history.
• By statute,participation in traffic diversion programs is not noted on DMV
driving records,unlike diversions for Driving Under the Influence of
Intoxicants.Defendants,in the worst case,could have multiple "invisible"
convictions that do not appear on the DMV record after participation in one
or more diversion programs in various courts.This risk could be greatly
reduced by requiring defendants to sign declarations that they have not
participated in other diversion programs during the applicable eligibility period.
6
D. Advantages of expanded diversion programs as proposed:
• Traffic schools like Tigard's DDDP and Legacy's "Trauma Nurses Talk
Tough" are designed to educate drivers about safe driving and relevant laws
that highway users are expected to obey,enhancing public safety and reducing
recidivism.
• Eligible defendants paya fee to the court equal to the fine they would
otherwise pay,along with a fee for the class they will attend.If a defendant fails
to successfully complete all requirements,the fee will be simply converted into
a judgment,the $61 state assessment will be imposed and the conviction will
be forwarded to DMV.
• Diversion fees could be restructured by resolution to enhance general-fund
revenues to compensate COT for additional costs incurred in monitoring
compliance.
• Some drivers who might otherwise plead"not guilty" only to avoid having a
conviction on their records may choose diversion instead,relieving pressure on
the court's trial dockets.
E. Illustration of expanded diversion program:An adult defendant is cited for speeding ($160
presumptive fine),appears for her scheduled arraignment and pleads "no contest." She is
offered diversion when her record shows that she has had no moving violations for at least
five years. Court staff refers her to a specific program and reviews all program requirements
with her in detail. She is required to certify,by her signature,that she has not participated in
any court-sponsored diversion programs for at least five years.Her citation will be dismissed if
she does all of the following,with no exceptions: 1) pays a court diversion fee of$120; 2)
pays the class fee (typically$25-75) to the provider within 90 days; and,3) submits proof of
attendance within the 90 days.If she fails to timely comply with all requirements,the $120
diversion fee will be converted into a court judgment and the $61 state assessment will be
forwarded to the Oregon Department of Revenue. If the $120 has not been paid in part or in
full,the court can suspend defendant's right to drive and pursue the standard collections
process.
(Adapted from the 2014 Annual Report)
7
Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
I IT(1 •
2015 Annual Report to Council
Tigard Municipal Court
Michael J. 0 Brien, Presiding Judge
Nadine Robinson, Manager
Presented to: Tigard City Council
February 17, 2015 TIGARD
city of Tigsed
Municipal Court Programs
1. Traffic
2. Civil infractions
3. Public information
City of Tigard
2014 Calendar Year Highlights
■ 6,675 violations filed
■ 16% below 4-year average
► Cellphone citations doubled
► TPD Distracted Driver Diversion: 223
drivers (83% referred by court)
■ Diversion Program expansion proposal
City of Tigard
Violations Filed 2010 — 2014
Annual Court Caseloads
10000
o 8000
6000
4-
°
L 4000
a
2000
z
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
-*-Annual Court 7028 8349 9105 7180 6675
Caseloads
City of Tigard
Three Most Common
Speeding Cellphones Traffic control devices
2013 3048 545 860
2014 2369 1044 712
r
2014 Dispositions
Deferred / Percent of Caseload Other
Bond diversion 2/0
forfeiture
\
2% 9
Acquitted or- Guilty by
dismissed judge
5% / 33%
Guilty by Guilty by clerk
default 35%
14%
City of Tigard
Philosophy and Goals
■ Provide an impartial forum for adjudications
■ Respectful courtroom and administrative
process for all parties and witnesses
■ Full opportunity to be heard and considered
in court
■ Fair, professional and efficient dispositions
City of Tigard
Sanctions Philosophy
■ Proportionate sanctions to deter subsequent
offenses
■ Consider individual circumstances as permitted
by law and workloads
■ Reduce recidivism through education about
public safety, relevant laws and legal processes
■ Diversion programs to provide traffic safety
education
City of Tigard
Diversion Programs — 2014
■ 9% offered diversion
■ Distracted Driver Diversion Program
■ Teen drivers 18 and under
■ Seniors 60 and older
■ Safety belt violations
City of Tigard
Advantages of Current Diversions
► Focus on those most in need of safety education
■ Accountability: convictions appear on DMV
driving record - no "masking" from other judges
► DMV Driver Improvement Program: frequent
offenders face license restrictions, suspensions
■ Staff time to monitor compliance relatively low
City of Tigard
Advantages to Expanding Diversions
/ Traffic schools educate more drivers to change
behavior
Enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism
Financial sanctions remain the same for defendants
Masking much less likely with signed certifications
Restructured fees: Increase revenues to general fund
90-day collection rate potentially higher
Reduced docket pressure: Some may prefer
diversion to trial
City of Tigard
Proposed Diversion Expansion
■ Eligibility: licensed adults with clear records for 5 years
(35-40% of caseload)
■ DDD Program: 2-year "lookback"
■ Administrative fee equal to minimum fine - becomes a
judgment if noncompliant
■ Pay for and attend approved safety class within 90 days
■ Citation then dismissed - no DMV entry
City of Tigard
Diversion Procedures
■ Eligibility determined at or before arraignment
■ Staff reviews requirements, defendant signs
certification
■ Pay administrative fee equal to minimum fine
■ If noncompliant: "guilty" finding, fee converted to
judgment, $61 assessment forwarded to ODR
■ Usual collections procedures, suspension
City of Tigard
Budget Highlights 2014
■ Total fines imposed: $1,209,617 (8%
increase over 2013)
■ Total collections: $1,083,821
■ Remitted $373,696 in statutory assessments
to state and local agencies
City of Tigard
Compliance Program - 2014
■ Driving While Suspended / No Operator's
License: 531 violations filed
■ Insurance violations: 316 violations filed -
dismissed under ORS if valid at stop
■ Fines reduced upon proof of compliance after
stop
■ Fix-It program for equipment violations - $40
administrative fee
City of Tigard
Public Information Program
■ Information provided in the courtroom, at the
counter and online
■ Safety education promoted through diversions
■ Trial brochure for "not guilty" pleas
■ Online court rules for attorneys, general public
■ "Rules of the Road:" over 90 columns since
2007
■ Provided content for website redesign
City of Tigard
2015 Legislative Session
/ OMJA monitors legislation and provides information to
elected officials
/ LC 2242: Potentially burdensome reporting and auditing
requirements on "caseload, fine revenue and other
information."
/ SB 363: Could limit nonstatutory fees charged by courts
Proposed legislation requires all judges to be licensed
members of Oregon State Bar (Tigard not affected)
City of Tigard
Other Court Activities
■ Judge attended ODOT's annual Judicial
Education Conference and OMJA Fall
Conference
■ Judge elected to OMJA Board of Directors
■ Court clerics received education through the
Oregon Association for Court Administration
conference and the ODOT Conference
City of Tigard
Tigard Municipal Court
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Court staff:
Chris Snodgrass
Brenda Annis
Morgan McFadden
www.tigard-or.gov/court
AIS-2100 3.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes
Agenda Title: RECEIVE TVF&R STATE OF THE DISTRICT PRESENTATION
FROM CHIEF DUYCK
Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management
Item Type: Update,Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
TVF&R Chief Duyck gives his annual State of the District presentation at a Tigard City
Council meeting annually.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
N/A
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
TVF&R Chief Duyck will give his annual State of the District presentation which will cover:
•Year in Review
•Planning for the Future
•Creating Safer Communities
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
4/8/2014
Attachments
PowerPoint
TVF & R 2015
Full Speed Ahead
(If)
Tua1t
Tfig' :agOM
Tonight' s Topics
Year
in
Review
Planning
for the
Future
Creating
Safer
Communities
2014 Review
Response, Prevention & Education
...,, ,, .i,
rik ........ or e.....-
C 4*
pogisto-oxit-gif- --46. 1
, , 40-
(N
hi e,1,,, ...... ., ,,,,, dim
4,..,.. - _ ,,..----
. ___----------- , _iv ........- ',Lim.",
1
......---
______ 4
__
tt •
_ ,, "IP,
I . 1 _ 4. Ilk
t Res,
t . • 1.
i •
•
E ,i
1� . " /
Tigard Incidents in 2014 : 5 354
3%
6%
8%
441/44\li
83%
I
■ Medical Calls: 4474
Fires: 422
HazMat: 143
Public Assist: 315
District-wide Response
Incidents
40k
35,093
30k
20k
10kmN
I 1 i g
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
a _ ,ri, * 6.,. - '°�
ie
�° .mil w.s 0' �2. *-, a . ii., v` s �` '.4,4,,,-4° .4,,,r, . I, -. 4iitt -1461 , . 4
'".... lig '''' iik ."/ i r.1,..;i# !lit', I . .4 iriv,%°"4*, 11'6.14:1 * W-'-'11,4%#'" ***'''. W'S t'''' ( i.....' V::
■
Milrir- ' fi ' 1 1 ''` ' wi_abir '''''' ...t,°* 4";:iii ,,,,,A0 ' ir,lifif* * tt--...............,x—i). NS* "`„
wm
" ""'.
i .:70.''''':: IlE3111111.13111.1
d
. .,\ ft '
�` " V ,�
S r
'z � §. may.
In the past year
SKID demonstrations: at high schools: 4
Students trained in CPR: 4,713
Programs Inspections: 6,318
Investigations: 170
Landlords Trained: 141
Attendance at our safety events: 50,960
a
/'
-
Star✓t^ ,e•-
me A � � a
4
Accomplishments
✓ Remodel of Tigard Station
7Passed Local Option Levy
1( Trained 25 Recruit Firefighters
1(Deployed Two Medic Units
"Purchased Station 70 (Raleigh Hills)
✓ Opened Station 68 (Bethany)
✓Completed St. Vincent's Pilot
Improved Response Times
New Transport Partnerships
a .,a a .1—_ ":
w R C
1 *'r
t.
•
*If° '• 41411 yi 4 .
. . , .
„ 10( t ,
....._ ,
„im.
, , ,
r '''''' . ,,,,. .. „._,el.\\_. r,
„,,,,..,. , ,,,,,,. ..„\ ,
4,0p,
t -.„itc,--2. ,
,f,', ,,' :,-,1t,ff, :-.!...--11`\\-: 1
zn .?1, , :ti ,_ t. .. -0
ik,,,44*,.... „ .. .. - i
E
6,
' '. -' . Y4' 4:,-,- , -43..,'1:*-,'- , i
z
a
3 ply p ,.
, 41/ •"'''' ' ,_ ,,
4
A* k
S
_ ¢ ir
ar
'CIIII1P4' '' *' ..* '' -
.i441‘41
; .7. ....11-1,11 it 1 ,,,..1.... 1 , ,,,,, ;.,. ,
.., ....,..;,,,..::rw,
i
. $
., ,,....0.,„; i.,,t,.., ..,,,,,,..:,:.,,,,,,,,,,. ,
.,..,:).:.40.
, II . ' , 1.,-A"..,-.. ,,, ..4'<',.,
`�
2
Y 4
Planning the Future
Fast & Effective Response
(` Seven Site Placement Analysis
LOL 2014
.1 \\_...re II
4:00 minute travel allocated
°IIITIL-t1 I ► Springville/Kaiser to closest stations.
ONew Site Locations
gil .�_ _ 0 TVF&R Stations
i. MI ^ • Ai+� Site analysis based on 2010-2012 code
64 ;r • _ 'I
three incident locations and 4:00
T _ •
minute street network travel distances.
„ •..185th/Johnson `�
L. .r 60'�
m
6 S
CD 1 _
f ' 1tt ,f , B.H. Hwy/Laurelwood
,
li 66 -11-53 �.T i 1 w 4 t ,it ICI}`,
dtie ` .- 51, „,.
...,
Roy ` ,. 1;,�
Rogers/Bull ' li r .
Mountain ; ~ Stafford/Borland Rosemont 1 7,I •S > /Hidden
,lr�
+ 35 �4P0 , Springs, ira le
II f j1>«�'.34
iiir i \e _i.e 33..,
.2 r 5 7 54,9 ,0
56 i `'
, T.--- I <L'!
1, i
sock, 1‘•:_s_. , 52 -A
1. - A. it
0
1
Miley/I-5 0 -
In Process
Li Recruit firefighter academy
Li Volunteer recruitment
Li West Bull Mt. station planning
Li Six medic units
Li Three trucks
Li New volunteer apparatus
❑ Seismic retrofit 62, 64, 69 (grant)
Li Wilsonville station remodel
Li Station 70 buildout (Raleigh Hills)
Li Land purchases
0 ' v silo "II .......
m
COMING it
/
a it
b'
66e+
• 1
lh._ _ ..
r
4
T• a r dst a i•
on
51
..
, ,
, ,,
, , r,.., ' 4.
•
3 5
<k ?t ,.� x* irk _ ,�,,. �_'.
to � "�. �'
1 jfjf lit° ti
,,,,,,,040„.,„ il Nor ik,,i info = - „....=
At
4.. '� ' i € /it€ i{# ,...
j +.r
Illillile
s i*j "« n e T fig..
t
4
- y ' 94' ~
Remodel complete in March .
Open house this summer!
Technology
ii
- ,-... 4'4,*'4" r:
litaµ ..
.� w
• ,�
A, 4 t Via"`
x
• ' .
IIl��U Il@ III Il�ll
4
*MOW iii01,0
.., . w+**
" "
•
ep
, ,,..,,,, „,„,..,,,,,,„,,,,„ .., t ,, , ,. ., , 14=4:4P,,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,r'..,
iiiiiiiiik
.
Leveraging technology & data
for better outcomes.
Creating Safer
Communities
Thanks to many partners, the chain of
survival is stronger than ever for victims
of sudden cardiac arrest.
See video.
TIVENI11$ D)
Tualmtfiga Wa11y
Tfig® &
AIS-1998 4.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes
Agenda Title: Discussion on Parks and Transportation System
Development Charges
Prepared For: Toby LaFrance
Submitted By: Debbie Smith-Wagar
Financial and Information Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Meeting Type: Council
Staff Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing No
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
Discussion of Parks and Transportation System Development Charges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff is seeking direction from Council on policy issues related to System Development
Charges (SDCs) for Parks and Transportation.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff has been reviewing system infrastructure funding over the last year. This effort is being
done for citywide purposes and in concert with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, which
was adopted by Council on December 16, 2014. The River Terrace Funding Strategy
identifies a course of action and specific funding options to fund needed infrastructure in
River Terrace. Many of the identified funding options in this strategy need Council action to
implement, including updated and new System Development Charges (SDC) for Parks and
Transportation.
The city currently has a citywide Parks SDC. The Funding Strategy recommends updating this
SDC and creating an area-specific Parks SDC for River Terrace. The city does not have its
own Transportation SDC, but it uses the Washington County Transportation Development
Tax (1')T) for a similar purpose. A citywide Transportation SDC would provide additional
needed resources to help build and improve the city's road network. The Funding Strategy
recommends creating a citywide Transportation SDC and an area-specific Transportation
SDC for River Terrace
This workshop will present Council with the progress on the SDC studies that staff has been
working on with FCS Group. The workshop presentation is attached to this AIS and will:
•Provide Council with background information on the calculation and use of SDCs.
•Discuss the SDC recommendations adopted in the River Terrace Funding Strategy and
how they work with other funding tools to pay for infrastructure.
•Present Council with methodology and policy decisions, including:
•A lower citywide SDC with additional area-specific SDCs (such as River Terrace)
vs. a higher blended citywide SDC without area-specific SDCs.
•Full cost SDCs vs. discounted SDCs and the impact on other funding tools and
project lists.
•Standard TDT credit policy vs. N Bethany credit policy for developers who build
city road facilities. Will the city have a standard policy where developers receive
credit for the portion of the facility that is more than the local portion required for
their development? Or will the developer receive an additional credit to include all
(or part) of the local portion resulting in either a higher SDC to make up for the
lost revenue or more unfunded projects?
Staff and the city's SDC rate consultants, FCS Group, need guidance from Council on these
policy areas in order to remain on schedule. The key upcoming dates include:
•2/26 — 60 day notice of the city's proposed SDC methodology
• 3/17 —Workshop with Council to present and discuss remaining issues and their impact
on draft SDCs. Council to provide final guidance on issues.
•4/28 — Hearing to adopt SDC methodology, policies and procedures, and new charges.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Council can request additional information from staff and consultants prior to providing
direction on the SDC methodology. This will result in a delay in implementing the SDCs.
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS
Infrastructure Financing Project(River Terrace and Citywide)
•Council briefing
•SDC notice and methodology
•Council hearing
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
05/20/2014 - River Terrace Funding Strategy Introduction
06/17/2014 - River Terrace Preliminary Funding Strategy and Parks and Transportation
System Plan Addenda Briefing
07/08/2014 - Infrastructure Financing Project (River Terrace & Citywide) Discussion
08/12/2014 - LCRB award to FCS Group for Infrastructure Financing Study
09/23/2014 - River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Briefing
10/21/2014 - River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Plan Briefing Follow-up
12/16/2014 - River Terrace Funding Strategy Adoption
Attachments
SDC PowerPoint Presentation
Parks 20 Year Project List
Transportation 20 Year Project List
VAIN.
II City of Tigard
TIGARD System
ment
Develo
p
Charges for Parks
and Transportation
- Council Workshop
February 17, 2015
• FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
♦♦�
• Presentation Agenda
River Terrace Funding Strategy Direction
SDC Basics
SDC Analysis
Parks
Transportation
Credit Policy Issues
Current Tigard Practice
North Bethany Practice
Hybrid Approach
FCS GROUP Page 2
••
•�•
• RT Fundin g Strategy : Parks
Payment Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it
Funding Mechanism = Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? inaeose?
City G • and Citizens $ 250.000 $ - $ 250,000 ❑ r 1 .A
Developers s.
B C-Citywide
$ 030,000 $ 9,263,400 $ 11,263,40
perSR D l est avg.) ❑
PoAs SDCs=$1.203
SDC-RT Developers $ - $ 2,794,000 $ 2,794,000 0
perSFD(est.avg.)
customers 41-St.1 t perrnonlh
Utility Fee (est.avg.)
$ $ 3,000,000 $ 3.000.000 0
Bond costs$63/year
G.O.Bond Citizens tor$311,000medion $ - $ 9.100,000 $ 9,100.000 la
home test_)
Grants ••- --totes $ - $ 1.024 00 $ 1,024,000
Tota $ _2 250,000 $ 25.181,400 $ 27,431,400
Source:_ _
Mix of citywide and RT district overlay SDCs in near-term
Uniform citywide fee (base charge) plus RT district overlay charge
New citywide parks utility fee and new G.O. bond needed to reduce
SDC amounts
. .. ..._... . .. .. .
FCS GROUP Page 3
.44
• RT Funding Strategy : Transportation
If existing
Neon Term Lang Term fee.does it
Poyment Bose Rote Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase?
