The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/19/2016 :liga "I City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda TIGARD on TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 19,2016 - 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 503-718-2419 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (l'UD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171,ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-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 III I' City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 19,2016 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM 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. JOINT MEETING WITH LIBRARY BOARD 6:35 p.m. estimated time 3. RECEIVE UPDA IE ON SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM 7:05 p.m. estimated time 4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS FORMING A TIGARD TRIANGLE CITIZEN ADVISORY COUNCIL 7:35 p.m. estimated time 5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARK PROJECT UPDATE 7:50p.m. estimated time 6. DISCUSSION ON RIVER TERRACE AND CITY-WIDE SANITARY SEWER SURCHARGE FEES 7:55 p.m. estimated time •EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss property acquisition and exempt public records, under ORS 192.660(2) (e) and (f).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. 8:25 p.m. estimated time 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS 8. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. estimated time AIS-2477 2. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 04/19/2016 Length (in minutes):30 Minutes Agenda Title: Joint Meeting with Library Board Prepared For: Margaret Barnes,Library Submitted By: Norma Alley, Central Services Item Type: Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE This is the regularly-scheduled,annual joint meeting between City Council and the Tigard Library Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST None requested. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Annual meeting with the Tigard Library Board to provide information to City Council and update them on overall library operations. OTHER ALTERNATIVES n/a COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS n/a DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The Library Board last met with City Council on April 21, 2015. AIS-2508 3. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 04/19/2016 Length (in minutes):30 Minutes Agenda Title: Receive Update on Safe Routes to School Program Prepared For: Liz Hormann, Community Development Submitted By: Liz Hormann,Community Development Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Update on the City of Tigard Safe Routes to School Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program has started to take hold in a number of schools. While each school's program is different, the SRTS coordinator is working to develop a comprehensive program and Action Plan for each Tigard-area elementary and middle school.The following are a few examples of how a SRTS program is being implemented: *More frequent Walk&Bike to School Days—Templeton has instituted a monthly Walk&Bike to School Day and Mary Woodward has a weekly Walk&Bike to School Day to help inspire students and parents to walk and roll to school on a more regular basis. •Action Plans—Templeton was the first school to adopt its Action Plan in April 2016,a few other schools are in the initial phases of drafting Action Plans. Key project priorities from the Templeton SRTS Action Plan are: •Improving the safety of the crosswalk at SW 96th Ave &SW Sattler Ave. -reduce the speed limit on SW Sattler and install enhanced crossing signs like in-street pedestrian signs or other traffic calming devices. •Improve the safety of crossing SW McDonald St. -install enhanced crossing signs like Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). •Improve walking conditions on SW Murdock- pathways or sidewalks on one side of SW Murdock from East Heritage Butte Park to Templeton. •District-wide crossing guard program. •Jump Start Program—Three schools (Twality Middle School,Fowler Middle School,and Metzger Elementary) are teaching Bike Safety Education to students through the end of the school year. •Mapping—Integrated the TTSD Supplemental Transportation Zones into school SRTS maps. These are the zones where TTSD provides bus transportation for students within the one-mile walking zone and are a good initial focus area for the SRTS program. •Projects—A few on-the-ground projects have been implemented including Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) signals that improve pedestrian safety at a number of crossings on Durham Rd.;a No Parking Zone at Mary Woodward Elementary to improve the circulation of buses getting into and out of the driveway and improving the visibility of those using the crosswalk in front of the school;and a LQC trail project at Metzger Elementary set to be completed in June 2016. In addition to these activities,the SRTS coordinator and planner liaisons are working to build a lasting foundation for a SRTS program at each school by forming SRTS Task Forces,working with the existing PSO groups,and others within the school. These groups of interested parents, students, school staff,and community members are the key to creating self-sustaining programs at each school that continue to support safe and active transportation for students. Finally,implementation of the school Action Plans will require additional project funding and a re-prioritization of potential projects around schools. Shifting transportation mode rates will take time. Therefore, the SRTS coordinator must work to find a way to create self-sustaining programs at each school, that continue to support safe and active transportation for students. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Strategic Plan: Goal 1. Facilitate walking connections to develop an identity Goal 3. Engage the community through dynamic communication DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION November 17,2015 Attachments Templeton.S RTS.ActionPlan SRTS PowerPoint SafeRoutes IN 6 a ToSchool TIGARD ® 3 Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School Action Plan • . . :„ . .. , ,. .. : • 1�_ I •�! 1 �,,_g.S T4s ' ..P•rl,. r•• ..: —41111111111111111111111111111.1111P_, ,.y7y' LETt�I fi "'1- 7 T. 'i.7 SafeRoutes R, i. Tigard Safe Routes JO School ll 0 „ r~ El INI 11 TIGARD - ,A Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School Action Plan — CONTENTS — Introduction 1 School Information 1 Project Team 1 What is Safe Routes to School? 2 Existing Conditions 3 School Attendance Area 3 District Transportation Policy 3 District Supplemental Transportation Plan 3 Walk and Bike Audit Evaluation 6 Evaluation and Data 9 Student Travel Data (Mode Split) 9 Parent Survey Data 10 Recommendations and Plan Implementation 11 Possible Engineering and Infrastructure Strategies 11 Possible Programmatic Strategies 13 Strategy Prioritization 14 Final Thoughts 14 - INTRODUCTION - SCHOOL INFORMATION School Name: Templeton Elementary School Address: 9500 SW Murdock St,Tigard, OR 97224 County: Washington County School District: Tigard-Tualatin School District School Website: http://www.templeton.ttsdschools.org/pages/templeton elementary Enrollment: 597 Enrollment by Grade: K=87, 14.7%; 1St=88, 14.7%; 2"d=107, 17.9%; 3'd=110, 18.4%;4th=110, 18.4%; 5th=95, 15.9% Free/Reduced Lunch: 50% Action Plan Contact: Liz Hormann, lizh@tigard-or.gov, 503-718-2708 THE PROJECT TEAM School Principal: Todd Robson Parent Representatives: Amy Reilly and Colleen Gibb City Staff Buff Brown Representative: City Police/School Travis Doughty Resource Officer: School District Phil Wentz Representative: City Safe Routes to Liz Hormann School Coordinator: Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 1. WHAT IS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL? The Tigard Safe Routes to School(SRTS) Program works to promote and support the use of safe,healthy and active transportation(like biking and walking)to school.There are so many benefits to walking,biking and rolling to school—from increasing daily physical activity to ensuring students are awake and ready to learn to improving the en- vironment and air quality around the school.A generation and a half ago,nationally,over 50%of students walked or biked to school;now only 13%of students use active SRTS Program Goals transportation to get to school.There are a number of reasons for this decline,which is why the Tigard SRTS Coordinator is working with each school to develop a compre- 1. Reduce the number hensive SRTS Program specific to each school's unique context and environment. of driving trips to schools. The Six E's provide the foundation of our SRTS initiatives,ensuring that the safety,active transportation and community aspects are promoted. 2. Educate families Equity—Reduce health and wealth disparities by providing equitable services in all about the benefits school communities. of active transporta- tion. Education—Students learn lifelong safety behaviors and skills,while parents can learn about the benefits of active transportation and safe travel for students to school. 3. Improve traffic Encouragement—Parents and students are invited to engage in biking and walking safety and C I rC u I a events and activities that promote healthy and active transportation options. tion around schools. Enforcement—Promote safe walking and biking through consistent enforcement of 4. Identify champions traffic laws around schools. to build the program and sustain activi- Engineering—Implement engineering changes such as new sidewalks,improved ties. crossings,and other traffic calming devices to enhance safety of the walk or bike to school. Evaluation—Assess the neighborhood travel routes, and drop-off and pick-up pro- cesses at the school;as well as evaluate the success of the SRTS Program as a whole in Tigard. This Action Plan lists the known barriers to walking,biking or rolling to Templeton Elementary School and identifies the potential engineering and programmatic strategies to address those barriers. Some strategies are more geared toward engineering and in- frastructure,while others are more programmatic—education,encouragement events, and enforcement.The Action Plan is available for use by the city,the Templeton SRTS Task Force,the Tigard-Tualatin School District,parents, students and community members as a framework to guide Templeton's work on SRTS. Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS — SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREA The Templeton Elementary attendance boundary is an area framed by Hall Blvd.;Durham Rd. and Hwy 99W,minus a small portion of the southeast corner across from Durham Elemen- tary;and including an area south of Durham Rd.to the Tualatin River between Hwy 99W and 103rd Ave. (see map on page 4). DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION POLICY The preferred method of travel is by school bus for students in grades kindergarten through 5th who live more than 1 mile from school. Otherwise,students are encouraged to walk,bike, carpool,or be driven to school. DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY The Supplemental Transportation Plan provides for buses to transport students inside Ore- gon's unfunded walking distances—1 mile for elementary school students and 1.5 miles for middle school students—because of hazardous conditions such as difficult crossings,limited infrastructure,crossing railroad tracks,freeway crossings,and high volume and high speed roadways.The Plan outlines areas that contain these conditions and addresses the reasoning behind the designation (see map on page 5). Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School 3 1 'Ca. .1 -'7'14!.‘67. .7`,/. "-A)0.•>•••••••/. 1 MAI:.I' . ' • TI ' A'. ..-T-Nett,tr.••••• •-•j___—.7 IN AL AN 0 t• Templeton Elementary Sellool Sitidelit Residences i t ; . . ., • ...•.1, . iti, firc,v, . I ?‘ 1 .• . •4-I/;., W,, .4". • ,,'i r' •4i, ... 4, y i -0.10/. , f' -, s. • •••64..i,':>1 110k- ,X 1 4; 1'-". '. %.1 ' ' • •.••• tA •••:),..• % '%, ,F c•P " i , • . I , . ,.., / -. 1 "% . ..• . , • /to/ • .,,,' 1" ..,, • . ,- , IP . % ,to,- • , •• 1 •44/to •,c• •••• ,,,, ...• i ‘J '• . l' * v:.- ' 1 ..• , .; Oe. 1, ' f-#.1.-01•0,;., I '1(4'4 .• ..N.A.11. ' j i I .. !, .; . . . .' • . 606010.••• 6 .',.,, • --- -.t i ' r••,••• •6 • ••••,...1.661.••••,`•o, , i ,.. TI •• • / '-- • • *O.tfra_r`i•-...: . • 7'•!...!•"4 L"•••"6. -.. I • . r, 0, GAARE-S" ' • ! 3.4!CDONAkLI SI- • ,- '',. I i....4.0,...0 Yi> • $'•• 1 \N'A 4. r •••. 'I L.r, • .il 2, I r. ,••••• I := s- . 4. • ,•.,:,". at . 7 7. A.-I•Att. 4 - . illa, . 7 . . 7 . Su.i.li_T14.6.....,al••:•,• i..* 1 ••••( "'n, • ""•••i",• c. .•C --• r ! .,* e, S. I.,_-4..:, . A. BONITA RD LI. ->-- I. t i .:••' ••!4 I:4'.t44 4. i James-• . , -Il I 1 Tpot•t-R° (..., et,mrs.,\-44- t • ---1/42/444....; . •.• at/4 o/I i . /z. —BU t °t)tI4 e. Tt44424ton , .. . •. . z EttYroynta/y tl-e•L-4t,-'"*"I ' i y7, .. , , • 4/ - 1, , •• „It, ...,......3 11'I I .• _:./-Ii — V ... Jr•••' •I • I• (--- • I - • I. : ?-1-!"' e,. --I7I' :.__LI •II • . "• - .1. • etkatt ..t.,.../ . . --/y• •-/,,-• .4 ,. • ...2m. 41 ; ' --- /44' vI/: • 1••• : I - -- , - ; .14.1L•4 1.;,...•*`'..0; ,A. i * i :; * AP,6 I. ;• 4.41 .,k. '41 i % . -...4 -- • ' ' ' I' '' i alt ,...- " .•11.47. 4 I ci, I. . ' •+. V-4 ' • i'40.1 fa 1 1.60'1,, T ' r_ •4'44,7 1 ..' ' •A'Alj.:' ' •r.• t ATI'74* '''' .1 --: 00*"t ‘" .: "C '• .;•I041i 0-11 .' .., it**1-% '''' • ' 1 1 IA ' ...,••'Yr , • < ''•' *4 04_it '. I.Mg,l•kt.•:., , .•1 I • i'' .‘...! .. .4_ „s, ____9,4-,,,c, -1., -- I',/iI. ,,-- • .'t*I" -441/...t" '''.,. 41 44-' 7t14*--4 . ' 7--- A) t , . '1,,'F. ' 4,,'- ' - ,T1 1 (- ..aw"* 4' °'' z Awq's" -j i - .. ••• .,, , .1 -...5 .,.. , ,...„.0.:;.•illi.A OA. ( I . .., ..:,. ".i.*, : 1 Gill. s•• •---- . !...; .--.-... 114. .DJ'R,-!..744AVI•437:: .1 • ',I At, " ' I 7* •.• ...•no•lu :'1/4' :'-• f 1 . ' . •.4 .i -, . ,,i;,, •,7,:, 1,,c,..,_. I. . . • - wr- * • • • ....., - i , . : .o. ..- i. 11aUlt.04 SI 1.47 00 :7 4, ‘,".... C ' ' .>- 4011111111 ,71':' . z' a, ., cn 41, ,-t•--- --.,- ! ! o ,4'• , o 0 '..) 0.25 0.5 Mks DATA$00R(k5 01414 c:3 7'.. , ,...'' 7, ,:'1• ,:.,....' el-:,:-'I-., :.:'',...: :7-'7, IC .'I' III ...1.. .,',,.-r-, . I-:...(,-.. .!---.- '... 1:--1 Tr'':,_•, •.-11- Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 4 I i 1 1 ',. ''''".1 : '4:(!:‘',i.'76.4.•00<e< t' - - '.. L4/k.::. Templeton Elementary School •!" r_- I , Stli)i)leilieitial Transportation Zones I : I .0•11.,‘1. ...i.i i ••',_ . 1V1I._,c*Ii..o-t.2.1:.,0„.02- t / '..,...l,i2t•O,.':.,.r,','c1.- t•'!..•,''fi,•,"f,',... .",m7i.t:1. \-4.. • I ii 4 9 .VAN•NsiAt,,.s.:, ,.1"1A1"1lk1/4‘1,,', • it ••• , , 7, . ....1i ',4-.4 , ('''S ..• , . i•.' .,• Tr ' * 40"• 7,1 • lick' . .......' ....-Cri"*.•?2_,_..........j .,,, 1 I r'" 1 ,....h...Jo...t.:4 frv.io. ‘.4.,Ii.1,4 40.1.•4.., /: '..-'-'\--' / , "--7- logos*si_i / r L , ...1 , i . L.: GA A RDE.S7------1-T M;DONAED-S- .' V • ..; .• 1 -4,..rst,,414' • • • 12 , _. c21•12./. i :ii f - •'.*. * . 1 • l'• I ofaef . .. • .r. 4. II ,y(4., . ::- f,' r• . : i• 7 •, • ; - IMO', ' URIllitia4.4-, ..4 . .... 7. I 4.•.%. ,; 4 .vs•,..,,,.• rt.. 8 J•C -0 ' , ,•••• , 4 Efr 1,74,,k, — .--..-' .'''''. . i w 4.11m : SONIVA RD James eu 0,-1001.:".•• ,Irt 2 - * • •! I14,111.0.EtOn .--3). r- •.,..!..1. Eletrti•fitamy etc__ k iv,Oil, , • t! , . Z on nt•• 4L• $Nth i L• - -------7_ • s. •r . .4i• j ( 1 I. O.R.D 11 • ''''' -". ..,0 •,..,.... • M. • r , , _ .st,0, -, r 41111,iliNtS004 0.4„ k • : 1 ',Ars T•' ""r• , k r , :J,)., e-.001-1.4f.ir 1 :1• ! -......,,, , , - ......, : i i• i. • 41 f % • :All'av:- ' i ' -- 1••-i'' 1," • , •••• '''.1 , J '"• " 11 t . ...De.... ' ".. 7: , os- tvots* ._ „,Fe r ..-..:: . I 2 sr. l' , ...._...* . ''''v ,,.i' , -•:,, ."748A”- ' , _, Z I k —4 ' ,.-- . , I o, i''•;0;\ -li ! L'''— i , iir.01.r'ov.H•;j I .. _. ci ...., ' . . T30.•to, , iiii.--;.1 - 1. •0.44,,,,,,s1 A/ALI:114,ST ii; i 'T rl .,... . , I , .., .. '-= "Ii• I , r , :,.. ...,7 .. .---,---.: ,. .;•,.11.r*44.te‘ •i .'1',",, 1"' .../ 1.4 t cgO' ..• ,...' • ...,. I SI1 , Vi • p-,?1,4‘ilAti!1.•., 1 • •' _..: ''., ''r. ,..,T. .- I. i• 81 LI 1 ty ilA; z -....1.\\\C— 7-1:At'lli:C i Ic:'": 1-.1'i*:**S1 'rci'7 , •‘..j/.." -- UN.P.1.Mk, _,..—.-- ---- //e.'/' . .."" "I ,4!`''' .' J if 0 025 (I 5 Milt c, • •_,radent Res:A-lace, DTA SO UR CE-5 """.." TI;ill oPs licoN...... . ..., re:r.pleron Etnatt-:,:.u-•Sc'nelo)Pi crpen• 0 Ten:pleT0t1 Elenleilt A::._ rt tn&ince Ape:21 ?cat:I:ion Zcbure- Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 5 WALK AND BIKE AUDIT EVALUATION A walk audit is a tool to identify key issues and barriers to walking and biking to school.This is an interactive event where we go out and walk the areas and routes around the school.An on the ground investigation during the walk to and from school time period is the best way to see key issues,conflict areas,and behaviors of those travelling to and from school.The following physical environment barriers were identified during the Templeton walk audit,through the - - parent surveys,and other communication with parents and school officials. Physical environment barriers • Crossing:SW Sattler at 96th Ave is difficult because many cars don't stop for kids crossing the street. o No slowing mechanisms from Hall Blvd.—straight shot down SW Sattler at 35+ mph. - • o 35 mph seems very high for a street like SW Sattler. Four-way stop at Sattler and 98th—no sidewalk or curb for students crossing o Bushes on east side of SW Sattler block view of kids trying to cross. 98th to the sidewalk on Sattler. • Crossing:98th and Durham Rd.—cars turning left from 98th to Durham don't always wait for kids to cross. • Crossing:McDonald and Omara—cars don't always stop at marked crosswalk. When the cars do stop,they do not wait for person to get all the way or even most . ' of the way across. Cars start moving again as soon as the person clears the first - lane. • Crossing/ traffic circulation: Murdock and 97th—many conflict points at this ; • intersection—traffic flow and pedestrian use. t---- o At pick-up this crosswalk is difficult for students to cross. Cars backed-up for drop-off and regular traffic flow trying to get around creates a congested intersection. • Crossing:98th and Sattler—this is a four-way stop,so generally protected for . -; students crossing,but there is no curb or standing area for students coming from Sidewalk ends on north side the west side (southwest corner)of 98th to cross. of Sattler about 300ft be- fore 96th which leads to the • Crossing: 108th and Durham Rd.—high traffic volumes and the nature of the entrance to Templeton. stoplight(no through traffic up 108th to the north,vehicles must either turn left or right onto Durham Rd.)make this a difficult crossing.Parent indicated preference to crossing Durham here (as opposed to 98th) because there are fewer driveways and street access points on the north side of Durham Rd. • Crossing/ Infrastructure:Difficult crossing/intersection at Pinebrook and 92nd Ave and no sidewalk or path on Pinebrook(the east end of Pinebrook is part _0404- -- of the district Supplemental Transportation Plan,offering buses within the mile walk radius of Templeton). • Roadway/ Infrastructure:Noncontiguous sidewalks or pathways along Mur- dock St. from 103rd to 98th.Traffic increases on Murdock during the student Sw Murdock has no shoulder space drop-off and pick-up times,which coincide with pedestrian traffic on the street. and steep drainage ditches,leaving Murdock is a very narrow street with little to no shoulder space.Steep drainage little walking space. ditches line the road in some spots,making any walking space very limited. o Parents noted that they would feel okay with a pathway,soft-path,etc.— Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 6 they indicated a full sidewalk was not necessarily needed.Expressed the need to carve out a space for pedestrians. o There are trails in the East Butte Heritage Park that do not connect with i-7. •F+:yrr,'-.. any other infrastructure. .•, a i • Roadway/Infrastructure:SW 97th has a number of sidewalk gaps and very few �n':V,.r,:._. ".` crossings.The speed is 25 mph and 20 in the School Zone,but there are a number , T of gaps in the sidewalk network leading to Templeton. • Roadway/Infrastructure:Sidewalk gap on the west side of 98th Ave between Kable St. and Kimberly Dr. • Roadway/Infrastructure: 100th Ave has no sidewalks.Traffic speeds are over posted limits,especially going around the blind curve just north of View Terrace. • Roadway/Infrastructure: Sidewalk gap on Pembrook from 100th Ave to Sidewalk gap on SW 97th up the midway down the block to 97th Ave. hill to Twality Middle School and Templeton Elementary. • Roadway/Infrastructure: Sidewalk gap on the north side of SW Sattler leading to 96th Ave and the entrance to Templeton. • Roadway/Infrastructure: Noncontiguous sidewalks along McDonald. 35 mph speed limit,not much of a shoulder for students to walk along. • Access: Back field access—during the wet months,difficult to cross back field. - ROI-TES TO -Te- SAFE .m. ,.l SCHOOL.BARRIER NIAP r Y *� Gf w ` TEASPLETON F'LE:RMENIRI" = - '��"k ph • ® tir . - T J.:no. 11400/15 ' ® ® A 1... ® .' / ® ' At.* ��ead W *. 0 0 a a ( Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 7 Programmatic barriers • Education:No formal walking or biking safety education program taught to students. • Education:No designated walking or biking route maps for Templeton to post on website or give to parents. • Education:No formal education to parents about safe walking and biking,and how to shift to more walking or biking to school. • Enforcement:Limited capacity for additional crossing guards—only a staff person and a few students in the parking lot for enforcement. How does the school already promote pedestrian and bicycle safety? Templeton Elementary has taken a number of steps to promote pedestrian and bike safety: • Formed a SRTS Task Force in Spring 2014—the team meets monthly to plan and implement a Templeton SRTS Program. • Students and parents participate in annual Walk&Bike to School events—twice a year. • In February 2016 students and parents started a Monthly Walk&Bike to School Day event on the first Wednesday of every month. • There are established Walking School Buses from at least one neighborhood— looking to develop more. • Walk Audits were performed in November 2015. • Implemented a Leading Pedestrian Interval(LPI)at the crosswalk of Durham Rd &98th Ave—pedestrians are given a 5 second head start to start crossing before any vehicle gets a green light. • A monthly SRTS Newsletter Article is sent to parents—topics include pedestrian and bicycle safety. ♦u:t "Cmei;t0v, Set QQ1 41: if 'ea CT n Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 8 - EVALUATIONS AND DATA - STUDENT TRAVEL DATA We conducted In-Class Student Tallies and this is how our students travel to and from school. TO SCHOOL School Family Public Travel Mode Walk Bike Bus Vehicle Carpool Transit Other %of Students 7% 1% 53% 33% 4% 0% 2% FROM SCHOOL School Family Public Travel Mode Walk Bike Bus Vehicle Carpool Transit Other of Students 9% 1% 59% 24% 4% 0% 3% Templeton AM Mode Split—How students get Templeton PM Mode Split—How students get to school home from school Carpool Transit Other Carpool Transit Other 4% 0% 1% Bike 4% 0% `3% 1% Bike 1% School Bus • 54% School Bus 59% Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 9 PARENT SURVEY DATA We conducted a Parent Survey to gather information about how students get to and from school and learn about concerns and issues surrounding the walk or bike to school. Templeton SRTS Data: Concerns of Templeton Parents . Approximately 38%of From Parent Survey, n=94 the parents who drive their students to school 60 .1__.._ live within a%mile of • Distance i school. •Convenience of Driving Over 144 students 50 4-- -- -- - — walked to Templeton on a Time International Walk& ■Child's Participation in After Bike to School Day! 40 - ---- School Programs ■Speed of Traffic Along Route • Templeton Car Count (11/17/2015):A total of Amount of Traffic Along 127 cars were counted 30 — — Route in the car drop-off line in I ■Adults to Bike/Walk With the Templeton parking Is Sidewalks or Pathways lot. 20 .i -- — a Safety of Intersections and • 24%of parents surveyed 111 Crossings said 5th grade was the { e Crossing Guards earliest grade where they would let their 10 I s Violence or Crime student walk to school Weather or climate without an adult. Total J The top five walkability and bikeability issues for Templeton parents are: 1. Safety of intersections and crossings 2. Amount of traffic along route 3. Speed of traffic along route 4. Sidewalks or pathways 5. Distance Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 10 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION — A comprehensive SRTS Program includes engineering/infrastructure and programmatic strategies.The following sections outline the possible strategies that directly address the identified barriers and hazards.At this time this is simply a list of potential strategies.The Templeton SRTS Task Force,parents, City of Tigard,and others will work to refine the strategies for implementation. ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES j I Improve safety of the crosswalk at 966& Sattler: • Reduce the speed limit on SW Sattler. A RRFB is an active warning • Install enhanced crossing signs like Rectangle Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) device used to alert motorists of and/or in-street pedestrian signs. crossing pedestrians.They re- • Investigate the use of traffic calming devices, such as a raised crosswalk. main dark until activated by pedestrians. Improve drop-off and pick-up circulation and safety–Murdock&97th: • Develop a school drop-off and pick-up circulation plan. • Implement recommendations from the circulation plan. • Include a designated walking/ biking route through the Templeton pick-up and drop-off driveway for pedestrians entering from 97th and Murdock. Crossing McDonald: lei • Install enhanced crossing signs like RRFB at crossing on McDonald. Raised pedestrian crosswalks Sidewalks on McDonald: serve as a traffic calming meas ure that draws more attention • Prioritize key sidewalk gaps on McDonald. to the pedestrian crossing. • Fill sidewalk gaps on McDonald. Sidewalks on 97th: • Fill sidewalk gaps on both sides of 97,h from McDonald up to Templeton. • In particular,build sidewalks on the east side of SW 97th in front of Twality Middle School. 