Fund Transfers _•zees 1500W p year $ 1,000.000 I 2.000400 $ 3.000.000 Q N/A
contnbu •
TDT *venue" Devewcen TDT:E6.3T3 per $ 3440.000 $ 3.040.000 0 No
dwelling(oW)
per
SDC•Citywide Developers $5.000 Nvet6np $ 2425.000 $ 6205.000 $ 0.730.000 0
IoW/ •
SCC-RT -*.uppers `'oniportoor.SDCi
.00
are'cot owe■rg E 252.000 $ 8350 $ 1.087.000
.d
Sr..sportation Utiity Fee Surcharge
Citizens within $5/montn w.cnerpe 100.000 $ 1.300.000 $ 1,400,000 0
Private t•• Developers $ 3.700,000 E 13,820.000 $ 17.520.000 0 WA
Developers"- Developers $ 4.000800 $ 4400,000 : 8.000.000 0 WA
County ,
WA County(cost shoe( orooerty to be determined tbd tbd ibd 0 N/A
owners/c.tR1ni
Stole/Lle•ro
ODOT/MetTo grants(cost share) S S 900.000 E 900,000 a WA
_•cells
Total .77.O.0 $ _... ..
Net Otter Credits
"*Non-credit eligible:excludes Roy Rogers Rood ImprovernentS.
"" • :es TDT credfs for Roy Rogers Rood improvements
_e cc r.c
Mix of TDT, citywide and RT district SDCs, RT overlay district transportation
utility fee, developer street dedications, and WA County participation
Uniform citywide fee (base charge) plus district overlay charge
Maintain current Credit policy
FCS GROUP ': Page 4
•
•*4•
•
SDC Basics : Oregon Law
„-7--„,__,
--77
' / J) Key Characteristics
1. SDCs are one-time
charges, not ongoing
4W rates.
ORS 223.297 - 314, 2. SDCs are for capital only,
in both their calculation
defines "a uniform and in their use.
framework for the Properties which are
imposition of' SDCs, "to already developed do not
provide equitable funding pay SDCs unless they
for orderly growth and "redevelop."
development in Oregon's SDCs include both future
communities." and existing cost
components.
SDCs are for general
facilities, not "local"
facilities.
FCS GROUP • Page 5
Vie:.:.
•
• SDC Basics : Methodology
Reimbursement Improvement System Development
Fee Fee Charge
Eligible value of Eligible cost of
unused capacity planned capacity
in existing increasing
facilities facilities
• •
• •
per unit of
Growth in system Growth in system
capacity
capacity demand capacity demand
FCS GROUP Page 6
♦♦
SDC Basics : Allowable 1114*
I&c Reimbursement Any related capital
facilities
Capacity-increasing
SDC Improvement Fee facilities only (city
share of projects not TDT
eligible)
Capacity-increasing
Development
Pr ansportation Tax projects
share of 'ects
p listed on TDT list (not
SDC eligible)
FCS GROUP Page 7
•
••4•
• Parks SOC Analy sus
Capital Improvements
Improvement fee cost basis
Reimbursement fee cost basis
Current and Draft SDCs
Scenario 1 : Discount SDCs per RT Strategy
Scenario 2: Full SDCs
FCS GROUP g,' Page 8
.4fr
Parks Capital
Total capital cost of $84 M for 25+ projects*
$69.6 M in SDC-eligible project cost (SDC-i cost basis)
SDC project cost equates to 82% of total project cost
# of SDCi Eligibile % SDC
projects Total Cost Cost Eligible
Projects with Citywide Benefit 25 $69,520,000 $60,196,362
Projects with River Terrace Benefit note 1 $14,908,087 $9,382,597
Total I $84,428,087 $69,578,959 82%
Note 1: 19.25 community park is included with citywide projects. River Terrace projects include:9.62
acres of neighborhood parks; 8.02 acres of linear parks;3.01 miles of trails;and 65 acres of natural
areas per River Terrace Parks Master Plan, 2014.
* Based on capital projects included in Tigard Parks and Trails master plans, and
River Terrace Parks Master Plan.
FCS GROUP ` Page 9
•
••+
• Parks SDCs : Scenarios
Scenario 1 : Discount SDCs with grants, new monthly parks utility
fee, bonds, developer dedications, and selected project deferrals to
close funding gap ($4.8 M)
Option A Districts: Requires $6,451 per DU (citywide and $7,671 per
DU in RT district overlay).
- Option B Uniform: Requires uniform citywide SDC of $6,794 per DU
Scenario 2: Full-Cost SDCs with grants, new monthly parks utility
fee and bonds (no funding gap)
Option A Districts: Requires $6,601 per DU (citywide and $10,378
per DU in RT district overlay).
- Option B Uniform: Requires uniform citywide SDC of $7,562 per DU
FCS GROUP Page 10
Parks Scenario 1 • Discounted SDCs
Scenario 1: Discount SDCs using new utility fee, grants and bond to close funding gap
SDC-i SDC-i Option
Option A: B: Uniform
Districts Charge
Total City-wide River Terrace (avg.) (avg.) Amounts shown
Total Cost (Land&Improvement! $ 85,088,087 $ 70,180,000 $ 14,908,087
$6,451/per DU are estimated
Less SDC Eligible Revenue" $ 60,549,069 $ 57,489,309 citywide, $6,794 uniform
$ 3,059,760 average SDC-i
$7,671/per DU citywide SDC
in RT overlay charges; actual
Remaining Funding Required $ 24,539,018 $ 12,690,691 $ 11,848,327 charges will vary
Other Potential Funding Sources lilt Notes by dwelling type
Grants $ 1,024,000 $ 1,024,000 Potential Metro,State or
foundation wants
Parks Utility Fees($1.11/month) $ 5,756,000 $ 1,359,000 $ 4,397,000 Assumes 100%of RT utility fees,
and 75%of citywide fee
Equates to levy of$0.20 oer
New Citywide Park Bond $ 13,000,000 $ 6,572,673 $ 6,427,327 $1,000 AV:or$63/year for
average homeowner
Total Other Funding $ 19,780,000 $ 7,931,673 $ 11,848,327
Net Funding Gap"' $ (4,759,018) $ (4,759,018) $ -
•Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide
planning documents. **SDC revenue adjusted to exclude remaining bond principal and include administrative costs.
••Funding Gap Sources: Percent of gap Amount Notes
Delay project construction 50% $ (2,379,509) City could re-establish capital
Await non-local grants 20% $ (951,804)
Require developer dedications 10% $ (475,902) This may limit development
City GO Bond(s) 0% $ -
City Fund Transfers 0% $ -
City Parks Utility Fee increase 20% $ (951,804) Requires+/-$1.32/month parks
Total 100% $ (4,759,018)
FCS GROUP Page 11
AL.
•,•
♦
Parks Scenario 2 : Full-Cost SDCs
Scenario 2: Full-Cost SDCs and new parks utilit fee and bonds to close funding gap
SDC Option
Option A: : Uniform Amounts shown
Districts ' Charge are estimated
Total City-wide River Terrace (avg.) (avg.)
average SDC-i
Total Cost (Land&Improvements)* $ 85,088,087 $ 70,180,000 $ 14,908,087 $6,601/per DU charges; actual
citywide;
Less SDC Eligible Revenue** $ 66,528,423 $ 57,145,826 $ 9,382,597 $10,378/per $7,562 uniform charges will vary
DU in RT citywide SDC by dwelling type
Remaining Funding Required $ 18,559,664 $ 13,034,174 $ 5,525,490 overlay
Other Potential Funding Sources Notes II
Potential Metro,State or
Grants $ 1,024,000 $ 1,024,000 foundation grants
Assumes 100%of RT utility fees,
and 75%of citywide fee
Parks Utility Fees($1.11/month) $ 5,756,000 $ 1,359,000 $ 4,397,000
revenue to be allotted to RT
projects
Equates to levy of$0.20 oer
New Citywide Park Bond $ 12,803,664 $ 11,675,174 $ 1,128,490 $1,000 AV;or$63/year for
average homeowner
Total Other Funding $ 18,559,664 $ 13,034,174 $ 5,525,490
Net Funding Gap
*Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide
planning documents. **SDC revenue adjusted to exclude remaining bond principal and include administrative costs.
FCS GROUP Page 12
_.
•.•
Parks SDC-r: Reimbursement Fec.
Reimbursement Fee Single SDC
Cost Basis
Tigard's existing parks facilities CostbyfaciIitytype
Comm unityparks $ 11,979,666
pen investment includes $13.5 M in OTotalpa� $ 13A3A68,706
68,706
Allocation to residential growth:
excess capacity Communityparks $ 9,910,685
Open space 1 231.871
This supports per capita SDC-r fees Allocation to allocation identialgrowth growth $ ,,,,42,668
citywide of $502 per resident and Oppayparfcs $ 225816
Opeen n s space 257.169
Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 2,326,149
$132 per job Adjustments and Allocation Summaries
Adjustor ents
Compliance rant- • $
Equates to additional charge of
Donated grant-funded assets (533.974)
Remaining debt seance (80.621)
$1 ,278 per new SFD and $951 per Fund balance
Total adjustments $ (814,696)
new multifamily dwelling unit Allocation to residential growth
Facilities $ 11142.556
Adjustments (508 450)
Total allocation to residential growth $ 10,634,106
Allocation to non-residential growth
Facilities $ 2068 981
Adjustments (106,145)
Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 1,962,836
Calculated SDCs
Residential reim bursement fee per capita $ 502
Non-residential reimbursement fee per employee $ 132
FCS GROUP
. . Page 13
Parks SDCs : Current and Draft charges
Current Ti•and Parks&Trails SDC-i
SDC-1
Current SDC Type Current
SDC per single family dwellling $ 6,451
SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 5,156
Non-residential SDC per employee $ 446
Scenario 1:Discounted SDC-i •er RT Strate•
Option A:Districts Option B
Citywide
Citywide RT RT Total Uniform
SDC Type Base SDC Ovy SD • SDC-i
SDC per single family dwellling $ 7,007 $ 1,263 $ 8,270 $ 7,380
Draft SDC-i SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 5,212 $ 940 $ 6,151 $ 5,489
Non-residential SDC per employee $ 675 $ 675 $ 664
update
Scenario 2:Full SDC-i Amount
scenarios Option A:Districts OptionB
Citywide
Citywide RT RT Total Uniform
SDC Type Base SDC Overlay SDC-i• 'r SDC-i
SDCpersinglefamilydwellling $ 7,154 $ 3,591 $ 10,745 5 8,196
SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 5,322 $ 2,671 $ 7,993 $ 6,097
Non-residential SDC per employee $ 689 $ 689 $ 737
Pro•osed Parks&Trails Reimbursement SDC-r
Draft SDC-r SDC Type SDC-r
SDC per single family dwellling $ 1,278
proposal SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 951
Non-residential SDC per employee $ 132
FCS GROUP Page 14
.♦♦
Transportation SDC Analysis
Capital Improvement Assumptions
Improvement fee cost basis
Reimbursement fee cost basis
Current and Draft SDCs
Scenario 1 : Discount SDCs in line with RT Strategy
Scenario 2: Full SDCs
Option A: partial credits allowed per current policy
- Option B: full credits allowed per N. Bethany policy
Option C: hybrid credit approach
FCS GROUP Page 15
•
••�
•
Transportation Capital Improvements
$625.3 M in total project capital costs (91 projects)
expected by year 2035 in City of Tigard*
$282.2 M in SDC-eligible project costs, equates to about
51% of city total cost share
SDC-eligible projects are adjusted to exclude WA County
TDT funds
Expected Tigard cost shares are adjusted to account for
anticipated ODOT and County funding
Base case assumes current Tigard credit policy
* Based on long-term capital projects included in Tigard Transportation System
Plan, Metro Regional Transportation Plan, and Washington County TDT Appendix C.
FCS GROUP Page 16
♦♦
♦♦+
SDC Eligible Ca ital Im rovements
p p
A:Total Project Costs within City of Tigard
Project Location Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - S 10,000,000
Triangle - - - - - 3,040,000 - 3,040,000
River Terrace - - 37,850,000 500.000 - 1,800,000 - 40,150,000
Other in City 425,091,850 54,500,000 29,000,000 - 15,000,000 30,990,000 17.500,000 572,081,850
Total 425,091,850 54,500,000 76,850,000 500,000 15,000,000 35,830,000 17,500,000 625,271,850
B:Total ODOT/County Funded Project Costs
i.
,.,.,,n Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ • $ - $ -
Triangle - - - - - - - -
River Terrace - - - - - - -
Other in City 48,500,000 4,800,000 - - - - - 53,300,000
Total 48,500,000 4,800,000 - - - - - 53,300,000
C:Total Private Non-Creditable Pr•ect Costs
Project Location Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Triangle - - - - - - -
River Terrace - - 19,647,000 - - - - 19,647,000
Other in City - - - - - - - -
Total 19,647,000 19,647,000
D:Total City Project Costs(A-B-C=DJ
Project Location Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ 10.000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000,000
Triangle - - - - - 3,040,000 - 3,040,000
River Terrace - - 18,203,000 500.000 - 1,800,000 - 20,503,000
Other in City 376,591,850 49,700,000 29,000,000 - 15,000,000 30,990,000 17,500,000 518,781,850
Total 376,591,850 49,700,000 57,203,000 500,000 15,000,000 35,830,000 17,500,000 552.324,850
FCS GROUP Page 17
♦♦
♦♦:
Transportation Capital Improvements
D:Total City Project Costs[A-B-C=D]
Project Location Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped ISM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000,000
Triangle - - - - - 3,040,000 - 3,040.000
River Terrace - - 18,203,000 500 000 - 1,800,000 - 20,503,000
Other in City 376,591,850 49,700,000 29,000,000 - 15,000,000 30,990,000 17,500,000 518,781,850
Total 376,591,850 49,700,000 57,203,000 500,000 15,000,000 35,830.000 17,500,000 552,324,850
E:Total SDC-Eligible Project Costs
Project Location Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000,000
Triangle - - - - - 395,000 - 395,000
River Terrace - - 14,622,750 - - - 14,622,750
Other in City 187,926,804 34,891,013 9,669,378 - 5,250,000 5,515,760 13,882.267 257,135,222
Total 187,926,804 34,891,013 34,292,128 - 5,250,000 5,910,760 13,882,267 282,152,972
F:Total TOT-Eligible Project Costs
- -- - ,, Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Triangle - - - - - - - -
River Terrace - 3,509,750 - - - - 3,509,750
Other in City 97,154,918 2,508,987 16,620,622 - 3,731,740 3,542,733 123,559,000
Total 97,154,918 2,508,987 20,130,372 - - 3,731,740 3,542,733 127,068,750
G: Non-TDT/SDC Eligible City Costs[0- E-F:GI
Project Location Arterial Arterial/Collector Collector Street Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total
Downtown $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Triangle - - - - 2,645,000 2,645,000
River Terrace - - 70,500 - - 1.800,000 - 1,870,500
Other in City 91,510,128 12,300,000 2,710,000 - 9,750,000 21,742,500 75.000 138,087,628
Total 91,510,128 12,300,000 2,780,500 - 9,750,000 26,187,500 75,000 142,603,128
FCS GROUP Page 18
•
••4
• Transportation ADCs .
Scenario'.
• Scenario 1 : Discount SDCs with grants, County/ODOT funding,
utility fees, developer funding, city fund transfers and project
deferrals to close funding gap ($420 M)
Option A Districts: Requires $5,000 per DU (citywide and $5,497 per
DU in RT district overlay).
Option B Uniform: Requires uniform citywide SDC of $5,131 per DU
Scenario 2: Full-Cost SDCs with grants, CountylODOT funding,
utility fees, developer funding, city fund transfers and project
deferrals. Generates additional $240 M. Reduces gap to $180 M
Option A Districts: Requires $14,671 /DU citywide; $20,447 /DU in
RT district; $19,296 /DU in Downtown; $14,785 /DU in Triangle.
Option B Uniform: Requires uniform citywide SDC of $16,100 per DU
FCS GROUP , Page 19
♦♦+
TSDC-i Scenario 1 : Discounted SDCs
SDC-i SDC-1
Option A: Option 8. Amounts
Districts Uniform
Charge, shown are
(avg.)
Total City-wide Downtown Triangle River Terrace (avg•)i estimated
Total Cost(Land&Improvements)• $ 625,271,850 $ 572,081,850 $ 10,000,000 $ 3,040,000 $ 40,150,000 average SDC-i
$5,000/per DU
Less SDC Eligible Revenue $ 45,729,684 $ 22,385,127 7,534,826 2,098,494 citywide; $5,131 uniform charges;
$ $ $ 13,711,236 $5,497/per DU citywide SDC
actual charges
In RT overlay
Remaining Funding Required $ 579,542,166 $ 549,696,723 $ 2,465,174 $ 941,506 $ 26,438,764 will vary by
Other Potential Funding Sources Notes dwelling typ e
TDT Revenue $ 84,388,993 $ 79,490,550 $ 2,465,174 $ 941,506 $ 1,491,764 Based on current TDT
ODOT/County/Developer Funded $ 72,947,000 $ 53,300,000 $ 19,647,000 Possible regional funding
solutions in future
Grants $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Metro or state grants available
City Fund Transfers $ - $ 3,000,000
Transp.Utility Fee Surcharge($5/month $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $5/month TUF fee overlay in RT
RT only) District
Other $ -
Total Other Funding $ 159,635,993 $ 132,790,550 $ 2,465,174 $ 941,506 $ 26,438,764
Remaining Funding Required" (419,906,173) $(416,906,1 73) - - -
Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide planning documents.
Assumes City's current credit policy.
Funding
`•Possible alternatives: Percent of gap Required Notes
Delay project construction 50% $(209,953,087) City could reestablish capital
Await non-local contributions(ODOT/County/Grants) 15% $ (62,985,926) Requires new
Require developer dedications(may be credit eligible) 15% $ (62,985,926) This may linit development
City GO Bond(s) 0% $ -
City Fund Transfers 5% $ (20,995,309) Equates to about$1M per year
City TUF increase 15% $ (62,985,926) increase citywide
100% $(419,906,173)
FCS GROUP Page 20
Afr
IV
•�>
TSDC-i Scenario 2 : Full-Cost SDCs
Scenario 2: Full TSDCs with current credit •olio
SDC-i Option A: SDC-1 Option B:
Districts(avg.) Uniform
Total City-wide Downtown Triangle River Terrace Charge(avg.) Amounts
Total Cost Land&Improvements)' $ 625271,850 C8y base SDC-
( $572,081,850 $ 10,000,000 $ 3,040,000 $ $14,671/DU;RT SDC shown are
=$20,448/DU; $16,100 uniform estimated
Less SDC Eligible Revenue $ 282,152,972 $ 257,135,222 $10,000,000 $ 395,000 $14,622,750 Downtown= citywide SDC
$19,296/DU: average SDC-i
Remaining Funding Required $ 343,118,878 $ 314,946,628 $ - $ 2,645,000 $ 25,527,250 Trlange= charges;
$14,786/DU
Other Potential Funding Sources ,, Notes actual charges
TDT Revenue $ 84,388,993 $ 78,154,988 $ 2,653,756 $ 3,580,250 Based on current TDT will vary by
ODOT/County/Developer Funded $ 72,947,000 $ 53.300.000 $ $ - $ 19,647,000 Possible regional funding solutions in
future dwelling type
Grants $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Metro or state grants available
(Sty Fund Transfers $ 3,000,000 $ 3.000.000
Transp.l/vlty Fee Surcharge(River
Terrace District) $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $5/nrinth TtlF fee overlay in RT District
$
Total Other Funding $ 162,635.993 $ 134 454 988 $ - 5 2,653,756 $ 25,527 250
Remaining Funding Required" (180,482,885) $(180,491,640) $ - $ 8,756 $
•Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide planning documents
•`Possible alternatives: Percent of gap Amount Notes
Deter project construction 50% $ (90.241,442) City could re-establish capital
Await non-local contributions(ODOT/County/Grants) 10% 5 (18,048,288) May require new
Await developer dedications(nay be credit eligible) 15% $ (27,072,433) This may limit development activity
City GO Bond(s) 0% $ -
City Fund Transfers 0% $ -
City TUFincrease 25% 5 (45,120.721) Requires*/-$8.80 month TUF
100% $ (180,482,885)
FCS GROUP Page 21
TSDC Analysis :
Scenario 2 Calculations: Full Cost Recovery
Preliminary Tigard TSDC Calculations by District
SDC Eligible TSDCi Fee
Project Costs Growth in TSDCi Fee per per Single-
Improvement Fee Calculations Related to Peak Vehicle Peak Vehicle Family
(unadjusted) Growth Trips Trip Residence
Alt. 1: Area-specific SDCs
City of Tigard (base charge) $257,135,222 9,908 $25,952 $14,671
River Terrace Overlay $14,622,750 1,431 $10,217 $5,776
Total River Terrace SDC $20,448
Downtown Overlay $10,000,000 1,222 $8,181 $4,625
$19,296
Tigard Triangle Overlay $395,000 1,954 $202 $114
$14,786
Alt. 2: Uniform improvement fee
(citywide) $282,152,972 9,908 $28,477 $16,099
Source: Previous tables.* Costs stated in 2014 dollars.** growth share based on person trip growth
expected between 2014 and 2035.
Note:costs exclude potential TSDC reimbursement fee and administration fee options.
FCS GROUP - ._ Page 22
♦♦
♦♦+
Transportation TDT and SDCs : Current
and D raft Current Tran�•ortallon TDT
TDT
Development Type Current
Charge per single family dwellli ng $ 8,036
Charge per multifamily dwelling $ 4,806
Current TDT Charge per Retail (000sf)' $ 11,034
Charge per Non-Ret all(000 sf)• $ 8,433
'Retail TDT rate represents ITE code#820 shopping center:Non-retall SDC rate reprensents ITE code#710
general office.
Scenario 1:Discounted SDC-i per RT Strategy with current credit policy
Option A:Districts Option B
River Tigard
Terrace Downtown Trlang Citywide
TDT Citywide SDC-i SDC-1 SDC•i Uniform
Development Type Current Base SDC-/ overlay overlay overlay SDC-
Charge per single family dwellling $ 8,036 $ 5,691 $ 6256 $ - $ - $ 5.420
Charge per multifamily dwelling $ 4,806 $ 3,403 $ 3,742 $ - $ - $ 3,242
Draft SDC-i Charge per Retail (000 sf)' $ 11,034 $ 5,935 $ 7,465 $ 7,443
Charge per Non-Retail(000 sf)' $ 8,433 5 8.705 $ 10,949 $ 5,688
scenarios
Scenario 2:Full SDC-i Amount with current credit•oiic
Option A:Districts Option B
River Tigard
Terrace Downtown Triange Citywide
TDT Citywide SDC-i SDC-i SDC-1 Uniform
Development Type Current Base$DC-1 overlay overlay overlay: SDC-i
Charge per single family dwellling $ 8,036 $ 16,698 $ 23,272 $ 21,962 $ 16,828 $ 18.323
Charge per multifamily dwelling $ 4,806 5 9,987 $ 13,918 $ 13,135 $ 10,064 $ 10.958
Charge per Retail (000 sf)' $ 1 1,034 $ 17,415 $ 27,770 $ 23,652 $ 17,554 $ 25,159
Charge per Non-Retail(000 sf)' $ 8,433 $ 25,542 $ 40,729 $ 34,689 $ 25,746 E 19,228
Draft Tran.•ortolan Reimbursement i
Citywide
Development Type SDC-r Total charges will
Draft SDC-r Charge per single family dwellling $ 100
Charge per multifamily dwelling $ 60
proposal Charge per Retail (000sf)' $ 160 include TDT & SDCs
Charge per Non-Retail(000 sf)• $ 235
FCS GROUP Page 23
•
•♦•
CreditPolicy issues r*%,/r .►11►∎
ORS 223 requirement. Credits against the improvement fee
must be provided for the construction of a capital improvement
that is:
required as a condition of development,
identified in an adopted capital facilities
plan, and
either off-site or, if on-site; and is
required to provide more capacity
than needed by the development
in question.
FCS GROUP � 3' Page 24
•
••4
•
Credit Policy Issues
Local governments can vary policies that impact credit value
and SDC amounts, such as:
allowing credits to exceed what would have been required to serve
development that requires the facility
transferability of credits
consistency with established credit policies
Buy back of credits
Current Tigard North Bethany Hybrid 4./.
Practice Practice Approach
100% credit for actual cost Apply 75% max credit cap
Credit for exceeding allowance on RT Blvd. cost:
"local development of project: $24.4M gap
increase = RT SDC increase $11.6M gap increase = RT
requirements SDC increase +/-$3,000/DU
+/-$5,200/ DU
FCS GROUP Page 25
••
••.1fr
• Discussion and Next Steps
Confirm Preferred Scenario and Credit Policy
Draft SDC Methodology Report
Public Input
Council Workshop in March
SDC Adoption Hearing in April
FCS GROUP Page 26
Contact FCS GROUP:
Todd Chase
Oregon Branch Manager
503.841 .6543 ext. 12
www.fcsgroup.com
•:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
City of Tigard
Parks SDC
Exhibit P-1
SDCi SDCi
City Cost for Eligibility for City Cost for Eligibility for SDCi Cost
Planned Pro'ects Land Land Development Development Basis
Projects with Citywide Benefit
Neighborhood/pocket parks: Cannot exceed 32.13 acres. Cannot exceed 55.13 acres.
Bonita Park $ - 98.84% $ 75,000 57.61% $ 43,207
Metzger Elementary School - 98.84% 437,000 57.61% 251,754
Northview Park - 98.84% 367,000 57.61% 211,427
Proposed Local Park(P12) 549,840 98.84% 927,000 57.61% 1,077,522
Proposed Local Park (P9) 1,202,775 98.84% 927,000 57.61% 1,722,905
Future Neighborhood Park 4,811,100 98.84% 2,947,800 57.61% 6,453,672
Total neighborhood/pocket parks 9,760,487
Community parks: Cannot exceed 38.27 acres. Cannot exceed 57.27 acres.
Sunrise Community Park - 100.00% 2,468,000 100.00% 2,468,000
New Community Park(P11) 100,000 100.00% 900,000 100.00% 1,000,000
New Community Park Complex 6,108,325 100.00% 10,084,000 100.00% 16,192,325
Fanno Creek Park: Urban Plaza 687,300 100.00% 4,100,000 100.00% 4,787,300
Community park in River Terrace 7,508,000 100.00% 8,386,000 100.00% 15,894,000
Total community parks 40,341,625
Linear parks: Cannot exceed 35.45 acres. Cannot exceed 35.45 acres.
Tigard Triangle Area(P3) - 74.68% 250,000 74.68% 186,688
Commercial Park - 74.68% 545,000 74.68% 406,981
Englewood Park - 74.68% 1,340,000 74.68% 1,000,650
Fanno Creek Park: Park Gateway - 74.68% 850,000 74.68% 634,741
Fanno Creek Park: Upland Park - 74.68% 1,100,000 74.68% 821,429
Undeveloped Linear Park (P7) - 74.68% 275,000 74.68% 205,357
Total linear parks 3,255,847
Open space: Cannot exceed 60.71 acres. Cannot exceed 60.71 acres.
0 412,380 100.00% - 100.00% 412,380
0 567,023 100.00% - 100.00% 567,023
Total open space 979,403
Trails: Cannot exceed 6.92 miles. Cannot exceed 6.92 miles.
Fanno Creek(already funded)(trail project - 100.00% 670,000 100.00% 670,000
Westside Trail - 100.00% - 100.00% -
Tigard Street(trail project A) - 100.00% 634,000 100.00% 634,000
Fanno Creek (trail project C) - 100.00% 1,040,000 100.00% 1,040,000
Fanno Creek&Tualatin River(trail project[ - 100.00% 1,609,500 100.00% 1,609,500
Summer Creek(trail project F) - 100.00% 742,500 100.00% 742,500
Fanno Creek(trail project G) - 100.00% - 100.00% -
Fanno Creek(trail project H) - 100.00% 206,500 100.00% 206,500
Tigard Street(trail project I) - 100.00% - 100.00% -
Ascension(trail project N) - 100.00% 461,000 100.00% 461,000
Krueger Creek &Summer Creek(trail projei - 100.00% 495,500 100.00% 495,500
Total trails 5,859,000
Total projects with citywide benefit $ 60,196,362
Projects with River Terrace Benefit
Neighborhood/pocket parks $ 3,752,000 98.84% $ 2,975,000 57.61% $ 5,422,491
Linear parks 3,128,000 74.68% 228,000 74.68% 2,506,106
Trails 690,000 100% 764,000 100% 1,454,000
Total projects with River Terrace benefit $ 9,382,597
Source: E-mail(attachment)from Steve Martin,09/24/2014. Abbreviation: SDCi=improvement fee. Note: This list does not include projects
whose timing as designated as either"completed"or"in process."
G:\Tigard\2305 Tigard Infra Financing Services\Parks SDC\Analysis\Tigard Park SDC v13
DRAFT TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
I ii
TDT% SOC%
City Cost Growth Total Capacity of of
Local ODOT/ After Capacity Percent SDC/TDT Related Capacity Eligible Eligible
Road Project City Private County Total City Identified Related of Eligible City Cost Related City Project Project
Road Classification Description Costs Share Funding Funding Cost local Funding Percent Capacity Costs (TOT) Cost(SDC) Costs Costs Source
netif Aill
Project ID 23A 150th Ave Collector Improve Mountain 150th to Ave.Beef from Bend Bull Rd.
$400 000 $306.000- $94.000 $94,000 50% 50% $23,500 $0 $23.500 0% 100% RT TSP
Addendum
Bull RT TSP
Project ID 21A Mountain Collector Upgrade to urban standards $1,200.000 $850.000 $350.000 $350,000 50% 50% $87,500 $350,000 $0 100% w% Addendum
Rd
Project ID 18 Intersection Collector $1,500 Mountain Rd./N-S collector $1500000 100%-- $1500000 $1.500.003 100% 100% $1.500000 $0 $1.500,000 0% 100% RT TSP
intersection or roundabout Addendum
Woodhue St./161 sl Ave.extension RT TSP
Project ID 20 Intersection Collector intersection«roundabout $2000'000 0% $2'000'000_ $0 $0 100% 100% $0 $0 $D Addendum
Improvements where new sheets RT TSP
Project ID NA 2 I Intersection Street meet exi •sheets-Phase 1 $500'000 100% $500,000 $0 50% 100% $0 $0 $0 Addendum
Project ID 2 Lorenzo In Collector $2 Lorenzo In.from West UGB to $2.500.000 m $2.380,000- $120,000 $120.000 100% 100% $120.000 $0 $120,000 0% 100% RT TSP
Roy Rodgers Rd. Addendum
Project ID 3 Lorenzo Ln Collector $3 Lorenzo Ln.from Roshok Rd.to $3 500000 100%-- $3 500000 $3500000 100% 100% $3500000 $0 $3500000 0% 100% RT TSP
Roy Rodgers Rd. Addendum
Project ID NA 1 1 River Bike/Ped River Terrace Trot from Roy Rodgers $1 800000 100% $1 800000 $1800000 0% 100% $0 $p j0 RT TSP
Terrace Trail Rd.to 150th Ave. -- Addendum
Project ID 5A RI Blvd Collector
3 lone N-S collector from Scholls Ferry $6.030.000 III $3.411.000- $2,613.000 $2.613,000 100% 100% $2.613.000 $653.250 $1.959,750 75% RT TSP
to Lorenzo Ln.extension-Phase I Addendum
Project ID 58 RT Blvd Collector 31ane N-S collector from Scholls Ferry $2 970.000 100%-- $2.970.000 $2.970.000 100% 100% $2.970000 $742.500 $2.227.500 75% RT TSP
to Lorenzo Ln.extension-Phase 2 Addendum
3 lane N-S collector from Lorenzo Ln. RT TSP
Project ID 6A RT Blvd Collector extension to Bull Mountain Rd.-Phase $4,875,000 $2.550,000 $2.325.000 $2.325.000 100% 100% $2.325.000 $581,250 $1.743.750 75% Addendum
1
3 lane N-S collector from Bull RT TSP
Project ID 7A RT Blvd Collector Mountain Rd.to the south City limit- $4.125,000 $2,244,000 $1.881.000 91.881.000 100% 100% $1.881.000 $470.250 $1.410.750 75% Addendum
Phase I
Project ID 7B RT Blvd Collect« 3 lane N-S collector from south City $6 250 000 $3 400 000- $2.850.000 $2.850.000 100% 100% $2.850.(X10 $712.500 $2.137,500 75% TSP
limit to the south UGB(phase 2) Addendum
Project ID 8 -Collector 21ane E-W collector between Roy $2.500.000 0% $2.500.000- 90 $0 0% 0% $0 $0 $0 ■■Addendum
Rodgers Rd.and N-S collector Addendum
111111Rtfit
. . _ :. Ash Ave Collect« Extend Ash Avenue from Burnham, $10.000.000 100% $10.000.000 $10.000,000 100% 100% $10,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 0% 100% TSP,RTP,CIP
across the RR to Commercial Street
•enefit
Beveland St 70th
to 7117 Beveland St Bike/Ped Fill 330'Sidewalk Gap $40.000 100% $40.000 $40.000 50% 100% $20,000 $0 $20.000 0% 100% City staff
Beveland
Red Rock Creek Trail Bike/Ped New hail parallel to and south of 99w $3.000,000 100% $3,000000 $3.000.000 25% 50% $375.000 $0 $375,000 0% 100% City staff
Greenwa In Man,le
eneftt
121st Ave.
121st Ave Bike/Ped Add Sidewalks and Bike Lanes $3.500.000 100%■■ $3.500,000 j3.500.000 50% 100% $1,750,000 $3.500.000 $0 100% 0% City staff
Whistler to Tippitt
1 21st Ave over 121st Ave Bike/Ped Pedestrian bridge on west side of rood $50000 100% $50.000 $50.000 50% 100% $25.000 $0 $25.000 0% 100% City staff
Summer Creek
Walnut Sheet to North Dakota Street-
1 21st Street two lanes with turn lanes where 21s St Collector $6.000.000 100% $6.000.0 00
00 $6.000.000 50% 100% $3.000.000 $6.000. 0 $0 100% 0% City staff
Widening necessary plus bite lanes and
•Ik
'29/20'5 Trips and Projects Tigard TSDC v10 SORT
DRAFT TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
.. .. TDT% SDC%
City Cost Giro Total Capacity of of
% Local ODOT/ After Capacity Perc '$DC/TDT Related Capacity Eligible Eligible
Road Project City Private County Total City Identified Related of Eligible City Cost Related City Project Project
.:L- cad Classification Description Costs Share Funding Funding Cost Local Funding Percent Capacity Costs (TDT) Cost(SDC) Costs Costs Source
Metro Project 72nd Ave Arterial Widen 72nd Ave.to 5 lanes h:,r $35,000,000 100% $35.000000 $35,000.000 80% 100% $28.000.000 $9.269.598 $18,730.402 33% 67% TSP.RTP,CIP
10755 Hunziker Rd.to Hwy.99
Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial Widen 72nd Ave.to 5 lanes from $28,166,850 100% $28.166850 $28,166,850 80% 100% $22,533,480 $7"261,185 $15272295 32% 68% TSP,RTP,CIP
10756 Hunziker Rd.to Bonita
Metro Project ID Widen 72nd Ave.to 5 lanes from
72nd Ave Arterial $15.425.000 100% $15425.000 $15.425.000 80% 100% $12,340.000 $9.269,598 $3,070,402 75% 25% TSP,RTP,CIP
10757 Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd.