4i""`'" _ ';. Improve walking conditions on SW Murdock: 1! . • Pathways or sidewalks on one side of SW Murdock from East Heritage Butte Park to Templeton. • Traffic calming devices to slow traffic and bring attention to pedestrians. Pathways can connect neigh- borhoods directly with schools. Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 11 Access across the back field: • Create a soft-path (gravel or bark chips) around the grass field to provide dry, designated path for students entering from the pathways on 92nd and Home St. Fill additional neighborhood sidewalk gaps: • Prioritize and fill key sidewalk gaps/pathways on the following roads: o 98th Ave between Kable St. and Kimberly Dr. ! —� o Pembrook from 100th Ave to midway down the block to 97th Ave. v y .4. o North side of SW Sattler leader to 96th Ave. Improve walking conditions on SW 100th Ave: Sidewalks are an important. • Prioritize key sidewalk gaps on 100th,with a focus on the blind S curve just north component of the walking route of View Terrace. to school.In some cases,a • Traffic calming devices to slow traffic and bring attention to pedestrians. pathway(or designated walk way)can be implemented in- stead of a full sidewalk. Improve walking conditions on Pinebrook and 92nd Ave: • Given that the east end of Pinebrook is on TTSD's Supplemental Transportation Plan,the first step is to work with the District to devise a potential plan for improving walking conditions in this area. Crossing Durham Rd.: • Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval signals at crossings along Durham Rd.— " T • • a signal timing change where pedestrians are given a 5 second head start to cross • - before any vehicle traffic gets a green light. '. ` y *The engineering recommendations in this plan are considered"planning level"and may require further engineering analysis,design,or public input to determine if they are ap- •gr ,,Ms, propriate solutions before implementation. .. Driver feedback signs provide real-time information of a driver's speed and reminds drivers of the posted speed limit. Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 12 PROGRAMMATIC STRATEGIES Education: • • • Develop walking and biking route maps. .� ':;� ' `` • Develop pedestrian education for all 2nd graders. • t • • Pass out pedestrian and bicycle safety brochures to parents in the vehicles waiting to pick up their kids. • • Develop and distribute yard signs.Messages geared toward reminding drivers to A walking school bus/bike train is a group of children walking/biking slow down,watch for students,and designate walking routes. to school together. • Work with the Summer Lunch Program at Templeton for outreach and educa- tion opportunities. Encouragement: k.. ®era • Monthly Walk&Bike to School Day—making walking and biking to school a more regular habit(create themes for every month). WALK- • • Form Walking School Buses—groups of students who walk to school together. 3�D • SchoolPool(Drive Less Connect)—help parents connect to form walking school BIKE buses or carpools. TO SC&ooL DAS • All schools Youth Bike Fair—learn bike safety and practice skills. • Fire Up Your Feet Program—opportunity to increase physical activity and raise j /lk _ money for school. Make walking and biking to school a regular activity by set- • Templeton SRTS Task Force parent representative recruitment—develop a ting a recurring date fora walk process to continually recruit parents because kids will eventually age out of &Bike to School Day. Templeton. Enforcement: • District-wide crossing guard program: ® o McDonald&Omara/ 97th 1r , • o Sattler&96d' _ o Murdock&97th • Work with Tigard Police Department and School Resource Officer on traffic enforcement around Templeton. - • Implement Police enforcement in concert with the installation of traffic calming devices and infrastructure. Evaluation: • • Annual Parent Survey. Crossing guards aid students • Annual Student Tally Survey. crossing the street at the school and at intersections in the sur- • Traffic Counts—install a traffic counter in driveway to provide a daily count of rounding neighborhood. drivers.The counter will also be part of a parent education campaign. Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School 13 STRATEGY PRIORITIZATION All of the strategies outlined in this Action Plan will play an important role in Temple- ton's SRTS Program.However,the SRTS Task Force has identified a few priorities to guide the work over the next year or so.Since this is the first Action Plan the Task Force recognizes that these priorities may shift and as these projects and programs are imple- mented new priorities will develop. 1. District-wide crossing guard program. 2. Improve safety of the crosswalk at 96th& Sattler. 3. Improve safety of crossing McDonald. 4. Improve the drop-off and pick-up circulation and safety. 5. Access across the back field. 6. Improve walking conditions on SW Murdock. 7. Develop Walking& Biking route maps. FINAL THOUGHTS Thank you for taking the time to read the Templeton SRTS Action Plan.A successful SRTS Program will require students,parents,school staff,the City of Tigard, Tigard-Tualatin School District,and the community to work together to ensure students are able to walk,bike or roll to school safely. If you would like to be more involved in the Templeton SRTS Program,please reach out to Principal Robson or the SRTS Coordinator,we would love to have you involved! t r" + w • ► + 1 ,N • t Templeton Elementary Safe Routes to School I 14 City OfRespect and Care Do the Right Thing I Get it Done Tigard ,, • SafeRoutes Tigard Safe Routes to School • hi° 4b, Presented to City Council • April 19, 2016 TIC_G.ARD Cit‘ of Tigard A more integrated SRTS Program Bike Safety Education ► Recurring Encouragement Events Action Plans SRTS Projects !� City of Tigard Bike Safety Education -- � Jum Start Grant ► Teacher training ► Three schools : Metzger Elementary \ g - .� Fowler Middle School Twality Middle School City of Tigard Recurring Encouragement Events 1 1 Templeton Monthly Walk & Bike to School Day 10. Mary Woodward Weekly Walk & Bike to School Day t ^ I? •, '• WALK ,..„ • go i s , 1 awn, Action Plans SafeRoutes ►1 ToSchool TIGAPD ®© Templeton SRTS Action Plan Templeton Elementary — Completed Safe Routes to School Action Plan 1 Durham SRTS Action Plan — Draft M i r lii I Mary Woodward SRTS Action Plan — Draft SafeRoutes Se r outer SRTS Projects Leading Pedestrian Interval Signals: Pedestrians get 5 second head start when crossing Enhance safety and visibility of pedestrians No Parking Zone at Mary Woodward : Improve traffic flow Enhance safety and visibility of crosswalk in front of school 1 LQC: Lincoln Street Trail : Provide an important connection from SW Oak to Metzger Elementary City of Tigard Concerns of Elementary Parents 160 - - -- - — ---- ---- - ■Distance is Convenience of Driving 140 I--- ---- -- - -- -_. •Time 120 --- -- — -- - — ■Child's Participation in After School Programs 100 --- ----- •Speed of Traffic Along Route •Amount of Traffic Along Route 80 — - ■Adults to Bike/Walk With 60 ■Sidewalks or Pathways Safety of Intersections and 40 l Crossings •Crossing Guards 20 _ _.. •Violence or Crime a Weather or climate 0 --I Total City of Tigard , - •_ - School Progress Report I FY 17 I F'l6 School Name: Principal Events Parent Task Action Plan On-the-Ground Buy-In Force Complete Improvement Project Alberta Riderd isie (Planner Liaison Lina Smith) CF Tigardlig 14 (Planner Liaison:Monica Bilodeaul Durham ,,,, (Planner Liaison:Liz Hormann) o /� Mary Woodward iler _Ad -1/ ,1! (Planner Liaison;Chen'l Caines) VF McZtgerIS4 4 (Planner Liaison Gan'Page este:her) Templeton d Fig is4i ,„/ (Planner Liaison:Buff Brown) Fowler Middle Schoolof 6i (Planner Liaison:Liz Hormann) Twalitv Middle Schoolpi ii (Planner Liaison:Susan Shanks) City of Tigard Questions ? 4 • ft - • Tigard Safe Routes to School Coordinator: Liz Hormann lizh@tgard-or.gov 503-718-2708 AIS-2565 4. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 04/19/2016 Length (in minutes):20 Minutes Agenda Title: Consideration Resolutions Forming a Tigard Triangle Citizen Advisory Council Submitted By: Cheryl Caines, Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Update, Discussion,Direct Staff Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should the city establish a Citizen Advisory Council to guide the development of the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that Council establish the Tigard Triangle Citizen Advisory Council per the attached Resolution and appoint its members by consent at an upcoming meeting.A second Resolution appointing members to the Citizen Advisory Council is attached for Council's preview. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city desires to convene a Citizen Advisory Council (CAC) to guide the urban renewal planning effort in the Tigard Triangle and provide meaningful public input into the plan, as well as to meet its Metro funding obligation. In the interest of creating a group with broad representation, staff publicized this volunteer opportunity in Cityscape and on the Tigard Triangle webpage. Staff also requested that each of the city's citizen boards, committees, commissions, and councils that meet on a regular basis send one representative to serve on the CAC. With the exception of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board,each of the city's citizen groups is represented on the CAC. The second attached Resolution includes a list of CAC members and their group affiliations,if any. In addition to the CAC, the city will also be forming a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide input into the Urban Renewal Plan. The following agencies and organizations have confirmed interest in serving on this committee: •Clean Water Services •Community Partners for Affordable Housing •Metro •Oregon Department of Transportation •Portland Community College •REACH Community Development •Tigard Chamber of Commerce •Tigard Tualatin School District •TriMet •Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue •Tualatin Valley Water District Staff reached out to the Lake Oswego business community and city staff but,as of the writing of this report, has not gotten a response. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The city needs to convene a CAC to meet its Metro funding obligation;however, Council may direct staff to seek additional and/or different individuals to serve on the CAC and TAC. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Council Goal 3: Adopt and Begin Implementation of Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Approved Plan: Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan completed March 2015 DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION March 2015: Staff completed the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan (TTSP) June 2015: Council directed staff to submit a CPDG application to Metro for funds to implement the TTSP February 2016: Council directed staff to enter into an IGA with Metro for CPDG funds March 2016: Council awarded a contract to MIG Inc. to implement the TTSP Attachments Establish Tigard Triangle CAC Appoint Tigard Triangle CAC Members CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN ADVISORY COUNCIL TO ADVISE STAFF DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE TIGARD TRIANGLF URBAN RENEWAL PLAN WHEREAS,the city completed the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan in March 2015 and one of City Council's goals for 2016 includes its adoption and implementation;and WHEREAS,the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan recommends a number of implementation strategies,including development of an Urban Renewal Plan;and WHEREAS,the city was awarded a Community Planning and Development Grant (CPDG) from Metro to develop an Urban Renewal Plan for the Tigard Triangle;and WHEREAS, the city is required to develop a public involvement strategy that facilitates public input into the Urban Renewal Plan,including the creation of a Citizen Advisory Council(CAC),per the city's CPDG intergovernmental agreement with Metro;and WHEREAS, the city desires broad citizen representation on the CAC since creation of an urban renewal district that utilises tax increment financing requires a citywide public vote. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1:The Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan CAC is hereby established to review and comment on draft materials and ensure that the final plan builds upon and implements the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan. Its membership shall include up to 4 citizen-at-large members and one representative from each of the following citizen boards,committees,commissions,and councils: • Metzger Citizen Participation Organization(CPO 4M) • Tigard Triangle Stakeholder Working Group • City of Tigard City Council • City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission • City of Tigard Library Board • City of Tigard Neighborhood Involvement Committee • City of Tigard Planning Commission • City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee • City of Tigard Youth Advisory Council SECTION 2: The mission of the CAC is to: • Create an environment conducive to multiple and diverse opinions and ideas; • Review and comment on draft materials prepared by staff and consultants; • Ensure the Urban Renewal Plan is consistent with the vision in the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan and the applicable goals,policies,and actions measures in the Comprehensive Plan;and • Promote public understanding of the Urban Renewal Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 1 SECTION 3:The CAC shall: • Attend at least four CAC meetings; • Consider all written and oral comments submitted by the public; • Seek to achieve general consensus on the Urban Renewal Plan by the CAC membership (decisions will be made by majority vote if consensus cannot be reached); • Assure respect and consideration of others'opinion and ideas;and • Recommend City Council remove and replace members unwilling or unable to adhere to the protocol described above. SECTION 4:The city's Urban Renewal Plan project manager is assigned as staff liaison to the CAC. Other city staff will be called upon to support the CAC's mission as deemed necessary throughout the Urban Renewal Plan process. SECTION 5: The term of service for CAC members shall expire after a public vote on the Urban Renewal Plan at a general election.The CAC shall be disbanded at that point. SECTION 6:This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2016. Mayor-City of Tigard A flEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE TIGARD TRIANGLE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COUNCIL WHEREAS,the city completed the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan in March 2015 and one of City Council's goals for 2016 includes its adoption and implementation;and WHEREAS,the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan recommends a number of implementation strategies,including development of an Urban Renewal Plan;and WHEREAS,the city was awarded a Community Planning and Development Grant(CPDG) from Metro to develop an Urban Renewal Plan for the Tigard Triangle;and WHEREAS,the city is required to develop a public involvement strategy that facilitates public input into the Urban Renewal Plan,including the creation of a Citizen Advisory Council(CAC),per the city's CPDG intergovernmental agreement with Metro;and WHEREAS,the city desires broad citizen representation on the CAC since creation of an urban renewal district that utilizes tax increment financing requires a citywide public vote;and WHEREAS,the city advertised for CAC members through its Cityscape publication and Tigard Triangle webpage and also requested that each of the following citizen boards,committees,commissions,and councils send one representative from their group to serve on the Urban Renewal Plan CAC: • Metzger Citizen Participation Organization (CPO 4M) • Tigard Triangle Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) • City of Tigard City Council(CC) • City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) • City of Tigard Library Board (LB) • City of Tigard Neighborhood Involvement Committee (NIC) • City of Tigard Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) • City of Tigard Planning Commission (PC) • City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (1'IAC) • City of Tigard Youth Advisory Council(YAC) NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1:As established in Resolution 16- ,the membership of the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan CAC shall include representatives from the following groups: • Metzger Citizen Participation Organization(1 member) • Tigard Triangle Stakeholder Working Group (1 member) • City of Tigard Boards,Committees,Commissions,and Councils (7 members) • Citizens at Large (up to 4 members) RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 1 SECTION 2: The membership of the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan CAC shall consist of the following individuals: • Jim Long(CPO 4M) • Elise Shearer(SWG&TTAC) • John Goodhouse (CC) • David Walsh (CCAC) • Scott Hancock(LB) • Cathy Olson (NIC) • Gary Jelinek (PC) • Zack Dean (YAC) • John Boren (Citizen-at-Large,city planner) • Katen Patel (Citizen-at-Large,Triangle property owner) • Veronica Smith (Citizen-at-Large,housing advocate) • Dustin White (Citizen-at-Large,architect) SECTION 3:The term of service for CAC members shall expire after a public vote on the Urban Renewal Plan at a general election. The CAC shall be disbanded at that point. SECTION 4:This resolution is effective immediately upon passage PASSED: This day of 2016. Mayor-City of Tigard A TEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 2 AIS-2660 5. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 04/19/2016 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Receive a Briefing on the Metzger Elementary School Park Project Update Prepared For: Kenny Asher,Community Development Submitted By: Lina Smith, Community Development Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive a briefing on the Metzger Elementary School Park Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive a briefing on the Metzger Elementary School Park Project,and next steps for implementation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Metzger Elementary School's athletic fields will be transforming into a public park,open to City of Tigard residents outside of school hours. A joint-use intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Tigard and Tigard-Tualatin School District was unanimously approved by Tigard City Council on September 22, 2015. Through this IGA, the city will initiate site improvements and provide higher levels of maintenance, so the athletic fields can be utilized as an open park when the area is not needed for school functions. Now that the IGA has been finalized,The City of Tigard Public Works and Community Development Departments are working together to redevelop this space into a public park and outdoor destination spot, which will provide much-needed recreation in north Tigard. In February 2016, the city selected Verde, teamed up with the Multicultural Collaborative and ESA Vigil-Agrimis,as the consultant team to lead this exciting project. The team's approach to neighborhood park design focuses on inclusivity, social enterprise, and advocacy for community members. The team has valuable experience working in multicultural communities, and encourages community empowerment through public space design. A successful example of the team's previous work is the "Let Us Build Cully Park" project in northeast Portland. The city aims to make Metzger Elementary School Park's design process an empowering experience for local residents. Accordingly, community engagement will play a key role throughout Metzger Elementary School Park's planning. City staff will continually work to reach out to a variety of populations and age groups,build relationships with local stakeholders and neighbors,and provide a platform for diverse public participation. The future park should create a safe space for the community to come together, engage in opportunities for exploration and discovery,and share an organic,unpredictable experience. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard Strategic Plan Goals: •GOAL 1: Walking and Connecting •GOAL 2: Growing and Planning •GOAL 3: Engaging and Communicating Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals: •GOAL 1: Citizen Involvement •GOAL 8: Parks,Recreation,Trails and Open Space DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The joint-use IGA for Metzger Elementary School Park was approved by City Council on September 22, 2015. This is the first time city staff will be briefing City Council on this project. AIS-2589 6. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 04/19/2016 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: DISCUSSION ON RIVER TERRACE AND CITY-WIDE SANITARY SEWER SURCHARGE FEES Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Discussion on River Terrace utility fees and city-wide sanitary sewer surcharge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The upcoming budget process presents Council with an opportunity to implement fees they have discussed in previously. Staff would like direction from Council on implementing the fees in the Master Fees and Charges during the budget hearings in June, or if Council would prefer to schedule additional meetings to discuss implementation of the fees. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Citywide Sewer Surcharge On October 19,2014, staff presented Council with the results of a Sewer Surcharge calculation report. That report is attached to this Agenda Item Summary (AIS). The reasons for conducting the report included: •On April 21,2014 the City of Tigard Budget Committee instructed staff to pursue a local revenue source for the sewer system.The Sewer Fund of the city does not have sufficient resources to pay for operations and capital. The Budget Committee determined that service level decreases would put Tigard in jeopardy of violating environmental rules and negatively impacting public health and safety. To prevent the fund from running out of money, additional local revenue such as a surcharge,will be examined and brought to Council for consideration. •Sewer rates and the city's share of the revenues are set by the region's sewer provider, Clean Water Services (CWS). Tigard has set a 5% franchise fee on sewer services. For every dollar that a customer pays,$0.84 goes to CWS and$0.16 goes to Tigard. Of the Tigard $0.16, $0.05 goes to the General Fund as the Franchise Fee, and $0.11 goes to the Sewer Fund. Therefore, for every$1.00 that our customers pay in sewer rates, only$0.11 goes toward operational/maintenance costs of Tigard's sewer system and any sewer system capital improvement projects. •Recent case law has confirmed that home rule cities such as Tigard, can charge utility districts a franchise fee. This presents the opportunity for an equitable split of the franchise fee. In this second option,the franchise fee is paid first and the remaining is shared via the 84/16% split. This would result in for each $1 paid,$0.05 goes to the Franchise Fee approximately$0.80 goes to CWS,and approximately$0.15 goes to the Sewer Fund. •The City of Tigard is the only city inside of CWS's service area that hasn't implemented a sewer surcharge. •In August 2014,Tigard contracted with FCS Group to perform a Sewer rate analysis to determine the additional revenue required that will permit Tigard to adequately fund Sewer services and capital. The results of the study recommended the following: •Tigard maintain reserves of: •60 Days operations •Approximately$1 million for emergency repairs •Tigard fully funds depreciation related system reinvestment of$611,000 to$726,000 per year. •Tigard fully funds a modest Capital Improvement Plan,including River Terrace projects and system master plan. •HDR examined two funding scenarios: •Scenario#1: Tigard pays 5% franchise fee out of the 16% share it receives from CWS. This results in a deficit of$5.1 million over the next five fiscal years. •Scenario #2: Tigard and CWS share the franchise fee equitably based on the 84/16% split set by CWS. With the decreased franchise fee, this results in a deficit of$2.5 million. •Under funding Scenario #1:Tigard sewer customers pay$3.55 per dwelling unit equivalent (DUE) per month. •Under funding Scenario#2:Tigard sewer customers pay$1.95 per DUE per month. •HDR recommends that Tigard adopt one of the following local sewer charge scenarios: •HDR recommends that Tigard's new sewer charge be adjusted annually based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) City of Seattle index with a minimum floor set at 2.00 percent. Since the recommended fees were for FY2015 and the upcoming Master Fees and Charges are for FY2017, the recommended fees would be $3.77 in Scenario #1 or$2.07 in Scenario#2. These amounts can be found in Tables 4.2&4.3 in the attached reports. At the October 19,2014 workshop,Council instructed staff to work with CWS so that Scenario#2 could be implemented. Over the last year and a half,Staff has worked with CWS on this issue. Concurrently, staff has been working with the other six larger cities served by CWS. Both Beaverton and Hilsboro are in the process of implementing new Right-of-Way ordinances and are interested in working collaboratively with CWS to bring them into compliance. Staff from all seven cities have agreed to guiding principles to work collaboratively with CWS to implement equitable franchise fees. It is anticipated that CWS and the cities will work toward a solution that will result in CWS paying their share of the franchise fee;however,it may need to be phased in over a multi-year period. Tigard's Sewer Fund is not able to wait that long and a surcharge is needed. River Terrace Funding Strategy Council adopted the River Terrace Funding Strategy Report(attached to this AIS) in Resolution 14-66 on December 16,2014. The Funding strategy has been the guiding document on funding the infrastructure needed in the River Terrace area. Council has already adopted the System Development Charges (SDCs) charged to developers. The funding strategy includes utility fees for several of the infrastructure needs. The following table outlines the different recommended fees. For each infrastructure area,the recommendation is identified,where the recommendation can be found in the report,how the fee would be used,and implementation alternatives that Council could consider. I rea frastructure Recommendatio Report Use Alternative CitaUnderfund city sewer service. The need for the `Extension of surcharge existed prior to Pg 14 16 Sewer Citywide Exhibit local sewer lines River Terrace. River Surcharge10 & 11 ''to developments 'Terrace will add local sewer assets that will require O&M and further dilute existing resources. Funding Strategy also has Contribute to a future$13M GO Bond Land purchase ($9.1M to River Terrace and development Community Parks land Citywide Park Pg 16-19 of two and development) which Parks Utility Fee of Exhibits Community would cost the average $1.11/month 15 & 16 Parks and Linear household$63/yr in Parks / Trails. taxes. The GO Bond Citywide Fee could be increased by provides $3.0M $3M and the average to River Terrace. household would pay $77/yr. Phase in implementation. O&M is a need after 3-year developer warranty O&M or expires on new facilites. Utility Surcharge Pg 19 23reimbursement City has been working Stormwater of$12/mo in Exhibits district debt with developers without River Terrace payment. Fee the use of LID's or only. 20&21 Generates $6.5M Developer over 20 years. Reimbursement Districts thus far.Tigard will undertake a citywide Stormwater Master Plan next year. Fund from other source. O&M could come from Utility Surcharge Pg O&M of right of diverting Gas Tax from Transportationof$5/mo in 23-31 way or capital other areas of Tigard. i Rver Terrace Exhibits 'expenditures. City Gas Tax could be only 26 &27 Generates $1.4M. used for capital expenditures after retiring _._ debt in FY2020. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could direct staff that they do not wish to schedule implementation of any of the fees. This would create some significant deficits in the city's future infrastructure financing. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Council discussed the Sewer Surcharge as the Council and Budget Committee three times between April 2014 and November 2014,with the most recent meeting being on November 18,2014. Council discussed the River Terrace Financing Strategy in nine separate meetings between June 2013 and December 2014,with the report being adopted on December 16,2014. Fiscal Impact Cost: N/A Budgeted (yes or no): No Where Budgeted (department/program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: Tigard has various infrastructure funding needs. Council has previously provided direction on the utility fees. The fees discussed in this AIS are one important tool to address those needs,generating several million dollars for the infrastructure areas over the next 20 years. Staff is seeking guidance in implementing the fees. Attachments Tigard Sewer Surcharge Draft Report River Terrace Funding Strategy Resolution and Report AgendaQuick©2005-2016 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved City of Tigard UI TIGARD SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SERVICES Tigard Sewer Surcharge Draft Report October 29, 2014 FCS GROUP 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 1, Suite 220 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 T: 503.841.6543 This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials, including the bronze wire binding and the front and back cover,which are made from post- consumer recycled plastic bottles. CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION II: RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY 2 A. Rate Setting Principles and Methodology 2 B. Fiscal Policies 2 C. Revenue Requirement 2 D. Rate Design 3 SECTION III: REVENUE REQUIREMENT 4 A. Introduction 4 B. Operating Forecast 4 Reserves 4 Operating Non Rate Revenue 4 O&M Expenses 5 Debt Service 5 System Reinvestment 5 C. Capital Funding Plan 5 D. Summary of Revenue Requirement 6 D.1 Scenario 1 Summary Existing Franchise Fee Collection 7 D.2 Scenario 2 Summary Proportional Franchise Fee Collection 8 SECTION IV: RATE DESIGN 10 A. Introduction 10 B. Existing Sanitary Sewer Rates Charged by CWS 10 C. Proposed Local Sanitary Sewer Rates 10 SECTION V: SUMMARY 12 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 13 CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 1 SECTION I : INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard (City) Sanitary Sewer Division maintains and operates a safe and reliable wastewater collection system that protects public health, protects the environment, and meets or exceeds all regulatory standards. In addition to managing and operating 167 miles of pipe, the Sanitary Sewer Division provides a wide range of services such as line repairs and replacements, twenty four hour seven days per week emergency response, line cleaning, video inspection of sanitary lines and utility locates. The City operates and maintains the public sanitary sewer system in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement with Clean Water Services (CWS). CWS acts as the overall permit holder with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and sets the performance standards for operation and maintenance best management practices. The cities within CWS boundaries are expected to meet or exceed those performance standards and provide periodic reports to CWS to keep them updated and to fulfill their individual obligations as a co-implementer of the permit. The City participates with CWS and the other cities through a variety of periodic meetings to ensure ongoing cooperation and collaboration as to any necessary changes in performance standards. CWS provides sanitary sewer treatment and sets all fees related to these services contracting with the City for billing and collection of sanitary sewer charges within the city's limits. The city currently retains approximately 16 percent of these revenues and sends the remaining 84 percent to CWS each month. Approximately 5 percent of the retained revenues are related to franchise fees, which are transferred to the General Fund. There are currently no local charges assessed by the city. This report evaluates the sufficiency of the City's share of CWS revenues to meet its ongoing operating and capital expenses and evaluates an option of establishing a local charge to assist in funding any revenue deficiencies. In addition, this report provides a sensitivity analysis of the local sewer surcharge rate under the current CWS franchise fee allocation, and under a potential revised franchise fee allocation. Pli, for Overview I •Sanitary sewer utility service currently funded through a share of Clean Water Services (CWS)fees *Existing sources are inadequate - Maintenance deferrals increasing - Fleet and replacement projects are increasing - Depletion of reserve funds for utility - City must defer needed capital investment *Tigard is the only city in CWS district without local sewer rate surcharge CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 2 SECTION II : RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY A. RATE SETTING PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY The methods used to establish user rates are based on principles that are generally accepted and widely followed throughout the industry. These principles are designed to produce rates that equitably recover costs from each class of customer by setting the appropriate level of revenue to be collected from ratepayers, and establishing a rate structure to equitably collect those revenues. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates the primary tasks of the rate study process. Exhibit 2.1: Overview of the Rate Study Process FISCAL POLICIES ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS t CAPITAL FUNDING UIREMENT 1 OPERATING BUDGETS PLAN CUSTOMER STATISTICS FIXED CHARGES RATE DESIGN VARIABLE CHARGES B. FISCAL POLICIES The stewardship of public funds is one of the greatest responsibilities given to the officials and the managers of the City. Therefore, the establishment and maintenance of wise fiscal policies enables the City officials to protect public interest and ensure public trust. This study incorporates formal and informal fiscal policies of the City to ensure that current policies are maintained, including reserve levels, capital/ system replacement funding and debt service coverage. C. REVENUE REQUIREMENT A revenue requirement analysis forms the basis for a long-range financial plan and multi-year rate management strategy for the sanitary sewer system. It also enables the City to set utility rate structures which fully recover the total cost of operating the sanitary sewer system: capital improvement and replacement, operations, maintenance, general administration, fiscal policy attainment, cash reserve management, and debt repayment. Linking rate levels to a financial plan such as this helps to enable not only sound financial performance for the City's sanitary sewer fund, CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 3 but also a clear and reasonable relationship between the costs imposed on utility customers and the costs incurred to provide service. A revenue requirement analysis includes the following core elements to form a complete portrayal of the sanitary sewer utility's financial obligations. • Operating Forecast. Identifies future annual non-capital costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and administration of the system. • Capital Funding Plan. Defines a strategy for funding the City's capital improvement/equipment replacement program, including an analysis of available resources from rate revenues, debt financing, and any special resources that may be readily available (e.g. grants, outside contributions, etc.). Identifies if additional funding sources are needed. • Revenue Sufficiency Testing. Evaluates the sufficiency of revenues in meeting all financial obligations, including any coverage requirements associated with long-term debt. • Rate Strategy Development. Designs a forward-looking strategy for adjusting rates to fully fund all financial obligations on an annual basis over the projection period. D. RATE DESIGN The principal consideration of rate design is for the rate structure to generate sufficient revenues for the system which are reasonably commensurate with the cost of providing service. The pricing structure is largely dictated by the objectives of the system. Most rate structures consist of a combination of fixed and variable charges. Fixed charges typically attempt to cover system costs that do not vary with usage, but in practice only recover a portion of those costs (as the majority of utility costs are fixed in nature). Variable charges typically serve two functions, equitably recovering variable costs such as chemicals and electricity and encouraging customers to use the system efficiently (e.g. conservation). CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 4 SECTION III : REVENUE REQUIREMENT A. INTRODUCTION A revenue requirement analysis forms the basis for a long-range financial plan and multi-year rate management strategy. The analysis is developed by completing an operating forecast that identifies future annual operating costs and a capital funding plan that defines a strategy for funding the capital improvement needs of the City. B. OPERATING FORECAST The purpose of the operating forecast is to determine whether the existing rates and charges are sufficient to recover the costs the City incurs to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system. The fiscal year(FY) 2015 Budget provided the primary basis for developing a multi-year forecast for FY 2016 through FY 2034 expenses. The main focus of the report is on the first five (5) year projection period FY 2015 through FY 2019. The complete forecast can be found in the technical appendix. The ensuing discussion highlights the key assumptions used to develop the sanitary sewer operating forecast. Reserves • Operating Reserves. A minimum of 60 days of operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses ($353,000 to $427,000, per industry standards and discussion with City staff). • Capital Contingency Reserves. A target of$1.00 million for emergency repairs and unanticipated capital (per discussion with City staff). Operating Non Rate Revenue • Non-Rate Revenue. Non-rate revenue consists primarily of the City's share of CWS revenue, bad debt, interest earnings and recovered expenditures. • CWS revenue projections were derived by applying the FY2015 rate structure to detailed customer statistics (dwelling units and billed usage) from the City's billing system, adjusting for expected growth. Based on the previous four years of increases, it was assumed that CWS will raise rates at 3.00 percent per year. This increases the share the City receives from CWS annually. • Customer Growth. All existing customer accounts, dwelling units and consumption were escalated with 0.45 percent annual growth rate based on the assumptions from the Tigard River Terrace analysis. • In addition to growth in the existing system, the medium growth option of the Tigard River Terrace analysis was incorporated starting in FY2017 with 80 to 120 new dwelling units per year through FY2035. CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 5 • Interest Earnings. 0.50 percent per year through 2034 (based on latest trends and discussion with City staff). O&M Expenses • General Cost Inflation. 3.00 percent per year(based on discussion with City staff). • Construction Cost Inflation. 4.00 to 4.50 percent per year(based on discussion with City staff). • Labor Cost Inflation. 3.40 to 4.00 percent per year(based on City internal analysis). • Medical Benefit Cost Inflation. 5.67 to 6.67 percent per year(based on City internal analysis). • Contractual Services Inflation. 4.00 percent per year(based on discussion with City staff). • Franchise Fees. City franchise fees are calculated based on projected revenue and the prevailing fee of 5.00 percent. The fee is collected in the sanitary sewer fund and transferred out to the general fund. Debt Service • Existing Debt. The City's sanitary sewer utility does not have any existing debt service. • New Debt. No new debt is anticipated within the projection period. System Reinvestment • System reinvestment funding policies aim to ensure system integrity through reinvestment in capital infrastructure. There are a variety of funding benchmarks—at a minimum most utilities use annual depreciation expense to establish an annual funding provision. • This study assumed the sanitary sewer is funding full depreciation at $611,000 to $726,000 per year for FY2015 through FY2019. C. CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN The sewer utility's capital plan includes $21.32 million in capital costs in the 20-year projection period. There is approximately $8.70 million in the first five year period FY2015 through FY2019. Costs represented in this plan are based on inflated dollars to the year of construction. The projects include: • Citywide Sanitary Sewer Extension Program • Derry Dell Creek Sewer Interceptor Relocation • East Tigard Sewer Replacement • Krueger Creek Slope Stabilization • Sewer Rehabilitation Program; and • Various renewal and replacement projects. In addition to the existing system, the CIP also include two projects related to Tigard River Terrace: • Scholls Ferry Trunk Extension Phase 1; and • Beef Bend Road Line Upsizing. The capital funding strategy envisions funding these project through a mix of available cash balances (including interest), rate funded system reinvestment, City's share of CWS System Development CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 6 Charges (SDCs) and transfers from other funds. Exhibit 3.1 provides a summary of the funding sources for the capital funding expenditures. A detailed capital plan can be found in the Technical Appendix. Table 3.1: Sanitary Sewer Capital Funding Summary Cash/Rate Year Capital Costs Transfers In SDCs Funding Total Funding FY2015 $ 2,912,500 $ 1,622,400 $ 74,506 $ 1,215,594 $ 2,912,500 FY2016 2,864,832 262,853 23,547 2,578,433 2,864,832 FY2017 634,562 273,892 40,997 319,673 634,562 FY2018 1,114,395 285,670 46,623 782,101 1,114,395 .. FY2019 1,163,428 298,239 52,551 812,638 1,163,428 Subtotal $ 8,689,717 $ 2,743,054 $ 238,224 $ 5,708,439 $ 8,689,717 FY2020+ 12,628,012 - 1,026,360 11,601,652 12,628,012 Total $ 21,317,729 $ 2,743,054 $ 1,264,584 $ 17,310,092 $ 21,317,729 D. SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT The operating forecast components of O&M expenses, debt service and rate-funded system reinvestment come together to form the multi-year revenue requirement. The revenue requirement compares the overall revenue available to the sanitary sewer system to the expenses and evaluates the sufficiency of rates on an annual basis. Two scenarios were developed to evaluate the sanitary sewer's revenue requirement based on the collection of Franchise Fees.: 1. Scenario 1: existing franchise fee collection—this scenario evaluates "business as usual", where the City pays the 5.00 percent franchise fee out of its 16.00 percent share of CWS revenue leaving 11.00 percent to be used towards meeting ongoing sanitary sewer expense. 2. Scenario 2: proportional franchise fee collection between the City and CWS—this scenario evaluates the impact of collecting the franchise fees from CWS and the City proportionally. Instead of taking out the full 5.00 percent franchise fees from the City's revenue share, it would be proportionally deducted from the City and CWS share. Based on this distribution, the City would retain 15.20 percent of revenue instead of 11.00 percent to be used towards meeting ongoing sanitary sewer expenses. Implementation of this scenario will require close coordination with CWS. Table 3.2 provides the cost sharing differences between the two scenarios. Table 3.2: Franchise Fee Cost Sharing Si: EXISTING S2: PROPORTIONAL Revenue CWS City CWS City Revenue Share 84.00% 16.00% 84.00% 16.00% less: Franchise Fee 0.00% 5.00% 4.20% 0.80% Net Revenue Share 84.00% 11.00% 79.80% 15.20% CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 7 D.1 Scenario 1 Summary Existing Franchise Fee Collection Key findings of the sanitary sewer revenue requirement scenario 1 analysis include: • Current rate revenue levels are not sufficient to meet the sanitary sewer utility's existing financial obligations; the annual deficiency is $853,000 in FY2015, increasing to $1.24 million by FY2019. • Deficiencies are due to: • Capital infrastructure needs to maintain the system and associated rate funded system reinvestment • Cost increases that are greater than growth in the system The City currently does not set sanitary sewer utility rates; therefore, in order to cover the forecasted needs it is proposed that a local sanitary sewer utility charge be established. The level of the charge will be discussed in Section IV Rate Design. Exhibit 3.1 and Table 3.3 provide a summary of the sanitary sewer system revenue requirement forecast for scenario 1. Exhibit 3.1: Sanitary Sewer Utility Revenue Requirement Summary —Scenario 1 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 — - -- $1,000,000 $500,000 $- FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 moo Cash Operating Expenses i--+Rate Funded System Reinvestment Franchise Fees -Existing Revenue CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 8 Table 3.3: Sanitary Sewer Utility Revenue Requirement Summary —Scenario 1 Revenue Requirement Summary FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Revenues Share of CWS Revenue $ 1,783,834 $ 1,845,787 $ 1,915,687 $ 1,989,697 $ 2,068,048 Non-Rate Revenues 120,670 22,101 22,089 22,223 22,338 Total Revenue $ 1,904,504 $ 1,867,889 $ 1,937,777 $ 2,011,920 $ 2,090,386 Expenses Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,575,168 $ 1,513,713 $ 1,654,501 $ 1,770,987 $ 1,912,474 Franchise Fees 571,560 618,249 639,983 663,013 687,410 Rate Funded System Reinvestment 610,716 668,013 680,704 702,992 726,260 Total Expenses $ 2,757,444 $ 2,799,975 $ 2,975,187 $ 3,136,992 $ 3,326,145 Surplus(Deficiency) $ (852,940) $ (932,086) $ (1,037,411) $ (1,125,072) $ (1,235,759) D.2 Scenario 2 Summary Proportional Franchise Fee Collection Key findings of the sanitary sewer revenue requirement scenario 2 analysis include: • Current rate revenue levels are not sufficient to meet the sanitary sewer utility's existing financial obligations; the annual deficiency is $386,000 in FY2015, increasing to $689,000 by FY2019. • Deficiencies are due to: • Capital infrastructure needs to maintain the system • Cost increases that are greater than growth in the system • Similarly to scenario 1, the City currently does not set sanitary sewer utility rates; therefore, in order to cover the forecasted needs it is proposed to establish a local sanitary sewer utility charge. The level of the charge will be discussed in Section IV Rate Design. Exhibit 3.2 and Table 3.4 provide a summary of the sanitary sewer system revenue requirement forecast for scenario 2. CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 9 Exhibit 3.2: Sanitary Sewer Utility Revenue Requirement Summary - Scenario 2 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 - $1,000,000 $500,000 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 miliCash Operating Expenses ,—ARate Funded System Reinvestment • Imo Franchise Fees —Existing Revenue • Table 3.4: Sanitary Sewer Utility Revenue Requirement Summary - Scenario 2 Revenue Requirement Summary FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Revenues Share of CWS Revenue $ 1,783,834 $ 1,845,787 $ 1,915,687 $ 1,989,697 $ 2,068,048 Non-Rate Revenues 120,670 21,717 21,682 21,802 21,903 Total Revenue $ 1,904,504 $ 1,867,505 $ 1,937,369 $ 2,011,499 $ 2,089,951 Expenses Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,575,168 $ 1,513,713 $ 1,654,501 $ 1,770,987 $ 1,912,474 Franchise Fees 104,354 122,751 127,999 133,960 140,685 Rate Funded System Reinvestment 610,716 668,013 _ 680,704 702,992 726,260 Total Expenses $ 2,290,238 $ 2,304,477 $ 2,463,204 $ 2,607,939 $ 2,779,420 Surplus(Deficiency) $ (385,735) $ (436,972) $ (525,835) $ (596,440) $ (689,469) CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 10 SECTION IV: RATE DESIGN A. INTRODUCTION The principal objective of the rate design stage is to develop sanitary sewer rate structures that collect the appropriate level of revenue. The City currently does not assess local charges for sanitary sewer service. In order to fund the ongoing deficiencies identified in the revenue requirement section above, it is recommended that a local charge be formed. B. EXISTING SANITARY SEWER RATES CHARGED BY CWS The existing sanitary sewer rates charges by CWS are composed of a fixed monthly charge and a variable consumption charge per one hundred (100)cubic feet(CCF) for individual customer's average winter usage. The City currently does not assess a local service fee. Exhibit 4.1 provides a summary of the existing CWS monthly sanitary sewer rates. Table 4.1: Existing CWS Monthly Sanitary Sewer Rates Charge FY2015 Monthly Base Charge (per DU or DUE) $25.85 Use Charge (per ccf) $1.72 Notes: DU =Dwelling units DUE=Dwelrng unit equivalents • C. PROPOSED LOCAL SANITARY SEWER RATES The primary driver behind the projected annual revenue deficiencies in both scenarios are tied to ongoing capital renewal and replacement needs. These expenses are fixed in nature; therefore, the local service fee is proposed to be collected through a monthly fixed fee per dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalent consistent with the monthly base charge methodology currently in the CWS rate structure. Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 provide a summary of the proposed rates for the five-year period for scenarios 1 and 2. Consistent with existing City practices,the charge would be escalated CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 11 annually with the Engineering News Record (ENR) City of Seattle index with a minimum floor set at 2.00 percent annually. Table 4.2: Proposed Local Rates -Scenario 1 Existing Franchise Fee Collection CWS Fees FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Monthly Base Charge (per DU or DUE) $25.85 $26.63 $27.42 $28.25 $29.09 Use Charge (per ccf) $1.72 $1.77 $1.82 $1.88 $1.94 Local Fees FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Monthly Base Charge (per DU or DUE) $3.55 $3.66 $3.77 $3.88 $4.00 Notes: DU=Dwelling units DUE=Dwelling unit equivalents Assumes a 3.00%increase in CWS charges starling in FY2016 Table 4.3: Proposed Local Rates - Scenario 2 Proportional Franchise Fee Collection CWS Fees FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Monthly Base Charge (per DU or DUE) $25.85 $26.63 $27.42 $28.25 $29.09 Use Charge (per ccf) $1.72 $1.77 $1.82 $1.88 $1.92 Local Fees FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Monthly Base Charge (per DU or DUE) $1.95 $2.01 $2.07 $2.13 $2.19 Notes: DU =Dwelling units DUE=Dwelling unit equivalents Assumes a 3.00%increase in CWS charges starting in FY2016 CITY OF TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 page 12 SECTION V: SUMMARY Sanitary sewer revenues at current levels are not sufficient to fund ongoing sanitary sewer system obligations. Two scenarios were evaluated for the sanitary sewer system based on the method of collection of Franchise Fees. The revenue deficiencies identified in Scenario 1 Existing Franchise Fee Collection range from $853,000 in FY2015 increasing to $1.24 million in FY2019. Scenario 2 Proportional Franchise Fee Collection deficiencies identified range from $386,000 in FY2015 increasing to $689,000 in FY2019. The main difference between the two scenarios is that Scenario 1 collects 11.00 percent of revenue versus 15.20 percent in scenario 2 to be used towards ongoing sanitary sewer requirements. The City sanitary sewer utility's current source of revenue to cover expenses in either scenario are tied the amount of revenue CWS collects on an annual basis, with the City having no control of the level of revenue the sanitary sewer utility generates. In order to meet future revenue needs it is proposed that the sanitary sewer utility establish a local fee based on dwelling units or dwelling unit equivalents. The fee would be escalated on an annual basis using the Seattle ENR construction cost index with a minimum of 2.00 percent per year consistent with other utility rate practices within the City. We recommend that the City revisit the study findings during the budget cycle to check that the assumptions used are still appropriate and no significant changes have occurred that would alter the results of the study. The City should continue to monitor the financial status of the sanitary sewer utility, adjusting the sanitary sewer rate strategy as needed. The detailed technical exhibits developed as part of the sanitary sewer study can be found in the Technical Appendix. CITY TIGARD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Financing Services October 2014 TECHNICAL APPENDIX c:ITY OF T IGARD,OREGON T IGARI)CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-a, A RES()LI"ZION T'O AMEND THE RIVER TERRACE FUNDING STRATEGY. wg zC A.4•, l eey WHEREAS, the City of Tigard annexed the River Terrace area west of Bull Mountain in 2011 and 2(112:and WHEREAS, the City of'Tigard has adopted an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to include the River Terrace Community Plan,and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has amended the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designations Map to include the River Terrace(:otnmunity Plan,and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has completed planning for the public facilities necessary for the implementation of these amendments related to River Terrace,and WHEREAS, the City of'Tigard has adopted the master plan addenda for the water, sewer, stormwater, parks and transportation systems,and WHEREAS,these projects are appropriate to be added to the City of Tigard Master Plans, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED I)by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The River Terrace Funding Strategy (Exhibit A) is hereby approved as the master funding strategy for River Terrace. SECTION 2: The projects on this master lists shall be funded based on the funding strategy unless changes are made to this resolution by Council. SECTION 3: Staff will bring forward all financing mechanisms contained in the strategy for Council consideration in a public hearing. SECTION 4: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. "`P PASSED: This , i day of / C? m le,- 2014. Mayo•-(:u-v of'l'igard a-i C "Myer__ City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 14-i 4‘- Page 1 A City of Tigard t , TIGARD RIVER TERRACE FUNDING STRATEGY December, 2014 (final report) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY in 2012, the City of Tigard ("city") annexed more than 500 acres of territory known as River Terrace. At build-out, up to 2.587 dwellings, a commercial center of 40,000 gross square feet. and at least one new public school are expected to he located in River Terrace. As the long-term owner of public facilities (including local roads, water reservoirs, pump stations, local transmission lines for water and sewer, parks, trails and stormwater facilities), the city must consider how to fund the capital and operating costs of these facilities. FCS GROUP worked with the city to develop and analyze funding options for water, sewer, parks, stormwater, and transportation. The output of our analysis is a recommended funding strategy fbr these five systems. The subsections below briefly describe the recommended funding strategy. A detailed analysis of the funding options for each system- - including the criteria by which they were evaluated--can be found in the body of this report. This Funding Strategy provides a course of action as of the date of its adoption. Given its long-term nature, however, elements of it could change as the development of River Terrace moves forward. Potential changes include the rate of development absorption, number and scope of projects, and the cost of those projects. In addition, new funding sources could become available and'or existing funding sources could become limited The city should re-evaluate and revise this Funding Strategy every five years in order to ensure that it remains relevant and useful in guiding public investment in River Terrace over the next two decades. The recommended funding strategy for water infrastructure shown in Exhibit i is generally consistent with the city's existing funding sources. This includes utility fees, citywide system development charges (SDCs). and developer dedications of local transmission lines. Both the utility fee and SDCs will likely he adjusted in January of 2015 because of a new study. Exhibit i: Water Fundin Strate y Near Term tong term tt existing tee.does if -.• -:v',., Parmerj ease Rate Funders Famine Tote Revenue New? Increase, Avg.monthly water Yes ter h tonnea utd,tY Wiley Fees C ustcxne s ,ares=338 pe, u atcone $ 5 245000 $ S 5.29'. >00 0 °�8 N rcteases W of e.SDC =$7.580 PerYes ehrph e9a?'ned utM 50C i�evefts{Mrs 2�.5FD 2000000 10279500) 1: 7 ❑ e_Ke F Y ir..eases total $ 7295 WJ(! $ '0.278 500 5 17 57150) Source:PCS GROUP The recommended funding strategy for sanitary sewer infrastructure shown in Exhibit ii utilizes funding sources already used by the city and Clean Water Services (CWS). This includes CWS capital funds. SDCs. developer dedications of local gravity feeds, and a new citywide utility fee surcharge. The city is enacting the surcharge regardless of River'terrace development. Exhibit ii: Sewer Fundin Strate Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does It . Payment Base Rate Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase? CwS Customers $ 10.130,300 $ $ 10.130.300 ❑ N/A Utility Fee Surcharge Customers 609.150 494.000 1 103.150 0 SDC Developers Sewer SDCs=$4.900 per 609,150 SFD609.150 0 No Total 5 11.34k 600 $ 494,000 $ 11,842.600 Source:FCS GROUP. The recommended funding strategy for parks shown in Exhibit iii includes several new funding sources for River Terrace infrastructure, such as an SDC overlay for River Terrace and a citywide utility fee surcharge. In addition, this strategy relies on General Fund monies, existing citywide SDCs, a new general obligation bond, and grants. Exhibit ill: Parks Funding Strategy Payment Near Term Long Term If existing fee,does it Base Rote Funding Funding Total Revenue New? increase? City General Fund Oilier 5 250.000 $ • $ 250.000 O N/A SDG-Citywide Developers Pans SDCs=$6.45' per SFD;'est.os 9.1 $ 2.000 000 $ 9.263.400 $ 1 1 263.400 0 No SDC•RT Developer parks SDCs-5'20X. pe•SED las. nv g., $ - $ 2.794,000 $ 2 794,000 fa •/-$1,I, r ^11, Utility Fee Customers per reo $ $ 3.000 000 $ 3.000.000 la Bono costs$63/year G.O.Bond Citizens to.$31 t 000 rx d an $ $ 9 100 000 $ 9 I co,COO WI none 4nsr.1 Grants Other entities $ - 5 '.024,000 $ !.024,000 0 total $ 2.250.000 $ 25.181.400 5 27.431.400 Source:FCS GROUP The recommended funding strategy for stormwater shown in Exhibit iv includes existing General Fund monies, utility fees, SDC revenue from across the city, and developer contributions. The General Fund is not a new source of funding for the city; however, it is a new source of monies for stormwater capital projects. New funding mechanisms include a River Terrace utility fee surcharge and a River Terrace reimbursement district. Exhibit iv: Stormwater Fundin Strafe Nem 1 ern Long Term 11 existing tee.does R .•.,,..• w.rA.: Payment Base Rote Funding Funding Tota Revenue New? ksaeose? General Fund Citizens Avg 01$42.000 per year $ 250.000 5 832 500 $ 1.082.500 (3 N/A Utftry Fees Customers Current tee of$500 per Existing SDCs may be dwelling ?50• 832.500 IOB2500 ❑ adjusted SDevelopers Avg mony storm DC vtitily rates thl= 8.75 200•000 200.t100 0 aUExsntingted rales may be Utility Fee Surcharge River letrar.e $17/month surcharge 7 Customers50.000 5.750.000 6.500000 0 Reimbursement Districts Developers Assumes$I.2m per 500.000 dalrld(every h yeast 1,665.00U 2.165.000 0 Developers Developers I!.022,000' 0 N/A Total $ 1.950.000 $ 9.060.000 5 22.052.0(1' 'Developer lunged stormwater improvements are uncertain timing. Source:4'x.5 GROUP ♦ ♦ The recommended funding strategy for transportation shown in Exhibit v includes the following existing funding sources: • Fund transfers, • Transportation 1)evelopment Tax (T1)1) revenue. • Developer dedications, • Washington County cost sharing, and • ()1)()T,'Metro grants. The new funding mechanisms for transportation include a citywide SIX', an SI)C overlay for River 1 errace, and a River Terrace utility fee surcharge. Exhibit v: Transportation Funding Strategy rt existing Near Term long Term lee.does Et Payment Bose Rate Funning Funding Total Revenue New? tnc,ease? Fond Transfers Ze.,n ., $ 000.000 $ 2.xn.noo S 3.o00 ow 0 N G TOT Revenue" .actx!!: 3.010000 $ 3,000.000 0 L'e. $5.000 oe•,?a,e -„ SOC-Citywide e'oprr, a p $ 2 075.000 $ 6105 000 $ 8 730 000 Fa '•a!spe!!acn SOC = SOC.RT ,e:c'tx: 3 252.31J $ 835.000 $ 1.087.001) $407 pe•owe',.np Transportation tNUMy Foe St cnatgo . $51mo•H•,iachoroe $ 1070.009 $ t'AZ.000 $ !4GU.000 Fa Private Cost"' Derr,oee!$ $ 3 7 X, TX) $ 13.820.000 $ 17.520.000 ❑ N/A Developers••• e.elrpMi $ a:XX;(71)0 $ OM EYX' $ 6.00 rrK; ❑ r.,� WA County(cod tharei pope^r !OtM:9•!ei'.neJ tad tbd tbd ❑ NIA owner, ODOT/Metro grants ttosl sharet • �7et r" S b 'X70 00C ❑ '.leen S4A'1,p90 r,;n Total $ I 1077000 $ 32..500.000 $ 13.677,000 ••Net atter aec$ts •••Noncredit eklible exci,des Roy Rogets Rock?Improve mer rs ••••xsck,ctes 11)1 credits for Roy koq.'s Rood improven,eets Source:FCS GROUP •:;> I ( I` ( i ( )I I' Overall, the infrastructure funding strategy in River 1 errace addresses revenue requirements of$ $33,920,600 in the near term and $77,633,900 in the long term, as shown in Exhibit vi. Exhibit vi: Funding Strategy Summary Near Term Long Term Total Funding Mechanism Funding Funding Revenue Water $ 7,295,000 $ 10,278,500 $ 17,573,500 Sewer 11,348,600 494,000 11,842,600 Parks 2,250,000 25,181,400 27,431,400 Stormwater 1,950,000 9,080,000 22,052,000 Transportation 11,077,000 32,600,000 43,677,000 Total $33,920,600 $77,633,900 $ 122,576,500 Source: FCS GROUP. ••1> i ( ( i1Z( )1. 1' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was made possible through funding provided by the City of Tigard, a Metro Construction Excise Tax grant, and Washington County. The findings and conclusions of this report were formulated by the consultant team using input from City staff. River 7 errace Stakeholder Workgroup members, Technical Advisory Committee members, and the Tigard City Council. We sincerely appreciate the time and energy devoted by all that participated in the: River 1 errace Community Plan: River Terrace public facility master plans for water, sewer, parks, stormwater and transportation: and the River Terrace Funding Strategy. John L. ('ook, Mayor Marland Henderson, Council President Gretchen Buehner, Councilor' Jason Snider, Councilor Marc Woodard, Councilor Marty Wine, City Manager Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director Debbie Smith-Wagar, Assistant Finance Director Kenny Asher, Community Development Director Susan P. Shanks, Senior Planner Brian Rager, interim Public Works Director Tom McGuire. Assistant Community Development Director John Goodrich, interim Assistant Public Works Director Mike McCarthy. Senior Project Engineer Steve Martin, Parks and Facilities Manager Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner Carrie Pak, interim City Engineer Marissa Grass, Associate Planner Councilor Buchner recused herself fiom River Terrace work sessions and decisions citing a potential conflict of interest. • •:;} 11 '. ( )1 ' 1) • Jim Beardsley, Property Owner Ernie Brown, Tigard-Tualatin School District Joanne Criscione,Property Owner Nora Curtis, Clean Water Services Michael Freudenthal, Neighborhood Representative Fred Gast, Developer Dan Cirimberg, Developer Property Owner Lisa Hamilton, Friends of Bull Mountain Jerry Hanford, Neighborhood Representative Steve Jacobson, Property Owner Marsha Lancaster, Property Owner Yolanda McVicker, Community Planning Organization - CPO 413 Kathy Stallkamp, Community Planning Organization-CPO 4B Janie Stasny, Developer John Weathers, Neighborhood Representat e Marc Woodard,Tigard City Council Alan Kennedy. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Andrew Barrett, City of Beaverton Andy Braun, Clean Water Services Anne Debbaut, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Carrie Pak, Clean Water Services Dave Wells, King City David Winship.City of Beaverton Jabra Khasho,City of Beaverton John Wolff, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Julie Russell, Tigard Water District Kelly Ilossaini, Miller Nash'Tigard-Tualatin School District Kim McMillan. City of Tigard L.idwien Rahman. Oregon Department of transportation Michael Stone, City of Tigard > I ( ti ( R( )I 1 Paul Shaefer, Washington County Paul Witney,Tualatin River Keepers Peter Arellano, City of Beaverton Gerry Uba, Metro Richard Steinbrugge, Beaverton Schools Steve L. Kelley, Washington County Steve Martin, City of Tigard Valerie Sutton, City of Beaverton Todd Chase, AIC P, LEER", Senior Project Manager John Ghilarducci, Principal Doug Gabbard, Senior Consultant Timothy Wood, Analyst Anthony Martin, Analyst •.;? I ( tit ; J) ( )[ J} TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Process and Approach 2 B. Funding Sources 3 B.1 System Development Chorges 3 8.2 local Transportation System Development Charges 4 B.3 Transportation Development Tax (TDT) 4 B.4 Local Improvement Districts (LID) 4 B.5 Reimbursement Districts 5 B.6 Utility Rates 5 8.7 Urban Renewal District (URD) B.7.a URD Requirements B.7.b Maximum Indebtedness Requirements B.7,c Revenue Sharing Possibilities B.7.d Concurrence Waivers 6 B.8 Special Taxing Districts 6 B.9 Bonds 6 B.9.a General Obligation Bonds 6 B.9.b Revenue Bonds 7 B.9.c Full Faith and Credit Obligations (FFCOs) 7 B.10 Loans and Grants 7 B.10.a Bank and Slate Loans 7 B.IO.b Grants and Low-Interest Financing 7 B.11 General Fund 8 B.I 2 Developer Dedications 8 C. Funding Source Evaluation Criteria 8 C.1 Equity 8 C.2 Reliability of Funds 8 C.3 Facilitates Development 8 C.4 Ease of Implementation 9 C.5 Ability to Address Near-Term Costs 9 •:;> 1 , ( , R( )t 13 C.6 Ability to Address Long-Term Costs 9 C.7 Total Evaluation Score 9 D. Development Absorption Forecast 9 A. Water 11 A.1 Overall Findings I 1 A.2 Public Facility Costs 11 A.3 Funding Scenarios 12 A.4 Evaluation 12 A.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 13 B. Sanitary Sewer 14 6.1 Overall Findings 14 B.2 Public Facility Costs 14 B.3 Funding Scenario 15 B.4 Evaluation 15 B.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 15 C. Parks 16 C.1 Overall Findings 16 C.2 Public Facility Costs 17 C.3 Funding Scenarios 17 C.4 Evaluation 17 C.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 18 D. Stormwater 19 D.1 Overall Findings 19 D.2 Public Facility Costs 20 D.3 Funding Scenarios 20 D.4 Evaluation 21 D.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario 21 E. Transportation 23 E.1 Overall Findings 23 E.2 Public Facility Costs 23 E.3 Funding Scenarios 28 E.4 Evaluation 28 E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenarios 29 A. General Considerations 32 B. Water System 32 C. Sanitary Sewer System 33 D. Parks and Trails System 33 E. Stormwater System.. 33 F. Transportation System 33 10-Year Forecast of Selected City Funds 35 Water Utility Fund 36 Water OP Fund 37 Water SDC Fund 38 Water Utility Fund Assumptions 39 Sanitary Sewer Fund 40 Sanitary Sewer Fund Assumptions 41 Parks Funds 43 Parks SDC Fund and Assumptions 44 Stormwater Funds 45 Stormwater Fund Assumptions 46 Transportation Funds 47 Transportation Fund Assumptions 49 •**4 I ( w ( f R( )t 1) ,.;2;,tt)11 ,,,,,. I . INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard (population 49,135) is currently the 12'h largest city in Oregon (third largest in Washington County). in 2002, the Metro Council approved a 500+ acre urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion and authorized conceptual planning for the area now named River Terrace(RT) along with adjacent rural lands. The West Bull Mountain Concept Plan was developed from about 2005 to 2010 by Washington County in partnership with Metro. In 2011. the Metro Council voted to add the 49-acre"Roy Rogers West" area into the UGH. In 2012, the City of Tigard ("city")annexed these areas and initiated development of the River Terrace Community Plan to implement the West Hull Mountain Concept Plan. At build-out, the River Terrace area will be zoned to accommodate up to 2,5X7 dwellings, a commercial center of 40,000 gross square feet. and at least one new public school. As part of the Community Plan, the city has responsibility for: • Establishing land-use designations, regulations and design standards. • Applying natural resource protections and abiding by the environmental standards of Clean Water Services, Washington County. Metro, state government, and federal government. These include new standards for stonnwater quantity and quality. • Ensuring that the city's master plans and regulatory maps are updated to address River Terrace infrastructure requirements including: • Parks, recreation and trails • Storni'surface water quality • Water • Sanitary sewer • Transportation • Preparing a River Terrace funding strategy to comply with Metro Title 11 Functional Plan that requires areas added to the UGH to include"provision(s) for financing of local and state public facilities and services." The City of Tigard selected ECS GROUP in 2013 (as subcontractor to Otak, Inc.) to prepare the River Terrace Funding Strategy. This effort included coordinating with city staff, SWG and TAC members, and the Tigard City Council to evaluate and select a preferred funding strategy for the required public facilities. This report is a plan for funding major capital facilities in the River Terrace Community Plan area over defined periods of six years (near-term) and build-out (long-term). This plan provides a course of action as of the date of this document. Given its long term nature. however. elements of this plan could change as the development of River Terrace moves forward. Some things that could change include the rate of development absorption, number and scope of projects. and the cost of those projects. In addition, new funding sources could become available and:'or existing funding sources could become limited. '4:4 ( ( ; R( )1 . �, • • H . METHODOLOGY A collaborative approach was used to identify and evaluate funding sources for the major capital facility improvements required to serve future development within River Terrace. As the long-term owner of public facilities (including local roads, water reservoirs, pump stations, local transmission lines for water and sewer, parks, trails and stormwater facilities), the city must consider how to fund capital costs(including design, permitting, land acquisition and facility construction) and operating/maintenance(O&M)costs in all areas of the city. While this Funding Strategy is primarily focused on funding for capital improvements, FCS GROUP also worked with city finance staff to prepare 10-year forecasts for related O&M costs, and included the findings in the recommendations (see the Appendix). A. PROCESS AND APPROACH The process used to develop this Funding Strategy involved consultants, city staff, regional and state service providers, private property owners, and developers. The city formed a Stakeholder Working Group(SWG), a Technical Advisory Committee(TAC). conducted open public community meetings, and held on-line forums to obtain feedback on interim findings for the funding strategy and public facility master plan updates. As part of this process, FCS GROUP initially prepared a series of technical memoranda to discuss and identify funding options related to key facilities and issues of importance. These memoranda were provided in November and December 2013 and were made available on the River Terrace website: • Funding Considerations for River Terrace in Comparison with North Bethany • Parks, Trails, and Open Space Funding Options for River Terrace • Stormwater Funding Options for River Terrace • Transportation Funding Options for River Terrace • Wastewater Funding Options for River Terrace • Water Funding Options for River Terrace In addition to these technical memoranda, city staff prepared informational documents regarding funding strategy policy options to inform the community about how various groups (i.e., existing city residents, future residents in River Terrace, developers, and property owners in River Terrace) could help pay for essential public infrastructure. In the spring and summer of 2014 FCS GROUP, city staff, and other consultant team members presented draft public facility master plan addenda and preliminary funding strategies to the Tigard City Council during work sessions open to the public. Input received at these meetings and subsequent meetings with the TAC and SWG was used to finalize the master plan addenda for adoption by the Tigard City Council and to provide feedback regarding the assumptions contained in the funding strategy. Additional public and stakeholder meetings were conducted in fall 2014 to discuss and refine the recommended funding strategies that arc contained in this document. :;> I ( ti ( IROI 1' • Underlying the alternatives and recommendations in this report is the assumption that the city desires and intends to develop River Terrace in the manner that it has planned. This report is not a cost- benefit analysis and it provides no evaluation of the city's net fiscal impacts from development in River Terrace. B. FUNDING SOURCES There is a hierarchy of public facilities needed to serve new developing areas. Local infrastructure facilities such as: neighborhood streets, sidewalks. „ater and sewer line connections to the trunk system, and storm drainage systems may be required as a condition of development approval, included in a development agreement or funded as part of adopted system development charges (SDC's) that must be paid by developers in lieu of constructing a facility. Development agreements between developers and local service providers are often used to advance or expedite the financing for specific public facility improvements. In addition to specifying the capital projects to be constructed, development agreements help clarify project delivery timelines, funding responsibilities, and developer investment reimbursement levels. lithe required public facilities are included as a "qualified public improvement" per Oregon Revised Statute(ORS) 223.309, then the local government must have an ordinance or resolution that establishes or modifies an improvement fee to provide credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified public improvement. Capital improvements to major public facilities are often constructed by local governments or utility service providers through some form of debt financing or"pay-as-you-go" fund allocations for capital projects that are included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). When capital improvements are funded or financed by the local jurisdiction(s), sen ice provider(s) or through development agreement(s), the funding options that are used in Washington County include: • System Development Charges(SIX') • transportation Development Tax (TD"f) • Local improvement Districts (LID) ' Reimbursement Districts • Utility Rates ' Urban Renewal Districts ('tax Increment Financing) o Special 'Faxing Districts • Bonds Loans and Grants • General Funds (with a mix of funding sources) Developer Dedications A summary of these local options techniques is provided below. ORS 223.297 223.314 provides "a uniform framework for the imposition of system development charges by governmental units"and establishes"that the charges may be used only for capital improvements." An SDC can he formulated to include one or both of the following components: (1)a reimbursement fee, intended to recover an equitable share of the cost of facilities already constructed ' > li (; R( )( ' I ) or under construction; and(2) an improvement fee, intended to recover a fair share of future, planned.capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the system. SDCs may include an improvement fee for new facilities and a reimbursement fee associated with capital improvements already constructed. SD('s cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. ORS 223.299 defines"capital improvements"as facilities or assets used for: • Water supply, treatment and distribution: • Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal; • Drainage and flood control: • Transportation; and • Parks and recreation. The city currently collects SDCs for sanitary sewer, stormwater, and parks facilities and is updating these SDCs. The city is also considering a new local SDC for transportation. In addition to the SDCs that can be imposed by local governments, school districts can impose local construction taxes under the provisions of ORS 320.170 to 320.139. These taxes play no role in the funding of city facilities and are not addressed further in this report. F3_2 Loom Transportation System, Deveiopmern, Charges The city is in the process of considering a local Transportation SIX:' for transportation facilities (including streets,transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities) that would be in addition to the existing Washington County T1)1.The local transportation SI)(' would represent an impact fee on new development and could be considered citywide or within defined sub-districts within the city. B. Transportation Development Trtx (TDT) Approved by Washington County voters on November 4, 2008 (Measure No. 34-164), the TD i replaced the previous tax, known as the Traffic Impact Fee. The TDT went into effect on July 1, 2009 and is levied countywide in all cities. Since River Terrace is located within Washington County, the city may decide to use Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) revenues for roadway improvements that add capacity, such as improvements to Roy Rogers Road, Bull Mountain Road, and other eligible collector and arterial facilities. •Cities in Oregon have the statutory authority to establish local improvement districts and levy special assessments on the benefited property to pay for improvements. These are payable in annual installments for up to 30 years. LIDS are generally used for capital improvement projects that benefit numerous large tenants and'or private property owners. The primary adhantage of 1.1Ds from the city's perspective is the ability to attain a consistent level of revenue generation early in the development process. Financial intermediaries such as banks now view LiDs as a more reliable funding source than others(such as SDCs) and are more apt to provide loans based on future LIi) revenue streams. However, the financing terms for"raw land" [.1Ds have become far more stringent since the 2007 financial crisis and are now far less favorable than financing terms given to municipal bond issues or state infrastructure loans. •;;> I ( ti ( 1R( l' ' B.5 Reirnh., !,semi nt D strict, Similar to LIDs, cities can negotiate public'private advance financing arrangements with developers where a developer agrees to front capital improvements%investment within a designated zone of benefit. The developer is then partially reimbursed as new land use development approvals are granted within the reimbursement district over a period that usually extends 10-15 years. While reimbursement districts have been successfully utilized in the city in the past, there is no guarantee that future revenues will he steady and reliable as with the I.ID or property tax assessments. 