Provide Arterial Corridor
72nd Avenue 72nd Ave ISM Management along Corridor#19 $1,700.000 100% $1,700.000 $1.700.000 100% 100% $1,700,000 $0 $1,700,000 0% 100% City staff
(Hwy 217)(Hwy 217)in the Metro
TSMO Plan
Provide Arterial Candor
Management on 72nd Avenue along
72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TSM Corridor i2 1-5)I1-5)near the Upper $1,600.000 100% $1.600.000 $1.600,000 100% 100% $1.600,000 $1.368,928 $231,072 86% 14% City staff
Boones Ferry Rood Interchange in the
Metro TSMO Plan
Barrows Road Barrows Rd Bike/Ped Add Sidewalks and bike lanes $3,00,000 100% $3.000,000 $3.000.000 50% 100% 51.500.000 $0 51.500000 0% 100% City staff
Metro Project ID Widen Bonita Rd.to 4 lanes from
Bonita Rd Arterial
10752 Bangy to Hall Bvld. $45.000.000 100% 545000.000 $45.000.000 80% 90% $32.400.000 $5.272.615 $27,127"385 16% 84% TSP.RTP,CIP
Bull Mountain
Bull
Road(Hwy 99W Widen to three lanes with bike lanes RT TSP
to Benchview
Mountain Collector and sidewalks $8,000.000 100% $8,000,000 $8.000,000 50% 100% 54,030,000 $8.000,000 $0 100% 0% Addendum
Terri
Cascade Ave n°eCOde Bike/Ped Pave northbound bike lane gap $30.000 100%
$30.000 $30,000 50% 100% $15.000 $0 $15.000 0% 100% City staff
Metro Project ID Dartmouth Widen Dartmouth St.to 4 lanes from
Collector 55.000,000 100% 55.000000 55000,000 80% 100% $4.000,000 $1,853,920 $2,146.080 46% 54% TSP,RTP
10759 St 72nd Ave.to 68th Ave.
Metro Project ID Durham Rd Arterial Widen Durham Rd.to S lanes from $20000000 100% $20000000 $20000000 80% 90% $14.400,000 $0 $14,400,000 0% 100% TSP.RTP,CIP
10753 Boones Ferry to Hall Bvld.
Metro Project ID Widen Durham Rd.to 5 lanes from Hall
Durham Rd Arterial
10764 Bvld.To Hwy.99 $25,000.000 100% $25,000,000 $25,000"000 80% 95% 519.000.000 $0 $19,000.000 0% 100% TSP.RTP,CIP
Provide Arterial Corridor
Durham Rood Durham Rd TSM Management along Corridor#19 $1.500.000 100% $1.500.000 $1.500,000 100% 95% $1,425.000 $0 $1,425.000 0% 100% City staff
(Hwy 217)in the Metro TSMO Plan
Fanno Creek Fanno Bike/Ped Durham Rd to Tualatin River Trail $1.500,000 100% $1,500.000 $1,500.000 25% 100% 5375.000 $0 $375,000 0% 100% City staff
Trail Creek Trail
Metro Project ID Greenburg Arterial Widen Greenburg Rd.from Shady 57,000.000 100% 57000000 $7.000.000 80% 95% 55.320.000 $6.745.098 $0 100% 0% City staff
10748 Rd Lane to North Dakota
Metro Project ID Greenburg Arterial Widen Greenburg Rd.to S lanes from
$12,000,000 100% $12000000 $12,000,000 80% 100% $9,600,000 $9.269.598 5330,402 97% 3% TSP.RTP
10750 Rd Tideman Ave.to Hwy.99
Metro Project ID Hall Bvld.Improvements from Locust
Hall Blvd Arterial $16000000 100% $16 000,000 $16,000,000 50% 100%
11220 to Durham $8.000.000 SO $8.000.000 0% 100% TSP.RTP.CIP
Hall Blvd/ Replace with wider bridge with
Fanno Creek Hall Blvd Bridge sidewalks and bike lanes 56000.000 100% $6.000,000 $6,000.000 50% 100% $3.000,000 $0 $3.000000 0% 100% City staff
Bridge
Provide Arterial Corridor
Hall Boulevard Hall Blvd TSM Management and Transit Signal 33 700000 100% $3.700000 $3.700.000 100% 100% $3.700.000 $0 $3,700,000 0% 100% City staff
Priority on Hall Boulevord horn
Highway 217 to Highway 99W
Add an eastbound through lane on
Hall Boulevard Holl Blvd Arterial Hall Blvd.from Pamelad Road to 5500.000 100% $500,000 $500,000 100% 95% 5475.000 $0 $475,000 0% 100% City staff
Greenburg Road
Hunziker St 172nd Add sidewalk on north side:
to 77th) Hunziker St Bike/Ped completes sidewalk from 72nd to Hall $1.000.000 100% $1,000,000 51,000,000 50% 100% $500,000 $0 $500,000 0% 100% City staff
Sidewalk
1/29/2015 Trips and Projects Tigard TSDC v I O SORT
DRAFT TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
TDT% SDC'%
CIty Co Gro Total Capacity of of
Local ODOT/ Alter .. Capacity Perc 'SDC/TDT Related Capacity Eligible Eligible
Road Project City Private County Total City Identil Related of Eligible City Cost Related City Project Project
PfOjOCt ID Road Classification Description Costs Share Funding Funding Cost Local Fu .._:Percent Capacity Costs (TDT) Cost(SDC) Costs Costs Source
Hwy 217 Add a northbound through lane under
Northbound Aux Hwy 217 Arterial the Hwy 99W overpass to address a $20.000.000 0% $20.000.000 $0 SD 50% 100% $0 $0 $0 City staff
Lane capacity pinch point
Metro Project ID rs
Hwy 99 Arterial Hwy.99 intersection improvements $50,000,000 100% 550000.000 550.000.000 80% 95% 538.030.000 $9,860,000 528.140.000 26% 74% TSP.RTP
10770 from 641h Ave.to Durham Rd.
Project ID 13 Intersection Arterial
Roy Rogers Road/E-W collector $1.000.000 100% $1.000,000 51,030.000 100% 100% $1,0000 $0 51.000.000 0% 100% RT TSP
00.
traffic signal Addendum
Project ID 14 Intersection Arterial Roy Rogers Rood/Bull Mountain Rd $1 000 000 100% $1000000 $1,000,000 100% 95% $950.000 $0 $950,000 0% 100% RT TSP
traffic signal Addendum
Project ID 16 Intersection Arterial Scholls Ferry Road/N-S collector $1,000,000 100% $1,000,000 $1,000,000 100% 100% 51.030,000 $0 $1.000.000 0% 100% PT TSP
traffic signal Addendum
Metro Project ID Intersection improvements at Hall
Intersection Arterial $8000.000 100% $8,000,000 ;8000,000 25% 80% $1,600.000 50 51.600,000 0% 100% TSP,RTP
10769 Bvld.And Tiedman Ave.
Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial Hall/HUnzker/Stoffins Intersection 55.000.000 100% 55.000000 $5.000,000 75% 100% $3.750000 53.862332 $0 100% 0% TSP,RIP.CIP
11223 Realignment
Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial/Collet Greenburg/Tiedeman/N.Dakota 510,000.000 10096 $1000.
0000 $10.000,000 50% 80% 54,000.000 50 54.000.000 0% 100% TSP
11224 for Reconfiguration
Hwy 99W/72nd Intersection Arterial Turn!ones.our lanes.sidewalks.bike $8000000 100%
Ave Intersection lanes,crossings:transit improvements $8000.000 58.000.000 80% 100% $6.400,000 $772.466 55,627,534 12% 88% City staff
Highway 217 SB
/Hall Blvd SE right-rum lane at Hall Blvd/OR 217
Intersection Arterial 5,000000 100% $5,000,000 $5,000,000 25% 100% $1,250,000
Interchange ramp $ $ S $0 51.250.000 0% 100% City staff
Improvements
Hwy 9900/68th Intersection Improvements.Provide
Ave Intersection Arterial protected left at 68th:transit queue $4.000,000 100% 54.000.000 54030.000 80% 100% $3.200.000 52.394,646 $805,354 75% 25% City staff
bypass
Hall Blvd/ Install new traffic signal:maintain
Platte St Traffic Intersection ISM existing lane configuration $1.000,000 100% $1,000,000 $1.000.000 100% 100% $1.000,000 $1,000.000 $0 100% 0% City staff
Signal
68M/Atlanta/Hai Install o traffic signal and add turn
Intersection ISM 100% 500.000 5500.000 100% 100% staff
nes lanes where necessary $500.0)0 S 3500.000 5113.805 5326.195 35% 65% City sta
I-5/Upper
Boones/ Add Arterial Add turn lanes and/or auxiliary $10.000.000 100% $10 000.000 $10,000000 80% 90% 57.200,000 $0 57,200.000 0% 100% City staff
Carman through lanes.sidewalks,etc
interchange
Retain eastbound right-turn lone when
3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry Rd:
Scholls Ferry/ Retain westbound right-tum lane
Nimbus Arterial/Collet when 3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry
Intersection 56.000.000 20% 54.800,000 51.200.000 51,200,003 100% 100% $1,200,000 $1.200.000 $0 100% 0% City staff
Intersection tar Rd:southbound right-tum lane:
Improvements Reconfigure northbound and
southbound lanes to create exclusive
left-turn lanes
Scholls Ferry Rd/ Arterial/Collet
North Dakota St Intersection tor Intersection Improvement 51,500.000 100% $1,500.000 $1.500,000 80% 100% 51,200.000 $0 $1.200.000 0% 100% City staff
/125th Ave
72nd/Upper Arterial/Collet
Boons Ferry Intersection tor Intersection Improvement $1.000.000 100% $1,000,000 $1.000,000 100% 100% 51.000.000 51000000 50 100% 0% City staff
(Carman)
Bonita/Sequoia Intersection TSM Traffic Signal $1.000,000 100% $1,000,000 51,000,000 80% 100% $800.000 $1,000,000 50 100% 0% City staff
Intersection
Tiedeman Install a traffic signal:construct left-
Street/Tigard Intersection Collector turn lanes,sidewalk,and bke lanes $1.000000 100% 51.000000 51000,000 100% 100% $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 0% 100% City start
Street
121st/North Intersection Bike/Ped Traffic signal $500,030 100%
Dakota $500,000 5500,000 100% 100% $500,000 $231,740 5268.260 46% 54% City staff
1/29/2015
Trips and Projects Tigard TSDC v10 SORT
DRAFT TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
TOT% SDC%
City C Growth Total Capacity of of
Local ODOT/ After 'Capacity Percent SDC/TDT Related Capacity Eligible Eligible
Road Project City Private County Total City Identltl ' Related of Eligible City Cost Related City Project Project
o$Ct ID Road Classification Description Costs Share Funding Funding Cost Local funding Percent Capacity Costs (TOT) Cost(SDC) Costs Costs Source
Add turn lanes and auxiliary lanes with
McDonald/Hall s bike lanes nd sidewalks on Hall,
Hall Blvd Collect $9.000,000 100% $9.000.000 $9,000,000 90% 90% $7.290.000 $766,702 $6,523.298 11% 89% City staff
R7 Lane McDonald.and Bonita to improve
traffic flow
Durham/UPPer Intersection Bike/Ped Sidewalk on NW Corner,Curb Ramp $40,000 100% $40.000 $40.000 50% 100% $20.020 $0 $20,000 0% 100% City staff
Boones
Greenburg Rd/ intersection Bike/Ped Pedestrian Islands to facilitate crossing $30000 100% $30000 $30000 50% 100% $15,000 $0 $15.000 0% 100% City staff
Shady Ln Shady Ln on east side of Greenburg
Bonita Rd near intersection Bike/Ped Enhanced Ped Crossing-RRFB? $20,000 100% $20,000 $20,000 25% 100% $5,000 $0 $5.000 0% 100% City staff
79th Ave
Greenburg Rd Intersection Bike/Ped Enhanced Crossing between $20,000 106% $20,000 $20,000 25% 100% $5.000 $0 $5.000 0% 100% City staff
Tiedeman and Center St-at 95th?
Hwy 217 SB intersection Capacity Improvements
Ramps/Highway Intersection Arterial including 2nd right turn lane horn off $2,500,000 100% $2.500.000 $2.500.000 100% 100% $2,500,000 $0 $2.500.000 0% 100% City staff
99W ramp
Hwy 217 NB Add a second northbound left turn
Ramps/Highway Intersection Arterial lane $1.500.000 l00% $1.500,000 $1,500,(00 100% 100% $1.500,000 $0 $1,500,000 0% 100% City staff
99W
Metro Project ID McDonald Arterial McDonald Rd.improvements from $4000000 100% $8000000 $8000000 50% 50% $2000000 $0 $2000000 0% 100% TSP.RTP,CIP
11217 Rd Hall Bvld.To Hwy.99
McDonald St
McDonald Bike/Ped Enhanced Crossing between Hall and $30.000 100% $30,000 $30,000 25% 50% $3.750 $0 $3,750 0% 100% City staff
Rd Hwy 99W-at O'Mara?97th?
Widen Roy Rogers Rd.to 5 Ln.from N
Project ID 22A Roy Rodgers Arterial of Scholls Ferry Rd.to S.of Beef Bend $4.000.000 100% $4.000,000 $4,000.000 100% 100% $4.000.000 $3,000.000 $1.000,000 75% 25% RT TSP
Rd Addendum
Rd..Phase I(half-treet segments)
Roy Rodgers Widen Roy Rogers Rd.to 5 Ln.from N RT TSP
00000
Project ID 228 Rd Sly Arterial of Scholls Ferry Rd.to S.of Beef Bend $4.000.000 100% $4,000,000 $4.0 100% 100% $4.000.000 $3.000,000 $1,000,000 75% 25% Addendum
Rd., Phase 2(halt-treet segments)
Scholls Ferry Rd Scholls Ferry Widen to 7 lanes with bike lanes and
Widening,Hwy Rd Arterial sidewalks $50,000.000 75% $12.500.000 $37.500.000 $37,500,000 100% 100% $37,500.000 $18.745,186 $18.754.814 50% 50% City staff
217 to 121st
Scholls Ferry Provide Arterial Corridor
Scholls Ferry Rd Rd ISM Management from River Road to Hall $4,200.000 100% $4.200.000 $4,200,000 100% 100% $4,200,000 $0 $4,200,000 0% 100% City staff
Boulevard
Tiedeman Ave Tiedeman Bike/Ped Sidewalks from Tigard St to Greenburg $1000000 100% $1.000,000 $1000.000 50% 50% $250.000 $0 $250,000 0% 100% City staff
Ave Rd
Tigard St(Fanno New bridge with bike tones and
Creek)Bridge Tigard St Bridge 00
sidewalks $36000 100% $3,000,000 $3,000,000 50% 50% $750.030 $6 $750,000 0% 100% City staff
Replacement
Metro Project ID Trail Bike/Ped Neighborhood Trails&Regional Trail $1,100.000 100% $1,100.000 $1.100,000 25% 50% $137.500 $0 $137,500 0% 100% TSP.RTP
11227 Connections
Metro Project ID Trail Portland&Western Rail Trail from $1,250,000 100% $1.250.000 $1,250,000 25% 50% $156,250 $0 $156,250 0% 100% TSP.RTP
11228 Tldeman Ave.to Main St.
Tualatin River Complete multiuse path from Cook
Trail Bike/Ped $10,000,000 100% $10.000.000 $10,000,000 25% 50% $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000 0% 100% City staff
Trail Pork to the Powerlines Corridor
Fanno Creek Trail Bike/Ped Woodard Park to Grant $670.000 100% $670,000 $670,000 25% 50% $83.750 $0 $83,750 0% 100% City staff
Trail
Fanno Creek Trail Bike/Ped Tiedeman Crossing Realignment $250.000 100% $250,000 $250000 25% 50% $31,250 $0 $31.250 0% 100% City staff
Trail
Complete gaps along the Fanno
Fanno Creek Creek multiuse path from the Tualatin
Trail Bike/Ped $6.000.000 100% $6,000,000 $6,000,000 25% 50% $750.000 $0 $750,000 0% 100% City staff
Trail River to City Hall and from Highway
99W to Tipa_rd Sheet
1/29/2015 Trips and Projects Tigard TSDC v10 SORT
DRAFT TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
TDT% SDC%
City Cost Growth Total Capacity of of
% Local 000T/ After Capacity Percent SDC/TDT Related Capacity Eligible Eligible
Road ! Project City Private County Total City Identified Related of Eligible City Cost Related City Project Project
•'et ID Rood Classification Description Costs Share Funding Funding Cost Local Funding Percent Capacity Costs (TDT) Cost(SDC) Costs Costs Source
Upper Boones Upper Widen to five lanes with bike lanes
(Durham to Boones Arterial and sidewalks 510.000 0,
.000 100%-- 51000,000 110.000.000 90% 90% $8.100.000 54,106.784 $3.993.216 49% City staff
Se.uoia
Upper Boones Upper Provide Arterial Corridor
Ferry Road Boones TSM Management along Corridor t2 I1-51 $1.300.000 100% $1.300.000 $1300,000 100% 100% $1,300,000 $0 51,300,000 0% 100% City staff
F- Rd in the Metro TSMO Plan
Metro Project ID Walnut St Arterial Widen Walnut St.to 3larses from Hwy. $8000000 100%■■ $8000000 58,000,000 40% 100% 53,200,000 $4.325,812 $0 100% 0% TSP,RTP,OP 1 1229 99 to Tiedeman Ave
Metro Project ID Arterial/Collet Hwy.217 overcrossing Hunziker-72nd
10751 for Ave. $30 000.000 100% 530.000.000 530.000.000 80% 100% 524.0130.000 $0 524,000,000 0% 100% TSP
Hwy Arterial/Collet Turn lanes,our lanes.sidewalks,bike
99W/Dartmouth■for lanes.crossings:transit improvements 56.000.000 100%■■ 56.000.000 56,000.000 100% 100% $6.000.000 5308.987 $5.691.013 95% City staff
St.
Greenburg Rd. Widen to 5 lanes from Locust St to
Greenburg Rd:add turn/oux lanes:
(Hwy 217 to Hall Arterial add titre lanes and sidewalks $20,0oo'003 516,000,000 $4.000.000 54.000000 80% 100% $3.200.000 5D $3.200.000 0% 100% City staff
Blvd) thou.. . t corridor
10th Street New bridge crossing north-south over --
Grossing of Bridge the Tualatin River near 108th Avenue $3,000,000 100% $3.000000 $3.000.000 50% 50% $750.000 $0 $750.000 0% 100% City staff
Tualatin River
North Dakota St Bridge Replace with wider bridge with $3,000,000 100% $3,000,000 $3.000.000 50% 50% 5750.000 $0 5750.000 0% 100% City staff
/Fonno Creek sidewalks and bike lanes
Diksen-121st Trail Bike/Ped New hail along Summer Creek horn 51.000.000 100%-- $1.000,000 51.000.000 25% 50% $125,000 $0 $125.000 0% 100% City staff
Ave Trail Dirksen Nature Park to 121st Ave
Washington
Square Area TSM Adaptive Signal Coordination $1.000.000 100% 51,000,000 51.000,000 100% 100% 51.000,000 $0 51.000.000 0% 100% City staff
Si.pals
1/29/20'5 Trips and Projects Tigard TSDC v10 SORT
AI S-2105 5.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes
Agenda Title: Pacific Highway/Gaarde/McDonald Waterline Contract
Discussion
Prepared For: Joseph Barrett
Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Meeting Type: Local
Staff Contract
Review
Board
Public Hearing No
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
A discussion of an upcoming contract for the city's Pacific Highway/Gaarde/McDonald
Waterline project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff is seeking Council direction on any additional information they would like to see in
preparation of an award decision for this proposed contract.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Project Background and Development:
This project is included as Project#96036 in the adopted Capital Improvement Program as a
project to integrate water from the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership into Tigard's
water supply system. The original project was to install a 36-inch casing for a future waterline
to cross under Pacific Highway near the intersection of Pacific Highway / Gaarde Street /
McDonald Street. To take advantage of economies of scale, it was proposed that the casing be
installed as part of the road construction project at the intersection.
As the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was designing their project at the
intersection, they decided that the work to install this large pipe casing would be too large and
too different from the highway work for ODOT to include it with the intersection project.
Consequently, it became a City of Tigard project. It is still necessary to bore the casing under
the road, as traditional trench-construction of a water line would necessitate significant
highway closures with unacceptable traffic impacts.
Staff then considered other necessary water work in the area and decided to add two elements:
a) construction of the water line within the casing; and b) relocation of an existing water line
that would conflict with the intersection project. Each of these are similar types of work, and a
combined project would be more efficient and less disruptive to the community than separate
projects.
Schedule of Project:
This work needs to progress quickly so that a contract can be awarded in time for the
contractor to complete the water work in March in order to not delay the major intersection
construction work that will start in April.
Project Scope:
The project scope consist of the following:
•Boring a casing approximately 120 linear feet under Oregon State Highway 99W at the
intersection of SW Gaarde/McDonald Streets including furnishing and installing 16-inch
diameter ductile iron carrier pipe, complete with spacers, grout fill and all work required
to complete the waterline highway crossing as shown;
•Furnishing and installing approximately 130 linear feet of 16-inch diameter and 315 linear
feet of 8-inch diameter ductile iron, trench installed and buried waterline including
valves, fittings, and connections to existing waterlines;
•Disposal of contaminated media from excavations;
•Provision of traffic control, surface restoration, erosion control, and all work required to
complete the waterline crossing;
•Coordination with others working adjacent to project including the ODOT OR99W
highway improvements project.
Solicitation Process:
The city issued an Invitation to Bid on January 26, 2015. Notice was published in both the
Daily Journal of Commerce and The Oregonian. As of Wednesday, February 4th, eight (8)
firms have downloaded or picked up the bid packet and expressed interest in the work. The
closing date for the bids is Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm. This is in order to keep
the project on schedule and ahead of the street work being performed by ODOT. This
timeframe results in staff not having the bid results for the project available for this agenda
item summary. Staff will have the results available for the discussion of the potential contract
at the February 17th meeting. Staff will also take all possible steps, and expedition of those
steps, to include the results in the Council's Thursday (February 12th) news packet. As this is
a construction contract and an Invitation to Bid was used, the lowest responsible bidder will
receive staffs recommendation for contract award per the Local Contract Review Board's
Public Contracting Rules.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has discussed this potential contract.
Fiscal Impact
Cost:
Budgeted (yes or no): Yes
Where budgeted?: Water CIP - Various
Additional Fiscal Notes:
The estimated cost of project #96036 is $536,000 with this proposed contract being the bulk
of that cost (around $360,000). The original casing project has a current budget of$286,000.
Additional funding for the waterline installation and relocation will come from the following
programs which have adequate funds available in the current fiscal year: $100,000 from
96034; New Water Source Systemwide Improvements Program $50,000 from 96024; Water
Line Replacement Program $100,000 from 96028; Fire Hydrant Replacement Program
numbers 96034 and 96024 are intended to fund this type of waterline work. The planned
hydrant replacement work (project number 96028) for this fiscal year has been completed,
leaving adequate funds available to cover this portion of the work.
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
FOR ° ` , aA ,
(DATE OF MEETING)
1,11
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor Cook and City Council
FROM: Joe Barrett,Sr.Management Analyst,FIS
RE: Additional Information for February 17th Discussion on Pacific Highway /
Gaarde /McDonald Waterline Contract
DATE: February 11,2015
At next Tuesday's Council Workshop, the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) will have
preliminary discussions on a potential contract for waterline work at the intersection of
Pacific Highway, Gaarde Street and McDonald Street. Due to timing issues surrounding this
project it was necessary for staff to schedule the discussion prior to the closing of the
Invitation to Bid and therefore the Agenda Item Summary does not contain the contract
detail. Bids closed on February 10th and staff asks that the LCRB include the following
information with their review of the project information.
The City issued an Invitation to Bid for the work on January 26th with public notice placed
in both the Daily Journal of Commerce and The Oregonian. The Engineer's Estimate for
the work was $346,950. During the two weeks the Invitation to Bid was open, staff heard
from a number of interested firms and ultimately received submitted bids from five firms:
Contractor Bid
Kerr Contractors $237,895
3 Kings Environmental $356,530
Rio Underground Construction $367,350
Moore Excavation $483,775
PCR, Inc. $617,475
A copy of the bid tabulations with the unit costs is attached for your review. Kerr was able
to submit such a lower cost as they are also the contractor for ODOT's street project in the
same intersection and likely does not have the same mobilization, coordination, or machine
costs as the other firms. They also may be able to purchase in higher quantities, and
therefore discounted prices, due to their work on the street project.
As Kerr Contractors is responsive bidder with no flags from the State or city and as they
submitted the lowest responsible bid, staff is recommending the LCRB award a contract for
this project to them.
Time is of the utmost essence on this project. With a projected March 1st start to the
project, staff is anticipating a mid-April completion of the work. As ODOT's street project
in the same intersection is projected kick-off on April 1st. Kerr, also ODOTs contractor,
will charge street project delay costs of$3,000/day. The City, on the hook for any overage
on that project per the IGA with ODOT, will likely be forced to pay any delay costs. For
example, a March 16th start on the water project with a wrap up at the end of April could
cost the City upwards of$40,000 in delay costs.
As such, staff is asking to bring the official award decision before the LCRB as a consent
item at the February 24th Council Meeting. This is a much quicker turnaround than a typical
contract award process but the street project is driving this timeframe. Staff asks for LCRB
understanding and approval of this expedited process.
City of Tigard
II
It
Bid Tabulation Form
Project OR99W:Gaarde/McDonald Waterline Crossing
Opening Date:February 10,2015-200 pm
TIl ARD
Engineer's Estimate Kerr Contractors 3 Kings Environmental Rio Underground Const Moore Excavation PCR Inc
Item Description Qty Unit nit Price Tpt l Pgg,„„..,Iank„ q€,e„,.. Total Pl Ua:r Price Total Pgcf.-„)JWN , '(oy sk L1Br polar Xtataifrice Unit Price Totall,
I Mobilization 1 I.\ 520,900.00
$20,UM.01 1 9,880.00 00 S 9,880.00 $30,045.00 S iU,045.R $17,I18.k) $ 17,000.00 145,000.00 $ 45,001.x1 SGu �o S 60,UO1.0
Trench overexcavation and select backfill for
2 unsuitable trench foundation. 10(3 S 50.00 1500.00 $ 85.00 $ 850.00 $ 95.00 $ 950.00 $ 45.00 $ 450.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.0) S 80 00 S 800.00
3 Traffic control and flagging. 1 E-1 510,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,785.00 $ 6,785.00 $35,710.00 $ 35,710.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 585,000 10 S 85,(991.00
Furnish and lnsall casing Corssutg inculdutg
casing,carrier pipe,spacer,grout fill,and all
4 materials and work required 125 II S 950.00 $118,750.00 $ 568.00 $ 71,000.00 $ 620.00 $ 77,500.00 1 750.00 $ 93,750.00 $ 700.00 $ 87,500.00 $ 800.00 $ 100,000.00
Launch pit excavation,shoring,back fill,
compaction.Pipe,fittings and valves paid
5 under other items. I F.1 540,000.00 $40,000.00 $16,940.00 $ 16,940.00 $32,595.00 $ 32,595.00 130,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $24,000.00 $ 24,00000 $55,000.00 $ 55,000.00
Receiving pit excavation,shoring,back fib,
compaction.Pipe,fittings and valves paid
6 under other items. 1 EA $12,000.00 112,000.00 1 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $7,905.00 $ 7,905.00 $20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
7 Health&Safety Plan 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $2,500.00 1 2,50(1.00 $1,08000 $ 1,0(10.00 $4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $3,000.00 $ 5,000.00
8 Contaminated Soil Removal 185 TON 1 75.00 $13,875.00 $ 5200 $ 9,620.00 $ 90.00 $ 16,650.00 $ 60.00 $ 11,100.00 $ 90.00 $ 16,650.00 $ 200.00 $ 37,000.00
9 Contaminated Groundwater Mobilization I EA $5,0(10.00 $5,000.00 $1,650.00 $ 1,650.00 $8,485.00 $ 8,485.081 $ 1,081.00 $ 1,000.0(1 $9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $5,000.00 5 5,000.00
10 Contaminated Groundwater Disposal 8000 G.AI, $ 1.00 58,000.00 S 0.30 $ 2,400.00 1 2.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 1.00 5 8,000.00 $ 0.80 $ 6,400.00 $ 2.00 $ 16,000.00
Furnish and Install trench installed and buried
DI piping for the diameters shown including
excavation,trench and pipe zone backfill,
It CLSM,joint restraint system
11 a 16-Inch diamter DI piping 135 I,F $ 175.00 $23,625.00 $ 225.00 $ 30,375.00 $ 210.00 $ 28,350.00 $ 3(10.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 310.00 $ 41,850.00 $ 300.00 $ 40,500.00
11 b 8-itch diameter DI piping 315 LF $ 80.00 $25,200.011 $ 94.00 $ 29,610.011 5 145.00 $ 45,675.00 $ 200.(9) $ 63,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 125.00 $ 39,375.00
12 Furnish and Install buried valves
12 a 16-itch diameter BFV 3 EA $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $3,025.00 $ 9,075.00 $4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $3,800.00 $ 11,400.00 $3,800.00 $ 11,400.00
12 b 8-inch diameter 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $ 1,260.00 $ 1,260.00 $ 1,535.00 $ 1,535.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $1,500.00 1 1,500.00 $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
13 Furnish and Install Ci and DI fittings 3300 LB $ 5.00 $16,500.00 $ 5.60 $ 18,480.00 $ 3.00 $ 9,900.011 $ 6.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 7.25 $ 23,925.00 $ 10.00 1 33,000.00
Modifications and connections to existing 16-
Inch diameter water mains on SW Gaarde St
14 as shown.Pipe,fittings and valves paid under 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 $5,085.00 1 5,085.011 810,000.00 $ 10,000.00 110,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $8,000.00 1 8,000.00
1 loddications and connections to existing 16-
Inch diameter water mains on SW Mcdonald st
as shown.Pipe,fittings and valves paid under
15 other items. 1 E-A $5,000.00 $5,0411x1 3 6,270.00 1 6,270.00 1 5,085.00 $ 5,085.00 5 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 110,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $8,000.00 5 8,000.00
16 Testing and Disinfection 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,1041.10 S 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $15,000.00 8 15,000.00
17 AC.Resurfacing 70 TON $ 200.00 $14,0100, S 150.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 250.00 $ 17,500.011 S 175.00 $ 12,250.00 $ 165.00 $ 11,550.00 1 120.00 5 8,400.00
General clean up,erosion control and surface
18 restoration of non-, ved surfaces. 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500.00 S 4-5 i111 S 475.00 $3785.00 1 3785.00 $3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $16,000.00 $ 1.111.00 $50 111.00 $ 50,000.00
AIS-2049 6.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes
Agenda Title: Briefing on an Agreement to Facilitate Governance of the Willamette
River Water Supply
Prepared For: John Goodrich, Public Works Submitted By: Judy
Lawhead,
Public
Works
Item Type: Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Briefing on an agreement to help facilitate governance of a Willamette River water supply
system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action required; formal consideration of the agreement is scheduled on a future consent
agenda.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The city has been engaged in various programs and projects relating to the Willamette Water
Supply Program (WWSP) through its membership in the Willamette River Water Coalition
(WRWC). Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD), City of Wilsonville (Wilsonville), and City
of Sherwood (Sherwood) own varied interests in land,water rights, water system assets and
capacity in water system assets as part of the existing Willamette River Water Treatment Plant
(WRWTP) in Wilsonville. The cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton,Tigard, and Tualatin are
participating in preliminary design for future expansion of this water supply system with
TVWD.
An "ad-hoc" technical committee with staff representing each entity is addressing governance
issues relating to the WWSP. This committee has engaged in discussions regarding the
following:
•planning and evaluation of use of the Willamette River to jointly meet future water
supply demands,including water treatment plant master planning;
•evaluating existing water system assets including the WRWTP and future water system
assets;
•sizing and location of transmission pipelines and reservoir; and
•ownership share, governance and operation of the WRWTP and second plant, and other
facilities
Through these discussions and meetings over the last year, this group developed a "bridge"
memorandum of understanding (MOU) to help facilitate the next steps in future discussions
as this group formalizes. The exhibits for this MOU provide proposed topics, schedule, and
cost allocations. The WRWC is paying Tigard's share through membership.
The purpose of this MOU is to reaffirm the city's commitment,with other parties to continue
participation in developing a mutually acceptable agreement or MOU related to ownership,
finance, design and construction of water system facilities, governance, use, operation,
maintenance repair and replacement of those facilities.
The "bridge" MOU recognizes and acknowledges that each participant agency, based upon a
determination of its own needs and resources, will evaluate the benefits of becoming a party
to any future agreements should the city find it is in its best interests to do so. Through this
MOU, the city will be able to continue in future discussions relating to resolving issues
regarding the future WWSP expansion.
The WWSP is a cooperative project to produce and transmit finished drinking water from the
WRWTP to TVWD and Hillsboro and other municipalities as may elect to participate in the
program. All parties, except Wilsonville and Sherwood, have entered into an
intergovernmental agreement regarding predesign, design, public affairs and public outreach
in the WWSP.
Tigard city charter requires city voter approval to use Willamette River as a water supply
source. Signing the MOU and continuing city participation regarding governance and future
agreements does not commit Tigard to use the Willamette River as a water source.
The city attorney is reviewing the MOU for comments.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The council could propose changes to the agreement or could decide not to approve the
agreement. Should the council decide not to approve the agreement, this may affect city
participation in future governance discussions and agreements regarding Willamette River
water supply with other participating agencies.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Tigard City Council— Goals and Milestones
September 2013 —December 2014
Water
Develop Willamette River Water Sources
•Rewrite Willamette River Water Coalition(WRWC)member contract
• Continue to consider other sources: Sherwood,Tualatin Valley Water District(studies)
•Develop"roadmap"for Tigard's future water decisions through 2026
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This is the first time council has been briefed on a facilitation agreement regarding Willamette
River water supply governance.
Council has been briefed numerous times regarding Willamette River water supply issues and
items:
• On October 14, 2014, the council was briefed on an MOU regarding Tigard's
participation in the master planning process for the Willamette River Water Treatment
Plant located in Wilsonville.
•On May 27, 2014, the council was briefed on the development of a Willamette River
water supply.
• On October 22, 2013, the council adopted the fiscal year 2014 First Quarter
Supplemental Budget via Resolution No. 13-44. The supplemental budget included the
allocation of$100,000 from the water fund to participate in the preliminary design of the
TVWD/Hillsboro Willamette Water Supply Program.
•At its July 16, 2013, workshop meeting, the council discussed and elected to participate
in the preliminary design of the TVWD/Hillsboro Willamette Water Supply Program;
the council limited Tigard's financial contribution to $100,000.
•On June 15, 2010, the council discussed an agreement with Sherwood to develop a water
supply pipeline and other improvements. This agreement was never finalized.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Information:
The agreement refers to future costs regarding an outside consultant facilitator to help
develop future governance agreements. There is no direct cost to Tigard. As a member of
the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC), Tigard costs associated with participation
through this agreement are covered through WRWC. These costs are indirect to Tigard
through membership fees, which are budgeted each fiscal year.
Attachments
Bridge MOU
Exhibits to Bridge MOU
12/17/14
BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Bridge Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is effective this day of ,
2014 by and between Tualatin Valley Water District, a domestic water supply district organized
under ORS Chapter 264 (TVWD)the City of Wilsonville, an Oregon municipal corporation
(Wilsonville), the City of Beaverton, an Oregon Municipal Corporation(Beaverton), the City of
Hillsboro, an Oregon municipal corporation, acting by and through its Utilities Commission
(Hillsboro), the City of Sherwood, an Oregon municipal corporation(Sherwood), the City of
Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, (Tigard), and the City of Tualatin, an Oregon
municipal corporation(Tualatin).
RECITALS
TVWD, the City of Wilsonville(Wilsonville) and the City of Sherwood(Sherwood) own varied
interests in land, water rights,water system assets and capacity in water system assets as part of
the existing Willamette River Water Treatment Plant(WRWTP) in Wilsonville.
The original design of the WRWTP Lower Plant allowed for expansion from its current capacity
of 15 million gallons per day to produce up to 70 million gallons per day in the future. The real
property upon which the Lower Plant is situated could accommodate a second water treatment
plant, Upper Plant, with capacity to be determined.
TVWD, Wilsonville and Sherwood have been engaged in discussions with the cities of
Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard and Tualatin regarding planning and evaluation of use of the
Willamette River to jointly meet future water supply demands, the evaluation of existing water
system assets including the Lower Plant and future water system assets such as the Upper Plant,
the sizing and location of transmission pipeline(s) and reservoirs and discussion concerning
ownership, governance and operation of the Lower and Upper Plants and other facilities.
A Master Plan for the WRWTP was completed in December, 2006. In order to facilitate the
evaluation of existing and planning for future water system facilities, and to assist in future
decision-making by the above named entities, all parties except Tualatin have entered into
separate MOUs with TVWD to solicit and negotiate a contract with a consultant to update the
Master Plan for the WRWTP and develop a Master Plan for the proposed Upper Plant
(collectively referenced hereinafter as the"Master Plan").
The Willamette Water Supply Program(WWSP) is a cooperative project to produce and transmit
finished drinking water from the WRWTP to TVWD and Hillsboro and such other municipalities
as may elect to participate in the program. All parties, except Wilsonville and Sherwood, have
entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement regarding Predesign, Design, Public Affairs and
Public Outreach in Furtherance of the Willamette Water Supply Program(Supply Agreement).
The Supply Agreement is comprehensive in all aspects to accomplish tasks to achieve
preliminary design of the WWSP and final design of the S.W. 124th Avenue Pipeline Project.
Page 1 - BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
The Parties have been engaged in mutual and cooperative discussions regarding the WRWTP,
the WWSP, the Master Plan and other issues relating to meeting the Parties' long-term need for
finished drinking water. The purpose of this Bridge MOU is to reaffirm the Parties' commitment
to continue to participate in the discussions with the goal of developing mutually acceptable
Agreement(s)or MOUs related to ownership, finance, design and construction of water system
facilities, including the Upper and Lower Plants and the governance, use, operation, maintenance
repair and replacement of those facilities(collectively referred to as"Future Agreements"). The
Parties recognize and acknowledge that each Party, based upon a determination of its own needs
and resources, will evaluate the benefits of becoming a party to those Future Agreements and
preserve the opportunity to fully participate with the other Parties if the individual Party finds it
is in its best interests to do so.
THE PARTIES AGREES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Participation. The Parties recognize and agree that each Party may participate in some,
all or none of the Future Agreements. To that end, the Parties anticipate that the Future
Agreement(s), if any,will contain a provision that allows a Party to participate upon
giving notice with participation to be effective at an agreed upon date.