6.6 Util;ty Rates Utility rates are a common way to raise local revenues to pay for required infrastructure facilities and operations. However, they require approval and adoption by the city or service district and must meet state and local regulations. Utility fees are paid for by customers within the service area and typically are included in monthly or bi-monthly utility bills for streets. water, sewer, stormwater, and parks. Tigard currently charges utility fees for water, sewer. transportation, and stormwater. ',Phan Renew(3I District (URD' The city currently has a Downtown urban renewal district (URD) in place, and there may he an opportunity for to utilize funding from the creation of a new River Terrace URD. In many cases, URI) funds are combined with other local funding sources. (e.g., SD('s) to leverage non-local grants or loans. The requirements for preparing an urban renewal plan and establishing art URD are contained in ORS 457. In general, the most pertinent elements of the legal requirements of ORS 457 include: • Does the area within the proposed boundary contain blighting conditions as defined in ORS 457? (this includes"inadequate streets and other rights of way, open space and utilities"among other factors that seen to exist in River 1 errace) Does the area (along with other URDs in the city) constitute less than 25% of the city's acreage and assessed valuation level? (this seems to be the case when considering River i errace and the current Downtown URI) area) ° Do the proposed urban renewal plan and project activities address and help treat blighting conditions? • Are the proposed project activities eligible as urban renewal activities? Have urban renewal project costs and revenues been estimated? After the passage of House Bill 3056 (passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009), urban renewal agencies have new limits on the amounts of maximum indebtedness (M1)allowed in urban renewal plans adopted after January 1, 2010. If the total "frozen tax base" is S50 million or less (as is the case in River 1 errace), the total MI may not exceed S50 million. • • There are also new possibilities for revenue sharing with overlapping districts for plans adopted or substantially amended to increase MI after January 1. 2010. • Revenue sharing among overlapping tax districts begins in the I 1"' year after the initial plan was adopted, or when Tax Increment Financing(TiF)collections equal or exceed 10% of the initial MI. • For any year when TIF collections equal or exceed 10%of the initial MI, but are less than 12.5% of the initial MI, the urban renewal agency receives the 10%, plus 25°i of the tax increment between 10%and 12.5°0. Overlapping tax districts receive 75%of the tax increment between 10% and 12.5%. • For any year when"HE collections equal or exceed 12.5% of the initial Ml. the UR agency receives the 12.5% tax increment, and any tax increment collections greater than 12.5% are distributed to overlapping taxing districts. Variations in the MI requirements and the revenue sharing provisions can occur if the municipality obtains the written concurrence of the overlapping tax districts that impose at least 75%of the taxes imposed under the permanent rate limits in the URI). In light of these and other URI) provisions. the city may consider the creation of a new district. Revenue generation potential from urban renewal tax increment collections within a district that coincides with River Terrace is further analyzed in the next section. B.8 Special Taxina ?'Strict Special districts with taxing authority may he formed by voters within the district for specific purposes. such as providing sanitary service, water improvements, or surface water control.2 For example. a Water Control District (ORS Chapter 553) may be formed to construct, improve, operate. and maintain surface water control works that improve public health, welfare, and safety as well as enhance pollution control and increase water quality. The district would have a separate board of directors and may levy taxes, fees, and assessments. lithe district levies a property tax, the tax rate is limited to a portion of the real market value of all taxable property in the district. B u `. Cities may finance public facilities using several types of debt known as bonds or certificates of' participation. In Oregon. general obligation(G.O.) bonds must he approved by voters. (i.0. bonds provide their own debt service in the form of a property tax levy that is exempt from the Measure 5 (compression) limits. G.O. bonds offer slightly lower interest rates than revenue bonds. being backed by the city's tax base. From the investor's perspective,tax hacked debt is more secure. These bonds also carry no additional coverage requirement. allowing the city to collect revenues necessary to meet annual debt service with no additional financial consequences. G.O. bonds can be politically unpalatable if the municipality's constituency doesn't support the intended purpose of the bond funds. Special districts in Oregon may be formed by local governments without a vote if the district foregoes the ability to levy a property tax. 'V) I ( )� J) • • Revenue Bonds are, by definition, backed by the revenue of a utility or enterprise fund, or some other dedicated revenue source. Because the payment stream is less secured than tax backed bonds, revenue bonds carry higher interest rates than G.O. bonds. This differential, however. may be minimal. Revenue bonds are perhaps the most common source of funding for construction of major public facility or utility projects. To issue revenue bonds the city must commit to certain security conditions related to repayment, specifically reserve and coverage requirements for annual rate revenues. These conditions are included in the bond resolution to be adopted by the city and essentially impose certain conservative financial practices on the city as a way of making the bonds more secure. Revenue bond coverage is a contractual requirement binding a utility to demonstrate that annual revenues exceed expenses by a multiple of the debt service payment. This factor is usually at least 1.25 and is higher for agencies with unrated bonds or low bond ratings. Revenue bond coverage requirements can result in higher utility rates than would otherwise he necessary to meet the cash needs of the utility. This last type is a hybrid of the first two. Like revenue bonds. FFCOs require no vote, and they trigger no property tax levy. Like general obligation bonds, FTCO's do not figure into debt coverage ratio calculations for municipalities that have outstanding revenue bonds. Like G.O. bonds, which are issued against the taxing authority of the city, these bonds may be repaid by other dedicated revenues. This arrangement takes advantage of the more favorable terms, while still requiring system users to repay the debt. The General Fund would ultimately remain responsible for debt repayment should rate revenues prove insufficient. Debt limits for public borrowing through the use of FFCOs and (J O. Bonds is described in ORS chapter 287.A. 8. 10 roans and Grants Federal and state grant programs, once readily available for financial assistance, have been mostly eliminated or replaced by low-cost loan programs. Remaining grant programs are generally limited in application, lightly funded, and heavily subscribed. Nonetheless, the economic benefit of grants and low-interest loans can make the effort of applyine worthwhile. The city may utilize private bank loans or state loans to make strategic capital facility upgrades. State loan funds available from Business Oregon currently include the Special Public Works Fund and the Oregon Bond Bank. Special Public Works funds are available on a competitive basis to public jurisdictions and can fund projects up to S3 million in size, but require well-secured loan guarantees from the applicants. Oregon Bond Bank or Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority loan funds may be available if the project is well secured and other funding alternatives are not available. • Grants offer some potential for the capital improvement projects and initiatives that the city is considering. The city may he able to leverage non-local dollars using dedicated local funding. There are several regional. state and federal grant and loan programs that may be available for transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater improvements. Please refer to Metro and Business Oregon contacts for current grant and loan funding opportunities. •: I ( ' ( tIZ{ )t ) B. 1 G'neral Fund The General Fund includes revenues (primarily property tax revenues and franchise fee revenues) the city receives that are not associated with enterprise funds and can he used to fund activities or projects associated with local governance. As part of the annual budgeting process, Tigard City Council has the discretion to allocate a portion of General Funds to enterprise activities or other dedicated purposes. Since General Funds are relied upon to fund essential city administrative services(including police services), they do not represent a very reliable funding source for funding public infrastructure. llowever, General Funds can serve as an important credit mechanism for issuing bonds, as noted above. B. 12 Devetopet Dec)ECatior rs Jurisdictions can require developers to dedicate rights-of-way and'or build public improvements as a condition of development approval if those public facilities are identified in an adopted subarea development plan. transportation system plan or public facility plan. and the value of the real estate and improvements is commensurate with the level of impact generated by the proposed development. in cases where dedicated public facilities are eligible for SDC or TUT credits, the developer may be entitled to an amount of credit based on the amount of the improvement charge and the value of the land and/or capital facility provided based on the credit terms'methods adopted per local ordinance. C. FUNDING SOURCE EVALUATION CRITERIA An evaluation of funding options for each public facility type was conducted to ascertain the relatik e potential for implementing the potential funding measures identified above. R'S GROUP worked with city staff to identify potential "bundles" of funding based on the status quo(existing practice within the City of Tigard) and scenarios that would entail new funding sources. Each funding "bundle"or scenario was then evaluated using the evaluation criteria below. �. I Eq'JO y Equity is defined herein as the equitable distribution of cost/risk among three categories: existing city residents, new residents within River Terrace, and River Terrace developers/property owners. A score was assigned to each funding scenario ranging from low cost'risk (1) to high cost.risk (5). The overall equity score for each funding scenario was determined based upon the relative standard deviation from uniform equity(which represents a case where each group shares costs risks equally). A relatively low equity score depicts a large standard deviation, and a relatively high score depicts a small standard deviation from uniform equity. Reliability of funds is an important consideration, especially if debt is used to advance funding for improvements. Funding sources, such as SDCs, Reimbursement Districts, and General Fund allocations do not generate revenue in a predictable manner, and have poor reliability. in comparison, G.O. Bonds, special districts, and I.IDs tend to be far more reliable and less risky to the agency that takes on debt. A score of I (low) to 5 (high) was assigned to each funding scenario based on how reliable the funds were in each scenario. Adequate public facilities must he provided(and funded) before major private development can occur in River Terrace. The ability for the public or private sector to fund necessary infrastructure to •:,> I ( 1:( )1. i' accommodate new private development is an important consideration and should be viewed from each of their perspectives. If there is an over reliance on private developers/property owners within River Terrace to fund all necessary public infrastructure, the development costs per unit of net development (housing units or commercial floor area) may drive up costs to a level that exceeds supportable market prices(e.g. lot or home sales prices). On the other hand, if new public facilities are to be funded primarily using SDCs or General Funds, then it is likely that the city would not invest in these facilities until adequate capital reserves arc established which could take many years. A score of I (low) to 5 (high) was assigned to each funding scenario, based on the relative potential it would have to facility development within the near-term(next six years). Ease of Implementation refers to the process that is required to adopt or implement the funding sources identified within each funding scenario. Some funding sources, such as utility rates and SDCs do not require public votes to enact and therefore are relatively easier to implement (these are not without inherent political or market risks) than funding sources that require a public vote or legal formation steps(such as Urban Renewal Districts. Local Improvement Districts, Reimbursement Districts, and Special Taxing Districts). A score of I (low)to 5 (high) was assigned to each funding scenario, based on the relative ease of implementation to enact the relevant funding options. L.5 Ability to Address Noor-Tern Costs Using the adopted facility master plans and CIP. city staff was able to identify a preliminary list of facility improvements necessary to get development underway in River Terrace. Each improvement entails additional capital costs that are to he incurred by the city, other major service providers (e.g. CWS. Washington County, etc.), or developers. A score of I (low) to 5 (high) was assigned to each funding scenario, based on the anticipated level of funds it would generate in comparison to the expected near-term capital cost requirements. C.6 Ability to Address Lone-Terni Costs The adopted public facility plans for River Terrace were used to identify specific facility improvements necessary to serve River Terrace(and the surrounding area) at build-out. Each improvement entails additional capital costs that are to be incurred by the city, or other major service providers(e.g. CWS, Washington County, etc.), or developers. A score of I (low)to 5 (high) was assigned to each funding scenario, based on the anticipated level of funds it would generate in comparison to the expected long-term capital cost requirements. A total score was computed for each funding scenario using the overall equity score, and the scores assigned for the ability to: facilitate development; implement the funding scenario; address near-term cost; and address long-term cost. The total score was then used to rank each funding scenario. The scenarios with the highest scores are identified as the preferred funding scenario for each public facility type. D. DEVELOPMENT ABSORPTION FORECAST City staff and consultants worked with SWG'TAC members to estimate available public facility infrastructure capacity and the timing of near-term improvements and developments within River Terrace.The development absorption forecast takes into account land uses planned as part of the adopted River Terrace Community Plan. To keep the funding revenue forecasts conservative, it is • > I ( ( RO lr assumed that the fees generated will occur approximately one year after development approvals are granted by the city. It is also assumed that the amount of total net new development realized in River Terrace will be 10% less than the zoned capacity and no commercial or school development is counted in the city's revenue forecast. The near-term and long-term development absorption assumptions are provided in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1: River Terrace Develo•ment Absor•tion Forecast Dwellin• Units Absorption Years Until Scenario Near Term' Lon! Term Total Build-out Low 440 1.888 2.328 24 Medium 540 1,788 2,328 20 High 640 1,688 2,328 18 Near term is assumed 10 extend from FYE 2015 to FYE 202i FYE = fiscal year ending. Note:this assumes 10%under-build factor. Excludes:40,000 sq commercial and school developments. a III . FUNDING STRATEGY FCS GROUP relied upon the River Terrace master plan addenda and the current adopted Tigard five- year CII' to identify specific improvements and their associated capital costs for public facilities related to River Terrace. This section highlights the overall findings, public facility capital costs, near-term project assumptions, funding scenario evaluation, and preliminary preferred scenarios for each infrastructure type if River'terracc develops as planned. Funding revenue forecasts are based on the medium absorption Ibrecast depicted in the preceding table. A. WATER A. 1 Over,.: ' Findin': `. The service provider for water in River Terrace is the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard's Water Fund is being programmed to make major investments per the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership. Prior and planned rate increases should adequately address local revenue requirements and enable the city to proactively construct capital projects that benefit existing and future customers. including those in River Terrace. Development Agreements could be utilized 4 to allow private(developer) construction of water lines eligible for SDC credits. There are three zones in River Terrace with different water pressures in the water system: a 410 zone, a 550 zone, and a 713 zone. Adequate water capacity is currently available to serve future River Terrace development within the 410 and 713 zones. However, there is a city-wide need for additional water storage capacity in the 550 zone. City staff estimates that only 72 additional homes can he built in River Terrace within the 550 zone before the new 3.0 million gallon per day (gpd) Cach Reservoir is constructed. Cost` Near-term water facility improvements include capacity-related facilities in the 410 and 550 zones. The 410 zone will require two transmission mains and a water pressure reducing valve (PRV), the only upgrade required in the near term. The new ('aeh Reservoir and a new pump station and transmission main are planned in the near-term to serve city-wide needs within the 550 zone. See Exhibit 2 for details. • > ( " ( , I< 1, I' • Exhibit 2:Water Infrastructure Needs Hear Facilities by Pressure Zone Capita:Cosi Term Potential Funding Source 10 Zone: 18 rich Transmission Mains $1.398500 r:rriding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) 20-inch Transmssian Moms $6080000 O c.ny;3 c>rimarily through woler rotes and SDCs icred.t eligible( 550 Zone to 410 Zone PRY $200000 F --It .r primarily through water rotes and SDCs 713 Zone: . -- None 550 Zone. 16-inch Tronsmission Moms Ihrough River $2.800.000 0 Funding primarily through water rates and SDCs(credit eligible) Terrace 30 mgd Cacn Reservor $5 400.000 F,,ntl:rrp primarily through water rates and SDCs 16 rich Transmission from Reservor tc 5508 $595 000 Ea 'a pr manly through water rates and SDCs 1400 gpm ltrm capacity;Pump Station $r f TYCYr 0 F r...4 pnmorily through water rotes and SDCs told Cost 517,573.500 Source:River Terrace water System Master P!cn.Adoend.;r June 2014 comared oy FC5 Group A.3 Funding Scenarios There is one funding scenario for water infrastructure, and it is generally consistent with the existing funding sources utilized by the City of Tigard. This includes utility fees, citywide SDCs, and developer dedications of local transmission lines(Exhibit 3). Exhibit 3: Water Fundin• Scenario Scenario Fundi • Source A status o Notes Utility Fee(existing) Existng city-wide water rates may be increased to address costs SDC (City wide) El Existng city-wide water SDCs should be sufficient to address costs Developer Q Developers to provide/construct local water system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 1 ,v U Overall, the water funding scenario received a total score of 26 points (out of possible 30 points). The scenario has good marks for equity. reliability, ability to facilitate development, and can he implemented without the need to establish new revenue sources(Exhibit 4). • :;� 1 ( ti ( ilk( )( 1 Exhibit 4: Water Funding Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Equity(1: lower cost burden -5: rquo) Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden I Evaluation Criteria(1:worst-5: best) Cost Equity * �1 _ Reljabdity of Funds r Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation NENE Ability to Address Near-Term Costs 1111.1111 Ability to Address Long-Term Costs Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) 111=36 denotes relative variance from "uniform"equity (wherein developers, future residents, and existing residents would split costs equally) A.5 Analysis of Preferrea unding Scenario Total water system infrastructure costs, excluding local connections to main transmission lines, are estimated at 517.6 million. Estimated near-term costs for water infrastructure total 57,295,000 (PYE 2014 dollars). most of which will be paid for using rate revenues from the water fund. The rest of the near term and long term funding will he paid through SDC and water rate revenue (see Exhibit 5). Developers will be responsible for constructing local connections, the cost of which is not listed. The recommended funding strategy for water systems (see Exhibit 6) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard, including utility fees (water rates)and SUCs. Exhibit 5: Water Fundin! Strafe•y, Scenario A Scenario A New funding Naar Term tong Term funding Mechanism Source? funding funding Nates Utility Fees Mole,Funai 0 u 295.000 • Reflects porton of Water Fund Balance by FYF 2021 SDC fCitywode.Water SDC Funds 0 $2.000,000 $10 278 5tY' Exrst,ny SDCs lofte•nf'ation adlustrren!; $7.580 per S Total Revenue $7.295.000 $10,278.500 Tarot Capitol Cost $7295.000 410.278.500 Exhibit 6: Recommended Water Fundin Strate , Scenario A Utility fees(Water Customers Avg. monthly Planned water Fund) ❑ water utility utrrity rate rates=`e38 increases SDC (City wide. Developers Water SDCs= Developers pay water SDC' Fund) ❑ $7.580 per SDCs and provide SKD' local water lines • these rales/SDCs ore to be adjusted as part of citywide rote/SDC analysis for water by Jar. 2015. •` •.WI c . R( Wf) B. SANITARY SEWER B, 1 Cvera!l Findings ('lean Water Services (CWS) is the sanitary sewer service provider for the River Terrace area and the city has responsibility for maintaining gravity lines below 12 inches in diameter. The city's Sanitary Sewer Fund is financially challenged regardless of River Terrace and a local city- wide sewer surcharge is recommended. Most areas within River Terrace will require new pump stations before development can occur unless CWS allows for interim facilities for sewer. The North Pump Station is scheduled for construction in summer 2015 and completion in January 2016. The South Pump Station is scheduled for construction in summer 2018 and completion in January 2019. The city will need to coordinate with CWS to ensure that planned pump stations and force mains serving River Terrace are constructed in a timely manner. The city's limited financial resources may be focused on coordination with CWS and review of developer engineering designs of gravity main lines. Development Agreements can be utilized to allow private(developer) construction of gravity lines, eligible for SDC credits. P r Sewer infrastructure upgrades for Riser Terrace are estimated to cost just under 512 million. Facilities in the River Terrace North(RTN) area include a new pump station, a force main, a Scholls Ferry trunk pipe extension, and upsi/ing the Barrows Road trunk line. River Terrace South (RTS) facilities include a force main.a pump stations, and a pipe upsizing on Beef Bend Road. See Exhibit 7 for details. Exhibit 7: Sewer Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding Potential Funding North River Terrace Facilities Capital Cost Near Term Lead Source Notes RTN Force Main $650.000 CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTN Pump Station $5,666.400 CWS CWS Sewer Fund Scholls Ferry Trunk Extension, Phase 1 [[��►t (city shore) $942.000 LTJ Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Barrows Rd.Trunk Uosaing (city shore) $276.300 Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Total Cost(north) $7,534,700 Potential Funding Potential Funding South River Terrace Facilities Capital Cost Near Term Lead Source Notes RTS Force Main $2.461.900 CWS CWS Sewer Fund RTS Pump Station $1.352,000 Q CWS CWS Sewer Fund Beef Bend Rd.8"lane ups¢ing to 10' (city share) $494,000 ❑ Tigard Tigard Sewer Fund Total Cost(south) $4,307,900 Grand Total Cost $11,842,600 Source:River Terrace Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Addendum. June 2014;Tigard Capitol Improvement Program;compied by FCS Group • ) ( ( IR{ Scenario The preferred funding scenario for sanitary sewer infrastructure is generally consistent with the existing funding sources utilized by the City of-Tigard and CWS. This includes CWS capital funds, SI)Cs, and developer dedications of local gravity feeds (Exhibit 8). As mentioned above, the city is also in the process of enacting a new local sewer rate surcharge that is needed with or without River Terrace development. Exhibit 8: Sewer Funding Scenario Potential Funding Options Scenario •_s. �.., NOW New local surcharge needed with Utility Fees (Citywide surcharge) or without River Terrace SDC (Citywide) Exating sewer SDCs CWS (Capital Fund) Q CWS funds Developer Developers to provide/construct local system connections Preliminary Ranking 1 BA Evaluation The preferred funding scenario received a total score of 25 (out of a possible 30 points). The preferred scenario for sanitary sewer funding received a relatively favorable equity score and is expected to facilitate development and not entail overly complicated new funding sources, other than the planned citywide sewer rate surcharge(Exhibit 9). Exhibit 9: Sewer Funding Evaluation Criteria • Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria • -•6,11 (1: lower cost burden - S: hi• r cost burden) A Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden 1/1 Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden Evaluation Ctdteda 1:wast•3:best Cost Equity • Reliablity of Funds MEE Facilitates Development Ease of Implementation Ablity to Address Near-lerm Costs 111111111 Ablity to Address Long-Term Costs 41111111 Average Rating INN Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) �S ' denotes relative variance from "uniform"equity (wherein developers. future residents. and existing residents would split costs equally) Most oldie sewer infrastructure required to serve Riser Terrace requires major near-term investments (primarily by CWS). In addition to funding provided by ('WS, the planned new .