2. Tigard and Tualatin Participation. All Parties recognize and agree that the Tigard and
Tualatin Charters require voter approval prior to using the Willamette River as a drinking
water source. All Parties recognize and agree that Tigard's or Tualatin's participation in
this MOU does not evidence a decision to use the Willamette River as a drinking water
source, nor does it require their respective city councils to authorize an election to vote on
whether to use the Willamette River as a drinking water source. All Parties recognize
and agree that Tigard and Tualatin intend to participate in this MOU in an effort to
develop Future Agreements that will provide a mechanism for either to join with the
other Parties, if a decision is made by their city councils and voters to use the Willamette
River as a drinking water source.
3. Future Agreements. The Parties agree to continue to meet, discuss and develop the
Future Agreement(s). Development of the Future Agreement(s)does not obligate a Party
to approve and enter into Future Agreement(s). The obligation of this MOU is for all
Parties to continue to work in good faith and cooperation to allow those Parties that so
desire to achieve their water supply system goals and complete construction by 2025.
Each Party specifically recognizes that ultimately it or another Party may decline to
approve and participate in the future agreement(s)but, until that decision is made, each
Party will continue to participate in a cooperative and timely manner.
Page 2—BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
3.1 Governance Agreement. All Parties agree to make reasonable and good faith
efforts to develop a Governance Agreement that is mutually beneficial and
suitable for submission and recommendation to the Parties governing bodies by
the end of 2016. Among other things, the Governance Agreement shall provide
methods for identifying and describing ownership of existing assets; construction
and contribution of new assets; fair and equitable decision making; management,
operation, maintenance,repair and replacement of assets; cost of service rate -
making principles integration and system operation, so that existing assets and
new assets work together in an efficient and effective manner; internal dispute
resolution processes;progressive methods to achieve compliance with the
Governance Agreement; and a provision to allow joinder of local government
water providers including, but not limited to, a provision to address equitable cost
recovery.
3.2 Other Future Agreements. Other Future Agreements may include, but not be
limited to, topics such as the S.W. 124th Avenue Pipeline Project, the
Transmission Pipeline Agreement, Reservoir Agreement, Willamette River Water
Treatment Plant Agreement(s) and Right of Way Usage Agreements for City
rights of way occupied by water facilities.
4. Anticipated Schedule. The Parties will make reasonable good faith efforts to complete
the final draft of the Governance Agreement by December 31, 2016 and other Future
Agreements as necessary to complete the Willamette Water Supply Program by 2025, as
set forth in Exhibits 1 and 2, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though
fully set forth.
5. Protocols for Development of the Governance Agreement. The Parties goal is to
develop a mutually acceptable Governance Agreement while recognizing that approval
by a Party's governing body is completely discretionary. To reach this goal, each Party
agrees:
5.1 To share in the costs of facilitating the discussions for the Future Agreement(s)
according to the current cost share formula attached hereto as Ex. 3 and
incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth. The estimated cost of
future facilitation services is $209,400, and the Parties agree to update and review
the cost share formula if necessary. While a Party is not obligated to execute the
Governance Agreement, it is obligated to pay its share of facilitation costs.
Reimbursement of facilitation or negotiation costs will not be made.
Page 3 —BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
5.2 To follow the facilitator's rules of conduct during project meetings and to provide
information to all Parties as to the results of any discussion of issues between less
than all Parties when such limited discussions could have an impact on the terms
of the Governance Agreement.
5.3 To use best efforts to avoid hindering the schedule to enable the water supply
project to be built and on line by 2025.
5.4 To commit staff to attend meetings as appropriate and staff members shall be
prepared to discuss and apply the information from the HDR Preliminary Design,
the WRWTP Master Plan Update, other studies and work product of the Parties or
consultants regarding meeting topics.
5.5 To identify information necessary to enable staff or the governing body of a Party
to review, consider and make decisions in a timely manner.
6. Cooperation By All Parties. The Parties agree that each will cooperate with the other
Parties as reasonably necessary to:
6.1 Provide advice and comment on the Willamette Water Supply Program as it
affects a Party and its residents and customers.
6.2 Provide advice, suggested solutions and comment on methods or strategies to
protect a Party's interests or reasonable actions to mitigate impacts to the Party's
interests.
6.3 Recognize and assist in reasonable mitigation strategies during temporary
construction activities within a Party's boundary that may impact the community.
6.4 Assist in developing and implementing a public information and outreach process
regarding WWSP activities to residents within the Party's boundary.
6.5 To evaluate the Upper Plant and Lower Plant site configuration and, if requested,
to assist in developing Upper Plant site layout alternatives for consideration by
those Parties that will use water from the Upper Plant.
6.6 If the preferred Upper Plant site layout requires acquisition of additional property,
exchange of property or other action to accommodate the preferred alternative, the
affected Parties will cooperate in contacting property owners and affected
neighbors,provide detail of the WWSP site needs and otherwise cooperate to
Page 4—BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
facilitate discussions. However, nothing in this MOU is intended to prevent or
hinder Wilsonville from performing its government function in evaluating and
issuing development applications or permits.
6.7 The Parties to this Agreement recognize the position of Wilsonville and
Sherwood as the only Parties currently using water from the WRWTP. Therefore,
any water supply facilities that may be designed and constructed to divert and
treat raw water and to convey finished drinking water from the Upper Plant or
Lower Plant to a Party's service area must function in a manner that does not
adversely impact or impair Wilsonville's or Sherwood's ability to obtain water
and serve their respective users, except for temporary impacts during construction
that are reasonably mitigated.
7. General Provisions.
7.1 Future Agreements. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the terms and
conditions of this MOU may be superseded or replaced by the Future
Agreement(s).
7.2 Withdrawal. Effective 90 days after written notice to all other Parties, a Party
may withdraw from this MOU. The withdrawing Party will be obligated to pay
its share of facilitation costs under Section 5.1 through the effective date of
withdrawal with no refund. The Parties may mutually agree to another
withdrawal date.
7.3 Assignment. No Party to this MOU may assign its interest in this MOU(or any
portion thereof)without the prior written consent of the other Parties.
7.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts
by the parties which shall constitute an agreement between and among the parties.
7.5 Notices. Any notice herein required and permitted to be given shall be given in
writing, shall be effective when actually received, and may be given by hand
delivery or by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the
parties as follows:
City of Wilsonville Tualatin Valley Water District
Debra Kerber, P.E. Mark Knudson, P.E., CEO
Public Works Director 1850 S.W. 170th
29799 SW Town Center Loop E Beaverton, Oregon 97003
. Wilsonville, OR 97070
Page 5 — BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
City of Sherwood City of Hillsboro
Craig Sheldon Kevin Hanway
Public Works Director Water Department Director
15527 Southwest Willamette Street 150 E. Main Street
Sherwood,OR 97140 Hillsboro,Oregon 97123
City of Beaverton City of Tigard
David Winship, P.E. Dennis Koellermeier
City Utilities Engineer Public Works Director
P.O. Box 4755 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Beaverton,OR 97076 Tigard,OR 97223
City of Tualatin
Jerry Postema
Public Works Director
City Administration
18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue#200
Tualatin, OR 97062
7.6 Amendment. This MOU may be amended only by mutual written agreement of
all Parties, signed by an authorized representative of each Party.
7.7 Books,Reports and Accounting. TVWD, as the contracting party, shall
maintain books and records which shall show all income,receipts, expenses and
costs in connection with any Consultant contract and this MOU. All such books
of account or other records may be examined and copies of books and records
made by TVWD staff at reasonable times upon reasonable notice. TVWD will
provide a report at least semi-annually showing receipts and expenditures
hereunder.
7.8 Waiver. The failure of a Party to insist on the strict performance of any provision
of this MOU or to exercise any right,power or remedy upon a breach of any
provision of this MOU shall not constitute a waiver of any provision of this MOU
or limit the Party's right thereafter to enforce any provision or exercise any right.
7.9 Governing Law. This MOU shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of Oregon.
7.10 Time is of the Essence. A material consideration of the Parties entering into this
MOU is that the Parties will make all payments as and when due and will perform
all other obligations under this MOU in a timely manner. Time is of the essence
of each and every provision of this Agreement.
Page 6—BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
7.11 Term. This MOU shall be in effect until the earlier of the execution of the
Governance Agreement or December 31, 2016.
THE UNDERSIGNED,PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GOVERNING
BODY, HEREBY EXECUTES THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON
BEHALF OF HIS/HER RESPECTIVE ENTITY
CITY OF WILSONVILLE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
An Oregon Municipal Corporation A Domestic Water Supply District
By:
Its: Chief Executive Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney District Counsel
CITY OF TUALATIN CITY OF SHERWOOD
An Oregon Municipal Corporation An Oregon Municipal Corporation
By: By:
Its: Its:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney City Attorney
CITY OF BEAVERTON CITY OF HILLSBORO
An Oregon Municipal Corporation An Oregon Municipal Corporation
By: By:
Its: Its:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney City Attorney
CITY OF TIGARD
An Oregon Municipal Corporation
By:
Its:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
Page 7—BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
12/17/14
Page 8— BRIDGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
25104.001\4828-8518-1473.v1
Exhibit 1
Willamette Governance Group
Proposed Topics Timeline
12.10.14
Sale and Dissolution
Allocation/Rates
WGG MOU System Use Dispute Resolution
WGG Workplan System Expansion Voting
Topics Outline System Capacity Governance
Interests in System Improvement Structure(umbrella
Assets v.knit together;a
Sale of Water to new entity or use
Begin System Outside Parties existing)
Ownership v. Leasing of Capacity
System Capacity
\/ \7 \/
1 201404 1 2015 01 1 2015 02 1 2015 03/04 1 2016 01/02 1 2016 03/04 1
Z\ / \ Z\
Continue System Joining and Leaving Develop and
Ownership v.System Refine IGA
Capacity Use Powers of
Managing Agency Final Draft
What do we mean by of the New Entity WGG
Ownership?
Program Agreement
Water Rights Management Council Board
Vision for Voting and Scope and Structure Approvals
Governance Structure
Operations
2026 WWSP Online Planning Schedule Exhibit 2
DRAFT 2014 2015 2016
11/12/2014 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Williamette '•Intent/At the able i Final Draft WGG
Governance •No Harm ! WGG Facilitation/Discussions' •CouncgilrBoard t
•Cost share for Facilitation 1
Group (WGG) •Include WRWC and Non- Approvals
ovals
1
WRWC participants(7) •t
Review SQQ's/Consultant
WRWTP Selection/Contract Approved
Project
Draft Preliminary Master
Master Plan Start Master Cost Plan «
Project WRWTP Master Plan MOU jT Plan Estimate Complete
(Six Partners) 1
r
iInterim WWSP Program LLJ
Management IGA _� ROW Utilization _f Begin Federal/State permitting -i Z
Interim Develop •12415 Construction Agreements Z
WWSP Interim Program •Program Mgmt Services 1 0
Program --4. Management 4---.1 •Public Affairs N
Program Advisor scope and •Public Outreach PM
Management structure •Permitting • Hire a program Firm
•TVWD-COH(Beaverton?) management firm Starts
.�Governance Extension I?)�� N
O
ev
WWSP Draft Preliminary
Open Houses Preferred Route - Preliminary -r Cost Predesign -.
Preliminary Short listed routes Complete
Design Estimate
Design Project** _
f 124th MOU w/Beaverton
''. 1 •Capacity/Cost Shares 1
I 124th Proiect MOU wl —4 1-
124th Ave Washington Cu. •Option+Timing to Buy In 1
Partici p ation in WWSP 1
Road & Pipeline •Intent 1` z
+ 124'h Project Construction
Construction Phase I
•Cost Shares r ,. .. Out to Bid Phase II
Project •Non-binding f 124th Constr.IGA w/WA Ctv j
•WA Cty-TVWD-COH -� •Cost Shares I-
�`
�t •Construction Management 1
1 •WA Cty-TVWD-COH 1
.
•See WGG Topics Outline
"See Detailed Project Schedule
Willamette Governance Facilitation Cost Shares: Exhibit 3
Current Cost Distritibution(Total Project) Amount for Phase 3 of Governance
Process(December 2014 through
Facilitation Fee: $209.40000 December 2016)
Portion of Connection
Connections Connections Amount Equal Amount Total Amount
Beaverton 17,700 12.9% $ 13,550.87 5 14,957.14 5 28,508.01 Beaverton
Hillsboro 24,793 18.1% $ 18,981.17 $ 14,957.14 $ 33,938.31 Hillsboro
Sherwood 5,610 4.1% S 4,294.94 5 14,957.14 $ 19,252.08 Sherwood'
Tigard 18,035 13.2% 5 13,807.34 $ 14,957.14 $ 28,764.49 Tigard'
Tualatin 6,668 4.9% $ 5,104.93 $ 14,957.14 $ 20,062.07 Tualatin'
TVWD 58,883 43.1% $ 45,080.00 $ 14,957.14 $ 60,037.14 TVWD•
Wilsonville 5,069 31% $ 3,880.76 $ 14,957.14 $ 18,837.90 Wilsonville
Total Connections 136,758 5 104,700.00 $ 104,700.00 $209,400.00
• $128,115.77 Amount to be Paid
by WRWC
Estimate of Additional fY 2014.2015 Amount Using Cost Distritibution Amount for Phase 3 of Governance
Process(December 2014 through
Facilitation Fee: 5 58.650.00 December 2016)
Portion of Connection
Connections Connections Amount Equal Amount Total Amount
Beaverton 17,700 12.9% S 3,795.41 S 4,189.29 $ 7,984.69 Beaverton
Hillsboro 24,793 18.1% $ 5,316.36 $ 4,189.29 $ 9,505.65 Hillsboro
Sherwood 6,610 4.1% $ 1,202.95 $ 4,189.29 $ 5,392.24 Sherwood•
Tigard 18,035 13.2% $ 3,867 24 $ 4,189.29 $ 8,056.53 Tigard'
Tualatin 6,668 4,9% $ 1,429.82 5 4,189.29 5 5,619.10 Tualatin'
TVWD 58,883 43.1% $ 12,626 27 $ 4,189.29 5 16,815.56 TVWD'
Wilsonville 5,069 3.7% 5 1,08695 $ 4,189.29 $ 5,276.23 Wilsonville
Total Connections 136,758 $ 29,325.00 5 29,325.00 $ 58,650.00
• 5 35,883.43 Amount to be Paid
by WRWC
Estimate of FY 2015-2016 Amount Using Cost Distritibution Amount for Phase 3 of Governance
Process(December 2014 through
Facilitation Fee. S 100,500.00 December 2016)
Portion of Connection
Connections Connections Amount Equal Amount Total Amount
Beaverton 17,70C 12.9% 5 6,503.64 $ 7,178.57 5 13,682.21 Beaverton
Hillsboro 24,793 18.1% $ 9.109.87 $ 7,178.57 $ 16,288.45 Hillsboro
Sherwood 5,610 4.1% $ 2,061.32 $ 7,178.57 $ 9,239.90 Sherwood'
Tigard 18,035 13.2% $ 6,626.73 $ 7,178.57 $ 13,805.30 Tigard'
Tualatin 6,668 4.9% 5 2,450.07 $ 7,178.57 $ 9,628.64 Tualatin•
TVWD 58,883 43.1% $ 21,635.81 5 7,178.57 5 28,814.39 TVWD'
Wilsonville 5,069 3.7% $ 1,862.54 $ 7,178.57 $ 9,041.11 Wilsonville
Total Connections 136,758 5 50,250.00 $ 50,250.00 $100,500.00
• $ 61,488.23 Amount to he Paid
by WRWC
Estimate of FY 2016-2017 Amount Using Cost Distritibution Amount for Phase 3 of Governance
Process(December 2014 through
Facilitation Fee. 5 50,250.00 December 2016)
Portion of Connection
Connections Connections Amount Equal Amount Total Amount
Beaverton 17,700 12 9% 5 3,251.82 $ 3,589.29 $ 6,841.11 Beaverton
Hillsboro 24,793 18.1% $ 4,554.94 $ 3,589.29 $ 8,144.22 Hillsboro
Sherwood 5,610 4.1% 5 1,030.66 $ 3,589.29 $ 4,619.95 Sherwood'
Tigard 18,035 13.2% $ 3,313.37 $ 3,589.29 $ 6,902.65 Tigard'
Tualatin 6,668 49% $ 1,22504 $ 3,589.29 5 4,814.32 Tualatin'
TVWD 58,883 43.1% $ 10,817.91 $ 3,589.29 S 14,407.19 TVWD•
Wilsonville 5,069 3,7% $ 931.27 $ 3,589.29 $ 4,520.56 Wilsonville
Total Connections 136,758 $ 25,125.00 $ 25,125.00 $ 50,250.00
• $ 30,744.11 Amount to be Pald
by WRWC
AIS-2055 7.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes
Agenda Title: Briefing on an Agreement with CWS Regarding the Right
of Way at the Southern End of 85th Avenue
Prepared For: Mike McCarthy Submitted By: Judy
Lawhead,
Public
Works
Item Type: Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
Briefing on an agreement with Clean Water Services (CWS) regarding the right of way at the
southern end of 85th Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action required; formal consideration of the agreement is scheduled on a future consent
agenda.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
This is an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the city and CWS regarding the south
end of 85th Avenue, which bisects the property of the CWS Durham Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Facility.
Key elements of the agreement are:
• CWS wishes to modify the southern portion of 85th Avenue in order to improve facility
efficiency and public safety by restricting vehicular traffic to facility traffic only.
•CWS regularly operates large facility equipment on and across 85th Avenue, and will be
constructing significant pipeline crossings of 85th Avenue. CWS desires these vehicular
restrictions to reduce the probability of a collision between a public vehicle and this
equipment.
•Exhibit A shows a schematic of the proposed changes including the location of the
proposed new cul-de-sac just south of the existing business park. CWS will provide any
additional right of way necessary for a standard cul-de-sac at this location.
• CWS will design and construct the project and bear all costs associated with it. Plans will
be provided for public facility improvement permit review, and will address city concerns
through design and construction.
•The project design will include continued bicycle and pedestrian access from the new
vehicular traffic terminus to the existing Cook Park trail, and will include new
landscaping and planted medians to enhance the pedestrian experience.
•The project design will maintain the emergency access to Waverley Drive to Tualatin
Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) standards. Removable bollards will be placed at the
terminus of 85th for TVF&R emergency access.
• 85th Avenue will remain public right of way and the city can require CWS, at CWS's sole
cost, to return this section of street to its current configuration.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The council could propose changes to the agreement or could decide not to approve the
agreement.
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS
None
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
This is the first time this agreement has come before the council.
Fiscal Impact
Cost: $0
Budgeted (yes or no): N/A
Where Budgeted (department/program): N/A
Additional Fiscal Notes:
There would be no cost to the city for this project or from this agreement.