*•) f? ( l 1\` /t P citywide sewer utility fee surcharge is expected to generate about Si million in long-term funding, based on a fixed monthly rate. Local sewer SDCs are expected to generate an additional S610,000 in near-term funding (see Exhibit 10). Developers will be responsible for constructing local gravity feeds into sewer mainlines, the cost of which is not listed. Exhibit 10: Sewer Funding Strategy, Scenario A Scenario A New Funding Near Term Long Term Funding Mechanism Source? Funding Funding Total Notes CWS(capital fund) 0 $10,130.300 $10,130,300 CWS Copitol Imp. Progam funds Utility Fee(City surcharge) 0 $609,150 $494.000 $1,103.150 City surcharge on fixed monthly rote SDC (City wide) 0 $609.150 $609,150 Sewer connection tees Total Revenue $11,348.600 $494,000 $11.842.600 Total Cost 511.348.600 $494 000 $11.642 600 The recommended funding strategy for sanitary sewer systems (see Exhibit 11) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by Clean Water Services (CWS) and the City of Tigard, including utility fees (sewer rates) and SDCs. Exhibit 11: Recommended Sewer Funding Strategy, Scenario A Funding Mechanism New Funding Who Pays? How Much S? Notes Source? Utility Fees (Sewer Fund) Customers Avg. monthly Additional citywide O (within city sewer utility rates = sewer rote surcharge service district) $54 per account required with or (existing) without River Terrace SDC (Citywide. Sewer Developers Sewer SDCs: $4.900 Developers provide SDC Fund) Ef per SFD local lines and pay sewer SDCs CWS Capital Fund ❑ Customers in CWS (capita'fund) CWS district C. PARKS r;ill FinrJlt The City of Tigard is the parks service provider for Riser Terrace. City of Tigard residents voted to support a Parks G.O. Bond in recent years. but the existing parks capital funds are mostly committed. the city must now rely upon SDC funds. user fees, General Funds, and grants to pay for its parks. In addition to updating the citywide parks SDC, it is recommended that the city consider ways to enhance parks operating revenues, such as through a citywide parks utility fee, and consider a future G.O. Bond to help bridge parks funding gaps. I)eselopment Agreements could also he utilized to allow private developers to construct neighborhood parks or dedicate land or easements for future parks and trails (eligible for SDC credits and reimbursement). • •:> I ( ( , R( )t ' I) C.2 PUH':: Fc.x .ity Costs The total cost for parks and trails in River Terrace is over S27 million. Community and neighborhood parks are expected to make up the vast majority of the costs, while trails and linear parks cost $4.9 million combined (see Exhibit 12). Exhibit 12: Parks Infrastructure Costs Potential Funding Facility Capital Cost Sources Community parks $15.894,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund, grants. and voter approved GO bonds Neighborhood parks $6,727,000 Parks SDCs. General Fund grants Linear parks $3,356,000 Parks SDCs,General Fund,grants Trois $1,454,000 Parks SDCs.General Fund.grants,and voter approved GO bonds Total Costs $27,431,000 Source: Tigard Pork System Master Plan Addendum,Table 5. • Near-term investment primarily includes land acqusition, Land acquisition is a near term funding priority because the city does not have a mechanism for exacting park land aside from the voluntary Planned Development process. Early land acquisition is likely critical to ensure land availability for park use in the future. Funding Scenarios Four funding scenarios were evaluated for funding parks in River Terrace. All involve the General Fund, SDC revenues, grants. and developer dedications that would he eligible for SDC credits (see Exhibit 13). Exhibit 13: Parks Fundin Scenarios • City General Fund E ® 0IZI Cay Ctmentry ry+a ales Gerserq+funds fo parks Utility Fee newt ❑ 0 ❑ 0 City con consoer o neva 11100”4y WAS 014dy tee SDC(City wide] 0 0 0 0 Ex6ti7g Urywisle Farts SDCs to be updated SDC(Subdtstncn 0 0 0 0 Dehxt SDC tou+n rocas on neighborhood parks&',rats Urban Renewo'D'str cr 0 0 0 0 urban Renewol District nary be formed wan Toter apt rov<� G 0.Bond ❑ ® 0 0 G.C.Bonds mos,De asje t wet.anter appa)v l Grunts ® ® e Grants From sia'e Or Moho may be ovoicible Developer ® ® ® []ev eloper;con receive SDC.reditc for constru(tng etic hle public toddy irr+praverrnents hNimtnory Ranking 4 2 3 1 L... v The rankings for the Four scenarios indicate that scenario D has the highest score and is the preferred funding scenario. While scenario I) maybe somewhat difficult to implement because it relies on a future G.O. Bond. it would generate reliable future revenues that could be used to construct attractive parks and recreation amenities that would help facilitate development. Scenario A does not have very reliable funding sources since the city would have to leverage far more grant funding. Scenario C has a very high equity score, but the funding sources are not as reliable as scenario C or D. And Scenario C is most difficult to implement since it would require a favorable public vote for the formation of'a new Urban Renewal District as well as a G.U. Bond (see Exhibit 14). y R( )t I' • i • Exhibit 14: Parks Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Cost Burdens and Implementation Criteria Scenarios Equity(1:lower cost burden•5:higher cost burden) A(status quo) d C b Citywide Resident Cost Burden t' Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden �1 Developer/Property Owner Cost Burden M Evaluation Criteria 1:wont-5:best Cost Equity' 11 , Reliobiity of Funds C J 111 Foclitates Development IE Ease of Implementation ® El Abiity to Address Near-Term Costs E © Ablity to Address Long-Term Costs _-. __, 1 Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) 12 MI 19 . 17 21 •3sr;Otes revivir v'ari°-c developers f,..t.pe residents.Ord exis•ing residents would spit costs eauuti l C.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding Scenario Parks and trails in River Terrace arc estimated to cost approximately $27.4 million, as indicated in Exhibit 15. For the preferred parks funding scenario(Scenario I)). it is estimated that the city would fund approximately$2.25 million in near-term land acquisition for parks in River Terrace. This assumes $250,000 in General Funds and about S2 million in parks SDC funds in the near-term. The long-term funding requirements of$25.2 million can be funded through the parks SDC, a potential new G.O. Bond.a potential new citywide parks utility fee. and grants from such entities as Metro, the State, and non-profit foundations (such as the Meyer Memorial Trust). The potential new G.O. Bond would require voter approval. It could be part of a larger citywide parks and trails construction program. It is estimated that for every$13 million in bonds, the levy amount would equate to $0.20 per$1,000 in assessed valuation (AV). which would cost the average homeowner about $63 per year. Exhibit 15: Parks Funding Strategy, Scenario D Recommended Scenario 0 New Funding Near Term Long Term Funding Mechanism Source? Funding Fundtng Tidal Notes City Generol Fund ❑ $250.000 - $250 000 tnctudes partor•of anWlocated existing Parks GO bona SDC (Citywide) 0 52 000.000 59.263.400 $11,263.400 75% 1es$6 451 per dwetrng unit75%allotted to kT) SOC t'Ri D s!rrt Assumes$1 200 per dwelling unt ( ® $2 794.000 $2.794.00, f 100%altotted to RT) New monthy porks utility fee of•A• fifthly Fee(new citywide) 0 - $3 003,000 5.3.000.000 $1 t t/moult,(75%allotted to RT) G•O. Bond latvwrdel • $9 1g C1o0 $9.100.030 Assumes Voter Approv®d$a 3 M wand'(70aallot tea toRT) Grants(Metro.Stole Foundations GrOn't El 3 t 024.030 51.024.000 etc Total Revenue $2.250,000 $25.181,400 $27.431.400 Iota LoS' 52.250.000 52>.1?1;.40(1 .,7.4,31 4Ol; •assumes vote,approved levy of$0.20 per$1.000 AV resvi!s;n average cost to$3 1.i,:,0 medi art home of$63/year. The recommended funding strategy for parks (see Exhibit 16) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund and parks SDCs. ?;> 1 . ( )1 13 The recommended strategy also relies on new sources of funding through a local River Terrace parks SDC, citywide parks utility fee, and non-local grants. If public support for a new G.O. bond for parks is not forthcoming, the city may opt to delay implementation of planned parks capital projects, or may need to increase the local parks SDC that is charged on new development. Exhibit 16: Recommended Parks Funding Strategy, Scenario D New Funding Funding Medtanism Sewcs? Who Pays? Now Much 5? Notes City General Fund [) Citizens $250.000 Fund Transfers Parks SDCs= Developer SDCs: SDC (City wide) [) Developers $6,451 per SFD 75%olotted to (est. avg) RT Parks SDCs = Developer SDCs: SDC (RT District) 0 Developers $1,200 per SFD 100%olotted to (est, avg) RT +/-$1.11 per New citywide Utility Fee (new city wide) 0 Customers month lest. parks utility fee avg) (75%allofed to RT) Bond costs New citywide G.O. Bond $63/yeorfor $13 M G.O. Citizens per bond: $0.20 median home $1.000 AV (70% olotted to RT) Grants Other entities +;_ $996000 Metro, state or federal grants D. STORMWATER D Oveta i Finditias 'i•he city is focused on ensuring that development is environmentally sustainable through low impact storniwater design standards and construction of new stormwater eater quality and quantity facilities. Recent federal water quality regulations mandate local investments in stormwater facilities and maintenance activities. While planned rate increases by ('WS will increase Stormwater Funds for the city, additional local funding sources should be considered to finance, construct, and maintain stormwater facilities in River Terrace. Stormwater systems within River Terrace are expected to be primarily funded by developers and maintained by the City of Tigard. The city may also consider dedicating funds to term stormwater facility reimbursement districts which could function as a bank used to advance funding for regional facilities, with payments provided to the city(by dexelopers, builders or homeowners) after development occurs. Development Agreements could he utilized to allow private developer construction of regional (drainage basin) facilities, with similar reimbursement payback provisions. D.2 Public Facility Costs Total permitting, land and capital cost for stormwater facility improvements and planning/'modeling work is estimated at S22 million.' Near-term stormwater infrastructure requirements include development of a new stormwater model, high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis, and new design standards for River Terrace. Future stormwater system improvements include I i water quality/detention ponds. two detention ponds,and potentially two high-flow conveyance facilities (Exhibit 17). Exhibit 17: Stormwoter Infrastructure Costs Potential Fuming Facility Needs Coplld Cod New Tenn lead Potential Funding Source Notes Stormwoter Modeling Analysis 550.000 0 City City Stormwoter Fund River Terrace Storrnwater Design Standards $150.000 El Coy City Stormwrsrer Fund Water Quality and Deveopers and reimbursement Detention Ponds f 1) $12,349.000 ❑ Developers districts Deveopers and$WOO Detention Ponds f21 54.265.000 0 Developers reimbursement districts High Flow Conveyance Deveopers and SWQQ Facilities(3) $5.238,000 0 Developers re'rnbursement districts Total Cost $22,052,000 Source: River Terrace Stormwoter Master Plan, July 2W 4 Attachment B:and city staff input:compited by FCS Group D.3 Funding Scenarios Four scenarios were evaluated for funding the stormwater infrastructure systems to serve River Terrace. All scenarios include some level of General Fund commitment, utility fees, citywide SDCs, and developer on-site improvements to address stormwater discharge. Scenario A reflects current practices used by the city. Scenario 13 relies upon reimbursement districts or LIDs within River Terrace. Scenario C includes the formation of a new stormwater taxing district and reimbursement districts within River Terrace. Scenario D includes a new River Terrace district utility fee and reimbursement districts in River Terrace(see Exhibit 18 for details). These draft cost estimates were prepared by Otak.inc. as part of the draft Tigard River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan(August 2014). These costs are considered to he on the high-end of what may he realized if developers construct stormwater facilities on-site and avoid public contracting and related prevailing wage requirements. Exhibit 18: Stormwater Fundin. Scenarios funding SrinOlta Fundi • Source A • .. • D - . Notes City to allocate portion of General Fund to City General fund B 0 ® stormwater needs Utility Fee(existing Citywide fee) ® it 0 1l Exetng Citywide fee may be increased Utility Fee(new Ri ❑ 0 0 ll New RI subdetrr 1 tee is needed under subdrStriCt fee; Scenario 0 SDC(existing citywide; B El 0 El i xistitg Cly wxie SDC may be increased Special Taxing District 0 ❑ ® ❑ RI votes may establih specrt'ditrict for (New RT subdistrict) ttsei needs Reimbursement Districts City or Developers may advance financing❑ Ell ® G�7f anal recoup cresimern:v;rg LID Or Or OM new Rensbunernrnt Detncts Developers to construe•barites to handle Deietcper rurtvlt from new devetnoment Preliminary Ranking 4 3 2 1 D.4 Evaluaiic,ri As indicated in Exhibit 19, Scenario i)received the highest total score of 19 points (out of a possible 30 points). Scenario I) received the highest equity score and, while it will he difficult to implement (because of the administrative cost to create and manage reimbursement districts or LIDs). it would result in fairly reliable funding that could help facilitate development. Scenario C placed second since it would be harder to implement because of the public vote requirement (from affected voters in River Terrace). It would also entail administrative costs associated with managing LIDS or reimbursement districts. While Scenario A is the easiest to implement, it would be completely dependent upon the private development community to construct both on and off-site stormwaler infrastructure, which would likely delay development for many years. Scenario R. which would rely upon formation of several reimbursement districts or LIDS would be very complicated and expensive for the city to administer,and would not likely generate enough near-term funding to facilitate development in River Terrace. Exhibit 19: Stormwater Evaluation Criteria aluateon of Cost Burdens and Implementation ritena Funding Scenario .::amu 1:lamer cost burden•S • cost burden A status•uo 6 C D Citywide Resident Cost BurdenICTIs - Citeens in Subdistrict Cost Burden IC-_. _ 111111 :1—..._111111-71 IIIIII —.2 Dever er/Pr ert Owner Cost Burden — Cost Equity• i.. - l Reliability of Funos L ___ '...1 I'j Foctitates Development _ ICE_! 111E1-____Ii 1 ___ J Ease of Implementation r 11=1-2! .1 1111E._ 1 Moldy to Address Near-Term Costs Gui Abidy to Address Long-Term Costs ID ! _� Average Rating E �` R ._7 Total Score(sum of Evaluation Criteria) I,] 12 HU] 17t ] 19 •denotes relative variance from"uniform"equity(wnereas developers.future residents and existing residents would sul,t costs equcityi , . i '-. 'i ; ' - j ; J ` - 'ii r Stonnwater system improvements within River Terrace are estimated to cost $22 million. For the preferred stormwater funding scenario(Scenario D), the city would pay for stormwater modeling, high-flow conveyance alternatives analysis. and stornwater design standards in the near-term using available stormwater funds. Most of the funding for stormwater facilities would need to come from '.;> I (. ' (. iI\( )I P developer construction of on-site facilities required to address the stormwater runoff attributed to their planned developments. To help facilitate development to the extent possible, it is recommended that the city work with affected property owners and developers to implement a new River Terrace district stormwater utility fee surcharge(equates to 4/- SI 2 per household per month) and dedicate up to $250,000 in General Funds every 6 years to form new reimbursement districts in River Terrace. New reimbursement districts could fund approximately 59.7 million in regional stormwater facilities oyer the long-term and could he focused on facilities that benefit or involve multiple property owners (see Exhibit 20). The city or developers that participate in the advance financing used to form reimbursement districts would he compensated (paid hack)over time though special assessments on benefiting property owners that opt to participate in new development over time Exhibit 20: Stormwater Funding Analysis, Scenario D ❑ .5250.000 $832500 57082.500 ._... $ a., 5750.000 55.750000 $6.500.000 .' •' '" ,. °e,-..bss•a•,.••!. ® SSW 000 51.665.000 52 765 000 f' :.. De+e,enen 0 q iolo terwnu, 51160.000 59 080 000 511 070.000 511 022 000 522 052.000 M i oaf St-950.000 &skid Funding 51.500.000 $1.217.500 59.747 500 '.OSB.GP�e"ltp 5'^'^w J`E^'t`�".Ci'Sems,•.• , '.I-' "'Y ' ..� The recommended funding strategy tclr stormwater facilities (see Exhibit 21) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund. stormwater SDCs, and developer dedications of on-site facilities. Potential new sources of funding include a River Terrace subdistrict stormwater utility fee and city or developer-established reimbursement districts. ) e• . Exhibit 21: Recommended Stormwater Funding Strategy, Scenario D New Funding Funding Mechanism Source? Who Pays? Haw Much 5? Notes Avg.of$42,000 General Fund 0 Citizens per year to seed Discretionary fund reimbursement transfers district(s) SDC (City wide) 0 Developers Current fee of Existing storm SDCs $500 per dwelling may be odusted Avg.monthly Customers (city Existing rates maybe Utiiity Fee(city wide) 0 wide) storm utility rates adjusted $8.75 raew fee surcharge for RT subdistrict.coOd Paver terrace $12/month be used to help pay utility Fee IRT subdistrict) 0 Customers (new surcharge O&M or for residentsl re:mbu•sement district debt payment Developers or City Focus may be On advances Assumes$1-2M taciFties involving Reimbursement D,stncts ® financing with per district(every multiple property future payments by 6 years? owners with oft site builders impacts Developers 0 Developers Developer dedicat.ons(on s te) E. TRANSPORTATION E.1 Overall Findings Transportation infrastructure for River Terrace is required for new vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. Traditionally, the city has worked in partnership with ODOT(responsible for state facilities) and Washington County(responsible for county facilities). The city is responsible for upgrades to local routes within the city's municipal service area, which include neighborhood routes and collector roads. Typically, developer construction/dedications are required for new neighborhood routes, and a mix of local funding sources are used to fund new collector routes and capacity expansion. The city's existing transportation funds are generally committed and not available for investing in new transportation improvements in River Terrace over the next five years. The city is in the process of considering a new local city-wide and'or sub-district transportation SDC (TSDC) to supplement the funds it receives from the Washington County 'MT. In addition to developer funding of neighborhood routes, Development Agreements could be utilized to allow private developers to advance financing for road segments and intersection improvements (may be eligible for SDC credits and reimbursement). E.2 Public Facility Costs Transportation infrastructure needs and costs are significant and often contingent on when and where new development occurs. Total transportation capital costs(for collector improvements, arterial improvements, and selected trails) are estimated at $149.6 million (see Exhibit 22). The location of the recommended transportation projects included in the River Terrace Transportation System Plan(TSI') Addendum is depicted by the map in Exhibit 23. 4_4> t li t )1 I) Within the next 20-years. the recommended transportation facilities are expected to cost approximately $42.68 million. $25.15 million of this amount is considered to be public cost. including $8 million in Roy Rogers Road improvements. The remaining$17.5 million represents the estimated value of public improvements that development will be required to build that are not credit eligible. Near-term transportation needs include: the first phase of River Terrace Boulevard; a traffic signal at Roy Rogers Roadrl)ull Mountain Road intersection; a roundabout at the Bull Mountain Road/River Terrace Boulevard intersection; and upgrades to various Washington County facilities.' The long term needs include all other road extensions, intersection improvements. and selected multi-use trails. While River Terrace has many transportation infrastructure needs, the larger region has far more needs and very limited funding. The city needs to negotiate a cost sharing scenario with the County for the planned improvements, especially those impacting County facilities such as Roy Rogers Road. Scholls Ferry Road. and Bull Mountain Road. Exhibit 22: Transportation Infrastructure Costs Included in funding Strategy Not in fundin Shale Non- Outside Near Long River Planning Project Term Term terrace Area or TIN((set Total Capital Pubic (yrs. (yrs. Private Public Horizon Map) Prajtci Das.4.-- Cosi Estimate' Capital Cost 1-6) 7-20) Cost Costs (20+yrs)4_ Project ID Neighborhood Route } : 1 (vest of Roy Rogers Rd) —J7,000.000 -- ✓ -- Lorenzo ID Ln Collector 1 ` Extension(west of Roy Rogers Rd) $2,500.000 $120,000 Lorenzo Ln Collector — — Pro3 ct 1D Extension(cast of Roy ✓ Rogers Rd) $3.500.000 Project ID Neighborhood Route _..__.___ ✓ 4 (east of Roy Rogers Rd) $4.000.000 Project ID River Terrace Blvd 5 (Scholls FerryRd to Lorenzo Ln) $9,000.000 — —� — • Phase 1:North (67%) 1$6.030.000) , $2.6 3.000 ✓ • Phase 2:South ✓ (33%) ($2.970.0001_-.._ - Project ID River Terrace Blvd 6 (Lorenzo Ln to Bull Mtn Rd1 $6.500.000 • Phase 1:South ✓ (75%) ($4.875.000) $2,325.000 • Phase 2:North (25%) ($1.625,000) Protect' River Terrace Blvd (Bull Mtn Rd to South ( UGB) $12.500.000 J 1 he timing of signalized intersections on Washington County facilities and local cost sharing funding responsibilities are unknown at this time and will depend upon subsequent county signal warrant analysis and full funding agreements. •:,> 1 ( ( iR( )I 1' • Included in Funding Strategy Not In Funding Strategy Non- I Outside Near long River Planning Term Term Terrace ( Area or .- (see Total Capitol Public (yrs. (yrs- Private Public Horizon .,) Protein Description Cost Estimate, Capital Cost2 1-61 7-201 Cast Costa (20+yrsi'_ • Phase 1:North ✓ (33%) ($4,125,000) $1,861,000 _. 1 --_ ._ • Phase 2:South ✓ (5C%) ($6.250,000) $2,850,000 __ • Phase 3:M-tddle (17%) ($2,125.000) - __.. ✓ E-W Collector Street ; - ProjectBID (Roy Rogers Rd to River ✓ Terrace Blrc $2,500,000 $120,000 j Prti ID E-W Neighborhood Route 1 9 (River Terrace Blvd to V 161st Extension) $2,500,000 _ ! Project ID N-S Neighborhood Route i 1C (I-zzeltine Ln to Woodhur ( ✓ Extension) i $5,000,000 Project 1D N-S Neighborhood Route I -- - 11 (Woodhue Extension toV ff Beef Bend Rd) $3.500,000 i ✓ Project ID E-W Neighborhood Route —__., 12 (161st Extension to 150th V Ave) $6,000,000 Intersection Improvement l---- -' ---� I'ro113t ID Signal (Roy Rogers Rd& I ✓ New E-W Collector) 1 $1,000.000 $1,000,000 Project tIJ Intersection Improvement: 14 Signal(Roy Rogers Rd& ✓ Bull Mur Rd) $1.000,000 $1,000,000 --1 Proiea ID Intersection Improvement: li Signal(Roy Rogers Rd& I ✓ Lorenzo Ln Extension) i $1,000,000 f __.. Project IDI Intersection Improvement: 16 Signal(Sc holly FerryRd& ✓ River Terrace Blvd) f $1,000,000 $1,000,000 _ - - Intersection Improvement: �- Projm ID Roundabout (River I 17 Terrace Blvd&New ✓ N_stbborlx:Iod Route) $1,500 000 Intersection Improvement: - — __.. - Project ID Roundabout (River 18 Terrace Blvd&Bull Mm ✓ Rd) $1,500,000 , $1,500,000 Intersection Improvement Project II) Roundabout (River 19 Terrace Blvd&New E-W ✓ Collector) $2.000.000 __- -_L _._ --^.-- Intersection Improvement: Project ID I Roundabout (l��oaihttr �- .-__-- - ---.- 2C Extension&161' Extension) $2,000,000 V _--\, Bull Mountain Road: Project II) Upgrade to Urban 1 21 Standards(Roshak Rd to I I Roy Rogers Rd) $4,000,000 -4-- I • Phase 1:West I ✓ - (30%) ($1,200.000) $350.000 - - • Phase 2:East ✓ ✓ (70%) - - -- j$2"800,000) _ --- -i + ':,> 1 ( ' ( 1 R( )t 1 Included in Funding Strategy Not in Fundln_g Strategy __ Non- Outside Near Long River Planning ,fin Term Term Terrace Area or 1"• (Fur Total Capital Public (yrs. (yrs. Private Public Horizon Noires U octi oo 'cr' Cost Estimate, Capitol Costa t-6j 7-20J Cost Cost= _120+yrs)° Roy Rogers Road:Upgrade t Project II) to Urban Standards 22 (Scholls Ferry Rd to Beef Bend Rd) $35.000,000 — — • Phase I:Inside 7-1 UGB(17%) _J$4,000,000) __ $4,000,000 • Phase 2:Inside UGB(17%) _A54_000,000) $4,000.000 • Phase 3:Outside 7 ✓ UGB(66%) ($27,000,000 ------ 150th Avenue:Upgrade to Iro 23 ID Urban Standards (Bull Mm Rd to Beef Bend Rd) $4,000.000 _ _ _ _____ ___-_ • Phase I:North (70%) _1$400.000) $94.000 • Phase 2:South& Outside RT(90%) G j$3,600.0001 Project ID I-Lghaay99W/Walnut /4 Street Intersection lntprroverrent ( $10,000,000 Project ID Highway 99W/Bull �5 Mountain Intersection ✓ Improvement $5,000,000 — Project Project ID Highway 99W/Durham Road Intersection ✓ ✓ 76 Improvement $10,000,000 I'rojcn ID East-West River Terrace N/A Trail(River Terrace Blvd to 150'1 Ave) $3,600,000 _._.__.. • Phase 1:West (50%) I ($1.800,000L $1.800.000 i _ • Phase 2:East ✓ (50%) ($1.800.000) 1 1 . .._ Project Ill { Improvements where new N/A I streets meet existing streets $2500000 r • Phis, I:Local _.�._. Streets(20%) ($500.000) $500.000 • Phase 2:local& j Collector Streets ( (8096) I$2,01.000 1 --— l — -- _ TOTAL. i ; $149,600,000 $25,153.000 : Notes: I capital cost estimates and projects derived Prem River'Ferro,e Transportation Ssttem Plan Addendum,Nov.2014. Costs are in 2014 dollar. 'Public capital cost includes only the"oversized" portion of the project. This"oversized" portion reflects those costs for which a developer could expect reimbursement in the form of SIX:credits.Assumes non-creditable value of dedications equals$1,700 per II(new collector projects);and$567/I_F for street retrofits. 'Potential non-River Terrace funding sources include base T SIX'and IDT collected outside River Terrace,WA County 1D1'for projects on County roads in unincorporated areas,County MSTIP for regional capacity and safety projects on County roads,and OD()1.STIP funding for state highways. 'Includes projects outside the River Terrace planning area either elsewhere in the city or in unincorporated county areas; or projects needed best nd year 20.Of those projects in unincorporated areas,some are located outside the urban I growth boundary. • *•.) I ( ( 1R( )[ 1' Exhibit 23: Recommended Transportation Projects in River Terrace Area i � rig _ -_ ___ VOW e Map •• t: 1114 -a �, , fall : .1` ; . 6, IN ii faact I 12 I all ,• • • I s• •E ■ • • NI is • is . . RZ� ., - � alrill g • 8111011. dIPIF ...... f4S 's. y bud WI I M 111 .1_.J I • • I • U • •l i s il, e • us r\... ta; • • 0 08 al Al Ai i ! i .-— --' .-4/4*W. III 1 Strret Fc,:lit:l.^di CratStr:capo • ! • + --Arteral Street - • • ~ • --t()hector Street St lo -Netghiwrhooa Route 1 —local Street '' SA •••• f uture Collector Street • 3 (Conceptual Alignment) • -••• I uture Neighborhood Route • t(on,eptual Alignment) • e Interest tion In,provrntrnt --Al ® Proles 1 IQ(tier Table 5 ;yr 4, �. -.__._ ....1.1.171....13111Mnirilli Ftn41 street alignments may change and arc subject to final design,engineering, and permiDng. • Future comic-ow.,to I rt,hng or f uture Street • Future fredestnar'and B1tyCIe conneiIsm River Terra,e(on)r,uney Pia!,Area .Urban(,ruwth Tioundary •:;) il � ( 1R( )t 1' E.3 Fi.In lir;g Scenarios Five scenarios were evaluated for funding the transportation infrastructure in River Terrace, as shown in Exhibit 24. Each scenario includes some allocation of the city's street fund (which utilizes local and state fuel tax), the Washington County TDT, and developer dedications(for neighborhood streets and portions of new collector streets). Scenario B adds citywide and sub-district transportation system development charges (TSDCs) to the mix of funding sources. Scenario C includes a citywide TSDC and a new River Terrace Urban Renewal District. Scenario D includes a citywide TSI)C. sub- district TSDC', I-IDs, and(1.0. Bonds, but does not include an urban renewal district. After reviewing these scenarios, the Tigard City Council requested that an additional scenario. Scenario I:. be developed and evaluated. This new scenario includes a new sub-district transportation utility fee along with a citywide TSDC,and a sub-district TSDC, street funds,grants. and developer dedications. Exhibit 24: Transportation Fundin• Scenarios ;..,,,,,,7.-;.,7.,4,,,,6..,,vg4.i, hinting ScnnOrtas 'IgifiliffililliMig Cop1d Fvndloci Moto C 0 1 Mahn Fund transfers ® ® ® ® ® City may hamlet local on state fuel tax revenue to trans.pOrtotlon projects Transportation Li idly Fee Funds are dedicated to seret maintenance (existing city wide) 0 0 0 0 0 not capital corrstr,xbon Transportation itltty Fee City may establish new utity tee sur ctsarge Strchotge(new Rt wren rands to Pre oadicated to captat subdstrictj CI 0 0 0 ,...;r.H tt.ver Terrace Transportation System Development Charge 0 ® 0 ® 0 Lw nla,es:abisr-.new ATX_on new ' (Citywide 15DC j development c.tywide Rrver Terrace(RR WC[new - tray establish new RT TSDC on new Subdistrict( ❑ ® ❑ 0 0 d�ee.oF•r.i•:n iii svOdshk t TDi(existing) 0 0 0 0 0 Existir.y/1 n,7rged to new development LID or Reimbunement Dirt ItDs meq'rr de important'gap funding (new[ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ tequxei J:' •t>*operty owner apprord urban Renew di Dlstnt(i(nest.) 0 0 ® 13 ❑ Civat+.• r.if establish rsrw URD in RI subUshricr Tax Levy(new citywide GC) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® O n.•tywrde voters may estabish GO bonds for bond) i. li••.ted honsportatron improvements Grants 0 0 0 0 Developers to provide neighborhood trartspo•tabor,lac rates arid c.an receive Developers 0 0 0 0 0 lt)1/SDC credits for consttuctingetgible pubis.facilities Preliminary R onttng 6 4 7 3 1 Scenario F received the highest average rating because of high marks for equity, facilitating development, reliability of funds, ease of implementation, and ability to address near-term and long- term costs. Scenario C placed second in the evaluation, but since it relies on the creation of a voter-approved urban renewal district, it is very complex and difficult to implement and may not generate adequate funding ‘x hich could delay facility construction and development for many years. Scenario D would also be difficult to implement since it would rely upon a voter-approved G.O. Bond, and would not facilitate development. since it would rely on relatively high 7'SDC' and LIE) costs per dwelling unit. Scenarios A and 13 are not likely to generate adequate long-term funding to implement the planned transportation facilities(see Exhibit 25). • •:f> 1 ( ti ( t R( )1 . I ' Exhibit 25: Transportation Funding Evaluation Evaluation of Cosi Bvrdens and Implementation Crftwdo • 1•lower cost burAen-IS • cost harden A(9lalus Ciao • C 0 E Citywide Resident Cost Burden Citizens in Subdistrict Cost Burden 1. C llll l a ._. Developer/Properly Owner Cost Burden Cost Equity• � _ Reiiobidy of Funds 11111 •7i Faclsates Development C l _; lil _.._ 7�� j Ease of Implementation _. 1 _.._.. llli ,� Ability to Address Near tem-,Costs C_ 11E1: ._.... Ability to Address Lon lerm Costs L Avow'Rating 111 -1 NM ail I._...._1 total Score(sum o(6wluollon Ctltatfo J 12 1110.1 15 AMIN 1'9 } 17 ANEW 22 •denotes relative v argnce iron -uniform"equity(wherein developers.future residents and existing residents would snlif costs Fquntlyt E.5 Analysis of Preferred Funding SCenarnc,s Scenario E assumes that the city provides approximately $150,000 per year in street funds (state or local fuel tax revenue) to River Terrace projects, and TDi funds that would otherwise be collected from River Terrace development are exchanged for credits to developers that construct credit-eligible projects. such as frontage improvements along Roy Rogers Road. Additionally, it is assumed that a new local citywide TSDC is created (average cost per dwelling unit estimated at S5,000 with 75%of the funds collected in River Terrace allotted to River Terrace projects)and a new River Terrace district TSDC is created (average cost per dwelling unit estimated at $467 with 100% of the funds collected in River Terrace allotted to River Terrace projects)! The recommended funding strategy also includes a new transportation utility fee surcharge within River Terrace(at an average cost of$5 dollars per month per dwelling unit or equivalent dwelling unit). Cost sharing among developers. Washington County, and ODOT is expected to result in additional funding for selected facilities listed above. See Exhibit 26 for details. While the transportation funding strategy tends to balance out over the long-term (with anticipated revenues equal or greater to expected costs), there is a significant near-term funding gap(during years 1-6)that would need to be bridged through advance financing in some form. This potential near-term issue is identified as a policy issue in the next section of this report. All allotment percentages are intended as targets and not absolute requirements. •:'> I t ` (. iR( )1 Exhibit 26: Transportation Funding Strategy, Scenario E Scenario E New funding total hooting Mechanism Source? Near Term tone Term (Yowl f.20) Notes fund Transfers 0 S 1.x70.000 $2.070 00+ $3.(00(XX) ASS Jrnes avg.of+/$150 000 pet year 0,4s,,me 56.373 pet avg pwelling unit l'I% tot Revenue Inez otter credits, CI $17 53.040.00: $3 tMO 1XXi of tunas cnlltxte!d in RI allotted to RI pro)ects including$8M in IDI credits for Roy Rogers Road) Transportation System Ass.nhes$5 OO'Per avg dwelling unit 175% Develop•nt+nl C hope(Citywide ® $2.025.000 $6.705(XX $8.7:10,100 of tr ih coNerte<1 in RI allolrea to RI TSDC' dn1R<I) Rive Terrace lRtl MX Inns ® 0(X) Assumes S467 n>t7 avg.dweltrrtl4 unit i 1OU% $252. 5835 il00 SI(X:).A'X; Suixdntrct) deal.::at Irl to GI tdsTri.t • transportation Utility tee SW drarge. AS5'rmei$5/,^anti t•ansporlation utility fee inkier Rt ssstxfstn ®rf) 5100.000 $1 $I 0'0(1::unetsor;er.1 aelicered to RI dstnct) Private Cost(norocredrf eMgibte. trona,des on site avid adi Ocent(holt street *includes Rny Rogers Roan 0 $3/00 lYX) $13 620.030 $17.520(00 irhrxov erne. s•0 rollector Or ortetiol Improvements) fankiies Developers (includes TDI credits for , $4 IS C00.000Asssxnes)hair street),mprovement$to Roy $4 000Roy Rogers Rood impruvere,afsl ❑ Rogers Roars are TOT credit eligible WA County(Cm'shore: ❑ tbd tbd rad Serc*e.:c,.ra„'c.00 c.•more.ernen.s COOT/Heti:..grants(cost share) ❑ 5^ 5900.000 $I(xr./Xx' ,.«,•l•:xvrtrrr^v:o. ^ram.,oi seers Tata)Invent* $11.030.000 $32100.000 $3.140.000 Public Cod $i,770 000 515 400.000 025.110.000 Pi Poole Cwt(Won,credii eligible) $3.400.000 513.110.000 517,QQ,000 Idol Cart $13 470 000 529.1200X 54)59c 000 Pole flat funding Gop ($2.390.000) $3.380.000 $990.000 Funding gap covlU be-bridged ttirovgrr-debt Anancrng adalti0nal fond transfers by the City.grants/conurbation,from C otmtV/Metro.ort/Or deferral Of phase-in 01 Autjte projects tbd=to ter deteimine+7. The recommended funding strategy for transportation facilities (see Exhibit 27) relies upon existing funding mechanisms already being used by the City of Tigard including the General Fund, Tl)T charges/credits, grants,and de>,eloper dedications of on-site facilities. Potential new sources of funding include a River Terrace district transportation utility fee and a local citywide and River Terrace district TSDC. • •:; Exhibit 27: Recommended Scenario, Scenario E New Funding • Funding Mechanism Source? Who Pat's? How Much 5? Notes Avg.$150.000 o Funding from local or Fund Transfers 0 Citizens year contributions state gas tax funds Existing TOT(assumes TOT=$8.323 per 75%o1 funds collected TDT Revenue 0 Developers(citywide) dwelling(ovg) •nRT ore allotted to RT projects or developer credits) Clew citywide SDC' Transportation System Development Charge(Citywide 0 Developers(0tyw+de) S5.000per assumes 75%of funds TSDC dwelling(ay gi collected in RT are ullottea to RI district _. Subdistrict River Terrace(RT)1SDC (new Developers(within RT Transporta,on vew subdistrict SOC Subdistrict( distract) SOCs=$467 per 11 °tYed oohed to RT dwell+ dstnctl ng(avid) Transportation Utility Fee SurchargeEd t'ropeny Owners SStmcntr 100%dedicated to RI (new RT subdiStriCl) (wit un RT districr? surcharge projects Private Cost(non-credit ei g;bye: ROW and street excludes Roy Rogers Rood 0 Oeve!ecets;w+tMr Rt dedications to Focus is usually far on cilli 1) site improvements improvements) new routes Grants D s r oterMetro citizens $900000 focus on tr rls WA COuntY'cost Shore; ❑ County property tbd Countyroodway owners;c+±zens improvements 0001(cost share) Stole citizens tbd Hwy 99,rrprovements •AII allotment percentages are intended as forgets and not absolute regutements •tote.tundng so. :es than ore,moo+ 'new to Toard mare be potent a+ty relied upon in •::> ( � IZ( )t I' IV . POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The River Terrace funding strategy includes a plan for funding required public facilities using existing and new funding sources as well as partnerships with service providers and developers. The funding strategy recognizes the limitations of current financial resources that are available to the city and other service pros iders. and provides a plan for funding infrastructure required to support planned development. A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS • It is recommended that local city policies he adopted to clarify the relationship between the provision and funding of public facilities and when new development can he permitted in River Terrace (and possibly elsewhere in the city). This may entail adoption of an adequate public facilities ordinance that addresses the process for determining when and bow public facilities are considered reasonably funded so that development can he permitted in River Terrace. • Ongoing inter jurisdictional coordination will also he required between the city, Washington County. ODOT.CWS, and other agencies to ensure that cost sharing agreements are consistent with each agency's expectations. • The city may desire to extend its Capital Improvement Program from live years to six years to provide additional time for River Terrace SDCs and fund balances to accumulate to ensure that adequate funds are in place to complete the highest priority projects. • The city should update its SDCs for water, sewer,stormwater, transportation and parks by EYE 2015 to take these recommendations into account. As part of this update. the city may also consider updating its SI(.' policies regarding how revenues are to be allocated to River Terrace and other citywide needs. The city's SDC credit policies should also be updated to clarify how Sl)C credits are calculated and applied to eligible public facilities. The findings and recommendations contained in this Funding Strategy also include the following issues and considerations for each public facility type. NATER SYS ! Er.^ • Existing funding sources and planned rate increases should be adequate for addressing water system requirements needed citywide and for River Terrace. • Adequate water capacity is currently available to serve future River Terrace development within the 410 and 713 zones. However, there is a city-wide need for additional water storage capacity in the 55(1 zone. City staff estimates that only 72 additional homes can be built in River Terrace within the 550 zone before the new 3.0 million gallon per day (gpd) Cacti Reservoir is constructed. • The city may consider other interim water system improvements that could be provided, such as pressure reducing valves from the 713 zone to serve the 550 zone, to increase the amount of development that can occur in the 550 zone, in advance of the new Cach Reservoir. :;> i is ( i It( )t l' 1, C. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Existing funding sources, planned rate increases by CWS, and a new sanitary sewer surcharge by the city should he adequate for addressing sanitary sewer requirements needed citywide and for River Terrace. - The city will need to coordinate closely with CWS and interested developers to ensure that planned sewer pump stations in River Terrace north and south areas advance to construction in the near term. D. PARKS AND TRAILS SYSTEM • City funding for parks and trails is generally limited to parks Sl)C revenues and General Fund allocations, which can vary widely each year. • The city's parks SDC is in process of being updated to take into account planned facility improvements needed in River Terrace, as well as recent investments made by the city elsewhere in the city. • The city should consider new funding resources (such as a citywide parks utility fee) to make parks funding more independent from the General fund and help accumulate reserves for parks improvements citywide and in River Terrace. • Public support for a future cit}wide parks and trails U.O. bond should also he considered after the current G.O. bond for parks sunsets. E. STORMWATER SYSTEM * City funding for stormwater facilities and maintenance activities is very limited and inadequate fir addressing future River Terrace or citywide needs. • The high-flow conveyance facilities require additional alternatives analysis, special permitting, and land or easement acquisition because of the unique nature of this condition and the fact that there are downstream impacts outside the city and Urban Growth Boundary. This could he problematic since the city may not be able to acquire land or fund regional facilities needed at the pace of development. • The city is in process of considering increases in local stormwater SDCs to take into account planned facility improvements citywide and in River*I errace. The city should consider new funding resources (such as a River Terrace stormwater district and district utility fee) and public-private partnerships to generate a funds for advance financing regional water quality and quantity facilities, detention ponds, and high-flow conveyance facilities in River Terrace. The city may utilize full faith and credit obligations for advance financing of reimbursement districts to pay for 1-2 regional facilities every 6 years in River 7 errace. .ANSPORiATIOP'' SiS1CM The city's existing transportation funds are generally committed and not available for investing in new transportation improvements in River Terrace over the next six years. 'The city is in the process ofconsidering a new local city-wide TSDC and.or subdistrict(s)TSDC to supplement the funds it receives from the TM . It is recommended that the city consider * 1 ( " ( , IU )1. l' policies to allocate a portion of TSDC/TDT revenues generated by new development within River Terrace to projects within River Terrace. • The city will need to work with Washington County and ODOT to discuss potential cost sharing responsibilities for County and State facilities. • 1 he city should continue to work with Washington County and other local governments to identify potential sources of advance financing for improvements to major County facilities such as Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road, and ODOT facilities including Hwy. 99W. • in addition to developer funding of neighborhood routes. Development Agreements could be utilized to allow private developers to advance financing for road segments and intersection improvements (may be eligible for TSDC'TDT credits). These policy considerations serve as a starting point for ensuring that the city has the ability to fund necessary public facilities in River'l errace as development occurs. The actual timing of public facility investments will depend on many factors. While the city has control oyer local utility rates and SDCs, the city cannot predict development market timing or the future cost of financing. It should he recognized that for any Funding Strategy to be successful. the city will need to continue to follow sound public financing principles that should not waiver in spite of changing market conditions. It is also advised that the city should re-evaluate and revise this Funding Strategy every five years in order to ensure that it remains relevant and useful in guiding public investment in River Terrace over the next two decades. •:;> I ( '. ( iR( )t � I V . APPENDIX 10-Year Forecast of Selected City Funds •;;> I'( " ( i K(. )( ' I' ,,,,%I It /11111X1P111 3 1 1 6/30/2015 8/30/'2011 8/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2000 6/30/2021 6/30/7072 6/30/2023 4/30/2024 9 of •3rd WolerU Budget Projected Projected Pinioned Projected Projected Profert•rt Projected Protected Prgecfed Water hod Resp/+c:es: Peginrrnq fund balance $ 12,570 630 5 6 104 977 5 4,944.478 5 4.788,614 5 1,832714 5 .0971639 5 5.019.04; S 5.113.570 5 5.701.114 5 5.788.088 Revenue: 43176 Developer ovetheod 9 663 •44c '44' '440 7 ern ,44 44 'llrl 441 43178 Fire servleerwmtxrsemtvlt t 470 43130 IWscellanrws fees and charges 3,267 '93 791 '93 493 .v 1 !,.,1 '93 43301 SDC mburement98 ry 45100 Utility sales 19.057.537 18,645.801 18,989.939 19,359,488 19.752,008 20.151,966 20528,654 20.872,712 71,220.821 21.523,867 45101 Olher utility sales 4456 4 454 4 45A 4.455 4 45A 4 45A 4 4,1 4 454 4 455 4 45A 45102 leaksfmrxeadscredits 122.9841 171.9881 172,0531 (22.1231 (22,198) (22.2731 (22.3451 (22,4101 127,47 45104 Meter sales 112533( 77.767 35,865 70,373 81,586 93,449 9(959 100.517 IW,289 108.129 112.!33 45105 Rip hydrant lbw felling service 6.006 A(914 4 006 51)A A!int. (3141 45150 tate pefwltles/thirst n 879NIA n 743131A 1 616(111A A 995 A r, gro 171.136 125.185 125.561 125.963 1'16.392 128.829 127.740 127.616 127.995 128.326 45151 Returned check Ines 1.290 1 780 i 790 1798 Tor, 79 ,.q„ 45199 Rod 6411 120.56/) (74.933) 175,781) 125.6_'41 (26,0571 126 4571 (76 893) (27 1861 45319 14%cdlanaus lees and char 127.5381 177 HAA) charges 31'7 177 177 t•: 177 -r+;; i,; I.; 45320 Renta income 39 734 h 214 11 24 e 214 33 714 t't,I a i/714 1.214 47000 (mere!eanrK7s 6/.611 32.967 26.700 25.859 26,097 76.577 77,103 27.613 28.086 28 556 48000 Other revenue 48101 Recovered okomdtures 'it 975 49100 Transfer in tram General Fund 77 460 77 441) /7 460 27 44(1 27 441) 27 4443 49500 Tramler in from Sonllory Sewer Fund 13 413 1,31(3 13411 77.413 23 Ado 13 3 413 )+4A( 49510 Transfer In from SlormwoterFund 7 '3473 139/3 13 n3 13878 13413 13918 ' P7P 17.878 v,878 17.878 17.878 17 879 `7.818 17.878 17.878 'r 5.75 Total revenue 18359.867 18,905,178 19277,579 19,656460 20062.168 20.465.943 20845704 21,194.956 21,54/,360 21.854.846 Iota resources }30.890.497 $ 25.0(0.134 5 74.222.008 $ 24.445,074 $2(894,882 $25.387.582 $ 75.865.748 $ 26.308.533 $ 26749,473 $27.142934 Requirements" Expenditures: Personnel service% Salaries 5 893916 $ 935.614 $ 979,707 5 1,025,877 5 1.074.714 5 1,174,849 $ 1.177,859 5 1.233.368 5 1.291 493 $ 1.352.357 Benefits 437 147 458,999 491.949 506,047 531,349 557.9(6 585.812 615.103 645`858 678,151 fatal personnel services 1.330,648 1.394,613 1.461.656 1,531.924 1.605,573 1.687,765 1.763,671 1.848.471 1,937.351 2030.508 Wlolerials and services. Supplies 3869952 4.006.400` 2.005400• 2.075.589 2148.7.;5 2.273.423 23)1.743 2381,786 2.465(49 2,551,429 Franchise tee MIR 000• 672.961 685.382' 698.684' 712,889' 847.37,7• 740.917' 753.335• 765,899' 776.836 Other service i 174611 1,159,832 1,200,427 1,242.411 1.285,927 1.330,934 1.377,517 1^425.730 1.475.631 1.527,278 Total matin III and services 5,498,563 5.838,194 3,891,209 4.016.714 4)47,051 4281,679 4,4(9,677 4.560.851 4.706.678 4,855,543 Cooltat outlay 1 m 3.116 3,535 3.659 3.787 3,919 4.057 4 199 4,345 4.498 transfers out and Index./coil allocations ' '41,,, 1.611 769 1,681,719 1.155,249 1,831.994 1.917.094 1.995,697 2.097,955 2,174.078 2.269.083 Non-program expenditures transfer out to water CIP fund 7.639.391 2.467 150 1,671,982 (.409.009 1.308.561 1.396,004 1.463089 1.488,918 1.502,845 1,164.662 Transfers old to Water Debt Service Fund 8.490141 8,469.584 10.429.485 10.590,152 10.756216 10.758020 10,757,320 (0,158(20 10755.320 10.756.145 transfers out to other lunch 269,707 781,499 293.807 306,654 320,061 334,055 348,661 total non program expenditures 661946 637,917 696,233 16399,239 11:?18.731 12.395.7/S 17301.914 Iz384,818 12.480.090 12,569,01'0_ 12610,943 12637,982 17617,730 Total esperW'tures 24,775.521 20.065,/26 19,433.394 19,612,360 19,913,247 20,368,538 20.752.172 21,107,419 21.460385 21.776.862 Fndirgfund bolatxe 6104.977 4.944.428 4.7811.614 4.832,714 (921.639 5.019,045 5113,576 5201,114 5.288088 5.366,072 lotal requirements $ 30.880497 5 25,010.154 $ 24.222,008 $24,445,074 $24.894,8112 $ 25.387.582 $75.865,748 $ 26,308.533 $ 26.749,473 $ 27.147.934 Days of erpenc1twm in ending tend balance . 9!) 9r 90 an 7 If. 9,, y • .•.> ( f1� tt I) 1, 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/3072022 6/30/ .3 6/30/2024 6 of 1 •aid Wale! Outlaw Prowled reelected regected Projected reo).efed reelected Protected reelected reelected waw CO Fund Resources. 8egInning hued balance S 43./76.812 $ 17.974,151 $ (31,1021 $ 138,230) 5 (25.709) 5 5,980 5 1.134.916 5 2,325.353 5 3.535.8.59 $ 4.754.107 Revwsue: 433(30 System devetopmenl themes 448{X) federal grants 47000 )ntrvest earnings 736 125 9/.060 11681 120) 11391 72 6.129 12.55/ 19.094 75.672 48:01 Recovered expenditures 49001 Debt proceeds 46.894,542 1.425.529 1 957010 1.967.930 0 0 O 0 0 49100 Transfer in from 4;erwwal fund 49475 Transfer in from Parts STUC hind 49500 Transfer es from Sanitary Sewer fund 49530 Transfer in from Water hind 448 I(M 7.467,150 1,671,982 1408.009 1,308,561 1,396.004 1 463.089 1 488.918 1.502.845 1,464.667 49571 Transfer en from Water STX:fund 145.000 - _ - Totalrevenue 48.369.036 2.561,711 3,097,34,3 3,359,813 3,276,351 1.396037 1,469.717 1.501.475 1,521,939 1,190,334 Total resources $ 92.095,848 $ 70.538.362 $ 1066,241 5 3,321,582 $ 3.250,642 $ 1.402.017 5 2.604,133 5 3,876,878 $ 5,057,/90 $ 6.744.441 Requirements: Eapendtures: Capital outlay 8 73.906.047 5 20344,385 $ 2.869.551 S 3.102,100 $ 7,988 750 5 $ $ 5 . 5 Debt service Transfers oil 7,5 Av) 225.079 234.920 245,191 255.917 267.101 278.780 290.969 303.691 316.969 Other Total expenditures 74.121,497 70569,464 3.104.471 3,347,291 3,244.662 267.101 278,780 290.969 203,691 316.969 Ending lund balance 17.974,151 (31.102) (38.230( (25.709) 5,980 1.131.916 2,325353 1535,859 4,754,107 5.927.472 Totaroaulrements S 97.095.848 5 20,538,362 5 3.066,241 $ 3.321.582 5 3,250.642 $ 1,402,017 $ 2.604.133 5 3.826.828 5 5,057/98 5 6244,141 Days of expendfurns In ending fund balance 89 (1) 14) 13) 1 1.557 3,047 4.438 5.718 6.830 Warr Debt Service Fund Resources: Beginning Puree!balance $ 6,766.983 $ 10,573.816 5 10,573.816 S 10.691.767 $ 10.854.820 S 11,020.765 S 11.020.765 S 11.020.765 $ 11.020.765 5 11.020,765 Revenue: 47000 Interest earnings 36.542 57.099 57.099 57.736 58.616 59.512 59.512 59.512 59,517 59,512 49001 Debt proceeds 3.806.833 117,951 163.053 165,945 0 0 0 0 0 49530 Transfer in from Water fund 8.490.141 8.469.584 10.429,485 10,590.152 10,756.216 10.758,020 10,757.320 10.758.120 10.755,320 10.756,145 Total revenue 12,333,515 8.526.683 10,604,535 10.810,941 10,980776 10,817,532 10,816,832 10,817,632 10,814,83? 10.815,657 Total resources $ 19,100,498 $ 19.100,498 5 21,178,351 5 21,502,708 5 21,835.597 $ 21,838.797 $ 21,837,597 5 21,838,397 $ 21,835,597 $21.836,422 Requirements: Debi service Existing debt service $ 4719,8550 $ 4.719.850 5 6.561,800 $ 6,560,050 5 6,561,050 $ 6.563,750 5 6.563.050 5 6.563,850 $ 6,561,050 5 6,561,875 New debt sarvk,e 3,806.833 3.806,833 3,924_784 4.08/.831 4,253,787 4.253.782 4,253_782 4.253.782 4.253,782 4.253.782 Total debt service 8.526683 8.526,683 10,486,584 110,647,881 10.814,837 10,817,537 10.816,837 14817,637 10.814,832 10,815,657 Ending fund balance 10.571816' 10,573.816* 10.691.767' 10.854,820' 11,020,765* 11.020,765* 11,070,165' 11,020,765• 11,020,765. 11.020,765 Total requirements $ 19.104498 $ 19.100,498 5 21,178,351 5 21,502,708 5 21.835,59/ $ 21.838,297 $ 21,837,597 $21.838,397 $ 71,835.597 $21.836,422 Days of expenditures In ending fund balance 453 453 372 372 372 372 372 377 372 372 1 ••.