Attachments
IGA for 85th Ave
Exhibit A to IGA -Drawing
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TIGARD AND CLEAN WATER SERVICES
FOR MODIFICATIONS TO SOUTHWEST 85TH AVENUE WITHIN THE
DURHAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN DISTRICT
This Agreement,dated , 2015, is between Clean Water
Services(District)and the City of Tigard (City).
A. RECITALS
WHEREAS,ORS 190.003 - 190.110 encourages intergovernmental cooperation and
authorizes local governments to delegate to each other authority to perform their
respective functions as necessary;and
WHEREAS,District and City collaborate on projects that involve wastewater treatment,
stormwater and erosion control,and general civil engineering projects in an effort to
improve water quality in the Tualatin Basin; and
WHEREAS,District and City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement dated
January 25, 2005 (2005 IGA)that articulates the procedures for working together on
projects; and
WHEREAS, District and City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement dated June
12, 2012 where District and City agreed to work together to establish a City Plan District
associated with the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility(Durham Facility);
and
WHEREAS, District and City worked together to establish the Durham Facility Plan
District pursuant to Chapter 18.650 of City's Development Code(Plan District); and
WHEREAS,District and City desire to enhance security and public safety within and in
the vicinity of the Durham Facility;and
WHEREAS,District and City wish to maintain and improve safety of pedestrian and
bicycle access to Cook Park via SW 85th Avenue and the existing Cook Park pathway;
and
WHEREAS, District is in the process of designing the Durham Facility Phase 5B2 plant
improvements project that will require construction of utilities across SW 85th Avenue
within the Plan District; and
WHEREAS, District and City wish to work cooperatively in modifying the southern
portion of SW 85th Avenue within the Plan District to restrict vehicular access to achieve
Page 1
IGA for Modifications to SW 85th Avenue within the Durham Advanced Wastewater
Facility Plan District
the goals of increased Durham Facility security and safety of District staff and the general
public;
NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Durham Facility Phase 5B2 Project(Project)will primarily include hydraulic and
odor control improvements for the treatment facility. The Project impacts SW 85th
Avenue in that there will be significant pipeline crossings of the street that will require
the street to be torn up at times and not accessible. During the preliminary planning for
this Project District and City Planning and Engineering staff met several times to discuss
the upcoming Project. During these meetings District and City Engineering staff
developed a concept to address the concerns of Durham Facility security and safety for
both the general public and District employees. The general concept is to limit vehicular
traffic on that portion of SW 85th Avenue located within the Plan District and that bisects
the treatment facilities within the Operations Subdistrict as shown in Map 18.650.A of
City's Development Code.The concept also includes traffic calming and redirection at
the point where access will be restricted through the use of a cul-de-sac type terminus of
regular vehicle traffic while maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access along SW 85th
Avenue and the Cook Park path. Finally,the Project will result in access improvements
off of SW 85th Avenue to the RV dump station that the Durham Facility provides for the
community. The concept is generally depicted in Exhibit A.
C. DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS
District will construct its Project to include modifying SW 85th Avenue within City's
right-of-way,by completing the following activities:
1. Design and construct the Project.
2. Provide, for City review,progress submittals of the design at the 60 percent,90
percent, and final bidding document production milestones for the Project.
3. Provide a design that allows continued pedestrian and bicycle access from the new
vehicular traffic terminus(new cul-de-sac)to the existing Cook Park path that
includes the following features(generally as shown in Exhibit A): a) a planted
median in section 1 of the modified street, and b) a reduced section of planted median
in section 2 of the modified street that will allow convenient District access to the
Facility's existing Headworks building.
4. Commit to providing similar planted median in section 3 of the street(Exhibit A) at a
future time that is convenient to District and is in conjunction with future Durham
Facility construction projects that would impact this section of street.
Page 2
IGA for Modifications to SW 85th Avenue within the Durham Advanced Wastewater
Facility Plan District
5. Coordinate with City on the design details of the new offset cul-de-sac that will be the
terminus of regular vehicular traffic, including any appropriate traffic calming
features and appropriate signage and barricading.
6. Cooperate with City and Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue(TVF&R) to ensure that
TVF&R emergency access is maintained to the existing Waverly Drive emergency
access road.
7. Acknowledge City's existing SW 85th Avenue right-of-way and that City may, upon
two years' notice, require District, at the District's sole cost, to return this section of
street to its current configuration(see D.5 below). District will provide City any
additional Right of Way needed as a result of the new cul-de-sac.
8. Maintain the section of street south of the new cul-de-sac in a manner acceptable to
City.
9. District's Project manager shall be Randy Naef, Principal Engineer, or as assigned.
D. CITY OBLIGATIONS
City will:
1. Review and provide input into the 60% and 90% design submittals within 10 working
days of receipt, unless otherwise discussed, and consider the Project a Public
Facilities Improvement.
2. Provide design assistance including meeting with District's designer during the
design phase regarding the design details of the new cul-de-sac, and associated street
closure, traffic calming, signage and barricading design details.
3. Allow District the following restricted access provisions during construction of its
Project: a)total closure of the portion of SW 85th Avenue within the Plan District
during a two-week period for construction of the pipelines that cross the street, and b)
allow continuous access for only pedestrian and bicycle for all other times with the
exception of sporadic closures during the workday necessitated by construction or for
public safety reasons.No restriction of pedestrian or bicycle access will be allowed
during special occasions such as the Tigard Balloon Festival as directed by City.
4. Cooperate with District and TVF&R in determining TVF&R's emergency access
requirements to the existing Waverly Drive emergency access road.
5. Make a finding that the proposal is in the public interest prior to directing the District
to return this section of SW 85th Avenue back to its pre-modified condition.
Page 3
IGA for Modifications to SW 85th Avenue within the Durham Advanced Wastewater
Facility Plan District
6. Give the District two years' notice prior to requiring the District, at the District's sole
cost, to return this section of street to its current configuration(see D.5 above)
7. City's project manager shall be Kim McMillan, Assistant City Engineer, or as
assigned.
E. COMPENSATION
The Project as outlined above will be funded by the District. Standard permit and plan
review fees, as specified in the 2005 IGA Section 3.C.8, will apply.
F. GENERAL TERMS
Laws and Regulations. City and District agree to abide by all applicable laws and
regulations.
2. Term of this Agreement. This Agreement is effective from the date the last party
signs it and shall remain in effect until the Project is complete and the parties'
obligations have been fully performed or the Agreement is terminated as provided
herein.
3. Indemnification. Within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, codified at
ORS 30.260 through 30.300, each of the parties shall indemnify and defend the
others and their officers, employees, agents, and representatives from and against
all claims, demands,penalties, and causes of action of any kind or character
relating to or arising from this Agreement(including the cost of defense thereof,
including attorney fees) in favor of any person on account of personal injury,
death, damage to property,or violation of law, which arises out of, or results
from, the negligent or other legally culpable acts or omissions of the indemnitor,
its employees, agents,contractors or representatives.
4. Integration. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
on the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous written
or oral understandings, representations or communications of every kind on the
subject. No course of dealing between the parties and no usage of trade shall be
relevant to supplement any term used in this Agreement. Acceptance or
acquiescence in a course of performance rendered under this Agreement shall not
be relevant to determine the meaning of this Agreement and no waiver by a party
of any right under this Agreement shall prejudice the waiving party's exercise of
the right in the future.
Page 4
IGA for Modifications to SW 85th Avenue within the Durham Advanced Wastewater
Facility Plan District
5. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated immediately by mutual written
agreement of both parties,or by either of the parties notifying the other in writing
prior to award of a construction contract,with the termination being effective in
30 days. The obligations contained in sections C.7, D.5 and D.6 shall survive the
termination or expiration of this Agreement.
6. Resolution of Disputes. If any dispute out of this Agreement cannot be resolved
by the project managers from each party,the Mayor and Clean Water Service's
General Manager will attempt to resolve the issue. If the Mayor and Clean Water
Service's General Manager are not able to resolve the dispute, the parties will
submit the matter to mediation, each party paying its own costs and sharing
equally in common costs. In the event the dispute is not resolved in mediation,
the parties will submit the matter to arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator
shall be final,binding and conclusive upon the parties and subject to appeal only
as otherwise provided in Oregon law.
7. Interpretation of Agreement.
A. This Agreement shall not be construed for or against any party by reason
of the authorship or alleged authorship of any provision.
B. The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for ease of
reference only and shall not be used in constructing or interpreting this
Agreement.
8. Severability/Survival. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are
held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not be impaired. In addition to the obligations contained in
section F.5, all provisions concerning the limitation of liability, indemnity and
conflicts of interest shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any cause.
9. Approval Required. This Agreement and all amendments, modifications or
waivers of any portion thereof shall not be effective until approved by 1) District's
General Manager or the General Manager's designee and,when required by
applicable District rules, District's Board of Directors and 2)the Tigard City
Council.
Page 5
IGA for Modifications to SW 85th Avenue within the Durham Advanced Wastewater
Facility Plan District
10. Choice of Law/Venue. This Agreement and all rights, obligations and disputes
arising out of the Agreement shall be governed by Oregon law. All disputes and
litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be decided by the state courts in
Oregon. Venue for all disputes and litigation shall be in Washington County,
Oregon.
CLEAN WATER SERVICES CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By: By:
Bill Gaffi, General Manager Marty Wine, City Manager
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
District Counsel Tigard Attorney
Page 6
IGA for Modifications to SW 85th Avenue within the Durham Advanced Wastewater
Facility Plan District
CH2MHILL PROJECT NO 495379
N
0 RV DUMP
STATI NS
NEW CUL-DE-SAC
---_-,— ' _____„ Cdr TERMINATION OF
SW 85TH AVE
n r
HEADWORKS EFFLUENT
STRUCTURE (HES) -gm..
HEADWORKS
U
w PLANTED MEDIAN,
TYP
)n
N
Z
O '
U
w
cn
BIOFILTER
1
WAVERLY DRIVE
EMERGENCY
7 ACCESS ROAD
1/—
w
co Q
0
U
EXISTING COOK PARK
1 PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE PATH
EXHIBIT A
SCALE 1 "=150'
CLEAN WATER SERVICES
DURHAM AVWVTF
PHASE 5B2 CH2MHILL
AIS-1887 8.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes
Agenda Title: Briefing on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects
Prepared For: Kim McMillan Submitted By: Judy
Lawhead,
Public
Works
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Meeting Type: Council
Staff Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing No
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
The council will be briefed on several Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action is requested; the council is asked to listen to the briefing.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
In order to keep the council informed on the status of current CIP projects, staff will provide
regular project briefings. See the attached table for project and schedule information. Several
projects will be discussed at this meeting.
A PowerPoint will be presented to highlight Dirksen Nature Park. This project design is
wrapping up and this update will provide a look at proposed improvements. The funding
challenges and opportunities will be discussed.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Not applicable
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS
Projects from the Capital Improvement Plan.
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
Staff provides the council with regular briefings on the status of CIP projects. The last
briefing was on Oct. 28, 2014.
Attachments
PowerPoint-Dirksen Nature Park
2nd Quarter CIP Delivery Project Summaries
- -; �b 3.
_ A31.,.., 0 0
-,
.4 , - .- n,rik4.1 I --ei 6pliatn
- _ i 1'4, L.___,,H.M*
x
011111110 4111111/0-w 44414111iii010 IMO 1111.11.
u
Park
_. _ 0
lill
1111111 I
City of Tigard
TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
r---- -
SUMMER CREEK PROPERTY
Master Plan June2012
TRK .._ ,7.' NlllTrail s `':
Educational 'f •L
• ° s a; parking(10 to 15 cars) Entrance
off —.._. _
Building_
- Picnic/ ---1 imn
Overlook
Interpretiv gyre ,7" .
l S Overflow Parking(10 cars) Area Wetland Overlook
• Community Garden
;..
Restroom/Shelter / c' '
Nature Play(5-12) -/ ''''t r '
+ Replanting
A /
—
Forested Wetlam r erlook�F no /
,i c
•
Coniferous = i I ,V 0 Farago Creek Trail ''
Entrance *Big Cedar Forest 1 ,+
8-foot Paved Trail „
Soft Surface Trail
1 k L-•— l
.' F
Sidewalk
Network " I 5-foot
Trail
�- ,-
•` / 3-foot Chip Tral•
1 l ,pr — Boardwalk
164 `'• •. ummer Creek Ove • aline
ill „ ,_
4. ` Water Quality Sta Nature Play•
�s•.\ Entrance '- Stnrcturr itto g //
• 'Bs Education Node
4 @ 7 }
1 School ; if, ,"• J
S
Tualatin River Keepers
01
, . ,,, _
, . , _ ,, , ,
_. _. ___ ____ .__ _ . ._ _._ _ . .„, ,
_ _ _ . _......
, 5, _ e ' ' _....,. ■
1
......
I.
Tualatin River Keepers
_-
_...
_,_
•
__
____ _ _ _
,......_
,_,
„,,,,, . .
., . \, \„,.......... ....„„,,.. ........ .. ... ... _
...,.
........ 4
ikiiiif . ,
II -fr
iii i
0
_ , .. ., :. ::,..• , .
Trails
Iktr-,,, .iA4.PkINAV,V.'4,7--"vt g
. -.... . . .
tilik kt . •
I'I,i '4 1,Vk' t:i:''',i.t.';A'',ALA* PI&0- ., ' -4i'''‘',, ).' (4.• I. ''
. ' "% 1 , !" 1. ! ''. 1 1'•
• ' • 4 ' • ., -I' ..0„., Ai....:'-.- ' ' ' - " 1:- .r.a.- ' -'.
iv. 1.4
. , .
tt . \ ,..;• '}, '''. ....' . ''!. A 14 .' AS• ."' , ".■
' . , 10-.1' •
...' . . . .
' ■ V. .
■
. . fr.
.^...' ,
t
J
,
1
to
--„ - ..0 1, p ...- ""0 ...
.,..1.'....-f•
. .
c ,
..... . ...-
. .
' If .......' 4111110.111 -All '410
— .1.°.' ' °."7 •
. , 1.., *, '- - • : '
.., .
1
l W owe r s
•
y
. . K
1 0 t t
.6,/,
• - t" .6%,
lo-
I`ti
li. t 1
...., t
ill :
,__ ,
. ,
_,,
,,,._,:._ ,
, ..„,....... -
P` -
,,,' )h
00,1
too
Forested
ter},: ....• i�p
. •k 3 t :s . i,117 c. 'R'• 'tea.
: !a �`„. ,.,, r.r '` rri 1 tin y∎.! ;w 1y � •lir
. • ,,,,,, iv... p, , .: „..',. ..... if. lic ,,,,t.
tt Lt. r ,, f 1� r'1 . r j
: ,i, , / , ., I, ' i "1. ' 111114- : *' `.
ii'
4
/ Y
� rr !
th
r t +
a
I 1 \ 1 a .!�` ' .j! +; f -A 4, 1' y
M, x ,y ►a' ' R.♦ IGf
i 4 I: y , -, i , .. . 1 1 0° ' • , ,,i', A” *.`, % .1*,„:3, . ' . ,
� i 1 .i f 4 4. tk i • �, q .
( ,p•,...,f r o \. p4W, i
oilr .. . . , ,
. .
,, k,...... ,,.,it '
Wetland Boardwalk
•
0
Oak Savannah
1
0
Restroom & Shelter 0
:.
0.... .
OP
-, -
. _
..._.:. , : ...."
-•‘': -Cvi! ..-,....„ -
r ... . k. • .. •
._.__.. .
_ i .
_ --..
1
•
. .-, 7.i - - '-........ip.
Al neva -: ii,
-4FMLIMIMMIP'
,.....m...v...!.-
s '
. ,
..,
....,... -
...=,
0
Nature Education
` ar.,_ 1`r.1 « J A
�r 1 Il p M Y k, ;.d + Au 7
P Qi
`, « a �, Ai
i i A . . . * ,.. 6, .. . . .
lit -'34ri' -.hi'S of + ' !•w.
1,21* Ob$.t.4 4
1._ !,
.. i1 � (, ,1« 4 1g 4 ,.
`+4a
# i fit _ p
1 44
k
. 14 i . =; L' 4 1
0 . 4s x
..of . tt;IA:44:,',.i''''.;
1' Pfi *
A ikh-
'r x .
.1):'''i l
1 ,
kJ .... \.
•,• 1
g/
CCU !! -f ti S r `
f1i .
-5 - .4" • 1 i i'I
,_ ,1R;,,
r : ,..,,..:. . ., .. -,,,i; ".-4,1:-1 . 410/V°1 . '
Pillii ' .1 .)'''"6°1' 4: '.•:' '4:: Vti-•.:',/,11/ '• - '
�/
41--11 ', -
V *, r ,4114 .
y - ,,
w� j
1111II SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
‘
■ Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
TIGARD Construction
CITY FACILITIES
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb rzi Apr El®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb Apr gaz®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Phase 1-Permit Center Original
91013 K McMillan
Building Wall Repairs Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) +(C) (C) : (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $28,820 $12,000 $22,873 ($10,873) $45,000 $51,693 — Phase 1 construction is complete.Total project
External $40,400 $662,900 $629,407 $33,493 $1,701,000 $669,807 97% 100% 100% dollars spent through 1/27/15 are shown.
Total $69,220 $674,900 $652,280 $22,620 $1,746,000 $721,500
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec gm Feb OM Apr ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Apr gm®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Phase 2- City Hall/Police Original I l 1 1
Building Wall Repairs Projected
Original
91013 K McMillan Landscaping(Both Phases)
Projected
Original
Concrete
Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) _ (A) +(C) - (C) + (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal See Above_ $18,000 _ $0 $18,000 $45,000 $0 — Internal and External expenses will not start
External $988,100 $0 $988,100 $1,701,000 $0 0% until after 7/1/15.
Total $1,006,100 $0 $1,006,100 $1,746,000 $0
—
Report Date: 1/29/2015 12:03 PM
Ng SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
lig C Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
TIGARD Construction
g,
PARKS SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EN Feb 122 Apr ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Original
'
92016 1 Peck Dirksen Nature Park "
Projected - �
_
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) -(C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)_(B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $114,583 $42,000 $26,521 $15,479 $217,000 $141,104 - FY15 Design is for all phases of the project.
External $3,791,346 $370,000 $48,553 $321,447 $6,909,127 $3,839,899 18% 90% 0% - FY15 Construction is for Phase 1 only.
Total $3,905,929 $412,000 $75,074 $336,926 $7,126,127 $3,981,003 - Proposed Q2.
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Aug Sep Oct Nov l Dec MI Feb Apr ®m Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Es Feb gm Apr � ��
� Sep Oct Nov Dec
Original 1 92034 K McMillan Tigard Street Trail & Public Space
Projected On hold as staff seeks additional funding
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) -(C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)_ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $1,742 $35,000 $925 $34,075 $50,500 $2,667 * Preliminary work includes fence and grading.