> I•( ( iI ( )( I' 6/30/201S 6/30/2016 6/3072017 6/30(2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 1 d • • d Water UNI budget Projected Protected Fretec$.d Projected ►rnf.ct.r1 Protected ►rot.ct.d ►rnj.r'.d hatectws Water Son Pend Resources. Beginning fund balance $ 2.860.840 5 4.149831 $ 5,066.575 5 6.851,719 $ 8.926.597 $ 11.310.247 $ 13,793,190 $ 16.379.172 $ 19.072.081 5 21.875,947 Revenue' 43300 System development charges 511/C( 691 446 894.3.35 1.757.785 2.037.879 2,335,446 2.421,867 7,511,499 2.604.461 2,700,877 2,800,877 43301 SDC reimbursement 511Cr 975 3'9 47000 Interest earnings 15,449 22409 27.360 36.999 48,204 61.075 /4,483 88.448 102,989 118,130 total revenue 1,634,254 916.744 1,785.145 2,074,878 2.383.650 2,482,943 2.505.982 2.692.909 2.803.867 2.919.007 Total resources $ 4.495.094 5 5.066.575 $ 6,851,719 $ 8,926,597 $ 11,310,247 $ 13.793,190 $ 16.319.177 $ 19,072.081 $ 71.875,947 $ 24.194,954 Requirements: transfers out ' Transfers out to Water OP Fund $ 345.000 S - S S $ S S S S - 5 ' Transfers out to other tunas 76' Total transfers out 34.5.263 - . - - - . Ending to d balar,e 4.149,831 5.066.575 6.851.719 8.926.597 11.310.247 13.793,190 16.379,172 19,077,081 71,875,947 24./94.954 Intel rwl,:",•meats $ 4,840.357 $ 5,066,575 $ 6,051.719 $ 8,926,597 5 11,310,247 $ 13.793,190 $ 16,379,172 $ 19,072.081 $ 21,875,947 $ 24,794,954 Revenue Assumptions Interest rale 0 5a" 0 Set s x.1% n 54% 0.54% 0.544 rl 544 0 54% • -54% Customer accounts. Customer accounts in erisling servers area 19,875 19.954 20.054 20.144 20.235 20,326 20.417 20.509 20 6(.1 20.094 Customer accounts In new service area 0 80 180 300 420 540 640 780 _ 900 Total customer accounts 19,875 19,964 20.134 20,324 20.535 20.746 20,957 21,169 21,381 21.594 New customers 1,974 89 170 190 211 211 211 212 212 213 Customer account growth in existing service area 15.1. 0 45% 0 45% 0 45% 0 45% n 454 0 4r4 t • Total customer account growth 17.25% 0-45% 0.85% 0.94% 1.04% 1.03% 1 02% 1.01% 1.0071, 0.99%. Rate revenue per account,first half of fiscal year $ 499 $ 521 5 526 5 531 S 536 $ 542 $ 547 $ 5.51 5 554 $ 558 Rote revenue per account.second half of fiscal year $ 409 S 413 S 417 3 421 $ 426 $ 430 5 433 5 435 3 4311 $ 439 Annual rote adjustment on January I 4 78% o v :,9w'. 990 Share of revenue in first half of fiscal year 58 00% r"' 54 00% 54.00% 56 004, 54 001, 5A mt 54'Y7[ Ftonchise fee as percentage of total at revenue 2.81% .4 61.r. 1 61%. 3 61% 3 61% 1 51% 1#,1% 1 A'q r AI SOC.revenue per rsew account S 9,662 $ 10,000 $ 10,350 $ 10,712 $ 11,087 $ 11.475 $ 11.877 $ 12.292 $ 12.723 S 13,1011 • •: I-( � ( 7IZ (.)1 ;I' , 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/201e 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2073 6/30/2024 C Ot T•arch Wgbr Ueli 6ud0et Projected Projected Protected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Protected Cat As sumpeoes Full-time equivalent(FTE)positions t np ,1 00 11 Cl) 13 00 13 on 11 Cl) I3 Cl 1 1 no I 1 no Salaries per Fit: $ 68.731 $ 71.970 $ 75.362 $ 78.914 S 82.6.33 S 86.527 S 90.605 5 94.874 S 99,346 $ 104.027 Growth in salaries per FTE 10.57% 4 7'T 4 '"•,!! 4.7'7 4 714 4 11% 4 n4 4 71'T 4 "'. 4. Benefits per FIE 5 33.626 5 35,308 $ 37.073 $ 38.927 S 40.873 S 42.917 $ 45,062 $ 47,316 5 49,681 $ 57,165 Growth in benefits per TIE 4.47% Son% S fY1 , 5.00'x, S.(1nQ 5 P' 5 tel. S'Y!q S.155! S"Yl." Annual escalation of materials and services 1 v17 t+nq 't v"i. 1.50% 1 9) 1 ti,' t v.'.,7 3'J1 ;1.51'rt Annual escalolion of capital outlay 1 t'Crq IA. ,5455, 3 50.' t '4-2 <r.r,., 1 i SRe Annual escalation of transfer 6.84% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4,37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% 4.37% Capitol projects Projects for River Terrace' Pressure Reducing Value Design t 1 S 1 S 4 S S 1 1 Pressure Reducing Valve Construction 204nch transmission mains In 410 zone(Design) 70,inch transmission mains in 410 zone(Construction) 16-inch transmission mains in 550 zone(Design) 16-inch Transmission mains in 550 zone(Construction) 3.0 MG Cach Reservoir Design I;,`4I Oar, 3.0 MG Coch Reservoir Construction 16-Inch tronsmission from reservoir to 5508 1,400 gpm(firm capacity)pump stalinn tocol projects for River terrace - - 1,050.000 • - - - Projecls for existing service area ?3.91)6;14' 20 344.38s 2.889 551 7 Inc i9,1A "5i' Total capitol projects 5 73,906,047 $ 20.344,385 $ 2,869,551 $ 3.107.100 $ 7,988,750 $ - $ - $ - S - S - Debl Issuance cost percentage 2 00% 700% 2.00% 200% 2.00% 2.00% 2A0% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Interest rate 4 On 4.10% 470% 430% 4.40% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 450% Term 7n 70 X 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Principal: Proceeds S 46,894,542 $ 5 1.425,529 S 1,952.010 $ 1,967.930 $ 0 S 0 5 0 S 0 S 0 Issuance costs 1,034,772 31,500 43,165 43,548 0 0 0 0 0 Debt reserve 3.806,833 - 117,951 163,053 165,945 0 0 0 0 0 Iota!principal S SI /36.097 1 5 '.574,980 $ 7,1.58.778 S 2;."421 1 i1 1 Cl 1 1) $ 0 $ :i Debt service coverage ratio(minimum 1.15) 1.17 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.17 •:;> 1 •( � ( R()t ` I) ., , 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 4/30/2018 6/30/7019 6/30/2020 4/30/2021 6/30/2822 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 t irE11=1111111111111111111111 Estimate Protected Protected Protected hsyooed Protected Protected Protected Protected Protected SeNfery Sower Fend Resources: Beginning fund balance 5 1.449.654 S 1.320 471 5 6.837 5 601.969 5 671.891 $ 913444 S 2,200.096 S 1506.954 $ 4,833.058 S 6.171370 Revenue. 43120 Sewer connection tern 74 506 16.738 34.359 40.030 46.057 47./57 49.519 51.347 51243 55.208 43130 Mscellaneous fees/charges 756 311 256 114 756 314 256.314 254.314 756.314 256 314 756 314 256 314 256 114 45100 1l116tyso1e5 7.926.777 2.995.961 2.869.395 2.955,650 3.046.976 3.140.298 3.235.663 3,113.115 1432.103 3.534.4/8 45199 Bad debt 150 9+01 (9)9101 1915081 150.5001 ISO 5001 f541.51911 1411 CM 1411 5199 (54 rot 193 5,001 45319 M ce4onnus fees and charges 47000 Interest earnings 7.828 7.131 37 3.251 1.628 4.933 11.881 18.938 26,099 33.358 4BOOt Recovered expenditures 141.474 119.422 103.766 108.562 107.991 100.655 101.303 101.9/7 1026/6 103,402 49200 Transfer in from Gas Tax Fund 45.400 49421 Transfer in from Parks Bond Fund 21,900 . 49425 Transfer in from Parks SOC hind 375.450 • 49510 Transfer in horn Sformwaler Fund 272.400 49511 Transfer in from Water Qwkty/Ouantity Fund 439.200' . • 49577 Transfer in Prom Wales CIP Fund 715.69' Proceeds horn new debt - Total revenue 4.726,449 3,345.071 3.213.370 1313,307 3.410.465 3.499.456 1604.179 3,711,190 3.820.534 3.932.259 Total resources 5 6.176.103 $ 4,665.542 $ 3,220.201 S 3.915.275 $ 4.062.357 5 4.412.900 $ 5.804,2/5 S 7,218.143 $ 8653.592 5 10,109.630 Requirements: Expenditures- Personnel services Salaries 5 181 737 $ 374,171 5 390,800 5 408.584 $ 427.599 $ 447.456 5 448,191 5 489.841 5 512445 5 536.045 Benefits 165.677 183.81? 197.006 200,766 210.132 219.914 230,129 240.797 7.51.936 74.3.566 Total personnel services 546.874 557,988 582,806 609,349 637.731 667.370 698.320 /30.638 764.381 799.611 fxbtenals and services' Supplies 15 911, 37 184 38 465 39.811 41 284 47.646 44.139 45.684 47.283 48.938 Service .'4 3•.' 635.864 658.119 681,153 704.994 729.668 /55,207 781,639 808.996 837.311 Total materials and services 650.268 473.028 696.584 720.964 746,198 777 315 /99.346 877.373 856.279 886.249 Capital outlay +•. . 37.776 39,188 40.468 41.885 43,351 44.860 46.438 48.064 49.746 Debt service: Existing debt service New debt service - - Total debt service - - - - - - Transfers out and Indirect cosi allocations 594 11/' 619.1/6 640.963 66.1.516 686.864 711 007 736,057 761.951 788.762 816,516 Non-program expenditures loan to CCOA Transfers out 79 Boo 18 738 '8 736 '36 18 736 '9''Si 18 736 18 736 18 734 18.736 Copilot protects )944 101' 2.752.000 640.050 1.190.350 1.037,500 1 total non-program expenditures 3.023.860 2.770.736 658786 _1,709,086 1.056,736 18./36 18,/36 18,136 18.736 18,736 Total expenditures 4.855.632 4.658,705 7,618739 3.243.384 3.168.913 7.217.804 2.297.321 2.385.086 2.476.221 7.570.858 Ending fund balance 1.320,471 6.817 601.969 671,891 911444 7.200.096 3,506,954 4.833.058 6,177.370 7.538.177 Total requirements 5 6.176.103 $ 4,665.542 $ 3,220.707 $ 3.915,775 $ 4.081357 $ 4.412,900 $ 5.804,275 $ 7,718.143 $ 8.653,592 510.109.630 Days of expenditures in ending fund balance 99 1 84 74 105 363 5.58 740 911 1.071 psi -:> 1.c ,♦C` IR()t3 £ii] \.,111 t, .••1 o.,111 1.1111. 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2011 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2021 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 a of 71.aid Sunil Sewer 11115 Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected levant,Assumptions Interest rote 511% ISA". '.4"' II 44% 1 '.4'. ,. `+4'� .`.4" U 54% „54' 0.C4% Customer accounts: Customer accounts in existing service orea 18,162 18,244 18.376 18,409 18.492 18,575 18.658 18.742 18.827 18,911 Customer accounlS in new service area 0 80 180 30C 420 540 6651 780 900 fold customer. 18.162 18,244 18,406 18.589 18.797 18,995 19,198 19,402 19,607 19,811 New customers 81 82 162 182 203 203 204 204 204 205 Customer account growth in roosting service area 0.45'% 045% 0.45% 0.45% 0 45% 0 45% 0 45% 0 45'% 0.45% 045% Total customer account growth 0.45% 0.45% 0.89% 0.99% 1.09% 1.08% 1.07% 1.06% 1.05% 1.04% franchise fee os percentage of total rale revenue 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5 005• 5 03% 5.009E Rates: fatal CWS fixed monthly rate per EDU S 25.85 $ 76.67 S 27.42 S 28.24 5 29.09 5 79.96 S 30.85 $ 31.77 5 32.73 $ 33.70 total CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCf 5 1.44 5 I.48 5 1.52 S 1.56 $ 1.60 $ 1.64 S 1.68 $ I 27 5 1,76 S 1.80 City portion of CWS fixed monthly roto per EDU 5 4.25 S 4.38 5 4.51 5 4.65 S 4.78 5 4.93 $ 5,08 5 5.23 5 5 3f1 5 5.54 City portion of CWS volumetric monthly rate per CCE $ 0.28 S 0.29 5 0.30 S 0.31 5 0.32 S 0.33 S 034 5 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 S 4 SP $ ' , $ ,50 5 550 5 5 5r 5 55(1 5 t 550 5 . 5 , City surcharge on volumetric monthly rote S $ 5 S 5 - 5 - 5 5 $ 5 City portion of CWS system development charge per EDT $ 197.87 $ 204.80 $ 211.96 $ 219.38 $ 227.06 $ 235.01 $ 243.23 S 251.75 $ 260.56 S 769.68 Rote revenue: CWS portion 5 9,929,435 5 10,250,773 $10.625.647 S 11.077,085 $11,441,259 S 11.871,933 $12.314.426 $12,769.068 $13,236.201 5 13,716.180 City franchise fee 676,640 697.194 710,265 735.6/0 /62,539 790,117 818,426 847.483 877,311 907,929 Cily utility revenue 2.926,727 2.995.967 2,869,395 2,955,650 3,046.976 3,140.298 3,235,663 3,333.115 3,432.703 3,534,478 Total rate revenue $13,532.803 $13,943,885 $14,205.308 $14.713,405 $15,250,774 $15.802.349 $16,368.514 $16,949,666 $17,546.715 $18.158,587 Consumption Average annual consumption per account in CCI 248 248 748 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 Growth in overage annual consumption per account 0.00% 0.on% 0)(5V 0.no% 0.00% 0.071% r,lir I,,rr.. rIrl% 'I II._ Cost Assumptions Mles of sanitary sewer system 166 v 167.7 169.1 170.8 172.7 174.5 176.4 178.3 180.2 182.1 Full-lime equivalent tF1F1 positions 5.50 5.57 5.57 5.63 5.69 5.75 5.81 5.88 5.94 6.00 Salaries per FIT $ 65.421 $ 67.726 S 70.113 $ 72,584 $ 75,142 $ 77.791 $ 80,537 5 83.370 $ .86,309 $ 89.351 Growth in salaries per Fit ' 3.52%' 1 577' 1 57%' 1.52% 1 52%' 3.57%' 1 57',- t 57%' 3.52%' I S"' Benefits per Fit $ 32.135 $ 33.271 $ 34,448 $ 35.666 $ 36,927 $ 38,232 $ 39,584 $ 40.983 $ 42432 $ 43,933 Growth in benefits per Elf 3.54% 3.54% 3 54% 3.54% 3 54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% 3.54% Annual escolal ion of materials and services 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of capital outlay 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.509. 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Annual escalation of transfers 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% eo:' I ( 1 ( I I ,( )[ 'If ,,„„ fr.,,,'„nll r„I,, 1 , . 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2010 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 « of TI•ard Sanita Sewer 11111 tsllmo*e Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Capitol pralech Projects for River Terrace'. North Gravity Segment 1 t i t 1 t $ $ $ t $ North Gravity Segment 2 North Gravity Segment 3 North Gravity Segment 4 South Gravity Segment I South Gravity Segment 7 South Gravity Segment 3 South Gravity Segment 4 South Gravity Segment 5 South Gravity Segment 6 South Gravity Segment 7 • South Gravity Segment 6A South Gravity Segment 9A total projects for River terrace - - Projects for existing service area 7 91 7.500 '1000 640,050 1190 30 1.037,500 - Total capitol projects S 2.912.500 $ 7.752.000 $ 640.050 3 1.190.350 3 1,037.500 $ $ 3 • 3 3 beef Issuance cost percentage 2.00% 2.00% 7.00% 2.00% 2100% 7.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.007E 7.00% Interest rale 4.t10% 4.00% 4.0% 4.007E 4.00% 4,00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4,170% term 70 20 20 20 20 20 70 70 70 20 Principal: Proceeds 3 3 3 $ 3 3 3 - 3 $ . 3 - Issuance costs - Debt reserve - . Total principal S 3 $ $ 5 $ 3 $ $ $ .: 1 -( ! (r �t1 �t ? '? ‘.„„.11''.,rriirtirrrn. • 1( 1s t:i� 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 91 61 I41uy Punt 0u1p ui sarypt.wt4a 10 16011 6L9"OS6 t 558'816 t MOM t 99C9S9 t LC9'6SB t 658'108 S /1051/ t t1O'61,L S IL8'IY0'1 t Lor 9[8'1 t 616 t9LS I clu0uuuntaas 10101 LIIYIC 61,11:91 au010q purl 0upu3 619'OS6 559'816 960'wB99C8S'9LEy'6L8 659.108 LIOSLL £L0'6,, 1[8'11'0 I MIDIS'I =Wt. SoinipNaai81040, I 1110 St Irr!ta{su0:110101 6[91056 t SS8'816 t 960'000 t 99(:958 I LC9'6L8 t MID/ S [IO'SLL t CL0'M1 I left log I I 06£015'I S o►o LKi L $ ssw60w u,>\!OM wnl n 6[9'056 I SSB'816 I 960900 I 990858 I 11'9'618 I 659'1013 I /10'511 S 640'61/ I IL$IPOI I 111901 $ 616'Ift i tr,now,10104 6191:66 558'816 960908 Mini LC9.618 6S8'100 LIO'SLL 010111 L66124 II✓[991 06Z,01' 0!0,4000,11010, OOClit pu11 s4140M W011 u1 sapu0sl 00561 .0(001 Pun'alDnsuu0{S woM tit sap40s1 0156► OOCZC puni same(6w4u0I tutui W IaPUCsl 00(61 619"056 89916 9609181 99£119 LCY 610 659'1111 I10(1/ 0/0'614 L66'CLL Sr6-HOE'I 901'1X[ Puny Jci tslwd 0.104 1,1 aPu014 57,161 111'£5£ exvte 1 p.44121.0t1 t4/04 W09 ui saAuos1 ILrd► 001'051 [ xy Iuawa OICkerM MU;W09 us sa41UO 4 0916P pool r04 W)W0y u alsuotl ouzo, Pun'10auwj WW1 Ix apu0sl 0016► 011.11140.101, uureepoutta.1 peswwM 1008, toil 180 6IUt s0uwOa 119,401 axle, 9 6 I► wwd^alt toluaiu:anoOti.lu1 105rr .ans.anAa S I S S S S I t LII91C S 6,11.91 S 60(4tl S aaugOq pun46upsusOaB wa,nosoa Pyido2$40041'PUN PJMYa6o6611ai INN,* t t - t t t t t t t t rtt lsi t nuruNwnba>low4 s_..._..,_.. 1[5'15 .. �._ , 00161 Pury 6uPu3 '.r e,, I ,r .^,e I 1010 tal1U01l1sas111Puaav3 -tivausasnOtoi I • t I • I t S t - t • t /OM t 11[utt= t wanoa.10104 ' 888'1 O[0► arsswws plot be,rtlipuiethrlib puarO,a4 10C94. 1113 I ,.r t0uw,wa peiteJitee 0001► anwwM I S S I t I t t S ric ic* t L69►r1:Z 5 •txsotoq porta tksa..41.4 :saasnowa PU•t wiry•pad aau.Pa41 tope * P.N•lay PN9.19M P'9*d P•1349+6 P.1.00,t1 P•la•19 d PM9.I,V P•l9•F6d P•12•1•411 PN•HIU V 10O0^17..s_ ...:Z;r_r Z.`� SZVIVOW, KrZiatn =Men CON/OXh Ima/o£h OLCVath 6I0W0eh NOtro£h £ICVOih 1107.40£h IIOC/OC,, 1 • `r i 4/50/3011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/1018 6/30/1019 4/3072870 4/30/2021 6/30/2042 6/30/1027 6/3072824 4/30/7025 6. of •oid Parks Fund • R1bON Prafec9M Protected Protected 4►e►eeded Plafeeled Projected Rejected Projected Protected Protected Pal*WC Fund Resources: Beginning fund balance 5 1.049,011 $ 605.917 8 - S $ $ • $ • $ - $ S • 1 Revenue 43300 Parts SDC5 A 16 W 699,761 723.997 /49.073 775.017 801.8.59 829.632 858.366 888.046 918.855 950.670 4/00) Interest Earnings 19,7112 3,an Total reverie 696.118 703033 1773,997 749.073 775.017 801.859 829,632 858.366 8811.096 918.855 950.679 Total resources 5 1,745,129 S 1,300:445 $ 773,997 5 749,073 $ 775.017 $ 801.859 $ 829,632 $ 858.366 5 888,096 5 918.855 1 950.679 ReglnrernMts E nteturen' bets!servicer S S S S S S S 1 S S S Rode in progress I2(70 Tota;transfers out ! 127,217 1,308.945 /23.997 749,073 775017 801,859 829,632 858.366 888,096 918.855 950,679 total enQsencwrum 1139,21/ 1.306945 /71997 149.0/3 7/501/ 801,859 879.637 858.366 0011,096 919.855 9511.679 Ending Axid balance 605,912 - Tolo1 reaucemenis 5 1.745129 $ 1,308,945 $ 72,997 5 749.073 5 775,017 $ 801.659 S 829.672 $ 858.366 5 888096 $ 918.855 S -950.679 Dors of expenditures W eec6rlg fund bularlr.e 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue Assumptions Interest rate 7 cit n Set nue r,549. n Sot c,sit •.4! .•nee I 1 JR ^uv Customer accounts: EDUs In molting service area ;n 4•. 73.501 23.617 23.719 23.826 73.933 74.041 74,149 74:,St, 74..W 24 476 EDUs In new service°MO Total(01)1 73.402 23.507 23,613 23.719 23.826 23,933 24,041 24.149 24 295 ___ 24367 24,476 New EDUs 10.5 IOS 106 106 107 10/ 108 7(94 109 i09 110 Customer account growth In edging service d coo 045% 'I 456 .1" n 451 0 45% n 49t n 45% 9',' . - 4r „45; 'Total customer occounl growth 0.45% n 457 0.45% 0 45% 0.45% 0.45% 0 45% 0 45% 0.45% 0.45% Parts%Stern Development Charge SDC pee I130 9 - A. $ 6 645 5 6 B44 5 1.050 5 7,261 S 7,479 $ 7.703 $ 7.934 $ 8.112 S 8.418 S 9.670 Annual increase in SDC per(131! 7 5,9Tt, l(TTL ' , l(TTL s rim l nn5 -n,'- 1-r+ , c.t ,ry.e , A"'' Capital Capital praledl .. Falling noplttT(Impravernen1 plan 1 1910'39 s 3.9,, ri' 5 2.54.628 $ 810!00 $ 801.8159 $ 829.612 5 858.366 5 8!91.096 5 918,855 $ 991679 Pots prcancts in RIver Terrace (aoi, ,9) 0.795.5551 134 9931 �� l • 4/30/2015 4/30/2016 4/30/2017 6/30/2011 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2011 6/30(2022 6(80/2023 4/3012024 6/30/2025 L:uw,IIFT- 4.=.747-1.tfull111111111111111111111 Budges Preto/44d Peeled- rrg.eiea wq«1.e w416.694e wM•eae nqibe9.e wM.csed nq.ee.e nq.c+.e $1cr149w411944 fund P6.10,3(.65 ,n7).n,0 4,;ntt 00307'-_e $ 3 078 705 3 3 875,261 $ ! ij { ;1P— "8 !!'t§111%5 4 1;r1 11$ Fi. i §4..;. k* '* t4 .� ii I `OM! 584 la'itlIS : 1§; ;§'; k41.,!,' imh ;J;; "lig 11 I .R $54 088 RR"-/i1115 101 ggg R.13.:; iF S, A A '3i.0 -1 0 g n don a.i gt 6 A A . .t i §S,.t g 3 3 7 33 I � «$I'# age :s `' MIS 3 §d'3 4 . 5i:1liW " 3Yd +0 _3 L y §ix :- ;1 I id1Z151 938 1i' VaA§ ; § , '/ .1 .a i ; R I .; :�'aMg e88 :X`;1513 3 111 10 f .ar. s P'.§.! ' u# 2 ii,4413 ;eA ` 4516 " 1N11` 11'1_ aa: ;"4-ii '?ii : ' ita 8 « ' 11F§:i. co . c I I- Ri 1 ?aaigFi1l rs3 • M , r 4_ 1,4 >d i3 ia"9i "A84 »iii . c W i g ➢ x iti' j '' x=.:1155 3 , -x• .. - x °0 t R L 3 a a IA g3 l- j o -E 5 d + c i ' . 22 2. 3 so 'Pt Ors Az� � iai Eg a l- , 0ic G Y 5 ,. a3.1: 1sab . 0 E 7. o' E sb n 4 a ,. 4. Y y '� y, 90,—„I,J3 ;' „ 7! §y on j. c2 lt,; ;” 1 I �J ..... a i.1 21 r i -: a ; 4 ' i ° ; b o` 5 .if s x1 , ^, 1 f, 6/30/7016 4/30/38)6 6/3012017 6/3072018 6/3072019 6/30/3870 6730E7071 6/30/2072 6/30/2023 6/3072026 6/30/2025 1 . of •cod Tron •• . •n Fundi • 666844 Prat.ct,d 9•e)6cMe Rq.rted Retorted P4o).ct.d Refected Pr efor ten P.d.ch.e rra0c$6d P ofrd.d Ph.Goe tow Rend Resources Ileoi renp hind bobnce 5 1,014177 $ 772.190 5 1.235,733 $ 705.957 5 1373 977) $ 145.481 5 67.857 $ 1.395 444 Revenue. 7175.rM8 $ 2.958.511 $ 3./46.714 Rere 44200 Cos fox 799 670 /39.667 739,715 739,761 739.809 739851 719.904 7.39.951 730.999 /40.046 /40091 44801 Stole grants 114 47000 Interest earrings 11'14 1.170 6.673 3.812 11,749) /1)6 3 353 7,538 11,745 15.976 20.730 48001 Recovered esperrlitve+ •15 31.735 31,735 31.73$ 31,7s• V ')' V '1S 11 '14 r ken!revenue 804.253 775.572 778.173 775.109 769,195 //7.37) /74,992 779,224 _783,479_ 787,757__ 797,059_ r.n Totaloh.scm 1 1,871.175 5 1,51/.767 $ 7.013.859 $ 1,481.266 5 445.868 5 917.858 5 1,395.864 5 7,175.0685 2956.547 5 3,746,301_ 5 4.538,363 fromerrrnents FapenJitures Program espendltur s 1 i S 5 I 5 5 1 S S Non program ergterw6I 994 0440 Nonce 315 860 313.079 307.899 308.191 X10 31/1 76'006 wOa in progress • I(ff)70 1 910 081 Termer)out to tronsportollon CIP Fund 731125 . Corner nonskn our Iotnon-proglom osprey/Oleos/Oleos bee.985 317 Q36 13 I elI4 1 807'i5. t00 RI, 297 U� ..�_.._�.___.__� _______._...-.-.._.__�_�.__.___ Ione Tartar)etgsrrdit res 1.048.985 312,079 1.307.899 1.805.193 300187 79/37.034 - E.ding Wed bobnc.r 772.190 1,235,737 705,957 (321927) 145,481 670.852 1.395.844 2115.064 2.9511547 1746,334 4.538.363 iota r.qu.ernents 5 1,821,175 5 1,547.767 5 2.013,856 5 1.481.266 1 445868 5 917.858 $ 1,395,844 $ 2175,068 5 2.958547 5 3.744,306 5 4,538,363 Gel Teel fund IteeMKns 8..pnvnng Rind Pokiness $ 440.463 5 787,648 5 733.087 5 684 117 $ 475.706 5 279.049 $ 659 321 8 1.639156 $ 7.606.277 5 3,538979 $ 4195.776 Revenue 43110 Street 6gMng beer 775 156 108 /5 52 36 25 17 12 8 6 13125 Fee rrMu bicycle striping - 44760 Go,tm 7 804 993 2.473.348 7,638 172 11334 43/ 3.072.197 3.111 486 3212.337 3 784,785 3 158868 3,434 67/ 1,517064 44201 01h4r gat tax 1191 450 179 864 177,291 175.773 174188 177.656 171,139 169.634 168.143 166 665 165.199 44501 Mldpovarnmentnl rrrre4K • 45319 M,c,loneout hes and charges 47000 interest earrings 55 717 1.553 3.959 3.694 3.299 1.737 1540 8.851 14.0/4 19218 74.277 ' 68001 Recovered a oa dltves 41,345 47.370 69,413 64 473 15.550 66.646 67./60 68,893 /0.014 71,315 72,105 49001 Ileac orocends 19417 senile rh Mem Sneer Mlntenrtrtce Fund 100.0/1 100 Orn _ Ir9.Opn ;co 00 100.000 100 i r "?,.97r '00033 100091 !corm I nO mn Intal revenue 3,707.745 3.216,311 3,282.947 3.348417 3.414.786 3487,041 3,554,620 3,637.181 3,711.141 1791,728 3.8/1971 tom resources 5 ..6671.201 5 3:03956 5 4.016,079 5 4037.529 5 3.839.992 $ 1711.110 5 4.211.141 5 5271.337 5 6317,544 $ 7.350.707 5 6.369.747 ReuuOtwnents• Eeoenrftves. Rospom era+nndirves 5 2.094 757 $ 2168048 5 2743.951 $ 2.371.409 5 7.403,776 $ 7,b7900 5 7574.985 5 2.645.109 $ 2.758.388 $ 2.854932 5 2,954.854 Nnnprogtom expenditures Omit service minting tee 694 597 4)11 584 341 S'S 121 x901 YN 561841 Debt service new _ • _ , Waft in progress 10 4551 507 Off) 7fIe 917 656 984 Trunshn ret to tronwonottnn CP Fund 613.386 (30w homes a1 72.745 told non program et¢tendilves '285 809 402 803 '087 961 '784 334 1 7777 164 563 NI Tow.emedltves 1380,56) 2.770.877 1331.912 3.606.823 1610.942 1051,789 257498.5 2665,109 2.158.386 2854.937 2.951,854 tiding Ind balance 207,648 731087 664.117 425,706 229,049 659,371 1.639,156 2.606.227 3,558,979 4,495776 _5414693 heal requrrentents 5 1668,208 5 1501958 5 4,016.029 5 4.032529 5 3.839,992 5 1711.110 $ 4.214.141 $ 5271,337 5 6.317,368 5 7.350,707 $ 8369,717 Dust of evoeneitven in ending herd bolonce 31 97 75 43 23 79 233 357 In 575 669 ••,> 1'( . ( i I ( )1.iP ,„„ „1111 ,,))1. Di ' 6/30/2016 6/3012016 4/30/2017 1/30/7018 6/30/2011 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2072 6/30/2023 6/30/2024 6/30/2025 d Ti•and iron •. -ion FundIn• Rodp.t P of.ct.d Protected r.o(.ct.d PTo(.cr a Prefect., Fasted no(.cted ',elected Pre(4Kted nq.cted Snout Mdnlenenea Fan Fund Resources: Beginning tuna bnlrysce 3 1.298,606 S 1.193.753 3 1,164.894 $ 1.153.097 $ 1.163.967 3 1.208.479 $ 1.78/.952 S 1,404.622 $ 1,560./58 $ 1,758.643 3 2.000.557 Revenue: 43130 Mscnllaneocs tees and charges 2.004 671 2.152.878 2.270.738 2,396.655 2.531.215 2.673.230 2.823.108 2,981.281 3.148.207 3.324.351 3,510.732 45199 Sod debt (5.0501 (9.2041 111.519) (13.9921 (16,6.35) (19,425) (22.368) 125.4751 (28154) 132.213) (35,864) 45319 Wiscelionr ose fees and(barges 47000 Interest earnings 7043 6.446 6.290 6,727 6.285 6.526 6,955 7 58 8.428 9.497 10,803 48(1)1 Recovered eapenditixos 1 786 total revenue 2002.952 2150,120 2265,510 2.388.890 2520.866 2.660,331 2,807.695 7,963,391 112/.576 3,301,634 3.485.171 Total resources Si 3.301.558 5 3343.873 $ 1430.403 5 3.511,982 5 3.684.828 5 3,868.811 $ 4,095,647 $ 4.368,013 $ 4.688,635 5 5.060.277 $ 5,485,727 Requirements: Expenditures: Pragrorn expenditures S s 5 s S s 3 S I s s Non program.sspendt!Xes Debt service - Work In proDeess 941f1(TT 19500 0 2 025.000 7 100 OM 7 170.030 2.243.294 2.319.064 7.397.394 7,478,368 2567.078 2.648,616 told transfers out ?Y" 228.919 252.311 278.020 306,349 337.564 371.960 409.861 451,624 497.642 548.349 Total non-program evenc1Iutes 2 If!.flaps 7 I/5 979 2 277 311 1378,020 2 476 1/9 2 580.859 2.691.073 7.801 254 2.9/9.992 7 059 720 3.96.964 foto(expenditures 2.107,80.5 7,178.979 2277,311 7,378.000 2.476.349 7.580.859 2.691.025 7.867,254 2.929.992 3.059.720 3,196.964 Ending fund b08ance 1.193,753 1,164.894 1,153,092 1.163.962 1,208,479 1.287.952 1,404.672 1,560.758 1./58.643 2.000.557 2.288./63 Total requtrernersts 5 3.301.558 $ 3,343.873 $ 3.430,403 $ 3,541,982 5 3684.828 $ 3.868.811 5 4.095.647 $ 4,368.013 $ 4,688,635 $ 5.060.277 5 5,485.727 Days 01 expenditures in ersdts0 fund balance 207 195 185 179 178 182 191 70 3 7t9 739 261 Transpcd ton 04wNopmenf Tax Fund Resources: Beglming fund balance S 1.734,890 5 1.010,045 $ 1,275,684 $ 948./09 $ 1,499.532 3 3.177,310 $ 4.867,341 $ 6,569.706 $ 8.284,486 5 10.011,763 $11,751,619 Reve1nue: 43320 IDT tees 557 000' 700.185 1.343,336 1.506.501 1,669.680 1.6/2,874 1.676.081 1.679.304 1,687.541 1.885./97 1.689,058 47000 Interest earnings ii 279 5.454 6.880 5,123 8.097 17.157 26.284 35.476 44,/36 54,064 63.459 Iota!revenue 568,279 705,639 1.350,724 1,511,624 1.617,777 1.690.031 1,/02.365 1./14.180 1.727.277 1./39.856 1,757.517 into'resources $ 1,803,169 $ 1./15,684 5 2625.909 $ 2.460.332 5 3.177.310 3 4.86/.341 5 6.569,/06 $ 8,284.486 310,011./63 $11,751.619 313,504.136 R00ulremnnts: I xponditures Program expenditures 5 s 1 s s 1 5 S I I S Non-program expenditures Debt srsrvice - - Wotk in progress 12.000 440.003 1.677.200 9601.171) • transfers out to fransportatlon CHP Fund 780,92/ • OIher boosters out 197 total non-program enrpesrditues !93 114 440,008. '6;'7.204 960.800 total experxitures /93.124 440.000 1.677.200 960.800 --_----- �- - Ending fund balance 1.010.045 1.275.684 948./09 1.499.532 3.1/7,310 4,867,341 6.569.706 8,284.486 10.011.763 11.751.619 13,504,136 10101 requirements 5 1.803.169 5 1,715,684 $ 2675:909 $ 2.460.337 $ 3.177,310 3 4.867.341 5 6,369,706 5 8.284.486 $10,011,763 $11,751,619 $11504.136 • •:> I ( w ( i I ( )t1' 11 f �j �F [ 1LA - C� rl[ gr y. rt I I w - --... .. . • l'2. ., . i �f ii'' S { . Yr e - R IR r' w o : E qi 11 i � R i x U.it i;':n;: v - j,E' ,-?t .. FF t == i ' if f “ . - r !f i — „: , 1 _ _ : ..._ . - - . _. !f Ss C - _ s!6 r l i'1,2 . I- iia li fgfiIf cr • } 1 ;v.;L''iOttii Cyi,:,- rg5 ; .K ergs ! . tis'2- . 1. . :L iA `' - • i` IT Z Illi, I i i :I ., - - _ f01,111111 a !f �L $ ° Iip`i 1 _�DGf{7;Sct {t+rt`3r ri5, rR t. lEil fig5 !E =A yIl �' L?` i ,w, YL S f :tec��ggSiy�ryscie � aG =hJ,;J1 _ p $ - ti!lI1iii'Sire T •^• 1 3� 38t444 `- ti6 C f33 ipl • d IIIIC- oily - w+. n/