External $39,050 $0 $0 $0 $776,600 $39,050 3% - Q1 increase$20,000.
Total $40,792 $35,000 $925 $34,075 $827,100 $41,717
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct . Dec Feb � Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb ga Apr ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
92048 J Peck Summerlake Park Restroom Original ) ' it'.
Improvements Projected j
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) -(C) (D) (A) + (C) (C): (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $5,970 $10,000 $14,748 ($4,748) $20,000 $20,718
Q1 increase $102,000.
External $20,080 $127,000 $36,540 $90,460 $140,000 $56,620 37% 100% 0% - Proposed Q2.
Total $26,050 $137,000 $51,288 $85,712 $160,000 $77,338
Report Date: 2/2/2015 8:50 AM
III
q SECOND QUARTER
_ Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
T I G ARD Construction
ur,
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ga Feb Mar Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ell Feb rim Apr ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
93010 K McMillan Derry Dell Creek Sewer Interceptor Original
iiiiimiai
Relocation Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete % Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) : (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $35,007 $100,000 $38,144 $61,856 $140,000 $73,151
External $935,997 $1,035,000 $621,816 $413,184 $1,834,404 $1,557,813 58% 100% 100%
Total $971,004 $1,135,000 $659,960 $475,040 $1,974,404 $1,630,964
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EN Feb Apr =®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Original I
93013 1 Peck East Tigard Sewer Replacement .°T °._ °v_,�_. -- -__
Projected 4, Design on hold until FY2015/2016
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B)- (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) _ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $7,003 $0 $3,645 ($3,645) $100,524 $10,648 - 01 increase$29,550.
External $28,676 $29,550 $23,041 $6,509 $1,435,000 $51,717 90% - Clean Water Services'contribution will be 67%.
Total $35,679 $29,550 $26,686 $2,864 $1,535,524 $62,365 City of Tigard will pay 33%
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EN Feb gm Apr Ez®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Krueger Creek(Benchview) Original I I I 1
93014 K McMillan Slope Stabilization Projected Project on hold-resources will be allocated to other projects
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
g h FY14) g eted Ex P
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B)- (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) _ (B) Design Construction _Comments
Internal $15,581 $46,300 $1,616 $44,684 $97,553 $17,197 - Proposed Q2.
External $599,081 $565,000 $34 $564,966 $947,521 $599,115 0% 30% 0%
Total $614,662 $611,300 $1,650 $609,650 $1,045,074 $616,312
Report Date: 2/3/2015 1:58 PM
q SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
C Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
Construction
TIGARD
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb Apr ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Original t 1
93018 TBD Red Rock Creek Remediation
Projected * Project on hold
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete % Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)÷(B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $0 $45,000_ $2,217 $42,783 $0 $2,217 * Temporary repair completed by Public Works.
External $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0%
— Qi increase$45,000.
Total $0 $45,000 $2,217 $42,783 $0 $2,217
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb Mar Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec En Feb Apr =®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Barrows Road/Scholls Ferry Road Original
93035 J Peck
Sewer Line Extension (Phase 2) Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)_ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $4,758 $40,000 $2,620 $37,380 $150,000 $7,378 — Percent complete includes Phase 1 and Phase 2.
External _ $127,501 $350,000 $0 $350,000 $760,000 $127,501 1% 100% 100% — Invoice coming from City of Beaverton. _
Total $132,259 $390,000 $2,620 $387,380 $910,000 $134,879
Report Date: 2/3/2015 1:58 PM
a SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
C Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
T I GARD Construction
as
STORMWATER SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MI Feb Mar Apr May MI® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EN Feb EN Apr =END Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Original
94022 K McMillan Copper Creek Bank Stabilization .
Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) : (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $35,868 $0 $590 ($590) $78,834 $36,458 — Budget reallocated to CIP#94030 to pay for the
External $37,415 $0 $34 ($34) $180,000 $37,449 Stormwater Master Plan for River Terrace.
Total $73,283 $0 $624 ($624) $258,834 $73,907
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May MIEN Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MI Feb EN Apr =MIEN Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
94030 K McMillan Stormwater Master Plan Update for Original
River Terrace Projected -
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) -(C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) _ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $0 $24,000 $0 $24,000 $0 — 01 increase $6,500.
External $17,906 $156,500 $6,162 $150,338 $24,068 3% 12% — Budget moved from CIP#94022
Total $17,906 $180,500 $6,162 $174,338 $0 $24,068
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MI Feb Mar Apr May MIEN Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MI Feb EN Apr Ez®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
94031 M McCarthy Pacific Highway Median Original 1 F [ i
Water Quality Facility (WQF) Project Projected _ It
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) -(C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)-(B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $0 $5,000 $719 $4,281 $5,000 $719 — Partnering with Clean Water Services, ODOT
External $0 $62,850 $78 $62,772 Mr $62,850 $78 1% 100% 100% and King City. _
Total $0 $67,850 $797 $67,053 $67,850 $797 — Clean Water Services will invoice for final costs.
Report Date: 2/2/2015 8:51 AM
III .l SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
■ Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
TI G A R D Construction
n
STREET SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pavement Management Program Original ■
Overlay Projected r '
95001 M McCarthy
Pavement Management Program Original
Crack/Slurry Seal Projected l
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C): (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $150,000 $39,032 $110,968 - Design for this program is completed in the
External $1,750,000 $1,474,452 $275,548 80% prior fiscal year.
Total $1,900,000 $1,513,484 $386,516
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ell Feb Apr Ez®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Original
95023 M McCarthy Walnut Street Improvements
Projected . .. ,. , , T. . .
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete % Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)- (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $19,346 $68,000 $1,929 $66,071 $128,481 $21,275 - Washington County-led project. Dollars shown
External $8,573 $84,000 $3,948 $80,052 $262,000 $12,521 4% 50% 0% are City of Tigard's costs.
Total $27,919 $152,000 $5,877 $146,123 $390,481 $33,796
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb [In Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Es Feb Apr IIIMIZIEI Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
95033 M McCarthy Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street/ Original
McDonald St. Intersection Imp. Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B)- (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)_ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $82,166 $50,000 $3,165 $46,835 $75,000_ $85,331 - Proposed Q2.
External $1,146,319 $255,000 $61,253 $193,747 $1,851,9394 $1,207,572 21% 100% 5% - Does not include$1.1 Million.
Total $1,228,485 $305,0001 $64,418 $240,582 $1,926,939 $1,292,903
Report Date: 1/29/2015 12:09 PM
III r SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
■ Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
T(GARD Construction
0
STREET SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec IEI Feb Mar Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EZI Feb Apr 121®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
95035 M McCarthy 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street Original 1 1 I
Intesection Improvement Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete % Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)- (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $74,990 $82,000 $54,575 $27,425 $122,000 $129,565 - Q1 increase$450,000.
External $437,800 $1,929,350 $1,745,362 $183,988 $2,915,265 $2,183,162 89% 100% 100% - Corrective paving to be completed spring 2015.
Total $512,790 $2,011,350 $1,799,937 $211,413 $3,037,265 $2,312,727
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ell Feb gigg Apr iso®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
95041 M McCarthy Upper Boones Ferry Rd. /Durham Original
Rd. Adaptive Signal Coordination Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)_(B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $2,810 $49,454 $1,111 $48,343 $50,000 $3,921 - Q1 increase$24,454. $1M in federal funds.
External $109 $90,000 $0 $90,000 $115,000 $109 1% 5% 0% - Design delayed in ODOT procurement process.
Total $2,919 $139,454 $1,111 $138,343 $165,000 $4,030 - Partnering with Washington County.
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr IMMI®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ell Feb rim Apr liz®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
95045 M McCarthy 95th Avenue and North Dakota Original
Street Sidewalks Projected
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete % Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) _ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $1,185 $34,000 $1,350 $32,650 $34,000 $2,535 - Federal funding from Community Development
External $0 $200,000 $78 $199,922 $200,000 $78 1% 5% 0% Block Grant(CDBG).
Total $1,185 $234,000 $1,428 $232,572 $234,000 $2,613
Report Date: 1/29/2015 12:09 PM
IIIN SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
C Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
T I GARD Construction
e
STREET SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule is Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ES Feb Mar Apr May ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb rim Apr =®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
97003 K McMillan Main Street Green Street Retrofit Original
(Phase 1) Projected t
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete % Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) +(C) (C)-(B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $133,163 $105,000 $31,095 $73,905 $155,000 $164,258
External $1,532,772 $345,576 $31,736 $313,840 $1,974,313 $1,564,508 14% 100% 100%
Total $1,665,935 $450,576 $62,831 $387,745 $2,129,313 $1,728,766
Report Date: 1/29/2015 12:09 PM
Ilq
q SECOND QUARTER
I Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
T t G A R D Construction
n
WATER SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EMI Feb Mar Apr 12211ZIEll Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Fla Apr =®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
New Water Source Systemwide Imp. Original
96034 J Goodrich
(Unidirectional Flushing) Projected . ...
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B) - (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C)- (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $1,714 $30,000 $264 $29,736 $140,000 $1,978 - Design is complete on 830, 710 and 530 zones.
External $12,550 $260,000 $79,963 $180,037 $785,000 $92,513 28% 30% 20%
Total $14,264 $290,000 $80,227 $209,773 $925,000 $94,491
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec cm Feb Apr ®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1011 Feb Apr mi®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
96035 J Peck Barrows Road/Scholls Ferry Road Original
Waterline Extension (Phase 2) Projected -1
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B)- (C) (D) (A) +(C) (C)_ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $63,711 $37,000 $13,220 $23,780 $199,000 $76,931 - Invoice coming from City of Beaverton.
External $743,470 $308,000 $0 $308,000 $1,233,212 $743,470 4% 100% 100%
Total $807,181 $345,000 $13,220 $331,780 $1,432,212 $820,401
Report Date: 1/29/2015 12:10 PM
111‘ .1 SECOND QUARTER Design, Permitting, Land Use, Right of Way and Contracts
■ Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Report on Capital Delivery
T I G A R D Construction
it
WATER SYSTEM
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EMI Feb gm Apr L®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec El Feb Apr =®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
96036 M McCarthy
Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street Original I ! I I
'! ' -
Utility Casing Bore Crossing Projected .
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B)- (C) (D) (A) + (C) (C) _ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $0 $11,000 _ $2,079 $8,921 $11,000 $2,079 — Added waterline crossing and relocation.
External $0 $275,000 $54,513 $220,487 $275,000 $54,513 20% 95% 0% — Additional funding will be requested in Q3.
Total $0 $286,000 $56,592 $229,408 $286,000 $56,592
Project Project Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Number Manager Project Name Schedule ® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ei Feb Mar Apr = D Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ea Feb Apr m®® Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
96044 TBD Aquifer Storage & Recovery Well #2 Original Staff is developing the schedule t
Projected t 1
Prior Life FY2014/2015 Total Project Total Project %Complete
To Date Budget Expended FY2014/2015 %Complete %Complete
(Through FY14) Budgeted Expended Remaining (Through FY19) To Date Budget Total Project Total Project
Expenses (A) (B) (C) (B)- (C) (D) (A) +(C) (C) _ (B) Design Construction Comments
Internal $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0
— Ql increase $268,000.
External $0 $258,000 $0 $258,000 $258,000 $0 0% 0% — Budget reallocated from CIP#96010.
Total $0 $268,000 $0 $268,000 $268,000 $0
Report Date: 1/29/2015 12:10 PM
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
FOR F' I a
(DATE OF FETING)
Dirksen Nature
Park - Grant Funding Strate
� ..., • •
' Oregon •
.... ... .... ... .... .... .••• • •..
State Parks ••
♦ j Local Government
°Volunteers teers ■ Grant
•
,000 li IN
Land 10,000 est. add'1) J• Apply again
• Up to $780,000
Purchase clude: Oregon a
C4,... .. (Match)*(Klatch)*'•••;
uilding & b ``"••$5.3 Million missioning State Pa rks ngs Local Government V. ,, moval
� � �
Nature in Grant
Grant Local
Neighborhoods $450,000 +$450,000 Match*
Program Elements Required
• Interpretive Shelter/Restroom
Grant Local r r r r r •
• Utilities for Shelter/Restroom)
$390,000 + $780,000 Match �. r *Match can be land
Elements Required purchase dollars
• Oak Savanna Restoration ••
• Oak Savanna Overlook •,,,••••, Anonymous
•• Forested Wetland Restoration
• Interpretive Shelter/Restroom Donation
• Nature Play Area ..• $16,000
(at Interpretive Shelter/Restroom) •••• Oak Savanna
• Forested Wetland Boardwalk •`•• Restoration
••`` `'• • i ■ • ■ • ■ • ■ +•+ $155,000
December 2010 to 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
April 2011
AIS-2148 9.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes
Agenda Title: Discuss changes to the City Manager Evaluation for 2015
Prepared For: Dana Bennett, City Management Submitted By: Dana
Bennett,
City
Management
Item Type: Public Hearing- Informational Meeting Type: Council
Business
Meeting -
Main
Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Council to discuss the effectiveness of the criteria used during the 2014 City Manager
Evaluation and reach consensus on what changes they want to make to the criteria.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
At Council direction, staff is seeking to open discussion on the criteria used during the 2014
City Manager Evaluation.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
During Council's evaluation of the City Manager for calendar year 2014, a new format and
criteria were developed and utilized. Council Woodard raised some suggestions for changes to
make the criteria more focused on only those aspects of the City Manager role that Council
oversee and feel they can effectively evaluate. To that end, Counselor Woodard's suggestions
are attached, embedded into the 2014 evaluation form in section III subsections (a, b, and g).
The goal is to determine, largely, what criteria Council will use for the 2015 calendar year
evaluation.
Per statute the final evaluation criteria and format will be presented at an open public meeting
to allow for public comment in late fall when Council is preparing to begin the 2015 calendar
year evaluation process.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Council makes no changes to the evaluation criteria.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
The evaluation criteria will measure, in part, the City Manager against goals set by Council for
calendar year 2015. The process of the evaluation is part of the Employment Contract
between the City Manager and the City.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council met to evaluate the City Manager on January 27, 2015, in addition Council will
consider an amendment to the City Manager's Employment Contract during the February 10,
2015 meeting. However, this Council Workshop will be the first meeting to formally discuss
the evaluation criteria effectiveness and potential changes to the criteria for calendar year
2015 evaluation.
Attachments
City Manager 2014 Evaluation Form
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Review period: January 2014- December 2014
I. In completing this evaluation,please consider the Citywide core values adopted to set the standard for service
excellence at the City of Tigard("Get it Done","Do the Right Thing",and"Respect and Care").
Please use the following criteria: 4 =Exceeds Expectations;3 =Fully Effective;2 =Developing 1 =Needs Improvement;
NA =Not applicable(have not observed this area during the evaluation period).
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
II. Evaluate and discuss the City Manager's overall job performance in achievement of the GOALS set for the
current review period.Base your evaluation upon the job requirements,achievement of the goals established during
the past review period,and your assessment of the City Manager's accomplishments.
1. GOAL 1-Economic Development
a. Establish an ED strategy so Tigard is organized to support developing the local economy
b. Set up staff resources to carryout and support the strategy
c. Engage a community committee or group to help with and carry out the strategy
d. Create transportation connections by continuing to pursue Ash Avenue rail crossing
e. Downtown Tigard and Urban Renewal District
f. Advance plaza development through property acquisition
g. Pursue a housing redevelopment project
h. Pursue a retail and mixed-use project
i. Create a bike/pedestrian connection with Tigard Triangle
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
2. GOAL 2-Financial Stability: build the city's financial reserves
a. Work with employees to establish"fair share" benefit contribution
b. Defer or delay projects or find more efficient ways to do business
c. Pursue local option levy in spring of 2014
d. Find creative solutions to increase revenues
e. Plan for Growth:River Terrace Community Plan substantially complete,bring entitlement/zoning decisions
to Council as soon as possible(in calendar year 2013 if possible);communication with annexing residents to
understand service desires
f. Community recreation:find financing to support increasing recreation capacity in Tigard
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
� t
3. GOAL 3-LO-Tigard Water Partnership: continue to build partnership relationships and keep
current sources and project on track
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
4. GOAL 4-Community Engagement: develop venues to meet with the public quarterly to gather input
on key issues facing the City,including:
a. Annexation
b. Transportation/HCT
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
5. GOAL 5-State and Regional Relations
a. Effectively represent Tigard on revenue reform issues in 2013
b. Work with neighboring jurisdictions to advance joint transportation and economic development goals at the
state and federal level
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
1'_' 2
III.Evaluate and discuss the City Manager's job performance for the current review period. Please provide
specific examples to support your assessment/evaluation.Consider the City Manager's performance in the following
areas.
a. Administrative Ability/Professional Skills including planning,organizing,time management,decision-
making,and organizational/strategic thinking
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
I'm proposing changes to III[a] and the addition of a leadership subsection.
1) Keep III [a] make the rating measureable to another manager bench mark comparison if possible.
2) Add subsection for Leadership Performance rating—This I've not seen and an important rating at
this level for any organizational operation.
I believe administrative/professional skills at this level of organization must have a Bench mark to measure
against and a leadership component to rate. It's too generalized or constructed wrong for me to rate
objectively.
b. Personnel Functions including supervision,delegation,labor relations,and leadership/management style
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
Since I addressed Leadership in III [a],it is not necessary to cover in this comments area.
It's too generalized or constructed wrong for me to rate objective.
Personally, I didn't like the construct of the question. Organizational leadership and functional
management and supervision all have separate roles,meanings and definitions and must be applied in
construct separately. Since I addressed Leadership in III [a],it is not necessary to cover in this comments
area.
c. Budget and Finance including financial management and operational efficiency
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
d. Community Relations including public service,sensitivity,public involvement,and media relations
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
e. Intergovernmental Relations including representation and developing resources
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
I3
f. Interpersonal Skills/Individual Characteristics including professionalism,creativity,ethics,and
adaptability
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
g. Communications including community/public,employees,and Council
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
If this question is not changed I don't know how I can rate "communications with employees." I'm
mostly exposed to a few supervisory staff on a limited basis.
Recommend the removal of"employees" and replace it with something else,or create a new
evaluation line item. It's too generalized or constructed wrong for me to rate objectively.
h. Economic Growth&Development including strategy,vision and community engagement
RATING: NA 1 2 3 4
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (OPTIONAL)
IV. Are there areas of exceptional performance that should be particularly noted?Provide specific examples.
V. Are there areas of performance needing more attention or improvement?Provide specific examples.
ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS FOR UPCOMING RATING PERIOD
List and discuss your expectations and suggested goals for the City Manager for the upcoming performance
evaluation period.Goals should be:(1)related to community goals,(2) may include new projects or ongoing fundamental
portions of the position,and(3) should include specific measures including outcomes and timeframes.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (OPTIONAL)
Please provide any additional comments on the City Manager's performance review in the space provided here.
� 4